meeting 1 of 8 greater vancouver regional district …november 22, 2016 greater vancouver regional...

November 22, 2016

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

REGULAR BOARD MEETING Friday, November 25, 2016

9:00 A.M. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

Membership and Votes

R E V I S E D A G E N D A1 ELECTION 1. Board Chair

Designated Speaker: Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer 2. Board Vice Chair

Designated Speaker: Board Chair 3. Alternate Board Chair and/or Alternate Board Vice Chair

Designated Speaker: Board Chair Note: In the event the elected Board Chair or Vice Chair is not a member of the Greater Vancouver Water District and/or the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, an Alternate Board Chair or Alternate Board Vice Chair must be separately elected for that District.

* * * A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. November 25, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda

That the GVRD Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for November 25, 2016 as circulated.

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. October 28, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes That the GVRD Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held October 28, 2016 as circulated.

C. DELEGATIONS

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

Meeting 1 of 8

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 1

http://www.metrovancouver.org/boards/membership/board-members/Pages/RD.aspx

GVRD Board Agenda November 25, 2016 Agenda of 4

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS E. CONSENT AGENDA

Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item. 1. HOUSING COMMITTEE REPORTS

1.1 Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing

Strategy) That the GVRD Board endorse five priority actions to initiate Metro Vancouver’s role in implementing the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, as presented in the report dated October 25, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy)”.

2. INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS

2.1 Analysis of Provincial Property Taxes and Home Owner Grants That the GVRD Board direct staff to develop a set of recommendations to submit to provincial parties in the spring of 2017 to encourage changes to the Home Owner Grant program and tax allocation program to provide a more fair and equitable system of property taxation in British Columbia.

2.2 Contract Extension for 9-1-1 Call Answer Services

That the GVRD Board authorize: a) the exercise of an option to extend the existing contract for E9-1-1 call answer

services with E-Comm Emergency Communications for Southwestern British Columbia Incorporated for five years, for an amount of up to $22,413,372 (exclusive of taxes); and

b) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Corporate Officer to execute any documents required to exercise the option to extend the contract

2.3 Award of Contract Extension for Security Guard Services

That the GVRD Board authorize: a) A contract amendment in the amount of $2,209,751 (exclusive of taxes) to the

current contractor, Commissionaires BC, for security guard services; and b) The Chief Administrative Officer and the Corporate Officer to execute the

contract.

2.4 Proposed Amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy That the GVRD Board approve the Corporate Investment Policy as presented in the report titled “Proposed Amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy” dated September 29, 2016

Revised



2.5 Consideration of the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement That the GVRD Board accept the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement as submitted to Metro Vancouver on November 8, 2016.

3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORTS 3.1 2017 Schedule of Regular Board Meetings

That the GVRD Board receive for information the 2017 schedule of regular board meetings, as follows:

Date Friday, January 27 Friday, February 24 Friday, March 31 Friday, April 28 Friday, May 26 Friday, June 30 Friday, July 28 Friday, September 22 Wednesday, October 18 (Budget) Friday, October 27 Friday, November 24 Friday, December 8 Meeting Place and Time 2nd floor boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia, at 9:00 a.m., unless otherwise specified on the Metro Vancouver public notice board, Metro Vancouver website, and the respective agenda.

3.2 Metro Vancouver External Agency Activities Status Report November 2016

That the GVRD Board receive for information the following reports from Metro Vancouver representatives to external organizations: a) Municipal Finance Authority of BC, dated October 11, 2016; b) Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee, dated October 24, 2016; c) Experience the Fraser Project, dated October 11, 2016; d) Pacific Parklands Foundation, dated October 24, 2016; e) Fraser Valley Regional Library Board, dated October 31, 2016; and f) Fraser Basin Council, dated November 2, 2016 as contained in the report dated November 3, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver External Agency Activities Status Report November 2016”.

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA G. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA



1. INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE 1.1 Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and

Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016 That the GVRD Board give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016” and forward the bylaw to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval.

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN I. OTHER BUSINESS J. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS K. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Board must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below. That the GVRD Board close its regular meeting scheduled for November 25, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (d) and (g) and 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (d) the security of the property of the regional district; and (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district; and

90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence

relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

L. RISE AND REPORT (Items Released from Closed Meeting) M. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

That the GVRD Board adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of November 25, 2016.

Added


Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, October 28, 2016 Page 1 of 6

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 9:11 a.m. on Friday, October 28, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Port Coquitlam, Chair, Director Greg Moore Vancouver, Vice Chair, Director Raymond Louie Anmore, Director John McEwen Belcarra, Director Ralph Drew Bowen Island, Director Maureen Nicholson Burnaby, Director Sav Dhaliwal Burnaby, Director Colleen Jordan Coquitlam, Director Craig Hodge Coquitlam, Director Richard Stewart Delta, Director Lois Jackson Electoral Area A, Director Maria Harris Langley City, Director Rudy Storteboom Langley Township, Director Charlie Fox Langley Township, Director Bob Long Lions Bay, Director Karl Buhr Maple Ridge, Director Nicole Read New Westminster, Director Jonathan Coté North Vancouver City, Director Darrell Mussatto

North Vancouver District, Director Richard Walton Pitt Meadows, Director John Becker Port Moody, Director Mike Clay Richmond, Director Malcolm Brodie Richmond, Director Harold Steves Surrey, Director Bruce Hayne Surrey, Director Linda Hepner Surrey, Director Mary Martin Surrey, Director Barbara Steele Surrey, Director Judy Villeneuve Vancouver, Director Heather Deal Vancouver, Director Kerry Jang Vancouver, Director Geoff Meggs Vancouver, Director Andrea Reimer Vancouver, Director Gregor Robertson Vancouver, Director Tim Stevenson West Vancouver, Director Michael Smith White Rock, Director Wayne Baldwin

MEMBERS ABSENT: Burnaby, Director Derek Corrigan Tsawwassen, Director Bryce Williams

STAFF PRESENT: Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer

A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. October 28, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDEDThat the GVRD Board adopt the revised agenda for its regular meetingscheduled for October 28, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED

Section B 1



B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. September 23, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes 2. October 21, 2016 Metro Vancouver Joint Board Budget Workshop Minutes

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held September 23, 2016 and the minutes for the Metro Vancouver Joint Board Budget Workshop held October 21, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED C. DELEGATIONS No items presented. D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. E. CONSENT AGENDA

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the October 28, 2016 GVRD Board Consent Agenda: 1.1 2016 Christmas Campaign – Create Memories, Not Garbage 2.1 Health and Economic Benefits of Sustainable Development and Transport

Investment in the Lower Mainland Study 3.1 National Housing Strategy Consultation Update 4.1 Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy Amendments 4.2 Update on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change

and the BC Climate Leadership Plan 5.1 Update on the Regional Prosperity Initiative 6.1 2017 GVRD Function Budgets

CARRIED The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows: 1.1 2016 Christmas Campaign – Create Memories, Not Garbage

Report dated September 23, 2016 from Larina Lopez, Corporate Communications Division Manager, External Relations, informing the Zero Waste Committee and GVRD Board of the 2016 Christmas Campaign – Create Memories, Not Garbage -- in support of the zero waste objectives in Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan.



Recommendation: That the GVRD Board receive the report dated September 23, 2016, titled “2016 Christmas Campaign – Create Memories, Not Garbage” for information.

Adopted on Consent

2.1 Health and Economic Benefits of Sustainable Development and Transport Investment in the Lower Mainland Study Report dated October 14, 2016 from the Regional Planning Committee, requesting the GVRD Board to write a letter to the Province recommending that BC support the “Health and Economic Benefits of Sustainable Development and Transport Investment in the Lower Mainland Study”, and for staff to report back to the Regional Planning Committee on Metro Vancouver’s involvement in the study. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board: a) send a letter to the provincial Minister of Health recommending that the

Province of BC support the “Health and Economic Benefits of Sustainable Development and Transport Investment in the Lower Mainland Study”; and

b) direct staff to report back to the Regional Planning Committee about Metro Vancouver’s involvement with the study.

Adopted on Consent

3.1 National Housing Strategy Consultation Update Report dated October 18, 2016 from the Housing Committee, together with report dated September 19, 2016 from Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Regional Housing, providing a description of the federal government’s current work to develop a National Housing Strategy, the consultation process, and Metro Vancouver’s input to date. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board write a letter to BC Housing seeking confirmation on the status of funding applications to the Province of BC’s new housing investment funds for affordable rental housing units.

Adopted on Consent

4.1 Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy Amendments Report dated October 1, 2016 from Megan Gerryts, Corporate Projects Coordinator, CAO Executive Offices, seeking GVRD Board approval of the amended Regional District Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board approve the Regional District Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy as presented in the report titled “Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy Amendments” dated October 1, 2016.

Adopted on Consent



4.2 Update on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and the BC Climate Leadership Plan Report dated October 5, 2016 from Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner, and Ali Ergudenler, Lead Senior Engineer, Parks, Planning and Environment, providing an update on the Federal government process for developing a Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and the BC Climate Leadership Plan. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated October 5, 2016, titled, “Update on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and the BC Climate Leadership Plan.”

Adopted on Consent 5.1 Update on the Regional Prosperity Initiative

Report dated October 21, 2016 from the Intergovernment and Finance Committee, together with report dated October 6, 2016 from Heather Schoemaker, Senior Director, and Ann Rowan, Collaboration Initiatives Program Manager, External Relations, presenting an update on the Regional Prosperity Initiative, a multi-stakeholder initiative to create a new public-private collaboration enabling businesses, local governments, academia, professional associations and civic organizations to work together to improve and expand the prosperity of the Metro Vancouver region. Recommendation: That the GVRD Board endorse the 2017 Regional Prosperity Initiative Work Plan and budget, as presented in the report titled “Update on the Regional Prosperity Initiative” dated October 21, 2016.

Adopted on Consent 6.1 2017 GVRD Function Budgets

Report dated October 21, 2016 from Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer, seeking GVRD Board approval of the 2017 Revenue and Expenditure Budgets and use of Reserves for Air Quality, E911 Emergency Telephone Service, Electoral Area Service, General Government, Labour Relations, Regional Emergency Management, Regional Global Positioning System, Regional Planning, Homelessness Partnering Strategy, and Sasamat Fire Protection Service. Recommendation: 1) That the GVRD Board approve the 2017 Revenue and Expenditure Budgets

and use of Reserves, as presented for Air Quality, E911 Emergency Telephone Service, Electoral Area Service, General Government, Labour Relations, Regional Emergency Management, Regional Global Positioning System, Regional Planning, and Homelessness Partnering Strategy shown in the following schedules:

A1 Revenue and Expenditure Summary



A4 2017 Budget - Proposed Application of Reserves B19 Air Quality - 2017 Budget B20 E911 Emergency Telephone Service - 2017 Budget B22 Electoral Area Service - 2017 Budget B23 General Government - 2017 Budget B24 Labour Relations - 2017 Budget B25 Regional Emergency Management – 2017 Budget B26 Regional Global Positioning System – 2017 Budget B29 Regional Planning - 2017 Budget B31 Homelessness Partnering Strategy – 2017 Budget

2) That the GVRD Board approve the 2017 Revenue and Expenditure Budget as presented for the Sasamat Fire Protection Service, and shown in the following schedules:

A1 Revenue and Expenditure Summary B30 Sasamat Fire Protection Service - 2017 Budget (Only Anmore and Belcarra may vote on Part 2 of the recommendation)

Adopted on Consent

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No items presented. G. REPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA

1.1 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Minor Amendment to Incorporate Updated Housing Demand Estimates Report dated October 14, 2016 from the Regional Planning Committee, together with report dated September 16, 2016 from Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, and Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider initiation and first and second readings of a Type 3 Minor Amendment to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future, the regional growth strategy, to incorporate updated housing demand estimates developed through the preparation of the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate a Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Type 3 Minor

Amendment to incorporate revised housing demand estimates; b) Give first and second readings to Greater Vancouver Regional District

Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1237, 2016; and c) Direct staff to notify affected local governments, appropriate agencies, and

the public in accordance with Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Section 6.4.2.

CARRIED



H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented. I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. J. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented. K. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board close its regular meeting scheduled for October 28, 2016 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (a), (e) and (g) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter

being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is

being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the regional district or another position appointed by the regional district;

(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the board or committee considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district;

(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the regional district.” CARRIED

L. RISE AND REPORT (Items Released from Closed Meeting) No items presented. M. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board adjourn its regular meeting of October 28, 2016.

CARRIED (Time: 9:12 a.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer

Greg Moore, Chair

19815394 FINAL


To: Housing Committee

From: Elisa Campbell, Director, Regional Planning & Electoral Area Services Parks, Planning and Environment Department

Date: October 25, 2016 Meeting Date: November 9, 2016

Subject: Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy)

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board endorse five priority actions to initiate Metro Vancouver’s role in implementing the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, as presented in the report dated October 25, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy)”.

PURPOSE This report provides the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider five priority actions that can be undertaken immediately to support implementation of Metro Vancouver’s actions and priorities related to the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, and to further inform the development of a Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy).

BACKGROUND At its meeting on May 27, 2016, the GVRD Board adopted the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS). The Board’s resolution also directed staff to develop an implementation plan for Metro Vancouver’s own actions. This is also consistent with the Board Strategic Plan (2015 to 2018) that includes a strategic direction to “develop a focused regional rental housing strategy to identify the means to protect and maintain rental stock in the region”.

At its meeting on October 14, 2016, the Housing Committee received a verbal presentation titled “Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy)” which proposed an approach to undertaking an implementation plan for RAHS that will clarify, prioritize and operationalize Metro Vancouver’s own actions, and will address emerging opportunities related to supporting an affordable housing stock in the region, including canvassing member municipalities for additional potential affordable housing sites. This report reflects much of the information discussed at the October meeting, and brings forward five priority actions that can be initiated in the immediate term to support implementation of Metro Vancouver’s own actions and priorities related to the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. Some or all of these five priority actions may further inform the development of the Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy).

METRO VANCOUVER HOUSING ROLE Metro 2040: Shaping our Future, the regional growth strategy, identifies a mandate for Metro Vancouver to develop complete communities. A key characteristic of complete communities is the availability of diverse and affordable housing choices, and therefore a core intent of Metro Vancouver’s efforts related to housing is to support a stable supply of housing in the region that is affordable. Through its regional planning function, Metro Vancouver undertakes housing research,

Section E 1.1


Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (RAHS) Housing Committee Meeting November 9, 2016

Page 2 of 5

analysis and policy development to support the provision of affordability more broadly, which includes housing affordability. This requires consideration of the full continuum of housing needs in the region. As part of this mandate, Metro Vancouver staff have worked with member municipalities to complete the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS). RAHS identifies actions for a range of housing stakeholders to undertake, including Metro Vancouver and the MVHC. Metro Vancouver’s mandate also includes being the sole shareholder of the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC), and providing administrative support for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy. Metro Vancouver’s efforts related to housing affordability have taken place more recently within the context of a critical juncture for housing policy and planning within the region and beyond. A combination of market forces, some of them global, are exerting an impact on housing affordability and rental housing vacancy rates have plummeted. At the same time, the Government of Canada has recently identified a renewed focus on rental and affordable rental housing, including through immediate funding programs, and has made a commitment to developing a National Housing Strategy as a strategic guide for future federal affordable housing investments. Similarly, the Province of B.C. has also announced new funding initiatives to support the development of affordable rental housing options. This context both creates an urgency for action, and opens up new opportunities for local governments to access and leverage funding from senior levels of government in support of affordable housing activities. Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (RAHS) While many of the proposed actions in RAHS are directed towards member municipalities, TransLink, the provincial and federal governments, and others, specific actions are also identified for Metro Vancouver that reflect its housing mandate as described above. However, while RAHS identifies possible actions, and provides a framework for determining longer-term next steps, it does not provide a detailed action plan for implementation, including priorities, specific tactics, timelines, or quantitative targets within a strategic context. At the same time, because opportunities now exist for considering a more aggressive approach to enhancing the stock of affordable rental housing in the region, additional strategies and approaches can be layered onto what was proposed through RAHS. Metro Vancouver staff have initiated work on an implementation plan, including working with municipal staff to receive input about priority actions. The resultant Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy) [Strategic Implementation Plan] will account for work done through RAHS as well as encompass emerging opportunities. It will provide a consolidated roadmap to guide housing-related decisions and activities at Metro Vancouver, and will provide a strategic approach to implementing actions in a transparent, coordinated and timely way. Because of the urgency of some of the needs and opportunities related to affordable rental housing, however, five priority actions as described below can be initiated immediately while the full Strategic Implementation Plan is prepared.

1. Undertake a strategic assessment of Metro Vancouver affordable housing role(s)

Action 1 entails undertaking a strategic assessment and prioritization of Metro Vancouver’s affordable housing role(s), through its regional planning function, through MVHC, through the HPS, and in support of similar efforts underway by member municipalities. The “Spectrum of Roles” (Attachment 1) provides a framework for determining which opportunities are deemed to



Page 3 of 5

be most important, relevant and feasible. Action 1 involves clarifying the specifics of Metro Vancouver’s role(s) according to the spectrum outlined, and identifying associated tasks that will include both actions already included in the new RAHS, as well as new actions to reflect emerging needs / opportunities. It also entails incorporating activities identified in the Board Strategic Plan (2015-2018), including, for example, exploring funding, financing and partnership options to increase the stock of affordable housing in the region and evaluating diversified revenue sources for MVHC.

2. Establish MVHC-specific and Metro Vancouver-supported affordable rental housing targets

Action 2 involves setting a target number of affordable rental housing units by income bracket and housing type that will be both directly provided by Metro Vancouver through MVHC, and indirectly supported by Metro Vancouver through working with others, including member municipalities or through partnerships. Analysis by Metro Vancouver staff shows that an additional 182,000 housing units will likely be required in the region over the next ten years. Of this amount, 128,000 housing units are anticipated to be owned, while 54,000 housing units is estimated to be rented. The net additional rental housing required over the next ten years can be further disaggregated by household income (Attachment 2). It is this anticipated increase in demand for rental units that requires particular focus by Metro Vancouver. Action 2 entails using this and other relevant data to work with the GVRD and MVHC Boards to quantify affordable rental housing targets for Metro Vancouver specifically, to be achieved either directly through redevelopment of MVHC sites and through development of additional sites, and/or indirectly through supporting the efforts of member municipalities and others.

3. Review and update evaluation criteria for selecting sites for development / redevelopment of affordable rental housing

Action 3 focuses on reviewing and updating the criteria used to guide decisions to guide the selection of priority sites for development or redevelopment for affordable rental housing. This follows up on evaluation criteria that were endorsed by the MVHC Board in 2016. In order to reflect emerging circumstances, and to ensure transparency of the prioritization and selection process, additional criteria can be incorporated that reflect a broader range of regional growth strategy goals and objectives, to ensure the applicability of the criteria to potential sites proposed by member municipalities, and to aligns consideration of development / redevelopment of units to housing demand estimates and associated targets.

4. Prepare a comprehensive asset management plan for MVHC housing complexes

Action 4 involves preparing a long-term asset management plan for the MVHC housing complexes, to include focused attention on each specific property, as well as on the portfolio of properties as a whole. Action 4 flows from direction provided through the Board Strategic Plan to develop and implement an asset management strategy for the maintenance and replacement of existing MVHC housing stock.



Page 4 of 5

5. Identify and prepare MVHC Board policies related to affordable rental housing

Action 5 involves identifying activities undertaken through the Strategic Implementation Plan that need to be housed within a MVHC Board Policy. For example, the outcome of Action 3 would like merit being captured within a policy. Similarly, there may be other actions from the Strategic Implementation Plan that have outcomes that require a consistent Board-approved methodology and application, and therefore would benefit from being approved as policy.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board endorse five priority actions to initiate Metro Vancouver’s role in

implementing the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, as presented in the report dated October 5, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy)”.

2. That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated October 5, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (RAHS)”.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVRD Board approves Alternative 1, staff will undertake implementation of the five priority actions within the context of the existing 2017 Board-approved Regional Planning budget, which provides additional staff resources to support regional affordable housing activities. Under Alternative 2, staff will continue to prepare an implementation plan for RAHS, as directed by the GVRD Board, and will bring forward a staff report for Board consideration once the full implementation plan is completed. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION At its meeting on May 27, 2016, the GVRD Board adopted the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS). The Board’s resolution also directed staff to develop an implementation plan for Metro Vancouver actions. At its meeting on October 14, 2016, the Housing Committee received a verbal presentation titled “Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy)” which proposed preparation of a strategic implementation plan for RAHS that will clarify, prioritize and operationalize Metro Vancouver’s own actions, as well as address emerging opportunities related to supporting an affordable housing stock in the region, including through canvassing member municipalities for additional potential affordable housing sites. This staff report reflects much of the information discussed at the October meeting, and brings forward the proposed approach to preparing a Metro Vancouver Strategic Implementation Plan (Regional Affordable Housing Strategy) [Strategic Implementation Plan], including five priority actions that can be initiated in the immediate term to support implementation of Metro Vancouver’s own actions and priorities related to the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. The five priority actions are:

1. Undertake a strategic assessment of Metro Vancouver affordable housing role(s) 2. Establish MVHC-specific and Metro Vancouver-supported affordable rental housing targets 3. Review and update evaluation criteria for selecting sites for development / redevelopment

of affordable rental housing 4. Prepare a comprehensive asset management plan for MVHC housing complexes 5. Identify and prepare MVHC Board policies related to affordable rental housing



Page 5 of 5

Because of the urgency of some of the current needs and opportunities related to affordable rental housing, staff recommend Alternative 1 to allow for five priority actions to be initiated immediately while the full Strategic Implementation Plan is prepared.

Attachments 1. Spectrum of Roles (19937196)2. Anticipated Housing Demand 2016-2026 (19932596)

6516361


RESEARCH, ANALYSIS ADVOCACY FACILITATING FUNDING PARTNERING IN DEVELOPMENT OWNING, OPERATING

• Assessing demographic /market trends

• Providing evidence-basedpolicy support

• Compilinginformationaboutinnovation

• Contributingdecisionsupport frameworks

• Maintaining strong connectionswithotherorders of government

• Facilitatingexchangeofexpertiseandbestpractice

• Advocatingforfundingand programs

• Contributingdecisionsupport frameworks

• Maintaining strong connectionstoandbetweenfunders

• Evaluatingdiversifiedrevenue sources

• Facilitatingaccesstofinancing/betterrates

• Supportingleveragingoffundingcontributions

• Facilitatingdedicatedpublic source of funds

• Selling owned / surpluslandtofinanceredevelopment

• Selling owned / surplusland to purchase andretainexistingbuildings

• Brokering broad developmentcoalitions/partnerships

• Convening partnersacross sectors and ordersof government

• Selling owned / surpluslandtosupportexternaldevelopment

• Contributinglandtosupport partnership developmenteffort

• Owning land and developing/operatingprojects

• Owning and leasing landtoexternalpartyfordevelopment

• Owning and leasing landandsupportingexternalpartnerships for development

• Owning and retainingland for investmentpurposes

S P E C T R U M O F R O L E S T O S U P P O R T A S T A B L E S U P P L Y O F H O U S I N G T H A T I S A F F O R D A B L E

Attachment 1


Less than $30k $75 - 100k$50 - 75k$30 - 50k $100k+

METRO VANCOUVER HOUSING DEMAND BY HOUSEHOLD INCOMEESTIMATED NET ADDIT IONAL RENTAL HOUSING 2016-2026

23,500

8,700

4,8005,800

11,200

= 1000 units

Attachment 2


To: GVRD Board of Directors From: Intergovernment and Finance Committee Date: November 21, 2016 Meeting Date: November 25, 2016 Subject: Analysis of Provincial Property Taxes and Home Owner Grants INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board direct staff to develop a set of recommendations to submit to provincial parties in the spring of 2017 to encourage changes to the Home Owner Grant program and tax allocation program to provide a more fair and equitable system of property taxation in British Columbia. At its November 18, 2016 meeting, the Intergovernment and Finance Committee considered the attached report titled “Analysis of Provincial Property Taxes and Home Owner Grants”, dated November 10, 2016. The Committee subsequently passed the recommendation as presented above. Attachment: “Analysis of Provincial Property Taxes and Home Owner Grants”, dated November 10, 2016. 20008264

Section E 2.1

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 17 - 1

19831092

To: Intergovernment and Finance Committee

From: Dean Rear, Director, Financial Planning & Operations

Date: November 10, 2016 Meeting Date: November 18, 2016

Subject: Analysis of Provincial Property Taxes and Home Owner Grants

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report titled “Analysis of Provincial Property Taxes and Home Owner Grants” dated November 10, 2016.

PURPOSE To provide an update on the progress of the analysis of property taxation issues as requested by the GVRD Board.

BACKGROUND At the April 29, 2016 GVRD Board meeting, the Board considered a request from a Director that the 1988 GVRD study related to the provincial portion of property taxes paid by Metro Vancouver residents be updated and brought forward to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee, in light of the unprecedented increases in assessments being experienced in the region. Following discussion on the matter, the Board endorsed the following motion:

That the GVRD Board refer to staff the 1988 GVRD study, related to the provincial portion of the property taxes paid by Metro Vancouver residents, to bring forward to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee to pursue updating, in light of the unprecedented increases in assessments experienced in the region, with the objective of bringing back the report by September 2016.

Staff have engaged external advice to assist in reviewing the 1988 report and have also been in contact with municipal and provincial staff to obtain updated information to assist in this review. The project has taken longer than anticipated. This report is being brought forward to provide an update on the review with the expectation that a final report will be brought forward in the first quarter of 2017.

1988 GVRD STUDY ON PROPERTY TAXATION In March 1988 the GVRD Finance Department produced a discussion paper for the GVRD Board titled “Report on Real Property Taxation in Greater Vancouver”. The impetus for undertaking the analysis was set out in the report as follows:

With the possibility of significant expenditures for water treatment, upgrading sewage treatment and hospital construction over the next several years, a study was undertaken to determine the impact of these and other capital expenditures on future

Attachment


Analysis of Provincial Property Taxes and Home Owner Grants Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: November 18, 2016

Page 2 of 3

real property taxes in the region. This in turn led to an analysis of current trends in real property taxation and some of the major factors affecting these trends.

A number of areas related to taxation was considered, with specific areas examined in the report including:

• Revenue Sharing Grants • School Funding • Ability to Pay • Assessment Trends • Possible new Municipal, Regional, and Other Costs • Regional Hospital District Cost Sharing

A full copy of the original report is included in Attachment 2. The report was updated in November of 1988 with refreshed data as 1989 assessed values for the region had increased substantially more than for the rest of the province. A copy of this updated report is included in Attachment 3. 2016 UPDATED PROPERTY TAXATION ANALYSIS In assessing the current taxation environment and availability of data and resources in August of this year Cascadia Partners, a consulting firm with experience in tax analysis, was engaged to undertake the following review:

1. Property Tax Overview. Summarize property tax policies across Metro Vancouver and analyze revenue trends for each component of regional property taxes.

