Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of City Plans

SUBJECT:

Electoral Area A Governance Study: Update and Amalgamation Issues

 

RECOMMENDATION

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

On January 31, 1995, Council agreed to continue the City's policy of not actively pursuing amalgamation with the University Endowment Lands. However, if the Province and/or UEL residents request amalgamation, the City welcomes the inclusion of the area within its boundaries provided the City is fully compensated for any costs incurred as a result of the transition.

On March 14, 1996, Council supported a study of governance options for Electoral Area A including the legal, financial, and technical implications of existing and proposed new development.

On May 12, 1998, Council concluded that during the review of options (maintain status quo, create new municipality, amalgamate with Vancouver), the City would provide information about City procedures, services, and advice on the City's interests. Should amalgamation be the recommended option, staff were requested to report back on the consequences of amalgamation including options for public consultation.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report provides an update on discussions of governance options for Electoral Area A and some suggested principles for amalgamation.

When Council last considered the Electoral Area A governance process, Council concluded that the City would await an indication that amalgamation was considered a real option before undertaking extensive analysis of service requirements and financial implications. In order to conclude on whether amalgamation of all or part of Electoral Area A is a desired option, Governance Committee members have asked questions about the City's position on public processes, service levels, and financial requirements if amalgamation occurs.

This report identifies existing City policies and procedures which provide a basis for answering some of the questions. If these draft amalgamation principles are supportable by the Governance Committee, then further consultation between the City, Province, GVRD, UBC, and resident members of the Governance Committee on financial requirements and service provision is proposed. The results of these deliberations would form the basis for Council seeking public input on an amalgamation proposal and for developing agreements with the other agencies.

If the proposed principles, based on established City policy, are not acceptable to Governance Committee members then it is not worthwhile to proceed with further analysis and negotiation.

BACKGROUND

Electoral Area A is the unincorporated area west of the City of Vancouver. It includes Pacific Spirit Regional Park, the University Hill/University Endowment Lands (UEL)

community, the institutional core of UBC and related campus lands including the new residential community of Hampton Place (See Appendix B).

As an unincorporated area, the residents of Electoral Area A do not have the usual municipal governance structure:

· The University Hill residents receive services from, and pay taxes to, the Province. There is no elected body accountable to residents, property, and business owners for the charges and service delivery. The area is managed by the Province, through a local administrator, under the Community Plan for University Hill and the Land Use, Building and Community Administration By-law, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs acting nominally as the mayor.

· Planning for UBC, which is the part of Electoral Area A outside of the UEL and Pacific Spirit Park, is provided by the GVRD. The Official Community Plan (OCP) for UBC was adopted by GVRD member municipalities in 1997 on behalf of Electoral Area A residents on the UBC campus. Most of the other services on the UBC campus, including those for the non-academic area (i.e. Hampton Place), are established by the UBC Board of Governors and delivered by the University. Exceptions to this are fire services, which are contracted by the Province from the City of Vancouver, police services which are provided by the RCMP, roads off campus are maintained by the Province, and school services are provided by the Vancouver School District to both on and off campus residents.

· Pacific Spirit Regional Park is serviced and maintained by the GVRD.

In 1995, University Hill and Hampton Place residents held a referendum on whether to create a new municipality. The vote indicated the majority were not in favour of incorporation at that time.

Following adoption of the OCP for UBC, the Provincial Government requested the GVRD, University of British Columbia, and City of Vancouver participate in a study to recommend governance arrangements for Electoral Area A. The reason for the governance study is that the resident population of Electoral Area A could grow from 11,000 student and permanent residents to 26,000 residents if the area is fully developed under the OCP for UBC.

The future growth of the area raises questions about the approval process for new development and about the provision of services to the larger population. In a typical municipal government system, proposals for new development are subjected to a zoning and

development process which is governed by a city council. The provision of services for both existing and new residents and the taxation implications of these services are also governed by a council elected by those who seek the services and pay the taxes. Residents and business owners have an opportunity to voice any concerns about new development and the provision of services to their elected council. If they are not satisfied with the results they have the option of voting for a new council to manage their affairs.

During the OCP process questions were asked about the process for managing new development on the university lands and about the provision of services for the growing non-student population. Under the present governance system, the UBC Board of Governors is, in effect, both the developer of the new community and the approving authority. Since the Board of Governors is appointed, adjacent residents, as well as Hampton residents, expressed concerns about how their wishes would be considered. These questions, combined with the broader philosophical issue of "no taxation without representation", led to the governance study.

With the Municipal Act legislation as a context, a committee was established in March, 1998, to consider governance options for Electoral Area A. Membership on the Governance Committee includes the GVRD, University of British Columbia, City of Vancouver (Councillor Jennifer Clarke is the City's representative) and residents reflecting the interests of the Endowment Lands, Hampton Place, and on-campus residents. A technical support committee includes staff from the GVRD, City (Director of City Plans), UBC, Provincial Government, and UEL.

In April, 1998, when Council last considered the governance issue, the process and timetable for the Governance Study was as follows:

Step 1: April through June, 1998

Step 2: July through September, 1998

Step 3: October through December, 1998

Step 4: Mid 1999

STUDY STATUS

During the past year, the Governance Committee has embarked on the four step process. The Committee has held two open houses/public meetings (June 25, 1998, and November 26, 1998). At the first open house the Committee explained why the study was underway, outlined the study process, described the options being reviewed, and responded to questions.

The second Open House, in November, 1998, was to update the community on progress and discuss criteria for the preliminary evaluation of options. The number of options for detailed review was reduced to three - the current arrangement, special municipality, and amalgamation with Vancouver. The evaluation criteria were financial performance, customer service, policy and representation, community and environment, and response to UBC's mission.

The initial timetable was for the Committee to make its recommendation of a preferred option by mid 1999. Progress has not been as fast as expected. The Committee has not yet made its recommendation. In part this may be due to a lack of clarity about the urgency for establishing a new governance process. A letter from the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, dated December 11, 1998 stated:

OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION

The Committee has rejected a number of options but has not yet agreed on a preferred option to recommend to the Minister. Since the Committee has not made a recommendation, the following comments on the status of the options are based on City staff's assessment of support for various options by Committee members.

· Create a New Municipality:

· Maintain/ Enhance Current Arrangements:

· Amalgamation with the City of Vancouver:

CITY OBJECTIVES FOR AMALGAMATION

If amalgamation is the preferred option the City would want to ensure:

· Land use and Development: New development should contribute to creating a livable community and be consistent with the Livable Region Strategy and CityPlan goals.

· Service Levels: Service levels must provide for financial and service equity.

· Financial: Amalgamation should not impose financial hardship on Vancouver citizens/taxpayers. The financial impact of any governance option should at least be neutral to the City.

The following section highlights possible principles for amalgamation and a process for working with the University, Province, residents of Electoral Area A and Vancouver residents to find common ground on issues of concern.

DEVELOPING A WORKABLE AMALGAMATION OPTION

If amalgamation is the preferred option, the development of an amalgamation proposal can be undertaken in several steps and pursued for all or part of Electoral Area A.

A. STEPS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AMALGAMATION PROPOSAL

Issues raised by the residents and UBC can be separated into those for which existing City policy provides guidance for an immediate City response, subject to further refinement through a discussion/implementation process (see Recommendation A and Step 1). These principles could provide some answers to Committee questions and allow further discussion to focus on the remaining areas. Issues not covered by existing policy and practice will need to be reviewed through a process between the City, UBC, residents, GVRD, and in some cases the Provincial Government (See Recommendation B and Step 2).

Step 1: Establish some Amalgamation Principles based on Existing City Policy

Existing City policy provides responses to some of the issues raised by Governance Committee members. Appendix A includes additional information on the following principles.

· Processes for Public Input:

· Sense of Community:

respond to concerns of Governance Committee members about area character, Council could agree, as a principle for amalgamation, to support, through land use policies and service delivery, the qualities which foster a unique sense of community in the area.

· Approvals Process Single-family Areas:

· Approval Process Large Site Development:

· Implications of amalgamation on land values:

as it has already developed a proposal to provide "in-kind" public benefits (i.e. community centre, etc.).

Step 2: Pursue Further Discussions to Establish Additional Amalgamation Principles and Procedures

On a number of issues the City does not have an established response, based on existing policy, to answer the Committee's questions. The following issues require resolution with various interests.

· Financial Issues related to taxation rates:

· Service levels:

If amalgamation remains an option, future steps will require detailed negotiations between the Province, GVRD, UBC, and the City. All these agencies have established processes for decision making. Other steps involve engaging existing residents in developing new zoning schedules and policies on a variety of area specific issues such as tree regulation and provision for secondary suites. There is no established decision making authority for existing residential areas. If amalgamation is to be pursued, the City of Vancouver will need to work with the other members of the Governance Committee to develop a process for residents to work with the City to develop draft proposals for broad public input.

B. AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AMALGAMATION

The most straight forward option is to amalgamate all of Electoral Area A into Vancouver. Other options for proceeding with amalgamation include a "phase-in" process. Appendix B illustrates the various "communities of interest" in Electoral Area A. Recommendation C proposes that discussions on the provision of services and administration consider the option of amalgamating all or only part of Electoral Area A with the City of Vancouver. For example, since land use changes under the OCP will be focussed on the south campus, amalgamation of these new communities with the City could provide a publicly accountable development process and service delivery system in the areas expected to undergo the most change in the foreseeable future. Other areas (such as the Academic Core, Pacific Spirit Park, and UEL lands) are not expected to experience significant changes and have established management processes. They could continue under their current governance arrangements for the time being.

CONCLUSION

It has been many years since Vancouver has been involved in considering options for amalgamation, although the City itself is the result of the amalgamation of several smaller municipalities. The issues are complex and the Vancouver Charter does not provide explicit guidance on amalgamation. Consequently, this report has identified the key City interests and some principles for amalgamation. These principles are based on extending established City policies and procedures to Electoral Area A. Considerable work is required to negotiate detailed agreements with other stakeholders.

This report will be distributed to the Governance Committee to determine if the principles for amalgamation are an acceptable basis for proceeding with amalgamation discussions, including negotiations between the Province, GVRD, UBC, and the City, to resolve various issues around financing amalgamation and the provision of services. If the principles are supported, UBC, the UEL Administration and the Province will be invited to participate with the City in preparing a detailed work program, timelines, resources and public process needed to further develop the amalgamation model.

If these basis principles are not supportable by the majority of the Governance Committee, the amalgamation option should not proceed. In that case, further City efforts with respect to the Governance process would be in response to any requests for the City to provide specific services, on a contract basis to Electoral Area A.

The focus of this report is a response to questions raised by the Governance Committee and a process, if required, to further develop an amalgamation option with them. On May 12, 1998, when Council agreed to participate in the governance process, the issue of what process and when Vancouver residents would be actively involved was discussed. At that time, because amalgamation was one of many options, Council concluded an extensive City public process was premature. If the Governance Committee continues to pursue the amalgamation option, staff will report back on a process to involve interested city residents in the development of an amalgamation proposal.

- - - - -

PRELIMINARY RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ABOUT AMALGAMATION OF ELECTORAL AREA A WITH THE CITY OF VANCOUVER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

CONTEXT

In 1998 a committee was established to review options for the governance of Electoral Area A [University of British Columbia (UBC), University Endowment Lands (UEL), and Pacific Spirit Park]. The Electoral Area A Governance Committee includes representatives from the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), UBC, City of Vancouver, and members reflective of the views of "on campus", Hampton Place, and UEL residents.

This document is a preliminary response to questions about amalgamation of all or part of Electoral Area A with the City of Vancouver. The discussion paper provides a companion document to the "Modified Status Quo: University Villages Model" prepared by UBC. This report is intended to provide a basis for discussion by the Governance Committee of a model for amalgamation.

The Vancouver Charter and adopted City policy form the basis for this document.
The Vancouver Charter does not contemplate amalgamation. Should amalgamation be the chosen governance model, then changes will be required to the Charter. Discussion of this document provides a forum for identifying Charter changes and new City policy directions to respond to the opportunities amalgamation presents to the City and to residents, institutions, and businesses in Electoral Area A.

BENEFITS OF AMALGAMATION

Any alteration to the governance of Electoral Area A will result in some changes to those who live and work in the area and to the City of Vancouver. The consequences of creating a new municipality or of adopting the University's Enhanced Status Quo model have been presented elsewhere. In summary, the new municipality option raised concerns about financial viability, administration, and voter eligibility. The University's proposal does not provide an avenue for appeal to an elected Council for residents who may have concerns about the impacts of new development, provision of services, and infrastructure or taxation levels.

Amalgamation offers a number of opportunities to Electoral Area `A':

· The Province and GVRD are relieved of responsibilities for providing local services, and under some scenarios, UBC is similarly relieved of some service provision;
· Residents have closer access to providers of services, such as roads, which are now a Provincial responsibility;
· Decisions on new development and spending priorities are made in a public forum with appeal to an elected Council;
· As the population of Electoral Area A grows and Provincial grants (e.g., police) are withdrawn, amalgamation offers the opportunity of experiencing economies of scale which would not be possible for a small municipality or electoral area;
· Amalgamation offers an opportunity for UBC to meet its goal of better integrating with the broader community;
· Both the University and residents have access to an experienced City Council and public service, and to established processes to respond to ongoing service needs and emergency situations;
· There should be very few surprises flowing from amalgamation since the City governance processes, financial planning, and development control are known systems;
· The City has well established processes for funding ongoing maintenance of basic infrastructure;
· Amalgamation provides the opportunity for coordinated planning, transportation, sewer, water, police and fire services on the western portion of the Burrard Peninsula;
· Amalgamation provides the opportunity to draw upon Vancouver's considerable experience with community planning to assist UBC and the residential areas in creating a more physically integrated and cohesive area, and a forum for negotiating community needs that would be enshrined in the Charter; and
· Amalgamation provides fewer direct benefits to the City of Vancouver. The principle benefit is to ensure a coordinated response to growth pressures. This was an issue raised by Vancouver residents during the OCP process.

