The Districts of Elkford & Sparwood

Housing Need & Demand Assessments

Final Report

March 2012

prepared by

The Districts of Elkford & Sparwood Housing Need and Demand Assessments

prepared for

The District of Elkford and The District of Sparwood

prepared by

Housing Strategies Inc. Matthew MacNeil, MEDes, RPP, MCIP: Principal John Rook, PhD: Senior Associate Corinne Burns, BA: Associate

March 2012

Table of Contents

Funder Recognition ...... i Chapter 1: Introduction to This Study ...... 1 Chapter 2: About the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood ...... 5 Chapter 3: Elkford’s and Sparwood's Permanent and Temporary Populations ...... 9 Chapter 4: Household Incomes in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood ...... 27 Chapter 5: Housing Supply ...... 41 Chapter 6: Housing Need and Demand Analysis ...... 71 Chapter 7: Community Impact Analysis ...... 93 Chapter 8: Housing Priorities for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood ...... 99 Chapter 9: Housing Barriers, Opportunities and Potential Solutions for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood ...... 107

Appendices:

Appendix A: Glossary of Common Housing Terms Appendix B: Government-Owned Vacant/Undeveloped Residential Properties in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2011) Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback Appendix D: Online Survey Findings Appendix E: 2011 Housing Income Limits (HILs)

Funder Recognition

The support of the Columbia Basin Trust, a regional corporation created to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits to the residents of the Columbia Basin and BCNPHA, created to provide leadership and support to members in creating and supporting a high standard of affordable housing throughout British Columbia, is gratefully acknowledged.

The Districts of Elkford and Sparwood would also like to acknowledge the financial contribution of Teck Coal Ltd. (Teck) to this study.

- i -

Acknowledgements

Housing Strategies Inc. would like to thank the following people for their participation in this initiative:

Mayor and Council for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood:

District of Elkford: District of Sparwood: Mayor Dean McKerracher Mayor Lois Halko Councillor Walter Conibear Councillor Harold (Hungry) Baytaluke Councillor Mandy McGregor Councillor Sharon Fraser Councillor Shelly McLean Councillor Andy Macintyre Councillor Craig Robinson Councillor Margaret Mckie Councillor Ken Wildeman Councillor Ron (Sonny) Saad Councillor Joe Zarowny Councillor Joanne Wilton

Staff for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood:

District of Elkford: Corien Speaker Chief Administrative Officer Norma Everett Director, Corporate Services Dorothy Szawlowski Administrative Assistant

District of Sparwood: Terry Melcer Chief Administrative Officer Raeleen Manjak Director of Corporate Services Susan Mortimer Records, Minutes & Archives

- i -

All the citizens, service groups, agencies and local business owners who provided their invaluable input by participating in the Focus Group Meetings and Key Person Interviews (including senior staff as well as past and present Council members from Districts of Elkford and Sparwood):

Diane Andrews Curtis Helgesen Colter Rinke Kim Bauer Paul Herbert Craig Robinson Harold (Hungry) Baytaluke Edie Holland Rod Rusnak Bev Bellina Brenda Isaacs Ron Rutley Ian Benson Fran Kellington Dan Savage Jim Bertoia Kim Leclerc Carrie Schafer Kay Bottolfson Georgie Lloyd Corien Speaker Golda Burton Theresa Lynk Muriel Stickney Lloyd Cohe Raeleen Manjak Peter Templin Walter Conibear Ron Mason Bernie Van Tighem Lorne Craig Cal McDougall Freda Vasic Tammie Davie Norma McDougall Lindsay Vyes Janet Dunn Margaret McKie Carol Walmsley Norma Everett Jack Meakin Ken Wildeman Barbara Franklin Jay Meakin Brielle Will Sharon Fraser Terry Melcer Joanne Wilton Deborah Friesen Sean Miller Joe Zarowny Len Gostick Beverly Nicholls Lois Halko Rick Pater

The following people for their assistance providing some of the key background data that has been included in this report:

Glen Campbell, Manager, Human Resources for Teck Coal Ltd. Terri Domin, Community Integration Health Services, Senior Manager for East Kootenay (Interior Health) Staff from the Kootenay Real Estate Board

The 63 individuals who participated in the on-line SurveyMonkey survey.

- ii -

CHAPTER 1: Introduction to This Study

1.0 Purpose of This Study

Challenges associated with a lack or mismatch of housing affordability and choice have become dominant themes in communities throughout Western Canada over the past five to ten years. Increased housing costs have led to housing affordability issues and limited choice for many low- and modest-income households. Increasingly, this is even affecting some middle-income households and may be adversely affecting communities as a whole.

With financial assistance from the Columbia Basin Trust and Teck Coal Ltd. (Teck) and support from the BC Non-Profit Housing Association, the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood have partnered together to commission the creation of a Housing Need and Demand Assessment for each community. The objectives of this study are to:

• Identify current and emerging affordable housing needs including the housing needs of contract industrial workers; • Generate a greater understanding of local housing and associated issues (i.e., housing prices); and • Provide direction to the two Districts, the mining industry, and interested stakeholders for resolving housing related issues.

2.0 Project Methodology

The methodology used to develop the Elkford & Sparwood Housing Need and Demand Assessment combines quantitative (statistical) data analysis with targeted Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings (qualitative analyses) in order to identify and explore:

- 1 -

Population and demographic trends; ! Changing household incomes; ! Housing availability (housing supply, form and tenure including market, near-market and non-market housing); ! Housing issues related to adequacy, suitability, affordability and accessibility; and ! The range of impacts that the community may be experiencing as a result of declining housing affordability and choice.

3.0 Data Sources

The primary quantitative data used to conduct this analysis was derived from a combination of the following sources:

! Population, housing and income data produced by Statistics Canada (i.e., 1996, 2001, and 2006 Census of Population data along with the recently-released population totals from the 2011 Census; and Taxfiler data for the years 2001, 2006 and 20091); ! Additional population, housing and income data compiled by George Penfold at Selkirk College (http://selkirk.ca/research/ric/housing-resources); ! Population, housing and income data compiled by BC Stats (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca); ! 2011 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for the Elk Valley produced by BC Housing; ! BC Assessment data for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood; ! Multiple List Service (MLS) sales data; and ! Advertisements for rental accommodations placed online and in local newspapers.

4.0 Format of This Report

The following report is organized into several distinct chapters:

! Chapter 2: About the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood provides a brief introduction to both communities, their location, and their economies for those readers who may not be familiar with the region; ! Chapter 3: Elkford’s and Sparwood’s Permanent and Temporary Populations provides a summary of population and demographic data gathered through various sources in order to build a better understanding of the changing nature of both District’s population; ! Chapter 4: Household Incomes in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood provides a summary of incomes statistics gathered through various sources in order to build a better understanding of s changing levels of affluence in both Districts; ! Chapter 5: Housing Supply provides a summary of both Districts’ current housing supply – both rental and homeownership – in terms of market, near-market and non- market housing in order to assess the range of affordable housing options available to residents living in both communities;

1 Taxfiler data is typically published with a two-year delay (e.g., the 2001 data was published in 2003, the 2006 data was published in 2008, and the 2009 data was published in 2011). Taxfiler data is usually published mid-to-late-summer, making the 2009 data the most current data available at the time this study was conducted.

- 2 -

! Chapter 6: Housing Need and Demand Analysis provides a summary of housing issues affecting residents of each District in terms of adequacy, suitability, accessibility and affordability and estimates the number of households likely to be experiencing each of these challenges; ! Chapter 7: Community Impact Analysis provides a brief introduction to some of the issues and challenges that individuals, households and communities may experience as a result of declining housing affordability; ! Chapter 8: Housing Priorities in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood is to be developed and will identify those housing needs that are deemed to be the highest priorities – both short-term and long-term – for both Districts based on the combination of statistical data and feedback from local stakeholders during an upcoming series of Key Person Interviews and Focus Group meetings; and ! Chapter 9: Housing Barriers, Opportunities and Potential Solutions for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood describes a range of potential barriers to addressing the identified housing needs in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood along with a number of potential opportunities and solutions as identified by participants in the Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings.

Additional background information and data is provided in the following four appendices:

! Appendix A: Glossary of Common Housing Terms provides a list of housing terms and concepts organized alphabetically for those readers who may be new to affordable housing as a concept, industry or goal; ! Appendix B: Government-Owned Vacant/Undeveloped Residential Properties in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2011) provides a list of vacant residential parcels within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood that are owned either by the Province of British Columbia (i.e., Crown Provincial properties) or the District Municipality according to 2011 BC Assessment data; ! Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback compiles all of the feedback gathered during the Focus Group Meetings held in Elkford and Sparwood over a three-day period from November 7-9, 2011; ! Appendix D: Online Survey Results provides a detailed account of the responses gathered from local residents through an online survey (using SurveyMonkey) held between June 15, 2011 and January 12, 2012; and ! Appendix E: 2011 Housing Income Limits (HILs) provides the most recent Housing Income Limits (HILs) published by BC Housing for communities throughout the province.

- 3 -

- 4 -

CHAPTER 2: About the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

1.0 Location

The Districts of Elkford and Sparwood are located in the southeastern corner of British Columbia, within the Columbia River Basin of the East Kootenay Region (see Map 1). Sparwood is situated at the junction of Highway #3 and Highway #43 while Elkford is situated approximately 35 km north of Highway #3 (and Sparwood) at the junction of Elk River and Boivin Creek - marking the end of Highway #43 northbound and the beginning of a series of mining roads leading northeast to the Greenhills and Fording River mines and another road leading north to Elk Lakes.

Neighbouring communities include Fernie (29 km to the south of Sparwood) and Cranbrook (128 km to the south and west of Sparwood). Elkford is within a 45-minute drive to the BC-Alberta border and a 3-hour drive to Calgary while Sparwood is approximately half-an-hour closer to both.

2.0 Brief History

Sparwood’s history dates back to the late 1800s when logging predominated in the region brought about the North American Land and Lumber Company2. At the time, Sparwood was the name of the local railroad stop3 used to load logs for transport back to the coast. By the early 1900s, the combination of logging and coal development in the area led to the creation of several small communities – Michel, Middletown and Natal (located adjacent to the coal mines) and Sparwood located 4.5 kilometers further west.4

2 http://www.crowsnest-highway.ca/cgi-bin/citypage.pl?city=SPARWOOD 3 http://www.sparwood.bc.ca/visitors/history 4 Ibid.

- 5 - Map 1: The Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

Map Source: Parks Canada (http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre- learn/prof/sub/badger/badger_map_e.asp)

Map Source: Google Maps Canada (http://maps.google.ca)

- 6 -

Over the proceeding decades, the region experienced several fluctuations in its population - due in part to the “boom and bust” nature of the logging and mining industries but also due to a major fire that swept through the Elk Valley in August 1908 and destroyed much of the North American Land and Lumber Company’s timber supply – effectively halting its operations indefinitely5. Following the “Great Fire”, Sparwood’s economy languished until WWII when coal prices and demand rose. During the postwar period, coal production in the area declined until the late 1950s when Japan experienced its postwar industrial boom.6

By the mid 1960s, coal dust contamination in Michel, Middletown and Natal led to the relocation of those populations to Sparwood. Today, Sparwood is an established community with more than 3,600 permanent residents.

Elkford is a relatively young community. The town itself was founded in 1971 to serve as a home for miners working at the newly established Fording Coal Operations.7 Initially, the town was comprised of a collection of mobile homes, a one-room school (also a mobile home) and a general store8. However, within a few years, the community had its own shopping centre, a ski hill, a golf course and a recreation complex complete with arena, curling rink, banquet hall, and library9.

Over the proceeding decades, Elkford experienced several fluctuations in its population due to the “boom and bust” nature of the local mining industry. As coal prices and demand rose, mining activity would increase resulting in both an influx of new workers with their families and a significant amount of new development. As coal prices and demand fell, the opposite would occur. For Elkford, the economic boom in the 1970s was followed by economic decline in the 1980s and then the closure of the Greenhills mine in the early 1990s – only to re-opened a few years later through a joint venture between Teck and POSCO Canada Limited. Today, it is estimated that coal reserves at the Greenhills mine are sufficient to allow production to continue at current levels for approximately the next 20 years.10

Despite these frequent population fluctuations and its relatively young age, in the 40 years since its inception, Elkford has also grown into an established community with close to 2,500 permanent residents.

3.0 Local Economy

Mining serves as the primary focus of the local economy for both Districts with secondary emphasis placed on retail trade, business services, and mine services.

Teck is the area’s largest single employer – operating five coalmines and employing close to 2,500 workers throughout the region. The Elkview Mine is located within the District of Sparwood’s boundaries while the Line Creek Mine lies between Sparwood and Elkford, and two other mines (Greenhills and Fording River) are located within the District of Elkford’s boundaries. A number of businesses provide supporting services to the mines and employ hundreds more workers. Other activities include retail trade, business services, health and social services, education services, construction, manufacturing, finance and real estate, reflecting an increasingly diversified economy.

5 http://www.crowsnest-highway.ca/cgi-bin/citypage.pl?city=fernie#6 6 http://www.crowsnest-highway.ca/cgi-bin/citypage.pl?city=SPARWOOD 7 District of Elkford Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 710, 2010 Schedule “A”, page 15. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 http://www.teck.com/Generic.aspx?PAGE=Teck%20Site/Diversified%20Mining%20Pages/Coal%20Pages/ Greenhills&portalName=tc

- 7 -

Tourism is also having a growing impact the local economy. As mentioned above, Fernie, with its internationally recognized ski resort, is located within close proximity to both Districts (less than 70 km to the southwest of Elkford and less than 30 km to the southwest of Sparwood). In addition, Elkford has its own, albeit significantly smaller, ski hill (Wapiti Ski Hill). Both Districts are also within close proximity to Elk Lakes Provincial Park, to Height of the Rockies Provincial Park, and offer world-class fly-fishing on the Elk River.

4.0 Population

As mentioned above, Sparwood supports a permanent population of approximately 3,600 residents and Elkford supports a permanent population of approximately 2,500 residents. There is also a significant number of temporary residents residing in both communities – working in the local mines on a four-on/four-off basis and returning to their home communities on their four days off.

Due to the predominance of the mining industry, both Districts are characterized by relatively younger population with a higher-than-average percentage of males and higher-than-average incomes when compared to the province as a whole (Elkford being slightly younger and slightly more affluent than Sparwood). However, with their increasingly diversified economies and the growing popularity of the East Kootenay Region overall, Elkford and Sparwood are also starting to witness a growing number of residents choosing to stay in the community after they retire – resulting in a gradual shift in both communities’ demographic profiles.

5.0 Impacts on Housing

The combination of Elkford’s and Sparwood’s favorable locations, active and diversifying economies, and their changing demographic profiles are having an impact both on the demand for and the availability of housing. For example, their location within the East Kootenay Region and their proximity both to major centres and to other recreation and tourist destinations, including Fernie, has a significant impact on Elkford’s and Sparwood’s growing popularity and demand for recreation and investment properties (e.g., weekend homes). The strength of the local coal mining industry is leading to expanded operations along with active recruiting of new employees – many of whom may be looking to move into the area long-term. At the same time, a growing number of retiring employees are choosing to stay in the area and remain in their homes rather than freeing up those properties to new employees moving in. As the two local economies diversify, the higher-than-average incomes offered by the mines increasingly contrasts with the more modest incomes earned in the retail, service and tourist sectors – creating an affordability gap brought on by factors commonly attributed to supply and demand.

As the two communities and their local economies continue to evolve, a shift in both the nature and the need for housing is expected. This shift is characterized by a change in focus from housing designed primarily for young, mobile and relatively affluent families to housing designed for a broader array of long-term, permanent residents with various incomes and at various stages in their life cycle.

- 8 -

CHAPTER 3: Elkford’s and Sparwood’s Permanent and Temporary Populations

1.0 Introduction

This chapter examines statistics for both the District of Elkford’s and the District of Sparwood’s permanent and temporary populations in order to gain a better sense of the area’s changing demographics and how these changes may relate to housing.

The analysis is based primarily on Statistics Canada Census of Population data. Statistics Canada collects Census data every five years. Every household in Canada is included in the Census. As a result, the national census provides the most comprehensive population data sets available.

2.0 Chapter Highlights

! Despite a recent slight increase in population (i.e., between 2006 and 2011) Elkford and Sparwood have both experienced steady population decline over time. Between 1991 and 2011, the permanent population declined by an average annual rate of -0.6% in both communities. ! Between 1996 and 2006, the total number of children, youth and working-age adults declined in both communities while the total number of empty nesters and seniors living in both communities increased (demographic data for 2011 is currently unavailable). ! In Elkford, between 2001 and 2006, the total number of couple households living in the community declined slightly, the total number of lone-parent households remained constant, and the total number of both one-person households and “other” households increased. The dynamic was slightly different in Sparwood: during that same period, the total number of couple households, lone-parent households and “other” households living in the community declined slightly, while the total number of one-person households increased.

- 9 -

! If the negative average annual growth rates observed between 1991 and 2011 persist over time, Elkford could see its permanent population decline to between 2,320 and 2,350 residents by 2025 and Sparwood could see its permanent population decline to between 3,370 and 3,420 residents by 2025. ! However, if increased activity in the coal industry leads to population growth consistent with the average annual growth rate observed in both communities between 2006 and 2011, Elkford could see its permanent population grow to 2,705 residents and Sparwood could see its permanent population grow to 3,825 residents by 2025. ! It is unclear what role housing may play in the observed population changes. Some population shifts suggest that housing affordability may be improving over time while other population shifts suggest that housing affordability may be declining over time. ! It is also unclear what impact will occur should Teck formally implement a proposed 7-on/7-off shift structure for its workers. ! One thing is clear: if the populations trends observed between 1996 and 2006 continue into the future, Elkford and Sparwood will each likely require more housing geared towards empty- nesters and seniors over time as well as more housing geared toward single individuals of all ages.

3.0 Permanent Population Characteristics

3.1 Permanent Population Growth

Table 1 shows permanent population changes for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood between 1991 and 2011 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data and compares that data to population changes for the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) and the province as a whole.

Table 1: Official Populations for the District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood, the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) and the Province of BC (1991, 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Characteristics Elkford 1 Sparwood 1 RDEK 2 BC 1 Total Population in 1991 2,846 4,211 53,753 3,282,061 Total Population in 1996 2,729 3,982 58,489 3,724,500 Total Population in 2001 2,589 3,812 57,022 3,907,738 Total Population in 2006 2,463 3,618 56,096 4,113,487 Total Population in 2011 2,523 3,667 60,985 4,440,057

1991 to 1996 Total Population Change (%) -4.1% -5.4% 8.8% 13.5% 1996 to 2001 Total Population Change (%) -5.1% -4.3% -2.5% 4.9% 2001 to 2006 Total Population Change (%) -4.9% -5.1% -1.6% 5.3% 2006 to 2011Total Population Change (%) 2.4% 1.4% 8.7% 7.9% 2001 to 2011 Total Population Change (%) -2.5% -3.8% 6.9% 13.6% 1996 to 2011 Total Population Change (%) -7.5% -7.9% 4.3% 19.2% 1991 to 2011 Total Population Change (%) -11.3% -12.9% 13.5% 35.3% Avg. Annual Pop. Change 1991-2011 (%): 20-Year Trend -0.6% -0.6% 0.7% 1.8% Avg. Annual Pop. Change 1996-2011 (%): 15-Year Trend -0.5% -0.5% 0.3% 1.3% Avg. Annual Pop. Change 2001-2011 (%): 10-Year Trend -0.3% -0.4% 0.7% 1.4% Avg. Annual Pop. Change 2006-2011 (%): 5-Year Trend 0.5% 0.3% 1.7% 1.6%

Data Sources: 1 Statistics Canada 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population 2 BCStats

- 10 -

According to this data, the permanent populations of Elkford and Sparwood have been declining steadily over time. The annual rate of permanent population decline as identified in the Census of Population data for each community is as follows:

! District of Elkford: ! 1991 – 2011 (20-year trend): an average decline of -0.6% per year; ! 1996 – 2011 (15-year trend): an average decline of -0.5% per year; and ! 2001 – 2011 (10-year trend): an average decline of -0.3% per year. ! 2006 – 2011 (5-year trend): an average increase of +0.5% per year. ! District of Sparwood: ! 1991 – 2011 (20-year trend): an average decline of -0.6% per year; ! 1996 – 2011 (15-year trend): an average decline of -0.5% per year; and ! 2001 – 2011 (10-year trend): an average decline of -0.4% per year. ! 2006 – 2011 (5-year trend): an average increase of +0.3% per year.

In contrast, the population of the Regional District of East Kootenay increased during each census period between 1991 and 2011 with the greatest average annual increases occurring between 2006 and 2011. The population of the province as a whole has also increased steadily over the last 20 years.

In total, the District of Elkford had 323 fewer permanent residents in 2011 than it had in 1991, (despite an increase of 60 permanent residents living in the community over the past five years) while the District of Sparwood had 544 fewer permanent residents in 2011 than it had in 1991 (despite an increase over the past five years of 49 permanent residents living in the community).

Table 2 (next page) compiles data from Statistics Canada on the mobility of residents living in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood to develop a more realistic estimate of the number of residents who may have left the area between 2001 and 2006 (data for 2011 is not available). It shows the number and percentage of permanent residents who, five years prior to 2006 (i.e., in 2001), had either lived:

! In the same community and in the same home; ! In the same community but in a different home; ! In a different BC community; ! In a different province; or ! In another country altogether.

According to the Elkford data, only 1,780 (76.9%) of those permanent residents living in Elkford in 2006 had also lived in the community in 2001. The remaining 23.3% of permanent residents (est. 540- 575 individuals) had lived in the community for less than five years. An estimated total of up to 575 residents moving into the community between 2001 and 2006 combined with a net population decline of 126 residents during that same period suggests that up to 700 residents (up to 28.8% of the population) may have left the community between 2001 and 2006.

The Sparwood data indicates that only 2,585 (75.9%) of those permanent residents living in Sparwood in 2006 had also lived in the community in 2001. The remaining 24.1% of permanent residents (est. 820-871 individuals) had lived in the community for less than five years. An estimated total of up to 871 residents moving into the community between 2001 and 2006 combined with a net population

- 11 -

decline of 194 residents during that same period suggests that up to 1,065 residents (up to 29.8% of the population) may have left the community between 2001 and 2006. Table 2: Mobility Status for the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood (2001 - 2006)

Mobility Characteristics Elkford Sparwood Total Percentage Total Percentage Lived at the Same Address 5 Years Ago 1,450 62.6% 1,915 56.2% Lived at a Different Address but Within the Same Municipality 5 Years Ago 330 14.3% 670 19.7% Lived in a Different Municipality 5 Years Ago 280 12.1% 380 11.2% Lived in a Different Province or Territory 5 Years Ago 245 10.6% 440 12.9% Lived in a Different Country 5 Years Ago 15 0.6% 0 0.0% Published Total Population 5 Years and Over 2,315 100.0% 3,405 100.0% Published Total Pop. Living in the Community 5 Years Ago 1,780 76.9% 2,585 75.9% Published Total Pop. Not Living in the Community 5 Years Ago 540 23.3% 820 24.1% Total Population (2006) 2,463 100.0% 3,618 100.0% Estimated Total Pop. Living in the Community 5 Years Ago 1,894 76.9% 2,747 75.9% Estimated Total Pop. Not Living in the Community 5 Years Ago 575 23.3% 871 24.1% Net Growth Between 2001 and 2006 -126 -4.9% -194 -5.1% Est. Total No. of Residents Leaving the Community (2001–2006) 666-701 28.4%-28.8% 1,104-1,065 29.4%-29.8%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

A number of factors could explain why people may have left the area, including:

! A change in one’s job that requires relocation; ! Family needs or obligations (e.g., the need to move in order to provide care to elderly parents); ! Opportunities to upgrade one’s home (e.g., purchase a larger home on an acreage lot outside the community or elsewhere in the region); ! Lifestyle choices (e.g., the desire to move to a community that offers sought-after employment, recreational or educational opportunities); ! The need to move to another community in order find more suitable or more affordable housing because those options are not available in Elkford or Sparwood; and/or ! Death.

What this data is unable to show is how many of the people identified as having left either community between 2001 and 2006 (i.e., those living in a different municipality five years prior) actually moved from one community to the next. However, the overall population decline observed in both communities suggests that this number may be negligible and most likely relates to seniors living in Elkford who may have had to move to Sparwood between 2001 and 2006 due to the lack of seniors’ housing in Elkford.

It should also be noted that population mobility is a natural occurrence. It can be considered normal for people to move in an out of a community as their life cycles, lifestyle goals, and job opportunities or pursuits change. However, this could be considered problematic for a community if the population that is leaving the community is not being replenished by new residents moving into the community, or if people are leaving the community in significant numbers because housing affordability issues or other dynamics are preventing people for establishing themselves or making a life for themselves in the community no matter how hard they try.

- 12 -

One plausible dynamic that may be causing the populations of Elkford and Sparwood to continue to decline is the growth of the recreational property market that is occurring in many small communities throughout Alberta and British Columbia – due largely to the wealth and prosperity of the Baby Boomer generation and the wealth being generated by Alberta’s oil and gas industries. As Elkford and Sparwood residents sell their homes and leave the community (for any combination of reasons presented above), an increasing number of recreational property investors may be purchasing those homes. Many recreational property investors do not move into the community to become full-time residents. Some of these recreational homebuyers may intend to retire in the community at a later data, while others may simply be seeking a long- or short-term investment opportunity with no intention of ever moving to the community. This dynamic is likely contributing to at least some of the two communities’ observed population declines.

3.2 Permanent Population Projections

Population projections are made possible based on the observed changes in the Census of Population data. As shown in Table 1 above, both Elkford’s and Sparwood’s permanent populations declined steadily between 1991 and 2006 and then increased slightly between 2006 and 2011. Table 3 (next page) provides five population projections:

1. The 5-year trend (i.e., between 2006 and 2011): average annual population growth of +0.5% observed for Elkford and +0.3% observed for Sparwood; 2. The 10-year trend (i.e., between 2001 and 2011): average annual population declines of -0.3% observed for Elkford and -0.4% observed for Sparwood; 3. The 15-year trend (i.e., between 1996 and 2011): average annual population declines of -0.5% observed for both Elkford and Sparwood; 4. The 20-year trend (i.e., between 1991 and 2011): average annual population declines of -0.6% observed for both Elkford and Sparwood; and 5. The 35-year trend (i.e., between 1976 and 2011): an average annual population increase of +1.0% observed for Elkford and average annual population decline of -0.3% observed for Sparwood)11;

If either of the trends observed between 1991 and 2011 are maintained, Elkford could see its permanent population either decline to as few as 2,320 residents or increase to as many as 2,900 residents by 2025, while Sparwood could see its permanent population either decline to as few as 3,370 residents or increase to as many as 3,825 residents.

Should activity within the coal mining industry continue to increase and should more affordable housing options along with other inducements become available to attract more of the area’s temporary population to move to Elkford and Sparwood permanently, both communities could be expected to experience net population growth over time rather than decline. The more modest growth projections for both communities is consistent with population projections and assumptions for the East Kootenay region developed by BC Stats:

“Overall, it is projected that this region will receive modest net inflows of migrants over the duration of the projection!“Economic activity in Kootenay is likely less robust than other areas in BC. Post-recession growth in the short term is anticipated to be relatively flat, picking up in the long term.”12

11 1976 population data provided by BCStats. 12 Migration Assumptions: P.E.O.P.L.E. 36 (September 2011), page 4 of 6. Downloaded March 7, 2012 from http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationProjections.aspx

- 13 -

Table 3: Population Projections for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood to 2025 Based on Observed Trends in Statistics Canada Census of Population Data

District of Elkford Year 5-Year Avg.* 10-Year Avg.* 15-Year Avg.* 20-Year Avg.* 35-Year Avg.** +0.5% -0.3% -0.5% -0.6% +1.0% 2011 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2012 2,536 2,515 2,510 2,508 2,548 2013 2,548 2,508 2,498 2,493 2,574 2014 2,561 2,500 2,485 2,478 2,599 2015 2,574 2,493 2,473 2,463 2,625 2016 2,587 2,485 2,461 2,448 2,652 2017 2,600 2,478 2,448 2,434 2,678 2018 2,613 2,470 2,436 2,419 2,705 2019 2,626 2,463 2,424 2,404 2,732 2020 2,639 2,456 2,412 2,390 2,759 2021 2,652 2,448 2,400 2,376 2,787 2022 2,665 2,441 2,388 2,361 2,815 2023 2,679 2,434 2,376 2,347 2,843 2024 2,692 2,426 2,364 2,333 2,871 2025 2,705 2,419 2,352 2,319 2,900 District of Sparwood Year 5-Year Avg.* 10-Year Avg.* 15-Year Avg.* 20-Year Avg.* 35-Year Avg.** +0.3% -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.3% 2011 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 2012 3,678 3,652 3,649 3,645 3,656 2013 3,689 3,638 3,630 3,623 3,645 2014 3,700 3,623 3,612 3,601 3,634 2015 3,711 3,609 3,594 3,580 3,623 2016 3,722 3,594 3,576 3,558 3,612 2017 3,734 3,580 3,558 3,537 3,601 2018 3,745 3,566 3,541 3,516 3,591 2019 3,756 3,551 3,523 3,495 3,580 2020 3,767 3,537 3,505 3,474 3,569 2021 3,779 3,523 3,488 3,453 3,558 2022 3,790 3,509 3,470 3,432 3,548 2023 3,801 3,495 3,453 3,412 3,537 2024 3,813 3,481 3,436 3,391 3,527 2025 3,824 3,467 3,418 3,371 3,516

Data Source: * Calculations derived from Statistics Canada 1991 - 2011 Census of Population data ** Calculations derived from Statistics Canada 1991 - 2011 Census of Population data combined with BCStats data from 1976

It should be noted that these population projections are based strictly on observed past trends in the Statistics Canada Census of Population data. Since population fluctuations are expected to have occurred routinely over the past 30 years with the growth and decline of mining activity, it is unclear what impact increased activity within the coal mining industry might have on future population growth or decline – especially if Teck formally implements the proposed 7-on/7-off shift structure for its workers identified by participants in a series of Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings conducted as part of this study.

- 14 -

It should also be noted that the population projections for Elkford differ from those presented in the District of Elkford Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 710,2010 Schedule “A”. Figure 1 below is taken directly from the OCP and shows three population projections:

1. A low growth projection of 0.7% per year; 2. A variable growth projection of 0.4% between 2006 and 2010, 4.0% between 2010 and 2013 and then 0.8% thereafter; and 3. A negative growth rate (“moderate decline”) of -1.0% per year.

Figure 1: Population Projections as Depicted in the District of Elkford Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 710,2010 Schedule “A”

Source: District of Elkford Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 710,2010 Schedule “A”, page 13.

Per the OCP:

“The Variable Growth scenario reflects Elk Valley Coal’s long-term supply agreements that provide operational stability for the mine and community. Further, the Variable Growth scenario is based on mine workers that are reaching retirement age choosing to remain, and retire, in Elkford”13

3.3 Demographic Changes in the Permanent Population

Table 4 (next page) shows the breakdown of the District of Elkford’s and the District of Sparwood’s permanent populations by age based on the 1996, 2001 and 2006 Statistics Canada Census of Population data and compares those data to that of the Regional District of East Kootenay (2001 and 2006 only). Using the three census periods shows the degree to which age profiles have changed in the two communities over a ten-year period. Note: Age cohort categories are based on those presented in the 1996 Census of Population data. More recent census data organizes age cohort data into a broader and more detailed series of categories. However, in order to compare data across the three census periods, the 1996 cohorts had to be used.

13 District of Elkford Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 710,2010 Schedule “A”, page 13.

- 15 -

Table 4: Age Characteristics for the Permanent Populations of the District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood and the Regional District of East Kootenay (1996, 2001 and 2006)

District of Elkford Population 1996 2001 2006 %Change of Total Characteristics Total % of Total Total % of Total Total % of Total Pop. (1996 to 2006) Age 0-4 155 5.7% 135 5.2% 150 6.1% -3.2% Age 5-14 535 19.6% 405 15.6% 325 13.2% -39.3% Age 15-19 260 9.5% 250 9.7% 185 7.5% -28.8% Age 20-24 125 4.6% 135 5.2% 140 5.7% 12.0% Age 25-54 1,405 51.5% 1,315 50.8% 1,195 48.6% -14.9% Age 55-64 165 6.0% 230 8.9% 320 13.0% 93.9% Age 65-74 70 2.6% 95 3.7% 100 4.1% 42.9% Age 75+ 15 0.5% 25 1.0% 45 1.8% 200.0% Pub. Total 2,730 100.0% 2,590 100.0% 2,460 100.0% N/A Est. Total 2,730 100.0% 2,590 100.0% 2,460 100.0% N/A

District of Sparwood Population 1996 2001 2006 %Change of Total Characteristics Total % of Total Total % of Total Total % of Total Pop. (1996 to 2006) Age 0-4 275 6.9% 245 6.4% 210 5.8% -23.6% Age 5-14 650 16.3% 585 15.3% 490 13.6% -24.6% Age 15-19 335 8.4% 300 7.9% 255 7.1% -23.9% Age 20-24 220 5.5% 190 5.0% 170 4.7% -22.7% Age 25-54 1,850 46.5% 1,795 47.1% 1,655 45.8% -10.5% Age 55-64 335 8.4% 345 9.0% 430 11.9% 28.4% Age 65-74 215 5.4% 235 6.2% 240 6.6% 11.6% Age 75+ 90 2.3% 105 2.8% 160 4.4% 77.8% Pub. Total 3,980 100.0% 3,815 N/A 3,615 N/A N/A Est. Total 3,970 N/A 3,800 100.0% 3,610 100.0% N/A

Regional District of East Kootenay Population 1996 2001 2006 %Change of Total Characteristics Total % of Total Total % of Total Total % of Total Pop. (2001 * to 2006) Age 0-4 -- * -- * 2,850 5.1% 2,615 4.7% -8.2% Age 5-14 -- * -- * 7,530 13.4% 6,500 11.7% -13.7% Age 15-19 -- * -- * 4,405 7.8% 3,810 6.9% -13.5% Age 20-24 -- * -- * 3,110 5.5% 2,980 5.4% -4.2% Age 25-54 -- * -- * 25,120 44.6% 23,405 42.2% -6.8% Age 55-64 -- * -- * 6,070 10.8% 7,900 14.2% 30.1% Age 65-74 -- * -- * 4,145 7.4% 4,630 8.3% 11.7% Age 75+ -- * -- * 3,070 5.5% 3,655 6.6% 19.1% Pub. Total -- * -- * 56,295 N/A 55,485 N/A N/A Est. Total -- * -- * 56,300 100.0% 55,495 100.0% N/A

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding) * Detailed demographic data from the 1996 Census of Population is not currently available for the Regional District of East Kootenay using the age cohorts listed above as determined by the 1996 Census of Population for all other communities included in the Census.

- 16 -

This data shows that while the permanent populations of both communities may be declining overall, some segments of the population are actually increasing. For example, between 1996 and 2006, Elkford and Sparwood witnessed an increase in the total number of residents in each of the following age groups:

! District of Elkford (Increases): ! Young adults ages 20-24 grew by 12.0% (+15 residents); ! Empty-nesters ages 55-64 grew by 93.9% (+155 residents); ! Seniors ages 65-74 grew by 42.9% (+30 residents); and ! Older seniors ages 75+ grew by 200.0% (+30 residents). ! District of Sparwood (Increases): ! Empty nesters ages 55-64 grew by 28.4% (+95 residents); ! Seniors ages 65-74 grew by 11.6% (+25 residents); and ! Older seniors ages 75+ grew by 77.8% (+70 residents).

At the same time, Elkford and Sparwood witnessed a decline in the total number of residents in each of the following age groups:

! District of Elkford (Declines): ! Infants ages 0-4 (-3.2% or -5 individuals); ! Children ages 5-14 (-39.3% or -210 individuals); ! Teenagers ages 15-19 (-28.8% or -75 individuals); and ! Adults ages 25-54 (-14.9% or -210 individuals) ! District of Sparwood (Declines): ! Infants ages 0-4 (-23.6% or -65 individuals); ! Children ages 5-14 (-24.6% or -160 individuals); ! Teens ages 15-19 (-23.9% or -80 individuals); ! Young adults ages 20-24 (-22.7% or -50 individuals); and ! Adults ages 25-54 (-10.5% or -195 individuals)

This data suggests that both Elkford and Sparwood are seeing an increase in the total number of empty nesters and seniors living in the community yet a decline in the total number of families with children living in the community. However, while Sparwood is also seeing a decline in the total number of young adults living in the community, Elkford is seeing an increase in that age cohort. A net increase in the number of empty-nesters and seniors living in the community may be due to a combination of empty-nesters and seniors “ageing in place” (i.e., remaining in the community past retirement) along with increased recreational property investment (e.g., “freedom 55” and other retirees moving to Elkford and Sparwood). A net decline in the number of families has important implications for the community and may be the result of declining activity in the coal industry between 1996 and 2006 or better opportunities available working elsewhere in the oil and gas sector (i.e., moving to Alberta). It could also be an indication that housing is becoming increasing unaffordable to families – especially young families – living in Elkford and Sparwood.

While the demographic changes observed in Elkford and Sparwood appear to reflect overall demographic changes occurring throughout the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK), they also appear to be somewhat more extreme (i.e., greater increases in the number of empty nesters and seniors combined with greater declines in the number of families with children). It should also be noted

- 17 -

that the total number of infants in Elkford declined between 1996 and 2001 yet increased between 2001 and 2006. This combined with an increase in the total number of young adults living in Elkford suggests that the number of young families living in that community may actually be increasing (or at least did increase between 2001 and 2006). That same trend was not observed either in Sparwood or the RDEK as a whole.

Figure 2 compares the 2006 demographic profiles of Elkford and Sparwood to that of the Regional District of East Kootenay. It shows that despite an observed decline in the total number of children, youth and adults living in the two communities between 1996 and 2006, both Elkford and Sparwood display noticeably higher percentages of children, youth, and adults under the age of 50 than the RDEK as whole.

Figure 2: Comparison of the Demographic Profiles of the District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood and the Regional District of East Kootenay (2006)

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population

Legend: Elkford Sparwood RDEK

Conversely, despite an observed increase in the total number of empty nesters and seniors living in the two communities between 1996 and 2006, both Elkford and Sparwood display a significantly lower percentages of empty nesters and seniors than the RDEK as a whole – most noticeably Elkford (and most likely due to the lack of seniors’ housing options available in Elkford).

3.4 Household Characteristics of the Permanent Population

In most communities across Canada, couples consistently make up the largest proportion of households. This is followed by non-family persons (single individuals) and then by lone-parent families. Table 5 (next page) shows the distribution of households by type in both the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood for the years 2001 and 2006. According to this data, between 2001 and 2006, Elkford and Sparwood witnessed the following changes:

- 18 -

! District of Elkford: ! Couple households declined by -2.2% (66.7% of all households in 2006); ! Lone-parent households remained stable (6.5% of all households in 2006); ! One-person households increased by 23.1% (23.9% of all households in 2006); and ! “Other” household types increased by 20.0% (3.0% of all households in 2006). ! District of Sparwood: ! Couple households declined by -4.1% (59.8% of all households in 2006); ! Lone-parent households declined by -3.7% (8.4% of all households in 2006); ! One-person households increased by 14.8% (29.9% of all households in 2006); and ! “Other” household types declined by -14.3% (1.9% of all households in 2006).

Table 5: Household Characteristics Within the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood By Household Type (2001 and 2006)

District of Elkford Household Characteristics 2001 Total 2001 % 2006 Total 2006 % % Change (2001-2006) Couple Households 685 70.3% 670 66.7% -2.2% Lone-Parent Households 65 6.7% 65 6.5% 0.0% One-Person Households 195 20.0% 240 23.9% 23.1% Other Households * 25 2.6% 30 3.0% 20.0% Published Total 975 100.0% 1,005 100.0% N/A Estimated Total 970 N/A 1,005 N/A N/A

District of Sparwood Household Characteristics 2001 Total 2001 % 2006 Total 2006 % % Change (2001-2006) Couple Households 970 63.0% 930 59.8% -4.1% Lone-Parent Households 135 8.8% 130 8.4% -3.7% One-Person Households 405 26.3% 465 29.9% 14.8% Other Households * 35 2.3% 30 1.9% -14.3% Published Total 1,540 100.0% 1,555 100.0% N/A Estimated Total 1,545 N/A 1,555 N/A N/A

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census of Population * Estimates based on the total number of households indicated in the Census of Population data minus the sum total of couple, lone-parent and one-person households (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

“Other” households include both multiple-family households (e.g., two or more families living together in the same home – including both multi-generational related families and non-related families) and households with two or more singles rooming together. An increase in the number and/or relative percentage of “other” household types is usually either an indication of cultural changes (i.e., households from other cultures who have an established tradition of multi-generational living) or growing affordability challenges (i.e., households being compelled to share accommodations in order

- 19 -

to make ends meet) but may also point to an increase in the number of temporary, foreign workers living in the community – who typically share accommodations provided by their employers.

An increase in the number of single individuals (i.e., one-person households) can also have an impact on housing affordability issues; particularly if there are limited housing choices that are appropriate to individuals living alone. Single individuals typically require smaller homes (e.g., smaller single- detached homes, townhouses, duplexes and apartments) and only have a single income with which to afford rent or mortgage payments (that is unless they are able to and chose to co-habitate). Conversely, an increase in the number of one-person households could be an indication that housing in Elkford and Sparwood may be relatively affordable for that household type – at least for single individuals working in higher-paying jobs for the coal mining industry.

The decline in the number of couple households appears consistent with other data that suggests a decline in the total number of families with children living in both communities (slightly more so in Sparwood than in Elkford).

Figure 3 compares household types in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood to the RDEK in 2006. Despite a decline in the total number of couples living in the two communities between 2001 and 2006, Elkford continued to have a noticeably higher percentage of couple households than the RDEK as a whole while Sparwood had a slightly lower percentage of couple households. Conversely, Elkford had a noticeably lower percentage of one-person households than the RDEK average despite a significant increase in the number of one-person households between 2001 and 2006 while Sparwood had a noticeably higher percentage of one-person households. Both communities had a lower percentage of lone-parent households than the RDEK as a whole (more so in Elkford than in Sparwood) while Elkford’s population of “other” households appears to be on par with the RDEK average – both of which are higher than the percentage of “other” households in Sparwood.

Figure 3: Comparison of 2006 Household Types for the District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood and the Regional District of East Kootenay

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population

Legend: Elkford Sparwood RDEK

- 20 -

As with single individuals, a large number of single-parent families in a community can have an important impact on housing affordability issues. Single-parent families typically require homes similar in size to two-parent families yet typically only have one income with which to afford rent or mortgage payments (support payments vary and are not always collected consistently). This can be especially problematic when the vast majority of single parents are single mothers – since women on average tend to earn less than men on average. At the same time, the lower-than-average percentage of lone- parent families (as well as one-person households) living in Elkford and Sparwood could indicate that the housing that is available in the community may be largely unaffordable to single-income-earning households with children (more so in Elkford than in Sparwood).

Table 6 shows the total number of lone-parent families living in both Elkford and Sparwood between 2001 and 2006 based on whether they are led by single fathers or by single mothers. In most communities in Canada, single mothers vastly outnumber single-fathers. While this trend persists in Sparwood, in Elkford in 2001, there were almost twice as many single fathers as there were single mothers. That pattern changed dramatically in 2006 due to a -77.8% decline in the total number of single fathers living in the community. By 2006, the ratio of single mothers to single fathers living in Elkford had returned to a more common ratio.

Table 6: Lone-Parent Households Within the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood (2001 and 2006)

District of Elkford Year Published Total Female-Led % Female-Led Male-Led % Male-Led 2001 65 25 35.7% 45 64.3% 2006 65 50 83.3% 10 16.7% Change (2001 - 2006) 0 25 100.0% -35 -77.8%

District of Sparwood Year Published Total Female-Led % Female-Led Male-Led % Male-Led 2001 135 115 82.1% 25 17.9% 2006 130 95 76.0% 30 24.0% Change (2001 - 2006) -5 -20 -17.4% 5 20.0%

Data Source: Statistics Canada Census of Population (NOTE: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression)

Figure 4 (next page) compares the percentage of single mothers to single fathers living in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood to that of the RDEK as a whole in 2006. While Sparwood has a lower percentage of single mothers and a higher percentage of single fathers than the RDEK as a whole, Elkford displays the opposite dynamic – a higher percentage of single mothers and a lower percentage of single fathers than the RDEK.

It is also important to note that, provincially, single mothers on average outnumbered single fathers by a ratio of four-to-one in 2006. However, in Elkford, single mothers outnumbered single-fathers six-to- one while in Sparwood, single mothers outnumber single-fathers three-to-one.

- 21 -

Figure 4: Comparison of 2006 Lone-Parent Households Living in the District of Elkford. the District of Sparwood and the Regional District of East Kootenay

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population

Legend: Elkford Sparwood RDEK

A higher percentage of single fathers living in a community than single mothers usually indicates that housing has become increasingly unaffordable (i.e., in communities where housing has become largely unaffordable to modest-income households, many single mothers simply cannot continue to make ends meet due to their higher housing needs and often lower-than-average incomes and, therefore, find themselves having to leave the community in search of more affordable housing elsewhere). While the lone-parent data for Sparwood may support this observation, the lone-parent data for Elkford does not since the total number of single mothers living in Elkford doubled between 2001 and 2006 while the total number of single fathers declined by more than three quarters. As suggested above, these single fathers may have opted to pursue jobs in the oil and gas industry that required them to move elsewhere (e.g., Alberta). This trend would also seem to suggest that housing affordability and choice may have improved in Elkford between 2001 and 2006 – possibly the result of a large percentage of higher-income-earning families leaving the community; thereby, reducing competition for housing locally and opening up that housing stock to other lower-income-earning households (including single mothers and one-person households as shown in Table 5 above).

4.0 Temporary Population Characteristics

There is currently no readily accessible, published data on the temporary population living in Elkford. However, BCStats does provide data that may suggest the potential size of Elkford’s and Sparwood’s temporary population in the form of population estimates for development regions and regional districts. Table 7 (next page) shows the estimated total population living in the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood between 1996 and 2006 and overlays that data with Statistics Canada Census of Population data for the community’s permanent population.

- 22 -

Table 7: Estimated Temporary Population of the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood (1996, 2001 and 2006)

District of Elkford Year Census of Population 1 BCStats 2 Total Difference % Difference 1996 2,830 2,729 101 3.7% 2001 2,640 2,589 51 2.0% 2006 2,517 2,463 54 2.2% Average N/A N/A 69 2.6%

District of Sparwood Year Census of Population 1 BCStats 2 Total Difference % Difference 1996 4,136 3,982 154 3.9% 2001 3,906 3,812 94 2.5% 2006 3,680 3,618 62 1.7% Average N/A N/A 103 2.7%

Data Source: 1 Statistics Canada Census of Population 2 BCStats (NOTE: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression)

This data suggests that at any given point in time, between 2.0% and 3.7% of Elkford’s population may be made up of seasonal and/or temporary workers and between 1.7% and 3.9% of Sparwood’s population may be made up of seasonal and/or temporary workers. More recently, the trend seems to have been between 50 and 55 seasonal or temporary residents living in Elkford (2.0% to 2.2%) compared to 60 and 95 seasonal or temporary residents living in Sparwood (1.7% to 2.5%).

More detailed and/or more accurate data on the full spectrum of Elkford’s and Sparwood’s seasonal and temporary population is currently unavailable. However, Teck has provided data on the number of hourly workers and office staff employed by the company as of September 2011 and where those employees were living (see Table 8 below).

Table 8: Primary Residence of Hourly Workers and Office Staff for Teck Coal Ltd.

Permanent Residence Hourly Workers Office Staff All Employees (Community) No. % No. % No. % Elkford 563 18.2% 161 21.5% 724 18.9% Sparwood 531 17.2% 188 25.1% 719 18.7% Fernie 372 12.1% 156 20.9% 528 13.8% Crowsnest Pass 379 12.3% 82 11.0% 461 12.0% Other BC 890 28.8% 82 11.0% 972 25.3% Subtotal 2,735 88.6% 669 89.4% 3,404 88.8% Hinton 306 9.9% 68 9.1% 374 9.8% Jasper 9 0.3% 0 0.0% 9 0.2% Edson 4 0.1% 0 0.0% 4 0.1% Edmonton 6 0.2% 2 0.3% 8 0.2% Other Out of Province 27 0.9% 9 1.2% 36 0.9% Subtotal 352 11.4% 79 10.6% 431 11.2% Total 3,087 100.0% 748 100.0% 3,835 100.0%

Data Source: Teck Coal Ltd. (Courtesy of Glen Campbell, Manager, Human Resources and Cal McDougall, Land Administrator)

- 23 -

This data presents a very different picture of the community than that suggested in Table 7 above. According to this data, there was a total of 3,835 people employed by Teck on a permanent, temporary or casual basis (i.e., not including summer students and co-op students). Of this total, an estimated 724 employees (18.9%) lived in Elkford and an estimated 719 employees (18.7%) lived in Sparwood. Thus less than 40% of Teck’s permanent, temporary and casual employees actually live in either of the two communities. An estimated 528 employees (13.8%) live in Fernie while an estimated 461 employees (12.0%) live in the Crowsnest Pass – thus allowing them to commute into work and back home on the days they work. An estimated 972 employees (25.3%) live elsewhere in BC and another 431 employees (11.2%) live outside the province – the majority of whom likely have to fly in or drive in to the area and stay in temporary accommodations on those days that they work. This data suggests that as many as 1,400 people working for Teck (36.6% of all permanent, temporary and casual employees) may be living in Elkford and Sparwood on a temporary fly-or-drive-in-and-out basis. This does not include people working for other companies in the area who may also be living in Elkford and Sparwood on a temporary fly-or-drive-in-and-out basis in accordance with their work schedules.

Teck has also provided data on the total number of hourly workers and office staff employed by the company as of January 1st of each year between 2004 and 2010 (see Table 9 below). This data provides a possible look at what future employment levels might look like at Teck over the next ten (10) years.

Table 9: Total Number of Hourly Workers and Office Staff Employed by Teck Coal Ltd. (2004 – 2010)

Year Office Staff Hourly Workers Total Employees 2004 496 1,534 2,030 2005 542 1,694 2,236 2006 579 1,848 2,427 2007 566 1,798 2,364 2008 607 1,848 2,455 2009 667 1,946 2,613 2010 667 1,962 2,629 % Change (Total) 34.5% 27.9% 29.5% % Change (Avg. Annual) 5.7% 4.7% 4.9% 2011 705 2,053 2,758 2012 746 2,149 2,894 2013 789 2,249 3,036 2014 834 2,353 3,186 2015 882 2,463 3,342 2016 933 2,577 3,507 2017 986 2,697 3,679 2018 1,043 2,822 3,860 2019 1,103 2,954 4,050 2020 1,166 3,091 4,249 2021 1,233 3,235 4,458 2022 1,304 3,385 4,677

Data Source: Teck Coal Ltd. (Courtesy of Glen Campbell, Manager, Human Resources and Cal McDougall, Land Administrator)

- 24 -

According to this data, the total number people employed by Teck increased by 29.5% between 2004 and 2010 – for an annual average increase of 4.9%. Assuming this growth remains steady for the next ten (10) years suggests that Teck could be employing as many as 4,675 people by 2022. If current residency patterns among Teck employees remain as they are, this suggests that as many as 1,710 (36.6%) or more employees could be attempting to live in Elkford and Sparwood on a temporary fly-or- drive-in-and-out basis in accordance with their work schedules.

It is important to note that these projections may be low. For example, Table 9 projects at total of 2,758 employees working for Teck in 2011 yet Table 8 shows a total of 3,835 people working for Teck. The higher figure in Table 8 includes permanent, temporary and casual employees – which may be the cause of the discrepancy. It is also important to note that the coal industry is cyclical and it may not be appropriate to project future employment levels at Teck in such a linear manner.

5.0 Conclusion

Several general trends were observed in the Census of Population data for Elkford and Sparwood between 1991 and 2006:

! Steady population decline of -0.6% per year on average over time (i.e., over the last 20 years); ! An increase in the total number of empty-nesters and seniors compared to a decline in the total number of children, youth and working-age adults; ! A slight decline in the total number of couples compared to an increase in the total number of one-person households; and ! A dramatic decline in the total number of single fathers compared to a significant increase in the total number of single mothers in Elkford vs. a slight increase in the total number of single fathers compared to a noticeable decline in the total number of single mothers.

It is unclear from the population data alone what role housing may be playing. For example, steady population decline might normally suggest improved housing affordability over time since a declining population could lead to fewer households and, therefore, fewer housing supply and demand challenges over time. An increase in the number of one-person households also suggests that housing affordability may be improving over time (which is further supported by the observed increase in the number of lone-parent families in Elkford) since these households are generally single-income- earners who have to compete for housing with other dual-income households.

However, if families are leaving the community and single individuals are moving into the community, the total number of households living in Elkford and Sparwood may remain constant (or actually increase over time); thereby maintaining or even increasing supply and demand pressures. Similarly, if recreational property investment in the area is increasing, housing supply and demand pressures may also persist or even escalate over time despite the number of households leaving the community. Furthermore, a decline in the number of lone-parent families (especially single mothers) living in Sparwood suggests that low- to modest-income households are being compelled to move out of that community in search of better jobs and more affordable housing.

It is also unclear what impact will occur on the area’s permanent population should Teck formally implement a proposed 7-on/7-off shift structure for its workers identified by participants in a series of Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings conducted as part of this study. The assumption is that this change will have a negative impact on the area’s permanent population unless more affordable housing combined with other inducements can be implemented to encourage workers to make Elkford and Sparwood their permanent homes.

- 25 -

What remains clear is that if the populations trends observed between 1996 and 2001 continue into the future, housing needs in Elkford and Sparwood will likely change. The population trends observed to date suggest that Elkford and Sparwood will require more housing geared towards empty-nesters and seniors over time as well as more housing geared toward single individuals.

- 26 -

CHAPTER 4: Household Incomes in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

1.0 Introduction

This chapter looks at the changing nature of household incomes within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood in order to gain a preliminary sense of the degree to which housing affordability may be an issue. The summaries presented in this chapter combine data from a variety of sources, including Statistics Canada Census of Population data, Statistics Canada Taxfiler data and BCStats (itself a compilation of Statistics Canada Census of Population data and Taxfiler data).

In most cases, Taxfiler data is considered to be the more accurate data. Income data from the Census of Population is based solely on the incomes declared by 20% of households within the community who responded to the long Census questionnaire. There is no verification process for those declared incomes; nor are respondents required to provide confirmation that their income responses are accurate. Conversely, Taxfiler data is based on the incomes declared by all households in a community who filed their annual tax return. While it is possible for people to file false tax returns, there are several “checks and balances” associated with filed tax returns. Taxfiler data is, therefore, deemed to be more accurate and reliable than Census of Population data when it comes to evaluating household incomes.

2.0 Chapter Highlights

! Both Elkford’s and Sparwood’s economies appear to be diversifying over time and overall/average incomes appear to be improving over time – but not for all households. ! Between 2001 and 2006, Elkford experienced an increase in the percentage of residents employed in the manufacturing and construction sectors, the wholesale

- 27 -

and retail sectors, and the business services sector. Sparwood experienced an increase in the percentage of residents employed in the manufacturing and construction sectors, the wholesale and retail sectors, and the finance and real estate sectors. ! During the same period, Elkford experienced a decrease in the percentage of residents employed in the resource sector, the finance and real estate sectors, the health and education sectors as well as “other services”. Sparwood experienced a decrease in the percentage of residents employed in the resource sector, the health and education sectors, the business services sector, as well as “other services”. ! Overall household incomes have increased over time. Between 2000 and 2005, median incomes changed as follows: ! Elkford: ! All households combined: +14.2%; ! All families combined: +17.1% ! One-person households: -3.5%. ! Lone-parent families: -60.9% ! Sparwood: ! All households combined: +17.2%; ! All families combined: +21.7% ! One-person households: +17.8% ! Lone-Parent Families: +36.4% ! When average incomes for 2005 are compared to the province as a whole: ! All households combined living in Elkford earned 41.7% more than the provincial average while all households combined living in Sparwood earned 23.6% more than the provincial average; ! One-person households in Elkford earned more than twice the provincial average, while one-person households in Sparwood earned -8.0% less than the provincial average; ! Families in Elkford earned 27.0% more than the provincial average, while families in Sparwood earned 22.0% more than the provincial average; and ! Lone-parent families in Elkford earned 42.0% below the provincial average, while lone-parent families in Sparwood earned a modest 4.0% more than the provincial average. ! A more detailed look at individual household incomes shows that in 2009 both communities had a significantly higher percentage of households earning incomes of $75,000 and more than the province as a whole and a significantly lower percentage of households earning incomes under $75,000 compared to the province as a whole. ! Despite this trend, an estimated 9.8% of households in Elkford and an estimated 19.3% of households in Sparwood were earning incomes less than $25,000 in 2009. ! While improving incomes may suggest declining housing affordability challenges over time, there continues to be a segment of the local population earning significantly lower incomes than either local or provincial averages as well as those households receiving Social Assistance – and, therefore, likely to be experiencing ongoing housing affordability challenges.

- 28 -

3.0 Labour Force and Employment

Labour force and employment trends generally offer a sense of how incomes may be changing over time and the degree to which incomes in the community may differ (or even polarize) depending on what types of jobs are prevalent in the community and within what industries. Management jobs generally pay higher wages that entry-level jobs and jobs within the resource, health and business service sectors generally pay higher wages that jobs within the retail, service and tourism sectors.

Figures 5a (below) and 5b (next page) show changing economic dynamics in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood between 2001 and 2006 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data detailing the number and percentage of residents employed in different industries and occupations.

Figure 5a: Changing Industry Profiles for the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood (2001 and 2006)

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

Legend:

Elkford: 2001 2006

Sparwood: 2001 2006

- 29 -

Figure 5b: Changing Occupation Profiles for the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood (2001 and 2006)

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

Legend:

Elkford: 2001 2006

Sparwood: 2001 2006

- 30 -

According to this data, between 2001 and 2006, Elkford experienced:

! An increase in the percentage of residents employed in: ! The manufacturing and construction sectors; ! The wholesale and retail sectors; and ! Business services.

! A decrease in the percentage of residents employed in: ! The resource sector; ! Finance and real estate sectors; ! Health and education sectors; and ! Other services.

Sparwood experienced:

! An increase in the percentage of residents employed in: ! The manufacturing and construction sectors; ! The wholesale and retail sectors; and ! Finance and real estate sectors.

! A decrease in the percentage of residents employed in: ! The resource sector; ! Health and education sectors; ! Business services; and ! Other services.

These trends would suggest that as the two local economies continue to diversify, an increasing number (but not all) of new jobs created may be in sectors offering healthy wages but wages that are generally lower wages that those traditionally offered in the resource sector. People employed in lower-than-average paying jobs or sectors are more likely to experience housing affordability challenges.

During that same period, Elkford also experienced:

! An increase in the percentage of residents employed in positions related to: ! Management ! Business, finance & administration ! Social science, education, government & religion ! Sales and service ! Trades, transport & equipment operators ! Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing & utilities

! A decrease in the percentage of residents employed in positions related to: ! Natural and applied sciences ! Health

- 31 -

! Art, culture, recreation & sport ! Occupations unique to primary industry

Sparwood experienced:

! An increase in the percentage of residents employed in positions related to: ! Health ! Art, culture, recreation & sport ! Sales and service ! Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing & utilities

! A decrease in the percentage of residents employed in positions related to: ! Management ! Business, finance & administration ! Natural and applied sciences ! Social science, education, government & religion ! Trades, transport & equipment operators ! Occupations unique to primary industry

Many of the positions in which jobs appear to have increased over time suggest average to healthy incomes – particularly those in management positions; business and finance positions; education; government; trades; and occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities. At the same time, positions in sales, service, and administration may or may not offer healthy wages depending on the particular industry or sector.

4.0 Household Incomes

4.1 Median Household Incomes

Tables 10a (below) and 10b (next page) shows changing median family and household incomes in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood between 2001 and 2006 based on Census of Population data. These tables show that the overall median household income (i.e., for all household types combined) increased by 14.2% in Elkford and 17.2% in Sparwood between 2001 and 2006 while the median income for one-person households decreased by -3.5% in Elkford yet increased by 17.8% in Sparwood.

Table 10a: Median Household Income by Household Type for the District of Elkford (2000 and 2005)

District of Elkford Household Type and Characteristics Income (2000) Income (2005) % Change Median Household Income – All Households $65,430 $74,707 14.2% Median Household Income – One-Person Households $58,071 $56,016 -3.5%

Median Family Income – All Census Families $67,614 $79,159 17.1% Median Family Income – Couple Families $67,839 N/A* N/A* Married Couples N/A* $84,443 N/A* Common-Law Couples N/A* $71,676 N/A* Median Family Income – Lone-Parent Families $52,522 $20,559 -60.9%

- 32 -

Table 10b: Median Household Income by Household Type for the District of Sparwood (2000 and 2005)

District of Sparwood Household Type and Characteristics Income (2000) Income (2005) % Change Median Household Income – All Households $55,557 $65,139 17.2% Median Household Income – One-Person Households $21,704 $25,562 17.8%

Median Family Income – All Census Families $62,521 $76,085 21.7% Median Family Income – Couple Families $66,307 N/A * N/A * Married Couples N/A * $77,802 N/A * Common-Law Couples N/A * $88,153 N/A * Median Family Income – Lone-Parent Families $27,023 $36,855 36.4%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression) * For the 2006 Census of Population, Statistics Canada separated the category of “couple families” into “married-couple families” and “common-law couple families” making a direct comparison between 2001 and 2006 Census data no longer possible.

As shown in Chapter 4, the total number of one-person households increased in both communities between 2001 and 2006 – suggesting that a significant number of these individuals may be earning lower-than-average incomes.

In terms of families (couples with and without children and lone-parent households), the median income increased by 17.1% in Elkford and 21.7% in Sparwood. However, despite the increase in median incomes for all census families, the median income for lone-parent families actually declined by -60.9% in Elkford – likely due to a significant decline in the total number of single fathers along with a significant increase in the total number of single mothers living in the community as described in Chapter 4. In Sparwood, the median income of lone-parent families actually increased by 36.4% – likely due to a decline in the total number of single mothers along with a slight increase in the total number of single fathers living in the community also described in Chapter 4.

The declining average incomes earned by one-person and lone-parent households in Elkford combined with an increase in the number of one-person households and single mothers living in the community between 2001 and 2006 as described in Chapter 4 suggests that many of the new positions created in Elkford as the local economy diversifies may not necessarily be in average- to higher-wage jobs but rather lower-than-average-wage jobs. Either a large number of new jobs would have to pay slightly below-average wages or a small number of new jobs would have to pay dramatically below-average wages to produce the figures shown in Tables 10a and 10b. This suggests that housing affordability is more likely to be an issue (and to varying degrees) for an increasing number of people employed in those new jobs that are being created in the community as the local economy diversifies. Conversely, the increasing average incomes earned by all household types in Sparwood suggests that many of the new positions being created in that community as the local economy diversifies are likely offering average to higher-than-average wages rather lower-than- average wages. This suggests that issues with housing affordability may be declining over time for the average household as the local economy diversifies. However, this may not be the case for some households living in the two communities.

Table 11 (next page) compares average incomes earned in 2005 by various households types in both Elkford and Sparwood to those incomes earned across the province as a whole. Some noticeable disparities emerge from this data. For example:

- 33 -

! All households combined living in Elkford in 2005 earned 41.7% more than the provincial average while all households combined living in Sparwood earned 23.6% more than the provincial average; ! One-person households in Elkford earned more than twice the provincial average in 2005, while one-person households in Sparwood earned -8.0% less than the provincial average; ! Families in Elkford earned 27.0% more than the provincial average in 2005, while families in Sparwood earned 22.0% more than the provincial average; and ! Lone-parent families in Elkford earned 42.0% below the provincial average in 2005, while lone-parent families in Sparwood earned a modest 4.0% more than the provincial average.

Table 11: Median Household Income by Household Type for the District of Elkford, the District of Elkford and the Province of British Columbia (2005)

Household Type and Characteristics British Columbia Elkford % Difference Sparwood % Difference All Households $52,709 $74,707 41.7% $65,139 23.6% One-Person Households $27,773 $56,016 101.7% $25,562 -8.0%

All Census Families $62,346 $79,159 27.0% $76,085 22.0% Married Couples $69,207 $84,443 22.0% $77,802 12.4% Common-Law Couples $62,202 $71,676 15.2% $88,153 41.7% Lone-Parent Families $35,437 $20,559 -42.0% $36,855 4.0%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data are subject to rounding and suppression)

These general trends appear to have continued over time with only slight variations. Figures 6a (below) and 6b (next page) show a comparison of median household incomes in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood by household type compared to that of the Province as a whole in 2009 based on Taxfiler data.

Figure 6a: Comparison of Median Household Incomes for the District of Elkford and the Province of British Columbia (2009)

Legend:

Elkford:

BC:

Data Source: Statistics Canada Small Area Administrative Data Division Taxfiler Data (2009) (Note: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression)

- 34 -

Taxfiler data for Elkford shows that in 2009:

! Couple families earned 54.3% more than the provincial average; ! Lone-Parent families earned -20.6% less than the provincial average; and ! Single Individuals (“Non-Family Persons”) earned 178.1% more than the provincial average.

Thus median household incomes in Elkford appear to have continued to increase at a rate faster than the provincial average between 2005 and 2009.

Figure 6b: Comparison of Median Household Incomes for the District of Sparwood and the Province of British Columbia (2009)

Legend:

Sparwood:

BC:

Data Source: Statistics Canada Small Area Administrative Data Division Taxfiler Data (2009) (Note: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression)

Taxfiler data for Sparwood shows that in 2009:

! Couple families earned 43.8% more than the provincial average; ! Lone-Parent families earned 5.3% more than the provincial average; and ! Single Individuals (“Non-Family Persons”) earned 27.4% more than the provincial average.

Thus median household incomes in Sparwood also appear to have continued to increase at a rate faster than the provincial average between 2005 and 2009 resulting in a reversal to the situation in 2005 where the median household income among single individuals was -8.0% below the provincial average rather than 27.4% above the provincial average.

- 35 -

4.2 Detailed Household Incomes

Table 12 shows more detailed income data for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood based on 2001, 2006 and 2009 Taxfiler data. The data shows the degree to which incomes have changed over time in the two communities.

Table 12: Changing Household Incomes for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2001, 2006 and 2008)

District of Elkford Household Incomes 2001 2006 2009 % Change Total % Total % Total % % $0 - $9,999 60 6.2% 30 3.2% 10 1.0% -83.9% $10,000 - $14,999 50 5.2% 30 3.2% 30 2.9% -44.2% $15,000 - $19,999 10 1.0% 20 2.1% 20 2.0% 100.0% $20,000 - $24,999 30 3.1% 30 3.2% 40 3.9% 25.8% $25,000 - $29,999 20 2.1% 30 3.2% 30 2.9% 38.1% $30,000 - $34,999 30 3.1% 30 3.2% 30 2.9% -6.5% $35,000 - $39,999 10 1.0% 30 3.2% 20 2.0% 100.0% $40,000 - $44,999 10 1.0% 10 1.1% 20 2.0% 100.0% $45,000 - $49,999 40 4.1% 10 1.1% 20 2.0% -51.2% $50,000 - $59,999 60 6.2% 30 3.2% 30 2.9% -53.2% $60,000 - $74,999 260 26.8% 130 13.8% 60 5.9% -78.0% $75,000 - $99,999 240 24.7% 280 29.8% 290 28.4% 15.0% $100,000+ 160 16.5% 280 29.8% 420 41.2% 149.7% Published Total 970 101.0% 940 100.0% 1,020 100.0% N/A

District of Sparwood Household Incomes 2001 2006 2009 % Change Total % Total % Total % % $0 - $9,999 130 7.5% 60 3.5% 60 3.4% -54.7% $10,000 - $14,999 120 6.9% 80 4.7% 70 4.0% -42.0% $15,000 - $19,999 120 6.9% 130 7.6% 110 6.3% -8.7% $20,000 - $24,999 80 4.6% 70 4.1% 100 5.7% 23.9% $25,000 - $29,999 80 4.6% 100 5.9% 70 4.0% -13.0% $30,000 - $34,999 80 4.6% 70 4.1% 70 4.0% -13.0% $35,000 - $39,999 60 3.4% 70 4.1% 70 4.0% 17.6% $40,000 - $44,999 60 3.4% 50 2.9% 60 3.4% 0.0% $45,000 - $49,999 80 4.6% 40 2.4% 40 2.3% -50.0% $50,000 - $59,999 140 8.0% 80 4.7% 70 4.0% -50.0% $60,000 - $74,999 350 20.1% 210 12.4% 120 6.8% -66.2% $75,000 - $99,999 250 14.4% 360 21.2% 380 21.6% 50.0% $100,000+ 190 10.9% 370 21.8% 540 30.7% 181.7% Published Total 1,740 100.0% 1,700 99.4% 1,760 100.0% N/A

Data Source: BC Stats (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

This data demonstrates where the most significant improvements to household incomes may be occurring. For example, in Elkford between 2001 and 2009:

- 36 -

! The total number and percentage of households earning incomes below $15,000 declined while the number and percentage of households earning between $15,000 and $30,000 increased; ! The total number and percentage of households earning incomes between $30,000 and $35,000 declined while the number and percentage of households earning between $35,000 and $45,000 increased; and ! The total number and percentage of households earning incomes between $45,000 and $75,000 declined while the number and percentage of households earning $75,000 and over increased.

In Sparwood between 2001 and 2009:

! The total number and percentage of households earning incomes below $20,000 declined while the number and percentage of households earning between $20,000 and $25,000 increased; ! The total number and percentage of households earning incomes between $25,000 and $35,000 declined while the number and percentage of households earning between $35,000 and $40,000 increased; and ! The total number and percentage of households earning incomes between $45,000 and $75,000 declined while the number and percentage of households earning $75,000 and over increased.

These patterns indicate significant improvements in overall household incomes throughout the area and suggesting improved prosperity overall for both communities. The most dramatic increases for both Elkford and Sparwood were seen in the number and percentage of households earning incomes over $100,000 – suggesting tremendous growth in the number of very high income earners in the community. Figures 7a (below) and 7b (next page) show a comparison of household incomes in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood by household type compared to that of the Province as a whole in 2009 based on Taxfiler data and organized into quintiles of $25,000.

Figure 7a: Comparison of Household Incomes by Quintile for the District of Elkford and the Province of BC (2009)

Legend:

Elkford:

BC:

Data Source: Statistics Canada Small Area Administrative Data Division Taxfiler Data (2009) (Note: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression)

- 37 -

Figure 7a: Comparison of Household Incomes by Quintile for the District of Sparwood and the Province of BC (2009)

Legend:

Sparwood:

BC:

Data Source: Statistics Canada Small Area Administrative Data Division Taxfiler Data (2009) (Note: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression)

Both of these figures show significantly lower percentages of households in both communities earning incomes under $75,000 than the Province as a whole and significantly higher percentages of households in both communities earning incomes of $75,000 and over. These figures also depict Elkford as the more affluent overall of the two communities with 41.2% of households earning incomes of $100,000 or more compared to 30.7% of households in Sparwood and 18.9% of households province-wide.

As shown in Figures 7a and 7b, an estimated 9.8% of households in Elkford (one in ten) and an estimated 19.3% of households in Sparwood (one in five) were earning incomes below $25,000 in 2009. The maximum affordable rent for a household earning $25,000 is $625 per month. It is also important to note both the number and percentage of households in Elkford and Sparwood earning very low incomes (i.e., less than $15,000 per year) as shown in Table 12. According to the Taxfiler data, an estimated 40 households (3.9%) of all households in Elkford earned incomes less than $15,000 in 2009. In Sparwood, an estimated 130 households (7.4%) of all households earned incomes less than $15,000 in 2009. A number of these households are likely to receiving some from of Social Assistance and may be living in difficult housing situations unless they have been able to secure either a rent subsidy or some from of permanently subsidized housing (e.g., seniors’ living in the area’s subsidized seniors’ Independent or Supportive housing). For example, the maximum affordable rent for a household earning $15,000 is $375 per month and the maximum affordable rent for a household earning $10,000 is $250 per month.

5.0 Incidents of Poverty

BCStats also provides a look at incidents of poverty within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood based on the number of individuals between 2001 and 2008 receiving Social Assistance. Table 13 (next page) shows the total number and percentage of individual taxfilers by gender reporting having received Social Assistance in 2001, 2006 and 2008 as well as the total amount of Social Assistance payments received and the average amount received per person.

- 38 -

Table 13: Percentage of Taxfilers by Gender in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood Receiving Social Assistance (2001, 2006 and 2008)

District of Elkford Year Males Females Total Total Payments Total % Total % Total % Total Avg./Person 2001 30 3.3% 40 7.1% 60 4.1% $296,000 $4,933 2006 0 0.0% 20 3.6% 30 2.1% $197,000 $6,567 2008 0 0.0% 20 3.4% 20 1.4% $181,000 $9,050 Change (%) -100.0% -100.0% -50.0% -51.7% -66.7% -66.9% -38.9% 83.4%

District of Sparwood Year Males Females Total Total Payments Total % Total % Total % Total Avg./Person 2001 80 6.3% 120 12.9% 200 9.0% $1,124,000 $5,620 2006 50 4.0% 50 5.2% 100 4.5% $676,000 $6,760 2008 40 2.9% 40 3.9% 90 3.8% $603,000 $6,700 Change (%) -50.0% -53.3% -66.7% -69.6% -55.0% -58.2% -46.4% 19.2%

Data Source: BCStats (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

This data suggests that poverty rates in both Elkford and Sparwood have declined over time. For example, between 2001 and 2008, the total number of individuals receiving Social Assistance in Elkford declined by -66.7% (or 40 individuals) and the total dollar amount of Social Assistance issued to households living in Elkford declined by -38.9%. In Sparwood, the total number of individuals receiving Social Assistance declined by -55.0% (or 110 individuals) and the total dollar amount of Social Assistance issued declined by -46.4%. At the same time, the average amount of Social Assistance received per person increased by 83.4% in Elkford and by 19.2% in Sparwood.

According to the data, males living in Elkford appear to have limited exposure and limited need for Social Assistance – especially more recently – as the data suggests that between 2006 and 2008, there were no males (0) in Elkford reporting Social Assistance while there were 20 females reporting Social Assistance. In Sparwood, males appear to have equal exposure and need for Social Assistance as females – especially more recently – as the data suggests that between 2006 and 2008, there were an equal number of males and females reporting Social Assistance in Sparwood.

There are also some discrepancies in the data likely due to data suppression. For example, in 2006, the data for Elkford shows 0 males and 20 females reporting Social Assistance for a total of 30 individuals. Similarly, in 2001, the data for Elkford shows 30 males and 40 females reporting Social Assistance for a total of 60 individuals. In 2008, the data for Sparwood shows 40 males and 40 females reporting Social Assistance for a total of 90 individuals. Despite these discrepancies, the data clearly shows that Social Assistance rates in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood are relatively low and have been declining over time. At the same time, there does remain a segment of the local population apparently experiencing either short-term or long-term bouts of poverty requiring them to seek Social Assistance in order to supplement their incomes.

6.0 Conclusion

On the surface, Elkford and Sparwood appear to be relatively affluent communities – brought about by strong local economies based primarily on the resource sector (i.e., mining and forestry). Over time, the two local economies have been diversifying resulting in an increase in the percentage of residents

- 39 -

employed in the manufacturing and construction sectors, the wholesale and retail sectors, the finance and real estate sectors, and the business services sector. As the two economies diversified, so too have average household incomes.

In Elkford, the median income of all households and of families has increased over time, while the median income for lone-parent families and one-person households appears to have declined. In Sparwood, median household incomes for all household and family types have increased but to varying degrees. In Elkford, median incomes for all households, as well as families and one-person households remain higher than provincial averages; however, median incomes for lone-parent families are significantly lower than provincial averages. In Sparwood, median incomes for all households, as well as couples and lone-parent families remain higher than provincial averages, while median incomes for one-person households remain slightly lower than provincial averages.

In 2009, more than half of all households in Elkford and Sparwood were earning incomes of $75,000 and more (an estimated 69.6% of Elkford households and an estimated 52.3% of Sparwood households). Conversely, an estimated 9.8% of households in Elkford and an estimated 19.3% of households in Sparwood were earning incomes less than $25,000 in 2009. A significant portion of these households are likely to be experiencing housing affordability challenges. Therefore, while improving incomes may suggest declining housing affordability challenges over time, this may not be true for all households. There continues to be a segment of the local population earning significantly lower incomes than either local or provincial averages (particularly lone-parent families) as well as those households receiving Social Assistance – and, therefore, likely to be experiencing ongoing housing affordability challenges.

- 40 -

CHAPTER 5: Housing Supply

1.0 Introduction

An analysis of the local housing supply is important to gain an understanding of how closely the existing supply of housing meets the needs of the current population. The range of available housing types in a community can be defined in three ways:

(1) Market housing: rental and ownership housing available on the open market; (2) Near-market housing: rental and ownership housing targeted specifically to low- and moderate-income households in the community and often made affordable through the combined efforts of and partnerships between local non-profits, the private sector and government; and (3) Non-market housing: supportive/transitional housing and emergency shelters in which residents’ rents are fully subsidized through government and social programs.

This chapter looks at the existing supply of housing in all three categories available within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood.

2.0 Chapter Highlights

! The majority of homes in both communities are owned. In Elkford, 86.1% of homes were owned in 2006 and 13.9% of homes were rented. In Sparwood, 74.0% of homes were owned and 26.4% of homes were rented. ! Between 1996 and 2006, the total number of rented homes declined by -12.5% (-20 homes) in Elkford and -24.8% (-135 homes) in Sparwood. ! Both communities have a relatively diversified housing supply. In 2006, 57.5% of homes in Elkford were single-detached dwellings, 17.9% were “other dwellings” (i.e., manufactured and

- 41 -

mobile homes), and 16.9% were apartment buildings. In Sparwood, 51.1% of homes were single-detached dwellings, 18.6% were “other dwellings”, and 13.5% were apartment buildings. ! As many as 378 homes in Elkford (27.3%) and 358 homes in Sparwood (18.7%) were not occupied by “usual residents” in 2006, but rather were owned by seasonal/non-permanent residents, property investors and/or local employers (e.g., the mines) and used to house temporary workers. ! Average home sale prices in Elkford and Sparwood increased dramatically between 2001 and 2011 based on detached single family dwelling sales data provided by the Kootenay Real Estate Board (on average 20.2% per year in Elkford and 17.6% per year in Sparwood). ! August 2011 MLS listings indicated an overall average “asking price” of $193,436 for homes for sale on the open market in Elkford (which is significantly lower than the average sale price of a home in 2008 and is potentially due to a large number of multi-residential strata condos – possible strata title/condo conversions – available for purchase). In Sparwood, the average “asking price” was $267,412. ! Average asking prices of homes for sale on the open market in August 2011 were as follows: ! Single detached homes: ! Elkford: $350,415 ! Sparwood: $369,527 ! Manufactured/mobile homes (owned land): ! Elkford: $207,513 ! Sparwood: $261,917 ! Manufactured/mobile homes (rented land): ! Elkford: $120,800 ! Sparwood: $94,267 ! Duplexes: ! Elkford: $191,750 ! Sparwood: $159,000 ! Row/townhouses: ! Elkford: $169,000 ! Sparwood: $131,740 ! Apartment/stacked townhouse strata condos: ! Elkford: $120,107 ! Sparwood: $197,961 ! Under current interest rates, average market housing appears to be affordable to households earning incomes between $39,350 and $70,600 in Elkford and between $37,100 and $76,700 in Sparwood. Entry-level market housing (i.e., the cheapest 25% of homes currently on the market) appears to be affordable to households earning incomes between $35,050 and $37,725 in Elkford and between $37,100 and $49,475 in Sparwood. Households living in either community earning incomes below $35,000 are likely unable to enter homeownership without a sizeable downpayment or very low debt. ! There appears to be very few housing units available to rent in Elkford and Sparwood. As a result, there is insufficient data to estimate current average and median rents or the incomes required to afford average and median rents. ! There appear to be limited near- or non-market housing options available in Elkford and Sparwood. Non-market housing consists of supportive/transitional shelters (e.g., group homes and second stage/transitional family violence shelters) and emergency shelters (e.g., homeless shelters, youth shelters and family violence shelters). Near-market housing includes:

- 42 -

- Limited/shared equity homeownership: - Subsidized employer-owned staff housing; - Subsidized rent-geared-to-income rental units; and ! Seniors’ housing: ! Most of the near-market housing in Sparwood is geared towards seniors (an estimated 88 units). However, it is currently projected that Elkford and Sparwood will require a combined total of up to 168 seniors’ housing units by 2025 (including Independent Living, Supportive Living, Assisted Living, and Residential/Long-Term Care). ! It is unknown at present how many housing units in both communities are geared specifically towards temporary workers. ! It is unknown at present whether or not there are any specific initiatives underway or under consideration to develop housing that would be considered affordable for low- and modest- income households. ! This apparent lack of affordable housing options suggests that low- and modest-income households have few opportunities to establish themselves in Elkford and Sparwood.

3.0 General Characteristics of the Existing Housing Supply

3.1 Housing Tenure

Table 14 shows data for the total number of “private dwellings occupied by usual residents” (i.e., permanent residents) in both Elkford and Sparwood based on Census of Population data. This data shows that the majority of homes in both communities are owner-occupied and that both the number and percentage of dwellings that are owned have increased over time. For example, in 2006, 86.1% of homes in Elkford and 74.0% of homes in Sparwood were owned while 13.9% of homes in Elkford and 26.4% of homes in Sparwood were rented. Throughout the Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK), an estimated 79.3% of homes were owned and 20.7% of homes were rented in 2006 – indicating that Sparwood has a higher-than-average percentage of rental units and Elkford has a lower-than-average percentage of rental units than the region as a whole.

Table 14: Owned vs. Rented Dwelling Characteristics for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (1996, 2001 and 2006)

District of Elkford Tenure 1996 2001 2006 % Change No. % No. % No. % No. % Total Owned 785 83.1% 810 83.1% 865 86.1% 10.2% 3.6% Total Rented 160 16.9% 165 16.9% 140 13.9% -12.5% -17.7% Published Total 945 100.0% 975 100.0% 1,005 100.0% 6.3% N/A

District of Sparwood Tenure 1996 2001 2006 % Change No. % No. % No. % No. % Total Owned 995 64.6% 1120 72.5% 1,150 74.0% 15.6% 14.5% Total Rented 545 35.4% 415 26.9% 410 26.4% -24.8% -25.5% Published Total 1,540 100.0% 1,545 99.4% 1,555 100.4% 1.0% N/A

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

- 43 -

The emphasis on homeownership appears to be increasing over time in both communities. For example, between 1996 and 2006, Elkford saw a 10.2% increase in the total number of owned dwellings (80 more owned homes total) and a -12.5% decline in the total number of rented dwellings (20 fewer rented homes), while Sparwood saw a 15.6% increase in the total number of owned dwellings (155 more owned homes total) and a -24.8% decline in the total number of rented dwellings (135 fewer rented homes).

Since the actual number of homes “occupied by usual residents” only increased by 6.3% (approximately 60 homes) in Elkford and by 1.0% (approximately 15 homes) in Sparwood during that ten-year period, this data suggests that a large portion of the rental housing in both communities may actually have been converted to homeownership – either through strata title conversion of formal rental units (i.e., conversion of rental apartments to ownership condominiums) or the sale of informal rental units (e.g., the sale of single detached homes that were being rented in 1996 either to the tenants themselves, to new households physically moving into the homes they just purchased, or to property investors unwilling to rent out the homes they just purchased).

Another important dynamic to note is the correlation between population change and the number of housing units in the two communities. Between 1996 and 2006, the permanent population of Elkford declined by -9.7% (approximately 265 individuals), while the number of housing units “occupied by usual residents” increased by 6.3% (or 60 homes). During that same period, the permanent population of Sparwood declined by -9.1% (approximately 365 individuals), while the number of housing units “occupied by usual residents” increased by 1.0% (or 15 homes). This suggests that either the average size of households living in Elkford and Sparwood is declining (i.e., on average, fewer people are living in each home) or that the number of non-permanent/recreational homebuyers is increasing. Both situations are likely occurring. For example, Census of Population data indicates that the average Elkford household contained 2.7 persons in 2001 compared to 2.5 persons in 2006 while the average Sparwood household contained 2.5 persons in 2001 compared to 2.3 persons in 2006.

3.2 Housing Types

In addition to both rental and owner-occupied homes, Elkford and Sparwood both offer a relatively diversified supply of housing in terms of dwelling types. Table 15 presents 2006 housing data for the two communities indicating that 57.7% of homes within the District of Elkford and 51.1% of homes within the District of Sparwood were single-detached houses (compared to 63.2% of homes throughout the RDEK).

Table 15: Dwelling Characteristics for the District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood and the Regional District of East Kootenay (2006)

Dwelling Type RDEK Elkford Sparwood (“Occupied by Usual Residents”) Pub. % Est. No. Pub. % Est. No. Pub. % Est. No. Single-Detached Houses 63.2% 14,801 57.7% 580 51.1% 795 Semi-Detached Houses 4.5% 1,054 6.5% 65 8.4% 131 Row Houses (e.g., Townhouse) 4.2% 984 1.5% 15 6.4% 100 Apartments, Duplex 1.2% 281 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Apartments in Buildings < 5 Storeys 11.1% 2,600 16.9% 170 13.5% 210 Apartments in Buildings ! 5 Storeys 0.2% 47 0.0% 0 2.3% 36 Other Dwellings 15.5% 3,630 17.9% 180 18.6% 289 Total Private Dwellings 99.9% 23,420 100.5% 1,005 100.3% 1,555

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data are subject to rounding and suppression)

- 44 -

The second most frequent dwelling types in both communities are “other dwellings” – presumably mobile homes14 (17.9% in Elkford and 18.6% in Sparwood – compared to 15.5% throughout the RDEK) – followed by apartment buildings with fewer than five storeys (16.9% in Elkford and 13.5% in Sparwood – compared to 11.1% throughout the RDEK). Other housing options available include semi- detached houses (6.5% in Elkford and 8.4% in Sparwood – compared to 4.5% throughout the RDEK) and rowhouses/townhouses (1.5% in Elkford and 6.4% in Sparwood – compared to 4.2% throughout the RDEK).

Figure 8 compares the percentage of dwellings by type in Elkford and Sparwood to the regional average (i.e., the percentage of dwellings by type throughout the RDEK).

Figure 8: Comparison of 2006 Dwellings by Type for the District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood and the Regional District of East Kootenay

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

Legend:

Elkford: Sparwood: RDEK:

This data indicates that both Elkford and Sparwood have a lower percentage of single-detached houses and duplexes than the RDEK as a whole yet a higher percentage of semi-detached houses, apartment units, and “other” dwellings. While Elkford has a higher percentage of rowhouses and townhouse than the RDEK as well as apartment units in buildings greater than 5 storeys, Sparwood has a lower percentage of these dwelling types than the RDEK as a whole. It may be difficult to infer from this data what types of dwellings are most needed in Elkford and Sparwood since market demand, land availability and development opportunities may have important influences on the actual mix of housing in each community.

14 According to Statistics Canada “other dwellings” include “other single attached houses and movable dwellings such as mobile homes and other movable dwellings such as houseboats and railroad cars.”

- 45 -

Figure 9 shows the degree to which housing options in Elkford and Sparwood have changed over time. This figure is based on data compiled by George Penfold – formerly of Selkirk College – and shows that the percentage of mobile homes and apartment units increased in both communities between 2001 and 2006 while the percentage of detached homes and multi-family dwelling units declined in both communities. It is unclear from the data compiled by Mr. Penfold what constitutes “multi-family” units. Presumably, these are duplex and rowhouse units.

Figure 9: Comparison of 2001 and 2006 Dwelling Types for the District of Elkford

Data Source: Selkirk College

Legend:

Elkford: 2001 2006

Sparwood: 2001 2006

In real terms, the total number of detached houses declined by an estimated 35 units and the total number of multi-family homes declined by an estimated five units in Elkford while the total number of detached houses in Sparwood declined by an estimated 55 units and the total number of multi-family

- 46 -

homes declined by an estimated 30 units. This suggests that property redevelopment may be occurring in both Elkford and Sparwood; possibly resulting in increased residential density and infill.

As with the data presented in Table 15 above, the data presented in Figure 8 is based on dwelling units “occupied by usual residents” rather than all private dwellings in the community.

3.3 Seasonal vs. Permanent Ownership

Market ownership of housing in Elkford and Sparwood falls into two general categories: 1) those dwelling units owned by permanent residents; and 2) those dwelling units owned by non-permanent residents. As shown in Table 14 above an estimated 865 of the 1,005 homes in Elkford that were “occupied by usual residents” and an estimated 1,150 of the 1,555 homes in Sparwood that were “occupied by usual residents” were owned. These figures do not, however, represent all of the dwellings that were present in both communities in 2006. First, these figures may represent a somewhat reduced and rounded sample of the actual number of dwellings “occupied by usual residents” identified in the Census of Population. Second, the Census of Population identified a total of 1,383 “private dwellings” in Elkford and a total of 1,914 “private dwellings” in Sparwood in 2006. This suggests that there may have been as many as 378 homes in Elkford (27.3%) and as many as 358 homes in Sparwood (18.7%) that were not occupied by “usual residents” but rather owned by seasonal/non-permanent residents, property investors and/or local employers and used to house temporary workers.

BC Assessment data provides a more detailed look at permanent vs. non-permanent, non-local and/or seasonal homeownership in the two communities. Since BC Assessment mails an annual Property Assessment Notice directly to each registered property owner, the official mailing address associated with each residential property owner is recorded in the data. Tables 16a (below) and 16b (next page) show the total number of residential properties (both developed and non-developed) in Elkford (see below) and Sparwood (next page) and the community to which Property Assessment Notices were mailed both in 2006 and 2011. According to this data, less than two-thirds (61.1%) of residential dwellings in Elkford were owned by individuals and businesses residing in Elkford in 2011 while just under three-quarters (72.6%) of residential dwellings in Sparwood were owned by individuals and businesses residing in Sparwood.

Table 16a: Estimated Number of Residential Properties Owned by Local vs. Non-Local Individuals and Businesses in the District of Elkford (2006 – 2011)

District of Elkford 2006 2011 2006-2011 Mailing Address of Property Owner No. % No. % % Change Total Residential Properties 1,674 100.0% 1,696 100.0% N/A Elkford 1,028 61.4% 1,036 61.1% -0.5% Sparwood 26 1.6% 28 1.7% 6.3% Fernie 18 1.1% 18 1.1% -1.3% Rest of BC 97 5.8% 106 6.3% 7.9% Alberta 439 26.2% 442 26.1% -0.6% Rest of Canada 42 2.5% 42 2.5% -1.3% USA 12 0.7% 12 0.7% -1.3% Non-North America 12 0.7% 12 0.7% -1.3% Total Non-Local Residential Property Ownership 646 38.6% 660 38.9% 0.8%

- 47 -

Table 16b: Estimated Number of Residential Properties Owned by Local vs. Non-Local Individuals and Businesses in the District of Sparwood (2006 – 2011)

District of Sparwood 2006 2011 2006-2011 Mailing Address of Property Owner No. % No. % % Change Total Residential Properties 1,703 100.0% 1,930 100.0% N/A Sparwood 1,305 76.6% 1,401 72.6% -5.3% Elkford 5 0.3% 9 0.5% 58.8% Fernie 38 2.2% 50 2.6% 16.1% Rest of BC 111 6.5% 162 8.4% 28.8% Alberta 211 12.4% 275 14.2% 15.0% Rest of Canada 26 1.5% 26 1.3% -11.8% USA 4 0.2% 4 0.2% -11.8% Non-North America 3 0.2% 3 0.2% -11.8% Total Non-Local Residential Property Ownership 398 23.4% 529 27.4% 17.3%

Data Source: BC Assessment (2006 and 2011)

Over time, the number and percentage of non-permanent, non-local and/or seasonal property owners seems to be increasing in both communities – albeit much slower in Elkford than in Sparwood. For example, Elkford experienced a 0.8% increase in the percentage of residential properties owned by non-local individuals and businesses between 2006 and 2011 while Sparwood witnessed a 17.3% increase. The observed difference in non-local property ownership rates between the two communities is most likely the result of different development levels. For example, the BC Assessment data for Elkford shows a net increase of only 22 residential properties (1.3%) between 2006 and 2011 while the BC Assessment data for Sparwood shows a net increase of 227 residential properties (13.3%). The greater degree of new residential property development occurring in Sparwood provides more opportunities for non-locals to purchase residential properties in that community compared to Elkford.

It should also be noted that the rate of non-local residential property ownership appears to be increasing faster than the rate of new residential development. In Elkford, there were 22 more residential properties in existence in 2011 than there were in 2006 yet the total number of residential properties owned by Elkford individuals and/or businesses increased by only eight (8). This suggests that only 36.4% of these new residential opportunities may have benefitted Elkford individuals and/or businesses. In Sparwood, the number of residential properties increased by 227 between 2006 and 2011 yet the total number of residential properties owned by Sparwood individuals and/or businesses increased by less than half (96 or 42.3%). This suggests the majority of Sparwood’s new residential opportunities may also have benefitted non-Sparwood individuals and/or businesses.

4.0 Housing Costs in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

4.1 Average Dwelling Values and Median Housing Costs

Table 17 (next page) presents data from the 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population depicting average dwelling values15 in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood and compares those values to the provincial average. This data indicates that average housing prices more than doubled in Elkford between 1996 and 2006 (an increase of 112.8%) and average housing prices almost doubled in Sparwood (an increase of 96.8%), while average prices province-wide increased by an estimated

15 These values are based on the 20% sample of households answering the long Census questionnaire on which households are asked to estimate what they believe to be the price that they could get for their home should they sell it and, therefore, may not represent an accurate estimate of the average actual market value for homes in the community.

- 48 -

74.6%. Despite the greater rate of housing price appreciation both in Elkford and in Sparwood, average housing prices in 2006 were more than 65% lower in Elkford and more than 60% lower in Sparwood than they were province-wide. At the same time, average household wages in Elkford were 41.7% higher and average household wages in Sparwood were 23.6% higher than the provincial average at the time – as indicated in Table 9 in Chapter 4.

Table 17: Average Dwelling Values for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood vs. the Province of BC (1996, 2001 and 2006)

Year British Columbia Elkford Sparwood 1996 $239,745 $66,903 $80,303 2001 $230,645 $86,951 $97,375 2006 $418,703 * $142,362 * $158,017 * Percent Change (1996-2006) 74.6% 112.8% 96.8%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population * Represents average values for owned dwellings only

Table 18 (below) and Figure 10 (next page) below show more detailed data on the changing average housing values within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood between January 2001 and November based on data provided by the Kootenay Real Estate Board. According to this data, the average price of a detached single family dwelling increased in Elkford by 221.7% over the eleven-year period between 2001 and 2011 (from an average of $92,124 in 2001 to an average of $296,595 as of November 2011) and 17.6% in Sparwood (from an average of $105,293 in 2001 to an average of $309,143 as of November 2011). Based on this data, sale prices for detached single family dwellings have been increasing in Elkford at an average annual rate of 20.2% and in Sparwood at an average annual rate of 17.6%.

Table 18: Changing Average Residential Sale Prices for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (January 2001 to November 2011)

Average Residential Sale Price Year Elkford Sparwood 2001 $92,194 $105,293 2002 $108,286 $123,251 2003 $115,675 $141,947 2004 $101,180 $127,128 2005 $135,111 $173,773 2006 $183,257 $185,226 2007 $229,654 $273,087 2008 $287,140 $304,939 2009 $290,961 $277,599 2010 $288,320 $291,654 2011 (to November) $296,595 $309,143 Total Change (%) 221.7% 193.6% Average Annual Change (%) 20.2% 17.6%

Data Source: Kootenay Real Estate Board

- 49 -

Figure 10: Changing Average Residential Sale Prices for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (January 2001 to November 2011)

Source: Kootenay Real Estate Board

It is also important to note that there have been a number of fluctuations in average sale prices during that fifteen-year period – with average sale prices declining over time as well as increasing over time depending on the particular period in time and, presumably, what was happening in both the local economy and/or the regional economy. Despite these periods of decline, average homes prices in the District of Elkford increased at an average annual rate of 13.7% between 1993 and 2008.

With average dwelling values increasing, it is expected that average monthly housing costs (i.e., rent and mortgage payments) would also be increasing. However, this may not be the case for everyone (e.g., over time, some homeowners are expected to pay off their mortgages or refinance their mortgages at more favorable interest rates). Table 19 (next page) shows that while average monthly payments for owner-occupied dwellings in Elkford did increase between 2001 and 2006, average monthly rents appear to have decreased despite a decline in the total number of rental units. A decline in the number of rental units would normally suggest that average rents would be increasing over time due to increased supply and demand pressures. According to the data, average monthly payments for owner-occupied homes increased from $570 in 2001 to $720 in 2006. Conversely, average monthly rents decreased from $617 in 2001 to $540 in 2006.

In Sparwood, the reverse is the case – average monthly rents increased slightly (from $509 to $526), while average monthly payments for owner-occupied dwellings decreased (from $683 to $553).

Caution should be exercised when comparing average housing costs (the arithmetic mean) to median housing costs (the midpoint between the highest and lowest value), as they are not directly comparable in most cases.

- 50 -

Table 19: Average Housing Costs in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2001 and 2006)

District of Elkford Housing Costs 2001 (Average) 2006 (Median) % Change Number of Owner-Occupied Dwellings 810 865 6.8% Monthly Payments (Owner-Occupied Dwellings) $570 $720 26.3% * Number of Rented Dwellings 165 140 -15.2% Monthly Payments (Rental Dwellings) $617 $540 -12.5% * District of Sparwood Housing Costs 2001 (Average) 2006 (Median) % Change Number of Owner-Occupied Dwellings 1,110 1,150 3.6% Monthly Payments (Owner-Occupied Dwellings) $683 $553 -19.0% * Number of Rented Dwellings 415 410 -1.2% Monthly Payments (Rental Dwellings) $509 $526 3.3% *

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census of Population * Median and Average incomes are not directly comparable

4.2 Estimated Current Market Housing Costs – Homeownership

Current average home prices in Elkford and Sparwood vary considerably from the average sale prices shown in Table 18 above. Table 20 shows “a snapshot in time” of the average and median asking prices of homes for sale in August 2011 both within the District of Elkford and within the District of Sparwood based on dwelling type and asking prices (i.e., highest and lowest).

Table 20: Average, Median and Range of Residential Asking Prices in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (August 2011)

District of Elkford – Dwelling Type No Average Median Low High Units Asking $ Asking $ Single-Detached Dwellings 20 $350,415 $309,450 $249,900 $599,000 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Owned Land) 8 $207,513 $209,900 $147,500 $249,000 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Leased Land) 3 $120,800 $124,000 $98,500 $139,900 Duplex 2 $191,750 $191,750 $169,000 $214,500 Row/Townhouse 1 $169,000 $169,000 $169,000 $169,000 Apartment/Stacked Townhouse Strata Condo 41 $120,107 $126,000 $59,900 $189,500 All Dwellings 75 $193,436 $147,500 $59,900 $599,000

District of Sparwood – Dwelling Type No Average Median Low High Units Asking $ Asking $ Single-Detached Dwellings 41 $369,527 $339,000 $195,000 $799,900 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Owned Land) 6 $261,917 $264,900 $239,900 $279,900 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Leased Land) 3 $94,267 $99,900 $78,000 $104,900 Duplex 1 $159,000 $159,000 $159,000 $159,000 Row/Townhouse 5 $131,740 $134,900 $109,900 $159,000 Apartment/Stacked Townhouse Strata Condo 41 $197,961 $226,900 $59,900 $265,900 All Dwellings 97 $267,412 $237,900 $59,900 $799,900

Data Source: Multiple List Service (MLS): www.mls.ca (August 5, 2011)

- 51 -

According to this data, average home prices may have declined in Elkford since 2008. For example, in 2008, the average price of a home in Elkford was $287,140; however, the average asking price of homes for sale in August 2011 was $193,436 while the median asking prices (i.e., that point in the middle where 50% of homeowners are seeking more and 50% of homeowners are seeking less) is $147,500. In Sparwood, the average asking price of homes for sale in August 2011 was $267,412 while the median asking prices was $237,900.

As of August 2011, the lowest asking price for a home in Elkford was $59,900 (an apartment- style/stacked townhouse strata condominium unit) and the highest asking price was $599,000 (a manufactured/mobile home on 1.1 acres of what is described as “waterfront” property). In Sparwood, the lowest asking price was $59,900 (an apartment-style/stacked townhouse strata condominium unit) and the highest asking price was $799,900 (a newer single detached home built within the last five years on between 1/3 and 1/2 acres of land).

Caution is advised when comparing the data presented in Table 20 to the data available for 2008 shown in Table 18. First, Table 20 shows asking price whereas Table 18 shows actual average sale prices – actual average sale prices are often below that of the average asking price of homes. Second, Table 20 shows that more than half of the homes for sale in Elkford in August 2011 (41 homes) are apartment-style (stacked townhouse) strata condo units – all of which were originally built in the late 1970s and early-to-mid 1980s and may be recent conversions from rental apartments to strata/condominium title ownership units. This type of dwelling unit typically commands a lower average asking/sale price than a traditional single detached home. The sheer number of apartment- style strata condos currently on the market could be skewing the data. Excluding those units from the data produces an average current asking price of $281,862 – still slightly lower than the 2008 average sale price but not so dramatically different than the actual current average asking price.

Table 21 (next page) shows the current average and median asking prices of homes in Elkford and Sparwood by type along with the estimated incomes required in order to purchase these units based on the following assumptions:

! Actual Sale Price: 95% of asking price ! Amortization: 30 years ! Term: 5-year fixed ! Interest Rate: 4.24% (East Kootenay Community Credit Union 5-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage effective August 5, 2011) ! Downpayment: 5% ! Mortgage Insurance: Yes ! Mortgage Payments: Monthly ! Closing Costs: $1,000 ! Est. Monthly Condo Fees (where applicable): $155 ! Est. Monthly Pad Rental Fees (where applicable): $260 ! Est. Monthly Heat: $190 ! Est. Annual Property Taxes: 0.5% of market value ! Est. Other Monthly Expenses (e.g., credit cards and car loan): $450 max.

- 52 -

Table 21: Estimated Incomes Required to Purchase Average- and Median-Priced Homes in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

Average 1 Est. Income Median 1 Est. Income District of Elkford – Dwelling Type 2 2 Asking $ Required Asking $ Required Single-Detached Dwellings $350,415 $70,600 $309,450 $65,150 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Owned Land) $207,513 $50,000 $209,900 $50,375 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Leased Land) $120,800 $41,050 * $124,000 $41,525 * Duplex $191,750 $47,600 $191,750 $47,650 Row/Townhouse $169,000 $44,300 $169,000 $44,300 Apartment/Stacked Townhouse Strata Condo $120,107 $39,350 ** $126,000 $40,250 ** All Dwellings $193,436 $47,925 $147,500 $41,100

Average 1 Est. Income Median 1 Est. Income District of Sparwood – Dwelling Type 2 2 Asking $ Required Asking $ Required Single-Detached Dwellings $369,527 $76,700 $339,000 $70,025 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Owned Land) $261,917 $58,075 $264,900 $58,525 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Leased Land) $94,267 $37,100 * $99,900 $37,925 * Duplex $159,000 $42,800 $159,000 $42,800 Row/Townhouse $131,740 $38,750 $134,900 $39,225 Apartment/Stacked Townhouse Strata Condo $197,961 $50,100 ** $226,900 $55,075 ** All Dwellings $267,412 $58,900 $237,900 $54,525

Data Source: 1 Based on current MLS listings as of August 5, 2011 2 Estimates derived using the East Kootenay Community Credit Union’s online Mortgage Qualifier calculator (https://www.ekccu.com/Personal/ToolsAndCalculators/Calculators/MortgageQualifier/) * Estimated income required are based on including monthly pad rental fees ** Estimated income required are based on including monthly condo fees NOTE: Incomes are estimates only and subject to rounding – see your mortgage provider.

This data indicates that average-priced homes for sale in Elkford at the beginning of August 2011 were affordable to households earning incomes between $39,350 and $70,600 and average-priced homes for sale in Sparwood at the beginning of August 2011 were affordable to households earning incomes between $37,100 and $76,700 – based on the assumptions presented above. Higher debt loads (e.g., credit card debt, car payments, etc.) would increase a household’s monthly payments and, therefore, potentially lower the maximum mortgage that household could afford. Conversely, lower interest rates and/or a larger downpayment would result in lower monthly payments; thereby, potentially increasing the maximum mortgage that household could afford.

As shown in Chapter 5, average incomes in Elkford in 2005 were as follows:

! All Households: $74,707 ! One-Person Households: $56,016 ! Married Couples: $84,443 ! Common-Law Couples: $71,676 ! Lone-Parent Families: $20,559

- 53 -

Average incomes in Sparwood in 2005 were as follows:

! All Households: $65,139 ! One-Person Households: $25,562 ! Married Couples: $77,802 ! Common-Law Couples: $88,153 ! Lone-Parent Families: $36,855

While average housing prices appear to be affordable to average households overall – particularly married couples and common-law couples (based strictly on average incomes in 2005), they do not appear to be affordable to the average lone-parent family and may only be affordable to the average one-person household living in Elkford (but not Sparwood).

4.3 Estimated Current Market Housing Costs – “Entry-Level” Homeownership

One standard measure of relative housing affordability in a community is the “entry-level” housing market. Entry-level housing is defined as the lowest 25% (lowest quartile) of the housing market. Of an estimated 75 homes on the market for sale in Elkford as of August 5, 2011, the “entry-level” market would be the 19 lowest-priced homes – represented by one (1) mobile home on leased land and 18 apartment-style (stacked townhouse) strata condo units. Asking prices for these units ranged from a low of $59,900 to a high of $121,900. In Sparwood, the early August 2011 “entry-level” market consisted of the 25 lowest-priced homes of the estimated 97 homes on the market for sale – represented by three (3) three single-detached homes, (3) mobile homes on leased land, one (1) duplex, five (5) row/townhouses, and 13 apartment-style (stacked townhouse) strata condo units. Asking prices for these units ranged from a low of $59,900 to a high of $216,900.

Table 22 (next page) shows the number of homes in Elkford and Sparwood that might be considered within this entry-level category as of August 5, 2011 along with the estimated incomes required to purchase these homes based on average and median asking prices. This data indicates that the “entry-level” housing market in Elkford at the beginning of August 2011 was affordable to households earning incomes between $35,050 and $37,725 and that that the “entry-level” housing market in Sparwood was affordable to households earning incomes between $37,100 and $49,475 – based once again on the following assumptions:

! Actual Sale Price: 95% of asking price ! Amortization: 30 years ! Term: 5-year fixed ! Interest Rate: 4.24% (East Kootenay Community Credit Union 5-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage effective August 5, 2011) ! Downpayment: 5% ! Mortgage Insurance: Yes ! Mortgage Payments: Monthly ! Closing Costs: $1,000 ! Est. Monthly Condo Fees (where applicable): $155 ! Est. Monthly Pad Rental Fees (where applicable): $260 ! Est. Monthly Heat: $190 ! Est. Annual Property Taxes: 0.5% of market value ! Est. Other Monthly Expenses (e.g., credit cards and car loan): $450 max.

- 54 -

Table 22: Estimated Incomes Required for the Current Entry-Level Housing Market in the District of Elkford

1 1 District of Elkford - Dwelling Type No Average Est. Income Median Est. Income Units Asking $ Required 2 Asking $ Required 2 Single-Detached Dwellings 0 ------Manufactured/Mobile Home (Owned Land) 0 ------Manufactured/Mobile Home (Leased Land) 1 $98,500 $37,725 * $98,500 $37,725 * Duplex 0 ------Row/Townhouse 0 ------Apartment/Stacked Townhouse Strata Condo 18 $91,160 $35,075 ** $97,750 $36,050 All Dwellings 19 $91,550 $35,125 ** $98,500 $37,725 *

1 1 District of Sparwood - Dwelling Type No Average Est. Income Median Est. Income Units Asking $ Required 2 Asking $ Required 2 Single-Detached Dwellings 3 $203,892 $49,475 $201,777 $49,150 Manufactured/Mobile Home (Owned Land) 0 ------Manufactured/Mobile Home (Leased Land) 3 $94,267 $37,100 $99,900 $37,925 Duplex 1 $159,000 $42,800 * $159,000 $42,800 * Row/Townhouse 5 $131,740 $38,750 $134,900 $39,225 Apartment/Stacked Townhouse Strata Condo 13 $123,554 $38,875 ** $134,900 $41,550 ** All Dwellings 25 $132,735 $38,900 $134,900 $39,225

Data Source: 1 Based on current MLS listings as of August 5, 2011 2 Estimates derived using the East Kootenay Community Credit Union’s online Mortgage Qualifier calculator (https://www.ekccu.com/Personal/ToolsAndCalculators/Calculators/MortgageQualifier/) * Estimated income required includes monthly pad rental fees ** Estimated income required includes condo fees NOTE: Incomes are estimates only and subject to rounding – see your mortgage provider.

As mentioned above, the average income of a lone-parent family in Elkford in 2005 was $20,599. In Sparwood, the average income of a lone-parent family in 2005 was $36,855 while the average one- person household earned $25,562. Based on this data, the average priced “entry-level” home available for sale in Elkford in August 2011 (predominantly apartment-style strata condominium units) does not appear to be affordable to the average lone-parent family (based strictly on 2005 income data). The average priced “entry-level” home available for sale in Sparwood (also predominantly apartment-style strata condominium units) does not appear to be affordable to the average one- person household and is just out of reach of the average lone-parent family depending on whether or not they can top up their downpayment (again, based strictly on 2005 income data).

4.4 Estimated Current Market Housing Costs – Rental

There is currently no published data on the local rental housing market (e.g., CMHC or BC Housing) other than a limited number of classified ads in the local newspapers. Both CMHC and BC Housing may consider the “rental universe” in Elkford and Sparwood too small to provide any statistically valid data.

An informal survey of online listings for rental properties in Elkford16 in August 2011 revealed the following:

16 Sources included: The Elk Valley Herald (May to August 2011), the Fernie Free Press (August 6, 2011), www.rentboard.ca (August 6, 2011), www.places4rent.com (August 6, 2011), www.transcanadarentals.com (August 6, 2011),

- 55 -

! A total of four (4) properties were listed for rent in Elkford as follows: ! One (1) unit was a furnished studio unit within a condominium renting for $625-$700 per month, including cable and hydro (listed as available for September 2011); ! One (1) unit was a furnished one-bedroom unit within a condominium renting for $750-$850 per month, including cable and hydro (listed available for September 2011); ! One (1) unit was an unfurnished two-bedroom unit within a condominium renting for $950 per month, including hydro (listed as being currently on hold for a potential tenant); and ! One (1) three-bedroom townhouse unit renting for $1,100 per month (it is unknown what utilities if any are included in the rent).

A similar of online listings for rental properties in Sparwood17 revealed the following:

! A total of eight (8) properties were listed for rent in Sparwood as follows: ! One (1) one-bedroom apartment unit renting for $500 per month, including heat and water; ! One (1) two-bedroom apartment unit renting for $675 per month, including heat and water; ! Two (2) single rooms within a mobile home – one renting for $650 per month and the other renting for $700 per month (no mention of what specific utilities are included in the rent); ! One (1) furnished condo unit (number of bedrooms unknown) renting for $600 per month, including electricity, heat, water and sewer; ! One (1) two-bedroom furnished condo unit renting for $925 per month, including heat, water and sewer; ! One (1) three-bedroom townhouse unit renting for $925 per month (it is unknown what utilities if any are included in the rent); and ! Two (2) three-bedroom houses each renting for $1,500 per month (one furnished and including water and sewer; the other unknown on both accounts).

Given the limited pool of rental data available and the unscientific means by which the above rental data was obtained, it is not possible to provide any detailed analysis of the District’s rental housing stock in terms of numbers, vacancy rates or levels of affordability.

Anecdotal evidence from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates that rents in the area are “all over the map” (see Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback for the examples given of common rents being charged in the area). Numerous examples were given of common rents being charged. Some were very high and some were very low. In almost ever case, when someone provided an example of the rent being charged for a particular-sized unit, someone else provided an example of a similar-sized unit being rented out at a rate that was the complete opposite. www.bcclassified.com (August 6, 2011), www.craigslist.ca (August 6, 2011) and the website of Christal Klassen, “Elkford’s Local Licensed Property Manager” with RE/Max Elk Valley Realty. 17 Sources included: The Elk Valley Herald (May to August 2011), the Fernie Free Press (August 6, 2011), www.rentboard.ca (August 6, 2011), www.places4rent.com (August 6, 2011), www.transcanadarentals.com (August 6, 2011), www.bcclassified.com (August 6, 2011), and www.craigslist.ca (August 6, 2011).

- 56 -

A number of examples were given of people paying upwards of $350 per month just for a couch and access to washroom facilities. One extreme example was given of a local property owner renting several homes by the room per night and generating revenues of $11,000 per home per month.

While newer units tend to be more expensive, this is not always the case. Older units that have recently been renovated or purchased by recreational property investors also tend to be higher than average. Rents also vary depending on the nature (i.e., whether the unit is a house, duplex, or apartment), age, quality, location and level of upkeep of the building.

Another challenge in terms of identifying average rents is that some rental units are furnished while others are not and some rental units include utilities while others do not. There also appears to be some slight variations in rental rates between Elkford and Sparwood.

Feedback from local property managers suggest that current average rents are between $1,200 and $1,400 per month. Some rents are significantly lower but some rents are also significantly higher. Mobile home park pad rents generally range from approximately $190 per month to $260 per month depending on the particular mobile home park. This is in addition to the rents being charged for the mobile home unit or the mortgage payments.

It was also suggested that most of the affordable rental units that are available in the area are either rented very quickly (when they do become available) and only rarely become available because tenants chose to stay in those units longer knowing how much more they are likely to have to pay in rent should they decide to move.

5.0 Near- and Non-Market Housing in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

Near-market housing consists of rental and ownership housing targeted specifically to low- and moderate-income households in the community and often made affordable through the combined efforts of and partnerships between local non-profits, the private sector and government. Non-market housing consists of supportive/transitional housing and emergency shelters in which residents’ rents are fully subsidized through government and social programs.

5.1 Near-Market Housing

Near-market housing consists of:

! Limited/shared equity homeownership: - Housing Co-operatives - Co-housing - Perpetually affordable/resale restricted housing ! Employer-owned and/or rented employee housing; ! Subsidized rent-geared-to-income rental units; and

There appears to be very few or limited near- and non-market housing opportunities currently available within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood.

! There do not appear to be any limited/shared equity homeownership opportunities within either the District of Elkford or the District of Sparwood in the form of a housing co-op, co- housing or perpetually affordable/resale-restricted homeownership;

- 57 -

! There do not appear to be any subsidized, rent-geared-to-income housing units for low- income families within the District of Elkford or the District of Sparwood other than those units that are designated for seniors; ! There are an unknown number of employer-owned employee rental units within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood. However, data obtained from participants in both the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings identified the following preliminary list of employee housing units/accommodations: - Elkford: ! Teck: currently owns 82 condominium (long-term rental) units and 3-6 transitional (short-term rental) units; ! SMS Equipment Inc.: currently rents one (1) house and four (4) apartment units from the private sector; ! Bearspaw Contracting Inc.: currently owns one (1) modular home on a fixed foundation; and ! Other: the local RCMP dispatch may own 2 housing units. - Sparwood: ! Teck: currently owns 3-6 transitional (short-term rental) units; ! SMS Equipment Inc.: currently owns one (1) trailer and rents three (3) apartment units from the private sector; and ! Other: there may be 1-2 units designated for local doctors. ! More detailed data on the total number of employee housing units provided by other businesses and organizations operating in the area is currently unavailable. ! BC Housing offers a Rental Assistance Program (RAP) designed specifically to provide cash assistance (i.e., rent subsidies) to low-income households with dependent children. More information about this program, including eligibility criteria and application forms, can be found at http://www.bchousing.org/Options/Rental_market/RAP; ! BC Housing also operates the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters (SAFER) program designed specifically to provide rent subsidies to people ages 60 and over. More information about this program can be found at http://www.bchousing.org/Options/Rental_market/SAFER, including eligibility criteria and application forms; ! There is also an affordable rental housing project located in Fernie that Elkford and Sparwood residents could potentially access if they were willing to move to Fernie – however, anecdotal evidence derived from participants in the Focus Group Meetings indicates that there are long waitlists in order to access this housing.

