Housing Need and Demand Assessment Update

Columbia Valley

Final Report

June 2013

prepared by

Columbia Valley Housing Need and Demand Assessment Update

Final Report

prepared for the communities of

Invermere (including Athalmer) Radium Canal Flats East Kootenay – Area F (Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, Windermere) East Kootenay – Area G (Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, Wilmer)

prepared by

Housing Strategies Inc. June 2013

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction to This Study ...... 1 Chapter 2: Population Analysis ...... 7 Chapter 3: Income and Employment Analysis ...... 35 Chapter 4: Housing Supply Analysis ...... 67 Chapter 5: Housing Needs Analysis ...... 97

Appendix A: 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for BC

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.0 Introduction to the Columbia Valley Housing Need and Demand Assessment Update

In 2007, the District of Invermere commissioned a Housing Needs Assessment. This study focused exclusively on an analysis of the housing needs within the District of Invermere. Due to the global economic crisis that occurred in 2007-2008 and its subsequent economic downturn, there have been limited opportunities for the District of Invermere to take advantage of the municipal planning and development strategies identified within the 2007 study to encourage the private sector to develop more affordable housing. Nor was there an available source of capital funding like the Affordable Rental Housing initiative (ARHi) at the time dedicated to helping communities within the Columbia Basin encourage more affordable housing development.

Under the requirements of the Affordable Rental Housing initiative (ARHi), the 2007 study is now out-of-date (i.e., it no longer meets the maximum five-year age limit for a Housing Need and Demand Assessment under ARHi). Thus an update to that study is required. Rather than retain the original focus of the 2007 study, regional stakeholders have joined together to seek and support an update that encompasses the broader area.

2.0 Purpose of the Columbia Valley Housing Need and Demand Assessment Update

The purpose of the Columbia Valley Housing Need and Demand Assessment Update is to incorporate new and more current statistical (quantitative) data into the existing 2007 Invermere Housing Needs Assessment.

The objectives of this Update are:

1. To provide an updated analysis of current population data and trends that will have an influence on local housing needs (e.g., population growth, demographic shifts, and changing income levels). 2. To provide an updated analysis of current housing needs and challenges in four (4) key areas (including the estimated number of households affected): ! Affordability (housing costs); ! Adequacy (quality and safety); ! Suitability (overcrowding); and ! Accessibility (for persons with health, mobility and/or stamina limitations). 3. To provide an updated analysis of the identified housing priorities and targets for communities located within the Columbia Valley.

- 1 -

3.0 Scope of the Columbia Valley Housing Need and Demand Assessment Update

The communities involved in this Update (i.e., the study area) are as follows (see Map 1 – next page):

! District of Invermere (including Athalmer) ! Village of Radium ! Village of Canal Flats ! Regional District of East Kootenay – Area F (e.g., Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont/Fairmont Hot Springs, Panorama, and Rushmere) ! Regional District of East Kootenay – Area G (e.g., Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, Wilmer, and Windermere)

4.0 Study Methodology for the Columbia Valley Housing Need and Demand Assessment Update

Public consultation activities were undertaken as part of the 2007 Invermere Housing Needs Assessment in the form of Key Person Interviews with a range of community stakeholders and local experts who had a broad understanding of housing needs, issues and challenges in Invermere as well as emerging population, economic and housing development trends that affected both the supply and demand for affordable housing options and alternatives. Preliminary consultations with local stakeholders indicate that many of the trends and issues that were identified in the 2007 study persist today.

The methodology used for the 2013 Update focuses exclusively on a quantitative analysis of currently available Statistics Canada Census of Population data and Taxfiler data. The Census of Population data used in this Update includes:

! Data for 1996, 2001 and 2006 pertaining to housing adequacy, suitability, affordability and accessibility that was not available when the 2007 Invermere Housing Needs Assessment was conducted; and ! Data from the recent 2011 Census pertaining to population (population totals, age profiles, and household composition), housing supply (dwellings by type and by tenure), and housing challenges (limited data is currently available).

The use of Taxfiler data allows for the development of income profiles for communities within the Columbia Valley along with a summary of current Social Assistance rates and Poverty Levels.

Where appropriate and available, additional statistical data provided by BC Stats and well BC Assessment data and informal rental data gathered through newspaper classified ads and online listings has also been incorporated into the Update.

- 2 -

Map 1: The Columbia Valley

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

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

- 3 -

Together, these data are used to:

! Develop a comprehensive analysis of available statistical data related to population, demographics, household characteristics, incomes, housing stock, and housing challenges (adequacy, suitability, affordability, and accessibility); ! Estimate the number of Columbia Valley households likely to be in Core Housing Need (i.e., earning incomes at or below BC Housing’s most recently published Housing Income Limits (HILs); and ! Estimate the number of low-to-moderate-income households living in the Columbia Valley (defined by BC Housing “as those whose income level is within the second quintile of the total household income of two persons or more in British Columbia” – i.e., $64,9991).

5.0 Special Considerations

It should be noted that not all of the communities identified within the scope of this study (see above) have Census of Population data or Taxfiler data assigned to them. Between 1996 and 2011, several changes occurred to the Census of Population enumeration boundaries within the Columbia Valley. For example, prior to 2001, East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G did not exist and Census enumeration boundaries. Prior to 2006, Canal Flats was included within East Kootenay – Area F rather than as its own distinct enumeration area. It was not until 2011 that Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer, and Windermere existed as their own distinct enumeration boundaries. As of the 2011 Census of Population, several Columbia Valley communities (e.g., Brisco, Columbia Lake, Dry Gulch, Dutch Creek, Juniper Heights, Panorama, and Spillimacheen) still remain part of their East Kootenay enumeration areas.

! Census of Population data (1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011) is available for Invermere and Radium. ! Limited Census of Population data is also available for: − Canal Flats – but only for 2006 and 2011; and − Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere – but only for 2011. − Data for these communities from previous years is included in the data for Regional District of East Kootenay – Area F or Area G where appropriate. ! Census of Population data is not available for any year for: − Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, or Rushmere (data for those communities is included in the data for Regional District of East Kootenay – Area F); − Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, or Spillimacheen (data for those communities is included in the data for Regional District of East Kootenay – Area G);

Where specific data is not presented for a particular location in a particular year, the communities of Canal Flats. Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in data for East Kootenay – Area F. The communities of Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. Therefore, where appropriate, Census of Population data from those communities where data does exist is extrapolated to those communities where Census of Population data does not exist.

1 http://www.bchousing.org/Find/faq/SRH/3620_1105161535-319 and http://www.bchousing.org/Options/affordable_rental/SRH

- 4 -

! 2010 Taxfiler data is available for: − Athalmer − Brisco − Canal Flats − Edgewater − Fairmont Hot Springs (3 separate sub-areas) − Invermere (5 separate sub-areas) − Panorama − Radium Hot Springs − Windermere ! 2005 Taxfiler data is available for: − Athalmer − Brisco − Canal Flats − Edgewater − Fairmont Hot Springs (3 separate sub-areas) − Invermere (5 separate sub-areas) − Radium Hot Springs − Windermere − (2005 data for Panorama is not available) ! Taxfiler data is not available for: − Columbia Lake − Dutch Creek − Dry Gulch − Juniper Heights − Rushmere − Spillimacheen − Wilmer

Given the nature in which Taxfiler data is collected and organized (i.e., by postal code and mail delivery areas), data for these later communities is likely to be included within the communities where data is available. It should also be noted that currently, aggregated Taxfiler data for study areas comprised of a number of smaller rural communities (i.e., custom data runs) could not be produced by Statistics Canada at the time this was conducted due to ongoing/protracted negotiations between Statistics Canada and Canada Post over the licensing and use of postal codes (Canada Post’s intellectual property). Those consultations also indicate that the pricing structure for Taxfiler data has increased. Aggregating Taxfiler

- 5 -

data for a number of smaller communities into regional totals offers the benefit of reducing data suppression (i.e., increased data accuracy). Thus data suppression is likely to be extensive for the smaller communities that make up the Columbia Valley. This data suppression cannot be overcome at this time.

Finally, while Statistics Canada completed the Census of Population in 2011, to date only a portion of the data required to prepare an Update has been made available to the public. A change in the 2011 Census methodology meant that a large portion of the relevant income, employment and housing data was not collected through the mandatory Census of Population (as was done in previous census years) but rather through the voluntary National Household Survey. The scheduled release data for income and employment data is June 26, 2013 and the scheduled release date for housing challenges data (e.g., adequacy, suitability, and affordability) is August 14, 2013 – both of which are beyond the available timeframe for the Columbia Valley Housing Needs Assessment Update.

6.0 Format of This Report

The following report is organized into several distinct chapters:

! Chapter 2: Population Analysis provides a summary of population and demographic data for the communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available in order to gain an understanding of growth rates and demographic changes and how those changes may be affecting housing pressures and associated needs. ! Chapter 3: Income and Employment Analysis provides a summary of income statistics for the communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available in order to gain an understanding of how economic diversification and changing levels of affluence may be affecting housing pressures and associated needs. ! Chapter 4: Housing Supply Analysis provides a summary of each community’s current housing supply where data is available in terms of market, near-market and non- market housing (both rental and homeownership) in order to assess the range of affordable housing options available to residents living in the region who may be experiencing housing challenges. ! Chapter 5: Housing Needs Analysis provides a summary of common housing issues (e.g., housing adequacy, suitability, accessibility, and affordability) and estimates the number of households in each community likely to be experiencing each of these challenges along with an estimate of the number of individuals and households likely to be experiencing homelessness (including those at risk of becoming homeless).

- 6 -

CHAPTER 2: Population Analysis

1.0 Introduction

This chapter examines permanent population statistics for the communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available1 in order to gain a better understanding of the region’s changing demographics and how these changes may influence housing and support needs. The analysis is based primarily on Statistics Canada Census of Population data. Statistics Canada collects Census data every five years. Since every household in Canada is included in this nationwide Census, it provides the most comprehensive and standardized population data sets available.

2.0 Chapter Highlights

• Between 2001 and 2011 (the last 10 years of Federal census data), the permanent population of the Columbia Valley increased by an estimated 26.0% (for an average annual growth rate of 2.6%). In comparison, the population of British Columbia grew by 12.6% while the total population of Canada grew by 11.6% during that same period. This would suggest that recent growth in the Columbia Valley has been rapid. • Growth was fastest in Radium (33.3% total) but much slower in Invermere (3.4% total). Data suggests that the populations of East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G declined. However, this may be due to changing enumeration boundaries that gradually saw the separation and removal of Canal Flats, Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere from their population totals rather than actual population decline. • Population projections for the Windermere district of the Interior Health Region provided through P.E.O.P.L.E. 2012 project an overall average annual growth rate of approximately 0.9% (avg. 0.88% per year) for the region between 2011 and 2030. • Using the P.E.O.P.L.E. 2012 growth projections suggests the following potential population totals for each community over the next 15-20 years: − Invermere: 3,503 (or up to 4,065 based on past trends) − Windermere: 1,210 − Radium: 920 (up to 1,905 based on past trends) − East Kootenay – Area G: 1,675 − Canal Flats: 850 (or 775 based on past trends) − Edgewater: 490 − East Kootenay – Area F: 3,125 − Wilmer: 265 − Fairmont: 565

1 It should be noted that between 1996 and 2011, several changes occurred to the Census of Population enumeration boundaries within the Columbia Valley. For example, prior to 2001, East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G did not exist and Census enumeration boundaries. Prior to 2006, Canal Flats was included within East Kootenay – Area F rather than as its own distinct enumeration area. It was not until 2011 that Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer, and Windermere existed as their own distinct enumeration boundaries. As of the 2011 Census of Population, several Columbia Valley communities (e.g., Brisco, Columbia Lake, Dry Gulch, Dutch Creek, Juniper Heights, Panorama, and Spillimacheen) still remain part of their East Kootenay enumeration areas. Where specific data is not presented for a particular location in a particular year, the communities of Canal Flats. Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in data for East Kootenay – Area F. The communities of Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 7 -

• Population projections for East Kootenay – Area F include Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere. Population projections for East Kootenay – Area G include Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen. • Population mobility and turnover can have an important influence on housing and support service needs. Between 2001 and 2006: − Approx. 875-960 new residents moved into Invermere while an estimated 730-820 existing residents (24.4% - 27.3%) moved out; − Approx. 230-240 new residents moved into Radium while an estimated 75-85 existing residents (10.6% - 11.7%) moved out. − Approx. 805-855 new residents moved into East Kootenay – Area F while an estimated 1,220 – 1770 (41.6% - 43.2%) moved; − Approx. 335-355 new residents moved into East Kootenay – Area G while an estimated 405-425 residents (26.0% - 27.2%) moved out; and • Census of Population data to identity more recent trends (i.e., between 2006 and 2011) is not available. • Once again, the observed trends for East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G are likely influenced to some degree by changing enumeration boundaries that gradually saw the separation and removal of Canal Flats, Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere from their population totals. • Census of Population data consistently shows is that while the overall population of the Columbia Valley is increasing, certain age cohorts are increasing at a faster rate than others – particularly empty-nesters (ages 55-64), and seniors (ages 65+). The age cohorts that are declining in terms of relative proportion include children, youth and adults under the age of 45. This data seems to indicate a declining proportion of families with children – particularly young families – which suggests that housing availability and affordability may be having an influence on population growth and demographic changes. • The age cohorts that appear to be moving into the region at faster rate include those who are more likely to have: − Established themselves in their careers and are thus more likely to be earning higher incomes; − Already established themselves in the housing market, thus affording them higher equity and savings; and/or − Paid off their mortgages. • The age cohorts that are moving into the region at a slower rate (or potentially leaving the region altogether) include those who are: − More likely to be just starting out in their careers; − Entering the housing market for the first time; and/or − In need of higher levels of supports, including supportive housing (e.g., older seniors) – particularly in the smaller communities. • In 2011, an estimated 15% to 50% of lone-parent families, 18% to 60% of single individuals, and 5% to 50% of single seniors were co-habitating either with relatives or un-related people depending on the community. Households who are co-habitating are more likely to be living in overcrowded conditions. The communities most likely to be experiencing overcrowding are (in order based on the percentage of “other” households) Fairmont (12.2%), Wilmer (10.0%), East Kootenay – Area F (9.9%), Radium (8.7%), Windermere (8.0%), Invermere (7.0%), Canal Flats (6.6%), East Kootenay – Area G (6.3%), and finally Edgewater (2.9%). • Average household size decreased over time in Invermere, Radium and East Kootenay – Area G while it remained relatively stable in East Kootenay – Area F and Canal Flats. Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in data for East Kootenay – Area F. Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. As average household size declines, a greater number of housing units are required to meet the needs of the same population – placing increased supply and demand pressures on a community’s housing and infrastructure.

- 8 -

3.0 Population Characteristics

3.1 Population Growth

Population growth can result in housing supply and demand imbalances if the rate of growth exceeds the ability of various sectors within the community (e.g., the public, private and non-profit sectors – either individually or collectively) to respond effectively to these growth pressures by keeping pace with demand for new infrastructure, including housing and related support services. Supply and demand imbalances can result in escalating housing prices and oversubscription of available support services – increasing the number of households experiencing housing difficulties and potentially increasing the risk of homelessness.

Table 1 shows permanent population changes for the communities within the Columbia Valley between 1991 and 2011 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data.

Table 1: Official Populations for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1991, 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Characteristics Invermere Radium Canal Flats EK Area F Fairmont Windermere EK Area G Edgewater Wilmer Region ∑ Total Population in 1991 2,207 395 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Total Population in 1996 2,687 530 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Total Population in 2001 2,858 583 –– * 3,356 –– * –– * 1,635 –– * –– * 8,432 Total Population in 2006 3,002 735 700 2,939 –– * –– * 1,563 –– * –– * 8,939 Total Population in 2011 2,955 777 715 2,635 476 1,019 1,412 413 223 10,625

1991 to 1996 Total Population Change (%) 21.7% 34.2% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1996 to 2001 Total Population Change (%) 6.4% 10.0% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2001 to 2006 Total Population Change (%) 5.0% 26.1% –– * -12.4% –– * –– * -4.4% –– * –– * 6.0% 2006 to 2011 Total Population Change (%) -1.6% 5.7% 2.1% -10.3% –– * –– * -9.7% –– * –– * 18.9% 2001 to 2011 Total Population Change (%) 3.4% 33.3% –– * -21.5% –– * –– * -13.6% –– * –– * 26.0% 1996 to 2011 Total Population Change (%) 10.0% 46.6% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1991 to 2011 Total Population Change (%) 33.9% 96.7% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Avg. Annual Pop. Change 1991-2011 (%): 20-Year Trend 1.7% 4.8% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Avg. Annual Pop. Change 1996-2011 (%): 15-Year Trend 0.7% 3.1% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Avg. Annual Pop. Change 2001-2011 (%): 10-Year Trend 0.3% 3.3% –– * -2.1% –– * –– * -1.4% –– * –– * 2.6% Avg. Annual Pop. Change 2006-2011 (%): 5-Year Trend -0.3% 1.1% 0.4% -2.1% –– * –– * -1.9% –– * –– * 3.8%

Data Sources: Statistics Canada Census of Population (1996, 2001, 2006, 2011) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis (i.e., where distinct data is not available, Canal Flats, Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in data for East Kootenay – Area F. Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G)

- 9 -

According to this data, the total population of the Columbia Valley (i.e., Invermere, Radium, East Kootenay – Area F, East Kootenay – Area G, Canal Flats, Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere) grew by an estimated 26.0% between 2001 and 2011 (an average annual growth rate of 2.6% per year). Radium’s population increased by 33.3% (3.3% per year) while Invermere’s population grew by a significantly more modest rate of 3.4% (0.34% per year). In comparison, the population of the province as a whole increased by 12.6% while the total population of Canada increased by 11.6% during that same period. While the data in Table 1 suggests that the populations of East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G declined, this may be due to changing enumeration boundaries that gradually saw the separation and removal of Canal Flats, Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere from their population totals rather than actual population decline.

This comparison of growth rates for communities in the Columbia Valley to those of the province as a whole as well as the national average would characterize growth in the region as rapid for each community except Invermere (Invermere’s population growth appears to be stagnating – showing an actual decline of -1.6% between 2006 and 2011). Rapid growth throughout the region is likely placing pressure on each community’s as well as the region’s infrastructure, including housing and support services. The more modest growth rate experienced in Invermere (and more recent decline) may be due to a number of factors (some related, others not) including housing affordability issues and availability constraints along with growth in the recreational property investment market – all of which were observed challenges identified in the 2007 Invermere Housing Needs Assessment.

3.2 Population Projections

Population projections are made possible based on the observed changes in the Census of Population data. Table 2 (next page) provides up to four (4) population projections for each community to 2030 based on the following observed (actual) growth rates (where data is available):

(1) The 5-year trend (i.e., between 2006 and 2011) (2) The 10-year trend (i.e., between 2001 and 2011) (3) The 15-year trend (i.e., between 1996 and 2011) (4) The 20-year trend (i.e., between 1991 and 2011)

It should be noted that these population projections are based strictly on observed past trends in the Statistics Canada Census of Population data. Population projections for the Windermere district of the Interior Health Region provided through P.E.O.P.L.E. 2012 project an overall average annual growth rate of approximately 0.9% (avg. 0.88% per year) for the region between 2011 and 2030. This overall average annual growth rate has been incorporated into the population projections shown in Table 2. The P.E.O.P.L.E. 2012 growth projections suggests the following potential population totals for each community by 2030 depending on what actual growth rates occur throughout the region over the next 15-20 years:

• Invermere: 3,503 (or up to 4,065 based on past trends) • Windermere: 1,210 • Radium: 920 (up to 1,905 based on past trends) • East Kootenay – Area G: 1,6753 • Canal Flats: 850 (or 775 based on past trends) • Edgewater: 490 • East Kootenay – Area F: 3,1252 • Wilmer: 265 • Fairmont: 565

2 Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere, are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F. 3 Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 10 -

Table 2: Population Projections for the Communities within the Columbia Valley to 2030

5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. Year Year Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 -0.3% 0.3% 0.7% 1.7% 0.9% 1.1% 3.3% 3.1% 4.8% 0.9% 2011 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2,955 2011 777 777 777 777 777 2012 2,946 2,965 2,975 3,005 2,982 2012 786 803 801 815 784 2013 2,937 2,975 2,994 3,056 3,008 2013 795 830 826 854 791 2014 2,927 2,985 3,014 3,108 3,036 2014 804 857 852 895 798 2015 2,918 2,995 3,034 3,160 3,063 2015 813 886 878 939 805 2016 2,909 3,005 3,055 3,214 3,090 2016 822 915 905 984 813

2017 2,900 3,016 3,075 3,268 3,118 2017 832 946 934 1,032 820 2018 2,891 3,026 3,095 3,324 3,146 2018 841 977 963 1,081 827 2019 2,882 3,036 3,116 3,380 3,175 2019 851 1,010 992 1,134 835

2020 2,873 3,046 3,137 3,437 3,203 RADIUM 2020 861 1,043 1,023 1,188 842

INVERMERE 2021 2,864 3,057 3,157 3,496 3,232 2021 871 1,078 1,055 1,246 850 2022 2,855 3,067 3,178 3,555 3,261 2022 880 1,114 1,088 1,306 857 2023 2,846 3,078 3,200 3,615 3,290 2023 891 1,151 1,122 1,369 865 2024 2,837 3,088 3,221 3,676 3,320 2024 901 1,189 1,157 1,436 873

2025 2,828 3,099 3,242 3,739 3,350 2025 911 1,229 1,192 1,505 881 2026 2,819 3,109 3,264 3,802 3,380 2026 921 1,270 1,230 1,578 889 2027 2,810 3,120 3,286 3,867 3,410 Data Source: 2027 932 1,312 1,268 1,654 897 Calculations derived from

2028 2,802 3,130 3,307 3,932 3,441 Statistics Canada 1991 - 2011 2028 943 1,356 1,307 1,734 905 2029 2,793 3,141 3,329 3,999 3,472 Census of Population data 2029 953 1,401 1,348 1,818 913

2030 2,784 3,151 3,352 4,066 3,503 2030 964 1,447 1,390 1,906 921

- 11 -

Table 2 (Cont’d): Population Projections for the Communities within the Columbia Valley to 2030

5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. Year Year Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 0.4% –– * –– * –– * 0.9% -2.1% -2.1% –– * –– * 0.9% 2011 715 –– * –– * –– * 715 2011 2,635 2,635 –– * –– * 2,635 2012 718 –– * –– * –– * 721 2012 2,580 2,578 –– * –– * 2,659 2013 721 –– * –– * –– * 728 2013 2,527 2,523 –– * –– * 2,683 2014 724 –– * –– * –– * 734 2014 2,475 2,469 –– * –– * 2,707 2015 727 –– * –– * –– * 741 2015 2,424 2,416 –– * –– * 2,731 2016 730 –– * –– * –– * 748 2016 2,373 2,364 –– * –– * 2,756

2017 734 –– * –– * –– * 754 F AREA 2017 2,324 2,313 –– * –– * 2,781

– 2018 737 –– * –– * –– * 761 2018 2,276 2,263 –– * –– * 2,806 2019 740 –– * –– * –– * 768 2019 2,229 2,215 –– * –– * 2,831 2020 743 –– * –– * –– * 775 2020 2,183 2,167 –– * –– * 2,856 2021 746 –– * –– * –– * 782 Data Source: 2021 2,138 2,121 –– * –– * 2,882 CANAL FLATS CANAL Calculations derived from 2022 749 –– * –– * –– * 789 Statistics Canada 1991 - 2011 2022 2,094 2,075 –– * –– * 2,908

2023 753 –– * –– * –– * 796 Census of Population data KOOTENAYEAST 2023 2,050 2,030 –– * –– * 2,934 2024 756 –– * –– * –– * 803 2024 2,008 1,987 –– * –– * 2,961 NOTE:

2025 759 –– * –– * –– * 811 Observed population decline is more 2025 1,966 1,944 –– * –– * 2,987 2026 762 –– * –– * –– * 818 likely due to changing Census of 2026 1,926 1,902 –– * –– * 3,014 Population enumeration boundaries 2027 766 –– * –– * –– * 825 2027 1,886 1,862 –– * –– * 3,041 than actual population dynamics. 2028 769 –– * –– * –– * 833 2028 1,847 1,822 –– * –– * 3,069 2029 772 –– * –– * –– * 840 * The required Census of Population 2029 1,809 1,782 –– * –– * 3,096 data is not currently available for

2030 776 –– * –– * –– * 848 analysis 2030 1,771 1,744 –– * –– * 3,124

- 12 -

Table 2 (Cont’d): Population Projections for the Communities within the Columbia Valley to 2030

5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. Year Year Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 –– * –– * –– * –– * 0.9% –– * –– * –– * –– * 0.9% 2011 –– * –– * –– * –– * 476 2011 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,019 2012 –– * –– * –– * –– * 480 2012 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,028 2013 –– * –– * –– * –– * 485 2013 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,037 2014 –– * –– * –– * –– * 489 2014 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,047 2015 –– * –– * –– * –– * 493 2015 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,056 2016 –– * –– * –– * –– * 498 2016 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,066

2017 –– * –– * –– * –– * 502 2017 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,075 2018 –– * –– * –– * –– * 507 2018 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,085 2019 –– * –– * –– * –– * 511 2019 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,095 2020 –– * –– * –– * –– * 516 2020 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,105

FAIRMONT Data Source: 2021 –– * –– * –– * –– * 521 WINDERMERE 2021 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,115 Calculations derived from 2022 –– * –– * –– * –– * 525 Statistics Canada 1991 - 2011 2022 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,125 2023 –– * –– * –– * –– * 530 Census of Population data 2023 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,135 2024 –– * –– * –– * –– * 535 2024 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,145 * The required Census of Population

2025 –– * –– * –– * –– * 540 data is not currently available for 2025 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,155 2026 –– * –– * –– * –– * 544 analysis 2026 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,166 2027 –– * –– * –– * –– * 549 2027 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,176 2028 –– * –– * –– * –– * 554 2028 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,187 2029 –– * –– * –– * –– * 559 2029 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,197 2030 –– * –– * –– * –– * 564 2030 –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,208

- 13 -

Table 2 (Cont’d): Population Projections for the Communities within the Columbia Valley to 2030

5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. 5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. Year Year Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 -1.9% -1.4% –– * –– * 0.9% –– * –– * –– * –– * 0.9% 2011 1,412 1,412 –– * –– * 1,412 2011 –– * –– * –– * –– * 413 2012 1,385 1,393 –– * –– * 1,425 2012 –– * –– * –– * –– * 417 2013 1,358 1,374 –– * –– * 1,438 2013 –– * –– * –– * –– * 420

2014 1,332 1,355 –– * –– * 1,450 2014 –– * –– * –– * –– * 424 G 2015 1,306 1,337 –– * –– * 1,464 2015 –– * –– * –– * –– * 428 2016 1,281 1,318 –– * –– * 1,477 2016 –– * –– * –– * –– * 432

AREA AREA 2017 1,256 1,300 –– * –– * 1,490 2017 –– * –– * –– * –– * 436 – 2018 1,232 1,283 –– * –– * 1,503 2018 –– * –– * –– * –– * 440 2019 1,208 1,265 –– * –– * 1,517 2019 –– * –– * –– * –– * 444 2020 1,185 1,248 –– * –– * 1,531 2020 –– * –– * –– * –– * 448 2021 Data Source: 2021

1,162 1,231 –– * –– * 1,544 EDGEWATER –– * –– * –– * –– * 452 Calculations derived from 2022 1,139 1,214 –– * –– * 1,558 Statistics Canada 1991 - 2011 2022 –– * –– * –– * –– * 456 2023 1,117 1,197 –– * –– * 1,572 Census of Population data 2023 –– * –– * –– * –– * 460

EAST KOOTNEAYEAST 2024 1,096 1,181 –– * –– * 1,586 2024 –– * –– * –– * –– * 464 NOTE:

2025 1,074 1,165 –– * –– * 1,601 Observed population decline is more 2025 –– * –– * –– * –– * 468 2026 1,054 1,149 –– * –– * 1,615 likely due to changing Census of 2026 –– * –– * –– * –– * 472 Population enumeration boundaries 2027 1,033 1,133 –– * –– * 1,630 2027 –– * –– * –– * –– * 477 than actual population dynamics. 2028 1,013 1,118 –– * –– * 1,644 2028 –– * –– * –– * –– * 481 2029 994 1,103 –– * –– * 1,659 * The required Census of Population 2029 –– * –– * –– * –– * 485 data is not currently available for

2030 975 1,088 –– * –– * 1,674 analysis 2030 –– * –– * –– * –– * 490

- 14 -

Table 2 (Cont’d): Population Projections for the Communities within the Columbia Valley to 2030

5-Year 10-Year 15-Year 20-Year P.E.O.P.L.E. Year Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2012 –– * –– * –– * –– * 0.9% 2011 –– * –– * –– * –– * 223 2012 –– * –– * –– * –– * 225 2013 –– * –– * –– * –– * 227 2014 –– * –– * –– * –– * 229 2015 –– * –– * –– * –– * 231 2016 –– * –– * –– * –– * 233 2017 –– * –– * –– * –– * 235

2018 –– * –– * –– * –– * 237 2019 –– * –– * –– * –– * 240 2020 –– * –– * –– * –– * 242 WILMER 2021 –– * –– * –– * –– * 244 2022 –– * –– * –– * –– * 246 2023 –– * –– * –– * –– * 248 2024 –– * –– * –– * –– * 251

2025 –– * –– * –– * –– * 253 2026 –– * –– * –– * –– * 255 2027 –– * –– * –– * –– * 257

2028 –– * –– * –– * –– * 260 2029 –– * –– * –– * –– * 262 2030 –– * –– * –– * –– * 264

Data Source: Calculations derived from Statistics Canada 1991 - 2011 Census of Population data * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis

These population projections suggest that population growth pressures are likely to continue throughout the Columbia Valley in the foreseeable future (particularly in the rural areas and the smaller communities) resulting in increasing demand for housing and likely continued escalation of housing prices (and, therefore, increased risk of housing challenges and hardships – particularly among low- and modest-income households).

- 15 -

3.3 Population Mobility

High levels of population mobility (i.e., population turnover) can affect both the demand for and the effectiveness of available housing and support services. In terms of housing, high population turnover can lead to rapidly changing demographics and household composition – which can then change market demand for housing in the community. Also, each time a person moves, he or she incurs additional expenses (moving expenses, damage deposits, utility hookup fees, etc.) that may or may not be recovered from the previous home. In terms of support services, high population turnover leads to client turnover – some of whom may have different needs and priorities. This can affect agency case management and the continued delivery of support services to those clients who have moved. It also means that time and energy must be diverted from the delivery of services to helping those new clients who have moved into the area apply and quality for supports. There may also be a steep learning curve for new residents moving into the community in terms of building their knowledge and awareness of what support services are available, where those services are located, and how to access them. High population turnover also means that informal supportive relationships and networks (a key protective factor in preventing the risk of homelessness) can also be weakened as neighbours, friends and family members leave the community. Altogether, high levels of population mobility can make planning for and responding effectively and efficiently to the needs of the local population more difficult – thus increasing the risk and likelihood of people “falling through the cracks”.

Table 3 (next page) compiles data from Statistics Canada on the mobility of residents living in Invermere, Radium, East Kootenay – Area F, East Kootenay – Area G, and Canal Flats4 between 2001 and 20065. This data shows the number and percentage of permanent residents who, five years prior to 2006 (i.e., in 2001), had either lived:

• In the same community and in the same home; • In the same community but in a different home; • In a different community within British Columbia; • In a different province; or • In another country altogether.

As Table 3 shows, population mobility (i.e., population turnover) is a significant dynamic in the Columbia Valley. Based on the data that is available:

• Even though Invermere grew by 5.0% between 2001 and 2006 (a net increase of 144 residents), it actually lost between 730 and 820 (24.4% - 27.3%) of the community’s existing residents due to mobility (i.e., approximately 875-960 new residents moved into the community during that period while approximately 730-820 existing residents moved out); • Population mobility appears to be more significant in East Kootenay – Area F6 and equally important in East Kootenay – Area G. Approximately 805-855 new residents moved into Area F while potentially 1,220 – 1770 (41.6% - 43.2%) moved out between 2001 and 2006. During that same period, an estimated 335-355 new residents moved into Area G while an estimated 405-425 (26.0% - 27.2%) residents moved out. • Population mobility was less of an issue in Radium. The village grew by 26.1% between 2001 and 2006 (a net increase of 152 residents) due to approximately 230- 240 new residents moving into the community while approximately 75-85 existing residents (10.6% - 11.7%) moving out.

