Regular Meeting of Council
AGENDA
Date: 2020.05.26 Location: Council Chambers Time: 7:00 p.m. 413 Fourth Street, Kaslo
1. Call to Order 2. Delegations Nil 3. Addition of Late Items 4. Adoption of the Agenda 5. Adoption of the Minutes a. REGULAR 2020.05.12 b. COW 2020.05.19 6. Committee/Commissions – For Information Nil 7. Committee/Commissions – Recommendations to Council Nil 8. Mayor, Councillor and Staff Reports a. Councillor Reports b. Mayor’s Report c. CAO Report 9. Unfinished Business a. Citizen of the Year 10. Correspondence a. Hendricks Garage Building 2020.05.16 b. AKBLG Resolutions c. Minister Robinson’s May 7 Regional Call d. Old Bowling Green 2020.05.19 e. Child & Youth Care Week 11. Communications for Information a. 2020.05.26 Circulation Package 12. Finance a. Accounts Payable Report 13. Bylaws 14. New Business a. 2020 Spring Recreation Grant b. Village Reopening Plan c. FLO EV Charging Station d. Zincton Expression of Interest e. Housing Needs Assessment Preliminary Report f. Temporary Expanded Service g. 2020 JVH Graduation parade 15. Late Items 16. Public Question Period A maximum of 15 minutes is available for members of the public and media in attendance to ask questions of Council. 17. Closed (in-Camera) Meeting The public is excluded under Sections 90(1) (a), (c), (e) and (j) of the Community Charter regarding labour, land and legal matters. 18. Matters Arising from Closed Meeting 19. Adjourn
Regular Meeting of Council
MINUTES
Date: 2020.05.12 Location: Council Chambers Time: 7:00 p.m. 413 Fourth Street, Kaslo
Present: CHAIR: Mayor Hewat Councillors: Knoll, Van Mill (in person) Lang, Leathwood (by videoconference) Staff: CAO Dunlop Regrets: Public: 2
1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Delegations Nil 3. Addition of Late Items a. Municipal & Recreation Grants b. Kaslo SAR Informal Parade c. May Pole Celebration Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT the late items be added to the agenda. 4. Adoption of the Agenda Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT the Agenda for the 2020.05.12 meeting of Council be adopted as amended with the addition of the late items. 5. Adoption of the Minutes a. REGULAR 2020.04.28 b. SPECIAL 2020.05.05 Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT the Minutes for the 2020.04.28 Regular Meeting of Council and the 2020.05.05 Special Meeting of Council be adopted as presented. 6. Committee/Commissions – For Information Nil 7. Committee/Commissions – Recommendations to Council Nil
8. Mayor, Councillor and Staff Reports a. Councillor Reports Councillor Knoll reported on the Eco Society meeting. CAO Dunlop and Councillor Knoll will arrange a 90-minute online meeting with Matt Murray from the Eco Society. Councillor Lang reported on attending the Economic Development Committee meeting. Councillor Van Mill reported on his Zoom meetings with the Economic Development Committee, the Kaslo and Area Chamber of Commerce and Factor 5. b. Mayor’s Report Mayor Hewat summarized her written report and noted the 2020.05.11 Economic Development Committee meeting outcomes and her interview with CBC. c. CAO Report CAO Dunlop summarized his written report and answered questions about reopening public toilets and signage. Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT Council receive the reports. 9. Unfinished Business a. 2019 Audited Financial Statements Moved, seconded and CARRIED 95/2020 THAT the 2019 Audited Financial Statements are received and approved. 10. Correspondence a. 2020.04.24 Health Canada Strategic Policy Branch in reply to 2020.03.02 letter from the Village Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT the item of correspondence is received for information. b. 2020.04.05 Kaslo Racquet Club RE: Plans to Open DTS Staff directed to reply to the Racquet Club to confirm plans are acceptable. Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT the item of correspondence is received for information. c. 2020.04.30 Stick and Stone Letter of Support Request Moved, seconded and CARRIED 96/2020 THAT the Mayor endorse the letter of support of the Association of Canadian Cannabis Retailers (ACCRES). 11. Communications for Information a. 2020.05.12 Circulation Package Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT the Circulation Package for 2020.05.12 is received for information.
2020.05.12 Regular Meeting of Council MINUTES 12. Finance a. Accounts Payable Report Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT the Accounts Payable report dated May 6, 2020 in the amount of $66,806.84 be received. 13. Bylaws a. Five Year Financial Plan 2020-2024 Moved, seconded and CARRIED 97/2020 THAT the 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan Bylaw be adopted. b. Tax Rates 2020 Moved, seconded and CARRIED 98/2020 THAT the 2020 Tax Rates Bylaw be adopted. c. Water Parcel Tax 2020 Moved, seconded and CARRIED 99/2020 THAT third reading of the 2020 Water Parcel Tax Bylaw is rescinded. Moved, seconded and CARRIED 100/2020 THAT the 2020 Water Parcel Tax Bylaw be amended by changing the total actual frontage and total taxable frontage in section 5 to the updated tax roll frontage values. Moved, seconded and CARRIED 101/2020 THAT the 2020 Water Parcel Tax Bylaw is read a third time by content. Moved, seconded and CARRIED 102/2020 THAT the 2020 Water Parcel Tax Bylaw be adopted. d. Amend Sewer Regulation Bylaw #1121, Sewer Specified Area Bylaw #859 and Fees & Charges Bylaw #1249 (Sewer Rates) Moved, seconded and CARRIED 103/2020 THAT third reading of the 2020 Sewer Fees and Specified Area Amendment Bylaw is rescinded. Moved, seconded and CARRIED 104/2020 THAT Schedule ‘L’ to 2020 Sewer Fees and Specified Area Amendment Bylaw be amended as presented. Moved, seconded and CARRIED 105/2020 THAT the 2020 Sewer Fees and Specified Area Amendment Bylaw is read a third time by content. Moved, seconded and CARRIED 106/2020 THAT the 2020 Sewer Fees and Specified Area Amendment Bylaw be adopted.
2020.05.12 Regular Meeting of Council MINUTES 14. New Business a. COVID-19 Response and Recovery Committee Moved, seconded and CARRIED 107/2020 THAT the Terms of Reference for the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Committee of Council be adopted. b. Kootenay Car Share Parking Space Request DTS Staff directed to reply to the Car Share and see if there are other more appropriate locations. Moved, seconded and CARRIED 108/2020 THAT the request from Kootenay Car Share for a dedicated parking space at the northeast corner of A Avenue and Fourth Street is denied. c. Applications for Development Variance Permits i. 331 D Avenue – Raffo/Lynch RE: Interior yard setback for accessory building studio/office addition Moved, seconded and CARRIED 109/2020 THAT Council directs staff to undertake written notification to the owners and tenants of land within 60 metres of the property subject to Application for Development Variance Permit DVP-02-2020 in accordance with the Local Government Act and Village of Kaslo Development Procedures Bylaw No. 1131, of Council’s intention to consider Development Variance Permits DVP- 02-2020 at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 9, 2020. ii. 231 A Avenue – Ferncase RE: Interior yard setback for residential dwelling addition Moved, seconded and CARRIED 110/2020 THAT Council directs staff to undertake written notification to the owners and tenants of land within 60 metres of the property subject to Application for Development Variance Permit DVP-03-2020 in accordance with the Local Government Act and Village of Kaslo Development Procedures Bylaw No. 1131, of Council’s intention to consider Development Variance Permits DVP- 03-2020 at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 9, 2020. 15. Late Items a. Municipal & Recreation Grants Moved, seconded and CARRIED 111/2020 THAT recipients of the Recreation Grants or Municipal Grants for events or programs affected by COVID-19 are hereby given an extension to the end of 2021 to carry out their plans and report back on their use of the funds. b. Kaslo SAR Informal Parade Moved, seconded and CARRIED 112/2020 THAT Council approves the request for an informal parade at 7:00pm on Monday, May 18 and directs staff to coordinate with the organizers. c. May Pole Dance
2020.05.12 Regular Meeting of Council MINUTES Moved, seconded and CARRIED 113/2020 THAT Council approves having a May Pole ribbon display in Vimy Park on Monday, May 18 to honour and continue the longest-running May Pole Dance in North America. 16. Public Question Period Questions about whether tree planting plan RFP has been released. Staff replied that the proposal is still outstanding and will come to Council for approval on May 26. Questions on the Eco Society meeting and reduction in fees. 17. Closed (in-Camera) Meeting Moved, seconded and CARRIED THAT Council now recess and reconvene in-camera with the public excluded under Sections 90(1) (a), (e), (f), (g), and (j) of the Community Charter. The open meeting recessed at 7:57 p.m. The open meeting reconvened at 9:06 p.m. 18. Matters Arising from Closed Meeting Moved, seconded, and CARRIED IC16 THAT the plans for the Taqueria El Corazon patio license of occupation are received; and, THAT Council approves the temporary expansion of the unlicensed area of the patio provided that the owner meets all building permit requirements, provides proof of liability insurance naming the Village as an insured party, and the expansion does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Moved, seconded, and CARRIED IC17 THAT the Downtown Commercial Temporary LOC “Base fee (b) annual fee per parking stall or 20 linear feet of unmarked public parking frontage rendered unusable by the issuance of the license” in Schedule ‘B’ of the Village Of Kaslo Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 1249 for restaurant patios be temporarily reduced by 50% in response to COVID-19 and the resulting shortened 2020 operating season. Moved, seconded, and CARRIED IC18 THAT Councillor Knoll, Councillor Van Mill, Paul Heofer, Daphne Hunter, Jean- Marc LaFlamme, Randy Morse and Kul Nijjar are appointed to the COVID-19 Response & Recovery Committee. 19. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. CERTIFIED CORRECT:
______Chief Administrative Officer Mayor Hewat
2020.05.12 Regular Meeting of Council MINUTES
Committee of the Whole
AGENDA with Recommendations
Date: 2020.05.19 Location: Council Chambers Time: 7:00 p.m. 413 Fourth Street, Kaslo
Present: CHAIR: Lang Mayor: Hewat Councillors: Knoll, Van Mill (in person) Leathwood (by videoconference) Staff: CAO Dunlop Regrets: Public:
1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. Delegations Nil 3. Addition of Late Items 4. Adoption of the Agenda Moved and CARRIED THAT the Agenda for the 2020.05.19 Committee of the Whole meeting of Council be adopted as presented. 5. Adoption of the Minutes Nil 6. Business a. Front Street Park DTS Staff will report back on contracting a project manager to oversee the construction b. Kaslo River Bridge MoTI plans for the closure of River Lane at Hwy 31 were discussed. c. Housing Needs Assessment Preliminary Report The draft report was discussed and will be on the next Council agenda to decide if there will be a formal response with feedback from the Village. d. Waterfront and Municipal Parks The 2018 Waterfront and Municipal Parks Strategy including Maintenance Standards and Guidelines was discussed. Discussion noted that the report was received but not adopted due to complications in how it could be executed. Parks planning will be referred to the OCP process.
e. Kaslo Bay and Aerodrome CAO Dunlop provided an update on discussions with the province on potential grant funding for wharf removal and proposed use of planning grant funds for comprehensive waterfront plan. Council also discussed possible sale of excess land and aerodrome survey. 7. Public Question Period A maximum of 15 minutes is available for members of the public and media in attendance to ask questions of Council. 8. Closed (in-Camera) Meeting Moved and CARRIED That Council now recess and reconvene in-camera with the public excluded under Sections 90(1) (a), (c), (e), and (j) of the Community Charter. The open meeting recessed at 8:14 pm Land issue was discussed. The open meeting reconvened at 8:27 pm 9. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:
______Chief Administrative Officer Chair
2020.05.19 Committee of the Whole MINUTES Mayors Report May 26, 2020 Regular Council Meeting
The following is a summary of the meetings that I have participated in since my last report.
May 11th Telephone call with Selkirk College, President and CEO, Angus Graeme If Council would like, Mr. Graeme is willing to participate in a future Committee of the Whole of Council meeting to give an update.
Kaslo & Area D Economic Development Committee meeting Representatives from the following organizations spoke to Commission members regrading response and supports for business. 1. Factor 5 – Eric Burton – Sarah Sinclair was hired to provide program support in Kaslo and Area D 2. Community Futures Development Corporation – Executive Director, Andrea Wilkey 3. Nelson Kootenay Lake Tourism – Executive Director, Dianna Ducs 4. Columbia Basin Trust – Manager, Community Relationships West, Kelvin Saldern 5. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development – Regional Manager, Richard Toperczer 6. Regional District of Central Kootenay – CAO Stuart Horn 7. Village of Kaslo – CAO Ian Dunlop
May 12th Interview with CBC Reporter Bob Keating - Mr. Keating chose to do his report on a small community reopening. He interviewed Chase Sellwood, Jeff Davie, CAO Dunlop and myself. The segment was on the May 15th Daybreak South program. The link can be found on the Village Facebook page.
Regular Council meeting
May 13th Weekly FCM Rural Forum meeting FCM Rural Forum meeting - Staff updated members on their submission to the CRTC in regard to Rural Broadband. - An update was also provided regarding the federal response to the FCM request Protecting Vital Municipal Services. - Forum members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions and share their concerns. After the May 20th call, these meetings are going to be held on a bi-weekly basis and will be 1 ½ hours long.
May 15th Meeting with Mike Morrison, Manager of Corporate Administration/Corporate Officer, RDCK via Webex to go over the agenda for the Executive meeting of the West Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital District.
May 15th to 18th Happy Victoria Day weekend - A modified May Pole dance was organized by Katie Sheldrick on Monday afternoon with musical entertainment provided. - A parade organized by Kaslo Search and Rescue to acknowledge May Days and cheer on Kaslo’s essential workers. The parade included representation from Kaslo Search and Rescue, Kaslo Fire Department, Kaslo RCMP, the Village of Kaslo and others.
May 20th Bi-weekly FCM Rural Forum meeting FCM Rural Forum meeting - An update was provided regarding the West Taskforce and the federal response to the FCM request Protecting Vital Municipal Services. Members were asked to reach out to the federal MP’s in their areas. I have communicated with MP Morrison and I was trying to arrange for a meeting for May 21st but was not successful. - Forum members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions and share their concerns. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 3rd.
Joint Resource Recovery meeting Resource Recovery staff provided a Covid-19 operational update - A report was provided regarding the Yard and Garden Waste tipping program and an update on the Recycle BC program.
May 21st Regional District of Central Kootenay board meeting - Tara DeCourcy – District Manager, Selkirk Resource District was a delegation at the meeting. A copy of the presentation is attached. - Correspondence was received from ILMA regarding the letter from Mercer Celgar. - The amended procedures bylaw was adopted. - Joe Chirico, General Manager of Community Services gave a Covid-19 update and was seeking board direction for the safest, most effective way to deliver programming for the balance of the 2020 season. - CAO Horn an update on the operations and finances of the RDCK. - Director Casemore gave an update regarding AKBLG resolutions. - There was discussion regarding the amended building bylaw. This has been referred to the June meeting and a copy or the report has been provided to CAO Dunlop for review. I have attached a copy. - A letter of support was provided for the Columbia Basin Food Security Plan and that $22, 145 be allocated from Community Sustainability Service S105. Documents attached for information.
Call with Minister Robinson – due to participation in the RDCK board meeting, I was unable to participate in the call this week
May 22nd Celgar Stakeholders update call
May 25th West Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital District Executive Committee meeting
Kaslo & Area D Health Select Committee meeting
Community Initiatives Adjudication Committee meeting- the results will be forwarded to the grants coordinator at the RDCK and they will be ratified at the June meeting.
Upcoming Meetings
May 27th West Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital District meeting with Interior Health
Code Grey Debriefing
June 3rd Bi-weekly FCM Rural Forum meeting FCM Rural Forum meeting
June 4th Call with Minister Robinson
June 5th Biweekly Celgar Stakeholders update call
Respectfully submitted, Mayor Suzan Hewat
Village of Kaslo
REPORT TO: Mayor & Council DATE: May 26, 2020 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Business Report for May 26, 2020 Regular Meeting of Council
10 – Correspondence
10a. Hendricks Garage Building 2020.05.16 CAO Dunlop replied to the email on 2020.05.19:
Good day Kul,
Installations on boulevards is something we’ve been grappling with because there is a lack of consistent policy. Without a formal agreement, such as a license of occupation, there are questions of liability and maintenance. And, unfortunately, there have been instances in the past where property owners have made “improvements” on the village boulevard but moved and the village was left with maintaining or removing it because the new owners didn’t take responsibility for it.
Your question will go to Council for consideration at their next meeting on the 26th. Let me know if you can send me any photos of what you have in mind.
Ms. Nijjar replied that she understood the complications and the tractor may already be unavailable. Staff will follow up to see if she has any other ideas that may need to come forward to Council for consideration.
Recommendation: That Council receives the correspondence.
10 b. AKBLG Resolutions
Council is reminded to go online and take the AKBLG Resolutions 2020 Survey. A unique link has been sent to each councillor by AKBLG and should not be shared. The survey is open until Friday, May 29.
Kaslo submitted the following resolution:
Whereas local health care at all stages of life impacts the economic development of communities: e.g. family members lose work time, people and their businesses move out of the community or choose not to locate there; And whereas “ageing in place” keeps seniors close to home, where their partner, family or friends are better able to provide loving support and care, which reduces the load on health care providers and improves quality of life for all;
And whereas concentrating health services in regional centers transfers a significant economic burden to individuals in the form of transportation costs, increased energy consumption and housing in-affordability;
And whereas providing health care jobs in small communities stimulates the local economy with numerous spin-off benefits, creating opportunities to attract new people, their families, and businesses;
And whereas our elderly, and all patients, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, not as “users”;
Therefore be it resolved that we call upon the Government of British Columbia to build a strategy to expand rural community health care services with consideration for maximizing local economic impacts, creating professional job opportunities, access to affordable housing, improving social wellbeing and reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Recommendation: That Council members should complete the AKBLG 2020 Resolutions Survey individually.
10 c. Minister Robinson’s May 7 Regional Call Mayor Hewat and CAO Dunlop participated in a bi-weekly regional call with Minister Robinson. Mayor Hewat asked a question about local procurement, and this is the formal response we received..
Recommendation: That Council receives the correspondence.
10 d. Old Bowling Green 2020.05.19 Information about the history of Front Street Park.
Recommendation: That Council receives the correspondence.
10 e. Child & Youth Care Week June 1 to 7, 2020 is British Columbia’s Child and Youth Care Week.
Recommendation: That Council receives the correspondence.
2 12 a) – Accounts Payable
Recommendation: That the Accounts Payable report dated May 20, 2020 in the amount of $71,479.83 be received.
14 a. 2020 Spring Recreation Grant
Council postponed the 2020 Spring Recreation Grant at the outset of the Covid-19 emergency. The original deadline was March 27, 2020. Council may discuss whether the current grant applicants be referred to the Recreation Grant Committee, to extend the deadline, or have the committee report back with recommendations. Some of the grant applications were for events that cannot take place due to Covid-19.
Recommendation: That the Recreation Grant Committee be convened to make recommendations to Council on the 2020 Spring Recreation Grant intake..
14 b. Village Reopening Plan
Council passed a business continuity plan at the outset of the Covid-19 emergency. Subsequently, the Village Office was closed to the public except by appointment and other Village facilities were closed. Now that provincial health restrictions are easing, we are gradually reopening facilities and serving the public. The Skate Park and Campground and one public washroom were reopened on May 15. The Village Office is prepared to open on June 1. Council authorized the installation of glass on the front counter to help reduce exposure to staff.
Another measure put in place was allowing residents to put out one bag of garbage on collection day without a tag. This measure can now be rescinded.
Recommendations: Whereas Council approved temporary measures on March 17, 2020 interest of the health and safety of the public and Village staff:
That the requirement for garbage tags pursuant to Schedule K of the Fees and Charges Bylaw is reinstated as of the June 2, 2020 collection day subject to a one-week grace period.
That the Village Office be open to the public as of Monday, June 1, 2020 during regular hours subject to the guidelines of WorkSafe BC.
That Village park and facility bookings for group events will not be accepted until further notice.
That Committee of the Whole meetings be changed back to their regularly scheduled 4:30 pm start time effective June 16, 2020.
That staff be directed update the Business Continuity Plan and present it at the next Council meeting on June 9, 2020.
3
14 c) - Water St FLO EV Charging Station The renewal of the FLO service agreement for the Village’s charging station is coming up for renewal on June 1. The period is for 2 years at a cost of $300. Through the FLO website, we can monitor the usage of the station and its location is shown on the area map. Between January 1 and April 25, 2020, the station was used 53 times and generated $67.67 in revenue. Due to the administrative fee and the cost of power, the Village should charge at least $2.00 per charging hour to cover these overhead expenses. By comparison, the Fortis Level 3 Charger station is $18 per hour. FLO suggested $2.00 is widely charged, although many of the Level 2 chargers in the Kootenays owned and maintained by BC Hydro and are free.
Recommendation: That Council approves renewing the service agreement with FLO for 2 years effective June 1, 2020; and,
That the rate for use of the charging station be $2.00 per charging hour as of June 1, 2020.
14 d) – Zincton The public comment period is open for an Expresion of Interest proposal for the development of a resort near Zincton. The comment period is open until June 22. Council may consider making an official submission for the Village and revisiting this item on the next agenda.
Recommendation That receives the Zincton Expression of Interest for information; and, That this item be further considered at the next meeting of Council on June 9, 2020.
14 e) – Regional Housing Needs Assessment Preliminary Report Kaslo is participating in the Housing Needs Assessment study being coordinated by the RDCK. This preliminary report was released earlier in May and is open for feedback. Council may consider making an official submission for the Village by revisiting this item on the next agenda.
Recommendation That receives the Housing Needs Assessment Preliminary Report for information; and, That this item be further considered at the next meeting of Council on June 9, 2020.
14 f) – Temporary Expanded Service Liquor Control and Regulation Branch (LCRB) is streamlining approvals for expanded service areas in restaurants and bars to enable businesses to reopen and meet health recommendations. These permits will be valid until October 31, 2020. Local governments can provide blanket approval for all temporary expanded area applications or approve them on a case by case basis. Blanket approval ensures the fastest possible approvals for these permits. The approval also covers expanded patios including areas under Licenses of Occupation.
Recommendation: That Council authorizes staff to provide pre-approval to cover all liquor primary and manufacturer establishments in the Village who apply for an expanded service area.
4
14 g) 2020 JVH Graduation parade The Principal of JVH would like to help organize recognition for the 2020 graduating class. This should be an informal event that does not need official permission from the Village, which can be accomplished if distancing measures are observed.
Recommendation: None.
5 Kaslo Administration
Subject: Hendricks Garage building
From: Kul Nijjar
Ok, thank you. That makes sense ‐ I think I may have sold the tractor ‐ someone made me an offer that's hard to refuse :) I don't have a photo or anything of the sculpture ‐ but it's Christopher Petersone, Yvonne Boyd and Shine ‐ they have submitted several times in the Castlegar Sculpture Walk ‐ and won. There's a sculpture in Meadow Creek and apparently they are doing another one in Slocan and one for the River Trail Brent Bukowski is the other artist I would approach and he's been doing some great work ‐ he had the job of the art installation in the Burquitlom sky train station in Vancouver. The other idea I had was to get a front end of an antique dump truck/pickup truck and turn that into a planter under the tree....?
Thank you again! Kul
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 1:43 PM Ian Dunlop (CAO Kaslo)
Good day Kul,
Installations on boulevards is something we’ve been grappling with because there is a lack of consistent policy. Without a formal agreement, such as a license of occupation, there are questions of liability and maintenance. And, unfortunately, there have been instances in the past where property owners have made “improvements” on the village boulevard but moved and the village was left with maintaining or removing it because the new owners didn’t take responsibility for it.
