All right, everyone. Good morning everybody. We're going to get going here.
Good morning everyone. And welcome to this regular board meeting for Thursday the 19th of February.
We're going to take 26 health here in the Woodhaven board room. Before we get started today, I do want to welcome alternate director Alina Glaesman from Pichland. So this is our first meeting with us today. So welcome.
And before we begin today, it's been a little over a week since we saw the tragedy unfold in Tumblridge. And I did want to take the time to acknowledge the tragic events that unfolded last week.
And really, there's no words. I don't think that any of us can share that will meet the loss that's faced in the small community. I wanted to send.
When we send our loved ones off to school each morning, we have simple hopes that they will learn something new, laugh with friends and maybe come home with some with some new knowledge.
What we don't expect and we should never have to imagine is that something so senseless like this could happen in a place that's meant to be safe.
The tragedy is shaking communities across the province, the nation and the global community, and it touches ours here as well.
In times like these, we're reminded how vital it is to come together and to lead into each other to look out for one another in a whole space for those who are grieving.
So our hearts are with the families, the victims, and the people of Tumblridge. We know that events like this affect communities of all sizes, especially those that are quite small and rural.
We also offer our deepest respect to the first responders and the community members who are carrying this incredible weight with strength and compassion.
So as a symbol of our collective grief and solidarity, the flags that are DCO had been lowered to have massed.
And we continue to honor those affected by showing care resilience and unity with an our community. Thank you.
With that, I will call this meeting officially to order and as an open meeting, a live audio video feed is being broadcast and recorded on rvco.com.
And we do respectfully acknowledge our presence on the traditional ancestral and unceded to move out of the silk open organ people who have resided here since time immemorial.
And board members, we did change up the agenda a little bit today in terms of order.
We do have some time constraints for some members to be out by 1130.
So I just am looking for a mover of the agenda and then also thank you, Director Glazeman, Glazeman, right.
Glazeman, perfect. I will get this right. And vice or Ireland is seconding that.
All in favor, opposed and carried.
And with the agenda, I'm going to try to keep us moving along as much as possible, so if we can keep our comments and questions as concise as we can.
That will help me steer the meeting along smoothly.
Can I get a mover of our meeting minutes please from January 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 26.
Moved by vice or Ireland, seconded by director craft any errors or emissions in those minutes.
Seeing not all in favor, opposed and carried.
And welcome, Director Johnston, online and Director Nelson as well.
All right, so we're heading right into item number five, which is development and engineering services over to you, misgainter.
Item 5.1 is the west side wastewater development cost charges major review.
This is the stakeholder weighted vote for West Kalona and Peachland to present the west side wastewater development cost charges endorsed.
By the west side wastewater services committee to the board, along with related by laws for consideration of first reading.
This is presented by Travis Kendall, associate director of engineering.
Morning Travis. Good morning chair. Thank you, Sally.
So today's staff are presenting the two DCC bylaws for the wastewater system on the west side.
DCC's are a development cost charges.
Those are the primary way that we fund growth driven wastewater infrastructure.
The RDCO does CPI adjustments annually, however we did not do them last year because we started this review process.
And that review process happens every five years to ensure that growth pays for growth and that the DCC's are properly sized for the infrastructure that we're planning for.
Make sure that all of those costs are shared fairly across our community.
That DCC work is underway. It's already been reviewed by the west side wastewater services committee.
The committee reviewed the report that's included within this package and endorsed the proposed next steps.
Those steps included a major update.
Those steps included starting with the major update and a technical review draft bylaws and initial engagement, which has already been completed.
And today is the consideration of first reading.
If read a first time staff would then proceed to an additional round of engagement return to the board for second and third readings followed by provincial review and board adoption.
If that all occurred, there would be a one year grace period for all in stream applications.
The proposed changes have been circulated to interested parties and local municipalities.
It's also been posted on the RDCO website.
Today we've had no comments.
And there are two bylaws.
The first is the wastewater treatment plant DCC.
The proposed adjustment is between 7.7 and 7.8%.
For the east trunk DCC, that's the collection system.
The proposed adjustment is 5.2 to 5.3%.
If first reading is completed today, staff will incomplete a next the next round of engagement and return to the board to summarize what we've heard prior to considering second and third readings.
And that concludes staff's presentation.
We're recommending that both bylaws be read a first time.
Perfect. Thanks Travis. And just reminded this has gone to the subcommittee that has reviewed this back last last year.
I do any questions for Travis at this time.
Seeing not do I have a mover of recommendation number one, please.
Moved by Dr. Dias seconded by Dr. Weber any comments on that.
Seeing not all in favor.
Okay.
They can only move in second as well.
Okay. So I would look for.
Moved and Dr. Johnston will use second that.
Seconded by Dr. Johnston all in favor.
Opposed and carried.
And then just recommendation number two, I'll need to move as well.
Dr. Glaeseman seconded by Dr. Johnston all in favor.
Opposed and carried. Thank you.
All right. And I'm five point two, please.
Five point two is the Northwest side regional water system,
twenty twenty six budget discussion.
This is an all directors unweighted corporate vote.
To provide the board with a review of the scope,
to have Medical Services partner to help the
respiratory side of the Earth to become mysterious,
active, moved towards alternatives.
Timelines, funding risks and opportunities associated with the
Northwest side regional water line project.
In advance of consideration of a way to notice of motion, again
presented by Travis Kindle.
Provided is an overview of the Northwest Regional Water System,
and includes key consideration for the board's upcoming discussion.
This presentation will cover the current system risks.
Why the Northwest Regional Water Line was selected and preferred?
What interior health is communicated in regards to the project?
The alternatives that have been previously evaluated?
And what cancellation versus proceeding looks like
and what that means for compliance, costs, and grant readiness.
Like to start by apologizing for the size of the agenda package.
I know it's not every day.
You get a 618 page report attached to it.
That was an important inclusion.
It was part of the previous decision and consideration by the sport when the decision was made to progress this project.
West Shore State, St. Killingy Beach, are both provided water from Lake O'Kanagan.
That's surface water.
There is no treatment beyond chlorination.
That is contributed to extended water quality advisory lengths.
We will be experiencing those last year.
We have a limited system resiliency and we have vulnerability because of the shallow intakes within those systems that are more exposed to changing lake conditions.
The current system is not aligned with modern treatment expectations or the provinces of objectives for surface water treatment systems.
This isn't a new issue.
It's been something that we've studied repeatedly.
Over the past decade, Northwest, the Northwest side water treatment systems have been examined extensively.
Completed 11 consulting studies and have spent over $100,000.
The consistent driver through those is that the systems do not meet provincial drinking water treatment objectives.
The systems remain exposed to risks that come with surface water, including pollution events and invasive species.
A key example of invasive species risks is the Kwega muscle, the zebra muscles.
I believe the discussion around this board at times said that it's not a matter of if but when that they'll arrive and become established within Lake O'Kanagan.
This slide visually underscores that invasive species can and do impact in drinking water infrastructure.
The impacts aren't theoretical, fouling and operational destruction can occur quickly and our lake intakes aren't inherently exposed.
Intakes like those supplying water to kill any beach and west shore states can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars and expenses over the life of those assets to mitigate damage from things like invasive muscle.
With that context, I'll summarize the expert opinion that led us to the project we have today.
Urban systems in September of 2022 provided a report to this board recommending option 1B as the most favorable option.
You can find that recommendation in page 23 of the attached report.
Their reasons were that it was a very practical option.
It had the lowest capital and lowest 40 year life cycle costs was the cheapest.
It avoided investing in infrastructure that would be stranded or duplicated.
We don't like to invest our money and things that we're not going to be able to use for their life.
It improved operational efficiency and it positioned the grant well or positioned the project well for grant funding.
The regional nature of this program puts it at a higher threshold or higher capacity for painting grants.
It also preserved opportunities for service extensions, loud enough to service other communities within the area as that line went by.
The report from urban systems also recommended not considering other alternative technologies.
Urban systems assessed point of entry and point of use in context of use within BC.
They concluded that it is well suited for 15 or fewer connections and they recommended on page 22 and page 23 that point of entry should not be considered further.
I'll pause here and just to briefly outline what point of entry is.
Generally speaking you have a centralized water treatment plant that provides water to a community.
As you centralized those costs and you upscale that size you get economies of scale and your cost per water goes down.
Point of entry is where you distribute the treatment you put a small treatment plant at each home.
And that's why it's not recommended for larger communities because you can have hundreds or thousands of small water treatment plants that have to be maintained.
Urban systems recommendation option one B was the north west side regional water line.
That brings high quality and compliant groundwater from the RDCOs upper fintry system by gravity pipeline to kill any beach and then to west shore states.
Gravity can advance produces pumping costs and a supports resiliency during power outages by enabling flow between the communities even when the powers off.
As a groundwater sourced system it's also reduced in as exposure to surface water risks like pollution and invasive species.
This is a robust long term infrastructure solution it's not abandoned.
Estimates are for this line to last around 100 years conservatively in our study 80 years.
The post grant costs for a system like this work out to about 50 dollars per house hold per month.
And the board has already provided direction on this path twice.
September 26 2022 the board received the urban systems report and directed staff to prepare a project plan based on option one either a or b.
On November 28 2020.
For the board received that project plan, and that was incorporated into the 2025 to 2025 to 29 financial plan.
Now, the current discussion today is in response to a notice of motion.
At the January 22nd, 2020, six board meeting, that notice of motion was introduced to a cease advancement of the project in its entirety.
Staff are here today to ensure that the board has a clear, factual understanding of the consequences, the alternatives, and the regulatory posture tied to this motion.
A key input for the board's decision is interior health position.
Staff did inquire with our local and interior health environmental health officer and the manager of the drinking water systems program for their opinion.
Interior Health's message was direct. The Northwest Regional Waterline approach was considered acceptable for meeting permit conditions.
If the board decides not to proceed with the Northwest Regional Waterline, Interior Health will consider permit condition out of compliance until an alternative plan is submitted.
They also included a statement on point of entry treatment.
Interior Health indicated that they're willing to discuss and update compliance timelines to reflect logistical and financial realities.
As long as those challenges aren't created by reopening options that have already been confirmed as nonpeasible such as point of entry and point of use.
I've also noted that where there is no practical plan or commitment compliance activities are expected to progress beyond permit conditions.
Chair, it's important that I draw the board's attention to three items that come out of these statements.
First, Interior Health is indicating that reevaluating nonpeasible options like point of entry, which they've called out specifically is not an acceptable excuse to delay progress towards compliance.
Secondly, if the regional district district decides not to proceed with the Northwest Regional Waterline and does not provide an alternative, a feasible alternative in its place.
The RDCO will be out of compliance and we should expect that Interior Health will progress compliance activities.
The third, right in this statement, Interior Health is expressed a willingness to be flexible if grants do not materialize.
We couple that with the understanding that this project is contingent on grant funding that significantly reduces the financial risks associated with this project.
This table summarizes the other options that were not selected.
Should the board decide not to progress the Northwest Regional Waterline project, there are three other feasible options to consider.
The first is a submarine transmission line similar to the current adoption, but the water line goes under the lake rather than on the shore or on the upland.
So, 27% higher capital costs with similar operating costs.
We can also build independent water treatment plants, one in killing a beach and one in west shore states.
That's a 64% higher capital cost and 156% higher operating cost.
We could put in a single water treatment plant in killing a beach or west shore states and connect the two communities.
That's a 21% higher capital cost and 131% higher operating cost.
And that's where the feasible options end.
There are other non-peasable options, point of entry, which Interior Health is not willing to entertain.
As a 10% lower capital cost, but its operating costs are about 2,150% higher.
We've looked for alternative water sources, but we can find it.
We were able to confirm that we had enough water from the short-screep entry aquifer and from Lake Oganorgan, but there was not another viable water source in areas.
We also explored interconnection with OKID.
Now it was something that they did not have the capacity or the interest in supporting at this time.
I want to really bow down to it, this came a decision about risk compliance, affordability and timing.
So to summarize all of that, key considerations that if the board cancels, there are four major outcomes.
First, there's an additional cost for a new pathway.
Without a pathway, there's regulatory compliance action against the regional district.
We would delay or lose our grant readiness, and we would introduce higher life cycle costs.
Proceeding with the project maintains that credible path to compliance, keeps the project on path on track for grants from senior government, provides for long-term sustainable drinking water, and minimizes life cycle costs.
We'll share that concludes the presentation.
We have the answer to any questions.
Thank you, Travis.
We'll now, very technical report, and thank you for including all of the former reports from the engineering firm.
We'll go to questions now from the board.
Dr. Carson.
Do you hear some of my first questions?
I'm going to be allowed to make comments.
You're at the proper time.
Your comments can be considered during your next item, which is your resolution.
Okay.
Is there an ultraviolet on the telephony in the west shore system now?
Ultraviolet?
Through the chair, there is no UV treatment in either of the systems right now.
It's only declorination.
That's it.
Okay.
The muscle problem that you brought up on there, I just wanted to address that quickly.
That is something that apparently they have solved in Ontario.
I did a tour of the RJ Harris water treatment plant when we were back there at one time,
and that is something that they solved 30 years ago or so.
They inject chlorine at the head and apparently that takes care of the muscles.
What do you mean by a economy of scale not viable on the point of entry?
Through the chair to direct a Carson.
As you scale up a large single centralized water treatment plant, you can have, for example,
one operator look after the facility as it grows.
You can scale up your pumps, your injection technology.
Everything that you're doing within that facility, so it grows with the community up to a certain point,
and then you invest in a growth further.
When it comes to point of entry, the only savings that you have at economies of scale is buying in bulk.
You still have multiple treatment plants everywhere.
There's still an expectation from the regulator that those are overseen and maintained by the regional district,
which means at least quarterly visits by our operators.
So if you apply that to the context of killing a beach and west shore states, you're looking at, you know, an ultimate buildout,
nearly a thousand homes that have to be visited on a quarterly basis.
Coordinated schedules to get into their basements, looking after these systems, making sure they're operating properly.
That requires increased staff time that requires additional filters, additional parts.
There isn't an economy of scale to that, again, other than buying in bulk.
The costs go up.
This is where I have a problem.
The economy of scale, as I see it, isn't really a feasible argument on a system.
Dr. Carson, if you can just do questions for clarity, you're going to have that time.
Yeah, I'm trying to get some clarity on what he's just said here.
The staff aren't, they're not here to debate, but they're happy to answer any questions that you have.
On point of entry, it's mentioned here that there's regulatory feasibility.
Does that mean that there just isn't legislation or anything to cover the systems?
Chair, through to the director.
There is regulatory understanding and framework for smaller scale systems.
Scaling it up to size is something that is not feasible both in terms of law.
The cost is something feasible if we're willing to spend that additional cost.
The regulators come out to say that based on the studies that we have, based on the size of these communities, it's not an option that they're willing to entertain.
I can go further and point to the BC small water systems association.
And they have guidance for point of entry on their website.
And they clarify not that we've heard this directly, but they clarify this on their website that in BC the regulator requires that we have service access agreements with every single home that has a point of entry.
If one home chooses not to participate, that community does not progress to point of entry.
That in itself is a huge hurdle to overcome when you're dealing with nearly a thousand potential users.
Our waivers of liability, not a possible solution to that.
Chair, the expectation from the regulator is that the regional district remains liable for the drinking water quality within those communities.
We are responsible for ensuring that they have potable water at their home.
You mentioned an O.K.I.B. connection.
I've never heard of that before.
Does O.K.I.B. is there water system meet the interior health standard currently?
Chair, I couldn't speak into detail on their system.
My understanding is in 2022.
They were looking at investments into their water system and we reached out to them to explore if there was an opportunity for working together on it.
And it there was not.
Have you applied for explored funding applications from a provincial or federal government's reflecting the $10 million that we would be looking for from each.
I share the only grant opportunity that has opened that we've been successful for so far is $10,000 to support with the pre planning work that has on gone.
We expect that the next significant infrastructure grant is going to open in 2028 and that is what we're preparing for.
Is that federal or provincial?
Chair, our understanding is that is a multi-party grant opportunity that would be funded through the feds, the provincial and the municipalities, so kind of a third or third or third split.
So, one grant application could cover the two thirds funding that we're looking for.
Chair, that is our hope.
We could achieve $20 million on the grant for 600 people.
Chair, you all throw it out there.
When it comes to the size of the community and the financial considerations that are across Canada right now, those grants are tied.
So we'd be advocating for that funding just like many other communities.
I can't say if we're going to be at the top of that priority list or not, but I do know that the regional nature of this grant and our willingness to prepare ourselves to apply for these grants and to continue to apply for these grants.
By us, the flexibility from our regulator to maintain our current system and wait for an appropriate grant before we make a sizeable investment in that infrastructure.
Have you seen any examples of this type of grant funding for a similar type project like this?
Chair, I've seen similar grants in other provinces for regional systems for small water systems, service and multiple communities.
Does it extend multiple millions of dollars?
Chair, yes, there is a multi-million dollar.
Have you done any looking into partners such as Fortis or provincial federal trails grants and this sort of thing to help offset the cost of this project?
Through the chair to the director, we're concerned looking for opportunities.
We have been in conversation with the ministries on how the alignment of this water line could further their interests and other work that they have in the same area, so that we could reduce the overall cost intensity to our residents.
How would a grant of this size affect the other four municipalities in a electoral area east that will also be looking for provincial and federal funding, as well for their own projects, most of which will probably be serving a larger population than this project.
I'll take that question. It would be hypothetical.
Situation for staff to comment on what a federal or provincial government would decide of a grant.
So I'm not going to have staff be put in the position of a decision that I'm making.
I'm asking about how it will affect within this regional district from other partners applying for grants is what my question is.
I'm aware of what your question was and I've responded, so we'll carry on.
What does out of compliance mean?
So chair, right now we have a permit that we operate under and one of the conditions of compliance is that we are making progress towards meeting the drinking water treatment objectives that the province is set for.
And so part of this statement from interior health is that if we do not proceed towards compliance or towards this project, we are not in condition with that permit and we are there for out of compliance.
Out of compliance means that the province can then leverage tools against us.
We might have additional liabilities against us.
It would be up to the regulator to determine how they would apply non-compliance to us.
I've heard the word order before, but I know they have the powers to do many other things.
Okay, because how long was the source system at Lake O'Connor and Resort out of compliance.
I'm going to keep you in balance with what's being discussed before I share Dr. Carson talking about compliance.
Dr. Carson, I'm not about to debate you.
We're going to have time to speak to your notice of motion and then next item.
If there's any more points of clarity you need on the water system presentation, feel free to ask them, but please stay within the bounds of the water system discussion.
How much of the $450,000 funded from Reserves is exclusively for the pipeline project as opposed to asset renewal of these older systems.
Are we using our asset renewal money now for a filtration?
Through the chair to the director.
The capital reserves that we have, those are built up through the asset renewal charges that we apply out.
And those funds are in part what's being allocated towards the pre-planning working to prepare for grant application.
But this isn't actually asset renewal, is it?
It's in addition of a new service.
Through to the chair.
In part, it's helping fund that decision from this board was that the asset renewal fees that we take in do not fund 100% of the actual asset renewal costs that we have.
They fund a portion of it.
We don't have any other mechanism for collecting capital reserves for these systems.
We do it through that process by implementing this project.
It fundamentally replaces the need for some of the treatment technology that we have.
And you could argue that it would replace and renew the existing destruction.
How many connections are there in a kill on the beach and what's the full bill load?
One moment chair.
So apologies chair.
I don't have a breakdown by individual community in front of me.
I believe killing is around 330 currently active across both communities.
We've been looking at four bills out of about 940 dwellings.
And that's based on the current OCP.
Okay.
Because there's about 300 structures in each community now.
But the lots that are left.
Are they considered good building lots in your opinion?
Again, we'll stay in bounds with the discussion that we're at today.
And Dr. Creston, there's been quite a few questions.
I just want to see around the table if anyone else has any.