4 Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. 5 Population mobility data for the period between 2006 and 2011 is currently unavailable pending the June 26, 2013 release of relevant data from the National Household Survey. 6 Some of this data may be due to changing enumeration boundaries (e.g., the removal and separation of Canal Flats from Area F Census of Population data between 2001 and 2006).

- 16 -

Table 3: Population Mobility for Select Communities within the Columbia Valley (2001 - 2006)

Invermere Radium Canal Flats East Kootenay F East Kootenay G Mobility Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Lived at the Same Address 5 Years Ago 1,455 53.3% 420 59.2% 360 54.1% 1,695 61.1% 1,010 68.2% Lived at a Different Address 5 Years Ago 410 15.0% 55 7.7% 130 19.5% 270 9.7% 130 8.8% Lived in a Different Municipality 5 Years Ago 400 14.7% 140 19.7% 125 18.8% 335 12.1% 270 18.2% Lived in a Different Province or Territory 5 Years Ago 445 16.3% 90 12.7% 45 6.8% 430 15.5% 65 4.4% Lived in a Different Country 5 Years Ago 30 1.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 40 1.4% 0 0.0% Published Total Population 5 Years and Over 2,730 100.4% 710 99.3% 665 99.2% 2,775 99.8% 1,480 99.7% Pub. Total Living in the Community 5 Years Ago 1,865 68.3% 475 66.9% 490 73.7% 1,965 70.8% 1,140 77.0% Pub. Total Not Living in the Community 5 Years Ago 875 32.1% 230 32.4% 170 25.6% 805 29.0% 335 22.6% Total Population (2006) 3,002 100.4% 735 99.3% 700 99.2% 2,939 99.8% 1,563 99.7% Est. Total Living in the Community 5 Years Ago 2,051 68.3% 492 66.9% 516 73.7% 2,081 70.8% 1,204 77.0% Est. Total Not Living in the Community 5 Years Ago 962 32.1% 238 32.4% 179 25.6% 853 29.0% 354 22.6% Net Growth Between 2001 and 2006 144 5.0% 152 26.1% –– * –– * -417 -12.4% -72 -4.4% Est. # (Low) Leaving the Community (2001–06) 731 24.4% 78 10.6% –– * –– * 1,222 41.6% 407 26.0% Est. # (High) Leaving the Community (2001–06) 818 27.3% 86 11.7% –– * –– * 1,270 43.2% 426 27.2%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population * The required 2001 Census of Population data for Canal Flats is not currently available for analysis (NOTE: Corresponding data from the 2011 Census of Population and/or the 2011 National Household Survey was unavailable at the time of this study)

What this data is unable to show is how many of those residents who left either community between 2001 and 2006 (i.e., those living in a different municipality five years prior) actually moved from one community in the region to another (e.g., from Canal Flats to Juniper Heights or from Invermere to Windermere). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any published data for Canada to determine what might constitute a high vs. low rate of population mobility and turnover or a healthy vs. unhealthy rate of population mobility and turnover. The data does, however, show that Radium is likely to be experiencing fewer difficulties associated with population turnover and the delivery of appropriate housing and support services to an ever-changing population than the other communities within the region. A number of factors could explain why people may leave their home community, including:

• A change in one’s job that requires relocation; • Changing health needs or obligations (e.g., the need to move in order to provide care to elderly parents living in a different community or to access health and community services not available locally); • Opportunities to upgrade one’s home (e.g., purchase a larger home on an acreage lot outside the community or elsewhere in the region); • Lifestyle choices (e.g., the desire to move to a community that offers sought-after employment, recreational or educational opportunities or the desire to get away from changes that are occurring in the home community); and/or • The need to move to another community in order find more suitable or more affordable housing because those options are not available locally.

- 17 -

It should also be noted that population mobility is a natural occurrence. It is normal for people to move in an out of a community as their life cycles, lifestyle goals, and job opportunities or pursuits change. However, this could be considered problematic for a community if the population that is leaving is not being replenished by new residents moving in, or if people are leaving the community in significant numbers because housing affordability issues or other dynamics are preventing them from establishing and making a life for themselves no matter how hard they try. In some cases, high mobility rates can lead to population decline if the community is experiencing growth in the recreational property market – something that is occurring in a number of smaller rural communities throughout the East Kootenay region due largely to the wealth and prosperity of the Baby Boomer generation and the wealth being generated by Alberta’s oil and gas industries (and is discussed in Chapter 3). As existing residents sell their homes and leave the community (for any combination of reasons presented above), an increasing number of recreational property investors may be purchasing those homes. Many recreational property investors do not move into the community right away to become full-time residents. Some recreational homebuyers may intend to retire in the community at a later data, while others may simply be seeking a long- or short-term investment opportunity with no intention of ever moving to the community.

3.4 Demographic Changes

Population growth along with population mobility/turnover often bring demographic shifts and changing household composition. Both can lead to a mismatch between the housing that is available in the community (i.e., types and sizes) and the housing that this growing and changing population needs (or demands). Conversely, the types, sizes, and quality of housing available in the community can influence these trends by either promoting or deterring certain types of growth (e.g., attracting or deterring young families, seniors, empty-nesters, etc.).

Table 4 (next page) shows the breakdown by age of the residents living in the Columbia Valley based on the 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Statistics Canada Census of Population data (where data is available).7 8 This data shows that, throughout the region, communities are experiencing an increase in the number and proportion of empty-nesters (adults ages 55-64) and seniors (adults ages 65+) along with a decline either in real numbers, percentage (i.e., relative proportion) – or both – of children under the age of 19, youth ages 20-24, and adults ages 25-44. For example:

• Invermere: experienced a net decline in the population under the age 44 (i.e., families with children and young adults) and a net increase in the population 55 (1996-2011) and over (especially empty nesters ages 55-64 and seniors ages 75+). • Radium: experienced a net decline in the population ages 25-44 and 0-19 (i.e., families with children) and a net increase in the population 55 and over (1996-2011) (especially empty nesters ages 55-64 and seniors ages 75+). • Canal Flats: experienced a net increase in the population ages 45-54 (older adults), 55-54 (empty-nesters), and seniors (ages 65-74), no net growth in the (2006-2011) older seniors age groups (75+) and a net decline among the 5-44 age cohorts (i.e., families with children). There was also an increase in the number of infants (ages 0-4) – which may indicate older adults starting families or increasing family size among young families. • East Kootenay – Area F: experienced a net decline in the population under the age of 54 (i.e., families with children and young adults) and a net increase in the population (2001-2011) 55 and over (especially empty nesters ages 55-64 and seniors ages 75+). • East Kootenay – Area G: experienced a net decline in the population under the age 44 (i.e., families with children and young adults) and a net increase in the population 45 (2001-2011) and over (especially empty nesters ages 55-64 and seniors ages 75+).

7 The specific age cohort categories used in Table 4 are based on those presented in the 2001 Census of Population data. More recent census data organizes age cohort data into a broader and more detailed series of categories as does a recent republishing of data from the 1996 Census. However, in order to compare data across the three census periods, the 2001 cohorts had to be used. 8 Data for Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere area only available for 2011 – preventing an analysis of change over time. Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 18 -

Table 4: Changing Age Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Age 0-4 165 6.1% 125 4.4% 140 4.7% 155 5.2% -14.2% Age 5-14 425 15.7% 395 13.8% 375 12.5% 305 10.3% -34.4% Age 15-19 190 7.0% 260 9.1% 210 7.0% 195 6.6% -6.2%

Age 20-24 150 5.6% 190 6.7% 200 6.7% 135 4.6% -17.8% Age 25-44 855 31.7% 750 26.3% 765 25.5% 655 22.2% -30.0% Age 45-54 335 12.4% 480 16.8% 510 17.0% 440 14.9% 20.0% Age 55-64 265 9.8% 255 8.9% 325 10.8% 470 15.9% 62.1%

INVERMERE Age 65-74 185 6.9% 215 7.5% 235 7.8% 230 7.8% 13.6% Age 75-84 90 3.3% 140 4.9% 170 5.7% 245 8.3% 148.7% Age 85+ 40 1.5% 45 1.6% 75 2.5% 125 4.2% 185.5% Estimated Total 2,700 100.0% 2,855 100.0% 3,005 100.0% 2,955 100.0% N/A Published Total 2,690 99.6% 2,860 100.2% 3,000 99.8% 2,955 100.0% N/A Median Age N/A N/A 39.2 N/A 41.3 N/A 45.8 N/A 16.8%

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 o. o. o. o. Characteristics N % N % N % N % % Change Age 0-4 40 7.8% 30 5.2% 55 7.5% 35 4.5% -41.5% Age 5-14 70 13.6% 70 12.1% 75 10.3% 70 9.1% -33.1% Age 15-19 40 7.8% 40 6.9% 35 4.8% 40 5.2% -33.1% Age 20-24 20 3.9% 25 4.3% 40 5.5% 40 5.2% 33.8%

Age 25-44 155 30.1% 170 29.3% 165 22.6% 175 22.7% -24.5% Age 45-54 90 17.5% 120 20.7% 140 19.2% 140 18.2% 4.0% Age 55-64 55 10.7% 60 10.3% 120 16.4% 155 20.1% 88.5% RADIUM Age 65-74 40 7.8% 50 8.6% 65 8.9% 75 9.7% 25.4% Age 75-84 5 1.0% 15 2.6% 30 4.1% 35 4.5% 368.2% Age 85+ 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 0.7% 5 0.6% 100.0% Estimated Total 515 100.0% 580 100.0% 730 100.0% 770 100.0% N/A Published Total 530 102.9% 585 100.9% 730 100.0% 775 100.6% N/A Median Age N/A N/A 40.6 N/A 45.3 N/A 47.4 N/A 16.7%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population (NOTE: Age categories are determined by the level of detail available from the 2001 Census of Population) (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

- 19 -

Table 4 (Cont’d): Changing Age Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 2001-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Age 0-4 –– * –– * –– * –– * 35 5.0% 50 6.9% 38.9% Age 5-14 –– * –– * –– * –– * 95 13.6% 80 11.1% -18.1% Age 15-19 –– * –– * –– * –– * 50 7.1% 40 5.6% -22.2%

Age 20-24 –– * –– * –– * –– * 45 6.4% 35 4.9% -24.4% Age 25-44 –– * –– * –– * –– * 190 27.1% 180 25.0% -7.9% Age 45-54 –– * –– * –– * –– * 105 15.0% 135 18.8% 25.0% Age 55-64 –– * –– * –– * –– * 90 12.9% 100 13.9% 8.0% Age 65-74 –– * –– * –– * –– * 65 9.3% 75 10.4% 12.2% CANAL FLATS CANAL Age 75-84 –– * –– * –– * –– * 20 2.9% 20 2.8% -2.8% Age 85+ –– * –– * –– * –– * 5 0.7% 5 0.7% -2.8% Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 700 100.0% 720 100.0% N/A Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 700 100.0% 715 99.3% N/A Median Age –– * –– * –– * –– * 39.6 N/A 41.5 N/A 4.8%

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 2001-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change

Age 0-4 –– * –– * 150 4.5% 85 2.9% 85 3.2% -28.4% Age 5-14 –– * –– * 395 11.8% 300 10.2% 245 9.2% -21.6% Age 15-19 –– * –– * 200 6.0% 180 6.1% 160 6.0% 1.1% AREA F AREA Age 20-24 –– * –– * 170 5.1% 115 3.9% 120 4.5% -10.8% – Age 25-44 –– * –– * 960 28.7% 595 20.3% 505 19.1% -33.5% Age 45-54 –– * –– * 540 16.1% 555 18.9% 430 16.2% 0.7% Age 55-64 –– * –– * 475 14.2% 555 18.9% 545 20.6% 45.0% Age 65-74 –– * –– * 305 9.1% 350 11.9% 380 14.3% 57.5% Age 75-84 –– * –– * 140 4.2% 165 5.6% 160 6.0% 44.5% Age 85+ –– * –– * 15 0.4% 30 1.0% 20 0.8% 68.6% EAST KOOTENAYEAST Estimated Total –– * –– * 3,350 100.0% 2,930 100.0% 2,650 100.0% N/A Published Total –– * –– * 3,355 100.1% 2,940 100.3% 2,635 99.4% N/A Median Age –– * –– * 41.8 N/A 48.7 N/A 51 N/A 22.0%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis (NOTE: Age categories are determined by the level of detail available from the 2001 Census of Population) (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression)

- 20 -

Table 4 (Cont’d): Changing Age Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 2001-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Age 0-4 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 20 4.3% –– * Age 5-14 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 30 6.4% –– * Age 15-19 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 20 4.3% –– *

Age 20-24 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 35 7.4% –– * Age 25-44 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 85 18.1% –– * Age 45-54 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 60 12.8% –– * Age 55-64 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 85 18.1% –– *

FAIRMONT Age 65-74 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 85 18.1% –– * Age 75-84 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 50 10.6% –– * Age 85+ –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 470 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 480 102.1% –– * Median Age –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 53.3 N/A –– *

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 2001-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Age 0-4 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 35 3.4% –– * Age 5-14 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 110 10.8% –– * Age 15-19 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 65 6.4% –– *

Age 20-24 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 30 2.9% –– * Age 25-44 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 205 20.1% –– * Age 45-54 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 150 14.7% –– * Age 55-64 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 200 19.6% –– * Age 65-74 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 160 15.7% –– * WINDERMERE Age 75-84 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 55 5.4% –– * Age 85+ –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 1.0% –– * Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,020 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,015 99.5% –– * Median Age –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 50.3 N/A –– *

- 21 -

Table 4 (Cont’d): Changing Age Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 2006-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Age 0-4 –– * –– * 80 4.9% 75 4.8% 70 4.9% 1.1% Age 5-14 –– * –– * 195 11.9% 170 10.8% 140 9.9% -17.0% Age 15-19 –– * –– * 140 8.6% 95 6.1% 70 4.9% -42.2% AREA G AREA Age 20-24 –– * –– * 85 5.2% 105 6.7% 35 2.5% -52.4% – Age 25-44 –– * –– * 505 30.9% 400 25.5% 290 20.5% -33.6% Age 45-54 –– * –– * 285 17.4% 320 20.4% 305 21.6% 23.7% Age 55-64 –– * –– * 175 10.7% 205 13.1% 290 20.5% 91.5% Age 65-74 –– * –– * 115 7.0% 125 8.0% 145 10.2% 45.7% Age 75-84 –– * –– * 45 2.8% 65 4.1% 55 3.9% 41.2% Age 85+ –– * –– * 10 0.6% 10 0.6% 15 1.1% 73.3% EAST KOOTENAYEAST Estimated Total –– * –– * 1,635 100.0% 1,570 100.0% 1,415 100.0% N/A Published Total –– * –– * 1,635 100.0% 1,560 99.4% 1,410 99.6% N/A Median Age –– * –– * 39.1 N/A 43.4 N/A 48.9 N/A 25.1%

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Age 0-4 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 6.3% –– * Age 5-14 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 50 12.5% –– * Age 15-19 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 20 5.0% –– * Age 20-24 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 15 3.8% –– * Age 25-44 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 105 26.3% –– * Age 45-54 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 90 22.5% –– * Age 55-64 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 65 16.3% –– *

EDGEWATER Age 65-74 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 6.3% –– * Age 75-84 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 5 1.3% –– * Age 85+ –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 400 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 405 101.3% –– * Median Age –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 43.1 N/A –– *

- 22 -

Table 4 (Cont’d): Changing Age Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Age 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Age 0-4 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 4.3% –– * Age 5-14 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 15 6.5% –– * Age 15-19 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 4.3% –– * Age 20-24 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 4.3% –– *

Age 25-44 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 60 26.1% –– * Age 45-54 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 45 19.6% –– * LMER Age 55-64 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 35 15.2% –– * WI Age 65-74 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 10.9% –– * Age 75-84 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 15 6.5% –– * Age 85+ –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 5 2.2% –– * Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 230 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 220 95.7% –– * Median Age –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 47.1 N/A –– *

This data shows that, throughout the region, Columbia Valley communities have a higher percentage of older adults (i.e., adults ages 45 and above) and a lower percentage of younger residents (i.e., people under the age of 44) than the provincial average. Two exceptions include Canal flats, which also shows a higher percentage of infants (ages 0-4) than the provincial average, and Edgewater, which also shows a higher percentage of children (ages 5-14) than the provincial average. Invermere and Wilmer are the only two communities that show a higher percentage of older seniors (i.e., seniors ages 85 and over) than the provincial average – the other communities all show a lower percentage of this age cohort. Invermere and Windermere also show lower percentages of adults ages 45-54 than the provincial average while the other communities all show a higher percentage. This trend is born out in the median ages for each community. For example, over time, the median age increased by:

• 16.8% in Invermere (from 39.2 to 45.8 between 2001 and 2011); • 16.7% in Radium (from 40.6 to 47.4 between 2001 and 2011); • 4.8% in Canal Flats (from 39.6 to 41.5 between 2006 and 2011). • 22.0% in East Kootenay – Area F (from 41.8 to 51 between 2001 and 2011); • 25.1% in East Kootenay – Area G (from 39.1 to 48.9 between 2001 and 2011); and

Data for Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere are only available for 2011 – preventing an analysis of change over time. Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 23 -

In terms of overall median ages, Fairmont seems to have the oldest average population (median age of 53.3 in 2011), followed by East Kootenay – Area F (51), Windermere (50.3), East Kootenay – Area G (48.9), Radium (47.4), Wilmer (47.1), Invermere (45.8), Edgewater (43.1), and finally Canal Flats (41.5).

What this data consistently shows is that while the overall population of the Columbia Valley is increasing, certain age cohorts are increasing at a faster rate than others – particularly empty-nesters (ages 55-64), and seniors (ages 65+). The age cohorts that are declining in terms of relative proportion include children, youth and adults under the age of 45. This data seems to indicate a declining proportion of families with children – particularly young families – which suggests that housing availability and affordability may be having an influence on population growth and demographic changes. For example, the age cohorts that appear to be moving into the region at faster rate include those who are more likely to have:

• Established themselves in their careers and are thus more likely to be earning higher incomes; • Already established themselves in the housing market, thus affording them higher equity and savings; and/or • Paid off their mortgages.

The age cohorts that are moving into the region at a slower rate (or potentially leaving the region altogether) include those who are:

• More likely to be just starting out in their careers; • Entering the housing market for the first time; and/or • In need of higher levels of supports, including supportive housing (e.g., older seniors) – particularly in the smaller communities.

It stands to reason that Invermere, as the regional service centre, is also attracting older seniors (ages 85+) due to the availability of seniors’ Supportive Living and Assisted Living options in that community. Consultations with key community stakeholders indicate that Wilmer, although not having any dedicated seniors’ housing, is located close enough to Invermere to allow older seniors to remain in their own homes yet access the various services and supports that are available in Invermere. Housing costs in Wilmer are also relatively more affordable to older seniors than housing costs in the surrounding communities.

3.5 Changing Household Composition

3.5.1 Martial Status

Marital status can directly affect household income (i.e., influencing whether a household has access to one income or two) and, therefore, housing affordability. It can also affect housing needs in terms of overall size and number of bedrooms – particularly among families with children. In most communities across Canada, couples consistently make up the largest proportion of households. This is followed by single individuals and then by lone-parent families.

Table 5 (see pages 26-28) shows the distribution of households by type for communities in the Columbia Valley based on 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Statistics Canada Census of Population data (where data is available). According to this data, Invermere, Radium, and Canal Flats experienced an increase in the total number of households living in each community while East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G experienced a decline in total households (possibly due to changing Census of Population enumeration areas – i.e., the removal and separation of Canal Flats, Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere between 2006 and 2011). With these changes also came changes in the relative proportion of different household types. For example:

- 24 -

• Invermere: experienced a net increase in the number of all household types. Despite this growth, the proportion of households made up of couples and (1996-2011) “other” households declined while the proportion of lone parents and single individuals increased. • Radium: experienced a net increase in the number of all household types. Despite this growth, the proportion of households made up of couples and single (1996-2011) individuals households declined while the proportion of lone parents and “other” households increased. • Canal Flats: experienced no change in the number of couples (yet a decline in their relative proportion), a decline in both the number and proportion of lone (2006-2011) parents, and an increase in both the number and proportion of single individuals and “other” households. • East Kootenay – Area F: experienced a net decline in the number of couples, lone parent households and single individuals yet an increase in “other” household types (2001-2011) (almost quadrupling). Despite a decline in couple households, the proportion of households made up by couples actually increased (albeit slightly) – as did the proportion of “other” households (significantly). • East Kootenay – Area G: experienced a net decline in the number of all household types except “other” households (which saw an eight-fold increase). Despite these (2001-2011) declines, the proportion of single individuals increased (albeit slightly) while the proportion of “other” households significantly.

According to this data, the most outstanding change that appears to have occurred in the region is a growth both in real numbers and relative proportion of “other” households (in all areas except East Kootenay – Area G). “Other” households include both multiple-family households (e.g., two or more families living together in the same home – including both multi- generational related families and non-related families) and households with two or more singles rooming together. Another dynamic that seems to be emerging is a decline in the number of lone-parent families and single individuals in the rural areas yet an increase in the number of those households in Invermere and Radium.

An increase in the number and/or proportion of “other” household types is usually either an indication of growing affordability challenges, declining choice (i.e., households being compelled to “double up” and share accommodations in order to make ends meet because they cannot afford housing on their own or because there are too few suitable housing options available to them), and/or cultural changes (e.g., the introduction or increase in the number of Temporary Foreign Workers into the community who are sharing accommodations provided by their employers).

An increase in the proportion of single individuals (i.e., one-person households) can be an indication that housing is relatively affordable for that household type – at least for single individuals working in higher-paying jobs. It can also have an impact on housing affordability issues – particularly if there are limited housing choices that are suitable for individuals living alone. Single individuals typically require smaller homes (e.g., smaller single-detached homes, townhouses, duplexes and apartments) and only have a single income with which to afford rent or mortgage payments unless they share their accommodations.

An increase in the proportion of lone-parent households can also be an indication that housing is relatively affordable for that household type. At the same time, it too can have an important impact on housing affordability issues. Single-parent families typically require homes similar in size to two-parent families yet typically only have one income with which to afford rent or mortgage payments (support payments vary and are not always collected consistently). This can be especially problematic when the vast majority of single parents are single mothers since women on average tend to earn less than men on average. It can also be a problem for the non-custodial parent regardless of gender if the non-custodial parent does not earn enough income to be able to afford a large enough home to allow his or her children to visit for extended periods.

The decline in the proportion of couple households observed in most communities throughout the Columbia Valley appears consistent with other data that suggests a decline in the proportion of families with children living in the region – which, together with an increase in the proportion of lone-parent families and single individuals, could indicate increasing rates of marital breakdown.

- 25 -

Table 5: Changing Household Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change

Couple Households 670 65.0% 660 58.4% 730 61.3% 685 56.1% -5.7% Lone-Parent Households 75 7.3% 140 12.4% 105 8.8% 115 9.4% 21.2% One-Person Households 220 21.4% 300 26.5% 310 26.1% 335 27.5% 22.0%

INVEMERE Other Households ** 65 6.3% 30 2.7% 45 3.8% 85 7.0% -40.1% Estimated Total 1,030 100.0% 1,130 100.0% 1,190 100.0% 1,220 100.0% N/A Published Total 1,030 100.0% 1,130 100.0% 1,195 100.4% 1,220 100.0% N/A

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change

Couple Households 140 70.0% 155 68.9% 175 61.4% 210 60.9% -12.3% Lone-Parent Households 10 5.0% 20 8.9% 45 15.8% 20 5.8% 215.8% One-Person Households 50 25.0% 45 20.0% 60 21.1% 85 24.6% -15.8% RADIUM Other Households ** 0 0.0% 5 2.2% 5 1.8% 30 8.7% 100.0% Estimated Total 200 100.0% 225 100.0% 285 100.0% 345 100.0% N/A Published Total 200 100.0% 225 100.0% 290 101.8% 340 98.6% N/A

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 2006-2011 o. o. o. o. Characteristics N % N % N % N % % Change Couple Households –– * –– * –– * –– * 190 64.4% 190 62.3% -3.3% Lone-Parent Households –– * –– * –– * –– * 30 10.2% 20 6.6% -35.5% One-Person Households –– * –– * –– * –– * 60 20.3% 75 24.6% 20.9% Other Households ** –– * –– * –– * –– * 15 5.1% 20 6.6% 29.0% CANAL FLATS CANAL Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 295 100.0% 305 100.0% N/A Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 290 98.3% 295 96.7% N/A

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis ** Estimates based on the total number of households indicated in the Census of Population data minus the sum total of couple, lone-parent and one-person households Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 26 -

Table 5 (Cont’d): Changing Household Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 2001-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Couple Households –– * –– * 920 66.2% 855 67.9% 750 67.3% 1.6% Lone-Parent Households –– * –– * 130 9.4% 50 4.0% 45 4.0% -56.8% One-Person Households –– * –– * 305 21.9% 330 26.2% 210 18.8% -14.2% Other Households ** –– * –– * 35 2.5% 25 2.0% 110 9.9% 291.8% Estimated Total –– * –– * 1,390 100.0% 1,260 100.0% 1,115 100.0% N/A EAST KOOTENAYF EAST Published Total –– * –– * 1,390 100.0% 1,260 100.0% 1,110 99.6% N/A

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change

Couple Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 140 68.3% –– * Lone-Parent Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 5 2.4% –– * One-Person Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 35 17.1% –– *

FAIRMONT Other Households ** –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 12.2% –– * Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 205 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 205 100.0% –– *

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 o. o. o. o. Characteristics N % N % N % N % % Change Couple Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 290 66.7% –– * Lone-Parent Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 5.7% –– * One-Person Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 85 19.5% –– * Other Households ** –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 35 8.0% –– * WINDERMERE Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 435 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 430 98.9% –– *

- 27 -

Table 5 (Cont’d): Changing Household Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 2001-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change Couple Households –– * –– * 450 65.7% 440 66.2% 400 63.0% -4.1% Lone-Parent Households –– * –– * 65 9.5% 55 8.3% 35 5.5% -41.9% One-Person Households –– * –– * 165 24.1% 165 24.8% 160 25.2% 4.6% Other Households ** –– * –– * 5 0.7% 5 0.8% 40 6.3% 763.0% Estimated Total –– * –– * 685 100.0% 665 100.0% 635 100.0% N/A EAST KOOTENAYG EAST Published Total –– * –– * 680 99.3% 665 100.0% 640 100.8% N/A

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 o. o. o. o. Characteristics N % N % N % N % % Change Couple Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 105 60.0% –– * Lone-Parent Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 20 11.4% –– * One-Person Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 45 25.7% –– * Other Households ** –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 5 2.9% –– * EDGEWATER Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 175 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 175 100.0% –– *

Household 1996 2001 2006 2011 1996-2011 Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % % Change

Couple Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 55 55.0% –– * Lone-Parent Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 5 5.0% –– * One-Person Households –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 30 30.0% –– * WILMER Other Households ** –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 10.0% –– * Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 100 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 95 95.0% –– *

- 28 -

If the local housing market is focusing most of its attention on housing that meets the needs of larger families (e.g., larger single-detached homes geared towards two-parent, dual- income couples with children), then single individuals and lone-parent families are likely to have fewer housing options and choices available to them – thereby increasing incidence rates for housing hardship, the likelihood of households “doubling up”, and the risk of homelessness.

3.5.2 Lone-Parent Families

As mentioned above, men continue to earn on average higher incomes than women. As sole income earners, male-led lone parent families are, thereby, likely to earn higher incomes on average than female-led lone parent families. Thus the distribution of single mothers vs. single fathers can be an indicator of the likely prevalence of housing affordability needs in each community.

Table 6 (next page) shows the total number of lone-parent families living within the communities of the Columbia Valley based on whether they are led by single fathers or by single mothers according to the 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Statistics Canada Census of Population data (where data is available). In terms of actual numbers, Invermere had the largest number of lone-parent families in 2011 (135), followed by East Kootenay – Area F (60), East Kootenay – Area G (45), a tie between Canal Flats and Windermere (both 30 – despite the Census of Population data presented above indicating 20 lone-parent families in Canal Flats in 2011), Radium (25), Edgewater (20), Wilmer (10 – despite the subtotal of single mothers and single fathers only showing 5 due to data suppression and rounding), and finally Fairmont (5 – despite the subtotal of single mothers and single fathers only showing 10 due to data suppression and rounding). 9

Over time, the total number of lone-parent families living in each community increased in Invermere and Radium, declined in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G, and remained stable in Canal Flats (again, despite data above showing a decline from 30 to 20 between 2006 and 2011 – likely due to Statistics Canada’s data suppression and rounding practices). Data for the remaining communities are only available for 2011 – preventing an analysis of change over time. Data suppression and rounding is also more pronounced in these communities.

In most communities across Canada, single mothers vastly outnumber single-fathers. This trend is maintained in the Columbia Valley. The community with the largest percentage of single mothers was East Kootenay – Area G in 2011 (77.8%), followed by Edgewater (75.0%), Invermere (74.1%), a tie between East Kootenay – Area F, Canal Flats and Windermere (66.7% each), Radium (60.0%), and finally a tie between Fairmont and Wilmer (50% each factoring in data suppression and rounding).10

What is important to note about this data is that Invermere and East Kootenay – Area F both saw a decline in the proportion of single mothers (i.e., an increase in both the number and proportion of single fathers) living in each community over time while Radium, East Kootenay – Area G, and Canal Flats each saw an increase in the proportion of single fathers. An increasing proportion of single fathers can indicate that housing has become increasingly unaffordable (i.e., in communities where housing has become largely unaffordable to modest- income households, many single mothers simply cannot continue to make ends meet due to their higher housing needs and often lower-than-average incomes and, therefore, find themselves having to leave the community in search of more affordable housing elsewhere). The increasing proportion of single fathers over time in Invermere and East Kootenay – Area F could be an indicator that housing costs in those two areas may be pushing single mothers out to the smaller and more remote communities of the region in search of suitable housing that they can afford (i.e., larger units with more bedrooms suitable for families with children). Moving out into the smaller, more remote communities can mean that these households face transportation challenges along with reduced access to employment and support services – which can increase the risk of homelessness for these households, especially if housing costs are increasing in those smaller communities.

9 Canal Flats, Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. 10 Ibid.

- 29 -

Table 6: Changing Nature of Lone-Parent Households within the Communities of the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led

1996 75 60 80.0% 15 20.0% 1996 10 –– * –– * –– * –– * 2001 140 115 82.1% 25 17.9% 2001 20 10 50.0% 10 50.0% 2006 105 80 76.2% 25 23.8% 2006 45 40 88.9% 10 22.2% 2011 135 100 74.1% 35 25.9% RADIUM 2011 25 15 60.0% 5 20.0% INVERMERE % Change 80.0% 66.7% -7.4% 133.3% 29.6% % Change 150.0% 50.0% 20.0% -50.0% -60.0%

Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led F

1996 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1996 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2001 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2001 130 100 76.9% 30 23.1% 2006 30 15 50.0% 15 50.0% 2006 50 40 80.0% 10 20.0% 2011 30 20 66.7% 5 16.7% 2011 60 40 66.7% 15 25.0% CANAL FLATS CANAL % Change 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% -66.7% -66.7% KOOTENAY E. % Change -53.8% -60.0% -13.3% -50.0% 8.3%

Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led

1996 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1996 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2001 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2001 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2006 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2006 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– *

FAIRMONT 2011 5 5 100.0% 5 100.0% 2011 30 20 66.7% 5 16.7% WINDERMERE % Change –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * % Change –– * –– * –– * –– * –– *

Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led

1996 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1996 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2001 65 40 61.5% 25 38.5% 2001 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2006 55 45 81.8% 10 18.2% 2006 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2011 45 35 77.8% 5 11.1% 2011 20 15 75.0% 10 50.0% EDGEWATER E. KOOTENAYG E. % Change -30.8% -12.5% 26.4% -80.0% -71.1% % Change –– * –– * –– * –– * –– *

Year Total # Female-Led % Female-Led # Male-Led % Male-Led

Data Source: 1996 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population 2001 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * (NOTE: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression) 2006 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis

WILMER WILMER Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F 2011 10 5 50.0% 0 0.0% while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. % Change –– * –– * –– * –– * –– *

- 30 -

3.5.3 Household Co-Habitation

People experiencing housing affordability challenges are more likely to seek out roommates (i.e., to co-habitate) in order to share and thereby lower their housing costs. Co-habitation rates can therefore serve as an indicator of housing affordability challenges. They can also be an indicator of the likelihood of other housing challenges – particularly suitability (i.e., overcrowding). When the decision to share housing is compelled out of a need for greater affordability rather than sought for lifestyle reasons, personality and/or compatibility issues can arise as well as increase the risk of overcrowding. Both can lead to eviction. Both can also lead to physical and mental health problems. For example, overcrowding has been shown to increase the risk of illness/disease transmission. It has also been shown to increase the risk of personality conflicts. Overcrowding combined with personality conflicts has been shown to increase the risk of mental health challenges including stress, anxiety and depression. Overcrowding combined with personality conflicts and mental health challenges can potentially lead to family/household violence.

