THE CORPORATION of the CITY of NELSON Regular Meeting AGENDA

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON Regular Meeting AGENDA

Monday, May 4, 2015 at 7:00 PM in Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 310 Ward Street, Nelson, BC 2nd Floor, 310 Ward Street, Nelson, B.C.

Page

. 1 Call to Order . 2 Introduction of Late Items . 3 Adoption of the Agenda . 4 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meetings . 5 Requests . Addenda (a) Development Variance Permit Application: 113 High Street 3 - 30

. (b) Development Variance Permit Application: 1106 Hall Mines Road 31 - 52

. 6 Delegations . 7 Bylaws . (a) Annual Tax Rate Bylaw No. 3316, 2015 53 - 60 Adoption

. (b) Fees and Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 3307, 2015 61 - 64 Adoption

. 8 Recommendations from Staff . (a) Nelson Commons Development Variance Permit 65 - 84

. (b) Revisions to City of Nelson Procurement Policy 85 - 94

. 9 Information Items (includes Correspondence and Minutes of Committee and Commission Meetings) . (a) Information: Correspondence and Reports 95 - 109

. (b) Information: Minutes of Commissions & Committees 110 - 133

. (c) Information: Council Action Items Listing 134 - 138

. (d) Information: Council Bylaw Priority List 139 - 141

. 10 Notice of Motion . (a) Notice of Motion regarding Transit (Councillor Warmington) 142 - 156

. 11 Late Items . 12 Council Reports . 13 In-Camera Items Released to the Public . 14 Resolution to Adjourn

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISION

DATE: May 4th, 2015, Regular TOPIC: Development Variance Permit – 113 High Street PROPOSAL: To vary Sections 4.1.7, 4.1.8 and 4.1.9 of Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 and Part 7.6 (2) (a) of the Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 to allow for the construction of a single detached residential dwelling unit with secondary suite and a parking platform. PROPOSED BY: Manager of Development Services ______ANALYSIS SUMMARY: Development Services has received an application to vary Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 and Off- Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 as follows:

1) To reduce the setback from the front lot line from 4.5 m to 0 m for a parking platform with a storage room below; 2) To reduce the setback from the interior side lot line on both the east and west sides from 1.0 m (3.3 ft) to 0 m to allow for construction of a parking platform and stairs; 3) To increase the lot coverage from 40% to 49% to allow for construction of a parking platform and stairs; 4) To remove the height envelope for that portion of the building located closer than 1.5 m to the interior lot line on both the east and west sides;

The applicant also requests a variance to Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 as follows:

5) To reduce the lengths of three parking stalls from 6.0 m to 4.5 m.

The subject property is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Community Plan and it is zoned R1, Low Density Residential in Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013. The applicant has applied to vary the setback requirements and lot coverage for the R1 zone in order to construct a parking platform in the front yard to provide parking and access to a new single detached dwelling unit with a secondary dwelling unit.

BACKGROUND: Refer to attached staff memo.

BENEFITS OR DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS: If approved, the variance will enable the property owner to move forward with his plans to apply for a Building Permit to construct a new detached single family dwelling unit with a secondary suite.

LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS, PRECEDENTS, POLICIES: A Variance application is required for any construction that varies the provisions of Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2015 or Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013. Council must approve all development variance permits.

COSTS AND BUDGET IMPACT - REVENUE GENERATION: The cost of a Development Variance Permit is covered by the fees charged to the applicant. Revenue is received through building permit fees. Property improvements increase taxes.

IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND STAFF RESOURCES: The proposal has no negative impact on sustainability objectives. It will not impact staff resources.

COMMUNICATION: Neighbours located within 60m of the subject property have been notified of the application pursuant to the Local Government Act and the Development Applications Procedures Bylaw.

OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the requests for a Development Variance Permit. 2. Deny the requests for a Development Variance Permit. 3. Refer the application back to staff for further information.

ATTACHMENTS: • Staff Memo with attachments.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council passes the following resolution:

That the application for a development variance permit to vary the requirements of Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 and Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 to allow for construction of a single detached dwelling unit with a secondary dwelling unit and a parking platform BE APPROVED for Lot 6, Block 9, DL 96, KD Plan NEP284B - 113 High Street as follows:

Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.7, Section 4.1.8, Section 4.1.9 • to reduce the setback for the front property line from 4.5 m to 0 m to allow for construction of a parking platform with a storage room below; • to reduce the setback for the interior side lot line on both the east and west sides from 1.0 m to 0 m to allow for construction of a parking platform and stairs; • to increase the lot coverage from 40% to 49% to allow for construction of the parking platform and stairs; • to remove the height envelope for that portion of the building located closer than 1.5 m to the interior lot line on east and west sides;

Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, Part 7.6 (2)(a) • to reduce the lengths of three parking stalls from 6 m to 4.6 m.

AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:

______MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street - Page 1

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON MEMORANDUM TO: Pamela Mierau, Manager of Development Services FROM: Krista Webb DATE: April 29, 2015 SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit Application - 113 High Street

The owner has completed a development variance permit application to relax requirements of the City of Nelson Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 and the Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw No. 3274 as follows:

Applicant Domenic Castellano Property Lot 6, Blk 9, DL 96, Plan NEP284B - 113 High Street Relaxation 1. Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.8 (Minimum Setbacks & Height): Requested Reduce the setback for the front property line from 4.5 m (14.8 ft) to 0 m (0 ft) to allow for construction of a parking platform with storage room below; 2. Reduce the interior side setback for both the east and west sides from 1.0 m (3.3 ft) to 0 m to allow for construction of a parking platform and stairs; 3. Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.7 (Lot Coverage): Increase the lot coverage from 40% to 49% to allow for construction of a parking platform and stairs; 4. Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.9 (Height Envelope): Remove the height envelope for that portion of the building located closer than 1.5 m to the interior lot line on both the east and west sides; 5. Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, Part 7.6 (2)(a) (Off-Street Vehicle Parking Design Criteria): Reduce the lengths of three parking stalls from 6 m (19.7 ft) to 4.6 m (15 ft). To allow for construction of a new single detached residential dwelling unit with a secondary Purpose suite and a parking platform.

Background: The subject property is a vacant lot on which the Applicant wishes to construct a single detached residential dwelling unit . The applicant has requested variances to reduce setbacks, lot coverage and parking requirements. He has also requested a variance to remove the height envelope requirement. If approved, the proposed variances would allow the Applicant to apply for a Building Permit to construct a home with a secondary suite, with parking access off of High Street.

A Variance was granted by Council in 2007 to a previous owner to reduce the front setback from 4.5 m to 0 m, in order to construct a parking platform; to reduce the eastern and western interior side setback from 1.5 m to 0 m to construct a parking platform; and reduce the western interior side setback from 1.5 m to 0. 6 m to construct an access catwalk. This permit has expired.

Current zoning for the property is R1, Low Density Residential. The Official Community Plan designation is Low Density Residential, as well.

The property is approximately 334.5 sq.m. (3600 sq.ft.) in size. DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street - Page 2

There are a number of limiting factors which have rendered this property difficult to develop. For example, the grade drops steeply from High Street. There is approximately 10ft of City right-of-way between the developed sidewalk and the Property Line. High Street provides the only access and there is no rear lane.

The lot is small, with the available building development envelope made smaller yet, by the constraints of a City of Nelson utility right-of-way. Nelson's Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 makes accommodation for small lots by reducing the side setbacks to 1.0 m (3.3 ft) for lots less that 9.2 m in width and it also allows increased lot coverage of 40% for lots that are less than 370 sq.m. in area.

A Nelson Hydro pole situated within the only entry point to the property will be relocated at the Property Owner's expense.

Analysis:

1. Variances required for construction of the parking platform - Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.7 and Section 4.1.8:

Maximum lot coverage permitted for small lots in the R1 Zone is 40%. The proposed lot coverage for the home without the parking platform is 36.4% (120.8 sq.m. (1300 sq.ft.)), which is well within the maximum requirement. The proposed parking platform will increase the lot coverage to 49% - 162 sq.m. (1745 sq.ft.).

The Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013, requires three parking stalls for a single dwelling with a secondary dwelling unit. A variance is required to reduce the interior side setback on the east side, to allow for the three required stall widths of 2.75 m. A variance is also requested to relax the west interior side setback to allow construction of stairs which will allow access to the secondary suite in the basement.

An Encroachment Agreement and License to Occupy is required to construct the remainder of the parking platform and stairs within the City boulevard right-of-way.

Staff believe these are reasonable requests given that there is no rear lane and therefore no other access point to this property. There is an existing pattern of 'bridge' parking access on this particular street, where the topography and lack of a secondary access have necessitated this type of design. The remaining width of the platform would accommodate the Nelson Hydro utility pole and the stairs to descend to the storage beneath the parking structure, the basement suite and the rear yard.

Staff believe that the storage space below the parking platform is a reasonable request, as the space will be naturally enclosed by the parking structure above and a garage or carport cannot be accommodated due to the lot constraints.

Two parking stalls are required for the new single dwelling unit. Without the variance to reduce the front setback for the parking platform, parking cannot be provided on the site. The desire to construct the building to accommodate a secondary suite means a third parking stall must be provided. It is worth noting that the request to vary the length of the parking stalls would exist regardless of the density.

Staff believe the added density could be considered a worthy trade-off for the variances to the interior side setbacks to allow for the parking. The Official Community Plan Bylaw 3247, 2013 promotes both infill development and secondary suites as a desired means of gaining more affordable and diverse living accommodations. This type of development is also in keeping with the direction of the City's policy documents, including the Path to 2040, Active Transportation Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategy by creating small lot infill housing on underutilized land within walking distance of downtown. DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street - Page 3

2. Variance for parking stall length - Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, Part 7.6 (2)(a):

The development proposal meets the requirement for three parking stalls if variances to reduce the setbacks and increase lot coverage are approved.

The required length for an individual stall cannot be met on site. A length of 4.5 m (14.8 ft) is available as on-site parking, the remaining 1.5 m (4.9 ft) encroaches onto the undeveloped City right-of-way. It is important to note that encroaching onto the City right-of-way will not block pedestrian access to the sidewalk. The right-of-way is approximately 3.0 m (10 ft) wide between the property line and the sidewalk, and is not likely to be developed by the City.

A City of Nelson utility right-of-way prevents the building as designed from being shifted further back on the property (north) to accommodate the full parking stall length.

3. Variance for Height Envelope - Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.9:

From the proposed plans it appears that the front third of the proposed house meets the height envelope. However, as the grade drops on the site, the building envelope would need to step in by 0.23 m (9 inches) in order to comply with the provision of the Zoning Bylaw.

The proposed building is setback further than the 1.0 m (3.3 ft) required by Zoning Bylaw 3199, which reduces the amount of setback required for the height envelope to 0.23 m (9 inches). Staff feel that stepping back the side facades will do little to mitigate any visual impact on the adjacent neighbours, and may create an architecturaly and structurally awkward portion of the building. The grade from High Street drops steeply, creating a single-storey house from the front. The adjacent homes appear to be sited within the side yard setbacks. As a consequence they may experience some impact due to the height of the proposed building. It is to be noted that the proposed development does not exceed the height requirement of 10 m (32.8 ft) as set out in the Zoning Bylaw. Staff feel the changing grade will achieve some relief in the effects of the walls which meet that full height, and of the height envelope elimination.

4. The neighbours within 60m have been notified of this application. At the time of writing this memo no written responses have been received.

5. The application was circulated to Nelson Hydro, Public Works, Building and Fire. Nelson Hydro expressed concerns about a utility pole on the boulevard at the south side of the property. A resolution has been reached. It was noted by the Building Official that Geotechnical and Structural Engineering will be required to look at the foundation, soil bearing capacity as well as shoring and slope stabilization for the adjacent properties. This will be analyzed further during the Building Permit review process.

6. The application was circulated to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Fortis BC. No concerns were noted. DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street - Page 4

Recommendation: That Council passes the following resolution: That the application for a development variance permit to vary the requirements of Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 and Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 to allow construction of a single detached dwelling unit and secondary dwelling unit with a parking platform BE APPROVED for Lot 6, Block 9, DL 96, KD Plan NEP 284B - 113 High Street as follows:

Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.7, Section 4.1.8, Section 4.1.9 ● to reduce the setback for the front property line from 4.5 m to 0 m to allow for construction of a parking platform with storage room below; ● to reduce the setback for the interior side lot line on the east and west sides from 1.0 m (3.3 ft) to 0 m to allow for construction of a parking platform and stairs; ● to increase the lot coverage from 40% to 49% to allow for construction of the parking platform and stairs; ● to remove the height envelope for that portion of the building located closer than 1.5 m to the interior lot line on east and west sides;

Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, Part 7.6 (2)(a) ● to reduce the lengths of three parking stalls from 6 m (19.7 ft) to 4.6 m (15 ft).

Regards,

Krista Webb, B.Env.D Planning & Building Analyst

Attachments: 1. Proposal Summary 2. Location Map 3. Building Elevation and Site Plan 4. Diagrams: Variances, Parking, Height Envelope 5. Site Photos 6. Zoning Bylaw 3199, R1 Zone excerpt 7. Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274 excerpt 8. Adjacent Notification Responses (if any) DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street

-'f{e. ( L 7'5: /‘canonrt!A 0~ ~-forr .-~-Mo. qfvpl-7,»l7c..p-ply,~~J «Fer~I' vuaricmczs r-ltt n c...~s !51'5 { Eu} [A am~M bo', ld {A5'~5 on~ V\ ct.:1 5~ *re/stt""~[> lo/c fI -#...c.+4Lc.+ /xr-Il...c..,r Many/Vf411 y tio.llt-lfj(:l'£1».//rnje;5 ,' I CiJ'I-\am c)J"cG/fa bv;'5://' I/J/nj J,~ ;ayo I/ canCC.PT ~Kcuzr c, v-f' c. l"t''l/r.rot/--. I/ SUI50: f.rI1’ Hw’f 5CrmI via év m—eJ M M/¢/Jonah‘) pafkekg «senbus issue_.

(‘gr 1'1'1/"’’I o/1'/y;'!.JQ//‘V/‘aj /<:>I'/‘or’ Ga- 3 ~r /7.:/-/<31},/a/./c/':;7/ 1,./lur./xwA.,-~h. rzjwrerr~v1-,.-t>f' um-VIA~ .ft>41> Ar~ t!c?arr /or -t" /o?> ‘:44~ F(o/e/79f'£6,Per .f.j /0“/, #1-!' oon! ~ .;I...-/4 ta!/‘C!' ~ J'l-- 5/DarY fl t>t-0‘ I/J, el ,. ~~rj74:)’ J‘1Zn/<+U7’fy/,-vc. fvr-t t:Mncan 6-t5: 6u60/7}1 f f bvl-64* I/nrr.»/ /1('t!'J 74>.-lz, 1<:4'"?kw//7‘ ,). tJ"15" ~~~~.Pr¢

Au/c ./,L,,-/ /9,4; /1p/ Q//an; -/D Mon/rJt.tovr A.-zsr ht;.c./c ~.f c/or-5 no/ c,//e>l.f.l -lo Aovs-r a'l«.7 ..fvt.fhr42//Mcr ba.c.Jcfc>baa/CA: al/awatlo~ 41/~~ cJ~ -fo,.-/oz’ ;e:./!et'l!f/a//cfnf.·

gfcause o( .91} J") Jar Bf'CQ.vSe 094 -f- ~4L4 cmaou/I-rlC<.WIOU/1 -1 o{ _Q \J rr.-2r-eg VI~) -h, r /hr/<-‘n/9p:.r/c•~ (J Cd"l"Ctarm C<./C'wr )~5,;Jr,nj‘,, J1 t") led/a//cfry /c r',y 4/re,Ci/YC, ,,./M4/,A/1 '.f/, Ct51 554/76_sir, rc.;e ~5/lug r up/I/544%.r.A·"'J,, r.~c....U. "1"A;s7/‘ZS :s~c~sfkce />414-5fv-i-s ~~32 5t521“; -t~J- QhCJV('glow 70%ro% ex~ /;u; , Tk ;,~,4. (5,—, 3400JCoo sJ.f/- I/0% V4jf I 1'(0.s;-f'l-. 19%!~ 54/4ld , rt. sik 57;;1/ ~o% ~P(gov/I /76/a;,?—, U1W-e. aaw r~ q—\-~-\- Il‘I'l2.5;«F# Li 7 'Ls; .f.f ·-

.4/)‘aA/.to éecausebec.<:~ v.S~ «:4of= 41*~ GL9:-"pol-I7J,+t ,. L0t~ o~o-V bu~lJ,lIu7lc)u.-45· "'). vV\on qc. s-k~p5-krp lo+-(=.¥ Jk;rA -Q-\s¢r P<1("\'po.r-\- ex0~ 44.~ -"'.\f'd ~\ao\'" ~1:,s ou+:>u¥ O;0 -\- ..U..Ou. ~~k.;5L+~ 5-k+- €~Ve-L~peeMI¢\u{J< l'c:.~u\<4-\tm3u\.;'~~ -tor4., 5.2):5tdt" s-e.f-9+ backbac~ . ‘Wk'i"\-.e. s:m4.,:~ ..... -\. J. ~+t. kcose.kause -?\\'--"~\\ wok\oc.k.. ~=~ *>w\3c‘°~bul'\jc..\O<:.U\;;,,, my e.;.\+ boAbo..\- back.btt.clc_ ~'II Exbe:: 32s4..;..;, s~rye..s.., YlyMy n~¢‘,jllL)¢ar>1\"(.tj~ ~r~ L...”le.t\A.~ Q~ bc..i \t from) c..-C‘/lagerloser it>+0 l~d Soso u‘\l\w... \\ NJ’1\..b ·\- a-H-v.d~~~-+-- ~rmy ndjlxbers"~ ~ JJ))c)r~ ‘Uu~ ~rc-wen truth:/k~l o ~ wasL.JtU pt/+fV\pvf i" pplace. /e;..c;-e , AjabxAJ Ct..;"\ kcbtcfuaic.. c u..J Sc 5?~ ss4<—<;>(¢§' kp L~~.. l1 Rap:~~youygu L Scesee (YI,Ymy Jclemidele~s- ucm} ~J c.f/te¢fa+rc..-fft'~c...c~-1-c yeuxyou.r -h«Fun-re/31 ~ t'i-t +459~s-c- M?~~ ('4?/1 fEe«~cZ25/54*~~~ DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street~~

~~CHATHAM~~

~~104 108 110 114 116 118 120 124 126~~

~~107 111 113 115 117 119 121~~

~~HIGH~~

~~104 108 110 112 116 118 ³ 120~~

~~Map Scale:~~

~~0 2.75 5.5 11 16.5 Meters~~

~~City of Nelson Suite 101 - 310 Ward Street, Nelson, BC V1L 5S4 Map Projection: UTM Zone 11 Map Datum: NAD83 Phone: 250-352-8221 Fax: 250-352-2131 Date Plotted: 2014 Internet: www.nelson.ca~~

The mapping information shown are approximate Ortho Photo representations and should only be used for reference 113 High Street (in red) Development Variance Permit purposes. The City of Nelson is not responsible for any errors or ommissions on this map. DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street A—105 I W I I I I I I I I I :, s>IIAIRs' H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1 & =I—I—‘ ’ . , ' . I _E CARS) . __E I I I I I I)ECI< (3 :1.- FOR . PLATFORM, ,_ HISVHVSTHEET . ’ PROPOSED RESIDENCE "I15 COVERED \ I E- I I ENCROACHMENTI EI:§TKFIggM \PARKING I *I’_ -VARIANCE x, ' I I I c ,4/—+—;_____ —I —I —I / S ~—I — LOCAT1OJI_,- —$‘I 1/B"=1'0" ———-IkING R/W c d SITE SIDEWALK 284 szwere coww ow JEPQELIML SITEVPLAN SCALE: ELEVATIONS Plan PLAN 95. Legal: Lot6.Block5. D.L. SITE No"+”I§“s"“/ IS In: mIu:»Iw:. - Ext new um«eI.e uwruyltrlzn To ALL ALUMINUM Au ALL sum: mc. avenue aoucx r—n- ovzmmss. m wwmw or assumes zoman) run YO AI ms H: wwumcmnzn FG mnmmkz nssmn roI= DOOR Va sn mm E-"='u“.._=—‘-"_.»~ 3: 4‘ wmuow (am: wccwu mm we a: aamrn & vo as scnzms mu Au. wmmw wINIx:ws mans con: m vow “J Ann Io msnmo wmnznsmInI>mr. INSECV vawoun wmlmw mum» LOOKSEVS BUILDING man wwunws Eummu cums axvzmnw ALL My a.c Pnuwn: Pxuvmi CAULK ALL ALL vwuwnz nook an Au AI ALL Rmuwzn INIERIOI? (SOUTH) mm; II WINDOW sum FRONT ELEVATION Io‘o' - Imr CHART SPAN mo ONE two ROOF ROOF. ROOF. CEILING amv CEILING AND STORE‘! came AND SYOREV LINTEI. LINTELS adv‘ LIVE I‘-0' wsw vI:w vI:w smm szcuon /1’:I'—U' I mm cum I/I-. newt mu mm mm #~‘—A————I——I———— _ F4‘ 5: 51: BC ra.c. mu. I-:.~ an rwsn. ummoar-us urn oounnucn mm. Iw? at mp smm «sum 9 Nelson, wAv:R vs mwza mu IB'DIC. s>4umIIec - - ewe G.W»E.IPAINVED u.C smmms EMUISION I§E‘n“"c%‘.5‘c§:w: c row sums» Eulm s-mew swan EUHBIIIG .s- mam». a1E'nc aIs'a.c. a2A'o.c. wan In- rwvswiu ok o c»«Im_zIs m? wI>:~x- wzx comm: Hvwnnn mum on Pmrrm munm new ASSEMBIJES Pmooow sue mwsnwv uzsn m ma. suwvzn mmza swman puma ASPHMJIE moan mu. wow wow M msuwIoI< msumIo~ .mIasu yumzn sums stuns sums INSULAIIDN sax ?§I‘E"EII‘é’I¢: I/2' «/2 »m_I a mu. sums a. 5 a, a mm FLDDRJOISIS or amms vuu vuu. cm: mu. aaumu". we w w w AESDRPINE wow c/w wow Pow am am sw SPF 5»; us c mm. nu awe. :;.w ::.w s c cwa. mm.-II ASSEMBLIES mom mmmo rxmam Residence Exmznok coma: cwmrzn ENGINEIRED a"sI>r r MIL MIL 2 MIL z’ Myths was Nova cans ASSEMBLIES xa- /2' /2" /2" Iwwu I I I nrscRIJ=TIoN Mszusrrv «' 5 Nova mm rm. J/r ms - ./2- EEKSMS . ./2- I I/2' I RI] 5- n:9I:a1PnoN mm muumnan 2 on 5' 2'x¢”Lm R42 5 axmuun -».m sums 2 R~ZA 6 INVERIUR 2 Immm 2 IMIERIDR 2 am as-um Iwmumv D.CASTELLANO New No FLOOR WALL W DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street 151142 1..... W vunm 1”... run M -a A—104 :1 : 5 ammo mm O‘) .- - |— IJJ Lu u: |_ an I <2 I 1 , I 1 I 1 | I 1 1 [ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 m, ’ mm m. MM ./.. ME! BALCONY. 155 35“ sum max mu» uauaaas or m pwmw ggvgfcr-E Iz'—u' GRADE sauna zznzm we SS'1F nomacwtm wauuma: mw.. ABOVE NO MAX6'SFAL1NG 5‘ own) . _ , mp 1 I I I I I , 1 1 I I I Lu Z _ Al y QC “J CL Z CL F O ms) 1: roe: 15'4" 1 1 1 1 1 mum Pm; wnmtr 1 1 1 1 1 mu uuma 1 1 1 1 1 ELEVATION ma sun mm 3 mu mm Mrs‘ 1 1 , 1 , , 1 1 1 * M W Lwzn W ’ , ::::'':.'..‘-:.‘$:.. ,f ms mm vu mu "" _,a .— |_ ‘ . ‘ ELEVATION "‘ 1.4;- W 5 , . mm mm _.- _.-- ' 1 1 m W 1 1 1 1 1 W 705! not W009 umsr m. m W ,,, m- --1'15! 2m?:..;;?2..$:,"‘" °;.t'.':_;“,m,:",,,,, g » _c ._1 * §; as 5%..) E5 §g ,_g =1 BC V,” W W mm Eucuw wmcms er 1155 as‘ mam vurwu w or .; row Nelson, W: wow MEN - sauna as 42; nzamwm >4am2oNm mm: WWW um .4“ we 5 anwzau V . 4 sum: — Residence D.CASTELLANO New FLOOR ASSEMBLIES LINTELS WINDOW & DOOFINOTES J J4 L|I\ITE|_ SPAN CHART 1. PROVIDE FLASHING TO TOP OF ALL UNPROTEOTED OPENINGS NO. DESCRIPTION DETAIL I/221--0" I I 2. PROVIDE WEATHERSTRIPPINGTO ALL EXT. DOORS . . . . AL. ROOF AND 2’—4” 2—2”><4” 3. CAULK AROUND ALL WINDOW OPENINGS. PROVIDE BAcI DESIGN 5. ALL WINDOWSTO BE SET AT 7 I —O FROM FLOOR, U.N.O. 6 MIL POLY VAPOUR BARRIER _ _ _ SECTION 2,_5., 2_2,,X4,. 6. PROVIDE INSECT SCREENS FOR ALL OPENABLE WINDOWS. ISQIIQCCRII/1(;'I[A)ICITI\IEIs3UI(J3AI%I/I/IIN_IL ROOF Lu CEILING 4:-0:: 2—2::><5: 7. DOOR LOcI7 y‘ W MAINFLOOR, ms, DESIIEN 9. ALL GUAZINGTO BE VACCUUM SEALED DOUBLE GLAZING. E FIN-,,FL0°R"“GON 10. AT ALL WINDOWAND DOOR OPENINGS THE EXTERIOR BUILDING PAPER IS '4-I 3/4 T840 SPF PLYWOOD SHFATHING ROOF, 2’—3” 2—2”X4” REQUIRED TO WRAP INTO THE ROUGH OPENING SUFFIOIENT TO ALLOWTHE W‘ FLOORJOISTS @ I5 03- % ENG;, :I: CEILING 4’_0" 2_2“x5” INTERIOR VAPOUR BARRIERTO OVERLAP THE BUILDING PAPER. . 1/2 MB‘ AND TWO 5’ O” 2 2"XB” EXTERIOR DOORS TO ALUMINUMTHRESHOLD. E STOREY 6,_O,. 2_2.,IO,, 11. ALL HAVE SECTION > ’ DESIGN SEWER R/W I I ///T’ I CONFIRM LOCATION, /T’ 0 ON SITE I 5: /,,//JI’ F WALLASSEMBLIES I FF» I A NO. DESCRIPTION I I DETAILI n * NOTE: WALLASSEMBLIESTO BE GONFIRMED ‘/2 =1 T0 WITHENERGY ADVISOR* ICOVEREDPECK I50’—0" I I

‘ ‘ ' FOUNDATIONWALL 71‘ 4‘ - ~ '- I AR- W 2 GOATS OF ASPHALTIO EMULSION DAMPPROOFING ——-I'—--T ® ON EXTERIOR TO FINISHED GRADE 2I»_8-- I 8" ENGINEERED CONCRETE WALL ~ ' 71, E DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street 2”X4"ON EDGE I I

ESE I I §;III°L‘I 2" G.W.B.,'U§5I%§E°§IRRIERPAIN ED. PLAN W Iv PROPOSED I REFER TO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DRAWINGSFOR ENGINEERED CONCRETE WALL RESIDEINCE W EXTERIORWALL "HARDIEBOARD",OR EQUAL, SIDING ON BUILDING PAPER OR BUILDING WRAP I/2”E>

~~' = INTERIORBEARINGWALL » I W I/2" G.W.B.,PAINTED 2"X6" SPF STUDS @I6"O.C. II II I/2" G.W.B., PAINTED~~

~~PLANVIEW~~

~~‘ INTERIORWALLPARTITION ' SLOPED PARKING AREA Legal: TC ‘II G.W.B.,PAINTED I/2" I~~

~~°‘°‘ — I/X51<§.®.FB.?TI>’EISNr‘&”S6 L016.BIOCK9. - - ~ PLAN VFW / D.L.96, Plan 284 X / /,/'//x/ :/ I~~

' — ' — INTERIORWALLPARTITION— 45MIN. RATED,STC 53 _I I I @— 2 I G.W.B.,PAINTED _ HLAXERS/2" TYPE”X",' .. 2 (SO PARKINGp,/LR/I<|I\I(3’/,,/,,.,...»/// §gXI£‘mSAPaFs<§‘I$II3E@II2Ii‘Ié’IéEIL /\ U I PLATFORM (3 GARS)I,/3;/(STAIRS @ RESILIENT META_LCHANNELS24"O.C. PLAN VIEW I,// w” / ,/ ,./ I LAYERS TYPEIX G.W.B.,PAINTED ELEVATION /'/////’//I..// //,/I I/2’ ,,I4/// /I / /I /' /.x / / I /. ( /. V A I I I/\, /-/\“\(I ,/'/ ,/I/\’\,»" I’ /;<\ \\,N"' \:>/\ /S. / \ \/A/\\/ /\'/\ /“\ . IR,/ENCROACHENTI/: I;/‘iAG,REEMENTFOR;< /‘:4 A I ,><1PARI/ \.X >/ \< / \__._ J_7__7__,_ ,-I’ __E.__.__ ___.__._._L.__.._..__._ ,vE,‘_ \/ SIDEWALI< 113 HIGIFI

~~S I “" T P 1 SITEPPEANPPPP SCALE: 1/8"=1'O"~~

__ SCALE: DRAWINGNO.: DRAWING D.CASTELLANO DATE ISSUEDFOR TITLE: 1/4,._,I .__O» ea DESIGNINC. NOTES / ELEVATIONS/ OR AS N".§T..:D 341 NAKUSP EAST ROAD A_ I O5 NAKUSP.BC. VOG 1R1 MARCH10; 2015 - DATE New Residence Nelson, BC E5?a'IIIEL/EA.§u§i‘36§§II.?n3LI§3abIe.neI DRAWN:U.M. O 12:0” PROPERTYLINE 19’—7%"‘Iv 120’O" 10'0" FLOOR ASSEMBLIES LINTELS WINDOW & DOOFINOTES J J4 L|I\ITE|_ SPAN CHART 1. PROVIDE FLASHING TO TOP OF ALL UNPROTEOTED OPENINGS NO. DESCRIPTION DETAIL I/221--0" I I 2. PROVIDE WEATHERSTRIPPINGTO ALL EXT. DOORS . . . . AL. ROOF AND 2’—4” 2—2”><4” 3. CAULK AROUND ALL WINDOW OPENINGS. PROVIDE BAcI DESIGN 5. ALL WINDOWSTO BE SET AT 7 I —O FROM FLOOR, U.N.O. 6 MIL POLY VAPOUR BARRIER _ _ _ SECTION 2,_5., 2_2,,X4,. 6. PROVIDE INSECT SCREENS FOR ALL OPENABLE WINDOWS. ISQIIQCCRII/1(;'I[A)ICITI\IEIs3UI(J3AI%I/I/IIN_IL ROOF Lu CEILING 4:-0:: 2—2::><5: 7. DOOR LOcI7 y‘ W MAINFLOOR, ms, DESIIEN 9. ALL GUAZINGTO BE VACCUUM SEALED DOUBLE GLAZING. E FIN-,,FL0°R"“GON 10. AT ALL WINDOWAND DOOR OPENINGS THE EXTERIOR BUILDING PAPER IS '4-I 3/4 T840 SPF PLYWOOD SHFATHING ROOF, 2’—3” 2—2”X4” REQUIRED TO WRAP INTO THE ROUGH OPENING SUFFIOIENT TO ALLOWTHE W‘ FLOORJOISTS @ I5 03- % ENG;, :I: CEILING 4’_0" 2_2“x5” INTERIOR VAPOUR BARRIERTO OVERLAP THE BUILDING PAPER. . 1/2 MB‘ AND TWO 5’ O” 2 2"XB” EXTERIOR DOORS TO ALUMINUMTHRESHOLD. E STOREY 6,_O,. 2_2.,IO,, 11. ALL HAVE SECTION > ’ DESIGN SEWER R/W I I ///T’ I CONFIRM LOCATION, /T’ 0 ON SITE I 5: /,,//JI’ F WALLASSEMBLIES I FF» I A NO. DESCRIPTION I I DETAILI n * NOTE: WALLASSEMBLIESTO BE GONFIRMED ‘/2 =1 T0 WITHENERGY ADVISOR* ICOVEREDPECK I50’—0" I I

~~' = INTERIORBEARINGWALL » I W I/2" G.W.B.,PAINTED 2"X6" SPF STUDS @I6"O.C. II II I/2" G.W.B., PAINTED~~

~~PLANVIEW~~

~~‘ INTERIORWALLPARTITION ' SLOPED PARKING AREA Legal: TC ‘II G.W.B.,PAINTED I/2" I~~

~~°‘°‘ — I/X51<§.®.FB.?TI>’EISNr‘&”S6 L016.BIOCK9. - - ~ PLAN VFW / D.L.96, Plan 284 X / /,/'//x/ :/ I~~

~~S I “" T P 1 SITEPPEANPPPP SCALE: 1/8"=1'O"~~

__ SCALE: DRAWINGNO.: DRAWING D.CASTELLANO DATE ISSUEDFOR TITLE: 1/4,._,I .__O» ea DESIGNINC. NOTES / ELEVATIONS/ OR AS N".§T..:D 341 NAKUSP EAST ROAD A_ I O5 NAKUSP.BC. VOG 1R1 MARCH10; 2015 - DATE New Residence Nelson, BC E5?a'IIIEL/EA.§u§i‘36§§II.?n3LI§3abIe.neI DRAWN:U.M. O 12:0” PROPERTYLINE 19’—7%"‘Iv 120’O" 10'0" DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street 151142 1..... W vunm 1”... run M -a A—104 :1 : 5 ammo mm O‘) .- - |— IJJ Lu u: |_ an I <2 I 1 , I 1 I 1 | I 1 1 [ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 m, ’ mm m. MM ./.. ME! BALCONY. 155 35“ sum max mu» uauaaas or m pwmw ggvgfcr-E Iz'—u' GRADE sauna zznzm we SS'1F nomacwtm wauuma: mw.. ABOVE NO MAX6'SFAL1NG 5‘ own) . _ , mp 1 I I I I I , 1 1 I I I Lu Z _ Al y QC “J CL Z CL F O ms) 1: roe: 15'4" 1 1 1 1 1 mum Pm; wnmtr 1 1 1 1 1 mu uuma 1 1 1 1 1 ELEVATION ma sun mm 3 mu mm Mrs‘ 1 1 , 1 , , 1 1 1 * M W Lwzn W ’ , ::::'':.'..‘-:.‘$:.. ,f ms mm vu mu "" _,a .— |_ ‘ . ‘ ELEVATION "‘ 1.4;- W 5 , . mm mm _.- _.-- ' 1 1 m W 1 1 1 1 1 W 705! not W009 umsr m. m W ,,, m- --1'15! 2m?:..;;?2..$:,"‘" °;.t'.':_;“,m,:",,,,, g » _c ._1 * §; as 5%..) E5 §g ,_g =1 BC V,” W W mm Eucuw wmcms er 1155 as‘ mam vurwu w or .; row Nelson, W: wow MEN - sauna as 42; nzamwm >4am2oNm mm: WWW um .4“ we 5 anwzau V . 4 sum: — Residence D.CASTELLANO New DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street

~~1 1 1 1 1 4 i%”.§L*F»'£ 1M 1 1~~

~~1 —J. 1 Wwnm 1~~

~~REAR (NORTH) ELEVATION Site Photos - 113 High Street~~

~~View from accross High Street, looking north toward proposed development site. DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street Site Photos - 113 High Street~~

~~View looking south-west toward High Street sidewalk and location of proposed parking pad. DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street~~

~~View looking north from sidewalk at vacant property View looking north from sidewalk at vacant property DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street~~

~~4.0 RESIDENTIAL ZONE REGULATIONS~~

~~4.1 R1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE~~

1. Purpose The purpose is to provide a zone for single-detached dwellings, duplexes, secondary suites and detached secondary dwelling units. 2. Permitted Uses 1. The following uses of land, buildings and structures and no others shall be permitted in the R1, Low Density Residential Zone. a. Bed and Breakfast (subject to section 1.1.10 of Schedule “A”) b. Duplex Residential c. Care Services (for no more than 8 persons) d. Single-Detached Residential e. Single-Detached Residential and i. Secondary Suite (subject to section 1.1.8 of Schedule “A”) OR ii. Detached Secondary Dwelling Unit (subject to Section 1.1.9 of Schedule “A”) f. Transition House g. Multi-Unit Residential containing a maximum of 3 dwelling units on lots with a minimum site area of 0.4 hectares

~~3. Density a. The maximum density on lots equal to or less than 276 sq.m. is one Single-Detached Residential Dwelling Unit.~~

4. Minimum Lot Area & Minimum Lot Width a. The minimum lot area shall be not less than 370 sq. m. b. The minimum strata lot area shall be not less than 370 sq.m. for a single- detached residential use or duplex residential use. c. The minimum lot width shall be 12 m.

5. Substandard Lot Areas Despite section 4.1.4.a, where on two or more contiguous lots that are each less than 370 sq. m. in size a subdivision into equal or fewer lots may be accommodated as long as no new lot is smaller than any existing lot. In such cases, any existing single-detached dwelling shall meet setback requirements to newly created lot lines.

~~6. Dwelling Units per Lot a. Not more than 2 (two) dwelling units shall be permitted on one (1) lot,~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 36 of 110 Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street~~

~~except as otherwise permitted in section 4.1.2.g.~~

7. Lot Coverage a. Buildings and structures on lots with a lot area equal to or greater than 370 sq. m. shall not cover more than 35 percent of the lot. b. Buildings and structures on lots with a lot area less than 370 sq. m. shall not cover more than 40 percent of the lot. c. Despite section 4.1.7.a. buildings and structures on lots between 370 sq. m. and 422 sq. m. in area shall be permitted a maximum of 148 sq. m. in lot coverage. d. Despite section 4.1.7.a and 4.1.7.b, Care Services shall not cover more than 45 % of the lot area.

~~8. Minimum Setback and Height~~

Distance for lots Distance for lots with a front lot with a front lot Minimum Setback line greater than line less than 9.2 9.2 m. m. Front lot line 4.5 m 4.5 m Open carport 1.5 m 1.5 m Closed-in carport, provided that ½ of 1.5 m 1.5 m the carport height is below street grade Rear lot line 4.5 m 4.5 m Accessory Building and Detached 1.5 m 1.5 m Secondary Dwelling Unit Exterior side lot line 1.5 m 1 m Interior side lot line 1.5 m 1 m Where one common party wall 0.0 m 0.0 m exists, the setback from one interior side lot line shall be as defined here.

~~One required setback from an interior side lot shall be maintained per lot. Maximum Height Principal Building 10 m 10 m Accessory Building 4.5 m 4.5 m Detached Secondary Dwelling Unit 5.0 m 5.0 m~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 37 of 110 Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street~~

~~9. Height Envelope~~

For that portion of a building that is located closer than 1.5 metres to the interior side lot line or 4.5 metres to the exterior side lot line to the property line, the height of a principal building shall not exceed the maximum dimensions formed by:

~~a) Planes extending vertically above each side property line to a point 7.0 metres in height above average finished ground level, and~~

~~b) Planes starting from 7.0 metres above average finished ground level at the property line then extending inward and upward at an angle of 45 degrees, and intersecting with,~~

~~c) A plane parallel to and 10 metres above average finished ground level.~~

~~1.5 m from Interior Side Lot Line OR 4.5 m from Exterior Side Lot Line Height Envelope Restriction~~

~~1 I /45‘ I E .9’ ...E I LIJ E E’ Z _ MAXIMUM I -I ‘E E PERMITTED I ,: 3 an BUILDING E 0. § ENVELOPE I ‘or gg 2 I E Q»: E~~

~~5' I I~~

~~Permitted setback from Property Line~~

~~DRAVVING NOT TO SCALE~~

~~Diagram: Height Envelope~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 38 of 110 Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street~~

~~required on a lot in a commercial or mixed-use zone, and where more than five (5) spaces are required on a lot in all other zones, shall:~~

(a) be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, porous pavement, permeable pavers or similar surface so as to provide a surface that is durable and dust-free for the purpose intended; (b) have fences, landscaping or curbs to prevent the crossing of sidewalks and boulevards except at authorized exits and entrances; (c) have the individual parking spaces, maneuvering aisles, entrances and exits clearly marked by curbs, fences or lines and signs; (d) have a maximum gradient and cross slope of six percent (6%) or otherwise with approval from the Manager of Development Services and Sustainability; (e) have surface water drainage managed on site, with connection to the City storm system where connection is required and/or available. (f) have drainage directed to prevent damage or inconvenience to abutting properties and streets. In no case shall drainage be permitted to flow across sidewalks; (g) have the lighting of the parking lot, if lighted, placed in such a manner so as to prevent light falling on abutting properties; and (h) have all spaces required for visitor parking located close to building entrances and clearly and permanently marked for visitor use only.

~~(2) Vehicle Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions. (a) the minimum vehicle parking space and aisle dimensions shall be in accordance with the following:~~

Parking Angle Width of Aisle Length of Width of (in degrees) (m) Space (m) Space (m) 90 6.4 (2 Way) 6.0 2.75 0 (Parallel) 6.4 (2 Way) 7.0 2.6 60 5.6 (1 Way) 6.0 2.75 45 4.2 (1 Way) 6.0 2.75 30 3.5 (1 Way) 6.0 2.75 0 (Parallel) 3.8 (1 Way) 7.0 2.6

~~i. when a vehicle parking space is abutting a wall of a height greater than 0.3 m, then an additional 0.3 m is required to be added to the width of the vehicle parking space.~~

(b) where parking angle is 60 degrees, 45 degrees, or 30 degrees, only one-way traffic will be permitted in the maneuvering aisle. (c) despite the requirements in subsection 7.6.2.(a), in cases when the off- street vehicle parking requirements exceed ten (10) spaces, a maximum of 30 percent (30%) of the total parking requirements may

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 10 of 21 Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw No. 3274, 2013 DVP 1501003 - 113 High Street~~

be reduced to 2.5 m in width and 5.3 m in length, provided that each such vehicle parking space is clearly designated with the words "Small Car Only" on the pavement or facing wall. (d) despite the requirements in subsection 7.6.2.(a), where four (4) off- street vehicle parking spaces or fewer are required on a lot in a residential zone, off-street vehicle parking spaces shall have a minimum area of 16.5 sq. m. (e) despite the requirements in subsections 7.6.2.(a), 7.6.2.(b), 7.6.2.(c) and 7.6.2.(d), alternate design of vehicle parking space and aisle dimensions might be permitted: i. where a written report has been submitted to the City by a professional engineer experienced in parking matters, recommending changes based on supporting evidence; and ii. with approval of the Manager of Development Services and Sustainability.

~~(3) Access to vehicle parking spaces.~~

(a) All residential driveway accesses shall have a minimum width of 4 m and a maximum width of 6 m. (b) The maximum width of a driveway to a commercial or industrial property having only one access shall be 11 m. The maximum width of each driveway to a commercial or industrial property having more than one access shall be 9 m. Egress from a site shall be such that no backing onto a street is permitted. (c) Access to and egress from a lane may be permitted along the entire length of a lot line that adjoins that lane.

~~(4) Properties located adjacent to a Provincial Highway must receive permission from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for access.~~

~~7.7 Voluntary Establishment of Off-Street Vehicle Parking~~

~~(1) Where off-street vehicle parking in excess of Bylaw requirements is provided, the location, design and operation shall comply with the requirements of this Bylaw.~~

~~PART 8 - LOADING SPACES~~

~~8.1 Location of Loading Spaces~~

~~(1) Required loading spaces shall be provided and maintained on the same lot as the use, building or structure they serve.~~

~~(2) Loading spaces shall:~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 11 of 21 Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw No. 3274, 2013 Development Services~~

~~From: Diana van Eyk Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 5:05 PM To: Development Services Subject: Application for Development Variance Permit at 113 High Street~~

~~Dear Pamela Mierau,~~

~~Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Application for Development Variance permit for 113 High Street (Lot 6, Blk 9, DL 96, Plan NEP284B). I have concerns about this application.~~

The dwelling Mr. Castellano proposes to build would create a fire hazard to my house and the house on the other side of it, since there would be very little space between our dwellings. How would this impact our house insurance policies? Also, how would we be able to access the sides of our buildings for ongoing maintenance?

The size of the house Mr Castellano is proposing to build would dwarf the buildings around it, and would not fit with the general feel of the neighbourhood. It would also block the sunlight from the west to my backyard garden and would compromise my privacy.

Is there a need for Mr. Castellano to build such a large dwelling? If not, my hope is that he will scale his plans back to respect the character of our neighbourhood, and the quality of life of the people who live beside him. If he needs such a large dwelling, perhaps this isn't the right location for it.

~~Please do not approve these variance requests. They are inappropriate for this neighbourhood, and would cause substantial problems for the home owners on either side.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Diana van Eyk~~

~~115A High Street, Nelson, BC V1L 3Z5 -- May all paths lead to healing.~~

~~1 Development Services~~

~~From: Shana Rablah Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 3:57 PM To: Development Services Subject: RE: VARIANCE PERMIT -APPLICATION - LOT 6, Blk 9 DL96 - plan NEP284B 113 High Street~~

~~Dear Pamela Mierau:~~

~~On April 30 I received notification for a VARIANCE PERMIT #NEP284B for 114 High Street. As a residence affected by this request, I would like to submit my opposition to this request for variance.~~

1. The request to reduce the front setback from the minimum setbacks and height - zoning bylaw 3199 and ∫Zoning Bylaw 3199 (lot coverage) will result in the building extending well into the lot as well as an increased height. The plan for the 3 story building with a balcony on each floor set this far back will significantly impact the privacy of my property. The existing homes on High street are set back within the existing zoning bylaws and do not have such a negative impact on surrounding property. The slope of the land must also be taken into consideration when looking at the privacy issues as a 3 story building will have a much clearer view over the property below.

2. The additional width is also a safety consideration. With only 23 cm separating the 2 homes (113 high street and the home to the west), I have serious concerns about neighbourhood safety - ie: fire hazzards.

I believe that the existing bylaws are sufficient to protect not only the safety and security of the neighbourhood, but also the atmosphere as well. Existing homes along High Street suitably respect these laws and the privacy of the neighbours. These bylaws should not be dismissed to increase the size of the home but rather are there to protect the neighbourhood.

~~I do not support this request for VARIANCE PERMIT~~

~~Sincerely, Shana Rablah 114 Chatham Street Nelson, BC 250-365-2035~~

~~1 Development Services~~

From: Kristen Spearman Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:22 AM To: Development Services Subject: Objection to Variance Requests at 113 High Street Attachments: Objection to Variance Request.docx; Reference Photos.docx

~~Good Morning Development Services,~~

~~Please find attached a letter and reference photos from the owners of 111 High Street in regards to the variance requests at 113 High Street.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Kristen Spearman and Roderick Fuhr 111 High St 250.551.0908~~

~~1 Kristen Spearman & Roderick Fuhr April 30, 2015 111 High St Nelson, BC V1L3Z5~~

~~Re: Application for Development Variance Permit at 113 High Street~~

~~To whom it may concern,~~

~~We would like to take this opportunity to voice our concerns and officially object to the variance requests put forward by Mr. Castalleno in hopes that the City of Nelson does not approve them.~~

Our concerns lie with requests 1 through 5, regarding Zoning Bylaw 3199 Sections 4.1.7, 4.1.8, and 4.1.9. These concerns are as follows: 1) Proximity and risk 2) Building maintenance 3) Loss of privacy and sunlight 4) Mass, bulk and height 5) Necessity

Proximity of construction is something that can’t be avoided with these narrow City lots but it can be helped. The houses on either side of the property in question are over 90 years old and there is potential for our foundation to be undermined. A zero setback from the west property line would mean that they could build within a foot of the wall of our house (25 cms at the closest point). We have discussed this with multiple contractors, engineers and insurers who have all expressed their concern over the scenario where construction be allowed within 1.0m of our shared property line.

Building maintenance and safety need to be considered when you are looking at the reduction of the side yards. We already have limited access from High Street for roofing and general maintenance; further reduced access could cause serious problems and exorbitant fees for any work on our home. Furthermore we feel that a reduction in the setback could put both structures at greater risk in the case of fire. This is an all‐too‐real risk as the original structure on 113 High burned down in the early 1990s. This is why we are requesting that you do not grant the 0 m setback request under Section 4.1.8 of Zoning Bylaw 3199.

We are extremely concerned about our loss of privacy with a structure of this size being situated further back on the lot. The backyard is our paradise; we get so much enjoyment from gardening and spending time back there with our dog. We feel that the building design proposed (3 decks off the rear and windows directly facing our property) paired with the increased setback request will cause a lot of discomfort and a reduction in our quality of life seeing that the house will have an overview of our entire property, into our kitchen, bedrooms and main bathroom. From the plans we can see that the proposed structure would extend 43 feet beyond the north limits of our house and would be at least 40 feet in height. If you take a look at the surrounding residences they are all situated at the front of their properties and this proposal would break that continuity and disrupt the character of the neighbourhood, especially in the backyards. Additionally we believe that a structure placed further back on the property will have negative impacts on our morning sunlight from the east. We would encourage that a sun and shade study be carried out before any approvals are made. While the loss of sunlight on our property is minor in comparison, the proposal would cause our neighbours to the east to be the most impacted with the loss of the afternoon sunlight in their backyards (gardens) from the west.

In establishing the front, side and rear yard setbacks and allowable height, zoning bylaws dictate the maximum legal size of a residential structure. Seeking variances to overbuild beyond what is allowed raises issues of mass, bulk and height. By our calculations the current structure design would be approximately 3000 square feet, which seems excessive when comparing to the average house in the neighbourhood. The height variance will not only allow them a greater overview of our property, but brings to question the necessity of it all. The question should always be asked as to whether need can be shown for an increase in floor space. How many occupants are there to be? Can the increase in density and the impact on the abutting owners and neighbours be warranted where no compelling reason or need can be demonstrated for overbuilding? Can Mr. Castellano’s requirements be met with a structure within the limits of the existing bylaws? Can the height or mass be reduced?

For comparisons sake, a new house was constructed in 2010 on the same block, at 121 High Street, that did not require any variances. The driveway is the largest in the neighbourhood and measures 22 feet deep. This begs the question as to why Mr. Castellano feels a 27 foot deep driveway is necessary? Both 121 and 119 High Street have parking areas with stairs without completing restricting each other’s side yards. Could Mr. Castalleno not build a suitable home without infringing so tightly on the neighbouring properties?

The City of Nelson has recently updated zoning and development bylaws to reflect what is required to serve the community while promoting development within the City limits. We strongly believe that a suitable structure could be built on that property without overbuilding. We hope that you consider the risks involved, our quality of life, our neighbours, and the character of the neighbourhood with this decision.

