Change in federal funding rules pose ‘critical issue” for rural Columbia-Shuswap electoral areas

What about us?

It is a question that re-surfaced at the Nov. 21 Columbia Shuswap Regional District board meeting.

An Aug. 24 letter from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities advised the board that the CSRD would soon receive $548,857 in the first Community Works Fund (CWF) payment for 2024/2025. The regional district did not receive the letter until October.

Funding under the Canada Community-Building Fund program, administered by the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), may be directed to local priorities that fall within one of the eligible project categories.

As they did when the announcement was made last summer, electoral area directors voiced their grievances with new regulations that no longer permit third-party organizations to access the funds.

Area D director Dean Trumbley asked for an update on the ruling, pointing out the funds have previously had a tremendous impact on rural communities because they don’t have a lot of CSRD infrastructure that the regional district could fund directly.

“It is absolutely critical we find some sort of way, especially for the rural directors, to be able to access these funds for their non-profits,” he said. “In Area D, there is way more infrastructure that is provided by community than CSRD for recreation, community halls, stampede grounds etc.”

Chief administrative officer John MacLean told Trumbley this issue is timely, and that Area A director Karen Cathcart had shared similar concerns earlier in the week.

“The new rules related to (the) Community Works Fund have fairly stringent restrictions on third-party agreements and use of the funds; mainly, we have to build in some kind of asset management plan here at the regional district and they need to have asset management plans before we enter into an agreement,” he said. “And clearly we don’t have that documentation in place at this time.”

MacLean noted that ongoing conversations have not yielded any changes and that the new rules are a “point of conversation” across the province.

“We have to have a formal process in place, recognizing the importance of these assets to the regional district and bringing them into the fold somewhat in some sort of formally adopted document or policy statement by the board,” he said, pointing out the 2025 financial plan includes the renewal of the recreation master plan for the electoral areas. “We see this as a way to capture the importance of these third-party owned facilities and the importance of providing services to our residents.”

MacLean said that would move the regional district a long way towards being able to meet the new requirements, recognizing, however,  that it will be a long process.

“This is a critical issue for rural areas and we as directors are very aware of the importance of the work that volunteers and volunteer organizations do in communities,” said Area E Rural Sicamous director Rhona Martin, noting that without non-profits, not much would happen in her area. “Non-profits are afraid the government is coming to swallow them up and this type of decision will make them even more leery of being involved. We may lose them.”

Martin pointed out that her electoral area is also short on CSRD infrastructure and asked if the matter could perhaps be included on the Southern Interior Local Government Association (SILGA) agenda next spring so it could then be taken to UBCM for discussion.

Chair Natalya Melnychuk asked that the issue be added to the next electoral area directors meeting on Nov. 26.

Melnychuk noted her frustration with the fact that projects that were previously approved with community works funds already allocated in Area G can no longer be accessed.

MacLean suggested that the Electoral Area Directors Forum in the new year and/or SILGA would be ideal ways in which to raise concerns.

“I encourage lobbying efforts through whatever avenues are available to us,” he said.