Table 7 (next page) shows co-habitation data for communities within the Columbia Valley based on 2011 Statistics Canada Census of Population data11 12. According to this data:

• The following estimated percentages of lone-parent families were co-habitating either with other family or with non-related families and individuals in 2011: − Invermere: 14.8% − Windermere: 16.7% − Radium: 20.0% − East Kootenay – Area G: 22.2% − Canal Flats: 33.3% − Edgewater: 0.0% * − East Kootenay – Area F: 25.0% − Wilmer: 50.0% − Fairmont: 0.0% * * data may be due to data suppression and rounding

• The following estimated percentages of single individuals were co-habitating either with other family or with non-related families and individuals in 2011: − Invermere: 24.7% − Windermere: 32.0% − Radium: 32.0% − East Kootenay – Area G: 27.3% − Canal Flats: 21.1% − Edgewater: 18.2% − East Kootenay – Area F: 44.6% − Wilmer: 25.0% − Fairmont: 61.1%

• The following estimated percentages of single seniors (ages 65+) were co-habitating either with other family or with non-related families and individuals in 2011: − Invermere: 5.3% − Windermere: 12.5% − Radium: 40.0% − East Kootenay – Area G: 21.4% − Canal Flats: 20.0% − Edgewater: 50.0% − East Kootenay – Area F: 15.0% − Wilmer: 50.0% − Fairmont: 25.0%

11 Census of Population data for 1996, 2001 and 2006 was either not collected or was not analyzed by Statistics Canada for publication. 12 Canal Flats, Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 31 -

Table 7: Co-Habitation Rates within the Communities of the Columbia Valley by Household Type (2011)

Characteristics INVERMERE RADIUM CANAL FLATS E. KOOTENAY F FAIRMONT WINDERMERE E. KOOTENAY G EDGEWATER WILMER

Other Households (2011) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % One-Family Households w/ Non Family Household Members 50 55.6% 10 33.3% 10 66.7% 40 38.1% 10 40.0% 15 42.9% 20 50.0% 0 0.0% 5 33.3% Two-or-More Family Households 10 11.1% 5 16.7% 0 0.0% 15 14.3% 0 0.0% 5 14.3% 5 12.5% 0 0.0% 5 33.3% Two-or-More-Person Non-Family Households 30 33.3% 15 50.0% 5 33.3% 50 47.6% 15 60.0% 15 42.9% 15 37.5% 5 100.0% 5 33.3% Total Other Households 90 100.0% 30 100.0% 15 100.0% 105 100.0% 25 100.0% 35 100.0% 40 100.0% 5 100.0% 15 100.0%

Lone-Parent Households (2011) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Total Lone-Parent Households 135 100.0% 25 100.0% 30 100.0% 60 100.0% 5 100.0% 30 100.0% 45 100.0% 20 100.0% 10 100.0% Total One-Family Only Lone-Parent Households 115 85.2% 20 80.0% 20 66.7% 45 75.0% 5 100.0% 25 83.3% 35 77.8% 20 100.0% 5 50.0% Total More-Than-One-Family Lone-Parent Households 20 14.8% 5 20.0% 10 33.3% 15 25.0% 0 0.0% 5 16.7% 10 22.2% 0 0.0% 5 50.0%

Non-Census-Family Persons (2011) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Total Persons Not in Census Families 445 100.0% 125 100.0% 95 100.0% 370 100.0% 90 100.0% 125 100.0% 220 100.0% 55 100.0% 40 100.0% Total Living Alone 335 75.3% 85 68.0% 75 78.9% 205 55.4% 35 38.9% 85 68.0% 160 72.7% 45 81.8% 30 75.0% Total Living with Non-Relatives Only 90 20.2% 25 20.0% 10 10.5% 135 36.5% 45 50.0% 30 24.0% 35 15.9% 5 9.1% 10 25.0% Total Living with Relatives * 25 5.6% 15 12.0% 10 10.5% 25 6.8% 5 5.6% 10 8.0% 25 11.4% 5 9.1% 5 12.5%

Non-Census-Family Persons 65+ (2011) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Total Persons 65+ Not in Census Families 190 100.0% 25 100.0% 25 100.0% 100 100.0% 20 100.0% 40 100.0% 70 100.0% 10 100.0% 10 100.0% Total Living Alone 180 94.7% 15 60.0% 20 80.0% 85 85.0% 15 75.0% 35 87.5% 55 78.6% 10 100.0% 10 100.0% Total Living with Non-Relatives Only 5 2.6% 5 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 14.3% 5 50.0% 0 0.0% Total Living with Relatives * 10 5.3% 0 0.0% 5 20.0% 10 10.0% 0 0.0% 5 12.5% 5 7.1% 0 0.0% 5 50.0%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2011 Census of Population (corresponding data from the 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population is currently unavailable) (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression) * May include households living with both relatives and non-relatives Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

Since comparable Census of Population data for 1996, 2001 and 2006 was either not collected or was not analyzed by Statistics Canada for publication, it is not possible to assess how and where these rates are increasing or decreasing over time among particular household groups (or the degree to which changing levels of housing affordability may be influencing these trends) among particular household groups in the Columbia Valley. However, the data does show that co-habitation is occurring throughout the region to differing degrees depending on the community and the type of household. This data combined with the data in Table 5 above (i.e., that “other” household types are increasing over time both in terms of real numbers and relative proportion) indicates the likelihood of housing affordability challenges and overcrowding – both of which are recognized risk factors for homelessness. The communities most likely to be experiencing overcrowding are (in order based on the percentage of “other” households) Fairmont (12.2%), Wilmer (10.0%), East Kootenay – Area F (9.9%), Radium (8.7%), Windermere (8.0%), Invermere (7.0%), Canal Flats (6.6%), East Kootenay – Area G (6.3%), and finally Edgewater (2.9%).

- 32 -

3.5.4 Average Household Size

Average household size can influence housing needs in the community and serve as a further indicator of changing demographics and household composition. As average household size declines, a greater number of housing units are required to meet the needs of the same population – placing increased supply and demand pressures on a community’s housing and infrastructure.

Table 8 shows changing average household sizes for communities within the Columbia Valley based on 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 Statistics Canada Census of Population data. According to this data, the current average household size ranges from 2.2 to 2.4 persons per dwelling (PPD). Average household size also appears to be decreasing over time. In Invermere, average household size declined by -5.9% between 1996 and 2011 while average household size declined by -12.4% in Radium. Between 2001 and 2011, average household size in East Kootenay – Area G declined by -7.8%. In East Kootenay – Area F, average household size has fluctuated while in Canal Flats, it appears to have remained stable.

Table 8: Changing Average Household Size within the Communities of the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

Characteristics INVERMERE RADIUM CANAL FLATS E. KOOTENAY F FAIRMONT WINDERMERE E. KOOTENAY G EDGEWATER WILMER Average Household Size Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # 1996 2.6 2.6 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2001 2.5 2.6 –– * 2.4 –– * –– * 2.4 –– * –– * 2006 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.3 –– * –– * 2.4 –– * –– * 2011 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 % Change -5.9% -12.4% 0.0% 0.0% –– * –– * -7.8% –– * –– *

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population (NOTE: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

This data suggests that while the total population of each community continues to increase over time (less so in Invermere but more so elsewhere in the region) – already placing increased pressure on each community’s infrastructure, including housing – decreasing average household size further exacerbates that pressure by incrementally requiring a greater number of homes per population increase. It also suggests a need for increased housing density (i.e., smaller homes on smaller lots) that may or may not reflect the desires and expectations of those households living in and moving into the region.

4.0 Conclusion

Population growth in the Columbia Valley may be causing housing supply and demand imbalances. These supply and demand imbalances can result in escalating housing prices and oversubscription of available support services – increasing the number of households experiencing housing difficulties. Population projections for each community within the region suggest that these growth pressures are likely to continue in the foreseeable future – resulting in increasing demand for housing and a likely escalation of housing prices (and therefore likely increasing the risk of housing hardship – particularly among low- and modest-income households).

- 33 -

Population turnover and mobility may also be causing difficulties associated with the delivery of appropriate housing and support services to an ever-changing population. The high levels of population mobility (i.e., population turnover) observed in Invermere, East Kootenay – Area F, and East Kootenay – Area G can affect both the demand for and the effectiveness of available housing and support services due to changing demographics and household composition; client turnover; steep learning curves for new residents moving into the community seeking information on what support services are available, where those services are located, and how to access them; and the weakening of informal supportive relationships and networks (a key protective factor in preventing the risk of homelessness). Altogether, high levels of population mobility can make planning for and responding effectively and efficiently to the needs of the local population more difficult – thus increasing the risk and likelihood of people “falling through the cracks”.

Population data for each community within the region consistently shows that while the overall population of the region is increasing, certain age cohorts are increasing at a faster rate than others (especially empty-nesters and seniors) – those who are more likely to have:

The age cohorts that are moving into the region at a slower rate (or potentially leaving the region altogether) include those who are:

Those in need of higher levels of supports, including supportive housing (e.g., older seniors) appear to be favoring Invermere over the other communities within the region – which is likely due to the availability of more suitable housing options for seniors being located in Invermere as the regional service centre. This suggests that housing availability and affordability may be having an influence on population growth, demographic changes, and changing household profiles in the region.

Finally, while the total population of each community continues to grow – already placing pressure on each community’s infrastructure, including housing – decreasing average household size is likely to be further exacerbating that pressure by incrementally requiring a greater number of homes per population increase. It also suggests a need for increased housing density (i.e., smaller homes on smaller lots) that may or may not reflect the desires and expectations of those households living in and moving into the region.

Overall, this analysis of population data for the Columbia Valley suggests that a variety of population growth pressures are likely to continue throughout the region in the foreseeable future – resulting in increasing demand for housing and escalation of housing prices. These pressures will likely require increased density and new housing forms that may or may not be compatible with existing small town values and expectations regarding overall community look, feel and built form in some of these communities. “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) opposition to higher density housing forms may limit opportunities to introduce more affordable and innovative housing into these communities to help reduce some the growth pressures.

- 34 -

CHAPTER 3: Income and Employment Analysis

1.0 Introduction

This chapter looks at the changing nature of household incomes for residents living in those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available1 in order to understand the degree to which housing affordability and other related issues may be an issue in the region. The summaries presented in this chapter combine data from two key Statistics Canada sources: Census of Population data and Taxfiler data.

Income data derived from the Census of Population is based solely on the incomes declared by a 20% sample of all households within each community across Canada who responded to the Census Long Questionnaire in any given Census year (in 2011, the Census Long Questionnaire was replaced with the National Household Survey). Income data derived from Taxfiler sources is based on the incomes declared by all households within each community across Canada who filed their annual tax return in any given year.

2.0 Chapter Highlights

• Income and employment data from Statistics Canada’s Census of Population show Invermere and Radium as having both experienced a net increase in the total number of jobs available in each community over time while East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G both experienced a net decline in the total jobs available. Changes in the local and regional economy are also producing a variety of shifts in each community’s income profile – some more varied than others. • A consistent pattern emerges throughout the Columbia Valley based on the total percentage of people employed in the various sectors in 2006: the two most prevalent employment sectors in each of the communities were Manufacturing & Construction and “Other Services” (a catch-all category), while the two most prevalent employment categories in each of the communities in 2006 were Sales & Service occupations followed by Trades, Transport & Equipment Operators. • Comparing average earnings derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) to changing dynamics within the Columbia Valley’s workforce suggests that changes within the local economy would have likely resulted in average incomes increasing over time – but not necessarily for all household types. Those who are more likely to be earning below-average incomes (and, therefore, more likely to experience housing challenges) include: − People with disabilities that limit their overall employability; − People with limited education and/or job skills; − People working in retail, accommodation and food service jobs (particularly if working part-time); − People working in arts, entertainment and recreation jobs; − People working in entry-level administrative positions;

1 Unless otherwise specified (and during those years where Census of Population data is not available), Canal Flats, Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 35 -

− Families with children (particularly single mothers) with limited access to affordable child care (and, therefore, reduced opportunities for full-time employment); and − Individuals living in the smaller and more isolated communities of the region with limited access to affordable transportation (personal or public) and, therefore, reduced access to employment opportunities in the larger communities. • According to Statistics Canada Taxfiler data, median household incomes (i.e., those incomes where 50% of households earn higher incomes and 50% of households earn lower incomes) increased to varying degrees for most household types throughout the Columbia Valley between 2005 and 2010. The three (3) exceptions were lone-parent families living in Canal Flats, single individuals (“non-family persons”) living in Canal Flats, and single individuals living in Edgewater. • Median households incomes in the Columbia Valley have generally increased at a rate faster than both the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Shelter Index (SI) for most household types. The exceptions include (where data is available) lone-parent families living in Invermere Sub-Area 1, couples living in Radium, couples living in Brisco, couples and singles living in Edgewater and all household types living in Canal Flats. For these households, median incomes either increased at a slower rate than either CPI or the Shelter Index or they actually declined. Households whose incomes either decreased over time or whose incomes increased at a slower rate than either the CPI or the Shelter Index are more likely to be experiencing housing hardship (e.g., housing costs are potentially increasing faster than incomes). • Based on the Taxfiler data, the most affluent communities in the Columbia Valley appear to be (in descending order – i.e., Invermere Sub-Area 4 is the most affluent): (1) Invermere Sub-Area 4 (V0A 1K4) (4) Invermere Sub-Area 2 (V0A 1K2) (7) Canal Flats (2) Invermere Sub-Area 3 (V0A 1K3) (5) Radium (3) Invermere Sub-Area 1 (V0A 1K0) (6) Fairmont Sub-Area 2 (V0B 1L2) • The least affluent communities in the Columbia Valley appear to be (in descending order – i.e., Panorama is the least affluent): (8) Edgewater (11) Windermere (14) Panorama (9) Fairmont Sub-Area 1 (V0B 1L1) (12) Invermere Sub-Area 5 (V0A 1K5) (10) Brisco (13) Athalmer • Poverty rates within the Columbia Valley are generally lower than the provincial average. The exceptions are Panorama, Athalmer, and Windermere. While poverty rates dropped significantly in Athalmer between 2005 and 2010 (by an estimated -41.7%), they still remained slightly higher (25.0%) than the provincial average (23.3%). In Windermere, poverty rates were only slightly lower in 2010 than the provincial average (21.4% vs. 23.3%). The community with the highest estimated poverty rate in 2010 was Panorama (53.3% of households - which is more than twice the provincial average of 23.3%). • Based on the percentage of households earning incomes at or below the before-tax Low Income Measure (LIM), poverty rates in 2010 were highest (in descending order) in: − Panorama (53.3%) − Invermere Sub-Area 1 (16.9%) − Invermere Sub-Area 5 (12.5%) − Athalmer (25.0%) − Radium (16.0%) − Fairmont Sub-Area 1 (10.7%) − Windermere (21.4%) − Invermere Sub-Area 2 (15.4%) − Invermere Sub-Area 4 (9.8%) − Canal Flats (17.1%) − Edgewater (15.4%) • Similar data for the other communities has been suppressed.

- 36 -

3.0 Labour Force and Employment

Economic diversification can promote greater economic stability. It can also bring new job opportunities into the community for those who are currently unemployed or under-employed and, depending on the nature of that diversification, higher-paying jobs. Economic diversification can also bring about economic instability for households with limited education and/or limited job skills (e.g., those who may not be able to adjust quickly and/or develop the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the new demands of a changing local economy). Furthermore, some of the new jobs being created as the local economy diversifies may actually offer lower wages, fewer hours, and limited or no benefits when compared to those jobs that were lost during the diversification (e.g., when higher-paying, year-round, full-time jobs within primary and manufacturing industries are replaced with lower-paying, part-time, entry- level jobs within the retail and service sectors).

Table 9 (next page) shows changing economic dynamics in those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available2 between 1996 and 20063 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data detailing the number and percentage of residents employed in different industries or sectors. This data offers a sense of how the local and regional economy may be diversifying over time.

According to this data, Invermere and Radium both experienced a net increase in the total jobs available over time while East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G both experienced a net decline in the total jobs available. As with the population data discussed in Chapter 2, the declining number of jobs shown in the data for East Kootenay – Area F could be due to the separation and removal of Canal Flats from the Area F enumeration area between 2001 and 2006. However, this does not explain the declining number of jobs shown in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. Increasing numbers of people retiring over time as the population ages (as discussed in Chapter 2) is another likely factor leading to the demonstrated decline in available jobs both in Area F and Area G. In terms of economic growth and diversification, the following changes occurred within each community/area between 2001 and 2006 in terms of the number of people employed in various sectors:

• Invermere: experienced a decline in the number of people employed in the Agriculture and Resource sector (-75 jobs) along with “Other Services” (-20 jobs) and the Health & Education sector (-15 jobs) yet an increase in the number of people employed in the Business Services sector (+50 jobs) followed by the Manufacturing & Construction sector (+50 jobs), the Finance & Real Estate Sector (+45 jobs) and then the Wholesale & Retail sector (+25 jobs). • Radium: experienced no net decline in the number of people employed in any given sector yet an increase in both the number and percentage of people employed in the Agriculture & Resource sector (+70 jobs) followed by “Other Services” (+55 jobs), a tie between the Manufacturing & Construction sector (+20 jobs) and the Health & Education sector (+20 jobs), the Wholesale & Retail sector (+15 jobs), and then the Business Services sector (+10 jobs). • East Kootenay – Area F: experienced a decline in the number of people employed in “Other Services” (-120 jobs) along with the Agriculture and Resource sector (-110 jobs) and the Wholesale & Retail sector (-100 jobs) yet an increase in the number of people employed in the Finance & Real Estate Sector (+95 jobs) followed by the Business Services sector (+55 jobs), the Manufacturing & Construction sector (+15 jobs), and then the Health & Education sector (+10 jobs). Note that some of the identified job “losses” may actually be due to Canal Flats being removed from the East Kootenay – Area F enumeration area between 2001 and 2006.

2 Unless otherwise specified (and during those years where Census of Population data is not available), Canal Flats, Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. 3 Data from the 2011 National Household Survey is currently unavailable (the scheduled release date for income and employment data is June 26, 3013).

- 37 -

• East Kootenay – Area G: experienced a decline in the number of people employed in “Other Services” (-95 jobs) along with the Finance & Real Estate Sector (- 55 jobs) and the Manufacturing & Construction sector (-35 jobs) yet an increase in the number of people employed in the Wholesale & Retail sector (+40 jobs) followed by the Business Services sector (+25 jobs) and then a tie between the Agriculture and Resource sector (+20 jobs) and the Health & Education sector (+20 jobs).

It is important to note that despite these changes, a consistent pattern emerges throughout the Columbia Valley based on the total percentage of people employed in the various sectors in 2006: the two most prevalent employment sectors in each of the communities were Manufacturing & Construction and “Other Services” (a catch-all category). Another trend that appears to be occurring is a shift within the Agriculture & Resource sector and the Health & Education sector moving jobs out of Invermere and into the surrounding communities.

Table 9: Changing Industry Profiles for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001 and 2006)

1996 2001 2006 1996-2006 Labour Force Characteristics o. o. o. N % N % N % % Change Agriculture & Resource 125 8.3% 150 9.0% 75 4.4% -47.0%

Manufacturing & Construction 295 19.6% 255 15.3% 305 17.9% -8.7% Wholesale & Retail 160 10.6% 215 12.9% 240 14.1% 32.4% Finance & Real Estate 40 2.7% 65 3.9% 110 6.5% 142.7% Health & Education 265 17.6% 260 15.6% 225 13.2% -25.1%

INVERMERE Business Services 110 7.3% 160 9.6% 210 12.3% 68.5% Other Services 510 33.9% 560 33.6% 540 31.7% -6.5% Estimated Total 1,505 100.0% 1,665 100.0% 1,705 100.0% N/A Published Total 1,510 100.3% 1,665 100.0% 1,710 100.3% N/A

1996 2001 2006 1996-2006 Labour Force Characteristics o. o. o. N % N % N % % Change Agriculture & Resource 20 7.0% 0 0.0% 70 13.7% 95.6% Manufacturing & Construction 55 19.3% 75 23.4% 95 18.6% -3.5%

Wholesale & Retail 15 5.3% 30 9.4% 45 8.8% 67.6% Finance & Real Estate 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% N/A Health & Education 10 3.5% 15 4.7% 35 6.9% 95.6% RADIUM Business Services 0 0.0% 50 15.6% 60 11.8% 100.0% Other Services 185 64.9% 150 46.9% 205 40.2% -38.1% Estimated Total 285 100.0% 320 100.0% 510 100.0% N/A Published Total 290 101.8% 320 100.0% 515 101.0% N/A

Data Source: Statistics Canada Census of Population (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending a June 26, 2013 scheduled release date of relevant data from the National Household Survey) (NOTE: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis In 1996, East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G were included with the Regional District of East Kootenay (i.e., sub-areas A-G did not exist in the Census of Population data) In 2001, Canal Flats was included in East Kootenay – Area F. In 2001 and 2006 Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 38 -

Table 9 (Cont’d): Changing Industry Profiles for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001 and 2006)

1996 2001 2006 Labour Force Characteristics o. o. o. % Change N % N % N % Agriculture & Resource –– * –– * –– * –– * 55 12.9% –– *

Manufacturing & Construction –– * –– * –– * –– * 135 31.8% –– * Wholesale & Retail –– * –– * –– * –– * 60 14.1% –– * Finance & Real Estate –– * –– * –– * –– * 30 7.1% –– * Health & Education –– * –– * –– * –– * 20 4.7% –– * Business Services –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 5.9% –– * CANAL FLATS CANAL Other Services –– * –– * –– * –– * 100 23.5% –– * Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 425 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 430 101.2% –– *

1996 2001 2006 2001-2006 Labour Force Characteristics o. o. o. N % N % N % % Change Agriculture & Resource –– * –– * 230 12.5% 120 7.1% -43.0% AREA F AREA Manufacturing & Construction –– * –– * 400 21.7% 415 24.6% 13.3% – Wholesale & Retail –– * –– * 185 10.1% 85 5.0% -49.8% Finance & Real Estate –– * –– * 65 3.5% 160 9.5% 168.8% Health & Education –– * –– * 195 10.6% 205 12.2% 14.8% Business Services –– * –– * 210 11.4% 265 15.7% 37.8% Other Services –– * –– * 555 30.2% 435 25.8% -14.4% Estimated Total –– * –– * 1,840 100.0% 1,685 100.0% N/A EAST KOOTENAYEAST Published Total –– * –– * 1,840 100.0% 1,695 100.6% N/A

1996 2001 2006 2001-2006 Labour Force Characteristics o. o. o. N % N % N % % Change Agriculture & Resource –– * –– * 80 7.8% 100 10.5% 35.5% AREA G AREA Manufacturing & Construction –– * –– * 305 29.6% 270 28.4% -4.0% – Wholesale & Retail –– * –– * 110 10.7% 150 15.8% 47.8% Finance & Real Estate –– * –– * 70 6.8% 15 1.6% -76.8% Health & Education –– * –– * 85 8.3% 105 11.1% 33.9% Business Services –– * –– * 80 7.8% 105 11.1% 42.3% Other Services –– * –– * 300 29.1% 205 21.6% -25.9% Estimated Total –– * –– * 1,030 100.0% 950 100.0% N/A EAST KOOTENAYEAST Published Total –– * –– * 1,020 99.0% 950 100.0% N/A

Table 10 (next page) shows changing economic dynamics within those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available4 between 1995 and 20065 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data based on the number and percentage of residents employed in different types of occupations. This data offers a sense of how incomes within the region may be changing over time.

Once again, while Invermere and Radium both experienced a net increase in the total jobs available over time while East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G both experienced a net decline in the total jobs available (likely due in part to an increasing numbers of people retiring over time as the population ages along with the separation and removal of Canal Flats from the Area F enumeration area between 2000 and 2005). In terms of economic growth and diversification, the following are the most significant changes that occurred within each community/area between 2001 and 2006 in terms of the number of people employed in various occupations:

• Invermere: the “top 3” areas of job growth included Art, Culture, Recreation & Sport occupations (+50 jobs) followed by Management occupations (+40 jobs) and then Business, Finance & Administration occupations (+30 jobs) while the three most significant areas of job decline occurred among Sales & Service occupations (-80 jobs) followed by Trades, Transport & Equipment Operators occupations (-45 jobs) and then Primary Industry occupations (-15 jobs). • Radium: the “top 3” areas of job growth included Sales & Service occupations (+95 jobs) followed by Trades, Transport & Equipment Operators occupations (+50 jobs) and a tie between Management occupations (+20 jobs) and Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities occupations (+20 jobs) while the only areas of job decline during that 5-year period occurred among Art, Culture, Recreation & Sport occupations (-20 jobs) and Sales & Service occupations (-5 jobs). • East Kootenay – Area F: the “top 3” areas of job growth included Health occupations (+100 jobs) followed by Management occupations (+75 jobs) and then Natural & Applied Sciences occupations (+25 jobs) while the three most significant areas of job decline occurred among Sales & Service occupations (-165 jobs) followed by Primary Industry occupations (-90 jobs) and then Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities occupations (-60 jobs). Note that some of the identified job “losses” may actually be due to Canal Flats being removed from the East Kootenay – Area F enumeration area between 2001 and 2006. • East Kootenay – Area G: the “top 3” areas of job growth included Health occupations (+30 jobs) followed by Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities occupations (+25 jobs) and then Trades, Transport & Equipment Operators occupations (+20 jobs) while the three most significant areas of job decline occurred among Business, Finance & Administration occupations (-55 jobs) followed by Primary Industry occupations (-45 jobs) and then a tie between Management occupations (-15 jobs) and Sales & Service occupations (-15 jobs).

The consistent pattern that emerges throughout the Columbia Valley based on the total percentage of people employed in various occupations is that the two most prevalent employment categories in each of the communities in 2006 were Sales & Service occupations followed by Trades, Transport & Equipment Operators. In Invermere, Radium, and East Kootenay – Area F, this was followed by Management occupations and Business, Finance & Administration occupations. In East Kootenay – Area G, Primary Industry occupations were the next most prevalent occupation followed by a combination of Management occupations, Business, Finance & Administration occupations, and Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities occupations. In Canal Flats Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities occupations were the next most prevalent occupation followed by a combination of Business, Finance & Administration occupations and Primary Industry occupations.

4 Unless otherwise specified (and during those years where Census of Population data is not available), Canal Flats, Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. 5 Data from the 2011 National Household Survey is currently unavailable (the scheduled release date for income and employment data is June 26, 3013).

- 40 -

Table 10: Changing Occupation Profiles for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001 and 2006)

1996 2001 2006 1996-2006 Labour Force Characteristics No. % No. % No. % % Change Management 130 8.6% 180 10.8% 220 12.9% 49.4% Business, Finance & Administration 230 15.3% 230 13.8% 260 15.2% -0.2% Natural & Applied Sciences 125 8.3% 90 5.4% 110 6.5% -22.3%

Health 55 3.7% 70 4.2% 85 5.0% 36.4% Soc.Science, Education, Gov.’t & Religion 85 5.6% 95 5.7% 115 6.7% 19.4% Art, Culture, Recreation & Sport 30 2.0% 35 2.1% 85 5.0% 150.1% Sales & Service 465 30.9% 515 30.9% 435 25.5% -17.4% INVERMERE Trades, Transport & Equip. Operators 225 15.0% 335 20.1% 290 17.0% 13.8% Primary Industry 100 6.6% 90 5.4% 75 4.4% -33.8% Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities 60 4.0% 25 1.5% 30 1.8% -55.9% Estimated Total 1,505 100.0% 1,665 100.0% 1,705 100.0% N/A Published Total 1,510 100.3% 1,665 100.0% 1,705 100.0% N/A

1996 2001 2006 1996-2006 Labour Force Characteristics No. % No. % No. % % Change Management 90 32.1% 70 22.2% 90 17.6% -45.1% Business, Finance & Administration 10 3.6% 40 12.7% 50 9.8% 174.5% Natural & Applied Sciences 25 8.9% 0 0.0% 15 2.9% -67.1%

Health 0 0.0% 15 4.8% 10 2.0% 100.0% Soc.Science, Education, Gov.’t & Religion 15 5.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -100.0% Art, Culture, Recreation & Sport 0 0.0% 30 9.5% 10 2.0% 100.0%

RADIUM Sales & Service 60 21.4% 80 25.4% 175 34.3% 60.1% Trades, Transport & Equip. Operators 40 14.3% 55 17.5% 105 20.6% 44.1% Primary Industry 20 7.1% 10 3.2% 20 3.9% -45.1% Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities 20 7.1% 15 4.8% 35 6.9% -3.9% Estimated Total 280 100.0% 315 100.0% 510 100.0% N/A Published Total 290 103.6% 320 101.6% 515 101.0% N/A

Data Source: Statistics Canada Census of Population (NOTE: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression) (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending a June 26, 2013 scheduled release date of relevant data from the National Household Survey) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis In 1996, East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G were included with the Regional District of East Kootenay (i.e., sub-areas A-G did not exist in the Census of Population data) In 2001, Canal Flats was included in East Kootenay – Area F. In 2001 and 2006 Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 41 -

Table 10: Changing Occupation Profiles for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001 and 2006)

1996 2001 2006 Labour Force Characteristics % Change No. % No. % No. % Management –– * –– * –– * –– * 15 3.5% –– * Business, Finance & Administration –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 5.9% –– *

Natural & Applied Sciences –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * Health –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 2.4% –– * Soc.Science, Education, Gov.’t & Religion –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 2.4% –– * Art, Culture, Recreation & Sport –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * Sales & Service –– * –– * –– * –– * 155 36.5% –– *

CANAL FLATS CANAL Trades, Transport & Equip. Operators –– * –– * –– * –– * 150 35.3% –– * Primary Industry –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 5.9% –– * Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities –– * –– * –– * –– * 35 8.2% –– * Estimated Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 425 100.0% –– * Published Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 430 101.2% –– *

1996 2001 2006 2001-2006 Labour Force Characteristics No. % No. % No. % % Change

Management –– * –– * 200 10.9% 275 16.4% 50.6% Business, Finance & Administration –– * –– * 195 10.6% 155 9.2% -12.9% Natural & Applied Sciences –– * –– * 80 4.3% 105 6.3% 43.8% AREA F AREA

– Health –– * –– * 40 2.2% 140 8.3% 283.3% Soc.Science, Education, Gov.’t & Religion –– * –– * 105 5.7% 80 4.8% -16.6% Art, Culture, Recreation & Sport –– * –– * 25 1.4% 25 1.5% 9.5% Sales & Service –– * –– * 550 29.9% 385 22.9% -23.3% Trades, Transport & Equip. Operators –– * –– * 295 16.0% 315 18.8% 16.9% Primary Industry –– * –– * 240 13.0% 150 8.9% -31.5%

EAST KOOTENAYEAST Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities –– * –– * 110 6.0% 50 3.0% -50.2% Estimated Total –– * –– * 1,840 100.0% 1,680 100.0% N/A Published Total –– * –– * 1,840 100.0% 1,700 101.2% N/A

- 42 -

Table 10: Changing Occupation Profiles for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001 and 2006)

1996 2001 2006 2001-2006 Labour Force Characteristics No. % No. % No. % % Change

Management –– * –– * 85 8.3% 70 7.4% -11.1% Business, Finance & Administration –– * –– * 125 12.2% 70 7.4% -39.6% Natural & Applied Sciences –– * –– * 40 3.9% 35 3.7% -5.6% AREA G AREA

– Health –– * –– * 10 1.0% 40 4.2% 331.6% Soc.Science, Education, Gov.’t & Religion –– * –– * 70 6.8% 65 6.8% 0.2% Art, Culture, Recreation & Sport –– * –– * 30 2.9% 20 2.1% -28.1% Sales & Service –– * –– * 270 26.3% 255 26.8% 1.9% Trades, Transport & Equip. Operators –– * –– * 225 22.0% 245 25.8% 17.5% Primary Industry –– * –– * 125 12.2% 80 8.4% -30.9%

EAST KOOTENAYEAST Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities –– * –– * 45 4.4% 70 7.4% 67.8% Estimated Total –– * –– * 1,025 100.0% 950 100.0% N/A Published Total –– * –– * 1,020 99.5% 950 100.0% N/A

Table 11 (next page) shows the degree to which jobs in each of the occupation categories listed in Table 10 above compare to the overall average income for all occupations in October 2012 based on data provided through the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Income data derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) is based on a monthly survey of approximately 56,000 households across Canada designed to collect information and data on employment (including self-employment), unemployment, income by industry and by occupation, and a number of other employment characteristics. Comparing the data in Table 10 to the information in Table 11 suggests that changes within the local economy would have likely resulted in average incomes increasing over time between 2001 and 2006 – but not necessarily for all household types. As noted, these findings are for the period between 2001 and 2006. They do not reflect changes in the local and regional economies since 2006 – nor do they provide details for the smaller, more rural communities within the region.

