REGULAR AGENDA - Regional District of North Okanagan

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN 

BOARD of DIRECTORS MEETING 

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 

4:00 p.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 

A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 

1. Board of Directors – February 6, 2013 

(Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items) 

(Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items – In Camera Agenda) 

RECOMMENDATION 1 

(Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) 

That the Agenda of the February 6, 2013 regular meeting of the Board of Directors 

be approved as presented. 

B. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 

1. Board of Directors – January 16, 2013 

RECOMMENDATION 2 Page 1 


That the minutes of the January 16, 2013 meeting of the Board of Directors be 

adopted as circulated. 

2. Committee of the Whole – January 16, 2013 



That the minutes of the January 16, 2013 meeting of the Committee of the Whole be 

adopted as circulated. 

C. DELEGATIONS 

1. Okanagan Film Commission Page 11 

- Delegation Request Form

Board of Directors Agenda – Regular - 2 - February 6, 2013 

D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

1. Net Salvage Value Process Update - Canadian Pacific Railway Okanagan 

Subdivision: Armstrong to Grindrod 

- Staff report dated January 24, 2013 



That the report dated January 24, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy 

Coordinator regarding Okanagan Subdivision (Grindrod to Armstrong) Net Salvage 

Value Decision No. 21-R-2013 be received for information. 



That a service be established to fund the acquisition and management of the 

Okanagan Subdivision (Grindrod to Armstrong) Rail Corridor. 

E. NEW BUSINESS 

1. Southern Interior Local Government Association (SILGA) – Call for 

Nominations 

- Correspondence dated January 7, 2013 



That Director Janice Brown be nominated for a position on the Southern Interior 

Local Government Association (SILGA) Executive for the 2013 / 2014 term. 

2. Southern Interior Local Government Association (SILGA) Resolution – Joint 

Flood Management 




That the following resolution be forwarded to the Southern Interior Local Government 

Association for consideration at its May 2013 Annual General Meeting and 

Convention as a joint resolution of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD) 

and Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO): 

"WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia assumes Incident Command and 

provides on-site response for wildland interface fires; 

AND WHEREAS within the Province of British Columbia there are a large number of 

waterways subject to periodic, sudden and extensive flooding; 

AND WHEREAS overland flooding has potentially profound adverse consequences 

in terms of life safety, private and public property interests, economic prosperity and 

public infrastructure; 

AND WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia is the steward of the water 

resources within the province;


AND WHEREAS local authorities lack the mandate, statutory jurisdiction, financial 

and technical resources, equipment and staff necessary to provide emergency site 

response, mitigation and flood remediation works; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Province of British Columbia take 

immediate and direct responsibility for flood management including but not limited to: 

• Incident Command during emergency flooding events; 

• Identification of flood related hazards; 

• Remediation of stream channels so as to mitigate future flooding; 

• Monitor stream flows and levels in waterways posing a risk to life safety or 

property; 

• Respond to sudden cessation of stream flows or reports of debris dams, 

executing tactical evacuations when warranted and communicate with the 

Emergency Operations Centre.” 

3. District of Coldstream Letter: Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

- Staff report dated November 19, 2012 



That as recommended by the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee, 

Maria Besso be appointed to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee as the 

District of Coldstream representative and Peter McClean be appointed as the 

alternate representative. 

4. Regional Context Statement Work Program 

- Staff report dated October 29, 2012 




the staff report dated October 29, 2012 regarding Regional Context Statements be 

forwarded to all member municipalities and the Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

requesting direction on Regional Context Statement process and approach. 

5. British Columbia “Buy Local” Grant Program 





the British Columbia ‘Buy Local’ Program information be referred to the Regional 

Agricultural Advisory Committee for discussion.


6. Regional Growth Strategy Update – January 4, 2013 





the Regional Growth Strategy Update dated January 4, 2013 be received for 

information and forwarded to member municipalities, Electoral Area Advisory 

Committee and First Nations for their information. 

7. 2011 North Okanagan Demographic Profile 





the 2011 North Okanagan Demographic Profile be used in each of the four 2013 

Regional Growth Strategy implementation projects. 

8. Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – Meeting Pay 




That, as outlined in the alternative budget option endorsed by the Board of Directors 

on January 2, 2013, elected officials that are appointed to the Regional Agricultural 

Advisory Committee will serve on the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

without remuneration, with the exception of mileage. 

9. Bylaw 2548 – Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment 

Bylaw 2549 - Zoning 

WATSON c/o MONAGHAN – File No. 11-0692-F-OR 



(Part 26 – Special Voting – Includes Electoral Areas Only) 

That following consideration of comments received at the Public Hearing, Electoral 

Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2548, 2012 which proposes 

to amend the land use designation of the property legally described Lot 1, Sec 27, 

Twp 18, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 30041 and located at 52 Twin Lakes Road, Electoral 

Area “F” from Country Residential to Small Holdings be given Third Reading. 



That following consideration of comments received at the Public Hearing, Rezoning 

Bylaw No. 2549, 2012 which proposes to rezone the property legally described as 

Lot 1, Sec 27, Twp 18, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 30041 and located at 52 Twin Lakes 

Road, Electoral Area “F” from the Country Residential Zone (C.R) to the Small 

Holding Zone (S.H) be given Third Reading.


10. Bylaw 2573 – Backyard Chickens / Laying Hens 




That following consideration of comments received at the Public Hearing, Zoning 

Text Amendment Bylaw No. 2573, 2012, which proposes to amend the Regional 

District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 to permit chickens within 

Residential and Rural zones be given Third Reading. 

11. Greater Vernon / White Valley Extended Service Area 2012 Animal Control 

Annual Report 



(Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Includes Coldstream, Lumby, Vernon, Electoral Areas 

B, C and D) 

That the Greater Vernon / White Valley Extended Service Area 2012 Animal Control 

Annual Report dated January 11, 2013 from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer be 

received for information. 

12. Bylaw 2570 – Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Other Voting 

Question 



(Customized Stakeholder vote – includes Coldstream, Vernon, Electoral Areas B and 

C) 

That Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Other Voting Question Bylaw 

2570, 2013 be given First, Second and Third Readings. 


(Customized Stakeholder vote – includes Coldstream, Vernon, Electoral Areas B and 

C – 2/3 Majority) 

That Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Other Voting Question Bylaw 

2570, 2013 be Adopted. 

13. Bylaw 2571 – Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Loan 

Authorization 




That Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Loan Authorization Bylaw 2571, 

2013 be given First, Second and Third Readings; and further, 

That Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Loan Authorization Bylaw 2571, 

2013 be referred to the Inspector of Municipalities for Statutory Approval.


14. Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Budget (060) 



(Customized Stakeholder Vote – Includes Coldstream, Vernon, Electoral Areas B 

and C) 

That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee, staff be directed 

to increase the operating grant for the Vernon Public Art Gallery to a maximum of 

$177,625 with the stipulation that if gaming grants received by the Art Gallery are 

higher than budgeted, the surplus amount be returned to the Regional District of 

North Okanagan. 



and C) 


to move budget item Lakeshore Landing Park from page 27 of the 060 GVPRD 

Capital Master List, in the amount of $220,000 and include it in the Capital Project 

list; and further, 

That staff refer this matter back to the City of Vernon with the request to remove the 

requirements for offsite works; and further, 

That the project not commence until it has been confirmed by the City of Vernon that 

these properties have been rezoned as Park. 



and C) 


to include all carry forward items in future Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and 

Culture capital budgets. 



and C) 

That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee, the Greater 

Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture budget proposal for 2013 be considered for 

inclusion in the 2013 Regional District Budget subject to revisions upon review of the 

2012 year end financials. 

15. Greater Vernon Museum and Archives - Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and 

Culture Budget (060) 

- Staff report dated November 23, 2012 (same as above) 

- Grant Application – Greater Vernon Museum and Archives 



and C) 

That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee, the 2012 Greater 

Vernon Museum and Archives operating budget be adjusted from $180,034 to 

$189,214.


16. Multiplex (Wesbild) (062) – 2013 Budget Proposal 

- Staff report dated December 5, 2012 



and C) 

That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee, the 2013 

Wesbild Centre budget proposal be considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional 

District budget subject to possible revision of accounts upon review of 2012 year end 

financials; and further, 

That staff be directed to apply any operating surplus from 2012 to offset the tax 

requisition. 

17. Performing Arts Centre 2013 Budget Proposal (065) 




and C) 

That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee, the Performing 

Arts Centre budget proposal for 2013 be considered for inclusion in the 2013 

Regional District budget subject to possible revision of utility accounts upon review of 

the 2012 year end financials and confirmation of what funds will be forthcoming from 

the Society’s endowment fund. 

18. Bylaw 2578, 2013 – Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Fees 

Imposition 




and C) 

That Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Fees Imposition Bylaw No. 

2578, 2013 be given First, Second and Third Readings. 



and C – 2/3 Majority) 

That Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Fees Imposition Bylaw No.2578, 

2013 be adopted. 

19. White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture – 2013 Budget Proposal 



(Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Includes Lumby, Electoral Areas D and E) 

That as recommended by the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory 

Committee, the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture budget proposal for 

2013 be approved for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District Budget.


20. 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Service 



(Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Includes All) 

That the 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Service Report be received for information; 

and further, 

That Clause 7 of the 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Service Agreement (the “9-1-1 

Agreement”) be amended as follows; 

The Central Okanagan Regional District and the Regional District of North 

Okanagan further agree that for the budget year January 1 to December 31, 

2013, the annual budget shall not exceed $1,700,000.00 provided however 

and with the concurrence of a majority of the Participating Regional Districts, 

the budget may be increased by an amount representing anticipated costs for 

an extra-ordinary event or situation. 

And further, 

That the inclusion of $15,000 in the 2013 Budget for consulting services including 

issuance of a Request for Expression of Interest (RFI) and Request for Proposals 

(RFP) in seeking options for the future delivery of the 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone 

Service be authorized. 

21. Draft Transit Future Plan, 2013 - Executive Summary 




That the priorities as listed in the Draft Transit Future Plan 2013, Executive 

Summary, produced by BC Transit and dated January 2013 be supported for public 

consultation. 

22. Greater Vernon Advisory Committee Agenda Documentation 




to ensure that all Greater Vernon Advisory Committee agenda packages meet the 

following requirements: 

• All maps are to be printed in color and on white paper only 

• All graphs or number related documentation is to be legible and printed in color 

• All presentations are to be printed without any background graphics to ensure 

legibility 

F. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS


G. REPORTS 

1. Standing and Select Committees 



That the minutes of the following meetings be received for information: 

a. Greater Vernon Advisory Committee – Special – December 18, 2012 

b. Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – Regular – January 17, 

2013 

c. White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee – Regular – 

January 14, 2013 

2. External Committee Reports 

3. Administrator’s Report 

4. Chair’s Report 

a. Priorities – Ron Born 

b. Survey Information from Fathom6 Strategies 

c. Meeting with MP Colin Mayes – Gas Tax Funding 

H. IN CAMERA 



That, pursuant to Section 92 of the Community Charter, the regular meeting of the Board 

of Directors convene In Camera to deal with matters deemed closed to the public in 

accordance with Section 90(1)(c – personnel) and (e – land) of the Community Charter. 

I. REPORT FROM IN CAMERA 

J. ADJOURNMENT

BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA 

February 6, 2013 - Item B.1 


MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the BOARD of DIRECTORS of the 

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held in the Boardroom at the 

Regional District Office on Wednesday, January 16, 2013 

Members: Director P. Nicol City of Vernon Chair 

Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” Vice Chair 

Alt. Director C. Pieper City of Armstrong 

Director D. Dirk 

District of Coldstream 

Director H. Cyr 

City of Enderby 

Director K. Acton 

Village of Lumby 

Director J. Brown 

Township of Spallumcheen 

Director R. Sawatzky City of Vernon 

Director J. Cunningham City of Vernon 

Director M. O’Keefe 

City of Vernon 

Director B. Fleming 

Electoral Area “B” 

Director M. Macnabb 

Electoral Area “C” 

Director E. Foisy 

Electoral Area “E” 

Director J. Pearase 

Electoral Area “F” 

Staff: T. Hall Administrator 

D. Sewell General Manager, Finance 

R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building 

L. Mellott General Manager, Electoral Area Administration 

D. McTaggart General Manager, Engineering 

J. Byron Corporate Officer / Human Resources Manager 

C. Mazzotta Information Services Manager 

K. Pinkoski Parks Planner 

A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator 

C. Walker Planning Technologist 

C. Howkins Senior Clerk (taking minutes) 

Also 

Present: Alt. Director H. Halvorson Electoral Area “F” 

Alt. Director C. Lord City of Vernon 

Councilor G. Kiss 


Councilor M. Besso District of Coldstream 

Media and Public 

Carla Hemmings, Recycling and Disposal Facility Scale Attendant, was acknowledged for her 5 

years of service to the Regional District of North Okanagan. 

CALL MEETING TO ORDER 

The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m. 

Page 1 of 329



APPROVAL OF AGENDA 

Board of Directors – January 16, 2013 

Moved and seconded by Director Acton and Alternate Director Pieper 

That the Agenda of the January 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Board of Directors be approved 

with the following additions: 

• D.17 – University of British Columbia – Okanagan Transit Service 

• D.18 – Grant Request Policy 

CARRIED 

ADOPTION OF MINUTES 

Board of Directors – January 2, 2013 

Moved and seconded by Directors Cunningham and Acton 

That the minutes of the January 2, 2013 meeting of the Board of Directors be adopted as 

circulated. 

CARRIED 

DELEGATIONS 

Bee SAFE – Huguette Allen 

Huguette Allen, with Bee SAFE gave a presentation on banning Genetically Modified Crops and 

requested that the Regional District consider implementing steps to become Genetically 

Engineered Free. 

Easement Request – Lot 20, Plan 34958, DL 296 - Andree Rhodes 

Andree Rhodes, gave a presentation providing background on her property located at Lot 20, 

Plan 34958, District Lot 296 and requested an easement from the Regional District. 

Interior Health Authority – Healthy Communities Initiative 

Tanya Osborne, Community Health Facilitator with the Interior Health Authority gave a 

presentation on Healthy Family BC Communities Initiative and gave a brief outline of recent 

successes within the Regional District with regards to community health. 

NEW BUSINESS 

Bylaw 2544 – North Okanagan Regional Transit Service Establishment Amendment 

Bylaw 2547 – University of British Columbia – Okanagan Connector Transit Service 

Establishment 

Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Sawatzky 

That North Okanagan Regional Transit Service Establishment Amendment Bylaw No. 2544, 

2012 be Adopted. 

CARRIED 





That University of British Columbia – Okanagan Connector Transit Service Establishment Bylaw 

No. 2547, 2012 be Adopted. 

CARRIED 

Bylaw 2572 – Municipal Solid Waste Management 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Cunningham 

That Municipal Solid Waste Management Bylaw No. 2572, 2013 be given First, Second and 

Third Readings. 

CARRIED 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Cunningham 

That Municipal Solid Waste Management Bylaw No. 2572, 2013 be Adopted. 

CARRIED 

Bylaw 2573 – Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment [Backyard Chickens] 

Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Fairbairn 

That Zoning Text Amendment Bylaw No. 2573, 2012, as amended, which proposes to amend 

Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 to permit chickens within 

Residential and Rural zones, be given First and Second Readings and referred to Public 

Hearing. 

CARRIED 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Fleming 

That staff be directed to develop a document on best management practices on backyard 

chickens for inclusion on the Regional District of North Okanagan website. 

CARRIED 


That the proposed backyard chicken regulations be forwarded to the Regional Agricultural 

Advisory Committee for their input on methods in which the public can be educated on the best 

management practices. 

CARRIED 

Bylaw 2574 – Starling Control Establishment 

Moved and seconded by Directors Cunningham and Sawatzky 

That the report dated January 4, 2013 regarding the Starling Control Establishment Bylaw No. 

2574, 2013 be received for information. 

CARRIED 

Moved and seconded by Directors Cunningham and Macnabb 

That the matter of Starling Control be referred to jurisdictions for consideration to fund for 2013 

in accordance with allocation that was paid in 2012. 

CARRIED 




Moved and seconded by Directors Sawatzky and Fleming 

That staff be directed to establish a grant service bylaw for Starling Control to be in effect for 

2014. 

CARRIED 

Bylaw 2575 – Regional District of North Okanagan Security Issuing (City of Enderby) 

Moved and seconded by Directors Cyr and Pearase 

That Regional District of North Okanagan Security Issuing Bylaw No. 2575, 2013 be given First, 

Second and Third Readings. 

CARRIED 

Moved and seconded by Directors Cyr and Brown 

That the Regional District of North Okanagan Security Issuing Bylaw No. 2575, 2013 be 

Adopted. 

CARRIED 

Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan and Kingfisher Local Area Plan 

Implementation 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Foisy 

That staff be directed to prepare a report regarding incorporating the Agricultural Land 

Commission Agri-tourism provisions into Zoning Bylaw No.1888, 2003. 

CARRIED 

Electoral Areas “B” and “C” Official Community Plan Review [Electoral Area Annexation 

Study] 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Fleming 

That staff be directed to prepare a report regarding the Electoral Areas “B” and “C” Official 

Community Plan Review to include a draft social impact questionnaire to complement the 

Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study. 

CARRIED 

Genetically Modified Organisms 

Moved and seconded by Directors Acton and Fairbairn 

That issues regarding the impact of genetically modified organisms on the Regional District of 

North Okanagan be forwarded to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee for 

consideration. 

CARRIED 

Moved and seconded by Directors Acton and Pearase 

That staff be directed to forward a letter of support to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency 

regarding mandatory labeling of genetically modified products. 

CARRIED 

Opposed: Alternate Director Pieper 




Vance Creek Hotel - Legal Document Amendment Request from Silver Star Resort 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Cyr 

1. That the request by Silver Star Club Resort to amend Condition No. 3 of the Board of 

Directors’ resolution of August 12, 2009 be accepted; and further, 

2. That Condition No. 3 of the Board of Directors’ resolution of August 12, 2009 be considered 

complete by accepting the legal opinion of Steven M. Brandner of Davidson Lawyers LLP 

dated January 17, 2012 and the resolution of Snowbird Lodge Strata Corporation KAS3027, 

dated March 24, 2012; and further, 

3. That “No Parking – Fire Lane” signage required to be posted in accordance with Covenant 

KT24215, registered on the title of Lots A & B, District Lot 1355, ODYD, Plan KAP70786, 

include a notation that the area is subject to vehicles being towed; and further, 

4. That Reference Plan EPP20377, attached to and forming part of Planning Department 

report dated December 21, 2012 as ‘Appendix B’ be approved as the revised Covenant area 

to be used exclusively for emergency vehicle turn-around purposes; and further, 

5. That Senior Staff continue to work with the applicant to achieve compliance with the relevant 

Board and staff recommendations. 

CARRIED 

Restrictive Covenant 1295 Galiano Road 

Moved and seconded by Directors Sawatzky and Dirk 

That the application of Nigel Hemingway - Cariboo Geographic Systems, on behalf of Garry and 

Linda Garbutt (1295 Galiano Road) for a proposed two lot subdivision be approved subject to 

deferral of the Greater Vernon Water requirement to install “all works deemed necessary by the 

District to provide an adequate supply of water”; such deferral to be accomplished by means of 

registration of a Restrictive Covenant on the proposed remainder lot to restrict any building until 

such time the property is connected to the Greater Vernon Water Utility. 

CARRIED 

Sub-regional Parkland Acquisition 

Moved and seconded by Directors Cunningham and Sawatzky 

That staff be directed to bring back a list of properties that have been considered for acquisition 

in the past to allow the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee to review and establish principles 

and criteria to guide future sub-regional parkland acquisitions and create a new list of potential 

sites including tentative priority for acquisition. 

CARRIED 

Community Sports Facility Cost and Design 


The following recommendations were passed: 

That staff be directed to budget $392,700 for off site works in the cost of the proposed 

Community Sports Facility. 

And, 




That staff be directed to budget $1,137,000 for a synthetic turf field in the cost of the proposed 


And, 

That staff be directed to budget $50,000 for a natural grass field across the throws area instead 

of a sand field in the cost of the proposed Community Sports Facility. 

And, 

That staff be directed to budget $1,705,000 for a rubberized track in the cost of the proposed 


And, 

That staff be directed to budget $414,000 for a throws sectors (javelin, shotput, discus) in the 

cost of the proposed Community Sports Facility. 

And, 

That staff be directed to budget $200,000 for uncovered seating in the cost of the proposed 


And, 

That staff be directed to budget $1,304,600 for sports facility buildings in the cost of the 

proposed Community Sports Facility. 

Opposed to this item only: Director Macnabb 

And, 

That staff be directed to budget $249,000 for sports amenities and maintenance; and further, 

That staff be directed to approach user groups to request subsidized funding/donations for the 

purpose of purchasing sports amenities and that any donations be used to offset the amount 

borrowed for the proposed Community Sports Facility. 

And, 

That staff be directed to budget $339,000 for landscaping in the cost of the proposed 


CARRIED 

Vernon Recreation Complex Roof – Status Update 

Moved and seconded by Directors Cunningham and Dirk 

That staff be directed to provide an update on the status and outcome of the Vernon Recreation 

Complex roof issues. 

CARRIED 




Wesbild Centre – Rubberized Track 

Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and O’Keefe 

That staff be directed to bring forward a report outlining options and potential costs of installing 

a rubberized track at the Wesbild Centre. 

CARRIED 

Wesbild Centre – Outcome of Outstanding Fees 


That staff be directed to provide an update on outstanding fees at the Wesbild Centre. 

CARRIED 

Regional District of North Okanagan Wetland Park Reverter Clause – Status Update 


That staff be directed to provide an update on the status of the Regional District of North 

Okanagan Wetland Reverter Clause. 

CARRIED 

University of British Columbia – Okanagan Transit Service 


That the Administrator address the matter regarding the University of British Columbia – 

Okanagan Transit service in a timely manner. 

CARRIED 

Grant Request Policy 

Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Acton 

That the Administrator be granted the authority to apply the Regional District of North Okanagan 

Grant Request Policy at the administrative level. 

CARRIED 

REPORTS 

Standing and Select Committees 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Pearase 

That the minutes of the following meetings be received for information: 

- Greater Vernon Advisory Committee – Regular – January 3, 2013 

- Electoral Area Advisory Committee – Regular – January 3, 2013 

CARRIED 

External Committee Reports 

Board members provided various external committee updates. 




Administrator’s Report 

The Administrator reported on a letter received from City of Armstrong regarding withdrawal 

from the Building Inspection function. 

Chair’s Report 

The Chair reported on various Board related matters. 

IN CAMERA 


That, pursuant to Section 92 of the Community Charter, the regular meeting of the Board of 

Directors convene In Camera to deal with matters deemed closed to the public in accordance 

with Sections 90(1) (c – personnel), (e – land) and (g – litigation) of the Community Charter. 

CARRIED 

The regular meeting of the Board of Directors adjourned to meet In Camera at 6:27 p.m. 

The regular meeting of the Board of Directors reconvened at 7:29 p.m. 

ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m. 

Certified Correct: 

Chair 

Corporate Officer 





MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of the REGIONAL 

DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held in the Board Room at the Regional District Office on 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 

Members: Director P. Nicol City of Vernon (Chair) 

Alt. Director C. Pieper City of Armstrong 



Director K. Acton 




Director R. Sawatzky City of Vernon 

Director J. Cunningham City of Vernon 





Director M. Macnabb 




Director J. Pearase 


Director M. O’Keefe 


R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” 


D. McTaggart General Manager, Engineering 


L. Mellott General Manager, Electoral Area Administration 

J. Byron Corporate Officer / Human Resource Manager 

H. Roseberry Clerk (taking minutes) 

Others: Alt. Director C. Lord City of Vernon 

Councillor Kiss 


Alt. Director H. Halvorson Electoral Area “F” 


The meeting was called to order at 1:34 p.m. 


Committee of the Whole – January 16, 2013 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Fleming 

That the Agenda of the January 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole be 

approved as presented. 

CARRIED 




Committee of the Whole – Regular - 2 - January 16, 2013 

NEW BUSINESS 

2013 Financial Plan 

The General Manager of Finance presented on the 2013 Financial Plan. 

ADJOURNMENT 



Chair 







February 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

REGIONAL DISTRICT 

of 

NORTH OKANAGAN 

REPORT 

File No.: 3045.06 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

Board of Directors 

Anthony Kittel, Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator 

January 24,2013 

Okanagan Subdivision (Grindrod to Armstrong) Net Salvage Value 

Decision No. 21-R-2013 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That the report dated January 24, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding 

Okanagan Subdivision (Grindrod to Armstrong) Net Salvage Value Decision No. 21-R-2013 be 

received for information; and further, 

That a service be established to fund the acquisition and management of the Okanagan Subdivision 

(Grindrod to Armstrong) Rail Corridor. 

DISCUSSION: 

Okanagan Subdivision (Grindrod to Armstrong) Net Salvage Value (NSV) Decision No. 21-R-2013 

was issued to the Regional District of North Okanagan and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) on 

January 22,2013. Decision No. 21-R-2013 is considered by the Canada Transportation Agency ('the 

Agency') to be a public document that is currently available on the Agency's website (http://www.otccta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/21-r-2013). 

The official net salvage value that has been provided by the Agency within the Decision is $3,225,352 

for the 26 km rail line, which is similar to the submission of the Regional District which estimated a 

value of $3,371,529. CPR had estimated the value of the rail to be $18,663,734. Decision No. 21-R- 

2013 is attached to this report. 

Submitted by: 

trategy Coordinator 

Approved For Inclusion: 




DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 


APPLICATION 

APPLICATION by the Regional District of North Okanagan, 

pursuant to section 146.3 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, 

c. 10, as amended, for a determination of the net salvage value of the 

Canadian Pacific Railway Company’s Okanagan Subdivision between 

mileages 16.4 and 31.63, in the province of British Columbia. 

File No. T6338/175 

[1] The Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO) has applied to the Canadian Transportation 

Agency (Agency) for a determination of the net salvage value for a railway line owned by the 

Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP) on the Okanagan Subdivision located between 

mileages 16.4 and 31.63 (Line), in the province of British Columbia. 

LEGISLATION 

[2] Sections 140 to 146 of the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) outline a process that must be 

followed by a federally-regulated railway company when transferring and discontinuing the 

operation of railway lines. Section 146.3 of the CTA provides that a person to whom a railway 

line is offered under section 145 may apply to the Agency for a determination of the net salvage 

value of the railway line before the expiry of the period available to the person to accept the 

offer. For specific legislative references, refer to the Appendix. 

BACKGROUND 

[3] The complete Okanagan Subdivision runs from Sicamous (mileage 0.3) to Armstrong 

(mileage 31.63,) in the province of B.C. The Line runs from mileage 16.4 at Grindrod to 

mileage 31.63 in Armstrong, with the portion from Sicamous to Grindrod being disposed of 

separately through a different transfer and discontinuance process. The Line has been owned by 

CP since 1891 and was most recently operated and maintained from November 1998 until 

August 2009 by OmniTRAX Inc. pursuant to a lease agreement with CP. There have been no 

railway operations on the Line since OmniTRAX Inc. ceased its operations in August 2009. 




- 2 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[4] When control of the Line was returned to CP following the expiration of its lease agreement with 

OmniTRAX Inc. in August 2009, CP, in accordance with subsection 146.01(2) of the CTA, 

began the transfer and discontinuance process under section 143 of the CTA. Pursuant to 

subsection 143(1) of the CTA, CP advertised the Line for transfer for continued rail operations 

on October 7, 2009. As no agreement was reached with an interested person within the required 

time, CP offered to transfer all of its interest in the Line to the federal, provincial and municipal 

governments on June 18, July 18 and August 18, 2010 respectively, as indicated in section 145 

of the CTA. 

[5] RDNO, which is composed of six municipalities, five electoral areas and two First Nations 

Bands within the northern portion of the Okanagan Valley, having an interest in acquiring the 

Line, submitted an application for a determination of net salvage value of the Line, pursuant to 

section 146.3 of the CTA, on September 15, 2010. 

[6] RDNO estimates a net salvage value of between $3,371,529 and $3,643,629, an amount that 

includes the land value, legal and other administrative costs and its estimated value of the track 

assets, but does not include environmental remediation costs, which will be discussed later in this 

Decision. CP submits a net salvage value of $18,663,734, which includes its estimate of the land 

value and the market value of the salvaged track materials net of disposal costs. 

PRELIMINARY MATTER 

[7] On December 8, 2010, RDNO submitted that the Line had not been included in CP’s Three Year 

Plan for the required 12-month period prior to discontinuance, in accordance with 

subsection 142(2) of the CTA. Citing the Canadian National Railway Co. v. Greenstone et al. 

2008 FCA 395 precedent, RDNO maintained that the discontinuance process must therefore 

begin anew to fully comply with subsection 142(2) of the CTA. 

[8] The Agency concurs that the Line had not been included in CP’s Three Year Plan as set out in 

subsection 142(2) of the CTA. However, as CP had leased operations on the Line to a third party 

and control of the Line was returned to CP following the expiration of the lease agreement in 

August 2009, in accordance with subsection 146.01(2) of the CTA, CP was required to, within 

60 days, either resume operations on the Line or follow the process set out in sections 143 to 145 

of the CTA. Subsection 146.01(2) of the CTA states that if a railway line or operating interest in 

a railway line returns to a railway company that transferred it and the company decides to follow 

the process set out in sections 143 to 145 in respect of the railway line or operating interest, the 

company is not subject to subsection 142(2) of the CTA. 




- 3 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[9] CP chose to follow the process set out in sections 143 to 145 of the CTA and advertise the Line 

for transfer for continued operations within the 60 days as set out in subsection 146.01(1) of the 

CTA. The Agency finds that CP complied with the necessary requirements of that subsection and 

had no obligations under subsection 142(2) of the CTA with respect to the Line. 

DEFINITION OF NET SALVAGE VALUE 

[10] In previous Decisions issued by the Agency regarding the net salvage value of a railway line to 

be used for any purpose, the Agency has determined that the expression “net salvage value” 

refers to the market value of an asset less the costs associated with its disposal. These costs can 

include, but are not limited to, sales commissions, excavation, disposal, and environmental 

remediation. In essence, net salvage value is the realizable value of the assets – the track, land 

and other structures – less the costs associated with their disposal. 

PROCESS 

[11] The process for arriving at a net salvage value for a railway line involves several elements. The 

quantities and condition of the track and other materials forming part of the railway line are first 

determined. The market value is then established for each component of the track structure. The 

product of the values and the quantities results in the gross salvage value of the track and other 

materials. The next element is the determination of the cost of removal and salvage of the track 

and other materials. This cost is then deducted from the gross salvage value for track materials to 

arrive at the net salvage value for track materials. 

[12] The valuation of the land component of the railway line is the usual next step. The land value is 

generally determined by evaluating the submissions of the parties and any supporting 

documentation. In some cases, the Agency may request an independent accredited land appraiser 

to provide an opinion on the submissions of the parties and/or to conduct an assessment. 

[13] Depending on the case and the positions of the parties, the Agency may take additional factors 

into consideration with respect to its valuation of the land component of the railway line, such as 

the existence and extent of any environmental contamination and any projected environmental 

costs. The final element in the valuation exercise is the Agency’s consideration of any benefit, 

financial or otherwise, resulting from leases or agreements that may impact on the calculation of 

the net salvage value. 

[14] When these values are determined, they are added to the net salvage value for track assets to 

arrive at the net salvage value of the railway line. 




- 4 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Relevant time frame for asset valuations 

[15] The Agency assesses values or costs based upon best evidence. In cases of volatile commodity 

prices like those for reusable steel, the Agency has discretion in determining an appropriate 

value, especially when the net salvage value determination itself takes months to conclude. As 

part of the process, the Agency has consistently researched and established the market value for 

each component of the track structure subsequent to confirming the quantity and condition of the 

assets, and nearer to the end of the statutory process than to the beginning. In this way, the 

Agency’s ultimate determination incorporates values that better approximate in time the actual 

(or possible) transfer date of the railway line in question. 

[16] The process used to determine the net salvage value is to be fair and consistent. Fairness requires 

that the Agency consider the evidence submitted by both parties for their respective valuations 

and then impartially assess each for both technical merit and reasonableness. Consistency means 

that if a particular valuation approach is adopted for one asset (e.g. reusable steel,) then all assets 

(steel, ballast, ties, other track materials) ought to be treated in the same manner. 

[17] The Agency is thus not bound to accept those valuations that coincide with the date of the 

application, particularly if significant time has passed. It may use valuations developed over a 

time period and then determine a value based upon the best evidence and what is appropriate in 

the circumstances. 

QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE TRACK ASSETS 

Site visit and Statement of Track Materials 

[18] On March 9, 2010, in conjunction with a previous application for a determination of the net 

salvage value of the Line made pursuant to subsection 144(3.1) of the CTA, which was later 

withdrawn, Agency staff conducted an engineering inspection of the Line. The purpose of this 

inspection was to confirm the quantity of the track and other material included in the Line, as 

well as to assess the condition of these assets. Based on this inspection, a Statement of Track 

Materials was completed on April 12, 2010. Because the Line has seen no traffic since the initial 

inspection, the Agency adopted that Statement of Track Materials in this case, distributed it to 

the parties with an opportunity to comment on October 6, 2010 and, with some minor 

modifications made based on comments received, finalized it on October 21, 2010. 

VALUE OF THE TRACK ASSETS 

[19] RDNO did not undertake a detailed assessment of the value of track infrastructure but submitted 

an estimate for the overall net value of the track assets of $1,100,000. 




- 5 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[20] The gross salvage value of the track assets according to CP is $2,360,284. CP indicates that as 

part of its railway business, it is familiar with gross market values of track materials from a 

number of sources, including North American indices and market prices, as well as direct sales 

to contractors of track materials from discontinued railway lines. 

[21] CP indicates that it used the Agency Statement of Track Materials to establish the quality and 

quantity of track assets, and assigned values to the assets based on its own research of current 

market values. This research includes confidential correspondence with another North American 

railway company and contracts secured by CP with private salvaging contractors, detailing how 

much was paid for similar types of rail in the not too distant past. The contracts and 

correspondence were submitted to the Agency by CP with a claim for confidentiality. 

[22] To assist in its determination of the value of the track assets, the Agency also conducted an 

independent market survey based on the information contained in the Statement of Track 

Materials, obtaining quotations from several market sources on the value of the various assets 

and the salvaging works involved to remove and dispose of those assets. These market sources 

include other Class 1 railway companies, companies specializing in rail salvage and metal 

markets. The quotations obtained were set out in a Market Research Data Report (MRDR,) 

which was distributed to the parties for comments on July 19, 2012. Comments were received 

from both parties on August 17, 2012. 

Comments of the parties on the MRDR 

[23] RDNO supports the findings contained in the MRDR. 

[24] CP refers to the range of values for certain track assets set out in the MRDR and questions the 

Agency’s methodology for determining the value of track assets. CP also expresses concerns 

with respect to the costs shown in the MRDR for the disposal of scrap ties. 

[25] Regarding the values of the track assets in the MRDR, CP maintains that there is a wide 

discrepancy in the values quoted. CP submits that what a salvage contractor is willing to pay for 

rail materials is quite different than the value other groups may attach to these materials. Because 

this quote price is always lower than market value, CP argues that the market value of these 

assets cannot be based on the price the contractor quotes for the asset. CP suggests that the 

Agency should closely validate the values submitted and discard those that are deemed invalid, 

and requests that the Agency not simply calculate the averages to determine the value of these 

assets. To support its position on the value of some of the key assets on the line, CP provided 

confidential sale orders and a description of the process it follows to award salvage contracts, 

indicating that these are meant to assist the Agency in validating the values of some of the quotes 

received. 




- 6 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[26] With respect to the disposal of scrap ties, CP submits that the costs shown in the MRDR, which 

range from $5 to $10 per tie for cross ties, from $7.75 to $15 for switch ties and $6.50 to $20 for 

bridge ties, are too high. CP reiterates the disposal cost of $2.55 per scrap tie it submitted in its 

original October 2010 submission of value and submits that the companies that provided quotes 

to the Agency do not have similar economies of scale to CP, or a corresponding favorable 

internal cost to transport products and materials over long distances. CP further submits that 

these companies most likely require a trucking company to haul the ties to an appropriate 

disposal location and have to pay “tipping” fees to dispose of the ties, which is not the case for 

CP. Because of this, CP submits that the Agency should determine that CP’s methodology and 

costing towards scrap ties are the most reasonable. 

Agency analysis 

[27] The Agency’s methodology for determining the value of the track assets, as described earlier in 

this Decision, is consistently applied in all net salvage value determinations. The Agency seeks 

quotations from independent market sources and also takes into account the value positions of 

the parties, when appropriate, to determine the market value of each component of the track 

infrastructure, based on its type, quantity and quality. The Agency also consistently assesses each 

of the quotations received for reasonableness, eliminating any “outliers” that appear to be either 

unrealistically higher or lower than the mean. 

[28] The Agency is of the opinion that the fact that there is a range of values submitted from these 

independent sources validates the exercise by exemplifying and incorporating differing levels of 

market demand and avenues of disposal. In addition, if the Agency only accepted those values 

similar to or the same as those submitted by the railway company as being reasonable for 

consideration, the statutory process of determining net salvage value would be rendered moot. 

[29] In Decision No. 542-R-2000, the Agency stated that its task in a net salvage value determination 

was to establish the value of the railway company’s interest, not to determine the value of the 

interest to the railway company or from the perspective of the government. In doing so, the 

Agency aimed at determining not the value of the assets as interpreted by the parties or from the 

parties’ perspective, but rather the value of the assets in the market, which is the ultimate force in 

determining the value of assets on a railway line. In that Decision, the Agency also stated that the 

fact that the valuation exercise is premised upon the assets being used for any purpose reinforces 

the use of a market approach. A market price is an amalgamation of all purposes, which is the 

mandate upon which the Agency is to determine net salvage value. Determining value from one 

party’s position is not consistent with the determination of value based on any purpose. The 

Agency concluded in that Decision that the approach taken by the Agency in conducting market 

research and determining the value of assets by averaging the relevant quotes received for the 

assets is consistent with the Agency’s task of determining net salvage value as defined by 

subsection 145(5) of the CTA. The Agency is still of that opinion. 




- 7 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[30] With respect to the disposal of scrap ties, the Agency acknowledges that CP appears to be in a 

position to dispose of scrap ties at a lower cost than other market sources. However, in 

determining market value, and this applies to all asset and removal valuations, not just those for 

scrap ties, the Agency must account for situations that do not necessarily entail the same 

commercial advantages and economies of scale that CP enjoys. The Agency finds that this can 

best be achieved through the use of an average of several independent market sources. That said, 

the Agency does find that CP has provided sufficient evidence to support its submitted disposal 

cost of $2.55 per tie, and the Agency includes it in the average cost for scrap tie disposal. 

[31] A summary of the quantities and conditions of the track and other material contained in the 

Statement of Track Materials, and the values for them as determined by the Agency, based on its 

consideration of the MRDR and the submissions of the parties, are set out in Tables 1A to 1D. 

Tables 1A to 1C also include the values assigned to the various assets by CP. RDNO did not 

submit gross values for the track assets. 

Rail 

[32] The main line is made of 85 lb. jointed rail, with two public crossings made of 132 lb. and 115 

lb. rail. In general, the rail is in good condition with a small “metal lip” on the gauge side of both 

rails in straight alignment. In curves, the rail showed typical wear patterns, such as extensive 

gauge face wear on the high rail and lips (metal flow) on the low rail. Also some small cracks 

known as rolling contact fatigue cracks were observed on the rail head in curves. The joints were 

in good condition and the rails were seated on tie plates. Based on the conditions observed in 

curves, all rails in curves of three degrees or more is classified as scrap and the remaining rail on 

straight alignment is classified as reusable for other branch line use. 

[33] There are three sidings on the Line. The siding at Armstrong is in usable condition with an 

unloading pit in place, the siding at Enderby is in bad condition, and the one at Grindrod is 

covered by granular material to allow roadway vehicles to travel over it. The rail in the 

Armstrong siding is classified as reusable for similar use, whereas the rail in the other two 

sidings is classified as scrap. 

Comments from the parties 

[34] RDNO submits that it did not undertake an assessment of the gross value of the track 

infrastructure due to time and budgetary concerns. 

[35] CP submits that there is significant demand for reusable 85 lb. and 80 lb. rail both within CP’s 

network and the North American railway industry, resulting in a higher market value for 85 lb. 

and 80 lb. rail than for scrap rail. CP further submits that 85 lb. and 80 lb. rail are no longer 

commercially manufactured in North America and, as a result, there is a cost premium to obtain 

these track materials today. CP indicates that it and numerous short-line and industrial rail 

operators require a constant supply of 85 lb. and 80 lb. rail for ongoing maintenance and 

relay/replacement program purposes. 




- 8 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[36] CP submits that for the purpose of this net salvage value application, an appropriate gross value 

for relay 85 lb. rail is $550 per ton, and a value of $450 per ton is the value that should be 

considered to accurately reflect the market price of quality 80 lb. relay rail. Finally, CP submits 

that $340 per ton is the appropriate gross value for scrap rail. CP estimates the overall value of 

the rail to be $1,298,391. 

Agency analysis 

[37] From its review of the information available, the Agency estimates that the current market value 

for 85 lb. rail suitable for branch line relay varies from $350 to $550 per ton. The Agency finds 

that a value of $429 per ton for 85 lb. rail suitable for branch line relay is appropriate in this case. 

With respect to 80 lb. rail reusable for siding or yard purposes, market research values vary from 

$305 to $650 per ton. The Agency finds that a value of $418 per ton for 80 lb. rail reusable for 

sidings or yards is appropriate. In reaching these particular values, the Agency has averaged CP’s 

submitted value and the values of the five relay rail quotations included in the MRDR. 

[38] In the case of scrap rail, market values ranged from $200 to $401 per ton. Again, the Agency 

averaged the values assigned to scrap rail by CP and the seven scrap rail quotations included in 

the MRDR, to arrive at a value of $325 per ton for all sizes of scrap rail. See Table 1A below. 

Table 1A - Rail 

Agency Quantity (tons) Condition $ Value (ton) 

85 lb. 39 ft. 2,432.00 Reusable BL 86.34% $429 

Scrap 13.66% $325 

80 lb. 39 ft. 55.81 Reusable S/Y 100% $418 

65 lb. & 100 lb., 

115 lb. & 132 lb. 

15.94 Scrap 100% $325 

CP Quantity (tons) Condition $ Value (ton) 

85 lb. 39 ft. 2,432.00 Reusable BL 86.34% $550 

Scrap 13.66% $340 

80 lb. 39 ft. 55.81 Reusable S/Y 100% $450 

65 lb. & 100 lb. 

115 lb. & 132 lb. 

15.94 Scrap 100% $340 




- 9 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Other track materials (tie plates, joint bars, bolts, spikes, anchors, etc.) (OTM) 

[39] The various types of 85 lb. tie plates and joint bars are generally in good condition. 

Approximately 23 percent of the tie plates and 14 percent of the joint bars are classified as scrap. 

All of the 100 lb., 115 lb. and 132 lb. tie plates and joint bars are classified as reusable, and the 

65 lb. joint bars are 100 percent scrap. The bolts, spikes and rail anchors of all rail sizes are 

considered scrap. 

[40] RDNO does not estimate a value for the OTM. CP used the Agency’s breakdown of reusable and 

scrap OTM to estimate its total value at $568,881. 

[41] The Agency used the same approach to establish the market values for the OTM as it did for rail. 

That is, based upon the market value evidence presented, as well as that obtained independently 

by the Agency and set out in the MRDR, the Agency determines the following values. The value 

of reusable 85 lb. tie plates ranges from $459 to $666 per ton depending on the type of tie plate 

(see Table 1B.) Reusable double sided 100 lb., 115 lb. and 132 lb. tie plates are valued at $707 

per ton, $685 per ton and $653 per ton respectively. The value of scrap tie plates is $374 per ton. 

[42] The value of reusable 80 lb. joint bars is $605 per ton. For reusable 85 lb. joint bars, the value is 

$972 per ton for toeless joint bars and $902 per ton for joint bars that are not toeless. The value 

of all scrap joint bars is $374 per ton. Scrap bolts, nuts, spikes and rail anchors are also valued at 

$374 per ton. See Table 1B below. 

Miscellaneous track materials 

[43] There are nine switches on the main line and sidings, seven of which are 85 lb. and two that are 

100 lb. Of the 85 lb. switches, five are in reusable condition and two are scrap. One of the 100 lb. 

switches is considered reusable, the other is classified as scrap. There are also four derails, hinge 

type, 85 lb., located on sidings. All of these are considered reusable. 

[44] CP values the reusable 85 lb. switches at $5,000 each, and the reusable 100 lb. switch at $7,900. 

CP does not submit a value for the derails. CP also submits a value of $2,380 per unit for the 

85 lb. scrap switches and $2,720 for the 100 lb. scrap switch. Taking into account CP’s 

estimates, as well as those received from independent quotations, the Agency determines the 

value of the reusable 85 lb. switches to be $2,633. On the same basis, the Agency determines the 

value of the reusable 100 lb. switch to be $5,850 and estimates the value of the scrap switches on 

a per ton basis at $449 per ton for the 85 lb. switches and $492 per ton for the 100 lb. switch. The 

reusable 85 lb. hinge type derail are valued at $151 each. See Table 1B below. 




- 10 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Table 1B – Track fastenings - tie plates, joint bars, bolts, spikes, rail anchors and other 

miscellaneous track materials 

Office 

Tie plates 

Quantity 

(units) 

Condition 

65/85 lb. SS – 6.5 in. x 8.5 in. 30.10 Reusable 75% $485 

Scrap 25% $374 

85 lb. DS – 7.5 in. x 11 in. 48.70 Reusable 100% $666 

85/100 lb. SS – 7.5 in. x 11 in. 501.49 Reusable 75% $459 

Scrap 25% $374 




Joint bars 

4H-80 lb. 22 in. 2.47 Reusable 80% $605 

Scrap 20% $374 

4H-85 lb. 22 in. 64.08 Reusable 80% $902 

Scrap 20% $374 

4H-85 lb. 22 in. Toeless 27.46 Reusable 100% $972 

$ Value/ton 

(rounded) 

4H-85-100 lb. Compromise 22 in. 0.20 Reusable 100% $5,805 



Other fastenings 

Bolts 13.52 Scrap 100% $374 

Spikes 77.13 Scrap 100% $374 

Rail anchors 60.34 Scrap 100% $374 




- 11 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

CP 

Tie plates 

Quantity 

(units) Condition $ Value/unit 

85 lb. DS 11 in. 7,008 Reusable 100% $3.83 

Various 85 lb. SS tie plates 71,352 Reusable 100% $3.83 

100 lb. DS 14 in. 286 Reusable 100% $4.59 



Joint bars 

Various 80/85 RE joint/angle bars 7,054 Reusable 100% $18 

100/85 lb. Compromise joint bars 8 pairs Reusable 100% $105.68/pair 

115-132/100 lb. Compromise joint 

bars 11 pairs Reusable 100% $172.88/pair 

Other scrap fastenings 

Bolts, spikes, rail anchors, joint 

bars and tie plates 297.26 tons Scrap 100% $460/ton 

Miscellaneous track materials 

Quantity 

(units) 

Condition 

CP 

$ Value/ 

unit 

Agency 

$ Value/ 

unit 

Switch - No. 9 - 85 lb. BR 5 Reusable $5,000 $2,633 

Switch No. 11–100 lb. RBM 1 Reusable $7,900 $5,850 

Switch - No. 9 - 85 lb. BR 2 Scrap $2,380 $449/ton 

Switch No. 11–100 lb. RBM 1 Scrap $2,720 $492/ton 

Derail-hinge type - 85 lb. 4 Reusable n/a $151 

Ties 

[45] All of the three types of ties: cross, switch and bridge, are categorized based on their condition as 

good, fair or bad, with bad ties being considered scrap. Scrap ties have no salvage value, but 

instead carry a disposal cost, which will be discussed further under the section on salvage and 

disposal costs. Ties classified as fair are valued on their potential use in other non-railway, 

industrial applications. The Agency gives no consideration to using ties as landscape materials 

because they are treated with creosote. 




- 12 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Cross ties 

[46] Based on the results of a verification of a track section in each five-mile segment of the main 

line, the overall split of cross ties on the main line would be 24 percent good, reusable in similar 

branch lines, 30 percent fair, reusable in sidings and yard tracks, and 46 percent scrap. The cross 

ties on the sidings were generally in poor condition. As a result of the better condition noted by 

Agency engineering staff for the cross ties in curves, a different split was made for ties in curves. 

This results in an average overall split of the 52,031 cross ties of 26 percent in good condition, 

31 percent in fair condition and 43 percent scrap. 

[47] As with the rail and other track materials, RDNO did not submit an estimate for the value of any 

type or condition of tie. CP categorizes used ties three ways: CP relay; contractor relay; and, 

scrap. CP accepts the Agency’s breakdown of cross ties, as per the Statement of Track Materials, 

and assigns 43 percent of 52,031 cross ties as scrap. For all sizes of cross ties, CP attaches an 

average value of $17 each to the ties falling into the CP rail category, and $12 each for contractor 

relay ties for a total value of $423,627 for reusable cross ties. 

[48] Taking the values submitted and those obtained from independent quotations into account, the 

Agency assigns values for the various sizes of cross ties classified as either good or fair, as 

presented below in Table 1C. 

Switch ties and bridge deck ties 

[49] The Agency considers approximately 65 percent of the switch ties as fair, reusable in similar 

track, with the balance being classified as scrap. There are a total of three open deck bridges on 

the line. Bridge deck ties are of 8 in. x 8 in. x 10 ft. The condition of the treated bridge ties is 

generally poor, with 21 percent in a fair condition and 79 percent classified as scrap. 

[50] CP views the switch ties as nine complete “switch tie packages,” which CP considers to be 

67 percent CP relay quality and 33 percent scrap. CP assigns a value of $4,700 each to the six 

relay quality packages. Based on CP’s assessment that 67 percent of the switch ties (318) are of 

relay quality, as opposed to the Agency’s 65 percent assessment (309,) this equates to a value of 

$88.68 per tie. Regarding bridge ties, CP uses the breakdown in the Statement of Track Materials 

and assigns a value of $35 per tie for reusable bridge ties. 

[51] Based on its evaluation of the market data gathered, the Agency finds that the reusable switch 

ties and reusable bridge deck ties have a value of $37.31 and $20.17 per tie respectively. This 

reflects an average of the various assessments. See Table 1C below. 




- 13 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Table 1C - Ties 

Agency 

Cross ties 

Quantity 

(pieces) 

Condition 

$ Value 

(each) 

No. 1 TR HW - 7” x 9” x 8’ 48,562 Good 27% $13.75 

Fair 30% $10.75 

Scrap 43% n/a 

No. 2 TR HW - 6” x 8” x 8’ 3,469 Good 5% $10.33 

Fair 48% $9.33 

Scrap 47% n/a 

Switch ties 477 Fair 65% $37.31 

Scrap 35% n/a 

Bridge deck ties 108 Fair 21% $20.17 

CP 

Scrap 79% n/a 

Cross ties 52,116 CP relay 26% $17.00 

Switch ties 

Contractor relay 31% $12.00 

Scrap 43% n/a 

477 

(9 package) CP relay 67% $88.68 

Scrap 33% n/a 

Bridge deck ties 108 CP relay 21% $35.00 

Public crossings and crossing signals 

Scrap 79% n/a 

[52] A total of 13 public crossings at grade were encountered; 7 equipped with standard cross bucks 

and 6 with automatic crossing protection systems. No net salvage value is estimated for public 

crossings, although the restoration of public crossings is a factor considered in determining 

removal and disposal costs. 




- 14 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

AGENCY DETERMINATION OF GROSS SALVAGE VALUE OF TRACK ASSETS 

[53] In summary, track materials to be taken into account include rail, track fastenings, other 

miscellaneous track materials and ties. In addition to taking the parties’ estimates into account, 

several independent sources were surveyed by the Agency during its assessment of current 

market conditions and values. As noted above, the relevant quantities were determined during 

the engineering inspection and subsequently adjusted, where appropriate, based on the comments 

received from the parties. The unit values for the various assets were, in turn, multiplied by the 

respective quantities to arrive at the gross salvage value, which the Agency determines to be 

$1,836,257. See Table 1D below. 

Table 1D - Gross salvage value of track assets 

Track asset 

Total gross 

salvage value 

(rounded to the 

nearest $) 

Rail (Table 1A) $1,037,942 

Track fastenings and miscellaneous track materials 

(Table 1B) $429,798 

Reusable ties (Table 1C) $368,517 

Gross salvage value - Track assets $1,836,257 

Cost of removal and salvaging 

[54] The accepted definitions and the Agency’s methodology for determining net salvage value 

include an assessment of the relevant costs for the removal and disposal of track assets. 

Structures are considered to be left in place, and public crossings are considered to be resurfaced 

to return them to their original condition. The steel track materials are assessed on the basis of 

either being sent for disposal to a scrap yard or shipped/sold for reuse elsewhere. Cross, switch 

and bridge ties are considered to be sold for reuse as second-hand track materials or disposed of 

in a licensed disposal site. Transportation costs have been factored into the salvage and disposal 

costs as most of the track materials, including the ties, could not be disposed of locally. 

[55] An itemized breakdown of RDNO’s estimate for the cost of removal and salvaging was included 

in its submission of value in Appendix 5: Golder Associates: Preliminary Cost Assessment to 

Decommission a Rail Corridor between Armstrong and Grindrod BC (Golder Report.) RDNO 

submitted this report with a claim for confidentiality, indicating that it was due to the sensitive 

and privileged nature of the material. For the most part, the Agency accepts this claim for 

confidentiality. However, for the purposes of this determination of removal and salvaging costs, 

the Agency finds that it is necessary to disclose certain isolated values set out in the Golder 

Report and the Agency further finds that disclosing these values does not compromise the 

confidentiality of the Golder Report as a whole. 




- 15 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Rail and other track materials 

[56] With respect to the cost of salvaging the track materials, RDNO submits a cost of $242,250 for 

track removal and $127,500 for tie removal (a total of $369,750,) as indicated in the Golder 

Report. This equates to a salvaging cost of $22,075 per mile. 

[57] CP bases its estimate for the removal of track and material on 15.23 miles of track at $19,000 per 

mile, which totals $289,370. CP bases its mileage on main track route miles as opposed to the 

16.75 total track miles identified in the Statement of Track Materials. It is CP’s position that its 

estimate reflects a conservative point between contractor salvaging costs of 85 lb. branch lines 

submitted in previous net salvage value submissions and CP’s most recent 85 lb. salvaging 

contracts provided to the Agency under claim of confidentiality, and takes into account labour 

cost fluctuations since the salvage contracts were awarded. CP indicates that an estimate of 

$21,500 to account for the restoration of road crossings is included in its cost per mile estimate. 

CP estimates an additional amount of $33,794 to account for the cost of loading and transporting 

the track materials. This increases CP’s submitted salvaging and removal cost to $19,293 per 

mile, based on the total cost submitted by CP and the total mileage of 16.75 miles determined by 

the Agency. 

[58] The Agency’s determination of the total mileage for the Line of 16.75 miles includes 15.16 miles 

of branch line and 1.59 miles of siding and guard rails. This finding is based on the Agency’s 

examination of the site as detailed in the Statement of Track Materials. There are 13 public 

crossings, 5 with asphalt, 1 with concrete panels, and 6 with wood planks and asphalt. The 

quotations received by the Agency for track removal and disposal include reparation of road 

crossings, as well as the transportation costs associated with the removal of steel, relay ties and 

scrap OTM. The Agency has analyzed the submissions of the parties on this basis, and has 

established a removal and disposal cost that is inclusive of these additional factors. 

[59] After considering the parties’ estimates and those of the other quotations received, the Agency 

has determined the total inclusive cost for removal of the track and track materials to be $23,300 

per mile, totalling $390,276 for the 16.75 miles of track on the Line. 

Scrap tie disposal 

[60] There is a cost to dispose of scrap ties and transport them to a facility where they can be disposed 

of in an environmentally sound manner. Under both the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 

S.C., 1999, c. 33 and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, S.C., 1992, c. 34, materials 

with a creosote concentration of above 100 ppm are considered a toxic waste. The Agency bases 

its assessment of the transportation and disposal costs associated with the environmentally sound 

disposal of scrap ties, which includes chipping the scrap ties and transporting them to an 

approved co-generation site, on the assumption that all scrap ties installed on the line exceed the 

allowable creosote level. 

[61] RDNO’s Golder Report assigns a disposal cost of $7.50 per tie for scrap ties. The removal costs 

for scrap ties are included in RDNO’s estimate of track removal costs noted earlier. 




- 16 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[62] CP included the cost of picking up the scrap ties from the Line and transporting them to the rail 

car loading point in its submitted cost of salvage noted earlier. CP submits a further cost to load, 

transport and dispose of the scrap ties. CP calculated this cost based on CP’s Unit Cost 

determination for On Company Service (OCS,) and made a claim for confidentiality on the 

specifics of this calculation. CP’s estimated number of scrap ties is 22,455, which differs from 

the quantity of 23,623 scrap ties determined by the Agency. Based on its estimated quantity, CP 

submits an estimated cost of $2.55 per scrap tie to load, transport and dispose of scrap ties. 

[63] After considering the parties’ estimates and those of other quotations received, The Agency 

determines the cost for the environmentally sound disposal of cross ties to be $6.65 per tie; 

switch ties $8.68 per tie, and bridge ties $9.36 per tie. These result in the Agency’s determination 

of a total disposal cost for scrap ties of $150,967. 

AGENCY DETERMINATION OF THE COSTS OF THE REMOVAL AND SALVAGE 

OF TRACK ASSETS 

[64] The Agency determines the total removal and salvage cost for the track assets to be $541,243. A 

comparison, based on 16.75 miles of track, of the removal and salvage costs of track assets as 

determined by the Agency and the estimates submitted by the parties is summarized in Table 2 

below. 

Table 2 

Rail salvage costs* 

Quantity 

$ Value/mile 

(rounded) 

Submitted 

total 

Agency total 

Agency 16.75 mi. $23,300 $390, 276 

RDNO $22,075 $369,750 

CP $19,293 $323,164 

Scrap tie disposal, chipping, 

transportation, etc. 

Agency 

Quantity 

$ Value/tie 

(rounded) 

Cross ties 23,370 $6.65 $148,712 

Switch ties 168 $8.68 $1,459 

Bridge ties 85 $9.36 $796 

RDNO 23,623 $7.50 $169,672 

CP 22,455 $2.55 $57,346 

Agency total removal and disposal cost $541,243 

* Includes transportation of steel, relay ties, scrap OTM, and restoration of road crossings. 




- 17 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

AGENCY DETERMINATION OF NET SALVAGE VALUE FOR TRACK MATERIALS 

[65] The net salvage value for track materials is obtained by subtracting the cost of removal, salvage 

and transportation of $541,243 from the gross salvage value of the track materials of $1,836,257. 

The Agency therefore determines a net salvage value of the track materials on the Line of 

$1,295,014. 

Consideration of bridges and culverts 

[66] There are three open deck bridges on the Line. 

[67] CP submits that in valuing a railway line where a possible purpose or end use is for continued 

rail operations, consideration must be given to the preservation of bridges and culverts. Where a 

possible end use is for other types of linear corridors such as a roadway or recreational trail, 

bridges and culverts would also be preserved and have value in terms of the use of a line. CP 

adds that costs associated with the removal of railway bridges and culverts have never been 

included in net salvage value determinations. CP argues that the reasons given in Decision 

No. LET-R-74-2008 for assigning a zero value and cost for the removal of railway bridges are 

applicable in this case. 

[68] CP further submits that all culverts are functional and none require removal. 

[69] RDNO submits that CP’s Okanagan Subdivision directly interacts with Fortune Creek and its 

tributaries through culverts, an existing wooden rail bridge and with the right of way, including 

riparian areas that must be rehabilitated during any land use development. 

[70] RDNO contends that a railway company is usually required to remove bridges over navigable 

waters and fish bearing streams (Crown Land) at the request of the Crown and to restore grade 

crossings at its own expense. RDNO further contends that in some cases, railway companies 

must remove berms and culverts as well and restore the corridor to its original contours when 

selling to individual owners. 

[71] RDNO maintains that the railway company retains some risk from the unauthorized use of 

structures that remain intact. As an example, RDNO states that if a trespasser falls off an 

abandoned bridge, even if the bridge is blocked off, the railway company may still be liable. 

According to RDNO, a railway company wants to be absolved of its associated liability as part 

of any sale and those liabilities should be taken into account when evaluating the net salvage 

value. 

Agency finding 

[72] The costs associated with the removal of railway bridges have never been included in past 

Agency net salvage value determinations under section 145 of the CTA. There are several 

reasons for this exclusion: the removal of railway bridges is not required by law upon 

discontinuation of railway lines; the subsequent use of a railway line for which the Agency 

determines net salvage value may include rail and non-rail transportation use; and, the costs 




- 18 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

associated with the dismantlement of railway bridges are uncertain as the state of these assets at 

the time of transfer and the time of dismantlement is likely to change. The Agency’s 

predecessors, the Canadian Transport Commission and the National Transportation Agency, also 

determined net salvage value in support of subsidy calculations with respect to actual losses 

incurred in the operation of particular railway lines. In those proceedings, the net salvage value 

of railway bridges was consistently deemed to be zero. 

[73] As with determinations made under section 145 of the CTA, the Agency, in accordance with 

section 146.3 of the CTA, is required to determine a net salvage value of a railway line, which 

can be used “for any purpose” and may include possible rail and non-rail transportation uses. 

Consistent with past Agency determinations and in light of the above reasons, the Agency will 

include neither the salvage value nor the cost of dismantling the bridges on the Line in its net 

salvage value determination. 

[74] On the subject of culvert removal, culverts are not normally backfilled when a railway line is 

discontinued. There are circumstances where certain culverts would need to be removed, such as 

if a culvert was not functioning and caused water to flow outside the normal channel, resulting in 

damage to adjacent landowners. However, in this case, all culverts are functional and, therefore, 

there is no provision for their removal. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 

[75] The Agency examines the environmental conditions present in every net salvage value 

application it undertakes. In this case, after the Agency examined the submissions of the parties 

and relayed the results of its examination through a confidential process necessitated by the 

parties’ claim for confidentiality on their respective environment related submissions, the parties 

were given a choice of several options regarding if and how the Agency should proceed with 

further environmental examination. 

[76] RDNO and CP both chose the option which, on agreement of the parties, eliminated the need for 

further environmental scrutiny and any determination of possible associated costs for the 

purposes of the net salvage value process. Under this option, it was further stipulated that the net 

salvage value determined by the Agency would exclude any consideration of potential 

environmental costs. It also noted that a decision issued without consideration of environmental 

costs would not imply environmental costs do not exist, but rather that the Agency had not made 

a decision either way with respect to the existence of environmental costs. 

[77] On the basis of the parties’ agreement on this option, in Decision No. LET-R-123-2011, the 

Agency determined that the net salvage value of the Line will be determined without further 

assessment of whether there were environmental costs applicable. 

INTEREST IN LEASES AND AGREEMENTS 

[78] A value representative of the interest in any leases and agreements that are expected to survive 

the transfer of the line is taken into consideration by the Agency when establishing the net 

salvage value. 




- 19 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[79] In its submission, CP includes a confidential detailed table of the leases and agreements currently 

in place on the Line, which it considers subject to transfer when ownership of the Line changes. 

CP submits the net present value of the leases to be $183,960.51. This is based on a period of 

15 years with a 3 percent annual lease increase, and a discount rate of 6.80 percent. 

[80] Prior to the value of the revenue stream from any particular lease or agreement being included in 

the net salvage value, a key determinant is that there must be a reasonable certainty that the 

agreement will survive the transfer of the railway line. The types of agreements contemplated by 

the Agency for consideration in a net salvage value determined under sections 145 and 146.3 of 

the CTA are primarily utility easement agreements and long-term agreements of that nature. 

They are limited to access agreements that are not necessarily dependent on or the consequence 

of continued rail operations, as well as agreements that are not contingent on the railway line 

being under federal jurisdiction. 

[81] Upon examination, the Agency finds that certain of the leases submitted by CP, such as those for 

private sidings, are rail dependent and do not meet the necessary criteria. These have not, 

therefore, been included in the Agency’s calculation. The Agency finds that the annual lease 

revenue of $11,974 from the remaining agreements can reasonably be expected to continue after 

the Line is transferred. Therefore, consistent with past practices, the Agency includes the present 

value of these leases for ten years in the net salvage value of the Line and applies a discount rate 

equal to the rate of return on long-term Canadian bonds of 2.40 percent. The resulting increase to 

the net salvage value to account for interest in leases and agreements is $105,338. 

LAND VALUATION 

[82] A value of the land component of the Line was submitted by both parties, and each party used a 

different methodology. 

RDNO 

[83] RDNO estimates the total area of the land to be 226.28 acres, including 23.16 acres within 

Spallumcheen Indian Band Enderby (Enderby IR#2.) It submits the fee simple interest value of 

the land to be $2,820,879. RDNO further estimates an additional range of costs for legal and 

survey costs, Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) application fees and local and regional land use 

planning application fees of between $277,250 and $549,350 would reduce this value. 

[84] To evaluate the fair market value of the corridor, RDNO indicates that it consulted with a 

registered local real estate appraiser and has relied on his expert’s opinion regarding a sectoral 

valuation of the corridor. RDNO also notes that due to time constraints and the complexity of the 

real estate appraisal, a detailed assessment of the Across the Fence (ATF) valuation was not 

undertaken. RDNO does not identify its expert or submit a copy of its expert’s opinion. 

[85] As the basis of its valuation, RDNO examines the four criteria that must be met in the analysis of 

highest and best use (i.e., legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible and 

maximally productive) and submits that expected land use, as determined by zoning and Official 

Community Plan (OCP) limitations, provincial designations and surrounding area land uses, as 




- 20 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

well as existing linkages, market demand and current improvements, limit the highest and best 

use to either a corridor or consolidation with surrounding parcels. It concludes that due to the 

inability of CP to dispose of the corridor for rail purposes to a third party for continued 

operation, the lack of interest by the Province and the federal government to acquire the corridor, 

and potential segmentation of the corridor due to First Nations issues (discussed below,) the 

highest and best use of the corridor would be for it to be parcelled up for consolidation with 

existing adjacent properties. 

[86] RDNO’s methodology for land valuation under this scenario involves the implementation of 

sectoral analysis. Under this approach, the subject property is segmented by its ability to be 

attached with adjacent parcels using the ATF valuation, and its value reflects the aggregate of the 

market value of each considered sector, after certain constraints and factors affecting the value 

have been taken into consideration. 

[87] RDNO indicates that these factors and constraints include the effects of provincial ALR property 

designations and the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR,) zoning bylaws and OCPs, the existence 

of double road frontages, and First Nations claims and uncertainty. RDNO also submits that 

there is an impact due to uncertainty over environmental issues. This is discussed in this 

Decision under Environmental Considerations. 

[88] RDNO submits that, subject to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, S.B.C., 2002, c. 36, and 

the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation; with respect to land 

located in the province’s designated ALR (a provincial zone in which agriculture is recognized 

as the priority use,) the Line would be considered a pre-existing non-conforming non-farm use of 

the ALR. RDNO further submits that if no longer used for rail purposes, any new non-farm use 

of the Line, including linear corridors, roads, trails, utilities and other transportation uses, would 

require approval from the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC.) RDNO adds that the potential 

uses of the corridor would be significantly restricted as the uses that may be acceptable to the 

ALC would be very limited. According to RDNO, it is unlikely that the ALC would support 

raising separate title to portions of the right of way for separate sale to adjoining landowners due 

to issues with road access and concerns that the land might be manipulated into residential 

parcels. It considers consolidation with adjacent ALR properties would, therefore, likely be the 

most supportable outcome, contingent on the willingness of adjacent owners to purchase these 

parcels. RDNO indicates that unless restored for agricultural use, the value of a narrow strip of 

non-farm use land that would require ALC approval for any use would be substantially lower 

than productive agricultural land. 

[89] With respect to the RAR, RDNO explains that, enabled by the Fish Protection Act, S.B.C., 1997, 

c. 21, the regulation applies to any new residential, commercial and industrial development that 

occurs within 30 metres (100 feet) of the high water mark along any water body (in this case 

Shuswap River, Fortune Creek and any tributaries) on private land and privately used Crown 

land that is under local government jurisdiction. RDNO indicates that this legislation is intended 

to ensure that land developers assess habitat and the potential impacts to habitat, develop 

mitigation measures and avoid impacts from development for fish and fish habitat, particularly 

riparian habitat (referred to as harmful alteration, disruption or destruction [HADD] of riparian 

fish habitat.) If an HADD cannot be avoided, an application for authorization must be submitted 




- 21 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO.) RDNO also indicates that DFO may require 

rehabilitation of the riparian area within 30 metres of the high water mark, at the owner’s 

expense, and a restrictive covenant be placed on the property to protect the riparian area. RDNO 

submits that the liability associated with attempting any development or removal of ballast 

within 30 metres of a watercourse reduces the value of the land. 

[90] Concerning zoning bylaws and OCP issues, RDNO states that the Line is currently registered as 

eight parcels and that any change in usage, including linear corridor uses, development proposals 

and subdivision, would require rezoning and OCP amendment applications, RAR applications, 

development variance permits and other local, regional or provincial authorizations for each 

parcel. RDNO contends that this provides uncertainty to any potential purchaser regarding 

permitted end usage. 

[91] RDNO submits that the corridor has three major sections that are contained by two roads (double 

road frontages,) indicating that 23.06 acres of land in Electoral Area F, considered by the ALC to 

be in the ALR, is isolated by two roads. As this land is governed by a zoning bylaw dictating a 

minimum parcel size of one acre and consolidation with adjacent parcels would require the 

removal of one of the road right of ways, RDNO considers subdivision for this acreage 

problematic. RDNO adds that 6.01 acres of corridor land within the city of Enderby has double 

road frontage that may make commercial and/or industrial development attractive, although there 

is uncertainty whether the City of Enderby would support those types of development. 

[92] RDNO indicates that the Spallumcheen Indian Band, through legal precedent, and the “INAC 

policy,” has a high probability of consolidating the Okanagan Subdivision, from mileages 23.50 

to 25.42, with Enderby IR#2, through a property transfer from CP to the Crown, at no cost. 

RDNO argues that these lands should be excluded from the valuation and that this uncertainty 

over the corridor lands may reduce the willingness of a purchaser to acquire the parcel at fair 

market value. 

[93] To arrive at the ATF values, based on the premise that the lands would be sold to adjacent 

landowners for consolidation with their existing parcels, RDNO indicates that it employed the 

Direct Comparison Approach. For this purpose, it used a sectoral average price based on current 

market demand and the current market value of those parcels, as well as consideration of current 

market trends, survey costs and costs associated with disposal of individual parcels. 

[94] RDNO identifies the following land use categories abutting the Line and estimates the ATF 

value per acre of the various categories as follows: ALR Farm Use - $8,000; R1 and R1A - 

$350,000; R3 1 - $500,000; Commercial - $550,000; Industrial - $200,000; Institutional (S1) - 

$500,000, First Nations - $0. The ATF value is reduced by 50 percent for any land that RDNO 

considers potentially affected by the RAR. 

1 R1, R1A: Residential single family zoning; R3: Residential apartment and multi-family zoning 




- 22 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[95] RDNO indicates that the sectoral analysis was implemented by segmenting the right of way by 

its ability to be autonomously used, or attached with adjacent parcels. RDNO considered any 

constraints and issues affecting highest and best use, and identified each sector’s 

geographical/physical asset, local and regional zoning and OCP designation prior to August 1, 

2010, ALR designation, and each sector’s highest and best use considering ATF land use and 

development. A total of 759 segments (incorporating ATF values on both the east and west sides 

of the corridor) were examined. This results in a total ATF value for the Line of $5,641,758, as 

submitted by RDNO. 

[96] RDNO further submits that, based on the assumption that the ALR lands were remediated to 

farm use standard, a conservative discount rate of 50 percent is applicable to the ATF value to 

account for the uncertainty associated with the corridor issues it has identified, as well as issues 

associated with profit allowance and limited marketability. This results in RDNO’s submitted 

land value of $2,820,879. 

[97] RDNO indicates that ALR non-farm use lands would be worth significantly less, and that 

deductions or carrying costs, costs associated with adhering to local, regional or provincial 

regulations, legislation and/or approvals, or any other land development or transfer obligations 

and costs have not been taken into account. 

[98] With respect to a corridor assemblage premium, in RDNO’s view, there is a high probability of 

the reversion of the Okanagan Subdivision, mileages 23.50 to 25.42, to the Crown to be 

consolidated with Enderby IR#2. It contends, therefore, that a corridor assemblage premium 

should not be applied in this case, or if applied, should be significantly reduced as the corridor 

would no longer be continuous. 

[99] In response to CP’s submission on land value, RDNO maintains that the land valuation must 

consider permissibility and the land must be valued in context with the legal and regulatory 

issues of the corridor in question. It considers that CP’s classification of 60.19 acres as 

“improved industrial” and 120.39 acres as “raw industrial” has not taken into account issues 

associated with ALR and First Nations lands and that the “as is” sale of the land transfers the 

associated liabilities to the new owners, which therefore reduces the saleability and value of the 

land. RDNO adds that CP’s valuation approach presupposes an end use based on local OCPs, 

which recognize the current use of the land and that the rail corridor sales evidenced by CP are 

not reflective of the constraints and liabilities that a purchaser would need to consider in British 

Columbia. 

CP 

[100] CP estimates the total land area on the Line to be 180.58 acres, which it indicates comprises the 

standard 100-foot right of way, rights of way wider than 100 feet (typically to accommodate 

higher cuts and fills) and former station ground lands, which may be leased to rail 

customers/businesses or used to support rail operations. CP submits a value of $16,500,000 for 

this land. 




- 23 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[101] CP commissioned a land appraisal report, from Rod Cook, senior partner of Kent Macpherson 

real estate appraisers (Cook Report,) to provide evidence of the market value of the corridor 

lands. CP submitted the Cook Report, dated December 23, 2009, with a claim for confidentiality. 

[102] CP indicates that Mr. Cook valued the corridor lands using several valuation methodologies: its 

value as a “linear corridor;” an ATF valuation and a Sector valuation (simplified ATF valuation.) 

The tax roll assessed value of the corridor lands is not included in the Cook Report. CP submits 

that because these values are assessed on a province-wide rate, they are not representative of 

market values. 

[103] Based on the amount of interest generated by the offering of this corridor, the intent stated by 

RDNO in its application and rezoning bylaws designating the Line for an end use as a linear 

corridor, it is CP’s position that the most likely end use for the Line is as a linear corridor. CP 

submits that the total appraised Linear Corridor value of the lands, as per the Cook Report, is 

$16,500,000. It indicates that the Cook Report classified 60.19 acres as “Improved Industrial,” 

commanding a higher price per acre (more than three times higher than “Raw Industrial.”) then 

the remaining 120.39 acres were classified as “Raw Industrial.” CP suggests that this should be 

considered the minimum reasonable value and that an intact and unencumbered corridor provides 

additional value, to which a corridor assemblage premium could be applicable. CP also indicates 

that, in its experience, the sale of railway corridors has encompassed a wide variety of uses, 

including short-line and tourist rail operations, utility corridors ranging from waterlines, sewer 

lines, oil and gas lines, telecommunication lines (including fibre) etc., and public recreational 

trails. 

[104] Another reasonably possible end use according to CP is the annexation of the land by adjacent 

landowners. CP indicates that much of the right of way runs through agricultural, rural and urban 

lands and many of these landowners will likely want to acquire the portion of the right of way 

that bisects or runs adjacent to their property. According to CP, such landowners would pay, at a 

minimum, the ATF value, and, in situations where their property is bisected, a premium may be 

considered in order to have a contiguous parcel. To value the land from this perspective, CP 

indicates that the Cook Report employed both an ATF valuation and a Sector valuation. CP 

describes the Sector valuation as a broad ATF valuation, which involves breaking down the right 

of way into larger land use components and applying the average land values to each sector. 

[105] CP submits a total value of $7,300,000 using the ATF valuation and $8,900,000 using the Sector 

valuation. CP maintains that the ATF valuation can undervalue the land because it does not 

consider the premium that adjacent landowners may be willing to pay and/or the contributory 

value (compounding effect) of the right of way if added to adjacent properties. CP indicates that 

detailed feasibility studies assisted by planners and engineers would be required to determine 

“highest and best use” of the lands before and after the addition of the right of way to more 

precisely quantify ATF values, including enhancement values. 

[106] It is CP’s position that the ATF and Sector methodologies have limitations in trying to determine 

the appropriate valuation of the corridor lands. Specifically, the ATF approach does not account 

for any cost incurred in improving or preparing the right of way for railway use, whereas the 

Linear Corridor valuation reflects the value of the right of way to an industrial user that could 




- 24 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

utilize the corridor and existing improvements for the purpose for which they were designed. CP 

submits that the ATF and Sector approaches value the corridor on the basis of the value of the 

adjacent lands that it traverses, which have very different valuations, uses and potential purposes, 

but do not necessarily reflect the value of a transportation corridor. 

[107] In response to RDNO’s submission on land value, CP submits that the submission contains 

several significant errors with respect to the calculation of the net salvage value. One of these is 

the assumption which, according to CP, is consistent throughout RDNO’s reasoning, that 

valuation of the Line occurs at a point in time after it is discontinued. CP asserts that the relevant 

valuation point is prior to discontinuance. Accordingly, CP considers that alleged and speculative 

costs that might arise after discontinuance, including any costs associated with ownership of land 

under British Columbia’s legislative and regulatory framework, such as the ALR, the RAR and 

local regulations, as well as First Nations issues, are not relevant to the net salvage value 

determination. 

[108] CP maintains that another incorrect assumption on RDNO’s part is that the Line will not be used 

for rail purposes and that the right of way lands must be re-engineered to farmland use. CP 

contends that the Agency must consider that the Line is offered “for any purpose,” which 

includes use as a railway line. CP further submits that, in its experience, rail purposes would be a 

most likely end use as it has sold numerous railway lines both during and after discontinuance 

for the purpose of short-line and tourist railway operations. CP considers re-engineering the Line 

for farm land use to be the most extreme change of use that could be proposed and, if the cost 

exceeds the value, does not represent a reasonable end use. 

[109] It is also CP’s position that the discount factors applied by RDNO are arbitrary and that RDNO 

does not specifically identify how the discount was reached, other than repeating the alleged and 

incorrect cost assumptions. CP further contends that, because RDNO did not undertake a detailed 

appraisal by a certified appraiser, its submission does not have an accurate base land value from 

which to apply a discount factor. Further to this, CP disputes that any discount value is 

appropriate and reiterates that it has provided an expert appraisal report to confirm the value of 

the right of way lands. 

[110] With specific reference to the ALR, CP submits that the right of way has never had a history of 

use as agricultural land and that during the construction of the Line in 1890 to 1892, top soil 

would have been removed due to its inherent lack of geotechnical stability. Because of this, CP 

contends that the status of the soil would have been non-agricultural at the time of the enactment 

of the British Columbia Land Commission Act in 1973 and the ALR in 1974 through 1976. As a 

result, CP submits that the Line would not be considered part of the ALR even after 

discontinuance as the primary technical assessment point for land as agricultural is the presence 

of high quality agricultural soils. CP considers the ALR completely irrelevant to the net salvage 

value determination and disputes that a discount factor should be applied due to the ALR. 

Further to this, CP contends that fees associated with applications to the ALC for permits for 

non-farm or linear corridor use should also not be considered because, in its view, as the Line 

has not been discontinued, the ALR is not applicable. 




- 25 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[111] CP considers the RAR to be another example of a regulation that is not applicable to the Line 

because it has not been discontinued. CP adds that the regulation is applicable only to “new 

residential and commercial development” and that the most cost-effective and reasonable 

possible uses of the Line include continuing railway operations or use as a linear corridor. CP 

considers new residential and commercial development of the corridor to be unlikely because of 

municipal zoning bylaws, which CP indicates are intended to maintain the Line as a 

railway/transportation corridor after discontinuance. CP also states that it is unaware of any 

regulatory triggers or requirements related to riparian areas or wetlands associated with historic 

land uses and characterizes the reduction applied by RDNO due to RAR issues as “random.” 

[112] With respect to any assumption that subdivision restrictions would create delay or difficulty in 

selling or that consolidation applications would be required to annex portions of the property 

with adjoining landowners, CP submits that neither of these are the case. CP indicates that any 

costs associated with subdivision or consolidation are not applicable because the Line has not 

been discontinued and remains an intact corridor, and neither cost would be required if the Line 

was sold as a linear corridor. 

[113] CP also submits that, even if the Line were sold to adjacent landowners, these costs, as well as 

any requirement to obtain approval with respect to the ALR, change of usage, development 

proposals, OCP amendment applications, etc., would not be applicable because the Line already 

has a total of 46 separate titles, many of which align with the property boundaries of adjacent 

lands, and CP or a future owner would not have to subdivide titles to sell the right of way lands 

to adjacent owners. CP contends that it does not matter if these separate legal parcels do not 

conform to existing requirements (i.e., minimum size or frontage) because they have already 

been created. In addition, CP indicates that road access would not be an issue as the parcels 

would become part of the adjoining lot, which would already have access. CP also does not 

consider double road frontages to be an issue, indicating that in the double road section of the 

property there would be no need to create parcels because there are already existing parcels. CP 

contends that there is no level of government that would need to provide approval for the transfer 

of parcels. CP also considers that any claim that legal and survey costs will be required is 

incorrect because CP has legal descriptions and titles for all of the land comprising the Line and 

no surveying would be required. 

[114] CP agrees that in the event the Line were decommissioned and abandoned, its right of way 

would be subject to land use restrictions placed by local governments. However, CP points out 

that RDNO, the interested purchaser which is claiming a discount due to local OCPs and zoning 

bylaws, is, in part, comprised of the same communities responsible for making the OCP 

amendments and rezoning bylaws to account for which RDNO considers a discount to the land 

value should apply. 




- 26 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[115] CP also disputes RDNO’s contention that when the railway lands are no longer used for rail 

purposes, the former reserve lands at Enderby IR#2 will have to be returned to reserve status and, 

therefore, should be excluded from the calculation and preclude the Line being valued as an 

assembled land corridor. CP submits that discontinuance of the Line is not an automatic trigger 

for reversion to Canada in trust for the First Nations and that at the time the net salvage value 

determination is made, in addition to the fact that discontinuance will not have occurred, a 

continuous assembled corridor, over which continued rail operations including car storage or rail 

operations under provincial jurisdiction may continue to occur, will still exist. As such, CP 

contends that the conditions that must be satisfied before a reversionary interest can be triggered 

will not exist. 

[116] Further, CP indicates that in British Columbia, all lands outside of treaty areas are subject to 

some form of asserted, but as yet undetermined aboriginal rights or title. CP contends that where 

the claim is a general assertion of rights and title to traditionally used lands, and not a claim 

focused on a specific parcel of land, this is not considered as a factor in the determination of 

market value of properties. CP submits that it would be inappropriate to discount the net salvage 

value on account of the Shuswap Nation’s asserted rights or title and that it is the duty of the 

Crown to consult and enter into settlements, not private landowners. Therefore, CP claims the 

former reserve lands should be included in the net salvage value determination and that to attach 

a $0 value to these lands presupposes that a continued rail operation of the Line could not 

possibly occur in the future. 

The Erickson Report 

[117] In circumstances where the parties to a net salvage value do not agree on the value of the land, 

and the Agency considers it necessary in order to reconcile these differences, its practice is to 

contract a qualified independent land appraiser to conduct an impartial assessment of the parties 

differing land valuations. This assessment is intended to evaluate the two submitted value 

estimates for the vacant land component of the net salvage value for the subject property, make 

comments and render an opinion as to the merits and/or shortcomings of the parties’ valuations, 

taking into consideration the assumptions, methodology and conclusions derived at in each 

submission. This is to assist the Agency in its reconciliation of the two value estimates and to 

arrive at a proposed value of the land. In applications submitted under section 146.3 of the CTA, 

as is the case here, the applicant is responsible to reimburse the Agency’s costs for this 

independent assessment, in accordance with subsection 146.3(3) of the CTA. 

[118] In this case, due to the large discrepancy in land values submitted by RDNO and CP, the Agency 

determined that an expert impartial evaluation of these submissions was necessary. The Agency 

commissioned Harvey Erickson, AACI, P. App, of North Country Appraisals Ltd., based out of 

Kelowna British Columbia to conduct the evaluation. The resulting three part report (Erickson 

Report) consists of a detailed Appraisal Review of each submission (Part A and Part B of the 

Report) and a correlation of Mr. Erickson’s review findings, which also includes his professional 

opinion on the value of the subject lands in the context of a net salvage value (Part C of the 

Report.) Part C of the Report was distributed to the parties for comments on July 19, 2012. 

Comments were received on August 17, 2012. 




- 27 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Findings of the Erickson Report 

Key strengths and weaknesses 

[119] Although both of the parties’ submissions were found to contain certain positive attributes, the 

Erickson Report does not agree with the reliability, completeness or reasonableness of either the 

appraisal report submitted by CP (Cook Report) or the submission of land value made by RDNO 

(RDNO submission.) 

[120] Mr. Erickson indicates that both adequately map the property and give a reasonable presentation 

of the location and characteristics of the property given the extensive nature of right of way, and 

that RDNO identifies adjacent land uses and zoning well. With reference to market data, 

Mr. Erickson views the market data used in the Cook Report as somewhat reliable in a general 

sense. However, he has concerns over the dominance of the use of extracted land values 2 

calculated using assessed improvement values, and sees no indication that the market values 

were time adjusted due to downward market corrections occurring after 2008, which he indicates 

could result in a 20 to 25 percent differential, or whether size adjustment considerations were 

taken into account. Mr. Erickson indicates that the market values used in the RDNO submission 

rely on very general market trends and apply values in a broad brush manner. He adds that these 

estimates are suspect for accuracy having been assembled and determined by an undisclosed 

third party professional with no background research tendered to validate the opinions. 

Highest and best use issues 

[121] The Erickson Report indicates that the determination of highest and best use is fundamental to 

any evaluation, albeit in many cases a complex assignment. Mr. Erickson expresses serious 

concerns as to whether either submission filed by the parties has accurately assessed the highest 

and best use, including the interest appraised. 

[122] With reference to the Cook Report, Mr. Erickson considers it difficult to determine exactly if and 

what is resolved as highest and best use. Without stipulating any hypothetical or limiting 

condition or extraordinary assumption, the Cook Report initially focuses on the break-up 

potential of the property both from an ATF perspective and through a Sector valuation. It then 

evaluates the property through a Linear Corridor valuation, based on the corridor being retained 

as an industrial transportation corridor, using industrial market values, with emphasis on its use 

as a continuous commercial corridor, possibly based on the assumption that the corridor will be 

retained for railway usage, and with no examination of alternative corridor uses such as a trail 

system or park usage. 

2 An extracted land value is calculated by deducting the value of improvements from the sale price of an improved property. 




- 28 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[123] Mr. Erickson indicates that the Cook Report appears to discount the break-up potential using 

ATF as being representative of the highest and best use because the industrial Linear Corridor 

valuation it puts forward produces a higher market value than what the ATF value indicates and 

notes that CP adopts the industrial Linear Corridor valuation for its submission of net salvage 

value. Mr. Erickson also notes that the Cook Report offers no discussion of supply and demand 

factors affecting the marketability of the property. Because the Cook Report does not conclude a 

reconciled value estimate, but instead looks at three different values, presumably estimated by 

three different methodologies, Mr. Erickson views the Cook Report as more of a consultative 

analysis conducted specifically for CP internal purposes than a market value appraisal. 

Mr. Erickson further indicates that without substantial clarification or adjustment, he considers 

the Cook Report unreliable for the Agency’s purposes. 

[124] With reference to the RDNO submission, Mr. Erickson states that RDNO does formulate an 

opinion of highest and best use. Specifically, RDNO concluded that CP’s inability to sell, 

transfer or lease the Line for continued operations and the lack of interest by the federal and 

provincial governments in acquiring the Line indicate that its market as a transportation corridor 

is limited to non-existent and the highest and best use is as a source of income as an asset to be 

disposed of on a parcel by parcel basis to abutting landowners. However, Mr. Erickson points out 

that while RDNO does not detail any specific assumptions or limiting conditions, as per the 

Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (CUSPAP) requirements, it does 

employ specific assumptions and limitations within its presentation and evaluation conclusions. 

In addition to assumptions related to ALR classifications, riparian, zoning and OCP issues, Mr. 

Erickson indicates that one major assumption RDNO makes is that the property cannot be 

retained as a continuous transportation corridor because the land that runs through the First 

Nations Enderby IR#2 is assumed to go back to the Crown. Mr. Erickson states that this 

assumption directly influences RDNO’s conclusion of highest and best use and that if the 

assumption proved to be false, the opinions and conclusion of RDNO’s professional could be 

altered, diminishing the reliability of the RDNO submission. Mr. Erickson also points that it is 

not within his mandate to comment on First Nations issues. 

Methodology issues 

[125] With reference to the application of various valuation methodologies used, the Erickson Report 

identifies issues in both the Cook Report and the RDNO submission. Mr. Erickson expresses 

certain concerns over all three valuation techniques employed in the Cook Report; the ATF 

method, the Sector valuation and the Linear Corridor valuation, as well as with the ATF 

technique used by RDNO. 

[126] Mr. Erickson indicates that in applying the ATF technique, the Cook Report assesses the ATF 

value of the corridor based on 275 hypothetically plotted parcels, with CTQ-designated 3 areas 

ranging from .02 acre to 12.41 acres and an average size of 0.657 acre per parcel, apparently on 

the assumption that the property may be broken up and sold to 275 different parties for the 

purpose of consolidation and assemblage. However, Mr. Erickson notes that the Cook Report 

does not discuss the ramifications of assemblage of the right of way or portions thereof with 

3 Refers to mapping provided in the Cook report by CTQ Consultants Ltd.; involved in Engineering, Planning and Urban Design 




- 29 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

adjoining, and more particularly neighbouring, properties that are set apart from the right of way 

by roads and other impediments. He also notes that it does not discuss setback requirements as 

they might apply to water front property along the Shuswap River or the impact of riparian and 

aquatic classifications and current provincial policy regarding subdivision of lands along the 

corridor and gives no consideration or adjustments for marketing costs, development costs, 

financing costs, enhancement factors, discount factors, profit allowances and the like. 

[127] Regarding the use of the Sector valuation in the Cook Report, Mr. Erickson indicates that this is 

not a term normally adopted within appraisal education and theory. Mr. Erickson views it as 

terminology coined in the Cook Report to reflect a correlation of value determinations arrived at 

from completion of the ATF technique, or as described in the Cook Report a “broad ATF.” The 

concern here, according to Mr. Erickson, is that, if the Sector valuation is a broad ATF, what is 

the reason for a $1.6 million differential between it and the ATF valuation, when the Sector 

valuation is presumably based on larger parcel sizes, which command lower unit values than 

smaller parcel sizes, rather than the many smaller parcels that form the basis of the ATF 

valuation. After an audit check, in Mr. Erickson’s view, the selected values for various land use 

categories have not been sufficiently adjusted for the Sector valuation. Furthermore, he found 

significant discrepancies between the area calculations and the unit value calculations between 

the two methods. In Mr. Erickson’s opinion, the Cook Report’s Sector valuation has critical 

errors that must be addressed before it can be given any consideration. 

[128] With reference to the Linear Corridor valuation in the Cook Report, Mr. Erickson notes that this 

opinion of value is apparently offered under the assumption that the corridor is retained as an 

industrial transportation corridor. Further, in valuing the subject property as a going-concern 

industrial transportation corridor under its use as a railway, industrial values have been employed 

to reflect the industrial nature of the enterprise. Mr. Erickson also indicates that the Cook Report 

appears to endorse the industrial Linear Corridor valuation because that evaluation produces a 

value more than twice that indicated by the ATF. However, the Erickson Report outlines many 

issues with the Linear Corridor valuation. Mr. Erickson indicates that the values for “Improved 

Industrial” are lifted from comparison sales located in urban communities, are not necessarily 

adjusted for size considerations, include extracted values and do not include any sales of 

industrial parcel encompassing 180 acres. In his opinion, this tends to indicate that the unit value 

selected for the improved or developed rail bed component, as well as the unimproved adjoining 

buffer land, may be high. Mr. Erickson states that there is simply no market evidence set forth in 

the Cook Report that supports an overall unit rate of $91,372 per acre for an “en bloc” 4 parcel of 

industrial land that encompasses 180.58 acres. It is Mr. Erickson’s recommendation that no 

consideration should be given to the Linear Corridor valuation in the Cook Report. 

4 The asset viewed as a whole 




- 30 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[129] With reference to the application of the ATF technique in the RDNO submission, Mr. Erickson 

notes that it uses a combination of municipal zoning and British Columbia assessment land use 

classifications to summarize the characteristics of the land, insofar as land use or neighbouring 

land use is concerned, and includes roadways, riparian areas and watercourses along the right of 

way. Mr. Erickson also notes that RDNO deems areas in the range of 0.0128 acre to 

3.7791 acres within the right of way as attached to “across the fence” property, with an average 

parcel size of 0.2386 acre and identifies 759 properties or parcels that adjoin or neighbour the 

right of way. 

[130] Mr. Erickson indicates that, based on its assessment of ATF land use, the RDNO submission 

employs a uniform value estimate of one of seven value opinions (some with 50 percent 

modifications,) but notes that RDNO’s evaluation on that basis includes no comparable sales of 

record and falls apart due to inadequate data research and most likely inappropriate application 

of comparable market data to the property that was analyzed. Without the benefit of more 

extensive research and documented sales evidence, it is Mr. Erickson’s opinion that RDNO’s 

ATF evaluation is flawed and that questionable reliance on the submitted market data limits the 

reliability of the estimate. 

[131] Further, Mr. Erickson indicates that RDNO is relatively strident in the opinion that a 50 percent 

discount should be applied across the board and notes that the base ATF values were in many 

cases already adjusted by 50 percent. This leads Mr. Erickson to be concerned that some double 

accounting might have occurred in RDNO discounting the value of the land from a gross value 

based on ATF values and the final value put forward in its submission. 

[132] In summary, Mr. Erickson finds the reasoning supporting the analysis, opinions and conclusions 

to be weak and not very useful in correlating the values set forth in either submission. According 

to Mr. Erickson, it seems apparent that both submissions are focussed on the parties’ efforts to 

convince the reader that the property has a certain value under a specific premise and that neither 

party are overly convincing due to the number of undisclosed assumptions, exclusions, omissions 

or errors made collectively throughout their submissions. Mr. Erickson does not agree with the 

reliability, completeness and reasonableness of either evaluation. In view of this, and in 

accordance with the Agency’s terms of reference, based on evidence taken from both 

submissions, Mr. Erickson has examined and conducted adjustments to the determination of 

highest and best use and the parties’ calculations of value to provide a conditional estimate of the 

net present value attributable to the parcels related in the submissions, as set out below. 

Highest and best use 

[133] Mr. Erickson characterizes the subject corridor as follows. The Line essentially runs through 

back country, even though it does run along a stretch of residentially and commercially 

developed property lying along the stretch of the corridor that passes through the small 

community of Enderby. Mr. Erickson describes Enderby as a very small village, despite it having 

been designated as a city in the late 1800’s. The community of Grindrod is unincorporated and 

consists of a few rural residences located on acreages and, in Mr. Erickson’s view, does not 

equate in value, utility or marketability to the land situated in Enderby. The corridor runs through 

a predominantly rural area. It is not located within a major urban municipality and, in 




- 31 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Mr. Erickson’s opinion, is not required for any immediate need such as alternative industrial 

corridor usage. Further, Mr. Erickson finds no evidence in either submission that RDNO is 

actively seeking to develop an alternative corridor over private lands for any particular purpose. 

[134] After closely examining the CTQ engineering schematics conducted for the Cook Report and 

reviewing the mapping produced by RDNO, it is Mr. Erickson’s opinion that there will be few 

parties interested in acquiring much of the corridor land. He notes that substantial lengths of the 

right of way run parallel to roads, and in many cases in the CTQ schematic, the portion of land 

lying between the centre line of the right of way and the boundary is orphaned from the property 

identified in the Cook Report as being across the fence. Mr. Erickson also considers this a case 

where there might be public works required off-site in order to reasonably proceed with 

development on site. 

[135] Mr. Erickson indicates that in determining the highest and best use, an appraiser must consider 

not only the ATF property and values but also zoning and land use controls unique to the 

breakup property, as well as the reaction of buyers and market demand. Costs associated with the 

development and marketing of the property should be considered as well as appropriate 

expressions of entrepreneurial profit. 

[136] Based on his review of the submissions, Mr. Erickson indicates that riparian areas and aquatic 

index ratings would impact the subdivision of the Line: subdivision would be required for a 

parcel by parcel disposal of 275 parcels, subdivision would be an arduous and time consuming 

process, and subdivision approval would not be easily forthcoming due to public policy 

regarding access, ALR classification, aquatic issues and riparian setback requirements. 

Mr. Erickson concludes that it does not appear that the “break-up” of the corridor as 

contemplated by the Cook Report is legally permissible at this time. The land is not zoned for 

ATF use development and OCP, ALR and riparian and aquatic regulations combine to make any 

submission for development speculative and conjectural. It may be physically possible to create 

the CTQ area allocations that are the basis of the Cook Report’s ATF assessment; however, time, 

effort and capital will need to be expended to accommodate the physical development of the 

corridor into that number of small parcels. 

[137] Taking into account OCPs, zoning information, and riparian setback constraints, Mr. Erickson 

concludes that alternative uses of the corridor land are limited and considers that the usage of the 

corridor would most likely be limited to a regional trail network as a pedestrian corridor, if it 

were to remain as an intact corridor. Based on the fact that the Line is currently under the 

jurisdiction of the CTA with respect to abandonment, it is Mr. Erickson’s conditional opinion 

that the highest and best use of the abandoned corridor may be firstly considered for a trail 

system network, and failing that may secondly be considered for theoretical or hypothetical 

parcelization. Based on this conclusion, Mr. Erickson indicates that an appropriate way of 

valuing the property is by the ATF method, which utilizes market data of adjacent or nearby 

properties and which assumes that the value of the corridor is similar to the value of adjacent 

properties. 




- 32 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[138] Mr. Erickson indicates that if there were adequate verifiable abandoned Canadian corridor sales 

that were similar in terms of location, physical features and other characteristics, the Direct 

Comparison Approach could be used to value the property. However, as there is no evidence put 

forth in either submission to address this method and RDNO disputes the applicability of sales of 

this type that are not localized within British Columbia, he invokes a departure from using this 

approach based on the premise that the value of the land within a corridor should be a reflection 

of the land through which it passes. Mr. Erickson considers the ATF value as a starting point 

whereby other appraisal methods may be used to arrive at the final estimate of value consistent 

with the intended use or purpose of the appraisal, which he indicates in this case is the estimate 

of market value of the “en bloc” land for the determination of net salvage value. Mr. Erickson 

also indicates that it is incumbent on the appraiser to examine enhancement and discount factors 

in the application of this method. 

ATF valuation 

[139] To develop his recalculated estimates and recommended adjustments to value to arrive at an ATF 

value, Mr. Erickson uses the presentation of property description line items taken from Appendix 

14 of the RDNO submission. He indicates that the RDNO presentation deals with established 

legal fact and is meticulous in identifying neighbouring or adjoining properties along the 

corridor, the jurisdiction in which the land is located along with the total area that is surveyed, 

the track side, plan number, street number, street name and rail segment located in each line 

item. In comparison, Mr. Erickson indicates that the presentation in the Cook Report’s evaluation 

is hypothetical, basing all corridor estimates on CTQ engineering schematics. This method 

arbitrarily assigned portions of the corridor from the centre line to the boundary of the right of 

way to adjoining neighbourhood property, and would require analysis of each line item and the 

CTQ mapping, as well as independent research, to determine which neighbouring or adjoining 

property is dominant in terms of ATF methodology. 

[140] With respect to unit values, Mr. Erickson develops his opinion based on his consideration of the 

market evidence in the Cook Report and the opinion of value in the RDNO submission, 

augmented by his own independent research. He indicates that adjustments were required to 

reflect issues such as consistency, difference of opinion, errors and the like. 

[141] Mr. Erickson considers the market data in the Cook Report somewhat reliable in a general sense. 

However, based on a partial audit of the calculations, Mr. Erickson notes that the ATF value 

developed in the Cook Report is heavily reliant on the assumption that value from neighbouring 

lands is taken from the centre line of the right of way and applies more or less equally to the 

across the fence lands that share a common border with the right of way, although many of these 

parcels are removed or orphaned from adjoining the corridor. Mr. Erickson demonstrates that in 

the interests of consistency, this procedure requires further analysis as to which property 

represents the most reasonable ATF property, because it produces two distinctly different values 

on each side of the centre line for the same sector of land within the corridor. He also notes that 

the data used in the Cook Report is heavily weighed on improved sales or listings where the 

assessed value of improvements was subtracted from the sale or list price to derive an extracted 

land value. Based on independent research, Mr. Erickson considers these unrealistically high, by 

as much as twice as high, in relation to the vacant land sales in most cases. 




- 33 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[142] Mr. Erickson views the outline of market opinion in the RDNO submission as acceptable in very 

general terms but questions the thoroughness in which it has been related. He indicates that in 

practice it is the norm that values would likely fall on each side of the stated opinion by as much 

as 30 to 40 percent assuming a relatively active market. Calculating this magnitude of value 

range for the RDNO unit values, Mr. Erickson indicates that it is basically supported by the sales 

evidence submitted in the Cook Report. After consideration of both presentations and his own 

independent research, Mr. Erickson estimates a range of ATF unit values for rural, residential, 

commercial and industrial land use categories based on five different parcel sizes for each 

category, and with a lower per acre value being attributed the larger the parcel size. The ATF 

value of rural land, with parcel sizes ranging from 100 acres to 10 acres, is estimated to be 

between $10,000 and $30,000 per acre. For residential land, with parcel sizes ranging from 

1.5 acre to .25 acre, the ATF value is estimated to be between $100,000 and $400,000 per acre. 

For commercial land, with parcel sizes ranging from 1 acre to .10 acre, the value is estimated at 

between $250,000 and $600,000 per acre. With parcels sizes ranging from 20 acres to 1 acre, the 

ATF value of industrial land is estimated at between $50,000 and $200,000 per acre. 

[143] To arrive at the value of the property based on these ATF values, Mr. Erickson applies the 

estimated unit rate per acre that corresponds to the total acreage of a particular land use category 

found in each jurisdiction the Line traverses, as set out in Appendix 14 of RDNO’s submission. 

Mr. Erickson’s summary of calculations for composite property use in each jurisdiction includes: 

rural, residential and industrial land in Area F, totalling 88.79 acres; rural, industrial, commercial 

and residential land in Enderby, totalling 14.83 acres; 66.77 acres of rural land in Spallumcheen 

and 1.53 acres of rural land in Armstrong. (Mr. Erickson includes 20.41 acres of land traversing 

Enderby IR#2 in the rural land calculations in Area F.) This totals 166.35 acres of usable land, 

and an ATF value of $6,727,004. Although RDNO assigns no value to 8.58 acres of roadway 

crossings, it is Mr. Erickson’s opinion that for the calculation of an ATF value this area should 

be included as it currently forms part of the registered continuous corridor. Mr. Erickson 

addresses the roadway acreage by applying his universe recalculated rate 5 of $38,456 per acre to 

this area. Also noting that approximately 6.19 acres of the 181.12 acres in RDNO’s estimation 

are unaccounted for in his reconciliation, Mr. Erickson applies the same universe rate per acre to 

account for these acres. It is his opinion that the unadjusted land value, based on the general 

property identification work conducted by RDNO, is $7,294,998. Mr. Erickson notes that the 

ATF value put forth in the Cook Report is $7,300,000. He indicates that it is apparent that both 

submissions more or less follow the same methodology in conducting the ATF technique, 

although there are distinct differences in how segmented portions of the corridor are treated. 

Mr. Erickson considers these values sufficiently close to produce a credible estimate of gross 

value suitable for the net salvage value estimate of the corridor based on the ATF method, 

concluding that the unadjusted market value as indicated by the ATF method is $7,300,000. 

5 A universe rate is calculated by totalling the sale prices or values of a dataset and then dividing by the cumulative parcel area 

totalled for the same dataset. 




- 34 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Enhancement and discount factors applicable to the ATF valuation 

[144] With reference to the application of enhancement or discount factors to this ATF value, 

Mr. Erickson notes that the RDNO submission indicates that the ATF value should be discounted 

by 50 percent or more. He also notes that the Cook Report suggests that no discounts are 

applicable but high value enhancement factors could apply to those portions of the Line 

adjoining commercial and industrial lands within urban areas and those lands lying along the 

banks of the Shuswap River to account for assemblage. The Cook Report is also noted to suggest 

the applicability of an enhancement factor of between 10 and 17 times the raw land value to the 

Line’s valuation as a linear corridor, under the assumption of a demand for the corridor under the 

existing or alternate transportation or utility purposes such as natural gas, hydro electric power, 

fibre optics, etc. 

[145] For the purpose of examining the applicability of enhancement factors, Mr. Erickson explains 

that assemblage is the merging of adjacent properties into one common ownership of use. 

Plottage is taken to mean the increment of value created when two or more sites are combined to 

produce greater utility. Enhancement factors have their basis in the Cost Approach to Value 

method of valuation. In the context of a corridor, they are based on a buyer’s willingness to pay a 

premium due to assemblage or plottage because the cost of replicating a corridor is greater than 

the sum of its ATF values. This takes into consideration the time required to assemble multiple 

properties, relocation cost of property owners, damages resulting from partial takings, etc. 

[146] Based on its rural location, limited marketability and constrained utility, as previously mentioned 

under the section Highest and best use, it is Mr. Erickson’s opinion that the subject corridor does 

not present the necessary attributes to warrant consideration of an enhancement factor, but that a 

discount factor is required. He recommends a 75 percent discount factor be applied to the 

estimated ATF value of the “en bloc” corridor, indicating that this factor basically represents an 

adjustment for the enhanced value considerations given to commercial, industrial and residential 

land in the unincorporated area of Grindrod and the municipality of Enderby. 

[147] Further to this, Mr. Erickson notes that most of the land in the corridor is located in a rural 

setting and that the segment of land that is located within urban areas, as well as a good deal of 

the land in the rural area (about 40.6 percent in total, according to Mr. Erickson,) is significantly 

impacted by being orphaned or removed from the neighbouring land by public roadways. In 

Mr. Erickson’s opinion, the fact that so much of the land in the corridor is paralleled by public 

roadways essentially negates practical assemblage with neighbouring land. He indicates that 

although it may be acceptable in theory to adopt the ATF values, significant discounts are 

warranted to reflect the issues concerned. 

[148] Mr. Erickson concludes that, in his independent opinion, an appropriate value for the corridor 

lands, consisting of approximately 181.12 acres, based on a discount of 75 percent from the ATF 

value estimate, is $1,825,000. 




- 35 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Comments of the parties on the Erickson Report 

[149] RDNO submits that it is supportive of the findings and conclusions contained in the Erickson 

Report. RDNO is of the opinion that the analysis and findings were based upon an extensive, 

unbiased and professional review of the submissions and rebuttals provided by CP and RDNO. 

[150] CP offers a number of critical comments in reference to the Erickson Report. First, CP submits 

that the RDNO submission was not an appraisal report completed by an appraiser, did not 

contain any arm’s length market data, did not outline a scope of work, and was not completed in 

accordance with CUSPAP. As such, CP submits that the RDNO submission should not have 

been accepted by the Agency as an expert valuation for comparison with the Cook Report, and 

that the Erickson Report failed to identify the shortcomings of RDNO’s submission. CP adds that 

the Erickson Report had different terms of reference than the Cook Report and presumably the 

RDNO submission (which did not state terms of reference) and, as such, was not an equivalent 

document to assess against the other two documents. CP questions how the Erickson Report 

could objectively achieve “an impartial reconciliation of the Parties’ disparate estimates of land 

values” when all three reports have differing or absent terms of reference and when Mr. Erickson 

did not make a personal inspection of the property. Accordingly, CP maintains that the Erickson 

Report offers no value to the Agency as a critique in these proceedings. 

[151] CP is of the view that the Agency’s mandate is to calculate the net salvage value of the railway 

lands in the context of numerous possible uses and not to speculate on the single most likely use. 

It contends that net salvage value under sections 145 and 146.3 of the CTA is to be determined 

for any purpose,” not the most reasonable one. To that end, CP submits that it provided three 

valuations for a range of possible uses for the Agency’s consideration and contends that the 

Erickson Report does not explore the potential use of the Line “for any purpose” taking into 

consideration the widest range of possible uses and that it dismisses any potential corridor utility 

– from simple lineal retention for recreational use to retention for commercial industrial use. 

[152] CP submits that Mr. Erickson confused “highest and best use” with the single most likely use, to 

the exclusion of other possible uses. CP further submits that in arriving at a highest and best use 

Mr. Erickson employed a number of unfounded assumptions: the railway has been abandoned; 

no party came forward to purchase the Line for continued operation or as a federal or provincial 

holding; First Nations land located on the Line will impede or nullify the potential for a lineal 

corridor to exist post discontinuance; the valuation is based on transferring the fee simple 

interest; subdivision will be difficult and lengthy; and U.S. Liquidation Theory is applicable. CP 

adds that, as a result, Mr. Erickson adopts the single use described in the RDNO submission and 

concludes that the corridor cannot be divided and that the Line would likely be limited to a 

regional trail network, which, CP suggests, significantly limits its value. 




- 36 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[153] CP contends that the appraisal evidence should properly consider whether the utility of the 

corridor could include use as a commercial (industrial) corridor as highest and best use. In CP’s 

view, neither Mr. Erickson or RDNO considered any other potential commercial uses for the 

corridor such as a gas line, power line or fibre optics corridor, all of which it indicates have been 

found as suitable alternatives on other CP and competitor’s railway corridors. To this point, CP 

indicates that in August 2012, it was approached by a major gas line company with respect to the 

possible use of the northern portion of this corridor, between Sicamous and Grindrod. 6 CP 

further submits that once the Erickson Report declares that the trail use is most likely it fails to 

add any assemblage premium for that purpose, but instead applies arbitrary discounts for access 

and development, property designation and zoning. CP questions the applicability of these 

factors to a trail network. 

[154] To further disagree with the position taken by the Erickson Report with respect to discount 

factors, CP submits that RDNO chose an arbitrary, unsubstantiated overall discount factor of 

50 percent without any expert evidence. CP adds that while this discount factor is completely 

arbitrary, the Erickson Report relies on it in its evaluation and fails to detail any reasoning to 

support this conclusion. 

[155] CP also argues that the Erickson Report erroneously assumes the valuation of the Line occurs at 

a point in time after it is discontinued and is based upon an end use scenario of restricted use. It 

submits that Mr. Erickson incorrectly made assumptions regarding subdivision approval that 

sterilizes the land and limits its use to a recreational trail. Further to this, CP indicates that the 

Agency held in Decision No. LET-R-74-2008 that the costs associated with municipal bylaws 

established to require federal railway companies to undertake certain remediation work that 

would only take place after discontinuance were not applicable to the net salvage value 

determination. As a result, CP submits that the relevant valuation point is prior to discontinuance 

and that threatened or speculative costs that might arise after discontinuance are not relevant to 

the net salvage value determination. 

Analysis and findings 

[156] It is apparent from some of the comments made by CP that there are some basic fundamentals 

regarding the valuation of land for net salvage value purposes that need to be clarified. The 

Agency’s task in this regard is to determine the market value of the land in the context of a 

salvage or liquidation scenario, that is, as if the land is vacant of all improvements (i.e., track 

assets of the railway line have been dismantled and removed, rail bed left intact, safe and level.) 

Contrary to CP’s assertions regarding the inappropriateness of assumptions related to 

abandonment and the inapplicability of principles found in U.S. Liquidation Value theory, as 

well as its position that net salvage value is calculated before discontinuance is complete, the 

concept of net salvage value does imply an orderly liquidation value, regardless of whether 

abandonment or discontinuance has yet occurred or ever will. 

6 CP’s Okanagan Subdivision, mileage 0.3 (Sicamous) to mileage 16.4 (Grindrod), the subject of a separate transfer and 

discontinuance process. 




- 37 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[157] The mere fact that a railway line is placed into the discontinuance process is an indication that, in 

its existing capacity, the railway line’s economic utility to the railway company has expired. That 

the transfer and discontinuance process set out in Part III, Division V of the CTA requires for the 

Agency to determine net salvage value prior to providing for the filing of a Notice of 

Discontinuance by a railway company does not alter the fact that in determining net salvage 

value the Agency is assessing the market value of an asset assumed to be defunct, ripe for 

salvage and orderly liquidation. The Agency considers references made by Mr. Erickson to 

abandonment and liquidation theory to be reflective of his correct understanding of this concept. 

[158] Also, in relation to CP’s suggestion that estimating land value on the basis of fee simple interest 

is incorrect in a net salvage value determination, the Agency disagrees. While other less absolute 

forms of property rights may be the subject of negotiation between the parties to a transfer and 

discontinuance process, for the purposes of setting a binding or potentially binding net salvage 

value for the transfer of assets, the Agency is not prepared to contemplate determining the value 

of land on anything other than a fee simple interest basis. This is reinforced by the requirement 

set out in section 145 of the CTA for a railway company to offer to transfer “all of its interest in 

the railway line to the governments and urban transit authorities mentioned in this section [...]” 

[159] CP asserts that the RDNO submission on land value should not have been accepted by the 

Agency for comparison with CP’s Cook Report. CP further states that the Erickson Report offers 

no value to the Agency as a critique in these proceedings because it was not comparing two 

official appraisal reports, had different terms of reference than the submissions, did not meet the 

standards of an official appraisal, and because Mr. Erickson did not physically inspect the 

property. 

[160] In this regard, the Agency has a standard practice of inviting submissions on land value from 

both parties to a net salvage value determination. The Agency does not require that a formal, 

CUSPAP compliant land appraisal be provided for these submissions. Further, the Agency does 

not consider a comparison by an independent expert of a formal appraisal from one party and the 

considered opinion submitted by the other party to be invalid or valueless. Rather, it is a fair and 

reasonable means to obtain information, have it critically assessed and achieve an impartial 

reconciliation of the parties’ disparate estimates of land value. 

[161] As to differing terms of reference, when it considers it necessary, the Agency seeks input from 

an independent professional appraiser, under terms of reference defined by the Agency. These 

terms of reference may differ from those under which the parties obtain professional advice; 

however, while this may increase the complexity of the Agency’s analysis, it does not negate the 

value of the parties’ submissions or the independent professional advice. It should also be noted 

that the Erickson Report complied with the review terms of reference set out by the Agency, 

recognizes and acknowledges that the RDNO submission does not meet CUSPAP standards as 

an appraisal, and, as far as the Agency is concerned, very adequately identifies the strengths and 

weaknesses in both submissions. The Agency is also of the opinion that due to some of the 

strengths identified by Mr. Erickson in both submissions, specifically the mapping, aerial 

photography and property descriptions, a physical inspection of the property by Mr. Erickson 

was not integral to his ability to comply with the terms of reference. 




- 38 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[162] In reference to CP’s submission that a net salvage value under sections 145 and 146.3 of the 

CTA is to be determined “for any purpose,” not the most reasonable one, the Agency is fully 

aware of the phrase “to be used for any purpose” in section 145 of the CTA. The Agency 

recognizes that as a consequence of this phrase, no restrictions from the CTA are imposed on the 

use that can be made of the land subsequent to its transfer. However, the Agency disagrees with 

CP and does not interpret the phrase “to be used for any purpose” to mean that, in determining 

the net salvage value of railway lands, it can or should abandon any consideration related to the 

reasonableness of a given use before determining whether the land value should be assessed on 

the basis of that use. The Agency determines the net salvage value of the land within a railway 

corridor, guided by the appraisal standard of highest and best use, by weighing the evidence 

before it on a balance of probabilities basis. 

[163] The determination of highest and best use requires that the Agency consider the potential uses 

that can be made of the land, and determine which, among those use, would appear to be highest 

and best, considering all of the specific applicable circumstances, for the purpose of determining 

the value of the land. Unlike the Cook Report, which came to vastly different conclusions 

regarding the value of the land, depending on the assumptions being made regarding the ultimate 

use that would be made of the land, the Agency cannot set multiple land values or a range of land 

values when establishing the net salvage value. 

[164] The Agency notes CP’s assertion that Decision No. 463-R-2010 stipulates that the land value for 

net salvage value purposes must be based on the widest range of possible uses and the Agency 

will address CP’s misinterpretation of that Decision. The extract referred to by CP in this regard 

pertains to the Agency’s determination about what degree of dismantlement of a railway line the 

Agency was prepared to consider in determining net salvage value and is not related to the 

Agency’s approach to determining land value. 

[165] The Agency notes that CP contends that the net salvage value of the railway lands should be 

determined in the context of numerous possible uses and it offers three valuations for a range of 

possible uses. However, CP’s submission of value clearly adopts the Cook Report’s industrial 

Linear Corridor valuation and advances arguments about why it should be considered more 

reasonable than the report’s ATF and Sector valuations. The Agency also notes that CP’s 

industrial Linear Corridor value is in the range of double that of the ATF and Sector valuations. 

[166] CP submits a number of concerns related to the conclusions in the Erickson Report pertaining to 

“highest and best use.” To address these concerns, the Agency considers it useful to first note the 

definition of “highest and best use,” as defined by the Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC:) 

That reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property 

which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and 

that results in the highest value. 7 

7 AIC, Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2012, section 12.34 




- 39 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[167] The AIC makes several points with respect to what the “highest and best use” entails, as follows: 

The highest and best use of a property is an economic concept that measures the interaction 

of four criteria: legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum 

profitability. 

Estimating the highest and best use is a critical appraisal component that provides the 

valuation context within which market participants and appraisers select comparable market 

information. 

An appraiser considers highest and best use of the property as if vacant separately from the 

highest and best use of the property as improved. This is because the highest and best use of 

the site as if vacant and available for development determines the value of the land, even if 

the property’s existing improvement does not represent the highest and best use of the land. 

Highest and best use of land or a site is the use among all reasonable alternative uses that 

yields the highest present land value, after payment for labour, capital and co-ordination. The 

conclusion assumes that the parcel of land is vacant or can be made vacant by demolishment 

and improvements. 

[168] CP contends that the estimated value of the Line was significantly limited by Mr. Erickson’s 

conclusion that the corridor cannot be divided and the highest and best use of the Line would 

likely be limited to a regional trail network, and that the Erickson Report does not explore the 

potential use of the Line “for any purpose” taking into consideration the widest range of possible 

uses. 

[169] The Agency accepts that the examination of highest and best use is critical to the land appraisal 

process. The Agency also acknowledges that it has a direct bearing on the choice of an 

appropriate valuation methodology, and, as such, the Agency agrees that it can significantly 

influence a value estimate. The Agency also recognizes that land appraisers are held to a 

professional standard that requires land value to be estimated based on highest and best use. In 

cases where professional standards exist, the Agency cannot ask an independent third party, from 

whom it has contracted services, to perform an activity that is contrary to those standards. The 

Agency defers to the expertise of the AIC in setting guidelines that ensure appraisers consider all 

possible uses of land, and all factors affecting those potential uses when determining the highest 

and best use. 

[170] Based on the above-noted AIC definition, the Agency is satisfied that Mr. Erickson’s 

independent opinion of the highest and best use of the corridor lands accounts for all potential 

circumstances applicable to liquidating the property present on the right of way lands, and that it 

reflects the use that will yield the highest value given those circumstances. It is apparent to the 

Agency that, in establishing the highest and best use, Mr. Erickson assessed the legal 

permissibility and physical possibility of subdivision required to achieve the parcel by parcel sale 

of the 275 hypothetically plotted parcels valuated in CP’s submission, as well as demand for the 

linear corridor for industrial and commercial purposes. Based on this, Mr. Erickson came to the 

opinion that, due to its predominantly rural location, limited marketability and constrained 




- 40 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

utility, the most reasonably probable end use of the corridor land is as a regional trail. The 

Agency notes that his findings, and the justifications for them, are in accordance with the abovenoted 

AIC definition of highest and best use and, by assessing highest and best use as a linear 

regional trail, Mr. Erickson does not, as contended by CP, merely adopt the highest and best use 

submitted by RDNO or dismiss any potential corridor utility. 

[171] It is CP’s view that Mr. Erickson’s assumptions regarding subdivision approval sterilize the land 

and limit its use to a recreational trail. CP submits that Mr. Erickson incorrectly assumes the 

valuation of the Line occurs at a point in time after it is discontinued and is based upon an end 

use scenario of restricted use, whereas CP contends that net salvage value is calculated before 

discontinuance is complete and the application of municipal bylaws comes into effect. CP further 

submits that threatened or speculative costs that might arise after discontinuance are not relevant 

to the determination of the net salvage value. In support of this position, CP cites Decision 

No. LET-R-74-2008, and interprets it to mean that the Agency found that the relevant valuation 

point is prior to discontinuance. 

[172] In this regard, the Agency will address CP’s misinterpretation of Decision No. LET-R-74-2008. 

In that case, the Agency found, in essence, that a railway line being transferred under section 145 

of the CTA is a railway line that has not been discontinued pursuant to subsection 146(1) of the 

CTA, and, therefore, the Agency did not take into account the municipal reclamation bylaws 

applicable to discontinued federal railway lines that were at issue in that case in its determination 

of net salvage value. No mention is made in that Decision of the “relevant valuation point,” 

whether it be prior to discontinuance or otherwise. 

[173] The Agency finds that, other than the fact that municipal bylaws are discussed in both instances, 

no parallel can be drawn between the issues and the reasoning involved in that previous 

determination and giving consideration to any legal restrictions governing land use in order to 

establish the highest and best use for land appraisal purposes, in this case. 

[174] To further address the matter of whether consideration should be given to municipal bylaws 

when determining land value, the Agency again notes the AIC’s definition of “highest and best 

use.” The highest and best use of a property is an economic concept that measures the interaction 

of four criteria: legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum 

profitability. As the municipal bylaws restricting subdivision and development speak to the issue 

of legal permissibility, the Agency finds that it is a valid consideration in the determination of 

highest and best use, and consequently the value of the corridor lands. 

[175] The Agency also notes that CP bases its submitted ATF value on the assumption that the 

property may be broken up and sold at its ATF value or higher to 275 different parties for the 

purpose of consolidation and assemblage. The Agency does not find it reasonable to suggest that 

a land value be based on the property being broken up and sold parcel by parcel, while at the 

same time being asked to ignore any legal restrictions or requirements that might limit its break 

up or marketability. 




- 41 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[176] As a result, the Agency disagrees with CP’s position that Mr. Erickson incorrectly took 

municipal bylaws into account when assessing the value of the land, and finds that, in the context 

of determining the net salvage value of the land, legal permissibility is a usage factor that must 

be taken into account. Furthermore, the Agency finds that to consider the contributory impact of 

legal and regulatory factors, including municipal bylaws where appropriate, on highest and best 

use is in no way inconsistent with the previous finding of the Agency respecting reclamation 

bylaws, or with the findings of the Federal Court of Appeal on the same issue in Bengough 

Town v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. 2010 FCA 80, also cited by CP. 

[177] CP indicates that the corridor is already subdivided into 46 separate titles, which it submits could 

be sold on a parcel by parcel basis without the need for any further subdivision requiring 

provincial or municipal approvals. The Agency notes that the ATF and Sector valuations 

submitted by CP do not identify the size, location or distribution of these 46 titles, nor do they 

define a parcel by parcel ATF or Sector value on the basis of these titles. This renders it 

impossible for the Agency or its independent expert to assess the value of the property on that 

basis. As previously mentioned, the Agency notes that CP adopts the industrial Linear Corridor 

valuation, rather than the parcel by parcel ATF valuation or Sector valuation, in its submission of 

value. 

[178] CP states that certain unfounded assumptions related to the discontinuance process and First 

Nations issues led Mr. Erickson to an incorrect conclusion. The Agency views Mr. Erickson’s 

consideration of the fact that no party came forward to purchase the Line for continued operation 

or as a federal or provincial holding to be a valid consideration in the assessment of highest and 

best use. The Agency also notes that Mr. Erickson specifically states that it is not within his 

mandate to comment on First Nations issues and that he does include the railway lands passing 

through Enderby IR#2 in his valuation, thus negating CP’s concern that his opinion was based on 

an assumption that issues surrounding these lands will impede or nullify the potential for a linear 

corridor to exist after discontinuance. 

[179] With respect to this issue of a potential impact to land value arising from alleged First Nations’ 

interest in the Line, the Agency finds that there is no information on the record specific to the 

Line that leads the Agency to conclude that this issue has a tangible bearing on the value of the 

railway lands. The Agency agrees with the inclusion of the railway lands passing through 

Enderby IR#2 in the valuation. 

[180] The Agency disagrees with CP’s assertion that there was confusion on Mr. Erickson’s part 

between the highest and best use and the most likely use. The Erickson Report considered 

alternative uses, and rejected them for various reasons, leaving Mr. Erickson to conclude that a 

regional trail was the most reasonably probable legal use of the vacant land, which would result 

in the highest value. The Agency also recognizes that from a land appraisal perspective, it is 

quite conceivable that the highest and best use and the most likely use can be one and the same. 




- 42 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

[181] In support of the marketability of the corridor for industrial purposes, CP makes reference to 

recent interest in the northern portion of the Okanagan Subdivision by a “major gas line 

company.” However, as CP submits no evidence pertaining to the details of this interest or the 

values under discussion, the Agency cannot give this information any weight. The Agency is 

more persuaded by the characterization of the property in the Erickson Report, his reservations 

with respect to the values for comparable industrial sales used in the Cook Report being 

predominantly extracted values from urban sales of smaller parcels and his recommendation that 

the industrial Linear Corridor valuation be given no consideration. Even if the corridor were to 

have some future potential utility for industrial purposes, the Agency is not convinced that it 

would command the industrial Linear Corridor value set out in CP’s submission. 

[182] CP also expresses concern over the fact that, having concluded a highest and best use as a 

recreational trail, Mr. Erickson fails to add any assemblage premium for that purpose, but instead 

imposes discount factors, relying on what CP describes as arbitrary, unsubstantiated discount 

factors from the RDNO submission and without detailing any reasoning to support his 

conclusion. CP also argues that Mr. Erickson illogically applies discounts to account for “access 

and development,” “property designation” and “zoning,” and questions why these would be 

required for a trail network. 

[183] In examining these concerns, the Agency first notes that Mr. Erickson indicates, given his 

conclusions on highest and best use, that an ATF valuation is a compatible starting point from 

which to apply other appraisal methods with the purpose of arriving at the final estimate of the 

market value of the “en bloc” corridor, and subsequent to his recalculations arrives at an 

unadjusted ATF value that is the same as the ATF valuation in the Cook Report. Further, 

Mr. Erickson indicates that in the application of this method, it is incumbent on an appraiser to 

examine enhancement and discount factors. 

[184] The Agency finds Mr. Erickson’s discussion of assemblage premiums (plottage) and 

enhancement factors to be reasonable and convincing. Mr. Erickson assesses the situation from 

the perspective of the commonly accepted factors that must be present in a corridor transaction 

before plottage or an enhancement factor can be derived, such as a buyer’s motivation for cost 

avoidance and market recognition that the assembled corridor is more valuable than the sum of 

its component parts. Based on this, Mr. Erickson comes to the opinion that the corridor does not 

present the necessary attributes to warrant consideration of an enhancement factor. The Agency 

agrees with the soundness of his reasoning, particularly the observation that there is no evidence 

in either submission to indicate that RDNO is actively seeking to develop an alternative corridor 

over private lands for any particular purpose. 

[185] With reference to discount factors, the Agency notes that, contrary to CP’s submission, 

Mr. Erickson does not adopt RDNO’s 50 percent discount factor or the reasoning behind it. 

Rather, Mr. Erickson applies a discount factor of 75 percent to the ATF value, which he indicates 

is necessary to account for the enhanced value considerations given in the ATF to commercial, 

industrial and residential land in the unincorporated area of Grindrod and the municipality of 

Enderby, in order to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the corridor’s “en bloc” value. The 

Agency also notes that Mr. Erickson cites the large percentage of the corridor that is orphaned or 

removed from the neighbouring land by public roadways as a contributing factor to the discount 




- 43 - DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

rate. In light of this rationale, the Agency finds the discount factor applied by Mr. Erickson and 

the resulting estimate of $10,107 per acre for the corridor lands to be reasonable. As far as CP’s 

concern regarding reasons for discount applied illogically to a trail network, beyond considering 

access and development, property designation and zoning in the context of examining highest 

and best use, it is not apparent to the Agency that these influenced the discount Mr. Erickson 

applied to his recalculation of the ATF value. 

Agency conclusion on land value 

[186] Based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the submissions of the parties and the report of 

its independent land appraiser, the Agency finds the independent appraiser’s assessment of the 

net salvage value for land to be reasonable and supported by evidence, as submitted by the 

parties. The Agency, therefore, concurs with Mr. Erickson’s opinion of the valuation of the 

corridor lands, and determines the land value component of the net salvage value of the Line to 

be $1,825,000. 

CONCLUSION 

[187] To arrive at the net salvage value of the Line, the Agency took the following values into account: 

Item 

Net salvage value 

Track and materials $1,295,014 

Land $1,825,000 

Leases and agreements $105,338 

Total net salvage value $3,225,352 

[188] The Agency determines the net salvage value for the Line to be $3,225,352. 

(signed) 

____________________________ 

Raymon J. Kaduck 

Member 

(signed) 

____________________________ 

J. Mark MacKeigan 

Member 




APPENDIX TO DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Part III, Division V of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended 

Transferring and discontinuing the operation of railway lines 

Definition of “railway line” 

140. (1) In this Division, “railway line” includes a portion of a railway line, but does not include 

(a) a yard track, siding or spur; or 

(b) other track auxiliary to a railway line. 

Determination 

140. (2) The Agency may determine as a question of fact what constitutes a yard track, siding, 

spur or other track auxiliary to a railway line. 

Three-year plan 

141. (1) A railway company shall prepare and keep up to date a plan indicating for each of its 

railway lines whether it intends to continue to operate the line or whether, within the next three 

years, it intends to take steps to discontinue operating the line. 

Public availability of plan 

141. (2) The railway company shall make the plan available for public inspection in offices of 

the company that it designates for that purpose. 

Notification of changes 

141. (2.1) Whenever the railway company makes a change to the plan, it shall notify the 

following of the change within 10 days after the change: 

(a) the Minister; 

(b) the Agency; 

(c) the minister responsible for transportation matters in the government of each province 

through which the railway line passes; 

(d) the chairperson of every urban transit authority through whose territory the railway line 

passes; and 

(e) the clerk or other senior administrative officer of every municipal or district government 

through which the railway line passes. 

When sale, etc., permitted 

141. (3) Subject to section 144.1, a railway company may sell, lease or otherwise transfer its 

railway lines, or its operating interest in its lines, for continued operation. 

Continued operation of a portion of a line 

141. (4) A railway company that sells, leases or otherwise transfers a portion of a graindependent 

branch line listed in Schedule I, or its operating interest in such a portion, to a person 

who intends to operate the portion shall continue to operate the remaining portion for three years, 

unless the Minister determines that it is not in the public interest for the company to do so. 




- 2 - APPENDIX TO DECISION NO. 21-R-2013 

Compliance with steps for discontinuance 

142. (1) A railway company shall comply with the steps described in this Division before 

discontinuing operating a railway line. 

Limitation 

142. (2) A railway company shall not take steps to discontinue operating a railway line before 

the company’s intention to discontinue operating the line has been indicated in its plan for at 

least 12 months. 

Community-based groups 

142. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply and a railway company shall without delay take the steps 

described in section 143 if 

(a) the federal government, a provincial, municipal or district government or a community-based 

group endorsed in writing by such a government has written to the company to express an 

interest in acquiring all or a portion of a grain-dependent branch line that is listed in Schedule I 

for the purpose of continuing to operate that line or portion of a line; and 

(b) that line or portion of a line is indicated on the company’s plan as being a line or a portion of 

a line that the company intends to take steps to discontinue operating. 

Advertisement of availability of railway line for continued rail operations 

143. (1) The railway company shall advertise the availability of the railway line, or any operating 

interest that the company has in it, for sale, lease or other transfer for continued operation and its 

intention to discontinue operating the line if it is not transferred. 

Content of advertisement 

143. (2) The advertisement must include a description of the railway line and how it or the 

operating interest is to be transferred, whether by sale, lease or otherwise, and an outline of the 

steps that must be taken before the operation of the line may be discontinued, including 

(a) a statement that the advertisement is directed to persons interested in buying, leasing or 

otherwise acquiring the railway line, or the railway company’s operating interest in it, for the 

purpose of continuing railway operations; and 

(b) the date by which interested persons must make their interest known in writing to the 

company, but that date must be at least sixty days after the first publication of the advertisement. 

Disclosure of agreement with public passenger service provider 

143. (3) The advertisement must also disclose the existence of any agreement between the 

railway company and a public passenger service provider in respect of the operation of a 

passenger rail service on the railway line. 

Disclosure of process 

144. (1) The railway company shall disclose the process it intends to follow for receiving and 

evaluating offers to each interested person who makes their interest known in accordance with 

the advertisement. 





Negotiation in good faith 

144. (3) The railway company shall negotiate with an interested person in good faith and in 

accordance with the process it discloses and the interested person shall negotiate with the 

company in good faith. 


144. (3.1) The Agency may, on application by a party to a negotiation, determine the net salvage 

value of the railway line and may, if it is of the opinion that the railway company has removed 

any of the infrastructure associated with the line in order to reduce traffic on the line, deduct 

from the net salvage value the amount that the Agency determines is the cost of replacing the 

removed infrastructure. The party who made the application shall reimburse the Agency its costs 

associated with the application. 

Time limit for agreement 

144. (4) The railway company has six months to reach an agreement after the final date stated in 

the advertisement for persons to make their interest known. 

Decision to continue operating a railway line 

144. (5) If an agreement is not reached within the six months, the railway company may decide 

to continue operating the railway line, in which case it is not required to comply with section 

145, but shall amend its plan to reflect its decision. 

Remedy if bad faith by a railway company 

144. (6) If, on complaint in writing by the interested person, the Agency finds that the railway 

company is not negotiating in good faith and the Agency considers that a sale, lease or other 

transfer of the railway line, or the company’s operating interest in the line, to the interested 

person for continued operation would be commercially fair and reasonable to the parties, the 

Agency may order the railway company to enter into an agreement with the interested person to 

effect the transfer and with respect to operating arrangements for the interchange of traffic, 

subject to the terms and conditions, including consideration, specified by the Agency. 

Remedy if bad faith by an interested person 

144. (7) If, on complaint in writing by the railway company, the Agency finds that the interested 

person is not negotiating in good faith, the Agency may order that the railway company is no 

longer required to negotiate with the person. 

Rights and obligations under passenger service agreements continued 

144.1 (1) If a railway line, or a railway company’s operating interest in a railway line, is sold, 

leased or otherwise transferred under subsection 141(3) or as the result of an advertisement under 

subsection 143(1) and, before the day such advertisement was made, an agreement was in force 

between the railway company and a public passenger service provider in respect of the operation 

of a passenger rail service on the railway line, the rights and obligations of the railway company 

under the agreement in respect of the operation of that service on that line vest, as of the day the 

transfer takes place, in the person or entity to which the railway line, or the operating interest, is 

transferred, unless the public passenger service provider indicates otherwise before that day 





Declaration that line is for general advantage of Canada 

144.1 (2) Whenever a railway company’s rights and obligations under an agreement with VIA 

Rail Canada Inc. are vested in another person or entity by subsection (1), the portion of the 

railway line to which the agreement relates is hereby declared, as of the day the transfer takes 

place, to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. 

Duration of declaration 

144.1 (3) The declaration referred to in subsection (2) ceases to have effect if 

(a) VIA Rail Canada Inc. ceases to operate a passenger rail service on the portion of railway line 

to which the declaration relates; or 

(b) the operation of the railway line is discontinued. 

Offer to governments 

145. (1) The railway company shall offer to transfer all of its interest in the railway line to the 

governments and urban transit authorities mentioned in this section for not more than its net 

salvage value to be used for any purpose if (a) no person makes their interest known to the 

railway company, or no agreement with an interested person is reached, within the required time; 

or 

(b) an agreement is reached within the required time, but the transfer is not completed in 

accordance with the agreement. 

Which governments receive offer 

145. (2) After the requirement to make the offer arises, the railway company shall send it 

simultaneously 

(a) to the Minister if the railway line passes through 

(i) more than one province or outside Canada, 

(ii) land that is or was a reserve, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, 

(iii) land that is the subject of an agreement entered into by the railway company and the 

Minister for the settlement of aboriginal land claims, or 

(iv) a metropolitan area; 

(b) to the minister responsible for transportation matters in the government of each province 

through which the railway line passes; 

(c) to the chairperson of every urban transit authority through whose territory the railway line 

passes; and 

(d) to the clerk or other senior administrative officer of every municipal or district government 

through whose territory the railway line passes. 

Time limits for acceptance 

145. (3) Subject to subsection 146.3(3), after the offer is received 

(a) by the Minister, the Government of Canada may accept it within thirty days; 

(b) by a provincial minister, the government of the province may accept it within thirty days, 

unless the offer is received by the Minister, in which case the government of each province may 

accept it within an additional thirty days after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) if 

it is not accepted under that paragraph; 





(b.1) by an urban transit authority, it may accept it within an additional 30 days after the end of 

the period or periods for acceptance under paragraphs (a) and (b), if it is not accepted under 

those paragraphs; and 

(c) by a municipal or district government, it may accept it within an additional 30 days after the 

end of the period or periods for acceptance under paragraphs (a), (b) and (b.1), if it is not 

accepted under those paragraphs. 

Communication and notice of acceptance 

145. (4) Once a government or an urban transit authority communicates its written acceptance of 

the offer to the railway company, the right of any other government or urban transit authority to 

accept the offer is extinguished, and the railway company must notify the other governments and 

urban transit authorities of the acceptance. 


145. (5) If a government or an urban transit authority accepts the offer, but cannot agree with the 

railway company on the net salvage value within 90 days after the acceptance, the Agency may, 

on the application of the government or urban transit authority or the railway company, 

determine the net salvage value. 

Discontinuation 

146. (1) If a railway company has complied with the process set out in sections 143 to 145, but 

an agreement for the sale, lease or other transfer of the railway line or an interest in it is not 

entered into through that process, the railway company may discontinue operating the line on 

providing notice of the discontinuance to the Agency. After providing the notice, the railway 

company has no obligations under this Act in respect of the operation of the railway line and has 

no obligations with respect to any operations by any public passenger service provider over the 

railway line. 

No obligation 

146. (2) If the railway line, or any interest of the railway company in it, is sold, leased or 

otherwise transferred by an agreement entered into through the process set out in sections 143 to 

145 or otherwise, the railway company that conveyed the railway line has no obligations under 

this Act in respect of the operation of the railway line as and from the date the sale, lease or other 

transfer was completed and has no obligations with respect to any operations by any public 

passenger service provider over the railway line as and from that date. 

Obligation following return 

146.01 (1) If, by reason of the instrument or act by which a railway line or an operating interest 

in a railway line is transferred through the process set out in sections 143 to 145 or otherwise, the 

railway line or operating interest in the railway line returns to the railway company that 

transferred it, the railway company shall, within 60 days after the day on which the return takes 

place, resume operations of the line or follow the process set out in sections 143 to 145. 





No condition or obligation 

146.01 (2) If a railway line or operating interest in a railway line returns to a railway company 

that transferred it and the company decides to follow the process set out in sections 143 to 145 in 

respect of the railway line or operating interest, the company is not subject to subsection 142(2) 

in respect of the railway line or operating interest and has no obligations under this Act in respect 

of the operation of the railway line. 

Exception 

146.02 Despite section 146.01, if a railway line or operating interest in a railway line returns to a 

railway company referred to in that section and, before the day on which the return takes place, 

an agreement was in force between the person or entity that owned the railway line or had the 

operating interest in the railway line immediately before the return and a public passenger 

service provider as defined in section 87 in respect of the operation of a passenger rail service on 

that railway line, then, unless the public passenger service provider indicates otherwise before 

that day, the rights and obligations of the person or entity under the agreement in respect of the 

operation of that service on that line vest, as of that day, in the railway company and the railway 

company shall resume operations of the railway line. 

Compensation 

146.1 (1) A railway company that discontinues operating a grain-dependent branch line listed in 

Schedule I, or a portion of one, that is in a municipality or district shall, commencing on the date 

on which notice was provided under subsection 146(1), make three annual payments to the 

municipality or district in the amount equal to $10,000 for each mile of the line or portion in the 

municipality or district. 

Compensation 

146.1 (2) If a railway company to which subsection 146.01(1) applies does not resume 

operations on a grain-dependent branch line listed in Schedule I within the period provided for in 

that subsection and does not enter into an agreement for the sale, lease or other transfer of that 

railway line, or applicable interest in that railway line, after following the process set out in 

sections 143 to 145, the railway company shall, beginning on the day after the last day on which 

its offer could have been accepted under section 145, make the annual payments referred to in 

subsection (1). 

List of metropolitan sidings and spurs to be dismantled 

146.2 (1) A railway company shall prepare and keep up to date a list of its sidings and spurs that 

it plans to dismantle and that are located in metropolitan areas or within the territory served by 

any urban transit authority, except for sidings and spurs located on a railway right-of-way that 

will continue to be used for railway operations subsequent to their dismantlement. 

Publication of list and notification of changes 

146.2 (2) The railway company shall publish the list on its Internet site and, whenever it makes a 

change to the list, it shall notify the following of the change within 10 days after the change: 


(b) the Agency; 





(c) the minister responsible for transportation matters in the government of the province in which 

the siding or spur that is the subject of the change is located; 

(d) the chairperson of the urban transit authority in whose territory the siding or spur that is the 

subject of the change is located; and 

(e) the clerk or other senior administrative officer of the municipal or district government in 

which the siding or spur that is the subject of the change is located. 

Limitation 

146.2 (3) A railway company shall not take steps to dismantle a siding or a spur until at least 12 

months have elapsed since the siding or spur was added to the list. 

Offer to governments 

146.2 (4) Before dismantling a siding or a spur that has been on the list for at least 12 months, a 

railway company shall send simultaneously to each of the following an offer to transfer all of its 

interest in the siding or spur for not more than its net salvage value: 


(b) the minister responsible for transportation matters in the government of the province in which 

the siding or spur is located; 

(c) the chairperson of the urban transit authority in whose territory the siding or spur is located; 

and 

(d) the clerk or other senior administrative officer of the municipal or district government in 

which the siding or spur is located. 

Time limits for acceptance 

146.2 (5) Subject to subsection 146.3(3), after the offer is received 

(a) by the Minister, the Government of Canada may accept it within 30 days; 

(b) by the provincial minister, the government of the province may accept it within an additional 

30 days after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) if it is not accepted under that 

paragraph; 

(c) by the chairperson of an urban transit authority, that authority may accept it within an 

additional 30 days after the end of the periods for acceptance under paragraphs (a) and (b), if it is 

not accepted under those paragraphs; and 

(d) by the clerk or other senior administrative officer of a municipal or district government, that 

government may accept it within an additional 30 days after the end of the periods for acceptance 

under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), if it is not accepted under those paragraphs. 

Communication and notice of acceptance 

146.2 (6) Once a government or an urban transit authority communicates its written acceptance 

of the offer to the railway company, the right of any other government or urban transit authority 

to accept the offer is extinguished, and the railway company shall notify the other governments 

and urban transit authorities of the acceptance. 






146.2 (7) If a government or an urban transit authority accepts the offer, but cannot agree with 

the railway company on the net salvage value within 90 days after the acceptance, the Agency 

may, on the application of the government, the urban transit authority or the railway company, 

determine the net salvage value. 

Dismantling permitted 

146.2 (8) If the offer is not accepted, the railway company may dismantle the siding or spur on 

providing notice to the Agency. 

Determination of net salvage value before expiry of time to accept offer 

146.3 (1) A person to whom a railway line is offered under section 145, or to whom a siding or 

spur is offered under section 146.2, may apply to the Agency for a determination of the net 

salvage value of the railway line, siding or spur, as the case may be, at any time before the expiry 

of the period available to the person to accept the offer. 

Notification of application 

146.3 (2) The applicant shall without delay provide a copy of the application to the railway 

company, and the railway company shall without delay notify every other person to whom the 

offer was made and whose time to accept the offer has not expired that an application for a 

determination of the net salvage value was made. 

Effect of application 

146.3 (3) If an application is made under subsection (1), the time available to the applicant to 

accept the offer expires on the day that is 30 days after the day the Agency notifies the applicant 

of its determination of the net salvage value and the 30-day period for each other person to 

accept the offer is calculated on the expiry of the period available to the applicant to accept the 

offer. 

Costs 

146.3 (4) The applicant shall reimburse the Agency’s costs associated with the application. 

Railway rights of way 

146.4 Sections 146.2 and 146.3 apply, with any modifications that are necessary, to railway 

rights-of-way, that are located in metropolitan areas or within the territory served by any urban 

transit authority and in respect of which the sidings and spurs have been dismantled, that a 

railway company plans to sell, lease or otherwise transfer. 

Passenger railway stations 

146.5 Sections 146.2 and 146.3 apply, with any modifications that are necessary, to passenger 

railway stations in Canada that a railway company plans to sell, lease or otherwise transfer or 

dismantle. 



February 6, 2013 - Item E.1 

SILGA 

Southern Interior Local 

Government Association 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 


To: All SILGA Members 

Re: SILGA Convention – Call for Nominations 

As per the Constitutional Requirements of the Southern Interior Local Government Association, 

the “Call for Nominations” is now going out to all member Mayors, Councillors, Regional 

Chairs and Directors who wish to seek a position on the SILGA Executive for the 2013/2014 

term. Elections are to be held at the SILGA Convention in Salmon Arm during May 1 st to 3 rd . 

Offices to be filled are President, 1 st Vice President, 2 nd Vice President and seven Directors, one 

of whom must be an Electoral Area Director of a member Regional District. All positions are for 

one year. Those presently serving may run for another term if they so wish. 

Deadline for nominations is Friday, March 1, 2013. You will be asked to complete a biography 

and submit a photo for the printing of the official Nominating Committee Report to be contained 

in the Convention Package. 

The SILGA nomination committee is chaired by Director Rhona Martin, CSRD. 

All those interested in serving are asked to contact Director Martin at 250-836-4509 or by email 

at rhona@malakwa.ca. All information should be forwarded to both Director Martin and the 

SILGA office (email alislater@shaw.ca). 

Rhona Martin, 

Past President, SILGA 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

1996 Sheffield Way Tel: 250-374-3678 

Kamloops, BC V2E 2M2 Fax: 250 374-3678 

alislater@shaw.ca 

Phone ahead if faxing 
















REPORT 

File No.: 3045.12.03.04 

TO: 

FROM: 

Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee 


DATE: November 19, 2012 

District of Coldstream Letter: Regional Agricultural Advisory 

SUBJECT: 

Committee 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that, due to the voluntary nature of Agricultural 

Land Reserve application referral to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee for review, that the 

Terms of Reference be maintained as adopted by the Board of Directors on August 15, 2012; and 

further, 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that Maria Besso be appointed to the Regional 

Agricultural Advisory Committee as the District of Coldstream representative and Peter McClean be 

appointed as the alternate representative. 

DISCUSSION: 

The Regional District of North Okanagan received a letter, dated October 24, 2012, from the District of 

Coldstream regarding the April 19, 2012 Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC) Terms of 

Reference referral. The District of Coldstream has requested that the following sections be removed 

from the RAAC Terms of Reference, which was adopted by the Board of Directors on August 15, 

2012: 

2.1 The AAC is established to, at the direction of the Board of Directors, engage in but not 

be limited to any of the following possible roles: 

(a) To review and provide recommendations to the Board of Directors on land use 

applications, plans or policies that affect the ALR or agricultural operations; 

2.2 The AAC consider the following when reviewing applications or agricultural related 

issues: 

(a) the effect of the proposal on the agricultural potential of the subject property; 

(b) the effect of the proposal on adjoining ALR properties and surrounding agricultural 

operations; 

(c) possible acceptable alternatives to the proposal, where deemed appropriate; and, 

(d) the identification of issues relating to the protection of ALR lands specific to the 

application. 




District of Coldstream Letter: Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee - November 19, 2012 Page 2 

The RAAC Terms of Reference were adopted by the Board of Directors on August 15, 2012 and the 

following resolutions were also passed on the same date regarding Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) 

applications: 

'That the Electoral Area Agricultural Land Commission applications be reviewed by the 

Advisory Planning Commissions and the Agricultural Advisory Committee concurrently. ' 

'That correspondence be sent to member municipal councils requesting consideration of 

forwarding Agricultural Land Reserve applications to the Regional Agricultural Advisory 

Committee for review and comment. ' 

The correspondence from member municipalities has indicated a lack of interest in referring local ALR 

applications to the RAAC for review. Letters received from the City of Armstrong, City of Enderby, 

Village of Lumby and City of Vernon specifies that these municipal ALR applications will not be 

referred to the RAAC for comment. 

The referral of ALR applications to the RAAC for review is voluntary and at the discretion of member 

muniCipalities and the Board of Directors. Based upon the resolutions of the Board of Directors and 

the correspondence received from member municipalities, only Electoral Area ALR applications will 

be referred to the RAAC for comment. Therefore, Section 2.1 (a) and 2.2 of the Terms of Reference 

only refer to Electoral Area ALR application referrals and do not apply to municipal ALR applications. 

The correspondence also requested that Maria Besso, District of Coldstream Councillor, be appointed 

to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee as the District of Coldstream representative and that 

Peter McClean, District of Coldstream Councillor, be appOinted as the alternate representative. 

SUMMARY: 

It is recommended that, due to the voluntary nature of ALR application referral to the RAAC for review 

and Board of Directors resolutions on August 15, 2012, that the RAAC Terms of Reference be 

retained as adopted by the Board of Directors on August 15, 2012. 

It is also recommended that that Maria Besso, District of Coldstream Councillor, be appointed to the 

Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee as the District of Coldstream representative and that Peter 

McClean, District of Coldstream Councillor, be appointed as the alternate representative. 

Submitted by: 

AA~nffth~O;;;nYY~K~it~te~~~~UG~~;:CO;;;wtVi.h~S~trategy Coordinator 


Endorsed tiy: 

Rob Smailes, MCIP 

General Manager, Planning and Building 




D I STRICT OF COLDSTREAM 

9901 KALAMALKA ROAD, COLDSTREAM, BC V1B 1L6 

Phone 250-545-5304 Fax 250-545-4733 

Ct.coldstr~m.bc.ca 

Regional District of North Okanagan 

Trafford Hall, Chief Administrative Officer 

9848 Aberdeen Road 

Coldstream BC VI B 2K9 

tI'( 

tP 

Oct 

~ 9Y VI' 

File: 0470-30 

October 24, 2012 

Dear Mr. Hall: 

Re: 

Regional District of North Okanagan Agricultural Advisory Committee 

At their meeting held October 22, 2012, Council discussed the above and adopted the following 

resolutions: 

I. THAT Council support the Regional District of North Okanagan 's Regional Agricultural 

Advisory Committee Amended Terms of Reference dated Apri/19, 2012 subject to 

encouraging the Regional District of North Okanagan to delete items 2.1 (a) and 

2.2(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Regional District of North Okanagan's Regional Agricultural 

Advisory Committee Amended Terms of Reference dated April 19, 2012. 

2. THAT Council appoint Councillor Besso to represent the District of Coldstream on the 

Regional District of North Okanagan's Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee; 

AND THAT Councillor McClean be appointed as an alternate, to represent the District of 

Coldstream on the Regional District of North Okanagan's Regional Agricultural 

Advisory Committee. 

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 545-5304 or by email at 

kaustin@district.coldstream.bc.ca. 

Yours truly, 

~. 

Keri-Ann Austin 


: oj 

i \ l' 

I . ) , 

I: . 

. / 

Nm n, 

\ ! . '-, C-"" 

\ .1")) 

,,~ I ' 

)f1ll 

, ' 

• 

CC 

M, Stamhuis, CA 







REPORT 

File No.: 3045.12.03.07 

TO: 


FROM: Anthony Kittel, Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator 

DATE: October 29, 2012 

SUBJECT: Regional Context Statement Work Program 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Regional Context Statement Template 

Format Option 2, as outlined in the staff report dated October 29, 2012, be endorsed; and further, 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a letter be sent to all member municipalities 

and the Electoral Area Advisory Committee requesting direction on Regional Context Statement 

process and approach. 

DISCUSSION: 

The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 was adopted on September 21, 2011, 

and given the aspirational nature of many of the goals and strategies, the development of a 

coordinated approach to interpreting regional policy into local Official Community Plan Regional 

Context Statements (RCS) is a key implementation activity. 

The Regional District of North Okanagan has 10 Official Community Plans (OCP) that will require the 

inclusion of a Regional Context Statement, as specified in the Local Government Act, Sections 865 

and 866. These 10 OCPs include: 

City of Armstrong 



Rural Vernon (EA ‘B’ and ‘C’) 


Silver Star (EA ‘C’) 


Electoral Areas ‘D’ and ‘E’ 


Electoral Area ‘F’ 

One of the first implementation actions will be to coordinate the development of RCSs for municipal 

(Section 866, LGA) and electoral area (meets the requirements of Section 865, LGA) OCPs within the 

region. Although communities may choose to pursue different approaches, a coordinated effort will 

ensure local RGS policy interpretation is compatible across the region. The OCP RCSs will also 

assist in identifying local/regional synergies and additional partnership actions, including local RCS 

indicator development with linkages to regional monitoring and evaluation. 

The RCS Project, due to the number and complexity of the components that must be developed, will 

be completed by March 31, 2015, although it anticipated that the majority of RCSs will be completed 

by the end of 2013 . The objectives of the Project are to support the implementation of the RGS 




Regional Context Statement Work Program 

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – October 29, 2012 Page 2 

through coordination of the development of 10 Official Community Plan Regional Context Statements 

as a component of RGS implementation. The strategic focus of this Project is to: 

 

 

 

Maintain the collaborative partnerships that were developed through RGS development; 

Coordinate RCS activities across the region to promote stronger partnerships and compatible 

approaches to local interpretation of RGS policies; 

Develop the tools, support mechanisms, strategies and actions for successful RGS 

development, implementation and monitoring; 

Work in partnership with local government through coordinated RCS development with the 

goal of local interpretation of regional policy and coordinated action on RGS implementation; 

and 

 

Monitor project progress and consider strategic (policy) and tactical (implementation) planning 

amendments based upon successes, challenges and evolving priorities. 

While the RGS provides an overarching view, the coordinated development, support, monitoring and 

evaluation of 10 OCP RCSs are intended to provide the Board of Directors and municipal councils 

with a structured framework for local policy interpretation of the RGS.. 

BACKGROUND/HISTORY: 

On September 21, 2011, the Regional District of North Okanagan adopted RGS Bylaw No. 2500, 

2011. A regional growth strategy is a region‐wide strategy to promote socially, economically, and 

environmentally healthy settlements and to ensure efficient use of public facilities, land and other 

resources. The RGS contains a combination of strategic directions, policy statements, and 

recommended actions. It was accepted by the six member municipalities (City of Armstrong, District of 

Coldstream, City of Enderby, Village of Lumby, Township of Spallumcheen and City of Vernon) and 

supported by the five Electoral Areas (‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’), and provides regional long range 

planning direction to each jurisdiction’s Official Community Plans (OCPs). 

While the RGS and an OCP are separate documents, their content is interrelated. An OCP must work 

towards the purpose and goals of a RGS. As the two documents are both working towards achieving 

the same goals, one at the community level and the other at the regional level, an OCP is a means of 

implementing a RGS. Through the integration of RGS goals into an OCP and the translation of RGS 

policies into OCP policies, all communities can work towards the desired future for the OCP area and 

also for the region. 

Section 866 of the Local Government Act requires that following the adoption of an RGS, member 

municipalities prepare a RCS. An RCS is essentially a chapter within the OCP that describes how 

local planning and land use policy will work toward the goals and objectives established in the RGS. It 

provides an opportunity for local interpretation of the RGS and clarifies issues that may have been 

raised. The RCS was devised by the Province as a means of protecting a municipal council’s authority 

in making local planning decisions while ensuring that Councils and the Board of Directors agree on 

matters of regional interest. 

For electoral areas, the goals, objectives and policies in an OCP must not be in conflict with the goals 

and policies of the RGS. Section 865(1) of the Local Government Act requires that: “All bylaws 

adopted by a regional district board after the board has adopted a regional growth strategy, and all 

services undertaken by a regional district after the board has adopted a regional growth strategy, 

must be consistent with the regional growth strategy”. This means that an electoral area OCP, 






because it is adopted by bylaw, must be consistent with the RGS and a RCS is one mechanism that 

can be used to demonstrate that consistency. 

COORDINATED REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM: 

The Coordinated Regional Context Statement Development Work Program provides an overview of 

the individual tasks that the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator will undertake from November 

2012 to March 31, 2015 to provide support during RCS development and acceptance. This work 

program does not include undertaking the development of specific municipal or Electoral Area RCSs. 

It is anticipated that each jurisdiction will modify the recommended RCS approach to meet local 

needs. 

Official 

Community Plan 

Regional Context 

Statements 

Official Community Plan Regional Context Statement Template(s) Nov - Dec 2012 

Elected Officials Forum - OCP Regional Context Statement Template, 

Process and Coordination 

Early 2013 

Local/Regional Senior Planner Workshops (x3) - Coordinating OCP 

Regional Context Statement Development 

Jan-Dec 2013 

Municipal OCP Regional Context Statement Support (including 

Council/EAAC workshops, RCS review) 

Nov 2012 - Mar 2014 

Development of 10 OCP Regional Context Statements (Coordinated) Nov 2012 - Mar 2014 

Elected Officials’ Forum – discussing local draft RCSs prior to 

initiation of local OCP Amendment Bylaw 

May/June 2013 

Municipal and Electoral Area OCP Regional Context Statement 

Acceptance Process (x10) to Board of Directors 

Sept 2012 - Mar 2014 

OCP RCS Local Indicator Development (RGS Monitoring) Oct 2013- Mar 2015 

OCP RCS Implementation Support Oct 2013 - Mar 2015 

DELIVERABLE: 11 OCP Regional Context Statements + Supporting Documentation 

SUMMARY Oct 2012 - Mar 2015 

One of the first tasks is the selection of RCS template formats that the Regional Growth Strategy 

Coordinator will develop prior to the end of 2012 for consideration by Councils and Electoral Areas 

when considering approaches to RCS development. The use of these templates is voluntary but will 

be designed for efficiency and consistency. 

PROPOSED REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT TEMPLATE FORMATS: 

In considering RCS template formats, staff considered the following three options that have been 

used by municipalities and regional districts across British Columbia. These three formats include: 

Option #1: 

For each of the 21 goals of the RGS, make a high level statement whether the OCP is 

consistent; 

Identify where the OCP is inconsistent and indicate how consistency will be achieved; and, 

Indicate components of the RGS which are not applicable to the municipality or Electoral Area. 

Option #2: 

For each of the 21 goals of the RGS, provides a paragraph overview of whether the OCP is 

consistent. The statement then specifically refers to applicable strategies and the strategic 

directions referenced within the Vision Statement; 






 

 

Identify where the OCP is inconsistent and indicate how consistency will be achieved; and, 

Indicate any components of the RGS which are not applicable to the municipality or Electoral 

Area. 

Option #3 

For each of the 21 goals and 140 strategies of the RGS, provides a detailed word by word 

comparison of the OCP’s consistency; 

Identify where the OCP is inconsistent and indicate in detail how consistency will be achieved 

in the future; and, 

Indicate any components of the RGS in detail which are not applicable to the municipality. 

The following table provides a summary comparison of each approach. 

Analysis Detail Effort Flexibility Interpretation 

Option 1 

Brief Overview 

Generic Statement 

regarding RGS Vision 

and 21 Goals 

Low - below RCS 

budget 

In most general terms, outlines 

the connection between RGS and 

OCP policy direction. Very 

flexible, although can be 

interpreted in a variety of ways, 

based upon perspective 

General statements on regionallocal 

policy linkages can be open 

to interpretation, limited local 

context, potential of 

misinterpretation of local intent 

Option 2 

Detailed 

Interpretation of 21 

Goals: strategic direction 

at goal level 

Moderate - within 

RCS budget 

Is a tradeoff between 

interpretative flexibility, local 

context and comprehensive 

analysis of regional-local policy 

More robust local interpretation of 

regional policy, can tailor to local 

context, reduces uncertainty and 

misinterpretation of local intent 

Option 2 

Comprehensive 

Interpretation of 21 

Goals and 140 

Strategies: line by line 

comparison 

Extensive - in 

excess of RCS 

budget 

Limited flexibility of interpretation, 

each goal and strategy has been 

fully analyzed 

Detailed and clear interpretation 

of local-regional policy linkages, 

limited interpretative flexibility 

Although it is not mandated to develop a RCS with respect to RGS goals, the majority of RCSs within 

British Columbia interpret RGS policy at the level of goals and strive to balance local OCP policy 

direction, local context and flexible interpretation, which is consistent with Option #2. This approach is 

more robust and detailed than Option #1 and provides greater clarity to intended local interpretation of 

regional policy, reducing the possibility of misinterpretation of the RCS. 

Option #3 is much more detailed in analysis and would require much effort, at the same time reducing 

local flexibility of interpretation of RGS policy. This option may require a lengthy and very though RCS 

that may be as comprehensive as the OCP. A word by word comparison would remove much of the 

flexibility of local interpretation that may be desired by Councils and the EAAC. 

Following a review of other Regional Context Statements in the province, staff recommends the 

second option for RCS template development. Option #2 provides flexibility in interpretation while 

providing the opportunity for a more comprehensive analysis of OCP and RGS consistency. There is 

a greater possibility of misunderstanding of a Council’s interpretation of RGS policy as it applies at the 

local level if a RCS is brief and generic (Option #1). As well, a detailed ‘word by word’ comparison of 

an RGS and OCP reduces local interpretive flexibility of regional policy at the local level while 

introducing the potential for the RCS to be as comprehensive as the OCP (Option #3). 






DRAFT REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT PROJECT SCHEDULE (GENERIC) 

Below is a suggested RCS development project schedule that provides guidance for elected officials 

when considering RCS approach and work plans. 

Target Date Milestone Communications 

Development of Consultation Plan 

January 2013 Project Initiation 

Media Release 

Report # 1: Legislative Requirements, Project Timeline, 

February 2013 

RCS Web Page 

Consultation 

Report # 2: OCP/RGS Consistency Analysis and 

March 2013 

RCS Web Page Update (Optional) 

Congruency Table 

Council Workshop #1: Review of identified issues, direction 

April 2013 


on approach in addressing those issues 

Report #3: First draft of RCS for review 

Council Workshop #2: Establish consensus on outstanding Staff level discussions with agencies 

issues 

Press Release 

May-June 2013 Optional: Public Open House/Information Session Public consultation, communications and 

Optional: Public Survey 

advertising 

Optional: Draft RCS referral to local and regional 

governments for comment 

June 2013 Elected Officials Forum – discussion of local RCSs 

Report #4: Second draft of RCS, request 1 st Reading 

July 2013 

August 2013 Report # 4: Third draft of RCS, request 2 nd Reading RCS Web Page Update (Optional) 

Public Hearing 

September 2013 Refer bylaw to RDNO Board of Directors (120 days required 


Refer bylaw to external agencies, including RDNO (30 days Referral Letters 

for review) 

~ December 2013 

Dependant on 

previous milestone 

RELEVANT LEGISLATION: 

for review and acceptance) 

RCS acceptance by Board of Directors or enter into a 

Ministry directed resolution process (cost and timeline 

variable) 

Report #5: Final draft of RCS, 3 rd 

Reading and Adoption 

Local Government Act Section 866 requires member municipalities to include within their OCP. 

866 (1) If a regional growth strategy applies to all or part of the same area of a municipality as an 

official community plan, the official community plan must include a regional context statement 

that is accepted in accordance with this section by the board of the regional district for which 

the regional growth strategy is adopted. 

(2) A regional context statement under subsection (1) must specifically identify 

(a) the relationship between the official community plan and the matters referred to in 

section 850 (2) and any other regional matters included under section 850 (3), and 

(b) if applicable, how the official community plan is to be made consistent with the regional 

growth strategy over time. 

(3) A regional context statement under subsection (1) and the rest of the official community plan 

must be consistent. 

(4) The council must 






(a) submit a proposed regional context statement required under this section for acceptance 

by the board, 

(b) submit any amendments to the regional context statement for acceptance by the board, 

and 

(c) review the regional context statement at least once every 5 years after its latest acceptance 

by the board and, if no amendment is proposed, submit the statement to the board for its 

continued acceptance. 

(5) For the purpose of subsection (4), the board must respond by resolution within 120 days after 

receipt indicating whether or not it accepts the regional context statement or amendment and, 

if the board refuses to accept the regional context statement or amendment, indicating 

(a) each provision to which it objects, and 

(b) the reasons for its objection. 

(6) If the board fails to act under subsection (5) within the period for acceptance or refusal under 

that subsection, the board is deemed to have accepted the regional context statement or 

amendment. 

(7) Sections 856, 858 to 862 and 864 apply regarding the acceptance and adoption of a regional 

context statement. 

(8) After a regional growth strategy is adopted, the requirement under subsection (1) must be 

fulfilled by the applicable council submitting a proposed regional context statement to the 

board within 2 years after the regional growth strategy is adopted. 

(9) If a regional growth strategy is binding on a new municipality under section 857 (9) and the 

regional growth strategy applies to all or part of the same area of the municipality as an official 

community plan, the requirement under subsection (1) of this section must be fulfilled by the 

council submitting a proposed regional context statement to the board within the earlier of the 

following: 

(a) the period established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council by letters patent; 

(b) 2 years after the municipality was incorporated. 

LEGAL/STATUTORY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: 

According to Section 866 of the Local Government Act, each member municipality must prepare an 

RCS within two years of adoption of the RGS. This means the municipalities proposed RCS should be 

submitted to the Board of Directors before September 21, 2013, although it is anticipated that RCS 

development may proceed beyond the deadline based upon OCP review schedules and other 

potential delays. The process of adopting the RCS is very much like the process for adopting other 

OCP amendments, with the additional requirement of Board of Directors acceptance. Below is a 

diagram of the OCP RCS acceptance process: 






Adoption 

In accordance with the Local Government Act, a municipality must submit their RCS (and any 

subsequent amendments) to the Board of Directors for acceptance. The Board of Directors must also 

approve RCSs once every 5 years for its continued acceptance. The Board must respond to the RCS 

submission by resolution within 120 days after receiving the RCS and must indicate whether or not it 

accepts the RCS or any amendments. If the RCS is refused the Board must specify what it objects to 






and the corresponding reasons. If the Board fails to act within the set time period, the RCS is deemed 

to have been accepted. 

If the Board of Directors does not accept a municipal RCS, there is a dispute resolution process 

provided for in the Local Government Act, similar to that used for the RGS. 

Regional Context Statement Dispute Resolution Process Flow Chart 

Munldp.Mty S"~mlts Pfoposed 

~CS to _,eI for R .... _ 

120doy.1 

coll'l'" Res 

Mi,I"., may .""",nl 

r.dl~ato, 10 . " ,.1 

• TIIi< "hort w .. p,~p.,td bv ,t.ff 

f,om Met'oy."", ......... 

N""/>iMi' ~t ... 

- 111_. PRKHI 

.~, 

81od;", 

SOttl ...... ,,! 

Procos. 

.' 

., , 

, 

., 

.' 

" 

.; :' 

• 

'. :. 

, 

~: 

~ ," 

: 

, , 

., 

, 

~ : 

, 

, 

'. 

' N' 

. , 

, 

"• 

'. 

• 

'"~ AfWfrg!lm 

Soltitp:y 10< DKI.,on 

Amtnd ..... nI nr 

CIo





REQUIRED CONSULTATION: 

Section 879 of the Local Government Act states that during amendment of an OCP, such as when 

developing and adopting the RCS, a jurisdiction must consider what opportunities will be provided for 

early consultation and with whom. The local government must: 

(a) consider whether the opportunities for consultation with one or more of the persons, 

organizations and authorities should be early and ongoing; and, 

(b) specifically consider whether consultation is required with: 

i. the board of the regional district in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the 

case of a municipal official community plan; 

ii. the board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; 

iii. the council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; 

iv. first nations; 

v. school district boards, greater boards and improvement district boards; and, 

vi. the Provincial and federal governments and their agencies. 

The level of consultation on the development of Regional Context Statements, beyond what is 

required under Section 879, is at the discretion of each Council and the Electoral Area Advisory 

Committee. The recommended public consultation tasks outlined within this report (public open 

house, survey, referral of draft RCS to Regional District for comment) are based upon RCS processes 

that have been undertaken by other jurisdictions and is the recommended level of consultation. 

BUDGET AND PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS: 

The costs associated with the development and adoption of a RCS will depend on several factors, 

including: 

1. The use of in-house staff, as favored by most jurisdictions in British Columbia, or the use of 

consultants; 

2. The level and extent of public consultation undertaken; and 

3. The level of involvement of elected officials during the development of a RCS. 

A review of recent (2011/2012) Regional Context Statement development budgets from other 

communities within British Columbia indicate a cost of between $10,000 and $50,000, based upon the 

approach taken, level of public engagement and anticipated legal costs. 

The RCS development budget, per community, is based upon a similar scope of work program that 

other jurisdictions have undertaken. The public consultation component consists of standard OCP 

referral requirements of Local Government Act Sections 879 and 881, one public information session, 

a survey, two council workshops and a Public Hearing. 

The projected costs of each OCP RCS include only the tasks for creating a RCS with the local context 

and do not include many of the costs associated with the Board of Directors acceptance process, 

RCS coordination across jurisdictions, legal fees or dispute resolution costs. It is anticipated that all 

RCS costs can be offset with the $250,000 Regionally Significant Projects Grant. 

Below is a preliminary estimate of the costs that may be included during the development and 

approval of a basic RCS work program using a) in-house planning staff (including the RGS 

Coordinator) and b) consultant services. This estimate is based upon the other jurisdictions’ RCS 

work programs and budgets. 






Activity Cost Activity Cost 

Municipal or RD Staff 

Consultant 

OCP Review $1,000 

Local Staff Project 

Management* 

$2,500 

RCS Draft Policy 

Development 

$1,500 Startup meeting $1,000 

Council Workshop – Policy 

Review of local policy and 

$500 

Guidance 

RGS 

$1,000 

Public Consultation* $4,000 

Consultant Project 

Management 

$2,000 

RCS Revision $750 OCP Review $2,000 

Council Workshop II – Draft 

RCS Draft Policy 

$500 

RCS 

Development 

$4,000 

Draft RCS Referral to RD $100 Council Workshop** $5,000 

RCS Bylaw and Report $750 Public Consultation*** $7,500 

Public Hearing Advertising $1,000 RCS Revision $1,500 

Attendance at Council $1,000 Council Workshop II** $5,000 

Travel + Incidentals $400 Draft RCS Referral to RD $500 

TOTAL $11,500 RCS Bylaw and Report $1,500 

Public Hearing Advertising $1,000 

Presentation to Council $1,000 

Overhead and Travel $4,500 

TOTAL $40,000 

* This is a conservative estimate based upon experience with other contracted projects. 

** Minimum cost of a consultant facilitated workshop, based upon consultant proposals received on other projects. 

*** Standard referrals, 1 public information session and a survey. 

The Gas Tax Regionally Significant Project budget for RCS development has allocated a maximum of 

$11,500 per Official Community Plan to be used for RCS development, based upon the assumption 

that in-house staff resources will be used. Each municipality and electoral area (or electoral areas if 

joint OCP (i.e. Rural Vernon OCP, ‘D’ and ‘E’ OCP)) is anticipated to determine the approach that will 

be taken to development RCS. The anticipated approach is for member municipalities to submit 

invoices to the Regional District for transfer of funds for eligible RCS development expenses 

(including staff time), up to a maximum of $11,500 per OCP RCS. 

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS: 

The RGS Coordinator has included RCS coordination and development support within the 2013 RGS 

Work Program. It is the choice of each municipal Council and Electoral Area Director which RCS 

approach to undertake and if the RGS Coordinator will be involved within RCS development. 

SUMMARY: 

The RCS is an over-arching regional plan that links local and regional plans and initiatives in the North 

Okanagan through the three pillars of economic, environmental and social sustainability and over a 

longer (20 year) term perspective. The RCS initiative will provide the basis of coordinated local 

interpretation of regional policy and RGS monitoring with an emphasis on local-regional linkages, 

synergies and partnerships. 





Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee - October 29, 2012 Page 11 

Each jurisdiction must consider the RCS approach that will be taken , if a regional template is 

appropriate for RCS development and the level of involvement of the RGS Coordinator within RCS 

development. 

It is recommended to the Board of Directors that the Regional Context Statement Template Format 

Option #2 be endorsed, based upon a more comprehensive analysis of regional policy as it applies to 

OCPs while retaining local flexibility in interpretation. 

It is recommended to the Board of Directors that a leiter be sent to all member municipalities and the 

Electoral Area Advisory Council requesting direction on RCS process and approach. 

Submilted by: 

AA~nftth~o~n~Y~K~ittite~/~, RReeggliG'o~n'iiP~~~h~S~trategy Coordinator 


Endorsed by: 

~'a4 

ROSmaHes, MCIP 








REPORT 

File No.: 3045.12.03.04 

TO: 

FROM: 



DATE: November 15, 2012 

SUBJECT: British Columbia 'Buy Local' Grant Program 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the British Columbia ‘Buy Local’ Program 

information be referred to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee for discussion. 

DISCUSSION: 

The Board of Directors adopted the following resolution on September 5, 2012: 

“That the Regional District of North Okanagan apply to the Southern Interior 

Development Initiative Trust (SIDIT) for improved marketing and signage for all Regional 

District of North Okanagan farmer’s markets or public markets.” 

The SIDIT grant program is fully allocated for 2012 and the next application consideration date will not 

be until April 2013. Staff have been reviewing other funding options to proceed with this project, 

including the recently announced ‘Buy Local’ Program. 

THE ‘BUY LOCAL’ PROGRAM: 

The Province has provided a $2.1 million contribution to assist BC’s agricultural and agri-products 

sector increase local presence and consumption of BC agri-foods through the ‘Buy Local’ Program. 

This program will be administered through the Investment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia. 

Businesses and organizations, acting as an applicant, can apply for matching funding (i.e., applicants 

are required to contribute 50% of the total cost of the project budget) from the provincial government 

for projects that promote local foods. Since this program targets non-profit, industry and business 

organizations, local and regional governments cannot apply directly to this program, although there is 

the option to partner with recognized agricultural organizations and industry groups on specific 

projects. 

The “Buy Local” Program offers successful applicants matching funds from $5,000 to $100,000 to 

launch or expand local food marketing campaigns. Eligible organizations include associations, 

cooperatives, marketing boards, First Nations, companies and non-profit organizations. 

Based upon the marketing focus of this program, potential projects include marketing campaigns that 

promote B.C. food, seafood, agricultural products, agritourism, and may be represented by in-store 

promotions, social media or web campaigns, traditional advertising and on-product labeling. 




British Columbia 'Buy Local' Grant Program 

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – November 15, 2012 Page 2 

Funding is available on a first-come, first-served basis. Applications will be reviewed by an Industry 

Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from farming, manufacturing, seafood, restaurant 

and retail sectors. Attached to this report are a Buy Local Program Frequently Asked Questions Sheet 

and the program application for information. 

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES: 

Funding is available for projects that help meet the following objectives: 

Increase use of BC agri-foods in the domestic marketplace; 

Build consumer awareness, preference and demand for BC agri-foods sold within the 

province; and 

Differentiate BC produced and/or processed agri-foods from out-of-province competition. 

ELIGIBILITY: 

Businesses and organizations representing BC’s agri-food, seafood, or farm tourism sector can apply 

for up to $100,000 for eligible projects. Examples include: 

In-store promotions 

On-product labeling 

Social media or web campaigns 

Food-tourism maps 

Smartphone apps 

Traditional advertising 

Eligible applicants include: 

Associations 

Cooperatives 

Marketing boards 

 

 

First Nations 

Non-profit organizations 

For-profit organizations are also eligible for funding providing the application is a joint submission with 

at least one primary producer and two other applicants. Possible partners include retail stores, 

distributors, local governments, hotels, restaurants and other businesses. All applicants must have a 

head office, or be registered, in BC. 

FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS: 

The ‘Buy Local’ Program requires a matching funding commitment from the applying agricultural 

organization or industry association. The Regional District of North Okanagan can enter into a 

partnership with farmers markets that are members of the British Columbia Association of Farmers’ 

Markets (BCAFM) to provide signage, although public markets that are not BCAFM members would 

be ineligible. Regional District funding may be requested by participating farmers’ markets, although 

the Regional District currently does not have a function that would support a very specific economic 

development project funding request. 

SUMMARY: 

The Regional District of North Okanagan would not be eligible to submit an application to access the 

“Buy Local” program and the program only applies to recognized agricultural organizations and 

groups. Although it is possible to partner with BCAFM member farmers’ markets within the region on 

an improved signage application, non-BCAFM members would be ineligible. 

It is recommended that the ‘Buy Local’ Program report be referred to the Regional Agricultural 

Advisory Committee for discussion. 


British Columbia 'Buy Local' Grant Program 

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee - November 15, 2012 Page 3 

Submitted by: 



Anthony Kittel, Regia al Growth Strategy Coo dinator 


Endorsed by: 

Tra 






FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) 

Buy Local Program 

We want to help you make sure your idea for a project is eligible to be assessed 

by the Investment Agriculture Foundation before you spend your valuable time 

preparing an application. This FAQ should help you decide if this is the case. 

Q. Are you based in British Columbia? 

A. The Buy Local Program is designed to assist the agrifood and seafood 

sectors with implementing eligible projects in British Columbia only. 

Q. Is advertising, promotions or awareness activities conducted in British 

Columbia eligible for cost-shared funding? 

Yes, on the condition these activities meet the program’s objectives of: 

• Increasing use of BC agrifoods and seafood in BC; or 

• Building consumer awareness, preference and demand for BC agrifoods 

and seafood sold within BC; or 

• Differentiating BC agrifoods and seafoods from out-of province 

competition. 

Q. Are in-kind contributions eligible for cost-shared funding? 

A. In-kind contributions can be included as part of the budget, but they are not 

eligible for matching funding. 

Q. If I do not belong to an association in BC, can I still apply for funding? 

A. Individuals companies are not eligible to apply for funding. However, for-profit 

organizations are eligible for funding providing their application is a joint 

submission with at least one primary producer and two other applicants. 

Q. Are there any types of projects that are not eligible for funding? 

A. The scope of the Buy Local program is to support projects that promote local 

foods to British Columbians. The following types of projects are NOT eligible for 

funding under this program: 

• Buying, starting or expanding a farm or business; 

• Purchasing capital expenses (land, buildings, fences, equipment, 

computers, mobile phones, tools, seed, livestock); 

• Basic research (experimental or theoretical work which is undertaken 

primarily to acquire new knowledge without a commercial or specific 

application in view); 

• Direct income support; 

• Lobbying or influencing any level of government; 

• The normal operations of a business or organization (i.e., creating a 

strategic plan; hiring staff, holding a conference or annual meeting, 

education or training) which are not intended to address the objectives of 

this program; and 




• Any activities that may be considered to denigrate other products, 

commodities or regions (e.g., farmed vs. wild salmon; organic vs. 

conventional agriculture). 

Q. Is your project intended for a time-limited activity? 

A. All projects must be completed within 12 months of the date of project 

approval. 

Q. Are you willing and able to contribute any of your own money to your project 

OR have you secured cash contributions from industry partners or nongovernment 

sources? 

A. Applicants will be required to contribute 50% of the total cost of the project 

budget. 

Q. How much can I apply for? 

A. The minimum amount of cost-shared funding available is $5,000 and the 

maximum is $100,000. 

Q. Is a letter of intent required? 

A. No letter of intent is required. Feel free to contact the IAF to determine the 

eligibility of your application. 

Q. Are there any deadlines for funding applications? 

A. Applications will be accepted on a first come, first served basis until the 

program funding has been expended. There are no set application dates. 

Q: When will I know if my application has been approved? 

A: Clients can anticipate a decision within 20 business days for complete 

applications, from the date of receipt by IAF. 

Q. When can I issue a media release to announce the funded project? 

A. The B.C. government will work with each successful application to announce 

their project as they are approved. 

Recipients will not make a public announcement concerning the Project funding 

without the prior consent of the Ministry of Agriculture. 

Q. Where can I go for more information? 

A. IAF encourages all potential clients for the Buy Local Program to contact the 

Foundation directly at funding@iafbc.ca or phone 250-356-1662. 





Application Form 

Thank you for choosi ng to start a project application to request funding from the Province of British Columbia. We are e)(cited to partner In 

projects that help British Columbia's agrlfood and seafood sectors to Increase consumer demand for local products. Below you will find some 

useful information regarding this funding program. 

Eligible Applicants: 

Organizations representing Be agrlfood, seafood or farm tourism sectors are eligible to apply. These Include: 

• Associations 

• Cooperatives 

• Marketing boards 

• Aboriginal groups; and, 

• Non-profit organizations. 

For-profit organiza tions are also eligible for funding providing their application is a joint submission with at least one primary producer and two 

other applicants. Possible partners Include food retail stores, distributors, local governments, hotels and restaurants and other businesses. All 

applicants must have a head office, or be registered, in Be. 

Eligible Products: 

Be Food ~any food, seafood or beverage product made entirely from Ingredients sourced In B.C. or composed of more than 85 per cent of their 

main Ingredients from B,C. In addition, ali proceSSing and packaging must be done in S.c. 

Producers or Be Made Food are also eligible to apply for funding provided they partner with a primary producer In a co-marketing strategy. Be 

Made Food is any food, seafood or beverage processed and packaged entirely in S.c. When the main Ingredients are available in e.e in sufficient 

quantities they must be used, 

To be considered for funding, applicants must demonstrate their marketing efforts will result in Increased consumption of S.c. inputs. r nputs 

include ingredients and/or labour. 

Other products than ca n apply for funding include: 

• floriculture and nursery; 

• agrltourlsm or farm ~ t ourlsm experiences such as on-farm events such as fishing pond s, U·Picks, wineri es, 

festiva ls and corn mazes; and, 

• agriculture products that are not fit for human consumption, for example pet food. 

Funding Levels; 

The Buy Local Program Is a cos t ~s hared program. Appli ca nts will be required to contribute 50% of the total cost of the project budget. 

In-kind contributions can be Included as part of the overall project budget, but they are not eligible for matching funding. 

Cost-shared funding on a SO/SO basis is available from a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $100,000. 

Funding is available on a fIrst-come, first serve basis, until the funds have been expended. 

Before you start the application process, may we suggest the following? 

• Review our application writing webinar online (www.fafbc.ca) for tips on prepa(ing a successful application 

• Oiscuss your project Idea with us to see if it fits with the funding p(ogram and SUateglc priorities. 

• Gather together all the information you will need to com pl ete the application in one place. 

Program Funding Provided By: 

BRITISH 

COLUMBIA 


IIAI'BC Internal Use Only: 

Project 

Number 



Investment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia 


Project Application Form 

Funding 

Requested 

Date Received: I 

Revised Date: 

SECTION 1 - APPLICANT INFORMATION 

IAppllca nt Information: 

~ppllcanr Name, 

Srreer Addre55 or PO 8ox, 

Town, Village oiClry 

ProvInce 

P05ralCode 

Telephone Number 

FacsImile Number 

WebslrP 

BU51ness or Assoclarlon Number. 

IDesigllatl,d Officer (Signing Au thority on behalf of Applicant) 

0"'cer'5 Name & Tlfle, 

Streer Address or PO Box 

Town, Village or Clry 

Province 

1'05101 Code 

elephone Number 


Email 

Contact (If other than De5ignated Officer) 

Conrad's Name & Title, 

Streer Address or />0 Sox 

Town, VlllogeorClry 

Province 

P051alCode 

Telephone Num er 


Email 

Program Funding Provided By: 

BHIT ISI-I 

..... C OLUMBI A 

Page 90 of 329 

Version 1.5



SECTION 2 - APPLICANT BACKGROUND 

Tip: Tell us abollt your organization or bus/ness. Introdtlce yourself to us, Wilat is yotl( mandate or purpose? WilD are your clients or members? 

Describe tile capacity of yourorgonlzarioll to manage this project. 

(Max, 2000 Characters) 

I Organlratlon'1\IJ!e , 

I 

Sector 

II 

Grolli' 

Tip: Select tile most appropriate applicallt type as it flPj2lies 

tQ 111§ !':.lie n tLlleell~m '[ . 

Tip: Select tile most appropriate sector (rom the lisl CIS it applies to 

I£QI:!! I1 r.oi~~t, 




SECTION 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Project Timing 

Proposed Start I 

Date: 

'---------' 

Proposed Completion 

Date: 

Note: Project octivities lindertoken before the date of approval a re not eligible for funding, 

Projects should be completed within one year frol11 the date of approval, 

Project Title 

Tip: Your titles sholiid captllre the essence of YOllr projectin 10 words or less, 

(Maximum 200 Characters) 

Executive Summary 

Tip: Briefly describe yO(/( project in abollt 750 words, Identify what specific issue 01' opportllnity your project addresses (the why 

of your project), Also incilide the "who, what, where and when" ofyollr project, YOLI may find it easier to write this section after 

yOll have completed the rest of th e application form . 





SECTION 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Objectives: 

YOllf objectives setout what ills you Intend to accomplis I), wllat difference your project will make and wllat results YOll DnricfpOfe. Consider 

objectives t/laf can be accomplished during tile life of the project (short term or imm ediate objectives) as well as (!JOse that will happen after 

tile project has been completed, You don't need to include a long fist of objectives. One to three well-crafted objectives Ofe preferred. Be 

careflil r/w/ YOli do not incltlde "activities" as objectives. Please explain flow you will Increase use of Be agrifoods in tile Province. 





SECTION 4 - PROJECT ACTIVITIES 

Activities: 

Describe the steps and tasks you'll undertake to achieve the objectives you've developed for your project. Be as thorough as 

possible and organize your activities in 0 logicol sequence, wheth er by objectives, by stages or mileston e, or by type of activity. 

Being thorough will help wh en it comes time to develop Yo(l( project budget. 





SECTION 5 - PROJECT RESULTS 

Outline the activities you will undertake to evaluate the performance and success of your project. 

Performance Plan: 

Tip: How will you know if your project made a difference? Describe how you intend to measure success in achieving your project 

objectives. Include costs associated with performance measures in your project budget. 






Project Results: 

Please indicate if your project will measure any changes in the following areas. 

website 

daI media traffic 

~erage 

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR FINAL REPORT MUST INCLUDE A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 

OF THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED AS A "YES" ABOVE. 





Project De liverables : 

Deliverables (orolltputs) are th e prodllcts and services arising out of your project activities, such as promotional or other 

mare rials, a presentation or event, a media release, impact of social media or a service delivered to a target grollp. Describe th . 

deliverables that will be generated as a result of your project. Be as specific and detailed as possible. Inch/de costs associated 

with deliverables in YOllr project budget. 


Tip: The performance and success of a project Is often partially evaluated th rough the timeliness, quality and effectiveness of the 

deliverables produced. When describing your project dellverables be specific and as detailed as possible. 

SECTION 6 - PROJECT BUDGET 

Tip: Please use the budget spreads/leet on the following page to es tim ate th e expendiwres needed to complete your project activities and 

defiverables. Please remember to include costs associated wlrh communication and performance evaluation. 




• ~ 

I II ~ II I r II 

• 

- 

~ 

I II 01 III III m 

- 

• 09- 

i 

- 

j 

- 

.~ 

~ 

- 

III nr II II 

• 

J 

I" • I- 

n 

• 

- 

] 

- 

Ii 

- 

§ 

-0 

·8 

~M 

~ 

- • 

il il 

~ 

j 

0 

~ 

~ -g 

i ~ ~ 

~ 

~ 

j 

• 

- J! 

I 

~ 

• 

~ 

• '" '" '" 

~ 

M ~ M M M M q • 

~ 

~ ::! ! :! ~ 

N ;:; ::l ~ ;s ::J ~ 

~ 

'" ~ ~ ~ q 

'" 

~ '" ~ ~ 

'" 


il 

~ 

." 

" I:'! 

I:J 

l " 

'" 

'" '" ~ ~ ~ ~



SECTION 7 - PROJECT FUNDING 

Industry Contribution Sources Confirmation Cash In-kind* Total 

., 

Government Contribution Sources Confirmation Cash In-kind* Tota l 

'r, 

Other Contribution Sources Confirmation Cash In-kind" Total 

, v ..... 

-- Contribution Totals without funding 

~ . 

Amount of Funding Requested from Buy Local Program 

Contribution Totals Including Funding 

Bu, L«lII P,.."". Funding Ratio. 

Do your budgets Match? 

Below are the totals from your Project Expenses Budget. These va lues shou ld be the same as the total funding sources above. 

Project Expenses Totals from Budget (Section # 6) 

II 

• Please note this program does not match in-kind contributions. 




SUBMITTING YOUR APPLICATION 

Once you have completed your application please review it to make sure that your haven't 

forgotten any information. Once submitted to the Foundation, one of our Program 

Managers will be in contact with you to discuss your application in more detail. You may 

also be advised to provide supporting documentation for your project such as: 

· Letters of Support 

• Your Research Methodology 

· A list of your Project Partners and Team members and the skills each brings to the 

project 

• If this is part of a mUlti-stage project, submit a completion plan outlining the next 

stages and how they will be funded. 

• Other pertinent information to support your application. 

Once your application is deemed ready, it will be forwarded for decision. Find out more 

about this and what to expect should your application be approved in our application 

writing webinar, available on our website: www.iafbc.ca 

NOTE: Should your project be approved for funding, you will be required to submit a final 

report with respect to activities, deliverables and communications, as well as results and 

overall success ofthe project. The information you supply in this application will be used 

to evaluate the progress of your project. Therefore, it is important to communicate any 

changes in your project plans to IAF as early as possible. 




SUBMITIING YOUR APPLICATION 

You can submit your completed application to t he Investment Agri culture Fou ndation of Be in one offour 

ways: 

To submit your application via e-mail: 

If this is your first time applying to the Foundation send an e-mail to funding@iafbc_ca with your name, 

organization and contact information with your completed appli cation attached. 

If you have worked with the Fou nd ation previously you ca n e-mail your appl ication directly to the Project 

Manager you worked with previously. 

To submit your application vi a Canada Post, please send your completed application to: 

Investment Agriculture Foundation of Be 

PO Box 8248 

Victoria, Be 

V8W 3R9 

To submit your application vi a courier, please send your completed application to: 

Investment Agriculture Foundation of Be 

3rd Floor 

808 Douglas 5treet 

Victoria, Be 

V8W2Z7 

To submit your application vi a facsmilie: 

Transm it your application to the Foundation at (250) 953-5162. 

For add itional information please e-mail funding@iafbc.ca or ca ll (250) 356-1662 

Thank you for considering the Province of British Columbia and the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC as 

partners in your project. 

Ema il Form 

Print Form 







REPORT 

File No.: 3045.04.11 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 



January 4,2013 

Regional Growth Strategy Update - January 4,2013 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Regional Growth Strategy Update dated 

January 4, 2013 be received for information and forwarded to member municipalities and First Nations 

for their information. 

DISCUSSION: 

Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 was adopted by the Board of Directors on 

September 21, 2011 after receiving unanimous support from member municipal councils, the Electoral 

Area Advisory Committee and adjacent regional districts. 

The RGS project is moving forward with an implementation program that is focusing on regional 

action planning, monitoring and evaluation program establishment and Official Community Plan 

Regional Context Statement development support. The November Update, titled 'Celebrating Our 

Successes', provides an overview of what has been accomplished during the first year of RGS 

implementation. It is recommended that the January 4, 2013 RGS Update be forwarded to member 

municipalities for their information. 

Submitted by: 

owth Strategy Coordinator 


Endorsed by: 






Celebrating Our 2012 Successes 

The North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 was accepted 

unanimously by all North Okanagan communities (municipalities and electoral areas) and 

adopted by the Board of Directors on September 21, 2011 

The Regional Growth Strategy is intended to provide a strategic framework for the communities of the 

North Okanagan to work toward a prosperous, resilient and sustainable future. Achieving the goals of this 

plan will require constant attention to implementation and monitoring. No one government, organization 

or individual alone can implement all policies that are outlined within the RGS; instead moving this plan 

into action will require commitment and cooperation at all levels—individual, community, regional, 

provincial and federal. The Regional District will be implementing elements of the plan, but the goals, 

strategies and actions were created as a partnership through a broad collaborative process— and 

partnerships will be essential in realizing our vision of this region in 2031. 

North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Implementation: Year 1 

The implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy over the first year has been very successful, with 

several actions and initiatives currently underway or completed within the five priority strategic 

directions. The collaborative approach to creating the RGS has continued into implementation, with many 

projects undertaken through broad partnerships The development of action plans and a monitoring and 

evaluation program will be completed in early to mid 2013. 





RGS Implementation Priorities 

One of the key implementation commitments within the RGS is the development of a 5‐Year Action Plan. 

RGMAC Directors and Alternates participated in a RGMAC Prioritization Workshop held on March 8, 2012. 

The workshops were designed to provide direction when developing the 5 Year Action Plan. The Board of 

Directors endorsed the following 5 RGS implementation priorities: 

Implementation Through Action 

The Regional District of North Okanagan has been working towards a series of major actions and 

initiatives of RGS implementation in the first year of the RGS. These initiatives will provide the framework 

for action, policy and monitoring over the next five years of the program: Key implementation initiatives 

undertaken in 2011/2012 are: 

 

 

Implementation Through Partnership 

The Board of Directors has participated in a number of partnership initiatives that will assist 

with RGS implementation over the 1st year of RGS implementation, including: 

Okanagan College Community Farm – Partners: Okanagan College, Kindale, Social Planning 

Council, Interior Health Authority, Community Futures, District of Coldstream 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – Board of Directors created the Committee on August 

15, 2012. Call for applications from August 24 to September 28, with 12 submissions. First 

meeting in January 2013. 

Collaboration on Regional Economic Development – Exploration of options 

2013 RGS Action Plan— Yearly action plans will be developed completed by end of 2012 

 

 

1. Encourage a strong regional economy 

2. Promote sustainable water management 

3. Support agriculture and a sustainable food system 

4. Support accessible, efficient, multi‐modal regional transportation 

5. Protect our natural systems and landscapes 

RGS implementation actions and initiatives that are outside of these 5 priorities will be considered if 

partnership or funding opportunities are available. 

Monitoring and Evaluation Program—indicators developed by end of 2012, all tools prepared by 

June 2013. 

Official Community Plan (OCPs) Regional Context Statements— Regional Growth Strategy 

policies are implemented at the local level through a chapter in an OCP that link regional direction 

and local interpretation. These OCP chapters will begin to take shape in 2013. 

Regional Employment Lands Inventory – Partners: City of Vernon 

Okanagan Biodiversity Conservation Strategy – Partners: Okanagan Conservation Collaborative 

Program 

Metered Agricultural Water Usage Pilot Project – Partners: Greater Vernon Water Utility 

Local Agricultural Producer Database – Partners: Food Action Society 

BCTransit 5‐Year Plan – Partners: BCTransit, City of Vernon, District of Coldstream 

BCTransit Future Plan (25 years) – Partners: BCTransit, City of Vernon, District of Coldstream 

Additional projects and initiatives will be identified during the development of the 2013 Action Plan . 







REPORT 

File No.: 3045.10.06 

TO: 

FROM: 



DATE: January 4, 2013 

SUBJECT: 2011 North Okanagan Demographic Profile 


That the report dated January 4, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the 

2011 North Okanagan Demographic Profile be received for information and referred to the Electoral 

Area Advisory Committee and member municipal councils for their information; and further, 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the 2011 North Okanagan Demographic Profile 

be used in each of the four 2013 Regional Growth Strategy implementation projects. 

DISCUSSION: 

Demographics, defined as the physical characteristics of a population such as age, gender, 

education, family size and location, has an important impact on a region, and by extension, has an 

important impact on government policy which seeks to achieve broad policy goals. For planning 

purposes, it is necessary to understand both the demographic characteristics of today as well as 

characteristics of the future population of the North Okanagan. 

The purpose of this report is to analyze and discuss the nature of population growth and demographic 

change that has occurred between 2001 and 2011 within the North Okanagan. The report concludes 

with a discussion about the potential effects of demographic change on communities and 

recommendations moving forward. 

The Board of Directors passed the following resolution on January 2, 2013 which outlined the 2013 

Regional Growth Strategy project priorities: 

“That the following Regional Growth Strategy implementation projects be included within the 

2013 Regional Growth Strategy Action Plan and 2013/2014 Regional Planning (031) Financial 

Plan: 

1. Regional Agricultural Area Plan, with a focus on economic development and long-term 

industry resilience; 

2. In-kind support for regional economic development initiatives; 

3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment, in partnership with the City of Vernon; and 

4. Regional Parks Legacy Fund Feasibility Study, to be undertaken by Greater Vernon Parks, 

Recreation and Culture.” 

The demographic information within this report is very important to each of the four 2013 

implementation projects and the inclusion and use of this information is recommended for each 

priority initiative. The demographic profile and trends of a community or region influence the type of 




2011 North Okanagan Demographic Profile 

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – January 4, 2013 Page 2 

housing that is in demand, the type and level of service that governments provide and economic 

development and employment opportunities. 

The Regional District of North Okanagan Demographic Profile was updated in late 2012 using the 

most current information and statistics available. Statistics Canada was the major source of 

information for this report. However, because these statistics may be updated throughout the year, 

the statistics herein should be compared with the actual federal and provincial sources. 1 

Growth in population brings job opportunities and economic growth to an area but demographic 

changes also signal potential shifts in community needs with regard to demands for supports and 

services related to the characteristics of the residents. Communities faced with the prospect of 

managing population growth can see it as a challenge. In the case of the Regional District of North 

Okanagan and our member municipalities, there may be greater challenges posed by the current 

demographic profile and trends of the region. 

The North Okanagan population is rapidly aging. In 2011, based on the Canadian Census, nearly 

30,000 residents aged 55+ live in the North Okanagan, representing a 41.2% increase over 2001. 

Although British Columbia has an aging population overall, the North Okanagan has a greater 

proportion of persons age 55+ (36.8%) compared to the province as a whole (28.4%) and will 

continue to have a greater percentage of 55+ residents over the next ten years. At the same time, the 

population under age 55 declined by 1.3% since 2001. 

An older population translates into proportionally fewer families, young people and potential 

employees. Average household size is expected to continue to decline, although at a slower pace 

than it has over the last several decades due to the reduction in younger families within the North 

Okanagan. Smaller average household size translates into a need for smaller housing units to 

accommodate the forecasted population growth. Housing type and location demand is one of the 

issues that will be affected by an aging population, but all manner of municipal, regional and other 

government services, commercial services, health services, the nature of work and workplaces, 

infrastructure and recreation may all be affected. 

PURPOSE OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS: 

Every five years, Statistics Canada conducts a census providing a detailed account of the Canadian 

population. The census is intended to provide a snapshot of the demographic, social and economic 

conditions at a precise moment in time. The census is a very important tool as it allows for a detailed 

analysis of the population and can be used to discover emerging trends within the North Okanagan. 

The last census was conducted in 2011. 

In any demographic analysis, births and in-migration increase the size of the population while deaths 

and out-migration decrease the population. Combined, these demographic factors determine the 

overall size and makeup of the population. The purpose of this demographic analysis is to outline 

past demographic trends within the North Okanagan and discuss how they affect the size and 

composition of our population today. 

Demographics affect most aspects of our society, our economy and our daily lives. In his book Boom, 

Bust and Echo, David Foot said “demographics explain about two-thirds of everything”. His statement 

reflects the importance of population demographics to businesses, service provision and social and 

economic policies, especially as it relates to areas like health care, education, taxation, the labour 

1 Statistics Canada: www.statcan.ca; BC Stats: www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca 






market and economic development. Demographic trends are key factors to be aware of when trying 

to understand future events, issues and needs related to the size and makeup of the population 

COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH 

Population estimates are based on census information adjusted by data collected in the time period 

between each national census: recorded births (+); deaths (-); immigration (+); emigration (-); non 

permanent residents (+/-); and net migration (+/-). Some data sources are more complete than others. 

Often it is necessary for Statistics Canada to adjust past population estimates after each census.The 

following key drivers will have a significant influence on the population growth in the North Okanagan 

over the next twenty-five years. 

Natural Increase - the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths. Births 

have been declining in the North Okanagan and deaths have been increasing. There currently is a net 

natural increase, with approximately 200 more deaths than births in the North Okanagan in 2011. 

Net Migration - the amount by which the inflow of migrants exceeds the outflow of migrants, which is 

strongly influenced by many factors such as employment opportunities, cost of living and lifestyle 

choices in the North Okanagan and at the original location of migrants and at the provincial, national, 

and international scales. 

POPULATION AND GROWTH: 

The 2011 census population count for the Regional District of North Okanagan was 81,237, compared 

to 77,301 2 in 2006. Table 1 provides an overview of population growth within the North Okanagan 

since 1996. 

Table 1: Regional District of North Okanagan Population Growth (1996-2011) 3 

1996 2001 2006 2011 Growth Rate (2006-2011) 

Electoral Area B 3,113 3,034 3,211 3,046 -5.1% 

Electoral Area C 3,587 3,627 3,912 3,872 -1.0% 

Electoral Area D 2,982 2,840 2,837 2,848 0.4% 

Electoral Area E 987 938 934 939 0.5% 

Electoral Area F 3,997 3,855 4,091 3,938 -3.7% 

Armstrong 3,906 4,256 4,241 4,815 13.5% 

Coldstream 8,975 9,106 9,471 10,314 8.9% 

Enderby 2,754 2,818 2,828 2,932 3.7% 

Lumby 1,689 1,618 1,634 1,731 5.9% 

Spallumcheen 5,322 5,134 4,960 5,055 1.9% 

Vernon 32,165 33,494 35,979 38,150 6.0% 

Okanagan IR #1 1,438 1,800 2,192 2,604 18.8% 

Enderby IR #2 267 238 353 390 10.5% 

Priest's Valley IR #6 423 436 653 598 -8.5% 

Harris IR #3 2 0 5 5 0.0% 

2 Unadjusted (does not include the undercount): The census undercount refers to the number of Canadian residents not 

recorded in the census. Statistics Canada adjusts official population estimates to include undercount estimates (persons 

missed minus persons counted more than once) 

3 Unadjusted. 






RDNO TOTAL 71,607 73,194 77,301 81,237 5.1% 

Between 2006 and 2011, the North Okanagan’s overall population growth rate was approximately 

1.0% per annum, below the provincial growth rate of 1.4% per annum. The electoral areas and 

municipalities of the North Okanagan have very different growth rates, which ranged between a low of 

1.0% population reduction per year (Electoral Area “B”) to a high of 2.7% population growth per year 

(City of Armstrong). 

These population counts have not been corrected for people that were missed by the census (i.e. the 

undercount). Statistics Canada will provide undercount correction for 2011 in the future. 

The following figure compares the 5-year population growth rates between the Regional District of 

North Okanagan, comparable regional districts and British Columbia from 1996 to 2011 

Table 2: Population Growth Comparison with other Regional Districts in British Columbia 

1996-2001 2001-2006 2006-2011 

Province of British Columbia 4.9 5.3 7.0 

Regional District of North Okanagan 2.3 5.6 5.1 

Regional District of Central Okanagan 8.2 9.8 10.8 

Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen 0.9 3.7 1.6 

Columbia-Shuswap Regional District 0.2 4.0 0.7 

Thompson-Nicola Regional District 0.4 2.6 5.1 

Squamish-Lillooet Regional District 12.3 6.7 8.4 

Cowichan Valley Regional District 1.4 6.8 4.4 

Comox Valley Regional District* -1.6 5.7 6.8 

Strathcona Regional District* -1.6 5.7 2.7 

Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District -4.1 4.1 1.3 

Regional District of Fraser-Fort George -3.7 1.8 -0.4 

Table 2 shows that the North Okanagan has experienced consistent moderate to strong growth over 

a 15 year period when compared to many similar regional districts within the Southern Interior and 

Vancouver Island. On average, the North Okanagan and comparable regional districts’ growth rates 

have been below the provincial population growth rate over the last 15 years. An exception is the 

Regional District of Central Okanagan which has experienced the most significant population growth 

of any comparable regional district, at over twice the population growth rate of the North Okanagan. 

GENDER AND AGE: 

The North Okanagan’s population is aging. A typical North Okanagan resident was 41.5 in 2001. That 

increased to 44.0 by 2006, or 4 years older than the average British Columbian. In 2011, the average 

North Okanagan resident is now 47.2, which is 5.3 years older than the British Columbia average and 

7.2 years older than the average Canadian. 

According to the census there were 39,220 males and 41,995 females living in the North Okanagan in 

2011. Females outnumbered males in the majority of age categories, especially 65+. Figure 1 

provides an overview of the North Okanagan 2011 population when divided by age and gender. 






Figure 1: North Okanagan 2011 Population by Age and Gender 

8000 

7000 

6000 

Females 

Males 

Population 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

There is a considerable amount of variation in the age and gender distributions within the Electoral 

Areas and municipalities of North Okanagan. Appendix A provides a demographic summary for 

each community. 

The Age Pyramid: 

Age 

Population pyramids show the make-up of the population in terms of the number of males and 

females grouped by age. 

Pyramids that are wide at the bottom and small at the top reflect a younger population while those 

smaller at the bottom and larger at the top reflect an older population. The red lines refer to the 2001 

pyramid, the blue lines correspond with the 2006 age pyramid and the grey shaded areas represent 

age in 2011. 

These three age pyramids on the same graph demonstrate the demographic trends within the North 

Okanagan. 

The North Okanagan has experience a significant increase in its seniors (65+) population over the last 

10 years. This trend is expected accelerate in the North Okanagan because 35.8% of the 2011 

population is aged 55 years or older. Furthermore, the number of residents in the region who are over 

85 years old has increased by 64% since 2001. Older age categories experienced very rapid growth 

in absolute numbers, increasing 33.0% over 10 years and adding 12,174 residents that are aged over 

50. 






Figure 2 highlights the most influential event in demographics of the past century, the baby boom. 

The baby boom marked an increase in fertility following World War II. Statistics Canada has defined it 

as the population born between 1946 and 1965, the 41-60 age group on this chart 

Figure 2 represents the age and gender changes in North Okanagan population between 2001 and 

2011 through the overlap of three age pyramids. 

Figure 2: RDNO Population by Age and Sex: 2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 

Figure 3 represents the 2001-2011 population change within each age category. 

Figure 3: North Okanagan’s Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 






Population Change 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

‐500 

‐1000 

‐1500 

‐2000 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 

Age Categories 

Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a dramatic decline in the proportion and absolute numbers of 

the North Okanagan population between 4 and 19 years of age and 35 to 44 years of age, which 

represent younger families. The population of children and young adults (aged 4-19) has declined 

11.6% over the last 10 years, falling from 15,290 in 2001 to 13,515 in 2011. Corresponding with this 

decline, the population aged between 35 and 44 dropped 22.0% over the same period, falling from 

11,455 in 2001 to 8,905 in 2011. This trend represents an out-migration of younger families from the 

North Okanagan. 

While there has been a decline in the share of the population under 45, the number of preschool 

children (0-4) and young adults (20-34) has grown. The population aged between 20 and 34 

increased by 11.0%, or 1,165 people, between 2001 and 2011. Corresponding with the increase of 

young adults, the numbers of preschool children (0-4 years of age) also increased by 7.8% (or 270 

children) between 2001 and 2011. 

Figure 4 represents the percent change experienced by each age category, in terms of absolute 

numbers. 

Figure 4: North Okanagan % Change Absolute Numbers, by Age Category (2001-2011) 






Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐30.0% ‐20.0% ‐10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 

% Change in Age Category 

What is demonstrated by Figure 4 is the significant decline in many age categories under 45 years of 

age and the rapid increase in the population over 50 years of age. The primary driver of this 

demographic shift is out-migration of the younger demographics out of the region (with the exception 

of 20-34 year categories) and in-migration into the North Okanagan of residents 45+ years of age. 

Table 3 provides a summary of the North Okanagan population, between 2001 and 2011, by age 

group. . As Table 3 demonstrate, the 2001-2011 migration (people leaving or coming into the region) 

trends represented in Figure 4 do not correlate with the 2008 global economic downturn and may be 

a continuing future trend. The North Okanagan has been consistently losing, at a similar rate annually, 

young families from 2001 to 2011. The trend of young families (35-44) and school age children (5-19) 

leaving did not accelerate after the 2008 downturn and, instead, there was modest population growth 

in both preschool children (0-4) and younger adults (20-29). 

Appendix A provides a demographic summary for all communities of the North Okanagan. 

Age 

Category 

Table 3: North Okanagan Population Growth by Age Group (2001-2011) 

%change % change 

2001 2006 2011 

2001-2006 2006-2011 

% change 

2001-2011 

0-4 3,475 3,445 3,745 -0.9% 8.7% 7.8% 

5-9 4,575 4,065 3,930 -11.1% -3.3% -14.1% 

10-14 5,275 5,115 4,400 -3.0% -14.0% -16.6% 

15-19 5,440 5,395 5,185 -0.8% -3.9% -4.7% 

20-24 3,735 3,895 4,125 4.3% 5.9% 10.4% 

25-29 3,195 3,350 3,790 4.9% 13.1% 18.6% 

30-34 3,830 3,605 4,010 -5.9% 11.2% 4.7% 

35-39 5,310 4,285 4,110 -19.3% -4.1% -22.6% 

40-44 6,145 5,785 4,795 -5.9% -17.1% -22.0% 

45-49 5,790 6,530 6,260 12.8% -4.1% 8.1% 






50-54 5,280 6,220 6,980 17.8% 12.2% 32.2% 

55-59 4,480 5,855 6,550 30.7% 11.9% 46.2% 

60-64 3,905 4,910 6,265 25.7% 27.6% 60.4% 

65-69 3,585 4,265 5,030 19.0% 17.9% 40.3% 

70-74 3,315 3,545 4,085 6.9% 15.2% 23.2% 

75-79 2,750 3,015 3,200 9.6% 6.1% 16.4% 

80-84 1,785 2,215 2,525 24.1% 14.0% 41.5% 

85+ 1,360 1,805 2,230 32.7% 23.5% 64.0% 

Total 73,230 77,300 81,215 7.7% 5.9% 14.1% 

As older generations are increasing their share of the population, the opposite is true for younger 

generations. Due to the rapid increase in the over (45+) demographics within the last 10 years and a 

declining population under 45 years of age, the representation within the North Okanagan population 

of those over 45 increased from 44.1% in 2001 to 53.1% in 2011. At the same time, the percentage 

of the population under 45 declined from 55.9% in 2001 to 46.9% in 2011. Figure 5 provides an 

indication of the change in age category representation within the last 10 years. 

Figure 5: North Okanagan Age Category Representation within the Population (2001 to 2011) 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

17.5% 19.2% 21.0% 

26.6% 

30.4% 

32.1% 

25.2% 

22.0% 

20.6% 

30.7% 28.4% 26.3% 

2001 2006 2011 

65+ 

45‐64 

25‐44 

0‐24 

The age distribution of a population is a determinant of the composition of households, housing and 

community form, labour force size, regional economy, public education opportunities, community 

service levels, heath care provision needs and seniors care facility requirements, among many other 

factors. 

Median Age: 

Table 4 shows the median age of the population in British Columbia, the Regional District as a whole, 

the five Electoral Areas and six member municipalities from 2001 to 2011. The median age has 

increased from 41.5 to 47.2 in 10 years. However, the median age of British Columbia has increased 

by only 3.5 years since 2001 and an average British Columbian has a median age of 41.9 in 2011. 

The typical North Okanagan resident is over 5 years older than a typical British Columbian and 7.2 

years older than the average Canadian. The rapid aging of the North Okanagan is likely due to a 

combination of in-migration of residents in the older age groups and an outflow of the younger (under 

45) population. 






Table 4: Regional District of North Okanagan Median Age (2001-2011) 

2001 2006 2011 

Province of British Columbia 38.4 40.8 41.9 

Regional District of North Okanagan 41.5 44.8 47.2 

City of Armstrong 41.6 44.5 46.2 

District of Coldstream 41.6 44.3 45.8 

City of Enderby 43.3 48.1 50.0 

Village of Lumby 39.4 43.2 42.9 

Township of Spallumcheen 40.7 44.6 47.3 

City of Vernon 41.6 44.5 46.5 

Electoral Area “B” 40.6 43.9 47.0 

Electoral Area “C” 41.1 43.4 45.5 

Electoral Area “D” 39.6 43.4 46.9 

Electoral Area “E” 41.2 44.9 46.6 

Electoral Area '“F” 41.1 45.6 49.0 

The median age of most North Okanagan communities within the North Okanagan is close to the 

regional average, with some notable exceptions. The Village of Lumby is by far the youngest 

community with the North Okanagan, with a median age of 42.9 and has become younger since 2006. 

The oldest communities are the City of Enderby with a median age of 50.0 and Electoral Area “F” with 

a median age of 49. 

The North Okanagan, when benchmarked with 10 comparable regional districts across British 

Columbia, is older than the majority and has a similar median age as Comox Valley, Cowichan Valley 

and Columbia-Shuswap. While the majority of comparable regional districts are younger, the 

exception is the Okanagan-Similkameen which has the oldest median age at 52.0. 

Figure 6: Median Age Benchmark: Other British Columbia Regional Districts 






Regional District of Fraser‐Fort George 

Alberni‐Clayoquot Regional District 

Strathcona Regional District* 

Comox Valley Regional District* 

Cowichan Valley Regional District 

Squamish‐Lillooet Regional District 

Thompson‐Nicola Regional District 

Columbia‐Shuswap Regional District 

Regional District of Okanagan‐Similkameen 

2001 

2006 

2011 

Regional District of Central Okanagan 


Province of British Columbia 

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 

Median Age 

Migration: 

While discussions generally focus on the absolute level of migration, the demographic importance of 

these flows is their age composition – specifically the fact that they are overwhelming comprised of 

young adults and young families. The age profiles of out- migration flows are distinctly younger than 

the average age of the region’s current population. Potential reasons for this out-migration may be 

pursuits such as establishing families, pursuing employment, expanding careers and changing 

lifestyles. In the context of regions with aging populations, a net out-migration would accelerate this 

trend. Table 5 provides an overview of the migration flows of the North Okanagan over the last 15 

years. This information was compiled from Canada Revenue Agency information and may not 

complete. 

Table 5: North Okanagan Migration (1996-2011) 4 

International Inter-provincial Intra-provincial Total Net 

Year Immigration Emigration Net In Out Net In Out Net Migration 

1996-00 620 388 232 5039 6083 -1,044 16828 13482 3,346 2,534 

2001-06 497 374 123 6706 5927 779 18137 14444 3,693 4,595 

2006-11 745 335 410 6803 5266 1,537 13669 13795 -126 1,821 

The most local of migration flows to the North Okanagan is intra-provincial migration; comprised of 

people moving into the North Okanagan from other parts of British Columbia and people leaving the 

region to become permanent residents of other regions in the province. The North Okanagan has 

experienced high in-migration provincially between 1996-2006, with a major change in this trend 

between 2006 and 2011 when the North Okanagan had a minor net out-migration provincially. 

4 Inter-provincial and intra-provincial migration estimates are based on Canada Revenue Agency income tax information. 

Source: Demographic Analysis Section, BC Stats, Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government 






A much greater distance is involved in inter-provincial migration, as people move to the North 

Okanagan from other provinces, or leave here to take up residence outside of British Columbia. 

Between 1996 and 2000, there was a net out-migration of 209 North Okanagan residents annually to 

other provinces. This trend had become reversed by 2006 to 2011, where there was a net in-migration 

to the North Okanagan of 307 people annually. The volume of the inward flow is significantly greater 

than that of the outward flow; an annual average of 1,351 inter-provincial in-migrants per year over the 

2001 to 2011 decade, as compared to an average of 1,119 out-migrants. This equates to a net 

positive inter-provincial migration of 1,069 persons per year. This in-migration must be older 

demographics, based upon population trends, while the out-migration may be comprised partially of 

families. 

The longest distances, and the most costly journeys, are found in international migration, something 

that is reflected in its relatively small levels of both in and out migration. Annual immigration (settling 

in the North Okanagan) to the region over the 2001 to 2011 decade was 124 people, while emigration 

(leaving Canada) averaged 71 people leaving each year. Net immigration therefore made a positive 

annual contribution of 53 persons per year to the region. 

The level and type of migration to the region has resulted in a unique demographic profile for the 

North Okanagan by 2011, which has a greater proportion (53.1%) of its population 45 years age or 

older and a smaller proportion (46.9%) under the age of 45. 

POPULATION TRENDS: 

Implications: 

The Regional District of North Okanagan tracks changes in population and age distribution to inform 

service providers, developers and regional planning about potential needs and identified trends. Age 

profile information has implications for school enrolments; the provision of daycare; housing needs; 

planning for recreational needs, health care facilities, transit, economic development and many other 

areas. 

The North Okanagan has experienced a steady increase in population over the last 20 years, 

although some jurisdictions have experienced declines in recent years. The population is becoming 

older in age more quickly than the provincial average. The population under 45 years of age is 

declining and the older age groups are is rapidly increasing. 

The increase in the number of more senior residents would indicate that these older demographics 

are emigrating, staying and/or retiring in the North Okanagan. The data also suggests that people in 

the older age groups, likely many retirees with fixed incomes, have in-migrated to North Okanagan 

communities for the potential increase in quality of life often related to smaller communities and the 

attractiveness of the Okanagan lifestyle. A closer look at the data also reveals that women are living 

longer than men. There are several implications arising from the North Okanagan’s age distributions, 

relatively high median age and growing elderly population. As the senior and elderly populations 

increase, so will the demand for services tailored to them, especially the provision of community 

services, health care and residential care facilities. Housing options and location may shift with an 

older population, with a focus on smaller housing units closer to services and amenities. 

On the other end of the age spectrum are declining numbers of children and youth under 19. 

Declining numbers of children and youth affect the provision of services geared towards them, 

including schools, daycare facilities and family-oriented amenities and services. School closures have 

been experienced recently within some communities of the North Okanagan and the trend of declining 

enrolment may have future consequences for youth programming, education provision and youth 

amenities. 






The age group in the middle, 25-44 – the bulk of the workforce – is experiencing the most noticeable 

decline in numbers within the North Okanagan. There are losses of the labour force to Alberta, 

Northern British Columbia, urban areas and other regions of Canada where there is strong 

employment demand. 

As the workforce ages and retires without adequate numbers of replacements there is the possibility 

of the regional economy experiencing shortages of skilled labour in certain occupations including 

construction, services and health care. 

Services required by an older population are often those associated with skilled and high wage 

employment. Demand for service employment alone may not be sufficient to attract people to a 

community. Maintaining or enhancing an attractive, sustainable and prosperous region (socially, 

economically, environmentally), given the fact that younger age group (under 45) is shrinking, may be 

a real and present challenge facing our communities. 

While increases in longevity in conjunction with healthier aging and extended workforce participation 

among a portion of seniors are likely to mitigate many of the possible issues associated with growth 

within older age cohorts, at the same time there will be more seniors who require a range of publiclyprovided 

health and social service supports over a longer time frame to remain healthy and socially 

engaged. 

In addition, an older population will likely prompt changes in infrastructure requirements as demand 

potentially shifts from schools and playgrounds, large, low-density housing, and family-friendly 

amenities to services and facilities addressing the health, social, housing, and mobility needs of 

mature adults. 

The demand for public transportation and other accessible transportation options will likely rise. It is 

possible that demand for higher density and supportive housing, located close to amenities, services 

and medical care may focus development within community centres. 

The potential future loss of education, family-friendly amenities and employment opportunities due to 

a continued decrease in the population of residents under 45 years of age may become a barrier 

when attracting younger residents, employees and families. Based upon the trends observed over 

the last 10 years, the North Okanagan’s continued economic growth and social vibrancy may, to a 

great extent, depend upon the region’s ability to retain, attract and integrate younger skilled workers 

and families. The North Okanagan’s success in maintaining a productive workforce may hinge on its 

continued “livability” – affordability, amenities, environmental health, economic security, and social 

opportunities. 

The Graying of the North Okanagan Workforce: 

Demographics have a significant impact on the labour market. Before examining the labour market, it 

is useful to have an understanding of some of the key terms. The source population for the labour 

force is defined as population 15 and older. The labour force is defined as the population 15 and older 

who are either employed (employed) or actively seeking employment (unemployed). More limiting 

definitions of labour force are also used such as working age labour force, people 15 to 64 who are 

either working or looking for work. 

The demographic trend of an aging population within the North Okanagan is significant for the labour 

market and our economic development policies not only because older workers will be leaving the 

labour force, but also because older workers will form an increasingly larger share of total 

employment over the next 10 years. 






The core labour force population (ages 15-64) has continued to increase in the North Okanagan. In 

2001, it was approximately 47,100. It increased to approximately 49,000 by 2006 and 52,000 in 2011. 

The core labour force is also aging. In 2001, 58.7% of this group was aged 15-44. Today, the core 

labour force is equally split (50%) between the core labour force ages of 15-44 and the labour force 

45 or older. 

Compared to British Columbia overall, the North Okanagan can expect to experience large increase in 

the number of persons aged 50-64, but more significant declines in the number of persons aged 20- 

49 if the current trends continue. 

Given the large number of workers expected to retire in the coming years due to the trends identified 

over the last 10 years. The working age population within the North Okanagan is expected to decline. 

The rapid increase (44.9%) in the size of the cohort aged 50 to 64 and a modest decline (3.3%) of 

people aged 20 to 49 point toward economic development and labour challenges in the coming years. 

Figure 8: Number of Potential Employees Aged Between 20 and 64 within the North Okanagan 

30,000 

25,000 

# Residents 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

‐ 

2001 2006 2011 

20‐49 28,005 27,450 27,090 

50‐64 13,665 16,985 19,795 

14000 

Figure 9: North Okanagan Potential Labour Market Entrants and Leavers 

Number of People 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

15‐24 

55‐64 

0 

2001 2006 2011 

Year 

The number of people in the North Okanagan that may be preparing to exit the labour market (ages 

55-64) has been increasing while the number about to enter the labour market (ages 15-24) has been 






decreasing. In 2001, potential new entrants exceeded potential leavers by 790. By 2011, this trend 

had reversed and potential labour market leavers (55-64) exceed potential entrants by 3505. 

Canada’s aging workforce has been the subject of numerous studies over the past few years. In 

2005, the Community Futures Development Association of BC issued a report called “Skill Shortages 

and an Aging Workforce”. The report provided an overview of the work done in various jurisdictions to 

address the issue of skill shortages and demographics. The report concluded that skill shortages will 

likely occur and, as a consequence, labour force will be viewed as a global resource with open 

competition for required skills. 

In another report entitled “Labour Force Aging and Skill Shortages in Canada and Ontario” (August 

2004) by Julie McMullin of the University of Western Ontario, the overall conclusion of the study was 

that skill shortages will likely emerge in specific industry, occupations, and locations in coming 

decades, depending on a wide variety of economic, demographic and workplace-specific factors. 

From an economic development perspective, the issues of population growth and demographics are 

important ones. The economic health of a region is dependent on having a vibrant and skilled labour 

force. With so much of the labour force preparing to exit the job market within the North Okanagan, 

significant impacts may be anticipated. 

REPORT DISCLAIMER: 

Much of the data used in the demographic profile is taken from census data collected by Statistics 

Canada. Although census data is credible, valid, and allows for data to be compared over multiple 

census years, it is also limited. Unfortunately, by the time census data is collected, cleaned and 

shared with data users, there is time lapse between when the data was collected and released. 

Statistics Canada will continue to release 2011 census information throughout the remainder of 2012 

and into 2013. Readers should use this report to obtain an overall sense of how demographics have 

changed between 2001 and 2011. 

Statistics Canada compiles data at a number of different geographic levels. The closest 

approximation to “community” is the census subdivision (CSD). The CSD generally refers to any 

municipality, incorporated town or equivalent as designated by provincial legislation. CSDs are 

grouped within a census division (CD); alternatively stated, CDs are made up of a number of CSDs. 

Census Divisions are also established by provincial law or by Statistics Canada in cooperation with 

the provinces and provide an intermediate geographic region between CSDs and the province. 

Consequently, provinces are divided into CDs (British Columbia has 28 CDs). The term Census 

Division, in almost all cases, are interchangeable with the term Regional District (RD). The census 

information used within this report corresponds with these CDs and CSDs. 

Finally, the intent of this report is to provide a general overall trend for a limited number of population 

and demographic indicators. As more data becomes available, especially within specific areas of 

interests, the 2011 demographic profile will be refined. 

SUMMARY: 

The dynamics of population growth and change will bring both challenges and opportunities in 

planning for the region’s future as a vibrant and thriving series of communities, affecting quality of life 

and the environment, services and infrastructure, economic development, and the ways in which 

residents will live, work, and play together. The “greying” of the North Okanagan population carries 

with it a broad range of implications for long-term sustainability of the region. 






Future changes in the size and composition of a region’s population depend on many factors including 

the composition of current population; future fertility and mortality rates; and future migration flows. 

Economic prospects, social attitudes and available services and amenities can influence future 

migration flows and fertility rates making it difficult to predict future population levels and the 

demographic make-up of a region. However, the composition and distribution of future population will 

continue to be significantly influenced by demographic trends being experienced today. 

Long-term planning must strike a balance between providing for the North Okanagan’s aging 

population while providing a vibrant region to attract younger families and employees. The North 

Okanagan lifestyle has attracted retirees looking for a warm climate, recreation opportunities, 

access to health care and other services and various transportation options. Communities faced 

with the prospect of managing population growth or decline can see it as a challenge achieving that 

balance. In the case of the Regional District of North Okanagan and our member municipalities, there 

may be greater challenges posed by the current demographic profile of the region. 

The North Okanagan has over 20.9% of its population over the age of 65 in 2011, with a typical 

resident aged 47.2 years. At the same time, the number of residents under 45 years of age continues 

to decline. If the current trends continue, by 2021 over 35% of the population may be 65 years of age 

and older. The last two censuses noted a decline in the younger (under 45) population of the North 

Okanagan. Within the last 10 years, the 5-19 age groups declined by 11.6 percent and the 35-44 age 

groups declined by 22.3%. This trend is expected to continue into the short to mid-term under the 

status quo. The communities of the North Okanagan should consider initiatives and policies that 

encourage immigration and discourage outmigration of youth and families and work towards making 

the region more welcoming to a broader diversity of individuals. The communities of Abbottsford and 

Qualicum Beach and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador have undertaken the development 

of initiatives and strategies for retaining and attracting youth and families. 

Although there has been some growth in young families within the North Okanagan, the overall losses 

of people under 45 years of age are an observed 10 year trend. It is the conclusions of this report 

that, based upon the trends observed between 2001 and 2011: 

The current age profile of the North Okanagan may be unbalanced; 

In the North Okanagan, 53% of the population is over the age of 45. The annual growth rate 

for the region indicates the area is attracting an older demographic potentially due to a 

favourable climate and Okanagan lifestyle; 

The North Okanagan has a median age of 47.2, over five years higher than the provincial 

median age of 41.9 years and 7.2 years older than the Canadian median; 

The North Okanagan has as many residents over age 65 as it has youth (0-19 years); 

There is a substantially lower percentage of young adults aged 20-29 (9.7%) compared to BC 

(12.9%), as well as fewer in the “young family” age group of 30-44, which is only 15.9% of 

North Okanagan’s population compared to 19.2% in BC; 

The North Okanagan has a higher percentage of female residents (51.7%) than males (48.3%) 

in total and within most age groups; and 

The region is experiencing a rapid growth of more mature people (45+) and overall decline in 

the number of younger people (under 45). This demographic shift may have significant 

implications on health care, education, service provision, infrastructure needs, housing 

demand and the economy, among many other factors. 

Planning for the requirements of an increasingly older population is a significant and immediate issue 

for the North Okanagan. With a high proportion of seniors (65+) and the anticipated rapid expansion 

of this demographic within the next 10 years, new development should be encouraged that provide 

housing forms that focus on smaller housing units, single-storey living and housing that is closer to 

amenities and services. Health care and community service providers may need to consider 




2011 North Okanagan Demog raphic Profile 

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee - January 4, 2013 Page 16 

environmental sustainability of the region. The Board of Directors has endorsed the following 2013 

Regional Growth Strategy project priorities: 

• Regional Agricultural Area Plan , with a focus on economic development and long-term 

industry resilience; 

• In-kind support for regional economic development initiatives; 

• Regional Housing Needs Assessment, in partnership with the City of Vernon; and 

• Regional Parks Legacy Fund Feasibility Study, to be undertaken by Greater Vernon Parks, 

Recreation and Culture. 

The demographic information within this report is very important to each of the four 2013 

implementation projects and the inclusion and use of this information is recommended for each 

priority initiative. The demographic profile and trends of a community or region influence the type of 

housing that is in demand, the type and level of service that governments provide and economic 

development and employment opportunities. 

Submitted by: 

AA~nffthlco;;;n~Y~K~i~~~~·Qr.;(.Jaa.IU:.G~ - ~;;; . owwvtt'hb. . cSShr:a1Jw:t Coordinator Approved For Inclusion: 

Endor e~d~b~y~: ____________ ----- 

Ro Smailes, MCIP 







Appendix A: Community Demographic Information 

Age 2001 2006 2011 


City of Armstrong Demographic Summary 

% change 

2001-2006 

% change 

2006-2011 

% change 

2001-2011 

0-4 225 195 265 -13.3% 35.9% 17.8% 

5-9 310 235 250 -24.2% 6.4% -19.4% 

10-14 320 305 295 -4.7% -3.3% -7.8% 

15-19 310 275 325 -11.3% 18.2% 4.8% 

20-24 180 195 220 8.3% 12.8% 22.2% 

25-29 170 200 230 17.6% 15.0% 35.3% 

30-34 235 205 240 -12.8% 17.1% 2.1% 

35-39 325 235 245 -27.7% 4.3% -24.6% 

40-44 335 300 280 -10.4% -6.7% -16.4% 

45-49 330 355 345 7.6% -2.8% 4.5% 

50-54 260 310 375 19.2% 21.0% 44.2% 

55-59 205 280 340 36.6% 21.4% 65.9% 

60-64 210 240 330 14.3% 37.5% 57.1% 

65-69 205 230 290 12.2% 26.1% 41.5% 

70-74 195 205 250 5.1% 22.0% 28.2% 

75-79 195 195 215 0.0% 10.3% 10.3% 

80-84 130 140 175 7.7% 25.0% 34.6% 

85+ 125 130 165 4.0% 26.9% 32.0% 

Total 4140 4230 4670 2.2% 10.4% 12.8% 

150 

100 

City of Armstrong Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 

Change in Population 

50 

0 

‐50 

‐100 

‐150 

Age 






Armstrong Population by Age and Sex: 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 

City of Armstrong % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐30.0% ‐20.0% ‐10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 








District of Coldstream Demographic Summary 

Age 2001 2006 2011 

% change 

2001-2006 

% change 

2006-2011 

% change 

2001-2011 

0-4 415 375 400 -9.6% 6.7% -3.6% 

5-9 590 605 575 2.5% -5.0% -2.5% 

10-14 750 730 755 -2.7% 3.4% 0.7% 

15-19 795 770 855 -3.1% 11.0% 7.5% 

20-24 445 440 500 -1.1% 13.6% 12.4% 

25-29 260 250 330 -3.8% 32.0% 26.9% 

30-34 415 350 390 -15.7% 11.4% -6.0% 

35-39 615 555 520 -9.8% -6.3% -15.4% 

40-44 825 785 705 -4.8% -10.2% -14.5% 

45-49 910 915 965 0.5% 5.5% 6.0% 

50-54 800 905 980 13.1% 8.3% 22.5% 

55-59 605 800 915 32.2% 14.4% 51.2% 

60-64 490 595 820 21.4% 37.8% 67.3% 

65-69 375 485 575 29.3% 18.6% 53.3% 

70-74 330 350 425 6.1% 21.4% 28.8% 

75-79 220 250 285 13.6% 14.0% 29.5% 

80-84 150 155 205 3.3% 32.3% 36.7% 

85+ 115 160 140 39.1% -12.5% 21.7% 

Total 9105 9475 10340 4.1% 9.1% 13.6% 


400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

‐50 

‐100 

‐150 

District of Coldstream Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 

Age 






Coldstream Population by Age and Sex: 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 

Direct of Coldstream % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

80‐84 

70‐74 

60‐64 

50‐54 

Age 

40‐44 

30‐34 

20‐24 

10‐14 

0‐4 

‐20.0% ‐10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 








City of Enderby Demographic Summary 

% change 2001- 

Age 2001 2006 2011 

2006 

% change 

2006-2011 

% change 

2001-2011 

0-4 150 140 175 -6.7% 25.0% 16.7% 

5-9 160 120 125 -25.0% 4.2% -21.9% 

10-14 200 145 130 -27.5% -10.3% -35.0% 

15-19 195 170 150 -12.8% -11.8% -23.1% 

20-24 140 170 140 21.4% -17.6% 0.0% 

25-29 110 125 170 13.6% 36.0% 54.5% 

30-34 115 110 130 -4.3% 18.2% 13.0% 

35-39 180 135 120 -25.0% -11.1% -33.3% 

40-44 215 180 140 -16.3% -22.2% -34.9% 

45-49 175 205 205 17.1% 0.0% 17.1% 

50-54 155 200 220 29.0% 10.0% 41.9% 

55-59 145 180 215 24.1% 19.4% 48.3% 

60-64 180 190 225 5.6% 18.4% 25.0% 

65-69 160 190 225 18.8% 18.4% 40.6% 

70-74 175 180 190 2.9% 5.6% 8.6% 

75-79 155 175 150 12.9% -14.3% -3.2% 

80-84 95 120 130 26.3% 8.3% 36.8% 

85+ 90 110 110 22.2% 0.0% 22.2% 

Total 2,795 2,845 2,950 1.8% 3.7% 5.5% 

80 

60 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 

City of Enderby Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

40 

Population Chnage 

20 

0 

‐20 

‐40 

‐60 

‐80 

‐100 

Age 






Enderby Population by Age and Sex: 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 

City of Enderby % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐40.0% ‐30.0% ‐20.0% ‐10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 








Village of Lumby Demographic Summary 

% change 

2001 2006 2011 

2001-2006 

% change 

2006-2011 

%change 

2001-2011 

0-4 80 70 130 -12.5% 85.7% 62.5% 

5-9 95 80 105 -15.8% 31.3% 10.5% 

10-14 135 120 90 -11.1% -25.0% -33.3% 

15-19 145 125 105 -13.8% -16.0% -27.6% 

20-24 80 80 80 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

25-29 70 90 110 28.6% 22.2% 57.1% 

30-34 90 70 115 -22.2% 64.3% 27.8% 

35-39 135 80 90 -40.7% 12.5% -33.3% 

40-44 150 135 95 -10.0% -29.6% -36.7% 

45-49 130 130 130 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

50-54 105 140 120 33.3% -14.3% 14.3% 

55-59 85 105 125 23.5% 19.0% 47.1% 

60-64 80 105 110 31.3% 4.8% 37.5% 

65-69 75 100 120 33.3% 20.0% 60.0% 

70-74 55 65 85 18.2% 30.8% 54.5% 

75-79 55 50 60 -9.1% 20.0% 9.1% 

80-84 25 25 50 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

85+ 20 20 25 0.0% 24.0% 24.0% 

Total 1610 1590 1745 -1.2% 9.7% 8.4% 

80 

60 

Village of Lumby Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 

40 


20 

0 

‐20 

‐40 

‐60 

‐80 

Age 






Lumby Population by Age and Sex: 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 

Village of Lumby % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐60.0% ‐40.0% ‐20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 

% Change in Age Catagory 







Township of Spallumcheen Demographic Summary 

2001 2006 2011 

% change % change % change 

2001-2006 2006-2011 2001-2011 

0-4 230 200 215 -13.0% 7.5% -6.5% 

5-9 340 290 260 -14.7% -10.3% -23.5% 

10-14 415 380 345 -8.4% -9.2% -16.9% 

15-19 480 365 380 -24.0% 4.1% -20.8% 

20-24 245 220 225 -10.2% 2.3% -8.2% 

25-29 195 185 210 -5.1% 13.5% 7.7% 

30-34 215 190 205 -11.6% 7.9% -4.7% 

35-39 370 280 215 -24.3% -23.2% -41.9% 

40-44 505 415 315 -17.8% -24.1% -37.6% 

45-49 470 485 420 3.2% -13.4% -10.6% 

50-54 435 465 530 6.9% 14.0% 21.8% 

55-59 340 420 450 23.5% 7.1% 32.4% 

60-64 280 360 440 28.6% 22.2% 57.1% 

65-69 205 270 315 31.7% 16.7% 53.7% 

70-74 170 190 235 11.8% 23.7% 38.2% 

75-79 120 125 150 4.2% 20.0% 25.0% 

80-84 60 75 95 25.0% 26.7% 58.3% 

85+ 45 50 55 11.1% 10.0% 22.2% 

Total 5120 4965 5060 -3.0% 1.9% -1.2% 


200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

‐50 

‐100 

‐150 

Township of Spallumcheen Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 

‐200 

‐250 

Age 






Spallumcheen Population by Age and Sex 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 

Township of Spallumcheen % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐60.0% ‐40.0% ‐20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 








City of Vernon Demographic Summary 

2001 2006 2011 


2001-2006 2006-2011 2001-2011 

0-4 1,615 1,685 1,835 4.3% 8.9% 13.6% 

5-9 2,015 1,750 1,755 -13.2% 0.3% -12.9% 

10-14 2,165 2,185 1,785 0.9% -18.3% -17.6% 

15-19 2,235 2,350 2,250 5.1% -4.3% 0.7% 

20-24 1,860 2,010 2,185 8.1% 8.7% 17.5% 

25-29 1,725 1,835 2,090 6.4% 13.9% 21.2% 

30-34 1,900 1,900 2,115 0.0% 11.3% 11.3% 

35-39 2,425 2,005 2,090 -17.3% 4.2% -13.8% 

40-44 2,600 2,545 2,220 -2.1% -12.8% -14.6% 

45-49 2,285 2,750 2,690 20.4% -2.2% 17.7% 

50-54 2,140 2,540 2,975 18.7% 17.1% 39.0% 

55-59 1,920 2,410 2,755 25.5% 14.3% 43.5% 

60-64 1,690 2,095 2,630 24.0% 25.5% 55.6% 

65-69 1,705 1,885 2,205 10.6% 17.0% 29.3% 

70-74 1,690 1,760 1,895 4.1% 7.7% 12.1% 

75-79 1,560 1,675 1,695 7.4% 1.2% 8.7% 

80-84 1,105 1,395 1,465 26.2% 5.0% 32.6% 

85+ 860 1,180 1,530 37.2% 29.7% 77.9% 

Total 33,495 35,955 38,165 7.3% 6.1% 13.9% 

1200 

1000 

800 

City of Vernon Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 


600 

400 

200 

0 

‐200 

‐400 

‐600 

Age 






Vernon Population by Age and Sex: 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 

City of Vernon % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐40.0% ‐20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 








Electoral Area “B” Demographic Summary 

2001 2006 2011 


2001-2006 2006-2011 2001-2011 

0-4 145 140 130 -3.4% -7.1% -10.3% 

5-9 195 190 150 -2.6% -21.1% -23.1% 

10-14 220 205 180 -6.8% -12.2% -18.2% 

15-19 200 250 195 25.0% -22.0% -2.5% 

20-24 160 140 135 -12.5% -3.6% -15.6% 

25-29 145 110 145 -24.1% 31.8% 0.0% 

30-34 175 155 150 -11.4% -3.2% -14.3% 

35-39 250 200 140 -20.0% -30.0% -44.0% 

40-44 265 260 185 -1.9% -28.8% -30.2% 

45-49 275 305 280 10.9% -8.2% 1.8% 

50-54 240 285 290 18.8% 1.8% 20.8% 

55-59 230 285 275 23.9% -3.5% 19.6% 

60-64 165 225 270 36.4% 20.0% 63.6% 

65-69 150 170 190 13.3% 11.8% 26.7% 

70-74 130 130 145 0.0% 11.5% 11.5% 

75-79 70 95 90 35.7% -5.3% 28.6% 

80-84 30 40 75 33.3% 87.5% 150.0% 

85+ 10 15 30 50.0% 100.0% 200.0% 

Total 3055 3200 3055 4.7% -4.5% 0.0% 

150 

100 

Electoral Area “B” Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 


50 

0 

‐50 

‐100 

‐150 

Age 






Electoral Area "B" Population by Age and Sex: 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 

Electoral Area “B” % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐100.0% ‐50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 250.0% 








Electoral Area “C” Demographic Summary 

2001 2006 2011 


2001-2006 2006-2011 2001-2011 

0-4 150 180 155 20.0% -13.9% 3.3% 

5-9 230 240 205 4.3% -14.6% -10.9% 

10-14 290 285 250 -1.7% -12.3% -13.8% 

15-19 290 290 275 0.0% -5.2% -5.2% 

20-24 190 205 195 7.9% -4.9% 2.6% 

25-29 155 145 150 -6.5% 3.4% -3.2% 

30-34 165 195 170 18.2% -12.8% 3.0% 

35-39 295 235 225 -20.3% -4.3% -23.7% 

40-44 330 325 270 -1.5% -16.9% -18.2% 

45-49 350 380 360 8.6% -5.3% 2.9% 

50-54 340 350 370 2.9% 5.7% 8.8% 

55-59 260 380 340 46.2% -10.5% 30.8% 

60-64 180 240 355 33.3% 47.9% 97.2% 

65-69 145 195 230 34.5% 17.9% 58.6% 

70-74 95 125 140 31.6% 12.0% 47.4% 

75-79 95 75 95 -21.1% 26.7% 0.0% 

80-84 45 65 45 44.4% -30.8% 0.0% 

85+ 30 40 40 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 

Total 3635 3950 3870 8.7% -2.0% 6.5% 

Electoral Area “C” Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

200 

150 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 


100 

50 

0 

‐50 

‐100 

Age 






Electoral Area "C" Population by Age and Sex: 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 

Electoral Area “C” % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐40.0% ‐20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 







Electoral Area “D” 

Electoral Area “D” Demographic Summary 

2001 2006 2011 


2001-2006 2006-2011 2001-2011 

0-4 125 140 135 12.0% -3.6% 8.0% 

5-9 195 155 155 -20.5% 0.0% -20.5% 

10-14 275 225 155 -18.2% -31.1% -43.6% 

15-19 250 240 200 -4.0% -16.7% -20.0% 

20-24 130 115 120 -11.5% 4.3% -7.7% 

25-29 90 110 105 22.2% -4.5% 16.7% 

30-34 155 105 145 -32.3% 38.1% -6.5% 

35-39 215 175 130 -18.6% -25.7% -39.5% 

40-44 310 240 180 -22.6% -25.0% -41.9% 

45-49 270 295 260 9.3% -11.9% -3.7% 

50-54 235 280 315 19.1% 12.5% 34.0% 

55-59 175 260 285 48.6% 9.6% 62.9% 

60-64 120 170 250 41.7% 47.1% 108.3% 

65-69 95 135 150 42.1% 11.1% 57.9% 

70-74 105 75 120 -28.6% 60.0% 14.3% 

75-79 50 70 65 40.0% -7.1% 30.0% 

80-84 20 30 50 50.0% 66.7% 150.0% 

85+ 20 20 20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 2835 2840 2840 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 

150 

100 

Electoral Area “D” Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 


50 

0 

‐50 

‐100 

‐150 

Age 






Electoral Area "D" Population by Age and Sex 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 

Electoral Area “D” % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐100.0% ‐50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 








Electoral Area “E” Demographic Summary 

% change 

2001 2006 2011 

2001-2006 

% change 

2006-2011 

% change 

2001-2011 

0-4 35 35 50 0.0% 42.9% 42.9% 

5-9 60 45 55 -25.0% 22.2% -8.3% 

10-14 80 55 55 -31.3% 0.0% -31.3% 

15-19 75 70 40 -6.7% -42.9% -46.7% 

20-24 45 35 35 -22.2% 0.0% -22.2% 

25-29 40 55 35 37.5% -36.4% -12.5% 

30-34 50 40 70 -20.0% 75.0% 40.0% 

35-39 70 45 50 -35.7% 11.1% -28.6% 

40-44 100 80 50 -20.0% -37.5% -50.0% 

45-49 85 120 70 41.2% -41.7% -17.6% 

50-54 90 80 110 -11.1% 37.5% 22.2% 

55-59 60 90 85 50.0% -5.6% 41.7% 

60-64 60 65 85 8.3% 30.8% 41.7% 

65-69 35 50 60 42.9% 20.0% 71.4% 

70-74 35 40 45 14.3% 12.5% 28.6% 

75-79 15 15 15 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

80-84 10 5 10 -50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 

85+ 5 5 10 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Total 950 930 930 -2.1% 0.0% -2.1% 

40 

30 

20 

Electoral Area “E” Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 

10 


0 

‐10 

‐20 

‐30 

‐40 

‐50 

‐60 

Age 






Electoral Area "E" Population by Age and Sex 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 

Electoral Area “E” % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐60.0% ‐40.0% ‐20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 








Electoral Area “F” Demographic Summary 

2001 2006 2011 


2001-2006 2006-2011 2001-2011 

0-4 175 170 155 -2.9% -8.8% -11.4% 

5-9 265 210 185 -20.8% -11.9% -30.2% 

10-14 290 305 220 5.2% -27.9% -24.1% 

15-19 345 300 250 -13.0% -16.7% -27.5% 

20-24 165 195 155 18.2% -20.5% -6.1% 

25-29 140 140 150 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% 

30-34 195 155 175 -20.5% 12.9% -10.3% 

35-39 270 210 175 -22.2% -16.7% -35.2% 

40-44 360 325 230 -9.7% -29.2% -36.1% 

45-49 355 410 350 15.5% -14.6% -1.4% 

50-54 305 435 440 42.6% 1.1% 44.3% 

55-59 270 370 430 37.0% 16.2% 59.3% 

60-64 215 285 345 32.6% 21.1% 60.5% 

65-69 185 225 250 21.6% 11.1% 35.1% 

70-74 130 160 190 23.1% 18.8% 46.2% 

75-79 100 85 125 -15.0% 47.1% 25.0% 

80-84 60 60 70 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 

85+ 20 45 45 125.0% 0.0% 125.0% 

Total 3845 4085 3940 6.2% -3.5% 2.5% 

200 

150 

Electoral Area “F” Population Change per Age Category (2001-2011) 

2006‐2011 

2001‐2006 

100 


50 

0 

‐50 

‐100 

‐150 

Age 






Electoral Area "F" Population by Age and Sex 

2001 (red), 2006 (blue), 2011 (grey) 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

Male 

Female 

8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 

Electoral Area “F” % Change in Age (2001-2011) 

Age 

85+ 

80‐84 

75‐79 

70‐74 

65‐69 

60‐64 

55‐59 

50‐54 

45‐49 

40‐44 

35‐39 

30‐34 

25‐29 

20‐24 

15‐19 

10‐14 

5‐9 

0‐4 

‐60.0% ‐40.0% ‐20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0% 

% Change in Age Catagory 







REPORT 

File No.: 3045.12.03.04 

TO: 


FROM: Planning Department 


SUBJECT: Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 


That, as outlined in the alternative budget option endorsed by the Board of Directors on January 2, 

2013, elected officials that are appointed to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee will serve 

without remuneration, with the exception of mileage, on the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee. 

DISCUSSION: 

The Board of Directors passed the following resolution on January 2, 2013: 

“That the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 2013 alternative budget option outlined in 

the staff report dated October 2, 2012 be considered during development of the consolidated 

2013-2017 Regional District of North Okanagan Financial Plan.” 

The alternative budget option that was selected has the following estimated costs per Regional 

Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC) meeting: 

Director or municipal councillor remuneration - $0 

Director or municipal councillor mileage (average) – approximately $200 ($0.52/km) 

Stakeholder/public member mileage (average of 70 km, round trip, $0.52 per km) – 

approximately $400 

Planning administration of RAAC meeting, including agenda preparation, meeting 

attendance, meeting minute preparation and other administrative duties (4 hours) - $220 

Planning staff time (6 hours) - $500 (RGS Coordinator, General Manager, Planning and 

Building) 

Incidentals – approximately $100 (food, site visit expenses, etc) 

It is anticipated that a 2013 budget of $12,780, which includes 9 meetings over a calendar year, would 

cover meeting costs and incidentals under the alternative option. 

Under the alternative option, all participating elected officials WILL NOT receive remuneration 

(meeting pay of $145 per elected official per meeting) for attending RAAC meetings, although 

mileage costs will be reimbursed. 

It should be noted that the RAAC alternative budget option refer to RAAC meeting costs only. Any 

proposed RAAC initiatives, projects or plans would require review for budget and service delivery 

implications. 


Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

Report to Board of Directors - January 9, 2013 



Page 2 

SUMMARY: 

It is recommended that ali elected officials that are appointed to RAAC do not receive remuneration 

(meeting pay of $145 per elected official per meeting), with the exception of mileage, for attending 

RAAC meetings. 

Submitted by: 

Anthony Kittel, 

ie~ll-!.:lLQ\!wt~h ..': S~trategy Coordinator 


Endorsed by: 









REPORT 

File No.: 11-0692-F-OR 

TO: 

FROM: 


Planning Department 


Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 

SUBJECT: 

2548 and Rezoning Bylaw No. 2549 (Watson c/o Monaghan) 


That following consideration of comments received at the Public Hearing, Electoral Area “F” Official 

Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2548, 2012 which proposes to amend the land use 

designation of the property legally described Lot 1, Sec 27, Twp 18, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 30041 

and located at 52 Twin Lakes Road, Electoral Area “F” from Country Residential to Small Holdings be 

given Third Reading; and further, 

That following consideration of comments received at the Public Hearing, Rezoning Bylaw No. 2549, 

2012 which proposes to rezone the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 27, Twp 18, R9, W6M, 

KDYD, Plan 30041 and located at 52 Twin Lakes Road, Electoral Area “F” from the Country 

Residential Zone (C.R) to the Small Holding Zone (S.H) be given Third Reading. 

BACKGROUND: 

The applicant is proposing to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) land use designation of the 

property located at 52 Twin Lakes Road from Country Residential to Small Holdings and to amend the 

zoning of the property from the Country Residential Zone (C.R) to the Small Holding Zone (S.H). If 

approved, the owners are proposing to subdivide the property by creating two new 1.0 ha lots. 

The application was supported in principle by the Board of Directors on June 20, 2012 and staff were 

directed to prepare an OCP Amendment Bylaw for First Reading. OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2548, 

2012 was then granted First Reading on July 18, 2012 and was forwarded to affected agencies and 

First Nations for review and comment. At the Regular Meeting of December 5, 2012, the Board of 

Directors gave Second Reading to OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2548, 2012, First and Second 

Readings to Rezoning Bylaw No. 2549, 2012 and forwarded the Bylaws to a Public Hearing. 

In response to a question raised at the December 5, 2012 Board of Directors meeting, there are two 

existing wells on the subject property. According to the Hydrologists Report dated October 30, 2012 

prepared by Kala Geosciences Ltd. the drilled well is located near the existing residence and a dug 

well is located near the middle of the property. The drilled well has a capacity of 2 US gal/min, 

however a yield for the dug well was not noted. Information available to the Hydrologist indicated 

most of the wells within the immediate area produced at least 1 US gal/min. 

The applicant has submitted a Development Notification Certificate which confirms that on December 

24, 2012 two Development Notices were posted on the subject property in accordance with the 


Electoral Area "F" OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2548 and Rezoning Bylaw No. 2549 (Watson clo Monaghan) 

Report to Board of Directors - January 3, 2013 Page 2 

Regional District of North Okanagan Development Application Procedures and Administrative Fees 

Bylaw No. 2315, 2008. 

The Public Hearing for the application and associated Bylaws have been advertised in the local 

newspapers and the adjacent land owners have been notified by letter of the Public Hearing, all in 

accordance with Regional District bylaws and the provisions of the Local Government Act. 

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is required to endorse the Rezoning Bylaw prior to 

the Bylaw being Adopted. 

As there are no conditions that are required to be met prior to Third Reading of Bylaw Nos. 2548 and 

2549, it is recommended that upon consideration of comments received at the Public Hearing, that 

Bylaw Nos. 2548 and 2549 be given Third Reading and that Bylaw No. 2549 be forwarded to the 

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for endorsement. After Bylaw No. 2549 has been granted 

approval of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, both of the Bylaws can be considered for 

Final Adoption at a future meeting of the Board of Directors. 

SUMMARY: 



It is recommended that Electoral Area "F" OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2548 and Rezoning Bylaw No. 

2549 be considered for Third Reading and that the Rezoning Bylaw being forwarded to the Ministry of 

Transportation and Infrastructure for endorsement prior to Adoption. The Bylaws propose to 

redesignate and rezone the subject property from Country Residential to Small Holdings. 

Submitted by: 


Endorsed by: 









PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

INFORMATION REPORT 

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN / REZONING 

APPLICATION 

Date: May 1, 2012 

File No.: 

Applicant: 

11-0692-F-OR 

Roderick & Joanne Watson c/o Brian Monaghan 

Legal Description: Lot 1, Sec 27, Twp 18, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 30041 

P.I.D.# 004-084-608 

Civic Address: 

Property Size: 

Servicing: 

Present Zoning and OCP 

Designation: 

Proposed Zoning and 

OCP Designation: 

Proposal: 

52 Twin Lakes Road 

2.02 ha 

Groundwater (well) and Septic Field 

Country Residential 

Small Holdings 

Subdivide the subject property into two 1.0 ha lots 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: 

That the application to amend the Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan land use 

designation and the zoning of the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 27, Twp 18, R9, 

W6M, KDYD, Plan 30041 and located at 52 Twin Lakes Road, Electoral Area 'F' from Country 

Residential to Small Holdings be supported in principle and staff be directed to prepare an 

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw for First Reading only; and further, 

That a Public Hearing not be held until the applicant has: 

1. held a Public Information Meeting in accordance with the Public Information Meeting Guide; 

2. provided a report prepared by a professional hydrogeologist or a professional engineer 

having a knowledge of groundwater hydrology or groundwater geology verifying that water 

of sufficient quantity and quality is available year round to service the proposed lots and that 

the extraction of water from the proposed water supply will not deplete the water supply of 

neighbouring wells. 




OCP/RZ Application 

11-0692-F-OR (Roderick & Joanne Watson c/o Brian Monaghan) Page 2 

BACKGROUND: 

This is an application to change the Official Community Plan land use designation and the 

zoning of the property located at 52 Twin Lakes Road, Electoral Area ‘F’, from Country 

Residential to Small Holdings. If approved, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 2.02 ha 

property into two 1.0 ha lots. 

Site Context 

The subject property has frontage on the west side of Twin Lakes Road and on the east side of 

Gunter-Ellison Road. The 2.02 ha subject property is mostly forested and gradually slopes 

downward from west to east. A creek runs through the centre of the property. The property is 

currently accessed from Twin Lakes Road and all structures have been constructed on the east 

side of the property, including a single family dwelling and several accessory buildings (shed, 

garage and carport). The property is serviced with groundwater (well) and onsite septic. 

The property is currently designated Country Residential and zoned Country Residential (C.R). 

The subject property is located within the western fringe area of the City of Enderby (one lot 

separates the applicant’s property from the City of Enderby). The properties to the north, east, 

and south, with the exception of one Country Residential property directly adjacent to the 

northern property boundary, are designated and zoned Small Holding (S.H.). The properties 

west of Gunter-Ellison Road are zoned Country Residential, with the exception of a single Small 

Holdings property directly to the west of the subject property. 

The Proposal 

The applicant proposes to rezone the 2.02 ha subject property from Country Residential (C.R) 

to Small Holding (S.H) to potentially allow for the subdivision of the property into a new 1 ha lot 

and a 1 ha remainder lot. The remainder lot would contain all the existing buildings and would 

continue to gain access from Twin Lakes Road. The applicant intends to construct a new 

dwelling on the vacant new west parcel and provide access to that lot from Gunter-Ellison Road. 

The applicant proposes to service the new lot with an on-site well and septic field. The 

applicant has provided the following rational for the application: 

1. The subdivision of the subject property would allow the current owner to remain in the 

area when downsizing from the current dwelling; and 

2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the lot sizes and land use designations 

of the surrounding properties; and 

3. The proposal will create economic opportunities through construction and provide more 

affordable rural living choice. 

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN: 

The subject property is designated as Country Residential in the Electoral Area “F” Official 

Community Plan. The following policies are applicable to the proposal to change the land use 

designation to Small Holdings: 






Rural Residential Land Policies 

1. Rural residential lands are intended to provide an alternative to urban living, with lots of 1 

hectare or larger and emphasizing an attachment to the land and utilization for rural and 

agricultural uses, but with lesser services and greater distances to community facilities and 

shopping and are designated as Country Residential and Small Holdings. 

2. Rural Residential lands shall conform to the following requirements: 

a) outside the ALR and, where the use abuts land in the ALR, be provided with adequate 

buffering on the non-agricultural lands; 

b) have access to a public road system meeting Ministry of Transportation standards in 

which emergency egress must be considered particularly in wildfire interface areas; 

c) not in an area that has high capability for other uses such as gravel deposits, mining, 

wildlife habitat, rare and endangered wildlife habitat, rare vegetation communities, 

springs and domestic water supply (community watersheds) unless the impacts can be 

mitigated through clustering or other innovative development techniques; 

d) not in an area with slopes greater than thirty percent (30%); 

e) not subject to flooding or in an area with a high water table; 

f) not subject to excessive expenditures for services such as roads and school bussing; 

g) contains a suitable building site; 

h) is serviced with a potable water supply; and 

i) provides for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage. 

3. Subdivision of rural residential lands shall be in a manner that will conform to the site 

characteristics and retain a sense of identity and community rather than a continuous 

expanse of rural housing. 

4. As large servicing expenditures may be required by the servicing agencies, the comments of 

these agencies shall be solicited and considered. 

5. Because of the importance of an adequate water supply in rural residential areas, and the 

uncertainty about water supply in some potential areas, assurance about the water supply in 

questionable areas shall be provided prior to the designation of land for rural residential use. 

6. Applications to amend this Plan and the Zoning Bylaw for the Small Holdings (S.H.) Zone 

should conform to the following requirements: 

a) be located in close proximity to, or directly adjacent to, local areas with urban densities 

and services; and 

b) the form and character of development should not detract from the rural character of the 

built and natural environment. 

7. Upon receipt of an OCP amendment and/or rezoning application for Small Holdings 

development, the Regional Board will give consideration to the fire protection issues in the 

local area with particular respect to wildfire interface areas. 

Potable Water Supply Policies 

1. All new development that provides for the construction of only one single family dwelling per 

lot should be serviced with potable water through a water supply system or domestic water 

system meeting the standards contained in the Drinking Water Protection Act and the 

Drinking Water Protection Regulation. A water supply system and domestic water system 

may use groundwater or surface water as the source of potable water. 

2. The quantity of water required shall be as specified in the Regional District subdivision 

servicing bylaw in force from time to time which will include both domestic and fire flow 

standards where required. 






3. Subject to the provisions of the subdivision servicing bylaw, all groundwater and surface 

water supplies should be subject to certification by qualified professionals (Professional 

Engineers and Professional Geoscientists with competency in hydrogeology or geotechnical 

engineering) or by a qualified well driller and/or well pump installer as defined in the 

Provincial Ground Water Protection Regulation (GWPR). 

4. A study of the subsurface groundwater resource, in the Grandview Bench area and in the 

Gunter-Ellison/Glenmary Roads area, shall be undertaken to verify the land use designations 

shown on Schedule "B" and as a prerequisite to rezoning. Alternately, steps could be taken to 

investigate the feasibility of constructing a water supply system in the Gunter-Ellison/Glenmary 

Road areas in which the Spallumcheen Indian Band and the City of Enderby may be willing to 

participate in a joint venture of mutual benefit. 

Fringe Areas Policies 

1. Parcels directly adjacent and to the west of the City of Enderby shall, except for existing Small 

Holding areas, be maintained with zoning designations of Country Residential (C.R.) - (2.0 ha 

minimum lot size) or larger zones to maintain the option for future urban scale development 

upon annexation to the City.” 

Transportation Policies 

1. The existing and proposed Major Roads are endorsed as the long term major routes for 

movement of traffic. Major Roads shall have a minimum width of 25 m. 

Gunter-Ellison Road is designated in the OCP as a Major Road. 

Development Permit Area for the Protection of the Natural Environment 

The subject property contains a stream which is a tributary of the Shuswap River and therefore 

is within the Development Permit Area for the Protection of the Natural Environment. The OCP 

exempts the proposed subdivision from requiring the approval of a Development Permit in this 

regard if the proposed development complies with the Riparian Areas Regulation. 

ZONING BYLAW: 

The subject property is zoned Country Residential (C.R). The number of dwellings allowed per 

lot in the C.R zone (relevant to this application) may not exceed: 

1. one single family dwelling or one two family dwelling or one manufactured home; and 

2. one ancillary single family dwelling on lands in and out of the ALR; and 

The applicant proposes to rezone the property to the Small Holdings (S.H) zone. The number 

of dwellings allowed per lot in the S.H zone (relevant to this application) may not exceed: 

1. one single family dwelling or one two family dwelling (on lots greater than 2.0 ha in size) or 

one manufactured home. 

The minimum lot size and lot frontage standard for lots in the C.R zone is 2.0 ha and one-tenth 

the perimeter of a lot. The minimum lot size and lot frontage standard for lots in the S.H zone is 

1.0 ha and one-tenth the perimeter of a lot. 






All lots created within the S.H and C.R zones must contain a contiguous area of land 2,000 m 2 

or larger in size to serve as a suitable building site. Building sites must be less than 30% 

natural slope and must be accessible from a public highway by a private access driveway which 

commences at the edge of the finished road surface as close to right angles as practicable for a 

minimum distance of 6 m and have a minimum width of 5.5 m for the distance specified above 

and 4 m minimum width thereafter and have a maximum slope of 2% from the ditch line for a 

minimum distance of 10 m and a maximum slope of 15% thereafter. 

REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY: 

The subject property is designated Rural Protection Area within the Regional Growth Strategy 

Bylaw No. 2500, 2011. The following definition has been provided for the Rural Protection Area: 

“RURAL PROTECTION AREAS: are areas that will not have access to water and sewer 

infrastructure, consist of large lot sizes and are associated with rural uses. Rural 

Protection Areas are intended to provide for a variety of rural land uses, including low density 

rural residential development, natural resources, and agricultural and existing small scale 

neighbourhood commercial uses. Rural Protection Areas help protect rural landscapes and 

agricultural lands, prevent unsuitable urban development and densities, limit water and sewer 

infrastructure extensions beyond the Rural Protection Boundary and maintain rural lifestyle 

options. Natural lands, open spaces, agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive lands that 

are unsuitable for residential development are included within the Rural Protection Areas, 

including: the Agricultural Land Reserve, watersheds, conservation areas, natural habitats, 

grasslands, forests, wetlands, major parks and recreation areas. Rural developments around 

drinking water sources and reservoirs should be restricted to protect water quality and quantity.” 

The Regional Growth Strategy outlines the regional policies that are to be considered by the 

Board of Directors when reviewing an OCP/Rezoning Amendment application. The following 

policies apply with respect to this application: 

UC‐2.1: designate Rural Protection Boundaries, consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy, 

within Official Community Plans for the purpose of protecting lands within the Rural Protection 

Area. Lands designated as Rural Protection Areas are intended to accommodate low density 

development on larger (1 hectare and greater) parcels of land that are not serviced with both 

community water and sewer systems. 

UC‐2.7: protect the character of rural areas: Rural Protections Areas contain a variety of lands 

with natural resource value including agriculture and forestry. These lands have historically 

played a significant role in shaping North Okanagan character and identity, offering rural lifestyle 

choice, as well as providing important economic benefits. Their long term viability and 

productivity is increasingly threatened by urban encroachment and the spread of incompatible 

land uses. 






PLANNING ANALYSIS: 

As directed by the Board, applications for OCP amendments are to be considered in batches so 

that the cumulative effect they will have on the area and its character can be better analyzed. In 

2010 and 2011, the Board considered applications which proposed to change the OCP land use 

designation and zoning of the properties located at 57 and 75 Parsons Road from Country 

Residential to Small Holdings and the property located at 64 Highway 97B from Non-Urban to 

Country Residential. The above noted applications were supported in principle, subject to 

certain conditions being met. The subject application is being presented to the Board in 

conjunction with another OCP amendment application in Electoral Area “F” which proposes to 

change the OCP land use designation of a portion of the property located at 91 Crandlemire 

Road from Industrial to Agricultural and a portion of the property located 6314 Highway 97A 

from Agricultural to Industrial (North Enderby Timber). 

The OCP land use designation of the subject property does not specifically envision the 

development of the property as proposed, although there are Rural Residential Policies which 

support the proposal. Specifically, the proposal complies with the following Policies: 

a) the property is outside the ALR and is not adjacent to lands within the ALR; 

b) the Ministry of Transportation has stated that they have no objection to the proposal and 

the proposed lots would have access to a public road system meeting Ministry of 

Transportation standards; 

c) the property is not in an area that has high capability for other uses such as gravel 

deposits, mining, wildlife habitat, rare and endangered wildlife habitat, rare vegetation 

communities, springs and domestic water supply (community watersheds); 

d) the property is not in an area with slopes greater than 30%; 

e) the property is not subject to flooding or in an area with a high water table; 

f) subdivision of the property would not be subject to excessive expenditures for services 

such as roads, electric power, and school bussing as such services already exist; 

g) the proposed new lots would contain suitable building sites and private driveways; 

h) it is highly probable that the proposed new 1 ha lots could be serviced with on-site 

sewage disposal systems; 

i) the property is located in close proximity to the City of Enderby, which has urban densities 

and services; 

j) the form and character of development should not detract from the rural character of the 

surrounding built and natural environment. In this regard, it is noted that the properties to 

the north, east, and south, with the exception of one Country Residential property 

directly adjacent to the northern property boundary, are designated and zoned Small 

Holding. The properties to the west are zoned Country Residential, with the exception of 

a single Small Holdings property directly to the west of the subject property; 

k) the property is not located within a designated Wildfire Hazard Area. 

The Planning Department suggests that the proposed development would comply with the OCP 

Fringe Policy which states that parcels to the west of the City of Enderby shall, except for existing 

Small Holding areas, be maintained with zoning designations of Country Residential or larger 

zones to maintain the option for future urban scale development upon annexation to the City. In 

this regard, it is noted that the property is within an existing Small Holding area and is not 

identified in the Enderby West Comprehensive Plan Area as being within a future urban area. 

Should there be a desire in the future to allow the subject and surrounding properties to be further 

subdivided, the potential would exist as the subject property has frontage on two separate roads. 






It is suggested that the proposed development would also be consistent with the Regional 

Growth Strategy as the subject property is within a designated Rural Protection Area which 

supports the subdivision of lots that are 1 ha or larger. 

The applicant has not submitted information on the proposed water supply, except to state that 

the proposed remainder lot would be serviced with an existing well and that the proposed new 

lot would be serviced with a new well. To ensure that an adequate water supply exists and in 

keeping with the Policies of the OCP, the applicant would need to submit documentation which 

confirms that water of sufficient quantity and quality is available year round to service the 

proposed lots and that the extraction of water from the proposed water supply will not deplete 

the water supply of neighbouring wells. 

In light of the above, the Planning Department recommends that the application be supported in 

principle. In accordance with Section 879 of the Local Government Act, it is also recommended 

that further consideration of the proposal be subject to the applicant gauging the views of the 

residents in the surrounding area via a Public Information Meeting. In keeping with the Potable 

Water Supply Policies of the OCP, it is also recommended that further consideration of the 

proposal be subject to the applicant confirming that the proposed lots can be adequately 

serviced with water. 

It should be noted that as a condition of subdivision approval, road dedication may be required 

for Twin Lakes Road and Gunter-Ellison Road. Final subdivision approval may not be granted if 

the area required for road dedication would result in the creation of parcels that are less than 1 

ha in size. 

SUMMARY: 

This is an application to change the Official Community Plan land use designation and the 

zoning of the property located at 52 Twin Lakes Road, Electoral Area ‘F’, from Country 

Residential to Small Holdings. If approved, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 2.02 ha 

property into two 1.0 ha lots. The proposal represents a rural residential land use that is not 

specifically indentified in the current OCP land use designation of the property but is consistent 

with the OCP Rural Residential Policies and the Regional Growth Strategy. It is therefore 

recommended that the application be supported in principle and the necessary OCP and Zoning 

Amendment Bylaws be drafted for further consideration. It is further recommended that a Public 

Hearing not be held until the applicant has gauged the views of the residents in the surrounding 

area via a Public Information Meeting and confirmed that the proposed lots can be adequately 

serviced with water. 

REFERRALS: 

Section 879 of the Local Government Act states that during the amendment of an OCP, the 

proposing local government must provide one or more opportunities it considers appropriate for 

consultation with person, organizations and authorities it considers will be affected. Section 882 

of the Local Government Act requires that, after First Reading, a local government consider an 

OCP amendment in conjunction with its Financial Plan and any applicable Solid Waste 

Management Plan. If the OCP Amendment Bylaw proceeds further than First Reading, the 

bylaw will be referred further. In regard to the requirements of Section 879, the application has 

been referred to the following for their review and comment: 






1. Electoral Area “F” Director 

2. Electoral Area “F” Advisory Planning Commission 

3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

4. Building Inspection Department 

5. School District #83 

6. Sustainability Coordinator 

7. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 

The Ministry advises that Preliminary Approval is granted for the rezoning for one year pursuant 

to Section 52(3)(a) of the Transportation Act and requests a copy of the bylaw after 3rd reading 

for official signature. This approval, in no way, constitutes future approval of the subdivision. 

8. City of Enderby 

The City advises that they have no comments from a Parks and Recreation perspective. 

9. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 

Comments from the Ecosystem Section of MFLNRO: 

This application is subject to the Riparian Area Regulation (RAR). The proponent should be 

advised that a RAR Assessment is required for subdivision as defined in Section 872 of the 

Local Government Act. The assessment defines the required Streamside Protection and 

Enhancement Area (SPEA) setback, which must be completed by a qualified environmental 

professional (QEP) following the provincial RAR guidelines. 

To ensure proposed activities are planned and carried out with minimal impacts to the 

environment and in compliance with all relevant legislation, the proponent and approving 

agency are advised to adhere to guidelines in the provincial document: Develop with Care: 

Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development. 

Comments from the Water Allocation Section of MFLNRO: 

If there is any work in and about a stream below the high water mark of any creeks in the area, 

the proponent will be required to submit an application for approval under Section 9 of the Water 

Act to Front Counter BC and obtain approval prior to undertaking works. 

This area may be subject to flooding. Please contact your local government agency for their 

requirements. Development on the property should be consistent with provincial “Flood Hazard 

Area land Use Management Guidelines” a copy of the guidelines is available on the website: 

www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/pdgs_word/guidelines.pdf. 






10. Ministry of Environment 

The Ministry states that the information provided in the referral package suggests that domestic 

wastewater disposal will occur by individual onsite septic disposal systems for each proposed 

lot. Since such a system with a maximum flow of less than 22 .7 m3/day falls under the Sewage 

System Regulation, the proponent should contact IHA for further information. It is the 

proponent's responsibility to ensure their activities are in compliance with all relevant legislation. 

11. Interior Health Authority 

Interior Health's recommendations are based on compliance with all applicable sections of the 

B.C. Sewerage System Regulation (B.C. Reg. 326, 2004), and the B.C Drinking Water 

Protection Act (S.B.C. 2001, c.g) and its Regulations. At the time of Subdivision Application, 

IHA will require the following information: 

Wastewater Disposal 

IHA will require confirmation from an Authorized Person that there is adequate space available 

on each of the proposed lots for both primary and replacement onsite wastewater dispersal 

areas based on Type 1 effluent (with gravity dispersal) and a 4-bedroom home. All 

requirements on the Interior Health Subdivision Data Information Record should be completed 

and supported with the requested documentation, including an accurate site plan and soils 

assessment report. IHA recommend that the applicants provide confirmation that any existing 

onsite wastewater systems have been recently maintained (e.g. pumped within the past four 

years) and are functioning properly. Both the existing on site sewage systems and delineated 

replacement areas should be located on the final site plan to confirm that all necessary setback 

distances are being met to proposed property lines, private wells, etc. 

Where private drinking water sources are proposed as indicated, IHA recommend that 

confirmation is provided to the Approving Officer that there are separate sources on both lots 

with adequate set back distances to sewerage areas confirmed, and prior to final approval. 

Alternatively, where there is a municipal water connection (City of Enderby) available to the 

proposed lots, IHA recommends that final approval is contingent upon connection to the 

municipal system. 

Submit! d by: 

fL--II-- - 


Endorsed by: 




File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

ELECTORAL AREA "F" 

OCP/REZONING APPLICATION 

,• 

6 

1 t 7 

6 !'LAN PLAN 

KAP52392 

KAP~2J9l 

JCX'J49 JUWJ 

, , 

- PLAN PAN t ; I(AP70596 

KAP705~ 

• 

, 30349 

KAP718.52 KAP]I&')2 

KAP:) IOlO 

oW"\!on 

, G"''-- 

~ 1 010 

2 

""""011 

A (7'Mr-- 

I 2 KAP718.52 

"'AP71~2 

A REM RE"M 5 ~ 

3034~ 1034(, 

KAP489JO 

PLA" rLAN )'XXlt 

''''''' \ 

MP46 )0 

':0> 

~ \ 

B 

10 10 ~ 

PlAN 

PLAN ) 

3CXH 9 ".- .", JOJ Ie, 

\ ~ REM " ~ 

A I 

/ '-1 PLAN I ' LA ~¥'{!348 

1()34~ 

KAP OW' 

"' 4 7147 1-17 

V , 

B 

J 

i1 ~ A PlAN 

~ 72 

I

File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

_ ~ _ 



OCP MAP 

11-0692-F-OR 



-.L __ _ 



- -- 1- -- CITY OF EN[ 

, 

I , 

I 


File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

___ --.l __ _ 



ZONING MAP 

11-0692-F-OR 



-, 

- , 

.' -----' 

.... 

• ..... 



-" .. 

7' 

~ 

, 

'\I 

I 

TP.18 R~ 

~, 

.' 

I 

--- 1- -- 

I , 

I , 

I 

• 

, , 

-- 

CITY OF END 

• 




a 

< 

a 

" 

.~ 

bg~ 

~"~ ~ 

" 

a 

a~~ 

".~ 

N 

" 

- 

, 

," 




BYLAW No. 2548 

A bylaw to amend Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Designation Bylaw 

No. 1934, 2004 and amendments thereto 

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 876 [Authority to adopt a bylaw] of the Local Government Act, 

R.S.B.C., 1996, Chapter 323, as amended, and Regulations passed pursuant thereto, the Board 

of the Regional District of North Okanagan may, by Bylaw, adopt one or more official community 

plans; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has enacted the “Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan 

Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2004” and amendments thereto to provide a statement of 

objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management, within the 

area covered by the plan; 

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 895 [Development approval procedures] of the Local 

Government Act, the Board must, by bylaw, define procedures under which an owner of land 

may apply for an amendment to an Official Community Plan and must consider every 

application for an amendment to the plan; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has enacted the ”Regional District of North Okanagan Development 

Application Procedures and Administrative Fees Bylaw No. 2315, 2008” and amendments 

thereto to establish procedures to amend an Official Community Plan, a Zoning Bylaw, or a 

Rural Land Use Bylaw, or to issue a Permit: 

AND WHEREAS the Board is desirable and expedient to amend “Electoral Area “F” Official 

Community Plan Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2004” and amendments thereto. 

NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan, in open meeting 

assembled, enacts as follows: 

GENERAL 

1. This Bylaw may be cited as “Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan 

Amendment Bylaw No. 2548, 2012”. 

2. The Official Community Plan marked Schedule “B”, attached to and forming part of the 

Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2004 and 

amendments thereto is amended by changing the designation of the property legally 

described as Lot 1, Sec 27, Twp 18, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 30041 and located at 52 

Twin Lakes Road, Electoral Area “F”, from Country Residential to Small Holdings. 




Bylaw No. 2548, 2012 Page 2 

Read a First time this 18th day of July, 2012 

Bylaw 2548 considered in conjunction with the 

Regional District Financial Plan and Waste Management Plan 

this 18th day of July, 2012 

Read a Second time this 5th day of December, 2012 

Advertised on 

this 30th day of January, 2013, and 

this 1st day of February, 2013 

Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of 

Section 890 of the Local Government Act on this 6th day of February, 2013 

Read a THIRD Time this day of , 2013 

ADOPTED this day of , 2013 

Chair 







A bylaw to rezone lands and amend the Zoning Map attached to the Regional 

District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 to change a zone 

designation 

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 903 [Zoning bylaws] of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C., 

1996, Chapter 323, as amended, and Regulations passed pursuant thereto, the Board of the 

Regional District of North Okanagan may, by Bylaw, divide the whole or part of the Regional 

District into zones, name each zone, establish boundaries for the zones and regulate uses 

within those zones; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has created zones, named each zone, established boundaries for 

these zones and regulated uses within those zones by Bylaw No. 1888, being the “Regional 

District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003” and amendments thereto; 



may apply for an amendment to a Zoning Bylaw and must consider every application for an 

amendment to the bylaw; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has enacted the “Regional District of North Okanagan Development 

Application Procedures and Administrative Fees Bylaw No. 2315, 2008 and amendments 

thereto” to establish procedures to amend an Official Community Plan, a Zoning Bylaw, or a 


AND WHEREAS the Board has received an application to rezone property; 



GENERAL 

1. This Bylaw may be cited as “Rezoning Bylaw No. 2549, 2012”. 

2. That the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 27, Twp 18, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 

30041 and located at 52 Twin Lakes Road, Electoral Area 'F', be rezoned from the 

Country Residential Zone [C.R] to the Small Holding Zone [S.H]. 

3. That the Zoning Map, being Schedule “A” to Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be amended 

accordingly. 

Read a First and Second time this 5th day of December, 2012 




Bylaw No. 2549, 2012 Page 2 

Advertised on 






APPROVED by Ministry of 

Transportation & Infrastructure this day of , 2013 

(Transportation Act, Sec. 52(3)) 

____________________________ 


Chair 








REPORT 

File No.: 3060.03.03 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 




Zoning Text Amendment Bylaw No. 2573, 2012 [Laying Hens] 


That following consideration of comments received at the Public Hearing , Zoning Text Amendment 

Bylaw No. 2573, 2012, which proposes to amend the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning 

Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 to permit chickens within Residential and Rural zones be given Third Reading. 

BACKGROUND: 

At the Regular Meeting of January 16, 2013, the Board of Directors gave First and Second Readings 

to Zoning Text Amendment Bylaw No. 2573 which proposes to permit chickens (laying hens) within 

residential and rural zones of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003. 

The Board also resolved to forward Bylaw No. 2573 to a Public Hearing. Since then, the Public 

Hearing for Bylaw No. 2573 has been advertised in local newspapers in accordance with Regional 

District Bylaws and the provisions of the Local Government Act. 

SUMMARY: 

Zoning Text Amendment Bylaw No. 2573, 2012 proposes to amend the Regional District Zoning 

Bylaw to permit chickens within Residential and Rural zones. As there are no conditions required to 

be met prior to Third Reading of the Bylaw, it is recommended that following consideration of 

comments received at the Public Hearing, Bylaw No. 2573 be considered for Third Reading. 

Submitted by: 

Ashley Bevan 

Executive Assi 

Endorsed by: 

RdM 









REPORT 

File No.: 12-0448-B-TA 

TO: 

FROM: 

Electoral Area Advisory Committee 


DATE: December 12, 2012 

Zoning Text Amendment Bylaw No. 2573, 2012 [Backyard 

SUBJECT: 

Chickens] 


That Zoning Text Amendment Bylaw No. 2573, 2012, which proposes to amend the Regional District 

of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 to permit chickens within Residential and Rural 

zones, be given be given First and Second Readings and referred to Public Hearing; and further, 

That staff be directed to develop a document on best management practices on backyard chickens for 

inclusion on the Regional District of North Okanagan website; and further, 

That the proposed backyard chicken regulations be forwarded to the Regional Agricultural Advisory 

Committee for their input on other methods in which the public can be educated on the best 

management practices. 

BACKGROUND: 

The keeping of backyard chickens is currently prohibited in the Regional District Electoral Areas for 

properties that are zoned Rural and Residential and have a lot area less than 1.0 ha. In recent years, 

many communities across BC and North America have amended bylaws to allow for the keeping of 

backyard chickens. Keeping backyard chickens has been permitted for many reasons. Localizing 

food production has the potential to increase food security and minimize household waste. Permitting 

backyard chickens on smaller lot (



Zoning Text Amendment Bylaw No. 2573, 2012 [Backyard Chickens] 

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee– December 12, 2012 Page 2 

The following policies have been adopted where municipalities and regional districts have permitted 

the keeping of chickens in a residential setting: 

The number of chickens allowed in residential areas generally range from four to ten. 

The majority of municipalities do not allow roosters to be kept in residential settings. Roosters 

are not allowed because of the noise and they are not necessary for egg production. 

Structures for the keeping of chickens are generally required to prohibit chickens from running 

at large for their safety from vehicles and predators, to avoid making a nuisance for 

neighbours and to ensure that owners are in controls of the animals. 

A coop and enclosure (run) of approximately 1.3 m 2 (14 ft 2 ) per hen is recommended by 

several sources as a best management practice for the care of backyard chickens. 

Many municipalities do not identify a minimum lot size for the keeping of backyard chickens. 

The lot size minimums that are suggested for four (4) hens range from 450 m 2 (Nanaimo) to 

4000 m 2 (Vernon). However, most municipalities do require setbacks from property lines for 

the keeping of chickens. These setbacks vary widely from 1 to 15 metres. 

Most municipalities do not allow chickens and their coops to be in the front yard or even visible 

from the street. 

Some municipalities require registration of backyard chickens. 

A summary of select local and regional government approaches to allow backyard chickens is below: 

Municipality 

Number Hens 

Allowed 

Minimum Lot 

Size (m 2 ) 

Rear/Side Yard 

Setback (m) 

Distance from 

House on same 

lot (m) 

Distance from 

House on 

adjacent lot 

(m) 

Permit/ 

Registration 

Needed 

Vernon 2/4/10/20 





In some rural municipalities and regions, backyard chickens have been identified as a wildlife 

attractant and consideration has been given to regulations or guidelines designed to minimize 

residential agriculture-wildlife interactions. 

Pros and Cons of Permitting Backyard Chickens 

A number of municipalities do permit backyard chickens for household egg production as strategy for 

local agricultural production, including Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria, Nanaimo, Kamloops, 

Saanich, Esquimalt and Vernon. Some of the benefits that other municipalities have identified 

include: 

chickens contribute to food security and provide a source of local, naturally produced food; 

chickens are family-friendly animals; and 

chickens are educational for families in terms of connecting people to their food system. 

Vancouver Coastal Health has supported bylaw amendments in the Lower Mainland to allow for 

backyard chickens. Interior Health Authority (IHA) has guidelines (attached to this report) for keeping 

hens in urban environments. The guidelines note the potential for disease, safety, and nuisance 

issues to arise, but states that with careful management, backyard chickens that are well cared for 

provide a regular, convenient source of eggs that are rich in nutrients and allow families to know how 

the animals should be raised, fed, and treated. 

Other municipalities have examined the issues and decided against permitting backyard hens, citing: 

wildlife conflicts; 

pollution and odour; 

potential for animal neglect (the BC SPCA is not in support of backyard chickens – opinion 

attached to report); and, 

the spread of avian diseases. 

The City of Fernie, for example, permits small farm animals and chickens on Rural Residential zoned 

properties one acre in size or greater. Both Fernie and Golden decided against permitting chickens 

on smaller residential lots. 

In rural jurisdictions, wildlife conflict issues are often cited as the primary reason for not permitting 

chickens in residential neighbourhoods. Incidences of bears killing chickens have been reported in 

the Kootenays. Since 2009, the Kootenay Boundary Regional District’s Bylaw Enforcement and Bear 

Aware staff have received approximately twenty official complaints regarding chicken/bear 

interactions within the Kootenays and Conservation Officers have responded to thirteen large 

carnivore incidents related to backyard chickens. 

Finally, staff note that a laying hen’s productivity begins when they are 12 months old, but then tapers 

by the time they reach 24 months. The average hen’s lifespan is approximately 7 years, so in terms 

of food production and consumption, the average hen will be at their peak egg laying potential for 

1/7th of their lifespan. 

CURRENT REGIONAL DISTRICT POLICIES: 

Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 

The Regional Growth Strategy supports the concept of backyard chickens through the following 

policies: 

Goal AG-4: Encourage a healthy, accessible and resilient food system. 






Strategy AG-4.2: Consider developing policies and programs that support urban agriculture and small 

scale agriculture as a component of local food security. 

Electoral Area Official Community Plans 

Local agriculture is generally supported by the Electoral Area Official Community Plans. Amendments 

would not be required to accommodate backyard chickens in residential areas. 

Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 

The Zoning Bylaw does not allow Restricted Agricultural Use on parcels that have a lot size under 1 

ha (10,000 m 2 ) and therefore backyard chickens are not considered a permitted use on these 

properties. 

Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 

According to provision 209(2) of the Building Bylaw, accessory buildings do not require a building 

permit if these structures are less than 10 square metres in building area, do not create a hazard and 

the building is sited in accordance with the Zoning Bylaw. The building of a chicken coop, based upon 

the recommended floor area per hen and a maximum floor area of 9.2 m 2 , would not require a building 

permit. 

Unsightly Premises Bylaw No. 2046, 2005 

The Unsightly Premises Bylaw would apply to the keeping of chickens. 

Noise Bylaw No. 908, 1990 

Provision 4 of the General Regulations of the Noise Bylaw states that “No persons shall own, keep or 

harbour any animal or bird which by its cries unduly disturbs the peace, quiet, rest, tranquillity of the 

surrounding neighbourhood or the public at large”. The inclusion of backyard chickens into smaller 

properties than 0.25 acres may represent a noise disturbance to neigbouring properties. Permitting 

roosters on any residential properties would contravene this Bylaw. 

PLANNING ANALYSIS: 

This report is intended to explore the issue of permitting chickens (or more specifically egg laying 

hens) on Rural or Residential zoned properties for individual household use. It appears that there is 

an increasing interest among some individuals in the community for the ability to legally keep a small 

number of hens on their property in order to supply their family with eggs. This is part of an overall 

trend where people wish to participate more actively in their own food production. One of the factors 

contributing to this trend may be related to a desire by individuals to act in a more self-reliant and 

sustainable manner. 

Size of Parcel 

Many British Columbia jurisdictions do not specify minimum parcel sizes, relying on setbacks and 

siting of chicken coops and lot size thresholds that determine the number of chickens that can be 

kept. Smaller lots may have difficulty in meeting adequate setback requirements and provide more of 

a challenge in establishing appropriate siting for a hen enclosure. A minimum parcel size of 4047 m 2 

(0.25 acres) for the keeping of four (4) chickens and 4047 m 2 (1 acre) for keeping 10 chickens is 

proposed in order to ensure that setbacks can reasonably be expected to be met and the potential for 

nuisance to neighbours be kept to a minimum. 

Coops and Runs 






For shelter and protection from predators, hens need an enclosed house, with a locking door, which is 

known as a coop. Chicken structures must be of sound construction to prevent vermin or predators 

from entering, as well as lessening the possibility of the escape of chickens. 

Coop and run requirements are generally included in bylaw provisions and reflect good animal 

husbandry practices. The City of Vancouver requires at least 0.37 m² of coop floor area and at least 

0.92 m² of roofed outdoor enclosure (Bylaw No. 9150, Section 7.16(a)). The City of Terrace requires 

that the coop floor area be a minimum of 0.5 m 2 per hen and also require a minimum of 1.0 m 2 of 

enclosed roofed outdoor space per hen. Niagara Falls does not specify coop and run dimensions, but 

does state that the chicken coop “shall be designed and constructed to ensure proper ventilation and 

sufficient space for the chickens and maintained in accordance with good animal husbandry practices 

and shall keep all vermin out”. 

The attraction of pests to a hen house is as a result of easy access to food due to poor structural 

integrity of the coop or poor coop maintenance. The attraction to pests appears similar to other 

outdoor containers that hold food wastes such as of compositing structures and garbage cans. In 

both cases, if they are property secured it is generally not an issue. 

In order to discourage rodents and other pests who may be attracted by food scraps, the Bylaw is 

proposed to contain requirements that actively restrict the chicken coop to being constructed in a 

manner that prevents access to the building by other animals. 

Public nuisance and health are potential concerns with permitting backyard hens in a single family 

residential setting. Some of the concerns are that they will bring disease, cause an increase in noise, 

generate unpleasant odours, and attract rodents, large carnivores and other animals. There is a 

potential for wildlife interactions caused by backyard chickens within the Electoral Areas. As a result, 

hens should be always enclosed within a coop or ‘run’. 

Staff recommends the following coop and run building requirements that can accommodate up to 10 

hens in an enclosed space, based upon best practices. 

 

 

 

 

0.37 m 2 per hen 

Maximum height: 2 m (6.5 ft) 

Must be covered 

Secure open enclosures with a minimum 0.92 m 2 per hen 

Coops should contain a nest box in which hens lay their eggs and one or more perches per hen. 

Hens also need access to outdoors, either by free ranging or by an enclosed space. A schematic 

view of a standard coop and outdoor enclosure (‘run’) are provided below: 






Figure 1: Schematic Depiction of Coop and Run 1 

Setbacks 

Chickens produce noise that can, in some in some situations, affect neighbouring properties. When 

the keeping of chickens is limited to only hens the noise impact is reduced and generally limited to 

clucking, cooing and squawking. 

Odours arise as a result of the accumulation of uneaten feed and chicken droppings. Four chickens 

produce approximately half the solid waste per day as the average dog kept in a backyard. Research 

on this subject did not reveal any significant issues associated with the keeping of household hens. A 

setback of 3.0 m from windows and doors of all residential dwellings is consistent with the approach 

many jurisdictions have taken to minimize issues of odour and noise. 

Promote Best Management Practices 

The appropriate care and wellbeing of animals is covered by Provincial regulations under the 

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Under the Act, a person that causes or permits an animal to be 

or to continue to be in distress commits an offence. An animal is considered in distress if it is: 

deprived of adequate food, water, shelter, ventilation, space, care or veterinary treatment; 

injured, sick, in pain or suffering; or, 

abused or neglected. 

Enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as it relates to the well being of animals, falls 

under the explicit authority of the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 

(BCSPCA). 

The improper care or the mistreatment of hens can occur in both the backyard and commercial 

environments. Staff have provided, as an attachment, the position of the BCSPCA on backyard 

chickens. It is suggested by the BCSPCA that it would be beneficial for those who engage in the 

activity to have some mentoring. 

1 City of Vancouver Staff Report to Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, Guidelines for Keeping 

Backyard Chickens, March 24, 2010; City of Terrace FAQ – Keeping Backyard Hens in the City of Terrace 






Many communities that allow backyard chickens, including the City of Vancouver, City of Terrace and 

District of Saanich, provide basic information on hen husbandry, coop design, appropriate treatment 

and carcass disposal. 

Interior Health Authority (IHA) has developed a document (see attached) regarding the potential 

health benefits and risks associated with backyard chickens in small residential lots, as well as 

recommended protocols. While supportive of the high nutritional value of free range eggs and the 

learning experience for families, IHA has stated concerns related to the level of care practiced and the 

minimum standards imposed in order to safely house backyard chickens. 

Risks identified by IHA include the transmission of pathogens, improper disposal of waste, food safety 

and poor animal welfare practices. IHA has stated that the risks identified can be mitigated by an 

appropriate level of education on the practice of keeping backyard chickens and appropriate 

regulation. 

Being mindful of public health issues, the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment establishes limits on 

the maximum number of hens permitted per parcel and minimum coop and outdoor run areas per hen 

to ensuring adequate space to keep animals in a healthy environment. 

The issue of abandonment can arise with any domestic animal. With the exception of dogs, the Bylaw 

Compliance Officer does not, under current regulatory framework, have the authority to capture 

domestic animals. In the case of chickens, even if this authority was granted, it should be noted that 

there are no boarding facilities to take the animals to. 

Due to a number of reasons, including health and sanitation, slaughtering, butchering or sale of meat, 

eggs, manure or other products derived from the hens is prohibited in many British Columbia 

jurisdictions through animal control bylaws. 

Bio-security procedures, as recommended by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), should 

be followed by owners of backyard chickens. Bio-security procedures are recommended by poultry 

care experts as necessary to prevent the spread of avian flu and other diseases among chickens and 

their caregivers. These include: 

• Preventing contact with wild birds and other animals; 

• Cleaning enclosures and equipment routinely and thoroughly; 

• Cleaning clothes, hands, and footwear before and after handling birds; 

• Spotting the signs of disease and reporting disease early; 

• Limiting visitor access to birds; 

• Requiring visitors to practice bio-security measures; 

• Segregating new hens for at least 30 days; 

• Segregating hens that have been at shows for at least two weeks; and, 

• Obtaining hens from reputable suppliers. 

Staff recommend that the Regional District promote best management practices on the care and 

keeping of hens and coop design, if the keeping of backyard chickens is permitted, and to refer to the 

Regional Agricultural Advisory committee, which may provide additional ideas regarding public 

education. 

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS: 

Backyard egg production can contribute to a local sustainable and secure food supply. It can provide 

a source of food that is less dependent on transportation. It allows for the on-site recycling of kitchen 

scraps as a hen food source. Chicken manure can provide a source of nitrogen rich fertilizer. 






FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS: 

There are no financial implications directly associated with the Bylaw amendment itself other than 

staff time to prepare the bylaw and the cost of advertising that is required by the statutory process. 

There are financial and capacity implications as a result of the change in regulation that remove the 

prohibition due to an increase potential for complaints and the resources necessary to respond. 

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS: 

No new personnel are required to implement the staff recommendation. It is expected that existing 

staff can respond to complaints and building inspections, if required. 

REFERRALS: 

The report has been referred to the following for their review and comment: 

Solid Waste: 

Solid Waste proposes that information on Chicken Husbandry Best Management Practices be made 

available to residents which include direction on how to properly dispose of a deceased carcasses. 

Building Inspection: 

Building Inspection is supportive of keeping backyard chickens and can accommodate building 

permits applications and inspections for structures over 10m 2 in area with current staff. 

Bylaw Enforcement: 

The following comments were received from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer: 

There is concern related to only allowing chickens for egg production as chickens also make 

good companions, can be raised for food, are a means of pest control, reduce household 

waste, produce fertilizer, and can provide education about local agricultural production. As 

they are productive egg layers for a portion of their lifespan, can they not become meat birds 

or pets? Why are broilers, roasters, Cornish game hens, ducks etc. for meat production or 

pets not allowed? Free range meat birds are an excellent, healthy food source. Also many 

people raise ducks for egg and meat production. Not allowing roosters is great but this is 

always a problem as it is very difficult to sex young chicks. Some chicken keepers will find it 

difficult to dispose of roosters. 

Regulating coop size and citing will result in increased bylaw enforcement activities and costs. 

If the Regional District allows backyard chickens, it is expected that there will be an increase in 

the number of complaints regarding coop size, location, appearance and setbacks. 

Measurements from property lines can be difficult without legal surveys. When people know 

there are setback and area regulations for coops, they may be inclined to complain if anything 

about backyard chickens bothers them. The Regional District may also receive frivolous 

complaints regarding backyard chickens. 

Care of poultry is regulated by the SPCA and they are the agency that ensures poultry is 

adequately taken care of. Bylaw Enforcement suggests regulating “Poultry at Large” instead. 

An example of policy is ‘A person must ensure that hens do not run at large, stray or 

graze on any highway, park or public place and a person must ensure that hens do not 

trespass on any private property’. People may use portable chicken runs which gives 

chicken keepers the ability to move chickens so there is less impact to a specific area. This 

allows chickens to graze a larger area, similar to free range. 



Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee- December 12, 2012 Page 9 

• If the Regional District allows backyard chickens, it is expected that an increase in the number 

of complaints regarding dust, noise and odour. The Board of Directors should consider 

regUlating manure storage. Since 2006, Bylaw Enforcement received four complaints relating 

to poultry and birds, including two noise complaints relating to roosters, one for ducks at large 

and one for noisy and at large peacock. Birds can create a lot of damage to flower beds and 

gardens when at large and also leave droppings. In 2012, Bylaw Enforcement received a 

complaint from a Coldstream resident who stores boats and vehicles in an accessory building. 

Unfortunately, a neighbour's chickens began roosting in the rafters, resulting in expensive 

cleanup. This complaint was outside of the jurisdiction of the Regional District. 

• It is suggested that the Board of Directors consider requiring chicken keepers to get approval 

of 51% of their neighbours prior to raising backyard chickens. 

SUMMARY: 



Backyard hens can provide many benefits to residents situated on smaller «1 hal parcels, including 

improved food security, decreased greenhouse gas emissions related to the transportation of food 

and contributing to a sustainable and resilient food system . This report provides recommendations on 

a Zoning Bylaw Amendment that would allow up to ten (10) hens within all Rural and Residential 

properties within the five Electoral Areas ('B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F'). 

It is recommended that Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 2573, 2012 be given First and Second 

Readings and referred to Public Hearing. 

Staff recommend that the Regional District promote best management practices on the care and 

keeping of hens and coop design, if the keeping of backyard chickens is permitted, and to refer to the 

Regional Agricultural Advisory committee, which may provide additional ideas regarding public 

education. 

Submitted by: 

:> .. - 

Anthony Kittel, ';:Jjon§f ~~y Coordinator 


Endorsed by: 






Raising Backyard Hens 

BC SPCA Views on Urban Chickens 

The BC SPCA is supportive of urban consumers seeking alternatives to conventional 

eggs produced by hens housed in battery cages. However, the BC SPCA does not feel it 

is acceptable for individuals with little to no knowledge or experience in chicken care 

to keep hens in their backyards in an urban environment. Instead, consumers are 

encouraged to purchase eggs from SPCA Certified farmers and other certified cagefree 

farmers who have professional expertise in the humane raising of chickens. 

BC SPCA concerns regarding the keeping of urban chickens 

1.) Potential owners may not have knowledge or skills necessary to provide adequate 

care to their chickens. Such care includes: 

The ability to recognize common symptoms of disease, injury, and parasitic 

infection in chickens, and knowledge of what to do to address such 

problems. 

The ability to humanely euthanize a chicken, or access to someone who can 

(e.g. a poultry veterinarian or experienced chicken farmer). 

2.) Resources necessary for good health of chickens may not be readily available in 

an urban environment. For example, access to suitable nutrition and veterinary 

care may not be readily available in the community. 

Pet store bird feed may not meet the nutritional needs of chickens. Where 

will owners purchase the proper chicken feed in quantities suitable for a 

small backyard flock? 

Will urban small animal veterinarians in your community allow a chicken 

into their practice? 

Will owners know how to humanely handle and transport chickens to 

veterinary facilities? 

3.) Hens can live for 8-10 years, yet their productive egg-laying diminishes 

significantly after the first year. Chickens may stop laying eggs well before they 

reach the end of their natural life. What will people do with birds that have gone 

beyond their egg-laying time-frame? 

4.) Aspects of the urban environment are not compatible with keeping backyard 

hens. Examples include: 

Risk of attack from urban wildlife such as coyotes, raccoons, birds of prey, 

and skunks. 




 

 

 

Risk of attack from domesticated dogs or cats roaming in the 

neighbourhood. This may have the unintended side-effect of encouraging 

aggressive behaviour in dogs. 

Attraction of rats to chicken feed or to baby chicks. 

Lack of adequate disposal options for chicken waste and carcasses. 

5.) Vancouver’s Animal Control facility and the BC SPCA’s Vancouver Animal Shelter 

do not have suitable facilities to house chickens that are surrendered. Nor do 

they have suitable facilities to accommodate birds that are seized from 

individuals who contravene sections of the community bylaw or the BC 

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 

6.) There are risks associated with chickens contracting avian flu. If there is an 

outbreak, pet birds are at risk of being included in the cull of all nearby urban 

chickens. 

For more information on this issue, please get in contact with your local community 

council or the BC SPCA. 

BC SPCA Farm Animal Welfare 

Phone: (604) 681-7271 

Email: farminfo@spca.bc.ca 

Website: www.spca.bc.ca/farm 

Prepared April 2012 




Backyard Chickens in the Urban Environment 

Interior Health’s Public Health sector has prepared this document to guide your 

council’s review of the health implications of community residents raising chickens in 

their backyards for egg production. 

This document is for informational purposes. There is evidence to be found on both the 

positive and negative aspects of raising backyard chickens. However, the evidence 

does not strongly favour any one position. 

There are some potential benefits to food security by allowing backyard chickens, as 

well as potential disease, food safety and nuisance issues to take into consideration. 

Disease transmission, food safety and nuisance issues can be mitigated with proper 

hygiene and controls related to handling of chickens and eggs and proper maintenance 

of the surrounding environment. 

Thus, Interior Health neither supports, nor is opposed to, allowing backyard chickens 

within municipal boundaries, if appropriate protocols are in place and enforced. 

Points for Consideration 

The following are specific items that should be considered regarding the potential 

benefits and risks: 

• Risk for pathogen transmission (e.g. Salmonella and Campylobacter) is present, but 

can be mitigated with proper housing and hygiene when handling chickens and 

eggs. 

• The risk of avian influenza development is not appreciably increased by backyard 

hen. Urban hen keepers should be encouraged to follow the advice of CFIA: Bird 

Health Basics - How to Prevent and Detect Disease in Backyard Flocks and Pet 

Birds. 

• Backyard chickens present a learning experience for families and neighbours and 

foster an understanding of where food comes from. Children learn first-hand about 

food, biology, geography and community. 

• Concerns related to noise, odour and fecal waste disposal can be minimized if 

proper practices are followed. Where properly set up, composting of chicken 

manure and bedding is a possibility. It should be recognized that failure to control 

aesthetic concerns may increase opposition to urban agriculture and lead to land 

use conflicts. 

• Having chickens allows families to know how the hens producing the eggs have 

been raised, fed and treated. 

• Backyard chickens allow regular, convenient access to eggs that are of higher 

nutritional value than non-free range eggs. 




Protocols 

Should a municipal city council allow backyard chickens, Interior Health’s Public Health 

sector encourages municipalities to introduce protocols as part of bylaws that permit 

backyard chickens. Protocols should: 

• require mandatory chicken enclosures and construction standards 

• limit the number of birds per household 

• prohibit mixing of birds 

• establish minimum feed control practices and enclosure cleaning practices 

• outline safe disposal of waste (surplus eggs, feces and carcass) 

• include rules to guide the appropriate keeping of chickens, including animal welfare, 

hygiene practices and transmission of chicken-related diseases 

• establish limits on egg distribution (limit to personal use) and prohibition of sale of 

eggs 

• prohibit home-based slaughter of chickens 

• prohibit sale of chicken meat 

Municipalities should also consider the implications for bylaw infrastructure related to 

the ongoing monitoring of the chicken bylaw (i.e. bylaw enforcement officers). 

For Further Information 

CFIA: Bird Health Basics - How to Prevent and Detect Disease in Backyard Flocks and Pet Birds 

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/avflu/bacdoc/floelee.shtml 

University of Maine Poultry Facts - Tips for Egg Safety from Farm to Table For Small Poultry Flock Owners. 

http://www.umaine.edu/livestock/Publications/TipsForEggSafety.htm Accessed April 15, 2009. 

Harrison, John. The Poultry Pages - Rats and Other Vermin around Chickens. 

http://www.poultry.allotment.org.uk/Chicken_a/chicken-rat-vermin.php. Accessed April 26, 2009. 

Gov’t of Alberta, Agriculture and Rural Development. Checklist for Fly Control in Poultry Facilities. 

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/deptdocs.nsf/all/epw12257/$FILE/poultry.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2009. 

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Factsheet: Odour Control on Livestock and Poultry Farms. December 2003. 

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-111.htm. Accessed April 26, 2009. 

Ohio State University. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. Veterinary Preventive Medicine: Predators of Poultry. 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/vme-fact/0022.html. Accessed April 26, 2009. 

Mother Earth News The Community Chicken Project 

http://www.motherearthnews.com/eggs.aspx 

Pappas A.C. et al. Interspecies variation in yolk selenium concentrations among eggs of free-living birds: The effect of phylogeny. 

Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 20(3) 2006, 155-160. www.sciencedirect.com 






A bylaw to amend the text of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888 

to allow for the keeping of urban hens. 

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 903 [Zoning bylaws] of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C., 

1996, Chapter 323, as amended, and Regulations passed pursuant thereto, the Board of the 

Regional District of North Okanagan may, by Bylaw, divide the whole or part of the Regional 

District into zones, name each zone, establish boundaries for the zones and regulate uses 

within those zones; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has created zones, named each zone, established boundaries for 

these zones and regulated uses within those zones by Bylaw No. 1888 being the “Regional 

District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003” and amendments thereto; 



may apply for an amendment to a Zoning Bylaw and must consider every application for an 

amendment to the bylaw; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has enacted the “Regional District of North Okanagan Development 

Application Procedures and Administrative Fees Bylaw No. 2315, 2008 and amendments 

thereto” to establish procedures to amend an Official Community Plan, a Zoning Bylaw, or a 


AND WHEREAS the Board is desirous to amend the Zoning Bylaw to allow for backyard 

chickens (urban hens) ; 



GENERAL 

This Bylaw may be cited as “Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment No. 2573, 2012”. 

DEFINITIONS 

“Hen” means a domesticated female chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) that is at least four 

months old that are kept on a property other than an agricultural use as defined in the Zoning 

Bylaw. 

TEXT AMENDMENTS 

Amend Division Four, Section 401 of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 by adding Section 401.3 as 

follows: 

3. Laying Hens 

a. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Bylaw, any residential or rural property that 

does not allow restricted or intensive agricultural use and contains a single family 

dwelling or manufactured home and is zoned Rural or Residential (except 

properties zoned R.5) within the Regional District is permitted to possess: 




Bylaw No. 2573 Page 2 

i. a maximum of four (4) hens on properties which are less than 4047 m 2 (1 acre); 

and, 

ii. a maximum of ten (10) hens on properties that are, at a minimum, 4047 m 2 (1 

acre) in area. 

b. No roosters shall be permitted on any lot zoned Residential or that is less than 1 ha 

(2.471 acres) and zoned Rural. 

c. All hens must be housed within a building or structure that meets the following 

regulations: 

i. A minimum of 0.37 m 2 floor area per hen, with the provision that the maximum 

floor area shall not exceed 9.2 square metres (100 square feet); and 

ii. 

the height shall not exceed 2 metres (6.56 feet), as measured from the finished 

grade; and 

iii. the setback from any door or window of any dwelling shall not be less than 3 

metres (9.8 feet); and 

iv. 

shall be located only to the rear or side of a single family dwelling; and 

v. shall be screened and located to the rear of a single family dwelling on a corner 

lot; and 

vi. 

the setback from any property line shall be not less than 2 metres (6.56 feet). 

d. On all properties that have a lot area less than 4047 m 2 (1 acre), an attached 

secure open enclosure (run), with a minimum floor area of 0.92 m 2 per hen, will be 

required in addition to 401.3.c and all hens must be completely enclosed within 

either the secure open enclosure or enclosed structure at all times. 

Read a First and Second time this 16th day of January, 2013 

Advertised on 






APPROVED by Ministry of 

Transportation & Infrastructure this day of , 2013 

(Transportation Act, Sec. 52(3)) 

____________________________ 




Bylaw No. 2573 Page 3 


Chair 








REPORT 

File No.: 4020.03.05 

TO: 

FROM: 


John Friesen, Bylaw Enforcement Officer 


SUBJECT: 

Greater Vernon I White Valley Extended Service Area 

2012 Animal Control Annual Report 


That the Greater Vernon / White Valley Extended Service Area 2012 Animal Control Annual 

Report dated January 11, 2013 from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer be received for information. 

ISSUE: 

Our Dog Control contractor, K-9 Systems Control, provides us with quarterly and year-end 

statistics with respect to complaints and impoundments. A copy of the 2012 statistics is 

attached. 

DISCUSSION: 

The sale of dog licences was down from 5,017 in 2011 to 4656 in 2012. 

In 2012 the number of complaints increased by 1 % over 2011 to 1,081. When compared to the 

2011 complaints, in 2012 the complaints received for dogs at large was up 1%, dogs barking 

excessively was down 10% and aggressive dogs was up 26%. Forty-three other complaints 

were received in 2012. 

The number of dogs impounded decreased by fifty-eight (58) in 2012, to 335. Approximately 

75% of the impounded dogs were returned to their owners, down from the 79% in 2011. Of the 

remainder, 53 or 16% were given to the SPCA or new homes, up from the 12% in 2011, and 32 

or 9% had to be destroyed. The number of dogs destroyed is a decrease from the 36 or 9% 

destroyed in 2011. 

At 310, the number of tickets issued in 2012 decreased by 19% compared to the 381 tickets 

issued in 2011. 

c?f5' 

John Friesen 

Bylaw Enforcement Officer 




To: Board of Directors Page 2 of 2 

Report dated January 11 , 2013 

Subject: Greater Vernon I White Valley Extended Service Area - 2012 Animal Control Annual Report 

Endorsed by: 

~ L '~ 

on ~a , 2 anag \. 

ComfQunitylProtective Services 





Dog Control Statistics Areas I and 2 Annual Report 

.. QUARTER 

'" 

2" . 3,. 41h TOTAL 2012 TOTAL 2011 TOTAL 2010 

2012 ANNUAL REPORT 

.. NU MBER OF DOG LICENCES I 4028 I 324 I 251 I 53 I 4656 I I 5017 I I 3934 I 

.. NUMBER OF COMELAINTS 

AT LARGE 119 146 167 160 592 599 I 671 

BARKING 79 105 79 91 35' 395 I 395 

AGGRESSIVE t3 29 27 23 92 73 I 94 

OTHERS 3 18 IB 4 43 a I 9 

I TOTAL 214 29B 291 27B 1081 1067 I 1169 

LUMBY 33 40 49 45 167 I 

COLDSTREAM 30 4B 53 56 187 I 

RDNO 39 B9 42 70 240 I 

VERNON 11 2 121 129 103 465 I 

OTHER a a IB 4 22 I 

I TOTAL! 214 298 I 291 27B 1081 a I a 

.. NU MBER OF IMPOUNDS 

RETURNED TO OWNER 55 66 I 70 59 250 312 I 2BB 

SPCA 7 5 I t7 13 42 34 I 57 

PLACED/SOLD 5 2 I 2 2 II II I 4 

DESTROYED to B 9 5 32 36 I 42 

I TOTAL 77 Bl 9B 79 335 393 I 391 

LUMBY 3 4 4 3 14 2t I 22 

COLDSTRE AM 7 15 15 13 50 67 64 

RDNO 15 t3 6 2t 55 40 B7 

VERNON 52 49 73 42 216 265 2tB 

OTHER a a a a a a a 

I TOTAL! 77 BI 9B 79 J35 393 391 

Ticket Information Total 2012 Tolal2011 TOlal 2010 

3. Unlicensed dog 40 27 37 32 136 165 141 

".c, Not _aring license a a a a a 6 0 

15. Unlawfully at large IB 23 t4 10 65 100 51 

16.a, MolesUng, menacing approach or attitude of attack 6 4 5 4 19 20 

16.b. Bites, innicts injury, assaults, or attacks a person a 5 4 a 9 8 " 7 

16.c. Chases vehicle or cyclists a a a a a 1 1 

16.d, Bites, Injures, assaults or attacks another animal 5 7 6 1 19 21 20 

16.e. Damages property other lhan lhat of O'Mler a a a a a 0 3 

16J. Bar1ling excessively 18 a t4 t4 46 44 17 

17. Failure 10 remove faecal matter a a a 2 2 0 0 

IS.a Dangerous dog not muzzlad or on a lease a a 2 I 3 1 1 

IS.b. Unsecured dangerous dog a a 2 1 3 1 0 

19. On public beach , swrnming area, par1l or public area a 6 2 a B 14 1 

27.a. Release, attempt to release or rescue Impounded dog a a a 0 1 

27.b, Resist, intervene, or inlerfere wlh Dog Control Officer a a a a a 0 1 

I TOTAL I B7 I 72 I B6 I 65 I 310 I 381 2" 







REPORT 

File No 3900/2570 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 


Corporate Services 


Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Other Voting Question 

Bylaw 2570, 2013 

RECOMMENDATIONS: . 

That the Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Other Voting Question Bylaw 2570, 2013 be 

given First, Second and Third Readings. 

That the Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Other Voting Question Bylaw 2570, 2013 be 

Adopted. 

BACKGROUND: 

At a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on June 6th, 2012, the following resolution was 

passed: 

"That staff acquire public consent for debt financing through referendum to a maximum of $8.5M for 

the construction of a track and field facility on the Okanagan College site. " 

Since that time, the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee reviewed and amended the scope of the 

project and, at their regular meeting held on January 3 rd , 2013, reduced the cost of the project to 

$7.53 million dollars (Project Budget included as Attachment "B"). 

Public (elector) consent will be obtained for the debt financing through referendum, with the General 

Voting Date on Saturday April 6 th , 2013. Early voting days will be Wednesday March 27'h, 2013 and 

Wednesday April 3 rd , 2013. The voting question for the referendum is included in the bylaw proposed 

for adoption (Attachment "A"). 

Submitted by: 

Approved for Inclusion: 

David Sewell, 

Administrator 






A bylaw to establish the question for other voting on the matter of 

borrowing $7,530,000 to facilitate construction of an athletics and sports 

field facility on Okanagan College property with repayment of the debt over 

a twenty (20) year term 

WHEREAS the Board of Directors has enacted the "Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and 

Culture Service Conversion and Service Establishment Bylaw No. 1648, 2000' to provide for 

the acquisition, improvement and maintenance of land, buildings and other facilities for park 

and recreation purposes, amongst other things; 

AND WHEREAS it is proposed to borrow seven million five hundred and thirty thousand dollars 

($7,530,000), with repayment of a debt over a twenty (20) year term, to facilitate construction of 

an athletics and sports fields facility on Okanagan College property, located at 6950 College Way, 

Coldstream, British Columbia; 

AND WHEREAS assent of the electors in the entire proposed service area is being sought in 

accordance with Section 801.2 (1)(b) [Approval by assent of the electors] of the Local 

Government Act for Bylaw 2570, cited as "Community sports Field and Athletics Facility Other 

Voting Question Bylaw No. 2570, 2013"; 

AND WHEREAS the Board wishes to~stablish the question to be used for other voting by 

bylaw; 

NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan, in open meeting 

assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 

CITATION 

1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Other 

Voting Question Bylaw No. 2570, 2013". 

QUESTION 

2. The question to be used for all voting on Bylaw No. 2570, 2013 cited as "Community 

Sports Field and Athletics Facility Other Voting Question Bylaw No. 2570, 2013" is: 

"Are you in favour of the Regional District of North Okanagan adopting the 

"Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 2571, 

2013" authorizing the borrowing of up to seven million five hundred and thirty thousand 

dollars ($7,530,000), with repayment of the debt over a twenty (20) year term, to 

facilitate construction of an athletics and sports fields facility on Okanagan College 

property, located at 6950 College Way, Coldstream, British Columbia." 

BALLOT 

3. The Ballot to be used for the other voting shall be as per schedule "A" as attached to and 

forming a part of this bylaw. 


Bylaw No. 2570, 2013 



Page 2 

Read a First, Second and THIRD Time 

this 

day of 

,2013 

ADOPTED 

this 

day of 

,2013 

Chair 





SCHEDULE itA" to Bylaw 2570, 2013 


Greater Vernon Parks Recreation and Culture 

COMMUNITY SPORTS FIELD 

AND ATHLETICS FACILITY 

LOAN AUTHORIZATION 

(Bylaw No. 2571, 2013) 

QUESTION 

"Are you in favour of the Regional District of North Okanagan 

adopting the "Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility 

Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 2570, 2013" authorizing the 

borrowing of up to seven million five hundred and thirty 

thousand dollars ($7,530,000), with repayment of the debt over 

a twenty (20) year term, to facilitate construction of an .athletics 

and sports field facility on Okanagan College property, located 

at 6950 College Way, Coldstream, British Columbia." 

YES [] NO [] 

Mark "X" in the square of your choice 




Proposed Community Sports Facility Cost Summary 

Attachment "8" 

ITEMS 

Project Soft Costs 

Required Off-Site Works (per District of 

Coldstream) 

Site Work 

Synthetic Turf Field 

Sand Based Grass Field Across Throws 

Area 

Rubberized Track (MONDO) 

Throws Sectors 

Open Air Seating 

Sports Facility Buildings 

Sports Amenities & Maintenance 

Landscaping 

Subtotal 

10% Contingency (Site Work Only) 

TOTAL 

COST SUMMARY 

$ 481,000.00 

$ 392,700.00 

$ 1,143,000.00 

$ 1,137,000.00 

$ 50,000.00 

$ 1,705,000.00 

$ 414,000.00 

$ 200,000.00 

$ 1,304,600.00 

$ 249,000.00 

$ 339,000.00 

$ 7,415,300.00 

$ 114,300.00 

$ 7,529,600.00 







REPORT 

File No 3900/2571 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 


Parks, Recreation and Culture 


Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Loan Authorization Bylaw 

2571,2013 


That the Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Loan Authorization Bylaw 2571, 2013 be given 

First, Second and Third Readings; and further, 

That the Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Loan Authorization Bylaw 2571, 2013 be 

referred to the Inspector of Municipalities for Statutory Approval. 

BACKGROUND: 

At a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on June 6th, 2012, the following resolution was 

passed: 

"That staff acquire public consent for debt financing through referendum to a maximum of $8.5M for 

the construction of a track and field facility on the Okanagan College site.!1 

Since that time, the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee reviewed and amended the scope of the 

project and, at their regular meeting held on January 3 rd , 2013, reduced the cost of the project to 

$7.53 million dollars (Project Budget included as Attachment "B"). 

Public (elector) consent will be obtained for the debt financing through referendum, with the General 

Voting Date on Saturday April 6 th , 2013. Early voting days will be Wednesday March 27th, 2013 and 

Wednesday April 3 rd , 2013. The Loan Authorization Bylaw is included as Attachment "A". 

NEXT STEPS: 

If Bylaw 2571 receives first, second and third readings, it will be submitted to the Inspector of 

Municipalities for approval and brought back for adoption if elector consent is provided by the 

referendum. 


f.< =--m;; { d 

David sewtif:J!i:Jg Administrator 






A bylaw to authorize the borrowing of $7,530,000 to facilitate construction of 

an athletics and sports field facility on Okanagan College property with 

repayment of the debt over a twenty (20) year term 

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 823 [Regional district loan authorization bylaws] of the Local 

Government Act, RS.B.C., 1996, Chapter 323, and Section 179 [Loan authorization bylaws for 

long term borrowing] of the Community Charter, S.B.C., 2003, Chapter 26, as amended, and 

Regulations passed pursuant thereto, the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan may, 

by a Loan Authorization Bylaw, borrow money for any purpose of a capital nature to facilitate 

construction of an athletics and sports fields facility on Okanagan College property, located at 

6950 College Way, Coldstream, British Columbia; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has enacted the "Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture 

Service Conversion and Service Establishment Bylaw No. 1648, 2000' to provide for the 

acquisition, improvement and maintenance of land, buildings and other facilities for park and 

recreation purposes, amongst other things; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has requested and the Regional District proposes to borrow a sum 

not exceeding seven million five hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($7,530,000) with 

repayment of a debt over a twenty (20)yeC3r term, to facilitate construction of an athletics and 

sports fields facility on Okanagan College property, located at 6950 College Way, Coldstream, 

British Columbia; 

AND WHEREAS the participating area is all of the City of Vernon, District of Coldstream and 

Electoral Areas "B" and "c" of the Regional District of North Okanagan as established in the 

Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Conversion and Service Establishment 

Bylaw No. 1648, 2000; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has, by resolution, permitted assent to be given by electors in the 

entire Service Area; 

AND WHEREAS the authority to borrow under this bylaw expires five years from the date on 

which this bylaw is adopted; 

AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 801.2 (1)(b) [Approval of the electors by voting] of the 

Local Government Act the required assent of the electors within the entire proposed service 

area has been obtained for borrowing for the acquisition of land and ancillary buildings at time 

of purchase for park and recreation purposes; 



CITATION 

1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Community Sports Field and Athletics Facility Loan 

Authorization Bylaw No. 2571, 2013". 




Bylaw No. 2571, 2013 Page 2 

LOAN AUlHORIZA liON 

2. The Regional District of North Okanagan is hereby empowered and authorized to borrow 

upon the credit of the Regional District a sum of seven million five hundred and thirty 

thousand dollars ($7,530,000). 

3. The debt incurred in this Loan Authorization Bylaw relates specifically to the Greater 

Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service. 

4. This debt is being incurred to provide capital financing to facilitate construction of an 

athletics and sports fields facility on Okanagan College property, located at 6950 College 

Way, Cold stream , British Columbia. 

5. All of the debt being incurred in this Loan Authorization Bylaw is for the sole purpose of 

providing capital financing to construct a sports facility located at 6950 College Way. 

6. The annual debt charges shall be recovered from the City of Vernon, District of 

Coldstream, and Electoral Areas "B" and "C" of the Regional District of North Okanagan. 

7. The maximum term for which a debenture debt may pe issued to secure the debt created 

by this bylaw is for a term not to exceed twenty (20) years. 

Read a First, Second and THIRD Time this day of ,2013 

Approved by the Inspector of Municipalities this day of ,2013 

(Local Government Act s. 802.3) 

Received Assent of the Service Area Electors this day of ,2013 

ADOPTED this day of ,2013 

Chair 





Proposed Community Sports Facility Cost Summary 

Attachment 118" 

ITEMS 

Project Soft Costs 

Required Off-Site Works (per District of 

Coldstream) 

Site Work 

Synthetic Turf Field 

Sand Based Grass Field Across Throws 

Area 

Rubberized Track (MONDO) 

Throws Sectors 

Open Air Seating 

Sports Facility Buildings 

Sports Amenities & Maintenance 

Landscaping 

Subtotal 

10% Contingency (Site Work Only) 

TOTAL 

COST SUMMARY 

$ 481,000.00 

$ 392,700.00 

$ 1,143,000.00 

$ 1,137,000.00 

$ 50,000.00 ' 

$ 1,705,000.00 

$ 414,000.00 

$ 200,000.00 

$ 1,304,600.00 

$ 249,000.00 

$ 339,000.00 

$ 7,415,300.00 

$ 114,300.00 

$ 7,529,600.00 







REPORT 

File NO.:5801.06.06 GVPRD Budget 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

Greater Vernon Advisory Committee 

Parks, Recreation & Culture 

November 23,2012 

060 - Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation & Culture Budget 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and 

Culture budget proposal for 2013 be considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District Budget 

subject to revisions upon review of the 2012 year end budget report. 

The budget as presented includes an increase of 1.87% in tax requisition. 

GENERAL OVERALL BUDGET SUMMARY: 

1. ADMINISTRATION 

RDNO 

Salaries & Wages 

Office Expenses 

Insurance & Legal 

GIS, IS, Financial Overhead 

2013 Proposed Budget $1,207,042 

2012 Budget $1,118,804 

$88,238.00 

Increases are; 

1.5% Wage increase as per employee agreement. 

Publications & Memberships. 

Consulting Fees (Land Appraisals, Surveying, Geotech) 

Referendum Funding (Ballots, Polling Stations, Staffing) 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 



060 - Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture 2013 Budget 

File No.: 5801 

Date: November 23,2012 


RECREATION CENTER OFFICE 

Salaries 

Office Expenses 

Bookings 

Utilities & Insurance 

2013 Proposed Budget 

2012 Budget 

$593,944.00 

$592,861.00 

$1,083.00 


1.5% wage increase as per CUPE contract. 

2% CPI increase; City of Vernon support services. 

Decrease in; 

Office Expenses. 

2. PARKS 


Materials & Supplies 

Park I Building Maintenance 

Parks Vehicles & Equipment 

Utilities 

Revenue 

Expenses 

2013 Proposed Budget $131,800.00 2013 Proposed Budget $2,443,935.00 

2012 Budget $130,600.00 2012 Budget $2,331,048.00 

Total $1200 Total $112,887.00 


Expenses: 1.5% increase in salaries as per CUPE contract ($11,300.00) 

Expenses: 36% increase in irrigation water due to two consecutive increases of 18% in water 

rates ($60,000.00) 

Expenses: 32% increase in washroom cleaning contract due to services for new Pavillion. 

($33,375.00). 

Expenses: 23% increase in mower maintenance due to aged equipment ($4,000.00). 

Expenses:45% increase in Polson Utilities & Insurance (ie Hydro, Water) for new Pavillion 

($2,500.00). 

Expenses: 16% increase in Polson support services required for new Pavillion ($10,500.00). 

Boat Launch Revenue ($2,000) 

Decrease in; 

Expenses: 30% Kin Race Track, Parks no longer maintain beer gardens ($10,000.00). 

Revenue: RDNO no longer hold liquor license at Kin Race Track. 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







3. RENTAL PROPERTIES 

General Maintenance 

Insurance & Property Taxes (Rental Properties) 

Soccer Center Facility Lease Payments 

Revenue 

2013 Proposed Budget $186,965.00 

2012 Budget $212,748.00 

Total $-25,783.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$32,824.00 

$39,838.00 

$-7,014 

Revenue; 

Decrease in Rental Income of approx. $23,220.00 from 3307 and 3305 - 35 Ave if future 

parking lot expansion is approved in capital budget and houses are demolished. 

Expenses; 

Decrease in Maintenance, Insurance & Property Taxes of approx. $7,014.00 if parking lot 

expansion at the Recreation Center is approved and houses at 3307 and 3305 - 35 Ave are 

removed as per long term parking plan. 

4. RECREATION COMPLEX 

Building Maintenance 

Custodian Salaries 

Gym & Auditorium Rentals 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$152,520.00 

$151,375.00 

$1,095 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$343,911.00 

$338,420.00 

$5,491.00 

Expenses; 

Increase in Custodian Salaries CUPE agreement 1.5% 

Decrease in Utilities 

Increase Building Maintenance 

5. HALINA CENTER 

Seniors Memberships $2.00 I Member 


Custodian Salaries 

Utilities 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 





Date: November 23, 2012 


Revenue 

Expenses 

2013 Proposed Budget $1,050.00 2013 Proposed Budget 

2012 Budget $1,100.00 2012 Budget 

Total $-50.00 Total 

$74,246.00 

$72,388.00 

$1,858.00 

Expenses; 

Increase in Custodian Salaries CUPE agreement 1.5% 

Increase in Building Maintenance 

Decrease in Utilities (Natural Gas). 

6. CURLING CLUB 

Rentals 

Utilities 

Insurance 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$17,400.00 

$17,000.00 

$400.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$10,949.00 

$10,500.00 

$449.00 

Expenses; 

Decrease in insurance costs. 

7. CIVIC ARENA 

Minor Hockey Rentals 

Minor Lacrosse 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$178,421 .00 

$184,816.00 

$-6,395.00 

Ex~enses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$335,899.00 

$339,111 .00 

$-3,212.00 

Revenue; 

Decrease in Minor Lacrosse and Minor Hockey (Lacrosse is relocating to the PV Arena). 

Expenses; 

Decrease building maintenance & ice maintenance wages due to the relocation of most dry 

floor activities to the PV Arena. 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







8. PRIEST VALLEY ARENA 

Adult Hockey Rentals 

Dry Floor Activities 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$236,447.00 

$231,253.00 

$5,194.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$403,621.00 

$394,422.00 

$9,199.00 

Revenue; 

Increase in dry floor rentals 

Expenses; 

Increase in ice maintenance wages due to relocation of dry floor activities. 

9. CENTENNIAL OUTDOOR RINK 

Rentals 

Ice Maintenance Wages 

Utilities 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$4,595.00 

$4,650.00 

($55.00) 

Expenses 


2012 Budget $41,887.00 

Total $572.00 

10. INDOOR POOL 

Swim Lessons 

Season's Passes 

General Admissions 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$832,701.00 

$831,107.00 

$1,594.00 

Expenses 

2013 Proposed Budget $1,245,253.00 

2012 Budget $1,240,281.00 

Total $4,972.00 

Revenue; 

Increase in Swim Lesson Registration 

I ncrease in Seasons Passes 

Decrease in School Program Rentals 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







Expenses; 

Increase in Water, Sewer & Garbage 

Increase in Building General Maintenance 

Decrease in Natural Gas 

11. LAVINGTON POOL 

Guard Wages 

Utilities 

Maintenance 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$4,480.00 

$3,500.00 

$980.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$55,660.00 

$50,394.00 

$5,266.00 

Revenue; 

Increased registration numbers 

Increased swimming lesson rates 

Expenses; 

Increase hourly charge for set up and take down 

Increase supervisory & 1 $/hour increase in wages for weekend shifts 

12. LAKEVIEW POOL 

Guard Wages 

Utilities 

Maintenance 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$32,745.00 

$36,446.00 

$3,701.00 

Expenses; 

Decrease in necessary guarding hours 

1 $/hour increase in wages for weekend shifts 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







13. POLSON SPRAY PARK 

Utilities 

Maintenance 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$9,324.00 

$9,324.00 

$0 

14. PROGRAMS 

General Programs 

Leisure Guides 

Advertising Promotion 

Passenger Bus 

Marketing 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$20,975.00 

$15,750.00 

$5,225.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$29,620.00 

$22,000.00 

$7,620.00 

Revenue; 

Increase community ads in leisure guide 

Passenger Bus user fees 

Expenses; 

Marketing, Sun FM ads 

Passenger Bus Maintenance, Insurance, Fuel 

Programs 1 

Rec. Programmer Salary 

Volleyball 

Tiny Tot Fees 

Preschool Gym 

General Interest - Youth (Summer Camps) 

Revenue 


2012 Budget $387,443.00 

Total $670.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$342,015.00 

$340,827.00 

$1,188.00 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







Programs 2 

Water Fitness 

Outdoor Recreation 

Youth Summer Recreation 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$272,438.00 

$274,682.00 

$-244.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$253,591.00 

$254,690.00 

$-1,099.00 

Programs 3 

Vernon Hockey League 

Ice Programs 

Tennis 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$241,900.00 

$252,103.00 

$-10,203.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$230,649.00 

$240,428.00 

$-9,779.00 

Revenue; 

Decreased enrollment in golf program 

Decrease adult learn to skate program 

Loss of Vernon Hockey League Team 

Expenses; 

Decreased ice time required. 

15. LAVINGTON PRE-SCHOOL (Programming 4) 

Pre-School Fees 

Provincial Subsidies 


Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$25,000.00 

$25,000.00 

$0 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$37,000.00 

$36,670.00 

$330.00 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







116. COMMUNITY GARDENS 

2013 Budget request 

2012 Budget 

$8,500 

$8,000 

$500 

Increased due to additional maintenance hours required. Not included in the proposed budget is the 

request from the Community Garden Network for an additional $7,500 that would cover more hours 

for coordination of the gardens. There has been some difficulty in maintaining consistent volunteers, 

and a paid coordinator would help with the administration of all three of the gardens (Attachment 

"A") 

17. CAPITAL BUDGET 

Attached is the master list for capital works for the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation & Culture 

Attachment "8" which includes items that have been brought forward over time from managers, 

parks and recreation staff. 

Projects recommended by staff in the 2013 budget are rated from higher priorities such as Health, 

Safety and Welfare through to lower priority projects that deal with more aesthetic elements 

Attachment "C". 

Based on the criteria staff recommend a capital budget of $1 ,035,370 

Capital Expenses 

2013 Proposed Budget $1,035,370 

2012 Budget $1,392,479 

Total $357,109 

CITY OF VERNON (shaded items are included in the recommended 2013 060 budget) 

*Items referred to as (Multiplex) will be dealt with in the 062 Multiplex Budget but are shown to provide 

a complete list of capital requests. 

Recreation 

1. Office Renovations 

2. Chemical Storage 

3. Kitchen Flooring 

4. Wheel Chair Assist 

5. Backflow Prevention 

6. Exterior Doors 

Arenas 

$73,200 

$10,283 

$9,521 

$5,000 

$6,100 

$69,513 

$173,617 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







1. Concession Items (Multiplex) 

2. PV Zamboni 

3. Header Trench (Multiplex) 

4. Audio Equipment (Multiplex) 

5. 2 Edgers (PV, Civic) 

6. PV Hot Water Tanks 

7. PVAHU 

8. Catering Equipment 

9. Landscaping (Multiplex) 

$27,435 

$115,900 

$11,999 

$20,130 

$12,688 

$16,999 

$26,352 

$27,694 

$30,000 

$289,197 

1. Replacement Sand - Kin Beach 

2. Replacement of unit #203 1981 kubota tractor 

3. Replacement of unit #503 1996 F250 with F550 dump box 

4. Replacement of unit #508 1996 F250 with new 3/4 ton truck 

5. Replacement of unit #544 1999 F350 with new chassis 

6. Replacement of unit #545 1999 F350 with new chassis 

7. Small trailer for trencher and/or small tractor 

8. Purchase walk behind aerator 

9. Purchase of used Sea-Can 

10. Replace playground structure at Mission Hill Park 

11. Replace playground structure at Alexis Park 

12. Replace playground structure at Kiwanis Park 

13. Replace roof on the Kin Beach picnic Shelter 

$37,462 

$18,400 

$51,750 

$41,400 

$51,750 

$48,300 

$5,750 

$2,875 

$5,750 

$113,500 

$56,750 

$56,750 

$23,000 

$513,437 

DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM 

1. Morphet Dog Park - Fencing and Signage, Parking Lot, Topsoil & Seed 

2. Kalview Tennis Court - Resurfacing $90,000 

3. Lavington Park - Electrical Hookup / Picnic Tables (Movable) $10,000 

4. Kalavista Log House - Outdoor Washroom 

5. Kalavista Log House - Improvements to meet Building 

Code to allow for meetings and public use 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







18. CULTURAL GRANTS 

Greater Vernon Museum and Archives 

2013 Budget proposal 

2012 Budget 

$274,260 

$269,863 

$ 4,397 

The proposed increase includes: additional funding for Liability and Directors and Officers insurance 

(which had previously been covered under RDNO); some increase to building insurance; and a 1.5% 

CPI increase to the operating grant (Funding history included as Attachment "0"; full funding 

application available upon request). 

Not included in this proposal is the 5.3% increase requested by the Museum for additional staffing. 

A history of the cash grant to the Museum is as follows: 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

$114,301 $131,301 $148,301 $153,301 

2011 

$161,804 

2012 

$171,034 

Vernon Public Art Gallery 


2012 Budget 

$248,525 

$245,700 

$ 2,825 

The Vernon Public Art Gallery has requested an increase to their operating grant by $25,000 

or 14%. The Gallery expects a balanced budget in 2012 based on their current operating 

grant; however they have requested an increase to their operating grant based on the 

requirement of more staff with the development of a new facility. (Funding history and funding 

application included as Attachment "E"). 

The recommendation is to provide a 1.5% increase to the operating grant to allow for CPI, 

($177,625), which includes janitorial costs, and the increase in funding to prepare for the new 

facility be deferred until such time as there is direction given to construct a new Art Gallery. 

There is also minor recommended increase for projected insurance increases. 

A history of the operating grant to the Art Gallery is as follows: 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

$80,807 $97,807 $114,807 $121,500 

2011 

$123,930 

2012 

175,000 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







NOTE: 2012 and proposed 2013 operating grant include $10,100 for utilities, while 2011 and 

prior did not. 

Boys and Girls Club of Vernon 


2012 Budget 

$149,131 

$147,669 

$ 1,462 

The Boys and Girls Club have requested an increase of 2% to their operating grant, which was 

$81,147 in 2012. The proposed increase is an increase of 1.5% to their operating grant and 

janitorial (Funding history included as Attachment "F"; full funding application available upon 

request). 

A history of the cash grant to the Boys and Girls Club is as follows: 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

$62,654 $66,624 $72,997 $77,997 $79,556 

2012 

$81,147 

Vernon Community Arts Council (Arts Council of the North Okanagan) 


2012 Budget 

$134,923 

$134,625 

$298 

The Vernon Community Arts Centre is not requesting an increase to their cash (operating) 

grant, which was $95,000 in 2012. The increases last year were requested to offset 

decreases in provincial and federal funding, as well as to support a very popular program, 

Joining Hands. 

The minor increase proposed for 2013 is for projected insurance increases. 

A history of the operating grant to the Vernon Community Art Centre is as follows: 

2007 

$58,675 

2008 

$68,675 

2009 

$78,675 

2010 

$83,675 

2011 

$83,675 

2012 

$95,000 

(Funding history included as Attachment "G". Full funding application available upon request) 

Literacy and Youth Initiatives Society of the North Okanagan (Teen Junction) 


2012 Budget 

$66,000 

$66,000 

$0 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







Teen Junction has only been funded since 2011, when they received their first operating grant 

of $66,000 

(Funding history included as Attachment "H"; full funding application available upon request) 

Gallery Vertigo 


2012 Budget 

$15,000 

$15,000 

$0 

Gallery Vertigo has been funded since 2010, when they received their first operating grant of 

$15,000. They have requested an additional $15,000 for 2013. 

Until the decision is made on whether to add them to the new service establishment bylaw, if 

the Committee chooses to fund them as an exception to the adopted GVPRC - 003 - Greater 

Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Operating Grant Guidelines policy (Attachment "I"), it is 

recommended that the grant remain the same as in 2012. 

Okanagan Science Centre 


2012 Budget 

$32,500 

$32,500 

$0 

Okanagan Science Centre received funding in the amount of 32,500 in 2012, in part due to the 

cut-backs in provincial funding. 

Until a decision is made on whether or not to add them to the new service establishment bylaw 

in accordance with the policy GVPRC - 003 (Attachment "I"), it is recommended that the 

grant remain the same as in 2012. 

Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Project Grant 

The policy GVPRC - 004 - Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Project Grant Guidelines 

(Attachment "J") was adopted in September 2012, and provides eligibility guidelines for funding 

through an Arts, Culture and Youth grant. 

There has not been a budget set aside for this grant in the past, however this grant was 

recommended in the 2006 Greater Vernon Arts and Culture Master Plan (un-adopted). 

Community applications for this grant were received up to November 31, 2012 this year. In future 

years the deadline will be September 30 th . 




Report to: 

From: 

Re: 







The budget is to be set independently from the application submissions, based on RONO budget 

allowance on a year-by-year basis. Applications will be approved based on the eligibility outlined in 

the policy, and limited to the annually set budget. It is recommended that the 2013 budget be set 

at $30,000. 


2012 Budget 

$30,000 

$0 

$30,000 


Costs RONO Kindale 

Seed grant $2500 

Maintenance East Hill $1000 

Maintenance other $2500 

Coordination & Admin $10,000 $10,000 

(East Hill/West Vernon 

& Patchwork Farms) 

~ 

Community Garden Network 

z 

W 

~ 

:I: 

to) 

~ Fi na ncia I considerations - proposed 

I- 

Other In-Kind $6000 ( +partners) 

Total $16,000 $16,000 

wlo seed grant $13,500 




060 GVPRD CAPITAL MASTER LIST 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Z N 

0 .... 

N 

0. I- 

Z 

N 

0 l- 

.... 

tJ) 

tJ) tJ) 0 ~ W 

i=. 

0 

0: z 

W 0"- N (!) IX: 

C O~ C C ::J 

I- 1-1- W W(!) I- 

0 O1- >z is 

W W:rE OW 0_ 

-, -,- IX:(!) 

z 

IX:C W 

0 01- o.C o.z 0. 

IX: 1X:tJ) o.::J o.::J >< 

0. o.!:!:!.


1 

Z N 

0 .... 

j:: 0 

N 

0. I- 

ii: z 

~ 

N 

0 I- .... ~ 

en 

en en 0 W 

W 0"- N e> 0::: 

e ofa e e ::::> 

I- 1-1- W We> 

l- 

0 0« >1- 

ow >z is 

W W:i 0_ z 

'"') '"')- o:::e> o:::e W 

0 01- o.e o.z 0. 

0::: 0::: en D.::::> D.::::> >< 

0. D.!:!:!. «IX! «u. W 

Main Entry upgrade Upgrade 

main 28" doors to 36" doors $7,000.00 

and install new windows 

N 

.... 

0 

N 

E 

0 

en 

w .... 

.... 

~~ 

I- W 

W ! e> 

en 0 e 

w .... ::::> 

S 

Q) 

o:::~ IX! C. 

M .... M 

.... CIS .... E 

00 0 

0 

N_ N 0 

$0.00 $7,000.00 2013 

Creekside Park 

Greater Vernon Recreation 

Complex Playground Surfacing 

Greater Vernon Recreation 

Complex Upgrades 

Kalview Tennis IBasketball 

Courts 

Kin Beach Park 


Parking Lot - Regrading I 

Resurfacing I Painting $100,000.00 $100,000.00 

Irelocating picnic tables 

Upgrade from the budgeted 

wood chips to the recycled $38,000.00 $4,071.00 $33,929.00 $0.00 

rubber. 

Fitness Gyml Playgroundl 

$90,343.00 $18,069.00 $72,274.00 

Aquatics Chair 

Geotech. I Basework I 

Surfacing I Acrylic & Painting 

$90,000.00 $90,000.00 

Overflow parking at Kin on 

$50,000.00 

CoVRoad ROW 

Replace non compliant 

equipment I Surfacing I $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00 

Curbing 

$100,000.00 $100,000.00 2013 

$10,000.00 $42,000.00 2013 

2013 i 

$90,000.00 $90,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $50,000.00 2013 

$30,000.00 $30,000.00 2013 

Lavington pool 

Repainting pool basin $10,850.00 

$0.00 $10,850.00 2013 

Lavington School 

Lakeview Pool 

Marshall Park 

tables and carts for the 

Lavington Community $6,257.00 $0.00 

School 

Sand Replacement, 

Fiberglas Repair, Skimmer, $9,500.00 

Vac Piping 

Fill cracks in courts $10,000.00 

$0.00 $6,257.00 2013 

$0.00 $9,500.00 2013 

$0.00 $10,000.00 2013 

Replace playground 

structure at Mission Hill Park 

$113,500.00 

$0.00 $113,500.00 2013 

_ L .................. 

~ ..... 

c 

Q) 

E 

..c: 

u 

ro 

~ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

W 

:i 

« 

Z 

l- 0 

W 

'"') 

0 

0::: 

0. 

Boys & Girls Club 

Mission Hill Park 





1 

1 

Z N 

0 .... 

j:: 0 

N 

Il. I- 

Z 

a:: z 

N 

0 I- .... CI) 

i:2 

CI) CI) 0 W 

W 0'- N e> a:: 

0 o~ 0 0 ::l 

I- 1-1- W We> 

I- 

0 0« >1- >z C 

..., W W::i!ii oW 0_ 

...,- z 

a::e> a:: 0 W 

0 01- Il.O Il.Z Il. 

a:: a::CI) Il.::l Il.::l X 

Il. Il.!!!. «IX! «LL W 

New Roof - 22 years old in 

2012 and has a life $140,000.00 

expectancy up to 25 years. 

Viewing Platform / Crusher 

chips / Drip Irrigation / Weed $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 

removal 

N 

.... 

0 

N 

E 

CI).g 

> ... 

W-c 

I- 

m ~ 

w.S! ::l 

a:: 

-Q) 

~ IX! ii 

C'? ... C'? 

.... 1\1 .... E 

00 N __ 

0 

0 

N 0 

W 

e> 

0 Q) 

$0.00 2013 

$25,000.00 $25,000.00 2013 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Relpacement for 2 ageing 

$90,000.00 $90,000.00 

John Deer mowers 

Sidewalk - Replacement of 

sidewalk finishing at front $25,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 

entrance 

Paint exterior of building $45,000.00 

Polson Park Wishing Well 

Bridge 

$30,000.00 

$90,000.00 $90,000.00 2013 

$5,000.00 $25,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $45,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $30,000.00 2013 

1 

Otterbine for New Fountain / 

Aeration System to eliminate $5,500.00 

slime issues 

$5,500.00 2013 

1 

1 

To be discussed by GVAC $125,000.00 

New parking lot to meet 

2013 

parking requirements 

(includes demolishing 2 

houses, landscaping) 

$350,000.00 

$0.00 $350,000.00 2013 

Exterior Doors (Auditorium, 

Halina, Aquatic) 

$69,513.00 

$0.00 $69,513.00 2013 

New roof over lobby main 

entrance hallway 

$61,000.00 

$0.00 $61,000.00 2013 

~ 

-c: 

Q) 

E 

..c: 

() 

co 

~ 

, 

1 

1 

W 

::i!ii 

« 

z 

l- 

0 

W 

..., 

0 

a:: 

Il. 

Museum 

North Vernon Park 

Park Mower 

Performing Arts Centre 


Polson Park 

Polson Park 

RDNO Parks Masterplan 

Rec Centre 

Rec Centre 

Rec Centre 

, 





~ 

-- c: 

E 

Q) 

.c: 

(.) 

ro 

~ 

Z N 

0 .... 

j:: 0 

N 

0. I- 

a: z 

~ 

N 

(.) l- 

.... 

ali en 

en en 0 

W 

W 0'- N (!) 

0:: 

e (.)~ e e :::> 

I- 1-1- W W(!) 

l- 

(.) (.)1- 

OW >z is 

W W:iS 0_ 

-, z 

-,- o::(!) o::e W 

0 01- o.e o.z 0. 

0:: 0:: en 0.:::> 0.:::> X 

0. o.!!:!.


2 

2 

2 

2 


2 

2 

2 

2 

Kubota Tractor Replacement 

for #203 

New Trailer Purchase 

Paddlewheel Park 

Polson Lawn bowling 

washroom 

2 

W 

::!!l 


~ 

-c: 

(]) 

E 

..c: 

o 

co 

~ 

W 

:= 

 

CI) 

0::: ~ III ii 

M ... M 

.... CIS .... E 

00 0 

0 

N ........ N 0 

$0.00 $51,750.00 2013 

$0.00 $41,400.00 

Truck Replacement for #544 


VCAC Flooring 

Vernon Creek 

Vernon Secondary School 

Replacement of unit #544 

1999 F350 with new chassis 


1999 F350 with new chassis 

$51,750.00 

$48,300.00 

Flooring for Library and 

$10,796.00 

Computer Lab 

Trail Clearingl Surfacingl 

Signage (Marshall to OK $15,000.00 

Ave) 6240.20.32 

Cost sharing fields 1 outdoor 

facilities? 

$0.00 $51,750.00 

$0.00 $48,300.00 

$0.00 $10,796.00 

$0.00 $15,000.00 

$0.00 

Wesbild 

Concession Equipment 

(Fryer, Dishwasher, Hot/Cold $27,435.00 

Water with drainage) 

$0.00 $27,435.00 

Swan Lake Park 

Phase 2 Trails Devpt - 

Crusher Chip Trails I $200,000.00 

Boardwalks I Signage 

$0.00 $200,000.00 

Lighting upgrade 

Replace all discontinued 

lighting (as of 2012/2014) 

with new high efficient 

lighting throughout the 

building 

$13,000.00 

$0.00 $13,000.00 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

4 






-- t: 


5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

.... 

j:: 0 N 

N 

0. I- 

Z E 

0:: z 

N 

(.) l- 

.... en 

i:2 en e 

en en W- 

0 

W 

C) 

>'E I- 

W 0'-' N 0:: W 

Z N 

N 

0 .... 0 

0 (.)ffi 0 0 ::> 

ffi ~ 

C) 

- 

0 Q) 

W_ ::> Q) 

I- 1-1- W WC) I- 

.., 

OW 

.., - 0::C) 0::0 W 

0 01- 0.0 o.Z 0. CO? .. CO? 

E 

(.) (.)« >1- >z C en 0 

W W:::!!E 0_ z 

0:: t=- 01 Q. 

0:: 0:: en 

.... III .... 

0.::> 0.::> >< 0(.) 0 

0 

0. o.!:!:!. «01 «II.. W N '-' N (.) 

Lighting / Tables $25,000.00 $0.00 

Dehumidifiers $0.00 

Foothills Tennis Courts $20,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 

LiQhting on fields $80,000.00 $0.00 ! 

Swan Lake North $90,293.81 $0.00 i 

Grading / Crusher Chips / 

Signage / Parking Gravels / 

Signage (Old Kamloops Rd. 

to Top) 6240.20.31 

$120,502.93 $0.00 

Grading / Clearing / Sign age 

/ Fencing (Top to Goose $107,548.73 $0.00 

Lake) 6240.20.26 

Trail Grading / Crusher 

Chips / Fencing / Obtain 

SROW (Venture Training 

Trail) 6240.20.29) 

$133,260.14 $0.00 

5 

Investigate acquiring linear 

park space in conjunction 

with Neighborhood Plan to $0.00 

allow corridors for alternate 

modes of transportation. 

5 

5 

5 

Full Park Construction $248,707.54 $0.00 

Sand Replacement $517,429.00 $0.00 

Park Development- BMX & 

$180,000.00 $0.00 

Bike Skills 

Site Demo / Rough Grading $200,000.00 $0.00 


structure at Kiwanis Park 

$56,750.00 $0.00 

~ 

-c: 


Z N 

N 

0 .... 0 

j:: 0 

N 

N 

0.. I- 

~ E 

ii2 z 

W N 

0 I- .... en.g 

t2 

en 

:il en en 0 W W" 

0:: I- 

~ :;; W 

z e o[l e e :::> 

W ! e> 

- 

l- I- 1-1- W We> 

l- 

e CD 

0 0 O1- >z C en 0 

:::> 

W W W:il oW 0_ z 

w .... CD 

.., .., .., - o::e> o::e W 0:: e=- m Q. 

0 0 01- o..e o..z 0.. CO? "- CO? 

E 

0:: 0:: 0:: en 0..:::> 0..:::> 

.... co .... 

>< 00 N __ 

0 

0 

0.. 0.. o..!:!:!.


6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

Z N 

0 .... 

0 

N 

i= 

a.. I- 

0:: z z 

N 

0 l- 

.... 

(/) 

(/) (/) 0 

i:2 W 

W O- N (!) 

0:: 

0 o:IJ 0 0 :::> 

I- 1-1- W W(!) I- 

0 0< >1- 

is 

W W::E OW i3~ z 

""') ""')- o::(!) 0::0 W 

0 01- a.. 0 a..Z 

o::(/) 

a.. 

0:: a..:::> a..:::> >< 

a.. a..!:!!

2013 CAPITAL PROJECTS LIST 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

W 

::i 


Z N 

0 .... 

0 

i= N 

11. I-- 

Q2 z 

~ 

N 

0 I-- 

.... 

c2 en 

en en 0 W 

W o- N (!) a:: 

e ofa e e :::::l 

I-- 1--1-- W W(!) I-- 

0 0« >1-- >z Ci 

W W:E OW 0_ z 

0 01-- Il.e Il.Z 11. 

a:: a:: en Il.:::::l Il.:::::l >< 

11. Il.!:!:!. «Ill «1.1. W 

..., ..., - a::(!) a::e W 

0 

N 

-N 

.... 

E 

0 

en.:: 

W"C I-- 

W 

woE (!) 

e CI) 

:::::l 

-CI) 

i::' III Q. 

.... C1I .... 

0 

00 0 

Signage & Fencing, Site 

Prep. Topsoil & Seeding, $25,000.00 

Parking Lot Gravels 

Wheel Chair Assist 

$4,972.00 

Accessory 


$56,750.00 

structure at Alexis Park 

Chemical Storage 

Containers (Acid, $10,283.00 

Chlorine, Dry Chemical) 

Rebuild electrical panels 

with waterproof ones in 

main swimming pool pump 

room 

$8,000.00 

Lap Pool lighting retrofit $10,000.00 

Civic (Structural review) $5,000.00 

Priest Valley Zamboni (Ice $115,900.00 

resurfacer) 

PV Hot Water Tanks (Hot 

Water for Ice Making and $16,999.00 

Dressing Rooms 

BX Falls Trail- 2 

Pedestrian Bridge $57,000.00 

Replacements 

Mechanical Audit and 

Feasibility Study (PV $15,000.00 

Arena Layout) 

$0.00 $25,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $4,972.00 2013 ! 

$0.00 $56,750.00 2013 

$0.00 $10,283.00 2013 

$0.00 $8,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $10,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $5,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $115,900.00 2013 

$0.00 $16,999.00 2013 

$57,000.00 $57,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $15,000.00 2013 

p 

..... 

c: 

Q) 

E 

.c: 

u 

ro 

~ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

W 

:E 

« 

z 

I-- 

0 

W 

..., 

0 

a:: 

11. 

Morphet Dog Park 

Acquatic Centre 

Alexis Park 

Aquatic Centre 



Arenas 

Arenas 

Arenas 

BX Creek Trail 

Arenas 





Z N 

0 .... 

CI 

i= N 

Il.. I- 

a: z 

~ 

N 

U l- 

.... 

(I) 

(I) (I) CI C2 

W 

W 0"- N C!) 0:: 

0 ufa 0 0 :::> 

I- 1-1- W WC!) I- 

W W::S OW 0_ Z 

'"') '"')- 0::C!) 0::0 W 

0 01- 1l..0 Il..Z Il.. 

u u« >1- >Z C 

0:: 0::(1) Il..:::> Il..:::> >< 

Il.. Il..!!:!. «III «u. W 

N 

.... 

CI 

N 

E 

(I).g 

W"C I- 

> .... 

ffi ~ 

(I) 0 

W 

C!) 

0 

:::> 

.l!l 

W .... CI) 

o::~ III C. 

M .. M 

.... CIS .... E 

ClU CI 

0 

N~ N U 

1 

Kin, Kal and Paddlewheel 

- Renovation 

$656,190.00 $256,190.00 $400,000.00 

$656,190.00 $656,190.00 2013 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Creekside Park 

Kalview Tennis IBasketball 

Courts 




Install new flooring in front $15,000.00 

entry and hall way 

$0.00 $15,000.00 2013 

Main Entry upgrade 

Upgrade main 28" doors 

$7,000.00 

$0.00 $7,000.00 2013 

Parking Lot - Regrading I 

Resurfacing I Painting $100,000.00 $100,000.00 

Irelocating picnic tables 

Geotech. I Basework I 

Surfacing I Acrylic & $90,000.00 $90,000.00 

Painting 

Replace non compliant 

equipment I Surfacing I $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00 

Curbing 

$100,000.00 $100,000.00 2013 

$90,000.00 $90,000.00 2013 

$30,000.00 $30,000.00 2013 

Repainting pool basin $10,850.00 

$0.00 $10,850.00 2013 

Sand Replacement, 

Fiberglas Repair, $9,500.00 

Skimmer, Vac Piping 

Fill cracks in courts $10,000.00 


structure at Mission Hill $113,500.00 

Park 

New Roof - 22 years old in 

2012 and has a life 

expectancy up to 25 

years. 

$140,000.00 

$9,500.00 $9,500.00 2013 

$0.00 $10,000.00 2013 

$0.00 $113,500.00 2013 

$0,00 2013 

p 

..... 

c 

Q) 

E 

.c 

(.) 

co 

~ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

W 

::s 

« 

Z 

l- 

u 

W 

'"') 

0 

0:: 

Il.. 

Beach Washrooms 

Lavington pool 

Lakeview Pool 

Marshall Park 

Mission Hill Park 

Museum 





1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Z N 

0 .... 

0 

i= N 

0.. I- 

D! z 

~ 

N 

0 l- 

.... 

CI) 

CI) CI) 0 ~ 

W 

W 0'- N (!) ~ 

e ofij e e ::J 

I- 1-1- W W(!) l- 

0 O1- >z 15 

w W::2 OW 0_ z 

""') ""')- ~(!) ~e W 

0 01- o..e o..z 0.. 

~ ~CI) 0..::J 0..::J >< 

0.. o..!:!:!.


Z 

0 

~ 

0.. 

~ 

0 

III 

W 

0 

I- 

0 

W 

"") 

0 

0::: 

0.. 

l- 

III 

O~ 

offi 

1-1- 

0« 

W~ 

"") - 

01- 

0::: III 

o..~ 

N 

.... 

0 

N 

0 

W 

>1- 

OW 

o:::e.!) 

0..0 

0..:::J 

«Ill 

I- 

z 

~ 

e.!) 

0 

We.!) 

0_ >z 

0:::0 

o..Z 

0..:::J 

«LL. 

.... 0 

.... 

N 

N 

0 N 

N 

E 

~ 

0 

III 

III .. 

W .... 

W 

0::: >'E 

:::J 

I- 

ffi ~ 

z 

C 

III 0 

W .... 

W 0::: t:- 

C") .. 

0.. 

.... C\I 

X 00 N _ 

W 

I- 

W 

e.!) 

0 Q) 

:::J 

-Q) 

III C. 

C") 

.... E 

0 

0 

N 0 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

5 

7 

7 

7 

2 

Kin Beach 

Kubota Tractor Replacement 

for #203 


Sovereign Park 

Lavington Park (Shelter) 

Rec Centre 



Winter Carni val Office 

Sea-Can Purchase 

used SeaCan 

$5,750.00 

$0.00 

$5,750.00 2013 

Beach Sand at Kin , 

Replacement of sand 

Kubota Tractor 


1981 


1996 F250 with F550 

dump box 

Benches, Picnic Tables 

(Upper Lawn Area) 

Electrical Hookup I Picnic 

Tables (Movable) 

Doors into auditorium 

Fence Upgrade 

$37,462.00 

$18,400.00 

$51 ,750.00 

$5,000.00 

$10,000.00 

$14,000.00 

$2,000.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$37,462.00 2013 

$18,400.00 2013 

$51 ,750.00 2013 

$5,000.00 2013 

$10,000.00 2013 

$14,000.00 2013 

$2,000.00 2013 

Paint windows and wall on 

creek side 

Repair and Paint exterior 

of building 

$2,500.00 

$7,500.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$2,500.00 2013 

$7,500.00 2013 

TOTAL: $2,609,282.00 

$3,644,652.00 

For 

Discussion 

Museum Roof $140,000.00 

Parks Master 

$125,000.00 

Plan 

NET TOTAL: $1,035,370.00 

p 

.... 

c:: 

Q) 

E 

.!: 

U 

co 

~ 

W 

~ 

« 

z 

l- 0 

W 

"") 

0 

0::: 

0.. 




I 

Z 

W 

~ 

:J: 

U 

e:( 

l 

I 

e:( 

Five Year History of Funding - Greater Vernon Museum and Archives 

GL 

Ex~ense 

Greater Vernon Museum 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 

2012 2013 

Budget Proposed 

NA 

012-623-610 

NA 

012-623-614 

NA 

012-623-512 

012-623-699 

Janitorial $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Utilities and Insurance $25,826 $26,296 $25,656 $27,301 $23,089 

Materials $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Building Maintenance $15,186 $18,533 $16,403 $21,645 $25,345 

Reimbursement of Expense $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

IS Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,611 

Operating Grant $114,301 $131,301 $148,301 $153,301 $161,804 

Total Museum Operating Costs $155,313 $176,130 $190,360 $202,247 $249,849 

Total Increase (%) NA 13.40% 8.08% 6.24% 23.54% 

$9,000 $9,135 

$29,104 $29,300 

$0 $0 

$14,525 $14,525 

$0 $1,500 

$46,200 $46,200 

$171,034 $173,600 

$269,863 $274,260 

8.01% 1.63% 

Operating Grant Increase (%) NA 14.87% 12.95% 3.37% 5.55% 

5.70% 1.50% 

C 




I 

Z 

W 

~ 

J: 

U 

e:( 

l 

I e:( 

Five Year History of Funding - Vernon Public Art Gallery 

GL 

Ex~ense 


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Proposed 

NA 

012-624-610 

NA 

012-624-614 

NA 

NA 

012-624-699 

Janitorial 

Utilities and Insurance 

Materials 


Reimbursement of Expense 

IS Overhead 

Operating Grant 

Total VPAG Operating Costs 

Total Increase (%) 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

$5,755 $4,949 $4,116 $4,712 $6,060 $6,000 $6,200 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

$59,330 $66,302 $67,731 $76,224 $74,800 $64,700 $64,700 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

$80,807 $97,807 $114,807 $121,500 $123,930 $175,000 $177,625 

$145,892 $169,058 $186,654 $202,436 $204,790 $245,700 $248,525 

NA 15.88% 10.41% 8.46% 1.16% 19.98% 1.15% 

Operating Grant Increase (%) 

NA 21.04% 17.38% 5.83% 2.00% 41.21% 1.50% 

*Note: in 2011 the expense for janitorial was not included in the operating grant but in the building maintenance. 

In 2012 the janitorial cost was included in the operating grant and reduced from the building maintenance. 

The actual increase to the operating grant was 30% from 2011 to 2012, not 41 % 

W 






Regional District of 

North Okanagan 

2013 Operating Grants 

APPLICATION 

Application Deadline: September 30 1 2012 

Mail or deliver completed and signed applltation form and a digital copy (pdf or word 

document) on CDRom l flash drive or by email, along with supporting materials by the deadline 

to: 

Operating Grants 



Coldstream, Be 

ViS 21



2012 Arts, Culture and Youth Operating Grants 

The Regional District of North Okanagan allocates annual operating funding to arts, culture and 

youth organizations, listed in the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service 

Establishment Bylaw; which provide arts; ci.llture and/or youth based programming and 

activities for the benefit of Greater Vernon residents. 

This support acknowledges that the work of these organizations contributes to Greater 

Vernon's quality of life, identity and economy. 

For more details on eligjble costs for operating grant funding visit the RDNO website at 

www.rdno.ca!communitygrants. 

OPERATING GRANT DEADLINE: September 3D, 2012 

Note re: deadline - Funding is intended to support operating expenses during the calendar year 

beginning January 1, 2013. 

For more information, contact: 


Community Development Coordinator 

=:.:.:.===~== /250-550-3689 

2013 Regional District of North Okanagan Operating Grant Guidelines and Application ii 




2013 Regional District of North Okanagan 

Operating Grant Application 

Submission Deadline; September 30,2012 

Mail or deliver completed and signed application form and a digita I copy (pdf or word document) on 

CDRpm, flashdrive or b'( email, along with supporting materials by the deadline to; 

Operating Grants 

Regional Distric.t of North Okanagan 


COldstream, Be 

VIB 2K9 

l3leclaratiol1 

Note: This declaration is to be signed by two signing officers of your organization. 

I certify to the best of my knowledge that the information provided in this application is accurate l 

complete and endorsed by the group I represent. Information about an applicant's operations Is 

collected for the purpose of adjudicating the application and for administratlve purposes. It is collected 

under the authority of the Local Government Act, Community Charter. and the Freedom of Information 

and Protection of Privacy Act. 

Organization Name: 


Executive Director 

Dsuna Kennedy Grant 

Name (please print) 

Title 

September 28, 2012 

Date 

Signature 

Stuart Moir 

Name 

print) 

Trecsurer 

Title 

September LB, 2012 

Date 

2013 Regional District of North Okanagan Operating Grant Guidelines and Application 1 




Organiziiltion Name: 


Address: 322831 Avenue BCV1T2H3 

Phone: 250·545-3173 

--------------------------- 

Website: 

vernonpublicartgaUer)'.com 

Registered Non-Profit Society {in good 

standing} 

!ElVes DNa 

Fax: 250-545·9096 

Email; 

Society/Charity No.: 

