community services committee thursday, july … · community services committee . thursday, july...
TRANSCRIPT
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, July 12, 2012 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC
AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS REPORTS 2. Parks & Recreation Monthly Report ANNEX A
pp 1-15 3. Parks Services Manager - Area A Bicycle & Walking Paths Service Options ANNEX B
pp 16-20 4. Parks Services Manager - Updated Historical Information for Bicycle &
Waking Paths Function 665 Table Clarifications
ANNEX C pp 21-23
5. Parks Services Manager - Granthams Landing Crown Land Lots ANNEX D pp 24-27
6. Parks Services Manager - Volunteers in Parks ANNEX E pp 28-30
7. Parks Services Manager - Board Directives Five or More Years Old (Parks) ANNEX F pp 31
8. Parks Services Manager - Property Tax Incentives - ROW’s ANNEX G pp 32
9. Parks Services Manager - Bylaw 356 Parks Use Fees ANNEX H pp 33-35
10. Referral from Planning & Development Committee - regarding Earth Hour and Lighting at Recreation Facilities after 10:00 p.m.
ANNEX I pp 36-38
11. Recreation Services Manager - Gibsons Pool Refurbishment/Consultation Study Update
ANNEX J pp 39-40
12. Recreation Services Manager - Gibsons & Area Community Centre Update Due to One Arena 2012-2013
ANNEX K pp 41-43
13. Recreation Services Manager - Sechelt Arena Operating Budget 2012 Interim Report
ANNEX L pp 44-45
14. Recreation Services Manager - Variety Club Grant Application ANNEX M pp 46-47
15. Recreation and Parks Services Advisory Committee minutes of June 20, 2012 - receipt
ANNEX N pp 48-65
16. Parks Planning Coordinator and Fleet Maintenance Supervisor - Dakota Ridge Groomer Repair
ANNEX O pp 66-67
C o m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s C o m m i t t e e A g e n d a J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 2 17. Sunshine Coast Policing Committee minutes of June 25, 2012 - receipt and
adoption of recommendations (Note Rec. #5, 8, 10 & 11 adopted by SCRD Board on June 28th)
ANNEX P pp 68-71
18. Chief Building Inspector and Bylaw Manager - Update on Provincial White Papers on a Modern Regulatory System
ANNEX Q pp 72-91
COMMUNICATIONS 19. Copy of letter to Fortis BC regarding Bicycle & Walking Path Highway 101 ANNEX R
pp 92
20. Sunshine Coast Bike Parking Survey ANNEX S pp 93-98
21. Sechelt Youth Centre Update ANNEX T pp 99
22. Pender Harbour Community School Society - SCRD Area A April-June 2012 Update
ANNEX U pp 100-103
23. School District No. 46 - Community School Funding ANNEX V pp 104-105
NEW BUSINESS IN CAMERA ADJOURNMENT
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 28, 2012
TO: Community Services Committee – July 12, 2012
FROM: Parks & Recreation Staff
RE: Monthly Report – Parks and Recreation Divisions
RECOMMENDATION THAT the Community Services Committee recommends the Parks and Recreation Divisions Monthly report be received by the SCRD Board as information.
The Recreation Division report is as follows: A. ADMINISTRATION
Marketing/Promotions
Worked with Communications Officer to create ‘Summer Day’ camp brochure. (Gibsons/Sechelt) – distributed to rec facilities and on website. Promoted day camps on Facebook, and focussed some promotions to grandparents who may have grandchildren coming to visit.
Flyer to promote recreation facilities to tourists has been created and will be distributed to tourism centres.
Summer programs promoted in Coast Reporter. Promoted National Health & Fitness Day (June 2) with low cost admissions for that day. Set up summer activities for children page on website www.scrd.ca/Children. Promoted Summer Hockey School. Promoted inexpensive activities ie. Ping-Pong at GACC, toonie swims at GDAF etc.
(One of the 2012 key messages is that we offer a variety of options for low income individuals and families).
Daily Facebook posts and tweets highlighting recreation events and programs throughout May.
Completed Active Net categories re-organization to make it more user-friendly for public to search for recreation programs online.
Met with graphic designer for potential ideas for Summer 2013 Rec Guide. Learned about hashtags for tweets.
Registrations Overall activity enrollments are up in May 2012 (316 enrollments) compared to 2011 (206 enrollments). Registration comparison (January 1 - May 31) 2011 - 2528 registrations (16% online, 84% at front counter) Overall revenues = $122,184.22 2012 - 2824 registrations (16% online, 84% at front counter) Overall revenues = $146,824.65
1
A
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 2
B. GIBSONS AND AREA COMMUNITY CENTRE (GAAC)
1) Youth Centre Successes/Positive Points:
Programs
Youth Food Bank Friday Night Roller Bladeing Youth Cooking Program Wireless Wednesdays Sports Night Monthly Birthday Celebration Baking Day
All the above programs are occurring weekly at the Youth Centre and continue to be successful.
New Initiatives/Programs: Homelessness and Food Bank Stats This month Gibsons Youth Centre staff began to collect stats on youth homelessness and youth food bank usage. Staff had identified both of these as being ongoing realities for youth and felt it would be valuable to track the occurrence. This will help to assess the need. Totals for May: Homeless youth = 4 Access to food bank = 2
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000 A
pr-
08
Jun
-08
Au
g-0
8
Oct
-08
Dec
-08
Feb
-09
Ap
r-0
9
Jun
-09
Au
g-0
9
Oct
-09
Dec
-09
Feb
-10
Ap
r-1
0
Jun
-10
Au
g-1
0
Oct
-10
Dec
-10
Feb
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jun
-11
Au
g-1
1
Oct
-11
Dec
-11
Feb
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Gibsons Community Centre Drop In Admissions
2
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 3
Girls Group- Gibsons Youth Center partnered with the SCRD to create a girls group that ran as a registered program offering Self Defense for girls. The Program ran each Thursday this month. Summer Program – Gibsons Youth Centre continue to work on the creation/planning/programming for the Centre’s summer program. This program will offer more structured activities, games, employment support, dinners and day-trips. This program will run from July 5th-August 18th and will be free of charge. Food Article- Karen Humphrey dropped into the Gibsons Youth Centre to observe the Friday Night Dinner Program and to meet the youth and contract staff. Karen writes a food blog and is interested in writing an article regarding the Dinner Program as a way of showcasing ways hungry youth are being fed on the Coast. Children of the Street Society – 25 people attended a presentation held in the Gibsons Youth Centre this month. The presentation was to provide parents and service providers information regarding the dangers of youth being sexually exploited. This was the second public presentation organized by high school student Charlene Smith. Paper Airplane Project - Partnered with Sandy Buck from Deer Crossing Art Farm This project involved youth constructing paper airplanes to create a display which is currently hanging in the GACC lobby. Movie Night- A ‘Movie Night’ showed an Anti-Bullying video created by youth in Kelowna. Discussions were held afterwards regarding what the youth thought and how bullying impacts them. Discussions ensued on how the youth could themselves create a project to help stop bullying. Promotions at Elphinstone- Contractors will be visiting Elphinstone Secondary once every two weeks to strengthen partnership. This will mean checking in with administration, teachers and youth and updating the school bulletin board with upcoming events and programs happening at the youth centre. Youth Centre Usage Stats: May 2012: 228 May 2011: 207 Issues/Solution: Bullying- Contractors have been trying to address the bullying issues in schools. Youth have made numerous disclosures to staff about being bullied at school, not feeling safe or switching schools to avoid bullying. Contract Staff will be in contact with school administration to make them aware of these disclosures. Homelessness- Homelessness amongst youth continued to be an issue. Contractors have been supporting youth by offering food, and referring to other supports such as Youth Outreach and MCFD. However, these agencies continue to be limited in their ability to support youth.
2) Seniors
18 seniors took part in the (3) May sessions of the Volunteer Seniors Wellness Centre Host Program, compared to 12 attendees in April, and 9 in May 2011. Facilitated by a senior volunteer, this program, held in the GACC gym, continues to create a welcoming atmosphere for seniors.
3) COURTS MAY 2012 2011 Squash 242 284 Racquetball 99 126 Wally ball 32 19 Total Usage 373 429
3
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 4
4) DROP-IN FITNESS SCHEDULE
759 participants attended the 68 class schedule in May 2012 compared to 887 in May 2011. Average of 12 participants per class. Child Minding: May 2012 – 98 children 2011 - 158 children Staff are working with providers to identify participation barriers in programs.
5) ADAPTED PROGRAMS Partnership programs with VCH continue to increase in popularity and are showing great benefits for the participating clients:
· Music Explorations program (partner with SCACL): 113 participants · Adapted Fitness Class (in partnership with VCH): 61 participants · Adapted Nia: registered participants: 9 Registrants
6) Recreation Programming Pro D activities offered in May included a bike camp at the Arena (6 participants) and an introduction to cricket program for children (14 participants). Women’s Self Defense, a 4 week free drop in program for young women, was well received. There were 10 participants in the program and feedback from youth and parents was positive.
7) Special Events Move for Health Day May 10, 2012 during Move for Health Day, the Sunshine Coast Regional District Recreation Division had various activities taking place in all the recreation facilities: 10/10/10 - 10 Minutes at 10 o’clock on the 10
th NIA instructor Jan Jensen, aquatic fitness classes at the Sechelt Aquatic Centre and Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility and the Mix It Up class at the Pender Harbour Aquatic and Fitness Centre extended regular classes to draw attention to the benefits and importance of movement in our daily lives. 2 for 1 - Two for 1 admission at our five recreation facilities for anyone entering on May 10th. Refreshments for Move for Health Day were provided by the Gibsons Family Network at the Gibsons and Area Community Centre and Sechelt Aquatic Centre. Refreshments were also provided at the Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility after the 9am aquafit class. Participants at the Pender Harbour Aquatic and Fitness Centre had a boot camp relay that included learning nutritional information on products. Winning participants won a bag of groceries.
Dry floor Dry floor rentals continue to be the strong point. Lacrosse has seen significantly higher registrations for 2012. (Please see chart below)
4
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 5
2012 hours
per
hour weekly month
rentals 22.5 $45.00 $1,012.50 $4,050.00
programs 18.5 $10.84 $200.70 $802.80
Special events and
programs 3.25 $45.00 $146.25
Special events and
programs 7 $99.00 $693.00
51.25 $1,213.20 $5,692.05
2011 hours
per
hour weekly month
rentals 15.5 $45.00 $697.50 $2,790.00
programs 17.5 $14.72 $257.60 $1,030.40
Special events and
programs 4 $45.00 $180.00
SCRD Special Event
$1,375.00
37 $955.10 $5,375.40
Arena Board Advertising The arena board advertising initiative continues with 17 local businesses purchasing kits to date. There is currently only three - 8’ and two - 5’ 6” rink ad spaces left on the west side of the building goal line to goal line. Once the west side is full, our contractor will start to market the end boards and other available areas.
5
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 6
Roller Derby
The Sunshine Coast Roller Girls held their first bout at the Gibsons and Area Community Centre on Saturday May 5th 2012 and reported close to 500 spectators. The group was happy with the event and assistance received from staff.
Special Events on the Dry floor at GACC
Staff have been working to coordinate a number of upcoming events that will take place for Spring and Summer.
Third Annual Community Home Builders Show Saturday June 9th 9:00am-5:00pm
Laser Tag in partnership with the Elphinstone Grads Wednesday June 27th. Doors open to the public from 3:00pm - 10:00pm and then the Elphinstone Dry Grad celebrations from 10:00pm - 8:00am the next day.
The Sound attenuation project proposed between July 24th to August 3rd
Sea Cavalcade kick off Friday July 27th with the SCRD offering Free Inline Roller Skating.
C. SECHELT AQUATIC CENTRE
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
No
v-0
7
Jan
-08
Mar
-08
May
-08
Jul-
08
Sep
-08
No
v-0
8
Jan
-09
Mar
-09
May
-09
Jul-
09
Sep
-09
No
v-0
9
Jan
-10
Mar
-10
May
-10
Jul-
10
Sep
-10
No
v-1
0
Jan
-11
Mar
-11
May
-11
Jul-
11
Sep
-11
No
v-1
1
Jan
-12
Mar
-12
May
-12
6
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 7
1) Aquatics
Thursday Evening Twoonie Swim 7 – 9pm
2012 275 2011 179 2010 110 Membership Usage and Point of Sale Admissions for May 2012
2012 8,468 2011 9,182 2010 9,220 2009 8,137 2008 8,450
Facility Bookings: o 11 birthday party bookings. o 33 Chinook Swim Team – lane bookings. o 6 Sunshine Coast Association for Community Living - Hip Hop practice o 29 Swim @ school classes 6 additional open swim bookings for schools o 1 Scuba diving
2) Aquatic Programs Aqua Fit Statistics: May 2012
Year # classes # of participants # per class
2012 67 1162 17.3 2011 59 1025 17.3 2010 58 905 15.6 2009 47 872 18.5
3) Health and Wellness – Drop in Programs
Drop in Fitness Statistics – May 2012 Year # classes # of participants # participation/class
2012 56 504 9 2011 48 434 9 2010 48 446 9.2 2009 36 364 10.1 Registration Programs with Drop in available: May 2012
Program # classes in May
# of Registrations # of Drops Ins
Nia with Jan 14 18 19 Yoga 12 19 39 Spin 22 33 28 Zumba 13 11 48
7
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 8
4) Other National Lifejacket Day On May 16, 2012, staff at recreation facilities wore lifejackets and had display information on site for National Lifejacket Day. Activities in swimming lessons and Swim @ School lessons on that day focused on the importance of proper lifejacket and pfd (personal floating device) use. CUPE Local 801 hosted a free swim at both the Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility and Sechelt Aquatic Centre on May 5th. CUPE paid for the rental of the facility between 12:30 - 2:30pm in Sechelt and 2 – 4pm in Gibsons so that anyone attending the facilities on that day, between those times, was not charged. Happy Heart Plus Program began May 29th with four participants and positive feedback from participants. The partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health to develop this program has been pivotal in beginning this program. Incidents/Accidents There were 10 incidents/accidents that took place in May. 5) Sechelt Youth Centre There were 106 drop-ins for the month of May, compared to 68 in April 2012. Programs
Youth Food Bank Tuesday Night Cooking Program Wednesday Resume Workshop Thursday Movie Night Outdoor Activities
Connections/Partnerships The following are connections made in the past month: Youth Outreach – Youth Outreach Team Leader Daanish, has made the Centre a routine stop on Friday Nights. He is now set up Fridays at the Centre for his documentary he is currently working on with the youth. Aboriginal Mental Health Support Worker – Janet Mulligan is a frequent face at the Centre reaching out to the Aboriginal Youth at the Centre and offering support. Natural Health Food Program - Baili Clarke continues to do an amazing job with our Tuesday night cooking program. Baili is currently putting together recipe books for the Youth to use for reference to continue working on their cooking skills. Successes Drug and Alcohol - We are happy to say that drug and alcohol use continue to not be an issue within the Centre. Youth and staff have had discussions on these subjects with prevention, risks and harm reduction being the main subjects.
8
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 9
Outdoor activities - With warmer weather on the rise, we have headed outside within our community to hang out and play games. Youth also have discussed summer activities that they would like to see organized. Summer Plans Centre Looking for Permanent Home - We have been given notice that the Youth Centre must leave its current location at 5520 Trail Ave by the end of July. Staff are in dialogue with School District #46 hoping to find a new location at the Sechelt Learning Centre campus. In June, program coordinator and staff will be planning an “Out and About in Community” mobile summer program enabling us to connect with youth where they are as well as planning field trips. This will give us great practice in using social media as a way of connecting with youth.
D. Gibsons & District Aquatic Facility
Aquatics Twoonie Swim Tuesday’s 5:30 – 7:20pm
2012 171
2011 148
2010 147
Membership Usage and Point of Sale Admissions for May
2012 1,618
2011 1,389
2010 1,432
2009 1,245
2008 1,107
Facility Bookings
Schools - 14 classes took part in the Swim @School program in May Rentals – 3 community groups booked the facility in May.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Jan
-07
Ap
r-0
7
Jul-
07
Oct
-07
Jan
-08
Ap
r-0
8
Jul-
08
Oct
-08
Jan
-09
Ap
r-0
9
Jul-
09
Oct
-09
Jan
-10
Ap
r-1
0
Jul-
10
Oct
-10
Jan
-11
Ap
r-1
1
Jul-
11
Oct
-11
Jan
-12
Ap
r-1
2
Gibsons Pool Drop In Admissions
9
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 10
Programs
Aqua Fit Statistics: May
Year # classes # of participants # per class
2012 44 799 18.1 2011 40 621 15.6 2010 43 760 17.6
Incidents and Accidents
6 incidents were managed by staff in May with one incident involving Emergency Assistance.
E. PENDER HARBOUR AQUATIC & FITNESS CENTRE 1) Aquatic/Programs
Membership Usage and Point of Sale Admissions for May
2012 1199 2011 1135 2010 1246 2009 867 2008 884
May Fitness (includes Aquafit and Dry Land classes)
2012 397 2011 392 2010 463 2009 285 2008 370
The facility was closed Sunday May 20 and 21. Summer schedule went into effect
May 22. The facility is open Monday-Friday and closed on weekends until June 29 with July 2-27 being open Monday-Friday daytime only, closed evenings and weekends.
Walkabout Pender Harbour: Beginner/moderate level walking program using Nordic
Poles began on May 7. Throughout the month of May and early June there have been 2-8 people in attendance at each walk.
1) Special Events
Survivor Sleepover on May 5 was very successful with full attendance of 25 children. Youth Night May 11: 10 youth in attendance Danger Bay Swim Weekend May 18 and 19: Toonie Swims on both 5-9pm public
evening swims. Very successful with 95 in attendance. As part of Boating Safety Week held May 22-25, members of the local Power
Squadron set up an interactive display and had the afterschool swim lesson children participate in a variety of activities. This was very well received with both the Power Squadron members and the kids having a great time and learning safe boating practices.
10
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 11
2) Maintenance
Regular monthly maintenance schedule. Lift system has been repaired and is operating properly. Precor elliptical machine is out of service due to display console failure. Repair has
been delayed due backorder of parts. 3) Administration
Marketing and promotion of programs and scheduled events. Continued promotion of summer schedule and development of summer programs
(swim lessons, Boat Wise and Kids Day Camps). PHAFC Summer schedule mailed to all community members. Working with the PH Community School to create Pender Community Fall Guide. Partnering with the PH Community School, Youth Outreach Worker and PHAFC to
operate a bi-monthly youth activity night beginning in the fall. Updates to SCRD website and PHAFC Face book pages as well as SCRD Twitter
account. Fall/Winter/Spring planning continuation. Fall 2012/Winter 2013 information for the Recreation Guide completion deadlines
met. Meetings Attended: SCRD Rec Coordinators Staff; PH Aquatic Society; JH& Safety
Recreation staff; PH Community School, Aquatic Supervisors; Recreation Supervisors; Supervisor’s Review of Collective Agreement.
Organized a meeting with both the PH Community School Rec Coordinator and local business owner Brigit Garrett (In Touch Yoga Studio) to discuss how the three of us can work together in order to complement each other’s programs and provide the most opportunity for the community. It is our hope to organize a community wide physical activity challenge to encourage health living and participation in programs that are available.
