GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
Friday, September 9, 2016 9:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia
R E V I S E D A G E N D A1
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 September 9, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Regional Planning Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for September 9, 2016 as circulated.
2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
2.1 July 15, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Regional Planning Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held July 15, 2016 as circulated.
3. DELEGATIONS
On Table 3.1 Dr. Paul Kershaw, Generation Squeeze Subject: Homes First: Building on Common Ground event - October 25, 2016
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
4.1 Kim Grout, CEO, Agricultural Land Commission Subject: ALC Update
1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.
RPL - 1 Regional Planning Committee Regular Agenda September 9, 2016 Agenda Page 2 of 4
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Association for Generational Equity Request for Funding – Homes First 2016 Designated Speaker: Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment That the GVRD Board approve a $7,000 sponsorship contribution to the Association for Generational Equity (Generation Squeeze) in support of hosting Homes First: Building on Common Ground.
5.2 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver Designated Speaker: Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Parks, Planning, and Environment That the GVRD Board: a) Send a letter to the BC Minister of Community Sport and Cultural Development and the Minister of Agriculture requesting farm property tax reform for the Metro Vancouver region, as described in the White Paper titled, “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”; and b) Convey the report dated August 22, 2016, titled “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”, to member municipalities, the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Capital Regional District, and the Okanagan‐Similkameen Regional District.
5.3 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Type 2 Amendment – Sewerage Extension Provisions Designated Speaker: Heather McNell, Division Manager, Growth Management, Parks, Planning and Environment That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate the Metro Vancouver 2040 Type 2 amendment process for proposed amendments to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future provisions for the extension of sewerage services; b) Give first reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016”; c) Give 2nd reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016”; and d) Direct staff to notify affected local governments as per Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Section 6.4.2.
RPL - 2 Regional Planning Committee Regular Agenda September 9, 2016 Agenda Page 3 of 4
5.4 Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study – Transit Ridership Effects Designated Speakers: Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment That the GVRD Board communicate the transit ridership findings from the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study to the following parties emphasizing the findings’ relevance and timeliness to current and upcoming regional, provincial and federal housing and transportation decisions: the Federal Minister of Infrastructure and Minister of Communities and Families, Children and Social Development; the Provincial Minister of Finance, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Responsible for TransLink, and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Responsible for Housing; Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation and TransLink Board of Directors, Member local governments, and Other housing and transportation stakeholders in the Metro Vancouver region.
5.5 Demographic Trends in Regional City Centres – Children and Families Bulletin Verbal Report Designated Speakers: Jaspal Marwah, Regional Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment
5.6 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Elisa Campbell, Director, Regional Planning and Electoral Area Services, Parks, Planning and Environment That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the Manager’s Report dated August 29, 2016.
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
6.1 Correspondence dated July 27, 2016 to the BC Minister of Agriculture RE: Request to Limit Large Homes in the Agricultural Land Reserve
6.2 Order in Council ‐ Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, B.C. Reg. 171/2002
RPL - 3 Regional Planning Committee Regular Agenda September 9, 2016 Agenda Page 4 of 4
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS
9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING Note: The Committee must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below.
10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION That the Regional Planning Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of September 9, 2016.
Membership: Stewart, Richard (C) – Coquitlam Mussatto, Darrell – North Vancouver Smith, Michael – West Vancouver Coté, Jonathan (VC) – New Westminster City Steele, Barbara – Surrey Corrigan, Derek – Burnaby Paton, Ian – Delta Steves, Harold – Richmond Dilworth, Diana – Port Moody Penner, Darrell – Port Coquitlam Froese, Jack – Langley Township Read, Nicole – Maple Ridge Reimer, Andrea – Vancouver
RPL - 4 2.1
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Regional Planning Committee held at 9:04 a.m. on Friday, July 15, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Vice Chair, Mayor Jonathan Coté, New Westminster Mayor Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Councillor Diana Dilworth, Port Moody Mayor Jack Froese, Langley Township Mayor Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Councillor Ian Paton, Delta (departed at 11:06 a.m.) Councillor Darrell Penner, Port Coquitlam (departed at 11:00 a.m.) Councillor Andrea Reimer, Vancouver (arrived at 9:06 a.m.) Mayor Michael Smith, West Vancouver Councillor Barbara Steele, Surrey Councillor Harold Steves, Richmond
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Nicole Read, Maple Ridge
STAFF PRESENT: Elisa Campbell, Regional Planning and Electoral Area Services Director, Parks, Planning and Environment Carol Mason, Chief Administrative Officer Deanna Manojlovic, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 July 15, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for July 15, 2016 as circulated. CARRIED
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, July 15, 2016 Page 1 of 7 RPL - 5 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
2.1 May 6, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held May 6, 2016 as circulated. CARRIED
3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
4.1 Geoff Cross, Director, Strategic Planning and Policy, TransLink Geoff Cross, Director, Strategic Planning and Policy, TransLink, provided members with a presentation on a regional goods movement strategy (RGMS) for Metro Vancouver highlighting: development timeline and phases of the strategy; Phase 2 objectives; TransLink’s goods movement functions; how RGMS fits within the larger regional transportation strategy; private sector goods movement challenges; community livability impacts; RGMS vision, goals, objectives, strategies and actions; work underway; consultation efforts; and implementation priorities.
9:06 a.m. Councillor Reimer arrived at the meeting.
Discussion ensued on: membership composition for an urban freight forum movement of gateway‐oriented freight during off‐peak traffic periods and using short sea shipping delivery of urban goods to stores and residences during business hours impact of road pricing
Presentation titled “Moving the Economy: Reviewing the Draft Regional Goods Movement Strategy for Metro Vancouver” is retained with the July 15, 2016 Regional Planning Committee agenda.
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future: Five‐Year Review Report dated June 10, 2016 from Heather McNell, Division Manager, Growth Management, Parks, Planning and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider the need for and scope of a review of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future as required by the Local Government Act.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, July 15, 2016 Page 2 of 7 RPL - 6 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) Approve the engagement process to determine the need for, and extent of, a review of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future, the regional growth strategy, consistent with Section 452(2) of the Local Government Act and as presented in the report dated June 10, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future: Five‐Year Review”; b) send a letter to affected local governments and agencies to provide an opportunity to comment on whether the regional growth strategy should be reviewed for possible amendment as per Local Government Act Section 452(3); and c) post notice on the Metro Vancouver website to provide an opportunity for public comment on whether the regional growth strategy should be reviewed for possible amendment. CARRIED
5.2 Progress toward Shaping our Future 2015 Annual Report Report dated June 14, 2016 from Lauren Klose, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, Parks, Planning, and Environment, conveying the Progress toward Shaping our Future 2015 Annual Report to the GVRD Board for consideration.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) adopt the Progress toward Shaping our Future 2015 Annual Report as the third annual performance monitoring report for Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future, consistent with Section 452 [previously Section 869] of the Local Government Act; and b) convey the Progress toward Shaping our Future 2015 Annual Report to the Province and member jurisdictions. CARRIED
5.3 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future 2015 Procedural Report Report dated June 17, 2016 from Lauren Klose, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, Parks, Planning and Environment, conveying the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future 2015 Procedural Report as required under the Regional Growth Strategy Procedures Bylaw No. 1148, 2011.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 17, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future 2015 Procedural Report”. CARRIED
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, July 15, 2016 Page 3 of 7 RPL - 7 5.4 Township of Langley – Proposed Amendments to Fraser Sewerage Area Boundary Report dated June 21, 2016 from Jaspal Marwah, Regional Planner; Parks, Planning and Environment, providing the GVRD Board the opportunity to consider whether the Township of Langley’s request to include a property in the Fraser Sewerage Area is consistent with Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future, as per section 6.8.1 of the regional growth strategy.
Members were provided with a presentation on the Township of Langley’s sewerage area extension request explaining the criteria used by staff to assess the request as being consistent with the provisions of Metro 2040.
Presentation titled “Metro 2040 Sewerage Area Extension Request: 20030 8th Ave. Township of Langley” is retained with the July 15, 2016 Regional Planning Committee agenda.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to the property at 20030 – 8 Avenue (Lot 5, Sec. 2, Township 7, NWD, Plan NWP33264) is consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future; and b) forward the requested Fraser Sewerage Area expansion application to the GVS&DD Board for consideration. CARRIED
5.5 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the Corporation of Delta – 9341 Ladner Trunk Road Report dated June 6, 2016 from Lauren Klose, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, Parks, Planning and Environment, providing the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider a proposed Type 2 Minor Amendment to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future for 9341 Ladner Trunk Road, as requested by the Corporation of Delta.
Members were provided with a presentation on the Corporation of Delta’s request for consideration of a proposed Type 2 Minor Amendment to Metro 2040 highlighting: site’s land use designation; site context; land use; and staff recommendation.
Presentation titled “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment Request from the Corporation of Delta” is retained with the July 15, 2016 Regional Planning Committee agenda.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, July 15, 2016 Page 4 of 7 RPL - 8 It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) Determine that the proposed amendment to the regional land use designation from Agricultural to Rural for the site at 9341 Ladner Trunk Road is not required; and b) Convey to the Corporation of Delta that the OCP amendment and rezoning does not require a regional land use designation amendment via Metro 2040 amendment or Regional Context Statement amendment. CARRIED Mayor Mussatto absent at the vote.
5.6 The Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study Report dated June 29, 2016 from Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, and Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment, providing an update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing study.
Members were provided with a presentation on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing study highlighting: estimated regional housing demand; mismatch between demand and supply; housing and transportation cost burden; purpose of study; definition of transit‐oriented housing; strategic partnerships; scope of work; milestones; and benefits to partners and region.
Members expressed concerns about the lack of financial or policy tools available to municipalities to fund or provide incentives to create more rental housing; confining affordable housing funding to development along frequent transit corridors; and the increasing property tax burden created by using density bonus funds for subsidizing rental housing instead of funding for community amenities like libraries, recreation centres and parks.
Presentation titled “Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study” is retained with the July 15, 2016 Regional Planning Committee agenda.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 29, 2016, titled “The Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study”. CARRIED
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, July 15, 2016 Page 5 of 7 RPL - 9 5.7 Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #6 ‐ What Works: Sustaining and Expanding the Supply of Purpose‐Built Rental Housing Report dated June 20, 2016 from Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment, conveying the Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #6 ‐ What Works: Sustaining and Expanding the Supply of Purpose‐Built Rental Housing.
Members were provided with a presentation on the Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #6 ‐ What Works: Sustaining and Expanding the Supply of Purpose‐Built Rental Housing highlighting: background and summary of the five goals of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy; and the evidence of what works for sustaining and expanding purpose‐built rentals.
Discussion ensued on: adding a section to the guideline on what is not working to capture the impact of the lack of federal and provincial funding on the rental housing shortage differences between purpose‐built rentals and private sector rentals in condominiums
11:00 a.m. Councillor Penner departed the meeting. 11:06 a.m. Councillor Paton departed the meeting.
the higher cost for land that is closer to frequent transit cost to municipalities and the associated property tax burden when density bonus funds are diverted to subsidize rental housing instead of funding community amenity projects
Presentation titled “What Works: Municipal Measures for Sustaining and Expanding the Supply of Purpose‐Built Rental Housing – Metro 2040 implementation Guideline #6” is retained with the July 15, 2016 Regional Planning Committee agenda.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated June 20, 2016, titled “Metro 2040 Implementation Guideline #6 ‐ What Works: Sustaining and Expanding the Supply of Purpose‐Built Rental Housing”. CARRIED
5.8 Manager’s Report Report dated July 4, 2016 from Elisa Campbell, Director, Regional Planning and Electoral Area Services, Parks, Planning and Environment, updating the members on the Committee’s 2016 work plan, GVRD Sustainability Innovation Fund projects, and the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, July 15, 2016 Page 6 of 7 RPL - 10
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated July 4, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report”. CARRIED
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the following Information Item: 6.1 Correspondence re: Restoring the Mandatory Long Form Census in 2016, dated May 13, 2016 from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development CARRIED
7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS No items presented.
9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.
10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Regional Planning Committee conclude its regular meeting of July 15, 2016. CARRIED (Time: 11:18 a.m.)
______Deanna Manojlovic, Richard Stewart, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
18731878 FINAL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning Committee held on Friday, July 15, 2016 Page 7 of 7 RPL - 11 3.1 On-Table DELEGATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Name of Speaker/Organization: Dr. Paul Kershaw, Founder, Generation Squeeze Presented to: Regional Planning Committee Date Presented: September 9, 2016
Subject: Sponsorship Request – Homes First: Building Housing Common Ground Event, October 25, 2016 To Whom It May Concern,
The first item on the agenda for the Regional Planning Committee on September 9th will be the request from Generation Squeeze to Metro Vancouver to co-sponsor our Homes First: Building Housing Common Ground event on October 25th. I would like to request time to speak briefly about this sponsorship request at the meeting, and to take questions from the Committee. My contact information is below.
Specific action requested: Approve the sponsorship application.
Summary: Request: $7,000 from Metro Vancouver to contribute to a $32,000 event. The other $25,000 are secured from Manulife Bank, the Co-Operators and LandlordsBC.
What is the event? A multi-stakeholder housing workshop in Metro Vancouver focused on themes that impact regional, provincial and federal policy. The workshop aims to identify common ground at the level of basic housing principles, to discuss specific aspects of the problem and search for coherence among the range of housing policy recommendations proposed by various stakeholders in recent months/years. A public report will be distributed summarizing the results and guiding further conversation.
Why this event? Our research at the University of British Columbia has shown younger Canadians are being subjected to a 360 degree squeeze, including high costs for things like housing and child care, stagnant incomes and precarious work, and mounting debts, all of which make it difficult to save for retirement. In hotspot areas like Metro Vancouver, the cost of housing has become a specific financial tipping point.
So much so that Generation Squeeze is treating housing as a “gateway issue” to a larger conversation about affordability and financial security for Canadians in their 20s, 30s and 40s. That said, while our organizational focus is on younger Canadians, we believe housing is a multi-generational issue and treat it as such.
Solutions to the housing affordability crisis are complex, interrelated and in some cases interdependent. Unfortunately, public conversation has tended to focus on isolated policy ideas. In contrast, we believe the public conversation would benefit from taking a step back, to explore whether there is any multi-stakeholder common ground at the level of basic housing principles.
For example, a common-ground principle could be: Homes First. BC's housing market should be regulated primarily to provide an efficient supply of affordable, suitable homes for community members and families to live in.
RPL - 11- 1 While this may sound like an obvious principle, if clearly stated and acted upon, we believe public trust in our regulatory framework could be regained, and our housing markets would come to function significantly better. Without being prescriptive, we imagine the Homes First principle lending momentum and coherence to specific policies that increase supply, including rental; tax housing wealth in fair and innovative ways, and intersect with non- housing market policies that ensure things like child care and transportation don't add up to second and third mortgages.
We believe identifying basic principles for which there is a broad base of support is a critical first step to addressing affordability crises in Canada’s major metropolitan centres.
Proposal • Organize a full-day multi-stakeholder workshop in Metro Vancouver to (a) explore whether common ground can be established at the level of basic housing policy principles, and (b) provide a safe opportunity to explore specific aspects of the problem, and to brainstorm about how to bring to coherence to the range of proposals in public dialogue, as well as identify what may still be missing.
• 40-50 stakeholders will be invited, including, municipal leaders, real estate professionals, home builders, developers, academics and other experts, non-profits, business, labour and a representative group of residents who can speak to their lived experience.
• The workshop will be designed and facilitated as a safe space to openly discuss the issues (i.e. invite-only, limited space, no media present).
• The workshop will produce a public report (perhaps with multimedia components), highlighting identified areas of common ground upon which specific housing solutions can be built.
Workshop follow-up • The purpose of the event is NOT to establish a formal network with ongoing coordination. However, all participants will be encouraged to build on the relationships formed at the workshop.
• If the event is a success, a similar event will be considered for the Greater Toronto Area, where the housing affordability crisis is of similar proportions to Metro Vancouver.
• The Gen Squeeze mission is to revitalize non-partisan democratic engagement among Canadians in their 20s, 30s and 40s to incentivize the world of politics to work for all generations. To this end, we will canvass our own network for feedback on the public report in order to assess whether any of the principles or ideas coming out of the workshop have traction around which allies wish to organize.
Dr. Paul Kershaw University of British Columbia, School of Population & Public Health [email protected]; ph: 604 761 4583; fax: 604 822 0640
Founder, Generation Squeeze Follow us on: twitter | facebook | gensqueeze.ca In your 20s, 30s and 40s and feeling squeezed by stagnant incomes, high costs, less time, or mounting government and environmental debts? Know that you're not alone, and it's not that you're doing something wrong. Something bigger is going on, and governments are slow to adapt. So we're squeezing back by building a national, non- partisan, science-based political voice for citizens, not shareholders. Join us today.
RPL - 11- 2 5.1
To: Regional Planning Committee
From: Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment
Date: August 24, 2016 Meeting Date: Sept 9, 2016
Subject: Association for Generational Equity Request for Funding – Homes First 2016
RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board approve a $7,000 sponsorship contribution to the Association for Generational Equity (Generation Squeeze) in support of hosting Homes First: Building on Common Ground.
PURPOSE This report provides the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider a sponsorship request for $7,000 from the Association for Generational Equity (Generation Squeeze) for its Homes First event, planned to take place on October 25 or 26, 2016.
BACKGROUND On June 10, 2016 Metro Vancouver staff received an email request for funding from Association for Generational Equity (Generation Squeeze) for Homes First. On August 19, 2016, Metro Vancouver received a sponsorship application from the Association for Generational Equity requesting a $7,000 sponsorship for the Society’s Homes First: Building on Common Ground event.
This application is submitted under the guidelines of the Board Sponsorship Policy which identifies criteria for determining the circumstances under which Metro Vancouver will consider sponsorship support, either direct or in‐kind, for events being hosted by external organizations or Metro Vancouver members (Attachment 1). The application form is attached to this report (Attachment 2). An overview of Generation Squeeze and the sponsorship request is provided below.
OVERVIEW Generation Squeeze Generation Squeeze was founded by Dr. Paul Kershaw of the University of BC, after conducting research on generational inequality in Canada. Generation Squeeze aims to address the problem of younger Canadians in their 20s, 30s and 40s being “squeezed” by stagnant incomes, high costs (particularly housing and child care), less time and mounting debts (including a deteriorating environment). The concern is that governments appear to use this wealth to adapt policy for others, including the aging population, leaving less for younger generations. Generation Squeeze aims to influence government policies and the market for solutions. It is modelled after the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, a network of 300,000+ people who successfully lobby governments on behalf of Canadians age 50 plus.
Generation Squeeze sees high housing costs in Metro Vancouver as a financial tipping point for this generation, and a gateway issue to a larger conversation about affordability (See Generation Squeeze, Code Red: Rethinking Canadian Housing Policy, Spring 2016).
RPL - 12 The Homes First event Generation Squeeze is planning to hold a full‐day multi‐stakeholder workshop in Metro Vancouver to (a) explore whether common ground can be established at the level of basic housing policy principles, and (b) provide an opportunity to explore specific aspects of the problem, and to brainstorm about how to bring to coherence to the range of proposals in public dialogue, as well as identify what may still be missing. Forty to fifty stakeholders will be invited, including municipal leaders, real estate professionals, home builders, developers, academics and other experts, non‐ profits, business, labour and a representative group of residents who can speak to their lived experience. The workshop will be designed and facilitated as a safe space to openly discuss the issues (i.e. invite‐only, limited space, no media present). It will produce a public report (perhaps with multimedia components), highlighting identified areas of common ground upon which specific housing solutions can be built. The total budget for the event is $32,000 and other confirmed sponsors are LandlordBC, Manulife and the Cooperators.
The Association for Generational Equity is offering the following recognition to Metro Vancouver as part of the proposed $7,000 sponsorship package for Homes First:
1. Metro Vancouver will be identified as a sponsor in all materials, with logo on banners/brochures at the event. 2. Verbal acknowledgement of Metro Vancouver sponsorship at the event. 3. Invitation for at least two Metro Vancouver representatives to attend the event. 4. Consultation with Metro Vancouver staff on local government representatives to receive invitations.
Sponsorship Policy Criteria Under the Board Sponsorship Policy clear criteria has been established that is intended to guide the decision‐making process for sponsorship proposals. The program or event seeking sponsorship must meet all of the following criteria to qualify for sponsorship:
1. It must offer specific benefits to Metro Vancouver or its members and must clearly outline the specific roles and responsibilities of each party in a formal agreement. 2. The event or program for which sponsorship is being sought must: a) Have an overall community objective and purpose that is consistent with Metro Vancouver’s vision, mission and roles; b) Have operating guidelines and procedures that are consistent with Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework and Board Strategic Plan; c) Be organized and/or supported by a registered charitable organization or not‐for‐ profit entity. 3. Metro Vancouver must receive benefits having a fair value that is consistent with the cost of the sponsorship to be provided. 4. Metro Vancouver must receive appropriate acknowledgement of its contribution to the event or program being sponsored.
RPL - 13 Assessment The Association for Generational Equity (Generation Squeeze) has submitted that it meets all of these criteria, and in particular, it notes that the stated purpose of Homes First – “common ground on housing policy principles” – is consistent with the Metro Vancouver Board’s Strategic Plan, strategic direction 1, for housing:
1) Continue to advocate for funding and programs to improve the affordability of housing in the region.
It also advances the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future Goal 4, Develop Complete Communities. In addition, the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (2016) Goal 1, Action 1g. envisions a role for Metro Vancouver to work with stakeholders to develop and advance regional housing policy directions for specific populations, such as the urban Aboriginal population, seniors, persons with disabilities and other populations. As housing affordability for young people and young families is a very high profile public issue in this region, specific attention to the housing needs of this population is timely and warranted. Local jurisdictions are concerned about the suitability and affordability of the housing supply for young families and have adopted family friendly housing policies.
The request for $7,000 from Metro Vancouver represents 22% of the overall budget for the event. Generation Squeeze has been successful in attracting sponsors for the remaining 78% of the budget.
ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board approve a $7,000 sponsorship contribution to the Association for Generational Equity (Generation Squeeze) in support of hosting Homes First: Building on Common Ground. 2. That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated August 24, 2016, titled “Association for Generational Equity Request for Funding – Homes First 2016“.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board approves this sponsorship, there are sufficient funds in the 2016 Regional Planning budget to support the contribution.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Association for Intergenerational Equity, known as Generation Squeeze, advocates on behalf of young people in their 20s, 30s and 40s, based on the premise that government policy and the market disadvantage or ignore the needs of this generation. Housing affordability and availability in Metro Vancouver is a particular concern for young people and Generation Squeeze. To address this problem, Generation Squeeze plans to host an event to bring key thought leaders in the region together to identify common ground on potential policy solutions. The aim would be to use these insights to advocate to senior levels of government for appropriate actions.
Housing affordability and availability for young people, both renters and owners, is a high profile issue in the region, one which has received little specific policy attention by senior levels of government. Some local governments, recognizing the challenges facing young families to find appropriate and affordable housing, have adopted family housing requirements for new development.
RPL - 14 The proposal fits within the GVRD mandates outlined in the Board Strategic Plan, Metro 2040 and the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. The latter specifically envisioned working with stakeholders to develop and advance regional housing policy directions for specific populations. The proposal meets the conditions outlined in the Board Sponsorship. Alternative 1 is recommended.
Attachments (Orbit Doc #19272429) 1. Board Sponsorship Policy 2. Application Form
References 1. Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy 2016 2. Generation Squeeze. Code Red: Rethinking Canadian Housing Policy. Spring 2016
RPL - 15
BOARD POLICY
SPONSORSHIP Effective Date: July 3, 2015 Approved By: GVRD Board
PURPOSE This policy provides specific criteria for determining the circumstances under which Metro Vancouver sponsorship support, either direct or in‐kind, is appropriate for events and programs being hosted by external organizations or by Metro Vancouver’s members.
DEFINITIONS “Metro Vancouver” refers to any of the four legal entities that comprise the organization: the GVRD, GVS&DD, GVWD, and MVHC.
“Sponsorship” refers to the provision of cash or in‐kind contributions by Metro Vancouver in exchange for a defined set of benefits, such as logo placement, speaking opportunities by Metro Vancouver directors or senior staff, advertising in event publications or on event websites, etc., for any local or regional events.
“In‐kind contributions” are specific contributions that Metro Vancouver may provide in lieu of a cash contribution to an event or program, including: a) Goods, such as: supplies (printed promotional materials); use of Metro Vancouver facilities (waived fees for hosting events at Metro Vancouver venues/facilities); use of Metro Vancouver proprietary supplies or materials (e.g., water for event participants supplied via the Metro Vancouver water wagon) and food/catering; b) Services, such as: staff support (assignment of Metro Vancouver staff to provide expert advice or professional services in support of the sponsored event or program, e.g., event web casting/live streaming, etc.).
POLICY Overview Metro Vancouver is periodically presented with opportunities to build awareness of Metro Vancouver and the Metro Vancouver brand “Services and Solutions for a Livable Region” and to showcase specific Metro Vancouver projects, programs and initiatives and those of its members through sponsorship of local and regional events. This policy is intended to provide clear guidelines as to what sort of sponsorship opportunities will be considered and how they will be given consideration.
11626310 Sponsorship Policy Page 1 of 4 RPL - 16 BOARD POLICY
Overall, Metro Vancouver seeks to support events and programs that achieve all of the following broad objectives:
1. Clearly advance Metro Vancouver’s corporate goals and objectives; 2. Relate directly to one or more of Metro Vancouver’s statutory functions (Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Greater Vancouver Sewerage &Drainage District (GVS&DD), Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD, Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC); 3. Provide a clear, positive community benefit to the Metro Vancouver region overall.
This policy applies to all sponsorship proposals regardless of their cost or the type of contribution (i.e., cash or any in‐kind contributions), although a separate review procedure has been put in place for sponsorships with a total value of more than $1,500. In addition to the eligibility criteria set out below, sponsorship opportunities that promote Metro Vancouver’s brand, projects, programs and initiatives will be considered as providing higher value to Metro Vancouver, as will sponsorship opportunities that involve or promote four or more Metro Vancouver members or that have a prominent connection to Metro Vancouver or member facilities.
This policy does not apply to grants or the provision of other forms of assistance.
Eligibility Criteria To be considered, a sponsorship proposal must meet ALL of the following criteria:
(1) It must offer specific benefits to Metro Vancouver or its members and must clearly outline the specific roles and responsibilities of each party in a formal agreement. (2) The event or program for which sponsorship is being sought must: a) Have an overall community objective and purpose that is consistent with Metro Vancouver’s vision, mission and roles; b) Have operating guidelines and procedures that are consistent with Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability Framework and Board Strategic Plan; c) Be organized and/or supported by a registered charitable organization or not‐for‐ profit entity. (3) Metro Vancouver must receive benefits having a fair value that is consistent with the cost of the sponsorship to be provided. (4) Metro Vancouver must receive appropriate acknowledgement of its contribution to the event or program being sponsored.
Sponsorship opportunities that involve or promote four or more Metro Vancouver members will be considered as providing higher value to Metro Vancouver.
Metro Vancouver will not consider any sponsorship proposals for events or programs that:
(1) Primarily promote a private or commercial interest; (2) Promote or support political or religious organizations; (3) Exclude or marginalize minority community groups; (4) Pose potential environmental hazards; (5) Involve the taking of unnecessary risks, or that put the general public at risk.
Sponsorship Policy Page 2 of 4 RPL - 17 BOARD POLICY
Notwithstanding any of the criteria or procedures outlined in this policy, Metro Vancouver has no obligation to provide sponsorship and may, at its sole discretion, decline to sponsor any event or program for any reason, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
(1) The stated purpose of the event or program for which sponsorship is being sought; (2) Metro Vancouver budgetary or financial considerations at the time of the sponsorship request; (3) The projected reach of the event or program and its visibility in communities that make up the Metro Vancouver region.
Sponsorship Budgets The annual budgets for the Metro Vancouver sponsorship program are included within the individual department budgets and are considered annually by the designated Standing Committee that has oversight of those budgets. Final approval of sponsorship program budgets shall be through the applicable Board following review by the standing committee with responsibility for the general government budget.
Application and Review Procedure
1. Funding Requests Greater than $1,500 Organizations seeking a sponsorship with a total value greater than $1,500 must submit their request to Metro Vancouver in writing at least three months in advance of the event/program for which sponsorship is being requested, and must provide the following details with respect to the event or program for which sponsorship is being sought:
a) The official name of the event or program; b) The date(s) and times(s) of the event or program, as applicable; c) A general description of the event or program, including its overall objective(s); d) The overall budget for the event or program and the total cash or cash equivalent amount of sponsorship being sought; e) An accounting of how event organizers plan to allocate the cash or in‐kind contributions provided by Metro Vancouver should the sponsorship application be approved; f) A listing of other stakeholders that will be approached to provide sponsorships for the event or program; g) A listing of the specific benefits that will accrue to Metro Vancouver should it proceed with the sponsorship being sought; h) A detailed description of how and to what degree Metro Vancouver’s members will be involved in the event or program; i) A description of the anticipated outcomes of the event or program and how this will be measured and reported.
Notwithstanding the prescribed timeline outlined in the application process above, the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors may, at its sole discretion, waive this requirement for sponsorship opportunities that meet the objectives of this policy and that meet the eligibility requirements described in Section 2.
Sponsorship Policy Page 3 of 4 RPL - 18 BOARD POLICY
For proposals seeking sponsorship with a total value greater than $1,500, Metro Vancouver staff will prepare a Committee report for consideration by the appropriate standing committee (including a recommendation on the proposal), which will assess the proposal based on the criteria included in this policy. If endorsed by the standing committee, the report and attached sponsorship proposal will be forwarded to the relevant Metro Vancouver Board for its consideration.
2. Funding Requests For $1,500 or Less Organizations seeking a sponsorship with a total value of $1,500 or less must submit their request to Metro Vancouver in writing at least two months in advance of the event/program for which sponsorship is being requested, and must provide the following details with respect to the event or program for which sponsorship is being sought:
a) The official name of the event or program; b) The date(s) and times(s) of the event/program, as applicable; c) A general description of the event or program, including its overall objective(s); d) The overall budget for the event or program and the total cash or cash equivalent amount of sponsorship being sought; e) A listing of the specific benefits that will accrue to Metro Vancouver should it proceed with the sponsorship being sought.
For proposals seeking sponsorship with a total value of $1,500 or less, the proposal will initially be assessed by the applicable Metro Vancouver department based on the criteria included in this policy and will be reviewed by the department General Manager/Senior Director and the CFO/GM of Financial Services in accordance with the approved sponsorship program budget. The sponsorship program request may either be approved or denied, or may be referred to the appropriate Metro Vancouver standing committee for further consideration.
Sponsorship Policy Page 4 of 4 RPL - 19 The Vancouver: • • 3.
2. 1. Selection Metro
• • Application • 4) For • For 3) The 2) sponsorship:
1) Eligibility Sponsorship Sponsorship have Water Provides Clearly Applicants Relates District Applicants seeking A A Must following seeking Must The sponsorship program c. Metro Metro b. a. roles It program request request must Vancouver Sustainability vision, Have Be Have
event metrovancouver SERVICES a and submit submit
District Criteria
prominent Criteria advances Vancouver Vancouver organized directly offer sponsorship sponsorship (GVRD), a
being Requirements types responsibilities an must must clear, or seeking seeking operating or mission opportunities opportunities to AND specific the the program overall seeks (GVWD), event to sponsored. be be be of positive SOLUTIONS attached Metro attached
Greater Metro and/or connection one Framework provided. must sponsorship sponsorship received must sponsorship received and to benefits community seeking or support guidelines for roles; Metro Vancouver’s receive more receive community supported of which Vancouver Sponsorship that Sponsorship
that Vancouver FOR in in each to to and sponsorship writing Vancouver writing events of A promote involve with with opportunities Metro Metro sponsorship LIVABLE benefits appropriate Metro objective party and Board by a a corporate benefit and Sewerage at at total total Vancouver a Vancouver Application or in Application REGION Vancouver’s procedures Metro least least registered Strategic a having Housing programs promote
formal Sponsorship must value and value to RPL - 20 is two acknowledgement three will goals being Vancouver’s the purpose &Drainage a of greater meet or be Plan; months Corporation or agreement. fair Form Form Metro charitable four that months $1,500 its statutory that and sought member considered value members all or achieve filled filled objectives; that than Vancouver in are more or of brand, in must: District advance
that Applications organization functions: facilities less: is advance out out $1,500: the (MVHC); consistent all consistent as of Metro and with in is projects, of following providing its fGVS&DD), its consistent region must of the the of contribution entirety Vancouver the Greater following the clearly or exception with with event overall. programs not-for-profit event criteria higher with Vancouver Greater Metro outline Metro or members broad or to value program the
of FOR to and program the section Vancouver’s the cost Vancouver objectives: qualify Vancouver initiatives to
entity. EXTERNAL event Regional specific or Metro of 4 that the for
or USE
Equity
Act thought-leaders
PUBLICLY (AGE))
A and
OF
Generational
for Corporations
PART
Equity
residents TBD
AS
application:
BC NFP
WEBSITE
the
in
Vancouver Association
PUBLISHED
paulgensqueze.ca
the
Times Metro
BE
Canada
Generational
for Meadows,
VANCOUVER and
MAY
contained
the
for
Email:
Pitt name):
METRO applicable:
FORM
workshop
2016. Iday
RPL - 21
as
under
Squeeze, $7,000 THE
THIS
$32,000 Road, REGION ON
IN
information
Housing
26,
registered
www.gensqueeze.ca
Ford (Association
LIVABLE
program, or
A Generation
AGENDA
or Ground.
PROVIDED
program: of
FOR
regarding
(legally
program:
incorporated
25
or
information
17280
is or
BOARD
event
program:
Squeeze
title, Common of
OR
or
event
Founder
different
on Oct
SOLUTIONS
event
AGE
if and
of
requested:
number: information
INFORMATION
of program
AND
6047614583
organization
event
time(s)
Building
THE Act
or
of being
COMMIHEE
the
person,
budget
address Kershaw.
and
name
Generation
First: of metrovancouver SERVICES
NOTE:
Event
Applicant
Society 905516-9.
Paul
Overall Amount
Duration
Date(s)
Official
BC Homes
2.
Contact
Mailing
Name Website:
Telephone:
Address:
1 Dr. PLEASE ACCESSIBLE bold problems. medical solve solutions available comparison The services Vancouver through The pnsblem Consistent adalta poticy The The event The Hoao/ng /mprove cohoain functions • o speak • • a aapects Wcrkvkwp a We heing At/re Par conversation • Praposel younger an work, market Whb? resulte discuss What? How Satuhace So Housing Vancouver Drainage How following How Describe The The It Organ/ace 3a Describe h wvthahcp The go-ho The the mush scamp/c. halinve event event Gee purpose pnnamlptiue, end this standard wcrkshep ways event Oar a and directions policins and stakohelders tat of spacinc A big their so Alignment at the map mwouang a talon-up Stratngy Oavneec multkstakehvldec the above research toedhacb Went/tying guIding Caoodtans. does that care, will wilt mill does in ho tull-day the does wculo affocdability with and a lIved problems at problem, in evidence effordah/tity a sound that camnwn.vnound bcuslng that aspects will w,.l Generetion the success, In advance
advance SERVICES metrovancouver advance genenatiovs the we With the eopnconce s/abe, benoht eesare minswe tar he produce debts. events at multl-stokeks/der money this nthe nn will Metro Corporation to of like or imagine has/s the Will deelgord the wo Metro and your District h arben the (Greater World of affordability address the be areas: the the an living seniors a conversation 1976 att he/varsity the tram region betwce things spirit, housing public to principles into nie,includIng, inuited, s/hear in the Sguoeee three Malta cbuiaue e NOT goals ensure Housing ot at to hralnstcnn thn facing public rba and probtam which Vancowver which taking principle creates koos/og and aao young rata/og raotabn goat specific like of event to inwrnes address report event housings event for the event AND GVRD (after event 2040 Ahoriginat waAnhap cysts establish report pnnc/pie. at we Vancouver au/I/toted chad Is tnd wothshop provincial make a costa reporting articalated Oetlah hrwadth eeating young step with Ira/cm could oil which entire our nheut P/cat are coscpartnon (GVS&DD), oste Gaol /n intend overall? eaarch perhaps housing it SOLUTIONS relate he bock, inflation), Hoosing a municipal systemic Vancouver aompleo. tar region. the a ainkult Cotumbia a In principle be as muttt.geneeatesed them hew end cvrsrdnrnd bvuemg region, In these dewly venal or to Matra or popatatine, or 4 at things children. a Metro tar to (MVHC)? assess adults inverse generations or sate Oevntop transportation /n to Corporation. benefits with orn regional corrent isa eoplare to coherehua our the Metro goals oeo serb coherob and program hang deewucetic Vancouver the stated lnteeelotnd program program lend/mg leaders, and save hoe as space Vandauver broad mrvvronedia like problems, program, whether P/ret. a tw Metro province event 2. highest to ehawn to problems While ‘gateway Transportation toe wtwthee federal identified and in the Coroplete transportation ookmecoe to eir,persona seniors, momentum Faw/litate bose tact retbntnent among ace issue openly the acted Creator don’t tocused ovgogemont FOR and/n say 2040: the ysonger Vanoosvnc cogoing to estate cumpocorts), at Greater thete to housing hwvaing /coue and a) from at support/ca add region Regional upon, the insane. discuss rates Vancouver In of some In ecplcon Use politics. Tvwntu help nthamna an and collaboratIon Common/I/nc. and pmtess/acols, A and ie tract up at range con/c/cat/sn. Canad,aee the ha tn for provide following in directly advance principles any as ecwbet hotapot to LIVABLE coherence armorg cases Coal Which a 2015-2018 the range end a the/scone Regionat second targm whothor country binince including mult/’stekebddnr families, of ae catalyze build imea. tugbligiclmg is critical Shaping with prices huu&ng cud, that child Swrdev ebauld interdependent. of poverty ames in Canadians are or ccnaersai/cn BC where prvposals and macow, Vancouver home event public dlsahit/tien impact individuals Woes omnground common grot to significant betng non-partisan arssng care Ia. like apoc/tc Howaing policy he tb/in strategic District and Weal/tad step REGION are continues we builders, Invite-snIp, Study corning regulated a wet business, relate enthusiasm Mesa regIonal, subjected add in mwngages. In housing Metro to before eli comnmwn recammcndatlons thai membeta clear, pd/cs/a in hu affaineheap shout publIc up Canada functions: addressIng panic/pacts Uptwnunately. Vancower. our and op (2015). Affordability out roses Sponsorship deunlapora, or plan RPL - 22 20a, its pefrndesy provincial hundreds I/mi/nd can rsgoatwy Our to to affoedabhoy of dIalogue, decline cannot other ground htIsceesse that 360 a the at aecand We Old (p. be program to to overall political (GVRD), common to the planners, affordabsltp wnthehnp apace, tag establIshed rot/c 241: positive the to have Vancouver’s populations, Work eapand degree and at Water among public acadomIco Age es benrswarh eoent provide proposed he one nost 40s the Strategy Future, end minis and Work wall federal as anacoraged no 1. gmond supply, leo& of Ia conueroasan at sgueaaa, bores/Is havo Conhgwe rnndie a for on mill Security. in third adsas Ircantluine full-time the an momentum housing at thousands at proud at hy West//p policy. and or could the ens/ant the their and traction upon be (p. sm/or inducting all has/c range the var/sue objective(s): present). as mortgage in level seovhy District ether Greater lsctuding tramed in to 2t( Cenada’a hoe generations. ha warranted.” more The winch public community whet to housing bohe has others. the proportions supply way wound at rags/md. tradition at eapoffs, stakehclders to: becone and advocate workshop earnings nestal, hosic acaffd GVRD tended Metro for Policy may hoooing or spec/tv Policy hIgh so “Work payments Canadians at majar principles. the of which out to and still corporate housing at tao that affordable. con’prstts, e costs and to rinatwnaklps pc/rIco to dollars. of spec/ho shape housing he alma Our housing tacos metropolitan Our housing, to alone (GVWD), Metro with alas options Ir the our of changes missing. decision Vancouver for other rececst policy have to Metro in housing event building to conversation as things event Vancouver beans/at wish stskeholdnrs Vancouver. Ides/Wy thea suinahia so/sInes wealth work business, role Isolated the principles, orders months/beam. — twmsd in to 0.3aand 30a 20s. The ______tha mill centres. benefit dropped for the markets eg. crgonien common In tIpping sseeres design Will dramatically hossleg s/I makers con faa tacos policy lobcur regIon. at at and pocoortiosca. resulting goals in people the and and he Vancouver’s government would looetes both paint Metro for to Woes. ground through hell. wvrksbep on endampressntatioe and A ewacatlce )b) dOs. devetop commundy regional adapting pus/Ic 3. roughly n implementation and the proc/ce comets Sewerage uhdd to In Update shine That at to howaing going contrast, To needs report the adapt and in squeeze cars. said. ways. this and a function for reduced level msntha,s the cote Vancouver wit the stageant each end, a s,ooo shea twading and public advance we ac and bankrupt thas/c at opportunIty light be housing regional objectives? we believe sigmficontty pert group Metro intersect dIstributed Metro interests our and we planning Inuamee for segartahonat hoselng n pragramo and statutory on at these tom/cs tresidents at policy canvass regionet by the of and a time, to Affnrdabte edth the public hroadar nap/are eummadakrg before better ot and policy the precIpIce, to nsn.hauslng of poang our precorloua to live best hausing who awe policy specAv Wahcot once In in to can In the in of
has
by be a
for
by
or
being invite
as will
media the
government the be
above, beverage dialogue.
friendly
measured and
to on
earned
event provided day’s
federal
and $6237
by be
identified
provided day. noted
intergovernmental is the the
family
fee the on acknowledgement on
be
event, members
the
Food
BC
include will
which
speakers sponsorship
measured for will
to the to
based
of for
be event influence
verbal
this the
of $8243; will individuals report be developed Strategy
a used attend
This this
of
Management throughout terms
the
how be to
in
with contributions
also of
Vancouver Union. for
Housing
Vancouver’s will
governments
$158; facilitation recently election.
will
and Landlords
production sponsorships
measured
and dialogue Metro
the National and
local in-kind have
and
Credit proceed
the Metro invite-list
There the provincial 21
to
it or etc.; through the
that budget up the
above, participants to
representatives program
the provide
up
Speakers
on shape organization
event.
for
total
or cash
platforms.
to degree Van the lead principles, lead
measured Vancity from
in should
the
the the be party
the
the at
identified
approved: Co-operators.
of $4631;
in event. will else
Metro
Material
partners
and event
reserved what RPL - 23 outcomes, dialogue
municipalities
2
be $1,500
This
the 22%
provincial to who goals
in
The and
dialogue the
REGION for on
public material spots
event’s
$5670;
least
allocate
of supports
plan approached
public and
the
over
Vancouver at principles. about those
shape
two
hired to for
influence be
to for
LIVARLE represents shape also
of
as:
that members
the how A
housing Foundation
media
have banner/brochures will
wilt application
to
Manulife.
plan
equipment
Metro
will promotional directly terms
strategic
of
on we FOR in
basic down
priority
$7,000 seeking
earned
outcomes the
of
and
program: for ot
principles of
principles
that
invitations
that logo
give level
funding options. GVRD
addition
or
Vancouver breaks measured
terms Technical the In around consulted around
will in
pieces
with the at
and should
SOLUTIONS
sponsors:
organizers Vancouver
be
receive
Vancouver.
$84; Metro We
etc:
benefits
description
event
housing
facilitators Print
ground
contribution
$31935 will will AND
measured
anticipated
of
applicants that event.
convergence
of
Squeeze convergence Metro
be
the
event
Way,
materials, promoting invite-only.
principles, stakeholders will common
the
$4914;
the
by in
for team
housing,
all
to improve
is specific
to at generally.
This
detailed
ensure
Vancouver
in
budget
to
how
metrovancouver confirmed
SERVICES
Vancouver
a Transportation
Vancouver
Vancouver
rental reported:
outcomes,
the
other
will United
event
Only total multi-stakeholder more
multi-stakeholder
addition
Metro
Describe
and
involved
Give
List
sought: List committed. Multi-stakeholder The commitments
event’s
program: This
policies
This Metro Metro list
Detail 4.
The
Metro
determined
In
sponsors
sponsor
Other
Generation
the
$1999;
Our Space
professional A given By Signature Signature Submitted _____ On 5. • • signing beb Conditions Sponsorship under Information promotional in
SERVICES metrovancouver of our Chair/President this the by: .•—- application form BC AND Dr. Generation provided recipients and materials Freedom SOLUTIONS Paul we of signature do is Board Kershaw, complete in solemnly related of must FOR the Squeeze of Information Directors A Sponsorship acknowledge LIVABLE UBC to and declare the (Association name REGION true Professor funded and name, that, af RPL - 24 in Application organization the Protection every title event to and support the Date Date August25, August25, for respect. Founder or best Generational Form of program. of Privacy of Metro a be may our of 2016 2016 Generation knowledge, Act Vancouver subject Equity, to Squeeze the on AGE) disclosure all information 5.2
To: Regional Planning Committee
From: Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner, Parks, Planning, and Environment Department
Date: August 22, 2016 Meeting Date: September 9, 2016
Subject: Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver
RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) Send a letter to the BC Minister of Community Sport and Cultural Development and the Minister of Agriculture requesting farm property tax reform for the Metro Vancouver region, as described in the White Paper titled, “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”; and b) Convey the report dated August 22, 2016, titled “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”, to member municipalities, the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Capital Regional District, and the Okanagan‐Similkameen Regional District.
PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider recommendations stemming from a three‐year review of farm property tax policy, as described in the White Paper titled, “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver” (Attachment).
BACKGROUND Over the last three years, both the Regional Planning Committee and GVRD Board have received a series of consultant reports related to the Farm Property Tax Review project. On April 22, 2016, the Regional Planning Committee received the third report, “Farm Tax Class Income Threshold Investigation”, which conveyed consultant work assessing whether farm income threshold requirements for the classification of land as farm for assessment purposes warrant adjustment.
A White Paper prepared by staff titled, “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”, presents the key results and recommendations from the Farm Property Tax Review. This report summarizes the tax policies affecting agriculture land use and provides the Regional Planning Committee and GVRD Board an opportunity to endorse the recommendations in the paper and to advocate to the Province for associated farm tax policy reform.
FARM PROPERTY TAX REVIEW PROJECT The Farm Property Tax Review project was undertaken to identify tax policies that can be used as a lever to encourage farming and / or discourage non‐farm uses within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in the Metro Vancouver region. A series of consultant reports and additional analysis were completed to improve the understanding of the linkage between farm property tax policies and land use in the ALR.
19186788 RPL - 25
The first report, “Property Tax Scenario Analysis for Agricultural and Industrial Lands in the Metro Vancouver Region”, described the property tax benefits for landowners when their land is classified as farm by BC Assessment. This report revealed that the assessed value of agricultural land is the main reason for the lower taxes paid by landowners who are not farming in the ALR. The second report, “Farm Property Tax Investigation”, evaluated seven farm property tax options to determine if they could be used to encourage farming or discourage non‐farm uses within the ALR. Based on the work undertaken by these consultants, and input from municipalities, the following four farm property tax policies were examined in more detail.
1. School Tax Exemption 2. Classification of Land as Farm 3. The Assessed Value of Agricultural Land 4. Assessment of Farm Buildings
The amount of the school tax exemption was calculated for the different property classes in Metro Vancouver using data provided by BC Assessment. The “Farm Tax Class Income Threshold Investigation” report informed the discussion on classification of land as farm and whether an increase in farm income thresholds for farm class is warranted. Examples of the financial implications of how the assessed value of agricultural land affects property tax were drawn from the first two consultants’ reports. The process and legislative context for the assessment of farm buildings was provided by BC Assessment.
ENCOURAGING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION THROUGH FARM PROPERTY TAX REFORM: WHITE PAPER There are an increasing number of property owners in the ALR who are using agricultural land for purposes other than farming. Existing tax policy enables these property owners to receive a lower tax assessment than similar homes or businesses located within the region’s Urban Containment Boundary. In addition, property owners that do not farm themselves, but rather lease their land to a farmer, receive benefits intended for farmers including significantly lower taxes, when their property is classified as farm for assessment purposes.
The repercussions of purchasing or utilizing agricultural land for purposes other than farming can affect the long term viability of food production in this region. Non‐farm use of the ALR increases competition for agricultural land, resulting in higher land costs that erode the financial viability of farming while preventing new farmers from establishing a business. Leased agricultural land enables existing farms to expand their acreage at a low cost, but may limit infrastructure investments that are often necessary to improve the profitability of farming. Fewer capital investments in agriculture can result in lost economic development opportunities at a time when the demand for local food is growing. Non‐farm residential housing located in the ALR, can also spur conflicts over farm management practices that produce noise, dust and odours. In addition, the proliferation of non‐farm residential and commercial uses outside the Urban Containment Boundary can increase the demand for services such as utilities, transit, police, fire and emergency services, all of which are financed by local governments through property taxes.
The White Paper aims to inform decision makers about the implications of existing farm property tax policy to agricultural land use and the necessity for tax reform to maintain the ALR for farming in the Metro Vancouver region. A draft version of the White Paper was circulated earlier this spring
RPL - 26 to Metro Vancouver’s Regional Planning Advisory Committee, Agricultural Advisory Committee, an external reviewer, and a Task Group formed to provide advice on the overall Farm Property Tax Review project. Feedback received from these groups was considered and incorporated.
Results The results presented in the White Paper are based on the consultants’ reports, additional analysis completed by Metro Vancouver staff, as well as information and feedback provided by various stakeholders including provincial agencies. The Farm Property Tax Review project revealed that: 78% of the $4 million school tax exemption in Metro Vancouver goes to residential properties in the ALR that are not farming. This tax benefit is also extended to other agency fees (i.e. regional district, hospitals, TransLink, and Municipal Finance Authority). The farm income threshold requirement for classification of land as farm for assessment purposes is outdated and warrants an adjustment, especially since the last increase to the current threshold of $2,500 for farms greater than 2 hectares occurred in 1993. A new two‐tier farm classification benefit system could encourage increased investments in agricultural production. The lower income tier would provide one set of benefits for smaller farms, while another higher income tier would provide a greater set of tax benefits, thereby encouraging more agricultural production on commercial farms. The method for assessing the value of agricultural land not used for farming creates a financial incentive for non‐farm residential and commercial uses to locate in the ALR. This policy results in similar sized homes and comparable businesses in a municipality to have different property tax structures, depending on whether they are located in the ALR or not. Provincial assessment staff have adequate processes in place to assess buildings in the ALR but are challenged when new non‐farm permitted uses are approved. The farm building assessment process would benefit from more proactive notification between the Agricultural Land Commission, municipalities and BC Assessment.
The Farm Property Tax Review revealed that tax policy is a relevant financial lever that can influence how agricultural land is used. The tax policies investigated should be reformed to create more effective financial incentives for expanding agriculture production and supporting new farms in the ALR, while preventing the displacement of farming activities. Tax reform is also necessary to remove the financial incentives for non‐farm residential and commercial uses to locate in the ALR and address equity issues among municipal taxpayers. When non‐farm property owners of agricultural land benefit from tax policy intended for active farms, taxpayers within the Urban Containment Boundary are unintentionally financing the non‐farm uses of the ALR. The most effective way to address farm property tax reform is to take a multi‐pronged approach that both encourages agriculture production while discouraging non‐farm uses through more than one tax policy option.
Recommendations While the authority to make legislative changes to farm property tax policy rests with the provincial government, local governments can advocate for tax reform to ensure an equitable balance of benefits among farmers, other landowners and the public interest. As conveyed through the White Paper, there are four recommendations proposed to encourage agricultural production while removing the financial incentives for non‐farm uses of agricultural land. The recommendations are for the Province of BC to: RPL - 27
1. Eliminate the 50% School Tax exemption for properties classed as residential (Class 1) in the ALR. This change would also apply to regional district, hospitals, Transit and other agency fees.
2a. Change the income threshold to achieve farm classification to a minimum of $3,500, regardless of farm size for the Metro Vancouver region, and ensure that the threshold is reassessed every five years and adjusted according to the rate of inflation; and
2b. Develop a two‐tier farm classification benefits system that allocates only some tax benefits to farms with an income threshold of $3,500, while providing the full package of tax benefits to the more productive farms with an income threshold at $10,000. This would create an incentive for farms to reach the higher income threshold. Determining the appropriate allocation of benefits for a two tier system requires consultation with the agricultural community and the agencies providing secondary benefits to properties with farm class.
3. Adjust the method for valuing agricultural land not used for farming to discourage further non‐ farm development in the ALR. The adjustment could consider valuing agricultural land not used for farming as if it was located in the applicable zone within the Urban Containment Boundary. Implementing this recommendation requires additional policy analysis and consultation with local governments and must ensure that any reform stipulates that tax policy is not justification for removing land from the ALR.
4. Encourage local governments and the Agricultural Land Commission to develop new protocols to enable BC Assessment to obtain timely information on changes in land use and new commercial business activities in the ALR to ensure an appropriate tax assessment of buildings and improvements.
While these recommendations to reform farm property tax policy are specifically for the Metro Vancouver region, they could be applied to other areas of British Columbia faced with non‐farm residential and commercial encroachment in the ALR.
ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board: a) Send a letter to the BC Minister of Community Sport and Cultural Development and Minister of Agriculture requesting farm property tax reform for the Metro Vancouver region, as described in the White Paper titled, “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”; and b) Convey the report dated August 22, 2016, titled “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”, to member municipalities, the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Capital Regional District, and the Okanagan‐Similkameen Regional District. 2. That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated August 22, 2016, 2016 titled “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications to advocating for farm property tax reform.
RPL - 28 SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The key results and recommendations from the Farm Property Tax Review are presented in a White Paper titled, “Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver”. The results are based on a three year investigation that included three separate consultants’ reports, staff analysis and stakeholder input. The White Paper informs decision makers about existing farm property tax policy and the necessity of tax reform to encourage farming on agricultural land in the Metro Vancouver region.
There are an increasing number of property owners in the ALR who are using agricultural land for purposes other than farming. Existing tax policy enables these property owners to receive a lower tax assessment than similar homes or businesses located within the region’s Urban Containment Boundary. The repercussions of non‐farm uses of agricultural land includes higher costs for land that erode the financial viability of farming and prevent new farmers from establishing a business. Non‐farm residential housing located in the ALR can also spur conflicts over farm management practices. For local governments, proliferation of non‐farm residential and commercial uses outside the Urban Containment Boundary can increase the demand for services such as utilities, transit, police, fire and emergency services, all of which are financed through municipal property taxes.
In addition, property owners that do not farm themselves, but rather lease their land to a farmer, receive benefits intended for farmers including significantly lower taxes, when their property is classified as farm for assessment purposes. Leased agricultural land enables existing farms to expand their acreage at a low cost, but will limit infrastructure investments that are often necessary to improve the profitability of farming. Fewer capital investments in agriculture can result in lost economic development opportunities at a time when the demand for local food is growing.
The investigation revealed that farm property tax policy is a relevant financial lever that can influence how agricultural land is used. Tax reform is necessary to create stronger incentives for expanding agriculture development while preventing the displacement of farming activities in the ALR. Four recommendations emerged from the Farm Property Tax Review: 1) eliminate the 50% School Tax exemption for properties classed as residential; 2) change the income threshold to achieve farm classification to a minimum of $3,500 and develop a two‐tier farm classification benefits system; 3) adjust the method for valuing agricultural land not used for farming; and 4) enable BC Assessment to obtain timely information on changes in land use and new commercial business activities in the ALR.
While the authority to make legislative changes to farm property tax policy rests with the provincial government, local governments can advocate for tax reform to ensure an equitable balance of benefits among farmers, other landowners and the public interest. Staff recommends Alternative 1.
Attachment: Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver (Orbit Doc 18648365)
References 1. Property Tax Scenario Analysis for Agricultural and Industrial Lands in the Metro Vancouver region, Colliers International, February 2014. 2. Farm Property Tax Investigation in the Metro Vancouver region, KM Consulting, January 2015. 3. Farm Tax Class Income Threshold Investigation, Upland Consulting, December 30, 2015
RPL - 29 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver
RPL - 30 Table of Contents
4 Policies Under Review
5 Options To Reform Farm Property Tax
5 School Tax Exemption
7 Classification of Land as Farm
11 The Assessed Value of Agricultural Land
13 Assessment of Farm Buildings
15 Recommendations
16 Final Comments
17 End Notes
2 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax ReformRPL - 31 in Metro Vancouver Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver
This White Paper presents the results and recommendations land tenure, most farmers are hesitant to invest in of Metro Vancouver’s Farm Property Tax Review. The Review equipment, buildings and other infrastructure that is was undertaken to identify tax policies that can be used as often necessary to improve the profitability of farming; a lever to encourage farming or discourage non-farm land uses within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in the Metro • Limited investments in agricultural production that can Vancouver region. The research and analysis conducted result in lost economic development opportunities during this review considered whether existing farm at a time when demand for local food is growing and property tax policies, enacted to serve the public interest, concerns about food security over the long term are still provide the financial incentives to maintain the region’s being raised; ALR for farming, and if not, what could be done about it. • Increasing number of conflicts over farm management Agricultural land 1 in Metro Vancouver is increasingly practices when non-farm residential housing is located on agricultural land; and threatened from non-farm land uses, not just exclusions 2 from the ALR . The first comprehensive agricultural land use • The proliferation of non-farm residential and commercial inventory of Metro Vancouver, completed in 2011 by the BC uses outside the Urban Containment Boundary that will Ministry of Agriculture, revealed that only half of the region’s increase the demand for services such as utilities, transit, 3 60,893 hectares (ha) in the ALR is actively farmed . Many of police, fire and emergency services, all of which are the landowners in the ALR are using agricultural land for financed by local governments through property taxes. purposes other than farming including residential, which occupies 48% of the ALR land that is not used for farming 4. When farm property tax policy inadvertently creates financial Today in Metro Vancouver, there are more non-farm property tax advantages for non-farm residential and commercial uses owners in the ALR, then there are farmers 5. in the ALR, questions of equity among taxpayers emerge. Reforming farm property tax policies may or may not increase In addition, almost a third of the total farmed area (9,799 ha) total taxes collected by municipal governments, however, it in the region is not farmed by the landowner, but rather is will redistribute the tax burden more equitably. Tax reform 6 leased to farmers . These leases agreements are registered can help ensure that the lower tax assessment applied to with BC Assessment, thereby qualifying the property as a properties in the ALR be attributed, as intended, to those farm for assessment purposes, commonly referred to as investing in agriculture and managing farmland for food “farm status”. Farm status confers significant tax benefits to production over the long term. It can also better support the property owner. provincial, regional and municipal objectives to protect agricultural land for farming, increase actively farmed land Existing tax policy enables property owners that are not and improve the viability of agriculture. farming in the ALR to receive a lower tax assessment than homes or businesses located within the region’s Farm property tax reform requires changes to provincial 7 Urban Containment Boundary . When agricultural land is legislation. Local governments can play a role by advocating purchased and utilized for purposes other than farming, it for tax reform to ensure an equitable balance of benefits can lead to: between farmers, other landowners and the public interest. The results and recommendations identified in this White • Higher prices for agricultural land that erode the financial Paper are based on conditions in the Metro Vancouver viability of farming and can prevent new farmers from region, but could also apply to other areas of BC working to establishing a farm business; protect agricultural land from conversion to non-farm uses. • Lease agreements that enable existing farms to expand their acreage at a low cost. While leases keep agricultural land in production over the short term, without secure
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - 32Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 3 Policies Under Review 3. The Assessed Value of Agricultural Land
The assessed value of land classified as farm for assessment The Farm Property Tax Review began in 2013 to improve purposes is based on the productive value of the land. the understanding of farm property tax policies related In Metro Vancouver, this results in an assessed value to land use in the ALR. The first report, completed by that is much below the market value of the land. Other Colliers International, described the property tax benefits properties in the ALR not used for farming, are assessed for landowners when their land is classified as a farm by based on the principle of ‘highest and best use’ using 8 BC Assessment . The report revealed that the method for the market value and sales of comparable parcels in the assessing the value of agricultural land that is not farmed ALR. These ALR properties often have a lower assessed often results in lower taxes for landowners. land value and therefore pay lower property taxes than similar residential houses or businesses that are located Further investigation into farm property tax policy within the Urban Containment Boundary. Examples of completed by KM Consulting, investigated areas of the financial implications of how the assessed value of property tax policy that could be used to encourage agricultural land impacts property tax were drawn from farming or discourage non-farm land uses within the the Colliers and KM Consulting reports. ALR 9. The potential impacts of adjusting seven farm tax policies were evaluated and options requiring further consideration were identified. Based on the work 4. Assessment of Farm Buildings undertaken by these consultants, and feedback from Buildings are improvements on the land, and therefore municipalities and others, the following four farm property are considered separately in tax policy. Both residential tax policies were examined. and farm buildings are classified as residential (Class 1) and assessed at market value. If the building is located on 1. School Tax Exemption land classified as farm, and used exclusively to operate a farm, at least 87.5% of the assessed value of the farm The School Act allows all residential, farm and other buildings is exempt from all property taxation. The properties in the ALR to receive a 50% school tax process and legislative context for the assessment of farm exemption, whether the land is farmed or not. Also, buildings was provided by BC Assessment 12. the 50% school tax exemption is extended to hospital, regional district, transit authority, BC Assessment and municipal financial authority fees. The amount of the school tax exemption was calculated for the different property classes in Metro Vancouver using data provided by BC Assessment.
2. Classification of Land as Farm
The Assessment Act designates nine property classes, one of which is farm (Class 9) 10. To qualify as a farm for assessment purposes, a farmer must produce a prescribed amount of qualifying agricultural products for sale. All property owners must apply to have their land classified as farm. Landowners can also have a portion of their land classified as farm if it is leased to a farmer who meets the BC Assessment requirements. The Upland Consulting report informed the discussion on classification of land as farm and whether an increase in farm income thresholds for farm class is warranted 11.
4 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax ReformRPL - 33 in Metro Vancouver Options To Reform Farm Property Tax 1. School Tax Exemption
The School Act provides a 50% exemption in provincial The ability to encourage more farming within the ALR or school taxes for all land in the ALR including those to discourage landowners from using agricultural land for properties classified as residential, vacant, and other purposes other than farming was taken into account when uses13. This 50% tax exemption also flows through to other defining appropriate farm property tax policy reform. taxes in Metro Vancouver, such as TransLink, the Greater Another important consideration was tax equity among Vancouver Regional District, Hospitals, BC Assessment residents and between businesses to ensure the public and the Municipal Finance Authority. interest is best served by tax policies. The following four farm property tax policies were identified in the review as Data analysis was conducted to determine the actual having the most potential to maintain agricultural land for amount of the annual school tax exemption in Metro farming in the Metro Vancouver region. Vancouver. The results reveal that in the 2015 tax year, the exemption amounted to just over $4 million. Residential land uses (Class 1) receive the majority (78%) of the financial benefits from the school tax exemption, calculated to be $3,176,000. Properties assessed as farm (Class 9) receive 16% of the tax benefit at $669,241 (Table 1). Some other business uses (Class 6) and recreational uses such as outdoor riding arenas (Class 8), also receive the school tax exemption14.
Table 1: 2015 School Tax Exemption Amount by Property Class and Municipality
SCHOOL TAX Class EXEMPTIONS Parcel Class 1 Class 2 5 Light Class 6 Class 8 Class 9 Municipal % IN THE ALR Count Residential Utilities Industry Business Recreation Farm Total Total City of Vancouver 140 $ 146,088 $ - $ 1,682 $ 3,513 $ 724 $ 152,007 3.7% City of Langley 2 $- $ - $ - $ - $ 41 $ 41 0.0% City of Port Coquitlam 92 $ 26,525 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,654 $ 29,179 0.7% City of Burnaby 86 $ 18,302 $ - $ 6,417 $ - $ 3,996 $ 28,714 0.7% City of Coquitlam 43 $ 10,218 $ - $ 35,078 $ - $ 3,467 $ 48,764 1.2% Corporation of Delta 706 $ 83,657 $ 8,949 $ 12,969 $ 16,129 $ 154,876 $ 276,580 6.8% Township of Langley 4,632 $ 1,634,707 $ 67,997 $ 8,930 $ 223,663 $ 1,935,297 47.5% City of Maple Ridge 1,440 $ 472,120 $ 1,578 $ 2,946 $ 1,051 $ 14,440 $ 492,135 12.1% City of Pitt Meadows 686 $ 86,611 $ - $ - $ 56,521 $ 143,131 3.5% City of Richmond 1,755 $ 332,653 $ 12,759 $ 41,060 $ 90,683 $ 477,156 11.7% Bowen Island 29 $ 4,503 $ - $ - $ 342 $ 4,845 0.1% City of Surrey 1,205 $ 355,226 $ 36 $ 979 $ 3,702 $ 110,940 $ 470,882 11.6% Lower Mainland Rural 53 $ 5,452 $ - $ - $ 6,894 $ 12,347 0.3% Metro Vancouver Total 10,869 $ 3,176,063 $ 10,526 $ 36 $ 140,828 $ 74,384 $ 669,241 $ 4,071,079 100% % Total 78% 0.3% 0.0% 3.5% 1.8% 16% 100%
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - 34Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 5 Overall, properties that are not used for farming purposes As previously mentioned, the 50% school tax exemption is account for 84% of the total amount of the school tax extended to other agency fees. The amount of the annual exemption, even though they comprise of only 59% of 50% school tax exemption that is applied to regional the parcels15. Table 2 shows that the majority of the tax district fees was calculated using the 2015 BC Assessment benefit, $2.5 million (62%), is attributed to parcels 2-10 acres data. Regional district tax rates are about 3% of the school (0.8 ha to 4 ha) in size. Small lots, less than 2 acres (<0.8 ha), tax rate17. In Metro Vancouver, the 50% regional district which may not be subject to restrictions on the use of ALR fee tax exemption amounted to $109,289, where 91% is land16, receive $155,017 in annual school tax exemptions. attributed to residential properties. Other agency fees will vary based on the tax rates that are determined by the municipalities18.
Table 2: 2015 School Tax Exemption in Metro Vancouver by Parcel Size Category
SCHOOL TAX EXEMPTIONS Total IN THE ALR < 2 ACRES 2-10 ACRES >10 ACRES Property Class % Total Class 1 RESIDENTIAL $ 139,725 $ 2,373,078 $ 663,259.93 $ 3,176,063 78% Class 2 UTILITIES $ 1,578 $ 8,948.80 $ 10,526 0.3% Class 5 LIGHT INDUSTRY $ 36 $ 36 0.0% Class 6 BUSINESS OTHER $ 24,330 $ 116,498.11 $ 140,828 3.5% Class 8 RECREATION $ 12,375 $ 35,407 $ 26,602.13 $ 74,384 1.8% Class 9 FARM $ 2,917 $ 111,150 $ 555,173.68 $ 669,241 16% Metro Vancouver Total $ 155,017 $ 2,545,579 $ 1,370,483 $ 4,071,079 100% % Total 3.8% 62.5% 33.7% 100%
1.1 Option: Eliminate the School Tax established, would likely have already been compensated Exemption for Residential Properties for restrictions on use through the market price paid and lower annual property taxes. The policy option under consideration is to eliminate the 50% school tax exemption for properties classed as The school tax exemption is an inequitable property tax “Residential” in the ALR. This change would ensure that policy as the main beneficiaries of the policy are residential residential uses of land are treated equitably throughout landowners in the ALR who are not farming. Reforming the region, whether in or outside the ALR. Removing the this policy would provide a financial incentive to farm or exemption is also justifiable because these residential lease agricultural land, as farm class would be required properties are not farming or leasing their land and to receive the school tax exemption. Land classified therefore are not providing the public benefits recognized as farm should retain the benefit because it supports for farms. active farming and the cost to society for providing this exemption to farmers is small. The elimination of Concern was raised about eliminating the school tax residential classification from the School Act (Section 130) exemption for property owners who purchased land prior requires a change in provincial legislation, and would 19 to the establishment of the ALR . Clearly they should automatically apply to other agency fees defined under continue to receive the school tax exemption, however, the Act. anyone who has purchased land after the ALR was
6 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax ReformRPL - 35 in Metro Vancouver 2. Classification of Land as Farm Property owners who are not motivated to farm can lease their land to a qualifying farmer for a minimum of one year Classification of land as farm for assessment purposes, and receive farm class status. There are many benefits commonly referred to as “farm class”, is based on the associated with farm class 21, but the most obvious is the type of primary agriculture production and the required financial benefit. The reduced taxes that result from farm gross income from that production20. Farm classification class are based on the relatively low, prescribed assessed only refers to the land, not the buildings or improvements. value of the land and the tax rate applied. The difference The minimum amount of gross farm revenue, referred to between annual property taxes paid by a landowner with as the income threshold, is based on the size of the farm and without farm class varies by municipality, but overall operation and could include multiple parcels or leased is significant. For example, the average difference in the land. The gross farm income must meet or exceed the annual taxes paid on a 10 acre (4 ha) lot with $150,000 in value of production threshold for any given property. building improvements for properties with, and without Based on three farm size categories, a farm must sell a farm class, using tax rates for seven municipalities was minimum of: $7,088 (Table 3). • $2,500 if the area of land is between 8,000m2 Table 3. Examples of annual property taxes with (2 acres) and 4 ha (10 acres); and without Farm Class 22 • $2,500 plus 5% of the farmland value of the land Tax with Tax without farmed in excess of 4 ha (10 acres); Municipality Farm class Farm class • $10,000 if the total area of land is less than Burnaby $ 973 $ 17,566 8,000m2 (2 acres). Delta $ 1,369 $ 8,500 Langley $ 1,199 $ 5,072 Maple Ridge $ 1,801 $ 6,035 Pitt Meadows $ 1,794 $ 5,699 Richmond $ 1,025 $ 10,511 Surrey $ 851 $ 5,239 Metro Vancouver Average $ 1,287 $ 8,375
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - 36Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 7 The provincial legislation also enables landowners, both to be an income ratio of 0.00 - 1.249 24. An income ratio in and outside the ALR, to have a portion of their property of 1.0 means the landowner is reporting a farm income classed as farm by leasing it to a farmer, who usually that is equal to the minimum threshold (i.e. $10,000 or consolidates the land within a larger farm operation23. $2,500). The data reveals that 24% of farms overall may If only part of the property qualifies for farm class, the be potentially at-risk. It is notable that the requirements remainder is classified according to its use and zoning. must be met in at least one of the two relevant reporting Residential, commercial or industrial zoned land outside periods, while some sales of qualifying products must the ALR can be classified as farm regardless of whether occur every year. it is consistent with municipal zoning, as long as it meets Equally important is to recognize the number of farms the requirements for farm classification. that earn far beyond the current income threshold levels The number of farms that may be impacted by an for farm class. The data indicates that 56% of farms are adjustment of farm income thresholds was analyzed using making more than double the income threshold levels, as income ratio data provided by the provincial government indicated by an income ratio of > 2.0 25. Also noteworthy for the three farm size categories. Table 4 shows the is that 49% of small farms (less than 2 acres) have incomes percent of Metro Vancouver property owners that may be that are more than double the $10,000 threshold level. affected if the threshold was raised, which is considered
Table 4: Farm Income Ratios for Farms in Metro Vancouver 26
Farm Size < 2 acres 2 to 10 acres > 10 acres Categories ($10,000) ($2,500) ($2,500 + 5%) TOTAL FARMS Income Ratio Number of Farms Number of Farms Number of Farms Number of Farms 0.00 – 0.999 4 10% 38 3% 58 5% 100 4% 1.00 - 1.249 8 20% 397 30% 122 10% 527 20% 1.25 - 1.499 4 10% 146 11% 75 6% 225 8% 1.50 - 1.749 3 8% 135 10% 81 6% 219 8% 1.75 - 1.999 2 5% 79 6% 38 3% 119 4% 2.00 - 2.999 6 15% 153 11% 139 11% 298 11% 3.00 - 4.999 3 8% 120 9% 110 9% 233 9% 5.00 - 9.999 3 8% 78 6% 118 9% 199 8% >10.00 7 18% 191 14% 535 42% 733 28% TOTAL FARMS 40 100% 1,337 100% 1,276 100% 2,653 100%
8 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax ReformRPL - 37 in Metro Vancouver 2.1 Option: Change the Income Thresholds Required to Achieve Farm Classification
The first option to consider is whether to change the income threshold for all farm operations to $3,500 to qualify for farm classification, as recommended in previous studies. This change would include removing the $10,000 threshold for farms <2 acres making the farm classification process more simple to understand and administer. The increase supports the concerns expressed by many that the current $2,500 gross farm income threshold is easy to achieve and serves those who sell the minimum amount of agricultural products just to receive the tax benefits associated with farm class.
One of the main reasons for changing the threshold is to encourage more actively farmed land either though leasing agricultural land to farmers or by encouraging more investments in farming to increase income levels. The policy question to consider is whether the income In addition, removing the $10,000 income threshold for thresholds for farm classification should be adjusted. The properties less than 2 acres could encourage new farms pros and cons of increasing farm income thresholds or on small lots near urban areas. The proposed $3,500 maintaining the status quo for the Metro Vancouver region threshold is based on inflation since the last increase was investigated by Upland Consulting, and resulted in a in 1993 and is aligned with the 2009 Farm Assessment recommendation to change the threshold to a minimum Review Panel’s recommendation. If changed, the single of $3,500 for all property sizes 27. This would result in an income threshold should be assessed every five years and increase from $2,500 for most farms except for parcels be adjusted based on rate of inflation. less than 2 acres (.8 ha) that are currently required to meet a $10,000 farm income threshold for farm class. A similar A concern raised was that increasing farm income recommendation emerged from the Farm Assessment thresholds could make it more difficult for new, hobby, or Review Panel in 2009, which advocated for establishing part-time farmers to obtain farm class status, and therefore a single threshold at a minimum of $3,500 annual gross may dissuade them from continuing to farm. This would income for all farm properties 28. be an undesirable outcome and could be prevented by implementing a two tier farm classification benefits It is important to recognize the full spectrum of farm sizes system as described under Option 2.2. Monitoring the and farm income levels that contribute to the region’s impact of a change in the classification of farm policy over food system. The small farms provide many societal time is easily done using BC Assessment farm class data. benefits such as access to local, fresh food, agriculture education and tourism opportunities that enables the public to connect with the farming community. Also, small, new or developing farms are where the next generation of commercial farmers will emerge. As such, BC Assessment currently has provisions to accommodate new farms 29. The more economically successful farms make significant contributions to the regional economy, export markets and local food security. Both contribute to the non-monetary ecosystem services recognized by the public as an important societal benefit 30.
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - 38Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 9 2.2 Option: Confer Different Benefits for Farm 2.3 Option: Ensure Tax Incentives Classification based on a Two-Tier System for Urban Agriculture
The second option to consider is a two-tier farm The third option to consider is how to encourage the classification benefits system that confers two different emerging urban farm sector. These farm business levels of tax benefits dependent on farm income. Currently enterprises within cities grow food for sale and provide all land classified as farm receives the same tax benefits some unique societal benefits that complement the (i.e. a lower tax assessment on land and a tax exemption existing regional farm network. Urban farms are most on farm buildings). A two-tier benefits system would noteworthy as social enterprises to generate revenue differentiate between small, part-time or hobby farms and create jobs for low income communities, revitalize and the more profitable commercial farm operations that vacant spaces as well as support community education run their farm business to make a living. and development 31. However, urban farms cannot easily use the tax incentive for farm class to encourage property For example, if a farmer made $3,500 a year, they would owners to lease their land for farming. Not only does BC achieve a certain level of tax benefits, while a farmer Assessment legislation make multiple leases on parcels who made $10,000 a year would be eligible for a greater less than 2 acres (0.8 ha) difficult to achieve 32, but a recent set of benefits, subject to more stringent requirements. amendment to a city zoning and development bylaw Additional requirements could include proof of income has limited the ability to use tax incentives to encourage from the Canada Revenue agency and an increase in property owners to lease their land to an urban farmer 33. the requirement for leases to at least three years. The determination of the appropriate income levels and The challenge of encouraging urban farms is not unique, benefits associated with a two-tier system requires more but there are solutions. Several cities in California have analysis and consultation. embraced the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Act enacted to encourage urban agriculture by providing a A major challenge with creating a two-tier system is tax incentive for properties that are completely dedicated that the existing farm property tax system has already toward commercial and non-commercial agriculture use 34. maximized benefits for active farms, therefore a two- Unless a category of farm class accommodates urban tier system would likely reduce the tax benefits for the farms in Metro Vancouver, the future of these unique farm lower income threshold level. For example, the Quebec enterprises will be mostly limited to public land. government has a rebate system where farms receive 77% reduction in their taxes if they make more than $10,000 per year. Those who make less than $10,000 receive a 50% rebate. Taking a new approach also creates an opportunity to recognize important societal benefits by adding new qualifying agricultural uses for assessment purposes such as payment for ecosystem services with the appropriate receipts, although this would require careful policy analysis. Implementing a two-tier system requires decisions on the level of farm income threshold for each tier and more importantly, how tax benefits should be allocated.
10 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxRPL Reform - 39 in Metro Vancouver 3. The Assessed Value of Agricultural Land This tax policy provides a financial incentive to locate a non-farm activity on agricultural land. non-farm Tax policy that defines the method used in the assessment residential and commercial uses of agricultural land of agricultural land for tax purposes creates an opportunity can displace farming activities, increase conflicts over to discourage non-farm uses within the ALR. It is well farm management practices and prevent new farmers known that land classified as farm by BC Assessment has from starting a farm business when the cost to purchase a low assessed value, which results in significantly lower agricultural land significantly exceeds the potential property taxes. Less understood is the extent to which the financial eturns.r For local governments, non-farm uses assessed value of agricultural land impacts the amount of outside the Urban Containment Boundary increases the property taxes paid by landowners who do not farm and demand for municipal services that are financed through use ALR land for non-farm residential, business or other property taxes. purposes. The financial advantage of owning a non-farm residential Confusion arises because agricultural land is assessed property in the ALR is the lower tax assessment that results in two different ways, depending on whether the land in lower property taxes than a similar lot within the Urban is farmed or not. Land classified as farm (Class 9) has Containment Boundary. Rural residential properties a unique method of valuation defined by provincial also have the ability to build a bigger house than what legislation35. Farmland valuation is based on soil capacity is permitted on most city lots. There is a similar financial classes where land that is capable of producing a wide advantage for non-farm commercial and industrial uses range of crops has a higher assessed value than land with to locate their business on agricultural land, although limitations and suitable for only a few crops, although the less common. In both cases, the land under the buildings tax differential is not significant 36. is valued based on the market value of agricultural All other property classes in the ALR are assessed based land, not the more appropriate residential, commercial on the market value of the land taking into account its or industrial zoning. ‘highest and best use’37 and comparable rural property Table 5 provides an example of property taxes on a values. When not used for farming, properties are residential 5 acre (2 ha) lot in Langley that does not have assessed at full market value as determined by buyers and farm class both in and outside the ALR 38. When a home sellers in the marketplace, which considers properties in is located within a residentially zoned area outside a similar location and of comparable size, and typically the ALR, the property has significantly higher taxes result in lower values due to the land use and subdivision because the assessment is based on the market value restrictions placed on ALR land. of residential land 39.
Table 5: Example of Property Taxes for a Residential 5 acre lot in and outside the ALR (2014)
RESIDENTIAL Land Building Total Property LAND USE Assessed Value Assessed Value Assessed Value Tax Assessed as Residential $ 750,000 $ 451,000 $ 1,201,000 $ 3,880 in the ALR Assessed as Residential $ 4,207,000 $ 10,000 $ 4,217,000 $ 13,656 outside the ALR
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - Production 40 through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 11 The next example further illustrates the difference in the amount of property taxes is $58,967 lower than if property taxes for an industrial building located on a 3 the land was assessed in an industrial zone 40. Note that acre (1.2 ha) lot in Richmond (Table 6). Despite being building assessed value does not change. assessed as industrial, when located on agricultural land,
Table 6: Example of Property Taxes for an Industrial building in an Agricultural and Industrial zone (2014)
INDUSTRIAL Land Building size Building Mill rate LAND USE Assessed Value (square feet) Assessed Value (Class 5) Property Tax Assessed for an $ 775,000 50,000 $ 5.25M 14.65 $ 88,266 Agricultural Zone Assessed for an $ 4,800,000 50,000 $ 5.25M 14.65 $ 147,233 Industrial Zone
The method of assessing the value of ALR land for One approach is to value all land in the ALR not classed property classes other than farm means that ALR land farm as if it were located in the applicable zone within assessed as residential, business or industrial are valued the Urban Containment Boundary. Therefore, agricultural lower than properties of similar size and use in urban land used strictly for residential purposes would have areas. The result is that similar non-farm businesses in a an assessed residential value similar to an area zoned municipality are operating under different property tax for residential use. The same approach could apply to structures, depending on whether they are located in the businesses that are not part of a farm operation, yet are ALR or not. Ultimately the properties in the ALR receive located in the ALR. A slightly different approach is to value a lower tax assessment and therefore pay lower taxes, all agricultural land as residential, then let municipalities even if there is no farming activity on the parcel, although apply the appropriate tax rates for parcels that are farmed, the range of difference in the assessed value may vary or used for residential or commercial purposes. depending on the location. The concern about changing this tax policy is that if agricultural land is valued for a use other than farming, 3.1 Option: Change the Method of it could be interpreted as no longer essential to the ALR. Assessment for ALR Land This could lead to potential requests to exclude non-farm The option to consider with this farm property tax policy is parcels from the ALR. One option for addressing this risk whether to change the method for valuing ALR land when could be to stipulate in legislation that tax policy is not a property is not farmed. Currently there is a tax incentive justification for removing land from the ALR, but instead to locate a residential home or non-farm business on intended as an incentive to farm agricultural land or lease agricultural land because the market value for the land, ALR land to a farmer. and the resulting taxes, are significantly lower. This When there is an economic advantage to locate non-farm situation creates inequity between comparable residential uses in the ALR, the pressure to do so will continue. A homes and similar businesses that pay different property new approach is to reform how ALR land is valued when taxes because one is located in the appropriately zoned not used for farming to discourage a proliferation of area and the other is in the ALR. residential and other businesses locating on agricultural land in the Metro Vancouver region. Whether this policy requires a change in legislation or just a change in the way BC Assessment interprets the principle of highest and best use is not clear, but in either case, provincial support is required.
12 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxRPL Reform - 41 in Metro Vancouver 4. Assessment of Farm Buildings
How farm buildings are assessed is another important aspect of farm property tax. Buildings are improvements on the land and therefore are considered separately from land in tax policy 41. A building is considered a farm building if the structure is located on land classified as a farm and used exclusively in the operation of a farm. All farm buildings are assessed at actual value and classified residential (Class 1) 42.
The main tax incentive for having a building assessed as a farm building is the tax exemption available for improvements on land classified as a farm (including the farm residence and outbuildings 43). Farm buildings receive • New regulations for Agri-tourism now permit a range a tax exemption that is the greater of $50,000 or 87.5% of of activities as long as the activity is carried out on the aggregated assessed value 44. This tax exemption on land that is classified as farm under the Assessment building improvements is provided to encourage capital Act including farm tours, festivals and other non- investment in farm businesses. agriculture events such as weddings or concerts48.
It is important to note that some commercial buildings Commercial activity on agricultural land, not classified are an essential component of an economically viable as farm, is mostly deemed ‘Business, Other’ (Class 6), farm business and therefore are appropriately assessed including uses that don’t qualify as a farm building such as: as farm buildings. Sometimes the use of a building is difficult to discern and therefore requires a definition in • Bed and Breakfast (B&B) on farms are permitted legislation. For example: uses and defined for assessment purposes as either residential (Class 1) or business (Class 6), depending • Packing houses are a facility used for the cleaning, on the number of units. sorting, grading, packing or storage of qualifying agricultural products and can be assessed as a farm • Packing houses that do not meet the 50% qualifying building under specific requirements 45. More than 50% products grown or raised on the farm; of the qualifying agricultural products cleaned, sorted, • Processing facilities that are used for extracting, graded, packed or stored must be grown or raised on processing, manufacturing or storage of products the farm. The major challenge in defining a packing other than food, non-alcoholic beverages or water; or house is that the amount of product is self-reported with no formalized accounting process. • Farm market buildings are assessed as commercial if used to sell alcoholic beverages, or if they sell a • Processing facilities are defined as land and buildings significant amount of non-farm merchandise. used for processes other than “cleaning, sorting, grading, packing or storage”. The assessed class will BC Assessment staff determines when a building on depend on what is being processed 46. agricultural land is used for farming purposes using the definitions outlined in the legislation. A change in • Farm market buildings are assessed as a farm building property ownership creates conditions when a building when it is located on land that otherwise qualifies for on agricultural land is most susceptible to being assessed farm classification and meets other criteria relating to improperly. The ability of BC Assessment staff to identify the sources of qualifying agricultural products as well any misalignment between the assessment of buildings as manufactured derivatives of the farm’s products 47. and actual use can be challenging if they are not aware of changes in land use or new commercial business activities that are occurring on agricultural land.
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - Production 42 through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 13 4.1 Option: Notify BC Assessment of • The Canadian Revenue Agency data is used to confirm changes in the ALR the gross revenue levels of packing and processing facilities that are assessed as a farm. The option to consider with this policy is how to improve the assessment of buildings on agricultural land • The public makes confidential inquiries about the when changes in land use occur. BC Assessment staff assessment of buildings on agricultural land. These conduct adequate scrutiny of buildings for assessment inquiries are often an important trigger for alerting BC purposes but the administration can be more efficient Assessment staff about a change of farm activities. if a more formalized notification process is developed Sharing information about what constitutes a farm with other agencies. The most important way to assist BC building is important to ensure that improvements on Assessment in determining when a building is no longer agricultural land are properly assessed for tax purposes. a farm building and becomes a non-farm use is to alert The misappropriation of taxes based on inaccurate staff about changes in ownership or land use in the ALR. assessment can be substantial for municipalities because The notification process could be improved in a number residential, industrial and business use and improvements of ways, such as: generate more taxes than land classified as farm.
• The Agricultural Land Commission develops a formal BC Assessment has adequate administrative processes in process to notify BC Assessment when non-farm land place and the capacity to monitor the use of buildings use applications are approved 49. and improvements on land classified as a farm. However, improved communication and coordination among • Municipal governments track non-farm business agencies can greatly increase the effectiveness of licenses in the ALR and either notify or respond to BC the assessment process and efficiencies in enforcing Assessment inquires in a timely way when new licenses provincial legislation. The key is to ensure that buildings are approved. Since most municipalities do not require on agricultural land are appropriately assessed when farms to have business licenses, the volume of permits changes in ownership or land use occur. to monitor should be minimal.
14 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxRPL Reform - 43 in Metro Vancouver Recommendations 1. Eliminate the 50% School Tax exemption for properties classed as residential (Class 1) in the ALR. This change Local governments in the Metro Vancouver region and would also apply to regional district, transit and other throughout BC are tasked with protecting agricultural agency fees. land for the purpose of farming today and into the future. 2. a) Change the income threshold to achieve farm Farm property tax policy is an important financial lever classification to a minimum of $3,500, regardless of to encourage farming activities that benefit society or farm size for the Metro Vancouver region, and ensure discourage non-farm uses in the ALR. If adjusted, farm that the threshold is reassessed every five years and property tax policy can help secure land for agriculture that adjusted according to the rate of inflation and; will in turn foster expanded farm business development and enable new farmers to access land through leasing b) Develop a two-tier farm classification benefits agreements with other landowners. system that allocates only some tax benefits to farms with an income threshold of $3,500, while Since the ALR was established in 1973, more tax benefits providing the full package of tax benefits to the are being shifted to landowners using ALR land for more productive farms with an income threshold purposes other than farming in Metro Vancouver. Farm at $10,000. This would create an incentive for farms property tax reform is necessary to maintain active to reach the higher income threshold. Determining farming on agricultural land and remove tax incentives the appropriate allocation of benefits for a two tier that no longer support the public interest when financial system requires consultation with the agricultural benefits are attributed to private landowners who are not community and agencies providing secondary farming or are speculating on agricultural land. benefits to properties with farm class.
There are also taxpayer equity issues to consider in 3. Adjust the method for valuing agricultural land not ensuring that comparable residential and commercial used for farming to discourage further non-farm businesses in a municipality are paying similar property development in the ALR. The adjustment could taxes. Removing farm property tax benefits that are no consider valuing agricultural land not used for farming longer used as intended is a valuable benefit to local as if it was located in the applicable zone within the governments because it helps expand agricultural Urban Containment Boundary. Implementing this businesses while discouraging inappropriate recommendation requires additional policy analysis development in the ALR that adds costs to provide utility and consultation with local governments and must and other local government services beyond the region’s ensure that any reform stipulates that tax policy is not Urban Containment Boundary. justification for removing land from the ALR.
There are four recommendations stemming from this 4. Encourage local governments and the Agricultural review to encourage agricultural production while Land Commission to develop new protocols to removing the financial incentive for non-farm uses of enable BC Assessment to obtain timely information agricultural land. The recommendations are for the on changes in land use and new commercial business Province of BC to: activities in the ALR to ensure an appropriate tax assessment of buildings and improvements.
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - Production 44 through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 15 Final Comments and commercial businesses in the ALR. The proposed changes are primarily about a tax shift that strives to One reason farm property tax reform is difficult is because rebalance private interests and public benefits. provincial legislation does not account for the unique Reforming farm property tax policy to encourage farming situation of Metro Vancouver. The challenge is to ensure or leasing land to farmers is recommended to secure that BC’s largest metropolitan region, with over half of the agricultural land for farming and encourage agriculture provincial population, can continue to protect Canada’s economic development in Metro Vancouver. The key 50 most productive agricultural lands . The implications objectives are to ensure that the societal benefits of tax of farm property tax policy in this metropolitan region exemptions, lower property assessments and farm class are more intense than in rural areas of BC because are attributed to farmers in this growing metropolitan of population growth, development pressure, and region where there is significant competition for land. competition for land. It may be appropriate to only A multi-pronged approach to farm property tax reform change legislation for the Metro Vancouver region. will be most effective at both encouraging agricultural It should also be noted that removing property tax production and discouraging non-farm uses. Tax reform benefits is challenging and may result in complaints will send a clear signal that the tax benefits afforded by landowners affected by the changes. However, the to landowners in the ALR are intended only for actively decision not to reform farm property tax policy impacts farmed land. residents within the Urban Containment Boundary, who are in effect subsidizing non-farm residential uses
16 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxRPL Reform - 45 in Metro Vancouver End Notes
1. The term agricultural land refers to land designated for 11. “The Farm Tax Class Income Threshold Investigation”, farming such as the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Most Upland Consulting, December 2015, provided a agricultural land in Metro Vancouver is in the ALR. Land comprehensive analysis of the benefits and risks of that is farmed refers to properties that are classified as increasing the farm class income thresholds in Metro farm for assessment purposes, which does not always Vancouver. occur on agricultural land. 12. BC Assessment develops and maintains real property 2. “Farming in Metro Vancouver Facts in Focus Policy assessments throughout British Columbia in addition Backgrounder”, Metro Vancouver, page 7. A review to providing real property information. The provincial of the applications submitted to the Agricultural Land government, through the Ministry of Community, Sport Commission (ALC) in Metro Vancouver from 2006- and Cultural Development, defines policy and creates 2013 revealed that exclusions were only 9% of the ALC legislation, while the role of BC Assessment is to applications, in comparison to subdivisions at 29% of implements the legislation. ALC applications. 13. The School Act Section 130 (2)(c). In 2011, another 3. “Metro Vancouver Regional Report (Agricultural Land change was made to the School Act (Section 131.3) to Use Inventory Summer 2010-2011)”, page 14. allow properties with Farm class to get an additional 50% exemption through the Provincial Farm Land Tax Credit. 4. Ibid, page 19, reveals that of the total 23,231 ha not used for farming, 11,123 ha is residential. 14. School Act, Section 131.
5. Ibid, page 19 shows that 67% of the total parcels 15. The term parcel is used in this paper, however, the surveyed in Metro Vancouver were not used for farming. technical term used by BC Assessment is actually ‘folio’, In addition, there were 1,384 parcels leased to farmers which is defined as “a collection of data, identified by a to qualify as a farm for assessment purposes in 2012 roll number that consists of ownership, actual value and (see endnote #6). other information required for assessment purposes. The data in a folio usually describes one parcel and 6. Farm Lease Agreements in Metro Vancouver. any improvements on it. However, a folio may describe Regional Planning Information Bulletin, multiple parcels and their improvements, or a portion of a Metro Vancouver, February 2015. parcel and/or the improvements on such a parcel. Folio is synonymous with (Assessment) Roll Number”. 7. The Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) is a land
use designation in “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping 16. As per the Agricultural Land Commission Act [SBC 2002] our Future”, the regional growth strategy. The UCB CHAPTER 36 Exceptions 23 (1), restrictions on the use of establishes a long-term area for urban development, agricultural land do not apply to land that, on December reinforces the protection of agricultural, conservation 21, 1972, was by separate certificate of title issued under and rural areas and provides predictability for locating the Land Registry Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 208, less than 2 urban uses, major regional transportation, utility and acres in area. other infrastructure investments. 17. Municipalities set the tax rate. In Metro Vancouver the 8. “Property Tax Scenario Analysis for Agricultural and 2015 school tax rate for residential properties ranged Industrial Lands in the Metro Vancouver region”, from 1.5474 to 2.0032 and the regional district tax rate Colliers International, February 2013, documented ranged from .0539 to .0606. how agricultural property taxes are calculated and applied under different scenarios and suggested 18. In Metro Vancouver, regional district tax rates ranged some areas for further investigation. from .0539-.0606; TransLink tax rates were consistent at .3173; and municipal finance authority tax rates ranged 9. “Farm Property Tax Investigation in the Metro from 2.1872- 4.4713. Vancouver Region”, KM Consulting, December 2014, analyzed the feasibility of selected policy options to 19. The number of properties held by the same owners when increase the financial incentive to farm land designated the School Act was passed in 1980 is unknown. for farming or decrease the financial incentives for non-farm uses on agricultural land.
10. Understanding Property Classes and Exemption BC Assessment.
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - Production 46 through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 17 20. The Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation B.C. Reg. establishing a single threshold at a minimum of $3,500 411/95, made under the Assessment Act, enables land, annual gross income for all farm properties; analyze the upon application, to qualify for farm class for properties impact and review every five years; and eportingr of both within and outside the Agricultural Land Reserve. gross farm income as reported to the Canadian Revenue Agency. 21. Farm Tax Class Income Threshold, page 9. Also the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and 29. BC Assessment requires a business plan and will allow up Procedure Regulation (BC Reg. 171/2002), enables to six years for new farms to reach the appropriate farm additional residences and agri-tourism activities for income threshold level. The number of years depends on properties that are all, or part of a parcel, classified as the crop type. farm under the Assessment Act. 30. An Estimate of the Public Amenity Benefits and 22. “Property Tax Scenario Analysis for Agricultural and Ecological Goods Provided by Farms in Metro Industrial Lands in the Metro Vancouver Region”, Colliers Vancouver, BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Public International, February 2013, pages 44 and 49. Policy Program at Simon Fraser University and the Fraser Basin Council (2009). 23. Landowners can achieve farm classification by leasing their land to farmers that can meet the BC Assessment 31. Urban Farming Guidebook: Planning for the Business income threshold requirements. This policy benefits of Growing Food in BC’s Towns and Cities, EcoDesign agriculture because it can increase the supply of Resource Society (2014). available farmland, however, there is no requirement in the legislation for landowners to offer a lease greater 32. Outside the ALR, to be classified as a farm the leased than one year, thereby reducing incentives for farmers land must: (a) make a reasonable contribution to the to invest in building, irrigation or drainage infrastructure farm operation, and (b) be 0.8 ha or greater except that is often necessary to improve land productivity or if the land is in an agricultural land reserve, and the the economic viability of the farm business. land is used for a qualifying agricultural use as per The Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation, section 7(3). 24. The ratio of 0.00 to 1.249 means that farms were BC Assessment’s approach to section 7(3) is to interpret reporting 0% to 124.9% of the required threshold. “the leased land” as referring to all the land covered For example, an income ratio of 1.0 means the farm is under a single lease agreement (same landowner), even reporting a gross income of $2,500, while an income if it’s made up of multiple parcels. ratio of 124.9% means the gross farm income is $3,122. These numbers may be an under-estimation of income 33. The City of Vancouver staff report on “Amendments to levels because established farms that consistently Zoning and Development By-law and Business License surpass the income threshold levels are monitored By-law Regarding Urban Farms” was presented to much less frequently than farms near the threshold Vancouver City Council on February 23, 2016. level, which are required to submit annual 34. “Guide to Implementing the Urban Agriculture Incentive documentation of their income. Zone Act” produced by the University of California,
25. Farms with an income ratio of >2 are usually required to Agriculture and Natural Resources Cooperative confirm income on a 5-8 year basis, as it is assumed that Extension. income levels are consistent from year to year. 35. Assessment Act section 2.2 explains how agricultural
26. “The Farm Tax Class Income Threshold Investigation”, land is assessed and valued. Upland Consulting, December 2015, page 20. The data 36. BC Regulation 276/84 dictates land values for the farm is from most recent reporting year, which varies due to land regulation. Land is rated based on soil capability the explanation provided in endnote #22. classes 1 to 7 of the “Soil Capability Classification
27. Ibid, page 24-25. for Agriculture” as per The Land Inventory Report No. 2-1965 published by the Department of Forestry, 28. Farm Assessment Review Panel 2009 Report, Ministry Canada. “Property Tax Scenario Analysis for Agricultural of Community and Rural Development (July 31, 2009) and Industrial Lands in the Metro Vancouver region”, was the first public consultation on farm property tax page 21, provides an example of the taxes for a 20 acre assessment since The Classification of Land as a Farm farm with class 1 soils and class 4 soils, at $6,850 vs. Regulation came into effect in 1995. Many of the final $5,000 respectively. recommendations were implemented except for:
18 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxRPL Reform - 47 in Metro Vancouver 37. Highest and best use is defined as ‘reasonably probable 46. Processing facilities will either be assessed as Light and legal use of vacant land or improved property that Industry (Class 5) or else default to Business and Other is physically possible, legally permissible, appropriately (Class 6), depending on what is being processed. supported, financially feasible, and that esultsr in the [Prescribed Classes of Property Regulation, sections 5 highest and best use’. Appraisal of Real Estate, 2nd and 6]. The exact nature of each processing operation Canadian Edition, 2002. A property’s highest and best determines the classification. Class 6 property shall use is constrained by use restrictions and local bylaws. include all land and improvements not included in Classes 1 to 5 and 7 to 9. Class 5 includes extracting, 38. “Farm Property Tax Investigation in the Metro processing, manufacturing, transportation or storage Vancouver Region”, page 20. of products, except the extracting, processing, manufacturing or storage of food, non-alcoholic 39. Property inquiry available on the BC Assessment beverages or water, which is then defaulted to Class 6. website for 22136 61 Ave and 20319 82 Ave in Langley
at a 2014 residential tax rate of 3.23070. 47. Marketing is not explicitly included in the definition of “qualifying agricultural use” in The Classification of 40. “Property Tax Scenario Analysis for Agricultural and Land as a Farm Regulation, B.C. Reg. 411/95. However, Industrial Lands in the Metro Vancouver region”, in addition to being located on land classified as a page 84. farm, the improvements should be assessed as a farm
41. Buildings and other structures on agricultural land are building, and only if more than 90% of gross sales are referred to as “improvements” by BC Assessment and farm products and more than 50% percent of the farm these improvements are classified separately from the products are products of the subject farm. If non-farm land and assessed at market value according to their use. merchandise makes up more than 10% of gross sales, the market is classed as business and other (Class 6). 42. Within the ALR, all residential buildings, including farmers’ homes, are designated residential Class 1, while 48. Order in Council No 602 approved on July 29, 2016 outbuildings are classified as either residential, industrial amends the definition of Agri-tourism in the Agricultural or commercial, depending on how they are used. Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation. B.C. Reg. 171/2002. 43. The only exemption on farm dwellings is under the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. Within municipalities they are 49. Currently BC Assessment has to review each application fully taxable. to determine if it is relevant to the building assessment. A similar process could involve sharing parcel identifier 44. The farm buildings are eligible for property tax numbers that are undergoing building or land use exemptions under the following legislation: the School changes. Act, section 131(4)(b); Community Charter, section 220(1)(n); Vancouver Charter, section 396(1)(h); and the 50. Metro Vancouver farms have the highest farm cash Taxation (Rural Area) Act, section 15(1)(f). If aggregate receipts per hectare on agricultural land ($17,961) in value is under $50,000 then the whole value is exempt. Canada (Statistics Canada, Census of Agriculture 2011).
45. A “packing house” means a facility used for the cleaning, sorting, grading, packing or storage of qualifying agricultural products [Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation, sections 1 and 9]. Land, but not improvements, used for a packing house as part of a farm operation will be classified as a farm if: (a) any authority having jurisdiction over the use of that land has regulated the use of that land to permit the growing and raising of crops, and (b) more than 50% of the qualifying agricultural products that are cleaned, sorted, graded, packed or stored in the packing house are grown or raised on that farm operation. If the land meets this definition, the packing house itself is assessed as a farm building.
Encouraging AgriculturalRPL - Production 48 through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 19 SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION
RPL - 49 5.3
To: GVRD Board
From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment Department
Date: August 26, 2016 Meeting Date: September 9, 2016
Subject: Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment – Sewerage Extension Provisions
RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate the regional growth strategy minor amendment process for proposed amendments to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future provisions for the extension of sewerage services; b) Give first reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016”; c) Give second reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016”; and d) Direct staff to notify affected local governments as per Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Section 6.4.2.
PURPOSE This report provides the GVRD Board with the opportunity to consider a proposed Type 2 amendment to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040) to amend Metro 2040 provisions for the extension of regional sewerage services.
BACKGROUND On April 15, 2016 the Regional Planning Committee received for information a report titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions ‐ Implementation Issues and Options”. The report provided a detailed description of existing Metro 2040 sewerage extension provision, implementation issues and recommended actions. In that meeting the Committee resolved:
That the Regional Planning Committee direct staff to present the report dated March 30, 2016, titled, "Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions ‐ Implementation Issues and Options" to the Utilities Committee at its May 19 meeting for input.
On May 19, 2016 the Utilities Committee received for information the report dated April 20, 2016, titled, "Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions ‐ Implementation Issues and Options". Staff received feedback on both the proposed amendment and associated implementation guidelines from the Regional Planning and Utilities’ Committee members, and have updated both documents accordingly. The amendment bylaw is now ready for GVRD Board consideration.
METRO 2040 SEWERAGE EXTENSION PROVISIONS In accordance with Section 445 of the Local Government Act, Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1 establishes that all bylaws, works and services undertaken by Metro Vancouver must be consistent with Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy. Metro 2040 includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD
RPL - 50 Boards. The intent is to ensure that all Metro Vancouver works and services are consistent with key goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment, protection of lands with a regional Agricultural or Rural land use designation, and efficient servicing objectives.
Generally, Metro 2040 provisions establish that the GVS&DD and the GVWD will not authorize connections to regional services where the nature of that development is, in the sole judgment of the GVRD Board, inconsistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy. More specifically, Metro 2040 provisions direct the GVS&DD to not extend regional sewage services into areas within Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designations, except where infrastructure is needed to address a public health issue, protect the region’s natural assets, or to service agriculture or agri‐industry.
In the years since the adoption of Metro 2040, there have been a number of applications by member municipalities to extend regional sewerage services into areas with a Metro 2040 Agricultural land use designation. In an information report to the October 5, 2012 meeting of the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee, staff advised the Committee of concerns regarding implementation of Metro 2040 with respect to Sewerage Areas, specifically exception criteria and application procedures. Staff initiated a review process to consider minor amendments to Metro 2040 policies and the development of an associated implementation guideline to clarify criteria used to define exceptions and Metro Vancouver sewerage extension application procedures.
Metro 2040 Implementation Issues Three key implementation issues were identified through the processing of sewerage extension applications over the past five years:
The need to clearly allow the GVRD Board some flexibility in applying Metro 2040 provisions for minor cases that are ‘inconsistent’ with Metro 2040 provisions, but have no significant impact on Metro 2040 implementation. The need to reduce ambiguity and overly broad criteria in defining the exceptions to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions. The need to establish decision‐making procedures for the roles of the GVRD and GVS&DD Boards, and Metro Vancouver departments, in considering sewerage extension applications .
Proposed Responses to Implementation Issues Following consultation with both Metro Vancouver staff and municipal staff, as well as with Regional Planning Committee and Utilities Committee, staff propose that amendments to sewerage extension provisions within Metro 2040, along with a companion sewerage extension Implementation Guideline #7, provide a means to address the issues in an effective way. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016 is Attachment 1 to this report, and the associated implementation guideline is Attachment 2.
The proposed Metro 2040 amendments and associated implementation guideline will:
Maintain a clear policy directive to inhibit sewerage service extensions outside of the Urban Containment Boundary; Provide the GVRD Board with the guidance and discretion to consider exceptions;
RPL - 51 Establish clear application review procedures and decision making roles for the GVRD Board (Metro 2040 review) and GVS&DD Board (service provision) regarding future extensions of regional sewerage services; Provide greater specificity in defining sewerage extension policy exceptions by linking regional policy with existing provincial regulations that address public health and environmental contamination risks; Allow flexibility for considering exceptions to sewerage extension policy for extensions / connections having no significant impact on Metro 2040 goals related to urban containment, or where a qualified professional (as defined through Provincial regulations) recommends that on‐site septic treatment systems are not feasible; and Maintain GVRD Board discretion to determine that any particular sewerage service connection or extension is inconsistent with the broader provisions of Metro 2040.
The draft Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE #7: Extension of Regional Sewerage Services is an integral component in supporting Metro 2040 policies by providing the detailed exception criteria and review procedures for those sewerage connections or extensions applicable to Metro 2040. The guideline specifies that all sewerage extension applications must be submitted to the GVS&DD Board by the respective municipality following a Council resolution. The Implementation Guideline #7 then provides municipalities and the proponent with rationale and the information necessary in submitting an application, as well as the technical assessment process and the review process that is undertaken by Metro Vancouver Boards.
The Implementation Guideline #7 is directly referenced in the amended Metro 2040 policy and will be conveyed to the GVRD Board for consideration in conjunction with the staff report providing the GVRD Board the opportunity to consider adoption of the amendment bylaw.
Updates to the proposed amendment and Implementation Guideline #7 reflecting comments As a result of comments from Regional Planning and Utilities Committee members, Implementation Guideline #7 was updated to include:
the option for a restrictive covenant (page 11 of Implementation Guideline #7); and clearer criteria for meeting the ‘exceptional circumstances’ to meet the ‘has no significant impact on Metro 2040 provisions’ exception (pages 8 and 9 of Implementation Guideline #7) to guide GVRD Board consideration.
In addition, the amendment bylaw received legal review and resulting minor edits, and was also amended to:
explicitly include the option for the GVRD Board to obtain an opinion from a second Qualified Professional as part of their consideration.
Finally, Committee members expressed a desire to ensure that the amendment emphasizes the importance of the Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions as a growth management tool, and strikes a balance between providing reasonable flexibility and maintaining the effectiveness of the regional growth strategy’s policy to limit the extension of regional sewerage services into lands with a regional Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation land use designation.
RPL - 52 ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board: a) Initiate the regional growth strategy minor amendment process for proposed amendments to Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future provisions for the extension of sewerage services; b) Give first reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016”; c) Give second reading to “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016”; and d) Direct staff to notify affected local governments as per Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Section 6.4.2. 2. That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated August 26, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Amendment – Sewerage Extension Provisions”.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board proceeds with Alternative 1, there will be financial implications associated with the cost of holding a public hearing. These costs include advertising, additional staff time and potential remuneration of Board directors to attend the public hearing. The proposed amendment will not have any other direct financial implications for Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver will assess the technical implications and potential financial implications of all future sewerage extension applications on a case‐by‐case basis.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Compact urban form, urban containment and the protection of agricultural lands are fundamental goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy. To reinforce these goals, Metro 2040 contains provisions to limit the extension of regional sewage services into areas with a regional Agricultural, Rural and Conservation and Recreation land use designation. While sewerage extension provisions provide an important tool for managing urban containment, implementation to date indicates that the provisions would be enhanced by including more specific policy content and an implementation guideline to address sewerage extension applications.
Following consultation with municipalities and Metro Vancouver Regional Planning and Liquid Waste Services staff, and consultation with Metro Vancouver Legal staff, staff propose that amendments to sewerage extension provisions within Metro 2040, along with a companion set of sewerage extension implementation guidelines provide a means to address the issues in an effective way.
On April 15, 2016 the Regional Planning Committee received for information a report titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions ‐ Implementation Issues and Options” (Attachment 3). The report provided a detailed description of existing Metro 2040 sewerage extension provision, implementation issues and recommended actions. In that meeting the Committee directed staff to present the report to the Utilities Committee at its May 19 meeting for input. On May 19, 2016 the Utilities Committee received for information the report dated April 20, 2016, titled, "Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions ‐ Implementation Issues and Options".
Staff received feedback on both the proposed amendment and associated implementation guideline from the Regional Planning and Utilities’ Committee members, and have updated both documents accordingly.
RPL - 53
The proposed amendments to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions will maintain the primary policy intent to limit the extension of regional sewerage services to contain urban development within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary, but will allow for flexibility for the GVRD Board to determine exceptions for sewerage extensions where on‐site treatment systems are not feasible, or where a particular extension has no significant impact on Metro 2040 urban containment goals. The accompanying Implementation Guideline #7 is integral to Metro 2040 policy by establishing clear and transparent sewerage extension application procedures and providing detailed review criteria for determining service extension exceptions. Staff recommend Alternative 1.
Attachments: 1. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016. 2. Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future, Implementation Guideline #7, Extension of Regional Sewerage Services. 3. Report to the April 15 meeting of the Regional Planning Committee dated March 30, 2016, titled, "Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions ‐ Implementation Issues and Options.
RPL - 54 5.3
Attachment 1
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1236, 2016
A Bylaw to Amend Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1136, 2010.
WHEREAS the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District adopted the Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1136, 2010 on July 29, 2011;
AND WHEREAS the Board wishes to amend provisions within Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1136, 2010 relating to the extension of regional sewerage services.
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in open meeting assembled ENACTS as follows:
1. The “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw Number 1136, 2010” is hereby amended as follows:
A) By deleting Section 1.1.1 in its entirety and substituting the following in its place:
1.1.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to not allow connections to regional sewerage services to lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation. Notwithstanding this general rule, in the exceptional circumstances specified below, the GVRD Board will advise the GVS&DD Board that it may consider such a connection for existing development or for new development where, in the GVRD Board’s opinion, that new development is consistent with the underlying regional land use designation, and where the GVRD Board determines either:
a) that the connection to regional sewerage services is the only reasonable means of preventing or alleviating a public health or environmental contamination risk; or
b) that the connection to regional sewerage services would have no significant impact on the goals of containing urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary, and protecting lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation.