5.2 Non-Market Housing

Non-market housing consists of supportive/transitional shelters (e.g., group homes and second stage/transitional family violence shelters) and emergency shelters (e.g., homeless shelters, youth shelters and family violence shelters).

There does not appear to be any non-market housing within the District of Elkford or the District of Sparwood either in the form of emergency shelters, transitional shelters or group homes. According to participants in the Focus Group Meetings, the nearest non-market housing to Elkford and Sparwood is in Fernie. This includes both a family violence shelter and second-stage housing (i.e., transitional housing) located in Fernie that is available to women living in Elkford and Sparwood.

- 58 -

6.0 Seniors’ Housing in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

Seniors’ housing can be seen as a continuum that combines housing with increasing levels of care and support services as one ages. This continuum is organized into three general stages:

1) Home Living/Independent Living: this stage includes seniors who are living in their own homes (e.g., single family dwellings, apartments, condominiums, mobile homes, etc.) either on their own or with extended family, and seniors living in a variety of seniors-oriented independent living options (e.g., Manors, Villas and other seniors- oriented apartments). 2) Supportive/Assisted Living: this stage includes seniors who are living in congregate housing (e.g., a seniors’ Lodge) that includes a range of hospitality services and personal care supports delivered either directly by the individual housing operator or coordinated by the housing operator. This may include light housekeeping, meal services, social and recreational activities, and 24-hour security/emergency response. Assisted Living provides a higher level of personal care and health supports in order to serve as an intermediary between Supportive Living and Long-Term Care. 3) Residential/Long-Term Care: this stage includes seniors whose health care needs are such that they cannot be met either within their own home, within an Independent Living environment or within a Supportive/Assisted Living environment and, therefore, need to be in a residential/long-term care facility with ready access to advanced medical and health care services (e.g., nursing homes and auxiliary hospitals).

In BC, the definition of a senior may vary depending on the government program under which a particular facility has been developed or is operating. In some cases, seniors’ housing and supports are eligible to adults 60 and over. In other cases seniors’ housing and supports may be eligible to adults 55 and over. It should also be noted that many of the government-funded housing facilities and programs designed for seniors may also be eligible to people with disabilities (i.e., disabilities that prevent them from living on their own) regardless of their age. Feedback gathered from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that there may be a number of non-seniors with disabilities currently living in some of the seniors’ housing units in Sparwood.

6.1 Current Supply of Seniors’ Housing

6.1.1 Seniors Living Independently in Their Own Home or With Extended Family

The majority of seniors in Elkford and Sparwood continue to live independently in the same homes they have lived in for the years prior to them becoming seniors. These homes include both rental housing as well as homeownership. Seniors who currently own their homes may or may not be carrying a mortgage and there is no published data to indicate how many seniors currently own their homes (outright or with a mortgage) compared to those who are currently renting. It is reasonable to expect that the total number of seniors living in their own homes (either on their own or with extended family) is the difference between the total number of seniors living in the area minus the combined total number of seniors residing in the area’s Independent Living and Supportive Living units.

6.1.2 Seniors’ Independent Living/Self-Contained Units

Seniors’ Independent Living/Self-Contained units provide self-contained suites (e.g., bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and sitting area) along with common facilities for seniors who are functionally independent yet wish to live in a congregate setting. Limited services are provided other than basic housekeeping and Home Care where required.

- 59 -

There are currently an estimated 58 seniors’ Independent Living units in Sparwood and no (0) seniors’ Independent Living units in Elkford. The 58 units located in Sparwood include:

! 18 Independent Living units at Sasko Manor (owned and operated by BC Housing); and ! 39-40 Independent Living units at Sparwood Senior Citizens Villa (owned and operated by the Sparwood Senior Citizens’ Housing Society).

6.1.3 Seniors’ Supportive/Assisted Living

Seniors’ Supportive/Assisted Living provides a combination of housing, board, and supportive services/personal care assistance. These units may be in the form of self-contained apartments or shared rooms for seniors or people with disabilities who need some support services to continue living independently, but do not need 24-hour facility care. They may also be in the form of a Family Care Home. Services typically provided include daily meals, housekeeping, transportation, social and recreational opportunities, personal care as required through Home Care, assistance with medications as required through Home Care, and a 24-hour monitoring and emergency response system.

There is currently one (1) seniors’ Supportive Living facility in Sparwood – Lilac Terrace, comprised of 30 units, which is owned and operated by the Elk Valley Senior’s Housing Society. However, anecdotal evidence derived from the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicated that plans are under development to expand Lilac Terrace. This expansion would not only increase the number of units available at Lilac Terrace but would also expand the facility’s operations to include Assisted Living as well as Supportive Living options. Feedback indicates that land is available for the expansion and capital dollars have been allocated to fund the construction of the expansion. What is currently missing are dedicated operating dollars. Correspondence from Interior Health indicates that those operating dollars may not be available until 2017.

6.1.4 Seniors’ Residential/Long-Term Care

Seniors’ Long-Term Care beds offer a wide range of health and personal care services within a facility setting (e.g., nursing home, auxiliary hospital, long-term care facility) to seniors and persons with disabilities whose needs exceed those services provided in either a Supportive Living or Assisted Living environment (i.e., for seniors and persons with disabilities who require ongoing, unscheduled health care and/or emergency medical assistance).

There are currently no (0) Residential/Long-Term Care beds located in Sparwood or Elkford.

6.1.5 Summary of Seniors’ Housing in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

Table 23 provides a summary of the seniors’ housing currently available in the Elkford and Sparwood.

Table 23: Summary of Seniors’ Housing in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2011)

Housing Type Name and Location No. of Units Independent Living: Sasko Manor (Sparwood) 18 Sparwood Senior Citizens Villa (Sparwood) 40 Supportive Living: Lilac Terrace (Sparwood) 30 Assisted Living: N/A 0 Residential/Long-Term Care: N/A 0 Total Seniors’ Housing Units 88

- 60 -

Currently, there are 88 seniors’ housing units in Sparwood and no (0) seniors’ housing units in Elkford. As mentioned above, the remaining seniors in Elkford and Sparwood continue to live independently either in the same homes they have lived in for the years prior to them becoming senior citizens – homes that they either own or rent – or with extended family.

Anecdotal evidence from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates that a growing number of seniors are choosing to stay in Elkford and Sparwood after they retire. With more and more seniors remaining in the community after they retire, there is increasing demand for smaller homes suitable for couples with fewer stairs and less overall maintenance requirements including yard maintenance, snow removal, and general repairs and upkeep. Without that demand being met, seniors are more likely to remain in their existing homes – resulting in fewer homes for sale to new people wanting to move into the community. This trend is exacerbated by the growing number of vacant properties in the community owned by non-resident second-home owners and recreational property investors.

At the same time, a number of seniors are moving out of the area – either because they want and need to be closer to a hospital and commercial services that are not available in the area or because there is not enough housing in the area that is suitable to seniors (i.e., smaller homes suitable for couples with fewer stairs and less overall maintenance requirements including yard maintenance, snow removal, and general repairs and upkeep as mentioned above).

It was suggested that the seniors’ housing that is available in Sparwood may be suitable for single seniors but not as appropriate for couples due to the size of the units. There are also concerns among some seniors about no longer being allowed to have pets should they move into seniors rental housing. Furthermore, all of the seniors’ housing that is available to area residents is located in Sparwood. Feedback indicates that there are a number of seniors in Elkford who want to stay in Elkford and, therefore, want to see some seniors’ housing built in the community.

A significant challenge for the community is its ability to provide the health and personal care supports that are required as seniors continue to age in their home communities. Another challenge affecting the delivery of market-based (i.e., non-subsidized) seniors’ housing is that seniors living in the area have different levels of affluence and equity in their homes and, therefore, different wants, needs and expectations in terms of how their housing needs can and should be met.

6.2 Projected Seniors’ Housing Needs to 2025

Projecting senior’s housing needs for Elkford and Sparwood are based on a combination of population projections for both communities, planning targets currently used by the Interior Health Authority (IHA) for Assisted Living and Residential/Long-Term Care, and an estimate of current service levels being offered by the area’s Independent Living and Supportive Living facilities projected into the future. It should be clearly noted that the following analysis only provides an approximation of seniors’ housing needs in the two communities. Estimating actual seniors’ housing needs requires a more careful, case-by-case analysis and assessment of individual seniors and their particular health and personal care needs by qualified and certified health care professionals trained in the use of standard assessment tools. Further consultations with IHA are, therefore, required.

6.2.1 Senior Population Projections

The following table (Table 24) provides a rudimentary population projection for the number of seniors potentially living in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood to 2025 based on the changing real number of seniors ages 65+ and 75+ living in two communities between 1996 and 2006 per Statistics Canada’s Census of Population data.

- 61 -

Table 24: Seniors Population Projections to 2025 for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood Based on Observed Trends in the Statistics Canada Census of Population Data

Seniors Populations Elkford Sparwood Actual by Year 65+ 75+ 65+ 75+ 1996 85 1 15 1 305 1 90 1 2001 120 1 25 1 340 1 105 1 2006 145 1 45 1 400 1 160 1 Total Change 60 30 95 70 Avg. Annual Change 6 3 9.5 7 Projected (Simple) by Year: 2007 151 48 410 167 2008 157 51 419 174 2009 163 54 429 181 2010 169 57 438 188 2011 175 60 448 195 2012 181 63 457 202 2013 187 66 467 209 2014 193 69 476 216 2015 199 72 486 223 2016 205 75 495 230 2017 211 78 505 237 2018 217 81 514 244 2019 223 84 524 251 2020 229 87 533 258 2021 235 90 543 265 2022 241 93 552 272 2023 247 96 562 279 2024 253 99 571 286 2025 259 102 581 293

1 Primary Data Source: Statistics Canada Census of Population (1996, 2001 and 2006)

Table 24 shows that, between 1996 and 2006, the total number of seniors ages 65+ living in Elkford increased by 60 individuals (30 of those individuals were 75+) while the total number of seniors ages 65+ living in Sparwood increased by 95 individuals (of which 70 individuals were 75+). If the average annual growth rate of seniors observed in real numbers between 1996 and 2006 in both communities has continued since 2006 and continues into the future, there could be as many as:

• Elkford: - Approx. 180 seniors ages 65+ currently living in the community (i.e., 2012), including close to 65 seniors ages 75+; - Approx. 210 seniors ages 65+ living in the community within the next five years (i.e., 2017), including close to 80 seniors ages 75+; - Approx. 240 seniors ages 65+ living in the community within the next ten years (i.e., 2022), including close to 95 seniors ages 75+; and - Approx. 260 seniors ages 65+ living in the community by 2025, including close to 100 seniors ages 75+.

- 62 -

• Sparwood: - Approx. 455 seniors ages 65+ currently living in the community (i.e., 2012), including close to 200 seniors ages 75+; - Approx. 505 seniors ages 65+ living in the community within the next five years (i.e., 2017), including close to 235 seniors ages 75+; - Approx. 550 seniors ages 65+ living in the community within the next ten years (i.e., 2022), including close to 270 seniors ages 75+; and - Approx. 580 seniors ages 65+ living in the community by 2025, including close to 295 seniors ages 75+.

NOTE: These projections are based strictly on observed population growth in real numbers identified in the Census of Population data over the ten-year period between 1996 and 2006. The above projections are not able to take advantage of detailed demographic data obtained during the recent 2011 Census of Population as that data will not begin to be published until the end of May 2012 at the earliest. Nor do the above projections take into consideration other factors such as changing migration rates, changing health and mortality rates, or other factors that may either promote or discourage seniors from living in or moving to Elkford and Sparwood (e.g., the future provision of additional seniors’ housing and/or health care services).

6.2.2 Estimated Seniors’ Housing Needs

The Interior Health Authority (IHA) currently maintains the following targets for seniors’ housing that incorporate a significant care component: 18

• Residential Care & Short Stay bed target of 79 beds per 1,000 population 75+ (i.e., 7.9%); and • Assisted Living unit target of 14 beds per 1,000 population 75+ (i.e., 1.4%).

IHA also indicates that the communities that make up the East Kootenay Health Service Area (e.g., Cranbrook, Creston, Fernie, Sparwood, Elkford, Kimberly, Golden and Invermere) collectively maintained a ratio of 79.4 Residential Care & Short Stay beds per 1,000 population 75+ (i.e., 7.94%) and 16.0 Assisted Living units per 1,000 population 75+ (i.e., 1.6%) in 2009/10. IHA’s conclusion was that their targets had been met (at least for 2009/10).

Applying IHA targets for the East Kootenay Health Service Area to the seniors population projections for Elkford and Sparwood shown in Table 24 above produces the following potential need for Assisted Living and Residential Care units/beds over the next 10-13 years (i.e., to 2025):

• Elkford (9-10 Units by 2025): - 1-2 Assisted Living units (1.4% of the projected 102 seniors 75+); and - 8 Residential/Long-Term Care spaces (7.9% of the projected 102 seniors 75+). • Sparwood (27 Units by 2025): - 4 Assisted Living units (1.4% of the projected 293 seniors 75+); and - 23 Residential/Long-Term Care spaces (7.9% of the projected 293 seniors 75+). • Combined (36-37 Units by 2025): - 5-6 Assisted Living units (1.4% of the projected 395 seniors 75+); and - 31 Residential/Long-Term Care spaces (7.9% of the projected 395 seniors 75+).

18 Interior Health (2010) Health Service Area Profile, East Kootenay – 011, March 2010, page 12.

- 63 -

While these figures suggest both a current and future need for Assisted Living and Residential Care spaces in Elkford and Sparwood, IHA targets do not address Independent Living or Supportive Living needs. Targets for Independent Living and Supportive Living are not published and are likely based on a combination of available capital dollars, available operating dollars, and perceived market demand. Assuming that the area’s real demand for Independent Living and Supportive Living is currently being met (or rather, would be met if the required Assisted Living spaces were developed along with a greater range of private-market seniors-oriented housing), suggests the viability of estimating future Independent Living and Supportive Living needs based on applying existing service levels to future population projections. For example, in 2012, there were 58 Independent Living units in Sparwood (see Table 23 above), serving an estimated 21.9% of the region’s projected 265 seniors ages 75+ and 30 Supportive Living units, serving an estimated 11.3% of the region’s projected 265 seniors ages 75+. Applying these ratios to the seniors population projections for Elkford and Sparwood shown in Table 24 above produces the following potential need over the next 10-13 years (i.e., to 2025):

• Elkford (33-34 Units by 2025): - 22 Independent Living units (21.9% of the projected 102 seniors 75+); and - 11-12 Supportive Living Units (11.3% of the projected 102 seniors 75+). • Sparwood (97 Units by 2025): - 64 Independent Living units (21.9% of the projected 293 seniors 75+); and - 33 Supportive Living Units (11.3% of the projected 293 seniors 75+). • Combined (131-132 Units by 2025): - 86-87 Independent Living units (21.9% of the projected 395 seniors 75+); and - 44-45 Supportive Living Units (11.3% of the projected 395 seniors 75+).

Table 25 combines the figures presented above to provide an overall estimate of current and future seniors’ housing needs in Elkford and Sparwood.

Table 25: Summary of Projected Seniors’ Housing Needs to 2025 for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

District of Elkford Characteristics 2012 2017 2022 2025 Population 75+ (Projected) 63 78 93 102 Independent Living (21.9%) 1 13.8 17.1 20.4 22.3 Supportive Living (11.3%) 1 7.1 8.8 10.5 11.5 Assisted Living (1.4%) 2 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 Residential/Long-Term Care (7.9%) 2 5.0 6.2 7.3 8.1 Total Spaces Required 26.8 33.2 39.5 43.3 District of Sparwood Characteristics 2012 2017 2022 2025 Population 75+ (Projected) 202 237 272 293 Independent Living (21.9%) 1 44.2 51.9 59.6 64.2 Supportive Living (11.3%) 1 22.8 26.8 30.7 33.1 Assisted Living (1.4%) 2 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.1 Residential/Long-Term Care (7.9%) 2 16.0 18.7 21.5 23.1 Total Spaces Required 85.8 100.7 115.6 124.5

Source of Formulas: 1 Estimated need based on maintaining current service levels 2 Interior Health Authority (2010)

- 64 -

Given the absence of any seniors’ housing currently available in Elkford, these combined figures suggest a current need for up to 27 seniors’ housing units in Elkford, increasing to approximately 45 units by 2025. The majority of these units would be in the form of Independent Living and Supportive Living similar to the mix of seniors’ housing currently available in Sparwood.

In Sparwood, there is a current estimated need for up to 86 seniors’ housing units, increasing to approximately 125 units by 2025. These estimates suggest that the Independent Living and Supportive Living units currently available in Sparwood could potentially service Sparwood’s Independent Living and Supportive Living needs for the next ten (10) years – but only if sufficient units can be built in Elkford to address Elkford’s needs (thereby reducing the pressure on those units located in Sparwood that are available to residents of both communities).

There is clearly a need for additional seniors’ housing units in both communities in the form of Assisted Living and Residential/Long-Term Care (of which there are currently none in either community). The lack of appropriate housing and supports for seniors with higher personal and health care needs can lead to a combination of scenarios:

• Seniors are having to leave the community altogether in search of appropriate care; • Seniors are remaining in Supportive Living longer than they should – placing additional strains on those facilities and preventing other seniors from accessing those facilities as their needs increase (i.e., bottlenecks); and/or • Seniors are remaining in their own homes longer than they should – which, in some cases, can place those seniors at greater risk of the types of personal injury that would force them to move into Residential/Long-Term Care sooner than they might otherwise have had to if the appropriate housing and support services had been made available to them.

Efforts are currently underway to increase the supply of Supportive and Assisted Living units in Sparwood through an expansion to Lilac Terrace. However, it is unlikely that any new Residential/Long-Term Care spaces will be introduced to the area in the foreseeable future given the limited number of units required and the high costs of operating Residential/Long-Term Care spaces (i.e., the projected needs for Residential/Long-Term Care spaces in Elkford and Sparwood do not suggest that the required “economies of scale” could be achieved in the foreseeable future to make a Residential/Long-Term Care facility economically viable). This suggests that the introduction of Assisted Living units into the area will be a key and vital requirement if older seniors are to be allowed to remain in their home community as their health and personal care needs increase.

As mentioned above, caution is required when evaluating these projections as they are only generalizations based on observed growth in the area’s seniors population between 1996 and 2006. Estimating actual seniors’ housing needs in Elkford and Sparwood will requires a more careful analysis and assessment of individual seniors particular health and care needs on a case-by-case basis by qualified and certified health care professionals working for IHA who have been trained in the use of standard assessment tools.

It is also important to note that other seniors’ housing needs and priorities throughout the broader region may take precedence over those identified for Elkford and Sparwood – particularly given limited government dollars and constant pressure on governments to reduce their spending. While the current and future need for more seniors’ housing in Elkford and Sparwood may be demonstrated, it still may fall lower on the priority list for the region if other areas of the region have higher and/or greater seniors’ housing needs, a larger population base being served, and/or needs that can be met in a more economically viable or sustainable manner (i.e., greater “economies of scale”).

- 65 -

Finally, caution is required when providing housing for higher-needs populations to ensure that the appropriate supports and services (e.g., healthcare, personal care, etc.) are also available in the community to serve the intended population. Providing housing without the appropriate supports for high-needs populations can potentially lead to disaster.

7.0 Planned Future Housing and Economic Development in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

7.1 Planned Future Housing Development

There are a number of medium- and large-scale residential subdivisions currently under development as well as those currently seeking or having recently received zoning and/or development approvals. Examples cited during the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings included:

• Whisky Jack Golf Course; • Cherrywood; • Whitewood; • Cypress Drive; • Golden Eagle Homes; and • Crowsnest Properties.

While these projects will clearly result in more housing available throughout the area, the degree to which these developments will address Elkford’s and Sparwood’s identified housing needs remains unclear. For example, it was suggested that much of the housing being developed in the new subdivisions are being priced in the $300,000 - $400,000 range and higher. These homes are unlikely to be affordable to many modest-income households. Furthermore, there do not appear to be many restrictions or provisions being placed on these new developments that would give priority to local households (i.e., permanent owner-occupiers) over recreational property investors. Section 3.3: Seasonal vs. Permanent Ownership on page 47 above suggests that a large portion of new properties being offered for sale in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood are being purchased by non-permanent residents, including property investors.

The proposed Crowsnest Properties development (a mobile home community in Elkford) appears to have the greatest chance of providing affordable housing to modest- and average-income households, including families. Proponents of the project suggest that 1,100 ft2 modular homes will sell for $110,000-$120,000. Anticipated mortgage payments ($425 per month) and pad rental fees ($195 per month) combined indicate that local renters could move into homeownership for as little as $620 per month plus utilities. Whether or not these homes will be marketed to (and ultimately purchased by) local residents and whether or not downzoning the subject lands to allow the project to proceed represents the highest and best use has yet to be determined.

As mentioned above, the Elk Valley Senior’s Housing Society has proposed an expansion to Lilac Terrace in Sparwood that would result in an increase in the total number of Supportive Living units available to area seniors (including residents of Elkford) and the introduction of Assisted Living units. This project is clearly designed to address one of the area’s key housing priorities. There is sufficient land on the Lilac Terrace site to support the expansion and the Society has obtained a commitment of capital funds from the Province. What is delaying the project is the lack of operational dollars from the Province. Until those operational dollars can be secured, the expansion is not likely to proceed.

- 66 -

7.2 Planned Future Economic Development

Two major economic developments - both related to coal mining – are likely to increase demand for housing in both Elkford and Sparwood over time. One represents an increase in current activities and the other represents a new economic venture.

The first mining initiative is increased coal mining activity by Teck. Consultations with senior staff from Teck indicate that the company is projected to mine upwards of 24 million tonnes of coal in 2012, another 20-26 million tonnes in 2013 and up to 30 million tonnes per year by 2015. This increase in coal mining activity will result in a continuation and likely increase in current hiring rates at Teck. It is unclear at this time how many of those new hires will be of people from outside the area wishing to move to Elkford or Sparwood, how many of those new hires will wish to commute into Elkford and Sparwood during their “4 days on”, and who those new hires will be replacing (i.e., how many will be replacing permanent local residents vs. out-of-town commuters). This question may become even more difficult to answer if the mines move to a 7-on/7-off schedule in order to compete with Fort McMurray.

The second mining initiative is the proposed Bingay mine. The proponents of the Bingay mine are proposing to mine coal in such as way as to allow regular daily shifts and a five-day work week rather than a 4-on/4-off structure being used by Teck. This will allow (and encourage) Bingay employees to live predominantly in Elkford but also in Sparwood on a more permanent, full-time basis. Proponents of the project suggest that within thee (3) years, the mine will have close to 320 employees – the majority of whom will be seeking permanent residency in the area.

8.0 Ownership of Vacant or Undeveloped Residential Land

An analysis of BC Assessment data shows that private individuals and businesses own the majority of vacant and/or undeveloped residential properties in both communities. In 2011, there were 382 vacant residential properties (i.e., 381 properties with no development or ”improvements” and one property with less than $250 worth of “improvements”) in Elkford and 207 vacant residential properties in Sparwood. Table 26 provides a breakdown of the ownership of these parcels.

Table 26: Ownership of Vacant/Undeveloped Residential Properties in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2011)

Elkford Sparwood Ownership No. % No. % Total Vacant/Undeveloped Parcels 382 100.0% 207 100.0% Private 310 81.2% 154 74.4% Crown Federal 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Crown Provincial 13 3.4% 6 2.9% District-Owned 59 15.4% 47 22.7% Total Government-Owned Parcels 72 18.8% 53 25.6%

Data Source: BC Assessment (2011)

Of the 382 vacant residential properties in Elkford identified in the BC Assessment data for 2011, 310 (81.2%) were owned by private individuals and businesses with the remainder being owned by the Provincial Government (13 properties or 3.4% of all vacant residential parcels) and the District of Elkford (59 properties or 15.4% of all vacant residential parcels). In Sparwood, 154 (74.4%) of the 207 vacant residential properties identified in the BC Assessment data for 2011 were similarly owned by

- 67 -

private individuals and businesses with the remainder being owned by the Provincial Government (6 properties or 2.9% of all vacant residential parcels) and the District of Sparwood (47 properties or 22.7% of all vacant residential parcels).

The BC Assessment data does provide information on the estimated size of each of those government-owned vacant residential parcels. These parcels are listed in Appendix B: Government- Owned Vacant/Undeveloped Residential Properties in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2011). However, it is unclear from the BC Assessment data alone what future housing development potential each of the above-listed parcels could realistically accommodate. Some of these parcels may be too small to accommodate any significant residential development (i.e., parcels that are only suitable for single detached dwellings). Other parcels may be located in areas that are not deemed suitable for an affordable housing project (i.e., parcels that are located too far away from the downtown core for households with limited access to transportation and parcels that are located adjacent to heavy industrial or other activities that are unsuitable next to residential). Some of these parcels may also be located on steep slopes, within a flood plane, or within another area of the community where future housing development is either restricted because it is deemed too hazardous, contrary to the community’s broader development plans, or because the site modifications and/or servicing required to support future housing development are too expensive to make an affordable housing project economically viable. A more detailed parcel-by-parcel feasibility study may be required to determine which of the above-identified parcels are or could potentially be suitable for future affordable housing development (which is beyond the scope of this study but may be an appropriate strategy for each municipality to implement moving forward).

9.0 Conclusion

In 2006, the majority of homes in Elkford and Sparwood were owned (86.1% in Elkford and 74.0% in Sparwood) and the majority of homes were single-detached dwellings (57.7% in Elkford and 51.1% in Sparwood). While an estimated 13.9% of Elkford homes and 26.4% of Sparwood homes were rented in 2006, these figures represent a decline in both community’s total rental stock between 1996 and 2006 (-12.5% or -20 units in Elkford and -24.8% or -135 units in Sparwood). Based on current MLS listings, there appears to be a number of rental housing units that have recently been converted to strata condominium title – further decreasing the number of rental units available in the two communities.

Between 2001 and 2011, average home sale prices in Elkford and Sparwood increased dramatically based on detached single family dwelling sales data provided by the Kootenay Real Estate Board (on average 20.2% per year in Elkford and 17.6% per year in Sparwood). However, given the number of multi-residential strata condos currently on the market for sale, average sale prices appear to have declined recently. Recent MLS listings indicate an average “asking price” of $193,436 in Elkford and 267,412 in Sparwood for homes available for sale on the open market. Under current interest rates, average market housing appears to be affordable to households earning incomes between $39,350 and $70,600 in Elkford and between $37,100 and $76,700 in Sparwood. “Entry-level” market housing (i.e., the cheapest 25% of homes currently on the market) appears to be affordable to households earning incomes between $35,050 and $37,725 in Elkford and between $37,100 and $49,475 in Sparwood. Households earning incomes below $35,000 are likely unable to enter homeownership without a sizeable downpayment or very low debt.

There appear to be limited near- or non-market housing options available in Elkford and Sparwood. Most of that housing appears to be geared towards seniors and temporary workers. Furthermore, it is unknown at present whether or not there are any specific initiatives underway or under consideration to develop housing that would be considered affordable for low- and modest-income households. This apparent lack of affordable housing options suggests that low- and modest-income households have few opportunities to establish themselves in Elkford and Sparwood. The declining supply of rental

- 68 -

housing also suggests that temporary and seasonal workers have few housing options from which to choose. At the same time, it is estimate that as many as 378 homes in Elkford (27.3%) and as many as 358 homes in Sparwood (18.7%) were not occupied by “usual residents” in 2006, but rather were owned by seasonal/non-permanent residents, property investors and/or local employers (e.g., the mines) and used to house temporary workers.

Current projections for seniors’ housing needs in Elkford and Sparwood use a combination of population projections for both communities, planning targets currently used by the Interior Health Authority (IHA) for Assisted Living and Residential/Long-Term Care, and an estimate of current service levels being offered by the area’s Independent Living and Supportive Living facilities projected into the future. These projections suggest a total potential seniors’ housing needs over the next ten (10) years for up to 40 units in Elkford (20-21 Independent Living units, 12 Supportive/Assisted Living units, and up to 8 Residential/Long-Term Care spaces) and up to 117 units in Sparwood (60 Independent Living units, 35 Supportive/Assisted Living units, and up to 22 Residential/Long-Term Care spaces). Combining these projections suggests a need for up to 155 seniors’ housing units within the next ten (10) years and up to 168 units by 2025 should the actual growth in the area’s seniors population observed between 1996 and 2006 continue steadily into the future.

- 69 -

- 70 -

CHAPTER 6: Housing Need and Demand Analysis

1.0 Introduction

Housing occurs along a continuum (Figure 11 – next page). At one end of the continuum are those individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness. They typically have limited income and high support needs. They may be living on the street; they may be sleeping in doorways, parkades, parks or beaches; or they may be sleeping in their vehicles or staying temporarily in emergency shelters (absolute homelessness). Alternatively, they may be “couch surfing” - staying temporarily with family or friends – or they may be living in hotels or other non-permanent accommodations (near/relative homelessness). At the other end of the continuum are those individuals and families who can easily meet their housing needs and other basic needs along with many of their more advanced needs and wants. They typically have high incomes and few if any support needs. These households are often “over-housed” – living in what some have come to call “starter castles”. In the middle of the continuum are a range of households with a range of incomes and potential support needs. Some may be living pay cheque to pay cheque and may be finding it difficult to make ends meet. Any household can be struggling with their housing if they must pay more than 30% of their before-tax income on housing. However, the higher one’s income, the more disposable income one has beyond the 30% threshold and the less likely it is that paying 30% of one’s income on housing poses a challenge.

Few changes may be required to force a family or individual further down the housing continuum. Crises such as job loss, divorce, illness, severe accident, changes to social support payments, or addictions can significantly reduce a household’s income and therefore ability to afford shelter. Gaps in the local housing continuum can mean that individuals or families who experience one or more to these crises may be vulnerable to becoming homeless or inappropriately housed. A crisis in health or employment status can lead to a situation where individuals and families may have to exhaust all of their equity, savings and support (thus often threatening the family unit's stability) before they are able to qualify for the limited assistance available through various social programs. For those who fall through the cracks and end up hitting the bottom, there may not be enough “stepping stones” to move

- 71 -

back up the continuum no matter how hard they work to get themselves “back on their feet.” This bottleneck can prevent efficient flowing through the housing continuum and may create a strain on existing social services, health services, and related facilities.

Figure 11: The Housing Continuum

Source: City of Edmonton

This chapter estimates the number of households within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood that may be facing housing challenges and/or hardships in either of four standard categories:

1. Housing adequacy (physical safety and maintenance of the home); 2. Housing suitability (proper size of the home given the size of the household); 3. Housing accessibility (the degree to which housing meets the needs of persons with health, mobility or stamina limitations); and 4. Housing affordability (the cost of the home related to the household’s income).

Housing choice is a fifth common housing challenge that is often difficult to quantify.

Housing affordability is typically the dominant issue for the majority of households experiencing difficulty. However, it also tends to affect other areas. For example, households unable to afford the average price of market housing (either rental or homeowners) may find themselves choosing (or being limited to) housing that is too small to meet their needs. Alternatively, homeowners that find themselves paying an excessive amount of their before-tax income on their mortgage payments and may not be able to commit to the ongoing upkeep and maintenance required to keep their home in good condition or pay for upgrades to their homes to make them more accessible. Similarly, renters may find themselves with few housing choices available to them other than those rental properties poorly maintained by their owners.

- 72 -

2.0 Chapter Highlights

! Housing adequacy followed by housing affordability appear to be the dominant issues (in order of importance) facing permanent households in Elkford. In Sparwood, housing affordability followed by housing adequacy appear to be the dominant issues in order of importance. Housing availability appears to be the dominant issue facing temporary and seasonal workers in both communities. ! Housing adequacy refers to the physical safety of an individual dwelling and centers around homes in need of major repair. There may be as many as 85 to 120 homes in Elkford and as many as 135 to 165 homes in Sparwood in need of major repairs. These homes could be considered inadequate. ! Housing suitability refers to the size of the home in terms of bedrooms compared to the size of the family living in that home and leads to estimates of overcrowding based on National Occupancy Standards. There are currently no published data by Statistics Canada directly related to housing suitability in the Elkford. However, Statistics Canada has identified that, in 2006, homes within the District of Elkford had on average 6.9 rooms per dwelling and that 0.0% of homes in the community occupied by usual residents had more than one person per room. This suggests that suitability may be a minor issue in Elkford. Data for Sparwood suggests that as many as 20 to 25 households may be living in overcrowded conditions. ! Housing accessibility relates to ability of individuals with health, mobility and/or stamina limitations to easily get into and out of their home, and to move around freely while inside their home. There may be between 20 and 30 households in Elkford and between 25 and 45 households in Sparwood potentially in need of more accessible housing (or at least specialized features and equipment to enter, exit and move around within their homes). ! Housing affordability relates to the ability of individual households to meet their monthly rent or mortgage payments within a reasonable threshold of their income (i.e., 30% of a household’s gross monthly income). Data from Statistics Canada indicates that between 2001 and 2006, the total number of households in Elkford paying 30% or more of their income on housing increased from 50 to 65 (including 45 homeowners and 20 renters) – or 6.5% of all households. In Sparwood, the numbers increased from 225 to approximately 250 households (including 130 homeowners and 115 renters) – or 16.0% of all households. If past trends have continued, there may be as many as 85 households in Elkford and 280 households in Sparwood currently paying 30% or more of their income on housing and, therefore, potentially in core housing need. ! While the total number of households in Elkford increased by 2.6% and the total number of households in Sparwood increased by 2.0% between 2001 and 2006, the total number of households estimated to be paying 30% or more of their income on housing increased 30.0% in Elkford and 11.1% in Sparwood. This suggests that the number of households experiencing affordability challenges in Elkford and Sparwood is increasing faster than the rate of new household creation (and therefore, population growth alone cannot account for the trend observed in the data). ! In Elkford, tenant households appear to be hardest hit in terms of percentages. In 2001, 12.1% of tenants were paying 30% or more of their income on housing. By 2006, that had increased to 14.8% (while the total number of renters declined from 165 to 135, the total number of renters paying 30% or more of their income on housing remained the same). In Sparwood, the number and percentage of tenant households experiencing affordability challenges has decreased over time. However, the number and percentage of homeowners experiencing affordability challenges has increased. ! BC Housing publishes Housing Income Limits (HILs) every three years for communities across the province (the most recent published HILs are for 2011). HILs are used in

- 73 -

combination with Taxfiler data to estimate the number of households who must pay in excess of 30% of their gross (i.e., before-tax) income in order to acquire safe, adequate and suitable median-rental housing. Comparing 2009 income data (the most recent income data available) to the 2011 HILs suggests that as many as 85 households in Elkford and as many as 230 households in Sparwood may be paying more than 30% of their income to acquire safe, adequate shelter. Of these households, an estimated 10 or more households in Elkford and approximately 90 households in Sparwood may be paying more than 50% of their income on shelter. ! It is unknown how many households are experiencing multiple housing issues (e.g., affordability, adequacy and accessibility challenges) at the same time.

3.0 Housing Adequacy

Housing adequacy refers to the physical safety of an individual dwelling. Housing is considered inadequate if it requires major repairs and/or is lacking necessary services and basic facilities. Major repairs refer to plumbing, electrical, ventilation systems, disposal systems, and the structural components of a house that might warrant it being unsafe. Basic facilities refer to potable hot and cold running water, and full bathroom facilities including an indoor toilet and a bathtub or shower. Additionally, housing is not adequate if it is infested with vermin or black mould.

The availability of housing that is not only affordable to residents but also adequate is important to the overall health and safety of individuals in the community. For example,

“Health experts maintain that inadequate housing can be associated with a host of health problems. For example, crowded living conditions can lead to the transmission of infection diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis A, and can also increase risk for injuries, mental health problems, family tensions and violence.”19

Table 27 shows the degree to which dwellings in Elkford and Sparwood may be in need of major repairs compared to the Regional District of East Kootenay and the province as a whole based on Statistics Canada Census data for 2006 (data from the 1996 and 2001 Censuses are not available).

Table 27: Estimated Number of Homes in Need of Major Repairs in the District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood, the Regional District of East Kootenay and the Province of British Columbia

Characteristics Elkford Sparwood RDEK British Columbia Total Private Dwellings Occupied by Usual Residents 1,005 1,555 23,420 1,643,150 Total Private Dwellings 1,383 1,914 29,767 1,788,474 % Total Private Occupied Dwellings Requiring Major Repairs 8.5% 8.7% 8.5% 7.4% Estimated No. Dwellings 85 – 118 135 – 167 19,907 – 25,301 121,593 – 132,347

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

19 Statistics Canada, January 2008: Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census (Catalogue no. 97-558-XIE), page 34 – citing Statistics Canada, 2003: Aboriginal Peoples Survey 2001 – Initial Findings: Well-being of the Non-reserve Aboriginal Population (Catalogue no. 89-589-XIE) and Health Canada, 1999: A Second Diagnostic on the Health of First Nations and Inuit People in Canada.

- 74 -

According to this data, Elkford, Sparwood and the RDEK all have a noticeably higher percentage of homes in need of major repairs compared to the province as a whole (between 8.5% and 8.7% vs. 7.4%). However, when viewed regionally, Elkford has roughly the same percentage of homes in need of major repairs as the RDEK as a whole and Sparwood has a slightly higher percentage of homes in need of major repairs than the regional average.

Based on this data, there may be as many as 85 to 120 homes in Elkford and as many as 135 to 165 homes in Sparwood in need of major repairs and, therefore, could be considered inadequate. However, this data was derived from permanent residents completing the Long Questionnaire from the 2006 Census and may not accurately reflect the condition of homes owned by non-permanent residents (i.e., the lower estimates are based on the published total of dwellings occupied by permanent households whereas the higher estimates are based on the total number of private dwellings identified in the 2006 Census of Population including those dwellings owned by non- permanent residents). It may also not reflect any redevelopment or significant repairs made to homes in the community since 2006.

A review of BC Assessment data for both communities from 2006 and 2011 paints a slightly different story for housing adequacy in the Elk Valley. As part of the annual assessment, data is collected on the quality of housing in each community. This data evaluates the state of individual residential properties on a scale from “very poor” to “exceptional” with a range of criteria in between those two extremes. Examples of labels attached to properties that could be considered in need of major repairs include “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard”, and “low quality”/”lower quality”. Table 28 shows the total number of developed residential properties in each community that received these labels as well as the number of properties that received a label of “fair” (i.e., all residential properties labeled as being below average) during the 2006 and 2011 assessments.

Table 28: Estimated Number of Developed Residential Properties Potentially in Need of Major Repairs in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2006 – 2011)

District of Elkford 2006 2011 Characteristics No. % No. % Total Developed Residential Properties 1,255 100.0% 1,315 100.0% Total “Very Poor” 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total “Poor” 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total “Substandard” 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total “Low(er) Quality” 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total “Fair” 31 2.5% 81 6.2% Total < Average 31 2.5% 81 6.2%

District of Sparwood 2006 2011 Characteristics No. % No. % Total Developed Residential Properties 1,595 100.0% 1,726 100.0% Total “Very Poor” 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total “Poor” 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total “Substandard” 2 0.1% 0 0.0% Total “Low(er) Quality” 0 0.0% 3 0.2% Total “Fair” 158 9.9% 194 11.3% Total < Average 160 10.0% 197 11.5%

Data Source: BC Assessment (2006 and 2011)

- 75 -

This data shows that over the past 5 years (in both 2006 and 2011), there have been very few properties that were considered to be in a “substandard”, “low(er) quality”, “poor” or “very poor” condition by BC Assessment in either community. In Sparwood were there 2-3 developed residential properties with dwellings assessed as being in either “substandard” or “low(er) quality” condition. However, the vast majority of dwellings considered to be below average were labeled as being in “fair” condition. These dwellings could be considered as benefiting from improvements to the property but not necessarily in need of “major repairs” such that the homes might pose a health and/or safety risk for the inhabitants.

3.1 Anecdotal Evidence of Housing Adequacy Challenges

Anecdotal evidence from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings supports the data suggesting there may be limited issues related to housing adequacy in Elkford and Sparwood. Participants indicated that Sparwood and Elkford are relatively young communities and that most of the housing in the area dates from the 1950s and earlier. Also, much of the newer housing being built in the area is being constructed to higher modern standards. Additionally, many (but not all) homeowners in the area have the money necessary to maintain and update their homes – and many are choosing to do so. This includes owners of some of the area’s mobile home parks. A number of the more questionable mobile home units in some of those parks (units that would have shown up in the 2006 Census of Population data as being in need of major repairs) have recently been replaced by newer models.

This is not the case for all properties in the area. For example, it was indicated that there is a rental apartment building in Sparwood that has been condemned and remains boarded up.

While these trends are improving the overall quality of housing in the area, participants in the Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings suggested that as housing standards increase and as mobile homes in need of major repairs are replaced, the area is losing a number of what might be considered some of its more affordable housing options.

It was also suggested that while those homes that have not been adequately maintained over the years remain relatively affordable to purchase, they also pose a potentially significant financial burden on anyone attempting to purchase them. It was suggested that many of the homes in the area that are affordable to purchase require significant repairs and renovations in order to bring them up to standard (e.g., new windows, new doors, new roofing, replacing the aluminum wiring, replacing the furnace, etc.). The anticipated costs of those repairs and renovations commonly range from $30,000 to $50,000.

Finding a contractor to do those repairs is also a challenge for a number of people. Several participants in the Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings described difficulties finding a contractor to perform small jobs and small repairs. It was suggested that most of the contractors who come here get absorbed in working on larger-scale projects for the mines. Those that do perform smaller jobs are often booked up well in advance and may not be affordable from some people.

More information on observed housing adequacy challenges in Elkford and Sparwood can be found in Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback.

While not statistically valid, data obtained through an online survey made available to both permanent and temporary residents of Elkford and Sparwood through both Districts’ websites provides additional examples of local residents experiencing challenges related to housing adequacy. According to the survey results, five (5) of the 57 respondents who answered the question (8.8%) indicated that they were living in homes that either needed major repairs (4 respondents or 7.0%) or needed to be torn down (1 respondent or 1.8%). The majority of survey respondents answering this particular question

- 76 -

(61.4% or 35 respondents) indicated their homes were either in good condition (43.9% or 25 respondents) or excellent condition (17.5% or 10 respondents). Four (4) of the respondents who indicated adequacy issues lived in Sparwood while the other respondent lived in Elkford. The distribution of respondents indicated that their homes were either in good or excellent condition were distributed almost 50:50 between Elkford and Sparwood.

Additionally, two (2) survey respondents (3.5% of the 57 respondents who answered the question) indicated that they did not have access to cold piped water (but did have access to hot piped water), one (1) respondent (1.8%) indicated that their home did not have access to hot piped water (however, this respondent did indicate that the home was hooked up to municipal water and sewer and did have access to cold piped water) and one (1) respondent (1.8%) indicated that their home did not contain complete kitchen facilities (e.g., a range, refrigerator and sink). In all cases, respondents indicated that their homes were hooked up either to municipal water and sewer or to well water and septic.

In terms of attitudes towards adequacy, 42.1% of survey respondents (24 of the 57 respondents who answered the question) indicated that many of the homes that are both available and affordable based on their incomes were of poor quality (12 from Sparwood and 12 from Elkford).

Appendix D: Online Survey Results provides a more detailed account of the feedback gathered through this survey.

4.0 Housing Suitability

Housing suitability refers to the size of the home in terms of bedrooms compared to the size of the family living in that home. National Occupancy Standards set minimum criteria for number of persons per bedroom and level of privacy for members of a household. These standards require:

! A maximum of two persons per bedroom; ! That the parent(s)’s bedroom be separate from that of the children(s)’s; ! That family members over the age of 17 not share a bedroom, and ! That family members over four years of age and of the opposite gender not share a bedroom.

Households that are unable to meet these occupancy standards are said to be living in overcrowded or unsuitable housing conditions.

There are currently no published data by Statistics Canada directly related to housing suitability in Elkford or Sparwood as defined using National Occupancy Standards. However, Statistics Canada has identified that, in 2006, homes within the District of Elkford had on average 6.9 rooms per dwelling and that 0.0% of homes in the community occupied by usual residents had more than one person per room (see Table 29 – next page). Homes within the District of Sparwood had on average 6.3 rooms per dwelling and that 1.3% of homes in the community occupied by usual residents had more than one person per room. Statistics Canada defines a room as follows:

“A 'room' is an enclosed area within a dwelling which is finished and suitable for year- round living (e.g., kitchen, dining-room, or bedroom). Not counted as rooms are bathrooms, halls, vestibules and rooms used solely for business purposes.”20

20 Statistics Canada, 2007. Crowsnest Pass, Alberta (table). 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed June 20, 2007).

- 77 -

Table 29: Estimated Number of Dwellings with More Than One Person Per Room in the District of Elkford, the District of Sparwood, the Regional District of East Kootenay and the Province of British Columbia (2006)

Characteristics Elkford Sparwood RDEK British Columbia Total Private Dwellings Occupied by Usual Residents 1,005 1,555 23,420 1,643,150 Total Private Dwellings 1,383 1,914 29,767 1,788,474 Average Number of Rooms per Dwelling 6.9 6.3 6.7 6.4 Private Occupied Dwellings With More Than One Person Per Room 0.0% 1.3% 1.0% 1.9% Estimated No. Dwellings 0 20 – 25 234 – 298 31,220 – 33,981

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

In comparison, homes in the RDEK had on average 6.7 rooms per dwelling and 1.0% of homes had more than one person per room. The provincial average in 2006 was 6.4 rooms per dwelling and 1.9% of homes had more than one person per room.

This data suggests that Elkford may not have any suitability issues and that as many as 20 to 25 households in Sparwood may be living in overcrowded conditions. It is important to note that these figures do not relate directly to the number or percentage of households with two or more people sharing a bedroom – and, therefore, do not related to National Occupancy Standards (i.e., more than one person per room does not necessarily translate into more than two persons per bedroom). Nor does this data reflect seasonal workers living in the community part-time, temporary foreign workers who may have moved to Elkford and Sparwood since 2006 or other households who may have moved to Elkford and Sparwood since 2006.

4.1 Anecdotal Evidence of Housing Suitability Challenges

Anecdotal evidence from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings supports the Census of Population data which suggests that there may be incidents of overcrowding among permanent residents may be limited. Participants suggested that overcrowding is most likely affecting low-income families with children since much of what might be considered affordable housing in the area may be large enough for families with children. Examples of seniors living with extended family also appears to be relatively rare according to participants. Furthermore, several of the larger landlords and property managers also make efforts to avoid placing families with children in their smaller units that mighty lead to overcrowding.

Given the nature of the housing in the area, there also appears to be limited examples where families or individuals are “over-housed” (i.e., living in a home that far exceeds their needs in terms of size and number of bedrooms). It was suggested that those area residents who may be “over-housed” (e.g., single individuals and seniors living in single-family homes) have limited options available to them to downsize.

Where overcrowding appears to be most prevalent is in the area of “hot bedding” (or “hot bunking”). A number of rental units in the community are being rented out to contract workers and people from out of town working for the mines on a 4-on/4-off basis. While a number of participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicated that this is a growing issue in the area, others indicated that, if done correctly, “hot bedding” (or “hot bunking”) can provide a viable housing solution for temporary and seasonal contract workers that does not lead to overcrowding. Furthermore, a growing number of these out-of-town workers actively seek out opportunities to share their housing as a way to reduce their housing costs.

- 78 -

More information on observed housing suitability challenges in Elkford and Sparwood is available in Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback.

While not statistically valid, data obtained through an online survey made available to both permanent and temporary residents of Elkford and Sparwood through both Districts’ websites provides additional examples of local residents experiencing challenges related to housing suitability. According to the survey results, seven (7) or 12.3% of the 57 households responding to the question indicated some level of suitability issue. Six (6) respondents or 10.5% of the 57 households responding to the question indicated that they were living in a home where more than two people regularly slept in the same bedroom because the home did not contain enough bedrooms (four respondents were permanent residents of Sparwood and two were permanent residents of Elkford). One of these respondents plus an additional respondent (2 total) also indicated that one or more household members regularly slept on a couch or sofa bed because their home did not contain enough bedrooms for everyone.

Conversely, another seven (7 or 12.3%) of survey respondents indicated that they felt their homes were actually too big for them and their family and that they would prefer to live in a smaller home with fewer bedrooms. Only two (2) of the seven (7) respondents were retired seniors.

In terms of attitudes towards suitability, 15.8% of survey respondents (9 of the 57 respondents who answered the question) indicated that many of the homes that are both available and affordable based on their incomes do not contain enough bedrooms for the size of their family (5 from Sparwood and 4 from Elkford).

Appendix D: Online Survey Results provides a more detailed account of the feedback gathered through this survey.

5.0 Housing Accessibility

Housing accessibility relates to ability of individuals with health, mobility and/or stamina limitations to easily get into and out of their home, and to move around freely while inside their home. Accessibility is particularly problematic for persons with physical disabilities including people confined to wheelchairs and people needing the use of walkers to get around their home. Those households with accessibility issues may require a number of improvements to their homes including wheelchair ramps and/or elevators; larger doors and hallways; lowered counter tops, sinks and cabinets; and reconfigured rooms including larger bathrooms and specialty bathtubs.

Statistics Canada estimates that 16.0% of British Columbians (an estimated 638,640 children, adults and seniors) had disabilities in 200621 based on findings from the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS). These statistics include people with mild or moderate disabilities to those with severe or very severe disabilities. These statistics also include a range of disability types, including:

! Hearing; ! Seeing; ! Speech; ! Mobility; ! Agility/Dexterity; ! Pain; ! Developmental Delay; ! Developmental Disability or Disorder;

21 Statistics Canada, Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: Analytical Report (December 2007), Catalogue No. 89-628-XIE – No. 002, page 16.

- 79 -

! Learning; ! Memory; ! Psychological; ! Chronic Conditions; and ! Unknown/Undeclared Disabilities.

Based on the provincial average, there could be as many as 395 residents of the District of Elkford (16.0% of the 2006 population of 2,463 residents) and as many as 579 residents of the District of Sparwood (16.0% of the 2006 population of 3,618 residents) with one or more of the above-mentioned disabilities.

A more detailed analysis from the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) estimated that 7.9% of Canadian adults with disabilities “reported using specialized features either to enter or leave their residence or inside their residence.”22 Furthermore, “4.6% of adults with disabilities reported that the design and layout of their home made it difficult to participate in activities that they wanted or needed to do.”23 Table 30 provides an estimate of the number of permanent residents living in Elkford and Sparwood who may require accessible housing based on these figures.

Table 30: Estimated Number of Elkford and Sparwood Residents Potentially Requiring More Accessible Housing (2006)

Characteristics Elkford Sparwood Total Percentage Total Percentage 2006 Population 2,463 1 100.0% 3,618 1 100.0% Est. 2006 Pop. with Disabilities 394 16.0% 2 579 16.0% 2 Est. Pop. w/ Disabilities Using Specialized Features (2006) 31 7.9% 2 46 7.9% 2 Est. Pop. w/ Disabilities w/ Design/Layout Constraints (2006) 18 4.6% 2 27 4.6% 2

Data Source: 1 Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population 2 Statistics Canada Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006 (PALS) (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding)

Based on this analysis, there may be between 20 and 30 households in the District of Elkford and between 25 and 45 households in the District of Sparwood potentially in need of more accessible housing (or at least specialized features and equipment to enter, exit and move around within their homes). This estimate is based on four (4) key assumptions:

1. That the percentage of adults using specialized features and the percentage of adults having difficulties with the layout or design of their homes in 2006 applies equally to the percentage of children facing similar challenges (i.e., percentages specific to the adult population can be applied to the population as a whole); 2. That it is appropriate to apply national averages to the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood; 3. That the situation has not changed significantly since 2006; and 4. That only one person with a pronounced mobility challenge is living in each household (i.e., there are no households with more than one person or family member experiencing pronounced mobility challenges).

22 Ibid., page 26. 23 Ibid.

- 80 -

Additional factors that might affect these estimates include a higher (or lower) percentage of persons with disabilities in Elkford and Sparwood compared to provincial averages and a (or lower) higher percentage of persons needing accessible housing in Elkford and Sparwood compared to national averages.

5.1 Anecdotal Evidence of Housing Accessibility Challenges

Anecdotal evidence from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that seniors are among those most likely to experience housing accessibility challenges. It was suggested that there are very few private homes in the area and only a few public buildings that would be considered wheelchair accessible. Many of the homes in the area are not designed to be readily adapted for wheelchair accessibility so those adaptations are likely to be expensive.

As more and more seniors chose to remain in Elkford and Sparwood after they retire, housing accessibility challenges may increase. However, given the limited availability of healthcare services, a hilly terrain and the cold winters, people with severe disabilities and/or mobility challenges are less likely to move to or remain in the area.

More information on observed housing accessibility challenges in Elkford and Sparwood can be found in Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback.

While not statistically valid, data obtained through an online survey made available to both permanent and temporary residents of Elkford and Sparwood through both Districts’ websites provides additional examples of local residents experiencing challenges related to housing accessibility. According to the survey results, five (5) or 8.8% of the 57 households responding to the question indicated that one or more family members had a physical disability that requires special equipment (e.g., a wheelchair) or modifications to their home to improve accessibility (e.g., a wheelchair ramp, lowered kitchen cabinets, widened doorways, etc.). Only one (1) of the respondents indicated that they were a permanent resident of Sparwood. The remaining four (4) respondents lived in Elkford – three (3) were permanent residents and one (1) was a temporary resident.

In terms of attitudes towards accessibility, 66.0% of survey respondents (33 of the 50 respondents who answered the question) indicated that they believed people with disabilities most likely found it “very difficult” to find housing that was both appropriate and affordable (16 from Sparwood, 15 from Elkford and 2 temporary residents). In terms of housing for persons with disabilities, 42.0% (21 of the 50 respondents who answered the question) indicated that they believed the lack of supportive housing for non-seniors with disabilities was a “critical” issue for the community (9 from Sparwood, 11 from Elkford and 1 non-resident/temporary resident). Additionally, 36.0% of survey respondents (18 of the 50 respondents who answered the question) indicated that they believed the lack of homes that are accessible to people in wheelchairs or people with limited mobility was a “critical” issue for the community (11 from Sparwood and 7 from Elkford).

Appendix D: Online Survey Results provides a more detailed account of the feedback gathered through this survey.

6.0 Housing Affordability

Housing affordability relates to the ability of individual households to meet their monthly rent or mortgage payments within a reasonable threshold of their income. CMHC has determined that housing is affordable if it costs no more than 30% of a household’s gross monthly income for rent or mortgage payments. Households who must pay more than 30% of their income on housing are said to be in “core housing need”. Two analyses are used to estimate the number of permanent households

- 81 -

within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood that are potentially facing housing hardships due to the cost of market housing:

1. An analysis prepared by Statistics Canada using the 2001 and 2006 Census of Population data estimated the number of households paying more than 30% of their income on shelter; and 2. The 2011 Housing Income Limits (HILs) compared against 2009 Taxfiler data.

Estimating housing need can be a challenge. HILs are the standard measures used to determine affordability needs, the HILs are not able to take into consideration individual lifestyle choices or particular external needs. In other words, a homeowner may be deemed to be low-income and in need of more affordable housing according to the Housing Income Limits, yet because that homeowner purchased his or her home several years ago when housing prices were lower and/or had access to a sizeable downpayment, that household’s actual mortgage payments may be within 30% of their gross household income. Conversely, a renter may be deemed to have an adequate income to afford average market housing, yet have particular health needs (e.g., special medications not covered under existing health plan(s), specialized diets, treatment by non-government-subsidized specialists, etc.) or supports (e.g., special assistance for a disabled child not covered under existing health plans or government programs) whose costs reduce the household’s disposable income to the point were that household’s housing costs do pose a challenge.

Despite these limitations, Housing Income Limits are the standard used for assessing affordable housing needs in British Columbia communities.

Another challenge with estimating housing need is differentiating between “need” and “want.” It is often the case that what people seek in terms of more “affordable” housing are opportunities that bring the purchase price of the traditional single-family home down to a level that is affordable to a household earning $30,000 or less (as it may have been 10-15 years ago). Neither the LICOs nor the CNITs take into consideration households’ expectations of what housing looks like or where it is located. Rather, these measures are used to assess what is needed to provide for a household’s minimum requirements based on national standards and who may be unable to achieve those minimum standards based on their income.

6.1 Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Analyses of Households Paying More than 30% of Their Income on Shelter

Using 2001 and 2006 Census of Population data derived from those households responding to the Long Questionnaire, Statistics Canada has estimated the number of households in Elkford and Sparwood paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Table 31 (next page) shows two estimates for each community: 1) an estimate of the number of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing; and 2) an estimate of the number of households spending 30%-99% of their income on housing. The 30%-99% measure is preferred by CMHC24 since various sources of credit (e.g., lines of credit, credit cards, etc.), make it possible, albeit rare, for a household to spend more than 100% of its net income on housing within any given year.

24 Personal communication with Statistics Canada staff.

- 82 -

Table 31: 2001 and 2006 Statistics Canada Estimates of Household Payments by Tenure Type for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

District of Elkford Number Percentage 2001 All Households 975 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 50 5.1% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 40 4.1% Owner Households 810 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 30 3.7% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 15 1.9% Tenant Households 165 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 20 12.1% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 20 12.1% 2006 All Households 1,000 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 65 6.5% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 50 5.0% Owner Households 865 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 45 5.2% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 40 4.6% Tenant Households 135 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 20 14.8% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 10 7.4% 2001 to 2006 Percentage Change (All Households) 2.6% N/A Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 30.0% 26.8% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 25.0% 21.9% District of Sparwood Number Percentage 2001 All Households 1,530 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 225 14.7% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 180 11.8% Owner Households 1,110 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 85 7.7% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 60 5.4% Tenant Households 420 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 140 33.3% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 120 28.6% 2006 All Households 1,560 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 250 16.0% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 185 11.9% Owner Households 1,145 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 130 11.4% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 85 7.4% Tenant Households 405 100.0% Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 115 28.4% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 100 24.7% 2001 to 2006 Percentage Change (All Households) 2.0% N/A Spending 30% or More of Income on Shelter 11.1% 9.0% Spending 30%-99% of Income on Shelter 2.8% 0.8%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

- 83 -

Based on this data, overall housing affordability appears to be declining over time both in Elkford and in Sparwood. Between 2001 and 2006, the total number of households in Elkford increased by 2.6% while the total number of households estimated to be paying 30% or more of their income on housing increased 30.0% and the total number of households estimated to be paying between 30% and 99% of their income increased by 25.0%. This suggests that the number of households experiencing affordability challenges in Elkford may be increasing at a rate 10 times faster than the rate of new household creation (2.6% vs. 25.0% - 30.0%) and therefore, population growth alone cannot account for the trend observed in the data. All tolled, an estimated 65 households (6.5% of all households) were paying more than 30% of their income on shelter in 2006. If this trend has continued over time (i.e., a 30% increase in the number of households paying 30% or more of their income every five years), there could be as many as 85 households currently living in Elkford paying more than 30% of their income on shelter and, therefore, potentially in core housing need in 2011.

In Sparwood, the situation is similar but to a lesser degree. Between 2001 and 2006, the total number of households in the community increased by 2.0% while the total number of households estimated to be paying 30% or more of their income on housing increased 11.1% and the total number of households estimated to be paying between 30% and 99% of their income increased by 2.8%. This suggests that the number of households experiencing affordability challenges in Sparwood is increasing at a rate as much as five times faster than the rate of new household creation (2.0% vs. 11.1%) but more reasonably only slightly faster (2.0% vs. 2.8%). If the estimate for the number of households paying 30%-99% of their income on housing is used, population growth alone could account for the trend observed in the data. All tolled, an estimated 250 households (16.0% of all households) were paying more than 30% of their income on shelter in 2006. If this trend has continued over time (i.e., an 11.1% increase in the number of households paying 30% or more of their income every five years), there could be as many as 280 households currently living in Sparwood paying more than 30% of their income on shelter and, therefore, potentially core housing need in 2011.

Tenant households appear to be hardest hit in terms of percentages. In 2001, 12.1% of Elkford tenants were paying 30% or more of their income on housing. By 2006, that had increased to 14.8% (however, the same total number of tenant households: 20, were experiencing affordability challenges in both 2001 and 2006 – possibly the result of data rounding and suppression). In real numbers, there were more than twice as many owner households in Elkford experiencing affordability challenges in 2006 (45 or 5.2% of all owner households compared to 20 or 14.8% of tenant households) – despite there being more than six times as many owner households as tenant households.

In Sparwood, 33.3% of tenants (140 households) were paying 30% or more of their income on housing in 2001. By 2006, that had decreased to 28.4% (115 households). In real numbers, however, there were almost the same number of owner households (130 or 11.4%) experiencing affordability challenges in 2006 despite there being almost three times as many owner households as tenant households. While the number and percentage of tenant households experiencing affordability challenges has decreased over time in Sparwood, the number and percentage of homeowners experiencing affordability challenges has increased over time.

6.2 BC Housing 2011 Housing Income Limit Analysis

BC Housing publishes Housing Income Limits (HILs) for communities across the province. The most recent published HILs available are for 2011 (see Appendix E: 2011 Housing Income Limits). HILs are used in combination with Taxfiler data to estimate the number of households who must pay in excess of 30% of their gross (i.e., before-tax) income in order to acquire safe, adequate and suitable median- rental housing. HILs are also often used to determine eligibility for subsidized housing/rent subsidies.

- 84 -

BC Housing has identified HILs for bachelor, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom and four+- bedroom units (see Table 32). In the case of Elkford and Sparwood, HILs for the Elk Valley are used as follows:

Table 32: 2011 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for the District of Elkford Based on 2011 Published HILs for the Elk Valley

Dwelling Size HILs Bachelor $17,000 One-Bedroom $21,000 Two-Bedroom $26,400 Three-Bedroom $28,600 Four+-Bedroom $31,350

Data Source: BC Housing

HILs are based on 30% of the median market rent in a community or region. Households with annual incomes equal to or less than HIL are said to have insufficient incomes to afford the on-going costs of suitable and adequate rental units in their area. The cost of rental housing is used because of the difficulty tracking individual household mortgage payments – which vary greatly according a variety of factors, including:

! When the home was purchased (which affects the original purchase price of the home); ! The size of the initial downpayment (which affects the total size of the original mortgage); ! The particular interest rate and mortgage term (both of which affect the actual mortgage payments); and ! Whether or not the household sought to refinance the mortgage (which may result in multiple mortgages with different terms and interest rates), etc..

Calculating HILs is based on National Occupancy Standards, which set minimum criteria for the number of persons per bedroom in a home and the level of privacy for members of a household. These standards are reflected in BC Housing’s Occupancy Standards, which state the following25:

1. There shall be no more than 2 or less than 1 person per bedroom. 2. Spouses and couples share a bedroom. 3. Parents do not share a bedroom with children. 4. Dependants aged 18 or more do not share a bedroom. 5. Dependants aged 5 or more of opposite sex do not share a bedroom.

Table 33 (next page) provides an estimate of the number of permanent households within the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood that may be facing affordability challenges (i.e., earning incomes at or below the published HIL for their household size/housing needs) based on detailed Taxfiler data from 2008.

25 BC Housing, 2011 Housing Income Limits

- 85 -

Table 33: Estimated Number of Households Earning Incomes At or Below the 2011 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood

District of Elkford Dwelling Size HILs 1 Est. Paying >30% 2 Est. Paying >50% 2 Bachelor $17,000 35 10 One-Bedroom $21,000 10 -- Two-Bedroom $26,400 25 -- Three-Bedroom $28,600 15 -- Four+-Bedroom $31,350 -- -- Total N/A 85 10

District of Sparwood Dwelling Size HILs 1 Est. Paying >30% 2 Est. Paying >50% 2 Bachelor $17,000 120 40 One-Bedroom $21,000 15 -- Two-Bedroom $26,400 55 25 Three-Bedroom $28,600 30 15 Four+-Bedroom $31,350 10 10 Total N/A 230 90

Data Sources: 1 BC Housing 2 Statistics Canada Small Area Administrative Data Division Taxfiler Data (Note: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression)

Comparing 2009 income data (the most recent income data available) to the 2011 HILs suggests that as many as 85 households in Elkford and as many as 230 households in Sparwood may be earning incomes at or below the 2011 HILs and, therefore, may be paying more than 30% of their income to acquire safe, adequate shelter. Of these households, an estimated 10 or more households in Elkford and approximately 90 households in Sparwood may be paying more than 50% of their income on shelter.

6.3 Anecdotal Evidence of Housing Affordability Challenges

Anecdotal evidence from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates that housing affordability is a growing issue in the area despite the prevalence of significantly higher-than-average incomes.

Feedback indicates that, while a large segment of the local workforce is working in the mines and earning healthy wages that can afford the local costs of housing, there is also a significant segment of the workforce not working for the mines and, therefore, earning lower-than-average incomes. This includes people working in some of the sectors directly servicing the mining sector (people earning good wages but not as much as those working in the mines) and a large portion of those working in the service industry (e.g., retail workers, those working in the gas stations and restaurants, etc.). Some of the workers in this latter group would be considered the “working poor” (people who have stable jobs but who do not earn enough to be able to afford market housing). In addition to the working poor, seniors are also likely to experience housing affordability challenges.

At the same time, there appears to be a variety of housing options and prices ranges available for people to purchase depending on their incomes, lifestyle and housing preferences. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that a number of people who have recently come into Elkford and

- 86 -

Sparwood to work and who are hoping to purchase a home are from other communities (e.g., MacKenzie) where they already own a home that they cannot sell without losing money (and, therefore, may not be able to contribute the required downpayment for a mortgage). Some of those workers may also have run into significant debt and credit problems that could prevent them from obtaining a mortgage for a home in Elkford or Sparwood.

Recent changes to mortgage rules were also cited as having a direct impact on one’s ability to purchase a home. The requirement for a 10% downpayment and shorter maximum amortization period has made it more difficult for first-time homebuyers despite continued low interest rates. This issue is exacerbated by the high rents being charged as a result of demand for rental greatly outstripping supply. High rents make it more difficult for potential homebuyers, even for people earning healthy wages, to save up enough money to save up the downpayment.

Increased recreational property investment is also leading to escalating housing prices as more and more homebuyers from higher-cost centres outside the region and province are attracted to Elkford and Sparwood because, to them, housing prices in Elkford and Sparwood are still relatively inexpensive. Some of those homes remain vacant and those that are rented out to locals tend to command high rents.

People’s individual priorities and lifestyle choices may also be affecting their ability to afford their housing. It was suggested that a not-un-significant portion of the population living in Elkford and Sparwood (like people in many other mining and high-income industrial communities) places greater priority on their “toys” (e.g., vehicles, boats, vacations, etc.) than on their housing. This is an area requiring individual attention and responsibility to address rather than government or community effort.

Readers are encouraged to review Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback for more information on observed housing affordability challenges in Elkford and Sparwood. While not statistically valid, data obtained through an online survey made available to both permanent and temporary residents of Elkford and Sparwood through both Districts’ websites provides additional examples of local residents experiencing challenges related to housing affordability. According to the survey results, of the 57 survey respondents who answered the question:

! 31.6% (18) indicated that there was a shortage of homes for purchase that are affordable based on their income (10 from Sparwood and 8 from Elkford); and ! 29.8% (17) indicated that there was a shortage of rental housing that is affordable based on their income (7 from Sparwood and 10 from Elkford).

Of those households potentially wishing to become homeowners:

! 31.6% (18) indicated that they do not have the downpayment required to purchase a home (10 from Sparwood and 8 from Elkford); ! 15.8% (9) indicated that they cannot qualify for a mortgage based on today’s interest rates and home prices based on their income (7 from Sparwood and 2 from Elkford); and ! 12.3% (7) indicated that they would likely have trouble qualifying for a mortgage because of their credit rating (3 from Sparwood and 4 from Elkford).

At the same time, 42.1% (24 of the 57 respondents who answered the question) indicated that they did not experience any housing challenges themselves (14 from Sparwood, 7 from Elkford and 3 non- residents/temporary residents).

Appendix D: Online Survey Results provides a more detailed account of the feedback gathered through this survey.

- 87 -

7.0 Housing Choice

Anecdotal evidence from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates that lack of housing choice is another significant issue – especially for renters. While there appears to be a variety of options and choices at different price levels available to homebuyers (if they can save up the required downpayment), there appears to be very limited options and choices available to renters. For example, one local property manager indicated that they receive on average 200 calls from people looking for rental properties and only 1-2 vacancies per month. This supply and demand imbalance is leading to escalating rents and may, in part, be responsible for some of the increased recreational property investment coming to the area.

As mentioned above, part of what might be causing some of this backlog comes from people coming into Elkford and Sparwood from elsewhere (e.g., MacKenzie) to work and who are hoping to purchase a home but have no choice except to rent until they can sell their existing home.

The other key source of this backlog is the natural result of the 4-on/4-off shiftwork offered by the mines. This type of shiftwork allows people to live outside the region and even the province during their four (4) days off and then commute into Elkford and Sparwood to work in the mines during their four (4) days on. Those workers – along with other contractors and temporary/seasonal workers – appear to be taking up a large portion of the available rental stock.

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings also indicates that there are limited options available to seniors who want to downsize. While there are an estimated 88 seniors’ housing units located in Sparwood, space is limited as evidenced by the waitlists and not all seniors wish to or are ready to move into seniors’ housing. The combined lack of healthcare services and a full range of seniors’ housing options in the area means that some seniors who wish to remain in Elkford or Sparwood after they retire and “age in place” may have no choice but to leave the community as their health and personal care needs increase beyond what can be reasonable met.

Another group experiencing limited housing choice is contractors. It was suggested that a number of landlords are no longer willing to rent their units to contractors mainly due to damages done to the units by previous tenants. Feedback indicates that contractors working up at the mines are no longer permitted to shower, change and wash their clothes at the end of their shifts along with the permanent mine staff. This results in contractors coming home dirty and causing damage to carpets and furniture. Other feedback suggests that those contractors who do find rental accommodations are often placed under increased scrutiny by their landlords.

The result of this limited availability of rental accommodations is increased pressure on the area’s hotels and campground. It was suggested that a larger portion of the area’s hotels are full providing accommodations to contractors and that the area’s campground fills up immediately once it opens each summer with contract workers and remains full until it closes in October. Once the campground closes, there is usually a surge in phone calls to property managers by people looking for alternate rental accommodations.

Finally, it was suggested that the lack of suitable rental accommodations in the area may be forcing some people to purchase a home – either purchasing sooner than they would otherwise prefer or purchasing a particular home that they otherwise would not have if there were suitable rental accommodations available. It was suggested that becoming a homeowner and/or purchasing a particular home should be a choice rather than being compelled or forced into buying out of desperation.

- 88 -

More information on observed challenges associated with lack of housing choice in Elkford and Sparwood is available in Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback.

While not statistically valid, data obtained through an online survey made available to both permanent and temporary residents of Elkford and Sparwood through both Districts’ websites provides additional examples of local residents experiencing challenges related to a lack of housing choices. As mentioned above, according to the survey results, of the 57 survey respondents who answered the question:

! 31.6% (18) indicated that there was a shortage of homes for purchase that are affordable based on their income (10 from Sparwood and 8 from Elkford); and ! 29.8% (17) indicated that there was a shortage of rental housing that is affordable based on their income (7 from Sparwood and 10 from Elkford).

Additionally, when asked the question: “While you have been living in the Elkford/Sparwood area, have you ever had no choice but to move because you could not afford the housing you were living in?”, of the 57 survey respondents who answered the question:

! 7.0% (4) indicated “yes, within the last year” (2 from Sparwood and 2 from Elkford); ! 5.3% (3) indicated “yes, within the last three years” (2 from Sparwood and 1 from Elkford); ! 8.8% (5) indicated “yes, within the last fiver years” (4 from Sparwood and 1 from Elkford); and ! 5.3% (3) indicated “yes, but a long time ago” (1 from Sparwood and 2 from Elkford).

However, the majority of respondents to this question (73.7% or 42 respondents) indicated that they had never experienced this problem while living in the Elkford/Sparwood area (20 from Sparwood, 19 from Elkford and 3 non-residents/temporary residents).

According to survey respondents, people with disabilities, single parents, and single seniors are the top three (3) groups most likely to experience difficulty finding housing that is both appropriate to their needs and affordable based on their income. For permanent residents of Sparwood, the order of importance was:

1. People with disabilities: 59.3% indicated “very difficult” while another 37.0% indicated “somewhat difficult” (96.3% total); followed by 2. Single seniors: 55.6% indicated “very difficult” while another 40.7% indicated “somewhat difficult” (96.3% total); and then 3. Single-parent families: 55.6% indicated “very difficult” while another 33.3% indicated “somewhat difficult” (88.9% total).

For permanent residents of Elkford, the order of importance was:

1. People with disabilities: 75.0% indicated “very difficult” while another 20.0% indicated “somewhat difficult” (95.0% total); followed by 2. Single-parent families: 45.0% indicated “very difficult” while another 50.0% indicated “somewhat difficult” (95.0% total); and then 3. Single seniors: 45.0% indicated “very difficult” while another 35.0% indicated “somewhat difficult” (90.0% total).

- 89 -

Appendix D: Online Survey Results provides a more detailed account of the feedback gathered through this survey.

8.0 Conclusion

Housing occurs along a continuum. Current data indicates that there are a number of gaps in Elkford’s housing continuum – particularly at the “lower end” of the continuum (i.e., non-market and near-market housing which are specifically designed to be affordable to low- and modest-income households). Households with limited housing options are more likely to experience any number of challenges. Housing challenges and/or hardships fall into four standard categories:

1. Housing adequacy (physical safety and maintenance of the home); 2. Housing suitability (proper size of the home given the size of the household); 3. Housing accessibility (the degree to which housing meets the needs of persons with health, mobility or stamina limitations); and 4. Housing affordability (the cost of the home related to the household’s income).

Housing choice is a fifth common housing challenge that is often difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback from participants in a series of Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings, rental housing is severely lacking – which is limiting options for seasonal/temporary workers as well as low- and modest-income permanent residents. The shortage of affordable and market rental accommodations has lead to record low vacancy rates, dramatic rent increases, and is also believed to be limiting potential homebuyers’ ability to save up the required downpayment to purchase a home (especially given recent changes to mortgage rules that now require a minimum 10% downpayment). Therefore, the shortage of rental accommodations also appears to be affecting the homebuyer’s market.

In Elkford, housing adequacy followed by housing affordability appear to be the dominant issues facing permanent households while housing availability appears to be the dominant issue facing temporary and seasonal workers. Housing suitability does not appear to be an issue in Elkford. Based on the data that is available, there may be as many as:

! 85 to 120 households (up to 8.5%) in need of some form of assistance to deal with major repairs to their homes; ! 65 to 85 households (up to 6.5% depending on the analysis) paying more than 30% of their income on housing and, therefore, in need of more affordable housing (of these households, 10 or more may be paying 50% or more of their income on housing); and ! 20 to 30 households (roughly 5-8% of individuals with disabilities) potentially in need of more accessible housing.

In Sparwood, housing affordability followed by housing adequacy appear to be the dominant issues facing permanent households while housing availability appears to be the dominant issue facing temporary and seasonal workers. Based on the data that is available, there may be as many as:

! 230 to 280 households (up to 16.0% depending on the analysis) paying more than 30% of their income on housing and, therefore, in need of more affordable housing (of these households, as many as 90 may be paying 50% or more of their income on housing);

- 90 -

! 135 to 165 households (up to 8.7%) in need of some form of assistance to deal with major repairs to their homes; ! 20 to 25 households (up to 1.3%) who may be living in overcrowded conditions; and ! 25 to 45 households (roughly 5-8% of individuals with disabilities) potentially in need of more accessible housing.

It is unknown how many of these households are experiencing multiple housing issues (e.g., affordability, adequacy and accessibility challenges) at the same time.

- 91 -

- 92 -

CHAPTER 7: Community Impact Analysis

1.0 Introduction

If one accepts the notions that for an economy (the business environment) to remain healthy, vibrant and sustainable, it must be diverse; and if the same holds true for the natural environment, then it becomes intuitively correct that the same should also hold true for a community (the social environment). A diverse community contains a variety of household types and sizes and a population at various stages and life cycles – all with different and overlapping housing needs. Providing a variety of safe, appropriate, and affordable housing opportunities for all residents and life cycles therefore becomes essential in order to maintain a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community.

The lack of housing affordability and choice can have both direct and indirect impacts on individual households. Housing instability can lead to household instability, which in turn can affect health, education, employment, economic success, community participation and social cohesion. Together, these impacts can have a spiraling effect, with a problem in one area causing problems in other areas and vice versa. While these impacts may not be felt directly by everyone in the community, they can be felt indirectly as community energy is channeled to social supports rather than community building. When individuals in the community fail to thrive, the community as a whole fails to thrive (i.e., fails to live up to its full potential).

What follows is a summary of the common impacts that the lack of appropriate housing affordability and choice may be having on the community. It is important to note that these impacts may not be unique to Elkford – as many other communities experiencing housing challenges experience these same issues. Rather, these issues are common downstream effects and responses to high levels of stress and despair brought about when an increasing number of households in the community are experiencing ongoing financial difficulties and when a community experiences rapid growth and change.

- 93 -

2.0 Family Impacts

Housing unaffordability can have a direct impact on families. Some families may find that they are living pay cheque to pay cheque. This means that large unforeseen expenses can turn into major problems. Other families may find that the parents have to hold down more than one job in order to make ends meet – or that teenage children have to take on part-time jobs in order to help maintain the household. Working several jobs can mean less time spent with children and each other. It can also increase one’s fatigue and stress levels. Higher levels of fatigue and stress can mean that “little things” get blown out of proportion, leading to big arguments.

