letters 

I agree with your article on the buses. I cycle on a regular basis in Chartwell and Qualicum Woods, and we walk our dog daily in Qualicum Woods. The number of times I see anyone on a bus is almost never. The same goes for the bus between Qualicum and Nanaimo. School kids are the primary riders and they only go as far as Parksville. Cost and pollution are my objectives to this. The Qualicum to Nanaimo bus is Ok, but reduce the schedule. The local bus is not necessary and a waste of taxpayer dollars (which current council is very good at). JS Qualicum Woods ***** Thanks for all your research and great information! Agree with you and feel this town needs to take a more informed look at things instead of wasting money that could be spent far more wisely. Government grants are not free. F.W. Qualicum Beach

Letter to council June 22 2026 Dear Mayor and council, I am writing with respect to the agenda package released on Friday June 19th and in particular the financial plan amendment bylaw no. 921.01 2026 to which you are being asked to give three readings at once. 1. Public engagement was appropriately included throughout the budget approval process over many months to arrive at the budget that was adopted on April 1 2026. Now some 10 weeks later the town is making numerous amendments that effect multiple years and end up increasing the town spending by $3.9 million (8%) in 2026 alone. The bulk of this relates to the Eaglecrest capital expenditures. 2. In the January 28th 2026 COTW meeting the public was told that the $2.5 Million allocation was sufficient to achieve the golf course reconfiguration including necessary equipment and the upgrade of the golf facilities into safe good working order. No details or breakdown was provided to the public. We were expected to blindly trust council and staff that the appropriate due diligence was undertaken to arrive at this costing. Now we are told it will take another $2.4 million dollars (almost double the amount) to achieve that same goal. Are we expected to again trust the towns governance that the appropriate due diligence is being undertaken? Why is council and the public not being given the breakdown of actual cost details to date and yet to come including the source of the estimates yet to be completed in this revised budget? 3. During the early public engagement sessions of the Eaglecrest land, the public was told the upzoning would achieve the cash required to not only pay for the golf course and related improvements, but also to pay for some of the other needed but deferred infrastructure improvements in Eaglecrest. Including these projects in the 2025-2029 and 2026- 2030 budgets was a sweetener to bring the public onside with the overall purchase. What has changed over the past 10 weeks to determine that this is no longer viable? 4. The total funding from land sales for the next 3 years was $17,124,800 and now projected to be $17,841,600, a difference of $716,800. Again 10 weeks from approving the last budget how has the town determined that the Eaglecrest lands will be able to generate this amount of money? Further the time line on these funds has moved up with over $6.8 Million now expected before the end of 2026. Is this realistic? 5. To date the public have not been provided with a copy of the appraisal as described in the audited financial statement to justify the uplift in property value. Nor have they been provided with a schedule of expected proceeds by parcel. Are we again blindly expected to trust Town governance that this sale of land proceeds is a reasonable assumption? Given that the town grossly under estimated the golf course reconstruction and building improvements costs, how can the public have any confidence in the town’s due diligence processes with respect to land sales? 6. The $395,000 Strategic initiatives reserve housekeeping amendment is difficult to follow as the 2026 budget book page 46 shows an opening balance of $ 39650 as at Jan1/2026, and yet the audited financials dated Dec31/2025 show a closing balance as at Dec 31 2025 of negative $21,200. Now we are being told this reserve has not been adjusted for the $395,000 work in progress from 2025. A robust explanation transactions through this fund is required given that this fund was a temporary source of funds for the purchase of the golf course in the amount $541,842 proposed to be repaid $270,900 in each of 2027 and 2028. 7. Adjustments to 2027 to 2030 reduction in property taxes arising from removing the positions/and or work projects that were funded from one time sources (presumably grants or contributed surplus) and were expected to revert to taxation in the following years could have been postponed to the next budget cycle as they do not impact this years taxation. What has transpired in the past 10 weeks that made this a priority? It would be helpful to have a list of those initiatives that are included in 2026 but will no longer be included in the budget for 2027 and beyond. I think this is the right approach but the timing makes it questionable. 8. Adjustments to 2027 to 2030 amendments to the fees and charges includes an increase of $350,000 in 2028, it would helpful to know what services/fees are expected to increase given no adjustments in 2026 or 2027 for this line item. 9. There is an additional grant of $600,000 in 2028 but no indication of the relative project. 10. Solid waste and recycling cost have been reduced in 2027 and 2028 but not in 2026. Actual expense taken from the audited year end reflect as $1093,694. Is it realistic to expect these costs to reduce over the next three years? 