It should also be noted that not all residents are expected to benefit equally from income growth. Along with a growing number of households earning above-average incomes is a growing number of households earning below-average incomes. Higher-income-earning households (including local residents and recreational property investors) are likely driving the housing market (i.e., housing prices) upwards and potentially out of reach of below-average-income-earning households. If income polarization is occurring in either community or the region as a whole (i.e., a growing gap between those households earning above average incomes and those households earning below-average incomes) or if housing prices are not changing at the same rate as incomes (either growing or declining at the same rate as incomes), housing affordability challenges are likely to increase – along with other housing- related challenges (e.g., adequacy, suitability, accessibility, and/or choice).

- 43 -

Those who are more likely to be earning below-average incomes include:

• People with disabilities that limit their overall employability; • People with limited education and/or job skills; • People working in retail, accommodation and food service jobs (particularly if working part-time); • People working in arts, entertainment and recreation jobs; • People working in entry-level administrative positions; • Families with children (particularly single mothers) with limited access to affordable child care (and, therefore, reduced opportunities for full-time employment); and • Individuals living in the smaller and more isolated communities of the region with limited access to affordable transportation (personal or public) and, therefore, reduced access to employment opportunities in the larger communities.

Table 11: Relative Average Earning Potential by Occupation in Alberta (October 2012)

Occupation Category Average Earning Potential Primary Industry Well Above Average Processing, Manufacturing & Utilities Well Above Average Management Well Above Average Natural & Applied Sciences Above Average Trades, Transport & Equipment Operators Average to Above Average Business, Finance & Administration Above Average (Business & Finance) and Below Average (Administration) Social Science, Education, Government & Religion Above Average (Government) and Below Average (Social Science, Education and Religion) Health Below Average Art, Culture, Recreation & Sport Well Below Average Sales & Service Well Below Average

Data Source: Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey (October 2012)

4.0 Household Incomes

For most people and in most circumstances, a steady, stable, and sufficient income is required in order to maintain one’s housing (i.e., to be able to continue making rent or mortgage payments on time yet still have enough money left over to cover utilities and a wide range of other basic needs). If incomes are not keeping pace with cost of living increases, if housing costs are increasing at a faster rate than incomes, or if incomes are beginning to polarize (i.e., gaps between the wealthy and the poor living in the community are emerging and/or growing) housing challenges are likely to increase in terms of real numbers, in terms of the relative proportion/percentage of the population experiencing those challenges, and even in terms of the income levels affected.

- 44 -

4.1 Median Household Incomes (1996 – 2006 Statistics Canada Census of Population Data)

Table 12 (next page) shows the changing median family and household incomes for those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available6 between 1995 and 2005 based on Census of Population data7 and compares 2005 median household income in each community to the provincial averages for that year. These tables show that with only a few exceptions (i.e., lone-parent families living in East Kootenay – Area G) the overall median household income (i.e., the income in the middle where 50% of households earn higher levels and 50% of households earn lower levels) increased over time. It also shows that, depending on the type of household and the community in which that household lived, median income growth over time varied greatly. For example, between 2000 and 2005, median incomes among:

• All Households: increased by 14.3% in Invermere, 21.9% in Radium, 8.4% in East Kootenay – Area F, and 41.8% in East Kootenay – Area G. • One-Person Households: increased by 19.0% in Invermere, 48.0% in Radium, 59.4% in East Kootenay – Area F, and a more modest 1.7% in East Kootenay – Area G. • All Census Families: (i.e., childless couples, couples with children, and lone-parent families combined) increased by 25.2% in Invermere, and 13.1% in Radium, 19.0% in East Kootenay – Area F, and 41.8% in East Kootenay – Area G. • Lone Parent Families: decreased by -6.8% in Invermere and -50.5% in East Kootenay – Area G yet increased by 17.2% in East Kootenay – Area F. Data suppression prevents tracking changes over time in Radium.

When compared to provincial averages, it becomes more apparent that not all household types are benefiting from economic change and diversification in the Columbia Valley:

• Invermere: the average married couple earns more than the provincial average while the average common-law couple earns significantly less. With slight variations, the average lone-parent family earns roughly the same as the provincial average (marginally higher for single mothers and marginally lower for single fathers). • Radium: the average married couple earns more than the provincial average while data for common-law couples has been suppressed. The average lone-parent family earns slightly less than the provincial average (marginally lower for single mothers while data is suppressed for single fathers). • Canal Flats: follows roughly same pattern as East Kootenay – Area F: the average married couple and the average common-law couple earns less than the provincial average while the average lone-parent family earns significantly more (data is suppressed for single mothers and single fathers). • East Kootenay – Area F: the average married couple and the average common-law couple earns less than the provincial average while the average lone-parent family earns slightly more (average incomes for single mothers are on par with the provincial average while data is suppressed for single fathers). • East Kootenay – Area G: the reverse is the case in East Kootenay – Area G: the average married couple earns more than the provincial average and the average common-law couple earns slightly more while the average lone-parent family (e.g., single mothers) earns less (data for single fathers has been suppressed).

6 Unless otherwise specified (and during those years where Census of Population data is not available), Canal Flats, Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. 7 Data from the 2011 National Household Survey is currently unavailable (the scheduled release date for income and employment data is June 26, 3013).

- 45 -

Table 12: Median Household Income by Household Type for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1995, 2000 and 2005 Incomes)

Income 2000-2005 Household Type and Characteristics 1995 2000 2005 % Change Median Income – All Households $40,752 $48,324 $55,209 14.3% Median Income – One-Person Households $17,203 $22,743 $27,075 19.0%

Median Family Income – All Census Families $47,342 $57,337 $71,811 25.2% Median Family Income – Couple Families –– * $62,210 –– * –– *

INVEMERE Married Couples $52,523 –– * $79,964 –– * Common-Law Couples –– * –– * $42,646 –– * Median Family Income – Lone-Parent Families –– * $36,904 $34,407 -6.8% Female-Led $15,882 –– * $34,281 –– * Male-Led $32,878 –– * $43,567 –– *

Income 2000-2005 Household Type and Characteristics 1995 2000 2005 % Change Median Income – All Households $34,814 $52,151 $63,574 21.9% Median Income – One-Person Households $15,896 $24,276 $35,922 48.0%

Median Family Income – All Census Families $45,289 $56,581 $63,991 13.1%

ADIUM Median Family Income – Couple Families –– * $59,688 –– * –– * R Married Couples $47,234 –– * $81,077 –– * Common-Law Couples –– * –– * $0 –– * Median Family Income – Lone-Parent Families –– * $0 $32,849 –– * Female-Led $0 –– * $32,796 –– * Male-Led $0 –– * $0 –– *

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (1995, 2000 and 2005 Incomes) (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression) For the 2006 Census of Population, Statistics Canada separated the category of “couple families” into “married-couple families” and “common-law couple families” making a direct comparison between 2001 and 2006 Census data no longer possible. (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending a June 26, 2013 scheduled release date of relevant data from the National Household Survey) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis In 1996, East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G were included with the Regional District of East Kootenay (i.e., sub-areas A-G did not exist in the Census of Population data) In 2001, Canal Flats was included in East Kootenay – Area F. In 2001 and 2006 Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 46 -

Table 12 (Cont’d): Median Household Income by Household Type for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1995, 2000 and 2005 Incomes)

Income 2000-2005 Household Type and Characteristics 1995 2000 2005 % Change Median Income – All Households –– * –– * $53,967 –– *

Median Income – One-Person Households –– * –– * $42,903 –– *

Median Family Income – All Census Families –– * –– * $53,984 –– * Median Family Income – Couple Families –– * –– * –– * –– * Married Couples –– * –– * $60,442 –– *

CANAL FLATS CANAL Common-Law Couples –– * –– * $57,202 –– * Median Family Income – Lone-Parent Families –– * –– * $53,940 –– * Female-Led –– * –– * $0 –– * Male-Led –– * –– * $0 –– *

Income 2000-2005

Household Type and Characteristics 1995 2000 2005 % Change Median Income – All Households –– * $48,953 $53,069 8.4%

AREA F AREA Median Income – One-Person Households –– * $23,304 $36,098 54.9%

– Median Family Income – All Census Families –– * $51,291 $61,052 19.0% Median Family Income – Couple Families –– * $56,087 –– * –– * Married Couples –– * –– * $63,511 –– * Common-Law Couples –– * –– * $58,998 –– * Median Family Income – Lone-Parent Families –– * $33,506 $39,282 17.2%

EAST KOOTENAYEAST Female-Led –– * –– * $33,530 –– * Male-Led –– * –– * $0 –– *

- 47 -

Table 12 (Cont’d): Median Household Income by Household Type for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1995, 2000 and 2005 Incomes)

Income Household Type and Characteristics % Change 1995 2000 2005 Median Income – All Households –– * $41,948 $59,487 41.8% Median Income – One-Person Households –– * $21,350 $21,709 1.7% AREA G AREA

–

Median Family Income – All Census Families –– * $49,360 $69,983 41.8% Median Family Income – Couple Families –– * $49,157 –– * –– * Married Couples –– * –– * $75,507 –– * Common-Law Couples –– * –– * $64,092 –– * Median Family Income – Lone-Parent Families –– * $58,682 $29,028 -50.5%

EAST KOOTENAYEAST Female-Led –– * –– * $28,980 –– * Male-Led –– * –– * $0 –– *

4.2 Median Household Incomes (2005 – 2010 Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data)

Statistics Canada Taxfiler data provides a more detailed and more recent profile of incomes within the Columbia Valley – in this case for nine (9) communities: Athalmer, Brisco, Canal Flats, Edgewater, Fairmont (3 separate sub-areas), Invermere (5 separate sub-areas), Panorama, Radium, and Windermere. All except Panorama have Taxfiler data assigned for both 2005 and 2010 (2010 being the most current income data available). In the case of Panorama, Taxfiler data is only available for 2010. For the sake of consistency with the Census of Population data, analyses of Taxfiler data is organized as follows:

• Invermere: Invermere Sub-Areas 1 (V0K 1K0), 2 (V0K 1K2), 3 (V0K 1K3), 4 (V0K 1K4), and 5 (V0K 1K5) along with Athalmer • Radium • Canal Flats • East Kootenay – Area F: Fairmont Sub-Areas 1 (V0B 1L1), 2 (V0B 1L2), and 3 (V0B 1L3) along with Panorama, and Windermere • East Kootenay – Area G: Brisco and Edgewater

Figure 1 (next page) shows changing median household incomes by household type in each of these communities between 2005 and 2010 based on this data.

- 48 -

Figure 1: Changing Median Household Incomes within the Columbia Valley (2005-2010)

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 49 -

Figure 1 (Cont’d): Changing Median Household Incomes within the Columbia Valley (2005-2010)

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 50 -

This figure shows that median household incomes (i.e., those incomes where 50% of households earn higher incomes and 50% of households earn lower incomes) increased to varying degrees for most household types throughout the Columbia Valley between 2005 and 2010. The three (3) exceptions were lone-parent families living in Canal Flats, single individuals (“non-family persons”) living in Canal Flats, and single individuals living in Edgewater. The figure also shows which communities in the Columbia Valley appear to be the most affluent and which appear to be the least affluent in 2010 as follows:

• Most Affluent (in descending order): • Least Affluent (in descending order): (1) Invermere Sub-Area 4 (V0A 1K4) (8) Edgewater (2) Invermere Sub-Area 3 (V0A 1K3) (9) Fairmont Sub-Area 1 (V0B 1L1) (3) Invermere Sub-Area 1 (V0A 1K0) (10) Brisco (4) Invermere Sub-Area 2 (V0A 1K2) (11) Windermere (5) Radium (12) Invermere Sub-Area 5 (V0A 1K5) (6) Fairmont Sub-Area 2 (V0B 1L2) (13) Athalmer (7) Canal Flats (14) Panorama

Fairmont Sub-Area 3 did not exist as a distinct postal code in 2010. As a result, it is not included in this list (i.e., there is no 2010 Taxfiler data for Fairmont Sub-Area 3 with which to assess that area’s relative affluence compared to the other communities in the region).

It is interesting to note that Invermere contains the most affluent as well as some of the least affluent neighbourhoods in the region – thus likely presenting a microcosm of the full range of household types and incomes throughout in the region. It is also important to note that these figures represent median household incomes. Increases in median incomes do not necessarily mean that all households have benefited from similar increases. Similarly decreases in median incomes do not necessarily mean that all households have experienced similar declines.

Figure 2 (following pages) compares 2010 median household incomes for the same communities to the provincial averages for that same year. According to this data, median household incomes among:

• Invermere Sub-Area 1 (V0A 1K0): couples and singles are higher than the provincial average, while lone-parent families are slightly lower than the provincial average. • Invermere Sub-Area 2 (V0A 1K2): couples are slightly lower than the provincial average, while singles are higher than the provincial average (data is suppressed for lone- parent families). • Invermere Sub-Area 3 (V0A 1K3): couples and singles are higher than the provincial average (data is suppressed for lone-parent families). • Invermere Sub-Area 4 (V0A 1K4): couples, lone-parent families and singles are all higher than the provincial average. • Invermere Sub-Area 5 (V0A 1K5): couples and singles are slightly lower than the provincial average (data is suppressed for lone-parent families). • Athalmer: couples are lower than the provincial average, while singles are slightly higher than the provincial average (data is suppressed for lone- parent families). • Radium: couples are slightly lower than the provincial average, singles are higher than the provincial average, and lone-parent families are on par with the provincial average.

(continued on page 41)

- 51 -

Figure 2: Comparison of 2010 Median Household Incomes for Communities within the Columbia Valley and the Province of BC

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 52 -

Figure 2 (Cont’d): Comparison of 2010 Median Household Incomes for Communities within the Columbia Valley and the Province of BC

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 53 -

• Canal Flats: couples and lone-parent families are slightly lower than the provincial average, while singles are slightly higher than the provincial average. • Fairmont Sub-Area 1 (V0B 1L1): couples are lower than the provincial average, while singles are higher than the provincial average (data is suppressed for lone-parent families). • Fairmont Sub-Area 2 (V0B 1L2): couples and singles are marginally higher than the provincial average (data is suppressed for lone-parent families). • Panorama: couples and singles are lower than the provincial average (data is suppressed for lone-parent families). • Windermere: couples are slightly lower than the provincial average, lone-parent families are lower than the provincial average, and singles are marginally higher than the provincial average. • Brisco: couples are significantly lower than the provincial average, while singles are higher than the provincial average (data is suppressed for lone-parent families). • Edgewater: couples, lone-parent families and singles are all slightly lower than the provincial average.

4.3 Changing Median Incomes (Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data) Compared to Changing Price Indexes

It is also important to note the degree to which median incomes are keeping pace with the cost of living as expressed through the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the cost of shelter as expressed through the Shelter Index (SI). Between December 2005 and December 2010, the CPI for British Columbia increased by an estimated 7.4% (from 106.7 in 2005 to 114.6 in 2010 based on a 2002 index). During that same period, the Shelter Index increased by 6.1% (from 107.4 in 2005 to 114.0 in 2010 based on a 2002 index).

Table 13 (next page) compares median income growth among the three different household types (couples, lone parents, and single individuals) for each community to changes in CPI and the Shelter Index suggests. Based on this data, median households incomes have generally increased at a rate faster than both the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Shelter Index (SI) for most household types throughout the region. The exceptions are as follows (i.e., median incomes increased at a slower rate over time than both CPI and SI):

• Invermere Sub-Area 1 (V0A 1K0): lone-parent families; • Radium: couples; • Canal Flats: couples (median incomes increased at a marginally lower rate than CPI but a higher rate than SI), singles and lone-parent families (median incomes among singles and lone-parent families actually declined over time). • Brisco: couples; • Edgewater: couples and singles (median incomes among singles actually declined over time); and

Households whose incomes either decreased between 2005 and 2010 or whose incomes increased at a slower rate than either the CPI or especially the Shelter Index are more likely to be experiencing housing hardship as their housing costs are potentially increasing faster than their incomes.

- 54 -

Table 13: Median Household Income Growth by Type for Communities within the Columbia Valley Compared to CPI and the Shelter Index (December 2005 – December 2010)

Invermere Sub-Area 1 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Invermere Sub-Area 2 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Couple Family $67,300 $78,310 16.4% ! ! Couple Family $64,800 $72,720 12.2% ! !

Lone-Parent Family $34,300 $34,600 0.9% " " Lone-Parent Family –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Non-Family Person $23,100 $29,480 27.6% ! ! Non-Family Person $26,800 $29,360 9.6% ! !

Invermere Sub-Area 3 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Invermere Sub-Area 4 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Couple Family $67,900 $80,890 19.1% ! ! Couple Family $79,000 $93,030 17.8% ! !

Lone-Parent Family –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Lone-Parent Family $30,700 $43,860 42.9% ! ! Non-Family Person –– * $38,870 –– * –– * –– * Non-Family Person $28,000 $33,640 20.1% ! !

Invermere Sub-Area 5 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Athalmer 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Couple Family $65,800 $72,220 9.8% ! ! Couple Family –– * $57,530 –– * –– * –– *

Lone-Parent Family –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Lone-Parent Family –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Non-Family Person $20,400 $22,980 12.6% ! ! Non-Family Person $16,700 $25,790 54.4% ! !

Radium 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Canal Flats 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Couple Family $65,400 $67,930 3.9% " " Couple Family $64,900 $69,620 7.3% " !

Lone-Parent Family $24,000 $34,960 45.7% ! ! Lone-Parent Family $49,500 $32,170 -35.0% " " Non-Family Person $24,400 $27,710 13.6% ! ! Non-Family Person $27,100 $26,070 -3.8% " "

Fairmont Sub-Area 1 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Fairmont Sub-Area 2 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Couple Family $60,700 $66,980 10.3% ! ! Couple Family $64,800 $73,360 13.2% ! !

Lone-Parent Family –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Lone-Parent Family –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Non-Family Person $23,800 $29,650 24.6% ! ! Non-Family Person $22,900 $25,790 12.6% ! !

Panorama 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Windermere 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Couple Family –– * $65,440 –– * –– * –– * Couple Family $62,200 $71,700 15.3% ! !

Lone-Parent Family –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Lone-Parent Family $21,700 $24,530 13.0% ! ! Non-Family Person –– * $12,310 –– * –– * –– * Non-Family Person $22,500 $24,830 10.4% ! !

Brisco 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Edgewater 2005 2010 % Change CPI SI Couple Family $50,800 $51,690 1.8% " " Couple Family $69,800 $71,030 1.8% " "

Lone-Parent Family –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * Lone-Parent Family $31,400 $33,830 7.7% ! ! Non-Family Person –– * $34,070 –– * –– * –– * Non-Family Person $27,400 $23,590 -13.9% " "

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression * The required Taxfiler data is not currently available for analysis

- 55 -

4.4 Detailed Household Incomes (Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data)

Figure 3 (next page) shows more detailed income data for the communities within the Columbia Valley based on 2005 and 2010 Taxfiler data as organized into increments of $25,000. The data shows greater detail about the degree to which incomes have changed over time in each community and where the most significant improvements and declines in household incomes are occurring as follows:

• Invermere Sub-Area 1 (V0A 1K0): experienced a decline in the percentage of households earning incomes under $50,000 and an increase in the percentage of households earning incomes over $50,000. • Invermere Sub-Area 2 (V0A 1K2): experienced a decline in the percentage of households earning incomes under $25,000 and an increase in the percentage of households earning incomes over $25,000. • Invermere Sub-Area 3 (V0A 1K3): experienced declines in the percentage of households earning $0 - $24,999, $50,000 - $74,999, and $100,000 and above combined with increases in the percentage of households earning $25,000 - $49,999 and $75,000 - $99,999. • Invermere Sub-Area 4 (V0A 1K4): experienced the opposite pattern: increases in the percentage of households earning $0 - $24,999, $50,000 - $74,999, and $100,000 and above combined with declines in the percentage of households earning $25,000 - $49,999 and $75,000 - $99,999. • Invermere Sub-Area 5 (V0A 1K5): experienced a similar pattern to Sub-Area 1: a decline in the percentage of households earning incomes under $50,000 and an increase in the percentage of households earning incomes over $50,000. • Athalmer: experienced a more evening out of incomes – however data suppression is likely the reason for these observations. • Radium: experienced no change in the percentage of households earning incomes under $25,000, a decline in the percentage of households earning $25,000 to $49,999, and an increase in the percentage of households earning incomes over $50,000. • Canal Flats: experienced an increase in the percentage of households earning $0 - $24,999, a decline in the percentage of households earning $25,000 - $74,999, and an increase in the percentage of households earning over $75,000. • Fairmont Sub-Area 1 (V0B 1L1): experienced declines in the percentage of households earning incomes under $25,000 and $50,000 - $99,999 along with an increase in the percentage of households earning $25,000 - $49,999 and $100,000 and above. • Fairmont Sub-Area 2 (V0B 1L2): experienced an increases in the percentage of households earning $0 - $24,999, a decline in the percentage of households earning $25,000 - $49,999 and increases in the percentage of households earning incomes over $50,000. • Panorama: the absence of Taxfiler data for 2005 prevents analysis. • Windermere: experienced a similar pattern to Fairmont Sub-Area 2: an increases in the percentage of households earning $0 - $24,999, a decline in the percentage of households earning $25,000 - $49,999 and increases in the percentage of households earning incomes over $50,000. • Brisco: experienced a decline in the percentage of households earning $0 - $24,999, an increase in the percentage of households earning $25,000 - $49,999 and no change to the percentage of households earning incomes over $50,000. As with the findings from Athalmer, data suppression likely influences these observations. • Edgewater: experienced no change in the percentage of households earning incomes under $50,000 or over $100,000 yet a decline in the percentage of households earning $50,000 - $74,999 and an increase in the percentage of households earning $75,000 - $99,999.

Once again, Fairmont Sub-Area 3 did not exist as a distinct postal code in 2010. As a result, it is not included in this list (i.e., there is no 2010 Taxfiler data for Fairmont Sub-Area 3 with which to assess that area’s relative affluence compared to the other communities in the region).

- 56 -

Figure 3: Changing Household Incomes by Quintile for Communities within the Columbia Valley (2005 – 2010)

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 57 -

Figure 3 (Cont’d): Changing Household Incomes by Quintile for Communities within the Columbia Valley (2005 – 2010)

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 58 -

Figure 3 (Cont’d): Changing Household Incomes by Quintile for Communities within the Columbia Valley (2005 – 2010)

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 59 -

Figure 4 (next page) compares each community’s overall 2010 household income profiles organized into increments of $25,000 to that of the province as a whole to provide a more detailed look at relative affluence, income disparity within the Columbia Valley. While the actual percentage of households within each income bracket changes from community to community, the dominant pattern that emerges throughout the Columbia Valley is roughly similar to the pattern shown for Invermere Sub-Area 1:

• A lower percentage of households earning incomes between $0 - $24,999 than the provincial average; • A higher percentage of households earning incomes between $25,000 - $99,999 than the provincial average; and • A lower percentage of households earning incomes between $0 - $24,999 than the provincial average.

There are a few exceptions (not including those areas where data has been suppressed):

• Invermere Sub-Area 3 (V0A 1K3): has a lower percentage of households earning $50,000 - $74,999 than the provincial average. • Invermere Sub-Area 4 (V0A 1K4): has a lower percentage of households earning $50,000 - $74,999 and a higher percentage of households earning over $100,000 than the provincial average (which further suggests that Invermere Sub-Area 4 may be the most affluent neighbourhood in the Columbia Valley). • Athalmer: has a higher percentage of households earning $0 - $24,999 than the provincial average (data suppression may have influence). • Fairmont Sub-Area 2 (V0B 1L2): has a lower percentage of households earning $25,000 - $49,999 than the provincial average. • Panorama: has a higher percentage of households earning $0 - $24,999 and lower percentages of households earning $25,000 - $49,999 and $50,000 - $74,999 than the provincial average (data suppression may have influence). • Windermere: has a lower percentage of households earning $75,000 - $99,999 than the provincial average.. • Edgewater: has a lower percentage of households earning $50,000 - $74,999 than the provincial average.

This data further demonstrates that Invermere Sub-Areas 3 and 4 along with Fairmont Sub-Area 2 are among the most affluent communities within the Columbia Valley while Panorama and Athalmer are among the least affluent (and, therefore, where housing challenges are potentially highest).

- 60 -

Figure 4: Comparison of 2010 Household Incomes by Quintile for Communities within the Columbia Valley and the Province of BC

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 61 -

Figure 4 (Cont’d): Comparison of 2010 Household Incomes by Quintile for Communities within the Columbia Valley and the Province of BC

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

- 62 -

Figure 4 (Cont’d): Comparison of 2010 Household Incomes by Quintile for Communities within the Columbia Valley and the Province of BC

Data Source: Statistics Canada Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression

5.0 Social Assistance Rates and Incidences of Poverty

Taxfiler data also provides a look at incidents of poverty within the communities of the Columbia Valley – showing data on the changing number of households between 2005 and 2010 that had received Social Assistance or were earning incomes at or below the before-tax Low-Income Measure (LIMs). Social Assistance rates provide an indication of households unable to work while Low-Income Measure (LIMs) remain the most commonly accepted and internationally-comparable measure of relative poverty in use since the late 1980s.8 LIMs provide a more direct reflection of poverty in the region than the Social Assistance rates.

Table 14 (next page) shows the total number and percentage of households reporting having received Social Assistance in 2005 and 2010 compared to the province as a whole. Much of the data has been suppressed – so much so that only Invermere Sub-Area 1 provides sufficient data for analysis. In terms of the total percentage of households indicated, this data shows that Social Assistance rates increased over time (rom 2.5% in 2005 to 3.4% in 2010). However, the overall rate in Invermere Sub-Area 1 for 2010 was approximately 46.0% lower than the provincial average of 6.3%. Data that is available for Radium and Canal Flats also indicate a lower percentage of households receiving Social Assistance in those two communities in 2010 than the provincial average (4.0% and 5.7% respectively) – although the percentage of households receiving that assistance was higher than the Invermere Sub- Area 1 rate.

8 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/2012002/lim-mfr-eng.htm

- 63 -

Table 14: Total Households Receiving Social Assistance for Communities within the Columbia Valley vs. the Province of BC (2005 and 2010)

Social Assistance Invermere 1 Invermere 2 Invermere 3 Invermere 4 Invermere 5 Athalmer Radium BC Year No. % No.l % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % % 2005 30 2.5% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 36.4% 2010 40 3.4% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 20 4.0% 6.3% Change (%) 33.3% 36.7% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * -82.6%

Social Assistance Fairmont 1 Fairmont 2 Fairmont 3 Panorama Windermere Brisco Edgewater Canal Flats Year No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 2005 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 2010 –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 20 5.7% Change (%) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– *

Data Source: Statistics Canada Small Area and Data Division Taxfiler Data (2005 and 2010 tax years) (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding and suppression) * The required Taxfiler data is not currently available for analysis (i.e., it was not collected or it has been suppressed)

Table 15 compares the total number and percentage of households earning incomes at or below the before-tax Low-Income Measure (LIM) in 2005 and 2010 to the provincial average. This data is much less affected by suppression.

Table 15: Households Earning Incomes at or Below the Before-Tax Low-Income Measure (LIM) within the Columbia Valley vs. the Province of BC (2005 and 2010)

Low-Income Measures Invermere 1 Invermere 2 Invermere 3 Invermere 4 Invermere 5 Athalmer Radium BC Year No. % No.l % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % % 2005 210 17.4% –– * –– * –– * –– * 30 8.3% 20 11.8% 30 42.9% 70 15.6% 23.6% 2010 200 16.9% 20 15.4% –– * –– * 40 9.8% 20 12.5% 20 25.0% 80 16.0% 23.3% Change (%) -4.8% -2.3% –– * –– * –– * –– * 33.3% 17.1% 0.0% 6.3% -33.3% -41.7% 14.3% 2.9% -1.5%

Low-Income Measures Fairmont 1 Fairmont 2 Fairmont 3 Panorama Windermere Brisco Edgewater Canal Flats Year No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 2005 20 18.2% 30 14.3% –– * –– * –– * –– * 80 20.5% –– * –– * 40 16.0% 40 12.5% 2010 30 10.7% –– * –– * –– * –– * 80 53.3% 60 21.4% –– * –– * 40 15.4% 60 17.1% Change (%) 50.0% -41.1% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * -25.0% 4.5% –– * –– * 0.0% -3.8% 50.0% 37.1%

- 64 -

According to this data, poverty rates within the Columbia Valley are generally lower than the provincial average. The exceptions are Panorama, Athalmer, and Windermere. While poverty rates dropped significantly in Athalmer between 2005 and 2010 (by an estimated -41.7%), they still remained slightly higher (25.0%) than the provincial average (23.3%). In Windermere, poverty rates were only slightly lower in 2010 than the provincial average (21.4% vs. 23.3%). The community with the highest estimated poverty rate in 2010 was Panorama. An estimated 53.3% of households (more than twice the provincial average) were identified in the Taxfiler data as earning incomes at or below the before-tax Low Income Measure in 2010 compared to 23.3% province wide. Based on the percentage of households earning incomes at or below the before-tax Low Income Measure, poverty rates in 2010 were highest (in descending order) in:

• Panorama (53.3%) • Invermere Sub-Area 2 (15.4%) • Athalmer (25.0%) • Edgewater (15.4%) • Windermere (21.4%) • Invermere Sub-Area 5 (12.5%) • Canal Flats (17.1%) • Fairmont Sub-Area 1 (10.7%) • Invermere Sub-Area 1 (16.9%) • Invermere Sub-Area 4 (9.8%) • Radium (16.0%)

6.0 Conclusion

Income and employment data from Statistics Canada’s Census of Population show Invermere and Radium as having both experienced a net increase in the total number of jobs available in each community over time while East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G both experienced a net decline in the total jobs available. Changes in the local and regional economy are also producing a variety of shifts in each community’s income profile – some more varied than others. However, a consistent pattern emerges throughout the Columbia Valley based on the total percentage of people employed in the various sectors in 2006: the two most prevalent employment sectors in each of the communities were Manufacturing & Construction and “Other Services” (a catch-all category), while the two most prevalent employment categories in each of the communities in 2006 were Sales & Service occupations followed by Trades, Transport & Equipment Operators.

Labour force and employment data along with income data indicates that overall average household incomes in each community of the Columbia Valley are likely increasing over time as their economies grow and diversify. However, not all residents are benefiting from those increases. Those who are more likely to be earning below-average incomes and, therefore, more likely to be at risk of housing hardship include:

• People working in retail, accommodation and food service jobs (particularly if working part-time); • People working in arts, entertainment and recreation jobs; • People working in entry-level administrative positions; • Lone parents (particularly single mothers) with limited access to affordable child care (and, therefore, reduced opportunities for full-time employment); • People with disabilities that limit their overall employability; • People with limited education and/or job skills; and • Individuals living in the smaller and more isolated communities of the region who have limited access to transportation (personal or public) and, therefore, access to employment opportunities in the larger communities.

