This all takes place on location bounded by 16th Avenue and 4200 Grandview Drive, Castlegar, British Columbia, Canada.

There are many opinions and conclusions as to what caused the failure of a beautiful seniors housing dream conceived by a group of seniors in Castlegar, B.C.

The intent of this blog entry is to provide information for anyone who may be researching cooperative movements with the purpose of designing and delivering seniors housing. This could also assist those groups who may be researching a housing project to become better prepared for the hurdles that may arise in their path to a successful project.

The various levels of government might take time to consider removing hurdles that encumber development by “grass roots” community groups who try to be part of a seniors housing solution. This could contribute to a decrease in the current seniors housing crisis

This action is designed to provide the reader with a background so that an independent opinion can be developed.

1. The Idea
   1. Members of the Doukhobor Cultural Association (DCA) were aging
   2. The DCA was involved with completion of several successful community seniors projects
   3. Parkside Villa (26 units) in Grand Forks, B.C.
   4. Rosewood Manor (10 units) in Castlegar, B.C.
   5. White Birch Manor (48 units) in Delta, B.C.
   6. Why not a seniors project where the DCA could be participants and share with the public?
   7. In 2002, a two (2) day retreat at Blue Lake Centre ended with all members present agreeing that a feasibility study should take place in Castlegar, B.C.
   8. The main objectives would include:
      1. Affordability
      2. Access to seniors care with fewer restrictions that currently exist with Interior Health Authority
      3. Optimum design for seniors health and mobility
      4. Possibility to utilize project development profits that would lower costs of delivering care when that need would arise
      5. Benefits from the project to be shared with friends and neighbour

    

2. Preliminary Feasibility Study No. 1
   1. A Committee of five (5) members was formed
   2. The Committee asked one of its members, a Professional Engineer, to report as Consultant
   3. Twenty (20) sites were investigated
   4. Site basic characteristics and requirements:
      1. Must be adjacent to all municipal services
      2. Design suitable to a campus style seniors complex consisting of Supportive/Assisted Living and Residential Care
      3. Recommended economic total size must be in the range of 160 to 250 units as established by successful private developments e.g., Hawthorne Park, in Kelowna, B,C.
      4. This ideal design would require five (5) acres minimum size
      5. Likely initial need for “seniors friendly” independent units as a starter project that would assist in financing the large basic infrastructure costs
      6. Recommended that housing lots be available for sale to the public which would also assist in financing the infrastructure
      7. It was then agreed that a preferred site size must be at least ten (10) acres
   5. Three (3) sites were short-listed:
      1. Centennial Park at the junction of the Kootenay and Columbia Rivers was the recommendation by Consultant and Committee
         1. Undeveloped park area exceeded thirty (30) acres
         2. Met all basic other criteria
         3. City Council recommended that the site be reconsidered as:
            1. Zoning from park to a higher zoning not usually successful
            2. Too many legal easements and site restrictions by external agencies including BC Hydro, First Nations, etc.
            3. Consultant and Committee recommended against further study on this site
      2. The Ferraro property in South Castlegar (the Grandview Project now) was second choice
         1. Property met basic criteria
         2. The forty (40) acre size exceeded the basic requirements
         3. Additional property could add to the revenues from additional development
         4. Purchase price at $10,000 per acre was very acceptable
         5. Consultant and Committee recommended further study on this site
      3. The ball park adjacent to the Castlegar Recreation Complex was suggested by the City of Castlegar CAO
         1. Closer to centre of town and services than the Ferraro site
         2. Size did not meet basic committee requirements
         3. Recreation Committee would not likely agree to compromise a site designated as recreation that would continue with future City growth
         4. Consultant and Committee recommended against further study on this site
3. The Project Name
   1. British Columbia Housing Manager responsible for the Kootenay Region recommended that the DCA look at a successful seniors housing project in Kamloops that used a cooperative model where the seniors financed their own units
   2. The cooperative was the North Kamloops Seniors Housing Cooperative (NKSHC)
   3. Twenty (20) members of the DCA visited the site of the project, Cottonwood, and met with the Founders
   4. The constitution, plans and operating budgets were copied by the Founders and “loaned” for KCSHC use
   5. The DCA decided that using a cooperative model would be recommended for the final feasibility study
   6. A naming contest took place and Kootenay Columbia Seniors Housing Cooperative (KCSHC) was the result
4.  Concept Creation
   1. The DCA decided to formalize the project by preparing a concept
   2. The decision was to allocate a maximum of just under $50,000 to this effort
   3. Elmer Verigin, as Consultant, would continue to report to the Committee and develop a concept:
   4. Ferraro family agreed to a $1,000 deposit on the 40 acre parcel for $400,000 purchase price
      1. Subject to feasibility and financing
   5. Lubor Trubka, Architects from Vancouver were engaged to prepare a site plan that would meet the economic basic requirements specified in (item 2.4 see above)
   6. Marwest Contracting Ltd and WSA Engineering were contacted to prepare a preliminary cost estimate on a design/build basis for infrastructure
   7. Elmer Verigin prepared an overall project estimate and possible costing of individual lots to cover infrastructure as well as projected final housing costs
   8. The DCA proceeded to register the KCSHC along with the appropriate documentation with a lawyer from Kamloops recommended by the NKSHC who was familiar with cooperatives
   9. It was agreed that the individual unit memberships would have a fee of $250
   10. Seventeen (17) members of the DCA took out the first unit memberships
   11. Voting power would equal one vote per unit membership
   12. The project was ready for public presentation
5.  Society Acceptance
   1. A public meeting was called in September 2005 with the Architect and others available to answer basic questions
   2. About 100 people attended
   3. Memberships were sold and membership rose to just under 50 units.
   4. Subsequent meetings established an elected Board and Committees from the rising membership which included:
      1. Board of Directors
      2. Building Committee
      3. Rules and Regulations Committee
      4. Chateau Grandview (originally Grandview Manor) Committee
      5. Grants and Finance Committee
      6. Landscape Committee
      7. Governance Rules were established
      8. Committees responsible in each area must report their recommendations to the Board. Minutes are to be recorded at each meeting
      9. The Board then makes a recommendation to the membership
      10. All members are to be invited to monthly membership meetings consider each Board recommendation with a final decision taking place
      11. Minutes are recorded at each meeting and distributed to the membership
      12. Committee then takes action
      13. All financial transactions must be approved by the Board
      14. The Treasurer and one signing officer to sign all cheques
      15. Each membership meeting is to receive a financial report
      16. Maximum individual expenditure (within approved budget) that can be approved by the Board is $50,000. All other expenses to be approved by membership
6. Decision on Land Purchase Phase I (40 acres)
   1. Option to Purchase had a time limit of May 2006
   2. Search for project financing included:
      1. Local credit unions
      2. BC Housing
      3. Columbia Basin Trust
   3. All refused to loan and/or fund the land portion without prior consideration of the total project
      1. Using seniors RRSPs and similar investments was not acceptable collateral for a loan
   4. A membership meeting was called to consider action to be taken
   5. The Consultant recommended that the project be abandoned due to financing challenges
   6. Members discussed action and considered that members put up cash to purchase land
   7. The Consultant advised that a total of $450,000 would have to be raised for Land Title and legal fees
      1. Further advice included no final project feasibility at this time
      2. KCSHC had no formal plan on how to proceed to project completion
   8. The membership decided to proceed against the Consultant’s advice
   9. 15 members volunteered to raise funds at $30,000 each
      1. Security would be by a Loan Agreement as a First Mortgage on the land
      2. See Loan Agreement 12.1.2
   10. The Consultant proceeded with the membership directive to secure the land purchase
7. A Castlegar Market Study
   1. Prepared by Kate Mancer, a respected consultant in this field, of InSite Housing, Hospitality, and Health Services Inc. The following excerpt is taken from the formal report dated June 02, 2006: 
      1. The KCSHC should focus on housing for independent seniors as Phase One of its planned development for the following reasons:
      2. “…..Executive Summary…..Conclusions and Recommendations
         1. The primary target market for independent seniors housing is seniors between the ages of 55 and 74; the primary target market for supportive housing projects is non-family households over the age of 75, and the primary target market for residential care facilities is non-family households over the agre of 85.
         2. The greatest growth among senior’s population in Castlegar market area over the next 15 years will be the younger age groups – 55 to 74. That group will increase by 966 people between now and 2021 while the 75+ group will increase by 406 people
         3. Although seniors as a whole prefer to stay where they are, younger seniors are about 50% more mobile than older seniors.
         4. Non-family owner households over the age of 75 in the market area have relatively low incomes – an average of $19,305. Even after the sale of a house these households would face affordability challenges vis-a-vis the cost of supportive housing. The current rent for a studio apartment with one meal is over $1,400 per month.
         5. Although Castlewood is full and has a waiting list, the depth of the market for supportive housing is worrisome in light of standard saturation analysis and in light of low incomes of the primary target market
         6. Younger households have significantly higher incomes. One family owner households with a head between the ages of 55 ND 64 and 65 to 74 have an average incomes of $66,753 and $43,961 respectively, before the sale of houses.
            1. Escalating construction costs will result in higher rents and selling prices for all types of senior’s housing and health care projects, meaning the impact for the unsubsidized supportive market.
            2. Until Grandview Heights becomes a more established community and services develop around the project, its location will be more appropriate for younger and more independent seniors than older frailer seniors.
            3. The campus nature of Grandview Heights becomes will attract younger senior who might otherwise decide not to move until much later in their lives. Seniors younger than 75 or 80 are more likely to move to a housing project that is part of a campus than to a free-standing project.
            4. Research indicates that younger seniors prefer to own rather than rent. A life lease or equity coop arrangement for Grandview Heights make sense not only from marketing and administrative (control over occupancy) points of view but also from a viability point of view (i.e. access to capital) Because of general unfamiliarity with these tenure types, communication with future residents needs to be carefully planned and should begin as soon as possible. We are assuming that consumers in Castlegar will respond positively to a development of this nature but there is really no way of knowing for sure until the consumers are approached directly. It is our experience with the life lease concept that once consumers understand it, they like it.
         7. Golden Life Management has been very aggressive and very successful in the Kootenays; however, a project sponsored by KCSHC would have a marketing advantage relative to the Golden Life projects because of its campus nature, its non-profit nature, and (potentially at least) its tenure arrangements.
         8. he addition of a supportive housing / assisted living component in 10 years (more or less, depending on circumstances) would be the next logical development followed by a licensed care facility…….”
8. Based on the above recommendations the KCSHC continued with:
   1. The developing and marketing of 55 Grandview Heights units and 56 residential lots to raise the capital necessary to fund the infrastructure
   2. Starting a process to develop 61 units of Supportive Living in the Chateau Grandview
9. Establish Mission Statement
   1. The KCSHC membership created the following:
      1. Identity: “The Kootenay Columbia Seniors Housing Cooperative (KCSHC) is a Not-For-Profit Housing development catering to seniors seeking to live the rest of their lives in a self-governed community”
      2. 
      3. Vision: “Seniors living for life in a cooperative, supportive housing community”
      4. 
      5. Mission: “Our mission is to satisfy the needs of each individual member by creating homes where they will live independently and by establishing a campus-style health facility where our members may choose to live in an environment which sustains quality living.
   2. The cooperative will use prudent business practices to ensure our members receive the best possible housing and quality care services for the best possible price with a Life Lease Model”
   3. 
10. Search for Public Financing Support
    1. Columbia Basin Trust (CBT)
       1. Initial meetings indicated that there was a willingness to participate with the Grandview Manor (Campus Seniors) portion under submission of specific project,
       2. Quotation from CBT letter dated December 20, 2005 “Funding of seniors Care Complex…
          1. “CBT would be pleased to review a more comprehensive proposal to participate as an equitable partner in the construction of a 117 unit care facility…..”
       3. At a subsequent meeting with the Mayor, MLA and MP present the following is an excerpt from the notes taken by Elaine Whitehead, Assistant to Katrina Conroy MLA and dated February 21, 2008:“… Comments by CBT: 
          1. Good concept and a great idea but CBT can’t get involved other than to assist with getting more grant money for up to 10K inadvertently through the RDCK that CBT actually gives them……….made it clear they cannot get involved. Went through explaining how trust works and what their investment mean. Their lawyers would perceive this is a conflict of interest because they have invested in Castlewood and Grandview would be in competition. They cannot invest in a facility that would compete with one of their investments and their lawyers would be sure to inform them as such……”
          2. No CBT support was available
    2. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)
       1. CMHC website indicated support for cooperative housing projects
       2. Feasibility funding could be available as a loan / grant
       3. Support would come as a guarantee of a financing loan
       4. Upon actual application to guarantee interim financing for Chateau Grandview by:
          1. Bank of Montreal
          2. Royal Bank
          3. Western Canadian Bank
       5. Refused to interim finance unless loan was a final for a rental project
       6. No support was available
    3. British Columbia Housing (BCH)
       1. Requirements of BCH had changed from DCA previous project experience
       2. Project must have a significant municipal financial involvement
          1. City of Castlegar was not interested
       3. As a result no support would be available
11. Search for Grants and other external funding
    1. DCA Initial Funding $50,000
       1. (See 4.b)
    2. Columbia Basin Trust
       1. Grant of $30,000 was provided in July 2008
          1. Money was used for feasibility study for Chateau Grandview
          2. Derek Murphy was engaged to do the study
       2. Grant of $3,930 was provided June 10, 2010
          1. Money was used for Geotesting for Chateau Grandview
    3. Real Estate Foundation (REF)
       1. A grant application was submitted
       2. Was recommended by the Executive Director
       3. Refused by the REF Board
    4. Kootenay Savings Foundation
       1. Grant of $30,000 was provided December 14, 2009
       2. Money was used for Chateau Grandview development purposes
    5. Heritage Savings Foundation
       1. Grant of $25,000 was provided January 26, 2010
       2. 
       3. Money was used for Chateau Grandview development purposes
    6. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
       1. Grant of $50,000 was provided in 2008
       2. Grant of $15,000 was provided September 06, 2011
       3. Money was used to develop three (3) Contractor formal design/build proposals for Chateau Grandview
    7. Cooperatives Group Limited
       1. Grant of $15,000 was provided May 24, 2011
       2. Grant was used for advertising campaign for Chateau Grandview
    8. Mining gravel deposits on Lot 59
       1. The future site of Phase II Residential Lots was sited over a very deep overburden of clean gravel that could reach about 30 meters
       2. KCSHC had considered mining this gravel in advance of development to raise funds for infrastructure costs
       3. The Building Committee and Directors opted to develop the site over existing grades balancing cuts and fills to current levels
          1. Perhaps delaying the project and operate a gravel mining project may have been a viable option???
          2. A rough calculation would yield some $6.5 million at $1.50 per m³ but that would take many years as no local Purchaser / User could store that much aggregate economically
          3. The final conclusion was that this may not be a viable plan
       4. After the Phase I infrastructure was completed, it became obvious that site grading of Lot 59 would uncover a substantial amount of gravel
       5. The decision was made to market this gravel and about $50,000 was raised for operating expenses
12. Membership Loans Financing
    1. This came unsolicited as a result of a motion made and passed at that meeting (see 6.9 above)
    2. Loans Agreements were prepared by KCSHC Legal Counsel
       1. Loan agreement specifically covered that the signatory seek independent advice
       2. Initialing that clause was required
       3. Five (5) year term
       4. Interest rate noted
       5. Trustees (3) elected to ensure that security was placed
       6. More loans came in than required to fill the initial needs
    3. Ensuing Loans
       1. Used same model as in item 12.2 above
       2. Unsolicited but membership was aware that financing by members was the likely approach to the project success
       3. Members would call the Project Manager who received the applications
       4. Director signing officers executed the loans
       5. Members may opt to:
          1. Future purchase of a Residential Lot
          2. Future purchase of a Grandview Housing Lot
          3. Final security would be a registered legal title but interim security would be a first mortgage on the unsubdivided initial property
          4. Money to be used for land purchase or infrastructure construction
          5. Interest from the membership was very active at this time
    4. Loans for 16th Avenue Construction
       1. Estimated cost was $2 million
       2. Negotiations with the City of Castlegar
          1. CoC advised that there were still no DCC Funds available
          2. Excerpt from CoC Annual report December 31, 2007, page 24, Exhibit 3 lists “….Reserve Fund for Development Cost Charges amount $1,174,700……”
          3. Advice was that they would make a “special funding” of $1 million if KCSHC raised the rest
          4. KCSHC made an appeal to the membership to raise $1 million
             1. Members responded and full amount was raised as the members were desperate to have access to 34 Grandview Housing units under construction at that time
             2. The same loan agreement was used as before to secure loan-holders (see 12.2)
             3. The contingency plan was to repay this loan from the pending development of Chateau Grandview where the members would pay $30,000 per door for their share of infrastructure costs
                1. Phase I of 61 units x $30,000 would generate $1,830,000
             4. The KCSHC felt confident to proceed with the CoC partnership funding
             5. Note the following City bylaw was not enacted by Council:
                1. COC bylaw 695, TO IMPOSE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES passed in 1994 is quoted:“…AND WHEREAS the development costs charges may be imposed for the sole purpose of providing funds to assist the City in paying capital cost of providing, constructing, altering or expanding sewage, water, drainage and highway facilities and providing park land, ion order to serve, directly or indirectly, the development for which the charges are imposed…..” “…..14th Avenue South (now 16th avenue as it passes through Grandview)PROJECT DESCRIPTION a bypass collector connecting Highway #3 at upper bench and Highway #22 near Industrial Park
                2. COST ESTIMATE $4.600,000 
                   1. FUNDING DCC, general taxation and contribution from frontage beneficiaries…..”
                   2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2011 – 2014
                   3. Clause 4.1.4 states…..”
                3. KCSHC understood that all of 16th Avenue as it would pass through Grandview would be the responsibility of KCSHC
                4. KCSHC requested that the portion of 16th Avenue that continued south to Minto Road be constructed by the CoC and expedite construction to 2009 from 2011 as per bylaw 695
             6. KCSHC had prepared construction drawings and cost estimates that suggested the total cost to be $2 million
                1. CoC stated that there were no DCC funds available to do this (see actual DCC Fund total in 12.4.2.)
             7. KCSHC considered the alternative to access north through Emerald Green which was developing a subdivision that would require construction of that portion of 16th Avenue and allow access to 37th Street and Highway #22
                1. Final proposal would require a traffic light at Highway #22 estimated at a cost of $500,000 to be shared by KCSHC
                2. The developer of Emerald Green decided to abandon plans for that subdivision and this access became unavailable in June of 2008
                3. The southern 16th Avenue option became the only practical option
             8. Negotiations with CoC started again in July 2008
                1. Membership became aware that Emerald Green would not proceed and access to Grandview would not be available from 37th Street via 16th Avenue North (originally 14th Ave)
                2. Alternative was building 16th Avenue South
13. Infrastructure Design Process
    1. Negotiations took place with WSA Engineering who had already provided initial cost estimates and advice
       1. Contract for the infrastructure design was signed with fees traded for the value of two (2) residential lots
       2. This reduced financing costs and reduced cash outlay
       3. Final result was that WSAE was provided with title to 2 residential lots of their choice in full exchange for the value of the infrastructure design fees
       4. (Note overdesign policy by CoC and AO as outlined in 28.iii through to vi inclusive increased design costs but were absorbed by WSAE)
14. Feasibility Study No. 2
    1. With preliminary design drawings, the process to establish an overall cost estimate was possible
    2. The Project Manager (PM) had worked with Marwest Industries Ltd (MIL) on a large subdivision in Warfield. This type of contract work is based on unit prices. These unit prices can easily be compared to projects in surrounding municipalities that were derived by competitive tendering.
    3. Unit prices were established in this fashion
    4. These unit prices were used in final designs of the infrastructure by WSAE
    5. Due to the lack of available cash it was negotiated with MIL that they work closely with WSAE
    6. Agreed that final payment on contract will be the equivalent of four (4) residential lots as part of the future infrastructure construction contract
    7. MIL also found two associates that made loans to KCSHC for future value of four (4) additional lots
    8. The legal land surveyor agreed to provide surveying in a partial exchange for one (1) residential lot
    9. The PM agreed that fees for work on the infrastructure would be paid in exchange for the value of one (1) residential lot
    10. These negotiated exchange of services for future land was conducted on the basis of trust that the firms involved had with the Consultant
    11. The membership was advised of these negotiations and soon the members started offering loans for future:
        1. Residential Lots
        2. Grandview Heights Strata Lots
        3. Others offered loans as there was a philosophical belief in the cooperative process
        4. All transactions were based on the approved loan agreement system already established
        5. Upon subdivision registration, choice of lots would be based on initial dates of loan agreements
        6. All loans to be utilized for land purchases and development costs
15. Decision on Land Purchase phase 2 (additional 20 acres)
    1. City of Castlegar officials advised in 2006 that the CoC was not able to proceed with construction of 16th Avenue (14th Avenue at the time of the bylaw 695) even though a bylaw that legislated construction of 16th Avenue was to be constructed by 2011
    2. Funding was to come from accumulated Development Cost Charges (DCCs)
    3. Although the KCSHC request was earlier than 2011, the officials advised that there were no DCCs in the Fund at that time
       1. Excerpt from CoC Annual report December 31, 2007, page 24, Exhibit 3 lists Reserve Fund for Development Cost Charges amount $1,174,700
    4. Construction of 16th Avenue South was estimated at $2 million in 2006
    5. Without CoC support, KCSHC could not afford this full cost in its economic development of Grandview
    6. Emerald Green was proceeding with an extension to their subdivision that included construction of 16th Avenue within that development
    7. An alternative access to Grandview would be to connect to that portion of northern 16th Avenue
    8. Property between Emerald Green and Grandview was owned by Ferraros
    9. A $300,000 price tag would allow a connecting 16th Avenue construction to be economically funded by development of residential Grandview lots on both sides
    10. The decision was made to purchase this land and extend the planned residential lot subdivision (see 10.c.viii)
    11. Revenues from development of 18 additional residential lots would pay for this purchase with future revenues possibility from a future Phase II residential subdivision
    12. This increased the financial development funding required as now the development was much larger than originally planned
16. Develop Initial Project Cost Estimates
    1. Knowledge of construction costs of local subdivisions
    2. WSAE and MIL were actively involved in these projects
    3. Unit costs for installation of sanitary and storm sewer, water, power, telephone and cable was current
    4. Levelling and grading amounts were estimated from preliminary drawings
    5. Budgets were thus developed to an accuracy suitable for feasibility purposes
17. Confirm Serious Purchaser Intent
    1. Membership interest continued to rise that was now approaching 200 member units
    2. Loan offers continued to come into the KCSHC coffers
    3. Preliminary site clearing had taken place so that members could visualize the design of the subdivision
    4. An appeal went out to the membership to determine their interest in the winter of 2008, this was the approximate status:
       1. Residential Lots 34
       2. Grandview Heights Strata Lots 52
    5. Based on preliminary projections of lot market prices the following funds were raised:
       1. Residential lots 34 x an average of $70,000 = $2,380,000
       2. Grandview Heights strata lots
          1. Serious 34 x $40,000 = $1,360,000
          2. Deposits 18 x $20,000 average = $360,000
          3. Total $4,100,000
       3. Note that these amounts were changing with time but this provides a reasonable estimate of the status at that time
       4. Based on the projection of total infrastructure, land, survey, design and other costs projection of $7,000,000, about $3,000,000 in financing would be required
18. Project Appraisal
    1. Phase I Residential Lots (58) appraisal value $6,160,000 dated May 01, 2008Strand and Godfrey Appraisals Ltd
    2. Chateau Grandview Site appraisal $960,000 dated May 01, 2008
    3. Grandview Heights Strata Lots (59) appraisal based on KCHC sales price of $40,000 per unit $2,360,000 dated May 01, 2008 (note by Appraiser that, alternatively, fee simple gross sales proceeds is $7,300,000 or $124,000 average lot price)
    4. Uncompleted remainder of 23 acres $517,000 dated May 01, 2008
    5. Phase II uncompleted Residential Lots (36) appraisal $1,700.000 dated May 20, 2008
    6. Total value of the 60 acre site appraised $11,797,000 dated May 20, 2008
19. Marketing Projections by KCSHC
    1. Residential Lots revenues 58 x $110,000 = $6,380.000
    2. Strata Lots (Grandview Heights) 55 x $40,000 = $2,220,000
    3. Supportive Living Phase 1 (Chateau Grandview) 63 x $30,000 = $1,890.000
    4. Total initial development revenues $10,340,000
    5. Revenues from developing the balance (208 units zoning maximum) of Chateau Grandview or 145 units @ $30,000 (original plans) for $4,350,000
    6. Revenues from developing Phase II Residential Lots $1,400,000
    7. Revenues to assist future care needs appeared very possible
20.  Search for Infrastructure Financing
    1. Self-financing intent
    2. Many of the founding members were loathe to borrow funds
    3. The fundamental principle was to raise all the required funding from members
    4. A need for financing was becoming a necessity
    5. Time was a factor
    6. Waiting to find enough members serious to fund the entire $7 million infrastructure budget, may mean that others could not tolerate the wait and lose interest
    7. The decision was made to investigate if financing could be available
    8. Financing should be easier now that
    9. Members had raised over $4.1 million (see 17.5)
    10. Loan amount would be less than 50% of total infrastructure cost or under $3 million (see 17.5.4)
    11. Sources considered
        1. Banks
           1. Calls to the Bank of Montreal did not suggest any real interest
        2. Columbia Basin Trust
           1. Already established inability to fund due to legal barriers
           2. (see meeting with CBT 10.1.3.2)
        3. Kootenay Savings Credit Union (KSCU)
           1. A meeting with KSCU indicated that a loan would be considered with a 100% mortgage would be the necessary security on all lands held by KCSHC
           2. The Consultant suggested that the security requested was not in keeping with the equity available
        4. Heritage Credit Union (HCU)
           1. A meeting with HCU indicated that a loan could be possible and security could be on legal portions of the project representing sufficient security when subdivision would take place
           2. The Consultant recommended this source of financing be pursued (see 20.10)
           3. Financing Package selected for presentation to the membership was as follows:
           4. Grandview Heights Strata Lots would not have any financing as members would fund this portion from apparent sales
           5. Residential Lots would have 75% mortgage ($1,815,000) to appraised value on residential lots
           6. Phase II Residential Lots, Lot 59 (potential 36 lots) would have a $500,000 mortgage
           7. Chateau Grandview, Lot 53, would have a mortgage of $448,700
           8. A formal offer from HCU (dated March 11, 2008) along with a first mortgage requirement was received from HCU and presented to membership meeting #3900 on March 16, 2008 (see 21.1) 
21. Infrastructure Final Financing Package Approval
    1. At a membership Meeting #3900, dated March 16, 2008, the membership reviewed the detailed terms and conditions of the Heritage Credit Union (HCU) Offer to Finance dated March 11, 2008 with 50 members present (from attendance list) from 186 members total
       1. “…….Agenda item 3915 Heritage Credit Union “Bridge Financing” recommendation from Directors:
       2. See hard copy of proposal
    2. Motion to support financing proposal
    3. Motion by Cliff Paluck/Joe Nazaroff for directors to carry on with this proposal. Vote all in favour, no opposed, no abstentions. Carried unanimously
    4. Report on Appraisal of properties proposal
    5. Other action if required……….”Financing approved was as follows:
       1. Residential Lots (58) mortgage amount of $1,815,000 at 3.5256 % interest
          1. Dated progression of this loan administration
             1. During a review of loans in early 2012 for Canadian Western Bank that was considering interim financing Chateau Grandview Supportive Living construction, it was found that $275,000 was never funded in this registered mortgage. Several audited financial statements failed to report this as well
             2. HCU Manager at first was surprised at this but later advised that he could not fund this remaining outstanding amount due to the decrease of current residential lot values
             3. The Consultant advised the Directors that this not a per agreement
             4. The Directors decided not to proceed to any remedy
             5. This was a serious reduction in funds to pay out infrastructure costs to two contractors
       2. Lot 53 (Chateau Grandview site) mortgage amount of $448,700 at interest rate 1/2% over prime
       3. Lot 59 (Phase II Residential Lots) mortgage amount of $500,000 at interest rate 1/2% over prime
22. Decision on Infrastructure Construction Start
    1. Following General Meeting #3900, action taken was as follows
       1. Contracts with MIL were executed
       2. Construction started
       3. Final utility designs were completed and contracts let for utilities and contractor for that work not included in base utility scope
23. Subdivision Registration
    1. It was fundamental that a registered subdivision be filed with Land Titles Offices in Kamloops
    2. KCSHC Site Plan C06001-004_28072009-Site Plan
    3. Needed to have HCU register individual mortgages over those lots to be mortgaged rather than over entire property
    4. Provide clear titles to members purchasing residential lots and Grandview Housing strata lots who in turn would release their loan agreements with KCSHC
    5. The difficulties to achieve this were:
    6. Approving Officer (AO) for the City of Castlegar cannot approve a legal survey drawing until all the infrastructure is complete
    7. Option is that a financial security is posted for 1.25 times the estimated incomplete work
    8. This unique issue was discussed with the HCU Manager with the result
       1. Deposits were up to $7 million in the HCU by members who were funding their bungalows and duplexes in Grandview Heights
       2. The Manager suggested that he could temporarily use this as collateral for the short time it would take to register the subdivision
       3. Certified cheques were delivered to the CoC AO in June 2009
       4. Subdivision was registered
       5. HCU was very helpful and cooperative in achieving this major step forward
    9. Letters of Credit were eventually removed by the City of Castlegar as the infrastructure work was completed
24. Marketing
    1. Serious marketing was undertaken now to generate sufficient sales to pay HCU loan
    2. 
    3. Residential Lot interest continued and members signed loans where they would advance funds as a percentage of completion of Infrastructure
    4. Grandview Heights interest was encouraged
       1. 34 members signed agreements that they would consummate a final agreement to purchase a full bungalow or duplex and find external funding for same
       2. 18 to 20 members who had loans for potential purchase decided not to proceed. All became members of Loan-holders Group #1
    5. Other new members became interested
    6. Interest in Chateau Grandview was in excess of 40 members
    7. Initial marketing contact person was the PM as the KCSHC had no staff
    8. Later, a member of KCSHC, Jim Laktin, was hired at $2,000 per month plus expenses and reported to the Promotions Committee
25. Grandview Heights Construction Process
    1. Ultimately Loan Agreement translated to Bungalow or Duplex
    2. 
    3. Accrued interest on loan agreements was paid as part of the final lot value
    4. 
    5. Successful in 47 deals
26. Residential Lot Construction Process
    1. Ultimately Loan Agreement translated to a Residential Lot
    2. Accrued interest on loan agreements was paid as part of the final lot value
    3. 
    4. Successful in 34 deals
27. Chateau Grandview Development Process (Lot 53) (Note This was Lot 52 in original Survey)
    1. A Chateau Grandview Committee took responsibility for this portion of the project
    2. The Committee knew how important success was in this portion of the project to the overall financial success now that the 16th Avenue development agreement with the CoC required $1 million from KCSHC
    3. Time was of the essence.
    4. The process included:
       1. Soliciting design concept proposals from architectural firms for a campus style project with
       2. Supportive living
       3. Assisted living
       4. Residential care
    5. Maximum zoning was available for 208 units on upper portion of Lot 53
    6. Developing a construction budget from an experienced general contractor for 64 supportive living units
    7. Budget was used from the Derek Murphy business plan
       1. Engaging Derek Murphy to conduct a business plan dated June 30th 2009
       2. Results in Executive Summary:Cooperative is proposing to build independent living residence (Grandview Manor) for seniors in its Grandview sub-division, which also includes 55 bungalows. The project will be built in phases, with the first phase to consist of 61 units. Future phases of Grandview Manor will likely include a complex care component. This business plan provides evidence to the effect that:
          1. “….The Kootenay Columbia Seniors Housing
          2. Grandview Manor is a desirable housing option with a clearly defined product that will meet a growing demand in the West Kootenay / Boundary area.
          3. There is sufficient evidence of future unmet demand for independent living projects like Grandview Manor to justify commencement of construction, once a critical mass of pre-sales have been achieved
          4. The capital and operating cost structures for Grandview Manor are sound and will provide quality residential and hospitality services at a very competitive price
          5. The Kootenay Columbia Seniors Cooperative has the organizational and financial capacity to successfully develop and manage Grandview Manor…..”
28. Based on this Business Plan, the KCSHC continued with plans to develop Chateau Grandview
    1. Members signed intent to purchase units in Chateau Grandview
    2. Over 30 member units deposited $1,000 into trust to confirm interest
    3. HHTCS submitted an offer to become financially involved in the Assisted Living and Residential Care portion phase for a 49% interest with payment of $2 million when those phases became viable
       1. This is estimated to have an approximate value of $25,000 per door for the projected 80 planned units
       2. This closely compares to the initial appraisal on Phase I (Supportive Living) provided by Adrian Rizzo of Kent Macpherson Appraisals at $28,196.72 per door (See 28.6)
    4. HHTCS was familiar with ELIM, a project that their church sponsored in Surrey, B.C., and strongly suggested that the KCSHC visit the project as it had distinct similarities to Grandview in scope and philosophy
       1. Located at 160th Street and 90th Avenue, Surrey, B.C.
       2. The project is a “Campus Style” design with independent condos followed by Supportive and Assisted Living units which flow into Residential Care
       3. Funds accumulated from real estate sales are invested into the project to assist members financially
       4. This was part of the Grandview dream
       5. About 6 members of the Chateau Grandview Committee attended and received all types of information
       6. This was filed for future reference when Chateau Grandview and the rest of Grandview would reach a substantial level of completion
29. Search for Mortgage Guarantors
    1. Sources:
       1. Columbia Basin Trust
       2. Canada Mortgage and Housing
       3. City of Castlegar and Regional District
    2. All were unable to provide the required guarantee
    3. Financing was not achieved
30. Confirm Chateau Grandview Development Estimates
    1. A design/build invitation to contractors in April 2010, resulted in five proposals
       1. A review followed with three (3) selected for a final submission
          1. Tri-City Contracting Ltd (TCCL)
          2. Vic Van Isle Construction Ltd
          3. Maple Reinders Contracting Ltd
    2. All final submissions to have definitive preliminary design drawings and bonded tenders for a fee of $20,000 each
    3. In the industry, preliminary architectural designs are valued at about 1.75% of Construction Cost
       1. Based on the successful tender from TCCL of approximately ($10,897,00) or rounded to $11,000,000, the cost would have been about $200,000 for one design
          1. Three separate designs were submitted at a total cost of $60,000
          2. Tenders were received June 30, 2010
    4. TCCL was investigated thoroughly and became the recommended contractor
       1. Tender compared favorably with estimates prepared by the general contract  (See 27.6)
       2. 
       3. Design concept as proposed by TCCL above
       4. During the investigation of TCCL‘s successful projects, H & H Total Care Services Ltd (HHTCS), the owner, was interviewed in two (2) projects now in operation in Kamloops and Penticton
    5. HHTCS became interested in the Chateau Grandview Project as an operator
    6. TCCL continues as an interested design/build contractor to this time
    7. Adrian Rizzo of Kent-Macpherson Appraisals in Kelowna, conducted an appraisal on June 04, 2010 for 61 marketable Supportive Living Units
       1. Appraised land value for 61 marketable units was $1.720,000 or $28,196.72 per door
       2. Appraised value for entire 61 completed units was $14,390,000
    8. The Mortgage Centre, a mortgage broker in Kelowna, was engaged
       1. To receive formal interim financing proposals from:
          1. Royal Bank of Canada
          2. Bank of Montreal
          3. Canadian Western Bank
       2. All the above proposals required a mortgage guarantee
    9. KCSHC as a cooperative needed substantial support
31. KCSHC Challenges
    1. Members gossip spilled over into the community
       1. Support for the project started to deteriorate as a result
    2. The Twin Rivers subdivision, located across Highway 22 from the Grandview site, went on the market at about the same time as Grandview
       1. Their lots increased in sales price due to increasing infrastructure costs
       2. The result was a failure in potential sales
       3. Kootenay Savings Credit Union (KSCU) was the financing credit union and forced the developer to market the units to reduce indebtedness
       4. A large number of lots were sold to developers for $60,000 which set the market price for Castlegar lot prices thus undercutting Grandview pricesTwin Rivers Subdivision Competition
       5. This essentially stopped sales on residential lots at Grandview for a few years
    3. Administration Fee
       1. The KCSHC recognized from the outset that all transactions would simply pass through member loans, through to strata unit, residential lot or Chateau Grandview unit and so an administration fee was necessary to pay the minimal overhead costs
       2. The first 34 strata units passed a motion that $1,000 be paid on all transactions to June of 2008. Any others would be $5,000
       3. Chateau Grandview future fees were set at $3,000
       4. Ensuing transactions were challenged by 3 members (who purchased constructed units) who refused to pay the $5,000 administration fee after receiving advice from a notary public
       5. This was not legally challenged by the Directors due to shortage of funds
    4. 2008 Real Estate Crash/Global Financial Crisis
       1. The external economic pressures from a national housing market crash reduced values on all real estate
       2. This was a negative factor in the KCSHC activity
    5. Membership criticism
       1. Total membership totalled 285 member units at the height of the KCSHC,
       2. Unfortunately, attendance at membership meetings varied from 30 to a maximum of 50 members
       3. Also, most did not read the minutes distributed to all the members
       4. Others were influenced by misinformed gossip
       5. Unfounded criticism circulated about the Committees and Directors
       6. One member filed a complaint with the RCMP in Castlegar
          1. Complaint was that the Directors and the Project Manager (PM) did not handle KCSHC funds appropriately
          2. RCMP called the Project Manager for an interview which took 1 1/2 hours
          3. Constable could not reveal name of complainant
          4. PM applied to Freedom of Information (FoI)
             1. FoI advised that the complaint was that the PM took “kick-backs” from two of the major contractors and that improper contract awards process was used
          5. RCMP advised after the interview that they had no reason to keep the file open from this time forward
          6. No further action has taken place
       7. Another member spread rumours that the PM absconded with $3 million in funds from the Grandview project
32.  KCSHC 2013 Plan of Action
    1. Action Plan Proposal to Membership by Directors
    2. After much research and meetings with affected firms a Plan of Action was developed as follows:
       1. All Shareholders Loans total about $1,400,000 without accrued interest
       2. Trade Lot 53 (Chateau Grandview site) to Loan-holders who held a 2nd mortgage
          1. Value of Lot 53 (See 28.3.2)
          2. 
          3. Loan-holders would find a process to remove 1st mortgage of $448,700 and taxes
       3. Market eight (8) remaining Grandview Heights lots to create funds that would remove HCU “hold” on $275,000 operating loan
       4. Trade Lot 59 (Phase II Residential Lots) for contractor accounts/payable (A/P) to Marwest and Martech of $500,000
       5. 
          1. Contractors would pay 1st mortgage of $500,000
       6. Unsold Residential Lots would be released to HCU
          1. KCSHC would continue to market them
          2. All net proceeds to HCU
          3. This would exceed the remaining mortgage amount
       7. Grandview Heights strata lots
          1. Remaining eight (8) strata owners that leased from KCSHC would register their strata and KCSHC would cease to be Landlord
    3. Meetings with Loan-holders
       1. After several meetings, agreement by secret ballot on above was above 95%
       2. 
    4. Action Plan was initiated
       1. Eight (8) Grandview Housing Lots were sold to TCCL for about $275,000
       2. TCCL swapped completed duplex unit in lieu of cash and KCSHC gained ownership
       3. KCSHC sold duplex for about $275,000
       4. Directors held these funds in the Notary Public trust account pending distribution to HCU
       5. Cash to fund $275,000 “hold” by HCU on Operating Account was ready to transact
       6. This claim would precede any other
    5. Action taken by some members
       1. Although over 95% of the Loan holders were in agreement with the Plan of Action several took the initiative of filing a small debts claim against KCSHC
       2. These Claims came before a Small Claims Judge:
          1. Judge warned claimants their current protection was a 2nd mortgage
          2. That KCSHC did owe money
          3. Judgement against KCSHC would change loan into an A/P with no security
          4. Judgement for the claimants would bankrupt the KCSHC who had no cash
       3. Claimants responded that causing KCSHC bankruptcy was not their intent other than collecting monies owed to them but continued anyway
    6. Members filed a claim against monies held by Notary Public
    7. Small Debts Court seized $40,000 from the Notary Public Trust Account as a result.
33. Bankrupcy
    1. The Directors had no cash as the repayment of the HCU Operating Loan would have released operating funds
       1. This could not happen now and they declared bankruptcy
    2. Bankruptcy Receiver filed a claim against the $40,000 in court and money was held pending proof of claim
    3. Current Status:
       1. The Court released $40,000 to the Bankruptcy Receiver
       2. Bankruptcy Receiver was finally confirmed by Court, October 29, 2015
34. List of Possible Causes for KCSHC Collapse (not necessarily in priority)
    1. HCU shortfall of $275,000 in funding mortgage of $1,815,000 on Residential Lots (see 19.c.i)
       1. HCU freezing of operating account left KCSHC with no cash flow
       2. HCU short funded a registered mortgage
    2. City of Castlegar (CoC)
       1. KWL Engineering Report indicated that a self-draining ancient river bed would require no storm sewer
          1. “….new development should include provision for stormwater detention / retention ponds to minimize the impact of minor…..storms…”
          2. “5.2….Castlegar watersheds have a high infiltration capacity because they are predominantely comprised of sands and gravels into which rainwater and snowmelt can easily be absorbed. This why soakaway manholes have proven to be effective within the city…..”
       2. WSAE designed a storm retention pond (value $80,000)
       3. CoC requirement was a costly overflow channel to Scoffield Creek (over $350,000)
       4. This was not anticipated in the KCSHC development budgets
       5. Initial barrier to the infrastructure design process was that the CoC noted that a south sanitary sewer trunk line downstream from the intended project through Columbia Avenue was known to have a partial collapse
          1. This possible constriction had to be evaluated
          2. KCSHC was advised that it was their obligation to determine whether the sewer line would be adequate
          3. KCSHC protested that this is an existing infrastructure
          4. End result was that an engineering firm would be hired to evaluate
          5. KCSHC finally agreed to a 50/50 split of costs on the understanding that it would be a competitive tender process
          6. CoC selected a firm without KCSHC consultation and advised on November 29, 2005 that the total fee would be $15,800 and that KCSHC needed to forward the agreed 50%
       6. Legislated construction of 14th Avenue (now 16th Ave) scheduled in CoC bylaw 695 for 2011 – 2014 long before KCSHC came into being.
          1. CoC was to allocate Development Cost Charges (DCCs) into a fund since 1979 to fund projects such as these. (See 12.4.4.5)
          2. CoC advised that there were no funds
          3. How was this possible?
          4. KCSHC forced to pay a cost sharing with CoC of 50% of $2,000,000 cost
          5. This was not anticipated in the KCSHC budgets
       7. Increase design criteria of water pump house
          1. Basic level is to ensure pressure maintained at 43 psi
          2. This would have required a pump and pressure control mechanism as designed by WSAE for about $80,000
          3. Final design requested by CoC had 4 pumps in sequence at a cost of over $350,000
          4. This was not anticipated in the KCSHC development budgets
       8. Increase redesign criteria of storm reservoir designs than those recommended by Kerr Wood Leidel (KWL) Engineering Storm Sewer Report for South Castlegar dated February 1993
       9. Basic Design of Sanitary, Water lines became oversized
          1. Initial request was to install oversize lines with CoC paying the difference
          2. Urban Systems Ltd (USL) review came back with oversize piping over the WSAE designs
          3. WSAE had to purchase a computer design system to prove that USL request was over designed
          4. Time spent and additional expense to KCSHC was unwarranted
          5. This appears to be an irregular action by CoC
          6. CoC relented in the debate and permitted the WSAE designs to go forward
       10. Water Loop requirement to Emerald Green held as a barrier to development of Chateau Grandview
           1. CoC position was that “looping” to Emerald Green was an Interior Health requirement
           2. KCSHC had to pursue a long debate to prove that this is not a requirement by Municipal Code
           3. This appears to be an irregular action by CoC
       11. Bylaw 695 Development Cost Charges practice on adjacent lands
           1. Adjacent property owners should contribute to cost of adjacent streets and municipal services
           2. A large property owner adjacent to 16th Avenue was assessed $5,000 in the future, by the CoC AO, toward the $2 million 16th Avenue construction although the property is within City limits
           3. Was this fair?
       12. Another large adjacent property was subdivided by its owners (3) at that time and were not assessed any costs because they were in the RDCK and not within City limits
           1. This appears to be an injustice
       13. Offer by BC Housing (BCH) to fund 50 to 60 factory built housing units in April 2009:
           1. Government funding became available (Federal/Provincial) offered by BCH
           2. Two executives came from BCH Head Office in Burnaby to Castlegar to meet with the CoC and KCSHC
           3. Manfred Gerschak and Danna Locke met with
           4. President Jim Mullen and Director Harry Jukes of KCSHC
           5. No representative came from CoC
           6. Suggested site was original Calamida Stadium in Lot 53
           7. KCSHC was prepared to donate land to meet BCH criteria
           8. BCH required CoC to become involved
           9. BCH suggested access road to 16th Avenue as acceptable criteria
           10. CoC would not meet with BCH and KCSHC
           11. Minutes from Directors Meeting May 06, 2009
               1. “….Subsidized Housing was handled by Jim and Harry as they met with Manfred and Danna. The representatives were impressed with the site. There had been hope that the City of Castlegar would be involved and although a formal letter had been written to Council and the Mayor, it was learned that it had not been formally presented to Council. Elmer, however heard from John Malcolm who seems to favor another area closer to the Medical Center for this purpose. Malcolm contacted BC Housing personally……”
           12. The opportunity to build 50 to 60 housing units was lost because this offer was for a limited time only from the Federal Government that was offering a stimulus to the Manufactured Homes Industry
    3. Canada Mortgage and Housing
       1. KCSHC plan was that seniors would purchase units so that no rent would have to be paid in the Chateau Grandview project
       2. This plan was supported by the fact that over 30 members had placed deposits of $1,000 for a unit
       3. Since the system was used successfully to develop units in Grandview Heights where seniors purchased 47 units from their own resources, this would apply favorably in this instance
       4. It was further supported in that those members living in Grandview Heights would sell their units and progress to Chateau Grandview
       5. This system was already working well in the ELIM project in Surrey (see 25.v)
       6. CMHC would not mortgage guarantee Chateau Grandview loan offers from
          1. Royal Bank
          2. Bank of Montreal
          3. Canadian Western Bank
       7. Reasons given to the Mortgage Centre were that:
          1. Loans were interim financing with intent to purchase units by seniors
          2. CMHC would consider a guarantee if the project was a rental proposal
          3. The KCSHC as a cooperative and owner was also a negative factor
          4. Project could not proceed unless a change in ownership plan was instituted
       8. This plan was in progress (see 31.2) with the Loan-Holders becoming a developer rather than the KCSHC
          1. The plan then would be to initiate a rental project if necessary
    4. Alto Construction Ltd (ACL) (Phase I Grandview housing contractor)
       1. ACL was the low tender recommended by the Building Committee
       2. During site preparation various debates occurred regarding site conditions and ACL would not accept the Clerk of Works (COW), Project Manager (PM) nor the Chair of the Building Committee (CoBC) but requested to meet with the Building Committee and the Board to allow them to hear his complaints
       3. The joint recommendation of the PM, CoW and the CoBC was that ACL be removed from the site as the future would not be conducive to a good construction project
       4. The Board and BC directed the PM, CoW and CoBC to negotiate an acceptable agreement which was achieved
       5. The project became a difficult course of construction with challenges in the design/build process for the entire duration
       6. Additional costs and delays were the result
    5. Columbia Basin Trust
       1. This public agency became private competition to not-for-profit societies
       2. It was admitted by a CBT Official to a meeting attended by CoC, MLA, MP and members of KCSHC that CBT could not assist KCSHC. This could be a possible liability claim by a local operating care provider who is treated with exclusivity by CBT (see 10.1.3)
       3. Would not approve Chateau Grandview interim financing
          1. Stated that Chateau Grandview could not meet minimal financing requirements
          2. This is in contrast with formal offers by:
             1. Royal Bank
             2. Bank of Montreal
             3. Canadian Western Bank
          3. Was CBT continuing with dated reasoning ? (see 10.1.3)
    6. Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MoTH)
       1. The request came from the AO of the CoC that the MoTH needed another traffic study in 2012
       2. KCSHC representatives met with CoC and MoTH represenatives at City Hall
       3. MoTH advised that the intersection of Minto Road to Highway 22 has become unsafe requiring another traffic study
       4. KCSHC advised that a traffic study had been conducted in 2006 and that the subdivision had the approval of the CoC AO and was registered at Land Titles Office and this was an irregular request
       5. CoC and MoTH insisted and also advised that the traffic study would need to be paid for by the KCSHC
       6. The PM continued to protest this action and the MoTH engineer finally invited the PM to outline a historic process in the development of Grandview
       7. The result was an eight (8) page review submitted to the AO of CoC
       8. MoTH relented and the $1.8 million intersection was built and financed by MoTH a year later
35. An Overview
    1. The Kootenay Columbia Seniors Housing Cooperative’s intention was to build affordable seniors housing and the seniors of Grandview can’t understand why they were subjected to the challenges that have been outlined above
    2. The Reader has an opportunity to review and digest all that has been stated above to advance his own conclusions.
    3. The future ????
    4. 

Written from documents and observations from the viewpoint of a Project Manager, drafted and dated December 11, 2015, by Elmer Verigin

• Elmer met with Elaine Whitehead, Administrative Assistant to MLA Katrine Conroy on November 03, 2015 to obtain a copy of her notes on the referenced CBT meeting. She advised that she had no difficulty in the use of this information

• Elmer met with Dan Sahlstrom P.Eng., of WSA Engineering on November 03, 2015. He reviewed the accuracy of the references to WSAE in a draught of this document. He had no difficulty with having his name published in this document

• Elmer consulted with former members of the KCSHC that still live at Grandview, all of whom had held various levels of committee position in KCSHC for assistance in preparing this paper
  1. Alden Bigsby, Fred Houghton and Monique Huchet, former members of Board of Directors, Promotions Committee and Chateau Grandview Committee
  2. Peter Morgenthaler served on the Chateau Grandview Committee and Board of Directors
  3. Consulted with Bill Enstedt who served on the Board of Directors and Promotions Committee
  4. Consulted with Nora Jukes who was on the Landscape, Promotions and Rules & Regulations Committees
  5. Consulted with Marilyn Verigin who had served on the Chateau Grandview Committee
  6. Thanks for some pictures provided by Nora Jukes
  7. Posted by E. Verigin to blog March 25, 2016.