B) By deleting Section 1.3.1 in its entirety and substituting the following in its place:
1.3.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to not allow connections to regional sewerage services to lands with a Rural regional land use designation. Notwithstanding this general rule, in the exceptional circumstances specified below, the GVRD Board will advise the GVS&DD Board that it may consider such a connection for existing development or for new development where, in the
Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016 Page 1 of 4
RPL - 55
GVRD Board’s opinion, that new development is consistent with the Rural regional land use designation and where the GVRD Board determines either:
a) that the connection to regional sewerage services the only reasonable means of preventing or alleviating a public health or environmental contamination risk; or
b) that the connection to regional sewerage services would have no significant impact on the strategy to protect lands with a Rural regional land use designation from urban development.
C) By deleting Section 2.3.1 in its entirety and substituting the following in its place:
2.3.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to not allow connections to regional sewerage services to lands with an Agricultural regional land use designation. Notwithstanding this general rule, in the exceptional circumstances specified below, the GVRD Board will advise the GVS&DD Board that it may consider such a connection for existing development or for new development where, in the GVRD Board’s opinion, that new development is consistent with the underlying Agricultural regional land use designation and where the GVRD Board determines either:
a) that the connection to regional sewerage services the only reasonable means of preventing or alleviating a public health or environmental contamination risk; or
b) that the connection to regional sewerage services would have no significant impact on the strategy to protect the supply of agricultural land and promoting agricultural viability with an emphasis on food production.
D) By deleting Section 3.1.1 in its entirety and substituting the following in its place:
3.1.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to not allow connections to regional sewerage services to lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation. Notwithstanding this general rule, in the exceptional circumstances specified below, the GVRD Board will advise the GVS&DD Board that it may consider such a connection for existing development or for new development where, in the GVRD Board’s opinion, that new development is consistent with the underlying Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation and where the GVRD Board determines either:
a) that the connection to regional sewerage services the only reasonable means of preventing or alleviating a public health or environmental contamination risk; or
b) that the connection to regional sewerage services would have no significant impact on the strategy to protect lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation. Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016 Page 2 of 4
RPL - 56
E) By deleting the last sentence of Section 6.8.2.
F) By adding a new Section 6.8.3 as follows:
6.8.3 For lands with a Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation, policies 1.1.1, 1.3.1, 2.3.1, and 3.1.1 apply regardless of whether the area is within one of the GVS&DD’s sewerage areas.
With reference to Sections 1.1.1, 1.3.1, 2.3.1, and 3.1.1, in determining whether, in the circumstances, connection to regional sewerage services is the only reasonable means of preventing or alleviating a public health or environmental contamination risk, the GVRD Board will consider the opinion of a professional, as such term is defined in the Sewerage System Regulation 326/2004 pursuant to the Public Health Act (British Columbia), or if appropriate a qualified professional, as such term is defined in Municipal Wastewater Regulation 87/2012 pursuant to the Environmental Management Act (British Columbia), submitted by the member municipality as to the technical and economic feasibility of installing and maintaining a private on‐site sewage treatment system in accordance with all laws and regulations applicable in British Columbia. The GVRD Board may also obtain its own opinion from a professional and consider such opinion.
G) By adding a new Section 6.9.2 as follows:
6.9.2 All connections to regional sewerage services approved by the GVRD Board as per Metro 2040 Sections 1.1.1, 1.3.1, 2.3.1, and 3.1.1 will be contained within a sewerage area footprint boundary as determined by the GVRD and GVS&DD Boards. Any sewerage service connection outside of that boundary will require GVRD Board and GVS&DD Board approval.
H) By adding a new Section 6.9.3 as follows:
6.9.3 The GVRD Board has adopted guidelines titled, “Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future Implementation Guideline #7 ‐ Extension of Regional Sewerage Services” to assist in the implementation of Regional Growth Strategy policies regarding the provision of regional sewerage services.
I) By deleting the words “and Sewerage Areas” from Section 6.12.4.
2. The official Citation for this bylaw is “Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. xxxx, 2016” This bylaw may be cited as “Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. xxxx, 2016.”
Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016 Page 3 of 4
RPL - 57
Read a First time this ______day of ______, 2016.
Read a Second time this ______day of ______, 2016.
Read a Third time this ______day of ______, 2016.
Passed and Finally Adopted this ______day of ______, 2016.
______Greg Moore, Chair
______Chris Plagnol, Corporate Officer
Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1236, 2016 Page 4 of 4
RPL - 58 5.3 Attachment 2
Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE #7 Extension of Regional Sewerage Services
Dated August 26, 2016
Adopted by the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board XXXX XX, 201X
RPL - 59
Table of Contents
Purpose 3 1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Metro 2040 Rationale ...... 3 1.2 Roles of Metro Vancouver Boards ...... 4 2 Application Review Criteria and Procedures: Regional Sewerage Service Extension ...... 5 2.1 Initiating an Application ...... 5 2.2 Technical Review of GVS&DD System and Regulatory Implications ...... 5 2.3 Metro 2040 Review ...... 5 2.3.1 Exception to Address a Public Health or Environmental Contamination Risk ...... 6 2.3.2 Connection Exception for Limited Development Determined to Have No Significant Impact on Metro 2040 Provisions ...... 8 2.4 Sewerage Extension Applications within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary ...... 9 2.5 Applications that are Inconsistent with Metro 2040 Provisions ...... 10 2.6 Potential Conditions to Support Metro 2040 Compatibility ...... 10 3 GVS&DD Board Decision ...... 10 Figure 1 Metro 2040 Application Review Process for Municipalities Requesting Extension of GVS&DD Sewerage Services ...... 11
RPL - 60
Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe applicable Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our future (Metro 2040) provisions and application review criteria and procedures for member municipalities requesting a connection to regional sewerage services for lands with a regional Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation land use designation.
1 Introduction Metro Vancouver adopted Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy, on July 29, 2011, following acceptance by all affected local governments. Metro 2040 represents consensus among Metro Vancouver and affected local governments to work collaboratively to meet our collective regional planning goals of creating a compact urban area, supporting a sustainable economy, protecting the environment, responding to climate change impacts, developing complete communities and supporting sustainable transportation choices.
Successful implementation of Metro 2040 depends on cooperation between Metro Vancouver and affected local governments, and the support of local plans, policies and programs that contribute to the regional planning objectives identified in Metro 2040.
Metro Vancouver is responsible for preparing guidelines to assist in implementing Metro 2040 strategies. This guideline should be read in conjunction with Metro 2040, and it does not replace or supersede the content of, or the requirements set out in, the regional growth strategy. This document is one in a series of guidelines supporting Metro 2040 implementation. Metro 2040, related documents and a glossary of terms and references for this guideline can be viewed on the Metro Vancouver website: http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/Pages/default.aspx
1.1 Metro 2040 Rationale A primary goal of Metro 2040 is urban containment, utilizing the Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) to limit the spread of urban development into lands with a regional Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation land use designation. The UCB establishes a long‐term footprint for future urban development, provides predictability for major investments in utility, road and transit infrastructure, and protects the character and viability of lands with a regional Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation land use designation. Metro 2040 anticipates the area within the UCB has capacity to accommodate projected urban growth to 2041, with the majority of future growth concentrated within Urban Centres and along transit corridors within the UCB.
Urban growth typically depends on access to regional sewerage services. To reinforce the urban containment strategy, Metro 2040 includes policies to coordinate regional growth and utility planning, and to limit the extension of regional sewerage services into lands with a regional Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation land use designation.
RPL - 61
Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1, which reflects Local Government Act Section 445, prevents the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Greater Vancouver Water District and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District from providing works and services that are inconsistent with Metro 2040. After the Metro Vancouver Board has adopted the Regional Growth Strategy all bylaws adopted and all works and services undertaken by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Greater Vancouver Water District or the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District must be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and the Greater Vancouver Water District will not directly or indirectly supply, agree to supply, or authorize connections that enable the supply of services to a site that is developed or proposed to be developed after the date of adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy where the nature of that development is, in the sole judgment of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, inconsistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy.
Metro 2040 Section 1.1 ‘Contain Urban Development within the Urban Containment Boundary’, more specifically establishes Metro Vancouver’s role as follows:
1.1.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to not allow connections to regional sewerage services to lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation. Notwithstanding this general rule, in the exceptional circumstances specified below, the GVRD Board will advise the GVS&DD Board that it may consider such a connection for existing development or for new development where, in the GVRD Board’s opinion, that new development is consistent with the underlying regional land use designation, and where the GVRD Board determines either:
c) that the connection to regional sewerage services is the only reasonable means of preventing or alleviating a public health or environmental contamination risk; or
d) that the connection to regional sewerage services would have no significant impact on the goals of containing urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary, and protecting lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation.
This policy provision is repeated in Metro 2040 Section 1.3 for lands with a Rural regional land use designation, Section 2.3 for lands with an Agricultural regional land use designation and Section 3.1 for lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation.
1.2 Roles of Metro Vancouver Boards The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) provides members with regional sewerage collection and treatment services. The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is responsible for the implementation and administration of Metro 2040. The GVS&DD’s Board of Directors is distinct from, but has many directors in common with, the GVRD’s Board of Directors.
RPL - 62
Connections to regional sewerage services are only provided within the GVS&DD’s legally defined Sewerage areas. Prior to the adoption of Metro 2040, an application for an expansion of the Sewerage Area required only GVS&DD Board approval. Following adoption of Metro 2040, the GVS&DD is not permitted to provide services if the GVRD Board determines such services are inconsistent with Metro 2040 provisions. Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1 establishes that the GVRD Board must determine whether a proposed sewerage extension or connection is consistent with Metro 2040 prior to the GVS&DD Board’s final decision on an application.
2 Application Review Criteria and Procedures: Regional Sewerage Service Extension The process for municipalities applying to connect to regional sewerage services for lands with a Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation is described in this section and summarized in Figure 1.
2.1 Initiating an Application Applications for connection to regional sewerage services must be initiated by a resolution of the respective municipal Council. It is expected that the municipality’s application will include appropriate documentation addressing Metro 2040 provisions and guidelines as appropriate for the specific application. It is recommended that municipal staff consider these guidelines and contact Metro Vancouver staff before seeking a Council resolution and submitting an application. It is important that each municipality ensure the project proponent is fully aware of Metro Vancouver policies and procedures, and understands the appropriate documentation to be included with the application.
2.2 Technical Review of GVS&DD System and Regulatory Implications Upon receipt of an application, Metro Vancouver Liquid Waste staff will prepare an initial technical review of the application to assess service capacity, service levels and financial implications for the GVS&DD system, and compliance with applicable Acts and Bylaws. If it is determined that there are GVS&DD system or regulatory implications the application may be denied by the GVS&DD Board. If there are no such GVS&DD implications, the application would be forwarded to Metro Vancouver Regional Planning staff to assess consistency with Metro 2040. 2.3 Metro 2040 Review Metro Vancouver staff will assess the existing or proposed development and the merits and potential implications of regional sewerage service extension in regard to Metro 2040 goals and strategies. The primary policies will include, but not be limited to, Metro 2040 Land Use Designations, Strategy 1.1 Contain urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary; Strategy 1.3 Protect Rural areas from urban development; Strategy 2.3 Protect the supply of Agricultural land and promote agricultural viability; and, Strategy 3.1 Protect Conservation and Recreation lands. Metro 2040 Section 6.9 provides additional provisions for approved sewerage
RPL - 63
connections for lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation.
On‐site systems are the primary method of sewage treatment for lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation. Metro 2040 anticipates that on‐site systems will continue to be the primary method of sewage treatment for these lands. However, Metro 2040 recognizes exceptional circumstances in which regional sewerage service may be extended into lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation. Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this guideline describe how applications will be categorized and assessed in relation to these exceptions. Even if an application falls within one of the exceptions described in sections 2.3.1 or 2.3.2 the GVRD Board may nevertheless determine that the extension of regional sewerage service is inconsistent with other relevant Metro 2040 provisions and deny the application.
2.3.1 Exception to Address a Public Health or Environmental Contamination Risk In accordance with Metro 2040 Sections 1.3.1(a), 2.3.1(a) and 3.1.1(a), exceptions will be considered to ensure there is appropriate sanitary sewer treatment available to avoid the risk of public health or environmental contamination. Exceptions are applicable for existing development, or new development that, in the GVRD Board’s opinion, is consistent with Metro 2040 provisions, where an on‐site sewer treatment system constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable Provincial regulations would not be reasonable. For cases where the daily sewage flow is less than 22,700 litres/day, the Public Health Act and Sewerage System Regulation include provisions for on‐site wastewater disposal and the criteria for defining a related public health hazard. For larger developments where the daily sewage flow is greater than 22,700 litres/day, the Environmental Management Act and Municipal Wastewater Regulation include the provisions and criteria to determine an environmental risk.
Subject to the provisions of applicable provincial regulations, the applicant would qualify for consideration of a Metro 2040 exception by providing an Environmental Impact Report, prepared and certified by a qualified professional, establishing that an on‐site sewerage treatment system constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable regulations would not be feasible. The application must also include a letter signed by the designated authority responsible for the administration of the applicable Sewerage System Regulation or Municipal Wastewater Regulation, concurring with the exception rationale contained in the Environmental Impact Report.
The report must include the following information: a) the existing use of the property, the structures proposed for connection and any anticipated changes to the use or structures on the property;
RPL - 64
b) the circumstances inhibiting the feasible installation, maintenance or repair of an on‐site sewerage system in accordance with the Public Health Act and Sewerage System Regulation or Environmental Management Act and Municipal Wastewater Regulation. Such circumstances typically relate to site constraints such as soils, natural features, site configuration, flow capacity that would inhibit an on‐site system or prohibitive construction or maintenance costs of an on‐site treatment system; c) the nature of the public health or environmental risk on or adjacent to the site; d) the location of the existing regional or municipal sewer pipes proposed for connection and the proposed routing of the new sewer pipes required for connection to the subject site. Consideration will include the potential for extended sewerage infrastructure to prompt additional demands for connection to regional sewerage services. Proximity to an existing sewer main does not alone establish rationale for a sewerage connection; e) the site plan showing the proposed GVS&DD sewerage boundary footprint containing only the structure(s) to be connected within the property; f) the servicing plan showing that the works are designed to accommodate a flow capacity no greater than the capacity necessary to service the specified structures and activity located within the proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area footprint; and g) the applicant and property owner acknowledge that Metro Vancouver consideration for exemption is specific to the information contained in the application, and that any works to extend the capacity for collection of liquid waste generated outside of the GVS&DD sewerage boundary footprint, within or outside of the subject property, will require a new sewerage extension application to the GVS&DD.
If the proposed connection is within the Agricultural Land Reserve, Metro Vancouver will consult the Agricultural Land Commission to determine whether the extension of sewerage infrastructure and the service connection are acceptable to the Commission.
All submitted documentation will be reviewed and assessed by Metro Vancouver staff, and is subject to consideration by the GVRD Board and the GVS&DD Board. The GVRD Board will evaluate the Metro 2040 sewerage extension exemption based on the feasibility rationale provided in the application1, and whether the potential impacts of service extension on Metro 2040 provisions can be sufficiently addressed. Potential Metro 2040 impacts include, but are not limited to, the development potential of the subject site and the potential for the extension of sewerage infrastructure to trigger additional service connection applications and land use speculation. The applicant / property owner and the respective municipality must be prepared to accept that a restrictive covenant be registered on the
1 Following review of the Environmental Impact Report, Metro Vancouver may request additional information be provided to support feasibility rationale, or Metro Vancouver may retain the services of a Qualified Professional, at the applicant’s expense, to prepare a supplemental verification report.
RPL - 65
property specifying that access to regional sewerage services is provided subject to agreed upon conditions.
If the GVRD Board concurs that it is not reasonable to construct and maintain an on‐site sewerage treatment system to alleviate public health or environmental contamination risk, and determines that the potential impacts of service extension on Metro 2040 provisions can be sufficiently addressed, the GVRD Board may resolve to accept a limited extension of regional sewerage services into lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation.
2.3.2 Connection Exception for Limited Development Determined to Have No Significant Impact on Metro 2040 Provisions “No significant impact” is a term applied to regional sewerage service extensions or connections that do not conflict with the intent or implementation of Metro 2040 Goal 1 urban containment provisions or related Metro 2040 land use designations, goals and strategies. The intent of this exception is to recognize there may be particular circumstances where a service connection is practical and there are no significant Metro 2040 implications.
The GVRD Board’s review of the application will consider the following evaluation criteria in determining whether an application is considered “not significant” under Metro 2040 provisions 1.1.1(b), 1.3.1(b), 2.3.1(b), or 3.1.1(b): a) the nature of development, existing or proposed, does not conflict with, or negatively impact, Metro 2040 Goal 1 urban containment provisions or related regional land use designations, goals and strategies; b) extension of GVS&DD sewage services is provided to a single, non‐strata, property, with service access to be contained within a specified GVS&DD sewerage boundary footprint comprising the structures proposed for sewerage connection within that property; c) the service connection is designed to accommodate a sewage flow capacity no greater than the capacity necessary to service the existing structures and activity located within the specified GVS&DD Sewerage Area footprint on the date of approval; and d) the distance and routing of extended sewerage infrastructure to the subject property is proximate and located such that there is limited potential for prompting additional regional sewerage connection requests in the surrounding area. Proximity to an existing sewer main does not alone establish rationale for a sewerage connection.
To be considered under this exception, applications must include documentation specifying: a) the existing use of the property, the structures proposed for connection and any anticipated changes to the use or structures on the property;
RPL - 66
b) the rationale for connecting to the GVS&DD sewage treatment system versus an on‐ site sewage treatment system; c) the location of the existing GVS&DD or municipal sewer pipes and the proposed routing of the new sewer pipes required for connection to the subject site; d) the site plan showing the proposed GVS&DD sewerage boundary footprint containing only the structure(s) to be connected within the property; e) the servicing plan indicating the connection is designed to accommodate a flow capacity no greater than the capacity necessary to service the specified structures and activity to be located within the proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area footprint; and f) the applicant and property owner acknowledge that Metro Vancouver consideration for exemption is specific to the information contained in the application, and that any works to extend capacity for collection of liquid waste generated outside of the GVS&DD sewerage boundary footprint, within or outside of the subject property, will require a new sewerage extension application to the GVS&DD.
The GVRD Board will evaluate the Metro 2040 sewerage extension exemption based a Metro Vancouver staff assessment of the potential impacts of service extension on Metro 2040 provisions and whether any potential impacts are sufficiently addressed. Potential Metro 2040 impacts include, but are not limited to, the development potential of the subject site and the potential for the extension of sewerage infrastructure to trigger additional service connection applications and land use speculation. The applicant / property owner and the respective municipality must be prepared to accept a restrictive covenant be registered on the property specifying that access to regional sewerage services is provided subject to agreed upon conditions.
If the GVRD Board concurs that the service extension has no significant impact on Metro 2040 provisions, the GVRD Board may resolve to accept a limited extension of regional sewerage services into lands with a Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation.
2.4 Sewerage Extension Applications within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary There may be locations on lands with a General Urban, Industrial or Mixed Employment regional land use designation that are not included within the GVS&DD sewerage area. As these locations are intended for forms of development that require access to sewerage services, Metro 2040 Section 6.8.2 states that such locations would be eligible for sewerage services provided that the proposed development complies with applicable policies for those designations.
Application to the GVS&DD Board is required for sewerage extension approvals in these areas. Each application will initially be reviewed by the GVRD Board to determine compliance with applicable Metro 2040 policies. If consistent with Metro 2040, the application would then proceed to the
RPL - 67
GVS&DD Board for consideration of approval. If not consistent with Metro 2040, the GVRD Board would direct the GVS&DD Board to deny the application (see Section 2.5 below).
2.5 Applications that are Inconsistent with Metro 2040 Provisions Any sewerage extension application, including applications that meet the exception criteria described in sections 2.3.1, may nevertheless be determined by the GVRD Board to be inconsistent with the broader provisions of Metro 2040, as referenced under Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1. Determining inconsistency with Metro 2040 provisions will include, but not be limited to, consideration of the following: whether the extension is intended to service new development that is inconsistent with the intent of the existing Metro 2040 Land Use Designation or applicable Metro 2040 Goal, Strategy or Action; whether the extension of new sewerage infrastructure connecting to the subject site would create opportunity and additional pressures for further extension of regional sewerage services in the surrounding Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation regional land use designations in a manner that may compromise Metro 2040 urban containment provisions or the intent of those land use designations.
Where the GVRD Board determines that the nature of development (including the extension of municipal infrastructure providing access to GVS&DD works and services) proposed in the subject application is inconsistent with Metro 2040 provisions, the GVRD Board would direct the GVS&DD to deny the application.
2.6 Potential Conditions to Support Metro 2040 Compatibility The GVRD Board may additionally determine that the application proceed with conditions. Conditions will be determined on a case by case basis and may include, but are not limited to, the following: the extension of regional sewerage services is limited by a restrictive covenant registered on the property specifying that sewerage services are provided only within a specified boundary and only for specified land use / structures. In such cases, the municipality must reapply to the GVS&DD for a sewerage extension for any proposed change in the specified boundary, or any change in the land use or development within that boundary as specified by the restrictive covenant.
3 GVS&DD Board Decision All GVRD Board resolutions pertaining to an application to extend GVS&DD sewerage services will be sent to the GVS&DD Board for final decision. In the cases where the GVRD Board has resolved that an application is not acceptable under Metro 2040, the GVS&DD Board is bound by that resolution and must not approve the extension of regional services. In the cases where the GVRD Board has resolved that an application is acceptable under Metro 2040, the GVS&DD Board has sole discretion either to approve or deny the application.
RPL - 68
Figure 1 Metro 2040 Application Review Process for Municipalities Requesting Extension of GVS&DD Sewerage Services
RPL - 69 5.3 Attachment 3
To: Regional Planning Committee
From: Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department
Date: March 30, 2016 Meeting Date: April 15, 2016
Subject: Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options
RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning Committee direct staff to present the report dated March 30, 2016, titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options” to the Utilities Committee at its May 19 meeting for input.