Pool Safety Plan in process with completion scheduled for end of July In consultation with Deb Shorthouse, have organized staff training opportunity to
become certified Instructors for the new Aquatic Rehab program that is to be offered at all three aquatic facilities in the Fall. The Healing Waters program will take place at the PH Pool July 28-31.
4) Staff
Two staff members, Amanda Peterson and Holly Morgan, are in the final stages of becoming certified Group Fitness Instructors. They will both be a benefit to the organization in this capacity. The facility will be closed for annual shutdown and maintenance August 1- Sept 8.
11
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 12
F. COMMUNITY PARKS (Function 650) Administration
Shirley Macey/Eric Cardinal Hall caretaker has given notice so full contract review and updates are progress – closes July 13, 2012.
Public complaints being received regarding the abundance of grass growing in many areas that are not SCRD parks. Staff attempt to educate individuals about appropriate people to contact. Staff are working very hard to maintain the parks to satisfactory levels. At this time of year, staff must concentrate their efforts on liability issues, access to trails etc and the cosmetic grass may not be getting cut as in the past. The weather pattern this year with mixed days of sun and rain make things even more challenging.
Staff have attended Recreation and Parks Services Advisory Committee meeting and a staff meeting to review the Draft Recreation and Parks Master Plan recommendations. Feedback from staff is being compiled. A further meeting was held by RPSAC, who reviewed 44 Draft Master Plan recommendations on June 20th and will continue the review on July 10th. Consultants are receiving the feedback, edits and comments and will modify the Master Plan prior to review by SCRD Board and then public.
Misc.
Three dedication benches have been installed (Pender Harbour Cultural Centre, Trout lake wheelchair deck, Cliff Gilker Park).
All sports fields have been fertilized over seeded and sliced (except for SMP which has been sand-banded).
Benches and sign posts have been cleaned, sanded and re-stained. Various upgrades to swing sets (new chains, seats and holding brackets).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Jan
-09
Feb
-09
Mar
-09
Ap
r-0
9
May
-09
Jan
-10
Feb
-10
Mar
-10
Ap
r-1
0
May
-10
Jun
-10
Sep
-10
Oct
-10
No
v-1
0
20
10
dec
Jan
-11
11
-Feb
11
-Mar
11
-Ap
r
May
-11
11
-Ju
n
Jul-
11
Sep
-11
Oct
-11
11
-No
v
Dec
-11
Jan
-12
Feb
-12
Mar
-12
Ap
r-1
2
May
-12
Pender Harbour Aquatic & Fitness Centre
12
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 13
1) Area A
Beaver Island/Little Lake
Staff checked in with landowner and it appears that the beavers are leaving the pond leveler alone and it is working extremely well. No new trees are being cut down and the water depth in the lake and stream are staying constant with no flooding of the surrounding lake shore properties. Staff are pleased with this outcome and are looking at implementing similar improvements in other beaver-problem areas.
Dan Bosch Staff are working with the Ruby Lake Regatta group to make sure special event
procedures are followed.
Baker Beach Received complaints regarding beach fires and the creation of a fire pit on site. Staff
have installed a garbage can and doggie bag dispenser and additional 3x3 sign stating “Absolutely No Fires”.
Ramp Road Boat Launch Staff installed two concrete 6’x12’ boat ramp slabs to extend the boat launch ramp.
Work will begin on fixing the two SCRD docks.
Suncoaster Trail Reshape, erosion control and repairs made between Egmont trail head and Ruby
Lake.
2) Area B
Connor Park
All lock blocks are in and back filled. Electrical underground wiring and light boxes for stairs installed. Concrete stairs to all levels constructed and light poles installed. Side hill sloped, terraced and hydro seeded and final grading to be completed by July 6th. Final hydro seeding for amphitheatre stage and seating to be completed in early fall. All areas will be usable by July 6th.
13
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 14
Coopers Green Exterior painting has begun. Dedication bench installed and repairs have been made to all the picnic tables. Welcome Beach Community Association has provided preliminary plans for kitchen
expansion and patio etc.
3) Area D
Staff have had ongoing discussion with School District #46 staff regarding Roberts Creek garden, community use room and potential agreement for extended parking at school for the Roberts Creek Pier. Discussions to be continued in July.
Cliff Gilker
The foundation has been prepared for the installation of the cookhouse on July 16th. Installed ‘Dogs on Leash’ signage throughout the trails.
Roberts Creek Pier
Installed signage regarding beach fires. Installed a new deck table and benches at the end of the jetty.
4) Area E Georgia Crest Park
Additional work parties been conducted for invasive plants. SCRD costs is limited bin and tipping fees
Ocean Beach Esplanade
Stair repairs
Whispering Firs
New upright corner post installed on the cookhouse. Work to the green trail/water fall trail will begin mid July.
5) Area F Staff have completed the Smith Rd. access trail expansion and upgrades, this was done with the PMP Funds for Area F trail building.
Shirley Macey Field Drainage
Farm-Tek industries performed Sand Banding June 13th.
Soames Hill Staircase (Marine Drive Side)
Contractor that provided original quotation for works has withdrawn offer of services due to the labour required. Volunteers that were originally interested in mobilizing for community effort have not returned calls/emails. Staff will be contacting a few other contractors but may potentially have to build with internal resources.
14
P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n M o n t h l y R e p o r t P a g e | 15
G. DAKOTA RIDGE WINTER RECREATION AREA (Function 680)
Road consultant has been hired and is working on a plan for the road upgrades. Once the plan is complete it will be tendered and a prime contractor hired to complete the works.
The access road will remain closed about 2.5km’s from the upper parking area due to the wet spring conditions.
Staff completed the final cleanup and closing of the facility which includes, takedown and storage of grooming machines and trail signs, securing of windows and doors and cleanup of facility.
Staff completed reconnaissance and GPS of new proposed ski/snowshoe trails. H. BICYCLE/WALKING PATHS (Function 665)
Area B The path along Redrooffs, which was done in cooperation with MoT, is 90%
complete with line painting and building of the safety fencing still to be completed. Area D
Staff will be tendering the Lower Rd. paved path section in July for construction in August.
Staff are working on designs for the wooden bridge for cyclists and walkers to safely cross Chaster Creek.
Area E Due to erosion, repairs have been made to the stairs at the OBE shoreline.
Area F
Staff submitted the Marine DriveGas Tax Agreement Strategic Priorities Fund, application on May 30, 2012. Staff met with UBCM staff on June 26th at SCRD offices and they mentioned this program is very much over subscribed to and will likely not award grants until the end of year.
I. CEMETERY (Function 400) Key activities have been:
Continuation of ongoing operations. We have sold 8 burial plots and 7 cremation plots for 2012. We have had 3 burials and 10 cremations to date for 2012. We have had 2 disinterments of ashes for 2012.
15
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Community Services Committee Meeting – July 12, 2012
FROM: Carleen McDowell, Parks Services Manager Paul Fenwick, General Manager of Community Services
Angie Legault, Manager of Legislative Services John France, Chief Administrative Officer
RE: Area A Bicycle/Walking Path Service Options
RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the report concerning a Bicycle / Walking Path Service Options for Area A be received. BACKGROUND At the May 24th, 2012 regular meeting of the Board the following recommendation was adopted: 217/12 Recommendation No. 9 Bicycle and Walking Path Function Area A THAT a staff report on establishing a separate Area A Bicycle and Walking path
function be prepared to include a separate function option as well as joining the existing Bicycle and Walking Path Function; staff time required to implement a new function; how it fits into the Parks Work Plan, the relative impacts to other areas for each of the options and, Chief Administrative Officer’s comments related to the overall staffing capacity in the Parks and Bicycle/Walking Path Function and the mechanism for prioritizing the staff available with a standalone service in one area and the remaining four areas together in another service;
AND THAT the report also include the logistics for implementing the different options
for getting Area A in the Bicycle/Walking Path Function including scheduling to have it in place for the 2013 budget;
AND FURTHER THAT the allocation of costs for establishing this service, including all
public hearings and associated staff work, be charged to Area A Feasibility Studies with costs to be recovered when the function is established.
DISCUSSION Given the timing and work to be completed, decisions will need to be made quickly if a new service is to be in place in time for 2013 taxation. The financial implications of Area A establishing a new function or joining the existing function largely depends on the number of construction projects and their size. The Board would consider priorities in the Financial Plan process (based on the bikeways walkway plan, equity and whether or not a project is shovel ready given the costs and engineering involved).
16
B
Depending on the type of project and location, the staff time required to build and administer the projects varies in association with individual conditions. Every path we have built has been different in the amount of public consultation, Ministry permissions, and engineering challenges. Since specific projects have not been identified for Area A, it is difficult to forecast the resources required. Area A currently has a gas tax fund balance of $448,332.88. These funds can be used for a variety of different projects (Egmont water or bikeways for example). Thus the amount of staff time required will depend on the amount of funding allocated for building bike paths. As well, it is unclear whether future gas tax funds received will be earmarked in the same way for bike path construction in all of the Electoral Areas. Legislative process to implement a new function An elector approval process would be required for either option. An Alternative Approval Process would be the most cost effective method to use, but would still require staff resources. The amount of staff time required for the AAP will depend on the level of elector response. The following steps are required:
• Service decisions Determine proposed annual budget and draft work plan Determine cost recovery mechanism (if separate service) e.g. ad valorem, parcel
tax, etc. Calculate tax rate (should be sufficient to ensure amendment isn’t required for at
least five years) • Public consultation • Draft bylaw
Bylaw must receive 3 readings and be approved by the Inspector of Municipalities prior to commencing AAP
• Prepare for and initiate AAP – voters lists, forms, information package, statutory advertising, managing public inquiries and submissions
• Bylaw adoption and submission to Province • Information to BC Assessment for service area coding
The BC Assessment deadline for ‘coding’ a new service is October 1st for the Completed Roll or February 1st for the Revised Roll. Bylaws recovering for Parcel Tax are required by October 1st. Given the number of tasks that need to be accomplished, the completion of an elector approval process could not be accomplished by October 1st; therefore SCRD should aim for revised roll Feb 1st as long as parcel tax isn’t used as then funding mechanism. If Area A joins the current function, the taxation will be as per the current bylaw i.e. property tax on improvements only. Staff from Finance (financial analysis) and Parks (description of service and supporting materials) and Administration (including Corporate Communications) would be involved in outlining the AAP related information. Scheduling requirements for 2013 Budget Given the process described above, it is estimated that it may take at least 4 months for it to unfold (pending staff workload).
17
A report and draft service establishing bylaw needs to be written for discussion at Committee. Once the service related decisions have been made, and the Board has given the bylaw third reading, the bylaw would be sent to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval. Depending on workload at the Ministry, the approval could take 3-6 weeks. Once Inspector approval is received, statutory advertisements are required in two consecutive newspapers. The elector response period must be a minimum of 30 days after the last advertisement. Estimated costs for implementation (note to be charged to Area A Feasibility Study) Alternative Approval process (required to extend service area or add new function) Legal (contingency) $ 500.00
Advertising $1,000.00 Public Meeting $ 120.00 (hall rental) Documents $1,200.00 (brochure and mailing)
Staff Time $4,128.00 (includes Manager of Legislative Services, Deputy Corporate Officer, General Manager of Community Services, Manager Parks & Trails, Parks Planning Coordinator, Treasurer/Manager of Financial Services, Accounting Technician III, Communications Officer)
________ Total $6,948.00 Parks Work Plan The parks work plan for 2012 is currently fully subscribed. There has been an internal delay in finding a replacement for the currently vacant parks planning coordinator position which is putting pressure on projects allocated to that position. As well the current staff is operating at capacity with the variety of projects chosen for 2012. Staff could be reallocated to work in the new function based on the workload decided going into 2013. The Parks Work Plan for 2013 is a “blank slate” with the exception of ‘carry forward’ projects if any and staff could be reallocated and re-tasked based on the decisions made in the financial plan discussions. Chief Administrative Officer Comments Staff capacity to complete works is both finite (based on resources available) and dependent on the complexity of the works being proposed. The level of services/resources to be provided to complete the Workplan is clearly a Board decision. Respectfully, it is suggested that the Board consider the impact to the public on completing the Trails Workplan (including projects in Area A) using the same resources over a longer period versus increasing the resources and completing the works sooner. The method for prioritizing Staff resources on the Trail Workplan should be accomplished by assessing how a project advances Strategic Goals of the SCRD. Should several projects have similar value, Staff suggest the following:
18
• Where no additional resources are available – the decision should be based on Board
dialogue and agreement on the relative merits of each project and equity considerations.
• Where additional resources are made available – If Area A opts to join the existing function, the same decision process as noted above should apply. If Area A elects to start a new function, project resources to complete Area A projects would not compete with resources needed in the other electoral areas to complete the Workplan.
One assumption needs to be addressed here. Staff have assumed that project work will not substantially increase and therefore existing management resources would be sufficient to complete the Workplan. If the Board chooses to substantially increase the Workplan or advance the timelines, Staff would have to consider the impact on management resources as well as on support functions. Logistics for implementing Decisions need to be made:
• Which functional option to be used? • Which projects to be completed in Area A? • How much are taxpayers and Board willing to spend? • If expanding service boundaries (including in 665) which projects, functions will resources be taken from or is this funded in addition. • A 3-5 year work plan should be created for staff working in this function to provide
equitable efforts in each area.
Financial Analysis
The tables that follow provide a financial analysis for three options: 1) Area A joins 665 with no new resources allocations to the work plan, 2) Area A joins 665 with some new resources allocated to accommodate an expanded work plan, and 3) Area A has its own function and the associated resources.
The net financial change for each option is outlined. For example Area A for the three options has an annual taxation of $24,513, $30,302 and $ 44,631. Under Options 1 and 2 the existing participants see some savings if Area A joins (figure in parentheses)
19
* Ad Valorem Taxation comprises 96.6% of operating revenue in the existing 2012 budget (Prior Year Surplus: 2.2%, Appropriated Surplus 1.2%).
\\scrd.ad\files\NetworkFiles\Parks Administration\5820 Parks Reports & Statistics\5820-20 Reports & Statistics\Committee Reports\2012-JUL-CS -rec9-area a bway.docx
Existing Budget
2012- Actual BIKE PATHS 665 BIKE PATHS 665 BIKE PATHS 665 BIKE PATHS (new)
Area
Ad Valorem Taxation Budget Values* Participation Area
Ad Valorem Taxation
Budget Values* Net Change Participation Area
Ad Valorem Taxation Budget Values* Net Change Participation Area
Ad Valorem Taxation Budget Values* Participation
A - 0 A 24,513
24,513 26.01% A 30,302
30,302 26.01% A 44,631
100.00% B 23,996
25.46% B 17,756 (6,240)
18.84% B 21,949 (2,047)
18.84% B
D 19,972 21.19% D 14,778
(5,194) 15.68% D 18,268
(1,704) 15.68% D
E 13,875
14.72% E 10,263 (3,612)
10.89% E 12,687 (1,188)
10.89% E F 36,403
38.63% F 26,936 (9,467)
28.58% F 33,297 (3,106)
28.58% F 94,246 $ 100% 94,246 $
- $ 100.00% 116,503 $
22,257 $ 100.00% 44,631 $
100.00%
A joins existing function, no new resources Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
New Function created, new resources added
A joins existing function, new resources added
Current Financial Plan Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Account Name 2012 AB
A joins existing function, no new resources
A joins existing function, new resources added
New Function created, new resources added
Property Tax Requisition 94,245 - 94,245 - 116,503 - 44,631 - Surplus Prior Year 2,154 - 2,154 - 2,154 - - Surplus - Appropriated 1,162 - 1,162 - 1,162 - -
Operating Revenues 97,561 - 97,561 - 119,819 - 44,631 - Administrative Services 15,612 15,612 17,850 6,650 Approx. 17.5% Salaries/Wages + Benefits + WCB 78,143 78,143 96,021 35,831
Parks Planning Coordinator 27,465 27,465 55,704 28,239 0.3 PPC Parks Secretary 6,893 6,893 8,028 1,135 1 week Secretary
Other wages (Including Park Manager, Outside
Workers, GM Com Serv, Admin assist, Com Serv admin assist)
25,832 25,832 32,289 6,457
Travel 208 208 350 150 Other Prof Fees 3,598 3,598 5,598 2,000
Operating Expenditures 97,561 97,561 119,819 44,631
Function 665 2012 Amended Budget Values as at June 21, 2012
20
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 26, 2012
TO: Community Services Committee Meeting – July 12, 2012
FROM: Carleen McDowell- Parks Services Manager
RE: UPDATED HISTORICAL INFORMATION FOR BICYCLE/WALKING PATH FUNCTION 665- TABLE CLARIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Community Services Committee recommends that the SCRD Board receives the report regarding updated Historical Information for Bicycle/Walking Path Function 665 - Table Clarification.
BACKGROUND At the May 24, 2012 regular meeting of the SCRD Board the following recommendation was adopted:
216/12 cont. Recommendation No. 6 Historical Report - Financial Information
THAT the following items in the table on page 3 of the Parks Services
Manager’s report regarding Historical Information for Bicycle and Walking
Paths Function 665 be clarified and be brought forward to the July
Community Services Committee meeting:
• Unallocated Salaries (break down revenue from taxation and Gas
Tax $481,970) and;
• E.A. Other $290,023.
Discussion
Unallocated Salaries (break down revenue from taxation and Gas Tax $481,970)
In the Parks Division, three staff members salaries are broken down by estimated percentages
and split amongst the various functions (parks, bicycle/walking paths/ cemetery, etc) and other
parks staff keep track of the areas worked by GL and cost centre and are paid through those
various functions.
21
C
Community Services Meeting – July 12, 2012 Historical Information for Bicycle/Walking Path Function 665 Page 2 of 3
Additional Revenue Information
Other Expense Information - $290,023
The requested detail and notes are attached to this report.
Sunshine Coast Regional District
Bicycle & Walking Paths [665]
Revenue Summary
Taxation GrantsSurplus Prior
year Gas Tax Other Total
1995* 60,000 60,000
1996* 92,270 58,115 150,385
1997* 34,527 41,191 63,610 139,328
1998* 94,660 38,625 105,817 239,102
1999* 99,883 62,373 161,920 324,176
2000* 71,977 66,892 106,654 245,523
2001 67,379 78,342 43,860 189,581
2002 135,571 (32,733) 102,838
2003 94,864 94,864
2004 98,548 18,401 165 117,114
2005 88,162 43,067 131,229
2006 74,485 45,021 119,506
2007 114,137 66,794 180,931
2008 68,028 24,192 313,953 406,173
2009 78,243 21,531 357,660 457,434
2010 98,889 12,840 47,138 100 158,967
2011 97,724 1,421 9,978 625,302 734,425
22
Community Services Meeting – July 12, 2012 Historical Information for Bicycle/Walking Path Function 665 Page 3 of 3
Unidentified Path Expense:
1997 Unidentified Trail: Per AccPac GL Detail: Emcon Service Mar25/97;no trail detai; Probably paving cost
1999 Unidentified Trail: Per AccPac GL Detail: BA Blacktop Oct31/99, no trail detail; Probably paving cost
Dept Coding Errors:
2002: Mossy Rock Parks Trail should be in Function [650]
2004: Grove Rd Beach Access should be in Function [650] & small Seaview Cemetery excavating expense [400]
Other Expenses: Not allocated to Cost Centre for Specific Electoral Area
1-Engineering fees, photos
2-Planning & development fees, parks maintenance labour
3-Ads, supplies, parks maintenance labour
4-Parks maintenance labour, engineering fees, ads, courier, supplies, material
5-Advertising, signs
6-Supplies, Hydro pole expense
7- Travel, engineering, repairs maintenance
8- Travel, advertising, maps
9- Broom attachment
10-Advertising, travel
11-Landscaping/ground maintenance $5,656; other professional fees $3,319; advertising $264; travel $57; meeting exp $39
23
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 27, 2012
TO: Community Services Committee - July 12, 2012
FROM: Carleen McDowell, Parks Services Manager
RE: GRANTHAM’S LANDING CROWN LAND LOTS
RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT the Community Services Committee recommends the SCRD Board receives the report entitled Grantham’s Landing Crown Land Lots; AND THAT the Committee recommends whether efforts should be made to achieve some form of tenure to add these electoral area properties to the Community Parks base. BACKGROUND During the Sept 22, 2011 Board meeting the following recommendation was adopted:
384/11 cont. Recommendation No. 14 Granthams Landing Crown Land Lots
THAT staff enquire of the relevant ministries what options are available to acquire all or some of the Crown Land Lots 51-57 at Emperor and Reed Road, Granthams Landing and that a 99 year lease option also be considered.
Attachment 1 is a diagram showing the potential addition to the Community Parks base for Electoral Area F. The habitat map supports lots 51 to 57 being withheld from residential development due to their riparian/salmonoid characteristics and steep terrain.
DISCUSSION The following information is from an original staff report that went to the September 15, 2011 Community Services Committee meeting. Status of Lots in the Granthams Landing Improvement District
Current SCRD zoning on lots 51-57 is Residential One (R1). The lots are owned by Provincial Crown (care of the Lower Mainland Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB) Service). A Plan is attached showing these lots. It shows the public have informally used five of the lots as a trail.
24
D
Community Services Committee – July 12, 2012 Grantham’s Landing Crown Land Lots Page 2
Lots in Relation to OCP
The West Howe Sound OCP - BYLAW 640, adopted October 27, 2011 designates the Crown owned properties in the area, including Lots 51-57 as “Granthams Crown Properties”.
This designation suggests the parcels should be added to the SCRD Parks land base. The following is an excerpt from the West Howe Sound OCP:
It is recommended that development of the Crown Residential properties be consistent with the following policies:
a) The Crown should not dispose of the 37 parcels located on Goodwin Road. The parcels should be considered for SCRD Parks lands and added to the SCRD Soames Hill Park land base; and b) Three of the four properties located on Reed Road are contiguous (Lots 11-13) and should be consolidated into a larger property and be considered for development following the Grantham’s Landing Residential properties.
The land use designation speaks to the bulk of the Crown Lots located within District Lot 693; however certainly Lot 51-57 being located on the ravine edge of Soames Creek would be the least suitable for residential use and thus most suitable for permanent protection through park dedication.
New Information: Provincial Position Regarding Disposition of the Lots
Maxine Davie, Senior Portfolio Administrator for Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations, has informed the SCRD that lots 51-57 are under reserve for Marketing and Development. In addition, Melanie Matheson, Project Manager of South Coast Region for Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resources notes the actual sale of these lots has been on hold pending the completion of the West Howe Sound OCP and that staff working on that project left the position. Melanie does note the SCRD could attempt to achieve nominal rent tenure over the entire lots in order to achieve the trail as part of the SCRD Parks system.
Further, the South Coast region is not proactively initiating crown land sales, mostly due to the number of overlapping interests by First Nations. Thus, until an overarching agreement is reached with First Nations, sales are on hold indefinitely. The potential future strategy will be to market selected lots to one or more developers and to work with SCRD to identify park dedications and other concerns in advance of this marketing. It appears (see Attachment 1) that all or portions of Lots 51, 55, 56, 57 would have value as public open space/recreation consistent with the newly adopted Board Policy on Parks Acquisition. The preferred option would be to negotiate an interest for full lots.
25
Community Services Committee – July 12, 2012 Grantham’s Landing Crown Land Lots Page 3
The new policy (specifically written for subdivision) applies as follows:
The land is designated for park use in an official community plan, the parks master plan or another plan adopted by the regional board.
This is applicable
The land is adjacent to an existing park and will improve the configuration or function of the park.
Expands current park
The community indicates a high priority for acquisition of parkland within the local area.
Identified in OCP
The proposed new park is manageable from an operational perspective.
Additional trail infrastructure does have implications for operations and staffing resources.
The lands have attractive and/or useable physical characteristics and appropriate access.
There is a trail that connects Grathams to Soames Hill/Shirley Macey Park.
The neighbourhoods in question do have already, an excellent parks land base so the addition of the lots discussed in this report would be complementary to the Parks Acquisition policy and benefit the neighbourhood.
A short term license could be negotiated or an effort made to obtain a longer term agreement from the Crown.
26
Tra
il o
n C
row
n L
ots
51-
57
075
150
225
m.
Sca
le:
1:2,
518
27
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 15, 2012
TO: Community Services Committee - July 12, 2012
FROM: Sam Adams, Parks Planning Coordinator
Carleen McDowell, Parks Services Manager
RE: SCRD VOLUNTEERS IN PARKS
RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT the Community Services Committee receives for information the staff report entitled Volunteers in Parks; AND THAT the Committee recommends that the report be forwarded to the 2013 Budget Process for further consideration. BACKGROUND The SCRD Board, over the years, have passed recommendations requesting staff to utilize Volunteers in SCRD parks and trails. The following are some of those recommendations: As per board adoption of Feb. 9, 2006
93/06 7 Recommendation No. 7 Community Parks [650]
THAT Staff develop a policy for recognition of volunteers.
As per board adoption of May 26, 2011
216/11 Recommendation No. 5 Trail Closures
THAT staff provide a report on trails maintenance and ways to address issues of trail
safety and reinvigorating the Adopt a Trail project and related efforts of parks
volunteers.
As per board adoption of May 24, 2012
218/12 Recommendation No. 17 Road End Maintenance - Volunteers
THAT a report be prepared on the subject of volunteers doing road end maintenance, i.e.
opportunities and challenges including what happens when the current volunteers move
on, liability issues etc.
28
E
Community Services Meeting – June 14, 2012 Volunteers in Parks Page 2
Staff feel that before considering volunteers for increased duties that a comprehensive program should be developed and implemented, as discussed below.
“Many of the significant enhancements of the SCRD regional parks system are based on the considerable volunteer efforts of SCRD residents” Sunshine Coast Regional District Strategic Park Master Plan, 2004.
DISCUSSION Many of the SCRD’s park projects involve volunteers in one way or another. From developing Parks Master Plans to invasive species removal, our communities are engaged in their parks. Volunteers are essential to achieving our goals and creating projects that reflect the community. Currently, there is no SCRD-wide program or policy for volunteers that outlines how they should be recognized, trained, supported and encouraged, and otherwise managed in various duties. The Recreation and Parks Services Advisory Committee, SCRD Board of Directors, and staff have identified a need to grow and enhance the parks volunteer program to better serve the needs of park users, volunteers, and the SCRD. There appears to be merit in developing a corporate-wide volunteer recruitment, retention, recognition and utilization policy. After initial discussions with other SCRD managers we’ve found there are a few other divisions working with volunteers in various capacities and there is no standardized process for recruiting, screening, training, evaluating, retaining and recognition. Why does the SCRD Need a Volunteer Program?
Volunteers add significant value in planning projects and policies. Appropriate use of volunteers can expand services or reduce costs; Volunteers can be “eyes on their communities”.
The following opportunities and challenges exist in developing a sustainable volunteer program for the Parks Division: Opportunities Challenges
The SCRD has had success with volunteers as trail hosts and groomers on Dakota Ridge, and for smaller projects like invasive species removal work parties. Advisory committees are composed of volunteers.
Develop and maintain the Volunteer Program
Require adequate resources to carry out this task
Recruit parks volunteers Sunshine Coast has a small population with many other worthy volunteer opportunities.
Administer the Volunteer Program Committing the resources to run a successful program (institutional, managerial, administrative)
29
Community Services Meeting – June 14, 2012 Volunteers in Parks Page 3
Supporting volunteers requires staff time to, amongst other things, recruit, supervise, and manage risk. Events have been held in appreciation of Dakota Ridge and Parks/Trails volunteers. When considering a volunteer program it is important to understand the magnitude of scope by accounting for the number of possible participants. For example, we might want to have 30 adopt trail volunteers, each with a one year commitment, plus 13 individual volunteer projects which have a finite start and end date – like invasive species removal from parks. Each of these projects requires additional staff time and resources to insure their effectiveness. To recruit from the limited pool of volunteers the SCRD Parks Division needs to differentiate our volunteer program from others by offering our volunteers challenging worthwhile experiences while at the same time providing opportunities for growth and learning. Certain volunteer activities like Dakota Ridge require more training and due diligence by the SCRD. SCRD needs to develop a plan which meets not only the needs of the volunteers but it’s own needs with regards to issues such as record keeping, risk management, and labour management issues with the union. These factors contain elements similar to an HR program. The following is a proposed timeline for developing and planning a sustainable volunteer program:
Finally, the volunteer program will complement the work of parks staff. Staff will not be replaced by volunteers and in fact as the program grows there may need to be more staffing to support it.
Project Initiation
Spring 2013
Background What works what needs
imrpovement?
Stakeholder Input: SCRD (HR Risk
Managment); open house; social media
Draft
Final Volunteer Program Fall
2013
30
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 12, 2012
TO: Community Services Committee - July 12, 2011
FROM: Carleen McDowell, Parks Services Manager
RE: BOARD DIRECTIVES FIVE OR MORE YEARS OLD
RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT the Community Services Committee recommends the SCRD Board receives, for information, the staff report entitled Board Directives Five or More Years Old and provides direction, clarification or deletion of the subject directives; AND THAT staff be authorized to proceed with updating the directives log to reflect Board recommendations. BACKGROUND The directives log is the organization’s record for work requested by the board. The SCRD Parks Division has a variety of outstanding directives dating back to 1998. It is quite possible that some of these items were completed and not updated. DISCUSSION The following are directives requiring board guidance: Date Keyword Action Required Proposed Staff Action
14/05/1998 Gambier Island Community Centre Society
Request re supplies for maintenance of playing field approved, administration to explore yearly policy implementation.
Delete directive. Yearly financial plan addresses this action.
11/06/1998 Powder Point Subdivision, Douglas Bay, Gambier Isl.
Trails to be constructed at the time of the subdivision to standards developed by the Parks & Rec Manager, with trail maintenance responsibility of SCRD.
Delete Directive
14/11/2002 Mt. Elphinstone Enter into discussions with province to pursue park status, crown grant or other protected status for Mt. Elphinstone
Board to provide advice regarding this longstanding request.
25/11/2004 Skateboard Park Investigate availability of Lot 6, Plan 5388, DL 1392 Madeira Park for use as skateboard park
Delete directive.
08/02/2007 Cemetery Investigate establishing capital reserve for purchase of land for cemeteries in 2008.
Include in budget options for 2013 process.
31
F
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 15, 2012 TO: Community Services Committee - July 12, 2012 FROM: Carleen McDowell, Parks Services Manager Tina Perreault, Treasurer RE: TAX INCENTIVES
RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT the Community Services Committee recommends that the report from the Parks Services Manager and Treasurer regarding tax incentives be received as information only. BACKGROUND At the April 24, 2012 regular meeting of the SCRD Board the following recommendation was adopted: 178/12 cont. Recommendation No. 7 Tax Incentives
THAT the SCRD explore the possibility of offering tax incentives in
exchange for Statutory Rights of Way on private property for bikeways.
DISCUSSION The SCRD does not have the authority to grant tax incentives or exemptions, this is governed by the legislation. The legislation has various definitions of who can be eligible for tax exemptions and “private landowner” is not one of them. Some examples would be places of worship, government, not for profit etc. While there is no direct tax incentive available, there may be limited opportunities for reduced assessment at the discretion of BC Assessment. Each situation would be considered individually and would be dependent on how the Statutory Right of Way (SRoW) impacts the property. In order to have a SRoW put in place, there are survey and legal costs and potential compensation requested by landowners that would have to be covered by SCRD taxation, as those are not eligible costs within the Community Works Gas Tax funds. SRoW’s are much simpler to secure for underground infrastructure like water as the ongoing interaction with the landowner is minimal.
32
G
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 21, 2012
TO: Community Services Committee - July 12, 2012
FROM: Carleen McDowell, Parks Services Manager
RE: Bylaw 356 - PARKS USE FEES
RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT the Community Services Committee recommends the SCRD Board receives the report entitled Bylaw 356 - Parks Use fees; AND THAT the SCRD proceeds with updating Bylaw 356 - Park Use Fees for implementation in January 2013 and continues to review outdoor space use in parks by renters and the potential fees.
BACKGROUND At the June 14, 2012, meeting of the SCRD Board the following recommendation was adopted: Recommendation No. 16 Bylaw 356 - Amendment to Park Use Permit Fee Schedule
The Community Services Committee recommended that the May 22, 2012 Recreation and Parks Services
Advisory Committee recommendation No. 8 be referred to the July Community Services Committee as
follows;
Recommendation No. 8 Bylaw 356 - Amendment to Park Use Permit Fee Schedule
The Recreation and Parks Services Advisory Committee recommended that the report by
Carleen McDowell, Parks Services Manager, regarding amending Bylaw 356 - Park Use
Permit Fee Schedule be received;
AND THAT the Community Services Committee recommends the Board support the new fee
schedule rates as presented;
AND THAT that the ROA’s be advised to gather additional information from users regarding
what activities are being planned outside of the rental facilities during their booking;
AND FURTHER that staff look into ramifications of tents being erected on the different
sport/grass fields and discuss additional fees being charged for use of outside areas that are not
part of the facility rental.
AND THAT the committee requests that staff acquire additional information for outside activities.
33
H
Community Services – July 12, 2012 Bylaw 356 - Park Use Fee Schedule Page 2
DISCUSSION The attached draft for Parks Fees (Schedule 2013 to 2016) is presented for consideration. It is recommended these revised fees be implemented in January 2013 which will allow the various groups and organizations time to accommodate the increases into their program fees etc. Related to the fee structure, there have been mixed suggestions regarding the commercial usage of SCRD halls. While it is acknowledged that private businesses are operating sessions in our halls at relatively low rental rates, it is a revenue source for the halls and users are providing services to the community. The initial parks fees draft was presented to the RPSAC and then to the ongoing hall users. Concerns from the users were voiced about the timing of increases. Thus a four year implementation schedule is presented for consideration and fees would remain unchanged for 2012. Erection of tents have been newly recognized as a potential issue, therefore, staff recommend proceeding with part three of the RPSAC recommendation for the upcoming year and reviewing this matter for the next bylaw review in 2013. In addition, there is a proposed recommendation in the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan to evaluate the potential for charging sports groups for field usage. That being said, this could potentially all roll out together when the next set of fee changes are developed. Staff who administers bookings, caretakers and parks outside staff will continue to gather information regarding outdoor bookings and will make a recommendation on fees in due course.
34
Community Services – July 12, 2012 Bylaw 356 - Park Use Fee Schedule Page 2
Draft Park Use Permit Fee Schedule
Inclusive of HST
1. Hall Rentals
Charge by the hour Rental use must include set-up, take down and cleanup of event Current 2013 2014 2015 2016
Youth & Non Profit Community Groups (youth groups, societies, charities)
Non profit only $6.00
$ 6.00 $ 7.50 $8.00 $ 8.00
Community (weddings, meetings, birthdays)
All other $12.00
$13.00 $14.00 $15.00 $15.00
Commercial (yoga, art, instructors, business seminars)
$13.00 $16.00 $18.00 $20.00
2. Katherine Lake Campsites
(1) Tents – per site, per day $ 18.00 (2) Recreational Vehicles – per site, per day $ 22.00
3. Klein Lake Campsites
(1) All sites – per site, per day $ 12.00 4. Power Pole Rental @ Roberts Creek Pier
(1) First day $ 40.00 (2) Each consecutive day $ 20.00
35
Recommendation No. 2 Earth Hour
The Planning and Development Committee recommended that this report be forwarded to the Community Services Committee regarding lighting after 10pm at recreation facilities;
AND THAT the report be referred to the next Infrastructure Services Committee regarding converting the lighting on Mason Road depot to dark skies principles.
36
I
Memorandum
To: SCRD Chair, Directors and John France, CAO
From: Susan Hunt
Date: May 1, 2012
Re: Earth Hour 2012
This year Earth Hour was held on March 31st from 8:30 – 9:30 pm. Lights were scheduled to be turned off at the buildings and facilities as follows:
Field Road: Lights off at appointed time.
Mason Road yard: We intended to, employee assigned task had personal issues arise the prevented turn off.
SAC: Lights out at SAC at 7:45 pm back on at 10:00 pm
GDAF: Lights out at GDAF at 8:20 pm back on at 9:30 pm
GACC: Lights out by 8:30 pm not sure of exact time check lights back on.
Sechelt Arena: Sports event in progress – lights on
An estimated 5% reduction in Sechelt is what we have at this point. No data for Gibsons. Thanks, Susan
37
80808080
Val
ue 21222324252627282930313233
Hou
r of
the
Day
(P
ST
)
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
1718
1920
2122
2324
Com
mu
nit
ies
Hou
rly
Dat
a (M
ar31
st,2
012)
Reg
ion
: --
Com
mu
nit
y: S
ech
elt
BC
Hyd
ro L
oad
Ana
lysi
sS
unda
y, A
pril
1st
, 201
2
Actual
Forecast
38
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 28, 2012 TO: Community Services Committee – July 12, 2012 FROM: Bruce Bauman – Manager Recreation Services
RE: Gibsons Pool Refurbishment/Consultation Study Update RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Community Services Committee receives the report on Gibsons Pool Refurbishment/Consultation Study Update; AND FURTHER THAT the Community Services Committee confirms that the 2012 Recreation Work Plan completes the study; AND FURTHER THAT the $9,000 in estimated costs for the study be approved. Background During the discussions regarding the 2012 Recreation Work Plan and Budget, it was noted that a study on the future potential upgrade for aquatics/Gibsons Pool would be worthwhile in light of the successful completed project for Pender Harbour Pool. As noted below, this study was approved however funding the study was not resolved hence the need for this report. As additional important background information, the Gibsons and District Aquatic Facility has been identified by the public during the 2011/2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a valued community amenity. The social survey found public interest in upgrading the pool due to its age and condition. A new roof was installed in 2011 and various reports have identified that capital works need to be undertaken to keep this facility operational for the longer run e.g. facility audit that was completed in 2010. The boiler replacement has been deferred pending the study referenced in this report assuming that there will be an interest in heat recovery investments for the pool. During the last few years there have been grant opportunities available for recreation infrastructure enhancements. Unfortunately, the SCRD was not in a position to apply for these grants for the Gibsons Pool given the requirement for shovel ready projects. The study addressed here is the first step to being shovel ready assuming it leads to specific approvals for refurbishment. To be shovel ready however, will required detailed design and technical approvals. The related previous approved Board resolution of April, 26, 2012 is: • THAT the verbal report on the R3 Budget referral be received;
AND THAT staff report to the Community Services Committee regarding a plan for future upgrade of the Gibsons & District Aquatic Facility by September 2012 using the architect who managed the Pender Harbour Aquatic facility refurbishment;
39
J
AND FURTHER THAT the plan provide a community centred conceptual plan for an upgrade to Gibsons & District Aquatic Facility including cost estimates and public consultation for this facility.
• THAT SCRD staff explore with the Town of Gibsons staff any opportunities for improving the energy efficiency at the Gibsons & District Aquatic Facility utilizing geothermal technology.
Discussion The consultant for this study would prepare a needs assessment, and provide a concept plan for an enhancement of the Gibsons Pool including order of magnitude costing. Items to be considered include but are not limited to energy efficiency, UV water disinfection, service enhancements, accessibility improvements and including an upgrade to the facility to ensure this facility serves this community for a minimum of twenty years. The cost for this work is approximately $9,000 and also includes a community process. This funding may be covered by 2012 surplus for 615 overall. Shape Architecture referenced in the above Board Resolution, has submitted a proposal for the work that staff are still reviewing. Their proposal includes sub-consultants to assist with the mechanical aspects. Summary A total cost of $9,000 needs to be allocated to complete the Gibsons Pool Refurbishment/Consultation Study in 2012. This report provides an update and seeks confirmation to spend the estimated funds within the existing financial plan.
40
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 29, 2012 TO: Community Services Committee July 12, 2012 FROM: Bruce Bauman – Manager Recreation Services
RE: Gibsons & Area Community Centre Update Due to One Arena 2012-2013
Recommendation(s) THAT the Community Services Committee receives the report on Gibsons & Area Community Centre Update Due to One Arena 2012-2013; And that a final facility ice schedule be brought forward including details of increased operating revenues and expenditures when this information is available. Background At the June 28, 2012 SCRD Board Meeting the following resolution was adopted: THAT staff provide an update on any financial implications for the Gibsons and Area Community Centre (such as increased operating hours) resulting from the elimination of the ice surface at Sechelt Arena for the 2012/2013 season. Discussion On June 14, 2012 SCRD hosted the annual ice allocation meeting (for the 2012/2013 season). All ice groups attended and it was confirmed that there would only be ice sheet offered at the Gibsons & Area Community Centre for the 2012/2013 ice season. This creates the need to work together to allocate ice times. User groups collaborated well to address the challenges of having one ice sheet for this season. As the meeting a number of steps were taken to ensure a common purpose of maximum participation for the upcoming ice season. These steps included:
a) Using the 2007/2008 ice schedule as a starting point (base case one arena) b) Youth is a priority for selected hours c) Program Flexibility d) Rotations for all groups e) Adult Ice Slots reduced to 1.25 hours from 1. 5 hours
41
K
For the next season, adults play later than previously accustomed and youth make more use of early morning times. The daily ice schedule starts at 6am and ends at midnight 6 or 7 days/week. There were 6 hours of ice time (apportioned amongst 4 adult groups) that chose not to be involved in 2012/2013 for different reasons. The above could change slightly as registration for all major user groups (youth and adults) is not complete. We hope to finalize the schedule by August 2012. Obviously for the draft ice schedule (attached) there are additional hours of operation compared to 2011/12 for the Gibsons and Area Community Centre. These hours of operation will require additional resources, mainly staffing caused by operational requirements and regulatory factors. Variable costs such as equipment repairs & maintenance, janitorial, and hydro will increase marginally. It is anticipated that ice rental revenue ($99/hour for youth or $200/hour for adults) should be able offset these increases in costs. More details for revenues and costs will follow when the final schedule is available. Summary The allocation for ice time has been largely completed for the Gibsons and Area Community Centre for the 2012/2013 season. The tentative schedule has been prepared but is dependent on final registration for major users and should be finalized in August 2012. It is anticipated that the increased costs resulting from extra hours of operation should be covered by the increased revenues. More details will follow when the final schedule is available. N:\Recreation & Culture\8160 Recreation Reports & Statistics\8160-20 Reports & Stats\GACC\One Arena Report 2012-June 29-2012-For Committee Final.docx
42
Gib
sons
& A
rea
Com
mun
ity C
entr
e Ic
e Sc
hedu
leD
RAF
T 70
0 Pa
rk R
oad
Sept
embe
r 4th
201
2 to
Mar
ch 3
1st 2
013
Gib
sons
BC
Sund
ayM
onda
yTu
esda
yW
edne
sday
Thur
sday
Frid
aySa
turd
ay
6:00
am-2
:00p
m6:
00am
- 7:3
0am
6:00
am- 7
:30a
m6:
00am
- 8:0
0am
6:00
am- 7
:30a
m6:
00am
- 8:0
0am
6:15
am-1
:00p
mM
inor
Hoc
key
Min
or H
ocke
ySk
ate
Club
Min
or H
ocke
ySk
ate
Club
Min
or H
ocke
y9:
00am
-10:
30am
9:00
am-1
0:30
am8:
15am
-10:
45pm
SCR
DSC
RD
SCR
D
10:4
5am
-11:
45am
10:4
5am
-11:
45am
11:0
0am
-12:
15pm
SCR
DSC
RD
H
owe
Soun
d12
:00p
m-1
:30p
m12
:00p
m-1
:30p
m12
:00p
m-1
:30p
mSe
nior
s on
ly S
kate
12:3
0pm
-2:0
0pm
SCR
DSC
RD
1:
15pm
-3:3
0pm
1:45
pm-6
:15p
m
1:45
pm-5
:45p
m2:
15pm
-3:3
0pm
Sk
ate
club
Skat
e cl
ub
2:15
pm-3
:15p
mSC
RD
SCR
DH
ERO
S3:
45pm
-5:1
5pm
3:45
pm-5
:15p
m3:
30pm
-4:4
5pm
3:45
pm-7
:00p
m3:
45pm
-7:0
0pm
Skat
e C
lub
Skat
e C
lub
SCR
D
Min
or H
ocke
yM
inor
Hoc
key
5:30
pm-7
:45p
m5:
30pm
-7:4
5pm
5:00
pm-8
:30p
mM
inor
Hoc
key
6:00
pm-8
:00p
mM
inor
Hoc
key
Min
or H
ocke
y6:
30pm
-7:1
5pm
Skat
e cl
ubSp
eed
Skat
ePo
wer
Ska
te7:
15pm
-8:3
0pm
7:15
pm-9
:30p
m7:
15pm
-8:3
0pm
Ow
lsM
inor
Hoc
key
SCAH
L8:
00pm
-9:0
0pm
8:00
pm-9
:15p
m8:
45pm
-10:
00pm
8:45
pm-1
0:30
pmSC
RD
/Min
or H
8:15
pm-9
:15p
mov
er 4
5SC
AHL
Bre
w C
rew
9:15
pm-1
0:30
pmSp
eed
Skat
e8:
45pm
-10:
00pm
9:45
pm-1
1:00
pmSC
AHL
9:30
pm-1
1:15
pm9:
30pm
-10:
30pm
SCAH
L/Pa
nthe
rs10
:15p
m-1
1:30
pmov
er 4
5H
urric
anes
SCW
HL
10:1
5pm
-11:
30pm
SCAH
L10
:45p
m-1
2:00
am10
:45p
m-1
1:45
SCAH
L/Pa
nthe
rsSC
AHL
SCW
HL
SCR
D
SCR
D
43
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 4, 2012 TO: Community Services Committee July 12, 2012 FROM: Bruce Bauman – Manager Recreation Services
RE: Sechelt Arena Operating Budget 2012 Interim Report
RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Community Services Committee receives the report on Sechelt Arena Operating Budget 2012; AND THAT an additional report on options for Sechelt Arena be prepared for a 2012 Community Services Meeting; AND THAT the report include ice and dry floor use options and note whether the 2012 capital works projects should be kept in abeyance; AND FURTHER THAT financial scenarios be included for all options presented. Background At the June 28, 2012 SCRD Board Meeting the following resolution was adopted: Recommendation No. 17 Sechelt Arena THAT the verbal report from the Recreation Services Manager regarding the Sechelt Arena be received; AND THAT the public be informed that ice will be limited to Gibsons and Area Community Centre for 2012-13 and that a report on options for Sechelt Arena be prepared in due course; AND FURTHER THAT the report include dry floor use and note whether the lighting project should be kept in abeyance or not, and financial scenarios. Discussion At this time there has been no resolution regarding our insurance claim for the failed slab. It is anticipated that this information will be received by September 2012.
44
L
In an effort to ensure financial flexibility, staff have not proceeded on the 2012 capital works plan for the Sechelt Arena including the lighting project and raising the height of the power line. Additionally, staff has restricted activities at the Sechelt Arena pending future Board direction. The only notable expenditures at this time will be (with the exception of any dry floor rental that recovers all costs) or asset preservation work including:
a) Roof maintenance (4 days in July) b) Maintenance/Repair/Safety Checks etc (8 hours/week)
At this time staff projects a surplus at 2012 year for the Sechelt Arena (Function 620). An more accurate determination of this amount will be made available at the July Corporate and Administrative Services Committee. At this time all expenses for the period ending June 30, 2012 will be accounted for.
45
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 4, 2012 TO: Community Services Committee July 12, 2012 FROM: Bruce Bauman – Manager Recreation Services
RE: Variety Club Grant Application
RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Community Services Committee receives the report on Variety Club Grant Application; AND THAT the Committee authorizes applying for this Grant with a deadline of July 15, 2012. Background At the April 16, 2012 Recreation Parks Services Advisory Committee as received by the Community Services Committee at their May 10, 2012 meeting the following resolution was adopted: Recommendation No. 5 Enabling Accessibility Fund that, prior to allocating funds from the Enabling Accessibility Fund, public consultation occur to include discussions with all ages of users and existing accessibility advocates. Discussion Staff met with the Sechelt Accessibility Advisory Committee and other stakeholders including Vancouver Coastal Health on May/June 2012. As a result of these meetings it was agreed that staff contact the Variety Club of BC to enquire whether an additional grant is possible. On Wednesday July 4, 2012 staff were advised that the Variety Club of BC would be willing to entertain a grant proposal from the SCRD to pay for equipment specifically designated to assist children enjoy greater access to the Sechelt Aquatic Centre.
46
M
The equipment we have been discussing which would greatly assist children at the Sechelt Aquatic Centre that Variety Club would fund would be up to $60,000 with no matching SCRD capital commitment is as follows:
a) Pediatric Tilt and Recline chair b) Tracking & Lift for the Pool area
There would be a small cost annually for maintenance for this equipment. The above equipment as applied for under the Variety Club Grant and all the initiatives taken under the Enabling Accessibility Grant will feed into the 2012 study for the re-development of the Gibsons and District Aquatic Centre
47
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
RECREATION AND PARKS SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 20, 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECREATION & PARKS SERVCIES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING HELD IN THE CEDAR ROOM OF THE SUNSHINE COAST
REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICES, 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, BC
PRESENT: Chair Anne Titcomb
Members Pat Hunt
Elise Rudland
Carolyn Mortensen
Heather Gordon
Dale Peterson
Vicki Dobbyn
Elaine Futterman
Brenda Wilkes
ALSO PRESENT: Manager of Parks Services Carleen McDowell
Facility & Program Coordinator Ted Chisholm
Facility & Program Coordinator Tom Poulton
Recreation Office Coordinator Hana Rose
Area A Director Frank Mauro
Area B Director Garry Nohr
Area D Director Donna Shugar
Area F Director Lee Turnbull
Consultant Jennifer Wilson
Consultant Catherine Berris (via phone)
Consultant David Hughes (via phone)
Consultant Gary Young (via phone)
REGRETS: Manager of Recreation Services Bruce Bauman
ABSENTEES: Barbara DeMott
CALL TO ORDER 4:00 PM
AGENDA N/A
48
N
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 2
Anne welcomed Jennifer Wilson, consultant and noted that Jennifer’s three other associates,
Catherine Berris, Gary Young and David Hughes have also joined the meeting via Conference
Bridge. Anne noted the draft Master Plan reflects public consultation. Introductions were made
by each RPSAC member, directors and staff.
Jennifer Wilson began with a power point presentation showing the process of the development
of the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan. It was noted that the financials would not be
finalized until the Parks & Recreation Master Plan initial review by RPSAC and staff was
completed.
Below addresses RPSAC’s review which included 44 of the recommendations in the Draft Master
Plan, along with changes that were made to a number of those recommendations. RPSAC will
meet again ASAP to review with the Consultants the balance of the almost 100
recommendations. Staff are also reviewing the recommendations; to date RPSAC has not seen
the outcome of their review. Once all recommended changes (both staff and RPSAC) have been
made we will review the Plan once again with all recommended changes. Also included with
that Draft will be the Chapter on the Financials.
Other notes:
“Ranger Station” in Area A may have confused survey respondents as they don’t use that
term.
“Community Development Approach” need a definition recreation/parks context.
Chapter 2: The Decision-making Framework
1. Assume the roles of planner, provider, facilitator, and protector.
Proposed wording:
1. Assume the roles of planner, provider, facilitator/connector/partner, and protector.
2. Work within a community-development philosophy, train staff in community engagement,
and include performance measures that recognize the facilitator role. No Change
3. Adopt three service levels (small-community service level, medium-catchment-area service
level, and regional service level) to guide the planning and delivery of parks and recreation
services on the Sunshine Coast. No Change
Chapter 3: Opportunities that Foster Healthy People and Community
4. Consider the 30 core activities and opportunities as a way to provide specific guidance for
achieving the Master Plan’s four goals. At the same time, pay particular attention to what
members of the community think should take priority in terms of improving parks and
recreation. No Change
Chapter 4: Outdoor Recreation and the Environment
49
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 3
5. Continue, as a high priority, to develop trails and bike paths to meet the community’s
needs to support recreation and alternative transportation. Focus on connectivity and
safety, including trails within and between neighbourhoods, and bike paths along roads.
Establish criteria for trails and bike paths, and use these to evaluate and guide trail/bike path
development. Recommended criteria:
Route provides or improves connectivity at the regional level.
Route provides or improves connectivity with other parks and trails.
Route provides access to the waterfront (ocean or lakes).
Route has high aesthetic values and/or recreation opportunities.
Route is important as a means for alternative transportation.
Route appeals to the community and helps to meet the needs of the community.
Route is in a location that is currently underserved and/or where population is
increasing.
Partnerships with interest groups who are willing to assist in trail development and
stewardship are possible.
Trail can be built to be safe.
Cost for trail corridor is reasonable, or an opportunity arises to obtain land that may
be suitable as parkland at a cost below market.
Cost and efforts needed to develop and maintain the route are manageable.
There is alignment with other SCRD initiatives, e.g., OCP.
In Area A, establish a legal functional structure for and build trails, including a
trail/boardwalk around Lily Lake.
Identify and acquire trail corridors in subdivision and rezoning processes.
Acquire access to undeveloped road rights-of-way that provide access to the beach or to
ocean views.
Proposed wording:
Chapter 4: Outdoor Recreation and the Environment
5. Continue, as a high priority, to develop trails and bike paths to meet the community’s needs
to support recreation and alternative transportation. Focus on connectivity and safety,
including trails within and between neighbourhoods, and bike paths along roads.
Establish criteria for trails and bike paths, and use these to evaluate and guide trail/bike path
development. Recommended criteria:
Route provides or improves connectivity at the regional level.
Route provides or improves connectivity with other parks and trails.
Route provides access to the waterfront (ocean or lakes).
Route has high aesthetic values and/or recreation opportunities.
Route is important as a means for alternative transportation.
Route appeals to the community and helps to meet the needs of the community.
50
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 4
Route is in a location that is currently underserved and/or where population is
increasing.
Partnerships with interest groups who are willing to assist in trail development and
stewardship are possible.
Trail can be built to be safe.
Cost for trail corridor is reasonable, or an opportunity arises to obtain land that may be
suitable as parkland at a cost below market.
Cost and efforts needed to develop and maintain the route are manageable.
There is alignment with other SCRD initiatives, e.g., OCP.
In Area A, establish a legal functional structure for and build trails. including a
trail/boardwalk around Lily Lake. (DELETE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO LILY
LAKE)
Identify and acquire trail corridors in subdivision and rezoning processes.
Acquire access to undeveloped road rights-of-way that provide access to the beach or to
ocean views.
6. Prepare a Trail Strategy for the SCRD in collaboration with the Province, Sechelt, Gibsons,
and the SIGD.
Include goals and objectives, trail classifications with design standards, a trail-rating system
(e.g., green, blue, black), designation of trail uses, identification of staging areas,
recommendations, partnership opportunities, and an implementation plan.
Involve volunteer trail and tourism groups in the development and potential implementation
of the Trail Strategy.
Update the mapping of existing trails, potentially with the assistance of hiking and mountain-
biking groups from the community.
Revise design standards to improve the safety of trails and bike paths adjacent to roads.
Plan for equestrian uses on some trails, especially in Areas A and B.
Address conflicts between non-motorized and motorized uses of trails, focusing on non-
motorized uses on SCRD’s trails.
Proposed wording:
6. Prepare a Support the development of a Trail Strategy for the SCRD in collaboration with
the Province, Sechelt, Gibsons, and the SIGD.
Include goals and objectives, trail classifications with design standards, a trail-rating system
(e.g., green, blue, black), designation of trail uses, identification of staging areas,
recommendations, partnership opportunities, and an implementation plan.
Involve volunteer trail and tourism groups in the development and potential implementation
of the Trail Strategy.
51
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 5
Update the mapping of existing trails, potentially with the assistance of hiking and mountain-
biking groups from the community.
Revise design standards to improve the safety of trails and bike paths adjacent to roads.
Plan for equestrian uses on some trails, especially in Areas A and B.
Plan for equestrian uses on some trails, (DELETE REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC
ELECTORAL AREAS) especially in Areas A and B.
Address conflicts between non-motorized and motorized uses of trails, focusing on non-
motorized uses on SCRD’s trails.
(ADD)
Support the development of a Trails Code of Conduct
For Area A initiate an SCRD process to participate in a Bikeways Function.
Parkland Classification and Supply
7. Acquire Additional parkland where environmental and recreation resources need to be
protected and where there are gaps, at the neighbourhood level, in park-related services.
Adopt and implement the proposed park-classification system, and use it as a tool to guide
parkland acquisition, planning, design, and management.
Establish a development cost charge (DCC) program for parkland acquisition and
development.
Establish criteria for parkland acquisition and use these to evaluate and guide acquisitions.
Recommended criteria:
Land provides or improves connectivity with other parks and trails.
Property provides access to waterfront (ocean or lakes).
Land contributes to the parks system in terms of aesthetic values and/or recreation
opportunities.
Land has environmental value, natural resources at risk, or high potential for
environmental enhancement.
Land has cultural/historic value.
Land is adjacent to and improves the quality of an existing park.
Land appeals to the community and helps to meet the needs of the community.
Land is in a location that is currently underserved and/or where population is
increasing.
Site will support accessibility, i.e., the potential number of people able to access the
park.
Cost is reasonable, or an opportunity arises to obtain land that may be suitable as
parkland at a cost below market.
Cost and efforts needed to maintain park are manageable.
52
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 6
There is alignment with other SCRD initiatives, e.g., OCP.
When acquiring 5% parkland from subdivision, this parkland should be suitable for active
recreation and not normally include environmentally sensitive or hazard lands, which should
be separate. Cash-in-lieu obtained through development should be used for acquisition of
appropriate parkland.
Partner with others to establish parks where there is environmental value and/or recreation
value on Crown lands, especially at the urban interface and if lands are threatened, e.g.,
UREP acquisition.
Establish a program for acquiring future parkland through trust agreements and bequests.
Maintain a list of potential parkland acquisitions from the previous Parks Master Plan, SCRD
lists, and OCPs. Monitor potential opportunities to acquire these parcels.
Proposed wording:
Parkland Classification and Supply
7. Acquire additional parkland where environmental and recreation resources need to be
protected and where there are gaps, at the neighbourhood level, in park-related services.
Adopt and implement the proposed park-classification system, and use it as a tool to guide
parkland acquisition, planning, design, and management.
Establish a development cost charge (DCC) program for parkland acquisition and
development.
Establish criteria for parkland acquisition and use these to evaluate and guide acquisitions.
Recommended criteria:
Land provides or improves connectivity with other parks and trails.
Property provides access to waterfront (ocean or lakes).
Land contributes to the parks system in terms of aesthetic values and/or recreation
opportunities.
Land has environmental value, natural resources at risk, or high potential for
environmental enhancement.
Land has cultural/historic value.
Land is adjacent to and improves the quality of an existing park.
Land appeals to the community and helps to meet the needs of the community.
Land is in a location that is currently underserved and/or where population is
increasing.
Site will support accessibility, i.e., the potential number of people able to access the
park.
Cost is reasonable, or an opportunity arises to obtain land that may be suitable as
parkland at a cost below market.
53
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 7
Cost is reasonable; (UNDERLINE) or an opportunity arises to obtain land that may
be suitable as parkland at a cost below market.
Cost and efforts needed to maintain park are manageable.
There is alignment with other SCRD initiatives, e.g., OCP.
When acquiring 5% parkland from subdivision, this parkland should be suitable for active
recreation and not normally include environmentally sensitive or hazard lands, which should
be separate. Cash-in-lieu obtained through development should be used for acquisition of
appropriate parkland.
Partner with others to establish parks where there is environmental value and/or recreation
value on Crown lands, especially at the urban interface and if lands are threatened, e.g.,
UREP acquisition.
Establish a program for acquiring future parkland through trust agreements and bequests.
Maintain a list of potential parkland acquisitions from the previous Parks Master Plan, SCRD
lists, and OCPs. Monitor potential opportunities to acquire these parcels.
8. Increase the number and quality of shoreline-access parks.
Conduct a review of designated shoreline-access parks and road rights-of-way that end along
the shoreline to determine the following:
whether they can be identified on site, and if not, why
the condition of the trail if one exists, or the potential to support a trail
their potential recreation opportunities
their potential for parking nearby
Develop plans for the shoreline-access parks and road rights-of-way that end along the
shoreline. The plans should identify which of these parks/rights-of-way should be upgraded,
the work needed for them to become accessible and safe, and the order of priority for the
upgrading, based on costs and benefits.
Prepare an action plan for the opening and upgrading of shoreline accesses.
Develop some shoreline-access parks to be universally accessible.
At the more popular shoreline-access points, provide some parking where possible.
Additional wording:
8. Increase the number and quality of shoreline-access parks (ADD) Beach Access/Trail.
Conduct a review of designated shoreline-access parks and road rights-of-way that end along
the shoreline to determine the following:
whether they can be identified on site, and if not, why
the condition of the trail if one exists, or the potential to support a trail
their potential recreation opportunities
their potential for parking nearby
54
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 8
(ADD)
Work with MOTI regarding coordination
Develop good signage to identify beach access/trails and signage where to get
off the waterfront.
Develop plans for the shoreline-access parks and road rights-of-way that end along the
shoreline. The plans should identify which of these parks/rights-of-way should be upgraded,
the work needed for them to become accessible and safe, and the order of priority for the
upgrading, based on costs and benefits.
Prepare an action plan for the opening and upgrading of shoreline accesses.
Develop some shoreline-access parks to be universally accessible.
At the more popular shoreline-access points, provide some parking where possible.
Park Amenities
9. Upgrade facilities and procedures related to the use of sports fields.
Conduct a coast wide review of sports participation, trends, schedules, and patterns of use to
identify needs and opportunities, e.g., consider the opportunity of soccer play in spring and
summer.
Compare the community’s needs with the availability of sports fields, in all SCRD
jurisdictions.
Prepare a schedule of fields that need upgrading to meet these needs.
Refresh the Joint-Use Agreement with the school district to include upgrading of school
fields as appropriate, subject to performance requirements.
Centralize the management of sports fields throughout the Sunshine Coast into one field-
allocation and booking system and one set of fees and charges. When determining fees and
charges, consider the quality of fields and the age of users (typically, adult groups are charged
higher fees).
Explore opportunities to increase efficiencies related to the maintenance of sports fields
across the jurisdictions, e.g., more sharing of equipment, fewer maintenance crews.
Explore opportunities to increase use of the Pender sports field, potentially in partnership
with the Lions Club for use of the building, e.g., for summer festivals and events.
Proposed wording:
Park Amenities
9. Upgrade facilities and procedures related to the use of sports fields.
55
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 9
Conduct a coast wide review of sports participation, trends, schedules, and patterns of use to
identify needs and opportunities, e.g., consider the opportunity of soccer play in spring and
summer.
Compare the community’s needs with the availability of sports fields, in all SCRD
jurisdictions.
Prepare a schedule of fields that need upgrading to meet these needs.
Refresh the Joint-Use Agreement with the school district to include upgrading of school
fields as appropriate, subject to performance requirements.
Centralize the management of sports fields throughout the Sunshine Coast into one field-
allocation and booking system and one set of fees and charges. When determining fees and
charges, consider the quality of fields and the age of users (typically, adult groups are charged
higher fees).
Centralize the management booking and allocation of sports fields throughout the
Sunshine Coast into one field-allocation and booking system and one set of fees and
charges. When determining fees and charges, consider the quality of fields and the age of
users (typically, adult groups are charged higher fees).
(ADD) Determine if booking software is adequate.
Explore opportunities to increase efficiencies related to the maintenance of sports fields
across the jurisdictions, e.g., more sharing of equipment, fewer maintenance crews.
Explore opportunities to increase use of the Pender sports field, potentially in partnership
with the Lions Club for use of the building, e.g., for summer festivals and events.
10. Upgrade amenities, and (ADD) new amenities in parks where needed to meet community
interests and needs.
With community consultation, prepare park-management plans for parks that experience
significant use and have a high potential in relation to their current condition, e.g., Cooper’s
Green Park.
Provide some universal accessibility within parks whenever they are upgraded, including at
least one universally accessible trail (preferably a loop) in all destination and community
parks.
Consider subsequent operational costs in all park planning, design, and development.
Consider safety as a primary consideration in all park planning, design, and development.
Upgrade infrastructure in parks for asset preservation and to avoid costly repairs in the
future.
Prepare environmental-impact assessments prior to development in parks with natural
features.
56
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 10
Consider and support opportunities for public art within parks, recognizing the wealth of
artistic talent in the community.
Increase opportunities for launching non-motorized boats in waterfront and beach-access
parks, considering shoreline conditions, sea conditions, the distance between boat launches,
and the available space for vehicular access and parking.
Explore opportunities for a boat launch to accommodate motorboats on the south portion
of the coast.
Explore opportunities to charge a fee for launching motorized boats during peak periods.
Based on initiatives from communities and park-planning processes, consider opportunities
for the following amenities in parks: multi-use courts, water parks (potentially in the north),
community gardens, dog off-leash areas, exercise facilities, youth facilities.
Proposed wording:
10. Upgrade amenities, and (ADD) new amenities in parks where needed to meet community
interests and needs.
With community consultation, prepare park-management plans for parks that experience
significant use and have a high potential in relation to their current condition, e.g., Cooper’s
Green Park.
With community consultation, prepare individual park-management plans for parks that
experience significant use and or have a high potential in relation to their current condition
(DELETE) SPECIFIC REFERNECE, (ADD) e.g., Coopers Green Park or have
environmental or other factors justifying an individual management plan.
Provide some universal accessibility within parks whenever they are upgraded, including at
least one universally accessible trail (preferably a loop) in all destination and community
parks.
Consider subsequent operational costs in all park planning, design, and development.
Consider safety as a primary consideration in all park planning, design, and development.
Upgrade infrastructure in parks for asset preservation and to avoid costly repairs in the
future.
Prepare environmental-impact assessments prior to development in parks with natural
features.
Consider and support opportunities for public art within parks, recognizing the wealth of
artistic talent in the community.
Consider 9 (ADD) and develop a process to and (DELETE ONE WORD) to support
opportunities for public art within parks, recognizing the wealth of artistic talent in the
community.
57
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 11
Increase opportunities (ADD) using environmental due diligence for launching non-
motorized boats in waterfront and beach-access parks, considering shoreline conditions, sea
conditions, the distance between boat launches, and the available space for vehicular access
and parking.
Explore opportunities for a boat launch to accommodate motorboats on the south portion
of the coast.
Explore opportunities to charge a fee for launching motorized boats during peak periods.
Based on initiatives from communities and park-planning processes, consider opportunities
for the following amenities in parks: multi-use courts, water parks (potentially in the north),
community gardens, dog off-leash areas, exercise facilities, youth facilities.
Management and Maintenance
11. Increase efforts related to environmental stewardship.
Prepare Environmental Management Strategies for parks with important resources and/or
management challenges (e.g., invasive species, trampling of vegetation). Identify
environmental protection versus activity zones within parks as appropriate.
Continue environmental-protection work within parks using best management practices and
Green Shores guidelines, e.g., shoreline-protection works.
Work on an Invasive-Plant Management Strategy in cooperation with the Coastal Invasive
Plant Committee, which includes other governments and stakeholders in the SCRD.
Work on biodiversity planning in partnership with other groups such as the Lagoon Society
and the Coastal Douglas-Fir Conservation Partnership.
Proposed wording:
Management and Maintenance
11. Increase efforts related to environmental stewardship.
Prepare Environmental Management Strategies for parks with important resources and/or
management challenges (e.g., invasive species, trampling of vegetation). Identify
environmental protection versus activity zones within parks as appropriate.
Continue environmental-protection work within parks using best management practices and
Green Shores guidelines, e.g., shoreline-protection works.
Work on an Invasive-Plant Management Strategy in cooperation with the Coastal Invasive
Plant Committee, which includes other governments and stakeholders in the SCRD.
Work on biodiversity planning in partnership with other groups such as the Lagoon Society
and the Coastal Douglas-Fir Conservation Partnership.
58
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 12
Work on biodiversity planning in partnership with other groups such as the Lagoon Society
and the (DELETE) Coastal Douglas Fir Conservation Partnership (ADD) Sunshine
Coast Conservation Association.
12. Develop management strategies for certain recreation uses to improve user experience and
reduce conflicts.
Work with other jurisdictions to integrate public information related to dog management.
Prepare a coast wide dog-management brochure, either integrated within the SCRD
parks-and-trails map or as a separate brochure. Identify the dog off-leash areas,
parks/areas where dogs are not permitted, and consistent regulations related to dog
management (e.g., on-leash (under control) provisions and contact information for each
jurisdiction).
Prepare coast wide signs and dog-waste-bag dispensers related to dog management
using consistent language.
Work with other jurisdictions and tourism interests on how best to maintain road access for
typical vehicles to key destination parks (e.g., to Dakota Ridge, Tetrahedron, and Mount
Richardson). These roads may or may not be managed by the SCRD.
Update the Parks Bylaw 356 to reflect existing uses. No Change
13. Prepare materials and programs to provide more information to the public regarding parks,
trails, and outdoor-recreation opportunities.
Develop sign standards for parks and trails (including shoreline accesses) with directional
(way-finding), regulatory, and interpretive signs, and work with other jurisdictions to install
these throughout the SCRD.
Work with Sechelt and Gibsons (and possibly the Province) to prepare an attractive coast
wide map of parks and trails, including shoreline accesses, with information on the facilities
and activities within the parks and trails, information on park/trail etiquette and safety (e.g.,
Bear Aware), and nearby attractions. Explore the potential for some advertising to help
support the map production.
Increase opportunities for nature interpretation, including interpretive brochures, signs, and
programs.
Proposed wording:
13. Prepare materials and programs to provide more information to the public regarding parks,
trails, and outdoor-recreation opportunities.
Develop sign standards for parks and trails (including shoreline accesses) with directional
(way-finding), regulatory, and interpretive signs, and work with other jurisdictions to install
these throughout the SCRD.
59
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 13
Develop sign standards for parks and trails (including shoreline accesses) with directional
(way-finding), regulatory, and interpretive signs, and work with other jurisdictions (ADD)
particularly the First Nations to install these throughout the SCRD.
Work with Sechelt and Gibsons (and possibly the Province) to prepare an attractive coast
wide map of parks and trails, including shoreline accesses, with information on the facilities
and activities within the parks and trails, information on park/trail etiquette and safety (e.g.,
Bear Aware), and nearby attractions. Explore the potential for some advertising to help
support the map production.
Work with Sechelt and Gibsons (and possibly the Province) to prepare an attractive coast
wide map of parks and trail locations, including shoreline accesses, with information on the
facilities and activities within the parks and trails (DELETE AS PREMATURE TO
DESIGNATE SPECIFIC TRAIL USE), information on park/trail etiquette and safety
(e.g., Bear Aware), and nearby attractions. Explore the potential for some advertising to help
support the map production.
Increase opportunities for nature interpretation, including interpretive brochures, signs, and
programs.
14. Improve procedures and adjust maintenance levels of some parks and trails.
Explore options for operational sustainability that are consistent with the Corporate Strategic
Plan, e.g., water conservation, low-fuel (or non-fossil-fuel) vehicles, active and passive solar
lighting, composting.
Prepare park-maintenance standards that reflect the parks classification system, e.g.,
destination parks receive the highest level of maintenance and green space receives the least.
Adopt and implement maintenance standards for trails.
Address potholes and debris on a regular basis along bikeways.
Maintain trails, e.g., clear brush, repair steps.
14. Improve procedures and adjust maintenance levels of some parks and trails.
Explore options for operational sustainability that are consistent with the Corporate Strategic
Plan, e.g., water conservation, low-fuel (or non-fossil-fuel) vehicles, active and passive solar
lighting, composting.
Prepare park-maintenance standards that reflect the parks classification system, e.g.,
destination parks receive the highest level of maintenance and green space receives the least.
Adopt and implement maintenance standards for trails.
Address potholes and debris on a regular basis along bikeways.
(ADD) Encourage MOTI to repair potholes and remove debris on a regular basis
along bikeways.
Maintain trails, e.g., clear brush, repair steps.
60
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 14
Chapter 5: Indoor Facilities
15. Receive and oversee annual reports and/or work plans (which contain measurable
objectives) from each of the three contract providers at the Gibsons and Area Community
Centre (GACC). No Change
16. Initiate community-outreach programs/community-development plans in collaboration
with the local government and other partners. The purpose of this is to build the profile
and the attendance of the GACC, Gibsons Pool, and the Sechelt Aquatic Centre as well as
the associated programs of each.
Proposed wording:
16. Initiate community-outreach programs/community-development plans in collaboration
with the local government and other partners. The purpose of this is to build the profile
and the attendance of the(DELETE) GACC, Gibsons Pool, and the Sechelt Aquatic
Centre as (ADD NEW WORDING) for all of the indoor recreation facilities well as
and the associated programs of each.
17. Proceed in a timely fashion with the capital expenditure programs as noted in the 10-year
capital plan for the GACC and the 10-year plan for the Sechelt Aquatic Centre.
Proposed wording:
17. Proceed in a timely fashion with the capital expenditure programs as noted in the 10 5-year
capital plan for the GACC and the 10-year plan for the Sechelt Aquatic Centre.
18. Either contract out or assign sufficient resources to program the two ice rinks for five
years. Set measurable outcomes that are reviewed annually.
At the conclusion of the five-year contract, review the operations of the two arenas before
determining the future of the Sechelt Arena.
At the conclusion of the proposed ice-rink operations trial, consider calling for expressions
of interest to operate the second-floor lounge at the Sechelt Arena.
Review the ice-allocation policy in consultation with ice users and prepare amendments
conducive to more ice usage. No Change
19. Maintain the Sechelt Arena so that it’s safe and functional, and do this through minimal
and prudent capital works over the next five years. No Change
20. Work with the community to evaluate the viability of forming a summer swim club on the
coast.
20. Work with the community to evaluate the viability of forming a summer swim club on the
coast. (DELETE RECOMMENDATION)
61
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 15
21. Proceed in a timely fashion with the capital expenditure program of the Gibsons Pool for
up to 10 years or until there exists a good public transportation system between Gibsons
and Sechelt.
Proposed wording:
21. (DELETE AND USE NEW WORDING) Proceed in a timely fashion with the capital
expenditure program of the Gibsons Pool for up to 10 years or until there exists a good
public transportation system between Gibsons and Sechelt Implement capital
improvements in a timely manner to aquatics for Gibsons and Area following the
2012 options report and public process. Enhance aquatic programming in
conjunction with selected upgrades to the facility.
22. Review all community-hall programming, and move regional services to the regional
facilities.
Proposed wording:
22. Review all community-hall programming, and move regional services (AMEND TO
REFLECT HOW THE LEVELS OF SERVICE ARE DEFINED IN THE
MASTER PLAN –SEE PP 18 AND 19) to the regional facilities. CONSIDER
WORDING FOR ROBERTS CREEK SCHOOL AS FOLLOWS:
Work with SD 46 and the Roberts Creek Community School to facilitate better community use of Roberts Creek Elementary School facilities which were constructed through the Joint Use Function.
23. Revise the hall-rental policy to give preference to neighbourhood groups that are willing to
develop neighbourhood recreation programs.
Proposed wording:
23. Revise the SCRD hall-rental policy to give preference to neighbourhood groups that are
willing to develop neighbourhood recreation programs.
24. Develop a full building assessment of all community halls. Plan for renovation,
replacement, and decommissioning or ongoing maintenance, with an associated 10-year
program where applicable.
Proposed wording:
24. Develop a full building assessment of all community SCRD halls. Plan for renovation,
replacement, and decommissioning or (DELETE) WORD ongoing maintenance, with
an associated 10-year program where applicable.
25. Complete a full accessibility audit of all public recreation buildings, and initiate alterations
in a timely manner. No Change
62
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 16
Chapter 6: Recreation Programs and Special Events
Service Levels
26. Deliver the small-communities service level by facilitating spaces for local programs, and for
local groups to provide local programs. Focus on general recreation opportunities for
children, youth, and families. No Change
27. Host annual community meetings to fine-tune appropriate programs, and be a program
design resource to local groups.
Proposed wording:
27. KEY RECOMMENDATION Collaborate with local groups to have annual
community meetings to fine-tune appropriate programs, and be a program design resource
to local groups.
28. In the Egmont/Pender Harbour community (Area A), continue to provide or facilitate
general recreation activities, indoor fitness and sports activities, summer-park programs for
all ages, walking groups, day camps, arts and crafts, health and wellness activities, and
activities for youth. (DELETE RECOMMENDATION)
29. In Halfmoon Bay (Area B) and Roberts Creek (Area D) communities, facilitate youth
activities in conjunction with local community schools and the Sechelt and Gibsons youth
centres. (DELETE RECOMMENDATION)
30. In Elphinstone (Area E) and West Howe Sound (Area F) communities, facilitate youth
activities in conjunction with local community schools and the Sechelt and Gibsons youth
centres. Also facilitate fitness, arts, crafts, and health and wellness activities for different .
age groups (DELETE RECOMMENDATION)
31. Deliver the medium-catchment-area service level by continuing to provide services offered
at the community centres.
Proposed wording:
31. Deliver the medium-catchment-area service level (AMEND TO REFLECT HOW THE
LEVELS OF SERVICE ARE DEFINED IN THE MASTER PLAN –SEE PP 18
AND 19) by continuing to provide services offered at the community centres.
32. Increase efforts to promote and host activities to create community hubs at regional
facilities.
Proposed wording:
32. Increase efforts to promote and host activities to create community hubs at regional
(DELETE WORD) facilities.
63
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 17
33. Provide more indoor-sports programs in local gymnasiums on weekdays and weekends for
children, youth, and adults and for group activities for those with special needs.
Proposed wording:
33. Provide (DELETE WORD) Work with the SD 46 and other partners to provide more
indoor-sports programs in local gymnasiums on weekdays and weekends for children, youth,
and adults and for group activities for those with special needs.
34. Conduct a detailed review of current program offerings to resolve stated programming
concerns and barriers to participation.
Proposed wording:
34. Conduct a detailed review of current program offerings to resolve stated (DELETE
WORD) programming concerns and barriers to participation.
35. Continue to facilitate opportunities at youth centres. No Change
36. Deliver the regional service level by supporting and promoting regional- wide? special
events and family events throughout the year. No Change
37. Fine-tune current services to meet the regional service level by providing, facilitating,
and/or promoting a region-wide outdoor-recreation program consisting of excursions, skill
development, and outdoor-education programs. No Change
Interest Areas
38. Facilitate walking clubs, and offer outdoor-education classes on safety, equipment, and
nature interpretation. No Change
39. Offer outdoor day camps and summer camps at local parks.
Proposed wording:
39. Offer Facilitate outdoor day camps and summer camps at local parks.
40. Promote the health benefits of those outdoor activities that the community already does
more than three times a week (e.g., dog walking, running, jogging, walking, hiking, biking,
and field sports) to motivate more frequent activity or those who are inactive. No
Change
41. Promote the health benefits of those indoor activities that the community tends to do more
than three times a week (e.g., fitness classes, cardio workouts in the weight room, and
swimming) to motivate more frequent activity and those who are inactive. No Change
42. Build a comprehensive health and wellness package. (ENSURE THIS TERM IS
UNDERSTOOD)
64
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 18
43. Facilitate and promote more special events throughout the year, and in particular family-
oriented events in regional facilities and parks. Provide support to special events, and
advocate inclusivity by making sure the events accommodate those with mobility challenges.
No Change
44. Provide support to special events, and advocate inclusivity by making sure the events
accommodate those with mobility challenges.
Proposed wording:
44. Provide (DELETE WORD) Support to special events, and advocate inclusivity by making
sure the events accommodate those with mobility challenges.
NEXT MEETING
Continuation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Review Tuesday July 10, 2012 at 4:00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT 8:00 P.M.
65
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 5, 2012
TO: Community Services Committee – July 12, 2012
FROM: Sam Adams, Parks Planning Coordinator
Paul Fenwick, General Manager Community Services
RE: Dakota Ridge Groomer Repairs
RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Community Services Committee receives the Dakota Ridge Groomer Repair Report from the Parks Planning Coordinator and General Manager; AND THAT the Board amends the Financial Plan to include $40,220 from the Bear Creek Hydro project monies and $6,150 from taxation 2013 if necessary to repair the piston bully. BACKGROUND In January 2006, the SCRD purchased a Piston Bully 100 (PB 100) for grooming ski trails on Dakota Ridge. Over the last two years repair costs for the Piston Bully have grown with more frequent breakdowns. This report addresses repairing the machinery for 2012/2013 ski season and a future report will outline other options (2013-14). The grooming machine packs snow, levels/forms the trails, and creates tracks for skate and classic skiing. This is relatively heavy duty work due to large amounts of wet snow. Problems with the unit have included cracks needing welding, bearings failures and component failures. The Piston Bully has had breakdowns beyond the norm expected for a machine with 1500 hours on it. Possible reasons include: frequency and amount of heavy wet snow; not having a heated facility on the ski hill to store the machine (creates ice build up on the equipment); hilly terrain with lots of tight corners; multiple operators (volunteers are trained and more training is planned); and normal wear on parts. We currently owe $101,000 for the PB 100. There is 4 years left on the debt repayment schedule. The unit has a trade in value ($85,000) however the SCRD does not have the capacity to look at upgrading to a larger machine at this time.
66
O
DISCUSSION Estimated Costs for 2012 Repair and Funding Proposal Item Estimated Cost Amount over 2012 Repair Budget in Function 680 $ 8,642 Estimated Cost to Repair Piston Bully 100 $30,000 Contingency (tax, transport, unknown other repairs) 20%
$ 7,729
Total $46,370 Funding Sources Amount Bear Creek Funding Agreement $ 40,220 2013 Taxation from Function 680 $ 6,150 Total $ 46,370 There is $40,220 remaining of the Bear Creek funding agreement monies which could be used for these repairs. The remaining $6,150 could be covered by taxation from the 2013 budget. In addition to the repairs staff will implement a plan to prolong the lifecycle of this important piece of machinery:
• Groom the trails with multiple corners less or not at all; • Decrease the number of groomers; • Increase training for groomers; • Increase snowmobile grooming where possible
Options to be considered for a future report include a larger machine and more use of smaller machines (ATV) or a combination of those options. The above future steps are based on discussions with Mt. Washington, Whistler Olympic Park, SCRD Fleet Maintenance and Piston Bully Canada (June 2012). More than one supplier makes larger machines. Costs could include extra storage costs. Hence an AAP would be worthy of future discussion. N:\Parks Administration\5820 Parks Reports & Statistics\5820-20 Reports & Statistics\Committee Reports\2012 Dakota Piston Bully Repair Report-July-5-2012 final.doc
67
SUNSHINE COAST POLICING COMMITTEE
June 25, 2012
MINUTES FROM THE SUNSHINE COAST POLICING COMMITTEE HELD AT THE SCRD OFFICES, 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, BC. PRESENT: (Voting Members) SCRD Director, District of Sechelt Alice Lutes, Chair SCRD Director. Town of Gibsons Gerry Tretick SCRD Director Area A Frank Mauro SCRD Director Area B, SCRD Chair Garry Nohr SCRD Director, Area D Donna Shugar SCRD Director, Area E Lorne Lewis, Vice Chair SCRD Director, Area F Lee Turnbull Sechelt Citizens on Patrol Ruth McLarty SC Youth Awareness Greg Russell ALSO PRESENT: Alternate Director, Area F Joyce Clegg Emergency Program Coordinator Bill Elsner RCMP S/Sgt.Herb Berdahl Speedwatch John Hird SCRD Admin. Assistant Lynda Edstrom Press - CKAY Sean Eckford Press - Coast Reporter Ben Ingrim _____________________________________________________________________________
CALL TO ORDER 9:00 AM
Introductions were made.
AGENDA
The agenda for the meeting was accepted as amended to add the following:
1. Youth Action and Awareness Committee minutes of May 25, 2012. 2. Letter from UBCM regarding RCMP Contract Issues. 3. Letter from Minister of Justice and Attorney General regarding Provincial Police Service Agreement’s 70/30 cost share. 4. RCMP Crime Statistics for May 2012.
68
P
MINUTES Recommendation No. 1 Minutes
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the minutes of the meeting held April 30, 2012 be received.
CORRESPONDENCE
Recommendation No. 2 Youth Action and Awareness Committee minutes
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the Sunshine Coast Youth Action and Awareness minutes of April 30, 2012 and May 25, 2012 be received.
Recommendation No. 3 RCMP Contract Questions and Answers
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the correspondence from UBCM regarding the RCMP Contract Questions and Answers be received.
Recommendation No. 4 RCMP Contract
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the correspondence from UBCM regarding the RCMP Contract Issues be received.
Recommendation No. 5 RCMP Contract - UBCM Workshop
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that staff forward a letter to UBCM requesting a workshop on the RCMP Contract at UBCM;
AND THAT this recommendation be forwarded to the June 28, 2012 Board meeting for adoption.
Recommendation No. 6 Police Services Update
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the correspondence from the City of Richmond regarding Police Services Update be received.
Recommendation No. 7 Provincial Police Service Agreement
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the correspondence from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General regarding the inclusion of integrated teams under the Provincial Police Service Agreement 70/30 cost share be received.
REPORTS
Recommendation No. 8 Illegal Dumping
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the referral from the May 24, 2012 Board meeting be received for discussion.
69
What role does the RCMP play in illegal dumping and how can this problem be mitigated? The SCRD has mapped many illegal dump sites on the coast. The RCMP noted that unless individuals are caught in the act it is impossible to prosecute. There was a suggestion to look at provisions under the Environmental Act.
Recommendation No. 9 Illegal Dumping
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that a letter be sent to the Minister of Environment requesting a dialogue to discuss the issue of illegal dumping on the Sunshine Coast and other regional districts;
AND THAT this recommendation be forwarded to the June 28, 2012 Board meeting for adoption.
Recommendation No. 10 Illegal Dumping - UBCM Resolution
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that staff prepare a resolution to UBCM stating that the SCRD is unsatisfied with enforcement for illegal dumping on crown land on the Sunshine Coast;
AND THAT this recommendation and the resolution to UBCM be forwarded to the June 28, 2012 Board meeting for adoption.
Recommendation No. 11 Illegal Dumping - Meeting at UBCM
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that staff arrange a meeting with the Minister of Environment at UBCM on the topic of illegal dumping and enforcement;
AND THAT this recommendation be forwarded to the June 28, 2012 Board meeting for adoption.
Recommendation No. 12 Monthly Crime Statistics
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the RCMP Monthly Crime Statistics for April and May 2012 be received.
Recommendation No. 13 RCMP Monthly Report
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that the RCMP Monthly report be received.
• A copy of the RCMP Monthly Report was distributed at the meeting.
Recommendation No. 14 Short Term Rentals
The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that a letter be forwarded to the RCMP regarding short term rentals.
70
Bill Elsner thanked the RCMP for participating at the RCMSAR memorial on June 17th.
Greg Russell thanked the RCMP for appointing Kevin Shepherd as the RCMP Youth Liaison Officer.
Greg also thanked the RCMP for attending the Roberts Creek Elementary School Aboriginal Day.
NEXT MEETINGS
The meetings for 2012 are scheduled for: September 10 and October 29 at 9:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT 10:15 a.m.
71
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 3rd, 2012 TO: Community Services Committee July 12th, 2012 FROM: Peter Longhi, Chief Building Inspector and Bylaw Manager
RE: Update on Provincial White Papers on a Modern Regulatory System
RECOMMENDATION THAT the Community Services Committee receive this report from the Chief Building Inspector for information on Updating the Provincial White Paper on a Modern Building Regulatory System and Mandatory Certification of Building Officials, AND THAT the Community Services Committee recommend to the Board that the Board submit a written response to the UBCM recommendations surrounding the Draft Policy White Paper on Modernization of the Regulatory System and Certification of Building Officials. BACKGROUND Attached is the UBCM Policy Paper, summary response and recommendations to the Province of BC regarding the Modernization Strategy and Certification of Building Officials. Since the Barrett Commission recommendations of the early nineteen nineties came into being, (regarding leaky condos and who should take responsibility for these disasters), much discussion has taken place at the Provincial level involving a Modernization Strategy for the Building Regulatory System. Some things have been developed over the years to help mitigate the trappings of the past construction techniques with a view to bring a higher level of quality and accountability to stakeholders in the building regulatory system. Examples of what has been accomplished by the Province to date are:
• Registered Professionals are now mandated through the BC Building Code to supply letters of assurance for design and construction for all Part Three Buildings, and some single family residential buildings where required.
• Builders are now required to be licensed through the Home Owners Protection office and offer warranties under the 2-7-10 warranty program in concert with the Home Owners Protection Office, an agency of the Provincial Government established in 1998.
• Much public information on Building systems and care and maintenance of all buildings in the form of brochures, extensive guides, seminars and builder workshops has taken place and remains ongoing in the form of bulletins and workshops.
72
Q
• Building envelope design is now regulated as part of the BC Building Code requirements, extending even to residential homes, to help mitigate a multitude of environmental concerns potentially causing damage to structures.
As of late, the Regulatory Authority’s and Registered Professional’s construction monitoring practices will now be subject to some scrutiny to the extent of the Provincial desire to apply uniform building regulations to all buildings constructed in the Province of BC, have uniform interpretation of the Building Code throughout the Province and have mandatory training and mandatory certification of staff involved in the regulatory side of the business. The Building Officials Association of British Columbia, (BOABC), has for decades taken a pro-active approach to training of their members in code interpretation, competency and delivery as well as certification of their members within the BOABC standards. They, as an association, have been working closely with the Province to deliver training on new Building Code iterations Province wide for every code cycle since 1985. The BOABC is governed by a Provincial Act, (similar to the Structural Engineers and Geoscientists Act and the Architects Act), is a certified and provincially recognized training body, has a continuing professional development program, registers certifies its members and has a disciplinary function within its membership. The BOABC however does not yet have a “right to practice” as the two other professional associations possess. Not every Local Government in the Province has staff certified by BOABC in their roster, nor have those staff received any training on BC Building Code requirements. This represents a great concern to the Province as their intent is to strive for uniform interpretation, application and delivery of the BC Building Code Province wide. The Provincial Government is considering, as one of its options in the overall strategy, a program of mandatory certification at a provincial level for Building Officials in its current Modernization Strategy in line with these long term goals goal after reviewing recommendations and outcomes of the Barrett Commission. This strategy is meant to streamline the regulatory process, improve consistency in interpretation and application of codes, and bring the industry as a whole to a new level of accountability to the public. The Province in this modernization strategy would propose, among other things, they be the sole authority to adopt standards, issue interpretations on the BC Building Code and eventually phase out portions of individual local government bylaws that regulate construction requirements over and above the BC Codes throughout the Province in an effort to standardize the application of building regulations. They would work of course with individual jurisdictions where unique situations or needs occur.
73
Staff have some concerns associated with Provincial roll out of such proposals without sufficient detail as to how these critical changes may take place:
• Delays associated to obtaining timely interpretations from the Province for construction projects applied for, and those projects that experience problems while under construction with respect to alternative solutions or new product approvals.
• Audits of construction projects conducted by the Province while under construction to determine code compliance and the costs associated to this.
• Cost of implementation, administering and sustaining a program at the Provincial level and what could be passed on to the consumer at the building department counter by way of additional fees and levies.
• Mandatory certification of Building Officials, various other trades such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and finishing trades at the Provincial level.
• How existing staff in the regulatory environment are affected, specific changes to job descriptions, the impact on future recruitment requirements and costs associated to these.
There are a number of Provincial proposals made available to industry participants and the general public for commentary. These documents can be viewed by visiting the website posted here at http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/building The Province is also considering a proposal submitted by the BOABC offering to be the lead agency to train and regulate, (as well as certify to a predetermined Provincial standard), a Provincial program of mandatory certification of all those involved in the regulatory business, (i.e. the Building Inspector and those who may regulate construction or inspect buildings for Building Code compliance). Particulars of the proposed standard are still being discussed among stakeholders and the province. Decisions on what the final outcome might look like have not been made, although there is a draft on the BC government website. As there are a number of proposals contemplated, each will advance at different times for Ministerial approval based on their own unique timeliness and complexity. This timeline itself has the potential to cause industry wide confusion. SCRD staff and many other local government jurisdictions throughout BC are in general support of uniform application of safety regulations throughout the Province, however how and when this achieved and what additional costs to the present systems in place remains to be seen, needs to be reviewed before implementation, and should be discussed with each local government. These issues are high on the priority list when discussions take place with the various stakeholders. The Regional Permits and License Committee, one of these stakeholders, is a group of lower mainland Building Department Managers, (the SCRD Building Department is an
74
active member), who are actively taking part in direct discussions with Trudy Rotgans, Executive Director of Building and Safety Standards Branch, as she is also a member of this group. For the Committee’s information, attached is a UBCM Policy Paper articulating in greater detail the issues generally touched on in this report. Recommendations: Staff recommend the following:
1. That a letter be sent by the SCRD Board to UBCM indicating support of the recommendations contained the UBCM Policy Paper,
2. And that in addition to the above, articulate a further recommendation that local
governments take a active role in the reviewing of all amendments proposed by the Minister responsible before advancing any legislative changes related to the these Provincial initiatives.
Respectfully submitted; Peter Longhi
75
ubcm.ca
MEMBER RELEASE June 28, 2012
TO: Chief Administrative Officer; Director of Planning; Building Inspector
FROM: UBCM Secretariat
RE: Draft Policy Paper: Modernizing Building Code Safety Regulations
Request for Review
Attached is a draft policy paper entitled “Modernizing Building Code Safety Regulations” that UBCM is proposing to take forward to the 2012 UBCM Convention for consideration. UBCM would ask for senior staff assistance in reviewing the draft policy paper by providing comments and any background information on the issues. UBCM would appreciate copies of any reports that you may have prepared for your Council on this matter or documents that may have been developed for staff. We wish to ensure that the report accurately reflects the issues that local government may have with the provincial proposal to modernize the building regulatory system. Please submit your comments and background materials by email to [email protected] by July 17, 2012. UBCM Contact
If you have any questions regarding this communication please contact: Ken Vance Senior Policy Advisor Email: [email protected] Tel: 604-270-8226 ext. 114
76
TO: UBCM Members FROM: UBCM Executive DATE: September 26, 2012 RE: Modernizing Building Code Safety
Regulations
POLICY PAPER
# 1
2012 CONVENTION
1. DECISION REQUEST That the UBCM members approve the recommendations outlined in response to the provincial proposal to modernize the building regulatory system. 2. BACKGROUND Over the last 25 years, the Province of British Columbia has undertaken a number of different reviews on the building regulatory system, with incremental changes pursued through each. In 2004, a modernization strategy was established but was not implemented, as government priorities shifted to focus on “greening” the Building Code and mid-rise (6 storey) wood-frame construction provisions. The Province is responsible for developing and maintaining the BC Building Code, which sets the standards for the province’s building regulatory system. Local governments are able to adopt the Building Code through their bylaws and are responsible to administer, interpret and enforce the Code. Local governments must decide whether they want to enforce the Code and how to enforce the Code. In 2007 the Building and Safety Policy Branch which is part of the Office of Housing and Construction Standards consulted with over 300 people – owners, developers, designers, builders and trades, local governments, the insurance sector and consumers – about the enforcement of the BC Building Code as part of its Modernization Strategy. The Building and Safety Policy Branch during discussions with stakeholders heard about the following problems:
• existing defects in buildings – some buildings with significant defects; • shortage of skilled labour; • lack of or limited code enforcement – some jurisdictions have cut back or
discontinued plan review and building inspection and some rural areas have no regime for regulating construction;
• lack of consistency and predictability – plan review and inspection can be very different from one jurisdiction to another; and
• lack of coordination – building officials, fire officials, safety officers and warranty company inspectors may be poorly coordinated.
77
Modern Building Safety Regulations
2
Some of the key concerns raised by local governments at these consultation sessions were:
• liability – need to address joint and several, need to narrow the ‘duty of care’ local government has when currently inspecting buildings, some local governments indicated that they may withdraw from code enforcement to reduce their chances of being sued if claims are made for building defects;
• need to ensure competency of builders; • lack of capacity – technical expertise; some local governments just do not have
the staff and/or resources to enforce the code effectively, especially with the increasing complexity of design and technology of large buildings;
• lack of resources – staff, cost to expand building inspection role; • shortage of qualified building inspectors.
3. CURRENT STATUS The Building and Safety Standards Branch has released two white papers:
• “A Modern Building Regulatory System” • “Certification of Local Government Building Officials”
The provincial government is proposing that it be given the sole authority to adopt building standards and ensure that the standards are the same throughout the province. To implement this measure the Province is requesting that local governments review their bylaws and remove any ‘technical building standards’ that do not conform to the provincial standards. The white paper proposes to give the Minister the authority to override any local government bylaw that the Province determines goes beyond the ‘technical building standards’ established. The Province is also proposing to:
• implement random third-party audits of local government approvals and administrative practices related to building decisions;
• expand its capacity to provide Code interpretations, provide evaluations of alternative solutions, and establish a registry of acceptable building products and assemblies;
• establish mandatory training requirements for building inspectors; and • introduce a new levy on the value of construction as part of the local government
permit process – the levy would be collected by local government and remitted to the Province to pay for the new changes.
In 2011 the Office of Housing and Construction Standards undertook an online survey focused on code compliance and code administration. It is an anecdotal survey of potential problems and/or issues that those involved in the process may have. A total of 300 people responded, the majority were architects, engineers and technicians that work for or are employed by the building industry, a total of 40 or more building inspectors also responded to the survey.
78
Modern Building Safety Regulations
3
The industry stakeholders indicated that the major building regulatory concerns were the following:
• inconsistent Code interpretation by local government – complicates development and construction and is a major cause of increased costs to business;
• local government building standards that go beyond the Code – complicates development and construction and can create delays and increase costs;
• lack of centralized decision making on Code matters – results in wide variation in decisions and can result in local government decisions not to approve new technologies and products (due to risk aversion);
• poor compliance with code provisions – such as fire protection in some high-rise residential, commercial and other large complex buildings; and
• lack of skills or Code knowledge – contributes to poor quality construction and poor compliance with Code provisions.
In 2012 the Office of Housing and Construction Standards undertook a second survey that focused on the issues outlined in the two white papers. A total of 500 people responded, the survey was directed at architects, engineers and technicians, and local government, a total of 220 local government representatives responded to the survey this included 140 building inspectors, 18 administrators, 8 elected officials and a number of others. The provincial government is proposing the following measures:
• Uniform Building Code – giving the Province sole authority to adopt building standards and ensure that the standards are the same throughout the province. The Province is requesting that local governments review their bylaws and remove any ‘technical building standards’ that go beyond what is required in the provincial Building Code. The Province has suggested it would have a transition period to achieve uniformity with the provincial standards and that the Minister would then have the power to declare any local government bylaw or measure that was viewed to go beyond the Building Code as null and void;
• Code Interpretations – Province will expand its capacity to provide credible, non-binding interpretations at Code users requests and will issue binding interpretations (directives) on topics of concern to Code users;
• Alternative Solutions – Province will establish an Alternative Solution and Product Evaluation Body to assist local governments in evaluation of alternative solutions, develop a guide to alternative solutions and local governments uncertain about the acceptability of alternative solutions could refer submissions to this body of expertise;
• Products and Assemblies – the Province would establish a registry of acceptable products and assemblies throughout the province;
• Third-Party Random Audits – provide information on the level of Code compliance and the effectiveness of the Code administration. The Province has suggested that:
Initially, audits would focus on high-risk aspects of complex (Part 3) building design and construction, establishing a baseline for Code compliance. Audits would pinpoint areas of non-compliance and ineffective administrative processes
79
Modern Building Safety Regulations
4
and help develop targeted measures to address them. Subsequently, audits would be used to selectively monitor the system and measure its performance.
• Online Portal – one window online permit application to begin a development project – including all Provincial permits required and ultimately extending to permits of participating local governments;
• Stakeholder Advisory Body – creation of a provincially appointed advisory body to advise on matters related to the building regulatory system;
• Qualification Requirements – the Province is proposing to introduce minimum qualification requirements for residential builders of four units or less; and
• Financial Costs – the Province has suggested that the proposal could be funded by a levy on construction. The levy could either be a percentage of cost of construction or a flat rate and would be collected when the building permit is issued. User fees would also be considered to cover part of the costs of alternative solutions and product evaluations.
The Province is proposing a system of mandatory certification of building officials, including continuing professional development. The Province is partnering with the Building Officials’ Association of BC (BOABC) to deliver the program. This proposal would:
• require all building officials employed by local governments to meet qualifications and obtain certification from the BOABC;
• limit local governments to employing only certified individuals as building officials; and
• limit the functions that building officials could perform to their level of certification.
Three levels of certification are proposed:
• Level 1 – one and two family dwellings; • Level 2 – small buildings regulated under Part 9 of the Code with a footprint of
not more than 600 m and not more than 3 storeys; and • Level 3 – larger and more complex buildings regulated under Part 3 of the Code.
The time frame for implementing the new measures is not clear at this point and the process for further input is not known. It would appear that it could be the fall of 2012 or the spring of 2013. 4. DISCUSSION The Province is proposing to change how the building approval process will work in the future. Under the Provincial proposal any discussions related to ‘technical building standards’ will be shifted from the community level to the provincial level. The current proposal raises some issues, in the following areas:
• local autonomy ‘one size fits all approach’: concern that the proposed changes might undermine local government efforts to respond to community needs;
80
Modern Building Safety Regulations
5
• third party audits: concern as to the intent of the audit process and the impact it might have on local government, such as a requirement in the future to implement mandatory building inspections;
• liability – need to address local government concerns regarding “joint and several liability”;
• building inspection standards – need to understand the training costs to local government of meeting mandatory standards and how this could impact the availability of building inspectors;
• financial costs – concern about the impact of the new “provincial building tax” levy on development and the cost of reviewing local government bylaws to ensure that they do not contain “technical building standards” which would be in contravention of the new provincial mandate.
Outlined below is a discussion of each of the issues identified and local government concerns related to them. a) Local Autonomy – “One Size Fits All Solution” The Province is proposing that it have the sole authority to adopt building standards. Under this proposal the Minister would have the authority to determine whether or not a local government bylaw dealt with ‘technical building standards’ that fall under the Building Code. Local government bylaws that dealt with “technical building standards” would be need to be changed or would be declared invalid. Under the Community Charter, the Concurrent Authority provision requires that local governments consult with the Province before establishing bylaws that regulate building construction. It has also meant that the Province needs to consult with local government before taking action in this area. This is different to a number of other provinces in Canada where the provincial government has the sole authority to adopt building standards without having to work with their local governments. The Community Charter has created the framework for partnership between local government and the province and this would be eliminated under the new initiative. Local government would be concerned about the elimination of all local government building regulatory bylaws, as outlined in the provincial proposal. This change would limit local governments flexibility in responding to specific community needs. As one local government pointed out:
Many local government jurisdictions have pursued local bylaws to address specific community needs, as well as to respond to important issues where the provincial government was unable to find a solution that could be applied uniformly across the province. For example, the establishment of supplementary fire sprinkler system requirements were developed locally to address needs, without the necessity of having requirements forced on all other areas that do not have those same needs or objectives. This local approach, also allows for a response to an issue that may not be a current or future provincial priority.
Local governments look at a broad range of community amenities in their Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw to address neighbourhood issues. To meet
81
Modern Building Safety Regulations
6
community objectives local governments have requested that local builders undertake measures that may in some cases be considered “technical building standards” that go beyond what is identified in the Building Code. Outlined below are examples of some community objectives that have been addressed in this way:
• Protection of seniors through the use of fall protection in bathrooms; • Protection of families from fire hazards through the use of sprinklers in new
houses; • Protection of young children from accidental drowning by requiring fencing
around swimming pools; • Protection of buildings to reduce the risk from wildfires – requirements that
specific construction materials be used in homes to minimize wildfire risks and avoid wildfire issues like those that took place in Kelowna and other areas of the province;
• Measures to increase the sustainability of local communities by implementing ‘green building standards’ – requirements for LEED Gold standards in constructing new building offices; and
• Measures to enhance community safety – crime prevention measures to enhance safety around buildings and in public spaces.
Local government concern is that the measures proposed by the Province may limit local governments ability to use these tools in the future to address community objectives and in some cases may prevent local government from using these types of planning tools at all to respond to neighbourhood issues. Other agencies have also raised concerns in this area. For example, the BC Fire Chiefs Association has indicated its opposition to the Province’s Building Code strategy. The Fire Chiefs Association is concerned is that it would limit local governments ability to implement a sprinkler protection program in local communities. Local government also has concerns about the impact of the provincial proposal on construction projects that are being constructed in different phases. For example, it could mean that the first stage of development would have sprinklers or fall protection for seniors and the remaining stages would not as the Minister would have determined that they were “technical building standards” and the requirements are inconsistent with a uniform Building Code. In addition, local government would have concerns that the new process may create potential conflict, uncertainty and delays in the building approval process. The Province has only provided limited information as to what it means by “technical building standard” and where local government bylaws might conflict with the new policy being proposed. The Province would need to provide more detailed information as to its intentions in this area and a detailed list of what “technical building standards” would be included under its proposal so as to ensure that local government bylaws did not conflict with it. This information is also needed to fully understand the scope of the provincial initiative and to ensure a full understanding of its implications. The provincial proposal could also create uncertainty as to who is responsible for making decisions about building construction at the local level and what type of
82
Modern Building Safety Regulations
7
decisions can be made. The outcome could mean increasing delays in the construction process as everyone waits for a decision from Victoria as to what “technical building standards” mean and who has jurisdiction to issue permits and/or approve construction. At the present time, the Building Code provides scope for interpretation and there currently is some give and take in the field around the use of construction techniques, the removal of this flexibility could have unforeseen consequences. The Provincial proposal would appear to centralize building construction decisions at the provincial level. Local government in general has not supported a “one size fits all” approach to building development decisions. This process would remove local governments ability to respond to neighbourhood needs, cause delays in the approval of construction projects, as seeking provincial code interpretations could prove time consuming, and would not meet the day-to-day needs of the industry. b) Third Party Audits – Mandatory Building Inspection The proposal is to conduct 60 audits of building projects that involved complex building design and construction. The provincial paper suggests that these audits are necessary to ensure the safety of public buildings and to ensure uniform building standards across the province. The audit process would be designed to include a review of the role of local government officials and registered professionals in the administration of the Code processes. The results of the audit would be used to determine if further changes are required to the Code administration process and to establish a baseline for future action. In the past, the Province when discussing a third party audit process for building inspection has linked it to a larger plan to implement a mandatory building inspection program. The audit program, in that case, was intended to ensure that local government met provincial objectives in its building inspection program. A third party audit process could be useful in assisting local government in delivering better service to the public. However, their needs to be clear objectives for the audit process to work and it is not clear what the intended purpose of the provincial proposal for a third party audit is at this time. Currently, the implementation of code administration and compliance processes is under the sole discretion of local government. The level of detail and involvement of local government is set by each jurisdiction in relation to local need, resources and interests. It is not clear how a provincial audit process might be established to ensure that local objectives were being met in the most efficient and effective manner. If the intent of the Province is to implement a mandatory bylaw inspection program in the future then there should be consultation on this issue. However, before such a measure is implemented there are a number of practical issues that need to be considered when looking at the application of province wide building standards and the use of third party audits. A number of these points were raised in the UBCM discussion paper entitled “Enforcement of the BC Building Code and Related Issues” that was endorsed at the 2007 UBCM Convention:
83
Modern Building Safety Regulations
8
• Consistency – need to ensure consistent interpretation of the Code on a province wide basis and that the focus should be on the outcome of the building regulation, namely the construction of safe buildings and not on the consistent implementation of a province wide building permit application process.
• Competency – need to ensure an ongoing partnership between the development industry, local government and the Province. Competent building trades reduce the amount of oversight that is required on a construction site and ensure that safe buildings are constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code. It is important that each partner understand the role that they play in the process and the responsibility they have in making the process work.
A further justification in the provincial proposal for implementing an audit requirement is a concern that a public safety issue may exist in relation to complex buildings (Part 3 Buildings under the Code). The proposal does not provide any details as to the extent of the safety issue with respect to complex buildings and it is not clear how reviewing local government administrative practices would fix this problem. Local governments in the majority of cases rely on professional architects and engineers to review the plans for complex buildings and to indicate whether or not they meet Building Code standards. The link between the safety concern and the need for an audit process is further obscured by the fact that the City of Vancouver is exempt from the measures being proposed by the Province and a large number of the complex buildings constructed in the province are located in Vancouver. c) Liability Issues The provincial proposal does not mention the liability issue. However, the liability issue is a significant concern to local government. Local government continues to take on risk when making decisions with respect to the building projects. The Province has taken some significant steps in addressing local government liability issues with recent amendments to the Limitations Act. However, there is still the need to address the issue of “joint and several liability” which would require amendments to the Negligence Act. The issue of “joint and several liability” will continue to be a concern to local government when approving the design and construction of buildings and undertaking inspections. As one local government described the problem:
Under joint and several liability, any one defendant found responsible for even a small degree of fault can be called upon by the successful plaintiff to pay 100% of the damages. In a typical defective building case, such as a leaky condo, defendants would include the architect, the builder, the consultants and the subcontractors and the municipality. All of the private sector defendants are capable of insulating themselves from judgments through numbered companies, minimal insurance, bankruptcy etc. whereas the municipality has essentially unlimited deep pockets and exists in perpetuity. If a court finds that negligent municipal inspections were responsible for 5% of the damages, the municipality can be called upon to pay 100% of the damages if the other defendants have no ability to pay.
84
Modern Building Safety Regulations
9
It is the unfairness of the principle of joint and several liability in defective building cases which has been driving municipalities away from building code enforcement […].
UBCM has long advocated the reform of joint and several liability. The failure to acknowledge this concern is generally seen as a shortcoming in the process. In response to a discussion paper in 2002 on Civil Liability by the Attorney General, UBCM made the following recommendations related to the principle behind liability and the issue of joint and several liability:
A Fundamental Principle That civil liability reforms should be guided by the fundamental principle that individuals and organizations should be responsible for the consequences of their actions, not for the actions of others; and their liability should be commensurate with their degree of responsibility. Joint & Several Liability That the concept of joint and several liability for property damage and economic loss is inappropriate in a modern society and should be abolished. That joint and several liability be replaced by a system of pure several or proportionate liability (such as now exists in cases of contributory liability) under which defendants are responsible only to the degree to which they contributed to the loss.
The liability issue has had a major impact on how local governments have dealt with building inspection as was pointed out in the UBCM discussion paper entitled “Enforcement of the BC Building Code and Related Issues” that was endorsed at the 2007 UBCM Convention:
• Liability – local governments have been withdrawing from Building Code enforcement because they face a liability burden disproportionate to their actual responsibility for defective buildings.
• Alternative Solutions – currently local governments have sole decision-making authority and a major deterrent to accepting alternatives for local governments is liability.
d) Building Inspection Standards The provincial government has proposed to deal with this issue in two ways:
• administrative process to provide more direction in the building inspection process – interpretative bulletins, alternative solutions panel, etc.
• mandatory training requirements for Building Inspectors and the requirement that a Building Inspector be a member of the Building Officials Association of BC (BOABC).
85
Modern Building Safety Regulations
10
The Province has proposed to provide more information to assist in the decision-making process related to building construction and local government has supported the following measures in the past:
• Code Interpretations – the Province will expand its capacity to provide credible, non-binding interpretations at Code users requests and will issue binding interpretations (directives) on topics of concern to Code users;
• Alternative Solutions and Product Evaluation – the Province would establish a guide to alternative solutions and a registry of acceptable products and assemblies throughout the province;
• Online Portal – one window online permit application to begin a development project – including all provincial permits required and ultimately extending to permits of participating local governments.
i. Code Interpretations The Province amended the Community Charter in 2008 to allow it to issue binding interpretations of the Building Code. However, the Province has not implemented this authority to this point. The establishment of approved interpretations at the provincial level would be of assistance to all local governments. The collection of these interpretations at the provincial level would provide a valuable resource to facilitate permit issuance and resolution of construction issues in the long term. ii. Alternative Solutions & Product Evaluation At the present time, compliance of the Building Code can be achieved by either following the prescriptive requirements in the Code or by proposing alternative solutions that meet the intent of the Building Code. Specific building products and assemblies that are developed to meet the intent of the Building Code are required to be tested and listed by a recognized testing/certification agency, such as the Underwriter Laboratory of Canada (UCL) or Canadian Construction Materials Centre Association (CSA). This process ensures building safety while allowing for the development and application of technologies that can decrease costs and allow for the introduction of alternate solutions to meet Building Code requirements. However, at the present time each jurisdiction must consider and determine whether to accept an alternate solution that requires some level of expertise and multiple evaluations across jurisdictions. The creation of a provincial body to evaluate alternate solutions and new building products and the establishment of a registry of approved alternate solutions would assist local governments and builders. Provincial review and acceptance of new building products and assemblies would remove the requirement to review alternate solutions at the local level and enable alternate solutions to be shared or transferred between jurisdictions. A provincial process would reduce the time and cost of industry in achieving certification of new products, the resources needed by local government to review new products and local government liability that may occur when accepting the use of alternative solutions.
86
Modern Building Safety Regulations
11
iii. Mandatory Training Standards The proposal by the Province to require mandatory certification of building officials, would assist local government in promoting safer builders and potentially reduce its liability. In general, the development of common qualifications and training standards would benefit the regulatory system. The mandatory certification of building officials, however, will create some potential issues for local government in meeting the objective. The Province will need to carefully consider how the certification process will be implemented and support it with the necessary resources to achieve the desired outcome. The implementation of these new measures will raise some concerns with respect to the status of existing staff and how these staff will be treated under this new process if they do not obtain the necessary certification. The Province will need to address how these employment and contract issues will be dealt with when moving forward. The new requirements will also impact the ability of local government to find and recruit certified staff to meet the demands of the construction industry for service. The requirements for certification will result in a reduction of the pool of potential employees that will be available to local government to provide service. There is currently a general shortage of qualified building inspectors in the province. Local governments outside of the Lower Mainland are having difficulty in finding qualified officials who wish to work in their area and have been forced to hire people qualified in the building trades in order to maintain the building inspection function, which would not meet the new standards being proposed. In the case of local governments in the Lower Mainland, it may hinder the ability of local governments to hire part-time plan checkers and inspectors to provide coverage during peak work load periods or to provide coverage in response to retirements, sick, vacation or other work availability issues. The proposal will add additional costs to both local governments and/or individuals in meeting the new certification requirements. Costs associated with the certification process are approximately $500 to obtain each of the Level 1 and Level 2, and $2,100 for level 3; $448 for annual membership in the BOABC. Other costs associated with the training, include travel and accommodation costs for those outside the Lower Mainland, courses through BCIT and other institutions, and on-going professional development. The Municipal Insurance Association (MIA) has indicated its support for the proposed mandatory building inspection program outlined by the Province. The MIA has suggested that it may be able to assist small communities in training bylaw inspectors through its Risk Management Grant program. The MIA feels that this initiative may help reduce the number of cases related to building inspections and may assist in reducing its overall liability in this area. It would also appear that provincial support for the implementation of the certification program is required to ensure its success. Financial assistance from the Province to
87
Modern Building Safety Regulations
12
offset the new costs, at the local government and individual level, from the application of the certification proposal would appear to be a key component to making sure that the desired outcome is achieved. e) Financial Costs The Province is proposing that a new “provincial building tax” be introduced. It is not clear whether this new tax would be a percentage of construction costs or a flat fee added to the building permit fee that is charged by local government to review and approve building applications. The proposal is for local government to collect the fee on behalf of the provincial government. The proposed approach would appear to raise a number of concerns. The first concern is that it would impose a new levy on the building industry and increase the cost of construction. The second concern is that it would transfer the revenue responsibilities of the provincial government to local government. The third concern is that the process would require a duplication of revenue collection processes across local government, draw on the resources of local government to collect and transfer the funds and add additional layers to the audit and accounting processes required for the collection and remittance of the levy. As a general rule, local government would not support collecting a levy on behalf of the provincial government. The process would appear to be more efficient if the Province funded its role in the building regulatory system directly from provincial sources. 5. CONCLUSION The Community Charter currently provides a framework for a partnership between local government and the Province in the development of building bylaws and there is a need to strengthen this relationship going forward. There is also a need to ensure that the ongoing partnership between the development industry, local government and the Province is maintained. Local government flexibility with respect to building regulations has allowed it to:
• respond to important issues where the provincial government is unable to find a solution that could be applied uniformly across the province; and
• respond to an issue that may not be a current or future provincial priority. Local government ability to meet community objectives in its planning and building approval process has allowed it to respond to neighbourhood needs, such as:
• protection of seniors through the use of fall protection in bathrooms; • protection of families from fire hazards through the use of sprinklers in new
houses; • protection of young children from accidental drowning by requiring fencing
around swimming pools;
88
Modern Building Safety Regulations
13
• protection of buildings to reduce the risk from wildfires – requirements that specific construction materials be used in homes to minimize wildfire risks and avoid wildfire issues like those that took place in Kelowna and other areas of the province;
• measures to increase the sustainability of local communities by implementing ‘green building standards’ – requirements for LEED Gold standards in constructing new building offices; and
• measures to enhance community safety – crime prevention measures to enhance safety around buildings and in public spaces.
Liability remains an ongoing issue for local government and plays a major role in how it deals with building inspection matters. There needs to be further discussion around the liability issue and more specifically around ways to address the issue of “joint and several liability” which continues to be a concern for local government when approving building permits. The development of common qualifications and training standards would assist local government in the building inspection process. However, the Province and local government will need to work together around the certification process and support it with the necessary resources. There is a need for further discussion around a number of issues related to the certification process and the general shortage of qualified inspectors. Finally, the paper identifies the need for the Province to provide the resources needed to implement a number of the changes proposed. Both financial and staff resources will be needed to ensure that the Province can provide an interpretation code, a guide for alternative solutions, a registry of acceptable products, and assist local government in meeting the new training standards that are required. There also needs to be discussion around some of the financial aspects of the proposed changes, such as the “provincial levy” on construction costs and the impact this might have on the construction industry and on local government. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS a) UBCM request that the Province work with local government to strengthen the
current partnership in the building approval process and request that no changes be made to the Community Charter.
b) UBCM request that local governments continue to have the flexibility to address
neighbourhood issues and the ability to implement measures too:
• protect seniors through the use of fall protection in bathrooms; • protect families from fire hazards through the use of sprinklers in new houses; • protect young children from accidental drowning by requiring fencing around
swimming pools; • reduce the risk from wildfires by requiring that specific construction materials be
used in homes to minimize wildfire risks and avoid wildfire problems;
89
Modern Building Safety Regulations
14
• increase the sustainability of local communities by implementing ‘green building standards’ – requirements for LEED Gold standards in constructing new building offices; and
• enhance community safety by requiring crime prevention measures to be implemented around buildings and in public spaces.
c) UBCM request that the implementation of code administration and compliance
processes continue to be at the sole discretion of local government and that a third party audit process not be implemented.
d) UBCM request that the Negligence Act be amended to address the issue of ‘joint and
several liability’. UBCM would propose the following recommendations related to the principle behind liability and the issue of joint and several liability:
i. A Fundamental Principle
That civil liability reforms should be guided by the fundamental principle that individuals and organizations should be responsible for the consequences of their actions, not for the actions of others; and their liability should be commensurate with their degree of responsibility.
ii. Joint & Several Liability
That the concept of joint and several liability for property damage and economic loss is inappropriate in a modern society and should be abolished. That joint and several liability be replaced by a system of pure several or proportionate liability (such as now exists in cases of contributory liability) under which defendants are responsible only to the degree to which they contributed to the loss.
e) UBCM request that the Province implement the following measures:
• Code Interpretations – Province provide credible, non-binding interpretations at Code users requests and issue binding interpretations (directives) on topics of concern to Code users;
• Alternative Solutions and Product Evaluation – Province establish a guide to alternative solutions and a registry of acceptable products and assemblies throughout the province;
• Online Portal – One window online permit application to begin a development project.
f) UBCM support the need for qualified building inspectors and request that the
Province work with local government to address the following implementation concerns – employment and contract issues, the reduction in the number of potential employees available to local government to provide service, and the shortage in qualified inspectors.
g) UBCM request that the Province provide financial assistance for training and other
related costs to implement the new program, particularly for smaller communities.
90
Modern Building Safety Regulations
15
h) UBCM request that if the Province introduces a new provincial levy on construction costs that it collect the levy directly from the construction industry.
i) UBCM request that the Province provide the resources, both financial and staff,
needed, to ensure that it can provide an interpretation Code, a guide for alternative solutions, and a registry of acceptable products.
91
92
R
Sunshine Coast Bike Parking Survey
June 16, 2012
Prepared by: Jody Schick
529 Gower Point Road Gibsons, BC
608-886-7023 [email protected]
93
S
Introduction Transportation Choices Sunshine Coast (TraC) and the SCRD were the recipients of 43 bike racks from Reliance Foundry. TraC created a survey to gather information from a broad spectrum of Sunshine Coast residents about where better bike parking is needed. SCRD accepted TraC’s offer to participate in the survey and use its results to guide placement of their bike racks. TraC agreed to provide a results summary to the SCRD. We have also included a list of recommended rack locations based on several premises: to benefit the most cyclists and to disperse racks throughout the region. TraC recognizes that the SCRD may base its rack placement on other criteria.
Survey Methods
Timing and Notification TraC developed an online survey open for comment over a 2-month period starting March 20th. A Coast Reporter article described the project and invited coast residents to participate. Email invitations were sent out to Bike to Work Week team leaders, cycling contacts and via a broad range of Sunshine Coast artist, government and business list servers.
Survey Questions The opening page of the survey included a description of the project’s scope, goals and instructions. This included a brief description of the type of locations that would benefit from the type of bike racks donated including:
• Absence of bike racks or places to lock a bike. • Bicycles are left out of view or a distance from the owner (stores, trailhead). • High turnover rate (grocery stores, café’s, community buildings). • Likely destination for someone on a bike.
The first series of survey questions was meant to gather information about the respondent’s travel patterns: trip origin, destination and number of cyclist in the household. The next two sections asked “what locations are in the greatest need of more bike racks” for areas under SCRD control, first, then second, through out the other areas of the Sunshine Coast. Respondents were to rank each location on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘no need’ through to ‘huge need’. We included a list of all SCRD buildings, fields, parks beach accesses and trail heads. Respondents were able to list other locations that were missed in our list. These were then added to the list so subsequent participants could rank them as well.
94
Analysis We calculated the average score for each location. This represents the average ‘need’ for more bike racks at each location using the equation 1. It is important to note that the number of answers to a question does not affect the average score. So a location that was given a rank of 4 out of 5 by 10 respondents would have the same average score as a location where 50 individuals all gave it a score of 4 out of 5. For the sake of simplicity, we did not include measures of precision but we caution against basing decision on small differences between the average scores.
Equation 1. Average value = sum of scores / number of responses to question
Results
Travel Habits 90 Sunshine Coast residents responded to the survey. Most were from the District of Sechelt, Roberts Creek and the Town of Gibsons but there was representation from every electoral area through the Sunshine Coast (Table 1). Overall, respondents travel mainly to destinations within their immediate community (differing from electoral area). Not surprisingly, those in the Town of Gibson and the District of Sechelt had the highest within-community trips, as they are the main regional centers and the communities immediately surrounding them had higher portions of trips into the regional centers.
Table 1. Summary of respondents’ travel patterns
95
Bike Rack Location Ranking for SCRD Locations Table 2 lists the score on a 5-point scale for each SCRD location included in the survey (1 – low need, to 5 – high need). Surprisingly, the location that participants thought was in greatest need of more bike parking already has two bike racks, each designed to hold 4 bikes (Gibsons Recreation Centre). This was very different than for the Sechelt Recreation Center, with a similar bike parking capacity, which received relatively low support for more racks. We did not ask for reasons for the ranking but several respondents emailed that the existing racks didn’t allow enough space between bicycles both within a rack or between them.
Generally, the number of responses for each location was correlated with its average score, indicating that people tended to rate a location if they thought it needed more bike parking. Also, there were very few low scores assigned resulting in only one location with a mean score slightly below the midpoint of 2.5 out of 5. Does this signal a general need for more bike racks at all locations or a reluctance of respondents to assign low rankings? The consequence is that there is little difference in the average score for many of the locations making rack allocation decisions slightly more difficult.
96
Table 2. List of SCRD facilities and lands included in the online survey. Respondents were asked to rank the need for more bike racks on a scale of ‘No Need’ (1) to Huge Need (5). The Number of Respondents indicates the number responses for a given location.
Bike Rack Assignment Table 2 lists our recommended number of bike racks to add to each location given that there are only 25 racks to distribute and that each rack will secure 2 bikes at a time. Assignment was based on whether racks were already present, the expected number of bicycle visitors, alternatives available for locking a bike and average score. It is apparent that more racks are needed as many locations were left with no racks. Several racks could be reassigned if the current dissatisfaction with bike parking at the Gibsons Recreation Center is resolved using the existing bike racks.
No rack is recommended for Sprockids Mountain Bike Park even though it received a relatively high score as there are many alternatives for securing a bike including usable trees, road barriers, sign posts and hiding a bike in the woods.
97
Beach accesses were not included in a preliminary list of locations targeted for the 25 racks. This survey highlights the publics desire for more racks at these locations. The number of racks assigned to these locations is a bare minimum. As most of the 25 racks are a ‘bolt-down’ type, the cement pad should be built to accommodate additional racks as funds become available.
98
Sechelt Youth Centre
There were 106 drop-ins for the month of May, compared to 68 in April 2012.
Programs
- Youth Food Bank - Tuesday Night cooking program - Wednesday Resume workshop - Thursday Movie Night - Outdoor Activities
Connections/Partnerships The following are connections made in the past month: Youth Outreach – Youth Outreach Team Leader Daanish, has made the Centre a routine stop Friday Nights. He is now set up Fridays at the centre for his Documentary he is currently working on with Youth on the Sunshine coast Aboriginal Mental Health Support Worker – Janet Mulligan is a frequent face at the Centre, reaching out to the Aboriginal Youth at the Centre and offering support. Natural Health Food Program - Baili Clarke continues to do an amazing job with our Tuesday night cooking program. Baili is currently putting together recipe books for the Youth to use for reference to continue working on their cooking skills. Successes Drug and Alcohol - Drug and Alcohol continue to not be an issue within the Centre. The Youth and Staff have had conversations on these subjects. With prevention, risks and harm reduction discussed. Outdoor activities - with warmer weather on the rise, we have headed outside within our community to hang out and play games. Youth also have discussed summer activities that they would like to see organized. Summer Plans Centre on the hunt for a permanent home - We have been given notice that we must leave our current location by the end of July. We are in dialogue with the School District hoping to find a location on the Sechelt Learning Centre campus. In June Program Coordinator and Staff will be planning an “out and about in community” mobile summer program enabling us to connect with youth where they are as well as planning field trips. This will give us great practice in using social media as a way of connecting with youth.
99
T
SCRD Recreation Area A April to June 2012
PROGRAM CLASS HOURS
LOCATION DATES # OF SESSIONS
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
TOTAL PARTICIPANT
HOURS
Sewing for Kids- Level 2 8 PHCS Apr 18-May 9 4 4 32 Sewing for Adults - Level 2 8 PHCS Apr 11-May 2 4 3 24 C.F.S.C 11 PHCS June 8 & 9 2 5 55 Restricted Firearms 3 PHCS Jun-09 1 2 6 C.O.R.E 17 PHSS June 22- 24 3 4 68 Art for Kids "Mash UP" 9 PHCS May 8-June 12 6 5 45 Windows 7 Level 1 6 PHCS April 24 & 26 2 3 18 Windows 7 Level 2 6 PHCS May 1 & 3 2 5 30 Windows 7 Level 3 6 PHCS May 8 & 10 2 3 18 Dog Obedience Session 1 6 PHCS April 12- May 3 4 5 30 Dog Obedience Session 2 6 PHCS May 10-31 4 8 48 Dog Obedience Session 3 6 PHCS June 7-28 4 8 48 Drop-In Sewing 10 PHCS May 23 & Jun 6 2 7 18 Friday Night Youth Night 3 Pool & PHSS Jun-08 1 30 90 Totals 105 41 92 530 Drop-In Hockey 14 PHSS Gym April-May 7 53 Drop-In Soccer 18 PHSS Gym April-May 9 139 Drop-In Volleyball 9 PHSS Gym April-May 3 9 Drop-In Rugby 10.5 MPES Field April-May 7 62 Totals 51.5 26 263 Cancelled Programs Kindersoc Guitar Adults & Kids Rugby Clinic
100
U
PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Art for Kids- “Mash-Up” – Primary & Intermediate Both the Primary and Intermediate classes were initially postponed due to a lack of enrolment. There was a conflict with the Intermediates and basketball so only a couple of kids were able to enrol. The classes were postponed and combined to be offered successfully in May. The participants created some great sketches, paintings and clay creatures. Status- Running May 8 to June 12 Participants- 5 Location- HLC Sewing for Kids- Level 2 Sewing lessons, instructed by Nancy Enns ran successfully for another session. Participants enjoyed learning new skills to continue their sewing knowledge. The class was postponed a week while the logistics of combining a couple of new students with a couple of returning students was sorted out. An additional week was included in this session as the projects required more time. Each child completed a plastic bag holder and took on a larger more complicated shoulder bag. Status- Ran April 18 to May 9 Participants- 4 Location- HLC Sewing for Adults- Level 2 Nancy Enns provided an additional session of sewing classes to the keen students. This group of adults is very enthusiastic. The course was 4 weeks and the students worked on a much larger clothing project. Pajamas- the bottoms first and top if they chose, the group is interested in continuing some drop-in classes in order to complete the tasks and obtain some assistance from the instructor. Status- Ran April 11 to May 2 Participants- 3 Location- HLC
Windows 7- Intro, Levels 1, 2, & 3
This program was offered as individual courses, or as a 3 course package deal. We combined the Intro and Level 1 this time around. There were some challenges with the computer program this time especially in the diversity of prior knowledge of the group. There was a broad range from very beginner to novice. As a result the instructor, Sharon Crawford, received a mix of feedback for the course. Some participants needed more specific questions answered that were not part of the beginner curriculum while others did not have a computer at home to practice. Those that remained in the class received extra attention and support from the instructor. Status- Ran April 24 to May 10 Participants- Lvl 1= 3 Lvl 2= 5 Lvl 3= 3 Location- HLC
Dog Obedience- Session 1
This successful program, taught by Andrea Richmond, always offers a great mix between basic obedience training, socializing and some agility work. The location is perfect with lots of room to separate the dogs and set up a good working environment. The instructor offers many helpful tips and positive encouragement and support to the group. All family members and other family dogs are encouraged to take part in the sessions. Status- Ran April 12 – May 3 Participants- 5 Location- MPES Field & Gym (if raining)
101
Dog Obedience- Session 2 Session 2 repeats some of the same basics for new participants while returning participants receive more advanced techniques and fine tuning of the basics. The instructor, Andrea Richmond, continues to offer safe and effective obedience and agility training. Status- Running May 10-May 31 Participants- 9 Location- MPES Field & Gym (if raining)
Dog Obedience- Session 3
Session 3 were all returning participants who worked on more advanced techniques and agility course handling. The instructor, Andrea Richmond, is planning to highlight this group and their accomplishments at the Fall Faire in October. Status- Running June 7-June 28 Participants- 8 Location- MPES Field & Gym (if raining)
Drop-in Rugby
This new program, facilitated by Dominic and Cyrus Foster was slow to start but once off the ground it continues to grow weekly with a very dedicated group of Grade 4-7 year old boys attending. The need for positive mentoring and role-modeling for these youth in Pender Harbour is great and the instructors are successfully supporting them. Due to the restricted extra-curricular activities in the schools, many youth are looking for other alternatives and the drop-in sports are filling this need. Status- 6 weeks, April 17 to May 29 Participants- 5-10 weekly Location-MPES Field
Drop-in Indoor Soccer
This program has continued to grow and foster new mentoring and positive role-modeling for the youth of Pender Harbour. Michele Mocellin supervises the drop-in indoor soccer for senior boys and adults in the Pender Harbour Secondary School Gym. There are a growing number of girls who now attend and many more male senior youth. This has been the most highly attended sports night and was a great addition to the services offered this year. Status- Running for April & May Participants- 100+ Location-PHSS Gym
Drop-in Floor Hockey
Drop-in Floor Hockey continued to grow during the spring time with a dedicated group of youth and an increase in the attendance of fathers. Joel Fafard was away for a month, but the program continued with Nigel Cook stepping in to keep the sport going. The youth have really enjoyed the hockey. It has engaged the male youth while providing positive mentorship and an essential athletic outlet. Status- Running for April & May Participants- 40+ Location- PHSS Gym
Drop-in Volleyball
Michelle Silvey has been supervising the drop-in volleyball since January at Pender Harbour Secondary School Gym. This program has experienced a smaller turnout than in previous years. The regulars are still enjoying the time but sometimes it is difficult to have a real game. Volleyball will wrap up prior to the end of May due to lack of participation. Status-Ran from January to beginning of May Participants- 20+ Location-PHSS Gym
102
C.F.S.C- Canadian Firearms Safety Course There are always people looking to get licenced and the instructor is very willing and open to adding in classes to accommodate if enough students enrol. A couple of participants also took part in the Restricted Licence, a 3 hour session. Status- Ran June 8 & 9 Participants- 5 and 2 for restricted Location- HLC C.O.R.E. This popular course has been a staple in the community for several years as many outdoor enthusiasts continue to partake. The enrolment was lower as this session was added in response to community interest. Status- Ran June 22-24 Participants-4 Location- HLC
Cancelled/Postponed Programs Guitar Lessons- Novice Beginner for Kids & Adults Guitar Lessons, offered by instructed by Roland Maltais, a new instructor continuing to grow his enthusiasm for guitar and music with both children and adults in our community. Due to lack of enrolment both age group classes were cancelled. A couple of kids expressed interest and are having private lessons.
Kindersoc Kindersoc was unfortunately cancelled due to lack of enrolment. A few parents after the start date expressed an interest but the instructor was not available due to changes in her current employment. Rugby Clinic- Kids Rugby BC was to come up and host a one day clinic for students at both MPES and PHSS. 30 students ranging from Grade 3-10 were interested in the clinic but unfortunately the facilitator had to cancel suddenly and will not be able to reschedule until the Fall.
103
104
V
105