If you have a question or comment for the Committee, send an email to committee@clpgovernance.ca. All submissions will receive responses, will be shared with the entire Committee at its next scheduled meeting, and will be posted (along with the response) on this site.
Everyone is encouraged to submit questions and comments to the Committee. Submissions that make use of foul language or that insult individuals, however, are not welcome and will not be posted.
Questions and comments received to date are set out below, along with the responses provided, under the following categories:
Committee Question 1
We were originally informed that the committee would be comprised of 3 members from Cultus Lake, 3 from the City fo Chilliwack, and 1 from the Soowahlie Nation. The members from Cultus Lake would be designated by the Cultus Lake Park Board. Now there are 3 people from the Soowahlie Nation. The committee has allowed a representative from the Cultus Lake Community to sit at front committee table. We now have 2 members from the CLPB who are elected by the citizens of the City of Chilliwack, 3 people from the City of Chilliwack, and 3 people from the Soowahlie Nation. Residents of Cultus Lake are left with only 1 person and a member from the CLCA (whose disignation on the committee is in doubt). This composition seems unfair. How does the government make it fair?
G. Sainiuk
Cultus Lake B.C.
Answer to Committee Question 1
The membership of the Cultus Lake Park Governance Committee has been structured to provide for equal representation from the governments — the Park Board, the City of Chilliwack, and the Soowahlie First Nation — that have a clear and recognized interest in the Park. A representative of the Cultus Lake Community Association has been added to reflect the Association's past involvement in governance studies.
It is important to remember that the Governance Committee's role is to ensure that the study process is properly followed, that all key questions have been addressed, and that Cultus Lake Park residents get all of the information they need to choose between the governance options. The Committee is expected to remain completely neutral with respect to the individual options. The Committee is required to make a recommendation to the Minister of Community Development on whether or not to hold a governance referendum, but is not allowed to recommend one specific option, or to make any decision on governance for the community. Any decision on governance will be made by Cultus Lake Park residents.
Committee Question 2
If it is decided to hold a vote, will the vote by the residents of Cultus Lake and the vote by the residents of the City of Chilliwack be conducted at the same time in order to avoid one influencing the other?
Answer to Committee Question 2
A change in governance for the Park would require a vote by Cultus Lake Park residents, but not necessarily a vote by residents of the City of Chilliwack. Chilliwack Council could choose to obtain the assent of Chilliwack's local electors through an alternative process.
In the event, however, that two referenda are held — i.e., one for Cultus Lake Park residents, and one for residents of the City of Chilliwack — it is most likely that they would be held simultaneously for the reason noted in the question. No decisions on referenda or timing have been made at this point.
Environment Question 1:
At [the March 26 Committee meeting] someone queried if any ‘environment’ concerns could result under new/changed governance, but no response came from the chair. Leaseholders of CLP who live/own here have a vested/special interest in Park improvements. Their proximity to the Park and its issues most closely reflect the intended vision of BC’s forefathers who created the Act and directly included the leaseholders in their legacy of “Ours to Preserve & Protect”. Environmental priority implied by this ‘motto’ in support of the Act may weaken under the ‘Join Chilliwack’ option. For example, the distant (from the problem/awareness) Chilliwack people may be more pressured to vote in favor of political pressures close to their home rather than worrying about preserving/protecting the Park.
The concern is that the ‘Join Chilliwack’ option may effect environmental protection of the Park’s fish/habitat. We should know if the ‘Join Chilliwack’ option compared to the ‘Status Quo’ option, could have negative environmental impacts, and find out from an unbiased Environmental Assessment (EA) & report. We are entitled to know since BC’s EA requirements (or Federal due to inland waters to Cultus Lake) must be triggered due to the governance change inherent in the “Join Chilliwack’ option. The EA can show if Cultus Lake sockeye salmon will have more negative impacts.
When is an Environmental Assessment going to be done, since the ‘Join Chilliwack’ option, steers toward negative impact on the Park’s “Preserve & Protect’ endeavors? For example, the vested interest of the majority of those residing in Chilliwack, who have less immediate interest in CL Park, would instead weigh unfair bias to protect Chilliwack’s socioeconomic priorities. One aspect of looking at the environmental & social impacts of the two Options would be to clarify the aspect of protecting Sockeye salmon to/from the Park’s Lake.
P. Adamic
Cultus Lake B.C.
Answer to Environment Question 1:
There are no plans to conduct an Environmental Assessment on the Join Chilliwack option, or for that matter on the Status Quo option. We don’t think it is accurate to assume that the Join Chilliwack option would have a negative impact on the preserve and protect ethic at the Park. Indeed, it is interesting to note (see Land Development Fact Sheet) that the City’s interest in the Join Chilliwack option is based on the belief that the lands will be more protected from development within the City, since the City would not have the authority of the Park Board to develop new lots. (This statement does not suggest, by the way, that the lands are unprotected under the Park Board. As you note, the Park Board’s mandate — and ethic — is to preserve and protect.)
A different governance option would only impact the environment if a change in environmental standards, or sewage or water practices, were implied or anticipated with such a change. The Park Board and City of Chilliwack are both bound by provincial (environment, sewage and water) and federal (fisheries) standards, so no there is no obvious difference in environmental protection under the two options.
As far as we are aware, a change in local governance would not trigger any EA requirements, either at the provincial or federal level. A change in local governance would not, in an of itself, result in any impact on the Lake’s sockeye salmon stocks or habitat. Development at the Lake, particularly in sensitive areas, could impact such habitat, but not a change in local governance. Further, a change in local governance would not result in any increase in development — see earlier explanation of the City’s lack of authority re: development. Federal and provincial regulations concerning the Lake and its natural environment would apply equally under both governance models.
You suggest in your submission that the City government would pay less attention to the concerns of Cultus Lake Park leaseholders (specifically with respect to the environment, but possibly on other matters as well). “Local government responsiveness”, and “local control” are factors that we suspect will be important to residents at the Lake. We will be discussing these factors (along with others) when we talk about “pros and cons” of the different options.
Postscript
After the May 20 meeting, the representative of the Ministry of Community Development confirmed that a change in local governance would not trigger a requirement for a provincial Environmental Assessment.
Governance Options Question 1:
I attended the 26 March 2009 meeting & have noted gaps in information and two questions needing your feedback. At this meeting, relevant comments were made by committee member(s) implying that an empowered CL Park governance is likely the best option; namely, a strategy within the current governance that enables the Commissioners to even more effectively manage the CLP. Hopefully this means that CLP residents could have more voting power. We were told that the Province blanked the ‘Village Status’ regardless that people would have wanted an option with that empowerment. No answer was given why, except for non-attendance by the Province who is suppose to clarify (these issues); but that’s a lame excuse leaving voters feeling deficient & in the dark.
What’s the reason for nixing the Village Status option (a loss for the long run), and how then can we obtain a better empowered CLP Board within the ‘Status Quo’ option resulting from this governance process including more local voting power?
P. Adamic
Cultus Lake B.C.
Answer to Governance Options Question 1:
The reason for not including the Village Municipality Option (as it was known in an earlier study on governance for the Park) is related to the unique land tenure situation at Cultus Lake. As you know, the City of Chilliwack is the owner of all land at the Park, having received title back in the 1930s from the federal and provincial governments through various crown grants. A few years ago, when the earlier governance study was underway, it was assumed by the various parties involved that it would be possible, in essence, to eliminate the crown grants, and transfer title from the City of Chilliwack to the individual leaseholders at the Park, or at the very least, to the new Cultus Lake municipal government that would be set up to replace the Park Board under the Village Municipality option. As the earlier study continued, it became clear that removing the crown grants, and transferring title from the City of Chilliwack, would be extremely difficult. The removal of the crown grants, it was determined, would immediately subject all of the lands to First Nations’ land claims, and make the transfer to individual leaseholders problematic, to say the least.
Once it was determined that title would have to remain — for the foreseeable future, at least — with the City of Chilliwack, the Province decided that the Village Municipality option was not viable. The Province could not support an option that would result in a new municipality in which all of the land would be owned by a different municipality.
You have also asked about the ability to consider an option that would result in an empowered CLP Board (in place of a Village Municipality option). Such an option would require a commitment by the Province to substantially amend the Cultus Lake Park Board Act, which is the source of the existing limitations to the Board’s authority. The Province has the power to make such amendments; however, the Province has noted (most recently at the Governance Committee’s February meeting) that it does not intend to change the legislation. As the provincial representatives noted, the Ministry of Community Development has, for some time now, been working to simplify the structure of local government in the province. Municipalities and regional districts have been identified as the preferred local government bodies. Other bodies, such as improvement districts and special agencies (e.g., Cultus Lake Park Board) continue to exist; the Province is reluctant to make changes, however, designed to promote or further empower these other types of bodies.
Leases Question 1A:
From page one bottom right last paragraph: the author states “The owner of the majority of the commercial improvements is the Park Board.”
Could you provide a list of the commercial improvements owned by the Park Board?
Leases Question 1B:
What is the system for identification of the commercial buildings in the park, either owned by the Park or by the tenants’ own improvements? Could you provide a list of the commercial buildings? (The residential lots are listed by numerical number relating to each leased lot.)
Leases Question 1C:
From page two the last paragraph regarding rental rates “Commercial lease rates are also based in part upon the services provided, but include a base lease amount. The base lease amount corresponds to the building lease for some properties, but for others is reflective of land rent, as the improvements are the property of the lessee.”
Could you provide a list of how each lease reads, the current rates, and any adjustments for future rate consideration and terms? The answer to this question will help to inform the lease holders of the true dollars that are involved in the commercial transactions. The future may lead us from a “cost to provide” services to one of assessment based, no matter what decision is ultimately made on governance.
B. Dyck
Cultus Lake B.C.
Answers to Leases Questions 1A, 1B, 1C:
Your questions #1A, #1B and #1C deal with commercial leases and properties at the Park. We have spoken with the Park Board staff on these items. We have been informed that the details of the individual leases are confidential. If you are interested in submitting an FOI request, we suggest you contact the Park Board directly. We understand as well from our conversations with Park Board staff that you have raised similar questions on commercial properties to the Board, and that the Board has invited you to submit them to the new CAO for a proper response. We think that it might be best for you to use that avenue (i.e., questions to the CAO) on these items, as they will have easier access to the details you are seeking.
Leases Question 2:
In the Minutes of the Dec. 11/08 Governance Committee meeting, CAO Scott Colsen is reported as saying that “ the Park Board is considering going to assessment base rather than frontage” ( page 5, section c, last paragraph). The Minutes further state “Currently lease rates are based on lot size and proximity to the Lake”. (page 5, section c, last paragraph).
In the Fact Sheet “Land Tenure and Lease Structure”, it is stated that “The Park Board is considering a new accounting and leasing system that would levy rates based on the assessed values rather than a combination of lot size and location. As a result, more expensive locations and buildings would be required to pay an increased share on the community’s costs” (page 2, column 2, paragraph 1).
Can you tell me if new lease rates, based on assessment, will be presented as part of the Status Quo option? Thank you.
Virginia O’Brien
Cultus Lake Park
Answer to Leases Question 2:
New lease rates, based on assessment, will not be considered under the Status Quo option. A change to an assessment-based system would, as you note, result in a shift in the way that the community cost burden is shared by residential leaseholders. Specifically, leaseholders with relatively high assessments would pay more; and leaseholders with relatively low assessments would pay less. What is important to recognize, however, is that the Parks Board has made no decision to change its system of determining lease charges (notwithstanding past discussions on the issue). Moreover, a decision to choose the Status Quo option would not automatically result in a change to an assessment-based system. All we know for certain is that if the Status Quo option were chosen, the Parks Board would continue to determine lease charges using its current methodology, until the Parks Board determined to make a change at some future point. Such a change, to be clear, might never occur under the Status Quo.
Planning & Development Question 1:
Figure # 1 “… represents the contributions by Cultus Lake Park taxpayers specifically. The total cost of the individual components is considerably higher, but is offset by varying degrees by service specific revenues such as permit fees and, in the case of the FVRD services, transfers from service reserves to fund special projects that occur from time to time.”
Figure # 1 shows net cost. Could I have the gross costs line items before deductions for revenue inputs? By having this data it will help the residents of Cultus Lake Park decide if there is some price elasticity in the future scenarios for fee for service.
B. Dyck
Cultus Lake B.C.
Answer to Planning & Development Question 1:
You have asked about Figure #1 (your question #4) in the Planning Fact Sheet. Please note the following points:
- For the Parks Board’s planning and development services, the total costs for 2008 are estimated at $50,300. We say “estimated” because the costs include a percentage of the CAO’s time, as well as a percentage of the Executive Assistant’s time (time in both cases spent directly on planning and development functions such as permit reviews). From this gross amount, we have subtracted $22,000 in permit fees (e.g., rezoning fees, etc.).
The gross costs of $50,300, minus the permit fee revenues of $22,000 get us to the $28,300 recorded specifically for the Park Board part of the service.
- The FVRD Electoral Area Planning totaled $698,895 in 2008. Of this amount, about 25.5% was transfers from reserves for special projects; 2.5% was permit fee revenues; and 72% was taxpayer contributions (requisitions). Electoral Area E accounted for 28.4% of the requisitioned amount (the remainder was allocated to the other Electoral Areas of the Regional District). And Cultus Lake Park in particular accounted for a % of Area E’s amount. The net owing for Cultus Lake specifically is listed in the figure.
- Regional Mapping gross costs for 2008 were $280,280. Administration accounted for $19,750 of this amount (will be addressed separately in a future fact sheet). The amount requisitioned from municipalities in the region totaled $51,185; the amount from electoral areas was $52,785. Transfers from reserves and surpluses added up to $94,810 (used to pay for a special software purchase). $76,000 was recovered from other services (i.e., charged to other services that use the mapping). Cultus Lake Park’s portion of the EA requisition was about $4,800 (net of RD admin contribution).
- Regional Development gross costs for 2008 were $723,545. Revenues transfers from reserves to fund special one-time projects accounted for about $250,000. Of the remainder, EA requisitions totaled 4%. CLP’s portion of this 4% was $3,100 (net of RD administration).
Referendum Question 1:
If it is decided to hold a vote, will the vote by the residents of Cultus Lake and the vote by the residents of the City of Chilliwack be conducted at the same time in order to avoid one influencing the other?
G. Sainiuk
Cultus Lake B.C.
Answer to Referendum Question 1:
A change in governance for the Park would require a vote by Cultus Lake Park residents, but not necessarily a vote by residents of the City of Chilliwack. Chilliwack Council could choose to obtain the assent of Chilliwack's local electors through an alternative process.
In the event, however, that two referenda are held — i.e., one for Cultus Lake Park residents, and one for residents of the City of Chilliwack — it is most likely that they would be held simultaneously for the reason noted in the question. No decisions on referenda or timing have been made at this point.