H.01 Mayor and Council External Correspondence Summary November 7, 2016

FROM TOPIC DEPT. A.T. #

G. Valou and K. Sinoski, Board in Brief for Metro Vancouver CLERK’S 129760 267 Metro Vancouver Meetings on October 28, 2016

S. and J. Strukoff Provision of Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) in HR&CP 129737 268 Hospices and Palliative Care Units

W. Thompson, Charitable Hope in the City Breakfast FIN 129738 Gift Advisor, BC 269 Divisional Headquarters, Salvation Army

A. Murray, Vice- Request Permission to Host YVR’s Master PR&C 129672 President, Marketing & Plan Consultation Pop-Up Booth at Ladner CC: 270 Communications, YVR Leisure Centre HR&CP Vancouver Airport Authority

Mayor M.D. Brodie, City Letter to Premier Christy Clark and Hon. ENG 129701 of Richmond Todd Stone re George Massey Tunnel 271 Replacement Project – Highway Infrastructure Features

G. Moore, Chair, Metro Letter to Hon. Mary Polak, Minister of ENG 129696 Vancouver Board Environment re Metro Vancouver 2015 CC: CP&D 272 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program

G. Moore, Chair, Metro Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver CP&D 129656 273 Vancouver Board Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental CC: ENG Housing Study - Transit Ridership Effects

G. Moore, Chair, Metro Encouraging Agricultural Production CP&D 129655 274 Vancouver Board Through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver

H:\2016\2016-11-07\1H01 Summary.doc FILE #_ metrovancouver ROAPn IM RRIFF SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOI? ALIVABLE REGION D /\Ix L-^ I I xl O lA I L_ I

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC,Canada V5H4G8 604-432-6200 www.fnetrovancouver.org 267

For Metro Vancouver meetings on Friday, October 28, 2016 tJL Please note these are not the official minutes. Board in Brief ison informal summary. Materialrelating to anyof the '3"' foiiowing itemsisavaiiabie on requestfrom Metro Vancouver. Formoreinformation, pleasecontact Greg Vaiou, 604- O 451-6016, Crea. Vaiout^metrovancouver.ora or KellySinoski, 604-451-6105, Keiiv.Sinoski^metrovancouver.ora -H ri-J iXi Greater Vancouver Regional District

Hiw'

2016 Christmas Campaign - Create Memories, Not Garbage RECEIVED o

The Metro Vancouver Board received an update on the 2016 "Create Memories, Not Garbage" campaign, which this year will highlight examples of residents' "Best Give Ever" to encourage people to celebrate the holidays with experiences, spending time with loved one or giving long- lasting gifts in a bid to reduce waste during the Christmas season.

The campaign, now in its sixth year, typically uses positive and humorous behaviour to inspire people to consider alternative, non-tangible gifts to celebrate the holidays. The campaign is part of Metro's overall waste reduction and diversion targets established in the Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan.

Health and Economic Benefits of Sustainable Development and Transport APPROVED Investment in the Lower Mainland Study

The Board will send a letter to B.C.'s health minister, recommending the province support the "Health and Economic Benefits of Sustainable Development and Transport Investment in the Lower Mainland Study," while also directing staff to report back to the regional planning committee about Metro Vancouver's involvement with the study.

The committee recommendation followed an Oct. 14, 2016 presentation from Dr. Larry Frank of the University of British Columbia.

National Housing Strategy Consultation Update RECEIVED

The Board will write a letter to BC Housing to seek confirmation on the status of funding applications to BC's new housing investment funds for affordable rental housing units.

Housing affordability remains a key public concern in the Metro Vancouver region. The 2016 federal budget committed the federal government to a Phase 1 investment in housing Canada- wide of $2.3 billion, with about $150 million allocated to B.C. over two years. The new government has also committed to the development of a National Housing Strategy for Phase 2 funding. B.C. was expected to submit its input to the federal government in October.

TYPE: This is provided for Council's information. nFPT- A.T.#:ZZMHZZ . Ic Comments: Wo{/

4330 R:}ng$way, Burnaby, 8C, Canada V$H4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Sustainability Innovation Fund PolicyAmendments APPROVED

The Board has approved amendments to the Regional District, Liquid Waste, and Water Sustainability Innovation fund policies, which were created in 2004 to support utility or regional district projects based on principles of sustainability. Board poiicieswere adopted in 2014 to guide the use and management of the funds.

The amendments, recommended by the Climate Action Committee to encourage more innovative, multi-year projects and leverage additional funds from partners, are aimed at aligning the three policiesto create a more integrated and flexible process. The Regional Districtfund, previouslycalled the GVRD Sustainability Innovation Fund, was also renamed as part of the amendments to keep it consistent with the other policies.

Update on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and RECEIVED Climate Change and the BCClimate Leadership Plan

The Board received an update on the federal process for developing a Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and the BC Climate Leadership Plan, which is expected to present opportunities for local governments to advance their climate goals, by providing funding or specific policy development to accelerate actions in Metro's Integrated Regional Climate Action Strategy.

The federal and provincial governments are developing national and provincial climate plans, following the Paris Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 21) in November 2015.

Update on the Regional Prosperity Initiative APPROVED

The Board endorsed the 2017 Regional Prosperity Initiative Work Plan and budget, as presented in an Oct. 6 report, which is aimed at providingopportunities for a new public- private collaboration on regional prosperity in Metro Vancouver.

The Regional Prosperity Initiative involves stakeholders from the private and public sector as well as academia, labour and community organizations to work together to improve and expand the prosperity of the Metro Vancouver region. Asteering committee, slated to meet through the fall and into the spring of 2017 to come up with tangible proposals for a new public private collaboration, has already identified two potential projects: a regional mobile business licence and the development of a regional film permitting system, to help establish credibility ofthe organization. metrovancouver RDARn IN RRIFF SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FDR A LIVABLE REGION V-/JT^ I\ L-/ IIM L«/ i \ 1 i

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC,Canada VSH4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

2017 GVRD Function Budgets APPROVED

The Board approved a $709.5 million budget for 2017, up 5.6 per cent from a year earlier, which means the average Metro Vancouver homeowner will pay an additional $16 in taxes on an assessed $860,000 home, for a total cost of $452.

The increased budget reflects the costs of financing for the December 2014 purchase of the new head office, as well as 124 capital water projects and 167 sewer projects. The average homeowner will see water rates rise 3.2 per cent, or $4, for a total of $162, while sewer costs will go up 5.5 per cent, which equates to $10, or $190. Tipping fees remain unchanged, but regional district functions, which includes parks and air quality, will increase by 4.2 per cent, or $2, to a total of $44.

Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Minor Amendment to APPROVED Incorporate Updated Housing Demand Estimates

The Board made a Type 3 Minor Amendment to the Metro Vancouver 2040, the regional growth strategy and will notify affected local governments, appropriate agencies, and the public.

The amendment incorporates updated housing demand estimates developed through the preparation of the new Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. The existing housing demand numbers were based on the 2006 Census, while the revised estimates (based on housing tenure and household incomes) were adopted by the Board on May 27,2016, as part of the updated Regional Affordable Housing Strategy.

Greater Vancouver Regional District - Parks

Kanaka Creek Regional Park - Contribution Agreement for Operation ofthe APPROVED Kanaka Creek Beil-lrving Hatchery

The Board agreed to contribute $21,000 to the Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society to operate the Kanaka Creek Bell-Irving Hatchery for a one-year term, from Jan. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2017.

Fish production, conservation and community involvement activities will continue to benefit Kanaka Creek Regional Park and the region. The $21,000 contribution supplements a $25,000 ^^metrovanGOuver ROAPH IM RPIPF SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR ALIVABLE REGION D Jr\ IX LJ I I M D FX i l_ I

4330 Kinfsway, Burmaby, 8C, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovanGOMver.org

annual contribution from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to fund a hatchery manager and related fish production and administration costs.

Belcarra Regional Park - BC Hydro Metro North Transmission Project APPROVED Update and implications

The Board will write a letter to BC Hydro seeking clarification on its rationale for a separate route for the Metro North Transmission Project, a 230-kilovolt transmission line between Coquitlam and Vancouver that may include an additional right of way through Belcarra Regional Park.

BCHydro is expected to make a decision this fall on one of three alternative routes, which include a five-kilometre splice through Belcarra Park. The Board is concerned the move could affect the environment and esthetics of the park. Staff was directed to forward any response to the Regional Parks Committee.

2017 GVRD Budget- Regional Parks APPROVED

The Board approved a $35,968,513 budget for Regional Parks in 2017, up 4.5% from a year earlier. Ofthat, $11.3 million is earmarked for capital expenditures, including the Colony Farm Sheep paddocks trail, Burnaby Lake Still Creek bridge replacement. Pacific Spirit service yard replacement, Surrey Bend parking lot expansion and Derby Reach full service washroom.

Capital expenditures in the Regional Parks function are funded on a 'pay as you go' basis through contribution to capital reserves.

Greater Vancouver Water District

Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 16-119: Construction of APPROVED Clayton Reservoir - Phase 1

The Board has authorized a $16,390,750 contract (exclusive of taxes) to GiffelsWestpro Constructors Inc. for Phase 1 construction of the Clayton Reservoir, which is needed to boost the water supply to the growing municipalities of Surrey and Langley.

The new reservoir, slated for 72nd Avenue and 190th Street in Surrey, next to Hazelgrove Park, will have a storage capacity of 22.5 MLwith provision for future expansion to increase the ultimate storage capacity at this site to 45 ML. It will replace the existing Clayton Tank, built in ^metrovancouver ROARD IN BRIEF SERVICES AND S0LUTI0^4$ FOR A LiVABLE I^ECjIDN LJ 1 \ 11'^ LJ' i \ I i_ i

43S0 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC* Canada VSH4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancoyver.org

1966, which does not meet current seismic standards and is not big enough to serve the increasing demand.

Giffels Westpro Constructors Inc. offered the lowest bid for the project, beating out Kenaidan Contracting Ltd. ($17,137,000), NAC Constructors Ltd. ($17,878,000), Graham Infrastructure LP ($18,860,910) and Stuart OlsonConstruction Ltd. ($18,914,675).

Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 16-145: Coqultlam APPROVED Intake No. 2 - Project Definition

The Board has authorized a contract of up to $5,457,726 (exclusive of taxes) to CH2M Hill Canada Limited for Coqultlam Intake No. 2 - Project Definition, provided the required capital project budget increase receives approval from the Greater Vancouver Water District.

Metro Vancouver is seeking to develop and secure additional long term water supply capacity from the Coqultlam reservoir, which, along with the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs, provides clean, safe drinking water to 2.5 million residents across the region. CH2M Hill Canada Limited offered the lowest cost proposal for the project definition, which would define the scope of work including an indicative design, timeline and cost estimate for the proposed new intake, tunnel, and treatment.

Award of Contract Resulting from RFP No. 16-145: Coquitlam Intake No. 2 - APPROVED Project Definition

The Board has authorized the awarding of a contract of up to $5,457,726 (exclusive of taxes) to CH2M Hill Canada Limitedfor Coquitlam Intake No. 2 - Project Definition, provided the required capital project budget increase receives approval from the Greater Vancouver Water District.

Metro Vancouver is seeking to develop and secure additional long term water supply capacity from the Coquitlam reservoir, which, along with the Capilano and Seymour reservoirs, provides clean, safe drinking water to 2.5 million residents across the region. CH2M Hill Canada Limited offered the lowest cost proposal for the project definition, which would define the scope of work including an indicative design, timeline and cost estimate for the proposed new intake, tunnel, and treatment.

Sustainabiiity Innovation Fund Policy Amendments APPROVED

The Board has approved amendments to the Regional District, Liquid Waste, and Water Sustainabiiity Innovation fund policies, which were created in 2004 to support utility or metrovancouver ROAPH IN RRIFF SEI^VICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR AyVABLE REGION D i\L/ I I Nl D iX I CL i

4330 Klngsway, Burnaby, 8C» Canada V5H4G8 604-432«6200 www.metrovancouver.org

regional district projects based on principles of sustainability. Board policies were adopted in 2014 to guide the use and management of the funds.

The amendments, recommended by the Climate Action Committee to encourage more innovative, multi-year projects and leverage additional funds from partners, are aimed at aligning the three policies to create a more integrated and flexible process. The Regional District fund, previously called the GVRD Sustainability Innovation Fund, was also renamed as part of the amendments to keep it consistent with the other policies.

Delegation Executive Summaries Presented at Committee October 2016 RECEIVED

The Board received for information a summary of a delegation to the Utilities Committee from Peter Steblin and David Marshall of the Canadian Water Network.

2017 GVWD Budget APPROVED

The Board set the Water Rate for 2017 at $0.7641 per cubic metre for June through September; and $0.6113 per cubic metre for January through May and October through December

Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District

Award of Contract Resulting from Tender No. 16-029: Sperling Pump APPROVED Station Upgrading Project

The Board authorized the awarding of a $6,720,000 (exclusive of taxes) contract to NAC Constructors Ltd. for construction of the Sperling Pump Station upgrading project.

The project, which will replace the existing pump station built in 1963, will boost the pumping capacity from the current 520 l/s to 690 l/s and will be able to handle a projected increase in flows to beyond year 2050. It is expected to be built within two years and will be located on the existing site in Burnaby Lake Park near Still Creek. NAC Contractors beat out five others for the contract.

Eraser Sewerage Area Amendment - 20030 8th Avenue - Township of APPROVED Langley The GVS&DD Board agreed to a request from the Township of Langley council to amend the Eraser Sewerage Area to include a property in the Township, at 20030 8th Avenue, after an analysis showed there were no significant impacts to the regional sewerage system and no financial impacts to the GVS&DD. metrovancouver ROAPH IM RRIFF SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR AUVABIH REGION D V-X iX LJ I 1 M D iX I L 1

4330 KIngsway, Burnaby, 8C, Canada V5H4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancGuver.org

The approval followed a report presented to the GVRD Board on July 29,2016. For a municipal property to receive sewerage services it must be located within one of Metro Vancouver's sewerage areas.

Municipal Programs and Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi- RECEIVED Family and Commercial/Institutional Sectors

Metro Vancouver and member municipalities continue to work on programs to encourage recycling in single-family, multi-family and commercial/institutional sectors. A review of municipal bylaws and programs showed that the commercial/institutional sector is a key focus area to advance the region's diversion goals.

The GVS&DD Board will send a copy of the report, titled "Municipal Programs and Policies to Encourage Recycling in the Multi-family and Commercial/Institutional Sectors," dated Oct. 7, 2016, to all member jurisdictions and to the B.C. environment ministry, along with recycling and organics data for Multi-Family and Commercial/Institutional data in the Township of Langley.

APPROVED Non-Ferrous Metal Recovery Project at the Metro Vancouver Waste-to- Energy Facility

The GVS&DD Board has authorized Covanta Burnaby Renewable Energy, ULC, to build a non- ferrous metal recovery system at the Metro Vancouver waste-to-energy facility at a cost of $5,897,843 (excluding taxes), under the terms and conditions of existing contract.

The design is already complete and once the new system progresses, it is expected to result in 570-710 tonnes per year of additional ferrous and non-ferrous metal recovery, with a simple payback of 12-19 years. Additional benefits of recovering more metal include improvements to the bottom ash chemical and physical characteristics and boosting the potential to beneficially use the bottom ash. Athird-party engineering firm has confirmed the expected costs and revenues are reasonable and Covanta is the appropriate party to complete the work.

Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy Amendments APPROVED

The GVS&DD Board approved amendments to the Liquid Waste Sustainability Innovation Fund Policy, which has been in place since October 29,2004, when the board approved the creation of a fund that would be "dedicated to funding projects based on the principles of sustainability." p^^inetrovancouver ROAPn IM RRIFF SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR AUVABIE REGION D iX LJ IIMD IV 1 L I

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC,Canada V5H4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Delegations Received at Committee October 2016 RECEIVED

That Board received for information summaries of delegations to the Zero Waste Committee from: • Dean Drysdale, Board Chair, FoamOnly Recycling Corp. • Cynthia Shore, on behalf of Joe Casaiini, Director of Business Development, RABANCO • Corinne Atwood, Executive Director, BC Bottle and Recycling Depot Association

2017 GVS&DD Budgets - Liquid Waste and Solid Waste RECEiVED

The GVS&DD Board approved a $235,025,023 liquid waste budget, up 8.7 per cent, in 2017. The increase will boost the sewer levy by $10 for the average municipal household, up 5.5 per cent, for a total of $190, over the previous year. Total capital expenditures in solid waste are slated to be $26.7 million, up 55.2 per cent, or $9.5 million. Tippingfees remain unchanged.

Cost Apportionment Bylaw Amendment APPROVED

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Cost Apportionment Bylaw No. 283, 2014 contained two clauses with specific cost apportionment requirements for legacy facilities for which the conditions for allocation no longer exist. Debt related to the legacy Gleneagles Facilitiesand the legacy Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge Facilitieshas been paid off.

The Board approved changes to the bylaw to remove references to these facilities.

GVS&DD Tipping Fee and Solid Waste Disposal Regulation Bylaw No. 302, APPROVED 2016 The Board approved an updated tipping fees. Fees will remain the same in 2017 as in 2016, though there are several policy and operational changes.

Tipping Fee Bylaw provisions, effective January 1, 2017: 1. Tipping Fees to remain the same as in 2016 with the following exceptions: i. Recycling Fee for Source-Separated Organic Waste, Green Waste and Clean Wood at North Shore Transfer Station to be reduced from $71 per tonne to $67 per tonne; ii. Surcharge for Hazardous and Operational Impact Materials and Product Stewardship Materials to increase from $50 to $65 per occurrence; and ill. Recycling Fee for Gypsum to be $150 per tonne, with a minimum$15 fee (including Transaction Fee); ^metrovancouver ROARD IN BRIEF SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION LJ I\ I—' IIM I--' IVI I— I

4330 KIngsway,Burnat^, BC, Canada V5H 4C8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

2. Ability for General Manager of Solid Waste Servicesto waive fees and charges for loads from non-profit orvolunteer community clean-up projects on public land in certain circumstances; 3. GVS&DD's costs of providing dedicated recycling depots at the North Shore and Coquitlam Transfer Stations are to be apportioned among participating municipalities on a population basis; 4. Weigh scales precision improved to 5 kg increments; and 5. Peak Hours definition change to exclude Statutory Holidays;

Furthermore, the Board adjusted the surcharge threshold for Food Waste to change from 25% to 5%,the surcharge threshold for Clean Wood to change from 10% to 5%, and added a new surcharges for Unsecured Loads, Personal Hygiene Products. The ban exemption for Wax Paper or Cardboard was also removed.

2017 GVS&DD Budgets - Liquid Waste and Solid Waste RECEIVED

The GVS&DD Board approved a $235,025,023 liquid waste budget, up 8.7 per cent, in 2017. The increase will boost the sewer levy by $10 for the average municipal household, up 5.5 per cent, for a total of $190, over the previous year. Total capital expenditures in solid waste are slated to be $26.7 million, up 55.2 per cent, or $9.5 million.Tipping fees remain unchanged.

Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation District

Payout of Heather Place Mortgage APPROVED

The Metro Vancouver Housing Corp. Board authorized staff to pay out the existing CMHC mortgage on Heather Place, at 706-774 West 13th Ave., in Vancouver, estimated to be $600,887 as of Oct. 1,2016, plus $14,721 in interest that would be paid to maturity, for a total of $615,608. The payout is subject to confirmation of eligible reserve use under the Umbrella Agreement from BC Housing.

Heather Place is earmarked for redevelopment, with plans to build 67 units of rental housing in the first phase. However, for the development to proceed, certain legal agreements required by the Cityof Vancouver must be registered in first position against the Heather Place land titles, which requires the existing first mortgage be removed from priority position. There is no interest penalty in paying out the mortgage now, prior to maturity.

Prepayment of Section 27 CMHC Debentures APPROVED

The Housing Corporation Board approved MVHC to apply to the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation to prepay the Section 27 debentures on five Vancouver properties and obtain ^^metrovancouver ROARD IM RRIFF msm SERVICES AND SOLUTiONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION LJ Vw//v I\ L-/ i I M i \ 1 1

4330 Kingsway, Surnaby, 8C^Canada V5H4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

financing through Metro Vancouver, contingent on approval by the Metro Board, to take advantage of current lower interest rates.

The federal government announced in June that it will provide $150 million of funding over four years to allow prepayment of long-term debt held by CMHC without penalty so that social housing providers may access financing from the private market at lower interest rates. CMHC Section 27 debentures have a fixed-rate of eight per cent with expected maturities ranging from September 2026 to January 2029, compared with current available borrowing rates of 1.89 per cent to 2.49 per cent. The estimated net savings on a 10-year amortization internal mortgage at the current variable rate of 1.89 per cent is $1.SS million. MVHC holds five properties eligible for prepayment: Earle Adams Village, Euclid Square, Grandview Gardens, Kelly Court and Semlin Terrace. The properties are on 60-year leases, with about 20 years left before the properties revert to the City of Vancouver.

2017 MVHC Budget APPROVED

The Metro Vancouver Housing Corp. approved a $41.1 million budget for 2017, up 1.3 per cent over the previous year, primarily driven by increases in contractor maintenance and materials costs, utilities, insurance and property taxes.

Operating expenditures comprise $27.2 million of the $41.1 million budget, while debt servicing and reserve fund contributions represent $13.9 million in projected operating expenditures. Capital plans for 2017 include routine upgrades to flooring, appliances, kitchens and bathrooms, building envelope restoration (Regal Place, Tivoli Garden and Eastburn Square) and roofing replacements (Kingston Gardens, Maple Vine Court, LeChateau Place, Hemlock Court and Alderwood Place, while the development budget is slated for phase one of the Heather Place redevelopment project.

10 Ma^or^Council_

From: rinnfl Papkpr Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 2:09 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Board in Brief - October 28, 2016 Attachments: Board in Brief - Oct 28 2016.pdf

From: ExternalRelations fmailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 2:04 PM Subject: Board in Brief - October 28, 2016

Attached is the Board in Brief dated October 28,2016 for your information.

Materialrelatingto any of the following items isavailable on request. Formore information, please contact GregValou, 604-451-6016, [email protected] or Kelly Sinoski, 604-451-6105, [email protected]

Thismessage is provided inconfidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If you have receivedthis message inerror, please notify the original sender immediately bytelephone or by returnemail and delete this message along with any attachments. 268 genda ~ bHL A FILE # V03DD~u~ · ./

October 25,2016

Sandy and Janice Strukoff 4433 Dawn Place Delta, BC V4K 4S9 Email: Comments

Corporation of Delta Mayor Lois Jackson and Councillors Syliva Bishop, Robert Campbell, Jeannie Kanakos, Heather King, Bruce McDonald and Ian Paton

Re: Provision of Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) in hospices and palliative care units

We are writing this letter to let you know that Fraser Health is considering mandating Delta Hospice Society to provide MAiD at their facility and request your help in making our concerns known.

Delta Hospice Society is there to provide comfort and care for those in their facility and to their family's. They offer support to their patients and to family and friends through their caring staff and volunteers and the programs that they offer. Hospice's are a safe, caring environment that have specialized health care providers who specialize in providing care for patients diagnosed with a life threatening illness. The specialized physicians and nurses are able to manage any pain that may be associated with the patient.

Offering MAiO conflicts with Delta Hospice Society's constitution to provide comfort and care, and to not prolong or to hasten death. People at Delta Hospice Society - their volunteers, staff, family members and clients, will greatly be impacted if MAiD is offered there. Those wishing to have MAiD is a very different philosophies and requires it to be done in a different facility. Delta Hospice Society relies heavily on volunteers to provide such comfort and care and offering MAiO would jeopardize having volunteers commit to serving. Retention and recruitment of staff at Delta Hospice would also be an issue, since many are opposed to MAiD. The support by community would also be negatively impacted if MAiD was offered at Delta Hospice Society. Many of the community partners are church's and individuals who do not support MAiO, and do not support MAiO being done in a hospice, which is to be a safe haven for loved ones in their last days.

Please let us know if there is anything you can do to stop Fraser Health from mandating MAiO to be provided at Delta Hospice Society and in any hospice or palliative care unit.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Sandy and Janice Strukoff

The letter writers are concerned that Delta Hospice staff will be required to participate in the “Medical Assistance in Dying” Bill C-14 federal legislation. At their most recent Public Board Meeting (Oct. 12), Fraser Health advised they are currently reviewing Bill C-14 with internal stakeholders and will seek further input prior to making any decisions regarding where Medically Assisted Dying will take place. On Oct. 3rd, Fraser Health issued a statement advising, “the new federal legislation states no person will be forced to provide or help to provide medical assistance in dying, recognizing that not all health care providers will be comfortable with giving or helping to provide this service.” Mayor _Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Tuesday, October 25,20163:17 PM To: Mayor & Council Subject: FW: Medical Assisted Dying Attachments: Corp of Delta MAiD letter.pdf

From: Sandy Strukoff Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 2:55 PM To: Mayor Lois Jackson; Sylvia Bishop; Robert campbell; Jeannie Kanakos; Heather King; Bruce McDonald; Ian Paton Subject: Medical Assisted Dying

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

We are writing this letter to express our deep concern that Delta Hospice Society may be mandated to offer medically assisted dying in their facility.

Please see attached letter and article below.

We appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Sandy and Janice Strukoff

1 Shutterstock Steve Weatherbe B.C. hospices say they've been told to offer euthanasia

BRITISH COLUMBIA, October 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Two of British Columbia's five regional health authorities - one of them covering the "Bible Belt" area of the lower Fraser River valley just east of Vancouver - apparently have told voluntary societies offering hospice and palliative care that they must provide euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The Fraser Health Authority and its unnamed ally are not only flying in the face of - and against the philosophies and binding constitutions of most if not all the province's 73 voluntary hospice societies - they have done so without consulting the hospice societies in their own regions. Apparently they have also jumped the gun on the provincial Health Ministry, which is months away from finalizing its own policy. J

2 "We have made it clear from the beginning of th~ discussion about medical assistance in dying that it is not part of hospice and palliative care," said Lorraine Gerard of the B.C. Hospice and Palliative Care Association. "In hospice care, we do nothing to prolong life, but we do nothing to hasten death." Hospices, instead, make terminal patients' final days as comfortable as possible and help their families grieve.

Lisa Zetes-Zanatta, the Fraser Health Authority's executive director for its Home Health and Palliative Care Program, would not confirm its instructions to hospice societies operating within its boundaries. "We are in discussions with our internal stakeholders about this issue and, while they evolve, we will continue to provide patient-centered care, including medical assistance in dying services as outlined in the [federal] legislation," she told LifeSiteNews via email.

She noted that the recently passed federal legislation on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) allowed conscientious objection by individual health care providers only.

Zetes-Zanatta added, "We recognize the concerns of some palliative care physicians and hospice societies who feel assisted dying may conflict with a core philosophy of palliative and end of life care - to alleviate suffering as the patient reaches their natural death." But she said nothing directly about whether the Fraser Authority was requiring those caregivers nonetheless to violate their principles and constitutions. .

"Our priority is supporting patients and responding to their needs as best we can," she continued, without .ever acknowledging patients who want no part of palliatate centers that do double duty as termination units.

The action of the two health authorities' policies could make the current delivery of palliative care impossible. "Two-thirds of our societies rely entirely 'on unpaid volunteer efforts to provide palliative care," Gerard said. Not only those volunteer workers, but the volunteer boards that run the societies, are completely committed to the philosophy- of the hospice movement, which is opposed to involvement in assisted death. They might be driven away from the work by involvement with MAID.

What's more, Gerard said, "Their ability to raise funds would be threatened once potential donors see what they are doing."

The paid staff employed by the bigger societies operating in the Lower Mainland, Victoria, and other larger cities are just as committed to doing nothing to hasten death. A group called Citizens for Public Safety has started a petition aimed specifically at the Fraser Authority's board but also addressed to the provincial government.

It reads in part: "As concerned citizens, it has come to our attention that all non-faith­ based hospices and palliative care units in the Fraser Health Authority may be required to offer euthanasia and assisted suicide (MAID) on their premises. This is extremely distressing and would destroy the strong hospice and palliative care system in Fraser Health."

3 It asserts the rights of "patients at end of life" to "completely be confident that they will be safe and treated without reference or exposure to hastened death in any form .... Trust will be eroded and suffering will be greatly increased for many patients and families if the crucial perception of refuge and sanctuary is compromised in any way."

One petition signator, Gerard Van Dap, confirmed the claim made elsewhere in the petition that hospice centers operate as "an integrated society." The families of the patient are invited to stay overnight, to take breaks from the bedside to have coffee and cookies in comfortable lounge areas, and to chat with other families.

Imagine the impact, VanDop said, if "one family says during a chat with another that their mother "will be dying tomorrow afternoon." He told LifeSiteNews, "If they want a booked death, it should be at a different facility for that purpose. The two kinds of patient and the two groups of families should not be comingled."

Van Dop added that hospices "know a better way" to handle terminal illness, and that is with painkilling drugs and bedside care. Even the last moments of those with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, who die by asphyxiation, can do so painlessly and in their sleep thanks to current palliative treatments.

Gerard told LifeSiteNews that two health authorities had advised hospices they would all have to provide medical-aided death. She immediately arranged a meeting with provincial health officials who assured her that the policy was still being developed and the actions of the two authorities were "premature" -and they would be told forthwith.

Gerard added that her organization's research indicated that no provincial government that had formulated a policy was requiring hospices to deliver MAID. None required faith­ based hospices to participate. Some required other hospices to refer patients to other facilities.

Quebec had tried to defund hospices that refused to cooperate but discovered it could not legally and therefore was giving those willing to deliver MAID a bonus.

"There is one unintended consequence of this discussion about MAID," Gerard told LifeSite. "We have learned that large numbers of people, large numbers of politicians, have no idea what hospice care is all about."

The B.C. Health Ministry acknowledged meeting with the B.C. Hospice and Palliative Care Association, adding "B.C. is committed to a respectful approach that recognizes the diverse needs of patients and healthcare providers."

It also told LifeSiteN ews, "At this time, the ministry has not put a policy in place regarding the provision of medical assistance in dying in hospice and palliative care settings."

But it denied knowing whether or not some health boards had told hospice they must collaborate with euthanasia and assisted suicide. 4 This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization. If' you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments ..

5 Mayor Council

From: Mayor Lois Jackson Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 4;08 PM 269 To: Mayors Council Subject: FW: The Salvation Army's Annual - Hope in the City Breakfast: Thursday, December 1, 2016 Attachments: Hope in the City - 2016.pdf

tiwlu CTi O O From: Wavne Thompsoniacan.salvationarmv.ora rmailto:Wavne Thomosontaican.salvationarmv.orql p-'J Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:26 PM To: Mayor Lois Jackson g, Subject: The Salvation Army's Annual - Hope in the City Breakfast: Thursday, December 1, 2016 Hii. DJ

Hello,

The Salvation Army is again hosting its largest annual fund raiser and awareness event, Hope in the City Breakfast, at the Vancouver Convention Centre. This event targets 1,500 influential supporters from communities throughout the Lower Mainland and proceeds go to support those in need across the Lower Mainland and throughout all of British Columbia.

Poverty knows no boundaries. Vulnerable people and hurting families live in your community and they live in mine. Even in a region blessed with so much, so many of our fellow citizens are struggling to find adequate food, a place to stay and the personal supports they need. You can help by supporting The Salvation Army at this annual event.

As Mayor of your city, we are giving you and members of your council an additional opportunity to give back to the people of your city in a most tangible way. By supporting The Salvation Army, you are supporting the largest non-governmental provider of social services in British Columbia and a highly trusted charity across Canada and throughout 128 countries of the world.

Attached is a Sponsorship Package. Please take a moment to review the many ways The Salvation Army provides immediate compassionatecare to so manyin need, as well as, the sponsorship options available for our Hope in the City Breakfast. This is a way for you to help us help others. Please decide which sponsorship package best fits the charitable priorities of your municipality.

I look forward to discussing this exciting opportunity with you. Alternatively, you can contact me directly after you have reviewed the enclosed.

We would greatly appreciate your support and your attendance at this exciting event.

Thank you so much. tvpp- DEPT; _£i(^ (See attachedfile: Hope in the City - 2016.pdf ^ j Comments: {v's? jUfA/ ditchy^ Wayne Thompson Charitable Gift Advisor BC Divisional Headquarters 103 - 3833 Hennlng Drive Bumaby, BCV5C 6N5

Phone: 604 299 3908 ext. 229 Cell: 778 874 7651 Fax: 604 291 0345 E-mail: wavne [email protected]

www.SalvationArmv.ca/BritishColumbia Jlr @salarmybc

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and/or confidential and is intended for the use of the individualor entity named above. Ifyou have received this message in error, please notifyus immediately and destroy this message. You are hereby notifiedthat any dissemination, distribution or communication of this message is strictly prohibited.

This message is provided in confidence and should not be forwarded to any external third party without authorization, if you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return email and delete this message along with any attachments.

The Salvation Army provides support to vulnerable individuals and families throughout all of British Columbia. Delta currently provides many forms of financial assistance to non-profit organizations and community groups that are located in Delta. Additionally, the Leisure Access Assistance Program allows eligible, low income Delta residents to access basic recreation programs and services. Delta does not typically provide direct sponsorship support to fund raiser events. THE SALVATION ARMY'S 15TH HOPE IN THE ANNUAL CITY BREAKFAST

m <1^ V • •

THURSDAY, DEC 1,2016 | 7:30 TO 9:00A VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE WEJ§1 THE SALVATION ARMY BC DIVISION HOPE IN THE CITY BREAKFAST

When we share, we should share loud and clear and without shame.

Michael Landsberg

THE EVENT Our Hope in the City Breakfast has become a special Christmas tradition. We bring Vancouver's business community together to ring in the holiday season, raise funds and awareness, and celebrate those Our guest speaker this year is Michael Landsberg. You who help us make an impact on the lives of so many may recognize him from his days anchoring TSN British Columbians. Sportsnet or hisvery popular TV show Off the Record. Over 1200 individuals gather on this special day to Mr. Landsberg suffers from generalized anxiety disor show their support and provide us with the financial der and depression, a condition that affects over 3 assistance we need to deliver our mission. Through million Canadians every year. their care and support, we are better-equipped to In British Columbia, there is a strong relationship be create significant and long-lasting improvements in tween mental illnessand poverty. And whilethe cause local communities, while providing essential services and effect relationship is complicated, the end result for those less fortunate. is not...people suffer. THE SALVATION ARMY Engaging and thoughtful, Mr. Landsberg will share his personal story, shine a spotlight on a condition that The Salvation Army gives hope and support to vulner impacts people from all walks of life, and discuss the able people today and every day in 400 communities impact The Salvation Army is having in B.C. across Canada and more than 120 countries around the world. We offer practical assistance for children Join us for this very special occasion ... you're sure to and families, often tending to the basic necessities of walk away inspired. life, providing shelter for homeless people and reha #sicknotweak bilitation for people who suffer from addiction. •

... mfst importanMhmg that I can teach my children Is' that everybody needs somr help sometimes.

to overcome. I had to acknowledge that I had severe, prolonged disabilities and they were not getting bet THE COURAGE ter." She applied for a disability pension and visited The Salvation Army, where she found the support i^iaiHELP she needed. Our Christmas hamper program was there for Kelly Asking for help was one of the hardest things Kelly and her family. She was given a turkey dinner, treats had to do, but when the young mother of two was for her kids, fruits and vegetables, "everything you down to her last $20 and Christmas was coming, need." She was also able to shop through the charity's she had no choice but to reach out. "It was the most toy collection and get brand new gifts for her children. humbling experience of my life, because I had never needed to ask for anything." The experience inspired her so much that now she gives back. Kelly is a dedicated volunteer with our A collision with a drunk driver left her with a number organization and continues to share her story in of long-term disabilities. The damage — both physi hopes of encouraging others like her to ask for help. cal and emotional — put a lot of stress on her young family and within two years, she and her husband had For Kelly, reaching out was life-changing and because separated. Without his modest income, she struggled of the support we receive from our donors and volun to provide for her children. teers, we were able to be there for her and her family. Just before the holidays, Kelly acknowledged she needed help. "You have a lot of pride that you have #hopeinthecity #heroesforhope HEROES INVEST .p USUSIdldCOMMUNITIES... I

Christmas Assistance The SalvationArmy offers help to families that find themselves struggling during this festive season as well as throughout the year. Christmas Hampers and holiday meals are available to assist individuals and families in need. New donated toys also become presents under the Christmas tree!

Community & Family Services Salvation Army locations across BC provide nutritious free meals for men, women and children across BC. Community feeding is offered through our facilities and street outreach programs. Clients include elderly, immigrants, struggling working families, underemployed, addicted, mentally ill, and/or phys ically disabled. These meals often provide an opportunity for staff to help clients access other social services offered through the community.

Rehabilitation Services Our goal is to provide a clean, safe, non-judgemental environment to those who are battling ad diction. Our detox centres address physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual needs. Our pro grams are run by multidisciplinary teams that provide health care workers, nurses, case managers and administrative staff; as well as, recovery resources, housing and funding referrals. Clients are supported 24/7 by health care workers, with weekday nursing services.

Emergency Disaster Services Emergency Disaster Services has 14 Community Response Unit locations across BC. These locations have mobile unitsthat are equipped to provide hot meals and beverages to disaster victims and emer gency workers. Over a 1000 meals can be prepared and served daily through our mobile kitchen units.

#hopeinthecity #heroesforhope i 111 Community & Family Services SPONSORS FROM 2015

PRESENTING SPONSOR BRONZE SPONSORS

Adplay Media AIISPACES Project Management (Is Scotiabank Cadillac Fairview City in Focus CityReach Care Society MEDIA SPONSORS DATA Group Ltd Dayhu Group ©DT Douglas R. Johnson Law Corp. Dr. Ross & Mary Brown PLATINUM SPONSORS Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

H.Y. Louie Co. Limited ,JSUL E: m If EE I ^ Deloitte. iQmetrix McCarthy TetrauIt LLP

GOLD SPONSORS Odium Brown Limited

Pacific Blue Cross ^ TFAR DirkC.A.DeSteodates^Vuyst eSi. ^GOLDCORP O'i3[ 3ACIA ^ Law Corporation f r.o -p- «i ? i M Patshell Construction PWC - PricewaterhouseCoopers C coastoapriaL, RBC Royal Bank SILVER SPONSORS Spartan Foundation Summit Pacific College

Tom Lee Music

Veritas Construction Wesgroup Properties #hopeinthecity #heroesforhope Westcoast Audio Visual Gallery SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Presenting Platinum* Gold Silver Bronze Table RECOGNITION $15,000 $10,000 $7,500 $5,000 $3,500 $1,800

Speaking opportunity at event

First right of refusal for 2017 event

Opportunity to display banner at event

Red Kettle at event on Red Carpet - LOGO

Included in SponsorThankYou speech

1 Seat - Complimentary at Special VIPtable

10 Seats - Reserved VIP Table preferred table reserved table reserved table

HITCB site (hopeinthecity.ca) - LOGO & LINK LOGO only Name only Name only

Social Media / E-Blast recognition - LOGO ✓ XL ✓ ✓ M ✓ S Name only

Pre/Post event advertising (print &web) - LOGO ✓ XL ✓ ✓ M ✓ s Name only Event collateral pieces - LOGO ✓ XL m ✓ M ✓ s Name only Thank You signage - LOGO ✓ XL ✓ ✓ M ✓ s Name only

Lower Mainland Red Kettle(s) 6 4 3 2 1

PREMIUM ADDITIONS for PLATINUM SPONSORS

Audio/Visual Sponsor Keynote Speaker Sponsor

Band Sponsor (The Salvation Army Band) Ministry Unit Sponsor (frontline stafff/ client attendees

Breakfast Sponsor Red Shield Sponsor (The Salvation Army display)

Coat Check Sponsor The Army: Addressing Mental Health display

Entertainment Sponsor The Army at Work display

#hopeinthecity #heroesforhope SPONSORSHIP • PRESENTING $15,000 • SILVER $5,000 REGISTRATION • PLATINUM $10,000 • BRONZE $3,500 • GOLD $7,500 • TABLE $1,800

PURCHASE • TABLE OF 10 $1,000 Q TICKET(S) $100 EACH hope CONTACT NAME IntheQj-ty

ORGANIZATION Return this form with current company information to Agnes: [email protected]

STREET ADDRESS The Salvation Army BC Divisional Headquarters 103 - 3833 Henning Drive CITY, PROVINCE, POSTAL CODE Burnaby, BC V5C 6N5

t. 604.299.3 908 PHONE f. 604.678.8489

Please submit list of table attendees by EMAIL November 14^. Your table number and event details will be ernailed by November 25*^. • CHEQUE *Make payable to The Salvation Army Note: Offical receipts for tax purposes are • CREDIT not issued for sponsorships.

THE SALVATION ARMY'S 15TH ANNUAL CREDIT CARD #

EXPIRY DATE HOPE IN THE CITY BREAKFAST NAME ON CARD 270

VANCOUVER AIRPORT Agenda AUTHORITY FILE# nQioD

October 19, 2016

Her Worship Mayor Lois E. Jackson Delivered via e-mail to-. clerksSdelta.ca and Members of Council The Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent cn Delta. BC V4K3E2 o O Your Worship and Members of Council: iJD

-p I am writing to request permission for Vancouver Airport Authority to host our Master o ro Plan consultation pop-up booth at the Ladner Leisure Centre. OJ o At a presentation to Metro Vancouver last month, Mayor Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver, suggested we bring our consultation to the different cities in Metro Vancouver. We took this suggestion to heart and would like to take this opportunity to meet with community members in Delta.

YVR 2037 is a multi-year planning and consultation process that is an integral part of creating YVR's new Master Plan, a roadmap that helps guide us to our future destination. The Master Plan looks forward to the future and creates a 20-year plan (to 2037) that will ensure the best use of YVR's fundamental resource - land.

As a community-based organization, connecting with our neighbours is important to us. We want to work together in creating our airport of the future. Please contact Jody Armstrong at 604.276.7741 or by e-mail at jody_armstrong[ayvr.ca if this request would be acceptable for Council. rv r t, Yours truly. DEPT;

A T. Commentr: iJo\js

Anne Murray Vice President Marketing & Communications cc: City Clerk's Office Staff has been in contact with the Vancouver Airport Authority and subject

P.O. 80X23758 to Council approval recommends two sessions; one in North Delta and one AIRPORT POSTAL OUTLET RICHMOND. 8C CANADA VTB 1Y7 in South Delta. WWW.YVR.CA If approved, staff will finalize the times and locations directly with the TELEPHONE 604,276.4500 FACSIMILE 6D4.276.6S05 Vancouver Airport Authority's Marketing and Communication office. From: Janice Murray [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:54 PM To: Clerks Cc: Jody Armstrong; Andrea Pham Subject: Letter from Vancouver Airport Authority Attachments: 2016_10_18_City of Delta request letter_signed.pdf

On behalfofAnne Murray, please find attached a letter to Mayor Lois Jackson and Members ofCouncil. We look forward to your reply. Sincerely,

Janice Murray Executive Assistant to Anne Murray, Vice President, Marketing & Communications Gerry Bruno, Vice President, Federal Government Affairs VANCOUVER AIRPORT AUTHORITY

DIRECT: 604.276.6655

WEB: WWW.YVR.CA | TWITTER: ©YVRAIRPORT

AWARDED 8EST AIRPORT m HORIH AMERICA ? YEARS IN A ROW 271

^3 A RLE # ^ City of TYPE; =^^£^^alcolm D, Brodie DEPT_ - Mayor A.T,#;_La33c^ 6911 No, 3 Road Comments: Richmond, 8C V6Y 2C1 ilephone: 604-276-4123 Fax No: 604-275-4332 October 17, 2016 \o\*¥'w. richrncjn d.ca

The Honourable Clmsty Clark The Honourable Todd Stone Premier ofBritish Columbia Minister ofTransportation and Infrastructure Office ofthe Premier and Deputy House Leader PC Box 9041 STN PROV GOVT PC Box 9409 STN PROV GOVT

Victoria B.C. V8W9E1 Victoria B.C. V8W9V1 fj-i

Dear Premier Clark and Minister Stone:

Re: George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Highway Infrastructure Features .fe,

In December 2015, the Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement n;i Project (the Project) was released that contained conceptual drawings ofthe Project, including detail ofthe proposed Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchange ramps in plan view with C- limited information on the proposed vertical profiles.

Beginning in late June 2016, scaled model displays ofthe proposed new bridge and the two interchanges at Steveston Highway and Highway 17A have been available for public viewing at the Ministiy ofTransportation and hrfrastructure's (the Ministry) Project office in Richmond.

As the latest project models revealed new information in terms ofthe vertical profiles ofthe structures and their relation to adjacent existing structures and buildings, Richmond City Council, at its Regular Council meeting held on Tuesday, October 11, 2016, considered a staffreport regarding the highway infrastructure features ofthe Project and adopted the following resolution:

(1) Richmond City Council reconfirms its significant concerns regarding the proposed bridge project to replace the George Massey Tunnel and encourages the Province of British Columbia to work with the Cities of Richmond and Delta, Metro Vancouver, Translink and other interested parties to implement solutions to the urgent problem of congestion on Highway 99 that are more compatible with the regional transportation network, the enhancement ofpublic transportation in the region, protection of the environment, protection offarmland, consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy, protection of our quality of life and other important factors;

This is provided for Council's information. MAYOR'S OFFICE OCT 21| 2016

RECEIVED 5194565 Richmond -2-

(2) Ifthe Province decides to proceed with the currentproposal to replace the Massey Tunnel, that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure be strongly urged to significantly reduce the size and project scope of the Steveston Highway interchange andHighway 99, including: (a) measures be incorporated into the design of the Steveston Highway Interchange ramps to mitigate the noise, lighting and visual impacts ofthe ramps such as the installation ofa green wall/verticalgarden or other decorative concreteforms on the vertical walls; (b) principles to ensure the security of transit passengers (ue.. Crime Prevention Through EnvironmentalDesign) and mitigation measures to address the noise, visual and air qualify impacts be incorporated into the design of the transit exchange located within the Steveston Highway Interchange; and (c) the design for the widening of Highway 99 near the Steveston Highway Interchange be re-examined with a view to minimizing the extent ofwidening while not comprising safety and itsfunctions; (3) That a follow-up letter be sent to the Provincial Agricidtural Land Commission reiterating the City^s concerns regarding the Ministry's applicationfor Transportation, Utility and Recreational Trail Use along the Highway 99 corridor to allowfor the widening ofHighway 99 aspart ofthe Project; (4) That the report titled ^'George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project — Highway Infrastructure Features" dated September 28, 2016 be forwarded to the British Columbia EnvironmentalAssessment Officefor consideration as part ofthe City's second round ofcommentsfurther to the initial 30-day Working Group review period on the Provincial EnvironmentalAssessment Applicationfor the George Massey TunnelReplacement Project; and (5) That a letter containing this resolution and the report entitled George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Highway Infrastructure Features, dated September 28, 2016 and related information be sent to the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Richmond MPs and MLAs, the Mayor ofDelta, Metro Vancouver, Translink, and to BCMayors and Councils (through Civiclnfo),

Furtlier details ofRichmond City Councirs on-going and unresolved concerns witli the Project since itsannouncement inSeptember 2013 are provided in the attached past Council resoiutioiis and staffreports.

We trust tliattlie above Councilresolutionswill be considered seriouslyby the Ministry before this project is advanced any further and that your collaboration with all regional stakeholders is committed now to seek a collectively supported solution to the cun-ent transportation crisis. -3-

Yours truly.