2. Home Owner Grant Analysis. Analyze Grant levels and eligibility within Metro Vancouver, focusing on how rising values have affected regional distribution.

3. Provincial School Tax Analysis. Calculate net residential Provincial property tax (after deducting the Home Owner Grant) and analyze growth trends.

4. Property Transfer Tax Analysis. Understand how Property Transfer Tax impacts transactions in Metro Vancouver and review Provincial policy changes.

An initial briefing note with preliminary findings on the Home Owner Grant and Provincial School Tax Analysis is included in Attachment 1 for information. The completion of work on the Provincial School Taxes and the Property Transfer Tax is reliant on additional disaggregated data being received from BC Assessment Authority and the Ministry of Finance. The anticipated date of delivery of the data is largely unknown, but will likely be in late November, possibly into December. When the full analysis is complete, a further report and presentation will be provided for the Intergovernment and Finance Committee, anticipated to be in the first quarter of 2017. ALTERNATIVES This report is being presented for information. No alternatives are presented.


Analysis of Provincial Property Taxes and Home Owner Grants Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: November 18, 2016

Page 3 of 3

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As noted above, at this time this report is being provided for information with more detailed financial information to follow. There are no direct financial implications associated with the preparation of the report, other than consulting fees. The larger financial implications associated with the current structure of the Home Owner Grant Program are described in the attached report and will be coming forward in more detail in early 2017 once all the data has been obtained from the Province. The Board may wish to consider developing a set of recommendations to submit to provincial parties in the spring of 2017 to encourage changes to the Home Owner Grant program to provide a more fair and equitable system of property taxation in British Columbia. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION On April 29, 2016 the GVRD Board passed a resolution directing staff to review and update the 1988 study undertaken by the Finance Department to review impact and trends of property taxation in the region. In August of 2016, Cascadia Partners were engaged to undertake an analysis based on the 1988 study focusing on property taxes, home owner grants, and the property transfer tax. An initial briefing note with preliminary findings on the Home Owner Grant and Provincial School Tax Analysis is included in Attachment 1. With receipt of additional data by December, the full analysis will be brought to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee early in 2017. Attachments: 1. “Analyzing the Home Owner Grant Program: Briefing Note – Preliminary Findings” dated

November 8, 2016 (Doc #19945724) 2. “Report on Real Property Taxation Issues in Greater Vancouver” dated March 1988 (Doc #18132531) 3. “Real Property Taxation Issues in Greater Vancouver – An Update” dated November 1988 (Doc

#18131208) 19831092


Analyzing the Home Owner Grant Program Briefing Note – PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

Attn: Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer Dean Rear, Director, Financial Planning & Operations

Completed by: John Merkley

November 8, 2016

ATTACHMENT 1


Note: By accepting the attached briefing note the Greater Vancouver Regional District (the “Client”) is agreeing not to hold Cascadia Strategy Consulting Partners Ltd. or John Merkley liable for any impacts from relying on this analysis.

Greater Vancouver Regional District 4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC, V5H 4G8 November 8, 2016

Attn: Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer Phil Trotzuk, Chief Financial Officer Dean Rear, Director, Financial Planning & Operations

Please accept the attached briefing note summarizing Cascadia’s analysis of the Home Owner Grant Program. This document represents preliminary findings as a portion of the update requested to the 1988 report Real Property Taxation Issues in Greater Vancouver. Key findings are as follows:

From January 2014 to September 2016, the composite home price index for the Lower Mainlandincreased by 52%. In the same period, the Home Owner Grant threshold value increased by 9%(from $1.1M to $1.2M).

In the past decade, Metro Vancouver’s share of total Grant issuance declined from 53.0% to

46.8%, despite its population growth outpacing the rest of the Province.

Metro Vancouver’s declining share of the Grant was accelerated by the introduction of the Northern

and Rural Home Owner Grant in 2011 providing an additional $200 for eligible homes in northernand rural areas.

Since the Grant is primarily deducted from School Tax, Metro Vancouver’s decreasing Grant levelshave caused net residential-class School Tax to increase faster than it would have otherwise. InMetro Vancouver, the 5-year average annual growth in net residential-class School Tax was 6%;compared to 0% for the rest of the Province.

Several potential alternative Grant models are identified herein. One alternative is to establish afixed percentage of eligible homes within each municipality, rather than a fixed threshold appliedProvince-wide.

The attached briefing note provides additional detail for the above findings. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Yours sincerely,

John Merkley Partner [email protected] 778-875-3687


mailto:[email protected]

1

Analyzing the Home Owner Grant Program

Context Regional leaders have requested an analysis of how Provincial property taxes and the Home Owner Grant Program in Metro Vancouver have changed over time. On April 29, 2016 the Board of Directors for Metro Vancouver passed a motion that read as follows:

That the GVRD Board refer to staff the 1988 GVRD study, related to the provincial portion of the

property taxes paid by Metro Vancouver residents, to bring forward to the Intergovernmental and

Finance committee to pursue updating, in light of the unprecedented increases in assessments

experienced in the region, with the objective of bringing back the report by September 2016.

The 1988 Metro Vancouver (GVRD) study entitled Real Property Taxation Issues in Greater Vancouver,

referenced in the motion above, focused on whether Metro Vancouver’s overall property tax burden and benefits are equitable relative to the rest of the Province. Cascadia has been requested to update this report focusing specifically on Home Owner Grant, Provincial School Tax, and Property Transfer Tax.

This report focuses on the Home Owner Grant.

Overview of the Home Owner Grant The Home Owner Grant (the “Grant”) is a Provincial program that reduces the amount of property tax paid by an owner on their principal residence. The current “basic” grant is $570. Seniors (age 65 and older), veterans, people with disabilities (or those living with a person with a disability) may qualify for an “additional” grant of $275, for a total of $845.

The Grant is primarily used to offset residential-class Provincial School Tax. If the Grant amount is greater than the School Tax owed, the remaining Grant amount is used to offset other property tax and is retained by the municipality.

The Grant is reduced by $5 for every $1,000 of assessed value above a threshold, which for 2016 was set at $1,200,000. This means the basic grant will be fully reduced for homes valued at $1,314,000 for 2016 (i.e. $570 ÷ 5 × $1,000 = $114,000 + $1,200,000 = $1,314,000). Homeowners must pay at least $350 in property taxes before claiming the basic grant and $100 before claiming the additional grant.

In 2016, the Province set the threshold such that 91% of qualified property owners in BC would be eligible to claim the full Grant. Since 2006 this target has declined from 95% to 91%.

Objectives of this Analysis 1. Review how rising property values in Metro Vancouver has impacted Grant distribution over time;

2. Analyze Metro Vancouver’s declining share of Grant issuance relative to the rest of the Province;

3. Assess the impact of decreasing Grant issuance on net residential-class School Tax;

4. Explore alternative Grant models.


2


100120140160180200220240

$700,000

$900,000

$1,100,000

$1,300,000

$1,500,000

$1,700,000

$1,900,000

Jan

2006

Jun

2006

Nov

2006

Apr 2

007

Sep

2007

Feb

2008

Jul 2

008

Dec

2008

May

200

9O

ct 2

009

Mar

201

0Au

g 20

10Ja

n 20

11Ju

n 20

11No

v 20

11Ap

r 201

2Se

p 20

12Fe

b 20

13Ju

l 201

3De

c 20

13M

ay 2

014

Oct

201

4M

ar 2

015

Aug

2015

Jan

2016

Jun

2016 Co

mpo

site

Low

er M

ainl

and

Hom

e Pr

ice I

ndex

(gre

en)

Gra

nt T

hres

hold

Val

ue (b

lue)

Grant Threshold Value (blue) Lower Mainland Composite Home Price Index (green)

$0$50

$100$150$200$250$300$350$400$450

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Hom

e O

wner

Gra

nt Is

suan

ce

(in

millio

ns)

Metro Vancouver (green) Rest of Province (blue); Northern/Rural Grant (light blue)

51.8% 52.0% 52.0% 52.3% 52.6% 52.7% 53.1% 53.4% 53.6% 53.7% 53.9%Metro Vancouver Share of Population:

53.0% 52.8% 52.1% 52.2% 52.5% 48.0% 47.8% 47.9% 47.3% 46.8% 46.2%Metro Vancouver Share of Home Owner Grant Issuance:

1. Home Owner Grant Threshold Lags Rising Property ValuesFrom January 2014 to September 2016, the composite home price index for Lower Mainland has increased by 52%1. In the same period, the Grant threshold value has increased by 9% (from $1.1M to $1.2M), resulting in declining Grant eligibility within the region. In the City of Vancouver, the percentage of properties eligible for the Grant has declined by approximately 5% annually, from 79% in 2013 to 64% in 2016, resulting in $11M less Grants annually for residents. The graph below shows how the Grant threshold value tracked the composite home price index in the Lower Mainland in the last decade.

Grant Threshold Value vs. Lower Mainland Composite Home Price Index

2. Metro Vancouver’s Declining Share of the Home Owner GrantFrom 2006 to 2015, Metro Vancouver’s share of total Grant issuance has declined from 53.0% to 46.8%2, despite its population growth outpacing the rest of the Province. In 2016, this decline is forecast to continue based on home price trends in Metro Vancouver relative other regions. Metro Vancouver’s

declining share of the Grant was accelerated by the introduction of the Northern and Rural Home Owner Grant in 2011, which offers an additional $200 to homeowners in the northern and rural areas of BC (those outside of Greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley, and Capital Regional Districts).

Home Owner Grant Issuance in Metro Vancouver vs. Rest of Province

1 Canadian Real Estate Association, Home Price Index (accessed October 2016). 2 Ministry of Community, Sport, and Cultural Development, Local Government Statistics 2006-2015 (accessed October 2016).

Home Price Index Growth (Jan. 2014 to Sept. 2016): 52%

Grant Threshold Growth (Jan. 2014 to Sept. 2016): 9%


3


3. Metro Vancouver’s Growing Net Residential-Class School Tax Since the Grant is primarily deducted from residential-class School Tax, Metro Vancouver’s decreasing

Grant levels have caused net residential-class School Tax to increase faster than it would have otherwise. In Metro Vancouver, the 5-year average annual growth in net residential-class School Tax was 6%; compared to 0% for the rest of the Province34. The 5-Year average annual growth of gross residential-class School Tax revenue in Metro Vancouver was 3.8%, compared to 0.6% for the rest of the Province. This difference between the annual growth of gross vs. net residential-class School Tax due to declining Grant levels is shown by the grey area in the chart below.

Index of Net Residential-Class School Tax (Base Year: 2006)

4. Alternative Grant Models5 (for discussion) Depending on the guiding principles and objectives for the Home Owner Grant Program, the following potential alternative Grant models may be considered6:

1. Fixed Percentage Eligibility by Municipality. Each municipality within the Province could establish a different Grant eligibility threshold value reflecting the distribution of property values, while maintaining the Provincial average at 91% eligibility (see next section).

2. Different Grant Levels by Municipality. Each municipality could establish a different Grant level, while keeping the average at $570 for the basic grant and $845 for the additional grant.

3. Eliminate the Grant Threshold, Lower Grant Levels. The Grant eligibility threshold could be eliminated, while decreasing Grant levels to maintain revenue neutrality.

4. Different Grant Levels by Length of Ownership. Grant levels could be determined based on the length of time residents have owned their home, with lower Grant levels for newer owners.

5. Scrap the Grant, Invest in Affordability. Rather than issue the Home Owner Grant, the Province could invest an additional $300m annually in affordable housing in Metro Vancouver.

3 Ministry of Community, Sport, and Cultural Development, Local Government Statistics 2006-2015 (accessed October 2016). 4Net residential Provincial property taxes by region estimated based on Ministry of Community, Sport, and Cultural Development reporting of assessed values and effective residential tax rates by municipality. 5 Note: the alternative models above could be implemented without impacting total Provincial expenditures. 6 Cascadia is not recommending or endorsing any of the potential alternative Grant models, rather providing them for discussion purposes.

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Inde

x of

Net

Res

iden

tial-C

lass

Sc

hool

Tax

(Bas

e Ye

ar: 2

006)

Rest of Province

Metro Vancouver

Metro Vancouver Net Residential-Class School Tax 5-Year Average Annual Growth: 6%

Base Year: 2006

Rest of Province Net Residential-Class School Tax 5-Year Average Annual Growth: 0%


4


Sample Alternative Grant Model: Fixed Percentage Eligibility by Municipality One alternative to the current model is to establish a fixed percentage of eligible homes within each municipality, rather than a fixed threshold applied Province-wide. In the illustrative example below, a fixed percentage threshold of 91% (the 2016 Provincial target) would be applied in each municipality, resulting in different Grant thresholds across the Province. This alternative model adjusts the threshold to reflect the fact that differences in home values by region may not equate to differences in income or wealth.

Single Threshold Model vs. Fixed Percentage Eligibility Model (illustrative)7

7 Source: Cascadia Analysis (2016).

$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000

$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000$1,800,000$2,000,000

Muni. A Muni. B Muni. C

Max

imum

Hom

e Va

lue

Single Threshold Value

Current Model: Single Threshold Value

$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000

$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000$1,800,000$2,000,000

Muni. A Muni. B Muni. C

Muni. A Threshold

Alternative Model: Fixed Percentage Eligibility

Muni. B Threshold

Muni. C ThresholdThresholds Set

to Fixed 91%

Eligibility

Max

imum

Hom

e Va

lue


5


Appendix A: Declining Real Value of the Home Owner Grant (in $2006)

The real value of the Grant has declined over time due to inflation, decreasing at approximately 1% to 2% annually. The nominal value of the basic and additional grant has remained at $570 and $275 respectively since 2006, when they were both increased by $100. If the basic grant value were discounted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Greater Vancouver8 since 2006, its value in real terms in 2016 would be $500 (compared to the $570 nominal value). The graph below shows the effect of gradually decreasing purchasing power for the basic grant amount over the last decade.

Nominal Basic Grant Value vs. Real Basic Grant Value (discounted based on annual rate of change in CPI with 2006 base year)

8 Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index for Greater Vancouver 2006-2016 (accessed October 2016).

$450

$470

$490

$510

$530

$550

$570

$590

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Bas

ic G

rant

Val

ue

NominalBasic Grant Value

Real Basic Grant Value (discounted at rate of CPI)


6


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Estim

ated

Sha

re o

f Gro

ss

Res

iden

tial S

choo

l Tax

64.4% 63.7% 61.8% 61.7% 61.6% 62.4% 62.3% 64.3% 64.5% 65.0% 66.0%

35.6% 36.3% 38.2% 38.3% 38.4% 37.6% 37.7% 35.7% 35.5% 35.0% 34.0%

MetroVancouver

Rest ofProvince

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Estim

ated

Sha

re o

f Net

Res

iden

tial S

choo

l Tax

71.3% 70.9% 68.4% 68.0% 67.7% 71.4% 71.4% 74.0% 74.8% 75.5% 77.0%

28.7% 29.1% 61.6% 32.0% 32.3% 28.6% 28.6% 26.0% 25.2% 24.5% 23.0%

MetroVancouver

Rest ofProvince

Appendix B: Estimated Metro Vancouver Share of Gross vs. Net Residential-Class School Tax9

Estimated Metro Vancouver Share of Gross Residential-Class School Tax

Estimated Metro Vancouver Share of Net Residential-Class School Tax

9 Source: Ministry of Community, Sport, and Cultural Development, Local Government Statistics 2006-2015 (accessed October 2016).


7


Appendix C: Grants Deducted from Other Property Tax If the Grant amount is greater than the School Tax owed, the remaining Grant amount is used to offset other property tax and is retained by the municipality. The share of the Grant applied to other property tax in Metro Vancouver is less than half that of the rest of the Province.

Grants Deducted from Other Property Tax in Metro Vancouver vs. Rest of Province10 (2006-2015 sourced from the Province*; 2016 forecasted based on home price trends)

10 Source: Ministry of Community, Sport, and Cultural Development, Local Government Statistics 2006-2015 (accessed October 2016). *Note: 2015 Grants deducted from other tax not yet reported; 2015 values estimated based on 2014 percentage share of total Grant issuance.

$0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70$80

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Hom

e O

wne

r Gra

nt D

educ

ted

from

Oth

er P

rope

rty T

ax

(in

millio

ns)

Metro Vancouver (green) Rest of Province (blue); Northern/Rural Grant (light blue)

14.0% 12.9% 11.9% 11.7% 11.7% 18.6% 18.9% 18.6% 18.3% 18.3% 18.3%Rest of Province Share of Grant Applied to Other Property Tax:

6.3% 6.6% 6.5% 6.2% 7.2% 7.0% 7.3% 7.6% 8.2% 8.3% 8.3%Metro Vancouver Share of Grant Applied to Other Property Tax:


GE GVRDOO449Greater Vancouver Regional District Fin

Report On Real Property Taxation Issues

Greater Vancouver Regional District

3 3869 00004 5731

REPORT ON

REAL PROPERTY TAXATION ISSUES

IN GREATER VANCOUVER

Greater Vancouver Regional DistrictFinance Department

March, 1988

ATTACHMENT 2


REPORT EEL PROPERTY ThXATICX

IN GREATER VNCcNER

INTRODUCTION

With the possibility of significant expenditures for water treatment,upgrading sewage treatment and hospital construction over the next severalyears, a study was undertaken to determine the impact of these and othercapital expenditures on future real property taxes in the region. This in turnled to an analysis of current trends in real property taxation and some of themajor factors affecting these trends.

This analysis identifled certain p.rovincial government grant sharingprograms where funds would not appear to be allocated in an equitable manner asfar as the Greater Vancouver taxpayers are concerned. The total of theseinequities presently amounts to about $187,000,000 per annum. On the other

hand the taxpayers in the region are facing possible additional future costsfor regional and municipal services totalling about $l50,000.000 annually. Inaddition the transit financing formula has not been finalized. If the localshare of transit costs is substantially increased it could increase theproperty tax burden as well if the increase is not funded from present transit

taxation sources.

The impact of all this is a growing burden of taxation on the real

property taxpayers in Greater Vancouver.

If the Province is intent on increasing the local share of transit

costs, and if the prospective municipal and regional capital expenditures

materialize, then a correction of the inequities in present provincial

government grant sharing programs is imperative if the property taxpayers in

Greater Vancouver are to be able to pay for these and present local services

normally funded from this source.

The property tax base should only be available to municipalities,

regional districts and school boards as their councils or boards are elected by

the local residents and they should be accountable to the residents for the

provision of local services and property taxation. Property taxes should not

be levied by the Province to support provincial programs.

The attached summary sets out the issues identified by the property

taxation study as supported by the backup material.


SUNMRY

1. Revenue Sharing Grants

o Greater Vancouver municipalities which have 50.9% of the totalB.C. municipal population received about $68,100,000 per annum

less in revenue sharing grants in 1986 than other British Columbiamunicipalities. This is equivalent to about $69.00 per household.

o The grant formula for the water and sewer facilities debt chargesportion of revenue sharing is based on a uniform mill rate

calculation that discriminates against the metropolitan areas

where land values are considerably higher. This is the main cause

of the unfair allocation of revenue sharing grants.

o The reduction of provincial government grants, especially since

1981, has impaired the ability of Greater Vancouver municipalitiesto hold the line on property taxes in real terms. This was most

severe when the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act funding was

discontinued in 1982 and the program was folded into the revenuesharing program thus reducing the portion of revenue sharing funds

allocated on a per capita basis. This was partially offset at the

same time by the elimination of per capita social assistance

payments by municipalities to the Province.

o The net effect of the above changes in 1982 to the revenue sharing

program was to reduce funds allocated on a per capita basis and

correspondingly increase funds allocated on a mill rate

calculation. This benefitted primarily those municipalities

outside the G.V.R.D.

2. School Funding

o The share of school costs paid by the Province f including the non

residential property tax) in Greater Vancouver school districts is

considerably less than the share of school costs paid to school

districts in other regions. The total difference in 1987/88

amounts to about $114,300,000 for residential properties. This is

equivalent to about $227.00 per household.

o The primary reason for this difference is the structure of the

Education Grant formula which allocates a substantial amount of

the grant on a formula that includes residential assessed values

per pupil. This discriminates against the metropolitan areas where

land values are considerably higher.

o In 1984 the “basic grant” portion of the provincial education

grant allocated on the basis of shareable school operating costs,

was reduced from 60% to 55%. This change had the effect of

eliminating any benefits Greater Vancouver School Districts

received when the new formula was introduced in 1982 and restoring

the substantial inequity that existed in 1981 when compared to the

rest of the school districts. The basic grant should be restored

to 60% and the formula reviewed.

o As a result of the inequity in allocating education grants a large

percentage of property owners in the rest of the Province pay no

school tax and actually receive a credit on their municipal taxes

when the homeowner grant is deducted. On the other hand the

residential taxpayers in Greater Vancouver pay a substantial

amount of school tax.Greater Vancouver Regional District - 32

o Since 1984 the non—residential proportionate share of net schoolcosts in Greater Vancouver School Districts has declined 22.3%,the provincial share has declined 7.6% causing the residentialshare to increase 34.6%.

o The Province levies a non—residential school property tax at auniform rate across the Province. This also discriminates againstthe metropolitan areas where land values are relatively higher.

o By assuming the power to tax non—residential property for schoolpurposes the Province has usurped the taxing power of schoolboards and severely damaged their financial autonomy.

3. Ability to Pay

o Cost sharing or grant formulae, that are based on assessed valuesand imply the “wealth tax concept” whereby higher assessed valuesper household imply greater wealth and ability to pay, areinappropriate on a province wide basis and should be changed toeliminate the inequity that they create for Greater Vancouverresidents.

o The net after tax income of the average household in GreaterVancouver (after deducting income tax and housing costs (i.e.)mortgage costs or rent) is equal to or less than the netdisposable income of the average household in other major urbancentres in B.C.

4. Assessment Trends

o Residential property values in Greater Vancouver increased about11% in 1987 (Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board increase inaverage sale price) and this trend has continued into 1988 whichmeans that when the assessment roll is updated for the 1989taxation year average residential assessments could be up as muchas 20%.

o If residential assessments in the other regions increase at a rateconsiderably less than 20% this will further increase thedisparity between the Greater Vancouver municipalities and theother regions with respect to both education grants and revenuesharing grants for water and sewerage facilities.

5. Possible new Municipal, Regional and Other Costs

o Necessary and highly probable capital programs over the nextseveral years are expected to add a net cost burden of about$150,000,000 per year onto Greater Vancouver residentialtaxpayers. The impact is about $162.00 per household. This doesnot include any additional burden for transit costs.

6. Regional Hospital District Cost Sharing

o The Region provides acute care facilities for the province withvirtually no recognftion for the special costs involved.Approximately 15% of the acute care beds are occupied bynon—G.V.R.H.D. residents and at the referral hospitals thepercentage rises to about 25%. It is difficult to quantify theannual dollar burden to the Region but 15% of the 1988 members’tax requisitions would amount to about $4,500,000.


1.0

1. Revenue Sharing Grants

At the time of the Dollar Burden of Growth Study (1973) theProvince paid a per capita grant to all municipalities. In 1974the Province introduced the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act toprovide assistance to municipalities to reduce their debt chargeload for sewerage facilities to a maximum of 4 mills(subsequently reduced to 2½ mills at the time of the change toactual value assessments).

In 1977 the Province introduced Revenue Sharing whereby

municipalities share in certain provincial revenues which of

course fluctuate with the economy and Provincial taxation

policies.

In 1982 the amount available under the Revenue Sharing Act

was reduced due to the decrease in relative provincial revenues

caused by the sharp decline in economic activity. In addition

the Province further reduced total unconditional grants by

repealing the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act and folding the

program into the revenue sharing grant program, thus very

substantially reducing the amount of revenue sharing grants

allocated on a per capita basis.

The following graph shows the general unconditional

provincial grants as a percentage of total municipal taxation.

These grants varied between 21% and 25% from 1971 until 1982 when

the above mentioned decrease took place. Since 1982 the

percentage has gradually decreased from 13.1% to 9.7% in 1986.

Greeter Vencouver Municipelities

Retlo of Generel Unconditionel Provinciel Grents50 To Tote] riunicipel Taxetion45

4035

073 iIIIIp


1.1

Water and Sewer Facilities

Municipalities pay the first 2½ mills (or equivalent thereof)of eligible debt charges with respect to water and seweragefacilities and the Province makes a grant to cover the amount inexcess of 2½ mills. Since these grants involve a uniform mill

rate calculation Greater Vancouver municipalities receivedconsiderably less than their share because of the considerablyhigher assessed value of land per unit of property. (This is

similar to the inequity in the school taxation formula).

On a per capita basis the 1986 grants in G.V.R.D.

immicipalities averaged $14.65 compared to $63.86 in the otherregions. The following graph shows how the differential hasincreased since 1977.

• GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL 0 OTHER REGIONAL DISTRICTS

DISTRICT

$ per cepite

70

60

50

40

30

6reater Uoncouuer MunicipalitiesReuenue Sharing 6ronts per Capita

Water t Sewer Facilities

20 _____0

10

077 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86


1.2

$

The Province has ceased to make grants towards debt chargeswith respect to water and sewerage facilities approved subsequentto July 1, 1983. Instead the Province provides funds for directgrants towards capital projects, but the total amount allocatedannually is relatively small.

Total Unconditional Provincial Grants

The total unconditional provincial grants (general, water andsewer) received by GVRD municipalities since 1971 and thecorresponding increase in the Gross Provincial Product for thesame period are reflected in the following graph.

Grents =$ Million

Product =$ ilJion

1 20

Greeter Vencouver MunicipelitiesTotel Unconditionel Provinciel Grents

Generel Weter & Sewer

1 00

80

60

40

20

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

- TOTAL PROVINCIAL -°- WATER & SEWER - B.C. GROSS PROVINCIALGRANT $ Million PRODUCT $ Billion

0 —,

71 72 73 74 75


1.3

The GVRD municipalities share of unconditional provincialgrants has decreased from 55.05% in 1973 to 32.9% in 1986. Themain reason for this decline is the increasing water and seweragefacilities grants to municipalities in other regions which aretaking up a greater proportion of Revenue Sharing funds. As apercentage of total municipal population in the Province, theGreater Vancouver population decreased from 57% in 1971 to 50.9%in 1986.

Greater Vancouver MunicipalitiesPercentage of Total Unconditional Provincial Grants

50

40

30

20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

% of UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS — % OF MUNICIPAL POPULATION


1.4

The following table summarizes the unconditional provincialgrants paid to municipalities as reported in 1986 MunicipalStatistics by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Summary of Unconditional Provincial GrantsGeneral, Water & Sewer

1986($ millions)

% ofGeneral Water Sewer Total Total

Greater VancouverMunicipalities $ 47.2 $ 5.3 $13.1 $65.6 32.9

Other B.C. municipalities and regionaldistricts 56.2 31.3 46.2 133.7 67.1

$103.4 $36.6 $59.3 $199.3 100.0

G.V.R.D. share of total 45.6% 14.4% 22.1%

Greater Vancouver municipalities which have 50.9% of the total

B.C. municipal population receive about $68,100,000 (1986) per

annum less in revenue sharing grants than other British Columbiamunicipalities. This is equivalent to about $69.00 per household.


2.0

2.0 School Taxation

School Financing Formula

Prior to 1982 school districts raised the local share ofthe “Basic Education Program” by real property taxation based ona uniform mill rate throughout the province as determined by theProvincial Government. The difference between net school costsand the amount raised by real property taxation was contributedby the Province as education grants. This system produced alocal tax revolt in Greater Vancouver by 1981 as the sharp risein real estate values attracted a disproportionate amount ofschool tax to this region.

The formula was revised in 1982. Local school boards wererestricted to raising the residential property tax only, whilethe Province assumed authority to levy school taxes onnon—residential property.

Operating Cost Sharing

Under the new formula, the Province currently pays 55% ofthe school districts’ adjusted shareable operating costs (basegrant) and shares the remaining 45% (shared services amount) withthe school district. Provincial payments are made fromnon—residential property taxes collected by the Province andcontributions from provincial consolidated revenues.

The shared services portion of the grant is calculated bya formula that includes the equalization of the assessed valueper pupil for all school districts. This has much the sameeffect as the old uniform mill rate in that Greater Vancouverresidential taxpayers, with a far higher average assessment, paya disproportionate anunt of school tax compared to other areasof the Province and this of course is compounded when the flatrate home—owner grant is deducted.

By reducing the portion of the provincial education grantallocated on the basis of net school costs (which is a morereasonable basis of allocation) from 60% to 55% in 1984 thediscrimination against Greater Vancouver residential taxpayerswas compounded.

Debt Service Cost Sharing

Local property taxpayers (residential and nonresidential) pay for debt service costs up to 50% of a “6 millcalculation” and declining amounts where costs exceed “6 mills”.The school district receives the resulting non—residential tax asan additional provincial grant.


2.1

School Funding Trends

The growth in net school expenditures and the funding sourcesare reflected on the following graph.

— NET SCHOOL COSTS - REAL PROPERTY TAX • PROVINCIAL CONSUMER PRICE

REVENUES INDEX

Net school costs rose faster than inflation from 1972 to 1982

and since 1982 have increased only modestly and well below the

inflation rate for the period. Total real property taxes have

risen at about the same rate as the Consumer Price Index.

Provincial governunt grants from consolidated revenue have

increased 141.6% since 1971 whereas total real property taxes

(residential and non—residential) have increased 390.3%.

Greater Vancouver School Districts

School EHpenditures and Funding Sources$ Millions

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

071 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 97


2.2

Provincial Government Education Grants (Operation and Capital)

Provincial grants from provincial revenue as a percentage ofnet school costs for both the Greater Vancouver school districtsand school districts in other regions are shown in the followinggraph. Since 1981 non—residential school taxes have beencollected by the Province and added to their contribution anddistributed on the basis of the school formula. For the purposesof this particular analysis non—residential property taxes havebeen deducted from provincial grants to show the net contributionfrom provincial revenues. In Greater Vancouver grants decreasedfrom a high of 59% in 1973 to 28% in 1987/88. The Provincialshare of school costs for school districts in other regionsdeclined from 61.4% in 1973 to 40.8% in 1981 and has risen to53.5% in 1987/88.

The main reason for this disparity is the use of averageassessed values per pupil in the school financing formula.

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL 0 OTHER REGIONAL DISTRICTSDISTRICT

Share of Net School District Costsfunded from ProvinciQi Consolidoted Revenue Fund

% 70

60

50

40

30

20

JO

071 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87


2.3

Residential School Property Tax

Greater Vancouver residents pay a higher share of net schoolcosts than residents in other regions. This difference hasincreased since 1984 and in 1987/88 was 17% of net school costs.The net school costs in Greater Vancouver in 1987/88 were $672.3million and if this region paid the same residential share ofschool costs as the rest of the province our residential schooltaxes would have been $114.3 million less. This is equal to $227er household.

GreQter Uncouuer School Districts

ResidentiJ Propertj Share of Net School CostsGO

50

20 A

JO

0 I I I I

1982 83 84 85/6 86/7 37/8

GVRD -A- OTHER REGIONS

Non—Residential School Property Tax

The non—residential property tax levied by the Province at a

uniform tax rate across the Province discriminates against Greater

Vancouver non—residential taxpayers because of the relatively much

higher land values in the metropolitan area.


2.4

Trends Since 1981

1982—84

The present school financing formula introduced in 1982 wassupposed to produce a more equitable system. From 1981 to 1984residential school taxes in Greater Vancouver decreased andreduced to some extent the huge inequity compared to other regionsthat existed in 1981. Unfortunately the formula produced somestrange results in School Districts such as Richmond and NorthVancouver and still left a considerable differential inresidential taxes between Greater Vancouver and the other regionsof the province.

1984—87

Since 1984 Greater Vancouver residential property taxes forschool purposes have increased considerably. This is a result ofthe following action by the Province.

1. Changing the cost sharing formula by decreasing theBase Grant (allocated as a percentage of shareable operatingcosts) from 60% to 55% and increasing the Shared Services Grant(allocated on a formula based on residential assessment per pupil)from 40% to 45%. This change has had the effect of eliminatingthe benefits Greater Vancouver school districts received when thenew formula was introduced and restoring the substantial inequitycompared to the rest of the school districts that existed in 1981.

2. Although net school budgets for the province as awhole, only increased 4.2% (from 1984 to 1987/88) residentialproperty taxes increased 41.2% but non—residential property taxesdecreased 31.5%. Non—residential property taxes have declinedsteadily since 1984 and part of this decline is the result ofelimination of machinery and equipment assessments.

In G.V.R.D. non—residential property taxes have declined18.8% since 1984 compared to a decline of 39.0% in the otherregions of the Province.

This shifting of taxation onto residential taxpayers isreflected in the following graphs which illustrates the situationin the G.V.R.D. and the other regions of the province.


2.5

School Funding SourcesGreater Vancouver School Districts

300

—

1 53 _ —

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

• Resident Tax Non—Res.Tax Prov. Share

• Resident Tax Non-Res.Tax ‘ Prov. Share

School Funding SourcesOther Regions

700 ii? $ rn/i/loris

—B

600 a_,.•

# a. fl — —— — — __ ——

500,_... — — —

—

B—

400‘0 O..j.._

300

• •— •—________

200 -t01 I I I I1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987


CH

AN

GE

INS

CH

OO

LF

UN

DIN

GS

OU

RC

ES

1984

TO

19

87

/88

G.V

.R.D

.

%O

F%

0?

19

84

TO

TA

L1967/8

8T

OT

AL

___

__

__

_

OT

HE

RR

EG

ION

S

%O

F%

OF

1C

HA

NG

E1984

TO

TA

L1

98

7/8

8T

OT

AL

1C

HA

NG

E

DIN

GS

OU

RC

E

v1nci1

fu

nd

ing

rovin

cia

lr.v

.nu.a

on—

r.s

id.n

tial

prO

p.r

ty

tax

id.n

tial

rop.tty

tax

Bu

dg

.t

$1

95

.3

24

5.3

44

0.6

20

3.1

$6

43

.7

30.3

38

.1

66.4

31

.6

10

0.0

—3

.7

—18

.8

—12.1

$1

88

.128.0

19

9.1

29.6

38

7.2

57

.6

285.1

42

.4

$6

72

.31

00

.0

$5

28

.0

417.5

945.5

TO

TA

L1

OF

198

4T

OT

AL

19

87/8

8

45

.5$

64

7.4

35

.9254.6

81

.4902.0

53

.5

21

.].

74.6

+22

.6

—39

.0

—4

.6

+40.4

215.9

+4.4

$1,1

61.4

$7

23.3

66

2.7

1,3

86.0

18

.63

06

.42

5.4

1000

$1

,20

6.4

100.0

IO

rT

OT

AL

44.4

24

.1

66.5

31.5

10

0.0

40.1

36.7

76.8

23

.2

100

.0

IC

HA

NG

E

+15.5

—31.5

+41.2

+4.2

$83

5.5

45

3.7

1,2

89.2

591

.5

$1,8

60.7

+41

.94

19

.0

+4.0

$1,8

05.0


2.7

At the time of writing the major industrial properties in theprovince are being reclassified for assessment purposes in aseparate class and the properties are in the process of beingrevalued. If this re—valuation results in a substantial decreasein net taxable values a further shift in school taxation toresidential from non—residential taxpayers could occur unless theuniform non—residential tax rate is increased accordingly orunless the loss of tax revenue is made up by increased provincialcontributions from consolidated revenue.

Home Owner Grant

The Home—owner grant for owners under 65 years was $200 in1973, increased to $280 in 1976 and has been $380 since 1979.This grant is applied first to school taxes with any balance beingapplied to municipal taxes.

Inequities in School financing

It would appear the inequities in school financing whichexisted prior to 1982 under the uniform mill rate have beenperpetuated under the present funding arrangements. The Provinceviews school property tax as a “wealth tax”. Consequentlymunicipalities with relatively high average residential assessedvalues pay more school tax. This differential is furtheraccentuated when the same home owner grant is given to alleligible home—owners throughout the province.

The net school tax on a median dwelling in typical schooldistricts in 1987 after deducting the home—owner grant is shown inthe following table.

The net school tax paid on a median dwelling in Vancouveris $241 compared to $91 for the Province as a whole. However in55 of the 92 school districts the median taxpayer had a net creditwhich could be applied to other property taxes. This situation isno different than in 1981 before the school tax formula waschanged. The Province in effect is overtaxing real property forschool purposes in Greater Vancouver and reducing the Province’ scontribution and the non—residential school tax. The total valueof this disparity with respect to residential properties inGreater Vancouver is about $114,300,000. in 1987/88.

Residential school property taxes bear no relation tocosts and consequenUy School Trustees, in effect, are primarilyaccountable to the Province rather than the local taxpayers.


2.81987

Net School Tax

On Median Dwelling(after deducting Home--Owner Grant)

1981District (Old Formula) 1984 1987/88

GREATER VANCOUVER

36 Surrey 133 60 15237 Delta 164 14 22138 Richmond 229 189 26339 Vancouver 157 93 24140 New Westminster 59 38 17441 Burnaby 169 134 26943 Coquitlam 152 71 20544 North Vancouver 356 257 36445 West Vancouver 648 107 240

FRASER VALLEY

42 Maple Ridge—Pitt Meadows 195 73 220

35 Langley 75 20 12234 Abbotsford (65) (70) 4133 Chulliwack (114) (114) (38)

CAPITAL REGION

61 Greater Victoria 113 68 15962 Sooke 55 (13) 123

63 Saanicli 139 97 165

OTHER MAJOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS

11 Trail (119) (62) (34)14 South Okanagan (52) 7 (2)15 Penticton (72) (59) (21)23 Central Okanagan 41 6 2724 Kamloops (33) (45) (16)57 Prince George (17) (57) 31

68 Nanaimo (31) (46) 28

70 Alberni (102) (119) (62)

SMALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS

16 Keremeos (184) (138) (155)

17 Princeton (206) (190) (125)

21 Armstrong (68) (120) (123)

31 Merritt (194) (243) (148)

76 Agassiz—Harrison (159) (72) (115)

89 Shuswap (65) (41) (13)

NOTE — Negative amount represents amount availableto reduce municipal taxes.

SOURCE — MINISTRY OF EDUCATIONGreater Vancouver Regional District - 47

3.0

3.0 Ability to Pay

In determining Provincial grants, assessed values per

household or similar criteria based on assessments should not be

used.

The application of this “wealth tax concept” to measure

ability to pay is inappropriate on a Province—wide basis because

it assumes a similarity of circumstances (economic, services,

property values) that does not exist between communities that are

geographically far apart. The concept is appropriate within

coherent units, e.g. a municipality, a school district, a

metropolitan area.

The inappropriate use of the “wealth tax concept” for revenue

sharing and school grants causes an unfair shift of burden onto

the G.V.R.D. taxpayers.

In considering ability to pay, incomes, mortgage costs and

housing rental rates should all be considered.

After Tax Income

Revenue Canada provides annual statistical data with respect

to incomes of persons filing income tax returns. The following

table shows the average after tax income per return for taxpayers

in the G.V.R.D. It is interesting to note that after tax income

has risen faster since 1971 than the C.P.I. However, from 1982

to 1985 (last year statistics available) after tax incomes have

increased about the same rate as the C.P.I.

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL .0- CONSUMER PRICE INDEXDISTRICT

Federal Income TaH Returns(fiuierage filter ThH Income per Return)

$ Thousands18

16

14

12

I0

8

6

4

2

071 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85


3.1

Mortgage Costs

In determining the relative ability to pay, average after taxincome per household after deducting mortgage payments should bea good measure. In determining mortgage payments for comparativepurposes it is assumed the average householder purchased aresidence at the average assessed value per household, made a$20,000 downpayment and financed the balance at 10% interestamortized over 25 years.

The following table illustrates the net after tax income perhousehold after deducting annual mortgage payments.

1985Average 1985 NetAfter Tax Assumed Income afterIncome per Mortgage MortgageHousehold _Costs

Greater Vancouver $29,552 $9,084 $20,468

Nanaimo 24,877 4,628 20,249Prince George 33,516 3,753 29,763Kamloops 28,129 4,691 23,438Kelowna 29,866 5,377 24,489


3.2

Apartment Rents

Rents for two—bedroom apartments as reported in the C.N.H.C.

B.C. Vacancy and Rent Survey — October 1985 for certain major

urban centres are as follows:

Greater Vancouver 586

Nanaimo

Prince George

Kamloops

Kelowna

367

391

360

403

The average net after tax perdeducting apartment rents is as follows:

household income after

1985Ave rage

After taxIncome perHousehold

AverageAnnual

Rent of2—BedroomApartment

NetIncome after

RentCosts

Greater Vancouver $29,552 $7,032 $22,520

Nanaimo 24,877 4,320 20,557

Prince George 33,516 4,836 28,680

Kamloops 28,129 4,404 23,725

Kelowna 29,866 4,692 25,174

After considering rent costs the net after tax income of the

average household in Greater Vancouver is certainly not greater

than for the average householder in the other major centres. The

householder that is a homeowner with a nrtgage is worse off than

a similar homeowner in the other cities.


4.0

4.0 Assessments

Every two years the B.C. Assessment Authority adjustsassessments to reflect changes in real estate values. This waslast done for the 1987 assessment year and reflected real estatesales through most of 1986. Assessments are therefore due to beamended for the 1989 taxation year and will be based on 1988 realestate sales.

The following graph shows the average residential sellingprices as reported by the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board.

Greater Uancouuer Real Estate BoardRveroge Residential Selling Prices

$ Thousands

1 60

140

1 20

7 00

80

60

40

20

0 I I I I I I I

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 62 83 84 65 86 87

Average selling prices were relatively constant from 1983 to

1985 but have increased from $112,737 in 1985 to $120,034 in 1986

(6.5% increase) and to $132,658 ( 10.5% increase) in 1987. This

trend is continuing into 1988. Based on this, 1989 residential

assessments could increase as much as 20% when the roll is

updated.

As the school financing formula is based on residential

assessments per pupil, a 20% increase in assessments could

attract an increased proportion of school taxes to G.V.R.D.

taxpayers if assessments increase at a higher rate than other

regions. The situation in Greater Vancouver could be as bad as

in 1981 if costs are up as well.


5.0

5.0 Total Impact of Future Costs

The following table summarizes the total annual costs of newprograms or issues that might affect future taxation or utilityrevenues and the equivalent impact on real property taxes. Allamounts are in 1987 dollars and reflect the real increase incosts over and above inflation increases that might occur. Noattempt has been made to reflect possible timing of theseincreases. It is assumed that municipal capital expenditureprograms reflect the adequate renewal of municipalinfrastructure.

Greater Vancouver Municipalities

Possible new annual costs affectingreal property taxation and utility revenue

MillionsRegional

Capital Expenditure Programs

Hospital (net) 15.5Water 6.3Sewer 7.3Solid waste 8.1

Upgrading sewage treatment 65.5Water treatment 16.5

119.2

Municipal capital expenditure programs 32.4

151.6

The increased costs with respect to municipal and regionalcapital expenditures are based on their respective 1987—1991capital expenditure programs. The S65.5 million additionalannual cost of upgrading sewage treatment assumes all four sewagetreatment plants in the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and DrainageDistrict are required to be upgraded to secondary treatmentcombined sewer overflows. The District is currently preparing aliquid waste management plan that will determine the prioritiesfor treatment.


A major water quality study is currently underway todetermine measures required to meet current Canadian standards.Possible additional treatment could result in annual costs of$16.5 million dollars.

-

The impact of possible new municipal and regional programs onresidential taxation is shown on the following table. This tablereflects the effect on the “average household” (total residentialshare divided by the total number of households) the ‘averagehomeowner” (based on 1987 average real estate selling prices) andan above average homeowner.

If the above mentIoned additional costs are incurred, nettaxes on the “average household” after deducting the homeownergrant would increase $162.37 per annum in 1987 dollars or 19.6%.


Greater Vancouver Municipalities

Impact of possible new costs onResidential taxation

Residential Property TaxesAbove

Average Average AverageHousehold Homeowner Homeowner

1987 assessed values $85,200 $132,600 $200,000

Regional expendituresCapital expenditure

programs

Hospital 15.40Water 6.26Sewer 7.26Solid Waste 8.05

36.97Upgrading sewage

treatment 7680Water treatment 16.40

Total regional 130.17 202.58 305.56

Municipal capitalexpenditure programsincreased level offunding 32.20 50.11 75.59

Total Real Increase $162.37 $252.69 $381.15

1987 total taxation 1,066.95 1,660.53 2,504.57Less Homeowner grant (1) 240.00 (2) 380.00 (2) 380.00

Net 1987 taxes $ 826.95 $1,280.53 $2,124.57

% increase on net taxes 19.6% 19.7% 17.9%

(1) Actual homeowner grant averaged over all residentialproperties for comparative purposes only;

(2) Homeowner grant for eligible taxpayer under 65 years of age.


GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

3 3869 00045 6532

REAL PROPERTY TAXATION ISSUES

IN GREATER VANCOUVER

-AN UPDATE

Greater Vancouver Regional DistrictFThance Department

November, 1988 UBRARYcrE.ATEP, V Vrr RE(QNAL DSTfl1C1

Organization‘

Nov 1988GVRDOO451 c.2

ATTACHMENT 3


GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISThICT

REAL PIOPERTY ThXATIC ISSUES UPDATE

In March 1988, the GVBD Finance department issued a report on Real Property

Taxation Issues in Greater Vancouver. The main issues concerned the allocation

of Provincial Government grants on formulae based on real property assessments.

This report is an update on these issues.

1989 Assessment Increase

1989 Assessments compared to 1988 by class of property are summarized on

Table 1.

Total assessments in Greater Vancouver increased 25.7% compared to 10.2% in

the rest of the Province. Similarly residential assessments increased 28.4%

compared to 10.9% in the other regions.

Impact of Assessment changes on Provincial Government grant programs

The two major grant programs that are affected by assessment changes are

the Water and Sewerage Facilities Assistance programs included in Revenue

Sharing and School operating and capital grants.

(1) Water & Sewerage Facilities Assistance. The Province pays a grant

towards the cost of debt charges for water and sewerage facilities approved

prior to July 1, 1983. The grant is calculated at 75% of the amount such debt

charges exceed a 2 1/2 mill calculation. With the increase in 1989

assessments, these grants will be substantially reduced for those

municipalities that still qualify. Since assessments in GVRD increased 2.5

times nre than other regions, the disparity in revenue sharing grants will

probably increase.

(2) School District Debt Service Grants. School Districts receive similar

grants towards debt charges based on costs in excess of a 6 mill calculation.

These grants will also decrease due to the 1989 assessment increases with the

same effect as in (1) above.

(3) School District Shared Services Operating Grants. Forty—five percent

of a School District’s shareable operating costs are eligible for provincial

shared services grants on a formula based on residential assessment per pupil.

As was discussed in the March 1988 report, this formula discriminates against

Greater Vancouver taxpayers. With the 1989 assessment changes, the present

substantial inequity between the Greater Vancouver School Districts and those

in the remainder of the Province will become worse. Table 2 shows the effect

the 1989 assessment increases would have based on 1988/89 shared service grants

and residential taxation.


——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

—

Tab

le1

Net

Tax

able

Ass

esse

dV

alue

sfo

rH

ospi

tal

Dis

tric

tP

urpo

ses

($m

illio

ns)

Cla

ss1

Res

iden

tial

2U

tili

ties

3U

nman

aged

For

est

4M

ajor

Indu

stry

5L

ight

Indu

stry

6B

usi

nes

s/oth

er

7M

anag

edF

ores

t

8R

ecre

atio

n/n

on

-pro

fit

9F

arm

Tot

al

1988

46

,42

3.4

68

9.2 0.1

78

4.2

82

8.9

12,8

13.3

131.3

94

.0

61,7

64

.4

1988

35,1

42.6

3,6

06

.9

18.3

3,0

88.7

591

.5

5,8

98.3

385.9

36

6.0

571

.4

49

,66

9.5

198

938,9

83.5

3,6

22.0

20

.0

3,6

25.1

90

0.7

6,3

97.6

493

.1

14

8.7

56

5.1

54,7

55.8

Oth

erR

egio

nsG

VR

D(1

)1

989

Incr

ease

%In

crea

se5

9,6

14

.51

3,1

91

.128.4

%

764.9

75

.711.0

%

0.2

0.1

80.8

%

909.7

12

5.5

16.0

%

841.1

12.2

1.5

%

15

,24

9.7

2,4

36.4

19

.0%

135.9

4.6

3.5

%

94

.70

.70

.8%

77

,61

0.8

15,8

46.3

25.7

%

Incr

ease

%In

crea

se3

,840

.91

0.9

%

15.1

0.4

%

1.8

9.6

%

53

6.4

17

.4%

“309.2

52.3

%

499.3

8.5

%

10

7.2

27.8

%

(21

7.2

)(5

9.4

)%

(6.3

)(1

.1)%

5,0

86

.21

0.2

%

M

(1)

Incl

udes

Lan

gley

City

and

Tow

nshi

p


—3—

TABLE 2

Impact on 1989 Assessments on Shared Services Grantsand Residential Taxation Using 1988/89 Data

($ Millions)

GVRD

Vancouver& West Van Others Other Regions

Shared Services Grants

1988/89

1988/89 based on1989 assessments

82.5

78.9

295.1

298.7

Net Change

%

$ —3.6

—4.3%

$ +3.6

÷1.2%

Residential Taxation

1988/89

1988/89 based on1989 assessments

117.0 208.9

117.0 212.5

301.1

297.5

Net Change

%

-

$ ÷3.6

+1.7%

$ —3.6

—1.2%

Vancouver and West Vancouver School Districts do not receive a sharedservices grant, so the assessment changes will have no effect. In theremaining Greater Vancouver School Districts, shared services grants woulddecrease 4.3%, on average, resulting in an increase of 1.7% in residentialtaxation. In the other regions, however, shared services grants would increaseby 1.2% and residential taxes would decrease by 1.2%.

1989 assessment changes had been in effect for the 1988/89 budgetdisproportionate share of net school budgets borne by GVRDtaxpayers would have increased by $6,462,400.

Net School Budgets $228.4 $579.4 $1,245.7

If theyear, theresidential


—4—

1988/89 School Funding Sources

The March 1988 report identified the disparity in revenue sources with

respect to funding school budgets. Table 3 shows the changes in funding for

1988/89 compared to the previous year.

As a result of relatively higher Provincial Government grants, the

residential taxpayers’ share of net School District budgets in Greater

Vancouver declined .5% in 1988/89 compared to a decline of 1.4% in the rest of

the Province, which leaves the residential property tax shares at 40.3 and 24.2

respectively.

If GVED residential taxpayers’ share of net school costs was the sane as

the other regions C 24.2%), residential taxes in the region would be

$130,055,800 less in 1988/89. This is up $19,597,400 from a disparity of

$110,458,400 in 1987/88 (includes Langley School District), an increase of

17.7%. Table 4 shows the history of the disparity since 1982.

Table 5 shows the net school tax (after deducting the home—owner grant) on

the median dwelling for 1988/89 compared to 1987/88 in selected School

Districts. On average, the increase in Greater Vancouver School Districts is

more than the change for School Districts in other major centres. As indicated

above, the disparity increased in 1988/89.

Table 6 illustrates the net school tax paid by decile for certain School

Districts. This graph reflects the range of net school taxes in a School

District and illustrates the disparity with other School Districts in the

Province.

Table 7 reflects the net property tax paid by the median home—owner in

certain districts since 1982.

The foregoing tables all indicate the disproportionate share of school

costs paid by GVRD taxpayers has increased and will be worse in 1989.


Tab

le3

Cha

nge

inS

choo

lFu

ndin

gS

ourc

es19

87/8

8to

7988

/89

f$m

illio

ns)

____

____

____

____

____

___

Oth

erR

egio

ns1987/

¾of

1988/

%of

Cha

nge

in1987/

¾ot

1988/

%of

Cha

nge

inFu

ndin

gS

ourc

e8

8*

Tot

al8

9T

otal

Sha

ring

88

Tot

al8

9T

otal

Sha

ring

Pro

vinc

ial

Gov

ernm

ent

Prov

inci

alR

even

ues

224.8

30

.9%

24

8.6

30.8

%(0

.1)%

61

0.6

52.9

%6

76

.254.3

%1.4

%N

on-r

esid

enti

alpr

oper

tyta

x205.2

28

.3%

233.3

28

.9%

0.6

%2

48

.527.5

%268.4

21

.5%

0.0

%430.0

59

.2%

I81

.95

9.7

%0

.5%

85

9.1

74.4

%9

44

.67

5.8

%1.4

%

Res

iden

tial

Pro

pert

yT

ax296.7

40.8

%325.9

40.3

%(0

.5)%

29

4.9

25.6

%3

01

.124.2

%(1

.4)%

726.7

100.0

%807.8

100.0

%0

.0%

11

54

.0100.0

%1

24

5.7

100.0

%0

.0%

*Adj

uste

dto

incl

ude

Lan

gley

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

—--—

---—

----

---------

----—

-----

--—


Tab

le4

Dis

pro

port

ionat

eS

har

eof

Sch

ool

Cost

sP

aid

byG

VR

DR

esid

enti

alT

axpay

ers

19

82

-1988

14

0-

($m

illi

ons)

80-

.o

70

-I

I

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

19

88


— I —

Table 5

Net School TaxOn Median Dwelling

(after deducting home-owner grant)

1981(old

District formula) 1984 1987 1988 ChangeGreater Vancouver35Langley 75 20 122 162 4036Surrey 133 60 152 211 5937Delta 164 14 221 296 7538Richmond 229 189 265 261 (4)39 Vancouver 157 93 241 285 444 0 New Westminster 5 9 3 8 1 74 2 1 3 3 941 Burnaby 169 134 269 305 3643Coquitlam 152 71 205 301 9644 North Vancouver 356 257 364 421 5745 West Vancouver 648 107 240 313 73

Fraser Valley4 2 Maple Ridge-

Pitt Meadows 195 73 226 292 6634Abbotsford (64) (70) 41 124 8333 Chilliwack (114) (114) (38) (22) 16

Capital Region61 Greater Victoria 118 68 159 213 5462Sooke 55 (13) 123 219 9663Saanich 139 97 165 229 64

Other Major School Districts11 Trail (119) (62) (34) (28) 61 4 South Okanagan (5 2) 7 (2) 2 1 23l5Penticton (72) (59) (21) 0 2123 Central Okanagan 4 1 6 2 7 5 9 3 224 Kamloops (33) (45) (16) 20 365 7 Prince George (1 7) (5 7) 3 1 6 0 2 968 Nanaimo (31) (46) 28 57 297oAlberni (102) (119) (61) (30) 31

Small School Districtsl6keremeos (184) (138) (155) (161) (6)l7Princeton (206) (190) (125) (141) (16)21 Armstrong (68) (120) (123) (89) 3431 Merritt (194) (243) (148) (73) 7576 Agassiz-Harrison (1 59) (72) (11 5) (5 9) 5 6B9Shuswap (65) (41) (13) 27 40

B.C.Totals 92 137 45

Note: Negative amount represents amount availableto reduce municipal taxes.


