CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED - Sechelt

COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE

August 28 – September 3, 2015

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED

1. Letter dated August 26, 2015 from Mike Evans regarding the Water Conservation Meeting

August 26, 2015

Pg 3 - 4

2. Letter dated August 26, 2015 from Steve regarding the Stage 4 Water Restriction

August 26, 2015

Pg 5

3. Email dated August 27, 2015 from Mike Anderchek regarding Increased Odour Problems

August 27, 2015

Pg 6 - 7

4. Email dated August 29, 2015 from Arthur Whistler regarding the District of Sechelt Strategic Plan 2015 - 2018

August 29, 2015

Pg 8

5. Email dated August 30, 2015 from Lorina and Davis Bates regarding the Proposed Development Design for 5520 McCourt Road, West Sechelt

August 30, 2015

Pg 9 - 11

6. Email dated August 31, 2015 from Ross Muirhead, Elphinstone Logging Focus regarding the Mayor's Message Promoting Festivals

August 31, 2015

Pg 12 - 16

7. Email dated September 1, 2015 from Carole James regarding the Sunshine Coast Tourism Application Process

September 1, 2015

Pg 17 - 23

8. Email dated September 1, 2015 from Crystal Boeur regarding Notice of Development Variance Permit No. 2015-03

September 1, 2015

Pg 24 - 26

9. Letter dated September 1, 2015 from Patricia Carell regarding Water Issues

September 1, 2015

Pg 27 - 28

10. Email dated September 2, 2015 from Peter Wooding regarding the Sunshine Coast Regional District Infrastructure Meeting

September 2, 2015

Pg 29

11. Email dated September 3, 2015 from Bob Evermon regarding Water from Stone

September 3, 2015

Pg 30 - 33

12. Email dated September 3, 2015 from Jeri Patterson regarding District of Sechelt - Request Update as per Email from J.Mercer

September 3, 2015

Pg 34 - 36

District of Sechelt

Council Correspondence

For the Week of August 28 - September 3, 2015

Page 2

—‘--‘.“.,

:jr

ugust 26, 2015 2 S

Nayor Bruce MimeCfO District of Sechelt, Ltz?L LrJ 1J}Secheft, BCDel: By Hand

Dear Mayor;

r’vly name is Mike Evans. I am a business owner and resident of Sechelt for the past 58 years. I attendedthe water meeting held at the District office last night. Like many in attendance, I came away withserious doubts and questions.

Firstly, while the engineer mentioned the reasons to proceed with metering, he failed to mention theprimary reason to not proceed with metering: the will of the public. Surely you noticed that that biggestround of applause came when someone suggested we should not install meters and, instead, put the $5million towards increasing capacity. It is an inconvenient truth, indeed, but the public does not wantwater meters. Irrespective of any other consideration, that alone should be enough to defeat the plan.

But even if we disregard public opinion (which, by the way, is what politicians and public servants seemto do) there are other real problems with metering.

We have achieved a 50% reduction in water usage without metering, merely by declaring we are atLevel 4. Why go to the trouble, expense and inconvenience of tearing up every single waterline in theDistrict to install meters when we can achieve the same result with regulations? Just think — a couple ofhundred bucks spent on ads in the Reporter and a few Facebook postings and, voila — a 50% reduction inusage. That looks awfully good compared to a $5 million expenditure, doesn’t it?

And what about supply? We live in a rain forest, for heaven’s sake! For 100’s of 1,000’s of years we’vereceived 3 —4 feet of water per year. It is an irrefutable fact — we have an abundant supply. While it isfoolish to intentionally waste water, we do not need to concern ourselves with conservation the sameway that Californians do.

This ties in with my next point: political correctness. I believe there are political forces at work,colouring and influencing our approach. I can almost hear them in the background, harping at the evilsof over-consumption, worrying that we’re running out of water, chastising ourselves for our “wastefulindulgence” And meanwhile, trillions of gallons of fresh water pour down from the skies, ending upexactly where it would end up if we used it first: the ocean. Gas is cheap and abundant in Saudi Arabiabecause they have access to a huge supply. The same principle should apply here. Water should becheap and abundant here because we have access to a huge supply.

The engineer said we’d save about $7 million over 25 years by installing meters. That’s $280,000 peryear. Really? We’re going to dig up every single service and install meters to save $280,000 per year?Madness! And do those figures include the other hidden costs of metering? What about the cost to readthe meters? What about the cost to process the readings and create individual bills for every singleuser? What about the cost to monitor and replace faulty or failed meters? No, to go ahead withmetering to save a paltry $280,000 a year is false economics.

District of Sechelt



Page 3

I n closing, I will go back to the initial premise of my letter. There is good evidence to suggest the publicdoes not support the installation of water meters. That should be your principle, driving concern. As ourrepresentative, you should demand a referendum on the issue before another dime is spent on thisproject.

Sincerely,

Mike Evans6527 Yule Rd., Box 1645Sechelt, BC604-885-4313

District of Sechelt



Page 4

Good evening to Mayor and Council

I will get straight to the point - Our Stage 4 Water Restriction (SCRD)

The SCRD & Chair person heading the water works department (ChapmanCreek Water Shed) this board has unfortunately dropped the ball, and has noimmediate solutions, that have not been properly addressed in the passed 17years.

Yes a reservoir is in place and yes they are in the stages of implementing theinstallation of water meters to homes that may conserve water as much as 10 %+1- , and the additional costs involved, is questionable. (cash grab) for theSCRD. It will how ever make residents more understanding to conserve theirwater consumption in the next coming summer 2016.

Yes we are now paying for the SCRD’s bur their lack of ability for long termdecisive decisions, (water resources and fire security for the community). TheSCRD Board should be concentrating on the immediate future and long termvision of water recourses for the whole Sunshine Coast.

So with that said, rest assured their will be a less snow pack this year, with lessrain fall, this is not anomaly as some technicians from the SCRD departmentfeels. The real issue is the snow pack and rain fall has being decreasing since theOlympics, so what happens next year when this anomaly happens again- hotsummer stage 4 happens again next year, then what happens?

We require Great Leadership (pro-active) to solve this issue and take what everit requires, to improve the water shortage we are now occurring, and not to getinto the political politics that go with it.

“items that should be re-thought again & Re- Prioritised”

* Increase existing Reservoir if possible* Inter-connect other two sustainable lakes to Chapmen Creek* Dredge alternate area of Chapman Lake if possible?* Dam Lake frontage: - to the raise lake base by 10 - 15% +1- will not impactsubstantially the perimeter or shore line of Chapmen Creek Water Shed*Require another pipe line from the intake to supply much needed waterfor our growing community.

It is my understanding, that we are the only area in the province that is in stage 4We need the full co-operation of all governments to resolve this issue.

I d

District of Sechelt



Page 5

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Date: August 27, 2015 at 3:59:15 PM PDT

To: Bruce Milne <[email protected]>, Alice Lutes <[email protected]>, "Mike Shanks"

<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,

<[email protected]>

Subject: Increased odour problems

My Apologies. I am resending this as it did not go to all the councillors.

Regards, Mike Anderchek

District of Sechelt



Page 6

mailto:[email protected]









Deluxe Landscaping Ltd 6037 Sechelt Inlet Road Mr Bruce Milne: Mayor, District of Sechelt

Cc: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected],

Aug 27, 2015

Dear Elected Mayor and Council,

‘This town smells so bad I might as well move to a town with a pulp mill”

Those words were spoken to me by my friend visiting from Colorado on the August long weekend in 2015

as he was leaving at 5:30 AM to catch the ferry home. He has visited often and has considered relocating

here more than once. Just in the process of selling his business in Colorado, he has now totally ruled out

the possibility of relocating, and more importantly, investing, in this community, even though he has visited

often over the last 25 years.

On the evening of July 31, I had to vacate my residence, because of odour problems in the neighbourhood

that were giving me a headache in my own suite. I had all the windows closed and the air conditioning on

in an unsuccessful attempt to lessen the stink. That was already the third time this year that I was driven

from my place of residence because of odour. (A call to bylaws was returned a day later, after the odour

was gone). This was a recurring theme as every long weekend or pre-holiday evening, this community was

met with the same recurrence of odour pollution. Was it co-incidence that this happened on evenings

before holidays and weekends, when nobody could register a complaint? I think not.

The sad thing is that most of this is happening when tourists and visitors to the town are at its peak.

Let’s move ahead to the present situation. We now have to live with the smell of biosolids from the old

sewage treatment plant, constant smell from the unlicensed marijuana grow show in the subdivision (and

it appears there is still movement afoot to put more of these grow shows in this subdivision from the recent

changes proposed for bylaw 25-266), and sadly, the ongoing stink from Salish soils. I just left Sechelt Truck

and Equipment, and the smell at this point in time blowing in directly from Salish soils is almost

debilitating. When do the hard working, tax paying business owners that have invested in this

municipality, get a break from this problem? It’s not one that can be ignored any longer. It has gotten

progressively worse, and affects not just our livelihood, but our health.

I have had numerous people say to me this summer that the ‘quality of life in Sechelt is way worse than it

used to be’.

When do we stop the slide?

Sincerely, Mike Anderchek,

President, Deluxe Landscaping

District of Sechelt



Page 7







From: Arthur & Barbara Whistler [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 4:31 PM To: Bruce Milne; Darren Inkster; Noel Muller; Alice Lutes; Doug Wright; Mike Shanks; Darnelda Siegers;

Connie Jordison; Bill Beamish; Mike Vance; John Mercer Subject: District of Sechelt STRATEGIC PLAN 2015-2018

District of Sechelt STRATEGIC PLAN

2015-2018

Attention Mayor, Council, and Senior Staff I realize you are all evaluating the many Community Improvements for the District of Sechelt. I herewith submit the following two (2) for consideration and adoption now. Sincerely, Arthur Whistler 604-885-5076

Keep community viable for current residents,

tourists and local

businesses.

Revenue producing income for the Merchants & Library in the Village of Sechelt

1. Electrical power supply source be provided for Electrical Wheel Chairs/Scooters. This will attract more scooters and reduce usage of cars that use gasoline. Clayton's Shopping Mall, Home Hardware, Pharmasave Drug Store, etc (Three (3) competitive bids be obtained)

. Dust control in the Village of Sechelt

Recent site Clearing West of Sechelt Elementary School will leave the area

dusty to residents living in the area and activities of the Festival of the Arts unless trees are planted.

Add to the Addendum to the tree cutting Bylaw (458, 2007 by Paul Appelt) due to Blasting of property West of Sechelt Elementary School. City of Vancouver has Tree Bylaw applies to all trees 8" in dia.

and larger on private property, including apartments, etc . Protection of Trees Bylaw 9958

http://vancouver.ca/your-government/protection-of-trees-bylaw.aspx

District of Sechelt



Page 8


http://vancouver.ca/your-government/protection-of-trees-bylaw.aspx

From: D.J. Bates [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 6:02 PM To: Information Request

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Letter to Mayor and Council re: proposed McCourt Road development

Please see attached Sincerely D. Bates

District of Sechelt



Page 9




August 28, 2015 Mayor and Council District of Sechelt PO Box 129 5797 Cowrie Street Sechelt, BC, V0N 3A0 Sent via Email Attachment Re: Proposed Development Design for 5520 McCourt Road, West Sechelt

Dear Mayor and Council:

We are the owners/residents of #8 – 5520 McCourt Rd in West Sechelt. We are part of a 4 unit duplex development (8 residences) that makes up Phase 1 of a multiphase strata project. When we purchased our property the land adjacent to us was approved for continued construction of the same duplexes in a phased fashion to a total density of 11 units (22 residences) including the units in Phase 1. The developer later asked for an increase in density but no plans were approved for this that I am aware of.

Recently the property has been sold to the Strongman Group, with development being in the hands of Ken Tiderington of Crown Point Developments. Mr. Tiderington has announced his intention to build an entirely different project than was initially approved. He proposes eight 3 story buildings (24 residences) for a total of 32 residences including Phase 1. The buildings will have flat roofs to enable him to build three stories while remaining within the height restrictions. They will have outside elevators and carports for parking versus enclosed garages. He is marketing these as “senior’s residences” on the 2 large signs that he has posted on the property.

The current duplexes are built into the slope of the land and as such are ranchers with walk out basements. They have peaked roofs. This is very consistent with the character and design of the other houses in the neighbourhood. Mr. Tideringtons’ proposed buildings are to be perched at the height of the land to maximize the view. This will require the building of large retaining walls at the front of the buildings. These buildings will tower over the neighbours, shading us, dwarfing us, invading our privacy and blocking the views of the owners on the street behind us. The people across the street will be looking at retaining walls and tall buildings. In no way do these buildings conform to the lay of the land or the character of the neighbourhood.

If each of these proposed new residents has 1 or 2 cars that would be 24 to 48 cars accessing and parking on the site in carports or open parking stalls. The access Mr. Tiderington proposes is via McCourt Road, which is a half width road that already requires cars pulling off to the side when traffic approaches. This is too much traffic for McCourt to support safely.

Since his arrival on the scene Mr. Tiderington has proceeded to clear the land of vegetation, which he is entitled to do. However, to accomplish this he has accessed his property via the paved driveways that are owned and maintained by the 8 owners of Phase 1 without seeking our permission.

District of Sechelt



Page 10

2

When asked to create his own access to his property and stop using our driveway Mr. Tiderington stated on several occasions that if we block his road access we should consider that he “controls our sewer. ”He has since stopped the construction crews from using our driveway but continues to do so in his personal vehicle on a very frequent basis.

Mr. Tiderington has attempted to construct an office on the property without having any building permits in place. This activity ceased after two visits from bylaw Enforcement and/or building inspectors. Today, large truckloads of rocks are being delivered; I suppose to build retaining walls, despite the fact that we were told that Mr. Tiderington has not been permitted to engage in activities to alter the site other than removing vegetation until planning approval was obtained.

Mr. Tiderington has erected 2 large signs on the property advertising his plans for a development that has not received any approval to date.

At a meeting on August 27 attended by 6 out of 8 of the owners of Phase One, (the other 2 were out of town) and by dozens of neighbours who are very concerned about this development Mr. Tiderington stated that the Mayor was ” very enthusiastic” about this project. I would like the Mayor and Council to consider that many people in West Sechelt do not support this project as it is proposed. It does not fit in with the design characteristics of the rest of the neighbourhood. It does not consider the value and enjoyment of neighbouring properties that will lose their view and will now be looking at large buildings and parked cars when they look out their windows. It is an enormous change from the original approved project, and as such we believe that input from all community members should be considered before a permit is issued.

We would very much like an opportunity, along with our neighbours, to discuss our concerns with the Mayor and Council.

Sincerely,

Lorina and David Bates 604-‐885-‐5891 Cc: The Strongman Group “Seaview Villa Estates” Council

District of Sechelt



Page 11

From: Elphinstone Logging Focus [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 6:05 PM To: Bruce Milne

Cc: Information Request Subject: Mayor's Message promoting Festivals

Dear Mayor Milne,

Wanted to acknowledge your idea of stretching Sechelt's festival season to extend earlier into

Spring and later into Fall.

Your follow on comment resonates with many: "Celebrating the things that have made

Sechelt a unique community is a natural, less intrusive way to build our economy."

I recently took some guest from Germany into 'The Chanterelle Forest' along the wonderful 30

min. trail loop, with the late afternoon light off the Salish Sea creating sun shafts through the

trees. They were astonished at this forest's beauty, and somewhat aghast that it could all be

wiped out by industrial development by SCCF clearcut logging.

With stronger promotion of eco-tourism into local older forests like these could over-time create

more economic support for a tourism operator, in addition to securing the image that the

Sunshine Coast has a true steward of its intact forests.

The big question for an owner of a logging company, like DOS finds itself in, is: When will the

tree farms come on stream for sustainable harvesting?

The public in general opposes logging of intact older forests where the biodiversity (the stuff of

life) resides, and supports harvesting of trees that the owner planted themselves. If SCCF needs

to shut-down for a few years to meet the objective of only cutting what it planted, then perhaps

that's the best way forward.

Thanks for the encouraging column of August 20th.

Ross Muirhead

Elphinstone Logging Focus

District of Sechelt



Page 12


District of Sechelt



Page 13

District of Sechelt



Page 14

District of Sechelt



Page 15

District of Sechelt



Page 16

From: Bruce Milne

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 7:05 PM To: Carole James

Cc: Connie Jordison Subject: RE: Attn: Sechelt Mayor Milne. SUNSHINE COAST TOURISM MRDT APPLICATION PROCESS

FAILS to MEET LEGISLATION

Colin,

I have forwarded your e-mail to all of Council so they may consider your concerns. I will ask staff to

resend me a copy of the letter of support we provided so I can refresh my memory on the precise

statements.

Bruce Milne

From: Carole James [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: September-01-15 4:07 PM To: Bruce Milne

Subject: Attn: Sechelt Mayor Milne. SUNSHINE COAST TOURISM MRDT APPLICATION PROCESS FAILS to MEET LEGISLATION

September 01, 2015

Without Prejudice

SUNSHINE COAST TOURISM MRDT APPLICATION PROCESS FAILS to MEET LEGISLATION

Dear Sechelt Mayor & Board,

Further to my brief conversation with Garry Nohr, SCRD Chair, Tuesday August 25, I submit the

following in support of Sunshine Coast Accommodation Associations (SCAA) contention that Sunshine

Coast Tourism Association has (SCT(A)) has knowingly failed to meet the requirements of MRDT

legislation from which they hope to benefit, and that SCT pretenses themselves as having acted in full

compliance with MRDT legislation. We deem this to be “An intentional misrepresentation of a material

fact”. We also attest that SCT utilized 3rd

party interference and equates to Voter fraud.

SCT wants all Affected Accommodation Providers and all Local Governments to believe their current

MRDT application process meets compliance with BC Ministry of Finance Tax Bulletin, Bulletin

MRDT001, Revised September 2012, (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/134558858/Bulletin-MRDT-

Municipal-and-Regional-District-Tax-Information): The documentation states under “Additional

Information and Documentation, you also need to provide the following with your application. (1) A

complete list of all qualifying operators located within the area where the tax will apply. (2) 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.” (Numbers inserted are mine, added for

clarity).

District of Sechelt



Page 17


http://www.docstoc.com/docs/134558858/Bulletin-MRDT-Municipal-and-Regional-District-Tax-Information

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/134558858/Bulletin-MRDT-Municipal-and-Regional-District-Tax-Information

The above intends that the Business Plan, and the Budget which is part of any business plan, must first be

finally decided upon, before majority approval is sought. SCT fails absolutely to meet legislation. We

submit therefore that although local government acted in good faith when deciding to submit a letter in

support of SCT’s MRDT application, Council must now retract that support immediately. Council delay

in retracting such support can only be viewed as Council acting in bad faith to benefit SCT’s MRDT

Application. SCT must not now continue to rely open local government support for their 2015 MRDT

Application. We submit that council has a duty to represent the demands of legislation, and a duty to act,

now that Council has been informed, to retract the support previously given. We will be forwarding our

arguments and evidence to MLA Honourable Shirley Bond, Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills

Training, in the immediate near future.

Please find attached SCTs February Budget, and SCTs current proposed budget, besides other

attachments identified at the bottom of this letter. Please notice that the current budget is still defined by

SCT as being Sunshine Coast Proposed Budget. Therefore it is still a proposal and not a finally

concluded budget. Legislation demands a final business plan inclusive of a final budget be presented to

eligible parties from the onset.

An analysis of both budgets reveals material differences.

1. Various line items have been renamed. Under Revenue: Provincial 50/50 Grant is renamed Destination

BC 50/50 Grant. Under Expenses: Trade Shows is renamed Consumer shows. Collateral Distribution is

renamed Collateral. Destination Guide is renamed Visitor Guides. VCM Co-ops is renamed VCM

Programs. Meetings and Retreats is renamed Meetings and Retreats Campaign. We do not take issue with

the above renaming.

2. The Current Proposed budget has collapsed two expenditure line items into a single line

expenditure. VCM Co-ops and Destination Guide is now a single line item called Visitor Guides/VCM

Programs. We do not take issue with the above collapsing of expenditure line items.

3. Whereas the February budget presents a 2 year plan, current (2015) and future year (2016), the Current

Proposed Budget presents a 6 year plan, 2013, 2014, current (2015), and 3 future years (2016, 2017,

2018). This is considered to be a material improvement not only in that it reflects back 2 years , but it

also projects forward an additional 2 years. There is no reason why the February plan could not

have presented a 6 year budget.

4. The Current Proposed budget contains material differences over the February budget by INCLUSION

of an expenditure line items. Travel Trade (Tour Operators), Rent, Insurance, Travel. NONE of these

expenditures were identified in the February budget. These are all NEW thoughts which were added

AFTER SCTs March 2 MRDT Application kick off meeting.

5. The Current Proposed budget contains material differences over the February budget by EXCLUSION

of an expenditure line item. The Current Proposed budget excludes Online Marketing, ($40,000), (-

100%).

6. The February budget years 2015 and 2016, when compared with the same years in the Current

Proposed Budget reveal significant differences in Totals revenues allocated to each Line Item. The

District of Sechelt



Page 18

Current Proposed Budget Revenues and Expenditures of $425,000 compared with the February Budget of

$365,000 for year 2016, equates to $60,000, 17%. The Current Proposed Budget identifies the following

total increases (decreases) by line item, for years 2015 and 2016. REVENUES. Marketing: Memberships,

$12,000, 17%. Member Co-op Programs, $7,000, 18%. Local Governments, 0%. Destination BC 50/50

Grant, $108,000, 257%!! MRDT, 0%. EXPENDITURES: Trade Shows, $18,000, 64%. Shoulder

Season Campaigns $83,000, 100%. Website/ Communications (-$1000), (-4%), Online

Marketing removed (-$40,000), (100%). Collateral $34,000, 126%. Visitor Guides/VCM Programs (-

$50,000 PLUS -$20,000), (-77% PLUS -100%). Meetings and Retreat Campaign, (-11,000), (-

31%). Media: Media Relations (0%). Travel Tour (tour operators) $32,000, 100%. Administration

$6,000, 8%. Accounting/ Banking $15,000, 100%. PLUS Rent $15000, 100%, (commencing 2016),

Insurance $3000, 100%. Travel $8000, 100%. PLUS Contingency Fund $41,500, 415%!! The above

represent a material change of funding distribution over the February budget. The Current Proposed

Budget constitutes a NEW budget! The new budget derived over several months as SCTs July E-News

letter reports.

Sunshine Coast Tourism’s March 2 kick-off meeting and MRDT campaign was materially flawed.

7. SCTs MRDT Application Kick-off Meeting at Pebbles Restaurant Sechelt made the announcement

that ’11 or 12’ letters of support for the MRDT had already been received from affected accommodation

providers. There is NO evidence to support that any of those letter-signors, other than those on the SCT

Board of Directors, ever saw or were given a copy of SCTs Business Plan or Budget. In the spring one

signor was told, “just trust me, we need this”. The signor signed. The evidence DOES support that each

of the ‘11 or 12’ signors signed at the time the February plan or some version of it was in

place. Therefore, they did not sign off on Sunshine Coast Tourism’s (Current) Proposed Budget! This

violates legislation.

8. On March 3rd

, the day after SCTs MRDT Application kick-off meeting at Pebbles, Shawna Leung,

Vancouver Coast and Mountains (VCM now demised) sent out to each affected provider a mere 2 page

Executive Summary of the Business Plan and not the Business Plan itself, of which the Budget is part of

that Plan. SCT thus failed to meet Legislation. That same day, when I requested a copy of the Budget,

SCTs Annie Schroeder replied by email saying, “I have requested the most up to date version of the

proposed budget from the Board of Directors that would be part of any MRDT application. As I'm sure

you can understand, with the very recent revisions to the co-operative marketing program being delivered

from Destination BC, the proposed budget needed to be reviewed once again.” Note that Annie says “that

would be part of any MRDT application”. In other words, the final budget did not actually exist. I did not

receive a copy of the requested budget until March 19, as stated below. Annie’s comments above, and

her email contents of March 19, support the February budget was being materially revised, and that

budget therefore, was not available to any affected providers. Affected providers who received the letters

asking for their support of the MRDT application could not legitimately approve of a budget of which

they were not informed. All letters received pursuant to Shawna Leung’s email request fail to meet

legislation. Shawna Leung, by her participation, intervened as a 3rd

party.

9. On March 19, Annie Schroeder, Marketing Assistant | Sunshine Coast Tourism, responded to my

March 3rd

email request for a copy of the budget, as follows. "As per your request, I've attached SCT's

proposed budget draft should there be MRDT. The FY2015 (which begins April 1) funding is still

District of Sechelt



Page 19

awaiting final confirmation from Destination BC so these are the best estimates available at this time. If

you have any questions, please feel free to ask.” Again, the evidence proves that SCTs March version of

the budget was subject to changes. It was just a Draft. Not a final budget as required by MRDT

legislation. The above evidence proves SCT understood that their budget was not final, and thus totally

disregarded legislation. SCT prematurely commenced their MRDT campaign by receiving supporting

letters prior to a final budget. This is in violation of legislation.

10. SCTs July E-News letter states: “Update – MRDT Status. For the past few months, SCT has been

actively consulting with and incorporating feedback from our hotel, motel and resort owners to finalize a

plan for how the Sunshine Coast Region could opt into this provincial program. A majority of those who

would collect the tax must signal their support for an application to proceed.” The above is a direct

acknowledgment by SCT that over the preceding months they actively continued to incorporate news

ideas into their Business strategy. The majority must not only ‘signal their support’, they must ‘sign’ in

support.

11. SCT’s July E-News Letter further states: “Current Status: A majority of PST collecting

accommodations have now signed on in support of an MRDT application. SCT has been appearing

before local governments to update on status and ask for letters of support from each government to

accompany an application. SCT continues to meet with the accommodation owners to incorporate

suggestions as to how the MRDT could make a significant difference to our region. An application to the

province is expected to be submitted this summer. If the application is successful, MRDT would go into

effect on the Sunshine Coast in 2016.” Again, SCT acknowledges continued incorporation of members’

ideas into their Business Plans. This violates legislation.

12. Whereas on March 3, 2015, one day after the March 2 MRDT Application Kick-off meeting Annie

Schroeder , stated that the Budget was being reprocessed and was not available, she again, on March

19 provided a version of the Budget which was still subject to changes. Then SCTs March E-News letter

stated the following. “11. Proposed Budget with MRDT. The MRDT application process requires a three

year budget forecast. This document is a proposal of your board of directors. We are open to discussion

and suggestions in order to shape the final forecast for the application. View details. How would the new

funds be used? - See the business plan executive summary. Again, this is a flexible process responsive to

stakeholder input. SCT needs to be a good partner with you, the individual businesses. Please share your

ideas and opportunities.” The above acknowledges that the budget is still in progress. It is flexible.

Please submit ideas. As well, the above link notes “see the business plan executive summary”. SCT is

still offering an Executive Business Summary and not the full Business Plan as mandated by MRDT

legislation. SCT hereby acknowledges the February Business Plan and Budget fail to meet legislation in

that it did not project 3 years forward. Legislation is disregarded.

13. Further to the above paragraph, it is imperative to note that on March 3rd

, VCM’s Shauna Leung,

(NOT SCT!) forwarded a request directly to affected accommodation owners asking for their support.

Shauna provided a 2 page Executive summary of the legislation mandated Business Plan, but not the

Business Plan, and a letter for MRDT affected providers to sign and submit. It is critically important to

note that the above notifications in SCTs March News Letter, and SCTs July E-News is item number 11,

broadcast out to all members, held the assumption that all MRDT Affected Providers would notice and

read the new Proposed Budget. SCT has not attached the same degree of importance to the March

District of Sechelt



Page 20

http://sunshinecoastcanada.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=1183322a47efaf5010dacdd22&id=7f8d828124&e=b3ffb29b45

http://sunshinecoastcanada.us9.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=1183322a47efaf5010dacdd22&id=95a079fec3&e=b3ffb29b45

proposed budget, when it finally became available, as they did to their direct request sent only to affected

providers to sign a letter of support on March 3rd. There is no evidence to support, and no probability

that all affected providers saw March’s “Proposed Budget With MRDT”, or July’s item 11. All who

submitted letters of support prior to July ‘proposed’ budget did not have opportunity to approve it. March

budget was not the final budget amendment. Even now in August SCT still does not purport to have a

final budget! Which version of SCTs Proposed Budget did Council review and approve?!

Sunshine Coast Tourism was repeatedly notified they failed to meet legislation but acted with impunity.

14. SCT MRDT Director Bob Crosbie, Driftwood Inn owner, emailed to me asking to meet and discuss

the MRDT. In the course of talking we discussed compliance with legislation. I mentioned the issues of

non-compliance presented in this correspondence. I had presented these arguments several times prior

through correspondence to affected MRDT providers which included SCT Directors. Bob’s response was

to simply dismiss my allegations that SCT failed to meet legislation. Bob did not find the issue of

value. This attitude of dismissal of legislation portrays Sunshine Coast Tourism Board and President.

15. Celia Robben, SCTA President, 2012 MRDT campaign, Email September 11, 2012, states: “The

only reason this discussion is limited to the accommodation sector today is that the MRDT specifically

requires the approval of a majority of eligible accommodations. The provincial legislation gives this

sector power and self-determination in return for the responsibility of collecting taxes from the

consumer. (1) If the path forward were not to include the MRDT, (2) then a consensus of the entire

membership should make the decision. (3) It would no longer be fair for only one sector of the

organization to have the approval.” (Numeric insets added)

16. The above statements characterize SCT President and Board, in both, the 2012 and 2015 MRDT

campaigns. SCT President has remained the same. SCT President is famously noted for her double

speak, when, in her email September 11, 2012, she announced upcoming discussions on the MRDT, and

made the above statement. At point (1) she overrides Legislation, at point (2) with her first justification,

and at point (3) with her second justification. After a never-ending campaign to implement the MRDT,

on December 12, 2012 Minister Bell terminated SCT’s MRDT application request. On December 31,

2012 we notified Minister Bell that we had lost confidence in SCTA President. Humpty Dumpty said that

a word meant whatever he wanted it to mean whenever he used it. We continue to hold no confidence in

SCT Board and President.

Sunshine Coast Tourism invokes third party interference, equating to voter fraud.

17. SCT coordinated their March 2, 2015 MRDT Application kick off meeting at Pebbles Restaurant,

Sechelt, with Destination BC and Vancouver Coast and Mountains (defunct effective March 31,

2015). SCTAs guest participants: Destination BC's CEO Marsha Walden; Vancouver Coast & Mountains

President & CEO Kevin J. Ridgeway, presented their support of an MRDT funded vision, by their

involvement in the meeting. They did little to not show their support for the MRDT. They emphasized

their desire that everyone would make the right decision, based on their speeches of course. That is why

these people were invited in the first place, to influence the MRDT vote. MRDT is the only Issue. March

2 was the MRDT Application campaign kick-off meeting!

District of Sechelt



Page 21

18. Destination BC’s Peter Harrison, Director Partnership Marketing, participated in the meeting by

discussing the MRDT. Later he actively ‘changed roles’ by participated directly in asking the audience to

support the MRDT initiative. Mr. Harrison crossed the line of integrity, his provincial department’s code

of conduct, and his official responsibility, when he read out loud Jack Barr’s letter (who was

absent). SCT Director Mr. Barr has been leading the campaign to implement the MRDT. While reading

Mr. Barr’s letter, Mr. Harrison ‘burst out an exclamation of glee’, and then acknowledged that what he

had just exclaimed was not in Mr. Barr’s letter. Mr. Harrison ‘crossed the line’ by reading the letter, by

adding his personal words of support, and by becoming emotionally involved in the MRDT campaign.

19. After the meeting Shawna Leung, Director, Community Relations Vancouver, Coast & Mountains

Tourism Region sent an email to MRDT providers requesting that they sign and submit, an attached

letter, and she provided an attachment entitled “Sunshine Coast Tourism Strategic Business Plan

Executive Summary 2015 – 2019”. By their involvement, Destination B.C., and Vancouver Coast &

Mountains created 3rd

party interference, in their joint effort with SCT to implement the MRDT on the

Sunshine Coast. This amounts to voter fraud, and implicates MLA Honourable Shirley Bond, Minister of

Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training; as though she herself were present, in support of SCTAs MRDT

initiative. Neither she, her ministry, nor her staff, have such jurisdiction to intervene.

20. By definition, “Electoral fraud or vote rigging is illegal interference with the process of an

election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing

the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or

both.” We deem this 3rd

party intervention to be acts morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of electoral

laws or in violation of the principles of democracy. SCTA’s 2015 MRDT process has been fatally

compromised, by 3rd

parties acting to increase the MRDT vote. Gibsons or Powell River would not insert

themselves into a Sechelt election to influence the outcome, or vice versa. This would constitute 3rd

party

intervention.

21. In response to my allegations of 3rd

party interference, SCTs March 2015 Newsletter states, “We

want to be very clear, due to some unfounded claims that have been circulated, that Destination BC's role

in the March 2 event was to share information about its new brand and programs. Destination BC staff did

not advocate for any strategies which our region might choose to implement. Destination BC's role is to

share experiences from across the province and to showcase its own programs.”

22. This above statements are categorically false! Destination BC staff DEFINITELY did advocate for

strategies which SCT region has chosen to implement. Destination BC and Vancouver Coast &

Mountains were central to SCTs MRDT Application kick-off meeting strategy, by their attendance and

participation. SCT, Destination BC, and Vancouver Coast and Mountains did not all just happen to arrive

from Vancouver Island, the Mainland, and Sunshine Coast, at Pebbles Restaurant, at 2pm, on March 2nd

,

and a meeting room happen to be available, with a bunch of guests gathered to listen to these people talk,

in a scheduled and well-coordinated meeting, about the benefits of MRDT. No one went home

afterwards, saying, “Wasn’t that a coincidence?”. SCT did not question the timing of Vancouver Coast &

Mountains, Shauna Leung’s email and attachments which requested MRDT accommodators to support

the MRDT initiative. NO! This was SCTs MRDT kick off meeting! It was premeditated, preplanned, pre-

organized and executed on schedule! MRDT was the issue!

District of Sechelt



Page 22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

In summary, we submit to Council that the above unequivocally proves Sunshine Coast Tourism has

blatantly and intentionally failed to meet MRDT legislation requirements from which it hopes to

benefit. The evidence supports that SCT presents themselves as having met all MRDT legislative

requirements. We deem this to be “An intentional misrepresentation of a material fact”. We believe that

each local government and the Provincial Minister responsible has a duty of responsibility and a duty to

act to immediately to withdraw support for Sunshine Coast Tourism 2015 MRDT Application.

We respectfully request your immediate consideration and reply.

Sincerely,

Colin F. MacLean

Vice President

Sunshine Coast Accommodation Association

Attachments:

2015 August 26 SCT Annie Schroder Email Attachment – SCT Business Plan 2015 (incl. Current Proposed

Budget

2015 August 26 SCT Annie Schroder Email 2

2015 July 22 SCT E-News

2015 March 19 Annie Schroeder Attachment – MRDT Budget Proposal (March Proposed Budget not

analysed in letter above)

2015 March 19 SCT Annie Schroeder email

2015 March 24 SCT News Letter

2015 SCT Budget Compare (Excell Spreadsheet) Analyzes February and August Proposed Budgets

received from Annie

District of Sechelt



Page 23

From: Crystal Boeur [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 8:41 AM To: Information Request; Angela Letman; Mike Vance

Subject: Attn Mayor and Council RE Marine Way

Below is a letter on the Development Variance Permit No. 2015-03. This matter is to be

discussed Sept. 2nd council meeting and we will not be in attendance but wanted to express our

concerns.

Thank you,

Crystal Boeur and Hershel Frimer

To Mayor and Council,

Re: Notice of Development Variance Permit No. 2015-03

We are opposed to the issuance of the proposed variances from bylaws on Marine Way. We

have concerns about pedestrian safety and the future look and feel of our community. Families,

with children and strollers walk along Marine Way, and need to take the bus on this narrow

windy road with no safe place to walk. Eliminating the need for proper lighting and sidewalks is

counterproductive in this regard and we are therefore opposed to these bylaw amendments.

We would like to propose a half width sidewalk which may allow enough width for a sidewalk

as well as roadside parking.

As a younger family in the area, we would like to see the community plans and bylaws adhered

to with the future in mind. The undergrounding of the power / service lines is not just aesthetic,

but also practical in this steep area with trees. If we allow these development variances, we are

setting the tone for future developments along this roadway to not put in sidewalks,

undergrounding of service lines, and proper lighting. The developers save costs, at the expense

of the neighbourhood community.

The undergrounding of the power lines, the placement of a sidewalk (half width), and proper

lighting development bylaws should all be upheld.

Thank you,

Crystal and Hershel Frimer

District of Sechelt



Page 24


5843 Marine Way

--

Crystal Boeur C. 604-989-1852 E. [email protected]

District of Sechelt



Page 25


To Mayor and Council,

Re: Notice of Development Variance Permit No. 2015-03

We are opposed to the issuance of the proposed variances from bylaws on Marine Way. We have

concerns about pedestrian safety and the future look and feel of our community. Families, with children

and strollers walk along Marine Way, and need to take the bus on this narrow windy road with no safe

place to walk. Eliminating the need for proper lighting and sidewalks is counterproductive in this regard

and we are therefore opposed to these bylaw amendments.

We would like to propose a half width sidewalk which may allow enough width for a sidewalk as well as

roadside parking.

As a younger family in the area, we would like to see the community plans and bylaws adhered to with

the future in mind. The undergrounding of the power / service lines is not just aesthetic, but also

practical in this steep area with trees. If we allow these development variances, we are setting the tone

for future developments along this roadway to not put in sidewalks, undergrounding of service lines,

and proper lighting. The developers save costs, at the expense of the neighbourhood community.

The undergrounding of the power lines, the placement of a sidewalk (half width), and proper lighting

development bylaws should all be upheld.

Thank you,

Crystal and Hershel Frimer

5843 Marine Way

District of Sechelt



Page 26

40kM

p41y

LDc?JJ

&q JO&24L

:‘O4’tZAd

f/poJ4444

11

4’

,i’w,u&Ej

144t/Ltd]’

4 14JZ1’J4a 44L d-

Wi7J&

4Ci/4k1UJ

)li ‘t’t7

4(CIJLcëAJ

dUQP461fLL!

/

District of Sechelt



Page 27

tUt

tuk LkL

OQ 3874

A3kCAL2/

i%’OfrJ

AJ, W4t

A%aA’4/JAAkI/U1ih La1Z.

2á4rn&J

£71

District of Sechelt



Page 28

From: Peter Wooding [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 8:20 PM To: Council

Cc: Mel Bollivar; Greg Deacon; Lorraine Gallant; Bill MacKinnon; Michael Hoole; Michael Siddall; Gina Stockwell; Geoff White; Peter Wooding

Subject: Fw: SCRD Infrastructure Meeting of 3 Sept 2015 & position of the East Porpoise Bay

Community Association Directors on Water Management at this time.

Dear Mayor and Councillors, Some of our Directors attended the Water Conservation meeting on Aug.25. We were shocked to hear from Brian Shoji that according to current planning if we experience the same weather conditions in the coming year as we have in this we would again have Stage 4 water restrictions. We feel that this is unacceptable. We urge you to push for immediate action on the installation of a long term water supply solution, presumably a reservoir to take the pressure off overtaxed Chapman Lake and Creek. While water metering may well be a useful conservation measure we feel that meter installation should definitely be given second priority to increasing the water supply. On the water conservation front we feel that again more immediate action is warranted. Last December we met with Gabe Morelli of LeHigh. He explained to us that at that time they were currently getting 80% of their water from their own water resources and were actively recycling that water. The other 20% was coming from Chapman Creek upstream from the SCRD water treatment plant intake and that LeHigh wants to replace this 20% with recycled water from Sechelt’s Water Resource Centre so that they could then accurately claim they are using 100% recycled water. Good for them, good for us, and good for the fish and other aquatic life dependent on Chapman Lake and Creek. Also an urgent need for the great work done by the volunteers and staff of Chapman Creek Hatchery. While hopefully the District is planning to move in this direction we feel that urgent action on this front is required so that the installation is in place before next Summer. In our our opinion anything that can be done to facilitate this installation such as initial engineering studies should be undertaken immediately. Sincerely, Peter Wooding, President, on behalf of the Directors of the East Porpoise Bay Community Association.