Your question will go to Council for consideration at their next meeting on the 26th. Let me know if you can send me any photos of what you have in mind.
Thanks,
Ian Dunlop Chief Administrative Officer Village of Kaslo 250‐353‐2311 x201
From: Kul Nijjar
1 To: Ian Dunlop (CAO Kaslo)
Dear Kaslo Council & Mayor and CAO,
Good Morning ‐ almost afternoon.:) I wanted to see what it would be like to get permission to put either an old tractor or a sculpture (if it's not super expensive) under the tree by the Hendricks Garage Building. The tractor would be representative of our farming pioneers and the heritage aspect of the area. And I can afford the tractor. The sculpture, if I can afford it, would be done by Christopher Petersen, Yvonne Boyd and Shine ‐ and it would be one of the "koots" figures they have put in the Castlegar sculpture walk and one up in Meadow Creek. Or I would also see what Brent Bukowski would come up with. But both these sculptures would only happen if the price is affordable ‐ which I'm not sure it would be but I would try. The tractor if anyone wanted to look at it is at 737 Higashi Way on the lawn of the house.
Thank you so much
Kul ‐‐ Kul Nijjar Personal Real Estate Corporation Managing Broker ‐ Fair Realty (250)505‐4722 www.kulnijjar.ca
Your Kootenay Property Matchmaker
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If we are providing any type of legal information such as but not limited to: Title Searches, Rules and Regulations, Bylaws and/or Amendments, etc. for legal purposes you should obtain a true copy of the same from the Land Titles Office or other sources and have your clients lawyer advise them independently. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or email.
2 Kaslo Administration
Subject: Get ready for online AKBLG Resolutions engagement: May 22 - May 29.
From: Carolyn Maher
Good morning!
This year in response to the pandemic, just like all of you, the AKBLG executive is trying to continue to work for you during this new and challenging time.
Our resolutions are being sent directly to UBCM this year, but we thought it very important to move through some engagement with our membership, even informally to focus on how we can prioritize advocating on your behalf.
To do that we have designed a Resolution Survey that will arrive Friday May 22 and stay open for SEVEN DAYS only, expiring Friday May 29.
You will be polled on your support for each resolution, and then move through a resolution prioritization process which should feel familiar. The process will help identify current priorities of our region, and help focus the work plan of the executive.
Stay tuned for the poll, and please connect with me directly if you don’t receive it on Friday. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
With enthusiasm,
Resolutions Chair- Ange Qualizza [email protected] Office: 250.423.2233 Cell: 250.430.1332
1 AKBLG Resolutions 2020
Sent to UBCM for Comments: February 28, 2020 Returned to AKBLG: not applicable
PROVINCIAL RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED to UBCM:
1. Town of Creston – Equitable Police Funding Model 2. Village of Kaslo – A Strategy for Rural Economic Development Through Health Care 3. City of Kimberley – Taxation of Group 4 Independent Schools 4. City of Nelson – Restoring Sustainable Provincial Library Funding Levels 5. City of Nelson – Encouraging Personal Accountability in Emergency Management 6. City of Nelson – Closing Federal Corporate Tax Loopholes to Fund Climate-related Adaptation and Mitigation 7. Central Kootenay RD – Access to Infrastructure Grant Funding for Improvement Districts 8. Central Kootenay RD – Agriculture Land Reserve (ALR) Enabling Subdivision into Smaller Affordable Lots 9. Central Kootenay RD – BC Cannabis Regulation – Section 37 10. Central Kootenay RD – BC Water Resources 11. Central Kootenay RD – Dike Improvement District 12. Central Kootenay RD – Private Land Logging 13. East Kootenay RD – Broadband Infrastructure Taxation 14. Kootenay Boundary RD – Incentives-High Efficiency Electrical Appliances 15. Kootenay Boundary RD – Ongoing Sustainable Grant Funding Model 16. City of Rossland – Reassignment of Residential Based Short-term Rentals to Class 6: Business or Other 17. Village of Slocan – Access to Provincial Parks 18. Village of Radium Hot Springs – Places of Public Worship Tax Exemptions 19. Co-sponsored Town of Creston / Municipality of Sparwood – Increased Funding for Health Connections Patient Transport within Interior Health Association
Page 1 of 10
PROVINCIAL RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED TO UBCM 1. Town of Creston – Equitable Police Funding Model
Whereas the current RCMP policing model sees BC municipalities over 5,000 in population pay the full provincial cost share (either 70% or 90% depending on the size), while unincorporated areas and municipalities under 5,000 in population pay the provincial police tax rate, which covers up to 50% of the estimated cost of policing;
And whereas due to this system there is an inequity perceived by municipalities and their taxpayers due to the Province subsidizing policing costs for some taxpayers and not others:
Therefore be it resolved that the current model of funding RCMP police services be reviewed with consideration given to equitable funding of police services through a provincial police tax based on the assessed value of improvements for the areas served by the detachments.
And be it further resolved that any provincial contribution towards policing be shared equally with all police taxpayers.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
2. Village of Kaslo – A Strategy for Rural Economic Development Through Health Care
Whereas local health care at all stages of life impacts the economic development of communities: e.g. family members lose work time, people and their businesses move out of the community or choose not to locate there;
And whereas “ageing in place” keeps seniors close to home, where their partner, family or friends are better able to provide loving support and care, which reduces the load on health care providers and improves quality of life for all;
And whereas concentrating health services in regional centers transfers a significant economic burden to individuals in the form of transportation costs, increased energy consumption and housing in- affordability;
And whereas providing health care jobs in small communities stimulates the local economy with numerous spin-off benefits, creating opportunities to attract new people, their families, and businesses;
And whereas our elderly, and all patients, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, not as “users”;
Therefore be it resolved that we call upon the Government of British Columbia to build a strategy to expand rural community health care services with consideration for maximizing local economic impacts, creating professional job opportunities, access to affordable housing, improving social wellbeing and reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Page 2 of 10
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
3. City of Kimberley – Taxation of Group 4 Independent Schools
Whereas Group 4 independent schools bring hundreds of student residents to our communities that consume municipal services such as transit, library, bylaw enforcement, policing, and road and trail maintenance;
And whereas the Community Charter exempts these Group 4 Independent Schools from property taxation which the municipality normally utilizes to fund these services, thereby placing an extra burden on existing taxpayers;
Therefore be it resolved that the Province of BC either remove the tax exemption for Group 4 Independent Schools from Provincial legislation or provide compensatory grants to municipalities that are affected.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
4. City of Nelson – Restoring Sustainable Provincial Library Funding Levels
Whereas libraries in British Columbia are largely financed by levies paid by local government, and where Provincial library funding has remained virtually stagnant for the past 30 years;
And whereas libraries in British Columbia provide open and equal public access to vital resources, including the internet, public computers, digital library tools and in-person service from expert staff to provide opportunities for all British Columbians to access knowledge and information and increase literacy in our communities and present informative programmes, including First Nations programmes and material which advance public understanding and reconciliation;
Therefore be it resolved that UBCM strongly encourage the Government of British Columbia to give urgent attention to funding for BC public libraries by adding $20 million to the BC Provincial Budget for 2021 for allocation to public libraries throughout BC;
And be it further resolved that the Province be requested to ensure that BC Libraries will henceforth receive Provincial Government financial support at a sustainable level in subsequent years following the 2021 Budget.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
Page 3 of 10
5. City of Nelson – Encouraging Personal Accountability in Emergency Management
Whereas the Province is modernizing the Emergency Program Act which sets out the responsibilities of the Province and municipalities related to emergency preparedness, response and recovery;
And whereas individuals and businesses must be informed to understand their personal responsibilities in emergency preparedness with regard to the things individuals and businesses can and should do to mitigate the impact of any emergency;
Therefore be it resolved that UBCM strongly encourage the Province to include changes to the Emergency Program Act that reflects the knowledge and lessons learned from previous emergencies and emphasize the importance of individual and business preparedness in mitigating the impact of any disaster or emergency;
And be it resolved further that the Province fund education targeting individuals and businesses in how to best prepare for potential disasters or emergencies.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
6. City of Nelson – Closing Federal Corporate Tax Loopholes to Fund Climate-related Adaptation and Mitigation
Whereas local governments are incurring substantial costs in relation to the impacts of climate change, including volatile weather patterns, droughts, wildfires, erosion and other impacts and such costs are anticipated to continue rising;
And whereas 2019 reports indicate that many corporations are not paying between 24 to 29 percent of legally owed federal taxes;
Therefore be it resolved that UBCM strongly encourage the Canadian Government to implement measures to close corporate tax loopholes and collect owed corporate taxes in order that such funds be directed to local governments and Indigenous communities, in order to pay for climate change adaptation, mitigation, and resilience measures.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
7. Central Kootenay RD - Access to Infrastructure Grant Funding for Improvement Districts
Page 4 of 10
Whereas The United Nations have declared that access to clean drinking water is a Human Right and in British Columbia, some Rural and Remote Communities served by Improvement Districts are still not able to provide clean potable water to its residents;
And whereas the current BC Government Policy restricts Improvement Districts access to water Infrastructure Grant funding by recommending the financially prohibitive and challenging process of conversion to a Regional District Service as the only solution;
Therefore be it resolved that UBCM work with the Province and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to establish a process for Improvement Districts to have access to Provincial and Federal Infrastructure Grant funds, and still maintain their autonomy.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
8. Central Kootenay RD – Agriculture Land Reserve (ALR) Enabling Subdivision into Smaller Affordable Lots
Whereas the Ministry of Agriculture seeks to strengthen farming in BC and there are portions of the province where successful, intensive agriculture is practiced on small lots while showing significant farm receipts;
And whereas the viability of small lot agriculture depends on the affordability of the land and improvements which is in competition for Agricultural Land with the “hobby farm” development model featuring large homes and accessory buildings often impacting the land without contributing to agricultural production;
Therefore be it resolved that the Ministry of Agriculture work with the Agricultural Land Commission to designate areas of the province where the Agricultural Land Reserve may be subdivided into smaller affordable lots provided the developed footprint is scaled such as to enable craft and/or niche agricultural market activity.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
9. Central Kootenay RD – BC Cannabis Regulation – Section 37
Whereas in British Columbia, and specifically in the Kootenay Region, there is a historical legacy of cannabis cultivation and a clear acknowledgment that the cannabis industry is a pillar of our regional economy;
Page 5 of 10
And whereas Section 37 of the BC Cannabis Control Regulation prohibits the promotion of any place to consume or to spend time after consuming cannabis, which significantly limits the ability for the cannabis industry to thrive, and in many cases limits potential business owners to operate all together;
Therefore be it resolved that the Union of BC Municipalities work with the provincial government to remove Section 37 from the BC Cannabis regulation, which will remove a significant barrier to the success of the cannabis industry in British Columbia.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
10. Central Kootenay RD – BC Water Resources
Whereas local governments in British Columbia are the purveyors of water and water is and will become a very important issue as the province experiences the effect of climate change;
And whereas the analysis, quality, abundance protection, conservation, allocation and use of both ground water and surface water is of utmost importance both ecologically and financially now and in the future;
Therefore be it resolved that the provincial government create a ministry with the sole responsibility to research and provide education, protection and conservation of BCs water resources.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
11. Central Kootenay RD – Dike Improvement District
Whereas the Province had previously established Dike Improvement Districts and has now designated Local Government as a diking authority, removing these powers from Improvement Districts who are unable to access funding for repair and maintenance of dikes, without adequate consultation with both Improvement Districts and Local Governments;
And whereas the Province has not provided an overall assessment of the dikes or identified sustainable funding associated with the full capital cost of repair and on-going maintenance of dikes under the jurisdiction of Improvement Districts, and dikes with no local authority, of which 20% in the Province are located within the Regional District of Central Kootenay;
Therefore be it resolved that the Province engage in further consultation with Improvement Districts and Local Government to discuss the overall impact of this decision on rural BC communities with populations under 20,000.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
Page 6 of 10
12. Central Kootenay RD – Private Land Logging
Whereas over the past two decades multiple local governments of British Columbia have repeatedly requested regulation of private land logging by resolution to UBCM;
And whereas there has been little change in the requirement to conserve our natural physical assets such as water, wildlife habitat, and soil stability when harvesting trees and building roads on large tracts of private land;
Therefore be it resolved that the Union of BC Municipalities prioritize and work with the Ministry of Forest, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development to resolve the issues surrounding logging on large parcels of private land in BC when volumes to be harvested are over 600 cubic meters including changing legislation to allow Regional Districts to implement tree cutting bylaws.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
13. East Kootenay RD – Broadband Infrastructure Taxation
Whereas the cost to deploy broadband infrastructure to support connectivity services is significant and revenue opportunities in rural areas are often not adequate to provide a return on investment that would attract private investment, resulting in underserved rural communities throughout the province;
And whereas both the Provincial and Federal Governments have made universal access to broadband services a priority including through the provision of infrastructure grants to encourage private investment in rural areas; however, the ongoing property taxation of broadband infrastructure creates a significant additional cost which further inhibits the already strained business case for private investment in broadband connectivity;
Therefore be it resolved that the UBCM petition the Province of British Columbia to provide local governments with the ability to set tax rates for broadband infrastructure.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
14. Kootenay Boundary RD – Incentives-High Efficiency Electrical Appliances
Whereas several Kootenay Boundary communities have committed to a transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050; and
Whereas electricity generated in B.C. is considered a renewable energy source while natural gas is not; and
Page 7 of 10
And whereas the incentives available from suppliers for natural gas use in the province are considerably greater than those available for use of electricity;
Therefore be it resolved that the Government of BC require all electricity suppliers in the province, including Fortis BC, to increase the incentives available to the public supporting the use of high efficiency electrical appliances to the point where those incentives are at level equal to those currently provided by natural gas suppliers.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
15. Kootenay Boundary RD – Ongoing Sustainable Grant Funding Model
Whereas the Provincial government has an interest in local governments actively participating in, or delivering, many of its initiatives, priorities, and programs, and has developed a broad range of grant programs to provide funding assistance to local governments to facilitate such work;
And whereas, grants provide a valuable source of revenue for capital projects and other major one-time expenditures, but discretionary grant programs constitute an insecure funding stream for on-going program work undertaken by local governments, such as emergency management and fire protection programs, requiring a significant administrative commitment relating to application submissions and financial reporting;
And whereas, both local and the Provincial governments benefit from having more secure, less administratively onerous Provincial funding streams available to facilitate local government participation in Provincially supported programs, such as the existing, ongoing funding that is provided through annual operating agreements for BC Transit partnerships and Victim Services partnerships;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Provincial government review its funding model to local governments to consider moving away from one-time, grant-based funding models for ongoing local government programs, such as emergency management and fire protection, to a more secure on-going and sustainable funding model based upon annual operating agreements in support of Provincial initiatives, priorities, and programs.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
16. City of Rossland – Reassignment of Residential Based Short-term Rentals to Class 6: Business or Other
Whereas a dwelling unit (or secondary dwelling unit located on the same property) that is used as a commercial enterprise for short term rentals and does not serve as the primary residence for the owner, or other person.
Page 8 of 10
And whereas tourist overnight accommodation uses such as motels, hotels, BnB’s with four sleeping units or greater, and resorts are classed and taxed as businesses;
Therefore be it resolved that a dwelling unit (or secondary dwelling unit located on the same property), offered and used as a whole for short term rentals for 50% or more in the calendar year, be assigned the appropriate tax class and be redefined as “Class 6: Business and Other”;
And be it further resolved that where the dwelling unit or secondary dwelling unit located on the same property is also used for a residential purpose, that this assignment be in respect to the total percentage of the property used for commercial “Class 6: Business and Other” purposes.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
17. Village of Slocan - Access to Provincial Parks
Whereas the British Columbia provincial parks system represents an invaluable public asset to remote and rural communities, supports the integrity of our economic and social structure, promotes the physical well-being of our citizens, and presents a healthy and diverse natural environment;
And whereas diminishing road access to our communities’ provincial parks in the West Kootenays, specifically Kokanee Glacier Park and Valhalla Park, is currently disabled by abandoned, closed, or un- maintained logging and forest service roads;
Therefore be it resolved that the Provincial Government be requested to enable access to provincial parks in the West Kootenays, and that access roads be designated as public roads and maintained as such.
AKBLG Comment: Sponsor has been asked for an amendment to reflect all provincial parks rather than specifically the West Kootenays. Confirmation to come.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
18. Village of Radium Hot Springs - Places of Public Worship Tax Exemptions
Whereas philanthropic organizations in each community provide different levels of service and public benefit that each local government may wish to recognize;
And whereas matters of worship are highly personal, and the financial obligations of places of public worship should only be shared among the citizens and taxpayers in a community with the consent of the local government body;
Therefore be it resolved that the Provincial Government amend the Community Charter to move the tax exemption "places of public worship" from statutory [Section 220 (1) (h)], to permissive [Section 24 (2)].
Page 9 of 10
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
19. Co-sponsored Town of Creston / Municipality of Sparwood – Increased Funding for Health Connections Patient Transport within Interior Health Authority
Whereas the Province of British Columbia introduced the Health Connections Patient Transport Program in 2004/05 for Interior Health Authority to connect patients to enhanced services at Regional Hospitals with annual targeted funding of One Million Dollars, with no additional targeted funding since the program began;
And whereas location to access tertiary (i.e. Cancer, Cardiac) services is changing for Kootenay residents from Alberta to Kelowna:
Therefore be it resolved that the Province of British Columbia increase targeted funding for the Health Connections Patient Transport Program within the Interior Health Authority, to provide a patient transportation option for those requiring enhanced services.
And be it further resolved that the Provincial Government allocate funding to BC Transit to explore options to provide Health Connections Services on an integrated province wide system.
UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: UBCM Resolutions Committee comments:
Page 10 of 10
^ maa-OEJ NAY 1 S ?n?^^ ; ^^U:iU' -UT5TmM JBRITISH nt -i <=> n.m i=a ».<» »-* 1.1, COLUMBIA May 13,2020 Ref: 249732
Her Worship Mayor Suzan Hewat Village of Kaslo Box 576 Kaslo BC VOG 1MO
Dear Mayor Hewat:
This year, June 1-7 marks British Columbia's Child and Youth in Care Week. I invite you and your community to join British Columbians in celebrating the strength, creativity, resilience and tenacity of young people who are in or have been in care.
Child and Youth in Care week is a chance to break the stigma that these youth face. Sadly, the stories told of young people in care are often ones of tragedy and broken commitments, but British Columbia's children and youth in care are so much more than these stories. They are artists, athletes, storytellers, caregivers, and activists. They are our province's future teachers, mechanics, doctors, researchers, parents and leaders. Join us in offering an alternative story and elevating the voices of children and youth. With their unique lived expertise, young people who are in or have been in care deserve to be celebrated and honoured for the love and diversity they bring to all our communities.
We hope that you will find time over Child and Youth in Care Week to spread a message of awareness and care in your communities. Face-to-face events will not be taking place this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but I encourage you to visit the Web site for tips and ideas for virtual events and other creative ways to celebrate at www.bcchildandyouthincareweek.com. You can also help promote this message of celebration using the Web site's social media tools.
Thank you for your support of British Columbia's children and youth in care. If you have any questions or require more information, please contact the Federation ofBC Youth in Care Networks at info(%fbcyicn.ca.
Sincerely,
Latrine Conroy Minister of Children and Family Development
Ministry of Office of the Mailing Address: Location: Children and Family Minister Parliament Buildings Parliament Buildings Development Victoria BC V8V 1X4 Victoria Kaslo Administration
Subject: Kaslo follow up: Minister Robinson’s May 7 Regional Call
From: Wilkins, Christina MAH:EX
Subject: Kaslo follow up: Minister Robinson’s May 7 regional call
This message is being forwarded to you on behalf of Nicola Marotz, Strategic Advisor, Local Government, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Dear Mayor Hewat,
Thank you for Kaslo’s participation in Minister Selina Robinson’s May 7 regional call with mayors and chairs regarding COVID‐19 issues, impacts and transition.
During that call, Kaslo raised the issue of whether there would be any changing of rules to enable local procurement without interprovincial bids, as part of transition and economic recovery from COVID (stimulating local economies).
The procurement obligations for municipalities can be found in three different agreements: the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (between the four western provinces); the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (between all provinces, territories and the federal government); and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (between Canada and the European Union). The primary difference between the three agreements is the thresholds above which procurement must be open and non‐discriminatory (e.g., no favouring of local suppliers).
All three agreements contain provisions which permit otherwise inconsistent procurements to address an emergency situation, such as a highway land slide, earthquake, and arguably the purchase of medical supplies for COVID‐19. The agreements all contain other exceptions, such as for health services, social services, and measures relating to Indigenous peoples.
As changes to the agreements require agreement amongst all of the Parties to them, BC or any other Party cannot unilaterally change the rules. Such changes can happen, but are done through negotiations.
There is a careful balance needed – while many jurisdictions are considering different ways they can help boost their local economies to help businesses, many businesses do also depend for their business on open markets.
If you or your staff have any follow up questions on this topic, please feel free to contact Robert Musgrave, Director of Trade and Economic Relations, Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness, at [email protected] or 250 216‐2619.
I hope that this information is of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Nicola Marotz Strategic Advisor, Local Government Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 1 Kaslo Administration
Subject: Funding for "Old Bowling Green"
From: Annette Embery Sent: May 19, 2020 5:22 PM To: Ian Dunlop (CAO Kaslo) Subject: Funding for "Old Bowling Green"
My thanks for all the work and my congratulations on the subsequent successful application for the improvement of the old Bowling Green on Front Street Kaslo, I look forward to enjoying the completed project.
I believe that Kaslo has a unique opportunity to enhance our Canada wide reputation among Japanese Canadians for a welcoming, empathetic and culturally aware village by naming the area after the donor of the bowling green land, a Mr. Kitagawa who came to Kaslo at a time when, rather like today in Canada, one race was under suspicion and therefore not welcome, yet Mr Kitagawa along with all other Japanese Canadians won the hearts and minds of Kaslo citizens and he elected to live out his life here, dying in the late 1990’s but not before he used the money paid in reparation by the Canadian Government to him in apology, to purchase the bowling green so that his fellow citizens and bowlers would have an ongoing rink for as long as it was required.
After the war, Mr Kit as he was known, built a house very close to the end of D Avenue, near where Lawrence Campbell lives today and worked on many building sites including what were then called the “Kosy Kabins” on the site of today’s Kaslo Motel. Hopefully he was interviewed by someone interested in preserving that part of our history so more information may be available in our Archives.
I am not making any suggestions as to the actual name, many come to mind, but I would like to think his name would be incorporated in the final title.
Thank you,
Annette McCartin Embery
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
1 Accounts Payable Report to May 20, 2020
Cheque # Pay Date Vendor # Vendor Name Paid Amount Void MPP PP10 2020 07/05/2020 01227 MUNICIPAL PENSION PLAN$ 4,120.51 PP10 2020 07/05/2020 VARIOUS PP10 ‐ MANAGEMENT AND STAFF$ 14,877.42 CHAIN OIL 4x L 12/05/2020 01048 KASLO PUMP$ 65.37 CRA PP8‐PP9/20 12/05/2020 01610 RECEIVER GENERAL FOR CANADA$ 14,960.36 HYDRO FEBAPR/ 12/05/2020 00050 FORTIS BC$ 8,227.32 KBS APRIL2020 12/05/2020 01010 KASLO BUILDING SUPPLIES$ 678.99 KIN MAY2020 12/05/2020 01026 KASLO INFONET$ 268.75 MANULF MAY/2 12/05/2020 01188 Manulife Financial$ 4,287.29 PW CELL MAY20 12/05/2020 01828 TELUS MOBILITY$ 67.20 PW SHOP SUPPL 12/05/2020 01086 KOOTENAY INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY$ 103.42 021890 19/05/2020 00319 LOOMIS EXPRESS$ 91.51 021889 19/05/2020 00229 CARO ANALYTICAL SERVICES$ 298.37 021888 19/05/2020 00084 Austin Engineering Ltd.$ 2,363.09 021887 19/05/2020 00064 AMAIS TECHNOLOGIES INC.$ 504.00 021886 19/05/2020 00013 ACE COURIER SERVICES$ 166.25 021891 19/05/2020 00600 FORTIS BC$ 491.76 021892 19/05/2020 00810 I.C.B.C.$ 8,696.00 Yes 021893 19/05/2020 00823 INLAND DIVERS UNDERWATER SERVICES LTD.$ 8,531.54 021894 19/05/2020 01530 QUICKSCRIBE SERVICES LTD$ 46.20 021895 19/05/2020 01767 SPEEDPRO NELSON$ 285.14 021896 19/05/2020 01832 THOMAS & CO LOCKSMITHING LTD.$ 964.74 021897 19/05/2020 01872 TROWELEX RENTALS & SALES$ 1,634.10 021898 19/05/2020 01985 VH SPORT$ 75.50 021899 20/05/2020 00810 I.C.B.C.$ 8,371.00
TOTAL$ 71,479.83
67 2020.03.24 Recreation That Recreation Grant deadline and decisions are CARRIED Grant postponed until further notice. Postponement
Village of Kaslo
______REPORT TO: Mayor and Council DATE: 2020. 05.21 FROM: Deputy Clerk SUBJECT: Village offices re-open plan ______
Intent: City Hall Village offices re-open plan for June 1, 2020
Background: Effective March 17, 2020 the Village offices were closed to the public and office staff were available by appointment only due to the COVID-19 pandemic. BC is now on phase two of reopening and the Village offices are anticipating reopening to the public on June 1, 2020. The following measures were discussed at a regular safety meeting of staff held 2020.05.21. these measures are being established for the health and safety of the public and the Village of Kaslo employees.
City Hall measures: 1. Front door entryway will have a desk set up with hand sanitizers and signage. 2. The public will be asked to enter by the front doors on fourth street and exit by the side door on B Ave. 3. Directional tape on the floors to allow for social distancing and traffic flow. 4. Max of 3 members of the public at a time permitted into the office. 5. Those with mobility issue can ring the doorbell at the side west door - office staff will safely let them in. 6. There will be two wall mounted hand sanitizers in highly visible areas by the entryway of council chambers/or mounted to the front counter wood column by the debit machine and in the hall located near the exit door to B Ave. 7. Sneeze guards will be installed on the front counter. 8. Debit machine will be wiped down after each use. 9. Upstairs remains closed. 10. Council chambers, records room, bathrooms and the staff kitchen area will all be locked to the public. 11. Offices and work areas have already been reconfigured to provide 2 meters for social distancing.
Public Works and Sewer Plant measures:
12. Public Works will always try to social distance. When unable to social distance because of the nature of the work masks will be worn. 13. Only one employee per vehicle. 14. All vehicles are supplied with hand sanitizer and wipes 15. Wipe vehicles down before and after use. 16. Use good hygiene, wash hands often. 17. Public Works Shop is closed to the public. 18. Wear proper PPE. 19. Wipe down desks, tables, doorknobs, and high touch point areas daily.
Recommendations That Staff are to develop a formal plan for reopening by incorporating the above recommendations and adhering to the WorkSafeBC policies and the guidelines of the Provincial Health Officer and further that the Village offices will be re-opened on June 1, 2020 for the general public.
Respectfully Submitted
Stephanie Patience Deputy Clerk
2 Quotation
Company Address 2800, rue Louis-Lumière, Suite 100 Created Date 2020-04-16 Quebec Quebec G1P 0A4 Expiration Date 2020-04-30 Canada Quote Number 00011031
Prepared By Eline Sousa Contact Name Jessica Walker Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
Bill To Name Village of Kaslo Ship To Name Village of Kaslo Bill To Box 576 Ship To Water Street Parking Area 413 Fourth Street Kaslo British Columbia V0G 1M0 Kaslo British Columbia V0G 1M0 Canada Canada
Product Code Quantity Product Sales Price Total Price
SP-SGG-02 1,00 Global management service for one station for 2 years $300.00 $300.00
Coverage Details
GMS Validity Date Date de début / 2020-06-01 Start Date: Date de fin / End 2022-05-31 Date: # de série /Serial #: AAA-10494
Grand Total $300.00 PLUS TAXES
Notes Global management service for 1 charging station x 2 years Services FLO Inc. | GST : # 788723492RT0001 | QST : # 1223644542TQ0001 | PST : # 1057-6389 |
The terms and conditions referenced in this quote govern the sale of the above-listed products and services. Any additional terms and conditions in purchaser’s purchase order that conflict with, vary or add to the terms will be of no force and effect, unless FLO has agreed to accept those terms and conditions in advance and in writing. (Ver. 1.0) - By placing your order, you CONFIRM your acceptance of the terms and conditions set out below. - Please indicate the number of the present quote on your order. - Prices are in Canadian dollars and applicable taxes are extra. - Payment terms are Net 30 upon approved credit. - This quote is valid for a period of 30 days from its date of issue. - Your order confirmation also confirms the acceptation of the Global Management Service. Click here for details. (Ver. 2.1) FLO®’s Global Management Services
As a new FLO* charging station owner, you now join a community of over 8,000 FLO stations across Canada, serving more than 40,000 electric vehicle (EV) drivers. FLO’s Global Management Services (GMS), supports your network-connected charging stations and provides valuable data intelligence regarding your stations’ use. Network- connected charging stations not only provide you with relevant insight, but they also enable you to supply your EV driving customers with useful features.
What is included in FLO’s GMS? Features of your charging station management
Your Owner’s Web Portal
All your charging stations are virtually monitored and connected to your unique, password- protected dashboard. This dashboard provides you with a snapshot of your charging stations and allows you to control station access or restrict charging to specific drivers. Your dashboard also enables you to analyze your current station utilization, and thus plan for any future expansion.
Remote station monitoring
FLO’s Network Operations Centre proactively monitors every network-connected station’s activity in order to identify and resolve any potential issue even prior to engaging with the station owner.
Integrated payment system
Network-connected stations include a PCI-DSS compliant payment system that allows for the management of credit card transactions. You can therefore offer charging services for free or implement an hourly or per-session fee. If you decide to implement a charging fee, FLO handles the entire billing process, from payment processing, funds transfer, collections, to tax remittance, all in Canadian dollars.
Please note: a transaction fee of 15% of your revenue (in addition to the yearly GMS service fee) is applied to this billing process.
*Services FLO Inc. Features enabling you to better serve your users
Roaming services
In addition to FLO’s own network of over 8,000 stations across Canada, FLO also has roaming agreements with some of North America’s largest EV charging networks, such as ChargePoint, Electric Circuit, eCharge Network, and BC Hydro EV Neance atwork. This roaming enables EV drivers to access other network operators’ stations without requiring a separate membership.
24/7 support
All network-connected stations have screen displays that include FLO’s 24/7 customer service telephone number. This enables EV drivers to obtain immediate assistance in accessing a charger, no matter the time of day.
Varied charging initiation
FLO’s network-connected stations can all be remotely activated by contacting FLO’s 24/7 Call Center, through the FLO Mobile App, or by using the FLO membership RFID card.
Future-proof stations
FLO’s network-connected stations’ software is continuously updated over the duration of the station, free of charge. This means that even as EVs evolve and your users’ needs grow, your stations will continue to offer an exceptional charging experience.
Online presence
All network-connected stations are displayed on the FLO website and in the FLO Mobile App using our real-time mapping software. In addition, FLO network-connected stations are integrated into third-party platforms including various vehicle OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) navigation systems, as well as web platforms like PlugShare and ChargeHub. All of these platforms allow EV drivers to find charging stations, initiate a charging session, track their session events, and receive real-time notifications while they’re connected to a station.
About FLO FLO is Canada’s most comprehensive and reliable charging ecosystem. We fulfill EV drivers’ charging needs wherever they may be – at home, at work, or on the go – by ensuring a consistently easy and seamless charging experience.
Contact us for a free consultation: [email protected] 1 855 543-8356 flo.com ÿ !"ÿ#$ %ÿ&! ÿ' 'ÿ()ÿ 'ÿ(%ÿ 'ÿ( 'ÿ0) ÿ 'ÿ0%ÿ 'ÿ012ÿ13 45$)ÿ1675$ÿ13 44 ÿ87ÿ ÿ#$ 4 9 'ÿ(ÿ9 'ÿ0ÿ9 @4 57@ÿ 57@ÿ4 A 33 BCCDBEFGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDbDCDCÿFcdCcBEÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCCheDECBBB BCCDBEEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDbDCDCÿaDcdFcDFÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCCheDECBBB BCDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HababDCDCÿdcBFcÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCCheDECBBB BCEECBDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDDbDCDCÿBcCCcDaÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCCheDECBBB BCEEFBBGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDDbDCDCÿcCDcBCÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCCheDECBBB BaCCadEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDDbDCDCÿFcBdcCCÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaaCBFGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDBbDCDCÿEcBBcCÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaadaaGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDBbDCDCÿBcBCcBaÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaDDdGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDbDCDCÿdcFcBFÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaDFGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDbDCDCÿacBBcdDÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BadddGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabDFbDCDCÿaacdcCCÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaCCdGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabdCbDCDCÿDcacaÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaEBEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HabdabDCDCÿcBcCCÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaFDBEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbDbDCDCÿBcDacCÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaFaCdEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbBbDCDCÿDccDCÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BaEBEaGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbbDCDCÿDcCcBDÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDdBBDCGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbaDbDCDCÿaDcdDcBÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDdBBDdGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbaDbDCDCÿaDcFcCBÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDdFCGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbabDCDCÿcBcaCÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDEDBGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbabDCDCÿcCCcCFÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDBDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbabDCDCÿacFcCCÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDDaDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbaFbDCDCÿBcDBcCBÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDECaGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbaEbDCDCÿdcacÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDFCDBCGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbaEbDCDCÿcCFcBaÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BDFBdEEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbDCbDCDCÿaacDCcCCÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BdDBFFGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbDbDCDCÿdcdBcDÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BddBFDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbDFbDCDCÿFcEcDaÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BddEBBGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HDbDFbDCDCÿEcacdÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BdBFdDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbabDCDCÿBcDcFÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BdDDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbDbDCDCÿFcaDcCÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BdBaGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbbDCDCÿBcDDcdCÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCheaCChe DECBBB BdFCdDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbbDCDCÿBcCcBFÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCatX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFEheCCCCCCCCCCCCaaCheaaChe DECBBB BdEadGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbEbDCDCÿcdCcCFÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyFCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCBCCCCCCCCCCCaDatX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCFBheCCCCCCCCCCCCFBheFBhe DECBBB BBCdaFBGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbaCbDCDCÿBcCcBFÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyDBghÿ ÿCCCCCCCdaCCCCCCCCCCCEBtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCdCheCCCCCCCCCCCChehe DECBBB BBDDCBGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbaBbDCDCÿaCcBcDÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCdCCCCCCCCCCCaCtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCheCCCCCCCCCCCCCEheCEhe DECBBB BBdaCCdGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbabDCDCÿBcdDcBaÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaDghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCFCCCCCCCCCCCDdtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCaDEheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCheaChe DECBBB BBBdFGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbaFbDCDCÿDcacaFÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaDaghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaFtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCaCdheCCCCCCCCCCCCaDheaDhe DECBBB BBCDdGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbDCbDCDCÿaacdCcaDÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaBghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDDtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCaDheCCCCCCCCCCCCaBheaBhe DECBBB BBdEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbDDbDCDCÿaacBcaEÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCFCCCCCCCCCCCDdtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCaDheCCCCCCCCCCCCaFheaFhe DECBBB BBaBdBGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbDBbDCDCÿacCBcCdÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCFghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCBCCCCCCCCCCCaDtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCheCCCCCCCCCCCCCFDheCFDhe DECBBB BBFFGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbDbDCDCÿaCcEcÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCdghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCDCCCCCCCCCCCCtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCdaheCCCCCCCCCCCCCdEheCdEhe DECBBB BBCFGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HdbdabDCDCÿaDcCBcBaÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaaCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCatX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCEdheCCCCCCCCCCCCaaheaahe DECBBB BBFaEEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbDbDCDCÿaacBcdÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCEFghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCatX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCFdheCCCCCCCCCCCCaCdheaCdhe DECBBB BBECCCEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbbDCDCÿaacFcDCÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaDCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaFtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCaCDheCCCCCCCCCCCCaDheaDhe DECBBB BBEBFGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbEbDCDCÿaDcEcdCÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaFghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCECCCCCCCCCCCDFtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCaEheCCCCCCCCCCCCaEheaEhe DECBBB BCBDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbadbDCDCÿaDcacEÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaBEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDDtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCaDheCCCCCCCCCCCCaheahe DECBBB BCFEFDGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbabDCDCÿaDcCacBEÿfghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaFghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCECCCCCCCCCCCDtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCaaheCCCCCCCCCCCCaFheaFhe DECBBB BDdFdGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbDabDCDCÿaacCacdDÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCBCCCCCCCCCCCaatX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCEheCCCCCCCCCCCCCBheCBhe DECBBB BDFadBGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbDdbDCDCÿaacBCcDEÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCBEghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCdCCCCCCCCCCCCtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCBDheCCCCCCCCCCCCCDheCDhe DECBBB BdCBEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbDBbDCDCÿEcCdcaBÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCCCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCCCheCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCheCCChe DECBBB BdCFBGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbDBbDCDCÿaCcBcBFÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyaBghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCFCCCCCCCCCCCDtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCadEheCCCCCCCCCCCCaDheaDhe DECBBB BddaEGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbDbDCDCÿaCcBcCEÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCaghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCaCCCCCCCCCCCCDtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCaBheCCCCCCCCCCCCCaheCahe DECBBB BddDFdGHIPQRSHÿUHÿVWPXIY`HBbDbDCDCÿaacdcBDÿefghÿiÿp`HIqRXIXqrÿsQ`HstX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`ueeeiaCBEBxyCghÿ ÿCCCCCCCCdCCCCCCCCCCCaCtX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`uaCCCCheCCCCCCCCCCCCCEheCEhe DECBBB
@ 1 167ÿ 33 ( 94ÿ ! 9 tX``QSHÿuvÿwQs`u B @ÿ&! ÿ'ÿ ghÿ ÿ ddC dÿ @ÿ Connection Start Time (local) Connection End Time (local) ACard's ConnectConnector S Total CurrenTotal kWh 1/2/2020 8:18:26 AM 1/2/2020 8:31:01 AM FLO® 0:12 J1772 ? 1 CAD 1.257 1/2/2020 10:02:57 AM 1/2/2020 12:38:58 PM FLO® 2:36 J1772 ? 1 CAD 14.508 1/15/2020 11:16:39 AM 1/15/2020 3:49:06 PM FLO® 4:32 J1772 ? 1 CAD 17.407 1/22/2020 3:20:08 PM 1/22/2020 4:00:39 PM FLO® 0:40 J1772 ? 1 CAD 1.372 1/22/2020 6:53:26 PM 1/22/2020 7:03:10 PM FLO® 0:09 J1772 ? 1 CAD 1.055 1/22/2020 7:23:53 PM 1/22/2020 8:43:31 PM FLO® 1:19 J1772 ? 1 CAD 9.202 1/24/2020 8:30:27 AM 1/24/2020 9:45:22 AM FLO® 1:14 J1772 ? 1 CAD 8.524 1/24/2020 2:17:16 PM 1/24/2020 4:41:01 PM FLO® 2:23 J1772 ? 1 CAD 16.432 1/26/2020 1:50:13 PM 1/26/2020 3:59:19 PM FLO® 2:09 J1772 ? 1 CAD 14.274 1/27/2020 12:46:59 PM 1/27/2020 1:44:49 PM FLO® 0:57 J1772 ? 1 CAD 6.551 1/28/2020 9:36:12 AM 1/28/2020 11:35:13 AM FLO® 1:59 J1772 ? 1 CAD 6.377 1/30/2020 12:40:38 PM 1/30/2020 2:17:43 PM FLO® 1:37 J1772 ? 1 CAD 5.165 1/31/2020 6:33:41 AM 1/31/2020 6:47:30 AM FLO® 0:13 J1772 ? 1 CAD 0.73 2/2/2020 3:02:09 PM 2/2/2020 4:21:29 PM FLO® 1:19 J1772 ? 1 CAD 8.771 2/4/2020 12:21:22 PM 2/4/2020 2:55:50 PM FLO® 2:34 J1772 ? 1 CAD 16.257 2/6/2020 11:37:28 AM 2/6/2020 2:05:56 PM FLO® 2:28 J1772 ? 1 CAD 16.971 2/12/2020 11:43:55 AM 2/12/2020 12:33:19 PM FLO® 0:49 J1772 ? 1 CAD 2.13 2/12/2020 12:53:53 PM 2/12/2020 12:58:19 PM FLO® 0:04 J1772 ? 1 CAD 0.109 2/15/2020 9:00:50 PM 2/16/2020 7:45:33 AM FLO® 10:44 J1772 ? 1 CAD 65.473 2/16/2020 2:38:31 PM 2/16/2020 5:00:25 PM FLO® 2:21 J1772 ? 1 CAD 15.594 2/17/2020 12:45:02 PM 2/17/2020 1:58:05 PM FLO® 1:13 J1772 ? 1 CAD 7.716 2/18/2020 12:25:40 PM 2/18/2020 4:24:17 PM FLO® 3:58 J1772 ? 1 CAD 22.839 2/19/2020 3:00:23 PM 2/19/2020 3:16:01 PM FLO® 0:15 J1772 ? 1 CAD 1.648 2/19/2020 4:36:13 PM 2/19/2020 7:08:47 PM FLO® 2:32 J1772 ? 1 CAD 15.192 2/20/2020 8:57:09 AM 2/20/2020 11:20:02 AM FLO® 2:22 J1772 ? 1 CAD 7.305 2/26/2020 12:04:49 PM 2/26/2020 3:34:34 PM FLO® 3:29 J1772 ? 1 CAD 11.949 2/27/2020 7:16:55 PM 2/28/2020 8:59:25 AM FLO® 13:42 J1772 ? 1 CAD 30.325 2/28/2020 6:44:00 PM 2/28/2020 9:16:23 PM FLO® 2:32 J1772 ? 1 CAD 14.079 3/1/2020 3:01:34 PM 3/1/2020 4:28:17 PM FLO® 1:26 J1772 ? 1 CAD 9.526 3/2/2020 1:04:45 PM 3/2/2020 8:12:27 PM FLO® 7:07 J1772 ? 1 CAD 44.628 3/5/2020 1:48:38 PM 3/5/2020 4:22:55 PM FLO® 2:34 J1772 ? 1 CAD 17.751 3/6/2020 3:00:37 PM 3/6/2020 4:06:12 PM FLO® 1:05 J1772 ? 1.1 CAD 7.146 3/9/2020 11:03:48 AM 3/9/2020 7:30:18 PM FLO® 8:26 J1772 ? 8.5 CAD 57.133 3/10/2020 10:18:01 AM 3/10/2020 4:50:54 PM FLO® 6:32 J1772 ? 6.6 CAD 44.162 3/14/2020 10:04:25 AM 3/14/2020 10:45:42 AM FLO® 0:41 J1772 ? 0.7 CAD 2.282 3/15/2020 2:57:29 PM 3/15/2020 4:33:07 PM FLO® 1:35 J1772 ? 1.6 CAD 10.443 3/18/2020 1:00:45 PM 3/18/2020 2:16:32 PM FLO® 1:15 J1772 ? 1.3 CAD 4.245 3/20/2020 9:58:30 AM 3/20/2020 11:30:43 AM FLO® 1:32 J1772 ? 1.5 CAD 4.314 3/22/2020 10:19:29 AM 3/22/2020 11:54:40 AM FLO® 1:35 J1772 ? 1.6 CAD 5.444 3/24/2020 12:15:07 PM 3/24/2020 1:04:15 PM FLO® 0:49 J1772 ? 0.8 CAD 1.461 3/26/2020 10:37:32 AM 3/26/2020 11:00:35 AM FLO® 0:23 J1772 ? 0.4 CAD 1.046 3/31/2020 10:55:15 AM 3/31/2020 12:04:56 PM FLO® 1:09 J1772 ? 1.2 CAD 3.969 4/2/2020 10:44:34 AM 4/2/2020 11:45:53 AM FLO® 1:01 J1772 ? 1 CAD 2.588 4/6/2020 10:43:00 AM 4/6/2020 11:58:35 AM FLO® 1:15 J1772 ? 1.3 CAD 3.385 4/9/2020 11:02:30 AM 4/9/2020 12:59:44 PM FLO® 1:57 J1772 ? 2 CAD 5.835 4/13/2020 10:44:04 AM 4/13/2020 12:17:12 PM FLO® 1:33 J1772 ? 1.6 CAD 5.294 4/15/2020 10:10:06 AM 4/15/2020 12:02:14 PM FLO® 1:52 J1772 ? 1.9 CAD 12.786 4/21/2020 10:17:45 AM 4/21/2020 11:01:44 AM FLO® 0:43 J1772 ? 0.7 CAD 2.476 4/23/2020 11:09:40 AM 4/23/2020 11:40:38 AM FLO® 0:30 J1772 ? 0.5 CAD 1.724 4/24/2020 9:02:31 AM 4/24/2020 9:03:43 AM FLO® 0:01 J1772 ? 0 CAD 0.051 4/24/2020 9:04:13 AM 4/24/2020 10:46:57 AM FLO® 1:42 J1772 ? 1.7 CAD 11.331 4/25/2020 10:44:32 AM 4/25/2020 10:54:39 AM FLO® 0:10 J1772 ? 0.2 CAD 0.538 4/25/2020 10:55:55 AM 4/25/2020 11:36:52 AM FLO® 0:40 J1772 ? 0.7 CAD 2.319 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ
ÿ ÿ !ÿ ÿ ÿÿ !!ÿ" ÿ#$#$%$&%$&ÿ$$'$$ÿ !ÿ#$#$%$(%)$ÿ#)'012
345ÿ789@Aÿ8A88BC48ÿDBEFÿ4CÿA4AG@5ÿEG948HAGGAIÿ9GAÿ !P
Q RS ÿT ÿS ÿT ÿUÿVU T WÿRX YB``9@AÿCHÿa98`C bcdbbefccgePgeh3igpbPpqr
NOTE:
The Fortis station is 50 kilowatts at $18/hr. The Village station is 7.2 kilowatts, so proportionally we should be charging $2.60. Kaslo Administration
From: Megan Lohmann
Hi Karissa,
Are you referring to the Level 2 station?
Assuming yes, there are currently no communities that I am aware of in the Accelerate network charging for usage. We did offer the opportunity to support communities in applying a fee, and provided the attached memo at the time (of course the webinar dates are passed, but I’m still happy to help as needed!). This memo explains the recommended rate of $2/hr.
There are 43 FLO level 2 charging stations installed across the Kootenays, owned and operated by small communities. I have heard of no major issues so far. I do also oversee a network in Alberta as well, where a fee of $2/hr is being applied. It’s all automatic, with FLO dispersing the revenue to the station owner on a quarterly basis.
Are you looking to apply a fee?
It may be easiest for us to have a chat so that I can better help you. Let me know if we should set something up.
Thanks,
Megan Lohmann, CCEM/MSc Head of Community Energy Management, Community Energy Association www.communityenergy.bc.ca [email protected] Office/Cell: 250‐531‐0690 QUALIFY TO BECOME A CERTIFIED COMMUNITY ENERGY MANAGER: VISIT WWW.COMMUNITYENERGY.BC.CA/EDU TO REGISTER
From: Kaslo Administration
Good Afternoon Megan,
The Village of Kaslo is interested in other small communities that installed a FLO EV Charger and how it is working out for them.
‐Can you tell me if any communities are charging for this service and what the rate is? ‐Are they happy with the Flo Service and website? ‐Any problems with payments, alerts or equipment?
Your help with this is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Karissa Stroshein 1 Owning & Operating your Level 2 Electric Vehicle Charger
You’ve owned your Level 2 station for a while now, and we wanted to make sure you and your colleagues have all the information you need to continue to operate it and maximize benefits to local residents and businesses. This short resource will cover three main topics: 1. How and when to implement a charge out rate for the station (i.e., charge drivers a fee) 2. How to manage any technical problems. 3. Next steps for EVs in the Kootenays Charging Drivers a Fee for Use COFFEE There are costs associated with owning a Level 2 charger, and you may be considering implementing a fee to cover your costs. TO FEE OR NOT TO FEE? Your station was sited to maximize benefits to your community by providing visitors easy access to local shops, restaurants, cafés, and other amenities. That is, when visitors are plugged in, they are likely spending money in your community. Instituting a high fee could dissuade visitors from stopping in your community. That said, as adoption increases in our region, instituting a reasonable fee helps dissuade drivers from parking for longer than necessary. Currently, the majority of Level 2 stations in BC remain free to use.
HOW MUCH TO CHARGE? In BC, Level 2 chargers are used on average for 1 hour each day, providing 30 amps of current at 240 volts, or 7.2 kilowatts (kW) of power each hour. Those stations with a fee cost on average $1-2/hr. With this assumption in mind, how much does it cost your community to offer Level 2 charging? Note: these costs use BC Hydro small business rates These calculations support the provincial average If your charger is used each day for: 0 hours 1 hour 2 hours rate of $1-2/hr as an Electricity cost - $0.90 $1.80 appropriate fee to cover your cost of ownership Network fee (cost per day) $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 ($150/year) while encouraging visitors to spend time (and money!) Total cost $0.40 $1.30 $2.20 in your community. As with all municipal assets, a contingency fee for eventual $0.82 $0.82 $0.82 replacement and potential maintenance is suggested. Due to the These numbers are only meant to be a low maintenance costs of Level 2 stations, annual contingency guideline to inform the decision making of $300 is sufficient. If this is included in daily costs to your community: process for your community, and should be considered in conjunction with location- Total daily costs to you $1.22 $2.12 $3.02 specific co-benefits to determine the appropriate charge-out rate. You may also NOTE: when a fee to drivers is introduced, FLO (network administrator) need to consider whether the charging site deducts 15% from each transaction as a service fee. already requires a parking fee, for example. Next Page: Technical FAQ & What’s Next for EVs... Troubleshooting technical problems. While technical failures of Level 2 stations is infrequent, there may, from time to time, be interruptions that require your attention. To give you and your colleagues the information needed to fix any technical problems, we are hosting a webinar for local government staff in partnership with FLO (the charging station network provider). Webinar details are below.
What’s Next for EVs in the Kootenays? We have heard from local government officials and staff in a variety of communities about keeping up with EV momentum, and further supporting adoption. As you may have noticed in the media and in your own communities, the number of EVs is rapidly growing with over 20,000 EVs in BC, and exponential growth in the Kootenays. To give you an update and summary of Accelerate Kootenays as well as some information on what is next for supporting EV travel in the Kootenays, we invite you to join us as the webinar noted below.
WEBINAR: Level 2 Charger Ownership & Rural EV Momentum JUNE 26th, 9:30am PST/10:30am MTN (duration: 1 hr) Topics covered: • Accelerate Kootenays summary • Provincial targets for EV adoption • Intro to EV incentives • Next steps for local governments in supporting EV adoption • FLO: Your Level 2 SmartTwo charger • Troubleshooting common service interruptions • Q&A
To sign up for this webinar, please email: [email protected] Zincton Expression of Interest May 2020
Executive Summary
Prepared for:
David Harley, President
Zincton Box 379 New Denver, BC V0G 1S0
Planning by:
Brent Harley and Associates Inc. (BHA) 4 – 1005 Alpha Lake Road Whistler, BC V8E 0H5 www.brentharley.com [email protected] 604.932.7002 Statement of Limitations: The information included in this report has been compiled by BHA from a variety of sources. The intent of this document is to Illustrate the spatial relationship of existing and proposed development, as well as environmental, economic, and cultural realities. Further, the historic weather information provided is solely to illustrate existing climate conditions. The impacts of climate change on temperature, precipitation, snowfall, and other associated factors as they relate to this project will require ongoing assessment and review as new information and data becomes available. As such, BHA makes no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness or rights to the use of such information. BHA shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits. Detailed design, survey, architecture, geotechnical assessment, engineering approvals, etc., must be completed prior to construction.
E-1 | Zincton – EOI Executive Summary
1 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of David Harley, Brent Harley and Associates Inc. (BHA) is pleased to present this Executive Summary for the Zincton Expression of Interest (EOI). As proposed, Zincton would be a new all-season resort located along London Ridge and Whitewater Ridge, near New Denver, B.C. The EOI represents the first of three stages in the all-season resort development application process as detailed in the All Season Resort Policy and All Season Resort Guidelines, and which culminates in the approval of a Master Plan and a Master Development Agreement with Province of British Columbia. Throughout this process the concept will continue to be revised and refined with input from First Nations, stakeholders, and the Mountain Resorts Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.
1.1 Project Overview The development of Zincton represents the evolution of all-season resorts in BC and Canada. As envisioned:
Zincton will be a world-class, all-season, backcountry-oriented mountain destination that delivers an unparalleled recreation experience complemented by a pedestrian-only, environmentally sustainable Mountain Village.
If realized, this project will establish an all-season, backcountry-oriented mountain destination catering to dedicated local, regional, and international guests seeking an immersive mountain experience with world-class accommodation and amenities. The proposed development will blend the lift-serviced recreation experience offered at traditional mountain resorts with an extensive and accessible backcountry offering increasingly being sought by the skier marketplace.
Zincton will offer a range of winter backcountry experiences, including “laps” on chairlifts based out of the Mountain Village and non-mechanical, human-powered backcountry skiing. This range of winter experiences will be matched in summer by a hiking and mountain bike trail network offering challenging hikes, epic rides, and a backcountry mountain experience. The trails will range from short, accessible trails to full day mountain adventures for the more ambitious. Additionally, a vast existing network of old rail trails connects Zincton to Retallack, Sandon, New Denver, Slocan Lake, and beyond, creating experiences suitable to all experience and skill levels.
Base area amenities will include a comprehensive Mountain Village that will meet the full range of guest needs and a remote, luxury Backcountry Lodge in Goat Canyon below Whitewater Ridge. The Mountain Village and a portion of the recreation facilities (e.g. ski trails, mountain bike trails) will be developed on private land adjacent to the proposed Controlled Recreation Area. Combined with lift-serviced skiing at either end, guests will create their own personal mix of accommodation between the Mountain Village and the remote Backcountry Lodge, and lift- serviced and backcountry recreation experiences, both guided and unguided.
Brent Harley and Associates | E-2 The proposed location for Zincton is situated on Crown lands just north of and parallel to Highway 31A, extending between the historic mining towns of Three Forks and Retallack. The site sits approximately 8 km east of New Denver and 38 km west of Kalso, and straddles Electoral Area H and Electoral Area D of the Regional District of Central Kootenay. The study area covers an area of approximately 5,500 ha, with land that rises almost 1,900 m from the Kaslo River (800 m) to the summit of Whitewater Mountain (2,768 m).
Based on preliminary analysis, at buildout Zincton would have a backcountry oriented Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) of approximately 1,550 skiers per day and a Balanced Resort Capacity (BRC) of approximately 1,750 guests. The calculation of CCC adapted the approach detailed in the All Season Resort Guidelines to better represent the realities and expectations of backcountry skiers and the vision of authentic backcountry skiing experience. Of note, these calculations include the recreation and resort amenities proposed for the private lands just above Three Forks (i.e. the Mountain Village and associated amenities). The BRC includes complementary activities, such as snowshoeing and cross-country skiing, and passive guests (6% of winter season CCC).
Zincton is anticipated to have a limited spatial or environmental footprint owing to a focus on authentic backcountry recreation which relies on unaltered, natural landscapes. Ski outs/egress routes will be developed to facilitate guest circulation back to a limited number of backcountry- oriented chairlifts as accessed via an extensive ‘nature-oriented’ trail and glading network. Trail development and maintenance (e.g. summer grooming and snow groomed trails found at typical ski resorts) will be minimized. The staging areas, Mountain Village, and Backcountry Lodge will all be developed following industry best practices for sustainability, recognizing that the unaltered natural setting will be a key draw for guests.
The vision for this project comes from Mr. David Harley, founder and president of Valhalla Pure Outfitters. Mr. Harley has worked and played in the Goat Range mountains and local communities over the past four decades and has come to recognize and understand the significant recreation potential of the area. BHA, working closely with Mr. Harley, has prepared the EOI to provide a preliminary description of the proposed all-season resort. Aligned with the direction laid out in the All Season Resort Guidelines (ASRG), the intent of the EOI is to describe the existing resort context, provide preliminary site inventory and analyses, as well as initial mountain and base area concepts and a preliminary market commentary.
E-3 | Zincton – EOI Executive Summary
1.2 Project Rationale The popularity of backcountry skiing and ski touring has increased exponentially in recent years. Improvements to backcountry ski technology, falling equipment prices, and readily available backcountry information and training in concert with increasing lift ticket prices and the desire to get away from crowded traditional resorts have seen backcountry skiing transformed from the pursuit of hardcore mountaineers and extreme athletes to the pastime of weekend warriors. Zincton capitalizes on the rapidly growing backcountry skiing and ski touring markets and the growing discontent with the traditional resort experience while offering the supports, comforts, and amenities of an all-season resort.
Accurate participation numbers for backcountry skiing are very difficult to measure due to a lack of effective tracking tools and the vast geographic area used by skiers. However, use of popular backcountry skiing websites and sales numbers from industry retailers indicate a strong and growing guest marketplace. BackcountrySkiingCanada.com reports traffic on its route webpages (i.e. webpage dedicated to a specific backcountry ski route) is approximately doubling annually. In the equipment industry, ski, boot and binding suppliers report 20-40% annual growth in units sold1. Backcountry equipment surpassed 12% of all ski equipment sales in 2015, and continues to expand rapidly as large, dominant equipment brands enter the market, innovate, and offer equipment at more affordable prices1. Given this, it is reasonable to anticipate that backcountry gear will soon equal more than 20% of total ski equipment sales, with growth at 50% year over year. It is this growth in the backcountry market in concert with a shift in guest preferences away from a traditional resort ski experience that Zincton will strive to capitalize on.
1.3 Project Goals and Objectives Guided by the vision of a world-class, all-season, backcountry-oriented mountain destination, the mission statement for Zincton is:
Zincton will offer accessible four-season backcountry recreation experiences unique to the mountain resort market, as staged from the comforts and amenities of an intimate, pedestrian-oriented Mountain Village developed on adjacent privately held lands.
To achieve this, the following objectives were established as guiding principles in the creation of the preliminary Zincton concepts:
• To develop a unique, lift-accessed backcountry recreation experience not found elsewhere, creating an alternative to the typical mountain resort experience; • To create a high-quality mountain destination experience that caters to the residents of the region and destination guests from other parts of the Province, Canada, and the globe. • To develop a diverse suite of recreational opportunities that complements and enhances the public and commercial backcountry recreation opportunities of the surrounding area. • To develop an all-season resort that will complement the goals and objectives of the local communities, First Nations, and the Regional District of the Central Kootenay.
1 Snowsport Industries Association (2019). Available at: https://snowsports.org/
Brent Harley and Associates | E-4 • To preserve, enhance, and showcase the natural beauty of the Goat Range and Selkirk Mountain Range • To establish a destination that government, industry, and the public will recognize as a leading example of environmentally sensitive, socially and culturally responsible development. • To provide year-round tourist attractions that may include skiing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, sightseeing, mountain biking, hiking, backcountry touring, cultural/ecological interpretive programs, and more. • To be a resilient all-season resort that can offer a range of world-class outdoor experiences regardless of seasonal weather conditions. • To stage from the associated, adjacent, privately held and integrated resort-oriented real estate in a mountain village context as a means of balancing and complementing Zincton’s facilities and attributes. • To contribute to BC’s growing reputation as a world-class, year-round tourism destination. • To cater to the increasing number of visitors to the region, in turn supporting local economic growth and diversification. • To expand the economic and local employment opportunities for residents. • To develop a mountain destination that is economically viable, serving as an important generator for the local and regional economies, and contributing important revenue to the government tax base.
E-5 | Zincton – EOI Executive Summary
2 RESORT CONTEXT
2.1 Location and Study Area The proposed location for Zincton is within the Goat Range of British Columbia’s Selkirk Mountain Range, approximately 10 mins east of New Denver, BC along Highway 31A, in the Regional District of the Central Kootenay.
Figure E-1. Location and Regional Context for Zincton
The proposed area extends along London Ridge anchored at one end by Whitewater Mountain (2,768 m), with the Kaslo River forming the southern boundary, Kane Creek acting as the northern boundary, and Whitewater Creek serving as the eastern boundary (Fig. E-2). The site sits above the old mining towns of Three Forks, Zincton, and Retallack.
Figure E-2. Proposed Zincton EOI Study Area Boundary
Brent Harley and Associates | E-6 3 RESORT CONCEPT
3.1 Mountain Concept The Mountain Concept illustrates skiing and mountain biking terrain that will fulfill the vision of a world-class, all-season, backcountry-oriented mountain recreation destination that delivers an unparalleled recreation experience (Fig. E-3). Guests will be able to access approximately 4,500 ha of backcountry terrain through a small network of lifts and self-propelled travel (i.e. ski touring, mountain biking). The lifts will help guests access the height of land along London Ridge and Whitewater Ridge, with a ski touring route/trail running the length of London Ridge, connecting the proposed Mountain Village to a Backcountry Lodge and beyond. Considerable natural ski terrain exists off the sides of both ridges, ranging from intermediate to expert skier skill classes. For winter activities, no traditional ski runs will be developed (i.e. cleared, graded), but gladed terrain will be established where appropriate and ski outs will be constructed at the bottom of all slopes to lead skiers back to the base or staging areas. Zincton may name the bowls, glades, couloirs and prominent features of the ski terrain for guest orientation and wayfinding, but it will not employ the relatively intense terrain development found with traditional mountain resorts.
In the summer, the ridge lines and some of the more mellow intermediate terrain beneath Whitewater Ridge will also be used to develop a low-density hiking and mountain bike trail network. Summer activities at Zincton will use the chairlifts as well as dedicated climbing trails to access the trails higher on the ridges. Where sensible, mountain biking trails will be spatially separated from pedestrian trails to mitigate potential user conflict. Summer operations will be based out of both the proposed Mountain Village and Backcountry Lodge. Trails that allow mountain biking will be singletrack, with berms and bridges as needed to create an enjoyable experience and minimize environmental disturbance. The trails will not include skill testing, manmade features like wooden ‘skinnies’, drops, or dirt jumps, instead opting for a more natural, backcountry mountain biking experience that caters to guests looking for epic rides.
3.2 Base Area Concept
The Mountain Village lies wholly within private lands located above the Town of Three Forks. However, the planning and design of the base area has been guided by the principles and information contained in the All Season Resort Guidelines and has adopted those base area characteristics that have made BC’s ski resorts a world leader. Further, the size of development (e.g. accommodation, parking, guest services) will be scaled to reflect the Balanced Resort Capacity of the recreation amenities.
The Mountain Village is envisioned as an intimate, pedestrian-scaled, and pedestrian-oriented base area, where all accommodation and skier services are ski to/ski from. Cabins will form all private and public accommodation, and no large hotels or condominium developments will be entertained. A village stroll will serve as the heart of the village, populated with restaurants, general and specialized retail, a general store, and a range of supporting services. Vehicle access is limited to the periphery of the village, only serving to allow guests to access the Mountain Village from Highway 31A. The priority in design has been placed on walkability with the effect of eliminating the need for vehicle use within the village.
E-7 | Zincton – EOI Executive Summary 2500
1600 1400 2300 1700 Zincton
1900 2500 2500 Whitewater 2600 Mountain 1800 Expression of Interest
2700 2700 2500 Mt. Brennan 2019 2400 2700 2900 2500 1300 2700 2700 2000 2400 2200 2300 2400
2800 Legend 2500 2300 2600 Proposed Zincton EOI 2200 Whitewater Ridge 2300 1700 2000 2100
2200 2000
2100 2000
Fish Lake
2200 2100 2100 1800
Bear Lake
1600
2200 2000 2100
1800
1200 1400
1000
London Ridge Fish Lake 1900 Retallack
1200
Bear Lake
1400 Prepared for: 1700 Zincton 1100
1100 1600 Mr. David Harley Box 379 1500 1000 1700 New Denver, BC V0G 1S0
1500
Planning by:
1300 Private Base 1600 4-1005 Alpha Lake Road, Area Lands Whistler, B.C. Kaslo Canada. V8E 0H5 2000 Tel: 604 932 7002 email: [email protected]
2100 Statement of Limitations: 1800 The information included on this map has been compiled by BHA from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. BHA makes no representation or warranty, 2200 expressed or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness or rights to the use of such information. BHA shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost 900 revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of Three Forks the information contained on this map.
1900 1:40,000 Meters 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 EOI Study Area 800 New Denver
2300 Figure E-3 This page is intentionally left blank
E-9 | Zincton – EOI Executive Summary A day-use parking area is planned for land adjacent to Kane Creek, approximately 1.15 km north of Highway 31A. As proposed, day-use guests would stage from this parking area and access the Mountain Village by way of a gondola. This would carry day-use guests to a location near the village stroll and the skier services they would use to plan their day. At the end of the day skiers will either ski out or download on the gondola. This detail will be finalized as planning progresses.
The Mountain Village will be complemented by a boutique, ski to/ski from 4-Star Backcountry Lodge located under Whitewater Ridge. Complete with a world-class chef and staff, the Lodge will be a self-contained destination, capable of hosting approximately 12 to 24 guests at a time.
Finally, as proposed, Zincton will provide accommodation for all staff onsite in a small neighbourhood development just beyond the parking and staging area adjacent to Kane Creek, in the valley bottom. The accommodation will be provided as cabins consistent with the development style of the Mountain Village and easily walkable to and from the base area gondola.
Brent Harley and Associates | E-10
Brent Harley and Associates Inc. (BHA) 4 – 1005 Alpha Lake Road Whistler, BC, V8E 0H5 www.brentharley.com [email protected] 604.932.7002
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY DRAFT PRELIMINARY REPORT Housing Needs Report – Data Results
Prepared by:
Turner Drake & Partners Ltd. M’akola Development Services
May 1, 2020
A NOTE ON THE REPORT: The Draft Preliminary Report contains regional statistics acquired from Statistics Canada and other sources. The intent of this report is to share initial findings from data sources rather than to interpret the data or make recommendations which will be completed in later project phases. Future versions of the report will include data from additional sources such as BC Assessment, Local Governments and community consultation. Data will be presented at a sub-regional and local scale at a later date.
1
Contents WHAT TO EXPECT ...... 4 PARTICIPATING COMMUNITIES ...... 5 DEMOGRAPHY ...... 6 1. Historical Census Population ...... 6 2. Age ...... 6 3. Senior Population ...... 8 4. Persons with Disabilities ...... 9 5. Anticipated Population ...... 9 6. Tenure ...... 9 7. Mobility ...... 11 8. Household Size ...... 12 9. Maintainer Age ...... 14 ECONOMY ...... 14 10. Income ...... 14 11. Low-Income Measure (LIM) – After Tax ...... 16 12. Employment ...... 17 13. Industry ...... 19 14. Commuting ...... 20 HOUSING ...... 22 15. Dwelling Types ...... 22 16. Dwelling Age ...... 23 17. Bedroom Number ...... 24 18. Market Housing Development Trends ...... 25 19. Rental Inventory ...... 26 20. Rental Market – Vacancy & Rent ...... 28 21. Ownership Market ...... 29 22. Short-term Rentals ...... 29 23. Property Assessments ...... 29 HOUSING NEED ...... 29 24. Non-Market Housing ...... 29 25. Subsidized Housing ...... 31 26. Homelessness ...... 32 27. Anticipated Market Household Demand ...... 32 28. Anticipated Market Housing Supply ...... 32
2
29. Housing Condition (Adequacy) ...... 32 30. Overcrowding (Suitability) ...... 34 31. Affordability ...... 35 32. Energy Poverty ...... 37 33. Core Housing Need ...... 39 34. Extreme Core Housing Need ...... 40 35. Affordability Gap Analysis ...... 41 GLOSSARY ...... 42
3
WHAT TO EXPECT The following report is result of the collection, consolidation, and analysis of multiple datasets prescribed by British Columbia’s Housing Needs Report Regulation, approved April 16, 2019 as part of the Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment Act, 2018, S.B.C, c.20. Each report section is meant, where possible, to provide a summary of regional trends, as well as comparisons among the Regional District of Central Kootenay’s (RDCK’s) individual participant communities. Although the report aims to maintain consistency in the data it shares and analyzes, there are some notable considerations to keep in mind: (1) This Housing Needs Report does not include the City of Castlegar; its demographic and economic data has been removed from overall RDCK totals. Readers may thus notice a difference between the data provided as part of this report versus the data shown on the Statistics Canada website. (2) In order to provide tenure specific information (i.e. owner and renter households), the report used the custom Statistics Canada dataset generated on behalf of the Province. When compared to the aggregate data on the Statistics Canada website, the reader may notice discrepancies; particularly, for total populations. This is due to the custom data only reporting on “usual residents” – those permanently residing on the premises; whereas, total population numbers normally available through Statistics Canada take all persons into account. Accordingly, the report puts added emphasis on percentages when discussing trends or making cross-geographical comparisons. (3) Notwithstanding consideration (1), those sections that refer solely to the total population or total households (e.g. historical and anticipated), without reference to owners or tenures, use data acquired directly from Statistics Canada and not the custom dataset. (4) Both traditional Statistics Canada data and the custom dataset may have small discrepancies between its data categories for populations or households. The differences are due to statistical rounding within each individual category, which may result in those categorical sums differing from others. Report discussions attempt to bridge data from separate sections where appropriate and/or possible. As such, it is important to consider the document as a whole and not solely as its individual parts. For greater detail about the communities that make up the RDCK, please refer to their respective Sub-Regional reports.
4
PARTICIPATING COMMUNITIES Figure RDCK 0.1 illustrates those communities that belong to the Regional District of Central Kootenay. In total, there are 21 unique areas characterized as either being an electoral area, a municipality, or Indigenous lands. This report describes all communities, excluding the City of Castlegar, where data makes it possible; data suppression does exist. In these cases, suppressed communities are either left blank within the tables or removed. Figure RDCK 0.1: RDCK Communities
5
DEMOGRAPHY 1. Historical Census Population Over the course of a decade (2006 to 2016), the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK), excluding the City of Castlegar, grew by about 5 percent, or by 2,580 people. As shown in Table RDCK 1.1, 12 communities grew while 7 shrank. Table RDCK 1.1: All Communities – Historical Population, 2006-2016 (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY 2006 2011 2016 %∆06-16 Central Kootenay 47,975 49,750 50,555 5.4% Creston 4,670 5,070 5,105 9.3% Kaslo 1,045 935 940 -10.0% Nakusp 1,495 1,575 1,630 9.0% Nelson 9,035 9,980 10,255 13.5% New Denver 460 460 435 -5.4% Salmo 1,005 1,135 1,130 12.4% Silverton 175 200 160 -8.6% Slocan 310 175 245 -21.0% Electoral Area A 2,010 1,980 1,890 -6.0% Electoral Area B 4,565 4,450 4,645 1.8% Electoral Area C 1,280 1,315 1,470 14.8% Electoral Area D 1,515 1,345 1,380 -8.9% Electoral Area E 3,700 3,790 3,750 1.4% Electoral Area F 3,710 3,950 3,950 6.5% Electoral Area G 1,595 1,640 1,615 1.3% Electoral Area H 4,295 4,190 4,605 7.2% Electoral Area I 2,415 2,720 2,530 4.8% Electoral Area J 2,775 2,930 3,120 12.4% Electoral Area K 1,790 1,790 1,595 -10.9% The City of Nelson rose 14 percent, surpassed only by Electoral Area C (15 percent) and followed closely by the Village of Salmo and Electoral Area J (12 percent). The Village of Slocan fell by 21 percent, followed by Electoral Area K (11 percent) and the Village of Salmo (10 percent). It is important to note that Slocan’s significant percentage decrease is amplified by its smaller size. 2. Age The RDCK’s 2016 median age was 48.7; the owner median age was 52.7 while renters was 34.5. The Village of Silverton demonstrated the highest overall median at 61.9, followed by Electoral Area K (60) and Electoral Area A (58.2). The lowest belonged to the City of Nelson, with Electoral Area G (42.9) and the Village of Nakusp (45.5) not far behind.
Figure RDCK 2.1 shows the distribution of median ages across the Regional District, divided by Dissemination Area (DA) boundaries (as defined by Statistics Canada in 2016). The DAs are outlined in white, while the community boundaries are in black. Briefly, DAs are the smallest standard geographic area for which all census data are disseminated. They are uniform in terms of population size, which is targeted from 400 to 700 persons to avoid data suppression, though suppression does sometimes occur. Generally, higher median ages are distributed across rural communities, inclusive of all villages. The Town of Creston, the second most populous area among participating communities, demonstrates no DA with a median age below 50.
6
Figure RDCK 2.1: Dissemination Area Map – Median Age, 2016 (Statistics Canada)
Some DAs within Electoral Areas E, F, and H exhibit lower median ages than the typical rural geography, mostly reflecting the younger demographic trends of the City of Nelson that showcase overall median ages below 45 years old. Of the 50,555 RDCK residents, about 54 percent are between 25 to 64 years old; about 23 percent are below 25 and 23 percent are above 65. Of the eight participant municipalities, only the City of Nelson has a higher proportion of younger versus senior (herein referring to those older than 65) persons. Of the 11 electoral areas, six displayed the same trend. The Village of Silverton had the highest proportion of seniors, at about 39 percent, followed by the Village of New Denver (about 37 percent), Electoral Area K (35 percent), and the Town of Creston (35 percent). Electoral Area B led with the highest proportion of youth (24 or younger) at 30 percent, followed by the City of Nelson (26 percent), and the Village of Nakusp (26 percent).
7
Table RDCK 2.1: All Communities – Population Distribution, 2016 (Statistics Canada) < 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 64 65 to 84 85 years COMMUNITY years years years years years or older Central Kootenay 14.3% 5.2% 3.8% 53.9% 21.1% 1.7% Creston 11.3% 4.5% 3.2% 46.1% 30.9% 3.9% Kaslo 16.3% 4.7% 1.1% 48.9% 27.4% 1.6% Nakusp 14.7% 6.7% 4.3% 48.3% 22.6% 3.4% Nelson 15.5% 5.5% 5.5% 56.8% 14.9% 1.9% New Denver 11.5% 0.0% 2.3% 49.4% 34.5% 2.3% Salmo 13.1% 3.9% 3.1% 50.2% 26.6% 3.1% Silverton 12.1% 0.0% 0.0% 48.5% 39.4% 0.0% Slocan 10.4% 6.3% 4.2% 54.2% 25.0% 0.0% Electoral Area A 8.3% 3.2% 2.1% 54.2% 30.6% 1.6% Electoral Area B 17.2% 7.5% 4.8% 44.4% 23.7% 2.3% Electoral Area C 13.2% 5.4% 2.7% 55.4% 23.3% 0.0% Electoral Area D 10.8% 6.8% 2.5% 50.5% 28.0% 1.4% Electoral Area E 13.3% 4.7% 3.5% 56.0% 21.8% 0.8% Electoral Area F 15.1% 6.2% 3.4% 56.5% 18.0% 0.8% Electoral Area G 18.8% 3.4% 2.2% 60.8% 14.8% 0.0% Electoral Area H 16.3% 4.4% 2.7% 59.7% 15.5% 1.4% Electoral Area I 14.8% 4.7% 3.8% 57.7% 17.2% 1.8% Electoral Area J 14.6% 5.4% 4.5% 58.4% 16.5% 0.6% Electoral Area K 6.0% 2.5% 1.9% 54.7% 33.3% 1.6% 3. Senior Population Table RDCK 3.1 summarizes the historical proportions of senior people within each community, while also indicating the percentage change in the actual number of seniors. Table RDCK 3.1: All Communities – Senior (65+) Population (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY 2006 2011 2016 %∆06-16 Central Kootenay 17.0% 18.4% 22.9% 41.9% Creston 31.4% 25.4% 34.8% 21.2% Kaslo 19.7% 17.2% 29.4% 34.1% Nakusp 17.8% 21.3% 26.1% 60.4% Nelson 13.8% 13.6% 16.8% 38.6% New Denver 21.9% 15.3% 37.0% 60.0% Salmo 16.0% 25.6% 30.2% 112.5% Silverton 37.8% 31.0% 41.3% 0.0% Slocan 21.2% 0.0% 24.8% -7.7% Electoral Area A 22.7% 38.4% 31.8% 31.9% Electoral Area B 19.2% 27.6% 26.0% 37.7% Electoral Area C 16.8% 13.7% 23.5% 60.5% Electoral Area D 15.2% 20.1% 29.8% 78.3% Electoral Area E 14.9% 12.7% 22.6% 53.6% Electoral Area F 12.4% 14.8% 18.8% 60.9% Electoral Area G 13.2% 8.9% 14.9% 14.3% Electoral Area H 11.8% 17.0% 17.0% 54.5% Electoral Area I 14.3% 11.6% 19.0% 39.1% Electoral Area J 13.2% 12.0% 17.2% 46.6% Electoral Area K 20.7% 20.7% 34.8% 50.0% Like most geographies across British Columbia and Canada, populations are ageing quickly as the Baby Boomer generation enters their retirement years. In RDCK specifically, no community had a lower proportion of seniors in 2016 compared to a decade prior. Furthermore, no community had actual senior population growth below 20 percent, except the Village of Silverton, the Village of Slocan, and Electoral Area G.
8
Generally, the RDCK had about 41 percent growth in seniors between 2006 and 2016, led by the Village of Salmo and Electoral Area D at 113 and 78 percent, respectively. Although among those communities with the highest proportion of seniors, the Town of Creston had the second lowest senior growth at 21 percent. 4. Persons with Disabilities [Ongoing] 5. Anticipated Population [Ongoing] 6. Tenure As shown in Figure RDCK 6.1, individual rentership rates steadily decline into older age, only increasing for those above 85. This 2016 trend does not deviate from that experienced in 2006, though most age cohorts do experience higher overall rates of rentership. Figure RDCK 6.1: RDCK – Rentership by Age Cohort, 2006-2016 (Statistics Canada)
Table RDCK 6.1: All Communities – Population & Household Tenure (Statistics Canada) Owners Renters Renter COMMUNITY 2006 2011 2016 %∆06-16 2006 2011 2016 %∆06-16 HHs Central Kootenay 39,095 41,105 39,825 1.9% 10,125 9,905 12,240 20.9% 23.3% Creston 3,785 4,005 3,880 2.5% 885 1,065 1,220 37.9% 27.1% Kaslo 715 640 710 -0.7% 330 295 230 -30.3% 23.7% Nakusp 1,235 1,185 1,135 -8.1% 260 390 500 92.3% 30.3% Nelson 6,325 7,125 6,785 7.3% 2,710 2,855 3,470 28.0% 38.9% New Denver 290 430 265 -8.6% 170 25 170 0.0% 33.3% Salmo 845 955 780 -7.7% 165 175 350 112.1% 31.6% Silverton 135 200 120 -11.1% 45 0 40 -11.1% 21.1% Slocan 235 175 175 -25.5% 80 0 70 -12.5% 28.6% Electoral Area A 1,755 1,790 1,580 -10.0% 255 190 300 17.6% 17.5% Electoral Area B 3,760 3,730 3,745 -0.4% 810 720 895 10.5% 14.2% Electoral Area C 1,095 1,105 1,275 16.4% 185 205 200 8.1% 14.5% Electoral Area D 1,265 1,125 1,185 -6.3% 250 220 195 -22.0% 16.2% Electoral Area E 2,965 3,415 3,160 6.6% 730 380 590 -19.2% 17.6% Electoral Area F 3,360 3,665 3,490 3.9% 355 280 465 31.0% 15.0% Electoral Area G 1,300 1,440 1,315 1.2% 295 205 305 3.4% 20.7% Electoral Area H 3,750 3,625 3,895 3.9% 545 565 715 31.2% 17.9% Electoral Area I 2,215 2,325 2,195 -0.9% 205 395 340 65.9% 14.5% Electoral Area J 2,470 2,585 2,710 9.7% 305 340 410 34.4% 15.9% Electoral Area K 1,525 1,535 1,405 -7.9% 265 255 185 -30.2% 11.4%
9
Generally, electoral areas exhibit lower household renter ratios (the amount of renter households divided by total households) than their municipal counterparts; no electoral area surpasses 20 percent, except for Electoral Area G. Between 2006 and 2016, 12 of the 19 participating communities demonstrated growth in the number of individual renters. Conversely, 11 of 19 communities had a decrease in individual owners. Overall, the RDCK had about 3 percent growth in owners and 21 percent in renters. Figure RDCK 6.2: Dissemination Area Map – Rentership, 2016 (Statistics Canada)
Of the RDCK municipalities, Nelson has the highest proportion of renter households (about 39 percent), followed by New Denver (33 percent), and Salmo (31 percent). Overall, the RDCK has a renter rate of about 23 percent. As illustrated by Figure RDCK 6.2, there is an unsurprising concentration of higher renter rates in the City of Nelson, though they are predominantly located near the city centre.
10
7. Mobility One-year mobility refers to whether a person changed their location of residence within the prior twelve months. In 2016, Central Kootenay welcomed 4,375 people from outside the regional borders over the previous year. This is equivalent to 57 percent of all movers, meaning another 3,290 people changed homes within the district (non-migrants). Of those who were migrants, the majority (about 63 percent) came from elsewhere in British Columbia, while 30 percent moved from somewhere in Canada. Figure RDCK 7.1: Dissemination Area Map – One-Year Mobility (Statistics Canada)
Figure RDCK 7.1 illustrates which DAs demonstrated the highest proportion of migrants as a function of totals movers within the previous year. It is important to note that the percentages do not reflect whether people have moved from outside the DA, but from outside the municipality or electoral area in which it belongs. Thus, the map shows what overall communities experience greatest demand internally or externally.
11
Table RDCK 7.2: All Communities – One-Year Mobility (Statistics Canada) Non- Intraprov. Interprov. External Total COMMUNITY Migrant Migrant Migrant Migrant Movers Central Kootenay 42.3% 36.9% 16.8% 3.9% 6,600 Creston 58.5% 22.6% 15.7% 3.1% 795 Kaslo 12.1% 60.6% 21.2% 6.1% 165 Nakusp 50.0% 31.3% 18.8% 0.0% 240 Nelson 54.4% 24.6% 13.2% 7.7% 1,745 New Denver 26.7% 53.3% 20.0% 0.0% 75 Salmo 31.7% 63.4% 4.9% 0.0% 205 Silverton 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25 Slocan 37.5% 62.5% 0.0% 0.0% 40 Electoral Area A 0.0% 57.1% 42.9% 0.0% 140 Electoral Area B 44.2% 24.0% 31.7% 0.0% 520 Electoral Area C 17.9% 57.1% 17.9% 7.1% 140 Electoral Area D 37.8% 13.5% 40.5% 8.1% 185 Electoral Area E 47.6% 32.1% 15.5% 4.8% 420 Electoral Area F 46.0% 37.9% 12.6% 3.4% 435 Electoral Area G 21.2% 72.7% 6.1% 0.0% 165 Electoral Area H 19.2% 59.6% 18.2% 3.0% 495 Electoral Area I 27.1% 61.0% 11.9% 0.0% 295 Electoral Area J 47.4% 39.5% 10.5% 2.6% 380 Electoral Area K 11.5% 57.7% 30.8% 0.0% 130 Table RDCK 7.1 summarizes the distribution of each migrant type across the overall community boundaries. In 2016, Electoral Area B had the highest record of movers (520), excluding the municipalities. It also had the second highest rate of migrants from other Canadian provinces (43 percent). Of the municipalities, Creston had the highest proportion of local movers, Nelson had the highest rate of international migrants, and Salmo had the greatest proportion of people coming from within the Province (excluding Silverton). 8. Household Size Table RDCK 8.1 summarizes the how many households are in each community, as well as the proportion of how many persons per household and the subsequent average household size. Table RDCK 8.1: All Communities – Household Size, 2016 (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY 1 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 5+ person Total HHs Average Central Kootenay 32.5% 40.9% 12.8% 9.4% 4.4% 23,520 2.2 Creston 38.3% 41.8% 10.8% 5.2% 3.9% 2,585 2.0 Kaslo 40.9% 40.9% 6.5% 6.5% 5.4% 465 2.0 Nakusp 36.2% 34.2% 13.8% 11.2% 4.6% 760 2.2 Nelson 36.6% 33.7% 14.7% 11.1% 3.9% 4,825 2.1 New Denver 47.1% 39.2% 7.8% 5.9% 0.0% 255 1.7 Salmo 43.0% 33.3% 11.4% 9.6% 2.6% 570 2.0 Silverton 47.4% 52.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 95 1.6 Slocan 42.9% 42.9% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 140 1.8 Electoral Area A 30.9% 53.6% 8.8% 4.1% 2.6% 970 1.9 Electoral Area B 25.3% 46.8% 10.0% 8.7% 9.2% 1,900 2.5 Electoral Area C 24.4% 48.1% 13.0% 7.6% 6.9% 655 2.3 Electoral Area D 29.2% 50.0% 9.2% 8.5% 3.1% 650 2.1 Electoral Area E 29.5% 43.6% 13.3% 9.8% 3.8% 1,730 2.2 Electoral Area F 27.0% 38.4% 16.4% 13.5% 4.7% 1,705 2.3 Electoral Area G 31.3% 42.7% 10.7% 10.0% 5.3% 750 2.2 Electoral Area H 34.4% 36.2% 14.4% 10.8% 4.2% 2,125 2.2 Electoral Area I 27.6% 41.2% 14.0% 12.2% 5.0% 1,105 2.3 Electoral Area J 24.1% 43.7% 16.7% 10.7% 4.8% 1,350 2.3 Electoral Area K 30.1% 55.4% 9.0% 4.2% 1.2% 830 1.9
12
According to the 2016 Census, there were 23,520 households in the Regional District, of which almost 41 percent were 2-persons in size. The average household size has remained constant at 2.2 persons per home since 2006. The highest average household size belonged to Electoral Area B (2.5), followed by Electoral Areas C, F, I, and J (2.3 each). The lowest size is attributed to the Village of New Denver (1.5) and the Village of Silverton (1.6). The larger municipalities achieved at minimum a 2.0 average. Figure RDCK 8.1: Dissemination Area Map – Household Size (Statistics Canada)
Excluding a few DAs within the City of Nelson, most DAs that demonstrage an average household size above 2.0 were in the rural areas; specifically, along the RDCK’s southern border and surrounding the City of Castlegar, the City of Nelson, and the Town of Creston.
13
9. Maintainer Age Table RDCK 9.1 summarizes historical primary maintainer (those responsible for attending to shelter related expenses) age totals within the overall RDCK for all households, as well as owner and renter households. Table RDCK 9.2 provides age distributions across each community. Overall, total RDCK households grew by just under 9 percent between 2006 and 2016, with most growth attributed to households with primary maintainers above 55 years old. For instance, the number of household maintainers aged 65 to 74 grew 53 percent over the decade. The same cohort makes up almost 20 percent of total households. Table RDCK 9.1: RDCK – Maintainer Age, 2006-2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Total Total Total Owners Oweners Owners Renters Renters Renters 2006 2011 2016 10yr % ∆ 2006 2011 2016 2006 2011 2016 Total Household 21,620 22,455 23,515 8.8% 17,000 18,035 18,035 4,610 4,390 5,475 15 - 24 yrs 575 420 560 -2.6% 165 65 110 410 350 450 25 - 34 yrs 2,640 2,530 2,570 -2.7% 1,410 1,455 1,265 1,230 1,075 1,300 35 - 44 yrs 4,160 3,945 3,955 -4.9% 3,195 2,990 2,645 960 945 1,305 45 - 54 yrs 5,815 5,455 4,695 -19.3% 4,745 4,635 3,710 1,075 820 985 55 - 64 yrs 4,970 6,170 6,385 28.5% 4,235 5,380 5,355 735 790 1,030 65 - 74 yrs 3,470 4,015 5,310 53.0% 3,185 3,400 4,560 285 610 745 75 - 84 yrs 2,255 2,475 2,695 19.5% 1,885 2,140 2,400 375 330 295 85+ yrs 800 795 845 5.6% 595 610 705 205 185 135 Table RDCK 9.2: All Communities – Maintainer Age, 2016 (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY 15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85+ Total Central Kootenay 1.8% 9.2% 14.5% 17.5% 23.8% 20.4% 9.8% 3.0% 23,525 Creston 2.3% 8.9% 7.9% 13.7% 19.3% 24.3% 17.0% 6.6% 2,590 Kaslo 0.0% 4.3% 14.0% 9.7% 31.2% 26.9% 10.8% 3.2% 465 Nakusp 2.6% 9.2% 15.7% 14.4% 18.3% 18.3% 15.0% 6.5% 765 Nelson 3.6% 13.3% 19.4% 17.9% 19.0% 16.1% 7.2% 3.5% 4,820 New Denver 0.0% 9.8% 13.7% 0.0% 25.5% 37.3% 9.8% 3.9% 255 Salmo 2.6% 7.0% 12.2% 16.5% 20.9% 27.8% 8.7% 4.3% 575 Silverton 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 45.0% 15.0% 0.0% 100 Slocan 6.7% 6.7% 16.7% 13.3% 26.7% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 150 Electoral Area A 1.0% 7.3% 5.2% 13.0% 35.9% 27.6% 7.8% 2.1% 960 Electoral Area B 1.6% 5.6% 9.3% 16.7% 25.7% 23.3% 13.5% 4.2% 1,885 Electoral Area C 3.1% 9.2% 9.2% 20.0% 27.7% 20.8% 10.0% 0.0% 650 Electoral Area D 1.5% 5.3% 9.8% 15.0% 28.6% 27.1% 11.3% 1.5% 665 Electoral Area E 1.1% 5.7% 17.0% 20.1% 23.9% 21.6% 8.9% 1.7% 1,740 Electoral Area F 0.9% 7.6% 17.9% 21.4% 24.3% 19.6% 6.7% 1.5% 1,705 Electoral Area G 0.0% 12.0% 22.7% 20.7% 22.0% 17.3% 5.3% 0.0% 750 Electoral Area H 0.7% 9.9% 17.8% 21.1% 24.6% 17.4% 6.6% 1.9% 2,130 Electoral Area I 0.0% 9.6% 17.9% 19.7% 25.7% 14.7% 11.0% 1.4% 1,090 Electoral Area J 2.2% 10.9% 15.0% 19.9% 29.2% 12.4% 9.0% 1.5% 1,335 Electoral Area K 0.0% 5.5% 4.2% 17.0% 30.3% 30.3% 10.9% 1.8% 825 The only community to surpass 20 percent for households between 35 to 44 years old was Electoral Area G (about 23 percent), followed by the City of Nelson (20 percent). Five communities had above 20 percent for those aged 45 to 54, all of which were not in a municipality. The Village of Nakusp exhibited the highest proportion of primary maintainers that were at least 85 (7 percent).
ECONOMY 10. Income All reported incomes within this report have been adjusted to 2015 dollars (meaning adjusted for inflation to represent ‘real’ values) for better comparison. Also, the 2005 and 2015 comparison
14
years differ from the normal 2006 and 2016 used by Statistics Canada. The reason is that census incomes come from the previously reported tax year.
Figure RDCK 10.1 shows the distribution of before-tax median incomes across the RDCK, defined by its DA boundaries. Incomes are relatively inconsistent across the Regional District, with pockets of high and low. Generally, highest incomes occur around the cities of Castlegar and Nelson, mostly associated to higher household sizes – meaning, more than one income earner. Figure RDCK 10.1: Dissemination Area Map – Before-Tax Median Income, 2015 (Statistics Canada)
In 2015, Central Kootenay’s overall before-tax median income was $55,093, about 11 percent higher than 2005. The median income of renter households jumped 20 percent to $33,636; owner households grew 14 percent to $60,537.
15
Table RDCK 10.1: Before-Tax Median Income by Tenure, 2005-2015 (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY Overall %∆05-15 Owner %∆05-15 Renter %∆05-15 Central Kootenay $53,093 10.7% $60,537 13.5% $33,636 19.9% Creston $46,398 5.8% $57,218 16.6% $23,700 -7.2% Kaslo $47,681 4.3% $50,324 -17.1% $26,697 4.8% Nakusp $49,942 -0.5% $59,113 2.9% $36,365 29.3% Nelson $56,750 10.9% $68,897 5.0% $36,647 20.6% New Denver $34,745 21.7% $34,700 -23.9% $36,901 111.0% Salmo $46,621 25.8% $56,073 44.9% $22,126 -16.7% Silverton ------Slocan ------Electoral Area A $52,465 26.5% $55,357 23.7% $42,512 77.7% Electoral Area B $54,913 20.1% $56,159 16.8% $40,233 24.7% Electoral Area C $53,384 -4.8% $56,995 -0.1% $36,200 -6.1% Electoral Area D $51,406 17.7% $57,428 12.7% $31,531 13.1% Electoral Area E $57,378 10.2% $61,840 4.8% $40,605 32.7% Electoral Area F $75,396 27.2% $80,788 25.6% $39,588 17.4% Electoral Area G $45,821 9.2% $49,104 7.6% $35,080 81.5% Electoral Area H $42,986 15.2% $49,207 18.8% $24,567 44.9% Electoral Area I $69,951 16.3% $79,440 22.7% $41,289 9.9% Electoral Area J $78,822 5.2% $87,152 9.5% $51,613 36.9% Electoral Area K $46,289 10.4% $47,218 11.7% $26,888 -35.7% The electoral areas generally exhibited higher median incomes than the municipalities, for both owner and renter households. Of the 19 participant communities, only two experienced a decrease in income: Nakusp and Electoral Area C. Overall, owner, and renter household incomes grew most in Electoral Area F (27 percent), Salmo (45 percent), and Electoral Area G (82 percent). The latter excludes New Denver’s 111 percent renter growth since its small number of households can amplify changes. Statistics Canada supresses income data for the villages of Silverton and Slocan 11. Low-Income Measure (LIM) – After Tax Low-Income Measures (LIMs) are a set of thresholds calculated by Statistics Canada that identify Canadians belonging to a household whose overall incomes are below 50 percent of median adjusted household income. “Adjusted” refers to the idea that household needs increase as the number of household members increase. Statistics Canada emphasizes that the LIM is not a measure of poverty, but that it identifies those who are substantially worse off than the average. About 21 percent of Central Kootenay residents fall below the after-tax LIM. Younger cohorts experience the greatest difficulty in meeting their needs (or for their families to meet their needs); about 27 percent of children between 0 to 5 years belong to a household below the measure, similar to that of all children under the age of 18. Twenty percent of people aged 18 to 64 were below the LIM in 2016, dropping slightly for those aged 65 or older. As cohorts age, their incomes increase and their number of dependents decrease, thereby reducing the prevalence of low-income individuals.
