March 5, 2018 Date of Report: March 15, 2018 Open Regular ... · remit to Metro Vancouver, ensuring all waste generators contribute to the regional waste management system regardless

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY

Board Report

Date of Report:

Date & Type of Meeting:Author:

Subject:File:

March 5, 2018March 15, 2018 Open Regular Board Meeting

AmyWilson, Resource Recovery Manager

METRO VANCOUVER WASTE FLOW MANAGEMENT BYLAW12-6200-01

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on Metro Vancouver's solid waste regulatory

framework and request the RDCK support Metro Vancouver's Commercial Waste Hauler Licencing bylaw

by sending a letter to the Honorable George Heyman, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change

Strategy.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS

i On January 18, 2018, Metro Vancouver wrote to the RDCK seeking support for a proposed Commercial

I Hauler Licensing bylaw. The GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017 is part of

I an update to Metro Vancouver's solid waste regulatory framework that will help increase recycling in the

I region and ensure regional transfer stations are funded in an equitable manner. The solid waste

regulatory framework consists of:

• The Generator Levy, effective January 1, 2018, ensures that all waste generators in the region

contribute to the fixed costs of the region's transfer station network and solid waste planning. A fee

($40/tonne in 2018) is collected for all mixed municipal solid waste generated in Metro Vancouver,which is incorporated into the tipping fee if brought to any Metro Vancouver or City of Vancouver

waste disposal facility. If brought to another disposal facility, the haulers will collect the levy andremit to Metro Vancouver, ensuring all waste generators contribute to the regional waste

management system regardless of where the waste is disposed.

• Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing will help increase waste diversion by ensuring that recycling

systems are in place wherever garbage is collected in the region and assists with the collection of the

Generator Levy. The licensing would apply to all commercial haulers collecting over 10 tonnes per

month using mechanically unloading vehicles. It will require haulers to ensure recycling containers

are provided at all multi-family and commercial/institutional buildings, which typically have low

recycling rates.

• Bylaw 181 regulates private sector facilities that manage municipal solid waste and recyclable

materials. Updates help encourage recycling and ensure level playing field.

Metro Vancouver has requested the RDCKsend a letter of support of their Commercial Waste Hauler

Licencing bylaw to the Honorable George Heyman, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change

Strategy.

A similar request came from Metro Vancouver in 2014 for approval of Solid Waste and Recyclable

Material Regulatory Bylaw No.280, 2013, which was not approved by the Ministry. Therefore, Metro

Vancouver underwent significant stakeholder consultation and revised their solid waste regulatory

272

Metro Vancouver Waste Flow Management Bylaw

March 15, 2018 Page 2

framework. The catalyst for these efforts is that an increasing amount of solid waste is bypassing regional

Metro Vancouver facilities and is being hauled to adjacent jurisdictions for disposal. This is problematic

for the following reasons:

• Impacts the ability to achieve diversion targets set out in the Metro Vancouver Integrated Solid

Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP).

• Impacts the ability to ensure cost-effective equitable solid waste disposal services for all regional

users.

• Undermines local recycling businesses.

• Causes higher costs for all other users of the system.

• May allow some to avoid disposal bans and prohibitions that encourage waste diversion.

Waste flow management is an important issue for many regional districts in British Columbia. The ability

to effectively manage waste flow is critical if we are to provide the long term infrastructure and services

necessary to reach waste reduction targets. Further, to fully realize the benefit of waste diversion policies

local government must have the ability to regulate the flow of municipal waste and recyclable materials

as provided for in the Environmental Management Act.

If waste haulers continue to bypass regional facilities it will directly impact Metro Vancouver's ability to

achieve the waste diversion targets set out in the ISWMP. Bylaw 307 has had three readings and requires

Ministry approval prior to adoption. At this time, Metro Vancouver is seeking support for Bylaw 307 and

ultimately the implementation of their solid waste regulatory framework in order to: reduce waste,

increase recycling, ensure current and future infrastructure is equitably funded and modernize the way

private facilities are regulated.

SECTION 3: DETAILED ANALYSIS

a. Financial Considerations - Cost and

Included in Financial Plan: D

Debt Bylaw Required: D

YES

YES

Resource Allocations:

S NO

S NO

Financial Plan Amendment:

Public/Gov't Approvals req'd:

D

^YES

YES

a NO

S NO

N/A \

b. Legislative Considerations (Applicable Policies and/or Bylaws):

Metro Vancouver Bylaw No 307 has received three readings but requires Ministerial approval before it

can be implemented. Metro Vancouver is seeking support for this bylaw from other Municipalities and

Regional Districts. ^~ -^

^c. Environmental Considerations:

Metro Vancouver Bylaw 307 supports the 5R's hierarchy of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, Residuals

Management. Instituting a requirement for haulers to collect recycling at all locations waste is collected

will assist in Metro Vancouver meeting their waste diversion targets of 80% diversion by 2020.

Additionally, if waste haulers bypass regional facilities this greatly impacts Metro Vancouver's ability to

achieve these targets. The RDCK acknowledges that achieving waste diversion targets is a significant goal

and supports Metro Vancouver's efforts to achieve these targets.

273



d. Social Considerations:

If no action is taken and waste haulers continue to bypass regional facilities this impacts Metro

Vancouver's ability to provide cost effective equitable waste disposal services to all residents and

businesses in the region. The RDCK recognizes that fair and equitable waste disposal to all residents and

businesses is important.

e. Economic Considerations:

N/A

f. Communication Considerations:

Metro Vancouver completed a comprehensive engagement and consultation program on their solid

waste regulatory framework. RDCK staff participated in a webinar put on by Metro Vancouver for

Regional Districts on February 14, 2018 providing details on their process and framework.

If approved by the Board RDCK staff will draft a letter of support Bylaw 307 to be signed by the Chair andforwarded to the Minister, Honorable George Heyman.

g. Staffing/Departmental Workplan Considerations:

N/A

h. Board Strategic Plan/Priorities Considerations:

Waste management is a strategic priority of the RDCK Board.

SECTION 4: OPTIONS & PROS / CONS1) That the Board supports Metro Vancouver's GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw

A/o. 307, 2017 and that staff be authorized to compose a letter of support to the Honorable

George Heyman, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

2) That the Board does not support Metro Vancouver's GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing

Bylaw No. 307, 2017.

SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATION(S)That the Board support Metro Vancouver's GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307,

2017 and to demonstrate this support will send a letter to the.Honorable George Heyman, Minister of the

Environment and Climate Change Strategy to be signed by the Chair.

Respectfully submitted

Signature:

Name:

CONCURRENCE

Chief Administrative OfficerGeneral Manager of Environmental Services

'ilson, Resource Recovery Bylaw

Initials;

^0, ÂTTACHMENTS:Attachment A - Metro Vancouver letter to RDCK

274



Attachment B - Metro Vancouver letter to the Minister

Attachment C - Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, Bylaw No. 307,2017

275

SS metrovancouverSERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FORA LIVABLE REGION

JAN 18 2018

Chair Karen Hamling and Board of DirectorsCentral Kootenay Regional DistrictPO Box 590Nelson/B.C. V1L5R4

ViA EMAIL: [email protected]

Dear Chair Hamling and Board of Directors;

Executive OfficesTel. 604 432-6215 Fax 604 451-6614

•z -ftiiji: CR-12-01

miiis.%ssi?ô»24FILE #

DUC s- . - .... ,* .^: ^ Y. y. w.^-<-- • --' • ;i

REF.ToCÔ.C^t^ ,£>CQ/P°S^3^

? ^ M & S 7^M._ ,,..J.^-^S&^.^-^^s^^'1-^--'^""'

Re: GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017

The purpose of this letter is to request that your Regional District consider writing the Minister ofEnvironment and Climate Change Strategy in support of the GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler^Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017.

At its November 24,2017 regular meeting, the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District (Metro Vancouver) approved the GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing

Bylaw No. 307, 2017 a nd approved forwarding the bylaw to the Minister of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy for approval.

Metro Vancouver's Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing bylaw would help increase waste diversion

by requiring Commercial Waste Haulers in Metro Vancouver to ensure recycling containers are

provided for all multi-famlly and commercial/institutional buildings. The multi-family andcommercial/institutional sectors have lower recycling rates compared to the single family sector

where municipalities typically directly provide waste and recycling services.

Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing would also facilitate the collection of the Generator Levy, which

was approved by the GVS&DD Board on the same date as Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing. The

Generator Levy is now in effect. The Generator Levy ensures all waste generators contribute to the

fixed costs of the region's transfer station network and solid waste planning, which benefit all waste

generators in the region.

The Generator Levy, set at $40 a tonne for 2018, is incorporated into the Tipping Fee at Metro

Vancouver and City of Vancouver disposal facilities and will not affect the total cost of disposal. If

waste is delivered to other facilities, haulers will be required to collect the Generator Levy and remit

it to Metro Vancouver, thus ensuring that all waste generators contribute to the system regardless

of where the waste is ultimately disposed.

23781180

4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H OC6 | 604-432-6200 | metrovancouver.org

Metro Vancouver Regional District ] Greater Vancouver Water District j Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Metro Vancouver Housing Corpora'tion276

Chair Hamling and Board of Directors Central Kootenay Regional DistrictGV5&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017

Page 2 of 2

Enclosed is an infographic describing the Generator Levy, Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing and

updates to Bylaw 181, a bylaw regulating private facilities that manage solid waste and recyctablematerials. Together, Metro Vancouver's regulatory framework updates aim to reduce waste/ increase

recycling, ensure current and future infrastructure is equitably funded and modernize the way private

facilities are regulated,

More information on these regulatory framework updates, including Board reports, consultation

program summaries and letters to the Minister, are available on our website:

www.metrovancouver.org by searching "Hauler Licensing", "Generator Levy" and "Bylaw 181".

Thank you in advance for considering our request to write the Minister of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy in support of GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017.

If you have any questions or if you would like to have a presentation on Metro Vancouver's solid

waste regulatory initiatives, please contact Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services,

by phone at 604-432-6442 or by email at [email protected].

Yours truly,

^Greg M.QOFe/ -1 Malcolm ^rodie

Chair, Metro Vancouver Board Chair Zero Waste Committee

GM/MB/CM/ph

End: Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Regulatory Updates Infographic dated December 2017(Doc #23835759)

23781180

277

VANCOUVER

Various service providers collect waste and recyclables in the region.

NO GENERATOR LEVY GOi£MTOH.i.£VV

Dry Recyclables

Residential andCommercial Organics

Construction andDemolition

Industrial

Agricultural ||

To processors forrecycling and disposal,NO GENERATOR LEVY

Haulers pay TIPPING FEE (which includesdisposal rate plus CHM^tiAron LEVY)

Garbage toMetro Vancouver or

City of Vancouverdisposal facilities

Commercial waste

haulers requirelicense

Garbage to facilites other' than Metro Vancouver

or City of Vancouverdisposal facilities

Haulers remit GUNSRAi'OSUxVYto Metro Vancouver

The Generator Levy ensures

that all waste generators in

the region contribute to the

fixed costs of the region's

transfer station network and

solid waste planning.

Commercial Waste Hauler

licensing ensures that

recycling systems are in

place wherever garbage is

collected in the region;

assists the collection of a

Generator Levy.

8 Y LAW 13i (enacted 1996)

Bylaw 181 regulates private

• sector facilities that manage

municipal solid waste and

recyclable materials.

Updates help encourage

recycling and ensure level

playing field.

Metro Vancouver manages garbage produced by residents and businesses in the Lower Mainland. With a strong

commitment to first reducing the waste we generate and aspiring to recycle 80% of the region's waste by 2020, the

Generator Levy, Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing and updates to Bylaw 181 are important tools to achieve our

zero waste objectives.

Dimmkf M'7

278

n^ metrovancouverSERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

Executive OfficesTel. 604 432-6215 Fax 604 451-6614

File: CR-12-01

Cross Reference File: CR-04-01-SDD

DEC 2 2 2017 Ref: SDD 2017 Nov 24

The Honourable George HeymanMinister of Environment and Climate Change StrategyPO Box 9047 Stn Pov GovtVictoria, BC V8W9E2VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

Dear Minister Heyman:

Re: Request for Approval of GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017

We are writing to seek your approval of the GV5&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No.307, 2017 (Bylaw 307).

At its November 24,2017 regular meeting, the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District ('Metro Vancouver') adopted the following resolution:

That the GV5&DD Board:a) approve implementing a Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing program through a

new Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw;

b) give first, second and third reading to Greater Vancouver Sewerage and DrainageDistrict Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017 and forward itto the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy for approval; and

c) write to Regional Districts around the Province requesting that they write theMinister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy in support of MetroVancouver's Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing program.

This resolution is included in the report titled "GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw"dated November 3, 2017, included as Attachment 1. A certified copy of the resolution is included asAttachment 2, a certified copy of Bylaw 307 is included as Attachment 3 and Commercial WasteHauler Licensing and Generator Levy Consultation Program: Report on Activities and Feedback fromJuly 7, 2017 - November 24, 2017 is included as Attachment 4.

Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan

Metro Vancouver's Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) was approvedby the Minister of Environment in July 2011. We are proud that the Metro Vancouver region has oneof the most comprehensive and successful waste reduction and recycling programs in North America.

23782061

4730 Kingsway, Burnaby.BC, Canada V5HOC6 604^432-6200 | metrovancouver.org

Metro Vancouver Regional District [ Greater Vancouver Water District Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District ] Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation

279

George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change StrategyRequest for Approval of GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017

Page 2 of 6

The ISWRMP targets 70% waste diversion in all municipal solid waste sectors by 2015 and 80% by2020. At the end of 2016, the region had achieved 62% diversion. Enhancing diversion in the multi-family and commercial/institutional sector is critical to achieving diversion targets. The ISWRMPreflects the internationally recognised waste management hierarchy - priority for waste reduction,

then reuse, then recycling, then resource recovery, and last of all, disposal. The ISWRMP prioritises

separating at source as the most effective means of recycling.

The ISWRMP contemplates hauler licensing on page 15:

Metro Vancouver may choose to act to reduce the flow of waste to unauthorized facilities whichmay undermine the waste reduction and diversion goals of this Plan. These flow control initiatives

include but are not limited to:

a Split fee bylaw• Franchising of waste collection services

» Licensina of waste collection service providers

Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing

License threshold. Bylaw 307 would require that all Commercial Waste Haulers collecting more than

10 tonnes per month of municipal solid waste from residential and commercial/institutional sources

using mechanically-unloaded vehicles apply for a Commercial Waste Hauler License. Currently, Metro

Vancouver estimates that less than 50 haulers currently operating within the Metro Vancouver region

would require licenses under the proposed regime. The application and annual license fee for the

Commercial Waste Hauler License would be $100 per company, which equals the estimated

administrative costs of the program.

Recycling Containers. The Commercial Waste Hauler License would require haulers to provide

recycling containers at each of their customer's premises, unless recycling containers are provided

by a third party. Ensuring recycling containers are provided for all multi-family and commercial

generators in the region will bolster source separation practices and will help increase recycling ratesin this sector and level the playing field for waste and recycling collectors around the region. TheGVS&DD has taken this approach because it has the authority to regulate haulers directly under theapplicable legislation. It is also one of the most efficient means to ensure that the multi-family and

commercial sectors, which currently have the lowest diversion rates and are serviced predominantly

by private haulers, have the practical opportunity and a strong incentive to recycle and divert waste.

Record Keeping. Commercial Waste Haulers that deliver all of the residential andcommercial/institutional waste they collect to Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver facilities

would be required to keep records related to waste quantities collected and delivery locations. These

are records typically kept by Commercial Waste Haulers, and no new types of records would be

required. These haulers would provide a declaration annually that all residential andcommercial/institutional waste has been delivered to Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver

facilities. No extra administrative effort will be required other than the effort to complete an annuallicense renewal application (similar to a municipal business license application) and to complete awaste delivery declaration.

280


Page 3 of 6

Supports the Generator Levy. Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing would also support collection ofthe Generator Levy (discussed in detail below). If Commercial Waste Haulers deliver residential andcommercial/institutional waste to facilities other than Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouverfacilities, they will be required to report waste quantities and delivery locations. Hauler licensing willtherefore help ensure that all waste generators in the region contribute to the cost of the publictransfer stations and solid waste planning and thus support services that benefit the entire region.

Generator Levy

At its November 24, 2017 meeting, the Board also approved the Greater Vancouver Sewerage andDrainage District Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 308, 2017(Bylaw 308). Bylaw 308 implements a Generator Levy (referred to as a split fee bylaw in the ISWRMP)by amending the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee and Solid WasteDisposal Regulation Bylaw No. 306 (2018 Tipping Fee Bylaw). Bylaw 308 is effective January 1, 2018and does not require approval of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy becauseit is a bylaw authorized under the GVS&DDAct.

In line with the ISWRMP's recognition of priority for recycling and source separation, there is noGenerator Levy for recyclable materials that are separated out at source. By encouraging source

separation, the bylaw provides incentives and opportunities for recycling and waste reduction, and

encourages innovative practices relating to separation of recyclables and increased diversion.

The Generator Levy has been set at $40/tonne for 2018 and,as set out in the 2018 Tipping Fee Bylaw,is calculated on the basis of the budgeted fixed costs of operating the regional transfer stations andsolid waste planning. The Generator Levy will be a component of the Tipping Fee for waste deliveredto Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver disposal facilities, and will not affect the cost of disposalat those facilities. For waste from residential and commercial/institutional sources delivered tofacilities other than Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver facilities, haulers will be required tocollect the Generator Levy from customers and remit it to Metro Vancouver. The Generator Levy does

not apply to source separated recyclables or construction and demolition waste.

Setting the Generator Levy as part of the Tipping Fee Bylaw is appropriate because, for wastedelivered to Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver disposal facilities, the Generator Levy is acomponent of the Tipping Fee. Additionally, the Generator Levy is expected to grow from $40 toapproximately $50 per tonne over the next five years as waste quantities diminish and new transferstation capital investments are made. The Generator Levy would be reviewed annually at the time

the Tipping Fee Bylaw is amended or replaced.

The Generator Levy ensures that all waste generators contribute to the fixed costs of the region's

transfer stations and solid waste planning. These services benefit all waste generators in the regionthrough a coordinated regional policy approach to waste disposal, waste reduction and recycling andan accessible and convenient transfer station network that encourages recycling through MetroVancouver's Disposal Ban Program and a range of recycling services provided at the transfer stations.

281


Page 4 of 6

In communications leading up to the Board's approval of the Generator Levy, some stakeholders,

including local cement kilns, the Cement Association of Canada, and proponents of mixed waste

recovery systems expressed concern that the Generator Levy may reduce opportunities to develop

innovative ways to extract energy or recyclables from municipal solid waste. We understand their

concern is that their customers would still be liable to pay the Generator Levy on the mixed municipalsolid waste they produce, despite the fact that some of that waste may ultimately be recovered fromthe waste stream. As such, the full financial benefit of diverting waste from disposal would not bepassed on to their customers.

Currently no such municipal solid waste resource recovery operations exist in British Columbia and

only a small number exist within North America. Those systems that do exist are primarily intendedas an alternative to source separation. It is therefore uncertain the extent to which such private

sector systems could potentially reduce waste in the Metro Vancouver region, or whether these

systems would become a barrier to recycling at source. Metro Vancouver is however open to re-

examining the application of the Generator Levy to generators that successfully divert waste throughresource recovery.

Engagement and Consultation

The Board approved initiating consultation on Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing and the Generator

Levy on July 28, 2017. The reports recommending initiating consultation and outlining the proposedregulatory model were posted publicly on July 7, 2017 as part of the July 13, 2017 Zero WasteCommittee agenda.

Highlights of consultation and engagement activities include:

• Launching consultation web pages on July 28, 2017a Notifying initially 400 government, industry and non-profit entities of consultation

opportunities on August 3, 2017.

• Notifying 50 local First Nations

a Providing reminder notifications to 400 stakeholders of upcoming webinar and workshopdates, link to online survey form, feedback and questions contact information, and invitation

to meet in addition to workshop opportunities

• Hosting a consultation webinar and two workshops (in addition to the workshops related tothe Bylaw 181 amendments):

o September 7, 2017: Webinar: 26 participantso September 13, 2017: Evening Workshop: 8 participantso September 21, 2017: Daytime Workshop: 21 participants

9 Notifying 1,500 stakeholders that the October 12, 2017 Zero Waste Committee agenda wasavailable online with instructions on how to apply as a delegation to the Zero WasteCommittee. The additional stakeholders were entities included in the Metro Vancouverrecycling database, Metro Vancouver Recycles,that were notified of the Bylaw 181consultation activities. Commencing in October, notifications were combined.

• Notifying 1,500 stakeholders that the October 27, 2017, GVS&DD Board agenda was availableonline with instructions on how to apply as a delegation to the GV&DD Board

282

George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change StrategyRequest for Approval of GV5&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No, 307, 2017

Page 5 of 6

• Notifying 1,500 stakeholders that the November 9,2017 Zero Waste Committee agenda wasavailable online with instructions on how to apply as a delegation to the Zero WasteCommittee

<» Notifying the public through newspaper advertisements in The Vancouver Sun and TheProvince of the November 9, 2017 Zero Waste Committee agenda with instructions on how

to apply as a delegation® Notifying 1,500 stakeholders that the November 24, 2017 GVS&DD Board agenda was

available online with instructions on how to apply as a delegation

• Notifying the public through newspaper advertisements in The Vancouver Sun and TheProvince of the November 24, 2017 GVS&DD Board agenda with instructions on how to applyas a delegation

The following individuals appeared as delegations to the Zero Waste Committee or Board onCommercial Waste Hauler Licensing:

» October 12, 2017 Zero Waste Committeeo Josh JansenVandoorn(Super Save Group)o Angus Gardner (Belkorp)o Steve Bryan (Waste Management Association of British Columbia)

• November 24, 2017 Boardo Ralph McRae (Revolution Resource Recover Inc. and Revolution Infrastructure Inc.)

o Adam Thomas and Dimitri Pantazopoulos (Waste Connections)

A summary of consultation feedback and Metro Vancouver responses up to September 30,2017 was

reported to the Zero Waste Committee and Board at their October 2017 meetings. Subsequentcorrespondence was provided to the Zero Waste Committee and Board at their November 2017meetings and via the Metro Vancouver Board Network, where appropriate.

Metro Vancouver staff participated in meetings when requested and responded to emails and phonecalls on the proposals from July to November 2017.

Consultation timeline, activities, stakeholder distribution list, reports, correspondence and other

information is included as part of the Generator Levy and Commercial Waste Hauler LicensingConsultation and Engagement Feedback document in Attachment 4.

For your information, we are writing to Regional Districts around the Province to request they express

support for Bylaw 307 as we believe Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing is a tool that could advancesolid waste management around the province and is currently under consideration in some other

regional districts.

In closing, Metro Vancouver is responsible for implementing the ISWRMP, which targets 80%diversion by 2020. Metro Vancouver has one of the most comprehensive and successful waste

reduction and recycling programs in North America. The Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing programand the Generator Levy are important tools in continuing to advance the Region's recycling rates and

283

George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

Request for Approval of GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017

Page 6 of 6

waste diversion goals, and in ensuring that core municipal solid waste disposal services are funded in

a manner that is equitable for all waste generators in the region.

If you have an interest in discussing the proposed Bylaw 307 or the Generator Levy, we would be

happy to meet with you in person. Thank you for your consideration of this important waste

management issue.

Yours truly,

^4-Greg Moore Malcolm Brodie

Chair, Metro Vancouver Board Chair, Zero Waste Committee

GM/MB/CM/ph

ec: Mark Zacharias, Deputy Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

David Morel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection, Ministry of Environment

and Climate Change Strategy

Tessa Graham, Executive Director, Regional Operations Branch, Ministry of Environment and

Climate Change Strategy

AJ Downie, Regional Director, Authorizations - South, Environmental Protection Division,

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

Luc Lachance, Section Head, General Industry / Solid Waste Authorizations - South, Regional

Operations Branch Environment Protection Division, Ministry of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy

Attachments:

1. Report dated November 3, 2017, titled "GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw"(Doc #23585404)

2. Certified Copy of Board Resolution, dated November 24, 2017, for the Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017

3. Certified Copy of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Commercial Waste

Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017, dated November 2, 2017

4. Generator Levy and Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Consultation Program: Report on

Activities and Feedback from July 7, 2017 - November 24, 2017 (Docff 24118972)

23782061

284

metrovancouver section G 1.1SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

To: Zero Waste Committee

From: Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services

Date: November 3,2017 Meeting Date: November 9, 2017

Subject: GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw

RECOMMENDATIONThat the GVS&DD Board:a) approve implementing a Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing program through a new Commercial

Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw;

b) give first, second and third reading to Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017 and forward it to the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy for approval; and

c) write to Regional Districts around the Province requesting that they write the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy in support of Metro Vancouver's Commercial Waste

Hauler Licensing program.

PURPOSEThe purpose of this report is to propose a Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw and propose

forwarding the Commercial Hauler Licensing Bylaw to the Minister of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy for approval.

BACKGROUNDOn October 27, 2017, the GVS&DD Board approved the following recommendation:

That the GVS&DD Board direct staff to prepare bylaws on the Mixed Municipal Solid Waste GeneratorLevy and Commercial Hauler Licensing.

This report brings forward a new Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Commercial

Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017 (Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw) for the

Board's consideration.

This report is being brought forward in parallel with the report dated November 3, 2017, 2017, titled

"Generator Levy Implementation: Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Proposed Bylaw

Changes", containing proposed changes to the 2018 Tipping Fee Bylaw to implement the Generator

Levy. One of the benefits of Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing is to facilitate the collection of the

Generator Levy.

Metro Vancouver consulted with stakeholders on the proposed Generator Levy and Commercial

Waste Hauler Licensing through two meetings and a webinar in September 2017 as well as other

opportunities to submit feedback up to September 30, 2017. The provisions in the proposed

Commercial Hauler Licensing Bylaw consider stakeholder feedback received during the consultation

period.

Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District285

GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing BylawZero Waste Committee Regular Meeting Date: November 9, 2017

Page 2 of 3

COMMERCIAL WASTE HAULER LICENSING BYLAW PROVISIONSThe proposed Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw is attached. The Commercial Waste Hauler

Licensing Bylaw requires the approval of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

The Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw requires that any commercial waste hauler collecting

more than 10 tonnes per month of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste using mechanically unloading

vehicles obtain a Commercial Waste Hauler Licence, to help encourage recycling in multi-family and

commercial/institutional buildings and assist in collecting the Generator Levy. Less than 50 haulers

are expected to require licenses.

The following provisions are contained in the proposed Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw

for the Board's consideration:

• Any commercial waste hauler collecting more than 10 tonnes per month Mixed Municipal

Solid Waste from residential and/or commercial/institutional buildings using mechanically

unloaded vehicles must hold a valid Commercial Waste Hauler Licence;

• The following haulers do not require a Commercial Waste Hauler Licence:

o Haulers that collect only Source Separated Recyclable Material, construction and

demolition waste or both; and

o Municipalities that collect Mixed Municipal Solid Waste from multi-family and/or

commercial/institutional buildings provided that the municipality has a bylaw orpolicy requiring recycling containers to be provided wherever the municipality

collects Mixed Municipal Solid Waste;

• Licensed Haulers must provide or verify the provision of containers for separate collection of

organics and other Recyclable Material from Mixed Municipal Solid Waste. Organics must be

collected separately from other Recyclable Material but other Recyclable Material could be

co-mingled;

• Commercial Waste Hauler Licence fee set at $100 per year per company;

• Licensed Haulers must maintain records of date, time, quantity, facility name/location and

vehicle licence plate number of all loads of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste or Recyclable

Material and submit a quarterly report for Mixed Municipal Solid Waste delivered to facilities

other than Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver disposal facilities; and

• Licensed Haulers must collect and remit the Generator Levy to Metro Vancouver for any

waste delivered to facilities other Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver disposal facilities.

ALTERNATIVE1. That the GVS&DD Board:

a) approve implementing a Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing program through a new

Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw;

b) give first, second and third reading to Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017 and forward it to the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy for approval; and

c) write to Regional Districts around the Province requesting that they write the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy in support of Metro Vancouver's Commercial

Waste Hauler Licensing program.


GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing BylawZero Waste Committee Regular Meeting Date: November 9, 2017

Page 3 of 3

2. That the Zero Waste Committee receive for information the report dated November 3, 2017,

titled "GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw" and provide alternate direction to

staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONSIf the Board approves Alternative 1 and gives third reading to the Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing

Bylaw, staff will forward the proposed Bylaw to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy for approval. If the Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw is approved by the Minister

of Environment and Climate Change Strategy and adopted by the Board, enforcement and

administration resources required to implement the Bylaw are not expected to exceed current

requirements.

If the Board does not approve Alternative 1, there will be a delay implementing Commercial Waste

Hauler Licensing, potentially resulting in reduced future recycling in multi-family and

commercial/institutional buildings as well as potential challenges collecting the Generator Levy.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSIONThe proposed Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw would require that any commercial waste

hauler collecting more than 10 tonnes per month of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste using mechanically

unloading vehicles obtain a Commercial Waste Hauler Licence from Metro Vancouver and provide or

verify the provision of containers for separate collection of organics and other Recyclable Material

from Mixed Municipal Solid Waste. Licensed Haulers must maintain records of all loads of Mixed

Municipal Solid Waste or Recyclable Material and submit a quarterly report for Mixed Municipal Solid

Waste delivered to facilities other than Metro Vancouver and City of Vancouver disposal facilities.

These provisions were outlined in the Zero Waste Committee report dated October 6, 2017, titled

"Generator Levy and Commercial Hauler Licensing Update" which reflect stakeholder feedback

received during the September 2017 consultation period. Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing would

help encourage recycling in multi-family and commercial/institutional buildings and assist in

collecting the Generator Levy.

Staff recommend Alternative 1, that the Board approve implementing a Commercial Waste Hauler

Licensing Bylaw, give first, second and third reading to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage

District Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017 and forward it to the Minister of

Environment and Climate Strategy for approval.

Attachment:

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No.

307, 20.! 7 (Orbit ff 23665859)

23585404


metrovancouverSERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative ServicesTe;. 604-432-6250 Fax. 604-451-5686

Resolution Form

This is to advise that at the November 24, 2017 Regular Meeting, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors considered the following report:

GVS&DD Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw

and passed the following resolution(s):

"That the GVS&DD Board:a) approve implementing a Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing program through

a new Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw;

b) give first, second and third reading to Greater Vancouver Sewerage and

Drainage District Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307, 2017 and

forward it to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy for

approval; and

c) write to Regional Districts around the Province requesting that they write the

Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy in support of Metro

Vancouver's Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing program".

I, Klara Kutakova, hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and

correct copy of a Resolution as finally adopted at the

November 24,2017 Regular meeting of the Greater Vancouver

Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Board of Directors.

Dated at Burnaby, British Columbia, this 1st Day of December, 2017.

K^-L-W

Klara Kutakova, Deputy Corporate Officer

4730 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V51-IOC6 I 6Q4-432-6200 | rnetrovancouver.org

Myiro Vanuouver Regionuf D f;lr(<:-; I Grya'isrVLit-fcu'j'/crWuter Di'KricL | Greater VancOLiVac Sewerage and DramaCjS District | Metro \'ancou'/Lii- Housiny Curp'jr<3tion

288

GREATER VANCOUVER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT

BYLAW NO. 307, 2017

A Bylaw to License Commercial Waste Haulers

WHEREAS:

A. Pursuant to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act (the "Act") the objects of

the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District ("GVS&DD") include the disposal of all

types of waste and the operation and administration of facilities for the disposal of all types of

waste;

B. The GVS&DD is authorized pursuant to section 25(3)(h) and (i) of the Environmental Management

Act to regulate with respect to municipal solid waste and recyclable material, and to require

haulers to hold a hauler licence and to set conditions for the issuance, suspending or cancelling

of a hauler licence;

C. Licensing of waste collection service providers is identified as an initiative in the Integrated Solid

Waste and Resource Management Plan; and

D. In relation to the disposal of solid waste generated within the geographic area of the GVS&DD,

section 7B of the Act empowers the GVS&DD to set levies payable by generators of waste or by

other persons who use the services of a commercial waste hauler based on the quantity, volume,

type or composition of waste generated, and to require haulers to remit that levy to the GVS&DD;

NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District in open meeting

assembled, enacts as follows:

1.0 Citation

1.1 This bylaw may be cited as the "Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Commercial

Waste Hauler Licensing Bylaw No. 307,2017".

2.0 Definitions

2.1 In this Bylaw, terms defined in the Environmental Management Act shall have the meaning set

out therein for the purpose of this bylaw unless otherwise defined in this bylaw. In this bylaw:

"Board" means the board of directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District;

"Client" means a person, a household, a strata corporation, a business, an institution, or any other

generator of waste, who pays a haulerto collect or manage municipal solid waste;

"Construction and Demolition Waste" means refuse that originates from demolition or

construction sources that has not been handled or managed with waste from other sources;

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Commercial Waste Hauler Licensing

Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 1 of 1023658547 289

"Environmental Management Act" means the Environmental Management Act S.B.C. 2003 c. 53;

"Generator Levy" means the levy payable by the generator of municipal solid waste to the

GVS&DD pursuant to the Tipping Fee Bylaw in effect from time to time;

"GVS&DD" means the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District;

"Hauler Licence" means a valid and subsisting licence issued under this bylaw;

"Licence Holder" means the person who is the holder of a valid and subsisting Hauler Licence;

"Manager" means the person appointed as the Solid Waste Manager pursuant to the Greater

Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclable Material

Regulatory Bylaw No. 181, 1996, and includes any person appointed or designated to act in his or

her place;

"Mixed Municipal Solid Waste" means refuse that originates from residential, commercial, or

institutional sources, or any combination of waste or refuse from these sources and other sources,

but does not include Source Separated Recyclable Material or Construction and Demolition

Waste;

"Non-organic Recyclable Material" means recyclable material as defined in the Environmental

Management Act, other than Organic Recyclable Material;

"Organic Recyclable Material" includes packaged or unpackaged food waste, green waste, clean

wood, recyclable paper that has been soiled by or comingled with food residue, compostable

packaging and products, carbon paper, tissue paper, paper napkins or towels or paper that is

covered or infused with wax, or any combination thereof and does not contain more than 5% (by

wet weight) of any other type of refuse;

"Private Facility" means a facility that handles, manages, accepts or disposes of waste that is not

a Regional Facility;

"Regional Facility" means any facility owned or operated by the GVS&DDorthe City of Vancouver,

including any of the facilities listed in Schedule "A", as attached hereto as Schedule "A" and hereby

made part of this bylaw;

"Source Separated Recyclable Material" means:

(i) Organic Recydable Material that has been separated from other recyclable

material and from municipal solid waste, and

(ii) Non-organic Recyclable Material that has been separated from municipal solid

waste,

by the waste generator at the point of generation for the purposes of recycling; and


Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 2 of 1023658547

290

"Tipping Fee Bylaw" means the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Tipping Fee

and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw in effect from time to time, or where no such bylaw

exists, the bylaw in effect from time to time that establishes tipping fees at Regional Facilities.

3.0 Licence Required

3.1 No person shall haul waste within the geographic area oftheGVS&DD unless that person holds a

valid and subsisting Hauler Licence authorizing that activity.

4.0 Exemptions

4.1 Notwithstanding section 3.0 of this bylaw, the following haulers do not require a Licence:

(a) Haulers that collect only Source Separated Recyclable Material, Construction and

Demolition Waste, or both;

(b) Municipalities that collect municipal solid waste from multi-family buildings, commercial

and institutional sectors, or both, provided that the municipality has a bylaw or policy

requiring recycling containers to be provided wherever the municipality collects

municipal solid waste;

(c) AhaulerthatmanageslessthanlOtonnesof Mixed Municipal Solid Waste in every month

of a calendar year; or

(d) A hauler that only uses vehicles that are hand unloaded, with no mechanical assistance.

5.0 Licence Applications

5.1 Every application for a Hauler Licence shall be made to the GVS&DD on the application form

prescribed by the Manager.

6.0 Application Fee

6.1 At the time of making application for a Hauier Licence under this bylaw, an applicant shall pay to

the GVS&DD the non-refundable application fee of $100.

7.0 Applicants

7.1 Every application for a Hauler Licence shall be made by the owner of the vehicle or vehicles used

by the applicant to haul waste, or that person's authorized signatory.

7.2 If there is more than one owner of the vehicle that is the subject matter of a Licence application,

each owner must sign the application or consent to another owner signing the document on their

behalf.


Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 3 of 1023658547 291

8.0 Licence Information Requirements

8.1 All applications for a Hauler Licence shall include the following information:

(a) Company or owner name and contact information;

(b) A list of all vehicles used by the hauler to haul Mixed Municipal Solid Waste, including the

gross vehicle weight and licence plate number of each vehicle;

(c) The anticipated monthly amount of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste hauled by the hauler;

(d) Confirmation that the hauler has provided its clients with containers for each of Organic

Recyclable Materials, Non-Organic Recyclable Materials and Mixed Municipal Solid

Waste, or an explanation of why those containers are not provided in accordance with

sections 12.1 and 12.2 of this bylaw.

9.0 Ucence Issuance

9.1 The Manager shall issue a Hauler Licence to the applicant where a complete application for a

Hauler Licence under this bylaw has been made indicating compliance with all terms of this bylaw,

and the applicant has paid the application fee for the Licence. All future Licences issued to the

same hauler may only be issued as a renewal.

10.0 Term of Licence

10.1 The term of every Hauler Licence will be up to one year and shall expire on March 31 of each

calendar year.

11.0 Licence Renewal

11.1 A Licence Holder may apply to renew its Hauler Licence annually anytime after December 31 but

before March 31 of each calendar year by submitting to the Manager the following:

(a) A completed renewal application in the form prescribed by the Manager, clearly

indicating any changes in licensing information from the previous licence term;

(b) Where the hauler has only delivered Mixed Municipal Solid Waste to Regional Facilities,

and has not delivered any Mixed Municipal Solid Waste to a Private Facility, a declaration

in the form prescribed by the Manager; and

(c) Where the hauler has delivered any Mixed Municipal Solid Waste to a Private Facility, a

copy of the hauler's Quarterly Reports as required pursuant to sections 16.1 and 16.2 of

this bylaw, and a declaration in the form prescribed by the Manager that all Generator

Levy amounts collected by the Hauler up to December 31 of the previous calendar year

have been remitted to the GVS&DD in accordance with the Tipping Fee Bylaw.

11.2 The Manager shall issue a renewal of a Hauler Licence where:


Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 4 of 1023658547

292

(a) the Hauler Licence is in good standing, all fees are up to date, and all Generator Levy

amounts have been remitted pursuant to the Tipping Fee Bylaw;

(b) all the original Licence information is still valid and applicable to the existing operations,

or has been updated in the renewal application;

(c) the reporting requirements applicable to the hauler under this bylaw or any other

enactment have been satisfied; and

(d) the Licence Holder has paid to the GVS&DD a renewal fee of $100.

12.0 Separation of Recvclable Materials

12.1 Every hauler shall provide to each of its clients binsof adequate size for the separate collection of

each of the following:

(a) Non-organic Recyclable Material including, at a minimum, paper and paper products, and

metal, glass and plastic containers;

(b) Organic Recyclable Material; and

(c) Mixed Municipal Solid Waste.

12.2 As a limited exception to section 12.1, where a hauler has verified the provision of any one of the

containers required to be provided under section 12.1 by their client or another hauler, that

hauler is not required to provide that container to its client.

12.3 Every hauler shall manage Non-organic Recyclable Material, Organic Recyclable Material and

Mixed Municipal Solid Waste so as to keep these materials separate from one another at all times.

13.0 Inspection and Weighing of Loads

13.1 Every hauler shall ensure that every load of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste or recyclable material

delivered to a Regional Facility or Private Facility is weighed or otherwise quantified and recorded

upon receipt at the facility and before mixing with any other loads.

14.0 Record of Loads

14.1 Every hauler shall maintain a record of all loads of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste delivered to a

Regional Facility or Private Facility, including the date, time, quantity, facility name, location, and

vehicle licence plate number.

15.0 Record Keeping

15.1 A Licence Holder shall maintain accurate and up-to-date records of all Mixed Municipal Solid

Waste delivered to every Regional Facility and Private Facility, and make those records available


Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 5 of 10

23658547 293

for inspection by request of the Manager or any officer appointed by the Board for the purpose

of enforcing the bylaws of the GVS&DD.

16.0 Quarterlv Report

16.1 Every Licence Holder shall prepare a Q.uarterly Report containing the following:

(a) the quantity (by weight or volume) of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste collected fromgenerators within the geographic area of the GVS&DD on a load by load basis;

(b) the quantity (by weight or volume) of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste collected fromgenerators within the within the geographic area of the GVS&DD and delivered to

Regional Facilities on a load by load basis; and

(c) the quantity (by weight or volume) of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste collected fromgenerators within the geographic area of the GVS&DD and delivered to Private Facilities

or locations other than Regional Facilities on a load by load basis.

16.2 Every Licence Holder shall submit to the Manager the Quarterly Report prepared pursuant to

section 16.0 as follows:

(a) for January 1 to March 31, by April 15 of each calendar year;

(b) for April 1 to June 30, by July 15 of each calendar year;

(c) for July 1 to September 30, by October 15 of each calendar; and

(d) for October 1 to December 31, by January 15 of the following calendar year.

16.3 Where a Licence Holder has only delivered Mixed Municipal Solid Waste to a Regional Facility in

any given quarter, no Quarterly Report is required.

17.0 Powers of Manager

17.1 Without limiting the authority granted to the Manager under this bylaw and other enactments,

the Manager has the following powers:

(a) To prepare and prescribe forms that are to be used for the purposes of this bylaw;

(b) To determine whether a Licence application or Licence renewal is complete;

(c) To request additional information from an applicant where the Manager considers that

the information provided in relation to a Licence application or Licence renewal is

incomplete;

(d) To refuse a Hauler Licence application or Licence renewal on the basis that the application

is incomplete, or where satisfied that the conditions of this bylaw have not been met;


Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 6 of 1023658547 294

(e) To suspend or revoke a Hauler Licence in accordance with this Part;

(f) To impose conditions on a Hauler Licence in accordance with this Part;

(g) To request information from a Licence Holder in relation to compliance with a Licence or

this bylaw; and

(h) To renew a Hauler Licence in accordance with this bylaw.

18.0 Licence Revocation and Suspension

18.1 The Manager may ûspend or revoke a Hauler Licence under this bylaw where the Manager

considers that:

(a) The Licence Holder has contravened this bylaw, or another relevant and applicable bylaw

or enactment;

(b) The Licence Holder has contravened a condition of the Licence;

(c) The Licence was issued on the basis of information submitted by the Licence Holder in

support of the Licence application which was incorrect or misleading in a material way;

or

(d) The Licence Holder has failed or refused to pay a fee or remit a levy required under this

bylaw or a related bylaw.

19.0 Imposition of Conditions in Relation to Suspension or Revocation

19.1 Where the Manager suspends a Licence, it may also impose conditions in relation to compliance

with this bylaw or related enactments, including conditions that:

(a) Shorten the term of a suspension upon compliance with a Hauler Licence or this bylaw;

or

(b) Impose additional monitoring or reporting requirements on a Licence Holder.

19.2 All conditions imposed in relation to a Licence suspension become Licence conditions, and are

enforceable under this bylaw in the same manner as other Licence conditions.

19.3 An applicant may appeal a determination by the Manager to refuse a Licence application or

Licence renewal, to impose conditions on a Licence, or to revoke or suspend a Licence to the

Commissioner.

19.4 The decision of the Manager with respect to any of the above matters is immediately effective

unless or until varied or reversed by the Commissioner on appeal.


Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 7 of 10

23658547 295

20.0 Appeals to the Commissioner

20.1 If the Manager refuses a Hauler Licence application or Hauler Licence renewal, or revokes or

suspends a Hauler Licence, the applicant or Licence Holder may appeal this determination to the

Commissioner by submitting a written request for an appeal to the Manager within 30 days of the

Manager's decision.

20.2 The Commissioner may extend the time for commencing an appeal either before or after the time

for commencement of the appeal has elapsed.

20.3 On an appeal of a decision of the Manager, the Commissioner may consider new information

submitted to the Commissioner by the applicant or Licence Holder, the Manager, an affected

municipality, or other relevant parties, provided that this information is made available to all

interested parties prior to the Commissioner's determination of the appeal.

20.4 On considering an appeal, the Commissioner may:

(a) confirm, reverse or vary the decision appealed from;

(b) refer the matter back to the Manager for reconsideration, as the case may be, with or

without directions; or

(c) make any decision that the Manager could have made and that the Commissioner

considers appropriate in the circumstances.

20.5 At the request of the Manager whose decision is being appealed, the Commissioner shall permit

the Manager to have full party status at the appeal.

21.0 Compliancewith Bylaw and Licence

21.1 No person shall:

(a) Fail to comply with the terms of a Hauler Licence issued under this bylaw;

(b) Deliver Mixed Municipal Solid Waste to a Regional Facility without a Hauler Licence,

unless exempted under section 4.0 of this bylaw;

(c) Manage Mixed Municipal Solid Waste, Organic Recyclable Material or Non-Organic

Recyclable Material contrary to this bylaw;

(d) Prevent or obstruct, or seek or attempt to prevent or obstruct the Manager or another

GVS&DD employee administering or enforcing this bylaw; or

(e) In relation to an application for a Hauler Licence under this bylaw, intentionally submit

false or misleading information.


Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 8 of 1023658547

296

21.2 The Manager, and every officer appointed by the Board for the purpose of enforcing the bylaws

of the GVS&DD, is authorized to enter a site or inspect the contents of a vehicle for the purpose

of enforcing this bylaw and, for this purpose, to exercise all the authority set out in sections

109 and 111 (2) of the Environmental Management Act.

22.0 Offence

22.1 Every person who commits an act that is prohibited by this bylaw commits an offence under this

bylaw is liable on summary conviction to fines of up to $200,000.

22.2 Each day that a violation of this bylaw continues constitutes a separate offence,

23.0 Compliance with Other Laws

23.1 Nothing in this bylaw, including, a Licence under this bylaw, excuses any person from complying

with all other applicable enactments.

24.0 Apptication

24.1 This bylaw applies to all land located within the geographic area of the GVS&DD.

25.0 Date of Effect

25.1 This bylaw comes into force and effect upon adoption.

READ A FIRST TIME thisfcSB!_day ofV^QêXV^G£X^ 2017.

READ A SECOND TIME this'^y^day of ^toOep<^G£jT' , 2017.

READ A THIRD TIME thisÂ^ day of \^Q^f^^QX' , 2017.

APPROVED BY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT this _ day of_, _.

PASSED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this _ day of ., _.

Greg Moore, Chair

Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer


Bylaw No. 307,2017 Page 9 of 1023658547

297

SCHEDULE A

Regional Facilities

Coquitlam Transfer Station located at 1200 United Boulevard, Coquitlam

North Shore Transfer Station located at 30 Riverside Drive, North Vancouver

Surrey Transfer Station located at 9770 192nd Street, Surrey

Langley Residential Transfer Station located at 1070 272 Street, Langley

Maple Ridge Residential Transfer Station located at 10092 236 Street, Maple Ridge

Waste-to-Energy Facility located at 5150 Riverbend Drive, Burnaby

Vancouver South Transfer Station located at 377 West Kent Avenue North, Vancouver

Vancouver Landfill located at 5400 72nd Street, Delta


Bylaw No. 307, 2017 Page 10 of 1023658547

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308


Board Report

Date of Report:

Date & Type of Meeting:Author:

Subject:

File:

March 1, 2018March 15, 2018 Open Regular Board MeetingShari Imada, Environmental Services Coordinator

MOSQUITO CONTROL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A PORTION OFAREA H6030-04

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the progress of the Mosquito Control FeasibilityStudy for a Portion of Area H (area northofVallicantothe south boundary of the Village of Slocan), andto present the Mosquito Control Service Area Assessment and Cost Projection report.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND /ANALYSISA Mosquito Control Feasibility Study for a Portion of Area H is in progress, as a result of two relatedpetitions submitted to the RDCK and the ensuing Board resolution #515/17. The potential area beingstudied include the area north ofVallican as the southern boundary up to the south boundary of theVillage of Slocan as the northern boundary (see map Attachment A).

The highlights from the Mosquito Control Service Area Assessment and Cost Projection report(Attachment B), prepared by Morrow BioScience Ltd. are:

• Two petitions were submitted to the RDCK from the community by residents for and against any

mosquito control activities. There are 504 qualified entries, with 328 on the 'no' petition and 176

on the 'yes' petition. This information aided in initiating the process and in defining the potentialstudy area.

• Morrow BioScience conducted GIS modelling for potential habitat within the Slocan Valley. Thisincluded an analysis of the foreshore gradients, soil moisture levels, and elevation. The results of

the exercise confirmed the petition results for the potential area of study.

• A field assessment took place in late October 2017 using the information gained in the GISmodelling. 32 distinct sites for potential mosquito control activities were determined with a totalarea of 260 hectares, along with a list of landowners along the floodplain who may be directlyimpacted by mosquito control activities.

• Owners of the properties which could contribute significantly to the overall mosquito controldevelopment in the area were contacted and asked if they would be amenable to mosquito

control activities on their property, and if they would allow access to or through their property for

the purposes of mosquito monitoring and control. Of the 60% of the property owners reached (19out of 32), 74% were amenable to the program and would allow access to or through their

property.

• A number of factors were considered when determining potential program costs (see Section 3a

for costing details), including: maximum height of water during mosquito season, river discharge

dynamics, timing and amount of rainfall, and ambient temperature and solar intensity.

• From an operations perspective, Morrow BioScience feels that a control program in the area

309

Mosquito Control Feasibility StudyBoard - March 15, 2018 Page 2

would be extremely feasible and would result in a dramatic reduction in annual mosquito

annoyance. All sites with potential mosquito production can be easily accessed and could be

effectively monitored and treated by ground crews. At high water the area would likely require

aerial treatments.

The next step in this process is to hold a public meeting with the aim to disseminate information on the

potential mosquito control program and to answer questions from community members.

SECTION 3: DETAILED ANALYSIS

a. Financial

Included in

Debt Bylaw

Considerations - Cost and

Financial Plan: S YES

Required: D YES

Resource

D NO

S NO

Allocations:

Financial Plan Amendment: 1

Public/Gov't Approvals req'd: I

a YES

3 YES

DD

NO

NO

The expected contracted services cost to outlay the program has been projected by Morrow BioScience

to cost a probable maximum of $62,000, including the Bti supply and Pest Management Plan costs. The

RDCK's cost to outlay the program is estimated to be an additional 20%, which includes: Environmental

Services and Administration staffing and overhead costs. The total estimated program cost is projected to

be $74,400.

Administration staff determined that the cost of the potential mosquito control service will be$0.396/$1,000 (residential).Therefore, the cost of service for a residential assessment of $350,000 wouldbe $138.60.

b. Legislative Considerations (Applicable Policies and/or Bylaws):

Mosquito Control Services are operated in accordance with the Ministry of Environment approved Pest

Management Plans (PMP). It is likely that the current PMP (2016-2021) for a Portion of Area D (DuncanDam and Pine Ridge areas) could be modified to include a newly defined service area in the Slocan Valley.Public consultation in the affected area would be required for the modified PMP.

c. Environmental Considerations:

Mosquito control is generally achieved through the use of a larval control product Bacillus thuringinensis

israelensis (Bti). Bti is a natural, soil-borne bacterium. The carrier for Bti is corn cob granules. As per

Health Canada, Bti only becomes toxic in the stomachs of mosquitoes and black fly larvae. Because of

this, it does not affect other insects, honeybees, fish, birds or mammals. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency categorizes the risks posed by Bt strains to non-target organisms as minimal to non-

existent.

d. Social Considerations:

A mosquito control program has a potential for public benefit in terms of less mosquito nuisance. As well,

the risk of West Nile virus associated with mosquito bites will be mitigated by mosquito control. Someresidents are concerned of the impact of the mosquito control product Bti on the local environment and

human health.

310

Mosquito Control Feasibility StudyBoard-March 15, 2018 Page 3

e. Economic Considerations:

N/A

f. Communication Considerations:

A public meeting is planned in the Winlaw area in late April to disseminate information on the potential

mosquito control program and to answer any questions.

g. Staffing/Departmental Workplan Considerations:

The potential mosquito control program would be coordinated by Environmental Services staff and

supported by Administration. An allotment of staff time would be required to outlay this program.

h. Board Strategic Plan/Priorities Considerations:

N/A

SECTION 4: OPTIONS & PROS / CONS

N/A

SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATION(S)None at this time.

Respectfully submitted,

Signature:

Name: Shari Imada, Environmental Services Coordinator

CONCURRENCE

General Manager of Environmental Services

Chief Administrative Officer

Initials;

UMJ^

ATTACHMENTS:Attachment A - Potential Mosquito Control Service Area Map

Attachment B - Mosquito Control Service Area Assessment and Cost Projection - RDCK Area 'H' Slocan

River (Winlaw Area), February 9, 2018

311

Box 590, 202 Lakeslde Drive, Nelson, BC V1L5R4Phone: (250) 352-6665 Toll-Free 1-800-268-7325 (BC)

Fax: (250) 352-9300 Internet www.rdck.bc.ca

The mapping information shown are approximate

representations and should only be used for reference

purposes. The Regional District of Central Kootenay is not

responsible for any errors or ommissions on this map.

PROPOSED AREAHMOSQUITO CONTROL AREA

^ Mosquito TreatmentArea

Cadastre

— Streets

Map Scale0 0.75 1.5 4.5

Kilometers

Map Projection: UTM Zone 11 Map Datum: NAD83Date Plotted: Friday, March 02, 2018

N

<

Data SourcesThe following sources of data are updated as changes occur:

Cadasfra! Lot - Surveyed lots/parcels of land;Sources: Crown Land Registry Sen/ices and RDCK

District Lot; Source: Crown Land RegistrySewices, Integrated Cadastral Initiative (ICI) and RDCK

TRIM Data - Planimetry, Unsurveyed Roads, Contours; Source: Ministiy of Water,Lands Air Protection ALR-Agricultural Land Reserve; Source: BC Land Reserve C<Zoning - Rural Land Use, Land Use, Zoning Bylaws, where bylaws are in place; Source: RDCK]

312

Mosquito Control Service Area

Assessment and Cost Projection

RDCKArea'H'

Slocan River (Winlaw area)February 9,2018

Prepared by:Morrow BioScience Ltd.

PO Box 1013,Rossland, BC.

VOG 1YO

313

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES

PETITIONS

GIS MODELLING - HABITAT

FIELD SUMMARY

LANDOWNER SURVEY/CONSENT

OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

FACTORS AFFECTING PROGRAM COSTS

HISTORICAL ASSESSMENTS

WATER LEVELS

FINDINGS

PHONE SURVEY

FEASIBILITy RECOMMENDATIONS

CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS

"NO-TREATMENT" ZONES

PRODUCT SAFETY

PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS

EXPECTED PROGRAM COSTS

APPENDIX I - CIS MODELING OF FLOOD POTENTIAL

APPENDIX 11 - POTENTIAL SITES BASED ON FIELD SURVEY

APPENDIX III - COPIES OF STREAMKEEPER EMAILS fSENTI

APPENDIX IV - AOUABAC LABEL

_3

_3

-4

AA_6

_6

_7

8

_8

_9

_9

12

12

12

13

14

14

15

17

18

19

20

21

314

Table of Figures

Figure 1 A small screen shot showing some of the initial modelling. See Appendix Ifor full maps..................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2 Discharge levels for Slocan River [gage 08NJ013) reporting historic data for2012. [Data source: http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca]......................................................... 10

Figure 3 Discharge levels for Slocan River [gage 08NJ013] reporting historic data for2016. [Data source: http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca]......................................................... 11

Figure 4 Peak flow data from 1925-2017 [Gage 08NJ013) indicates frequent high-water events. This information helps forecast potential costing implications aswell as periodicity of high mosquito annoyance............................................................ 11

List of Tables

Table 1 After the unqualified entries were removed from the petitions we were leftwith 504 signatures as outlined in the table......................................................................5

Table 2 This table summarizes the results of the landowner survey. Note that, ofrespondants who participated, 74% were for the program and 26% wereagainst it (only 19 of the possible 32 landowners were reached). Question 1 and2 elicited the exact results. ........................................................................................................ 7

Table 3 Summary of the responses to Question 3. Note that, of respondents, 89%were non-organic with no plans to attain organic certification.................................. 8

morrowbioscience.com

315

Introduction

The area located along the Slocan River, between the Village of Slocan andPassmore, regularly experiences high levels of mosquito annoyance resulting from

the annual freshet. A number of community members have championed an effort to

develop a mosquito control program for the area. The primary objectives of thisprogram would be to: [1] help make the outdoors more livable in the summer, [2]diminish mosquito annoyance to local livestock, and (3) lessen the impactmosquitoes have on neighboring businesses. [e.g., tourism, agricultural endeavors,

etc.).

Prior to the implementation of a mosquito control program, local citizens haverequested an assessment of potential mosquito development sites. This assessment

has been conducted on behalf of the residents, agriculture, and businesses in the

valley. The goal of this initial assessment is to present a feasible plan to monitor andcontrol mosquitoes. This plan will be used to inform stakeholders in the area beforean elector ascent process is held to determine the local interest in a large-scale

mosquito control program.

Objectives

The objectives of this assessment were to determine the feasibility of a mosquitocontrol program, communicate with residents to determine overall community

support, and develop a cost estimate for varying river levels.

The findings of this assessment will be used to develop a more accurate plan forprogram delivery. Ultimately, the findings of this survey will be presented to theaffected community as a basis for a elector ascent process.

Key Deliverables

• Proposed Boundary,

• Estimated Operations Costs,

• Process Outline,

• Recommendations.

Petitions

Two petitions were started in the community by residents for and against anymosquito control activities. MBL received copies of the petitions from the RDCK anddigitized the contents. Unfortunately, both petitions contained numerousunqualified entries; for example, a simple first name with no contact or addressinformation, or completely illegible entries. As a standard, we only considered


316

entries if they contained at least one of the following: first and last name, or generaladdress, or contact information.

Of the qualified entries, an attempt was made to geocode the contents of bothpetitions. Entries were categorized as follows:

• "No" - the address couldn't be found, as entered, in Google Maps,

• "Possible" - no address, but often includes a PO Box or other generalization,

• "Decent" - doesn't contain a complete address, but can be narrowed down to

a localized area, eg. a road name in the Winlaw area,and

• "Great" - a full street address that can be found in Google Maps.

Table 1 After the unqualified entries were removed from the petitions we were left with 504 signatures

as outlined in the table.

Great

Decent

Possible

No

GrandTotal

NoPetition

198

25

94

11

328

YesPetition

150

7

16

3

176

Total

348

32

110

14

504

The "Great" category were the only addresses used in consideration of the extent of

the study area. The reason that the "Decent" category wasn't used is that many of

the address locations couldn't be narrowed down within a 10 km stretch of road.

It is difficult to glean much from the petitions pertaining to community sentimentand it is difficult to determine if the numbers on the petitions were related to effortsto distribute the petition. We feel that this could have significantly skewed the

participation.

For the reason described above, the petition was useful only in as much as itinitiated this process and assisted us in defining the potential study area. In terms ofthe usefulness in determining the boundaries, it was evident that the communitiesof Vallican and the Village of Slocan were overwhelmingly opposed to mosquitocontrol. Combined with diminished habitat availability it was decided that theboundaries of these communities would serve as study area boundaries,


317

GIS Modelling-Habitat

MBL GIS staff conducted early assessments for potential habitat within the Slocanvalley. An analysis of the foreshore gradients, soil moisture levels, and elevation was

conducted to help focus the activities of the field assessment to areas with the mostpotential to flood during the freshet and hence, produce mosquitoes.

The results of this exercise, combined with the results of the petition assessment,confirmed looking at the area north ofVaIlican up to just south of the Village ofSlocan. A map showing the results of this exercise can be found in Appendix I.

Field summary

The field assessment took place October 21 and 28, 2017.

Barry McLane, GIS manager, developed maps detailing the area described above andthe previous assessment initiative. All sites were then loaded into our mobile datacollection system and assessed in the field. All sites were easily accessible by foot orvehicle along the floodplain1. Each sitewas surveyed by experienced mosquito n^re^lsâj!.sêmlho^t°^^^

initial modelling. See Appendix I for full maps.notes,

photos, and gps coordinates forpotential mosquito developmentactivity.

Results of the field activities were thendistilled into distinguishable polygons.These polygons were used for twopurposes; first, to get a roughunderstanding of the potential scale ofcontrol efforts and, second, to aid in

developing a list of landowners alongthe floodplain who may be directlyimpacted by mosquito controlactivities.

The results of this activity suggest thatthere are approximately 32 delineablemosquito development sitescomprising an estimated total ofapproximately 260 hectares. A map

w^?• * j-s.

^•c1.; in.^•'/

'•'"^•'''•^

^ •\f'v5-~

~'^v^c/ > .^.^T^^ / -j-'yK&^t'''. . ... :''

'<^'-^

/

^€. :\J-ix't

1 A map of the proposed Mosquito Control Service Area can be found in Appendix I.

morrowbioscience.com 5

318

showing the results of this exercise can be found in Appendix II.

Landowner Survey/Consent

In an effort to complete a feasibility assessment, contact was attempted with alllandowners with property that could contribute significantly to the overallmosquito development in the area2. Without consent to treat some of these larger

sites it has been determined that overall mosquito reduction would be lessened,thereby reducing the benefit gained by conducting mosquito control operations.

During the survey, we asked three questions:

1. If a mosquito control program were voted in via an elector ascent process,

would you be amenable to mosquito control operations on your land?[Ql]2. Would you allow access to and or through your property for the purposes of

mosquito monitoring and control? Follow-up question; are there access

issues? [Q2]3. Do you have, or do you have plans to attain, organic certification for

agricultural activities on your land? [Q3]

A summary of the results of questions 1 and 2 is provided in the table below.

Table 2 This table summarizes the results of the landowner survey. Note that, of respondants who

participated, 74% were for the program and 26% were against it (only 19 of the possible 32 landownerswere reached). Question 1 and 2 elicited the exac.tresu.lts.

Affirmative responses

Negative responses

No response [not reached)

Ql_

44%

16%

41%

Q2_

44%

16%

41%

The results to question 3 require separate consideration. The majority of therespondents do not, or are not planning to, have organic certification. One

respondent, who was not against being part of a program, did have questions

regarding treatment methodology and did indicate a potential to start an organicfarm.


319

Table 3 Summary of the responses to Question 3, Note that, of respondents, 89% were non-organic with

no plans to attain organic certification.

Non-organic with no plans for certification.

Organic certification or plans for certification

No response [not reached)

Q350%6%44%

Other Communications

MBL staff attempted to connect with a local stream keeper's association, no

response was received by MBL. A copy of the email sent can be found in AppendixIII.

Factors Affecting Program Costs

A number of factors can significantly impact the costs of program delivery. Thegreatest factor in program cost is the maximum height of water during mosquitoseason. The cause of the peak [freshet or rain event) is usually inconsequential. As

the water levels increase, so too does the flooded area and the potential formosquito production.

Since the topography is typically very shallow in floodplain areas, the rate ofincrease of flooded area relative to the elevation of the water is very high. Thismeans that a small upward perturbation in water levels often results in a dramaticincrease in flooded foreshore sites and, thus, in mosquito production.

A second factor related to the high-water levels is the river discharge dynamics andhow that affects the curve of the water level charts. A freshet that is extended over anumber of weeks is often more difficult and costly to manage than one that has ahigh and relatively short peak [e.g., increased formation of seepage sites, decreased

overland affected floodplain surface area, etc.).

The timing and amount of rainfall can have considerable effects on the number ofseepage-activated sites, as well. For example, heavy early season rains can saturate

the soils, elevate the groundwater table, and lead to more extensive seepage in a

region. This seepage, while generally easy to treat, is often warmer and results in

more rapid maturation of mosquitoes and a shortened treatment window.

Late season rains, particularly in the absence of heavy early season rains, typically

affect the river levels in an area and can result in more overland affected mosquito


320

sites. In many cases this can lead to some increase in the treatment requirements for

a program. However, the consequences tend to be less than that of higher

groundwater since this peak often recedes more quickly than seepage water will.

A final factor that, to a lesser degree, can affect the costs associated with mosquito

treatments is the combination of ambient temperature and solar intensity. It has

been well documented in the literature [and through field observations) that typicalfloodwater mosquitoes can hatch and develop in water as cold as 4°C. Mosquitoes

developing in cooler waters take longer to go through each instar, often taking 10-14 days to progress to pupa. Whereas, larvae in very warm water can progress to

pupa in as few as 4 days [Becker et al., 20103]. In this case, the effect on costultimately occurs as a result of the warmer weather. Specifically, the warmer

weather shortens the window for treatment and causes a heavier reliance on aerial

applications, therefore a higher cost associated with treatments.

Historical Assessments

A previous assessment had been done in the area in approximately 2000; however,no copy of that assessment was available.

Water Levels

Note: "discharge" is referenced rather than "levels" due to the fact that water level data is only available

for this station back to 2011. While not exact, discharge is generally correlated strongly with water level

(R=0.96; years 2011-2015 for the Kootenay River) and therefore a practical basis for comparison.

While it is difficult to determine what level of water triggers wide-scale larvaldevelopment, it is possible to narrow down the start of it. It would appear, based on

conversations with residents and a review of historical freshets, that the triggerpoint is somewhere between 400-450cms [approximately 3-3.5m).

This would put an average season occurring between mid-May and the end of July.

This past season saw the river levels reach nearly 650cms [just over 4m). This high-water level caused wide spread and high levels of mosquito annoyance.

3 Becker, N., Petric, D., Zgomba, M., Boase, C., Minoo, M., Dahl, C., and Kaiser, A. 2010. Mosquitoes and

Their Control. Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York. 577pp


321

—2012 Data —Maximum —Minimum

750-

700

650-

600-

550'

500-

.to

g 450-

S» 400-n

S 350-

aam-

250-

zon.

150-

100'

50-

ilf,.,^^,rC-

Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Amd Mat

VIif . II

I

f ^j

V^S4.\F-X,

lun Jul 01 Aua 01 Sen 01 Oct 01

ivANov 01

N\/v

Dec D1

Figure 2 Discharge levels forSlocan River (gage 08NJ013) reporting historic data for 2012. [Data source:http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca)

Communication with a number of local residents has suggested that mosquitodevelopment takes place in most seasons, with only 2001 and 2016 having lowenough water to result in very few mosquitoes [in the last 17 years). This poses achallenge, since 2004 and 2010 were both lower water years than those listedabove. It is possible that conditions [rain, etc) were just right for overland water onthose low freshet seasons.


322

2016 Data —Maximum —Minimum

Jan 01 Feb 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 May 01 Jun01 Jui01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec 01

Date

Figure 3 Discharge levels for Slocan River (gage 08NJ013) reporting historic data for 2016. (Data source:http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca]

ANNUAL MAXIMUM FLOV'/i.(iy25-2017)

S g S S g

Figure 4 Peak How data from 1925-2017 (Gage 08NJ013) indicates frequent high-water events. Thisinformation helps forecast potential costing implications as well as periodicity of high mosquitoannoyance.


323

Findings

Most of the areas along the Slocan River directly associated with the flood plainshowed some level of mosquito development potential. In fact, in most areas, even

this late in the season, there were still numerous adult mosquitoes lingering.

The majority of the foreshore presented the potential to produce mosquitoes duringthe freshet. The information gathered from the field survey was used to identifydiscrete sites shown to have relatively uniform habitat. A total of 32 sites werecreated totaling a maximum area of approximately 260 ha. Given the proximity todwellings, most of these sites would be considered significant.

Most of the sites contained swales, or channels. These channels are either wetted by

overland water or through seepage and would be the first areas active during thefreshet. These discrete sites could successfully be managed by ground applications.

As the freshet continues during a typical season, we expect that aerial treatmentswill be required. The typical freshet on this system [as presented by the annual flowdata) lends itself well to requiring only one aerial treatment.

Phone Survey

To summarize; enough landowners with large parcels of land along Slocan Riverhave responded favourably to the potential for mosquito control on their land. Atthe time of report submission, we were still waiting to hear back from a portion ofthe residents, whom we feel could likely be seasonal residents. To the best of ourknowledge, all other relevant landowners have been contacted.

Feasibility Recommendations

Based on the summary of the petition results, paring it down for the most accurate

geographic location, suggests that the split for and against a mosquito controlprogram runs nearly 46:54 [for:against) within the recommended program area.

From an operations perspective, mosquito control in this valley would be quitesimple. The only significant input to the river system comes from Slocan Lake andchanges in water level appear predictable. All areas with potential mosquitoproduction are easily accessed and could be effectively monitored and treated byground crews. At high water the area would likely require aerial treatments. Thenature of this system is such that freshet behaviour would be predictable and easilyresponded to.

morrowbioscience.com \^

324

Control Recommendations

Mosquito control is generally achieved through the use of a larval control productBacillus thuringinensis israelensis (Bti). Bti is a natural, soil-borne bacterium. Thecarrier for Bti is corn cob granules. When ingested by mosquito larvae, the Btiquickly affects the mosquito's gut, causing abrupt larval death. The product isrelatively target-specific, meaning that there are few non-target effects. More

information on Bti can be seen in the following 'Product Safety' section, and in

Appendix IV.

One very important factor when determining the feasibility of a control program isdetermining the water level that triggers larval development. This informationallows for the development of a strategy that takes advantage of the flowcharacteristics. When the River flow is monitored closely, staff members should beable to treat more of the sites by hand. Ground (hand/backpack blower) treatmentsare considerably more precise, use less pesticide, and can be timed more

appropriately than aerial treatments.

Aerial treatments tend to be relied upon when the water levels are too high for safeaccess to treatment sites, or when there is too much simultaneous larval activity to

allow the time for hand treatments. Aerial treatments can reach at least ZOOha/hr.On the other hand, ground treatments [hand/backpack blower) can, in idealconditions, be conducted at approximately 2ha/hr. The significant increase intreatment rate with a helicopter allows for an entire region to be treated in 1-2 days.

Given the relatively small scale of this program, MBL would estimate that each aerialtreatment could be conducted in 1 day.

MBL recommends [initially) 2 seasonal field staff to monitor and hand treat, asnecessary, the areas in the Mosquito Control Service Area, Monitoring should beginin late April (to account for snowmelt mosquitoes, as seen in other local programs].

It is entirely likely that, after a few seasons of varied water levels and improvedknowledge, one field person could conduct the monitoring and hand treatmentsrequired by the program.

Low water years would likely require only hand treatments in isolated areas. Duringhigher water years, hand treatments would be required in the early part of theseason with a shift to aerial treatments as the waters continued to rise. A few

seasons of program operations would provide a clearer picture of the water levels

that require a shift to aerial operations.

Elevated water levels in the Mosquito Control Service Area appear to typicallyremain until late June or early July. Given that general average, continued

monitoring and subsequent treatment of seepage sites farther inland would likely

morrowbioscience.com ^3

325

be necessary. Seepage treatments later in the season would likely be best treated byground [backpack blowers].

MBL Staff feels that a control program in this area would be extremely feasible andwould result in a dramatic reduction in annual mosquito annoyance.

"No-Treatment" Zones

In most cases, landowners can request that their lands be exempt from mosquito

control treatments. This typically leads to a buffer around exempt lands that hashigher levels of adult mosquito annoyance; however, in most cases this doesn't

affect overall program efficacy.

In past practice, organic certified lands have been exempt from treatment at the

request of the landowner, although, in many cases, treatment can occur under the

guidelines of certifying bodies without a loss of certification. In many cases, thisproduct is available for purchase through organic supply chains for use in organicfarming and is listed on the Organic Materials Review Institute [OMRQ Canadawebsite as "Allowed with Restrictions".4

Product Safety

All pesticides registered for use in Canada are registered through the PestManagement Regulatory Agency (PMRA). The following excerpt is from the PMRAwebpage5:

"Pesticides are stringently regulated in Canada to ensure they pose minimal risk tohuman health and the environment. Under authority of the Pest Control Products Act,Health Canada:

• registers pesticides after a stringent, science-based evaluation that ensures any

risks are acceptable;• re-evaluates the pesticides currently on the market on a 15-year cycle to ensure

the products meet current scientific standards; and• promotes sustainable pest management.

Health Canada also promotes and verifies compliance with the Act and enforcessituations of non compliance warranting action. Our programs and initiatives look to

improve the regulatory process and provide Canadians pest control products and

4https://www.omri.org/ubersearch/results/Aquabac%20%28200G%29%20Mosquito%20Biolarvicide%20Granule

5https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/branches-agencies/pest-

management-regulatory-agency.hbnl


326

strategies with acceptable risk and value. Health Canada is committed to providing anopen, transparent and participatory process for pesticide regulation."

The non-target [direct) effects ofBti on all species has been thoroughly studied. Thisinformation has been incorporated during the review and registration of Bti throughthe PMRA.

As per Health Canada, Bti only becomes toxic in the stomachs of mosquitoes andblack fly larvae. Because of this, it does not affect other insects, honeybees, fish,

birds or mammals. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency categorizes the risks

posed by Bt strains to non-target organisms as minimal to non-existent.6

Pest Management Plan Process

The next step towards introduction of a new program, if it gains elector ascent, is

the development of a Mosquito Control Service Area. This Service Area will be usedto define the boundaries of the Pest Management Plan [PMP]. Development of a PMPwould be essential if treatments were to be conducted in this area on public andprivate lands.

A Pest Management Plan outlines how a target pest, in this case specific mosquitoes,

will be controlled through a variety of means; biological controls, physical controls,cultural controls, etc. A plan is required anytime pesticides are applied to publiclands and exceed Iha per land management authority. Once approved bystakeholders and the Province, the PMP is used to guide all activities and reportingrequirements for the duration of the plan (usually 5 years).

The RDCK currently has a PMP that cover the previously established programsoperating in a portion of Electoral Area D [Duncan Dam area and Pine Ridgesubdivision).

In the case of the RDCK, it is likely that the current PMP could be modified to includethe newly defined Service Area Cfull consultation would likely be required only ifdifferent First Nations groups require consultation). If the RDCK is managing bothprograms, then the MOE will require a combined plan.

Developing a PMP takes approximately 3 months. This process can roughly bebroken into 3 phases;

1. Pest management plan preparation,

a. Draft stage, a basis for consultation,

6 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-

publications/pesticides-pest-management/fact-sheets-other-resources/bacillus-thuringiensis-subspecies-

israelensis.html

morrowbioscience.com ^g

327

2. Stakeholder consultation,

a. Registered letters and calls to stakeholders,

b. Community open houses,

3. Pesticide Use Notice [PUN) submission,a. Wait for Confirmation Notice [typically 45 days),b. Submit Notice of Intent to Treat [NITJ.


328

Expected Program Costs

The findings of this assessment, combined with our relevant experience with controlprograms of a similar scope and nature within the region, allow for what we feel isan accurate assessment of the financial costs associated with control measures.

MBL estimates that the delivery of a mosquito control program in this region wouldcost a probable maximum of $62,000 annually7.

7 Note that this includes the price of pesticides [this can change given that the price is driven by the

value of the $CAN vs. $US).

morrowbioscience.com -^7

329

Appendix I - GIS Modeling of Flood Potential

morrowbioscience.com ^g

330

RDCKArea H Potential Sites

331


k

<»-.

Map 1/3

I I Study Area

II Potential Sites

Soil Moisture Regime

Subhydric

Hygric

Low Slope Areas

'<* •^•V-F^

^,%-^SL^st: 7-H

/•<• 'I

k,^/

,^ >> • -

- rf

••«€*"-

ff^

••^

'>•'•

^"? ^

•V.t:

\i^v-l if;

,,t^

t's- f

^cftfffirffst•'/,

^y

:'^-

...-':?-

-u

/^

y^-

^-

N.

-<^.

1^-'

332


Map 2/3

(~~n Study Area

II Potential Sites

Soil Moisture Regime

Subhydric

Hygric

Low Slope Areas/1»

^/

'I /

-vv,-? /^h i/

» /

^*• v

V!

I.

a? — - _~

.<(•'*;-«»

r

t.

-!.

,:'r.

1^.'.''-->1.-

¥^1.- 1

^

'V *

'•/

^

\1

Morrow BioScience LtdPO Box 1013 Rossland, BC VOG 1YO

[email protected] 1(877)986-3363

Scale = 1:30.000 CR5 = NAD83 UTM Zone 11NConfwos infornwtion ficwsefS wder the Open Gwernwent Act - Canado MorrowBioScience

333

Y^

^ 4/ t ..I -

^Y

^s

v

^ x.®'^-

'h.-r - - >i-<"..s1.'.

i^-

>•

•^.»C^

"\

.^.M-f ^

^ v

n

ffisu

^'>

"'?-ro»

fl)

QJ

(/l—•

fl)w

a;

wUJ

^

334

Appendix II - Potential sites based on Field Survey

morrowbioscience.com -[9

335

RDCK Area H Potential Sites

Overall Map

Potential Sites

m Study Area

'}Perrys

^L,^'Appledal.e

Brandon

2km

N

Morrow BioScience LtdPO Box 1013 Rosslcind, BC VOG 1YQ

gisOmon'owbioscience. corn 1 (877)986-3363

Scale = 7:82,000 CR5 = AMDS.3 U7-M Zone 11NCc'.-i^KfS tnfw.-wnw tiawf'c/wii(-{ ^)€Ot)rnCnW,'wien^cf-C(wnii'i MorrowBioScience

336

n

(Dfl>

fl)

aj

(/)^™»rt0(/»

337


Map 2/3

Potential Sites

I I Study Area i'•^

^

,L>

/

//

ur

>|!<?< .J.

^J^v

•V

l3

ff

•ay" /•I- /?>.

•-^- t.

1^ . ^

r ^

^

/<' >

» .['\

/'-"

-><-.

Morrow BioScience LtdPO Box 1013 Rossland, BC VOG HO

[email protected] 1(877)986-3363

Scale = 7; 50,000 CRS = NAD83 UTM Zone 7 INConrmns infomoHon Ucwsed under (he Own Government Act - Ccnwdo

I

MorrowBioScience

338

^~

^s

^Wte'~v.. » ,

• <•'-

•^ , ~"'>•

^.-.1

\f.

^.

;',.^

X,.-

!-^.

.,«':

. , '^ ;- ...^ '\1..,

\..- •••^.•s^.^ ^^^_."^^- '^"' "^

—-. ^^-""

^'•A

^ \;.

r. .•'"

^••.^f:'•' ;»•>.

*JL. ^

'•»•

,., ^-

^;-'"'v<

• ••.•~-./'<,.

'^•r^/:

- • ^'- -

^:^^^ -^';

^&.w&<

-0\. ./.:r"..

•^-^~~: f

<*.

.^"

* .

y -<:

;;-^-*.!

tr

•• -r'-^

—1"., .:,,./;, .^ •1;,r^'L<-"i". i^'^'^ :^ t .a

'•,.'.' '\ Y'-.__—A*''^-"-1^-^"i^^y'^<*;£ •.-• .y' • .r»*

V!r* v

^.~'"^-

730n^>0flj

-0

01-t-

fl)3r+

01

VI^—»t-1-

fl)w

339

Appendix III - Copies of Streamkeeper emails (sent)


340

Winlaw Mosquito Feasibility

me to info, bcc: Morrow 11/15/17

Good morning Streamkeepers,

I'm reaching out to connect with you on behalf of the RDCK. We've been engaged to conduct a feasibility assessment with respect to

the potential to control mosquitoes within the Slocan Valley.

A significant portion of the feasibility assessment is reaching out to community groups and residents to gage the level of interest in this

type of program and the depth of knowledge with respect to the management practices.

This feasibility assessment was triggered by the submission of two petitions from the area (both for and against). Our task, now, is to

report to the RDCKon a number of fronts: 1) is the program likely to succeed in managing the mosquito annoyance for residents, 2) is

the community sentiment likely to favour a program, and 3) the expected cost implications if a program were to go forward.

Our experience has shown that streamkeeper groups have their fingers on the pulse of the ecosystem (in particular, the aquatic

ecosystem) as well as the community sentiment and knowledge. To that end, we would like to reach out to you and discuss what a

program means, how it affects the ecosystem, and how the community may or may not favour such an endeavour.

The best way to reach me is by email or on my cell i604.3l7.m3).

Thank you for your time, and I hope to speak to someone from your organization soon.

Sincerely,

Dirk Lewis

341

Appendix IV - Aquabac Label

• ;^


342

AQUABACÔOG^Biological larvicide IGROUP 11 INSECTICIDE|

Grannies (5/8)

Larvicide biologique I INSECTICIDE GROUPETIGrannies (5/8)

RESTRICTEDCAUTION EYE IRRITANTPOTENTIAL SENSITIZERREAD THE LABEL BEFORE USINGGUARANTEE:Badllus thuringiensis subspecies israelensisserotype H-14, strain BMP-144200 International Toxic Units (ITU)per milligram (0.20 billion ITU/kg)

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 26863PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT

RESTREINTATTENTION-IRRITANT POUR LES YEUXSENSIBILISANTPOTENTIELURE LET1QUFTTE AVANT L'EMPLOIGARANTIE:Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensiss^rotype H-14, souche BMP-144200 Unites Toxiques Internationales (UTI)par milligramme (0,20 milliard UTI/kg)

NUMERO D'HOMOLOGATION 26863LOI SUR LES PRODUITS ANTIPARASITAIRES

NET CONTENTS:COWTENUNET: 18,2

ffKW

kgK'/LlSiSSS?' KnCtkft.BoluaurflOixlltclKIAIIB nn.Sm.KB

343

11111Îll"IllIllsIt9

iliffliil1^111111!!liffllj

jiHinu

I!II8 3S:!t??liiiwII Uffi RuiillIllm

I'8

?§1^

i'JiJ' rim[sn«lit I!ill![III III! HiI illnilim

iiîmn&iis!{'mj 11 it'll

IffismilillltI IJIJII litlit?!i ill! M it It iiinirm

iS-i??5i"l*1 rl«£i-1

i ali

rmiiiiiinfHiiiMfflU tllRli

JJiifRHUjlI! I tf if g ill ?{l?lI tH it It?

HUH! II I? ?lEliS*lllil Itfrt*8-t> !F

HljHtHIPII!ii?mn?jtlii!!1 Sitil4iSt HiHffiH III•?!sifi i:t!lliijlt illmil i{••

iHfll1n li?! lltlI! fit!IIas iljl |»Ijitlllj

un 11

HHIftWTj JIMIll I i=t IHIiltII! * 1{I ill I"! II ill IIlii t$ S Ell i 11!j It I?flill I ffil i Jt'JIIIlit I I II "I1!

llltflE?r?i"S elr ISill IIa-^g.i'ai S.Ss aHliII ill II

344

Arrow Slocan Tourism Association PO Box 387 Nakusp, BC V0G 1R0 [email protected], [email protected] February 8, 2017 Regional District of Central Kootenay Nelson, BC [email protected] Dear CAO Stuart Horn and RDCK Board of Directors: The Arrow Slocan Tourism Association has been registered, and is almost ready to submit an application to the Province to collect the MRDT (hotel tax). We will be applying to collect 2%. The final documentation to complete our application package are the letters of support from the local governments (Villages of Nakusp, New Denver, Silverton, Slocan and RDCK Areas H & K). Attached are: the registration certificate of the Arrow Slocan Tourism Association (ASTA), ASTA Constitution and Bylaws, the accommodators’ petition, the five-year strategic plan and one-year plan tactical plan, and a sample letter of support. We look forward to receiving your letter of support. Sincerely, Jan McMurray, President, Slocan District Chamber of Commerce Ali Raskob, President, Nakusp & District Chamber of Commerce Judy Derco, Co-owner, Lemon Creek Lodge ASTA Founding Directors

345

mailto:[email protected]



Constitution of Arrow Slocan Tourism Association

1. The name of the society is: Arrow Slocan Tourism Association

2. The purposes of the society are: a) To be the Destination Management Organization of the area encompassing the

Villages of Nakusp, New Denver, Silverton, Slocan and Electoral Areas H and K of the Regional District of Central Kootenay (Arrow Slocan)

b) To increase visitation to the Arrow Slocan in need periods c) To increase the value of tourism in the Arrow Slocan (increase length of stay and

yield) d) To increase awareness levels of the Arrow Slocan as a tourism destination e) To support community vitality, sustainability, and economic development in the

Arrow Slocan

346

Bylaws of Arrow Slocan Tourism Association (the “Society”)

PART 1 – DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

Definitions

1.1 In these Bylaws:

“Arrow Slocan Tourism Region” includes the Villages of Nakusp,

New Denver, Silverton and Slocan, and Electoral Areas H and K

of the Regional District of Central Kootenay;

“Act” means the Societies Act of British Columbia as amended from time

to time;

“Board” means the directors of the Society;

“Bylaws” means these Bylaws as altered from time to time.

Definitions in Act apply

1.2 The definitions in the Act apply to these Bylaws.

Conflict with Act or regulations

1.3 If there is a conflict between these Bylaws and the Act or the regulations

under the Act, the Act or the regulations, as the case may be, prevail.

PART 2 – MEMBERS

Application for membership

2.1 A person may apply to the Board for membership in the Society, and the

person becomes a member on the Board’s acceptance of the application.

2.1.1. Membership in this Society is open to all businesses and individuals that

benefit directly or indirectly from tourism or visitor traffic in communities

located within the designated Arrow Slocan tourism region and the

surrounding areas.

Duties of members

2.2The society shall have the following categories of membership:

a) Voting stakeholders (“Voting stakeholders”); and

b) Non-voting stakeholders (“Non-Voting stakeholders”).

347

2.2.1.a Voting stakeholders shall be those persons, including businesses,

associations, or government bodies, who have an active place of business

located within the Arrow Slocan Tourism Region, who are admitted to the

society and remain in good standing with the society, and who have

financially contributed to the society through participation towards any

marketing project of the society for a period of twelve (12) months from the

time of the most recent financial participation in a marketing activity of the

society. Voting stakeholders shall be voting stakeholders in the society and

have full rights of membership.

2.2.1.b Non-voting stakeholders shall be those persons, including businesses,

associations, or government bodies, who are not admissible to the society as

voting stakeholders and who are admitted to the society and remain in good

standing with the society, and shall include persons who do not have an

active place of business located within the Arrow Slocan Tourism Region and

who have not financially contributed to the society through participation in at

least one (1) marketing project of the society during the preceding twelve

(12) months. Non-voting stakeholders shall not be voting stakeholders in the

society and shall be entitled to limited privileges only, excluding voting, as

the Society prescribes from time to time.

2.2.2. The Voting Stakeholders of the society are the applicants for incorporation of

the society, and those persons who subsequently become Stakeholders, in

accordance with these bylaws and, in either case, have not ceased to be

Stakeholders.

2.2.3 A person may apply to the directors for membership in the society and on

acceptance by the directors is a Stakeholder.

2.2.4 Every stakeholder must uphold the constitution and comply with these

bylaws and every stakeholder must pay membership fees when due.

2.2.5 All accommodation properties in the Arrow Slocan Tourism Region that collect

the tax on accommodation in designated accommodation area as provided

pursuant to the Provincial Sales Tax Act S.B.C. 2012, c. 35, and regulations

enacted pursuant to the Provincial Sales Tax Act S.B.C. 2012, c. 35, as

enacted from time to time, (the "Tax") and submit it to the Society are

eligible to be Voting Stakeholders upon application to the directors pursuant

to section 7 of these Bylaws and shall not be obligated to pay any

membership fees for as long as the accommodation property continues to

pay the Tax. In the event that the accommodation property ceases to pay

the Tax, the accommodation property will become Non-Voting Stakeholders

unless they fulfill the criteria set out in section 2.2.4 as it relates to Voting

Stakeholders and will be subject to any membership fees then in force.

348

Amount of membership dues

2.3 The amount of the annual membership dues, if any, must be determined by

the Board.

Member not in good standing

2.4 All stakeholders are in good standing except a stakeholder who has failed to

pay his or her current annual membership fee, if any, or any other subscription or debt due and owing by the member to the society, and the stakeholder is

not in good standing so long as the debt remains unpaid. A member may be expelled for failing to pay his or her dues or for failing to upholding the constitution or complying with the bylaws of the society.

2.4.1 A person ceases to be stakeholder of the society:

a) by delivering his or her resignation in writing to the secretary of the society or by mailing or delivering it to the address of the society;

b) on his or her death or, in the case of a corporation, on dissolution; c) on being expelled; or d) on having been a stakeholder not in good standing for six consecutive

months. e)

2.4.2 The notice of special resolution for expulsion must be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for the proposed expulsion.

2.4.3 The person who is the subject of the proposed resolution for expulsion must be given an opportunity to be heard at the general meeting before the special

resolution is put to a vote. Member not in good standing may not vote

2.5 A voting member who is not in good standing

(a) may not vote at a general meeting, and

(b) is deemed not to be a voting member for the purpose of consenting to

a resolution of the voting members.

Termination of membership if member not in good standing

2.6 A person’s membership in the Society is terminated if the person is not in good

standing for six (6) consecutive months.

PART 3 – GENERAL MEETINGS OF MEMBERS

Time and place of general meeting

3.1 A general meeting must be held at the time and place the Board determines.

349

3.1.1 General meetings and extraordinary general meetings of the society will be

held at the time and place, that the directors decide, in accordance with the

BC Society Act,

3.1.2 Notice of a general meeting must specify the place, day and hour of the

meeting, and, in case of special business, the general nature of that

business.

3.1.3 The accidental omission to give notice of a meeting to, or the non-receipt of

a notice by, any of the voting stakeholders entitled to receive notice does not

invalidate proceedings at that meeting.

Ordinary business at general meeting

3.2 At a general meeting, the following business is ordinary business:

(a) adoption of rules of order;

(b) consideration of any financial statements of the Society presented to

the meeting;

(c) consideration of the reports, if any, of the directors or auditor;

(d) election or appointment of directors;

(e) appointment of an auditor, if any;

(f) business arising out of a report of the directors not requiring the

passing of a special resolution.

Notice of special business

3.3A notice of a general meeting must state the nature of any business, other than

ordinary business, to be transacted at the meeting in sufficient detail to permit a

member receiving the notice to form a reasoned judgment concerning that

business.

3.3.1 Special business is:

a. all business at an extraordinary general meeting except the adoption of

rules of order; and

b. all business conducted at an annual general meeting, except the

following:

1. the adoption of rules of order;

2. the consideration of the financial statements;

3. the report of the directors;

350

4. the report of the auditor, if any;

5. election of Board of Directors;

6. the appointment of the auditor, if required;

c. the other business that, under these bylaws, ought to be conducted at an

annual general meeting or business that is brought under consideration

by the report of the directors issued with the notice convening the

meeting.

Chair of general meeting

3.4 The following individual is entitled to preside as the chair of a general

meeting:

(a) the individual, if any, appointed by the Board to preside as the chair;

(b) if the Board has not appointed an individual to preside as the chair or

the individual appointed by the Board is unable to preside as the

chair,

(i) the president,

(ii) the vice-president, if the president is unable to preside as the

chair, or

(iii) one of the other directors present at the meeting, if both the

president and vice-president are unable to preside as the chair.

Alternate chair of general meeting

3.5 If there is no individual entitled under these Bylaws who is able to preside as

the chair of a general meeting within 15 minutes from the time set for

holding the meeting, the voting members who are present must elect an

individual present at the meeting to preside as the chair.

Quorum required

3.6 Business, other than the election of the chair of the meeting and the

adjournment or termination of the meeting, must not be transacted at a

general meeting unless a quorum of voting members is present.

Quorum for general meetings

3.7 The quorum for the transaction of business at a general meeting is 3 voting

members or 10% of the voting members, whichever is greater.

Lack of quorum at commencement of meeting

351

3.8 If, within 30 minutes from the time set for holding a general meeting, a

quorum of voting members is not present,

(a) in the case of a meeting convened on the requisition of members,

the meeting is terminated, and

(b) in any other case, the meeting stands adjourned to the same day

in the next week, at the same time and place, and if, at the

continuation of the adjourned meeting, a quorum is not present

within 30 minutes from the time set for holding the continuation of

the adjourned meeting, the voting members who are present

constitute a quorum for that meeting.

If a quorum ceases to be present

3.9 If, at any time during a general meeting, there ceases to be a quorum of

voting members present, business then in progress must be suspended until

there is a quorum present or until the meeting is adjourned or terminated.

Adjournments by chair

3.10 The chair of a general meeting may, or, if so directed by the voting members

at the meeting, must, adjourn the meeting from time to time and from place

to place, but no business may be transacted at the continuation of the

adjourned meeting other than business left unfinished at the adjourned

meeting.

Notice of continuation of adjourned general meeting

3.11 It is not necessary to give notice of a continuation of an adjourned general

meeting or of the business to be transacted at a continuation of an adjourned

general meeting except that, when a general meeting is adjourned for 30

days or more, notice of the continuation of the adjourned meeting must be

given.

Order of business at general meeting

3.12 The order of business at a general meeting is as follows:

(a) elect an individual to chair the meeting, if necessary;

(b) determine that there is a quorum;

(c) approve the agenda;

(d) approve the minutes from the last general meeting;

(e) deal with unfinished business from the last general meeting;

(f) if the meeting is an annual general meeting,

352

(i) receive the directors’ report on the financial statements of the

Society for the previous financial year, and the auditor’s report,

if any, on those statements,

(ii) receive any other reports of directors’ activities and decisions

since the previous annual general meeting,

(iii) elect or appoint directors, and

(iv) appoint an auditor, if any;

(g) deal with new business, including any matters about which notice has

been given to the members in the notice of meeting;

(h) terminate the meeting.

Methods of voting

3.13 At a general meeting, voting must be by a show of hands, an oral vote or

another method that adequately discloses the intention of the voting

members, except that if, before or after such a vote, 2 or more voting

members request a secret ballot or a secret ballot is directed by the chair of

the meeting, voting must be by a secret ballot.

3.13.1 In the case of a tie vote, the chair does not have a casting or second

vote in addition to the vote to which he or she may be entitled as a

stakeholder, and the proposed resolution does not pass.

3.13.2A stakeholder in good standing present at a meeting of voting stakeholders is

entitled to one vote.

3.13.3 Voting is by show of hands or electronic voting if so arranged by the

society from time to time

3.13.4 A corporate stakeholder may vote by its authorized representative, who is entitled to speak and vote, and in all other respects exercise the rights of a

stakeholder, and that representative must be considered as a stakeholder for all purposes with respect to a meeting of the society.

Announcement of result

3.14 The chair of a general meeting must announce the outcome of each vote and

that outcome must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

Proxy voting not permitted

3.15 Voting by proxy is not permitted.

353

Matters decided at general meeting by ordinary resolution

3.16 A matter to be decided at a general meeting must be decided by ordinary

resolution unless the matter is required by the Act or these Bylaws to be

decided by special resolution or by another resolution having a higher voting

threshold than the threshold for an ordinary resolution.

PART 4 – DIRECTORS

Number of directors on Board

4.1 The Society must have no fewer than 3 and no more than 12 directors.

4.1.1 The society shall be governed by a board of directors (the “Board”) consisting of a maximum of twelve (12) directors of which a maximum of eight (8) shall be elected by the

voting stakeholders as hereinafter provided (the “Elected Directors”) and a maximum of Four (4) appointed by the Board (the “Appointed Directors”) as hereinafter provided. The number of directors may be amended from time to time at a general meeting. The Board shall be

responsible for the stewardship of the society and shall approve, on at least an annual

basis, a strategic plan that takes into account the opportunities available to and risks

affecting the Society.

4.1.2 The directors may exercise all the powers and do all the acts and things that the society may exercise and do, and that are not by these bylaws or by

statute or otherwise lawfully directed or required to be exercised or done by the society in a general meeting, but subject, nevertheless, to: a) all laws affecting the society;

b) these bylaws; and c) rules, not being inconsistent with these bylaws, that are made from time to

time by the society in a general meeting.

4.1.3 A rule, made by the society in a general meeting, does not invalidate a prior

act of the directors that would have been valid if that rule had not been

made.

4.1.4 An act or proceeding of the directors is not invalid merely because there are

less than the prescribed number of directors in office.

Election or appointment of directors

4.2 At each annual general meeting, the voting members entitled to vote for the

election or appointment of directors must elect or appoint the Board.

4.2.1 The Four (4) Appointed Directors shall be comprised of:

354

a) one (1) representative from the Nakusp & District Chamber of Commerce,

who shall be a voting member of the Board;

b) one (1) representative from the Slocan District Chamber of Commerce,

who shall be a voting member of the Board;

c) one (1) representative from Halcyon Hot Springs Resort, who shall be a

voting member of the Board;

d) one (1) local government representative from the Arrow Slocan Tourism

Region, who shall be an ex officio (non-voting) voting member of the

Board.

4.2.2 Every Elected Director must be a voting stakeholder, or the authorized representative of a voting stakeholder where the voting stakeholder is not an

individual, who is in good standing.

4.2.3 The eight (8) Elected Directors must be from the following tourism industries, which must be represented among the Elected Directors in the following numbers:

a) one (1) MRDT Collector from Nakusp or Area K, who shall be a voting member of the Board.

b) one (1) MRDT Collector from New Denver, Silverton, Slocan or Area H, who

shall be a voting member of the Board.

c) one (1) MRDT Collector from a backcountry lodge in the Arrow Slocan Tourism Region, who will be a voting member of the board.

d) one (1) representative from the Arts/Culture/Heritage sector from Nakusp or Area K, who shall be a voting member of the Board.

e) one (1) representative from the Arts/Culture/Heritage sector from New

Denver, Silverton, Slocan or Area H who shall be a voting member of the

Board.

f) one (1) representative from the Activity/Outdoor Recreation sector from Nakusp or Area K, who shall be a voting member of the Board.

g) one (1) representative from the Activity/Outdoor Recreation sector from New Denver, Silverton, Slocan or Area H, who shall be a voting member of

the Board.

355

h) one (1) representative from the Food/Beverage/Retail sector in the Arrow Slocan Tourism Region, who shall be a voting member of the board. Retail

is defined as a tourism-related business in the Arrow Slocan region that provides face-to-face service with tourists.

4.2.4 The Executive Director of the Arrow Slocan Tourism Association will attend

Board meetings in an ex-Officio non-voting capacity.

4.2.5 An election may be by acclamation, otherwise it must be by ballot, and the

ballot may be in any format, including electronic, that the Board decides in its discretion.

4.2.6 The directors may at any time and from time to time appoint a Voting

Stakeholder as a director to fill a vacancy in the directors.

Directors may fill casual vacancy on Board

4.3 The Board may, at any time, appoint a member as a director to fill a vacancy

that arises on the Board as a result of the resignation, death or incapacity of

a director during the director’s term of office.

Term of appointment of director filling casual vacancy

4.4 A director appointed by the Board to fill a vacancy ceases to be a director at

the end of the unexpired portion of the term of office of the individual whose

departure from office created the vacancy.

Term of office

4.5 The term of office for the Elected Directors shall be as follows:

- every Elected Director shall be elected for a two (2) year term;

- notwithstanding the foregoing, immediately from the time of registration of the Society the following Elected Directors shall hold the position for only one (I) year:

i) three (3) Elected Directors representing Accommodators collecting MRDT;

ii) one (1) Elected Director representing Arts/Culture/Heritage; iii) one (1) Elected Director representing Activity/Outdoor Recreation; and iv) one (I) Elected Director representing Food/Beverage/Retail.

Following the conclusion of the one (1) year term, the positions for these Elected

Directors shall become two (2) year terms. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that there be continuity in the Society by ensuring that only half of the Elected Directors are replaced in any given year.

- At the end of the Director’s term, elected Directors shall be eligible for re-

election provided that no Elected Director shall serve as an Elected Director for more than six (6) consecutive years (the “Maximum Term”). For the purposes of

356

calculating the Maximum Term, partial terms created as a result of a director filling a vacancy in a director position shall not be included.

Nomination of director

4.6 At least ninety (90) days before the annual general meeting, the Board shall

form a Nominations Committee comprised of at least three (3) directors.

4.6.1 The Nominations Committee shall issue an open call for nominations from

Voting Stakeholders and, based on the nominations the Nominations Committee receives, shall develop a list of recommended nominees for each

available position and obtain the written consent and biographical information of each such recommended nominee. At least thirty (30) days before the annual general meeting, the Nominations Committee shall provide notice to all

Voting Stakeholders of its recommendations together with biographical information.

4.6.2 In addition to recommendations of the Nominations Committee, nominations

may be made by:

a) any Voting Stakeholder, or an individual on behalf of a Voting Stakeholder if the Voting Stakeholder is not a natural person, nominating himself or herself

provided that the nomination is submitted to the Board not less than ten (10) days before the election date together with the nominee’s consent and credentials, and the Board shall circulate such information in the same manner the Board is circulating the information of the recommended nominees made by the Nominations

Committee; and b) any Voting Stakeholder, or an individual on behalf of a Voting Stakeholder if the

Voting Stakeholder is not a natural person, nominating a Voting Stakeholder

provided that the nominee’s consent and credentials have been obtained by the nominator and provided that the nomination, consent, and credentials of the nominee are submitted to the Board not less than ten (10) days before the election date, and the Board shall circulate such information in the same manner the Board is circulating the

information of the recommended nominees made by the Nominations Committee.

Resignation of director

4.7 If an Elected Director resigns his or her office or otherwise ceases to hold office such that the position would be open for six (6) months or more until the next election for same, that Elected Director’s position shall be filled by the person who received the next most votes for that position at the last general meeting. If there was no such person or that person declines, then the remaining Elected

Directors must appoint a Voting Stakeholder to take place of the former Elected Director.

357

4.7.1 If an Elected Director resigns his or her office or otherwise ceases to hold office leaving the position open for less than six (6) months until the next election for

same, the Board has the option to fill or not to fill the Director’s position until the next election.

Removal of director

4.8 The Voting Stakeholders may, by special resolution, remove a director, before the expiration of his or her term of office, and may elect a successor to complete the term of office.

Duties of directors

4.9 Every director and officer shall:

a) act honestly and in good faith and in the best interests of the society, without regard for any specific person, endeavour, or industry, including the industry to which such director or officer belongs or represents;

b) exercise care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person; c) not communicate confidential information to anyone not entitled to receive the

same; d) not use information, confidential or otherwise, that is gained in the execution of

his or her office and is not available to the Stakeholders of the society generally,

to further or seek to further the director or officer’s private pecuniary or other interest;

e) not use the position as director or officer to secure special privileges, favours, or exemptions for himself or herself personally or any other person;

f) not be placed in a situation where the director or officer may be under obligation to someone who has business dealings with the society and who would benefit from a special consideration or treatment;

g) not use the position as director or officer to influence a decision to be made by another person to further the director or officer’s private pecuniary or other interest;

h) avoid any situations that could cause any person to believe that the director or officer may have brought bias or partiality to a question before the society and

committee or board of the society.

Pecuniary interest

4.10 For the purposes of these bylaws, “pecuniary interest” shall mean an interest consisting of money, measure in money or related to money (including a financial

gain or an avoidance of a financial loss) and shall include the following: a) “direct pecuniary interest”, which shall be considered to exist where the pecuniary interest is

directly under the control of the director or officer;

b) an “indirect pecuniary interest”, which shall be considered to exist where the director or officer:

i. is a shareholder in, or a director or senior officer of, a corporation or agency that has a pecuniary interest in the matter;

ii. is a member of a body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter;

iii. is a partner or agent of a person who has a pecuniary interest in the matter; or

358

iv. is in the employment of a person or body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter;

c) a “deemed pecuniary interest”, which shall be considered to exist where the pecuniary interest of:

i. The director’s close relatives; ii. Other boards on which the director serves;

iii. Community organization in which the director participates; or iv. The director’s employer; v. is known to the director.

Executive Director

4.11 The Board shall hire, from time to time as it deems necessary, a salaried chief executive officer who will be called the Executive Director (ED). The Executive

Director shall deal with all day to day operations and management, employment issues, including salary, employment reviews, and termination,

taking into consideration the recommendations of the Board.

PART 5 – DIRECTORS’ MEETINGS

Calling directors’ meeting

5.1 A directors’ meeting may be called by the president or by any 2 other directors.

5.1.1 The directors may meet at the places they think fit to conduct business,

adjourn and otherwise regulate their meetings and proceedings, as they see fit.

Notice of directors’ meeting

5.2 At least 2 days’ notice of a directors’ meeting must be given unless all the directors agree to a shorter notice period.

Proceedings valid despite omission to give notice

5.3 The accidental omission to give notice of a directors’ meeting to a director, or the non-receipt of a notice by a director, does not invalidate proceedings at the

meeting.

Conduct of directors’ meetings

5.4The directors may regulate their meetings and proceedings as they think fit.

5.4.1 There will be no less than 8 (eight) Regular Board Meetings each calendar year.

5.4.2 The Board may, from time to time, establish committees and sub-committees as it sees fit. Responsibility and accountability for these committees and sub-

committees remains exclusively that of the Board.

Quorum of directors

359

5.5 The directors may from time to time set the quorum necessary to conduct business, and unless so set the quorum is a majority of the directors then in

office.

5.5.1 For a first meeting of directors held immediately following the appointment or election of a director or directors at an annual or other general meeting of members, or for a meeting of the directors at which a director is appointed to fill

a vacancy in the directors, it is not necessary to give notice of the meeting to the newly elected or appointed director or directors for the meeting to be

constituted, if a quorum of the directors is present.

Voting at directors’ meetings

5.6 Questions arising at a meeting of the directors and committee of directors must

be decided by a majority of votes. 5.6.1 In the case of a tie vote, the chair does not have a second or casting vote. 5.6.2 In the event of a vote by the directors relating to the approval of an annual

marketing plan or budget, a simple majority of the directors present at the meeting must be obtained for the vote to succeed.

5.6.3 A resolution proposed at a meeting of directors or committee of directors need not be seconded, and the chair of a meeting may move or propose a resolution.

5.6.4 A resolution in writing, signed by all the directors and placed with the minutes

of the directors, is as valid and effective as if regularly passed at a meeting of directors.

President will act as chair 5.7 The president is the chair of all meetings of the directors, but if at the appointed

time of the meeting the president is not present, the vice president must act as chair, but if neither is present the directors present may choose one of their

number to be the chair at that meeting.

Attendance of meetings

5.8 Directors may attend Board Meetings by telephone or other means in a calendar year

5.8.1 Board members must confirm their planned attendance at board meetings at least 24 hours prior to the meeting

5.8.2 A director who may be absent temporarily from the Arrow Slocan Tourism

Region may send or deliver to the address of the society a waiver of notice, which may be by letter, email, facsimile, or telegram, of any meeting of the

directors and may at any time withdraw the waiver, and until the waiver is withdrawn:

a) a notice of meeting of directors is not required to be sent to that director; and

b) any and all meetings of the directors of the society, notice of which has not been given to that director, if a quorum of the directors is present, are valid and

effective.

PART 6 – BOARD POSITIONS

360

Election or appointment to Board positions

6.1 Directors must be elected or appointed to the following Board positions, and

a director, other than the president, may hold more than one position:

(a) president;

(b) vice-president;

(c) secretary;

(d) treasurer.

6.1.2 Each officer shall serve in the respective position for a term of two (2) years. The Executive Director is an Officer in an ex-officio non-voting capacity.

6.1.3 The offices of secretary and treasurer may be held by one person who is to be

known as the Secretary/treasurer.

6.1.4 If a secretary/treasurer holds office, the total number of directors must not be

less than Five (5) or the greater number that may have been determined under these bylaws.

Directors at large

6.2 Directors who are elected or appointed to positions on the Board in addition

to the positions described in these Bylaws are elected or appointed as

directors at large.

Role of president

6.3 The president is the chair of the board and presides at all meetings of the society

and of the directors.

6.3.1 The president is responsible for supervising the other directors in the execution

of their duties.

6.3.2 The Vice President must carry out the duties of the president during the president’s absence.

Role of vice-president

6.4 The vice-president is the vice-chair of the Board and is responsible for

carrying out the duties of the president if the president is unable to act.

Role of secretary

6.5 The secretary is responsible for, or for making the necessary arrangements

for:

361

(a) issuing notices of general meetings and directors’ meetings;

(b) taking minutes of general meetings and directors’ meetings;

(c) keeping the records of the Society in accordance with the Act;

(d) conducting the correspondence of the Board;

(e) filing the annual report of the Society and making any other filings

with the registrar under the Act.

Absence of secretary from meeting

6.5.1 In the absence of the secretary from a meeting, the Board must appoint

another individual to act as secretary at the meeting.

Role of treasurer

6.6 The treasurer is responsible for, or for making the necessary arrangements

for:

(a) receiving and banking monies collected from the members or other sources; (b) keeping accounting records in respect of the Society’s financial transactions; (c) preparing the Society’s financial statements; (d) making the Society’s filings respecting taxes. (e)ensuring that the financial records, including books of account, comply with the BC Society Act; and

(f)rendering financial statements to the directors, members and others when required.

Role of executive director

6.7 The Executive Director must:

a) conduct the correspondence of the society; b) issue notices of meetings of the society and directors;

c) keep minutes of all meetings of the society and directors d) have custody of all records and documents of the society except those

required to be kept by the treasurer;

e) have custody of the common seal of the society; and f) maintain the register of members

g) Keep the financial records of the Society

PART 7 – REMUNERATION OF DIRECTORS AND SIGNING AUTHORITY

Remuneration of directors

7.1 These Bylaws do not permit the Society to pay to a director remuneration for

being a director, but the Society may, subject to the Act, pay remuneration

362

to a director for services provided by the director to the Society in another

capacity.

7.1.1 A director must not be remunerated for being or acting as a director but a

director must be reimbursed for all expenses necessarily and reasonably

incurred by the director while engaged in the affairs of the society.

Signing authority

7.2 A contract or other record to be signed by the Society must be signed on

behalf of the Society

(a) by the president, together with one other director,

(b) if the president is unable to provide a signature, by the vice-president

together with one other director,

(c) if the president and vice-president are both unable to provide

signatures, by any 2 other directors, or

(d) in any case, by one or more individuals authorized by the Board to

sign the record on behalf of the Society.

PART 8 – SEAL

Common seal

8.1 The directors may provide a common seal for the society and may destroy a

seal and substitute a new seal in its place.

PART 9 – BORROWING

Debentures

9.1 In order to carry out the purposes of the society the directors may, on behalf

of and in the name of the society, raise or secure the payment or repayment of money in the manner they decide, and, in particular but without limiting that power, by the issue of debentures.

9.1.1 A debenture must not be issued without the authorization of a special resolution.

Borrowing powers

9.2 The Voting Stakeholders may, by special resolution, restrict the borrowing

powers of the directors, but a restriction imposed expires at the next annual general meeting.

PART 10 - AUDITOR

363

If auditor required 10.1 This part applies only if the society is required or has resolved to have an

auditor. 10.1.1The first auditor must be appointed by the directors who must also fill all

vacancies occurring in the office of auditor. 10.1.2 At each annual general meeting the Board may make a

recommendation for the appointment of an auditor in accordance with BC

Society Act. 10.1.3 An auditor may be removed by ordinary resolution.

10.1.4 An auditor must be promptly informed in writing of the auditor’s appointment or removal.

10.1.5 A director or employee of the society must not be its auditor. 10.1.6 The auditor may attend general meetings.

PART 11 – NOTICES TO STAKEHOLDERS

Giving notice 11.1 A notice may be given to a Stakeholder, either personally, by email, or by

mail to the Stakeholder at the Stakeholder’s registered address. 11.1.1 A notice sent by mail is deemed to have been given on the third day

following the day on which the notice is posted, and in proving that notice has been given, it is sufficient to prove the notice was properly addressed and put in

a Canadian post office receptacle. A notice sent by email or facsimile is deemed to have been given on the day the notice is sent.

11.1.2 Notice of a general meeting must be given to:

a) every Stakeholder shown on the register of members on the day notice is given; and

b) the auditor, if Part 10 applies. 11.1.3 No other person is entitled to receive a notice of a general meeting.

PART 12 – BYLAWS

Stakeholder entitlement to bylaws

12.1 On becoming a Stakeholder, each Stakeholder is entitled to, and the society

must give the Stakeholder without charge, a copy of the constitution and

bylaws of the society, or advise the Stakeholder where a copy of the constitution and bylaws are available electronically without charge to the

Stakeholder. Bylaws may not be altered

12.2 These bylaws must not be altered or added to except by special resolution.

On winding up or dissolution of the society, any assets that remain shall be distributed equitably to the Nakusp & District and Slocan District Chambers of

364

Commerce and must be utilized for tourism marketing purposes, carrying on activities of a similar nature of Arrow Slocan Tourism Association.

365

366

367

Municipal and Regional District Tax Program Requirements – Fall 2015 APPENDIX 1.2

A1.2-1 | Page

Five-Year Strategic Business Plan Template Designated Recipient: Arrow Slocan Tourism Association (ASTA) Community Name: ASTA is a marketing partnership of all communities located within Areas H and K of the Regional District of Central Kootenay including the Village of Nakusp, Village of New Denver, Village of Silverton, Village of Slocan and the communities within Areas H and K including: Area H: South Slocan, Crescent Valley, Slocan Park, Passmore, Winlaw, Red Mountain, Vallican, Perry Siding, Appledale, Hills, Summit Lake, Playmour Junction, Krestova, Brandon, Lemon Creek, Sandon, Rosebery, New Settlement; Area K: Applegrove, Edgewood, Fauquier, Burton, Arrow Park, Crescent Bay, Whatshan Lake, Brouse/Glenbank, Box Lake, Needles, Halcyon, Inonoaklin Valley. Date Prepared: January 2018 MRDT Term Expiry Date: First application Five Year Period: 2018-2023 A description/instructions pertaining to each section is provided in grey text as a guide only. The format of your Five-Year Strategic Business Plan may be developed specific to your community needs and resources, but must include all required sections of the Five-Year Strategic Business Plan listed below. If using this template, please delete the grey text and provide your response accordingly.

Section 1: Five-Year Strategic Overview

Vision and Mission

Vision: The Arrow Slocan tourism region is known in our target markets for our incredible nature and our year-round recreation opportunities as well as our rich history and culture. Having visited, a discerning number of visitors choose to make this region their home. Tourism growth respects community values and, in turn, the tourism sector is respected as an important contributor to economic vitality and community vibrancy. Mission: The mission of the Arrow Slocan Tourism Association (ASTA) is to support and market the tourism destination in a sustainable manner that strengthens the local economy and enriches quality of life. ASTA strategically invests resources in destination marketing programs that will:

Increase awareness of, and intention to travel to, the Slocan Valley/Nakusp/Arrow Lakes area as a year-round, overnight destination of choice in identified target markets

Grow overnight visitation in need periods (winter/autumn/spring)

Increase average visitor yield and length of stay at all times of year

Connect local businesses that service travelers with training and education opportunities to support their delivery of remarkable experiences

Establish relationships and partnerships within and beyond the area

368


A1.2-2 | Page


that are mutually beneficial and respectful

Strategic Context Visitation occurs primarily in the summer season from May to September with reports of infrastructure and tourism businesses being at their maximum capacity. Visitors are primarily from British Columbia and Alberta with longer-hauls visitors from the rest of Canada, the US and Europe. Primary trip motivators include outdoor recreation, access to lakes, rivers and hotsprings and a growing base of second homeowners. The New Denver Visitor Centre is open seasonally from May to September and in 2017 they reported almost 2,000 total parties representing approximately 4,000 visitors. The majority of these parties were same day to 2 nights stay indicating opportunity to lengthen stay in peak season. Information requested frequently related to maps/directions as well as attractions/tours indicating an opportunity to both better share the experiences that are available/where they are located and an opportunity to add more guided tours/experiences to the product mix. The heritage experiences (Nikkei, Museum, Sandon etc.) where noted as having particular interest for Visitor Centre drop-ins.

Overall Goals, Objectives and Targets

ASTA has identified the following measurable objectives for the five-year period from 2018 – 2023.

Growth in shoulder season visitation (winter, autumn, spring)

Increase in number of businesses lengthening their season and hours of operation

Increase the average length of stay of visitors

Increase in average yield per visitor

Increase in Net Promoter Score (NPS)

Growth in annual MRDT collected Initially, the value of MRDT collected by month will be used as a baseline from which to gauge shoulder season growth. In year two, an investment in primary market research (visitor intercept) will be made in order to establish baseline measures for average length of stay, average yield and Net Promoter Score. The Nakusp & District Chamber and Slocan District Chamber of Commerce will anecdotally report on number of businesses lengthening their season and hours of operation. Once all baseline measures are in place, specific quantifiable targets will then be established for each subsequent year.

Strategies - Key Actions

ASTA has identified the following priority strategies/actions to achieve the agreed objectives and make progress toward the vision:

Build awareness of the Arrow Slocan area as a preferred overnight destination in target markets using media relations, social media networks, select and limited collateral/maps, web presence, digital advertising, development of cooperative marketing programs for tourism stakeholders and participation in marketing partnerships as

369


A1.2-3 | Page


appropriate with other community DMOs or provincial sector organizations

Invest in development and delivery of signature shoulder season events that motivate travel to the Arrow Slocan area

Invest in the experiential quality offered to visitors by identifying relevant training and facilitating access to programs such as DBC’s Remarkable Experiences

Work with local sport hosting facilities and volunteer clubs to secure additional sport tournaments and events

Offer meeting/retreat organizers a one-stop comprehensive source of information and contact point for planning their event in the Arrow Slocan region

Periodically invest in primary market research to truly understand who is coming today, what motivates them, what influences them, and how they could be motivated to return, stay longer, come in the shoulder season, etc

Hire Tourism coordinator position to lead implementation activities

Fund minimal administrative costs See attached Excel spreadsheet for more detailed five-year resource allocation.

Brand Positioning

The Arrow Slocan region is a place for visitors to find their ‘zen’ whether that is in the adrenaline rush of powder snow, soaking in a full-service hot springs resort or paddling a quiet lake. All of this easily accessed from authentic towns, filled with unique artists and artisans, rich heritage and that ever present vibe found only in the Kootenays. Execution of this brand positioning will focus on travel outside of July and August and will encourage longer stays (7-10 nights) that embrace tours of the entire area from north to south (from Revelstoke) or south to north (from Castlegar/Nelson) and include a range of experiences such as a backcountry lodge, Halcyon Hot Springs, Nakusp Hot Springs, stays in Nakusp, New Denver, Silverton, Lemon Creek, Winlaw). The Arrow Slocan area is naturally aligned with the British Columbia brand as it is on the edge of raw wilderness and urban refinement offered by small communities.

Target Markets

Priority target markets have been identified as:

Primary Traveler Profiles o Cultural Explorers o Authentic Experiencers o Cultural History Buffs o Gentle Explorers

Primary Geographic Markets

370


A1.2-4 | Page


o Lower Mainland o Okanangan o Alberta o Europe (Germany, Netherlands, UK) o Australia / New Zealand o Pacific Northwest

Primary Activity / Purpose o Getaways (empty nesters outside of summer school vacation) o Winter sports enthusiasts (snowmobiling, heli-skiing,

backcountry lodge experiences) o Touring in private vehicles/RVs (April/May/June/Sept/Oct) o Motorcycle touring o Passionate paddle sports enthusiasts o Passionate hikers o Road cyclists o Festival/event goers o Sports tourism / tournaments o Meetings/retreats

Management, Governance, and Administration

A new not-for-profit Society has been established under the BC Societies Act – Arrow Slocan Tourism Association. ASTA will be the eligible entity for the 2% MRDT through the duration of this five-year strategy and future renewals. Governance would be provided by an 11 voting member Board of Directors + 1 ex-officio seat for local government (total of 12 seats). Four (4) seats are appointed and eight (8) seats are elected. The composition of the Board represents a geographic mix of tourism business operators in the Arrow Slocan area and representation of the range of motivating visitor experiences. The Board is made up of:

Nakusp & District Chamber of Commerce (appointed)

Slocan District Chamber of Commerce (appointed)

Halcyon Hotsprings (appointed)

Local government (appointed/ex officio)

MRDT Collector – Nakusp/Area K (elected)

MRDT Collector – Slocan Valley/Area H (elected)

MRDT Collector – Backcountry Lodges (elected)

Arts/Culture/Heritage – Area H (elected)

Arts/Culture/Heritage – Area K (elected)

Activity Operator/Outdoor Recreation – Area H (elected)

Activity Operator/Outdoor Recreation – Area K (elected)

Food/Beverage/Retail – Area H or K (elected) Elections will occur at the Annual General Meeting by Voting Stakeholders.

371


A1.2-5 | Page


The nominee’s experience and qualification should align with the seat they will hold. Voting stakeholders are defined in the bylaws as either being collectors of the MRDT or stakeholders that have participated financially in a marketing program in the last twelve months. Initial staggering of the terms of the first Board ensure continuity of experience. After this initial staggering, terms of two years will be held with opportunity for up to three term renewals. An annual forum to engage all tourism businesses would be hosted by ASTA to ensure that every stakeholder is aware of the progress that has been made and can have an opportunity to contribute thoughts, ideas, and market intelligence on plan updates. Regular communication will occur over the course of the year.

Sources of Funding

Current funding: $nil To date destination marketing has occurred as grant funding has been secured. In addition to Destination BC support, local governments contribute to operation of two Visitor Centres run by the local Chambers of Commerce. This arrangement would continue and ASTA would not be responsible for operation of the Visitor Centres. Local government will be asked to provide office space and access to phone lines/printers by the Tourism Manager when he/she is in town. Estimate of MRDT: $100,000 with 5% growth annually Leveraged funds from partners: $35,000 – this is a combination of cooperative ‘pay to play’ programs for tourism businesses in the area; Destination BC Open Pool application of $20,000 and additional grants periodically available through Columbia Basin Trust and other granting authorities.

372


A1.2-6 | Page

Section 2: One-Year Tactical Plan with Performance Measures

Major Category: Marketing

Activity Title: Build awareness of Arrow Slocan area as a preferred overnight destination in winter/autumn/fall in target markets

Tactics:

Online Marketing

Social Media

Travel Media Relations

Print collateral/maps

Cooperative Marketing

Implementation Plan:

Objectives:

Increase destination awareness

Produce tangible marketing outcomes for benefit of consumer and local tourism stakeholders Rationale: There has been limited resources available to dedicate to destination awareness without the MRDT in place. The opportunity now exists to leverage MRDT funds with stakeholders, regional and provincial partners for marketing initiatives. Action Steps:

Launch interactive website showcasing a range of experiences – allowing visitors to ‘click’ their passion to see the range of options and suggested multi-night itineraries in the area - $20,000

Execute social media campaigns using key words / geotargeting with a focus on winter, autumn and spring experiences - $30,000

Secure editorial coverage in key target markets (print and digital) featuring suggested itineraries (either passion-based or time-based) for shoulder seasons - $2,500

Invest in high quality images, videography, and curate content in a steady feed to social channels and influencers - $10,000

Design and print select collateral/maps - $2,500

Implement other cooperative marketing initiatives designed with participating stakeholders – pay to play programs

Partnerships: Local tourism stakeholders, Kootenay Rockies Tourism, Destination BC Sources of Funding: MRDT, partner funding (local, regional and provincial leveraged dollars) Responsibilities: ASTA Board, Tourism Manager Timeframe: Year 1

373


A1.2-7 | Page

Budget: $65,000 Evaluation Mechanism: monitor and tracking marketing avenues (website, social media, etc.), stakeholder feedback

Performance Measures:

Output Measures:

Types of marketing activities

Website analytics

Description of social media activities/impressions and outcomes

Advertising equivalency

Webpage visits

Visitor inquiries/calls

Outcome Measures:

Visitor volume

Visitor nights & visitor spending

Visitor revenues

Average length of stay

Accommodation revenues

Investment of marketing dollars by local partners in cooperative initiatives

374


A1.2-2 | Page

Major Category: Experiential Quality

Activity Title: Invest and facilitate training to support enhancements to the experiential quality offered to visitors

Tactics:

Industry education and training

Local resident education and support


Objectives:

Local tourism stakeholder participation in training opportunities

Develop ambassador program

Increased resident support for tourism

Understand visitor motivation Rationale: There is a need to ensure delivery of brand promise (authentic Kootenay vibe) and to assist small operators to deliver the most remarkable experiences possible. Action Steps:

Offer on-line reputation management training to all businesses and assist all tourism businesses with their on-line presence (Google My Business, Trip Advisor etc.)

Identify and facilitate access/local delivery of front-line service education and training (general training through go2HR and specific local knowledge program)

Educate all residents on the value of local tourism economy and develop their appreciation of their contribution to the visitor experience

Create a resident ‘ambassador’ program (“ask a local”) – Educate ambassadors on available experiences

Encourage all businesses to participate in Destination BC’s Remarkable Experiences Program

Partnerships: Local tourism stakeholders, Kootenay Rockies Tourism, Destination BC, go2HR Sources of Funding: MRDT Responsibilities: ASTA Board, Tourism Manager, local tourism stakeholders, workshop facilitators Timeframe: Year 1 Budget: $2,500 Evaluation Mechanism: workshop attendance and feedback; availability of accurate and on-brand destination and experience information online

375


A1.2-1 | Page


Output Measures:

Workshop delivery

Program creation and delivery

Outcome Measures:

Number of training participants in various programs offered

Workshop feedback

Number of tourism businesses with accurate information/images online

Number of locals participating in ambassador program

376


A1.2-2 | Page

Major Category: Shoulder Season Event Support

Activity Title: Invest in shoulder season events to motivate travel

Tactics:

Event promotion and delivery

Event calendar


Objectives:

Grow overnight visitation levels motivated by shoulder-season events

Develop, maintain and promote event calendar Rationale: Existing events draw overnight visitors and there are opportunities for additional events in shoulder season. Action Steps:

Support existing events that currently motivate travel with marketing/promotion and packaging of overnight stays (Garlic Festival; Fibre Festival; Sufferfest)

Engage with tourism stakeholders to review current calendar of events and conceive 1-2 new shoulder season events or add to programming of existing events to convert them into travel motivators

Partnerships: Local tourism stakeholders, event organizers, local volunteers Sources of Funding: MRDT Responsibilities: ASTA Board, Tourism Manager, local tourism stakeholders, local event stakeholders Timeframe: Year 1 Budget: $7,500 Evaluation Mechanism: event attendance; number of events in calendar; accommodation reports (anecdotal) of occupancy levels during various events


Output Measures:

Event delivery

Event calendar

Outcome Measures:

Growth in occupancy levels in overnight accommodation during event days

377


A1.2-2 | Page

Major Category: Sport Tourism Promotion

Activity Title: Work with local sport hosting facilities and volunteer clubs to secure additional sport tournaments and events

Tactics:

Support for event bids

Event promotion and delivery

Event calendar


Objectives:

Grow shoulder season overnight visitation through successful hosting of incremental sports events/tournaments

Develop, maintain and promote event calendar Rationale: Sport events in the shoulder season increase overnight visitation by participants, while also encouraging additional visitation by family, friends and spectators. Action Steps:

Support volunteer groups in bid identification/preparation and provide financial support to local event host

Once tournament(s) are secured, promote ‘come early/stay longer’ offers – partner with accommodation, activities, retail, restaurants to maximize yield

Partnerships: Local event organizers, sport groups, volunteers, event sponsors, tourism stakeholders Sources of Funding: MRDT Responsibilities: ASTA Board, Tourism Manager, local tourism stakeholders, local sport event stakeholders/clubs/volunteers Timeframe: Year 1 Budget: $5,000 Evaluation Mechanism: bid submissions, financial support, event delivery


Output Measures:

Hosted events

Promotional offers

Outcome Measures:

Number of sport teams hosted

Incremental occupancy levels achieved during events

378


A1.2-2 | Page

Major Category: Meetings and Retreats

Activity Title: Offer meeting/retreat organizers a one-stop comprehensive source of information and contact point for planning their event

Tactics:

Meeting/retreat inventory


Objectives:

Increased meetings/retreats hosted in destination in shoulder seasons Rationale: Meeting/retreat capacity information needs to be sourced and shared in a manner that serves event organizers seeking unique event destinations. Action Steps:

Create on-line inventory of meeting and retreat facilities in Arrow Slocan region including capacities, floor plans, walking distances to accommodations, restaurants etc.

Respond to inquiries from event planners and support venues in their efforts to promote

Partnerships: Local meeting and retreat venue providers and associated partners (accommodation, F&B providers, etc.) Sources of Funding: MRDT Responsibilities: ASTA Board, Tourism Manager, local tourism stakeholders Timeframe: Year 1 Budget: $5,000 Evaluation Mechanism: event inquiries; meeting/retreat bookings


Output Measures:

On-line inventory

Hosted meeting/retreats

Outcome Measures:

Number of meeting/retreat inquiries

Number of meeting/retreat bookings

Incremental occupancy levels achieved from meetings/retreats

379


A1.2-3 | Page

Section 3: MRDT Budget for Year One Designated recipients must complete the budget table as provided below.

Revenues Budget $

MRDT $100,000

Local government contribution (in kind office/admin support) $20,000

Stakeholder contributions

Co-op funds received (e.g. DBC Open Pool) $20,000

Grants $15,000

Total Revenues $155,000

Expenses Budget $

Marketing

Marketing staff – wage and benefits $50,000

Image/video content acquisition $15,000

Website - hosting, development, maintenance $15,000

Social media $12,500

Collateral production and distribution $7,500

Travel media relations $7,500

Other cooperative marketing initiatives designed together with participating stakeholders

$7,500

Subtotal $115,000

Destination & Product Experience Management

Product experience enhancement and training $1,500

Local resident education $1,000

Subtotal $2,500

Event & Sport Tourism

Event & sport attraction, delivery and promotion $12,500

Subtotal $12,500

Meetings and Conventions

Meetings/retreats attraction, delivery and promotion $5,000

Subtotal $5,000

Administration

Management and staff unrelated to program implementation – wages and benefits

$0

Board of Directors costs $0

Expenses Budget $

General office expenses - overheads are anticipated to be minimal with a series of remote offices identified at Village offices/Chamber offices provided as an in-kind contribution

$20,000

Subtotal $0

Total Expenses: $155,000

Balance or Carry Forward

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

High Impact Leadership on Climate Action Workshop

Building on the recent success of the Climate Leadership Institute (www.bcmclc.ca/CLI), the BC Municipal Climate Leadership Council is hosting the High Impact Leadership on Climate Action workshop immediately after the AKBLG AGM & Convention on April 20 from 1:30-4:00 pm at the Park Place Lodge. This workshop will tailor sessions from CLI for locally elected officials attending this AKBLG event.

Join Travis Streb, a leadership and communications coach with High Impact Lab, for an interactive session on communicating with conviction, building support for climate action, communicating during emergencies, and the need for high impact leadership. Learn about effective programs and policies for climate change and energy action from Megan

Lohmann, Community Energy Manager for RDEK, and Trish Dehnel, Senior Energy Specialist for

RDCK. Find out how BC Energy Step Code adoption, green building rebates, solar gardens,

electric vehicle strategies, and community outreach programs can be adapted to communities

of all sizes and locations.

Small discussion groups will focus on leadership as well as tools and next steps to help elected

officials lead their community into a green future.

To register for this event, visit https://clicfernie.eventbrite.ca. The workshop is free but seating

is limited. Please contact Janice Keyes of the Community Energy Association at 604-628-7076,

ext. 705 or [email protected] for any questions about BCMCLC or the workshop.

389

http://www.bcmclc.ca/CLI

https://clicfernie.eventbrite.ca/


Regional District of Fraser-Fort George 155 George Street, Prince George BC V2L 1P8

Telephone 250-960-4400 / Toll Free 1-800-667-1959 / Fax 250-562-8676 http://www.rdffg.bc.ca

FIRE/RESCUE DISPATCH SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF FRASER-FORT GEORGE AND


390

9-1-1 CALL ANSWER and FIRE/RESCUE DISPATCH SERVICE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN:

THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF FRASER-FORT GEORGE, a local government incorporated pursuant to the Local Government Act and having its business office located at: 155 George Street Prince George, British Columbia V2L 1P8

(hereinafter referred to as the “RDFFG”)

OF THE FIRST PART AND:

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY a local government incorporated pursuant to the Local Government Act and having its business office located at: 202 Lakeside Drive, PO Box 590 Nelson, British Columbia V1L 5R4

(hereinafter referred to as the “RDCK”)

OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS: A. the RDFFG provides fire/rescue dispatch emergency services;

B. the RDCK wishes the RDFFG to provide fire/rescue dispatch services through the RDFFG System;

and C. the parties have agreed to enter into this Fire/Rescue Dispatch Services Agreement (the “Agreement”)

on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT, in consideration of the premises, covenants, and promises of each party herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS

In this Agreement:

“CAD” means the Computer Aided Dispatch System used for dispatching fire/rescue agencies

“RDCK’s 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area” means the geographic area as described in Appendix B

“RDCK’s Agencies” means the fire/rescue emergency response agencies within the RDCK 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area listed in Appendix C

“RDCK’s System” means the RDCK’s field radio dispatch and communications system, and all other equipment and facilities within the Service Area that are required for the purpose of receiving dispatches from and otherwise communicating with the FOCC

“Data” means address points, street centerlines, zone boundaries and community boundaries, and all associated attributes

“Effective Date” means the date that service commences as specified in Section 5.1

391

9-1-1 Call Answer and Fire/Rescue Dispatch Service Agreement Regional District of Central Kootenay

2018-2022 Page 3

X:\PUBSAFE\Agreements\9-1-1 Service Provider Agrmts\RDCK 911 Service Agrmt\9-1-1 Service Agmt Draft RDCK Mar 5.18.docx

“ERA” or “Emergency Response Agency” means any emergency response agency to which emergency calls are transferred through the Services and which is responsible for dispatching police, fire, medical emergency or other emergency personnel

“Fire/Rescue Emergency Dispatch and Communications Service” means the service responsible for receiving 9-1-1 fire/rescue calls from the PSAP and other emergency telephone calls from another source and dispatching the agencies listed in Appendix C

“FOCC” means the Fire Operations Communications Centre designated by the RDFFG that is responsible for providing the Fire/Rescue Emergency Dispatch and Communications Service

“GIS” means the computerized Geographic Information System used to manage the Data

“PSAP” means the Primary Safety Answering Point

“RCMP” means the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

“RDFFG System” means the 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Dispatch Emergency Telephone Service provided by the RDFFG consisting of fire/rescue dispatch, and supporting GIS services

“RMS” means the Records Management System provided by the RDFFG for use by the fire/rescue agencies

“Service Fee” means the amounts payable by the RDCK in respect of the Services as described in Appendix A

“Services” means, collectively, the Fire/Rescue Emergency Dispatch and Communications Service, and the additional services described in this Agreement, to be provided by the RDFFG, and

“Term” means the term of this Agreement as described in Section 5.1. 2. SERVICES

2.1 The RDFFG agrees to provide the Services to the RDCK as described below: a. Fire/Rescue Emergency Dispatch and Communications Service; and

b. CAD, RMS, and supporting GIS services.

2.2 Unless otherwise specified by the RDFFG the Fire/Rescue Emergency Dispatch and

Communications Service shall be operated by the City of Prince George and be referred to as the FOCC for the purpose of this Agreement.

2.3 PSAP

The RDFFG will require that all calls from the RDCK’s 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area relating to a fire or rescue emergency be routed by telecommunications service providers to the RDCK’s PSAP service provider and transferred by the PSAP to the FOCC.

2.4 Fire/Rescue Emergency Dispatch and Communications Service

In accordance with the terms of its contract with the operator of the FOCC (but subject to section 3.1(d) of this Agreement), the RDFFG will require that upon receiving a 9-1-1 call from the PSAP, or an emergency call from another source within the RDCK’s 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area, that relates to a fire or rescue emergency, the FOCC will dispatch and communicate with the appropriate RDCK’s Agency(ies) when fire/rescue services are required.

392


2018-2022 Page 4


3. ADDITIONAL SERVICES

3.1 The RDFFG agrees to:

a. Supply the RDCK with a report of all fire/rescue dispatched incidents within the RDCK’s 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area on a monthly basis.

b. Receive, process, maintain, and update CAD and GIS data provided by the RDCK.

c. Provide CAD and RMS software and software support services, maintain and operate the CAD and RMS software and undertake periodic software updates and equipment upgrades as required to maintain efficiency of the Services.

d. Make reasonable efforts to require the FOCC to operate to standards established by the National Emergency Number Association and the National Fire Protection Association.

e. Schedule meetings in Prince George or at the RDCK’s office as necessary, to discuss system operation, maintenance, development, and costs. The cost of each party’s attendance will be the responsibility of that party.

3.2 The RDCK agrees to:

a. Maintain and operate the RDCK’s System in the RDCK’s 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area.

b. Where the RDCK has or requires Crown tenures or private property agreements for communications sites, it is the responsibility of the RDCK to secure and maintain such agreements.

c. Provide twenty-four (24) hours/seven (7) days per week technical repair and maintenance services for the RDCK’s System.

d. Maintain and update CAD and GIS Data derived from the RDCK’s 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area, including all of the RDCK’s member municipalities and First Nations, and to forward the Data and regular updates to the RDFFG. The RDCK acknowledges and agrees that if regular Data updates are not submitted by the RDCK to the RDFFG, the RDFFG shall not be responsible for missing or incorrect Data.

e. Data submitted shall be spatial and in the format specified by the RDFFG, unless

alternative arrangements have been mutually agreed upon by the RDFFG and the RDCK.

f. All addressing inquiries received by the RDFFG shall be redirected to the RDCK.

g. Notify Telus of all address changes for the RDCK’s service area.

h. Act as a liaison between the RDFFG/FOCC, all Emergency Response Agencies listed in Appendix C, member municipalities, and First Nations in its Service Area.

i. Confirm and sign off on the agencies in Appendix C.

j. Provide requests for all additions and deletions to the list of agencies in the RDCK’s Service

Area by way of an updated and signed-off Appendix C provided to the RDFFG. The amended Appendix C shall be attached to and form an integral part of this Agreement. Additions to the list of agencies serviced may result in costs to the RDCK to implement, see Appendix A, 3.0.

393


2018-2022 Page 5


4. SERVICE FEES

4.1 Fees and Disbursements

The RDFFG will charge for the performance of the Services only the fees and disbursements authorized under this Agreement.

4.2 Invoices

Invoicing shall occur semi-annually. The RDFFG shall provide the RDCK with an invoice for the Service Fee payable for the previous six month’s calls as determined in accordance with Appendix A. The RDCK will pay to the RDFFG the Service Fee payable in respect of that invoicing period as determined in accordance with Appendix A.

4.3 Taxes

The RDCK will pay all applicable taxes levied by any governmental authority in connection with the payment of the Service Fee or the Services provided under this Agreement.

5. TERM, AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION

5.1 Term

The Services provided in this Agreement will be delivered May 1, 2018 to December 31, 2022.

5.2 Amendment

This Agreement may only be amended by agreement in writing by both parties. Any amendment(s) will be attached to and form an integral part of this Agreement.

5.3 Termination of the Services

The parties acknowledge that the Services are essential for the protection of the public in the RDCK’s 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area. In the event of a breach of this Agreement by the RDCK, the RDFFG agrees it will not terminate this Agreement unless the RDFFG provides notice of the breach of the Agreement by the RDCK, and the RDCK fails to rectify the breach within six (6) months of the date of notice. In the event of a breach by the RDFFG that results in loss of, or substantial degradation to, the Services, the RDCK may terminate this Agreement by providing six (6) months’ notice to the RDFFG. In the event of early termination of this Agreement, the Service Fee will be adjusted on a pro-rata basis for Services that were completed up to and including the date of termination.

6. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

6.1 Procedure

If there is any dispute arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement, the parties will attempt to resolve such dispute, first by direct negotiation and then, if that is not successful and if the parties so agree, by mediation with a neutral third party mediator acceptable to both parties. Each party will bear its own costs and expenses in connection with any mediation and all costs and expenses of the mediator will be shared equally by the parties. If any dispute is not settled by negotiation or mediation within sixty (60) days either party may give written notice to the other requiring the dispute be settled exclusively by binding arbitration by a single arbitrator. If

394


2018-2022 Page 6


the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the arbitrator will be selected in accordance with the Arbitration Act.

6.2 No Suspension of Services

The parties agree that the Services are essential for the protection of the public within the RDCK’s 9-1-1 Fire/Rescue Service Area and that the Services may not be suspended during the resolution of any dispute referred to in section 6.1 unless this Agreement has first been terminated in accordance with section 5.3.

7. INSURANCE

Each party will obtain and maintain a comprehensive general liability insurance policy against claims for bodily injury, including death, property damage or other loss arising out of the operation of the Services. The RDFFG and the RDCK will each include the other as an additional insured on the policy obtained and maintained by that party. Each policy will be written on a comprehensive basis with inclusive limits of not less than $10,000,000 (ten million dollars) per occurrence or such higher limit as the parties may agree from time to time. If this Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term, the parties agree to maintain their respective policies for two (2) years after the date of such termination.

8. INDEMNIFICATION

8.1 RDFFG Indemnification

The RDFFG hereby indemnifies, saves harmless, releases and forever discharges the RDCK from and against any and all manner of actions, causes of actions, claims, debts, suits, losses, liabilities, costs, demands and expenses whatsoever, whether known or unknown, of any person in any way arising from, in connection with, or attributable to the operation of the RDFFG System which is in any way contributed to, or by reason of, the negligence or other fault of the RDFFG, its servants, agents or employees in connection with or in consequence of this Agreement.

8.2 RDCK Indemnification

The RDCK hereby indemnifies, saves harmless, releases and forever discharges the RDFFG from and against any and all manner of actions, causes of actions, claims, debts, suits, losses, liabilities, costs, demands and expenses whatsoever, whether known or unknown, of any person in any way arising from, in connection with, or attributable to, the negligence or other fault of RDCK, its servants, agents or employees in connection with, or in consequence of, this Agreement.

9. GENERAL PROVISIONS

9.1 Further Agreements

One (1) year prior to the expiry of the Term of this Agreement, the parties will meet to discuss the terms of a new agreement for the provision of the Services, but neither party will be bound to extend or renew this Agreement, or to enter into a new agreement, unless the terms of the extension, renewal or new agreement are approved by that party’s Board and the agreement is executed by that party’s authorized signatories. In the event that six months prior to the end of the Term of this Agreement the RDCK provides the RDFFG with written notice that it does not intend to renew this Agreement or to enter into a new Agreement, the RDFFG will calculate the RDCK’s invoice for the final year of the Term of this Agreement in accordance with Appendix A and with section 4.2.

395


2018-2022 Page 7


9.2 Assignment

Neither party will have the right to assign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any of its interest in all or any part of this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the other party.

9.3 Notices

Any notice required pursuant to this Agreement will be in writing and delivered personally, by courier, registered mail, or email to the address of the appropriate party as set forth herein, or to such other address as either party may substitute by written notice to the other:

for the RDCK to:

Corporate Officer Regional District of Central Kootenay 202 Lakeside Drive, PO Box 590 Nelson, British Columbia V1L 5R4 Email:

for the RDFFG to: General Manager of Community Services Regional District of Fraser-Fort George 155 George Street Prince George, BC V2L 1P8 Email: [email protected]

Any notice or other writing sent in compliance with this section is deemed to have been given and received on the day it is so delivered unless that day is not a business day, in which case the notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the next day that is a business day. For clarity, “business day” means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or statutory holiday in the Province of British Columbia.

9.4 Entire Agreement

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the RDCK and the RDFFG and supersedes all previous expectations, understandings, communications, representations and agreements, whether verbal or written, between the RDCK and RDFFG with respect to its subject matter and may not be modified except by subsequent agreement in writing executed by the RDCK and the RDFFG. This Agreement will enure to the benefit of, and be binding upon the parties hereto, and their successors, administrators, executors, heirs and permitted assigns. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees to execute such further documents and instruments and do such other things as may be necessary to implement and carry out the intent of this Agreement.

9.5 Waiver

Except as may be specifically agreed in writing, no action or failure to act by the RDCK or the RDFFG shall constitute a waiver of any right or duty afforded either of them under this Agreement, nor shall any such action or failure to act, constitute an approval of, or acquiescence in any breach of this Agreement. Waiver of any default by either party will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default by that party.

396


2018-2022 Page 8


9.6 Relationship of Parties

The legal relationship between the RDFFG and the RDCK arising pursuant to this Agreement is that of service provider and purchaser of services and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed so as to render the relationship between the RDFFG and the RDCK to be that of partners in a partnership or joint venture, or employee and employer. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as creating any employment or other contractual relationship between the RDCK and the City of Prince George, its employees, servants, or agents.

9.7 Access to Records

a. The RDFFG will promptly provide the RDCK with operations information and records

respecting the operation of the FOCC, as the RDCK acting reasonably, may from time to time require.

b. The RDFFG will provide to the RDCK a copy of any contract, agreement, or memorandum of understanding between the City of Prince George and the RDFFG concerning the operation of the FOCC.

9.8 Access to Information Requests and Protection of Privacy

The RDFFG and RDCK both acknowledge and agree that all requests for access to records referred to in sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this Agreement that are received from third parties under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (B.C.) (“FIPPA”) by the RDFFG or the RDCK shall be processed in accordance with FIPPA. The RDFFG and the RDCK will comply with all federal and provincial legislation applicable with respect to the protection of privacy as in effect from time to time, including without limitation the provisions of the FIPPA. Without limiting the foregoing, the RDFFG and the RDCK both acknowledge and agree that the records referred to in this section include personal information (as defined in the FIPPA) and that such personal information shall be collected, maintained, used and disclosed only as permitted by and in accordance with the provisions of the FIPPA.

9.9 Validity

Should any part of this Agreement be declared or held invalid for any reason, such invalidity will not affect the validity of the remainder which will continue in full force and effect and be construed as if this Agreement had been executed without the invalid portion.

9.10 Miscellaneous

a. Every reference to each party is deemed to include the heirs, executors, administrators,

successors, permitted assigns, employees, servants, agents, officers, and invitees of that party whenever the context so requires or allows.

b. Time is of the essence concerning this Agreement.

c. This Agreement will be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the Province of British Columbia.

397


2018-2022 Page 9


9.11 Counterpart

This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts and may be executed and delivered by email or fax and all such counterparts and emails and faxes together constitute one and the same agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement. SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE ) REGIONAL DISTRICT OF FRASER-FORT GEORGE ) ) ) ) Signature ) Date ) ) ) Chair (Please print) ) ) ) ) Signature ) Date ) ) ) Corporate Officer (Please print) ) SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE ) REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY ) ) ) ) Signature ) Date ) ) ) Chair (Please print) ) ) ) ) Signature ) Date ) ) ) Corporate Officer (Please print) )

398


2018-2022 Page 10


APPENDIX A

SERVICE CHARGES The RDCK will pay to the RDFFG for the Services at the times and frequencies specified in this Agreement, determined in accordance with the following provisions. OPERATING AND CAPITAL COST CONTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY:

1.0 FIRE/RESCUE EMERGENCY DISPATCH AND COMMUNICATIONS ANNUAL OPERATING COST

CONTRIBUTION

The RDCK will pay a ratio of the total budgeted costs for providing the Fire/Rescue Emergency Dispatch and Communications Service to all recipients of that service determined by the formula:

RDCK Fee = RDCK’s Fire/Rescue Call Ratio x Total Fire/Rescue Dispatch Fee

where the RDCK’s Fire/Rescue Call Ratio = RDCK’s Fire/Rescue calls / Total Fire/Rescue calls 2.0 COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH/RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The RDCK will pay to the RDFFG the actual annual licensing fees attributed by the CAD/RMS vendor to the RDCK for CAD/RMS licensing fees.

3.0 ADDITIONAL FEES

Where the RDCK requests additions to the list of Agencies serviced results in costs incurred by the RDFFG to implement (i.e.: software licenses, hardware, etc.) such costs will be invoiced to the RDCK, payable within 30 days of the invoice date.

399


2018-2022 Page 11


APPENDIX B

Regional District of Central Kootenay Service Area

400


2017-2022 Page 13

C:\Users\alund.LAKESIDE.000\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GY7BQ621\9-1-1 Service Agmt Creston Valley Draft RDCK Dec 1.17.docx

APPENDIX C

FIRE/RESCUE EMERGENCY RESPONSE AGENCIES

Within the contracted area for RDFFG Dispatch: (a) City of Creston Fire & Rescue (b) Wynndel Lakeview VFD (c) Canyon Lister VFD (d) Yahk Kingsgate VFD (e) BCAS (f) RCMP (g) Boswell First Responder Society (h) Creston Valley Search & Rescue (i) West Creston Fire Society (j) RDCK Fire (Regional Fire Chief & Regional Deputy Fire Chief)

Outside the contracted area for RDFFG Dispatch but within the RDCK:

(a) Balfour Harrop VFD (b) Beasley VFD (c) Blewett VFD (d) Crescent Valley VFD (e) Kaslo VFD (f) North Shore VFD (g) Ootischenia VFD (h) Pass Creek VFD (i) Passmore VFD (j) Riondel VFD (k) Robson VFD (l) Slocan VFD (m) Tarrys VFD (n) Winlaw VFD (o) Ymir VFD (p) City of Nelson Fire & Rescue (q) Salmo Fire & Rescue (r) Nakusp Fire & Rescue (s) New Denver Fire & Rescue (t) BCAHS (u) RCMP (v) Nelson Search & Rescue (w) Kaslo Search & Rescue (x) Castlegar Search & Rescue (y) Beasley Water Rescue Society (z) Balfour Water Rescue Society (aa) RDCK Fire (Regional Fire Chief & Regional Deputy Fire Chief)

I confirm that the above list of Agencies is accurate and complete: Signature of Authorized Signatory for the RDCK Name (printed)

401

402

403

404

405

406

C

15-MAR-18#

AUTHORIZED BY AREA-C DIR. BINKS

407

Discretionary Grant Application Form

Regional District of Central Kootenay202 Lakeside Drive, Box 590, Nelson, BC VlL 5R4

Phone 250-352-6665 Fax 250-352-9300Toll Free in BC 1-800-268-7325

File No. 1860-20-_

Name of Applicant (Organization or Society) Date of Application

Kutenai Art Therapy Institute Association 21-Feb-2018

Mailing Add TESS (PO Box, Street, City, Prov. Postal Code)

191 Baker Street, Nelson, BC VlL 41-11

Email phone No_ Electoral Area F

Request for Discretionary Grant Funding from

[email protected] 250-352-2264 Municipaiity RDCK

Contagt Monica Carpendale, Executive Director Name of Director Tom Newell

l>iease note: the/1.pp1icant most be able to deposit the fano'i'ng 2payment in their name or have rr sponsor oi'_r/anization noted. AMOUNT REQUESTED $ ' 000 ' 00

Funding Payable to Applicant V Sponsor Organization guide/i”e.s" The "”’.”°’Y Purpoie of these grants-" —" is to provide some financial assistance to local

Name of Sponsor Organization community groups and organizations forKutenai Art Therapy mstitute Association projects that provide social, economic, sporting,

cultural and other benets to our communities.Address of Sponsor Organization (P0 Box, Street, City, Prov. Postal Code)

191 Baker Street’ Nelson’ BC VlL 4H1 Grants will not be provided to individuals or ‘forprofit’ entities. Grants over $5000 are subjectto a 10% holdback.

Please provide an overview of organizational programs and services offered in the communityKATI offers a wide range of art therapy and counselling services through its programs,conferences, and special events as well as clinical placements in the community.

Funding will be used for -

Accreditation application for Master's degree through the BC Ministry of AdvancedEducation (details attached). Executive summary, 2017 audited financials, list ofDirectors, and organizational chart are also attached as separate documents.

O Please attach the most recent audited financial statement and current financial statement, list of Directors, organizational chart (including full and part-

time staff and community volunteers, number of members and membership fees (if applicable).

Signature of Applicant Signature of Sponsor Organization or required)

/' ~ '

Signature of Area Director AMOUNT APPROVED

P\’@Vl°U5 Gfam Received? Cheque to be forwarded to: Board Date__Z914 _Z°15 _2015 Director _Applicant __Sponsor Organization Resoiuon #

RDCK-1850 Jun Z017

F

15-MAR-18#

Authorized by Area F Dir. Newell

408

Discretionary Grant Application orm

D202 Lakeside Drive, Box 590, Nelson, BC V1L 5R4


File No. 1860-20-___

RDCK-1860 n 2017

Information

Name of Applicant rgani ation or ociety Date

Organization O er ie an Description of o Discretionary n s ill e se

Please rovide an overvie of organi ational rogra s and services offered in the co nity

• Please attach the most recent audited financial statement and current financial statement, list of Directors, organizational chart (including full and part-time staff and community volunteers, number of members and membership fees (if applicable).

F nding ill e sed for -

A O NT APPROVED

Previous Grants Received: __2014 __2015 2016

Board DateResolution #

D

Che e to e for arded to Director licant onsor rgani ation

ignat re of Applicant ignat re of ponsor Organi ation if re ired

uidelines he primar purpose of these grants is to pro ide some financial assistance to local communit groups and organizations for pro ects that pro ide social economic sporting cultural and other benefits to our communities

rants ill not be pro ided to indi iduals or for profit entities rants o er are sub ect to a holdbac

n ing aya le to Applicant ponsor Organi ation

Na e of onsor rgani ation

Phone No

Re est for Discretionary rant F nding fro

lectoral rea

nici ality

Na e of Director

ddress of onsor rgani ation P Box, treet, City, Prov Postal Code

Dlease note he pplicant must be able to deposit the funding pa ment in their name or ha e a sponsor organization noted

ailing ddress P Box, treet, City, Prov Postal Code

ail

Contact

SD8, GIE Oaxaca 09-Feb-2018

[email protected] 250-359-7219

Kathi Knapik, teacher

✔

School District 8 Kootenay Lake

570 Johnstone Rd. Nelson, BC, V1L6J2

D,E,F

Nelson, and more

A.Watson, and more

$ 2,000.00

See three attached documents included with this application.

Cultural activities (immersion Spanish language and archaeology tours)

F

$1000.00

15-MAR-18#

Authorized by Area-F Director Newell

409

G

15-MAR-18#

410

411

412

413

414

H

415

1860-I

15-MAR-18#

416

1860-I

15-MAR-18#

417

I

15-MAR-18#

418

202 Lakeside Drive, Box 590, Nelson, BC|/11.5R4Phone 250-352-6665 Fax 250-352-^300

Toll Free in BC 1-800-268-7325 S

File No,, i^

Name Of Applicant (Organization or Society)

^/^TZ/<£T&>/^ Qu/L^Sf€5 6^CJ^2>

MailillR Addt'eSS (PO Box, Street, City, Prav. Postal Code)

^&^=/î 3 s c i^/L/ 5.,^ ^^^j C./^y 7^<£r<£>^<- /&? v- - • phone ^

(^.A-TT-i-/^ 5acyr-r- __

Contact 7/^^?^c7/€^/e- ^^!) • ôf./6"22-

F^^/ûA^y 7 Zo/<f

Date of Applieatuon


Electoral Area

Municipality

Name of Director /?/<?/< S/urn-t

Pfeu.s'e note: The Applimi'it nw'it he cibk to (tsposit the f'ur'dlni]

payment in their name or have a sponsor orgwwati'm mlvd.

630'0 .

Name of Sponsor Organization

|Acldress of Sponsor Organization (PO Box, street, city, prov. postal code)

Ifunding Payable to applicant __Sponsor Organization | G^^rheprimarypurpo5e^theseara^sis to provide some financial assistance to

community groups and organizations for

projects that provide social, economic, sporting,cultural and other benefits to our communities.

Grants will not be provided to Individuals or 'for

profit' entities. Grants over $5000 are subjectto a 10% holdback.

Please proyide an overview, of organizat<9Dal programs and services offered in thg community ,. ,„ /."nj^' ^^~^^'~AJ-6G-'"/ô7=n^'ûrc^. ~"^"K^ ~û-/u'u/i>^/_^}^

a^/'T!^ ~^-€^ /ôdessEL^s '<ô/'A3<^'70 ^jpz?/^ ^ê^sjl^"^^^^/^ 77o^^/7-?4^ /%LÔ-ÂT76/o; Q:^7L^6A/e~ ^^^/_^_

g will be used for - ^ ' _, X)_. ._—^ . î ,.

,nêâ^^_ ^^ dÛGÛ<^ _^^£^JT^^ ^2^f^t7?f£'WC^^TL^&/^^ dj£>M^^^(T^ CZ^^^^X. /-^/â^/eiw,^ ^)^/^:T-<5//0^ C^c-7~^^^- /^-c^, s0^^

9 Please attach the most recent audited financial statement and current financial statement, list of Directors, organizational chart (Including full and part-


Signature of Applicant Signature of Sponsor Organization (if required;

iut^ ~ ^. 6^<^/ S-cL^-^6/^^ &/!

Previous Grants Received

,2014 _2015 _2016Cheque to be forwarded to:

Director _Applicant _Sponsor OrganizationBoard Date

Resolution #-^ ' f:--•( /1-

RnrK-nwi inn '>ni7

419

DjvrpiffT Of-•°»IF:<SN- SK

s 3k""-. t ^1 --i^-n; I1

-5700 z>o

5, -. MA<—

'Ast—

420

C

15-MAR-18#

Authorized by Area-C Director Binks $250.00

421

422

Community Development Grant Application

ional i t ict o nt al oot na202 Lakeside Drive, Box 590, Nelson BC V1L 5R4


File No. 1865-20-___

RDCK-1865 n 2017

Applicant InformationName o Applicant r ani a ion or o ie Date o Application

A

n in a a l to Applicant ponsor ani ation

The Community Development Program supports initiatives which further the social, economic and environmental well being of the Regional District's residents and organizations.

Na e o onsor r ani a ion

ddress o onsor r ani a ion P Box, ni , ree , Ci , Prov Pos al Code

Organization i an c iption o o o nit lop nt n ill Please provide an overview of organizational programs and services offered in the community

F ndin ill e sed or -

i nat o A a i cto A A

Previous Grants Received __2014 2015 2016

Che e o e or arded oDire or li an onsor r ani a ion

Board Date:Resolution #

Re es or Co ni Develo en F ndin ro

le oral rea

ni i ali

Na e o Dire or

ailin ddress P Box, ni , ree , Ci , Prov , Pos al Code

ail Phone No

Con a

Please note The pplicant must be able to deposit the funding payment in their name or have a sponsor organization assistance.

Which funding criterial objectives does this project meet? __ Social __ Economic nviron en al

Please a a h he os re en a di ed inan ial s a e en and rren inan ial s a e en , lis o Dire ors, or ani a ional har in l din ll and ar - i e

s a and o ni vol n eers, n er o e ers and e ershi ees i a li a le

ignature of pplicant ignature of ponsor rgani ation i re ired

A t o i ation

Lardeau Valley Historical Society February 14, 2018

P.O.Box 74, Meadow Creek, BC, V0G1N0


Peter Jonker, President

D

Aimee Watson

$1000

The LVHS manages development and operations of the Lardeau Valley Museum, including its collections, interpretive messaging for summer visitors, and community engagement.

To provide an honorarium for a hired Coordinator to organize this year's 100th birthday of our Museum main building. Planned commemorative events include a local history quiz and a community picnic celebration at the Museum, Sunday July 1. We are applying to the BC Community Resilience Through Arts and Culture program for $1500 picnic expenses. The Coordinator will organize food purchases, food preparations, picnic tables, tents, PA-system, sack races and other kids' games, face-painting, musicians, old-time square dance, an in-museum scavenger hunt, staging of a Red McLeod skit; and organize antiques/collector-items displays by locals.

Peter M Jonker

D

Authorized by Area-D Dir. Watson

15-MAR-18#

423

D

15-MAR-18#

Authorized by Area-D Dir. Watson

424

Authorized by Area D Director Watson15-MAR-18#

425

Community Development Grant

Application Form

Regional District of Central Kootenay 202 Lakeside Drive, Box 590, Nelson, BC VlL 5R4

Phone 250-352-6665 Fax 250-352-9300 Toll Free in BC 1-800-268-7325

Name of Applicant (Organization or Society)

Kutenai Art Therapy Institute Association

Mailing Address (PO Box, Street, City, Prov. Postal Code)

191 Baker Street, Nelson, BC VlL 4Hl

Email Phone No.


ContactMonica Carpendale, Executive Director

Please note: The Applicant must be able to deposit the funding

payment in their name or have a sponsor organization noted.

Funding Payable to _ Applicant �Sponsor Organization

Name of Sponsor Organization Kutenai Art Therapy Institute Association

Address of Sponsor Organization (PO Box, Street, City, Prov. Postal Code)

191 Baker Street, Nelson, BC VlL 4Hl

File No. 1860-20-_

Date of Application

21-Feb-2018


E

RDCK

Electoral Area

Municipality

Name of Director Ramona Faust

AMOUNT REQUESTED $ 2,000.00

Guidelines: The primary purpose of these grants is to provide some financial assistance to local community groups and organizations for projects that provide social, economic, sporting, cultural and other benefits to our communities.

Grants will not be provided to individuals or 'for profit' entities. Grants over $5000 are subject to a 10% holdback.

Please provide an overview of organizational programs and services offered in the community KATI offers a wide range of art therapy and counselling services through its programs, conferences, and special events as well as clinical placements in the community.

Funding will be used for -

Accreditation application for Master's degree through the BC Ministry of Advanced Education (details attached). Executive summary, 2017 audited financials, list of Directors, and organizational chart are also attached as separate documents.

• Please attach the most recent audited financial statement and current financial statement, list of Directors, organizational chart (including full and part


Signature of Applicant

Signature of Area Director

Previous Grants Received:

_2014 _2015 _2016 Cheque to be forwarded to:

Director _ Applicant _Sponsor Organization

Signature of Sponsor Organization (if required)

Board Date Resolution #

AMOUNT APPROVED

RDCK-1860 Jun 2017

$2000

426

E

15-MAR-18#

427

E

15-MAR-18#

428

429

430

431

1865-I

432

J

15-MAR-18#

433

Application Form ~'":

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY202 Lakeside Drive, Box 590, Nelson, B.C. V1L5R4

Phone 250-352-6665 Faxs 250-352-9300

Toll Free in B.C. 1-80Q-268-7325

FILE NO. 1865-20-

Organization/Society Name:

vJJ.^^4- Kcôic<y^ oc' scj e i^<--f R^'rDate:

F^b.1^/1^Cheque PAYABLE* to:(*Recipient receiving funding must be able to deposit payment to their bankaccoiuatff

</Same as above

_OTHER than above, payment to be issued to:

RDCK Electoral Area/IVIember Municipality:

• Area - '^~

® Municipality -

Na.me of Contact:

A^n rU>>nn.d! /T^c^ K^SRDCK Direptcy: ; 0

.t0f\ Or»-\ t

OjaanizatLonÂdfIress: _ , \ \ /. » i . ^^ , —~

^'"T^CT^rf^^te SJ-oof, i^t&^jitÔrganization Phone # ê^ôn

Vi^-iÔrganization Fax #

Organization Email:

To be completed by RDCK Directory .

Cheque to be forwarded to:(check one and ensure address is indicated)

• _Director

s j/Drganization

• Contact Person

Please provide an ovpn/i^v of organizational programs and services offered in the community:-V^<_ Ue.^.o ^ <^t_t'$^c<. Fo.^r ô^CA>>e^ +-'k<^-^j®^ a7<-t'&^c<. phoî?a^$, "l~rT)'^ e-0

4-^-c. Por<^^!^<a-.4i'^<i ^c-l-ôl ^ G(^_pro>-);^<-> Ûê^S-^ -^-o A-P^'^c^-ûj^'

<0(i~ ,1

L.o<yri^_>' T^{' i_\'. SC'&•>•> i O^/^

•\S^v^\^ —Please attach the following documents (if available): L.0<yr^->''~<<^ I ^

Most recent audited financial statement and current financial statement

Listof Directors, structure of organization including full and part-time staff and community volunteersCurrent year's budget

Number of members and membership fee (if applicable)

Total Grant Requested: $Sco. 0-t3

What will this grant be used for?

40 QC7C7^ (. 4- 1'^ ^•u^^*'^<\ 4J^1^' Locr-tîA: ^ ^> r<^^

Which funding criterial objectives does this project meet? _Social _Economic _Environmental

Total Grant Approved

$ 5co,^

Previous Grants JReceived 20132014

Board Approval Date:

Resolution #

RDCK-1865-rev-04-DEC-14

434

K

15-MAR-18 #

435

K

15-MAR-18#

436

K

15-MAR-18#

437

438

K

15-MAR-18#

439

SLO

15-MAR-18#

440

SLO

441

Solar PV evaluation for RDCK Area E

non-profit community buildings Dave Lovekin, July 10, 2017

Background

This document summarizes the analysis conducted to advance grid-tied solar photovoltaic (PV)

systems on selected rural non-profit community group buildings in the West Kootenays, BC. It

provides recommendations on which systems provide the best opportunity to the community

groups to reduce their utility bills, receive additional revenue from excess electricity sold to

Nelson Hydro and also represent good investment for public money used to support the upfront

purchasing of the solar PV components.

Advancing distributed solar PV systems on buildings in the region will increase the visibility

and viability of solar PV systems in B.C., increase energy security for rural customers and help

these community groups with the ongoing operational costs of powering their buildings.

Pembina’s role

The Pembina Institute (Pembina) led the process of obtaining quotes from interested solar

vendors, summarized and presented this information to the community groups and followed up

on questions the groups had about the proposed systems. This report captures the main

information collected and presented to the groups and is meant to provide final guidance on

the most promising systems for the various buildings.

Goals and scope of this work

Motivation

Solar PV systems that produce electricity from solar radiation have become a very cost-

effective renewable energy technology in recent years. The cost-effectiveness of solar PV and

producing on-site electricity versus purchasing electricity from a local utility depends on

government policy (grants, incentives, low-interest loans) but generally, solar PV is

442

Pembina Institute - Solar PV evaluation for RDCK Area E non-profit community buildings | 2

approaching parity1 with grid electricity and in some jurisdictions where grid electricity is

expensive, solar PV is the more economical choice.

A major barrier to further uptake of solar PV in B.C. is the lack of provincial government

programs to help with the upfront capital cost of such systems, which are often unaffordable to

most. Although net metering programs help, they do not mitigate the capital outlay required.

The support of the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) and other potential funding

sources will help non-profit societies in the region to purchase and install solar PV systems.

This will allow them to produce their own electricity locally, receive a discount on their utility

costs equal to the amount of electricity exported to the grid, and slightly reduce greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions.2

The main motivations for this work are to:

Work with municipal governments to financially support low-income non-profit

societies to transition to renewable energy solutions that lower utility bills. This can set

an example for how municipal governments can support renewable energy deployment

when there are no provincial or federal programs.

Contribute to the growing trend of distributed electricity generation as opposed to

centralized utility-scale electricity production.

Provide an opportunity for rural community groups to increase their energy security

through on-site energy generation and future storage options.

Protect against rising grid electricity costs.

Goals

The main goal of this work is to advance the deployment of solar PV systems in the West

Kootenays, leveraging the net metering program3 available through the local utility, Nelson

Hydro. Many net metering programs in Canada do not offer full rates for electricity sold to the

utility and often do not provide year-end financial credit if the building produced more

electricity than it consumed. At the time of writing, Nelson Hydro offers both – the utility will

credit the customer electricity exported to the grid at the same rate electricity is purchased, and

if at year-end the utility will provide a financial payout if there is a positive credit. This is the

1 “Grid parity” means that the levelized cost of electricity over the lifetime of the solar PV system ($/kWh) is

approximately the same as ongoing electricity purchased from utilities.

2 Although the GHG emission intensity of the electricity grid in the RDCK region is low, the electricity supply mix is

approximately 50% hydro-electricity and 50% electricity from other sources in BC (mainly hydro and natural gas)

3 https://nelson.civicweb.net/document/25430/Hydro%20Services%20Bylaw%203196%20%282015-3-

2%29.pdf?handle=C0D130A3D8304E118603A8DBA9BA5DB6

443

https://nelson.civicweb.net/document/25430/Hydro%20Services%20Bylaw%203196%20%282015-3-2%29.pdf?handle=C0D130A3D8304E118603A8DBA9BA5DB6



Nelson Hydro’s current offer. Future offers and details of the net metering program are

unknown and information not readily available.

Scope

This analysis was conducted on four rural buildings owned by non-profit community groups in

Area E of the RDCK. All of these buildings have undergone or are going through energy

efficiency upgrades targeted at reducing building energy consumption. The next logical step is

to support the adoption of on-site renewable energy generation to further reduce energy costs

and GHG emissions. The following buildings were evaluated in this study for potential solar PV

systems:

Balfour Recreation Commission

Balfour Community Hall

Clubhouse / Restaurant at the Balfour Golf Course

Balfour Senior Association

Balfour Seniors’ Hall

Procter Community Association

Procter Community Hall

Grid-tied rooftop solar PV systems were the technology explored in this study. These systems

would be tied into Nelson Hydro’s utility meter with a bi-direction net meter and be capable of

exporting excess electricity to the grid. Nelson Hydro would pay for and ensure the installation

of the net metering is done properly.

Request for Information packages were sent to select solar PV companies in the region and

Alberta for quotes on complete system costs on the most appropriate solar PV system size for

the various buildings. Of the five companies solicited, only two companies responded and they

were both from Alberta: Skyfire Energy from Calgary and Dandelion Renewables from

Edmonton. Both companies see the business case for solar PV systems in B.C. considering

system costs, utility costs (and expected increases), and net metering programs. The companies

performed site visits and provided quotes for full system costs. A third company – Sweet Spot

Solar out of Kelowna provided a quote for the Procter Community Hall and was contacted

separately by the Procter Community Association.

Evaluation criteria

Evaluation criteria were established in order to evaluate the quotes and to provide a fair

recommendation. The evaluation criteria includes:

Greatest savings on utility bills – savings on utility bills will be based on the amount

of electricity consumed within the building. The larger system will generally provide the

highest savings on utility bills because larger systems will produce more electricity. For

444


simplicity, savings from reduced electricity was included. Solar PV systems do have

minor ongoing maintenance costs, but the companies did not provide comparable

information on this. Generally speaking, ongoing maintenance costs are very low;

replacement costs for various solar components would be considered in 10+ years, but

many systems are covered by warranties, outlined further below.

Revenue from selling electricity to grid – net revenue over the year from selling

electricity to the grid under Nelson Hydro’s net metering program. This is the current

offering by Nelson Hydro but there is no guarantee Nelson Hydro will honour paying out

the credit at the end of the year if the building produces more electricity than it

consumes.

Most electricity sold to the grid – A way for Nelson Hydro to avoid purchasing

electricity from other utilities (FortisBC) is to purchase renewable, low-carbon

electricity locally. Buildings that satisfy their own electricity needs and are a net

exporter of electricity to the grid contribute to the growing trend of local distributed

electricity generation networks.

Most economical – Although it is anticipated that the capital dollars required for the

systems will be supported by a variety of funding sources, the systems must be

economical to ensure public dollars are being spent prudently. This analysis uses the

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) metric.

Highest cost efficiency – Solar PV companies strive to be efficient in both sourcing

components and installing their systems. The one governing metric commonly used is

the full system costs per total capacity installed ($ / kW).

Other considerations

Other aspects taken into consideration through this analysis include:

Snow loading – Assessment includes snow modelling and the assumption that solar PV panels

will not generate any electricity under heavy snow loads. Local climate data is used to predict

snow loading and annual electricity production estimates take this into account.

Ability to include electrical storage capacity – One of the benefits of local electricity

production is the ability to store the electricity on-site and use it to power or heat a building if

grid electricity is lost. No modelling of energy storage amount was performed but it was

confirmed by the companies that the systems could be expanded to include a storage

component.

Warranty and replacement costs – All component warranties are listed below. Replacement

costs for certain system components are expected – especially electrical inverters as they have

445


the shortest lifespan of most of the components (10 to 15 years). Community groups should

anticipate a certain percentage of their savings will go towards these components’ replacement

costs.

Solar PV systems explored

Solar PV systems

Mainstream solar PV systems tied to an electricity grid have been installed throughout Canada

since the mid-1990s. While a small 1 kW system may have cost $30,000 in the beginning, the

same system can now be installed for approximately $3,000. The cost of solar continues to

decline, but most of this decline is now attributed to soft costs such as design, permits and

installation.

A grid-tied solar PV system is connected between the building’s electricity circuits and the

electricity meter. The “bi-directional” meter separately counts electricity imported from the

grid versus electricity produced by the solar PV system and exported to the grid (when the solar

PV system is generating more electricity than what the building is consuming). The grid is

available to effectively top up the electricity needed when that generated by the solar PV

system cannot meet the building’s demand.

A complete grid-tied solar PV system involves several strings of solar PV modules connected in

an array with inverters, electric disconnects and cabling. Inverters are required to convert the

electricity produced from the solar PV from direct current (DC) to the alternating current (AC)

format the building and grid can use.

Each array is configured differently depending on where modules are installed on buildings.

Installation varies with available roof and wall space, roof orientation, and obstructions such as

nearby trees, buildings and other structures. Since typical inverters can handle 240 to 480 volts

of DC, up to 20 modules of 24 volts each can be connected in a series string.4 A typical rooftop

solar PV system is shown in Figure 1.

4 CivicSolar, Inverter String Design Calculation (2015).

https://www.civicsolar.com/support/installer/articles/inverter-string-design-calculation

446

https://www.civicsolar.com/support/installer/articles/inverter-string-design-calculation


Figure 1: Example rooftop solar PV system

Nelson Hydro net metering program

Nelson Hydro offers a net metering program where buildings can develop solar PV projects and

connect this system to their building’s utility meter. Electricity produced from the solar PV

system will first be consumed by the building. Any excess electricity produced by the solar PV

system is exported to the grid to be used by Nelson Hydro. Many details and requirements are

laid out in Nelson Hydro’s bylaw5. One of the main stipulations is that projects cannot exceed

25 kW single-phase6; systems that exceed this size require discussions with Nelson Hydro.

At time of writing, if over the year the building produces more electricity than it consumes and

a credit is accumulated, Nelson Hydro will pay this credit to the customer.7 This is the current

offering and it is unknown whether Nelson Hydro will continue to offer this credit payment.

Proposed systems

Solar PV components

Solar PV systems include four basic components:

Solar PV modules – produce DC electricity from sunlight. Standard commercial

technologies today include mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline silicon panels. Both

technologies are mature and choice comes down to company preference. Production of

solar PV modules is worldwide with varying levels of quality. For this reason, Bloomberg

5 https://nelson.civicweb.net/document/25430/Hydro%20Services%20Bylaw%203196%20%282015-3-

2%29.pdf?handle=C0D130A3D8304E118603A8DBA9BA5DB6

6 Single-phase distribution is used when loads are mostly lighting and heating, with few large electric motors

7 Email communication with Nelson Hydro, May 3, 2017

447




Financial produced a tier ranking system8 based on the financial stability of the

company that has correlation to the quality of product made.

Power optimizer – is an optional component often included with solar PV panels. A

power optimizer increases energy output from PV systems by constantly tracking the

maximum power point. Trends are that solar PV panels have embedded optimizers.

Inverters / micro-inverters – convert DC electricity to AC electricity that buildings

and electricity grids require. Since solar PV panels produce DC electricity, all systems

require inverters.

Larger inverters (also called “string inverters”) are used for banks of several PV modules

(strings). Micro-inverters are an alternative method and are attached to every solar PV

module. Micro-inverters are used to help deal inversion in intermittent shading, can be

optimized for each PV module and generally have longer warranties because they do not

see the larger electricity voltages that string inverters do. Micro-inverters are also

considered more economical and a better fit for systems less than 3 kW in size. Whether

a system is designed with micro-inverters or string inverters is at the discretion of the

company designing the system.

Bi-directional meter – is a special utility meter that controls the flow of electricity

based on where the electricity is being produced and consumed. Under the Nelson

Hydro net metering program, Nelson Hydro pays for the bi-directional meter.

Racking – is needed to connect the solar PV modules to a building’s roof. Racking is

typically metal and there are various methods to connect the system depending on the

type of roof (metal, shingles, etc).

Company and proposed component information, warranty

Table 1 summarizes key information about the companies that provided quotes and warranty

information for proposed components.

8 https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/4/2012/12/bnef_2012-12-03_PVModuleTiering.pdf

448

https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/4/2012/12/bnef_2012-12-03_PVModuleTiering.pdf

Table 1. Company and product warranty information

Dandelion

Renewables

Skyfire Sweet Spot solar

Company –

warranty of work

Life-time warranty on

workmanship

Commercial - One-year

material and workmanship

warranty. Five-year for

residential

Not available

Solar PV modules

Manufacturing Hanwha Q Cells

South Korean

company. Modules

manufactured in

Malaysia

CanadianSolar – Canadian

company with HQ in

Guelph, ON.

Modules manufactured in

China or Canada

Hanwha Q Cells

South Korean company.

Modules manufactured in

Malaysia

Tier rating Tier 1 (#2) Tier 1 (#5) Tier 1 (#2)

Technology,

capacity,

efficiency

Monocrystalline, 270W,

17.7%

Polycrystalline, 260W,

16.2%

Polycrystalline, 305W,

19.6%

Warranty 12-year product, 25-

year power output

10-year product, 25-year

power output

12-year, 25-year power

output

Inverters – String

Manufacturer Fronius Primo SolarEdge inverter N/A

Warranty 10-year 12-year N/A

Inverters – Micro Manufacturer ABB Batteries AP Systems Enphase M215

449


Warranty 10-year 10-year 25 years

Racking

Manufacturer Schletter Solo05 roof

for corrugated roof

Schletter racking for

corrugated roof.

Kinetic racking with

flashing for asphalt shingles

Unknown

Warranty 15-year warranty 15-year Unknown

450

Proposed system costs

System costs quoted by each company are out-dated and invalid as they were provided in

February and March 2017. However, they are acceptable for cost comparison purposes. Before

proceeding with the selected vendor, finalized quotes are suggested. The system costs provided

do not include taxes, upgrades to electrical services in buildings or necessary roof or structural

upgrades. The only exception to this is the quote provided by Dandelion Renewables that

includes a $7,800 cost for structural upgrades to the Procter Community Hall. Whether this is

necessary or an adequate estimate needs to be confirmed.

The cost estimates provided include all solar PV components, disconnects, interconnection

wiring, grounding, electrical, engineering and building permits, complete installation and

commissioning and net-metering grid tie application.

Each company provided an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) calculation, but the details of how

each company performed the calculation is unknown. It is suspected the calculations are not

similar and may or may not include levelized operation and maintenance costs. Regardless, the

IRR calculations give good guidance to the economics of the system. Cost savings does not take

into account operating, maintenance and replacement costs. They are strictly savings on

electricity bills.

451


Buildings

Balfour Community Hall

The Balfour Community hall has high-pitched roof in a west-east configuration as shown in

Figure 2. There is adequate space for solar PV panels on both the west and east face. There is

the potential for some shading on the east roof from nearby trees.

Figure 2: Balfour Community Hall — west view

The community building used to consume approximately 1.7 MWh / year of electricity when the

building was heated with natural gas. The community switched from natural gas heating to

mini-split heat pumps powered by electricity. Utility records from the past year indicate

electricity consumption rose to 9.8 MWh / year because of the heat pumps. The analysis below

is based on the new electricity demand.

Dandelion Renewables

Dandelion Renewables proposes a 16.8 kW solar PV system on the entire west face of the Hall’s

roof, consisting of 60 PV modules and 60 micro-inverters on Schletter racking. Dandelion

proposed a large system to maximize the roof space and the economies of scale with installing

a larger system. The proposed system is shown in Figure 3.

452


Figure 3: Dandelion Renewable proposal – Balfour Community Hall

The system would produce 15.3 MWh of electricity per year, which is 157% of the building’s

annual electricity load. This means the Balfour Community Hall would be a net exporter of

electricity to Nelson Hydro.

The quoted system cost is $59,899, which equates to $3,565 / kW. Based on information

provided by Dandelion, the system represents an IRR of 0.5% just in utility bill savings.

The system would save the community group approximately $1,887 / year. The system

produces more electricity than the building consumes, although in certain months (i.e. winter)

not enough electricity would be produced to satisfy the buildings’ demand and hence the

community group will have a utility bill then. Summer months will see an excess of electricity

produced and will build up a credit. Of the $1,887 / year, they will see $1,274 / year in savings in

utility bills and $613 / year in revenue from selling electricity to the grid (while Nelson Hydro

honors net metering credit payout).

Skyfire

Skyfire proposes a 2.61 kW solar PV system on a smaller portion of the west face of the Hall’s

roof, consisting of nine PV modules and micro-inverters on Schletter racking, as shown in

Figure 4.

453


Figure 4: Skyfire proposal – Balfour Community Hall

The system would produce 1.9 MWh of electricity per year, which is only a fraction - 19% of the

building’s annual electricity load.

The quoted system cost is $12,456 which equates to $4,772 / kW. Based on information

provided by Dandelion, this represents an IRR of 0.3% with just the savings on the utility bills.

The system would save the community group approximately $247 / year.

Comparison

Both companies proposed high quality solar PV panels and micro-inverters. Skyfire went with a

smaller system for unknown reasons but it is speculated that they did this before they knew the

community group would switch heating technologies from natural gas to electric heat pumps.

Table 2 summarizes the two systems.

Table 2. Solar PV system comparison – Balfour Community Hall

Dandelion

Renewables

Skyfire

System size (kw) 16.8 2.61

Annual electricity produced (MWh) 15.3 1.9

Cost $59,899 $12,456

Annual savings on utility bill $1,274 $247

454


Annual revenue from electricity to

the grid

$613 None

IRR 0.5% 0.3%

Cost efficiency ($ / kWh) $3,565 $4,772

The Dandelion Renewable system offers more savings and potential revenue for the community

group and has a better installed efficiency ($/kW) and only marginally less IRR.9

SUGGESTION: Dandelion Renewables

Balfour Senior’s Hall

The Balfour Seniors’ Hall has a low slanted south-facing roof making it ideal for solar PV

modules, as shown in Figure 5. The structural integrity of the roof is unknown and it has been

suggested that it should be replaced. This is not included in any quotes below. There is definite

shading on the east side of the roof from nearby trees.

Figure 5: Balfour Seniors’ Hall — south view

The Seniors’ Hall used to consume approximately 10 MWh/year in electricity. With the

insulation upgrades, new windows/doors and transitioning from baseboard heating to air-

9 IRR’s were calculated by the companies with no insight. Discrepancy with lower IRR is likely due to minor O&M

costs included by Dandelion, or future forecast of electricity prices.

455


source mini-splits, electricity consumption at the Hall decreased to approximately 5.5

MWh/year. The analysis below is based on the new electricity demand.


Dandelion Renewables proposes an 8.96 kW solar PV system on the entire south face of the

roof, consisting of 32 PV modules (with integrated optimizers) and 32 micro-inverters on

Schletter racking. Dandelion proposed a large system to maximize the south facing roof space.

The proposed system is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Dandelion Renewable proposal – Balfour Seniors’ Hall

The system would produce 9.4 MWh of electricity per year, which is 172% of the building’s new

annual electricity load. This means that the Seniors’ Hall would be a net exporter of electricity

to Nelson Hydro under current situations.

The quoted system cost is $36,609 which equates to $4,086/kW. Based on information provided

by Dandelion, this represents an IRR of –0.4%.

The system would save the community group approximately $1,133/year. Since the system

produces more electricity than the building consumes, although in winter not enough

electricity would be produced to satisfy the buildings’ demand and hence the community group

will have a utility bill, summer months will see excess electricity production and they will build

up a credit. Of the $1,133/year, they will see $658/year in savings in utility bills and $475/year

in revenue from selling electricity to the grid (while Nelson Hydro honors net metering credit

payout).

456


Skyfire

Skyfire proposes a 5.8 kW solar PV system on a portion of the south face of the roof, consisting

of 20 PV modules and one-string inverters on Schletter racking. Twenty optimizers are

included because a string inverter was included rather than micro-inverters. The system is

shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Skyfire proposal – Balfour Senior’s Hall


current annual electricity load. This means that the Seniors’ Hall would not be a net exporter of

electricity.


by Skyfire, this represents an IRR of 2.2%. The system would save the community group

approximately $606 annually.

Comparison

Both companies proposed high quality solar PV panels with Dandelion offering a micro-

inverter solution (assumed to maximize electricity output from tree shading). Skyfire’s system

is slightly smaller possibly to avoid the shading issue.


Table 3. Solar PV system comparison – Balfour Seniors’ Hall

457


Dandelion

Renewables

Skyfire



Cost $36,609 $19,119

Annual savings on utility bill $658 $606


the grid

$475 None

IRR -0.4 2.2


The Dandelion system offers potential revenue from selling electricity to the grid, but the

Skyfire system offers a better installed efficiency ($/kWh) and IRR.10

SUGGESTION: Skyfire

Balfour Golf Course

The Balfour Golf Course clubhouse has a variety of roof slopes and orientations. The largest

roof is east-west facing. There is no shading from any trees or buildings. The clubhouse is

shown in Figure 8.

As it contains two floors and separate businesses, there are two Nelson Hydro utility meters in

the Clubhouse. This presents the possibility of having two separate solar PV systems connected

individually to each utility meter. The Dandelion system quoted below takes this into

consideration but the Skyfire system only quoted a system to connect to one utility meter.

10 IRR does not include the potential revenue generation from selling electricity to the grid

458


Figure 8: Clubhouse — South-east view

Before upgrades, the clubhouse consumed approximately 68 MWh/year in electricity. Electricity

consumption for the year after upgrades only marginally decreased to 67 MWh/year. Heat

pumps and new appliances were installed and door glass upgrades are planned. The reasons for

only a small reduction in electricity consumption are unknown; possibly due to offset by the

usage of air conditioning that comes with heat pumps.


Dandelion Renewables proposes a 39.2 kW solar PV system on almost all the clubhouse roofs,

consisting of 140 PV modules (with integrated optimizers) and three inverters on Schletter

racking. The overall system is split into two to take advantage of the two Nelson Hydro utility

meters. The proposed system is shown in Figure 9.

459


Figure 9: Dandelion Renewable proposal – Balfour Clubhouse


annual electricity load.


provided by Dandelion, this represents an IRR of 3.8%.

The system would save the community group approximately $4,618 / year.

Skyfire

Skyfire proposes a 29.9 kW solar PV system on the most southerly portion of all the clubhouse

roofs, consisting of 103 PV modules (with integrated optimizers) and two string inverters on a

Kinetic racking system with flashings for the asphalt roof. The stated capacity is 29.9 kW but

the actual DC capacity is under 25 kW in order for the one system to fit within Nelson Hydro’s

net metering maximum size system. The proposed system is shown in Figure 10.

460


Figure 10: Skyfire proposal – Balfour Clubhouse


annual electricity load.


provided by Skyfire, this represents an IRR of 3.2%.

Comparison

Both companies proposed high quality solar PV panels and string inverters. Skyfire went with a

smaller system to fit within the Nelson Hydro net metering limit. Dandelion took advantage of

the two meters in the building and went with a larger system. Neither system is big enough to

be a net exporter of electricity to the grid.


Table 4. Clubhouse – solar PV system comparison

Dandelion

Renewables

Skyfire



Cost $93,080 $73,708

Annual savings on utility bill $4,618 $3,094

461



the grid

None None

IRR 3.8% 3.2%


The Dandelion Renewable system offers more savings because of the two-part system taking

advantage of both Nelson Hydro meters. IRR and install efficiencies are very similar between

the two systems with both having the lowest for all systems installed (because of the larger

size). Although similar, Dandelion Renewables does offer slightly better economics.

SUGGESTION: Dandelion Renewables

Procter Community Hall

The Procter Community Hall has a large south-facing roof, making it ideal for solar PV

modules, as shown in Figure 11. The structural integrity of the roof was questioned by one

company and it is suggested reinforcement is likely required. There is no shading from nearby

trees or buildings.

Figure 11: Procter Community Hall — south view

The Procter Hall consumes approximately 17.9 MWh/year in electricity. Energy efficiency

upgrades are still planned for the building with the heating system possibly switching from

propane to electric heat pumps. Yet at time of writing, not enough information is available to

speculate on the changes that would make to electricity consumption.

462


For this building, a third company – Sweet Spot Solar provided a system quote.


Dandelion Renewables proposes a 26.9 kW solar PV system on the entire south face of the roof,

consisting of 96 PV modules and three string inverters on Schletter racking, as shown in Figure

12.

Figure 12: Dandelion Renewable proposal – Procter Community Hall

The system would produce 27.4 MWh of electricity per year, which would be 153% of the

building’s current annual electricity load. This means that the Community Hall would be a net

exporter of electricity under current situations. If the community switches from propane heat

to heat pumps, the Hall would likely consume all of the electricity produced by the solar PV

system and not export any electricity.


by Dandelion, this represents an IRR of 2.3%.

The system would save the community group approximately $3,562/year. The system produces

more electricity than the building consumes, although in winter months not enough electricity

would be produced to satisfy the buildings’ demand, hence the community group will have a

utility bill. Summer months will see excess electricity production and they will build up a

credit. Of the $3,562/year, they will see $2,327/year in savings in utility bills and $1,235/year in

revenue from selling electricity to the grid (while Nelson Hydro honors net metering credit

payout).

463


Skyfire

Skyfire proposes a 9.9 kW solar PV system on a portion of the south face of the roof, consisting

of 34 PV modules (with integrated optimizers) and one-string inverters on Schletter racking, as

shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Skyfire proposal – Procter Community Hall


building’s current annual electricity load.

The quoted system cost is $34,425, which is $3,492/kW. Based on information provided by

Skyfire, this represents an IRR of 3.0%. The system would save the community group

approximately $1,326/year.

Sweet Spot Solar

Sweet Spot Solar proposes a 25.62 kW solar PV system on the south face of the roof – the exact

location is not known. The system would consist of 84 PV modules (with integrated optimizers)

and micro-inverters.


building’s current annual electricity load. This means that the Community Hall would be a net

exporter of electricity under current situations. If the community switches from propane heat

to heat pumps, the Hall would likely consume all of the electricity produced by the solar PV

system and not export any.

The quoted system cost is $76,860, which is $3,000/kW. The IRR of the system was not provided

but it is speculated it would be between 3% and 4%.

The system would save the community group approximately $4,274/year. The system produces

more electricity than the building consumes, although in winter months not enough electricity

464


would be produced to satisfy the building’s demand and hence the community group will have a

utility bill. Summer months will produce an excess of electricity, building up a credit. Of the

$4,274/year, they will see $2,327/year in savings in utility bills and $1,947/year in revenue from

selling electricity to the grid (while Nelson Hydro honors net metering credit payout).

The modeled electricity produced from this system is proportionally higher than the other

systems. The proposed Hanwha Q cells have a higher wattage than the others and the

modelling tool used to predict solar radiation was from a free on-line web resource PVWatts,

which is very different than modelling tools used by Dandelion and Skyfire.

Comparison

All three companies offer similar systems; the Dandelion and Sweet Spot systems are quite

large and cover the majority of the roof. The Skyfire system is the smallest proposed. Dandelion

Renewables was the only company that suggested the roof of the Community Hall may need

structural upgrades. Table 5 summarizes the systems.

Table 5. Solar PV system comparison – Balfour Community Hall

Dandelion

Renewables

Skyfire Sweet Spot

Solar

System size (kw) 26.9 9.86 25.6

Annual electricity produced (MWh) 27.4 10.2 32.9

Cost $88,810 $34,425 $76,860

Annual savings on utility bill $2,327 $1,326 $2,327


the grid

$1,235 None $1,947

IRR 2.3% 3.0% Unknown

Cost efficiency ($/kWh) $3,302 $3,491 $3,000

The Sweet Spot Solar system offers more savings and potential revenue for the community

group and a bit better installed efficiency ($/kW). The workmanship and guarantees of Sweet

Spot Solar is not known, making it slightly riskier.

SUGGESTION: The system proposed by Sweet Spot Solar has a bit better economics, but no site

visit was performed by the company. If the Procter Community Association is interested in a

465

http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/


system provided by Sweet Spot Solar, they should request a site visit and information on

company workmanship guarantees.

Summary and Recommendations

All three companies provide good quality complete grid-tied turnkey solar PV systems with the

solar PV components being of reputable quality from Tier 1 rating solar companies and having

industry-standard warranties. The two Alberta companies provided guarantees on

workmanship.

All companies made no indication that the roofs of the buildings will require additional support

except in the case where Dandelion Renewables suggested the Procter Community Hall might

need reinforcement for their proposed system.

Dandelion Renewables generally provided larger systems that result in additional revenue from

electricity being sold to the grid through Nelson Hydro’s net metering program.

Cost efficiencies are all within industry standard ranging from $3,000 / kW to $4,772 / kW; with

the higher end of the range (greater than $4,000 / kW) due to smaller systems. Larger systems,

especially the Balfour Golf Course Clubhouse and the Procter Community Hall have the best

cost efficiencies because of economies of scale.

Project economics are in the 0% to 4% range, again with higher IRR being for larger systems.

The only negative IRR is Balfour Seniors Hall by Dandelion.

Table 6 summarizes all the systems. The following recommendations are made for each of the

buildings:

Balfour Community Hall – Dandelion’s 16.8 kW system

Balfour Senior’s Hall – Skyfire’s 5.8 kW system

Balfour Golf Course Clubhouse – Dandelion’s 39.2 kW system

Procter Community Hall – Sweet Spot Solar 25.6 kW system (pending site visit

assessment) or Dandelion’s 26.9 kW system.

466


Table 6. Solar PV system summary – all buildings

Installed

capacity

(kW)

Total cost

($)

Annual

savings on

utility bill

($)

Annual

revenue from

electricity to

grid ($)

Cost

efficiency

($ / kW)

Internal

Rate of

Return

Balfour Community Hall (Dandelion) 16.8 $59,899 $1,274 $613 $3,565 0.50%

Balfour Community Hall (Skyfire) 2.6 $12,456 $247 $0 $4,772 0.30%

Balfour Seniors Hall (Dandelion) 9.0 $36,609 $658 $475 $4,086 -0.40%

Balfour Seniors Hall (Skyfire) 5.8 $19,119 $606 $0 $3,296 2.20%

Balfour Golf Course Clubhouse (Dandelion) 39.2 $93,080 $4,618 $0 $2,374 3.80%

Balfour Golf Course Clubhouse (Skyfire) 29.9 $73,708 $3,094 $0 $2,468 3.20%

Procter Community Hall (Dandelion) 26.9 $88,810 $2,327 $1,235 $3,301 2.30%

Procter Community Hall (Skyfire) 9.9 $34,425 $1,326 $0 $3,491 3.00%

Procter Community Hall (Sweet Spot Solar) 25.6 $76,860 $2,327 $1,947 $3,000 N/A

467

Documents

March 5, 2018 Date of Report: March 15, 2018 Open Regular ... · remit to Metro Vancouver, ensuring all waste generators contribute to the regional waste management system regardless