District of Sechelt



Page 29


From: Bob Evermon [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 4:19 PM To: Council

Subject: Water from stone

Info only

Dear Mayor and Council It looks like we will be at stage 4 again

next year in Sechelt according to the Farmers Almanac. if we don't do

anything about it like put in the sciphen. Wet and Mild means no

snowpack. The Farmers Almanac have been right 80% of the time

sense 1792 and have always used the number of Sunspots to forecast

the weather and now NASA is saying the same thing. if you do only

one thing Listen to Dyson Freeman - the best 10 min. from a great

scientists. -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs Dyson

Freeman Princeton University Physic - He was friends of Albert Einstein His

views on sunspots and the complex nature of weather forecasting are

all over the home plate. NASA has to know what is going on with

our sun as well as the Farmer's Almanac. Look into Maunder

Minimum and what NASA is saying about it below.

According to the Farmers’ Almanac, the winter of 2015–2016 is looking

like a repeat of last winter, at least in terms of temperatures with unseasonably

cold conditions over the Atlantic Seaboard, eastern portions of the Great Lakes,

and the lower peninsula of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, most of the Tennessee and

Mississippi Valley, as well as much of the Gulf Coast.New Englanders will once

again experience a very frigid (shivery) winter (Déjà vu).

District of Sechelt



Page 30


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

The Farmers Almanac uses the Sun and sunspots work out the weather. - NASA has been

looking at sunspots and has not seen anything like this for 200 years in cycle 24. Maunder

Minimum put it into Google long range weather forecasting.

District of Sechelt



Page 31

The Farmers Almanac uses the Sun and sunspots work out the weather. Have you looked at

NASA on our suns sunspots - NASA has not seen anything like this for 200 years in cycle

24. Maunder Minimum? take care Bob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs Dyson Freeman Princeton

University Physic

The Maunder Minimum NASA

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th

century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image).

Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well

District of Sechelt



Page 32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg

observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar

inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are

normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is

evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The

connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research. Credit:

NASA/ARC/Hathaway

A sunspot prediction for solar cycle 24. Planning for satellite orbits and space missions often require

knowledge of solar activity levels years in advance. Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle

maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 58 in July of 2013. As of March

2011, we are over two years into Cycle 24. The predicted size would make this the smallest sunspot

cycle in nearly 200 years. Credit: NASA/ARC/Hathaway

District of Sechelt



Page 33

From: Jeri Patterson [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 12:25 PM To: Jeri Patterson; Darren Inkster; Council; Connie Jordison; Bruce Milne; Mike Shanks; Bill Beamish;

Alice Lutes; Doug Wright Subject: Re: District of Sechelt -request update as per attached email from J.Mercer Fwd: McLaughan &

NWB Roads

September 3,2015 District of Sechelt Mayor, council, CAO Cc: others by separate communication for privacy At this time the District continues to fail to address their trespass, and use of my private lands for municipal purposes. Please respond forthwith, advising what works will be conducted, and when. The continued non-response by the District has caused harm, and continues to cause harm. Jeri Patterson Sent from my iPad On Aug 25, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Jeri Patterson <[email protected]> wrote:

August 25,2015 District of Sechelt Attn.: Mayor Milne Attn: Council Attn.: CAO Bill Beamish Attn.: Connie Jordison Cc: others by separate communication for privacy Re: Request update as per J.Mercer attached communication. On August 10,2015 Mr.Mercer advised two more weeks were required to obtain the information regarding relocating the District of Sechelts road ( Mclaughan) and drainage ditch for Mclaughan Road off of my private lands.

District of Sechelt



Page 34



Please advise status, as this matter is time sensitive, and my scheduled works is on hold waiting for the Districts to complete their required works on both Mclaughan and Norwest Bay roads PRIOR to the wet season, which is imminent. The objective is to have these issues resolved to ensure that no further damages occur, and that I am not incurring costs attempting to mitigate damages caused by the Districts documented failure to adequately maintain drainage in this area. I anticipate your response by return as I am required to confirm the work planned with the contractors no later than Thursday. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Regards, Jeri Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:

From: Jeri Patterson <[email protected]> Date: August 25, 2015 at 11:52:21 AM PDT To: Jeri Patterson <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: McLaughan & NWB Roads

Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:

From: John Mercer <[email protected]> Date: August 10, 2015 at 2:52:55 PM PDT To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Bill Beamish <[email protected]> Subject: McLaughan & NWB Roads

Dear Sirs, Mesdames, Dear Jeri, At this time the District has not answered two time sensitive questions;

1) when, and what is the District intending to do to remedy their encroachment onto the

Patterson private lands with the Mclaughan Road, and associated ditch? At this time we are

District of Sechelt



Page 35







obtaining pricing in order to effectively evaluate our options. It is anticipated that this could take

2 more weeks. 2) when, and what is the District intending to do to remedy the damage to drainage, and ditching

on Norwest Bay Road? The crews were working on NWB Road today and are expecting to work

there again tomorrow. Thank you in advance for your prompt response. Regards, Jeri John Mercer | SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS <image003.png> Cell: 604.885.8488 Main Tel: 604.885.1986 PO Box 129, Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 2nd Floor, 5797 Cowrie Street | www.sechelt.ca

District of Sechelt



Page 36

http://www.sechelt.ca/

Documents

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED - Sechelt