~~Regards,~~

~~Kristen Spearman and Roderick Fuhr~~

The pictures enclosed with this letter will show you why we are concerned with the size of the structure and the request for variance. We also strongly encourage you to walk past the lots and take a look for yourselves. Reference Photos

~~Above: 113 High Street Lot Overview facing North~~

~~Above: Overview facing South with stake denoting northern limit of proposed structure~~

~~Above: Southeast corner of 111 High St with yellow stake denoting property line~~

~~Above: East wall of 111 High St with yellow stake denoting property line – note existing retention wall~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISION~~

DATE: May 4, 2015, Regular TOPIC: Development Variance Permit – 1106 Hall Mines Road PROPOSAL: To vary Sections 4.1.8 and 4.1.9 of Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 and Part 7.3 (1) of the Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 to allow for the construction of a single detached residential dwelling unit. PROPOSED BY: Manager of Development Services ______ANALYSIS SUMMARY: Development Services has received an application to vary Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 as follows:

• To reduce the setback from the front lot line from 4.5 m to 3.0 m to allow for construction of a single detached residential dwelling unit; • To remove the height envelope for that portion of the building located closer than 4.5 m to the exterior lot line;

~~The applicant also requests a variance to Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 as follows:~~

~~• To reduce the number of required parking stalls from 2 to 1.~~

~~The subject property is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Community Plan and it is zoned R1, Low Density Residential in Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013.~~

~~BACKGROUND: Refer to attached staff memo.~~

BENEFITS OR DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS: If approved, the variance will enable the property owners to move forward with their plans to apply for a Building Permit to construct a new single detached dwelling unit.

~~IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND STAFF RESOURCES: The proposal has no negative impact on sustainability objectives. It will not impact staff resources.~~

~~COMMUNICATION: Neighbours located within 60m of the subject property have been notified of the application pursuant to the Local Government Act and the Development Applications Procedures Bylaw.~~

~~ATTACHMENTS: • Staff Memo with attachments.~~

~~RECOMMENDATION: That Council passes the following resolution:~~

That the application for a development variance permit to vary the requirements of Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 and Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 to allow for construction of a single detached residential dwelling unit BE APPROVED for Lot 20, Block 6, DL 150, KD Plan NEP349 – 1106 Hall Mines Road as follows:

Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.8, Section 4.1.9 • to reduce the setback for the front property line from 4.5 m to 3.0 m to allow for construction of a single detached dwelling unit; • to remove the height envelope for that portion of the building located closer than 4.5 m to the exterior lot line;

~~Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, Part 7.3 (1) • to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 2 to 1.~~

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~______MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DVP 1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road - Page 1~~

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON MEMORANDUM TO: Pamela Mierau, Manager of Development Services FROM: Krista Webb DATE: April 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit Application: Cameron Kuch 1106 Hall Mines Road

The owner has completed a development variance permit application to relax requirements of the City of Nelson Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 and Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 as follows:

~~Applicant Cameron Kuch~~

Property Lot 20, Blk 6, DL 150, Plan NEP349 - 1106 Hall Mines Road Relaxation 1. Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.8 (Minimum Setbacks & Height): Requested Reduce the setback for the front lot line from 4.5 m (14.8 ft) to 3.0 m (9.8 ft) to allow for construction of a single detached dwelling unit; 2. Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.9 (Height Envelope): Remove the height envelope for that portion of the building located closer than 4.5 m to the exterior lot line; 3. Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, Part 7.3 (1) (Off-Street Vehicle Parking Requirements): Reduce the amount of required off-street parking stalls from 2 to 1.

~~Purpose To allow for construction of a single detached dwelling unit.~~

~~Background: The subject property is a vacant lot on which the Applicant wishes to construct a single detached residential dwelling unit.~~

~~If approved, the proposed variances would allow the Applicant to apply for a Building Permit to construct a home of approximately 168.8 sq.m. (1817 sq.ft.) over three floors and a basement.~~

A Variance was granted by Council in 2007 to the same owners to reduce the front setback from 4.5 m to 3.0 m, reduce the exterior side setback from 4.5 m to 1.5 m and increase the lot coverage from 33 % to 37%. This Permit has expired.

~~Current zoning for the property is R1, Low Density Residential. The Official Community Plan designation is Low Density Residential, as well.~~

There are a number of factors which render this property difficult to develop. For example, the lot is small at 156 sq.m., less than half the minimum lot size required in the R1 Zone. The lot is also triangular in shape.

~~Nelson's Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 makes accommodation for small lots by allowing lot coverage of 40% for lots that are less than 370 sq.m. in area. DVP 1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road - Page 2~~

~~Analysis:~~

~~1. The property is approximately 156 sq.m. (1680 sq.ft.) in size. Proposed lot coverage is 33%. Maximum lot coverage permitted in the R1 Zone for properties less than 370 sq.m. is 40%.~~

~~2. Variance to Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 section 4.1.8 to reduce the setback from the front lot line from 4.5 m to 3.0 m:~~

The Applicant proposes that the front wall of the building be 3.0 m (10 ft) from the front property line. Between the front property line and the retaining wall is 2.5 m (8.2 ft) of undeveloped City boulevard at the same elevation of the subject property. This leaves a total of 5.5 m (18 ft) between the proposed home and the large retaining wall at Hall Mines Road. This City land is unlikely to be developed and essentially reads as belonging to the subject property.

The proposed setback of 3.0 m from Hall Mines Road would ensure that the proposed house is at a similar setback as the neighbouring home to the south (1110 Hall Mines Road), which is setback 1.9 m to the porch and 3.75 m to the house.

~~3. Variance to Zoning Bylaw 3199, Section 4.1.9 to eliminate the Height Envelope:~~

The height envelope is an architectural constraint meant to alleviate the impact on the neighbours of a building that would otherwise be designed to meet the maximum allowable building height. The height envelope would be required only on the north side (Hoover Street). In this case, at 7.0 m (22.9 ft) above grade, the building would be formed by a plane extending inward and upward at a minimum 45 degree angle, for the portions of the building within 4.5 m (14.8 ft) of the exterior property line.

The small size of the lot significantly constrains the architecture for this application. The height envelope requirement would further limit the building envelope, and would likely render the upper floor space un-developable due to the size of space left after meeting the requirements.

4. The proposed building height is approximately 9.5 m (31 ft) from finished grade. The maximum height allowed in Zoning Bylaw 3199 is 10 m (32.8 ft). The Applicant intends to keep the height of the proposed home close to that of the adjacent home to the south (1110 Hall Mines Road). The similarity in height, coupled with the similarity in setback will help mitigate the effects of the variances requested. Staff believe the reduced setback which aligns the proposed house with the neighbouring house is preferable to the 4.5 m setback required by the zone, as it maintains the pattern of the streetscape.

The lot itself is mostly level, however the elevation of Hall Mines Road is significantly higher than the subject property. Hoover Street is also elevated at the intersection with Hall Mines Road and drops to become level at the rear of the subject property. There are large undeveloped City boulevards between the property line and the developed right-of-ways. The distance to the raised sidewalk coupled with the elevation of Hall Mines Road creates a generous visual buffer, shielding the lower portion of the building from view, thereby mitigating the impact on the neighbours across Hall Mines Road and any street or sidewalk traffic. The Applicant will ensure that the mature trees on the boulevards will be protected, as is required by Municipal Trees Bylaw 3232, 2012. These will have the effect of softening the north-east corner of the development, where the height envelope would be required. DVP 1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road - Page 3

~~Staff believe the surrounding vegetation, topography and wide, elevated boulevards will mitigate the variances to the front setback and height envelope.~~

The wide Hall Mines Road and Hoover Street right-of-ways, intersecting with Kootenay Street, leave a large visual void at that intersection. This situation is made worse by the vacant land that was formerly a tram car barn, then a gas station. Infill development on this corner property will fill that space thereby positively enhancing the residential neighbourhood streetscape.

The City's Design Guidelines do not apply to single or duplex dwellings. Although other homes on Hall Mines Road are heritage in style, the City does not have any Heritage Conservation Areas which would regulate design for single and duplex dwelling units. The Sustainable Waterfront - Downtown Master Plan encourages the integration of modern and heritage development.

This type of development is also in keeping with the direction of the City's policy documents, including the Path to 2040, Active Transportation Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategy by creating small lot infill housing on underutilized land within walking distance of downtown.

~~5. Variance to the Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, Part 7.3 (1) to reduce the number of parking stalls:~~

~~The proposed development requires two stalls, however there is only space for one stall on site.~~

Sidewalks were not developed on Hoover Street and the street is a no-thru road with a wide road right-of-way. This portion of Hoover street has low traffic, servicing four other homes on Hoover Street and Falls Street. The neighbourhood is walkable to downtown. Because of these factors, Staff believe the impact of the reduction in parking will be minimal to the neighbourhood.

~~6. The neighbours within 60m have been notified of this application. At the time of writing this memo no written responses have been received.~~

7. The application was circulated to city staff in Nelson Hydro, Public Works, Building and Fire. Concerns were noted from the Nelson Fire Rescue Service regarding the choice of roofing material; the Building Official noted issues with some structural members. These concerns will be dealt with at the time of Building Permit and have no effect on the application for variance.

~~8. The application was circulated to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Fortis BC. No concerns were noted.~~

Staff felt it prudent to also refer the application to the Ministry of Environment due to the known contamination at 1020 Hall Mines Road, located across Hoover Street. The site was formerly a gas station and a tram-car barn. The Ministry researched their files and found no reports of concerns over contamination beyond the property boundaries, and therefore have no concerns with development on the proposed development site. DVP 1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road - Page 4

~~Recommendation:~~

~~That Council passes the following resolution:~~

That the application for a development variance permit to vary the requirements of Zoning Bylaw 3199 and Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274 to allow construction of a single detached residential dwelling unit BE APPROVED for Lot 20, Block 6, DL 150, KD Plan NEP 349 - 1106 Hall Mines Road as follows:

Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2013 Section 4.1.8, Section 4.1.9 ● to reduce the setback for the front property line from 4.5 m to 3.0 m to allow for construction of a single detached dwelling unit; ● to remove the height envelope for that portion of the building located closer than 4.5 m to the exterior lot line;

~~Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274, 2013 Part 7.3 (1) ● to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 2 to 1.~~

~~Regards,~~

~~Krista Webb, B.Env.D Planning & Building Analyst~~

Attachments: 1. Proposal Summary 2. Location Map 3. Building Plans 4. Diagrams: Variances, Parking 5. Site Photos 6. Zoning Bylaw 3199, R1 Zone excerpt 7. Off-street Parking and Landscape Bylaw 3274 excerpt 8. Adjacent Notification Responses (if any) DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road Sheila Street and Cameron Kuch 4640 Bains Road Beasley, BC voc.2G2 R (‘ [5_ 1 Nelson City Hall E VED Ni ,BC AF"-t.>~'8 I M S:it:01nO1,31OWardSt. 2”” V1L5S4 C,” OF NELQON 11 February 2015

~~Dear Nelson City Council~~

~~Re: Variance Application for 1106 Hall Mines Road~~

Please find the attached Variance Application for a lot located at 1106 Hall Mines Road. Our intent is to build an 1815 ft?single family home on a small, challenging, triangular-shaped lot in a configuration that suits the lot and the surrounding neighbourhood. The design incorporates a modern, visually appealing, three—bedroom, two-bathroom home with a full basement.

The 2014 Nelson housing strategy report identifies a shortage of rental housing in Nelson. This home willleverage underutilized land and increase density through infill.The home will be a unique, attractive and ecologically friendly structure that willbring new life to the busy thoroughfare of Hall Mines Road. The private layout of the main floor would be well suited for single individuals sharing accommodation or for a multi-generational family.

~~In order to accommodate a home on this unusual site, a Development Variance Permit willbe required to vary the following bylaws:~~

1. Setback from the front lot line varied from 4.5m to 3.0m — This variance willallow us to maximize the footprint of the house and provide for a built-in carport. The 35% maximum lot coverage condition willstill be met.

2. Height envelope variance — In order to maximise the footprint of the lot, the house has been designed as a three story home with a full basement. The roof is low angle and triangular in shape and it slopes down from the exterior lot line to the interior lot line. The highest corner of the triangular roof protrudes just outside the height envelope on the exterior lot line at the furthest point from the neighboring lot. This slight exceedance willhave minimal visual impact because of its close proximity to the large tree on the lot, which is a much higher feature on the lot. and because of the distance from the neighboring home.

3. Number of required parking stalls varied from 2 to 1 —The bylaw requires 2 off-street parking stalls for a single family home, however the triangular shape of the lot willnot accommodate more than one. The lot is accessed by the lower section of Hoover Street that is a wide, no-through street with local traffic only, serving four other homes. Although it is not possible to meet the required dimensions for one additional spaces on the lot, there is ample parallel parking space on the street and lot setback because there is no sidewalk on this side of the street.

Having lived in rurally in the area for 16 years, we are excited about this project and about being homeowners in Nelson City-proper. Thank you for your consideration. We look fonlvardto hearing of your decision and feedback.

~~Warm regards, Q4;l~~

~~Sheila Street Cameron Kuch DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road~~

~~1002 320~~

~~KOOTENAY~~

~~1016~~

~~1011~~

~~1020~~

~~1013~~

~~1103 FALLS~~

~~201 1105 HOOVER~~

~~1109~~

~~1110~~

~~HALL MINES~~

~~1111~~

~~Map Scale:~~

~~0 3.75 7.5 15 22.5 Meters~~

~~City of Nelson Suite 101 - 310 Ward Street, Nelson, BC V1L 5S4 Map Projection: UTM Zone 11 Map Datum: NAD83 Phone: 250-352-8221 Fax: 250-352-2131 Date Plotted: 2014 Internet: www.nelson.ca~~

The mapping information shown are approximate Ortho Map representations and should only be used for reference 1106 Hall Mines Road (in red) Development Variance Permit purposes. The City of Nelson is not responsible for any errors or ommissions on this map. DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road RWND /pf 52.5‘ /1 [gm Muxléb 7'13 .63 59./gr): 7;-2~s'7= (60 =~ (ac. Hm ’?zo?¢€T‘(__L_—'~\6 op 70AM ?ak? ;,1 w_aA KJLT f>\T@?LAI~\ ('—vo" -',$u.¢é»(1:~:¢. wt $af9O cg '7\‘>T 5; = Vpuoatb V5“: : '.—\MI‘.A¢\ HL\LLt-'1(rJF/f> 20 awe Q»/mu 5516 $c4-/ (gnu; (E97050) Q KO0T£I\V-\‘( LOT H05 L01’ /K, ffatm. Aéauaamg Sc: /zrm) Cmwzocu (idnutm DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road

~~RECEIVED APR2 1 2025 CITYOF NELSON~~

~~__ ' ’ /(lama Q.»/zd "zqifndé {J __ 2*b C=1>°< \£ V > /1 _ »fA5f.A 7‘ _'j 2 3°3- " A 540 V pa ?mz _ ‘ 1.4, 4.-.ox>=< gm;-L./. 97».~~

~~To é..>5_€u£? -'_° ?*.Fk|?_ forEL ‘VD?~~

~~-@ 10; ’7u_"7€v°_<_ ‘7.~P,~.=\f 1”” 9% 240~~

~~.,/'9¢<&\k4\A'\'6‘D M\£Y»-\- eu>,~\¢\~~

~~1-9‘ ?d?fkvi co‘ eowsvr; :4/A\»~| MR.“ Vp?~~

~~j0JT\'\ EKZVRTION (5/a;§( ax»/ATxo~l~~

~~_. szA_.».= ?ékké 3 \._o.. 7(5)» \‘—o“ DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road RECEIVED APR2 1 2025 CITYOF NELSON~~

~~__ ' ’ /(lama Q.»/zd "zqifndé {J __ 2*b C=1>°< \£ V > /1 _ »fA5f.A 7‘ _'j 2 3°3- " A 540 V pa ?mz _ ‘ 1.4, 4.-.ox>=< gm;-L./. 97».~~

~~To é..>5_€u£? -'_° ?*.Fk|?_ forEL ‘VD?~~

~~-@ 10; ’7u_"7€v°_<_ ‘7.~P,~.=\f 1”” 9% 240~~

~~.,/'9¢<&\k4\A'\'6‘D M\£Y»-\- eu>,~\¢\~~

~~1-9‘ ?d?fkvi co‘ eowsvr; :4/A\»~| MR.“ Vp?~~

~~j0JT\'\ EKZVRTION (5/a;§( ax»/ATxo~l~~

_. szA_.».= ?ékké 3 \._o.. 7(5)» \‘—o“ DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road __ _ _ QLK wax _Fp? é_»_a_cA/?:—rL ‘W4 6-_e_¢c..,€. buéfv? 2”” 4°? «'0 ( ‘ 17:, To _"';V~€E______1“ Z/Ru/v~M\b T (22% ‘N 5‘'C£Dr\»/—?,P—.N(% Q %=/owfo -——:-l‘/,_» can/-\(< "?1\a..¢¢2 ‘?A’>r.-1.1“; 7.2.5:’. Zxé La?!-4'7‘ cousnzv \‘-o" ex,5vAT\o:J ‘A; j bsimé: A591 _ ‘ _ ____ MbT?.TéO ?1,1;;-‘\’\; 9:#FV?~ 5»oa_§p:<_ év(’7f_I.@ (cg Mfnrl 2”” -4170, _'r.o. __;Y.::< _‘V° DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road &'-(_" w ‘ R ; Y“ « lo“ ,- b 27 .: I <$ (5% c1aA_:76 7 ax '6: fad? 21 17"/=(‘ I ; _ - , , ,L ’ (‘-0-~ V, : ' —. " K.§«:-‘ ,4-‘\EJ?‘Q 45 -v——— ‘ > I H‘ _ 7 81,6,‘ X27? . . V A T ; 3\ _- ‘O ‘ 37> , %7>'—o“ 92%’ I , . > ' 1. , iv,a«. /-__ 7 = M K 59-z>«4,\‘/0 —’l DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road * W. “""“ 2”I"<7" “‘ T as 5.0“ ‘?w- 5,0. "47 7? "?e;‘ wag 7A.,e' To? 4‘ +APR2128i5 F?n§CTE‘s'\;f:§D comuomNEé§BN L 295 /5. ' 6 1 3rT>,L:<>‘ -6.4, 3 J/ H>é“‘ H‘-0"‘ ._o.‘ 5 //A”/ 7*, \« 1 *I// —,V DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road

~~5‘1q~~

~~5~4r7=lax-1 y(~~

~~L-$7, 1106 HALL MINES RD. SUBJECT PROPERTY SIDEWALK STREET RETAINING WALL CITY BOULEVARD R-O-W~~

5”-H 7! '?¢o‘ H0056 *

~~5.5m(18ft)18.01 ft~~

~~10.00 3.0m ft 10.00 2.5m ft (9.8ft) (8.2ft)~~

3.75m12.29(12.3ft ft 6.571.9m ft (6.4ft) NEIGHBOURING HOUSE porch 6.2m14.49(15ft ft ) 1110 Hall Mines Rd. 6.2m20.35 (20ft) ft sta- 7zv:1?aK'l"(Hmmmna-9z.««-5 452.5’_ em; DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road

~~This approximate portion of stall length is outside of the private property.~~

~~The required length for each stall is / 6m (19.7ft), fully on private property. 51;“ ‘am Two stalls are required for this Single Dwelling Unit / “ / ,1 Mr): l6\‘l yf ' LwS‘7n 4% 4- 3//~~

~~‘Z0040 l~~

~~‘ / T /V 54% pi 1’€o%5a> «mas~~

~~/ ‘ ’ / / / l I («aha-r(«wok-r STALL #2 / I ISTALL #1~~

~~59 Z? "3. M _ __ _ _ '?«2oaz\<<\I l:\_N\:/\( _ _ 64'~~

~~&oe»~~

~~View looking SW from the corner of Hoover Street and Hall Mines Road View looking east from Hoover Street toward Hall Mines Road DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road~~

~~View looking SW from the corner of Hoover Street and Hall Mines Road View from the sidewalk on the east side of Hall Mines Road, looking west down Hoover Street DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road~~

~~4.0 RESIDENTIAL ZONE REGULATIONS~~

~~4.1 R1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE~~

~~3. Density a. The maximum density on lots equal to or less than 276 sq.m. is one Single-Detached Residential Dwelling Unit.~~

~~6. Dwelling Units per Lot a. Not more than 2 (two) dwelling units shall be permitted on one (1) lot,~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 36 of 110 Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road~~

~~except as otherwise permitted in section 4.1.2.g.~~

~~8. Minimum Setback and Height~~

~~One required setback from an interior side lot shall be maintained per lot. Maximum Height Principal Building 10 m 10 m Accessory Building 4.5 m 4.5 m Detached Secondary Dwelling Unit 5.0 m 5.0 m~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 37 of 110 Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road~~

~~9. Height Envelope~~

~~a) Planes extending vertically above each side property line to a point 7.0 metres in height above average finished ground level, and~~

~~b) Planes starting from 7.0 metres above average finished ground level at the property line then extending inward and upward at an angle of 45 degrees, and intersecting with,~~

~~c) A plane parallel to and 10 metres above average finished ground level.~~

~~1.5 m from Interior Side Lot Line OR 4.5 m from Exterior Side Lot Line Height Envelope Restriction~~

~~1 I /45‘ I E .9’ ...E I LIJ E E’ Z _ MAXIMUM I -I ‘E E PERMITTED I ,: 3 an BUILDING E 0. § ENVELOPE I ‘or gg 2 I E Q»: E~~

~~5' I I~~

~~Permitted setback from Property Line~~

~~DRAVVING NOT TO SCALE~~

~~Diagram: Height Envelope~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 38 of 110 Zoning Bylaw No. 3199, 2013 DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road~~

~~required on a lot in a commercial or mixed-use zone, and where more than five (5) spaces are required on a lot in all other zones, shall:~~

~~(2) Vehicle Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions. (a) the minimum vehicle parking space and aisle dimensions shall be in accordance with the following:~~

~~i. when a vehicle parking space is abutting a wall of a height greater than 0.3 m, then an additional 0.3 m is required to be added to the width of the vehicle parking space.~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 10 of 21 Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw No. 3274, 2013 DVP-1501002 - 1106 Hall Mines Road~~

~~(3) Access to vehicle parking spaces.~~

~~(4) Properties located adjacent to a Provincial Highway must receive permission from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for access.~~

~~7.7 Voluntary Establishment of Off-Street Vehicle Parking~~

~~(1) Where off-street vehicle parking in excess of Bylaw requirements is provided, the location, design and operation shall comply with the requirements of this Bylaw.~~

~~PART 8 - LOADING SPACES~~

~~8.1 Location of Loading Spaces~~

~~(1) Required loading spaces shall be provided and maintained on the same lot as the use, building or structure they serve.~~

~~(2) Loading spaces shall:~~

~~The Corporation of the City of Nelson Page 11 of 21 Off-Street Parking and Landscape Bylaw No. 3274, 2013 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION~~

DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular TOPIC: Annual Tax Rate (2015) Bylaw PROPOSAL: Annual Tax Rate Bylaw No. 3316, 2015 for final adoption PROPOSED BY: Staff ______ANALYSIS SUMMARY: At the April 20th Special meeting, Council gave first three readings to the City’s Annual Tax Rate Bylaw No. 3316, 2015 which is presented today for final adoption.

BACKGROUND: Each year City Council approves a Five-Year Financial Plan which establishes the annual budget and priorities. A Tax Rate Bylaw is also required in order to collect the appropriate funds to finance these activities. The Tax Rate Bylaw supports all of the initiatives in the City’s Five Year Financial Plan and, therefore, supports all of the City’s corporate objectives.

Section 197 of the Community Charter requires that Council adopt, by bylaw, tax rates for the current year by May 15th. This year City of Nelson taxes are due on July 2, 2015. The City of Nelson charges a 10% penalty on taxes paid after this date. The tax rates presented are based on the 2015-2019 Five-Year Financial Plan Bylaw that was adopted on April 20, 2015 which incorporated an average municipal property taxation increase of 2%. For a residential home assessed at $ 316,225 (2015 average), the municipal property taxes for 2015 are estimated to be $1,429.

The 2015-2019 Five-Year Financial Plan incorporates an average tax increase of 2% for all property classes. Council takes a “fixed share approach” to tax rates between classes; where the share of the total tax levy collected from each property class remains consistent over time, subject to adjustments arising from non market (ie new construction) change in the Assessment role and/or council decisions to adjust the share for each class. This commitment from Council can be seen in the Rates History 2004-2015 document that is attached. In 2015, with the adjustments made for new construction, 73.04% of property tax will be contributed by residential taxpayers and 25.48% from the commercial sector.

Tax Rates The tax rate bylaw sets tax rates for Municipal, Regional District and Regional Hospital levies. Other levies collected through the municipal tax notice include those for the School Authority, BC Assessment, and the Municipal Finance Authority. The 2015 tax rates and tax ratio multiples are outlined in the table below:

~~Class Description Tax Rate Ratio~~

~~1 Residential 4.559 1.000~~

~~2 Utilities 32.029 7.026~~

~~3 Supportive Housing 4.559 1.000~~

~~5 Light Industry 8.358 1.834~~

~~6 Business 9.303 2.040~~

~~8 Non Profit 2.822 0.619~~

~~The attached document, 2015 Budget Impact Overview, lists the overall change from prior year with the 2015 budget increases on the average Single Family Dwelling (SFD) in Nelson.~~

~~BENEFITS, DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any tax increase can create concern by some members of the public.~~

LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS, PRECEDENTS, POLICIES: The Community Charter requires that Council adopt a tax rates bylaw by May 15th of each year to meet its financial obligations as outlined and previously adopted in the Five-Year Financial Plan by Council.

COSTS AND BUDGET IMPACT - REVENUE GENERATION: The Financial Plan for 2015 includes tax revenue of $7,678.764 for general municipal purposes with an estimated additional $430,000 in general tax revenue being provided by boundary expansion properties. This tax rate bylaw provides the City with the authority to assess and collect the required tax funding.

~~OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the bylaw 2. Do not adopt the bylaw 3. Refer back to staff with direction~~

~~ATTACHMENTS: • Annual Tax Rate Bylaw No. 3316, 2015 • City of Nelson Tax Rates History 2004-2015 • 2015 Budget impact overview on average SFD in Nelson~~

~~RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council passes the following two resolutions: THAT “The Corporation of the City of Nelson Annual Tax Rate Bylaw No. 3316, 2015" be finally adopted.~~

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~______CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CITY MANAGER THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON BYLAW NO. 3316~~

~~A BYLAW FOR THE LEVYING OF RATES FOR MUNICIPAL, HOSPITAL AND REGIONAL DISTRICT PURPOSES FOR THE YEAR 2015 ______~~

WHEREAS Section 197 of the Community Charter requires Municipal Councils, on or before the 15th day of May in each year, to adopt a bylaw for imposing of Annual Rates on all taxable land and improvements according to the assessed value thereof.

~~NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Nelson in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:~~

~~1. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for the year 2015.~~

a) For all lawful GENERAL purposes of the municipality on the value of land and improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, (excluding those properties included in the boundary expansion OIC #602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent effective June 19, 2003), rates appearing in column “A” of the Schedule attached hereto and forming a part hereof.

b) For DEBT purposes of the municipality on the value of land and improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, (excluding those properties included in the boundary expansion OIC #602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent effective June 19, 2003) rates appearing in column “B” of the Schedule attached hereto and forming a part hereof.

c) For HOSPITAL purposes on the value of land and improvements taxable for West Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital District purposes, rates in column “C” of the Schedule attached hereto and forming a part hereof.

d) For the purposes of the REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL KOOTENAY on the value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in column “D” of the Schedule attached hereto and forming a part hereof.

e) For the purpose of the FORTIS PROPERTIES FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR RDCK FUNCTIONS as stated in the OIC # 602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent section 5.1 and 5.2, on the value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in column “E” of the Schedule attached hereto and forming a part hereof.

f) For the purpose of the COMINCO PROPERTIES FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR RDCK FUNCTIONS as stated in the OIC #602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent section 5.1 and 5.2, on the value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in column “F” of the Schedule attached hereto and forming a part hereof.

g) For those properties included in the boundary expansion OIC#602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent effective June 19, 2003, for LIBRARY SERVICES, on the value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in column “G” of the Schedule attached hereto and forming a part hereof.

h) For those properties included in the boundary expansion OIC #602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent effective June 19, 2003, for all lawful GENERAL purposes of the municipality on the value of land and improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, the tax rate will be that prescribed for the particular class pursuant to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act for the prevailing taxation year.

i) For those properties included in the boundary expansion OIC #602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent effective June 19, 2003, and amended by OIC #033/2010 effective January 15, 2010, the Police Tax rate will be that tax rate for the property class applied under section 66.3 (3) (b) of the Police Act for the prevailing taxation year, on the value of the land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes for those properties formerly in Electoral Area E of the regional district.

j) For those properties included in the boundary expansion OIC #602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent effective June 19, 2003, and amended by OIC #033/2010 effective January 15, 2010, the Police Tax rate will be that tax rate for the property class applied under section 66.3 (3) (b) of the Police Act for the prevailing taxation year, on the value of the land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes for those properties formerly in Electoral Area F of the regional district.

k) For those properties included in the boundary expansion OIC #602/2003 Supplementary Letters Patent effective June 19, 2003, and amended by OIC #033/2010 effective January 15, 2010, the Police Tax rate will be that tax rate for the property class applied under section 66.3 (3) (b) of the Police Act for the prevailing taxation year, on the value of the land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes for those properties formerly in Electoral Area H of the regional district.

2. The Collector shall add ten percent (10%) to all current taxes or rates remaining unpaid after close of business, July 2, 2015 on each and every parcel of land and improvements upon the improvements upon the Collector’s Roll.

The said unpaid current taxes or rates together with the amounts so added, as aforesaid shall for the respective dates aforesaid be deemed to be the amount of the taxes for the current year due on such land and improvements thereon.

~~3. The minimum amount of taxation upon a parcel of real property shall be one dollar ($1.00).~~

~~4. This Bylaw is cited for all purposes as the "Annual Tax Rate Bylaw No. 3316, 2015."~~

~~READ A FIRST TIME the 20th day of April, 2015 READ A SECOND TIME the 20th day of April, 2015 READ A THIRD TIME the 20th day of April, 2015~~

~~FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED the day of , 2015~~

~~______Mayor~~

~~______Corporate Officer~~

~~CERTIFIED A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE "Annual Tax Rate Bylaw No. 3316, 2015."~~

~~______Director of Corporate Services~~

~~S C H E D U L E~~

~~2015 TAX RATES (Dollars of tax per $1,000 of taxable assessed value)~~

A B C D E F G PROPERTY General Debt West-Koot Regional Specified Specified Library CLASS Municipal City Boundary District Area Area Service City Hospital Fortis Cominco (RDCK) (RDCK) (BE OIC #602) 1.Residential 4.5587 0.1265 0.3030 1.7531 3.4976 0.4717 0.0858 2.Utility 32.0285 0.8884 1.0605 6.1359 3.4976 0.4717 0.3003 3. Supportive 4.5587 0.1265 0.3030 1.7531 Housing 5.Light 8.3584 0.2319 1.0302 5.9605 Industrial 6. Business 9.3025 0.2580 0.7423 4.2951 3.4976 0.4717 0.2102 7.Managed 4.5587 0.1265 0.9090 5.2593 Forest 8.Recreational 2.8218 0.0783 0.3030 1.7531 /non-profit 9. Farm 4.5587 0.1265 0.3030 1.7531

~~2015 Proposed Budget Effect on $316,225 Home (Nelson 2015 average)~~

~~2014 2015 Net Net Actual Proposed Annual Monthly Change Change~~

~~Property Tax (municipal only) 1,401 1,429 $ 28 $ 2.34~~

~~Water Rates (after discount) 497 512 15 1.24~~

~~Sewer Rates (after discount) 436 445 9 0.73~~

~~Resource Recovery 118 118 0 0 Overall $2,452 $2,504 $ 52 $4.31 City of Nelson Municipal Tax Rate History ‐ 2004 to 2015~~

Tax Rates 2004‐2015 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Residential class Municipal rate 7.6265 6.7467 5.6526 4.5443 4.0719 4.1780 4.1050 4.0443 4.1779 4.4219 4.5171 4.5587 Business class Municipal rate 15.2530 13.4934 12.8513 11.2581 10.6082 10.8846 10.2626 10.1108 9.8515 9.4961 9.4142 9.3025

Assessments (revised roll) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg SFD Residential assessment 142,004 167,915 211,422 272,067 312,112 313,128 324,946 332,774 332,188 320,301 319,612 316,225 Avg Business assessment 198,621 199,452 215,512 254,341 281,076 279,984 309,042 318,351 341,841 358,592 367,479 368,749

~~18.0000 400,000~~

16.0000 350,000 14.0000 300,000 Avg SFD Residential 12.0000 Residential class Municipal 250,000 assessment 10.0000 rate 200,000 8.0000 Avg Business Business class 6.0000 150,000 assessment Municipal rate 4.0000 100,000

~~2.0000 50,000~~

~~‐ ‐ 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015~~

~~P:\Budget\5yearoperating\2015 5yr oper\City of Nelson Tax Rates History 2004‐2015 4/16/2015 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISION~~

DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular TOPIC: Amend Fees & Charges Bylaw PROPOSAL: Fees and Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 3307, 2015 for adoption PROPOSED BY: Staff ______ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The City of Nelson Fees and Charges Amendment (Municipal Services and Documents) Bylaw No. 3307, 2015 was introduced read three times on March 2, 2015 and is presented for final adoption.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the amending bylaw is to consolidate all finance fees and charges into a single schedule within the Fees and Charges bylaw. As part of this process the Finance department conducted a review of finance fees currently charged and has removed them from various policies and bylaws and consolidated them in the attached schedule. In addition, the City of Nelson is introducing the option to residents/owners/businesses to set up an online account with the City. This account will provide the ability to pay bills online, review the history of payments and transactions and allow the option of having the City alert them of upcoming deadlines for Utility and Property tax payments by text message. Part of the new online payment service will allow and provide the opportunity of using a Credit Card to pay Property Taxes and the Sewer, Water, Garbage utility fees. There will be a convenience fee of 2.4% of the invoiced amount charged (the average rate) to the City by the Credit Card companies when processing credit card payments. There is no convenience fee applied if the payment is made online by debit card. When a customer pays for other invoices, such as business licenses, parking tickets etc., by credit card, this convenience fee is not applied. As a note the new ability to pay property taxes and city utilities by credit card will also be available for those that pay physically at City Hall and the convenience fee will also apply to these payments.

BENEFITS OR DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The convenience of paying bills online is becoming an expectation of the public. Staff feels that it is incumbent of the City to make as many options as possible available.

~~LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS, PRECEDENTS, POLICIES: Section 194 of the Community Charter states:~~

“A council may, be bylaw, impose a fee payable in respect of (a) All or part of a service of the municipality”. A fee for the use of local government services must be related to the cost of providing the service and it must be levied only on the party that uses the service.

The collection of a fee for the use of credit card services falls within the above fee category as it relates to a service provided by the City and the fee is collected only from those who chose to use a credit card for payment (the users of the service).

~~COSTS AND BUDGET IMPACT - REVENUE GENERATION: The finance fees and charges are based on being revenue neutral as they are set at an amount that covers the associated cost of providing the service.~~

~~IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND STAFF RESOURCES: N/A~~

~~COMMUNICATION: The Bylaw will be available on the City’s website. Payment options are provided on the tax notice when they are issued.~~

~~OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the bylaw 2. Do not adopt the bylaw 3. Refer to staff with other direction~~

~~ATTACHMENTS: • Bylaw 3307, 2015~~

~~RECOMMENDATION: That Council passes the following resolution:~~

~~THAT the “The Corporation of the City of Nelson Fees and Charges Amendment (Municipal Services and Documents) Bylaw No. 3307, 2015” be finally adopted.~~

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~TE-~~

~~______DEPUTY CORPORATE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON~~

~~BYLAW NO. 3307~~

~~BEING A BYLAW TO AMEND “THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW NO. 3092, 2008” ______~~

WHEREAS it is deemed necessary to amend “The Corporation of the City of Nelson Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 3092, 2008” (hereinafter called “the said Bylaw”); NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Nelson, in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:

~~1. That the said Bylaw be amended by adding Schedule ‘K’ (Municipal Services and Document Fees and Charges) to the said Bylaw.~~

~~2. That the Corporation of the City of Nelson “Municipal Document Fees Establishment Bylaw No.2558, 1993" together with all amendments thereto, be hereby repealed.~~

~~3. This bylaw shall take effect immediately.~~

~~4. This bylaw shall be cited as "The Corporation of the City of Nelson Fees and Charges Amendment (Municipal Services and Documents) Bylaw No. 3307, 2015".~~

~~READ A FIRST TIME the 2nd day of March, 2015 READ A SECOND TIME the 2nd day of March, 2015 READ A THIRD TIME the 2nd day of March, 2015~~

~~FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED the day of , 2015~~

~~______Mayor CERTIFIED A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE “Corporation of the City of Nelson Fees and Charges Amendment (Municipal Services) Bylaw No. 3307, 2015” ______Corporate Officer~~

~~______Director of Corporate Services~~

~~SCHEDULE "K" TO FEES AND CHARGES BYLAW NO. 3092, 2008~~

~~RELATING TO THE CITY OF NELSON MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND DOCUMENT FEES AND CHARGES~~

~~SERVICE CHARGES~~

~~1. Service charge on payments to City by cheque or $ 25.00 / item Online debit that are returned due to insufficient funds~~

~~2. Service charge on payments for Property Tax 2.4% of payment or Water/Sewer/Waste fees that are paid by credit card~~

~~DOCUMENT FEES~~

~~3. List of Electors $ 20.00 per copy~~

~~4. By-laws $ 0.50 per page To a maximum of $20.00 per bylaw~~

~~5. Tax Demand Notices $ 2.00 per page~~

~~6. Tax Certificates $ 30.00 each~~

~~7. Council & Committee Minutes $ 0.50 per page~~

~~8. Reports $ 0.50 per page To a maximum of $30.00 per report~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISON~~

~~DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular TOPIC: Development Variance Permit - 708 Vernon Street PROPOSAL: To Construct a Residential and Commercial Mixed Use Development PROPOSED BY: Staff~~

~~ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The applicant has requested a variance to relax requirements of the Development Permit/ Development Variance Permit No. 1301009. A Staff Memo is attached.~~

BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2015 Council considered the request for variances to the Development Permit/Development Variance Permit. Council approved four variances at that meeting including: 1) a reduction in long-term bike storage; 2) installation of electrical supply for slow- charge stations for electric vehicles, but to delay installation of the charging device until there is a demand; 3) provision of a landscape security in the form of a cheque that renews every 6 months; and 4) lot consolidation to be required prior to final inspection and building occupancy.

~~Council referred the following two variances back to Staff for further review.~~

~~1. In lieu of a donation to the Affordable Housing Fund, the Applicants provides for permanent designation of three residential units to be sold at 25% below market value as "Restricted Resale" units.~~

2. Waive the $9,837 connection fees for the three restricted resale units given that it directly supports the City's Affordable Housing Strategy Update 2014 by providing affordable housing to lower income buyers.

They also requested that the Nelson Housing Committee (NHC) review and make a recommendation on the proposal to have the City of Nelson undertake the administrative responsibilities to facilitate the resale of three Restricted Resale Units in the Nelson Commons development at 25% below market value on an on-going basis, including, but not limited to reviewing applications, interviewing applicants, conducting reference checks, and selecting applicants.

At its meeting on April 21 the NHC reviewed the variance requests. Members discussed the definition of affordable housing and whether ‘Restricted Resale Units’ were consistent with this definition. They expressed concern about the lack of qualifying criteria for potential buyers, and they voiced concerns that the request to waive connection fees in the amount of $9,837, stating that it would be unfair given that other developers had been denied this incentive in the past.

~~The majority of NHC members voted (majority vote) against the proposed variances to the Development Permit/Development Variance permit.~~

~~ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS~~

Definition of Affordable Housing – According to the Housing Needs Update Report (2014), affordability is the relationship between household median income and the estimated income available for either purchasing a home or renting a home to live. Using the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s (CMHC) standards, housing is considered unaffordable if a household spends 30% or more of its gross income on shelter.

Housing Continuum The Housing Strategy Report (2014) highlights the importance of evaluating housing needs and issues against a continuum of housing forms and types. The figure below, taken from the report, illustrates the housing continuum, which includes a mix of non-market and market housing options.

The mix of housing in Nelson is based on its unique socio-economic make-up, as well as the specific needs of this community. Ideally residents should have the opportunity to move across the housing continuum to find housing that is suited to their needs and that meets a standard of affordability.

The Strategy Report identifies six groups who face the greatest housing challenges in Nelson. Though the proposed restricted resale units are unlikely to meet the needs of many of Nelson’s highest-need populations (e.g. persons with mental health and addiction issues, low income seniors, at-risk youth and young adults), it is possible that the units will provide an opportunity for individuals or households, including persons with disabilities or low income families to enter the housing market, and potentially move up the continuum as their circumstances improve. This will benefit Nelson socially and economically in the long-term.

~~Example #1 – One-Bedroom Restricted Resale Unit To be eligible for a one bedroom unit, applicants must:~~

~~• Consist of a family maximum of 2 people; and • Have a maximum household income of $55,000 gross per annum.~~

~~The following outlines how two people might qualify to purchase of a one-bedroom restricted resale unit:~~

~~Maximum Annual Household Wage Calculation Annual Income Per Person Income Weekly Hourly* $55,000 $27,500 $529 $15 *Assume 35 hours per week~~

The Strategy Report looks at home ownership affordability by age and median income levels. The analysis suggests that young couples (ages 25-34) and older single parents (ages 55+) would be in a position to purchase a one-bedroom restricted resale unit. Two single adults between the ages of 55 and 64 could also purchase a unit together.

~~Example #2 – Two-Bedroom Restricted Resale Unit To be eligible for a two bedroom unit applicants must:~~

~~• Be a family of a minimum of 2 people, one of whom is an eligible dependent; and • Have a maximum household income of $70,000 gross per annum.~~

~~a. The following outlines how two people, one of whom is an eligible dependent might qualify to purchase of a one-bedroom restricted resale unit:~~

~~Maximum Annual Household Wage Calculation Annual Income Per Person Income Weekly Hourly* $70,000 $70,000 $1346 $39 *Assume 35 hours per week~~

~~b. The following applies for two adults plus a dependent:~~

~~Maximum Annual Household Wage Calculation Annual Income Per Person Income Weekly Hourly* $70,000 $35,000 $673 $19 *Assume 35 hours per week~~

According to the Strategy Report couples (ages 35-64) would be eligible to purchase a two bedroom unit. Presumably two single parents with dependents, or a single parent with a dependent and a single adult could also qualify to purchase a unit.

~~BENEFITS, DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Refer to attached Staff Memo.~~

LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS, PRECEDENTS, POLICIES: Development Variance Permits are required for any construction that varies the provisions of the Zoning Bylaw No. 3199. Council must approve all development variance permits. The neighbours within a 60 metre radius have been notified of Council's intention to review this application. Notices were sent on March 25, 2013 in advance of the Council meeting to ensure surrounding property owners had adequate notice. Section 922(6) of the Local Government Act states that notice must be mailed or otherwise delivered at least 10 days before adoption of the resolution.

The Official Community Plan has indicated a growth pattern that includes focus of development in the Downtown and the Waterfront. In order to move forward on this goal it is recognized that incentives may be required to help entice development accordingly. It is important to note, Council has no legislative authority to require an amenity contribution such as affordable housing. It is acceptable practice to request that a developer provide affordable housing at the time of rezoning, as it is seen as a community benefit that allows the city to move forward with strategic goals.

COSTS AND BUDGET IMPACT - REVENUE GENERATION: The cost of the Development Variance Permit is covered by the fees charged to the applicant. As per the attached Staff Memo, the request to waive the connection fees for the three restricted resale units would result in a reduction of connection fees for the project of $9,837.

IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND STAFF RESOURCES: There are no perceived negative impacts on Sustainability Objectives within the Path to 2040 documents. The proposed development achieves a number of the goals and objectives for the

Downtown identified within the Official Community Plan, including redevelopment of underutilized sites and infill development of vacant sites within the existing Downtown core is encouraged to be mixed-use, with retail at grade and office or residential uses above.

COMMUNICATION: The neighbours within a 60 metre radius of the subject property were notified of the request for a variance and have been invited to make comment on the proposed application. No comments have been received at the time of writing this report.

OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the development variance permit application with conditions; 2. Deny the development variance permit application; 3. Refer back to staff for further review & report

~~ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report 2. Nelson Housing Committee Minutes – April 21, 2015 3. Letter from Russell Precious and Deirdrie Lang – April 30, 2015~~

~~STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council passes the following resolution:~~

~~That the application to amend Development Variance Permit No. 1301009 to include the variances identified below be approved:~~

3. That the City of Nelson undertake the administrative responsibilities to facilitate the resale of three Restricted Resale Units in the Nelson Commons development at 25% below market value on an on-going basis, including but not limited to reviewing applications, interviewing applicants, conducting reference checks and selecting applicants.

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~______MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON Minutes of Council Committee Meeting~~

~~A meeting of the NELSON HOUSING COMMITTEE (NHC) was held on Tuesday April 21, 2015 at 12 noon in the Meeting Room at Cedar Grove Estates located at 500 West Richard Street, Nelson, BC~~

MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Dailly (Chair) Laureen Barker Jenny Robinson Kathy Fair Rona Park Rob Stacey John Alton Brad Howard Jessica Curran Ann Harvey Joan Reichardt Trevor Jenkinson Jim Reimer Qadesh Markowski Sharmaine Gray GUESTS: Deirdre Lang – Kootenay Co-op/Nelson Commons Russell Precious – Kootenay Co-op/Nelson Commons REGRETS: Rob Stacey Jessica Curran Cari Bell STAFF: Jo Caldecott (arrived 12:10 pm)

~~1) Adoption of Minutes~~

~~MOTION Moved by Joan Reichardt Seconded by John Alton~~

~~THAT the March 17, 2015 minutes be ratified as amended. CARRIED~~

~~2) Adoption of the Agenda~~

~~The agenda was unanimously adopted as amended.~~

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 1 of 5~~

3) Cedar Grove Estates Jenny welcomed NHC members to Cedar Grove Estates and provided highlights of the 40-unit housing project: • 22 single bedroom apartments for seniors • 18 town houses for families; all society owned comprising 8 x 2 bedroom, 8 x three bedroom and 2 x four bedroom (all Rent Geared to Income). • Cedar Grove was constructed in 1992 • The Operating Agreement expires in 2024 marking the end of Government Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) subsidies where people only pay 30% of their income on rent. The impact to the community is that many tenants will no longer be able to afford their rentals. This impact is true for all social housing in Nelson and across Canada over the next decade or two as $500 million in subsidies expires in the next 5 years across Canada alone.

4) Nelson Commons Michael welcomed Russell and Deirdre to the meeting and explained why they were attending. Russell presented about the Nelson Commons project which included: • Having presented to the previous Nelson Housing Committee during 2013 the understanding was approval with the NHC was ‘fait accompli’; • Appreciated the opportunity to present to the new Council and NHC; • Background of the project includes: o The developers are the Kootenay Co-op; o The development brings significant site improvements and an outstanding store to Nelson; o The condominium aspect of the development enabled the purchase of the expensive property; o At the time the Development Permit was originally submitted to the City, Nelson Commons offered the City $1,000/door ($54,000) as a contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund (above the required $250/door); o The primary funder of the project at its inception was the only funder interested: Vancity. Vancity was excited to see a small Co-op in a small interior BC community take on a project of this nature. Vancity offered expertise/experience in the affordable housing sector. The vision to house people in the community began with Vancity’s proposal that the Co-op increase its affordable housing contribution to $120,000 and VanCity would match it providing a total of $240,000. o The ‘Restricted Resale’ concept was discussed. While this kind of housing does not register high on the City’s housing needs continuum, it does provide an opportunity for people to own a home. The City of Langford and Simon Fraser University have both enjoyed success with Restricted Resale housing.

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 2 of 5~~

o Criteria / restrictions for the Restricted Resale units were discussed. Since NDCU will be providing the mortgages their financial eligibility requirements will apply; o Criteria will be structured around those ‘most in need’ however there will likely be a great deal of variables and NHC is invited to help develop with Nelson Commons’ criteria.

~~• A question period ensued. The following was noted:~~

1. The selling price for restricted resale units (1-bedroom) will be $200,000 with 25% discount. It was noted 1-bedroom units at the Creek Street development (near Golf Course) are selling for $250,000. 2. Nelson Commons units will require a minimum family income to qualify ($55,000). There will be varying financial considerations dependent on the down payment afforded. Strata fees will be 28c / ft2 (there is no outdoor space to manage). Strata management options are yet to be determined. 3. Nelson Commons is motivated to showcase Nelson; build on its Vancity partnership which may bring Vancity to the Kootenay region; advance affordable housing in the community and raise the bar for others developing in Nelson in the future. 4. The City’s Planning department has indicated they have capacity to handle the long term management of the units since this is ownership vs. rental and turnover is expected to be much less frequent. 5. The market range for other 1 bedroom units is $245,000 to $299,000. 6. Details on accessibility and parking were discussed.

~~Deirdre and Russell left at 12:54 pm.~~

Round table discussion ensued and included: • NHC has not made an official recommendation to Council to date. • Past NHC members confirmed that the concept first presented in 2013 lacked dollar values and information on the qualifying criteria for the restricted resale units. Members offered to assist develop criteria however information was not forthcoming. • At the 2013 meeting the NHC discussed that it was not the Committee’s mandate to direct Council on developments in the City. • Kathy Fair did meet with Russell after the 2013 NHC meeting to review Habitat for Humanity’s criteria. This however was not a good fit since HforH looks at housing families and HforH market values always include sweat equity and other considerations. Kathy waited to receive Vancity’s criteria which did not arrive. In light of this there seems no baseline to work with. • While the generosity of the contribution is recognized and applauded, a disconnect seems to exist in the language being used for the restricted resale units compared with what is considered truly affordable housing. The lack of developed criteria creates further ambivalence.

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 3 of 5~~

• Concerns were voiced about ‘flipping’ the units and whether the purchasers would remain local. • A cost / pricing analysis was circulated detailing total monthly costs and the required annual income / hourly rate range was reviewed against the CHMC 30% of gross income affordable housing factor. • Requests to waive the City’s connection fees have been denied to developers in years past; this approval would seem unfair. • It is challenging to reach a decision on this project without updated Affordable Housing Fund financial information which is still awaited. • Concern about the impact this precedent would have on future development projects and affordable housing contributions was discussed. • Options to reach a compromise such as approving two discounted units; requesting cash / per door donation with the third unit sold at market value to cover these costs.

~~The Chair noted the request was to respond to the three referrals from Council.~~

~~MOTION Moved by Trevor Jenkinson Seconded by Jenny Robinson~~

THAT Variance Permit No. 1301009 be amended to permit Nelson Commons to provide permanent designation of three (3) residential units to be sold at 25% below market value as "Restricted Resale" units in lieu of a donation to the Affordable Housing Fund. In Favour – 3 votes Opposed – 9 votes DEFEATED

~~MOTION Moved by Trevor Jenkinson Seconded by Jenny Robinson~~

THAT Variance Permit No. 1301009 be amended to permit designation of three (3) residential units as “Restricted Resale” units in lieu of a donation to the Affordable Housing Fund and the connection fees for the restricted units be referred to the Nelson Housing Committee. In Favour – 3 votes Opposed – 9 votes DEFEATED

~~MOTION Moved by Trevor Jenkinson Seconded by Jenny Robinson~~

THAT the City of Nelson undertake the administrative responsibilities to facilitate the resale of three (3) Restricted Resale Units in the Nelson Commons development at 25% below market value on an ongoing basis, including but not limited to reviewing applications, interviewing applicants, conducting reference checks and selecting applicants be referred to the Nelson Housing Committee.

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 4 of 5~~

~~In Favour – 3 votes Opposed – 9 votes DEFEATED~~

5) Our Daily Bread (ODB) Community Information and Feedback Session Brad encouraged members to attend the information and feedback session for the ODB Falls Street project being held on April 21st at 7pm.

~~6) Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:47 p.m.~~

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 5 of 5~~

After several conversations last week with Michael Daily, he sent me the the City of Langford discount rate for Restricted Resale units which is 60%. We were aware of this as Langford’s Planning Dept had shared their legal framework with our lawyer for putting this in place at the Commons. Below is my response to Michael which I think is relevant to all councilors in making a well informed decision at our next council meeting.

~~Thanks Michael.~~

We are well aware of the Langford program. In Langford they were dealing with large developments done by big time developers who were given all manner of concessions in exchange for the discounted units. For them to offer these discounts you can be sure they were more than compensated financially in variances.

We have received few concessions Michael. The only two initial variances were reduced parking— which turned out to be more than what was already being proposed by the city (but had not yet been enacted) and the second was a height variance of one meter. While this wasn’t critical for us it allowed for a much more articulated, aesthetically pleasing structure. This is obvious if you look at the model. On the other hand, Dave Wahn had us contribute in a number of ways that was significant cash out of our pocket as well as to dedicate a significant public space that we were quite willing to do. If the city had given us the type of variance as was the case in Langford, i.e. a fourth floor of residential we could have offered 5 units at a 60% discount. (We know a fourth floor would be inappropriate in this context). The point is the larger the development by a private developer the greater the number of concessions they receive which will in turn determine the discount they can afford to offer.

Langford is only one example of restricted resale. The ‘Verdant’ project at Simon Fraser that Vancity funded was based on a 20% discount for their units. The Wesbrook Village project at UBC was based on 33% discount.

Below you see the same affordable housing continuum that was presented last Fall when 40 of us from all sectors met to discuss the housing issue with Donna McDonald. ‘Affordable Home Ownership’ is in the middle sector. It is part of the Affordable Housing Continuum.

The Affordable Housing Continuum Affordable Affordable Emergency Transitional Social Rental Home Rental Home Shelters Housing Housing Housing Ownership Housing Ownership Government Subsidized Housing Middle Sector Housing Market Housing

The Housing Committee seems fixated on the first sector, which as you see below, is described as ‘government subsidized housing’. This was certainly the case at Anderson Place that needed significant funding from different levels of government and the CBT to pull it off.

Last year when we met with the Housing Committee (which was a substantially different group than today) we reached what is more than fair to call a ‘tacit agreement’ to proceed with the three restricted resale units. That was certainly Donna McDonalds understanding. In fact we got to a point where we were ready to work together to define the selection criteria. As the minutes from November 2013 clearly indicated:

The task of the selection committee (again who we assumed would include the Housing Committee) would be to select those most in need. That could be a single mom whose parents lend her the funds for a down payment; it could be an older couple whose combined work and OAP pensions make it affordable’; or it could be someone equivalent to a young Co-op manager whose family can’t quite reach the threshold to own their own home. Another three move into home ownership and several places are thereby freed up as rentals. The Restricted Resale in no way implies not focusing on those in genuine need.

On the basis of this we have spent several thousands of dollars creating the legal framework and have made this a core piece of our messaging now for well over a year both to the public and to our multiple investors and funders.

We have no option but to conclude that the Housing Committee is not seeing the big picture in all of this. First of all they seem to forget that the developer is the Kootenay Co-op being the largest social enterprise in the region who give endlessly to all manor of worthwhile causes. We recently donated $15,000 towards Nelson Care’s Ward Street Place-- we too are supporting housing for those most in need. It was only because of the Co-op’s commitment to affordable housing that we increased the $250/door contribution rate to $1,000/door in the first place. When our financial partners, Vancity, offered to contribute $120,000 if we would match it to create three restricted resale units, then we happily deferred to their generous offer, given their commitment to affordable housing and extensive experience in this realm.

We feel the housing committee's perspective in all of this is far too limited to be making an informed decision. ‘Restricted Resale’ units are part of the affordable housing continuum and it is no secret that government subsidized housing is the government’s responsibility………..not the Kootenay Co-op.

As we tackle this large project with all manner of unexpected expenses and challenges, it feels disrespectful to recommend that we abandon our preferred course of action. This, having made a clear appeal to the housing committee stressing the importance of leaving the 3 resale units in place. It is also embarrassing with regards our relationship with Vancity. Without Vancity going way beyond what anyone could have asked for there would be no Nelson Commons and no $54,000 in the first place. In the banking sector, only Vancity with their genuine ‘triple bottom line’ values, could offer the financial resources to pull this off.

~~I hope this helps you to share the perspective of those of us in the driver’s seat. There are a lot of considerations here that we feel are not being adequately considered. r u s s e l l & deirdrie~~

Addendum: The amendment would have gone to Council early last Fall and easily passed but as you may be aware we had several head planners in short succession and it was delayed and finally postponed until after the election.

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DECISION~~

~~DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular Council TOPIC: Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 PROPOSAL: Revisions to the City’s existing purchasing policy PROPOSED BY: Staff~~

SUMMARY: Staff propose revisions to Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 whereby Schedule A – Signing Authority shall be removed and replaced with a set range of authorization limits that are specific to each position level in the City’s organizational structure.

BACKGROUND: Under the current Policy, anytime there is a change to a position title or authorization limit, Schedule A – Signing Authority needs to be revised and then approved by Council. In order to increase efficiency and to address changes when necessary, we are proposing a range of authorization limits for each position level and that the CFO (or CFO designate) would be delegated the authority to establish the approval limit for each position within the respective range.

Due to the significant number of recent changes in the City’s organizational structure, and review of best practices from other local government organizations, it is anticipated that establishing a range of signing authority limits for different levels of positions in the organization will create efficiency and effectiveness while adhering to the Policy objectives.

~~ATTACHMENTS: Refer to Procurement Policy 1200.00.010.~~

~~OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the policy revisions. 2. Refer the matter back to staff for further review and recommendations.~~

~~STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council passes the following resolution:~~

~~THAT Council adopts the amended Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 as presented to Council on May 4, 2015.~~

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~t%/ 6/7?~~

~~______PURCHASING MANAGER CITY MANAGER THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON~~

~~POLICY TITLE: Financial Management POLICY NO: 1200.00.010 Procurement Policy~~

~~EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2015 SUPERSEDES: November 3, 2014~~

~~APPROVAL: Council PAGES: 1 of 7 pages~~

POLICY STATEMENT Effective procurement is a critical support function for the City of Nelson to responsibly manage the public funds placed in their trust. The procurement system must be responsive, cost effective and as open as possible to public scrutiny.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES The City's Procurement Policy is guided by the following principles which set the standard for performance: 1. Procure the goods and service requirements of all departments in an efficient, timely and cost effective manner while maintaining the necessary controls; 2. Engage in an open bidding process while ensuring availability to all qualified or pre-qualified bidders;

3. Ensure maximum value is obtained during the acquisition of goods and services, including, where appropriate, the total cost of the product purchased. Total costs may include but not be limited to acquisition cost, disposal cost, residua! value, training cost, maintenance cost, product performance and environmental impact; 4. Procure goods and services, taking into account wherever practical, the commitment to the environment and energy savings; 5. Ensure the acquisition of goods and services meet the requirements of applicable legislation;

~~6. Ensure that maximum value is realized when disposing of surplus goods, materials and equipment; and,~~

~~7. Ensure that the procurement policy is compliant with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.~~

8. Give preference to local suppliers of goods and services, assuming compliance with relevant legislation such as NWPTA and AIT, and assuming their pricing, quality and experience are comparable with non-local suppliers. Local shall mean a permanent business that operates from a property that is owned or rented by the business within the boundaries of the West Kootenay area as defined in Schedule C. In addition to the principles outlined above, City employees will demonstrate ethical purchasing behavior including:

1. Declaration of Interest - An employee who has a direct or indirect interest with the supplier should disclose this relationship and will be excluded from the quote or tender process; Financial Management – Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 Page 2 of 9

2. Confidentiality and Accuracy of Information - The confidentiality of information received in the course of duty must be respected and should not be used for personal gain; information given in the course of duty should be true and fair and not designed to mislead;

3. Competition - While considering the advantages of the City of Nelson maintaining a continuing relationship with a supplier, any arrangement which might prevent the effective operation of fair competition should be avoided;

4. Business Gifts and Hospitality - To preserve the image and integrity of the employee, the employer and the profession, business gifts other than items of small intrinsic value should not be accepted. Reasonable hospitality is an accepted courtesy of a business relationship. The frequency and nature of gifts or hospitality accepted should not be allowed whereby the recipient might be or might be deemed by others to have been influenced in making a business decision as a consequence of accepting such hospitality or gifts; and,

~~5. Discrimination and Harassment - No employee shall knowingly participate in acts of discrimination or harassment towards any person that he or she has business relations with.~~

PROCUREMENT PROCESS: OVERVIEW Procurement is the process by which a government acquires goods, services and capital works for its own use. This policy is designed to assist City staff in meeting the City's procurement objective and to protect the City and its staff against potential litigation and perceived or actual conflicts of interest. The essential elements of the City's Procurement Policy are outlined below.

Authority All staff members undertaking procurement actions must have formal authorization to do so. As outlined in section 149 of the Community Charter, the responsibility of the financial administration of the Municipality resides with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or CFO designate. These duties include:

(a) receiving all money paid to the municipality; (b) ensuring the keeping of all funds and securities of the municipality; (c) investing municipal funds, until required, in authorized investments; (d) expending municipal money in the manner authorized by the council; (e) ensuring that accurate records and full accounts of the financial affairs of the municipality are prepared, maintained and kept safe; and (f) exercising control and supervision over all other financial affairs of the municipality.

Through this Policy, the CFO authorizes staff to perform and oversee the established processes of the Procurement Policy. Signing authority for City employee positions is outlined in Schedule A. Staff with signing authority are authorized to make purchases approved by Council in the annual budget. The CFO is the delegated authority to establish the signing authorization limit for each position based on the following:

~~Financial Management – Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 Page 3 of 9~~

Position Authorization Limits Delegated Employee* $0 - $2,500 Manager/Supervisor Up to $25,000 Department Head Up to $50,000 City Manager/CAO & CFO $50,000 or greater *Each signatory may delegate spending limits to designated individuals for specified or general purchases. This delegation must be in writing and must be provided in advance to the Manager of Purchasing who will obtain the CFO’s approval.

~~Any purchase over $500,000 requires authorization from the City Manager/CAO and CFO.~~

Competition The method of procuring goods and services will be competitive where possible to: • Reduce costs to the public through marketplace competition; • Encourage innovation and efficiencies; • Compliance with applicable legislation (e.g. TILMA); and, • Demonstrate fair and open selection criteria. The level of competition required for City purposes is based on the dollar value and nature of the purchase ensuring the cost associated with administering a competitive process is proportionate to the benefit received as a result of the competition.

Documentation All steps in the procurement process will be documented in writing. The City is subject to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation, therefore purchasing decisions will be subject to public scrutiny from time to time. It is critical that we not only follow our policy but are able to demonstrate compliance.

~~Roles and Responsibilities~~

Purchasing Department: The City's organizational structure positions purchasing as a part of the Finance Department. The Finance Department is committed to build a robust purchasing system that enables the user department to implement its purchase plan. The purchasing function is administered by the Manager of Finance and Purchasing who is the Purchasing Agent for the corporation.

Department Heads are responsible for ensuring the Purchasing Policy is followed within their areas of control. In addition, the user department is the expert in the goods and services it plans to purchase. As such, its role is also to establish and implement its purchasing budget (through the annual operating and capital budget plan), receive and evaluate supplied goods and service, and provide feedback on the purchasing policy.

Council is responsible for ensuring that the principles of this Policy are operationalized. Annually Council will review and approve the 5 Year Financial Plan and the purchasing requirements of the Municipality. Council will receive quarterly reports that will allow them to review progress of approved purchases.

Commitments Both the City and the City's suppliers are required to adhere to the legal commitments made. Commitments and contracts are in the form of credit card purchases, purchase orders and formally executed contracts. All of these agreements are equally binding on the City.

~~Financial Management – Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 Page 4 of 9~~

Recommended Methods of Purchase The nature of the purchase, as well as their dollar value, determines the procurement process and tools available. Schedule B outlines the Recommended Methods of Purchase for goods and services.

~~The majority of purchases will be purchased under the following methods:~~

~~• Informal Quotes - for low dollar value or commodity type items employees will typically get quotes from multiple sources~~

~~• Formal Quotes - where higher dollar value or non-routine items are required, employees will endeavor to get written quotes from a minimum of three suppliers~~

• Request for Quote (RFQ) - where the items required are over $25,000 and are for specific known or identifiable products, purchasing will issue and manage a formal quote process including: providing a description of the products or services required, advertising of the opportunity, managing the responses, providing consolidation of the results, review and recommendation by the initiating department for award and the issuance of the PO

• Request for Proposal (RFP) - where the items required are over $50,000, and we require a vendor to propose how to complete a product or service for the City, purchasing will issue and manage a formal Proposal process including: providing an overview of the products or services required, advertising of the opportunity, managing the responses, providing consolidation of the results, establishing the evaluation criteria, review and recommendation by the initiating department for award, completing the contract and the issuance of the PO

• Request for Tender (RFT) - where the items required are over $50,000, and we require a vendor to complete a product or service for the City where the project specifications and result are known, purchasing will issue and manage a formal tendering process including: providing an overview of the products or services required, advertising of the opportunity, managing the responses, providing consolidation of the results, review and recommendation by the initiating department for award, completing the contract and the issuance of the PO

~~All goods and services are to be acquired in accordance with this policy unless authorized on an exception basis by City Council, the City Manager or the Chief Financial Officer.~~

~~Exemptions There are specific purchases which may be excluded from this recommended method of purchase including:~~

~~• Recurring or Non-Competitive Expenditures - these are for specifically identified items, such as training and statutory payments, that are excluded from the procurements methods outlined above.~~

• Emergency Purchases - will be made as required and will be duly authorized. Wherever possible, the City will attempt to engage in an open procurement process for all purchases, but in some cases where there is a Sole Source for a good or service, these purchases will occur through negotiation and with the goal of obtaining the best value for the City. Financial Management – Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 Page 5 of 9

• Sole Source - All sole sourcing requests will require justification to the Manager, Purchasing and Finance who may or may not be involved in the negotiation. Any sole source purchase exceeding $250,000 will require a Staff report to City Council. A department may request exemption from any or all the purchasing methods outlined in this policy by submission of a report.

Disclosure of Information Wherever possible, the city will disclose all related information on the website. Any supplier who wishes to discuss the purchasing process or decision can do so through the Manager, Finance and Purchasing. Financial Management – Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 Page 6 of 9

~~TO BE REMOVED Schedule A - Signing Authority~~

~~The following outlines the signing authorities for City Employees where items have been approved by Council in the Budget.~~

Authorized Delegates: Each signatory may delegate spending limits to designated individuals for specified or general purchases. This delegation must be in writing and must be provided in advance to the Manager, Finance and Purchasing.

~~Department Position Authority Limit Administration and Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Over $25,000~~

Corporate Services Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Over $25,000 Manager, HR & Corporate Safety $15,000 Director of Corporate Services $15,000 Manager, Finance & Purchasing $15,000 City Collector $15,000 Manager, Youth Center $15,000 Designated Employee Up to $1,000

~~Development Services Director of Development Services $25,000 & Engineering & Engineering Facilities Maintenance Manager $5,000 Building Official $2,500 Senior Planner $2,500~~

Operations Director of Public Works & Utilities $25,000 Manager of Utilities $15,000 Manager of Public Works & Parks $15,000 Office Administrator, Hydro & Engineering & $10,000 Operations Public Works & Parks Supervisor $5,000 Utilities Supervisor $5,000 Supervisor, Garage & Transit $10,000 Designated Employee Up to $1,000

Nelson Hydro Nelson Hydro General Manager $25,000 Manager of Hydro Operations $15,000 Line Manager $15,000 Customer Service Representative $2,000 Line Crew Foreman or Sub Foreman $2,000 Electrician(s) $1,000 Designated Employee Up to $1,000

~~Police Chief $25,000 Deputy $15,000~~

~~Financial Management – Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 Page 7 of 9~~

~~Schedule A - Signing Authority (Continued)~~

~~The following outlines the signing authorities for City Employees where items have been approved by Council in the Budget.~~

~~Fire Chief $25,000 Assistant Chief $15,000~~

~~Library Chief Librarian $25,000 Financial Management – Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 Page 8 of 9~~

Schedule B - Recommended Methods of Purchase The following outlines the Recommended Methods of Purchase based on the type of good or service being procured and the purchase price (excluding taxes). All purchases, regardless of method of purchase, must be authorized in accordance to the limits identified in Schedule A.

Purchase Value Purchase Items Purchase Method Supporting Payment Category Description Documents Method General Less than $1,000 Random, low value No formal Invoice or receipt with From invoice, Purchase purchase purchasing process authorized approval credit card, or required and g/l code or WO# petty cash Between Operational Goods Informal Quotes Requisition and PO Credit Card or $1,001 and and services from invoice 5,000 Between $5,001 All purchases Formal Quotes Requisition and PO From invoice and 25,000 Between $25,001 All purchases Formal Quotes/RFQ PO and 50,000 Greater than Standardized Items RFT PO and Contract $50,000 Non-standardized items RFP

Construction Less than Construction of new Informal Quotes Requisition/PO From invoice Contracts $25,000 buildings(engineering, infrastructure and parks) or renovations of existing buildings Between $25,001 Formal Quotes/RFQ Contract/PO and 50,000 Greater than RFP/RFT PO and Contract $50,000 Consultant Less than Contracts with individuals Informal Quotes Requisition/PO From invoice Contracts $25,000 or firms who provide technical and professional services Between $25,001 Formal Quotes/RFQ Requisition/PO and 50,000 Greater than RFP PO and Contract $50,000 Recurring or Any amount over Training and education No formal Requisition From Invoice Non-Competit $1,000 expenses, refundable purchasing process ive employee expenses, required Expenditures general expenses, professional and special services and utilities.

Emergency Any amount over Where lack of supplies or No formal purchasing PO From invoice Purchase $1,000 services may adversely process required affect the functioning of civic government, threaten public or private property or the environment, or jeopardize the health or safety of the public Sole Source Any amount over When a single supplier is No formal PO From invoice $1,000 the only reasonable choice purchasing process or would offer better value required Financial Management – Procurement Policy 1200.00.010 Page 9 of 9

~~Schedule C – West Kootenay Area Map~~

~~The following map shows the boundary of the West Kootenay area communities and municipalities.~~

~~WASHINGTON IDAHO THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISON~~

DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular TOPIC: INFORMATION ITEMS PROPOSAL: Correspondence and Reports Received PROPOSED BY: Staff ______ITEMS SUMMARY: The following items of correspondence and interest have been received since the last meeting of Council.

~~Item From Subject Action~~

~~City of Nelson Items~~

~~1. Finance Department Accounts Payable List to Receive for April 27, 2015 information~~

~~2. Finance Department Q1 Quarterly Purchasing Receive for Report information~~

~~3. Building Department Building Statistics for Receive for April 2015 information~~

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Unless items listed are dealt with specifically by Council, staff will respond to requests, referrals and issues where appropriate and as outlined by City policy and as indicated on each item.

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~______DEPUTY CORPORATE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~~