PURPOSE This report provides the Regional Planning Committee with an assessment of implementation issues and options regarding Metro 2040 provisions affecting regional sewerage services.
BACKGROUND Urban growth containment is a central theme of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy. Metro 2040 Goal 1 is to ‘Create a Compact Urban Area’, and Strategy 1.1 is to ‘Contain Urban Development within the Urban Containment Boundary’. Metro 2040 establishes an Urban Containment Boundary (UCB), regional land use designations, strategies and policy actions designed to contain and manage urban growth and to protect Agricultural, Conservation and Recreation, and Rural areas. Connection to regional sewerage services is fundamental to urban development, and provides an important lever through which to achieve Metro 2040 goals.
In the years since the adoption of Metro 2040 in July 2011, there have been a number of applications by member municipalities to extend regional sewerage services into areas with a Metro 2040 Agricultural land use designation. In an information report to the October 5, 2012 meeting of the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee, staff advised the Committee of concerns regarding application of Metro 2040 policies. Staff then initiated a review and consultation process with member municipalities to consider potential enhancements to existing Metro 2040 policies and procedures.
This report provides the Committee with a series of options for improving the implementation of Metro 2040 sewerage service policies.
Metro 2040 Provisions affecting Regional Sewerage Services In accordance with Section 445 of the Local Government Act, Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1 establishes that all bylaws, works and services undertaken by Metro Vancouver must be consistent with Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy. Metro 2040 includes provisions for coordination amongst the Metro Vancouver Boards to ensure alignment between Metro 2040 policies as governed by the GVRD Board, and Metro Vancouver works and services governed by the GVS&DD and GVWD
RPL - 70
Boards. The intent is to ensure that all Metro Vancouver works and services are consistent with key goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy, particularly strategies for urban containment, the protection of lands with a regional Agricultural, Rural, or Conservation and Recreation land use designation, and efficient servicing objectives.
Currently, within Metro 2040, there are four main policy provisions guiding the extension of regional sewerage services.
Metro 2040 Section 1.1.1 Direct the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District to not extend regional sewage services into the Rural, Agricultural or Conservation and Recreation areas, except for building footprints in cases where infrastructure is needed to address a public health issue, protect the region’s natural assets, or to service agriculture or agri‐industry.
Similar policy language is repeated in Sections 1.3.1, 2.3.1 and 3.1.1 for the respective land use designations.
Metro 2040 Section 6.8.1 After the Metro Vancouver Board has adopted the Regional Growth Strategy all bylaws adopted and all works and services undertaken by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Greater Vancouver Water District or the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District must be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and the Greater Vancouver Water District will not directly or indirectly supply, agree to supply, or authorize connections that enable the supply of services to a site that is developed or proposed to be developed after the date of adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy where the nature of that development is, in the sole judgment of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, inconsistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy.
Metro 2040 Section 6.8.2 For further clarity, sites within the Urban Containment Boundary which are designated General Urban, Industrial, Mixed Employment, would be eligible for sewerage services, subject to normal Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District technical considerations, provided that the proposed development complies with the applicable policies under those designations and any such Urban Centre and Frequent Transit Development Areas overlays which might apply. For sites designated Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation, policies 1.3.1, 2.3.1 or 3.1.1 apply, respectively.
Metro 2040 Section 6.9.1 identifies Sewerage Extension Areas and Rural within the Sewerage Area for specific locations within Metro 2040 Rural and Agricultural areas where the extension of regional sewerage services will be permitted under Metro 2040, subject to land uses being consistent with the applicable Metro 2040 land use designation.
RPL - 71
Metro 2040 Implementation Issues A list and description of sewerage extension applications considered since the adoption of Metro 2040 is provided in Attachment 3. Each of the cases involved considerable discussion about the intent and application of Metro 2040 provisions. Through the processing of these applications, three key implementation issues were identified.
The need to clearly allow the GVRD Board some flexibility in applying Metro 2040 provisions for minor cases that are ‘inconsistent’ with Metro 2040 provisions, but have no significant impact on Metro 2040 implementation
Concern has been expressed by both municipal applicants and Metro Vancouver staff that the current Metro 2040 provisions are overly rigid and do not provide the GVRD Board with the flexibility to allow practical interpretation of Metro 2040 for minor service extensions. In three of the recent cases, a municipality requested that an existing institutional facility be connected to an existing adjacent sewer main, and posited that these facilities provided a practical benefit to the community. Review of the circumstances by Metro Vancouver staff indicated there were no implications for Metro 2040 urban containment provisions. In each of these cases, Metro 2040 Section 6.8 was interpreted to justify that these particular service extensions were ‘not inconsistent’ with (were inconsequential to), Metro 2040 provisions. However, there was concern expressed that a strict interpretation of Section 6.8 would potentially preclude the Board from having the flexibility to make this determination.
A degree of practical flexibility in Metro 2040 implementation is necessary to avoid contention with member municipalities over relatively minor sewerage extensions that have no effect on Metro 2040’s urban containment and land protection strategies, and the integrity of the regional vision.
The need to reduce ambiguity and overly broad criteria in defining the exceptions to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions
Current Metro 2040 provisions that identify allowable exemptions to address a public health issue, protect the region’s natural assets, or to service agriculture or agri‐industry are vague and susceptible to broad and ambiguous justification. While exemptions to address a public health issue or to protect the region’s natural assets are legitimate causes for exception, the current policy language does not adequately provide criteria for defining public health or natural assets. There are established provincial acts, regulations and procedures addressing sewerage impacts on public health and environmental contamination. The clarity and consistency of Metro 2040 implementation would benefit from a more direct reference to the definitions and procedures established in provincial acts and regulations.
Current Metro 2040 exemptions to service agriculture or agri‐industry can be generally interpreted to include any agricultural and related land uses as being entitled to sewerage services. Although it is not anticipated that all agricultural land uses will request a sewer connection, any extension of sewerage infrastructure from areas with a regional General Urban land use designation into areas with a regional Agricultural land use designation will create pressure for additional connections, and potentially a proliferation of serviced land and development speculation extending outside the edges of the Urban Containment Boundary or anywhere in areas with Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation and Recreation land use designations.
RPL - 72
The need to establish decision‐making procedures for the roles of the GVRD and GVS&DD Boards, and Metro Vancouver departments, in considering sewerage extension applications
Currently, sewerage area extension applications are submitted by member municipalities to the GVS&DD Board for approval. With the adoption of Metro 2040 there is a lack of clarity in terms of the process for undertaking a review of sewerage extension applications, applying Metro 2040 provisions, and determining Metro 2040 compliance. As all Metro Vancouver works and services must be consistent with Metro 2040, as determined by the GVRD Board, it would be helpful to have established procedures for coordinating the review of applications and decision making among Metro Vancouver Boards and staff. Additional clarity in Metro 2040 regarding the coordination of Boards, as well as Board‐approved procedures for the review of sewerage extension and connection applications would benefit Metro 2040 implementation.
Proposed Responses to Implementation Issues Following consultation with member municipalities and Metro Vancouver Liquid Waste Services staff and a review by Metro Vancouver Legal staff, it is proposed that amendments to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions along with a companion set of sewerage extension implementation guidelines would address the issues in an effective way.
Proposed amendments to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions are included in Attachment 1. The proposed amendments would maintain the primary policy intent to limit the extension of regional sewerage services to contain urban development within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary. In addition, the proposed amendments and associated implementation guidelines would:
Maintain a clear policy directive to inhibit sewerage service extensions outside of the Urban Containment Boundary; Provide the GVRD Board with the discretion to consider practical exceptions; Establish clear application review procedures and decision making roles for the GVRD Board (Metro 2040 review) and GVS&DD Board (service provision) regarding future extensions of regional sewerage services; Provide greater specificity in defining sewerage extension policy exceptions by linking regional policy with existing provincial regulations that address public health and environmental contamination risks; Allow flexibility for considering exceptions to sewerage extension policy for extensions / connections having no significant impact on Metro 2040 goals, or where a qualified professional (as defined through Provincial regulations) recommends that on‐site septic treatment systems are not feasible; and Maintain GVRD Board discretion to determine that any particular sewerage service connection or extension is inconsistent with the broader provisions of Metro 2040.
Metro Vancouver 2040 Implementation Guideline #6 – Extension of Regional Sewerage Services
A proposed Metro Vancouver 2040 Implementation Guideline #6 – Extension of Regional Sewerage Services is provided as Attachment 2. The purpose of the Implementation Guidelines is to complement and support Metro 2040 policies by providing the detailed exception criteria and
RPL - 73
review procedures for those sewerage connections or extensions applicable to Metro 2040. The guidelines are directly referenced in the amended Metro 2040 policy and will be conveyed to the GVRD Board for consideration following consideration following consideration of the proposed associated Metro 2040 bylaw amendments.
The Implementation Guidelines specify that all sewerage extension applications must be submitted to the GVS&DD Board by the respective municipality following a Council resolution. The Implementation Guidelines then provide municipalities and the proponent with rationale and the information necessary in submitting an application, as well as the technical assessment process and the review process that is undertaken by Metro Vancouver Boards.
Next Steps Staff are conveying these issues for Committee consideration and discussion prior to seeking initiation of a proposed Type 3 Metro 2040 amendment and support for associated Implementation Guidelines.
While the Metro 2040 provisions affecting regional sewerage services are within the Regional Planning Committee’s mandate, members of the Utilities Committee may be interested in hearing about, and providing input to, the proposed directions. As such, a similar presentation could be made by staff at the May 19th 2016 of the Utilities Committee. Members of the Regional Planning Committee would be invited to attend to hear the discussion.
Staff propose to return to the Regional Planning Committee and the GVRD Board in June 2016 seeking initiation of the proposed amendment as well as 1st and 2nd reading of the amendment bylaw, and conveyance to affected local governments for comment.
ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Regional Planning Committee direct staff to present the report dated March 30, 2016, titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options” to the Utilities Committee at its May 19 meeting for input. 2. That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report dated March 30, 2016, titled, “Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension Provisions – Implementation Issues and Options”, and provide alternate direction to staff.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As this report is conveying issues to the Regional Planning Committee for consideration and discussion, there are no immediate financial implications associated with it. If initiation of the proposed amendment occurs at a future meeting, the process for implementing a Type 3 Metro 2040 amendment will take place. No public hearing is required as part of this process. All other costs associated with the amendment process are covered as part of regular business processes as approved through the 2016 budget.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Compact urban form, urban containment and the protection of agricultural lands are fundamental goals of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy. To reinforce these goals, Metro 2040 contains provisions to limit the extension of regional sewage services into areas with a regional Agricultural, Rural and Conservation and Recreation land use designation. While sewerage extension provisions
RPL - 74
provide an important tool for managing urban containment, implementation to date indicates that the provisions might be enhanced by allowing for greater flexibility to address sewerage extensions in exceptional circumstances, while simultaneously adding greater clarity to the definition of what those exceptions are and how Metro 2040 compliance is determined.
Following consultation with municipalities and Metro Vancouver Regional Planning and Liquid Waste Services staff, and a review by Metro Vancouver Legal staff, staff propose that amendments to sewerage extension provisions within Metro 2040, along with a companion set of sewerage extension implementation guidelines provide a means to address the issues in an effective way.
The proposed amendments to Metro 2040 sewerage extension provisions would maintain the primary policy intent to limit the extension of regional sewerage services to contain urban development within the Metro 2040 Urban Containment Boundary, but would allow for flexibility for the GVRD Board to determine exceptions for minor sewerage extensions that are inconsistent with, but inconsequential to, Metro 2040. The accompanying Implementation Guidelines complement Metro 2040 policy by establishing clear and transparent sewerage extension application procedures and providing detailed review criteria for determining service extension exceptions.
The Metro 2040 provisions affecting regional sewerage services are within the Regional Planning Committee’s mandate, however, members of the Utilities Committee may be interested in hearing about, and providing input on, the proposed directions. As such, staff are seeking direction to attend the May 19th 2016 Utilities Committee meeting to provide a similar presentation.
Attachments: 1. Proposed revisions to Metro 2040 Sewerage Extension provisions. 2. Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future, Implementation Guideline #6, Extension of Regional Sewerage Services. 3. Sewerage Extension applications considered since Metro 2040 Adoption.
RPL - 75
5.4
To: Regional Planning Committee
From: Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment Margaret Eberle, Senior Housing Planner, Parks, Planning and Environment
Date: August 22, 2016 Meeting Date: September 9, 2016
Subject: Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study – Transit Ridership Effects
RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board communicate the transit ridership findings from the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study to the following parties emphasizing the findings’ relevance and timeliness to current and upcoming regional, provincial and federal housing and transportation decisions: the Federal Minister of Infrastructure and Minister of Communities and Families, Children and Social Development; the Provincial Minister of Finance, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Responsible for TransLink, and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Responsible for Housing; Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation and TransLink Board of Directors, Member local governments, and Other housing and transportation stakeholders in the Metro Vancouver region.
PURPOSE This report presents the transit ridership findings from Metro Vancouver’s Mixed Income Transit‐ Oriented Rental Housing study (MITORH).
BACKGROUND At its meeting on July 15, 2016, the Regional Planning Committee received an information report on the purpose and scope of the work for the MITORH study (Reference 1). Staff committed to providing regular updates on the MITORH study to both the Regional Planning Committee and the Housing Committee.
MITORH STUDY The purpose of the MITORH study is to advance knowledge about the context and tools that could assist in making affordable rental housing projects (affordable to renter households making less than $50,000 annually) financially viable in transit‐oriented locations.
The MITORH Study is part of a larger Regional Planning work program that emphasizes the integration of affordable housing with transit, resulting in studies such as the 2015 Metro Vancouver Housing and Transportation Cost Burden Study. The new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy adopted by the GVRD Board in May 2016 continues this emphasis with Goal 4 being to “Increase the Rental Housing Supply Along the Frequent Transit Network”. The Goal 4 actions
RPL - 76 include advancing research with housing and transportation partners on ways to encourage affordable rental housing in transit‐oriented locations.
Encouraging mixed‐income communities is an important aspect of creating complete and vibrant communities – one of the goals in Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future (Metro 2040), the regional growth strategy. One important way to achieve mixed‐income communities is to create new affordable rental housing. In today’s market conditions, however, multi‐unit condominium housing projects make up the vast majority of new housing supply in transit‐oriented locations. Looking ahead over the next 10 years, the annual housing demand in the region will be approximately 18,000 new units per year. Of this total, rental housing demand is estimated at 5,500 new units, of which about 3,500 new units will be needed for households making less than $50,000 annually. The Regional Affordable Housing Strategy demonstrates that it has not been possible to achieve this level of new affordable rental supply in recent years due to lack of senior government funding. According to the 2011 National Household Survey, nearly 1 in 2 working renter households in the region – about 106,000 households – made less than $50,000.1
The Metro Vancouver Housing and Transportation Cost Burden Study (Reference 1) showed that tackling housing and transportation costs concurrently is a strategic approach for addressing the region’s affordability challenges. A stable workforce that can afford to live and travel regionally is critical to the economic prosperity of the region, the province, and the country.
Metro Vancouver has established a strategic partnership for the MITORH study. BC Housing, BC Non‐Profit Housing Association, TransLink, and Vancity have joined the study as partners by providing in‐kind and financial contributions. Staff has also been consulting with municipal staff through the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC), RPAC Housing Subcommittee, RPAC Social Issues Subcommittee, and the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee.
The major activities for MITORH are described below; all are underway. It is anticipated that the study will be completed in early 2017.
Activity Scope/Research Questions Activity 1: Review of Current and How are other metropolitan areas connecting affordable Innovative Practices in Canada, United rental housing in transit‐oriented locations? What are the States, and Europe opportunities and challenges for bringing some of these tools and ideas to the region? Activity 2: Understanding Transit Can a transit ridership value proposition be established for Ridership Effects affordable rental housing in transit‐oriented locations? Activity 3: Mapping Inventory of Public What lands in transit‐oriented locations are in public and and Non‐Profit Sites in Transit‐Oriented non‐profit ownership? What is the scope of these lands? Locations Activity 4: Evaluation of Tools to Deliver What is the financial viability gap for a prototypical More Affordable Rental Housing Units in affordable rental housing project? Can the financial gap Transit‐Oriented Locations be narrowed with existing and new tools? Activity 5: Communication of Study How can the MITORH study findings be communicated to Findings decision makers in a meaningful way?
1 When non‐working renter households are included, about 3 in 5 renter households (178,000 households) made less than $50,000 (source: 2011 National Household Survey). RPL - 77 MITORH ACTIVITY 2: TRANSIT RIDERSHIP EFFECTS The primary motivation for undertaking Activity 2 is to explore whether there is a quantifiable relationship between household income, housing tenure, and transit usage. As noted earlier, one enduring value of regional growth management is that a greater diversity of income is a desirable attribute of complete and vibrant communities. Should there exist evidence that mixed‐income communities in transit‐oriented locations can also lead to improved transit ridership, then affordable housing would no longer be just a housing issue, and transit would no longer be just a transportation issue. There would be an economic as well as social rationale for considering housing and transit concurrently and in an integrated manner.
Staff has made substantive progress on Activity 2. This work relies on data from the 2011 National Household Survey, which collected information on the journey to work trip for 1 out of 3 households in the region on a voluntary basis. Staff was able to corroborate the data patterns with those drawn from the mandatory 2006 Census long form survey. Workers are a major source of transit ridership.2
The key findings and implications are:
1. Compact areas with higher population near the Frequent Transit Network support higher transit ridership. The data indicates that transit use in higher density areas is up to three times higher than in lower density areas. These higher density areas are also well‐served by the Frequent Transit Network – a network of rapid transit and frequent bus corridors (see Attachment 1).
Implications: This finding should assure senior and local governments alike that providing new housing supply in compact areas near the Frequent Transit Network is beneficial for generating and sustaining higher levels of transit ridership. In turn, local governments can enhance the conversation with TransLink and senior governments about the opportunities for improving or expanding transit services to areas anticipated to accommodate higher amounts of population growth.
2. Accommodating renter households, in particular those making less than $50,000 per year, in transit‐oriented locations is not only key to developing diverse, vibrant, and complete communities, but it is also to key to maximizing transit ridership and the value for money of transit and housing affordability investments. The data indicates that transit usage rates for renters consistently exceed that for owners, even after controlling for density, household income, and location. As shown in Attachment 1, the variance between renters and owners, depending on density, ranges from 39 percent to 71 percent. In Attachment 2, the variance between renters and owners after controlling for household income is even more pronounced, ranging from 64 percent to 100 percent.
For renters specifically, transit usage rates generally rise as income declines, but transit usage rates remain generally flat for owners. Low ($30,000‐$50,000) and very low (less than $30,000) income renters have the highest transit usage rates. The big regions in Canada all exhibit similar
2 According to TransLink’s 2011 Regional Trip Diary Survey, 44 percent of transit trips made by Metro Vancouver residents were for work purposes (to work, from work, and during work). In comparison, 34 percent of auto driver and passenger trips were for work purposes. The 2011 Regional Trip Diary Survey did not ask for household tenure information, and therefore the trip diary was not used in Activity 2. RPL - 78 patterns. In Metro Vancouver, select rapid transit, B‐Line, and frequent bus corridors exhibit patterns consistent with the regional pattern (Attachment 3).
The variance in transit usage between renters and owners can be attributed in part to renter households being relatively younger, and the fact that younger working adults under 35 years of age generally have higher rates of transit use for the journey to work (Attachment 4).3
Staff also undertook a conceptual analysis of growth and transit ridership at a corridor level using the transit trip rates for owners and renters. In a hypothetical transit corridor that is projected to accommodate 10,000 new households, a shift from a scenario with 100 percent owner households to a scenario where 60 percent of households are owners and 40 percent are renter households4 translates to an increase in annual transit commute trips in the corridor by 10‐12 percent (amongst the scenarios tested). Further, if all the renter households were making under $50,000, then annual transit commute trips could increase by an additional 11‐14 percentage points (i.e., a 24 percent increase relative to the first scenario) (see Attachment 5). The scenario testing, while conceptual, points to a positive effect on transit ridership as tenure and income are diversified.
Implications: The findings make evident that the creation of affordable rental housing in transit‐oriented locations will create a reliable base of transit customers for the regional transit system. Secondly, these transit customers will likely benefit from improved access to jobs, schools, and other destinations. Finally, these transit customers may benefit from a resultant reduced overall housing and transportation cost burden relative to their income levels.
Achieving these benefits relies on coordination between housing and transportation decisions. With new senior government funding commitments for both affordable housing and transit on the table, there are opportunities to advance housing and transit integration. It is essential that housing and transportation decisions are integrated in the course of implementing these funding commitments to maximize the value for money: The provincial government has committed $355 million over five years for affordable housing projects through the Provincial Investment in Affordable Housing. The provincial government will present in September 2016 details of the new Housing Priority Initiatives Fund, which is seeded in part by provincial property transfer tax revenues. The provincial government has committed $246 million for transit capital in the region. The federal government has committed $2.3 billion nationally over two years for affordable housing initiatives across the country. The federal government is consulting on the preparation of a National Housing Strategy. The federal government has committed $370 million for transit capital in the region as a first phase. Details on a second phase of federal infrastructure funding are expected to be announced in 2017. TransLink is matching the current round of federal and provincial contributions with a $125 million regional transit capital investment.
3 Current relationships between age and mode choice could change over time (i.e., the rate of transit use by future older adults could increase). Future census and travel surveys can track the movement of these relationships. 4 For new apartment units constructed in the 2006‐2011 period, 57 percent were occupied by owners and 43 percent by renters as of 2011. The owner/renter split is completely reversed when the entire apartment housing stock is considered – 44 percent of all apartment units were occupied by owners and 56% by renters in 2011. RPL - 79
ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board communicate the transit ridership findings from the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study to the following parties emphasizing the findings’ relevance and timeliness to current and upcoming regional, provincial and federal housing and transportation decisions: the Federal Minister of Infrastructure and Minister of Communities and Families, Children and Social Development; the Provincial Minister of Finance, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Responsible for TransLink, and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Responsible for Housing; Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation and TransLink Board of Directors, Member local governments, and Other housing and transportation stakeholders in the Metro Vancouver region. 2. That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the report titled “Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit‐Oriented Rental Housing Study – Transit Ridership Effects” dated August 22, 2016.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2016 GVRD Board approved Regional Planning budget identifies $35,000 for the MITORH study. BC Housing has committed $20,000. Vancity has committed $15,000. The BC Non‐Profit Housing Association was awarded a $15,000 grant from the Real Estate Foundation of BC to undertake Activity 1. TransLink has committed up to $10,000. No additional financial support is anticipated to be required to complete the study.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION This report presents the transit ridership findings from Metro Vancouver’s Mixed Income Transit‐ Oriented Rental Housing study (MITORH).The transit ridership findings from the MITORH study indicate that focusing population growth in compact areas near the Frequent Transit Network will sustain higher rates of transit usage, and that increasing the diversity of income and tenure in transit‐oriented locations will also translate to higher transit ridership and value for money of transit and housing affordability investments. For the latter, expanding the affordable rental housing supply will be one way to achieve a greater diversity of income and tenure.
The identification of the transit ridership value proposition is timely. The federal and provincial governments have committed hundreds of millions of dollars for public transit in the region. The region is also making its fair share contribution to public transit. The federal government has committed $2.3 billion nationally over two years to affordable housing, and is consulting on the preparation of a National Housing Strategy. The provincial government has committed $355 million over five years for affordable housing projects through the Provincial Investment in Affordable Housing program. The provincial government will also present a plan in September 2016 on how it intends to use provincial property transfer tax revenues to support housing affordability initiatives across the province.
By communicating the transit ridership findings from the MITORH study at this time, the affected parties and regional stakeholders will have access to new evidence to inform their dialogues and decisions about integrating affordable rental housing and transit, and maximizing transit ridership and the value for money of public investments. Staff recommends Alternative 1.
RPL - 80
Attachments: 1. Transit Use for the Journey to Work by Population Density (2011) 2. Transit Use for the Journey to Work by Income in Canada’s Big Metro Areas (2011, 2006) 3. Transit Use for the Journey to Work by Income in Select Transit Corridors (2011) 4. Key Differentiating Attributes Between Renters and Owners (2011) 5. Hypothetical Transit Corridor Growth and Transit Use Scenarios
References: 1. The Metro Vancouver Housing and Transportation Cost Burden Study Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional‐ planning/PlanningPublications/HousingAndTransportCostBurdenReport2015.pdf
2. What Works: Municipal Measures for Sustaining and Expanding the Supply of Purpose‐Built Rental Housing Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional‐ planning/PlanningPublications/RAHS‐WhatWorksReport.PDF
RPL - 81 5.4 Attachment 1
Transit Usage for the Journey to Work by Population Density (2011)
2011 NHS
Population Density Map with Current Frequent Transit Network (darker census tracts indicate higher population densities)
RPL - 82 5.4 Attachment 2
Transit Use for the Journey to Work by Income in Canada’s Big Metro Areas (2011, 2006)
Renters – 2011 Owners – 2011
45 45 40 40
35 35 WORKERS 30 WORKERS 30 100
100 25 25 PER 20 20 15 TRIPS TRIPS PER
15 10 10 5 TRANSIT 5 TRANSIT 0 $30,000 $50,000 0 Less $30,000 to $50,000 to to less to less $75,000 Less than $75,000 or than less than less than than than or more $30,000 more $30,000 $50,000 $75,000 $50,000 $75,000 Toronto 40 39 35 32 Toronto 16 17 18 17 Montreal 37 33 30 28 Montreal 14 15 15 15 Metro Vancouver 32 31 27 23 Metro Vancouver 16 16 16 14 Ottawa‐Gatineau 34 30 27 24 Ottawa‐Gatineau 14 14 18 16 Calgary 27 24 21 19 Calgary 12 14 14 13 Edmonton 26 23 18 15 Edmonton 811108
2011 NHS 2011 NHS Renters ‐ 2006 Owners ‐ 2006 45 45 40 40 35 35
WORKERS 30 WORKERS 30
100 25 100 25
20 20 PER PER
15 15 TRIPS TRIPS
10 10 5 5 ‐ ‐
TRANSIT $30,000 $50,000 TRANSIT $30,000 $50,000 Less Less than to less to less $75,000 to less to less $75,000 than $30,000 than than or more than than or more $30,000 $50,000 $75,000 $50,000 $75,000 Toronto 41 38 34 29 Toronto 15 17 18 15 Montreal 38 32 28 25 Montreal 13 15 14 14 Ottawa‐Gatineau 34 29 26 23 Ottawa‐Gatineau 12 15 15 15 Metro Vancouver 29 27 22 18 Metro Vancouver 14 14 13 10 Calgary 28 24 20 17 Calgary 12 14 13 12 Edmonton 24 19 15 12 Edmonton 10 9 7 6
2006 Census 2006 Census
RPL - 83 5.4 Attachment 3
Transit Use for the Journey to Work by Income in Select Transit Corridors (2011)
2011 NHS
RPL - 84 5.4 Attachment 4
Key Differentiating Attributes Between Renters and Owners (2011)
RPL - 85 5.4 Attachment 5
Hypothetical Transit Corridor Growth and Transit Use Scenarios
Household Incomes High Income: $75,000 or more per year Moderate Income: $50,000 to less than $75,000 Low Income: $30,000 to less than $50,000 Very Low Income: Less than $30,000
RPL - 86 5.6
To: Regional Planning Committee
From: Elisa Campbell, Director, Regional Planning and Electoral Area Services, Parks, Planning and Environment Department
Date: August 29, 2016 Meeting Date: September 9, 2016
Subject: Manager’s Report
RECOMMENDATION That the Regional Planning Committee receive for information the Manager’s Report dated August 29, 2016.
Regional Planning Committee 2016 Work Plan Attachment 1 to this report sets out the Committee’s Work Plan for 2016. The status of work program elements is indicated as pending, in progress or complete. The listing is updated as needed to include new issues that arise, items requested by the Committee, and changes to the schedule.
New Regulations for Agri‐tourism On July 29, 2016, the Province of BC issued Order in Council No. 602 (see 6.2) to clarify permitted agri‐tourism activities in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). This new regulation allows ALR land owners to host farm tours, seasonal events, or special promotional events such as commercial weddings, concerts or non‐agriculture related festivals. The regulation permits agri‐tourism activities providing that:
The farm is classified as having farm status (all or part of a parcel) under the Assessment Act; No new, permanent structures are being built; All parking must be on the farm (no road parking) but the parking area must not be permanent nor interfere with the farm’s agricultural productivity; The number of guests at any event is 150 or less; and The number of events is 10 or less in a calendar year.
If any of the above conditions are not met, an application to the ALC is required. The restrictions in the regulation do not apply to wineries, meaderies and cideries, as they already have infrastructure, licensing and procedures in place. Local governments cannot prohibit weddings from taking place on land in the ALR, but can require the ALR landowners to apply for a permit which could specify conditions related to amplified sound, parking, fireworks or other disturbances. The regulation is in effect immediately.
Agriculture Water Forum Metro Vancouver is co‐hosting an Agriculture Water Forum to bring together agriculture producers, government representatives and water professionals to explore opportunities to improve water management for agriculture. An adequate and affordable water supply is essential for maintaining
19061915 RPL - 87 local food production in the Metro Vancouver region. The objectives of the Agriculture Water Forum are to:
Improve understanding of government roles and the water regulatory framework for agriculture in this region; Share information on how to reduce water demand using cost efficient on‐farm irrigation tools; Identify avenues to secure a water supply for agriculture’s that reduces reliance on high cost potable water from the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD).
The Agriculture Water Forum is scheduled for Thursday, November 3, 2016 and will be held at Kwantlen Polytechic University in Richmond. The co‐hosting partners include the BC Ministry of Agriculture, BC Agriculture Council, the Partnership for Water Sustainability (PWSBC), Kwantlen Polytechic University and Metro Vancouver.
Attachment: Regional Planning Committee 2016 Work Plan
RPL - 88 5.6 Attachment Regional Planning Committee 2016 Work Plan
Priorities 1st Quarter Status Consider Metro 2040 sewerage and implementation guidelines, and boundary Complete modification amendment Provide input to workplan for Industrial Lands Initiative Complete Provide input to Metro 2040 Performance Monitoring measures review Complete Review workplan and process for legislated Metro 2040 five‐year review Complete Respond to Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals Complete Consider endorsing Office Development Facts in Focus publication Complete 2nd Quarter Provide input to project to undertake Quality of Life survey Pending Review results of 2015 Industrial Land Inventory update Complete Consider endorsing Regional Food System Strategy Action Plan Complete Receive update on Alternative Good Movement Network Scenarios Pending Respond to Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals Complete Provide input to Transit‐Oriented Mixed Income Rental Housing Study Complete Consider endorsing recommended recipients of Agricultural Awareness Grants Complete 3rd Quarter Review Metro Vancouver / ALC Implementation Agreement In progress Consider results from Illegal Fill pilot project Pending Endorse 2015 Progress Toward Shaping our Future annual report and website In progress Participate in Industrial Lands Initiative event Pending Review update on Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Corridors analysis Pending Review results from Farm Property Tax Review In progress Respond to Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals In progress 4th Quarter Review preliminary results from Quality of Life survey Pending Receive update on Metro 2040 five‐year review Pending Consider Metro 2040 amendment for Performance Monitoring Program Pending Provide input to social connectedness project Pending Respond to Metro 2040 amendment requests and sewerage extension referrals Pending Consider results from long range projections modelling Pending Review outputs from Industrial Land Initiative Pending
RPL - 89 City of Malcolm D. Brodie Richmond Mayor 6911 No 3 Road Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 July 27, 2016 Telephone: 604-276-4123 Fax No. 604-276-4332 ;vww.richmond.ca
Honourable Norm Letnick BC Minister of Agriculture PO Box 9043, Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC, V8W 9E2
Dear Honourable Norm Letnick,
Re: Request to Limit Large Homes in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR)
This is to advise that Richmond City Council, at its Regular meeting held on Monday, July 11 , 2016, considered the above matter and adopted the following resolution:
That a letter be sent to the Agricultural Land Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, with copies to neighbouring municipalities, requesting that they introduce Provincial regulations to control the maximum house size and house location on properties within the ALR.
Since its inception, the Richmond Council has been committed to supporting the Province in protecting and enhancing the viability of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and avoiding uses which jeopardize farming.
In recent years, Council has become concerned about a disturbing trend - that house sizes in the ALR have been increasing to the point where they are becoming too large and do not support agricultural viability. For example, in Richmond, in 2010, the average built ALR house size was 2 2 2 2 678m (7,300 ft ), in 2015, it was an average of 1,114 m (12,000 ft ) and lately some have been 2 2 in excess of2,230m (24,000 ft ). Recently, Richmond staff turned down a Building Permit application for a house in the ALR which proposed 41 ,000 sq. ft. (0 .94 acres), as it did not have the characteristics of an ALR single-family house, but rather of a hotel or a multi-family building. Attachments 1, 2 and 3 provide examples. These types of mega houses I buildings were never envisioned in the ALR, as they do not support agricultural viability and detract from achieving it. Richmond Council in discussions with other municipalities has noticed that they too are facing similar unacceptable large house size proposals in the ALR.
The Ministry' s 2015 'Guide for Bylaw:Developmentin Farming Areas' was a good step in the right direction; however, as this issue is province-wide, to better protect the ALR, the Richmond Council requests that the BC Ministry of Agriculture work with the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), to establish uniform ALR regulations to limit the maximum house size and
RPL - 90 ~mond - 2-
house location (e.g., floorplate ). This next step would better achieve the provincial ALR vision and agricultural viability.
Your consideration of this matter is appreciated. A similar letter has been sent to Frank Leonard, ALC Chair (attached).
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning at 604-276-4139.
Yours truly,
Mayor
Att4
cc: Frank Leonard, Chair, Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Kim Grout, CAO, Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Metro Vancouver Board and municipalities
5094515 RPL - 91 I \ S\~o..~'J ~ I \O"Jcr,D I '11,0 ~t" r' \'], '
l I i RPL - 92
![
N ,__..0 Vl t:lj c...... t"""' >-3;J;> ,_.z.....,r:n>-3 svo>ggr-cn Otr'J::I: 'Tj I ~ -...... ~ ~~~ ~>-3 ...... t"""',_.
5 1T !I..~\ _AN --< ::I: + 8 (/) trJ ------~ ·-----·-·------·---·------·------·---·--·-·
RPL - 93 Cl!y gf Richmond Alparlan l.4anlgllmanl Aru IRMA)
1. Th•AMAiftlll ntll.bflaRarod 2. NoiiiHI,IbruborgroundccweJ removal;nosoil dblu!tllr>UDrplacamlllll;nollor~o~~ocrlrnallnl.all;no bua.fll!l. rtn.dur&Of S Urla.:t~IIUedane~~nocwrln
3. ~-Abfighllycala~>~tod,\empol"al)'fo,...olamlnlmum hlllglltoiUm rnlldboeredodal•au2mCIIlll;Jdeo( lhoRMAbelcreany\oorksboglns. f -4. SodlmanlconlrOimoasiKU, cvlsldaolthabrightly 9 ooloured l.nce, mu atbe l npl~cebefor aany WO!k begins. ~ 5. Allloncingandsedlmt nlcorull,ll mus\III!IOIInlnplaco un~l c:onswdion hal linn complotod and hlllPPI'crnl /KIIIrfftl.
C) "::t::
RPL - 94 () 0:: lLJ < () N 1-. ,, 0 Ci) ,... ..,... ~·> /' :K' .r 2 < ><: >'!:' ' iii -Vl LUTM'GAACHITECTUIIE t:O :r:: ,-1- ..... - ...... ,. .... () e,_...... L' >f' )'~· >~' .>-3 > G!\."" r:/:J>-3 o>o Nz...., r~..-t..: ._ f>o> 1 8L'() WANG RES IDENCE Otr.I:::C '"rj I ~ ~I'\N.$WSTUKEJ'TDI I '"rj -~:s:n,IOI\11~ 102.86 GRANVIllE AVE. RICHMONO, B.C. ""j>~ PROPOSE SEPTIC FIELD LOCATION ~...., 10/Uil'll 11 oti;IJ'IUJ L'N >-<: ~-- :::c '/ / , :;:A1.0 I 8 (/) tr.l i pl do I'' I ! ll" ®liD®~
RPL - 95 ~ m MATTHEW CHENG RAR BUFFER ARCHITECT INC. (INFORMA llON FROM ~.. ~~~ .... :tt"'u."~, R.I.M. OF CITY OF ~- t=\~~t:~= t .. RICHMON D)
I Wo'IUPIUOl10~Cl~~==~~MJ. ! IUOU»CDDiollmoltSSV.U.U l17(1UUI ~~~==~~TW. llU&SUWAtlnl£tmlSMrMftii.ITOI - ~~~~r:=· d..__ ~- .
t/DO.Io ll.....bJon · 012CI14/D9/l4 8PSIJBioOSSDtl
RPL - 96 -', ''· ·:A. __•• • 1}!-f!.l>!- Bo ..J,< ·· POSTING PLA!f-l
-~ 9360 Fl N .,"~>~ .,
.. _,. ___• ...... __. __~ ------=- - =-....,..- = ·=-".,..,...-'-~ '"'- ---1-~-----· - --- ·- --~ - -...... -"'-"~-~- __,_...._ . ~_ - ·-- - -~-...., ______------~ @ © ® Q) CD ® Jm
MATTHEW CHENG ARCIDTECT fNC. l>M JOJ·ll9EYAHS /IVV'IJI! VAN C UUV~.Jl.BlVMlU To\ : (~)'1) 1 -:;Qillf¥o:(I101\Jl l ·l ftll: Col : (6i)l.t&4466'1/L.,.;~ · ,. _,....-.a: ....t;:o
ns"t~@-mrfc-..:... - - nDSDIV..~M\m"NO!"IHsc.\Ull. TIIEG
fAST 'MNG BLDG SECON IJ f l OQR 6 :5:5m ==~~=~=TAU.io!ATT!IEIIo'DIEMGJ..\Qintcr ltiC. 4HDM.~YM'OTBt =~wrrnournuoaWIJJmf
Ho Dot~ Re ...... ut2014,109/248PSU6UISS!Oi
_E,i,S T I't'!Nc.i.,~ _ (QARAGf)GRO\JNQ FlOOR J..:;Qm_ [ @~ ~~~; · ·
t I : ; ! ! I I
RPL - 97 FRONT ELEVATION (EAST PORTION) l-- ~-~ KEY PLAN
CJTYOI'R~ .w
ELEVATIONS
\.~~~f;./
Ore.,;
O.ecloed:"' "' FRONT ELE'WATION (WEST PORTIVN) J/t6"•1'-o•
-Pf!ljec\l,uo• ~ •·
Rc.;,;.,Oote: TDw9. He ••
P Frank Leonard, Chair, Provincial Agricultural Land Commission 133-4940 Canada Way Burnaby, BC, Canada V5G4K6 Dear Frank Leonard, Re: Request to LimitLarge Homes in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) . ·This is to advise that Richmond City Council, at its Regular meeting held on Monday, July 11, 2016, considered the above matter and adopted the following resolution: That a letter 'be sent to the Agricultural Land Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, with copies to neighbouring municipalities, requesting that they introduce Provincial regulations to control the maximum house size and house location on properties within the ALR. Since its inception, the Richmond Council has been committed to supporting the Province in protecting and enhancing the viability of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and avoiding uses which jeopardize farming. In recent years, Council has become ·concerned about a disturbing trend - that house sizes in the ALR have been increasing to the point where they are becoming too large and do not support agricultural viability .. For example, in Richmond, in 2010, the average built ALR house size was 2 2 2 678m (7,300 fe), in 2015, it was an average of 1,114 m (12,000 ft ) and lately some have been 2 2 in.excess of2,230m (24,000 ft ). Recently, Richmond staff turned down a Building Permit application for a house in the ALR which proposed 41,000 sq. ft. (0.94 acres), as it did not have the characteristics of an ALR single-family house, but rather of a hotel or a multi-family building. Attachments 1, 2 and 3 provide examples. These types of mega houses I buildings were never envisioned in the ALR, as they do not support agricultural viability and detract from achieving it. Richmond Council in discussions with other municipalities has noticed that they too are facing similar unacceptable large house size proposals in the ALR. The Ministry's 2015 'Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas' was a good step in the right direction; however, as this issue is:province-wide, to better protect the ALR, the Richmond · Council requests that the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) work with the BC Ministry of Agriculture, to establish uniform ALR regulations to limit the maximum house size and house RPL - 98 - 2 - location (e.g., floorplate). This next step would better achieve the provincial ALR vision and agricultural viability. Your consideration of this matter is appreciated. A similar letter has been sent to the Honourable Norm Letnick, Minister of Agriculture (attached). If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, at 604-276-4139. Malcolm D Brodie 1 Mayor Att4 cc: Honourable Norm Letnick, BC Minister of Agriculture, Kim Grout, CAO, Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Metro Vancouver Board and municipalities 5094518 RPL - 99 PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ORDER OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL Order in Council No. 602 ,ApprovedandOrdered July 29, 2016 ~nantoV'emor Executive Council Chambers, Victoria On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, orders that the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, B.C. Reg. 171/2002, is amended as set out in the altached Schedule. Mlnistero~ Presiding Member of the Executive Council (Tiri.r pan is for administrative purposes o11ly and is not part ofthe Order.) Authority under which Order is made: Act and section: Agricullural Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 36. ss. 58 (2) (a), (a. l) and (b) Other: O.C. 57ln002 July 18. 20l6 3/R/4191201613 page I of 3 RPL - 100 SCHEDULE 1 Section 1 of the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, B.C. Reg. 171/2002, is amended (a) in subsection (1) by repealing the definition of"agri-tonrism" and substituting the followitzg: "agri-tourism" means (a) an activity referred to in subsection (4) (i) that is carried out on land that is classified as a farm under the Assessment Act, (ii) to which members of the public are ordinarily invited, with or without a fee, and (iii) in connection with which permanent facilities are not constructed or erected, and (b) services that are ancillary to activities referred to in paragraph (a);, (b) in subsection (1) by adding the following definition: "gathering for an event" means a gathering of people on a farm for the purpose of attending (a) a wedding, unless paragraph (c) (ii) applies, (b) a music festival, or (c) an event, other than (i) an event held for the purpose of agri-tourism, or (ii) the celebration, by residents of the farm and those persons whom they invite, of a family event for which no fee or other charge is payable in connection with the event by invitees;, and (c) by adding the following subsection: (4) Agri-tourism on a farm means the following: (a) an agricultural heritage exhibit displayed on the farm; (b) a tour of the farm, an educational activity or demonstration in respect of all or part of the farming operations that take place on the farm, and activities ancillary to any of these; (c) cart, sleigh and tractor rides on the land comprising the farm; (d) subject to section 2 (2) (h), activities that promote or market livestock from the farm, whether or not the activity also involves livestock from other farms, including shows, cattle driving and petting zoos; (e) dog trials held at the farm; (f) harvest festivals and other seasonal events held at the farm for the purpose of promoting or marketing farm products produced on the farm; (g) com mazes prepared using com planted on the farm. page 2 of 3 RPL - 101 2 Section 2 is amended (a) by repealing subsection (2) (e) and substituting the following: (e) agri-tourism, other than accommodation;, (b) by repealing paragraph (d) in the definition of"ancillary use" in subsection (2.4), and (c) in the definition of "ancillary use" in subsection (2.4) by adding the following paragraphs: (e) cooking classes, if (i) the class is held in a food premises within the meaning of the Food Premises Regulation that has been constructed, and is being operated, in compliance with that regulation, and (ii) the service of food is permitted under a manufacturer licence issued under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act; (I) gathering for an event, if the event is held only in the lounge referred to in paragraph (b) or the special event area referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection, and, for this purpose, section 3 (4) (k) does not apply. 3 Section 3 is amended (a) in subsection (1) by adding the following paragraphs: (s) a refuge for wildlife, if operated in compliance with the Wildlife Act; (t) a facility that shelters and cares for surrendered, abandoned or seized livestock., and (b) in subsection (4) by adding the following paragraph: (k) gathering for an event, if all of the following conditions are met: (i) the farm must be located on land classified as a farm under the Assessment Act; (ii) permanent facilities must not be constructed or erected in connection with the event; (iii) parking for those attending the event must be available on the farm, but must not be permanent nor interfere with the farm's agricultural productivity; (iv) no more than 150 people, excluding residents and employees of the farm, may be gathered on the farm at one time for the purpose of attending the event; (v) the event must be of no more than 24 hours duration; (vi) no more than I 0 gatherings for an event of any type may occur on the farm within a single calendar year. page 3 of3 RPL - 102