Table RDCK 11.1 shares the percentage of persons in each age cohort that falls below the LIM for each participant community. How these percentages appear on a Dissemination Area map greatly resembles that of Figure RDCK 10.1; areas with lower household incomes show higher rates of difficulty satisfying household needs.
16
Table RDCK 11.1: All Communities – Prevalence of LIM After-Tax Status by Age, 2016 (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY Total 0 - 5 0 - 17 18 - 64 65+ Central Kootenay 21.3% 26.6% 26.9% 20.4% 19.3% Creston 22.3% 25.0% 23.2% 21.8% 22.3% Kaslo 26.1% 28.6% 33.3% 26.0% 22.2% Nakusp 21.8% 25.0% 29.6% 18.4% 22.6% Nelson 19.2% 25.0% 24.0% 18.5% 16.6% New Denver 30.3% 20.0% 54.5% 26.7% 24.2% Salmo 23.5% 30.0% 26.8% 23.6% 22.0% Silverton - - - - - Slocan 36.4% 33.3% 44.4% 38.2% 27.3% Electoral Area A 23.3% 18.2% 28.6% 26.4% 15.8% Electoral Area B 22.8% 31.4% 60.7% 21.6% 18.1% Electoral Area C 19.0% 20.0% 18.8% 19.0% 17.9% Electoral Area D 27.1% 50.0% 35.1% 28.1% 22.2% Electoral Area E 20.4% 27.8% 28.8% 21.2% 12.3% Electoral Area F 13.8% 20.0% 20.1% 12.8% 11.5% Electoral Area G 31.0% 33.3% 37.5% 29.6% 27.7% Electoral Area H 30.6% 36.1% 38.0% 28.6% 29.7% Electoral Area I 14.8% 18.2% 17.2% 12.5% 20.0% Electoral Area J 12.0% 18.2% 15.2% 10.7% 13.8% Electoral Area K 24.0% 37.5% 27.0% 24.2% 21.7% Slocan demonstrated the highest rate of persons below the Low-Income Measure (36 percent), while Electoral Area J had the lowest (12 percent). Of all communities, only five had a rate below 20 percent. Particularly high rates occurred in Electoral Area D (50 percent) for children 0 to 5, Electoral Area B (61 percent) for children 0 to 18, Slocan (38 percent) for those 18 to 64, and Electoral Area H (30 percent) for those 65 or older. 12. Employment In 2016, the RDCK had a labour force of 25,230 people, a 5 percent increase over the previous decade. Conversely, 18,120 people were not in the labour force (or not actively seeking employment), a growth of 13 percent.
Table RDCK 12.1: RDCK – Local Labour Metrics, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Total Total Total Owners Oweners Owners Renters Renters Renters 2006 2011 2016 10yr %∆ 2006 2011 2016 2006 2011 2016 Total Population (15+ yrs) 40,190 42,060 43,345 7.9% 33,080 35,210 34,705 7,105 6,800 8,615 In Labour Force 24,135 25,310 25,230 4.5% 19,440 20,970 19,550 4,680 4,315 5,665 Employed 22,380 22,530 22,955 2.6% 18,080 19,080 17,980 4,300 3,430 4,960 Unemployed 1,750 2,775 2,275 30.0% 1,365 1,895 1,565 385 880 700 Not In Labour Force 16,060 16,750 18,120 12.8% 13,640 14,240 15,160 2,420 2,480 2,950 Participation Rate (%) 60.1 60.2 58.2 -3.1% 58.8 59.6 56.3 65.9 63.5 65.8 Employment Rate (%) 55.7 53.6 53.0 -4.9% 54.7 54.2 51.8 60.5 50.4 57.6 Unemployment Rate (%) 7.3 11.0 9.0 24.4% 7.0 9.0 8.0 8.2 20.4 12.4 RDCK’s labour force participation rate (58 percent) and employment rate (53 percent) decreased between 2006 and 2016. Unemployment grew to 9 percent, representing 525 additional persons seeking work but unable to find it. While this long term trend is negative, it is important to note that the current unemployment rate of 9 percent represents an improvement when looking at the short term change since 2011 (11 percent), likely attributed to economic recovery after the 2008 recession, as well as demographic factors.
17
Figure RDCK 12.1 illustrates what communities, represented by their corresponding DAs, are most economically active regarding individuals working or seeking work. If compared to Figure RDCK 2.1, there is a visual connection between higher median ages and lower rates of participation. Higher rates of retired persons (generally, those people above 65 years old) contributes to more people not seeking work, thus pulling participation rates downward. Conversely, areas with more younger individuals (e.g. the City of Nelson) demonstrate much greater rates of labour force participation. Figure RDCK 12.1: Dissemination Area Map – Labour Participation, 2016 (Statistics Canada)
For reference, the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed divided by the labour force. The labour force participation rate is the proportion of people in the labour force relative to the size of the total working-age population. Lastly, the employment rate is the proportion of people working relative to the total working-age population.
18
13. Industry Between 2006 and 2016, RDCK’s total employed persons rose 4 percent, from about 23,825 to 24,870. Table RDCK 13.1 summarizes the individual North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) percentages of the total labour force in each Census year, separated into tenure types. Given this information, an overview of the RDCK economy is as follows: Top three largest RDCK industries based on employment (2016): (1) Health Care & Social Assistance – 3,105 (12.5 percent); (2) Retail Trade – 2,985 (12.0 percent); and (3) Construction – 2,570 (10.3 percent). Top three greatest increases in employment (2006 to 2016)*: (1) Mining, Quarrying, and Oil & Gas Extraction – 47.4 percent (285 to 420); (2) Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services – 33.2 percent (1,250 to 1,665); and (3) Wholesale Trade – 18.3 percent (355 to 420).
*does not include “Management of Companies” or “Other Services.” Top three greatest decreases in employment (2006 to 2016): (1) Utilities – 21.1 percent (285 to 225); (2) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting – 17.0 percent (1,975 to 1,640); and (3) Manufacturing – 16.4 percent (2,375 to 1,985). Table RDCK 13.1: NAICS Industry Employment Totals by Tenure, 2006-2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Total Total Owners Oweners Owners Renters Renters Renters 2006 2011 2016 10yr %∆ 2006 2011 2016 2006 2011 2016 Labour Force 23,825 24,770 24,870 4.4% 19,185 20,665 19,335 4,630 4,085 5,520 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting 8.3% 5.2% 6.6% -17.0% 8.6% 5.3% 6.9% 7.0% 4.5% 5.5% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil & Gas Extraction 1.2% 1.5% 1.7% 47.4% 1.1% 1.6% 1.8% 1.5% 1.2% 1.5% Utilities 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% -21.1% 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% Construction 10.4% 11.0% 10.3% 4.0% 10.2% 10.9% 10.8% 10.9% 11.3% 8.4% Manufacturing 10.0% 8.4% 8.0% -16.4% 9.7% 8.8% 7.9% 10.9% 6.6% 8.4% Wholesale trade 1.5% 1.7% 1.7% 18.3% 1.4% 1.8% 1.5% 1.7% 1.1% 2.4% Retail trade 11.6% 13.6% 12.0% 8.2% 11.2% 12.9% 11.0% 13.4% 17.5% 15.5% Transportation & Warehousing 4.0% 3.1% 3.6% -7.3% 4.5% 3.2% 3.8% 2.4% 2.8% 2.9% Information & Cultural Industries 1.6% 1.2% 1.4% -12.8% 1.8% 1.1% 1.4% 1.1% 1.3% 1.2% Finance & Insurance 2.2% 1.7% 2.0% -6.7% 2.3% 1.8% 2.2% 1.8% 1.3% 1.1% Real Estate and Rental & Leasing 1.2% 2.0% 1.3% 12.3% 1.1% 2.0% 1.4% 1.2% 2.6% 0.7% Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services 5.2% 5.8% 6.7% 33.2% 5.7% 6.1% 6.7% 3.3% 5.0% 6.9% Management of Companies & Enterprises 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Administrative & Support, Waste Management, and Remediation3.5% 2.5% Services3.7% 8.9% 3.3% 2.5% 3.4% 4.5% 2.0% 4.9% Educational Services 7.7% 8.2% 6.7% -8.2% 8.2% 8.8% 7.4% 5.4% 5.5% 4.3% Health Care & Social Assistance 11.1% 11.5% 12.5% 17.4% 11.1% 11.8% 12.3% 11.0% 10.0% 13.2% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 3.0% 2.9% 3.1% 7.7% 2.9% 2.5% 3.2% 3.2% 5.5% 3.0% Accommodation & Food Services 7.5% 6.7% 8.1% 13.2% 6.6% 5.6% 7.1% 11.0% 12.4% 11.4% Other Services (excl. Public Administration) 4.5% 6.2% 5.3% 22.8% 4.1% 6.2% 5.4% 6.2% 6.7% 4.9% Public Administration 4.2% 5.5% 4.4% 9.0% 4.7% 5.6% 4.7% 2.4% 4.9% 3.3%
19
Figure RDCK 13.1: NAICS Industry Employment Totals by Tenure (Statistics Canada)
Figure RDCK 13.1 illustrates the relationship between how many owner and renter persons were employed per industry, with the total employed per NAICS industry equalling the sum of both depicted tenures. The classifications with the highest renter proportions were: Accommodation & Food Services (32.4 percent), Wholesale Trade (29.9 percent), and Retail Trade (29.2 percent). 14. Commuting As of 2016, Central Kootenay had 15,840 usual workers, making up about 64 percent of the total employed labour force. Of those workers, their commuting patterns were as follows (also summarized in Table RDCK 14.1): (1) 41 percent commuted within their local community (i.e. municipality or electoral area); (2) 50 percent commuted elsewhere within the Regional District (i.e. to another municipality or electoral area); and (3) 9 percent travelled outside of the RDCK, whether within or out of province. Table RDCK 14.1: All Communities – Commuting Patterns for Usual Workers, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total '16 % of Owners Renters 2006 2011 2016 Total 2006 2011 2016 2006 2011 2016 Total Usual Workers 15,370 15,835 15,840 100% 12,325 13,190 12,315 3,040 2,635 3,525 Commute within Community 6,350 6,595 6,545 41.3% 4,685 5,010 4,645 1,665 1,595 1,905 Commute within RDCK 7,710 7,810 7,935 50.1% 6,465 6,855 6,465 1,245 940 1,470 Commute within Province 1,015 1,280 1,075 6.8% 930 1,190 955 80 90 130 Commute outside of Province 290 140 275 1.7% 240 125 250 45 0 25
20
The highest rates of RDCK commuting within the Regional District occurred in the electoral areas; employment is often centralized in areas of greater populations. For example, areas like Nelson and Creston exhibit low rates of external commuting.
Figure RDCK 14.1 illustrates how commuting patterns are distributed across the RDCK. Please note that “CSD” means Census Subdivision, which refers to electoral areas and municipalities. “CD” means Census Division, which refers to the whole Regional District. Figure RDCK 14.1: All Communities – Commuting Patterns for Usual Workers, 2016 (Statistics Canada)
Commute data describes patterns exhibited by “usual workers”. These are workers that report themselves as generally having the same workplace location at the beginning of each workday. For instance, an office job would typically be classified as a same or usual workplace, whereas contractors (e.g. landscaping or construction), truck drivers, or travelling salespeople would not.
21
HOUSING 15. Dwelling Types Table RDCK 15.1 summarizes the distribution of dwelling types relative to totals in each community. Figure RDCK 15.1 represents these trends graphically to better compare between jurisdictions. Table RDCK 15.1: All Communities – Dwelling Types, 2016 (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY Single Apt. Semi Row Duplex Movable Total %∆'06-'16 Central Kootenay 77.8% 6.4% 2.0% 2.4% 4.5% 7.0% 23,355 9.5% Creston 74.2% 10.5% 2.9% 7.8% 4.3% 0.4% 2,575 9.7% Kaslo 89.5% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 475 -2.1% Nakusp 74.7% 6.7% 1.3% 5.3% 0.0% 12.0% 750 11.8% Nelson 51.9% 20.7% 5.6% 5.3% 14.6% 1.8% 4,710 15.9% New Denver 76.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 6.0% 10.0% 250 2.0% Salmo 73.0% 7.8% 2.6% 4.3% 4.3% 7.8% 575 26.4% Silverton 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 95 0.0% Slocan 88.5% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 130 -6.7% Electoral Area A 92.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 6.8% 955 -2.0% Electoral Area B 89.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 9.4% 1,870 4.7% Electoral Area C 85.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 13.1% 650 21.5% Electoral Area D 89.4% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 6.1% 660 -7.7% Electoral Area E 86.5% 0.9% 0.6% 0.0% 2.6% 9.5% 1,740 7.1% Electoral Area F 81.7% 2.1% 2.4% 0.6% 2.9% 10.3% 1,695 8.2% Electoral Area G 84.5% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.2% 740 0.7% Electoral Area H 88.7% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 9.2% 2,130 8.4% Electoral Area I 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 10.0% 1,105 9.4% Electoral Area J 86.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 1.9% 10.4% 1,345 14.5% Electoral Area K 85.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 12.0% 835 1.2% Figure RDCK 15.1: All Communities – Proportions of Dwelling Types, 2016 (Statistics Canada)
22
Overall, RDCK’s occupied housing stock grew about 10 percent over a decade, reaching 26,830 in 2016. Of the reported dwelling types, duplexes had the greatest growth (88 percent), reaching 1,420 homes. Greatest absolute growth occurred for single-detached homes (1,350), which made up 77 percent of all 2016 Central Kootenay dwellings. Generally, single-detached homes make up the highest proportion of dwellings in each RDCK community, with the lowest percentage occurring in the City of Nelson (52 percent). More populous urban areas often demonstrate greater density, represented by multiple housing typologies. Unsurprisingly, the City has the highest rate of semi-detached, rowhouse, and apartment dwellings. Except for Nelson, Kaslo, Silverton, and Slocan, movable dwellings make up at least 6 percent of RDCK community housing stocks, with a total of 1,550 across the entire region. This total represents a 15 percent decrease since 2006. 16. Dwelling Age The 2016 Census reported that about 27 percent of the RDCK occupied housing stock (6,430 units) was built prior to 1961. From the year 2000 to the most recent Census, 3,585 units were built (15 percent of total stock).
Table RDCK 16.1 summarizes the distribution of dwelling ages across each community’s existing stock, as of 2016. Figure RDCK 16.1 further illustrates these numbers to better understand how areas compare to one another. Table RDCK 16.1: All Communities – Dwelling Age, 2016 (Statistics Canada) 1991 to 2001 to 2011 to COMMUNITY < 1960 1961 to 1980 1981 to 1990 2000 2010 2016 Total Central Kootenay 27.3% 30.8% 11.2% 15.3% 10.5% 4.7% 23,520 Creston 25.0% 33.3% 9.5% 16.1% 11.6% 4.5% 2,580 Kaslo 29.8% 30.9% 12.8% 13.8% 8.5% 4.3% 470 Nakusp 30.3% 44.1% 5.9% 7.2% 9.9% 2.6% 760 Nelson 49.6% 22.4% 6.4% 9.5% 8.2% 3.8% 4,825 New Denver 51.0% 25.5% 5.9% 9.8% 3.9% 3.9% 255 Salmo 37.1% 31.0% 7.8% 13.8% 5.2% 5.2% 580 Silverton 50.0% 16.7% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 90 Slocan 32.1% 21.4% 14.3% 14.3% 10.7% 7.1% 140 Electoral Area A 20.4% 27.6% 13.3% 16.8% 15.8% 6.1% 980 Electoral Area B 19.8% 36.2% 14.3% 15.6% 8.5% 5.6% 1,890 Electoral Area C 11.4% 32.6% 15.2% 22.7% 13.6% 4.5% 660 Electoral Area D 23.4% 26.6% 15.6% 16.4% 11.7% 6.3% 640 Electoral Area E 20.7% 31.1% 11.5% 17.6% 14.4% 4.6% 1,735 Electoral Area F 16.1% 26.4% 17.3% 22.0% 12.3% 5.9% 1,705 Electoral Area G 25.3% 32.0% 12.0% 12.0% 16.7% 2.0% 750 Electoral Area H 17.6% 31.0% 16.7% 18.3% 10.1% 6.3% 2,130 Electoral Area I 15.4% 40.3% 11.3% 19.5% 12.7% 0.9% 1,105 Electoral Area J 19.6% 40.0% 5.9% 15.9% 9.3% 9.3% 1,350 Electoral Area K 19.4% 40.0% 15.8% 17.0% 6.7% 1.2% 825 The oldest housing stock, relative to total number of dwellings, belongs to the Village of New Denver (51 percent), followed by the Village of Silverton (50 percent) and the City of Nelson (just below 50 percent). Overall, most housing was built between 1961 and 1980 (31 percent), a trend that maintains relative consistency across all communities. The electoral areas demonstrate the greatest
23
percentage of new construction relative to their totals, with most surpassing the construction experienced by the municipalities, including Nelson and Nakusp. Figure RDCK 16.1: All Communities – Dwelling Age, 2016 (Statistics Canada)
From 2000 to 2016, Electoral Area A built the most dwellings relative to its total (22 percent); most other electoral areas hovered around 18 percent, while municipalities do not surpass about 16 percent. 17. Bedroom Number Most communities exhibit higher rates of 3-or-more bedroom units based on the abundance of low-density housing typologies (e.g. single-detached, semi-detached, and row housing), particularly if located on larger lots that can physically accommodate larger units. Generally, the more rural the community, the greater the number of bedrooms; however, there are outliers. As of 2016, about 59 percent of Central Kootenay dwellings had at least three bedrooms, followed by 30 percent for two bedrooms. The most 3-or-more bedroom homes, proportional to their total, was in Electoral Area J (72 percent), the most 2-bedroom units were in Silverton (45 percent), 1- bedroom in New Denver (22 percent), and no bedroom (e.g. bachelors or mobile homes) in Nelson and Electoral Area H (1 percent).
24
Table RDCK 17.1: All Communities – Units by Number of Bedrooms, 2016 (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY No Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3+ Bedroom Total Central Kootenay 0.4% 10.8% 29.6% 59.2% 23,520 Creston 0.0% 10.4% 32.4% 57.1% 2,590 Kaslo 0.0% 13.8% 27.7% 58.5% 470 Nakusp 0.0% 14.5% 30.9% 54.6% 760 Nelson 0.9% 15.7% 28.7% 54.7% 4,820 New Denver 0.0% 21.6% 41.2% 37.3% 255 Salmo 0.0% 14.9% 28.1% 57.0% 570 Silverton 0.0% 10.0% 45.0% 45.0% 100 Slocan 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 69.2% 130 Electoral Area A 0.0% 9.4% 32.3% 58.3% 960 Electoral Area B 0.0% 7.1% 25.9% 67.0% 1,895 Electoral Area C 0.0% 9.8% 25.8% 64.4% 660 Electoral Area D 0.0% 21.5% 29.2% 49.2% 650 Electoral Area E 0.6% 8.3% 35.8% 55.3% 1,745 Electoral Area F 0.0% 6.5% 22.6% 70.9% 1,700 Electoral Area G 0.0% 13.4% 31.5% 55.0% 745 Electoral Area H 0.9% 10.4% 35.1% 53.6% 2,125 Electoral Area I 0.0% 5.0% 26.1% 68.9% 1,110 Electoral Area J 0.0% 4.5% 23.1% 72.4% 1,340 Electoral Area K 0.0% 7.2% 31.3% 61.4% 830 18. Market Housing Development Trends Housing construction data from CMHC does not cover the entirety of the Regional District of Central Kootenay. Overall trends are therefore derived by combining local government building permit data with data sheets provided by BC Stats. Table RDCK 18.1 summarizes the total annual residential permits issued by each participant geography over the last available decade. Table RDCK 18.1: All Communities – Annual Building Permits, 10 Years (BC Stats, Local Government) COMMUNITY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Avg. Central Kootenay 249 281 142 144 162 193 149 221 128 329 1,998 200 Creston 57 79 5 14 23 10 14 9 20 25 256 26 Kaslo 2 0 5 4 1 3 1 2 0 8 26 3 Nakusp 3 2 2 1 0 1 4 3 0 6 22 2 Nelson 30 78 34 23 39 86 30 79 105 180 684 68 New Denver 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 12 1 Salmo 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 11 1 Silverton 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 8 1 Slocan 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 9 1 Electoral Area A 25 16 8 14 14 10 6 11 0 8 112 11 Electoral Area B 23 12 15 11 6 17 10 9 0 13 116 12 Electoral Area C 5 3 4 6 5 4 5 5 0 4 41 4 Electoral Area D 4 6 3 5 6 6 5 6 0 4 45 5 Electoral Area E 13 18 14 19 14 13 25 19 0 19 154 15 Electoral Area F 16 8 8 10 18 8 7 11 0 16 102 10 Electoral Area G 12 7 3 1 4 0 1 2 0 5 35 4 Electoral Area H 24 20 14 11 15 12 15 16 0 12 139 14 Electoral Area I 7 3 6 2 2 1 2 11 0 9 43 4 Electoral Area J 14 14 13 10 9 18 15 19 0 13 125 13 Electoral Area K 11 7 5 10 5 1 3 9 0 7 58 6 Available local building permit data provides only the total new residential dwelling permits; it does not distinguish between dwelling types. BC Stats permit data does, dividing permits by whether it is a single, row, or apartment dwelling. Figure RDCK 18.1 illustrates the build out of each type since 2005 (15 years) for all RDCK (excluding Castlegar) using this data, giving an idea of the proportion attributed to each housing type. Figure RDCK 18.2 uses available CMHC data to
25
estimate the proportion of those starts that are intended for ownership or rental. Unfortunately, relevant data is not available prior to 2013 and mostly reflect urban trends. Figure RDCK 18.1: Annual Building Permit Totals (2005-current) by Dwelling Type (BC Stats)*
* data was available only for the first half of 2019, annual total is estimated based on partial data. Figure RDCK 18.2: Historical Unit Completions by Intended Tenure (Based on Nelson, Electoral Area E & F only, CMHC)
Building permit activity fell from 2009 to 2018, with variations in between. Estimates for 2019 indicate a significant increase in activity, primarily in apartments due to provincial investment. Annual single-detached permits remain below 2005 to 2008 levels. In the urban areas (specifically, the City of Nelson), purpose-built rentals surged since 2015, with a notable increase in 2019. This trend does not reflect what is occurring in the electoral areas. 19. Rental Inventory The primary rental universe (the inventory predominantly made up of purpose-built rental buildings) for the RDCK belongs to the City of Nelson, the only market which meets CMHC’s threshold for inclusion into their annual survey. This stock of rental housing has generally been static in size for most of the last decade.
26
Table RDCK 19.1 summarizes the primary rental universe by unit type, as reported by CMHC for the years 2013 to 2019. Figure RDCK 19.1 illustrates how these unit types proportionally make up the annual rental universe total.