~~Accounts Payable Listing April 1 ‐ 27, 2015~~

Cheque # Vendor # Vendor Name Paid Amount 519709 A0020 A.C.E. Courier Services 49.88 519771 A0020 A.C.E. Courier Services 23.51 100135 A0080 ALLQUIP MARKETING 747.50 519772 A0120 Acklands‐Grainger Inc. 607.04 519601 A0175 Air Liquide Canada Inc. 85.09 519710 A0175 Air Liquide Canada Inc. 647.01 519774 A0206 Aldo's Cleaners 826.30 519602 A0262 Alpine Disposal & Recycling 1,255.61 519775 A0262 Alpine Disposal & Recycling 1,128.75 519653 A0286 AIG Insurance Company of Canada 4,152.96 100172 A0366 Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc/Aon Parizeau Inc 4,316.00 519776 A0394 Arctic Arrow Powerline Group Ltd 147,197.88 519777 A0461 Atomic Crayon 518.65 100137 B0070 BC Association of Police Boards 520.00 100084 B0085 BC Transit 43,008.00 519654 B0125 B & L Security Patrol (1981) Ltd. 333.90 519711 B0125 B & L Security Patrol (1981) Ltd. 957.77 519778 B0125 B & L Security Patrol (1981) Ltd. 321.30 519779 B0143 Minister of Finance 33,012.79 100138 B0239 BC/Yukon Command (BC/Y RCL) 565.00 100108 B0335 Best Western Baker Street Inn 20.00 100085 B0360 Bill's Heavy Duty Enterprises (2004) Ltd 57.64 100139 B0360 Bill's Heavy Duty Enterprises (2004) Ltd 111.88 100173 B0360 Bill's Heavy Duty Enterprises (2004) Ltd 477.46 519603 B0383 Black Press Group Ltd. 1,850.33 519712 B0401 Blue Sparkle Cleaning 2,311.60 519604 B0439 Brandt Tractor Ltd 550.04 519713 B0439 Brandt Tractor Ltd 191.62 519780 B0439 Brandt Tractor Ltd 130.17 519781 B0484 Brown Crawshaw Inc 2,384.34 519714 B0550 LexisNexis Canada Inc 191.63 100141 C0040 COMMUNITY FIRST HEALTH CO‐OP 26.25 100175 C0040 COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST 2,694.99 100109 C0070 Canadian Pacific Railway Company 472.50 100142 C0070 Canadian Pacific Railway Company 583.00 519783 C0180 Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police 787.50 100091 C0246 Canadian Power Resistors 795.20 519655 C0264 CanCADD Imaging Solutions Ltd 581.95 519656 C0290 Capitol Theatre 22,500.00 519657 C0342 Caro Analytical Services Ltd. 87.15 519605 C0439 Cintas Location 889 86.82 Cheque # Vendor # Vendor Name Paid Amount 519658 C0439 Cintas Location 889 81.50 519716 C0439 Cintas Location 889 81.50 519785 C0439 Cintas Location 889 81.50 519717 C0459 City Green Solutions Society 441.00 100092 C0492 Finley's Irish Bar & Grill 300.00 519786 C0515 Claymore Clothes Ltd. 597.10 100177 C0572 Columbia Wireless Inc 980.00 519659 C0574 Columbia Truck Centers 87.41 519718 C0575 CGW Plumbing & Heating Ltd 1,050.00 519606 C0580 Commander Warehouse Equipment Ltd. 1,276.80 100111 C0584 Community Futures Central Kootenay 100,000.00 519660 C0623 Corix Water Products LP 3,612.43 100143 C0630 Cottonwood Autobody Ltd 1,295.31 100178 C0630 Cottonwood Autobody Ltd 37.41 519607 C0640 Cowan's Office Supplies Ltd 17,648.25 519788 C0640 Cowan's Office Supplies Ltd 9,982.94 519661 D0013 DDC Excavating Ltd 4,315.50 519608 D0095 DHC Communications Inc 5,071.50 519609 D0216 Domino Highvoltage Supply Inc 11,422.10 519789 D0217 Dominion Cafe 37.17 519611 E0072 Eecol Electric Corp. 1,300.27 100093 E0133 Emblazon Embroidery Co. 117.16 519790 E0138 Emco Corporation 307.98 519612 E0186 CPS (Canada) Inc. 2,169.75 519662 E0186 CPS (Canada) Inc. 3,999.80 519791 F0080 Finning (Canada) 8.33 100094 F0092 Fire Safety Canada 141.75 519663 F0130 Fred Surridge Ltd. 1,080.74 519719 F0130 Fred Surridge Ltd. 289.05 519792 F0130 Fred Surridge Ltd. 17,511.38 100095 G0001 CATHERINE GAUDREAULT 8,190.00 100191 G0101 Gibson Waterworks Supply Inc. 3,757.60 100149 G0103 Gill & Gifts 101.62 100192 G0170 Goodyear Canada Inc 2,027.47 519613 G0190 Guillevin International Co. 89.60 519664 G0190 Guillevin International Co. 778.42 519720 G0190 Guillevin International Co. 589.89 519794 G0190 Guillevin International Co. 567.51 519614 G0193 Gwil Industries Inc 456.75 EFT APR G0221 Great West Life Assurance Company 1,807.03 519665 G0240 Greyhound Courier Express 369.67 519615 H0012 Hach Sales & Service Canada Ltd. 880.71 519616 H0020 Hall Printing 231.72 Cheque # Vendor # Vendor Name Paid Amount 519721 H0020 Hall Printing 355.29 519795 H0020 Hall Printing 86.82 519722 H0062 HD Supply Power Solutions 2,940.00 100118 H0090 Hume Hotel 448.47 519723 H0141 High Five Maintenance Services 2,217.49 519666 H0150 Hilti (Canada) Corporation 2,305.01 100150 H0160 Hipperson Hardware Ltd 4.48 519617 H0211 Hywood Truck & Equipment Ltd 1,457.30 519667 H0211 Hywood Truck & Equipment Ltd 333.34 519724 H0211 Hywood Truck & Equipment Ltd 336.40 100119 I0097 Institute of Chartered Accountants 1,002.75 100193 I0198 Iron Mountain Canada Corporation 148.72 519668 J0085 Jetson Consulting Engineers Ltd 16,537.50 100096 K0010 JACK & LILY / KUDOS 273.89 100194 K0010 KOOTENAY KIDS SOCIETY 950.00 519669 K0040 Kal‐Tire 61.94 519725 K0040 Kal‐Tire 274.61 519798 K0040 Kal‐Tire 1,262.17 100195 K0100 Kilo Flagging 308.62 100097 K0201 Kootenay Boundary Regional Fire Rescue 150.00 100196 K0201 Kootenay Boundary Regional Fire Rescue 253.98 100120 K0205 Kootenay Medical Centre 50.00 519618 K0207 Kootenay Career Development Society 52.55 519670 K0207 Kootenay Career Development Society 57.37 100153 K0213 Kootenay Coffee Company 165.00 100197 K0213 Kootenay Coffee Company 384.00 519671 K0235 Kootenay Express Communications Corp 157.50 519672 K0240 Kootenay Glass and Mirror Ltd 47.85 519619 K0250 Kootenay Industrial Supply Ltd 205.78 519673 K0250 Kootenay Industrial Supply Ltd 181.68 519726 K0250 Kootenay Industrial Supply Ltd 733.79 519799 K0250 Kootenay Industrial Supply Ltd 78.77 100121 K0336 Kootenay Valley Helicopters Ltd 940.01 100198 L0010 DAN MAJA, LIBOA REGISTRAR 60.00 519620 L0050 Lang Business Systems 228.91 519675 L0050 Lang Business Systems 196.57 519801 L0050 Lang Business Systems 6,806.23 519676 L0063 Lineman's Testing Laboratories 2,235.62 100199 L0083 Leo's Pizza 120.00 100154 L0098 LNJ Enterprises Ltd. 1,350.43 519621 L0101 Lidstone & Company 151.16 519727 L0101 Lidstone & Company 575.21 100200 L0104 Pigott & Company 764.84 Cheque # Vendor # Vendor Name Paid Amount 519622 L0110 Loomis Express 407.20 519678 L0110 Loomis Express 347.97 519728 L0110 Loomis Express 257.71 519802 L0110 Loomis Express 119.89 519623 L0125 Lordco Auto Parts 1,304.17 519679 L0125 Lordco Auto Parts 601.07 519729 L0125 Lordco Auto Parts 420.78 519803 L0125 Lordco Auto Parts 784.35 100098 M0010 STACEY MUCHOWSKI 120.00 100155 M0010 CALEB MOSS 3,985.05 519730 M0070 Maglio Building Centre Ltd 697.43 519624 M0081 Main Jet Motorsports Inc. 342.85 519731 M0081 Main Jet Motorsports Inc. 111.99 519804 M0081 Main Jet Motorsports Inc. 595.14 100099 M0130 Margo Supplies Ltd. 581.60 519680 M0150 Martech Electrical Systems Ltd 22,968.49 519625 M0160 Martech Motor Winding Ltd 46.20 519805 M0260 McNally Excavating Inc. 5,289.48 100156 M0267 Mearl's Machine Works Ltd. 2,925.44 EFT APR/15 M0280 Medical Services Plan of B C 17,253.00 EFT APR15/15 M0280 Medical Services Plan of B C 346.50 519732 M0310 Midas Auto Service Experts 122.03 100100 M0371 Minister of Finance 847.00 100201 M0420 Minister of Finance 6,234.55 519626 M0544 Mircom Distribution (BC) Inc. 395.64 100202 M0601 Vista Radio Ltd 31.24 100157 M0625 MTS Maintenance Tracking Systems Inc 615.99 100158 M0660 Municipal Insurance Assoc. of BC 3,479.59 519627 N0026 Napa Auto Parts 379.62 519733 N0026 Napa Auto Parts 436.31 100101 N0030 Nasmyth Morrow & Bogusz 243.62 519806 N0061 Teliphone Canada Corp 381.71 100122 N0070 Nelson & District Rod & Gun Club 1,700.00 100123 N0112 Nelson Regional Sports Council 27,500.00 519808 N0135 Nelson Box Office & Copy Centre Ltd 351.23 519809 N0150 Nelson & District Chamber of Commerce 5,500.00 100124 N0185 Nelson Electric Tramway Society 200.00 100125 N0190 Nelson Farmers Supply Ltd. 500.00 100159 N0190 Nelson Farmers Supply Ltd. 5,966.81 519734 N0195 Nelson Ford Sales (2003) Inc. 376.66 519735 N0209 Nelson Building Centre Limited 854.72 519810 N0209 Nelson Building Centre Limited 37.56 519737 N0257 Nelson Pilots Association 890.82 Cheque # Vendor # Vendor Name Paid Amount 519738 N0260 Nelson Police Association 1,447.80 519628 N0264 Network Telsys Inc 7.92 EFT APR 15/15 N0264 Network Telsys Inc 30.02 519811 N0264 Network Telsys Inc 12.77 519629 N0270 Nelson Ready‐Mix 413.58 519682 N0270 Nelson Ready‐Mix 1,320.84 519739 N0270 Nelson Ready‐Mix 513.58 519812 N0270 Nelson Ready‐Mix 188.35 519740 N0281 Noramco 5,566.73 519741 N0297 Norma's Sewing & Design 330.00 519630 O0210 Overland West Freight Lines Ltd 726.45 519683 O0210 Overland West Freight Lines Ltd 175.00 519813 O0210 Overland West Freight Lines Ltd 255.83 EFT APRIL P0012 Pacific Blue Cross 626.98 519631 P0026 Pacific Alliance Technologies 7,091.51 519632 P0071 Passmore Laboratory Ltd 280.00 519684 P0071 Passmore Laboratory Ltd 240.00 519742 P0071 Passmore Laboratory Ltd 375.00 519814 P0071 Passmore Laboratory Ltd 330.00 519685 P0100 Pennywise 263.66 519815 P0100 Pennywise 325.62 519633 P0111 Suncor Energy Products Partnership 9,469.79 519686 P0111 Suncor Energy Products Partnership 5,364.32 519743 P0111 Suncor Energy Products Partnership 8,024.99 519816 P0111 Suncor Energy Products Partnership 10,178.39 100162 P0160 Pharmasave #148 147.07 100203 P0160 Pharmasave #148 48.61 519817 P0165 Phoenix Computers 285.55 100163 P0203 PitneyWorks 555.46 519818 P0273 Premier Pacific Seeds Ltd. 7,011.34 519687 P0279 Pressed Metal Products Ltd 1,275.40 100164 P0285 Prestige Lakeside Resort 219.00 519634 P0320 Purolator Courier Ltd 73.29 519688 P0320 Purolator Courier Ltd 84.81 519744 P0320 Purolator Courier Ltd 265.83 519819 P0320 Purolator Courier Ltd 85.34 519635 R0064 Ramtech Environmental Products 5,881.73 519689 R0064 Ramtech Environmental Products 270.79 519745 R0064 Ramtech Environmental Products 202.63 100206 R0175 Receiver General for Canada 441.06 519453 R0215 Regional Dist. of Cent. Koot. D/Deposit 87,000.00 519454 R0215 Regional Dist. of Cent. Koot. D/Deposit 444,321.97 519455 R0215 Regional Dist. of Cent. Koot. D/Deposit 18,827.50 Cheque # Vendor # Vendor Name Paid Amount 519746 R0215 Regional Dist. of Cent. Koot. D/Deposit 7,604.15 519821 R0255 Right‐of‐Way Operations Group Inc. 10,632.00 519747 R0256 Right Way Acquisition Service Ltd. 3,282.16 519822 R0256 Right Way Acquisition Service Ltd. 6,048.09 519823 R0300 Rollins Machinery Ltd 174.37 519636 S0030 SK Electronics Ltd. 158.76 519748 S0030 SK Electronics Ltd. 144.82 519824 S0030 SK Electronics Ltd. 151.41 519690 S0130 Selkirk Paving 384.77 519749 S0130 Selkirk Paving 2,128.33 519750 S0151 The Nelson Daily 105.00 519825 S0151 The Nelson Daily 262.50 100207 S0200 Shoppers Drug Mart 44.85 519751 S0202 Shippers Supply 6,392.87 100166 S0233 Silverking Contracting 1,050.00 519691 S0327 Stella‐Jones Inc 49,660.80 519637 S0345 Starlight Tool Services Ltd 699.99 519826 S0424 Superior Lighting and Bath Inc. 29.61 519827 S0426 Sybertech Waste Reduction Ltd. 5,594.40 519828 S0439 Susan Ralph Registry Services Ltd 83.96 100102 T0010 KELLY TOOLE 2,428.58 519638 T0060 Taylor‐Wilton Nelson Ltd 1,439.14 519692 T0060 Taylor‐Wilton Nelson Ltd 745.05 519753 T0060 Taylor‐Wilton Nelson Ltd 1,240.58 519829 T0060 Taylor‐Wilton Nelson Ltd 1,450.87 519830 T0071 Telus Services Inc. 504.00 519639 T0075 Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc. 2,528.32 519693 T0075 Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc. 301.14 519754 T0077 Telus Mobility (BC) 6,632.31 519831 T0077 Telus Mobility (BC) 43.09 519694 T0079 FortisBC ‐ Natural Gas 5,465.37 519755 T0079 FortisBC ‐ Natural Gas 230.94 519832 T0079 FortisBC ‐ Natural Gas 128.90 519640 T0096 Texcan 4,793.60 519641 T0150 Secure by Design 61.60 519756 T0150 Secure by Design 26.25 100168 T0155 Nelson Medical Clinic Inc. 41.00 519642 T0287 Tristar Cap & Garment Ltd 70.40 519643 T0309 TRUE Consulting 10,317.18 519644 T0310 Trydor Industries (Canada) Ltd 4,350.61 519695 T0310 Trydor Industries (Canada) Ltd 4,878.68 519757 T0310 Trydor Industries (Canada) Ltd 1,750.24 519833 T0310 Trydor Industries (Canada) Ltd 111.49 Cheque # Vendor # Vendor Name Paid Amount 100103 T0320 Tu‐Dor Lock & Safe Ltd 572.78 100130 T0320 Tu‐Dor Lock & Safe Ltd 220.33 100169 T0320 Tu‐Dor Lock & Safe Ltd 143.85 100209 T0320 Tu‐Dor Lock & Safe Ltd 269.53 100104 U0015 UPS Canada 611.20 100210 U0015 UPS Canada 160.72 519696 U0053 Univar Canada Ltd. 10,536.96 100211 V0010 VISSERS SALES CORP 756.45 519697 V0012 Venture Mechanical Systems Ltd 7,277.56 519698 V0040 Van Kam Freightways Ltd 217.60 100105 V0051 Vancouver Police Department 3,696.00 100131 V0051 Vancouver Police Department 633.84 100132 W0010 WEST KOOTENAY REGIONAL SCIENCE FAIR 600.00 100212 W0010 LAKEVIEW GUEST HOUSE 285.00 100170 W0020 Wait's News Stand 864.68 519834 W0028 Walgren Soils Testing 643.70 100106 W0030 Walmart Canada 57.27 100133 W0030 Walmart Canada 133.60 519758 W0063 Tony Waterfall 3,000.00 519645 W0080 Watson Gloves 1,191.05 519646 W0194 Wesco Distribution Canada LP 11,183.77 519699 W0194 Wesco Distribution Canada LP 2,271.36 100107 W0210 Western Auto Wreckers Ltd 105.00 100171 W0210 Western Auto Wreckers Ltd 220.50 519759 W0305 WFR Wholesale Fire & Rescue Ltd. 125.13 519647 W0357 Arcright Plumbing & Heating Ltd 188.72 519760 W088 Westburne West 191.52 519700 Y0150 Yellow Pages Group 19.01 519761 Y0150 Yellow Pages Group 52.77 519648 Z0020 Inland Allcare 5,077.48 519701 Z0020 Inland Allcare 3,918.43 519762 Z0020 Inland Allcare 683.33 519835 Z0020 Inland Allcare 461.21 519763 Z1224 Galbraith, Fiona 8,947.05

~~Total 1,476,190.18 Quarterly Purchasing Report – Q1 2015 Overview:~~

The following graph summarizes the City’s annual procurement activity from 2011 through to 2015 for goods and services. The prior years have been included for comparison purposes. As of March 31, 2015, five procurement processes were initiated and over $800k was issued in awards. Further details of the tenders, proposals and quotes are available in the attached Appendices.

~~Purchasing Activity Chart~~

*These contracts were for goods and services based on the following: (1) a public procurement process was conducted; (2) sole sourcing was required; (3) the purchase was not required to go through the RFT, RFP or RFQ process based on the City’s Procurement Policy 1200.00.010, but terms and conditions were required and a contract was put in place.

Key Drivers: First quarter purchasing activity was driven by the continuation of planned capital projects and the need to acquire contractor services to begin work in early Spring. Some of the larger projects included the Hall Street Corridor – Phase 1; Roadworks, Servicing and Landscape, annual vegetation management services and the Nelson Hydro Submarine Cable Installation between Balfour and Harrop/Procter. Smaller projects included the Hall Street custom light standards and the acquisition of transformers for Nelson Hydro.

~~Page 1 of 6~~

Quarterly Purchasing Report – Q1 2015 Many projects that were initiated in late 2014 were awarded during Q1. These projects included the Public Works HVAC Upgrade, Nelson Hydro 25kV Primary Upgrade, the Nelson Hydro electric truck, vegetation management services for 2015, and a Hydro pole trailer.

We received an average of four bids per procurement process during Q1, which is comparable with the number of bids received in previous quarters. These results indicate that vendors are interested in City of Nelson projects, which provides for good competition and helps ensure the City receives fair market value bids.

~~Looking Forward:~~

Based on the number of 2015 planned projects, procurement activity is expected to increase over the next few months. Upcoming tenders and RFP’s will include: CIPP relining; asphalt reclaimer and crack sealing units; arena roof replacement; building condition inspection; property insurance services; Nelson Hydro PNC analysis and voltage conversion for 4F21 and 4F22 (Uphill), and 4F29 (Uphill East). Refer to the attached Appendices for a complete summary of procurement projects and additional details.

~~Page 2 of 6~~

~~Quarterly Purchasing Report – Q1 2015~~

~~Appendix I – 2015 Tenders (RFT) The following is a list of 2015 tender activity. The highlighted section reflects the upcoming RFTs.~~

~~Page 3 of 6~~

~~Quarterly Purchasing Report – Q1 2015~~

~~Appendix II – 2015 Proposals (RFP) The following is a list of 2015 proposal activity. The highlighted section reflects the upcoming RFPs.~~

~~Page 4 of 6~~

~~Quarterly Purchasing Report – Q1 2015~~

~~Appendix III – 2015 Quotes (RFQ) The following is a list of 2015 quote activity.~~

~~Page 5 of 6~~

Quarterly Purchasing Report – Q1 2015 Appendix IV – 2014 Contracts The following is a list of contracts that have been issued. Contracts can be generated from the formal tendering processes (see the Tender/Proposal/Quote reference column) or through operational requirements (indicated with a Contract number in the first column).

~~Page 6 of 6~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON BUILDING PERMIT STATISTICS~~

~~01-Apr-15 to 27-Apr-15~~

~~2014 2015 Estimated Estimated Description # of Permits # of Permits Value ($) Value ($) NEW CONSTRUCTION Single Unit Dwellings 0 0 2 500,000~~

~~Number of Secondary Suites 0 0~~

~~Multi-Unit Dwellings 0 0 0 0~~

~~Number of Units 0 0~~

Commercial 0 0 0 0 Government & Institutional 0 0 0 0 ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS Single Unit Dwellings (incl. garages & carports) 14 339, 700 10 79,600 Addition of Secondary Suites or 2 1 Detached Secondary Dwelling Units Multi-Unit Dwellings 0 0 0 0 Commercial 5 44, 500 5 327,600 Government & Institutional 0 0 0 0 OTHER Projects other than those listed above 0 0 0 0 DEMOLITIONS 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 16 384,200 17 907,200 YEAR TO DATE 44 2,311,260 60 7,788,240

~~Year to Date TYPE OF UNIT CREATED 2014 2015 Single Unit Dwelling 5 13~~

~~Multi-Unit Dwelling 2 0 TOTAL 7 13~~

~~PLUMBING PERMITS 2014 2015 Apr-01 to Apr-27 11 18~~

~~Year to Date 27 43 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISION~~

DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular TOPIC: INFORMATION ITEMS PROPOSAL: Minutes of Council Committees and Commissions PROPOSED BY: Staff ______ANALYSIS SUMMARY: Please find attached the following minutes of Council Commission, Committee and Board meetings for Council’s Information. Motions passed at these meeting are recommendations submitted to Council for final approval or action.

~~Item From Subject Action~~

~~1. Advisory Planning Meeting held on 1. Review motions passed Commission April 16, 2014 2. Receive for information 3. Pass Council resolution/s where necessary~~

~~2. Nelson Housing Meeting held on 1. Review motions passed Committee April 21, 2015 2. Receive for information 3. Pass Council resolution/s where necessary~~

~~3. West Kootenay Meeting held on 1. Review motions passed Transit Committee March 18, 2015 2. Receive for information 3. Pass Council resolution/s where necessary~~

~~4. NAEDP Advisory Meeting held on Receive for information Committee March 11, 2015~~

~~5. Nelson & District Meeting held on Receive for information Youth Centre Advisory March 31, 2015 Committee~~

BACKGROUND: Boards, Commissions and Committees meet monthly. The 2015 Schedule of Meetings is posted on the City website and the meetings are held in accordance with relevant bylaws, policies and Terms of Reference.

BENEFITS, ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Council Commissions, Committees and Boards deal with these during their deliberations. Please see the attached record of meeting proceedings.

~~LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS, PRECENDENTS, POLICIES: Council Boards, Committees and Commissions are set up by legislation, bylaw or resolution. The Library Board is set by Provincial Statute.~~

~~COSTS AND BUDGET IMPACT – REVENUE GENERATION: N/A IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND STAFF RESOURCES: N/A~~

~~COMMUNICATION: Upon Council’s approval, minutes of meetings held are posted on the City’s website.~~

~~OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES: N/A~~

~~ATTACHMENTS: • APC Minutes • NHC Minutes • WKTC Minutes • NAEDP Minutes • NDYAC Minutes~~

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receives the minutes of the Advisory Planning Committee meeting held on April 16, 2015; the minutes of the Nelson Housing Committee meeting held on April 21, 2015; the minutes of the West Kootenay Transit Committee held on March 18, 2015; the minutes of the Nelson & Area Economic Development Partnership meeting held on March 11, 2015; and the minutes of the Nelson & District Youth Centre meeting held March 31, 2015 for information; and THAT Council reviews all Committee recommendations for final approval or further action.

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~______DEPUTY CORPORATE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON MEMORANDUM OF MINUTES~~

~~A MEETING OF THE (Path to 2040) ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION was held on Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:05 p.m. in Council Chambers, Second Floor, City Hall, 310 Ward Street, Nelson, BC~~

~~PRESENT: Nelson Rocha (Chair) Chris Drysdale Rona Park Matt Stanley Brenton Raby Andrew Jarrett Matt Nuttall Councillor Michael Dailly~~

~~ALSO PRESENT: Megan Squires, Senior Planner Pam Mierau, Manager of Development Services~~

~~ABSENT: Deborah Grant Jane Miller~~

~~1. Appointment of Chair Moved by B. Raby That Nelson Rocha be appointed to the role of Chair. CARRIED~~

~~2. Adoption of Agenda Adopted~~

~~3. Appointment of an APC Liaison to the Heritage Working Group Moved by Nelson Rocha That Matthew Stanley be appointed to the role of Liaison to the Heritage Working Group. CARRIED~~

~~4. APC Orientation The Senior Planner provided an overview to the committee on the role and responsibilities of the Advisory Planning Commission.~~

5. Rezoning Application: 1102 Gordon Street Page 1 of 2 APC meeting minutes – April 16, 2015 The APC was asked to consider an application to rezone an existing multi-unit residential development located at 1102 Gordon Street from R2, Medium Density Residential to R4, High Density Residential to ensure that the use of the property is consistent with the land use regulations.

~~Discussion on Amendment The APC discussed the following questions in relation to the proposed amendment:~~

• What would be the implications for future development if the side yard setbacks were reduced and the building height was increased? • Is it possible to incorporate wording into the R4 zone that would ensure that any new development on the site complied with the existing zone regulations for setbacks and building height? • What is the development potential on the property on the north side of Gordon Street?

One member pointed out that the building is currently providing low-end market rental accommodation, but that this could change at any time. In the future, the property owner could decide to raise rents and the City would not be involved in that decision. The member suggested that the current provision of low-end market housing should not be a reason for the APC to recommend in favour of the application.

~~Recommendation to Council Moved by Rona Park~~

That the APC recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Zoning Bylaw 3199, 2014 to rezone the subject properties from R2, Medium Density Residential to R4, High Density Residential to ensure that the current use of the property complies with the zoning regulations. This recommendation is subject to the following: • That Development Services Staff explore the option to add wording into the R4 zone to ensure that any future development on the site complies with the established zoning regulations.

~~CARRIED~~

~~6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:10 pm.~~

~~______Chair~~

~~Page 2 of 2 APC meeting minutes – April 16, 2015~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON Minutes of Council Committee Meeting~~

~~A meeting of the NELSON HOUSING COMMITTEE (NHC) was held on Tuesday April 21, 2015 at 12 noon in the Meeting Room at Cedar Grove Estates located at 500 West Richard Street, Nelson, BC~~

~~1) Adoption of Minutes~~

~~MOTION Moved by Joan Reichardt Seconded by John Alton~~

~~THAT the March 17, 2015 minutes be ratified as amended. CARRIED~~

~~2) Adoption of the Agenda~~

~~The agenda was unanimously adopted as amended.~~

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 1 of 5~~

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 2 of 5~~

~~• A question period ensued. The following was noted:~~

~~Deirdre and Russell left at 12:54 pm.~~

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 3 of 5~~

~~The Chair noted the request was to respond to the three referrals from Council.~~

~~MOTION Moved by Trevor Jenkinson Seconded by Jenny Robinson~~

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 4 of 5~~

~~In Favour – 3 votes Opposed – 9 votes DEFEATED~~

~~6) Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:47 p.m.~~

~~Minutes of NHC meeting held on April 21, 2015 Page 5 of 5~~

~~West Kootenay Transit Committee (WKTC)~~

~~Minutes of the Meeting held March 18, 2015 Board Room, RDKB, Trail, BC 1:00 p.m.~~

~~Present: Director Lawrence Chernoff, RDCK Director Leah Main, RDCK Director Joe Danchuk, RDKB Director Patricia Cecchini, RDKB Councillor Michael Dailly, City of Nelson (Alternate)~~

Others Present: Daniel Pizarro, Senior Regional Transit Manager, BC Transit Kevin Cormack, CAO, City of Nelson Randy Matheson, Research Analyst, RDCK Theresa Lenardon, Corporate Officer, RDKB (Recording Secretary) Mark Andison, General Manager of Operations/Deputy CAO, RDKB Sharman Thomas, Supervisor, Trail Transit Trevor Stach, General Manager, Trail Transit Greg Kinnear, Acting/Operations Manager, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, West Kootenay District Martin Gould, Transit Coordinator, ASLCS Jody Koehle, Garage & Transit Supervisor, City of Nelson Gerry Tennant, Transit Leadhand, City of Nelson John M. MacLean, CAO, RDKB (2:45 p.m.)

~~1. Call to Order RDKB General Manger of Operations / Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Mark Andison called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.~~

R. Matheson noted that the Committee appointment list has been amended to include Director Worley, RDKB Director, Electoral Area ‘B’/Lower Columbia-Old Glory as the third RDKB representative replacing RDKB Director Ted Pahl, Warfield.

~~Page 1 of 7 West Kootenay Transit Committee March 18, 2015 2. Committee Appointments~~

-Linda Worley (RDKB-Electoral Area ‘B’/Lower Columbia-Old Glory) -Patricia Cecchini (RDKB-Fruitvale) -Joe Danchuk (RDKB-Montrose) -Valerie Warmington (City of Nelson) -Michael Dailly (City of Nelson, Alternate) -Lawrence Chernoff (RDCK-Castlegar) -Leah Main (RDCK-Silverton) -Hans Cunningham (RDCK-Area G) -Ann Bunka (RDCK-New Denver, Alternate)

~~3. Election of Chair~~

~~Director Main nominated Director Chernoff as Chair of the West Kootenay Transit Committee for the year 2015.~~

~~Director Chernoff accepted the nomination.~~

~~Nominations were called a second and third time.~~

~~Hearing no further nominations, Director Chernoff was declared by acclamation Chair of the West Kootenay Transit Committee for 2015.~~

~~Chair Chernoff assumed the Chair.~~

~~4. Election of Vice Chair~~

~~Chair Chernoff called a first time for nominations for Vice-Chair of the West Kootenay Transit Committee for the year 2015.~~

~~Director Danchuk nominated Director Cecchini as Vice-Chair of the West Kootenay Transit Committee for the year 2015.~~

~~Director Cecchini accepted the nomination.~~

~~Chair Chernoff called a second and third time for nominations.~~

~~Hearing no further nominations, Chair Chernoff declared Director Cecchini by acclamation as Vice-Chair of the West Kootenay Transit Committee for the year 2015.~~

~~Page 2 of 7 West Kootenay Transit Committee March 18, 2015 5. Approval of the Agenda~~

R. Matheson advised that there were two late pieces of correspondence regarding the Nakusp/Slocan Valley transit service to add to the agenda as Items 8h2); letter from Mayor Bunka, Village of New Denver and 8h3) e-mail from Director Popoff, RDCK Area H/Slocan Valley.

~~Moved by Director Danchuk and seconded: That the agenda for the March 18, 2015 meeting of the West Kootenay Transit Committee be approved as amended. Carried~~

~~6. Approval of the Minutes~~

~~Moved by Director Main and seconded: That the minutes of the West Kootenay Transit Committee meeting held, May 7 2014 be approved as presented.~~

~~Carried 7. Reports~~

~~a) Daniel Pizarro, Senior Regional Transit Manager, BC Transit~~

~~Commencing with a power-point presentation, Mr. Pizarro provided information respecting the following topics:~~

1. Introduction/Transit Overview - Senior Regional Transit Managers stakeholder communications and operations and contract management, Who is BC Transit, shared services model, revenue/funding model, transit services, West Kootenay Transit Concept Plan 2. Annual Partner Communications Calendar - Annual partner communications 3. 2013/14 Annual Performance Summary of overall system and breakdown of partners; City of Nelson, Kootenay Boundary (Trail and Castlegar) and Kootenay Lake West. 4. March 16, 2015 Service Expansion Overview - service changes including introduction of Castlegar local Saturday service, changes to weekday service Nelson and Castlegar, one additional Saturday trip from Nelson-North Shore 1 additional Saturday trip to Balfour, 1 additional Saturday trip Slocan Valley and Grandview Heights pilot service 5. Overview of 3 Year Budgeting Process.

Mr. Pizarro explained his role and responsibilities as the Senior Regional Transit Manager noting that he works directly with staff from the participating Partners and with the local transit operators.

Page 3 of 7 West Kootenay Transit Committee March 18, 2015 The Committee reviewed the 2013/14 Performance Summary. There was a discussion regarding the statistics provided and reasons for increases and decreases. A breakdown of any decreases and increases in ridership, revenues and service hours will be provided in the Annual Performance Summary.

There was a discussion respecting the three-year Budget Plan and budgeting process which illustrates the available funding for the various local transit operations. To provide awareness of the budget implications, Mr. Pizarro explained that the Budget Plan for (AOA 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18) will remain flat, with no provisions for expansion and may result in decreased hours of operation.

Concerns were expressed about possible decreases to service levels as the three year budget does not include base line funding increases, which may result in a decrease in the West Kootenay ridership that has been gained in the past three years.

BC Transit is proposing a 2-stream approach to keep in line with the funding announcement; operational and administrative efficiency opportunities to protect customer service and examination of higher cost services to look for efficiencies and identify opportunities to rationalize lower performing services.

Moved by Director Main and seconded: That the Boards of the Regional District of Central Kootenay, Regional District of Kootenay Boundary and the Council of the City of Nelson send letters to the Honourable Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure encouraging the Minister to provide the Transit funding that will at a minimum, maintain current levels of Transit Service. Carried

~~It was agreed that this matter should also be added as an item to the agenda for the next Mayors Coalition meeting and that the partners local Chambers of Commerce be also be advised.~~

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit and Local Government Partners are working together to improve transit infrastructure such as bus shelters, pull outs, paving, signage, etc. throughout the Kootenays. There is funding available from the Ministry for infrastructure projects.

~~The Local Governments will prioritize infrastructure projects and work with MOTI in establishing a multiyear project list and attempt to secure funding.~~

~~Discussion ensued around prior years projects and the ability to do more if the Local Governments can cost share with MOTI.~~

~~Page 4 of 7 West Kootenay Transit Committee March 18, 2015 8. Communications/Correspondence~~

Moved by Director Danchuk and seconded: a) Caralyn Lee, Trail BC, Oct. 6/14 expressing concerns about the Rossland bus route. b) Village of Fruitvale, Dec. 31, 2014 requesting 1) transit service be provided to the Mountain Side Village Seniors Complex; and 2) run smaller buses in the off-peak hours. c) Feb./15 Mountainside Village with petition containing 55 signatures requesting taht transit service be provided to Mountain Side Village Seniors Complex. d) Janice Van Caeseele, RDCK Area E, Oct. 11/14 requesting transit service be brought back to Perrier Lane. e) To City of Nelson from residents of Perrier Road, Perrier Lane and Ymir Road, Oct 8 /14 with petition containing 122 signatures requesting transit service be brought back to their community and that the City of Nelson respond to the letter f) Village of Silverton Oct 29/14 requesting 1) a bus shelter be installed in Silverton and 2) the transit committee connect the Nakusp route to the Slocan Valley route with increased frequency g) Director Paul Peterson, RDCK Area K, Jan 15/15 expressing support for Village of Silverton’s request for more frequent and coordinated service between Nakusp and Slocan h) Village of Slocan, Jan 20/15 requesting changes to Slocan Valley Transit h2) Mayor Ann Bunka, Village of New Denver, Jan 15/15 requesting the Transit Committee pursue options to improve transit service in New Denver community h3) Walter Popoff, RDCK Director Area H/Slocan Valley, Dec 30/14 support for Village of Silverton requesting way to connect Nakusp route to Slocan/Slocan Valley route with greater frequency i) Director Ramona Faust, RDCK Area E, Dec 2/14 requesting scheduling changes in RDCK Area E.

~~That Communication/Correspondence Items 8a) through 8i) be received. Carried~~

It was moved by Director Cecchini and seconded: That the October 6, 2014 letter from Caralyn Lee, the December 31, 2014 letter from the Village of Fruitvale and the February 2015 letter and petition from Mountain Side Village Seniors Complex be referred to BC Transit with the request that these letters be considered during the Trail Transit Service Review. FURTHER that staff respond to the letters advising accordingly. Carried.

Page 5 of 7 West Kootenay Transit Committee March 18, 2015 There was a discussion regarding the requests and petition to extend transit service to the Perrier and Ymir Road areas and to bring transit service back to Perrier Lane.

It was moved by Director Main and seconded: That staff respond to the letters from Janice Van Caeseele, Perrier Lane and the residents and petitioners of Perrier Road, Perrier Lane and Ymir Road advising that further to the BC Transit Three Year 2015-2018 Funding Plan, there will be no expansion in service hours, but that their correspondences will remain on future agendas for discussion should expansion hours become available. Carried.

Director Main reviewed the requests and concerns respecting more frequent and improvements to the transit service and the installation of bus shelter in Silverton as noted in correspondence items f), g), h), h2) and h3).

It was moved by Director Danchuk and seconded: That staff be directed to send a letter to BC Transit requesting options and feasibility on increasing service between Nakusp’/Slocan/Nelson within current levels of funding. Carried.

Within the context of the West Kootenay Transit Concept Plan, the Committee discussed Director Faust’s request for scheduling changes in RDCK Area E; communication item i). There was agreement that given the three-year budget and the intent of the Concept Plan and the recommendations therein, that it will be difficult for the Committee to address all of the individual concerns that are received and that the overall matter needs to be addressed with a more holistic approach.

It was moved by Director Danchuk and seconded: That staff forward a letter to Director Faust acknowledging receipt of her letter and advising that further to the BC Transit Three Year 2015-2018 Funding Plan, there will be no expansion in service hours, but that her correspondences will remain on future agendas for discussion should expansion hours become available, and further that in regards to scheduling of the North Shore Transit Service, that BC Transit is aware of her concerns. Carried:

The Committee examined ways to manage and respond to the various concerns and requests respecting transit scheduling (expansion of hours) and adding transit routes in some locations. It was agreed that the Committee will develop a standard or a template in which to respond to the various requests. The overall matter will

~~Page 6 of 7 West Kootenay Transit Committee March 18, 2015 be referred to staff to develop a timeline to respond to transit concerns and requests.~~

~~9. New Business~~

Director Dailly, City of Nelson (Alternate) expressed his concerns and those of Director Faust that the new routes do not provide adequate transit services from the RDCK Communities to Nelson and to the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail and that there are transit issues in connecting the two hospitals. He explained the difficulties that elderly and ill individuals have in connecting to Nelson and Trail to attend at medical appointments and at the hospital.

Most communities throughout British Columbia experience these problems. An express schedule and route between Nelson and Trail hospitals as well as how handyDART services work were discussed as ways to mitigate problems for individuals connecting to the hospitals and to medical appointments in Trail and Nelson. handyDART services work in a more localized sense and are not intended to provide connections between communities.

~~This matter will remain on future agendas for further discussion and possible action.~~

~~There was a general discussion respecting ways to address the lack of increased funding over the next three years in relation to an expansion in service hours.~~

~~Mr. Pizarro will have an 18-month to 2-year marketing plan with best practices for the local transit partners and the Committee members for the next meeting.~~

~~10. Next Meeting~~

~~The next meeting will be held in the RDCK offices, Nelson BC sometime in June 2015 at the call of the Chair.~~

~~11. Adjournment~~

~~The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.~~

~~Page 7 of 7 West Kootenay Transit Committee March 18, 2015 Terms of Reference for the RDCK, RDKB West Kootenay Transit Committee~~

~~Purpose:~~

To make recommendations to the Boards of Directors of the Regional District of Central Kootenay and the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary and the City of Nelson on the West Kootenay Transit system

~~Authority:~~

~~Regional District of Central Kootenay~~

~~Regional District of Kootenay Boundary~~

~~City of Nelson~~

~~Local Government Act Sections 176 and 795~~

~~Mandate:~~

The West Kootenay Transit Committee is established under the Local Government Act Section 176 and 795 to provide advice and assist BC Transit, the RDCK and RDKB Boards of Directors and Council for the City of Nelson regarding transit service changes, fares, improvements, marketing, ridership, efficiencies, long term funding and governance.

~~Membership:~~

~~The Committee shall consist of:~~

a) Three (3) voting members of the RDKB Board of Directors b) Three (3) voting members of the RDCK Board of Directors, excluding the Directors from Electoral Areas B and C and the Town of Creston, one of whom shall be the Director from the City of Castlegar, or designate c) One (1) voting member who shall be the Director for the City of Nelson, or designate d) Staff from the RDKB, RDCK, Nelson and BC Transit, who will attend meetings as required as non-voting members.

~~Procedure:~~

1. All appointments to the West Kootenay Transit Committee must be made annually by the Board of the Regional District of Central Kootenay and Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. The City of Nelson appointee will be the Director for the City or designate. 2. The Committee will nominate and appoint a Chair. 3. The Committee will nominate and appoint a Vice Chair 4. The Regional District of Central Kootenay Procedure Bylaw, as amended from time to time, applies to all meetings of the West Kootenay Transit Committee. 5. A quorum shall be a majority of the total voting membership. 6. The Committee will meet as required, with meetings alternating between the head offices of each Regional District. 7. Minutes of each Committee meeting shall be kept by Regional District of Central Kootenay and forwarded to the Boards of Directors for each Regional District and Council for the City of Nelson for information. 8. The West Kootenay Transit Committee is not a budgetary decision making body. It forwards recommendations for consideration by each affected Board and Council. 9. No direct budget is given to this committee. All recommendations from the committee that involve budgetary expenditures will be approved by each affected Board and Council. 10. The Committee will endeavour to seek public input. 11. The responsibility for coordinating the meetings and taking minutes will alternate annually between the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary and the Regional District of Central Kootenay. 12. The mandate of the Committee shall be reviewed annually. 13. Any local government may opt out of participation in the West Kootenay Transit Committee by giving one year notice in writing to the Committee.

~~ADVISORY COMMITTEE~~

~~MINUTES~~

~~Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:30 a.m.~~

~~Location: Community Futures Nelson, BC~~

~~In Attendance: Tom Thomson Andrea Wilkey Bob Wright Janice Morrison Dianna Ducs Randy Horswill Anna Purcell Gary McCandlish Deb Kozak Kevin Cormack Sam VanSchie (minutes)~~

~~Regrets: Peggy Aitken Roger Higgins Justin Pelant Colin McClure Garry Kalinski Val Semeniuk Stuart Horn, RDCK~~

~~ Welcome and Introductions~~

~~We have two new NAEDP members for whom this is their first meeting. Welcome to Dianna Ducs, Executive Director of Nelson Kootenay Lake Tourism, and Nelson City Councillor Janice Morrison.~~

~~ NAEDP Partnership~~

~~a) NAEDP Presentation to Nelson City Council & RDCK Areas E&F Representatives~~

In February representatives from NAEDP (Colin, Tom and Andrea) made a presentation to Nelson City Council. The presentation included a brief update on our activities in 2014. We also requested that the city maintain our funding at the current amount for the next budget year. Due to the format of the meeting, there was not time for council to ask questions about our group. However, representatives from the NAEDP are available to meet with individual councillors one-on-one if requested. Minutes from our meetings are also shared with council.

~~We will also be meeting with RDCK Areas E&F before the end of March.~~

~~b) NAEDP Memorandum of Understanding Renewal~~

The 2010 MOU is up for renewal at the end of March. The 2015-2020 MOU will take effect on April 1. It formalizes the collaboration between the four signing groups: City of Nelson, Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce, Community Futures Central Kootenay, and RDCK Areas E&F.

~~ CBT Our Trust Our Future Engagement Debrief~~

In February, NAEDP participated in an engagement session with CBT to provide our input on what we feel should be included in their updated Economic Strategic Plan. CBT also plans to engage with the business community directly.

~~Action: Andrea will find out when CBT's business engagement sessions are happening and who has been invited.~~

~~ 2015 Strategic Plan~~

~~a) Business Retention & Expansion~~

We are in the process of applying for more funding to help us complete a new Business Retention & Expansion study. We hope to have the funding in place by early next quarter, at which point we'll hire a contractor to roll out the survey. The results will assist us with longterm strategic planning.

~~b) Broadband – Technology Adoption~~

~~We plan to host more workshops on broadband internet to help the business community understand the technology and how it can benefit their organization.~~

City of Nelson is in the process of hiring an IT Manager that will work directly with businesses. The role has been envisioned as part sales and part technical service. If a suitable candidate with both skill sets can't be found, there may be an option to split it into two jobs. There also may be an opportunity to share a Tech Adoption Consultant between Basin communities.

~~c) Intelligent Community~~

Nelson is a strong candidate for participation in Intelligent Community Forum programs because of our growing broadband network. We have talked to an economic analyst from the City of Surrey – one of the Top 7 Intelligent Communities in 2015 – and they are willing to provide some mentorship.

~~d) Outstanding Downtown/Roger Brooks~~

We plan to put together a working group that will advise us on how to turn Nelson's good downtown into an outstanding downtown. The group will be asked to meet for an hour, once per week for 10 weeks. Ideally the group will be comprised of 7-10 people and include representatives from City of Nelson council and administration, Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce, Nelson Kootenay Lake Tourism, business owners and building owners. The working group will be asked to set goals, develop a three-year action plan and identify potential funding sources.

~~ Reports~~

~~a) Cultural Development Commission Update – Dianna Ducs~~

The new cultural development commission held its first meeting. Their first projects will include creating a public art inventory, getting new poster kiosks installed downtown, and creating a heritage working group. There is also interest in a French language project that would allow Nelson to receive Économusée designation.

~~ Upcoming Events~~

~~a) Tom Rand – March 16~~

Best-selling author Tom Rand will be at the Capitol Theatre on March 16th, speaking about solutions to the climate change crisis. Rand's address starts at 7 pm, and a panel discussion will follow. The first 100 people arriving for the talk will receive a free copy of his new book, Waking the Frog. NAEDP is a sponsor of the event.

~~b) Nelson & District Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards~~

Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce has its Annual General Meeting, along with Business After Business and Business Excellence Awards on Wednesday, March 25th at the Adventure Hotel from 5pm to 7pm.

~~c) Junior Dragons Den – May 1~~

Junior Dragons’ Den, a West Kootenay/ Boundary wide youth business competition, will host its second annual live show at the Charles Bailey Theatre in Trail on May 1. All are welcome to attend. The event is free and open to the public.

This year's contestants are: Junior category - Track It, Helping Paws for a Cause, Power Studs, 3 Little Pigs Live Stock, Virtu Skis, Sparrx Senior category - Use It or Lose It, BCS Firewood, PHLO (Positive Hoop Life), Bamboo Boys, Soothing Sounds College/ University/ Trades - Ideas Cafe

~~ Other Business~~

~~a) Invest Kootenay/Work West Kootenay~~

Invest Kootenay started 10 years ago to attract business investment in across East and West Kootenays. The project was spearheaded by Community Futures and partnering communities. Work West Kootenay was started last year by the Lower Columbia Initiatives Corporation, with a similar mandate as Invest Kootenay. Because of their overlapping goals, the two projects have agreed to merge. The outcome will be one website that features lifestyle, jobs and investment opportunities across the East and West Kootenay. Invest Kootenay is long overdue for a redesign and will benefit from the work WWK has already undertaken to create an attractive, user-friendly website.

~~b) West Kootenay Economic Development Dialogue~~

WKEDD was initially formed four years ago at the request of past mayors in Nelson, Castlegar, Rossland and Trail. In the 2015 municipal election, three of those past mayors were replaced. At a Mayors Meeting on March 9, 2015, the mayors decided to step away from the WKEDD. The mayors have encouraged non-political members of the WKEDD to continue meeting.

WKEDD met on March 10, 2015 to discuss the future of the group and after some discussion there was no resolution on how to move forward. WKEDD will meet again in June to review the BRE data for the region and see if that sparks any new ideas for a project for the group to undertake.

~~c) Airport~~

Southern Interior MP Alex Atamanenko and Kootenay Columbia MP David Wilks are bringing our airport concerns to the Transportation Minister. Deb Kozak is in touch with Atamanenko and will let us know if their meetings result in anything.

~~d) SFU CED~~

There's interest in bringing instructors from SFU to Nelson to offer the Community Economic Development Certificate Program if we can meet the minimum enrolment requirement of 18 people. The course would cover loconomics, social innovation, leadership for localism, and new economy study tours. Tuition costs $4,800. BC Job Grants could cover 2/3 of the tuition fee for qualifying employers.

~~ Business Roundtable (Industry Snapshot)~~

~~Gary McCandlish – There's a new barber in Balfour. The restaurant at the ferry terminal has new owners and will re-open soon. Golf season is staring early.~~

~~Dianna Ducs – Tourism was up 11% last year (Nov. 1, 2013 to Oct. 31, 2014). Nelson Kootenay Lake Tourism has a new website.~~

~~ Adjournment of Meeting~~

~~Next meeting: Coordinating Committee Meeting June 10, 2015. Deryn Collier will be making a presentation on doctor recruitment.~~

~~Adjourned: 11:12 am Nelson and District Youth Centre Advisory Committee Meeting March 31, 2015 at 4:30pm~~

~~Meeting Minutes~~

~~Present: Jeff Yasinchuk (JY), Fitz McGoey (FM), Geoff Burns (GB), Jordan Dupuis (JD), Tara Grey (TG), Christine Vanlerberg (CV) Regrets: Janice Morrison (JM), Val Warmington (VM), Tim Huttemann (TM)~~

~~1. Welcome No guests~~

~~2. Agenda Moved for acceptance JD Seconded CV~~

~~3. Minutes of last meeting – February 24, 2015 Moved for acceptance FM Seconded JD~~

4. ED report • CIP grant application for skatepark ambassador placed to present to council on April 13th • Osprey grant for $900 for supplies towards redesign project on main floor; reply mid-May • Marty meeting with Kim Palfenier from Nelson Sports Council to see about funding assistance for NDYC • TG put in CBT Grant to supplement staffing during School District Pro-D and Spring Break times • NDYC to continue with campground maintenance; host (overnight + two days a week); campground attendant (5 days a week); support staff (two youth aged 15- 30; 4 hours a day) • Official quote for ground level renovations: $13 000 • Red Cross operated babysitting course at NDYC with 19 youth; planning to do future courses • Extra funding available in staffing budget to hire

5. Old Business a. By-Law Amendment for Youth Centre Committee • To be reviewed by committee after strategic plan review b. Terms of Reference • TOR accepted and passed by NDYC committee • Looking for one more member at large; to create a matrix of current member strengths to determine any specific needs among committee members; CV to forward a template to committee • Fitz to pass document to city for ratification/acceptance

c. Strategic planning review notes • Members to take general look at SP; ‘Advisory Committee’ component to be reviewed at April meeting; one section of SP to be addressed during each successive committee meetings

~~6. New Business a. Walk So Kids Can Talk event to raise money for the Kids Helpline. TG offered to help organize a local event. To be addressed at May committee meeting.~~

~~7. Reports None~~

~~8. Next meeting Tuesday, April 28, 2015~~

~~9. Adjourned Meeting adjourned at 5:22 PM.~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISON~~

DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular TOPIC: INFORMATION ITEMS PROPOSAL: Council Action Item Listing PROPOSED BY: Staff ______ITEMS SUMMARY: The attached list reflects the accumulation of Council resolutions passed to date that require further action. Staff updates the current status of action items to reflect the progress made on each Council resolution.

~~Schedules: Item # Schedule Action~~

~~1. Council Action Item Listing : Receive for information May 4, 2015~~

~~STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council passes the following resolution: That the Council Action Item List presented on May 4, 2015 be received for information.~~

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~______DEPUTY CORPORATE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~~

~~Action Item Listing – May 4, 2015~~

Staff Meeting Due Status Description Resolution Status Update Responsible Date Date Recommendations from February 4th THAT staff add a review of the This item has not yet been 30 and 17th, feasibility of commercial waste pickup Frances 03 Mar Assigned addressed at a priority setting Jun 2014 Committee to be considered in the 2014 priority Long 2014 session. 2015 of the Whole setting process. meetings Recommendation from December 22, 2014 COW THAT the 2014 Food Security Gap 30 Meeting about Analysis and Asset Mapping Report Frances 12 Jan Assigned Jun Food Security and be referred to Council’s 2015 priority Long 2015 2015 Gap Analysis and setting session. Asset Mapping Project The protocol was reviewed at the 2014 priority setting session. 30 Aboriginal That the City of Nelson prepare an A copy of the original draft policy 15 Jun Assigned Jo Caldecott Jun Protocol aboriginal protocol. was forwarded to Council for 2009 2015 their review. Staff is compiling the results of the Council review. At the 2014 priority setting session, this policy was given a priority of low as requests are THAT staff be directed to add to infrequent. Provincial liquor 30 Alcohol in Public the list of priorities development of a 13 Jun Assigned Jo Caldecott licensing laws are under review Jun Places Policy policy for the serving of alcohol in City 2011 and it was determined this 2015 parks at special events. review should be complete prior to a Council policy regarding this matter. THAT staff provide a report to Staff will review the application 04 Cities Fit For 11 Aug Assigned Council in early 2016 on the staff and Jo Caldecott process and provide a report in Jan Children Summit 2014 budget implications of hosting the early 2016. 2016 Action Item Listing – May 4, 2015

Staff Meeting Due Status Description Resolution Status Update Responsible Date Date 2017 Cities Fit for Children Summit. That staff provide a report to Council considering creation of an advisory 2015 Columbia committee to adjudicate the Pending completion of 2015 07 Basin Trust 19 Jan Assigned environmental, social and economic Jo Caldecott CBT grant season ~ bring Sep Community 2015 CBT CIP applications and provide forward in the fall 2015 Initiatives Program recommendations to Council for the 2016 CBT/CIP process. THAT Council directs staff to respond to the Cultural Development Committee and Nelson Regional Sports Council and provide Nelson Regional information regarding 30 Kevin Work on this matter has not 09 Jun Assigned Sports Council - the request for gutters on the Civic Jun Cormack commenced. 2014 Mural Project Centre; and 2015 - the time line (and process) for deciding on the future and design of the area between Hall Street and the Civic Centre. Review based on output of Downtown/Waterfront plan. Adopt and implement the That staff bring a report back to downtown/waterfront plan is Outdoor Cafes council regarding permanent listed as item 5 on council's and Use of 30 structures for outdoor cafes and strategic priorities. This item 06 Dec Assigned Sidewalk & Pam Mierau Sep how they fit within the Outdoor cafes was given a medium priority at 2010 Parking Spaces 2015 and Use of Sidewalk & Parking the priority setting session in Policy Spaces policy (5400.00.010). 2014. Items with a priority setting of medium are anticipated to be completed in 2015. Assigned Public Amenity THAT staff develop a policy to Pam Mierau At the October 28, 2013 priority 06 Aug 30 Action Item Listing – May 4, 2015

Staff Meeting Due Status Description Resolution Status Update Responsible Date Date Space provide balance between public and setting session it was 2013 Sep private use of public amenities. determined by Council that this 2015 item be reviewed with the Outdoor Cafes and Use of Sidewalk & Parking Spaces Policy. Review of this policy was given a medium priority setting in 2014. Items with a priority setting of medium are expected to be completed in 2015. That Staff investigate hiring a consultant to develop a holistic streetscape improvement guideline, which includes developing a lighting Due to staffing changes in the plan, for Nelson’s downtown. 30 Christmas Lights Development Services 07 Jul Assigned Macdonald/Kozak CARRIED Pam Mierau Jun on Baker Street Department, work on this item 2014 That Staff provide a report on the 2015 has not commenced. expected cost and scope of work for the consultant by November 2014. Batycki/Kiss CARRIED

The OCP amendments will incorporate recommendations of the Active Transportation Plan. Dev Services staff will work in That staff prepare a Work Programme conjunction with Operations and Active and proposed budget to move forward 30 Engineering staff to complete 12 Apr Active Transportation with the recommendations in the final Pam Mierau Sep which includes an update to the 2010 Report report prepared by Opus International 2015 Sidewalk Maintenance Policy Consultants. anticipated to be complete by end of first quarter 2014 and a report on bicycle rack standards for the October 2013 meeting. Action Item Listing – May 4, 2015

Staff Meeting Due Status Description Resolution Status Update Responsible Date Date That Staff be directed to complete a first phase analysis for Council’s review of city owned vacant titled and First phase of the City Land untitled land inventory including a Inventory was presented at the 30 City Land discussion on departmental Dec 12th, 2011 Committee of 11 Oct Active Pam Mierau Sep Inventory assessment of each site as well as the the Whole meeting. This is 2011 2015 order of magnitude costs associated included in council's strategic with transfer/ sale prior to proceeding priorities for 2012-2014. with a comprehensive review of all city-owned land.

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISON~~

DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular TOPIC: INFORMATION ITEMS PROPOSAL: Council Bylaw Priority Listing PROPOSED BY: Staff ______ITEMS SUMMARY: The attached document reflects updates on the status of Council’s Bylaw Priority List. Each year Council reviews this list and determines the priority of City bylaws that require review.

~~Schedules: Item # Schedule Action~~

~~1. Council Bylaw Priority Receive for information Listing : May 4, 2015~~

~~STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That Council passes the following resolution: That the Council Bylaw Priority List presented on May 4, 2015 be received for information.~~

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~______DEPUTY CORPORATE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~~

~~Council’s Bylaw Priority List – May 4, 2015~~

~~Priority Description Bylaw Action Required Status Update~~

Number High 01 Water Utility 1500 Reviewing rate structure The draft bylaw is being reviewed by the City's Operations and Regulatory for 2015 budget, update Development Services Departments. Given recent staff changes Bylaw the review has been delayed and a meeting will be held during the fall to continue the review process. High 02 Sewer 1893 Outdated; missing The Sewer Rental, Sewer Connection and Liquid Waste & Rental / regulations Deleterious materials bylaws have been dispatched to the City's Regulatory lawyers for consolidation into a single sewer regulatory bylaw. Bylaw Administration has followed up with the lawyers to request the new bylaw. It is hoped the first round of staff review will take place in fall 2014. High 03 Business 2419 Outdated/ Home Based Amendments were made in 2013 to allow for bylaw enforcement Licence Bylaw Business Review penalties. This bylaw will be contracted out to legal for total redevelopment in 2015 after the Local Govt. Elections High 04 Cemetery Move rates to Fees and A consultant was hired by the City of Creston to review rates and Bylaw - Rates Charges Bylaw/Update a copy of that report was provided to Nelson indicating that Rates Nelson's rates require revision. Staff from Operations, Finance, Development Services and Administration met in the fall of 2014 to review the required changes. A new draft Cemetery Bylaw was prepared however given the busy election period and staff changes in 2014 this bylaw has not progressed further. A second review of the draft bylaw is currently under review by new City staff. High 05 Parks 1497/2843 Outdated Minor amendments were made to the bylaw during 2013 to allow Bylaw/Parks for bylaw penalties. This bylaw needs to be combine the Parks Facilities Rate Regulatory and Park Facilities Rates into a single bylaw with the Bylaw rates being included as a schedule to the Fees and Charges bylaw. It is likely this bylaw review will take place in 2015. High 06 Storm Drain 2354 Update Rates - Bylaw Rates need to be revised. Regulations to be reviewed by System has not been amended operations department. This review will likely take place once the Connection since being passed in Water Bylaw review is completed. Bylaw 1989. Operations want rates revised to cover today's costs.

~~Page 1~~

~~Council’s Bylaw Priority List – May 4, 2015~~

Medium 01 Sign 2027 Outdated/include Addition of Bylaw Notice penalties recommended. To include Regulation sandwich board regulation of sandwich boards. Bylaw regulations/penalties Medium 02 Keeping of New Bylaw Separate bylaw for the regulating of bee keeping in the City. Bees Medium 03 Keeping of New Bylaw Separate bylaw for the regulating of keeping of hens in the City. Hens Medium 04 Animal 2333 Outdated - include Amendments to the existing Animal Control bylaw to be Regulation updates for keeping of considered by Council at the February 2015 and Control hens and dog restricted zones Medium 05 Property 2375 Outdated Minor amendments to the bylaw were implemented in 2013 to Maintenance add Bylaw Notice penalties. The scope of this bylaw may be expanded and incorporated into a Good Neighbour Bylaw. Medium 06 Airport 2328 Update Bylaw Update Bylaw and rates need to be reviewed due to the doubling Bylaw of assessed values in 2012 (rental rates are based on 15% of the assessed land value). Review needs to be completed prior to termination of current hangar agreements (most terminate at the end of 2015). Medium 07 Clean Air 2414 New Bylaw To replace the existing Smoking bylaw and broaden the scope by incorporating Anti-Idling and Smoke-free Outdoor Spaces as well as e-cigarettes. Staff has been advised that BC is planning to regulate e-cigarettes and introduce new legislation in Spring 2015. Low 03 Youth 2864 Update outdated Update outdated language, bring into standardized format for Centre language and new other council committees. The Youth Centre Advisory Committee Committee language to properly is reviewing the current bylaw and will provide recommendations reflect what the to staff for update. Committee does Low 05 Wharf 2948/2950 Outdated Outdated amend

~~Page 2~~

~~THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NELSON REQUEST FOR DECISION~~

DATE: May 4, 2015 Regular TOPIC: Notice of Motion PROPOSAL: Proposed motion regarding Transit in BC PROPOSED BY: Councillor Warmington ______ANALYSIS SUMMARY: At the April 20th Special meeting Councillor Warmington brought forward a Notice of a Motion regarding funding levels for BC Transit.

~~BACKGROUND: Background information will be provided at meeting.~~

~~BENEFITS, DISADVANTAGES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS: N/A~~

~~LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS, PRECEDENTS, POLICIES: It is within Council’s authority to support the resolution.~~

~~COSTS AND BUDGET IMPACT - REVENUE GENERATION: N/A~~

~~IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES AND STAFF RESOURCES: N/A~~

~~COMMUNICATIONS: If the motion passes, letters will be sent to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and the Nelson and District Chamber of Commerce.~~

~~OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1. Pass the proposed motion 2. Amend the proposed motion 3. Deny the proposed motion 4. Refer to staff with other direction~~

~~ATTACHMENTS: • BC Government Media Release dated March 27, 2015 • BC Transit Independent Review March 2012 • Nelson Star article dated April 2, 2015~~

~~RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR WARMINGTON:~~

WHEREAS the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has announced an immediate three year freeze on operational funding levels for BC Transit which: - may result in decreased hours of transit operations with an attendant loss of ridership;

- may jeopardize recent improvements to transit service in Nelson and between Nelson and neighboring communities and in particular between Nelson and Trail which is essential to public access to the regional hospital and; - will eliminate the possibility of adding to the existing system to meet currently unmet community need and; - works against further reduction in greenhouse gas emissions possible through greater use of public transit as an alternative to private vehicles

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Nelson writes a letter to the Honourable Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, urging him to reconsider the decision to freeze operational funding to transit and to, at a minimum, allocate sufficient funding to maintain existing levels of transit service; and FURTHER THAT the City of Nelson writes a letter to the Nelson Chamber of Commerce urging them to encourage the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure similarly.

~~AUTHOR: REVIEWED BY:~~

~~TE-~~

~~______DEPUTY CORPORATE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~~

~~Iona :SE:o€m_ H=8_.Bmao= 22225 wmmmHowN~~

~~zcznnnuz. n2102.£>._.uOZ 2m...¢~~

~~‘I :~~

~~wwzdm OOHKCZWC» <5<€.mc....r.:..na mam: oo_:_.:Em _u_.o<_=nm_umm_=m9.05:. _.m<_m<~~

~~_<_m«o: MN83~~

~~._.Emv8<__._o_m_mo~~

~~. I::._m_.. qmmoE6mm_ umzzmqmm~mm3m_:m_mann8o:_.m3m:n . Emom_ 8_.mommE.mmanmm2wom._m~~

~~._.:mmo.OocEo§< AC4.>v_ sEomm 8_m Emm 8 <_Em v:_u__o¢m:m: m~~

~~E8$282_BE:n€m:hwo=mrnomivabnxnmémhwu?vnm88m.§omTm> ~w\?So_ m moanHzssmomcmwHnmonswmobZm2~~

~~m>o_8moczom_» mo._._.m:w:n35: _~m<_m<<._.m:sm2 wmmmnmsnm~~

~~._.Em uc?omm 2 Em _.m<~m<<.m8 mxm3_:m mo..._.m:m:.monmqmzosm._u_m:_._EmmanEqmomwzzm.mag a:m:n_m__om:.o_.3m:om.._.:m_.m<_m<<<<___Sxm E3 mooocz» mo._.E:m=_m o..=_.m:» mmwsomEm:manEzazm _m~~

~~._._._m_.m<_m<<<<___mmmmmmmo?m:m=_m _u_m::_:mman_uo..momm=:m._:o_:aEm” 0 _.m__m2 3 mmom_qonmommnm8 Em_uEma.uramm.manBmsmmmmom?man a mm? m_m~~

~~10.. 303 _=_“o_.3mmo: U~~

~~0_.mu:.Nm:o_.: mam:0o_:3c_m Oo~~

~~_ E3...E223.B§§wm_Emo=mH.ooB€1E\=m€m.nEu.Evummmmmm Eau? wmséwo m This is the content supplied, without the additional content expected. Set in 11pt condensed, no headings, titles or images.~~

~~BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review~~

Table of Contents On March 15, 2012 the B.C. Government appointed a three-person Independent Review Introduction / Executive summary 1 Panel to review BC Transit performance and operations. The review was in response to concerns Message: Minister Mary Polak 2 from some local governments about aspects of BC Transit operations that aff ect their commu- Message: Joe Stanhope, Regional District nities. The independent panel held 25 meetings with 40 local governments across the province, of Nanaimo, Chairperson 2 and received 30 submissions from local government and other key stakeholders. It delivered Message: Heath Slee, President UBCM 2 the report, including 18 recommendations, to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure 1 Government Letter of Expectation 3 on August 1, 2012. 2 BC Transit Board Size 3 3i Board Skills Matrix 3 The government immediately published the report online, giving local governments and the 3ii Appointment of Board Members 3 general public the opportunity to review the recommendations before issuing a response. 3iii Non-elected Board Members 3 The report confirmed that BC Transit provides first-rate, efficient and cost-effective transit 3iv Staggered Board Terms 4 services to the people of British Columbia. While the delivery of transit services works well in 3v Board Appointment Guidelines 4 British Columbia, there is always room for improvement. The report also highlighted the need 4 Appointment of Commission Members 4 for stronger partnership and better communication around transportation planning and deliv- 5i Approval of Capital Projects 4 ery. Its key themes are governance, decision-making and accountability. 5ii Approval of System-Wide Capital Decisions 4 The Review Panel recommendations highlight the need to communicate eff ectively and to 5iii Notice to BC Transit of Service Change 5 re-evaluate how the BC Transit Board operates. The government is excited at the prospect of 5iv Policy Consultation with Local working cooperatively with BC Transit and local governments to reach the vision articulated so Government 5 clearly in the report, aptly named: Modernizing the Partnership. 5v Engagement of Local Government Continued on P2 and Operators 5 6 BC Transit Involvement in Local Government Planning 5 7 BC Transit Strategic Communications Plan 5 8 Clear Direction on Provincial Transit Plan 5 9 Improvement to Operating Agreements 6 10 Multi-Year Operating Agreements 6 11 Single Agreement 6 12 Appropriate Service Standards 6 13 BC Transit Performance Reports 7 14 Performance Reporting Templates 7 15 Annual BC Transit Reports 7 16 Commercial Ventures 7 17 Capital Funding Approval with Output Targets 7 18 Intercity Transit Policy 7 VRTC Governance of Victoria Transit System 8 For more information 8

~~1 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review~~

Continued from P1 Joe Stanhope Partnerships are only as strong as the commitment to make Regional District of Nanaimo Chairperson them work. The Review Panel’s report is a roadmap showing how to improve our public transit system, and a call to action I would like to take this opportunity to to both provincial and local governments to revitalize our thank the Province and the members partnership. of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel for their hard work throughout Minister’s Message this important process. The Regional District of Nanaimo It has been just over a year since rep- operates one of British Columbia’s resentatives from local governments larger transit systems in partnership with BC Transit. While we voiced concern about their relation- appreciate the benefits of working with BC Transit, the RDN ship with BC Transit. Our government started having a number of concerns about the partnership took those concerns very seriously and and how it was working. We worked with other local govern- appointed an independent panel to ments across BC and brought those concerns to the Minister review BC Transit. I am impressed with asking for an independent review. The Minister listened to our the work of the independent panel concerns about BC Transit and responded by setting up an in- and believe the report and our response provide a comprehen- dependent review panel. I am hopeful the recommendations sive foundation to move forward and improve transit service of the panel will give local government and BC Transit new for families and communities in British Columbia. ideas and tools that will improve the way we can work togeth- As the independent panel confirmed, we have an excellent er, particularly in the areas of rising costs, funding, governance transit system in British Columbia, particularly in terms of rid- and communications. ership, supply of service and efficiency of the services provided. This has been a very good process conducted by an excellent Our province is well recognized for providing the highest per three-member panel. The independent panel worked hard to capita transit investment in Canada, making it possible to offer obtain meaningful feedback from local governments, and the transit services in many smaller communities in addition to our resulting report will be very helpful as we move forward. larger cities. Thank you very much to the Minister of Transportation for the The panel confirmed that BC Transit provides good value and strong support for this independent review. efficient service; however there is always room for improvement. We intend to modernize the shared system so that Heath Slee local governments and BC Transit have the right tools to deliver Union of British Columbia Municipalities, President service in each of the unique and diverse communities that The approach taken by the Ministry they serve. of Transportation and Infrastructure We recognize the need for an approach that suits the diverse on the BC Transit independent review needs of all B.C. families and communities. For example, the has been consultative and helpful. The service needs in communities like Dawson Creek, are much independent panel did a good job at different than in Nanaimo or Kelowna. Our aim in this response engaging local governments to solicit is to strengthen the partnership between local governments meaningful feedback. The release and BC Transit with better information sharing and a more of the report provided another step open decision making process while recognizing that this part- forward and was well received. Now that the provincial gov- nership must be flexible enough to accommodate the unique ernment has provided an official response to the report, local needs of every community. We have an excellent transit system governments will be able to judge for themselves whether in British Columbia. By continuing to work together, we will en- the recommendations address the concerns raised during the sure an even better transit service, one that continues to meet consultation period. I encourage all communities that utilize the diverse needs of all B.C. families and communities. BC Transit’s service to provide feedback to the Minister.

~~2 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review~~

1 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should work with local governments and with public transit services to develop the Government Letter of Expectations to BC Transit. The Letter of Expectations should clearly establish the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of the provincial government, local governments and BC Transit. }} Lead Organizations: Union of British Columbia Municipalities, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: The Government of British Columbia will ask UBCM to develop a process that encourages local governments to provide timely and relevant input for the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure to consider in the Government Letter of Expectation to BC Transit. The Minister will consider the local government perspective when defining expectations for BC Transit. The first cycle of this process must conclude by June 2013 to be considered for the next Government Letter of Expectation.

2 The provincial government should increase the membership of the Board of Directors from seven to nine. While this recommendation requires legislative change, the following recommendation (Recommendation 3) can be implemented with either a seven or nine person Board. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: The B.C. Government supports strengthening the Board of Directors, and will assess the benefits, challenges and logistics of expanding the size of the board. In the meantime, government will proceed immediately with all elements of Recommendation 3.

3 Recognize the partnership for the delivery of public transit at the BC Transit Board. Specifically: 3i. The Board of BC Transit should provide local governments with a Board skills matrix to guide the selection of nominees to the Board. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit }} Next Steps: All partners in the delivery of BC Transit services will benefit from a skilled, qualified and motivated Board of Directors. BC Transit is currently identifying the skills requirements to ensure that the most highly qualified candidates are considered and approached for board appointments. 3ii. The provincial government should revise the appointment process for the Board of Directors to allow local government to directly appoint representatives to the Board. Prior to legislative change Cabinet should accept board nominations from local governments for appointment to the Board. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: An effective board of directors accurately reflects and articulates the interests of all partner-members. The B.C. Government invites UBCM to establish and administer a process for local governments to identify and recommend qualified individuals for the BC Transit Board and Transit Commissions. These names will be put forward for the consideration of the Minister. 3iii. It is common practice that elected officials do not sit on the boards of crown agencies, since their responsibilities as Director may conflict with their accountabilities as an elected official. The Panel considered two options for the appointment of the local government representatives and did not reach a conclusion on a preferred approach. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: As above, an effective board of directors accurately reflects and articulates the interests of all partner- members. The Minister is satisfied that the current process of including elected officials on the Board of BC Transit works well, and expects no changes in the immediate future.

~~3 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review~~

3iv. Provincial government and local government Board appointments should be made on the basis of staggered terms to allow for Board continuity. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit, local governments }} Next Steps: A board of directors that strikes a balance between refreshing turnover and stability among its membership will be able to develop and implement a long-term vision. Together, the Ministry and the BC Transit Board will develop a new appointment process to create staggered board terms to help ensure board continuity. 3v. The provincial government and local government should negotiate appointment guidelines to be consistent with standard board practices regarding appointments and terms. In order to implement these recommendations, local governments would need to determine the appropriate body to coordinate the appointment process. }} Lead Organizations: UBCM, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: As with Recommendation 3iv, the Ministry will begin consulting immediately with local government on the appointment process. These will continue to be consistent with legislation and government appointment policies, including Board Resourcing and Development Office requirements. 4 The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act to allow local government to appoint all members of a transit commission and allow the transit commission to hire its own clerical and technical staff. In the interim, Cabinet should accept nominations from local governments for appointment to transit commissions and BC Transit will continue to provide clerical and technical staff to transit commissions. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, local government }} Next Steps: The Ministry will work with local governments for support in developing new, transparent and effective ways to nominate representatives for consideration to transit commissions. While nominations must continue to be consistent with legislation, there are opportunities to explore new processes that strengthen the board’s effectiveness. The provincial government will continue to fund BC Transit activities as a shared service, and local governments can continue to hire additional clerical or technical staff if they choose. 5 Local government and BC Transit decision making authority should rest with the partner that bears the consequences or benefits of any decision. Where a decision of one partner will have an impact on the other partner, consultation should occur: 5i. The BC Transit Board should ensure that BC Transit decision making explicitly considers the impact on local governments and should ideally include a mechanism for local government sign off. For example, the BC Transit Board told the Panel that all decisions of the BC Transit Board that have capital cost implications for an individual transit system must have local government approval. BC Transit should ensure that all local governments are aware of this policy. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, UBCM }} Next Steps: Together, BC Transit and local governments will identify opportunities and appropriate processes to ensure local voices are heard by BC Transit, and that BC Transit keeps local governments current on issues that will directly affect them. In many cases, this can happen within existing mechanisms (e.g. Transit’s Enterprise Investment Initiative and renegotiation of Annual Operating Agreements between BC Transit and local governments). 5ii. The BC Transit Board should ensure that any system wide capital spending decisions made by the BC Transit Board has input from an advisory panel consisting of local government representatives. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local governments }} Next Steps: The BC Government agrees an advisory panel is an option worthy of consideration. The BC Government encourages local governments to provide their input to the BC Transit Board.

~~4 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review~~

5iii. Local governments should provide sufficient notice to BC Transit on service adjustments so that the financial consequences of that decision are appropriately shared between the partners. }} Lead Organizations: UBCM, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The government encourages local government to carefully consider decisions that have financial consequences and to provide sufficient notice to BC Transit on service adjustments that have financial implications. 5iv. The Province should consult with local governments on provincial public transit policy. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: In partnership with BC Transit, the Ministry will consult with local government on appropriate public transit policy, including intercity transit policy (See Recommendation 18). 5v. BC Transit should ensure that it engages with and considers the input of local governments and transit operating companies in route planning and scheduling activities. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit }} Next Steps: BC Transit will consult with local governments and operating companies to enhance agreements and clarify the roles and input of the parties into route planning and scheduling. Working together will ensure that local knowledge and expertise are part of the decision-making process.

6 Local government should involve BC Transit in key planning issues and invite BC Transit to participate in official community planning processes. Local governments should provide BC Transit with information regarding decisions that may impact public transit including: Long term municipal transit budgets; Land use planning; and Transportation planning and zoning decisions that will result in developments that will require transit services, or impact the ability to deliver public transit. These requirements should be outlined in operating agreements between BC Transit and local governments. }} Lead Organizations: UBCM, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The Ministry encourages local government to include BC Transit in key planning issues that may affect public transit. Working together will ensure that local knowledge and expertise are part of the decision-making process.

7 BC Transit should develop a strategic communications plan that includes provincial government, BC Transit and local government strategic goals for transit and share the plan with local governments. The plan should outline key dates and timelines for provincial government, BC Transit and local government decision making processes. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, UBCM }} Next Steps: The Ministry will provide information and support to BC Transit as it develops a strategic communications plan. This includes budget building and approval processes, submission deadlines for project or operating budgets and other timely and relevant information.

8 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should provide BC Transit with clear direction on its role in implementing the Provincial Transit Plan. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The Ministry will work with BC Transit staff to define BC Transit’s role in implementing the Provincial Transit Plan through the Government’s Letter of Expectation. Ministry staff will work with BC Transit to provide detail around the terms and deliverables in the Government’s Letter of Expectation.

~~5 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review~~

9 BC Transit and local governments should enhance accountability in operating agreements. While some roles and responsibilities are contained in existing Master Operating Agreements and Annual Operating Agreements, accountabilities could be strengthened by: 9i. Establishing information sharing requirements appropriate for all partners in operating agreements, including timelines and dates, performance measures (see recommendation 13) and local government planning (see recommendation 6). }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local government }} Next Steps: The Government of British Columbia supports this recommendation. 9ii. Establishing local government financial accountability for service decisions that result in costs that must be covered by BC Transit (see recommendation 5) }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local government }} Next Steps: The B.C. Government supports greater financial accountability from all partners, including local government. 9iii. Improving transparency by including the provincial share of debt servicing costs }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local government }} Next Steps: BC Transit will provide information about the provincial share of debt servicing costs to local governments. 9iv. Committing BC Transit to provide financial information to local governments based on the calendar year. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, UBCM }} Next Steps: BC Transit will consult with local governments to ensure that annual financial information is provided in a format that meets local governments’ reporting needs.

10 The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to enable multi-year operating agreements. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The Ministry and BC Transit will work together to determine what existing measures may allow for multi-year operating agreements.

11 The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to require only one agreement between local governments and BC Transit, and one operating agreement between BC Transit and a transit operating company for each transit service area. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: The Ministry and BC Transit will work together to determine what existing measures may allow BC Transit to enter into: one agreement with local government; and one agreement with the transit operating company, for each transit service area.

12 BC Transit should work with local governments to set appropriate service standards for each transit system and provide annual data on system and route performance. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, UBCM }} Next Steps: BC Transit has already started to establish performance standards and will consult with local government on their expectations.

~~6 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review~~

13 BC Transit should provide reports to Councils and Regional District Boards at least twice a year on: system ridership; cost per capita; passengers per capita; service hours per capita; cost per hour; cost per rider; and revenue cost ratio. BC Transit should also provide each local Council and Board comparisons with peers and performance over time for each of these measures. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit }} Next Steps: BC Transit will amend its reporting schedule to provide this key information to local governments.

14 BC Transit should develop, in partnership with local government staff, performance reporting templates which meet local government staff needs. The review panel offered templates as part of its review. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local governments }} Next Steps: BC Transit will consult with local governments to implement templates that best meet the needs of local governments.

15 BC Transit should report in detail annually to local government on its administration costs, its fleet management activities and the benefits it provides from centralized purchasing in comparison to other transit systems across Canada. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit }} Next Steps: BC Transit will include this information in its Corporate Annual Report and other appropriate communications. The Ministry encourages BC Transit and local governments to work together proactively and share information.

16 The provincial government should provide the Board of BC Transit with the authority to authorize commercial revenue activities within an established framework. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The Ministry supports commercial ventures as a significant opportunity to generate transit revenue when specific requirements are met: there is no direct competition with the private sector or another local government, and revenues are used to offset public investment. As a first step, the Province will provide the BC Transit Board with policy guidelines, including how partners would share any resulting revenues.

17 The provincial government should provide BC Transit its capital funding through the established service plan process with output targets. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: Together, the Ministry and BC Transit staff will determine what areas of the service plan process may need to be enhanced (e.g. capital planning) and will confirm service plan processes and output targets.

18 The provincial government should develop a policy framework for intercity routes among multiple jurisdictions and if required amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to provide for a stable mechanism to implement these routes }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: An intercity transit policy to address commuter service to regional centers is in development. The Government of British Columbia will consult with local governments as this policy is developed.

~~7 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review~~

Victoria Regional Transit Commission The Review Panel did not find consensus on transit governance in Greater Victoria, and instead, presented three options. The Government of British Columbia expects local governments in Greater Victoria will continue their discussion and is prepared to re-examine this issue once a consensus is reached. For more information: }} BC Transit Review website: www.th.gov.bc.ca/BC_Transit_Review/index.html }} BC Transit website: www.bctransit.com/ }} BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure website: www.th.gov.bc.ca }} UBCM website: www.ubcm.ca }} Government Letter of Expectation to BC Transit: www.gov.bc.ca/caro/agencies/index.html

~~8 _ 5% onw Zmao w_,.%~~

~~3 20.3: ms: vc_u:m:m9 22.: on.menuounce >3 cuamnmn:>51. on.noun omuum>3 mm._._.m:m# 3mm2.0mm:m:~~

~~E8_\>.<2€.:&mo=mS_..ooB\=m€m\~£3aH _m_.w.nd_..6::?n.:m m?otmc Hm nuwwmNomo~~

~~nmuwmmmznmnzmonan .:.m:m_nEmumnzmm::o::nm3m:n mnm_.mnm:n3mmn_:u onn:mxoonm:m~~

~~5 Emm mEn mzzuzmm...mm~~

~~5 Wmmo 3oomm=o_m cmnmoz...rmmoi. J: mm__.:oEm mm 953 << .6 noom~~

~~H: manic: nonEmmm_.<.nmnomm_3o. nsm33:5 nnmmum<~~

~~nmmn_mmm..3m~~

~~,._uo_.N393. Em << om_onxmn_Sno 85 oo__m_.m...smmma.~~

~~._.:m_.mEo_._m_nwmzmwnnoaiinnmm _mmxmEo:m_ _u_mn1nn onnm:n_.m__Aoonm:m<3% 2.3 3m_.:_omnm n33 _.c_.m_mnmmmm..=.._ 3c2n:um_ mo~~

~~>m_§_ o~~

~~..>mn::n.=:o_m~~

~~>nnonn::mnon:m_.:o2w an ._._.m:m.nno:n_.o_mnrmm~~

~~noany onm Smmzsmonmnm_Am:o_n_m_.mnocum.3 zm_mo: «mnm:n_<. Sam: _onm_n:_3m_n mn_~~

~~_ rnno”\>.<€€.om_moomSn.ooE\om<~~

~~H: Em Emmzg?m. Em _<::_m¢< 3 ._4m:muo:mn_o: 3mmEmamzzocanmomo0: iom _<_o~~

~~._.Em <~~

~~>m3 Ewan ozn.mnno_.n_.:nnomoam_.o<~~

~~_<_m~~

~~J _.m2mnnma o: ._.o_.:52$ _.m3m_\_Am.=mam$5. 3333 3 m _.mnm:n3.: .3 2m_mo: 3 n_._mn Bmum nxwzmmmcnros..m_oo:n m_.:§.mn_:m :5 :ms. mno:o3< man._:~~

~~23.... n_:m m_.:n_mmm" :nnu<\EEs>am_mo:mnm_..no3\:m<~~

~~E8<\2€€.=m_mo:mShnoB>..m€m\~ownmHEH .ru:Em:E1H:o oao?mo G~~