Not

e:N

egat

ive

amo

un

tsre

pre

sen

tam

ou

nts

avai

labl

eto

redu

cem

unic

ipal

tax

es.

Tab

le6

1988

Net

Sch

oo

lT

hxaf

ter

Hom

eow

ner

Gra

nt

byD

ecil

e--S

ingle

Fam

ily

Dw

elli

ngs

900

600

300 0

Wes

tV

anco

uver

—S

urr

ey

Pri

nce

Geo

rge

.XA

lber

ni

-O

Arm

stro

ng

1020

3040

5060

7080

90


300

250

200

150

100 50 0

-50

-100

-150 19

81

Tab

le7

Net

Sch

ool

Tax

(aft

erhom

eow

ner

gra

nt)

Pai

dby

Med

ian

Tax

pay

er

—V

anco

uver

°S

urr

ey

.X-

Pri

nce

Geo

rge

‘A

rmst

rong

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988


— 10 —

Hone—owner Grant

All home owners in the Province that qualify receive the $380 home—ownergrant ($630 for those over 65). These rates have been the same since 1979. Ithas been suggested recently that the home—owner grant should be increased.This would do nothing to rectify the present disparity in provincial grants butwould increase the amount available to reduce municipal taxes for aconsiderable number of taxpayers outside Greater Vancouver who do not payschool tax. 2ny additional provincial funding should be directed to reducingthe present inequities.

Provincial Base School Grants

The provincial government school operating grants are calculated in twoparts. Based on their net shareable operating cost as determined by theProvince a direct grant of 55% (Base Grant) is paid to all School Districts.The Province pays a grant towards the remaining 45% (Shared Services Grant) ona formula based on assessed values per pupil in each School District comparedto the provincial average.

In 1984 the base grant was reduced from 60% to 55% of net shareableoperating costs. Table 8 illustrates the effect on 1988/89 cost sharing if the60% base grant was reinstated.

TABLE 8

Effect of Increasing Base Grantfrom 55% to 60%

($1,000)

OtherGVRD Regions Difference

Total 1988/89 net school budgets 807.8 1245.7

1988/89 residential taxes 325.9 301.1

Net increase in provincial grants 27.4 24.2

Reduced taxes 298.5 276.9

Share of net school budgets 37.0% 22.2% 14.8%

Share of school budget at 55%base grant 40.3 24.2 16.1%

Decreased Differential 1.3%

Value of decreased differential $10,501,400


— 11 —

The effect of reducing the base grant by 5% contributed to the inequitybetween Greater Vancouver and the other regions in the amount of $10,501,400 in1988/89. If the base grant was restored to 60%, residential school taxationwould decrease by 8.4% in Greater Vancouver. This, however, would alsoincrease grants to other regions and would only reduce the disparity by 7.7%.ny additional provincial grants should be applied entirely to reducing thedisparity.

Estimated Impact of 1989/90 School Budgets

The impact on 1989/90 residential taxes, assuming the residential share ofschool taxes remains constant after adjusting for 1989 assessment changes, isestimated as follows:

Impact on Residential TaxationOther

GVRD RegionsVancouver& West Van Others Total

(1)

6% budget increase 6.0% 7.9% 7.2% 4.8%

10% budget increase 9.9% 12.0% 11.2% 8.8%

Residential share ofschool budgets after1989 assessmentchanges 51.2% 36.7% 40.8% 23.9%

(1) Do not receive shared grants.

Excluding Vancouver and West Vancouver, it is estimated residents ofGreater Vancouver will experience average gross school tax increases of about2% more than the rate of inflation. On the other hand, residents in the otherregions of the Province can expect such increases to be 1.2% less than theinflation rate. This is entirely attributable to the 1989 assessment changes.

After deducting the home—owner grant, school taxes for a typical home—ownerin Greater Vancouver could be up as much as 18% if school costs rise 6% and 27%if school costs rise 10%.

Assuming the cost sharing with the Province remains constant at 1988/89levels, the disproportionate burden of school costs born by GvRD residents willincrease from $130,055,800 in 1988 to $144,800,000 if costs increase 6%, and to$150,100,000 if costs increase 10%.


— 12 —

Ability to Pay

The March 1988 Report on Real Property Taxation Issues indicated incomes inGreater Vancouver were not greater than in other major centres, especially whenhousing costs were considered. The income data was based on 1985 income taxreturns. The income data from the 1986 census is now available and issummarized on Table 9 together with the median net school tax paid in 1988/89.

Armstrong

TABLE 9

1986 CensusMedian Income

Capital Region 26,401(includes Gulf Islands)

Maple Ridge 31,609

Incomes per household in Greater Vancouver are 5.5% higher than the B.C.average and per family income is 8.9% more. On the other hand, the City ofVancouver has incomes 14.3% and 4.0% less than the B.C. average and has ahigher percentage of low income families.

The median 1988 net tax paid by Vancouver home—owners is $285 which is 108%more than the B.C. average.

PerHousehold

Greater Vancouver $30,355

VancouverSurrey

Prince GeorgeKamloopsKelownaNanaimo

Port Alberni

Trail

24,65231,699

34,36930,01424,01324,331

29,948

27,127

22,545

PerFamily

$36,767

32,42833,861

36,80133,81527,82329,722

35,964

34,037

26,083

32,795

35,534

33,774

%Low IncomeFamilies

15.0

19.416.5

14.915.014.819.1

17.6

8.5

17.8

12.7

11.2

14.4

1988/89Median

NetSchool Tax

285211

60205957

(30)

(28)

(89)

292

137B.C. 28,770

LGreater Vancouver Regional District - 67

— 13 —

The March 1988 report showed income inrental costs in 1985. Table 10 shows thecensus adjusted for accommodation costs.

TABLE 10

relation to mortgage and apartmentnet household income per the 1986

1986Income per

Household (2)$30,355

AverageAnnual Rent

2—bedroomApartment (1)

$7,032

Net Incomeafter

Rent Costs$23,323

(1) Source — Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation B.C. Vacancy and Rent SurveyReport — October 1985.

(2) 1986 Census.

When higher accommodation costs are considered,residential taxpayers do not have a greater ability totaxpayers in the other major centres in the Province andthe provincial average.

Greaterpay thanare about

Vancouverresidentialthe same as

If the Provincial Governiint isformulae, they should be urged todetermining an equitable solution.

going to change the school fundingtake into account ability to pay in

Greater Vancouver

Prince George 34,369 4,320 30,049Kamloops 30,014 4,836 25,178Kelowna 24,013 4,404 19,609Nanaimo 24,331 4,692 19,639

Port Alberni 29,948 3,900 26,048

Capital Region 26,401 5,628 20,773

B.C. 28,770 5,628 23,142


— 14 —

Reconmndations of the 1988 Report of Royal Commission on Education

The reconunendations with respect to education finance by the Royal

Commission on Education are summarized in Appendix ‘A.”

Recommendation No. 3 suggests that in cases where the home—owner grant

exceeds school taxes the excess should be returned to the School Districts

instead of reducing municipal taxes. This amounts to more than $30,000,000 in

total, and should be applied to reduce the present inequities in taxation

rather than returned to the School Districts as most of this excess is in

School Districts outside Greater Vancouver.

Recommendation No. 9 is as follows:

“That, in establishing the ratio of sharing school costs between the

province and school districts, the provincial government continue to

recognize distinct local revenue—raising capacities. Further, that

the principal of equity of tax burden be retained. f p.l77)”

The words “revenue—raising capacities” mean taxable assessment base and

therefore recommends that assessments be retained in determining school cost

sharing. Since a large number of residential taxpayers in the Province don’t

pay school taxes it is basically a method for the Province to reduce its share.

To state that there is presently equity in the tax burden suggests that the

Commission doesn’t understand the problem. Why should the median home—owners

in Surrey pay $150 iire in net school taxes than those in Prince George when

the median income in Prince George is higher and housing costs lower?

Recommendation No. 11 advises that the Province amend the present formula

by devising a new index involving assessments that will “generate more evenness

in taxes paid by the average home—owner in each District.” This would appear

contradictory to Recommendation 9 but might produce results that would

significantly reduce the present disparity in residential taxation.

Recommendation No. 17 recommends changes in the formula for sharing capital

costs. This would benefit GVRD School Districts as long as it isn’t replaced

by another formula based on property assessments.

The report referred to “poor” or “wealthy” School Districts depending on

their assessment per pupil ratio. However, page 176 of the report states, “The

Commission believes that the decision to ixve away from the basic levy system

(old formula) was sound. We agree that assessed property values are not an

ideal measure of ability to pay.” However the report does not recommend

changing the present formula to eliminate the property assessments element.


— 15 —

School Tax Sunutary

• In 1988/89, when the assessment roll was not revised, the disproportionateshare of school costs paid by GVRD residential taxpayers increased$19,700,000 (17.8%) to $130,055,800.

• If the 1989 assessment changes had been in effect for 1988/89, thedisparity would have increased by a further $6,462,400.

• After deducting the home—owner grant, school taxes for a typical home—ownerin Greater Vancouver could be up as much as 18% if school costs rise 6% and27% if school costs rise 10%.

• Assuming the cost sharing with the Province remains constant at 1988/89levels, the disproportionate burden of school costs born by GVRD residentswill increase from $130,055,800 in 1988 to $144,800,000 if costs increase6%, and to $150,100,000 if costs increase 10%.

Some inunediate relief could be given by restoring the base grants to 60%from 55%, or by special provincial aid to limit taxes as is done in severalsmall School Districts. Increasing base grants, however, only slightlyreduces the disparity and such additional funds should be applied entirelyto reducing the disparity.

• The shared services grant formula, based on residential assessment perpupil, continues to increase the disparity in the residential taxpayers’share of school costs between Greater Vancouver and other regions of theProvince.

The home—owner grant should not be increased as it would not decrease thepresent disparity in shared services and capital grants that discriminateagainst GVRD residential taxpayers. Any additional provincial funds shouldbe directed to this goal.

Greater Vancouver residential taxpayers do not have a greater ability topay than home—owners in the other major centres in the Province.Residential assessments per pupil do not constitute a measurement of“wealth” or ability to pay.


— 16 —

Status of Board Resolutions

At the March 30, 1988 meeting, the GVRD Board passed the followingresolution:

42.1 It was MOVED and SECONDED

(1) That the Real Property Taxation Study be forwarded to theMinister of Municipal Affairs and the Union of B.C.Municipalities with the suggestion that a province—widestudy be undertaken on the subject of real propertytaxation and provincial grants to municipalities, regionsand school districts.

(2) That the report also be forwarded to the B.C. SchoolTrustees Association with the request that School Boardsalso participate in the discussion of this matter.

The Ministry and the U.3.C.M. has since undertaken a study on financing

local government in B.C. This study appears to attempt to address the subjectof revenue sharing grants but based on the material issued so far it does not

specifically address the issues with respect to inequity between this and other .4regions in school financing.

Recommendation

Since the 1989/90 education budget will be finalized in early 1989, earlyrepresentation must be made to have any impact on School District funding forthe 1989 taxation year. Any such representation should be made in conjunction

with local school boards.


APPENDIX A

Recommendations of the Royal Commission

on Education — 1988

FINANCE(Chapter 7)

1. That the use of property taxation for

school purposes be continued. (p.157)

2. That the province should continue to setand collect the non-residential school tax solong as all tax proceeds raised from this tax baseare re-distributed back to the school districtsthrough the fiscal framework. (p.164)

3. That no drastic changes in the principlesand procedures underlying the HomeownerGrant are required at this time. Further, that amechanism be found to return the unusedjordon of individual grants to the schooldistricts{p. 166)

4. That the provincial government:(1) replace the present system of calculating

recognized ;osts with a block-funding formula;(2) discuss the design of this formula with the

major provincial educational organizations; and(3) retain the formula in place for a period of

five years. (p.173)

5. That the government remove all references to teachers’ salaries from the fundingformula. (p.173)

6. That the fiscal framework be used as partof the funding formula to set relative fundinglevels for districts. (p.173

7. That the Fiscal Framework Review Cornmittee (1) continue to study and recommendstructural changes to the fiscal framework, and(2) pay particular attention to simplification andnecessary restructuring of the formula, particularly those functions related to operations andmaintenance. (p.173)

8. That the provincial government not usethe fiscal framework to counteract bargainingoutcomes. p.l73

9. That, in establishing the ratio of sharing Hschool costs between the province and schooldistricts, the provincial government continue torecognize distinct local revenue-raising capacities. Further, that the principle of equity of taxburden be retained. (p.177)

IGreater Vancouver Regional District - 72

finance (cont.)

10. That the provincial government redesign the sharing ratio to ensure that (1)districts with similar capacities to raise revenuelevy similar tax rates to support the ‘core’program, and (2) districts with higher recognized per-pupil costs should not be expected tolevy higher tax rates. (p.177)

11. That the provincial government derive anew index of revenue-raising capacity that willgenerate more evenness in taxes paid by theaverage homeowner in each district. (p.177)

12. That any proposals for change toprovincial-local district funding arrangements bea matter of consultation with major provincialeducational organizations before they areintroduced. (p.177)

13. That the mandate of the Fiscal Framework Review Committee be expanded to include periodic review of the provincial-schooldistrict sharing ratio. (p.177)

14. That the Ministry of Education restorecapital spending approvals to a level adequate tofund the ongoing maintenance, upgrading, andreplacement of facilities and major equipment inthe school districts of the province. (p.179)

15. That the Ministry of Education, toensure greater stability and predictability incapitat funding, move to a system of multi-yearcapital approvals. (p.179)

16. That the Ministry of Education andschool districts develop a special program torespond to the deteriorating condition of thelarge number of schools built in the immediatepost-1945 period. (p.179)

17. That the Ministry of Education amend,in consultation with the school districts, theformula for sharing capital costs to bring itcloser to the formula used for setting operatinggrants. (p.179)

18. That the Ministry of Education, schooldistricts, and schools take steps collaborativelyto improve their accountability processes.Further, that in doing so, the following suggestions made to the Commission be considered:

(1) the development of outcome measuresrelated to established educational objectives;

(2) the establishment of methods for relatingoutcome data to financial data and use of resources; and

(3) the initiation of improved and moreextensive means of periodically communicatingsuch data to constituents. (p.l82)

19. That the Ministry of Education supportdistrict accountability initiatives with increasedfinancial resources and expertise. (p.l82)

-

çfl Rennrr nf the Rnv! Cnmmiccnn rnGreater Vancouver Regional District - 73

19839183

Section E 2.2


From: Tracey S. Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management Financial Services Department


Subject: Contract Extension for E9-1-1 Call Answer Services

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board authorize: a) the exercise of an option to extend the existing contract for E9-1-1 call answer services with

E-Comm Emergency Communications for Southwestern British Columbia Incorporated for five years, for an amount of up to $22,413,372 (exclusive of taxes); and

b) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Corporate Officer to execute any documents required toexercise the option to extend the contract.

PURPOSE This report is to request authorization by the GVRD Board to exercise an option to extend the current contract for E9-1-1 call answer services with E-Comm Emergency Communications for Southwestern British Columbia Incorporated (“E-Comm”) for a period of five years, for an amount up to $22,413,372 (exclusive of taxes) as contemplated by the contract.

BACKGROUND Pursuant to the Greater Vancouver Regional District Officers and Delegation Bylaw No. 1208, 2014 (Bylaw) and the Procurement and Real Property Contracting Authority Policy (Policy), procurement contracts which exceed a value of $5 million require the approval of the GVRD Board.

The contract was initially awarded in 2012, prior to the current Bylaw and Policy, therefore, did not require GVRD Board approval.

The current contract is due to expire on December 31, 2017, and will automatically extend for a period of five years unless GVRD provides written notice to E-Comm, by December 31, 2016, that GVRD does not intend to extend the contract. This report is being brought forward to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee to consider a recommendation to the GVRD Board to extend the existing contract for E9-1-1 call answer services for an additional five years from January 1, 2018.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The GVRD operates a regional E9-1-1 emergency telephone system, and contracts with service providers for the provision of all or part of the service.


Contract Extension for E9-1-1 Call Answer Services Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: November 18, 2016

Page 2 of 2

In 2011, GVRD issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ No. 11-130) for E9-1-1 call answer services that was publicly advertised on the Metro Vancouver and BC Bid websites. Two firms responded to the RFQ and it was determined that only E-Comm clearly met the requirements. E-Comm was awarded the contract for a value of up to $18,750,000 (exclusive of taxes) for a five year term, with the option for GVRD to exercise a five year extension at the end of the initial term. The contract includes an annual cost increase calculated as the greater of the annual consumer price index and 2%. This formula has been used to estimate the projected costs of $22,413,372 (exclusive of taxes) over the five year extension. E-Comm has consistently met GVRD’s needs, standards and expectations and are in agreement with the five year contract extension. If, having exercised the five year extension option, GVRD later wishes to terminate the contract, it may do so by providing 12 months’ written notice to E-Comm. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board authorize:

a) the exercise of an option to extend the existing contract for E9-1-1 call answer services with E-Comm Emergency Communications for Southwestern British Columbia Incorporated for five years, for an amount of up to $22,413,372 (exclusive of taxes); and

b) the Chief Administrative Officer and the Corporate Officer to execute any documents required to exercise the option to extend the contract.

2. That the GVRD Board direct staff to: a) provide written notice to E-Comm, by December 31, 2016, that GVRD does not intend to

extend the contract; and b) report back to the GVRD Board with options for an alternate course of action.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVRD Board approve Alternative 1, the contract with E-Comm for E9-1-1 call answer services will be extended for a period of five years, for an amount up to $22,413,372. This will result in the contract with E-Comm increasing to an overall value of up to $41,163,372 for the ten year term. The funding is included in the five-year plan for the E9-1-1 function. The GVRD Board has the choice not to proceed with Alternative 1. Alternative 2 will result in providing E-Comm with 12 months’ notice that GVRD does not intend to extend the contract, and the issuance of a Request for Proposal to ensure a service provider is in place by December 31, 2017. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In 2012 a contract in the amount of $18,750,000 was awarded to E-Comm for E9-1-1 call answer services for a five year term with a possible five year extension. The contract was awarded as a result of an RFQ and E-Comm has consistently met GVRD’s needs, standards and expectations. It is recommended that the GVRD Board authorize the exercise of the option to extend the contract for E9-1-1 call answer services with E-Comm for a period of five years, for the amount of up to $22,413,372 (exclusive of taxes) resulting in a total contract value of up to $41,163,372, and authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and the Corporate Officer to execute any required documentation. 19839183


19824515

Section E 2.3


From: Tracey S. Husoy, Division Manager, Purchasing and Risk Management Financial Services Department


Subject: Award of Contract Extension for Security Guard Services

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board authorize: a) A contract amendment in the amount of $2,209,751 (exclusive of taxes) to the current contractor,

Commissionaires BC, for security guard services; and b) The Chief Administrative Officer and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract.

PURPOSE This report is to request authorization by the GVRD Board to amend the current contract to exercise the possible two year extension with Commissionaires BC for security guard services in the amount of $2,209,751 (exclusive of taxes) as allowed for in the contract.

BACKGROUND Pursuant to the Greater Vancouver Regional District Officers and Delegation Bylaw No. 1208, 2014 (Bylaw) and the Procurement and Real Property Contracting Authority Policy (Policy), procurement contracts which exceed a value of $5 million require the approval of the Board.

The contract was initially awarded in 2013 prior to the current Bylaw and Policy and was reported to the Finance Committee, at their meeting held on February 14, 2014. The report indicated that the contract was awarded as a result of a Request for Proposal (RFP), that the anticipated value of the contract over a five year term was $7,339,315 (exclusive of taxes) and that a contract for the first three years, at an estimate value of $4,403,589 had been awarded.

This report is being brought forward to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee to consider a recommendation to the GVRD Board to amend the existing contract for security guard services.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION Metro Vancouver contracts security guard services for the provision of protecting critical water and sewer facilities, head office, work yards, parks construction sites and the operation of the Corporate Security Centre which is a call center for all Metro Vancouver emergencies and after hour inquiries on a twenty-four hour per day, 365 days per year basis.

As a result of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ No. 13-159) that was publicly advertised on Metro Vancouver and BC Bid websites, five firms were shortlisted and invited to respond to RFP No. 13-190. All five firms responded and Commissionaires BC offered the highest ranked proposal and


Award of Contract Extension for Security Guard Services Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: November 18, 2016

Page 2 of 2

coincidentally provided the lowest cost. The RFP specified that the initial term of the resulting contract would be for three years with a possible two year extension. While the original anticipated value of the contract over the five years was $7,339,315, usage has been slightly less than expected and the revised anticipated value over the entire five year term is now $6,613,340. Commissionaires BC has consistently met Metro Vancouver’s needs, standards and expectations and are in agreement with a two year contract extension. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board authorize:

a) A contract amendment in the amount of $2,209,751 (exclusive of taxes) to the current contractor, Commissionaires BC, for security guard services; and

b) The Chief Administrative Officer and the Corporate Officer to execute the contract.

2. That the GVRD Board terminate the contract for security guard services and direct staff to report back to the GVRD Board with options for an alternate course of action.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the GVRD Board approve Alternative 1, a contract amendment will be made to Commissionaires BC for a two year contract extension, in the amount of $2,209,751 (exclusive of taxes) for security guard services. This will result in a contract with Commissionaires BC in the overall value of $6,613,340 for the five year term. Funds are included in the Corporate Services Budget. The GVRD Board has the choice not to proceed with Alternative 1. Alternative 2 will result in the issuance of an RFP for these services earlier than anticipated. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION In 2013 a contract in the amount of $4,403,589 was awarded to Commissionaires BC for security guard services for a three year term with a possible two year extension. The contract was awarded as a result of an RFP and the successful contractor has consistently met Metro Vancouver’s needs, standards and expectations. It is recommended that the GVRD Board authorize an amendment to the contract, exercising the possible two year extension, with Commissionaires BC, in the amount of $2,209,751 (exclusive of taxes) for total revised contract value of $6,613,340 for security guard services and to authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and the Corporate Officer to execute the required documentation. 19824515


19812262


From: Performance and Audit Committee


Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy

INTERGOVERNMENT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board approve the Corporate Investment Policy as presented in the report titled “Proposed Amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy” dated September 29, 2016.

At its October 21, 2016 meeting, the Performance and Audit Committee considered the attached report titled “Proposed Amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy”, dated September 29, 2016. The Committee endorsed the recommendation as presented.

Attachment: (Doc #19566680) “Proposed Amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy” dated September 29, 2016

Section E 2.4


19566680

To: Performance and Audit Committee

From: Dean Rear, Director, Financial Planning and Operations

Date: September 29, 2016 Meeting Date: October 21, 2016

Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy

RECOMMENDATION That the Performance and Audit Committee:

a) endorse the Corporate Investment Policy as presented in the report titled “ProposedAmendments to the Corporate Investment Policy” dated September 29, 2016; and

b) forward the report to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee and the GVRD Board forconsideration.

PURPOSE To seek GVRD Board approval for amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy.

BACKGROUND The Board approved Corporate Investment policy provides the guidelines for investment decisions. The primary objective of the policy is to ensure safety of capital but also provides for maintaining sufficient liquidity to meet operational requirements and to provide the highest return on investment possible after considering safety of capital and required liquidity.

This policy is reviewed on an ongoing basis and may require adjustments from time to time due to market changes, operational needs or other administrative matters. This policy was last amended in July 2015.

Since the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, bond yields have been on a downward trend and reached yet another historical low in the first half of 2016, as illustrated in table 1. The average yield on Canada benchmark bonds with maturities of 3-5 years and 5-10 years have both declined more than 380 basis points (BPS) since mid-2007. This has created an environment where investment returns are persistently low.

ATTACHMENT


Table 1

The Canada yield curve has also dropped and flattened since 2013 as illustrated in Table 2. Global central banks, including the Bank of Canada, have relied and continue to rely heavily on a monetary policy of quantitative easing and low interest rates to fuel market growth. This has resulted in bonds to rally (i.e. increase in price and decrease in yield) in North America as investors sought shelter from low or even negative rates on sovereign debt. It is unclear as to when the rates will turn and start moving in an upward trend.

Table 2

Given this challenging market and a prolonged period of low interest rates, staff continuously seek out better products with higher yields to maximize our return while meeting the primary objectives of our policy to preserve capital and maintain liquidity. The proposed policy amendments are as follows (refer to attachment B for summary table):

1) To remove maximum dollar amounts and update/add maximum percentage limits. Our portfolio can fluctuate by as much as $300 million over the course of the year depending on the cash management and funding strategy for the organization. As our portfolio grows in


size, the dollar limit becomes restrictive and may result in a disproportionate allocation of limits. With the proposed change, limits will now fluctuate based on the size of the portfolio rather than a combination of pre-defined dollar limits as well as percentage limits. This allows greater flexibility within investment limits found in the policy’s Appendix A. A percentage limit by counterparty remains in place to address concentration risk in any one particular institution and to ensure diversification in our portfolio. For those counterparties previously without a percentage limit, maximum limits have been added: 50% for individual provinces rated AA- or better, 30% for individual provinces rated A- and 20% for individual credit unions. This ensures a consistently managed limit across the different categories. Moving to a percentage based limit does not impact the concentration risks as the way we manage and diversify our portfolio remains the same. This change will simplify the approach in risk management and will be accommodative to the growth of our portfolio.

2) To increase the combined percentage limit for short-term investments for credit union to 50% from 30%, establish individual percentage limit at 20% and increase the maximum term to 5 years from 3 years.

Prior to 2014, the maximum for credit unions was limited to $25 million or 15% with maturity of 100 days. In 2014, the maximum was increased to $100 million or 25% with maturity of 3 years, and increased again in 2015 to $150 million or 30% with maturity remaining at 3 years. These incremental changes have contributed to marginal but steady increases in the annualized rate of returns for the short-term and long-term portfolio despite a significant decline in the Canada bond yields as illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3

Credit union’s short-term products have a significant yield advantage compared to the traditional money market products. By laddering the fixed deposits or cashable deposits from credit unions, we are able to maintain liquidity in our portfolio while picking up more than 40 BPS in yield.

Longer term credit union deposits typically range from 2 to 5 years. Extending our maximum term from 3 to 5 years can allow significant pick-up in yield when the opportunity arises. 100% of credit union deposits are indirectly guaranteed by the BC government through the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation (CUDIC), a statutory corporation as set out in the Financial Institution Act. This additional layer of protection only available to the credit union


system is a mitigating factor for credit risks associated with the proposed increase in limit room and maximum term. The maximum individual limit is now in line with Schedule 1 banks.

3) To expand the list of Authorized Investment Dealers.

By expanding our list of authorized dealers, we can be more selective and gain access to a wider range of products. Third-party agents can sometimes offer better yield products as they tend to get preferential rates through the issuing counterparty. Furthermore, these agents offer products that we are not able to buy through the financial institutions ourselves. The selection criteria and requirements of an Authorized Investment Dealer have been outlined in section G of the Corporate Investment Policy. Due diligence will be carried out before accepting a new investment dealer. Any changes to the Authorized Investment Dealers must be approved by the Investment Management Committee comprised of the CFO, Director of Financial Planning and Operations, Division Manager of Financial Planning and Processes and the Treasury Manager.

4) To update the safekeeping requirements With the addition of Authorized Investment Dealers, the safekeeping requirements need to be updated to include products that may be purchased through a third-party agent as some of the investments may be held in nominee or in trust of Metro Vancouver.

5) To update oversight roles for current job titles

As some job titles have changed since the last update to the oversight section, it was prudent to clarify their roles. The Director, Financial Planning and Operations was added where appropriate and the division manager’s title was updated to current.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Performance and Audit Committee: a) endorse the Corporate Investment Policy as presented in the report titled “Proposed

Amendments to the Corporate Investment Policy” dated September 29, 2016; and b) forward the report to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee and the GVRD Board for

consideration.

2. That the Performance and Audit Committee make adjustments to the Corporate Investment Policy as appropriate and forward the report to the Intergovernment and Finance Committee and the GVRD Board for consideration.

3. That the Performance and Audit Committee receive the report titled “Proposed Amendments to

Corporate Investment Policy”, dated September 29, 2016 for information.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves alternative 1, the proposed changes allow for potential increased return on investments by providing better limit rooms proportionate to the fluctuating portfolio size and expanding available products, especially for the short term instruments which help to maintain liquidity in our portfolio. The proposed changes will not increase the risk to our capital.


Not approving these proposed changes to increase investment terms and options may result in an opportunity cost of lost potential returns. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The corporate investment policy changes highlighted in this report increase our investing flexibility and as a result allow for access to greater investment returns while maintaining the conservative risk exposure appropriate for an organization of our nature. The amendments as included under alternative 1 are recommended to the Board for approval. Attachments: Attachment “A” – Proposed Corporate Investment Policy Adjustments – October 2016 Attachment “B” – Summary Table of Proposed Changes and Impact Attachment “C” – Corporate Investments Policy Revised 19566680


Proposed Investment Policy Adjustments – October 2016

ATTACHMENT A


SUMMARY TABLE OF PROPOSED CHANGES AND IMPACT

Proposed Change Impact Remove maximum dollar amounts and update/add new maximum percentage limits.

• Flexibility in the limit rooms as they increase or decreaseproportionate to the total portfolio.

Increase percentage limit for short-term less than 1 year for credit unions from 30% to 50%, and extend the maximum maturity from 3-5 years.

• Increased products.• Higher yields.• Laddering of portfolio in the shorter term.• Facilitate cash flow planning as we can set specific maturity dates.

Expand the Authorized Investment Dealers and clarify the selection criteria.

• Expanded product options offered by different dealers.• Higher yields.

Update safekeeping requirement to address products purchased through all Authorized Investment Dealers.

• Updated safekeeping requirements to include investmentspurchased from Authorized Investment Dealers.

Update oversight section for current job titles • Provides clarification and updates for current job titles

ATTACHMENT B


Corporate Investments Policy Page 1 of 7

CORPORATE INVESTMENTS Effective Date: Approved By:

PURPOSE

To provide guidelines within which investment decisions are made to ensure safety of capital, adequate liquidity and a reasonable rate of return.

APPLICATION

This policy applies to all investments on behalf of the corporate entities.

POLICY

A. General Objectives:

i) Safety of CapitalThis is the foremost objective of this policy. Prudent investments shall be chosen in a manner that ensures preservation of capital. Consideration therefore must be given to both credit and interest rate risk in all investment decisions.

ii) LiquidityInvestment portfolios will provide sufficient liquidity to meet the ongoing needs of all Metro Vancouver Districts and the Housing Corporation. Investment terms will be structured as much as possible to meet anticipated cash needs.

iii) YieldPortfolios will be invested to produce the highest yield after first considering objectives i) and ii) above and within the investment guidelines in Appendix A.

B. Standard of Care

The standard of care to be applied by staff in carrying out their duties is that of a prudent person, in the context of the management of a diversified portfolio. This in turn translates as the exercise of discretion and judgment, in conformity with policies, with the purpose being investment, rather than speculation.

The Employee Code of Ethics Policy requires performance to a high standard of integrity, and specifically forbids conflict of interest situations.

C. Investment Parameters

Investments will at all times be governed by legislation, specifically the Community Charter Section 183 (copy attached as Appendix C).

ATTACHMENT C BOARD POLICY


http://orbit/orbit/llisapi.dll/open/6520516

BOARD POLICY


Short term investments (maximum term 365 days) are restricted to those with a minimum short term credit rating of Standard and Poor’s (S&P) equivalent of A-1 or Dominion Bond Rating Service (DBRS) equivalent of R1Low. Short term investments will be permitted in non-qualifying institutions when such investments are guaranteed by a qualified institution. An example of this would be an investment in a Credit Union in BC which is in turn guaranteed by the Province of BC. Long term investments must have at a minimum a long term credit rating of 'A-' by S&P or DBRS equivalent (A-low).

Both our short term and long term investments are limited to primarily Government debt (provincial and federal) and Canadian financial institutions. The specific details of the qualified investments as well as the maximum portfolio percentages are listed in Appendix A. In instances where an investment falls below one, but not both of the recommended rating agencies (S&P and DBRS), the investment will remain to qualify as an approved investment.

D. Investment Terms Short Term Investments will have a maximum term of 365 days and are restricted to terms listed on Appendix A attached. Long Term Investments are those with term exceeding 365 days. Long term investments will also be restricted to terms listed on Appendix A attached.

E. Tendering Short Term Investments (under 365 days) Investments of terms greater than 15 days require at least three quotes from qualifying dealers. (See comments below concerning Long Term Investments as a potential exception to this rule) Long Term Investments (over 365 days) Long term investments do not necessarily lend themselves to direct comparison. Often there is difficulty in finding the same name or similar credit quality in exactly the same term. This requires that those responsible for long term investing use considerable judgement in determining the investment choice. Where direct comparisons are possible between like or similar investments at least three quotes from qualifying dealers will be required.


BOARD POLICY


Where direct product comparisons are not available, those responsible for investing must ensure that the offering under consideration is priced fairly. This can be done by verifying spread levels (over benchmark or equivalent term Canada bonds) obtained from two other dealers which support the offering being considered. These spreads should be recorded for subsequent review by internal audit.

F. Safekeeping Investments will be held for safekeeping at either RBC Investor Services (Dexia), Royal Bank Dominion Securities, Bank of Montreal or Clearing and Depository Services Inc. (CDS) for securities whose transfer is book-based rather than by physical delivery. Transfers that are neither book-based nor physical delivery such as cash, term deposits and guaranteed investment certificates are held for safekeeping at the respective credit union or issuing bank or held in nominee (in trust) with the Authorized Investment Dealer.

G. Authorized Investment Dealers Authorized Investment Dealers must meet one of the following criteria: • Wholly owned subsidiary of a Canadian chartered bank that is included in the Approved Investments list

in Appendix A; • Member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) and the Canadian Investor

Protection Fund (CIPF), and hold assets under management greater than $10 billion; • Institution whose deposits or debts are guaranteed by the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation

(CUDIC) or a Province of Canada. Any changes to the Authorized Investment Dealer must be approved by the Investment Management Committee as defined in section H Review, Oversight and Reporting. The Investment Management Committee will also review the list of Authorized Investment Dealers on as needed basis.

H. Review, Oversight and Reporting The statutory authority of the CFO for investment decisions is delegated to the Director, Financial Planning and Operations; Division Manager, Financial Planning and Processes and the Treasury Manager including any appointed in an acting capacity. While day to day investment operations are the responsibility of the Treasury Manager, the Division Manager, Financial Planning and Processes is responsible for its supervision, including review of internal control issues and policy enforcement. Summary reports on investment positions and performance will be prepared monthly for the CFO and the Director, Financial Planning and Operations. The CFO; Director, Financial Planning and Operations; Division Manager, Financial Planning and Processes and the Treasury Manager will meet quarterly (or more frequently as required) as the Investment Management Committee (“Committee”) to review the investment activities as well as current investments issues. The Committee will establish the percentage split of the portfolio between long and short term investments as well as the average term of the portfolio based on existing market conditions and expected future conditions.


BOARD POLICY


An Approved List of Investments (“Approved List”), based on the Investment Parameters in section C, will be developed and maintained by the Division Manager, Financial Planning and Processes, subject to the approval of the Committee. While changes to the Approved List outlined in Appendix A are subject to the Committee's specific approval, any member of the Investment Management Committee may immediately suspend a previously approved investment at any time on their own authority and, in fact, must do so when he has reason to believe it no longer meets the necessary requirements. The member will immediately advise the other Investment Management Committee members of the decision for suspension along with the reason and repercussions. Quarterly, the investment ratings of all entities included in the Approved List will be reviewed by the Division Manager, Financial Planning and Processes. Upon knowledge of a decrease in the credit rating of an approved investment to a level below the parameters outlined in this policy, the Division Manager, Financial Planning and Processes will immediately advise the Investment Management Committee. As this rating is below the minimum acceptable credit rating, the investment position should be sold with all considerations given to losses and/or penalties. A report will be presented to the Board as of April 30, August 31, and December 31 each year and will include a position statement, performance results compared to benchmark comments and other relevant issues. Metro Vancouver purchases investments with the intention of holding these until maturity and not with further trading in mind. For this reason we will not adjust the portfolio value based on changes in unrealized market value, but rather report investment performance based on actual return to maturity. Our short term investment performance will be compared to the Benchmarks detailed on Appendix B. Finding a benchmark for our long term investments is difficult as most available benchmarks will reflect changes in market valuation. With this in mind, we will provide the benchmarks included on Appendix B as a reasonable general comparison to our long term investment performance. In addition to the audit activities and procedures performed annually by the external auditors and the oversight of the Director, Financial Planning and Operations, the Internal Auditor will review internal controls and ensure compliance with policy and procedures bi-annually. All changes to this policy require Board approval.

Appendices: Appendix A: Approved Investments (Updated October, 2016) Appendix B: Investment Performance Benchmarks Appendix C: Community Charter (Section 183)


APPENDIX A


Approved Investments (October 2016)

*Includes provincially guaranteed institutions ** Implied BC Provincial guaranty


APPENDIX B


Investment Performance Benchmarks The benchmarks listed below are used as a guideline to assess the performance / investment returns on investments held. Short Term Investments • Municipal Finance Authority Money Market Fund* • Average One Month Banker's Acceptance Rate** • Average Three Month Banker’s Acceptance Rate** Long Term Investments • Municipal Finance Authority Intermediate Bond Fund • Municipal Finance Authority Long-term Bond Fund *Available on the MFA website **Calculated from the Bank of Canada website


APPENDIX C


Community Charter Section 183

Investment of municipal funds

183 Money held by a municipality that is not immediately required may only be invested or

reinvested in one or more of the following:

(a) securities of the Municipal Finance Authority;

(b) pooled investment funds under section 16 of the Municipal Finance Authority Act;

(c) securities of Canada or of a province;

(d) securities guaranteed for principal and interest by Canada or by a province;

(e) securities of a municipality, regional district or greater board;

(f) investments guaranteed by a chartered bank;

(g) deposits in a savings institution, or non-equity or membership shares of a credit union;

(h) other investments specifically authorized under this or another Act.


20011708


From: Elisa Campbell, Director of Regional Planning and Electoral Area Services, Parks, Planning and Environment


Subject: Consideration of the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board accept the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement as submitted to Metro Vancouver on November 8, 2016.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek GVRD Board acceptance of the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement in accordance with Section 448 of the Local Government Act.

BACKGROUND On July 29, 2011, the GVRD Board (Metro Vancouver) adopted Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy. Pursuant to Section 446 of the Local Government Act, each local government must submit a Regional Context Statement within two years of the adoption of a new regional growth strategy.

The Township of Langley Council submitted its original Regional Context Statement to Metro Vancouver in July 2013; the GVRD Board declined to accept the RCS in November 2013 based on four objections. In February 2014, in accordance with Local Government Act section XXX, the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development directed Metro Vancouver and the Township of Langley to enter into non-binding dispute resolution.

As a result of a successful, non-binding dispute resolution process, as formalized in a Settlement Agreement signed by the two parties on October 21, 2016, the Township’s RCS has been updated. On November 7, 2016, the Township of Langley Council passed a resolution requesting the GVRD Board to consider acceptance of the Township of Langley Regional Context Statement (Attachment 1). The Township submitted its RCS to Metro Vancouver on November 8, 2016.

REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT APPROVAL PROCESS A Regional Context Statement (RCS) identifies the relationship between a municipality’s Official Community Plan (OCP) and Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, and, if applicable, how the Official Community Plan is to be made consistent with the regional growth strategy over time. Metro 2040 identifies Metro Vancouver’s role to accept (by a simple majority weighted Board vote) Regional Context Statements that support the goals and strategies of the regional growth strategy. The role of municipalities is to adopt RCSs that specify how the municipality’s OCP addresses each of the applicable Metro 2040 policy actions. In considering an RCS, the GVRD Board’s expectation is that the

Section E 2.5


Consideration of the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement Intergovernment and Finance Committee Meeting Date: November 18, 2016

Page 2 of 6

content of an acceptable RCS is generally consistent with the goals, strategies and actions as well as the parcel-based regional land use designations in Metro 2040. The Local Government Act, section 448 states that Metro Vancouver must respond by Board resolution within 120 days of receipt of the proposed Regional Context Statement, through a simple majority vote indicating whether it accepts the RCS. If the GVRD Board refuses to accept a RCS, it will indicate the provisions to which it objects and the reasons for its objections. In the case of the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement submitted on November 8, 2016, Section 5 of the Settlement Agreement that formalizes solutions agreed to through the non-binding dispute resolution process states that:

As soon as practicable following execution of this Agreement, Metro Vancouver and the Township will concurrently undertake the following steps: a. The Township will:

i. submit to Metro Vancouver for acceptance pursuant to section 448 of the Act the Revised Context Statement, incorporating the amendments set out in this Agreement; and

ii. notify Metro Vancouver when the Municipality adopts an amendment to the Official Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

b. Metro Vancouver will:

i. accept the Revised Context Statement; ii. initiate a Type 3 Minor Amendment to Metro 2040 to incorporate

modifications to Map 2: Regional Land Use Designations contained in Metro 2040 resulting from this Agreement; and

iii. convene a workshop with staff from both Metro Vancouver and the Township to create a mutually acceptable solution and process for confirming the long term planning and use for the portion of the 200th Street / Highway 1 site that is not used for manufactured home residential development.

TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT The Township of Langley is one of the largest geographic, and rapidly growing, areas within Metro Vancouver. With a total land area of 31,130 hectares, the Township of Langley is Metro Vancouver’s second largest municipality, comprising 11% of the region’s land area. As shown in Table 1, the Township includes lands with all six Metro 2040 land use designations. The Township contains about 40% of the Agricultural lands in Metro Vancouver, and the majority of the municipality is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. 69% of the lands in the Township have a Metro 2040 Agricultural land use designation. The Township of Langley, along with Maple Ridge, has a large share of lands with a Metro 2040 Rural land use designation. Lands with a Metro 2040 Conservation and Recreation designation within the Township are located within regional or municipal parks. The Township also has a substantial supply of lands with a Metro 2040 General Urban designation. About 75% of the Township’s lands with a Metro 2040 General Urban land use designation have been developed, and the Township has substantial growth potential in the remaining Metro 2040 General



Page 3 of 6

Urban lands that are planned for future urban growth. Metro 2040 and the Township anticipate that over the next 30 years the Township will double its population from 108,000 in 2011 to 211,000 in 2041, primarily within the existing General Urban area. 15% of lands in Township have a Metro 2040 Industrial or Mixed Employment designation, which includes the important industrial areas of Port Kells and Gloucester, as well as 10% of the region’s undeveloped industrial land inventory. Table 1: Regional Land Use Designations in the Township of Langley

Regional Land Use Designation Township Land Area

(ha)

% of Township

Total

Metro Vancouver Land Area

% of Metro

Vancouver Total 31,100 100% 280,107 11.1% Urban Containment Boundary 5,943 19% 90,429 6.6% General Urban 4,923 16% 70,095 7.0% Industrial 815 2.5% 10,185 8% Mixed Employment 256 0.8% 3,392 7% Agricultural 21,322 69% 55,312 39% Rural 2,497 8.0% 8,478 29%

Conservation and Recreation 1,316 4.0% 132,644 0.1%

Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area Table A.1 in Metro 2040 sets out population, dwelling unit and employment projections by municipality for the years 2021, 2031 and 2041 as guidelines for long-range planning for Metro Vancouver and member municipalities. The Township’s Regional Context Statement contains population projections that are consistent with the regional growth strategy, anticipating growing to 144,000 residents by 2021, 186,000 residents by 2031 and a population of 211,000 by 2041. Similarly, the dwelling unit and employment projections are also consistent with Metro 2040. Consistent with Metro 2040, the Township’s RCS identifies boundaries for Willowbrook as part of the Langley Regional City Centre (which is largely located in the City of Langley with only the northern portion of the centre in the Township), and Willoughby and Aldergrove as Municipal Town Centres. The RCS notes that about 14.5% of growth is anticipated to go to these locations to 2041, generally consistent with Metro 2040’s objective to direct 16% of dwelling unit growth Regional City Centres and 13% of dwelling unit growth to Municipal Town Centres. The Township has identified Carvolth as a Frequent Transit Development Area (FTDA), and directs approximately 8% of dwelling unit growth and about 13% of new jobs to this area. A key challenge is for the pattern of future urban growth in the Township to support Metro 2040 growth share targets to Urban Centres and FTDAs. Metro 2040 sets regional level targets of 68% of dwelling units and 77% of employment growth occurring in Urban Centres and FTDAs. Structuring growth this way is intended to achieve a compact development pattern that supports effective transit services as well as walking and cycling, and the creation of vibrant, complete communities. The Township’s RCS anticipates 22% of dwelling units and 16% of employment growth will occur in the Township’s Urban Centres and FTDA combined. While each municipality will vary in relation to the



Page 4 of 6

RGS targets, and the Township share is expected to be somewhat lower, these percentages indicate a more dispersed urban growth pattern. The RCS is consistent with Metro 2040 in identifying lands with a Rural regional land use designation and in identifying OCP policies that maintain the rural character of those areas, and limiting the provisions of regional sewerage services. Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy RCS Map A-1 identifies lands with an Industrial or Mixed Employment regional land use designation and generally supports Metro 2040 Strategies 2.1 and 2.2 for office, economic-related development and major trip generators on lands with appropriate regional land use designations, protection and types of land uses for industrial and mixed employment lands, and intensification of industrial lands. The RCS expresses the Township’s commitment to supporting agriculture through OCP land use designations, its accompanying Rural Plan, and through supporting policies throughout the OCP. The Agriculture land use designation in the OCP is intended primarily for agricultural uses and supporting services where food production and other forms of agriculture are encouraged. Subdivision is limited in agricultural areas, as set out in the Rural Plan and subject to the approval of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission for land within the ALR. Agricultural viability is further supported by OCP policies to manage the urban-agricultural interface through development permit guidelines, provision of setbacks, landscaped buffers, informational signage, restrictive covenants and transitional land uses. The RCS also contains criteria to facilitate appropriate municipal flexibility, in certain cases and under specific conditions, to allow amendments to the Township’s OCP for sites with a regional Agricultural or Rural land use designation. Goal 3: Protect the Environment and Respond to Climate Change The Township’s RCS is generally consistent with Metro 2040 Strategies under Goal 3 and references OCP polices that designate and restrict the use of conservation and recreation lands for natural spaces, passive or active use, education and limited / appropriate commercial activities; protect and manage ecologically sensitive lands through buffering, development permit restrictions and integrated land use and drainage plans; provide a recreational greenways plan to complement the Regional Greenways Network; and address GHG reduction strategies, reduced energy consumption and improving air quality. Goal 4: Develop Complete Communities The Township’s RCS is generally consistent with Metro 2040 Strategies under Goal 4 and references OCP policies that encourage and work toward a diversity of housing type and tenure, and that create incentives to support development of affordable and non-market housing; provide OCP policy references to implementation of the Housing Action Plan; support compact mixed use communities oriented to facilitate transit, cycling and walking, and the location of major cultural and institutional facilities within Urban Centres; and support a range of services and amenities consistent with Metro 2040 actions for developing healthy and complete communities.



Page 5 of 6

Goal 5: Support Sustainable Transportation Choices The Township’s RCS is generally consistent with Metro 2040 Strategies under Goal 5 and references OCP policies that support Metro 2040 actions to coordinate land use and transportation, although projected population and employment growth shows a small share of growth in locations proximate to Urban Centres and other primary transit access locations. Policies are also referenced that support mixed use development, design measures and infrastructure to encourage transportation access by transit, walking and cycling; support reduced parking requirements as well as strategies and employer based programs for transportation demand management; reference OCP Map 8 showing designated truck routes in the Township; include road network and goods movement policies supporting safe and efficient traffic movement; and support protection of rail rights-of-way and access to navigable waterways. RCS Map A-1 The Township of Langley Regional Context Statement land use designation map currently contains 22 inconsistencies with the Metro 2040 Regional Land Use Designations map. This reflects a similar approach taken with other municipalities wherein inconsistencies that are considered to be minor mapping issues are rectified through the acceptance of the Regional Context Statement; subsequent to GVRD Board acceptance of the Township’s Regional Context Statement, staff will propose a Type 3 amendment to Metro 2040 to formally incorporate these amendments into the regional growth strategy. In the case of the Township’s RCS, Metro Vancouver staff concur that 18 of the mapping inconsistencies contained in the RCS Map A-1 are minor in nature, do not have a significant impact on regional growth strategy objectives or implementation, and can be considered ‘generally consistent’ with Metro 2040. Other inconsistencies between the RCS Map A-1 and the Metro 2040 Regional Land Use Designations map have been addressed through the non-binding dispute resolution process, as formalized in the Settlement Agreement on October 21, 2016. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board accept the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement as submitted

to Metro Vancouver on November 8, 2016.

2. That the GVRD Board not accept the Township of Langley’s Regional Context Statement as submitted to Metro Vancouver on November 8, 2016, indicating the provisions to which the GVRD Board objects and the reasons for the objection, and request that the Township of Langley amend its Regional Context Statement and re-submit the revised Regional Context Statement to the GVRD Board for consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves alternative 1, the Township of Langley will be notified of the Board’s decision to accept the Regional Context Statement as submitted. Metro Vancouver staff will return to the Board at a future meeting with a proposal for a Type 3 amendment to Metro 2040 to formally incorporate related amendments into the regional growth strategy.



Page 6 of 6

If the Board approves alternative 2, the Board would be making a decision that runs counter to the Settlement Agreement adopted by the GVRD Board on September 23, 2016. In addition, the Board would need to indicate the provisions to which the Board objects and the reasons for objection, and request that the Township of Langley amend its Regional Context Statement and re-submit the revised Regional Context Statement to the Board for consideration. This may lead to a dispute resolution process. If the Board chooses not to accept the Regional Context Statement a dispute resolution process may take place, as prescribed in the Local Government Act. The cost for this dispute resolution would depend on the process and is prescribed based on the proportion of assessed land values; Metro Vancouver would be responsible for most of the costs. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Consistent with section 446 of the Local Government Act, the Township of Langley has submitted a Regional Context Statement to Metro Vancouver for consideration by the GVRD Board. While the Township of Langley Council originally submitted its Regional Context Statement to Metro Vancouver in July 2013, the GVRD Board declined to accept the RCS in November 2013. As a result of a successful, non-binding dispute resolution process, as formalized in a Settlement Agreement signed by the two parties on October 21, 2016, the Township’s RCS has been updated. On November 7, 2016, the Township of Langley Council passed a resolution requesting the GVRD Board to consider acceptance of the Township of Langley Regional Context Statement (Attachment 1). The Township submitted its revised RCS to Metro Vancouver on November 8, 2016. The RCS provides a response to Metro 2040’s five goals and associated strategies and actions, and generally shows support for achievement of all five goals as described in this report. The Township’s RCS Map A-1 currently contains 22 inconsistencies with the Metro 2040 Regional Land Use Designations map. Metro Vancouver staff concur that 18 of the mapping inconsistencies are minor in nature, do not have a significant impact on regional growth strategy objectives or implementation, and can be considered ‘generally consistent’ with Metro 2040. This reflects a similar approach taken with other municipalities. Subsequent to GVRD Board acceptance of the Township’s Regional Context Statement, staff will propose a Type 3 amendment to Metro 2040 to formally incorporate these amendments into the regional growth strategy. Other inconsistencies between the RCS Map A-1 and the Metro 2040 Regional Land Use Designations map have been addressed through the non-binding dispute resolution process, as formalized in the Settlement Agreement on October 21, 2016. Township of Langley staff have worked closely with Metro Vancouver staff on preparing the revised Regional Context Statement which reflects the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Staff recommend that the Board approve alternative 1 as presented. Attachments: (Doc #20010885) Correspondence re Township of Langley Regional Context Statement dated November 8, 2016 20011708


November 8, 2016

Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4GB

Dear Chris:

Esll873

Re: Township of Langley Regional Context Statement

File No. 0400-65

Township of Langley Council, at its Regular Afternoon Meeting held November 7, 2016 passed the following resolution:

That Council adopt the Revised Regional Context Statement, presented as Attachment A to this report, and pursuant to Section 448 of the Local Government Act, submit to Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance.

Yours truly,

~~ Wendy Bauer, CAM DEPUTY TOWNSHIP CLERK

copy: Ramin Seifi, General Manager, Engineering and Community Development

20338 - 65 Avenue I Langley I British Columbia I Canada I V2Y 3J1 I 604.534.3211 I tol.ca

ATTACHMENT


F.4

SCHEDULE 1 REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT

1.1 REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY GOALS

The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) of the Greater Vancouver Regional District has five goals:

• Create a compact urban area • Support a sustainable economy • Protect the region's environment and respond to climate change impacts • Develop complete communities • Support sustainable transportation choices

The Township of l angley OCP relates to all these goals as described in this Regional Context Statement. These RGS goals constitute the social, economic and environmental objectives of lhe Greater Vancouver Regional Board in relation to the Regional District.

1.1.1. Compact Urban Area

The OCP addresses creation of compact urban areas by identifying an urban development area and urban centres, including the Regional City Centre and Municipal Town Centres identified in the RGS. The urban development area and urban centres are described generally in Section 2.3. The OCP also identifies Community Centres (including the Local Centres in the RGS) and a Frequent Transit Development Area. Major commercial and office development is encouraged in these centres, as well as higher density housing. The Centres and the Frequent Transit Development Area are shown on Maps 3. 4, 5 and 6.

In the event of any inconsistency between the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the regulations or orders of the Commission and the boundary of any urban development area, urban centre or associated economic development area, the Agricultural Land Commission requirements will prevail until such time as the inconsistency is resolved.

1.1.2. Sustainable Economic Development

Diverse economic development opportunities close to where people live are supported by encouraging office and commercial uses in the Regional Centre, Town Centre and Frequent Transit Development Areas. The OCP a'so supports industrial uses by protecting industrial lands and designating them as Industrial. Industrial policies support appropriate accessory uses and do not permit large scale retail or residential uses. Industrial, office, and limited commercial uses are permitted in Mixed Employment areas. Policies related to Mixed Employment permit office and retail commercial uses in these areas outside the Regional Centre and Frequent Transit Development Area. The supply of agricultural land for farming is protected by designating much of the Township as Agricultural. Agricultural viability is supported by policies to discourage subdivision of agricultural land. General interface policies along the agriculturalurban edge are provided. The Rural Plan and Agricultural ViabiJity Strategy provide policies to address transportation, drainage and irrigation, economic development opportunities and educational programs related to agriculture.

1.1.3. Environment, Parks and Natural Areas/Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions


portercj

Typewritten Text

Attachment A

F.4..

Major conservation and recreation lands are protected by designation on the land use map and by policies that limit the use of these lands. To protect natural features and their connectivity watercourses are designated as a development permit area and a Recreational Greenways Network is provided in this plan. The plan identifies policies to reduce energy consumption from the perspectives of land use and transportation infrastructure. Integrated storm water management and water conservation policies are provided, as well as policies to minimize risks associated with climate change and natural hazards.

1.1.4. Complete Communities

Provision of affordable housing is encouraged through a mix of housing types and tenures and policies to increase the supply of affordable rental housing. The Housing Action Plan also contains policies designed to encourage development of affordable housing. Universally accessible design is supported by requirements for adaptable housing in a proportion of all housing type constructed. Development of healthy and complete communities is encouraged by supporting pedestrian, cycling, and transit oriented communities with public spaces and amenities. A number of policies support provision of recreational facilities and inviting pedestrian and cycling environments, as well as local food production. Local Centres are recognized as Community Centres in the OCP and lower order Neighbourhood Centres may also be recognized in community and neighbourhood plans.

1.1.5. Sustainable Transportation Choices

Land use and transportation are coordinated by aligning centres along major transit routes to encourage future expansion of transit. Mixed use centres are proposed to support transit use. A number of policies address walking, cycling, and transit use. Map 8 shows designated truck routes.

1.1.6. Regional District Services

The OCP contains policies in relation to housing, solid waste, and air quality. The OCP also generally encourages infrastructure and amenity investments in the Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas.

1.1. 7. Agricultural Land reserve

Township of Langley is committed to supporting agriculture. This commitment is articulated in the Township's Official Community Plan (OCP) land use designations, accompanying Rural Plan, and as referenced in the Revised Context Statement table 10, Section 2.3.6. The 'Agriculture' land use designation in the OCP is intended primarily for agricultural uses and supporting services where food production and other forms of agriculture are encouraged. Subdivision is limited in agricultural areas, as set out in the Rural Plan and subject to the approval of the provincial Agricultural Land Commission for land within the ALR. Agricultural viability is further supported by OCP policies to manage the urban-agricultural interface through development permit guidelines, provision of setbacks, landscaped buffers, informational signage, restrictive covenants and transitional land uses.

Notwithstanding this commitment to the protection of agricultural land to support agricultural viability and to limit development, in certain cases and under specific conditions, appropriate municipal flexibility allows amendments to the Township of Langley's OCP for sites with a regional Agricultural or Rural land use designation as specified below.

Township of Langley Official Community Plan Schedule 3


F.4

The following types of amendment to the Township of Langley's OCP are deemed to be consistent with its Regional Context Statement, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions set out below:

1) From an Agricultural designation to a Rural designation (or vice versa) within the Township of Langley's OCP, where~

a) the proposed use is consistent w tth the general intent of the 'Agricultural' or 'Rural' land use designations contained in the Township's OCP;

b) the subject site no more than 0.5 hectare in size; and c) the subject site is not contiguous with a site previously re-designated

pursuant to Revised Context Statement Section 1.1. 7.

2) From an 'Agricultural' or a 'Rural' designation to an urban designation within the Township of Langley's OCP, where:

a) the proposed use is consistent with the general intent of an urban land use designation contained in the Township of Langley's OCP;

b) the subject site is no more than 2 hectares in size; c) the subject site is contiguous with the existing Urban Containment Boundary

specified in the Regional Growth Strategy; and d) the subject site is not contiguous with a site previously re-designated


3) From an 'Agricultural' or a 'Rural' designation to an 'Industrial' designation within the Township of Langley's OCP, where:

a) the proposed use is consistent with the general intent of the 'Industrial' land use designation contained in the Township of Langley's OCP;

b) the subject site is no more than 1 0 hectares in size; c) the subject site is contiguous with the existing Urban Containment Boundary

specified in the Regional Growth Strategy; and d) the subject site is not contiguous with a site previously re-designated


4) From an 'Agricultural' or a 'Rural' designation to a designation supporting agroindustrial uses within the Township of Langley's OCP, where:

a) the proposed use is consistent with the general intent of a land use designation in the Township of Langley's OCP that permits agro-industrial uses; and

b) the subject site is used for agro-industriat uses such as washing, packaging, processing, storing and selling of farm products, or any agro-industrial use permitted by the Agricultural Land Commission.

In addition to the above, if the subject site is within the Agricultural Land Reserve, the Agricultural Land Commission must have approved exclusion of the subject site from the Agricultural Land Reserve, or granted permission for non-farm use or subdivision, as permitted under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The aggregate of land affected by all re-designations under this provision cannot exceed 1 percent of the municipality's total lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve that has a regional 'Agricultural' or 'Rural' regional land use designation."


..


F.4..

1.2 POPULATION, DWELLING AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

1.2.1. Population

The Township's population has grown from less than 15,000 in 1961 to about 104,000 in 2011, an average increase of 4.2% per year. The region is growing, and continued robust population growth in the Township is anticipated over the next 30 years. The estimated 2041 population is expected to reach 211,000 based on past growth trends and future expectations of lower growth rates from 2021 to 2041 . The population projections are meant as targets to ensure that the Township is prepared for the future. Historic and projected populations are shown graphically in Figure 7.

1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 2041

Figure 7 Historical and projected population growth in Langley (1961 to 2041 ).

2011 104,000

2021 144,000 2011-2021

2031 186,000 2021-2031

2041 211,000 2031-2041

Table 3 Projected Population and Growth Rates in Langley (2011 to 2041)

Township of Langley Official Community Plan 1 Schedule 3

Historical Population

Projected Population

2.9%

2.6%

1.3%


F.4

The projected population for the Regional Centre, the Town Centres, and the Frequent Transit Development Area are shown tn the table below.

Regional Centre (Willowbrook) 1,375 1,700 3,400 5,100

----, Willoughby Town Centre 10 2,100 3,000 2,925

Aldergrove Town Centre 680 1,100 2,000 3,520 ------,

CarvoHh FTDA 1,460 4,500 6,335 j 6,962

Tabre 4 Projected Popu,ation for Areas in Langley (2011 to 2041)

Langley's population is expected to grow in all age groups over the next 30 years. As observed in the rest of the country, the highest growing age group in percentage terms over the next decades will be those over 65 years of age, as shown in Figure 8. The proportion of the population under 19 years of age is projected to decline from about 25% to 21.5% of the total population by 2041 and the proportion over 65 years is expected to increase from 13% to almost 21%. The aging population will have significant impacts on housing, mobility, accessibility, recreation, and servicing needs. Despite its aging population, Langley will remain a relatively young community compared to most municipalities and the region overall.

In addition to these age-related trends, the cultural profile of thts popufation growth is anticipated to become increasingly diverse.


..


F.4..

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0-19 yr. 20-64yr.

Figure 8 Age group projections in Langley (to 2041 ).

1.2.2. Housing

65 yr.+

2011

2041

To accommodate the projected population growth, approximately 37,000 new dwelling units will have to be constructed by 2041 (accounting for those dwellings constructed from 2011 to 2013). Of these, the majority (85%) are projected to be ground-oriented units (single-family, rowhouse, and townhouse), with the remainder (15%) as apartment units. This represents an increase in the proportion of apartments as compared to the 2011 housing mix (8% apartments). Rental and affordable housing options will need to be considered as part of the housing mix.

2011 38,800

2013 41,100

2021 52,000

~3+- 69,000

2041 78,000

Table 5 Dwelling Units Needed in Langley (to 2041)

Township of Langley Official Community Plan I Schedule 3


F.4

Dwelling unit projections for the Regional Centre, the Town Centres and the Frequent Transit Development Area are provided in the table below.

Regional Centre (Willowbrook) 800 1,000 2,000 3,000

Willoughby Town Centre 4 1,000 1,500 1,625

Aldergrove Town Centre 270 500 1,000 2,000

Carvolth FTDA 832 2,500 3,500 3,825

Total 1,906 s.ooo 1 8,000 10,450

Tabfe 6 Dwelling Units Needed for Areas in Langley (to 2041)

1.2.3. Employment

Providing employment in the community is important because it offers opportunities for residents to work close to where ffley live, thereby reducing the time, cost, and environmental impacts of commuting, and also providing a diversified assessment base for property taxes. ldeatly, the number of jobs wHhin the community would be equal to the number of people in the labour force.

The industrial , institutional, retail, and office sectors provide most of the employment in the Township, followed by home-based business, recreation, and agriculture. Robust employment growth is expected to continue in all sectors, with the largest increases in office and industrial jobs.

Two employment targets are provided. The first target was based on a regional projection, offered by the RGS. The second was developed as part of the Township•s Employment Lands Study and provides a more ambitious target. The Township's target is an aspirational goal that if achieved would provide an approximately 1:1 ratio between the number of jobs in the Township and the number of residents in the labour force. The higher projection may be difficult to achieve due to an aging population and technological change, but a 1:1 job to fabour force ratio would greatly assist in achieving a sustainable community.



F.4

2021

2031

2041

69,000

88,000

100,000

Table 7 Employment Targets in Langley (to 2041)

76,000

91,000

100,000

Employment projections for Regional Centre, the Town Centres, and the Frequent Transit Development Area are provided in the table below.

Regional Centre j 17,400 20,000 20,400 .-

Willoughby Town Centre 25 300 700

Carvolth FTDA 875 5,200 6,400 r-

Aldergrove Core 1,800 2,400 2,600 r -----,

Total 20,100 27,900 30,100

Table 8 Employment Targets for Areas in Langley (to 2041)

Township of Langley Official Community Plan I Schedule 3


F.4

1.3 REGIONAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

On March 7. 2011, Township of Langley Council accepted, by resolution, Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future ("Metro 2040"), reflecting the Township's general commitment to its vision and goals. Pursuant to Section 446 of the Local Government Act, each municipality must submit to the board of the regional district a regional context statement that identifies the relationship between the municipal Official Community Plan (OCP) and the Regional Growth Strategy and, if applicable, how the OCP is to be made consistent with the RGS over time.

The Regional Growth Strategy provides a map of regional land use designations as a tool to achieve the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy and provide the basis for defining matters of regional significance. Section 447 of the Local Government Act provides that a Regional Context Statement will identify how the Official Community Plan is to be made consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy over time. The Official Community Plan is to be made consistent from time to time with the Regional Growth Strategy over time in the following manner:

a) by way of Township applications to the GVRD Board for amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy regional land use designations;

b) despite paragraph (a), by way of amendments to the Official Community Plan made consistent with the Regional Context Statement that has been accepted by the GVRD.

Map A· 1 below sets out proposed changes to regional land use designations in the 2011 RGS that would make the OCP consistent with the RGS.

lownshlp of Langley Official Community Plan I Schedule 3


F.4

~of Langley

u D 0 D

land Use Designations

Frequent Transit Development Area

See note below

Urban Containment Boundart

General Urban

• Industrial

• ConservaUon & Recreation

• • • RGS Land Use

A Rural

Agriculture (Proposed) Mixed Employment

1. Designation Is subjad to approval of the Provincial AgricuHural Land Commission. Refer to Setuernent Agreement between the Townltllp of Langley and Metro Vancouver. 0 0.5 1 2 •--==--•Km Version: 08/0912016 Greater Vancouver Regional District - 109

F.4

1.4 ROLE OF MUNICIPALITIES

Table 10 below lists the municipal actions as required by the Regional Growth Strategy and provides information on the sections of the Official Community Plan that address those requirements or discusses how the Official Community Plan will be made consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy over time. In particular, the Table contains a description of Official Community Plan policy provisions relative to the listed "Role of Municipalities" within the Regional Growth Strategy. For certainty, the Official Community Plan policies contained in this Table are not incorporated by reference from the Official Community Pfan so as to be substantive policies of the Regional Context Statement, but are inserted solely to specifically identify the relationship between the Official Community Plan and the Regional Growth Strategy matters referred to under Section 850 of the Local Government Act and to identify how the Official Community Plan will made consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy over time.

Township of Langley Official Community Plan I !>chedule 3

. •


F.4

Table 10 RGS Actions and OCP Policies

1.1.3 a)

1.1.3 b)

1.2.6 a)

1.2.6 b)

Depict Urban Containment Boundary on a map

Provide population, dwelling unit, employment projections and how municipal plans will work towards accommodating the projected growth within the Urban Containment Boundary

Provide population, dwelling unit, employment projections that indicate the

, municipal share of planned growth for , Urban Centres, Frequent Transit

Development Areas

Include policies for Urban Centres which

i. Identify the general location, boundaries and types of Urban Centres on a map

ii. Focus growth and development in Urban Centres

iii. Encourage office development through policies and/or other financial incentives

iv. In coordination with the provision of transit service, establish or maintain reduced residential and commercial parking requirements in Urban Centres

Township of langley Official Community Plan Schedule 3

The urban development area is defined by the urban land uses on Maps 1 and A-1.

Schedule 1 includes tables that provide population, dwelling unit and employment projections. Only about 2.5% of population growth from 2011 to 2041 is expected to occur outside the urban development area, shown on Map A-1.

Schedule 1 provides population, dwelling unit, employment projections for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas

i. Urban Centres are shown on Maps 3 to 5. ii. Sections 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.7 and 2.3.8 provide

policies to direct major commercial and higher density residential development to Urban Centres. The scale of development and densities permitted in the Urban Centres are higher than other areas in the Township. The Willowbrook Community Plan and the Langley Town Centre Plan guide the development of the Willowbrook area as part of the Regional City Centre. Future planning in the Willowbrook area will update the planning policies to assist in creating a mixed use high density transit oriented regional centre. The Aldergrove Community Plan provides for a compact, mixed use walkable and transit oriented downtown with commercial and high density residential uses. The Willoughby Community Plan and Yorkson Neighbourhood Plan provide for the development of a town centre for Willoughby consisting of mixed use commercial and high density residential uses in a pedestrian oriented environment.

iii. Office development is encouraged in all Urban Centres (Section 2.3. 7). Future work will be undertaken to determine appropriate policies and the need for incentives to encourage office development.

iv. Consideration of reduced residential and commercial parking requirements are provided for in Section 2.3.13 as transit service improves.


F.4

1.2.6 c) Include policies for Frequent Transit Development Areas that:

1.2.6 d)

i. Identify on a map, in consultation with Translink, the general location and boundaries of Frequent Transit Development Areas consistent with Table 3, Translink's Frequent Transit Network, and other applicable guidelines and policies

ii. Focus growth and development in Frequent Transit Development Areas

ii. In coordination with the provision of transit service, establish or maintain reduced residential and commercial parking within Frequent Transit Development Areas

Include policies for General Urban areas that:

i. Identify the General Urban areas and their boundaries on a map

ii. Ensure development of General Urban areas outside of Urban and Frequent Transit Development Areas are generally lower density

iii. Where appropriate, identify small scale Local Centres in General Urban areas that provide a mix of housing types, local serving commercial activities and good access to transit

iv. Exclude non-residential major trip-generating uses, as defined in the RCS, from those portions of General Urban areas outside Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas

v. Encourage infill development by directing growth to established areas where possible

1.2.6 e) Include policies that, for Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas that overlay Industrial, Mixed Employment or Conservation and Recreation areas, the Industrial, Mixed

I Employment or Conservation and Recreation intent and policies prevail,

1 except that higher density commercial


i. Frequent Transit Development Areas are shown on Maps 3 and 6. Policies related to Frequent Transit Development Areas are in Sections 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 2.3.8, 2.3.11, 2.3.12, 2,3,13, and 2,3.14

ii. Sections 2.3.7 and 2.3.8 direct office development and higher density residential uses to Frequent Transit Development Areas.

iii. Consideration of reduced residential and commercial parking requirements are provided for in Section 2.3.13 as transit service improves.

L General Urban areas are identified on Maps 1 and A-1 .

ii. General Urban areas outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transft Development Areas are designated for lower density land uses in the community plans.

iii. Local Centres are Identified on Map 3 as Community Centres and are intended to provide a mix of housing types, local serving commercial activities and good access to transit; the Walnut Grove, Fort Langley, Murrayville and Brookswood/Femridge Community Plans designate commercial core areas with a mix of housing types in close proximity.

iv. Section 2.3.8 directs higher density residential and commercial development and high trip-generating uses to Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas and restricts major non-residential trip-generating uses such as large format retail uses from locating outside those areas.

V. Section 2.4.6 encourages infill development.

Policies for the Mixed Employment designations in the Regional Centre and the Carvolth Frequent Transit Development Area are provided in Section 2.4.14.


F.4

would be allowed in the Mixed Employment areas

1.2.6 f) For Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas and GU areas, include policies which:

i. Sections 2.3.12 and 2.4.7 support existing industrial uses and specify how new urban uses shall minimize impacts on existing industrial uses.

i. Support continued industrial uses by ii. Sections 2.3.14 and 2.4.8 encourage safe and efficient transit, cycling and walking. minimizing the impacts of urban uses

on industrial activities iii. Sections 2.3.14 and 2.4.8 provide opportunity for transit priority measures where appropriate. Section 3.16 supports district energy and other energy conservation measures.

ii. Encourage safe and efficient transit, cycling and walking iv.

iii. Implement transit priority measures, where appropriate

iv. Support district energy systems and renewable energy generation, where appropriate

-------+----------------------------~----------------------------·---------1.3.3 a) Identify Rural areas and their

boundaries on a map

1.3.3 b) Limit development to a scale, form and density consistent with the intent for the Rural land designation and what is compatible with on-site sewer servicing

1.3.3 c) 1 Include policies which:

i. Specify the allowable density and form

ii. Support agricultural uses within the ALR, and where appropriate outside theALR


General boundaries identified on Maps 1 and A-1.

- -------Section 2.2.6 specifies density of development in the Rural area and discusses sewer servicing. Sections 5.5.3 and 5.6.2 of the Rural Plan include lot size provisions, subject to Agricultural Land Commission regulations.

The Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw does not require municipal sewer system in the rural area other than in the community of Milner.

i. Section 2.2.6 specifies the density and general form of development. Sections 5.5.3 and 5.6.2 of the Rural Plan include lot size provisions, subject to Agricultural Land Commission regulations and approvals.

ii. Section 2.2.6 allows agricultural uses in the Rural area.


F.4

I 2.1.4 a) Support appropriate economic

1 Sections 2.3.7 and 2.3.8 support office and

development in Urban Centres, Frequent commercial development in the Regional Centre. Transit Development Areas, Industrial and Town Centre, and Frequent Transit Development Mixed Employment areas Areas. Sections 2.4.11, 2.4.13 and 2.4.14 support

industrial uses in Industrial areas and industrial, office and limited commercial uses in Mixed Emproyment areas. The specific definition of "activities not normally attracted to these locations· in Section 2.4.14 related to Mixed Employment areas located outside the Regional Centre and Frequent Transit Development Area is detailed in community and neighbourhood plans.

I

2.1 .4 b) Support development of office space in I Section 2~3 .7 support~office development in the Urban Centres, through policies such as Regional Centre and Town Centres and provides zoning that reserves land for office uses, incentives for office development for future density bonus provisions to encourage consideration. office development, variable DCCs, and/or other financial incentives

2.1.4 c) Include policies that discourage major commercial and institutional development outside Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas

Section 2.3.5 allows for neighbourhood centres providing small-scale commercial development to serve the local area or neighbourhood. Sections 2.3.7 and 2.3.8 also provide policies encouraging higher density residential commercial development and office development to centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas.

2.1.4 d) Show how the economic development Sections 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 provide land use role of Special Employment Areas, post- policies to support the growth and development of secondary institutions and hospitals are Trinity Western University. The Road supported through land use and _j Classifications map (Map 7) provides for extension transportation policies of 80 Avenue to provide additional access to the

University . .....

2.2.4 a) Identify industrial areas and their ' Industrial areas are shown on Maps 1 and A·1. boundaries on a map ___ I

2.2.4 b) Include Industrial policies that: i.

i. Support and protect industrial uses ii. Support appropriate accessory uses,

including commercial space and caretaker units

iti. Exclude uses which are inconsistent with the intent of induskial areas, ii. such as medium and large format retail, residential uses (other than industrial caretaker units where necessary) and stand-alone office uses to a scale that are not supportive I


Section 2.4.1 1 states the intention of Industrial areas to be used for manufacturing and warehousing use. Section 2.3.12 supports industrial activity by minimizing impacts on existing industrial areas through buffering, landscaping and building design, as does Section 3.7.7. Section 2.4.11 allows retail use direcUy related and accessory to the industrial use and provides for limited commerciat uses to support industrial activities, subject to policies fn community plans. Residential use is limited to one unit for the owner,


F.4

Section RGS Action OCP Policies

of industrial activities iv. Encourage better utilization and

intensification of industrial areas for industrial activities

2.2.4 c) Identify Mixed Employment areas and their boundaries on a map

2.2.4 d) Include policies for Mixed employment areas which:

i. Support a mix of industrial, commercial, office and other related employment uses while maintaining support for established industrial areas, including potential intensification policies for industrial activities, where appropriate

ii. Allow large and medium format retail where appropriate, provided that such development will not undermine the broad objectives of the RGS

1 iii. Support the regional objective of • concentrating commercial and other

major trip-generating uses in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas

iv. Where Mixed Employment areas are located within Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas, support higher density commercial development and allow employment and service activities consistent with the intent of Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas

v. Allow low density infill/expansion based on currently accepted local plans and policies in Mixed Employment areas and support increases in density only where the Mixed Employment area has transit service or where an expansion of transit service has been identified in Translink's strategic transportation


manager, or caretaker. iii. Section 2.4.11 provides that commercial

and residential uses other than those permitted in that section would not be permitted.

iv. Section 2.4.12 encourages better utilization and intensification of industrial areas. This will be based on Metro Vancouver's "Best Practices for the Intensive Use of Industrial Land·.

Mixed Employment Areas are shown on Maps 1 and A-1.

i. Section 2.4.13 supports industrial uses in Mixed Employment Areas and encourages better utilization of land and intensification of industrial development. Section 2.4.14 also provides policies for office and commercial uses. Section 3.7.7 encourages buffering of employment lands from non-employment lands.

ii. Section 2.4.14 permits commercial uses in conformity with community and neighbourhood plans.

iii. Sections 2.3.7 and 2.3.8 direct higher density commercial development and high trip-generating uses to the Regional Centre, Town and Community Centres and the Frequent Transit Development Areas.

iv. Section 2.4.14 provides for more intensive forms of commercial development in Mixed Employment areas located within Regional and Town Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas. These provisions will be detailed in community and neighbourhood plans.

v. Section 2.4.14 permits office and retail commercial uses in Mixed Employment Areas outside the Regional and Town Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas in locations that are well served by transit.

vi. Section 2.4.13 permits residential use for only one dwelling unit per lot for owner, manager or caretaker use.


F.4

~ - ·- -....---.----6. ~~- ----- ...,._ ... ··~. I ~'-···- .. ~ . -----a-~ ... ..J • Section · RGS Action ::. = = = = = -:-•ocp Policies .---- : - .', . - ·- -- ,., - ,. ----~---· ---- --~-:"" .. - __ ,._._ .. '=. --- .. &:"

2.2.4 e)

2.3.6 a)

plans for the planned densities vi. Exclude residential uses, except for

an accessory caretaker unit

Include policies which help reduce environmental impacts and promote energy efficiency

Specify Agricultural areas and boundaries on a map

2.3.6 b) Include policies to support agricultural viability including those which:

i. Assign appropriate regional land use designations that support agricultural viability and discourage non-fann uses that do not complement agriculture

ii. Discourage subdivision of agricultura'

I land leading to fann fragmentation

iii. Where feasible and appropriate with other governments and agencies, maintain and improve transportation, drainage and irrigation infrastructure to support agricultural activities

iv. Manage the agricultural-urban interface to protect the integrity and viability of agricultural operations (e.g. buffers between agricultural and urban areas or edge planning)

v. Demonstrate support for economic development opportunities for agricultural operations( e .g. processing, agri-tourism, farmers' markets and urban agriculture)

vi. Encourage the use of agricultural land, with an emphasis on food production

ii. Support educational programs that provide information on agriculture and its importance for the regional economy and local food systems

Town5hip of langley Offidal Community Plan Schedu e 3

Section 3.13 includes a number of policies addressing environmental impacts. Section 3.16 Includes policies related to energy.

Agricultural areas are shown on Maps 1 and A-1.

i. Agricultural lands are shown as Agriculture on Map 1 to support agricultural viability and limit development. These lands are further protected in Sections 5.5 and 5.6 of the Rural Plan with policies that encourage agricultural use and restrict other uses.

ii. Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 discourage development outside the urban development area and limit subdivision and commercial and industrial and institutional uses. The Rural Plan discusses minimum parcel sizes for subdivision, subject to the approval of the Agricultural Land Commission.

iii. The Agricultural Viability Strategy addresses transportation, drainage and irrigation infrastructure to support agricultural activities.

iv. Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 and 3.6.9 and Section 5.11 of the Rural Plan provide general policies for the agricultural-urban interface. Development permit provisions have been enacted for some areas (Carvolth and Northeast Gordon neighbourhoods in Willoughby) and a development permit provision to cover all the agricultural-urban edges is underway.

v. Section 2.1 of the Agricultural Viability Strategy and Part 4 of the Rural Plan support economic development opportunities related to agriculture. Urban agriculture is addressed in Sections 3.3.10 through to 3.3.13.

vi. Section 2.2.1 encourages food production and Sections 4.3.1 and 5.5.1 of the Rural Plan recognizes the importance of agriculture.

vii. Section 3.6.1 0 recommends exploration of an Agricultural Centre of Excellence with educational links, Section 3.3.11


F.4

3.1.4 a) Identify Conservation and Recreation (C&R) areas and their boundaries on a map

3.1.4 b) Include land use policies to support protection of Conservation and Recreation areas that are consistent with the following:

i. Public service infrastructure, including the supply of drinking water

ii. Environmental conservation iii. Recreation, primarily outdoor iv. Education, research and training

facilities and uses that serve conservation and/or recreation users

v. Commercial uses, tourism activities, and public, cultural or community amenities that are appropriately located, scaled and consistent with the intent of the designation

vi. Limited agricultural use, primarily soil based

OCR P.olicies

encourages agricultural education and Section 4.5 of the Rural Plan makes a number of recommendations on education related to the agricultural industry. Section 2.1.4 of the Agricultural Viability Strategy also lists a number of actions to promote agriculture in the Township.

------- -- ----Conservation and Recreation areas are shown on

1 Maps 1 and A-1 .

i. Areas designated as Conservation and Recreation are parks and open space areas in Langley that provide land for active and passive recreation and natural areas.

ii. Section 2.2.14 states that Recreation and Conservation lands be used for environmental and ecological conservation

iii. Section 2.2.14 states that Recreation and Conservation lands be used for outdoor recreation purposes

iv. Section 2.2.14 includes education, research, and training associated with conservation and recreation

v. Section 2.2.15 provides policies related to commercial activities.

vi. Section 2.2.16 provides policies on limited agricultural use.

.-- ---~------- -3.1.4 c) Include policies, where appropriate, that

3.2.4

3.2.5

effectively buffer Conservation and Recreation areas from activities in adjacent areas

Include policies and/or maps that indicate how ecologically important areas and natural features will be managed (e.g. steep slopes and ravines, intertidal areas and other natural features not addressed in Strategy 3.1)

In collaboration with other agencies develop and manage municipal components of the MV Regional Recreation Greenway Network (RRGN) and connect community trails, bikeways and greenways to the RRGN where


Section 2.2.15 addresses buffering of Conservation and Recreation areas from activities in adjacent areas.

Section 3.13 addresses management of environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat and streams and riparian areas. All watercourses in the

• Township are designated as a development permit area in Schedule 3. Section 3.15 addresses lands subject to hazardous conditions.

Sections 3.14.3 through to 3.14.7 and Map 12 provide a plan for recreational greenways that incorporate the components of the Recreational Greenway Network.


F.4

3.2.6

3.2.7

3.3.4 a)

3.3.4 b)

3.3.4 c)

I appropriate

r Identify where appropriate measures to protect, enhance and restore ecologically important systems, features, corridors and established buffers and other ecologically important features (e.g. conservation covenants, land trusts, tax exemptions and eco-gifting)

Consider watershed and ecosystem planning and/or Integrated Stormwater Management Plans in the development of municipal plans

Identify how to use land development and transportation strategies to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets and consider how these targets will contribute l to lhe regional targets

Identify policies and/or programs that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality from land use and transportation infrastructure, such as: i. Existing building retrofits and

construction of new buildings to green performance guidelines or standards, district energy systems, and energy recovery and renewable energy generation technologies, such as solar panels and geoexchange systems, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure

ii. Community design and facility provision that encourages transit, cycling and walking (e.g. direct and safe pedestrian and cycling linkages to the transit system

Focus infrastructure and amenity investments in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, and at appropriate locations along Translink's Frequent Transit Network

Town5hlp of Langley Official Community Plan Schedule 3

Section 3.13, Ecological Services, identifies measures to protect enhance and restore ecologically important systems.

Section 3.12.19 addresses provision and implementation of integrated stormwater management plans for all Township watersheds within Urban Development Areas.

Development of mixed use, pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly centres and urban areas with higher density housing forms is encouraged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Sed ions 2.5. 18 and 3. 17.5 address community design and GHG reduction strategies and Section 3.9 addresses walking, cycnng, and transit.

l i.

ii.

Section 3.16 provides policies encouraging district heating, green building design and renewable heart systems. Sections 2.5.5 through to 2.5.11 provide design guidance for transit, cycling and pedestrian modes of transportation.

Infrastructure and amenities will be focussed in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas.


F.4

Section RGS Action OCP Policies

3.3.4 d) Implement land use policies and development control strategies which support integrated storm water management and water conservation objectives

Section 3.12 provides a number of policies to support integrated storm water management and water conservation

----~-----------------------------+--------------------------------- ----3.4.4 Include policies to encourage settlement

patterns that minimize risks associate with climate change and natural hazards (e.g. earthquake, flooding, erosion, subsidence, mudslides, interface fires)

3.4.5 Consider incorporating climate change and natural hazard risk assessments into the planning and location of municipal utilities, assets and operations

--4.1. 7 a) Include policies or strategies that indicate

how municipalities will work toward meeting the estimated future housing demand, which:

i. ensure the need for diverse housing options is articulated in municipal plans and policies, including neighbourhood and area plans

ii. increase the supply and diversity of the housing stock through infill developments, more compact housing forms and increased density

iii. in collaboration with the federal government and the province, assist in increasing the supply of affordable rental units for households with low or low to moderate incomes through policies, such as density bonus provisions, inclusionary zoning or other mechanisms, particularly in areas that are well served by transit

iv. encourage and facilitate affordable housing development through measures such as reduced parking requirements, streamlined and prioritized approval processes, below market leases of publicly owned property, and fiscal measures


Sections 3. 17 and 3.15 address climate change and lands subject to hazardous conditions.

Section 3.17. 7 recommends assessment of potential impacts of climate change. Section 3.15 addresses floodplain protection and setback of buildings from watercourses.

i. Section 2.5.2 encourages a mix of housing forms and tenures. This policy is implemented through community and neighbourhood plans.

ii. Section 2.5.2 encourages a mix of housing forms and tenures. This policy is implemented through community and neighbourhood plans.

iii. Section 2.5.2 encourages a mix of housing tenures. Section 3.1.4 recommends policies to increase the supply of affordable rental housing. The Housing Action Plan includes an action to ensure that new neighbourhood plans include affordable, rental and special needs housing. The Township will work with the federal and provincial governments, Metro Vancouver, and the development industry to provide affordable rental housing for households with low or low to moderate incomes.

iv. The Housing Action Plan includes actions to encourage affordable housing.


F.4

4.1.8

4.2.4a)

4.2.4 b)

Prepare and implement Housing Action Plans which:

i. assess local housing market conditions, by tenure, including assessing housing supply, demand and affordability

ii. identify housing priorities, based on the assessment of local housing market conditions, and consideration of changing household demographics, characteristics and needs

iii. identify implementation measures within the jurisdiction and financial capabilities of municipalities, including actions set out in Section 4 .1. 7

iv. encourage the supply of new rental housing and where appropriate mitigate or limit the loss of existing rental housing stock

v. identify opportunities to participate in programs with other levels of government to secure additional affordable housing units to meet housing needs across the continuum

vi. cooperate with and facilitate the activities of the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation under Action 4.1.5

Councn endorsed a Housing Action Pfan in 2013 that:

i. assessed local housing conditions ii. identified housing priorities iii. identified actions to meet the objectives of

the plan iv. encouraged supply of new rental housing, v. Section 3. 1.2 provides that the Township

wm work with other levels of government to increase the number of affordable housing units.

vi. Section 3.1.2 provides that the Township will work with the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation to increase the number of affordable housing units.

Support compact, mixed use, transit. Sections 2.5.3 through to 2.5.8 support compact, cycling and walking oriented communities mixed use, transit, cycling and walking oriented

1 communities.

Locate community, arts, cultural, l Section 2.3.11 directs community arts and cultural recreational, institutional, medical/health, facifities and other major institutional facilities to the social service educational facilities and Regional Centre, Town and Community Centres affordable housing in Urban Centres or and the Frequent Transit Development Areas or

--+-a-reas with good access to transit _j other areas with good access to transit.

4.2.4 c) Provide public spaces and other place- Sections 2.5.7, 2.5.12, 2.5.19, 2.5.20 and 3.14 making amenities for increased social address the need for public spaces and amenities. interaction and community engagement

Township of Langley Offictal Community Plan Schedule 3

..


F.4..

Section

4.2.4 d)

-4.2.4 e)

4.2.41)

4.2.4 g)

4.2.4 h)

Action

Support active living through the provision of recreational facilities, parks, trails, and safe and inviting pedestrian and cycling environments

Support food production and distribution throughout the region, including in urban areas roof top gardens, green roofs and community gardens on private and municipally-owned lands and healthy food retailers, such as grocery stores and farmers' markets near housing and transit services

Assess overall health implications of proposed new communities, infrastructure and transportation services, including air quality and noise, with input from public health authorities

Support universally accessible community design

Where appropriate, identify small scale Local Centres in the General Urban areas that prov1de a m1x of hous1ng types, local serving commercial activities and good access to transit. Local Centres are not intended to compete with or compromise the role of Urban Centres and should preferably be located within Frequent Transit Development Areas

4.2.4 i) Recognize the Special Employment Areas as shown on the Map 11; Special Employment Areas are located outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, and are region-

. serving, special purpose facilities that · have a high level of related transportation

activity due to employee, student, or passenger trips


OCP Policies

Sections 3.3.1 through to 3.3.5, and Sections 3.3.7 through to 3.3.9 outline a number of ways to support active living.

-- ----- - -Sections 3.3.10 through to 3.3.13 support local food production and distribution.

Section 3.13 provides for integration of ecological services into broader planning initiatives.

Section 3.1.9 requires adaptable design (as set out in Schedule 2) of some dwelling units.

Local Centres are designated as Community Centres (Section 2.3.4 and Map 3). Section 2.3.5 prov1des for the des1gnat1on of Neighbourhood Centres in Community Plans.

There are no Special Employment Areas in the Township, but Trinity Western University is recognized through designation of a University District intended to provide for integrated development of learning, cultural, employment, recreational, and housing opportunities (Sections 2.4.18 and 2.4.19) linked to the Willoughby area by an extension of 80 Avenue to Glover Road.


F.4

5.1.6 a) Identify land use and transportation policies and actions, and describe how they are coordinated, to encourage a greater share of trips made by transit, multiple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking, and to support Translink's Frequent Transit Network

5.1.6 b) Identify policies and actions that support the development and implementation of muni~al and regional transportation system and demand management strategies, such as parking pricing and supply measures. transit priority measures, ridesharing, and car-sharing programs

5.1.6 c) Identify policies and actions to manage and enhance municipal infrastructure to support transit, multiple-occupancy

1 vehicles, cycling and walking

5.2.3 a) ! Identify routes on a map for the safe and efficient movement of goods and service vehicles to, from and within Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas, Industrial, Mixed Employment and Agricultural areas, Special Employment Areas, ports, airports, and international border crossings

5.2.3 b Identify land use and related policies and actions that support optimizing the efficient movement of vehicles for passengers, Special Employment Areas. goods and services on the Major Road Network, provincial highways, and federal transportation facilities;


Higher density residential development and major commercial development is permitted in the Regional Centre, Town and Community Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas. These centres are focated on major roads in the community to encourage expansion of the transit system. The centres are located along direct routes. Section 2.3.9 and urban design guidelines in Section 2.5 encourage mixed use development. Where the guidelines are not Incorporated into current plans. they will be considered in future Community and Neighbourhood plan updates. Section 3. 9 includes a number of policies to encourage walking, cycling, lransit and multipleoccupancy vehicles.

Section 3.9.9 identifies a general policy to consider demand management strategies. Section 3.9 includes a number of policies to encourage walking, cycling, transit and multiple-occupancy vehicles.

Section 3.9 includes a number of policies to encourage walking, cycling, and transit and multiple-occupancy vehicles.

1 Map 8 shows truck routes for the Township that serve Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas, Industrial, Mixed Employment

1

and Agricultural areas, and the airport.

I The land use policies in Section 2, particularly policies related to centres and land use designations (Sections 2.3 and 2.4), and policies in Sections 3.8 and 3.9 support effiCient transportation. The Road Classifications map (Map 7) does so as well.

..


F.4

I

Section Action OCP Policies

5.2.3 c)

5.2.3 d)

Support the development of local and regional transportation system management strategies, such as the provision of information to operators of goods and service vehicles for efficient travel decisions, management of traffic flow using transit priority measures, coordinated traffic signalization, and lane management;

Identify policies and actions which support the protection of rail rightsof-way and access points to navigable waterways in order to reserve the potential for goods movement, in consideration of the potential impacts on air quality, habitat and communities

Section 3.8.18 recommends consideration of demand management strategies where appropriate. Section 3.8 supports the development of local and regional transportation system management strategies.

Section 3.8.14 addresses protection of rail rights-of-way • and access to navigable waterways.



To: GVRD Board of Directors

From: Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer, Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative Services


Subject: 2017 Schedule of Regular Board Meetings

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the 2017 schedule of regular board meetings, as follows:

Date Friday, January 27 Friday, February 24 Friday, March 31 Friday, April 28 Friday, May 26 Friday, June 30 Friday, July 28 Friday, September 22 Wednesday, October 18 (Budget) Friday, October 27 Friday, November 24 Friday, December 8

Meeting Place and Time 2nd floor boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia, at 9:00 a.m., unless otherwise specified on the Metro Vancouver public notice board, Metro Vancouver website, and the respective agenda.

PURPOSE To provide the Board with the 2017 schedule of regular board meetings of the Board of Directors.

BACKGROUND The Board Procedure Bylaw requires the Corporate Officer to provide the Board with an annual schedule of regular board meetings for the upcoming year, including the date, time and place of the meetings.

To accommodate the business of the Board, regular board meetings have been scheduled on the last Friday of each month (with some exceptions). This meeting schedule accommodates the timing of standing committee meetings, as well as statutory holidays, main conferences for elected officials (i.e. LMLGA, FCM and UBCM), and other regional events. This schedule will be made available on the Metro Vancouver website and on the public notice board, for the purposes of public notice.

Meetings will be held according to this schedule unless otherwise determined by board resolution. Additional special meetings may be scheduled, as necessary.

Section E 3.1


2017 Schedule of Regular Board Meetings Page 2 of 2

ALTERNATIVES This report is presented for information; no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Board meeting expenses and remuneration have been allocated in the annual budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Pursuant to the Board Procedure Bylaw, an annual schedule of regular board meetings for 2017 has been prepared. The schedule establishes regular meetings on a monthly basis, usually on Fridays, in order to support board business and accommodate committee meetings and other events. Notwithstanding the regular schedule, additional special meetings may be scheduled if needed. 19815089



From: Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer, Board and Information Services, Legal and Legislative Services


Subject: Metro Vancouver External Agency Activities Status Report November 2016

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the following reports from Metro Vancouver representatives to external organizations:

a) Municipal Finance Authority of BC, dated October 11, 2016;b) Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee, dated October 24, 2016;c) Experience the Fraser Project, dated October 11, 2016;d) Pacific Parklands Foundation, dated October 24, 2016;e) Fraser Valley Regional Library Board, dated October 31, 2016; andf) Fraser Basin Council, dated November 2, 2016

as contained in the report dated November 3, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver External Agency Activities Status Report November 2016”.

PURPOSE To update the Board on the recent activities of external agencies to which representatives have been appointed.

BACKGROUND Each year the Board appoints representatives to various external organizations. In accordance with the Board’s External Agency Appointee Reporting Requirements policy, appointees are required to provide the Board semi-annually (May and October) with written summaries of key current and planned activities of the external agency to which they have been appointed.

Reports outlining the recent activities of the various external agencies are attached for the board’s information.

Attachments: A. “Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC April 2016 – September

2016 – March 2016”, dated October 11, 2016 B. “Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report”, dated October 24, 2016 C. “Experience the Fraser Project Update”, dated October 11, 2016 D. “Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period May 1, 2016 to Oct 31, 2016 E. “Report on Recent Activities of the Fraser Valley Regional Library Board”, dated October 31, 2016. F. “Fraser Basin Council”, dated November 2, 2016

Section E 3.2


ATTACHMENT A


From: M. Brodie, D. Corrigan, G. Moore, R. Walton, M. Clay, R. Louie, D. Mussatto, J. Villeneuve, L. Jackson, R. Stewart

Date: October 11, 2016 Meeting Date: XXXX 2016

Subject: Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC April 2016 – September 2016

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receives the report dated October 11, 2016, titled “Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia – Activities for the period of April 2016 – September 2016”.

PURPOSE To report to the Board of Directors on the activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia (“MFA”).

CONTEXT The following is a summary of activities of the MFA for the six-month period of April 2016 – September 2016.

Board of Trustee Meetings The Board of Trustees attended three meetings.

The Investment Advisory Committee, comprising all trustees, held one meeting. The purpose of these meetings is to receive reports and analysis from management and our pooled investment fund manager Phillips, Hager & North (PH&N).

Semi-annual Meeting of Members Members and trustees attended the Semi-annual meeting on September 27, 2016.

2016 Year-to-Date Financial Results Our Strategic Retention Fund grew to $54 million as at the end of September, a $6.3 million increase from December 2015. This was accomplished by a combination of Income from Operations of $1.9 million, Short-term debt fund earnings of $3.0 million, and interest earned on the Fund itself of $1.4 million. The Strategic Retention Fund is unrestricted and is available for operating activities, debt obligations, and distributions to clients and members.

Financing Fall Issue: The MFA issued $130 million through the re-opening of the April 19, 2026 10-year debenture at a yield of 2.016%. This funded the requests for financing that were approved at the SA meeting. This was the lowest yielding 10-year debenture ever issued by the MFA (and any municipality in Canada for that matter) and reflects a record low interest rate environment, our stellar AAA-rating, good market timing and leading debt management practices. To put the success of this


Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC October 2015 – March 2016 Page 2 of 3

issue into context, two weeks after this issue, the City of Montreal (rated Aa2), on October 12th, issued $160 million 10-year debenture at a reoffer yield of 2.58%, which was 0.56% higher yield than the MFA issue. More generally, the MFA continues to achieve lower interest rates when compared to all other municipal participants in the bond market across Canada. This reflects our triple A credit ratings and the strength of local government throughout B.C. We are able to lend to all our members at the same low rate, regardless of the size of each community we serve in BC. At the end of September 2016, the MFA finances 1,820 long-term loans through 28 regional districts and three other entities. The short-term borrowing program is currently maintaining a balance of $700 million in Commercial Paper outstanding. This program provides interim financing for capital projects during construction, as well as our equipment financing (formerly leasing) program. The current offered rate is 1.38%. At the end of September 2016, we have 531 short-term lending agreements with an outstanding balance of $306 million. Pooled Investment Funds The September 30, 2016 one year annualized results for the three managed funds are - Money Market Fund, 0.76% (Index 0.31%), Intermediate Fund, 1.26% (Index 0.29%), and Bond Fund, 2.47% (Index 1.82%). The total pooled funds as at September 30th was $2.45 billion (2015, $2.27 billion), with the Money Market Fund at $1.188 billion ($1.149 billion), the Intermediate Fund at $0.390 billion ($0.398 billion) and the Bond Fund at $0.872 billion ($0.723 billion). The highest peak for the pooled funds was on August 24, 2016 totaling ($2.535 billion). A resolution was put forward at last month’s UBCM conference in Victoria that called on the MFA to create a fossil-fuel-free investment fund. The MFA Investment Advisory Committee and Trustees received several reports from both management and the existing fund managers at Phillips, Hager, and North in late 2015 and early 2016 on the topic of fossil fuel divestment. As a result of these reviews and third party analysis, the committee instructed MFA management to maintain the status quo at this time. The full information memorandum on this topic may be viewed on the MFA website at: http://mfa.bc.ca/sites/default/files/Pooled%20Investments/13_mfa_position_on_divestiture_sep_-16.pdf. Over the coming years, the Trustees fully expect to continue evaluating fossil-fuel-free investment options that would not detract from the overriding fiduciary duty of providing investment options that offer the best possible risk adjusted returns to MFA members. For example, the MFA team is currently researching the possibility of adding a Pooled High Interest Savings Account fund for clients. Although this option may prove to be non-viable and would take some time to implement such a fund would offer an additional option for members. Municipal Investment Plan


http://mfa.bc.ca/sites/default/files/Pooled%20Investments/13_mfa_position_on_divestiture_sep_-16.pdf

http://mfa.bc.ca/sites/default/files/Pooled%20Investments/13_mfa_position_on_divestiture_sep_-16.pdf

Report on Recent Activities of the Municipal Finance Authority of BC October 2015 – March 2016 Page 3 of 3

The Municipal Investment Plan is an individual investment plan accessible to all municipal employees, elected officials, and their spouses. A broad selection of funds eligible for RRSP, TFSA (tax free savings accounts), and non-registered accounts are available through Sun Life Financial. These funds are offered at a substantial reduction in management fees for plan members. The MFA facilitates contributions via payroll deduction or individual pre-authorized debit arrangements. As at September 30, 2016 we had 355 participants and $4.08 million invested with Sun Life.



From: Councillor Ian Paton, Corporation of Delta


Subject: Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated October 24, 2016, titled “Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report”.

PURPOSE To provide the GVRD Board with an update on the activities of the Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee.

BACKGROUND Delta Heritage Airpark (DHAP) is owned by Metro Vancouver and operated by Recreational Aircraft Association (RAA) Chapter 85 by way of a License Agreement. The License Agreement defines a Management Committee membership comprising representatives from Airpark neighbours, Province of British Columbia, nonprofit organizations, Recreational Aircraft Association, Metro Vancouver staff, and staff from the Corporation of Delta. The Management Committee formulates operating rules governing their airpark and advises Metro Vancouver on policy matters. The Committee meets a minimum two times a year.

Highlights The second Delta Heritage Airpark Committee meeting of 2016 is scheduled for Thursday, October 27, 2016. Below are highlights of updates and information items that will be reported at the meeting:

• A DHAP cleanup day was held in late May. Volunteers from the various organizations helpedto tidy up the field, replace and repair some signs, cut and trim the grass and do some minorlandscaping. A lunch was provided to volunteers;

• The annual DHAP fly-in, organized by the RAA, was held on July 2, 2016. The event was wellattended by the public. It included a pancake breakfast, a barbeque lunch, a static aircraftdisplay and an aviation related seminar with a movie. There was a builder’s workshopexhibit which focused on the Zenith aircraft RAA club project;

• A group of Beaver Scouts toured the airfield in the summer. They were introduced to theZenith aircraft RAA club project and some building techniques;

The Annual Remembrance Day ceremony will be Held on November 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM. The event is organized by the RAA and supported by the Boundary Bay Flying Club, Metro Vancouver Parks, and the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA);

ATTACHMENT B


Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee Status Report Page 2 of 2

• The renovation of the Embree House is underway with project completion planned for

2017; • Chapter 85 of the RAA is making progress on a project to build a chapter airplane, a Zenith

750 Cruzer. The project has attracted several new members to the Chapter and provided builders experience to a number of students. The project is funded by the chapter with logistical support from Zenair Aircraft of Midland Ontario;

• Every second Sunday of every month, the RAA, Delta Heritage Airpark Committee and the Boundary Bay Flying Club host a pancake breakfast for their members and the public;

• A financial update on the reserve statement will be provided. There are no major expenditures or new charges to report;

• The Flight Monitoring Sub-committee has one new incident to report. An aborted take-off of a Beechcraft Sierra resulted in collision with the north hedgerow. There were no injuries to persons or property and the occurrence was reported to Transport Canada.

ALTERNATIVES This in an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report provides information on the activities of the Delta Heritage Airpark Management Committee.



From: Director Barbara Steele and Director Bob Long

Date: October 11, 2016 Meeting Date: November, 25, 2016

Subject: Experience the Fraser Project Update

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated October 11, 2016, titled “Experience the Fraser Project Update”.

PURPOSE To provide the GVRD Board with an update on the Experience the Fraser (ETF) project and its’ Joint Political Steering Committee.

DISCUSSION The Experience the Fraser Joint Political Steering Committee (PSC) initially comprised two elected members from each of Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley Regional Districts, two provincial MLAs and one senior provincial staff liaison. This body help guide the development of the Concept Plan for Experience the Fraser and implementation of the dedicated provincial grants and related projects. The last full Joint Political Steering Committee was April 11, 2014. There is no longer an appointed provincial senior staff liaison to the Committee or the project. The primary liaison with the Province is rather through Mr. Lorne Mayencourt, Director of Outreach at BC Government Caucus. Currently there is a collaborative working relationship between the staffs of the Regional Districts to advance the initiative with reports going directly to the respective Committees and Boards.

An outstanding item for the Regional District Boards is consideration of the draft Experience the Fraser North Arm Concept Plan which has been presented to all affected municipalities in the study area in the summer of 2014. It has been endorsed by all of these municipalities except for the City of Burnaby, which requested time for further evaluation.

The public and interest groups reached through Experience the Fraser interactive booths at events this past year such as FraserFest, Fraser Valley Bald Eagle Festival and Derby Reach Apple Day continue to be excited about the vision of the project and the opportunity for more trails linking communities and featuring the Fraser River.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report provides an update on the status of the Experience the Fraser Joint Political Steering Committee and other liaison and support from the Province of BC on this project.

ATTACHMENT C



From: Director Craig Hodge


Subject: Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period May 1, 2016 to Oct 31, 2016

RECOMMENDATION That GVRD Board receive for information the report dated Oct 24, 2016, titled “Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period May 1, 2016 to Oct 31, 2016”.

PURPOSE To provide the GVRD Board with an update on the Pacific Parklands Foundation activities and highlights for the period May 1, 2016 to Oct 31, 2016.

BACKGROUND Formed in 2000, the Pacific Parklands Foundation is a registered charity with a mission to support Metro Vancouver Regional Parks, to conserve, preserve and enhance Metro Vancouver’s Regional Parks system. The Foundation raises funds to help augment government funding and special projects and programs in Metro Vancouver’s regional parks.

An independent Board of volunteer directors meets four times per year to oversee the management and operation of the Foundation. Since 2007, the Pacific Parklands Foundation has received an annual operating grant of $175,000 from Metro Vancouver. These funds are used to hire a full-time staff person and three to four contractors annually. In addition, the Foundation ensures that it remains both a society and a registered charity in good standing. Its’ fiscal year runs from October 1, to September 30, and each year its’ financial statements are audited. The Pacific Parklands Foundation strives to provide a strong return on investment to Metro Vancouver and through its operating grant is able to ensure that 100 percent of all donations received are directed to the projects and programs it supports.

HIGHLIGHTS • The Foundation successfully launched the first round of the George Ross Legacy Stewardship

Grant program. On July 20 2016, five regional park partner groups received grants totaling $30,553 towards regional park stewardship projects. In collaboration, and under agreement with Metro Vancouver, the Foundation will continue to administer this annual grant program.

• PPF launched a planned giving program using a portion of the annual interest earned from theGeorge Ross Legacy Reserve Fund. The legacy program is part of the long term strategy for the Foundation and has resulted in new legacy expectants.

• A legacy gift of $7650 was received from Vancouver Foundation from the Doreen LawsonMemorial Fund. The legacy directs that the funds are to be used for the preservation and improvement of wildlife habitat at Burnaby Lake Regional Park and is to be administered by the Pacific Parklands Foundation.

ATTACHMENT D


Pacific Parklands Foundation Update for the Period May 1, 2016 to Oct 31, 2016 Page 2 of 2

• A new Director has been elected, Ms. Lindsey Fryett Jerke, a registered landscape architect. • Pacific Parklands Foundation continued its ongoing support of the annual Heritage Apple Days

event at Derby Reach with a grant of $2500. • The Foundation provided a grant of $1000 for the South Coast Bat Conservation Society and the

Foundation continues to provide support to park partners. • The Foundation received $9,000 from TD Friends of the Environment for Catching the Spirit and

provided over $55,000 for the 2016 program. • Pacific Parklands Foundation participated and contributed to several events including Music in

the Park, Country Celebration, and EcoBlitz 2016. The Foundation received a $5000 donation from the Schad Foundation towards EcoBlitz and their Earth Ranger program.

• June saw the launch of a new Pacific Parklands Foundation social media strategy and a new blog. Messaging is focused on legacy giving, donor recognition, and monthly donations. Visit www.pacificparklands.com

• Pacific Parklands Foundation has been involved with Metro Vancouver in planning of the 50th anniversary and continues to look at ways the Foundation can support this event in 2017.

• The Foundation continues to successfully administer the Regional Parks Commemorative Gift program for regional parks.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Pacific Parklands Foundation continues to deliver on their mission under the direction of its volunteer Board. In collaboration with Regional Parks staff and park partners and volunteers, the Foundation remains active in its commitment in fundraising for Regional Parks programs and projects. Further information on the Pacific Parklands Foundation activities visit www.pacificparklands.com or by contacting the Executive Director, Joe Hargitt, at 604.451.6168 or [email protected]


http://www.pacificparklands.com/



From: Director Maria Harris


Subject: Report on Recent Activities of the Fraser Valley Regional Library Board

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receives for information the report dated October 31, 2016, titled “Report on Recent Activities of the Fraser Valley Regional Library Board”.

Representatives appointed by Metro Vancouver to various external organizations are required to report to the Board of Directors on the activities of those organizations. This report provides a status update of 2016 activities of the Fraser Valley Regional Library (FVRL).

In response to the 2016-2018 Strategic Directions that were approved by the FVRL Board in June 2015, the 2017 Annual Plan was, like the previous year, based on the following five directions as the foundation of work for the year: customers, staff, technology, communication, and collaboration. However, the 2017 Annual Plan for the first time included communication initiatives that address the multi-cultural nature of FVRL communities. The 2016-2018 Strategic Directions were revised to reflect this shift. The most recent summary of the FVRL’s activities remains a 2014 Annual Report – attached for information.

As required under the Library Act, Metro Vancouver’s appointee to the FVRL Board of Directors is the Electoral Area A Director. The Director attends FVRL Board meetings to represent the interests of residents on Barnston Island, which is the sole portion of Electoral Area A that participates in the FVRL District. As the elected representative for Area A, it is important that the Director attend FVRL Board meetings. Given, however, the relatively small size of Barnston Island within the library service, and given the area’s relatively limited involvement in library funding, it has been the practice since late 2014 that the Director limits attendance in person to one or two meetings per year and that all agendas and materials continue to be provided to the Director to ensure that the Director is apprised of all developments in the Library District, and is able to attend additional meetings as necessary. The Director attended one meeting in 2016 - a budget meeting on October 26th. This was sufficient to ensure that Metro Vancouver’s interests have been met.

References: FVRL 2014 Annual Report

ATTACHMENT E


http://www.fvrl.bc.ca/pdf/board/FVRL_AnnualReport_2014_Digital.pdf


From: Director Heather Deal


Subject: Report on Recent Activities of the Fraser Basin Council

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board receives for information the report dated November 2, 2016, titled “Report on Recent Activities of the Fraser Basin Council”.

I BACKGROUND

The Fraser Basin Council (FBC) is a non-profit organization that advances sustainability throughout the Fraser Basin and BC by catalyzing multi-interest, multi-jurisdictional collaboration, providing sustainability education and hosting collaborative programs on behalf of others. This report provides information on FBC 2016 activities and outcomes that are relevant to Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities, as well as summaries of 2017 work plan priorities. For information about the full suite of FBC priorities and programs, visit http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca.

FBC revenues during the 2015/16 fiscal year totaling approximately $3.9M was secured from contributions from federal, provincial and local governments, foundations, corporations and other sources such as interest income. Metro Vancouver, along with seven other regional districts in the Fraser Basin, has provided an annual financial contribution to FBC since its inception in 1997 and currently contributes $300K per year under the terms of a multi-year agreement. Metro Vancouver’s contribution is key to the FBC’s success at leveraging funding from other sources to address priorities shared by both organizations.

This year, the FBC Board of Directors approved the FBC’s 2016-2021 Strategic Plan (click here for an electronic copy of the Plan). The Strategic Plan reaffirms the FBC’s broad priorities for action, namely, Taking Action on Climate Change and Air Quality, Supporting Healthy Watersheds and Water Resources And Building Sustainable Communities and Regions

The sections below, organized by FBC Strategic Plan priorities, summarize the 2016 year-to-date activities and outcomes and 2017 priorities for selected FBC initiatives.

II TAKING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE & AIR QUALITY

Director Heather Deal serves as Metro Vancouver representative on the FBC Board and also chairs the FBC’s Climate Change and Air Quality Committee, which meets quarterly to identify and discuss trends and priorities along with possible ways the FBC can further partner with others to advance regional and province-wide action on climate change. The Committee includes regional, provincial and federal government representatives, business, and non-government interests.

ATTACHMENT F


http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/

http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/About_Us/2016-21_strategic_plan.pdf_

Report on Recent Activities of the Fraser Basin Council Page 2 of 8

1. Plug In BC FBC is a partner in Plug In BC, an initiative co-chaired by the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines and BC Hydro to lay the groundwork for plug-in electric vehicles and related electric charging infrastructure in British Columbia. 2016 Activities and Outcomes:

• FBC designed and currently manages the provincial Multi-Unit Residential Building (MURB) Charging Program, offering up to $4,500 off the purchase and installation of electric vehicle charging stations

• Approved a total of 130 MURB station applications, 90 of which are located in Metro Vancouver

• Provided guidance on the development of www.evcondo.ca, a Metro Vancouver website designed to offer resources and support for deploying charging stations in condos and apartment buildings

• Supported the development of sample bylaws and other resources to supplement the resources on www.evcondo.ca

• Attracted over 3,700 visits per month on the www.pluginbc.ca website, with approximately 52% of visitors from the Metro Vancouver region.

2017 Work Plan Priorities

• Continue working with applicants under the MURB Charging Program to ensure successful completion of projects

• Partner with BC Hydro on DC Fast Charging deployment • Continue being the go-to resource for information on electric vehicles in BC.

2. Emotive, the Electric Vehicle Experience Since late 2013, FBC has partnered with Metro Vancouver and the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines on Emotive, a public outreach campaign that raises public awareness of the benefits of electric vehicles. 2016 Activities and Outcomes:

• Supported 57 public Emotive events, 40 of which were led by Metro Vancouver and/or its member municipalities.

• Managed the Emotive Facebook page, which now has over 2,250 followers. • Supported over 1400 “ride and drives” in the Metro Vancouver region, including:

o Vancouver International Auto Show (lead by FBC staff) o ElectraFest (co-lead with Metro Vancouver staff) o Clean Tech Surrey (lead by Metro Vancouver staff) o BC Hydro corporate ride & drive (lead by FBC staff) o Metro Vancouver corporate ride & drive (lead by Metro Vancouver staff)

2017 Work Plan Priorities:

• Continue support for Emotive community participants • Convene high profile events such as the Electric Vehicle Ride and Drive at the Vancouver


http://www.evcondo.ca/

http://www.evcondo.ca/

http://www.pluginbc.ca/


International Auto Show. • Catalyze at least 5 public and/or corporate events that enable people to experience driving

electric vehicles. 3. West Coast Electric Fleets / Fleet Champions Program FBC leads efforts to encourage BC fleets to make the West Coast Electric Fleets Pledge, thus supporting the Pacific Climate Collaborative goal of 10% of new fleet vehicles being electric by the end of 2016. 2016 Activities and Outcomes

• Secured BC-based fleet partners from BC, bringing the total of pledged BC fleets to twenty-four, nine of which are situated in the Metro Vancouver region. Fleets are pledging commitments to use of zero-emission vehicles. Metro Vancouver is one of the key partners that have made this pledge

• Distributed quarterly newsletters and coordinated two webinars to showcase best practices for fleets

• Developed seven case-studies, two based in Metro Vancouver (City of Vancouver and City of Surrey)

• Competing successfully to become the management agency for the provincial Fleet Champions Program, which offers incentives for developing an EV business case and undertaking charging station site assessments. This program is offered to fleets that sign on to the West Coast Electric Fleets pledge.


• In addition to continuing its lead role for this initiative, FBC will be hosting a webinar series to support peer-to-peer learning among fleet operators.

4. E3 Fleet FBC hosts E3 Fleet, Canada’s first fleet certification standard, which helps public and private sector fleets reduce fleet emissions in ways that also reduce costs and improve brand recognition. FBC is transferring the administration of E3 Fleet to a long-standing partner (Fleet Challenge), which is based in Ontario. The transition is happening during the fall of 2016. Following this transition, FBC will continue to work with fleets in BC and inform them of opportunities to participate in the program.

2016 Activities and Outcomes

• Audited the first Platinum-Rated E3 Fleet: City of Richmond (to be awarded in late November)


• FBC will work with Fleet Challenge to transition the E3 Fleet program. FBC will continue to provide website and advisory support.



5. BC Clean Air Research (BC CLEAR) Fund Administered by FBC and in collaboration with Metro Vancouver, BC CLEAR funds transformative, ground breaking research in the management of air quality in British Columbia. 2015 Activities and Outcomes

• FBC ran the BC CLEAR application process, supporting decision-making on 4 research projects.

• Supported three scholarship funds (David Bates, Robert Caton and Elizabeth Henry Scholarships).

• Financial commitments from other partners to BC CLEAR included $95,000 from the Province of BC.

2016 Work Plan Summary

• Provide funding to successful applicants for research projects, and share results with the broader community as they become available.

• Support the BC CLEAR Steering Committee in requested funding from the Province of BC to support future research projects.

6. Climate Adaptation The FBC is undertaking work on several fronts to assist communities to assess and respond to the physical risks of climate change, including severe weather and flooding (see Flood Strategy below). 2016 Activities and Outcomes

• Carried out a webinar series to support climate adaptation learning amongst local government, consulting and other practitioners

• Organized a session at GLOBE 2016 entitled: “Wild Weather Forecast: Tackling the New Abnormal in Canada's Natural Resource Sector”

• Continued to update the http://www.retooling.ca portal as a “one stop” website for adaptation resources

• Launched the BC Climate Risk knowledge-sharing network, bringing together key government organizations including Metro Vancouver and professional associations

• Secured support from other partners including $90K from Natural Resources Canada. 2017 Work Plan Priorities

• Continue the webinar series, including topics such as road transportation, wildfire management, drought mitigation and the Green Shores development certification program

• Continue providing support to the BC Climate Risk network • Plan and deliver a workshop series on resilient infrastructure.

7. First Nations Home EnergySave First Nations Home EnergySave is a collaboration among utilities, government agencies and First Nations to improve the quality of housing and buildings on reserve, and in doing so, decrease energy costs.



2016 Activities and Outcomes

• Carried out a combination of training webinars, case studies, and one-on-one guidance in order to increase the capacity of housing managers to successfully implement energy efficiency projects in new and existing buildings

• Launched the One-on-One Support Program that provides funding for community training on energy efficiency

• Secured additional funding ($150K from Real Estate Foundation, $50K from BC Homeowners Protection Office, $20K each from BC Hydro and the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines).

2017 Work Plan Priorities • Continue providing support to individual First Nations communities • Continue webinar series, covering topics such as the BC Hydro Net-Metering Program and

Micro Standing Offer • Continue in-person training series for housing staff and elected officials, with a focus on

best practices • Initiate an energy efficiency retrofit pilot project in three communities • Continue work on a province-wide study on energy use in First Nations communities.

8. Fortis BC Energy Efficiency & Conservation (EEC) Program The FBC is Independent Facilitator of a broad-based Energy Efficiency and Conservation Advisory Group (EECAG) that provides input to the Fortis BC EEC Program. The EEC Program supports efficiency and conservation measures for residential, commercial, industrial and low-income customers. FBC also assists with program design workshops for different customer groups. 2016 Activities and Outcomes

• Delivered a second EEC Industrial Program design workshop in Metro Vancouver for industrial customers that use steam

• Undertaking an EECAG membership review • Planning for the 2016 Fall Workshop.


• FBC will be providing continued support to the EEC Program, through engagement of EECAG and potentially assisting with program design workshops as needed.

II SUPPORTING HEALTHY WATERSHEDS & WATER RESOURCES 1. Lower Mainland Regional Flood Strategy The FBC leads an unprecedented collaborative initiative aimed at enhancing protection of communities throughout the Lower Mainland from multi-billion dollar catastrophic flood losses. 2016 Activities and Outcomes

• Completed Phase 1 Projects including the regional flood vulnerability assessment, Lower Mainland Dike assessment and the Phase 1 Summary Report (see www.floodstrategy.ca for more information)


http://www.floodstrategy.ca/


• Convened a Partners Briefing and Media Session on May 30th, attended by over 100 individuals; media coverage was broad and balanced including 90 media articles (print, online, radio and television) and more than 1500 website visits to www.floodstrategy.ca)

• Developed a draft work plan and budget for Phase 2 to be finalized in the next quarter following consultation and feedback from partners and other stakeholders

• Development of a funding strategy and preparation of funding proposals that leverage Metro Vancouver’s support for FBC

• Held Joint Program Committee (114 individuals / 50 organizations) meetings on June 22 and Sept. 22 to debrief on Phase 1 and shape the Phase 2 Work Plan

• Met with multiple Fraser Valley First Nations to present information and solicit input • Engaged environmental organizations to present information about the strategy and to

solicit input • Delivered presentations to the BC-wide Critical Infrastructure Steering Committee, a nation-

wide risk assessment network, a nation-wide climate adaptation network and many other professional and practitioner groups to raise awareness, solicit input and explore new opportunities

• Secured $1M in funding from the Province of BC in support of Phase II. 2017 Work Plan Priorities

• Establish and support a Phase 2 Governance approach • Establish and convene meetings of a Leadership Committee that will ultimately consider and

decide upon priority regional investments in proactive flood mitigation. • Establish overall framework / vision to guide Phase 2 (including principles, goals, objectives,

targets, criteria and indicators/performance measures) • Support operation of the BC Storm Surge Forecast System for the 2016-17 storm season • Undertake research and develop decision support tools to assist in identifying regional

priorities and evaluating flood mitigation options • Undertake research on funding and governance models for regional-scale, inter-

jurisdictional, flood mitigation planning and decision-making • Continue First Nations engagement including advisory and community meetings,

development and dissemination of educational materials, and convening of a workshop • Launch project on flood management and the environment including mapping and data

analysis, convening of an advisory committee, enhancing shared understanding of the regulatory process, and undertaking research on best practices

• Establish a Technical Advisory Committee, Request For Proposals (RFP), and RFP Process to initiate technical projects including a dynamic, multi-purpose flood scenario analysis tool for Fraser River and coastal flooding to better understand the extent and depth of flooding in floodplain areas, to support prioritization, and to evaluate the effects of different mitigation options

• Clarify additional phase 2 priorities including work to identify potential “early wins”, and technical analysis on diking, sediment management, and land use planning.

2. Salmon Safe - Communities An innovative land management certification standard originating in Oregon, Salmon Safe – Communities was created to recognize and advance progressive practices in land development and


http://www.floodstrategy.ca/


management that improve water quality and promote riparian area protection, fish habitat and biodiversity, among other benefits. All of the activities of Salmon-Safe Communities to date have been focused in the Metro Vancouver region. 2016 Activities and Outcomes

• Awarded conditional Salmon Safe certification to YVR following an 18-month intensive assessment process. View the press release here.

• Engaged more than 50 municipal and urban development professionals to learn about Salmon Safe best practices, where/how they have been applied and resulting environmental benefits. For example, a presentation was given to the Metro Vancouver Storm water Interagency Liaison Group.

• Published a case study document highlighting Successful Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Metro Vancouver and Victoria. BC: See: http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/Green_Stormwater_Infrastructure.html for more information.

• Undertook a preliminary Salmon Safe site assessment and review of design drawings for the proposed Southlands Residential Community in Delta.

• Engaged two additional sites in Metro Vancouver to explore potential for Salmon Safe assessment

• Delivered a presentation to Metro Vancouver Parks staff and provided a preliminary budget estimate including options to assess one park or the entire park system.

• Promotion of Salmon-Safe best practices and recognition of Salmon-Safe certified sites via social media including Twitter and Facebook.

• Leveraged Metro Vancouver support for FBC to secure additional funding for public outreach and engagement (LUSH Cosmetics, TD Friends of the Environment) and for training and development of a BC Assessment Team (Keurig Canada).


• Continue to engage municipal staff and urban development professionals to learn about implementation and benefits of Salmon-Safe best practices

• Develop material and deliver training to transfer knowledge from US-based Salmon-Safe assessment team and build capacity of a BC-based Assessment Team

• Develop public outreach materials and engage public to better understand the connection between land use, water quality and salmon/environment

• Host 3 professional education workshops and 1 public event "Salmon In The City" to profile Salmon Safe best practices and certified sites, connect urban land-use to ecological function, present latest scientific findings on water quality-salmon-urban environmental health and celebrate salmon in the urban context

• Advance Salmon-Safe assessment processes at 3 sites in the Lower Mainland • Continue to engage municipal staff regarding implementation of Salmon-Safe best practices

across various land-use types. Leverage Salmon-Safe Mayors Challenge issued by Mayor Hales of Portland (Oct 2016). Details can be found here.


http://www.yvr.ca/en/media/news-releases/2016/yvr-the-first-airport-in-the-world-to-be-salmon-safe-certified

http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/Green_Stormwater_Infrastructure.html

http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=972fe9810472e671e3b3d9d52&id=324238d7ac


III BUILDING SUSTAINABLE & RESLIENT COMMUNITIES AND REGIONS 1. Fraser River Debris Trap FBC continues to provide trust fund administration services to the Province of BC, which is now funding and managing the Fraser River Debris Trap, a critical waterborne wood debris capture facility near Hope, BC. The Province of BC lead agency on the debris trap is Emergency Management BC. 2015 Activities and Outcomes

• Provide financial administration services, including disbursement of $210,000 in operational funding towards the debris trap.


• Continue to provide financial administration services under agreement with the Province of BC.

2. Port Metro Vancouver ECHO Program FBC is Independent Facilitator for the Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) Program, a Port Metro Vancouver-led initiative aimed at better understanding and managing the impact of shipping activities on at-risk whales throughout the southern coast of British Columbia. 2015 Activities and Outcomes

• Facilitated Advisory Working Group and Technical Advisory Group meetings leading to a better understanding of the underwater noise environment and collaborative agreement on potential mitigation options to reduce noise impacts on Southern Resident Killer Whales.

• $15K in funding provided by Port Metro Vancouver. 2016 Work Plan Summary

• Continue to provide independent facilitation services in support of the ECHO Program. 3. FBC Engagement in Metro Vancouver Initiatives In 2016, FBC participated in a range of initiatives led or supported by Metro Vancouver, including Sustainability Community Breakfasts and the Regional Prosperity Initiative and will be attending the 2016 Zero Waste Conference in Vancouver. In 2017, the FBC looks forward to continued participation in such initiatives.

For additional information on the FBC contact:

Bob Purdy, Executive Director (Acting) Phone: (604) 488-5355 / email: [email protected]



19611847


From: Greg Smith, Senior Director, Corporate Services


Subject: Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016

RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016” and forward the bylaw to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval.

PURPOSE To seek approval of a bylaw to establish a service for emergency management in Electoral Area A, as required under the Emergency Program Act, and to provide background information on the provision of emergency management and planning services to Electoral Area A.

BACKGROUND Earlier this year, Metro Vancouver undertook a review of our emergency management plan for Electoral Area A to determine if it fully met our obligations under the Provincial Emergency Program Act. The review indicated the need for an establishing bylaw to provide emergency planning services. This report is being brought forward to present a bylaw to formally establish the emergency management service area for Electoral Area A.

EMERGENCY PLANNING WITHIN ELECTORAL AREA A Our current level of emergency planning and preparedness within Electoral Area A primarily provides Emergency Social Services (ESS) within the Electoral Area along with providing best efforts to mitigate damage and losses in compliance with the Emergency Program Act. However, in order to properly deliver and fund emergency management services within Electoral Area A, an establishing service bylaw is required for the entire electoral area.

Emergency planning and management is separate from emergency response. Once an emergency occurs, the Province will issue a “task number” and additional costs to respond to the emergency are normally reimbursed from the Province through Emergency Management British Columbia (EMBC). Additional costs include actual funds expended to respond to a declared emergency and any staff overtime that is needed to respond. Reimbursement does not include normal staff time.

ESTABLISHING BYLAW APPROVAL PROCESS In 1989 the Municipal Act was amended to confer on regional districts additional authority to create some services themselves. Electoral Area A, as it is presently configured, did not exist in 2000 when the Province changed the legislative requirements for emergency management within Electoral Areas and required the adoption of establishing bylaws. While emergency planning services were provided

Section G 1.1


GVRD Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016 Intergovernment and Finance Committee November 18, 2016

Page 2 of 3

to Electoral Area A, and have continued to be provided over this period, in order to ensure compliance with Provincial legislation, an emergency management service area for the Electoral Area is required. The adoption of an establishing bylaw pursuant to section 342 of the Local Government Act requires the approval of the bylaw by the Inspector of Municipalities and consent of the participating area before the establishing bylaw can be adopted. Pursuant to section 347 of the Act, the required approval can be obtained by receiving the written consent of the Electoral Area A Director prior to the adoption of the bylaw.

To ensure compliance with the legislation, staff have prepared an establishing bylaw for consideration, as presented in alternative one below.

ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board give first, second and third reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District

Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016” and forward the bylaw to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval.

2. That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated November 4, 2016, titled “GreaterVancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management EstablishingBylaw No. 1238” and provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Alternative 1. If alternative one is approved, the bylaw will receive three readings and will be forwarded to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval. Written consent will also be required from the Director of Electoral Area A before final adoption can be considered.

The only participant in this function is Electoral Area A, which will fund the service through an annual tax requisition. Funding for the service is proposed to be phased in over five years with a first year requisition of $6,000 beginning in 2017 increasing to approximately $30,000 over the next five years representing a household impact of approximately $0.08 per $100,000 of assessed value. The budget primarily reflects staff and consultant costs associated with the delivery of the service. There are no capital costs associated with this function.

Alternative 2. If alternative two is approved, the Board will need to provide direction to staff with respect to the proposed establishing bylaw. Under the Emergency Program Act, the GVRD is required to provide emergency planning and management services for Electoral Area and this service must be established by bylaw.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Earlier this year, Metro Vancouver undertook a review of our emergency management plan for Electoral Area A to determine if it fully met our obligations under the Provincial Emergency Program Act. The review indicated the need for an establishing bylaw for emergency planning and management within Electoral Area A.

Staff have prepared the attached bylaw for consideration by the Board that will establish the service of emergency management planning for Electoral Area A and ensure that it is funded in accordance

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 145 (Revised)

GVRD Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016 Intergovernment and Finance Committee November 18, 2016

Page 3 of 3

with the requirements of the Local Government Act. It is recommended that the Board approve the first three readings of the establishing bylaw as presented under alternative one, so that the bylaw can be forwarded to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval and receive consent of the Electoral Area Director prior to being considered for adoption. Attachment: Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016 19611847


Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016

Page 1 of 3

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ELECTORAL AREA A EMERGENCY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ESTABLISHING BYLAW NO. 1238,

2016

A bylaw to Establish Local Emergency Programs Service for Electoral Area A

WHEREAS:

A. A regional district may under section 332 of the Local Government Act operate any service that the board considers necessary or desirable for all or part of the regional district subject to certain limitations and conditions;

B. Under section 338 of the Local Government Act, in order to operate a service the board of a regional district must first adopt an establishing bylaw for the service;

C. The board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (the “Board”) wishes to establish the service of regional emergency planning and management to provide for a program in preparation for emergencies for Electoral Area A;

D. The Board has obtained participating area approval pursuant to section 347 of the Local Government Act to establish the service of regional emergency management, planning and coordination for Electoral Area A;

NOW THEREFORE the Board in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:

1. CITATION

This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Greater Vancouver Regional District ElectoralArea A Emergency Planning, and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016.”

2. SERVICE

The service of emergency planning and management for Electoral Area A in preparation forand responding to emergencies under the Emergency Program Act is established. (The“Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Service”.)

3. PARTICIPATING AREA

Electoral Area A is the participating area for the purposes of the Electoral Area A EmergencyPlanning and Management Service.

4. SERVICE AREA

The service area for the Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Service isElectoral Area A, the boundaries of which are shown outlined on the plan attached hereto asSchedule A to this bylaw.

ATTACHMENT


Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016

Page 2 of 3

5. COST RECOVERY

As provided in section 378 of the Local Government Act, the costs of providing the Local Emergency Programs Service shall be recovered annually by one or more of the following:

i. property value taxes imposed in accordance with Division 3 of Part 11 of the

Local Government Act; ii. parcel taxes imposed in accordance with Division 3 of Part 11 of the Local

Government Act; iii. fees and charges imposed under section 397 of the Local Government Act; iv. revenues raised by other means authorized by the Local Government Act or

another Act; v. revenues received by way of agreement, enterprise, gift, grant or otherwise.

READ A FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD TIME this day of ______ , 2016. CONSENT OF THE ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTOR ON BEHALF OF THE PARTICIPATING AREA OBTAINED this ______ day of _______________, 2016. APPROVED BY THE INSPECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES this _____ day of ________________, 2016. ADOPTED this ____ day of __________________, 2016

Greg Moore, Chair

Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer


SCHEDULE A

Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area A Emergency Planning and Management Establishing Bylaw No. 1238, 2016 Page 3 of 3

Electoral Area A Map


meeting 1 of 8 greater vancouver regional district …november 22, 2016 greater vancouver regional...

Documents