108113358RR 

Date of Incorporation: 1984/04/26 

Contact Name: Dauna anna,.. .. Grant Title: Executive Director 

~~~--~~~--~------ 

Phone: 250-545-3173 Email: 

--~~~~~~-------- 

Alternate Contact Name: Andrew Powell Title: Incoming President 

------- 

Phone: 250-542-5353 Email: 

------- 

Has your organization appfied for a RDNO Operating Grant in the past? 

o New Applicant 

1m Previous Applicant 

Are you applyIng for a RDNO Project Grant in addition to an Operating Grant? 

o Yes 

1m No 

Total 2013 Partnership (Operating) Grant Request: $ .. 200,000 

Amount of last operating grant (requested): $ 175,000 Year: 2012 

Amount of last operating grant (received): $ 15B,375 Year: 2012 

Please explain any variation in the funding request between the last funded year and that requested for 

2013. 

VPAG anticipates a balanced budget for 2012. The request for 2013 is based on a five year increasing 

budget in preparation for a new Public Art Gallery facility. Costs are expected to level off once the 

facility has been operational following the first year. After that time it would be expected that any 

increases In budget would be the result of cost of living. 

Although VPAG cut staffing levels to help offset shortages in 2011, it created a working environment 

that is not sustainable for the long term. VPAG will be implementing two part-time positions, Ohe in the 

area of operations and the other to work with the Fundraising Committee to increase revenues from the 

private sector and sid in the development of a comprehensive fund development program. 





Organizational Profile 

1. Briefly describe the history of your organization. Include key highlights, mission and value 

statements and any guiding documents. For previous applicants: are there any changes from last 

year? (Attach separate pages if necessary) 

Mission 

The VPAG exists to connect our community to the creative presence and possibilities within the 

visual arts through its exhibitions a nd activities. Revised 2009. 

Mandate 

• to exhibit, collect and preserve local, regional, national and international art of the highest 

possible standards; 

to promote visual arts in the broader community; 

to provide information, education, challenge and inspiration in the visual arts; 

• to encourage appreciation of and participation in the visual arts; and 

• to provide a meeting place, facility and institution for the benefit of the citizens of Greater 

Vernon. 

Vision Statement 

The Vernon Public Art Gallery will broaden its connections within the community and become a 

critically acclaimed regional art gallery. Revised 2009. 

Strategic Goal 

To Become a Category A Institution 

Strategic Objectives 

Increase audience and impact through a combination of critical and community-based 

exhibitions and programs 

• Increase public awareness and community support 

Plan for a new facility while improving the existing facility 

Establish professional museological standards in collections management 

• Increase both revenue sources and revenues 

• Continue to improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency 

The Vernon Public Art Gallery (VPAG) is a not-for-profit, charitable society. The organization has 

evolved from an amateur Travelling Pictures Committee established in 1945, through various 

developmental milestones to its current position as the Regional Public Art Gallery for the North 

Okanagan. 

The Gallery began maintaining a permanent collection in 1961, when the City of Vernon transferred 

its collection of works by local artists to the VPAG. The collection now contains in excess of 579 

pieces that have been obtained through purchases, bequests and donations. 

In 1966, the Gallery moved to occupy a space with the Greater Vernon Museum and was 

administered by the museum until 1984 when the Topham Brown Public Art Gallery Society was 

formed with its own Board of Trustees. In 1990, the Gallery moved to a temporary location and 

changed its name to the Vernon Public Art Gallery Society. This move increased the Gallery's total 

space from under 1,000 to 2,200 square feet. In 1995, the Vernon Public Art Gallery moved to its 





current location and was able to expand their footprint from the initial 5,000 square foot facility to 

its current size of 6,200 square feet. 

A significant side note in the history of the VPAG is the bequest of Sveva Caetani. A highly regarded 

local artist, Sveva donated her house to the City of Vernon for the benefit of the Vernon Public Art 

Gallery upon her death in 1994. After operating and maintaining Caetani House for 14 years, in 2008 

the Gallery assisted in the development of a distinct society to manage the house and allow the 

Gallery to focus more on its mandate and vision. 

In keeping with the strategic goal of becoming a category A institution, a steering committee was 

formed to examine potential options and pursue this goal. The committee has developed a solid 

business case for the project and are scheduled to officially request approval to move forward with 

a referendum to construct a purpose built facility on City owned land across from Cenotaph Park. 

Organization's Management and Staff Structure 

2. Please provide a list of the current Board of Directors and key staff, with brief (1 paragraph) 

curriculum vitae for each. 

Key Staff 

Executive Director: Dauna Kennedy Grant 

Dauna Grant has been the Executive Director for the Vernon Public Art Gallery since 2008. She 

brings to this role an extensive background in the not-for-profit industry and work experience with 

two community capital projects. Currently Dauna leads the steering committee for the proposed 

new art gallery complex for the North Okanagan, is an active member on the board of directors for 

the Greater Vernon Chamber of Commerce, Culture in Action Committee, Vernon Tourism 

Marketing Committee and has also participated on various community development committees 

such as Vision North Okanagan's Urban Renewal Committee and North Okanagan's Cultural Capital 

of Canada Bid Committee. 

Dauna believes that community involvement is a responsibility that we all have. As the mother of 

two boys she actively participates in helping to create a community that is a healthy, vibrant place 

for our younger generation to grow and learn in. She passionately believes that to achieve this we 

must develop and nurture all areas of a community whether that is the arts, recreation or social 

services, all areas need to be balanced to create that broad dynamic that fulfills the needs of all 

members of our community. 

Curator: Lubos Culen 

Lubos Culen is a visual artist (painting, sculpture) and holds a BFA degree from the University of 

Victoria (OUC Kelowna, 1995). He has been working in the position of the VPAG's Curator since 

2005, and during this time he has curated more than 140 exhibitions produced by local, regional, 

national, and international artists. Culen has been the editor and contributor to the VPAG's . 

publishing program since 2007. His research interests ard critical writing for the VPAG has been 

focused on contemporary artistic production, linguistics, semiotics, and critical theories. Culen has 

served as juror for several art exhibitions which include the VPAG, the Lake Country Art Gallery, 

Okanagan Print Triennial in 2009 (VPAG) and 2012 (Kelowna Art Gallery), and he was invited to cojury 

the BC Achievement Foundation's Creative Achievement Award in 2009. His contribution to the 

development of national and international printmaking exhibition (Okanagan Print Triennial) was 

recognized by the BC Museums Association and the VPAG was presented with the Award of Merit in 

2009. 

Marketing/Public Programming Coordinator: Kelly Macintosh has been employed with the Vernon 

Public Art Gallery since March 2011, and currently holds the role of Marketing and Programming 





Coordlnator. Previous to working in Vernon l 

she worked at the Kelowna Art Gallerv as an 

administrative assistant, and has also worked and volunteered In various roles in not-for-profit 

organizations in the Okanagan and Fraser Valley. A graduate of the Bachelor of Fine Arts program at 

the University of the Fraser Valley (UFV) (hons) in 2007, Kelly also volunteered as the Visual Art 

Student Association President and member of the Friends of Abbotsford Public Art Committee 

simultaneously. The Visual Arts Department holds work by Kelly in the permanent collection, She 

also holds a certificate in Graphic Deslgn from UFV, and as a certified coach, Kelly enjoys teaching 

workshops and providing tours to students of all ages, 

Key Board Members 

President: Marion Morrison 

A long time resident of the North Okanagan. Marion moved to Vernon from the Vancouver area 

where she enjoyed the expanse of arts and culture that a n urban centre had to offer. Marion 

brought with ner a love of these pursuits and has been actively involved in the Vernon Arts 

Commun lty for over 35 years. She has dedicated her time over the years to work with the North 

Okanagan Arts Council, various dance groups, the Vernon Music School, Greater Vernon Performing 

Arts Centre and with the VPAG for the past 10 years, 

Marion was a formerly a member of the Vernon City Council and currently works as an accolJntant< 

Treasurer; Stuart Mojr 

Stuart Moir graduated from the University of Be with a business degree and qualified soon after as a 

chartered accountant. He spent the early part of his career in public practice leading to a 

partnership position In a CA firm and then joined Be Hydro in Vernon as a key member oftne 

management team leading the development of the annual operating and capital plan and the 

regional business plan. He also participaTed as a key member of a number of major projects 

designed to improve business processes, incorporate best practices and update enterprise bUSiness 

software systems. As part of his project responsibilities he led and supported the Successful 

implementation of many business process and software improvements;md led and actively advised 

on the relevant change management process, 

Recently retired from Be Hydro he is now an orchardist in Vernon, 

Vice President (2013 Incoming President): Andrew Powell 

Originally from Winfield, BC, Andrew earned a BA from the University ofVictor!a in 1993 and an LLB 

from the University of British Columbia in 1997. After law school he was a law clerk at the Be Court 

pf Appeal/ where he worked under Judge Lance Finch {now tht; Chief Justice of British Columbia}. 

Andrew practiced law in Vancouver before he and his wife! Amber, decided to return to the 

Okanagan to raise their family. Andrew first joined Nixon Wenger as a litigator in 1999, but from 

2002 on spent most of his time helping to manage businesses belonging to his family. He formally 

rejoined the ranks of Nixon Wenger in 2010, where he continues to practice general litigation, 

Andrew live~ 111 Vernon with Amber and their children Cassia, Amelia and Seamus. 

Directors: 

., SIgrid Ann Thors 

• Terry Price 

• Wally Neuman 

.. Bonnie Thomas 

.. Mollie 80no 

2013 RegIonal District of North Okanagan Operating Grant Guldelfnes and Application 5 




Facility Steering Committee: 

Ii Tom Christensen (Nixon Wenger) 

.. Bruce Acton (Acton Consulting) 

.. Ian Galbraith (Silver Star Mountain Resort) 

.. Briar eraig (UBeO) 

.. Wally Neuman (MQN Architects) 

III Claudette Everitt (Everitt Consulting) 

III Peter Moore (formerly of Siaden Moore Accounting) 

Fundraising 

o Marilyn Scott (predator Ridge Home Owners Assoc.) 

o Michelle Loughery (Muralist) 

3. Please provide your volunteer hours, as shown below: 

Number of volunteers (board and non-board); 83 

Number of volunteer hours: 1400 

Number of voting members (excluding board); 278 (this number fluctuates month by month) 

4. Please include a page showing your Organizational Chart 

hdl(J','fJwl&(:t 

~Mjtt~.& 

flJfU:ifi~int. 

OornmW-~£ 

FUI~10I1Hn!:.Il\'t~nt$ 

(i>f/



block construction with firewalls and dampers between key sections. Fire protection is facilitated 

through smoke/heat detection and automatic sprinkler systems, and is tied directly into the security 

system. Fire exits are located at the rear of the building. There is a motion detection security system 

monitored off-site and it is linked with the fire department and the RCMP station. There are limited 

environmental controls as indicated below in exhibition spaces. The entry foyer is tiled and has 

direct access to a public coat closet and full washroom facilities. 

Accessibility: The Vernon Public Art Gallery is fully handicapped accessible. Small ramps and 

automatic double doors (controlled by a switch) lead from the street/Sidewalk directly into the 

facility. A fire exit located at the rear of the facility is also ramped. The main entrance is street level 

and wheelchair accessible. It has a switch for automatic opening of the main door. It also has a 

wheelchair accessible washroom. 

The Vernon Public Art Gallery is open to the public 40 hours per week. 

Monday to Friday 10:00 am - 5:00 pm 

Saturday 11:00 am - 4:00 pm 

Exhibition Spaces 

There are four exhibition spaces: 

A. Topham Brown Memorial Gallery: 

The Topham Brown Memorial Gallery measures 1600 square feet. Ceiling height is 14', open to the 

rafters and painted black. Flooring was recently updated with an epoxy coating over the existing 

concrete. Two large doors frame the entryway into the main exhibition space, measuring 6' in width 

by 8' in height. A fire exit is located at the rear of the exhibition space. 

Gallery walls are white (slightly greyed-down) gyprock over plywood base, providing a stable, 

neutral surface on which to hang and display works. This space has approximately 144 running feet 

of hanging space. 

There is an additional 28 running feet of exhibition space, generated through the use of a moveable, 

temporary wall system. This space offers an excellent area for larger exhibitions, and adds flexibility 

for dividing the space into smaller exhibition spaces. 

There is adjustable museum lighting (lux-levels of track lighting controlled through dimmer 

switches). The entry to this exhibition space is well lit and welcoming. 

In the Topham Brown Memorial Gallery, the heating and humidity levels are automatically regulated 

to pre-set levels. Average temperatures range from 68 - 72 degrees F. Humidity averages between 

45 - 50 %. The exhibition space is monitored by a hygrothermographic charting device. 

B. Caroline Galbraith Gallery: 

In the Caroline Galbraith Gallery, measuring 560 square feet, the ceiling height is 11' and there is 

adjustable museum track lighting with adjustable lux-levels. The walls are of the same materials and 

surfaces as the main exhibition space and the floors are carpeted in grey. This gallery provides 94 

running feet of exhibition space, and smaller temporary walls are available to further subdivide the 

room. 

C. Up Front Gallery: 

In the Up Front Gallery, measuring 120 sq tt, the ceiling height is 11'. Adjustable museum track 

lighting was installed this year as part of our capital improvements. The walls and floors are of the 

same materials and surfaces as the Caroline Galbraith exhibition space. The gallery provides 34 

running feet of exhibition space. 





D. Community Gallery: 

In the Community Gallery, constructed in 2007 and measuring 250 sq ft, the ceiling height is 11' and 

there is adjustable museum track lighting. The walls are of the same material as the main exhibition 

space; however, the floor is linoleum. This gallery provides 41 running feet of exhibition space, and 

is open to the community to submit exhibition proposals. 

Public Programming Space 

Although there is no dedicated programming space, staff adapts by utilizing areas within the 

Community Gallery. This greatly limits the type of programming that can be offered to the public 

and hinders our ability to raise additional revenue through typical gallery programming. 

Other Areas in the Gallery: 

The Gift Shop/Reception Area has large expanses of windows facing out at street level. It 

encompasses approximately 500 square feet. 

The Art Rental program occupies a section of the Gift Shop, as well as 57 linear feet of corridor 

space, featuring works by local artists. This exhibition space provides exposure to local artists as 

well as providing a service to the community and support to the Gallery. 

Administrative Offices are comprised of a director's office; a shared space forthe bookkeeper and parttime 

administrative employees; a mail/copier area. 

Curator's Office is adjacent to the Community Gallery. 

Public Programming/Event Coordinator's Office is next-door to the Curator's Office, and adjacent to 

the Community Gallery. 

Preparator Work Area is located in the back of the facility, and comprises a work desk and 

workshop bench. The Janitorial Room is adjacent to the preparator work area. 

Collections/Storage Space is located at the rear of the facility. Storage areas are heated and 

measure approximately 800 square feet. This area is included in the security monitoring system and 

is equipped with smoke detectors and sprinkler systems (not conducive to housing a public 

collection of art due to the possibility of water damage and lack of environmental controls). The 

shipping and receiving area includes a loading dock with a raised loading area and ramp access. 

Kitchen is a narrow galley type kitchen, which accesses both the Community Gallery and the Caroline 

Galbraith Gallery. 

Membership and Attendance 

6. Please attach your: 

Visitor Statistics (broken down by demographics and participation) 

Staff at the VPAG have redesigned the daily statistics form for 2012 to better track the activities of 

the visitors while in the gallery. An ongoing issue we are trying to address is the consistency in 

recording the statistics between the many volunteers who manage this task for the gallery. 





2011 Jan Feb Mar I Apr May June ._July Aug Sept Qc;t Nov Dec Total 

I 

'ndividual (adult) 'I'll 59a 639 61B 604 46B 501 466 366 66B 623 536 6534 Curatorial 

Exhibition Visitors 197 148 20B 341 395 213 185 169 200 298 165 2729 

Grft Slwp 174 130 123 77 8~. 82 122 1~6 130 149 182 147 1525 

Sch[)ol GrollP 86 26 187 143 149 16 20 25 6 658 

Facility Rental 40 40 

Meetings 9 B8 I :m 71 50 33 36 25 16 29 6 393 

I 

Other I 98 @QJ~ 125 H)3 ' no 62 90 110 97 10 HI 

~~ 

-- 

Video Rentals I 23 22 45 

Art Education ! 45 27 104 14 t>, - I 14 23 232 Educa\ion 

~Work$fu>E£. 34 16 49 381 22 26 11 196 Education 

Gallery 

Programming 7 6 10 , 6 8 17 23 24 4 15 4 1241 EdL!Ca\lcltl 

~ --.-~. 

Artist Talk 10 1Q 1 5 4 20 50 Education 

Opening Reception 80 I 120 eo 55 65 33 160 165 758 Education 

RiotlMEA I 250 400 

I 

Members Event 40 40 Education 

Sookinchoot 

Fashion Sh()V1 46 46 Education 

_1 

i 

Membership Information (broken down by individual, business or organization) 

The VPAG's membership numbers fluctuate month by month, the current number is 278 

individual/family memberships. The Gallery does not have business or organizational memberships 

at this time. The following chart shows the geographical breakdown of gallery supporters. 

18% 

Vernon 

Coldstream 

Area B 

Area C 

2013 Regional District of North Okanagan Operating Grant Guidelines and Application 


9



Audience & Community Impact 

7. Describeyour target audience: 

Mission 

The VPAG exists to connect our community to the creative presence and possibilities within the 

visual arts through its exhibitions and activities. Revised 2009 

Mandate 

• to exhibit, collect and preserve local, regional, national and international art of the highest 

possible standards; 

• to promote visual arts in the broader community; 

• to provide information, education, challenge and inspiration in the visual arts; 

• to encoura,ge appreciation of and participation in the visual arts; and 

to provide a meeting place, facility and institution for the benefit of the citizens of Greater 

Vernon. 

As outlined in the above Mission Statement and Mandate, the Vernon Public Art Gallery provides 

services to all age groups/demographics in the community. Its target audience goes beyond the 

artist population and strives to engage a broad audience from throughout the Greater Vernon area, 

inclusive to the general public in its entirety. 

8. How does your organization benefit the community as a whole and the arts/culture/youth 

community specifically? 

"Culture Matters ... Canadian Communities need to sustain culture to achieve vibrant, secure and 

sustainable cities. II 

External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communties 

Arts and culture are an important part of the identity of our community. As the public art gallery for 

the Greater Vernon area, VPAG takes this role seriously and works actively with the different sectors 

of the community to maximize the benefits to our citizens. 

Cultural Tourism has not been a large focus for the Greater Vernon area and VPAG is striving to 

change this by pursuing a new art gallery facility. With cultural tourism bringing in four times that of 

sports tourism, it's time for the Greater Vernon area to tap into some of those economic benefits by 

investing in the infrastructure needed to showcase the vibrant artistic community that does exist in 

this region. 

"The arts can also help playa role in revitailization. Investment in the arts (galleries, public arts, 

common spaces, etc.) provides public leaders with a viable alternative to the large capital 

investments such as stadiums, conventions centers and so on." Richard Florida 

The Gallery focuses on art education in its programming and tries to appeal to a wide demographic. 

The Gallery created exhibition opportunities for the youngest participants in the annual exhibition of 

artwork from the elementary schools from SO #22 followed by an exhibition of artwork created by 

high schools students from the same district. These exhibitions ran concurrently with the travelling 

component of the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree program from UBC Okanagan. 

VPAG created an exhibition space called the Community Gallery, in 2007, and invited various groups 

and individuals to present their art-related projects. This year the Gallery mounted the following 





exhibitions: UBCO Advanced Printmaking: Proof Positive If, followed by, SO #22 elementary and high 

schools exhibitions: Artfrom the Heart and Art and Soul. The exhibition titled Sookinchoot: Tribes of 

Dawn created by eight Aboriginal youth from the First Nations Friendship Centre in Vernon. The 

Gallery further organized an exhibition of photo-based artwork titled Through the Lens produced by 

members of the Vernon Camera Club. Additional eleven artists from the Creekside Retirement 

Home showcased paintings in the exhibition Featuring Vernon. 

The VPAG hired a Youth Ambassador; a student from Vernon enrolled in the Bachelor of Arts 

program at UBCO, whose focus was to engage a younger demographic in the visual arts. At the end 

of the summer program, the Youth Ambassador and the Gallery organized an event for audiences of 

all ages called Riot on the Roof The program featured a screening of video works, street art, 

wearable art fashion show, an installation art, mural art, spoken word, dance, body art and handson 

art activities. The event concluded with a line-up of musical performances by solo and group 

artists. The attendance at this event surpassed 450 people. 

9. How do you plan to reach the broader community? Does your organization plan to undertake 

initiatives to make arts/culture/heritage more accessible? Please provide examples including any 

successfully initiatives your organization has used to diversity or increase your audience in the last 

year. 

Staff of the VPAG participate on various community committees and the Executive Director is 

currently working with the Chamber of Commerce to engage the business community in the arts 

with the creation of a Chamber business improvement committee specifically for this purpose. 

When possible, presentations are provided to various groups within the community to educate the 

public on the services provided by the Vernon Public Art Gallery. 

The VPAG staff puts a priority on community engagement and has that in mind with all of the 

programming they develop. General audience participation is targeted through exhibitions, 

lectures, films, workshops, artist talks, curator talks, and guided exhibition tours. In 2012, the 

Gallery hosted eight opening receptions. The Gallery organized ten public artist talks that explained 

and interpreted the concepts, delivery and contextual significance of the artwork displayed. 

Additional public curator's talks and tours focused on the interpretation, contextual significance, 

and the artwork's placement in Canadian art. 

Partnerships and collaboration with other organizations is key in expanding the reach of the VPAG. 

One such example is with the Vernon Regional Library which will result in an installation of a long 

term exhibition directly in the library spaces. The Gallery collaborates with the artist-run centre 

Gallery Vertigo and other institutions to cross-promote programming and to develop increased 

audience and outreach opportunities. The partnership with the Department of Creative Studies at 

the UBC Okanagan resulted in two exhibitions presented in the Gallery. The Gallery's ongoing 

partnership with the Vernon Film Society is reflected in access to several hundred movies housed in 

the Gallery and administered through the Gallery's video rental program. The partnership with the 

Mackie lake House Foundation will result in the hosting of an exhibition produced by an artist 

selected for artistic residency. 

The annual exhibition of Gallery members' work, Exposed!, is an opportunity for all members of 

VPAG to exhibit artwork in a gallery setting. The Gallery hosts annual elementary and high schools 

exhibitions, and additional exhibition opportunities for high school students are available 

throughout the year including all home schooled students. 

Exhibitions in all four spaces are aimed at increasing the development of artistic potential and the 

professionalism of artists. The Gallery offers guidance and counsels local and emerging artists with 





the development of exhibition submission packages, artist statements, and suitable exhibition 

layout and artwork presentation. 

The Gallery's volunteers provide mainly visitor services and assistance in the Gift Shop. A large 

contingent of volunteers also participates in the Gallery's annual fundraiser, Midsummer's Eve of 

the Arts. The Gallery invites local artisans to sell their products in the Gallery's Gift Shop, which 

provides them with exposure and an opportunity for professional development. 

The Gallery curator has been working with Okanagan First Nations artist David Wilson since 2005 on 

various projects that include the development of exhibition proposals, artist statements, and the 

documentation needed for commissioning of artwork for the City of Vernon, Vernon Jubilee 

Hospital, and Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre. 

The Gallery plans to implement all of the above strategies and increase the collaboration with local 

non-profit institutions identified above, including USC Okanagan, in 2013. In order to provide equal 

opportunities to ethnic and rural based artist, the Gallery will organize the fourth annual exhibition 

created by Aboriginal youth, an exhibition of stone sculptures by Cree artist Petula Pettman, and an 

additional solo exhibition created by Kelowna, BC-based artist Stephen Foster of mixed Haida and 

European descent. 

Riot on the Roof is a good example of one of the creative ways VPAG is reaching out to new 

audiences. Through the use of social media and the utilization of the downtown parkade, they have 

created a very successful annual event which engages the younger population of Greater Vernon 

with arts & culture in a whole new way. 

"VPAG is the fountainhead for inspiring tangible and intangible artifice geared towards the 

youth of the Okanagan Valley through innovative events such as Riot on the Roof. II 

Daniel Evan Amezua 

10. Please describe partnerships and collaborations in which your organization has engaged in the last 

year. Please provide letters of agreement or support, if appropriate. 

There are a variety of ways that the VPAG collaborates with other organizations within the 

community. 

VPAG partnered with the following organizations to develop local exhibition opportunities 

• Creekside Retirement Home 

• Sookinchoot Youth Group 

• Vernon Camera Club 

• Breakaway Pottery Studio 

• Monashee Arts Council 

• Mackie House 

• School District #22 

• UBCO 

• Kelowna Art Gallery 

VPAG also collaborated with the following organizations through other public programming/events 

undertaken by the Gallery or through participation of the VPAG. 

• Mackie House - Artist in residence program 

• Gallery Vertigo - Culture Days Yarn Bombing Event 

• Vernon & District Volunteer Bureau - Gallery hosted community wide volunteer appreciation 

• Downtown Vernon Association - Sunshine Festival, Halloween Treat Trail, Business after 4 

• Early Childhood Educators of BC - exhibition, Picnic in the Park 

• Vernon Film Society - Videoscape program, summer film screening series 





+ Vernon Friendship CentrejSookincnoot - fashion show, workshop, Aboriginal Day celebration 



Richard SUarez: QUiJ{rtWtlplaces, March 21 ~ May 23 2013 

5D#22 Elementary School Exhibition: Art From the Heart, March 21- April 18 2013 

5D#22 Secondary School Exhibition: Art and Soul, April 2S - May 23 2013 

UBeD B FA Graduate Exhibition: Title 1M, May 3D - July 25 2013 

Julie Prudhomme: How to Be (Amy Vanderbilt's Etiquette), May 3D-July 252013 

Petula Petman: TItle TBA, May 30 - July 25 2013 

Artist in residency from the MackiE' /-louse: Title TBA, May 30 - July 25 2013 

Kristoff Stein ruck: The Marble Range, August 1-October 10 2013 

Joanne Sale: Connections, August 1 - October 312013 

Marissa Brown: Friends and Lovers, August 1 October 102013 

Monashee Arts Council: Fine Arts/Crofts from the Monashee Mountains, August 1 ~ October 10 2013 

Stephen Foster: Re-mediotiflg Curtis, October 24 December 23 2013 

Members' Exhibition: Exposed!! November 7 - December 23 2013 

TBA emerging artist: Title TBA, October 17 - December 23 

Sookincfloot Youth: Title mAl October 11-December 23 

Opening Receptions (typically 60-100 in attendance for each) 

It January 10 • May 30 

• March 21 III August 1 

• March 23 • October 24 

• April 27 " November 7 

ArtjstTalks 

Approximately 10 artists talks will be scheduled either on the doilY of opening or following the 

opening, 

Pyblic Programming 

.. Workshops (General Public) 

Various workshops are scheduled as per exhibition schedule and the theme/concept reflects 

that of the artist's works. Dates T6C. 

Ongoing workshops include the following: 

Artist Trading Cards (last Saturday of each month) 

Peer Critiques (monthly-weekday) 

., Children/Youth workshops 

(3/1 day Spring Break workshops, dates Tae 

(I} 3 • Y. day camps, dates TBC 

011 School Tours/Hands-On Activities 

School tours and hands-on activities will be 5theduled with 50#22 Elementary and 

Secondary SchoQls with pre-registration that works best for each class/grade. up to two 

school.s can be scheduled per day', Sessions are approximately 1.5hrs each. 

• Film Screenings 

TIle Vernon Public Art Gallery offers weekly noon hour Art Presentations on a varletv of 

historical and contemporary art making practices. Proposed dates include Tuesdays at noon) 

from January - May, and September - December. 

Other 

.. Art and Antique Appraisal, May 2.013 

II Community Wide Volunteer Appreciation Event, April 2D13 

III Sunshine Festival Community Art Project, June 2013 

II 27'h Annual Midsummer's Eve of the Arts Art Auction &. Benefit Event, July 172013 

2013 Regional District of North Okanagan Operating Grant GUidelines and Application 14 




• Take Part in Street Art, August 10 2013 

• 5 th Annual Riot on the Roof, August 24 2013 

• Felting Workshop with Amy Burkard, October 2013 

• Members' Appreciation event, December 2013 

• Other possible programming may include Art Walk Tours, Studio Tours, Professional 

Development series, Culture Days activities (September), International Museums Day 

activities (May), Arts and Culture Week activities (April). 

With the establishment of a Marketing/Fundraising Committee, it is anticipated that additional 

forms of fundraising will be implemented in 2013 not listed above. 

14. Please attach support materials [programmes, images or audio/video (on CDRom or flash drive)) 

that reflect the type of quality of programming created, produced or presented by your organization 

in the last year. 

Please see attached materials. 

15. Arts Based Organizations: What percentage of your activities are created, produced and presented 

by local artists? 

In 2011, the VPAG created, organized, coordinated, and presented 18 exhibitions (solo and group) 

with a total of 272 artists exhibited, out of which 232 live in the Regional District of North Okanagan, 

which represents 85.29 % of total. 

The 2011 Riot on the Roof event was focused on a development of new audiences and of youth 

participation. Total of 36 artists participated, 22 were local artists, which represents total of 61.11%. 

As the public art gallery serving the citizens of Greater Vernon, 

• The VPAG mandate is focused on art education for all age groups, and the VPAG organizes, 

produces, and presents exhibitions by local, regional, provincial, and national artists to 

achieve that mandate 

• The VPAG creates exhibition opportunities for established and emerging artists living in the 

North Okanagan 

• The VPAG creates additional exhibition opportunities for artists living in the North Okanagan 

working outside of mainstream of artistic production (SD#22 elementary and high schools, 

UBCO students from the North Okanagan Area, Sookinchoot Youth Centre, Gallery 

members, various visual arts groups, collectives, and individuals) 

• The VPAG offers tours, hands-on activities, art documentaries, lectures, artist talks, 

presentations for general public, which also include the specific topics covered in the SD#22 

visual arts curriculum 

Planning and Financial Statements 

16. Please include, as supporting materials, any current business plan or strategic plan for your 

organization and a progress update on the associated implementation plan. 

VPAG has 6 Strategic Objectives as outlined in the attached Strategic Plan. 





1. Increase audience and impact through a combination of critical and community based exhibitions 

and programs. 

This objective is on track and we continue to maintain a balanced schedule of programming and 

exhibitions to maximize the benefits to our community and audience. 

2. Increase public awareness and community support. 

VPAG strives to meet this objective through a combination of programming such as Riot on the 

Roof (designed to expand our youth audience), improvements to exterior signage (through 

sponsorship with SpeedPro), presentations to community groups such as the Vernon Rotary 

Club and through participation on various community committees/organizations such as the 

Chamber of Commerce. 

3. Plan for a new facility while improving the existing facility. 

Plans for a new facility are well underway. A strong Steering Committee has been actively 

pursuing this goal over the past two years and plans to make a request for a referendum to the 

GVSC at their November 2012 meeting. 

Refurbished signage will be completed this fall thanks to a sponsorship through Speed Pro signs. 

4. Establish professional museological standards in collections management. 

Staff maintains our current collection to the best of their ability given the limitations we have 

with the current facility. A complete review of the collection is needed and plans are in place to 

try and secure an intern student position to accomplish this over the next two summers. 

5. Increase both revenue sources and revenues. 

It continues to be a challenge to increase our in house revenues due to our poor location. A 

small advertising campaign is planned for the holiday season with a target to increase sales 

through the gallery gift shop and art rental program. 

A fundraising committee and part time fundraising/events coordinator is expected to be in place 

by the end of 2012 with the goal of expanding our revenue opportunities in this area. 

6. Continue to improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency. 

It became very evident in 2011 and 2012 with the decrease in staffing levels how important it is 

for VPAG to maintain its core level of staff to manage operations properly and prevent staff 

burnout and turnover, which previously has been an issue at the senior staff level due to staff 

shortages at VPAG. In addition, the need to invest in some appropriate software to assist us in 

managing and tracking our membership and donor base was identified. Current tracking 

methods are cumbersome and very time consuming and not something that can be managed by 

volunteers. VPAG will research systems currently available in the market place and make plans 

to purchase and implement a new system. 

17. What sources of funding was your organization successful in receiving last year? 

VPAG received money from the following sources in 2011 

• RDNO operational grant 

• BC Arts Council 

• BC Gaming 

• Canadian Heritage 

• Canadian Museums Association Bursary 

• Community Foundation (endowment fund) 

• Various sponsorships through local businesses 





Capital Project (2012) 

• Provincial grant ($50,000) towards the capital facility project 

• Grande Prairie Rotary Club 

18. What other sources of funding is your organization currently pursuing? Identify any groups, 

agencies, or businesses that you have approached or secured as contributors to your organization. 

• Canada Council for the Arts (project grant, will apply again in April 2013) 

• VPAG is striving to expand sponsorship opportunities and engage local businesses through 

public awareness initiatives/opportunities. Sponsors for 2011 were as follows: 

o Acton Consulting 

o Beachcomber Home and Leisure 

o Cobs Bread 

o Crave Massage 

o Culos & Company 

o Genesis Designs Tattoo 

o Grey Monk Estate Winery 

o Gumtree Catering 

o Infinity Cakes & Pastries 

o Kal Tire 

o Nixon Wenger 

o Nor Val Rentals 

o Okanagan Spirits 

o Okanagan Springs Brewery 

o O'Callighan Bilodeau 

o Party in the Kitchen 

o Predator Ridge 

o Speed Pro Signs 

o Sun FM 

o Village Cheese Company 

o Wentworth Music 

19. If the amount requested is not fully granted, how will this affect your operations? What changes 

would you have to make to the organization's business/strategic plan (if applicable)? 

VPAG is requesting a gradual increase to their operational budget from RDNO to prepare the 

organization for the transition to a new public art gallery facility. A request for referendum is being 

made to the GVSC on November 8, 2012 to endorse this process. Considerable work has gone into 

preparing a 5 year budget to reflect the long-term changes that are expected to impact the Gallery 

in preparation for this growth in the organization. It is anticipated that the budget would level off 

after the first complete year of operations in the new facility at which time cost of living would be 

the main anticipated request for future increases. 

Should approval for the project be delayed, plans are in place to manage current gallery operations 

with a modified request amount of $175,000 which would enable VPAG to maintain a core staff 

level and implement the objectives associated with maintaining the current level of operations in a 

healthy sustainable manner. 





20. Attach in your own format: 

• A budget which includes your previous fiscal year, current fiscal year and forecasted revenues 

and expenditures for the next fiscal year. Please include revenues from other grant sources and 

fundraising activities. 

• A balance sheet current as of your most recent fiscal year end. 

Please refer to the eligibility section on the RONO website to ensure grant monies are not requested or 

used for ineligible costs. 

21. If you have a deficit, what is your plan to address it? 

2011 deficit was addressed by working with RNDO staff to work towards a sustainable budget inkeeping 

with the strategic direction of the VPAG. Discussions continue and VPAG does not 

anticipate a deficit for 2012. 

22. Use the space below to note any line variances of more than 20% between budget years and attach 

additional pages if necessary. 

Please see attached document 

Self Assessment 

23. What goals and objectives did your organization have for the previous year and what are your 

objectives for the coming year? Please describe your progress in fulfilling these objectives. 

I 

! 

-1 

! 

Plan outlined in Last Year's 

Submission 

WorkWitlL GVSC,to establish a~multi-year (5-y~ai1 - . 

fLindingag~~~nient .:o'- ~:~'C:> - ..' -'-~::~~ 

• - "".' :,-.-.-,-.0, -. - :'". 

Accomplishments in 2012 

VPAG board and management have been working with RDNO staff to 

address this issue. 

This number has remained fairly static and will be a continued focus 

area in 2013. 

As with our membership, due to challenges facing VPAG's current 

location and facility, numbers in this area have remained fairly stable 

rather than increasing greatly. 

VPAG continues to work with similar organizations in both advertising 

opportunities and coordination of partnership opportunities such as 

Cultural Days. 

VPAG implemented new out of school programming during spring 

break and summer vacation to provide new opportunities for school 

aged youth , 

Working to establish a marketing/fundraising committee by year end . 

Continue to expand sponsorship opportunities. 

Secured a $50,000 grant from the Province of BC 

Completed business case and case for support 

Continued with presentations/meetings moving the project forward , 

Will be requesting approval for referendum. 

Professional development opportunities were made available to the 

Executive Director (Canadian Museum Association Conference). 

Various training opportunities were accessed through the Chamber of 

Commerce for relevant staff. 





The Board of Directors and senior staff of the Vernon Public Art Gallery completed a five-year Strategic 

Plan in 2009. We continue to be guided by this document and plan to focus on the following areas for 

2013: 

• Continue discussions with GVSC to establish a mUlti-year (5 year) funding agreement 

• Increase membership numbers/Increase visitation numbers and improve methods for gathering 

statistics 

• Activation of Marketing/Fundraising Committee. 

• Implementation of new tracking systems for membership and donor base. 

• Website development. 

• Produce a balanced exhibition schedule that meets the goals of our strategic objective. 

• Begin the process for reviewing and cataloguing the Permanent Collection. 

24. What are your organizations strengths? Share some of your recent successes and demonstrate this. 

• One ofVPAG's biggest strengths is the strong team of staff members that we have. They are 

very dedicated to the success and future vision of the Gallery. Their ability to achieve so much 

with such limited resources is a testament to the caliber of staff we currently employ. 

• VPAG created a lot of opportunities for artists outside of the mainstream areas due to the wide 

geographical area that RDNO covers. 

• Quality of our exhibitions is well respected and received by the public and other professional 

arts organizations. 

• Our publications program is a highlight for a gallery of-our size and stature, producing these 

ISBN registered publications demonstrates the level of quality exhibition programming that is 

being developed through VPAG. 

• Engagement with other organizations has been noted as a strength for VPAG. A particular 

highlight is the partnership between VPAG, Kelowna Art Gallery and UBCO in producing the 

Okanagan Print Triennial. 

25. Where do you think your organization can improve? 

• Board recruitment 

• Establishment of a marketing/fundraising committee 

• More accurate statistics 

• Improvement of current tracking systems for membership/donor base to aid the organization in 

maximizing revenue potential with these groups. 

26. What challenges or obstacles does your organization face? How do you minimize the impact of 

these threats? 

• Stable core funding is an ongoing concern, one which is currently being explored with the GVSc. 

The goal is to establish a 3-5 year funding cycle. Because VPAG quite often is entering into 

contracts with artists and other galleries 2-3 years in advance of an exhibition, stability of 

funding is a key concern. VPAG strives to maintain stable operations and provide quality 

programming to ensure current funding sources remain in place, while looking for creative 

options for generating new revenue sources. 

• The biggest challenge faced by VPAG which impacts all areas of our operations is our current 

location and facility. The ability to achieve our goals of increasing membership, visitations, and 





revenue streams through expansion of our fundraising plan is a constant struggle that will not 

change until our location and facility are addressed. VPAG has been located in its current 

location since 1995, which was to be a temporary location. The poor visibility created at being 

located beneath a large parking structure coupled by being located outside of the main 

pedestrian core of the downtown has resulted in less than optimal growth in membership 

numbers, visitations and revenue growth. 

In spite of its location, the gallery has done we" with creating reputable programming and being 

progressive within these restraints, but creating public awareness about the work being done by 

the gallery is an ongoing challenge which diverts considerable staff time. 

Until a more suitable location/facility can be made available, the gallery tries to be proactive by 

establishing innovative programming and events that take us out of the gallery setting in an 

attempt to attract new audiences back to the gallery where the core of our operations exist. 

Where possible, the gallery has worked through sponsorships to improve outside signage and 

staff has actively established and maintains a strong social media presence on the web. 

Checklist 

All Applicants 

o Complete application - Signed original, plus electronic copy 

o List of Current Board of Directors and Key Staff 

o Organizational Chart 

o List of proposed activities for the coming year 

o Support materials from the previous year (programmes, audiO/Visual, etc) 

o Letters of support from community partners 

o Organization's Business or Strategic Plan (if applicable) 

o Status Report on Implementation of Business or Strategic Plan (if applicable) 

o Organization's Operating Budget and Balance Sheet 

o Most recently filed BC Ministry of Finance Form 11 (Annual Society Report) 

o Minutes from the last AGM 

o Financial Statements presented at last AGM 

New Applicants 

o Certificate of Incorporation 

o Society Constitution and Bylaws 



J 

Z 

W 

~ 

:J: 

o 

~ 

J 

oe( 

Five Year History of Funding - Boys and Girls Club 

GL 

Ex~ense 

Boys and Girls Club 

---- 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 


2012 2013 


012-626-609 

012-626-610 

012-626-612 

012-626-614 

012-626-616 

NA 

012-625-699 

Janitorial 


Materials 



IS Overhead 


Total B&G Club Operating Costs 


$15,417 $16,651 $16,345 $16,039 $16,476 

$15,526 $21,201 $21,953 $21 ,611 $21,675 

$2,610 $1,627 $2,009 $1,187 $1,047 

$13,024 $6,260 $5,016 $21,497 $22,683 

$0 $15,111 $17,796 $16,963 $11,725 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

$62,654 $65,738 $72,997 $77,997 $79,556 

$109,231 $126,588 $136,116 $155,294 $153,162 

NA 15.89% 7.53% 14.09% -1.37% 

$16,360 $16,605 

$19,241 $19,241 

$1,660 $1,660 

$29,261 $29,261 

$0 $0 

$0 $0 

$81,147 $82,364 

$147,669 $149,131 

-3.59% 0.99% 


NA 4.92% 11.04% 6.85% 2.00% 

2.00% 1.50% 

U. 




I- 

Z 

w 

~ 

J: 

o 

~ 

I- 

I- 

~ 

Five Year History of Funding - Vernon Community Arts Centre 

GL 

Ex~ense 

Vernon Community Arts Centre 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 


2012 2013 


012-625-609 

012-625-610 

012-625-612 

012-625-614 

NA 

NA 

012-625-699 

Janitorial $8,831 $8,831 $8,831 $8,831 $8,831 

Utilities and Insurance $17,887 $19,101 $19,354 $21,741 $24,702 

Materials $1,296 $1,251 $1,251 $1,251 $1,251 

Building Maintenance . $3,922 $4,278 $4,525 $8,748 $5,370 

Reimbursement of Expense $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

IS Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Operating Grant $58,675 $68,675 $78,675 $83,675 $83,675 

Total VCAC Operating Costs $90,610 $102,136 $112,636 $124,246 $123,829 

Total Increase (%) NA 12.72% 10.28% 10.31% -0.34% 

Operating Grant Increase (%) NA 17.04% 14.56% 6.36% 0.00% 

$0 $8,831 

$33,360 $25,000 

$0 $1,092 

$0 $5,000 

$0 $0 

$0 $0 

$95,000 $95,000 

$128,360 $134,923 

3.66% 5.11% 

13.53% 0.00% 

C> 




Five Year History of Funding - Teen Junction 

GL 

Ex~ense 

Teen Junction 

2007 

Actual 

2008 2009 2010 

Actual Actual Actual 

2011 2012 2013 

Actual Budget Proposed 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

012-626-699 

n 

Janitorial 


Materials 



IS Overhead 


Total T J Operating Costs 

Please create separate GL from Boys and Girls Club 


$0 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$0 

NA 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

NA NA NA 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$0 $0 $0 

$66,000 $66,000 $66,000 

$66,000 $66,000 $66,000 

NA 0% 0% 


NA 

NA NA NA 

NA 0% 0% 

:r: 

I 

Z 

W 

~ 

J: 

U 

e:( 

l 

I e:( 







ATTACHMENT "I" 

BOARD POLICY 

GVPRC -003 

Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Operating Grant Guidelines 

Board Approval Date: September 19 th , 2012 

Amendment Date(s): 

PURPOSE: 

To provide guidelines for Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Operating Grants, 

including eligibility, application process, and reporting requirements. 

POLICY STATEMENTS 

Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Operating grants are intended to provide 

funding that support the operation and maintenance of publicly accessible art, culture 

and/or youth services and facilities for the public benefit of Greater Vernon residents. 

PROCEDURES 

1.0 Eligibility 

Organizations must meet the following eligibility requirements to receive an Arts, 

Culture and Youth Operating Grant: 

• Be specifically named in the current Service Establishment Bylaw for the grant 

function; 

• Be a registered not-for-profit society that operates in Greater Vernon; 

• Have an independent, active governing body composed of volunteers (i.e. Board 

of Directors). Voting members of the Board of Directors of a Society receiving 

funds from Regional District may not concurrently hold a paid staff position with 

the society, and may not be paid for services to the society (excluding 

reimbursement for expenses); 

• Be in good standing with the B.C. Registrar of Societies and must have operated 

for at least one fiscal year prior to the application deadline; 

• Provide art, culture and/or youth services to Greater Vernon residents without 

exclusion to anyone by reason of religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual 

orientation, language, disability or income; 




Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Operating Grant Guidelines GVPRC - 003 

• Have .a clear art, culture or youth focus in their vision and mandate, which is 

reflected in the bylaws or other governance documents; 

• Be able to demonstrate financial stability, sound administration and 

organizational capacity; 

• Demonstrate a proven track record of public service and excellence in 

programming; 

• Demonstrate strong community ties and relationships; 

• Adhere to the accountability requirements set out with the approval of any 

discretionary grant; 

• Not be anyone of the following: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Individual(s); 

Political parties and advocacy groups; 

Religious groups; 

Educational Institutions; 

Third parties raising funds solely for charity or their own purposes, 

• Not deliver services and/or programs which are already being provided by the 

public or private market. 

2.0 Application Process 

The eligible organizations wi" be required to apply for operating funds annually, 

using the application and reporting form, included as Schedule "A" and forming part 

of this policy, 

The application deadline for submission will be September 30 th of the year prior to 

the year that the funding is requested for. 

If the organization has a multi-year funding agreement with the Regional District, the 

organization is still required to complete the attached form, but the funding amount 

will be pre-determined, as outlined in the funding agreement. 

3.0 Reporting Requirements 

Organizations will have an annual reporting requirement in accordance to the Regional 

District guidelines, as outlined in the attached application and reporting form (Schedule 

"A"); 

As part of their reporting requirements for maintaining funding eligibility the recipients will 

be required to demonstrate that: 

o 

o 

o 

there is a need for financial assistance; 

their own-source revenue streams show stability and growth; 

Regional District funding will be used only for eligible expenses; 

- 2- 





o 

membership and annual visitor-ship shows stability and growth, 

signifying a commitment by the organization to serve the community, 

and a strong market for the service; 

o the organization has a positive impact in the arts, culture and/or youth 

community; 

o 

o 

o 

o 

partnership opportunities with other like organizations are encouraged 

and embraced. 

there is a commitment to not compete with private enterprise and 

other organizations providing public service; 

a long range plan is in place; 

adult arts, culture programs are conducted on a cost recovery basis 

consistent with current Regional District policy, with youth programs 

permitted to be subsidized to a maximum of 50%. 

- 3 - 





ATTACHMENT "J" 

BOARD POLICY 

GVPRC - 004 

Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Project Grant Guidelines 

Board Approval Date: September 19 th , 2012 

Amendment Date(s): 

PURPOSE 

To provide guidelines for Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Project Grants, 

including eligibility, application process, and reporting requirements. 

DEFINITIONS 

Capital Improvement is the addition of a permanent structural improvement or 

the restoration of some aspect of a property that will either increase its useful life 

or enhance its value for existing or planned use. 

Project is an individual or collaborative enterprise that is carefully planned and 

designed to achieve a particular aim, which may be one-time and may be 

characterized by: 

• creation of new work or materials; 

• one-time capital improvement that will support on-going art, culture or 

youth programs and/or 

• new or emerging technologies, media, techniques and practices. 

Festival is a series of events, performances and/or activities that take place, 

usually in one place, which may occur over more than one day, and demonstrate 

established or potential audience support from a broad range of the community. 

Event is an organized performance, gathering, activity or cluster of activities that 

occurs on a single day. 

Art includes all genres within the following disciplines (list is not exhaustive and 

two or more genres or disciplines may be combined): 

• Performance (music, dance, theatre, spoken word, improvisation) 

• Visual (two and three dimensional/performance / fine or artisanal craft / 

site specific or temporary installation) 

• Literary (poetry/prose) 

• Media / new media (film/video/photography) 

• Design (fiber arts/graphic) 




Greater Vernon Arts. Culture and Youth Operating Grant Guidelines GVPRC - 004 

Culture is broadly conceived to include both tangible and intangible 

characteristics of the following elements, with activities and expression that 

explore, interpret and celebrate: 

• Human diversity 

• Ecology and environment (as themes for artistic practice or interpretation) 

• Heritage collections, archives, documentation, interpretation 

• Storytelling, narratives, traditions and values, artisanal methods 

Youth Programs are a system of services, activities or projects that focus on 

youth development through art, culture or recreation, which are designed to 

involve people who are 18 years or younger. 

Publicly Accessible means all members of the public can access the benefits of 

the Service without discrimination. 

POLICY STATEMENTS 

Greater Vernon Arts, Culture and Youth Project grants are intended to provide funding 

for a festival, event or project (including capital works) that feature publicly accessible 

arts, culture and/or youth based elements for the public benefit of Greater Vernon 

residents. 

Preference will be given to projects that demonstrate innovation and collaboration across 

sectors and interests. 

PROCEDURES 

1.0 Funding Allocation 

The budget for project grants will be established annually by the Board of Directors. 

Funding applications will be approved by the Board of Directors based on 

recommendations from an adjudication process. 

2.0 Eligibility 

In order to be eligible for Project Grants, all festivals, events and projects as defined 

above must: 

• Be open and/or accessible to the public, and reach beyond the organization's 

members and artists to the broader community; 

• Offer a unique experience not duplicated by other ongoing organizations and 

their activities; 

• Be a one-time or new initiative, or if existing, demonstrate expansion and growth 

(e.g. a trend of increase in audience, participation and/or activity); 

• Be supported by budgets which are distinct from regular operating budgets of the 

lead organization; and 

-2- 





• Prominently feature art, cultural and/or youth content. 

• Be conducted within the budget year for the funding awarded. 

• Be provided to Greater Vernon residents without exclusion to anyone by reason 

of religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, language, disability or 

income; 

Project grants will only be awarded to organizations that meet all of the following criteria: 

• Be a registered not-for-profit society that operates in Greater Vernon; 

• Have an independent, active governing body composed of volunteers (Le. Board 

of Directors). Voting members of the Board of Directors of a Society receiving 

funds from RDNO may not concurrently hold a paid staff position with the society, 

and may not be paid for services to the society (excluding reimbursement for 

expenses); 

• Be in good standing with the B.C. Registrar of Societies and must have operated 

for at least one fiscal year prior to the application deadline; 

• Be able to demonstrate financial stability, sound administration and the 

organizational capacity necessary to carry out the project; 

• Demonstrate a proven track record of public service and excellence in 

programming and cultural production; 

• Demonstrate strong community ties and relationships; 

• Adhere to the accountability requirements set out with the approval of any 

discretionary grant; 

• Not be anyone of the following: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Individual(s); 

Political parties and advocacy groups; 

Religious groups; 

Educational Institutions; 

Third parties raising funds solely for charity or their own purposes. 

An organization's operating costs, including lease payments, staffing costs or other 

operating expenses, will not be eligible for funding within a Project Grant. 

3.0 Application and Reporting Requirements 

Organizations must complete the application form, included as Schedule "A" and forming 

part of this policy_ 

The application deadline for submission will be September 30 th of the year prior to the 

year that the funding is requested for. 

Eligible organizations will have the opportunity to apply for project funds annually, using 

the application and reporting form attached and forming part of this policy_ 

- 3 - 





Specific projects can only receive project funding for two consecutive years, and must 

demonstrate potential for growth to be eligible for a second year. 

-4- 




Applicant Information 

_ 

Organization Name: 


Address: 

3009 - 32 nd Avenue, Vernon, VlT 2L8 

Phone: 250-542-3142 Fax: 250-542-5358 

Website: 

www.vernonmuseum.ca 

Registered Non-Profit Society (in good standing) 

DYes X No 

Society/Charity No.: 

Date of Incorporation: RDNO Bylaw 1452-1982 

Contact Name: Ron Candy Title: Director/Curator 

---- 

Phone: 250-542-3142 Email: rcandy@vernonmuseum.ca 

---------------------- 

Alternate Contact Name: Barbara Bell Title: Archivist 

---------- 

Phone: 250-542-3142 Email: archives@vernonmuseum.ca 

-------------- 

Has your organization applied for a RDNO Operating Grant in the past? 

D New Applicant X Previous Applicant 

Are you applying for a RDNO Project Grant in addition to an Operating Grant? 

X Yes 

0 No 

~= 

6r~nt R~gt.llSl~t _ _ __ ___ 

~ 

_ _ _ 

~- ~ 

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Total 2013 Partnership (Operating) Grant Request: $ 189,214.00 

Amount of last operating grant (requested): $ 180,034.00 - Year: 2012 

Amount of last operating grant (received): $ 189,214.00 - Year: 2012 

Please explain any variation in the funding request between the last funded year and that requested for 

2013. 

In 2012, we received a total grant of $189,214.00 including our janitorial allowance. The amount 

we actually requested in our 2011 budget for 2012 was $180,034.00 including janitorial allowance. 

The difference from what we asked for and what we received was $9,180.00. As of December 12th, 

2012, we learned this difference was due to an accounting error at the Regional District. We had 

no idea prior to this time that there was an error. In fact, we believed the additional amount 

awarded was given to partially address our ongoing concern for a widening gap between what we 

receive as an annual operating grant from the Regional District and what we payout in staff 

wages and our need for additional staff. Thus, we operated in 2012 and planned for 2013 believing 

$189,214.00 was our new base line for our operational grant. In fact, we hired a long-awaited parttime 

position due solely to this increase. To lose all or a portion of this increase, regardless of the 

error, would prove to be difficult for us and will result in reduced staff time and cuts to some 




programming in 2013. 

considered .... 

Thus, in light of this accounting error we ask the following be 

A total operating grant in the amount of $189,214.00 is being asked for in 2013. This reflects an 

amount of $180,034.00 (basic grant amount from 2012) plus $9,180.00 for janitorial and 

maintenance related expenses (2012 amount). We will also include in this total an amount of 

$1,500.00 to cover liability and director's liability insurance. This is a new cost to us and one that 

would normally be covered by the Regional District in addition to our basic operating grant. We 

will not ask for any inflation increases .or any amount to cover capital expenditures. We are 

asking that we receive the same amount in 2013 as we did in 2012. Adding in the liability 

insurance, this now reflects an increase of $7,680.00 had the error not occurred. This would be a 

4.25% increase for 2013 over what we should have received in 2012. 

In order to reflect the changes to our originally proposed budget for 2013, revenue from the 

Regional District has been reduced back to the 2012 level and expenses have been re-calculated 

and cuts made to Education Programming, Archival and Artifact Acquisitions, Exhibit Production, 

Advertising and Promotions, Maintenance, Travel, Staff Development, and Wages. Similarly, 

expenses have risen for Accounting and Legal to add the cost of liability insurance and requests 

for capital purchases have been omitted. 







REPORT 

File No.: F: 5801.06.062 Multiplex (Wesbild) 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 



December 5,2012 

062 Multiplex (Wesbild) - 2013 Budget Proposal 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the 2013 Wesbild Centre budget proposal be 

considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District budget subject to possible revision of accounts 

upon review of 2012 year end. 

DISCUSSION: 

There will be a 2.6% increase in tax requisition projected for 2013. 

Revenue 

Beer I Wine Sales 

Advertising 

Ice Rentals (Minor Hockey, Adult, Ringette) 

Concession 

Expenses 


IS Overhead 

Maintenance 

Revenue 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$833,970.00 

$873,245.00 

$-39,275.00 

Expenses 


2012 Budget 

Total 

$1,245,108.00 

$1,248,000.00 

$-2,892.00 

Decreases are; 

Revenue, due to the expiration of the Wesbild Naming Rights contract. Staff are currently in 

negotiations for a new Naming Rights contract which upon completion will be added as an 

amendment into the 2013 budget. 

Expenses, utilities (Natural Gas) 

Expenses, Parking Maintenance 






062 MULTIPLEX PROPOSED CAPITAL 



~ ..... 

s:: 

Q) 

E 

..r::. 

u 

co 

~ 

1 

2 

2 

4 

W 

:2: 

« 

Z 

l- 

0 

W 

.., 

0 

0:: 

0. 

Concession Equipment 

Header Trench Cover 

Landscaping 

Audio Equipment 

Z 

N 

0 ..... 

0 

i= 

N 

0. I- 

~ 

z 

~ 

N 

0 l- 

« en 

..... 

en en 0 0:: 

W 

W O- N e> 0:: 

e ofa e e :J 

I- 1-1- W We> 

l- 

0 0« >1- >z Ci 

W W:2: OW 0_ 

.., .., - 

z 

o::e> o::e W 

0 01- o.e o.z 0. 

0:: 0:: en o.:J o.:J >< 

0. o.!!! «m «11.. W 

Additional Dishwasher, 

Replace Sink, Freezer, $27,435.00 

Fryer, Fridge 

Replace Wood with Steel 

Plates to Cover Header 

Trench for Moving Heavy 

Equipment 

Curbing, Planting, Surfacing 

& Irrigation 

$11,999.00 

$30,000.00 

Replace failing Equipment 

(As per Capital Replacement $20,130.00 

Schedule 2010-2023). 

-- 

_I..- 

- 

N 

..... 

0 

N 

E 

en e 

W .... 

>"E I- 

0:: III W 

W ~ e> 

e .s 

~.E :J Q) 

o::~ m Q. 

C') ... C') 

E 

..... III ..... 

00 0 

0 

N_ N 0 

2013 

2013 

2013 

2013






REPORT 


TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 



December 3,2012 

Performing Arts Centre - 2013 Budget Proposal 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Performing Arts Centre budget proposal for 

2013 be considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District budget subject to possible revision of 

utility accounts upon review of the 2012 year end expenditures and confirmation of what funds will be 

forthcoming from the Societies endowment fund. 

DISCUSSION: 

The proposed increase in the 2013 tax requisition for the Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre 

is $ (0%) (budget included as Attachment "A"). 

The major increases in the budget are as follows: 

Employee Cost Allocation - $5548 

Insurance - $3,458 

Operating Grant to the SOciety - $8,179 

Capital projects - $234,290 (increase) 

The Regional District has a five-year operating and management contract with the Vernon and District 

Performing Arts Centre Society, which is up at the end of 2014. The contract with the Society 

commits the Regional District to an increase in the operating grant of: 

2013 -$ 8,179 

2014 -$ 6,990 

The grant from the Regional District is to be reduced by the amount of any surplus at the Societies 

year end including funds received from the endowment fund. 

Capital Projects 

A list of proposed capital projects is attached (Attachment "B"). 

The painting of the building is to deal with the problem of birds creating nesting holes in the exterior 

walls of the building. It was originally thought that the exterior of the building would have to be 

replaced with stucco to resolve the issue; however there has been a lot of success in other 

communities using an additive to paint to deter the nesting of the birds, so the building will be painted 

using the additive in 2013. 


Report to: 

From: 

Subject: 





Performing Arts Centre - 2013 Budget Proposal 


File No. : F:\5801 

Excluding the painting of the building, the proposed capital projects are classified as "sustaining 

capital projects," and are identified in an equipment replacement schedule that is used to plan for the 

replacement of worn-out equipment or maintain existing assets. The largest capital expense 

proposed for 2013 is the replacement of the sound system; these funds would come from equipment 

reserves. 

In order to fund the equipment replacement program according to the schedule, the annual 

contribution to reserves should be approximately $181,000. The anticipated contribution to reserves 

in 2012 is $185,393, and the proposed contribution for 2013 is $219,455. 

At the end of the 2011 fiscal year there was $950,972 in operating reserves. 

Attachments: 

A. 2013 Budget proposal 

B. 2013 Capital Budget list of projects 

C. Correspondence from the Performing Arts Centre Manager 

Submitted by: 


Trafj6p--f;liJlT 

Adfni istrator 

I 




Vernon and District Performing Arts Centre (065) 

ATTACHMENT "A" 

ACCOUNT CODE ACCOUNT NAME 2011 2012 2013 


TAXES (REQUISITION & PARCEL) 

01-1-001-003 VERNON (827,996) (850,396) (850,396) 

01-1-001-004 COLDSTREAM (203,320) (197,579) (197,579) 

01-1-001-007 ELECTORAL AREA B (105,657) (96,672) (96,672) 

01-1-001-008 ELECTORAL AREA C P 05,908) (98,234) (98,234) 

(1,242,881 ) (1,242,881 ) (1,242,881 ) 

GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 

01-1-003-065 GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES (10,084) (10,000) (10,000) 

FEES, CHARGES & OTHER INCOME 

01-1-065-001 ENDOWMENT FUND (20,999) 

01-1-100-065 INTEREST INCOME (153,918) (29,600) (29,600) 

(174,917) (29,600) (29,600) 

TRANSFERS FROM RESERVES 

01-1-193-065 TRANSFER FROM OPERATING RESERVE (279,790) 

TOTAL REVENUE (1,427,882) (1,282,481 ) (1,562,271 ) 

OPERA TlNG EXPENSES 

01-2-696-514 EMPLOYEE COST ALLOCATION 5,548 

01-2-696-518 FINANCE OVERHEAD CHARGE 7,842 8,791 8,794 

01 -2-696-519 CORP. ADMIN. ALLOCATION 2,476 2,633 2,633 

01-2-696-531 CONSULTING SERVICES 

01-2-696-568 ADVERTISING & PROMOTION 

01-2-696-569 PERMITS 2,947 4,224 4,224 

01-2-696-586 INTEREST EXPENSE 3,500 3,500 

01-2-696-594 INSURANCE 20,153 17,542 21,000 

01-2-696-599 EXTERIOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE 5,726 18,068 18,068 

01-2-696-607 BC HYDRO 24,751 30,000 25,000 

01-2-696-608 NATURAL GAS 14,175 16,000 12,000 

01-2-696-609 WATER SEWER GARBAGE 4,381 5,000 5,000 

01-2-696-610 TELEPHONE 5,499 5,000 5,250 

01-2-696-614 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 15,672 12,000 15,000 

01-2-696-679 SERVICE REVIEW 

01-2-696-698 NAMING RIGHTS 

01-2-696-699 MARKETING 

01-2-696-701 CONTRACT OPERATIONS (PACS) 218,431 260,558 268,737 

01-2-696-702 CONTRACT OPS: PROMOTIONS 15,000 15,000 15,000 

01-2-696-703 CONTRACT STRATEGIC PLAN 

337,052 398,316 409,754 

DEBT PA YMENTS 

01 -2-696-801 MFA PRINCIPAL 304,487 304,494 304,494 

01-2-696-802 MFA INTEREST 330,014 348,778 348,778 

01-2-696-809 MFA ACTUARIAL ADJUSTMENT 153,918 

788,419 653,272 653,272 

TRANSFERS TO RESERVES 

01 -2-696-810 TRANSFER TO OPERATING RESERVE 126,482 185,393 219,455 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 

01-2-696-900 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 43,699 45,500 279,790 

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,295,651 1,282,481 1,562,271 

NET (132,230) 

OPERATING RESERVES 

Opening Balance 824,490 950,972 1,450,217 

Debits (279,790) 

Credits 126,482 185,393 219,455 

Closing Balance 950,972 1,136,365 1,389,882 




All ACHMENl "8" 

PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE 

PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET 2013 

Building Painting 45,000 

Replacement of Sidewalk - front entrance 25,000 

Sound system replacement 189,790 

Mechanical controls upgrades 20,000 

Total 279,790 


F:15800-6399 PARKS ADMIN\5800-5949 ]arksI5801_BudgetI06]roposed_BudgetI065 ]AC\2013 Performing Arts Centre Proposed Capital Budget.xlsx



Vernon and District 


ATTACHMENT "C" 

3800· 33rd Strw· Vernon, British Col.,mbia· Canada Vl T 5T6· T (250) 542·9355 F (250) 542·9384 

email- theatre@ticketseller.ca - web -",,,,,,,,ticketsdler,ca 

September 27,2012 

Jim Coughlin, Facilities Manager' 

R~gional District of North Okanagan 


Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9 

Dear Jim, 

We have requested quotes for a number of items that have been approved by the Regional Board for capital 

expenditures in 2013. Some of the items on this list were due for replacement in prior years, but not replaced as they 

were still functional- such as the Hearing assist equipment and the video monitor and camera that provides safety and 

security between the front of house and back stage areas. Other items that are due in 2013 do not yet need 

replacement - such as Theatre seats, balcony carpeting and VRASspeakers. 

. . . , 

The most significant items needing replacement are the front of house speaker system. The current system consists of a 

Mono configuration. This means that sound is only coming from one direction and one point of localization much like 

Radio or TV. The majority qf Technical Riders and industry standards request a Stereo system consisting of a Left/Right 

speaker configuration. This creates a stereo imaging field similar to that of CD Players in vehicles or homes. This is 

required by various renters, including sound engineers mixing a live band. In addition to touring concerts, a large 

number of dance companies who use music soundtracks in their show have had those tracks specifically mixed in stereo 

(as all music is produced today) to create the effect of sound moving from one side to another. By upgrading to a more 

advanced, stereo system, wewill no longer be required to rent additional equipment in order to achieve this speaker 

configuration, which has been an industry standard for more than 5 years. 

In addition to being on par with other competing venues and industry standards, an upgraded PA system will 

dramatically increase the quality and fidelity of sound. This will provide the audience and performers with the best 

possible amplification and reinforcement of the show in which they are attending. 

We have some difficulty in obtaining 3 quotes in some areas, but we are pursuing all avenues. Other quotes will be 

coming in as they are provided. 

Please contact me to discuss these, so that I may provide any information that you require. 

Yours truly, 

9WJJJiA~~ 

Pamela Burns Resch, 

Executive Director. 

Enclosures 

for show information and tickets, please call the Ticket Seller Box Office -549 - SHOW 







REPORT 

File No.: F:5801 .03.2012 2013 Fees and Charges 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 




Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Fees Imposition Bylaw 

No. 2578,2013 


That Bylaw 2578, being Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Fees Imposition Bylaw No. 

2578, 2013 be given First, Second and Third Readings; and further, 

That Bylaw 2578, being Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Fees Imposition Bylaw 

No.2578, 2013 be ADOPTED. 

ISSUE: 

The Greater Vernon Advisory Committee wishes to update the Manual of Fees and Charges for the 

Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service for 2012 - 2013. 

DISCUSSION: 

At its regular meeting held on August 17, 2012 the Board of Directors passed the following resolution: 

That the Manual of Fees and Charges for Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture services 

September 1,2012 to March 31, 2013 be adopted as outlined in Schedule (fA & 8 " regarding Fees 

and Charges; and further, 

That staff be directed to prepare the appropriate bylaw for adoption; and further, 

That staff initiate policy discussions around fees and charges with the input of senior recreation facility 

management staff. 

Accordingly, to allow RDNO staff to make the necessary adjustments to the Manual of Fees and 

Charges, Bylaw No. 2578, being the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Fees Imposition 

Bylaw is before you for your consideration and approval. 

Submitted by: 

o i, Acting General Manager 

reation and Culture 






To impose fees for providing recreation programs and facilities by the Regional 

District's Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service 

WHEREAS Section 796(1) [General authority for services] of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C., 

1996, Chapter 323, as amended, and Regulations passed pursuant thereto, states that the 

Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan may operate any service that the Board 

considers necessary or desirable for all or part of the regional district; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has adopted Bylaw No. 1648 cited as "Greater Vernon Parks, 

Recreation & Culture Service Conversion and Service Establishment Bylaw No. 1648,2000" which 

authorizes the establishment of the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service; 

AND WHEREAS Sections 803 [Options for Cost Recovery] and 363 [Imposition of fees and 

charges] of the Local Government Act provides that a Board of a Regional District may, by 

bylaw, impose a fee or charge payable in respect of all or part of a service of the Regional 

District; 

AND WHEREAS the Board deems it expedient to establish such fees; 



CITATION 

1. This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation 

and Culture Fees Imposition Bylaw No. 2578, 2013". 

ESTABLISHMENT 

2. Schedule "A" Manual of Fees and Charges, attached hereto are hereby established and 

form part of this Bylaw. 

3. Where a Bylaw contains provision for a fee that is for the same service as contained 

within the Schedules of Fees attached to this bylaw, the fees contained in Schedule "A" 

shall apply. 

4. This bylaw shall take effect on February 6, 2013. 

REPEAL 

5. Bylaw No. 2560, being the IIGreater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Fees 

Imposition Bylaw No. 2560, 2012" is hereby repealed. 

Read a First, Second and THIRD Time this 6th day of February, 2013. 

ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 2013. 

Chair 








REPORT 

File No.:F:\5950.06 

TO: 

FROM: 

White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee 


DATE: December 20,2012 

SUBJECT: 2013 Budget Proposal 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture 

budget proposal for 2013 be approved for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

At their regular meeting held on December 10, 2012 staff brought forward a proposed 2013 budget 

that proposed a 3.9% increase to the tax requisition. In their deliberation the Committee discussed 

the infrastructure grant funding that has allowed improvements to be made to White Valley capital 

recreation assets in the past two years (Towns for Tomorrow Funding Program and Community 

Infrastructure Improvement Fund), and the fact that these grants have allowed these revitalization 

projects to happen without using reserve funds. As a result the White Valley Parks, Recreation and 

Culture Advisory Committee felt that there was an opportunity to reduce the contributions to reserves 

in 2013 and carried the following resolution: 

"That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be directed to reduce the 

proposed contribution to reserves to $80,000 in the 2013 White Valley Parks, Recreation and 

Culture budget with the intent of reducing the proposed increase in tax requisition and bring 

back the adjusted budget for review. II 

As a result, staff has brought back a revised 2013 White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture budget 

for endorsement (Attachment "A") that includes an increase of 0.48% in tax requisition (increase of 

$3,644). 

The average cost increase per household (based on 2266 private dwellings, census 2011) would be 

$1.60. 

DISCUSSION: 

A summary of the budget proposal is as follows: 

Administration, Grants, General Expense 

2012 Budget 

2013 Budget Proposal 

$174,930 

$182,614 

$7,684 


Report to: 

From: 

Subject: 







File NO.:5950.06 

The change in expenditure reflects funding to cover the White Valley Community Recreation Grants, 

as proposed (Attachment "B"), as well a 1.29% increase to the administration fee to the Village of 

Lumby. 

A budget for consulting fees has been included to have an arena engineer look at the Cherryville Rink 

to provide a cost estimate for putting in brine lines at the Cherryville Outdoor Rink. The Cherryville 

Community Club is interested in pouring concrete to have the rink available for other activities in the 

warmer seasons, as well as making the ice preparation easier. In order to prepare for future 

opportunities to install a chiller, brine lines should be installed at the same time. 

The Monashee Arts Council and Cherryville Artisans Coordinator funding is not guaranteed through 

their funding agreement. They will be appearing as a delegation at the December White Valley Parks, 

Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee meeting to report on their annual activity and 

demonstrate the value of the funding to the community. If the committee decides to discontinue with 

this funding, the contribution to reserves would increase by $19,950. 

2012 Budget 


$97,319 

$109,364 

$12,045 

The change in expenditure is due to a 1.29% increase in wages, as well as an adjustment in 

hours to closer reflect actual costs based on previous years. It also includes a 2% anticipated 

increase to the insurance premiums. 

2012 Budget 


$280,905 

$282,882 

$1,977 

The change in expenditure is due to a 1.24% wage increase, as well as a 2% anticipated 

increase to the insurance premium. 

White Valley Community Centre 

2012 Budget 


$62,058 

$62,349 

$291 

Curling Club 

The change in expenditure is due to a 1.29% increase in wages, as well as a 2% anticipated 

increase to the insurance premium. 

2012 Budget 


$63,338 

$62,368 

($970) 


Report to: 

From: 

Subject: 







File No.:5950.06 

Outdoor Pool 

The reduction is due to fewer Village of Lumby staff hours required at the Curling Rink as a 

result of the service agreement with the Club. The proposed budget also includes a 2% 

anticipated increase to the insurance premium. 

2012 Budget 


$106,458 

$121,428 

$14,970 

Programs 

The increase is due to the additional costs expected for the operation of the spray park, as 

well as a 1.29% wage increase and $6,786 in proposed additional hours to provide enhanced 

service to the pool. 

2012 Budget 


$94,744 

$108,643 

$13,899 

This increase includes a 1.29% wage increase for preschool and community centre staff, as 

well as additional hours for the preschool coordinator positions to reflect actual costs based on 

previous years. The proposed budget also includes 150 extra hours for the Program 

Coordinator position, which is recommended in order to bring the hours up to what is required 

for the position, as well as a 2% anticipated increase to the insurance premium. 

White Valley Arts and Culture Master Plan, 2011 

The White Valley Arts and Culture Master Plan, 2011 makes recommendations that are reflected in 

the proposed budget (Attachment "C"). Items that are complete are marked with a ./. 

As the Monashee Arts Council has decided to stay in their current location (on Hwy 6), which they are 

no longer sharing with any other organization, there may not be the need for the telephone and 

internet at the Lumby Museum. The Community Development Coordinator will discuss this with the 

Village of Lumby staff and Lumby Museum Society and bring the information back to the committee. 

If the connections are not needed, $2,500 can be removed from the operating budget to go into 

reserves. 

White Valley Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan, 2010 

Attached are the recommendations from the 2010 White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Master 

Plan (Attachment "0") 

The one "high priority" item that has not been pursued is hiring a half time person to assist community 

organizations with grants and organization capacity. This is currently being partially addressed by the 

Community Development Coordinator with the Regional District of North Okanagan. 

If the committee would like any items in the Master Plan addressed in 2012 this needs to be 

discussed and added to the budget. 


Report to: 

From: 

Subject: 







File NO.:5950.06 

CAPITAL BUDGET: 

2012 Capital Budget: $1,099,847 

2013 Capital Budget Proposal 

Expense 

Seniors Fitness Equipment $116,149.24 

Oval Park Spray Park $319,173.30 

White Valley Roof Replacement! 

Lighting upgrade $156,000 

TOTAL $591,322.54 

Revenue 

Community Recreation Program $348,258.03 

Donations $60,000.00 

Community Infrastructure 

Improvement Fund $69,615.00 

TOTAL $477,873.03 

2013 Commitment: $113,449.51 

White Valley Community Centre Roof Replacement and Lighting Upgrade 

The roof of the White Valley Community Centre needs to be replaced this year. It is anticipated that 

White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture, through the Village of Lumby, will be successful in 

receiving some funding towards this project through the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund. 

The lighting upgrade will also be eligible for some rebates through BC Hydro, which are not included 

in the budget proposal. 

Reserve Funds 

At 2011 year-end there was $625,654 in reserves. 

Best practices suggests that 20% of the annual operating budget, so approximately $170,000, should 

be set aside as a general operating reserve. 

This leaves a balance of $455,654 in the reserve fund to replace the facilities. There is still progress 

to be made to establish the adequate reserve level necessary for the Whitevalley assets, which is 

$4.1 M based on the purchase price of the assets (not replacement value) of $6.4M (this does not 

include the spray park or fitness equipment, which will be added and increase the accumulated 

amortization (reserves) target. 

The 2011 contribution to reserves was $165,698, which exceeded the target annual reserve 

contribution of $125,418. The projected contribution in 2012 is $80,176 and the 2013 contributions, 

as directed by the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee, would be 

$80,000. 


Report to: 

From: 

Subject: 







File NO.:5950.06 

Submitted by: 


David Se 1 ./ 

Chief Financial Officer 





Attachment "A" 

WVPRC - 070 

FINANCIAL PLAN 

2011 2012 2013 


REVENUE 

PROPERTY VALUE TAXES (713,472) (749,145) (752,789) 

PARCEL TAXES 

FEDERAL / PROVINCIALGRANTS (530,281) (872,783) (417,873) 

GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES (6,776) (6,000) (6,000) 

FEES, CHARGES & OTHER INCOME (219,439) (240,100) (263,196) 

TRANSFERS FROM RESERVES (140,000) (104,500) 

TRANSFERS FROM ACCUMULATED SURPLUS 

CAPITAL BORROWING 

(1,469,968) (2,008,028) (1 ,544,358) 

EXPENSES 

WAGES & BENEFITS 

OPERATING EXPENSES 854,421 879,779 931,147 

OTHER PAYMENTS 63,013 63,902 21,889 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 552,534 1,099,847 591,322 

1,469,968 2,043,528 1,544,358 

NET (0) 35,500 

RESERVES 

OPERATING 729,131 836,051 

STATUTORY 

DCC'S 212,164 219,590 227,276 

212,164 948,721 1,063,327 



Actuals Budget Proposed 

TAXES (REQUISITION & PARCEL) 

01-1-001-006 LUMBY (267,654) (280,257) (281,496) 

01-1-001-009 ELECTORAL AREA D (353,363) (369,104) (370,735) 

01-1-001-010 ELECTORAL AREA E (92,455) (99,784) (100,225) 

(713,472) (749,145) (752,789) 

FEDERAL I PROVINCIALGRANTS 

01-1-002-009 PROV.MIN.COMMUNITY/ABORGNL.&WMN. 

01-1-002-074 2010 GRANT (5,756) 

01-1-002-001 MISC- PROV BC (T4T *SPENT* & CRP) (524,525) (872,783) 

01-1-002-001 MISC- PROV BC (CIIF) (69,615) 

01-1-002-001 MISC- PROV BC (CRP PULLED FORWARD FROM 2012) (348,258) 

(530,281) (872,783) (417,873) 

GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 

01-1-003-070 REC#2-GRANTS-IN-LiEU OF TXES (6,776) (6,000) (6,000) 

FEES, CHARGES & OTHER INCOME 

01-1-072-072 INTEREST INCOME 

01-1-072-077 DONATIONS (30k PULLED FORWARD FROM 2012 to 2013) (21 ,231) (60,000) (60,000) 

01-1-072-173 PARKS/GROUNDS/BUILDINGS (676) (900) (900) 

01-1-072-174 MISCELLANEOUS 

01-1-073-194 WHITEVALLEY COMM .CENTRE (6,772) (18,400) (18,400) 

01-1-073-210 LCC - RENTALS 

01-1-073-213 LCC - LOUNGE 

01-1-073-223 PAT DUKE ARENA RENTALS (104,600) (93,000) (93,000) 

01-1-074-252 LUMBY POOL RECEIPTS (18,625) (22,000) (22,100) 

01-1-075-445 REC#2 PROGRAMS WHITE VALLEY (67,535) (45,800) (68,796) 

(219,439) (240,100) (263,196) 

TRANSFERS FROM RESERVES 

01-1-193-070 TRANSFER FROM RESERVE REC#2 (140,000) (104,500) 

01 -1-193-110 TRANSFER FR.REC#2 DCC FUNDS 

(140,000) (104,500) 

CAPITAL BORROWING 





WVPRC - 070 



Actuals Budget Proposed 

01-1-195-070 CAPITAL BORROWING 

TOTAL REVENUE 11.469.968) 12.008.028) 11.544•358) 

OPERA TlNG EXPENSES 

01-2-661-510 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 

01-2-661-513 GIS COMPUTER CHARGES 500 500 500 

01-2-661-514 EMPLOYEE COST ALLOCATION 19,440 19,440 

01-2-661-517 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE 18,158 

01-2-661-518 FINANCE OH CHARGES 1,650 1,650 1,650 

01-2-661-519 CORPORATE ADMIN ALLOCATION 3,942 4,062 4,062 

01-2-661-522 VILLG.LUMBY ADMIN. CHARGES 45,550 46,567 47,166 

01-2-661-532 CONSULTING 26,399 11,875 11,875 

01-2-661-550 COMMITIEE REMUNERATION 2,431 5,000 5,000 

01-2-661-558 COMMITIEE/BOARD TRAVEL 229 

01-2-661-560 COMMITIEE VEHICLE & TRAVEL 46 500 500 

01-2-661-565 CONSULTING 1,500 

01-2-661-566 CONTINGENCY 7,000 7,000 

01-2-661-568 ADVERTISING 719 500 500 

01-2-661-575 TRAINING/SEMINARS/MEMBERSHIPS 

01-2-661-586 TEMPORARY BORRWNG INTRST 3,000 3,000 3,000 

01-2-661 -590 LEGAL 1,443 2,000 2,000 

01-2-661-594 INSURANCE (Prop.&Liability) 4,171 3,236 4,500 

01-2-662-_ REC#2 - COMM REC GRANTS 5,561 

01-2-662-624 REC#2 - LUMBY YOUTH ADVISORY COMM. 200 200 

01-2-662-640 REC#2 - GRANT MUSEUM SOCIETY 1,500 1,500 1,500 

01-2-662-642 REC#2 - MABEL L.COMMUNITY CLUB GRANT 10,000 10,000 10,000 

01-2-662-644 REC#2 - CHERRYVLL.COMMUN.HALL GRANT 22,400 22,400 22,400 

01-2-662-647 REC#2 - MONASHEE ARTS COUNCIL 29,000 29,050 29,230 

01-2-662-648 REC#2 - CHERRYVILLE ARTISANS ASSOCIATION 6,450 6,450 6,530 

01-2-663-505 PARKS - LUMBY CONTRACT SERV.wAGES&BEN 58,776 53,011 63,988 

01-2-663-506 PARKS - OTHER CONTRACT SERVICES 16,438 15,000 15,000 

01-2-663-540 PARKS - BUILDING SUPPLIES 111 750 750 

01-2-663-541 PARKS - BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,000 1,000 

01-2-663-544 PARKS - SUPPLIES 3,737 6,500 6,500 

01-2-663-546 PARKS - EQUIPMENT FUEUOILS 3,187 3,500 3,500 

01-2-663-558 PARKS - SMALL TOOLS 236 1,000 1,000 

01-2-663-559 PARKS - EQUIP. REPAIRS & MAl NT. 

01-2-663-560 PARKS - VEHICLE 210 210 

01-2-663-561 PARKS - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 38 2,800 3,800 

01-2-663-563 PARKS - VEHICLE INSURANCE 920 2,000 2,000 

01-2-663-570 PARKS - SUNDRY 1,000 1,000 

01-2-663-578 PARKS - TRAINING/SEMINARS/MEMBERSHIPS 249 1,000 1,000 

01-2-663-594 PARKS - INSURANCE (Property) 2,132 3,373 3,440 

01 -2-663-599 PARKS - HYDRO 139 175 175 

01-2-663-600 PARKS - WATER/SEWER/GARBAGE 3,592 6,000 6,000 

01-2-663-605 TOLLEY PARK 

01-2-665-505 ARENA - CONTRACT. VILLAGE 140,582 135,998 137,682 

01-2-665-510 ARENA - EMPL. BENEFITS 293 5,000 5,000 

01-2-665-511 ARENA - CONTRACT SERVICES 24,438 17,500 17,500 

01-2-665-535 ARENA - MARKETING & ADVERTISING 76 500 500 

01 -2-665-544 ARENA - GAS & OIL 2,855 3,000 3,000 

01 -2-665-546 ARENA - BLDG MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES 6,694 11,000 11,000 

01-2-665-547 ARENA - MAINTENANCE 4,464 7,500 7,500 

01-2-665-548 ARENA - SMALL TOOLS 3,095 1,000 1,000 

01-2-665-549 ARENA - AMMONIA CHLORINE 1,086 

01-2-665-560 ARENA - VEHICLE AND TRAVEL 8,000 8,000 

01-2-665-563 ARENA - ZAMBONI INSURANCE 413 600 600 

01-2-665-570 ARENA - SUNDRY 500 500 

01-2-665-578 ARENA - TRAINING 3,016 4,000 4,000 

01-2-665-579 ARENA - MILEAGE 200 200 

01-2-665-594 ARENA - INSURANCE 6,096 14,607 14,900 

01-2-665-598 ARENA - TELEPHONE 4,315 4,500 4,500 

01-2-665-599 ARENA - HYDRO/UTIL TIES 32,430 30,000 30,000 

01-2-665-600 ARENA - WATER/SEWER/GARBAGE 6,660 7,000 7,000 

01-2-665-601 ARENA - N.GAS 23,453 30,000 30,000 





WVPRC - 070 

ACCOUNT CODE 

01-2-666-505 

01-2-666-506 

01-2-666-507 

01-2-666-546 

01-2-666-565 

01-2-666-568 

01-2-666-570 

01-2-666-578 

01-2-666-579 

01-2-666-594 

01 -2-666-598 

01-2-666-599 

01-2-666-600 

01-2-666-601 

01-2-668-505 

01-2-668-506 

01-2-668-546 

01-2-668-548 

01-2-668-561 

01-2-668-594 

01-2-668-600 

01 -2-668-601 

01-2-671-505 

01-2-671-506 

01-2-671-507 

01-2-671-546 

01-2-671-568 

01-2-671-570 

01-2-671-571 

01-2-671-578 

01-2-671-579 

01-2-671-594 

01-2-671-598 

01-2-671-599 

01-2-671-600 

01-2-671-601 

01 -2-671-614 

01-2-672-570 

01-2-672-599 

01-2-672-600 

01-2-674-505 

ACCOUNT NAME 

'!WCC - LUMBY CONTRACT SERVo WAGES&BEN 

'!WCC - CONTRACT OTHERS 

'!WCC - CONTRACTED SERVICES 

'!WCC - MAINTENANCE 

'!WCC - SUPPLIES 

'!WCC - ADVERTISING & MARKETING 

'!WCC-SUNDRY 

'!WCC - TRAINING 

'!WCC - MILEAGE 

'!WCC - INSURANCE 

'!WCC - TELEPHONE 

'!WCC-HYDRO 

'!WCC - WATER/SEWER/GARBAGE 

'!WCC - NATURAL GAS 

LCC - LUMBY CONTRACT SERV.wAGES&BEN 

LCC - CONTRACT SERVICES 

LCC - MAINTENANCE & SUPPLIES 

LCC - CONTRACT BLDG REPAIRS 

LCC - CONTRACT EQUIP. REPAIRS 

LCC - INSURANCE (Property) 

LCC - WATER/SEWER/GARBAGE 

LCC - NATURAL GAS 

POOL - CONTRACT. VILLAGE 

LUMBY POOL - CONTRACT REPAIRS 

LUMBY POOL - CONTRACT REPAIRS POOL BLDG. 

LUMBY POOL: SUPPLIES 

LUMBY POOL: ADVERTISING 

LUMBY POOL: SUNDRY 

LUMBY POOL: LI CENSES 

LUMBY POOL: TRAINING 

LUMBY POOL - MILEAGE 

LUMBY POOL - INSURANCE 

LUMBY POOL: TELEPHONE 

LUMBY POOL: HYDRO/UTILITIES 

LUMBY POOL: WATER/SEWER/GARBAGE 

LUMBY POOL: NATURAL GAS 

LUMBY POOL: BUILDING MAINTENANCE 

LUMBY SPRAY PARK: SUNDRY 

LUMBY SPRAY PARK: UTILITIES 

LUMBY SPRAY PARK: WATER/S/G 

REC.PROG.- LUMBY CONTRACT SERV.wAGES&BEN 

REC.PROG.- PROGRAM COORDINATOR 

REC.PROG .- CHERRYVILLE PRESCHOOL WAGES 

REC.PROG.- LUMBY PRESCHOOL WAGES 

REC.PROG.- PROGRAM WAGES OTHER 

01-2-674-547 REC.PROG.- SUPPLIES/MAINTENANCE 

01-2-674-560 REC.PROG.- MILEAGE 

01-2-674-568 REC.PROG.- ADVERTISING 

01-2-674-570 REC.PROG.- SUNDRY 

01-2-674-578 REC.PROG.- TRAINING/SEMINARS/MEMBERSHIPS 

01-2-674-598 REC.PROG.- TELEPHONE 

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 

REC#2:0THER PA YMENTS 

01-2-676-801 MFA DEBT PRINCIPAL ('91 REFERENDUM) 

01-2-676-802 MFA DEBT INTEREST ('91 REFERENDUM) 

01-2-662-610 REC#1 - MITIGATION FROM GVPRD 

01-2-676-810 TRANSFER TO RESERVES FOR FUTURE EXP. 

2011 

Actuals 

22,031 

5,251 

3,312 

4,835 

4,472 

234 

3,251 

4,068 

5,448 

3,163 

5,845 

1,675 

42,500 

720 

12,956 

3,703 

4,231 

2,705 

319 

65,734 

2,074 

2,893 

10,129 

254 

83 

1,316 

724 

441 

2,042 

1,214 

7,039 

57 

98,468 

3,648 

308 

38 

131 

854,421 

32,990 

64,837 

(11 4,089) 

79,275 


2012 2013 


14,330 14,559 

3,750 3,750 

2,050 2,050 

5,130 5,130 

6,150 6,150 

5,000 5,000 

210 210 

100 100 

3,338 3,400 

4,000 4,000 

6,000 6,000 

5,000 5,000 

7,000 7,000 

2,227 1,125 

42,500 42,500 

4,000 4,000 

2,000 2,000 

6,000 6,000 

6,611 6,743 

66,774 73,468 

2,000 2,000 

5,000 5,000 

10,000 10,000 

500 500 

3,100 3,100 

100 100 

1,500 1,500 

210 210 

2,301 2,350 

600 600 

1',800 2,200 

1,600 1,600 

8,500 8,500 

2,500 2,500 

1,000 

1,000 

5,800 

83,894 

32,392 

11,241 

37,929 

18,731 

7,500 5,000 

200 200 

1,000 1,000 

500 500 

1,000 1,000 

650 650 

879,779 931,147 

32,989 12,159 

64,826 43,819 

(11 4,089) (114,089) 

80,176 80,000 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 

01-2-677-910 CAPITAL: ARENA BUILDING 

01-2-677-911 CAPITAL: SWIMMING POOL 

01-2-677-912 CAPITAL: WHITE VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE 

63,013 

524,525 

28,009 

63,902 21,889 

923,698 

60,000 

116,149 156,000 





WVPRC - 070 

ACCOUNT CODE 

ACCOUNT NAME 

01-2-677-913 CAPITAL: EQUIPMENT 

01-2-677-915 CAPITAL: LUMBY CURLING CLUB 

01-2-677-916 CAPITAL: PARKS 

01-2-677-940 CAPITAL: OVAL PARK SPRAY PARK - FITNESS EQT 

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 

NET 

2011 

Actuals 

552,534 

1,469,968 

(0) 


2012 2013 


435,322 

1,099,847 591,322 

2,043,528 1,544,358 

35,500 

OPERATING RESERVES 

Opening Balance 

Contributions 

Interest 

Expenditures 

625,654 729,131 

80,176 80,000 

23,301 26,920 

729,131 836,051 


Application Lumby Thrift Store Christmas in July Tea July 14 or July One day Community entertainment White Valley Community Hall $217.31 Also requested the cost Yes Yes 

21 and fundraiser of the insurance. 

Application Okanagan Mopars Car Car show July 27 to 28 Two Days Community entertainment Royals Park $258.20 No Yes 

Club 

and fundraiser 


2013 White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Grants 

Attachment "8" 



Annual approval Lumby Lions Santa's Anonymous September 1 day Community entertainment Royals Park $63.74 

Toy Run 

and fund raiser 

Annual approval Lumby Days Society Lumby Days Event June Three (3) days Community entertainment White Valley Community Hall, $2,653.86 (217.31*3)+($333.51*3) 

and fund raiser Pat Duke Arena, Curling Club, +($332.20*3)+(21.60*3) 

Oval Park, Tennis Courts =$2653.86 

Application Lumby Days Society Build Picnic Tables Late April 1 day Community purpose Pat Duke Arena $333.51 

Annual approval Charles Bloom Secondary Graduation Ceremony June 1 day Community event Lumby Curling Club $332.20 

School 

Application Lumby and District Figure Skate-a-thon (X2) February and 90 minX2 Team building, fundraiser Pat Duke Arena $195.27 Yes Yes 

Skating Club March and community 

entertainment 

Application Lumby and District Figure Ice Cam ivai March 5 hours Community entertainment Pat Duke Arena $325.45 Yes Yes 

Skating Club 


Application Car Jammers Car Club Car show July 13 Allday Community entertainment Royals Park $129.10 Yes Yes 


Application Middle Shuswap VVild Festival Summer Three (3) days Community entertainment Oval Park $387.30 Yes Yes 

Salmon SOCiety 


Application Lumby and District Business Showcase March 30 One day Community entertainment Pat Duke Arena and Curling $665.71 ($333.51+$332.20) Yes Yes 

Chamber of Commerce and fundraiser Club 

TOTAL $5,561.65



ATTACHMENT "C" 

RECOMMENDATIO NS 

The recommendations were developed as a result of Input from the community: from sta eholders, /OI;:al and 

regional government li aison; key Informants; material from previous planning documents, as well as consu ltant 

observation and analysis. 

In each case, the recommendations include suggested advocates to take leadership responsibi lity for developmen~ 

Implementation and measurement of the recomme ndations. 

DON t 

Form a business, government and artists comm unity taskforce which wi ll look at all aspects of implementing 

Ar ts and Culture Master PI'!n. 

PrlmOlry esponslbility: 

Secondary Responsibility: 

RONO; INVPRCAC; RONO Staff 

MAC, Cherryville Artisans 

2. Create draft business plan with mUltiple partners, which will determine need for dedicated new or suitably 

renova ted existing single space (or Arts Council: 

\-\0..\1



26 

\Y'\ 

~ T'"O ~~S 

\"" 

Q ~"t'-Q. SS 

\(\ 

e r-o~ 'f'"€.



27 

grant opportunities; application for grants; liaison with tourism and business organlzatlons hailing an effect on 

traffic to and through the area. Posltlon to be multi·level funded In coordination with RONO. 

Primary Respon Iblllty; 

Se con~ary ResponslbllltV: 

RONO with WIIPRCAC 

MAC providing candidate Job description 

13, El



ATTACHMENT "0" 

-I 

List of Recommendations 

Making Recreation and Quality of Life Central to the Valley's Way of Life and Planning 

\f-. ~c" 

(;\{O) partners to develop a stronger Image for White Valley and that quality of life be the 

''\ 

central element within this image 

That the White Valley Parks, Recre~tion and Cult~re Advisory Committee wor~ with other 

Extending the Age Friendly Concept for All Ages 

That the White Valley Parks, Recrealion and Culture Advisory Committee become involved in 

the Age-Friendly Communities Program (presently Lumby-only Initiative), and that it be 

extended both geographically (from the Village 'to the Valley) and in terms of content, to 

indude the needs of children and youth ~ 

Parks and Amenities at the Heart of the Valley;s Communities 

That a public consultation and master planning process be undertaken to determine the shortterro 

and long-term goals and objectives to establish Oval Park as the civic focal point of 

the Village of Lumby. 

'7 That a public consultation and master planning process be undertaken to determine the short- 

~ 0 \l.\ . term and long-term goals and objectives to establish Hanson Park as the civic focal point 

of the community of Cherryville. 

Parks and Open Space for Sport and Play 

That BC Parks be encouraged to add Mcintyre Lake to its parks inventory Or designate 

Mcintyre Lake as a protected conservation area, or request ownership of the property be 

transferred to the Regional Di$trict of North Okanagan. 

That those key crown land holdings which are currently used for recrea1ion or which need to 

be safeguarded for ecological reasons be secured. 

That the property referred to as The Meadows be monitored, and the prOVincial government 

be periodically approached regarding safeguarding Its futUre use as a public recreation 

site. 

That the layout and use of Tolley Park be reviewed and a long term plan for the park be 

prepared, following a process to determine whether there Is a community desire to further 

develop the park. 

That neighbourhood parks be upgraded as required to provide for local needs, following a 

local consultation process. 

That a neighbourhood meeting be held to receive input on the future of Cedar Ridge Park. 

Tnat any parks and open space which get limited use and for which there are olher 

alternatives be considered for disposal. 

Strengthening the Schools As Community Hubs 

\ .,... cL S S That the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee pursue formal 

",? 

That the implementation of additional fitness and after-school programs be Invesllgated with 

school administrations. 




v 

Addressing the Issue of Aging Facilities 

That a full engineering study be conducted on the Pat Duke Arena to determine Its current 

condition and life span , 

That the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee, upon receiving and 

reviewing the engineering report, move tOlWard to create a plan to address any issues 

with the arena and outdoor swimming pool facilities and continued development of Oval 

Park. 

Strengthening Community Organizations 

o'O~ ~'\ That, starting with the 2010 budget year, the White Valley Advisory Committee consider hiring 

~t..~t"'o... of>O'i,. ~ a half time person to assist community organizations with organizational and other issues 

.t. \)S'O- ~,~ especially related to ~rant apPlica.tions, organizational de~etopment and capacity b~ilding . 

c.~ ~ (j . / That the White Valley AdvIsory Committee develop a commumty grants program to provide 

(,>,)'< V project assistance to community organizations (or bolh operational and capital projects. 

v 

V 

That a set of criteria be established to guide the Committee when requested to provide capital 

funds to support community recreation and park related projects. 

ThaI NORDNiliage of Lumby work with UBCM to urge the provincial government to address 

the issues faced by community organizations, especially those providing volunteer 

services to children and youth, related to the cost of and difficulty of obtaining. insurance, 

and that the provincial government work with the Municipal Insurance Association to 

develop an umbrella policy/plan that community organizations can buy Into. 

Linking Recreation Opportunities With Tourism Planning 

That the Chamber of Commerce be encouraged to integrate recreation opportunities, 

especially outdoor recreation, Inlo their tourism marketing, seeking funding as appropriate 

for these endeavors . 

Strengthening the Arts and eo/ture as part of RecrealJon and TourIsm 

That a priority within the workplan of the Community Development Coordinator be assisting 

the Monashee Arts Council to apply for Be Arts Council funding and generally 10 increase 

their capacity to deliver arts and cultural recreation opportunities. 

That the White Valley Advisory Committee consider the Monashee Arts Council for a grant 

under the proposed community facllity grant fund (see earlier in the report). 

Unear Park and Trail Development 

That a public conSUltation and master planning process be undertaken to define current and 

future linear park requirements ror the White Valley park system. 

Realigning the Lumby/NORD Relationships 

That meetings be held with the Fortune Recreation Committee 10 discuss governance and 

administrative issues, subject to direction from the Board of Directors. 

That the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee consider rebranding 

and the creation of a stronger visual Image for all sign age, lelterhead, etc. 

That the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee meet with the 

Cherryville Community Club and the Mabel Lake Community Association tWice per year 

to discuss park, recreation and cullurallssues. 

., 







REPORT 

File No.: 7150.01 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 


Community I Protective Services 


9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Service Report 


That the 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Service Report be received for information; and further, 

That the amendment of the 9-1 -1 Emergency Telephone Service Agreement (the "9-1-1 Agreement") 

by amending clause 7 be authorized as follows; 

And further, 

The Central Okanagan and the RDNO further agree that for the budget 

year January 1 to December 31 2013, the annual budget shall not exceed 

$1,700,000.00 provided however and with the concurrence of a majority 

of the Participating Regional Districts, the budget may be increased by an 

additional amount representing anticipated costs for an extra-ordinary 

event or situation. 

That the inclusion of $15,000 in the 2013 Budget for consulting services including issuance of a 

Request for Expression of Interest (RFI) and Request for Proposals (RFP) in seeking options for the 

future delivery of the 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Service be authorized. 

BACKGROUND: 

Under a 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Service Agreement ("the agreement"), the Regional District 

Central Okanagan (RDCO) provides 9-1-1 service to residents in the North Okanagan as well as eight 

other regional districts. 

The RDCO 9-1-1 Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) is located within the RCMP South East 

District Operational Communication Center, Kelowna. RDCO contracts with the RCMP for space 

within this facility and operational oversight. 

RDCO has been in discussions since March 2011 with the RCMP to have it provide contact 

operations of the 9-1-1 service. This would have resulted in RDCO's 12 operators transferring to the 

RCMP. 


File No.: 911 SERVICE - Interim Report 

Dated : January 9, 2013 




The RCMP advised in July 2012 that 9-1-1 Dispatch was not one of its core services and that should it 

provide such services there would be a 42% increase in operator costs. 

9-1-1 cost apportionment is based on assessed value of improvements with RDNO's share being 

$157,818 or 11 .3% of the $1,401,051, 2012 Budget. 

The term of the current agreement is from January 1, 2010 to December 31 , 2013. 

ISSUES: 

1. RDCO has advised that the status quo is not a favoured option, citing concerns that it is 

difficult to effectively supervise employees due to their integration within the RCMP 

Communication Centre. That issue coupled with, what was thought to be, the potential for a 

modest decrease in costs provided the impetus for RDCO's initial discussions with the RCMP 

to take over operations. Since that option is a non-starter for 2013, RDCO wishes to 

investigate other options for replacing the current service delivery model. 

2. The current 9-1-1 Agreement expires December 31 , 2013. 

3. There will be a significant increase in RCMP oversight costs effective January 1, 2013. 

4. RDCO is concerned that it is singularly exposed to costs in excess of the maximum budget 

allowed under the current 9-1-1 Agreement. 

5. RDCO advises that the 2013 budget will exceed $1 ,650,000 the maximum contemplated 

within the current 9-1-1 Agreement and has requested authorization for a budget of up to 

$1 ,700,000 plus a provision to cover unforeseen costs which may include wind down costs, 

should an alternate service delivery option be selected. 

6. A 2013 budget of $1 .7 million represents a 22% increase versus 2012. 

7. It has been determined that the $335,000 currenlly held in a capital reserve cannot be used to 

offset operating budget increases. 

DISCUSSION: 

RDCO proposes to engage a consultant to explore alternative delivery options on behalf of the current 

participants. An experienced consultant residing in Kelowna has been identified and initial discussions 

have taken place. 

One option considered is for the creation of a Corporation with its own dispatch centre. Others include 

contracting with existing dispatch service providers. 

Participating Regional Districts will have input in development of the consultant Terms of Reference to 

ensure that options are evaluated from a collective as well as individual jurisdiction perspective. 

Selection of an alternative service provider will be managed by a core team . RDNO will be 

represented by CPS Manager, Ron Baker. 


File No.: 911 SERVICE - Interim Report 

Dated : January 9, 2013 

Page 3 013 



Time is of the essence in securing participant support for the proposed budget increase and approval 

to proceed with a RFII RFP process RDCO had committed to providing full transparency and requests 

that participants agree to the proposed agreement revisions in order that it is not singularly exposed to 

unforeseen costs in delivering a service benefitting all participants. 

The participants polled at a meeting held late in 2012 agreed to support in principle an initiative that 

would retain collective participation in the 9-1-1 service. 

Attachment: RDCO letter dated January 9, 2013 with Appendices 1-5 

Submitted by: 


-~~ .. 

/ Protective Services Manager 




,,It 

Office of the Administrator 

I.,. 

" '. ~ 1450 I



In support of this initiative, please find included the following appendices: 

Appendix 1 - Background Paper, in'cluding issues identification and next steps 

Appendix 2 - Proposed Amendment to the Contract for consideration by Regional Boards 

Appendix 3 - Existing Contract, ending December 31,2013 (note: clause to be amended is 

highlighted) 

Appendix 4 - Scope of work for Consultant (Chris Kellett) 

Appendix 5 - RFI & RFP Process Outline 

We appreciate the co-operation we have received to date from all partner RDs and we look 

forward to working together to deliver a continued high standard of service for our residents for 

the best taxpayer value. 

~ 

Paul Macklem 

Chief Administrative Officer 




Appendix 1 

Background Paper, including issues identification and next steps 

As of October 31, 2012 

History 

The Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO) provides enhanced 9-1-1 

emergency telephone number service to the residents of the Central Okanagan and, by 

contractual agreement, to residents of the following 8 Regional Districts: 

~ RD Kootenay Boundary 

~ RD Central Kootenay 

~ RD East Kootenay 

~ RD North Okanagan 

~ RD Columbia Shuswap 

~ RD Thompson-Nicola 

~ RD Okanagan-Similkameen 

~ RD Squamish-Lillooett 

In March, 2011 , the RDCO Board approved a staff report that recommended contracting 

of 9-1-1 services to the RCMP subject to successful negotiations. The report identified a 

potential saving of $128,744 annually as well as resolution of other management issues 

that made it difficult to effectively supervise the service. 

There was an expectation that the RCMP would provide final costing sometime after the 

March, 2011 report date, however it was not provided until a meeting with RCMP 

personnel on July 18, 2012. It was at that meeting that a new cost estimate of $125,857 

per operator was submitted, an increase of $37,306 per operator or 42%. 

In March, 2012, RDCO management met with al112 permanent 9-1-1 operators to 

advise that there would be no job losses or layoffs as a result of contracting the service 

to the RCMP. Each employee would have the option of remaining with the RDCO or 

moving over to the RCMP. 

The interim RDCO Chief Administrative Officer, in his initial assessment of the service in 

May, 2012, determined that the RDCO should not continue to employ any of the 9-1 -1 

operators under a contract with the RCMP given that all supervision would be under 

RCMP control. A letter was forwarded to the RCMP by the RDCO Chair on May 23, 

2012 requesting that they expedite their new cost calculations for the RDCO to consider 

as it had been over 14 months since their initial estimate and the RDCO was in the 

Page lof4 




Appendix 1 

midst of CUPE contract negotiations with its employees. The RCMP delays were 

attributable to the new provincial policing contract which was subject to very protracted 

negotiations. 

A meeting took place with the RCMP on July 18, 2012 in Kelowna. At the meeting the 

RCMP acknowledged that 9-1-1 is not one of their core service areas. Subsequently, 

RDCO staff developed a list of options to be explored, goals and next steps: 

Options: 

1. Status Quo - not a preferred option 

2. Contract with RCMP 

3. Bring "In House" 

4. Integrate with Kelowna Fire Department dispatch services 

5. Set up a stand-alone corporation 

6. Call for Proposals for a Contract Assignment (i.e. EComm9-1-1) 

7. Explore Partnerships - RD's, Municipalities 

It was recognized that there could be other options that may emerge over time. 

Goals: 

1. Provide Excellent Service 

2. Minimize Costs 

3. Retain Partners (Customers, Clients) Municipalities, RD's 

4. Treat current employees fairly with respect 

5. Efficiency in Emergency Services Delivery 

Next Steps: 

1. Cost comparison - as provided to RD's on September 13 th 

a. Status Quo 

b. RCMP Contract 

2. Verbal update to RDCO Board of Directors, giving heads up - done and direction 

supported. 

3. Talk to 8 RD's under contract - September 14th conference call 

4. Preliminary Exploration of options 

a. RDCO staff met with Dave Mitchell who is very experienced in this matter, 

to discuss potential options, particularly development of a stand-alone 

company. He has an independent consulting business and is also Director 

of Fire Services for EComm9-1-1 

b. RDCO staff met with Chris Kellett who is also very experienced in this 

matter. Agreement to work with him in the development of an RFI and 

RFP subject to approval of other RD's 





Appendix 1 

c. RDCO staff believe that best value will be achieved by issuing an RFI 

followed by an RFP, the results of which can be compared to moving the 

service to the RCMP. 

5. Discussion with CUPE and employees - done 

The RDCO Board subsequently approved of staff moving ahead to explore options, 

including the issuance of an RFI and RFP, and make recommendations based on the 

result in conjunction with 9-1-1 service RD partners. 

Issues 

Regional Partners 

Facts 

• Each of the contracts with Regional District partners expire on December 31, 

2013. 

• The contracts state that either party may terminate the agreement by giving 

written notice on or before July 1 sl in any calendar year with termination on 

December 31 s1 of that year. As no RD's have provided notice to date, all 

contracts will extend to the expiry date. 

• The contracts set a budget cap of $1.5 million annually with a potential increase 

of $150,000 for an extra-ordinary event or situation. 

• Using estimated costs provided by the RCMP result in a projected tax requisition 

requirement of $1.82 million. 

• Using estimated costs in continuing the current service results in a projected tax 

requisition requirement of $1 .69 million. 

• Any available surplus from 2012 will be carried over to reduce the 2013 tax 

requisition. 

• The RDCO meeting with the RCMP took place after July 1 st, therefore there was 

no opportunity for the RDCO to give notice of termination to the other RD's if the 

service were moved to the RCMP and financial risk would be borne solely by the 

RDCO. 

Proposal and Next Steps 

• The RDCO proposes that the budget cap be amended to $1 .7 million for 2013 

with a potential increase to reflect total anticipated costs with the concurrence of 

the majority of participating Regional Districts. 

• The objective will be to transfer operations to an alternate service provider 

sometime in 2013 on the premise that there will be proven financial savings while 

meeting defined standards of service. 

• The RDCO will continue to provide the service until the RDCO and its contract 

partners land on the best option for continuing 9-1-1 service. 

Page 30f4 




Appendix 1 

o 

o 

Chris Kellett will be engaged to lead in the preparation of an RFI and RFP and to 

assist in the evaluation of proposals. The cost is not to exceed $15,000. The 

RDCO believes this can be funded within the 2012 budget cap. 

Need to determine who's in and who's out and how best to allocate costs if 

different than the current methodology. 

RCMP 

Facts 

o The costs presented by the RCMP at the July 18 th meeting could not be 

anticipated. The RCMP fully understands that they are problematic for the RDCO 

and its partners. 

o The RDCO had been waiting for costs for approximately 16 months. 

o The RCMP have advised that the new cost structure will begin on January 1, 

2013 which, if transition were to take place by then , would impact the program 

budget considerably. 

o The RCMP has advised that the costs provided to date are not final. We are 

awaiting this information. 

Next Steps 

o 

A meeting with the RCMP is necessary to advise them of our plan to explore 

alternative service provision and to receive final costs as financial information 

provided on July 18, 2012 was preliminary. 

9·1·1 Operators 

o 

9·1·1 operators were advised in March, 2012 that there would be no job loss and 

they would have the option to stay with the RDCO or move over to the RCMP. 

Next Steps 

o 

o 

o 

9·1·1 operators were advised in a meeting on August 29 th that RCMP costs came 

in much higher than anticipated and the RDCO Board has directed staff to 

explore all options. 

Regular monthly update meetings are being held to keep staff members informed 

regarding the analysis underway. Information and options for staff to be provided 

wherever possible. 

While there are no guarantees of job protection, every effort will be made to be 

fair to current employees in being considered for employment with an alternate 

service provider. 





Appendix 2 

Proposed Amendment to the Contract for Consideration by Regional Boards 

The proposed Contract Amendment is attached. 

This contract amendment is necessary to fairly share the risk of cost increases among 

the participating Regional Districts. Currently. the RDCO is solely responsible for any 

and all costs greater than $1 .65 million for 2013. 




Amendment No.1 

Contract For Enhanced 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Number Service 

AGREEMENT AMENDMENT 

This AMENDMENT to the Agreement for Enhanced 9-1-1- Emergency 

Telephone service (dated 1 5t of January 2010) , is entered into as of 

December 15 th , 2012. 

By and Between: 

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN 

1450 KLO Road , 

Kelowna, 

British Columbia 

V1W 3Z4 

("Central Okanagan") 

And: REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN 

9848 Aberdeen Road , 

Coldstream 

British Columbia 

V1B 2K9 

("RDNO") 

Witnesses: That the Central Okanagan and the RDNO in consideration of their mutual 

rights and obligations to one another, DO AGREE TO AMEND THE ABOVE NAMED 

AGREEMENT AS FOLLOWS: 

Clause 7 shall be amended to read as follows: 

The paragraph that reads: 

The Central Okanagan and the RDNO further agree that for the term of this 

agreement as identified in Section 14, the annual budget shall not exceed 

$1 ,500,000.00 provided however and with the concurrence of a majority of the 

Participating Regional Districts, the budget may be increased by an additional 

$150,000.00 for an extra-ordinary event or situation. This does not include those 

capital expenditures contemplated in section 9 herein. 

Shall be amended to read : 

The Central Okanagan and the RDNO further agree that for the budget year 

January 1 to December 31 2013, the annual budget shall not exceed 

$1 ,700,000.00 provided however and with the concurrence of a majority of the 


amount representing anticipated costs for an extra-ordinary event or situation. 





Amendment No.1 

Contract For Enhanced 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Number Service 

This does not include those capital expenditures contemplated in section 9 

herein. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement Amendment on the 

day and year first above written by their officers or persons duly authorized to execute 

on their behalf. 

THE CORPORATE SEAL OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICT 

OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN was hereunto affixed on the 

_ day of , 2012 in the presence of: 

Authorized Signatory 

Title 


Title 

THE CORPORATE SEAL OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICT 

OF NORTH OKANAGAN was hereunto affixed on the 

day of , 2012 in the presence of: 


Title 


Title 

Page 2 of2 




THIS AGREEMENT made as oflhe 1st day of January, 2010. 

BETWEEN: 

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN 

1450 K.L.O. Road 

Kelowna, British Columbia 

V1W3Z4 

("Central Ol



2 

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT in consideration of the 

premises and the covenants herein contained, the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) now paid 

by each of the parties to the other, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby ac 

Imowledged by the parties, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto 

agree as follows: 

1. The RDNO has established E9-1-1 Emergency Telephone Service to permit any 

person included in the service area established in the Regional District of North 

Okanagan Bylaw No. 1160, 1993, within the boundaries of North Ol(anagan, who 

has access to a telephone connected to a telephone system, to dial 9-1 -1 to 

communicate with the operations communication centre to report information relating 

to fire, police or ambulance emergencies. The operations communication 

centre subsequently relays the information to the appropriate authorities. 

2. Central Okanagan agrees to provide the services of the I



3 

5. It is agreed that the following regional districts will receive 9-1-1 service through 

the Kelowna Centre and will share in the costs of operating the Kelowna Centre 

as outlined in this Agreement: 

Central Kootenay 

Kootenay Boundary 

Central Ol



4 

h) other costs necessarily incidental to any of the above; 

i) contribution or transfer to reserve. 

The Central Okanagan and the RDNO furth er agree that for the term of this 

agreement as identified in Section '14, the annual budget shall not exceed 

$1,500,000.00 provided however and with the concurrence of a majority of the 


$150,000.00 for an e)(tra-ordinary event or situation. This does not include those 

capital expenditures contemplated in section 9 herein. 

Annually, Central Okanagan sha ll invoice the RDNO for its proportionate share of 

the operating costs in accordance with the formula set out in Section 6 hereof. 

Such invoice shall be payable on or before August 1 st of each year. It is understood 

and agreed that operating costs do not include those costs related to the installation, 

maintenance or rental charges for the dedicated telephone lines of 

each participating regional district, which costs shall be paid by each participating 

regional district directly. 

8. The parties hereto agree that Central Okanagan will establish a reserve fund for 

capital expenditures in respect of the acquisition and replacement of machine'ry 

and equipment necessary for the efficient operation of the Central Okanagan 

System. The reserve fund shall be established, by bylaw, and administered in 

accordance with Section 189 of the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c.26. If 

any assets are disposed of, the total disposition proceeds will be shared by the 

Participating Regional Districts on the same basis as operating expenditures as 

set out in Section 6 herein. 

9. The parties acknowledge and agree that certain capital expenditures are necessary 

from time to time to update the equipment for the Service at the Kelowna 

Centre. Within three (3) months of the finalization of any upgrade and capital acquisitions 

Central Okanagan shall invoice the RDNO for its proportionate share of 

the total capital costs in excess of costs covered by the accumulated reserve 

fund which proportion shall be determined in accordance with the formula set in 

Section 6 herein. 

'10. 

In consultation with the Participating Regional Districts, Central Okanagan sha ll 

prepare an annual capital and operating budget for the operation of the I



5 

11. The parties agree to each obtain and maintain a comprehensive general liability 

insurance policy against claims for bodily injury, including death, property damage 

or other loss arising out of the operation of the f



6 

18. Should there be a disagreement or dispute between the parties hereto with respect 

to this Agreement or the interpretation thereof, the same shall be referred to 

a single arbitrator pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C., 1996, c. 

55, the costs of which shall be borne equally by the parties hereto and the determination 

of the arbitrator shall be fina l and binding upon the parties. 

19. This Agreement shall not be transferred or assigned by either party hereto without 

the prior written consent of the other party. 

20. The provisions herein contained constitute the entire agreement between the parties 

and supersede all previous communications, representations and agreements, 

whether verbal or written between the parties with respect to the subject 

matter hereof. 

21 . This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto 

and their successors, administrators, executors, heirs and permitted assigns. 

22. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees to execute such further documents 

and instruments and to do such other things as may be necessary to implement 

and carry out the intent of this Agreement. 

23. Waiver of any default by either party sha ll not be deemed to be a waiver of any 

subsequent default by that party. 

24. All notices, demands and payments required or permitted to be given hereunder 

shall be in writing and may be delivered personally, sent by telegram, facsimile 

transmission or telex, or may be forwarded by first-class prepa id registered mail to 

the addresses set forth on the first page hereof. If notice is given by Central 

Ol



7 

26. Every reference to each party is deemed to include the heirs, executors, administrators, 

successors, permitted assigns, employees, servants, agents, officers and 

invitees of that party whenever the context so requires or allows. 

27. Central Okanagan shall provide to RDNO, on at least an annual basis, a report on 

the operations of the 9-1-1 I

~ , 



8 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the day 

and year first above written . 

THE CORPORATE SEAL OF THE 

REGONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL 

OKANAGAN was hereunto affixed on the 

B day of ~c)" , 2010 in 

the presence of: 


) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

THE CORPORATE SEAL OF THE 


"" 

OF NORTH OKANAGAN 

was hereunto affixed on the .:c7 

day Of:r~Z ,2010 in the presence of: 

?tM~~--- 



) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 




9 

THIS AGREEMENT dated the dol day of ~- \ , 2010. 

BETWEEN: 

REG IONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN 

And: 





Appendix 4 

Scope of work for Consultant (Chris Kellett) 

Background: 

A Consultant with deep knowledge of 9-1-1 PSAP services is required to support the Regional District 

Partners in developing their requirements and evaluating proposals as we work through a competitive 

RFP process to review proposals forthe 9-1-1 PSAP Service Provider against the current RCMP proposal. 

Chris Kellett (biography attached), has been identified as a good fit for this role, due to his knowledge 

and experience in this area. Most importantly, Chris' participation in this project would not create any 

conflict of interest situations, as Chris does not have any affiliation with identified potential service 

providers. 

Proposed Scope of Work: 

The Scope of Work Chris will be asked to perform shall include the following. Note: Chris will be 

reimbursed on a day-rate basis against an estimated budget. This will afford some flexibility in Chris' 

work as the project develops. 

A: Understanding our Requirements: 

1. Review & understand the current 9-1-1 setup, including: 

• RDCO/Southeast District 9-1-1 Emergency service function (PSi'lP), 

• bylaw, 

• current and proposed arrangements with RCMP, 

• equipment setup, 

• current processes 

• current shortfalls & risks 

2. Identify how RDCO 9-1-1 compares to industry standards/best practices, with a view to how 

shortfalls could be addressed in RFP. 

3. There shall be a preference for the location of the service to remain within the Central 

Okanagan. The weighting of this in the RFP evaluation shall be determined by the Core Team at 

a later stage. Review to include the potential to house 9-1-1 at RDCO KLO Road office building 

(logistics, requirements, etc.) 

4. Identify risks in contracting out 9-1-1, and measures to mitigate through process, contract 

. terms, etc. 

B: Support to RFI & RFP Processes: 

5. Assist the core team in drafting the questions in the RFI (to be issued publicly). 

6. Participate in face-to-face meetings with Proponents as part of RFI process. 

7. Take knowledge from RFI and meetings, review options with RDCO, and develop Scope of Work 

for RFP. 

8. Technical support to RFP (support in answering questions raised by Proponents, attend 

Proponent presentations, etc.) 

9. RFP Evaluation - member of RFP evaluation team. 

C: Implementation / Transition: 

10. Support to implementation & transition, depending on option chosen. 





Appendix 5 

9-1-1 PSAP SERVICE PROVIDER RFI-RFP PROCESS OUTLINE 

General: 

• The competitive process to identify and select a 9-1-1 PSAP Service Provider 

shall be run in 2 stages: 

• Request For Information (RFI): requests expressions of interest and 

other information from Proponents. 

• Request For Proposal (RFP): requests formal Proposals which are 

evaluated with the intent of selecting a Proponent. 

• Throughout the process, all 9 Regional District partners shall be kept informed of 

progress and outcomes. Senior Staff of the 9 Regional District partners have 

agreed to a "Core Team" who will represent all Regional Districts and make 

decisions on the following : 

• Approve the RFI prior to issue 

• Review the RFI responses and approve proceeding to an RFP 

• Review the RFP document (including Scope of Work and evaluation 

method) prior to issue 

• Jointly conduct the RFP evaluation and make an award recommendation 

to the Regional Boards. 

• The Core Team is identified as: 

• Cary Berger, Manager of Police Services, RDCO 

• Andy Brennan, Purchasing Manager, RDCO 

• Sukh Gill, CAO, TNRD 

• Ron Baker, Community/Protective Services Manager, NORD 

• Carol Lind, Emergency Services Co-ordinator, RDEK 

Paul Macklem, CAO, RDCO and Marilyn Rilkoff, Director of Finance & 

Administration, RDCO will assist on an as needed basis. 

• Throughout the project, the Regional District partners shall employ a consultant 

(Chris Kellett) . 





Appendix 5 

Request For Information (RFIl Process: 

The objective of the RFI is to: 

• Seek expressions of interest from Proponents who would like to participate in the 

RFP process. 

• Obtain general background information on Proponents - past experience, 

capabilities, and opportunities. 

• Obtain answers to questions which will help shape the RFP Requirements / 

Scope of Work, such as: location preference, length of agreement preference, 

office requirements, technical/equipment requirements, and consideration for 

existing 9-1-1 CUPE staff. 

Steps in the RFI process shall be: 

1) Core Team and Consultant to agree on RFI questions prior to issue. 

2) RFI to be posted publicly on BC Bid, Civiclnfo, etc. for a minimum of 2 weeks. 

3) Meetings may be held with RFI respondents if Core Team requires. 

4) Core Team to decide on invitees for RFP process. 

5) All Regional District partners to be updated on RFI outcome. 

Request For Proposal (RFP) Process: 

Steps in the RFP Process shall be: 

1) Refine Requirements: 

a. Consultant to develop RFP Scope of Work, based on: 

i. Review & understanding of the current 9-1-1 setup, including: 

• RDCO/Southeast District 9-1-1 Emergency service function 

(PSAP) 

• bylaw 

• current and proposed arrangements with RCMP 

• equipment setup 

• current processes 

• current shortfalls & risks 

ii. Identify how RDCO 9-1-1 compares to industry standards/best 

practices, with a view to how shortfalls could be addressed in RFP. 

iii . Review potential to house 9-1-1 at RDCO KLO Road office building 

(logistics, requirements, etc.). There shall be a preference for the 

location of the service to remain within the Central Okanagan. The 

Weighting of this preference in the RFP evaluation shall be 

determined by the Core Team. 

b. Risk analysis and mitigation plan to be completed 

c. Integrate learning from RFI responses 

d. Set RFP evaluation criteria and weighting 

e. Identify special contract terms required based on identified risks. 





Appendix 5 

f. Scope of Work and evaluation method to be finalized by Core Team and 

shared with all RD partners. 

2) Issue RFP: RFP document finalized and issued to Proponents for 3-4 weeks. 

3) Receive Proposals & Evaluate: Core team will conduct joint initial evaluation 

against set criteria. 

4) Proponent Presentations (Optional) I Clarifications: Proponents may be 

invited to present their Proposal. Any required clarifications of proposals to be 

completed. 

5) Award Recommendation: Core Team to finalize evaluation and issue award 

recommendation to Regional District Partners for final approval. 

6) Issue Notice of Award: Notice of award issued to successful Proponent, 

Contracts executed with each Regional District. 

7) Contract Commences: New contract shall commence following 

mobilization/transfer period as agreed to with the successful Proponent. 

Page 3 00 







REPORT 

File No.: 8500.05 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 


Engineering 


Draft Transit Future Plan, 2013 - Executive Summary 


That the Board of Directors support for public consultation the priorities as listed in the Draft 

Future Plan 2013, Executive Summary, produced by Be Transit and dated January 2013. 

DISCUSSION: 

A presentation of the Draft Transit Future Plan Executive Summary will be delivered to the 

Board of Directors and is attached to this report. The presentation includes a look at some of the 

proposed frequent and local transit network and targeted service changes and accompanying 

service and infrastructure implementation priorities for the short, medium and long term. 

Submitted by: i ~ ~ ~ J 

~~ 

Nicole Kohnert, P.Eng. 

Manager of Regional Engineering Services 

d by: 

/ 

Reviewed and : ndJsed by: 

~( , I 

Dale MCTamEng. 

General Manager Engineering 




1/25/2013 

Vernon Regional Transit System 

I 

I 

Draft Transit Future Plan, 20131 

Executive Summary 

Presented by Nicole Kahnert, P.Eng. 

Manager Regional Engineering Services 

February 6, 20 13 

I 

Recommendation 

That the Board of Directors support for public consultation 

the priorities as listed in the Draft Future Plan 2013, 

Executive Summary, produced by Be Transit and dated 

January 2013, 


1



1/25/2013 

Vision and Goals 

Vision 

The North Okanagan System connects people and communities 

through cost effective, convenient, safe and accessible services. 

Goals 

Make transit an attractive alternative to the private vehicle. 

Complement the regional goal of compact, complete communities. 

Reduce environmental impacts and congestion. 

Make transit efficient. 

The Transit Future Plan Network 

Frequent Transit Network (FTN) 

The FTN provides key local corridors with a convenient, reliable, frequent transit 

service from 7am to 7pm. 

LocalTransit Network (LTN) 

Designed to connect local neighbourhoods to local destinations and to the FTN. 

Targeted Services 

A collection of transit services that do not fit into the local transit network definition 

and are more focused on the needs of specific customers. These services include: 

~ Inter-regional: provides connections outside of the local transit service area (e.g. Kelowna, 

Salmon Arm) 

• Intra-regional:provides connection between various communities within the North 

Okanagan Region egVernon to Lumby. Spaitumcheen,Armstrong and Enderby. 

• Custam/handyDART: daoHo-door services for customers unable ta use the conventianal 

service (being reviewed separately from the conventional system). 


2



1/25/2013 

Plan Network 

" 1 

__ , 

d 

,. I ., 

"':_ I ! ~ I I . ~ I -.. 

'1 -'1-" 

- ... · =~9-;,. 1 

, I 

).. ,-; FTN 

l~"._ 

! • I 

/ 

! 1 

" : l 

/ 

I 

j 

'. 

i' 

.' 

./ 

_.- 

, 

Targeted 

Network 

Implementation Strategy 

Transforming today's network into the future network 

NETWORK PRIORITY ONE - Short Term (0 - 5 Years) 

SERVICE 

• In(roduce Frequent Service between Downtown Exchange,Village Green Centre and 

Polson Mall with IS - 20 minute frequency levels during peak (FTN) 

~ Introduce Inner City Loop Service (FTN) 

• Realign Routes 2 and 3 to complement FTN 

• Improve frequency and route structure to East Hill 

• Improve Regional Connections to Kelowna by filling in all weekday gaps in service and 

offering hourty trips between 7am and 7pm. 

• Expand evening and Sunday service. 

• Improve frequency on Route 90 and mitigate pass ups. 

• Improve regional connections to better meet interregional transfers 

• Policy and Operational improvements to custom service including handyDART service 


3



1/25/2013 

Network Priority One - Continued 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

• Examine transfer points/secondary exchange possibilities atVillage Green Mall, 

Polson Mall and Okanagan College. 

• Identify and develop formalized Park and Ride sites in Armstrong and at 

Okanagan College with a possible additional site near Swan Lake. 

• Examine possibility of tu rn arou nd location in vicinity of Kalamalka Lake. 

Implementation Strategy Continued 

NETWORK PRIORITY TWO - Medium to LongTerm 

~ Introduce service to Middleton Mountain and Okanagan College 

from Polson Mall 

~ Introduce Service to Silver Star Foothills from Village Green Centre 

~ Enhancement of weekday service hours to 6am - I Opm and 

weekend service 

~ Extend Route 90 to include limited weekend service. 

~ Introduce frequent service to Waterfront Neighbourhood Service as 

the neighbourhood build up in line with OCP. 

~ Improve transit options to Salmon Arm 


4



1/25/2013 

Network Priority Two - Continued 

• Service new areas of development where development patterns 

complement transit 

• Expand secondary transit exchanges at Okanagan College and Village 

Green Mall 

• Examine Park and Ride possibilities around Okanagan College, 

Armstrong and possibly Swan Lake. 

• Examine weekend service possibilities to UBCO Kelowna. 

• Examine construction of Kiss and Ride stations at Foothills, 

Downtown Terminus, Okanagan College and Okanagan Landing. 

• Introduce basic level of service to Blue Jay, BX and Paddlewheel 

• Reroute Route 6 along Highway for better access to hospital. 

Implementation Strategy Continued 

Ongoing Initiatives 

The following initiatives in the Transit Futu re Plan are non-network related and some will require 

continuous effort throughout the life of the plan. 

• Address existing service needs 

• Passenger demand and operating time 

• Match vehicle type to local service demand 

• Incorporate new service areas 

• Improve customer information/marketing 

• Improve transit customer amenities at transit stops 

• Improve fare product availability 

• Support ProPass Initiatives 


5



1/25/2013 

Moving Forward 

Funding the Plan 

• Capital investments 

• Expanding the transit fleet 

• Improvements to transit stops 

• Development of secondary exchangesltransfer points 

• Development of Park and Rides 

• Turn around facility in proximity to Kalamalka Lake. 

Keys to Su ccess 

• To guide the plan from 'vision to reality' will require an 

on-going dialogue between the Province, BC Transit, and 

the regional municipal partners on transportation policy, 

funding and the linkage between land use and transit 

planning. 

• Other steps required to ensure the success of the plan 

include integrating the transit plan into other municipal 

and local projects and plans, with strong supporting travel 

demand management measures, transit oriented 

development and transit friendly land use practices. 


6



1/25/2013 

Thank You 


7


February 6, 2013 - Item G.1a 


MINUTES of a SPECIAL meeting of the GREATER VERNON ADVISORY COMMITTEE held in 

the Board Room at the Regional District Office on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 

Members: Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area "C" (Chair) 

Alternate Director B. Spiers 


Councillor G. Kiss 



Electoral Area "B" 

Director R. Sawatzky 


Alternate Director C. Lord 


Alternate Director J. Garlick 




B. Turanski School District No.22 Rep 


T. Nelson Community Development Coordinator 

K. Pinkoski Parks Planner 

J. Byron Corporate Officer 


H. Roseberry Clerk (taking minutes) 

L. Mellott General Manager, Electoral Area 

Administration 

J. Coughlin Facilities Manager 

Also Present: Councillor P. McClean 


Director P. Nicol 


Director Fairbairn 


Alternate Director M. Randell Electoral Area “C” 

A. McNiven (Consultant) Parks, Recreation and Culture 

Media and Public 


Special Agenda – December 18, 2012 

Moved and seconded by Councillor Kiss and Director Sawatzky 

That the Special Agenda of the December 18, 2012 Greater Vernon Advisory Committee 

meeting, be approved with the following addition: 

Item E.6 - Archaeological Study, Proposed Sports Facility Site 

CARRIED 


Greater Vernon Advisory Committee Special Meeting of November 28, 2012 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Director Garlick and Director Sawatzky 

That the minutes of the November 28, 2012 Greater Vernon Advisory Committee Special 

Meeting, be adopted as circulated. 

CARRIED 




Minutes – Special 


- 2 - December 18, 2012 

NEW BUSINESS 

060 – Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation & Culture Budget 

Staff presented on the proposed 2013 Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Budget as 

discussed in the report 060 – Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Budget, dated 

November 23, 2012. 

Councillor Kiss left the meeting at 1:39 p.m. 

Staff recommended that the Capital Budget of $1,035,370 be approved in 2013 as part of the 

overall Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture budget. 

Staff will bring back a detailed report that outlines the Greater Vernon Recreation Complex 

project grants. 

Councillor Kiss rejoined the meeting at 1:43 p.m. 

Alternate Director Lord left the meeting at 2:12 p.m. 

Alternate Director Lord rejoined the meeting at 2:13 p.m. 

Director Dirk left the meeting at 2:27 p.m. 

Director Dirk rejoined the meeting at 2:32 p.m. 

The committee requested that staff identify parks with creosote and bring back a report for 

discussion. 

Director Fleming left the meeting at 2:36 p.m. 

Director Fleming rejoined the meeting at 2:38 p.m. 

Director Fleming left the meeting at 2:44 pm. 

Director Fleming rejoined the meeting at 2:45 p.m. 

The Greater Vernon Museum and Archives roof is 23 years old and has a 25 year lifespan. 

Although there is no indication that there are issues with the roof condition, it is challenging to 

do a thorough inspection due to design. Staff requested direction on whether to include roof 

replacement in the 2013 budget. 

Moved and seconded by Directors Sawatzky and Fleming 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be directed to increase the 

operating grant for the Vernon Public Art Gallery to a maximum of $177,625 with the stipulation 

that if gaming grants received by the Art Gallery are higher than budgeted, that amount be 

returned to the Regional District North Okanagan. 

CARRIED 

Director Dirk left the meeting at 4:33 p.m. 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Directors Spiers and Garlick 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be directed to move budget item 

Lakeshore Landing Park from page 27 of the 060 GVPRD Capital Master List, in the amount of 

$220,000 and include it in the Capital Project List; and further, 






- 3 - December 18, 2012 


requirements for offsite works. 

CARRIED 

Motion amended by Councillor Kiss and Alternate Director Garlick 

That the City of Vernon rezone these properties as park prior to project commencement. 

CARRIED 

Motion as amended: 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be directed to move budget item 

Lakeshore Landing park from page 27 of the 060 GVPRD Capital Master List, in the amount of 

$220,000 and include it in the Capital Project list; and further, 


requirements for offsite works; and further, 

That the City of Vernon rezone these properties as park prior to project commencement. 

Moved and seconded by Director Sawatzky and Councillor Kiss 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be directed to include all carry 

forward items for budget discussions in future Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture 

capital budgets. 

CARRIED 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Director Lord and Director Sawatzky 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation 

and Culture budget proposal for 2013 be considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District 

Budget subject to revisions upon review of the 2012 year end budget report. 

CARRIED 

062 – Multiplex (Wesbild) – 2013 Budget Proposal 

Staff discussed the report 062 – Multiplex (Wesbild) 2013 Budget Proposal, dated December 5, 

2012. 

Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Alternate Director Spiers 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the 2013 Wesbild Centre budget 

proposal be considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District budget subject to possible 

revision of accounts upon review of 2012 year end. 

CARRIED 

Motion amended by Alternate Director Spiers and Director Sawatzky 

That staff be directed to apply any operating surplus from 2012 to off set the tax requisition. 

CARRIED 

Motion as amended: 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the 2013 Wesbild Centre budget 

proposal be considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District budget subject to possible 

revision of accounts upon review of 2012 year end; and further, 

That staff be directed to apply any operating surplus from 2012 to off set the tax requisition. 






- 4 - December 18, 2012 

065 – Performing Arts Centre 2013 Budget Proposal 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Director Garlick and Director Fleming 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Performing Arts Centre budget 

proposal for 2013 be considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District budget subject to 

possible revision of utility accounts upon review of the 2012 year end expenditures and 

confirmation of what funds will be forthcoming from the Societies endowment fund. 

CARRIED 


Moved and seconded by Alternate Directors Spiers and Lord 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the 2012 Greater Vernon Museum and 

Archives operating budget be adjusted from $180,034 to $189,214. 

CARRIED 

Opposed by Councillor Kiss and Chair Macnabb 

The Chair adjourned the meeting for a short recess at 5:05 p.m. 

The Chair reconvened the meeting at 5:10 p.m. 

Community Sports Facility Referendum 

Staff provided a variety of options that could impact the overall borrowing cost of the proposed 

Community Sports Facility and compared product quality and value in relation to cost. 

Discussion ensued around opportunities for financial support from the community and user 

groups. 

Moved and seconded by Directors Sawatzky and Alternate Director Garlick 

That the Community Sports Facility Design and Costing Presentation and Costing Worksheet be 

received for information; and further, 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be directed to distribute the 

Community Sports Facility Design and Costing Presentation and Costing Worksheet to the 

committee for review. 

CARRIED 

Greater Vernon Recreation Complex Enhancements – Progress Report 

Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Councillor Kiss 

That the staff report titled Greater Vernon Recreation Complex Enhancements – Progress 

Report, dated December 12, 2012 be received for information. 

CARRIED 

Archaeological Study - Proposed Sports Facility Site 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Directors Spiers and Garlick 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a letter of approval be provided to 

Okanagan College to allow them to conduct an archaeological study on the property leased by 

the Regional District for the purpose of constructing a sports facility; and further, 

That the Regional District North Okanagan contribute $10,000 toward the cost of the 

archaeological study. 


CARRIED





- 5 - December 18, 2012 

ADJOURNMENT 



Chair 




February 6, 2013 - Item G.1b 


MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE held in the Board Room at the Regional District Office on Thursday, January 17, 

2013 

Members: Director K. Acton Village of Lumby Chair 

Director J. Pearase Electoral Area “F” Vice Chair 

Alt. Director C. Pieper 










Director R. Fairbairn 




Staff: R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building 

A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator 

A. Bevan Executive Assistant (taking minutes) 


The General Manager, Planning and Building called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m. 

ELECTION OF REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR 

The General Manager, Planning and Building called three times for nominations for the office of 

Chair of the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee. 

Director Fleming nominated Director Macnabb. 

Director Dirk nominated Director Acton. 

Voting by secret ballot was conducted. Director Acton was declared elected as Chair of the 

Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee. 

Moved and seconded by Director Cyr and Alt. Director Pieper 

That the ballots be destroyed. 

CARRIED 

ELECTION OF REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR 

The General Manager, Planning and Building called three times for nominations for the office of 

Vice Chair of the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee. 

Director Brown nominated Director Cyr. 

Director Cyr nominated Director Fleming. Director Fleming declined. 

Director Cyr nominated Director Pearase. 



Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee February 6, 2013 - Item G.1b 

Meeting Minutes – Regular - 2 - January 17, 2013 

Voting by secret ballot was conducted. Director Pearase was declared elected as Vice Chair of 

the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee. 

Moved and seconded by Alt. Director Pieper and Director Cyr 

That the ballots be destroyed. 

CARRIED 


Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee Meeting – January 17, 2013 

Moved and seconded by Alt. Director Pieper and Director Fairbairn 

That the agenda of the January 17, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Growth Management 

Advisory Committee be approved with the following additions: 

 

D. In Camera 

CARRIED 


Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee Meeting – December 6, 2012 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Foisy 

That the minutes of the December 6, 2012 regular meeting of the Regional Growth 

Management Advisory Committee be adopted as circulated. 

CARRIED 

NEW BUSINESS 

Regional Growth Strategy Budget Update – November 15, 2012 

The Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator advised that 2012 was under budget. 

The General Manager, Planning and Building advised that the $250,000 grant funding for the 

Regional Context Statements was approved. 

Moved and seconded by Alt. Director Pieper and Director Cyr 

That the report dated November 15, 2012, from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator, 

regarding Regional Growth Strategy Budget Update be received for information. 

CARRIED 

Regional Growth Strategy Update – January 4, 2013 

Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Cyr 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Regional Growth Strategy Update 

dated January 4, 2013 be received for information and forwarded to member municipalities and 

First Nations for their information. 

CARRIED 





2013 Okanagan Valley Household Travel Survey 


That the request from the City of Kelowna for a contribution of $75,000 from the Regional 

District of North Okanagan for the 2013 Okanagan Valley Household Travel Survey be received 

for information. 

CARRIED 

Thompson-Nicola Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Minor Amendment Bylaw 

No. 2409 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Fairbairn 


the Thompson-Nicola Regional Growth Strategy Minor Amendment Bylaw No. 2409 be received 


CARRIED 

District of Coldstream Letter: Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that, due to the voluntary nature of 

Agricultural Land Reserve application referral to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

for review, that the Terms of Reference be maintained as adopted by the Board of Directors on 

August 15, 2012; and further, 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that Maria Besso be appointed to the 

Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee as the District of Coldstream representative and Peter 

McClean be appointed as the alternate representative. 

CARRIED 


The Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator gave an overview of the 2011 North Okanagan 

Demographic Profile information. 

Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Alt. Director Pieper 


the 2011 North Okanagan Demographic Profile be received for information and referred to the 

Electoral Area Advisory Committee and member municipal councils for their information; and 

further, 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the 2011 North Okanagan Demographic 

Profile be used in each of the four 2013 Regional Growth Strategy implementation projects. 

CARRIED 


Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Pearase 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the staff report dated October 29, 2012 

regarding Regional Context Statements be forwarded to all member municipalities and the 

Electoral Area Advisory Committee requesting direction on Regional Context Statement process 

and approach. 

CARRIED 





British Columbia ‘Buy Local’ Grant Program 

Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Fairbairn 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the British Columbia ‘Buy Local’ Program 

information be referred to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee for discussion. 

CARRIED 

IN CAMERA 


That, pursuant to Section 92 of the Community Charter, the regular meeting of the Regional 

Growth Management Advisory Committee convene In Camera to deal with matters deemed 

closed to the public in accordance with Section 90(1)(a – personal information) of the 

Community Charter. 

CARRIED 

The regular meeting of the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee adjourned to 

meet In Camera at 3:13 p.m. 

The regular meeting of the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee reconvened at 

3:48 p.m. 

ADJOURNMENT 



Chair 




February 6, 2013 - Item G.1c 


MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the WHITE VALLEY PARKS, RECREATION AND 

CULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE held in the Board Room at the Village of Lumby Municipal 

Hall, Lumby, BC on Monday, January 14, 2013 

Members: Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” (Chair) 



Councillor R. Ostafichuk Village of Lumby (Vice Chair) 

Staff: T. Nelson Community Development Coordinator and 

Recording Secretary, RDNO 

R. Huston Public Works and Parks Superintendent, 


Also Present: Trustee D. Squair 

School District No.22 


The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m. 

ELECTION OF WHITE VALLEY PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE CHAIR 

The Parks, Recreation and Culture General Manager called three times for nominations for the 

office of Chair of the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee pursuant 

to the provisions of Section 792 of the Local Government Act. 

Director Foisy nominated Director Fairbairn. 

There being no other nominations, Director Fairbairn assumed the role of Chair of the White 

Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee by acclamation. 

ELECTION OF WHITE VALLEY PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR 

The Parks Recreation and Culture, General Manager called three times for nominations for the 

office of Vice Chair of the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee 

pursuant to the provisions of Section 792 of the Local Government Act. 

Director Foisy nominated Councillor Ostafichuk. 

There being no other nominations, Councillor Ostafichuk assumed the role of Vice Chair of the 

White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee by acclamation. 

Director Fairbairn assumed the Chair. 



Minutes – Regular [2] January 14, 2013 


Regular Agenda – January 14, 2013 



Moved and seconded by Director Foisy and Councillor Ostafichuk 

That the Agenda of the December 10, 2012 White Valley Parks, Recreation, & Culture Advisory 

Committee meeting, be approved with the following amendment: 

Item D.2 – Remove the word “additional” from: Lumby Museum – Request for Additional 

Funding 

CARRIED 


White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee meeting of December 

10, 2012 


That the minutes of the December 10, 2012 White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture 

Advisory Committee meeting be approved as presented. 

CARRIED 

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 

Cherryville Artisans Association (KOVARS, Helen) 

The Cherryville Artisans Association requested that the White Valley Parks, Recreation and 

Culture Advisory Committee consider that funding for a Coordinator be approved in the 2013 

White Valley Parks Recreation and Culture Budget in the amount of $2450.00. 

NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS 



That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the White Valley Parks, Recreation and 

Culture budget proposal for 2013 be approved for inclusion in the 2013 Regional District 

Budget. 

CARRIED 

Lumby Museum – Request for Funding 

Staff discussed the letter from the Lumby and District Historical Society dated October 15, 2012. 



Minutes – Regular [3] January 14, 2013 

REPORTS 

Monthly Reports – December 2012 




That the December 2012 White Valley Parks, Recreation, & Culture monthly report be received 


CARRIED 

ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 a.m. 

Next meeting: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 


Chair

REGULAR AGENDA - Regional District of North Okanagan

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?