Governance Advisory Committee Sicamous-To-Armstrong Rail Trail

Governance Advisory Committee Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor Friday, July 19th, 2019, 9:00 am - 12:00 pm Hosted in the RDNO Board Room (9848 Aberdeen Rd, Coldstream)

Agenda Version Updated: July 15, 2019

AGENDA

Meeting Purpose: to provide policy direction relative to the planning, development, management and governance of the Rail Trail Corridor project.

Objectives: • To review minutes and business arising from the previous meeting • To review draft co-management agreement • To update on encumbrance agreements along the corridor • To update on meetings with agencies, businesses, and stakeholders including the ALC, MoTI, CP • To update/discuss fund raising, project development, and upcoming priorities • To direct communications to update the public

Agenda: 1. Welcome, Secwepemc Acknowledgement (Splatsin), and Introductions

2. Approval of Agenda a. Resolution: THAT: the agenda of the June 19, 2019 Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee meeting be approved.

3. Adoption of Minutes a. Resolution: THAT: the minutes of the May 17, 2019 Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee meeting be adopted as circulated.

4. Business Arising a. Update on Recommended Resolutions from May 17, 2019 Governance Advisory meeting b. Project Management Service Contract, Sub-contracts, and Work Plan (see documents below) c. Co-Management agreement to allow for mutual access and public usage of contiguous trail d. Update on Canada-BC Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program & Funding Strategy e. Update on Lansdowne-to-Armstrong Rail Corridor Acquisition f. Update on consultation with ALC, MoTI, CP Rail, MFLNRO, adjacent businesses, properties g. Date/location for familiarization tour with Governance Advisory

5. Head Lease Agreements – Report and Recommendation (See link to Head Lease Report below) a. Recommendation: THAT: based on the findings of the Jan 27, 2017 report the Sicamous-to- Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee not pursue a on Head Lease Agreement.

6. Encumbrance Agreements – Update and Recommended Revisions

a. Resolution: THAT: the Committee recommends that the Boards of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District, Regional District of North Okanagan and the Splatsin Band Council approve revision of recommendation #9 of the May 10, 2019 Encumbrance Agreement Recommendations adding a bullet point stating no new upland consent will be granted, consistent with Provincial Policy.

b. Resolution: THAT: further to policy direction from the Province the Committee recommends that the Boards of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District, Regional District of North Okanagan and the Splatsin Band Council rescind recommendation #10 of the May 10, 2019 Encumbrance Agreement Recommendations pending further review by the Technical Operational Committee, and that a moratorium on any new upland consent be instituted until such time as new policy can be presented to the Governance Committee.

7. Communications Plan & Consultation Strategy (See link to draft below)

8. New Business

9. Direction on next communication updates to the public

10. Summary and Next Steps

11. Next Meeting: Friday, September 20, 2019, 9:00 am – 12 Noon – Location: ______

12. Adjournment a. Resolution: THAT: the July 19, 2019 Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee meeting be adjourned.

------

Attending: appointed inter-jurisdictional representatives (one designate from each of the 12 jurisdictions within the two regional districts, plus two Splatsin representatives), as well as additional staff representation including CAOs and/or designates. 2

RSVP Contact: Secretariat/Facilitation – Phil McIntyre-Paul (Shuswap Trail Alliance) – interim secretariat to the Governance Advisory Committee (Contact: [email protected], 250-804-1964)

------

Meeting Documents: (Note: linked to Dropbox – requires free Dropbox app installed on device or computer)

1. Minutes – May 17, 2019: Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee 2. Head Lease Report – Jan 26, 2017 3. Technical Design Consultant – Phase 1 (Urban Systems) FOR INFORMATION 4. Rail Trail Development Work Plan Outline DRAFT (see below) 5. Communications Plan & Consultation Strategy DRAFT 6. Media Release re: Rail Trail Service Agreement with Shuswap Trail Alliance (June 24, 2019) 7. SUMMARY BRIEF Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail to Minister Selina Robinson (May 24, 2019)

Background Documents: (for Reference)

1. Minutes – March 15, 2019: Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee 2. BC Rural Dividend Program Agreement #:2018070133 3. Sicamous to Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor Planning, Development and Consulting Services Agreement (May 16, 2019, File No. 6140 15 01) 4. DRAFT TOC Recommendations regarding Encumbrance Agreements (May 10, 2019) 5. Media Release re: BCRDP funding for Rail-Trail (May 10, 2019) 6. Media Release re: Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Progress (April 4, 2019) 7. In Camera Board Report, CSRD, August 10, 2018 (File No: 8650-03) 8. Memorandum of Understanding (Master Agreement) between CSRD, RDNO, and Splatsin – FINAL 9. Terms of Reference - Governance Advisory Committee - Sicamous to Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor FINAL 10. Terms of Reference - Technical Operational Committee - Sicamous to Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor FINAL 11. Preliminary Concept Design Report – Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor (Updated 2019) 12. Overview Map – Rail Corridor 13. Corridor Maps showing existing leases, encroachments, docks, and crossings

------

Summary of Actions from Minutes – March 15, 2019:

Task or Action Responsibility Timeframe/Status Splatsin Kukpi7 Christian, RDNO Chair Successful follow- Mayor Acton, CSRD up with BC follow up with Provincial Ministry contacts to discuss funding Chair Director Rhona Minister of support opportunities Martin, with support Municipal Affairs from Councillor William and Housing & Secretariat (Phil) coordinate potential times/locations to consider for Secretariat (Phil) Summer/fall Governance Advisory site tour on rail trail corridor July 19 Prepare draft recommendations for mutual access through TOC Governance Splatsin owned portions of the Rail Corridor Update Report circulate a sample copy of the private waterline crossing TOC/Secretariat (Phil) asap agreement being used for the Okanagan rail trail forward the briefing document and copy of the Infrastructure Secretariat (Phil) Done Grant Application to Governance Advisory research Headwater Leases and bring recommendations to TOC Done Governance Advisory prepare a communication update to the public TOC/Secretariat (Phil) Done

Abbreviations: GAC (Governance Advisory Committee), TOC (Technical Operational Committee)

Governance Advisory Committee Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor Friday, May 17th, 2019, 9:00 am - 12:00 pm Hosted in the CSRD Board Room (555 Harbourfront Drive NE, Salmon Arm)

Agenda Version Updated: May 28, 2019 MINUTES

Meeting Purpose: to provide policy direction relative to the planning, development, management and governance of the Rail Trail Corridor project.

Objectives:  To review minutes and business arising from the previous meeting  To review project service contract agreement with the Shuswap Trail Alliance  To consider recommendation to draft a co-management agreement  To review draft recommendations for managing encumbrance agreements along the corridor  To update on preliminary meetings with agencies including the ALC, MoTI, CP  To update/discuss fund raising, project development, and identify priorities for upcoming meetings  To direct communications to update the public

Agenda: 1. Welcome, Secwepemc Acknowledgement (Splatsin), and Introductions a. Co-Vice Chair Mayor Terry Rysz called the meeting to order at 9:11 am b. Brayden Cook was invited by Councillor Tronson and Councillor William to welcome everyone and acknowledge Secwepemc Territory.

2. Approval of Agenda a. Motion: THAT: the agenda of the May 17, 2019 Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee meeting be approved. Moved: Councillor Baird; Seconded: Mayor Acton. Carried: by consensus

3. Adoption of Minutes a. Motion: THAT: the minutes of the March 15, 2019 Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee meeting be adopted as circulated. Moved: Director Delisle; Seconded: Director Fairburn. Carried: by consensus

4. Business Arising a. MoU, Terms-of-Reference Approval, and Technical Operational Committee – the MoU and ToRs were all approved by Splatsin Council, RDNO Board, and CSRD Board. The TOC is now 1

meeting regularly and includes Ray Cormier (Splatsin), Mike Fox (RDNO), Ryan Nitchie (CSRD), Sharen Berger (CSRD/RDNO Contract), Charles Hamilton (CSRD), David Sewell (RDNO), Shawn Tronson (Splatsin), Theresa William (Splatsin), and secretariat support from Phil McIntyre-Paul (Shuswap Trail Alliance).

b. BC Rural Dividend Program Grant announcement – Charles Hamilton provided a brief update confirming the grant was successful. Funds will be managed through the CSRD. Includes $834,000 in working capital for planning and design and development of long-term management plan. Also confirmed the funding will also help to kick start fundraising and overall project coordination.

c. Canada-BC Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – nothing to report at this time.

d. Follow-up with Federal and Provincial Ministers of Infrastructure – Mayor Acton reported several requests to meet have been sent to Provincial Minister of Infrastructure. No response yet. Possible meeting at FCM. Any support to set meetings would be welcome. Mayor Rysz noted the upcoming opportunity to meet with Federal Minister of Tourism in Armstrong. Councillor William offered to assist with follow up on contacts. ACTION: Phil to follow up with Councillor William and others to provide support.

e. Update on meetings with ALC, MoTI, CP Rail, adjacent businesses – preliminary meetings have been set up by TOC with ALC representatives to begin the consultation process and application. Follow up with CP Rail initiated to begin process on acquisition of Lansdowne to Armstrong section. TOC also reported meetings set up with MoTI and larger adjacent businesses along the rail trail corridor including Hyde Mountain Golf, Sure Crop Feeds, and North Enderby Timber. Noted farming operations will be engaged through the ALC consultation process.

f. Date/location for familiarization tour with Governance Advisory – Discussion: suggest this coincide with one of the upcoming meeting dates (possibly the next)

Motion: THAT: the Governance Advisory Committee leave this on the agenda for future consideration. Moved: Mayor Pieper; Seconded: Councillor Baird. Carried: by consensus.

ACTION: Phil – to coordinate potential times/locations for consideration.

5. Service Contract with the Shuswap Trail Alliance (Draft Agreement – to be presented at meeting) a. Resolution: THAT: the Committee recommends that the Board of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District approve the Sicamous to Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor Planning, Development and Consulting Services Agreement with the Shuswap Trail Alliance.

Discussion: Phil McIntyre-Paul left the meeting while the service agreement was discussed.

Motion: THAT: the Governance Advisory Committee approve the Resolution. Moved: Mayor Acton; Seconded: Councillor Baird. Carried: by consensus.

6. Discussion re: agreement to allow for mutual access and public usage of contiguous trail a. Charles spoke to the agreement needed to work together for mutual access through Splatsin owned portions of the Rail Corridor. Ray spoke briefly to the legal ownership and requirements of the Splatsin owned lands. A formal agreement for managing shared access needs to be developed, including a formal dispute resolution agreement. A co-management agreement approach has been suggested.

Motion: THAT: an agreement to allow for mutual access through Splatsin owned portions of the Rail Corridor be referred to the Technical Operational Committee to come back to the Governance Advisory Committee with recommendations.

Moved: Councillor William; Seconded: Mayor Harrison. Carried: by consensus

ACTION: TOC to prepare draft agreement recommendations for Governance Advisory.

7. Management of Encumbrance Agreements (See: Draft TOC Recommendations, May 10, 2019) a. Resolution: THAT: The Committee recommends that the Boards of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District, Regional District of North Okanagan and the Splatsin Band Council approve the Draft Encumbrance Agreement recommendations.

b. Discussion: i. Ryan provided a review of the Draft Agreement Recommendations. Clarified these recommendations are asking for delegated authority to allow the RDNO and CSRD to move forward with agreements. ii. Intention of the agreements is to clearly establish that the property is owned by the RDNO/CSRD and subject to conditions, and there is an approval process. An opportunity to clean up and clarify the process and documentation, and clarify the parameters staff will operate under. iii. The CAOs recommend approving all the recommendations to allow staff to proceed with cleaning up these agreements. iv. Councillor Theresa William spoke to Splatsin interests and indicated they would approve the recommendations with the phrase added: “. . .subject to Splatsin’s pending legal

actions.” Councillor William spoke to the intent of this request. Acknowledged this is to ensure Splatsin interests are included and addressed in these agreements v. No discussion re Recommendation #1 (Utility Companies). vi. Discussion re #2 – clarified lease lots within Coom Bay are within the rail corridor property and now jointly owned by CSRD/RDNO. Currently 6 leases are active. The leases vary from $6,500 to $14,500 annually, determined by the size of the lease area. Mayor Harrison shared experience of similar leases within the City of Salmon Arm. vii. Mayor Rysz raised the idea of a Headwater Lease. It was suggested this might be tabled for further discussion through TOC with local jurisdictions. viii. Re #3 (Local Government Utilities) – it was suggested bringing this to Municipal staff for review – and for clarification adding “with Splatsin and all the stakeholders” ix. Re #4 (Industrial/Commercial Use) – there was discussion re room to allow the trail to pass behind adjacent businesses. x. Re #5 (Waterline Crossings) – no questions xi. Re #6 (Private Waterlines) – all known agreement holders have been contacted. ACTION: TOC – to circulate a sample copy of the agreement being used for private waterline crossings on the Okanagan rail trail. xii. Re #7 (Agricultural Crossings), and # 8 (Residential/Commercial Crossings) – no questions xiii. Re #9 – Upland Consent and Access Agreements – Charles Hamilton briefed the committee on this recommendation. Acknowledges this is one of the more complex agreements. Precedent and documentation from CP Rail was poor. Direction from the Governance Advisory is sought. Sicamous CAO Evan Parliament and Councillor Jeff Mallmes provided comment on significance of these agreements for the District of Sicamous. Suggest hosting a town hall within Sicamous to address this with dock owners. Also suggesting a Headwater Lease be considered. It was noted this would be a long process, and suggest approving recommendations to allow for consideration and processing of Agreements for new and existing tenures while this option is considered. Acknowledged needing to address access to docks, safety standards, design standards, and liability insurance requirements. Agreements will help to address these concerns. Having direction to move forward will allow the inter-jurisdictional staff to begin working on minimizing liability now. xiv. #10 (Docks within CSRD) – Charles Hamilton provided further background noting that within the CSRD only one dock has all the necessary approvals. xv. #11 – provides direction on any other structural encumbrances within the rail corridor. xvi. #12 – addresses other encroachments that will need to be removed, or potentially require a lease agreement as long as it does not encumber the long term development of the rail trail corridor. xvii. #13 – seeks authority to engage with an appraiser. xviii. Further discussion: the importance to consult with property owners was acknowledged. Also discussed what staff capacity will be required to manage this.

Motion: THAT: the resolution be amended to include recognition of Splatsin’s current and pending litigations with the Federal and Provincial Governments. Moved: Mayor Acton; Seconded: Director Delisle. CARRIED: by consensus.

Resolution: (as amended) THAT: The Committee recommends that the Boards of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District, Regional District of North Okanagan and the Splatsin Band Council approve the Draft Encumbrance Agreement recommendations, and further, that the committee recognizes Splatsin’s current and pending litigations with the Federal and Provincial Governments.

Motion: THAT: the Governance Advisory Committee approve the Resolution as amended. Moved: Mayor Acton; Seconded: Director Delisle. CARRIED: by consensus.

8. New Business: a. Project Development review/update (Technical Operational Committee) – a brief update was provided on the TOCs work ahead and next steps.

b. Discussion re fundraising direction – Director Delisle noted leadership is travelling to Quebec. Discussion included who to approach and talking points. The importance of pushing for upper government support for funding to develop the corridor was stressed. ACTION: Phil – forward the briefing document and copy of the Infrastructure Grant Application. i. Importance of preparing a long-term financial plan was affirmed. Also acknowledged funds can be received now through the STA and will be held in reserve (these receive charitable receipts). ii. Recommend branding/communications message to focus our attention – all communication messaging should be based on the importance of being stewards in the land, as per Splatsin values. iii. Talk to Okanagan Rail Trail Society and others on what worked/recommendations. Mike Fox spoke briefly to the current funding and maintenance plan on the Okanagan Rail Trail. Acknowledged the high level of collaboration between the Okanagan Rail Trail and the Sicamous-to-Armstrong project. Noted the Okanagan Rail Trail Corridor branding design is now being developed. iv. The idea of user fees for trail use was raised with encouragement to be creative in developing a long-term financial plan for the rail-trail. v. Affirmed importance of developing a strategy prior to launching fund raising campaign. vi. Exploring potential of donated in-kind services for development also raised

c. Other Priorities

i. Headwater Lease –

Motion: THAT: the TOC research Headwater Leases and come back to the Governance Advisory with recommendations. Moved: Mayor Rysz; Seconded: Councillor Baird. CARRIED: 10 in favour; 1 opposed.

ACTION: TOC – research Headwater Leases and bring recommendations to Governance Advisory

ii. Sensitive First Nations Sites – discussion regarding the importance of identifying and protecting areas. Assessments will be done. Councillor William noted Splatsin do not want to draw public attention to sensitive areas. This will be included in the management plan.

9. Direction on communication updates to the public – ACTION: TOC to prepare an update.

10. Summary and Next Steps – see below.

11. Next Meeting: Friday, July 19, 2019, 9:00 am – 12 Noon – Location: RDNO Offices a. Mayor Rysz recommended the September meeting might be hosted in Sicamous.

12. Adjournment a. Motion: THAT: the May 17, 2019 Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee meeting be adjourned. Moved: Councillor Baird; Seconded: Director Delisle. CARRIED: by consensus.

------

Summary of Actions from Minutes:

Task or Action Responsibility Timeframe Splatsin Kukpi7 Christian, RDNO Chair Mayor Acton, CSRD follow up with Provincial Ministry contacts to discuss funding Chair Director Rhona immediately support opportunities Martin, with support from Councillor William & Secretariat (Phil) coordinate potential times/locations to consider for Governance Secretariat (Phil) Summer/fall Advisory site tour on rail trail corridor Prepare draft recommendations for mutual access through July 19 TOC Splatsin owned portions of the Rail Corridor Governance

circulate a sample copy of the private waterline crossing TOC/Secretariat (Phil) asap agreement being used for the Okanagan rail trail forward the briefing document and copy of the Infrastructure Secretariat (Phil) immediately Grant Application to Governance Advisory research Headwater Leases and bring recommendations to TOC asap Governance Advisory prepare a communication update to the public TOC/Secretariat (Phil) immediately

Abbreviations: GAC (Governance Advisory Committee), TOC (Technical Operational Committee)

------

Secretariat Contact: Phil McIntyre-Paul (Shuswap Trail Alliance) at [email protected], 250-804-1964 (on behalf of the Inter-Jurisdictional Governance Advisory)

------

Meeting Documents: (Note: linked to Dropbox)

Background Documents: (for Reference)

1. In Camera Board Report, CSRD, August 10, 2018 (File No: 8650-03) 2. Memorandum of Understanding (Master Agreement) between CSRD, RDNO, and Splatsin – FINAL 3. Terms of Reference - Governance Advisory Committee - Sicamous to Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor FINAL 4. Terms of Reference - Technical Operational Committee - Sicamous to Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor FINAL 5. Preliminary Concept Design Report – Sicamous to Armstrong Rail Trail Corridor (Jan. 17, 2019) 6. Overview Map – Rail Corridor 7. Corridor Maps showing existing leases, encroachments, docks, and crossings

------

Attendance: Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trail Governance Advisory Committee – May 17, 2019

Acting Governance Representative at Meeting:  Alan Harrison – City of Salmon Arm – Mayor – Alternate Rep  Chris Pieper – City of Armstrong – Mayor – Appointed Rep  Denis Delisle – RDNO Area F – Director – Appointed Rep  Jay Simpson – CSRD Area F – Director – Appointed Rep  Kevin Acton – Village of Lumby – Mayor/RDNO Chair – Appointed Rep  Paul Demenok – CSRD Area C – Director – Appointed Rep  Rene Talbot – CSRD Area D – Director – Appointed Rep  Rick Fairbairn – RDNO Area D – Director – Appointed Rep  Rhona Martin – CSRD Area E – Director/CSRD Chair – Appointed Rep  Shawn Tronson – Splatsin – Councillor – Alternate Rep  Terry Rysz – District of Sicamous – Mayor – Appointed Rep  Theresa William – Splatsin – Councillor – Appointed Rep  Todd York – Township of Spallumcheen – Councillor – Alternate Rep  Tundra Baird – City of Enderby – Councillor – Appointed Rep

Alternate Representatives (Observing):  Jeff Mallmes – District of Sicamous – Councillor – Alternate Rep  Randal Ostafichuk – District of Lumby – Councillor – Alternate Rep  Shirley Fowler – City of Armstrong – Councillor – Alternate Rep

Staff:  Brayden Cook – Splatsin  David Sewell – RDNO – Chief Administrative Officer  Evan Parliament – District of Sicamous – Chief Administrative Officer  Jennifer Graham – City of Armstrong – Corporate Officer  Melinda Smyrl – District of Sicamous – Planner  Mike Fox – RDNO – General Manager of Community Services  Ray Cormier – Splatsin – Rail-Trail Technical Liaison  Ryan Nitchie – CSRD – Team Leader, Community Services  Sharen Berger – CSRD/RDNO – Rail Corridor Lease Agreements (Contractor)  Tracy Hughes – CSRD – Communications

Other:  Phil McIntyre-Paul – Shuswap Trail Alliance – Governance Advisory Secretariat

Regrets:  Chad Eliason – City of Salmon Arm – Councillor – Appointed Rep  Kukpi7 Christian – Splatsin – Kukpi7 (Chief) – Appointed Rep

3.3 RCSRD^ C01.WBlASHU6Wtf>Fi£GCNALOIE1RiCT ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTOR REPORT

File No: Bylaw 900 TO: Electoral Area Directors (EAD) General Date: January 26, FROM: Gerald Christie 2017 Manager Development Services

SUBJECT: Head Lease / License of Occupation

RECOMMENDATION #1 THAT: the Electoral Area Directors receive this report for information;

AND THAT: the CSRD not pursue a head lease agreement with the Province at this time.

APPROVED for EAD Consideration: -c ^ A^^- /^- Meeting Date: February 7 , 2017 Charles Hamilton, CAO

SHORT SUMMARY: At the Electoral Area Director's meeting of September 22, 2016 the Directors discussed the challenges and effectiveness of enforcing the Lakes Zoning Bylaw No. 900 with respect to illegally placed or sited docks and buoys. Staff were instructed to research alternative ways of regulating docks and buoys such as through a License of Occupation (LOO), however in discussion with Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) staff a 'head lease' would be the most appropriate tool to consider for such regulation. Although a head lease would provide the CSRD with more control over docks and buoys on the lakes within the Shuswap, the administration of such a lease is very costly and does not necessarily provide for more effective enforcement than keeping such responsibility with the Province.

Unweighted Weighted Stakeholder VOTING: Corporate Corporate (Weighted)

BACKGROUND: Staff and the Electoral Area Directors have had many discussions as to the problems faced by Development Services staff with the administration and enforcement of Lakes Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2012. The tools available to the CSRD to enforce the bylaw are limited to voluntary compliance, ticketing and/or injunctive proceedings. As there exist many docks and buoys on Shuswap Lake, for example, that do not meet bylaw requirements, do not have provincial tenure or meet general permission guidelines, or buoys that do not meet Transport Canada regulations, the expense of

Page 1 of 5 Electoral Area Director Report Head Lease February 7, 2017

investigating and ultimately enforcing such regulations all the way through to a court injunction is extremely costly.

The Electoral Area Directors at their September 2016 meeting queried whether or not local governments in the Okanagan may have regulatory control over the use of the surface of the water of Okanagan Lake via a License of Occupation (LOO) which may have resulted in fewer illegal docks and buoys being placed in the lake. Although LOO'S are utilized by most local governments, including the CSRD, they are a form of tenure that gives rights to the local government only to utilize lands and water for a public or government purpose, e.g. park use and development; however a LOO is not a tool that can be used by a local government to sub-tenure those rights to a third party. A 'Head Lease' agreement between the province and a local government is a tool that once entered into can then be used by the local government, as the tenure holder, to sub-tenure to a landowner for specific uses, e.g. to a waterfront property owner to install a dock within the lease area. This authority to lease crown land and then sub-lease is granted through the Lands Act.

As noted in the attached "Land Procedure: Head Lease" document from the MFLNRO the head lease itself is a very complex document and the negotiations and pre-conditions of entering into such an agreement can be lengthy and very costly. Currently in the interior of BC only the District of Peachland has an active head lease with the province for the small waterfront area adjacent to their municipal boundaries. The District of Summerland once had a head lease for Okanagan Lake adjacent to their District boundary, however that agreement lapsed and the District did not wish to re-enter into another lease agreement due primarily to the significant administrative burden placed on the District of managing the lease.

As far back as the 1990's the City of Kelowna undertook discussions with the province to enter into a head lease for the waters fronting the city's municipal boundary. One of the pre-conditions of the head lease was an inventory of all structures that would be within the head lease area and a legalization or removal of those structures prior to entering into the lease agreement. After some years of discussion it became clear that this was a project of such a large scale that neither the province or the city was willing to dedicate the necessary significant resources to complete; the project was therefore scaled back to just the downtown waterfront area. After several years of the city taking the lead on the downtown project a head lease agreement was still not forthcoming due primarily to provincial government budgets cutbacks and lack of staff resources necessary to aid in addressing existing issues of trespass on crown lands of the lake of which the city would ultimately be responsible through the head lease agreement. A financial analysis by the city also indicated that although the city would generate some revenue from dock leases, given that the province would still take 50% of those revenues and that the city would need to increase staffing to manage the head lease, that the costs associated with the head lease would not come close to covering the city's costs. To date there is no head lease agreement between the City of Kelowna and the province.

The only other government in the interior of BC considering such a head lease arrangement is the Westbank First Nation (WFN). The WFN is currently in negotiations for a head lease with the province to manage two areas of Okanagan Lake near West Kelowna that front WFN's lands. Those discussions are anticipated to continue for some time.

POLICY: Through the Lakes Zoning Bylaw No. 900 the CSRD has zoning regulations in place for the use of the waters of Shuswap Lake, White Lake, Little White Lake, Humamilt Lake and the CSRD's portion of Adams Lake and Mara Lake. These regulations were developed in close consultation with

Page 2 of 5 Electoral Area Director Report Head Lease February 7, 2017

provincial and federal government staff with regard to allowable waterfront uses, density of structures and setbacks which were premised on the need for environmental sustainability, fish protection, and the desires of the public to see limits to dock and buoy installations on the lake. A head lease agreement between the CSRD and the province for the lakes within the Shuswap would shift responsibility for the management and enforcement of all new and historical tenures and illegal structures to the CSRD. If the CSRD were to consider a head lease agreement with the province further policy development would be required to deal with the management of the sub lease, procedures for the application process in the head lease area, and the overall enforcement regime for sub leases and illegally placed structures or buoys.

FINANCIAL: Head lease agreements contain a negotiated royalty for the province of approximately 50% of any licenses and fees that are collected by the local government for their management of the crown tenures or docks. During their negotiations with the province the City of Kelowna estimated that dock tenures, commercial and residential, could result in approximately $25,000/year in revenue for the city; however this can fluctuate greatly depending on the expiration timing of dock licenses which have at least a tenure of 10 years or more. Given that 50% of that revenue would then be taken by the province (approximately $12,500) the city would not come close to paying for at least one half time position necessary to manage a new dock licensing program let alone the increased enforcement responsibility that would be downloaded from the province to city staff as part: of the head lease.

In addition to the financial challenges of staffing for managing a head lease, the costs associated with creating the head lease are substantial. Prior to establishing a head lease a complete inventory of all structures on the lake(s) needs to be completed and a 'clean' system started prior to the local government taking over responsibility for the crown lands. For smaller areas adjacent to well defined municipal boundaries such an undertaking may be costly but economically feasible, however for an area the size of Shuswap Lake the costs associated with researching every structure on the lake, creating new licenses, developing a management system, enforcing bylaw requirements and application requirements, or removing illegal structures would have a very significant budget impact to the CSRD.

The Land Procedure: Head Lease document from the province also notes that as the lessee the local government must carry commercial general liability insurance and possibly other insurance to cover environmental risk. The document goes on to note that such insurance for "head leases of large areas can be extremely expensive and can influence the viability of head leases".

KEY ISSUES/CONCEPTS: The development of a head lease is a significant undertaking and may not yield the management and enforcement results for the CSRD that would be expected of such a tool. The substantial costs and staff time associated with establishing a head lease for such a large area as that of the Shuswap far outweigh the incremental enforcement benefits that may accrue to the CSRD. The initial steps of creating a head lease in the pre-planning stage are numerous and include: • Detailing the status of all tenures in the head lease area including an analysis of any historic uses that may impact on the establishment and management of the lease; • Developing a migration/transition strategy from provincial to local government management; • Extensive consultation with all stakeholders including a "deep level" of consultation with First Nations that may be directly impacted or indirectly have an interest in the lease area;

Page 3 of 5 Electoral Area Director Report Head Lease February 7,2017 I

• Determination of whether a legal survey of the portions, or all, of the lease area would be j required; { • Detailed cost/benefit analysis for the local government and province which would include staff time, Ministry of Attorney General legal advice and lease agreement drafting, and cancellation or amendment of existing tenures; • Negotiation of rental formulas and crown royalties and sub-tenures including those that may be exempt from the lease or rental fees or royalties, e.g. First Nations; • Creation of annual audited statements to be submitted to the province; • Creation of detailed reports to send to the province on all managed sub-tenures; • Creation of a policy and procedure that deals with application processes and referrals for new or amended licenses; and, • Establishment of an 'environmental schedule' and insurance requirements to protect the province, local government and future sub-tenure holders from liabilities that may originate from contamination or degradation of the leased lands.

If all of the initial steps can be completed, and the local government is still willing to take on the management responsibility and administration and enforcement costs, and there is agreement on the J terms of the head lease, the local government will then become responsible for the day to day operations of processing and issuing applications for sub-tenures (License of Occupation) as well as the provincial requirement to enforce the terms of the lease. This arrangement does give the local government more control to permit or deny some applications within the head lease area based on the zoning that is applied to the surface of the water, however the enforcement of the head lease | regulations becomes the sole responsibility of that of the local government. I The reason some local governments in the province have investigated implementing a head lease is | primarily due to the scaled-back role of the province in the administration of the use of natural | resources and the limited enforcement of provincial land use regulations. A head lease is a way to | shift most of these responsibilities onto local government, albeit the province giving some additional I local government control over lands (water) adjacent to their jurisdictional boundaries. Although the | local government will be able to render decisions over dock applications, the process to enforce the lease conditions may often be similar to that as to what exists without a head lease, e.g. legal j involvement, possible injunctive proceedings to enforce. As the province, through the terms of the | head lease, requires enforcement of the agreement there is also little leeway for the local government j to decide not to enforce in some circumstances. This is different than the existing ability of a local government to decide not to enforce bylaw regulation(s) in some instances due reasons of such I enforcement not being in the public interest or due to budgetary constraints. I The crux of the issue of regulating the use of water for the purposes of the placement of docks and J buoys is the enforcement of such regulations. Due to the very recent changes announced by E MFLNRO on January 17, 2017 to the province's dock permissions, i.e. now no application or tenure is required for a dock that meets the requirement of a general permission (e.g. typical recreational g waterfront dock), the only enforcement check on the size, placement and use of such docks has been I downloaded to local government via our enforcement of zoning regulations pertaining to docks, e.g. { Lakes Zoning Bylaw No. 900. Without the province requiring an application or tenure for a general | permission dock the burden has clearly shifted to local government to track and enforce both the | associated dock zoning regulations and, now by default, provincial dock regulations as well. This | hands-off approach by the province to regulating docks and not requiring general permission tenures { will no doubt decrease administration and staffing costs for the province but most likely will increase the number of illegal structures on the lakes due to the lack of oversight. Unfortunately complaints to I CSRD staff about the installation of illegal structures on the lake may increase as a result. |

Page 4 of 5 Electoral Area Director Report Head Lease February 7, 2017

IMPLEMENTATION: This report is for information to the EAD with a recommendation that the CSRD not undertake further consideration of a head lease for lakes within the Shuswap region for all of the reasons previously noted. It is however recommended that the Directors discuss this lakes, docks and buoys enforcement issue as one that may forwarded for consideration of discussion by the Southern Interior Local Government Association (SILGA) and the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM).

LIST NAME OF REPORT(S) / DOCUMENT(S):

1. Land Procedure: Head Lease Available from Tenures, Competitiveness and Innovation Branch Attached to Board Staff: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Report: Operations, April 3, 2012 2. Notice of Amendments to the Private Moorage Program Available from Attached to Board Land Tenures Branch Staff: Report: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource n Operations, January 17, 2017

DESIRED OUTCOMES:

That the EAD endorse the staff recommendation.

BOARD'S OPTIONS:

1. Endorse the Recommendation

2. Deny the Recommendation

3. Defer

4. Any other action deemed appropriate by the Board

Date Signed Off Approval Signature of Reviewing Manager or REVIEWED BY: (MO/DD/YR) Deputy Manager ^ Manager Development Services 01 I 3Q/H Team Leader en/?o p-? Development Services c

Page 5 of 5 BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: January 17,2017

Gary Maclsaac, Executive Director Union of British Columbia Municipalities 525 Government Street Victoria, BCV8VOA8 (Sent by e-mail)

Re: Notice of amendments to the Private Moorage Program

To local government members:

The purpose of this letter is to advise you of recent changes to the Provincial Private Moorage Land Use policy that provides direction on the authorization of residential docks.

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) has made changes to the private moorage program that will reduce red-tape and streamline administration, while maintaining public safety and environmental standards.

Effective January 17, 2017 more residential docks will be eligible to be authorized under a "General Permission" rather than an application-driven Crown land tenure. The General Permission will grant authority for a residential dock, subject to a dock owner complying with a set of specific conditions. These conditions have been established to avoid environmental impacts and interference with the public and other stakeholders, as well as to provide a high level of certainty that the dock will satisfy provincial and federal legislation. Some of the key requirements include: • the dock owner must be the owner or lessee of the property fronting the foreshore where the dock is sited;

• the dock is not located in an area designated as being environmentally sensitive, or overiappmg with other authorizations or Crown land reserves;

• the dock is not in a designated "application-only area" (i.e. where special circumstances dictate that all private moorage proposals require submission of an application);

• the dock is built to a specified standard and within set size limits; and

• the dock is constructed and placed to not unduly impede public access and to avoid impacts to neighbouring property owners.

Ministry of Forests, Land Tenures Branch Mailing Address: Phone: 250387-6730 Lands and Natural PO Box 9352 Fax: 250356-6791 Resource Operations Victoria BC V8W 9M1 -2-

Docks that do not satisfy the conditions of the General Permission will require an application for a tenure, which will be subject to the standard ministry application review process, currently in place.

The policy changes expand the applicability of the private moorage General Permission which was introduced in 2008 and previously only applied to certain types of freshwater docks. The new policy now provides for moderately-sized docks, and docks located in marine waters to be eligible for general permission, subject to meeting all required conditions.

The changes to the private moorage policy do not affect local government zoning or bylaws. Prospective dock owners must continue to adhere to all local government requirements.

The rules and regulations of the Water Sustainability Act, including compliance with "works in and about a stream (waterbody)", and those of other agencies, such as Federal Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Transport Canada -Navigable Waters program, will continue to apply to all docks whether covered under a General Permission or not.

For further details of the Private Moorage Policy, as well as, the full list of conditions and requirements of the General Permission, please refer to the following website: http://\\r\vw2.s;ov.bc.ca/2:ov7content/industrv/natural-resource-use/land-use/crown-land/crown- jand-uses/residential-uses/private-moorage

If you have questions or would like further information on how this may affect docks in your area please contact FrontCounter BC at: http://wxvw.frontcounterbc.gov.bc.ca/contact/.

Sincerely,

Greg Kockx, Manager Land Tenures Branch Ministry of Forests, lands and Natural Resource Operations

E-mail: [email protected] Land Procedure _BRITISH Head Lease COLUMBIA

NAME OF LAND Head Lease PROCEDURE:

APPLICATION: Applies to head leases that are authorized under the Land Act

ISSUANCE: Assistant Deputy Minister, Tenures, Competitiveness and Innovation

IIViPLEIVlENTATION: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

REFERENCES: Land Act (Ch. 245, R.S.B.C, 1996)

RELATIONSHIP TO This is a new procedure established in 2012. PREVIOUS LAND PROCEDURE;

/f5^!e Petefsdn, ADM //tenures. Competitiveness and Innovation Ministry of ForestSi Lands and Natural Resource Operations /^^^ ^/^ Dat^:

EFFECTIVE DATE: Apr!! 9, 2012 FILE; 11480-00 A1VIENDIV1ENT: Land Procedure; Head Lease

APPROVED AMENDMENTS: Effective Date Briefing Note Symmgry of Changes: i/Approval ^;;

FILE: 11480-00 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2012 AMENDMENT: Land Procedure: Head Lease

Table of Contents

1. PURPOSE...... 1

2. BACKGROUND...... 1

3. DEFINITIONS...... 1

4. HEAD LEASE CONSIDERATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS...... 1

4.1 Eligibility...... 1

4.2 Suitability...... 1

4.3 Pre- planning phase ...... 2

4.4 Head Lease preparation ...... 3

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2012 FILE: 11480-00-R006 AMENDMENT NO: Land Procedure: Head Lease

1. PURPOSE These guidelines have been prepared to compliment Crown land policies, and assist Ministry staff in the use and development of head lease agreements.

2. BACKGROUND

A Head Lease is a Crown land lease with a local government, Band corporation, Crown corporation or other public entity (including a port authority) which permits the tenure holder to sub-tenure to third parties.

Head leases can be very complex agreements and may be structured quite differently from other program specific leases, depending upon the particular circumstances relevant to each case. They often obligate an applicant to accept financial, professional and legal burdens which can be much larger than program specific leases.

Situations that require use of a head lease are rare. The agreements themselves are often unique, with some conditions and obligations being negotiated between Authorizing Agency staff and applicants.

As head leases are infrequently granted, staff knowledge and experience is quite limited. These guidelines have been developed to provide information that is critical to government staff when considering and negotiating a head lease agreement.

3. DEFINITIONS

Head Lease means a leasehold interest issued for the purpose of sub-tenuring of the land to others for specific uses. Authority is provided through the Lands Act.

Leasehold Interest means, in respect of land, the interest granted by an agreement creating the relationship of landlord and tenant and includes a right on the part of the tenant to enjoy the exclusive possession and use of the land for a stated definite period of time.

4. HEAD LEASE CONSIDERATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Eligibility Head leases can only be held by federal government agencies, local governments, other public entities (including port authorities), First Nations Bands or First Nations companies or societies registered in BC or Canada. 4.2 Suitability Head leases are used in situations where it is desirable to enable the conveyance of control of an area from the Crown to an eligible applicant. However, proposals should be reviewed to determine whether a head lease is the best option for conveying control and satisfying government and client needs. If the applicant is not in a position to absorb the obligations of a head lease, other options may be available. The Land Tenures Branch and the Ministry of Attorney General should be contacted for further information.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2012 FILE: 11480-00 AMENDMENT: PAGE: 1 Land Procedure: Head Lease

4.3 Pre- planning phase Before committing to enter into head lease negotiations, the following steps should be taken: 1. Detail the authorizing agency's goals and objectives with respect to entering into a head lease for the specific situation. Additionally, be aware of the applicant's needs and objectives. 2. Complete a detailed land status of the area being considered, including all historic uses that may have an impact on a head lease (e.g. previous mining activities may have left areas of contamination, Tree Farm Licences that exist that may have to be cancelled or amended prior to issuance of a head lease). 3. Determine whetherjhere are any existing Land^Act tenures contained in the proposed head lease area and if so, whether these areas should be included or excluded from the head lease. If it is decided to include these areas, it is necessary to develop a migration / transition strategy. 4. Determine the nature and tvDe_of First Nations^Qnsultation that will have to be conducted with respect to the head lease itself and the sub-tenures that will be issued throughout the term, and assess the impact on the ministry's goals and objectives. a. The nature of head leases may contribute to greater complexity in the consultation process and a corresponding requirement for a deep level of consultation with First Nations. It may be prudent to consider whether development of a Memorandum of Understanding with the applicant prior to negotiation of the head lease, or using a management plan as part of the head lease, could serve to reduce the amount of or intensity of consultation with First Nations that may be required prior to or throughout the term of the head lease. b. If necessary discuss with regional operations First Nations consultation staff. 5. Determine which stakeholders will need to be informed or engaged in discussions, and decide the format and costs of that engagement. 6. Determine whether the head lease can be adequatelv described or whether a legal survey of the area will be required. | 7. Prepare a detailed costs and benefits analysis a. Determine potential costs to the authorizing agency associated with the issuance of a head lease. This should include not only "up-front" costs but | also ongoing costs of administration. Examples of costs to be considered include: o Staff time. o The costs for Ministry of Attorney General legal advice and drafting of the tenure agreement. o Costs associated with the cancellation or amendment of existing tenures, including other resource tenures, such as Tree Farm Licenses.

FILE: 11480-00 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2012 PAGE: 2 AMENDMENT: Land Procedure: Head Lease

o Costs for contract work that may be required; such as for phase 1 and phase 2 preliminary site investigations (in accordance with the Environmental Management Act). . o Loss of gross revenue to the Crown as a result of the sharing of revenue through the head lease. o Costs of First Nations Consultation o Costs of stakeholder engagement b. Assess the benefits to the province of not having to administer tenures, including the potential cost savings from not having to directly engage in compliance and enforcement activities within the area. c. The cost/benefit analysis will assist in deciding whether a transfer of some control in the form of a head lease or other legal instrument meets the goals and objectives of the authorizing agency. 8. Confirm obligations with the applicant: are they prepared to take on the legal, financial and administrative obligations and risks that are inherent with a head lease in contamination obligations?

4.4 Head Lease preparation Once it is decided that a head lease is an appropriate instrument to use, the head lease is prepared using a Ministry of Attorney General approved head lease template (contact Land Tenures Branch for details). The following provides a description of basic components that need to be decided as part of the drafting I process. Ministry of Attorney General legal counsel can assist as needed. |

1. Term I • Standard term for a head lease is 30 years to a maximum of 60 years. I • As sub-leases will likely be issued throughout the term and as sub-lessees will require reasonable time to amortise their investments, renewal or early replacement options of the head lease should be considered.

2. Survey requirements I • It will need to be decided whether Head Lease sub-tenures (especially sub- g leases) should be surveyed, and to which standard; i.e. to the standards of | the Surveyor General of BC or to a different standard. j

3. Revenue | • Typically the rental formula provides for the Crown to get a minimum of 50% of the total revenue the head lessee receives from sub-tenure holders; the I remaining amount is retained by the head lessee. However, the revenue I sharing proportions can vary if rationale can be provided. If the Crown is to receive less than 50%, it must be approved by the Assistant Deputy Minister. | • There may also be limited situations where it is appropriate to have a revenue sharing formula where the amount to be retained is set as a proportion of the "net" revenues received (e.g. for a First Nations corporation the rental I formula could provide for a 50/50 split of 'revenues less operating expenses'.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2012 FILE: 11480-00 AMENDMENT: PAGE: 3 { Land Procedure: Head Lease

• Irrespective of the nature of the rental formula agreed upon, it needs to be decided if payment of a minimum annual rental is warranted. • Head lessees should be required to submit annual audited gross statements of aH revenue received by the holder of the head lease. The revenue sharing formula should be applied against all revenue received, including rent, royalties and other fees. • The rental formulas used by head lease holders in determining rental for sub- tenures do not need to be the same as the provincial formula. However, the head lease needs to ensure that rentals and royalties charged forsub- tenures are based upon prevailing market rates. The head lease may provide for a process that allows the Authorizing Agency to verify this, such as a report from an independent fee appraiser. • The head lease should allow for a sufficient amount of time between the expiry of a lease year and when rental is due to the Crown to allow for collection of outstanding accounts, auditing of books, etc. • The head lease needs to be clear about what, if any, charges need to be paid { to the Crown should the head lessee utilize some of the land for their own purposes. If charges are deemed appropriate, they should be in accordance with the pricing for the Crown land policy for the intended use. | • The head lease should be specific about what, if any, sub-tenured uses will be exempt from paying rental or royalties (e.g. if the head lessee is a First { Nations Band or Society, it is likely that uses associated with traditional rights | will be excluded). Refer to the Community & Institutional Policy for more information on eligible uses and proponents. |

4. Performance Standards I • The head lease must be very specific with respect to what actions or functions are to be provided by the head lessee. In addition to sub-tenuring sites, the head lessee should monitor the area, enforce conditions of sub-tenures, collect all rents, notify sub-tenure holders in writing of issues, and prevent unauthorized use. • The head lessee should be required to submit all relevant details respecting sub-tenures to the Crown annually, or upon request. Additionally, there may be other information relevant to the leasehold (e.g. unauthorized uses or trespass action taken), that you wish to have the head lessee report on at regular intervals and/ or submit upon request. Such information has proven necessary in the past to respond to enquiries from both the public and government officials. • Consider whether notification or consultation should occur between the head lessee and the Crown when applications are received by either party to use land that is contiguous to the other's area of control. This may be desirable as some uses will impact the immediately adjacent lands.

FILE: 11480-00 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2012 PAGE: 4 AMENDMENT: Land Procedure: Head Lease

If the head lease area contains foreshore or land covered by water, the head s lease: { o must contain a clause protecting the riparian rights of the upland | properties and must contain a clause that indemnifies the Crown I against their decisions in this regard; and may require the written consent of the Crown prior to any fill or permanent improvements being placed on the land. | I [ Environmental Schedule I In some cases the standard environmental provisions may not adequately reduce potential liabilities and risks to the Province relating to contamination | or degradation of Crown land. In these situations a specific set of | environmental terms and conditions (referred to as an environmental I schedule), as well as additional insurance requirements, should be { considered for inclusion into the head lease. I The need for an environmental schedule or additional insurance requirements is to be considered on a case by case basis. Circumstances that may warrant an environmental schedule or additional insurance requirements may | include sites where there is a known or high risk of contamination or environmental impacts due to current or past activities; or a high risk of g contamination or environmental impacts occurring in the future as a result of the head lessee or sub-tenure holders proposed activities, g

6. Insurance and Security • Head lease documents must contain standard insurance clauses. Standard insurance policy wording should be used. In all cases optional insurance policies are available. Please contact Land Tenures Branch for assistance regarding insurance requirements. The branch will work with Risk Management Branch to determine what, if any, of the current available suite of policies is required. However: o Any changes to insurance clauses that might be required, and amounts of insurance that might be required, should be discussed with both Risk Management Branch and Ministry of Attorney General. o In addition to commercial general liability insurance, other insurance policies may be required (e.g. environmental risk). Further ( information can be accessed through Land Tenures Branch. If I necessary, Risk Management Branch, Ministry of Finance will be J consulted to provide additional advice. . | o Insurance rates for head leases of large areas can be extremely E expensive and can influence the viability of head leases. Discussions I about this should ideally occur with the applicant at an early stage. I o Provincial requirements are that all insurers must be registered in Canada.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2012 FILE: 11480-00 AMENDMENT: PAGE: 5 Land Procedure; Head Lease

7. Rights to be Held Back in the Public Interest • Head leases must ensure that the province has the right to grant rights of ways through the area without any compensation for impacts on the head lease. Additionally, the head lease should not give authority for the issuance of rights of ways by the head lessee. • The province needs to retain the right (without compensation) of withdrawing from the head lease, any filled foreshore for the purpose of selling it to the upland property owner.

8. Assignment • Most Crown tenures allow for assignment to third parties. It must be decided whether it is appropriate for the head lease to be eligible for assignment to a third party or be eligible for conveyance to a third party by other means such as bankruptcy, foreclosure or any other means.

9. Termination • Head leases need to contain clauses indicating how terminations will occur should the head lessee wish to terminate the agreement, or if termination should happen to occur for any other reason. • Among other issues, these clauses should indicate the responsibilities of each party; i.e. who will notify the sub-lessees with respect to the changes, which records will be returned to the Crown, and how users that have been authorized by sub-tenure pursuant to the head lease will be handled by the province upon termination of the head lease.

FILE: 11480-00 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2012 PAGE: 6 AMENDMENT:

June 12, 2019 File: 0000.0000.00

Attention: Phil McIntyre-Paul, Shuswap Trail Alliance

RE: Shuswap North Okanagan (Sicamous-to-Armstrong) Rail Trail: Phase 1 Work Plan

1. Project Objective Urban Systems is aware that the Shuswap North Okanagan Rail-Trail Inter-Jurisdictional Governance Committee (Splatsin, Columbia Shuswap Regional District, Regional District of North Okanagan and respective Municipal/Regional Areas) are about to embark on the design and construction of the Shuswap North Okanagan (Sicamous-to-Armstrong) Rail Trail. The discontinuance of the CP Rail has provided a regional opportunity to acquire approximately 50km of rail right of way. Now that the acquisition is complete, the Inter-Jurisdictional Governance Committee has begun the first steps towards reaching the Vision and Goals of the trail. The vision and goals are outlined in the Shuswap North Okanagan (Sicamous-to- Armstrong) Rail-Trail Preliminary Concept Design Report dated January 2019. We understand that the Technical Operational Committee and the Shuswap Trail Alliance would like to engage Urban Systems to provide professional assistance in completion of Phase 1 - Development Plan Update, Community Consultation, and Permit Applications. Thomas Simkins, who lead the Okanagan Rail Trail project through concept, design, and construction will lead the project for Urban Systems. The work plan and fee estimate below is a summary of our understanding from discussion during our May 21st site meeting, information provided from the Technical Operational Committee and Shuswap Trail Alliance, and from our experience from delivery of the Okanagan Rail Trail.

2. Work Plan Phase 1 consists of four major tasks: 1. Update the current Preliminary Concept Design Report with regulatory requirements (i.e. Environmental, Archeological, Agricultural, etc.) in preparation for detailed design plans; 2. Consult with key stakeholders and subconsultants; 3. Provide estimates of probable construction costs and a phased project delivery plan; 4. Support the permitting process for future construction.

Urban Systems will assist the Technical Operational Committee and the Shuswap Trail Alliance in completing the tasked listed above which will result in:

• Completion of technical assessments needed for permitting and detailed design;

• Stakeholder consultations (agencies, municipalities, businesses, agricultural operators)

• Engagement with the public through information sessions (three to four session – to be determined)

• Preliminary Concept Design Report with technical design specifications, development plan maps, and Class “C” budgetary capital cost estimates necessary to:

o Prepare detailed design plans

304 - 1353 Ellis Street, Kelowna, BC V1Y 1Z9 | T: 250.762.2517 Date: June 12, 2019 File: 0000.0000.00 Attention: Phil McIntyre-Paul, Shuswap Trail Alliance Page: 2 of 5

o Take advantage of targeted grant opportunities; and

o Apply for permits

• Submission of required agency permits (ALC, MoTI, MFLNRO/Section 11, Foreshore Lease, etc.)

• A phased project development workplan with budgetary costing to guide design and capital construction implementation.

3. Team It is our understanding that Urban Systems will be hired directly by the Shuswap Trail Alliance; while the remaining subconsultants (ie, environmental, archaeological, agricultural etc.) will be hired directly by the Technical Operational Committee.

THOMAS SIMKINS, P.Eng PROJECT MANAGER, ENGINEER OF RECORD Thomas began his career with Urban Systems in 2006 as a Civil Engineering Technologist where he developed his skills as a practical and effective designer, inspector, and contract administrator. Thomas returned to UBCO to graduate from Civil Engineering with Distinction in 2012. Thomas has over 12 years of civil design and construction experience and understands the evolution of a project from inception through construction. He has a keen understanding of contracts and specifications and finding creative construction solutions to a wide variety of projects. Thomas was the Project Manager for the Okanagan Rail Trail development plan, detailed design, and construction services from 2016 to 2019. Thomas was the day to day point of contact for the Inter- jurisdictional Development Team and worked closely with Dev Fraser from the Okanagan Trail Initiative to ensure the publicly donated money and grant funding was spent appropriately.

Thomas will act as the Project Manager providing technical and nontechnical support to the Technical Operational Committee, Shuswap Trail Alliance, while overseeing the permitting applications and providing guidance and support for the subconsultants.

Date: June 12, 2019 File: 0000.0000.00 Attention: Phil McIntyre-Paul, Shuswap Trail Alliance Page: 3 of 5

Daylin Mantyka, MSc COMMUNICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST Daylin is a Communications and Engagement Specialist and works throughout Urban Systems’ various practice areas from transportation to community development. She has over eight years’ experience in writing and content creation and has an excellent background in event management and promotions and managing corporate and public-facing communications channels including social media. She works with graphic designers regularly, who help to communicate her creative ideas.

Daylin’s unique background lends well to her creativity and critical thinking skills; she holds a Master of Science in Biology with a foundational background in English. She’s able to break down complexities found in most projects and communicate them to the general public in a way that’s timely, relevant, and clear. Daylin has completed the IAP2 Foundations training and incorporates this framework throughout engagement planning.

Daylin’s experience as the communication & public engagement lead on the Okanagan Rail Trail Project illustrates her ability to work on interjurisdictional projects where multiple interests are often at play. Though a communications and engagement plan, she will develop and execute on a strategy that is clear and objective driven.

Ricky Banga, B.Sc., BGIS GIS ANALYST Ricky specialises in using GIS to solve problems, compile, interrelate, and organize data. His formal training is in GIS, and he is skilled at applying the technology for analytical purposes and cartography. Ricky is passionate about performing quality analysis and using spatial data to inform decisions and provide clarity. He then assists with preparing maps, reports and presentation graphics.

Ricky developed the GIS inventory for the Okanagan Rail Trail and created numerous maps used in reports, information session, field inspection, and web maps.

Ricky will assist in creating Trail Development Maps, maintaining the data inventory, and creating thematic maps as and when needed for information session or other engagement opportunities.

Date: June 12, 2019 File: 0000.0000.00 Attention: Phil McIntyre-Paul, Shuswap Trail Alliance Page: 4 of 5

We have limited the staff biographies to the core team members that we feel prove to be a successful combination of leadership and experience for this project. Full resumes of each team member are available upon request. Urban Systems has over 400 professionals that are committed to supporting communities, with a mission to provide spirit in service for vibrant communities. We will pull from our broader team of professionals as and when needed with the permission of the Technical Operational Committee and Shuswap Trail Alliance.

4. Fees We have allocated resources based on our understanding of the project requirements and tasks. Our fee tables attached identifies hourly rates for each of our Project Team members, level of effort anticipated, and the total fees associated with each major task including disbursements. Our experience from the Okanagan Rail Trail taught us that inter-jurisdictional projects with the complexity, number of stake holders, and diverse scope of works such as this require flexibility within the budget to keep the project moving and take advantage of opportunities in an efficient manner as and when they arise. As discussed, the fee estimate attached is our best estimate of the level of effort required during phase 1. Per our recommendation, we will set up a detailed task fee spreadsheet and invoicing so the level of effort for each task can be tracked and reviewed on a monthly basis. As we approach specific delivery milestone or the initial budget cap, we will review progress, costs, and remaining work with the Technical Operational Committee and Shuswap Trail Alliance.

5. Closure We feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to collaborate with your group on this regionally significant project and look forward to our involvement. We hope this work plan meets your expectations. We look forward to review and discussions to confirm and finalize the document. Please do not hesitate to contact us to clarify or refine the scope of work. Sincerely,

URBAN SYSTEMS LTD.

Thomas Simkins, P.Eng. Project Engineer /ts

Shuswap North Okanagan (Sicamous-to-Armstrong) Rail Trail: Phase 1 Work Plan Estimated Task Fee Breakdown

Urban Systems Ltd.

TASK TASK DESCRIPTION Thomas Simkins Daylin Mantyka Ricky Banga GIS DISBURSEMENTS TOTAL Project Manager Communications Analyst SUBTOTAL

$140 $100 $105

Phase 1 -

1.1 Project Management 24 $3,360 $269 $3,629 1.2 Bi-weekly Meeting with Technical Design Team 36 $5,040 $1,795 $6,835 1.3 Manage Archaeological Subconsultant 4 $560 $393 $953 1.4 Manage Environmental Subconsultant 10 $1,400 $460 $1,860 1.5 Manage Agricultural Subconsultant 8 $1,120 $438 $1,558 1.6 Manage Shoreline (River and Lake) Subconsultant 10 $1,400 $460 $1,860 1.7 Manage Steep Slope Subconsultant 4 $560 $393 $953 1.8 Manage Geotech Subconsultant 4 $560 $393 $953 1.9 Liaison with Public and Industry/Business Interface 16 $2,240 $179 $2,419 1.10 Liaison with MOTI (2 meetings) 8 $1,120 $438 $1,558 1.11 Update Preliminary Concept Design Report 40 $5,600 $448 $6,048 1.12 Update Trail Development Plan and Maps 2 16 $1,960 $157 $2,117 1.13 Open House/Information Sessions (three or four TBD) 20 16 $4,400 $1,048 $5,448 1.14 Budget Estimate 16 $2,240 $179 $2,419 1.15 Schedule/Phasing Project and Costing 10 $1,400 $112 $1,512

TOTAL HOURS 212 16 16 TOTAL DOLLARS $29,680 $1,600 $1,680 $32,960 $7,161 $40,121

304 - 1353 Ellis Street, Kelowna, BC V1Y 1Z9 | T: 250.762.2517

Rail Trail Development Work Plan Outline - DRAFT

TASK DESCRIPTION

Phase 1 - Development Planning 1.0 Update Development Plan 1.1 Engage Subconsultants (Scope/Negotiate) 1.2 CN Environmental Monitoring 1.3 Policy/Use/Surfacing Recommendation 1.4 Survey Legal 1.5 Survey Topo 1.6 Trail Development Maps 1.7 Crossing Warrants 1.8 MOTI Follow-up Meeting 1.9 Bridge Assessment and Design 1.10 Archaeological 1.11 ALC Strat. Meeting 1.12 ALR notifications and meeting with landowners 1.13 ALC Application 1.14 Shoreline Protection and Restoration (Structural Flood Mitigation) 1.15 FLNRO Permit Submission 1.16 Steep Slope 1.17 Geotechnical 1.18 Danger Tree Assessment 1.19 Business Interface Engagement 1.20 Municipal Interface (connection, crossings, encroachments and leases, etc) 1.21 Splatsin Community Engagement 1.22 Public Engagement (Information sessions) 1.23 Amenities (signage, trail heads, parks, pause points) 1.24 Cost Estimate/Budgeting Phase 2 - Design and Tender 2.0 Detailed Design Drawings 2.1 Tender Documents 2.2 Tender Period Phase 3 - 3.0 Rock Scaling 3.1 Danger Tree Mitigation 3.2 Trail Construction 3.3 Shoreline Protection (Fall 2020?) Fish Window Work? 3.4 Amenities (Parks and Trail Heads)

Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trail COMMUNICATIONS POLICY & STRATEGY – DRAFT for DISCUSSION Version Updated: July 12, 2019

The Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trail inter-jurisdictional owners (Splatsin, CSRD, RDNO) agree to uphold a high standard of communication between the Governance Committee, the Operational Committee and the elected bodies of the owner jurisdictions and stakeholders, including the general public, related to the design, development, ongoing management and maintenance of the Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trail.

Sharing the Vision – Unfolding the True Story

All communications will uphold the shared vision for the Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trial as articulated through the joint inter-jurisdictional leadership meetings, including the desire to strengthen relationships and unfold the true story within Secwepemc Nation territory fundamental to the vision.

The Shuswap North Okanagan Rail-Trail Vision: to protect environmental, agricultural, and Secwepemc cultural values, and create tourism and transportation benefits for the region, through the development of the entire abandoned Sicamous-to-Armstrong rail corridor as a continuous non-motorized greenway for walking & cycling (in the immediate short term); – and to link with the Vernon-Kelowna rail-trail greenway and 200 km south to Osoyoos in order to realize the full tourism value of this unprecedented opportunity. (“Three Sections; One Vision”)

Strengthening Relationships and Unfolding the True Story within Secwepemc Nation territory is fundamental to this approach in the North. It is an initiative being led by Splatsin leadership in partnership with municipal/regional leadership; and seen as complimenting/linking with the Okanagan rail-trail efforts to the south. The parties intend for the relationship created by the Memorandum of Understanding and the opportunity to work together in pursuing the Okanagan Shuswap Railway to promote communication and strengthen relationships between their respective communities and residents. (MoU, 2015)

The strategic vision and goals for the Shuswap North Okanagan Rail-Trail include the following:

• a commitment to work together cooperatively (MoU 2015) • unfolding the true story within Secwepemc territory and promoting communication and strengthened relationships between Secwepemc & municipal/regional communities and residents (MoU 2015, Pacific Caucus Briefing & Presentation 2016, FAQ May 2017) • the protection of sensitive environmental and cultural sites along the corridor (MoU 2015); • creation of tourism and transportation benefits for the region (Splatsin Brief 2015) • revitalization of Splatsin culture and connections back to the land (Splatsin Brief 2015) • maximizing the recreational and economic potential of the corridor (FAQ, May 2017);

• acknowledge agricultural values and the role of the Agricultural Land Commission (ToR 2019) • maintaining a continuous corridor for both walking & cycling recreation (and active transportation) in the near term, and potential use as a flexible multi-modal transportation corridor in the future, for the joint benefit of the jurisdictions (MoU 2015, ToR 2016, FAQ 2017) • linking with the Okanagan Nation Territory and the Vernon-Kelowna rail-trail greenway and the Kelowna-to-Osoyoos greenway trail initiative in the south, in order to realize increased tourism value. (See: “Three Sections; One Vision”, Pacific Caucus Presentation Brief, July 11, 2017)

Guiding Principles

As outlined in the Governance Committee Terms-of-Reference, all communications will be guided by the following principles:

• To work collaboratively together.

• To seek consensus on matters requiring decisions.

• To work toward the establishment and continuation of mutual trust among the jurisdictional owners and stakeholder jurisdictions.

• To maintain public confidentiality on matters that are designated as such.

• To be prepared for meetings in order to contribute meaningfully to discussions and deliberations.

• To ensure a high standard of communication between the Governance Committee, the Operational Committee and the elected bodies of the owner jurisdictions and stakeholders.

• To reasonably commit to maintaining membership within the committee to the end of its term.

As well, the Parties agree to be guided by the Shuswap Local and Secwépemc Governments Communications Agreement, the purpose of which is to i) establish and maintain a long-term, cooperative government-to-government relationship and open communication across the Shuswap watershed portion of Secwépemc’ulecw1, ii) complement existing local protocols, and iii) support the development of local agreements where none exist. (See: Shuswap Local and Secwépemc Governments Communications Agreement, Sept. 2018)

Roles and Responsibilities

Representative members of the inter-jurisdictional owners (Splatsin, CSRD, RDNO), including elected officials, committee appointees, staff, and contracted personnel, should refer all questions and inquiries from the media to the Governance Advisory Chair, Co-Vice Chairs, appointed Secretariat or lead Technical Operational Committee staff. When speaking publically, representative members of the inter- jurisdictional owners must convey the interests of the Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Trail.

Representative members of the inter-jurisdictional owners (Splatsin, CSRD, RDNO) may choose to express their personal views to others outside the Committee but may not speak on behalf of or in any way create the impression that they are speaking for the Committee as a whole. In order to ensure open and honest dialogue; Committee members should not discuss comments or opinions expressed by other Committee members without their knowledge and consent.

Regular communications and reporting will be maintained by the Technical Operational Committee on behalf of the owners and representative members, including regular updates to the public through media releases and information made available online.

A secretariat working on behalf of the Technical Operational Committee will be appointed to act as the point person for all external communications with the public, community groups, government agencies, and the media for all matters being undertaken jointly or being coordinated for the entire Sicamous-to- Armstrong Rail Trail.

Communications Strategy

The following communications strategies will address key internal (inter-jurisdictional leadership, technical staff, agency, consultant, and community leadership) and external (public, trail users, adjacent property owners) audiences regarding the design, development, and long-term management of the Rail- Trial corridor.

Specifically:

1. Minutes of the Inter-jurisdictional Governance Advisory Committee will be posted publicly online to each of the Inter-jurisdictional Government websites following formal receipt at Splatsin Council and CSRD/RDNO Board meetings.

2. Regular news releases and information bulletins will be issued jointly on behalf of the Inter- jurisdictional partners to provide Governance Advisory meeting, design/development milestone, and fundraising updates, sent to all inter-jurisdictional governance partners via designated staff contacts, for circulation through their respective online and media contact networks and to elected officials.

3. Questions from media will be directed to the lead Technical Operational Committee representatives and designated Secretariat, as noted above.

4. Communication updates from Governance Advisory Committee meetings and milestone to key internal stakeholders including provincial and Federal government representatives (MP, MLA) and funding partners.

5. Creation of a joint website project page (available to link to each jurisdictional website) for central posting of project content and updates including schedules, timelines, process, general information and background, engagement opportunities, fundraising updates, mapping, and development progress.

6. An email link for contact, questions, and feedback will be established on the website.

7. Direct correspondence to Adjacent Property Owners and Key Stakeholders (via email and/or postal service), when required, for purposes of consultation, permitting, agreements, and information on timelines, scheduled work, and potential impacts.

8. Splatsin Community Meeting – a community information meeting is proposed for Splatsin members to provide an overview on the design plan for the rail trail and provide direction for development and telling of the true story.

9. Agricultural Land Commission – communication and consultation with agricultural operators will be guided by the Agricultural Land Commission following submission of a permit application. The Technical Operational Committee will work with ALC staff to provide information updates on the process, including a preliminary presentation to the Spallumcheen Agricultural Advisory.

10. Public Information Meetings – three public information meetings will be held (Sicamous, Enderby/Splatsin, Armstrong), in early fall, to provide an overview of the design plan for the rail- trail and update on progress.

11. Specific questions related to permits and encroachment agreements – will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, directed to the relevant staff at each jurisdictional office (Splatsin, CSRD, RDNO). The news releases and information bulletins will assist administrative staff answer general questions. And questions from media will be directed to the lead Technical Operational Committee representatives and designated Secretariat, as noted above.

12. Reports to Granting Agencies, MP, MLAs – will be coordinated by the Technical Operational Committee through the designated Secretariat in collaboration with the lead proponent for the respective grant, with copies to the MP and MLA.

13. Liaison with the wider Shuswap-Okanagan Corridor – ongoing correspondence, updates, meetings, and collaboration with representative leadership throughout the wider Sicamous-to- Osoyoos corridor committed to linking a contiguous greenway for pedestrian and bicycle travel will be maintained by the Technical Operational Committee through the designated Secretariat.

MEDIA RELEASE

June 24, 2019

SHUSWAP TRAIL ALLIANCE TO ASSIST CSRD, RDNO, SPLATSIN WITH SICAMOUS-TO-ARMSTRONG RAIL TRAIL PROJECT

The Shuswap Trail Alliance has been retained by the Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail Corridor Governance Advisory Committee to administer the day-to-day operations as the project moves into the design and planning stages.

The committee endorsed a recommendation to bring the Shuswap Trail Alliance on board, noting their expertise with trail projects in the area. The Columbia Shuswap Regional District Board, acting on behalf of the BC Rural Dividend Program funding partners, which include the Splatsin First Nation and the Regional District of North Okanagan, endorsed the recommendation at its regular meeting on June 20, 2019.

"The Shuswap Trail Alliance has proven time and time again they are well prepared and knowledgeable. They are tried, tested and true in the Shuswap Region," noted CSRD Board Chair Rhona Martin.

Fundraising for the trail project will also be a focus of the project, with the non-profit Shuswap Trail Alliance having the ability to accept donations, issue charitable tax receipts and collect donated funds in a special reserve account for the project.

The CSRD, the Splatsin and the RDNO have committed to work together towards developing the 50-kilometre recreational greenway, which would run along the west side of Mara Lake, through portions of the rail corridor previously purchased by Splatsin, and span the communities of Sicamous, Grindrod, Enderby, Spallumcheen and Armstrong.

All three partners note the economic and social benefits of the trail project to citizens and visitors, but also make a commitment towards being good stewards of the land.

To advance the planning stage of proposed 50-kilometre trail project, funds were obtained through a $500,000 grant from the BC Rural Dividend Fund, with a $168,000 commitment from the CSRD's Sicamous and Area E Economic Opportunity Fund and $168,000 from the District of Sicamous.

555 Harbourfront Drive NE, PO Box 978, Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4P1 | T: 250.832.8194 | TF. 1.888.248.2773| F: 250.832.3375 | www.csrd.bc.ca

MEDIA RELEASE

Grant applications of approximately $13 million have been made to federal government funding programs for the actual trail construction, however, the outcomes are still pending. Splatsin Kukpi7 Wayne Christian, RDNO Board Chair Kevin Acton and CSRD Board Chair Rhona Martin will be continuing efforts to secure federal and provincial funding support for the project.

The undeveloped Rail Trail Corridor remains closed to public use at this time.

***

For further information, please contact Phil McIntyre-Paul, Shuswap Trail Alliance at 250.804.1946 or email [email protected]

555 Harbourfront Drive NE, PO Box 978, Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4P1 | T: 250.832.8194 | TF. 1.888.248.2773| F: 250.832.3375 | www.csrd.bc.ca

Sicamous-to-Armstrong (Shuswap-North Okanagan) Rail-Trail BRIEFING SUMMARY

To: The Honorable Selina Robinson, MLA, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

[email protected] Room 310 Parliament Buildings Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

From: The Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Inter-Jurisdictional Governance Advisory Committee (Splatsin, Columbia Shuswap Regional District, Regional District of North Okanagan, District of Sicamous, City of Enderby, Township of Spallumcheen, City of Armstrong, City of Salmon Arm, City of Lumby)

Committee Contact: Phil McIntyre-Paul (Secretariat, Sicamous-to-Armstrong Rail-Trail Governance Advisory Committee) [email protected] PO Box 1531, Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4P6 Phone: 250-804-1964

Date: May 24, 2019

Regarding: Status of current application to Canada-British Columbia Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) - Rural and Northern Communities (RNC) Program for capital development of the rail-trail

BACKGROUND: Splatsin Kukpi7 (Chief) and Council of the Splatsin are working together with the Columbia Shuswap Regional District and the Regional District of North Okanagan area and municipal leadership to develop the entire 50 km abandoned Sicamous-to-Armstrong rail corridor in South Central British Columbia, as a continuous non-motorized greenway for walking & cycling.

The goals of this initiative are to protect environmental and cultural values, promote communication and strengthened relationships between our respective communities and residents, and create new tourism and transportation benefits for the region – including linking with the recently opened Vernon- Kelowna rail-trail greenway and 200 km south to Osoyoos in order to realize the full tourism value of this unprecedented opportunity.

In 2014, Splatsin leadership successfully negotiated with CP Rail to purchase 11.7 hectares (29 acres) of the discontinued railway corridor between Sicamous and Armstrong. In January 2015, Splatsin Chief and Council invited municipal and regional leadership to join them in developing an agreement to work together to acquire the remaining sections of the corridor from CP Rail and develop a plan for its future.

Splatsin, regional and municipal leadership confirmed their intention to work together cooperatively to acquire the Okanagan Shuswap Railway through a jointly signed Memorandum-of-Understanding. And in March 2017, the Province of BC announced a commitment of $2.17 million dollars toward the remaining purchase cost of $6.5 million dollars. The RDNO and CSRD agreed to split the unfunded cost on a 50:50 basis, each paying $2.17 million dollars. 1

In December 2017, the Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO) and the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD) successfully concluded the purchase of the remaining sections of the CP Rail corridor. To ensure the corridor remains contiguous, the three owner jurisdictions (i.e. Splatsin, RDNO & CSRD) have agreed that the corridor will be developed, operated and maintained for its use as a continuous recreational trail in the near future, particularly pedestrian and bicycle transportation, as well as future potential use as a continuous multi-modal regional transportation corridor. (See: Full Concept Report)

PRESENT STATUS: A 2-part Inter-jurisdictional Governance Committee has been formally established consisting of: 1) a politically accountable governance body for policy, planning and decision-making; and 2) a technical operational body to organize, implement and manage corridor development.

On March 25, 2019 a grant through the BC Rural Dividend Program for $500,000 was awarded to the Columbia Shuswap Regional District on behalf of the Inter-jurisdictional partners, leveraging $300,000 assembled by Sicamous & CSRD Area E to launch project management, technical design work, permitting, and preparation of tender ready plans for capital development. The Inter-jurisidictional partners gratefully acknowledge the support of the Province of British Columbia for this project.

Preliminary inventory of the corridor has been conducted and liability and safety signage installed; technical work plan outline developed; inventory and follow-up on existing lease and encroachment agreements is underway; and RFPs for detailed design, permitting, and costing are being prepared.

Splatsin, Regional, and Municipal partners are now seeking Capital funding to realize full construction anticipated to being in 2020. To this end

Status of application to the Canada-BC Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program for Rural and Northern Communities:

Based on –  recognition of our limited rural population base (43,800) and local investment-to-date  inter-regional, provincial, and national significance and international tourism value  established First Nations/Regional/Municipal working relationship and commitments  recently announced Canada-BC Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program framework  Rail corridor communities all fall within populations of 5000 or less  total cost projection of $12,920,800 all found for design/construction of the full 50 km corridor  current funding contributions for management and technical design valued at $915,000  and total joint land acquisition investment to-date (Regional/Provincial) of $6.5 million

An application was submitted in January 2019 to the Canada-BC Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program for Rural and Northern Communities through the Columbia Shuswap Regional District on behalf of the Inter-Jurisdictional partner communities along the Rail-Trail Corridor for the total cost projection: $12,920,800 (See January 17, 2019 Report attached)

A funding partnership commitment at the Federal/Provincial level will give us the foundation we need on which to realize this unprecedented opportunity.

Question: would follow-up be helpful with Ministry staff and our Inter-jurisdictional Governance and Technical Operational team to clarify or answer any questions related to the grant application?