11. The budget book should be amended to reflect the all changes made in the new proposed budget to allow the public to follow along given the lack of public engagement opportunities for these fairly significant changes that effect multiple years. In conclusion, these budget amendments particularly around the Eaglecrest acquisition and the heavy reliance on unproven proceeds from land sales leave the public with great skepticism. In the COTW town hall meeting last week, we were told a “Robust report would be forth coming on June 24th 2026”. i If this agenda package incorporates this “robust report” it is sadly lacking in detail with respect to the cost of specific work done to date and yet to be done. Spending is out of control with in sufficient controls and no apparent documented overall cost and recovery plan with the level of detail appropriate for the scale of this endeavour. Given that the town still has a significant core infrastructure funding gap that spans over 14 years to get to the level of today’s costs, it is hardly the time to be extravagant within the Eaglecrest project. Further, no business plan has been shared with the public for the actual operation of the golf course once operational presuming one was actually completed to confirm the course will be a viable operation. It should be noted that the town taxpayers are still owed over $1.4 million for improvements made at the town owned Memorial Golf course with repayment not expected until 2042. MN

Mayor and Council, We have reviewed the staff report on Prior Permission Required (PPR) for the regular Council meeting on May 13th, 2026. It is encouraging that staff are recommending Council take action on the concept of PPR, especially before the busy summer aviation season which often sees an influx of itinerant aircraft. As you know, pilot behaviors, including circuit training, have been impacting the quality of life for our community for some time now. These concerns include the proven negative physical and mental health impacts of environmental noise. A quick scan of other BC airport Canadian Flight Supplement (CFS) documents show controls over circuit training have a wide range. These include total prohibitions, such as at Fort Langley, which allow no training flights. At Courtenay Airpark, they have chosen to adopt PPR for all “Touch and Go” activities. A total prohibition of all training flights may not be Council’s direction. But from the large volume of feedback you have received on the disruptive nature of flight training, it is reasonable that PPR apply to all aircraft at QB Airport for training, not just commercial/corporate operators. This need not be an onerous request of pilots, or of town staff, as local pilots will already have an established relationship with the airport, and staff have described an online system accessible to all that could be used for the PPR process. Council have also been asked by staff to consider specific days of the week and hours of operation that circuit training could be allowed. As well as reviewing other published airport CFSs that are already in use and have been seen by Transport Canada and NAV Canada, Council could be guided by the spirit their own Noise Control bylaw to address noise mitigation for the airport. The Noise Control bylaw speaks to the heart of known community concerns on airport noise which: “…disturbs or tends to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of any person or persons in the neighbourhood or vicinity.” Restrictions covered by the bylaw include daily noise prohibitions, such as noise restrictions before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m., and specific prohibitions on noise on Sundays and holidays. As circuit training now occurs 7 days a week, we would suggest noise restrictions apply to these activities on a daily basis when/if training occurs. Ideally a regular break from the repetitive nature of training would be welcome by our community, so we are hopeful Council agrees with the staff recommendation of excluding training on at least Sundays and holidays. The highly disturbing nature of repetitive circuit training warrants Council enacting these and other suggested controls on airport noise in the Canadian Flight Supplement to improve the quality of life for all residents. These suggested improvements may also be implemented more efficiently by way of the NOTAM system, so that our community doesn’t have to wait for the next 56 day cycle of the CFS publication. Thank you, Todd Provost President Qualicum Woods Residents Association +++++++++++ Dear Mayor, Councillors, Staff, and Airport Manager, I have reviewed the staff report on Prior Permission Required (PPR) to be considered at the regular Council meeting on May 13th, 2026. Further to my previous correspondence, I again applaud the Town staff, mayor, councillors and Qualicum Beach (QB) airport manager for taking action on this important initiative. If implemented effectively, the PPR process has the potential to significantly reduce the noise impacts on QB residents due to pilot circuit training. However, I will again stress the importance of the PPR process applying to ALL pilots and ALL businesses planning circuit training using the QB airport. This includes: All locally-based resident pilots who keep planes at the QB airport. All pilots or businesses operating out of the QB airport - e.g. Sealand - or pilots/businesses otherwise having an “accommodation agreement” with the Town. All itinerant pilots and businesses based outside of QB that wish to fly into the QB airport and use it as part of their circuit training requirements. All companies performing helicopter training at the QB airport - these may already have permissions in place via a PPR-equivalent process. Encompassing ALL airport users that intend to perform training at QB will enable the QB airport management team to comprehensively track and control: What pilots or businesses are allowed to train here, e.g. the Town could consider rejecting all training by itinerant pilots/businesses. The overall number of training circuits (e.g. touch-and-goes) allowed by any one pilot or business during a given day. The restrictions on hours that training is acceptable, e.g. between 9am and 6pm. The restrictions on which days of the week, month, or year that training circuits are acceptable - e.g. training could be restricted on weekends, or Sundays, and/or holidays. In this way, the Town and airport manager can manage the overall volume of training circuits performed during any given week of the year. It would also enable the Town to more accurately evaluate the potential financial advantages of charging for touch-and-goes. The PPR process is an excellent step forward, but only if it enables proactive decisions to reduce circuit training volumes when it most affects residents. Thank you again for your hard work and for considering these points. Regards, T. T ++++++++++++++ To Council/Town of Qualicum Beach: For consideration at the upcoming Council meeting on May 13, 2026 discussing Prior Permission Requests for Aircraft at Qualicum Beach Airport. The PPR {Prior Permission Required}process is needed in Qualicum Beach. It should be required for everyone doing circuit training at Qualicum Beach Airport, all on-site and all off-site users, all pilots (local and itinerant) no exceptions. Circuit noise is and has affected the quality of life and character of Qualicum Beach for a long time now. Visitors are commenting on how noisy it is, and that it is more of an airport town than a tourist destination for relaxation and tranquility. During the period of May 1 to September 30, circuits should be banned outright during Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays, during this high tourist season. This was the Skipsey model adopted in 1978 and needs to be reinstated. Circuits should only be allowed during the week, Monday to Friday, not commencing prior to 9am and ceasing by 6pm. Circuits should be banned on Saturdays, Sundays and Statutory Holidays designated as such provincially and federally. Currently circuit training is happening and allowed from 6am to 10pm every day with no restrictions. The tax paying public should be advised of circuit training during the week just like the public is currently advised of helicopter training. There should be no difference. Ideally by email, as it currently stands for helicopter training. These times should be listed on the town’s website and updated daily with a 48 hour advance notice period required in the request for PPR permission, so taxpayers can adjust their life accordingly (ie: leaving town if necessary during these periods of intense noise and travelling elsewhere with visitors). PPRs need to be tied to the plane’s call number, not the student, not the instructor, not the owner of the company, for liability purposes. Maximum number of PPRs per day should be set at three (one hour time slots) per call number. Charges should apply to each PPR to begin to compensate the investors/taxpayers of the airport for the wear and tear on the runway. Users should be paying for the facilities they use, not the non-user taxpayers. That has gone on long enough. There was a mention of invoicing in the draft bylaw, so further explanation by staff of the costing is anticipated by the tax paying public. The PPR process needs to be widely communicated to all potential users to ensure compliance. A NOTAM to pilots needs to be sent as soon as possible to advise of these changes in Qualicum Beach. Waiting for this to be listed in the next Canadian Flight Supplement which is issued every 56 days is unacceptable. It needs to be NOTAMed as soon as possible in advance of the busy summer season commencing soon. It is encouraging that the Town/Council in advance of the upcoming election in the fall, is moving forward in addressing the horrendous noise of aircraft in the town that has been going on for years. And, seeking ways to institute a user pay system at the airport, albeit, just for this one level of usage. Please make these changes so that flight schools are not the priority, tourism is. And yes, so are the tax paying public who fund the airport. Please make these remedies as soon as possible so people are not avoiding visiting here and tourism continues to be the major economic driver for Qualicum Beach. Regards D. W. +++++++

Dear Mayor and Councilors I would like to bring to your attention (in case you are not aware)that town staff has advertised as required the towns intention to issue three leases for airport hangers. These leases are for 10 years with a further right to renew for a further 2 terms of 10 years each. Essentially committing the town to a 30 year commitment. Given the ongoing losses and significant dollars QBTax payers are funding this airport, in my opinion it is completely irresponsible to make this type of contract. We are getting as little as $7.00 a day to park a private plane in a hanger for the next 10 years, while town is subsidizing the airport by approx. $1400 a day based on my best efforts to quantify the subsidy from the towns published financial information. My recommendation is to allow these potential tenants to rent on a month to month basis or significantly reduce the terms of the lease to 1 or 2 years with no guaranteed right to renew. This will give this council ( and the next councils) the time to assess and the flexibility to adapt as necessary. These plane owners are not likely to park their planes elsewhere as obviously QB is convenient to them and cost is a true bargain. Respectfully, MDN Qualicum Beach

July 5, 2025 Letter of Concern for Health Dangers of Airport Noise and Lead  Mayor, Council, and CAO Varela, “Environmental noise ranks among the foremost environmental risks to physical and mental health and well-being, contributing significantly to the burden of disease … a range of cardiovascular and mental health outcomes have been associated with noise, such as stroke, depression, dementia and cognitive impairment... The WHO reported a loss of more than 1.6 million healthy life years annually due to environmental noise exposure in Western European countries.” World Health Organization https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-08-2024-how-much-does-environmental-noise-affect-our-health--who-updates-methods-to-assess-health-risks https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/376870/WHO-EURO-2024-9196-48968-72969-eng.pdf?sequence=1 “Emissions of lead from aircraft that operate on leaded fuel cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissions-aircraft-engines-cause-or-contribute-air-pollution. The above extracts should be difficult reading for the Council and staff of Qualicum Beach, who have a responsibility to protect the health, well-being and quality of life of our residents. As managers of the airport, these responsibilities include the health impacts from the behaviours of a very small group of airport users upon the 9300 residents of Qualicum Beach. The reality is that these same residents are providing a significant amount of the funding — through municipal, provincial and federal taxes — for an airport that is directly impacting our health. For many years now, Council has heard the testimony of numerous residents on the negative impacts of the airport on our quality of life. This testimony has included correspondence, petitions, survey results, and delegations at public meetings on the airport. The Mayor and Airport Manager Mr. Goldfuss have also attended various homes of residents and heard and seen firsthand the negative impacts of the airport on the lives of residents. Recently they both attended the home of Rupert Road residents and saw video evidence of the dangerous results for the owners and their horses from airplane activity. This has been followed up by emails from the same residents detailing additional subsequent injuries and dangers caused by the airplanes in this area. An Errington resident provided testimony at two recent airport Committee Of The Whole meetings, noting that airplane activity endangers her son with serious and potentially fatal impacts that include seizures and emotional harm. We are asking the Town to take action now to reduce the harm from the airport on our community by using the authorities available to them as detailed by Transport Canada, published in relevant federal regulations and policies: Using the approved amendment process for the Canadian Flight Supplement (CFS), including the Notice to Airman (NOTAM) procedure, which can be immediately submitted to Transport Canada/Nav Canada; Adopting the language and policies described in many other Canada Flight Supplements, which includes: using a preferred runway to avoid Noise Sensitive Areas (NSAs); specifically highlighting that there are NSAs; advising circuit training is only permitted with prior approval of airport management; specifying that no training flights are allowed over populated areas of our community; highlighting that “touch and go,” (a major factor in quality of life disturbances here) are only permitted with prior airport approval; codifying the existing and proposed Noise Sensitive Areas depicted in the town map of September 17th, 2024 by using the CFS/NOTAM process. Transport Canada has repeatedly advised that the authorities included in the Aeronautical Information Manual and other policies are available to the Town in its role as airport manager. Numerous current CFS documents provide examples of other similar airport authorities using all of these, and other, limitations, restrictions and directions which can be used to protect their community. Individual members of our community have done everything we can to improve the quality of life from airport impacts with suggested solutions for our community. Many Qualicum Beach residents are impacted by airport activity daily. The dangers to health are unacceptable to the community, and should be unacceptable to the Town. These health dangers require immediate action by our Council and town staff. It is time for the Town to act to protect the health of our residents and improve our quality of life. Todd Provost President Qualicum Woods Residents Association Jan 22 2025 Letter to Mayor and Council from Qualicum Woods Residents Assoc. (Edited for brevity) After the Dec 4th Committee of the whole meeting, we made contact with Sealand Flight. The goal of our conversation was improving communications on the airport noise issues of concern to our community. Nancy Marshall, Manager and Ian Lamont, Chief Flight Instructor have been very cooperative and helpful during our conversations. Sealand agreed that one way they could reduce in impacts of noise on our community was to adopt flight behaviours which for the most part would see their planes flying away from the densely populated areas of Qualicum Beach, and specifically avoiding the Qualicum Woods/Evergreen/Aldous and Hemsworth neighbourhoods. Sealand have advised that they have adopted the voluntary Good Neighbour Plan as internal company policy. They are also doing what they can to respect Noise Sensitive areas currently designated in the Canadian Flight Supplement(CFS) diagram and the ones proposed to the town by the QWRA for inclusion in any future CFS publications. Sealand have sent out an email to their clients and staff advising them of these policies. Even more significantly, they have advised that in 2025, if users are not respectful of these policies, they will no longer have access to their (Sealand) planes. We also discussed pilot activity, both Sealand and other flight companies using our airport as observed on Sealand's internal flight tracking system. Sealand have indicated they are very much concerned about pilot activities in Qualicum Beach which impact community quality of life from noise and potential lead exposure. We are sending this information to your attention to offer our sincere thanks to Sealand Flight for their openness to work with us on finding solutions to the noise and lead problems. These actions by Sealand were taken after a one hour phone call and a few emails between ourselves. Sealand also continue to interact with the community as new concerns are raised. We believe it is important to highlight that Sealand, like QWRA, have identified that there are continuing issues of airport noise impacts beyond their control such as: -Instrument Flight Rules impacting Iskew which restrict freedom for pilot activity to choose flying over less populated areas; -Lack of adherence by pilots to the Good Neighbour Program which both Sealand and community members are witnessing daily; -the activities of non local flight school instructors and students who do not follow the Good Neighbour Program. Working together with Sealand has proven to us that when the will exists and the right people connect, various stakeholders are able to implement solutions for the benefit of our entire community. We would ask that Council look to this example of cooperation with the community as a success which can be replicated by you to address outstanding airport issues. Todd Provost President , Qualicum Woods Residents Association. ................ Letter to Mayor Westbroek and Council October 26 2024 My husband and I were out in our garden doing yard work from 5:30 to 6:30 on October 22nd. The noise from airplanes departing at the QB Airport became so incessant that at 6PM I started timing the number of times airplanes took off and flew directly over our property. This situation happens frequently and the noise is so great we have to stop our conversation and wait until the planes pass overhead. I stopped what I was doing and decided to record how often we were interrupted. We had 12 take offs and fly overs within a 20 minute period with the average respite between flights of 1 min 48 seconds...not a lot of time to continue our conversation before the next plane comes. I am assuming these planes are from the flight school as it is the same planes continuously circling over our property. I am not sure if it is a result of the Good Neighbor program but we are experiencing a much greater number of planes directly over our property since the summer. We are very upset that the town has encouraged pilots to change their flight path to over the Rupert Rd area and we also have empathy for residents in Qualicum Woods who also do not want the noise over their homes. Please take action to significantly restrict training, or limit the airport to essential use only, so that it does not operate during summer hours when we are trying to enjoy family meals outside. The airport is a drain on taxpayer resources and I can't see why our tax dollars go to a venture that not only gives very little to the town but disrupts the quality of life for a large portion of its residents. I ask that the town please urgently deal with the noise, air pollution and wasted tax dollars. S&G W Qualicum Beach ---------------- This article has been very eye opening. Of course, I can’t help wonder what the long term outlook for Town finances would be if we weren’t losing approx. $500k annually in tax dollars on the airport, as revealed in the recent analysis found elsewhere on this site. T.T. Qualicum Beach -------------- I'm done with complaining to the town about airport related noise violations and the privileged pilots who continue to fly over the community at low altitudes. The flight schools have added more continuous noise and should be prevented from flying at our airport. The town has only excuses, blaming other levels of government and continues to tax QB residents for the increasing airport deficits. Therefore I am letting it be known, that I will be supporting any initiative that decommissions the airport. FH Qualicum Beach --------------- Municipal airports across the country are closing due to high costs to taxpayers. In a recent video the Mayor of Campbell River calls out their airport for not running like a business, and being dependent on taxpayer funding for 6 years. We need that attitude and leadership. Who benefits from our airport...a handful of private plane owners, and a small number of Iskwew Air users. Who pays for it...all 9300 QB residents. It is time to shut down "Country Club Cat4" J.S. Qualicum Beach