Before we carry on, Dr. Creston.
Thanks chair.
Just a discussion or a question around the metrics of risk that were used for our existing systems.
So like we've identified muscles as a major risk and it is a cost to maintain or put in a system that can help facilitate the survival of that system.
But what risks for, you know, upland water disruption, slope stability, all the studies and everything that has to go into a project of this size.
You know, how did we weigh those risks?
Through the chair to direct a craft.
Within the study that's attached to this report, just prior to the recommendation slides.
I'm going to estimate it's about page 20.
There is a table that includes a breakdown of a number of different risks for each option and how they were fully explored.
At the end of the day, when you looked at the evaluation between all of the feasible options that were on the table.
The one that the board is proceeding with is the one that has the old lowest overall risk in terms of pipeline crossings.
Funding treatment risks, operational risks, regulatory risks, environmental risks, all of that was considered.
And just, I mean, this is fundamentally a conversation of costs and worth.
My apologies, sir.
But you're likely to know I'm going to have a second one.
It was on the dirt enough.
So thank you for that.
This is fundamentally a discussion around costs and worth and value both on all levels of government involved in what pressures it puts on different communities.
So, you know, I guess, with that being said and where I go is where one.
Risk factor away from delays and costs being significantly higher, and we've seen.
The inflation to craft.
Are you getting to your question?
Sorry.
Yeah, and just, you know, we've seen over the last two years how much that initial project has gone up in costs and I understand the economy of things, but.
Do you think long term.
This is truly the best option for the community.
Chair, if you were asking me my engineering opinion, I would say based on the risks and the technologies available.
This is the best option that we have at this time for long term sustainable compliant drinking water.
In terms of the best option for the community.
I apologize, Chair, but I feel like that's a decision for board.
And one final question and thank you for entertaining my my questions.
We're not the only are this community isn't the only community in this type of situation with with.
The provincial legislation that's come down and that has changed over the years.
Do we think that over.
The next few years and like.
It doesn't matter who's in government, but the rules around rural properties and smaller towns that are met with these pressures and these requirements.
Do you think the province.
Is going to give in.
To try and accommodate projects like these because we're all.
It's unfeasible.
And I'd stop aren't in a position that's that.
So it's kind of hypothetical at this point.
Any other questions.
Okay. Final question to you Dr. Carson.
Oh, sorry Dr. Cannon.
Thanks Mr. Chair. Thanks.
Just a couple of questions as far as.
It's a 618 page reports.
I was just trying to decipher some of the clarification of the information.
So option one be.
So which is a recommended option if.
The board approves proceeding that way.
And.
We make the applications for grants.
And we're in the process.
So it's interior health then.
Same or continue to try to be in compliance or moving forward and.
Takes.
Can that be a condition as far as approval grants in order to.
Program in place and until then.
We continue on.
Chair, my understanding is that.
Province is very willing.
To allow us flexibility with all of our timelines.
Provided that we are attempting to move towards compliance for the drinking water system.
So by pursuing the Northwest Regional Water line.
By preparing for grants and applying for grants as they come up.
We need that condition.
You've given any timeline as far as.
But as we've alluded to and you know, the coverage pretty bare and.
Our provincial senior levels of government.
So is there some point in time saying, well.
We'll give you.
Ex number of years or they're just saying.
Take it year by year.
Through the chair to the director.
I could only speculate.
So right now just.
Proceed with the option and.
Hold for the best.
Because the fact that.
Just just trying to clarify from the regional district perspective.
Would this be a number one priority for grant application.
I don't know if we we've ranked any.
Any other grant request.
Yeah, I think that'd be also hypothetical at this point director.
But that would come to the board for correct.
Yeah, and just for clarity.
What the current plan is doing is building a shovel ready plan to get ready for a grant application.
So lots of discussion today around will this be successful.
How would this be perceived or priority.
The current phase we're in right now is getting a shovel ready plan to be actually able to apply for a grant.
And without a shovel ready plan, you can actually do that.
So basically the whole strategy here has been get this ready so that you can submit a grant application.
At that point, you know, it would be up to the powers that be that grant those.
Grant those grants and the board to decide from that.
I think that that's helped the clarification one last question you mentioned.
If the grants are successful.
That's what monthly or annually.
Through the chair to director cannon.
The $50 per household is a monthly charge to cover the one third capital for a 30 year term.
And if the grants are not successful, there's a cost per household that anticipated.
If the grants are not successful, the understanding from discussions around this table is that the project would not go for it.
But there's not a dollar value if they had to go alone.
Chair, we haven't gone that far because that would be against what the board has to do.
Director, whoever.
Well, I see that the motion in front of us is to.
Receive the report correct.
It's all correct.
And the following item that director person is bringing forward.
Is a perspective on removing this plan from right.
So the question I would have is what would happen to the drinking water quality and what when they.
What would the residents expect to see in the future if no project is moving ahead, but I guess that might be a question for the next.
No, please still raise that now.
So it's kind of like not part of report receiving this, but.
I just wondering what is how often are these residents now having interruptions in their water supply or warnings or what have you.
And what could happen in the future if we don't have any plan moving ahead.
Chair.
I guess that's a number of different pieces of in terms of disruptions in water supply itself.
We've been able to keep the system up for for most disruptions.
I think the most impactful disruptions we've had are the major wildfires in the communities.
The 2022 report to the board.
It actually came to the board a few times.
Following that and part of the discussion was around generators and additional backup.
And out of that we actually had again another expert opinion regards to the reliability of that system like came to a electrical power.
The recommendation out of that was that as the system exists now.
But for major wildfires like we had in 2021 and again in 2023 we haven't had service stoppages in terms of water supply.
In terms of water quality.
It is very likely.
Almost a guarantee that we're going to have water quality advisories on an annual basis.
As the Okanagan heats up for the summer time and as recreational activities on the lake.
Pick up.
That impacts our shallow intakes and we have shallow intakes that kill a beach and a west shore states.
So that transitions to impacts to water quality.
I won't get into those details here.
But it means that we have to put a water quality advisories in place.
And then something just most recently this board scene is we also have water orders that come up.
Those happen when we lose water pressure usually do this something like a leak or a line hit.
I think that would be independent of the treatment technology that's out there.
That's really a pressure concern.
So in summary I would say until this project materializes the residents can expect more of the same.
Once this project materializes.
Thank you.
We should have water quality advisories on going. The only impacts we should have are when we have
one-off emergencies from water-made breaks within the community, from somebody in a contract,
directs them, hitting a water line, those sorts of issues. So if we had any feedback from the residents,
the actual affected residents that what they would prefer to have on going water problems or a project,
a big project that would fix it. I mean, we're kind of as directors sitting, you're not knowing
which way the residents would like to go, although we have an indication of this motion coming up in a minute.
But I mean, in some ways, it's almost up to the residents who live there, whether they want to
live with ongoing water problems or not, or pay money to have it fixed.
Chair, that what I can get through there for the board's consideration is
decision to decide, you know, it's really hypothetical. Travis, I'm not going to put you on this
spot with that. I would actually direct, there's a comment from a resident in the upcoming budget item
from a public engagement regarding water quality in the Northwest side. So if someone wants to see
what people are saying, you can, you can review that, but I won't put staff on the spot to answer that question.
I just myself, I'm just wondering whether we're supposed to be voting in favor of what the residents
want or whether we're health district wants or what I mean, I don't know. Thank you, Dr. Andrew,
Chris and you had a final question. Just stuff we can keep, keep moving forward here. I do have
an indicator of a mover and a seconder of the item. So yeah, I know some more questions that I'd like
to get answered to do. What's the likelihood of filtration regulations being imposed on
aquifers in the future? Chair, I could only speculate. So we could be right back here with the same
issue in five ten years if the regulations change on aquifers. Again, this is hypothetical. Do you have
do you have a question that's related to the board director because I'm in a call the question here,
quickly? With the charge to lots currently serviced within the water system by law area that
don't, that aren't hooked into the service. Who would there? They would have the same cost,
the an empty lot with no service. Chair, anybody within the service area pays the base fee,
which is the S everno fee for providing for the capital needs for the service. Anybody that has
a connection to their property and uses the water pays usage fees. I do not have the cost charges by law.
So if you've got an empty lot and you're not connected to the system, you're paying basic as well as
asset renewal. What about basic was it only if you had service? Through the chair, you're paying that
base asset renewal cost if you have an empty lot because you're in the service area and you have the ability
to get. So you would be basic and asset renewal but not consumption. Chair, if you are connected to the
system, you pay consumption and the base use fee. If you are not connected to the system but you're
in the service area, you pay for the asset renewal fee. Okay, thank you. If one third provincial one
one third federal grants are approved on a $28 million project and that project exceeds $28 million.
Would that leave the rate pairs within the areas responsible for any of the increase?
Chair, those grants typically require that the municipality covers the overages if the costs are
go up. I would say the current cost for the project also includes a 50% contingency because it's a cost
of estimate. So it should be well within the estimate that's been approved by the board and incorporated into the
financial. But if it wasn't, the costs would go back to the residents. The rate pairs within the
biliria. Chair, that's correct. Okay. If the project were moved forward and essentially became one
system, would any capital costs or future expenses now become the responsibility of all the users of
all three systems would it become like one system and any capital costs or any resulting costs from
that system would now be borne by everybody or are we still back on killing of each and
less shores pay on for it? Through the chair to the director, that would be dependent on how
the board would like to structure any services establishment in the future. I could speculate on that right
now but that would be a decision I would be after the board. So we reorganized the water system
at that point. If the board wished. Okay. And Dr. Carson, I'm going to call a question after this
after your final question here because we've been at this for quite some time now. So I'm going to
call the question here to receive this report. It was a $30 million project from my community. I think
it's not fair. I get to ask my questions. Yeah, you've had plenty of time in space. Yeah, okay. And
ask your final burning question. What were you able to find out about the
Mozilla Lake water system area in area H and RDOS? We have 190 connections on a point of entry system
and up for a number of years. What were you able to find out about that?
I don't Travis, I'm going to cut this off. I have a mover and director glazeman. I have a second
er and director craft. All in favor to receive the report. Thank you, opposed. Stractor Carson's
opposed? Moving on. Thank you. All right. All right. Item 5.3, please.
Item 5.3 is a motion by Director Carson for the Northwest Side Water System project. This is an
all director's weighted corporate vote. To consider the notice of motion introduced by
Director Carson at the January 22nd, 2026 regular board meeting.
Chair, I defer to you. Thank you. Ms. Gimter and over to Director Carson to share your ideas.
Do I have to put this as questions or can I make this a narrative? This is my floor resolution. Should I
get a mover on the just I need a mover to put this on the floor before our comments? Sorry.
Oh, would you like to move this get on the floor? Okay. Moved by Director Carson, second by
Director glazeman. Over to you. Okay. First off, it's a real disappointment to me that I have to
bring this motion forward on this, but I find this just unaffordable. When I first started looking
into this with interior health, I was told that point of entry, which is what I was looking at.
First, that the legislation had lagged behind the technology and that it was not up to interior health
to deal with legislation. That was up to us to deal with the legislation that they just dealt
with regulations, so I think that this is something that we need to look at.
One of my concerns for grant applications in this regional district is grants go to the big guy with
a loud voice and direct access to the process. The municipalities put in their applications directly.
The electoral areas have to do it through this board.
The municipalities would come first in the regional district with these grants and they serve a
larger population and are more likely to receive a grant. Without a stakeholder voting right,
I cannot support despite line project with ever expanding cost. Currently, directors that will not
put a dime into this project or even draw a drop of water will decide what could be a 30-year
plus burden on two possibly three or four small rural communities. I don't believe you would in
good conscience do this to your residents. I hope you won't do it to mine.
I'm looking at something that will serve my entire community, not just killing the and
west shores, the pipeline started at eight million as it was its original cost and it went to
12 million, then it went to 21 million, now it's at 28 million. No roots being established, not a
shovel of dirt being turned yet. I've watched the price almost good. I have no confidence that either
the grants will come through from senior levels of government nor will the cost stop escalating. We need
an affordable solution. I did research and found that in interior health, own regional district
50 to 60% of small water systems in interior health do not fully meet modern treatment, filtration
and disinfect and expectations, particularly for surface water sources. This finding is repeatedly
highlighted in drinking water in interior health and assessment of drinking water systems risk to public health.
And recommendations for improvement. This would represent 600 to 720 small public water systems
province wide and BC on 4,000 systems 40 to 50% do not meet standards. That's 1,600 to 2,000 water
systems. It's obviously a provincial wide problem. I'll be attending the EA Directors forum next
month and as usual the subject to small water systems will come up and I will be stressing the need
for an update to the legislation for point of entry. I believe that a solution is point of entry
and that we now need to work on advocacy towards updating the legislation that will allow us to use
our systems on a public water system in particular systems that are finite in size and financial resources
less than 500 connections. This updated legislation would also benefit the private water systems,
people on wells and those drawing directly from surface water sources such as the lake or creek.
They do not have millions to spend on filtration when cheaper and just as effective methods exist
and are successfully used around the world. Interior health states it is willing to discuss an updated
timeline in consideration of financial challenges. I'm in a similar financial position as the
province and I would like to repace refresh and re-sweet sequence this project. Those are
their words from the budget. So I guess to roll it up together here I was in favor of this. I thought
this was the perfect solution for my community but we cannot afford this. It's just beyond the ability
for us to pay within our community here and it still leaves the private water systems and the other
people without a solution to moving forward. I don't see being out of compliance as being a huge
issue here. That seems to be the majority of the small water systems and I think the reason for that
is because we don't have a solution at the moment because we don't have proper legislation that
addresses the technology that is point of entry systems right now. My community had a water quality
advisory and kill any beach from April through to October of last year. My community dealt with
that because most everybody has our systems already in their homes. It's like when you live in an area
like mine and you have numerous power outages you buy a generator. When you have water problems and water
system problems as we have had you get an RO system and you deal with it yourself. I'm asking for
support here. I think that we need to advocate on behalf of the electoral areas to move forward with
on affordable fix for our water problems and and this is no longer that fix. I know that
Lake Country, OS Corona and I'm matching Corona spending hundreds of millions of dollars on water
filtration plants. That's a good solution for you. It does not work for us. I'm asking for support
to move forward and find the solution that will work for us. I know it's there. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other comments at this time? From board directors. Dr. Glazeman.
Thank you, Chair. I just have a question everybody's discussing the external
issue of compliance. We're showing as one electoral area is not in compliance and should that
not or should that remain not in compliance? What is the ramification to the remainder of the district?
The other communities in the area. With interior health saying that they're going to work on that
non-compliance if we don't go forth with this. What's the stick? What is the stick that we are
going to be beaten with if this does not go through in interior health size? I don't know. I've got no access
to that. Normally we wouldn't take questions at this point as we do have a motion on the table.
It was indicated by the director of engineering that basically they would move to enforcement actions
for electoral arrest. Okay. Perfect. And then if that's the case, that affects every single person in
the district, not just the electoral area. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments?
Dr. Nelson, sorry. Thank you, Vice Chair. Yeah.
Thanks, Chairman. I apologize for coming into the meeting late. But my thoughts with regards to this is that, you know, there's been a tremendous amount of work done to date. And we've been reviewing it in the past. And personally, I continue to support the decisions that this board has made, the decisions we made in September of 2022.
You know, we have a responsibility to ensure that residents receive good clean water. It meets the standards of interior health. That's residents that live in the electoral area, Western this situation. And also those that are coming in the future.
So we have to look after the needs of the residents today, but also the needs of residents in the future.
So to me, it's really important. It's responsible for this board to ensure that we continue to work with interior health and ensure that the water quality meets those standards.
I think it's important that we continue on looking for grants on behalf, you know, to help with the costs.
And really as far as affordability, if we continue to delay this process, it's going to be much more unaffordable in the future.
We've seen increases in pricing over the last few years. It's not going to stop.
So I think the reality is that it's it's best to go go ahead and maintain the course that we've set for quite some time.
And those are my comments. So I don't support the motion that's on the table.
I would prefer that we continue the course that we have. I think that's the most responsible course for this board.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, director.
Do I have anyone else with comments that isn't spoken?
Seeing not just some from myself before I call the question here.
No doubt 20 million dollars is a lot of money.
And what we know in in communities in general is that it's only going to go up over time.
The more the more we delay infrastructure renewal, the higher it goes.
And from a provincial advocacy perspective, we've continued to meet with municipal affairs as well as public health.
Dr. Bonnie Henry has stated clearly that this is a direction for public health based on science and data.
It's been noted that we've done over 11 studies.
We know that the system isn't meeting the current water standards by interior health.
And we know that this system that's been recommended by professional engineers has an 80 plus year life expectancy.
And we also know the risks. We know the vulnerabilities.
We know that interior health will start enforcement if we remove this from the plans.
They know the challenges with the capital costs.
But most importantly, this is a public health risk and vulnerability of the community.
And Dr. Nelson put it really well.
We have a responsibility to make sure that there's a plan in place because if you fail the plan you plan to fail.
And I spent a lot of time researching this as well.
We look at Flint, Michigan.
And water systems were changed in Flint because of the capital costs.
People got poisoned. People died.
You look at Calgary with the water main breaks displacing water access for weeks and months.
Because they've been warned about the capital costs for over 20 years.
So removing something from a plan doesn't make the problem go away.
And that's the responsibility around this table.
So I appreciate Travis for the amount of work he put in to bring the report forward.
I appreciate the directors' perspective on this.
Knowing that small communities are faced with major costs.
This is not one off throughout the province and regional districts are going to continue to grapple with this and it's going to continue to be a challenge.
So we need to have a plan to get something shovel ready so that we can advocate and that we can actually apply for grants.
Without that, you can't even apply for grant.
So that's the current plan and I'm not supportive of the resolution today for those reasons.
So with that I'll call the question, all in favor of the resolution.
We have directors craft and Carson in favor and opposed.
We have directors' diast to heart, glazing in myself, Weber, Ireland and Canon opposed as well as Dr. Johnston and Nelson.
And the motion does not carry.
Thank you.
All right, we're going to take a quick five minute break because our heavy item is next with the budget.
Thank you.
We're going to get moving because I promise that we would keep moving forward.
All right, so item 6.1 and I'm going to introduce the item here.
Which is to consider amendments and reductions to the RDCO's draft 20262030 Financial Plan.
This is to consider amendments, reductions and public feedback.
The significant amount of work has gone into this on the back end based on the board's previous feedback as well as the public.
And so thank you to our CAO and our CFO for working through our budget to bring forward some recommendations today.
I'm just from myself. I am also working with the CAO to re-strike an audit committee and start looking at value for many reviews of various services subsequent to this report moving out throughout the rest of our term as well.
Based on feedback from the board.
So that is also going to be subsequent to this though it's not going to affect the budget that you see here before us, but I wanted to let the board know that we have heard loud and clear that we need to.
For view a bit more and we'll turn it over to Tony now to bring you up to date of what what they've been working on. So over to you, Tonya.
Good chair. So good morning everybody. As our chair mentioned, I was speaking to you about three things today.
First I'll be providing you with some information on amendments to the draft plan that are resulting from new information since it was presented to the board in January.
I will also be providing with options for reducing the 2026 financial plan increase as provided in the draft plan in January.
And finally providing with a summary of the feedback received from the public on the draft financial plan.
So just go to wake it up.
There we go.
Got it to work. So our minor of the highlights incorporated into this financial plan.
The first is focusing on the Board's strategic priorities.
Things like emergency preparedness by providing sufficient funding for prior dispatch services and transitioning the emergency management program back to the RDCO.
The board priority of the environment and climate while require recovery work in RDCO parks.
Noxious weed management across those same parks and renewal of essential water in wastewater infrastructure.
Also addresses the board's priority on health and wellness with providing year on access to RDCO parks, enhancing active transportation and accessibility in RDCO parks, meeting visitor demand for programming within our park system.
And completing the backlog of approved capital project to provide updated facilities for visitors to those parks.
It also addresses the priority on transportation by incorporating regional transportation planning to meet legislative requirements.
It's also continued investment in infrastructure used to provide the variety of services to residents and this is also done by continuing to build reserves to fund the replacement of that critical infrastructure.
And finally, always focused on maintaining service levels to continue providing services to a growing population.
So we are here now in the financial planning timeline.
This will ensure that we meet the legislative requirement of adopting a financial plan by March 31.
So before we dive into the amendments and the reductions that are being proposed, I wanted to just do a brief review of the draft plan as it was presented to the Board in January.
So this is a summary of the increases in the draft financial plan.
The Board requested that increases from new debt service and costs resulting from the new municipal borrowing through the MFA be shown separately.
And the increase has also been broken out into non-discrrationary and discretionary costs.
So examples of non-discrrationary increases are remuneration increases that are mandated by the collective agreement.
Increases in the budgets determined by external boards as well as contractual and inflationary cost increases determined by external providers.
The increase of these for these in the draft plan was 3.8 million or 5.3%.
Discussionary costs are things like additional staffing to support current service levels and achieving the Board's strategic priorities.
Increasing transfers to reserves for future spending and request for additional funding from external groups the Board supports to the grant and aid program.
The increase for these in the draft plan was presented was 1.4 million or 1.9%.
So that comes out to a total increase in the draft financial plan from non-discrrationary and discretionary increases of 5.1 million or 7.2%.
And then the final piece is the increase required for additional debt servicing costs from municipal debt.
This money is the cost of this is borne by the municipalities that bore the funds.
And this increase was 1.8 million and it represents 2.6%.
So then we'll have a quick review of the draft plan as it was presented in the impact on the average house.
This table shows for each municipality and electoral area the average house value in each of those areas.
It also shows the 2025 requisition and then the proposed 2026 requisition amounts.
It shows the year over year change in that.
So that's the annual increase which was $29.
And then it also just shows the monthly cost of that.
So the monthly cost will be $37.
The monthly increase was $2.40%.
So now we're going to look at the amendments.
So the draft financial plan included operating projects in the electoral area fire protection service and the regional park services.
Those projects were funded by the fire smart grant which is done through the community welfare resiliency program.
That grant can be composed of three components.
The first was some base funding and that was $300,000.
There was also some funding for wildfire mitigation in the parks and that was an additional $100,000.
And then for 2026 only there was an additional grant provided for wildfire impacted communities.
So that added up to a total of $500,000 in grant funding.
After the draft financial plan was presented to the board, the province announced that the funding available through this program will be reduced.
Therefore the operating project budget in the electoral area fire protection services has been reduced or will be reduced to $250,000 from the original $400,000.
And then the $100,000 operating project that was in the regional parks will be removed.
So this is a $350,000 decrease in the discretionary funding costs are increased costs.
It doesn't impact though the tax acquisition because it was all being granted.
So now on to the options for reductions.
During the presentation of the draft financial plan at the January 22nd meeting, the board expressed concerns about the proposed increases in the operational budget and the proposed increases in the tax recommendation requisition.
In response, staff completed a detailed review of the draft financial plan to identify opportunities to minimize both.
The review involved review of historical spending levels and we looked used a five year term and then we compared that to what was in the financial plan.
And so we're potential reductions were identified was where the historical average spending may be less than what was budgeted for.
So these reductions were identified in several areas.
It is important for the board to understand the risks associated with these reductions and they are explained in table one of the report.
So a high level review of those risks for training and education reducing those financial plan amounts will sacrifice the optimal readiness for regional responses and mutual aid agreements of the fire services.
For contracted services, it could lead to things such as indefinite closures of a park due to an inability to hire a subject matter expert to assess the risk of using a park after a naturally bent such as a fire or flood.
Software licensing, we wouldn't be implementing new software that was intended to reduce or to improve staff efficiencies in daily work assignments.
It would reduce temporary staffing.
This was in the building inspections area.
So there's budget available for hiring temporary building inspectors when workloads get more than what the current level can support.
It would remove that ability and potentially result in longer time lines for building permits.
Emergency responses, if those costs do exceed what is being allowed for in the financial plan, the operating reserves would be used to cover the budget shortfalls because we can't not fund emergency responses.
And it could impact the financial resilience of the services being impacted whether that's a local fire departments or the regional service.
And then for equipment repairs, it would be a similar thing that reducing the financial plan amounts down to historical spending levels, would not allow for any unplanned repairs that may be required, and those would again be funded from operating reserves and potentially impacting the financial resilience of those services.
So this is a summarized version of table three from the report, the total value of the auction aid reductions is $825,000.
They reduce the inflationary increase used in the draft financial plan from the 5% that was originally used down to 2%.
As I know in last meeting, CPI is a consumer price index and is not reflective of the goods that the RDCO purchases, however, this new inflationary rate that's being used is consistent with CPI.
So the result is non-discussionary increases of 2.9 million or 4.1% the reduction in the discretionary increases from the reduction in the fire smart operating projects of 350,000 is shown here.
So the result is a discretionary cost increase of 1 million or 1.4%.
And the impact of all of that means that we now have a $3.9 million increase or 5.6%.
And of course the final piece is the municipal finance authority boring costs, again they remain at 2.6% because it cannot be reduced.
So what does this mean for residents?
This is a comparison of the tax requisition after the auction aid reductions are applied compared to the draft financial plan presented on January 22nd.
So the table comparison for each municipality in the electoral area, the proposed 2026 tax requisition, which had an average increase annual increase of $29 or $7.2%.
It shows you the proposed increase after the auction aid reductions are applied.
This brings it down to an average increase of $20 a year or 4.9%.
And so that results in an average reduction of $9 a year for the average resident.
Sorry, I'm not going to get a drink of water.
So in addition to the decreases included in auction aid, there are some additional reductions that have been identified for the board to consider.
These reductions are not being recommended this time by staff.
Their impacts are summarized in table 4 and look at the potential impacts.
Not adding additional parks staffing resources, this would help the progress towards achieving the board's strategic priority of year-round access to parks.
It would also impact and limit the number of school groups accessing programming in the regional parks because it would not be the ability to add additional programming.
And it could lead to extended closures in regional parks due to delayed maintenance or an inability to address safety issues due to staffing issues.
Not increasing the amounts transfer to reserves could lead to new interest cost to borrow funds for needed infrastructure renewals or placements that can't be funded from reserves.
And the last one was that there was an amount in there to increase the grant in aid for the Ocargon film commission by $15,000.
This was in response to their request when they presented to the board in the fall of last year and was supported by the board to be put into the financial plan.
So this is a summarized version of table 6 from the report, the total value of the option B reductions is an additional $600,000.
So the non-discretionary increases are not impacted and they remain at 2.9 million of 4.1%.
The discretionary increases are reduced, they are now only 428,000 or 0.6% for total increase in the financial plan before flow through items at 3.4 million or 4.7%.
So again, what does this mean for the residents?
So this is the impact of applying the option A and option B reductions compared to the financial plan in 2026.
So again, 2026 the original draft plan, $29 increase, $7.2%.
Option B reduces the average tax increase down to a $13 year increase or $3.2% saving the average homeowner in the Ocargon, $16.
So having looked at all of those numbers, now we'll talk a little bit about public engagement.
The final thing to review today is the public feedback received on the financial plan.
There were several options for providing feedback.
If you go to the RDC was in public engagement platform, you were say, they could send it in by mail.
They could send it in by email or they could have presented in person at the committee of the home meeting in February.
So the feedback received was five comments on your say and two by email.
There was nobody that provided comments at the public meeting and there was no submissions by the regular mail.
So the feedback received was summarized in table seven of the reports along with staff's responses.
The feedback covered a variety of areas this year.
The first one was around staffing resources.
There were comments that there should be no new staff positions or that staff levels should be reduced.
So option B does provide this option of not adding the new staff positions.
There was some discussion about the board remuneration. It was questioned why the municipal appointees to the board are remunerated for their time.
This is remuneration is paid in accordance with the by law 1421 and can be reviewed at this discussion of the regional board.
There was some comments again about west side road conditions as seen to be an annual was public comment that we received.
Unfortunately, the maintenance and upkeep of this road is a responsibility of province.
I will say that the RDCO has been a strong advocate for improving conditions on roads within the electoral areas.
And that includes highway 33 and west side road and will continue to advocate for residents.
There was some discussion about neighborhood emergency egress.
Concerns about limited egress during emergencies was raised.
The RDCO is currently undergoing evacuation route planning with the use of a grant that should help to ease these issues.
Water safety was also raised asking about the plans to improve the water safety after the study that was done several years ago.
The project plan for this was presented the regional board in 2024 and the costs are included in the 25 to 29 financial plan.
And the last one was year on regional park access.
Some considered this a want not a need and suggested see seeing the transition.
Again, this would result if the option B reductions are implemented.
So at this point, the approval of the financial plan today is today and so we would either that's going to be the draft version with the amendments identified for the smart fire smart projects.
It can be the draft version with the amendments identified and the option A reductions or it could be the draft version with the amendments option A and option B reductions.
The next step will be adoption of the financial plan bylock the next regular board meeting to be held on March 19th and that will ensure that the regional district needs the legislative requirement of adoption by March 31.
That is the end of my presentation.
Thanks, Tanya.
Any questions of board members?
Dr. Carson.
And I do see you there, Dr. Nelson as well.
You're talking about the first smart grant.
Is there still money for the coordinator there?
Through the chair, that is our understanding, yes, but it will be remained to be seen.
The grant has been applied for.
Okay, because apparently there's 15 million dollars in the budget.
Is that equivalent to what was there before?
Have they reduced that or?
15 million on the in the provincial budget.
Yes, my understanding.
I've got the same information that you would have and that is that they are reducing the funding available for that program.
Okay, and you were talking about.
While far mitigation and regional parks is that gone, or is there still a program there for that?
At this point in response to the budget that was presented by the provincial government.
We have removed that project from the plan.
If we are subsequently successful in getting some of that grant money, then it could potentially return.
Okay, and I noticed that on your charts and your tables.
It's as excludes local service areas via protection community centers.
Is there any way we would be able to to get some kind of an indication as to what impact that has on the areas that are service with?
That like killing each has got both the community and the fire.
Wilson's landing just got the fire.
You know, just don't have either of those services.
So it's just one enough.
It was possible to get something a little bit more accurate for those specific targeted areas.
Through the chair, the expected taxes for those local service local area services would still be consistent with what's in was in the draft financial plan presented to you in January.
So those numbers haven't changed at this point.
Okay, and the north west side fire and Wilson's landing fire.
Did they see significant increases this year in their budgets or.
My apologies, I have to go back and look at that.
I just wanted about the impact for the specific areas.
The ability to remember numbers comes in handy.
Actually, my apologies.
I think there's an easier way to find this number.
I'll be up here.
So for electoral area west, the Wilson's landing actually will see a reduction for the fire services and that's because of the gross in the assessment base.
So there was a significant increase in the number of homes that were rebuilt.
And so that's recovery from fire.
Yes, okay.
That is now impacting it.
And so for Wilson's landing, the average home will see about a $30 a year decrease in the fire suppression cost.
Oh, that's good.
It is a good news story.
And north west side north west side, not unfortunately the same story.
They're going to see an increase.
How much is the increase there?
$52 on the average home.
$52 per home for the whole year.
Yes.
That's fairly significant increase.
What caused that?
Through the chair.
I would have presented that to the east at the time.
I just don't remember the way.
Yeah.
Took it up that.
Sometimes I remember all the details.
Sometimes I don't.
We've got some inflationary wage adjustments.
There's some new software licensing costs for the new software.
We've increased the equipment budget and the insurance budget had to go up.
Because of the cost and insurance.
And then increasing an increase in the transfer to reserves as well.
But that's not the huge amount.
So these are impacts that Wilson's landing didn't see.
No.
Well, they did.
But they would have been offset by the assessment base grew.
And the tax rate went down because of that.
All right.
Thank you.
Welcome.
Thank you.
Dr. Nelson.
Yes.
Thanks Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Ms. McKay for your presentation.
And thank you very much.
To you and your team and the department heads for the time and work involved and investigated these expense reduction opportunities.
Much appreciated.
I was wondering just just.
I was trying to get a.
I guess I greater.
Understanding the impact of the.
The six opportunities that were identified under option A and I.
My apologies. I probably should have sent a note here earlier on.
But are are you able to provide us with sort of the the numbers associated with like the amount of money that were identified in the 2000 and say 25 but compared to 26 budget.
And and the revised.
20 26 budget for for these areas is that that's something you can provide us with or is that asking too much at this state.
I'm sure she's probably asking too much at this stage.
What I can say is that the reductions I've provided were by.
Cost type or expenditure type rather than by service because that was that's how the impact is assessed.
So it is it is a reductions across a number of the regional services predominantly.
Is it with those reductions with a what they being bring the.
The expenditures of those costs closer to what they were in 2025 versus what were in the draft.
2026 plan.
Through the chair yes effectively the reduction resulted in us not using an inflationary increase of 5% and only using inflationary increase of 2% instead over last year's budget.
Okay that that okay that answers thank you very much that I think that answers my question.
Thank you.
Thank you Dr. Cannon.
I think thanks for the updated budget.
I just want to you mentioned you used CPI proposed budgeting and what percentage rate was that.
2% to percent.
Okay and you have a five year financial plan in place which is obviously good governance planning and what.
Is your performer based on the percentage increase.
And we talked about initial of the discussion budget was concerned about the compounding.
Over the last four years is that it's approximately 27% increase operating expenses.
And it's over the last four years.
Sorry to the chair I don't actually can't tell you the increase over the last four years.
What I can't say is that a lot of the increases result of either transferring spending from our capital budget into our operating budget.
We did a major shift about last year.
And it also can result in the fact that we've had service level changes and stopping increases and response to that.
That's another increase and then obviously the collective agreement.
There was a catchup done for that a couple years ago where there was an 8% increase.
So that did have a significant.
About 27% compounded things. Any other questions? Looking online, seeing not. We do have a resolution
recommended by staff, which is to approve option A. So I would look for a mover of the resolution
that's before us here, which is option A. I have Dr. Weber moving that to have a second
there to get on the floor and move by Dr. Melson. And then I'll just look to the
movers and seconders to see if they want to speak first. Dr. Melson, would you like to
go? Any other comments?
The only, no, I'm in support of an option A. I'm not, certainly, the reason I was
supporting that option A and on option B. I just don't, you know, option B to go too far
as far as we do seeing a potential transfers to reserves and on paper of that. But I just, I do
support option A. Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions before I call it quite or any other comments?
Dr. Cannon.
Thanks, Senator Chairman. I appreciate the fact that we have some pressures that we're put
in place in previous agreements, et cetera, how we're going forward. We can't continue this,
as I said, it's 27% increase compound just in our four years. And it's essentially faster than
the rate of inflation. And we can't, you know, at our own personal budgets operate this way.
So I don't think the regional district should function beyond the cost of living and what
not support this increase for those reasons. I think we go back to looking at additional
operational efficiencies. I appreciate the fact that you're going to have an audit committee looking
for some value for money. I think that's a great initiative as well. But the fact that we have
continually growing government beyond the level of maintaining core services is a real concern.
I can't support that. Thank you.
Any other comments? See now, I'll call the question. All in favor.
Opposed. I have Dr. Glazeman, Dr. Cannon, Dr. Craft, and Director Carson, opposed and the motion
carries. Thank you, Tonya. And thank you again for all the hard work that went on behind the scenes
to bring this forward. And also thank you for the boards feedback, especially separating out the
MFA funding. That was a really good discussion to guide future budgets. So that staff can be
really clear on how we communicate that moving forward. So thank you to the board for direction.
See you. Item 6.2 is the security issuing bylaws city of Kelona, municipal finance authority spring
2026 issue. This is an all-directors-weighted corporate vote. To consider approval of security issuing
bylaws for the regional district of the central Kenokan on behalf of the city of Kelona again presented by
Tonya McKay. Over to you. Hello again. So this is a relatively straight board housekeeping item.
Effectively the loan authorization bylaws done by the municipality. They do a security issuing resolution
actually and then they send it over to the regional district where we are required to issue a security
issuing bylaw and then that goes on to the municipal finance authority who then issues the
debentures. So this is a new borrowing for the city of Kelona, $48 million for the Kelona
international airport terminal building expansion. And then there's also $60 million. So this is an
initial borrowing. The actual full secure loan authorization bylaw for the recreation and activity
centers in Kelona is $241 million and at this issue they're requesting $16 million. So that is a total
of $18 million. Obviously the debt service in cost for this will appear in next year's financial plan.
Any questions on this? Pretty straightforward and housekeeping. So I do need a mover.
Moved by Director Dias second by Director to heart. On favor. Opposed.
Care unanimously. Thank you.
Moving on to parks. Item 7.1 is the Glen Canyon Regional Park Joint Management and Regulation Agreement
Renewal. This is an all-director's weighted vote. This is to seek approval from the regional board
to renew the Glen Canyon Regional Park Joint Management and Regulation Agreement with the city
of West Kelona presented by our newly minted director of parks. Tracy Draper.
Tracy is this your first presentation to the board. Okay. Well welcome officially. I know you have
sat in the back for it. Watching the board meetings for quite a few now. And so pleasure to have you
present to us today. So I'll turn it over to you. So good morning board. Today I'm here to talk about
the recommendation before the board to renew the agreement between the RDCO and the city of
West Kelona for the continued use of 42.58 Glatt's vote owned by the city of West Kelona. This property
acts as the main trailhead and parking area for Glen Canyon Regional Park and through this agreement the
land allows for improved park access which was previously street parking corrects previous trust past issues
and allows for better alignment of the trail and infrastructure in this area of Glen Canyon. Public ownership
of this land also provides protection of the Rumpherian area in precarion ecosystems in the area.
This agreement began with the city of West Kelona in 2015 and the recommended renewed agreement
is for a five-year term plus two optional five-year renewals. The only update to the recommended
agreement is the insurance terminology to align with our current and insurance provider,
MI ABC as we are previously with a private insurer. RDCO legal counsel has reviewed and confirmed
no other changes are necessary. This agreement is an example of how the RDCO works with our municipal
partners to deliver services to the community and how across jurisdictions we can use staff resources
efficiently in providing those services. This city of West Kelona's council did approve the renewal of
this agreement at the council meeting on January 15th, 2026 and this concludes staff's presentation.
Thank you. Any questions this time? Seeing not, Dr. Glaesman is prepared to move this. I have a
seconder and director of Nelson. Dr. Nelson, do you also comment on this one?
Yes, I'd like to comment. Thank you very much. Thanks for the presentation.
And the city of West Kelona were very pleased with the collaboration with the regional district
with the guards to the care and the services provided within this park. I just want to say that
we're really pleased to renew the agreement. Thanks to everyone involved with this. Thank you.
Thank you. And with that, all in favor. A post, carried unanimously.
Adam, may point one, please.
A point one is the hazard risk vulnerability assessment, regional climate resiliency strategy.
This is an all-director's unweighted corporate vote. This is to provide the regional board with an update
on the development of the regional district of Central Lcanagan comprehensive hazard risk and
vulnerability assessment, and the corresponding regional climate resiliency strategy.
Mike Wawroth, director of protective services, and he will introduce the consultant from Stanteck.
Perfect. Good morning. Chair and directors. Today's item is an update and
information on the regional districts integrated work to develop a comprehensive hazard
risk involved vulnerability assessment, which will be referred to as nature VA, and a complementary
companion to that is the regional climate resiliency strategy. The intent is straightforward to strengthen
our understanding of current future natural hazard risk, including flooding, drought, extreme heat,
geohazards, and seismic events. So we can better anticipate impacts to residents, critical infrastructure,
services and ecosystems, and translate that understanding into a practical regional adaptation actions.
This work also helps meet our legislative responsibilities under the emergency and disaster
management act, and aligns with broader regional climate and planning obligations.
We're supported by Daniel Hague and Shane O'Hadlan, who are the project leaders for Stanteck
Consulting, and they are both bringing senior expertise in hazard climate risk and resilience planning,
and all now invite Daniel from Stanteck to walk the board through the approach.
And what's coming next? Awesome. Thank you, Mike. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for allowing
me to join you today. I'm phoning in from a balmy minus I think 26 still here in Calgary, Alberta.
So wanted to quickly touch base and bring everyone up to speed around this, you know, really an
integrated climate and hazard planning initiative that the regional district has got underway.
Ultimately, what Mike was saying, this initiative is bringing together hazard, hazard risk,
climate risk, greenhouse gas forecasting, and resilience planning into one sort of coordinated process.
Process. So we avoid sort of fragmented planning, rather than looking at emergency management,
climate adaptation, and emissions reduction, sort of separate streams of work,
we're bringing them together. So when we start to bring forward actions for the regional district to
consider, they are based on sort of a shared understanding of vulnerability, exposure, and risk,
as well as long-term direction. So for today, I'm going to go through the context of the work,
our key components, a high-level overview of our work plan, who we're planning to engage in how
and just a quick sort of wrap up with where we're at in the process. If you can jump the next slide, Mike.
I always like to pause and just take a moment to talk about just the context. We have sort of practical
drivers behind this initiative, which is, you know, increasingly changing hazards and risks.
We have complex climate related pressures, and we also have the legislative drivers behind it. So in
terms of climate and hazards, our wildfire seasons are growing longer, more severe.
We're experiencing more wildfire smoke, not even from regional fires, but fires potentially in the
US and other places. We're seeing more concerns about drought, water security, flooding, and then we also
have these sort of other sort of hazards and risks in the background. Ultimately, all these pressures are
impacting infrastructure, public safety, service delivery, and as they, if not addressed,
can impact the long-term financial planning and success in growth in our cities, communities,
and regional districts. On the legislative side of things, we have the emergency and disaster management
act that requires regional and local governments to complete what we call a hazard risk and vulnerability
assessment. We also have the Local Government Act, which requires local governments and regional
governments to understand the greenhouse gas emissions trajectories, and to set targets, and to
build plans to reduce those emissions. The regional district is also received funding under the UDCM
community emergency preparedness fund and disaster risk reduction fund, which requires this completion
of the climate risk and vulnerability assessment and the development that resilience plans. We have
these drivers going in the background. If you can talk in the next slide, Mike.
So ultimately, we have several connected drivers or deliverables. We have the hazard risk and
vulnerability assessment. That's really going to be focused on the regional district electoral areas,
infrastructure and services to live to the electoral areas. It will include regional parks,
because that's within the regional district's purviews. That's very focused on
identifying sort of party hazards, potential sort of critical infrastructure risks and response gaps.
The climate risk and vulnerability assessment takes a step back. We're not looking at the EAs.
We're looking at the entire region. So we're looking at how is climate today going to change
in the next 20, 30, 50, 80 years. And how is that going to impact or interact with our infrastructure,
our people, our communities, our ecosystems, and our priority or more vulnerable populations?
Our greenhouse gas emissions forecast and targets is also regional level. We're going to estimate greenhouse
gas emissions from our buildings, transportation, our waste systems, as well as our land basis or
forests to understand where our emissions are at today and how they're going to change in the future
as it relates to increasing population, housing, changes in how people drive and transport themselves.
Through that, we're going to set greenhouse gas reduction targets that make sense for the regional
district. Those three pieces, we're going to bring together into this climate resilient strategy.
It's going to identify at the end of the day, the resilient strategy is going to identify
sort of key actions, implementation, timeframes and sort of, you know, departments responsible.
So it is, for my perspective, I always want to make this sort of clear and about boundaries and
expectations with this strategy. The strategy is not going to redo or place any existing
hazard vulnerability and risk assessments. Emergency plans are any local adaptations strategies
that are being to have been developed or are being developed by their local governments. We're not looking
to create any sort of new regulatory authority or allocating specific tasks, projects or allocating
funding to any sort of member municipalities. Ultimately, these actions that
In this plan, we'll be within the regional district's authority and a legal ability to implement.
As part, you know, when we're also thinking about long-term, this regional climate resolution strategy will also help support the regional growth strategy,
and then a lot of the findings and actions can then be used to inform the regional district's emergency management plans, as well as their asset management plans.
Next slide, Mike.
In terms of timing, we got our work is organized in the four phases.
Because of the grant, the grants that have been received by the regional district, we have a very tight timeline.
June 30 is our deadline to get all of this work done.
So we've kicked off the project.
We're in our phase one project management engagement plan.
We've kicked it off.
We've engaged with our kicked off of the project with the project team.
We've had a webinar for all of the different audiences that we want to engage with to explain what the project is.
We're going to do it.
We're engaging with you folks to bring you along in terms of this process.
Our phase two is us really taking gathering information and data and processing it to understand how hazards are going to potentially, you know,
how hazards can potentially be going to show up in the region or the electoral areas, how they're going to interact with infrastructure and different components and communities.
Phase three is where we're really spending our time with our different audiences around completing the hazard and climate vulnerability and risk assessments.
And then phase four is obviously that planning piece.
And these are sort of linear phases.
They are happening sort of all at once because of that collapsed time frame.
Also just note that the greenhouse gas emissions assessment work and forecast piece is also sort of running parallel into all of that.
Next slide, Mike.
So engagement is really a big and important part of our process here.
You know, and in our phase phase two where we're doing the spatial exposure analysis, like we we're going to do mapping projections and modeling.
And we can do a whole and entire risk assessment without it speaking to anyone.
But our projects and these and the value of this work really improves when we start to engage with with our different audiences.
So each component obviously has sort of a different audience that we want to engage with.
So the hazard risk and vulnerability assessment.
It's really focused on regional district and will electoral areas and infrastructure and services.
So we're keeping our audience and we're engaging quite small.
So it's our RDOCO staff and our first nations.
With the climate risk and vulnerability assessment, because we're spending extending back up to the region.
We have a wider audience.
Different audiences we want to engage with from RDC's all staff member municipalities for nations.
Community organizations and general public.
For the greenhouse gas emissions forecasting and target setting where we're developing re-commissions forecasting targets because it's we're really looking at what's within the region's regional districts fear of influence.
We're bringing that audience back to the RDC of staff.
And then for the climate resilience strategy it's sort of back out.
So you can see this sort of flux between these different groups.
You will note that I've sort of purposely skipped over this sort of regional climate working group which I'm going to speak to.
As part of this work, the regional district is creating a temporary regional climate working group.
We're looking to have one to two sort of voluntary represents representatives from RDCO member municipalities, first nations and community organizations.
The group will be disbanded once the final plan is delivered.
And ultimately the role of this group is to when we get to that sort of graph planning stage we want to take that plan.
We want to take this strategy to this regional climate working group and have them step back and go answer answer the question is is the strategy meeting the set objectives of this project.
And are the actions not over stepping beyond the regional districts authority.
So it's a sort of litmus or smell test and that's purpose of the group.
Next slide, Mike.
This slide lays up our detailed engagement program across the different phases of the project and phase one.
We really are focuses on project initiation and early inputs.
So we've had our kick off with the project team.
We're presenting to you folks.
We've had our project initiation webinar with our different audiences.
On Monday, we are releasing, we are opening up the engagement web page and you'll have the community public survey for our general public to complete.
Well, some social media presence around that and we're implementing.
We're going ahead with some virtual interviews with our staff, member municipalities and first nations to really start gathering information.
As you can see, phase two doesn't talk about engagement because that's really us and the project team doing that detailed hazard analysis of different temporal periods as well as spatial periods.
Once we've done that analysis, we're coming back to our different audiences for in-person workshops.
We're going to bring our preliminary assessment.
We're going to help.
We're going to spend a lot of time talking about exposure, vulnerability, what's in place and where there are gaps.
And then we're going to take that information away.
Use that to finalize our risk assessments and then in another round of in-person workshops.
We're going to then come back to talk about here's our priority hazards.
Our priorities sort of vulnerabilities, our systemic issues or gaps.
And we're going to spend our work, you know, in-person working days.
The determining how our what actions can be brought forward that the regional district can implement.
That's where it went.
Ultimately, from those two in-person workshops days, we're going to have a lot of realist of potential resilience or hazard mitigation actions.
We're going to process that.
And then we're coming back to our different audiences, again, to help us sort of go through a prioritization exercise.
We don't want to come to the regional district with a strategy that has 50 actions.
We want to come back with a short list of actions with a strategic sort of implementation timeframe.
So that's the objective there.
As I know, mentioned once we get to the draft arts regional plan, regional strategy development.
It's going through that regional climate working group, about that missed test.
We're taking their information and feedback in updating our regional, the regional strategy.
And then we're releasing it to the public for input.
We'll then come back to you folks, near in the end of June with that final strategy for the presentation.
Dr. Next slide, Mike.
So today, we've formally initiated the project with the kickoff team.
We have our engagement and communications page.
We've had our women are collecting information and data.
Our next step is our targeted interviews with RDCO staff member municipalities and personations.
As I mentioned, we're launching the webpage and public survey on Monday.
And we're hosting our in-person workshops.
Not on February 26th and 27th, but actually March 9th and 10th now.
And that's it for me. So I don't know if there's questions.
And if not, I'll just pass it back to Mike.
Thank you very much. Mike, do you have closing comments before I go to the board for questions?
I know just briefly, you know, purposes presentation was obviously just to, you know, give the board some information around the project.
As well as provide a notification of the public engagement as well as engagement with, you know, municipal staff first nations, as well as we're also engaging provincial partners and interior health as well.
So yeah, I'd like you for the presentation, Daniel.
Thank you, Dr. Cannon.
Just a quick question. Thanks for the presentation.
Just wanted to know about the working group, somebody from the community wanted to be part of that.
You're looking for some, I think he mentioned a couple of people from the public would be part of that working group.
What's the process to be engaged or how do you, who do you consult with?
