City of Vancouver
Dr. Ann McAfee Director of City Plans & Co-Director of Planning
453 W. 12th Ave Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4 _ 604.873.7451 fax: 873.7898
ann_mcafee@city.vancouver.bc.ca

M E M O R A N D U M 1999 02 10
TO:	Mayor Owen and Council
COPY TO:	City Clerk - Court of Revision Judy Rogers, City Manager Peter Vaisbord, BIA Coordinator
FROM:	Ann McAfee, Director of City Plans
SUBJECT:	Court of Revision Applications

APPLICATIONS

On January 7 and 14, 1999, Council considered the following BIA applications:

Gastown BIA - Renewal
Mt. Pleasant BIA - Renewal (10 years) and Expansion
Kerrisdale - Increased Funding Ceiling and Expansion (mid-term)
Davie Village BIA - Establish New
S. Granville BIA - Establish New
Yaletown BIA - Establish New

Council referred all six applications to the Court of Revision for consideration as Council Initiatives.

ACTIONS

After reviewing letters of objection and hearing from delegations Council may choose to:

A. APPROVE THE APPLICATION

Section 4 of this memo outlines past practice with respect to approval of a BIA application. Council practice has been to approve the application if less than one-third of property owners or business tenants are in opposition. If Council wishes to approve the application, the following motions are appropriate, depending on the nature of the application, i.e. a) renewal (Gastown) b) renewal and expansion (Mt. Pleasant) c) increased funding ceiling and expansion (Kerrisdale) d) establishment of new BIA:
"THAT the application of the [name of association] , as described in Appendix A, be approved and that the Director of Legal Services, in consultation with the Director of City Plans, prepare a by-law to

a) Gastown: " re-establish the BIA and establish a new funding ceiling."

b) Mt. Pleasant: "re-establish the BIA, and establish the new BIA boundaries and funding ceiling."

c) Kerrisdale: "establish the new BIA boundaries and funding ceiling."

d) New BIAs: "establish the BIA and funding ceiling."

Where an application has two parts, for example, renewal and expansion, the parts are severable, so that if one part fails (e.g. expansion) the other part may still be approved (e.g. renewal).

Where an expansion or new BIA application appears to be generally supported, but is strongly opposed within a specific area, Council may determine and approve reduced boundaries. However, it has not been City practice to approve boundaries which would exclude properties situated within a BIA area.

B. NOT APPROVE THE APPLICATION

Several criteria identified in the past as possible reasons for rejecting a BIA application are outlined in section 4 of this memo. Should Council choose to reject the application the following motion is appropriate:

"THAT the application of the [name of association] to

a) renew (re-establish) the BIA, as described in Appendix A,
b) renew (re-establish) the BIA, and expand its boundaries as described in Appendix A,
c) increase its funding ceiling, and expand its boundaries as described in Appendix A,
d) establish the proposed _______ BIA, as described in Appendix A,

not be approved."

C. COUNCIL WISHES FURTHER INFORMATION

Since there are a large number of properties involved, representing considerable variation in assessed values, Council may require additional information to assess the level of opposition. If, after hearing delegations, Council wishes further information the following motion is appropriate:

"THAT the hearing on the application by the [name of association] to

a) renew (re-establish) the BIA, as described in Appendix A,
b) renew (re-establish) the BIA, and expand its boundaries as described in Appendix A,
c) increase its funding ceiling, and expand its boundaries as described in Appendix A,
d) establish the proposed _______ BIA, as described in Appendix A,

be concluded; and

THAT, before Council decides on the application, the Director of City Plans, in consultation with the Director of Finance and Director of Legal Services, assess information received from opponents of the proposal and report to Council on the proportion of property owners and/or business tenants, by number of properties and assessed value, who do not support the proposal.

1. BACKGROUND

Sections 455 through 463 of the Vancouver Charter make provision for the creation, expansion, and funding of Business Improvement Areas (BIA). Taxation of properties in an area pays for a variety of programs to promote and enhance the area.

On October 30, 1997, Council amended the process for establishing or expanding a BIA. Under the new process a group of merchants/property owners interested in forming a BIA is required to:

· Initiate the BIA process by forming a Non Profit Society and advising Council of their desire to form a BIA;

· Make every effort to contact a variety of property owners and business tenants to discuss the proposal to start a BIA including identifying the potential BIA area and likely program and budget requirements;

· When the group is reasonably assured of widespread support, they document the outreach initiatives and request Council consider the proposal to form a BIA;

· Council considers the request, providing an opportunity for owners and tenants who wish to speak for or against the proposal to address Council;

· If supportive, Council forwards the proposal, as a Council Initiative, for consideration at a hearing of the Court of Revision;

· The City notifies all property owners and business tenants of the Court of Revision Hearing, the proposed levy, and details on filing objections; and

· At the Court of Revision Council is advised of letters of opposition. Council also hears delegations. Council policy is that if one third of property owners or business tenants object, the BIA proposal will be defeated.

· If approved, Council directs that a by-law establishing the BIA boundaries and funding ceiling be prepared.

Council's amendments to the BIA formation and expansion process mean that all BIA applications now follow essentially the same process.

2. NOTIFICATION PROCESS

BIA applications are a form of local improvement. As such, the City is required to mail to the owners of parcels liable to be assessed notification of the project, the designated area, and estimated annual rate. The notification letter must be sent at least one month prior to the hearing. While the Charter does not require notification of tenants, it is City policy to notify business owners of a BIA proposal. Staff have notified property owners and business tenants in the areas affected by the BIA proposals:

· Individually addressed letters were sent, postmarked on or before January 15, 1999, to all property owners affected by a BIA proposal.

· The City does not have a current record of all business owners in an area. Letters to business owners were hand delivered to all businesses affected by a BIA proposal.

3. LETTERS OF OPPOSITION

Property owners/business tenants who oppose the proposal(s) were invited to either write to the City Clerk, with the letter being received before noon on February 16, 1999, or address Council directly at the Court of Revision.

Several questions emerged during the public process:

· Who will be charged: The BIA levy only applies to commercial and light industrial (Class 5 and 6) properties. Some letters were incorrectly hand delivered to residential properties. Several residential tenants called and were advised the levy will not apply to them.

· Can an owner choose to opt out: If the levy is approved it applies to all eligible owners.

· Is there a charge to property owners and to business tenants: There is one levy and it is included as part of the annual taxation bill sent to property owners. It is up to each owner as to whether they pass the charge along to tenants and how the amount charged to tenants is allocated.

4. BASIS FOR COUNCIL ACTION

Under section 506 of the Vancouver Charter a "sufficient number" of notices of objection to defeat a Local Improvement Council Initiative is deemed to be more than one-half of the assessed owners, representing more than one-half of the value according to the last revised real-property assessment roll, of the parcels liable to be assessed. However, Council guidelines apply a more stringent standard for BIAs.

Council policy with respect to BIA applications has been to identify the "sufficient number" of objections to be either one-third of the assessed owners, representing at least one-third of the assessed value or one-third of the business owners. The one-third guideline has been used by Council to reflect the fact that Council initiatives require those who oppose an application to make the case that the levy is not desired. Typically, local improvements involve only a few owners, and in many cases each have petitioned to have the work done. This is not the case for a BIA application. For a large area, with many owners, the task of assembling sufficient opposition is difficult. For this reason, Council policy is to consider rejection if one-third, rather than one-half, of the owners or tenants oppose the application. There is no actual experience of Council rejecting a BIA application.

This memo is followed by notification data for each of the BIA applications, and a tabulation of letters of opposition received as of February 10, 1999. The City Clerk will distribute copies of all objections received prior to the Court of Revision. As objections may be accepted until noon the day of the Court of Revision, staff will distribute a supplementary memo with opposition data updated to the day of the hearing. Representatives from each of the applicants will be in attendance to respond to questions about the respective BIA proposals.

Ann McAfee
Director of City Plans

PV/dc
Q:\CLERICAL\CITYPLAN\BIA\PN-01702.WPD
Attachment

RTS 462

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver