M E M O R A N D U M January 31, 2002
TO:	Mayor Owen and Councillors
COPY TO:	Syd Baxter, City Clerk - Court of Revision Judy Rogers, City Manager Peter Vaisbord, BIA Coordinator
FROM:	Ann McAfee, Director of City Plans
SUBJECT:	Court of Revision Application - South Granville BIA Funding-Ceiling Increase

APPLICATION

On December 13 2001, Council considered the following Business Improvement Area (BIA) application:

South Granville BIA - Mid-term Funding Ceiling Increase

Council referred the application to the Court of Revision for consideration as a Council Initiative.

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:

"THAT the application of the South Granville Business Improvement 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 establish a new funding ceiling for its current 5-year term ending March 31, 2004."

Where a BIA application appears to be generally supported, but is strongly opposed within a specific area, Council may determine and approve reduced boundaries. While Council has, at the request of BIA sponsors, re-drawn boundaries to exclude properties on the edge of a BIA area, it has not been City practice to 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 South Granville Business Improvement Association to increase its funding ceiling 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 of the application by the South Granville Business Improvement Association to increase its funding ceiling 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, renewal and funding of Business Improvement Areas (BIAs). Taxation of properties in an area pays for a variety of programs to promote and enhance the area.

Before a BIA application can be approved, the proposal must be considered at a Court of Revision:

· Prior to 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, representing one third of the assessed property value, or business tenants, counted separately, object, the BIA proposal will be defeated.

· If approved, Council directs that the appropriate by-law (eg. to establish a new funding ceiling) be prepared.

Further explanation of the notification and Court of Revision process follows.

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 area affected by the BIA proposal:

· Individually addressed letters were sent, postmarked on or before December 24, 2001, to all property owners affected by the BIA application.

· 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 the BIA application.

3. LETTERS OF OPPOSITION

Property owners / business tenants who oppose the proposal were invited to either write to the City Clerk, with the letter being received by noon on January 30, 2002, or address Council directly at the Court of Revision.

Several questions emerged during the public process:

· What is a funding ceiling: When Council first establishes a BIA, it sets a 5-year term and a funding-ceiling (or cap) for the term. The funding-ceiling limits the total amount that can be levied for the BIA over the 5-year term. If the BIA wishes to exceed the funding ceiling, it must apply to Council, notify all of the affected businesses and property owners, and request the matter be referred to a Court of Revision.

· Will the proposal increase my (or my landlord's) annual BIA levy: The proposal significantly increases the total amount that may be levied over the 5-year term, but proposed annual levies for the last two years of the BIA's 5-year mandate would remain close to current levels. The actual levy amounts will be determined by the members at annual general meetings.

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 property 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 tenants, counted separately. 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 have each 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.

5. TABULATION OF RESULTS

Following this memo is a separate appendix for the proposed South Granville BIA funding-ceiling increase (Appendix A) which provides notification data for the application, and a tabulation of letters of opposition received as of January 30, 2002. The City Clerk will distribute copies of all objections received prior to the Court of Revision. As late objections or petitions could be received up to the date of the Council meeting, staff will distribute a supplementary memo with updated opposition data. Representatives from the applicant will be in attendance to respond to questions about the respective BIA proposals.

Ann McAfee
Director of City Plans

AMcA/PV/lmh
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\COURTRVFE502.WPD

Attachment
SOUTH GRANVILLE BIA

Application to increase funding-ceiling for current 5-year term (mid-term funding-ceiling increase)

On December 13 2001, Council considered an application by the South Granville Business Improvement Association (SGBIA) to increase the BIA funding-ceiling for its current five-year term ending March 31, 2004. The SGBIA wishes to increase the funding-ceiling from $880,000 to $1,440,000. Council referred the application to the Court of Revision for consideration as a Council Initiative.

The proposed 2002 BIA levy ranges from $301 to $51,625* annually, depending upon the assessed value of the property. About 18 properties will have a levy between $300 and $1,000, 80 properties will have a levy between $1,000 and $5,000, and 10 properties will be charged over $5,000 annually. There are no changes to the BIA boundary (Attachment A).

As the BIA levy will be based on the 2002 property assessment, the actual BIA levies may differ slightly from the estimates provided in the City's notification.

*Bentall Properties (`Chapters' development, Broadway and Granville).

Notification

Individually addressed letters (Attachment B) were sent, postmarked on or before December 24, 2001, to 88 property owners, owning 108 legal parcels located within the BIA boundaries. Three letters were returned because the owners had moved with no forwarding address or the property had recently changed ownership. All of these letters were subsequently re-sent by courier to the new addresses.

Letters (Attachment C) were hand delivered to all businesses within the BIA. Over 365 letters were delivered.

Letters of Opposition

As of noon, January 30 2002, no letters of objection had been received from property owners. One letter of objection (0.3% of total) was received from a tenant.

For information, should Council wish to apply the one-third guideline then:

· one-third of the number of assessed properties is 36 properties (subject to adjustments);
· since there are many multiple owners, one-third of the actual owners is 29 owners (subject to adjustments); and
· one-third of the assessed property value is in the order of $69,450,000.

Should the final number of owners or tenants indicating opposition approach the one-third guideline, Council may wish to consider denying the renewal application. As of January 30 2002, the number of owners/tenants opposing the proposal is almost nil. However, should Council receive, on February 5 2002, a petition or delegations indicating more wide spread opposition, then it will likely take some time to calculate whether the objections reflect one-third of the assessed property value. If this is the case, Council may wish to conclude the Court of Revision and have staff calculate the level of opposition. Recommendation C offers a way for staff to provide additional advice prior to Council deciding on the application.

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver