Sacha Peter

There were 5 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioners Cameron and Skonberg were away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. The board received a memorandum that stated that staff is working on a bylaw amendment to the Encroachment bylaw with respect to previous applications received. This is a case of developing a comprehensive solution to the issues concerning encroachments rather than applying quick fixes and the cost of waiting a little while is far less than the cost of not doing it correctly. Commissioner Woodrow moved a motion to agree to the prior encroachment with no further costs to the applicant, but this received no seconders.

2. The board approved four measures concerning Sunnyside campground.

The first measure was to adopt a decrease in parking rates for seasonal campers for a second vehicle from $150 to $100. This motion was carried 3-2 (Woodrow and Peter opposed). My vote against was because there is a significant measure for Sunnyside seasonal campers to allow entry in April and that unlike day use campers, who bring extra vehicles in typically for a weekend, seasonal campers will bring in their automobiles for significantly higher periods of time.

The second measure was to decrease the cost of a second vehicle / second family member to $10 from $20 presently. This was carried 5-0 and brings us much more in line with other campgrounds. There will be a revenue consequence to this, however.

The third measure was to decrease the pet rate from $5/day to $5/day up to $20/week, which was carried 5-0.

Later on in the meeting, the board agreed to a recommendation to allow the opening of Sunnyside to seasonal campers in the closest weekend to April 15 instead of the May 1st fixed date. As Sunnyside is staffed from April 1st there will be no labour consequence in costs, but there will be an increase in electricity consumption between the mid-April to end of April date.

3. The board moved first, second and third reading of our fees, charges and fines bylaw. This bylaw consolidates various rates into a single bylaw. The City of Chilliwack has similar bylaws with their Miscellaneous Rates Bylaw, Development Cost Charge bylaw, etc. Other municipalities have similar bylaws in place.

4. The board moved first and second reading of our 2012 budget bylaw. I will reserve comment until the bylaw has passed. There will be a public comment period on the budget bylaw at the October 26, 2011, 7:00pm board meeting and people can voice their comments through that medium. Also, they can write into the board office by postal mail or by e-mail. In addition, commissioners can also be emailed.

I did ask for a motion, however, which was moved by Commissioner Hall and seconded by Commissioner Woodrow requesting that the 2013 and later years’ increments for the daily use rates for the Old Age Pensions group at the Community Hall be removed. Currently the day use rate the OAPs are paying at the community hall are scheduled to be increased in the 2012 budget, but there was an increase in 2013 and subsequent years. While our community hall is not making money for the park, and indeed, it costs more to keep it up, it does provide a good meeting place for the community and I believe the social benefits of having it there far outweigh the cost going into it. That said, there does have to be some planning with respect to the building over the medium-term time range. This is something the next board should be addressing.

5. The board moved third reading of the appointment of officers bylaw, which included language over our existing officers bylaw that would indemnify commissioners from legal costs as a result of the performance of their duties. Future commissioners will doubtlessly be relieved to this has been put into place. Hopefully this provision will never have to be used. The language is similar in nature to the Municipal Officers and Employees Bylaw in the City of Chilliwack.

6. The board considered a matter concerning pay parking, specifically the rates to be offered and the contract to administer parking. I excused myself from this part of the proceedings due to a perceived conflict of interest due to a personal relationship I have with the owner/operator of the company in question. For further background information, his wife and my wife are friends. I will also disclose that the relationship is not an economic relationship (i.e. I do not stand to gain financially if this decision was accepted or rejected).

As I stated in my dissection of the April 13, 2011 meeting where I declared a similar conflict of interest, although this does not fall as a real conflict of interest, in my mind it easily can fall into a perceived conflict of interest situation. There are simply some matters where personal life and business do not mix – it is much more prudent for me to declare a conflict and be able to look straight into the faces of both the stakeholders at Cultus Lake Park, and the owner/operator of Lions Parking and say that I took the most ethical action possible by removing myself. I did not see how taking part in this decision that I could be considered an objective participant, which is why I removed myself from the proceedings.

7. Commissioner Skonberg‘s proposed motion to reduce residential leaseholder rates by 10% did not receive a seconder, with Commissioner Nokleby “moving it for discussion purposes”.

8. Finally, the board considered and adopted a motion thanking the Citizens on Patrol for the great work they have been doing in the Cultus Lake Community. Lewis Kirkness and his group have been doing a fine job.

There were 6 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioner Cameron was away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. The board received two delegations. One was from two leaseholders with respect to the Encroachment Bylaw and some of the misgivings of the mechanics behind the processing of such encroachments. The board will be considering this matter in the October 12 board meeting. The other delegation was from our park patrol supervisor with some statistics indicating that the park patrol really stepped up their presence, with a significant increase in verbal warnings and evictions (e.g. after 11:00pm, the docks should be cleared). He will be moving onwards to Corrections Canada and did an excellent job in his capacity at Cultus Lake Park.

2. The development variance at 520 Park Drive passed 5-1. The significant change over the month was the withdrawal of objection from a neighbour, leaving no opposition to the application. From my end, information from staff does weigh into the decision, but public input is a very significant factor – I have, however, changed my heuristics somewhat to account for the professional-grade analysis we do receive on these matters.

3. The commercial signage matter was referred to the Design Review Panel, and I look forward to their deliberations on the topic. They have materially considered future criteria for signs, but have yet to weigh on past signs.

4. There were three matters on this agenda dealing with encroachments – one was the delegation, and two were related to correspondence we received. The board will be making some decisions on these matters in October. While 2010 seemed to be the year of the variance, 2011 is appearing to be the year of the encroachment. Perhaps I should make a local government themed zodiac.

5. The board voted to return the money for the donors of the pending skateboard park, approximately $4,000 remaining. While the idea at the time was probably valid given the demographic at the time, this idea is now obsolete. It does not seem to be the best use of our finite space even if we were able to get the 6-digit amount of funding required to build such a skate park.

6. The board extended the deadline for removal of unregistered buoys to August 2, 2012. This will be better for compliance, in addition to having boaters likely be around when notices are attached to the buoys. Instituting a new system for buoys will take time, and there will be a better rate of adoption with this extension.

7. The next meeting will be in October 12. The second meeting in September is not scheduled because of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) conference that is going on at the same time. October will be a fairly busy month for the board, especially regarding budgetary matters and aforementioned encroachment considerations. We will not be coasting to the end of our terms.

The August 24, 2011 regular board meeting has been cancelled. There was not enough business (none of it time-critical) to justify having a meeting. The next regular board meeting will be on September 14, 2011.

Also, a remainder that the Cultus Lake Community Association is having their annual general meeting on August 21, 2011 at 1:00pm at the Cultus Lake Elementary School.

There were 4 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioners Cameron, Enns and Hall were away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. Adoption of the Bylaws concerning the Cabins at Cultus Lake Park and the Sunnyside Campground bylaw. The Sunnyside bylaw is the result of a few months of reviewing and massaging, including consulting the public and Sunnyside seasonal campers.

2. The board carried a motion to send a letter to the various senior government authorities expressing our displeasure concerning the decision that will potentially allow garbage incineration in the Fraser Valley. While I have not read the Metro Vancouver technical reports from the supporting and opposing side and will personally not make pronouncements until I find the time to do so and really educate myself on the matter, I am quite concerned with respect to air quality in the region. In particular, I find pollutants of the airshed (such as ozone, sulphur dioxide and small particulate matter) to be an infinitely higher concern than carbon dioxide emissions. It is indeed too bad that so much attention has been paid to carbon dioxide that almost everything else has been neglected, including paying attention to air and water quality.

However, when I read the history books, we have made great strides over the past two generations. We don’t use leaded gasoline anymore. Acid rain has been mitigated. Pollution levels from unspent hydrocarbons and automobile emissions have decreased dramatically. The overall trend with respect to pollution has been positive, but we cannot assume the trend will extrapolate on its own – people must innovate and find creative ways to utilize energy and this will take time. Solid waste management has also had innovate solutions applied to it – especially with the advent of recycling.

It seems absurd to think that incineration of garbage will not contaminate the airshed, but it also seems absurd to continue the status quo of trucking trash all the way up to Cache Creek (a 350 kilometer, 4.5 hour drive) just to bury it there.

3. A variance permit at 520 Park Drive was deferred to the next meeting so commissioners could obtain more information on the application. It is not appropriate to discuss this one until the August 24th meeting where it will come up for consideration again with hopefully more commissioners attending.

4. Likewise, a memorandum regarding commercial signage was deferred until staff could provide a report on the matter concerning the history of four signs located on park property. Also cited was that it would be better if more commissioners were present to deliberate on the matter.

5. The board made a decision with respect to the Cultus Lake Dragon Boat Club’s request for what the board may potentially allow pertaining to the 2012 season. The board is open to a two day event, but matters concerning dock closure and food sales will have to be further discussed with the applicant.

There were 6 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioner Cameron was away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. The board received a financial report from our manager of financial services. Although there are some negative variances on the revenue side (Sunnyside is down about approximately 5% from year to year, parking revenues are significantly less than forecasted), that shortfall has been made up for by cutting expenses to compensate.

There are four capital projects of significance that will be implemented (including the dump truck purchase and the roof repairs to the forestry building), but these projects have sufficient reserves to pay for them. Our financial picture is miles above than when it was back two years ago in June 2009 and we will be able to continue building on our reserves as we restore our financial solvency to a safer level.

One of the best insurance policies any person or business can have is idle cash sitting in short term deposits at the bank. Although some might look at it and see the piddly yield you would achieve with it (your average 1-year GIC can get around 1.75% if you shopped around), the cash is not held to earn money – it is there for insurance purposes against both expected and unexpected events. Cash gives you options.

When examining the half year financials from the past couple years, the fiscal consciousness of the present board and our staff has been commendable. We have come a long way and I hope to continue building on this momentum by continuing to see our reserves build to safe levels.

2. Third reading of the amended Sunnyside bylaw was carried 5-1 (Commissioner Woodrow against). This bylaw amendment went through a thorough review by the board and external stakeholders and is much improved over the previous bylaw. There is remaining language that could use some further clarification, but in the whole this bylaw is better than the one it is replacing.

There was a matter in the bylaw concerning moorage buoys. This interesting interlude lead me to research the legislation governing waterways, and this is a federal government concern with the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a fairly easy to read document. There is a good rationale for using Transport Canada sanctioned moorage buoys, mainly that the symbols and colourings used on buoys are supposed to be standardized across the country.

I am far from an expert on marine navigation issues (although if you get me on land with a GPS or even map and compass I can do a lot better!) but the rationale seems to make sense. It should also be noted that the United States has a different standard, depending on what state you are in.

3. We approved a variance application for 227 1st avenue regarding the height of stone masonry walls. There was one letter sent in support, and nobody else commented on the application from the audience. As we now have a dedicated staff position for building inspection and bylaw enforcement, the board now receives recommendations and further information to help us make an informed decision, subject to public input.

4. An interesting issue concerning bylaw enforcement and compliance came up during question period. Legislation and bylaws are written and judged as if they are black and white documents. For example, most of the driving public today has contravened section 146 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the section dealing with speeding. Section 146(1) says that if you are going more than 50km/h in a municipality (unless otherwise different by bylaw) then you are in violation. The law makes no difference between a person going 51km/h and 70km/h (the latter speed is much more likely to get stopped by the police at a speed trap). However, in terms of enforcement, the person going 70km/h is more selectively targeted than the person going 51km/h. If you show up to court and tell the Justice of the Peace “Your worship, I was just going 51km/h”, he will still convict you for speeding.

There is quite a bit of legislation/bylaws in most governments that have such sections of varying practicality in enforcement. From an engineering perspective it is annoying to have what are seemingly loose ends, but ultimately this legislation is in place to allow staff discretion. For example, in both the recently passed Sunnyside bylaw and the old Sunnyside bylaw, there is a provision that campfires should be out by 11:00pm. Sunnyside staff have not snuffed out fires at 11:01pm, but it is one tool to enable the calming down of a rowdy crowd that has been drinking heavily around the campfire at this time. Our park patrol finds that this evening time is the most volatile with respect to safety, especially after people have been drinking.

There were 5 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioners Cameron and Enns were away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. A staff recommendation to deny a donation request from a society that specialized in dealing with inner-city kids in the Vancouver (Mount Pleasant) area was rejected 3-2 (Commissioners Hall and Woodrow in support). While I sympathize with the project, our limited gifting resources must have some sort of effect in our local area. I see no connection with this organization and Cultus Lake Park and I opposed the motion.

2. We received the 2010 management letter from KPMG and they have identified that there are issues with the information systems that Sunnyside Campground uses versus the accounting system. This is something that staff is looking at rectifying, as it will streamline our accounting process of our largest revenue source. We have dealt with many finance and accounting-related challenges over the past couple years, but we are systematically addressing them with diligence and Cultus Lake Park is in a much better position today because of these efforts.

3. We approved 5-0 the request for Theresa Brooks’ wedding quiet time to be changed to 2:00am. If you are reading this, have a good wedding! I hope the skies are clear that day.

4. We approved 4-1 (Commissioner Woodrow opposed) fees for parking permits, including those that are lost or stolen. We have taken efforts to significantly improve our capacity management with respect to parking in peak season and this will be a learning process as we continue to optimize procedures. What we have seen now is a good first step and we will take the lessons learned and continue building on our progress in 2012 and beyond. It is an iterative process and one that will hopefully result in smoother flow, higher capacity, better security and revenues for the park to keep our facilities maintained for our million visitors.

5. An encroachment application was approved 5-0. The applicant, later in question period, brought up a policy issue concerning our handling of encroachments – it essentially boils down to whether the park board should choose to seek and identify all encroachments, “grandfather” encroachments, or ignore encroachments. All three policy streams have their pluses and minuses, but all three decisions will make some segment of people unhappy. It is unfortunately a zero sum decision.

6. Question period went the full 30 minutes. Some were disappointed that they could not ask questions, but they can always be emailed to any commissioners including myself, or our staff if asking questions at the board meeting is not your element.

Something that was made apparent in the question period was the issue of parking boat trailers. The current bylaw prohibits standalone boat trailers to be parked, while boat trailers attached to working vehicles are allowed. I do not know the history behind the rationale of this, but it is something that will be investigated and hopefully an amicable solution will be developed as we review things when the summer rush season is over.

A certain LK brought up the point that when the boundary survey in 1980 (or 1982) was performed in Cultus Lake, there were some property boundaries that were discovered to have significant differences. I remarked that it reminded me about a particular USA-Canada border issue when the 45th parallel border (southern portion of Quebec) was surveyed. I was struggling to think of the name, but after checking, it was called “Fort Blunder“:

Construction was begun on the first fort at this location, an octagonal structure with 30 foot high walls, in 1816 to protect against an attack from British Canada such as that which led to the Battle of Plattsburgh in 1814. In July 1817, President James Monroe visited the incomplete fortification and the adjacent military reservation known locally as “the commons”. However, due to an earlier surveying error it was later found that this first fort was inadvertently built on the Canadian side of the border, resulting in its sometimes being better known as “Fort Blunder”. When a new survey discovered that the 45th parallel was actually located some three-quarters of a mile south, effectively placing the fort in Canada, all construction on this first fort stopped and the site was abandoned. Much of its material was scavenged by the locals for use in their own homes and public buildings. No evidence has come to light that this first fort was ever named, with most contemporary documents simply referring to it as the “works”, “fortification”, or “battery” at Rouse’s Point. It is often mistakenly referred to as Fort Montgomery. The site of the first fort was listed on the National Register of Historic Places under the name “Fort Montgomery” in 1977.

There were 6 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioner Cameron was away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. The board formalized a motion to meet up with the FVRD as a result of proceedings from the Future Plan Advisory (Select) Committee. The Park Use Plan Policy has not been updated (beyond three amendments) since 1997 and we will see what can be done to kick-start the modernization of this document and the specified area bylaw.

2. I pointed out an item that was declassified regarding the Lease Advisory & Review (Select) Committee, that the committee will be exploring residential leases as it pertains to the unsold 14 lots. This came out of in-camera due to some other information surrounding the motion to refer to committee.

3. We amended our special event policy to insert language and procedures concerning FOODSAFE and Special Occasion Licenses (which is required if you are to be serving liquor at an event).

4. A donation request from a society that appears to be completely Vancouver-centric was referred back to staff despite a recommendation to donate a couple nights of camping at Sunnyside. I completely agree with this rationale.

5. After the regular meeting, the board had a committee of the whole meeting with the primary purpose of hashing out the finer details of the Sunnyside Campground bylaw amendment. I am not sure why the public vacated the meeting room at this point as it was an open meeting. One guess could be that when the board has an in-camera meeting and they have not finished with the proceedings, we typically reconvene in-camera after the regular public meeting to conclude the in-camera business. We had no further in-camera meeting business that evening.

In terms of what happened during the committee of the whole meeting, to the external viewer, the quotation frequently mis-attributed to Otto von Bismarck of “Laws and sausages are two things you do not want to see being made” seemed to summarize the evening’s proceedings. The committee of the whole did deliberate on a myriad of suggestions and options, with the most notable recommendation coming out of committee is a modification of the requirements of floating buoys at the lake.

There were 5 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioners Cameron and Enns were away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. The agenda was short. I will certify that this had nothing to do with the Canucks playing game 4 of their series (which turned out to be a disaster for them).

2. The Sunnyside Campground bylaw continues to be revised by the board. The vast majority of the day’s time was spent discussing minutia concerning the update of this bylaw. In addition, comments were received and the bylaw continues to be refined and will be brought back to the June 22nd meeting.

3. The Special Event License Application for the Cultus Lake Dragon Boat Club was approved by the board with a 3-1 vote (Commissioner Hall was not present due to a conflict); I was the opposing vote. The motion that was carried was that the application was approved without the staff recommendation that the dock closure be denied. I completely support the Cultus Lake Dragon Boat Club’s event, but I disagreed with the board going against the recommendation that the dock closure not take place. Specifically in the proposal was a request to have a partial closure of the dock at Main Beach between 7:00am to 5:00pm, on Saturday, August 6. There would also be a fence set up.

Suffice to say if the weather is not inclement, there are going to be a billion people around and being able to enforce a closure of the dock is not going to be easy to enforce. This was the reason our staff gave during the meeting and given the numbers of people involved on a Saturday weekend during peak season, it is very believable. I do wish the organizers of the Cultus Lake Dragon Boating event the best of success.

4. M. Wilson from the public question period asked a question concerning food safe certification and special event applicants (i.e. vendors selling food). I stated that if such a requirement exists it would be in the special event policy and we would check on it. Upon reviewing the special event policy after the meeting, I did not see any requirements with respect to food safe certification, and I will be putting on the agenda a small memorandum to have our staff investigate the matter and this may result in an amendment to the special event policy.

There were 5 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioners Cameron and Nokelby were away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. The board deliberated on the matter concerning financial statements and the previous April 27, 2011 delegation by B. McCrea on the matter. There was considerable discussion on the matter, and I asked for a motion for the provision of internal financial snapshots to be provided to the board on a quarterly basis. Commissioners Hall and Skonberg moved and seconded, and the motion carried with Commissioner Woodrow opposed, citing that this decision is not transparent.

The matter concerning the provision of financial information must be weighed with a cost-benefit balance. The board must receive sufficient financial information to make informed decisions. In particular, the critical time for information is late September when the returns from our major variable revenue business, Sunnyside Campground, are received and subsequent budget decisions are made for the next year. We also need to know when there are expense-side variances.

We increased our transparency over the term. For instance, we now have a regular disclosure of vendor purchases over $10,000 to be reported with the annual audited financial statement. Our agenda packages are fully scanned and placed online, something that did not happen in prior boards and making it easier for the public to access. Our financial planning process includes 5-year planning, and clear identification of where capital projects are to be funded from. Our procedures have clear guidance from the Community Charter when to conduct in-camera business, and clearly state to the public when such business is declassified in the public package. These are a few examples of transparency improvements.

What becomes concerning is when staff has to spend copious amounts of time fielding information requests – such requests can become costly. Transparency comes with a price. Just as an example, the ability to produce reports such as ministerial estimates in the government must be built up over many years, and involves staff and consultants to be able to build computer systems to handle the workload. With the budget that Cultus Lake Park has to deal with, the question then becomes whether the leaseholders want to pay for more transparency – because transparency costs money.

There is a balance to transparency – we are close to an optimal amount. We are not sitting still on this matter – integration of our accounting software and the software that drives our business is a huge operational issue – especially when you have to keep both of them running while upgrading.

A rough analogy would be to changing your car tires while still driving on the highway. Fortunately, this vehicle can be pulled over in the “slow season” (when camping is over), but the true test to tell whether you’ve upgraded the car tires correctly or not is when you finally hit the road again – you have to do the work correctly to make sure the car tires don’t fly off their axles.

2. The board moved first, second and third reading of an amendment bylaw to the Sunnyside Campground bylaw which implements a quick fix as mentioned in my previous report. The motions were carried with a short discussion.

3. The board moved and carried (moved by Hall, seconded Skonberg, Woodrow opposed) a motion to deny a request by a commercial leaseholder to install a sign near the highway. Commissioner Hall pointed out that the Design Review Panel Committee deliberated on the matter of signage styles in 2010 and that approving this request would be tantamount to throwing away their work. I agree. There also is the issue of a “signage arms race” which needs no further explanation and would detract from the visual appeal of the park.

4. During Question Period, the power went off. The emergency lights went on and there was still quite a bit of natural light coming in at that time even though it was a very grey day outside. During the power outage, our manager of finance comprehensively answered a question regarding the 2009 audit, the 2010 audit and the nature of the January 5, 2011 in-camera memorandum that was obtained by the public through a freedom of information request.

I was not aware that this memorandum was released to the public until a couple weeks prior to this meeting.

To put a long story short, the memorandum explains an interim finding by our staff that was subsequently determined to not be true. KPMG, our external auditors, audited our 2010 fiscal year and stated “the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Cultus Lake Park Board as at December 31, 2010″. There have been rumours swirling around our financial integrity, and our staff has clearly stated that there is no missing money. They have also done an incredible job over the past year to address internal control procedures.

Unfortunately I was backlogged and have not gone back to documenting the meetings on this website until now.

There were 6 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioner Enns was away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. Cultus Lake Park has filled in two staff positions that were established during the organizational update announced in early February. We have a new executive assistant, and also a new building inspector / bylaw enforcement employee. In addition, we have a new accounting clerk, and I look forward to dealing with all of them in the future as they acclimatize to their roles in Cultus Lake.

2. The provincial government announced on May 3, 2011 that parking at BC Provincial Parks will be free. The government press release is found at this link.

What I find interesting is that no numbers for this was mentioned. Doing a little more digging, I brought up the Ministry of Environment’s most recent available annual report (2009/2010: attached here) and it had the following line items (pages 5 and 7 on the PDF document):

Revenues:
Parking Day Use Fees: $949,229
Annual Parking Pass: $69,074
Total Revenue: $1,018,303

Expenses:
Parking Fee Commission: $635,885
Annual Pass Commission: $20,443
Total Expenses: $656,328

Net direct revenue to BC Parks: $361,975

When you incorporate fixed costs (e.g. capital costs for meters, assuming the government purchased them), overhead for administration, etc., it is no wonder why the BC Government is no longer charging for parking at BC Parks: it does not make them money.

The challenge for Cultus Lake Park is that it is widely associated with the provincial government’s Cultus Lake Provincial Park. There is going to be significant amounts of confusion for people concerning this announcement and to that effect, we have put out a press release stating the following:

CULTUS LAKE, BC – A recent media release from the Office of the Premier has raised questions as to why Cultus Lake Park is continuing on with paid parking and is introducing pay stations in the park.

Effective May 3, 2011, parking will be free in all BC government provincial parks, however, Cultus Lake Park does not fall into this category. Cultus Lake Park has its own legislation – the Cultus Lake Park Act – which allows for the Park to manage itself independently from provincial parks.

Cultus Lake Park does not receive funding from the BC government and pay parking offsets the park’s maintenance costs. Funding largely comes from campground revenues and both commercial and residential lease fees.

“Parking revenue directly goes toward services beneficial for visitors, helping Cultus Lake Park pay for facility maintenance and a safe and clean environment for families,” said Sacha Peter, Cultus Lake Park Board Chair.

As to when these meters will be installed, Chief Administrative Officer, Ronald Campbell says “We’re hoping the first two meters will be in place by the May long weekend with one in each of the two parking lots.”

The rates will be $1.00 for one hour, $2.00 for three hours, and $5.00 for the day.

The Chilliwack local media, including the Progress, the Times, and 89.5 FM reported this to their readers/listeners and I am thankful they got the message out locally. Every year we receive tens/hundreds of thousands of visitors, especially in July and August, and every dollar spent on parking goes towards the maintenance of our public facilities that the public enjoys – a good number of them from being outside the Cultus Lake/Chilliwack area. We put a brief message on our signs near the parking meters to this effect.

3. The board considered the bylaw amendment to the Sunnyside Campground Bylaw, and this is continuing to be refined. As this bylaw update is not time-critical (except for one particular clause), we can take our time going through it.

4. We received a variance and encroachment application. Both applications were subsequently approved (concerning the placement of stone stair-rocks at the property boundary of 308 2nd Ave), but what is notable is that this is the first application that came with a recommendation, subject to public input.