Table RDCK 19.1: Historical Primary Rental Housing Universe (CMHC) UNIT TYPE 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Bachelor 74 73 65 59 58 58 52 1 Bedroom 179 174 176 170 174 170 177 2 Bedroom 253 253 255 255 255 271 262 3 Bedroom + 15 15 14 16 16 16 18 Total 521 515 510 500 503 515 509 Figure RDCK 19.1: Historical Primary Rental Housing Universe (CMHC)
The primary rental market is generally more focussed on smaller dwelling units. In 2016, 34 percent was attributed to 1-bedroom units, and 51 percent to 2-bedroom units. Since 2013, bachelor units have steadily decreased in total and as a share of the overall unit mix. All other unit types remained relatively consistent or grew over the same period.
Table RDCK 19.2 estimates the total 2016 secondary market by comparing available CMHC data to Statistics Canada totals. Overall, most of the rental housing stock in RDCK, especially in those more rural communities, operates in the secondary universe. The 2016 census reported 5,450 households being rental dwelling while the primary market in the same year was 500 units in size, representing 9 percent of the rental market. Table RDCK 19.2: Primary & Secondary Rental Market Units, 2016 (derived from Statistics Canada & CMHC) Primary Secondary Total Rental Market % of Total Market % of Total Total 23,455 5,465 500 100% 4,965 100% No Bedroom 95 85 60 12% 25 1% 1 Bedroom 2,515 1,445 170 34% 1,275 26% 2 Bedroom 6,955 2,245 255 51% 1,990 40% 3+ Bedroom 13,890 1,690 15 3% 1,675 34% Secondary rental market units do contribute to the 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom unit styles; however, most of the stock consists of 2 bedroom or larger dwellings, at about 74 percent in 2016. Secondary rental markets include housing types such as single or semi-detached units (which
27
can easily flip between owner and renter occupied tenures), condominium apartments (rented out by their owner), larger houses that have been internally converted to rental units, or other smaller multi-unit buildings, like duplexes or triplexes, or small mixed use buildings that contain a few apartments above a ground-floor commercial unit. These tend to not be captured by the CMHC survey. 20. Rental Market – Vacancy & Rent Given that many areas of RDCK are not large enough to qualify for the CMHC rental market survey, direct data on their rental vacancies or rates is mostly unavailable. Consequently, RDCK data, summarized in Table RDCK 20.1, primarily reflects what is occurring in the most populous municipality: Nelson. Typically, a primary rental market is considered healthy and balanced when vacancy rates are in the 3 to 5 percent range. CMHC data available since 2013 shows that the RDCK has historically had an extremely low vacancy rate. Bachelor, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units all have a 0 percent vacancy in 2019, which has persisted since 2017. Table RDCK 20.1: Historical Rental Housing Vacancy by Unit Type, Courtenay CMA (CMHC) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Bachelor 5.7 0.0 3.3 ** 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 Bedroom 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 Bedroom 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Bedroom + ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Total 1.9 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 ** denotes data suppression by CMHC Figure RDCK 20.1: Historical Rental Housing Vacancy by Unit Type, Courtenay CMA (CMHC)
Vacancy rates are a measure of market demand, with low and declining vacancy signalling high and increasing demand. Accordingly, declining vacancy is a leading indicator of market rents, as prices increase to balance the changing demand with available supply. That said, vacancy can decrease without major price changes, but once unit availability hits a critical threshold of low vacancy, rents tend to react disproportionately. Within this context, price increases generally lag a year or more as the impact of low vacancy ripples through the market. Table RDCK 20.2 identifies the median market rent for each unity type, adjusted to current 2019 dollars.
28
Table RDCK 20.2: Historical Median Market Rents by Unit Type, 2019 dollars (CMHC) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Bachelor $604 $647 $645 $636 $624 $685 $650 1 Bedroom $713 $718 $725 $763 $708 $750 $800 2 Bedroom $796 $782 $801 $795 $890 $913 $975 3 Bedroom + $1,070 $1,079 $1,075 ** $1,119 ** $1,110 Total $768 $755 $774 $790 $801 $811 $863 ** denotes data suppression by CMHC With consistently low vacancy, urban market rents tended to increase gradually year to year. Two- bedroom units had the greatest dollar increase from 2013 to 2019 ($179), followed by 1-bedrooms ($87), bachelors ($46), and 3-or-more bedrooms ($40). 21. Ownership Market [Ongoing] 22. Short-term Rentals [Ongoing] 23. Property Assessments [Ongoing] HOUSING NEED 24. Non-Market Housing BC Housing provides annual reports regarding the provision of non-market housing across communities like Central Kootenay. The report, made available in April 2019, details the total persons or households using forms of emergency shelters, transitional and assisted living, independent social housing units, or private market rental assistance programs. Table RDCK 24.1: Municipalities – Non-Market Housing, March 2019 (BC Housing)
Central Central Kootenay Castlegar Nelson Nakusp Creston Kaslo Denver New Salmo Silverton Slocan Emergency Shelter / Homeless Housing Homeless Housed 70 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homeless Rent Supplements 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homeless Shelters 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 117 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transitional Supported / Assisted Living Frail Seniors 141 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Special Needs 78 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Women and Children Fleeing Violence 14 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 233 26 108 12 85 1 0 1 0 0 Independent Social Housing Low Income Families 173 72 78 0 14 0 0 8 0 0 Low Income Seniors 209 14 45 0 59 10 0 44 0 12 Subtotal 382 86 123 0 73 10 11 52 0 12 Rent Assistance in Private Market Rent Assist Families 122 11 39 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 Rent Assist Seniors 290 45 89 14 49 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 412 56 128 14 67 14 6 14 0 12 Community Total 1,144 168 476 26 225 25 17 67 0 24
29
Tables RDCK 24.1 and 24.2 summarize the current offerings across all RDCK communities, with totals provided below. Please note that totals may not equate to the sum of the units listed above it due to data suppression. The data includes the City of Castlegar (unlike other sections) to properly visualize where most non-market housing is provided. In total, BC Housing provides for 1,183 cases in RDCK: 126 for emergency shelter or homeless housing, 156 for transitional supported and assisted living, 293 for independent social housing, and 608 for rental assistance. About 42 percent of non-market housing options are found or directed to the City of Nelson, followed by Creston (20 percent) and Castlegar (15 percent). Table RDCK 24.2: Electoral Areas – Non-Market Housing, March 2019 (BC Housing)
Electoral Electoral Area A Area
Electoral Electoral Area B Area
Electoral Electoral Area C Area
Electoral Electoral Area D Area
Electoral Electoral Area E Area
Electoral Electoral Area F Area
Electoral Electoral Area G Area
Electoral Electoral Area H Area
Electoral Electoral Area I Area
Electoral Electoral Area J Area
Electoral Electoral Area K Area Emergency Shelter / Homeless Housing Homeless Housed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homeless Rent Supplements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homeless Shelters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transitional Supported / Assisted Living Frail Seniors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Special Needs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Women and Children Fleeing Violence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Independent Social Housing Low Income Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low Income Seniors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Subtotal 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Rent Assistance in Private Market Rent Assist Families 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 8 0 0 0 Rent Assist Seniors 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 11 0 0 0 Subtotal 11 10 1 1 31 12 1 19 9 3 3 Community Total 16 10 1 1 31 12 1 29 9 3 3 Tables RDCK 24.3 and 24.4 summarize the number of applicants trying to access a form of non- market offerings. The totals provided only reflect active applications and do not represent the actual total of people who can or should be accessing services either due to stigmatization of accessing services or feeling disheartened by long waitlist numbers. Table RDCK 24.3: Municipalities – Non-Market Housing Waitlist, January 2020 (BC Housing)
Central Central Kootenay Castlegar Nelson Nakusp Creston Kaslo New Denver Slocan Total Waitlisted Applicants 123 29 31 4 7 2 2 1 Families 23 12 8 0 1 2 0 0 People with Disabilities 41 7 12 1 2 0 0 0 Seniors 45 8 9 2 3 0 1 1 Wheelchair Modified 8 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Singles 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Rent Supplements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Housing Registry Subsidized Unit Stock 143 86 33 0 24 0 0 0
30
Figure RDCK 24.4: Electoral Area – Non-Market Housing Waitlist, January 2020 (BC Housing)
Electoral Electoral
Area A Area
Electoral Electoral
Area B Area
Electoral Electoral
Area D Area
Electoral Electoral
Area E Area
Electoral Electoral
Area F Area
Electoral Electoral
Area H Area Total Waitlisted Applicants 2 2 1 2 2 5 Families 0 1 0 0 1 2 People with Disabilities 1 0 0 0 1 1 Seniors 1 1 1 2 0 1 Wheelchair Modified 0 0 0 0 0 1 Singles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rent Supplements 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Housing Registry Subsidized Unit Stock 0 0 0 0 0 0 As of January 2020, the BC Housing wait list for subsidised units had 123 applications, including: 23 families, 41 residents with disabilities, 45 seniors, and 8 persons requiring wheelchair modified housing. Although third in cases fulfilled, Castlegar has the most applications at 86 (60 percent). 25. Subsidized Housing In 2016, 13 percent of RDCK renter households received a form of subsidy to help pay for their rental accommodation. Table RDCK 25.1 provides a summary of the total rental households and the related total subsidies for each community. The highest was in Nakusp, with 23 percent, followed by Salmo (22 percent) and Kaslo (19 percent). Seven communities had a subsidy rate in the single digits: Silverton, Slocan, and Electoral Areas B, F, H, I, and J. Table RDCK 25.1: All Communities – Renter Subsidized Housing, 2016 (Statistics Canada) COMMUNITY Renter HHs Subsidies % Subsidized Central Kootenay 5,475 715 13.1% Creston 695 109 15.7% Kaslo 110 21 19.0% Nakusp 235 55 23.4% Nelson 1,885 325 17.2% New Denver 85 9 11.1% Salmo 180 39 21.6% Silverton 25 0 0.0% Slocan 30 0 0.0% Electoral Area A 170 20 11.8% Electoral Area B 275 10 3.6% Electoral Area C 100 11 10.5% Electoral Area D 100 10 10.0% Electoral Area E 305 36 11.7% Electoral Area F 270 0 0.0% Electoral Area G 145 15 10.0% Electoral Area H 380 30 8.0% Electoral Area I 155 10 6.5% Electoral Area J 215 10 4.8% Electoral Area K 105 11 10.5%
31
Rental subsidies are an effective tool to help individuals or households afford evolving market rents. To ensure their effectiveness, subsidies must also evolve since the purchasing power of the amount provided in one year may not match that of a future year. In British Columbia, the level of income assistance has not changed for at least the last decade across all family sizes. For instance, a 1-person family can potentially receive a maximum of $375 to put towards their rent, an amount also offered at least ten years ago. If we account for inflation and establish a constant 2013 dollar figure across time, we see that the purchasing power of that 1-person allotment decreases while the cost of housing increases. Specifically, the $375 in 2013 would be equivalent to $338 in 2019 while an urban 1-bedroom apartment increases from $550 to $586 (with inflation, it is $650 in 2019).
Figure RDCK 25.2 illustrates how the effective support of Income Assistance has changed relative to the rental cost of a bachelor or 1-bedroom unit. It does so by indexing each by its 2013 value (that is, dividing each year by the value in 2013); a number below 1 indicates a decrease in value while above 1 is an increase. Figure RDCK 25.1: Cost of Housing versus Income Assistance, 2013 dollars (CMHC, BC Government)
Removing inflation, both the price of a bachelor and 1-bedroom have increased since 2013 (about 6 and 12 percent, respectively), while the value of the $375 decreased steadily to about 90 percent of its 2013 value. Overall, the gap between 1-bedrooms and the maximum Income Assistance for 1-person increased by about 20 percentage points. 26. Homelessness [Ongoing] 27. Anticipated Market Household Demand [Ongoing] 28. Anticipated Market Housing Supply [Ongoing] 29. Housing Condition (Adequacy) Statistics Canada defines “adequacy” as a structure that requires only minor repair or periodic maintenance. Accordingly, any unit that requires major repair is “inadequate.” Housing adequacy
32
is closely tied to a community’s age of housing stock; the older the dwelling, the more likely that major repairs are needed. Table RDCK 29.1: All Communities – Inadequate Housing by Tenure, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Owner Renter COMMUNITY # % # % # % Central Kootenay* 2,270 8.8% 1,575 7.9% 700 12.0% Creston 160 6.3% 125 6.7% 40 5.9% Kaslo 50 10.8% 40 11.1% 0 0.0% Nakusp 70 9.5% 30 5.8% 40 17.8% Nelson 440 9.5% 245 8.5% 200 11.4% New Denver 25 9.8% 25 15.6% 0 0.0% Salmo 65 12.0% 40 11.0% 20 11.4% Silverton ------Slocan ------Electoral Area A 65 7.2% 50 6.6% 15 10.0% Electoral Area B 150 9.1% 110 7.9% 35 13.2% Electoral Area C 35 6.0% 35 7.0% 0 0.0% Electoral Area D 75 11.9% 60 11.3% 10 10.5% Electoral Area E 160 9.6% 125 9.1% 35 12.3% Electoral Area F 95 5.7% 80 5.7% 20 8.2% Electoral Area G 65 9.4% 45 8.2% 20 14.3% Electoral Area H 250 12.9% 200 12.4% 45 13.8% Electoral Area I 110 10.3% 55 6.0% 50 33.3% Electoral Area J 115 8.6% 80 7.1% 35 17.1% Electoral Area K 75 9.7% 55 8.0% 15 17.6% As shown in Table RDCK 29.1, about 9 percent of Central Kootenay’s housing stock is inadequate, with higher rates of occurrence for renter households (12 percent). The 2006 Census reported that the overall rate of inadequacy was 11 percent, indicating that conditions have improved over the last decade. Highest total, owner, and renter rates are found in Electoral Area H (13 percent), New Denver (16 percent), and Electoral Area I (33 percent), respectively. The lowest belonged to Electoral Area F (6 percent), Electoral Area F (6 percent), and New Denver (0 percent), respectively. The City of Nelson, with the highest total renter households, had 11 percent of said households living in inadequate accommodation.
Figure RDCK 29.1 illustrates how the rates of need for major repair differ across the RDCK. Because the need for repair is considerably tied to dwelling age, the map also generally demonstrates those areas with the oldest housing stock.
33
Figure RDCK 29.1: Dissemination Area Map – Inadequate Housing, 2016 (Statistics Canada)
30. Overcrowding (Suitability) Statistics Canada defines “suitability” as whether a structure has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of the household. Any unit that does not have enough bedrooms is “unsuitable.” Unsuitability can also be associated to older housing stock since the typical square footage of old homes was often much less than newer offerings, meaning there can be drastic discrepancy in household “comfort” when comparing across time.
As per Table RDCK 30.1, about 3 percent of Central Kootenay’s housing stock is unsuitable, with higher rates of occurrence for renter households (6 percent). The 2006 Census reported that the overall rate of unsuitability was about 4 percent, indicating that conditions have improved over the last decade.
34
Highest total, owner, and renter rates are found in Electoral Area D (6 percent), New Denver (6 percent), and Electoral Area B (17 percent), respectively. Many communities exhibited no unsuitability across all tenures, including Kaslo and Electoral Area C. Table RDCK 30.1: All Communities – Unsuitable Housing by Tenure, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Owner Renter COMMUNITY # % # % # % Central Kootenay* 630 2.5% 290 1.5% 340 5.8% Creston 50 2.0% 10 0.5% 40 5.9% Kaslo 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Nakusp 15 2.0% 0 0.0% 15 6.7% Nelson 125 2.7% 40 1.4% 85 4.8% New Denver 10 3.9% 10 6.3% 0 0.0% Salmo 10 1.9% 10 2.7% 10 5.7% Silverton ------Slocan ------Electoral Area A 10 1.1% 10 1.3% 10 6.7% Electoral Area B 80 4.8% 30 2.2% 45 17.0% Electoral Area C 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Electoral Area D 40 6.3% 25 4.7% 15 15.8% Electoral Area E 40 2.4% 25 1.8% 15 5.3% Electoral Area F 15 0.9% 15 1.1% 0 0.0% Electoral Area G 20 2.9% 10 1.8% 10 7.1% Electoral Area H 75 3.9% 55 3.4% 20 6.2% Electoral Area I 15 1.4% 10 1.1% 10 6.7% Electoral Area J 15 1.1% 0 0.0% 10 4.9% Electoral Area K 10 1.3% 15 2.2% 0 0.0% Dissemination Area suitability data is greatly suppressed; consequently, a DA map has not been generated to compare communities within the RDCK. 31. Affordability Statistics Canada defines “affordability” as whether a household spends less than 30 percent of its overall before-tax income on shelter expenses. This includes rent, mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, or condo fees. Statistics Canada considers any household spending at least 30 percent as experiencing a housing affordability problem.
As shown in Table RDCK 31.1, about 21 percent of Central Kootenay households cannot reasonably afford their accommodation; renter households are twice as likely than the overall rate to experience unaffordability. Both tenures experienced an increase in unaffordability, rising about a percentage point for both. This increase indicates that conditions are worsening, likely stimulated by prices of newly constructed homes and overall appreciating housing prices. The least affordable communities by total, owner, and renter households are: Nelson (29 percent), Electoral Area G (20 percent), and Kaslo (67 percent), respectively. The most affordable are: Electoral Area J (13 percent), Electoral Area J (11 percent), and Electoral Area A (23 percent).
35
Table RDCK 31.1: All Communities – Unaffordable Housing by Tenure, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Owner Renter COMMUNITY # % # % # % Central Kootenay* 5,415 21.1% 2,980 15.0% 2,430 41.6% Creston 600 23.6% 215 11.5% 385 57.0% Kaslo 140 30.1% 70 19.4% 70 63.6% Nakusp 155 20.9% 80 15.5% 80 35.6% Nelson 1,340 28.9% 570 19.8% 765 43.5% New Denver 70 27.5% 25 15.6% 45 50.0% Salmo 135 25.0% 55 15.1% 75 42.9% Silverton ------Slocan ------Electoral Area A 160 17.8% 130 17.2% 35 23.3% Electoral Area B 240 14.5% 165 11.8% 80 30.2% Electoral Area C 110 18.8% 70 14.0% 40 47.1% Electoral Area D 105 16.7% 60 11.3% 40 42.1% Electoral Area E 355 21.4% 240 17.5% 115 40.4% Electoral Area F 275 16.6% 175 12.4% 95 38.8% Electoral Area G 165 23.9% 110 20.0% 50 35.7% Electoral Area H 420 21.7% 300 18.6% 115 35.4% Electoral Area I 165 15.5% 110 12.0% 60 40.0% Electoral Area J 170 12.8% 120 10.7% 50 24.4% Electoral Area K 160 20.6% 125 18.1% 35 41.2% Figure RDCK 31.1: Dissemination Area Map – Unaffordable Housing, 2016 (Statistics Canada)
36
Affordability is not solely dependent on the cost of housing, but also the population’s available income. By comparing Figure RDCK 31.1 below to Figure RDCK 10.1, the reader will notice some similarities; specifically, that reduced affordability often appears synonymous with lower incomes. However, there are some deviations. For instance, some of the DAs in the City of Nelson have higher median incomes but also have high rates of unaffordability, which could indicate a greater impact from housing prices. 32. Energy Poverty According to the Canadian Urban Sustainability Practitioners (CUSP), energy poverty refers to the experience of households or communities that struggle to heat and cool their homes and power their lights and appliances. Canadian academics rely on the home energy cost burden as the proxy for measuring energy poverty. Based on this measurement, those households that take on a disproportionate energy cost burden relative to average after-tax income are said to be experiencing energy poverty. Home energy cost burdens are reported as the percentage of total after-tax household income that is spent on home heating and electricity. For most Canadians, this value is below 3 per cent, which is to say that the typical Canadian household spends less than 3 per cent of its after-tax income to pay for its home energy needs. Based on CUSP best practices, households that spend more than twice this value (6 percent) on home energy services can be said to experience high home energy cost burdens. Home utilities are not the only cost burden imposed on residents. Specifically, a home’s location is a determinant of how much money household members must spend on gasoline to travel for errands or work. Accordingly, gas is now often included in energy poverty calculations, such as those performed by the Fraser Institute, a public policy think tank based in Canada. To adjust for gas expenses, the threshold increases from 6 to 10 percent. Table RDCK 32.1: All Communities – Energy Expenses (incl. gasoline) & Average After- Tax Household Income, 2019 estimates (Statistics Canada, Environics Analytics) Estimated Income* Utilities Fuel COMMUNITY Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total Total Central Kootenay $75,124 $44,665 $67,901 $2,926 $1,493 $2,586 $4,235 Creston $67,369 $34,673 $58,356 $3,023 $1,300 $2,548 $3,612 Kaslo $61,729 $53,335 $59,941 $3,080 $1,944 $2,838 $3,680 Nakusp $66,273 $50,465 $61,253 $3,003 $1,561 $2,545 $4,737 Nelson $83,325 $48,832 $69,884 $2,622 $1,307 $2,110 $3,428 New Denver $47,865 $54,009 $50,169 $2,933 $1,433 $2,370 $3,297 Salmo $67,855 $34,374 $56,332 $2,453 $1,366 $2,079 $4,615 Silverton - - - $3,155 $1,336 $2,720 $3,402 Slocan - - - $2,505 $1,153 $2,185 $2,739 Electoral Area A $65,553 $52,698 $63,220 $2,749 $1,395 $2,503 $3,470 Electoral Area B $72,046 $60,058 $70,269 $3,006 $1,712 $2,814 $4,173 Electoral Area C $73,405 $29,728 $66,732 $2,897 $1,885 $2,743 $4,004 Electoral Area D $108,071 $46,126 $98,732 $3,303 $1,729 $3,066 $4,478 Electoral Area E $76,613 $41,226 $70,528 $2,776 $1,624 $2,578 $4,731 Electoral Area F $90,249 $43,334 $82,928 $3,144 $1,933 $2,955 $5,090 Electoral Area G $61,963 $44,154 $58,298 $2,827 $1,574 $2,569 $4,591 Electoral Area H $62,122 $33,536 $56,872 $2,759 $1,640 $2,554 $3,951 Electoral Area I $84,125 $46,533 $78,702 $2,914 $1,730 $2,743 $6,029 Electoral Area J $92,626 $60,948 $87,515 $3,415 $2,179 $3,216 $5,440 Electoral Area K $61,566 $28,280 $57,241 $2,717 $1,373 $2,542 $3,884
37
Table RDCK 32.1 outlines the estimated 2019 incomes earned by community households by tenure and the related utility expenses, also by tenure. Average tax-income estimates are based on 2015 Statistics Canada data, adjusted to 2019 using the historical Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Shelter and the annual growth rate between 2005 and 2015. Utility and fuel costs are generated by Environics Analytics for 2019. Table RDCK 32.2 calculates the percentage of expenses per corresponding household income. The threshold for energy poverty for only utilities is 6 percent, for fuel is 4 percent, and total is 10 percent. Teal and red percentages demonstrate when communities are below or above the associated threshold, respectively. Table RDCK 32.2: All Communities – Energy Expenses (incl. gasoline) divided by Average After-Tax Household Income, 2019 estimates (Statistics Canada, Environics Analytics) Owner Energy / Income Renter Energy / Income Total Energy / Income COMMUNITY Utilities Fuel Total Utilities Fuel Total Utilities Fuel Total Central Kootenay 3.9% 5.6% 9.5% 3.3% 9.5% 12.8% 3.8% 6.2% 10.0% Creston 4.5% 5.4% 9.8% 3.7% 10.4% 14.2% 4.4% 6.2% 10.6% Kaslo 5.0% 6.0% 11.0% 3.6% 6.9% 10.5% 4.7% 6.1% 10.9% Nakusp 4.5% 7.1% 11.7% 3.1% 9.4% 12.5% 4.2% 7.7% 11.9% Nelson 3.1% 4.1% 7.3% 2.7% 7.0% 9.7% 3.0% 4.9% 7.9% New Denver 6.1% 6.9% 13.0% 2.7% 6.1% 8.8% 4.7% 6.6% 11.3% Salmo 3.6% 6.8% 10.4% 4.0% 13.4% 17.4% 3.7% 8.2% 11.9% Silverton ------Slocan ------Electoral Area A 4.2% 5.3% 9.5% 2.6% 6.6% 9.2% 4.0% 5.5% 9.4% Electoral Area B 4.2% 5.8% 10.0% 2.8% 6.9% 9.8% 4.0% 5.9% 9.9% Electoral Area C 3.9% 5.5% 9.4% 6.3% 13.5% 19.8% 4.1% 6.0% 10.1% Electoral Area D 3.1% 4.1% 7.2% 3.7% 9.7% 13.5% 3.1% 4.5% 7.6% Electoral Area E 3.6% 6.2% 9.8% 3.9% 11.5% 15.4% 3.7% 6.7% 10.4% Electoral Area F 3.5% 5.6% 9.1% 4.5% 11.7% 16.2% 3.6% 6.1% 9.7% Electoral Area G 4.6% 7.4% 12.0% 3.6% 10.4% 14.0% 4.4% 7.9% 12.3% Electoral Area H 4.4% 6.4% 10.8% 4.9% 11.8% 16.7% 4.5% 6.9% 11.4% Electoral Area I 3.5% 7.2% 10.6% 3.7% 13.0% 16.7% 3.5% 7.7% 11.1% Electoral Area J 3.7% 5.9% 9.6% 3.6% 8.9% 12.5% 3.7% 6.2% 9.9% Electoral Area K 4.4% 6.3% 10.7% 4.9% 13.7% 18.6% 4.4% 6.8% 11.2% Based on averages, New Denver is the only community to demonstrate energy poverty (utilities only) for owner households; Electoral Area C is the only area for renter households. Notwithstanding, most communities do pay higher percentages of their incomes compared to the typical Canadian home (3 percent). Considering the RDCK’s vast geography, it is unsurprising that vehicle fuel costs impose significant burdens on all residents. When included, 11 communities demonstrate an energy cost burden above 10 percent. Overall, RDCK owner households allocate 9.5 percent of their after-tax income to total energy expenses, 12.8 percent for renter households, and 10.0 percent for overall households.
Figure RDCK 32.1 illustrates how different RDCK Dissemination Areas experience energy poverty based on the average total utility cost and average after-tax income of each geography, both estimated by Environics Analytics. Grey filled DAs show the final range (9 to 10 percent) before an area is in energy poverty. Any area depicted in blue exceeds this threshold.
38
Figure RDCK 32.1: Dissemination Area Map – Energy Expenses (incl. gasoline), 2016 (Statistics Canada, Environics Analytics)
After reviewing the above map, the reader will likely notice two things: (1) that lower energy expenses are typically concentrated around urban areas (e.g. Nelson and Castlegar), likely due to distribution cost burdens imposed on rural communities; and (2) that, apart from those lower urban energy burdens, DA rates of energy poverty are not consistently distributed across their respective community – due mostly to variable gas costs. 33. Core Housing Need Statistics Canada defines “Core Housing Need” as a household whose dwelling is considered inadequate, unsuitable, or unaffordable, and whose income levels are such that they could not afford alternative housing in their community. It considers the three variables previously discussed (adequacy, suitability, and affordability) and contextualises them within their community. In 2016, Statistics Canada reported that 3,930 households (15 percent) were in Core Housing Need, down 435 households since 2006. As shown in Table RDCK 33.1, both tenures had a decreased rate of housing need; both owners and renters fell about 4 percentage points. Even
39
so, the number of renter households in need increased by 175, but was outpaced by overall renter household growth. Table RDCK 33.1: RDCK – Households in Core Housing Need by Tenure, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Total Total Owners Oweners Owners Renters Renters Renters 2006 2011 2016 2006 2011 2016 2006 2011 2016 Total Households 23,255 24,230 25,700 18,410 19,635 19,860 4,840 4,590 5,840 Household not in CHN 18,890 20,130 21,770 15,845 17,080 17,910 3,040 3,045 3,860 Household in CHN 4,365 4,100 3,930 2,560 2,555 1,945 1,805 1,545 1,980 1 person household 1,890 1,805 1,985 955 950 890 935 855 1,090 2 persons household 1,230 1,110 1,070 800 795 645 435 320 425 3 persons household 570 500 530 335 340 225 235 155 305 4 persons household 465 450 230 340 395 135 120 55 95 5+ persons household 215 235 115 135 75 60 75 155 55 Household in CHN (%) 18.8% 16.9% 15.3% 13.9% 13.0% 9.8% 37.3% 33.7% 33.9% Table RDCK 33.2: All Communities – Households in Core Housing Need by Tenure, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Owner Renter COMMUNITY # % # % # % Central Kootenay* 3,930 15.3% 1,945 9.8% 1,980 33.9% Creston 370 14.5% 90 4.8% 285 42.2% Kaslo 155 33.3% 85 23.9% 70 66.7% Nakusp 65 8.7% 25 4.9% 40 17.8% Nelson 755 16.3% 220 7.7% 540 30.7% New Denver 90 36.0% 40 24.2% 50 58.8% Salmo 120 22.4% 40 11.0% 75 42.9% Silverton ------Slocan ------Electoral Area A 160 17.8% 120 15.9% 40 27.6% Electoral Area B 145 8.8% 65 4.7% 80 30.8% Electoral Area C 125 21.4% 80 16.0% 45 50.0% Electoral Area D 155 24.6% 100 18.9% 55 57.9% Electoral Area E 215 13.0% 130 9.5% 85 29.8% Electoral Area F 140 8.5% 75 5.3% 65 26.5% Electoral Area G 190 27.7% 120 22.0% 70 50.0% Electoral Area H 535 27.6% 385 23.9% 145 45.3% Electoral Area I 80 7.5% 45 4.9% 35 22.6% Electoral Area J 45 3.4% 20 1.8% 25 12.2% Electoral Area K 175 22.6% 130 18.8% 45 56.3% According to Table RDCK 33.2, those communities in most need by total, owner, and renter households are: Kaslo (33 percent), New Denver (24 percent), and Kaslo (67 percent), respectively. Excluding Electoral Area J which has the least need across both tenures, the next with least need are: Electoral Area I (8 percent), Creston (5 percent), and Nakusp (18 percent). 34. Extreme Core Housing Need Extreme Core Housing Need modifies the definition of Core Housing Need by altering its affordability metric; it uses 50 percent as a threshold instead of 30 percent. The result is a demonstration of how many households are experiencing truly dire housing circumstances. In 2016, Statistics Canada reported that 1,610 households (6 percent) were in Extreme Core Housing Need, up 245 households since 2006. As shown in Table RDCK 34.1, total households
40
had a small percentage point increase in extreme need, supported by a rise in need for renter households. The rate of extreme need among owner households remained constant between census periods, though the actual number increased by about 40. Table RDCK 34.1: RDCK – Households in Extreme Core Housing Need by Tenure, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Total Total Owners Oweners Owners Renters Renters Renters 2006 2011 2016 2006 2011 2016 2006 2011 2016 Total Households 23,255 24,230 25,700 18,410 19,635 19,860 4,840 4,590 5,840 Household not in ECHN 21,890 22,910 24,090 17,705 18,775 19,115 4,185 4,125 4,970 Household in ECHN 1,365 1,320 1,610 705 860 745 655 465 870 1 person household 715 740 825 305 410 315 405 330 515 2 persons household 385 270 450 235 205 280 155 60 175 3 persons household 125 170 215 65 135 85 65 35 135 4 persons household 115 105 105 95 90 60 20 10 40 5+ persons household 15 40 10 0 20 0 15 0 0 Household in ECHN (%) 5.9% 5.4% 6.3% 3.8% 4.4% 3.8% 13.5% 10.1% 14.9% Table RDCK 34.2: All Communities – Households in Extreme Core Housing Need by Tenure, 2016 (Statistics Canada) Total Owner Renter COMMUNITY # % # % # % Central Kootenay* 1,610 6.3% 745 3.8% 870 14.9% Creston 160 6.3% 45 2.4% 115 17.0% Kaslo 35 7.5% 15 4.2% 20 19.0% Nakusp 25 3.4% 15 2.9% 10 4.4% Nelson 380 8.2% 115 4.0% 270 15.3% New Denver 25 10.0% 15 9.1% 10 11.8% Salmo 65 12.1% 25 6.8% 35 20.0% Silverton ------Slocan ------Electoral Area A 35 3.9% 25 3.3% 10 6.9% Electoral Area B 65 3.9% 20 1.4% 40 15.4% Electoral Area C 35 6.0% 25 5.0% 15 16.7% Electoral Area D 20 3.2% 10 1.9% 10 10.5% Electoral Area E 90 5.4% 55 4.0% 40 14.0% Electoral Area F 85 5.1% 40 2.8% 40 16.3% Electoral Area G 75 10.9% 45 8.3% 30 21.4% Electoral Area H 190 9.8% 130 8.1% 60 18.8% Electoral Area I 40 3.8% 15 1.6% 20 12.9% Electoral Area J 35 2.6% 15 1.3% 20 9.8% Electoral Area K 55 7.1% 35 5.1% 20 25.0% According to Table RDCK 34.2, those communities in most extreme need by total, owner, and renter households are: Salmo (12 percent), New Denver (9 percent), and Electoral Area K (25 percent), respectively. Those in least need are: Electoral Area J (3 percent), Electoral Area J (1 percent), and Nakusp (4 percent). 35. Affordability Gap Analysis [Ongoing]
41
GLOSSARY “bedrooms” refer to rooms in a private dwelling that are designed mainly for sleeping purposes even if they are now used for other purposes, such as guest rooms and television rooms. Also included are rooms used as bedrooms now, even if they were not originally built as bedrooms, such as bedrooms in a finished basement. Bedrooms exclude rooms designed for another use during the day such as dining rooms and living rooms even if they may be used for sleeping purposes at night. By definition, one-room private dwellings such as bachelor or studio apartments have zero bedrooms; “census” means a census of population undertaken under the Statistics Act (Canada); “census division (CD)” means the grouping of neighbouring municipalities, joined together for the purposes of regional planning and managing common services – Comox Valley Regional District is a census division;
“census family” is defined as a married couple and the children, if any, of either and/or both spouses; a couple living common law and the children, if any, of either and/or both partners; or a lone parent of any marital status with at least one child living in the same dwelling and that child or those children. All members of a particular census family live in the same dwelling. A couple may be of opposite or same sex;
“census subdivision (CSD)” is the general term for municipalities (as determined by provincial/territorial legislation) or areas treated as municipal equivalents for statistical purposes (i.e. electoral areas);
“commuting destination” refers to whether or not a person commutes to another municipality (i.e., census subdivision), another census division or another province or territory. Commuting refers to the travel of a person between his or her place of residence and his or her usual place of work;
“core housing need” is when housing falls below at least one of the adequacy, affordability or suitability standards and it would have to spend 30% or more of its total before-tax income to pay the median rent of alternative local housing that meets all three housing standards;
“adequate housing” means that, according to the residents within the dwelling, no major repairs are required for proper use and enjoyment of said dwelling;
“affordable housing” means that household shelter costs equate to less than 30% of total before-tax household income;
“suitable housing” means that a dwelling has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of resident households according to National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements; “dissemination area (DA)” refers to a small, relatively stable geographic unit composed of one or more adjacent dissemination blocks with an average population of 400 to 700 persons based on data from the previous Census of Population Program. It is the smallest standard geographic area for which all census data are disseminated. DAs cover all the territory of Canada; “dwelling” is defined as a set of living quarters;
42
“dwelling type” means the structural characteristics or dwelling configuration of a housing unit, such as, but not limited to, the housing unit being a single-detached house, a semi-detached house, a row house, an apartment in a duplex or in a building that has a certain number of storeys, or a mobile home;
“economic family” refers to a group of two or more persons who live in the same dwelling and are related to each other by blood, marriage, common-law union, adoption or a foster relationship. A couple may be of opposite or same sex. By definition, all persons who are members of a census family are also members of an economic family; “employment rate” means, for a particular group (age, sex, marital status, geographic area, etc.), the number of employed persons in that group, expressed as a percentage of the total population in that group;
“extreme core housing need” has the same meaning as core housing need except that the household has shelter costs for housing that are more than 50% of total before-tax household income; “family size” refers to the number of persons in the family;
“household” refers to a person or group of persons who occupy the same dwelling and do not have a usual place of residence elsewhere in Canada or abroad;
“household maintainer” refers to whether or not a person residing in the household is responsible for paying the rent, or the mortgage, or the taxes, or the electricity or other services or utilities. Where a number of people may contribute to the payments, more than one person in the household may be identified as a household maintainer; “household size” refers to the number of persons in a private household; “household type” refers to the differentiation of households on the basis of whether they are census family households or non-census-family households. Census family households are those that contain at least one census family;
“immigrant” refers to a person who is, or who has ever been, a landed immigrant or permanent resident. Such a person has been granted the right to live in Canada permanently by immigration authorities;
“indigenous identity” refers to whether the person identified with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. This includes those who are First Nations (North American Indian), Métis or Inuk (Inuit) and/or those who are Registered or Treaty Indians (that is, registered under the Indian Act of Canada), and/or those who have membership in a First Nation or Indian band;
“labour force” refers to persons who, during the week of Sunday, May 1 to Saturday, May 7, 2016, were either employed or unemployed;
“low-income measure, after tax,” refers to a fixed percentage (50%) of median adjusted after- tax income of private households. The household after-tax income is adjusted by an equivalence scale to take economies of scale into account. This adjustment for different household sizes reflects the fact that a household's needs increase, but at a decreasing rate, as the number of members increases;
43
“migrant” refers to a person who has moved from their place of residence, of which the origin is different than the destination community they reported in. Conversely, a non-migrant is a person who has moved within the same community;
“mobility status, one year” refers to the status of a person with regard to the place of residence on the reference day in relation to the place of residence on the same date one year earlier;
“NAICS” means the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Canada 2012, published by Statistics Canada; “NAICS industry” means an industry established by the NAICS; “participation rate” means the total labour force in a geographic area, expressed as a percentage of the total population of the geographic area;
“primary rental market” means a market for rental housing units in apartment structures containing at least 3 rental housing units that were purpose-built as rental housing;
“secondary rental market” means a market for rental housing units that were not purpose-built as rental housing;
“shelter cost” refers to the average or median monthly total of all shelter expenses paid by households that own or rent their dwelling. Shelter costs for owner households include, where applicable, mortgage payments, property taxes and condominium fees, along with the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services. For renter households, shelter costs include, where applicable, the rent and the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services. “short-term rental” means the rental of a housing unit, or any part of it, for a period of less than 30 days;
“subsidized housing” refers to whether a renter household lives in a dwelling that is subsidized. Subsidized housing includes rent geared to income, social housing, public housing, government- assisted housing, non-profit housing, rent supplements and housing allowances;
“tenure” refers to whether the household owns or rents their private dwelling. The private dwelling may be situated on rented or leased land or be part of a condominium. A household is considered to own their dwelling if some member of the household owns the dwelling even if it is not fully paid for, for example if there is a mortgage or some other claim on it. A household is considered to rent their dwelling if no member of the household owns the dwelling;
“unemployment rate” means, for a particular group (age, sex, marital status, geographic area, etc.), the unemployed in that group, expressed as a percentage of the labour force in that group;
“usual worker” means a worker that reports themselves as generally having the same workplace location at the beginning of each work day;
“visible minority” refers to whether a person belongs to a visible minority group as defined by the Employment Equity Act and, if so, the visible minority group to which the person belongs. The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.”
44
Kaslo Administration
From: LCRB Liquor Policy LCRB:EX
Hello,
The Liquor Control and Regulation Branch (LCRB) is aware of the significant ramifications the pandemic has had on B.C.’s hospitality sector and we understand that with reopening efforts underway, it is critical that licensees are supported in their needs to adhere to Provincial Health Officer’s (PHO) direction and recommendations as they aim to resume operations.
As such, the LCRB has announced Policy Directive 20‐13, that permits food primary, liquor primary and manufacturing licensees to temporarily expand their service area footprint until October 31, 2020.
Helping licensees increase their service area will allow them to decrease the density of patrons in their establishments and to continue to serve patrons while complying with PHO orders and guidelines regarding physical distancing.
To support this directive, we have implemented an expedited process for the authorization of temporary expansions to service areas. These temporary authorizations will be focused on expanding licensee service areas only and will not increase currently approved person/patron capacities or occupant loads. This will allow the LCRB to expedite approvals while mitigating any public safety risks or local government requirements. Licensees will still be subject to any PHO orders requiring reduced occupancy loads and must also comply with all local bylaws and health and fire regulations.
Licensees will be able to submit applications for Temporary Expanded Service Area Authorizations via our online portal at no charge. This user‐friendly online system will ensure information is gathered from licensees efficiently and will enable faster processing times.
We understand that some local governments may want applications in their jurisdiction approved as soon as possible, while others may want an opportunity to review individual applications more extensively. Therefore, the LCRB is offering the following two options for local government input into the temporary authorization application process for liquor primary and manufacturer licensees:
1. Local governments may provide one pre‐approval to cover all liquor primary and manufacturer establishments within their jurisdiction who may apply for an expanded service area.
Considerations: This will enable the fastest processing of applications in your jurisdiction. You will not have an opportunity to see individual requests before they are approved by the LCRB. Applicants will be required to disclose that they have met all local government requirements when applying. You will receive notice when the expanded service area is authorized by the LCRB. If you have wish to use this expedited process but have specific concerns, please contact the LCRB immediately.
If you choose this option, please send confirmation directly to our local government liaison, Allan Lingwood, at [email protected] so that your pre‐approval can be recorded in our system.
2. Local governments may choose to review and approve all individual requests for liquor primary and manufacturer expansions prior to licensees submitting their applications to the LCRB.
Considerations: This will increase the time required for businesses to begin operating their expanded areas. 1 You will have the ability to determine what information you require from applicants seeking your approval, and to withhold approval if you have concerns. If you approve the application, you will be asked to provide written approval directly to the applicant (email is sufficient). The applicant will be required to include this information with their application to the LCRB. You will receive notice when an expanded service area is authorized by the LCRB.
Please note: This is the default process. You do not need to contact LCRB if you wish to follow this process.
Local governments who choose to review/approve all individual requests will be required to provide written approval to each applicant (via letter or email) prior to submission, with the following information:
1. Establishment name 2. Licence number 3. Establishment address 4. Local Government’s confirmation of “no objection” 5. Permission to use publicly owned spaces, if applicable 6. Comments, if any.
Since food primary establishments are not generally required to obtain prior local government approval to expand their service areas, the LCRB will continue to process food primary requests for expanded service areas without requiring local government approval. Food primary licensees are responsible for following all local bylaws and for obtaining any permits as required by their local government. You will receive notice when an expanded food primary service area is approved by the LCRB.
Finally, it’s important to note that the LCRB will not require evidence from licensees ensuring they have appropriate permissions (including the use of publicly owned spaces like parking lots, sidewalks, etc.) from local governments, if their local government has selected the blanket‐approval approach. It is the responsibility of the licensee to ensure they abide by all local bylaws and acquire any necessary permits. However, all applicants will be required to affirm through an online disclosure that they have met all local government requirements.
Please quickly decide your local governments approach and either communicate your decided administrative process to the LCRB, or the licensees and applicants that will be likely reaching out to you soon.
The LCRB will also continue with its end‐to‐end review of the existing permanent structural approval process, with the goal of streamlining and modernizing the process, making future applications more straightforward and aligned with today's business needs.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure B.C. businesses have the support they need during this challenging time.
If you have any questions, please contact our local government liaison, Allan Lingwood, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Mary Sue Maloughney Assistant Deputy Minister and General Manager Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch Ministry of Attorney General
2
Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch POLICY DIRECTIVE No: 20 - 13
Date: May 22, 2020
To: All LCRB Staff All Licensees All Industry Associations All local government, First Nations and police agencies
Re: Temporary Expanded Service Area Authorization
General Manager Authority
Under the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation (LCLR), s. 109.1, the General Manager (GM) of the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB) may issue a Temporary Expanded Service Area Authorization to food primary, liquor primary, and manufacturer licensees.
New Policy
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Province’s March 2020 declaration of a state of emergency and the Provincial Health Officer’s March 2020 declaration of a public health emergency, the GM is putting in place time-limited measures to support the Provincial Health Officer’s (PHO) direction and recommendations.
This new authorization permits a licensee to temporarily expand their service areas until October 31, 2020. The increased service area will allow licensees to serve patrons while complying with the PHO’s guidelines regarding physical distancing.
Accordingly, food primary, liquor primary and manufacturer licensees (i.e., wineries, breweries, distilleries) may apply for a Temporary Expanded Service Area Authorization.
To meet the intent of this temporary authorization, licensees will not be permitted to increase or exceed their currently approved person/patron capacities or occupant loads. All means of access to the service area must also be supervised to the satisfaction of the GM. Finally, licensees must comply with all local bylaws and health and fire regulations.
An expedited online application will be available for licensees at no charge. Please check our website for a link to the application.
Explanation
The new policy is provided in the context of the provincial state of emergency and public
Page 1 of 2 health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing the size of existing service areas is expected to support licensees in complying with requirements under the Provincial Health Orders and recommendations, in particular with respect to social/physical distancing.
Further Information
Further information regarding liquor and cannabis regulation and licensing in British Columbia is available on the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch website at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/business/liquor-regulation- licensing
If you have any questions regarding these changes, please contact the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch toll free in Canada at 1-866-209-2111 or 250 952-5787 if calling from the Victoria area.
Original signed by
Mary Sue Maloughney Assistant Deputy Minister and General Manager Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch
Page 2 of 2 Kaslo Administration
From: Mayor
Hi Dan
Thanks for your email. That sounds like a lovely idea. As far as a location at the east end of Front Street, other than Moyie beach itself, the Village doesn’t really have a suitable piece of land at that end. That being said, if you wanted to go as far as the Logger Sports grounds, that could be a possibility. You may also want to consider Front Street Park if you would consider walking in the other direction. You may be able to set up a few risers to make a stage and we can make sure that staff mows the lawn the day before so the site it tidy. I think it would be awesome if something could be worked out at the Moyie with the Historical Society. If you would like me to pursue this further, please let me know so I can talk to Ian about getting this on the next agenda.
Thank you Suzan
Suzan Hewat Mayor Village of Kaslo RDCK Board Director WKBRHD Chair
Village of Kaslo Office 413 Fourth Street, PO Box 576, Kaslo, BC V0G 1M0 Phone: (250) 353‐2311 Cell: (250) 505‐3024 Kaslo Website: www.kaslo.ca
From: Dan Rude Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:45 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Meleana Terlingen
Hi again, Suzan.
Among the ideas for honoring this year’s grads in light of not being able to have large gatherings is to have a set time on Saturday, June 20th for grads to walk separately down Front Street and then cross a stage at the East end, either on village property or on the Moyie deck if they would allow this.
Please let me know whom I should speak with about getting approval for this style of an event and to work out any details, if this can work.
Thanks!
Dan Rude – Principal J.V. Humphries (Kaslo, K-12) - 250.353.2227 - https://jvh.sd8.bc.ca/ Jewett (Meadow Creek, K-5) – 250.366.4224, 250.353.2227 Cell - 250.505.3032
1