Through the chair, that will be staff only from municipal partners.
It will not be the community.
I think there is some community engagement in the list. Maybe Mr. Hagg, if you'd be able to speak to the community touch points of community groups or people.
We're looking at engaging with particular community organizations such as Interior Health and those that can represent or those that serve vulnerable populations.
To get a better understanding in terms of sort of the public engagement piece, it will just be more information out around this is the project.
This is what it's doing.
We have that survey together input on how different hazards are affecting them and what they'll need and what they're trying to do at their homes and businesses and what they're potentially, you know, thinking about looking for from the regional provincial governments in terms of support.
Dr. Carson, did you see you there, Director Nelson as well?
Yeah, in the executive summary, what worries me is you've list understanding natural hazard risks and not only is wildfire not first on that list, it's not on the list.
It is. Who wants information is this?
So through the chair, this project is being funded under DREF through EMCR.
It's being funded through UBCMCEPF funds. Both of those grants specifically state we cannot cover wildfire.
However, every community within the region, including the regional district, is developing a community wildfire resiliency plan.
Will inform our HRBAs, which are living documents that are reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
So it was left off intentionally.
Through the chair, it was left off to meet the intent of the grant funding.
However, staff time and or additional grant funding will cover off wildfires, which we fully understand is our number one risk at this point in time.
So it's being done separately because of that.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Director Nelson.
Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair.
Yeah, when there was a mention of greenhouse gas gas emissions and I was just wondering.
But the decision to move the regional transportation services to the under the umbrella of the regional district.
Does this short timeframe of this analysis with of this work will will the regional district staff that are responsible for regional transportation services be able to.
Provide some you know some feedback or some some input as to the had just related to vehicle emissions.
I know that you said be part of the analysis that we're done under step go.
So I just want where where do we stand with that will they be able to participate or is this another issue altogether not considered a national.
As or even though in my mind is still at risk as far as air quality to the you know greenhouse gas emissions through vehicles traffic.
Through the chair so although this is being presented by protective services this is a joint initiative between protective services and planning and development and so planning and development will be informing those pieces of the plan working with stand tech.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions.
Just just one from myself.
I don't know who wants to take this just building off of director cannons query.
When we look at qualitative analysis of affected people.
You know the public isn't included in the engagement and I'm just I'm wondering why that is if it's just organizations like obviously the consultant probably has a reason for that but the most affected people with perceived risk.
Generally would be consulted so I'm just wondering why that would not be the case in this engagement.
So through the chair the survey that will come out has some very pointed questions around vulnerability.
Not just around hazards but also you know with climate implications etc you know what's going forward.
As well we are engaging with community groups that represent the vulnerable populations to ensure that the plan is informed including through social groups that will be engaged.
Okay, okay, so not just interior health.
Okay.
Understood.
So we're just to receive this today for information.
I have a mover and Dr. Glaeseman second in Dr. Cannon any for the comments on this item.
Seeing not all in favor.
Opposed and carried.
Thank you. Thanks, Mike.
Thanks, Mr. Heck.
Thank you.
Item 9.1, please.
9.1 is the local government development approval grant program and all directors unweighted corporate vote.
To seek regional board endorsement for staff to apply for grant under the Union of BC municipalities.
Local government development approvals program presented by Daniel Noble Grant director of development and engineering services.
Good morning Daniel.
I wasn't sure if it was still morning but good morning.
Good morning chair.
This next report is seeking regional board endorsement for staff to submit a grant application under the Union of BC
municipalities local government development approvals program.
The board endorsement is a mandatory requirement to complete the application package.
This approval.
This program is administered by UBCM and funded by the BC Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.
The program's intent is to support local governments in implementing best practices and innovative approaches,
to improving development approval processes, while maintaining both policy and planning objectives.
In this intake, the province has committed approximately $9 million for the 2026 intake to help local governments modernize their systems.
The grant can fund up to 100% of eligible costs to a maximum of $200,000 for a single applicant.
This application has no budget impacts for regional districts staff at this time.
And in summary, this grant represents a high value opportunity to modernize the regional districts approval systems.
It builds on work that is already underway, supporting staff capacity and aligning with regional priorities.
Staff are recommending endorsements so that the regional district can competitively pursue this grant opportunity.
And that concludes staff remarks.
Thank you. Any questions?
Mover and Dr. Cannon, seconded by Dr. Clayson and me for the comments.
Seeing not all in favor.
Opposed and carried.
Item 9.2, please.
The chief administrative officer performance review process.
This is an all-director's unweighted corporate vote. This is to provide the board with an overview of the chief administrative officer performance review process.
As the initial step on the board's assessment of the CAO's performance in 2025 presented by Cory Griffiths corporate officer.
Morning, Cory.
Good morning, Chair Rolleridge members of the board.
As stated by CAO, again, through the purpose of this item before the board is to provide an overview of the CAO performance review process.
To inform the board of the comprehensive process, which sets the framework for effectively assessing the CAO's performance over the 2025 review period.
The CAO review process was originally drafted in 2021.
And, through learning's gain from the CAO recruitment process in 2023,
a review of evaluation processes used by organizations such as the city of Kelona, West Kelona, Thompson Nicola Regional District,
as well as resources provided by the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators, also known as Kama.
The board adopted the CAO Performance Review in Salary Administration Policy in November 2023.
The board's CAO Performance Review and Salary Administration Policy establishes the CAO as the board's sole employee.
The policy requires an annual performance review conducted by the board with the CAO setting goals aligned with the regional board strategic priorities.
The process ensures transparency, objectivity, clear expectations, supporting accountability, and constructive feedback.
To support this objective, the policy, process, and the accompanying CAO Performance Review package have been developed to foster open communication between the regional board and the CAO.
To ensure regional board and CAO share a common understanding of the essential components and competencies required of the role.
Provide the CAO with a structured forum to set annual goals and assess achievements in alignment with the regional board strategic priorities.
Provide balanced, objective feedback that supports accountability for performance outcomes.
To recognize leadership strengths, identified development opportunities,
acknowledge accomplishments, including this reviewing the CAO's compensation package, and making any required adjustments.
The documents provided to board members, particularly the performance review for support the execution of the annual performance review in accordance with the parameters outlined or determined in the policy.
It's important to note that performance review evaluations and related conversations are part of an ongoing iterative process and not at one time annual event.
The performance review begins with expectations and directions set by the board.
From these priorities, the CAO develops actionable organizational goals, and throughout the year, ongoing feedback is provided by the chair and the regional board to the CAO.
At the end of the evaluation period, the formal annual performance evaluation and compensation review takes place.
This ensures accountability of the CAO and gives the board the opportunity to formally recognize and acknowledge the CAO for their accomplishments.
As a review for the board, the timeline is before you, the CAO evaluation and performance form that will be provided to you guides the formal annual assessment.
Beginning in late January, after a full year of goal setting, regular check-ins, reporting out on strategic priorities and ongoing feedback, the CAO completes the self-assessment of the performance review, assessing their progress against the goals established by the board.
In February, the board provides individual feedback.
This in conjunction with SLT feedback, senior leadership team, is embedded into the draft performance review package that will be presented to the board.
In March, the performance review and compensation recommendation will be considered by the regional board, and the chair will then present the findings of this review and compensation to the CAO.
So following today's overview of the process, meaning what's next for you, board.
A chart will send their performance review.
I don't want to call it a survey. It's more than a survey that the package, the form, complete seeking your performance ratings and comments on the CAO's performance.
Human resources will then support the chair and bringing the performance review findings and compensation recommendations to the board for their consideration.
This concludes staff's presentation of the CAO performance review, as requested by the chair, and the recommendations before the board to receive the report from the corporate officer dated February 19th for information.
Thanks, Corey, and just so the board's aware, nothing has changed in this process.
It just happens every single year and just wanted to make sure the board was aware of the process moving forward.
Do we have any questions on the process at all?
Let me know in the comment section below.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment down below.
Thank you.
Thanks, Corey.
Item 9.3.
9.3 is a delegation request to the city of Kelona, and all directors unweighted corporate vote.
This is to inform the regional board on the status of a delegation request to the city of Kelona, again presented by the corporate officer.
Hello, again.
At the January 22nd, 2026 regional board closed meeting, the board directed staff directed the corporate officer that is to submit a delegation request to the city of Kelona regarding French area planning.
And that the corporate officer report back to the regional board by today's meeting with the request for delegation decision provided by the city of Kelona and further that the board's direction be released to the public.
And therefore, here to advise the board that the Kelona city clerk's office has advised that the RECO delegation request has been approved for presentation to the city's audit committee in early 2026.
And that concludes staff's presentation.
The recommendation before the board for the consideration is to receive this report for information.
Thank you.
Do I have a mover?
Okay, moved by Vice-Chairlin, seconded by Director DeHeart this time on favor.
Opposed, carried unanimously.
Thank you.
All right, so we have a one piece of committee correspondence to receive, which is item 10.1.
I just need a mover to receive that moved by Director Glazeman, seconded by Director Weber.
Director Ireland, did you have anything to speak to on that item at all or.
And I see Director Cannon as well.
Yeah, nothing, nothing of standing, it's warmer and there's less snow.
And I was a re-elected as a chair of the water board.
Congratulations.
It's no one on the west side is actually below any recorded.
The back on the west side print of mine is below any recorded time in history.
Whereas some star mission creek are just below normal at this point in time.
But that is an average out and it's an elevation so.
Our only municipalities know that the middle level elevation of snow are very poor at this point in time.
Thank you.
I'm Dr. Cannon.
I was just going to congratulate Director Ireland for being reclaimed as a chair in mayor homes from summerland as best chair.
Fantastic.
Thank you for your service on that board. It's important work.
So I'll have a favor to receive.
Opposed and carried.
And then our last item here is Director items before we have to move in camera quick.
We need as any directors have any to share.
Seeing not.
I will just look for a resolution to close.
The meeting in relations to labor relations and employee matters.
Do I have a resolution please?
No, by Director Blazeman, second by.
Dr. Dias, on favor.
Opposed and carried.
We're going to take two minutes here to clear the room of staff.