One of the most common arguments that couples cited is over finances. Ongoing housing unaffordability can increase both the likelihood and the severity of those arguments; which can lead to family breakdown. Conversely, incompatible couples may stay together because the high cost and limited supply of alternate housing leads them to feel that there is nowhere else to go. While this can serve to maintain the family unit, it can also prove to be problematic in cases of domestic violence.

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates that housing challenges have less of an impact on local families than the 4-on/4-off structure of the mine work schedules. It was suggested that the long shifts and 4-on/4-off structure of the work week promotes families living together only part-time. This makes it more difficult for families to establish and maintain consistent and stable family structure, dynamics and routines. It may also result in couples as well as their children losing out on opportunities to spend consistent quality time together (especially for children who are in school following a regular Monday-to-Friday schedule while their parents follow a 4-on/4-off schedule). Participants suggested that the community is experiencing increased family breakdown as a result of the 4-on/4-off shiftwork and families with children who aren’t able to spend time together resulting in children’s relationships with their parents breaking down.

Housing challenges in Elkford and Sparwood can, however, affect local families where the parents have divorced. For example, it was suggested that in cases of divorce, there is a greater change that one of the parents may have to leave the community unless both spouses earn enough to afford their own housing in the community. Alternatively, it was suggested that some single mothers have to move back in with their parents after a divorce (which can cause family stress) or into housing that may not be up to the standards they and their children seek (causing further family stresses).

Housing challenges in Elkford and Sparwood also affect families wishing to move into the community from elsewhere. The lack of affordable rental opportunities for families with children can lead to situations where the wife and children have to remain in the family’s existing home elsewhere while the husband comes to work in the mines on a 4-on/4-off basis while he looks for suitable housing for his family.

Family stability among seniors may also be at risk due to the lack of appropriate housing and healthcare options for seniors. For example, it was suggested that seniors who have to leave the community (e.g., move to Fernie or Cranbrook) because of their particular housing and healthcare needs are more likely to become isolated from their family and extended networks who remain in Elkford and Sparwood.

As housing prices continue to increase, it will also likely become more and more difficult for families that want to have one of the parents stay home with the children (i.e., as housing costs increase, more families will require both parents to work in order to make ends meet).

- 94 -

3.0 Social Impacts

Working long hours and multiple jobs can have social impacts as well. Individuals may find that they are often too tired, too stressed, and/or have less time to socialize. They may also find that their inability to make ends meet leads to lower self-esteem and less desire to socialize. This can impact their sense of belonging in the community. People facing housing affordability problems may be less likely to participate in community life and community events (e.g., declining church attendance, poor volunteer rates, low turnout for community events and programs, etc.). Residents who are finding it difficult to make ends meet may be compelled to move out of the community altogether. This can lead to high population turnover rates, which in turn makes it more difficult for neighbours to get to know one another, and has a negative impact on the small town atmosphere of the community.

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates a growing lack of affordable housing options may be causing people to leave the community – thereby reducing opportunities to establish long-term social networks. Examples were most often given of people leaving the community because they couldn’t find the type of housing they sought. In many cases, these people appear to have been families that wanted to move to Elkford or Sparwood and establish themselves but could not find anything suitable to rent or purchase (and so moved on) as well as lower-income families who moved on as housing prices escalated beyond their means.

It was suggested that participation in community events and community-building activities is also affected. While part of the problem is related to housing (i.e., when people don’t have enough money, will and/or energy to participate because they are struggling to make ends meet), another part of the problem rests with the 4-on/4-off shiftwork offered by the mines (i.e., the difficulty establishing commitment and buy-in to the community from people who only live in the community part-time).

It was also suggested that as the area’s labour shortages continue, there will likely be more importing of temporary foreign workers, which could lead to cultural differences and challenges.

As mentioned above, social isolation is more likely to be an issue for seniors who have to leave the community (i.e., move to Fernie or Cranbrook) in search of appropriate housing and healthcare services. Those seniors are more likely to become isolated from their friends and family who remain in Elkford and Sparwood.

4.0 Health Impacts (Physical and Emotional)

People whose housing costs take up too much of their take-home income tend to have less time, energy and money to spend on preventive health and maintaining a healthy diet. For example, it is commonly known that low-income single mothers do not always eat properly, especially if they run out of money before the end of the month to buy food (in these situations, single mothers will often feed their children but not themselves).

The lack of a healthy, stable diet can lead to a variety of medical problems down the road (which may be further exacerbated by high levels of stress – ulcers, for example). Lack of disposable income can mean that people may not be maintaining regular health check ups (e.g., going to the dentist), which can lead to chronic health problems down the road. Furthermore, households with affordability problems are less able to afford needed medicines. Children from families with inadequate housing are significantly more likely to get sick and more likely to be hospitalized due to illness.

The inability to make ends meet can also have a significant impact on the emotional well-being of individuals in the community (e.g., lowered self-esteem, chronic feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, etc.). These feelings can lead to chronic or severe depression and anxiety. In some cases, people may turn to drugs and alcohol to alleviate their feelings of despair – which can lead to

- 95 -

substance abuse. For males who find their egos eroding because they feel they cannot adequately care for their families, feelings of frustration can lead to anger and violence.

Overall, these issues tend to lead to increased use and reliance on social and community services related to poverty (e.g., the local food bank, social assistance, etc.).

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings support the notion that various fears and stresses associated with not having safe, stable, affordable housing affect many other aspects of one’ life, including one’s health.

The lack of sufficient seniors’ housing in the area is also affecting their physical and well as emotional health. For example, it was suggested that seniors are staying in their existing homes too long, thereby exposing themselves to increased risks of injury due to falling, poor nutrition, etc. Some seniors remain in their own homes longer than may be appropriate because they cannot get into the local seniors’ housing (i.e., they are on the waitlist but an appropriate unit has not become available). Others remain in their own homes longer than may be appropriate because they do not want to move into the seniors’ housing (i.e., because the housing that is available either does not meet their needs and aspirations or because they fear that moving into seniors’ housing is the first step to them having to leave the community altogether to move into a Long-Term Care facility). Some seniors may also be living with chronic fear and stress associated with knowing that, at any moment, they may be forced to move into seniors’ housing because their existing homes cannot accommodate their changing healthcare needs.

5.0 Educational Impacts

It is widely recognized that people with housing affordability problems have less time, energy, and money to pursue educational upgrading or training. This can impact their employability and wage earnings thus exacerbating housing affordability problems. Children who are living in unaffordable and inadequate housing conditions typically achieve less in school due to poor nutrition, poor health, stressful and more hazardous home environments, negative social behaviour, etc. They are also less likely to finish school or go on to pursue a higher education. (NOTE: scholastic performance has more to do with household stability, a sense of belonging and family values around education than it does I.Q.).

It is unclear based on feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings support whether or not or to what degree housing issues in Elkford and Sparwood influence children’s and adults’ educational success and attainment.

6.0 Economic Impacts

Local businesses may be finding it difficult to recruit and retain skilled staff as a result of local housing unaffordability. This may be because:

! Workers are moving from job to job trying to find a high enough paying job to afford housing; ! Workers living in unstable, unaffordable housing are moving often trying to find suitable housing; ! Skilled workers not moving into the community because more affordable housing opportunities exist in other communities; etc.

- 96 -

As a result, local business may experience high staff turnover rates (which increases training costs) and poor staff efficiency. Some businesses may find they have to reduce the level of services offered to the community, for example:

! Hotels closing rooms and even entire floors because they are unable to hire and retain enough housekeeping staff to clean the rooms; ! Fast food restaurants having to reduce their hours of operations due to a lack of staff to fill shifts; and ! Retail outlets hiring less experienced and/or less engaged staff who are not able to provide the same quality and level of service as before;

In response to the higher housing costs, some businesses (especially those in the retail and service sectors) may have to increase wages or offer incentives to attract workers. Increased staffing costs can lead to lower profits, which can be hard on small businesses with low profit margins. Some businesses may decide to move out of the community altogether as a result of these problems. Local residents living in unaffordable homes may also find that they have less disposable income to purchase local goods and services – which represents a loss of economic opportunities for local businesses.

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicate that housing is an issue for a number of employers – but not for all employers. For some employers, the lack of housing represents the single greatest constraint to them growing their business (i.e., the inability to recruit and retain qualified staff). This is particularly true for businesses offering below- average wages as well as non-profit organizations. It was also suggested that if there were more housing options available, more families could move into the community full-time – resulting in more customers for local businesses (e.g., retail stores and restaurants).

Staff turnover also presents a challenge – both in terms of consistency of service and training and recruiting costs – and is related to the lack of housing options available in the area. Staff who come to the community to work but who cannot find suitable housing are more likely to quit their job and leave the community in search of better housing and employment opportunities elsewhere.

It was also suggested that the lack of appropriate affordable housing options helps to reinforce a “Catch-22” dynamic that may be hindering local community and economic development efforts. It was suggested that if there were more housing options available, more people would be able to move to Elkford and Sparwood full-time and that the absence of suitable housing options prevents people from doing so. The lack of permanent residents results in a lack of sufficient population to support more community services and commercial activities; the lack of sufficient population to support more community services and commercial activities serves as an additional disincentive to more people moving into the community.

The lack of rental housing may also be having a long-term negative affect on the local tourism industry. It was suggested that many of the local hotels are constantly booked up with contractors and that there are very few recreational campers coming into the community’s campground in the summer because the campground too is filled with contractors. While in the short-term, this is benefiting those who provide tourist accommodations, potential tourists may lose interest in Elkford and Sparwood as a potential destination in the long-term.

- 97 -

7.0 Other Impacts

Homelessness: Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that homelessness is a minor issue in Elkford and Sparwood. Participants suggested that winters are too cold to allow people experiencing “absolute homelessness” (i.e., people living on the street or camping “out in the bush”) to remain in the area. Participants did suggest that there are likely to be people experiencing “near homelessness” (i.e., people couch surfing with friends and extended family) – however, nobody was able to provide data or an estimate on the number of people potentially in that situation. Others suggested that Elkford and Sparwood do have what might be considered “working homelessness” – people earning high wages but do not have suitable housing options available to them and, therefore, live in an RV in the campground over the summer. These people would be considered “near homeless” only if they do not have permanent housing elsewhere (i.e., their home community).

Crime: Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that crime may be a growing issue in the area but one that is not related to housing. Rather, crime (e.g., vandalism, drugs, and alcohol abuse) are the result of excess affluence and poor parenting (i.e., people who are making exceptional wages but have limited life skills and limited parenting skills to parent their children properly).

Transportation: Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that transportation is a need rather than an impact associated with the lack of affordable housing. It was suggested that as low-income people are forced out of the community and into the outskirts in search of more affordable housing, transportation becomes an issue for them. As a result, it was also suggested that any new affordable housing built for low- and modest-income households should be centrally located close to the downtown so that people without vehicles have ready access to commercial, health and community services.

Childcare: Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicated that childcare is a need in the community but one that is associated more with the 4-on/4-off shiftwork at the mines than with the need for affordable housing.

- 98 -

CHAPTER 8: Housing Priorities for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

1.0 Introduction

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings combined with the statistical data detailed in this report and data obtained through an online survey of Elkford and Sparwood residents has identified a number of key housing priorities for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood. Ultimately, a wider variety of housing options are required in Elkford and Sparwood in terms of built form, tenure options, price ranges and target audiences. What follows is a summary of the top three (3) housing priorities identified for the area.

2.0 Affordable Rental Accommodations

The #1 priority identified for Elkford and Sparwood is affordable rental accommodations. There currently is a severe shortage of rental accommodations to serve the area’s permanent population as well as the area’s temporary contract workers and those people working for the mines on a 4-on/4-off basis whose permanent homes are located elsewhere. This severe shortage (i.e., a supply and demand imbalance) is leading to escalating rents, some “gauging”, and exceptionally low vacancy rents.

While market rents appear to be affordable to those working in the coal mining industry, they are not perceived as affordable for most households not working for the coal mines. These households are earning a combination of below-average and modest incomes. Therefore, in terms of rent targets, those in need of affordable rental housing will require either rent-geared-to-income units or rental rates that are consistent with BC Housing’s published Housing Income Limits (HILs) as follows (Table 34 – next page):

- 99 -

Table 34: Maximum Affordable Rent Targets (Thresholds) for Low- and Modest-Income Households in Elkford and Sparwood

Dwelling Size HILs 1 Maximum Affordable Rent Bachelor $17,000 $425 (Incl. Util.) One-Bedroom $21,000 $525 (Incl. Util.) Two-Bedroom $26,400 $660 (Incl. Util.) Three-Bedroom $28,600 $715 (Incl. Util.) Four+-Bedroom $31,350 $785 (Incl. Util.)

1 Data Source: BC Housing

The shortage of affordable and market rental accommodations is causing problems elsewhere in the local economy and housing industry. For example, it was suggested that there are a number of families wishing to relocate to Elkford or Sparwood who want to rent a home while they establish themselves before they start looking for home to purchase. The lack of appropriate rental accommodations means that many of these families cannot do so and eventually choose to move on. The high rents being charged for many of the rental accommodations that are available in the area also means that an increasing number of renters are having difficulty saving up enough of a downpayment to move into homeownership – which is having a negative affect on home sales in the area. This issue has been exacerbated by recent changes by the Federal government to mortgage rules (i.e., homeowners are now required to have a 10% downpayment). The area’s hotels and campgrounds are also often full providing accommodations predominantly to temporary contract workers rather than serving (and promoting) the area’s tourist industry.

It is generally believed that if enough rental units are built, the supply and demand imbalance will reach equilibrium and rents will settle to more appropriate levels. However, given the number of non- permanent residents currently residing in rental accommodations, uncertainty about the long-term future of the area’s coal mining activities (i.e., the industry is characterized by boom and bust cycles or periods over the long term), and uncertainty about the future global economy, it is unclear as to how many additional rental units would be required to reach that equilibrium without creating a potentially dangerous oversupply of rental accommodations should the local economy take a significant downturn.

Given these uncertainties, it may be better to focus the majority of the area’s rental efforts on developing more flexible strategies (including pilot projects such as a serviced RV Park designated for contract workers) to increase the supply of rental accommodations targeted towards temporary contract workers and non-permanent mine workers (e.g., serviced RV parks and small-scale bunkhouse projects) along with one (1) project in each community designed to provide affordable, permanent rental accommodations for families and modest-income households working in the local retail and service sectors such as retail stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc. (i.e., households earning incomes at or below the published Housing Income Limits).

3.0 Affordable Seniors’ Accommodations

The #2 priority identified for Elkford and Sparwood is affordable seniors’ housing. Demographic trends are clearly changing in the area as a result of more seniors choosing to remain in Elkford and Sparwood after they retire. Since this trend is new to the area (i.e., in the past, most seniors chose to leave the community after they retired), the local housing industry has not had the opportunity to evolve a full range of housing options for seniors.

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates that a broad mix of seniors’ housing options are required; providing them with a range of appropriate

- 100 -

opportunities to downsize into a smaller, single-level, barrier-free homes, with fewer yard and routine maintenance requirements (e.g., +55 villas and condominiums). The particular housing needs of seniors vary greatly and include:

! Market homeownership for seniors who currently own their own homes, have built up significant equity in those homes, and who have healthy pensions and/or other income; ! Affordable homeownership for seniors who currently own their own homes but do not have significant equity and/or do not have sufficient retirement and investment income to afford market homeownership; ! Market rental for those seniors who wish to remain in the community but who do not wish to own their home; ! Subsidized rental for low- and modest-income seniors; and ! Seniors’ Supportive and Assisted Living to allow more seniors to “age in place”.

Given this variation, identifying a preferred price point or level of affordability is not possible without conducting a detailed market analysis of the local seniors population (which is beyond the scope of this study). In terms of providing affordable rental accommodations for low- and modest-income seniors, the housing thresholds identified in Table 34 above should be followed (and will likely be required to be followed if Provincial funding is provided to help develop a housing project).

While there are an estimated 88 units of seniors-oriented housing in Sparwood, there is currently no seniors-oriented housing in Elkford. There is a proposal underway to expand Lilac Terrace that will provide additional Supportive Living and Assisted Living spaces once operational funding can be secured from the Province. This expansion will increase the supply of seniors’ housing in Sparwood but not in Elkford (although Elkford residents will have access to that housing).

It is important to note that while the area clearly needs more housing options for seniors, the area also needs more services (e.g., health and personal care services) available to seniors to help them “age in place”. The availability of these services will be a key, determining factor in whether or not older seniors choose and are able to remain in the community as their personal and healthcare needs increase.

It should also be noted that providing more opportunities for seniors to downsize could open up more opportunities for younger households and families to move into homeownership – thereby reducing the pressure on some of the area’s existing rental units. However, given the number of homes for sale in the community that do not appear to be selling, an under-supply of existing homeownership opportunities does not appear to be an issue for Elkford and Sparwood. Rather, the issue appears to be one of affordability, access and entry (i.e., finding a suitable home and being able to obtain a mortgage).

4.0 Affordable Homeownership for Modest-Income Families and Young People

The #3 priority identified for Elkford and Sparwood is affordable homeownership for modest-income families and young people – many of whom are first-time homebuyers. Some of these households are earning healthy wages but nowhere near the incomes being earned by those working in the mines. As a result, these households are earning below-average incomes and, therefore, may not be able to compete effectively in the housing market – especially one catering to higher-income mine workers and, increasingly, recreational property investors.

Preferred targets for affordable homeownership will focus on providing a combination of below-market and entry-level housing prices aimed at households earning incomes between $30,000 and $45,000 (i.e., households earning incomes above the published Housing Income Limits but below the

- 101 -

estimated incomes required to purchase a modest entry-level home in Elkford and Sparwood). Appropriate starter-home prices for households in this category will range from approximately $70,000 to approximately $180,000 based on current mortgage rates and depending on the individual homebuyer’s existing debt levels.

It was suggested that there are a number of households currently living in rental accommodations that would like to buy a home in Elkford or Sparwood but are unable to given the size of a downpayment now required and the prices at which homes in the area are now selling. The high cost of rents may be limiting their ability to save up a downpayment. Additionally, many of the homes that might be considered affordable to modest-income homebuyers are also potentially in need so significant upgrades (e.g., new windows, doors, roofing, furnaces, insulation, wiring, etc.) that can add additional upfront costs to the purchase price of the home.

Manufactured homes on fixed foundations may provide a viable option for this target group. It was also suggested that some form of downpayment assistance or lease-to-own model could also help modest- income first-time homebuyers move into homeownership more effectively. Downpayment assistance or a lease-to-own model could also help those mine workers from other communities (e.g., MacKenzie) wishing to buy a home in Elkford or Sparwood but who have lost equity in their existing homes and are, therefore, unable to come up with the required downpayment.

Providing some form of assistance to help modest-income renters move into homeownership will also serve to reduce the pressure on some of the area’s existing rental units.

5.0 Other Identified Housing Needs

Other identified housing needs for Elkford and Sparwood include:

1. Supportive/Assisted Living for special populations; 2. The need to clean up unsightly and/or problematic units (individual homes and rental properties); 3. Supports for contract workers; and 4. Emergency and Transitional Shelters for Homeless Families and Individuals.

5.1 Supportive/Assisted Living for Special Populations

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates that there may be a number of non-seniors currently residing in seniors’ housing because there are no other options available in the area. This may include a range of developmentally disabled and special needs adults who are not able to live independently on their own or with their extended families. It was suggested that some from of Group Home providing a combination of Supportive Living and/or Assisted Living would be appropriate and could help to free up additional spaces for the area’s seniors. In order to proceed with such an initiative, capital funding would be required to build the housing, operational funding would be required to maintain the programs and services, and the appropriate staff would need to be hired and retained. Given the difficulties the community is currently experiencing attempting to secure operational dollars to expand Lilac Terrace and BC Housing’s current policies making non-seniors with disabilities eligible to access seniors’ Supportive and Assisted Living, proceeding with such an initiative may not be possible at the present time.

5.2 Unsightly and Problematic Properties

There are properties in the area that are clearly in need of major repairs. Some of these properties are owner-occupied and some of these properties are rentals. Efforts have been made by the Districts of

- 102 -

Elkford and Sparwood to require or otherwise encourage the owners of some of these dwellings to fix up their properties in compliance with current legislation. That legislation may be limiting. Furthermore, there is also the issue of enforcement and whether or not both Districts have the financial and staffing resources necessary.

5.3 Support for Contract Workers

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that a number of landlords in the area will not rent to contract workers. The reason suggested was that contract workers are no longer allowed to shower, change and launder their clothes up at the mines along with the permanent mine staff. This means that contract workers often come home dirty, which causes damage to the carpets and furniture in their rental units. It was suggested that if there was a facility provided to allow contract workers to shower, change and launder their clothes before coming home, it might encourage more landlords to open up their rental units to contractors. It was also suggested that those landlords who do rent to contractors often make arrangements with the employers rather than directly with the tenants (i.e., the employer pays the rent to the landlord and is reimbursed by the contractor).

5.4 Emergency and Transitional Shelters for Homeless Families and Individuals

Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that emergency and transitional shelters for homeless families and individuals does not appear to be an identified need in Elkford and Sparwood. Feedback suggests that the winters are not conducive to homeless people residing in the area, that there have been very few homeless people identified in the area (most people who are or become homeless in the area move on to other communities such as Fernie and Cranbrook where facilities are available) and that the appropriate community supports required to provide assistance to people who are or become homeless in the area may not be available.

6.0 Additional Feedback Regarding Housing Priorities and Perceived Needs

While not statistically valid, data obtained through an online survey made available to both permanent and temporary residents of Elkford and Sparwood through both Districts’ websites provides an indication of housing priorities for Elkford and Sparwood. According to the survey results, of the 50 survey respondents who answered the question, the following are the top five (5) housing priorities for the area as a whole based on the number of respondents who indicated that the particular housing need or challenge was a “critical” issue:

1. Not enough seniors’ housing (46.0% or 23 respondents); 2. Not enough supportive housing for non-seniors with disabilities (42.0% or 21 respondents); 3. Not enough below-market rental housing (42.0% or 21 respondents); 4. Not enough market rental housing (38.0% or 19 respondents); and 5. A three-way tie between: a) Too many homes that are not wheelchair accessible; b) Not enough below-market housing for purchase; and c) Not enough variety of housing types and sizes (36.0% or 18 respondents each).

These priorities expand and change slightly when the total number of respondents who indicated that the particular housing need or challenge was a “critical” issue are combined with the number of residents who indicated that the particular housing need or challenge was a “significant” issue:

- 103 -

1. A tie between: a) Not enough supportive housing for non-seniors with disabilities; and b) Too many homes that are not wheelchair accessible (76.0% or 38 respondents each). 2. Not enough transitional or emergency housing for homeless individuals or families (74.0% or 37 respondents); 3. A three-way tie between: a) Not enough seniors’ housing; b) Not enough subsidized/rent-geared-to-income rental housing; and c) Not enough below-market housing for purchase (72.0% or 36 respondents each). 4. A three-way tie between: a) Not enough below-market rental housing; b) Not enough market rental housing; and c) Not enough variety of housing types and sizes (70.0% or 35 respondents each).

For permanent residents of Sparwood, the order of importance was:

1. Not enough below-market housing for purchase (77.7% or 21 Sparwood respondents); 2. Not enough market rental housing (74.0% or 20 Sparwood respondents); and 3. A four-way tie between: a) Not enough variety of housing types and sizes; b) Not enough supportive housing for non-seniors with disabilities; c) Not enough transitional or emergency housing for homeless individuals or families; and d) Not enough subsidized/rent-geared-to-income rental housing (70.3% or 19 Sparwood respondents).

For permanent residents of Elkford, the order of importance was:

1. Not enough homes that are accessible to people in wheelchairs or people with limited mobility (95.0% or 19 Elkford respondents); 2. Not enough seniors housing (90.0% or 18 Elkford respondents; 3. A two-way tie between: a) Not enough supportive housing for non-seniors with disabilities; and b) Not enough below-market rental housing (85.0% or 17 Elkford respondents). a) A three-way tie between: a) Not enough subsidized/rent-geared-to-income rental housing; b) Not enough variety of housing types and sizes; and b) Not enough transitional or emergency housing for homeless individuals or families (80.0% or 16 Elkford respondents).

Clearly, increasing the supply of housing for seniors and persons with disabilities and/or mobility challenges is a key priority followed by below-market rental housing, market rental housing (including rent-geared-to-income rental housing), and then below-market homes for purchase. It would also appear that survey respondents believe that increasing the variety of housing types and sizes is key to achieving some of these priorities. Providing emergency and transitional housing for homeless individuals and families is also perceived as a priority in both communities. The challenge will be

- 104 -

whether or not the related support services are available (or can be made available) to assist people in the community experiencing homelessness.

Survey respondents also identified the following target groups in terms of priority (based on the 50 respondents who answered the question):

1. Low-income seniors (48.0% or 24 respondents); 2. Low-income families with children (40.0% or 20 respondents); 3. Moderate-income families with children (34.0% or 17 respondents); 4. Low-income singles (32.0% or 16 respondents); 5. Persons with disabilities (24.0% or 12 respondents);

For permanent residents of Sparwood, the order of importance was:

1. Low-income seniors (40.7% or 11 respondents); 2. Moderate-income families with children (33.3% or 9 respondents); 3. Middle-income families with children (29.6% or 8 respondents); 4. Low-income singles (25.9% or 7 respondents); 5. Low-income families with children (25.9% or 7 respondents);

For permanent residents of Elkford, the order of importance was:

1. Low-income families with children (55.0% or 11 respondents); 2. Low-income seniors (50.0% or 10 respondents); 3. Moderate-income families with children (40.0% or 8 respondents); 4. Low-income singles (35.0% or 7 respondents); 5. A tie between: a) Temporary/seasonal workers; and b) Persons with disabilities (30.0% or 6 respondents each).

Appendix D: Online Survey Results provides a more detailed account of the feedback gathered through this survey.

- 105 -

- 106 -

CHAPTER 9: Housing Barriers, Opportunities and Potential Solutions for the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood

1.0 Introduction

This chapter looks at the range of barriers that exist to addressing the identified housing needs in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood along with a number of potential opportunities and solutions that were identified by participants in the Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings. The identified barriers serve as key considerations that will need to be addressed since they may hamper the success of individual housing initiatives. The identified solutions serve as potential recommendations for local housing stakeholders and the region’s elected officials to consider as they move forward to increase the supply of affordable and supportive housing in the area.

1.1 Perceived Barriers to Addressing the District of Elkford’s and District of Sparwood’s Housing Needs

Participants in the Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings identified a number of key barriers that may hamper efforts by organizations within the Elkford and Sparwood area – be they private developers, landlords, government agencies or non-profit housing providers – to address the area’s affordable housing needs (see Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback for a more detailed summary of participants’ comments and ideas). These barriers include:

The Global Economy/Fluctuations in the Coal Mining Industry: Despite recent efforts to diversify the local economy, Elkford and Sparwood continue to be dominated by the coal mining industry. This industry is characterized by frequent periods or cycles of boom and bust. During boom periods, there is a tremendous amount of economic activity resulting in new people moving into the community and increasing demand (and stress) being placed on the area’s existing housing supply. During bust periods, economic activity slows greatly, people move out of the community, and housing vacancies

- 107 -

(both rental and ownership) increase – in some cases to non-viable or even dangerous levels. Therefore, the timelines during which investors expect and need to recover their investment tend to be greatly shortened. This can result in higher-than-normal housing costs (e.g., rents being charged by landlords) for existing properties and a general reluctance on the part of larger investors to develop new rental housing projects (i.e., knowing that a bust period may come along, resulting in excessive vacancies and significant financial losses).

Increasing Recreational Property Investment: Increasing recreational property investment is also serving as a barrier to meeting the area’s housing needs. When recreational property investors from outside the community purchase homes in a community, those homes are no longer available for purchase by permanent residents and the increased demand for local housing by people coming in from higher-cost centers often leads to escalated housing prices. In some cases, recreational property investors (like other investors) are purchasing homes at escalated prices and, therefore, seeking escalated rents for those units in order to cover the mortgage and property management costs. In other cases, recreational property investors are keeping their units vacant. Keeping investment properties vacant exacerbates the existing supply and demand imbalance, which puts further pressure on rents to increase.

Greed: Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings indicate that greed (e.g., among property owners/investors and homebuilders/contractors) is a key factor leading to escalating rents and housing construction costs. At least one business owner has been met with contractors openly referring to the area as “Honey Ville” and expressing the perception that they can charge whatever price they want because businesses in the area have limited options and choices (see Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback). Greed and the desire to take as much advantage as possible of short-term economic opportunities is a common dynamic in communities experiencing an economic boom.

Access to Information: Uncertainty and limited access to information about the area’s housing needs, priorities, opportunities and potential solutions serves as another barrier to meeting Elkford’s and Sparwood’s housing needs. This study is designed to overcome a larger portion of those barriers. However, additional work is still required by the private sector (i.e., those who will be investing in potential housing solutions) in the form of targeted market analyses, feasibility studies and business plans.

Lack of coordinated (“one-stop-shopping”) information about rental opportunities presents a barrier to those looking for rental accommodations in the area. It was suggested that many people seek information via the internet but that this information is often fragmented and difficult to find.

Stricter Mortgage Laws: Recent changes by the Federal government to mortgage laws have made it harder for first-time homebuyers (and recreational property investors) to obtain a mortgage. Changes include increases to the minimum downpayment required (10% for homebuyers; 20% for property investors – up from 0% a few years ago), a reduction in the maximum allowable amortization period (30 years – down from 40 years a few years ago), and an increase in the rate at which first-time homebuyers can qualify for a mortgage (the 5-year fixed-term rate as opposed to the open variable rates allowed a few years ago). The requirement of a 10% downpayment is seen as the single greatest barrier to many modest- and average-income renters being able to move into homeownership.

Lack of Services: The lack of healthcare services is seen as a significant barrier to increasing the supply of seniors’ housing in the area. As seniors “age in place” their health and personal care needs increase. If those services cannot be provided in Elkford and Sparwood, seniors may have to leave the community and move to Fernie or Cranbrook where those services are presently available and where the Provincial government appears to be concentrating those services over time.

- 108 -

A lack of commercial services is seen as a significant barrier discouraging more people (including families with children) from moving to Elford and Sparwood full-time and encouraging them to maintain a permanent home elsewhere while sharing rental accommodations in the area during their 4 days on”.

Lack of Financial Resources: Limited government grants – both capital and operational – present another barrier to new affordable housing development. The greater the degree of affordability being sought, the larger the upfront capital grants required to build the housing. Also, the higher the anticipated needs of the target populations being served, the more programs and services are required and the more ongoing operational grants and subsidies needed to maintain those programs and services. As mentioned numerous times during the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings, the operators of Lilac Terrace has proposed an expansion to the facility. There is sufficient land available to accommodate the expansion and the capital funding has been committed. The barrier preventing the expansion is the lack of operational funding available and the Provincial government’s timelines for making those operational funds available.

Limited Municipal Resources: It was suggested during the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings that limited municipal resources present a key barrier to developing more housing quickly. While both Elkford and Sparwood have contracted with the Regional District of East Kootenay to provide a Building Inspector, that Inspector is only available one day per week as is often booked weeks in advance. There may also be challenges from time to time for both Municipalities having sufficient staff, appropriate policies, and streamlined procedures all in place to effectively manage the housing development planning and permitting processes at a time when many other municipal planning and development priorities must also be addressed. Both the District of Elkford and the District of Sparwood are actively developing and implementing solutions to overcome these barriers.

Absence of a Cohesive Housing Strategy: It was suggested during the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings that the absence of a cohesive strategy that clearly outlines housing targets, priorities, strategies, along with appropriate roles and responsibilities for the various stakeholder groups (e.g., the Municipality, private developers, the non-profit sector, business owners, etc.) may be preventing the community from moving forward to address some of the area’s identified housing needs. The lack of a cohesive strategy may be preventing individual developers and business owners from seeing how and where they might support an individual strategy or component of a solution. The lack of a cohesive strategy may also be preventing local tax payers from lending their political support to the Municipality getting involved. Phase II: Draft Affordable Housing Strategies of this study is designed to lay the foundation for the development of such an overall strategy.

NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) Opposition: NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) opposition presents a common barrier to new affordable housing development. : It was suggested during the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings that mobile and manufactured homes (a construction technique that is often more cost effective and quicker to build than traditional stick-built homes) typically faces NIMBY opposition from surrounding neighbours. Other comments made by participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that area residents are likely to oppose efforts to provide housing that is affordable to “low-income” households – partly because they do not perceive that need to be a priority (i.e., there is a greater perceived need for housing geared towards “average-income” households, including families) and partly because of the stereotypes associated with “low-income” households.

- 109 -

1.2 Potential Opportunities and Solutions for Addressing the District of Elkford’s and District of Sparwood’s Housing Needs

Participants in the Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings also suggested a number of potential opportunities and solutions to overcome the identified barriers and increase the supply of affordable housing in the area (see Appendix C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback). These opportunities and solutions include:

Leadership: Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings indicates that leadership – likely on the part of the Municipality – is required in order to move forward with implementing appropriate housing strategies. It was suggested that once leadership is established, both Districts can begin to articulate their individual and collective housing priorities and then move forward with developing and implementing project concepts (including target audience, project concept and community partnerships).

Partnerships: A number of important community resources were identified through the Key Person Interviews and Focus Group Meetings including local businesses (particularly the mines), the local housing development and finance industries (including developers, builders, landlords, property managers, realtors and banks), and local service agencies (non-profit and government agencies). Multi-stakeholder partnerships between these groups are seen as a key strategy to both maximize expertise and spread risk. A variety of Public-Private Partnerships (P3) could potentially be established to engage the two Municipalities, local businesses (including the mines), local developers and trades, and the non-profit sector in planning and implementing a variety of potential solutions (including housing projects and support programs) to address the area’s identified housing needs.

Municipal Planning Policies and Incentives: The creation of new municipal planning policies and planning incentives are likely going to be required in order to encourage new affordable housing development. Incentives could include free land or land sold at below-market value and tax concessions. Long-term strategies would include the development of a broader municipal plan to address the area’s housing needs as well as the creation of additional zoning options and planning policies to encourage greater housing diversity and affordability.

Housing “Best Practices”: There are numerous affordable housing “best practices” that have been developed over the years – many of which are either currently allowed or may be appropriate for future consideration in Elkford and Sparwood. Examples of common “best practices” include:

! Mixed-use developments (i.e., residential above commercial); ! Mixed-income developments (i.e., a mix of market and subsidized housing units in a single project); ! Higher density housing developments (i.e., infill units, duplexes, rowhouses and stacked townhouses); ! “Ageing in Place” facilities (i.e., integrated independent and supportive housing for seniors); ! Housing co-operatives; ! Non-profit housing developers; ! Creative land use zoning (e.g., Inclusionary Zoning, Secondary Suites, Employee Housing Districts); ! Housing Registries; ! Homeownership Education and Training Programs; ! Revolving Downpayment Assistance Programs; and ! Housing Trust Funds.

- 110 -

Pilot projects offer flexible opportunities to test various “best practices” for compatibility and outcomes before formally committing to widespread adoption. It was also suggested that other communities in the surrounding region have already developed housing projects that may offer lessons and ideas appropriate for Elkford and Sparwood.

Land: Feedback from participants in the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings suggests that the availability of developable land is not a significant barrier to new housing development. While land prices have increased over time, it was suggested that serviced residential lots are still relatively affordable and that government-owned land can still be accessed (although Provincial Crown Land may only be available to purchase at market value). It was widely suggested that affordable housing for seniors and more modest-income households should be situated on land located close to the downtown of each community for those with limited mobility and/or limited access to personal and public transportation.

Grants and Other Funding: While operational grants may be limited, it was suggested that a number of capital grants may be available through the Provincial government (i.e., BC Housing) to assist in the development of new affordable housing projects and that seed grants may be available through the Federal government (e.g., CMHC) and potentially the Columbia Basin Trust to assist either in the planning stages of a new housing project or the development of support programs and services. Furthermore, the Province offers rent subsidies to seniors and low-income households (either through BC Housing or Social Assistance). There may also be opportunities to secure grants or other forms of financial assistance from local businesses (potentially as a contribution to a Housing Trust Fund or a Revolving Downpayment Assistance Program).

- 111 -

- 112 -

APPENDIX A: Glossary of Common Housing Terms

Aging in Place: Aging in place is growing older without having to move from one’s present residence in order to secure necessary support services in response to changing needs. This enables elderly people to grow older in the familiar and comfortable surroundings of their homes while providing them with the assistance necessary to maintain a relatively independent lifestyle.

Barrier-Free Design: Environments that contain no architectural, design, or psychological features that might prevent anyone, able-bodied or impaired, from using the environment to the full extent of their abilities.

Co-Operative Housing: A housing development in which individual residents own a share in the co- operative. This share grants them equal access to common areas, voting rights, occupancy of an apartment or townhouse as if they were owners, and the right to vote for board members to manage the co-operative. Each member has one vote and members work together to keep their housing well- managed and affordable.

Core Housing Need: a term developed by CMHC that refers to households that are unable to afford shelter that meets adequacy, suitability, and affordability norms. A household is in Core Housing Need if it is living in inadequate housing, housing that is unsuitable to its needs, or housing that is unaffordable according to the 30% benchmark.

Group Home: A small, community-based development, usually under 10 beds/units, that provides affordable housing with supports to those with special needs including individuals with severe mental and physical disabilities, youth, and women with their children fleeing abuse. BC Housing provides administration and property management support for group homes on behalf of other provincial ministries and health authorities.

Home Care: daily living assistance with personnel hygiene, medical assistance, medication administration and various forms of therapeutic assistance provided in one’s own home to help people live as independently as possible.

Homeless: There are two general categories of homeless people (be they individuals or families): Absolute or Relative Homelessness refers to persons who are living with no physical shelter – on the street, in doorways, in parkades, in parks and on beaches as well as people staying temporarily in emergency shelters. Near Homelessness refers to people who are “couch surfing” or are staying temporarily with family or friends (i.e., they have safe shelter but that shelter is not their own and is only temporary indicating the likelihood that they may become absolute homeless).

Homeless Shelters: Housing for the homeless falls under two categories: 1) emergency shelters; and 2) transitional housing.

Emergency Shelters provide temporary, typically overnight accommodation to individuals who would otherwise sleep in the streets. Shelters may also provide supportive services in relation to addictions, health, education and employment needs.

Transitional Housing aims to provide temporary accommodation (six months to two years) for individuals who wish to stabilize their housing situation while resolving other issues in their lives, such as unemployment, addictions, education and violence. Transitional Housing units typically have access to a mix of supportive services that enable an individual to move towards self-sufficiency.

Housing Adequacy: Adequacy refers to the physical safety of the individual dwelling. The Public Health Act, Regulation 241/85 provides a series of conditions in which housing is considered to be

- A-i -

inadequate. Housing is inadequate if it requires major repairs and/or is lacking the necessary services and basic facilities. Major repairs refer to plumbing, electrical, ventilation systems, disposal systems, and the structural components of a house that would warrant it being unsafe. Basic facilities refer to potable hot and cold running water, and full bathroom facilities including and indoor toilet and bathtub or shower. Additionally, housing is not adequate if it is infested with vermin.

Housing Affordability: Housing affordability relates to the ability of individual households to meet their monthly rent or mortgage payments within a reasonable threshold of their income. CMHC has determined that housing is affordable if it cost not more that 30% of a household’s gross monthly income for rent or mortgage payments. Assessing the level of housing affordability is based on a comparison of median house prices and average market rents to local income levels. Households that are more likely to be facing housing affordability problems include:

(a) Low-and moderate-income households (less income to afford local shelter costs). (b) Single income earning households (more likely to have low or moderate incomes). (c) Households on fixed incomes (less able to adapt to increasing shelter costs). (d) Renter households (typically lower income, have less equity, and are more vulnerable to rent increases. Also lenders are unlikely to qualify a household for a mortgage if their total shelter costs exceed 32%).

Housing Income Limits (HILs): HILs set maximum income levels for different sized units in different areas of the province. These incomes represent the most people can earn and remain eligible for a rent subsidy. Below these income levels, it may be difficult for people to find un-crowded housing in good repair, without spending more than 30 per cent of their income for rent.

Housing Suitability: Housing suitability refers to the size of the home in bedrooms compared to the size of the family living in that home. Accommodation is not suitable if:

(a) more than 2 persons must share a bedroom and there is at least 1 individual in each of the other bedrooms, (b) an individual, 18 years of age or older, must share a bedroom with another member of the household, unless that individual is married or in a common-law relationship with that member, or (c) an individual, 5 years of age or older, must share a bedroom with an individual of the opposite sex. (d) Housing suitability is most likely to be an issue for large low-and moderate-income families since these families may not be able to afford the rents or mortgages on larger homes (homes that have enough bedrooms).

Independent Seniors Housing: Independent living units are designed for seniors in congregate living settings who are functionally independent. Each unit, rented or owned, has its own bathroom and kitchen with little or no support services provided or available from the facility.

Long-Term Care (also referred to as Residential Care in BC): Facilities that provide accommodation in a setting for residents with very high personal care needs, who require the availability of 24 hour a day support for unscheduled professional health care needs. These settings may be owned by public, private not for profit, or private organizations.

Rent-Geared-to-Income: Instead of a flat rate payment for rent, rent fluctuates depending on household income (usually 30% of total before-tax household income).

Seniors Assisted Living: Residentially-oriented accommodation primarily targeted to seniors, providing a combination of housing, board, and supportive services/personal care assistance. Assisted

- A-ii -

living units are typically self-contained apartments for seniors or people with disabilities who need some support services to continue living independently, but do not need 24-hour facility care. Services provided include daily meals, social and recreational opportunities, assistance with medications, mobility and other care needs, a 24-hour response system and light housekeeping. It is important to note that there is considerable variability in operating philosophies, services and the staffing available in these projects.

Seniors Supportive Living: An intermediate housing option for seniors between home living and facility living that offers shelter and supportive services in a private, yet congregate living setting. Supportive Housing is a non-institutional approach for seniors who are no longer able to live independently in their family home that focuses on health promotion, well-being, independence and the functional abilities of seniors. The housing may be self-contained (providing full private living units in combination with common amenity space) or shared (providing a private living area with common kitchen, dining and amenity areas and possibly bathrooms). The primary difference between Assisted Living and Supportive Living is the particular professional designation of the primary care provider (e.g., an LPN in Assisted Living and an RN in Supportive Living).

Subsidized Housing: This type of housing encompasses all types of housing in which the provincial government provides some type of subsidy or rental assistance, including public, non-profit and co- operative housing, as well as rent supplements for people living in private market housing. It also includes emergency housing and short-term shelters.

Special Needs Housing: housing which is provided usually in the form of a “group home,” and is designed for persons with special needs such as physical and/or developmental disabilities. The group home residents are generally provided with support services that assist them with daily living needs. Projects are typically owned by community non-profit groups and subsidies are provided by the Federal and Provincial governments.

Universal Design: A philosophy of housing design that enables easy modification to the housing unit as the physical needs of the individual(s) change. This approach facilitates the accommodation of changing physical needs through the life-cycle.

- A-iii -

- A-iv -

APPENDIX B: Government-Owned Vacant/Undeveloped Residential Properties in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood (2011)

Government-Owned Vacant/Undeveloped Residential Properties in the District of Elkford (2011)

District of Elkford Property Location Parcel Size Registered Owner (Legal Description) (Acres) Crown Provincial District Lot 3373, Kootenay Land District, PORTION IN 517 59.977 Crown Provincial Kootenay Land District, THAT PART OF THE BED OF ELK RIVER LYING BETWEEN LOTS 164 1.46 Crown Provincial District Lot 6698, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 187.74 Crown Provincial District Lot 6710, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 569 Crown Provincial District Lot 6699, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 494.97 Crown Provincial District Lot 6638, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT FOR PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 534.88 Crown Provincial District Lot 6688, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 555.08 Crown Provincial District Lot 6637, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 618.5 Crown Provincial District Lot 6697, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 633.15 Crown Provincial District Lot 6701, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 637 Crown Provincial District Lot 6642, Kootenay Land District, EXCEPT PORTION OCCUPIED BY FORDING CO 639 Crown Provincial District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 11676 11677 12785 13017 1 264.947 Crown Provincial District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 8368, & EXCEPT PLANS 1390 274.604 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 27, Plan 13132, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 15362 .025 District Mun. of Elkford District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, LICENSE COVERING UNSURVEYED R/W ISSUE .304 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 4, Plan 15061, District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District 22852 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 182, Plan 14014, District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District .087 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 123, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .061 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 36, Plan 13132, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .102 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 257, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .114 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 230, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .12 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 267, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .131 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 57, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .134 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 74, Plan 13132, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 15362 .491 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 114, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .616 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .113 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 52, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512 & 4692, Kootenay Land District .128 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 51, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .129 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 230, Plan 14014, District Lot 8965 & 3512, Kootenay Land District .135 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 19, Plan 13132, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .192 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 37, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 1.088 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 202, Plan 14014, District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District .162 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 201, Plan 14014, District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District .163 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 2, Plan 14804, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .166 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 134, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .547 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 241, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .251 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 259, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 1826 1.487 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 94, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 1.129 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .273 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 181, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 2.416 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 143, Plan 14014, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .355 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 87, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 3.882 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 80, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 5.504 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 73, Plan 14014, District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District .407 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 258, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 3.96 District Mun. of Elkford District Lot 4692, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 14725 & 18546 1.206 District Mun. of Elkford Lot A, Plan 15889, District Lot 4588, Kootenay Land District 6.373 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 203, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 12.571

- B-i -

District Mun. of Elkford Lot 65, Plan 14725, District Lot 3512 & 4692, Kootenay Land District, Except Pla 12.6 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 106, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .603 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 250, Plan 14014, District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District 1.02 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 13, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 2.088 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 113, Plan 14014, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 1.671 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan NEP89065, District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District, (SEE PLAN AS TO 3.212 District Mun. of Elkford District Lot 4518, Kootenay Land District 13.229 District Mun. of Elkford District Lot 5594, Kootenay Land District 11.18 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan 16289, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 3.005 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 8, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District .824 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan 16290, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 5.75 District Mun. of Elkford District Lot 3841, Kootenay Land District 31.5 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 45, Plan 14014, District Lot 3512 & 8965, Kootenay Land District 4.512 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan 9646, District Lot 12378, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 9647 7.87 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 11, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 16289 5.3 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan 14440, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 14725 7.534 District Mun. of Elkford District Lot 4959, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 15898 & 18546 6.358 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 3, Plan 14014, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 6.647 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 64, Plan 13229, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan NEP72 7.617 District Mun. of Elkford District Lot 7996, Kootenay Land District 97 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 53, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 16290 12.5 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan 13908, District Lot 3512 & 8965, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 47.911 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 1, Plan 15401, District Lot 8965, Kootenay Land District 20.84 District Mun. of Elkford Lot 12, Plan 14726, District Lot 3512, Kootenay Land District 4.757

Data Source: BC Assessment (2011)

Government-Owned Vacant/Undeveloped Residential Properties in the District of Sparwood (2011)

District of Sparwood Property Location Parcel Size Registered Owner (Legal Description) (Acres) Crown Provincial Parcel 79, District Lot 4589, Kootenay Land District, THAT PART OF PCL 79 (SEE D 2.9 Crown Provincial Lot 1, Plan 16281, District Lot 4588, Kootenay Land District 15.366 Crown Provincial District Lot 7292, Kootenay Land District 640 Crown Provincial District Lot 7293, Kootenay Land District 640 Crown Provincial District Lot 7294, Kootenay Land District 640 Crown Provincial District Lot 6102, Kootenay Land District, BEING THE PORTION OF THE ABANDONED GR 23.24 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 1, Plan 11308, District Lot 4589, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 13340 .625 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 2, Plan 11308, District Lot 4589, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 13340 1.132 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 3, Plan 11308, District Lot 4589, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 11485 .823 District Mun. of Sparwood Parcel A, Plan 11485, District Lot 4589, Kootenay Land District, (DD KL50011) .416 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 5, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .153 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 6, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .142 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 7, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .163 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 8, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .256 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 10, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .155 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 11, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .16 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 12, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .18 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 14, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .163 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 15, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .154

- B-ii -

District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 16, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .146 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 17, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .156 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 18, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .156 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 19, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .142 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 20, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .153 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 21, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .143 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 22, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .152 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 23, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .182 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 24, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .161 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 25, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .169 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 29, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .181 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 30, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .161 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 31, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .17 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 32, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .16 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 33, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .159 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 34, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .178 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 35, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District .192 District Mun. of Sparwood Plan NEP86636, District Lot 6666, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan NEP86637, 1.413 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 35, Plan 9741, District Lot 4589, Kootenay Land District .31 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 14, Plan 14941, District Lot 4135 & 6251, Kootenay Land District, Except Pla 1.078 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 2, Plan EPP1123, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District 1.01 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 1, Plan 11139, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 12959 113.826 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 1, Plan 15167, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District 50.557 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 2, Plan 15167, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District 7.907 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot A, Plan NEP62932, District Lot 6251, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan EPP 7.036 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 1, Plan EPP1731, District Lot 4588, Kootenay Land District, & DL 4589 87.054 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 1, Plan EPP1732, District Lot 4588, & DL 4589 47.936 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 4, Plan NEP62835, District Lot 4589, Kootenay Land District 7.731 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 1, Plan 6798, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 6960 5.01 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 45, Plan 13055, District Lot 6251, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 14941 52.98 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 173, Plan 13055, District Lot 6251, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 1392 15.46 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot 14, Plan 14073, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District, Except Plan 15166 13.409 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot A, Plan EPP4640, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District, & DL 9488 12.676 District Mun. of Sparwood Lot A, Plan NEP22081, District Lot 4135, Kootenay Land District 3.558

Data Source: BC Assessment (2011)

- B-iii -

- B-i -

APPENDIX C: Focus Group Meeting Feedback

Introduction

Over a three-day period from November 7-9, 2011, a series of Focus Group Meetings were held in the Districts of Elkford and Sparwood with a total of eight (8) different stakeholder groups, including:

1. Sparwood Households 2. Sparwood Council, Candidates and Senior Staff 3. Sparwood Housing Industry Professionals 4. Major Employers 5. Health, Education, Social Services, Policing 6. Elkford Council and Senior Staff 7. Elkford Housing Industry Professionals 8. Elkford Households

An additional presentation was made to the Elkford Chamber of Commerce during the Chamber’s regularly-scheduled November meeting.

The Focus Group Meetings were designed to elicit feedback from a variety of residents, non-profit organizations, business owners, housing developers and other key stakeholders from Elkford and Sparwood to learn more about the range and type of housing needs and issues in the area. In order to encourage participation, an advertisement was placed in the Elk Valley Herald and invitation letters were sent out to key stakeholders.

Each Focus Group Meeting began with a presentation of the key findings to date from the quantitative analysis stage of the Housing Need and Demand Assessments. After the presentation, participants engaged in targeted discussions organized around key themes from the Need and Demand Assessment. In each case, the group was given the opportunity to choose the questions upon which to focus their discussion. As long as the group remained focused on housing needs, priorities and solutions, participants were permitted to share their ideas and to take the discussion in a direction that was meaningful to the group based on each group’s collective experiences, perspectives and expertise. As a result, each Focus Group Meeting took on its own unique character and dynamics. Discussions during some of the meetings were more structured while the discussions during other meeting were more “free-form” - covering multiple and sometimes overlapping topics at the same time.

The following summaries contain all of the feedback recorded during each of the Focus Group Meetings. In some cases, the feedback has been moved around, reorganized and/or regrouped into sub-themes rather than presented strictly in the chronological order that comments were actually made (i.e., some of the comments made by participants have been moved out of the section where they were actually made and into a more appropriate or relevant section of the summary for that particular group). This is done for greater clarity and for the benefit of the readers – most of whom do not have the benefit of having actually been present at each Focus Group Meeting to hear the comments and the context in which they were made.

- C-i -

Sparwood Households (Monday, November 7, 2011)

General Comments:

Seniors and Seniors’ Housing: • A lot of seniors are moving. • Some are moving because they want to (to be closer to a hospital, etc.). • Some are moving because they have to (there is no suitable housing plus they are getting older and can’t shovel snow, etc.). • There is a proposed expansion to Lilac Terrace. The money is there to build it and the land is there to build it – there is just no money available to operate it. • We built our house here 35 years ago and have a huge yard, which has become hard to maintain...but I don’t want to move into the Villa or the Lodge because the units are too small and you can’t have pets. • The Villa is perfect for single seniors but not for couples. • We as seniors have all lived differently in terms of our housing and so we have different wants and needs. Some of us can sell our homes and go anywhere but others are not in that same situation. • Medication expenses are also a major issue for some seniors.

How Much Are Current Market Rents?: • In Juniper Court, rents are $1,200-$1,400 per month for a 3-bedroom unit. • Some of the units in Juniper Court rent for much less. • New owners can set new prices for their rents. • Some units have been fixed up so the rents are higher. • Houses rent for $1,500-$1,600 per month. • Ponderosa is advertising a unit for rent for $700 per month. • I rent my duplex for $700-$800 per month. • I rent a house in Sparwood heights for $1,000 per month. • I have properties too and I like to be fair to everyone – $1,000 per month is the maximum I charge. • A lot of the higher rents are being charged in recreational properties. • Even trailers are becoming pretty expensive. • There are 35 units renting for $900-$950 per month for 1,600 square feet – there are three units empty right now and a couple months ago there were 10 vacant units. • Kootenay Villa is charging $900 + utilities. • My lowest rent is $500 per month + utilities for a cheaper trailer and my high end is a house for $1,600 per month.

Housing Affordability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing affordability (e.g., households paying more than 30% of their income on housing)?

Group Feedback:

• Why aren’t there more people attending this meeting? If there is such a need for affordable housing, why aren’t there more people who actually need that housing attending this meeting? • We don’t have transportation for people who don’t have vehicles.

- C-ii -

• The recreation centre has so many programs for people who need help and many of those programs are free but the people who need the programs the most don’t use the services. • For some low-income people, they don’t participate in community services and activities because it is not part of their worldview or their life experience. • Many low-income people don’t live in town – they live out in the valley. • Transportation is an issue if you live out in the valley. • Another reason the very people who need the housing aren’t here at this meeting is because they think they have nothing to offer – they feel powerless and are hoping the people in power will do something. • It’s not just homeless people who need affordable housing. There are also the people who earn minimum wage providing the services to those who are earning higher incomes – they need affordable housing too. • We don’t have a homeless problem here – we do have teenagers who couch surf, but nothing like in the big cities. • We are talking about the working poor – people who are working but for minimum wage and only part time who are in a situation where they can only afford food or rent – not both. • There are quite a few people with low incomes living in this community. • We do a survey every year for Food Banks Canada and there are a number of people in Sparwood who have very limited incomes, even $0 incomes. • Part of the reason Social Assistance rates are declining is because the government’s rules are getting harder. • Childcare is also an issue for low-income families – especially if you are on Social Assistance.

Housing Adequacy Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing adequacy (e.g., homes needing major repairs, lacking basic services or infested with vermin/black mould)?

Group Feedback:

• I find that in Sparwood, people usually keep their houses up. • I did a lot of walking in a lot of areas of the community this summer and I only saw a few homes that were badly in need of work. • The District does a great job of upkeep for the parks, etc. • I would tend to think that the low-rent accommodations are substandard – but a lot of that has gone. There used to be some pretty bad trailers in town but many of those have been replaced. • Because the standard of those trailers is improving, the affordable rentals are declining. • So much of what is new in town is of a higher standard. As we increase our standards of housing, we are losing affordable housing.

- C-iii -

Housing Accessibility Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing accessibility (e.g., persons with severe disabilities who cannot move around freely in and out of their homes)?

Group Feedback:

• There are seniors who can’t utilize the basement for laundry because of their hips and mobility challenges. • I know of a senior who fell and can’t return to his home because it isn’t accessible to him.

Housing Choice Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing choice (e.g., people having ready access to a variety of housing options and choices)?

Group Feedback:

• In the last few months, you cannot find anything to rent.

Housing Priorities Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the community’s housing priorities?

Group Feedback:

• We need more housing for seniors. • There is also a need in the Sparwood area for a +55 villa – 1,000 ft2 with no basement (everything all on one level) that is readily accessible to downtown. • This isn’t something the District would provide – it would have to be something that a private developer built. • If you could provide housing for younger seniors to move into, that would provide more opportunities for young families to buy • There is a need for housing for contractors • We need affordable housing that young people can move into without the downpayment (e.g., a lease-to-own model). The downpayment is what is holding all of these people back.

Barriers Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the biggest barriers to improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• One of the barriers is the size of the downpayment required, plus it depends on what their credit is. • The government just raised the downpayment rules.

- C-iv -

• If you buy a home that isn’t landscaped, it cost a lot of money to landscape and seniors don’t want to pay that kind of money. • For seniors, there is a huge psychological process to downsizing (e.g., changing expectations and desires). • How many affordable housing units are we actually looking to build? We don’t want to overbuild. • If Sparwood does secure some affordable housing for young families, how is this going to happen? Even if the District gives a break on the land, who is going to build it. The District doesn’t want to become the landlord. • Is the need or problem for affordable housing a seasonal issue or a year-round issue? • I don’t think Sparwood has as seasonal problem like Fernie. • My issue here is the lack of information. We should be able to come up with the numbers.

Opportunities and Solutions Group Discussion:

Question: What strategies would you recommend for improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• One thing that Sparwood has going for it is that we have a lot of different levels of housing and levels of affordability. • We should be thinking about providing affordable housing closer to the downtown core so people who don’t have transportation can still participate in community activities, get to school, go shopping, etc., because they are close enough to walk. • We have to stop living in a bubble and share. There is a community to the west of us doing very well with a pilot project. Partnering with several groups has allowed them to develop three buildings with 800 ft2 units that are affordable for people who are coming off the street and have nothing. • There are a lot of possibilities that can be achieved through partnerships. • We have the management companies who could oversee the management. • Pilot projects are important too – especially if they are successful pilots from other communities. • Partnerships should happen not only within the community but between communities (i.e., sharing best practices and best stories). • You have to have good relations between communities. • There are quite a few private acreages, there is the former school, and the Town also has some land. • What about Habitat for Humanity?

- C-v -

Sparwood Council, Candidates and Senior Staff (Monday, November 7, 2011)

General Comments:

The Housing Continuum: • There are big gaps (in the housing continuum) – e.g., the working poor and seniors.

Homelessness: • You are not going to get numbers of homeless people because nobody is going to check under trees. • It’s too cold for there to be homeless in Sparwood. In the winter, they are living with friends, etc. They are still homeless even though they are not living on the street.

Seniors and Seniors’ Housing: • There would have been more seniors willing to live here until they closed the hospital down • The market value of their housing has gotten so high that they can’t afford to stay in their homes. • Seniors housing (not the Villas) used to be just for seniors but now it is being opened up to non-seniors (e.g., non-seniors with disabilities, non-seniors with former drug problems, etc.) because there is nowhere else for them to go. • 40% of Teck’s staff is going to be retiring in the next few years.

Future Population Growth: • The mines are hiring 500-600 people per year – that’s 2,500 families in the next five years wanting to move here. • That number is too high. Only 30% are going to actually stay here – so we are down to about 100 people per year actually staying in Sparwood.

Market Rental: • There is someone in the area who is renting out a home by the room for $11,000 per month.

Miscellaneous: • Proposed Vision: “In Sparwood, everyone is adequately housed according to their needs and means.” • Education has to be first and foremost – the problem is only going to get worse. We have got to get people to understand that they need to invest in their future. • We also need to educate younger people on how to take better care of their finances and to budget.

- C-vi -

Housing Affordability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing affordability (e.g., households paying more than 30% of their income on housing)?

Group Feedback:

• I know a lot of people who have come to me over the years who have good jobs, and are very self-sufficient but who don’t earn enough income where they can afford a better lifestyle – they are caught in a “Catch-22”. • I know people who have very low incomes but live in very expensive homes. • There are also people who have high incomes but live in very cheap homes. • People are moving to this town because they have no money. They are coming from somewhere else where they already have a home. They come here and can’t find housing they can afford so they move somewhere else and then commute. • The other issue is people who bought houses a couple years ago but now the mortgage rules have changed so now their homes are not worth as much as their mortgage. • We have people who are possession-rich but cash poor. A lot of people are in that position and there are going to be major problems down the road. • There is only one taxi service in town and they charge exorbitant rates. • A lot of people are making good money but spend it as fast as they make it. • When the strike was on, a woman told me that the banks allowed people to not pay their mortgage while they were on strike – very few people knew about that and even more ran out of money within a few weeks because they had no savings because they had so overspent. • The younger generations need to realize that the government is not going to take care of them forever.

Housing Suitability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing suitability (e.g., households living in overcrowded conditions or multiple families living together)?

Group Feedback:

• There are six people living in a two-bedroom apartment next to the health centre.

Housing Choice Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing choice (e.g., people having ready access to a variety of housing options and choices)?

Group Feedback:

• I was told the rental availability is zero – that to me is really alarming. • That is also an opportunity for people who want to put secondary suites in their homes – the municipal bylaws permit it with conditions. • What about people who are living in company homes? If they lose their job, they lose their home as well.

- C-vii -

Housing Priorities Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the community’s housing priorities?

Group Feedback:

• We need group homes for special populations because special populations are being housed in seniors’ housing – taking that opportunity away from seniors. • We need to take down unsightly and problematic units in the community. • We need to help the ones who can’t help themselves – like the elderly and the handicapped. • We need affordable housing for seniors living in their homes but their homes are too big, their yards take too much to upkeep, they have too many stairs, etc. • We also need affordable housing for young people who can’t afford to come up with a downpayment so they can move out of rental and into their first home. • A lot of our seniors are in their 60s. A lot of them leave when they retire because there isn’t anything here – like a nice adult condo. • We have zoning for the seniors’ community – we just have to find a builder who’s interested. • We also need to make sure that we don’t start creating affordable housing ghettos.

Community Impacts Group Discussion:

Question: What impacts are housing issues having on the community in terms of: • Family impacts (e.g., family instability, etc.)? • Social impacts (e.g., social isolation, etc.)? • Health impacts (e.g., reduced physical and/or mental health, etc.)? • Educational impacts (e.g., poorer grades, inability to upgrade one’s education, etc.)? • Economic impacts (e.g., challenges with recruiting staff, staff turnover, reduced levels of service, etc.)?

Group Feedback:

• The stresses associated with not having safe, stable affordable housing (e.g., people living in company housing) affect many other aspects of your life, including your health. • Stress becomes a big part of your life when, everyday, you face having to drive 20 miles to get to work, you are only making $32,000 per year, you are faced with apartment rents escalating and you are having to pay for escalating gas prices.

Barriers Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the biggest barriers to improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• Who are we going to build affordable housing for? Young people? The working poor? What group are we going to target? • Sparwood is a very diverse community and has such a diverse population in need of housing. Who do we want to help the most? Where is the greatest need?

- C-viii -

• We need to figure out where the snowball starts and how best to deal with that snowball. • When we do decide who we are going to build that housing for, the next question is how are we going to build that housing? • Once we as a Council have decided that we are going to help, the next question is how and where are we going to help? • Investors are giving out extras and freebies to encourage people to buy homes but it is going to take at least 5 years for them to recoup their investment. • Who is going to put the money upfront to build this affordable housing? The builders are all foreclosing now. The bank is trying to get as little as 60% return on their money. • We approached Teck with an offer to match their downpayment assistance to help their staff buy a home in Sparwood. They turned the offer down – they said it was too much paperwork. • We have a very diverse cultural foundation in our community. There are a lot of European settlers here who have a culture of families living together. How do we gain an accurate understanding of what homelessness is and means in our community that is relevant to our community’s unique culture and dynamics.

Opportunities and Solutions Group Discussion:

Question: What strategies would you recommend for improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• We should try to bring in more revenue for those households who are struggling but could take care of themselves if they only had a hand up. • The community’s responsibility is to help the ones who can’t help themselves. • I would like to take care of the downpayment issue. • What about a non-profit developer with downpayment assistance through second mortgages – like Options for Homes. • The problem with 0% downpayments is the amount of respect people don’t have for their homes because they didn’t earn it. There is also an issue should the economy and the home value decline – the risk that the non-profit goes bankrupt. • We need to build smaller, more reasonably-priced starter homes (e.g., 2-bedrooms) where people can rent to own. • There are tonnes of grants out there. • Whatever we build in terms of affordable housing has to be built close to downtown. • Is there land close to downtown that could be developed as affordable housing? • We used to have housing provided by the Mine. That caused problems when the family member working for the mine died – the family was evicted. How do we find solutions that don’t reproduce that same dynamic again? • The military used to have housing but changed their policy to providing a living allowance instead. • I worked for an employer who provided company housing for free for one year. At the end of that year, you were expected to move on and into your own housing. • I also used to work for a hotel that provided housing for staff who lived in the hotel. That caused problems when employees were poor tenants. • People think that affordable homes are “comfortable” homes. You don’t need a comfortable home; you need a functional home. It has to be appropriate; not excessive. • You also run into problems with slum landlords.

- C-ix -

• In Peace River, there was a non-profit association that provided affordable housing that was highly regulated with rules to make sure it ran well. • Years ago, the housing prices were rising. The Mines gave an $8,000 forgivable downpayment. That raised the prices of houses so the people who weren’t working for the Mines suffered. Then the mine raised the downpayment to $20,000 and that raised the prices of homes even further. • There was also a stigma associated with living in a “company home” • Elkford began with a mine and no housing. They opened a mine and built a work camp. That was it. • Sometimes, having your employer require you to move can be a good thing – it forces you to stand on your own. • The solution we are trying to find is affordable housing, adequate housing and a place to put people. • The Province has said that by 2014, they want to expand Lilac Terrace. We need that sooner. Involved in that expansion is 24-hour care. One avenue is that we commit to building it as long as the Province commits to funding it. There would also be opportunities for palliative care in the expansion. We can’t do it ourselves without Provincial assistance, so we have to take what they are willing to give. • Are there opportunities to partner with other organizations such as the Knights of Columbus? • We should look at other communities who have built successful projects that we can learn from and even copy.

- C-x -

Sparwood Housing Industry Professionals (Monday, November 7, 2011)

This Focus Group Meeting was held in Sparwood the same evening as a Council Meeting during which a number of residential development applications were being presented to Council for consideration. As a result, many of Sparwood’s housing industry professionals were unable to attend this Focus Group Meeting – resulting in only two participants. Both of these individuals had already participated in one of the earlier Focus Group Meetings held that day and only had a few additional comments to add. Due to the lack of attendance, this Focus Group Meeting ended early.

Opportunities and Solutions Group Discussion:

Question: What strategies would you recommend for improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• The issue that I have with a non-profit development corporation – especially a municipally-owned non-profit development corporation – is that when you build government housing, you end up building housing for the poor who inevitably abuse the system – and that abuse gets passed on to the taxpayer. • A better approach would be to offer a subsidy to an individual or household that allows them to find their own housing. That prevents the creation of ghettos and it also keeps the responsibility of building housing with the private sector who already has the skills and expertise to do so more cost effectively. • The priorities for people here in mining communities are on toys (vehicles, boats, etc.) – not housing. So why is the government focusing on trying to solve an issue that isn’t a priority for people?

- C-xi -

Major Employers (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)

General Comments:

Seniors and Seniors’ Housing: • It used to be that seniors left the community when they retired but now they are wanting to stay. • Many of our older seniors have to leave the community because there is no housing for them but also because there are no health services for them.

Housing Supply: Declining # of Rental Units • Some of decline in the number of rental units is due to strata title conversions.

Near- and Non-Market Housing: Employee/Staff Housing Units: • SMS currently owns one (1) trailer and is renting three (3) apartment units in Sparwood. In Elkford, SMS is currently renting one (1) house and four (4) apartment units. • Bearspaw Contracting owns one (1) modular home on a fixed foundation with four (4) people renting it.

Market Rental: How much rent are people typically paying? • One of our employees is paying $350 just for a couch and access to washroom facilities. • 1-Bedroom Units: ! Furnished: we are renting a unit for our staff for $775 per month in Sparwood • 2-Bedroom Units: ! Furnished: $800 (staff housing) in Sparwood ! Unfurnished: $800 to $900 per month (staff housing) in Elkford • 3-Bedroom Units: ! Unfurnished: $1,700 (one of our former employees is paying $1,700 in rent and is subleasing it – making $400 for the driveway plus $400-$500 per room).

Housing Affordability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing affordability (e.g., households paying more than 30% of their income on housing)?

Group Feedback:

• In Elkford and Sparwood, we have the working homeless. The campground is booked full from the moment they turn the water on to the moment they turn the water off. These guys are making $80,000-$90,000 per year but they don’t have a home. • The housing prices reflect the incomes. • If you are making close to $100,000, the housing prices are so high that even you can’t afford a home. That’s why people move to Lethbridge and commute in because they can with the 4-on/4-off shifts. • A lot of people working for companies like SMS and others are making good money but not as much as people working in the mines – so they are struggling. • Homes aren’t selling here because they are so overpriced. • It doesn’t matter what my house is appraised at. My house is only worth $320,000 if someone else can actually afford to buy it.

- C-xii -

• I get calls regularly from people trying to sell their homes elsewhere and can’t because they are so overpriced – so they call us to see if we’ll buy their homes. • I know of a modular home selling for $225,000. • I know of a strata apartment selling for $199,000. • How does a young guy come up with the $30,000 downpayment required to buy a $300,000 home? • Anyone coming here from Fort McMurray sees the high prices that people are asking for their homes and still sees it as a deal because of what they are paying in Fort McMurray.

Housing Adequacy Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing adequacy (e.g., homes needing major repairs, lacking basic services or infested with vermin/black mould)?

Group Feedback:

• Everything in the community is 30-50 years old – some homes have been well maintained but some homes have not (e.g., they still have the original furnace, etc.). • The homes that are affordable need so much work to bring them up to standard (e.g., up to $50,000). • Those who have renovated their homes want to sell them for as high as they possibly can ($300,000+).

Housing Suitability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing suitability (e.g., households living in overcrowded conditions or multiple families living together)?

Group Feedback:

• There is a lot of “hot bedding” going on. • Nobody was publicly aware of it at the time but there was an apartment building in Elkford where a couple units caught fire. When the fire department went in, they found that 18-20 people were living in a 3-bedroom apartment (3-4 shifts of 4-on/4-off). • If it’s done right with shiftwork, you can get 4 guys in a 2-bedroom unit.

Housing Choice Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing choice (e.g., people having ready access to a variety of housing options and choices)?

Group Feedback:

• A lot of landlords are no longer renting furnished units because too many former tenants trashed the furniture. • We are finding that more and more landlords won’t rent to contractors. • We experience a reasonable amount of turnover in our staff accommodations but we don’t track where they are moving to (e.g., to other rental, buying a home, etc.).

- C-xiii -

• We would have at least 15 employees who would move to Elkford immediately if there was housing for them. • It would have been very difficult for me to come here if I didn’t have access to company housing. I still have a home where I used to live that I have to sell before I can move here permanently. Several of my employees are also in that situation. What adds to the problem is that homes here are more expensive that what we can get for our existing homes. • The situation here has a lot of similarities and parallels with Fort McMurray – the economy is booming so people are raising the prices of their homes.

Housing Priorities Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the community’s housing priorities?

Group Feedback:

• I think we need #1- affordable rental properties and #2 - seniors’ housing . • You need a mix of everything – single-family houses and multi-family houses. • If you build enough units, eventually it will find its appropriate rent levels. • Really what you want is housing that is affordable depending on your income. • The seniors’ housing can be provided through an extension to Lilac Terrace. They have the funding to build the extension for the next level of care; they just don’t have the money to operate the housing once it’s built. • You also need those different levels of affordable housing – housing that young people earning a good wage can afford to buy. • There are also a lot of people providing supports to the community – like those who are working in the gas stations, in the restaurants, etc.. They do not earn enough money to afford rents. Those people will likely never be able to buy a home.

Community Impacts Group Discussion:

Question: What impacts are housing issues having on the community in terms of: • Family impacts (e.g., family instability, etc.)? • Social impacts (e.g., social isolation, etc.)? • Health impacts (e.g., reduced physical and/or mental health, etc.)? • Educational impacts (e.g., poorer grades, inability to upgrade one’s education, etc.)? • Economic impacts (e.g., challenges with recruiting staff, staff turnover, reduced levels of service, etc.)?

Group Feedback:

• I think we’ve lost a lot of good people because they couldn’t find housing here and left. • Housing is our #1 constraint to growing our business. We could easily double our growth if we had enough housing to attract more staff. • If there was more housing, more people would live here. If there were more people living here, then more stores and restaurants would set up here. • Most people shop outside the community because they can get better prices and better selection in Cranbrook, Lethbridge, Kalispell, etc. and many don’t think anything of driving 2 hours to go shopping for the day.

- C-xiv -

• Weekends are the slowest times for businesses here when normally they should be the busiest. • There are a lot of people here with an entrepreneurial spirit but there aren’t enough people living in the community for new businesses to succeed. • There might be enough people to justify bringing more services to the healthcare centre. • We have people coming to work here whose spouses are still living in their home community because they can’t find housing for the whole family that they can afford. • There are drug problems in both communities but it’s not because of housing – it’s because people have so much money.

Barriers Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the biggest barriers to improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• It doesn’t cost as much to build a home as what people are trying to sell those homes for. If you are relying on sub-trades, it costs more to build a house in Elkford than it does in Sparwood. Sub-trades refer to Elkford as “Honey Ville” – they know that they’ve got us where they want us and can charge us whatever they want. • It’s hard to build affordable single family homes here. We have contractors and plumbers here like in other communities – but so many of them see us as “Honey Ville”. • I asked for three quotes to rough in the plumbing for my home. One quote was $11,000, one was $17,000 and the third was $40,000 – for the same work! • There are lots of issues and concerns in the area associated with modular and manufactured homes. Those stigmas promote NIMBY. • It takes up to a year just to get a building permit in Elkford. The rules are all good; it’s just how much time it takes to process the application. • Getting a house built is also a very slow process. We only have one building inspector and he only works one day per week in the Elk Valley (he’s on contract with the RDEK and so has to service the entire region). • Sometimes, he is so busy that you can’t book an appointment with him. • The cost of construction is a real problem in this area – it is probably 20% higher than everywhere else. So it’s almost impossible to build housing that is affordable to people earning modest incomes other than through modular construction. You can’t build for under $200,000 using stick-built construction. • Serviced lots alone in Elkford and Sparwood are going for $100,000. • What Sparwood did differently than Elkford was that Sparwood put 3-year building commitments on the lots they sold – so people actually built homes on those lots. Elkford didn’t put building commitments on the lots they sold so people are still sitting on them. 26 • Part of the problem is the OCP – it has tied the District’s hands. It takes up to $80,000 just to get to the point where you can present your concept to Elkford’s Council (e.g., architectural concept, engineering drawings, etc.) and they can reject it because it

26 This information was clarified during the Focus Group Meeting with Elkford Council and Senior Staff. The District of Elkford did place building commitments on those lots that it sold; however, those restrictions were not monitored closely enough and eventually expired.

- C-xv -

doesn’t comply with the OCP. That process and the associated risks doesn’t justify the capital outlay. 27 • Sparwood seems more open to business than Elkford. • Teck’s apartment building development was a multi-million dollar investment ($20 million) that almost failed when the economy took a downturn. Many smaller employers (and even Teck itself) aren’t willing to take the steps and risks necessary to invest that kind of money without some reasonable assurance of success and support from the Municipality. • I would want our corporate peers all involved and at the table as well as support from the Municipality in terms of land and cooperation (e.g., zoning, etc.). • We are in a huge bubble here. We are in a boom right now but the rest of the world is in a bust – when is it going to catch up to us? Who is going to invest the kind of money required to build staff housing when the risk is there that the bust may hit us at any time. • Another problem we have here trying to attract families is that there is nothing in this community in terms of services. So even if they are from out of province or the coast and do want to move here, they see what services we don’t have and decide to move to Fernie or Cranbrook. • You are never going to please everybody. Everybody has something specific they are looking for. • We have a great quality of life here. The area is beautiful and it is a great escape. That is why some of the absentee landlords have bought homes here.

Opportunities and Solutions Group Discussion:

Question: What strategies would you recommend for improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• What we have to sell here is quality of life. We try to entice people to work here and live here – but people can’t afford to live here because of the housing prices (rental and ownership). • A lot of what people see as quality of life is based on services – especially services for children and families. • It’s a “Catch-22”: if you don’t have the population, you can’t support the services. If you can’t provide the services, you can’t attract the population. • The only thing that is going to bring the price of homes down is a huge influx of homes being built in the community. • I think we as major employers should partner with each other to develop a staff housing strategy. • We need to work with a variety of stakeholders, including the Town (e.g., the Town provides the land, a private builder constructions the units and gives the employers a reasonable price, and the employers manage the units). • Years ago, Teck offered a $20,000 forgivable mortgage that disappeared over time. The problem was housing prices immediately went up $20,000. That was a problem but at least it gave people the opportunity to buy their own home. Today, they need at least $40,000 – that is a lot of money for any company when you have a couple hundred employees. You also run into problems with having to administer such a large program

27 This information was also clarified during the Focus Group Meeting with Elkford Council and Senior Staff. There may be some miscommunication and misunderstandings about what is actually required by the District of Elkford at each stage in the development permit application process.

- C-xvi -

(e.g., taking the grant off the title and the books when the time comes, dealing with people leaving the company and trying to get that money back, etc.).

Open-Ended Discussion:

Question: Is there anything that we haven’t discussed that you feel is important to understanding the community’s housing needs, priorities and/or solutions?

Group Feedback:

• One of the big things in the Elk Valley is that everyone is the same yet everyone wants to be different in some way – so they try to differentiate themselves through their home. Their home reflects their status – so as soon as you start playing with that housing issue and trying to bring more affordable homes (e.g., modular homes) anywhere close to a more expensive home, you run into a lot of resistance. • Modular construction is the easiest way to produce affordable homes – some of them look like trailers but some of them are beautiful homes. For example, there was a guy from Lethbridge who tried to build a modular Cape Cod home here and everyone opposed it because it was modular instead of stick-built. A lot of the people opposing these modular homes even grew up in modular homes. • There is no strategy for affordable housing – there is a hope and desire but there is no strategy.

- C-xvii -

Health, Education, Social Services, Policing (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)

General Comments:

Market Rental: How much rent are people typically paying? • I talked to someone at the end of September who had found a 1-bedroom room and board for $600 per month • Just down the street from me, there is a 3-bedroom duplex renting for $975 per month. • There are only a few units renting that low – so they get taken up right away. • Most people I talk to are seeing rents of $1,200 per month for a townhouse. • I know of a 2-bedroom apartment across from the hospital renting for $775 • I have a lot of kids just graduating from high school buddying up to rent a trailer – what are those units renting for? • Pad rents start at $200 – just for the pad – at any mobile home park in the community. Then you have to add your unit rent or your mortgage payments. • Mountain View pad rentals are $261 per month. • There is also Whispering Winds and Little Acres outside of town. Whispering Winds pad rental is $190-$230.

Housing Affordability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing affordability (e.g., households paying more than 30% of their income on housing)?

Group Feedback:

• I think the situation is higher than what these figures suggest. • There is so much flipping of properties leading to escalating housing prices. • What is the average person on Social Assistance actually earning per month? How much money do they receive that they can apply to rents? • In BC, Social Assistance pays landlords directly – so the recipient never actually sees that rent money. • Historically, this area has always gone towards trailer parks. One of the nicest trailer parks was owned by the mines (you had to work for the mines in order to rent a pad in that park). That history has come back to haunt us – when we think about affordable housing, we automatically think about trailer parks • Higher rents have been moving people out – pushing people who need help further and further away or afield to the point where they end up camping out in the bush. • People who have to move out of town to find affordable rents end up with transportation issues. Your insurance is also higher because fire services are further away. • We have a number of people working here commuting from the Crowsnest Pass and even Vancouver. • As soon as we went to the 4-on/4-off shiftwork, we lost people. They moved out of the community and started commuting into work. • We haven’t foreclosed on any houses in the last 5 years – people typically choose to sell before they get to that point. • We are also more strict in terms of mortgages that we approve and how we monitor those mortgages.

- C-xviii -

Housing Adequacy Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing adequacy (e.g., homes needing major repairs, lacking basic services or infested with vermin/black mould)?

Group Feedback:

• Some of the affordable rental that is available (not necessarily mobile homes) is very questionable and not appropriate at all for families. • There are entire rental buildings in the community that are so run down they have been condemned and are boarded up – which creates a whole new set of issues. • Some of the trailer parks that were formerly run down have recently improved (very recently).

Housing Suitability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing suitability (e.g., households living in overcrowded conditions or multiple families living together)?

Group Feedback:

• I remember a situation where there were eight guys renting 1 condo (4 during their 4 days on and 4 others during their 4 days off). • A lot of trailers are all 2-bedrooms. • A lot of the homes have a main bedroom and 1 bedroom upstairs but the rest are downstairs and that is not what families are looking for.

Housing Choice Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing choice (e.g., people having ready access to a variety of housing options and choices)?

Group Feedback:

• I am a single guy living in a single family home and looking to downsize but there isn’t anything for me to downsize to that I want and can afford.

Housing Priorities Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the community’s housing priorities?

Group Feedback:

• Affordable rentals is the priority. • Affordable rental for families is a need but so too is affordable housing for seniors. • We need housing for seniors but we also need services for seniors. You are not going to keep seniors in the community even if you do provide housing if you do not have the services they need and want to support them.

- C-xix -

• We also have to change our expectations and understanding about how close services need to be. With technology, hospitals don’t need to be as close as they used to be (e.g., X-Rays). • The definition of “family” is changing. Sparwood and Elkford used to have a lot of multi- generational families all living in the community but now that has changed. A person’s family is living in many different places now. Family is also not just mom, dad and siblings anymore – now it’s mom and her husband, dad and his girlfriend, step siblings, etc. • We don’t have any homeless (i.e., street people) here – either in Elkford or Sparwood. • Some of this is related to climate but Fernie has the same climate and they have three (3) homeless people. • We have occasional homeless people but they move on. For example, there were a couple people living by the river last summer in a tent. • The homeless people that we do have are couch surfing with friends and family. • One of the problems is that people moving here don’t want to or can’t buy right away. They want to rent until they get settled but there isn’t enough rental here or enough decent rental that is suitable to a family to allow them to do that.

Community Impacts Group Discussion:

Question: What impacts are housing issues having on the community in terms of: • Family impacts (e.g., family instability, etc.)? • Social impacts (e.g., social isolation, etc.)? • Health impacts (e.g., reduced physical and/or mental health, etc.)? • Educational impacts (e.g., poorer grades, inability to upgrade one’s education, etc.)? • Economic impacts (e.g., challenges with recruiting staff, staff turnover, reduced levels of service, etc.)?

Group Feedback:

• I was surprised by the stats that show we are losing families. I thought we were an area attracting young families. We have a mini baby boom going on here but these are existing families – not new families moving in. • The number of new families moving into the community is nowhere near the number of new workers being hired by the mines. Some of this is related to the housing – families who can’t find decent housing here so they move on. • I know of families who have moved on because they couldn’t find anything suitable to rent in the community. • The shift to 4-on/4-off has caused a number of problems for the community. We are experiencing increased family breakdown and families with children who aren’t able to spend time together – so children’s relationships are breaking down. • And now there’s talk of them going to 7-on/7-off!! • We are a community that loves their toys – a brand new truck is the most popular expenditure. • Most garages in town are not used to park a vehicle but rather to store toys or for people working out of their garages • There is a tremendous amount of black market economy here (e.g., wrench-pulling, welding, mechanics, painting). It’s all through word of mouth paid with cash and bartering. • What we used to lose to Calgary in terms of kids and families, now we have people moving back and forth to and from BC and Alberta depending on which industry is

- C-xx -

booming and which is busting. So it’s not just men coming here to work and then going home. We also have families living here and the husband going elsewhere to work. • Our labour shortages are going to lead to more and more importing of foreign workers – that will lead to cultural differences and challenges. • There are few employment opportunities available to people in the Elk Valley other than the mines that offer a high-enough wage to earn a decent living here because or the cost of housing. • Sparwood and Elkford have a lot to offer in terms of lifestyle. • Lifestyle does not mean building a $10 million golf course. It’s healthy living – getting out for a walk, a bike ride, a hike, etc. • Quality of life is being able to step out your door and feel good and safe – you can go do multiple things and they don’t all cost money. • Qualify of life for me is no traffic, amenities are close by, and you know everyone. • It’s a chicken-and-egg situation: How do you get the population to stay when you don’t have the services? How do you get the services, when you don’t have the population? You have to have somebody with the belief and the backing to stick it out. • Its also accountability. It’s great to bring affordable housing into the community but who is going to be accountable to operate it appropriately, maintain the affordability, and take care of the units so it doesn’t turn into slum housing? • You can associate some social problems in the community with the lack of affordable housing but you can also associate some of those problems with excessive affluence – people with limited life skills and parenting skills making a tremendous amount money who don’t have the necessary tools to parent their children properly. • Our crime rates are lower than the provincial average so I don’t know if there are any links between crime and a lack of affordable housing.

Barriers Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the biggest barriers to improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• Trying to keep doctors in this community is very difficult. If you don’t have doctors here, it’s more difficult to serve (and therefore keep) seniors as well as families in the community. • I’m also concerned about the lack of emergency services available to the community. The healthcare centre closes at 7pm and my husband’s heart attack occurred at 7:10 – after the healthcare centre had closed. • It is a vicious cycle – we need more people in the community in order to provide the services (e.g., healthcare, education, commercial, etc.) yet we need more services in the community to attract and retain the people. • The taxpayers have to understand the need and they have to buy into the fact that we need more affordable housing – so they are willing to allow their tax dollars to be used to build housing for people who need help. • There have been a number of crazy schemes funded through tax dollars in the past that were not successful so taxpayers are more reluctant now. • The Municipality has to be willing to take a risk. • I believe there is already a fund to expand Lilac Terrace but the Province isn’t willing to fund the operating costs of that expansion"yet. The land is there and the money to build the expansion is there – it’s just the lack of operating dollars.

- C-xxi -

• Another barrier is the Municipality’s and the community’s willingness to think outside the box and come up with solutions that are not about getting more money from the Province to do what we want. • People not seeing the need for affordable housing is another barrier. • People not seeing the need as their problem to deal with is also a barrier.

Opportunities and Solutions Group Discussion:

Question: What strategies would you recommend for improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• If you can show the connection between addressing the need for housing and the lack of all the community’s services (e.g., healthcare, education, commercial, etc.)" • We need a really good business plan to take to the larger companies to show them what we plan to build, how we plan to operate it and that it will be successful. • Someone has to be willing to take the lead – to “take the bull by the horns” and move a solution forward. • There are so many homegrown solutions across this country – a Google search would likely provide us with any number of possible options to follow.

- C-xxii -

Elkford Council and Senior Staff (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)

General Comments:

Household Incomes: • RE: the percentage of households earning incomes less than $25,000 ! This data is stunning ! This could be retirees who have paid off their houses living off investment income.

Housing Supply: • RE: data showing that in 2006, 378 homes in Elkford (27.3%) and 358 homes in Sparwood (18.7%) were not occupied by permanent residents. ! This figure seems low to me. There are a lot of vacant buildings.

Employee/Staff Housing: • The RCMP have 2 units in Elkford • There might be one or two staff housing units in Sparwood for doctors.

Seniors and Seniors’ Housing: • The 2011 stats should show a greater increase in the 65+ population given the age of the community.

Market Rental: How much rent are people typically paying? • It’s all over the map. I’m renting a 4-bedroom home now for $1,100. I looked at a 3- bedroom home – the owners wanted $2,500 from people working for the mine. I looked at another place on Craigslist – the owners wanted $2,800. I know people who are renting for $1,100, $1,200, and $1,300. • I’m renting a 2-bedroom apartment and paying around $800. If I left, they would probably charge close to $1,000. • Some rents include utilities; some do not. • The apartments across the street are renting for $1,100 - $1,600 • Some people are paying $250, $300, $350 just for a mattress to sleep on.

Housing Affordability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing affordability (e.g., households paying more than 30% of their income on housing)?

Group Feedback:

• A lot of people coming here have a house elsewhere that hasn’t sold, or they are coming here with nothing and can’t save up a downpayment. I would like to see the employers help them somehow in that respect. • I bought my first house here in 1976 with a $13,000 downpayment loan from my employer but they discontinued that program. • Housing prices went crazy here when Albertans started coming here buying properties. • In 2001, the shift to five-year contracts gave people a greater sense of financial stability – which led to a greater willingness to buy a home. • Housing prices started jumping in 2003-2004.

- C-xxiii -

• There are people living in their trailers here parked in parking lots. It’s against our bylaws but people still do it if they can get away with it. • I moved here in 1995 to retire because housing was affordable here at the time. • One common theme I’ve seen in houses here is that asking prices are very high and most of them also require significant upgrades (e.g., re-roofed, plumbing repairs).

Housing Suitability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing suitability (e.g., households living in overcrowded conditions or multiple families living together)?

Group Feedback:

• How do you account for all of the “hot bunking” that is occurring? I know of several apartments where there are 4 guys living there 2 at a time.

Housing Choice Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing choice (e.g., people having ready access to a variety of housing options and choices)?

Group Feedback:

• Nobody coming into the community now wants to rent an actual unit. Rather, they want to find someone to room with. • People who don’t work in the mines have difficulty finding rentals since landlords would prefer to rent to mine workers because they can put more people in a single unit and generate more rent.

Barriers Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the biggest barriers to improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• If the mines go to a 7-on/7-off schedule to compete with Fort McMurray, Elkford will in all likelihood become a camp. Our population dropped significantly when the mines went to their 4-on/4-off shifts. • People don’t set down roots as long as they used to – so why would you invest in buying a home if you don’t plan on staying in the community long term? • I don’t like the idea of being a major funder because we’ve been burned before. • Location is going to be an issue (e.g., the location of the underground water mane) • Some people don’t want to buy here because it is a one-industry town. What happens when the industry shuts down? • I’ve heard that young fellows coming here from other places think that Elkford is going to be very affordable but then find that housing costs more to build here. Land prices are also expensive (e.g., $80,000). • We also had a lot of Albertans coming in and buying lots when the subdivision opened up driving the price of lots up. That established a new benchmark for lots in town.

- C-xxiv -

• I saw a lot of lots for sale down around $50,000 – one developer came in and bought several lots because they were so cheap. • All of our housing issues are a problem because there is no competition – especially because we are a one-industry town. I can ask what I want for my home because I can get it. • We don’t have any people building houses who live here. All of the trades have to be brought in. • One of the mistakes we made with the subdivision we opened up was that we didn’t put any development requirements on those lots – so people are sitting on them. • There were some clauses to purchase the units back but those clauses weren’t monitored and then they expired – so the District can no longer exercise those buy- back clauses. • People are afraid to invest in the community because it is a one-industry town. • 99.9% of the land that is undeveloped is privately-owned. The District owns one (1) 4- acre parcel that is suitable for residential development. There are approximately 400 other vacant lots, but those are all owned privately. • The vacant mobile home park is currently zoned R5 which could support a significant amount of multi-residential development but would also require infrastructure upgrades to do so. The new owner wants to rezone it back to mobile home park. • I don’t think we have too much red tape. • One of the problems is that some people do understand what is required at each stage in the permit process but some people don’t. We expect general concept plans before you go to Council but people interpret that as meaning we want detailed renderings – we don’t. We’re working on that process in-house. • Another problem is that you have to wait a week to get a building inspector – that creates ongoing delays.

Opportunities and Solutions Group Discussion:

Question: What strategies would you recommend for improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• We should buy our own helicopter so we can allow our seniors to age in place but transport them ourselves in an emergency. • People aren’t going to live in Elkford unless they want to. We can’t force them to – they have to want to. • We have to spend money to make money – we have to create a community that people want to live in – that people want to move here. • We need to diversify and create other reasons for people to want to live here • What we need is more housing. People already want to move here – they just can’t because we don’t have enough housing. • Seniors only want to move once. They want to be closer to hospitals and services so if they have to move to Sparwood, they are probably going to move to Cranbrook. • I would like to see an independent seniors’ complex all on one level – or if there are two levels, there is an elevator. I don’t want a communal dining room but some people do – so it should ideally offer both opportunities. If you want to eat on your own in your own unit, you can. If you want to have dinner in a common dining room, you can do that too. • “Quality of Life” means fantastic water, clean air, low taxes, a swimming pool, lots of places where you can go hiking, and low crime.

- C-xxv -

• The “Catch-22” is if we draw in more people, we are going to get more traffic, more crime, more vandalism, etc. • We need to get more business into town if we want to get more people into town. There is also the mentality that Elkford is the poor man’s Banff. People don’t want the town to grow – they like it the way it is. • Depending on technology, there is 50-200 years worth of coal. • During the railroad era, the lifespan of a town in Alberta was 30 years. Stats suggest that Elkford won’t exist once the coal mines shut down. • Tumbler Ridge’s experience suggests that might not happen. Kimberley also transitioned quite effectively but they are closer to Cranbrook and on a highway and had a 20-year plan developed and implemented long before the mines shut down. • We have to be careful about not overdoing something about our housing needs. We have to plan but we also have to recognize that the coal industry fluctuates and take baby steps. • One first baby step might be for the District to be a major funder of a small 5-10 unit affordable housing complex.

- C-xxvi -

Elkford Housing Industry Professionals (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)

General Comments:

Market Rental: How much rent are people typically paying? • 1-Bedroom: ! Elkford: $690 (incl. heat, lights, hot water but no cable) for an unfurnished unit ! Sparwood = $675 (util. not included) for an unfurnished unit • 2-Bedroom • Elkford: $800-$900 (incl. heat, lights, hot water but no cable) for an unfurnished unit • Sparwood = $775 (util. not included) for an unfurnished unit • 3-Bedroom: ! Unfurnished: $1,000 (incl. heat, lights, hot water but no cable) ! I rent a 3-bedroom house for $1,350 + util.

Current Affordability Estimates: • I can attest to these numbers because I can remember when I was renting.

Housing Affordability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing affordability (e.g., households paying more than 30% of their income on housing)?

Group Feedback:

• We have 350 names on file supporting our manufactured home community project. An 1,100 ft2 modular home will be selling for $110,000-$120,000. That’s $425 in mortgage payments + $195 pad rental + utilities – so roughly $620 per month + utilities. • We have the highest per capita income in Canada – it’s the mines providing us with very good incomes. In 2009, we started having people coming into the community from other places who can’t sell their existing homes and so they can’t afford to buy a home here. • When I came here in 1997, my lost cost me $7,000. Now they’re $50,000, $60,000, $70,000! • Even though our housing prices have increased, they are still below the national average. • I think the recreational buyers aren’t coming into Elkford right now – so the homes that are selling are selling to coal miners coming here. • I think some of the things we are seeing with some of the houses is that a good chunk of them require a lot of work and a lot of money ($30,000-$35,000). It’s going to be difficult for somebody to come in here and put down $350,000 to buy a home and then have to put down another $30,000-$35,000 in repairs to replace the windows, put in a new furnace, etc. • We see people wanting to buy newer homes because of this. • There are about 200 lots in the District that are serviced and vacant – but most of them are sitting. Some are selling but they’re selling for $50,000-$70,000. • The price point per lot for a brand new subdivision is closer to $100,000-$120,000 or more – this is just an approximation.

- C-xxvii -

• Over the past few years, our housing prices have been increasing about 14% per year. Our housing prices now are higher than Cranbrook’s (5-7 years ago we were about 50% of what prices were in Cranbrook).

Housing Adequacy Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing adequacy (e.g., homes needing major repairs, lacking basic services or infested with vermin/black mould)?

Group Feedback:

• There are a number of homes in the community that are 40-years-old or older. Many of them are lacking routine maintenance that hasn’t been taken care of over the years. • Many of them have aluminum wiring and need to be changed over to copper. • Most of them need new windows.

Housing Suitability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing suitability (e.g., households living in overcrowded conditions or multiple families living together)?

Group Feedback:

• There is a lot of “hot bedding” going on in the community. • I have 60 units. Three (3) years ago, half of my units were vacant. Now, of the 60 units, 34 are occupied by commuters. I have almost 300 tenants living in my 60 units – some of the 3 bedroom units have 6 guys renting them (3 per 4-on shift trading off).

Housing Choice Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing choice (e.g., people having ready access to a variety of housing options and choices)?

Group Feedback:

• In the last 6 months we’ve had at least 100 calls from people looking for a place to rent. • There isn’t a modular home pad in the community that is empty right now. • We get a tremendous influx of contractors over the summer. Our campground is full all summer with contractors who work for the mines, etc. There were also a lot of Teck employees who phoned us every day looking for a place to rent so they could move out of the campground. • What I don’t understand is why these guys are being told that there are lots of places to rent. • People are telling us that they can’t find a place in the community to bring their family here. • The contractors are being placed under a tremendous amount of scrutiny by landlords because of past behaviour by their peers. • I have no problem renting to contractors as long as the lease is in the employer’s name (in case there are problems).

- C-xxviii -

• With the Bingay mine opening, there is going to be quite a demand for housing. In 3 years, Bingay will have close to 320 employees. • Teck’s staff turnover is approximately 50 people per month.

Housing Priorities Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the community’s housing priorities?

Group Feedback:

• From a statistical standpoint, what income group and how many people are going to need a rental unit or an affordable home to purchase for under $600 vs. how many people are going to need more expensive homes? What is the demand at each stage in the housing continuum?

Barriers Group Discussion:

Question: What do you think are the biggest barriers to improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• If the developers wanted to be here, they would be here. But they’re all terrified because we can’t predict the future of the coal mines. • Who is going to walk in here and put up a 30-unit project when you need a 15-year time horizon to recoup your money and you can’t predict coal activity five years out? • Developer risk is a major barrier. • The cost of land is also a barrier. • Most of the developable land around the community (i.e., subdivided lots) is privately- owned. The un-subdivided land is Crown land. • The District can purchase Crown land so there is potential for future development on what would then be Municipally-owned land. • The Crown sells its land at market value for raw land. So the District won’t be able to buy it for $1 – we’ll have to pay market value like anyone else. • It’s easier and more viable to build smaller projects than it is to develop major subdivisions. • We want to get into a partnership – or partnerships – with developers in town to develop the kind of housing that our new mine will require. • Unlike in Sparwood where houses aren’t selling, in Elkford, our houses have been selling – some very quickly. • When a recession hits, everybody’s house goes up for sale. That hasn’t happened here – we’re in more of an oasis. • We haven’t had many developers coming into the community. • How would our situation parallel with that in Fort McMurray? • The people with high risk tolerance are not the people looking to develop in Elkford. • The barrier here is concern about whether or not coal activity is sustainable enough to sustain the private investment required to build new housing. • The people with the resources may not be willing to get involved in long-term residential property management. • The global economy is still in a very fragile state.

- C-xxix -

• We are short some very major housing in this valley. Unless someone is willing to see past the risk, has a banker willing to lend them the money, etc. • Another barrier is the size and extent of need vs. the size and scale of solutions that are viable. • The absence of clear facts is another barrier – what is the future of coal in the valley? How many people are going to be hired over time? How many of these new hires are going to be coming into the community to live? • The 4-on/4-off is another barrier to housing – this allows people to work here without living here. • People also don’t shop here – this makes it harder to offer services to the community. The lack of services reduces people’s desire to move here.

Opportunities and Solutions Group Discussion:

Question: What strategies would you recommend for improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• Coal is going to be in demand for a long time. We’re sitting here looking for information, advice and direction on what to build. People are doing well and people want something nice – so we have to be careful to not sell ourselves short. • I look at the direction of demand for metallurgical coal that paints a very positive picture for the future of Elkford. • What about partnering to share the risk? • We have to have a meeting of the minds with a variety of stakeholders all willing to share some of the risks to deal with the challenges • For the District to invest in new subdivision development, we need some assurance that the efforts will recover the costs (in the past, that did not happen). • What about bunkhouses? • The District doesn’t like the idea of a camp or bunkhouses. The District had at least 4 requests for information about land upon which to build bunkhouses. • One solution would be to make it easy for a one-off builder to build housing in Elkford. • There also has to be a bigger plan in place. • Is there a secondary suite process in town? • The District is in the process of revising the Land Use Bylaw to allow secondary suites (e.g., basement suites and carriage houses). • The District is also allowing mixed-used development in the downtown core (i.e., commercial on the main floor with residential on the 2nd and 3rd floors). • The availability of building inspectors is another barrier – he’s only in the community one day per week. • The District is also looking at opportunities to increase the availability of a building inspector. • Would it be possible for the District to inform property owners that there are builders interested in developing their properties if they were willing to sell their land or participate in a joint venture with the developer where the developer builds a home on the lot (that way they could get more money selling their property as a developed home rather than bare land)? • For those types of information requests, the District encourages developers to talk to Realtors.

- C-xxx -

Elkford Households (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)

General Comments

Household Incomes: • I found the data showing the percentage of households earning less than $25,000 shocking. • That data doesn’t surprise me. I work for a non-profit and there are a lot of single moms and one-person families in the region. • When you are a single parent with no childcare, you can’t work in the mines or any of the resource-based industries. That leaves you working part-time in the service industry or not working at all. • From personal experience, I know some people who are single and earning very low incomes (e.g., $11,000).

Housing Supply: Declining #s of Rental Units • This data does not reflect the 82 units built by Teck since 2006

Near- and Non-Market Housing: • There is a family violence shelter in Fernie that is available to women in Elkford and Sparwood • We do have unfunded second stage housing in Fernie that is available to women living in the whole valley. The operation of the building is funded by BC Housing but the programs connected to the building are not funded by BC Housing. • There is affordable housing also in Fernie but the wait lists are long. • There is a Rental Assistance Program (RAP) specifically available to women with children through BC Housing – but you need to know how to find out about it. There used to be a notice in the Post Office about the program but it may not be there now. • A lot of people don’t read posters.

Seniors and Seniors’ Housing: • There are seniors in Elkford who want to stay in Elkford and, therefore, want to see some seniors’ housing built in the community. • I think our challenge is the ability to provide the supports that come with that type of housing. • I don’t think it’s insurmountable – “where there’s a will, there’s a way” – but it does add a challenge that needs to be addressed.

Market Rental: How much rent are people typically paying? • 2-3 bedroom units are somewhere around the $1,000 mark. • I thought Teck’s 3-bedroom units were $1,500 per month. • My son is paying $850 for a furnished 1-bedroom unit (incl. utilities) in the Teck apartments across the street. • I have a friend who just rented her fully-furnished, 2-bedroom, 1-bathroom condo for $1,100 per month including hydro and storage. • We get a lot of calls from people wanting to rent a room from us. We finally decided to rent one of the rooms in our fully-furnished home for $1,000 per month (including meals, utilities, and full access to the house).

- C-xxxi -

Housing Affordability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing affordability (e.g., households paying more than 30% of their income on housing)?

Group Feedback:

• I don’t think it’s as much of an issue in Elkford because the average income is just so high. If you’re paying 40% of income but making $140,000 per year, you are doing very well. You still have a lot of disposable income left for your food, entertainment and clothing needs, etc. • I know there are people here for whom it is not affordable • New houses are very expensive. If you buy an older house, it’s less expensive but it needs so many costly repairs. • It’s possible here to rent for five years and save up enough to buy your own home if that is your goal – that is not possible in many major cities. • How do you get a sizeable downpayment if you are only making $35,000? • If you are moving here and didn’t already own a home elsewhere (and in a community where the housing market is still good), it is unlikely that you would be able to buy a home here. If you were renting elsewhere, you are likely going to have to rent here as well. • There are also people moving here from other communities where people bought high and are selling low (e.g., Mackenzie). They are coming here not with equity but with debt. • There is no housing here other than seniors’ housing that is rent-geared-to-income. • What about seniors where one spouse is in seniors’ housing and the other spouse is in the family home? They are paying for two homes. • We are an anomaly here – in Elkford, we can still have stay-at-home moms. You can’t do that in a lot of other communities. Our housing prices are increasing to the point where we may not be able to do that in the future. • There is no daycare here – so both parents can’t work. In other communities, you pay for a spot regardless of how many days your child attends daycare. Here, people only want to pay for the days their child attends – how can you run and maintain a program when you don’t have any income guarantees? Meeting the licensing requirements and staffing requirements is also very expensive. • When you have the 4-on/4-off, you have parents away for 14-16 hours at a time. How do you provide a daycare service to meet those needs? That is really tough on the operators as well as the children and their families. • Because there is no affordable childcare, how do single parents (more so single moms) gain employment? If you can’t get a job at the mine, the cost of childcare ends up being more than you earn. • I would think that Teck might be willing to come to the table to address the daycare needs of the community. • The Columbia Basin Trust has a childcare program to put more seats into the community. It’s start-up funding; not long-term operations funding. • Sparwood has set up a childcare program that runs from 6am – 6pm. It’s a very good program but its very expensive and the 6am – 6pm only works for people working steady day shifts. It doesn’t work for people working shift work.

- C-xxxii -

Housing Adequacy Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing adequacy (e.g., homes needing major repairs, lacking basic services or infested with vermin/black mould)?

Group Feedback:

• A lot of the houses in our community are 35-years-old and older. It isn’t really old if you’ve kept up with maintenance over time but many people haven’t. • We live in an old mobile home and it’s in rough shape. My husband can’t physically take care of the repairs. Finding a contractor to come in and do small jobs and small repairs is tough. The one contractor we have is booked up months in advance. • Finding a contractor who is affordable is also a challenge • I need a “Rent-a-Husband” • There is a real demand for a general contractor or handyman doing small projects • We put in new windows, new doors, and we replaced the roof. I also had to change the furnace in my house. Now all of my wiring has to be redone because it’s 40 years old. • I sent requests to 4 different contractors asking for quotes to replace my furnace and only one contractor responded. • Most of the contractors who come here get absorbed in working on larger-scale projects for the mines. • We had a contractor bring in a new high-efficiency furnace from the US – as soon as it got cold, the furnace started acting up and nobody could figure out how to fix it.

Housing Suitability Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing suitability (e.g., households living in overcrowded conditions or multiple families living together)?

Group Feedback:

• It’s not much of an issue here. We don’t see much of that at all. • “Hot bedding” is something that does happen here. There are 4-5 guys sharing a house who swap out every four days. Do we want situations like this in single-family neighbourhoods? • I do know of a few situations where families with children are living in overcrowded conditions – but this is rare. • It’s also rare that people are over-housed (e.g., people living in homes with empty bedrooms). The average home here has 3 bedrooms. If you are a family with two children, you are not over-housed. • It’s hard to tell too. You look at some of these homes: they’re huge but they only have 3 bedrooms. • I’ve been in several homes in the community where both parents are working but the children are all sleeping on mattresses on the floors. They don’t even have dressers. • I don’t see any legitimate reason why these children should be sleeping on the floor when both parents are making good wages and the homes are relatively affordable for people working for the mines – they obviously have the money. • Part of the problem is the amount of money people are spending on their toys and participating in recreational activities.

- C-xxxiii -

Housing Accessibility Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing accessibility (e.g., persons with severe disabilities who cannot move around freely in and out of their homes)?

Group Feedback:

• As time goes on, we have a lot of seniors’ who want to stay in Elkford and our existing homes cannot accommodate the needs of seniors (e.g., wheelchairs). So accessibility is going to be an issue as time goes on. • Homes are not the only buildings that aren’t accessible – most of the buildings in town aren’t accessible either. • That will be a determining factor affecting how many seniors are able to live here.

Housing Choice Group Discussion:

Question: How much of an issue is housing choice (e.g., people having ready access to a variety of housing options and choices)?

Group Feedback:

• We have hotels but they are constantly booked up. The contractors are all living in them. • There are hardly any recreational campers coming into our campground in the summer – it’s filled with contractors because there are no other places for them to stay.

Community Impacts Group Discussion:

Question: What impacts are housing issues having on the community in terms of: • Family impacts (e.g., family instability, etc.)? • Social impacts (e.g., social isolation, etc.)? • Health impacts (e.g., reduced physical and/or mental health, etc.)? • Educational impacts (e.g., poorer grades, inability to upgrade one’s education, etc.)? • Economic impacts (e.g., challenges with recruiting staff, staff turnover, reduced levels of service, etc.)?

Group Feedback:

• Our families here are young and some of them would like to have one of the parents stay home with the children. That is not possible here given the cost of housing – both parents have to work because of the cost of housing. • I know of a couple who left the community because they couldn’t afford to live here unless both people worked. • I think the 4-on/4-off structure has affected family dynamics. It’s difficult to set up a consistent family structure when people are working long and changing shifts – as well as people who are from out of town who spend a good part of their time at home sleeping, etc. • I’ve noticed that families communicate more and more with each other through notes on the fridge rather than face to face.

- C-xxxiv -

• You don’t have any buy-in or commitment to the community when you don’t live here full-time. • Because of demand, our housing prices have increased to such an extent that we are almost at that threshold/bubble where housing is no longer affordable – especially if you are a one-income family. • There are not a lot of options for a second income. • We are almost at the point where if I retired, we would have to leave the community because we can’t make it on my husband’s pension alone. • Bunkhouses are very problematic. They bring a whole package of social issues (drugs, alcohol, prostitution) like it has in Fort McMurray. • Communal living brings a whole new set of dynamics and we don’t have the support systems in place to handle those dynamics.

Opportunities and Solutions Group Discussion:

Question: What strategies would you recommend for improving housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, affordability and/or choice?

Group Feedback:

• There is a formal way of accessing rental units (e.g., through ads and Property Managers) as well as an informal way to access rental properties (e.g., through word- of-mouth). • Having a central resource may provide an interesting opportunity to get the word out about rental opportunities in the community. • If we had a central system, it may encourage more people to participate. • My brother-in-law bought a mobile home for his daughter because it was cheaper for her to own a mobile home than it was to rent.

- C-xxxv -

APPENDIX D: Online Survey Results

1.0 Introduction

As part of the Housing Need and Demand Assessment, an online survey was conducted between June 15, 2011 and January 20, 2012 whereby residents who were unable to participate in the Focus Group meetings could provide their feedback. Notices about the survey as well as links to the survey were posted on both Districts’ websites. Information about the survey was also shared through the local newspaper as well as during the Key Person Interviews and the Focus Group Meetings.

As an open online survey open to all residents of Elkford and Sparwood – whether temporary or permanent – this survey was not designed to provide a statistically valid assessment of the views and opinions of local residents regarding affordable housing but rather an informal and flexible tool whereby residents could provide additional data anonymously and on their own terms (e.g., date, time, location, as well as nature and depth of contribution).

2.0 About the Survey Respondents

A total of 63 individuals and households participated in the online survey of which 49 respondents (76.6% of all respondents) actually completed the full survey. The family status of all respondents is as follows:

! Couples with children: 31 (49.2%) ! Couples without children: 17 (27.0%) ! One person living alone: 6 (9.5%) ! Single-parent families: 2 (3.2%) ! Two or more unrelated people sharing accommodations: 4 (6.3%) ! Families with children living with extended family: 1 (1.6%) ! Parents living with extended family: 1 (1.6%) ! Couples with elderly parents living with them: 1 (1.6%)

The majority of survey respondents (68.3% - or 43 respondents) were employed full time. An additional six (6) respondents (9.5%) considered themselves full-time homemakers, four (4 or 6.3%) were retired, three (3 or 4.8%) were employed part-time, two (2 or 3.2%) were employed on a temporary or seasonal basis, two (2 or 3.2%) were currently unemployed but looking for work, and two (2 or 3.2%) were unable to work due to a disability. The remaining respondents represented a combination of the above.

More than half (33 or 52.4%) of respondents were permanent residents of Sparwood, while 26 respondents (41.3%) were permanent residents of Elkford. The remaining three (3 or 6.3%) of respondents include one (1) who lived in Cranbrook, one (1) who lived in the RDEK between Elkford and Sparwood, and one (1) who lived in Sparwood but was renting on a temporary basis until (s)he/their household found an appropriate home to purchase in either community.

Only three (3 or 4.8%) of the households responding to the survey contained one or more individuals receiving any form of financial assistance (e.g., Income Assistance, Disability Assistance, Rental Assistance Program (RAP) support, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters (SAFER), or Property Tax Deferral Assistance). All three (3) of these respondents were receiving Disability Assistance.

The majority of respondents (43 or 75.4% of the 57 respondents who answered the particular question) also owned their home. The majority of these respondents (25 or 58.1%) owned a house (as opposed to duplex/fourplex, townhouse, mobile home, condominium, acreage, or farm). The

- D i -

remaining 24.6% respondents (14 respondents) rented their homes of which five (5 or 35.7%) rented a house.

3.0 Specific Survey Findings

The following pages provide a detailed summary of the combined results for each question asked in the online survey. It is important to note that all 63 respondents did not answer every single question in the survey. There are a number of questions in which several respondents skipped the question. The total number of responses and skipped questions are identified in the summary chart for each question.

- D ii -

APPENDIX E: 2011 Housing Income Limits (HILs)

+RXVLQJ3URYLGHU.LW‡2SHUDWLRQV

+RXVLQJ,QFRPH/LPLWV +,/V +RXVLQJ,QFRPH/LPLWVUHSUHVHQWWKHLQFRPHUHTXLUHGWRSD\WKHDYHUDJHPDUNHWUHQWIRUDQ DSSURSULDWHO\VL]HGXQLWLQWKHSULYDWHPDUNHW$YHUDJHUHQWVDUHGHULYHGIURP&0+& VDQQXDO 5HQWDO0DUNHW6XUYH\GRQHLQWKHIDOODQGUHOHDVHGLQWKHVSULQJ7KHVL]HRIXQLWUHTXLUHGE\D KRXVHKROGLVJRYHUQHGE\IHGHUDOSURYLQFLDORFFXSDQF\VWDQGDUGV

7KH+,/VDUHJHQHUDOO\XSGDWHGHYHU\\HDUV

3ODQLQJ$UHD %DFK %GUP %GUP %GUP %GUP /RZHU0DLQODQG $EERWVIRUG      &KLOOLZDFN      +RSH      3RZHOO5LYHU      6TXDPLVK      6XQVKLQH&RDVW      9DQFRXYHU      1RQ0DUNHW$UHDV 1$      3ODQLQJ$UHD %DFK %GUP %GUP %GUP %GUP 6RXWKHUQ%& $VKFURIW&DFKH&UHHN      &DVWOHJDU      &UDQEURRN      &UHVWRQ      (ON9DOOH\      *ROGHQ      *UDQG)RUNV      .DPORRSV      .HORZQD      .LPEHUOH\      0HUULWW      1HOVRQ      2OLYHU2VR\RRV      3HQWLFWRQ      3ULQFHWRQ      5HYHOVWRNH      6DOPRQ$UP      7UDLO      9HUQRQ      1RQ0DUNHW$UHDV 1$    

RENT CALCULATION • APPENDIX 45

+RXVLQJ3URYLGHU.LW‡2SHUDWLRQV

3ODQLQJ$UHD %DFK %GUP %GUP %GUP %GUP

9DQFRXYHU,VODQG &DPSEHOO5LYHU      &RXUWHQD\&RPR[      'XQFDQ1&RZLFKDQ      1DQDLPR      3DUNVYLOOH4XDOLFXP      3RUW$OEHUQL      3RUW+DUG\      9LFWRULD      1RQ0DUNHW$UHDV 1$      3ODQLQJ$UHD %DFK %GUP %GUP %GUP %GUP 1RUWKHUQ%& &KHWZ\QG      'DZVRQ&UHHN      )RUW6W-RKQ      +RXVWRQ      .LWLPDW      0DFNHQ]LH      3ULQFH*HRUJH      3ULQFH5XSHUW      4XHVQHO      6PLWKHUV      7HUUDFH      9DQGHUKRRI      :LOOLDPV/DNH      1RQ0DUNHW$UHDV 1$    

 2FFXSDQF\6WDQGDUGV 7KHUHVKDOOEHQRPRUHWKDQRUOHVVWKDQSHUVRQSHUEHGURRP 6SRXVHVDQGFRXSOHVVKDUHDEHGURRP 3DUHQWVGRQRWVKDUHDEHGURRPZLWKFKLOGUHQ 'HSHQGDQWVDJHGRUPRUHGRQRWVKDUHDEHGURRP 'HSHQGDQWVDJHGRUPRUHRIRSSRVLWHVH[GRQRWVKDUHDEHGURRP

46 46 RENT CALCULATION • APPENDIX