Thank You BOWEN ISLANDERS!

Thank you for the opportunity to have served on successive councils, to have great friends and neighbours, to be part of a vocal, disparate and lovable community.


I'm going off with the Nature Club today, and hope the birding and fresh air will be a bit of an antidote to the hot air of the past month.


PLEASE! Get out and vote today, among whatever else you have planned......

More Thoughts on the National Park

I just listened to the Bil Good show segment featuring Doug hooper, Michael Cornelissen plus call-ins, and all speakers seemed to have missed the most salient point, regardless of whether for or against the park. 

That is the 'crossroads' choice. Bowen's European settlement history centred first on homesteading and logging, plus a bit of mining and brick making, but this rapidly gave way to the Union Steamship 'Happy Isle' era, which ended in the 50's. 

Bowen languished in the late fifties to late 70's, despite the coming of the car ferry and some residential development- Lenora/ Melmore, Tunstall, Bluewater. Yes there were summer homes and visitors, an d some local service economy, but the population dropped in the sixties, and was barely over 500 people in the latter 70's. 

We've seen an explosion (relatively) of full time residency on the island since then, and while there are still a number of weekenders/summer people, we are primarily a bedroom community with a high proportion of commuters. 

OCP's going back to the 80's have tried to crystal ball our 'grow out', and given the number of folios, have predicted about 7500 people on Bowen if all lots were built out. Obviously, if smaller lots or more multi family units go in, that number would rise. 

But Bowen's destiny as a lovely residential enclave would, in this scenario, be sealed regardless of build out numbers. Yes, we would still have visitors and artists and small institutions and services, but the focus of the community would be residential. Nothing really wrong with that, but much of Bowen's pristine, safe, small community appeal would likely be diluted over time. 

The biggest impact of a National Park, much more so than the existing regional park, would be to change the focus of Bowen's future from residential, to residential PLUS tourist, and better conservation, some educational resources. It would be a game changer over time, though that time period would be longer than most of us would still be here to see. 

Thirty years from now (and that's a common long term planning horizon), we expect Metro to be home to 3.5 million people, perhaps pushing 4. Bowen would be about 7000 give or take. Ferry issues- like in the past, obviously BC Ferries or their successor will have had to up service, unless we run out of oil or oil substitutes and are not as mobile as today. 

With a National Park in the equation, there will be more visitors, there will be no more alienation of now public land for residential growth (think the southern toe of Mount Gardner, or the area adjacent to Seymour, both Crown lands). The watershed will be protected, there will be no logging in Park lands, and if one extends the time horizon, those perils probably would otherwise increase. 

That is really the primary choice for Bowen Islanders-  to choose one of two uncertain futures. To go down the park path, or continue the residential path. Obviously, there are scenarios of 'cake and eat it', but in simple terms it is more public land or more private land. And that choice is WAY beyond ferry or local propriety issues (or perceived proprietary rights). 

Bowen isn't going to go back to the USSC heydays, regardless, but a National Park would certainly alter our place in the region. That future would be quite different from where we are now headed.

Crippen and the National Park proposal

I have been getting quite a lot of feedback from people who say they like the idea of a National Park, but don't want to 'lose' Crippen. So I have tried to elaborate on previous statements about my reservations on the same subject. 

Here is the answer to one enquirer:

The Crippen Park lands are central to the Parks Canada's  vision of what an NP would look like and how it would function as an 'urban engagement' portal. No question they really want those lands, they want the Old General Store (library), and they will even put up with being saddled with the Orchard cabins. Parks Canada cannot, by law, expropriate. It has to negotiate.

Metro Vancouver Parks will not 'hand over' lands except under duress. Period. Even though a lot of Metro Parks land came as gifts from senior governments, they see that as a one way street. Recently, there have been several sales and acquisitions of lands for the Regional Park system, all at market value. The only outlier was the 22 hectare chunk of Pacific Spirit Park that was handed over to the Musqueam as part of a third party deal involving the UBC golf course and the provincial government. Metro protested, took the province to court, and lost.

Metro also highly values the integrity of IT'S park system (ie- it is proud and proprietous). Crippen has been evaluated - in multiples of $10's of millions.....

So- Metro wants money or a land trade to give up Crippen. PC wants Crippen badly.

Unfortunately, neither party wants to push the envelope in terms of alternate arrangements other than outright ownership. Both hide behind their statutes which say that they cannot spend money to manage lands they do not control. So my push for some sort of co-management arrangement has largely fallen on deaf ears.

There are two changes though, which might make that a more viable option. First, are personnel changes at both Metro and PC. Richard Carson seems willing to do 'what it takes' to see a park happen. Gaetan Royer, newly installed at  Metro, is a visionary. Second, with the plans for Rouge Valley near Toronto:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/06/03/toronto-rouge-park.html

PC has had to change their ideas about land ownership. Currently, Rouge Valley has multiple owners, many existing developments- including a zoo, and PC will have to be very flexible to assemble all the lands they want.

I still believe there are models that could work- from a simple lease, to PC paying for the right to put up signs 'Welcome to Crippen Park- Gateway to the NP' sort of thing..., whereby they (PC) pay for some trail etc upgrades, perhaps mentor or collaborate with Metro Parks. So a wink wink kind of way of gaining access to Crippen without a land transfer.

I suspect that could be palatable to Metro and Bowen citizens. It really is a question of how flexible Ottawa could be- as PC officials have said that co-management of any kind would require a change to the Parks Act- not an easy thing to do. But I have been led to believe there could be  creative workarounds.

Separating the Park Vote from the Candidate Vote

I posted this on the Phorum, in response to a posting wherein Hugh Freeman spoke about the views of candidates on the National Park proposal:

Looks like all are firmly in one way or the other. 

No revisions.

Reply Quote

Peter Re: Stated Positions of Candidates on Park, Part 4 November 17, 2011 05:01PM

Registered: 3 years ago Posts: 590

So, Hugh- Why does this matter so much to you? If the vote goes no, no park. If the vote goes yes, discussions continue. Almost all candidates have solemnly stated they will respect the wishes of the electorate. Does that mean you support candidates solely on their NP position? Or even that it is pivotal? 

And the firm yes/no that you allude to is nonsense. Tim Rhodes, Wolfgang have spoken positively about a National Park. 

I am in favour of creating A National Park on Bowen, so I will vote yes. But if this were a vote on the revised Park Concept Plan, I would vote no. I have strong feelings against Crippen being bought or given to the Feds. So where do you slot me? 

Regardless of the vote, I would continue to do Council business, and more, if re-elected. Without rancour or acrimony about the vote outcome. There are so many issues on which ALL candidates agree, that it is their abilities, M.O.'s, energy and diligence which will differentiate good and better council members.

Q&A regarding Air Quality- Sea to Sky Air Quality Society

I chair this committee, so perhaps this is a bit unfair to have sent in comments, but I did.....

Questions for Local and Regional Election Candidates: 2011

1)      Car emissions are by far the largest contributor to air pollution in the Sea-to-Sky and Howe Sound airshed. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a set of strategies used to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. TDM promotes and supports increased walking, cycling, transit, carpooling, and increased transportation choices.

1.1)      Do you support the creation of TDM through smart growth planning and changes to infrastructure such as increasing sidewalks and bike paths and identifying new park & ride areas? If yes, what specific outcomes do you support? If no, why not?

Within communities, such as Bowen, or any of the town centres along the corridor, any actions designed to make alternatives to driving cars are welcome. The short term first steps include connected corridors-  multi-purpose trails and expanded transit (perhaps on-call neighbourhood shuttles). On Bowen, we have created safe hitchiking protocols. In the longer term, there is no question that land use decisions are paramount. The exmple of the new Wallmart complex in Squamish is an example of a retrogressive move that Council could have prevented, particularly since most incumbents have spoken about the need to revitalize downtown Squamish.

Along the highway, the best single initiative will be to provide better integrated public transportation.

1.2) Do you support marketing tools like carpooling and school bike plans and promoting events such as bike to work week and car-free days in the town centre? If yes, what specific tools do you support? If no, why not?

 Yes- with recognition of the limits. On Bowen, which is hilly and roads are mostly dead-end, biking is not easy, and transit patterns very limited. As well, over 40% of islanders commute off-island. But one Jack Bell Van Pool is not fully subscribed, and yet many people suffer ferry overloads rather than going on foot/taking the bus or joining a car pool. We provide preferential ferry marshaling for van pool. The town centre does not lend itself to car-free, as the ferry marshalling is within it…

2)      Transit services have been making headlines throughout Sea-to-Sky corridor communities for months. Recent feasibility studies indicate that the ridership potential exists to increase services along Highway 99 and within communities as well. The key to doing this successfully is ensuring that schedules, routes, and prices appeal to riders. In 2012, BC Transit is planning a review of the Sea-to-Sky transit plan. The Sea-to-Sky Clean Air Society believes an integrated and inter-regional transit plan could help identify and overcome barriers and improve ridership from West Vancouver up to Mount Currie. A successful plan might involve partnerships between public transit authorities and private carriers.

2.1) Do you ride local or regional buses on a regular basis (public transit or private carriers)? If not, what would be required for you to start taking the bus? (For example:  better schedule, different routes, lower cost? Or other?)

I use transit to commute to Vancouver almost exclusively. On Bowen, I drive, walk or bike depending on where and when travelling. Our neighbourhood does not currently have transit services.

2.2) Do you support the development of an inter-regional transit plan that would integrate services in communities from Metro Vancouver and the Squamish Lillooet Regional District (from West Vancouver to Mount Currie)?

Absolutely. To achieve a seamless service, BC Transit and Translink need to get on the same page.

2.3) What would a successful inter-regional plan look like to you?

Could be one of several forms, but I foresee Translink extending to Pemberton and Chilliwack, maybe Hope. Alternately, a mutually funded derivative authority, similar to the West Van. Blue Bus system, could take over from a terminus point, eg Horseshoe Bay.

3)      Industry presents another source of air pollution in the Sea-to-Sky and Howe Sound airshed. Examples include emissions from pulp and paper mills, gravel pit mines, asphalt plants, and contributions from heavy duty diesel engines.

3.1) How would you encourage the use of more efficient standards and greener technology for new and retrofitted industries in your community?

Air quality standards for industry should be synchronized for Sea-to-Sky, and Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley. Amenity zonity or other enticements for new industries which have low environmental footprints should be offered by member RD’s and municipalities.

4)      The way in which we plan and develop our communities has an over-arching influence on air quality. When jobs are located close to home it means commuting distances are reduced. However, when residential and school areas are zoned too close to industrial activities, land use conflicts can arise.

4.1) How will you ensure that all new residential and commercial development occurs in existing developed areas, thereby increasing walkability and proximity to shops and services?

Very hard to do for some sectors, but live/work, light industrial, residential over commercial are all highly effective. As well- under smart plannoing principles, long term needs should be predicted, with nodes planned, rather than simple expansion (spawl). Upzoning existing areas to permit higher density is well proven- laneway housing an urban example, secondary suites or outbuildings on larger parcels.

4.2) What policies do you think will be most effective at reducing our community’s impact on air quality?

Point source pollution is diminishing. Houses are better insulated, and using electricity, gas or better, new wood burners than before. Much less oil use for heating. So it is really transportation that is the key. Rather than holding out for a hydrogen highway, I’d go for battery swaps, transit, anything as mentioned above to reduce unnecessary car useage, and single occupancy especially.

5)      Air quality is a major environmental risk to the health of Canadians and is responsible for over 70,000 new cases of asthma among children a year. Contaminants arise from vehicle emissions, burning of various materials, industrial emissions, and pesticide usage.  Many communities have begun to adopt local bylaws on banning backyard burning and cosmetic pesticides. In the Sea-to-Sky and Howe Sound airshed, the Town of Gibsons, Bowen Island Municipality, and the Village of Lions Bay have adopted or drafted bylaws that ban or severely limit backyard burning. The District of Sechelt’s Fire Service bylaw restricts the conditions under which campfires are permitted and requires that all newly installed wood burning stoves are certified by the Environmental Protection Agency.

(Whistler candidates exempted (bylaw already in place)

5.1) The Province of BC is considering a province-wide ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides. Regardless of the outcome, would you support a local bylaw banning pesticide use in your community?

I am for the banning of cosmetic pesticide use, and tight regulation of agricultural /forestry pesticides.

(For Pemberton, and SLRD Electoral Areas only)

5.2) Would you support adopting a similar backyard burning bylaw(s) in (Pemberton/SLRD Electoral Areas)?

Bowen has yet to enact its burning bylaw upgrades, but I am pressing to have it go through, along with further waste reduction/composting/recycling initiatives.

Lifted from the Phorum- Commentary on the sewer project

Richard $$$ down the sewer? Who is responsible? November 16, 2011 05:57AM

Registered: 3 years ago Posts: 2,156

In Wolfgang's most recent blog entry his referenced outline details how the council before this one (ending Nov 2008) was planning a tripling of the capacity of the sewage treatment plant for about $750000. I am absolutely shocked to read that this current council (term Dec 2008 to the present) has managed to triple the amount of money spent but then only doubling the capacity. And get this, the thing doesn't work, and it's not yet finished, eight months late. Oh, and there is no money left to pay for the collection system to bring the sewage to the plant, in spite of the fact the money was allocated in the budget to do this very important thing.

This whizz bang bit of ineptitude was overseen by Nerys and Doug, Peter, Cro and Allison. And these people want you to give them the keys to the safe again??

Is this the kind of thing that needs some sort of official inquiry?

No N P
Richard

^{Primitive societies are always more complex than civilized ones - Robert Heinlein}

Reply Quote

Peter Re: $$$ down the sewer? Who is responsible? November 16, 2011 07:48AM

Registered: 3 years ago Posts: 583

Richard- Partial information, and a distorted understanding of roles and responsibilities, can lead to incorrect conclusions.

First- the cost of the enterprise. Originally, yes, we looked at tripling the size of the plant. Brad Hawthorn did the background engineering, and Eco Fluid provided the original estimate. The estimated cost was $560k. We applied for a 'Towns for Tomorrow' grant of $400,000, that I helped to craft. It was turned down. Remember, the sewer committee, including Wolfgang Duntz, vetted this process, debated the merits of different sized facilities. The application was resubmitted, with upgrades to capture the kinds of things the province was looking for- tertiary rather than secondary treatment, sludge thickening, potential discharge of aqueous treated waste into Davies Creek. That grant was successful.

However, an analysis revealed that the costs for the fancy system would be considerably higher than expected. Cro Lucas and Dave Wrinch helped put together a Canada Builds grant application for the now more elaborate project, leveraging the smaller grant. That too was successful, with a number of strings attached.

In the end, the specs. were modified (we had a new ops. manager by then), and the final price of $2.1 + million was tallied. We made a conscious decision to put in $721k of municipal money to hold up our end. There were bidding procedures, final adjustments, etc. The project commenced.

Under the terms of the grant all work nationally had to be complete by March of 2011. However, this was having the effect of distorting costs, and was unrealistic. So- across Canada, the deadlines were delayed, and we eased up on the throttle, getting the project done according to the new schedule, and doing a better job for it. Guys like Bob Robinson will tell you what the working conditions were like during last year's rainy season, with crew tying steel and pouring concrete in far less than ideal circumstances.

The result is we have about the best plant this side of Whistler- certainly better than any other system around the metro region. It has worked well in the commissioning phase, and the collection pipes were NEVER part of the project cost under the grant program, but an anticipated add-on.

We never did have the workshop to apportion collection pipe costs; we still need to do that.

So rather than smearing Council- whose role was limited to approving the plan and expenditures, besides grant writing and lobbying, perhaps Richard and Wolfgang (whose lands benefit) should applaud that we now have a state-of-the-art facility. Remember that BOD counts were periodically high on the old system, even before it was fully subscribed by the Cates Hill new hookups. And Wolfgang was VERY concerned at sewer committee meetings, along with Rondy, that they be saddled with any extra costs. They should thank their lucky stars at this point, along with the rest of the users within the sewerage district.

More sewer info:


This was in answer to a question about the capacity of the sewer plant expansion to provide hookups for Belterra, Parkview Slopes and all the other Community Lands/infill/Miller Road/Abbeyfield properties.

The price comparisons for doubling or tripling at first made it seem stupid NOT to triple. However, as the price of the whole system went up, to capture the bells and whistles which made it a  'green' enough project to warrant government funding, the additional capacity began to look  like more than the proverbial straw on the camel's back. It had become substantially more expensive to increase overall capacity.

There were competing interests. Cost containment was the municipality's first goal. It was reasoned that building a plant in anticipation of more than servicing Miller Rd. to Abbeyfield, plus Snug Cove infill, was reckless, or at least, getting ahead of needs.

The primary one, from Wolfgang's perspective, was, I believe, to upgrade the system without adding any cost to the current sewerage district subscribers. 

For Eco-Fluid and our municipal engineer, it was to get the plant to operate within normal parameters, some of which were being exceeded in the summer- high BOD, but not enough water to necessitate a bigger system.

Another factor was the outfall pipe, which at 3 inches is tiny- yet with a pump on it, could be made to work with a doubling, not tripling.

So- decision made to 'get by' with a doubling. Additional modular capacity itself is fairly easy to build. Cost- ? but I think less than $250k . It is the outfall and collection system which is the problem.

I say this with some dated information, as I had very little to do with the actual upgrade process- the sewer committee hardly met, and did so mostly to review budget , and hear Eco-Fluid reports on operating performance. Cro and David Wrinch were involved with the latter grant writing, and might be better informed.

NOBODY has done a proper analysis of our projected sewerage needs, partly because Council has never agreed on the enlarged service area, nor the # of units we might want to serve.

Yet Snug Point has indicated an interest in being part of the District, and obviously both public and private lands on Miller could suck up a lot of the allocation. clearly, larger municipal interests- eg servicing community lands, should trump private ones, unless, as partners, they pick up outfront costs as was done with Cates Hill. Ultimately, that is probably what will happen.

The obvious interest for taxpayers should be recovery of costs through latecomer agreements. I think the new expansion has about a 10 year lifespan at most before being fully subscribed. 

Adding Comments- OOOOPS!

For those who have wanted to post comments, but found they had to sign in to a google account- that was a default setting and has now changed. So you can sign in anonymously, or as Donald Duck or whomever...

Another Endorsement- this time from James Tuer

I first meet Peter at a local Bowen Island symposium on heritage architecture. I was on a speaker’s panel and Peter in the audience. The first thing that struck me was Peter’s enthusiasm for all things Bowen. Over the last 6 years I have gotten to know Peter much better. Peter has been instrumental in the Sung Cove Planning efforts, challenging many of the misconceptions of where the plan could and could not go. Peter bridged the gap between the heritage folks and the development folks and as a result we have some really great ideas on the table that after years of just talk are now council instructions to staff to make good on our collective planning efforts.

What really strikes me about Peter is his ability to listen to both sides and to not be a slave to his own ideas. If a better idea comes along Peter is willing to change his position. However even more important to me in an elected leader is that when it comes down to core values Peter follows his heart. As an example, Peter was the lone voice to contain the Cove redevelopment to a south side village. I know that is just symbolic but to his constituents that believe in this principle he is their voice as we move forward investigating what a two sided street will look like.

I’ll be voting for Peter as he is an elder statesman on Bowen and can bridge the gap between the new and the old. He is a career politician in the most positive meaning of the word. He’s hard working, smart, a great reader, well connected and a great ambassador. With Peter’s help we easily navigated the Metro Vancouver bureaucracy and found instant champions of Bowen Island both on the Parks board and also within the organization itself.

Just Another Council Meeting

Last night marked the last Council meeting before the election, and it is a pity more people were not in attendance, as in many ways it typified the work we have done. Unfortunately, Andrew stone was not there recording everything, so it will not be preserved for posterity either...

It would have been informative for some more of the newcomer candidates to have sat through the close to four hour session (Wolfgang and Darren came for the Belterra reading).

Why? Well, a lot of things came together, there was spirited discussion, it was at times disorganized, there was some dissension, advice of staff was countermanded (not acted on is maybe a better phrase).

The meeting began with public comments on Belterra and the solid waste management report.

This was followed by a brief discussion on two Metro Vancouver bylaws, for which our assent was requested, and Council would only receive, not sign off on, without further information.

Corporal Don Southern gave a farewell presentation on the state of police enforcement on Bowen, and expressed his genuine attachment to this island. He got a standing ovation plus a book as a token of appreciation. Car crashes, property crime, assaults are all down dramatically over the past five years.

The Belterra rezoning was given second reading, but not before a contentious element, the provision of sewer and water, was rejigged such that Belterra could not automatically expect to get hooked up to municipal services. A goodly crowd of supporters came out just for that, then departed. The project was presented by Michael Rosen, over the speakerphone, as he is very ill, yet working from his bed. So this was quite dramatic, and the reading was met with cheers and applause.

Hap Stelling walked us thorugh the design element revisions for Snug Cove, and, led by Alison Morse, words were mulled over, parsed, pared and otherwise smithed to almost everyone's satisfaction.

Brent Mahood presented the Solid Waste Program options in some detail, with added comments from Zero Waste Bowen Don Marshall. There were a number of contentious ideas, including changes to frequency of garbage pickup, mandatory separation of food waste, transparent bags, and collapsing of the decal system into a fixed parcel tax. Needless to say, we ran out of time on this, but were able to agree on the establishment of a committee!, request another report, and get the ball rolling on complying with Metro Vancouver policies regarding waste management.

Finally, Christine Walker and Florrie Levine presented an update on the Community Centre, with a request to seek provincial funding for the next phase of the work. It took a lot of explaining to get Council onside with an application for $616,000 of potential spending, with the province providing 80% of the money.

There were so many themes, items getting wrapped up, moved along, that I found it a remarkable example of how this Council, staff, and community have worked over the last three years.

Another Endorsement

Bowen Islanders are privileged to have Peter Frinton running for councillor as he is dedicated to understanding and focusing on the issues that preserve a high quality of life on Bowen Island - a jewel in the lower mainland urban metropolis. He is rarely absent from council meetings and spends countless hours preparing for discussion on the topics for the forums he attends. His commitment to improving rural and urban living conditions goes beyond Bowen Island, having served on Metro Vancouver boards making planning decisions on future transportation, waste management, parks and lower mainland food supply. Peter Frinton is a dedicated councillor worthy of re-election in this November’s civic election.

Brian Money, Victoria resident

And Now for Something Completely Different.....

Sorry- I lie. Now to revisit stuff that has not been peeped about in a long while.

The previous OCP was enacted in 1996, and after that began the process of updating the Zoning Bylaw #36. By summer 1999, with the municipality incorporation vote going on and general malaise about the newly recoined Land Use Bylaw, guess what- it was deferred to the new Council.

So from 1999-2002, besides setting up the new municipality, the biggest thing to do was the LUB, which finally passed in September, I think of 2002, just before the next election season kicked off.

But it did not pass until a whole bunch of stuff was either watered down, set aside, or glossed over. some of those things were pretty significant.

The first was any remedy for existing residential use of secondary suites and freestanding structures (the latter quite common on acreages). Well, secondary suites were eventually approved but the other is still, pardon the joke, outstanding. We really do need to attend to that.

A second thing is around tourist accommodations. B&B's are allowed up to 4 rooms pretty much anywhere, there is one guesthouse (The Orchard), Inns up to 20 rooms but with some pretty draconian restrictions, are allowed if so zoned. But there are a lot of holes, and consequent 'illegal' operations.

Take Dan Parkin's lodge at the Old Dorm. More than 4 rooms, not zoned for an inn. He has been around for quite a while, and not a single neighbourhood complaint, as far as I know. Yet, when I tried to create an Historic Lodge category for him and Evergreen Hall next door, one would have thought the sky was falling. The good burghers of Senator Place and environs worried about the door being pried open, and lord knows what getting in.

Suffice to say, the zoning anomaly continues. Which is no big deal, one could say, but it does not provide certainty to the proprietors or the neghbours.

Another example of that is The Ruddy kitchen. It submitted a rezoning proposal, but it sits unattended. So the use is tolerated, and between it and Bowen Butcher nearby, at least people can buy a quart of milk (sorry- a litre), without going across the island, but they are still in the twilight zone.

I want to fix those things. Add to those- Eddie's Pit, in existence for 50 years, still not legal. Or the 'extended home occupations' that allowed certain activities, perhaps short of building home nukes, in larger rather than smaller backyards. Or Temporary Use Permits, with their arcane restrictions and regulations about renewals.

There is a lot of cleanup work to be done, and it always seems to get brushed off in favour of more urgent crises. Time to do some Spring cleaning.

A Very Modest Proposal

Something occurred to me during the Abbeyfield House AGM today. One of their biggest impediments to getting going on any construction is lack of sewer. They have now decided to start with an approx. 10 unit complex with very limited common spaces, so as to reduce initial costs. I thought with my mouth open and flapping, that maybe a workaround to the lack of a sewer pipe out front, would be to plumb in a largish septic tank, but with no outlet, fitted with a device to measure how full it is getting. Then, get it pumped and the sewage transported periodically- every week? to our new plant just down the road. Unlike septage, which is partially dewatered and has a much higher BOD, raw sewage is exactly what the plant is designed for. If a 'honey truck' were located on-island, I suspect the haulage cost to be fairly modest, particularly if it picked up Belterra and perhaps other new-build project waste. Is this unrealistic, already thought of and discarded, or a brilliant idea?

Obviously, this would be an interim solution- one to enable Abbeyfield (now Snug Cove House Society) to get going. If, as Anne Ayre says, they need to build the market units concurrently, then this model probably doesn't make sense. But, a $5000 tank and paying for septic haulage might tide the group over for a while...

A Modest Proposal Regarding Number of Council Members

This came up on the Phorum a couple of months ago- Why do we have a Council of 7, instead of 5 as most similarly sized incorporated communities do? I recalled it having to do with the Islands Trust Act.

So I contacted Gary Paget at the ministry responsible in Victoria. He concurred with my recollection, but said that, at any time, a community can hold a referendum to reduce the number of Councillors, with the change taking effect at the following election. I posted that on the Phorum, and very quickly the topic died, though a couple of comments about it being a 'distraction issue' came up.

Still, I keep thinking about it. Each Councillor gets paid about $10,700 annually, plus receives extended medical/dental, valued at up to $1800/yr. By the time you add 'care and feeding'- travel/conventions/additional staff and meeting time and office supplies, my guess is it costs the municipality about $18000 a year per 'extra Councillor'.

Having seven on Council has its merits- a richer, more diverse discussion, wider array of talents opinions and aptitudes. More horsepower for committee liaisons. But an informal counting of heads on the current Council (one not there at the time), yielded 5 for, 1 against looking at reducing the number to four Councillors.

With $36,000 in hand, we could use that money for more services, reduce taxes (good bet on that one!), OR, raise the pay for each elected official. That could be an extra $7000 or so, not bad in percentage terms as a pay hike...

So why pay the hacks more? Best reason I can think of is to make the pay more commensurate with the workload and responsibility, plus to attract more/better candidates.

As it is, most Council members (with notable exceptions) are either retired/semi-retired, have a bit of money in their jeans, and/or are extremely community minded, stupid, or all of the above! Still, we attract some really good candidates- in fact I'm amazed at how fortunate we are to get the people we do.

But upping the pay, and demanding more from our politicians, makes sense to me.

Personal Successes of This Last Term

Political achievements are always shared- by staff, proponents, the involved and interested public, in addition to elected officials who as a group finally decide on something. Sometimes it takes an individual to really push an item forward, and when it works out, credit is due.

I am claiming at least a bit of credit on the following in this last term.

• Contributed new policies/objectives in the OCP- air quality and economic development
• Obtained a $10,000 grant to update our outdoor burning regulations
• Proposed Crippen Park boundary adjustments to enable more seniors' housing, better alignment and use of Trunk Rd.
• Pushed hard to forward our solid waste management strategy
• Revised the North Shore Congress Charter on Childhood Development
• Got Bowen designated Rural, Recreation and Parks, plus excluded from the Regional Growth Strategy Urban Containment Area
• Helped develop the Translink Mayors' Council response to the 2010 & 2011 Supplemental Plans, which eventually passed.
• Contributed to Metro Vancouver's Solid Waste, Air Quality, Revised Parks Plans, and especially the Regional Food Strategy

From the last term- I have brought these forward from 2008:

Some Personal Accomplishments from the 2005-'08 term....

* Collaborated with Abbeyfield/Bowen Court to craft the new rezoning solution that will establish the seniors' precinct as the first 'on the ground' project of the Snug Cove Village Plan- within our current OCP height and density provisions

* Sought out and obtained funding for women's crisis support on Bowen Island

* Led the successful bylaw process to adopt Green Building Standards on Bowen

* Initiated and helped write the Towns-for-Tomorrow grant that secured $400,000 funding for the Snug Cove sewer upgrade

* Spearheaded the Islands Trust acquisition of Fairy Fen - valued over $1 million

* Researched and promoted a Reuse-It store that led to the Knick Knack Nook

* Brought in our first Sea-to-Sky Air Quality bylaw

Translink Summary of Activities 2011

I am posting this simply to draw attention to the importance of the Translink Mayors' Council, and the impact of decisions made there. Regardless of who fills this post, there is a big responsibility and time committment attached. (It is normally the Mayor, but can be delegated to a Councillor, as Mayor Turner has done).

Message from Mayor Richard Walton, Chair of the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation

TransLink Mayors' Council Update #8 – November 4, 2011

Dear Colleagues:

With the completion of our 2011 meeting schedule, I thought it appropriate to summarize not only what we discussed at the October 27 meetings, but also reflect back on the events of the past year and where the work of the Mayors’ Council currently sits. I would also like to propose some next steps, which the Mayors’ Council might consider in the year ahead.

It was suggested during our recent meeting that the election of the next Chair and Vice Chair occur after the mid-December Metro Vancouver elections. I support this and suggest that the election take place at the 2012 Inaugural meeting to be held Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Although the Mayors’ Council is separate by legal constitution from the governance of Metro, transportation issues are tangential to land planning, and the leadership synergies within the municipal sector are obvious.

The Mayors’ Council Rules and Procedures stipulate that the end of term for Chair and Vice Chair is December 31, and that the Chair and Vice Chair declare their intentions prior to November 1. I am certainly open to serving again but will not make my mind up until after both the November municipal and the December Metro elections and committee appointments have taken place. As my predecessors, Mayors Watts and Mayor Fassbender can attest, this role requires significant time and the commitment needs to be balanced against other duties and responsibilities incurred as elected leaders. Thus I encourage anyone thinking of taking on this important regional role to not be shy in communicating their interest to regional colleagues.

Review of Past Year
At the beginning of 2011 we determined collectively to better understand the complexities of transportation funding in our region. As a result, we requested TransLink staff to prepare, and we subsequently received in March 2011, the “Mayors’ Council Curriculum Materials: Research on Funding for Transportation”.

This assemblage of reports included:
 third party research conducted by the IBI Group on both short term and long term funding for TransLink;
 consideration of best practices that included Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance from the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Commission;
 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms for Public Transportation from the Transit Cooperative Research Program; and
 Time to Get Serious: Reliable Funding for Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area from the Toronto City Summit Alliance.

The Curriculum Materials also included a history of TransLink funding and a series of background reports that identified various potential future funding sources for the region. As noted by Mayor Brodie at our October 27, 2011 meeting, the Mayors’ Council is already in possession of considerable research and analysis of transportation funding best practices applicable for our region.

Between February and April 2011, while we were awaiting both the Government’s selection of the Premier and the appointment (or confirmation) of the Minister, the Chair engaged other local government elected officials and some MLAs in the development of a set of principles for funding sustainable transportation within our region. These principles were approved by the Mayors’ Council unanimously in May 2011, and have since provided an important framework for discussions with Minister Lekstrom.

On July 6, 2011 a conceptual funding strategy was agreed to with the Province, recognizing two important positions that Metro Mayors have been consistently advocating:
 that the current funding mix in the TransLink legislation, with an ongoing reliance on property taxes, is not sufficient to meet the needs of our growing region; and
 that the governance structure for public transportation, introduced in 2008, does not provide locally elected officials with a sufficient role in the development of transportation plans for the region.

Minister Lekstrom responded to these issues by:
 providing an additional two cents of fuel tax for the region, while launching a process to both develop new funding sources to replace the $30 million of time-limited property tax contained in the Moving Forward Transportation Plan, and also provide new funding for future transportation plans for the region;
 having heard consistently that TransLink’s current governance model is an issue for the Mayors’ Council, committed to discussing the governance structure with the Mayors.

On October 7, 2011, the Mayors’ Council subsequently approved the Moving Forward Transportation and Financial Plan, marking the first time in more than three years that a significant improvement to Metro’s transportation service has been committed to. The Plan fulfills the region’s commitment to fund its portion of the Evergreen Line and introduces much needed service improvements across the whole region.

This decision, although not unanimous, was made in a manner that allowed each of us to express our positions and what we saw as the strengths and weaknesses of the funding structure. With the Plan now in place, the Mayors’ Council can focus its attention on the long-term sustainable alternative funding and governance improvements.

Since 2010, the Mayors’ Council has been able to improve its working relationship with the provincial government, beginning with Chair Fassbender, who negotiated the November 2010 Memorandum of Understanding with Premier Campbell’s administration. It has gained further momentum under Premier Clarke’s administration, with Minister Lekstrom playing a critical role in furthering the agenda. Hopefully, the next six months will see significant achievement allowing us the Mayors’ Council to approach the future with more certainty.

October 27, 2011 Mayors’ Council Meeting
It is difficult when chairing a meeting to record the salient points, so please advise me if the list is incomplete. My recollection is that in our discussion with the Minister we agreed:
 that the existing Joint Technical Committee (JTC) begin to put together funding options and related technical work to be brought back post-election as a beginning; then involve a subcommittee of elected officials to look at what has been brought together on the technical side; and
 that with regard to governance, the JTC, with input from the Regional Administrators’ Advisory Committee (RAAC), identify issues and consider what can be done to enhance the relationship between TransLink and the Mayors’ Council and address concerns regarding how Supplemental Plans are developed.

Mayor Watts also suggested that the October 2009 Comptroller General Ministry of Finance’s Report on Review of Transportation Governance Models is a good starting point for sourcing possible governance changes.

The Mayor’s Council also covered a number of other issues with the Minister with regard to funding and governance, which will be captured in the meeting minutes. However, we communicated clearly to the Minister a sense of urgency that work be conducted as soon as possible in order that action can be taken during the 2012 legislative session.

Finally, the Mayors’ Council passed a motion recommending to the Government of British Columbia that TransLink be included within the mandate of the new Municipal Auditor General’s Office, should such an authority be established.

In closing, I want to thank all of you for the support shown during the past 10 months. We do not agree on every issue, but there has been strong collective support for process, and we are at the table in a meaningful way. The balance between cautious corporate memory and cautious optimism as we negotiate the ‘unique’ paradigm of Metro transportation planning is delicate – but good policy flows from good debate and a shared commitment for the common good.

Good luck on November 19 for those of us still in the fray, and many thanks to our four colleagues stepping away from public life.

Thank You

Mayor Richard Walton
Chair
Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation

At Least One Person Likes Me....the Mayor!

Mayor Bob was kind enough to write the following, unsolicited:

“Councillor Peter Frinton has consistently provided thoughtful, informed, and practical input to Council on a broad array of issues. His ability to speak clearly and directly and even courageously about challenging island issues has many times provided the critical framework for a council decision. Peter draws on his broad and deep knowledge of Bowen Island, does his homework, and arrives at Council prepared. He is connected to a diverse community of islanders and consistently brings important community input to the council table. As Council liaison to the Greenways Committee, Peter has provided effective support for a variety of trail building, beach access, park acquisition, and community garden initiatives on the island.

Councillor Frinton has represented Bowen Island very well as Bowen’s voice on the MetroVancouver regional district board. He has earned praise from regional mayors for the quality of his contributions, and he has consistently demonstrated his command of this complex subject matter in his reports to Council. Peter’s leadership has advanced critical discussions between the municipality and MetroVancouver Parks on the transfer of Crippen Park lands for an expanded Snug Cove village.

I strongly support Peter Frinton as a Councillor on Bowen Island’s next Council.”

Mayor Bob Turner

Making Sense of the National Parks Proposal

If the Bowen Phorum is any indicator, there is certainly a lot of hyperbole out there about the proposed National Park, the status of Crippen Park, negotiations in the event of a 'yes' vote,and how the referendum results might impact all of the above.

I will be voting 'yes', for the dual reasons that I think it worthwhile to pursue an opportunity to acquire parkland, plus 'yes' means simply that we are ok with the idea of the establishment of a park- knowing that the details of what lands, the management, the costs/benefits, upsides and downsides would be fully revealed in the course of events that would unfold in the years following the vote.

I have written quite a lot of background on the Metro Vancouver perspective, but want to update the information. At the Parks Committee meeting November 2, correspondence dated October 5 from the BC Chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society was discussed. Basically, they were encouraging Metro Vancouver Parks to work collaboratively with PC and the Province in the establishment of a National Park on Bowen. Specifically, they laid out the perceived advantages of Crippen being turned over to PC.

Chair Gayle Martin had responded to them a October 6th, indicating that as there had been no proposal from Parks Canada to Metro Vancouver, it was premature for her to comment.

I spoke to this, suggesting that a supplementary letter be written which reflected what has, to date, been the discussion at Metro Parks and between staff.

The proposed letter would have included the following clauses:

1. MV has a strong interest and fiduciary obligation in maintaining the integrity of its Regional Parks system, and

2. MV Parks has indicated a willingness to consider a 'Value Proposition' from Parks Canada in regard to Crippen Park.

However, the Committee, backed up by CAO Johnnie Carline, demurred at even that, saying that until an actual offer comes forward from PC, there is really nothing to talk about.

Of course, there is a bit of a Catch-22 in all this, inasmuch that Bowen Islanders want to know what might happen to Crippen as part of an NP, to help inform their vote. Yet, it is pretty clear that Metro is in no hurry to dispossess themselves of Crippen, and is acting very cautiously. As well, Metro is extremely aware of public sentiment on Bowen, the petition, and the hyper-political atmosphere surrounding the issue.

Believe me, Metro Vancouver Parks is a conservative organisation, not given to rash decisions. Notwithstanding, the new head, Gaetan Royer, has met with PC's Richard Carson, and had cordial discussions about different options.

So- what this means for Bowen voters is that there is no way of knowing on November 19th whether Metro Van. Parks would see fit to 'turn over' Crippen to PC, co-manage, lease, or accept money for upkeep of Crippen if a gateway to the NP. But any negotiations would be protracted and by definition, would have to be of benefit to all parties.

But any fear that we would lose control of the process is simply not true, as we are represented at Metro Vancouver, and have, since we incorporated, always had a representative at the Parks Committee. In any case, MV is sensitive to Bowen's interests.

Same thing at the provincial level. Following Mr. Bawtinheimer's promise that Bowen's wishes would be respected in negotiations between the Province and the Feds., this was backed up by the Environment Minister, The Honourable Terry Lake.

So Bowenians' interests in land not owned by Bowen Islanders have received pledges that they will be respected. Not bad, seeing as how the Province has never before said they would protect even Crown Watershed, let alone all the Crown lands on Bowen.