While there would be new administrative procedures with amalgamation, it is not likely that, on a day to day basis, residents of Electoral Area A or the City will notice the changed governance structure. Differences will be most evident when new issues emerge or in the case of an emergency where the City's expertise and resources can be brought to bear.

CITY AMALGAMATION CONCERNS AND OBJECTIVES

In 1995, Vancouver Council adopted, as City policy, not to actively pursue amalgamation with the University Endowment Lands. However, if the Province and/or UEL residents request amalgamation, Council has stated that the City would welcome the inclusion of the area within its boundaries provided the City is fully compensated for any costs incurred as a result of the transition.

If amalgamation of all or part of Electoral Area A is pursued the City's three key objectives would be:

· Land use and development: New development should contribute to creating a livable community and be consistent with the Livable Region Strategy and CityPlan.

· Services: Service levels must provide for financial and service equity between existing city residents and residents included through amalgamation.

· Financial: Amalgamation should not impose financial hardship on Vancouver citizens/taxpayers. The financial impact of any governance option should at least be neutral for the City.

These three objectives provide a basis for reviewing any amalgamation proposal.

STAKEHOLDER ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

UBC and the resident members of the Governance Committee have identified a number of concerns with, and objectives for, amalgamation. Issues include:

· Public Process: Desire for processes for resident, UBC, and business input on issues affecting the community;

· Land Use and Planning: Desire to maintain the unique sense of community;

· Service Levels: Residents wish to maintain existing service levels e.g., garbage collection, access to local administrative office, street parking regulation; and

· Financial Implications: Desire for the impact of amalgamation be neutral or positive for UBC and other stakeholders and, if there is a difference in taxation rates, there should be a phase-in process for UEL land owners to achieve parity with taxes paid by City residents.

The remainder of this proposal responds to some of these issues and outlines a process for resolution of outstanding concerns.

GOVERNANCE PROCESSES/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Vancouver Charter provides the legislation under which the City of Vancouver operates. The following comments on Charter provisions are generalized. For specific wording the Charter should be consulted.

Under the amalgamation model, decisions for Electoral Area A would be made by Vancouver City Council. Following existing City practice, decisions affecting a specific area or service are made by City Council after seeking advice from those affected.

Elections for the Mayor and ten Councillors are held every three years. The Mayor and Council are elected "at large". Residents and property owners in Electoral Area A would be eligible to vote in city elections. Resident electors must be 18 or older, Canadian citizens, resident in British Columbia for at least six months, and resident in the city for at least 30 days. Since the regular date for the City's general election is in November, many students who are in residence at UBC for the fall term would be eligible to vote.

Non resident property owners are eligible to vote if they meet the above criteria and, rather than being a resident in the city, have been the registered owner of real property in the city for at least 30 days prior to the election. A person may only register as a non-resident property elector for one property.

The Vancouver Charter provides that, if the City boundaries are extended, persons who satisfy the above requirements and have been resident or an owner of property in the amalgamated area for at least 30 days prior to an election are eligible to vote.

In addition to voting for members of Council, the Charter requires that Council seek the assent of electors before spending funds which cannot be paid for through the current year Operating Budget. There are limited exceptions to this rule mostly related to funding of water and sewer projects. Other capital projects are approved by the electorate every three years. This means that residents of Electoral Area A could vote on capital plan proposals.

UBC has requested a process be developed for formal input from the University Board of Governors to City policy decisions which affect University lands. The University points out that it is a major regional destination, of greater magnitude than most regional town centres. The Vancouver Charter does not make provision for UBC, as an institution, to have a vote in the general election commensurate with the size of university lands or labour force. Options for a process for Council-University consultation need to be developed. For comparison, Vancouver Council meets on an "as needed" basis with neighbouring Councils to resolve issues of mutual interest. City Council could agree to meet with the University Board of Governors on a similar basis.

Residents and UBC have expressed the wish to be fully involved in development and servicing decisions for their area. The City has adopted principles and well established processes for public involvement. Key principles for public involvement include requirements that all public processes ensure:

Some of the most controversial public processes are about changes to land use and local improvements which increase property taxes. All rezonings and local improvements must be considered by City Council at a formal Public Hearing or Court of Revision. All persons deeming themselves affected by a rezoning or local improvement can address Council. City Council is the ultimate decision making authority on a rezoning. The City Charter provides that if more than half of those affected by a local improvement are against the proposal, Council does not approve it.

The principle difference between the current situation in Electoral Area A, the enhanced status quo option, and amalgamation is that under amalgamation citizens could make delegation to an elected city council on issues of policy and spending of taxes. The elected officials are accountable to the electorate who have a chance to vote for their city council every three years.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 1: The City of Vancouver agrees to involve, on an ongoing basis, UBC, area residents, business and property owners in development and servicing decisions affecting their area.

The procedures for involvement would be based on existing City practice and be the subject of further discussion between Governance Committee members and the City to identify:

· any additional processes to reflect the unique characteristics of UBC; and
· requirements for transition from the current governance model for UEL lands to amalgamation with Vancouver.

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

Sense of Community

Both UBC and resident members of the Governance Committee have expressed a desire to create and maintain a unique sense of community in the area. The UEL Community Plan and the UBC Official Community Plan are existing adopted documents which articulate goals for maintaining the unique character of the area while accommodating change. Given that the existing UEL Plan and UBC Official Community Plan were approved through formal public processes, the City of Vancouver could agree, as a condition of amalgamation, to maintain the unique qualities of Electoral Area A by ratifying the UEL Area Plan and the OCP as City policy.

Maintaining neighbourhood character is a guiding principle in Vancouver's CityPlan. Through the City's Community Vision Program citizens participate in developing plans to meet city-wide strategic directions (such as providing for housing variety and encouraging walking, biking, and transit) in a way and at a scale and pace that suits their community.

Community Visions are being used to update priorities for civic funding (capital improvements and service priorities) and to direct new development. Council has an approved Terms of Reference for the Community Vision process. The Terms of Reference outline community, staff, and Council roles; the product; and public process. Council has adopted a program for preparing visions, two at a time, with the schedule to have Visions completed for all areas outside the inner city by 2005. Dunbar, one area adjacent to Electoral Area A completed and adopted its Vision in 1998. West Point Grey, the other adjacent area, is scheduled to start its Vision program in late 2003 for completion in early 2005. If Electoral Area A is amalgamated with the City, Vancouver Council would be supportive of undertaking a Community Vision program during the same time period (2003-2005) for those parts of Electoral Area A where residents wish to update their community development plan and establish priorities for capital and service expenditures. Funding for the Community Vision Program comes from the overall City budget.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 2: To maintain the sense of community and unique qualities of Electoral Area A, Vancouver Council will accept the existing UEL Plan and UBC OCP as City policy. Residents of Electoral Area A are offered the opportunity to update their development plans and service priorities through participation in a Community Vision planning process to commence in 2003.

Approvals Process Single-Family Areas

Two issues have been raised by residents - the wish to keep existing area specific design controls and the advisory committee approvals process.

On the issue of area specific zoning, the City has many existing lower density areas with a zoning schedule tailored to the area. The City could adopt the existing UEL single family zoning schedules (SF-1 and SF-2). The City could also choose not to apply the Tree By-law in the UEL single-family area if that is the preference of residents.

The UEL single-family area has a well established approvals process including design direction and review by an Advisory Planning Committee. The Advisory Planning Committee provides advice to the area administrator on issues of community concern such as view obstruction and design. In practice, the UEL Advisory Planning Committee exercises considerable direction over the rejection or conditional approval of applications that meet the letter of the zoning but do not meet with community support. In part this works because there is infrequent development, lots are large thereby minimizing impacts of overlooking and overshadowing, and there are widely shared community values.

The City engages area design panels (e.g., First Shaughnessy) to advise Council/staff on development applications. Council cannot delegate decision making authority to citizen groups. Nevertheless, citizen advisory panel advice is routinely adopted by Council, and it would likely provide the type of input and results currently achieved through the UEL Advisory Planning Committee process.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 3: To maintain the character of single-family areas in the UEL Vancouver Council will establish Zoning District Schedules based on the existing SF-1 and SF-2 zoning and apply these schedules to their existing areas. A citizen advisory design panel will be established for the UEL area. The role, scope of responsibility, and procedures will be worked out between the existing UEL Advisory Planning Committee and the City.

Managing Change and Safety Standards

Managing change involves a wide variety of issues in addition to establishing building siting, height, design and other features typically defined through a Zoning Schedule. Other example issues include establishing subdivision regulations, recognizing heritage features,
requiring landscaping standards, regulating strata title conversion and secondary suites, establishing procedures for permitting variances on non-standard sites, and setting health and safety standards. The City has established processes and policy for these and related issues.

Some processes apply city-wide and, were amalgamation to occur, would be applied to Electoral Area A. An example is appeals on questions of zoning which are handled by the Board of Variance, a group of five members appointed by Council and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to adjudicate on issues of hardship arising out of site specific peculiarities. Other examples of city-wide standards which would apply on privately owned lands in Electoral Area A include application of building codes regulating safety, health, and fire protection and permission for family suites in single-family homes. Some of the codes in use in Electoral Area A at the present time may be similar to, or the same as those in the City, and could be grand fathered at the time of amalgamation.

Based on experiences in other municipalities where a large public institution, such as UBC, is located, the negotiation process for amalgamation needs to determine whether some or all of the land use, building design, building standards, and services for the academic core are administered by the City or UBC. The City's initial preference on this matter is not to administer land use and standards in the UBC academic core unless expressly requested to do so by UBC.

Pacific Spirit Park comprises a large portion of Electoral Area A. The Park is currently administered by the GVRD for the enjoyment of residents from throughout the region. The City, through the Park Board, has experience managing large parks, such as Stanley Park, which serve the broader region. As is the case in other municipalities, under amalgamation the GVRD would continue to be responsible for the planning and administration of Pacific Spirit Park unless agreed otherwise by the City and GVRD.

On other issues, such as subdivision standards, landscape regulations, and permission for revenue secondary suites, various standards have been adopted across Vancouver. Council has sought and acted on the advice of area residents. Under amalgamation each of these issues would need to be decided through processes involving area residents.

The City is constantly reviewing and revising standards and policies to meet emerging needs. Example issues currently under public review include methods of financing growth, developing a Blueways Action Plan, the westward extension of the Ridgeway Greenway and rapid transit, and developing standards for permeability to minimize damage due to runoff.If the Governance Committee concludes that amalgamation is a option to be pursued, the City will invite participation from Electoral Area A in current planning initiatives.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 4:

a) Under amalgamation the City would expect that all standards (e.g., health, safety codes) and regulations (e.g., family suites) which now apply city-wide would also apply to all of Electoral Area A except the UBC academic core. A process would be established with UBC to agree on which city-wide standards and services would apply to the academic core of the campus.

b) Under amalgamation the GVRD would continue to be responsible for the planning and administration of Pacific Spirit Park unless agreed otherwise by the City and GVRD.

c) For standards and regulations which vary across the city (e.g., subdivision, revenue suites) the City will involve affected citizens in establishing policy and regulations for the main residential "neighbourhoods" (e.g., Hampton Place, UEL).

d) For city-wide policies which are under study at the time of amalgamation, the City will invite participation in the processes from interested persons in Electoral Area A.

Approval Process Large Site Development (UBC)

The City is experienced in working with applicants for new development where there are multiple objectives which include financial and livability issues. The City has a well established process for administering applications to build "new communities" of the scale proposed by UBC and contemplated in the UBC OCP. The process involves development of policy directions (which has been done through the OCP), an area planning process (such as is being initiated by UBC) leading to area zoning schedules, and processing of Development Applications.

Each step involves a joint planning process between the City and the applicant. Each step also includes public consultation, a formal Public Hearing at the rezoning stage, and approval of developments by the Development Permit Board. There is a lot of similarity between the GVRD approved process proposed by UBC for development of their lands and the City's large project review process. The main difference is the opportunity for the public, at critical steps such as zoning approval, to make formal delegation to a duly elected city council who are directly accountable to those from whom they hear.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 5: The City will respect UBC's desire to preserve the intrinsic value of their lands through pre-agreed planning processes which enable predictable development as outlined in UBC's Official Community Plan. The City's large project approval process is proposed as a basis for managing new development. As with all large projects, the City and UBC will need to review, and likely adjust the process to accommodate the unique status of UBC as a large public institution with academic and financial objectives.

PROVISION OF SERVICES

The City of Vancouver provides a wide variety of services to residents and businesses. Most are paid for through property taxes and business licenses. Some involve a user fee as consumption of the service increases (e.g., garbage removal). Many of the services are similar to those already provided in Electoral Area A. In the case of schools and fire protection in Electoral Area A, the City of Vancouver and Vancouver School Board provide services on a contract basis.

There are five main differences between City and Electoral Area A services, particularly for the University Hill area:

a) In some cases University Hill residents receive highly personalized service from their administrative office (e.g., arrangements for police checks on houses while owners are on vacation). This level of service is possible in a small area. The City can not deliver such highly personalized services, under current budgets, at a city-wide scale.

b) The City of Vancouver provides a wider array of services. Example City services include curb-side recycling, social planning, animal control, traffic calming programs, greenways, cross-town bikeways, daycare programs, community centres, access to playing fields and public libraries. The City has established processes to manage nuisances through Standards of Maintenance, Noise, and Sign By-laws. The City has an established procedure for local merchants to create Business Improvement Areas to enhance the shopping area and services.

c) The City of Vancouver routinely plans for and provides services to maintain existing infrastructure and respond to emergency situations. For example, under existing City procedures, maintenance of the water and sewer systems is part of a 100 year capital replacement program. Funds are routinely provided. Since there is no similar process for Electoral Area A, taxpayers will, at some point, be required to fund major maintenance through special local improvement levies.

d) In Vancouver the majority of essential services (such as roads, planning, and police) are under the jurisdiction of City Council. By contrast, Electoral Area A receives services established by Provincial and Regional policies and administered by a variety of different agencies, with political representation at a distance removed.

e) The City has a grant program to assist organizations contributing to the culture, beautification, health, or welfare of the city. Groups assisted through the City grant program provide a wide array of services meeting the diverse needs of citizens.

Amalgamation would result in some loss of personalized service for University Hill residents which would be balanced by access to a broader array of services.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 6:

a) It is the City's intent to provide the full range of services, at the current city-wide service level, to Electoral Area A except for the academic core of the campus and Pacific Spirit Park. Service charges would be included in taxes or assessed as a user charge in accordance with existing City practice. The provision of services and payment arrangements for the academic core and Pacific Spirit Park would be negotiated between the City, UBC and the GVRD.

b) For those services which vary on a neighbourhood basis (e.g., community centre programs, business improvement programs) the City will involve the affected residents and business owners in determining service requirements and funding arrangements.

FINANCIAL ISSUES

The Vancouver Charter establishes the City's authority to set taxation rates, collect taxes, incur debt, and spend money. The principle requirement is that the City must maintain a balanced budget. This limits the City's ability to provide services at a level often desired by businesses and residents.

Under the Vancouver Charter some property is exempt from taxation. This includes certain crown land, charitable institutions, institutes of learning, and hospitals. In addition to the general provision for excluding institutes of learning, the Vancouver Charter makes specific provision to exclude the portion of Sears Harbour Centre occupied by SFU. Under amalgamation there would likely be a separate section excluding UBC lands used for academic purposes.

The Charter makes provision for owners to petition the City for local improvements such as lane paving. Petitions for Local Improvements are considered by Council at a Court of Revision and are only approved and added to property taxes when at least fifty percent of the owners support the levy. Council policy is to support applications by merchants and property owners for a Business Improvement Area levy unless one third of the business tenants or property owners are against the proposal.

Upgrading Services

One of the City's objectives is to ensure that amalgamation does not place an undue financial burden on taxpayers outside Electoral Area A. The issue of who pays to upgrade services which are not up to City standards is of considerable concern to the City. This needs to be negotiated with the Province, GVRD, and UBC. Options may involve grants to upgrade services, a decision to amalgamate only part of Electoral Area A with the City, or a specific agreement for standards not to apply to the UBC academic core. For example, the academic core of Simon Fraser University is not a responsibility of the surrounding municipality of Burnaby.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 7: Amalgamation should not impose financial hardship on Vancouver citizens/taxpayers. The financial impact of any governance option should be at least be neutral for the City. The City will participate in a process with the Province, GVRD, UBC, and UEL Administration to identify upgrading requirements and funding sources.

Services and Taxation Rates

There is a difference between taxes paid by City residents and those paid by UEL properties of comparable assessed value. The provision of some grants from the Province, requirements for a less comprehensive array of services, and fewer requirements to save for repair and maintenance results in lower taxes in the UEL than Vancouver (about 7 % for residential taxes and considerably more for businesses). By contrast, Hampton Court residents pay taxes to UBC at a comparable rate to City taxpayers.

The lower tax rates are a key reason why UEL residents and businesses are reluctant to consider amalgamation. Residents have asked about the possibility of a phase-in period to bring taxes up to City levels. The consequences of this proposal need to be related to services requested in the area to assess whether phasing results in subsidies from tax payers outside the area.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 8: Amalgamation should result in equity between taxes paid and services delivered for properties of similar value in the city and Electoral Area A. Recognizing that amalgamation of services will need to be phased in over time, the City will assess whether service phasing can be coordinated with a phasing of taxes to meet the City's objectives of equity of taxes paid for service delivery and the residents/business desire to mitigate immediate tax increases. A separate process will be undertaken between the City, UBC, and the GVRD to arrange payment for any City services to the campus and Pacific Spirit Park.

Financing Growth Charges:

UBC representatives are concerned about the future financial viability of lands slated for residential development if Community Amenity Charges and Development Cost Levies must be paid in addition to meeting requirements for affordable housing, parks, community centres, land for schools, and traffic management measures specified in the OCP. The City has established policies for paying the costs of growth on large development sites. The City negotiates with the owner or developer to provide a full slate of City services. Council has exempted major projects providing full services from the city-wide CAC and DCL policy on the grounds that the applicants are already providing a full service package on an "in-kind" basis.

The public benefits stipulated by the UBC OCP provide for a full service package for new residents. If the OCP requirements are met, the university developments will have provided for a full range of services. This being the case, following existing City policy, Council could exempt major projects built under the OCP from paying additional CACs/DCLs by establishing the South Campus (Hampton Place Area) as an "ODP Policy Area with PublicBenefit Strategy". Under this designation, the area could be excluded from payment of the city-wide CAC/DCL.

Draft Amalgamation Principle 9: The City will respect the University of British Columbia's desire to preserve the intrinsic value of their lands through arrangements for financing the costs of growth which assume, if full major project services (e.g., parks, community centre, housing mix) are provided as outlined in the Official Community Plan, the south campus area will be designated as an "ODP Policy Area with a Public Benefits Strategy". As such, the area will not be subject to additional city-wide Community Amenity Contributions and Development Cost Levies.

NEXT STEPS

The development of a workable amalgamation option can be:

· Undertaken in Several Steps:

· Pursued for all or part of Electoral Area A.

Further detailed development of land use regulations, servicing, and financial agreements is a significant task. The City of Vancouver requests the Electoral Area A Governance Committee:

a) Review the proposed principles for amalgamation. If these are not acceptable, subject to a modest amount of negotiated adjustment, the City requests that the Governance Committee formally conclude not to pursue the amalgamation option;

b) If the amalgamation principles are generally acceptable, the Governance Committee is invited to participate with the City in preparing a detailed work program (specifying topics, timing, public consultation, and resources) to further develop the amalgamation model for submission to the Provincial Government; and

c) Some of the next steps require detailed negotiations between the Province, GVRD, UBC, and the City. All these agencies have established processes for decision making. Other steps involve engaging existing residents in developing new zoning schedules and policies on a variety of area specific issues such as tree regulation and provision for secondary suites. There is no established decision making authority for existing residential areas. The City of Vancouver requests the Governance Committee propose a process for residents to work with the City to develop draft proposals for broad public input from the various residential and business areas.

CONCLUSIONS

This document starts to set out some of the principles and processes required to negotiate amalgamation of all or part of Electoral Area A with the City of Vancouver. The proposal has been prepared, recognizing that amalgamation is a significant decision with a variety of consequences to all the stakeholders.

No amalgamation option can provide the broad freedom to act which UBC has enjoyed in the past. However, as UBC undertakes significant non-academic development on its lands, community tolerance of the impacts of this large institution on its neighbours has declined. The UBC Official Community Plan has established some planning and service requirements for new development. Amalgamation with the City of Vancouver provides a governance option for the new residents. Amalgamation enhances the University's objective of better linking "town" and "gown".

No amalgamation option can provide the level of personalized services enjoyed by the existing residents of Electoral Area A. Maintaining the present governance model can, however, be seen as a gamble. The existing residents are gambling that the Province will continue to pay for police services in Electoral Area A. Residents are gambling that they will not be faced with a significant emergency or requirement for upgrading infrastructure, the costs of which would have to be borne by a small number of property owners. They are gambling that arrangements to mitigate the impacts of new growth in Electoral Area A can be satisfactorily negotiated between residents, UBC, GVRD, and the Provincial Government.

What amalgamation offers is, in effect, an insurance policy against unexpected financial demands and requirements for emergency services. Amalgamation offers an established city structure which provides a wide range of services, paid for through a large tax base. Amalgamation offers a publically accountable Council which is responsible to the electorate for development and servicing decisions.

This discussion paper is directed to issues raised by the Governance Committee. Existing Vancouver residents will also have issues to be addressed. Example issues are noted in the section on "City Amalgamation Concerns and Objectives" and are proposed as Draft Amalgamation Principle 10.

If amalgamation continues to be considered as an option by the Governance Committee and becomes the preferred choice of the Provincial Government, then Vancouver City Council has committed to undertake a process to obtain input from Vancouver citizens on the amalgamation proposal. If amalgamation proceeds a proposal need to be developed which is seen to be a benefit to all.

SUMMARY OF CITY OF VANCOUVER DRAFT AMALGAMATION PRINCIPLES

1. Public Involvement

2. Maintaining Unique Character

3. Maintaining Single-Family Character

4. Managing Change and Maintaining Safety


5. Approval Processes Large Site Developments

6. Provision of Services

7. Financial Issues - Upgrading Services

8. Financial Issues - Services and Taxation Rates

9. Financing Growth Charges

10. Consequences to the City of Amalgamation

NOTE FROM CLERK: Appendices B-D not available in electronic form - on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

* * * * *

ag990921.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver