HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-16 Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfCommitteee of the Whole Agenda April 16, 2012
District of Maple Ridge Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair: Acting Mayor 1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS – (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 Whonnock
ACT–Telus Tower, Heather McNeil, Chair 1.2 2012 Citizen Surveys Presentation by Mary Bacica, Vice President, IPSOS Reid and the Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning Staff
report dated April 16, 2012 providing details on the outcomes of the 2012 Citizen Surveys. 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA April 16, 2012 1:00
p.m. Council Chamber Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to Council
for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more information or clarification before proceeding to Council. Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be
permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes.
Committee of the Whole Agenda April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 RZ/087/08, 23103 136 Avenue, A-2 to
R-3, R-1, RS-1b, RM-1 and P-1 Staff report dated April 16, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899-2012 to allow for future subdivision be given first reading
and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, C, D, F and G of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 and that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw
No. 6900-2012 not be given first reading. 1102 2011-104-DP/DVP, 10550 248 Street Staff report dated April 16, 2012 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and
seal 2011-104-DVP to vary some setbacks and height variances and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2011-104-DP to permit construction of 34 townhouse units.
1103 Municipal Equipment Purchase, One Single Axle Low Profile Recycling Truck Staff report dated April 16, 2012 recommending that the contract for the purchase of one Single Axle Low
Profile Recycling Truck with Fort Fabrication Body be awarded to First Truck Center of Vancouver. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 Disbursements
for the month ended March 31, 2012 Staff report dated April 16, 2012 recommending that the disbursements for the month of March 31, 2012 be approved. 1132 2011 Consolidated Financial
Statements Staff report dated April 16, 2012 recommending that the 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements be accepted. 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 Award of
Contract, Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment Roof Replacement Staff report dated April 16, 2012 recommending that the contract for the Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment Roof Replacement be awarded
to Flynn Canada Roofing and that a 15% contingency be established for this project.
Committee of the Whole Agenda April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 3 5. CORRESPONDENCE 1171 6. OTHER ISSUES 1181 7. ADJOURNMENT 8. COMMUNITY FORUM CChheecckkeedd bbyy::________________________________
DDaattee:: ________________________________ COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to ask questions of Council on items that are of concern to them,
with the exception of Public Hearing by-laws that have not yet reached conclusion. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. Each person
will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). Questions must be directed
to the Chair of the meeting and not to the individual members of Council. The total time for this Forum is limited to 15 minutes. If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will
be advised when and how a response will be given. Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings and delegations. The public may also make their views
known to Council by writing or via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings. Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the
future of this community. For more information on these opportunities contact: Clerk’s Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca
Page 1 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 16, 2012 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING MEETING: Committee of
the Whole SUBJECT SUBJECT: 2012 Citizen Surveys EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District surveys citizens every three years to obtain their views on strategic direction, and on their satisfaction
with municipal services. The surveys provide valuable citizen input in a randomsample, statistically valid form, enhancing the many other forms of input and information Council receives.
The results allow the District to assess service delivery, and may assist in establishing strategic priorities. The results offer no surprises and the District is performing well, and
at the same time we are always looking for areas for further improvement. At a high level, the majority of citizens (80%) are satisfied with the quality of life in Maple Ridge, citing
parks, access to the outdoors, small community feel, people, scenery and access to recreation activities and facilities. A strong citizen emphasis for the future is placed on economic
issues such as attracting commercial development and local jobs and expanding shopping opportunities. Secondary emphasis was placed on transit to other communities, and crime/affordable
housing/homelessness. Quoting from the survey report (attached) by Ipsos Reid: “When planning for the future, the issues that are accorded the highest priority by residents, are: •
Attracting high value jobs (74% give this a high priority) • Pursuing public transit improvements between Maple Ridge and other areas (67%) • Promoting the development of the downtown
core into a vibrant social, recreational and commercial area (66%) • Encouraging commercial development (65%) • Identifying and protecting environmental features and areas that require
special recognition and management (61%)” Council’s Corporate Strategic Plan has nine focus areas, and while emphasis may shift from time to time to specific areas, we must ensure we
don’t lose ground in the others. The survey results suggest to staff that specific attention is required within the Economic Development, Transportation, and Safe and Livable Community
strategic focus areas. The attached report from Ipsos Reid provides detailed findings. A summary slide presentation will be delivered at the Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday,
April 16, 2012, and will frame the results within the context of the District’s business planning process. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive for information. 2.1
Page 2 DISCUSS DISCUSSION: ION: a) Background Context: The District has a rigorous business planning process that guides the delivery of public services through a framework that ensures
alignment with the strategic direction of Council. The foundation of this framework (see Attachment A) is performance measurement in the form of citizen surveys, which are undertaken
every three years, and provide Council with a gauge of public opinion. The surveys provide valuable citizen input in a random-sample, statistically valid form, enhancing the many other
forms of input and information Council receives. The results allow the District to assess service delivery, and may assist in establishing strategic priorities. In November 2011, Synovate
Ltd., a full service research agency, was engaged to complete two statistically valid random-sample surveys and report on their findings. Ipsos Reid subsequently acquired Synovate and
completed the project. Their report is attached. This round of surveys is consistent with prior rounds, undertaken in 2008, 2006 and 2003, where two separate surveys were performed
on separate groups of citizens, obtaining their views on: (1) strategic planning for the future of the community, and (2) satisfaction with municipal services. Where this round departs
from prior rounds is in the delivery method, where a choice of mail-in and online survey responses were offered, rather than the former land-line telephone surveys. The attached report
speaks to the impact of this change. In comparing 2012 with prior years, overall trends and relative positioning should be considered, rather than direct percentage-point differences.
In interpreting results throughout the surveys, readers should ensure they take the time to understand each question that was asked of citizens. For example, some questions allowed
for citizens to simply state their responses, sometimes referred to as “top-of-mind” responses. For others, citizens were read a list of specific issues or services and asked to provide
comment. In 2008 several additional questions were added, to address emerging issues not contemplated on prior surveys. These are considerations in reviewing the results. Another matter
to consider in interpreting the results is where there is a large percentage of citizens who responded with “don’t know” or “unaware.” If a question asks for a Yes, No, or Don’t Know,
with 45% saying Yes, 25% saying No and 30% saying Don’t Know, the Yes responses don’t look like a significant majority. But if you remove the responses without an opinion, the Yes responses
are double the No responses, equivalent to a 64% Yes result. In some results, the Don’t Knows are significant. As you read through the survey, resist the temptation to jump to hard
conclusions from a single question. Rather than drawing conclusions from specific questions, try to pull the information up to a higher level and distill it into themes and trends.
The purpose for this information is to enhance Council’s breadth of public opinion in a statistically valid manner, as a foundation for strategic planning. b) Desired O Outcome: utcome:
The survey results are intended to be used by Council for strategic planning purposes, and by staff in making operating and service delivery decisions.
Page 3 c) Stra Strategic Alignment tegic Alignment: Obtaining citizens’ views on the community and their satisfaction with District services is a key strategy under the Community Relations
focus area within Council’s Corporate Strategic Plan. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The citizens are the District’s largest customer base, their property taxes form the District’s
largest single revenue stream, and their opinions play a significant role in District business. Citizen input is received through a variety of means, such as direct contact with individual
Council members or in-person participation at Council meetings. It can be difficult to discern minority interests from the broader public opinion. The surveys are a critical tool in
the overall business planning process, in that they provide valuable citizen input into both strategic planning and service delivery in a manner that captures broad opinion with minimal
bias. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The timing of the survey results are intentional. Council will be requested to endorse budget guidelines in the near future for the 2013-2017
business and financial planning period which will provide guidance to staff in the preparation of work plans and budgets. Council direction is informed by input from a variety of sources;
the survey results are meant to further enhance Council’s toolkit of information in their development of this guidance to staff. CONCLUSIONS: There were no surprises in the survey results
and the District is performing well, and at the same time we are always looking for areas for further improvement. The survey results suggest there are themes and trends within the
focus areas of Economic Development, Transportation, and Safe and Livable Community where specific attention is required. Council’s current work plan addresses most of these issues.
We trust the information is useful to Council in upcoming strategic planning work, and it fulfills a fundamental element of our business planning process. Attachments: Schedule A –
Business Planning Framework Schedule B – Report: District of Maple Ridge 2012 Citizen Surveys, Ipsos Reid _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Laura Benson,
CMA Manager, Sustainability and Corporate Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: John Leeburn, BCOM, MBA Executive Director to the CAO ________________________________
_______________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment A Page 4
Attachment B Page 5 Report from Ipsos Reid entitled: District of Maple Ridge 2012 Citizen Surveys Report displayed separately
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 16, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/087/08 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT
SUBJECT: First Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899 – 2012 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6900 – 2012 23103 136 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received
to rezone the subject property from A-2 (Upland Agricultural) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), R-1 (Residential District), RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential),
RM-1(Townhouse Residential), and P-1 (Park and School). Two zone amending bylaws are proposed. The first, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899 – 2012, is to permit the development of approximately
36 single family lots, 18 townhouse units, a neighbourhood park, a municipal park and a linear park for a trail. As this development proposal is consistent with the Silver Valley Area
Plan policies for residential development in the Official Community Plan and an amendment to such is supportable under the OCP Policies, it is recommended that Zone Amending Bylaw No.
6899 – 2012 be given First Reading. The second zone amending bylaw is to rezone the land identified for a school/park site. When this application was received in 2008, the applicant
proposed a school/park site in the central portion of the site, as identified on the Silver Valley Area Plan with the Civic land use designation. At the time of writing of this report
the matter is under consideration by the School District in conjunction with the Provincial Government. The District of Maple Ridge is awaiting the outcome of that consideration. The
applicant is now requesting, in the absence of an agreement to purchase, that the school site be re-designated for townhouse development, as shown on Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6900 –
2012. As the development proposal is not in compliance with the Official Community Plan and an amendment to such is not supportable under the OCP Policies, it is recommended that Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 6900 – 2012 not be given First Reading. RECOMMENDATIONS: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act, requir requirement for consultation during the ement
development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i. The Board of the Regional District in which the
area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii.
The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. First Nations; v. School District Boards, greater boards and improvements district boards; and
vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies. 1101
and in that regard it is recommended that additional consultation with the School District be required in respect of this matter matter, and no furthe , further consultation be required
r beyond the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the District's website, together with an invi invitation to the public to comment tation comment, and;
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899 – 2012 be given First Reading; e That Zone Amending Bylaw No No. 6900 – 2012 not be given First Reading; and That if the bylaw(s) is is/are /given
First Reading, the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, C C, D, F and G of the Development Pr Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 ocedures – 1999, along with Intensive
Residential Development Permit and Subdivision application applications. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Joel Lycan, Campton Services Corp. Owner: Campton Services Corp.
Legal Description: Lot 10, Section 32, Township 12, NWD Plan 38408, except Plan BCP48908 OCP: Existing: Civic, Conservation, Med/High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,
Low/Medium Density Residential, Low Density Urban, Eco-Clusters, Neighbourhood Park Zoning: Existing: A-2 (Upland Agricultural) Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District),
R-1 (Residential District), RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), P-1 (Park and School) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Park, Neighbourhood
Park, Conservation, Townhouse, Single Family Residential Zone: P-1 (Park and School), A-2 (Upland Agricultural), RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District),
R-1 (Residential District), Designation Civic, Neighbourhood Park, Conservation, Med/High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential South: Use: Park, Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (Rural Residential), RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), Designation: Conservation, Low/Medium Density Residential East: Use: Single Family Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 (Rural Residential), A-2 (Upland Agricultural) Designation: Med/High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Civic, Conservation West: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: CD-3-98 Designation: Low Density Urban, Eco-Clusters, Existing Use of Property: Rural Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential, Townhouse, Park, Conservation
Site Area: 5.896 HA. Access: 136 Avenue, Gilbert Drive, 230A Street and 232 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: Project Description: The subject site
slopes down on three sides towards the middle of the site at 136 Avenue. There are two tributaries of Cattell Brook on the site: one crossing the eastern portion from north to south;
and the headwaters of a second tributary in the middle of the site, north of the proposed intersection of 136 Avenue and 230A Street. Both tributaries continue south from the site.
The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject site to provide a variety of residential lot sizes and housing types within the development, in accordance with the Silver Valley Area
Plan, and to permit the future subdivision and development of approximately 36 single family lots, an 18 unit townhouse site, and a 68 unit townhouse site. 136 Avenue will be constructed
through the site and will connect with the existing portion to the west, and Gilbert Drive and 230A Street will be constructed through the site from the north to connect with 136 Avenue.
Park lands are proposed comprising of: a Municipal Park site of approximately 0.405 hectares (1 acre) abutting the Municipal Park site to the north; a Neighbourhood Park of approximately
0.128 hectares (0.3 acres) at Gilbert Drive and 137 Avenue; linear Park strips will be dedicated for a trail along the 137 Avenue right-of-way between Gilbert Drive and 232 Street;
and conservation areas for the protection of Cattell Brook will be dedicated. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community
Plan and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further
report will be required prior to Second Reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, Official Community Plan designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require
application for further development permits. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan Plan: The subject site is located within the Blaney Hamlet in the Silver Valley Area Plan
and currently has eight land use designations: Civic, Conservation, Medium/High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low/Medium Density Residential, Low Density Urban, Eco-Clusters,
and Neighbourhood Park. The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Silver Valley Area Plan for residential development and works towards the desired community pattern
within the Blaney Hamlet, with the exception of the 1.534 hectare portion in the center of the site. This portion is currently designated for Civic use and the applicant is proposing
a Medium/High Density Residential use for townhouses. Background: When this application was received in 2008, the applicant proposed a school/park site in the central portion of the
site, as identified on the Silver Valley Area Plan with a Civic land use designation.
Since then, the District has been actively pursuing the acquisition of the school site for an elementary school, but has not been able to collaborate with the School District or the
Ministry of Education for its purchase. The property owners, frustrated in their attempts to sell or develop their property, have sought legal council. In the absence of a clear purchase
agreement, the District’s abilty to retain the Civic designation on this site is legally tenuous. The Silver Valley Area Plan notes that its civic areas are the central focus of each
neighbourhood, and that each civic area is to contain a school, park area, and natural open space. School and Park sites have been identified through the area planning process, and,
through this process, the District has identified these sites up-front in collaboration with the School District. Although this collaborative process is pro-active, it has caused problems
for property owners, due to the delays in acquiring these sites for school use. The expectation in designating these sites was that they would be purchased for school use. This matter
is presently under consideration by the School District in conjunction with the Provincial Government. In the area plan, the civic designation in the Blaney Hamlet consisted of three
contiguous properties west of the intersection of 136 Avenue and 232 Street. Multiple land use designations, including residential, conservation and civic are associated with these
properties. The civic designation reflects the District’s intent to develop parks adjacent to school sites in order to maximize the efficiency of these complimentary uses. The northern
portion of the civic designated site was recently rezoned to P-1 (Park and School) under application RZ/110/08 for Municipal Park. The portion of that property with a civic designation
was identified for park (not school) and the Distrcit was able to secure a satisfactory purchase arrangement with the applicant. It is important to note that Council is under no obligation
to approve a rezoning application that could undermine community need, and an Approving Officer could deny any subdivision application deemed not in the community’s best interest. The
Silver Valley area is particularly challenged by topography and there is a limited availability of suitable sites for school site acquisition. In addition, significant residential development
has occurred around the site in anticipation of a school eventually being located there. Proposed amendment amendments to the Official Community Plan: The applicant for this development
is now requesting, in the absence of an agreement to purchase, that the school site be re-designated for townhouse development. This represents 1.534 hectares, approximately 26% of
the site, that is designated for civic uses. This OCP amendment, in support of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899 – 2012, to re-designate 1.534 hectares from Civic use to Medium/High Residential
use is not supportable under the OCP policies, as discussed above. Although the proposed development of the rest of the site is in accordance with the policies of the Silver Valley
Area Plan of the Official Community Plan, the applicant has requested an OCP amendment in support of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899 -2012 to adjust the boundaries of the land use designations
on the site. There are several land use designations on the site and the results of careful evaluation of the topographic conditions are that adjustments to the land use boundaries
are needed. This means the proposed density and housing forms will better fit the terrain, a Neighbourhood Park of approximately 0.128 hectares (0.3 acres) is proposed at Gilbert Drive
and 137 Avenue, and a linear park trail will provide neighbourhood connectivity via the 137 Avenue right-of-way. The boundaries of the area designated Med/High Density Residential will
be adjusted to where it is best suited for a townhouse development and the Low/Medium and Medium Density Residential areas will be adjusted for single family development. The areas
designated for Neighbourhood Park will be amended to accommodate the most suitable areas for the playground and linear park and the area identified for the Municipal Park site will
designated Civic. Environmental assessment of the designated Conservation areas has determined that the watercourse in the middle of the site has its
headwaters just north of the proposed intersection of 136 Avenue and 230A Street and the second watercourse crosses the east side of the site from north to south. The boundaries of the
Conservation areas will be amended to align with the required setbacks from the watercourses. Since the development of the rest of the site is in accordance with the policies for residential
development in the Silver Valley Area Plan, and an amendment to such is supportable under the OCP Policies in support of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899 -2012. Zoning Bylaw Bylaw: The
current application proposes to rezone the property located at 23103 136 Avenue from A-2 (Upland Agricultural) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), R-1 (Residential District),
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), P-1 (Park and School) to permit the development of single family residential and townhouse residential
with park lands for civic, neighbourhood and conservation uses. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Development
Permits Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the Official Community Plan, a Multi-Family Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods
with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses. Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the Official Community Plan, an Intensive
Residential Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal provides emphasis on high standards in aesthetics and quality of the built environment, while protecting
important qualities of the natural environment. Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the Official Community Plan, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required to ensure
the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas. Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the Official Community Plan, a Natural Features Development
Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement for the natural environment and for development
that is protected from hazardous conditions for; • All areas designated Conservation on Schedule “B” or all areas within 50 metres of an area designated Conservation on Schedule “B”,
or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the Silver Valley Area Plan; • All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 percent; • All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on
Natural Features Schedule “C” to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas. Within the Silver Valley Area Plan, the Conservation
areas are shown on Figures 2, 3 and 4. Advisor Advisory Design Panel y Panel: A Multi-Family Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to
Second Reading.
Development Information Meeting Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is required for this application. Prior to Second Reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information
Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. d) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after First Reading, comments and input, will be sought
from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Parks Department; and e) School
District. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. This
application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. We anticipate
that this evaluation will take place between First and Second Reading. e) Early and Ongoing Consultation: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act for consultation during
an Official Community Plan amendment, it is recommended that additional consultation is required with the School District, in addition to the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments
on the District’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. It is recommended that Council not require any further additional consultation. f) Development Applications:
In order for this application to proceed, if First Reading is approved, the following information must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 – 1999 as amended:
1. An Official Community Plan Application (Schedule A); 2. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C); 3. Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Application (Schedule D); 4.
Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application (Schedule F); 5. Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); 6. Intensive Residential Development Permit Application;
7. Subdivision Application. The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. CONCLUSION: The proposed
development is in compliance with the policies of the Silver Valley Area Plan, with the exception of the 1.534 hectare portion in the center of the site that is currently designated
for Civic use and the applicant is proposing a Medium/High Density Residential use for townhouses.
Justification has been provided to support an Official Community Plan amendment in support of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899 -2012. It is, therefore, recommended that Council grant First
Reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899 – 2012, subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to Second Reading. In regard to the proposal for a townhouse development
in the area designated as Civic for a school/park site, the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone conflicts with the policies of the Silver Valley Area Plan and is not supported by the
Official Community Plan designation of Civic use, as outlined in this report. It is, therefore, recommended that Council not grant First Reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6900 – 2012.
The proposed layout has not been reviewed in relation to the relevant bylaws and regulations governing subdivision applications. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary
and must be approved by the District of Maple Ridge’s Approving Officer. _______________________________________________ Prepared by by: Ann Edwards, CPT Senior Planning Technician
_______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn,
MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer AE/The following appendices
are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Zone Amending Bylaw 6899-2012 Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw 6900-2012 Appendix D – Proposed Subdivision Plan
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6899 6899-2012 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended ___________________________________________________
________ WHEREAS WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the
District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6899-2012." 2. That parcel or tract
of land and premises known and described as: Lot 10 Section 32 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 38408 except Plan BCP48908 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1558
a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), R-1 (Residential District), RS-1b (One Family Urban
(Medium Density) Residential), P-1 (Park and School), and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby
amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 20 . READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 . PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 . READ a third time the day of , A.D.
20 . RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6900 900 900-2012 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended ________________________________________________
___________ WHEREAS WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of
the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6900-2012." 2. That parcel or tract
of land and premises known and described as: Lot 10 Section 32 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 38408 except Plan BCP48908 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1559
a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A"
attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 20 . READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 . PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 . READ a
third time the day of , A.D. 20 . RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . _____________________________ _________________ ____________________________ ___________ PRESIDING
MEMBER CORPORATE OFFIC OFFICER ER APPENDIX C
District o of Maple Ridge f TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE DATE: April 16, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-104-DP/DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING
MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Development Permit and Developm Development Variance Permit ent 10550 248 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Permit and Development Variance Permit applications
have been received for the subject site (Appendix A) consisting of a 2.10 acre lot, east of 248th Street and south of 106th Avenue in the Albion area. The subject site is zoned RM-1
(Townhouse Residential zone) and the proposal is for 34 townhouse units in eight blocks (Appendix B). The proposed design of townhouses is subject to the “Multi-Family Development Permit
Guidelines” as per Section 8.7 of the Official Community Plan. This Development Permit application is to regulate the form and character of the 34 townhouse units and the Development
Variance Permit application is to vary some setbacks and height variances as described in this report. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2011
2011-104 104-DVP respecting propert property located at 10550 248 Street Street; and further ; That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2011 2011-104 104-DP respecting
property located at 10550 248 Street. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Duane Siegrist of Integra Architecture Inc. Owner: 0865274 BC LTD. Legal Description: Lot: 43, Section:
11, Township: 12, Plan: BCP36341; OCP: Existing: Medium Density Residential Proposed: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential) 1102
-2 -Surrounding Uses: North: Use: 106th Avenue and Vacant currently; Future Multi-Family Residential (townhouses) Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential zone) Designation: Medium Density
Residential South: Use: Vacant currently; Future Multi-Family Residential (townhouses) Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential zone) and A-2 (Upland Agricultural zone) Designation: Medium
Density Residential & Conservation East: Use: Vacant currently; Future Single Family Residential Zone: R-1 (Residential District zone); RM-1 (Townhouse Residential zone) and A-2 (Upland
Agricultural zone) Designation: Medium Density Residential & Conservation West: Use: 248th Street and Single Family Residential Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District zone)
Designation: Medium Density Residential Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Multi-Family Residential (townhouses) Access: 248th street Servicing: Full Urban Previous
Applications: RZ/090/04; SD/090/04; DP/114/07 and DVP/114/07 b) Project Description: Council gave Final Reading to rezoning application RZ/090/04 in October 2007, proposing the phased
development of R-3 (Special Amenity Residential zone), RM-1 (Townhouse Residential zone) and R-1 (Residential District zone) lots. Phase I consists of 41 R-3 (Special Amenity Residential
zone) zoned lots, which are being built and sold currently. Phase II consists of three lots zoned RM-1 (Townhouse Residential zone). Phase III consists of 36 R-1 (Residential District
zone) zoned lots, which will be a future subdivision application. The properties zoned in 2007, changed hands, after going through receivership in the last two years. The new owners/developers
are committed to satisfying all of the District’s conditions prior to Development Permit and Subdivision approvals. The subject proposal is the first part of phase II, for a pre-zoned
multi-family use. The subject site is gradually sloping down from east to west, towards 248th Street. A total of 34 units are proposed in eight blocks; each block consisting of four
to five units. Six different unit types have been proposed. Each unit has its own two-car parking garage. Two main accesses are proposed from 248th Street to allow adequate access to
all the blocks and to reduce the internal road areas (Appendix B). Visitor parking spaces are evenly distributed between all the blocks. The usable open space combined with the common
activity area is provided in between blocks 25-28; 27-30. Onsite landscaping includes picket fencing, arbour entry statements, a brickveneered entry signage, a variety of native species
of trees, shrubs, ground-cover, log crawl tunnel and play structures placed on coloured resilient surface tiles.
-3 -c) Planning Analysis: The proposed design of townhouses will have to be consistent with the “Multi-Family Development Permit Guidelines” for form and character as per Section 8.7
of the Official Community Plan. The purpose of a Multi-Family Development Permit is to enhance existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs and minimize
potential conflicts on neighbouring land uses. Multi Multi-Family Development Permit Guidelines Guidelines: This proposal has been assessed with respect to the following key Multi-Family
Development Permit Guidelines: New development into established areas should respect private spaces and incorporate local neighbourhood elements in building form, height, architectural
features and massing. The proposed building materials such as asphalt shingle roofing, vinyl and hardie panel siding with stone veneer on prominent areas of the facade (Appendix C),
wood trims, aluminum railings, etc are all compatible with the surrounding development. The proposed building form, height and massing fit well with single family houses. Future townhouses
on the north and south will be consistent and match with the design on the subject site. Transitional development should be used to bridge areas of low and high densities, through means
such as stepped building heights, or low rise ground oriented housing located to the periphery of a higher density developments. There is no higher density proposed in the vicinity.
The subject site is anticipated to be surrounded by similar townhouse units on the north and south, by the same developer. On the east will be a future single family bare land strata
development by the same developer. However this is on a substantially higher level, overlooking these townhouse units. On the west, single family houses in the R-3 (Special Amenity
Residential District zone) are being built by the same developer. The proposed townhouses are ground-oriented units that fit well as a transition between the surrounding existing/proposed
development of small lot single family and multi-family use. Large scale development should be clustered and given architectural separation to foster a sense of community and improve
visual attractiveness. Eight blocks have been proposed to avoid a monotonous streetscape and create architectural separation between the clusters. Livability and visual attractiveness
is further enhanced by creating semi-private green spaces in the rear yards of all the units and a common activity area and useable open space in the centre of the site. This semi-public
space offers both active play area (tot lot) and passive recreational area for the residents of this development. Pedestrian circulation should be encouraged with attractive streetscapes
attained through landscaping, architectural details, appropriate lighting and by directing parking underground where possible or away from public view through screened parking structures
or surface parking located to the rear of the property. Pedestrian walkways within the site and sidewalks along 248th street and 106th Avenue, will add to the overall pedestrian circulation
in this area (Appendix B). Appropriate landscaping and lighting is
-4 -anticipated to provide for a safe pedestrian access to all the blocks (Appendix D). Each unit has its own two car garage and visitor parking stalls are screened with landscaping.
d) Zoning Bylaw Bylaw: The proposed RM-1 zone (Townhouse Residential District) is intended for low to medium density townhouses and multi family residential buildings. A maximum density
of 0.6 times the net lot area (plus an additional 50 m2 per unit basement area) is permitted in this zone. Proposed total density is 0.55 of the net lot area. The proposal meets the
density, common useable open space and common activity area requirements of the zone. The common activity area shows resilient play surface with mushroom seating and crawl tube play
structure and benches in and around the centrally located tot lot (Appendix D). Maximum permitted height in this zone must not exceed 10.5 metres or 2.5 storeys. Some units exceed the
permitted maximum height and storeys as described below. The RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone specifies the following setbacks: 7.5 metres from front, rear and exterior side yard;
4.5 metres from an interior side yard for a wall with no windows to a habitable room and 6.0 metres from an interior side yard for a wall with a balcony or a window to a habitable room.
The applicant is seeking some setback variances to the building facades as described below. e) Variances to the Zo Zoning Bylaw: ning The applicant is seeking the following variances:
i) Part 6, Section 602(6) (a) of the RM-1 zone (Townhouse Residential District) of the Zoning Bylaw, to vary the front yard setback (facing 106th Avenue) from 7.5 metres to 4.5metres;
ii) Part 6, Section 602(6) (a) of the RM-1 zone (Townhouse Residential District) of the Zoning Bylaw, to vary the exterior side yard setback (facing 248th Street) from 7.5metres to
4.5 metres; iii) Part 6, Section 602(6) (a) of the RM-1 zone (Townhouse Residential District) of the Zoning Bylaw, to vary the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 4.5metres; iv) Part
6, Section 602 (7) (a) of the RM-1 zone (Townhouse Residential District) of the Zoning Bylaw, to vary the maximum height from 10.5 metres to 12.85 metres and 2 ½ storeys to 3 storeys.
The setback variances proposed facing 248th Street and 106th Avenue are with an intention of offering a better street presence for the units and enhancing the urban streetscape. They
are not anticipated to negatively impact any neighbours. These relaxations are consistent with others granted to similar projects. The height and storey variances are due to the proposed
grades (sloping down from east to west) and mostly facing 248th Street. Blocks three and five have been recessed to soften the façade facing 248th Street with landscaping (Appendix
D). The units in Blocks four and eight do not require any height variances. The units facing 248th Street in Blocks one, three, five and seven are seeking a greater variance, however
the streetscape facing 248th Street is articulated well and the yards landscaped to reduce the impact of the height variances (Appendix D). The future subdivision on the east will be
substantially higher overlooking these townhouses and the streetscape facing 248th Street will be a three-storey façade which is consistent with other townhouse developments in the
District. The future townhouses on the north of 106th Avenue and south of the subject site are anticipated to have a similar height proposed for the townhouse units facing 248th Street.
The height variances are not anticipated to negatively impact any neighbours.
-5 -f) Off Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: As per the Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District zone) requires 2
parking spaces per unit for residents plus 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors, requiring a total of 75 parking spaces (68 for residents and 7 visitor parking stalls) for the proposed
development. The proposal is in compliance of this requirement. All the units have their own two car garages proposed, giving a total of 68 residential parking spaces. Seven visitor
parking spaces (including one handicapped parking space) are proposed in between the blocks, in a centrally accessible location (Appendix B). g) Advisory Design Panel: On October 11,
2011 the Advisory Design Panel reviewed the proposal for form and character. The panel recommended the following through a resolution: The following concerns be addressed and digital
versions of revised drawings & memo be submitted to Planning staff; and further that Planning staff forward this on to the Advisory Design Panel for information. • Consider a connection
from the east west courtyards to the east greenbelt and connect each phase to 106th Avenue; • Consider use of columnar trees between Blocks 29 and 31 • Consider providing columnar trees
between garages (if possible) with provision of sufficient soil; • Consider providing larger canopy street trees to be located on private property if sufficient room in municipal right
of way along 248th Street; • Consider carrying stone material around building base facing municipal streets; • Relocate south common stairs to within property/phase line; • Submit plant
listing quantities including street trees; • Reconsider single entrance stone column at Block 27; • Provide exterior lighting proposal; • Flip lower level flex room and bedroom to provide
exterior window to bedroom; • Coordinate crossing let downs to driveways; • Further design development to trellis to match railing esthetic; • Look for additional opportunities for
private outdoor space; • Consider a corner feature element at 248th and 106th ; • Provide storm water management details. The project architect and the landscape architect have addressed
all the concerns and completed the revisions to the Panel’s satisfaction. Some of the revisions include the following: 1. A continuous pedestrian connection provided in the east-west
direction linking 106th Avenue through each of the future phases of the townhouse development, including this one; 2. Columnar trees incorporated between Blocks 29 and 31; 3. Large
canopy trees incorporated along the Street frontages of 248th Street and 106th Avenue; 4. Included full planting list on drawing # L-4; 5. Landscape layout improved to provide more
opportunities of semi-private outdoor spaces;
-6 -6. As a corner feature, a signage element with evergreen backdrop of trees is incorporated at the corner of 248th Street and 106th Avenue. h) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering
Department: The Engineering Department have reviewed the proposal and confirmed that all the deficient off-site services have been provided through the previous subdivision application
(SD/090/04). One of the outstanding items is completing the grading of the slope above the townhouse site to ensure it is stable. The engineer of record is expected to provide a letter
stating the same. Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the Development Permit is completed they will be responsible
for maintaining the street trees. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised that the maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree will increase their budget requirements. Fire
Department Department: The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the applicant. The applicant has ensured that all these will be addressed through
the Building Permit drawings. Building Department: The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the applicant. The applicant has ensured that
all these will be addressed through the Building Permit drawings, to ensure compliance with the BCBC 2006 code. i) Citizen/Customer Implications: The mail-outs to inform residents of
the proposed variances were mailed 10 days prior to the anticipated Council Meeting date. Concerned residents in the neighbourhood have had the opportunity to voice their opinions.
j) Financial Implications: In accordance with Council’s Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security equivalent to 100% of the estimated landscape cost will be provided to ensure
satisfactory provision of landscaping in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. Based on an estimated landscape cost of $168,387.00 by PMG Landscape Architects
Ltd. dated January 20, 2012, the security will be $168,387.00. There will be some trees added to the municipal street tree inventory on completion of this project. The costs associated
with maintaining these trees will need to be included in a subsequent operating budget.
-7 -k) Alternatives: Not approving this proposal would result in a zoned site remaining vacant. Council approval is required for the Multi-Family Development Permit Area as presented
in this report prior to a Building Permit being issued. CONCLUSION: The subject site was zoned in 2007 after which the subject site and surrounding properties changed hands. The new
owners/developer is committed to restoring and stabilizing the steeper slopes on the east. The proposed variances are not anticipated to negatively impact the neighouring properties.
It is recommended that 2011-104-DP and 2011-104-DVP respecting property located at 10050 248th Street, be approved. _______________________________________________ Prepared by by: Rasika
Acharya, B B-Arch, M M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP AP, MCIP , Planner _____________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M. PL, MCIP , Director of Planning _________________________
______________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief
Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject site Appendix B – Proposed Site Plan Appendix C – Elevations and Sections Appendix D – Proposed
Landscape Plans & details
Page 1 of 2 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 16, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: OPS1201 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee
of the Whole SUBJECT SUBJECT: Municipal Equipment Purchase, One Single Axle Low Profile Recycling Truck EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY: The approved Financial Plan includes funding for the
purchase of a recycling truck. A public request for proposals to supply the truck resulted in one submission being received. Following a review and detailed analysis of the submission,
it is recommended that the contract to supply the truck be awarded to First Truck Center Vancouver. RECOMMENDATION: That the contract for the purchase of one Single Axle Low Profile
Recycling Truck be awarded to Fort Fabrication Body to First Truck Center Vancouver in the amount of $178 178,883.04 including warrantee and optional items and applicable taxes of approximately
$ 19,166.00. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Public Request for proposals closed on March 20, 2012 for the supply one Single Axle Low Profile Recycling Truck with standup right hand
drive. One proposal was received which met the Proposal requirements. Following a detailed assessment of the submission the proposal submitted by First Truck Center Vancouver provides
optimal value for the District of Maple Ridge, as the truck proposed comprises components and specifications that have a history of proven past performance with the District. b) Financial
Implications: The cost of the truck is within the approved budget under project LTC#8218. Total Purchase price for the Unit is $178,883.04 including warrantee and optional items plus
applicable taxes of approximately $19,166.00. 1103
Page 2 of 2 DATE: April 16, 2012 FILE NO: OPS1201 ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT SUBJECT: Municipal Equipment Purchase, One Single Axle Low Profile Recycling Truck CONCLUSION:
Following a public request for proposals, and analysis of the received submissions, the award of the contract to supply the one truck is recommended. _______________________________________________
Prepared by: Russ Carmichael Carmichael, AScT, Eng.L Director of Engineering Operations _______________________________________________ Approved by: Trevor Thompson Manager Financial
Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn Quinn, General Manager Manager, Public Works and Development Services ______________________________________________
_ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 16, 2012 and Members of Council Committee of the Whole FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Disbursements
for the month ended March 31, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council has authorized all voucher payments to be approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor and a Finance Manager. Council authorizes
the vouchers for the following period through Council resolution. The disbursement summary for the past period is attached for information. Expenditure details are available by request
through the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION: That the “disbursements as listed below for the month ended March 31, 2012 now be approved”. GENERAL $ 9,063,611 PAYROLL $ 1,580,814
PURCHASE CARD $ 100,366 $ 10,744,791 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and provided authorization for
expenditures to deliver municipal services. The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan. b) Community Communications: The citizens of Maple Ridge
are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial disbursements. 1131
c) Business Plan /Financial Implications: Highlights of larger items included in Financial Plan or Council Resolution Fraser Valley Regional Library – 1st quarter member assessement
$ 593,871 G.V Water District – water consumption Jan 1-31/12 $ 422,971 Microserve – phone system upgrade $ 238,201 Receiver General – RCMP contract Oct-Dec/11 $ 4,007,630 d) Policy
Implications: Approval of the disbursements by Council is in keeping with corporate governance practice. CONCLUSIONS: The disbursements for the month ended March 31, 2012 have been
reviewed and are in order. ______________________________________________ Prepared by: G’Ann Rygg Accounting Clerk II _______________________________________________ Approved by: Trevor
Thompson, BBA, CGA Manager of Financial Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA GM – Corporate & Financial Services ________________________________
_______________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer gmr
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT AMOUNT BC Housing Security refund 49,772 BC Hydro Electricity 96,139 BC SPCA Contract Mar 27,527 BFI Canada Vancouver Waste disposal Jan & Feb 17,265
Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd Maintenance: Banners 760 Backflow preventer enclosures 7,903 Controller base replacements 3,587 Electrial kiosk 9,437 Greg Moore Youth Centre 188 Pitt Meadows
Family Rec. Centre 1,052 Pitt Meadows Heritage Hall 521 Signal lights 222 Street lights 3,454 Street light poles 1,099 28,223 CUPE Local 622 Dues -pay periods 12/04, 12/05 & 12/06 27,914
Chevron Canada Ltd Gasoline & Diesel fuel 87,679 Commercial Solutions Inc Firefighters' turnout gear 18,909 CSDC Systems Inc Amanda annual software maintenance 53,449 Delcan Corporation
232 Street bridge over the North Alouette River 26,614 Double M Excavating Ltd Albion dyke upgrade 48,560 Family Education & Support Ctr Community network 25,000 Fitness Edge Fitness
classes & programs 32,230 Fort Fabrication & Welding Ltd Recycling truck modifications 39,716 FortisBC -Natural Gas Natural gas 48,786 Fraser Valley Regional Library 1st quarter member
assessment 593,871 Greater Vanc Water District Water consumption Jan 1 -31/12 422,971 Green Landscape Experts Ltd Street tree replacements 18,446 Habitat Systems Inc Webster's Corners
Park playground equipment 41,404 Playground swing seats 1,069 42,473 ICOM Canada Fire Department portable radio replacement 34,108 Innervisions Recovery Society Security refund 18,750
ISL Engineering & Land Serv Seismic upgrade of six pump stations 17,053 Kokan, Luka Security refund 56,600 Manulife Financial Employee benefits premiums 239,651 Maple Ridge & PM Arts
Council Arts Centre grant March & adjustment 51,237 Program revenue Jan & Feb 19,711 Scissor lift 4,116 Theatre rental 392 75,456 Medical Services Plan Employee medical & health premiums
34,476 Microserve City hall networking equipment 6,075 Firehall phone equipment 847 Phone system upgrade 238,201 Printer cartridges 64 IS equipment replacement 8,236 253,423 Mills Printing
& Stationery Corporate office supplies Feb & Mar 15,744 Municipal Pension Plan BC Employee benefits premiums 352,255 North Of 49 Enterprises Ltd Skating lessons 28,528 Oracle Corporation
Canada Inc Database software license & support 28,227 PW Trenchless Construction Inc Sanitary Sewer Extension to Corrections: Ph1B Aerial Crossings 47,579 R F Binnie & Associates Ltd
Abernethy Way Intersection Improvements 98,083 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS -MARCH 2012
Raincity Janitorial Serv Ltd Janitorial services: Firehalls 6,443 Library 6,236 Municipal Hall 3,039 Operations 3,059 Randy Herman Building 4,707 RCMP 3,223 South Bonson Community Centre
4,100 30,807 Receiver General For Canada Employer/Employee remit PP12/05 & PP12/06 738,888 RCMP contract Oct-Dec/11 4,007,630 4,746,518 RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd Ice rental Jan 57,296
Curling rink operating expenses Jan 6,168 63,464 Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Monthly contract for recycling Mar 104,180 Weekly recycling 463 Litter pick-up contract 1,786 Recycling
depot insurance claim 8,475 114,904 Specimen Trees Road way & park tree replacements 19,344 Suttle Recreation Inc Core Park playground equipment 35,761 Park benches 4,917 40,678 Total
Energy Systems Ltd Maintenance: Firehalls 3,008 Leisure Centre 6,272 Library 329 Municipal Hall 1,827 Operations 2,263 Pitt Meadows Family Rec. Centre 227 Randy Herman Building 900
RCMP 5,049 South Bonson Community Centre 107 The Act 1,114 21,095 Universal Contracting Ltd. 124th Ave road improvements 56,752 Warrington PCI Management Advance for Tower common costs
60,000 Tower expenses Feb 517 60,517 Winvan Paving Ltd 118 Avenue sidewalk improvements 45,715 Young, Anderson -Barristers Professional fees Jan & Feb 38,734 Disbursements In Excess
$15,000 8,244,006 Disbursements Under $15,000 819,605 Total Payee Disbursements 9,063,611 Payroll PP12/04 & PP12/05 1,580,814 Purchase Cards -Payment 100,366 Total Disbursements February
2012 10,744,791 GMR \\mr.corp\docs\Fin\05-Finance\1630-Accts-Payable\01-General\AP Disbursements\2012\[Monthly_Council_Report_2012.xlsx]MAR'12
Page 1 of 6 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 16, 2012 And Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the
Whole SUBJECT SUBJECT: 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 2011 Financial Statements have been prepared using the accounting standards and reporting model
mandated by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB). The statements have been audited and will form an integral part of the 2011 Annual Report. Council will recall that in 2009 the
reporting model changed significantly, requiring the inclusion of previously unreported non-financial assets. This change resulted in recording assets with a book value of over $760
million on the Statement of Financial Position in 2009. The work required to record and value these assets is continuing and as better information becomes available, we update our records.
As a result of some additional information, assets have been adjusted by $3.7 million, or less than 1% of the value previously recorded. This adjustment has been applied retroactively.
In addition to recording non-financial assets on the Statement of Financial Position there are other changes to the Consolidated Financial Statements as well. We now report the difference
between all our assets, both financial and non-financial and our liabilities as accumulated surplus. The majority of this amount is comprised of assets used in service provision, and
does not represent a source of funding available for use in our day-to-day operations. On our Statement of Operations we now report total annual revenues and total annual expenses;
the difference between the two is referred to as the annual surplus. On the revenue side, we include items such as grants received towards capital projects, whereas on the expense side
the annual cost of using those assets is recognized over time through amortization, rather than the annual amounts invested in capital investment or renewal. This is why the reported
annual surplus is high. In 2011, the District realized revenues of $136 million, compared to a budget of $166.6 million. The variance is comprised of a shortfall of approximately $31.8
million related to tangible capital assets, offset by a favorable variance of $1.5 million for investment earnings. On the expense side, we had expenses of $100.5 million against a
budget of $108.8 million. Favorable variances were realized from savings in financing costs, labour and succession planning and the RCMP contract. Overall, the District realized an
annual surplus of $35.5 million, increasing our accumulated surplus to $846.5 million. As noted earlier, a large portion of this surplus is the result of the way capital assets million
from $16.5 million at the end of 2010. In the General Revenue fund, overall results were positive with a general revenue surplus of $594.6K after transfers to reserves for committed
projects and Council initiatives. Favorable variances were driven by investment earnings, RCMP contract savings, vacancy management and financing savings. are reported and does not
represent a cash surplus. Net Financial Position has increased to $22.3 1132
Page 2 of 6 In the Sewer and Water Utilities many of the costs are driven by Metro Vancouver. For a number of years Council has employed a rate stabilization policy to smooth the impact
of regional rate increases to our ratepayers. This strategy results in a gradual build up of the utilities accumulated surplus amounts to allow us to manage larger rate increases from
the region. For example, in the Water Utility we are facing predicted rate increases ranging from a low of 4.5% to a high of 18.6% over the next five years, but have been able to limit
the 2012 rate increase to our users to 9%. This practice has resulted in a planned decreases to the both the Sewer and Water Utility accumulated surplus balances. Reserve balances at
the start of 2011 were $45.5 million. At the end of the year, reserve balances increased by $7.4 million, resulting in overall balances of $52.9 million. District reserves are sound
and reflect a commitment to planning for a secure financial future for the residents of Maple Ridge. RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION: That the 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements be
accepted by Council DISCUSSION: Municipal financial statements are prepared using the accounting standards and reporting model prescribed by PSAB. In 2009 the reporting model changed,
requiring the move from a modified revenue and expenditure basis to a full accrual basis. This new model required the inclusion of previously unreported non-financial assets such as
tangible capital assets and the related amortization expense. The work required to record and value these assets is ongoing and as better information becomes available we make sure
our records are updated to reflect that. In 2011 this ongoing work resulted in retroactive adjustments to 2010 results, the effect of which was to increase accumulated surplus by $3.7
million to $810.9 million and increase annual surplus by $3.4 million to $32.9 million. It should be noted that the magnitude of these changes is less than 1% of accumulated surplus.
The 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements present the District’s financial activities during the year and the financial position as at December 31, 2011. Actual financial performance
is compared to the Financial Plan used to set property taxation rates, adopted in May of 2011, and to prior year results. The transactions reported in the consolidated financial statements
are those that took place with outside parties; the effects of internal transactions, such as transfers between reserves, have been eliminated. BDO Canada LLP has conducted an audit
of the 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements and, pending Council’s acceptance of the statements, will finalize their audit report. The audit report is “unqualified” which is the highest
form of assurance that an auditor can provide and indicates that the statements are free of material misstatements and that readers can rely on them for decisionmaking. A discussion
of the 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements follows: Statement of Financial Position This is the public sector version of a balance sheet. One of the key indicators that appears on
this statement is our Net Financial Position. Net Financial Position is calculated by subtracting all of our liabilities from our financial assets and provides an indication of the
extent to which revenues that will be collected in the future are needed to satisfy the liabilities that exist today. It is one piece of information that can be used to begin to assess
the degree of financial flexibility a municipality has. At the end of 2011, the District’s net financial assets had increased from $16.5 million to $22.3
Page 3 of 6 million. Factors driving this change were reductions in deferred revenues and long-term debt. Another key indicator that appears on this statement is our accumulated surplus.
Accumulated surplus is the difference between all assets, both financial and non-financial and all of our liabilities and represents the net economic resources available for service
provision. It does not represent cash that can be used to support operations, as the bulk of the number is comprised of the physical assets that are used in service provision. At the
end of 2011, the District’s accumulated surplus had increased from $811 million to $846.5 million, with the increase driven mainly by increased investment in tangible capital assets.
Statement of Operations The Statement of Operations is the public sector version of an income statement, reporting revenues and expenses for the year. The difference between revenues
and expenses is the key indicator on this statement and is referred to as either annual surplus if positive, or annual deficit if negative. The annual surplus, or deficit, indicates
whether or not the revenues raised in a year were sufficient to cover the year’s costs. It’s important to note that on the revenue side of this equation we report all revenues earned
in the year, including items such as grants received towards capital projects, but on the expense side, we include only the annual cost of using our assets through amortization, not
the actual cash expended to acquire new or replacement assets. This timing difference results in an annual surplus, but does not represent a cash surplus. In 2011, the District realized
an annual surplus of $35.5 million. The following discusses actual results reported on the Statement of Operations for 2011: Consolidated Revenues – Actual: $136 million; Budget: $166.6
million Not all monies the District receives are recorded as revenues at the time of receipt. Monies such as DCCs or Parkland Acquisition fees that are collected for specific capital
works are recorded as a liability when they are received. When we budget for capital expenditures that are funded from these sources we also budget to record the revenue, which results
in drawing down the liability. If capital expenditures do not occur, no revenue is recognized and the funds remain on hand, recorded as a liability. In 2011, consolidated revenues were
below budget by $30.5 million. This is comprised of a $38 million shortfall on the capital side for development revenues and grants, offset by favorable variances from investment income
and contributed assets in excess of financial plan estimates. Consoli Consolidated Expenses dated – Actual $ 100.5 million; Budget $ 108.8 million Expenses are comprised of general
operating expenses for goods and services, labour, debt servicing and amortization of our tangible capital assets. The actual cash expended to invest in replacement or acquisition of
assets is not reflected on this statement. In 2011, consolidated expenses were below budget by $8.3 million. Key items contributing to this positive variance include $900K in interest
cost savings associated with planned debt financing that was not entered into, $3.9 million in ongoing projects and cost containment, $883K in labour and succession planning costs,
$800K in water purchases and $751K from the RCMP contract. Statement of Change in Net Financial Assets The change in Net Financial Position in a year is explained by the excess or deficiency
of revenues over expenditures; if we recognize more revenues than we expend, then net financial position will increase; if less, then it will decrease. This statement starts with the
annual surplus and then factors in the expenditures associated with non-financial assets such as the acquisition of tangible capital
Page 4 of 6 assets and land bank properties. As noted above, the District’s financial position increased by $5.8 million to $22.3 million, Statement of Cash Flow The Statement of Cash
Flow explains the change in the balance of cash and temporary investments for the year. It shows the impact the various types of transactions have on the balance. For example, the statement
indicates that $29.2 million was generated from operating activities and that $25.9 million was used for capital activities. Segment Report The Segment Report augments the information
found on the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The information is laid out in the same fashion, but provides a finer level of detail. Municipal services have been segmented by grouping
activities by function, as directed by PSAB. For example, protection of the public is achieved by activities such as bylaw enforcement and inspection services in addition to police
and fire fighting services so all of these activities are reported as part of the Protective Services segment. Revenues that are directly related to the costs of a function have been
reported in each segment, this includes revenues related to capital investment, such as grants that are recognized in full when earned. Expenses are broken down into the categories
of Goods and Services, Labour, Debt Servicing, and Amortization. Amortization represents the annual cost of using our assets in service provision, so while the revenue for a particular
asset is recognized at the outset of an assets life, the expense of using that same asset will be recognized over time. The segment report allows us to see how each segment contributes
to the annual surplus before considering allocations of taxes and other municipal resources. As described earlier, annual surplus is the difference between annual revenues and annual
expenses. The following table shows the Municipal departments included in each segment. Reporting Segments General Gov Gov’t Protective Svc Recreation Planning; Public Health & Other
Transportation Water Sewer Human Resources Police Parks Planning Engineering Water Sewer Clerks Fire Leisure Svc Recycling Operations Administration Bylaws Youth Svc Cemetery Drainage
Finance Inspection Svc Arts Social Planning Roads Purchasing Emergency Svc Library Information Svc Legislative Svc Economic Dev Communications The above discussion focuses on the Consolidated
Financial Statements, and as noted consists of transactions with outside parties, internal transactions, such as transfers, have been eliminated. It is also useful to look at some of
the elements of the consolidated statements in isolation. The following discussion touches on the general revenue fund, the utilities and the reserves. While the statements don’t show
each element in isolation, aggregated information is shown on Schedule 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Page 5 of 6 General Revenue It’s important to look at the General Revenue Fund in isolation, as many of the activities discussed during business planning are held in this area, and,
to a large extent, the transactions that take place in this fund drive property taxation. As noted above, the information in the statements does not drill down to this level of detail,
so while information is included in Schedule 1, it is part of the aggregated information about General Revenue and the Utilities. Council received a detailed report about the General
Revenue Fund on March 19, 2012, noting that overall 2011 General Revenue results were positive, and after providing for various projects and initiatives identified for 2011 that will
proceed in 2012, we were left with a favorable variance to budget of $594.6K. General Revenue Accumulated Surplus increased to $5.75 million, from $5.16 million in 2010. Utilities The
Sewer and Water utilities are self-funded business units that manage the collection and distribution of water and liquid waste as well as the related infrastructure. A large portion
of the costs in the utilities are driven by the Regional District and Council has used a rate stabilization policy for a number of years to smooth the impact of regional cost increases
on our rate payers. Through this approach, we deliberately built the utility surplus amounts over time, so that when larger regional rate increases took effect we had the capacity to
manage those increases. The following provides an illustration of Council’s rate stabilization policy in action. The expected rate increases for water range from a low of 4.5% to a
high of 18.6% over the next five years. In addition, the Regional District is undertaking significant capital investment, including a pump station and water main, and Maple Ridge will
be responsible for up to 41% of some of the costs. The District will manage the impact of these using a combination of planned use of accumulated surplus and rate increase. The planned
2012 rate increase for water is 9%. The following shows the accumulated surplus amounts in each of the utilities. 201 2011 20 2010 10 Sewer Utility 2,508,311 2,515,823 Water Utility
3,176,352 3,638,446 Reserves District reserves are an important financial planning tool, providing a mechanism to build capacity over time to undertake strategic projects. They are
reviewed on a regular basis to assess their adequacy, with adjustments being made when capacity permits. As noted in the April 2 report to Council, the term “reserves” is often applied
to both our reserve funds and reserve accounts but there are important distinctions between the two resources. Reserve Funds are statutory, meaning they are established by bylaw. Once
monies are placed into a reserve fund, they can only be used for the purposes noted in the establishing bylaw. In contrast, Reserve Accounts are discretionary appropriations of surplus,
established to meet business needs. They can be established or dissolved, as Council directs, to ensure that identified business needs are met and risks are managed appropriately. At
the beginning of 2011, the District had $45.5 million in total reserves. The Financial Plan contemplated these resources being drawn down by $15.4 million, primarily to fund capital
projects. At the end of 2011, the District reserves total $52.9 million ($25.1 million in reserve funds & $27.8
Page 6 of 6 million in reserve accounts) an overall increase of $7.4 million. This variance is the combined result of planned capital investment that will occur in the future, and end
of year provisions for various operating projects and initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: The District’s reserves are sound and long-term financial plans reflect the ability of the District to
meet its future obligations. Overall results for 2011 are positive. We ended the year with an annual surplus of $35.5 million, Net Financial Assets of $22.3 million and Accumulated
Surplus of $846.5 million. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CGA Manager of Accounting _______________________________________________ Approved
by: Paul Gill, CGA GM: Corporate and Financial Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Offic Officer er
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 16, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: CDPR CDPR-0640 0640-30 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
C.O.W. SUBJECT SUBJECT: Award of Contract -Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment Roof Replacement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District of Maple Ridge issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) on January
11, 2012 for the Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment Roof Replacement. A total of eleven proposals were received by the tender closing date on March 8, 2012 and were subsequently evaluated;
the bid proposals ranged in price from $210,875.00 to $416,301.00. The proposals were evaluated by Levelton Engineering in consultation with Purchasing and Facilities Department staff.
Using the terms and conditions of the RFP, mandatory requirements and evaluation criteria for best value bid, Levelton Engineering has recommended the award of the contract to Flynn
Canada Roofing. RECOMMENDATION: That the Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment Roof Replacement Project be awar awarded to ded Flynn Canada Roofing in the amount of $210,875 10,875 10,875.00,
and further, that a .00, 15% contingency of $ 31, 1, 1,631 631 631.00 be established for this project funded from the Facilities Lifecycle budget budget. DISCUSSION: a) Backgroun Background
Context: d As outlined in the Facilities Operations 2012 Business Plan, staff committed to develop an RFP for replacement of the Ridge Meadows RCMP detachment roof. The roof originally
installed in 1983, is now past its useful life and needs to be replaced. The replacement will consist of the removal and disposal of the existing roofing system and, installing a new
roofing membrane, mechanical equipment curbs, flashings, canopy and white insulation board. The new white insulation board will also help reflect the heat (sun) away from the roof to
improve cooling energy loads within the building, and may extend the useful life of the roof. b) Desired Outcome: To achieve the best value and product for the Ridge Meadows RCMP detachment
roof replacement. c) Stra Strategic Alignment tegic Alignment: Maintain existing Municipal infrastructure through the preparation of appropriate plans to ensure development, maintenance
and renewal of facilities. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Provide municipal employees, the general public and user groups with safe and healthy corporate buildings. 1151
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The total cost of the roof replacement of $242,506.00 will be funded from the existing Facilities Operations Municipal infrastructure budget.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the approved budget it is recommended that Flynn Canada Roofing be awarded the contract for the RCMP roof replacement of Tender PL12-01. _______________________________________
________ Prepared by: Michael Millward, Facilities Operations Manager _______________________________________________ Reviewed by: David Boag, Director, Parks & Facilities ___________________________
____________________ Reviewed by: Trevor Thompson, Manager of Financial Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community
Development, Parks & Recreation Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer :mm