- 65 -

A comparison of median household incomes within the Columbia Valley to provincial averages along with a comparison of median income growth to growth in both the Consumer Price Index and the Shelter Index show that median households incomes have generally increased at a rate faster than both the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Shelter Index (SI) for most household types throughout the region. The exceptions include (where data is available) lone-parent families living in Invermere Sub-Area 1, couples living in Radium, couples living in Brisco, couples and singles living in Edgewater and all household types living in Canal Flats. For these households, median incomes either increased at a slower rate than either CPI or the Shelter Index or they actually declined. Households whose incomes either decreased over time or whose incomes increased at a slower rate than either the CPI or the Shelter Index are more likely to be experiencing housing hardship as their housing costs are potentially increasing faster than their incomes.

More detailed median household income data provided by Statistics Canada through Taxfiler sources shows that the most affluent communities within the Columbia Valley as of 2010 were (in descending order – i.e., Invermere Sub-Area 4 is the most affluent):

(1) Invermere Sub-Area 4 (V0A 1K4) (5) Radium (2) Invermere Sub-Area 3 (V0A 1K3) (6) Fairmont Sub-Area 2 (V0B 1L2) (3) Invermere Sub-Area 1 (V0A 1K0) (7) Canal Flats (4) Invermere Sub-Area 2 (V0A 1K2)

The least affluent communities in the Columbia Valley appear to be (in descending order – i.e., Panorama is the least affluent):

(8) Edgewater (12) Invermere Sub-Area 5 (V0A 1K5) (9) Fairmont Sub-Area 1 (V0B 1L1) (13) Athalmer (10) Brisco (14) Panorama (11) Windermere

Poverty rates within the Columbia Valley are generally lower than the provincial average. The exceptions are Panorama, Athalmer, and Windermere. While poverty rates dropped significantly in Athalmer between 2005 and 2010 (by an estimated -41.7%), they still remained slightly higher (25.0%) than the provincial average (23.3%). In Windermere, poverty rates were only slightly lower in 2010 than the provincial average (21.4% vs. 23.3%). The community with the highest estimated poverty rate in 2010 was Panorama (53.3% of households - which is more than twice the provincial average of 23.3%). Based on the percentage of households earning incomes at or below the before-tax Low Income Measure (LIM), poverty rates in 2010 were highest (in descending order) in:

It is in those communities and sub-areas that have the highest poverty rates where housing challenges are likely to be the most prevalent.

- 66 -

CHAPTER 4: Housing Supply Analysis

1.0 Introduction

This chapter looks at the existing supply of housing for those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available1 to gain an understanding of how closely the existing supply of housing meets the needs of the current population. This housing supply is organized into three categories:

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

2.0 Chapter Highlights

• The majority of homes in each community of the Columbia Valley are single-family dwellings. However, overall housing diversity appears to be improving over time in the region with the introduction of various higher-density housing options. • The majority of homes in the Columbia Valley are also owned. Over time, both the number and percentage of rented dwellings is increasing in Radium but declining in Invermere, Canal Flats, East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G. • Seasonal homeownership and recreational property investment appears to be an important dynamic in the local housing market. This means that a significant portion of the region’s housing may not be available to permanent residents. A review of 2013 BC Assessment data indicates: − Invermere: up to 43.2% of the community’s owned residential dwellings may be owned by recreational and other property investors. − Radium: up to 74.7% of the community’s owned residential dwellings may be owned by recreational and other property investors. − Canal Flats: up to 30.1% of the community’s owned residential dwellings may be owned by recreational and other property investors. − East Kootenay – Areas F & G: up to 68.5% of the owned residential dwellings in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined may be owned by recreational and other property investors. • In terms of homeownership, a review of 2013 BC Assessment data indicates that (depending on the type of dwelling being sought):

- 67 -

− Invermere: a median-priced home in Invermere will likely cost between $160,500 for a manufactured home located on its own land and $629,000 for a residential dwelling on 2 or more acres – requiring an estimated income of $34,250 to $117,850 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of homes in Invermere is $308,750 – requiring an estimated income of $60,750. − Radium: a median-priced home in Radium will likely cost between $54,200 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $318,100 for a single family dwelling – requiring an estimated income of $20,950 to $62,400 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of homes in Radium is $208,600 – requiring an estimated income of $42,850. − Canal Flats: a median-priced home in Canal Flats will likely cost between $13,900 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $333,000 for a residential dwelling on 2 or more acres – requiring an estimated income of $13,750 to $65,050 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of homes in Canal Flats is $150,650 – requiring an estimated income of $32,550. − East Kootenay – Areas F & G: a median-priced home in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined will likely cost between $41,200 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $548,000 for a residential dwelling with a suite – requiring an estimated income of $18,600 to $103,350 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of homes in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined is $387,000 – requiring an estimated income of $74,700. • “Entry-level” homes are potentially more affordable to low- and modest-income households; however, they are also more likely to be in a state of disrepair: − Invermere: 5.6% of homes within the “entry-level” category for Invermere were identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition – compared to an estimated 1.9% for all homes combined. − Radium: 0.33% of homes within the “entry-level” category for Radium were identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition – compared to an estimated 0.2% for all homes combined. − Canal Flats: 12.3% of homes within the “entry-level” category for Canal Flats were identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition – compared to an estimated 4.3% for all homes combined. − East Kootenay – Areas F & G: 8.8% of homes within the “entry-level” category for East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined were identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition – compared to an estimated 3.7% for all homes combined. • In terms of rental housing, a recent survey of newspaper classified ads and online rental listings for the Columbia Valley reveals that: − An average shared accommodations/private room rents for $425 per month (including utilities) – requiring a minimum income of $17,000; − An average 1-bedroom unit rents for $682 per month (approx. 60% include utilities with rent) – requiring a minimum income of $27,280; − An average 2-bedroom unit rents for $846 per month (approx. 30% include utilities with rent) – requiring a minimum income of $33,800; − An average 3-bedroom unit rents for $979 per month (approx. 30% include utilities with rent) – requiring a minimum income of $39,200; and − An average 4-bedroom unit rents for $1,267 per month (utilities are extra) – requiring a minimum income of $50,600. • There appears to be limited near- or non-market affordable housing options available within the Columbia Valley. The majority of near- and non-market affordable housing is located within the District of Invermere. The majority of near- and non-market affordable housing within the Columbia Valley is also geared towards seniors.

- 68 -

3.0 General Housing Characteristics

3.1 Dwellings by Type

Communities generally need to offer a mix of housing types and sizes. The greater the diversity, the more options residents are likely to have and be able to choose from to meet their individual needs and aspirations. Limited diversity can limit choice and thereby increase the likelihood that people in the community may be living in homes that do not meet their needs in terms of size (e.g., being either over-housed or under-housed/living in overcrowded conditions) or affordability level.

Table 16 (next page) presents dwelling type data for the total number of “private dwellings occupied by usual residents” (i.e., permanent residents) for those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available between 1996 and 2011 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data. According to this data, housing diversity appears to be improving over time in the region with the introduction of various higher-density housing options. For example:

• Invermere: experienced an increase in both the number and relative percentage of duplexes, rowhouses, and apartment-style stacked townhouses. (1996-2011) • Radium: also experienced an increase in both the number and relative percentage of duplexes, rowhouses, and apartment-style stacked (1996-2011) townhouses. • Canal Flats: experienced the introduction of rowhouses (est. 25 units) into the community. (2006-2011) • East Kootenay – Area F: experienced the introduction of rowhouses into the community yet a loss of duplexes and apartment-style stacked townhouses – (2001-2011) suggesting a decline in housing diversity (it is unknown how much of an influence the removal and separation of Canal Flats from the East Kootenay – Area F enumeration boundaries in 2006 has had on these findings). • East Kootenay – Area G: experienced the introduction of apartment-style stacked townhouses (est. 10 units) into the community (2001-2011)

Data for Edgewater, Fairmont, Wilmer and Windermere area only available for 2011 – preventing an analysis of change over time. Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

Another important dynamic to note is the difference between the total number of dwelling units identified for each community and the total number of dwelling units “occupied by usual residents” (i.e., permanent residents). The difference between these two numbers provides an indication of the degree to which homes in each community are owned by seasonal/recreational property owners and investors (which is discussed in more detail in section 3.3 below).

Figure 5 (see page 73) compares the percentage of “private dwellings occupied by usual residents” by type for those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available to the provincial average in 2011 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data. This data shows that Radium has the greatest housing diversity among the communities within the Columbia Valley followed by Invermere. Wilmer appears to have the least housing diversity (dwelling types include single family homes and what appear to be mobile homes – another form of single family home). Overall, the Columbia Valley has a higher percentage of single detached dwellings (i.e., single family homes) than the province as a whole – except for Radium, which has a lower percentage of single-family homes and a higher percentage of apartment-style stacked townhouses than the provincial average. If there is insufficient housing diversity within a community to meet the varied needs of a diverse population, there is a greater likelihood of residents experiencing housing constraints and/or hardships. The data presented above suggests that this is more likely to be the case in the smaller and more rural communities of the Columbia Valley.

- 69 -

Table 16: Dwelling Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % No. % Single-Detached 760 73.8% 835 73.9% 865 72.4% 895 73.4% 235 0.1%

Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex 15 1.5% 35 3.1% 45 3.8% 80 6.6% 65 112.7% Row House 10 1.0% 55 4.9% 10 0.8% 70 5.7% 60 401.3% Apartment (Duplex) 95 9.2% 90 8.0% 125 10.5% 15 1.2% -80 -13.6% Apartment (< 5 Storeys) 140 13.6% 95 8.4% 140 11.7% 155 12.7% 15 -38.1%

INVERMERE Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N/A "Other" Dwellings ** 10 1.0% 10 0.9% 10 0.8% 5 0.4% -5 -8.8% Total Occupied Dwellings 1,030 100.0% 1,130 99.1% 1,195 100.0% 1,220 100.0% 190 N/A Total Private Dwellings N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,420 N/A 1,912 N/A 492 N/A

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type o. Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % N % Single-Detached 140 70.0% 140 62.2% 145 50.9% 155 44.9% 15 -11.1% Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex 0 0.0% 15 6.7% 0 0.0% 15 4.3% 15 100.0% Row House 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 30 10.5% 45 13.0% 45 100.0% Apartment (Duplex) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 1.4% 5 100.0% Apartment (< 5 Storeys) 45 22.5% 0 0.0% 65 22.8% 105 30.4% 60 -100.0% RADIUM Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% "Other" Dwellings ** 15 7.5% 70 31.1% 35 12.3% 20 5.8% 5 314.8% Total Occupied Dwellings 200 100.0% 225 100.0% 285 96.5% 345 100.0% 145 N/A Total Private Dwellings N/A N/A N/A N/A 631 N/A 1,190 N/A 459 N/A

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % No. % Single-Detached –– * –– * –– * –– * 135 46.6% 260 86.7% 125 86.0%

Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N/A Row House –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% 25 8.3% 25 100.0% FLATS Apartment (Duplex) –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N/A Apartment (< 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N/A Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N/A CANAL "Other" Dwellings ** –– * –– * –– * –– * 150 51.7% 0 0.0% -150 -100.0% Total Occupied Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * 290 98.3% 300 95.0% 10 N/A Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * 345 N/A 440 N/A 95 N/A

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population (data are subject to rounding and suppression) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis ** “Other Dwellings” include manufactured/mobile homes and ancillary dwellings (e.g., dwelling units above commercial) Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 70 -

Table 16 (Cont’d): Dwelling Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % No. % Single-Detached –– * –– * 1,175 84.5% 1,071 85.3% 955 86.0% -220 1.8% AREA F F AREA

Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex –– * –– * 45 3.2% 55 4.4% 35 3.2% -10 -2.6% – Row House –– * –– * 0 0.0% 30 2.4% 30 2.7% 30 100.0% Apartment (Duplex) –– * –– * 20 1.4% 35 2.8% 5 0.5% -15 -68.7% Apartment (< 5 Storeys) –– * –– * 50 3.6% 20 1.6% 40 3.6% -10 0.2% Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N/A "Other" Dwellings ** –– * –– * 90 6.5% 50 4.0% 45 4.1% -45 -37.4% Total Occupied Dwellings –– * –– * 1,390 99.3% 1,255 100.5% 1,110 100.0% -280 N/A EAST KOOTENAYEAST Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * N/A N/A 3,118 N/A 3,727 N/A 609 N/A

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type o. Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % N % Single-Detached –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 170 82.9% –– * –– *

Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 15 7.3% –– * –– * Row House –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 5 2.4% –– * –– * Apartment (Duplex) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * Apartment (< 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 4.9% –– * –– *

FAIRMONT Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * "Other" Dwellings ** –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * Total Occupied Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 205 97.6% –– * –– * Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 487 N/A –– * –– *

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % No. % Single-Detached –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 355 81.6% –– * –– *

Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 2.3% –– * –– * Row House –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 25 5.7% –– * –– * Apartment (Duplex) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * Apartment (< 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 2.3% –– * –– * Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * WINDERMERE "Other" Dwellings ** –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 35 8.0% –– * –– * Total Occupied Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 435 100.0% –– * –– * Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,876 N/A –– * –– *

- 71 -

Table 16 (Cont’d): Dwelling Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % No. % Single-Detached –– * –– * 555 81.6% 570 86.4% 510 80.3% -45 -1.6% AREA G AREA

Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 0.8% 5 100.0% – Row House –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N/A Apartment (Duplex) –– * –– * 10 1.5% 25 3.8% 5 0.8% -5 -46.5% Apartment (< 5 Storeys) –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 1.6% 10 100.0% Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) –– * –– * 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 N/A "Other" Dwellings ** –– * –– * 110 16.2% 60 9.1% 115 18.1% -5 12.0% Total Occupied Dwellings –– * –– * 680 99.3% 660 99.3% 635 101.6% -45 N/A EAST KOOTENAYEAST Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * N/A N/A 798 N/A 955 N/A 157 N/A

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type o. Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % N % Single-Detached –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 140 80.0% –– * –– *

Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * Row House –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * Apartment (Duplex) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * Apartment (< 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 5 2.9% –– * –– * Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * EDGEWATER "Other" Dwellings ** –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 30 17.1% –– * –– * Total Occupied Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 175 100.0% –– * –– * Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 234 N/A –– * –– *

1996 2001 2006 2011 Change Dwelling Type Pub. # Est. % Pub. # Est. % Est. # Pub. % Pub. # Est. % No. % Single-Detached –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 90 94.7% –– * –– * Semi-Detached/Half-Duplex –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– *

R Row House –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * Apartment (Duplex) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * Apartment (< 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * WILME Apartment (≥ 5 Storeys) –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 0 0.0% –– * –– * "Other" Dwellings ** –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 10 10.5% –– * –– * Total Occupied Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 95 105.3% –– * –– * Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 127 N/A –– * –– *

- 72 -

Figure 5: Comparison of 2011 Dwellings by Type for Communities within the Columbia Valley to the Province of BC

3.2 Dwellings by Tenure

While there is no “ideal” ratio of homeownership to rental, a mix of both opportunities is generally required to meet the needs of residents at various stages in their careers and life cycles. Furthermore, it must be recognized that not all people aspire to homeownership (nor should they be expected to) and not all people are capable of becoming successful homeowners (either due to income constraints, lifestyles, attitudes and beliefs, and/or personal abilities).

Table 17 shows tenure data for the total number of “private dwellings occupied by usual residents” (i.e., permanent residents) for those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available between 1996 and 20062 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data. This data shows that the majority of homes in each community are owner-occupied (as is the case in the majority of communities across British Columbia) but that the percentage of owned homes vs. rented homes in each community is changing over time.

Table 17: Owned vs. Rented Dwelling Characteristics for Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001 and 2006)

Tenure 1996 2001 2006 Change Tenure 1996 2001 2006 Change

o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o.

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Total Owned 735 71.7% 835 73.9% 925 77.4% 190 7.9% Total Owned 165 82.5% 200 88.9% 230 80.7% 65 -2.2% Total Rented 290 28.3% 295 26.1% 270 22.6% -20 -20.1% Total Rented 35 17.5% 25 11.1% 55 19.3% 20 10.3% RADIUM

INVERMERE Est. Total 1,025 100.0% 1,130 100.0% 1,195 100.0% 170 N/A Est. Total 200 100.0% 225 100.0% 285 100.0% 85 N/A Pub. Total 1,030 100.5% 1,130 100.0% 1,195 100.0% 165 N/A Pub. Total 205 102.5% 225 100.0% 285 100.0% 80 N/A

Tenure 1996 2001 2006 Change Tenure 1996 2001 2006 Change

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Total Owned –– * –– * –– * –– * 230 80.7% –– * –– * Total Owned –– * –– * 1,205 86.7% 1,100 87.3% -105 0.6% Total Rented –– * –– * –– * –– * 55 19.3% –– * –– * Total Rented –– * –– * 185 13.3% 160 12.7% -25 -0.6% Est. Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 285 100.0% –– * –– * Est. Total –– * –– * 1,390 100.0% 1,260 100.0% -130 N/A CANAL FLATS CANAL Pub. Total –– * –– * –– * –– * 290 101.8% –– * –– * F E.KOOTENAY Pub. Total –– * –– * 1,390 100.0% 1,255 99.6% -135 N/A

Tenure 1996 2001 2006 Change o. o. o. o. Data Source: N % N % N % N % Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population (data may be subject to rounding and suppression) Total Owned –– * –– * 555 81.6% 590 88.1% 35 6.4% (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 scheduled release date from the National Household Survey) Total Rented –– * –– * 125 18.4% 80 11.9% -45 -6.4% * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay Est. Total –– * –– * 680 100.0% 670 100.0% -10 N/A – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East E.KOOTENAY G E.KOOTENAY Pub. Total –– * –– * 680 100.0% 660 98.5% -20 N/A Kootenay – Area G.

2 Data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 release of relevant data from the National Household Survey. - 74 -

For example, in Radium, both the number of owned dwellings and the number of rented dwellings increased over time. However, in Invermere, East Kootenay – Area F, and East Kootenay – Area G, the total number of rented dwellings has decreased over time. Between 1996 and 2006, Invermere lost an estimated 20 rental units (-6.9% of its total rental stock), while East Kootenay – Area F lost an estimated 25 rental units (-13.5%) and East Kootenay – Area G lost an estimated 45 rental units (-36.0%) between 2001 and 2006. There is insufficient data to evaluate change over time in Canal Flats. Nor is there enough data to determine what influence the removal and separation of Canal Flats from the East Kootenay – Area F enumeration boundaries in 2006 may have had on the observed data for East Kootenay – Area F.

What is important to note about this data is not only are the number of rental units declining over time in Invermere, East Kootenay – Area F, and East Kootenay – Area G, the ratio of rental units is also declining over time when compared to owned units. For example, in Invermere, the percentage of units available to renters declined by -20.1% between 1996 and 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, the percentage of units available to renters living in East Kootenay – Area F declined by -0.6% and the percentage of units available to renters living in East Kootenay – Area G declined by -6.4%.

If there are proportionally fewer rental opportunities being provided over time or if rental units are actually being lost over time (both appear to be occurring to varying degrees within the Columbia Valley), there is a greater likelihood that housing constraints and/or hardships may be affecting younger residents (i.e., those entering the housing market for the first time), low- and modest-income residents (i.e., those who generally have fewer housing options available to them to begin with), and potentially new residents (i.e., those entering the local housing market for the first time).

3.3 Seasonal vs. Permanent Ownership

Seasonal homeownership rates can also limit housing availability and choice – and even affordability. Since these homes are not owned by permanent residents, they are less likely to be occupied by permanent residents. While some seasonal/recreational property owners choose to rent out their properties in order to generate additional investment income (i.e., to cover the costs of their mortgage), not all do – especially if these properties are to be used frequently throughout the year by their owners. It is not uncommon for existing rental properties to be purchased by seasonal/recreational property investors and kept as rental and retain their existing tenants but at an increased rent to cover the new higher mortgage costs and expected return on investment. It is also not uncommon for some of these investment properties to be rented out only part of the year (e.g., over the winter, over the summer, or only during the “shoulder” seasons) to allow the property owners to gain some rental revenue as well as enjoy their “home away from home” at regular intervals.

Table 18 (next page) compares the data for the total number of private dwellings to the total number of private dwellings “occupied by usual residents” (i.e., permanent residents) for those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available between 1996 and 2011 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data to obtain an estimate of potential seasonal/recreational ownership rates in each community.

Note that a portion of those dwellings identified during each Census as not being “occupied by usual residents” can include any combination of:

• Active seasonal/recreational investment homes; • Seasonal/recreational investment homes that were for sale by owners seeking to divest of those properties at the time the Census was conducted; • Homes owned by former residents who had relocated to another community and were trying to sell their existing home in the community at the time the Census was conducted; • Homes that were under construction or only recently completed but had not yet been occupied at the time the Census was conducted; and/or • Rental properties that were vacant at the time the Census was conducted.

- 75 -

Table 18: Estimated Number of Dwellings Potentially Owned by Non-Local (e.g., Seasonal/Recreational) Property Investors within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011)

1996 2001 2006 2011 1996 2001 2006 2011

Characteristics % Change Characteristics % Change No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Total Private Dwellings –– * 1,334 1,420 1,912 43.3% Total Private Dwellings –– * 330 631 1,190 260.6%

Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents 1,030 1,130 1,196 1,219 7.9% Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents 205 225 283 343 52.4% RADIUM

INVERMERE Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents N/A 15.3% 15.8% 36.2% 137.0% Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents N/A 31.8% 55.2% 71.2% 123.7% Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * 1,334 1,420 1,912 43.3% Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * 330 631 1,190 260.6%

1996 2001 2006 2011 1996 2001 2006 2011

Characteristics % Change Characteristics % Change No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * 345 440 27.5% Total Private Dwellings –– * 3,261 3,118 3,727 14.3%

Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents –– * –– * 290 297 2.4% Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents –– * 1,390 1,266 1,110 -20.1% Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * 15.9% 32.5% 103.9% Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents N/A 57.4% 59.4% 70.2% 22.4% CANAL FLATS CANAL E.KOOTENAY F E.KOOTENAY Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * 345 440 27.5% Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * 3,261 3,118 3,727 14.3%

1996 2001 2006 2011 1996 2001 2006 2011

Characteristics o. o. o. o. % Change Characteristics o. o. o. o. % Change N N N N N N N N Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * 487 –– * Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * 1,876 –– *

Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 205 –– * Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 431 –– *

FAIRMONT Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 57.9% –– * Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 77.0% –– * WINDERMERE Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 487 –– * Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 1,876 –– *

1996 2001 2006 2011 1996 2001 2006 2011

Characteristics % Change Characteristics % Change No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Total Private Dwellings –– * 896 798 955 6.6% Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * 234 –– *

Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents –– * 680 664 637 -6.3% Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 177 –– * Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * 24.1% 16.8% 33.3% 38.1% Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 24.4% –– * EDGEWATER E.KOOTENAY G E.KOOTENAY Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * 896 798 955 6.6% Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 234 –– *

1996 2001 2006 2011 Characteristics % Change No. No. No. No. Data Source: Total Private Dwellings –– * –– * –– * 127 –– * Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population (data are subject to rounding and suppression)

Total Private Dwellings Occ’d by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 98 –– * * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis

WILMER Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Panorama, and Rushmere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Est. # NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 22.8% –– * Dry Gulch, Juniper Heights, and Spillimacheen are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. Est. % NOT Occupied by Usual Residents –– * –– * –– * 127 –– *

- 76 -

While the exact status of these homes remains unknown, the data suggests that seasonal/recreational property ownership and/or investment in the Columbia Valley may be increasing over time. As of 2011, Windermere appears to have the highest rate of seasonal/recreational property ownership (potentially up to 77.0% of the community’s homes) while Wilmer appears to have the lowest rate (potentially up to 22.8% of the community’s homes). The 2011 Census of Population data suggests the following rates of seasonal/recreational property ownership in the Columbia Valley (in descending order):

• Windermere (up to 77.0%) • East Kootenay – Area G (up to 33.3%) • Radium (up to 71.2%) • Canal Flats (up to 32.5%) • East Kootenay – Area F (up to 70.2%) • Edgewater (up to 24.4%) • Fairmont (up to 57.9%) • Wilmer (up to 22.8%) • Invermere (up to 36.2%)

A more detailed look at the 2013 BC Assessment data supports these findings. This analysis involved a review of the physical addresses to which residential property tax notices for owned residential dwellings are currently being mailed to determine those residential properties that are owned by non-local property owners. According to this data:

• Invermere: − 836 residential properties (not including 5 Crown Federal properties) were listed with the property owner’s mailing address located outside the region, province or country – suggesting that up to 43.2% of Invermere’s owned residential dwellings may be owned by recreational and other property investors. • Radium: − 903 residential properties were listed with the property owner’s mailing address located outside the region, province or country – suggesting that up to 74.7% of Radium’s owned residential dwellings may be owned by recreational and other property investors. • Canal Flats: − 127 residential properties were listed with the property owner’s mailing address located outside the region, province or country – suggesting that up to 30.1% of Canal Flat’s owned residential dwellings may be owned by recreational and other property investors. • East Kootenay – Areas F & G: − 3,522 residential properties (not including 4 Crown Provincial properties) were listed with the property owner’s mailing address located outside the region, province or country – suggesting that up to 68.5% of owed residential dwellings in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined may be owned by recreational and other property investors.

If seasonal/recreational homeownership/investment rates are increasing, so too may incidence rates of housing constraint and/or hardship. Therefore, what appears to be increasing seasonal/recreational investment rates in the Columbia Valley may also be one of any number of factors leading to increased incidence rates of housing constraint and/or hardship.

- 77 -

4.0 Housing Costs

4.1 Average Dwelling Values and Median Housing Costs (1996-2006)

Table 19 presents data showing average dwelling values3 for those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available between 1996 and 2006 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data and compares those values to the provincial average.

Table 19: Average Dwelling Values for Communities within the Columbia Valley vs. the Province of BC (1996, 2001 and 2006)

Year INVERMERE RADIUM CANAL FLATS EAST KOOTENAY F EAST KOOTENAY G BC 1996 $156,069 $139,470 –– * –– * –– * $239,745 2001 $185,318 $174,334 –– * $206,441 $160,349 $230,645 2006 ** $365,285 $287,616 $140,917 $490,387 $269,437 $418,703 Total % Change 134.1% 106.2% –– * 137.5% 68.0% 74.6% Avg. Annual % Change 13.4% 10.6% –– * 27.5% 13.6% 7.5%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population (data are subject to rounding and suppression) (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 scheduled release date from the National Household Survey) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis ** Represents average values for owned dwellings only Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

This data indicates that average home values are generally lower than the provincial average in the Columbia Valley (i.e., in 2011, the average home value in East Kootenay – Area F was higher than the provincial average; however, all other years and all other communities remain below the provincial average).

It is important to note that Statistics Canada sampling practices may influence these figures. These average home values are derived from a 20% sample of households answering the long Census questionnaire in each Census year. The long questionnaire asks households to estimate what they believe to be the price that they could get for their home should they sell it. As a result, a household’s estimation of their home’s value may not represent an accurate estimate of the actual market value of their home. Presumably, individual households reference the assessed value on their most recent property tax bill (in which case, the collective data should be considered accurate). However, they may not always be the case.

With average dwelling values increasing, it is expected that average monthly housing costs (i.e., rent and mortgage payments) would also be increasing. However, this too may not be the case for everyone (e.g., over time, some homeowners are expected to pay off their mortgages or refinance their mortgages at more favorable interest rates). Table 20 (next page)

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

- 78 -

shows the average monthly payments4 by homeowners and renters living in the Columbia Valley between 1996 and 20065 based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data. According to this data, average housing costs among renters have increased over time throughout the region while average housing costs for homeowners have generally declined.

Table 20: Average Housing Costs in the Communities within the Columbia Valley (1996, 2001 and 2006)

1996 2001 2006 1996 2001 2006 Housing Costs % Change Housing Costs % Change (Avg.) (Avg.) (Med.) (Avg.) (Avg.) (Med.)

Number of Owner-Occupied Dwellings ** 735 835 925 25.9% Number of Owner-Occupied Dwellings ** 165 200 230 39.4% Monthly Payments (Owners) *** $673 $795 $879 30.6% Monthly Payments (Owners) *** $859 $821 $588 -31.5% RADIUM

INVERMERE Number of Rented Dwellings ** 290 300 270 -6.9% Number of Rented Dwellings ** 35 30 55 57.1% Monthly Payments (Renters) *** $612 $650 $701 14.5% Monthly Payments (Renters) *** $419 $441 $800 90.9%

1996 2001 2006 1996 2001 2006 Housing Costs % Change Housing Costs % Change (Avg.) (Avg.) (Med.) (Avg.) (Avg.) (Med.) Number of Owner-Occupied Dwellings ** –– * –– * 230 –– * Number of Owner-Occupied Dwellings ** –– * 1,165 1,100 -5.6% Monthly Payments (Owners) *** –– * –– * $543 –– * Monthly Payments (Owners) *** –– * $738 $569 -22.9% Number of Rented Dwellings ** –– * –– * 55 –– * Number of Rented Dwellings ** –– * 185 160 -13.5% CANAL FLATS CANAL E.KOOTENAY F E.KOOTENAY Monthly Payments (Renters) *** –– * –– * $442 –– * Monthly Payments (Renters) *** –– * $680 $683 0.4%

1996 2001 2006 Data Source:

Housing Costs % Change Statistics Canada 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011 Census of Population (Avg.) (Avg.) (Med.) (NOTE: numbers may be subject to rounding and suppression) Number of Owner-Occupied Dwellings ** –– * 550 590 7.3% (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 scheduled release date from the National Household Survey) Monthly Payments (Owners) *** –– * $670 $417 -37.8% * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis ** Data categories, criteria and details may differ between Census periods Number of Rented Dwellings ** –– * 120 80 -33.3% *** Median and Average incomes are not directly comparable Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East E.KOOTENAY G E.KOOTENAY Monthly Payments (Renters) *** –– * $505 $777 53.9% Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

4 Caution should be exercised when comparing the data presented in Table 18. Both the 1996 and 2001 Census data refers to “average” payments while the 2006 Census data refers to “median” payments. “Mean”, “median” and “mode” are all terms that can be used interchangeably when expressing an “average” value yet each term carries with it important differences. “Mean” refers to the arithmetic average (i.e., the sum total of all values divided by the number of entries); “median” refers to the center point (i.e., where 50% of values are higher and 50% of values are lower); “mode” refers to the most prevalent/frequent single value. If each Census period is referring to the same type of average (i.e., median) and the 2006 Census is simply using more specific language to qualify that average, then the data from each of the three Censuses are directly comparable. However, if Statistics Canada recorded the mean average in the 1996 and 2001 Census data and then switched to using a median average in 2006, they data are not directly comparable. The information and details presented by Statistics Canada is unclear about this distinction. 5 Data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 release of relevant data from the National Household Survey.

- 79 -

When the percent increase in average/median monthly shelter payments is compared to the percent increase in median incomes for all households combined for each community (as discussed in Chapter 3, section 4.1), it indicates the following:

• Invermere: median household incomes increased by 14.3% between 1995 and 2005 while mean/median shelter costs increased by 30.6% for homeowners and 14.5% for renters. • Radium: median household incomes increased by 21.9% between 1995 and 2005 while mean/median shelter costs decreased by -31.5% for homeowners and increased by 90.9% for renters. • Canal Flats: there is insufficient data to provide an analysis. • East Kootenay – Area F: median household incomes increased by 8.4% between 2000 and 2005 while mean/median shelter costs decreased by -22.9% for homeowners and increased by 0.4% for renters. • East Kootenay – Area G: median household incomes increased by 8.4% between 2000 and 2005 while mean/median shelter costs decreased by -37.8% for homeowners and increased by 53.9% for renters.

This comparison of income to housing cost data suggests that shelter costs are increasing faster than incomes for the average homeowner living in Invermere and the average renter living in Radium and within East Kootenay – Area G. As housing affordability declines, more of these households are likely to experience housing challenges and hardships (including issues with housing adequacy, suitability and accessibility).

4.2 Estimated Current Market Housing Costs – Homeownership

Table 21 (next page) shows the current median value of homes by dwelling type within communities of the Columbia Valley based on BC Assessment data along with the estimated incomes required to afford a median priced home in each category (assuming the BC Assessment data accurately reflects the current market value of homes for sale in the region and that a random sample of these homes are available to purchase throughout the region at any given time). This analysis involved a detailed review of owned residential properties identified in the BC Assessment data that could reasonably be considered as potentially purchasable by individual households in the region to serve as their permanent residences. The following residential properties that were excluded from this analysis:

• Vacant residential properties; • Properties identified as being residential “outbuildings” (including but not limited to garages, sheds, Quonset huts, etc.); • Properties identified as being multifamily/collective rentals (including but not limited to apartment blocks, strata rentals, etc.); • Mixed use commercial/residential properties (e.g., stores with living quarters) and residential/farm properties – in order to purchase the living quarters, one would also have to purchase the store, farm, etc.; and • Other residential classifications deemed to not be designed as permanent residences (even though some of these properties may currently be used as permanent residents).

- 80 -

Table 21: Median, High and Low Residential Dwelling Values for Communities within the Columbia Valley (2013 BC Assessment Data)

Assessed Value Income Required Assessed Value Assessed Value Residential Dwellings (Median) (32%) (Low) (Low) Single Family Dwelling $345,000 $67,200 $41,000 $4,927,000 Residential Dwelling w/ Suite $341,000 $66,450 $238,200 $785,000

Duplex $257,000 $51,450 $125,100 $689,000 Triplex/Fourplex $224,950 $51,400 ** $218,100 $448,000 Row/Townhouse $300,250 $64,800 ** $50,000 $455,500 Strata Condominium (Stacked Townhouse) $227,100 $51,000 ** $86,300 $549,000 Manufactured Dwelling (Located within a Manufactured Home Park) –– * –– * –– * –– * INVERMERE Manufactured Dwelling (Not Located within a Manufactured Home Park) $160,500 $34,250 $76,400 $265,000 Seasonal Dwelling $559,600 $105,450 $262,000 $3,472,000 Residential Dwelling (2 or More Acres) $629,000 $117,850 $39,500 $1,312,000 Total $308,750 $60,750 $13,200 $4,927,000

Assessed Value Income Required Assessed Value Assessed Value Residential Dwellings (Median) (32%) (Low) (Low) Single Family Dwelling $318,100 $62,400 $107,700 $994,000 Residential Dwelling w/ Suite $305,050 $60,050 $221,100 $780,000 Duplex $239,100 $48,300 $159,800 $342,000 Triplex/Fourplex N/A N/A N/A N/A Row/Townhouse $252,700 $56,350 ** $77,700 $362,000 Strata Condominium (Stacked Townhouse) $173,500 $42,200 ** $61,200 $390,000 RADIUM Manufactured Dwelling (Located within a Manufactured Home Park) $54,200 $20,950 ** $51,000 $57,900 Manufactured Dwelling (Not Located within a Manufactured Home Park) $168,200 $35,650 $44,700 $192,700 Seasonal Dwelling –– * –– * –– * –– * Residential Dwelling (2 or More Acres) N/A N/A N/A N/A Total $208,600 $42,850 $44,700 $994,000

Data Source: BC Assessment * Data supressed for confidentiality reasons (n<5) ** The calculated income required includes estimates for condo fees, maintenance reserve, and/or pad rental fees

- 81 -

Table 21 (Cont’d): Median, High and Low Residential Dwelling Values for Communities within the Columbia Valley (2013 BC Assessment Data)

Assessed Value Income Required Assessed Value Assessed Value Residential Dwellings (Median) (32%) (Low) (Low) Single Family Dwelling $157,900 $33,800 $56,100 $2,196,000 Residential Dwelling w/ Suite $169,900 $35,950 $136,300 $435,000 Duplex –– * –– * –– * –– * Triplex/Fourplex N/A N/A N/A N/A Row/Townhouse $167,200 $41,100 ** $138,100 $175,500 Strata Condominium (Stacked Townhouse) N/A N/A N/A N/A Manufactured Dwelling (Located within a Manufactured Home Park) $13,900 $13,750 ** $9,000 $65,500 CANAL FLATS CANAL Manufactured Dwelling (Not Located within a Manufactured Home Park) $83,300 $20,500 $34,600 $262,600 Seasonal Dwelling –– * –– * –– * –– * Residential Dwelling (2 or More Acres) $333,000 $65,050 $30,032 $844,600 Total $150,650 $32,550 $9,000 $2,196,000

Assessed Value Income Required Assessed Value Assessed Value Residential Dwellings (Median) (32%) (Low) (Low) Single Family Dwelling $452,000 $86,250 $72,100 $5,121,000 Residential Dwelling w/ Suite $548,000 $103,350 $194,600 $1,055,000 Duplex $266,300 $53,150 $126,400 $2,301,000 Triplex/Fourplex –– * –– * –– * –– * Row/Townhouse $374,000 $78,000 ** $148,600 $644,000 AREA F & AREA G AREA & F AREA

– Strata Condominium (Stacked Townhouse) $131,300 $34,700 ** $73,700 $637,000 Manufactured Dwelling (Located within a Manufactured Home Park) $41,200 $18,600 ** $6,400 $254,000 Manufactured Dwelling (Not Located within a Manufactured Home Park) $153,700 $33,050 $72,100 $415,000 Seasonal Dwelling $315,800 $61,950 $16,600 $1,296,700 Residential Dwelling (2 or More Acres) $504,000 $95,550 $49,900 $8,060,000 KOOTENAY KOOTENAY .

E Total $387,000 $74,700 $6,400 $8,060,000

Data Source: BC Assessment * Data supressed for confidentiality reasons ** The calculated income required includes estimates for condo fees, maintenance reserve, and/or pad rental fees

- 82 -

In terms of overall affordability, the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the incomes required by a first-time homebuyer seeking to purchase a home in the Columbia Valley based on the 2013 BC Assessment data:

• Invermere: − depending on the type of dwelling being sought, a median-priced home in Invermere will likely cost between $160,500 for a manufactured home located on its own land and $629,000 for a residential dwelling on 2 or more acres – requiring an estimated income of $34,250 to $117,850 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of homes in Invermere is $308,750 – requiring an estimated income of $60,750. • Radium: − depending on the type of dwelling being sought, a median-priced home in Radium will likely cost between $54,200 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $318,100 for a single family dwelling – requiring an estimated income of $20,950 to $62,400 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of homes in Radium is $208,600 – requiring an estimated income of $42,850. • Canal Flats: − depending on the type of dwelling being sought, a median-priced home in Canal Flats will likely cost between $13,900 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $333,000 for a residential dwelling on 2 or more acres – requiring an estimated income of $13,750 to $65,050 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of homes in Canal Flats is $150,650 – requiring an estimated income of $32,550. • East Kootenay – Areas F & G: − depending on the type of dwelling being sought, a median-priced home in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined will likely cost between $41,200 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $548,000 for a residential dwelling with a suite – requiring an estimated income of $18,600 to $103,350 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of homes in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined is $387,000 – requiring an estimated income of $74,700.

These estimated incomes are based on the following mortgage assumptions PITH – Principal, Interest, Taxes and Heat):

• Mortgage Amortization: 25 years • Mortgage Term: 5-year fixed • Interest Rate: 2.99% (Kootenay Savings 5-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage current as of 05/16/2013) • Downpayment: 10% • Mortgage Insurance: Yes (CMHC: 2.0% based on 90% loan to value) • Mortgage Payments: Monthly • Est. Annual Property Taxes: 0.5% of assessed market value • Est. Avg. Monthly Heat: $150 • Est. Monthly Condo/Maintenance Fees where applicable: $300 (50% or $150 applied to calculation) • Max. Mortgage: 32% of Gross Income per CMHC’s Principal, Interest, Taxes and Heating (PITH) standard

- 83 -

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

A standard measure of relative housing affordability for homeownership is the “entry-level” housing market. Entry-level housing is defined as the lowest 25% (lowest quartile) of the housing market. For example, if 100 homes sold during a given period of time, the 25 lowest-priced homes would be considered the “entry-level” market for that period.

Table 22 shows the percentage of homes by type that might be considered “entry-level” for communities within the Columbia Valley based on BC Assessment data for 2013 (assuming the BC Assessment data accurately reflects the current market value of homes for sale in the region and that a random sample of these homes are available to purchase throughout the region at any given time). This data shows that, the “entry-level” housing market consists of a variety of housing types.

Table 22: “Entry-Level” Homeownership Options for Communities within the Columbia Valley (2013 BC Assessment Data)

“Entry-Level” Market Invermere Radium Canal Flats East Kootenay – Areas F & G Median “Entry-Level” Assessed Property Value $205,250 $152,300 $63,700 $163,400 Est. Income Required (32%) $47,850 * $38,400 * $22,650 * $34,800 Min. “Entry-Level” Assessed Property Value $13,200 $44,700 $9,000 $6,400 Est. Income Required (32%) $13,650 * $19,250 $12,900 * $12,400 * Max “Entry-Level” Assessed Property Value $250,700 $170,000 $103,700 $246,000 Est. Income Required (32%) $55,950 * $41,600 * $24,150 $49,500 “Entry-Level” Dwelling Types % of Entry-Level % of Entry-Level % of Entry-Level % of Entry-Level Single Family Dwelling 26.0% 3.0% 0.0% 21.0% Residential Dwelling w/ Suite 0.4% 0.0% 23.6% 0.1% Duplex 7.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% Triplex/Fourplex 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Row/Townhouse 16.5% 3.6% 0.0% 9.6% Strata Condominium (Stacked Townhouse) 42.4% 79.8% 0.0% 42.5% Manufactured Dwelling (Located within a Manufactured Home Park) 0.4% 2.3% 34.0% 8.1% Manufactured Dwelling (Not Located within a Manufactured Home Park) 2.1% 10.9% 41.5% 8.6% Seasonal Dwelling 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% Residential Dwelling (2 or More Acres) 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% 2.7% Total 484 302 106 1,285

Data Source: BC Assessment * The calculated income required includes estimates for condo fees, maintenance reserve, and/or pad rental fees

- 84 -

In terms of overall affordability, the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the incomes required by a first-time homebuyer seeking to purchase an “entry-level” home in the Columbia Valley based on the 2013 BC Assessment data using the same PITH mortgage assumptions presented above:

• Invermere: − depending on the type of dwelling being sought, an “entry-level” home in Invermere will likely cost between $13,200 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $250,700 for a strata condominium – requiring an estimated income of $13,650 to $55,950 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of “entry-level” homes in Invermere is $205,250 – requiring an estimated income of $47,850. • Radium: − depending on the type of dwelling being sought, an “entry-level” home in Radium will likely cost between $44,700 for a manufactured home located on its own land and $170,000 for a strata condominium – requiring an estimated income of $19,250 to $41,600 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of “entry-level” homes in Radium is $152,300 – requiring an estimated income of $38,400. • Canal Flats: − depending on the type of dwelling being sought, an “entry-level” home in Canal Flats will likely cost between $9,000 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $103,700 for manufactured home located on its own land – requiring an estimated income of $12,900 to $24,150 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of “entry-level” homes in Canal Flats is $63,700 – requiring an estimated income of $22,650. • East Kootenay – Areas F & G: − depending on the type of dwelling being sought, an “entry-level” home in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined will likely cost between $6,400 for a manufactured home within a manufactured home park and $246,000 for a single family dwelling – requiring an estimated income of $12,400 to $49,500 for a first-time homebuyer with a 10% downpayment on a 25-year amortization. Overall, the current median assessed value of “entry-level” homes in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined is $163,400 – requiring an estimated income of $34,800.

It should also be noted that despite being potentially more affordable to low- and modest-income households, some of these “entry-level” homes are more likely to be in a state of disrepair. For example:

• Invermere: − 5.6% of homes within the “entry-level” category for Invermere were identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition – compared to an estimated 1.9% for all homes combined6. • Radium: − 0.33% of homes within the “entry-level” category for Radium were identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition – compared to an estimated 0.2% for all homes combined. • Canal Flats: − 12.3% of homes within the “entry-level” category for Canal Flats were identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition – compared to an estimated 4.3% for all homes combined. • East Kootenay – Areas F & G: − 8.8% of homes within the “entry-level” category for East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined were identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition – compared to an estimated 3.7% for all homes combined.

6 See Chapter 5, section 3.0 – Housing Adequacy.

- 85 -

4.4 Estimated Current Market Housing Costs – Rental

There is currently no published data on the Columbia Valley rental housing market (e.g., through CMHC or BC Housing). Both CMHC and BC Housing consider the “rental universe” too small to provide any statistically valid data. Most CMHC analyses of the Invermere rental market have been done for underwriting purposes only.7 As a result, an informal survey of existing rental properties was conducted by reviewing classified ads in the local newspapers and online. Table 23 provides a summary of the data collected for the Columbia Valley as whole.

Table 23: May 2013 Informal Rental Market Survey for Communities within the Columbia Valley

No. Ads/Units Average Income Rent Range Income Rent Range Income Unit Type Identified Rent ** Required (Low) Required (High) Required Shared/Private Room 4 $425 $17,000 $375 $15,000 $500 $20,000 Bachelor –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1-Bedroom 12 $680 $27,200 $585 $23,400 $900 $36,000 2-Bedrooms 17 $845 $33,800 $500 $20,000 $1,100 $44,000 3-Bedrooms 7 $980 $39,200 $500 $20,000 $1,300 $52,000 4-Bedrooms 3 $1,265 $50,600 $1,000 $40,000 $1,600 $64,000 Total 43 $810 $32,400 $375 $15,000 $1,600 $64,000

Data Sources: Newspaper classified ads and online rental listings (e.g., www.kijiji.ca) * data is not currently available for analysis ** figures are rounded to the nearest $5

Based on this data, the average rental unit currently available within the Columbia Valley rents for approximately $810 per month (or an average of $460 per bedroom). The vast majority of these rental properties consist of apartment units and stacked townhouses (i.e., apartment-style condominiums) – most of which are rented out through the informal rental market (e.g., seasonal/recreational property investors, owners of second homes, and REALTORS™ providing property management services). The following are the average rents by unit size or rental type:

7 Personal communications with CMHC staff from the Kelowna office and BC Housing staff from the Vancouver office during the development of the 2007 Invermere Housing Needs Assessment.

- 86 -

A further analysis of this data reveals the following average rents by unit size per community:

• Invermere: − Shared/Private Room: $400 (required income: $16,000) − 1-Bedroom: $665 (required income: $26,600) − 2-Bedroom: $845 (required income: $33,800) − 3-Bedroom: $1,040 (required income: $41,600) − 4-Bedroom: $1,400 (required income: $56,000) • Radium: − 1-Bedroom: $600 (required income: $24,000) − 2-Bedroom: $950 (required income: $38,000) − 3-Bedroom: $1,200 (required income: $48,000) • Canal Flats: − 2-Bedroom: $700 (required income: $28,000) − 3-Bedroom: $750 (required income: $30,000) • East Kootenay – Area F: − Shared/Private Room: $500 (required income: $20,000) − 1-Bedroom: $675 (required income: $27,000) − 2-Bedroom: $725 (required income: $29,000) • East Kootenay – Area G: − 1-Bedroom: $690 (required income: $27,600) − 2-Bedroom: $785 (required income: $31,400) − 4-Bedroom: $1,000 (required income: $40,000)

Given the limited pool of rental data available, it is not possible to provide a more detailed analysis of the region’s rental housing stock in terms of total numbers or vacancy rates.

Despite these limitations, anecdotal evidence points to two significant rental issues in the community. The first issue is the number of private (informal) short-term vacation rental properties. These properties are often made available to local residents on an eight-month lease basis during the “off season” (i.e., between September and April) – after which they are offered on a weekly rental basis to summer visitors. Permanent residents renting these properties risk either being evicted during the summer months and forced to find alternate accommodations or seeing their rents increase in order to maintain their units year-round. The second issue is the number of Strata Title conversions that occurred in years past (e.g., between 2005 and 2007) that resulted in the loss of existing rental units. While the rate of these conversions has slowed significantly as a result of the economy and the efforts of local municipalities to prevent further Strata Title conversions, the pressure on the part of rental property owners to convert their properties remains an ongoing challenge.

5.0 Affordable Housing in the Columbia Valley

Affordable housing is a broad concept that, by definition, is achieved when a household is paying no more than 30% of their before-tax (gross) income to acquire and maintain housing that is safe, stable, in good repair and suitable (i.e., appropriately sized for the size and nature of the household). What is affordable to a household earning $200,000 per year is very different than what is affordable to a household earning $20,000 per year. Generally, the higher one’s income, the more housing opportunities are available that meet these criteria through the private market. The lower one’s income, the more likely it is that finding housing to meet these criteria must be sought through near-market and non-market options.

- 87 -

5.1 Near-Market Housing

Near-market housing consists of:

• Limited/shared equity homeownership: - Housing Co-operatives - Co-housing - Perpetually affordable/resale restricted housing • Near-market rental units (e.g., rents maintained at 10% below median market rents); • Subsidized rent-geared-to-income rental units; • Rent supplements; and • Employer-owned and/or rented employee housing (e.g., staff accommodations).

Seniors’ housing can also be provided at a near-market basis depending on the provider. Due to the variety of seniors’ housing options that may be available within the Columbia Valley, it merits its own section (see below).

There are currently no limited/shared equity homeownership opportunities in Invermere in the form of either a housing co-op, co-housing or perpetually affordable/resale-restricted homeownership. In 2007, plans were underway by the District of Invermere to develop approximately 40 price-controlled, multi-residential townhouse units whereby resale values would be restricted via housing agreements and restrictive covenants. Feedback from area stakeholders indicate that the mechanisms used to achieve and maintain the affordability of these units may not have been sufficient to ensure these units remained perpetually affordable to low- and modest-income residents.

There are several homes in the region identified in the BC Assessment data as being owned by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) – one (1) property located in Invermere and four (4) properties located in East Kootenay Area F and Area G. The status of these dwellings is currently unknown. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some of these homes may have been developed by CMHC in the 1970s and sold to low-income residents of Invermere (with the mortgage being held directly by CMHC). Feedback from staff at the Family Resource Centre indicates that some of these homes may serve as rent-geared-to-income rental units.

BC Housing currently offers several programs in the region, including Subsidized Housing, the Rental Assistance Program (RAP), and the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters (SAFER) program. Due to the elections being underway, data could not be obtained for the number and type of households in the Columbia Valley currently accessing either of these programs.8

Feedback from staff at the Family Resource Centre indicates that there is currently a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel operating in Athalmer (i.e., the Digits building). This SRO operates under the Hotel Keepers Act (BC) and provides short-term rentals (i.e., by the day or by the week) and, therefore, may be serving as temporary housing for seasonal and short-term workers. As a result, this housing would not be considered long-term affordable housing for permanent residents.

There are also an unknown number of staff rental units in the District. However, according to the BC Assessment data, Parks Canada owns five (5) single-detached dwellings within the District that are assumed to be staff housing. Feedback from area stakeholders indicates that three (3) of these homes have been declared surplus and may be available to acquire

8 Feedback from staff at BC Housing indicated that the data cannot be released until the writ is dropped on June 5, 2013.

- 88 -

through the Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness Initiative (SFRPHI). Feedback from area stakeholders also indicates that Home Hardware purchased an existing motel in Radium that it operates as staff housing. There may also be other private businesses in the community that own housing that they rent out to their staff – however, the specific location and owners of these homes remains unknown.

5.2 Non-Market Housing in Invermere

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

Invermere currently does not provide any formal emergency shelters or transitional shelters. In situations where women are fleeing domestic violence, the Family Resource Centre has developed confidential agreements with private homeowners in the community to provide short-term accommodations while the women await space at Transition House in Cranbrook.

The community does have two (2) group homes owned by Windermere District Social Service. These group homes provide housing and supports to adults with developmental disabilities. Mount Nelson Place consists of a side-by-side duplex that provides supportive living with 24-hour staffing to ten adults. Another single-detached dwelling provides supportive living for two adults.

5.3 Seniors’ Housing in the Columbia Valley

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

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

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

- 89 -

5.3.1 Seniors Living Independently in Their Own Home

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

5.3.2 Seniors’ Independent Living

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

There are currently an estimated 79 seniors’ Independent Living units in the Columbia Valley (all of which are located in Invermere), including:

• Lakeview Meadows: 24 units • Columbia Garden Village: 55 units

Feedback from staff at the Family Resource Centre indicates that some of the bachelor suites located within Columbia Garden Village may be subsidized.

5.3.3 Seniors’ Assisted Living

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

There are currently an estimated 8 seniors’ Assisted Living units in the Columbia Valley – all of which are located in Invermere and are part of Columbia Garden Village (i.e., in addition to the 55 Independent Living units mentioned above).

5.3.4 Seniors’ Residential/Long-Term Care

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

- 90 -

There are currently an estimated 66 seniors’ Residential/Long-Term Care spaces in the Columbia Valley (all of which are located in Invermere), including:

• Columbia Garden Village: 33 Residential Care + 1 Respite Care • Columbia House Long-Term Care Facility: 33 Long-Term Care + 2 Respite Care

Both Columbia Garden Village and Columbia House Long-Term Care Facility also provide Respite Care spaces (1 unit in Columbia Garden Village and 2 spaces in Columbia House Long-Term Care Facility).

5.3.5 Summary of Seniors’ Housing in the Columbia Valley

Table 24 provides a summary of the seniors’ housing currently available in the Columbia Valley (not including the 3 Respite Care spaces available at Columbia Garden Village and Columbia House Long-Term Care Facility).

Table 24: Summary of Seniors’ Housing in the Columbia Valley (2013)

Seniors’ Housing Type Name and Location No. of Units Independent Living: Lakeview Meadows (Invermere) 24 Columbia Garden Village (Invermere) 55 Assisted Living: Columbia Garden Village (Invermere) 8 Residential/Long-Term Care: Columbia Garden Village (Invermere) 33 Columbia House Long-Term Care Facility (Invermere) 33 Total Seniors’ Housing Units/Spaces 153

Thus, there are currently an estimated 153 seniors’ housing spaces (units/beds) in the Columbia Valley (all of which are located in Invermere) serving an estimated 22.8% of the region’s current population of seniors ages 75 and over or 8.7% of the region’s seniors ages 65 and over.

As mentioned above, the remaining seniors in the region continue to live independently either in the same homes they have lived in for the years prior to them becoming senior citizens – homes that they either own or rent – or with extended family.

5.3.6 Projected Seniors’ Housing Needs to 2030

Projecting senior’s housing needs for the Columbia Valley is based on a combination of population projections for the region and planning targets currently used by the Interior Health Authority (IHA) for Assisted Living and Residential/Long-Term Care. It should be clearly noted that the following analysis only provides an approximation of seniors’ housing needs in the region. Estimating actual seniors’ housing needs requires a case-by-case assessment of individual seniors and their particular health and personal care needs by qualified and certified health care professionals trained in the use of standard assessment tools. Further consultations with IHA are, therefore, required to determine a more precise estimate of current and future seniors’ housing needs for the region.

- 91 -

Table 25 provides projections for the number of seniors 75+ potentially living in the Windermere district of the Interior Health Region to 2030 provided through P.E.O.P.L.E. 2012. These projections suggest that there are currently as many as 1,755 seniors ages 65 and over living in the region (of which 670 are seniors ages 75 and over) and that, by 2030, there could be as many as 3,500 seniors ages 65 and over living in the region (of which 1,710 are seniors ages 75 and over).

Table 25: Projected Seniors Population 75+ to 2030 for the Windermere District of the Interior Health Region

Year Seniors 65+ Seniors 75+ 2011 1,487 634 2012 1,634 660 2013 1,754 670 2014 1,838 692 2015 1,956 720 2016 2,074 749 2017 2,183 771 2018 2,279 802 2019 2,393 830 2020 2,524 868 2021 2,669 915 2022 2,787 1,035 2023 2,895 1,141 2024 2,991 1,203 2025 3,117 1,296 2026 3,184 1,376 2027 3,272 1,456 2028 3,369 1,531 2029 3,441 1,620 2030 3,499 1,707

Data Source: P.E.O.P.L.E. 2012

The Interior Health Authority (IHA) currently maintains the following targets for seniors’ housing that incorporate a significant care component: 9

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

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

- 92 -

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

What the IHA targets do not address is the need for seniors’ Independent Living. Targets for Independent Living are not published and are likely based on a combination of available capital dollars, available operating dollars, and market forces. However, there is research to suggest that up to 8.0% of seniors’ ages 65 and over will require a combination of Independent Living, Assisted Living, and/or Residential/Long-Term Care. For example, a recent study published by Statistics Canada10 indicates that in 2011, an estimated 7.9% of seniors ages 65 and over resided in some form of seniors’ collective dwelling – 0.8% in a non-care-oriented collective dwelling and 7.1% in some from of special care facility. Of the 7.1% of seniors living in a special care facility, 4.5% were living in a nursing home, chronic care facility or long-term care facility while 2.6% were living in a seniors’ care facility providing lower levels of support. Additional research from CMHC11 reveals that in 2012, an estimated 7.4% of seniors ages 65 and over throughout the Kootenay and North-Central BC regions were living in some from of seniors’ housing complex vs. (8.2% province-wide). The figure provided by Statistics Canada (7.9%) represents roughly the average between CMHC’s two figures: 7.4% for the Kootenay and North-Central BC regions vs. 8.2% for the provincial average.

Table 26 estimates the total current and projected need for seniors’ housing in the Columbia Valley to 2030 by combining the IHA targets mentioned above (a Residential/Long-Term Care target of 7.9% of seniors ages 75 and an Assisted Living target of 1.4% of seniors ages 75 and over) with an overall target of 7.9% of the region’s population ages 65 and over (i.e., the estimated need for Independent Living is the difference between the total need minus the need for Assisted Living and Residential/Long-Term Care).

Table 26: Projected Seniors’ Housing Needs to 2030 for the Windermere Region

Characteristics 2013 2020 2030 Population 65+ (Projected) 1,754 2,524 3,499 Total Spaces Required (7.9%) 1 139 200 277 Population 75+ (Projected) 670 868 1,707 Residential/Long-Term Care (7.9%) 2 53 69 135 Assisted Living (1.4%) 2 9 12 24 Independent Living 3 77 119 118

Data Sources 1 Statistics Canada 2 Interior Health Authority (2010) 3 Balance of 7.9% of seniors ages 65+ and the identified need for Assisted Living and Residential/Long-Term Care using IHA formulas.

10 Statistics Canada (2012) Living Arrangements of Seniors: Families, Households and Marital Status; Structural Type of Dwelling and Collectives (2011 Census of Population), Catalogue no. 98-312-X2011003. 11 CMHC (2012) Seniors’ Housing Report: British Columbia

- 93 -

These figures suggest that the Columbia Valley has a current need for up to 140 seniors’ supportive housing, including:

• 75 – 80 Independent Living spaces; • 10 Assisted Living spaces; and • 50 – 55 Residential/Long-Term Care spaces.

As the seniors’ housing inventory above shows (see Table 24 on page 91), there are currently 153 seniors’ housing spaces available in the Columbia Valley.

By 2020, the estimated need increases to approximately 200 spaces, including:

• Up to 120 Independent Living spaces; • 10 – 15 Assisted Living spaces; and • 70 Residential/Long-Term Care spaces.

By 2030, that need increases to approximately 275 – 280 spaces, including:

• Up to 120 Independent Living spaces; • 25 Assisted Living spaces; and • 135 Residential/Long-Term Care spaces.

6.0 Conclusion

The majority of homes in each community of the Columbia Valley are single-family dwellings. However, overall housing diversity appears to be improving over time in the region with the introduction of various higher-density housing options. Generally, higher-density housing options (e.g., duplexes, townhouses and strata condominiums) are more likely to be relatively more affordable than lower-density housing options (e.g., single family homes and residential properties on large lots). However, this may not always be the case – especially if higher-density housing options are being marketed towards higher-income recreational property investors from major centres.

The majority of homes in the Columbia Valley are also owned. Over time, both the number and percentage of rented dwellings is increasing in Radium but declining in Invermere, Canal Flats, East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G. The loss of rental properties means that, over time, renters have fewer housing options available to them (and, therefore, greater competition for the rental units that remain).

Seasonal homeownership and recreational property investment appears to be an important dynamic in the local housing market. This means that a significant portion of the region’s housing may not be available to permanent residents. If seasonal/recreational homeownership/investment rates are increasing, so too may incidence rates of housing constraint and/or hardship.

- 94 -

Under current mortgage terms and interest rates, a median-priced home in the Columbia Valley is likely to be affordable to households earning incomes of:

• $60,750 in Invermere; • $42,850 in Radium; • $32,550 in Canal Flats; and • $74,700 in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined.

A median-priced “entry-level” home in the Columbia Valley is likely to be affordable to households earning incomes of:

• $47,850 in Invermere; • $38,400 in Radium; • $22,650 in Canal Flats; and • $34,800 in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G combined.

While “entry-level” homes are potentially more affordable to low- and modest-income households, they are also more likely to be in a state of disrepair.

In terms of rental housing, a recent survey of newspaper classified ads and online rental listings for the Columbia Valley reveals that:

• An individual seeking to rent an average shared accommodations/private room requires a minimum income of $17,000; • An individual seeking to rent an average 1-bedroom unit requires a minimum income of $27,280; • A small household seeking to rent an average 2-bedroom unit requires a minimum income of $33,800; • An average-sized family requires a minimum income of $39,200 to rent an average 3-bedroom unit and a minimum income of $50,600 to rent an average 4-bedroom unit.

There appears to be limited near- or non-market affordable housing options available within the Columbia Valley. The majority of near- and non-market affordable housing is located within the District of Invermere. The majority of near- and non-market affordable housing within the Columbia Valley is also geared towards seniors.

This means that low- and modest-income non-seniors are more likely to have difficulty finding housing that is safe, suitable and affordable based on their income within the Columbia Valley. Whether seeking to rent or own a home, housing for the most part does not appear to be affordable to single individuals earning less than $25,000 (i.e., those earning minimum wage of $10.25 per hour or slightly higher – up to $12.50 per hour – and working full-time, year-round) or couples and families with children earning less than $35,000 unless they are willing and able to find suitable shared accommodations, to live in below-average and potentially substandard housing, and/or to move to one of the smaller communities in the Columbia Valley where access to services and transportation may pose further challenges.

- 95 -

- 96 -

CHAPTER 5: Housing Need and Demand Analysis

1.0 Introduction

Housing affordability is typically the dominant issue for the majority of households experiencing difficulty. However, it also tends to affect or be affected by other housing issues and challenges. For example, households unable to afford the average price of market housing (either rental or homeowners) may find themselves being limited to housing that is too small to meet their needs (leading to suitability challenges – i.e., overcrowding). Alternatively, homeowners who find themselves paying an excessive amount of their income on their mortgage payments may not be able to commit to the ongoing upkeep and maintenance required to keep their homes in good condition (which can lead to adequacy issues – i.e., homes in need of major repairs) or pay for upgrades to their homes to make them more manageable for someone with mobility challenges such as an ageing senior or family member with a disability (leading to accessibility challenges). Similarly, renters may find themselves with few housing choices available that are affordable to them other than rental properties that are poorly maintained by their owners.

This chapter estimates the number of households within the Columbia Valley (where data is available1) who may be facing housing challenges and/or hardships in either of the following four standard categories:

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

2.0 Chapter Highlights

• Housing is considered inadequate if it requires major repairs and/or is lacking necessary services and basic facilities. According to Statistics Canada Census of Population data, the estimated number of homes in need of major repairs in each community as of 2006 was: − Invermere: est. 90 – 110 homes (7.5%) − Radium: est. 15 – 35 homes (5.3%) − Canal Flats: est. 45 – 55 homes (15.5%) − East Kootenay – Area F: est. 35 – 90 homes (2.8%) − East Kootenay – Area G: est. 60 – 75 homes (9.1%)

- 97 -

• 2013 BC Assessment data indicates that the current number homes in need of major repairs is likely to be lower – which may be an indication of significant redevelopment and/or residential upgrades, repairs, and renovations occurring in the region since 2006. • National Occupancy Standards set minimum criteria for number of persons per bedroom and level of privacy for members of a household. According to Statistics Canada Census of Population data, the estimated number of households living in overcrowded conditions in each community as of 2006 was: − Invermere: est. 0 households (0.0%) − Radium: est. 0 households (0.0%) − Canal Flats: est. up to 10 households (3.4%) − East Kootenay – Area F: est. up to 10 households (0.8%) − East Kootenay – Area G: est. 0 households (0.0%) • Housing accessibility relates to ability of individuals with health, mobility and/or stamina limitations to easily get into and out of their home, and to move around freely while inside their home. Using Statistics Canada Participation and Activity Limitation Survey data as a base, the estimated number of residents in each community in need of more accessible housing as of 2011 was 0.7% - 1.25% of the population, including: − Invermere: est. 20 – 35 households − Radium: est. 5 – 10 households − Canal Flats: est. 5 – 10 households − East Kootenay – Area F: est. 20 – 35 households − Fairmont: est. up to 5 households − Windermere: est. 5 – 15 households − East Kootenay – Area G: est. 10 – 20 households − Edgewater: est. up to 5 households − Wilmer: est. up to 5 households • CMHC has determined that housing is affordable if it costs no more than 30% of a household’s gross monthly income for renters and 32% of a household’s gross monthly income for homeowners. Households who must pay more than 30% of their income on housing are said to be in “core housing need”. According to Statistics Canada Census of Population data, the estimated number of households in each community paying 30% or more of their income on housing as of 2006 was: − Invermere: est. 305 households (25.5%) − Radium: est. 45 households (15.8%) − Canal Flats: est. up to 10 households (3.4%) − East Kootenay – Area F: est. 180 households (14.5%) − East Kootenay – Area G: est. 80 households (12.6%) • Data is not available to determine how many households within each community or the region as a whole are experiencing multiple housing issues at the same time (e.g., a combination of affordability, adequacy, suitability and/or accessibility challenges).

- 98 -

• Based on number of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing, overall affordability appears to be improving over time in East Kootenay – Area F and East Kootenay – Area G but declining over time in Invermere. In Radium, overall affordability appears to have declined slightly while relative affordability (as expressed by the percentage of households affected) seems to have improved. There is insufficient data to comment on changing affordability levels in Canal Flats. • An analysis comparing 2010 Taxfiler data to the 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) published by BC Housing suggests that there may be as many as 785 economic households in the Columbia Valley (24.8%) currently in Core Housing Need (i.e., paying 30% or more of their before-tax income on housing), as follows: − Invermere: est. 360 economic households (including 70 couples, 55 lone-parent families, and 235 single individuals); − Radium: est. 95 economic households (including 20 couples, 20 lone-parent families, and 55 single individuals); − Canal Flats: est. 55 economic households (including 20 lone-parent families and 35 single individuals); − East Kootenay – Area F: est. 210 economic households (including 20 couples, 30 lone-parent families, and 160 single individuals); and − East Kootenay – Area G: est. 65 economic households (including 20 lone-parent families and 45 single individuals). • Based on a similar analysis using Statistics Canada Low-Income Cutoffs and an estimate of the number of households who may currently be in “dire” housing need (i.e., paying 50% or more of their income on housing, it is estimated that as many as 380 – 455 economic households currently living in the Columbia Valley (12.2% - 14.2%) are potentially at risk of becoming homeless, as follows: − Invermere: est. 160 – 195 economic households (including 40 – 50 couples, 30 – 50 lone-parent families, and 80 – 105 single individuals); − Radium: est. 55 – 60 economic households (including up to 10 couples, up to 10 lone-parent families, and 35 – 40 single individuals); − Canal Flats: est. 25 – 35 economic households (including up to 10 couples, up to 10 lone-parent families, and 5 – 15 single individuals); − East Kootenay – Area F: est. 115 – 135 economic households (including up to 20 couples, up to 10 lone-parent families, and 85 – 105 single individuals); and − East Kootenay – Area G: est. 25 – 30 economic households (all estimated to be single individuals). • There may be as many as 10 – 15 individuals in the Columbia Valley who are currently experiencing homelessness. As many as five (5) of these individuals may be homeless youth. • Other issues affecting housing needs in the Columbia Valley described in earlier chapters include: − An ageing population (and the anticipated need for additional seniors’ housing over the next 15-20 years); − Increasing housing costs (and an increasing number of households experiencing housing challenges including but not limited to affordability); and − Loss of rental housing for those who have not yet entered the housing market (including those who are unable to purchase a home based on their income). • There are four (4) primary targets for the Columbia Valley in need of affordable rental housing as follows: (1) The high-needs group consisting of households whose annual incomes fall at or below the Statistics Canada Low-Income Cutoffs (LICO) for rural communities (i.e., those households whose incomes potentially place them in “dire” housing need and, therefore, potentially at risk of homelessness); (2) The moderate-needs group consisting of households earning annual incomes above Statistics Canada’s LICO for rural communities but below BC Housing’s HILs (i.e., those households whose incomes potentially place them in Core Housing Need); and (3) The special needs group consisting of individuals (regardless of their income) who are currently unable to meet their housing needs due to the presence of a disability (i.e., seniors and persons with developmental disabilities who are unable to remain in their own homes and require ongoing supports); and

- 99 -

(4) The homeless (i.e., people in need of short-term emergency and/or transitional shelter and supports to help them regain and maintain long-term, stable housing on their own). • Affordable rental housing targets for the Columbia Valley are as follows: − Up to 15 supportive housing spaces and supports specifically designed using a Housing First approach to help homeless families and individuals regain and maintain long-term, stable, affordable housing; − 140 – 155 housing units/spaces for seniors and non-seniors with special needs; and − 235 – 240 affordable rental housing units for low- and modest-income households (i.e., households earning incomes under $40,000) as follows: ! Invermere: 105 – 110 units (40-45% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 40 – 50 units − Low-Income: 55 – 65 units ! Radium: 25 – 35 units (10-15% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 10 – 15 units − Low-Income: 15 – 20 units ! Canal Flats: 15 – 20 units (5-10% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 5 – 10 units − Low-Income: 10 – 15 units ! East Kootenay – Area F: 65 – 75 units (25-30% of the total need) − Modest -Income: 30 – 35 units − Low-Income: 35 – 40 units ! East Kootenay – Area G: 15 – 20 units (5-10% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 5 – 10 units − Low-Income: 10 – 15 units • There is also an anticipated need for additional affordable homeownership in the Columbia Valley designed for modest-income households, including young professionals just starting their careers and people of all ages and walks of life who have only recently attempted to enter the local housing market (including first-time homebuyers who have only recently moved to the Columbia Valley). Housing for this target group would focus on a combination of entry-level market homeownership and limited or shared-equity perpetually affordable homeownership (i.e., resale-restricted near-market and entry-level homeownership). These housing options should be affordable to households earning incomes between $25,000 and $50,000, with purchase prices ranging from approximately $100,000 to $225,000 depending on unit size, actual income, current mortgage rates, mortgage terms, size of downpayment, and other debts.

- 100 -

3.0 Housing Adequacy

Housing adequacy refers to the physical safety of an individual dwelling. Housing is considered inadequate if it requires major repairs and/or is lacking necessary services and basic facilities. Major repairs refer to plumbing, electrical, ventilation systems, disposal systems, and the structural components of a house that might warrant it being unsafe. Basic facilities refer to potable hot and cold running water, and full bathroom facilities including an indoor toilet and a bathtub or shower. Additionally, housing is not adequate if it is infested with vermin or black mould. The availability of housing that is not only affordable to residents but also adequate is important to the overall health and safety of individuals and families. According to Statistics Canada, “(h)ealth experts maintain that inadequate housing can be associated with a host of health problems.”2 Additionally,

“Housing infrastructure and proper maintenance are important to protect the health and safety of residents in their homes. Unsafe housing and habitability conditions that affect health often exist in older and poorly maintained housing. Houses have inadequate heating or ventilation, which can lead to the growth of mold, and dust mites, leading to asthma and respiratory allergies. Older housing stock Many houses also may have lead-based paint that can cause lead poisoning, particularly in young children. Other conditions include, exposed heating sources and unprotected windows. The health impacts of these physical hazards in a home can be related to housing affordability. (Furthermore)…many tenants are reluctant to complain to landlords about physically unsafe conditions because they fear they will be evicted, and will be unable to find other affordable housing…””3

Table 27 shows the degree to which homes in those communities within the Columbia Valley where data is available4 may be in need of major repairs compared to the province as a whole based on Statistics Canada Census of Population data from 20065

Table 27: Estimated Number of Homes in Need of Major Repairs for Communities within the Columbia Valley vs. the Province of BC (2006)

Characteristics INVERMERE RADIUM CANAL FLATS EAST KOOTENAY F EAST KOOTENAY G BC Total Private Dwellings (2006) 1,420 631 345 3,118 798 1,788,474 Total Private Dwellings Occupied by Usual Residents (2006) 1,195 285 290 1,255 660 1,643,150 % Total Private Occupied Dwellings Requiring Major Repairs (2006) 7.5% 5.3% 15.5% 2.8% 9.1% 7.4% Est. # Dwellings Requiring Major Repairs - Low 90 15 45 35 60 121,593 Est. # Dwellings Requiring Major Repairs - High 107 33 53 87 73 132,347

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996 and 2006 Census of Population (data may be subject to rounding and suppression) (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 scheduled release date from the National Household Survey) Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

2 Statistics Canada, January 2008: Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census (Catalogue no. 97-558-XIE), page 34 – citing Statistics Canada, 2003: Aboriginal Peoples Survey 2001 – Initial Findings: Well-being of the Non-reserve Aboriginal Population (Catalogue no. 89-589-XIE) and Health Canada, 1999: A Second Diagnostic on the Health of First Nations and Inuit People in Canada. 3 http://www.sustainablesf.org/indicators/view/195 4 Unless otherwise specified (and during those years where Census of Population data is not available), Canal Flats, Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G. 5 Data from the 2011 National Household Survey is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 scheduled release.

- 101 -

According to this data, Canal Flats and East Kootenay – Area G each had a higher percentage of homes in need of major repairs in 2006 compared to the province as a whole (15.5% and 9.1% respectively vs. the provincial average of 7.4%), while Radium and East Kootenay – Area F had a lower percentage of homes in need of major repairs (5.3% and 2.8% respectively vs. 7.4% province-wide). The percentage of homes in need of major repairs was roughly the same as the provincial average in 2006 (7.5% vs. 7.4%). Based on this data, the estimated number of homes in need of major repairs within the Columbia Valley includes:

• Invermere: est. 90 – 110 homes (7.5%) • Radium: est. 15 – 35 homes (5.3%) • Canal Flats: est. 45 – 55 homes (15.5%) • East Kootenay – Area F: est. 35 – 90 homes (2.8%) • East Kootenay – Area G: est. 60 – 75 homes (9.1%)

These homes could be considered inadequate depending on the specific nature and extent of the repairs needed. It should be noted that this data was derived from permanent residents completing the Long Questionnaire from the 2006 Census of Population and may not reflect any redevelopment or significant repairs made to homes since 2006. Nor does it reflect homes that may have fallen into disrepair since 2006.

A more detailed look at the 2013 BC Assessment data indicates that the current number homes in need of major repairs are likely to be lower for communities in the Columbia Valley (which may be an indication of significant redevelopment and/or residential upgrades, repairs, and renovations occurring in the area since 2006). This analysis involved a review of the number of owned residential properties identified in the BC Assessment data as being in “very poor”, “poor”, “substandard” or “low quality” condition. According to this data:

• Invermere: − 7 residential properties (est. 0.4%) were listed as being in “poor” condition, 29 residential properties (est. 1.5%) were listed as being in “substandard” condition, and 1 residential property (est. 0.05%) were listed as being in “low quality” condition – suggesting that up to 1.9% of homes in Invermere may be in need of major repairs. • Radium: − 1 residential property (est. 0.1%) was listed as being in “poor” condition and 1residential property (est. 0.1%) was listed as being in “substandard” condition – suggesting that up to 0.2% of homes in Radium may be in need of major repairs. • Canal Flats: − 3 residential properties (est. 0.7%) were listed as being in “poor” condition, 12 residential properties (est. 2.8%) were listed as being in “substandard” condition, and 3 residential property (est. 0.7%) were listed as being in “low quality” condition – suggesting that up to 4.3% of homes in Canal Flats may be in need of major repairs. • East Kootenay – Areas F & G − 7 residential properties (est. 0.1%) were listed as being in “very poor” condition, 27 residential properties (est. 0.5%) were listed as being in “poor” condition, 139 residential properties (est. 2.7%) were listed as being in “substandard” condition, and 19 residential properties (est. 0.4%) were listed as being in “low quality” condition – suggesting that up to 3.7% of homes in East Kootenay - Area F and Area G may be in need of major repairs.

- 102 -

4.0 Housing Suitability

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

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

Households that are unable to meet these occupancy standards are said to be living in overcrowded or unsuitable housing conditions. As with housing that is adequate, the availability of housing that is both affordable and suitable to residents is also important to the overall health and safety of individuals and families. According to Statistics Canada,

“…crowded living conditions can lead to the transmission of infection diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis A, and can also increase risk for injuries, mental health problems, family tensions and violence.”6

Additionally,

“The impacts of overcrowding on health are both direct and indirect. Most immediately, crowding increases risks for respiratory infections such as tuberculosis and ear infection. Overcrowded housing has also been associated with increased mortality rates (particularly for women), meningitis, and Helicobacter pylori bacteria which can cause stomach ailments. Crowded housing conditions also contribute to poor child development and school performance, in part, because overcrowding limits the space and quiet necessary for children to do homework. Overcrowding may act cumulatively with other environmental health stressors. For example, one recent study found that crowding combined with noise significantly increases chronic stress hormones in low-income children. Finally, overcrowding affects health indirectly by creating conditions conducive to poor sanitation, high environmental noise, and residential fires.” 7

While there are currently no data published by Statistics Canada directly related to housing suitability as defined using National Occupancy Standards, Statistics Canada does publish data on the percentage of homes occupied by usual residents that have more than one person per room from the 2006 Census of Population (see Table 28 – next page). Internationally, this is the most common and generally accepted measure of overcrowding.8 Statistics Canada defines a room as follows:

“A 'room' is an enclosed area within a dwelling which is finished and suitable for year-round living (e.g., kitchen, dining-room, or bedroom). Not counted as rooms are bathrooms, halls, vestibules and rooms used solely for business purposes.”9

6 Statistics Canada, January 2008: Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census (Catalogue no. 97-558-XIE), page 34 – citing Statistics Canada, 2003: Aboriginal Peoples Survey 2001 – Initial Findings: Well-being of the Non-reserve Aboriginal Population (Catalogue no. 89-589-XIE) and Health Canada, 1999: A Second Diagnostic on the Health of First Nations and Inuit People in Canada. 7 http://www.sustainablesf.org/indicators/view/125 8 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Affairs Office of Policy Development and Research (September 2007) Measuring Overcrowding in Housing. 9 Statistics Canada, 2007. 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007.

- 103 -

Table 28: Estimated Number of Dwellings with More Than One Person Per Room for Communities within the Columbia Valley vs. the Province of BC (2006)

Characteristics INVERMERE RADIUM CANAL FLATS EAST KOOTENAY F EAST KOOTENAY G BC Total Private Dwellings Occupied by Usual Residents 1,195 285 290 1,255 660 1,643,150 Average Number of Rooms Per Dwelling 7.3 7.1 5.4 7.4 6.5 6.4 Private Occupied Dwellings With More Than One Person Per Room 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.8% 0.0% 1.9% Est. Dwellings With More Than One Person Per Room (2006) 0 0 10 10 0 31,220

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996 and 2006 Census of Population (data may be subject to rounding and suppression) (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 scheduled release date from the National Household Survey) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

According to this data, Canal Flats and East Kootenay – Area F appear to be the only communities with overcrowding issues. In 2006, an estimated 3.4% of homes in Canal Flats and 0.8% of homes in East Kootenay – Area F had more than one person per room compared to 1.9% of homes province-wide. The data for Invermere, Radium and East Kootenay – Area G all show 0.0% - suggesting either that overcrowding was not an issue in these three communities in 2006 or that the extent of overcrowding was too small to be registered in the Census of Population (i.e., data was suppressed).

Based on this data, the estimated number of Columbia Valley households potentially living in overcrowded conditions includes:

• Invermere: est. 0 households (0.0%) • Radium: est. 0 households (0.0%) • Canal Flats: est. up to 10 households (3.4%) • East Kootenay – Area F: est. up to 10 households (0.8%) • East Kootenay – Area G: est. 0 households (0.0%)

As a result of these overcrowded conditions, the households living in some of these homes could potentially be at risk of homelessness along with a range of health and safety problems if their housing needs cannot be met. It should be noted that this data does not relate directly to the number or percentage of households with two or more people sharing a bedroom – and, therefore, may not relate directly to National Occupancy Standards (i.e., more than one person per room does not necessarily translate into more than two persons per bedroom).

5.0 Housing Accessibility

Housing accessibility relates to ability of individuals with health, mobility and/or stamina limitations to easily get into and out of their home, and to move around freely while inside their home. Accessibility is particularly problematic for persons with physical disabilities including people confined to wheelchairs and people needing the use of walkers to get around their

- 104 -

home. Those households with accessibility issues may require a number of improvements to their homes including wheelchair ramps and/or elevators; larger doors and hallways; lowered counter tops, sinks and cabinets; and reconfigured rooms including larger bathrooms and specialty bathtubs.

Once again, Statistics Canada does not currently publish data directly related to housing accessibility for individual communities through the Census of Population. Rather, accessibility is addressed by Statistics Canada on a national and provincial level through the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) – the most recent survey published is from 2006. Based on this survey, Statistics Canada estimates that 16.0% of British Columbians (an estimated 638,640 children, adults and seniors) had disabilities in 200610. These statistics include people with mild or moderate disabilities to those with severe or very severe disabilities. These statistics also include a range of disability types, including:

• Hearing; • Developmental Disability or Disorder; • Seeing; • Learning; • Speech; • Memory; • Mobility; • Psychological; • Agility/Dexterity; • Chronic Conditions; and • Pain; • Unknown/Undeclared Disabilities. • Developmental Delay;

Based strictly on the provincial average (i.e., 16.0% of the 2011 population for each community where Census of Population data is available), the number of Columbia Valley residents potentially with one or more of the above-mentioned disabilities includes:

• Invermere: est. up to 475 residents (16.0% of 2,955) • Radium: est. up to 125 residents (16.0% of 777) • Canal Flats: est. up to 115 residents (16.0% of 715) • East Kootenay – Area F: est. up to 420 residents (16.0% of 2,635) • Fairmont: est. up to 75 residents (16.0% of 476) • Windermere: est. up to 165 residents (16.0% of 1,019) • East Kootenay – Area G: est. up to 225 residents (16.0% of 1,412) • Edgewater: est. up to 65 residents (16.0% of 413) • Wilmer: est. up to 35 residents (16.0% of 223)

A more detailed analysis from the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) estimated that 7.9% of Canadian adults with disabilities “reported using specialized features either to enter or leave their residence or inside their residence.”11 Furthermore, “4.6% of adults with disabilities reported that the design and layout of their home made it difficult to

10 Statistics Canada, Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: Analytical Report (December 2007), Catalogue No. 89-628-XIE – No. 002, page 16. 11 Ibid., page 26.

- 105 -

participate in activities that they wanted or needed to do.”12 Table 29 provides an estimate of the number of permanent residents living in the Columbia Valley who may require accessible housing based on these figures.

Table 29: Estimated Number of Residents Within Each Community of the Columbia Valley Potentially Requiring More Accessible Housing (2011)

CANAL EAST EAST Characteristics INVERMERE RADIUM FAIRMONT WINDERMERE EDGEWATER WILMER FLATS KOOTENAY F KOOTENAY G 2011 Population 1 2,955 777 715 2,635 476 1,019 1,412 413 223 Est. 2011 Pop. with Disabilities (16.0% 2) 473 124 114 422 76 163 226 66 36 Est. Pop. Using Specialized Features (7.9% 2) 37 10 9 33 6 13 18 5 3 Est. Pop. w/ Design/Layout Constraints (4.3% 2) 22 6 5 19 4 7 10 3 2

Data Source: 1 Statistics Canada 2011 Census of Population 2 Statistics Canada Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006 (PALS) (NOTE: Data may be subject to rounding)

Based on this analysis, the current estimated number of residents potentially in need of more accessible housing (or at least specialized features and equipment to enter, exit and move around within their homes) in each community is as follows based on an overall estimate of 0.7% - 1.25% of the population:

• Invermere: est. 20 – 35 households • Radium: est. 5 – 10 households • Canal Flats: est. 5 – 10 households • East Kootenay – Area F: est. 20 – 35 households • Fairmont: est. up to 5 households • Windermere: est. 5 – 15 households • East Kootenay – Area G: est. 10 – 20 households • Edgewater: est. up to 5 households • Wilmer: est. up to 5 households

These estimate are based on four (4) key assumptions:

(1) That the percentage of adults using specialized features and the percentage of adults having difficulties with the layout or design of their homes in 2006 applies equally to the percentage of children facing similar challenges (i.e., percentages specific to the adult population can be applied to the population as a whole);

12 Ibid.

- 106 -

(2) That the situation has not changed significantly since 2006 (i.e., the percentage of British Columbians with disabilities and the percentage of people with disabilities experiencing housing accessibility challenges); (3) That it is appropriate to apply national and provincial averages to each community within the Columbia Valley; and (4) That only one person with a pronounced mobility challenge is living in each household (i.e., there are no households with more than one person or family member experiencing pronounced mobility challenges).

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

6.0 Housing Affordability

Housing affordability relates to the ability of individual households to meet their monthly rent or mortgage payments within a reasonable threshold of their income. CMHC has determined that housing is affordable if it costs no more than 30% of a household’s gross monthly income for renters and 32% of a household’s gross monthly income for homeowners. Households who must pay more than 30% of their income on housing are said to be in “core housing need”. Three analyses are used to estimate the number of households within the Columbia Valley (where data is available) that are potentially facing housing affordability challenges:

(1) Analyses prepared by Statistics Canada using Census of Population data to estimate the number of households paying more than 30% of their income on shelter; (2) The 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) published by BC Housing compared against 2010 Taxfiler data; and (3) The 2011 Low Income Cut-offs (LICOs) published by Statistics Canada compared against 2010 Taxfiler data.

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

Using 1996, 2001 and 200613 Census of Population data derived from those households responding to the Long Questionnaire (20% of all households), Statistics Canada has estimated the number of households within several communities of the Columbia Valley paying more than 30% of their income on housing. Table 30 (next page) shows three estimates each for Invermere, Radium, Canal Flats, East Kootenay – Area F, and East Kootenay – Area G:

(1) An estimate of the total number of all households regardless of tenure spending 30% or more of their income on housing; (2) An estimate of the total number of homeowners spending 30% or more of their income on housing; and (3) An estimate of the total number of tenant households (renters) spending 30% or more of their income on housing.

Based on this data, overall housing affordability as expressed by the number of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing appears to be improving over time in East Kootenay – Area F, and East Kootenay – Area G but declining over time in Invermere. In Radium, overall affordability appears to have declined slightly while relative affordability (as expressed by the percentage of households affected) seems to have improved. Between 1996 and 2006, there were an estimated 65 more households living in Invermere (a combination of renters and homeowners) and an estimated 5 more households (renters) living in Radium experiencing affordability challenges. Between 2001 and 2006, the total

13 Data from the 2011 National Household Survey is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 scheduled release.

- 107 -

number of households experiencing affordability challenges dropped by an estimated 70 households living in East Kootenay – Area F (a combination of renters and homeowners) and an estimated 50 households (homeowners) living in East Kootenay – Area G. This data appears to be consistent with the changing average household expenditures data discussed in section 4.1 of Chapter 4 above.

Table 30: Statistics Canada Estimates of Household Payments by Tenure Type for each Community within the Columbia Valley vs. the Province of BC (1996, 2001 and 2006)

INVERMERE RADIUM CANAL FLATS EAST KOOTENAY F EAST KOOTENAY G BC Characteristics No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1996 Total All Households 1,025 100.0% 200 100.0% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 1,420,530 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 240 23.4% 40 20.0% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 403,660 28.4% Total Owner Households 735 100.0% 165 100.0% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 928,990 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 105 14.3% 30 18.2% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 177,000 19.1% Total Tenant Households 290 100.0% 35 100.0% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 491,540 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 135 46.6% 10 28.6% –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * –– * 226,660 46.1% 2001 Total All Households 1,130 100.0% 225 100.0% –– * –– * 1,345 100.0% 670 100.0% 1,491,050 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 270 23.9% 55 24.4% –– * –– * 250 18.6% 130 19.4% 425,965 28.6% Total Owner Households 835 100.0% 195 100.0% –– * –– * 1,165 100.0% 550 100.0% 987,980 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 140 16.8% 50 25.6% –– * –– * 220 18.9% 100 18.2% 204,175 20.7% Total Tenant Households 295 100.0% 30 100.0% –– * –– * 180 100.0% 125 100.0% 503,075 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 125 42.4% 10 33.3% –– * –– * 35 19.4% 25 20.0% 221,795 44.1% 2006 Total All Households 1,195 100.0% 285 100.0% 290 100.0% 1,245 100.0% 635 100.0% 1,600,720 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 305 25.5% 45 15.8% 10 3.4% 180 14.5% 80 12.6% 465,865 29.1% Total Owner Households 920 100.0% 235 100.0% 230 100.0% 1,090 100.0% 560 100.0% 1,115,425 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 180 19.6% 30 12.8% 0 0.0% 155 14.2% 55 9.8% 253,820 22.8% Total Tenant Households 270 100.0% 55 100.0% 55 100.0% 160 100.0% 75 100.0% 485,295 100.0% Spending 30%+ on Shelter 130 48.1% 20 36.4% 0 0.0% 20 12.5% 25 33.3% 212,045 43.7% % Change: All Households 16.6% N/A 42.5% N/A –– * –– * -7.4% N/A -5.2% N/A 25.3% N/A % Change: All Households 30%+ 27.1% 9.0% 12.5% -21.1% –– * –– * -28.0% -22.2% -38.5% -35.1% 15.4% 2.4% % Change: Homeowners 30%+ 71.4% 37.0% 0.0% -29.8% –– * –– * -29.5% -24.7% -45.0% -46.0% 43.4% 19.4% % Change: Tenants 30%+ -3.7% 3.4% 100.0% 27.3% –– * –– * -42.9% -35.7% 0.0% 66.7% -6.4% -5.2%

Data Source: Statistics Canada 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census of Population (data may be subject to rounding and suppression) (NOTE: Corresponding data for 2011 is currently unavailable pending an August 14, 2013 scheduled release date from the National Household Survey) * The required Census of Population data is not currently available for analysis Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 108 -

• Invermere: − All households: the total number of households paying 30% or more of their income on housing increased by 27.1% between 1996 and 2006 while the percentage of households affected increased by 9.0%; − Homeowners: the total number of homeowners paying 30% or more of their income on housing increased by 71.4% while the percentage of homeowners affected increased by 37.0%; and − Renters: the total number of renters paying 30% or more of their income on housing decreased by -3.7% yet the percentage of renters affected increased by 3.4%. − In total, there were an estimated 65 more households living in Invermere experiencing affordability challenges in 2006 than in 1996. • Radium: − All households: the total number of households paying 30% or more of their income on housing increased by 12.5% between 1996 and 2006 while the percentage of households affected actually decreased by -21.1%; − Homeowners: the total number of homeowners paying 30% or more of their income on housing did not change during that time while the percentage of homeowners affected decreased by -29.8%; and − Renters: the total number of renters paying 30% or more of their income on housing may have doubled while the percentage of renters affected increased by 27.3%. − In total, there were an estimated 5 more households living in Radium experiencing affordability challenges in 2006 than in 1996. • Canal Flats: − There is insufficient data to provide an analysis of changing affordability rates over time. − In total, there were an estimated 10 households living in Canal Flats experiencing affordability challenges in 2006. • East Kootenay – Area F: − All households: the total number of households paying 30% or more of their income on housing decreased by -28.0% between 2001 and 2006 while the percentage of households affected decreased by -22.2%; − Homeowners: the total number of homeowners paying 30% or more of their income on housing decreased by -29.5% during that time while the percentage of homeowners affected decreased by -24.7%; and − Renters: the total number of renters paying 30% or more of their income on housing decreased by -42.9% while the percentage of renters affected decreased by -35.7%. − In total, there were an estimated 70 fewer households living in East Kootenay – Area F experiencing affordability challenges in 2006 than in 2001 (how much of this change is the result of Canal Flats being separated and removed from the East Kootenay – Area F enumeration boundaries in 2006 is unknown). • East Kootenay – Area G: − All households: the total number of households paying 30% or more of their income on housing decreased by -38.5% between 2001 and 2006 while the percentage of households affected decreased by -35.1%; − Homeowners: the total number of homeowners paying 30% or more of their income on housing decreased by -45.0% during that time while the percentage of homeowners affected decreased by -46.0%; and − Renters: the total number of renters paying 30% or more of their income on housing did not change; however, the percentage of renters affected actually increased by -66.7%. − In total, there were an estimated 50 fewer households living in East Kootenay – Area G experiencing affordability challenges in 2006 than in 2001.

- 109 -

Figure 6 compare the percentage of households in the Columbia Valley experiencing affordability challenges to the provincial and national averages in 2006. Note that data from Canal Flats has not been excluded due to the amount of data suppression observed in that community’s data for 2006.

Figure 6: Comparison of 2011 Households Spending 30% or More on Shelter in the Columbia Valley to the Provincial and National Averages

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census of Population (data are subject to rounding and suppression) Columbia Lake, Dutch Creek, Fairmont, Panorama, Rushmere, and Windermere are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area F while Brisco, Dry Gulch, Edgewater, Juniper Heights, Spillimacheen, and Wilmer are included in the data for East Kootenay – Area G.

- 110 -

According to this data, the percentage of households experiencing affordability challenges in 2006 (whether homeowners or renters) was lower than both the provincial and national averages in Radium, East Kootenay – Area F, and East Kootenay – Area G. In Invermere, the percentage of households experiencing affordability challenges in 2006 was higher than the national average and the percentage of renters experiencing affordability challenges was higher than the provincial average. However, the percentage of homeowners and all households combined experiencing affordability challenges was lower than the provincial average. There is insufficient data for Canal Flats to provide a similar analysis.

6.2 Analysis of BC Housing’s 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for the Columbia Valley

BC Housing publishes Housing Income Limits (HILs) – formerly Core Need Income Thresholds (CNITs) – on a regular basis for communities across the province. The most recent published HILs available are for 2013 (see Appendix A: 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for BC).

HILs are based on 30% of the median market rent in a community and are calculated according National Occupancy Standards, which set minimum criteria for the number of persons per bedroom in a home and the level of privacy for members of a household. These standards are reflected in BC Housing’s Occupancy Standards, which state the following:

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

BC Housing calculates HILs for bachelor, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom and four+-bedroom units. Households with annual incomes equal to or less than the HIL for the number of bedrooms they require are said to have insufficient incomes to afford the on-going costs of suitable and adequate rental units in their area (i.e., they are likely having to pay in excess of 30% of their gross/before-tax income in order to acquire safe, adequate and suitable median-rental housing – and are, therefore, potentially in “core housing need”). As a result, HILs are often used to determine eligibility for subsidized housing/rent subsidies14.

The cost of rental housing is used because of the difficulty tracking individual household mortgage payments – which vary greatly according a variety of factors, including:

(1) When the home was purchased (which affects the original purchase price of the home); (2) The size of the initial downpayment (which affects the total size of the original mortgage); (3) The particular interest rate and mortgage term (both of which affect the actual mortgage payments); and (4) Whether or not the household sought to refinance the mortgage (which may result in multiple mortgages with different terms and interest rates), etc..

Since HILs are based on the median market rent within a given community, they necessarily vary from community to community. Invermere lies within the Southern Planning Area of BC for which there are 20 published CNITs – one for each of 19 separate communities and a “Non-Market Areas” catch-all category (see Appendix A).

14 See BC Housing’s “Eligibility For RGI Units and Non-RGI Units” available online at http://www.bchousing.org/resources/HPK/Rent_Calculation/HPK_2_Eligibility_for_RGI_Units__Non_RGI_Units.pdf

- 111 -

Traditionally, HILs apply to the specific community identified and all other communities within a 30-kilometre radius15. In the case of Invermere, the closest communities with published HILs are Golden (approx. 120 km), Kimberley (approx. 120 km), Cranbrook (approx. 135 km), and Fernie16 (approx. 210 km). Since Invermere is more than 30 kilometres from either of these communities, it falls under the “Non-Market Areas” HILs.

Table 31 shows the 2013 HILs for the Southern BC Non-Market Areas along with those for Golden, Kimberley, Cranbrook, and Fernie/Elk Valley.

Table 31: 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for Non-Market Areas in the Southern BC Planning Area

Dwelling Size Non-Market Areas Golden (119km) Kimberley (122km) Cranbrook (133km) Fernie/Elk Valley (211km) Bachelor N/A $21,500 $20,000 $22,500 $20,000 One-Bedroom $57,000 $24,000 $23,000 $25,500 $23,000 Two-Bedroom $64,000 $32,500 $27,500 $31,500 $31,000 Three-Bedroom $73,000 $38,500 $32,000 $33,500 $38,000 Four+-Bedroom $78,000 $41,500 $35,000 $36,000 $41,500

Data Source BC Housing

Half of these HILs (i.e., those for 3-bedroom and 4+-bedroom units) exceed the moderate income limit which serves as the maximum total income a household can earn and still remain eligible for affordable housing built and/or operated under various provincial housing programs. Low-to-moderate-income households are defined by BC Housing “as those whose income level is within the second quintile of the total household income of two persons or more in British Columbia” regardless of household size. The current moderate income limit as of 2011 is $64,99917. As a result, an attempt to estimate the number of households earning incomes at or below the current HILs for Non-Market Areas in the Southern BC Planning Area is likely to produce an over-estimation of households actually in need of affordable housing (or at least the number of households who might potentially be eligible to access affordable housing). Furthermore, according to the 2010 Taxfiler data, there are an estimated 2,565 of the region’s 4,010 economic households (64.0%) potentially earning incomes at or below the BC Housing moderate income limit of $64,999. This includes an estimated:

• 945 couples with or without children (42.0%); • 260 lone-parent families (83.9%); and • 1,360 single individuals (93.8%).

Using BC Housing’s moderate income limit as an indicator of affordable housing needs would suggest that almost two-thirds of the Columbia Valley’s population in terms of households is potentially in need of affordable housing. This figure contradicts the data presented in Table 30 above – indicating that it likely vastly over-estimates actual affordable housing need in the Columbia Valley. Furthermore, an affordable rent for a household earning $64,999 per year based on CMHC’s 30% threshold for affordable rents would be $1,625 per month,

15 Consultations with staff from BC Housing. 16 Fernie uses the published HILs for Elk Valley. 17 http://www.bchousing.org/Find/faq/SRH/3620_1105161535-319 and http://www.bchousing.org/Options/affordable_rental/SRH

- 112 -

including utilities. Clearly, there are decent rental units available throughout the Columbia Valley (i.e., those that are safe, in good repair, and of sufficient size to avoid overcrowding for the average household living in the region) that rent for less than $1,625 per month, including utilities.

Thus, Table 32 provides a more conservative estimate of the number of households within the Columbia Valley that may be in core housing need using the published 2013 HILs for Golden (i.e., the closest community to Invermere with published HILs).

Table 32: Estimated Number of Households within the Columbia Valley by Community Earning Incomes At or Below the 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for Golden, BC.

Household Type Invermere 1 Invermere 2 Invermere 3 Invermere 4 Invermere 5 Athalmer Radium Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Couples 60 10.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 9.1% 0 0.0% 20 7.1% Lone Parents 45 34.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20 40.0% Singles 160 34.0% 10 25.0% 10 33.3% 25 25.0% 15 30.0% 15 37.5% 55 32.4% Total 265 22.5% 10 9.1% 10 9.1% 35 8.5% 25 15.6% 15 25.0% 95 19.0%

Household Type Canal Flats Fairmont 1 Fairmont 2 Panorama Windermere Brisco Edgewater Est. No. % Est. No % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Couples 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 33.3% 10 6.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Lone Parents 20 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 30 100.0% 0 0.0% 20 100.0% Singles 35 35.0% 25 25.0% 15 50.0% 85 70.1% 35 38.9% 10 33.3% 35 43.8% Total 55 15.7% 25 9.6% 15 12.5% 95 63.3% 75 26.8% 10 14.3% 55 22.0%

Data Sources: BC Housing 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) Statistics Canada Small Area Administrative Data Division Taxfiler Data (data are subject to rounding and suppression)

Based on these figures, a more conservative estimate of housing needs suggests a total of up to 785 economic households (24.8%) may be in need of more affordable housing in the Columbia Valley based on declared incomes in 2010 (i.e., these households are estimated to be earning incomes at or below a conservative estimate of HIL for the region using Golden’s HILs as the basis for the estimate rather than the much higher HILs for Non-Market Areas in the Southern BC Planning Area that are identified by BC Housing for use in the Columbia Valley). This includes:

• Invermere: est. 360 economic households (including 70 couples, 55 lone-parent families, and 235 single individuals); • Radium: est. 95 economic households (including 20 couples, 20 lone-parent families, and 55 single individuals); • Canal Flats: est. 55 economic households (including 20 lone-parent families and 35 single individuals); • East Kootenay – Area F: est. 210 economic households (including 20 couples, 30 lone-parent families, and 160 single individuals); and • East Kootenay – Area G: est. 65 economic households (including 20 lone-parent families and 45 single individuals).

- 113 -

It should be noted that these figures are estimates only based on available Taxfiler data for 2010 and the published 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for Golden. A combination of data rounding and suppression found in the Taxfiler data will affect the accuracy of these estimates (particularly in the smaller communities where the influence of data rounding and suppression is likely to be more pronounced. Furthermore, these figures represent households who are potentially in Core Housing Need (i.e., paying 30% or more of their income on housing) based solely on their declared income in 2010. A number of factors may lessen the extent of those households potentially in Core Housing Need as suggested above, including:

• Individual income improvements that have occurred since 2010; • Homeowners who have paid off their mortgages (and, therefore, may have lower annual housing expenses – i.e., limited to annual property taxes, basic repairs and ongoing general maintenance – that are well within or below the 30% affordability threshold); • Homeowners who purchased their homes any number of years ago at a more affordable level (and, therefore, may have combined mortgage and property tax payments that are well within or below the 30% affordability threshold); • Lone parents receiving child support or other income not normally declared on their tax returns; • Single individuals who share accommodations either out of choice (the desire to live together) or out of necessity (the need to share the cost of housing); and/or • Households (e.g., single individuals, lone-parent families, and couples with or without children) who currently live in homes, whether rented or owned, that are conducive to taking on roommates/boarders/tenants without leading to overcrowding, thus potentially increasing their available income and/or lowering their monthly housing expenses to within or below the 30% affordability threshold (i.e., multiple independent economic households living together within a physical dwelling unit).

Another important factor to recognize is that these figures represent economic households in need of affordable housing rather than census households. In most cases, the two definitions overlap for practical purposes. For example, a husband and wife family with children living in their own home without any roommates, borders or extended family members living with them would be considered both an economic household in the Taxfiler data and a census household in the Census of Population data. However, if that same family were to have one of the spouse’s mother living with them, then that census household would consist of two economic households (the husband and wife family with children is considered one economic household and the mother-in-law is considered another economic household). Similarly, a common law couple living together but filing both of their tax returns as single individuals would be considered two separate economic households in the Taxfiler data but a single census household in the Census of Population data. There is currently no way to determine or even estimate how many households identified in the Taxfiler data by income are currently co-habitating or with whom.

7.0 Estimates of Homelessness

7.1 Estimates of Households At-Risk of Becoming Homeless

Anyone who is not stably housed could potentially be at risk of homelessness. This would include an extremely wide range of people and situations – many of which need to be assessed on an individual, case-by-case basis. However, it is widely recognized that households living in poverty are more likely to be experiencing difficulties finding and maintaining stable housing than households earning higher incomes. The Low-Income Cutoff (LICO) is Canada’s unofficial poverty line. LICO looks at what an average household spends on basic needs (food, clothing, and shelter) to determine at what income level households may be unable to meet their basic needs. The most recent estimate, adjusted for inflation, indicates that the average household spends 63% of its after-tax (net) income on basic needs18. If a household needs to spend more than 63% of its after-tax (net) income on basic needs, it is

18 Statistics Canada, Income Statistics Division (June 2012) Low Income Lines, 2010-2011, Catalogue no. 75F0002M — No. 002, p. 7.

- 114 -

considered to be low income. While the measure is not designed specifically to assess poverty19, the LICO is often used as such. Rather, Statistics Canada uses the LICO to estimate the number of households likely to be living under what it calls “straitened circumstances.”

It should be noted, however, that LICO may not necessarily take into consideration the cost of utilities. Rising utility costs can have a significant impact on affordability and housing stability. For some households, rising utilities costs can further erode already limited disposable income and put them “over the edge” in terms of their financial and housing stability. Nor does LICO take into consideration regional variations (LICOs are nation-wide measures). For example, a rural community of a particular size shares the same LICO with other rural communities across the country of the same general size. However, the combined cost of food, clothing and shelter may not be the same in small rural communities across the country but they will all share the same LICO.

Table 33 shows the 2011 before-tax LICOs for the Columbia Valley (i.e., for rural communities outside Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and Census Agglomerations (CAs)).

Table 33: 2011 Low Income Cut-offs (LICOs) for Rural Communities

Household Size Low-Income Cutoffs 1 1-Person Households $16,038 2-Person Households $19,966 3-Person Households $24,545 4-Person Households $29,802 5-Person Households $33,800 6-Person Households $38,122 7+-Person Households $42,443

Data Source: Statistics Canada 2 Based on the 2011 before-tax LICOs for rural communities outside Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and Census Agglomerations (CAs)

By combining LICO data with Taxfiler data (Table 34 – next page), it is possible to estimate the number of households for each community within the Columbia Valley who are low income (i.e., living at or below Canada’s unofficial poverty line). Households who are low income are more likely to be experiencing housing challenges and, therefore, potentially at risk of becoming homeless.

19 Statistics Canada makes it clear that the LICO is not a measure of actual poverty. However, it is one of several standard measures accepted across the country as just that.

- 115 -

Table 34: Estimated Number of Households within the Columbia Valley by Community Earning Incomes At or Below the 2011 Low-Income Cutoffs (LICO) for Rural Areas

Invermere 1 Invermere 2 Invermere 3 Invermere 4 Invermere 5 Athalmer Radium Household Type Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Couples 30 5.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 3.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 3.6% Lone Parents 30 23.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 20.0% Singles 85 18.1% 0 0.0% 10 33.3% 10 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 35 20.6% Total 145 12.3% 0 0.0% 10 9.1% 40 9.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 55 11.0%

Canal Flats Fairmont 1 Fairmont 2 Panorama Windermere Brisco Edgewater Household Type Est. No. % Est. No % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Couples 10 4.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 33.3% 10 6.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Lone Parents 10 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Singles 15 15.0% 10 10.0% 10 33.3% 65 54.2% 20 22.2% 10 33.3% 20 25.0% Total 35 10.0% 10 3.8% 10 8.3% 75 50.0% 40 14.3% 10 14.3% 20 8.0%

Data Sources: BC Housing 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) Statistics Canada Small Area Administrative Data Division Taxfiler Data (data are subject to rounding and suppression)

A recent publication describing rural homelessness from both an international and a Canadian perspective 20 provides a potentially more regionally-specific methodology for estimating the number of households in the Columbia Valley who are potentially at-risk of becoming homeless – recognizing the limits of LICO:

“For the purposes of this chapter, at-risk of homelessness refers to anyone at risk of not have [sic.] their own place to stay because they are spending 50 percent or more of gross household income on shelter costs regardless of tenure, or because they lack security of tenure.” 21

As mentioned above, households earning incomes at or below the Housing Income Limits (HILs) are likely to be paying 30% or more of their income on housing. CMHC uses the term “In Need and paying At Least Half” (INALH) to describe those households who are paying 50% or more of their before-tax (gross) income on housing. However, for the purpose of this study, these households will be described as being in “dire” housing need and, therefore, potentially are risk of homelessness. Using HIL data, it is possible to estimate the incomes at which households would likely be paying 50% or more of their income in order to acquire safe, adequate and suitable median-rental housing. Households who would be considered in “Dire” housing need are earning incomes at or below what might be referred to as “dire need income levels” (or DNILs). Combining this data with Taxfiler data (Table 35 – next page), offers a second estimate of the number of households who are potentially at risk of homelessness in the Columbia Valley.

20 Cloke, P. and P. Milbourne, Editors (2013) International Perspectives on Rural Homelessness, Routledge. 21 Ibid., “Chapter 5: Homelessness in rural and small town Canada” (David Bruce), p. 64.

- 116 -

Table 35: Estimated Number of Households within the Columbia Valley by Community Earning Incomes At or Below DNIL (i.e., Potentially Paying 50% or More for MMR)

Invermere 1 Invermere 2 Invermere 3 Invermere 4 Invermere 5 Athalmer Radium Household Type Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Couples 30 5.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 3.7% 10 9.1% 0 0.0% 10 3.6% Lone Parents 20 15.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 20.0% Singles 60 12.8% 0 0.0% 10 33.3% 10 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 40 23.5% Total 110 9.3% 0 0.0% 10 9.1% 30 7.3% 10 6.3% 0 0.0% 60 12.0%

Canal Flats Fairmont 1 Fairmont 2 Panorama Windermere Brisco Edgewater Household Type Est. No. % Est. No % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Est. No. % Couples 10 4.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 33.3% 10 6.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Lone Parents 10 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Singles 5 5.0% 10 10.0% 5 16.7% 55 45.8% 15 16.7% 5 16.7% 20 25.0% Total 25 7.1% 10 3.8% 5 4.2% 65 43.3% 35 12.5% 5 7.1% 20 8.0%

Data Sources: BC Housing 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) Statistics Canada Small Area Administrative Data Division Taxfiler Data (data are subject to rounding and suppression)

Based on these combined figures, a conservative estimate of housing needs suggests a total of 380 – 455 economic households in the Columbia Valley (12.2% - 14.2%) may be paying 50% or more of their income on housing and, therefore, potentially at risk of becoming homeless if their housing needs are not being meet. This includes:

• Invermere: est. 160 – 195 economic households (including 40 – 50 couples, 30 – 50 lone-parent families, and 80 – 105 single individuals); • Radium: est. 55 – 60 economic households (including up to 10 couples, up to 10 lone-parent families, and 35 – 40 single individuals); • Canal Flats: est. 25 – 35 economic households (including up to 10 couples, up to 10 lone-parent families, and 5 – 15 single individuals); • East Kootenay – Area F: est. 115 – 135 economic households (including up to 20 couples, up to 10 lone-parent families, and 85 – 105 single individuals); and • East Kootenay – Area G: est. 25 – 30 economic households (all estimated to be single individuals).

Once again, these figures are estimates only based on available Taxfiler data for 2010, calculations of “Dire” housing need based on the published 2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for Golden, and the 2011 Low-Income Cutoffs. A combination of data rounding and suppression found in the Taxfiler data will affect the accuracy of these estimates (particularly in the smaller communities where the influence of data rounding and suppression is likely to be more pronounced. Furthermore, these figures represent households who are potentially paying 50% or more of their income on housing based solely on their declared income in 2010. A number of factors may reduce the figures presented above, including:

• Individual income improvements that have occurred since 2010;

- 117 -

• Homeowners who have paid off their mortgages (and, therefore, may have lower annual housing expenses – i.e., limited to annual property taxes, basic repairs and ongoing general maintenance – that are well within or below the 30% affordability threshold); • Homeowners who purchased their homes any number of years ago at a more affordable level (and, therefore, may have combined mortgage and property tax payments that are well within or below the 30% affordability threshold); • Lone parents receiving child support or other income not normally declared on their tax returns; • Single individuals who share accommodations either out of choice (the desire to live together) or out of necessity (the need to share the cost of housing); and/or • Households (e.g., single individuals, lone-parent families, and couples with or without children) who currently live in homes, whether rented or owned, that are conducive to taking on roommates/boarders/tenants without leading to overcrowding, thus potentially increasing their available income and/or lowering their monthly housing expenses to within or below the 30% affordability threshold (i.e., multiple independent economic households living together within a physical dwelling unit).

7.2 Estimates of Absolute Homelessness

While the body of literature dealing specifically with rural homeless is growing, there is still very little research on rural homelessness when compared to research on urban homelessness. As a result, there are currently no published estimates within the Canadian context of either the number or percentage of individuals and families within rural communities who may be currently experiencing homelessness. According to the Federal Government:

“It is inherently challenging to count a population that lacks a permanent address or fixed location, that includes many “hidden homeless,” and that is always in flux as people move in and out of homelessness. Statistics Canada assessed the feasibility of conducting various types of homelessness counts at the national level, and estimated that a comprehensive count of the homeless could be prohibitively expensive ($10 million) and present important methodological challenges.”22

There are two dominant methods for counting the homeless population. One method involves service-based counts of the sheltered homeless population, whereby existing shelter agencies throughout the community are each contacted on a single day and asked to record the total number of individuals accessing housing and supports. The second method (usually conducted in tandem with a service-based count) involves point-in-time counts of the unsheltered homeless population, whereby teams of volunteers go out into the streets on a single day and physically count and attempt to enumerate (i.e., obtain demographic data) all of the homeless individuals they see.

Two key challenges exist for rural communities attempting to enumerate their homeless populations. First is the lack of emergency shelters upon which to conduct service-based counts. Second is the sheer geographic scope of conducting a point-in-time count of the unsheltered homeless across a vast rural area.23

In the U.S., extensive state-by-state counts of the country’s homeless population have been conducted through Federal funding for homelessness based on Homeless Continua of Care (CoCs) – which are large geographic areas comprised of both urban and rural communities. In 2007, the National Alliance to End Homelessness published a report summarizing

22 Echenberg, Havi and Hilary Jensen, Social Affairs Division, Government of Canada (29 December 2008) Defining and Enumerating Homelessness in Canada, Social Affairs Division, Library of Parliament. Publication PRB 08-30E (page 5). 23 The City of Calgary, which has been conducting biennial counts of its homeless population since 1992, has stopped doing point-in-time counts of the homeless as of 2008. Reasons include concerns about the safety of the volunteers doing the point-in-time counts and that the geographic distribution of street homelessness in Calgary has reached such an extent that it is no longer viable or cost effective to gain an accurate count of that population.

- 118 -

the number of homeless by state throughout the U.S. based on CoC funding of homeless counts in 200524 with additional research being published in 2009.25 The 2009 research focused on five (5) different geographic categories:

• Urban: individual cities, urban counties, or regions made up entirely of urban counties; • Mostly Urban: areas in which 80% or more of the counties are urban and/or more than 80% of the general population resides in the urban areas; • Rural: individual rural counties or a group of counties that is almost entirely rural in composition; • Mostly Rural: areas where more than 80% of the counties are rural and/or more than 80% of the general population resides in rural areas; and • Urban-Rural Mix: areas that are not sufficiently urban to be classified as “mostly urban” and not sufficiently rural to be considered “mostly rural”.

An examination of 2011 Census of Population data provided by Statistics Canada suggests that the Columbia Valley would be considered an “urban-rural mix” per the National Alliance to End Homelessness’s definitions.

According to this research, incidence rates of homelessness varied greatly from state to state – from a low of 0.04% (4 individuals for every 10,000 population) to a high of 1.04% (104 individuals for every 10,000 population). The research also shows that it is not necessarily the most urbanized states that have the highest incidence rates of homelessness or those states with the mildest climates. For example, Alaska (which ranked #8 in 2007 and #10 in 2010 in terms of the percentage of the population deemed homeless) also scored in the top 10 of the coldest states in the U.S. based on state-wide average temperatures26 and is considered “mostly rural” according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness research27.

There were an estimated 10,625 residents living within the Columbia Valley in 2011 (see Chapter 1, Table 1 on page 9). Applying the estimated average of 12 homeless persons per 10,000 total population (i.e., 0.12%) identified by the National Alliance to End Homelessness for communities classified as “urban-rural mix” suggests that there may be as many as 10 – 15 individuals currently experiencing varying degrees of homelessness within the region. A number of these homeless individuals may be youth. According to Raising the Roof, “(i)t has been estimated that one-third of Canada’s homeless population are youth. On any given night, that means close to 65,000 young people are without a place to call home.”28 If these estimates accurately reflect homelessness in the Columbia Valley, there may be as many as five (5) homeless youth in the region.

Feedback from staff at the Family Resource Centre support these estimates. While a homeless count has not been conducted for the region, feedback indicates that during the warmer months (e.g., spring through fall), homeless individuals and families (including families with children) are living in the region – staying in tents, trailers and even temporary structures in the forested areas surrounding the communities in the valley either because they have recently become homeless or they are making that choice in order to manage the cost of maintaining shelter.

24 National Alliance to End Homelessness (January 2007) Homelessness Counts: Research Reports on Homelessness. 25 http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/2437 (accessed May 1, 2012) 26 http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/coldest-states.php (accessed May 4, 2012) 27 http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/2437 (accessed May 1, 2012). 28 Raising the Roof – Bulletin July 2006. As cited in Youth Centres Canada (2006) Rural Youth Facts: TYPS 2006 Background Paper, p. 1.

- 119 -

8.0 Housing Priorities

The above analyses demonstrate a hierarchy of housing needs. Based on the estimated percentage of households affected throughout the Columbia Valley, that hierarchy is as follows:

• Affordability – est. 3.4% - 25.5% of households; • Adequacy (i.e., homes in need of major repairs) – est. 2.8% - 15.5% of households; • Suitability (i.e., overcrowding) – est. 0.0% - 3.4% of households; and • Accessibility – est. 0.7% - 1.25% of the population.

Other issues affecting housing needs in the Columbia Valley described in earlier chapters include:

• An ageing population (and the anticipated need for additional seniors’ housing over the next 15-20 years); • Increasing housing costs (and an increasing number of households experiencing housing challenges including but not limited to affordability); and • Loss of rental housing for those who have not yet entered the housing market (including those who are unable to purchase a home based on their income).

8.1 Affordable Rental Housing Target Groups

There are four (4) primary targets for the Columbia Valley in need of affordable rental housing as follows:

(1) The high-needs group consisting of households whose annual incomes fall at or below the Statistics Canada Low-Income Cutoffs (LICO) for rural communities (i.e., those households whose incomes potentially place them in “dire” housing need and, therefore, potentially at risk of homelessness); (2) The moderate-needs group consisting of households earning annual incomes above Statistics Canada’s LICO for rural communities but below BC Housing’s HILs (i.e., those households whose incomes potentially place them in Core Housing Need); and (3) The special needs group consisting of individuals (regardless of their income) who are currently unable to meet their housing needs due to the presence of a disability (i.e., seniors and persons with developmental disabilities who are unable to remain in their own homes and require ongoing supports); and (4) The homeless (i.e., people in need of short-term emergency and/or transitional shelter and supports to help them regain and maintain long-term, stable housing on their own).

Individuals and households in the high-needs target group will likely require ongoing subsidies in the form of rent-geared-to-income housing or rent supplements. Individuals and households in the moderate-needs target group will likely benefit from a combination of rent supplements and near-market affordable rental housing. Individuals and households in the special needs target group will require a combination of supportive housing, group homes, Assisted Living and/or Residential/Long-Term Care. Individuals and households who are homeless (or at risk of becoming homeless) will benefit most from the provision of permanent, stable, long-term affordable housing with or without supports provided on a case-by-case basis in keeping with Housing First models and best practices. Those groups most likely to be in either of these target groups include:

• Lone-parent families;

- 120 -

• Low- and modest-income two-parent families with children; • Low-income singles and childless couples; • Persons with special needs (physical or developmental disabilities); • Seniors with limited or no assets; • Parents with children leaving abusive relationships; • Persons with mental illness or substance abuse challenges; and • People with limited savings who have recently lost their job or experienced other significant financial disruptions.

It should be noted that there is likely to be overlap between these groups. For example, individuals with special needs are more likely to be either in the high- or moderate-needs target group if their disabilities limit their ability to gain and maintain stable employment. Individuals and households who have become homeless are more likely to have previously been in either the high-, moderate-, or special needs target group and were unable to find appropriate solutions to meet their housing needs. Alternatively, they may not have been in either of those groups but ran into financial, personal, and/or housing difficulties that were severe enough to force them to either lose or flee from their home (e.g., foreclosure, eviction, fleeing domestic violence, etc.). Another important segment of the homeless population (up to one-third) consists of youth who have either chosen or been forced by their parent(s)/caregiver(s) to move out of their family home.

8.2 Affordable Rental Housing Targets

According to the Taxfiler data analyses presented above, there may be as many as 785 economic households in the Columbia Valley in need of affordable housing (i.e., a conservative estimate of the total number of households potentially in Core Housing Need – paying 30% or more of their income on housing). Further analysis suggests that approximately 50 – 55% of those who are in Core Housing Need (380 – 455 households) may be in “dire” housing need (i.e., paying 50% or more of their income on housing and, therefore, potentially at risk of homelessness).

Assuming that half of this estimated need for affordable housing in the region is already being met (whether by people who have managed to find appropriate housing on their own through the private rental and ownership markets or by people who are currently accessing various housing supports through BC Housing) suggests a current need for up to 395 additional affordable homes in the Columbia Valley to meet the needs of the four (4) target groups identified above.

8.2.1 Anticipated Rental Housing Need for the Homeless Target Group

As mentioned above, there are an estimated 10 – 15 homeless individuals currently in the Columbia Valley, of which up to five (5) may be homeless youth. This indicates a need for up to 15 supportive housing spaces and supports specifically designed using a Housing First approach to help homeless families and individuals regain and maintain long-term, stable, affordable housing.

Meeting the needs of homeless youth, adults and families in the Columbia Valley would result in an estimated 390 affordable housing units (395 – 15 = 390 units) needed for the remaining target groups.

- 121 -

8.2.2 Anticipated Rental Housing Need for the Special Needs Target Group

It is unknown how many special needs residents living in the Columbia Valley currently have a disability that requires supportive housing. However, it is recognized that older, non- senior individuals with a disability may be eligible to access seniors’ housing programs and supports. As discussed in Chapter 4 (section 5.3), there are currently an estimated 153 seniors’ housing spaces available in the Columbia Valley that are housing a combination of seniors and non-seniors with special needs and a current projected need of up to 140 units. It is expected that the individuals currently living in those units fall within one or more of the target groups listed above.

The availability of these 153 units suggests that the remainder of the unmet need for affordable housing should focus on the last two target groups. This suggests an estimated 235 – 240 units (390 – 153 = 237) are needed for the non-homeless, non-senior, and non-special-needs households who are currently paying 30% or more of their income on housing because they are unable to find affordable alternatives in the region.

8.2.3 Anticipated Rental Housing Need for the High Needs and Moderate Needs Target Groups

As mentioned above, up to 55% of those paying 30% or more of their income on housing are estimated to be paying more than half of their income on housing. These households are potentially at risk of homelessness. Allocating 45% of the remaining 235 – 240 affordable housing units needed in the Columbia Valley to modest-income households (e.g., households earning incomes between $25,000 and $40,000) and 55% to low-income households (e.g., households earning incomes under $25,000) would result in a total of 105 – 110 units for modest-income households and 130 – 135 units for low-income households.

The anticipated distribution of these units is as follows:

• Invermere: 105 – 110 units (40-45% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 40 – 50 units − Low-Income: 55 – 65 units • Radium: 25 – 35 units (10-15% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 10 – 15 units − Low-Income: 15 – 20 units • Canal Flats: 15 – 20 units (5-10% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 5 – 10 units − Low-Income: 10 – 15 units • East Kootenay – Area F: 65 – 75 units (25-30% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 30 – 35 units − Low-Income: 35 – 40 units • East Kootenay – Area G: 15 – 20 units (5-10% of the total need) − Modest-Income: 5 – 10 units − Low-Income: 10 – 15 units

- 122 -

8.3 Affordable Homeownership Target Group and Affordable Price Ranges

Housing for this target group would focus on a combination of entry-level market homeownership and limited or shared-equity perpetually affordable homeownership (i.e., resale- restricted near-market and entry-level homeownership). These housing options should be affordable to households earning incomes between $25,000 and $50,000. The estimated affordable purchase prices for households in this target group would range from approximately $100,000 to $225,000 depending on unit size, actual income, current mortgage rates, mortgage terms, size of downpayment, and other debts.

There is insufficient data to estimate the number of households that might fall into this target group as it is unknown how many households within this income range already own a home in the Columbia Valley or how many households within this income range do not wish to own a home in the Columbia Valley. Identifying appropriate estimates for this target group will therefore require more detailed market analyses and possibly the creation of a non-profit or municipality-driven housing registry to pre-quality potential households and identify specific housing projects/solutions.

9.0 Conclusion

Low- and modest-income households are likely to have fewer housing options available to them than higher-income households. Households with limited housing options are more likely to experience any number of challenges. Housing challenges and/or hardships fall into four standard categories:

In the Columbia Valley, there appears to be a hierarchy of housing needs based on the estimated number and percentage of households affected. Housing affordability is the biggest issue, followed by housing adequacy (homes in need of major repairs), housing accessibility, and finally overcrowding. It is unknown how many households may be experiencing a combination of affordability, adequacy, suitability and/or accessibility challenges at the same time.

Using data from Statistics Canada data from 2006 (the most recent data currently available pending release of data from the National Household Survey), it is estimated that:

• Up to 620 households in the Columbia Valley were paying 30% or more of their income on shelter in 2006 (between 3.4% and 25.5% of households depending on the community); • Up to 365 homes in the Columbia Valley may be in need of major repairs in 2006 (between 2.8% and 15.5% of homes depending on the community); • Up to 140 residents in the Columbia Valley may currently need of more accessible housing (0.7% - 1.25% of the population); and • Overcrowding does not appear to be a major issue in the Columbia Valley (at least not in 2006).

- 123 -

2013 BC Assessment data indicates the estimated number of homes in need of major repairs may be high. However, an analysis comparing 2010 Taxfiler data to the 2013 Housing Income Limits published by BC Housing suggests that the affordability limits may be low. This analysis suggests that there may be as many as 785 economic households in the Columbia Valley (24.8%) currently in Core Housing Need (i.e., paying 30% or more of their before-tax income on housing) of which an estimated 380 – 455 economic households currently living in the Columbia Valley (12.2% - 14.2%) are potentially in “dire” housing need (i.e., paying 50% or more of their before-tax income on housing) and, therefore, potentially at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, there may be as many as 10 – 15 individuals in the Columbia Valley who are currently experiencing homelessness (including up to 5 homeless youth).

Other issues affecting housing needs in the Columbia Valley include an ageing population (and the anticipated need for additional seniors’ housing over the next 15-20 years), increasing housing costs (and an increasing number of households experiencing housing challenges including but not limited to affordability), and further loss of rental housing for those who have not yet entered the housing market (including those who are unable to purchase a home based on their income).

Based on the analyses presented in this chapter as well as those presented throughout this document, there are four (4) primary targets for the Columbia Valley in need of affordable rental housing as follows:

The following affordable rental housing targets for the Columbia Valley are suggested to meet the needs of these target groups:

• Up to 15 supportive housing spaces and supports specifically designed using a Housing First approach to help homeless families and individuals regain and maintain long-term, stable, affordable housing; • 140 – 155 housing units/spaces for seniors and non-seniors with special needs; and • 235 – 240 affordable rental housing units for low- and modest-income households (i.e., households earning incomes under $40,000) as follows: − Invermere: 105 – 110 units (40-45% of the total need) ! Modest-Income: 40 – 50 units ! Low-Income: 55 – 65 units − Radium: 25 – 35 units (10-15% of the total need) ! Modest -Income: 10 – 15 units ! Low-Income: 15 – 20 units

- 124 -

− Canal Flats: 15 – 20 units (5-10% of the total need) ! Modest -Income: 5 – 10 units ! Low-Income: 10 – 15 units − East Kootenay – Area F: 65 – 75 units (25-30% of the total need) ! Modest -Income: 30 – 35 units ! Low-Income: 35 – 40 units − East Kootenay – Area G: 15 – 20 units (5-10% of the total need) ! Modest -Income: 5 – 10 units ! Low-Income: 10 – 15 units

There is also an anticipated need for additional affordable homeownership in the Columbia Valley designed for modest-income households, including young professionals just starting their careers and people of all ages and walks of life who have only recently attempted to enter the local housing market (including first-time homebuyers who have only recently moved to the Columbia Valley). Housing for this target group would focus on a combination of entry-level market homeownership and limited or shared-equity perpetually affordable homeownership (i.e., resale-restricted near-market and entry-level homeownership). These housing options should be affordable to households earning incomes between $25,000 and $50,000. The estimated affordable purchase prices for households in this target group would range from approximately $100,000 to $225,000 depending on unit size, actual income, current mortgage rates, mortgage terms, size of downpayment, and other debts.

- 125 -

Appendix A

2013 Housing Income Limits (HILs) for BC