CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE. Thursday, May 24, 2012 SCRD Boardroom, 1975 Field Road AGENDA

Transcription

1 CORPORATE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, May 24, 2012 SCRD Boardroom, 1975 Field Road AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Adoption of Agenda PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS REPORTS 2. General Manager Planning & Development Sunshine Coast Tourism Proposed 2% Hotel Tax Annex A pp Manager of Legislative Services UBCM Resolutions Annex B pp Administrative Assistant, Corporate Services Referral from April CAS Terms of Reference Supporting Regional District of North Okanagan Annexation Impact Study 5. Treasurer Auditor General for Local Government (AGLG) Gibsons Chamber of Commerce Recommendation Letter Annex C pp Annex D pp Chief Administrative Officer Police Services Annex E pp Accounts Payable Technician April 2012 Director Constituency and Travel Expenses 8. Purchasing Officer and Risk Manager Contracts between $20,000 and $100, Manager of Transportation and Facilities Transit [#310] Variance Reporting to period ended March Manager, Financial Services General Ledger and Budget Variance Report January April 30, 2012 (General Ledger No ed prior to meeting pages) Annex F pp Annex G pp Annex H pp Annex I pp

2

3 Corporate and Administrative Services Committee Agenda May 24, 2012 Page Manager Recreation Services Recreation Facilities Variance Report for Period Ended April Manager of Sustainable Services Quarterly Variance Report for Regional Solid Waste 13. Administrative Assistant, Corporate Services Grant-In-Aid Recommendations Annex J pp Annex K pp Annex L pp Administrative Assistant, Corporate Services Bursary Presentations Annex M pp Treasurer Affordable Housing Committee Source Funding Verbal COMMUNICATIONS 16. Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Regarding New Limitation Act 17. Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Regarding Inter-Fund Borrowing Circular #12: Sunshine Coast Economic Tax Force, Jim Cleghorn Regarding Sunshine Coast Economic Development Alliance (SCDEA) - Board Structure Annex N pp Annex O pp Annex P p. 79 NEW BUSINESS IN CAMERA That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with the Community Charter section 90 (1) (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitorclient privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose ; and (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service. ADJOURNMENT

4

5 "A" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: April 30, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee - May 24, 2012 FROM: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning & Development RE: SUNSHINE COAST TOURISM PROPOSED 2% HOTEL TAX RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the report dated April 30, 2012 from the GM, Planning and Development regarding the proposed 2 percent hotel tax for the Sunshine Coast be received; AND THAT Sunshine Coast Tourism be requested to provide a yearly statement on where the funds from the tax are expended and the projects completed. BACKGROUND In March 2011, the Regional Board passed a resolution (118/11 No. 5) that staff work with Sunshine Coast Tourism (SCT) regarding the potential use of the 2% Municipal and Regional District Tax (the Hotel Tax ) to fund economic and tourism development strategies. On April 5, 2012 the Board passed a resolution in support of Sunshine Coast Tourism s application for the 2% tax for the Sunshine Coast region and SCT s role as the eligible entity in facilitating and administering the resulting funds. The Board also asked staff to meet with SCT representatives and report back to the May Corporate and Administrative Services Committee meeting. DISCUSSION The Hotel Room Tax Act states at section 3(1) that after the date a regional and municipal hotel tax is established in a prescribed area, a purchaser of accommodation must pay to the municipality, regional district or eligible entity, as the case may be, a tax at the prescribed rate on the purchase price of the accommodation. A Ministry of Finance bulletin with detailed information about the tax is attached to this report as Attachment A. Some of the key points include: In addition to a municipality or regional district an eligible entity may collect the tax. Eligible entities include not-for-profit business association with a place of business within the area the tax will apply and which engages in tourism marketing on behalf of the municipality or regional district. The amount of tax is up to 2 percent The tax is established for a 5 year period and can be renewed Since a separate entity (SCT) will be administering the 2% tax there will are no anticipated financial or operational implications for the SCRD, Sunshine Coast Tourism is in the process of applying as an eligible entity to have the Municipal and Regional District Tax under the Hotel Room Tax Act apply to the Sunshine Coast. SCT 1

6 proposes to collect $255,000 from the 2% tax adding to the existing annual budget of $125,000. For 2012, the SCRD is contributing $17,600 towards SCT s annual budget. Sunshine Coast Tourism met with SCRD staff on April 3, 2012 to discuss the proposed tax. SCT explained that the $255,000 raised via the new tax would be spent as follows: 80 percent on marketing services 20 percent on local initiatives (signage, maps, projects) Staff suggest that SCT be requested to provide a yearly statement on where their funds are expended and the projects completed. 2

7 Municipal and Regional District Tax: Information for Municipalities and Regional Districts Hotel Room Tax Act Do you know how a municipality or regional district can participate in the collection of a municipal and regional district tax? Do you need to know if you are an eligible entity? This bulletin provides specific information to help municipalities, regional districts and other eligible entities understand how they can participate in the collection of a municipal and regional district tax of up to 2%. Municipal and regional district tax information for accommodation providers is available in Bulletin MRDT 002, Municipal and Regional District Tax: Information for Accommodation Providers. Table of Contents Overview...1 Municipalities, Regional Districts and Eligible Entities...2 Participating Municipalities, Regional Districts and Eligible Entities...4 Overview The municipal and regional district tax is a hotel room tax of up to 2% charged on taxable accommodation. This tax is intended to assist municipalities, regional districts and other eligible entities in promoting their tourism industry and financing new tourist facilities or programs. 3

8 Municipalities, Regional Districts and Eligible Entities A municipality, regional district or eligible entity in British Columbia may apply to the Ministry of Finance for a municipal and regional district tax of up to 2%. This tax is charged on sales of taxable accommodation within that area. The tax is administered by and sent in to the ministry under the Hotel Room Tax Act and has its own tax return form. The tax can apply to the entire municipality or regional district, or to a specific area within the municipality or regional district. The ministry charges an administration fee to cover the cost of administering the tax, and provides the balance of the tax collected to the municipality, regional district or eligible entity on a monthly basis. How to Participate To participate in this program, you must pass a bylaw requesting the province to administer and collect the municipal and regional district tax on your behalf. The bylaw must contain the following information: the proposed tax rate, the geographic area in which the tax will apply (i.e. the entire municipality, regional district or a smaller area), the purpose for which you will use the funds, and the date you want the new tax to be effective. Additional Information and Documentation You also need to provide the following with your application. A complete list of all qualifying operators located within the area where the tax will apply. Documented evidence that you have consulted with the local accommodation industry, and that the majority support both the business plan and the application for the new tax. For a municipality, you need to show that you have consulted with the regional district in which you are located, and that the regional district agrees with the new tax. For a regional district, you need to show that you have consulted with the municipalities that are included in the geographical area where the tax will be collected within your jurisdiction, and that they agree with the new tax being 4

9 implemented. You need to also show that you are authorized to use the funds for the intended purpose, either by your letters patent or by statutory authority. If a municipality and regional district cannot agree on whether the additional tax should be imposed, priority will generally be given to the municipality. For assistance with the preparation of your business plan or your application, please contact the Tourism Strategy and Policy Branch of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation at PO Box 9830 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3 or CommunityPartnerships@gov.bc.ca Eligible Entities If you are an eligible entity, such as a non-profit organization that takes part in tourism marketing, you can also apply to have the municipal and regional district tax administered and collected on your behalf. You will need to show that you have consulted with the regional district or the municipality that is included in the geographical area where the tax will be collected. If you are a public body, other than a municipality or regional district, interested in requesting that the municipal and regional district tax be collected in a specific area, please contact the Tax Policy Branch of the Ministry of Finance at Compliance with Program Objectives For a municipality, regional district or other eligible entity participating in the municipal and regional district hotel room tax program, you must provide audited documentation to the ministry each year showing how the funds raised by this tax were used. You must also provide a statement that the funds were used for the purpose for which they were intended and are consistent with your business plan. The implementation of the business plan will be monitored in conjunction with the audited financial statements. Municipal and Regional District Tax Renewal Process The municipal and regional district tax is implemented for a period of five years. In order to extend the tax for an additional five year period, you must re-apply to the Ministry of Finance. You must consult the local accommodation sector as part of the renewal process. There is no restriction on the number of times you can apply for the tax to be renewed. 5

10 Participating Municipalities, Regional Districts and Eligible Entities Municipal and regional district tax of 2% applies in the following areas: Alert Bay, Village of Abbotsford, City of Burnaby, City of Chilliwack, City of Central Kootenay, Regional District of (applies to the electoral areas D, E and F) Clearwater, District of (effective November 1, 2011) Columbia-Shuswap, Regional District of (applies to the Town of Golden and the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District electoral area A, not including Kicking Horse Mountain Resort Area and Yoho National Park) East Kootenay, Regional District of (applies to the City of Fernie and a portion of the East Kootenay Regional District electoral area A) East Kootenay, Regional District of (applies to the District of Invermere and a portion of the East Kootenay Regional District electoral area F) East Kootenay, Regional District of (applies to the Village of Radium Hot Springs and two portions of the East Kootenay Regional District electoral area G) Harrison Hot Springs, Village of Kamloops, City of Kaslo, Village of Kelowna, City of Kimberley, City of Kitimat-Stikine, Regional District of (applies to the City of Terrace and the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District electoral area E) Langford, City of Langley, City of Langley, Township of Merritt, City of Mount Waddington, Regional District of (applies to the Village of Port Alice and the Regional District of Mount Waddington electoral areas A, B, C and D) Mount Washington Resort Association (applies to the resort area that is a portion of the Comox Valley Regional District electoral area C) Nanaimo, Regional District of (applies to the Nanaimo Regional District electoral areas E, F, G and H) Nelson, City of North Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, District of Oak Bay, District of 6

11 Osoyoos, Town of Parksville, City of Penticton, City of Port Hardy, District of Port McNeill, Town of Prince George, City of Prince Rupert, City of Qualicum Beach, Town of Revelstoke, City of Richmond, City of Rossland, City of Saanich, District of Smithers, Town of Squamish, District of Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Area Surrey, City of Thompson-Nicola, Regional District of (applies to the Thompson-Nicola Regional District electoral area A) (effective November 1, 2011) Tofino, District of Ucluelet, District of Valemount, Village of Vancouver, City of Vernon, City of Victoria, City of Wells, District of Whistler, Resort Municipality of i Need more info? Toll free in Canada: CTBTaxQuestions@gov.bc.ca The information in this bulletin is for your convenience and guidance and is not a replacement for the legislation. The Hotel Room Tax Act and Regulations are on our website at /hrt_legislation.htm 7

12 8

13 "B" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 11, 2012 TO: Corporate & Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: Angie Legault, Manager of Legislative Services RE: UBCM RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDATION THAT the Manager of Legislative Services UBCM Resolutions report be received for information; AND THAT the Corporate and Administrative Services Committee identify any resolutions to be considered at the 2012 Union of British Columbia Municipalities Convention. BACKGROUND The deadline for the submission of resolutions for consideration at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Convention is June 30 th. The Convention will be held in Victoria from September DISCUSSION Resolutions on Development Cost Charges for Fire Suppression; Funding for BC Conservation Service; and Exterior Full Cut Off Lighting were submitted to the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) for consideration at their Annual General Meeting. As these resolutions were all endorsed, they will automatically be forwarded to UBCM for consideration at the Convention. A late resolution concerning Gypsum Containing Asbestos was also submitted to AVICC, however was not admitted for debate as it was deemed not to have met the criteria as an issue emerging after the resolutions deadline. Staff can submit this resolution directly to UBCM. The Board previously requested that staff draft a resolution to affirm the commitment of the SCRD and other local governments in British Columbia opposing the privatization of water systems. Staff requests that the Board identify any additional resolutions that should be presented for consideration at the UBCM Convention. If any such resolutions are identified, staff will present draft resolutions for consideration at the June 14 th Board meeting. N:N:\Administration\0230 Associations, Clubs, Societies\ Associations\UBCM\2012-may al cas report UBCM resolutions.doc 9

14 10

15 "C" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 10, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: Tara Crosby, Administrative Assistance, Corporate and Administrative Services RE: TERMS OF REFERENCE SUPPORTING REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN ANNEXATION IMPACT STUDY FUNDING REQUEST RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Terms of Reference supporting the Regional District of North Okanagan s Annexation Impact Study Funding Request be received; BACKGROUND At April 26, 2012 Corporate and Administrative Services Committee meeting discussion on the Regional District of North Okanagan Annexation Impact Study Funding Request was deferred to the May 24, 2012 pending receipt of the Terms of Reference. DISCUSSION The Terms of Reference are attached for discussion. 11

16 12

17 13

18 North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study Background North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study Terms of Reference The Regional District is preparing an Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study for the Regional District of North Okanagan. A study has never been undertaken within the Province of British Columbia to explore the cumulative financial, social and environmental impacts of annexation on electoral areas. A number of priority areas that have experienced heightened annexation pressure historically (see Appendix B ) have been identified. The Regional District of North Okanagan and our municipal partners have undertaken the development of a Regional Growth Strategy that may contain provisions that embrace the evaluation of the full cost of development and provide a policy framework for fiscally, socially and environmentally responsible growth patterns. This study will assist in developing the Regional Growth Strategy and provide the context for its implementation. 2.0 Regional Profile The Regional District of North Okanagan is located in the northern portion of the Okanagan Valley, in central British Columbia. The Regional District is located approximately 50 kilometres north of Kelowna and 80 kilometres east of Kamloops, and is central to Salmon Arm to the northwest, Sicamous to the north and Oyama to the south. Jurisdiction Area Population City of Armstrong 5.24 km 2 4,241 District of Coldstream km 2 9,471 City of Enderby 4.23 km 2 2,828 Village of Lumby 5.27 km 2 1,634 Township of Spallumcheen km 2 4,960 City of Vernon 94.2 km 2 35,944 Area 'B' 489 km 2 6,061 Area 'C' 301 km 2 3,947 Area 'D' 1,797 km 2 2,837 Area 'E' 2,613 km Area 'F' 1,767 km 2 4,444 Regional District of North Okanagan 7100 km 2 77,301 The Regional District of North Okanagan consists of six municipalities and five Electoral Areas, shown on Appendix A. Municipalities include the City of Vernon at the southwest of the Regional District, the District of Coldstream to the immediate east, the City of Armstrong to the north of Vernon, the Township of Spallumcheen surrounding Armstrong, the City of Enderby near the northwest of the Regional District, and the Village of Lumby near the geographic centre of the Regional District. The five Electoral Areas are Area B surrounding Vernon to the west and south, Area C to the northeast of September 22,

19 North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study 2 Vernon and including Silver Star Mountain, Area D at the centre of the Regional District, Area E to the east, and Area F to the north. 3.0 North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study 3.1 Purpose The Regional District of North Okanagan Electoral Areas Annexation Impact Study will examine the financial, social and land use impacts of cumulative municipal annexations in key electoral area boundary regions. The study will provide recommendations for any issues that have been identified. A key deliverable will be a fair, transparent, equitable and collaborative annexation policy framework that will provide criteria that reflects the interests of all parties involved. The purpose of this study is to impartially evaluate current annexation practices and identify the impacts that are felt within the affected unincorporated communities. 3.2 Goal The goal of the Regional District of North Okanagan Electoral Areas Annexation Impact Study is to explore the costs, benefits and social, economic and land use impacts of current annexation policy within the North Okanagan, specifically focusing on the Greater Vernon area. 3.3 Scope The Electoral Area Advisory Committee (EAAC) has agreed to the following scope of the Study to be undertaken: I. The study will explore the cumulative social, environmental, economic and land use impacts and issues associated with past and current annexation activity within the Electoral Areas. II. III. IV. The study will focus on identified high priority Electoral Area/municipal boundary areas (see attached map), which include: Electoral Area C and City of Vernon; City of Vernon and Electoral Area B, specifically within the Commonage; Electoral Area D and northwest Village of Lumby boundary; and Electoral Area F and western border of the City of Enderby. Unincorporated community identity and fabric will be explored within the context of municipal annexation policy and activity. An analysis of the social, fiscal and land use outcomes and impacts of the City of Vernon annexation of Electoral Area A (Okanagan Landing) in V. The product of the study will be a full cost accounting of annexation activity and policy on the fiscal, social, environmental and land use stability and viability of the Electoral Areas. The key areas of focus will be the cumulative impacts of annexations on: unincorporated community service provision and fiscal sustainability; September 22,

20 North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study 3 preserved rural lifestyle and community identity; and the land use composition of the Electoral Areas. VI. The final report will provide recommendations for annexation regulatory changes, a more transparent and equitable review of annexation applications by all affected parties and collaborative and cooperative annexation processes that take into consideration the impacts experienced by all jurisdictions. 3.4 Objectives In conducting a Regional District of North Okanagan Electoral Areas Annexation Impact Study, the Regional District has the following objectives: To review current North Okanagan municipal annexation policies and provincial legislation, as well as annexation policies from throughout North America. The review should take into account jurisdictional representation, equity in process, referral mechanisms, transparency of process, annexation criteria and impact analysis mechanisms. Evaluate annexation application activity and annexation policies in relation to current municipal and regional strategic direction, including Official Community Plans, municipal policy direction and the Regional Growth Strategy. Present an overall financial accounting of cumulative annexation applications over the last 10 years for affected jurisdictions. Identify the cumulative effects of annexation on Electoral Areas Explore governance options based upon the outcomes of the evaluation of annexation impacts across all jurisdictions. Develop recommendations on broad, strategic policies on the identified issues that reflect the realities of both municipalities and unincorporated rural areas. 3.5 Tasks PHASE I: Review Existing Situation a) Document the current situation within the study area(s) with respect to the following: North Okanagan municipal annexation policies and provincial legislation, as well as annexation policies from throughout North America; Services provided by the Regional District of North Okanagan to Electoral Areas; Services provided by other agencies; Property taxes and other fees, with a full accounting of service provision costs per household; Local political representation; and General description of land use planning and regulation. The consultant will conduct a thorough overview of relevant background information and documents related to annexation and restructure in the North Okanagan, including but not limited to: RDNO policies, including the Draft Regional Growth Strategy, annexation policies, and affected Electoral Area and Municipal Official Community Plans (e.g. Vernon, Enderby, Lumby); September 22,

21 North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study 4 Provincial legislation and best practices related to governance and boundaries, as well as select policies in North America (although the Regional District model is quite unique); A list and details of all Regional District services (regional, sub regional, and local) that pertain to the study area; Interviews with key RDNO staff and elected officials, and other key stakeholders (e.g. Mr. Alan Hill, former EA A director and Derek Trimmer, Ministry of Community, Sport and Culture), identified in the project initiation meeting; and Other documents and information as provided. By the RDNO The consultant will summarize and document the key findings and issues identified in our research in a discussion paper, to be utilized as part of the public consultation process in Phase II and final reporting in future phases of the project. b) Evaluate annexation application activity and annexation policies within the key priority areas, in relation to current municipal and regional strategic direction, including Official Community Plans, municipal policy direction and the Regional Growth Strategy. This task explores specific issues and land use activities within the four priority areas (Commonage, BX, west Enderby and northwest Lumby). The consultant will review each Official Community Plan (both municipal and Electoral Area) and Regional Growth Strategy and interview municipal and regional staff, where appropriate, to further understands the pressures facing each area. The consultant will to evaluate how the local issues fit into the broader regional context. c) The current situation information will represent the base case for analysis of financial, land use and service delivery implication of cumulative unincorporated area annexations. The consultant will create an Issues and Services Matrix, which will be used as the base case template, by which future scenarios can be measured against. Especially important will be the baseline financial situation for each individual electoral area service, as some of these may not be financially viable postannexation. The outcome of Phase I will identify the issues to be explored in Phase II, as well as the scope, tasks and approach taken in Phase II and Phase III. A preliminary scope of work has been included within this Terms of Reference for Phase II and III of this project, although it should be acknowledged that the scope and tasks will be revisited based upon the outcomes of Phase I. PHASE II (Preliminary): Cumulative Effects of Unincorporated Annexations a) Provide an evaluation of the financial, land use, service delivery and social impacts and outcomes of the 1993 annexation of Electoral Area A into the City of Vernon; b) Present an overall financial accounting of cumulative annexation applications over the last 10 years for affected Electoral Areas, focusing on the key priority boundary areas; c) Identify the cumulative effects of annexation on Electoral Area priority boundary areas, including: o Economic and taxation impacts; o Land use impacts; September 22,

22 North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study 5 o o o o Service levels and infrastructure cost; Social and community fabric and identity; Agricultural Land Reserve loss; and Governance. d) Identify any significant thresholds, in relation to population, tax base and service delivery, which may compromise the financial sustainability of the Electoral Areas; e) Prepare a written summary of the implications of cumulative annexation on the identified key priority border areas, informed by the perspective of current Electoral Area residents, in a form suitable for wide circulation. f) In conjunction with the analysis of cumulative effects of unincorporated annexations, develop and undertake a public engagement program to: Develop a profile of unincorporated community identify and fabric; Obtain the perspective of Electoral Area residents on: o Current annexation policy and activity; o Identify key issues and concerns of the community; o Understand the preserved impacts on community identity; and o What suggestions that the communities have to address concerns. Present the outcomes of Study, including recommendations, for public information and respond to any questions from Electoral Area residents. PHASE III (Preliminary): Recommendations and Conclusions a) Provide an overview of the review and analysis of cumulative annexation impacts on the longterm sustainability of Electoral Areas, with a focus on priority border regions; b) Present Electoral Area governance options that may assist in mitigating the identified issues; c) Develop recommendations on broad, strategic policies on the identified issues that reflect the realities of long term sustainability of unincorporated rural areas; and d) Provide recommendations for annexation regulatory changes to ensure a more transparent and equitable review of annexation applications based upon the impacts experienced by all affected jurisdictions. September 22,

23 North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study 6 Appendix A Map of Regional District of North Okanagan September 22,

24 North Okanagan Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study 7 Appendix B Project Area September 22,

25 "D" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: Tina Perreault, Treasurer RE: AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AGLG) - GIBSONS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECOMMENDATION LETTER RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT the Treasurer s report regarding the Auditor General for Local Government (AGLG) - Gibsons Chamber of Commerce recommendation be received; AND THAT the correspondence from the Gibsons Chamber of Commerce be received for information. BACKGROUND On April 24, 2012 a letter (Attachment A) was received from the Gibsons Chamber of Commerce recommending that the SCRD make an application to the office of the Auditor General for Local Governments, to be the first regional district to take part in the audit process. DISCUSSION In the body of the letter from the Gibsons Chamber of Commerce, there is a quote from the November 24, 2011 news release from the BC Government. Attached (Attachment B) is the complete news release, highlighting the mandate, purpose, and scope for the Auditor General for Local Government in performing the audits. In the outline provided by the Provincial Government, the Auditor General will perform audits on specific services or portion of operations, not the entirety of the operation of the local government. Audits are the sole discretion of the AGLG based on the objectives of the office for the coming year, which are part of themes and priorities set for the coming year. Staff acknowledge that having an independent body audit one of the SCRD services for efficiency and effectiveness is reasonable, and may be an effective use of resources. The advice flowing from the audit is non-binding. \\scrd.ad\files\users\tinap\my Documents\2012 May 24 CAS- AGLG- Gibsosn Chamber.docx 21

26 22

27 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE April 24, 2012 Chair Gary Nohr and Board Directors SCRD 1975 Field Road Sechelt, BC VON 3A1 Dear Chair Nohr and Board Directors, F: copy RECE1VD M,Y 0 7 2C12 RE: Auditor General for Local Government Opportunity On November24 the Province announced the creation a new office called the Auditor General for Local Government. According to the Province s news release: The primary purpose of the AGLG would be to help local governments find efficiencies in spending and improve program effectiveness by providing neutral, non-binding advice. The AGLG s role has been designed to maximize value for money by undertaking performance audits and providing information to assist local governments in choosing how best to respond to their communities priorities. The Gibsons and District Chamber of Commerce supported the establishment of such an office as part of the BC Chamber of Commerce 2010 Annual Policy Resolutions. We would now like to encourage Chair Nohr and Board Directors to take the next step, and make a case for the SCRD being the first regional district to take part in this new audit process. The timing for this audit could not be better as several candidates, some of whom are now elected officials, campaigned for a core review of services to check on the value for money taxpayers are now receiving. Such a review would entail considerable expense to the region, if conducted by private auditors and consultants, and having the Province provide the service at their cost would be a prudent and sensible option to pursue. Further, this would be an opportunity to lie to rest certain perceptions expressed within the business community regarding the SCRD s performance. The Gibsons and District Chamber of Commerce, therefore, recommends to the Chair and the Board of Directors to instruct the Sunshine Coast Regional District to make application to the Provincial Government to be included in the first round of audits to be conducted by the new Auditor General for Local Governments. The Voice of Business for the Sunshine Coast Location: Unit 21, 900 Gibsons Way Mailing Address: PD Box 1190 Gibsons, BC VON 1VO exec@gibsonschamber.com T (604) F (604) Visitor Centre T (604) F (604) Toll Free (866) gibsonsbcvisitors@telus.net 23

28 -J CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Sincerely, -: CQG& çiviô Claudia Ferris, Pre5ident Erich Schwartz, Treasurer CC: Mayor Rowe, Town of Gibsons Mayor Henderson, District of Sechelt Coast Reporter The Voice of Business for the Sunshine Coast Location: Unit 21, 900 Gibsons Way Mailing Address: P0 Box 1190 Gibsons, BC VON 1VO execgibsonschamber.com T (604) F (604) Visitor Centre T (604) F (604) Toll Free (866) gibsonsbcvisitors@telus.net 24

29 - E / O: s: ill llsurrey-to-host-auditor-general-for-iocal-government.html Surrey to host Auditor General for Local Government vtnirtr ci ry c. Dsvep, Ds e r:y Srr,Ct Oc:n Ccs egr, COLUMBIA BC nment Online Ne Source -- crt c. -O- c Dce ii / 11 /surrey-to-host-auditor-general-for-local-government.htm I 5/16/2012 huscay \cz 24, 2 9:45 At. SURREY - Getting This office will support the goals of the Families First Agenda by strengthening local government accountability and ensuring B.C. effectiveness by providing neutral, non-binding advice. The AGLG s role has been designed to maximize value for money by Like all auditors general, the AGLG would make recommendations for improvements, not impose solutions. It will be up to local policy decisions about taxation, land use and other services would not be restricted. This government is committed to being open, and the Auditor General for Local Government would provide British Columbians Chong is introducing the legislation in the House this afternoon. A backgrounder follows. Chris Olsen Office of the Premier of Director Communications of Ministry Community, Sport and Cultural Development Jeff Rud Press Secretary Contacts: streamline processes and identify the most efficient use of public ftmds, maximizing the use of taxpayer dollars. with the opportunity to access audit reports about the value they are getting for their money, said Ida Chong, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. The same reports would give local governments important information about how to Government. Premier Clark announced this morning that Surrey is the location of choice for the Office of the Auditor General for Local governments to decide what action to take on any recommendations provided by the AGLG. Local governments ability to make communities priorities. undertaking performance audits and providing information to assist local governments in choosing how best to respond to their The primary purpose of the AGLG would be to help local governments find efficiencies in spending and improve program assets and service delivery means a better quality of life for British Columbians and that s what we re aiming for. families receive the best possible return on investment for their taxpayer dollars, said Premier Clark. Enhanced stewardship of establish an Office of the Auditor General for Local Government (AGLG), announced Premier Christy Clark. the most value for money will be easier for local governments now that the Province is introducing legislation to Surrey to host Auditor General for Local Government BC Newsroom Page 1 of 3 BRITISH NEWSROOM

30 Surrey to host Auditor General for Local Government BC Newsroom Page 2 of 3 Nov. 2., 2011 Office of the Premier Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Mandate of the Auditor General for Local Government Auditor General for Local Government: The Auditor General for Local Government Act (the Act), provides that the Auditor General for Local Government s (AGLG) core mandate is to: * Conduct performance audits (also called value-for-money audits) in order to provide local governments with objective information and advice on achieving efficiencies in local government operations. * Provide recommendations to the audited local government in the form of public reports. * Issue recommended practices arising from performance audits. Performance audits would: * Investigate questions such as whether a service is undertaken as economically and efficiently as possible, whether a service is effective in achieving its intended results, and whether local governments are sufficiently monitoring their operations. * Examine a specific local government operation - not the entirety of its operations. A number of performance audits would be undertaken each year. Performance audits would not: * Call into question the merits of policy decisions or objectives of a local government. The Act provides that the AGLG has scope to conduct performance audits of: * Any municipality or regional district. * The two boards providing water and sewerage/drainage services in Metro Vancouver. * Corporations or other entities controlled by these local government bodies. More local government bodies, such as the Islands Trust, could be added in the future through a regulation. The Act states that the AGLO is to be appointed by the Province, based on a recommendation of an Audit Council. The AGLG s term is five years, with a maximum of two terms permitted. The AGLG would: * Prepare annual service plans laying out general objectives of the office in the upcoming year, including themes and priorities for performance audits. * Have sole discretion in selecting performance audits to conduct, provided they are consistent with the priorities identified in the annual service plan. * Provide non-binding recommendations to audited local governments in the form of performance audit reports. * Ensure audited local governments and the Audit Council have the opportunity to comment on a draft performance audit report before it is published. * Include in the final performance audit report a summary of any comments provided by an audited local government / 11 /surrey-to-host-auditor-general-for-local-governrnent.html 5/16/2012

31 a maximum term of three years. governments generally. Audit Council: expertise in accounting, auditing, or local or provincial governance. Audit Council members would be appointed by the Province for The AGLO would report through an appointed Audit Council comprised of at least five individuals with relevant professional * Prepare and publish annual reports outlining results achieved by the AGLG s office in the previous year. * Publish other reports, such as reports on recommended practices arising from perfonnance audits that may be relevant to local 11 / 11/surrey-to-host-auditor-general-for-local-government.htm 1 5/16/ Stay connected with the Province of B.C Director of Communications Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Jeff Rud Office of the Premier Press Secretary Chris Olsen Contacts: The Audit Council members would be paid per-meeting at a rate comparable to other board appointees. similar roles in the B.C. government and to municipal auditors general in other provinces. The Act provides that the Office of the AGLG is to be provincially funded. The AGLG would receive a salary comparable to those with Budget: * Providing a statement on the AGLG s performance to be included in the AGLG s annual report. * Providing the AGLG with comments on performance audit reports. * Reviewing and recommending changes to the AGLO s annual service plans. * Recommending to the Province suspension or removal of the individual serving as AGLG, if there were cause to do so. * Recommending to the Province an individual to be appointed as the AGLG. The Audit Council would be responsible for: individuals to appoint to the Audit Council. The minister responsible for the Act would consult with local government, business and taxpayer interests in recommending Surrey to host Auditor General for Local Government BC Newsroom Page 3 of 2

32 28

33 "E" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 24, 2011 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: John France, Chief Administrative Officer RE: Police Services RECOMMENDATION THAT the Chief Administrative Officer s report titled Police Services be received; BACKGROUND The following resolution was made at the Policing Committee Meeting held on April 30, 2012: Recommendation No. 7 RCMP Contract - CAO Update The Sunshine Coast Policing Committee recommended that John France, CAO, provide an update on the April 19 th conference call regarding the RCMP Contract for the May 10 th SCRD Board meeting. The CAO advised the Board at the May 10 meeting that Staff would follow up on this issue including inquiring on the cost impact to electoral residents of the proposed changes to police remuneration. DISCUSSION The UBCM Member Release dated May 15 th, 2012 attached to this report, provides the most recent developments on the Policing Contract, including impacts of the salary increases. Staff have been advised that the increases to Municipalities in BC will be:.71% (FY 12/13), 2.75% (FY 13/14), 2.75% (FY 14/15) and 3.67% (FY 15/16). These increases will flow-through to Municipalities under 5,000 population and Electoral Areas. However, the exact increases may vary due to the funding formula and they will be delayed one year. See the answers to questions 2 and 9 on the Member Release for more information. Staff are following up with the Ministry to get clarity on the increases and will report back when the information becomes available. 29

34 30

35 k.th F I L May 15, 2012 TO: Mayor & Council I Chair & Board I Senior Staff FROM: UBCM Secretariat RE: RCMP Contract QUESTIONS & ANSWERS A number of questions have been received from local government via the webinar sessions held on the RCMP contract and by . Attached is a response prepared by the Province to the questions that were raised by local government. UBCM Contact If your local government has any questions regarding this communication, please contact: Ken Vance Senior Policy Advisor kvance@ubcrn.ca Tel: ext. 114 Kimberley McLean Senior Program Manager Contract Policing Ministry of Justice Kimberley.McLean@gov.bc.ca Tel:

36 32

37 Cost Impacts RCMP POLICING AGREEMENTS QUESTIONS RECEIVED VIA CHAT ROOM DURING WEBINAR AND VIA C May 11,2012 Question 1: Could you forward local governments an estimate of total cost increases (%), including the 1.3% contract renewal cost increases and the annually adjusted wage rates etc. for RCMP municipal forces? A table of cost impacts related to the New Agreements was provided to local governments with Municipal Police Unit Agreements during the week of March 12, The total increase for 2012/13 is now projected to be less than 1% (0.71%). In addition, municipalities occupying space in federallyowned detachments will be subject to the new accommodation rate (see answer to question #14). Non-contract renewal cost increases impacting municipalities are due to: inflationary increases for equipment, maintenance, etc; PSAC salary increases that impact Division Administration, or integrated units, or those PSAC employees providing support services to municipal forces (effective June 2011 to June 2012: 1.75%; June 2012 to June 2013: 1.5%; and June 2013 to June 2014: 2%); Potential retroactive salary increases for RCMP members due to the members court challenge to Canada s decision to roll back the RCMP salary increase originally awarded to them by Federal Treasury Board; RCMP wage increase announced March 30, 2012 (effective January 1,2012: 1.75%; January 1, 2013: 1.5% and January 1, 2014: 2%). Other RCMP benefit and allowance increases announced March 30, 2012: o one wellness day each fiscal year (effective April 1, 2012); o service pay extended to members with 4 years of service (effective April 1, 2013); o shift premium increase from $1.50 to $2.00 per hour (effective April 1, 2013); and o senior constable provisional allowance increase from 4% to 5% (effective April 1, 2014) The 2012 Federal Budget also indicated that severance pay will cease to accrue in the case of member resignation or retirement. Members will receive and be entitled to severance pay based on their accumulated years of service up to March 31, Members will be offered payout options shortly. The RCMP is in the process of determining what the financial impact would be to contract partners. Since the accumulation of severance ended on March 31, 2012 and the new contract began on April 1, 2012, the Provinces and Territories are seeking clarification as to whether Provinces Territories and Municipalities (PTM) are liable for these charges under the new Agreements. In the meantime, the Province is examining what the accounting treatment options are and if PTMs can elect different methods if we are indeed liable for the costs. There is also a federal government-wide initiative to reduce costs. The RCMP is facing a reduction of $195 million by fiscal year Part of this cost saving will apply to UE Division RCMP; however, the exact amount is unknown at this time. 33 Page 1 of 16

38 Question 2: There s a 1.3% increase in , and 3.75% in 2015/16. Therefore, is there NO INCREASE in 2013/14? Our estimates have been updated and revised. Compared to fiscal year 2010/11, the estimated incremental increase to BC municipalities is 0.71% in year I of the new Agreement, and rises to 3.67% in year 4, as follows: 0.71% infyl2/13; 2.75% infyl3/14; 2.75% in FY 14/15; 3.67% in FY 15/16. Each of the above percentages is calculated based on expenditures in FY 2010/11 and is expressed in current year dollars. The increases are due to new costs such as a portion of the cost relating to legal advisory services, enhanced reporting & accountability and point of entry security at Division HQs, as well as the anticipated higher costs of space in the new E Division headquarters occupied by Divisional Administration positions and integrated teams, and the estimated costs of moving from a flat rate model to an actual cost model in three years for dog training, cadet training and recruiting. Municipalities in federally-owned buildings are also subject to the new accommodation rate. Question 3: Is there going to be a review of RCMP pension costs? My research has indicated that an employee is paying between 35-40% and employer has to pick up the balance. Employer s contributions to the RCMP pension fund were the subject of extensive discussion at the negotiating table. There was agreement that this issue should remain on the agenda of the national Contract Management Committee with the goal of taking whatever action is required to ensure that the level of employer contributions to ROMP pensions is within industry standards. In January 2012, the RCMP announced that employee contributions would be increasing over the next three years, from 68:32 in 2011 to 63:37 in Question 4: Is there any tuition charge imposed on recruits? Or any mechanism for cost recovery if graduated cadets fall to stay in the RCMP? Currently RCMP recruits do not pay tuition. Provinces and Territories are recommending that a Directed Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the RCMP cadet training program be conducted in the first three years of the new Agreement, and part of the review would consider the feasibility of charging tuition and payback policies. Page 2 of 16 34

39 Question 5: The proposed new agreement notes some changes. Will there be a financial impact to the 11 municipalities who have their RCMP forces in federally-owned detachment buildings? In BC, eleven municipalities will be impacted by changes to accommodation costs due to occupancy in a federally-owned building: Kent, Comox, Courtenay, Hope, Merritt, Parksville, Qualicum Beach, Smithers, Sooke, Spallumcheen, and Williams Lake. BC was able to negotiate increased controls over the size, location, and standards associated with new detachments, and a 5-year average costing method based on provincially approved plans and budgets to smooth out the financial impact. The new rental rate is $214 per square meter for the next 5 years. At the five year mark, the rate will be adjusted to reflect actual costs, which will be reflected in a higher or lower rental rate going forward into the next five year period. However, for 2012/13 the Province will be covering 50% of the incremental impact of the per meter change (from $ to $214) and 50% of the PILT charge in order to ease the transition to the new rental rate. Question 6: It was noted in the presentation that the cost-sharing formula for integrated teams will be reduced from 90/10 to 70/30 for larger municipailties. Does this mean that smaller municipalities will now be required to pay a greater amount for the integrated teams? The Lower Mainland Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (LMD IHIT) and the Vancouver Island Integrated Major Crime Unit (VIIMCU) will be cost shared at 70/30 beginning April 1, All participating municipalities will pay at the 70% provincial cost-share and the federal government will pay the remaining 30%. For these teams, this will result in cost savings to large municipalities who are currently paying 90% of these costs. The federal government will assume the 20% difference. There is no cost impact on smaller municipalities who currently pay these costs at 70%. A policy framework is being developed to determine which other specialized units may be eligible for inclusion under the provincial force and therefore be cost-shared at 70/30. Question 7: Is the estimated $12.8 million cost increase to municipalities over 15,000 population OVER and ABOVE previously announced increases by RCMP (e.g. pay rates, pension costs etc). If so what is the real estimated cost increase in TOTAL? In FY 12/13 the estimated incremental cost to BC municipalities for the new contract is now $2.67 million or 0.71%. Of the $2.67 million, municipalities over 15,000 population account for $2.35 million and municipalities between 5,000 and 15,000 population account for $320,000. In FY 15/16, which is year 4 of the Agreement, the estimated cumulative incremental cost to BC municipalities will be $13.87 million or 3.67% (see question 2 for yearly incremental costs). The increased costs are due to changes to the cost base, including both the addition of previously excluded items, and adjustments to some currently included items. The percentage increase does not reflect future increases that may occur due to rising RCMP salaries or future adjustments to the RCMP superannuation plan. (However it does include the increase due to adjustments to the employer s contribution to RCMP CPP.) The costs and percentages above are calculated based on expenditures in FY 2010/11 and are expressed in current year dollars. The total costs of the new contract and other increases will vary for each municipality. Page 3 of 16 35

40 Question 8: UBCM believes the RCMP is cheaper than an independent BC Provincial Police Force. Is this based on the current service levels? What if service levels were lower? Cost savings result from the fact that the federal government shares the cost of contract policing, with Canada paying 10% of the cost base for municipalities over 15,000 population, and 30% of the cost base for both municipalities between 5,000 and 15,000 and the Provincial Police Force. The federal contribution reduces the costs to each municipality for their police services. The federal cost share is in recognition of the benefits that Canada receives from contract policing with respect to assistance in the enforcement of federal policing responsibilities and maintenance of a national police force that can respond to national emergencies. Like any other service, if the level of service is reduced, it is likely the cost to all parties will also decrease. Question 9: The presentation largely ignored the financial impact on municipalities under 5,000 population even though they represent 87 out of 160 municipalities in the province. What is the cost impact on municipalities under 5,000 population? Municipalities under 5,000 population and unincorporated areas pay for and receive their police services in a different manner than municipalities over 5,000 population. Unlike larger municipalities, these areas are policed by the Provincial Force and taxpayers in these areas contribute to the costs of their policing through the provincial Police Tax. The Police Tax is apportioned to property owners in small communities based on property tax assessments and population. Because of the way the Police Tax is calculated, it is anticipated that increases to the Police Tax will parallel the increases to police costs in municipalities 5,000 to 15,000 population. However the cost increase may not show up in year one of the new Agreement since the Police Tax formula is based on previous years cost data. In addition, as the Police Tax is apportioned to property owners in small municipalities and unincorporated areas based on property assessments and population, the increase may vary slightly for each property owner. Question 10: How much do Villages pay for policing? Unincorporated areas and municipalities with populations under 5,000 contribute to the costs of providing general duty and general investigative police services to their communities. A maximum of 50% of the aggregate costs are apportioned to property owners in small communities based on property tax assessments and area population. The total amount to be recovered is reduced to take into account Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing (TFRS) grants, and the rural property tax levy (for unincorporated areas). Page 4 of 16 36

41 Question 11: Municipalities may feel that poilcing costs are still too high, even though the best deal has been negotiated between the federal and provincial governments. What options do the municipalities have to negotiate further for items that the Province may pay for? The MPSA and MPUAs are based on the negotiated PPSA. In other Provinces, municipalities sign directly with the federal government and were required to sign the same agreement as the Provinces and Territories. The Provincial/Municipal Local Government RCMP Contract Management Committee has been established to continue the dialogue on all issues arising from the Municipal Police Unit Agreements. Question 12: We currently pay for police that aren t actually on the job, such as WCB, maternity leave, short term and long term disability as well as on loan to other functions that aren t local. Will there be any changes on this? Also what about while under suspension? Like most organizations, the RCMP provides its employees with benefit packages for short and long term disability, maternity/paternity leave, etc. All police agencies provide benefit packages, and if we had our own Provincial Police Force, benefits would also be provided. The benefit package was discussed during the contract renewal negotiations and will continue as we go forward. The RCMP recently announced that as part of their RCMP Health Services Modernization, RCMP members will now be covered under provincial health plans. The announcement also included changes to extended health benefits, sick leave disability case management, and member/employee assistance programs. The RCMP anticipates lower contract policing costs as a result of these changes. Federal Responsibilities Question 13: What does the Federal component cost, le what is the cost of enforcing federal laws such as Drugs and Customs & Excise? Does the federal government pick up these costs? The federal government pays 100% of the costs of federal policing, as well as 30% of provincial policing, 30% of RCMP policing in municipalities between 5-15,000 population and 10% of RCMP policing in municipalities with more than 15,000 population. In 2010 the federal government contributed more than $200 million towards provincial, municipal and first nations policing costs in BC, and also paid 100% of the costs associated with more than 1,000 federal police officers located in BC. Accommodations and PILT Question 14: We own our Police Building. What will the new agreement mean to this arrangement? The Accommodations Program Charge applies to federally-owned buildings only. The Province will be impacted as will those 11 municipalities with RCMP municipal units which occupy space in federally owned buildings (see question #5 for list of municipalities). 37 Page 5 of 16

42 1992 Agreement 2012 Agreement Flat rental rate of $ per square meter Rental rate of $214 per square meter based annual charge based on occupancy on the pooled Provincial Accommodations Program Charge (5 year minor/major capital budgets minus the budget for Living Quarters) rate to be adjusted at 5 Year Review based on actual costs of Provincial Accommodation Program - annual charge based on occupancy Per Building Operations and Maintenance Per Building Operations and Maintenance (snow removal, utilities) - charges based on (snow removal, utilities) plus Payment in Lieu occupancy of Taxes - charges based on occupancy Minor capital repairs to the building costing <minor capital repairs are now included in the less than $30,000 rental rate> Question 15: Which municipalities will be impacted by the new Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) costs? Under the new Agreement, federal PILT payments for RCMP buildings will be included in the operating and maintenance costs for each federally-owned building. Municipalities over 5,000 population with municipal units in federally-owned buildings will pay 100% of a proportion of PILT based on occupancy. Hiring Practices Question 16: How will Local Governments get engaged in Detachment Commander hiring? The new Agreement contains provisions for all communities to participate in the selection of the detachment commander. The process differs depending on whether the community is in a Municipal Police Unit Agreement or whether it falls within a provincial force jurisdiction. For municipalities with Municipal Police Unit Agreements, the E Division Commanding Officer will consult with the Mayor (or his/her designate) before appointing the detachment commander and the Mayor can choose to be involved in the staffing process. For communities within provincial force jurisdictions, the Agreement allows the Minister to request that the Commanding Officer consult with the community. In both cases, community participation will be undertaken in accordance with the RCMP s policies on community participation. It is anticipated that the extent to which communities are involved in this process will vary from place to place; some may wish to simply identify the qualities they require in their Detachment Commander, while others may wish to participate in an interview panel. The community must be clear from the outset at what stage of the staffing process they wish to become involved. It should be determined prior to the staffing process which parties will be responsible for paying additional related expenses, if any, over and above normal costs. This communication will reduce misunderstandings and ensure vacancies are filled in a timely fashion. Page 6 of 16 38

43 Cross Jurisdictional BiIlini Question 17: On the BC Local Government Contract Management Committee... will the negotiations at this level address issues of cost assignment for cross-jurisdictional investigations? Shirley Bond has said this is an operational issue, not a contract management issue. And yet Slide 32 talks about no more retroactive billing. How does this work? (This also ties to a UBCM resolution passed at convention in 2010 directing the Contract Management group to expressly ensure that these costs could not be retroactively assigned to local governments.) (Note: slide #32 does not reference retroactive billing.] Sometimes local police do not have the capacity or the expertise to adequately respond to a criminal incident and the RCMP may bring in a specialized unit to provide some or all of the required services. In these cases municipal governments still have an obligation to pay a share of the costs. Policing is dynamic, not static, and from time to time all levels of government incur costs over and above their established police budgets in order to adequately deal with crimes in their communities. Some communities set aside a contingency fund for this very reason. Ministry staff have approached the RCMP about the need to establish criteria for the provision of Provincial Force assistance to municipal forces, and for determining the respective financial responsibilities. As a result, a working group is being established. Local government will be consulted. Standards Question 18: Does the BC Police Act typically establlsh police standards that are higher than the federal standards? Provincial and federal police standards have become more and more harmonized over the last decade, due largely to increased coordination and consultation. Under the new Agreement there are provisions which ensure there will be continued consultation when either the Province or the RCMP intends to change current standards. The new Agreement also confirms Canada s commitment to establish standards that either meet or exceed provincial standards. Question 19: The RCMP mandate capital cost improvements such as cell block upgrades, Camera system and recording equipment upgrades etc with no regard for our 5 year budgets. What will the new contract do to fix this so at least these costs can be anticipated, agreed to and then planned for? The CCTV installations were a Provincial directive stemming from the Ian Bush Coroner s Inquest. This was a new standard set by the BC Minister of Justice, not the RCMP or federal government. In the future, prior to decisions being made, information about proposed standards, including their basis, timing and cost impacts, will be shared with the BC Local Government Contract Management Committee as well as the national Contract Management Committee so contract partners will have the opportunity to discuss and/or challenge federal or provincial decisions. 39 Page 7 of 16

44 Question 20: What about outstanding cell/building improvements due to federally dictated standards? Can the CMC engage on these retroactively if the standards haven t been implemented yet? Standards can be reviewed this is a key function of the new Contract Management Committee. Public Safety Canada and the RCMP have indicated that they can be flexible so long as any adjustments/changes made to the standards do not negatively impact the safety and security of the public or police. Question 21: When new cell/construction standards are implemented federally, we feel the costs locally. Is this going to change? In the future there will be greater consultation when either the Province or RCMP are planning to change current standards, or introduce new standards, particularly where there are cost impacts. This applies to standards for operations, equipment and buildings. Prior to decisions being made, information about proposed standards, including their basis, timing and cost impacts, will be shared with the BC Local Government Contract Management Committee as well as the national Contract Management Committee so contract partners will have the opportunity to discuss and/or challenge federal or provincial decisions. In the case of cell standards, the recent changes requiring that video recording equipment be installed in all lock-ups stems from the recommendations related to the Ian Bush Coroner s Inquest. This is a new standard set by the BC Solicitor General, not the RCMP or federal government. Question 22: Can municipalities opt out of federal or pro vincial police standards in an effort to reduce costs? In general, no, municipalities cannot opt out of meeting federal or provincial police standards. Police standards are developed to ensure officer and public safety, and a professional, consistent police service. However, Public Safety Canada and the RCMP have indicated that they can be flexible so long as any adjustments/changes made to the standards do not negatively impact the safety and security of the public or police. As a general rule, there is probably more flexibility to negotiate changes to non-operational standards related to accommodations or support staff. Question 23: Can Municipalities have input to the provincial Police Act standards? Yes, municipalities and other stakeholders have been consulted in the past on provincial standards and legislation. For example municipal input has been sought with respect to the Braidwood Inquiry, Police Act and Private Security Act, by means of white papers, or by participation on the Police Board Association, BC Civil Liberties, or the Mental Health Association. Page 8 of 16 40

45 The Minister of Justice has overall responsibility for policing and therefore has responsibility for part of a standard be reduced to cut costs? No. The RCMP continues to review positions to determine whether they need to be staffed by regular BC Provincial Police Force. Private sector alternatives are not consistent with public policing 41 Page 9 of 16 implications for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No. Public and private policing stem from two very different legislative bases and there are Question 28: sector qualified firms to do policing? Is there any thought being given to amending Police Acts federally and provincially to allow private The RCMP have been providing police services in British Columbia since 1950 when they replaced the Province continues to explore that option and the related cost and service delivery implications. requirements. Instead, the alternative is for the Province to re-establish a Provincial Police Force. The specification? might not there be a response that involves RCMP and private sector response to the performance Why is the RCMP chosen as the only service provider? If there was an RFP process established, Question 27: or civilian members, or whether a non-member could perform the function (i.e., a municipal employee). Does the contract change anything with respect to civilians doing some aspects of police work? Question 26: safety of the police and the public. A routine traffic stop can quickly turn into an incident involving involvement of civilians assisting the police will be determined by the primary requirement to ensure the firearms or drug trafficking. Civilians can and do assist the police in many ways (e.g. crime prevention programs), but operational policing often requires a level of training that most bylaw officers or civilians do not have. The level of Can civilians be utilized to assist police at radar stops or cell phone checks. Why are we paying $140k+ when a bylaw officer can assist. Question 25: Altórnate Seice Delive Models Minister has for meeting her/his responsibilities in this regard. ensuring the safety of officers and the public. Establishing policing standards is one of the tools the What is rationale/statute which supports or disallows municipalities from requesting that a standard, or Question 24:

46 Question 29: Can lower cost para-police forces be considered as seivice providers for some seivices vs. using only RCMP for all seivices? No. Communities might elect to engage private security services to enhance the security of their property; however, private security providers are not legally authorized to enforce laws. They are also not trained to the level that would be required from both a public and officer safety perspective. The RCMP are investigating several alternative or enhanced service delivery options including the Community Saftey Officer (CSO) pilot in BC, the Community Program Officer (CPO) in New Brunswick, and the Aboriginal Community Constable (ACC) in Nunavut and Manitoba. Each varies in the level of uniform, training, function and whether or not the officer is armed; however, all are intended to enhance the current level of policing service by the RCMP by providing certain functions in a more cost effective manner. In BC, CSO s are un-armed Special Constables that wear a modified RCMP uniform. The CSO pilot is currently undergoing an evaluation by the RCMP. Question 30: Will municipalities be able to enforce traffic moving violations by bylaw officers (as in Alberta) rather than RCMP officers to reduce traffic enforcement costs and divert RCMP forces to far more serious issues. No, this is not being considered at this time. Again, bylaw officers are currently not trained to a level that would be consistent with traffic enforcement duties. Alberta is no longer pursuing this program. Process Question 31: Can municipalities receive draft copies of the agreements for review at same time respective cabinets receive drafts so local Councils have some opportunity to review...given the current agreements expire March 2012? Draft generic Agreements were provided in confidence to municipalities with Municipal Police Unit Agreements during the week of March 12, The Master Agreements are now available on the BC Police Services Division website Integrated Teams Question 32: We understand that the cost sharing for the Integrated Teams has gone from 90/10 to 70/30 which will result in a 20% reduction in our budget for us at Mission - are you able to confirm this? The Province has confirmed that some provincial integrated units will be cost shared by all participating municipalities at the 70% cost-share starting April 1, 2012 (Lower Mainland Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT) and Vancouver Island Integrated Major Crime Unit (VIIMCU)). The Province is developing a policy framework in consultation with the RCMP to ensure that any other teams that qualify will also be cost shared at 70/30. Page 10 of 16 42

47 Other Question 33: Has the issue of the Detachment Commander living in the community where he/she serves ever come up? If this newly appointed individual is living within a certain distance of their new post, the ROMP will not relocate them and the member is on their own financially. Yes, this issue has been discussed at the negotiation table. Like most employers, and other police forces, the RCMP cannot dictate to an employee where they will live. In instances where a community Isconsidered remote or isolated in nature, the RCMP may provide housing for members; members may or may not choose to utilize that housing. If a member is relocated to a detachment that is more than a prescribed number of kilometres currently 40 KM from their current residence, the RCMP will pay for their relocation if the member chooses to relocate. If they live within that prescribed radius, their relocation costs will not be covered. Question 34: Are we looking for a me too clause as well? No. We were able to view the Alberta and Saskatchewan Agreements prior to finalizing the BC Agreement. Question 35: Should we be forced into agreeing to sign on to an agreement when we don t have the full picture as in what would it cost to have a provincial force? I believe the Minister promised this analysis as part of this process and you are saying it won t be done prior to us being asked to sign. The Ministry is still exploring this option by examining potential alternative service delivery models and related cost impacts. Question 36: The contract is supposed to allow for civilian oversight and yet! notice in all the advertisements running right now for this group that only essentially ex-police that have not worked for 5 years may apply. Should there not be civilians on this group such as maybe a lawyer, doctor, psychologist, business person, etc. To the public it still looks like police investigating police. It is the Chief Civilian Director (CCD) of the Independent Investigations Office (110) who will do the hiring and the legislation provides him with the flexibility to hire staff from both policing and non-policing backgrounds. In consideration of the specific skills needed for 110 investigations, we anticipate that the initial investigative capacity of the office will consist of ex-police officers who have not served with a BC police force in the five years preceding their appointment as 110 investigators. However, the legislation aims for the 110 to increase its contingent of employees and investigators who have never served as officers or members of a police or law enforcement agency. A Special Committee of the Legislature will review the 110 s progress towards this goal before the end of January Page 11 of 16

48 Question 37: What type of document will be sent to Local Governments under 5,000 and the Regional Districts? Local Governments and Regional Districts will receive a Companion Document that includes information that is relevant to communities policed by the Provincial Police Service. Local Government RCMP Contract Management Committee Qüéstion 38: The Local Government Contract Management Committee is made up of elected leaders, what happens if they are no longer elected leaders, do they maintain their seat at the table? The Contract Management Committee is made up of both elected leaders and staff. If an elected person no longer held office, they would be replaced. Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing (TFRS): Question 39: What is the total value of traffic fine revenue shared with municipalities? How many municipalities benefit and how many are in the same position as Telkwa and do not receive any share? Traffic fine revenue totals vary annually, but average approximately $61 million per year. As of 2012, there are 74 municipalities who directly receive a traffic fine revenue sharing grant. All other municipalities (those under 5,000) and rural areas of the province benefit from traffic fine revenue through a reduction to the Police Tax levied by the Province. Approximately $2.8 million of traffic fine revenue is allocated annually to the reduction of the Police Tax. Question 40: Why is TFRS tied to policing initiatives? The Local Government Grants Act Regulation stipulates that traffic fine revenue must be used to help defray the cost of policing. It can be directed to a variety of public safety initiatives which would ultimately reduce police costs. Page 12 of 16 44

49 Cost Impacts QUESTIONS RECEIVED DURING THE RCMP LOWER MAINLAND MAYORS FORUM HELD APRIL 20,2012 Question 1: Will municipalities be held harmless from the potential liabillty resulting from the federal government s decision to rollback RCMP member pay raises that is currently before the federal court for decision? The Federal Court of Appeal heard the RCMP Staff Relations Representative challenge to the constitutionality of the Expenditure RestraintAct case in January 2012 and it is anticipated that a decision will be rendered by June The court challenge does not seek relief, rather a declaration. ADM Clayton Pecknold on behalf of the Provinces and Territories on the Contract Management Committee has sent a letter to Deputy Commissioner Doug Lang, RCMP Contract and Aboriginal Policing in Ottawa, seeking written confirmation that there will be no financial impact to contract partners related to the Federal Court of Appeal (or further Supreme Court of Canada) decision. Question 2: Is the 2 year notice period a reasonably sufficient time period to realistically set up an independent police department if a municipality chose to give notice? If a municipality elects to give notice to terminate their policing agreement, the Province will begin working with the municipality to transition to another policing arrangement to meet their legal obligation to provide police services. The municipality will not be left without policing services. The length of time to move to another arrangement would vary on many factors and would be estimated based on planning for the new policing model. Question 3: There is a lack of certainty around the actual costs of some items such as recruitment, police dog services training center, Depot and Green Timbers. When will these costs be known? For the next 3 years the combined costs for recruiting, cadet training at Depot, and the Police Dog Services Training Centre are fixed at $3,500/member. Beginning April 1, 2015 all costs associated with these items will be paid based on an average of actual costs incurred for the 3 previous fiscal years. The Provinces and Territories will be initiating a Directed Review of each of these programs at the first Federal/Provincial/Territorial Contract Management Committee meeting being held in June It is anticipated that the results of the Directed Review will provide Provinces, Territories and municipalities with insight into how to contain costs associated with these programs. The costs associated with new RCMP E Division HQ (Green Timbers) are to be negotiated separately. The Province has recently been provided with the federal contact for the negotiations. The Province intends to invite a municipal representative from the Local Government Contract Management Committee to participate in the negotiations. Page 13 of 16 45

50 Question 4: Which units are moving into Green Timbers, how much will it cost and will there be an offset from the sale of the current RCMP HQ site? The Province s position is that all items related to Green Timbers are up for negotiation, including which units will relocate as well as what, if any, portion of the proceeds of the sale of the current federally owned RCMP HQ will offset the costs of the new HQ. Question 5: Under the dispute mechanism article, the final say rests with the provincial and federal governments. Why can t matters be referred to an independent arbitrator for resolution? The Agreement provides for an escalating dispute resolution beginning at the local detachment commander and CEO level. If matters cannot be resolved through consultation, they may be dealt with through an alternative dispute resolution process as agreed to by the Provincial Minister, the municipality and the RCMP. Question 6: We are being asked to sign an Agreement with little clarity around what the provisions mean. When will we receive the Companion Document? The Companion Document does not change what has been negotiated in the terms of the Agreement. The Companion Document is currently being drafted and reviewed by provincial and territorial subject matter experts. Once complete the draft will be shared with the federal government and the LGCMC for further discussion. It is anticipated that there will be many iterations of the Companion Document as the details are finalized. The Companion Document is a living document that will continue to evolve as new situations and interpretations arise. A draft Municipal Companion document will be shared with the LGCMC by June 1,2012. Question 7: Will there be an extension to the timelines for signing the Agreement? The Province has already extended the original deadline of April 30, 2012 to May 31, Under the Police Act municipalities are responsible for providing policing, and in the absence of any formal policing agreement, municipalities are in contravention of the Police Act. Ministry staff are available to answer any questions municipalities have in regards to the new Agreement or alternatives to RCMP services to assist municipalities in meeting their legal obligation to provide policing services. Page 14 of 16 46

51 Question 8: We are opposed to the 20 year term of the Agreement. What option do we have? The Agreement is for a 20 year term; however, the Agreement contains a 2 year opt out clause and also provides for a review every 5 years. Question 9: Will changes to the PPSA during the 5 year review automatically become binding on the MPSA and MPUAs? Will there be municipal input? Proposed changes to the PPSA will be identified and negotiated leading up to the 5 year review. It is envisaged that any changes being considered for the 5 year review will be tabled with the Local Government Contract Management Committee (LGCMC) for consultation and discussion well in advance of the negotiations. It is incumbent upon the LGCMC to advance the position(s) of municipalities to ensure that municipal interests are expressed and reflected in the negotiations. Question 10: Some municipalities would like to see addendums to the Agreement to address issues not covered in the Agreement. For example, a cost allocation model for municipalities in an integrated detachment. Is this possible? The Agreements are finalized. The Agreements are signed by municipalities, not detachments. There are a multitude of issues that are not covered in the Policing Agreements. These may be issues solely between municipalities or issues between municipalities and the Province that are not specific to contract policing. For example, cost allocation for integrated detachments is an issue that must be addressed between municipalities. Question 11: Will the new Local Government Contract Management Committee (LGCMC) actually have the power to successfully resolve municipal issues? The LGCMC is the forum that has been specifically established to solicit input from municipalities and engage in dialogue with the Province on municipal contract policing issues. It is hoped that municipalities will bring their issues to this forum with the goal of resolving the issue to the satisfaction of all parties. Question 12: Since the Province was unable to negotiate a lower cost share (90/10 to 70/30) for the large municipalities, is the Province going to pay the 20% difference? The Province will not make up the 20% difference in the cost share that the large municipalities were seeking from the federal government. The Province supported and advanced the municipal position that large municipalities should receive a more favourable cost share. The federal government was steadfast in its mandate that the cost share would not change for any of the contracting parties. The Province is working to reduce costs for large municipalities by developing a policy framework that will 47 Page 15 of 16

52 enable the Province to cost back specialized services provided to municipalities at the provincial cost share (70/30). Question 13: The costs for Lower Mainland integrated teams are continually rising. Who is making the decisions around these budgets? When will it be proven that these teams are a good investment? The funding formula and authorized strength levels for the integrated teams were agreed upon by the Lower Mainland Mayors. Initially, the integrated teams were not at full strength and the RCMP have been working to fill these vacancies. The RCMP have been making a concerted effort to work within the budget cap of each team despite increased workload demands for some of these teams with no additional resources being approved. Some of the increasing costs are attributed to increases in pay and compensation, rising fuel costs and increased municipal accommodation charges. The RCMP are scrutinizing their budgets, including examining options for civilianizing positions and changing shift schedules to reduce overtime. The RCMP are compiling statistics to provide some meaningful metrics to demonstrate whether or not the integrated teams are a good investment. Question 14: Is the Province taking over governance of the Integrated teams? The regional integrated teams are a municipal responsibility and as such governance over these teams appropriately rests with municipalities. The RCMP Lower Mainland District commissioned an independent consultant to review and recommend options for possible governance models for the LMD integrated teams. The draft report has been sent to the LMD CAO/PPC committee for their consideration and further discussion at the next CAO/PPC meeting. The report will be tabled at the next Mayors Forum after the CAO/PPC review. Page 16 of 16 48

53 "F" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 8, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: RE: Michelle Goetz Accounts Payable Technician APRIL 2012 DIRECTOR CONSTITUENCY & TRAVEL EXPENSES RECOMMENDATION THAT the Accounts Payable Technician s Report regarding Directors Constituency and Travel Expenses to April 30, 2012 be received for information. PURPOSE To provide directors with 2012 financial information for constituency and travel expense balances. BACKGROUND The 2012 Financial Plan for line item Legislative & UBCM/AVICC Constituency Expenses provides a budget of $20,300 ($3,500 allowance per director) for the expense of running an elected official office. Line item Legislative & UBCM/AVICC Travel Expenses provides an allowance of $36,144 for mileage, meals, hotel and other various charges associated with travelling on SCRD business. DISCUSSION As of April 30, 2012 the total amount posted to Constituency Expenses is $3,907, leaving an unspent balance of $16,393. The total amount posted to Legislative and UBCM/AVICC Travel Expenses is $8,219, which is under budget by $27,925. Figures are based on expense reports submitted to date and a breakdown by Director is provided below. Travel Expense Travel Expense Constituency Expense: Excluding HST: Alternate: Director Area A $ 1,163 $ 2,877 $ 0 Director Area B/Chair $ 801 $ 3,444 $ 0 Director Area D/Vice Chair $ 1,170 $ 1,373 $ 0 Director Area E $ 326 $ 0 $ 17 Director Area F $ 110 $ 0 $ 0 Director DOS $ 71 $ 13 $ 0 Director TOG $ 110 $ 458 $ 0 Director SIGD $ 156 $ 37 $ 0 Totals $ 3,907 $ 8,202 $ _17 49

54 50

55 "G" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 9, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: Robert McKee, Purchasing Officer & Risk Manager RE: Contracts between $20,000 and $100,000 to May 8, 2012 RECOMMENDATION That the Purchasing Officer s report on Contracts for the period from April 13, 2012 to May 8, 2012 be received for information. BACKGROUND Sunshine Coast Regional District Delegation Bylaw No. 532, 2003 directs staff to provide the Committee with a monthly report on all new contracts entered into that fall between $20,000 and $100,000. Reports include purpose, function and vendor information. DISCUSSION There were some 50 contracts/purchase orders entered into in the above time period and five contract/purchase orders falls between $20,000 and $100,000. Waterhouse Enviro Services Corp PO 4718/370 Reg Water Services $ 24, taxes in Lions Bay, BC Isopac Coagulant N.B. Contracting Ltd PO 4724/665 Bike / Walking Paths $ 77, taxes in Gibsons, BC Redroofs Road Road Construction Hemstreet Contracting Ltd PO 4726/650 Community Parks $ 44, taxes in Sechelt, BC Connor Park Amphitheatre Raven Community Enterprises PO /650 Community Parks $ 46, taxes in Halfmoon Bay, BC Katherine Lake Caretaker Services Davis Bay Landscaping PO /400 Cemetery $ 41, taxes in Sechelt, BC Seaview Cemetery Grounds Maintenance 51

56 52

57 "H" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: April 25, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: Brian Sagman, Manager of Transportation and Facilities RE: TRANSIT [#310] VARIANCE REPORTING FOR PERIOD ENDED MARCH, 2012 RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager of Transportation and Facilities report regarding Transit [#310] Variance Reporting for the period ended March, 2012 be received for information. BACKGROUND The Board requested that the Transportation and Facilities department provide quarterly variance reporting to the Corporate and Administrative Services Committee for Transit (#310). The following information is for the period ended March, Function Name & Number #310 Projected Surplus/Deficit (at year-end) $15,000 Explanation: The estimated surplus for March month end was $93,000. This was due in part to BC Transit completing an amendment to the 2011/12 Annual Operating Agreement that resulted in an increase in funding for the March 2012 month end. This funding reflects the adjustments to costs in the AOA that staff negotiated through Because these costs are jointly funded, the result is an increase in BC Transit funding levels. The SCRD budget for 2012 also includes costs for expansion in September that will reduce the surplus. We are awaiting an invoice for the corrosion repairs to the last bus that will result in a cost to the SCRD of about $20,000. We are scheduled to have several of the small buses replaced in the fall that will increase our lease fees for the duration of Mitigation/Options (if deficit projected): Revenue: Revenues exceed the year to date budget by approximately $150,000 due to bus corrosion repairs and other repairs that BC Transit has funded either fully or in part. In addition there has been a further increase in BC Transit funding for staff benefits and other expenses within the Annual Operating Agreement. 53

58 Expenditures/Project Costs: The corrosion repairs are reflected in the year to date maintenance expenditures that total $172,900 in comparison to the year to date budget of $111,500. These repairs will defer the need to replace the low floor buses until We are scheduled to replace two of the small buses in the fall that will increase lease fees for the remainder of In addition the increase in service on the main route between Sechelt and Langdale will increase costs beginning in September. The following summary shows the origin of the current surplus: #310 - Transit Annual Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD Variance Revenues Property Tax -1,363, , ,907 0 Grant Provincial -671, , ,299-19,439 Free Ticket Program 14,000 3,500 1,200 Bus fares -651, , ,493 33,324 Recoveries -25,500-6, , ,084 Surplus -19,798-4,950-4,950 Subtotal Revenue -2,717, , ,958-97,199 Expenditures Salaries/benefits/WCB 1,509, , ,862-53,627 Fuel 349,989 87,497 86,317-1,180 Vehicle Mtce. 445, , ,852 61,383 Administration 259,770 64,943 64,943 0 Other 152,040 38,010 32,586-5,424 Subtotal Expend. 2,717, , ,560 1,151 TOTAL ,398 The revenue item Recoveries is over budget due to the costs of the corrosion repairs to the low floor buses that are charged to BC Transit. These revenues are off-set by the BC Transit invoice for the SCRD s share. As a result the costs of Vehicle Maintenance exceed the year-todate budget by about $61,000. The cost of salaries/benefits is under budget due to the higher service that is operated in the summer months and the provision of extra service that is planned for September that will increase costs. 54

59 "I" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 14, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: RE: Jackie Day Manager Financial Services Rachel Burggraf Accounting Technician JAN-APRIL 30, 2012 GENERAL LEDGER & BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT RECOMMENDATION THAT the Manager of Financial Services report on General Ledger and Budget Variance for the period ending Jan-April 30, 2012 be received for information. BACKGROUND The General Ledger by Department is attached to provide the Committee with a Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for the period ending April 30, This covering report provides a high level overview for the organization, focusing on line items that make up the larger dollar impacts in the Financial Plan. The General Ledger by Department report for this period has also been provided to Budget Managers for their review. If there are material variances within a function or the status of a project, it is the expectation that the Budget Manager will bring this information to the attention of the Treasurer. Further action may include a report to the appropriate Committee to request approval of the recommended change/solution. Finance continues to work with the Budget Managers to ensure that financial plan adjustments and information is provided to the Treasurer, CAO and Board as required under the Financial Plan Adjustments section of the Budget Manual. DISCUSSION Expenditures: Normal variations to expenses are affected by timing, and include expenditures such as debt payments, contract fees, dues, insurance and project costs that occur during specific times of the year or as contracts are awarded. The overall expenditures for functions are within percentages anticipated for this time period. Operations are within 27% spent which is slightly higher (2%) than same period in

60 Revenues: Percentages for revenues are also affected by the time of year that funds are received or processed. Transfers from Capital Reserves will be processed based on actual capital expenditure requirements prior to year-end. Transfers from Deferred Revenue and Appropriated Surplus/Rate Stabilization accounts will be processed as provided in the Financial Plan and in consultation with the Budget Manager. Building Inspection permit revenue as well as Pender Harbour and Sechelt Landfill tipping fee percentages are slightly below anticipated percentage. Budget Managers are monitoring and will provide additional information in future reports. The overall revenues for functions are within percentages anticipated for this time period. LINE ITEM VARIANCE Finance has conducted a review by function for this period. Line items that show amounts posted where there is no budget, or line items showing variances are monitored and reviewed with the Budget Managers to ensure entries are correct. An adjustment requiring a reallocation from one line to another (within the same function) may occur where an item budgeted under one line item is more appropriately posted under another line item, within the function budget. A review by type of expense is also undertaken; line items including salaries and benefits, operating contracts, hydro, natural gas and cost of fuel are within the anticipated percent levels overall for this time period. Percentages for those expenses associated with projects (professional fees, contracted services, equipment repairs and maintenance) are slightly lower for this time period. RECOMMENDATION THAT the Manager of Financial Service s Report on General Ledger and Budget Variance for the period ending April 30, 2012 be received for information. 56

61 "J" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 16, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: Bruce Bauman, Manager Recreation Services RE: (RECREATION FACILITIES) [# 616, 617, 620, 621] VARIANCE REPORTING FOR PERIOD ENDED APRIL, 2012 RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager Recreation Services report regarding Recreation Facilities [#616,617,620,621] Variance Reporting for the period ended April, 2012 be received for information. BACKGROUND The Board requested that Recreation Services provide quarterly variance reporting to the Corporate and Administrative Services Committee for Gibsons Pool (616), Gibsons & Area Community Centre (617), Sechelt Arena (620), and Sechelt Aquatic Centre (621). The following information is for the period ended April, Function Name & Number Projected Surplus/Deficit (at year-end) Explanation: Gibsons Pool (616) Surplus to April 30, 2012 ($ 14,672) Balanced Budget On Track to April 30, Maintenance Closure has not occurred. Function Name & Number Gibsons & Area Community Centre (617) Surplus to April 30, 2012 ($ 10,622) Projected Surplus/Deficit (at year-end) Balanced Budget Explanation: On Track to April 30, Maintenance Closure has not occurred. 57

62 Function Name & Number Projected Surplus/Deficit (at year-end) Explanation: Sechelt Arena (620) Surplus to April 30, 2012 ($ 8,422) Balanced Budget or Surplus yet to be determined On Track to April 30, Maintenance Closure & Project Cost Identification ongoing. Function Name & Number Projected Surplus/Deficit (at year-end) Explanation: Sechelt Aquatic Centre (621) Surplus to April 30, 2012 ($ 82,245) Balanced Budget On Track to April 30, Maintenance Closure has not occurred. Revenue: Revenue trends for the period ending April 30, 2012 are in line. This was made up of higher than normal attendance in the January to March period. Expenditures/Project Costs: Only in the Sechelt Arena have we deferred the capital works of arena lighting ($70,000) & power pole replacement ($10,000) in keeping with board direction pending the project identification and costs relating to the mechanical and slab failure. We are currently investigating all options including possible insurance coverage 58

63 "K" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 16, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: Dion Whyte, Manager of Sustainable Services RE: REGIONAL SOLID WASTE (FUNCTION # ) VARIANCE REPORTING FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1 APRIL 30, 2012 RECOMMENDATION THAT the Manager of Sustainable Services report entitled Regional Solid Waste (Function # ) Variance Reporting for the period January 1 April 20, 2012 be received for information; BACKGROUND The Board requested that the Solid Waste Division provide quarterly variance reporting to the Corporate and Administrative Services Committee for Regional Solid Waste (Function # ). This report is provided in response to this directive. DISCUSSION The following information is for the period January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2012 and is subject to change depending on operating circumstances and actual revenues. Regional Solid Waste Projected Surplus/Deficit (at year-end) Explanation: Function # On Budget (Regional Solid Waste Function Overall) The Regional Solid Waste function is expected to be on budget at year end. Expenditures are currently within budget, and although landfill revenues have fallen short of budgeted revenues for this reporting period, it is projected that revenues will increase in future months to offset this shortfall following the May 1 st tipping fee increase. Note that estimating year end position is difficult at this time as revenue trends observed to date (e.g. tipping fees) cannot be considered representative of the year overall. Estimates will get more accurate as the year progresses. The second quarterly variance report for the period ending June 31, 2012 will include an updated projection. It should be noted that changes in this function (currently being discussed at the Board level) could have significant impacts for the surplus/deficit position of the Regional Recycling budget and Regional Solid Waste Function overall. Mitigation/Options: No mitigation measures are required at this time. It is important that decisions regarding continuation of recycling services through the end of 2012 be finalized in order to ascertain budgetary implications for this function. 59

64 Revenue: Recycling revenues for the period ending April 2012 ($2,238) were below budget projections. Recycling revenues were budgeted as in previous years, however this overestimates revenue potential the SCRD is only operating and receiving revenues from the Sechelt Depot as opposed to both the Sechelt and Gibsons area recycling depots. Further, commodity values dipped in the beginning of 2012 but have since improved somewhat. Figures 1 and 2 show 2012 monthly revenues relative to the previous three years at the Sechelt and Pender Harbour Landfills, respectively. These figures indicate that revenues are following similar monthly trends as in previous years, however are not substantially higher than in previous years despite progressive tipping fee increases over this period. This suggests a reduction in overall tonnage received at landfill sites. Note that for the variance period ending April 30, 2012 the tipping fee for municipal solid waste was at $110 per tonne (of which $5 per tonne is an eco fee used to fund zero waste initiatives). Tipping fees increased to $125 per tonne starting May 1, Figure 1 Monthly Revenues at Sechelt Landfill ( ) Monthly Revenue (Thousands) $170 $150 $130 $110 $90 $70 Sechelt Landfill Monthly Revenues to 2012 (ytd) Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Figure 2 Monthly Revenues at Pender Harbour Landfill ( ) Monthly Revenue (Thousands) $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Pender Harbour Landfill Monthly Revenues to 2012 (ytd) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

65 Figures 3 and 4 compare budgeted revenues (projected) with actual monthly revenues generated at the Sechelt and Pender Harbour Landfills, respectively. Budgeted monthly revenues are calculated using a weighted average of total annual budgeted revenues (based on the previous 5 years of actual monthly revenues). The relation between budgeted and actual revenue trends is represented by the trend lines in Figures 3 and 4. As of the end of April, Sechelt Landfill was approximately 10% under budgeted revenues while the Pender Harbour Landfill was approximately 11% under budgeted revenues. At Sechelt Landfill, the majority of this shortfall occurred during the first quarter of 2012, with April revenues approaching budget projections. At Pender Landfill, shortfalls were more consistently observed in each of first four months of the year. When combined, landfills overall were approximately 10% under budgeted revenues for the period January April Note that tipping fees over this period were $110 per tonne for municipal solid waste. As of May 1, 2012, tipping fees for this material increased to $125 per tonne. It is expected that the higher tipping fees will generate the additional revenues needed to offset the shortfall observed during the first four months of Figure 3 Budgeted vs. Actual Monthly Revenue at Sechelt Landfill (Jan Apr 2012) $150 $ Monthly Revenue - Sechelt Landfill (budget vs actual value) Monthly Revenue (Thousands) $130 $120 $110 $100 $90 $80 $70 Jan Feb Mar Apr Budget $ Actual $ Trend in Budget $ Trend in Actual $ 61

66 Figure 4 Budgeted vs. Actual Monthly Revenue at Pender Harbour Landfill (Jan Apr 2012) Monthly Revenue (Thousands) $20 $18 $16 $14 $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $ Monthly Revenue - Pender Landfill (budget vs. actual value) Jan Feb Mar Apr Budget $ Actual $ Trend in Budget $ Trend in Actual $ Eco Fees: Starting July 1, 2011, a $5 per tonne Eco Fees is charged on all residential and commercial garbage. The purpose of the Eco Fee is to generate funds to support the implementation of Zero Waste initiatives. The following tables provide a summary of garbage tonnages and associated Eco Fees collected at the Sechelt and Pender Harbour landfills, respectively. The total value of Eco Fees budgeted for 2012 is $56,000 ($50,000 at Sechelt Landfill and $6,000 at Pender Harbour Landfill). As of the end of April, 2012, the actual value of Eco Fees collected was $18,206 ($16,555 at Sechelt Landfill and $1,651 at Pender Harbour Landfill). This represents approximately 33% of budgeted Eco Fee revenues, suggesting that budgetary projections are on track. Note that the Eco Fee revenues reported here are included in the actual revenue figures presented above (i.e. Figures 1-4). Expenditures/Project Costs: 350 (Regional Solid Waste) All accounts in this function are on budget at this time with the exception of Legal Fees (381), which is over budget by $206. This will not materially impact the overall budget. 351 (Pender Harbour Landfill) All accounts in this function are on budget at this time. Contract costs (262) are currently below budgeted projections, however a number of contracts are due to be retendered and may increase in costs. It is predicted that the budget allotted will accommodate a moderate increase in contract costs without negatively impacting the budget. 352 (Sechelt Landfill) All accounts in this function are on budget at this time (including capital expenses). Contract costs (262) are currently below budgeted projections, however a number 62

67 of contracts are due to be retendered and may increase in costs. It is predicted that the budget allotted will accommodate a moderate increase in contract costs without negatively impacting the budget. 353 (Regional Recycling) Expenditures are currently on budget for this function, however changes in this function (currently being discussed at the Board level) could have significant impacts on future 2012 expenditures and for the surplus/deficit position of the Regional Recycling budget and Regional Solid Waste Function overall. 63

68 64

69 "L" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 11, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: Tara Crosby Administrative Assistant, Corporate Services RE: 2012 RURAL AREAS GRANTS-IN-AID RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Administrative Assistant s report regarding the 2012 Rural Areas Grants-in-aid recommendations be received for information; AND THAT the funding recommendations listed on Appendix A be approved and granted to the recipients; AND THAT staff be directed to write the applicants advising them of the results of their applications; AND THAT the Accounts Payable Technician be directed to prepare award cheques for distribution after August 1 st, 2012; AND FURTHER THAT this recommendation be forwarded to the May 24 th, 2012 Regular Board meeting for adoption. BACKGROUND As of April 15, 2012, there were 57 grants-in-aid applications received totaling $167,908. Copies were forwarded to the rural-area directors for review. In 2011, 62 applications were received totaling $193,000. DISCUSSION The rural-area directors met on May 10, 2012 to discuss the applications and their individual area s funding contribution towards them. Appendix A lists the recommended grant awards, as well as the breakdown of funding by area. 65

70 66

71 Applicant Name Area A Area B Area D Area E Area F GGCP E&F Anglican Parish of St. Aidan & St. Bartholomew Food Bank BC Special Olympics Society 500 Bear Education & Research (Bear) Network Coast Arts Building School and Centre Society Coast Cultural Alliance Coast Recital Society Deer Crossing - The Art Farm Society re: Synchronicity Festival Elphinstone Electors Association re: Aggregate Material 2,000 Elphinstone Electors Association re: Japanese Knotweed Eradication Prjct 1,000 Gibsons Citizens on Patrol 1000 Gibsons Landing Heritage Society Gibsons Public Art Gallery Gibsons Yacht Club - Learn to Sail Program Halfmoon Bay Child Care Centre Society 200 3,000 Pender Harbour Community Policing Station 500 Pender Harbour Community School Society 2,600 Pender Harbour & Egmont Chamber of Commerce 500 Pender Harbour Garden Club 500 Pender Harbour Music Society 1, Pender Harbour Reading Centre Society 1,000 Roberts Creek Community Association , Royal Canadian Legion Branch#112 2,000 Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society Salvation Army - Sunshine Coast Sechelt Public Library Association (Area A) 1,500 2,000 Suncoast Woodcrafters Guild Sunshine Coast Arts Council Sunshine Coast Botanical Garden Society Sunshine Coast Community of Justice Program Sunshine Coast Community Services (Outreach Program) Sunshine Coast Community Services (Parent-Tot Summer Adventures) *for Areas D, E & F Sunshine Coast Community Services (RCMP Victim Services) 500 Sunshine Coast Dance Society Sunshine Coast Equestrian Club Sunshine Coast Festival of the Written Arts

72 Sunshine Coast Film Society Applicant Name Area A Area B Area D Area E Area F GGCP E&F Sunshine Coast Fruit Tree Project 100 Sunshine Coast Jazz & Entertainment Society Sunshine Coast Marine Rescue Society Halfmoon Bay Coast Guard Auxiliary Unit , Sunshine Coast Lacrosse Association Sunshine Coast Salmonid Enhancement Sunshine Coast Sea Cavalcade Society 5000 Sunshine Coast Skating Club Sunshine Coast Trails Society Tetrahedron Outdoor Club (Jackrabbit Ski Program) Voice on the Coast Society $14,200 $15,500 $11,550 $6,850 $3,550 $11,400 $0 68

73 "M" SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Corporate and Administrative Services Committee May 24, 2012 FROM: RE: Tara Crosby - Administrative Assistant, Corporate Services 2012 Rural Areas Bursary Awards RECOMMENDATION THAT the report regarding the 2012 Rural Areas Bursary Awards be received for information; AND THAT staff notify the secondary schools as to which directors will be attending the graduation ceremonies to make each bursary presentation. PURPOSE To receive direction from the Board as to which directors will be making the bursary presentations in each school. DISCUSSION In 2012, the rural areas will be granting four bursaries in the amount of $750 each, one to each of the three secondary schools on the Coast, as well as one grant to the Alternate School. The graduation ceremony dates and times are as follows: Alternate School Thursday, June 28 th 1:00 pm (Sunshine Coast Golf Course) Chatelech Secondary Tuesday, June 26 th 6:00 pm Elphinstone Secondary Wednesday, June 27 th 7:00 pm Pender Harbour Secondary Tuesday, June 26 th 1:00 pm As requested, School District No. 46 will forward to the Regional District the essays submitted by the award recipients explaining the importance of community involvement and the demonstration of that involvement in her/his life. 69

74 70

75 in THE "N" HOUSE April 16, 2012 Province Introduces New Limitation Act T oday in the legislature, the Honourable Shirley Bond, Justice Minister and Attorney General introduced Bill 34, the proposed new Limitation Act. If passed, the legislation will repeal the existing Limitation Act. Many of the elements contained within the proposed new Act reflect longstanding UBCM policy requests related to civil liability reform. While UBCM members and the MIABC have supported a reduction in the ultimate limitation period to 10 years; 15 years as proposed in the legislation, is certainly a significant improvement from the previous 30 years. The other two amendments - the ULP start time and the move to a single two-year basic limitation period - are consistent with requests made by both UBCM and MIABC members. For over two decades UBCM, and the Municipal Insurance Association of BC (MIABC), have worked both collaboratively, and independently, to seek reforms that would reduce the liability risks of our local government members. Specifically we have sought: - a reduction in the ultimate limitation period (ULP) to 10 years from 30 years; - a ULP start time from the date an act or omission occurred, not when discovered; and - a move to a two year basic limitation period. This Bill does not address the issue of joint and several liability; another issue on UBCM s civil liability reform agenda. UBCM would point out that joint and several liability is not contained within the Limitation Act but is contained within the Negligence Act. UBCM and the MIABC are very supportive of the proposed new Limitation Act as it would go a long toward reducing the liability risk for our members. We would encourage the membership to contact their MLAs to make them aware of how important this new legislation is to local governments. The new Limitation Act, as proposed in Bill 34, addresses the following key elements that are of specific interest to local governments: Attached please find a copy of the related provincial news release and backgrounder on A significant copy of the provincial news release this legislative announcement. an ultimate limitation period, or maximum limit for filing a claim, is 15 years; changing the commencement model of the ultimate limitation period from an accrual model to a model that starts the clock running on the ultimate limitation period based on an act or omission ; and a single two-year basic limitation period for most claims. and backgrounder on this significant legislative announcement has been attached to this document for your reference. 71

76 72

77 For Immediate Release 2012JAG April 16, 2012 NEWS RELEASE Time limits for filing lawsuits to be standardized Ministry of Justice VICTORIA New legislation introduced today by Justice Minister and Attorney General Shirley Bond would change time limits for filing civil lawsuits streamlining the justice system, making the law easier to understand, and aligning it with other provinces. Bill 34, the proposed new Limitation Act covers breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, personal injury, defamation and other civil actions. It sets a single, two- year limitation period for most civil claims and reduces the maximum time limit for filing a claim to 15 years from the date the act in question occurred. The proposed reforms balance the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants, yet ensure important aspects of the current law remain unchanged. These changes are the result of significant consultation with the public, consumer groups and business, legal and local government representatives, and they will make B.C. s law consistent with reforms in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick. Limitation periods can affect the justice system and its efficiency, the cost and availability of insurance products for all British Columbians, and how financial arrangements are structured. They can also determine how long individuals and businesses must keep records that might be required to support a legal action. If passed, the legislation will repeal the existing act. Since the reforms will not be retroactive, a transition clause will ensure people currently involved in legal disputes can rely on existing laws and legal advice that pre- dates the new law. Quotes: Justice Minister and Attorney General Shirley Bond Civil actions deal with everything from commercial disputes to personal injury claims. We have taken considerable time and care with these changes because it was important to strike a balance that gives both plaintiffs sufficient time to file a legal claim and defendants certainty about when their liability ends. This new act will make the limitation rules clearer and easier to apply. We wanted to ensure the legislation was both fair to British Columbians and, for the sake of families and businesses dealing with disputes outside B.C., consistent with what is standard in 73

78 other provinces. Keeping pace with developments in the law and elsewhere in Canada helps B.C. businesses remain competitive. Greg Blue, B.C. Law Institute These changes will likely provide greater certainty in numerous areas and contribute to increased harmonization within Canada concerning time bars to civil claims. They draw upon the recommendations of law reform bodies in B.C. and throughout Canada. Doug Hinton, P. Eng., president of the board, Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of BC The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of BC welcomes this legislation and we are pleased the government of B.C. has taken what is an important step for engineers and other professionals, including architects, dentists and accountants. This initiative will provide certainty to our profession by making B.C. s legislation consistent with that of other provinces. As a very mobile profession that exports our expertise to other jurisdictions outside of B.C., that will make us more competitive and help protect and attract highly skilled professionals. Heath Slee, president, Union of B.C. Municipalities We are pleased to see that the government has acted on our long- standing request for reforms to this act. These changes go a long way in reducing the liability risk for our members. Quick facts: The legislative reforms introduced today were proposed in a September 2010 white paper that resulted from three years of consultations. Making B.C. s legislation consistent with other provinces aids cross- border trade and mobility by professionals. It supports internal trade agreements to which B.C. is a signatory. Learn more: Limitation Act: White paper on Limitation Act: act/white- paper.htm Uniform Law Conference of Canada: British Columbia Law Institute: A backgrounder follows. Contact: Dave Townsend Government Communications and Public Engagement Ministry of Justice (cell) Connect with the Province of B.C. at: 74

79 For Immediate Release 2012JAG April 16, 2012 BACKGROUNDER B.C. s proposed new Limitation Act Ministry of Justice The law of limitations balances the interests of claimants who want to pursue their rights in law with those of defendants, who want claims against them brought in a timely fashion. Some of the key reforms under the new Limitation Act include the following: The act will move away from having a variety of basic limitation periods, based on the type of legal action, to a single, two- year period for most civil claims. Exceptions will include the enforcement of monetary judgments, which will have a 10- year limitation period, and any statutes that set their own limitation periods. Unless exempted, the maximum time limit, or ultimate limitation period, for filing a claim will change to 15 years from 30 years and be based on the date an act or omission occurred. The current act suspends the ultimate and basic limitation periods for minors (until they turn 19) and the basic limitation period for adults unable to manage their own affairs because of legal disability. The new legislation will also suspend the ultimate limitation period for adults under legal disability. The act adds exemptions for child or spousal support arrears and claims of assault and battery of a minor or of a person in an intimate and personal or dependent relationship. The ultimate limitation period is suspended until a claim is discovered if a defendant wilfully concealed facts about an injury, loss, damage or that they were responsible for the act or omission. It is also suspended if a defendant wilfully misled the plaintiff about whether a court proceeding was an appropriate remedy. Contact: Dave Townsend Government Communications and Public Engagement Ministry of Justice (cell) Connect with the Province of B.C. at: 75

80 76

81 77 "O"

82 78

83 nr,v "P" I SC Economic Development Task Force 5760 Teredo St. #100 Sechelt, B.C. May 8,2012 do Vhi.. i:... i.jij Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road : Sechelt, B.C. t MAY 1 o VON3A1 Attn Corp and Admin Servces Comm Dear Sirs & Mesdames: Re: Sunshine Coast Economic Development Alliance - Board Structure 0 11 L - S.CR.D. I refer to my comments to the CAS Committee on April 26, 2012 regarding potential board structure for SCDEA and the number of seats for the Coast Chambers of Commerce. After discussion with my Chamber colleagues it is believed desirable to have all three Chambers represented to provide greater geographic representation. We propose for your consideration the following Board structure: Executive Committee -5 seats (this may have to expand to 8 to accommodate all areas of the SCRD.) General Board - 13 seats Chambers of Commerce - 3 seats (Gibsons, Sechelt & Pender Harbour/Egmont) Coast Community Builders Assoc. - 1 seat ( Real Estate and Construction) Coast Cultural Alliance - 1 seat (Arts & Culture) Sunshine Coast Tourism Society - 1 seat (Tourism) Sunshine Coast Community Futures - 1 seat (Finance) Sunshine Coast Community Forest - 1 seat (Forestry) VOICE - 1 seat (Youth! Technology) Capilano University/SD 46-1 seat (Education) Agriculture - 1 seat St. Mary s Hospital board - 1 seat (Health) Sunshine Coast Community Foundation - 1 seat Total Board members. Large Boards can be unwieldy but are sometimes necessary to accommodate all interest groups. We believe the above Board structure will provide an opportunity for all sectors of the local community to be represented. U Jirf Cleghorn Chair SC Economic Development Task Force 79