Some Questions about 911, Street Addressing, Process and Consultation

a) Has this “more open minded address model” been communicated with the community?

b) If not, is there a plan to communicate this new option with the community before it is adopted?

c) Will there be a process by which the community is involved and will able to influence what this “more open minded address model” means?

d) Will the community have any say over whether this “more open minded address model” is adopted?

e) What does “mitigate the tax increase” mean?

f) Will these changes require changes to the wording of Bylaw 317.1 and 350.1? If not, does that mean that the requisition of funds will still occur? Will the legal requirements of Bylaw 250 still come into effect? If it will require wording changes, how could the amended bylaw pass all the necessary readings in order to be passed in time for the budget?

a) Communication does not equal consultation. Does the RD take the position that “communicating” to the community about the bylaw satisfies “public consultation” as directed by the ministry? What exactly does the RD view is required in order to satisfy the requirement for “public consultation”?

b) We are concerned that people are being being called “protesters”, since we view ourselves as participants in our democratic system of government. Protesting is typically reserved for when we are denied all other means by which to participate. Do you feel this is the case?

c) The petition was about the lack of consultation, and clearly outlined an alternative to the bylaw (“Alternative paging systems exist to provide interim emergency communications while longer‐term emergency communications systems are explored by the Lasqueti Island community”). Is this alternative not acceptable? If so, why not?

d) In the absence of criteria describing what is and is not acceptable, it is difficult for alternatives to be created and evaluated. This is typically part of the consultation process. Are there plans to communicate the evaluation criteria for alternatives to the RD proposal?

a) Why was a petition, clearly stating that that they did NOT want a service, evaluated under the criteria of a petition FOR a service?

b) Why was the petition summarily dismissed as a matter of procedure? This seems to be a bit of a slap in the face to the community.

c) By certifying the petition as insufficient, does that means that the RD can legally chose to ignore it?

a) Was the agreement with NI911 extended to include Lasqueti (Electoral Area E) prior to the third reading of Bylaw no. 317.1?

b) Why was it represented at the Feb 13th meeting that this was “already decided” when Bylaw 317.1 had not passed final reading?

c) Why was staff already directed to spend time and funds on mapping to implement house numbering for Bylaw 350.1 before it had passed final reading?

a) If bylaws 350.1 and 317.1 are given final reading, is the RD required to implement them?

b) If so, what changes in language would be required to make it optional?

c) Is this even allowed under municipal law?

d) Would any changes to the bylaw require it to go back to first, second, etc., reading?

a) Will public consultation include a complete list of the legal obligations resulting for Lasqueti Island residents resulting from the adoption of Bylaw 350.1?

b) Will public consultation include a complete list of consequences arising from the adoption of Bylaw 3501? Examples include house numbering, having to get new ID cards, changing legal address on documents, information being disclosed to corporations like Telus, Google, etc, information being sold to telemarketers and advertisers, etc.

c) To what extent can a “made in Lasqueti” approach coexist with what is legally mandated by existing bylaw no. 350?

d) To what extent is house numbering being driven by the requirements of NI911 corporation? Will the formal requirements provided by NI911 to PRRD be disclosed to the community?

a) Does the PRRD intend to institute building codes and building code compliance on Lasqueti Island?

b) Does the PRRD intend to institute fire prevention inspections for commercial occupancies on Lasqueti Island?

c) Does the PRRD intend to institute standards for road, access lane and/or driveways?

d) If any of these are planned to be instituted, what process of consultation will be followed, and what degree of community involvement and say will be provided?