THOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT

THOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT

Electoral Area Directors Meeting - WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2016

A G E N D A

Time: 1:30 PM Place: Board Room

4th Floor

465 Victoria Street

Kamloops, BC

Page

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA

3. MINUTES

3 - 6 (a) Minutes of the Electoral Area Directors Meeting dated March 9, 2016

Minutes of the Electoral Area Directors Meeting dated March 9, 2016, attached.

Recommendation:

THAT the minutes of the Electoral Area Directors Meeting dated March 9, 2016, be adopted.

4. DELEGATIONS

none.

5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

6. CORRESPONDENCE

none.

7. REPORTS and/or INQUIRIES

of 26

Electoral Area Directors Meeting Agenda – Wednesday, October 12, 2016

7 - 21 (a) Civic Address Posting on Property

Report from the Director of Development Services dated October 4, 2016 attached.

22 - 26 (b) Options for Changes to Noxious Weed Control Program Delivery

Report from the Manager of Environmental Services dated October 4, 2016.

(c) Annual Financial Plan - Assistance for the Purpose of Benefiting Community or any aspect of the Community

Verbal presentation by the Director of Finance.

(d) Track Grinding by Rail Companies during Wildfire High Risk Seasons

Discussion item by Director Rice

8. ROUNDTABLE

9. ADJOURNMENT

of 26

THOMPSON - NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT

Electoral Area Directors Meeting

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

MINUTES of a Meeting of the ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTORS held in the Boardroom on Wednesday, March 9, 2016 commencing at 2:30 PM.

PRESENT: Director C. Schaffer (Chair)

Director W. Macdonald Director S. Watson Director S. Rice Director R. Elliott Director K. Gillis Director R. Murray Director H. Graham Director W. Kershaw Director M. Rothenburger

Electoral Area "A" (Wells Gray Country) Electoral Area "B" (Thompson Headwaters) Electoral Area "E" (Bonaparte Plateau) Electoral Area "I" (Blue Sky Country) Electoral Area "J" (Copper Desert Country) Electoral Area "L" (Grasslands) Electoral Area "M" (Beautiful Nicola Valley - North) Electoral Area "N" (Beautiful Nicola Valley - South) Electoral Area "O" (Lower North Thompson) Electoral Area "P" (Rivers and The Peaks)

STAFF: Ms. C. Black, Corporate Officer/Director of Legislative Services Mr. P. Hughes, Director of Environmental Services Mr. D. Rae, Director of Finance Mr. S. Storie, Director of Community Services Ms. T. Watson, Recording Secretary

PRESS: None. OTHERS: Chair P.A.J. Ranta

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Corporate Officer called the March 9, 2016 Electoral Areas Directors meeting to order at 2:32 pm.

2. ELECTION OF CHAIR The Corporate Officer called for nominations of Chair for the Electoral Area Directors meeting.

Director Gillis nominated Director Schaffer.

There being no further nominations, Director Schaffer was acclaimed Chair.

Minutes of the Electoral Area Directors Meeting dated March ... of 26

Electoral Area Directors Meeting Page 2 of 4 Wednesday, March 9, 2016

3. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA The agenda was received as presented.

4. MINUTES

a. Minutes of the Electoral Area Directors Meeting dated September 17, 2015.

Moved by Director Watson Seconded by Director Rice THAT the minutes of the Electoral Area Directors Meeting dated September 17, 2015 be adopted.

CARRIED

Director Macdonald arrived at the meeting.

5. DELEGATION

a. Al Michel, Kamloops Thompson Trails Alliance

Re: Request for Gas Tax Funds Al Michel, Kamloops Thompson Trails Alliance made a PowerPoint presentation with regard to the Isobel Lake Low Mobility Trail Project. Mr. Michel noted that once completed, the 3.5 kilometers of non-motorized trails will promote healthy recreational options for users with all levels of mobility.

6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

a. Kamloops Thompson Trails Alliance Request for Gas Tax Funding

The Electoral Area Directors discussed their interest in providing funds for the Isobel Lake Low Mobility Trail project and agreed to consult with the Director of Finance to determine their level of contribution to the project, if any.

7. CORRESPONDENCE

a. Buy Local! Buy Fresh!

Re: Development and Sponsorship of Buy Local! Buy Fresh! Farm and Local Food Map and Guide in the Thompson Nicola Region



Director Rothenburger declared a conflict of interest noting that his business may be in competition with this product. The Electoral Area Directors indicated that there was no interest in sponsoring the development of a Buy Local/buy Fresh Farm and Local Food Map and Guide for the Thompson-Nicola Region.

8. NEW BUSINESS

Director Murray advised that the Nicola Valley Transit Service Report was recently released and that there may be a request for Board support for the service in the future.

10. REPORTS

a. Dangerous Dogs

The Director of Community Services’ report dated March 9, 2016 provided statistics on the calls received in 2015 relating to dog complaints. Moved by Director Murray Seconded by Director Gillis THAT the 2015 Dangerous Dog Report be received for information.

CARRIED

b. Train Whistle Cessation The Corporate Officer advised that there had been discussions with the four Electoral Area Directors who have rail crossings in their areas that are the subject of current or proposed anti-whistling provisions and the proposed establishment of service areas to allocate the associated costs. These crossings are located within Electoral Areas “A”, “B”, “L” and “P”. The Electoral Area “L” and “P” Directors confirmed that they are no longer interested in establishing whistle cessation services in their areas. The Electoral Area “A” & “B” Directors indicated their continued interest in service establishment.

c. New Service Establishment Process Timelines - 2016

The Corporate Officer/Director of Legislative Services presented the report dated February 20, 2016 regarding the New Service Establishment Process Timelines – 2016 which provides an overview of the legislative timelines



associated with public assent processes for new service establishment in 2016.

d. Capital Infrastructure/Tax Stabilization

The Director of Finance noted that there are challenges associated with funding infrastructure projects within small service areas and advised that staff has been in consultation with the Province and legal counsel to work on possible avenues that will make larger capital projects more economically feasible for smaller groups of rate payers.

9. ROUNDTABLE/EA DIRECTORS UPDATE

Each Electoral Area Director provided an overview of issues and activities within their area and events they have attended.

11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:48 pm.

Moved by Director Murray Seconded by Director MacDonald THAT the March 9, 2016, Electoral Area Directors meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

Certified Correct:

Chair Corporate Officer


Development Services Department

COMMITTEE REPORT

To: Electoral Area Directors DATE: October 4, 2016

FROM: Director of Development Services

SUBJECT: Civic Address Posting on Property

INFORMATION FOR DISCUSSSION

R. Sadilkova Director of Development Services

Approved for Consideration

CAO SUMMARY:

In June of 2016, the Board of Directors requested that staff investigate

address identification best practices and the question of requiring, by bylaw,

that landowners or occupants post their address at the end of their driveway.

Planning staff have conducted a brief review of regional district procedures

with respect to the display of civic addresses. At present we issue the

address, maintain 911 database, strongly encourage owners/ occupants to

post their house numbers (inc. setting sign parameters), and send civic

addressing information to certain external agencies. This is the typical for most

RDs but not all across the province. There are options to improve what we do

and how we do it thus the Board may wish to consider the extent of resources allocation.

BACKGROUND: What do we do now? We’ve had some heartbreaking tragedies that, even if an

address was posted, the outcome of which would unlikely

have been unchanged. At present the TNRD has policies

and procedures with respect to issuing civic addresses but

we neither require nor enforce address display; rather, we

strongly encourage owners/ occupants to post their

addresses at the road and recommend sign parameters. Attached, please find the template of the

letter sent to all owners at time of address issuance and a proposed redraft of that letter.

Civic Address Posting on Property Report from the Director o... of 26

October 4, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Subject: Civic Address Posting on Property

DISCUSSION: What do other regional districts do?

To ascertain how our approach compares across the province, we surveyed 26 other regional

districts and asked the following questions:

1. Do you require civic addresses to be posted? If so, under which bylaw & do you enforce?

2. If you do not regulate, do you actively encourage their posting? If so, how?

Of those surveyed, 11 responded. All have policies/procedures to issue addresses and

“encourage” residents to post at the road. Many provide some criteria for displaying addresses

such as that in our template letter or have an info pamphlet (see sample attached). Four of the 11

RDs have a bylaw that compels address posting. An example of such a bylaw from Central

Okanagan RD is attached.

The Fraser Valley Regional District enforces the display of civic addresses via building permits

(i.e. working forward) while Central Okanagan, East Kootenay, and Sunshine Coast enforce the

display of civic addresses generally through their bylaw enforcement officer or on request of

emergency services. Their enforcement policies are based on considerations of cost, complaint,

and administrative burden.

Taking a different approach, Cariboo Regional District partnered with signage businesses to

produce civic address signage at an affordable cost upon request from residents. This approach

has the advantage of ensuring signs meet the regional district’s criteria as recommended by the

Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). It also increases the level of convenience for

residents. It is a carrot vs. a stick approach.

What can we do differently? Either a more comprehensive voluntary or a regulatory

approach would result in more residents displaying

addresses than our current “encouragement” policy. Our

RD is not always keen on more regulation and as such it

may provoke opposition. A more comprehensive

voluntary approach would involve more time, money, and resources to implement.

Staff believe that the proportion of residents who would display their address (i.e. they do not

display it now) as a result of policies or on request of emergency services would be small and

would hit-and-miss. On condition of occupancy permit in the case of a NEW building permit, is a

more direct approach which may be more acceptable than regulating all pre-existing properties.

Find the address?



Sample sign program:

In terms of scope, there are 12,250 civic addresses issued in TNRD electoral areas. Assuming 25% of these either do not have a sign or have an illegible sign (far more often the case), and 1/3 of these owners come in for a new sign, then that makes for about 1000 signs. If the signs are subsidized at 50%, a ballpark cost of the signs would be in the order of $20,000 – plus staff time, advertising, etc.

Could we coordinate a program and offer a subsidy?

Given a concerted program with community involvement, advertising, etc., and perhaps

subsidized signs, there may be more uptake. On call to a local sign manufacturing shop, I spoke

with the operator who confirmed that the approx. cost for a (one-off) standard double-sided,

reflective white/green, vinyl covered metal sign with 4” high numerals is approx. $68 (uninstalled &

not inc. post). If ordered and made in volume purchases, say 20-30, this could be reduced to

~$40 per sign. The cost of the finish so as to be impervious to UV and climate and retain visual

clarity at a distance night or day, make this more costly than the standard sticky black letters

available at regular hardware stores which are about half the cost. Regardless if the estimate is

on the high side, it suffices for discussion purposes.

Common sense provides that if the TNRD gave

these signs away at no cost, they are less likely to

be posted at the end of a driveway and more likely

to end up in a shed. If the Board wishes to consider

establishing a program, a funding source plus

administrative time would have to be allocated.

Options In conclusion, the options the Board of Directors

may wish to consider follow:

1. Maintain status quo i.e. continue to encourage sign posting and send letters –

perhaps redrafting/ improving the letter. $

2. Actively promote address posting via a campaign of web/press release, ads, and

brochures. $$

3. Incentivize by offering a subsidized program for low cost signs – implementing a

check system to ensure they are posted and that the civic # is correct. $$$

4. Consider a bylaw amendment by requiring civic posting as a part of occupancy

permit for new construction and enforce accordingly (and thereafter). $

5. Consider a new bylaw such as that attached, which upon a delay period requires

posting of civic addresses on all properties with improvements – publicize and

thereafter enforce. Can be in combination with Options 3 & 4. $$$$



ALIGNMENT TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN:

The following strategic plan priorities broadly relate to this issue:

1. focus on community and public safety

2. continue to improve customer service and understanding

3. ensure that services are being delivered in an efficient & cost effective fashion

4. provide information on the services we provide & related costs

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

There are no legislative requirements to consult but if we were to pass a regulatory bylaw given

the number of property and the extant of EAs impacted (esp. if we commence enforcement), it

would be advisable to consult in as many media as possible. If a non regulatory approach is

applied – e.g. incentives – then obviously we would still need to broadcast the program but the

consultation threshold would be lower.

Attachments

• Address notification letter template – and draft of revised version

• Sample info brochure

• Sample CORD address posting regulatory Bylaw 1185



October 5, 2016

«OwnerName1»

«OwnerName2»

«Address1»

Subject: Thompson-Nicola Regional District (TNRD)

Regional E-911 (Emergency Service) House Numbering System

This letter is to advise you of the necessary steps for you to undertake the following:

1) update your contacts and personal information (e.g. driver’s licence); and

2) post an address sign for faster safer emergency response across rural areas.

The Regional District’s Board of Directors has authorized the development of a regional E-911

house numbering system designed to benefit all rural properties and unincorporated communities

within the TNRD. With the confirmation of your new E-911 address (see following page), we have

also provided you a community map showing your new E-911 address. Your new E-911 address

may also appear on your British Columbia Assessment Authority’s property assessment notice(s).

Should you have any concerns or question as to your new E-911 address, please contact the

TNRD.

We ask that you post or otherwise display your new address on your property as soon as

possible. Should you own more than one property or have rental/leased property, we ask that you

notify your tenants/leasees and arrange for the display of appropriate addresses on all affected

properties and rental/leased units.

House address numbers need to be:

1) reflective with a highly contrasting background; 2) minimum of 4” (100 mm) tall; and 3) displayed in a prominent location, near the driveway to your property, so as to be clearly

visible from the public road at all hours of the day, night and particularly during periods of heavy daily and/or seasonal snowfall accumulation.



Page 2

With the following legal description:

BCAA Folio: «Jurol»

LTSA PID: «PID»

Legal Description: «LegalDescr»

We have assigned your regional E-911 address to be as follows:

Address: «Address»

Your awareness and support of our regional E-911 house numbering system is very important. We appreciate your participation in our effort to enhance public safety and accessibility, particularly in respect of emergency service (E-911) response. You are encouraged to retain this letter in your files as proof of TNRD E-911 address given it may be useful for future reference when dealing with other servicing matters.

Thank you for your assistance in this regard.



October 5, 2016 File: 2016-001 Folio: 123.123.12345 Property Owner1 PID: 001-002-003 Mailing Address1 Mailing Address2

DRAFT Re: House Number for Legal Description goes here This letter is to confirm the house number assigned by the Thompson-Nicola Regional District to the above noted property is:

1029 Hwy 97C Please arrange to display your house number as soon as possible so that it is clearly visible from the road. House numbers are used by emergency services, deliveries and visitors. The Thompson-Nicola Regional District suggests that the numbering be:

• Reflective with a highly contrasting background; • Minimum of 4” (100 mm) tall; and • Displayed in a prominent location, near the driveway to your property, so as to be clearly

visible from the public road at all hours of the day, night and during periods of heavy snowfall accumulation.

The Regional District notifies registered property owners. If your property is being rented, please inform your tenants and arrange for the new house number to be displayed. Our office will notify emergency services, utility companies, BC Assessment Authority and other interested agencies of the new address. If there are existing service providers for this property and you wish to notify them of this house number, we may be able to provide assistance – in particular with contacting BC Hydro and Telus. Please note the address registered with Telus is used for dispatching emergency personnel. For clarification purposes, the property and house number are shown on the enclosed map. If you have questions or require assistance, please contact GIS Services at 250-377-8673 or [email protected] Best Regards, GIS Team Attach.


mailto:[email protected]

\

>oE

«mm

mm

_m:m

_:m

sm

_.:m

qmm

:n<<

.Em

: m<

m_,

<mm

noaq

noes

??m

.«_m

_.:m

G\u

o__n

mo_

.3m

&nm

_

m3m

«mm

:n<

mm

_.<

_nm

m 8:3

_om

m 2.2

8.23

m2

Em

<8:30

»38

3<

9:ro

am. U

mm

uzm

«mam

a:

mn_

<m

_._n

mm

.3»m

E:o

_om

<m

an_3

u_,o

<m

3m_.

.$.2

9:m

im

3m..m

m:o

<%3§

m<

m»m

3.E

mam

Wm

32_§

_E

mm

qmsa

m3.

‘m

3mam

m:o

<um

Go:

:m_

3cm

imn:

..m2m

n_.8

ms_

.§_3

&m

agm

n.E

m__

<_o

8::m

Em

qmm

amzn

m. _:

ma

m3m

«mm

_..n

<.

Esm

_om

.n .=<

_:m 3

_onm

Hm E

mno

aqm

nnq1

<m

<<

m< 8:

Em

<m m

?mm

mn

32:.

>n_

aqm

mm m

?zm8

:33

m..=

..:o3

..uo

uzos

.<

<_E

:_m

_.._

<<

_mE

_m«m

2mn:

<m

u_.o

_um

_.:m

m.

m__

o<< Em

mnu

_.ou

_,_m

:mm

3m..m

m:n

<am

wuo

zmm

~mm

3.8

ma

<0:

mm€

_%_<

mm u

omm

=u.

m.

m_m

:m Em:

mam

:2_.

m.._

mn:

<m ca

2%:c

mm

am Em

3.3

3m<

sonc

m mm

mz.mm

umn_

m__

<3

:_m

_.;

9;:

can<

<m

mE

m_.

nosa

iosm

<<

mEm

<m E

mou

uo2:

::<.8

mam

...m

..6u_

< Em

mmm

_m:m 3.

Em

_.m

mm

o:m

c_m

uanm3

$98

mm

n: Am

_:m

_m mam

a: Fmxm

mmam

_:n_

:n_m

&....

_..m £3

Smm

mca

mm

: Em

:x3.

.Sa

m25

.m

mB

mqm

2m

:m3m

m_.

- maa

mm_:3

__..:

3<

<_E

m.. Em

nx23

:3on

m<

.E:m

.:_m

_.__

<«m

.._m

n2<

m3%

m3:

_a.

._._

..mm

mm

?smm

_.m

2:8

mm

m__

<m

mm

:.3E

mam

<:3

mman

2:5

3.m

m<<

m__ m

m Q53

mn_

<m

Gm <

<m

mE

m«8

3%.0

3m

an Em

<mam

mE

:o<

mn_

.29:

ram

Um

nmna

mse

.U

o_._

Em

-mE

ma

m_m

:mm_.m

:2m

<m

__m

_u_m

..2

:N

8:cm

9:cu

_um

nx.8

.cm

nx.

: <0:

<5:

8um

zium

?m5

2%_:

_:m

:<m

. u_m

mm

m.«_ 3

Em

oam

_.33

._u

m_o

<< m

anSm

::

?<.E

<o:

_.um

<3m

3.3

m_E

mq

SEon

Em

ncmB

mqm

oz»

382

.6.

.8m

9<_6

:?m

m..m

m:

_.m

xm

moc

E.3

.3

_<=

_mIo

cmm

.an<

oxE

S

2%an

E...

_om m

lmzm

ma

m»

m_m

.Hm

«.__m

$3

Em

mo:

Eon

mm

s_.m

xm _u:

m:m

__.

38¢

33.5

2

2:33

;8

mcu

mm

q 0:83

.33

am?

Osm

am?

on.3

20m

_m:.o

.”$33

23.9

98.5

m:n

_om

m9

on9%

m:n

_om

mE

mO

c._.

Im

xmm

z_.

>_A

m <O

..CZ

._.m

m_»

_n_x

m om

..>3_

<_m

z«

z:E

mnm

zcaman

. <oc.

..<<

m8:4

:m_u<

o:..


SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

BYLAW NO 673

A bylaw to establish regulations and fees for the house numbering service.

WHEREAS the Board of the Sunshine Coast Regional District established a service for housenumbering by adoption of Sunshine Coast Regional District House Numbering ExtendedService Bylaw No. 1028, 1997;

AND WHEREAS said bylaw provides for the imposition of fees and charges as a method of costrecovery for this service;

AND WHEREAS the Board deems it necessary for the safety and welfare of its citizens to haveall occupied buildings in the Sunshine Coast Regional District display a number to assist withprompt identification by emergency services personnel;

NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Sunshine Coast Regional District in open meetingassembled enacts as follows:

1. CITATION

This bylaw may be cited as “Sunshine Coast Regional District Civic Addressing Regulations andFees Bylaw No. 673, 2013”

2. SCOPE

The Sunshine Coast Regional District is responsible for assigning civic numbers to propertiesand maintaining civic addressing records within the Regional District.

3. DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Bylaw, the following shall apply:

“Board” means the Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

“Builder” means the person who applied for and obtained a building permit for construction of anew building.

“Civic Address” means the combination of an assigned civic number, the road name and thegeneral service area.

“Civic Number” means the number assigned to a property in accordance with this Bylaw.

“Developer” means the person or representative who is responsible for the subdivision anddevelopment permit.

“Driveway” means a roadway access which is provided for a property.


Sunshine Coast Regional District House Numbering Regulations and Fees Bylaw No. 673, 2013 Page 2

“General Service Area” means a geographic area contained within a rural or municipalboundary identified for the delivery of E91 1 emergency services.

“Ground Floor” means the floor of a building at or nearest ground level.

“Owner” means a person or company who has title to the land or building and includes aperson or company who name appears on the assessment roll.

“Property” means a lot, structure or facility.

“Regional District” means the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

“Strata Lot” means a development that subdivides a building or land into separate propertiesfor individual ownership.

“Unit” means a description used to distinguish a group of buildings or dwellings within the samecivic number.

4. REGULATIONS

4.1 The builder and/or owner shall ensure that prior to any person inhabiting, occupying, orusing a residential, industrial or commercial building, the assigned civic number isposted on or affixed to the building, signpost or fixed object on the site at a locationvisible from the street at all times.

4.2 The civic number, where possible, shall be displayed on the same side of the road asthe driveway is located.

4.3 The civic number must be displayed as numbers and not text or Roman numerals.

4.4 The numerals used to display the civic number shall have a contrasting backgroundand be clearly visible from the road both day and night.

4.5 Numerals used to display the civic number must be at least three (3) inches high.

4.6 Where a building is accessible by water only, the civic number should be easily visiblefrom an approaching vessel such as by the dock or other mooring facility.

4.7 The civic number must be posted before an Occupancy Certificate will be issued.

4.8 Strata lot developments, in consultation with the local fire department, may be requiredto permanently display a site addressing schema at a location conspicuous from thepublic roadway. Where there is more than one main point of access, and where theunits front onto internal private road(s), the strata lot owner shall:

(i) Affix and maintain on the front of the individual units the assigned unit numberwhich should be clearly visible from the internal private road on which the unithas access and;

(ii) At the point of access where the internal private road(s) intersects the publicstreet(s), the owner shall place a permanent civic address sign displaying the



range of unit numbers. Where there are two or more internal private roadswithin the development, the sign(s) shall contain a map that depicts the layout ofthe private internal roads and buildings along with the unit numbers contained ineach building.

(iii) Where possible, strata lot developments that consist of single residentialdwellings shall be individually addressed.

4.9 (i) Single storey buildings shall have the units numbered consecutively.

(ii) Multi storey buildings shall have the unit numbers correlate to the floor on whichthe units are located. Units on the first floor or ground level are to benumbered in the 100 series, units on the second floor in the 200 series and soforth. Any exceptions to this are to be approved in advance by the RegionalDistrict in consultation with the relevant local fire department.

4.10 Properties under construction shall have the civic number displayed on a temporarysign clearly visible from the street or access point.

4.11 No owner may display a civic number other than that assigned by the Regional District.

4.12 No owner may alter or renumber any civic number or civic address assigned by theRegional District.

4.13 No person shall conceal, destroy or deface a civic number.

5. CIVIC NUMBER CHANGE

5.1 The registered owner of a property may request a change to the civic number.

5.2 Approval for a change to an existing civic number may be given if the following criteriaare satisfied:(i) The change is feasible and does not conflict with civic addressing criteria;(ii) Abutting registered property owners are not affected by the civic address

change;(iii) The appropriate fee, as set out in Schedule “A” as amended from time to time,

has been paid.

5.3 The Regional District may, by written notice to an owner, change or reassign a civicnumber to correct errors or inaccuracies and to ensure that an adequate supply of civicnumbers are available for existing and future development, as well as when the level ofemergency service response would be improved.

6.0 PENALTIES

6.1 Any person found guilty of a contravention of this bylaw is punishable in accordance withthe Offense Act and will be subject to a minimum $100.00 fine.

6.2 Without limiting other means of enforcement available at law, this bylaw may beenforced by means of a ticket in the form prescribed for thepurpose of Section 264 of theCommunity Charter.



6.3 Each day during which an offence is continued shall be deemed to constitute a new and

separate offence.

7. FEES

The fee for issuance of a civic address shall be as stated in Schedule “A” attached to and

forming part of this Bylaw.

8. REPEAL

“Sunshine Coast Regional District House Numbering Fee Bylaw No. 524, 2002” and

amendments thereto are hereby repealed.

9. SEVERABILITY

If any section, sentence or clause in this bylaw is for any reason held to be invalid by the

decision of any Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the

remaining portions of this bylaw.

READ A FIRST TIME this 25th day of July, 2013

READ A SECOND TIME this 25tI day of July, 2013

READ A THIRD TIME this 25th day of July, 2013

ADOPTED this 25th day of July, 2013

61bRPORATE OFFICER

CHAIR



SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

CIVIC ADDRESSING REGULATIONS AND FEE BYLAW NO. 673

SCHEDULE “A”

Prices are exclusive of any applicable tax.

Issuance of a single civic address for standard residential $175.00

Issuance of a single civic address for Commercial, Industrial,Retail or multi-tenanted unit $175.00

Plus $50 for each unit within the single civic address

Issuance of bulk civic addressing at time of subdivision $175.00Plus $100 for each lot within same at time of application

Request to change existing civic number $250.00

The Regional District may waive the fee to change a civic number where:

(i) An error or omission has been made by the Regional District when assigningnumbering

(ii) The Fire Chief recommends a change where he or she believes the level ofemergency service response would be improved

(iii) A reassignment is required to ensure that an adequate supply of civic numbers isavailable.


Environmental Services

COMMITTEE REPORT

TO: Electoral Area Directors DATE: October 4, 2016

FROM: Manager of Environmental Services

SUBJECT: Options for Change to Noxious Weed Control Service Delivery

FOR DISCUSSION

Jamie Vieira Manager of Environmental Services

Approved for Board Consideration

CAO

SUMMARY:

This report explores how the TNRD noxious weed control program might operate if it acts as the

coordinating agency for weed control on public land within its boundaries. Currently, the

Southern Interior Weed Management Committee (SIWMC) serves this role. This change could

only occur if the public agencies want the TNRD to take on the role; and if the TNRD Board

wishes to take on greater responsibility and associated costs. The option included in this report

models the program delivered in the Cariboo Regional District (CRD). The option would include

an additional full time staff member and all associated costs (i.e. vehicle, travel, equipment,

etc.). The cost of implementing the program in the first year is estimated at approximately

$182,000 (includes startup costs), and dropping to approximately $122,000 in the subsequent

year. All direct costs associated with on-the ground treatment will be covered by the agencies

contracting TNRD for weed control (i.e. MOTI or MFLNRO). The amount of on the ground

treatment would be a direct result of the funding from the various agencies. This option would

likely result in increased complaints directed at the TNRD regarding the level of weed control

because we would be taking on the role of coordinator for all major public land managers.

Options for Changes to Noxious Weed Control Program Delivery... of 26

October 4, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Subject: Proposed Change to Noxious Weed Control Service

BACKGROUND:

The TNRD’s current noxious weed program focuses on landowner assistance including: sprayer

loan-outs, treatment rebates (for private land), bio-control releases, and public education. The

current program is funded primarily through an electoral area service tax which all electoral

areas contribute towards. No member municipalities are included in the function. The TNRD

also typically receives a grant from the MFLNRO which offsets some taxation. In past years the

grant covered about 10% of the budget. The current TNRD programs are administered by both

TNRD staff and contractors.

This report is an exploration of the TNRD taking on a coordinating role with regards to weed

control treatment on public land. The Cariboo Regional District (CRD) has performed weed

control for public agencies and utilities for many years and is hailed as a successful program.

This report outlines how a TNRD program modeled after the CRD’s existing program might

function. Please note, no public agencies have formally requested the TNRD take on this role.

However, the TNRD staff and elected officials have been receiving increased complaints in the

past few years regarding weed control on public lands (most commonly with regard to

highways). Currently, weed control on public lands is conducted by the Southern Interior Weed

Managing Committee (SIWMC). The SIWMC has struggled in the past few years with staffing

issues which may be the reason for the increase in complaints. If the TNRD Board wishes to

pursue a model similar to that described in this report, it would be up to the provincial agencies

such as MOTI and MFLNRO to bring this request forward. In this scenario, the public agencies

would cease contracting with SIWMC to conduct work and begin contracting with the TNRD. At

this time, the TNRD does not have jurisdiction to do weed control on land it does not own or

control (such as road sides and crown land).

DISCUSSION:

Under this option, a new service would not need to be established. Any change in scope and

budget could occur under the existing noxious weed control service (EA service). Furthermore,

it would not be recommended that any significant changes be made to the landowner

assistance programs currently in place - these programs are very popular and widely used by

rural property owners throughout the TNRD. The new role under this option, would involve

performing weed control on a contract basis from other public agencies. MoTI and MFLNRO are



the main agencies the TNRD would be conducting work for. Other potential agencies that may

also wish to contract the TNRD for control work include BC Parks, BC Hydro, Terasen Gas,

member municipalities, and other utility companies.

Under this model, it is expected that both MOTI and MFLNRO would fund the weed control

through a grant versus a fee for service agreement. In the Cariboo RD, the regional district

submits a funding request based on the strategic plan outlining the work that CRD staff would

like to conduct the following season. The agencies respond with a grant agreement for an

amount determined by each ministry. Typically the amount received does not equal the amount

requested. The regional district then updates its work plan based on available funding

according to the priorities set in the strategic plan. Other agencies (such as utility companies or

member municipalities) could contract the TNRD with a traditional fee for service agreement. It

should be noted that this is similar to how the SIWMC requests and receives funding for

treatments currently conducted in the TNRD.

A strategic plan for the region would continue to be used to determine priority weed species and

locations. Treatments would be conducted based on available funding and prioritized based on

the strategic plan, working down the list of highest priorities to lowest. The existing strategic

plan was development by the SIWMC which is made up of stakeholders in the region (including

the TNRD). If the SIWMC no longer has the capacity to administer the plan, it would be

recommended that another committee of stakeholders be formed to ensure a strategic plan is

kept up to date and aligns with the stakeholder’s objectives. The strategic planning process for

weed control is highly technical, requiring in-depth knowledge of weed species, treatment

techniques, etc. It is not recommended that a political body such as the TNRD Board be

involved at this technical level.

It is the expectation that funding for treatment of weeds comes from the agencies responsible

for the land the weeds are on (i.e. MOIT funds the treatments of weeds on roadways).

Agencies which contract the TNRD to provide weed control service would likely only be able to

commit funding on a year to year basis (typical of provincial government). In order to have more

stability, this delivery model would include a recommendation that a full time staff position

devoted to all aspects of the noxious weed control function be funded. This would make it

easier to attract good candidates because the position would be long term vs subject to funding



year to year. This would also ensure more of the funding from the public agencies goes directly

towards killing weeds opposed to administration. Treatment dollars would be allocated to travel,

labour, equipment, and chemicals to conduct effective control. On-the-ground treatments would

likely be conducted by both contractors and TNRD staff (seasonal crews).

Under this model, the increase to the 2017 noxious weed control service budget is estimated at

$181,280, of which $60,000 is start-up costs and includes as new pick-up truck, equipment,

training, etc. The annual budget the following year is estimated at $121,280 which would cover

all associated costs of the TNRD staff member to administer the program regardless of funding

levels from public agencies. Contributions from public agencies would fund on-the-ground work

done by contractors and/or TNRD seasonal staff crews. The current noxious weed budget is

approximately $300,000 – in the identified option whereby the service is delivered by the TNRD,

the budget would be increased to $480,000 for the first year and then drop down to

approximately $420,000 for the subsequent year.

One major consideration that should be noted is that if the TNRD begins conducting weed

control for other public agencies, it will become the focal point for all complaints regarding

weeds on public land. The TNRD would be limited by funding from public agencies to address

all complaints. At present time, complaints of weeds on public land are directed to the agencies

responsible (i.e. MOTI, MFLNRO). If the TNRD takes over coordination for those public

agencies, those complaints will be directed back at the TNRD.

Update from the UBCM Meeting (phone call received October 5th) We received a call from Minister Stones’s office today advising that Ministers Letnick, Polak,

Thomson and Stone along with MLA Tegart have met since our UBCM meeting last week to

discuss the identified invasive plant program issues on a provincial level. We have been

advised that there is agreement amongst these Ministers and MLA Tegart that the delivery

of the program needs improvement at least within our region if not the entire Province. We

were further advised that each Minister has tasked their respective staff members to come

back with options for service delivery improvement. No timeline was identified although we

understand that response will be sooner rather than later.



PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

Legislative Requirements to consult: There is no legislative requirement to consult however the

proposed changes to the service would result in a sharp increase in tax requisition. Electoral

Area Directors may wish to canvas their residents to gauge opinions regarding a tax increase

necessary to provide this service. If the cost of the service were to exceed the current limit

authorized by the establishment bylaw ($500,000 per year or 0.13/$1000 – whichever is greater)

public assent may be required.

Number of residents affected: All EA residents contribute to service

Geographical area affected: All EA areas

Level of Financial Implication of the change to service: tax increase of up to $180,000 shared

between all EAs

CONCLUSION:

This service delivery option would result in the TNRD having more direct control over how

noxious weeds are controlled on public land. The drawback would be the TNRD ending up on

the receiving end of more complaints. The amount of control work conducted will be determined

by funding levels provided by each agency contracting the TNRD for weed control services.

Therefore, many residents will still not be satisfied with the level of weed control if the TNRD is

coordinating the work. Noxious weeds will never be eradicated; controlling the spread,

protecting key areas, and preventing new invaders are realistic goals. If the TNRD Board is

willing to take on this greater responsibility and expense, then staff are prepared to take on this

role. To be operational by the 2017 field season, the proposed change would need to be

adopted by end of 2016 in order to get staff and resources in place.


THOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT

Documents

Transcript of THOMPSON-NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT