Council Strategic Planning Session – Full Summary & Red Flags Report

(ACC/DCC → Lagoon → Evacuation Route → Trees → Partnerships → Seniors Housing)

This report captures the major themes, decisions, and unresolved issues from the full strategic planning session. It is organized the way the meeting unfolded, starting with development charges and ending with seniors housing. A consolidated Red Flag section appears at the end.

1. ACC & DCC: Uncertainty, Wish Lists, and Housing Costs

Council began by trying to interpret the new provincial Amenity Cost Charge (ACC) system. These charges would apply to new development to fund “soft amenities” such as parks, trails, civic buildings, and fire hall upgrades.

Key facts from the discussion:

  • ACCs are mandatory once adopted into bylaw, unlike the old voluntary CAC system.

  • Council repeatedly referred to amenities as a “wish list.”

  • One councillor even called ACCs a “sanctioned bribe” before withdrawing the comment.

  • Confusion remains about:

    • When the charge should be collected (subdivision vs building permit),

    • Whether refunds would be required if projects never materialize,

    • How to avoid pricing out development in a softening housing market.

  • Staff warned that ACC/DCC revenue will never cover the Village’s underlying infrastructure deficits.

Possible projects floated: civic centre, lagoon upgrades, fields, trails, health clinic, expanded fire hall, dog park, upgraded parks.

Outcome:
No priorities were set. No financial modelling. Council chose to revisit ACC options after receiving further information.

2. Lagoon: 60 Years of Debate with No Direction

Council spent nearly an hour debating lagoon health, design, and long-term purpose.

Water quality:

  • Lagoon is tested weekly in summer; results posted on the provincial site.

  • Staff stated lagoon water is often cleaner than the lake.

  • Hot weather lowers quality; aeration installed in 2021/22 has helped.

  • Councillors disagreed sharply on whether the lagoon becomes a “stagnant cesspool.”

Opening it to the lake:

  • Staff warned this would trigger DFO and provincial approvals for every maintenance task.

  • Once connected, the lagoon becomes part of the natural lake environment with far stricter rules.

Ideas discussed:

  • Filling in part or most of the lagoon and replacing it with sports fields,

  • Building pedestrian bridges, covered areas, stepped lake access,

  • Installing more fountains or turning the lagoon into a tourist feature (“mini-Vegas”),

  • Revisiting designs from the 2019 Lagoon Master Plan,

  • Recognizing serious hydrological barriers: underground seepage, containment, concrete cutoff walls, high engineering costs.

Outcome:
Instead of choosing a direction, Council asked staff to re-review the 2019 plan and report back next year.

3. Secondary Evacuation Route: Years of Stalemate

Council revisited the long-disputed Rockwell Drive / Sasquatch Park secondary evacuation proposal.

Current status:

  • Province has not responded to submissions.

  • Seabird Island delayed its required letter for the boundary adjustment.

  • No movement on funding, engineering, or approvals.

Council split:

  • Some councillors want to withdraw support for the project entirely.

  • Others insist “two routes are better than one.”

Safety & feasibility:

  • Rockwell is considered unsafe for mass civilian traffic under stress.

  • Earlier cost estimates (bridge + upgrades) already exceeded $800,000 years ago.

  • Some councillors suggested boat-based evacuation instead — highlighting the lack of confidence in the land route.

Mayor’s comparison:
He pointed to fireworks-night traffic clearing within 1–1.5 hours as evidence that the main route works — a comparison that does not reflect real wildfire or emergency conditions.

Outcome:
No new position adopted. The Village will simply wait for the province.

4. Tree Canopy, UFMP, and Bylaws: Good Intentions, No Targets

Council discussed improving urban tree canopy coverage.

Points raised:

  • Other cities have canopy targets (30–40%); Harrison has none.

  • The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) contains detailed recommendations that still haven’t been implemented.

  • Committees have identified planting areas, but staff cautioned limited capacity and competing priorities.

  • Some councillors want stronger replacement rules for developers and homeowners.

  • Others prefer simple annual planting goals instead of expensive canopy studies.

Outcome:
Tree-related actions were deferred to the budget process and committee work plans.

5. Partnerships With the District of Kent: Maintain, Don’t Merge

Council considered whether deeper cost sharing or administrative cooperation with the District of Kent would save money.

CAO’s position:

  • Strongly against any move that resembles amalgamation.

  • Warns Harrison could lose RMI funding and its identity as a resort municipality.

  • Notes existing cooperation already includes:

    • Joint emergency planning,

    • Shared consultants,

    • Wildfire resiliency planning,

    • Mutual aid for utilities and fire.

Outcome:
No expansion of partnerships. Maintain current collaboration only.

6. Seniors Housing Project: Total Uncertainty

BC Housing has not issued a decision on the proposed seniors project.

Council’s concerns:

  • If approved, major questions remain about location suitability, traffic, servicing, and infrastructure capacity.

  • If rejected, the Village will need to reconsider official documents that reference “seniors housing” and clarify what that term actually means going forward.

  • Multiple capacity reports are still outstanding (water, sewer, wastewater).

Outcome:
Council will wait for BC Housing before taking any action.

RED FLAG SUMMARY (All Topics Combined)

1. Decision Avoidance

Major topics — ACCs, lagoon redesign, evacuation routes, tree bylaws — were discussed at length but no actual decisions were made.

2. ACC/DCC Confusion

Council lacks clarity on refunds, timing, legal requirements, and financial modelling, yet is preparing to adopt the tool.

3. Infrastructure Funding Gap

Staff openly stated DCC/ACC revenues won’t fix existing infrastructure deficits, but no long-term funding plan was discussed.

4. Lagoon Planning Paralysis

After 60 years of debate, Council is still reviewing plans instead of choosing a direction.

5. Misleading Evacuation Comparisons

Fireworks traffic was used as a benchmark for wildfire evacuation — an unrealistic and unsafe comparison.

6. Heavy Reliance on Limited Staff

Every issue — lagoon, trees, emergency planning, ACCs — is pushed onto already stretched staff without added resources.

7. Public Uncertainty

These discussions acknowledge risks that residents have never heard clearly explained (dike funding gaps, lagoon constraints, evacuation realities).

8. Seniors Housing Ambiguity

Multiple planning documents say “seniors housing,” but council members clearly disagree on what type, where, or whether the Village can support it.