1. Call to Order 2. Delegations A) Selkirk College

Village of Kaslo

Regular Council Meeting

AGENDA

Date: 2015.11.10 Time: 7:00pm Location: 312 Fourth Street, Kaslo

1. Call To Order

2. Delegations a) Selkirk College (President Angus Graeme)

3. Addition of Late Items

4. Adoption of the Agenda

5. Adoption of the Minutes a) 2015.10.27

6. Committees/Commissions—For Information a) 2015.11.03 COW b) Emergency Response minutes 2015.10.21

7. Committees/Commissions—Recommendations a) Committee Action Items

8. Mayor, Councillor and Director Reports

9. Unfinished Business a) 2016 strategic priorities - amended corporate strategic directions

10. Correspondence a) Medical Care Society Letter 2015.10.25

b) Trailblazers Request

11. Communications for Information

12. Accounts Payable 2 Regular Council 2015.11.10

13. Bylaws a) Bylaw 1179 That Bylaw 1179 a bylaw to Provide for the Licensing of Businesses in the Village of Kaslo, be reconsidered and adopted.

b) Bylaw 1180 That Bylaw 1180 a bylaw to include certain properties within municipal park reserve, be reconsidered and adopted.

14. New Business a) Report from the Administrator b) UBCM Asset Management Project (Municipal Buildings) That staff prepare and submit an asset management proposal to UBCM and the Columbia Basin Trust for municipal buildings and properties through the lens of sustainable provision of amenity and public space provision for the public, non-profit sector and small to medium enterprises.

c) 2015.11.03 Standing Committee

d) Property insurance renewal for 2016

e) Proposed Columbia Power Lardeau River Side Channel Enhancement Project

15. Late Agenda Items 16. Question Period for Public and Media

A maximum of fifteen (15) minutes will be reserved for members of the public and media in attendance to ask questions of Council.

17. Closed (in camera) Meeting

18. Matters Arising From Closed Meeting

19. Adjournment

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Source BCCAT 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Village of Kaslo

Minutes

For the 1275th Regular Council meeting of the Council of the Village of Kaslo held Tuesday October th 27P P 2015 at the Kemball Memorial Centre. Present: Mayor: S. Hewat Councillors: R. Glorioso, R. Lang, K. Knoll, J. Holland Staff: CAO Smith Regrets: Public: Nil

1.U Call To Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm

2.U Delegations Nil

3.U Addition of Late Items

Nil15T

4.U Adoption of the Agenda Lang/Knoll That the agenda be adopted as presented. CARRIED

5.U Adoption of the Minutes Glorioso/Lang That the minutes of the regular meeting of Council held 2015.10.13 be adopted. CARRIED

6.U Committees/Commissions—For Information Lang/Knoll That the draft minutes for COW 2015.10.06 and COWF 2015.10.20 are received for information. CARRIED

Glorioso/Knoll That the minutes of the RDCK Emergency Response Committee held 2015.05.27 are received for CARRIED information.

7.U Committees/Commissions—Recommendations

261U /15: ALTERNATE INTAKE GRANT Glorioso/Lang That project N20079 - Kaslo River Intake Upgrades is resubmitted to the New Building Canada CARRIED Fund and staff begin discussions with Ministry staff on suggested improvements to the proposal.

262/15:U REFERRAL TO RDCK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Glorioso/Knoll That Council continues participation in the RDCK Sustainability Service. CARRIED

263U /15: FALL REC GRANTS Glorioso/Knoll That council awards the following fall 2015 recreation grants as per the Recreation Committee’s CARRIED recommendations:

 Kaslo & District Arena Assoc. $425  JVH School $425  Kootenay Lake Historical Society $297.50  Kaslo Curling Club $297.50  Kaslo Trailblazers $425  Kaslo Outdoor Recreation Society $425  Kaslo & District Public Library $425 1

36 Regular Meeting Village of Kaslo 2015.10.27

 Kaslo guitarfest $242.25  North Kootenay Lake Arts Council $297.50  Kaslo Concert Society $212.50

Total Amount to be awarded $3472.25

8.U Mayor, Councillor and Director Reports Members of Council verbally reported on their respective briefs.

9.U Unfinished Business

CAO Smith reported on the status of the Village’s application for Crown tenure at the Logger Sports ground and shared with Council the Preliminary Planning and Management Summary that will be part of the statutory public consultation phase. He stressed that this was very much a preliminary, subject-to-change summary document and that significant planning activities would follow if the Village were successful in obtaining a License to Occupy.

10.U Correspondence Lang/Glorioso That the five letters of concern re: recycling submitted since 2015.10.13 are received. CARRIED

Lang/Glorioso That the letter dated 2015.10.19 from Kaslo and Area Medical Care Society is received for CARRIED information. Lang/Knoll That the letter dated 2015.10.21 from Mr. P. Mackle with respect to the potential sale of the old CARRIED Scout Hall is received for information.

11.U Communications for Information Glorioso/Lang That the circulation package dated 2015.10.27 is received for information. CARRIED

12.32TU Accounts PayableU32T Knoll/Glorioso That accounts payable in the amount of $ 42,394.98 is received for information. CARRIED

13.U Bylaws Glorioso/Knoll That Bylaw 1179 a bylaw to Provide for the Licensing of Businesses in the Village of Kaslo, be CARRIED read a first time by title. Lang/Glorioso That Bylaw 1179 a bylaw to Provide for the Licensing of Businesses in the Village of Kaslo, be CARRIED read a second and third time by content. Lang/Knoll That Bylaw 1180 a bylaw to include certain properties within municipal park reserve, be read a first CARRIED time by title. Lang/Knoll That Bylaw 1180 a bylaw to include certain properties within municipal park reserve, be read a CARRIED second and third time by content.

264/15:U BUILDING COMMITTEE REFERRAL Lang/Glorioso That discussion of the future of the old Scout Hall property is referred to the municipal building CARRIED standing committee.

14.U New Business

37 Regular Meeting Village of Kaslo 2015.10.27

265/15:U AGE FRIENDLY GRANT Lang/Glorioso That the UBCM Age Friendly grant proposal be approved as presented and submitted for CARRIED consideration.

The Mayor requested, under Section 131 of the Community Charter, that Council reconsider the following resolution from 2015.10.13 in light of a meeting with RDCK staff and the Area D Director on Monday, October 26th:

266U /15: RECONSIDERATION OF 258/15 Lang/Glorioso

That15T the Board and Central Sub-Region for Resource Recovery act immediately to re-organize the DEFEATED recycling services available to Kaslo and Area D institutional and commercial (ICI) entities outside of Village limits in a collection system and schedule consistent with provisions and accessibility in Nelson and the Western sub-region;

15T

And15T further that as the Village has long been committed to a weekly commercial garbage collection in Kaslo, Council expects a transfer station operation that facilitates the tipping of municipal refuse twice weekly by its contracted service provider, minimizing wasteful road haulage to Nelson and using the Board's recent investment in Kaslo Transfer Station to its envisioned potential and capacity.

Staff15T provided a brief description of the meeting with RDCK staff and the position of their management with respect to support for ICI recycling in Kaslo.

26715TU /15: Recycling Policy Lang/Knoll

Th15T at the Board and Central Sub-Region for Resource Recovery clarify its position on the collection CARRIED of institutional and commercial (ICI) recycling by RDCK-funded services for Kaslo and area businesses and, for the benefit of the public, explain the expenditure policy linkage to the percentage of local Class 6 [business] property taxation requisition funding the existing RDCK solid waste service;

And15T further that RDCK staff, impacted Directors and Village representatives meet with Kaslo and area businesses to discuss the least expensive options available to deliver effective institutional and commercial recycling resource stewardship in partnership with the private sector.

26815TU /15: COW REFERRAL Glorioso/Lang

That15T the scope and scale of Village solid waste collection services be referred to Committee of the CARRIED Whole for further discussion.

26915TU /15: Reserve Bylaw schedule Knoll/Glorioso That staff proceed to draft capital reserve schedule bylaw amendment for the Arena, Curling Club CARRIED and Tennis Club properties and improvements.

15.U Late Agenda Items Nil

16.U Question Period for Public and Media

The Valley Voice asked a number of questions for clarification.

17.U Closed (in camera) Meeting No closed meeting.

18.U Matters Arising From Closed Meeting 3

38 Regular Meeting Village of Kaslo 2015.10.27

19.U Adjournment Glorioso CARRIED That the meeting be adjourned at 7:40pm.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

______Corporate Officer Mayor Hewat

Village of Kaslo

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

MINUTES of the Committee of the Whole meeting held at the Kemball Memorial Centre 2015.11.03

Present: Mayor Hewat, Councillor Glorioso (Chair) and Councillors Lang, Knoll and Holland Regrets: Councillor Holland Staff: CAO Smith Public: 7 Delegations: Late: Kaslo and Area Medical Care Society (James Morris, President)

A. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 4:31pm

MOVED: Hewat It was MOVED and CARRIED that the agenda be adopted as presented.

B. Minutes: MOVED: Hewat It was moved and CARRIED that the 2015.10.06 minutes be adopted.

C. DELEGATIONS: MOVED: Knoll It was moved and CARRIED that a late delegation by Kaslo and Area Medical Care Society be added to the agenda.

Mr. Morris addressed the role of the municipal Health Select Committee, expressing the wish that Council would take the lead in liaising with the Interior Health Authority as opposed to the Committee leadership.

Councillor Lang indicated his satisfaction with an improving situation of Doctor recruitment.

Councillor Knoll, as a member of KAMCS, applauded the efforts of President Morris and his board.

Mayor Hewat expressed her view that the Health Select Committee had achieved great progress and done considerable good work for the community, assuring Mr. Morris that she and Director Watson were now part of the liaison group with the Interior Health Authority.

Chair Glorioso asked President Morris to articulate what decisions it was that the society wished Council to take so that they might be further discussed.

Councillor Holland joined the meeting at 4:52pm toward the end of the delegation.

D. Business:

Strategic Planning DIRECTION TO STAFF Summary The revised strategy for 2016 was deferred to the next Regular meeting of Council to 40 COW 2015.11.03

allow all members of Council to review and consider it.

Parks Canada Grant DIRECTION TO STAFF program Extend the grant information to the historic society given that the Village has multiple City Hall submissions under consideration by other programs at the moment.

Community Trust Councillor Lang introduced a community trust concept that he and others have been concept considering as necessary to bridge the gap between certain community needs and available existing grants.

No action was required at this time.

Solid Waste DIRECTION TO STAFF That staff cost out the in house budget necessary for an unexpected change to current contracted arrangements to Solid Waste as a means of being prepared for the unexpected.

Arts and Culture Service MOVED: Lang It was moved and DEFEATED that the Village approach the RDCK Board with respect to discussing a feasibility study around a regional or sub regional Arts and Culture Service.

MOVED: Hewat It was moved and CARRIED that Director Watson be approached about the exploration of arts and cultural requisition services.

Water Services DIRECTION TO STAFF (unincorporated) Begin drafting some proposed changes to the existing water services agreement for discussion at a subsequent meeting.

E. PUBLIC Q&A Mr. John Eckland made a statement with respect to his views on the current situation available to commercial recyclers.

Mr. Tony Frary made a statement with respect to how best organise the compaction, collection and distribution of cardboard recycling.

F. Adjournment MOVED: Hewat It was moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:13pm.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

______Chief Administrative Officer Chair R. Glorioso

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY KASLO AREA D EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICE

MINUTES 3:30 p.m. Wednesday October 21, 2015 Kaslo Emergency Services Centre, 529 Arena Avenue Kaslo, BC

ATTENDANCE

ESSD-Kaslo & Area D, North lake representative Deb Borsos Kaslo Deputy Stephanie Patience Kaslo Public Works Glen Walker Kaslo Regional Fire Dept. Mel Bryce Kaslo Village Councillor Romella Glorioso-Moss Lardeau Resident Marlene Johnston RDCK Kaslo D/Nelson EF Emergency Coordinator Noreen Clayton Search and Rescue Peter McAllister Search and Rescue Dennis Sahs Forest Protection Technician Asa Maclaurin

Regrets Doug Yee, Maggie Winters, Bart Chenuz, Dan Rude

1. CALL TO ORDER

Noreen Clayton called the meeting to order at 3:33 pm.

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

MOVED by Glen Walker seconded by Stephanie Patience , AND Resolved that:

The Agenda for the October 21, 2015 meeting of the Area D and Kaslo Emergency Response Committee be adopted as circulated.

3. MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2015

MOVED by Deb Borsos seconded by Mel Bryce, AND Resolved that:

The minutes for the May 27, 2015 meeting of the Area D and Kaslo Emergency Response Committee be adopted as circulated. \\VKSERVER\Public\AGENDAS & MEETINGS\AGENDA WORKING FOLDERS\1.REGULAR COUNCIL WORKING FOLDER\1 UNSORTED AGENDA\6 B Emergency Response minutes15-10-21_Minutes.doc Area D - Kaslo Emergency Response Committee 42 page 2 Minutes October 21, 2015

4. MEETING DISCUSSION TOPIC: 2015 Fire Season

Asa Maclaurin, Forest Protection Technician for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations presented an update on the fires that occurred in the Kootenay Lake Fire Zone. The presentation is attached. Asa noted that when holding public meetings re evacuations it would be helpful for residents to know that the incident teams establish trigger lines for evacuations.

5. TRAINING / COURSES

2015/2016 EMBC Training Schedule*

EM713 EOC Level 3 Planning Nelson Feb 4, 2016

* Course prerequisite is EOC Essentials. This is a one day course that looks at the Planning function in the EOC. Planning is responsible for information displays, situation reports, developing action plans, long term advance planning, mapping, and recovery activities. It’s a good course for anyone working in the EOC. To register, contact Noreen Clayton.

6. EMERGENCY PROGRAM UPDATE

 On July 4th the RDCK activated the EOC and issued evacuation alerts for Sitkum and Duhamel Creek residents. Preparations were made for a Reception Centre and Group Lodging at Selkirk College Mary Hall but they weren’t required.  On August 18th fires south and west of Creston had the potential to issue evacuation alerts.  The Emergency Management BC Regional Seasonal meeting will be held October 22nd in Trail.  Fuel Management – Blewett, Slocan Valley and Robson projects have been tendered. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan update for Area E has begun. An application for a fuel management project for Riondel has been submitted to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities for funding.  Nelson EF held a dangerous goods tabletop exercise in Nelson on October 7th with CP Rail, Ministry of Environment Fire Departments, Emergency Social Services and RDCK emergency operations centre staff.  The UBCM has a new grant program for FireSmart. Applications are due November 30, 2015.

Area D - Kaslo Emergency Response Committee 43 page 3 Minutes October 21, 2015

7. ROUND TABLE AGENCY UPDATES

Romella Glorioso-Moss reports she attended the UBCM Conference in Vancouver in September. There were three resolutions that were passed that are of interest to the Emergency Committee. They are summarized as: to establish provincial funding for Search and Rescue; to offer Disaster Financial Assistance to all property owners even if the home is a second home; and to support a review of rural fire insurance by the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

Stephanie Patience, Village of Kaslo, reports the Village retained the campfire restrictions until recently because of the continued dry weather.

Glen Walker, Kaslo Public Works, reports that despite this summer’s drought, the Village had adequate water. Water restrictions had been imposed.

Dennis Sahs, Kaslo Search and Rescue, reports they have five new members. They will soon be purchasing a watercraft thru BC Gaming. They’ve been called out several times recently in mutual aid with Nelson Search and Rescue.

Marlene Johnston, Lardeau, reports there’s a new diversion ditch along the Lardeau Bluffs.

Mel Bryce, Kaslo Regional Fire Department, reports, 4 members were sent to assist with the Stickpin Fire in August. The Fire Department posted many campfire ban notices during the summer. The department has 20-30 volunteers and a strong junior volunteer program.

Deb Borsos, Emergency Social Services Director, reports that Rae Sawyer has now completed the ESS Director training and will be the alternate Director. Plans are underway to organize an emergency open house in Kaslo in March similar to the one held in Meadow Creek last year.

8. 2016 MEETING SCHEDULE – Proposed Dates

January 27, March 23, June 8, October 12

Please let Noreen know if these dates don’t work for you. Area D - Kaslo Emergency Response Committee 44 page 4 Minutes October 21, 2015

9. DATE FOR NEXT MEETING

MOVED by Asa Maclaren , seconded by Peter McAllister , AND Resolved that:

The next meeting of the Area D - Kaslo, Emergency Response Committee be scheduled for Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 3:30 pm.

Topic: Highways update by Bart Chenuz – to be confirmed

10. ADJOURNMENT

MOVED by Marlene Johnston, seconded by Dennis Sahs, AND Resolved that:

The Area D - Kaslo Emergency Response Committee meeting be adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Copies: Gundul Brigl, Provincial Emergency Program Larry Brown, School District No. 8

45 46

Village of Kaslo

______REPORT TO: Mayor and Council DATE: November 6th 2015

FROM: Chief Administrative Officer FILE: Staff Reports

SUBJECT: Report from the Administrator ______

Winter Light-Up

The proposal is appended to your package.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 That the proposed street closure by Kaslo and Area Chamber of Commerce for the annual Kaslo Winter Light Up on December 5th 2015 between the hours of 3 and 9pm from 5th Street to 4th Street be approved.

The CAO intends to enter a Village vehicle in the parade for the first time this year with his usual volunteers from May Days. If Mayor or Council wish to participate or direct, please let him know in the near future.

Campground Revenue

This revenue currently sits in general operating for the municipality, sitting $3,527.90 above 2015 projections. Council had budgeted $2000 to the Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Capital Reserve this year. These revenues currently contribute to general operating across the entire general expenditure budget.

RECOMMENDATIONS  That $5527.90 is transferred to the Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Capital Reserve before year end.  That 50 per cent of campground revenue retained by the municipality is transferred to the Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Capital Reserve before year end, starting in 2016.

2016 LGMA CAO Forum

The 2016 LGMA CAO Forum is in Kelowna, meaning that travel costs are somewhat lower than attending a similar event in the Lower Mainland or Vancouver Island. The information on the forum is appended to your package.

The sessions on succession planning and the Building Code would be of particular interest and utility.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 That the CAO be authorized to attend the LGMA CAO Forum in Kelowna in 2016 with travel expenses pursuant to municipal policy.

Respectfully submitted, Neil Smith, Chief Administrative Officer

2 48

FEBRUARY 24-26, 2016: LGMA CAO FORUM

Delta Grand Okanagan Resort and Conference Centre Negotiating with First Nations Measuring success The CAO Forum is an annual offering for Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cers (CAOs) Deﬁ ning CAO responsibilities in BC that focuses on excellence, innovation, and best practices. Interactive, Qualities of successful CAOs two-way discussions with speakers, frank and open dialogue, and peer-to- Building Code changes Problems and solutions peer learning are features of the 2016 program that will enhance the abilities And much more! Detailed of CAOs to be successful and advance their organizations. program descriptions inside.

REGISTRATION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Register online at http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/event/2016/LGMA-CAO.asp Registration is limited to CAOs, appointed Deputy CAOs and Executive Directors/CEOs of Afﬁ liate Members

FORUM FEE ACCOMMODATIONS $ Save with UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2015: early bird DELTA GRAND OKANAGAN RESORT AND $610 +GST LGMA Member CONFERENCE CENTRE pricing! $710 + GST Non Member 1310 Water Street Kelowna, BC V1Y 9P3 AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2015: $660 +GST LGMA Member $770 + GST Non Member

OPTIONAL PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP: $175 STANDARD ROOM: $139 + taxes until February 3.

REFUNDS/CANCELLATIONS RESERVATIONS: Call 250.763.4500 and quote Accepted until February 17, subject to $50 “LGMA CAO Forum Room Block” cancellation fee. No refunds after this date.

Questions may be directed to 250.383.7032 or [email protected] 2016 LGMA CAO FORUM PROGRAM 49 2

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 24, 2016 Optional Pre-conference Workshop

1:00-4:30 PM SUCCESSION PLANNING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS: BEST PRACTICES & APPROACHES

FACILITATORS: As the leader of your local government team, you are in Jacquie Grifﬁ ths, Metro Vancouver and Trina Harrison the position to manage how your organization responds to these challenges. Whether from a small or large LOCAL GOVERNMENT PANEL: local government, this session will provide you with John Leeburn, CAO, City of Port Coquitlam tools and strategies for developing and implementing Melinda Stickney, CAO, City of Armstrong a succession plan, including information on leading With the ever-increasing age of the local government research and data, a framework for developing a plan that workforce and movement both from within and across works for your organization, and best practices within the sector, many organizations are now taking stock of the context of an overall human resources strategy. their talent pipelines and recognizing the importance Local government panelists will share the succession and urgency of succession planning. The competition planning strategies they have used and lessons learned. for skills and talent has become increasingly complex, Participants will also beneﬁ t from working through further highlighting the good business reasons to exercises together and peer-to-peer sharing of strategies consider developing a leadership base from within. and best practices. A succession plan may also serve to better align the organization and the individuals it employs.

JACQUIE GRIFFITHS has been the Director, Labour Relations Services for Metro Vancouver since 2014. She began her human resources career with the City of Vancouver and later moved to Metro Vancouver to work as a Compensation and Research Analyst. She also worked in the K-12 education sector and progressed through a series of roles including that of Chief Negotiator and Associate Executive Director for the BC Public School Employers’ Association.

TRINA HARRISON proudly served the City of Victoria as Director of the Human Resources Department for 11 years beginning in 2003. Prior to her role at the City, Trina spent 13 years with the Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association. She offers a variety of organizational and human resources services to both public and private sector employers.

JOHN LEEBURN is a member of the small but mighty group of municipal CAOs whose background is human resources. He started his “big boy” career in 1986 working as an HR generalist at a slaughterhouse in Winnipeg. He joined the City of New Westminster 18 months later; spent 8 years there and then another 17 at the City of Maple Ridge before joining the City of Port Coquitlam as its CAO in 2012. John has a BCOM from UBC (Industrial Relations Major) and a MBA from SFU where his major project was provocatively titled: “Does Size Matter? An Analysis of Municipal Amalgamation in Canada.”

MELINDA STICKNEY began her career in local government with the City of Armstrong in 2007 and assumed the position of Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cer/Corporate Ofﬁ cer in 2014. Prior to that, she progressed through a variety of senior administrative roles in both the private and public sector. 2016 LGMA CAO FORUM PROGRAM 50 3

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 24, 2016

5:00-7:00 PM FREE TIME

7:00-9:30 PM WELCOME RECEPTION

Greetings from LGMA President Kelly Ridley and the opportunity to network with friends, colleagues and meet new Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cers.

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2016

7:30-8:30 AM BREAKFAST

8:00-8:30 AM PROVINCIAL UPDATE

PRESENTER: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

8:30-10:00 AM MOVING TOWARDS RECONCILIATION: SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST NATIONS

PRESENTERS: neighbours in order to reach effective and mutually Don Lidstone, Lidstone and Company Law Corporation benefi cial arrangements. The fi rst step to reaching a Donnella Sellars, Fraser Basin Council resilient agreement is to commit to a process of mutual understanding of the governance, history and culture of A number of local governments have already completed your First Nations neighbours. This interactive session service agreements with First Nations and some First with First Nations experts will assist you to maximize Nations are also looking to impact benefi t agreements the opportunities for agreements and increase your for industrial and resource projects that can involve understanding with respect to negotiating, drafting and local government approvals. This session is aimed implementing these kinds of agreements. at understanding and working with your First Nation

DON LIDSTONE, QC has practiced generally in the area of local government law since 1980. His local government law focus is in the areas of governance, opinions and agreements, land use and sustainable development, regulatory approvals, and legislative drafting. Don has published numerous papers and manuals and consulted on the development of the Community Charter as well as other municipal statutes in a number of provinces. Continued on next page 2016 LGMA CAO FORUM PROGRAM 51 4

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2016

DONNELLA SELLARS is a Sustainability Facilitator for Smart Planning for Communities who works province-wide with local and First Nations governments on relationship-building processes. Donnella is from Xat’sull (Soda Creek) First Nation and was involved in the Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw Treaty Negotiations for 10 years.

10:00-10:30 AM BREAK

10:30 AM-NOON SO HOW ARE YOU MEASURING SUCCESS? PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR CAOS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PANEL: What are the key components of a CAO’s performance David Allen, CAO, City of Courtenay management plan and what are some of the best Laurie Hurst, CAO, Town of Esquimalt practices in engaging, reviewing and reﬁ ning your plan Jake Rudolph, Deputy CAO, Abbotsford with your elected ofﬁ cials?

More than just an annual performance review, performance CAOs will share their approaches and experiences to help management, especially for CAOs as the sole employee you develop or ﬁ ne-tune your performance management of a Board or Council, is the continuous process of setting plan, and roundtable discussions will provide you with objectives, assessing progress and engaging in proactive options to improve your performance conversation with and constructive discussions to ensure their performance your Board or Council. plans match the organization’s strategic plan and that they are also meeting the expectations of their elected ofﬁ cials.

DAVID ALLEN has served as Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cer with the City of Courtenay since April 2013, and prior to that worked as CAO at the Town of Golden, and the District of Logan Lake. David has spent the last fourteen years working with local governments in BC in a variety of roles.

Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cer for the Township of Esquimalt since 2008, LAURIE HURST is a Certiﬁ ed Professional Accountant with over 24 years of local government experience. Laurie started with Esquimalt in 2004 as CFO and prior to her move to local government, she has held positions at both the Regional and Provincial levels.

JAKE RUDOLPH has been Deputy City Manager with Abbotsford since October 2013. Prior to that he spent 12 years with Pitt Meadows as their CAO. He has held positions with Maple Ridge; Fredericton, New Brunswick; Kings County, Nova Scotia; as well as with Edmonton, Alberta. 2016 LGMA CAO FORUM PROGRAM 52 5

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2016

NOON-1:00 PM LUNCH & SPEAKER SPECIFIC PROBLEMS IN MANAGEMENT-LEVEL EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

PRESENTER: Dennis Hori, Fulton & Company DENNIS HORI, QC is a civil litigation partner with Fulton & Company LLP who has extensive trial, appellate and administrative law experience. Dennis has signiﬁ cant experience in advising clients and acting as litigation counsel in employment disputes.

1:00-2:00 PM TALES FROM THE TRENCHES: DEFINING, NEGOTIATING AND REINFORCING THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CAO

FACILITATOR: Join this panel of experienced CAOs who will share their Rob Buchan, CAO, District of North Saanich perspectives on leadership styles and strategies for managing challenging situations, along with their best advice to support LOCAL GOVERNMENT PANEL – RETIRED CAOS: you in your role. This interactive session will include table Fred Banham, Randy Diehl, Judy Rogers discussions to provide an opportunity for participants to further explore common issues and challenges.

ROB BUCHAN is the Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cer for the District of North Saanich. He is also a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Geography at the University of Victoria, program chair and faculty for the Successful CAO and Community Planning MATI programs, and advisor for the Capilano University Local Government program. In 2009, Rob was elected to the College of Fellows in the Canadian Institute of Planners.

FRED BANHAM draws upon 35 years of local government experience in both BC and Alberta with working experience in municipalities and regional districts. Fred retired as the Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cer for the Peace River Regional District in 2014 and previous to that was the Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cer for the District of Tumbler Ridge. Prior to 1996, Fred worked in a number of Alberta rural and urban local governments.

RANDY DIEHL has a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work, a Master’s Degree in Community Planning from the University of British Columbia and over 37 years of employment in Municipal and Provincial Government Services. He joined the City of Kamloops in 1988 as the city’s Senior Planner and by 1992 was appointed the Director of the Department. In 2001, Randy was promoted to the position of Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cer until he retired in 2012.

JUDY ROGERS operates a consulting ﬁ rm providing advice to private, public, crown corporations and not-for-proﬁ t agencies bringing expertise in government affairs and communication, relationship building and managing diversity in the workplace. Judy held the role of City Manager of the City of Vancouver from 1999 to 2008. 2016 LGMA CAO FORUM PROGRAM 53 6

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2016

2:30-3:00 PM BREAK

3:00-4:30 PM LEADERSHIP QUALITIES OF SUCCESSFUL CAOS

FACILITATOR: The work of the CAO is often overlooked and not well Rob Buchan, CAO, District of North Saanich understood. Dr. David Siegel’s new book, Leaders in the Shadows, brings this important work to light, providing a PRESENTER: look at the careers of ﬁ ve highly successful municipal CAOs. Dr. David Siegel, Author and Professor, Brock University Dr. Siegel will examine the traits, skills and behaviours that LOCAL GOVERNMENT PANEL – RETIRED CAOS: have made these individuals such successful leaders. The Fred Banham, Randy Diehl, Judy Rogers CAO panelists will offer the BC context and pose questions for Dr. Siegel that will provide an opportunity to delve into the details of his research and ﬁ ndings.

DAVID SIEGEL is a professor of Political Science at Brock University specializing in Canadian politics, local government and public policy and administration. He has published numerous books and articles on these subjects; currently, he is focusing his research on examining the leadership qualities of municipal Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cers.

See previous page for additional bios.

6:00-9:00 PM DINNER + NETWORKING

LGMA GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF: 2016 LGMA CAO FORUM PROGRAM 54 7

FRIDAY FEBRUARY 26, 2016

7:00-8:00 AM BREAKFAST

8:00-9:00 AM BUILDING CODE CHANGES ARE COMING – ARE YOU READY?

PRESENTERS: The Province will now have authority to set building Paul Gipps, CAO, Fraser Valley Regional District standards, which will support standards that are the Lee Nicol, A/Director, Policy and Code Development, same throughout BC and simplify construction sector Building and Safety Standards, Offi ce of Housing and compliance. In addition, there will be provincial review Construction Standards and approval of proposals that are not Code-compliant, as Derek Townson, Executive Director, Building Offi cials’ well as mandatory Provincial qualifi cations for residential Association of BC builders of four units or less and local government building The building regulatory system, in which the Building Code offi cials who administer and enforce Provincial building is applied, has been the subject of several major provincial codes. Experts who have been working to support the reviews over the past 25 years. implementation of the new Building Code changes will provide an update on the review and discuss the impacts Recent consultations have resulted in a set of regulatory on local governments. changes that will modernize and streamline the system.

A former building inspector, PAUL GIPPS is the Chief Administrative Ofﬁ cer for the Fraser Valley Regional District, having previously served in other BC communities such as the District of Mission and the City of Terrace. Paul represents the LGMA on the province’s Building Regulatory Modernization Advisory Committee.

LEE NICOL is Acting Director of Policy and Code Development at the Building and Safety Standards Branch with the provincial government. Lee’s professional and academic experience ranges from engineering to planning to public administration, both in Canada and abroad.

DEREK TOWNSON has nearly 20 years of senior management success in government relations, media relations, stakeholder partnerships, government task forces, ﬁ nancial, technical and strategic planning. He is currently the Executive Director of the Building Ofﬁ cials Association of BC (BOABC). 2016 LGMA CAO FORUM PROGRAM 55 8

FRIDAY FEBRUARY 26, 2016

9:00-10:00 AM NUTS AND BOLTS

The ever-popular session where CAOs can informally CAOs will have an opportunity to post their topic and discuss common problems and the solutions that are delegates will vote on an agreed set of topics to be working for them. discussed at the beginning of the session.

10:00-10:30 AM FIRE SERVICES ACT UPDATE

PRESENTER: Ofﬁ ce of the Fire Commissioner

10:30-11:00 AM BREAK

11:00 AM-NOON LEGAL UPDATE

PRESENTER: An update on the current legal cases of interest and how Sukh Manhas, Young Anderson they impact local government decision making.

SUKH MANHAS’ law practice at Young Anderson involves advising the ﬁ rm’s clients on general local government law issues as well as representing them in civil and quasi-criminal proceedings before arbitrators, administrative tribunals, and the courts of this province and the nation. Sukh is currently a member of the Municipal Law and Civil Litigation subsections of the BC Branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

NOON CONFERENCE ENDS

LGMA GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF: 56

Village of Kaslo

______REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: November 3rd 2015

FROM: Chief Administrative Officer FILE: MAYOR

SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS COMMITTEE TOR (Amended) ______

Intent

Pursuant to Sections 141 (1) and (2) of the Community Charter and Procedure Bylaw 1136, the Mayor has established a Municipal Buildings Standing Committee for the remainder of the current term or until such time that it is no longer required.

Broad Mandate

The consideration and provision of advice to council with respect to the maintenance, repair, management, acquisition and disposition of all municipally owned buildings.

Matters to be considered

a. Working toward an asset management plan for municipal buildings; b. Creation of annual care and maintenance schedule where appropriate; c. Capital project identification and review; d. Reserve review and recommendation for budget; e. Lease review and consideration; f. Initial review of requests and emergent problems; g. Insurance review; h. Health and Safety; i. Creation of an at-a-glance building inventory of key details; j. Consultation with respect to significant capital improvements by lessees; k. Design review for heritage development permits; l. Building Code and RDCK Building Inspection Service matters.

Council may assign or modify matters for consideration by the committee at any Regular meeting by resolution as per Bylaw 1136, 45 (1) (b). The committee may not expand its own remit or number without the express authorization of the Mayor or Council.

Committee Members

The Mayor has appointed the following members of the public to the committee, 57

knowing that each is willing to serve:

• Mr. Chris Temple • Mr. Peter Chomitz

The Mayor has appointed the following members of Council to the Committee, subject to their availability and desire to serve:

 Mayor Hewat  Councillor Lang

This will be a 4 member committee (at least half of this number must be Councillors). If other Councillors wish to participate as members they should speak with the Mayor. The Chair is not yet appointed or elected.

Quorum

Quorum shall be 2 members of the committee with at least one member of Council present.

Schedule

The committee will follow a quarterly schedule, meeting in between as required.

Delegations

If a building or space currently occupied is going to be on an agenda, the current tenant is invited to attend the meeting as an observer or delegation.

Resources and Staff support

The Chair will meet with the CAO to discuss agendas and these will be posted in accordance with Village bylaws in advance of the meetings. The Committee shall appoint a minute taker if no staff are present and staff will assist with the editing and formatting of draft minutes for presentation to Council as required.

Reporting

The Committee will submit regular recommendations and reports to Council.

2 58

Summary

This committee is badly needed to focus on one of the municipality’s most serious challenges – its building inventory. While some assets are well managed by lessees or municipal departments, others are in perilous condition with few reserves available for repair or major work. Establishing anything close to a fair or reasonable revenue stream from lessees to cover the necessary maintenance, operation and capital works required or desired is also a significant challenge in need of imaginative solutions by all parties.

3 59 60 61

BRILLIANT DAM FISH COMPENSATION PROJECT LARDEAU RIVER SIDECHANNEL HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

PROJECT MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN JUNE 2015

1 Monitoring and Maintenance plan Effectiveness monitoring is required to ensure the success of proposed compensation and to: • determine the level of fish use following reactivation and enhancement of side channel 10.65L; • evaluate whether the compensation targets have been met; and, • determine the stability and persistence of the habitat compensation work completed.

Ultimately the success of this project will be defined by achieving the target of 500 age-1+ Rainbow Trout and this metric can be measured through the proposed monitoring plan. Before and after studies provide the most rigorous design. Fortunately recent studies on the Lardeau River provide good estimates of parr densities in the natural river setting as well as in an enhanced side channel (e.g., Andrusak 2011; Andrusak 2010; Redfish 2013).Thus baseline data will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the side channel reactivation/enhancement. 1.1 Monitoring Program Overview The project will need to meet the fish compensation target throughout the life of the Brilliant Dam and will therefore require a long term monitoring and maintenance program. The initial phase of the monitoring program will occur over a 12-year period following construction (Year 0). Objectives of the monitoring program are to: 1. Verify that the project was implemented as designed and approved. This includes the following:

o Complete a detailed Construction Record (formerly referenced as As-Built Record) survey immediately following construction;

o Complete detailed structure and channel engineering surveys after the freshet in Years 1, 5 and 11, compare with the Construction Record survey results and complete any required maintenance based on the assessment results;

Page 1 62

o Complete detailed structure and channel engineering surveys after any 1-in-10 flood events and compare with the Construction Record survey results and complete any required maintenance based on the assessment results; and,

o Assess the functionality of habitat enhancements in Years 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 during low water conditions. This should include description of the status of LWD structures, spatial record of the mainstem Lardeau shoreline upstream of the side channel as well as the collection of photodocumentation from established photo points. 2. Describe fish use of side channel 10.65L and:

o Provide measurements of juvenile Rainbow Trout densities by size class in side channel 10.65L in Years 4, 5, 6 and 9, 10, 11 following enhancement; and,

o Document other fish species using side channel 10.65L during the assessments.

Fish use of side channel 10.65L will be assessed using night snorkel surveys during the low water period in early spring. Nighttime snorkel counts have been used to enumerate juvenile Rainbow Trout in the Lardeau River mainstem and side channels since 2005 (Decker and Hagen 2009; Andrusak 2010). Methodology will be the same as that used during previous Lardeau River assessments and will include a mark-resight program to account for observer efficiency. The schedule for all components of the monitoring program is provided in Table 4-1. 1.2 Monitoring Program Evaluation Evaluation is required to determine if the target of 500 age-1+ Rainbow Trout using the reactivated channel has been met. At the end of the initial three-year monitoring pulse (Year 6), the data will be examined using a post-treatment analysis to evaluate juvenile use of the side channel. As-built structure monitoring, structure and channel monitoring, and habitat function monitoring to Year 7 will also be summarized in this report. Following the final year of assessment (Year 14), a project evaluation report will be prepared to determine if the compensation target has been met. Other evaluation criteria will include any pre-project baseline data. The framework for future biological and engineering monitoring will be based on the results of the initial monitoring phase.

Page 2 63

Table 1-1: Proposed monitoring schedule following reactivation and enhancement of Lardeau River side channel 10.65L.

Task 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Construction Record/As-Built Structure X Monitoring (Fall) Structure and Channel Engineering Following 1-in-10 flood events or after 10 years. Monitoring (After freshet) X X X Habitat Function Monitoring (After freshet on X X X X X X X X Years 2 and 8; Early Spring for others) Fish Abundance Monitoring (Early Spring) X X X X X X Note: Assumes construction in late Fall 2015.

2015-06_BRD_LardeauProject_MontoringAndMaintenancePlan.docx Page 1 of 3 64

Lardeau River Adventures Ltd.’s Updated Objection to the Proposed Columbia Power Lardeau River Side Channel Enhancement Project

Presented and prepared by Oliver Hopwood Co-owner and Director of Lardeau River Adventures Ltd.

NOVEMBER 5, 2015

LARDEAU RIVER ADVENTURES LICENCE OF OCCUPATION FILE # 4405444 COLUMBIA POWER WATER LICENCE APPLICATION # 100134022

This is an updated objection arising from the latest site visit requested by Columbia Power on October 02, 2015. This objection is to be read in conjunction with our first objection dated July 29, 2015 that gives the history of the proposed project and our relationship with the area and Columbia Power. (Please refer to Appendix A.)

On October 2, 2015 we attended a site visit at the request of Columbia Power (CP) and brokered by Aimee Watson (RDCK Regional District Area D Representative). We had met previously onsite with Ms. Watson to explain why we could not support built structure in the takeout eddy but were willing to remove our objections if an intake were constructed further downstream. Aimee then passed this message on to CP. This being the case, we were surprised when the design presented at the Oct 2nd meeting was only slightly revised and still requires structure in the takeout eddy. We have been unequivocally opposed to structure in the takeout eddy since we learned about the project in early March 2015. This design still represents some significant safety concerns for us (see below), however we conceded that we would be willing to withdraw our objections IF CP addressed the concerns we outlined in an email to CP on July 3rd. CP’s assurances regarding our concerns would then form the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The four assurances we require are listed on page 5 of our first objection (Appendix A) and copied below:

Further, we formally request that we receive in writing:

1. Columbia Power's guarantee that the proposed channel will not change the all-season hydraulics of our take-out eddy rendering the site unsuitable or less suitable for our purposes.

2. Columbia Power's guarantee that the proposed channel will not pose an increased health and safety risk to our commercial clientele.

3. Columbia Power's guarantee that you will remedy or remove your structure at any time and promptly should it suffer changes that increase or initiate a hazard.

4. Columbia Power's recognition that Lardeau River Adventures Ltd. can and will seek redress/compensation for any losses or impacts associated from the Columbia Power structure for the period of our tenure, or as long as the structure remains, whichever is less.

Lardeau River Adventures cannot and will not support Columbia Power's project without the above assurances. To do so is asking Lardeau River Adventures to assume responsibility for any and all outcomes of your project that may influence and impact our business. We have a 29+ year commitment to this site and this is not acceptable. 65

To date, this list has still not been acknowledged. We finally received the list of stakeholders and their file application number on Oct.19th, after three written requests over a three and a half month period. We don’t, of course, expect the assurances to be adopted verbatim but these are the key points that require discussion and a formalized agreement within an MoU.

We are disappointed that CP has ignored this solution. It represents a significant concession on our part as it allows structure within the takeout eddy and provides an opportunity for CP to exhibit their long-term commitment to the project. Further an MoU would lessen the potential risk to stakeholders and provide a practical expression of the confidence CP has expressed in their project. By refusing to agree to an MoU, CP has failed to satisfactorily address our concerns.

We acknowledge the value of working with stakeholders in good faith. Good faith is essential in getting parties to the table. However, no negotiations between two corporations will reach settlement or a formal conclusion on good faith alone, hence the offer by LRA of an MoU in order to retract our objection. The legally guaranteed, tenured use of this site is an essential element and key asset to a $300,000+ investment for LRA. As such, this is not an unreasonable request given the potential and ongoing risks associated with the proposed project.

Therefore, we are left with no alternative but to maintain our objection to the project as presented at the site meeting of Oct. 2, 2015.

Further to this objection, we wish to highlight the following safety concerns associated with this latest design:

1. We have maintained since March that we could not support any structure in the takeout eddy due to the risk it represents to us for the length of our tenure. Modeling and risk analysis can assist in predicting future outcomes but are not a guarantee. They are a best estimate provided by a contracted party to CP and cannot predict the natural variance and extreme events inherent in a non-controlled river environment.

2. Further, CP’s own consultant’s (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants or NHC) analysis of the new intake does not score well regarding risks and impacts.

Referring to table A2 in Appendix A of the NHC Oct 28 analysis, the revised design is registered as Option 1.

 Option 1 scores a 4/5 for safety impacts to LRA  Option 1 scores a 3/5 for impacts on LRA

1 is poor, 5 is ideal. Without the assurance of an MoU, nothing less than a 5 / 5 is acceptable when we are discussing risk to our business, guests or the general public.

3. The minimum depths proposed for the intake structure in the pool where rafters / swimmers are acknowledged to be present is given only for the months of May - August and are inadequate. Please see the extract from Appendix A of the analysis provided by NHC on October 28:

The intake was designed as a submerged box intake to be located along the side of the scour hole at the existing rock groyne. Some key features of the intake designed to improve safety are:

• The intake is to be submerged by to avoid interaction with debris, boaters, and swimmers – from May through August submergence is expected to be greater than 1 m (minimum low flow) to 1.3 m (average low flow).

We operate training runs in April and raft commercially throughout September. CP has been informed of this. This year, the last contracted run operated by Lardeau River Adventures was on Oct 12, 2015. Clearly a much longer season than that taken into account by CP and one which is well within our tenure.

The Lardeau River averages from 108 m3/sec in May to an average of 70 m3/sec for August. However, it averages just 25 m3/sec for April and 37 m3/sec for September. October averages just 29 m3/sec. These values are approximately 25%-30% of the levels around which CP and their consultants NHC have designed the intake to operate at a safe depth for swimmers and other users. Given that the 'clearances' offered are between 1 and 1.3 meters during the period of May to August, significantly lower levels during April, September and October are a significant safety issue. It is easy for a person falling from a raft to reach a depth of 1 meter and with water levels potentially 25% of those used by NHC in their modeling, could even represent a direct risk to the raft itself.

4. From an email from Columbia Power dated Oct 30, 2015:

In an effort to address Lardeau River Adventures’ question regarding the potential to shift the intake pipe location elsewhere in the vicinity of the eddy area, the engineers had previously assessed other locations for the intake downstream of the Lardeau River Adventures tenure. Concerns for safety and the long term effectiveness for the project were raised by the engineers with the following reasoning:

 Safety: The location of the proposed intake is upstream of the put-in take-out for rafting. This is preferential to downstream. If an accidents occur upon put-in or take-out of the rafts and people could be moved downstream by the current, having the intake upstream of the put-in/take-out eliminates the risk of influencing such incidents.

It is mentioned that with the intake being 'upstream' of the previous design it is therefore 'safer' and ‘preferential’ to a downstream intake in that rafts or swimmers will be washed downstream in the event of an incident. However, the structure remains inside the take-out body of water. There is no physical barrier between our operations and the structure. We would be operating vessels within 1 to 3 meters of the structure. Furthermore, it is a 'back eddy' - ie., a body of water that recirculates in a motion that continuously moves water and suspended objects upstream until it meets up with the downstream current. The barrier between these opposing 67

currents is the eddy line. In high water levels, it is an aggressive (positive upstream recirculation) back eddy perfect for our use in being able to pull ashore and cancel our downstream trajectory. This means any ‘suspended load’ within that body of water will be transported to the head (top) of the eddy to the location of the intake. With over 25 years of commercial rafting experience behind us, the positioning of a structure at the head of a back eddy most definitely does not support the claim: “If an accidents occur upon put-in or take-out of the rafts and people could be moved downstream by the current, having the intake upstream of the put-in/take-out eliminates the risk of influencing such incidents.”

5. From the Project Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (June 2015) - attached.

The initial phase of the monitoring program will occur over a 12-year period following construction (Year 0).

The framework for future biological and engineering monitoring will be based on the results of the initial monitoring phase

Lardeau River Adventures still has 29 years remaining on a License of Occupation with a right for renewal. We will be less than halfway through our first tenure period when there is the potential for the structure to be abandoned. There is no mention of structure being removed or a commitment to maintaining any element of the structure beyond the initial monitoring period. This is unacceptable for the long-term security of our operation.

Summary

We feel that we have acted promptly and in good faith in all our dealings with CP. We have attended every meeting and have responded to the content of every email. We are aware that many stakeholders have not been informed of the changes in design or the manner of our objection despite that information being available. We have spent many hours trying to communicate our concerns and identify mutually workable solutions. In light of the risks inherent in the new design and CP’s unwillingness to negotiate an MoU we have no option but to maintain our objection in the strongest possible terms.

To reiterate, we cannot accept or assume the risks inherent in the CP project as offered. We have 29 years remaining tenure for this location (with an option for renewal) and this project represents an unacceptable level of sustained risk to the public, our guests and our business.

We trust that the application process will support LRA’s legally permitted activity to continue without the long-term risk this application by CP represents.

Lardeau River Adventures is prepared to meet with key decision makers on this issue.

Appendix A

AN OBJECTION BY LARDEAU RIVER ADVENTURES LTD. TO THE PROPOSED COLUMBIA POWER LARDEAU RIVER SIDE CHANNEL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

PRESENTED AND PREPARED BY OLIVER HOPWOOD, CO-OWNER AND DIRECTOR OF LARDEAU RIVER ADVENTURES LTD.

JULY 29, 2015

LARDEAU RIVER ADVENTURES LICENCE OF OCCUPATION FILE # 4405444

Background

Lardeau River Adventures Ltd (LRA) is an eco-adventure company based out of Meadow Creek, BC. We specialize in river rafting day trips on the Lardeau River in the West Kootenay region of British Columbia.

The Lardeau River is a free-flowing wild river. The upper reaches flow through the Goat Range Provincial Park whilst the remainder is surrounded by a mix of private and Crown land.

Access to the river bed for the purposes of launching and retrieving rafts is extremely limited due to the combined effects of the thick vegetation, steep shoreline, dangerous currents, wood hazards, lack of proximity to the highway (Highway 31), and seasonal changes.

We object to the project as proposed by Columbia Power on the grounds of non-compatibility of the project design as offered, both with our operations and those of private users.

About us

Oliver Hopwood: BSc (Physical Geography – Hydrology & Biogeography) Post Grad Diploma in Wildlife & Forestry Conservation NZ Class 5 Senior Guide (highest level in NZ) BC Trip Leader Oar / Paddle / Motor (highest level in the Province) 12 years experience professional rafting in BC (25 years including rafting in Australia and NZ). Former owner and founder of Adams River Rafting, Scotch Creek, BC. 6 years as a Biodiversity Ranger / Project Leader in NZ 2 years as Senior Ranger Community / Partnerships, NZ

Tamara Henry: BSc Anthropology (Primatology) 2 year diploma in Landscape Design 5 years at the Calgary Zoo working with Canadian native species. 3 years at Auckland Zoo working with NZ native species. 69

2 years with NZ Department of Conservation managing 2 critically endangered endemic bird species on a predator-free offshore island (Tiritiri Matangi). 3 years with Auckland Council Regional Parks as a park ranger and information officer. Former owner and founder of Naturescape NZ Ltd., a sustainable landscape design company

We include the above information to show that we have both held careers in parks and conservation in Canada and New Zealand. We have also managed projects pertaining to recreational access and biodiversity enhancement. Not only do we have a vested interest but we are also professionally qualified to comment.

In 2013 Tamara sold her landscape design company and I resigned from my parks job in NZ and immigrated to Meadow Creek for the sole purpose of providing sustainable eco-adventures on the Lardeau River.

In the short time we have been operating, we have been well-received by our friends and neighbors locally and by tourists from further afield. We offer the following Trip Advisor link for your consideration: http://www.tripadvisor.ca/Attraction_Review-g793329-d6214225-Reviews-Lardeau_River_Adventures- Kaslo_Kootenay_Rockies_British_Columbia.html

The site

The site is located at N 50 19’ 06.1”, W 116 58’ 56.3” or, 50.318361 116.982306

On pages 13 / 14 of our ATMP it is referred to as 4. Howser North (Highway 31) take-out site.

We spent 18 months running the river at all water levels and exploring the options before we applied for tenure. In this time we travelled in excess of 3000 km on the Lardeau. We soon became aware of how few suitable take-out sites there were on the river and how this site perfectly fit the bill. It is the takeout for all of our commercial trips and the basis upon which we have developed the package that we offer. Our continued use and safe access to this site is crucial to the ongoing operations of Lardeau River Adventures.

Specifically, we chose this site because it has several key features that we could not find anywhere else on the river. 1. All season utility. The site provides a consistent and safe back eddy feature that is reliable and accessible at all water flows and at all times of the year. 2. Safe. Due to the shelter provided by a rock groyne, the size and shape of the riverbed substrate (cobbles) and adequate depth even in low water, this site represents a low hazard for our clients. 3. Accessibility. This site is easily accessed from Hwy 31. It lies on a straight piece of road allowing safe entry and exit for our vans and trailers to back in despite the frequent presence of high speed heavy vehicle traffic such as logging trucks. 4. Level grade. There is a gentle slope from the river to the bank and allows guests of various ages and abilities easy and immediate access from the raft to the van. 70

5. Open site lines. The site is open and right on the highway and as such is not utilized by the public for illegal camping, garbage dumping, campfires, an toilet spot or general vandalism. It is very low maintenance. 6. Low impact. As an eco-adventure company, we did not want to bulldoze a new site to the river and/or cut down any trees. Excavating a fresh site also opens up the risk that the shoreline and eddy will destabilize over time. This low-impact approach also helped in garnering the local support we enjoy to this day. 7. Non-exclusive. We are happy to keep the area clear and clean up the occasional litter at the site. This site is also used by locals and tourists as a safe swimming hole. It is further used by private kayakers and canoeists as a put-in / take-out site. And it is a popular spot to view the kokanee salmon staging on their upriver migration. Our continued and long-term occupation of this site is entirely supportive of and can easily accommodate these compatible uses of the site.

We obtained a 30 year license of occupation from the Crown on August 16, 2014. Part of this process was two weeks of public notification including publishing the exact location (with maps) of our proposed tenure sites in early 2014 and soliciting direct input from interested parties as identified by the Crown. There were no objections. We were thrilled at obtaining both our Park-Use Permit and our License of Occupation.

These permits and the specific sites within them represent essential core assets to our business. Based on the access to these sites, we have invested over $300 000 building a viable local business in an area that is economically depressed. This investment into the local community has the potential of helping to sustainably supporting the community well into the future.

Communications with Columbia Power

LRA first became aware of the proposed project by Columbia Power at a Meadow Creek Open House on March 4, 2015. This meeting included maps and project promotional material produced by Columbia Power. Tamara (Co-owner and director of LRA), who happened out of personal interest to be present at the public meeting, noted that the location occupied our raft take-out location. This situation was raised at the meeting and was the very first occasion that Columbia Power knew or heard of our tenure.

The Columbia Power representatives present at the presentation and with whom we have been in contact with are: Wendy Horan, Manager, Environmental Programs [email protected] Krista Watts, Environmental Support Manager [email protected]

Following the Open House, at their request, we provided Columbia Power immediately with our tenure details including file number promptly and in good faith.

We met with Krista and a Columbia Power engineer onsite March 13. On March 14, 2015, we confirmed by email that Lardeau River Adventures would not support structures in the take-out eddy. Krista (and later both Krista and Wendy) assured us verbally and via email that they did not wish to inconvenience us or our operations at all and to quote, “would walk away” from the project if we were not in agreement. However, the last two emails received confirmed that they have elected to proceed despite our objection and have decided to utilize the Option 1 Pipe Intake (please see Table 2 below). 71

At the last site meeting on May 4, Columbia Power offered to provide us with an alternate site. We agreed to inspect the site offered and assess suitability. From this visit and several more taken subsequently in our own time to observe how the site altered with differing flows, it was immediately apparent the site wasn’t suitable for a number of reasons. On May 25 Columbia Power asked if the site was suitable. We informed Columbia Power that it was not acceptable on May 27.

A report was commissioned by Columbia Power to assess the various engineering options for constructing a fish channel. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants presented the report to Columbia Power on May 15, 2015. Table 2, taken from page 11 of the report, is pasted below:

Table 2. Original Open Option 1 Pipe Option 2 Rock Option 3 Pipe + Option 4 Option Channel Intake Filter Filter Relocated Intake comparison of objectives Objective 1. Safety 1 2 4 2 4 impacts to LRA 2. Reliability of 5 3 2 4 3 intake 3. Maintenance 3 3 3 3 2 (sedimentation) 4. Effective 5 2 2 3 1 habitat area 5. Re-design 5 3 2 1 1 effort 6. Design 5 4 1 3 3 Convention 7. Impact to LRA 1 2 3 2 4 Overall Rank 25 19 17 18 18

The last email we received from Columbia Power on June 30 confirms that they intend to proceed with the fish channel project at our take out location in spite of our objections. They identify Option 1 Pipe Intake as their preferred option.

We find this option unacceptable. We had advised Columbia Power at the initial March 13 site visit that we objected to any structure within the take-out pool including an intake pipe on the grounds of public safety and future impacts. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants have also ranked this option as a 2 out of 5 for safety to us and a 2 out of 5 in terms of impacts (5 being ideal and 1 very poor). Not only does this option put our business at significant risk, it does not even rank well in meeting the original objectives of their project (2 out of 5 for effective habitat area). Columbia Power is insisting on continuing with this project despite our objections and despite our having identified other options that would be acceptable to us. Option 4 scores only one point less overall but registers an improved 4 out of 5 for both impacts and safety on our business. Further they have refused to acknowledge our requests for assurances that they guarantee our business will not be affected by their project, leaving us at a total impasse. Clearly, even when judged by the results offered by their own contracted consultants, this project is not compatible with our tenured operations. 72

We have consistently been advocates of them moving their intake downstream of the take-out pool and raised this at the very first meeting we had.

We have asked Columbia Power if they could provide us with several assurances surrounding the project. These are taken from our last email to Columbia Power on July 8, 2015 (still unacknowledged at time of writing):

We formally request a list of contacts of all key stakeholders, including your supervisor or manager to be provided upon receipt of this email.

We also formally request Columbia Power's application number with Front Counter BC.

Further, we formally request that we receive in writing:

1. Columbia Power's guarantee that the proposed channel will not change the all-season hydraulics of our take-out eddy rendering the site unsuitable or less suitable for our purposes.

2. Columbia Power's guarantee that the proposed channel will not pose an increased health and safety risk to our commercial clientele.

3. Columbia Power's guarantee that you will remedy or remove your structure at any time and promptly should it suffer changes that increase or initiate a hazard.

This was the second email we had sent outlining both the assurances we required and the request for their list of stakeholders and the file number for their application. To date, they have not satisfied or acknowledged any of these requests. We believe that our input, suggestions and concerns are not being passed on to other relevant stakeholders and the little contact we have had with some of them confirms this.

This is the second attempt by Columbia Power to get a similar project off the ground on the Lardeau River. The first attempt ended in a private landholder refusing to continue to work with them. Columbia Power’s assertion that they are obligated to meet and satisfy their stakeholders is being used as a reason to charge ahead despite our objections. This is simply not true, as we are also key stakeholders. Not only have we have never been invited to meet, consult or present to the other stakeholders, Columbia Power has refused to tell us who they are.

We declined the last offer for a site visit emailed on June 30 due to unavailability. We have entered our peak season and are now operating 7 days/week through July, August and the first 2 weeks of September. We had previously advised Columbia Power that we would be unavailable over this period. The invitation came as a surprise due to Columbia Power’s failure to respond to a previous email 5 weeks previous. Columbia Power’s insistence on maintaining the original timeline of completing the project this fall (2015) has put significant pressure on us. This timeline remains unchanged from before they were made aware of our 73

tenure. We simply don’t have adequate time to comprehensively evaluate alternative options and outline our objections to the current plan.

Columbia Power has ceased all communications with us and has not provided any acknowledgment or receipt of our last email or our repeated request for information nor have they made any comment on our request for assurances. Following our complete and immediate disclosure of our tenure details and our attending multiple on-site visits at their request, this has been a disappointing development.

Further considerations

The Lardeau River is a very dynamic river. It has a flow regime that is highly variable ranging from an average high flow of 200-230 m3/sec to lows of 10-15 m3/sec. It carries a great deal of material both surface and subsurface and bed substrate migration is constant, especially in June freshet. There have been fish enhancement projects attempted in the past on the Lardeau. There are several now-defunct fish channels along the length of river that are now high and dry due to natural changes in flow.

To quote the Northwest Hydraulic Consultant’s May 15, 2015 report:

The Lardeau River exhibits a wandering gravel-bed morphology, a channel form characterized by irregularly sinuous single-thread reaches separated from wider sedimentation zones. Channel changes through bank erosion, log and debris jams, channel shifting, and complete avulsions are often associated with the wandering form. This results in an extensive network of seasonal, perennial, and abandoned side channels. The timescale for changes is of the order several years to several decades and is not necessarily correlated to flood magnitude.

Not only will this structure represent a long-term risk to us and other legitimate public river users, this option does not fully meet it’s own original requirements. Further, the life span of the project structure, due to the naturally highly variable environment of the Lardeau River, is questionable. For example, we have seen the entire main river channel swap sides of the valley, not in several years or decades, but in one single regular freshet event (June 2012 – site 2 kms north of Rapid Creek).

Summary

We do not make this objection based on comparing the merits of a fish enhancement project vs. a business providing local livelihoods. That is values-based and highly subjective.

Our objection focuses on the risk that having a piped intake in the take-out eddy represents to our business and more importantly to the safety and well-being of our guests and other private recreational users.

We cannot accept or assume the risks inherent in the Columbia Power project as offered. We have 29 years remaining tenure for this location (with an option for renewal) and this project represents an unacceptable level of sustained risk to the public, our guests and our business.

Lardeau River Adventures is prepared to meet with key decision makers on this issue.

74 Synopsis of the Columbia Power Lardeau River Side Channel Enhancement Project and the Objection by Lardeau River Adventures Ltd.

November 04, 2015

About Lardeau River Adventures Ltd.:

 summer river rafting company established in 2013  acquired both Crown Land Tenure and a Park-Use Permit to operate  experienced a 40% increase in business in 2015  employs local people  has invested over $300,000 locally in a sustainable ecotourism business  won Gold Medal in the Best of Business Awards 2014 (Kootenay Business Magazine)  ranked the #1 “Thing to Do” in Kaslo & Area by Trip Advisor  Lardeau River Adventures has a 30 year License of Occupation for the site in question. The takeout eddy is an essential element to our business and a key asset.

Stakeholders in this project:

• Lardeau River Adventures

• Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

• Friends of the Lardeau River

• Regional District Area D Representative

• Local Community

• Mayor of Kaslo

• Grizzly Bear Ranch

• Steering Committee (DFO, FLNRO, and First Nations Representatives)

Columbia Power:

 Proposed a side channel enhancement project to increase fry habitat for rainbow trout.  This was their second choice of site having had public relations difficulties with their first option.  Lardeau River Adventures became aware of the project at a Meadow Creek Open House in March 2015 where we identified the location as being in conflict with our tenured site. The project was already at an advanced stage. We had not been identified as stakeholders. Columbia Power had no idea we had tenure for this location.  We provided Columbia Power our tenure details including a map within 24 hours - they confirmed that their project occupies that area.  Site visit in March - Columbia Power showed us their plan. It required a hard breakwater structure in the middle of our takeout eddy. We told them that would render our takeout site 75 unusable. A second option was raised consisting of an intake pipe in the takeout eddy. (We use this site for either entry or exit for every one of our tours.)  We confirmed in March that due to the longterm and ongoing risk to our business, coupled with the increased safety risk to guests and the general public, we could not support the construction of an intake device in the takeout eddy. We suggested that they move it downstream.  They claimed the engineers couldn’t make that design feasible - would we move our tenured site to a different location of their choosing?  We inspected the site and found it completely unsuitable and declined the offer.  Following this meeting we had no communication from CP for two months. When we next heard from them, it was to confirm that they were proceeding with their permit application - the design was unchanged and included the hard structure within the takeout eddy.  We contacted them and asked them for some assurances regarding the risks associated with their project - they broke off all communications with us.  We submitted an objection to Front Counter BC and the Water Stewardship Department in Nelson.  Columbia Power contacted RDCK Area D representative Aimee Watson a few days before we contacted her independently seeking advice. We welcomed the inclusion of Aimee as it represented a means of resuming discussions and consultation.  We met with Aimee onsite and explained our concerns and said that we would be happy if the intake was moved downstream - she discussed this option with Audrey Repin of Columbia Power.  Another onsite meeting was called by Columbia Power scheduled for Oct 2. This was presented to us as a ‘fresh start’.  We were disappointed that despite our repeated objections to structure in the takeout eddy and our formal objection listing our concerns and the assurances we required (emails which were never responded to or acknowledged) the new design still requires structure in the takeout eddy. It has been moved approximately 3 m North. (Our rafts are 5 meters long.)  Mid-October we confirmed that our objection remains for all the original reasons in our formal objection and that the assurances sought have never been recognized. Further, the new location has significant safety risks associated with it that will form the basis of an amended objection.  Despite these risks, we did offer a concession to Columbia Power. If we could discuss the four assurances we sought in our correspondence dating back to July 3, and have that form the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between our two parties, we would retract our objection. Columbia Power has rejected our offer of a MoU. We feel an MoU would reflect their confidence in the safety and longterm viability of their project while removing the risk potential to stakeholders and provide Lardeau River Adventures with the security required to operate into the future.  Columbia Power confirmed mid-October that they were presenting their proposal for permit approval on Nov 4, 2015.

Lardeau River Adventures feels we have made a significant concession in providing a mechanism by which Columbia Power could remove the risk from their project to the stakeholders, our business, guests and general public. The assurances we requested (copied below from an email sent by us to Columbia Power on July 3) have been steadfastly ignored.

Further, we formally request that we receive in writing:

1. Columbia Power's guarantee that the proposed channel will not change the all-season hydraulics of our take-out eddy rendering the site unsuitable or less suitable for our purposes.

2. Columbia Power's guarantee that the proposed channel will not pose an increased health and safety risk to our commercial clientele.

3. Columbia Power's guarantee that you will remedy or remove your structure at any time and promptly should it suffer changes that increase or initiate a hazard.

Lardeau River Adventures has a complete written record with exact dates available to support our objection. It seems that there has been very little consultation with the stakeholders listed above, especially given the changes made to the plan and the concerns we have raised.

We hope that the same process by which we applied under in good faith in order to secure long term tenure and establish a sustainable business in the West Kootenays will also provide us with the longterm security required in order to continue.

Sincerely Yours,

Oliver Hopwood & Tamara henry

30 Gostick Place | North Vancouver, BC V7M 3G3 | 604.980.6011 | www.nhcweb.com77

NHC Ref. No. 300373

2015 October 28

Columbia Power Corporation Suite 200, 445-13th Avenue Castlegar, British Columbia C1N 1G1

Attention: Krista Watts Environmental Manager

Via email: [email protected]

Re: Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Comparison

Dear Ms. Watts:

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Limited (NHC) has prepared this document presenting intake configuration options for the proposed Lardeau River side channel habitat project at 10.65L. This document was originally prepared May 14 prior to redesign of the side channel. The comparison of the chosen intake design has been updated in the attached appendix following detailed design of the alternative intake.

1 INTRODUCTION

NHC and AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC) were retained by Columbia Power Corporation (CPC) to provide consulting services for the development of fish habitat compensation associated with upgrades to CPC’s Brilliant Dam hydroelectric project in Castlegar, BC. Fish habitat compensation has been proposed along a side channel of the Lardeau River along Highway 31, 10.65 km upstream of the confluence with the Duncan River. The Lardeau River exhibits a wandering gravel-bed morphology, a channel form characterized by irregularly sinuous single-thread reaches separated from wider sedimentation zones. Channel changes through bank erosion, log and debris jams, channel shifting, and complete avulsions are often associated with the wandering form. This results in an extensive network of seasonal, perennial, and abandoned side channels. The timescale for changes is of the order several years to several decades and is not necessarily correlated to flood magnitude.

water resource specialists

The 10.65L site was selected as an appropriate site for habitat compensation due to:

• The site is located along Highway 31, providing immediate access for construction, monitoring, and future maintenance.

• The site is located immediately downstream of a rock riprap groyne that has resulted in a persistently deep scour hole providing ideal hydraulics for an intake.

• The 10.65L side channel is located along the outside of a bend in a relatively narrow section of the valley, with the main channel maintaining a similar alignment since the mid 1970’s to early 1980’s and its general form has been relatively stable since 1985 (based on comparison of historic orthophotos from 1945, 1951, 1970, 1981, 1985, 1991, 1997, and 2005).

• The historic side channel is expected to have adequate length and area to allow for the development of habitat that meets the compensation objectives of 500 juvenile rainbow trout without extensive excavation or disturbance.

• The site is located on Crown Land. Although located on Crown Land, a private land tenure was recently acquired at the upstream portion of the site by Lardeau River Adventures (LRA) for river rafting tour put-in and pull-out. LRA have expressed a positive position towards the intent of the project, as well as concerns with the location of the proposed intake - as it potentially conflicts with their tenured use of the site. This document presents options to reduce the conflict between the proposed habitat channel and the tenured use at the intake site. Options presented focus on redesign of the intake. Relocation of the site, although an option, has not been further considered within this document due to the extent of change required; that is, site identification, site assessment (biological, geomorphic, hydraulic), site design, land tenure/right-of-way, permitting, and stakeholder consultation.

1.1 Site Meeting

On 13 March 2015, representatives of CPC (Krista Watts) and NHC (Dale Muir) met with the owners of LRA on-site to discuss the site, LRA’ s use, the proposed habitat channel, and alternative intake options. Points presented by LRA include:

• Site is used primarily from April to October by the operators and their clients. • Safety of staff and clients is their paramount concern, this includes maintaining a relatively large eddy sheltered from the main flow, free of nearby hazards - such as debris and adverse hydraulics (i.e. intake channel).

• LRA uses the area to allow parking of vehicles to stage boats, gear, staff, and clients. • LRA is providing a wilderness adventure and prefers to have the site looking natural without human disturbances.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 2 Alternative Intake Options Development 79

• LRA stated that they have no intention of changing location of their operations/tenure and no alternative sites have been identified by LRA or others.

• LRA appreciates the benefits for developing and improving habitat along the Lardeau River, but prefers if it is located elsewhere. At the very least they would like the project located 80 m downstream where there is existing hazards - that is the entrance of the second left bank ide channel along the 10.65L site where there is an existing log jam hazard.

2 OBJECTIVES

The LRA tenure should be reviewed to confirm the extent and range of constraints placed on the site. The habitat channel is expected to need redesign to avoid infringement of the tenure and avoid increasing the risk to the safety of LRA and its clients. It is also desirable that the habitat channel will not impact any additional concerns of the tenure holder; that is vehicle access and natural appearance of the site. In order to meet the constraints placed on the project it is expected that the proposed open channel intake originally proposed will have to be relocated or redesigned. The redesign will be guided by the following criteria:

• Intake is to not negatively impact the safety for tenured use of the upstream portion of the site (i.e. boaters, swimmers, and vehicles with boat trailers for river raft pull-in and pull-out at the rock groin).

• Intake is to be reliable throughout the range of normal flow and seasonal conditions (i.e. 7day10-year low flow to 20+ year flood, winter freeze-up) and meet hydraulic flow requirements to provide sufficient discharges and velocities along the proposed fish habitat compensation.

• Intake and any associated berms are to limit the likelihood of the habitat channel infilling with sediment.

• Intake location and resulting channel alignment are able to meet compensation target.

The following additional objectives are to be considered if possible:

• Scour Pool at the rock spur and vortex (eddy) downstream are to be minimally impacted.

• Damage/removal of existing trees on the spur shall be minimized.

• Site is to maintain a natural appearance, free from obvious human impacts and influence.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 3 Alternative Intake Options Development 80

3 OPTIONS

Initial options considered are: 1. Pipe intake at the original intake location (i.e. rock groyne). 2. Rock filter at original intake location. 3. Closed conduit pipe in combination with a rock filter intake at original intake location. 4. Relocated intake to 80 m downstream of original intake at the location of an existing debris jam blocked channel entrance. Other options considered, include:

• Piped intake located immediately upstream of the rock groyne - this option was not considered due to the potential deposition at this location and already shallow channel depth (less than 0.5 m).

• Piped intake located 55 m upstream of the rock groyne at an existing smaller rock groyne - despite this option providing increased hydraulic gradient or driving head for the habitat channel, it was not considered due to the limited space between the road and the river preventing placement of an intake pipe without removing the few mature trees or encroaching on the road. This option may warrant further consideration if disturbance to the road or mature trees is acceptable. Figure 5 presents a sketch of this option.

• Use of infiltration gallery within the river - this was not considered due to the level of site disturbance, limited grade through the site, and level of engineering required to limit the risk of such a design.

• Use of a large diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert (i.e. 1.5+ CMP) upstream of the rock groyne - although this option would deliver greater flow than the other options, it was not considered due to susceptibility to debris blockage, potential for deposition of sediment, extensive site disturbance, and safety risk to rafters passing the intake. The various intake alternatives impact the flow through the habitat channel and the driving head (difference in water upstream of the intake with respect to the outlet of the habitat channel). A reduction in flow limits the mobilization and transport of sediment and thus the scour around the engineered log jams (ELJ). Therefore, alternative intakes that divert less flow (i.e. pipe and rock filter) require a change in consideration of pools function. Instead of being maintained through scour of incoming sediment it is preferential to further limit the inflow of sediment; such as use of a berm between the main channel and the side channel to further reduce flood overflow. Pool structure is expected to persist closer to constructed dimensions, differentiated from the original open channel design in which the pools would eventually be defined by local scour at the ELJs.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 4 Alternative Intake Options Development 81

The hydraulic driving head influences the amount of flow passing through the intake as well as limits the length of channel and number of channel and pool elements. The pools have negligible hydraulic gradient (i.e. change in head), but the channel elements require slope and head loss to maintain flow and transport any suspended sediment. Intake options are discussed below. Figure 1 provides a plan view of the site noting some of the critical elements of consideration from the groyne downstream.

3.1 Option 1 – Pipe Intake at Groyne

Option 1 involves installation of a closed conduit pipe intake. The inlet would be situated within the 2.5 m (approximate) deep scour hole at the downstream end of the rock spur. The installation of intake and conduit is not anticipated to affect the hydraulics near the spur and is expected to be constructed of steel pipe, 700 mm diameter and 70 m long, and provide discharge to the habitat channel estimated between 200 to 400 L/s (0.2 - 0.4 m3/s) , depending on stage levels in the Lardeau River. This is a substantial reduction in design flow from the 1 - 30 m3/s expected with the open channel design which would require a reduction in the width of the channels between each pool. The head difference from the intake to the outlet is roughly 1.3 m, similar to the original design. The berm would be realigned approximately 40 m downstream and tie into the Highway 31 embankment providing a landing area between the spur and berm for rafts to be taken in and out of the river. Excavated materials would be used to construct a berm along the existing high ground along the length of the channel to limit overflow from the main channel during events in excess of roughly the 10- year event. On average this is 0.5 m of fill. Design for the pools and channels within the fish habitat compensation would require modification. Overall pool lengths would be increased roughly 50%, channel widths reduced 50% and channel lengths reduced up to 35% to maintain target velocities and water depths under the reduced flow regime. Advantages of this option include:

• Habitat profile length and water surface profile would largely remain intact facilitating construction of 7 large woody debris (LWD) complex structures in their original design locations (LWD structures also referred to as engineered log jams or ELJs).

• Channel re-alignment and re-design effort would be minimal. • Cut-off berm would facilitate increased level of protection against the 2 – 10 year flood flows in comparison to the original open channel design.

• Buried conduit would not be exposed and only visible through the water. Disadvantages of this option include:

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 5 Alternative Intake Options Development 82

• Flushing of sediment that could enter the system through overtopping of the berm or back flooding at the channel outlet would be reduced due to the lower flow released from the pipe (in comparison to the original open channel design).

• Width of the channel sections and overall wetted project area would be reduced to account for the reduced flow.

• Inspection and maintenance of the intake may be required more frequently to ensure optimal operation, especially in the first couple years of operation and following extreme flood events.

• Depth of the pipe inlet to maintain a safe distance from water surface (to avoid conflict with rafts and swimmers) in comparison with the pipe outlet (to retain similar excavation depths and water surface profile through the habitat channel) would result in reverse sloped pipe (i.e. intake would be lower than outlet) - potentially placing the pipe susceptible to blockage. Intake screens may reduce this risk, but increase the size and cost of the intake.

• Intake pipe would have to be at a suitable depth to prevent river ice (bank ice or floes) from blocking the intake and reducing performance (it would be at adequate depth at this location). The pipe intake should be designed to have low enough intake velocity and adequate depth to avoid creating an entrapment hazard for rafting or swimming along the surface as well as maintain ice-free operation during winter months. Sign warning of the submerged intake would still be prudent to caution against swimming along the bottom of the channel at the intake location. Figure 2 provides a sketch depicting this option.

3.2 Option 2 – Rock Filter at Original Intake Location

Option 2, rock filter, involves the construction of an approximately 1 - 2 m high and 15 - 20 m long coarse rock section across the upstream berm. The rock filter would be located immediately downstream of the rafting put-in / pull-out. Flow through the coarse rock would then be used to supply water to the habitat channel. Discharge to the habitat is estimated between 200 – 1000 L/s (0.2 - 1 m3/s), depending on stage levels in the Lardeau River. The head difference from the intake to the outlet is roughly 1.3 m, similar to the original design and Option 1. Similar to Option 1, the berm at the upstream end would be realigned to provide a landing area, and excavated material would be used to construct a berm along the length of the channel to limit overflow from the main channel. As well the design of the habitat would require modification with overall pool lengths increased roughly 50%, channel widths reduced 50% and channel lengths reduced up to 35% to maintain target velocities and water depths under the reduced flow regime. Advantages of using a rock filter are:

• Habitat profile length and head would largely remain intact facilitating construction of 7 LWD complex structures in their original design locations.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 6 Alternative Intake Options Development 83

• Channel re-alignment and re-design effort would be moderate.

• Rock filter provides increased protection from high flow and sediment loads entering the habitat channel during low and moderate flood events. Disadvantages of this option include:

• Rock filter intake may be difficult to define the intake flow and velocity (low design convention).

• Rock filter may be susceptible to blockage due to sediment piping and deposition, possibly more so within the back eddy than where there is high shear velocity alongside it.

• Width of the channel sections and overall wetted project area would be reduced to account for the reduced flow. • Maintenance may be required, and could eventually include disassembling and reconstruction of the rock filter.

• May be more aesthetically obtrusive than other options. • Rock filter at or near the original intake location would require substantial re-shaping of the bar and bank to develop a relatively thin filter with steep banks in comparison to the existing wide shallow sloped bar.

• Depth of the filter rock would have to be adequate to prevent blockage from shore ice, however deepening of the channel along the intake may leave it susceptible to sedimentation. Figure 3 provides a sketch of this option.

3.3 Option 3 – Pipe and Rock Filter at Original Intake Location

Option 3 involves combining Option 1 and Option 2 with pipe intake located in the deep scour hole at the end of the rock groyne – as described in Option 1, and a rock filter located immediately downstream of the rafting put-in / pull-out – as described in Option 2. The advantages of incorporating both the pipe intake and rock filter over Option 1 and Option 2 are:

• Added resilience to blockage or damage of the inlet • Increased flow from pipe and filter combination (500 - 1400 L/s or 0.5 - 1.4 m3/s). As well as many of the benefits of Option 1 and Option 2, that is:

• Habitat profile length and head would largely remain intact facilitating construction of 7 LWD complex structures in their original design locations.

• Channel re-alignment and re-design effort would be moderate. • Cut-off berm and rock filter would facilitate increased level of protection against the 2 – 10 year flood flows in comparison to the original open channel design.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 7 Alternative Intake Options Development 84

The primary disadvantage of this option is the increased cost for design and construction. In addition many of the same disadvantages from Option 1 and Option 2 persist, such as:

• Flushing of sediment that could enter the system through overtopping of the berm or back flooding at the channel outlet would be reduced from the open channel design due to the lower flow released from the pipe (in comparison to the original open channel design).

• Width of the channel sections and overall wetted project area would be reduced from the open channel design to account for the reduced flow.

• Inspection and maintenance of the intake may be required more frequently to ensure optimal operation, especially in the first couple years of operation and following extreme flood events.

• Intake pipe would have to be at a suitable depth to prevent river ice (bank ice or floes) from blocking the intake and reducing performance (it would be at adequate depth at this location).

• Rock filter intake may be difficult to define the intake flow and velocity (low design convention). • Rock filter may be susceptible to blockage due to sedimentation, possibly more so within the back eddy than where there is high shear velocity alongside it.

• Maintenance may be required, and could eventually include disassembling and reconstruction of the rock filter.

3.4 Option 4 – Relocate Channel Inlet Downstream

Option 4, involves relocating the open channel inlet downstream from groyne to the inlet of an existing historic side channel or secondary channel located between the proposed habitat channel and the main channel. Two potential intake locations exist, one 80 m downstream and another 150 m downstream. Only the site 80 m downstream is considered to maximise habitat area and hydraulic head.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 8 Alternative Intake Options Development 85

This potential intake site is located downstream of cobble riffle that has developed downstream of the groyne scour hole. This results in reduced hydraulic gradient through the potential project, resulting in available hydraulic head of 0.7 m to 1.1 m depending of flow conditions. The riffle upstream of this site maintains water levels immediately upstream (at the initial intake location) during low flows. Therefore the water level at the Option 4 intake site varies more with flow than at the intake location for Option 1- 3. Use of the site 80 m downstream of the intake site could supply the design side channel from roughly Pool 3 onwards. However, the reduced hydraulic gradient through the site would limit the number of channel sections, and hence the number pools to four. The size of the pools could be increased to limit the reduction in total wetted habitat area. In addition the secondary side channel, between the design channel and the main channel, could also be further developed. Use of the secondary side channel could add roughly another two pools avoiding a reduction in total pool habitat area. Initially a piped intake was not considered at this site, as it is downstream of the apex of the bend and thought to be more susceptible to channel migration. However, comparison of bank line mapping from historic air photos shows that the main channel has followed a similar alignment for the past 30 years and been close or at this site for over 50 years. An existing jam of wood debris at this site has developed a 1 m deep scour hole. A pipe intake could be installed within this scour hole and the hole further developed with rock riprap armouring at the intake location. Supply to the design channel and secondary side channel may be provided from a single piped intake, two adjacent piped intakes, or possibly a combination of piped intake and rock filter. This site appears appropriate for a rock filter intake as there is substantial cross flow along the intake location and the banks are relatively steep, narrow, and adjacent to the main channel at this site. Depending on the intake design (pipe, 2 pipes, or pipe and rock filter) flow at this site could range from 200 – 1200 L/s (0.2 - 1.2 m3/s). The berm at the upstream end of the project would be relocated roughly 50 m downstream, leaving greater space for LRA in comparison to other options. Similar to Option 1, 2, and 3, excavated material would be used to construct a berm along the length of the channel to limit overflow from the main channel. Advantages of relocating the intake are:

• Maximizes the distance between the channel work and tenured boat put-in / pull-out area. • Minimal impact to hydraulics downstream of the spur (at the put-in / pull-out).

• An existing log jam at this site has developed a 1 to 1.5 m deep scour hole and limited inflow to a secondary side channel at moderate to high flow.

• The existing log jam at this site already poses a risk to rafters and swimmers. An intake at this site is not expected to substantially increase this risk. Disadvantages of this option include:

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 9 Alternative Intake Options Development 86

• Reduced habitat profile length.

• This option is expected to require an increased level of redesign, as the channel is redesigned to connect midway down the original design and the reduced length of channel would likely require greater inclusion of the secondary channel to meet compensation objectives. This may lead to incorporation of two intakes, with flow directed to both the original designed side channel and the secondary side channel.

• The location of this intake is downstream of a sizable riffle in the mainstem, reducing the driving head (hydraulic gradient), and expected wetted areas in habitat pools and channels during low to moderate flows (estimated reduction of roughly 0.5 m) .

• Relocating the intake downstream places it downstream of the apex of the outside bend, potentially leaving the intake at a location where the main channel is prone to migrate away from the intake. Comparison of historic air photos suggests the site has been stable for over 30 years. Figure 5 provides a plan schematic developed for this option.

4 COMPARISON OF OPTIONS

A comparison of design values for the various intake options is presented in Table 1 and includes habitat lengths, areas, velocities and a range of cost for intake construction. Tabulated values are rudimentary and based only on conceptual level sketches and have not been calculated or priced in detail. An evaluation of the design options is presented in Table 2 with options ranked for select design criteria. Rank was assigned between 1 and 5, with 5 being most likely to exceed project objective and 1 being least likely to meet project objective.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 10 Alternative Intake Options Development 87

Table 1. Intake option design value comparison

Original Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Variable Open Channel Pipe Intake Rock Filter Pipe + Filter Intake Relocated Hydraulic Gradient (head) {m} 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.8 Approx. Design Flow {m3/s} 1-30 0.2-0.4 0.2-1.0 0.5-1.4 0.2-1.2 Number of Pools 9 9 9 9 4 Number of Channels 9 8 8 8 3 Approx. Velocity in Pools (m/s) 0.01 – 0.1 0.01-0.1 0.01-0.1 0.01-0.1 0.01-0.1 Approx. Velocity in Channels 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 (m/s) Approx. Channel Length (m) 25 16 16 16 16 Approx. Pool Length (m) 20 30 30 30 30 Approx. Channel Top Width (m) 4.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Approx. Pool Top Width (m) 12 – 13.5 12 – 13.5 12 – 13.5 12 – 13.5 12 – 13.5 Approx. Channel Area {m2} 1015 285 285 285 140 Approx. Pool Area {m2} 2,250 3,400 3,400 3,400 1,500 Secondary Habitat Option Partial Partial Partial Partial Full Secondary Pools 0 0 0 0 2 Secondary Channel Area {m2} 60 60 60 60 50 Secondary Pool Area {m2} 0 0 0 0 700 Overall Habitat Length (m) 470 400 400 400 400* Approx. Intake Construction Cost $30K- $50K $50K-$70K $65K-$85K $100K-$120K $80K-$100K *Uncertain at this time. Partial = 1 continuous channel along secondary side channel; secondary intake 150 m downstream of original intake Full = 2 pools with LWD complexes along secondary side channel; secondary intake 80 m downstream of original intake

Table 2. Option comparison of objectives

Original Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Objective Open Channel Pipe Intake Rock Filter Pipe + Filter Relocated Intake 1. Safety impacts to LRA 1 2 4 2 4 2. Reliability of intake 5 3 2 4 3 3. Maintenance 3 3 3 3 2 (sedimentation) 4. Effective habitat area 5 2 2 3 1 5. Re-design effort 5 3 2 1 1 6. Design Convention 5 4 1 3 3 7. Impact to LRA 1 2 3 2 4 Overall Rank 25 19 17 18 18

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 11 Alternative Intake Options Development 88

Based on the valuation matrix, the best alternative to the original design is to construct the pipe intake at the groyne, Option 1. The lowest ranking criteria for this option is the risk to public safety. This stems primarily to the risk of entrapment of swimmers that are deep in the channel (that is greater than 1 to 1.5 m below the surface). Swimmers are not expected at this depth, however, design of the intake should take this into account to limit inlet velocity and orientation of the inlet (i.e. sloped downstream) to limit entrapment risk and place signage upstream and at the vehicle access point to discourage deep swimming - such as jumping off of the groyne into the pool. Addition of a rock filter to the pipe intake (Option 3) would have similar considerations as Option 1 except provide additional flow and resilience to the intake. The primary disadvantage of expanding Option 1 to Option 3 is the increased cost for redesign and construction. Option 2 is considered the less desirable mostly due to difficulty in accurate definition of flows and velocities for rock filter intakes. If Options 1 through 3 are deemed unacceptable, Option 4 - downstream relocation of the intake using a pipe or pipe and rock filter intake could be considered. However, this option has the most pronounced changes and is considered the least desirable option. This option results in reduced flow and gradient through the project, reduced channel length, development of primarily open pool habitat, and high intake cost.

5 BIOLOGICAL OPINION

The goal of this enhancement project is to provide additional or higher quality habitat that would support an additional 500 juvenile (age 1+) Rainbow Trout, over and above existing production levels. Therefore, habitat created in the enhanced side channel needs to include features similar to functioning side channels in the Lardeau River where Rainbow Trout juveniles are observed (adequate cover, depth, velocity) such as the enhanced side channel at Rkm 19.5L which is an open channel enhanced with large woody debris structures. The Rkm 19.5L side channel was used as the basis for estimating the number of structures to add and estimating the lineal density of Rainbow Trout (size 0-150 mm TL) that may result from enhancing side channel 10.65L with an open channel design (AMEC 2015). The original design for channel 10.65L (i.e., open channel) relied on channel design flows of 1-30 m3/s, whereas the alternative options do not have discharge >1.4 m3/s. While the alternative options may provide adequate cover, depth and velocity components for juveniles, the lower overall flows likely will create open water habitat that may permit beavers to colonize the area as has been observed in upstream side channels that have low flows. Previous estimates of juvenile Rainbow Trout production for the original channel design were based on creating an enhanced channel similar to that at RKm 19.5L (Table 3). However, there is now greater uncertainty if similar production densities can be expected in the alternative channel options given the changes in design described above.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 12 Alternative Intake Options Development 89

Table 3. Option comparison of estimated lineal densities of juvenile Rainbow Trout (AMEC 2015).

Original Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Objective Open Channel Pipe Intake Rock Filter Pipe + Filter Intake Relocated Overall Length (m) 470 400 400 400 400* Estimated Lineal density of 696 592 592 592 592* juvenile Rainbow Trout

*Uncertain at this time.

6 CLOSURE

We hope this document meet your current needs. However feel free to contact Aaron Blezy or Dale Muir by telephone (604.980.6011) or email ([email protected] | [email protected]) to discuss further.

Sincerely, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd.

Unsigned draft by:

Aaron Blezy, P.Eng. Project Engineer

Reviewed By: Dale Muir, P.Eng., Principal

Biological Opinion Provided By: Louise Porto, Senior Aquatic Habitat Biologist; Crystal Lawrence, Aquatic Habitat Biologist - Amec Foster Wheeler; and, Harvey Andrusak, Senior Biologist – Redfish Consulting Ltd.

DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and is intended for the exclusive use and benefit of Amec Foster Wheeler and Columbia Power Corporation and their authorized representatives for specific application to the Design of Habitat Compensation Channel 10.65L on the Lardeau River. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any parties other than AMEC Foster Wheeler and Columbia Power Corporation.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 13 Alternative Intake Options Development 90

ATTACHMENT FIGURES

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation 15 Alternative Intake Options Development 91

Figure 1. Site plan

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 92

Figure 2. Piped intake

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 93

Figure 3. Rock filter intake

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 94

Figure 4. Pipe and rock fill intake

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 95

Figure 5. Relocation of intake downstream to secondary channel intakes

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 96

Figure 6. Piped intake relocated to existing rock groyne 55 m upstream

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 97

APPENDIX A PIPED INTAKE DESIGN

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 98

Concerns over safety was the primary disadvantage of a piped intake. It was expected that a piped intake could be designed to address these concerns, and hence such a design was further developed. The initial piped intake concept was based on a “wing-style” intake that is an extension of steel pipe with 1 to 2 m open slot on its downstream side, a vortex plate above the opening, and metal bar trash rack crossing from the vortex plate to the bottom of the pipe. Instead a piped intake was designed to address the safety concerns. The intake has been located and designed to be integrated within the existing rock groyne structure to avoid changing local hydraulics or visually impacting the site. The design flow and subsequent size of intake box have been limited to further reduce the local disturbance to the site. The intake was designed as a submerged box intake to be located along the side of the scour hole at the existing rock groyne. Some key features of the intake designed to improve safety are:

• The intake opening has been sized much larger than the pipe to keep the approach velocity entering the intake low (less than 0.5 m/s) and much less than the average channel velocity across the intake to avoid ingestion or entrapment.

• The pipe size has been minimized to meet flow requirements for the side channel minimizing inflow, velocity, and intake size.

• The bar spacing of the intake trash rack has been kept narrow – less than 50 mm.

• The intake trash rack is to be constructed of vertically aligned flat plates instead of bars, to prevent anything near the intake from being passing and getting caught behind the trash rack.

The following table provides an update to the original intake comparison.

Based on the valuation matrix, the best alternative to the original design is to construct the pipe intake at the groyne, Option 1. Through refined design of a piped intake the risk to safety has been addressed. Through detailed design of this alternative it was found that channel lengths and widths could be maintained and habitat values kept above the target. The piped intake limits high flows through the side channel and hence prevents the natural flushing of sediment. In order to address this, the location of the intake has been selected to limit the amount of sediment entering the system and the initial pool is expected to provide an opportunity for incoming sediment to deposit and be periodically removed. The primary remaining disadvantage of the piped intake is the cost of redesign and construction.

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 99

Table A1. Intake option design value comparison - revised

Original Option 1 Variable Open Channel Pipe Intake Hydraulic Gradient (head) {m} 1.3 1.3 Approx. Design Flow {m3/s} 1-30 0.4-0.6 Number of Pools 9 9 Number of Channels 9 8 Approx. Velocity in Pools (m/s) 0.01 – 0.1 0.01-0.1 Approx. Velocity in Channels (m/s) 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 Approx. Channel Length (m) 25 25 Approx. Pool Length (m) 20 20 Approx. Channel Top Width (m) 4.5 4 Approx. Pool Top Width (m) 12 – 13.5 12 – 13.5 Approx. Channel Area {m2} 1015 1000 Approx. Pool Area {m2} 2,250 2,500 Secondary Habitat Option Partial Full Secondary Pools 0 0 Secondary Channel Area {m2} 60 200 Secondary Pool Area {m2} 0 0 Overall Habitat Length (m) 470 400 Approx. Intake Construction Cost $30K- $50K $100K Partial = 30 m long continuous channel along secondary side channel; Full = 100 m long continuous channel along secondary side channel.

Table A2. Option comparison of objectives – Option 1 revised for current intake design

Option 4 Original Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Objective Relocated Open Channel Pipe Intake Rock Filter Pipe + Filter Intake 1. Safety impacts to LRA 1 4 4 2 4 2. Reliability of intake 5 4 2 4 3 3. Maintenance 3 3 3 3 2 (sedimentation) 4. Effective habitat area 5 5 2 3 1 5. Re-design effort 5 2 2 1 1 6. Design Convention 5 4 1 3 3 7. Impact to LRA 1 3 3 2 4 Overall Rank 25 25 17 18 18

Lardeau River Side Channel 10.65L Fish Habitat Compensation Alternative Intake Options Development 100

2015 Municipal Insurance Program

CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF KASLO

December 31, 2015 to December 31,2016

In Partnership with:

Ms. Paula Garrecht, CIP, CAIB (AB) Capri Insurance Services Ltd. Suite 100-1500 Hardy Street Kelowna, BC V1Y 8H2

Prepared by:

Jeff Coleman, C.R.M. Industry Leader and Vice President, Public Entity

Frank Cowan Company Limited 75 Main Street North Princeton, ON N0J 1V0

MIP 10/2013 101

About Frank Cowan Company

Frank Cowan Company is a leader in providing specialized insurance programs, including risk management and claims services to municipalities, healthcare, education, community, children’s and social service organizations across Canada. Proven industry knowledge, gained through eight decades of partnering with insurance companies and independent brokers, gives Frank Cowan Company the ability to effectively manage the necessary risk, advisory and claims services for both standard and complex issues.

Frank Cowan Company Limited is affiliated with Cowan Insurance Group Ltd., The Guarantee Company of North America and Millennium Credit Risk Management Limited through common ownership under Princeton Holdings Limited.

Frank Cowan Company is a Managing General Agent (MGA) with the authority to write and service business on behalf of strategic partners who share our commitment and dedication to protecting specialized organizations. Because our partners are long-term participants on our program, they understand the nature of fluctuating market conditions and complex claims and are prepared to stay the course.

THE ADVANTAGE OF A MANAGING GENERAL AGENT The MGA model is different than a traditional broker/insurer arrangement in that an MGA provides specialized expertise in a specific, niche area of business. As an MGA we also offer clients additional and helpful services in the area of risk management, claims and underwriting. And unlike the reciprocal model, a policy issued by an MGA is a full risk transfer vehicle not subject to retroactive assessments but rather a fixed term and premium.

We invite you to work with a partner who is focused on providing a complete insurance program specific to your organization that includes complimentary value added services that help drive down the cost of claims and innovative first to market products and enhancements. You will receive personalized service and expertise from a full-service, local and in-house team of risk management, claims, marketing and underwriting professionals.

As a trusted business partner, we believe in participating in and advocating for the causes that affect our clients. For this reason we affiliate with and support key provincial and national associations. In order for Frank Cowan Company to be effective in serving you, we, as an MGA, believe in fully understanding your needs, concerns and direction. Our support is delivered through thought leadership, financial resources, advocacy, services, education and more.

RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES We are the leader in specialized risk management and place emphasis on helping your organization develop a solid plan to minimize exposure before potential incidents occur. Risk management is built into our offerings for all clients, fully integrated into every insurance program. Our risk management team is comprised of analysts, inspectors and engineers who use their expertise to help mitigate risk. We do everything we can to minimize your exposure before potential incidents occur. This includes providing education, road reviews, fleet reviews, contract analysis and property inspections.

CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES Our in-house team of experts have the depth of knowledge, experience and commitment to manage the complicated details of claims that your organization may experience. You deal with the public often in sensitive instances where serious accusations can be made. Your claims are often long-tail in nature and can take years to settle. Some claims aren’t filed until years after the occurrence or accident. You want a team of professionals on your side who will vigorously defend your reputation. We understand your risks and your exposures and have maintained a long-term commitment to understanding the complex issues your organization may face so that we can better service your unique claims requirements.

Frank Cowan Company 2 102

Best in Class Value-Added Services

Frank Cowan Company offers more than just an insurance policy. As an MGA, we provide Canadian municipalities with a complete insurance program. What is the difference? A vested interest in helping you reduce your cost of claims. Every one of our best in class value added services helps to mitigate risk, which can translate into fewer claims.

RISK MANAGEMENT

Contract Reviews Cyber Risk Preparedness Valuable feedback and insight on the suitability and Cyber is a new and developing risk that many effectiveness of liability provisions and insurance clauses in municipalities aren’t prepared for. Cyber education and the contracts and agreements. implementation of specific policies and procedures can assist greatly with preparedness and mitigation. Network Asset Valuation and Risk Inspections security assessment tools and Cyber Risk Insurance are Inspections review properties and operations for also available. potential liabilities and provide extensive detail and documentation. Risk Management Centre of Excellence Online resource library dedicated to sharing information and Educational Seminars tools to help manage risk. excellence.frankcowan.com Seminars and training that focus on methods to reduce risk and recurring incidents. Excellence in Municipal Risk Management Award An annual $10,000 award recognizing the advancement Policy and Procedural Reviews of the practice of risk management within the municipal Audit systems and processes to reduce potential losses sector. by focusing on documentation, reporting and consistency with accepted standards and practices. Claims History Analysis Identify the cause of claims and focus on trends and patterns to help eliminate risk sources.

CLAIMS

Claims Management Best Practices Framework Claims Education View the status of your open claims and claims history. Customized municipal seminars on claims related topics Experience increased efficiency and see trends in claims data. delivered to solve specific risk issues. Couple this with strong claims and risk management and your Expertise organization will be better prepared to help mitigate and manage future incidents. Canadian municipal claims experience and expertise is important. Our technically proficient claims team has Guidewire ClaimCenter® Claims Management hundreds of years of combined experience specifically in the View the status of claims in addition to data mining municipal area. We have maintained a long-term capabilities for risk management purposes so as to commitment to understanding municipal issues so that we better identify risk trends and address them with can better service your unique claims requirements. mitigation techniques.

Frank Cowan Company 3 103

Excellence in Municipal Risk Management Award

Frank Cowan Company is pleased to announce the launch of the Excellence in Municipal Risk Management Award to recognize the advancement of the practice of risk management within the municipal sector.

The award will be presented annually to a Canadian municipality that has recognized a risk within their municipality’s operations and has developed and successfully implemented a solution that will prevent harm or injury to its assets or to a third party. This risk management solution must also have the potential to be adopted by other municipalities.

Eligibility

The award is open to all Canadian municipalities

The solution: • Must have the potential to be adopted by other municipalities • Is cost-effective to implement • Addresses a risk within the municipal sector

The municipality agrees to the documentation and sharing of the winning solution along with the use of the $10,000 prize through the Frank Cowan Company Risk Management Centre of Excellence, social media posts, a press release as well as an awards presentation.

Award

An award in the amount of $10,000 will be presented by Frank Cowan Company to the municipality that is awarded the annual Excellence in Municipal Risk Management Award. The award monies must be used to continue to fund the current or a future risk management initiative. The recipient will be asked to provide details regarding the use of the funds. The use of the funds will be publicly disclosed as referenced in the “Eligibility” section.

A plaque recognizing the municipality’s advancement of the practice of risk management will be presented to Municipal Council by representatives of Frank Cowan Company.

Visit http://www.frankcowan.com/news/article/new-10000-excellence-in-municipal-risk-management-award- unveiled-for-canadi for full award details and to download application.

Frank Cowan Company 4 104

Your Insurance Coverage

Schedule of Coverage (Coverage is provided for those item(s) indicated below)

Crime

Coverage Description ($) Deductibles ($) Limit of Insurance Employee Dishonesty – Form A 1,000,000 (Commercial Blanket Bond) Loss Inside the Premises 200,000 (Broad Form Money & Securities) Loss Outside the Premises 200,000 (Broad Form Money & Securities) Audit Expense 200,000

Money Orders and Counterfeit Paper Currency 200,000 Forgery or Alteration 1,000,000 (Depositors Forgery) Computer and Transfer Fraud 200,000 (Including Voice Computer Toll Fraud)

Accident

Coverage Description ($) Deductibles ($) Limit of Insurance Premium (s) Board Members : Persons Insured – Mayor and Four

Councillors Board Members Accidental Death & Dismemberment 250,000

Paralysis 500,000

Weekly Income – Total Disability 500

Weekly Income – Partial Disability 300 Accidental Death of a Spouse while Travelling on Included Business

Frank Cowan Company 5 105

Schedule of Coverage (Coverage is provided for those item(s) indicated below)

Property

Coverage Description ($) Deductibles Basis ($) Limit of Insurance Premium (s)

Property of Every Description - Blanket 5,000 RC 27,967,700 Scheduled Items of Coverage - Insured Refer to Schedule Refer to Schedule

Scheduled Locations and Coverage - Excluded Refer to Schedule Refer to Schedule

Valuable Papers 500,000 Included

Accounts Receivable 500,000 Included

Extra Expense 500,000 Media 500,000 Included Rent or Rental Value 500,000 Master Key 25,000 5,000 per person Personal Effects 25,000 per occurrence Earthquake 10% Minimum $ 100,000 Included Included

Flood $ 25,000 Included Included

Demolition and Debris Removal Named Perils Form 36,700 Exhibition Form As Per List on file

($) Total Amount of Insurance 37,119,300 RC = Replacement Cost ACV = Actual Cash Value VAL = Valued

Frank Cowan Company 6 106

Schedule of Coverage (Coverage is provided for those item(s) indicated below)

Equipment Breakdown ($) Deductibles / Coverage Description ($) Limit of Insurance Premium (s) Waiting Period

50,000,000 Direct Damage 5,000 Per Accident 1,000 Daily Indemnity Loss of Arena Revenues Included 90,000 Total limit of loss Extra Expense 500,000 Included

Spoilage 50,000 Included

Expediting Expense Included Included

Hazardous Substances 500,000 Included

Ammonia Contamination 500,000 Included

Water Damage 500,000 Included

Professional Fees 500,000 Included

Denial of Access 2 Weeks Included

Errors and Omissions 100,000 Included

Data Restoration 25,000 Included

By-Law Cover Included Included

Annual Premium $ 44,226 Policy Fee 1,000 Total Annual Premium $45,226

Please refer to the insurance contract for all limits, terms, conditions and exclusions that apply.

Frank Cowan Company 7 107

Cost Analysis

Expiring Program Renewal Program 2014-2015 Term 2015-2016 Term

Casualty

Crime 762 762

Board Members Accident 310 310

Property

Property 40,747 40,747

Equipment Breakdown 2,383 2,407

Annual Premium 44,202 44,226 Policy Fee 1,000 1,000 Total Annual Premium $ 45,202 $ 45,226

Frank Cowan Company 8 108

Changes to Your Insurance Program

Please be advised of the following changes to your insurance program that now apply:

Please note the change of Insurer(s), participation percentage and/or policy number(s).

Board Members Accident Accidental Death of a Spouse While Travelling on Business o Coverage provides for Accidental Death of a spouse when the spouse is travelling with an Insured Person on business. Coverage applies while travelling to or from such an event and/or if the loss of life occurs within one year of the accident. This coverage has been added at no additional premium.

Frank Cowan Company 9 109

Program Options

Frank Cowan Company offers a comprehensive insurance program. Outlined below are the program options, followed by your current coverage highlights.

1. Crime Coverage Optional Coverages are now available. See attached New Crime Cover Options page for further details. Quote is available on request (completed application is required).

Frank Cowan Company 10 110

Program Options – Highlights of Coverage

______

Frank Cowan Company offers a Comprehensive Insurance Program to meet your needs.

In addition to "Your Insurance Coverage", enhancements to your coverage are available as outlined under the Program Options page.

Highlights of coverage follow providing a brief description of these options.

The information in this notice is intended for informational purposes only. For full details with respect to coverage, exclusions, conditions and limitations refer to the policy wordings. While coverage may be quoted, once a policy is issued coverage is only applicable if shown on Declaration Page or Schedule of Coverage.

Frank Cowan Company 11 111

New Crime Coverage Options Overview

New coverage options include: · Telephone Long Distance (toll) fraud coverage · Extortion Coverage (Threats to persons and property) · Pension or Employment Benefit Plan coverage · Residential Trust Fund Coverage Additional coverage options include: · Credit Card Coverage · Client Coverage (Third Party Bond)

Voice Computer Toll fraud (long distance fraud) Coverage

Coverage is automatically included when Computer and Transfer Fraud is purchased. Provides coverage for any charges incurred by the Insured for telephone long-distance toll-calls as a direct result of the fraudulent use of either an account code or a system password in connection with a voice computer system (telephone system), when the system is owned or leased by the Insured, and installed on the premises.

Extortion Coverage

Nominal limits are available for both 'Threats to Person' and 'Threats to Property' Threats to Persons Provides coverage when a threat is communicated to the Insured to do bodily harm to a director, officer or partner of the Insured (or a relative) when these persons are being held captive and the captivity has taken place within Canada or the US. Threats to Property This provides coverage when a threat communicated to the Insured to do damage to the premises or to property of the Insured located in Canada or the United States of America. P ension or Employee Benefit Plan Coverage

Coverage is for loss from a pension or employee benefit plan resulting directly from a dishonest or fraudulent act committed by a fiduciary, acting alone or in collusion with others. Resi dential Trust Fund Coverage *For Select Classes of business

Coverage is for loss of property (money, securities and other property) held in trust by a residential facility for a resident when the loss occurs from a fraudulent act(s) committed by an employee. A residential facility includes any residential facility operated for the purpose of supervisory, personal or nursing care for residents. The resident must be a person who is unable to care for themselves (this could be due to age, infirmity, mental or physical disability). Coverage is excluded if the resident is legally related to the operator of the residential facility. Credit Card Coverage

Coverage is designed to protect the insured (a corporate entity) from losses involving forgery or alteration in connection with a corporate credit card. Client Coverage (Third Party Bond)

Coverage is extended to a third party or client of an Insured for the loss of money, securities or other property resulting from fraudulent or dishonest acts of an employee.

Frank Cowan Company 12 112

Description of Coverages ______

Frank Cowan Company offers a Comprehensive Insurance Program to meet your needs.

"Your Insurance Coverage" provides a summary of current coverages, limits and deductibles included in this proposal.

Highlights of coverage follow providing a summary of coverage. Highlight pages may include description of optional coverages.

Frank Cowan Company 13 113

Crime Coverage Highlights

Overview

Our Crime Coverage is flexible in that the Insured may elect to purchase any or all of the crime coverage we have available. Features Below is a brief description of each coverage: Employee Dishonesty – Form A Commercial Blanket Bond · Covers loss of money, securities or other property from fraudulent or dishonest acts of the Insured’s Employees. Loss Inside and Loss Outside the Premises (Broad Form Money and Securities) · Loss of Money and Securities caused by destruction, disappearance or wrongful abstraction. Money Orders and Counterfeit Paper Currency · Covers acceptance of false money orders or counterfeit Canadian or U.S. currency. Forgery and Alteration · Covers forgery or alteration to a financial instrument (cheque, draft or promissory note). Credit Card Forgery · Coverage protects the Insured (a corporate entity) from losses arising from its employees being defrauded on their corporate credit cards. Computer and Transfer Fraud (Including Voice Computer Toll Fraud) · Theft of money, securities or property when a computer is used to transfer money from an Insured to another person or place is provided. · Voice computer toll fraud – the cost of long distance calls is covered if caused by the fraudulent use of an account code or a system password. Extortion (Threats to Persons and Threats to Property) · Threats to Person: Provides coverage when a threat is communicated to the Insured to do bodily harm to a director, officer or partner of the Insured (or a relative) when these persons are being held captive and the captivity has taken place within Canada or the U.S.A. · Threats to Property: Provides coverage when a threat is communicated to the Insured to do damage to the premises or to property of the Insured located in Canada or the U.S.A. Pension or Employee Benefit Plan Coverage · Loss from a pension or employee benefit plan resulting directly from a dishonest or fraudulent act committed by a fiduciary. Loss Sustained by a Client (Third Party Bond Coverage) · Coverage is extended to a third party or client of an Insured for the loss of money, securities or other property caused by fraudulent or dishonest acts of an employee. Audit Expense · Coverage for the expenses that are incurred by the Insured to external auditors to review their books in order to prove a loss. This is a separate limit of insurance.

Frank Cowan Company 14 114

Crime Insurance Advantages

The commercial blanket bond protects a municipality for theft or fraud by employees, members of council, members of all boards, commissions and committees appointed by or under the jurisdiction of council. The coverage insures loss of property i.e. material, tools, equipment etc. as well as money. Many clients when considering bond limits do not take into account employee property theft. For this reason our programme provides a high limit of coverage. Many employee thefts occur over a period of time and involve small amounts of money or goods. Typically, if the theft is undetected the amounts stolen increase. It is the cumulative effect of over a period of time that adds up to a significant loss for the municipality. The high limits of money and securities coverage is to accommodate those municipalities who accept letters of credit or hold other securities.

The crime coverage has a sub limit of $200,000 for audit expenses incurred and paid by the Municipality to its external auditors to establish the existence of a loss and to document the amount of a loss.

Costs incurred for this purpose can be considerable and are not provided for by most bond policies. Without this feature the payment of accountants fees to establish or prove a loss are the responsibility of the municipality.

There is NO POLICY DEDUCTIBLE under the crime insurance.

Frank Cowan Company 15 115

Board Members’ (Including Councillors') Accidental Death and Dismemberment Coverage Highlights

AD&D and Paralysis Limits Option 1 Option 2 Accidental Death or Dismemberment (including loss of life and heart attack coverage) $100,000 $250,000 Paralysis Coverage – 200% of Accidental Death and Dismemberment Limit Permanent Total Disability - Accidental Death and Dismemberment Limit Weekly Indemnity Option 1 Option 2 Total Loss of Time $300 $500 Partial Loss of Time $150 $300 Accident Reimbursement - $15,000 Chiropractor Crutches† Podiatrist/Chiropodist Splints† Osteopath Trusses† Physiotherapist Braces (excludes dental braces)† Psychologist Casts† Registered or Practical Nurse Oxygen Equipment – Iron Lung Trained Attendant or Nursing Assistant‡ Rental of Wheelchair Transportation to nearest hospital† Rental of Hospital Bed Prescription drugs or Pharmaceutical supplies‡ Blood or Blood Plasma‡ Services of Physician or Surgeon outside of the province Semi Private or Private hospital room‡ †Maximum $1,000 per accident. ‡If prescribed by physician. Dental Expenses Dental Expenses $5,000 Occupational Retraining – Rehabilitation Retraining – Rehabilitation for the Named Insured $15,000 Spousal Occupational Training $15,000 Repatriation Repatriation Benefit (expenses to prepare and transport body home) $15,000 Dependent Children – per child Dependent Children’s Education (limit is per year- maximum 4 years) $10,000 Dependent Children’s Daycare (limit is per year- maximum 4 years) $10,000 Transportation/Accommodation (When treatment is over 100km from residence.) Transportation costs for the Insured when treatment is over 100km from home $1,500 Transportation and accommodation costs when Insured is being treated over 100km from home. $15,000 Home Alternation and Vehicle Modification Expenses to modify the Insured's home and/or vehicle after an accident $$15,000 1 Seatbelt Dividend 10% of Principal Sum $25,000

Frank Cowan Company 16 116

Funeral Expense Benefit for loss of life $10,000 I dentification Benefit Benefit for loss of life $5,000 Eyeglass, Contact Lenses and Hearing Aids When Insured requires these items due to an accident $3,000 Convalescence Benefit – Per day Insured Coverage $100 One Family Member Coverage $50 Workplace Modification Benefits Specialized equipment for the workplace $5,000 Elective Benefits Complete Fractures Dislocation Skull $ 5,200 Shoulder $ 2,200 Lower Jaw $ 2,800 Elbow $ 2,200 Collar Bone $ 2,800 Wrist $ 2,500 Shoulder Blade $ 3,500 Hip $ 4,600 Shoulder Blade complications $ 3,700 Knee $ 3,500 Thigh $ 4,600 Bones of Foot or Toe $ 2,500 Thigh/hip joints $ 4,600 Ankle $ 2,800 Leg $ 3,500 Forearm (between wrist & elbow) $ 2,800 Kneecap $ 3,500 Foot & Toes $ 2,200 Knee/joint complications $ 4,000 Two or More Ribs $ 1,900 Hand/Fingers $ 2,200 Colles’ fracture $ 2,800 Arm (between shoulder & elbow) $ 4,600 Potts’ fracture $ 3,400 Aggregate Limit Aggregate Limit only applicable when 2 or more board members are injured in same accident. $ 2,500,000 Coverage Extensions · Standard coverage is applicable while the Insured is 'On Duty'. Coverage for Accidents that may occur 24/7 may be purchased. · Accidental Death of a Spouse While Travelling on Business is automatically included when this coverage is purchased. This endorsement provides for Accidental Death of a spouse when the spouse is travelling with an Insured Person on business. Coverage applies while travelling to or from such an event and /or if the loss of life occurs within one year of the accident. · When Board Members' Accidental Death and Dismemberment Coverage is purchased, the Insured also has the option to purchase Critical Illness Coverage. Additional Information · Loss of life payments up to 365 days from date of Accident or if permanently disabled up to 5 years. · Weekly Indemnity coverage pays in addition to Elective Benefits. · Weekly Indemnity payments take other income sources into consideration (e.g. automobile, CPP, group plans). · Coverage is applicable to Insured 80 years of age or under.

Frank Cowan Company 17 117

Property Coverage Highlights

Overview We recognize Public Entities have a wide variety of property (buildings, equipment and supplies). Our wording is exceptionally broad and can cover property without it being specifically listed. Equipment and Supplies that may be unique to Public Entities may include: sewer maintenance equipment, unlicensed mobile equipment and other maintenance equipment, emergency equipment (e.g. fire fighting equipment), generators, computers. Other contents and supplies are also automatically covered under our property wording without being specifically listed such as road salts, herbicides/pesticides, fuels or office contents.

Coverage can be tailored for particular risks or unique exposures e.g. coverage for police dogs, watercraft coverage for rescue operations, buildings in course of construction or property of others may require coverage. Features Coverage is typically written: · On an all risk basis including replacement cost. · As Property of Every Description – coverage can be scheduled separately if required. · With no coinsurance, no statement of values, no margins clause or same site restriction. Additional Coverage Features · Land/water (pollution) clean-up: provided up to the limit of insurance if caused by an insured peril to insured property, no sublimit. · Property in Transit is automatically covered and need not be scheduled separately (all property in transit is covered including that which is typically covered under ocean marine policy). · Unlicensed Equipment (e.g. contractors equipment): Automatically includes replacement cost as the basis of settlement regardless of age (can be ACV or Valued if client requires) this is applicable if insured owns the unlicensed equipment. · Standard Extensions of Coverage are included (e.g. accounts receivable or valuable papers). · Water Towers, Standpipes and Water Reservoirs can be specifically insured. · Coverage for docks and wharves is available. · Sewer Back up – automatically covered. · By-laws coverage –for insured losses. · Flood and Earthquake – available. · Worldwide territory. · Newly acquired.

Business Interruption Coverage Business Interruption Coverage · Extra Expense – automatically covered · Other business interruption forms available upon request including: Profits, Gross Revenue, Gross Earnings, Rental Value, Gross Rents forms

Frank Cowan Company 18 118

Blanket All Property Insurance

Important Advantages

The property coverage is based on a blanket all property basis i.e. the total amount of insurance can be applied to any one loss thereby virtually eliminating the potential for under insurance.

An example from our files of a municipal claim involving this feature. Municipality advised an insurance value of $300,000. The building was destroyed by fire and the actual cost to rebuild it was $650,000. The policy paid $650,000.

Additionally the blanket all property insures all property (as defined in the policy) owned by the Municipality for loss or damage on a replacement cost basis (unless otherwise declared) whether or not we have been advised of its existence. Therefore if a structure is accidentally omitted or subsequently acquired, it is automatically insured.

A true claims example of this is: A Town accidentally omitted a rented dwelling on their list of assets for insurance purposes. A water damage claim occurred, the loss was paid, even though the house wasn’t on the Estimate of Values.

The purpose of this unique feature is to protect a municipality from unforeseen financial loss because a building and its contents were accidentally omitted. It also avoids the negative publicity resulting from under insured or uninsured losses.

Same-site clause is removed, although the claim is limited to the cost to rebuild on same site. This means that you can use the replacement cost value at the loss location and apply it towards rebuilding elsewhere.

The policy has no co-insurance clauses and you are not asked to sign a statement of values.

Most policies with other insurance companies contain either co-insurance clauses or margin clauses which severely restrict the amounts payable. Your policy contains no such clauses.

Frank Cowan Company 19 119

Equipment Breakdown Coverage Highlights

Overview Equipment Breakdown Insurance is a form of property insurance. The purpose of equipment breakdown coverage is to insure against losses such as property damage and business interruption losses resulting from defined 'accidents' to specified kinds of mechanical, electrical and pressure equipment (called “objects” in the policy). The equipment breakdown policy covers exposures that are normally excluded under property policies. In essence the equipment breakdown policy eliminates potential coverage gaps.

Features Protection for critical equipment including: · Boilers and pressure vessels – boilers, air tanks pressure piping, heat exchangers, sterilizers; · Air Conditioning and Refrigeration – fans, thermostats, wiring; · Mechanical – engines, fans, pumps; · Electrical – panels, cables, transformers, generators, electric motors; · Computer and Communications – computer networks, telephone, point of sale, security systems; · Renewable and Alternative Energy – solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel systems; · Production Systems – CNC, robotics, machining tools, food processing;

In addition to the standard coverage extensions include: Expediting Expenses · Reasonable extra cost to make repairs or expedite permanent replacement. Service Interruption · Coverage for insured property (spoilage) and extra expense if caused by a breakdown to your equipment or that supplying power to your location (if within 1000 metres of the location). By-laws · Pays increase in costs to repair or replace the equipment due to a by-law and the increased costs of extra expense if additional time is required to repair or replace the equipment. Hazardous Substances · Pays the increased costs to repair, replace, clean up or dispose of Insured property (including increased extra expense coverage) if a hazardous substance is released due to a breakdown loss. Professional Fees · Necessary and reasonable fees for Auditors, Accountants, Lawyers, Architects, Engineers or other professionals, for producing and certifying the amount of the loss. Denial of Access · If due to a breakdown loss to your premises or a neighbouring premise a civil authority prevents access to your premises we will pay the increased extra expenses/business interruption coverage. Newly Acquired Locations · Automatic coverage for newly acquired locations (in Canada). Data · If due to a breakdown data is lost coverage is provided for the cost of repairing or replacing the data and the extra expense/business interruption resulting from the loss.

Additional Information Inspection Services: we automatically provide inspections of boilers and pressure vessels to satisfy the provincial inspection requirements.

Frank Cowan Company 20 120

SCHEDULE OF COVERAGE

BASIS OF LOSS SETTLEMENT LIMIT OR AMOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION APPLICABLE OF INSURANCE

RIDER NO. 1

1. Blanket Amount on Property Insured including: Replacement Cost $ 27,967,700. - Boat Launch and Docks, 518 A Kaslo Bay - Boat Moorage Area, 518 A Kaslo Bay - New Boat Launch, Kaslo Bay Road - Water Dam, Water Reservoir and Reservoir Valve Shed, Kaslo West Road - Reservoir, J Avenue - Pressure Reducing Station Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 - Signs, Unspecified Location - Kaslo River Foot Bridge, Highway 31.4 (excluding items specifically insured):

2. Specific Limit of Insurance on the following: (a) SS Moyie – CP Caboose Display, 308 Front Street, Kaslo Valued 100,000. (b) SS Moyie – Sternwheeler Dry Docked, Valued 4,604,400. 308 Front Street, Kaslo (c) SS Moyie - Post Office Display, 308 Front Street, Kaslo Valued 9,600. (d) SS Moyie – Miner’s Cabin Display, 308 Front Street, Kaslo Valued 17,400. (e) SS Moyie – Kuskanook Women’s Salon Dry Docked Valued 77,800. 308 Front Street, Kaslo (f) Tennis Courts, 517 Arena Avenue Replacement Cost 57,000. (g) Airport Improvements – Asphalt Runway, Kaslo West Road Replacement Cost 1,246,600. (h) 1976 John Deere Motor Grader, Serial No. J570A, Actual Cash Value 36,000. VIN No. 57CA004336T (i) 1993 John Deer Loader Backhoe Model No. 310DA, Replacement Cost 25,000 VIN No. T0310DG794457 (j) 2002 Volvo Wheel Loader, Model No. L70 Replacement Cost 195,000. (k) Huskyz-TURN 61" 25HP Mower, Replacement Cost 13,000. Model No. ZTH6125 VIN 407105443 (l) 2008 Bobcat Loader, VIN No. A3L120343 Replacement Cost 28,000. (m) Monroe 11' Slip –In Sander Replacement Cost 13,100. (n) 2008 International Dump, VIN No. 1HTWAAAR18J697150 Replacement Cost 125,000. (o) Trailmobile Commercial Trailer, Replacement Cost 2,500. VIN No.1PT07AAEXR9017697 (p) 2003 Ubilt Utility Trailer Replacement Cost 500. (q) 2011 Belly Blade Replacement Cost 9,000. (r) Eagle Wood Sculpture, 4th Street Valued 5,000.

- Continued -

Frank Cowan Company 21 121

SCHEDULE OF COVERAGE

BASIS OF LOSS SETTLEMENT LIMIT OR AMOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION APPLICABLE OF INSURANCE

RIDER NO. 1 (Cont’d)

3. The following property(ies) are specifically excluded from this policy: (a) All Golf Course Buildings, Structures, Contents and Equipment, 443 Oak Street, Kaslo (b) Lardeau Jack Reservoir A, Kaslo West Road

4. Limit on Valuable Papers: 500,000.

5. Limit on Accounts Receivable: 500,000.

6. Limit of Extra Expense Insured at Any One Location: 500,000.

7. Limit on Media: 500,000.

8 Rent or Rental Value Form: 500,000.

9. It is understood and agreed that with respect to Boat Launch, Docks and Boat Moorage area insured hereunder, the following Additional Exclusion is added under the Property All Risks Form, Rider No. 1, Item 7. Perils Excluded:

- loss or damage caused by ice formations including spring break-up

10. It is understood and agreed that Item No.7 (a) under the Property All Risks Form, is amended to read as follows:

7. PERILS EXCLUDED: This Policy does not insure against loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by:

(a) snowslide, landslide, subsidence or other earth movement, but this exclusion does not apply to loss or damage to contents or to ensuing loss or damage which results from fire, explosion, smoke, leakage from fire protective equipment or leakage from a watermain;

- Continued -

Frank Cowan Company 22 122

SCHEDULE OF COVERAGE

BASIS OF LOSS SETTLEMENT LIMIT OR AMOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION APPLICABLE OF INSURANCE

RIDER NO. 1 (Cont’d)

11. Earthquake

The insurance is hereby extended to include loss or damage caused by the peril of earthquake:

Each loss caused by earthquake shall constitute a single claim hereunder, provided that more than one earthquake shock occurring within a period of one hundred and sixty-eight (168) consecutive hours during the term of this policy shall be deemed a single earthquake within the meaning hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Insurer shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by any earthquake shock occurring before this endorsement becomes effective nor for any loss or damage caused by any earthquake shock occurring after the expiration of this policy.

12. Master Key Protection: 25,000. This policy is extended to provide cover, subject to all its terms and provisions for not more than the amount shown in any one occurrence to cover loss caused by the necessary replacement of locks and keys and the increased cost of security, following burglary, robbery or mysterious disappearance of master keys.

13. Personal Effects 25,000. This policy is extended to cover personal effects of Officers and Employees only while on premises owned, rented or occupied by the Insured. The Insurer shall not be liable for losses or damage if, at this time of loss, there is any other insurance which would attach if this insurance had not been effected, except that this insurance shall apply only as excess and in no event as contributing insurance, and then only after all other insurance has been exhausted. This extension of coverage shall be limited to $ 1,000. Per Officer or Employee and $ 25,000. any one occurrence.

14. Demolition and Debris Removal Named Perils Form: 36,700.

RIDER NO. 2

1. Exhibition Form: As per list on file

- Continued -

Frank Cowan Company 23 123

SCHEDULE OF COVERAGE

BASIS OF LOSS SETTLEMENT LIMIT OR AMOUNT ITEM DESCRIPTION APPLICABLE OF INSURANCE

DEDUCTIBLE

Applicable to Rider Nos. 1 and 2 $ 5,000.

Exceptions:

- Peril of Flood $ 25,000. - Peril of Earthquake - The deductible applicable to the Peril of Earthquake shall be the percentage (%) indicated of the value as established per the applicable basis of loss settlement. The deductible calculation will apply on a per risk basis based on each insured location(s) that have suffered earthquake damage. 10% or Minimum $ 100,000.

______

TOTAL AMOUNT OF INSURANCE $ 37,119,300. ______

Frank Cowan Company 24 124

EXHIBIT “A”

Estimate of Values

The information contained herein is confidential, commercial, financial, scientific and/or technical information that is proprietary to Frank Cowan Company and cannot be disclosed to others. Any such disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in significant prejudice to the competitive position of Frank Cowan Company, significant interference with its competitive position and/or cause it undue loss.

Frank Cowan Company 25 125

CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF KASLO

EXHIBIT "A" BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 31/12/2015 ESTIMATE OF VALUES

1 * CITY HALL AND LIBRARY, 413 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 2,821,800

2 * A' AVE FIRE HALL (THRIFT SHOP), 408 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 304,000 1M0 3 * COLD STORAGE, 408 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 9,600

4 * KEMBALL MEMORIAL CENTRE OFFICE, 312 4TH STREET, KASLO, 2,518,100 V0G 1M0 5 * SHED INCLUDING GENERATOR, 312 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 29,300 1M0 6 * SENIOR CITIZENS HALL, 304 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 274,200

7 * PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE SHOP, 437 SPRUCE STREET, 464,900 KASLO, V0G 1M0 8 * PUBLIC WORKS STORAGE TRAILER (A), 437 SPRUCE STREET, 12,900 KASLO, V0G 1M0 9 * PUBLIC WORKS COLD STORAGE (B), 437 SPRUCE STREET, 2,400 KASLO, V0G 1M0 10 * VIMY PARK PAVILION (DAY CARE), 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, 250,900 V0G 1M0 11 * STORAGE SHED, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 800

12 * SANDBOX CANOPY, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 3,300

13 * PLAYHOUSE, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 4,000

14 * VILLAGE CAMPGROUND NEW BATHROOMS AND SHOWERS, 505 221,800 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 15 * VILLAGE CAMPGROUND OLD WASHROOM , 505 2ND STREET, 113,400 KASLO, V0G 1M0 16 * VILLAGE CAMPGROUND SHED, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 500 1M0 17 * PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 248,000

18 * STORAGE BUILDING (FORMER CONCESSION STAND), 505 2ND 52,000 STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0

PROPRIETARY DATA : USE OR DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE

REF:03226 16/10/2015 1 QUOTE ID: 205364 126

CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF KASLO

EXHIBIT "A" BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 31/12/2015 ESTIMATE OF VALUES

19 * GAZEBO, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 77,600

20 * PICNIC SHELTER, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 48,000

21 * BALL DIAMOND (INCLUDES BLEACHERS), 505 2ND STREET, 18,900 KASLO, V0G 1M0 22 * WEST DUGOUT, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 3,000

23 * NORTH DUGOUT, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 4,600

24 * SIGN KIOSK, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 4,600

25 * SKATEBOARD PARK, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 250,000

26 * CEMETERY SERVICE SHED (NOT INCLUDING FUEL TANK), 5,800 ZWICKY ROAD, KASLO, V0G 1M0 27 * WATER DAM, KASLO WEST ROAD, CENTRAL KOOTENAY D, V0G 465,300 1S1 28 * WATER RESERVOIR, KASLO WEST ROAD, CENTRAL KOOTENAY 617,700 D, V0G 1S1 29 * RESERVOIR VALVE SHED, KASLO WEST ROAD, CENTRAL 800 KOOTENAY D, V0G 1S1 30 * WATER TREATMENT PLANT INCLUDING GENERATOR , ZWICKY 4,288,800 ROAD, KASLO, V0G 1M0 31 * RESERVOIR, J AVENUE, KASLO, V0G 1M0 153,700

32 * PUMPHOUSE, J AVENUE, KASLO, V0G 1M0 48,300

33 * PRESSURE REDUCING STATION NO. 1 AND PUMPHOUSE, 500,400 HIGHWAY 31A, KASLO, V0G 1M0 34 * PRESSURE REDUCING STATION NO. 2 (UNDERGROUND), 73,400 HIGHWAY 31, KASLO, V0G 1M0 35 * PRESSURE REDUCING STATION NO. 3 (UNDERGROUND), KASLO 73,400

36 * PRESSURE REDUCING STATION NO. 4 (UNDERGROUND) , KASLO 73,400

37 * PRESSURE REDUCING STATION NO. 5 (ABOVE GROUND), 36,600 HIGHWAY 31, KASLO, V0G 1M0 38 * LIFT STATION NO. 1, KASLO BAY ROAD, KASLO, V0G 1M0 297,600

PROPRIETARY DATA : USE OR DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE

REF:03226 16/10/2015 2 QUOTE ID: 205364 127

CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF KASLO

EXHIBIT "A" BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 31/12/2015 ESTIMATE OF VALUES

39 * LIFT STATION NO. 2, KASLO BAY ROAD, KASLO, V0G 1M0 309,700

40 * SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 1,870,000

41 * DEWATERING SHELTER, 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 204,400

42 * BOAT LAUNCH AND DOCKS, 518 A KASLO BAY, KASSLO, V0G 1,025,800 1M0 43 * BOAT LAUNCH SHED, 518 A KASLO BAY, KASSLO, V0G 1M0 5,900

44 * BOAT MOORAGE AREA, 518 A KASLO BAY, KASSLO, V0G 1M0 344,300

45 * BAY PARK ELECTRICAL BUNKER, KASLO BAY ROAD, KASLO, 57,500 V0G 1M0 46 * SS MOYIE - INTERPRETIVE AND VISITOR CENTRE, 308 FRONT 320,500 STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 47 * SS MOYIE - INFORMATION KIOSK, 308 FRONT STREET, KASLO, 5,000 V0G 1M0 48 * SS MOYIE - CP CABOOSE DISPLAY, 308 FRONT STREET, KASLO, 100,000 SPEVAL V0G 1M0 49 * SS MOYIE - STERNWHEELER DRY DOCKED, 308 FRONT STREET, 4,604,400 SPEVAL KASLO, V0G 1M0 50 * SS MOYIE - POST OFFICE DISPLAY, 308 FRONT STREET, KASLO, 9,600 SPEVAL V0G 1M0 51 * SS MOYIE - MINER'S CABIN DISPLAY, 308 FRONT STREET, 17,400 SPEVAL KASLO, V0G 1M0 52 * SS MOYIE - KUSKANOOK WOMEN'S SALON DRY DOCKED, 308 77,800 SPEVAL FRONT STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 53 * KASLO RIVER FOOT BRIDGE, HIGHWAY 31A, KASLO, V0G 1M0 121,100

54 * ARENA/CURLING RINK, 517 ARENA AVENUE, KASLO, V0G 1S1 7,494,600

55 * ARENA SERVICE SHED, 517 ARENA AVENUE, KASLO, V0G 1S1 1,800

56 * CURLING RINK STORAGE SHED, 517 ARENA AVENUE, KASLO, 2,400 V0G 1S1 57 * TENNIS COURTS, 517 ARENA AVENUE, KASLO, V0G 1S1 57,000 SPEVAL

PROPRIETARY DATA : USE OR DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE

REF:03226 16/10/2015 3 QUOTE ID: 205364 128

CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF KASLO

EXHIBIT "A" BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 31/12/2015 ESTIMATE OF VALUES

58 * TENNIS COURT STORAGE SHED, 517 ARENA AVENUE, KASLO, 1,500 V0G 1S1 59 * AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS - ASPHALT RUNWAY, KASLO WEST 1,246,600 SPEVAL ROAD, KASLO, V0G 1S1 60 * SIGNS 64,900

61 * MISCELLANEOUS FENCING, YARD AND OUTDOOR 119,600 PARKS/PLAYGROUND 91 RENTAL INCOME - ANY ONE PROPERTY 500,000 LIM

93 EXTRA EXPENSE 500,000 LIM

94 VALUABLE PAPERS 500,000 LIM

95 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 500,000 LIM

96 MEDIA 500,000 LIM

98 * EAGLE WOOD SCULPTURE, 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 5,000 SPEVAL

99 * KEMBALL MEMORIAL CENTRE OFFICE SIGN, 312 4TH STREET, 5,000 KASLO, V0G 1M0 100 * NEW BOAT LAUNCH, KASLO BAY ROAD, KASLO, V0G 1M0 20,000

101 * SEWAGE LIFT STATION, 308 FRONT STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 342,600

DEMO & DEBRIS

102 NAMED PERILS - COMMUNITY HALL (YOUTH CENTRE), 201 4TH 36,700 LIMDEM STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 EXCLUDED

62 * EXCLUDED - LARDEAU JACK RESERVOIR A 0 EXC

97 * EXCLUDED - ALL GOLF COURSE BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, 0 EXC CONTENTS AND EQUIPMENT, 443 OAK STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0

TOTALS: BLANKET SPECIFIED 26,690,400 8,654,500

PROPRIETARY DATA : USE OR DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE

REF:03226 16/10/2015 4 QUOTE ID: 205364 129

CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF KASLO

EXHIBIT "A" CONTENTS AND EQUIPMENT 31/12/2015 ESTIMATE OF VALUES

63 CITY HALL CONTENTS, 413 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 4,000

64 LIBRARY CONTENTS, 413 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 439,900

65 FIRE HALL CONTENTS AND EQUIPMENT, 413 4TH STREET, 197,000 KASLO, V0G 1M0 66 TRAINING ROOM, OFFICE AND STORAGE CONTENTS, 413 4TH 17,200 STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 67 A'AVE FIRE HALL CONTENTS AND EQUIPMENT, 408 4TH 6,000 STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 68 KEMBALL MEMORIAL CENTRE OFFICE CONTENTS, 312 4TH 315,000 STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 69 GENERATOR EQUIPMENT, 312 4TH STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 31,500

70 SENIOR CITIZENS HALL CONTENTS, 304 4TH STREET, KASLO, 10,500 V0G 1M0 71 PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE SHOP CONTENTS, 437 SPRUCE 71,500 STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 72 COMMUNITY HALL (YOUTH CENTRE) CONTENTS, 201 4TH 10,000 STREET, KASLO, V0G 1M0 73 CONCESSION STAND CONTENTS, 505 2ND STREET, KASLO, V0G 1,800 1M0 74 CEMETARY SERVICE SHED CONTENTS, ZWICKY ROAD, KASLO, 11,400 V0G 1M0 75 1976 JOHN DEERE MOTOR GRADER, SERIAL NO. J570A, VIN NO. 36,000 SPEACV 57CA004336T 76 1993 JOHN DEERE LOADER BACKHOE, MODEL NO. 310DA, VIN 25,000 SPEREP NO. T0310DG794457 77 2002 VOLVO WHEEL LOADER, MODEL NO. L70 195,000 SPEREP

78 HUSKYZ-TURN 61" 25HP MOWER, MODEL NO. ZTH6125, VIN NO. 13,000 SPEREP 407105443 79 2008 BOBCAT LOADER, VIN NO. L120343 28,000 SPEREP

80 MONROE 11' SLIP-IN SANDER 13,100 SPEREP

PROPRIETARY DATA : USE OR DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE REF:03226

16/10/2015 1 QUOTE ID: 205364 130

CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF KASLO

EXHIBIT "A" CONTENTS AND EQUIPMENT 31/12/2015 ESTIMATE OF VALUES

81 2008 INTERNATIONAL DUMP, VIN NO. 1HTWAAAR18J697150 125,000 SPEREP

82 TRAILMOBILE COMMERCIAL TRAILER, VIN NO. 2,500 SPEREP 1PT07AAEXR9017697 83 2003 UBILT UTILITY TRAILER 500 SPEREP

84 2011 BELLY BLADE 9,000 SPEREP

85 PORTABLE FIRE AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT INCLUDING BUT 52,000 NOT LIMITED TO 2-WAY RADIO ITEMS AND PAGERS 86 JORDAIR COMPRESSOR AND FULLING STATION 22,000

87 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT (LAW MOWERS, COMPRESSORS 22,000 ETC.) 88 MISCELLANEOUS SIGNAGE, BENCHES/TABLES AND REFUSE 65,500 RECEPTACLES 89 MASTER KEY 25,000 LIM

90 PERSONAL EFFECTS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES 25,000 LIM

92 EXHIBITS 0 LIM

TOTALS: BLANKET SPECIFIED 1,277,300 497,100

PROPRIETARY DATA : USE OR DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE REF:03226

16/10/2015 2 QUOTE ID: 205364 131

100 - 1500 HARDY STREET, KELOWNA, BC V1Y 8H2 PHONE: 250-860-2426 FAX: 250-860-1213 WEBSITE: www.capri.ca

CONFIRMATION OF INSURANCE

INSURED: Village of Kaslo Box 576, 413-4th Street Kaslo, BC V0G 1M0

POLICY TERM: December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016 @ 12:01 am.

COVERAGES: AS PER ATTACHED HIGHLIGHTS OF COVERAGE

INSURANCE COMPANY: Underwriters as known to Frank Cowan Company Limited

POLICY NUMBERS: Property - FC41380 Casualty - CP81381 Equipment Breakdown - 13513206-01

PREMIUM: $45,226.00

COVER IS ON UNDERWRITERS STANDARD TERMS FOR CAPRI INSURANCE SERVICES LTD. CLASS OF COVER AND CEASES UPON ISSUANCE OF POLICY(IES) OR 60 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE, WHICHEVER FIRST OCCURS. IMMEDIATE NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN IF ANY CHANGES ARE REQUIRED. E. & O.E. October 29, 2015 ../xl per: Paula Garrecht, CIP, CAIB (AB)

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS A CLAUSE THAT MAY LIMIT THE AMOUNT PAYABLE STANDARD MORTGAGE CLAUSE INCLUDED

CAPRI INSURANCE SERVICES LTD. OFFICES IN KELOWNA, KAMLOOPS, LAKE COUNTRY, WEST KELOWNA, PENTICTON 132

YourInsuranceCoverage

ScheduleofCoverage (Coverageis providedforthoseitem(s)indicatedbelow)

Crime

Coverage Description ($) Deductibles ($)Limitof Insurance Employee Dishonesty–FormA 1,000,000 (Commercial Blanket Bond) Loss Inside the Premises 200,000 (BroadFormMoney & Securities) LossOutsidethe Premises 200,000 (BroadFormMoney & Securities) Audit Expense 200,000

MoneyOrdersand Counterfeit Paper Currency 200,000 ForgeryorAlteration 1,000,000 (DepositorsForgery) ComputerandTransferFraud 200,000 (Including VoiceComputerTollFraud)

Accident

Coverage Description ($) Deductibles ($)Limitof Insurance Premium (s) BoardMembers:PersonsInsured–MayorandFour Councillors BoardMembersAccidentalDeath&Dismemberment 250,000

Paralysis 500,000

Weekly Income–Total Disability 500

Weekly Income– PartialDisability 300 Accidental Deathofa SpousewhileTravellingon Included Business

FrankCowanCompany 5 133

Schedule of Coverage (Coverageisprovidedfor thoseitem(s)indicatedbelow)

Property

Coverage Description ($) Deductibles Basis($)Limitof Insurance Premium (s)

PropertyofEveryDescription-Blanket 5,000 RC 27,967,700 Scheduled Itemsof Coverage- Insured RefertoSchedule RefertoSchedule

ScheduledLocationsand Coverage- Excluded RefertoSchedule RefertoSchedule

Valuable Papers 500,000 Included

Accounts Receivable 500,000 Included Extra Expense 500,000 Media 500,000 Included Rentor Rental Value 500,000 Master Key 25,000 5,000perperson Personal Effects 25,000 per occurrence Earthquake 10%Minimum$ 100,000 Included Included

Flood $25,000 Included Included

Demolition and DebrisRemovalNamedPerils Form 36,700 ExhibitionForm AsPerListonfile

($)TotalAmount ofInsurance 37,119,300 RC= Replacement CostACV=Actual Cash Value VAL= Valued

FrankCowanCompany 6 134

Schedule of Coverage (Coverageisprovidedfor thoseitem(s)indicatedbelow)

EquipmentBreakdown ($) Deductibles/ Coverage Description ($)Limitof Insurance Premium (s) WaitingPeriod

50,000,000 DirectDamage 5,000 PerAccident 1,000DailyIndemnity LossofArenaRevenues Included 90,000Totallimitofloss ExtraExpense 500,000 Included

Spoilage 50,000 Included

ExpeditingExpense Included Included

HazardousSubstances 500,000 Included

AmmoniaContamination 500,000 Included

WaterDamage 500,000 Included

ProfessionalFees 500,000 Included

DenialofAccess 2Weeks Included

ErrorsandOmissions 100,000 Included

DataRestoration 25,000 Included

By-LawCover Included Included

Annual Premium $44,226 PolicyFee 1,000 TotalAnnual Premium $45,226

Pleaserefer to the insurancecontract forall limits, terms,conditionsandexclusions thatapply.

FrankCowanCompany 7 135 I N V O I C E N O . 823431 Page 1 Capri Insurance - Hardy Street 100 - 1500 Hardy Street ACCOUNT NO. OP DATE Kelowna, BC V1Y 8H2 VIKAS-1 46 10/29/2015 Phone: 250-860-2426 Fax: 250-860-1213 PRODUCER Paula Garrecht BALANCE DUE ON 12/31/2015

Village of Kaslo Neil Smith, CAO Box 576, 413-4th Street Kaslo, BC V0G 1M0

Itm # Eff Date TrnTypeDescription Amount 9DL1SJ 12/31/15 RENMUNI15-16 Property Policy $40,747.00

9DL1SK 12/31/15 RENBOIL15-16 Equpment Breakdown $2,407.00

9DL1SL 12/31/15 RENCRIM15-16 Casualty Policy $1,072.00

9DL1SM 12/31/15 AFEMUNI15-16 Policy Fee $1,000.00

Invoice Balance: $45,226.00

1.5%Monthly Service Fee on balance over 30 days