MalcolmJD. Brodie Mayor

Att. 1 pc: TheHonourable Alice Wong, Member ofParliament forRichmond Centre Mr. Joe Peschisolido, Member of Parliament for Steveston-Richmond East The Honourable LindaReid,Member of theLegislative Assembly for Richmond EastandSpeakerof tlieLegislature The Honourable TeresaWat, Member of theLegislative Assembly forRichmond CentreandMinister for International Trade and MinisterResponsible forthe AsiaPacificStrategyand Multiculturalism Mr.John Yap, Member ofthe Legislative Assembly forRichmond-Steveston and Parliamentary Secretary forLiquor Reform Policy to theMinister of Small Business, Red TapeReduction andMinister Responsible fortheLiquor Distribution Branch MayorLoisJackson (Corporation of Delta) Metro Vancouver TransLink BC Mayors and Councils (Civiclnfo) George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - History of Council Resolutions

Council Resolution Meeting

WHEREAS:

(A) the Richmond Official Community Plan envisions the protection ofexisting farm lands and the improvement to provincial highways be restricted only to within the existing corridors such as Highway 99 in Richmond; (B) any proposed new highway corridors through existing farm lands would be detrimental to the City and the region; and (C) Richmond has continuously expressed opposition to any new highway crossing in the vicinity of No. 8 Road;

THEREFCRE BE IT RESCLVED

(1) That the City of Richmond send a letter to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, with copies to the Richmond MLA's, the leaderof the Cfficial Cpposition, Richmond Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Metro VancouverAgricultural Advisory Committee, and the Agricultural Land Commission, formally opposing any proposed river crossing options that would significantly impact existing farm lands and communities, particularly Scenario 5 in their recently released documents for Phase 2 public consultation for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement project; (2) That all Metro Vancouver municipalities be advised of the above resolution; and (3) That staffreview and report back on the implications of the George Massey Tunney improvement options once further details of the options are determined.

(1) That the proposed project objectives for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel as described in the staffreport dated May 23, 2014 from the Director, Transportation be endorsed and forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure for its consideration in the development of a preferred project scope of improvements; and

(2) That the above Council resolution and a copy of the above report be forwarded to Richmond MLAs, TransLink, the Corporation ofDelta, and the Cities of Surrey, White Rock and Vancouver for information.

(1) That the staffreport titled "Update on George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project" dated July 10,2015 from the Director, Transportation, be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation &Infrastructure's George Massey Tunnel Replacementproject team for consideration in the development ofthe Project Definition Report;

(2) That a letter be sent to BC Hydro advising that, should the George Massey Tunnel be decommissioned, the City's preferred options for the relocation of the BC Hydro transmission line from the tunnel would be eitheran underground crossing of the Eraser River or attached to the new bridge; and

(3) That a letter be sent to the Auditor General for British Columbia outlining Council's concerns with respect to the replacement ofthe George Massey Tunnel. George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - History of Council Resolutions

Council Resolution Meeting (1) That the staffreport titled "Update on George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project- Highway 99 Widening," dated September28, 2015, from the Director, Transportation, be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure's George Massey Tunnel Replacement project team for consideration in the development of the Project Definition Report;

(2) That a letter be sent by Mayor Brodie, on behalf of Council, to the Agriculture Land Commission and the Ministerof Transportation and Infrastructure, with copies to all Richmond MLA's, advising of the City's concerns with any potential widening of Highway99 on the west side impacting existing established institutions and farming of their backiands, and reiterating the City's request for the early provision of the Project Definition Report and financing strategy; and

(3) That a letter be sent to the Agriculture Land Comrhission confirmingthat the City wishes to be fully engaged in any discussions regarding the use of Agricultural Land Reserve lands for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.

January (1) Thatthe Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) be advised that while the City 25,2016 supports the objectives of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project to ease traffic congestion at the existing tunnel area, improve transit and cyclingconnections and replace aging highwayinfrastructureto enhance publicsafety, as described in their Project Definition Report, the following issues must be addressed by MoTI prior to advancing the project for further design and the procurement process:

(a) Provision of furtherdetails to demonstrate how the overallproject will: (i) Have a net zero or positive impact to agricultural land, and (ii) Maintain, protect and enhance the City's riparian management areas and environmentally sensitive areas through a net gain approach;

(b) Determination of howthe toll rate will be implemented so that Itwould be fair, equitable and part ofa region-wide mobility pricing policy consistent with the Mayors' Council vision for regional transportation investments in Metro Vancouver;

(c) Immediate commencement ofdiscussions by MoTI with the Citiesof Vancouver and Richmond to jointly establish a contingency plan to address any potential increased trafficqueuing on Highway 99 at the approach to the Oak Street Bridge;

(d) Collaboration with the City toidentify appropriate infrastructure improvements to minimizeany negative impacts from the widened bridge crossing and associated interchanges on the local road network includingSteveston Highway, Westminster Highway, No. 5 Road, Van Home Way, and Rice Mill Road;

(e) Encouragement ofprojectproponents by MoTI to achieve a creative and innovative iconic design of the new bridge that recognizes its significance of being the largest bridge to be built in British Columbia; and

(f) Facilitate excellenceinsupporting sustainable transportation options through:

(i) Partnership with TransLink to ensure that the transit stops withinthe Steveston Highway and Highway 17A interchanges are operational on opening day, (ii) Provision of a multi-use path for pedestrians and cyclists on each side ofthe George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - History of Council Resolutions

Council Resolution Wieeting new bridge ofsufficient width to safely accommodate all users in order to: i. improve safety by minimizing the crossing of Highway 99 on- and off- ramps at Steveston Highway that are planned as free flow, a. Minimize circuitousness and maximize convenience, and Hi. Better address existing and future demand; (Hi) Inclusion ofpedestrian and cycling facilities as part of the new Steveston Highway and Westminster Highway interchanges and on both sides of the Blundell Road overpass, and (iv) Provision ofimproved pedestrian and cycling facilities on Shell Road as part of the widened Shell Road overpass.

(2) That the BC Environmental Assessment Office be requested to extend the deadline for comments on the draft Application Information Requirements from February 10, 2016 to March 15, 2016 to provide the City with sufficient time to provide meaningful input.

(3) That the matter be referred to Metro Vancouver for comments on the compatibility of the new bridge with the Regional Growth Strategy;

(4) That overall Richmond City Council prefers a new or improved tunnel rather than a new bridge;

(5) That a letter be sent to the City of Vancouver request that they involve the City of Richmond in the discussions regarding the Oak StreetBridge and 7(f Avenue and OakStreet situations following the completion of construction;

(6) That a letterbe sent to Agricultural Land Commission seeking information on the potential encroachment on the farm land; and

(7) That a copy of the resolution be sent to the Prime Minister, Premier, City of Vancouver, local MPs and local MLAs.

(1) That the City of Richmond request that the Provincial Government provide copies ofall reports and studies - including but not limited to business plans, feasibility studies, technical studies, seismic studies, and/or environmental impact studies - that relate to the original plan to twin the George Massey Tunnel and/orprovide Rapid Bus service that were considered during the period from 2006 to 2008; and that if necessary, that the foregoing request be made as an official Freedom ofInformation request;

(2) That a letter be sent to the Auditor General requesting comments on the process leading up to the decision related to the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project; and

(3) That the City ofRichmond send a letter to the Federal Minister of the Environment requesting that the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project be referred to a Canadian Environmental Assessment Review Panel for review under the Environmental Assessment Act. George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - History of Council Resolutions

Council Resolution Meeting July 25, That a letter be sent to the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission: 2016 (1) Requesting that the following further detailed information, as outlined In the attached report, be provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding its application for Transportation, Utility and Recreational Trail Use along the Highway 99 corridor to allow for the widening of Highway 99 as part of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project:

(a) Substantiate the claims of transportation benefits and specify how Rice Mill Road could become a farm route alternative to Steveston Highway without assuming any improvement costs to be borne by the municipality;

(b) Demonstrate how the Project will maintain, protect and enhance the City's riparian management areas and environmentally sensitive areas on both sides of Highway 99 through a net gain approach;

(c) Clarify how topsoil conservation willbe undertaken;

(d) Ensure that the highway right-of-wayidentifiedforpotential return to agricultural use will be farmed upon completion of the Project;

(e) Clarify how the Project will improve the highwayright-of-way identified for potential return to agricultural use;

(f) Conduct a soils analysis study to better document and assess the soil capability of the parcels required for the Project and the highway right-of-way identified for potential return to agricultural use; and (g) Validate that the highwayright-of-way identified for potential return to agricultural use will be improved to a soil capability class equal to or better than that of the parcels required for the Project to ensure a net gain in soil quality, not just total

Expressing the following concerns regarding the proposed acquisition of a parcel of the Cityland comprising the Gardens Agricultural Park:

(a) Reduction in the overall size of the park by 17.8 percent;

(b) Reduction in the size of the park elements of the community gardens, agriculturai demonstration gardens, and parking lot by 50 percent;

(c) Impact on the approved park design such that a new park design process must be undertaken including public consultation; and

(d) Additional costs and resources required to undertake the park design process; and

Expressing concern that the Province is taking farm land from the west side of Highway 99 as opposed to the east side, as property on the west side of Highway99 is dedicated to farming purposes pursuant to agreements between the City of Richmond and third parties in the Agricultural Land Reserve; and

Requesting that the approval of the application not be granted until the above information is submitted for further review and the above issues are considered by the AgriculturalLand Commission and the City of Richmond, as weli as otherrelevant stakeholders such as the Agricultural Advisory Committee, to be satisfactorily George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - History of Council Resolutions

Council Resolution Meeting

addressed.

September That the City's comments on the Provincial Environment Assessment Application for the George 12,2016 Massey Tunnel Replacement Project for the first round of the 30-day Working Group review period, as outlined in Attachment 1 of the staff report, titled "George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Application Comments for the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Process" dated August 26, 2016, be conveyed to the BC Environmental Assessment Office for consideration and response provided that comments be added regarding BC Hydro overhead transmission lines and that copies be sent to Metro Vancouver. October 3, That a follow-up letter be sent to the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission reiterating the 2016 City's concerns regarding the Ministry's application forTransportation, Utility and Recreational Trail Use along the Highway 99 corridor to allow for the widening of Highway 99 as part of the Project.

October (1) Richmond City Council reconfirms its significant concerns regarding the proposed 11,2016 bridge project to replace the George Massey Tunnel and encourages the Province of British Columbia to work with the Cities of Richmond and Delta, Metro Vancouver, Translink and other interested parties to implement solutions to the urgent problem of congestion on Highway 99 that are more compatible with the regional transportation network, the enhancement of public transportation in the region, protection of the environment, protection of farmland, consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy, protection ofour quality of life and other important factors;

(2) If the Province decides to proceed with the current proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel, that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure be strongly urged to significantly reduce the size and project scope of the Steveston Highway interchange and Highway 99, including:

(a) measures be incorporated into the design of the Steveston Highway Interchange ramps to mitigate the noise, lighting and visual impacts of the ramps such as the installation ofa green wail/vertical garden or other decorative concrete forms on the vertical walls;

(b) principles to ensure the security of transit passengers (i.e.. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) and mitigation measures to address the noise, visual and air quality impacts be incorporated into the design of the transit exchange located within the Steveston Highway Interchange; and

(c) the design for the widening of Highway 99 near the Steveston Highway Interchange be re-examined with a view to minimizing the extent of widening while not comprising safety and its functions;

(3) That a follow-up letter be sent to the Provincial AgriculturalLand Commission reiterating the City's concerns regarding the Ministry's application for Transportation, Utility and Recreational Trail Use along the Highway 99 corridor to allow for the widening of Highway 99 as part of the Project;

(4) That the report titled "George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - Highway Infrastructure Features" dated September 28, 2016 be forwarded to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office for consideration as part of the City's second round of comments further to the initial30-day Working Group review period on the Provincial Environmental Assessment Application for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project; and George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project - History of Council Resolutions

Council Resolution Meeting (5) That a letter containing this resolution and the report entitled George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project- Highway Infrastructure Features, dated September 28, 2016 and related information be sent to the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Richmond MPs and MLAs, the Mayor of Delta, Metro Vancouver, Translink, and to BC Mayors and Councils (through Civiclnfo). 272

metrovancouver A RLE # SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

Office of the Chair Tel. 604 432-6215 Fax 604 451-6614

File: CR-12-01 ai OCT 1 6 2016 Request ID: 6359 rii a Ref: SO 2016 Jul 29 TYPPc IVJ Honourable Mary Polak HJ" Minister of Environment l- PO Box 9047, Stn Prov Govt Victoria, EC V8W 9E2 Cornmeni"/Vi?^Mi^ G

Dear Minister Polak:

Re: Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program

At its July 29, 2016 regular meeting, the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (Metro Vancouver) adopted the following resolution:

That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled "Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program", dated July 8, 2016 for information, and send a copy to all member jurisdictions and to the provincial Ministry of Environment.

Construction and demolition waste is targeted as a key material in Metro Vancouver's integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan to further increase reuse and recycling.

The enclosed report outlines Metro Vancouver municipal progress in implementing mechanisms to encourage construction and demolition waste recycling, and provides an update on construction and demolition waste composition.

If you require more information on these programs, please contact Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services at 604-432-6442 or Paul.Henderson(5)metrovancouver.org.

Yours truly.

This correspondence provides information on regional and municipal "^54- construction and demolition waste diversion initiatives

Greg Moore Chair, Metro Vancouver Board

GM/CM/ph

cc: Metro Vancouver Member Jurisdictions

End: Report titled "Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program", dated July 8, 2016 (Docffl889i067)

19495365 4330 Kingsway,Burnaby,BC, Canada V5H4G8 •604-432-6200 •www.metrovancouver.or9 Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water District • Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (D^l^metrovancouver section e 2.1 SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

To: GVS&DD Board of Directors

From: Zero Waste Committee

Date: July 18, 2016 Meeting Date: July 29, 2016

Subject: Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program

ZERO WASTE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVS&DD Board receive the report titled "Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program", dated July8,2016 for information, and send a copy to all member jurisdictions and to the provincial Ministry of Environment.

At its July14,2016 meeting, the Zero Waste Committee considered the attached report titled "Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program", dated July 8, 2016. The Committee subsequentlyamended the recommendationas presented above.

Attachment: "Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program", dated July 8, 2016.

18891067 (p^ metrovancouver Attachment SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

To; Zero Waste Committee

From: Marian Kim, Lead Senior Engineer, Solid Waste Services

Date: July8,2016 Meeting Date: July14,2016

Subject: Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program

RECOMMENDATION That the 6VS&DD Board receive the report titled "Metro Vancouver 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program", dated July8, 2016 for information.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update the Board on the 2015 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition Monitoring Program and to provide a summary of municipal regulatory measures in placeto encourage recycling of construction and demolition materials.

BACKGROUND Metro Vancouver's Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (ISWRMP) has set ambitious regional diversion goalsthat relyon increaseddiversion inthe construction and demolition (C&D) sector. ISWRMP Strategy 2.4and2.7target the C&D sectorandspecifically wood forincreased reuse and recycling. In support of these strategies, Metro Vancouver continues to monitor the region's C&D waste composition to measure progress towards the diversion goals and to better understand opportunities for further recycling in the C&D sector.

On May 19, 2016,the ZeroWaste Committee directed staff to provide: 0 summary of the various approaches taken by member municipalities in addressing the disposal ofdemolition materials.

This report provides the results of the 2015 C&D Waste Composition Monitoring Program and a summary of measuresimplemented bymunicipalities to encourageC&D recycling.

2015 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTECOMPOSITION MONITORING PROGRAM The 2015 C&D Waste Composition Monitoring Study titled "2015 Demolition, Land-clearing, and Construction WasteComposition Monitoring Program", available here, analyzed the composition of C&D material arriving at both the Vancouver and Ecowaste landfills. The Vancouver Landfill receives C&D waste for on-site construction purposes. Ecowaste is a private landfill located in Richmond receiving C&D type wastes. One hundred and three loads were sampled from various sources including residential demolition, commercial demolition, construction, and residual materials from private C&D transfer stations and material recovery facilities. The volume ofeach material typewas visually estimated and converted to a weight to determine an approximate overall regional composition. The field portion of thisstudywascarried out inSeptember and October 2015. A comparison of the 2015 C&D waste composition monitoring results to that of the previous study in 2011 is provided in the table below.

Table 1: Comparison of Overall Regional C&D Waste by Material Type: 2011 and 2015

Material Category by Type % by Weight Annuai Weight (Tonnes) 2011 2015 • •201i|i'>7;;7w7"7-20157 • "7 Wood 54% 57% 150,823 217,943

Asphpit; i 8% 9% 22,519 34;597 Misc. Building Materials 3% 7% 9,488 28,441 Rubb!ff'2577fe Masonry/Brick 1% <1% 3,081 1,052 Coficrete5ij.ii-ir-f 1 .-5% 12,906 7£^;:7;486Ba7,77 Total 100% 100% 279,000 386,000

Sources of C&D loads C&D loads being received at the Vancouver and Ecowaste landfills were sampled for composition audit as they arrived. Ofthe 103 loads sampled, more than half (53) were reported to have originated from residential demolition. Of the remaining loads, roofing (12 samples), transfer station residuals (12 samples), and commercial demolition (9 samples) were the next most common sources. Other less common sources included construction, land-clearing, manufacturing, and commercial demolition. The distribution of samples is representative of the sources of loads typically received at Vancouver Landfill and Ecowaste Landfill combined.

Both Vancouver and Ecowaste Landfills receive demolition loads from across the region with Vancouver Landfill receiving primarily residential demolition loads and Ecowaste Landfill receiving a mixture of all types of loads, which is reflected in the landfill-specific composition analysis. At Vancouver Landfill, wood, a large part of which was composite, painted or treated and challenging to recycle, represented 90% of the total demolition material observed during the study. The City of Vancouver specifies the characteristics of the C&D waste received at that facility to meet its requirements for use of the material for construction purposes. At Ecowaste Landfill, wood was 41% of the material observed, with asphalt being the next highest at 13%, foilowed by miscellaneous materials such as carpet, underlay, insulation at 10% and rubble at 9%. Both sites accept separated loads of clean wood for recycling. Wood Wood continues to represent the largest portion of C&D waste in the region at an estimated 218,000 tonnes (57% by weight) disposed in 2015. The primary category of wood was further separated into clean dimensional lumber, treated dimension lumber, composite wood (including plyvyood), shredded wood, wood flooring, and wood shakes and shingles. The majority of the wood identified wascomposite(20% byweightof all materials), cleandimensional lumber(14%), and painted/treated dimensional lumber (13%). Limited opportunities exist for recycling composite and painted/treated lumber, whereas clean dimensional lumber is highly recyclable. Metro Vancouver is working with the University of British Columbia on research projects that are intended to support additional options for recycling of C&D wood materials.

Metro Vancouver's Clean Wood Disposal Ban was implemented in January 2015. The ban applies to loads delivered to Metro Vancouver and Cityof Vancouver facilities. Large C&D loads delivered to the Vancouver Landfill used for construction purposes are not currently included in the ban. The ban has helped to raise awareness of the need to separate clean wood waste from disposal. The percentage of clean dimensional lumber in the C&D waste stream has dropped from 71,000 tonnes in 2011 to 55,000 tonnes in 2015.

The overall increase in the amount of wood in C&D waste in 2015 compared to 2011 can in part be attributed to the inclusion of out-of-region disposal tonnage in the 2015 report, which increased the total annual tonnes of wood in C&D waste by 28,000 tonnes in 2015. The remainder of the Increase in wood is likely due to the increase in development activity in the region and accelerated pace of demolition ofsingle family homes. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, new housing starts increased by 17% between 2011 and 2015. According to field observations, the majority of demolition wood in samples came from single family homes, especially at the Vancouver Landfill.

Other C&D materials Of the remaining material types, only asphalt (9%), miscellaneous building material such as carpet, underlay, dry, insulation, and stucco (7%), rubble (7%), and plastic (6%) were found in proportions greater than 2%. Metal, bulkyitems, textiles, land-clearing material, paper, household garbage, glass and ceramics, rubber, masonry and concrete collectively represented less than 15% of C&D material.

Compared to 2011, the composition of rubble showed the most dramatic decrease, from 19%in 2011 to 7% in 2015. Concrete also decreased from 5% in 2011 to <1% in 2015, a reduction of approximately 12,000 tonnes. This Indicates that concrete, asphalt and rubble continue to be readily recyclable, contributing to the increase in total C&D waste recycled from 1.04 million tonnes in 2011 to 1.19 million tonnes in 2014.

The highest recycling potential exists in residential demolition projects, especially single family homes, and current regulatory measures to encourage recycling through municipal demolition permitting processes by separating recyclable materials at source play an important role in maximizing recycling.

Summary of Municipal Construction and Demolition Material Recycling Requirements The Board approved a proposed municipal permit approach to encouraging demolition material recycling in October 2012 and referred a sample municipal bylaw to member municipalities for consideration. Theobjective ofthe sample municipalbylawisto encourage recyclablematerials from demolition sites to be reused, sorted on site, or taken as mixed loads to private transfer stations and processing facilities for recovery.

Six municipalities have adopted regulatory measures that establish recycling requirements for demolition material and others are considering adopting a regulatory program. The demolition material recycling requirements are implemented through the demolition permitting process and are based on the sample municipal bylaw, although the requirements are appropriately customized to each municipality's needs and available resources. Here is a summary of current municipal requirements related to demolition material recycling:

Table 2: Sutnmary of Municipal Regulatory Measures to Encourage Demolition Material Recycling Municipality Year Bylaw Diversion Reporting Fees associated with Effective requirement requirements Demolition Material Recycling Services Metro 2012 - Board • Direct • Waste Disposal Percent diversion used to Vancouver referred recyclable and Recycling calculate percent of Waste Sample sample bylaw materials to a Services Plan Disposal and Recycling Bylaw to recycling • Compliance Services Fee refunded municipalities facility Report • Receipts submitted City of New 2016 • 70% of • Recycling Plan Waste Disposal and Westminster demolition and Compliance Recycling Services Fee waste Report includes a non-refundable • Receipts administration fee, and a submitted fully refundable Recycling Incentive Deposit of $0.87/square foot City of North 2007 • Recycling of • Demolition No new fees or deposits Vancouver specified Waste Checklist introduced demolition materials City of Port 2011 • 70% of • Compliance Waste Management Fee Moody recyclable report includes a fully refundable material • Receipts portion of $1,800 for a submitted typical house (varies based on square footage). City of 2016 ® 70% of ® Recycling plan Non-refundable Richmond demolition and compliance administration fee and fully waste report refundable Waste Disposal ® Receipts and Recycling Service Fee of submitted $2/square foot City of 2014 ® 90% from pre- ® Recycling plan Non-refundable Demolition Vancouver 1940 and compliance Waste Compliance Fee plus character report refundable Green homes • Receipts Demolition Deposit of 0 75% from pre- submitted $14,650 1940 homes • Plans to transition to ail one- and two-family homes by 2018 District of 2014 • Direct • Notarized No new fees or deposits West recyclable statutory introduced Vancouver materials to a declaration that recycling C&D waste has facility been recycled

Metro Vancouver continues to track regional progress in implementing measures to encourage recycling in demolition projects and develop resources such as cost benefit analysis of recycling demolition materials that can support existing and future regulatory programs.

A range of other initiatives are also being pursued around the region, for instance, the City of Vancouver is investigating the potentialto developa C&D recycling facility at the Vancouver Landfill to maximize recovery of the material delivered to that facility.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Ongoing work in developing resources to support regulatory measures to encourage recycling of demolition materials can be accommodated within the annual operation budget.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver continues to monitor the composition of the region's C&D waste to measure progressin achieving the region's diversion goalsand to better understand opportunitiesfor further recycling in the C&D sector. Wood continues to represent the largest portion of C&D waste in the regionat an estimated annual 218,000 tonnes {57% byweight). The majorityof the wood identified was composite and painted/treated dimensional lumber which are difficult to reuse and recycle. Clean dimensional lumber make up approximately 14%of the C&D waste stream, and the estimated tonnes disposed has decreased from 71,000tonnes in 2011 to 55,000tonnes in2015 possibly due to raised awareness on separating clean wood waste from disposal through Metro Vancouver's Clean Wood Disposal Ban. Concrete, asphalt and rubble continue to be readily recyclable, with significant reductions in the quantity disposed since 2011. Municipal measures are important tools to increase reuse and recycling of C&D materials. A number of municipalities around the region have implemented new regulatorytools to encourage reuse and recycling of C&D materials.

18406586 273 ^ metrovancouver SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION /k RLEFILE#D # U\St5^3oh ^ QslKJlfri V ff7Q_j

Office ofthe Chair Tel. 604 432-6215 Fax 604 451-6614

File: CR-12-01 OCT 1 2 2016 Ref: RD2016Sep23 Mayor Lois Jackson and Council Corporation of Delta 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent ~ ~ - Delta, BC V4K 3E2 DEPt; A.T. #: L - - CoT^menl: Dear Mayor Jackson and Council:

Re: Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study-Transit Ridership Effects

At its September 23, 2016 regular meeting, the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District ('Metro Vancouver') adopted the following resolution:

That the GVRD Board communicate the transit ridership findings from the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study to thefollowing 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 Communities and Minister of 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 ofNatural Gas Development and Responsible for Housing; • Mayors' Council on Regional Transportation and TransLInk Board ofDirectors, • Member local governments, and • Other housing and transportation stakeholders In the Metro Vancouver region.

Encouraging mixed-income communities that are supported by a sustainable transportation system is a key focus of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future, the regional growth strategy for the Metro Vancouver region. Metro Vancouver, in partnership with BC Housing, the BC Non-Profit Housing Association, TransLink, and Vancity, is undertaking the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study to advance knowledge about tools that may assist in making affordable rental housing (affordable to renter households making less than $50,000 annually) financially viable in transit-oriented locations.

Emerging results from the Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing study reveal a compelling business case for accommodating affordable rental housing in transit-oriented locations:

19485439 4330 Kingsv^ay, Burnaby, BC,Canada V5H4G8 • 604-432-6200 • wwvy.metrovancouver.org Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater VancouverWater District • Greater VancouverSewerage and Drainage District • MetroVancouver HousingCorporation Corporation of Delta Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study - Transit Ridership Effects Page 2 of 2

1. Compact areas with higher population near the Frequent Transit Network support higher transit ridership. 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 offrequent bus and rapid transit corridors.

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 affordablllty Investments. Transit usage rates for renters consistently exceed that for owners, even after controlling for density, household income, and location. Transit usage rates are highest for renter households making less than $50,000.

Metro Vancouver believes these findings may provide a substantive contribution in support of connecting affordable rental housing and transit. We encourage all participants in the important conversations currently underway to take these emerging findings into consideration in your community and transportation planning discussions.

Yours truly.

Greg Moore Chair, Metro Vancouver Board

CM/EC/hm

End: GVRD Board report titled, "Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit- Oriented Rental Housing Study - Transit Ridership Effects", dated September 15, 2016 (Doc #19381705)

Metro Vancouver, in partnership with BC Housing, the BC Non-Profit Housing Association, TransLink, and Vancity, is undertaking the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study to advance knowledge about tools that may assist in making affordable rental housing (affordable to renter households making less than $50,000 annually) financially viable in transit-oriented locations. The study findings indicate transit use in higher density areas is up to three times higher than In lower density areas, while transit usage rates for renters consistently exceed that for owners, even after controlling for density, household income, and location.

19485439 Section E 2.3 metrovancouver SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

To: GVRD Board of Directors

From: Regional Planning Committee

Date: September 15,2016 Meeting Date: September 23,2016

Subject: Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study - Transit Ridership Effects

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE 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.

At its September 9, 2016 meeting, the Regional Planning Committee considered the attached report titled "Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study-Transit Ridership Effects" dated August 22, 2016.

The Committee commented on the importance of an integrated approach to housing and transportation decisions inthe region, on transit fundingsources identified inthe staff report, and about challenges facing localgovernments in addressing issues of housing and affordability in their respective communities. The Committee passed the motion as presented above, and subsequently passed the following resolution directing staffto prepare additional information for the Board:

That the Regional Planning Committee direct staff to prepare additional information for the September 23, 2016 Board meeting on funding sources related to transit in Metro Vancouver, as it relates to the August 22, 2016 report titled "Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study.

Members requested more information about the source of information regarding the bullet point on page 4 of the staff report that reads "TransLink is matching the current round of federal and provincial contributions with a $125 million regional transit capital investment". The source of this statement is a media release, dated June 16, 2016, issued by the Mayors' Council on Regional Transportation (see reference below), as well as discussion between Metro Vancouver staff and Mayors' Council staff. The media release, titled "TransLink Mayors' Council Welcomes $616 Million in Federal and Provincial Transit Funding", states:

TransLink will match federal and provincial contributions with a $125 million regional capital investment, towards the total $740 million of projects submitted to the federal government's 'Phase 1' Public Transit Infrastructure Fund program that will allow TransLink to begin work on a sub-set ofthe priorities outlined in thefirst 2- 3 years ofthe capital projects in the 10-Year Vision...

Mayors' Council staff have confirmed that the source of the $125 million through which TransLink will match federal and provincial contributions is from the sale of surplus TransLink property.

Attachment: 1. Report titled "Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study-Transit Ridership Effects", dated, August 22, 2016.

Reference: 1. Media release titled "TransLink Mayors' Council Welcomes $616 Million in Federal and Provincial Transit Funding": http://www.translink.ca/- /media/Documents/about translink/governance and board/council minutes and reports /2016/iune/2016 06 16 news release mavors council phase 1 funding%20 iune 2016. pdf

19381705 ATTACHMENT metrovancouver SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

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 andSocial Development; • the Provincial Minister ofFinance, Minister ofTransportation and Infrastructure, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Responsible for TransLink, and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Responsiblefor Housing; • Mayors' Council on Regional Transportation and TransLink BoardofDirectors, • 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 {M\JORU).

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 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 creat^^ 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.^

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 ofthe 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 ofthese lands? Locations Activity 4: Evaluation ofTools 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?

^When non-working renter householdsare Included, about 3 in5 renter households (178,000 households) made less than $50,000 (source: 2011 National Household Survey). 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.^

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. 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).^

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 households^ 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 provincialgovernment has committed $246 millionfor 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 millionfor 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.

^ Current relationships between age and mode choicecouldchangeover time (i.e.,the rate of transit use byfuture older adults could increase). Future census and travel surveys can track the movement of these relationships. *Fornew apartment units constructed inthe 2006-2011period, 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. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board communicate the transit ridership findings from the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rental Housing Study to the foiiowing parties emphasizing the findings' reievance and timeliness to current and upcoming regional, provincial and federal housing and transportation decisions: • the Federal Minister of infrastructure and Minister of Communities and Famiiies, Children andSocial Development; ® the Provincial Minister of Finance, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Responsible for TransLink, and Minister ofNatural Gas Development and Responsiblefor Housing; » Mayors' Councilon Regional Transportation and TransLinkBoard ofDirectors, • Member local governments, and • Other housing and transportation stakeholders in the Metro Vancouver region. 2. That the Regionai Pianning Committee receive for information the report titled "Progress Update on the Metro Vancouver Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Rentai Housing Study-Transit Ridership Effects" dated August 22,2016. •-

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2016 GVRD Board approved Regionai 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 additionai 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 popuiation 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 wili aiso translate to higher transit ridership and value for money of transit and housing affordability investments. For the iatter, expanding the affordabie rental housing suppiy will be one way to achieve a greater diversity of income and tenure.

The identification of the transit ridership vaiue proposition is timeiy. The federai and provincial governments have committed hundreds of miliions of dollars for public transit in the region. The region is aiso making its fair share contribution to public transit. The federai government has committed $2.3 biliion nationaiiy over two years to affordabie housing, and is consuiting on the preparation of a National Housing Strategy.The provincial government has committed $355 miiiion over five years for affordabie housing projects through the Provinciai Investment in Affordable Housing program. The provinciai government wiii 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 regionai stakeholders wili have access to new evidence to inform their dialogues and decisions about integrating affordabie rental housing and transit, and maximizing transit ridership and the vaiue for money of public investments. Staff recommends Alternative 1. 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 forthe 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 Expandingthe Supply of Purpose-Built Rental Housing Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional- planning/PlanningPublications/RAHS-WhatWorksReport.PDF Attachment 1

Transit Usage for the Journey to Work by Population Density (2011)

40

35

o Renter ^ 30

o 25 o

§. 20 ifi O- t 15

« Owner

5

•^ I

0 High Density • - Low Density

2011 NHS

Population Density Map with Current Frequent Transit Network (darker census tracts indicate higher population densities) Attachment 2

Transit Use for the Journey to Work by Income in Canada's Big Metro Areas (2011, 2006)

Renters - 2011 Owners ~ 2011

$30,000 SS0,000 u 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

"••••Montreal 37 33 30 28 • Montreal

^••••Metro Vancouver • 32 :. 31 27 23 •Metro Vancouver «••« Ottawa-Gatineau ^34 30 27 24 • Ottawa-Gatineau

"•^Calgary 27 24 21 19 •Calgary

"•••Edmonton 26 23 18 15 • Edmonton

2011 NHS 2011 NHS

Renters - 2006 Owners - 2006

$30,000 $50,000 $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

38 34 29

32 28 25

•Ottawa-Gatlneau 29 26 23 12 15 15 15

Metro Vancouver 27 22 18 """Metro Vancouver 14 14 13 10

•Calgary 24 20 17 ••"^"Calgary 12 14 13 12 19 IS 12 Eliiiiii3Sli33GS 33IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 10 9 7 6

2006 Census 2006 Census Attachment 3

Transit Use for the Journey to Work by Income in Select Transit Corridors (2011)

Expo Line Corridor

50 Regtort

10

S30.000 10 S50.000fo Less Stan $75 000 or less ?nan tess niBTt S2Q.OOO more $50,000 $75,000 -Ovner? 31 3C -Renters •16 36-

96 B-Line Corridor (Surrey)

Region

30

20

10

$3C.0S9 to $50 XO to Less tnarr $7; 000 or less than less than S30.000 more 550,000 S75,X0 -Owners 14 15 -Renieis 29

FTN Hastings Corridor (Vancouver, Burnaby)

Region

I! I 0 JC i I 1 o 0 1

$3&,X0 to 550,XO to Less ftan STSOOOor less tiiafi less lham S30C0C more 550,X0 S75.X0 -0-.vnefs -Renters

2011 NHS Attachment 4

Key Differentiating Attributes Between Renters and Owners (2011)

Age of Head of Working Household

Renter Houssholds 5%! 21%

Owner Households l% 9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Age 15-24 -Age 25-34 Age 35-44 "Age 45-64 • Age 65+, Source: 2011 NHS

Journey to Work by Age

Age 65+ I'^ri i:3%

Age 45-64

Age 35-44 m

Age 25-34 |

Age 15-24

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

• Transit a Walk/Cycle "Auto •Other Source: 2011 NHS Attachment 5

Hypothetical Transit Corridor Growth and Transit Use Scenarios

• Owners • High IncomeRenters »Moderate IncomeRenters • Low IncomeRenters "Very Low IncomeRenters 10,000 ?' ^ 8,000 o 2 c o o 6,000

No > o I 2,000 0 I I I E g SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5 SC6 SC7 SC8

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

{S 3 C 500,000 C <

0 llllllllSC1 SC2 SC3 SC5 SC6 SC7 SC8 400,000 +24% •'•24% +23% MM.

ro 0^ 3 > 300,000 c s +17% Wm Eh C TO _ £ 2 y> o 200,000 c .S-w +10% E»- O O ^ 100,000 £ ra

SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 ilMSC5 see SC7 SC8

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 $30,000 274 metrovancouver SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION A p"g LP

Office ofthe Chair Tel. 604 432-6215 Fax 604 451-6614 ImnKi

File: CR-12-01 OCT 1 2 2016 Ref: RD2016Sep23 O Mayor Lois Jackson and Council I Corporation of Delta TYPE. IXJ 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent /'a-K Delta, BC V4K 3E2 ' S'

CoRTmenC jf\)OLiirAk=-<-A Dear Mayor Jackson and Council: ^ J

Re: Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver

At its September 23, 2016 regular meeting, the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District ('Metro Vancouver') adopted the following resolution:

That the GVRD Board: a) Send a letter to the BC Minister of Community Sport and Cultural Development and the Minister ofAgriculture requestingfarm property tax reform for the Metro Vancouver region, as described in the White Paper titled, "Encouraging Agricuitural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver", and that consideration be given to similar reform for the entire province ofBritish Columbia; and b) Convey the report dated August 22, 2016, titled "Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver", to member municipaiities, the Eraser Valley Regional District, the Capital Regional District, the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District, the Central Okanagan Regional District, and the Agriculturai Land Commission.

Metro Vancouver recently completed a three-year review of farm property tax policy assessing whether tax reform could assist in encouraging farming or discouraging non-farm use on lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve in the Metro Vancouver region. The review concluded that existing tax policies are, inadvertently, encouraging the non-farm use of agricultural land. In addition, the low farm income threshold for qualifying a property as farm for assessment purposes may be limiting investments in agricultural economic development at a time when the demand for local food is increasing.

The protection of agricultural land and the economic viability of farming are priorities for Metro Vancouver, and are integral to planning for future growth in accordance with Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future, the regional growth strategy. While farm property tax policy is just one factor affecting agriculture land use, it is an important financial lever for instituting behavioural change.

19477118 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby,BC, Canada V5H 4G8 • 604-432-6200 • ww\A/.metrovancouver.org Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water District • Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation Corporation of Delta Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform In Metro Vancouver Page 2 of 2

The recommendations from the farm property tax review are found on page 15 of the White Paper; they are to: • eliminate the 50% School Tax exemption for properties classed as residential (Class 1) in the ALR; • change the income threshold to achieve farm classification to a minimum of $3,500, regardless of farm size and develop a two-tier farm classification benefits system; • adjust the method for valuing agricultural land not used for farming; and • 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 Agricultural Land Reserve.

The results and recommendations identified in the White Paper are based on the conditions in the Metro Vancouver region, but could also apply to other areas of British Columbia working to protect agricultural land from conversion to non-farm uses.

If you and your staff are interested in continuing the discussion on farm property tax reform, please contact Heather McNeil, Division Manager of Growth Management, at 604-436-6813 or heather.mcnell(S)metrovancouver.org.

Yours truly. The research and recommendations developed by Metro Vancouver evolved through consultation with staff at various municipalities, including Delta. The recommendations reflect the experience of Metro municipalities as they seek to encourage active farming of agricultural lands and to create disincentives to leaving lands fallow Greg Moore or using farm property for non-farm uses. Staff will follow up with an Chair, Metro Vancouver Board information memo to Council to provide background on recent discussions of this matter with the Minister of Agriculture. CM/EC/hm

End: 1. GVRD Board report titled, "Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver", dated September 9, 2016 (Doc#19387264) 2. White Paper titled "Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver" (Doc#18648365}

19477118 i^metrovancouver section e 2.2 SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A UVABLE REGION

To: GVRD Board of Directors

From: Regional Planning Committee

Date: September 9,2016 Meeting Date: September 23,2016

Subject: Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board: a) Send a letter to the BCMinister 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 consideration of similar reform for the entire province of British Columbia: 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 Eraser Valley Regional District, the Capital Regional District, and the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District.

At its September 9, 2016 meeting, the Regional Planning Committee considered the attached report titled "Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver", dated August 22, 2016.

The Committee commented on the importance of farm property tax reform for all communities in British Columbia, while recognizing the different needs and interests among BC communities. The Committee subsequently passed the recommendation as presented above with additional context in part a) of the recommendation.

Attachment: 1. Report titled "Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver", dated, August 22, 2016

19387264 FINAL I^metrovancouver Attachment SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

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 Eraser 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 Agricuiturai 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 ofconsultant 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 Agricuiturai 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

19186788 completed to improve the understanding of the linkage between farm property tax policies and land use in the ALR.

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 municipalitres,'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 ofAgricultural 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 BCAssessment.

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 vi/ascirculated earlier this spring 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 adjustnient, 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 oftax 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 BCAssessment.

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:

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 Eraser 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 IMPUCATIONS There are no direct financial implications to advocating for farm property tax reform. 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 (OrbitDoc18648365)

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 metrovancouver Attachment

•JM to/

9

K^-S.

- ns?;?- 411

•«.'"''*d

. jtrit

SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION Table of Contents

4 PoliGies 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 TaxReform in Metro Vancouver Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver

ThisWhite Paper presents the results and recommendations land tenure, most farmers are hesitant to invest in of MetroVancouver's Farm PropertyTaxReview. The Review equipment, buildings and other infrastructure that is was undertaken to identifytax policiesthat can be used as often necessary to improve the profitability of farming; a leverto encourage farming or discourage non-farm land uses within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) inthe 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 incentivesto maintain the region's being raised; ALR forfarming, and ifnot, what could be done about it. • Increasing number of conflicts over farm management Agricultural land^ in Metro Vancouver is increasingly practices when non-farm residential housing is located threatened from non-farm land uses, not just exclusions on agricultural land; and from the ALR^. The firstcomprehensive agricultural land use • The proliferation of non-farm residential and commercial inventoryof Metro Vancouver, completed in2011 by the BC uses outside the Urban Containment Boundary that will Ministry of Agriculture, revealed that only halfof the region's increase the demand for services such as utilities, transit, 60,893hectares (ha) in the ALR is activelyfarmed^. Manyof police, fire and emergency services, ail 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'^. Whenfarmpropertytax policy inadvertently creates financial TodayinMetroVancouver, there are more non-farmproperty tax advantages for non-farmresidentialand commercialuses owners in the ALR, then there are farmers ^ in the ALR, questions of equity among taxpayers emerge. Reforming farmproperty tax policiesmayor maynot 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 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". Farmstatus 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 Existing tax policy enables property owners that are not agricultural land for farming, increase actively farmed land 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 Urban Containment Boundary^. When agricultural land is legislation. Local governments can playa 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. • Higher prices for agricultural land that erode the financial The results and recommendations identified in this White Paper are based on conditions in the Metro Vancouver viability of farming and can prevent new farmers from establishing a farm business; region, but could also apply to other areas of BCworking to protect agricultural land from conversionto non-farm uses. • Lease agreements that enable existing farms to expand their acreage at a lowcost. While leases keep agricultural land in production over the short term, without secure

Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver POLICIES UNDER REVIEW 3. The Assessed Value of Agricultural Land

The assessed value ofland 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 BCAssessment®. 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 Further investigation into farm property tax policy similar residential houses or businesses that are located 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'. 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. Ifthe 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 properties in the ALR to receive a 50% school tax buildings is exempt from all property taxation. The process and legislativecontext for the assessment of farm exemption, whether the land is farmed or not. Also, buildings was provided by BCAssessment'^. 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 BCAssessment.

2. Classification of Land as Farm

•kM The Assessment Act designates nine property classes, one of which is farm (Class 9)'°. 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".

4 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm PropertyTax Reform in MetroVancouver 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 uses'^. 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 regioni 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). 5ome other business uses (Class 6) and recreational uses such as outdoor riding arenas (Class 8), also receive the school tax exemption"*.

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

Cityof 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 S $ $ 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 S 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 Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxReform in Metro Vancouver 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 parcels^^ Table 2 shows that the majority of the tax district fees was calculated using the 2015 BCAssessment benefit, $2.5 million (62%), isattributed to parcels 2-10acres 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 rate^^. 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 land^^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 municipalities^®.

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 likelyhave 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 policyas the main beneficiaries of the policyare 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 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 Reform in Metro Vancouver 2. Classification of Land as Farm Property owners who are not motivated to farm can lease their land to a qualifying farmerfor 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^\ but the most obvious is the type of primary agriculture production and the required financial benefit. The reduced taxes LOthat result from farm gross income from that production^®. Farm classification 00 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 bet\A/een 8,000m^ TABLE 3. EXAMPLES OF ANNUAL PROPERTY TAXES WITH (2 acres) and 4 ha (10 acres); AND WITHOUT FARM CLASS^^ • $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 8,000m^ (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 $ 5,239 Metro Vancouver Average $ 1,287 $ 8,375

Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxReform in Metro Vancouver The provincial legislation also enables landowners, both to be an income ratio of 0.00 - 1.249^'*. 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 operation^^. $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 the requirements for farm classification. Equally important is to recognize the number of farms 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^®. 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^^

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%

Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform 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 forfarm classification, as recommended in previous studies. This change would include removing the $10,000 threshold for farms <2 acres making the farm classification k VJ ' i.i 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^^. 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-timefarmers 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^®. 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 BCAssessment 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^'. 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®".

tncouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxReform in Metro Vancouver 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^k 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 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^^. 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. 5everal 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^". 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 withthe 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 Tax Reform 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 Taxpolicythat defines the method used in the assessment residential and commercial uses of agricultural land of agricultural land fortax 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 returns. 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 inthe ALR isthe lowertax assessmentthat 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 legislation^^. 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^^ 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'^^ 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^. 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^'.

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

Er cc. '39ir:q Ag-icuit .ra. ^:oc ..ction th-oucl- FcTt- Properr/Tax Pe^:rm in ivietro 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^. 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 AND BUILDING SIZE BUILDING MILL RATE LAND USE ASSESSED VALUE (SQUARE FEET) ASSESSED VALUE (C ASS 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 inthe ALR. Aslightlydifferent approach isto value a lower tax assessment and therefore pay lower taxes, all agricultural land as residential, then let municipalities even ifthere is no farming activityon 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 withthis farm property tax policyis 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 ip either case, provincial support is required.

12 Aa.-icuItviral Prodjction t.\oL:gh F?r.r P ope*ty"ax Pefo.n in Vetro Vancouve'* 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^h 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)''^.

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"^). Farm buildings receive • New regulations for Agri-tourism now permit a range a tax exemption that isthe greater of $50,000 or 87.5% of of activities as long as the activity is carried out on the aggregated assessed value"". 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 concerts"®.

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 buildingsuch 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"^. 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"^. 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"'. and actual use can be challenging ifthey are not aware of changes in land use or new commercial business activities that are occurring on agricultural land.

Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 13 4.T 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 with other agencies. The most important way to assist BC Sharing information about what constitutes a farm Assessment in determining when a building is no longer building is important to ensure that improvements on a farm building and becomes a non-farm use is to alert agricultural land are properly assessed for tax purposes. staff about changes in ownership or land use in the ALR. The misappropriation of taxes based on inaccurate 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 BCAssessment 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"'. 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 PropertyTax Reform in Metro Vancouver RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Eliminatethe 50% School Taxexemption 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 Vancouverregion, 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. justificationfor 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 Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxReform in MetroVancouver 15 •. ..

•ir', "i«vi ••---•• • •

-s & m

-JB: tts&t

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'slargest 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 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 TaxReform in Metro Vancouver END NOTES

1. The term agricultural land refers to land designated for "The Farm Tax Class Income Threshold Investigation", farming such as the Agricultural Land Reserve (AIR). Most UplandConsulting, 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, incomparison 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 classto 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 parcelsand their improvements, or a portionof 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 LandCommission 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 6. "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-.06G6; 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 Actwas passed in 1980 is unknown. for farming or decrease the financial incentives for non-farm uses on agricultural land. la Understanding Property Classes and Exemption BC Assessment.

Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property TaxReform 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 incomefor all farm properties;analyze the upon application, to qualify for farm classfor properties impact and review every five years; and reporting of both within and outside the Agricultural Land Reserve. gross farm Incomeas reported to the Canadian Revenue Agency. 21. Farm Tax Class Income Threshold, page 9, Also the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivisionand 29. BC Assessment requires a business plan and will allow up Procedure Regulation (BC Reg. 171/2002),enables to sixyears 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. "PropertyTax Scenario Analysis for Agricultural and Ecological Goods Provided by Farmsin 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 ifthe land is inan agricultural land reserve, and the the economic viability ofthe 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 BCAssessment'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 ifit'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 Cityof Vancouver staff report on "Amendments to levels because established farms that consistently Zoning and Development By-law and Business License surpass the Income threshold levelsare 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 UrbanAgriculture 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 Agricultureand 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 2.2explains 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 valuesfor the farm isfrom 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. 2-1965published by the Department of Forestry, 28. Farm Assessment Review Panel 2009 Report, Ministry Canada. "Property TaxScenario Analysis for Agricultural of Community and Rural Development (July31, 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. Manyof the final $5,000 respectively. recommendations were implemented except for:

18 Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm PropertyTaxReform 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 (Class6), depending on what is being processed. supported, financially feasible, and that results 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 10. "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 11. Buildings and other structures on agricultural land are building, and only ifmore than 90% of gross sales are referred to as "improvements" by BCAssessment 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. Ifnon-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). 12. 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 BCAssessment has to revieweach application fully taxable. to determine if it is relevant to the building assessment. Asimilar process could involve sharing parcel identifier 41. 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 so. Metro Vancouver farms have the highest farm cash Taxation (Rural Area) Act, section 15(1)(f). Ifaggregate receipts per hectare on agricultural land ($17,961) in value is under $50,000 then the whole value is exempt. Canada (StatisticsCanada, 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 havingjurisdiction 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. Ifthe land meets this definition, the packing house itself is assessed as a farm building.

Encouraging Agricultural Production through Farm Property Tax Reform in Metro Vancouver 19 metrovancouver SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION