HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-03 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf1.
2.
3.
4.
4.1
District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
May 3, 2010
11:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, ls' Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification.
REMINDERS
May 3, 2010
Audit and Finance Committee Meeting
Council Workshop Meeting
Closed Council Meeting
Committee of the Whole Meeting
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
MINUTES - April 26, 2010
8:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
cancelled
1:00 P.M.
PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
Financial Plan Amending Bylaw
Staff report dated April 26, 2010 recommending that Maple Ridge 2010-2014
Financial Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6739-2010 be given first, second and third
readings.
4.2 2010 Tax Rates
Staff report dated April 26, 2010 recommending that Maple Ridge Tax Rates
Bylaw No. 6740-2010 be given first, second and third readings.
Council Workshop
May 3, 2010
Page 2 of 4
4.3 Tax Rate Bylaws - Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District and Albion Dyking District
Staff report dated April 27, 2010 recommending that Road 13 Dyking District Tax
Rates Bylaw No. 6741-2010 be given first, second and third readings and that
Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6742-2010 be given first, second and
third readings.
4.4 2010 Property Assessments and Taxation
Staff report dated April 26, 2010 providing an update on the 2010 property
assessments and taxation.
4.5 Stormwater and Drainage Utility Examination Update
Staff report dated April 27, 2010 recommending that a guiding set of principles for
the possible establishment of a Stormwater and Drainage Utility be prepared.
4.6 School District 42/P&LS Master Agreement
Agreement attached for discussion and to be forwarded to the Maple Ridge and
Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission
4.7 Wild Play Licence to Occupy
Staff report dated April 13, 2010 recommending that the Maple Ridge
Campground site be approved for use as a "Wild Play Element Park" and that the
Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the License to Occupy Agreement with Wild
Play Ltd.
License to Occupy Agreement to be circulated separately.
4.8 Living Water Smart
Verbal update by the Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning
Council Workshop
May 3, 2010
Page 3 of 4
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter,
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
Recommendation:
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by:
Date: I 0
Council Workshop
May 3, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
Apart of a council meeting maybe closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered fora position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of pro of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, dispos4tion or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or tential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor -client grivilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
Q) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Free om of lnformation and Protection of Priv cy_Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(1) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of re arin an annual re ort under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactmen , is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authorfty under section 91(other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to iocal government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
MAPLE RiDGE
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 26, 2010
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
Financial Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6739-2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 2010 property tax assessment roll has been received from BC Assessment and the property tax
rate bylaw has been prepared. Prior to establishing the tax rates, it is desirable to update our
financial plan to reflect information received since the plan's adoption in January. Our 2009
financial statements are being finalized, and preliminary results have been reviewed with Council.
As in previous years and as reported to Council in the preliminary year end update, projects that
were budgeted for in the prior year but were not completed have been reviewed. This financial plan
includes the amendments required to carry forward the funding to complete these projects.
The Financial Plan Bylaw that is adopted prior to the Tax Rates Bylaw is the budget that is used in
our Annual Report. In order for this financial plan bylaw to be adopted on May 11, the meeting at
which the tax rates bylaw will be considered, three readings are required at Council Workshop on
May 3.
The Financial Plan Bylaw includes several relatively new legislated requirements including a more
explicit form of revenue and tax policy disclosure the objectives and policies regarding the
proportions of revenue proposed to come from various funding sources, the distribution of property
taxes among property classes and the use of permissive tax exemptions.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That Bylaw No. 6739-2010 be given first, second and third readings.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Previous 2010-2014 Financial Plan
The 2010-2014 Business Plans and an overview of the financial plan were presented to
Council at public meetings held on November 30 and December 1, 2009. Business Plans
from all areas including the Capital Works Program and the 2010-2014 Financial Plan
Overview report were provided. Financial Plan Bylaw 6708-2009 was adopted in January.
Highlights of the plan include:
property tax increase of 4% in 2010-2014, which includes 1% for infrastructure
sustainability and 3% for general purposes,
4ol
• for 2010-2012 an increase to the fire department service improvement levy of
$600,000 plus growth since 2005, the year of the inception of the levy. The increase
is less in 2013, and there is no increase in 2014,
• water user fee increase of 9% per year, sewer user fee increase of 5% per year, and
recycling rates increase of 4.9% in 2010 and 3% in 2011-2014.
In last year's financial plan, Council adopted an aggressive capital program and this plan
builds on that direction.
We have approximately $1 billion invested in our infrastructure and it is essential that we
properly manage it. This financial plan sets aside dedicated money for sustaining our
infrastructure. We are a growing community and with that growth comes pressure on our
existing services. This financial plan provides funding to help meet growth related demands.
The funding for growth and for infrastructure sustainability are in line with Council's Financial
Sustainability Policies.
Given the level of uncertainty in reaching the target of 2.35% growth in taxation revenue
some funding was left unallocated to ensure that our existing commitments could be met
before taking on any incremental costs. The actual growth was 1.5% or close to two thirds of
what was planned so the funds which were left unallocated were needed to cover the
shortfall.
b) Financial Plan Implications:
The 2010-2014 Financial Plan is being amended to carry forward funding for projects that
were approved in 2009 but were not completed as of year end. The previously approved
funding sources remain unchanged and total:
$ 2.5 million for Operating Commitments and
$ 75.5 million for Capital Commitments
The plan is further amended to incorporate recent information.
These amendments include:
1. The transfer to accumulated surplus for 2010 has been reduced from about
$357,000 to $3,000 as a result of the adjustments noted below.
2. The actual real growth in tax revenue of 1.5% compared to a previously budgeted
2.35%. This represents a revenue reduction of about $400,000.
3. The cost of the recycling program was updated to reflect a payment covering our
share of the 2009 operating loss of the recycling operations. The payment of
$141,000 was funded through the Recycling Reserve.
4. Other adjustments to operating budgets include the library contract, grant in lieu
of taxes for BCBC and BC Hydro, benefit costs, pension costs, the removal of the
inflation contingency for 2010, the update of expected debt payments, updated
cost share revenue and adjustments to the timing of transfers to Capital Works
Reserve to balance the budget.
5. Capital projects adjustments include:
• A cost increase of the air/lighting truck for the fire department, the addition
of an antenna on Fire Hall #1 and the moving of a generator to Fire Hall #3,
all of which are funded through the Fire Department Capital Reserve.
• The cost of an intersection upgrade was updated to include the grant funding
portion which has been secured.
• Shifting the existing funding for fibre optic conduit putting a higher priority on
the connection of the expansion of the network to Corrections.
• The addition of storm drainage works on 230 Street funded by the
Infrastructure Sustainability Reserve
• Two park purchases which are underway have been added to the capital
program with funding contemplated from Development Cost Charges and the
Parkland Acquisition Reserve.
• Advancing a portion of the projects budget to design the bridge 232 Street
Bridge over the N. Alouette in 2010 with construction scheduled for 2011.
6. Based on the 2009 operating results we are able to proceed with the
$1,000,000 of repaving costs discussed during business planning. A further
$30,000 has been added to the capital program funded from 2009 operating
surplus to wrap approximately 30 more utility boxes.
7. The operating budget in Community Recreation Department has been updated to
reflect some of the costs and revenue realities with which the group has faced for
the last few years.
8. The maintenance costs for those parks converted to dog parks have been
increased by $16,000 to address a portion of the costs of the change in use and
frequency of litter pickup. The incremental operating cost of these parks will be
tracked.
9. Economic Development has received funding to move both the Administrative
Assistant and the Business Retention and Expansion Officer to full time positions.
This was achieved by allocating growth funding from each of the three divisions.
A table of changes is included as part of this report in Appendix A - Additional Amendments to
the Financial Plan.
c) Desired Outcome:
A Financial Plan that accurately reflects the planned expenditures and methods of funding
and is consistent with corporate strategic plans, policies and Council direction.
d) Strategic Alignment:
All departments updated their Business Plans which were prepared using the Business
Planning Guidelines 13th Edition. These guidelines are reviewed and amended annually in
consultation with Council. The Financial Plan reflects Council's Strategic Financial
Sustainability Policies and Infrastructure Funding Strategy.
e) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The business plans have far reaching citizen and customer implications. The Financial Plan
reflects the financial impact of the business plans. Property tax revenue and user fees are
planned to increase as detailed in the above discussion.
f) Statutory Requirements and Policy Implications:
The Financial Plan has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements and
Municipal financial policies. There are several relatively new requirements in the Community
Charter for the Financial Plan Bylaw, including: disclosure of the proportions of revenue
proposed to come from various funding sources; the distribution of property taxes among
property classes; and the use of permissive tax exemptions. The attached bylaw includes
this information.
In 2009 we reported our assets and the related amortization expense to be in compliance
with accounting rules in PSAB 3150. The Financial Plan Bylaw now includes a figure for the
annual amortization expense and an offsetting entry to draw down the value of the Tangible
Capital Assets. These items are accounting entries and do not represent cash being spent.
The amortization figure does have some relevance for financial planning, even if it is based
on historic cost rather than a replacement costs. If we compare the annual amortization
expense to the amount to what we spend on replacement of our existing assets or transfer to
reserves to later fund the same one would see that the amortization expense is considerably
more. This highlights the fact that we currently have an infrastructure funding gap which
means that we are consuming more of our assets that we are replenishing. Fortunately, we
have relatively new infrastructure so we have some time to bridge this funding gap. The
District's financial sustainability policies calls for Council to dedicate a property tax increase
of 1% per year to fund a significant portion of this gap, over time.
Public consultation is an important and legislated component of preparing financial plans.
The Business Planning Guidelines are updated in spring with an opportunity for the public to
provide feedback. Public input during business planning this December was invited through
advertisements in the local paper and on the corporate website. Input was accepted
through many different mediums including in person at the business planning presentations
which were open to the public or through email or voicemail. A further opportunity existed for
public comment on the Financial Plan Bylaw prior to adoption.
For the amendment to the Financial Plan an advertisement will be placed in the local paper
once the bylaw receives first reading from Council. Public input into the financial plan and
departmental business plans is incorporated indirectly through regular feedback and
interaction with customers and the public as well as through the results of surveys.
g) Alternatives:
In the event that this bylaw is not adopted, the District is not authorized to make any
expenditure other than those identified in the 2010-2014 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 6708-
2009. This would require departments curtail or delay expenditures and only proceed with
capital projects that were identified in the previous financial plan.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Financial Plan is a multi -year planning, reviewing and reporting tool that represents Council's
vision and commitment to providing quality services to the residents of Maple Ridge. The Plan
provides a forecast of the financial resources that are available to fund operations, programs and
infrastructure for the five year period.
Prepared by: Tr ompson, SBA, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
t-'
Approved by: Paul ill, BBA, CGA
G orporate & Financial rvices
�J
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
r
Appendix A - Additional Amendments to the Financial Plan
❑ eratin Fund General Revenue
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Transfer to Surplus (Previous Adopted Budget)
357,128
265,937
235,352
332,941
497,799
Property Taxes- General (growth & sup contingency)
(413,329)
(416,570)
(457,668)
(490,770)
(551,006)
Grants in Lieu (BCBC, BC Hydro)
(27,414)
12,597
32,882
69,074
69,074
Translink Maintenance Funding (OMR)
144,422
144,422
144,422
144,422
144,422
Maintenance - Roads network
(144,422)
(144422)
(144,422)
(144,422)
(144,422)
PM Recovery- Carryforwards & Other Adjustmsents
11,364
15,974
17,214
18,200
19,603
Recycling Contract- 2009 Operating Deficit
(141,009)
Recycling Reserve
141,009
[Dispatch Cost Savings more than $100,000 in 2010
73,804
Reduce Transfer from Police Services Reserve
(73,804)
Library Contract
86,796
91,125
95,700
125,923
132,218
Common Costs for Library
(14,300)
(14.300)
(14,300)
(14,300)
(14,300)
Dog Park Mtce (gross, Pitt Meadows shares in cost)
16,000
16,000
16,000
16,000
16,000
Ecomomic Development Staffing
(10,970)
(22,417)
(25,217)
(28,274)
(31,550)
Growth Funding from Divisions
22,417
25,217
28,274
31,550
Community Recreation & GMYC
(39,576)
(38,773)
(37,969)
(37,165)
(36,361)
Benefit Related Costs
77,541
54,328
28,895
7,644
(24,334)
Recovery from Utilities for Audit Costs for TCA
6,250
Reduce Inflation Contingency, now $0 for 2010
89,555
22,529
13,152
23,060
46,826
Adjust Capital Works Transfers to balance
(105,000)
15,000
90,000
Debt payments updated, offset by transfers from DCC,
CWR, & FDCA
Other adjustments
(22,574)
(13,819)
(13,400)
(12,967)
(11,710)
Balance Transfer to Accumulated Surplus
11,471
10,028
5,858
37,640
143,809
Appendix A - Additional Amendments to the Financial Plan (continued)
ICaptail (changes funded through reserves) 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 i 2014 i
216 St @ 218 Ave Traffice Signal
Grant Funding
230 St Storm Drainage Improvement
Infrastructure Sustainabiliy Reserve
Design 232 St bridge (N Alouette)
Timing of DCC contribution
Fire Hall #1 Air Lighting Truck increase
Fire Hall #1 Antenna
Fire Department - Generator move
Fire Department Capital Reserve
Park Purchase - 223 St
Park Purcahse - N. Alouette
Funding DCC/CWR/PAR
Road Reserface Program
Infrastructure Sustainability (2009 Surplus)
Utility Box Wraps
Surplus
Hamond Community Centre Furnace
Reserve Account - Improvements
rtal Impact to General Revenue
Depreciation - Fixed Assets
Draw down Surplus in Tangible Capital Assets
276,664
(276,664)
100,000
(100,000)
300,000
(300,000)
200,000
25,000
50,000
(275,000)
300,000
150,000
(450,000)
1,000,000
(1,000,000)
30,000
(30,000)
15,000
(300,000)
300,000
16,484,905 16,979,452 17,488,836 18,013,501 18,553,9061
(16,484,905) (16,979,452) (17,488,836) (18,013,501) (18,553,906)
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6739-2010
Maple Ridge 2010-2014 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6739-2010
WHEREAS, through a public process in an open meeting the business plans and resulting financial
plan were presented;
AND WHEREAS, the public will have the opportunity to provide comments or suggestions with respect
to the financial plan;
AND WHEREAS, Council deems this to a process of public consolation under section 166 of the
Community Charter.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the District of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge 2010-2014 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw No.
6739-2010".
2. Statement 1, Statement 2 and Statement 3 attached to and forming part of Maple Ridge
Financial Plan Bylaw 6708 -2009 are deleted in their entirety and replaced by Statement 1,
Statement 2 and Statement 3 attached and forming part of Maple Ridge Financial Plan
Amending Bylaw No. 6739-2010.
READ a first time the
day of
2010.
READ a second time the
day of
2010.
READ a third time the
day of
2010.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION completed on the
RECONSIDERED and adopted the
PRESIDING MEMBER
Attachments: Statement 1, Statement 2 and Statement 3
day of
day of
, 2010.
CORPORATE OFFICER
, 2010.
..acrrnent to rAar+e RICae 20-10-201s.q;nenchna Fln.andai Plan E. Yiac 6739-2010
Statement 1
Conso.idatad Financ-'a; Plan 2010-20i4
lip; thousands',;
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
REVENUES
External Revenues
Development Fees
Developer Cost Charge=_
$21,304
$9,193
S11 726
$5.759
$7.958
Developer Specified Projects
$D
$0
$0
$0
S0
Parkland Acquisition
$486
$200
$200
$200
$200
Contributions from Others
$4 929
53,699
$3,995
$6.227
53.560
Development Fees Total
$26.719
$13,092
515.921
$12,186
$11.718
Proparh- Taxes
$54,514
$58,532
$62,744
$66,824
$70,999
Parcel Charges
52.513
$2.642
$2378
$2.921
$3,071
Fees & Charges
$31.125
$32,850
$34,677
$36,635
$39,773
Interest
$1.885
51-M
$1.865
$1.585
$1,885
Grants t0therGovtst
$30,062
$2.202
$4.992
$10.808
$2.952
Property Sales
$0
$0
$0
$0
50
Total External Revenues
$14&818
$111.2D3
$122,997
$131,259
S!29,398
EXPENDITURES
External Expenditures
Other Expenditures
$81A07
$82,185
$86,283
$90,208
$94,444
Amortization Expense
$16A85
$16.979
$17.489
$18,014
$18,554
Total External Expenditures
$97,892
$99A64
$103,772
$108.222
$112 998
ANNUAL SURPLUS
$48,926
$12,039
$19,225
$23,037
$16,400
OTHER ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN ANNUAL SURPLUS
Transfer from Tangible Capital.Assets
$16,485
916979
S17,489
$12.014
$18.554
Less: Capital Expenditures
$105,921
$23.379
$29.262
$30, 717
$15,298
LessPrincipal Pavments on Debt
$4,059
$5.315
$7,689
57.754
$8,620
Less: Interest Payments on Debt
52,959
$3,358
$3,574
$3,479
$3,588
Add_ Sorrowing Proceeds
$28,851
53.386
$4.094
$6,050
$0
CHANGE IN FINANCIAL POSITION
($18,677)
$352
$283
$5,151
$7.448
INTERNAL TRANSFERS
Transfer from Reserve Funds
Capital !'forks Reserve
$3.312
$866
$2.045
$853
$853
Equipment Replacement Reserve
$3,351
$1,454
$1991
$1,311
$1,229
Fire Department Capital Reserve
$2.085
$0
$950
$D
$350
Land Reserve
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Local Improvement Reserve
$0
So
$0
$0
$0
Sanitary Sewer Reserve
5252
$0
$0
$0
$0
Transfer from Reserve Fund Total
$9,000
52,320
$4,986
$2,164
$2,432
Less :Transfer to Reserve Eunds
Capital Works Reserve
S857
$850
$720
$711
$1,082
Equipment Replacement Reserve
$2,032
52,120
$2,229
$2,319
$2Al2
Fire Dept. Capital Aquis&on
$1,102
$412
$527
$646
$769
Lard Reserve
$20
$20
$20
$20
$20
Local Improvement Reserve
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Sanitary Sewer Reserve
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
Total Transfer to Reserve Funds
$4,091
53,482
$3,576
$3.776
$4,363
Transfer from (to) Own Reserves
$11,413
($332)
i$1,201
($1.686j
($2,575)
Transfer from (to) Surplus
$2,355
$1,142
($492)
($1,853)
($2.942i
Transfer from (to)Surplus *
$13J68
$810
($1,693)
($3,539)
($5,517)
TOTAL INTERNAL TRANSFERS
$18,677
($352)
($283)
($5,151)
($7,448)
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2010-2014 Arnending Fnanc=ai Plan BAa;u 6739-2010
Statement 2
Retie ue and ProoeM Tax Polls; Disdosure
REVEWE DISCLOSURE
Revenue Proportions
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
NX05)
%
$1,1000si
%
$ 1'00X
%
$CMOs,
96
$ COWS)
%
Revenues
Property Taxes
54.514
314�
58,532
51%
62,744
499e:
66,824
49r
70.999
55-c
Parcel Charges
2,513
1%
2.642
2-A
2.778
2?t
2.921
23t
3,071
2ar
Fees & Charges
31,125
18°N
32.850
29%
34.677
27%
36.635
279�
38.773
30�t
Sorrowing Proceeds
28,851
169c
3,386
3%
4,094
396
6.-050
4r
-
0°c
Other Sources
58,666
33%
17,179
151,4
22.798
18%
24.879
18%
16,555
_311e
Total Revenues
175.669
100%
114.589
1003k
127.091
10056
137.309
100H,
129.398
1OMb
Othe Sources include.
Development Fees Total
26.719
15%
13.092
11%
15.921
1348
12,186
9%
11.718
9"c
Interest
1.885
1%
1.885
2%
1,895
1%
1,885
j:4
1,885
1%
Grants :Other Govisi
30.062
17%
2.202
2x
4,992
4 c
10.808
89�
2,952
2%
Property Saies
-
09
-
0%
-
00/6
-
0C
-
0%
58.666
33°
17.179
15%
22.798
18%
24,879
18x
16.555
13�t
Obiectives & Policies
Property Tax Revenue is the District's primary revenue source, and one which is heavily reliant on the
residential class. Diversification of the tax base and generation of non -tax revenue are ongoing
objectives, outlined in Financial Sustainability Policy 5.52 section 6.
Business Planning Guidelines and the Financial Plan includes a 3% general tax increase, a 1%
increase to fund replacement of existing infrastructure and an increase of $600,000 plus growth
since 2005, $676,000 in 2010, to fund the Fire Department Master Plan implementation. More
information can be found in the Business Planning Guidelines 13th Edition, Financial Sustainability
Plan and the 2010-2014 Financial Plan Overview Report. Specific policies discussing the tax
increases are included in the Financial Sustainability Plan and related policies which were adopted in
2004.
Parcel Charges are largely comprised of a recycling charge, a sewer charge and on certain properties
a local area service or improvement charge. Parcel charges are a useful tool to charge all or a
subset of properties for a fixed or variable amount to support services. Unlike property taxation the
variable amount does not need to be related to property assessment value, but can be something
that more accurately reflects the cost of the service.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2010-2014 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6739-2010
Statement 2 (continued)
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
Fees & Charges
The Business Planning Guidelines call for an increase of 5% in fees as a guideline. Actual fee
increases vary depending on the individual circumstances, the type of fee and how it is calculated.
Fees should be reviewed annually and updated if needed. Recent fee amendments include
recreation fees, development application fees, business license fees and cemetery fees. A major
amendment to the Development Costs Charges (DCC), recommended every 5 years, was completed
in 2008. Minor DCC amendments are done more frequently. Some fees are to offset the costs of
providing specific services. The utility fees are reviewed annually with a view towards using rate
stabilization practices to smooth out large fluctuations in rates, as set out in the Business Planning
Guidelines.
Borrowing Proceeds - Debt is used where it makes sense. Caution is used when considering debt as
it commits future cash flows to debt payments restricting the ability to use these funds to provide
other services. The source of the debt payments needs to be considered as does the justification for
advancing the project. More information on borrowing approved in 2008 or 2009 and proposed for
2010-2014 can be found in the 2010-2014 Financial Plan Overview report.
Other Sources, will vary greatly year to year as it includes
- Development fees, which is the funding for capital projects from the DCC Reserve,
- Contribution from others in relation to capital,
- Interest earned on funds invested in accordance with the Investment Policy
- Grants, which are sought from various agencies, and may be leveraged with District funds.
PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE
Propertv Tax Revenue Distribution
Property Class
Taxation Revenue
Assessed Value
Tax Rate
Multiple
('000s)
('000s)
($/11000)
(Rate/Res.Rate)
1 Residential
40,823
77.13%
10,434,223
91.52%
3.9124
1.00
2 Utility
458
0.87%
11,456
0.10%
40.0000
10.22
4 Major Industry
582
1.10%
18,076
0.16%
32.2003
8.23
5 Light Industry
2,247
4.25%
191,432
1.68%
11.7403
3.00
6 Business/Other
8,643
16.33%
736,221
6.46%
11.7403
3.00
8 Rec./ Non -Profit
49
0.09%
4,475
0.04%
10.8987
2.79
9 Farm
125
0.24%
5,205
0.05%
23.9963
6.13
52,928
11,401,088
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2010-2014 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6739-2010
Statement 2 (continued)
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE
Objectives & Policies
Property taxes are the District's largest source of revenue and are only contained by efficient
business practices. Annual business planning practices have been the mechanism for resource
allocation decisions.
The District's Financial Sustainability Policy section 6 discusses the necessity of diversifying the tax
base. As development of employment related properties is one method of diversification, key
performance measurement in Economic Development tracks the increased investment and
development of non-residential properties.
A policy in the Financial Sustainability Plan that calls for stable tax increases and the adoption of the
annual increase early in the prior year in the Business Planning Guidelines provides citizens with a
more stable and predictable set of cost increases. In some cases costs are phased in over multiple
years to keep within the set tax increases.
Property Tax Rates
It is policy to adjust property tax rates annually to negate the impact of fluctuations in the market
values of properties. (Tax rates are negatively correlated to market changes). Property tax increases
are then applied at the same relative increase for all classes, unless legislation restricts the rates, as
with Class 2, Utility.
The Business Class and Light Industry Class properties have the same tax rate and are treated as a
composite class when setting the tax rates. This is done as the types of businesses in each class of
property are quite similar. This was achieved over a long period of time with small incremental
adjustments.
A review was done on the Major Industry Class rates and the recommendation from the Audit and
Finance Committee and Council was a reduction of 5% in 2009 to the taxes collected to support
additional investments in the subject property and to keep rates competitive. The municipal property
taxes will be reduced again in 2010 by 5% as recommended by Council and included in the 2010-
2014 Financial Plan.
In reviewing the tax rates to ensure competitiveness absolute rates, tax multiples and overall tax
burden are considered. The impact that assessed values have on comparing other geographical
areas must be considered in a comparison of tax rates or multiples.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2010-2014 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6739-2010
Statement 2 (continued)
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
Permissive Tax Exemptions
Council has set policies around the use of permissive tax exemptions. They are Council Policies 5.19
though 5.24. The policies discuss Churches, Community Halls, Heritage Sites, Homes for the Care of
Children and the Relief of the Aged, the Poor, the Disabled and the Infirm, Municipal Recreational
Services, Private Hospitals and Daycares, Private School and Youth Recreation Groups.
Revitalization Tax Exemption
A revitalization tax exemption is available within a defined downtown area and provides a financial
incentive to encourage higher density development (five stories or higher). A further financial
incentive is available if the building meets specified environmental considerations. Further
information is available in Bylaw 6412-2006.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2010-2014 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6739-2010
Statement 3
Capital Expenditure Disclosure
The sole purpose of this statement is to meet legislative requirements, highlighting the value of the
DCC program; no other conclusions should be drawn from the figures as the information could be
misleading. This is required under the Local Government Act s. 937(2); Capital costs attributable to
projects to be partially funded by Development Cost Charges (DCC) must be included in the financial
plan. The DCC program includes projects as far out as 2026 so the capital expenditures must be
extended to match. Certain types of projects are not planned past the five year time horizon of the
financial plan. Much less scrutiny is given to projects that are planned in years 2015 through 2026.
Projects in these years typically exceed likely funding available.
Capital Works Program for 2015 - 2026
(in thousands)
Capital Works Program 330,433
Source of Funding
Development Fees
Development Cost Charges 123,457
Parkland Acquisition Reserve -
Contribution From Others 4,573
Development Fees Total 128,030
Borrowing Proceeds 19,297
Grants 28,927
Transfer from Reserve Funds
Capital Works Reserve 11,027
Equipment Replacement Reserve 2,521
Fire Department Cpatil Reserve 2,000
Transfer from Reserve Funds Total 15,548
Revenue Funds 138,631
Source of Funding Total 330,433
-0
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
2010 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6740-2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
DATE: April 26, 2010
ATTN: Council Workshop
The 2010 Property Tax Rates Bylaw needs to be adopted prior to May 15th. The tax rates reflect the
direction that Council provided and were reflected in the approved Business Planning Guidelines, the
2010-2014 business planning proceedings and the Financial Plan Bylaw.
Over the last year or so, there have been reviews and discussions with Council and the Finance and
Audit Committee on the Major Industrial Class tax rate. The direction from Council was to reduce the
2010 taxes for Major Industrial Class by 5%. A similar reduction of 5% was done in 2009.
Municipal property tax rates continue to be set using the same methodology and policy that Council
has set and reviewed. The methodology being that tax rates are adjusted for any assessment
changes that are market related and then the planned tax increase is applied.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Maple Ridge Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6740-2010 be given first, second and third readings.
DISCUSSION:
The increases in 2010 taxation revenue which were confirmed during business planning and
incorporated into the Financial Plan include:
3% for general purposes and 1% for the infrastructure sustainability
$600,000 plus growth for the Fire Service Improvement Levy
A 5% reduction to municipal portion of property taxes for the Major Industrial
properties
There have been several initiatives from the province that impact property taxation or property
assessments including:
A temporary property tax deferment program was put in place for 2009 and 2010
which allows people who attest that they are experiencing serious financial
difficulties due to current economic conditions, to defer their property taxes.
4.2
The criteria for the existing property tax deferment program was widened to include
homeowners that have children living at home, previously it was just for homeowners
that were 55 or older.
• 2010 will be the second year that a 50 percent provincial Industrial Property Tax
Credit for major industrial and light industrial properties is applied, it is scheduled to
increase to 60 percent in 2011.
We have received the Property Assessment Roll from BC Assessment and this information is used in
establishing the tax rates. Council policy is to reduce the property taxes to reflect average market
value increases in each property class. This policy has been applied to calculate the municipal tax
rates included in the attached bylaws. Market values for the Residential Class have decreased by
about 4.1%.
Once the tax rates are adjusted for market change, the rates are increased based on the tax
increase incorporated in the Financial Plan.
It should be noted that our tax rates bylaw also includes the levies for other jurisdictions. We have
no say in the amount of these levies or the methodology used in the calculations. For illustrative
purposes, the average residence and sample property comparisons can be found in the appendices.
School tax rates are not yet known and are typically not included in this bylaw. For illustrative
purposes calculations in the appendices use the 2009 school tax rate.
The Business and Light Industry Class are treated as a composite resulting in municipal tax rates
that are identical. Staff will continue to review property taxes and the distribution between property
classes to ensure that tax rates remain competitive.
CONCLUSIONS:
The property tax rates are reflective of the decisions made during the public process of business
planning and decisions that are incorporated in the Financial Plan.
Prepared by: Trevo pson, BBA, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
Approved by: Pa Gill, BA, CGA
General Ma er Corporate & Fin neat Services
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A - Average Composite Residence
2010 Average Residence (includes strata)
2010 Assessed Value: $ 383,004 -4.1%
2009 Assessed Value: $ 399,254
Average Home Municipal Levies: 2010 2009 Increase % Change
General Purpose $ 1,383.68 $ 1,329.92 $ 53.76 4.0%
Average Home Other Municipal Charges:
Recycling (fixed rate)
$
62.43
$
59.51
$
2.92
4.9%
Water (fixed rate)
$
379.50
$
348.10
$
31.40
9.0%
Sewer (fixed rate)
$
273.00
$
261.60
$
11.40
4.4%
Fire Service Improvement Levy
$
114.79
$
95.38
$
19.41
20.4%
Municipal, Recycling, Utilities, Fire
$
2,213.40
$ 2,094.51
$
118.89
5.7%
Average Home Other Agency Levies:
BCAA, MFA, GVRD
$
51.78
$
52.06
$
(0.28)
-0.5%
Translink
$
145.62
$
146.81
$
(1.19)
-0.8%
School Tax **
$
787.34
$
820.75
$
(33.41)
-4.1%
Less: Home Owner Grant
$
(570.00)
$
(570.00)
Net School Tax
$
217.34
$
250.75
$
(33.41)
-13.3%
Total Property Taxes $ 2,628.14 $ 2,544.12 $ 84.02 3.3%
* Sewer rates include an increase of 5%for user fees and no change in the parcel charge of $35.
* * School Tax rate is not known yet so the 2009 rate was used.
Appendix B - Sample Tax Properties
Sample 1 - Silver Valley
2010 Assessed Value:
656,000
2009 Assessed Value
703,000
2010
2009
Change
%
Percentage Change:
-6.7%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt & Library Levy
$ 2,370
$ 2,342
$ 28
1.2%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
197
168
29
17.3%
Recycling Levies
62
60
2
3.3%
Utilities
379
348
31
8.9%
3,008
2,918
90
3.1%
Other Agency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
338
350
(12)
-3.4%
School Tax *
1,349
1,445
(96)
Less: Home Owner's Grant
570
570
-
779
875
(96)
-11.0%
Total Taxes
$ 4,125
$ 4,143
(18)
-0.4%
Sample 2 - Albion / Kanaka
2010 Assessed Value:
489,000
2009 Assessed Value
516,000
2010
2009
Change
Percentage Change:
-5.2%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt & Library Levy
$ 1,767
$ 1,719
$ 48
2.8%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
147
123
24
19.5%
Recycling Levies
62
60
2
3.3%
Utilities
652
610
42
6.9%
2,629
2.512
116
4.6%
O(herAgency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
252
257
(5)
-1.9%
School Tax *
1,005
1,061
(56)
Less: Home Owners Grant
570
570
-
435
491
(56)
-11.4%
Total Taxes
$ 3,315
$ 3,260
55
1.7%
Sample 3 - Whonnock
2010 Assessed Value:
487,000
20W Assessed Value
532,000
2010
2009
Chance
%
Percentage Change:
-8.5%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt & Library Levy
$ 1,759
$ 1,772
$ (13)
-0.7%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
146
127
19
15.0%
Recycling Levies
31
29
2
6.9%
Utilities
-
-
-
0.0%
1,936
1,928
8
0.4%
Other Agency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
251
265
(14)
-5.3%
School Tax *
1,001
1,094
(93)
Less: Home Owner's Grant
570
570
-
431
524
(93)
-17.7%
Total Taxes
$ 2,618
3 2,717
9);
-3.6%
Sample 4-Central Maple Ridge
2010 Assessed Value:
384,000
2009 Assessed Value
387,000
2010
2009
Change
%
Percentage Change:
-0.8%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt & Library Levy
$ 1,387
$ 1,289
$ 98
7.6%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
115
92
23
25.0%
Recycling Levies
62
60
2
3.3%
Utilities
652
610
42
6.9%
2,216
2,051
165
8.0%
Other Agency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
198
193
5
2.6%
School Tax *
789
796
(7)
Less: Horne Owner's Grant
570
570
-
219
226
{7]
-3.1%
Total Taxes
$ 2,633
w ?.470
163
6.6010
Sample 5 - Central Maple Ridge Strata Property
2010 Assessed Value-
236,500
2009 Assessed Value
262,600
2010
2009
Change
%
Percentage Change:
-9.9%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt& Library Levy
$ 854 $
875
$ (21)
-2.4%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
71
63
8
12.7%
Recycling Levies
31
30
1
3.3%
Utilities
652
610
42
6.9%
1,608
1,578
30
1.9%
Other Agency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
122
131
(9)
-6.9%
School Tax *
486
540
(54)
Less: Home Owner's Grant
570
570
-
(84)
{ 301
(54)
180.0%
Total Taxes
$ 1,646 $
1,679
(33)
-2.0%
Sample 6 - West Maple Ridge
2010 Assessed Value:
579,000
2009 Assessed Value
562,000
2010
2009
Chad e
%,
Percentage Change:
3.0%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt & Library Levy
$ 2,092
$ 1,872
$ 220
11.8%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
174
134
40
29.9%
Recycling Levies
62
60
2
3.3%
Utilities
652
1 610
42
6.9%
2,980
2,676
304
11.4%
Other Agency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
298
280
18
6.4%
School Tax *
1,190
1,155
35
Less: Home Owners Grant
570
570
-
620
585
35
6.0%
Total Taxes
$ 3,898
$ 3,541
357
10.1%
Saunple 7 - Lower Hammond Property
2010 Assessed Value:
224,300
2009 Assessed Value
239,600
2010
2009
Change
%
Percentage Change:
-6.4%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt & Library Levy
$ 810 $
798
$ 12
1.5%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
67
57
10
17.5%
Recycling Levies
62
60
2
3.3%
Utilities
652
610
42
6.9%
1,591
1,525
66
4.3%
Other Agency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
116
119
(3)
-2.5%
School Tax *
461
493
(32)
Less: Home Owner's Grant
570
570
-
(109)
(77)
(32)
41.6%
Total Taxes
$ 1,598 $
I.567
31
2.0%
Sample 8 - Upper Hammond Property
2010 Assessed Value:
425,000
2009 Assessed Value
460,000
2010
2009
Change
%
Percentage Change:
-7.6%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt & Library Levy
$ 1,535
$ 1,532
$ 3
0.2%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
127
110
17
15.5%
Recycling Levies
62
60
2
3.3%
Utilities
652
610
42
6.9%
2,376
2,312
64
2.8%
Other Agency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
219
229
(10)
-4.4%
School Tax *
874
946
(72)
Less: Home Owner's Grant
570
570
-
304
376
(72)
-19.1%
Total Taxes
S 2.899
$ 2.917
1181
F -0.6%
Sample 9 - Map]e Ridge Average based on BCAA Market ❑eere ase of 4.07%n
2010 Assessed Value:
383,004
2009 Assessed Value
399,254
2010
2009
Change
%
Percentage Change:
-4.1%
Municipal Council Levies:
Gen Purpose, Debt& Library Levy
$1,383.68
$ 1,329.91
$ 53.77
4.0%
Fire Services Improvement Levy
114.79
95.38
19.41
20.4%
Recycling Levies
62.43
59.51
2.92
4.9%
Utilities
652.50
1 609.70
42.80
7.0%
2,213.40
2,094.50
118.90
5.7%
Other Agency Levies:
Other Agency Levies
197.40
198.87
(1.47)
-0.7%
School Tax *
787.34
820.75
(33.41)
Less: Home Owner's Grant
570.00
570.00
-
217.34
250.75
(33.41)
-13.3%
Total Taxes
$2,628.14
$ 2,544.12
84.02
3.3%
* School Tax rates for 2010 not known yet
Appendix C - Sample Tax Properties History
Assessed Values
Location
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1 Silver Valley
299,000
334,000
437,000
493,000
742,000
722,000
703,000
656,000
2 Albion/Kanaka
285,000
309,000
371,000
393,000
449,000
516,000
516,000
489,000
3 Whonnock
240,700
292,200
355,700
380,000
423,000
532,000
532,000
487,000
4 CentratMR
221,200
237,100
295,000
289,100
340,000
387,000
387,000
384,000
5 Central MR- strata
142,500
147,700
171,000
210,800
234,200
262,600
262,600
236,500
6 West MR
342,000
349,000
427,000
425,000
476,000
562,000
562,000
579,000
7 Lower Hammond
132,500
162,400
190,600
182,300
201,100
239,600
239,600
224,300
8 Upper Hammond
206,000
232,900
284,000
293,000
375,000
460,000
460,000
425,000
1 1,868,9001
2,064,300
1 2,531,3001
2,666,21H1
1 3,240,3001
3,681,200
1 3,662,200
1 3,480,800
Total
Change in Assessed Values
Location
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1 Si[ver Valley
13.8 %
11.7°%
30.8%
128%
5a5%
-2.7 %
-2.6°
-6.7 %
2 Albion/Kanaka
10.0°%
8.4%
20.1 %
5.9%
14.2%
14.9%
0.0%
-5.2%
3 Whonnock
7.9%
21.4%
21.7°%
6.8%
11.3%
25.8%
0.0%
-8.5%
4 Central MR
17.8 %
7.2%
24A %
-2.01°
17.6%
13.8%
0.0%
-0.8%
5 Central MR- strata
17.0%
1 %
15.8%
23.3%
11.1°%
12.1 %
0.0%
-9.9%
6 West MR
8.6%
2,01/1
22.3°Io
-0.5°Ia
12.0°10
18.1%
0,0%
3.0%
7 Lower Hammond
11.3 %
2LW6
17.4°I
-4.4%
10.30A
19.1 %
0.0 %
-6.4 %
8 Upper Hammond
11.3%
13.11%
21.9%
3.2%
28.00/1
22.7%
0.09'
-7.6/
11.71/6
10.5%
22.6%
52%
21.50A
13.6°/a
-(S
-&0%
Total
Taxation (Municipal GenerallDebtlLibrarv}
Location
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1 Silver Valley
1,435
1,516
1,738
1,925
2,576
2,303
2,342
2,370
2 Albion/Kanaka
1,368
1,402
1,475
1,534
1,559
1,646
1,719
1,767
3 Whonnock
1,155
1,326
1,414
1,483
1,469
1,697
1,772
1,759
4 Central MR
1,062
1,076
1,173
1,129
1,181
1,235
1,289
1,387
5 Central MR- strata
684
670
680
823
813
838
875
854
6 West MR
1,642
1,584
1,698
1,659
1,653
1,793
1,872
2,092
7 Lower Hammond
636
737
758
712
698
764
798
810
8 Upper Hammond
989
1,057
1,129
1,144
1,2
1,467
1,532
1.535
Total
8,971
9,368
10,065
10,409
11 5301
11,743
1 12,199
12,574
r'hnnno in Taxatinn Wiinir-inal C�nnraiRDahWLitvarv)
Location
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1 Silver Valley
6.1 %
5.6%
14.6°%
10.8%
33.8%
-10.6%
1.7%
1.2°%
2 Albion/Kanaka
2.5°%
2S%
5.2%
4.0°%
1.6°%
5.6%
4.41
28%
3 Whonnock
0.6°%
14B%
6.6 %
4.9 %
-0.9°%
15.5°%
4.4%
-0.7%
4Central MR
9.8%
1.3%
9.0°%
-3.8%
4.6%
4.6%
4A%
7.60/
5 Central MR- strata
9.1 %
-2.0%
1.5%
21.0°%
-1.2 %
3.1 1°
4.4%
-Z4°I°
6 West MR
1.2%
-3.5 %
7.2%
-2.3°%
44%
8.5%
4.4%
11.80/0
7 Lower Hammond
3.8%
15.91/,
2.89y.
-6.1 %
-2.0°%
9.5 %
4.59'
1.5°I
8 Upper Hammond
3.8%
6.9%
6.8%
1.3°%
13.8°%
12.7%
4.4%
0.2°I
4.1°Io
4.49/6
1 7.4%
3A%
8.1%
4.4%
3.9%
&1%
Total
THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6740-2010
A Bylaw to establish tax rates for Municipal, Improvement District
and Regional District purposes for the year 2010
WHEREAS pursuant to provisions in the Community Charter Council must, by bylaw, establish tax
rates;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the District of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as `Maple Ridge Tax Rates Bylaw No.
6740 - 2010".
2. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for the year 2010:
(a) For all lawful general purposes of the municipality on the assessed value of
land and improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, rates
appearing in Row "A" of Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming a part
hereof.
(b) For the purposes of improving fire services the assessed value of land and
improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, rates appearing in
Row "B" of Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming a part hereof.
(c) For purposes of the British Columbia Assessment Authority on the assessed
value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district
purposes, rates appearing in Row "A" of Schedule "B" attached hereto and
forming a part hereof.
(d) For purposes of the Municipal Finance Authority on the assessed value of
land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates
appearing in Row "B" of Schedule "B" attached hereto and forming a part
hereof.
(e) For purposes of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority on the
assessed value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital
district purposes, rates appearing in Row "C" of Schedule "B" attached
hereto and forming a part hereof.
(f) For purposes of the Greater Vancouver Regional District on the assessed
value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district
purposes, rates appearing in Row "D" of Schedule "B" attached hereto and
forming a part hereof.
Bylaw No. 6740 - 2010
Page 2
3. The minimum amount of taxation upon a parcel of real property shall be One Dollar
($1.00).
READ a first time the day of 2010
READ a second time the day of 2010
READ a third time the day of 2010
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the
PRESIDING MEMBER
Attachments: Schedules "A" and "B"
day of
2010.
Bylaw No. 6740 - 2010
Page 3
District of Maple Ridge
Schedule 'A' to By-law No. 6740-2010
Tax Rates (dollars of tax per $1,000 taxable value)
1 2 4 5 6 8 9
Major Light Business/ Rec/
Residential UU14 Industry Industry Other Non-profit Farm
A General 3.6127 36.9355 29.7333 10.8408 10.8408 10.0637 22.1579
Municipal
B Fire Service 0.2997 3.0645 2.4670 0.8995 0.8995 0.8350 1.8384
Improvement Levy
Total 3.9124 40.0000 32.2003 11.7403 11.7403 10.8987 23.9963
A B.C.
Assessment
Authority
B Municipal
Finance
Authority
C South Coast
BC Transportation
Authority (TransLink)
D Greater
Vancouver
Regional
District
Total
District of Maple Ridge
Schedule 'B' to Bylaw No. 6740-2010
Tax Rates (dollars of tax per $1,000 taxable value)
1 2 4 5 6 8 9
Major Light Business/ Rec/
Residential utility Industry Industry Other Nan -profit Farm
0.0664 0.5051 0.5051 0.1987 0.1987 0.0664 0.0664
0.0002 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002
0.3802 2.6808 2.2926 1.9937 1.6808 0.3115 0.3521
0.0686 0.2401 0.2332 0.2332 0.1681 0.0686 0.0686
0.5154 3.4267 3.0316 2.4263 2.0481 0.4467 0.4873
i
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 27, 2010
and Members of Council FILE NO:
Chief Administrative Officer ATTN:
Tax Rate Bylaws - Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District and Albion Dyking District
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Levies are collected from property owners within the Road 13 and Albion Dyking Districts to maintain the
dykes and equipment. Bylaws have been prepared for the collection of these levies in 2010. The tax rate for
Albion Dyking District is recommended to be maintained at the same rate as last year. The gross collection
of revenue for Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District is recommended to be increased by 6% to enable
reserves to be built up over a period of time to a level sufficient to allow for replacement of the pump in the
event of a non-insured pump failure loss.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Road 13 Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6741-2010; be given first, second and third readings and
that. Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6742-2010 be given first, second and third readings.
DISCUSSION:
No funds have been allocated in the Capital Works budget for these dykes. All works must be funded
through the Dyking Districts. Provincial grants can be applied for but these generally require that the
recipient pay 33% of all costs. Recently staff conducted a risk analysis for the two dyking districts to
determine if sufficient funds are available to ensure the continued protection of the residents and
businesses within those dyking districts. The largest single risk for both is a non-insured pump failure. The
replacement cost for the pump for the Albion Dyking District is estimated at $500,000. This Dyking District
has sufficient funds to cover half the cost of replacement and the remainder could be financed over a 20
year period. The replacement cost for the Road 13 Dyking District pump is $2,000,000. This Dyking District
does not have sufficient reserves to cover the cost of replacement. Staff is recommending that reserves
should equal at least half of the pump value and that the reserves be build up over multiple years to reach
the required $1,000,000. An increase in collection of 6% is recommended for this year. This will result in a
rate of .4353 or an increase of 16%. In the event of a pump failure the remainder of the cost could be
financed over a 20 year period.
An update on ce's response to Council's requirements for acceptance of the transfer of
respo of se Pro 'ncial Improvement Areas, and suggested next steps, is scheduled to come
bef e cil o
Prepar y: Russ Carmichael Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA
Director of En 'neering Operations GenI Man g$r, Corpd2aa;e * Financial Services
/ ._ Syr
111,
Prepared by: Ceri Marlo. Conc rrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Manager of Legislative Services Chie Administrative Officer
4.3
THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6741-2010
A Bylaw for imposing taxes upon lands in Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District for the year 2010
The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, acting on behalf of the
Trustees for Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District, enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District Tax
Rates Bylaw No. 6741-2010".
2. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for the year 2010 for those lands
within the boundaries of Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District:
For purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and
maintenance:
(a) a rate of $0.4353 per $1000 of assessment of land and improvements in all
categories
(b) a rate of $12.00 per acre of land with a minimum charge of $5.00.
3. If any section, subsection, clause or other part of this Bylaw is for any reason held to
be invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw.
READ a first time on the day of May, 2010.
READ a second time on the day of May, 2010.
READ a third time on the " day of May, 2010.
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED on the day of May, 2010.
=1-26*flP11ff0MX& WNW,
CORPORATE OFFICER
THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6742-2010
A Bylaw for imposing taxes upon lands in the Albion Dyking District for the year 2010
The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, acting as Receiver for the
Albion Dyking District, enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw
No. 6742-2010".
2. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for the year 2010 for those lands
within the boundaries of Albion Dyking District:
For purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and
maintenance:
(a) a rate of $2.2648 per $1000 of assessment of land and improvements in all
categories
3. If any section, subsection, clause or other part of this Bylaw is for any reason held to
be invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw.
READ a first time on the day of May, 2010.
READ a second time on the day of May, 2010.
READ a third time on the day of May, 2010.
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED on the h day of May, 2010.
PRESIDING MEMBER
CORPORATE OFFICER
MAPLE RIDOE
District of Maple Ridge
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE:
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN:
SUBJECT: 2010 Property Assessments and Taxation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
April 26, 2010
Council Workshop
Throughout the year, the Finance Department provides a series of financial reports to Council. The
purpose of these reports is to provide Council with information to assist in their decision -making. In
early January, Council received a detailed analysis of the 2010 property assessments based on the
completed roll. The revised roll was provided by BC Assessment a few weeks ago, and it includes the
results of recent appeals. Such appeals have not impacted our results in a material way.
Maple Ridge's assessment base continues to be largely Residential with Non -Residential
assessments accounting for 8.8% of our overall assessment base. Data from sixteen municipalities
surveyed is attached as Appendix A, and it shows that of the surveyed municipalities, only two have a
higher Residential component than the District's. Having said this, the tax base mixes generally fall
within quite a narrow range.
Over the past several years, the annual growth in our Residential tax base has been in the order of 2
to 3%. With 2% Residential growth projected into the future, we have looked at the impact on our tax
base mix under a variety of growth scenarios for the remainder of our tax base. Appendix C shows
that if our Non -Residential base grows at an annual rate of 10% for each of the next twenty years,
our tax base mix will shift from 91/8 to 71/29. This analysis illustrates the degree of effort required
to make a significant shift in the mix of our tax base.
With respect to the tax rates assessed to the Residential and commercial classes, the 2010 tax
rates have not yet been set by the municipalities, so information on the 2009 tax rates is included in
this report.
A 2009 survey prepared by the City of Vancouver for the average Residential property in the Greater
Vancouver Regional area shows that we are well positioned with the annual tax bill for the average
home in Maple Ridge falling below the GVRD average.
In 2009, commercial tax bills for three business types were reviewed and compared with those of six
lower mainland municipalities. Business types included a food store, a retail unit located in a strip
retail centre, and a retail/restaurant. In 2009, the District's tax bill for the food store and the CRU
retail/restaurant unit ranked as third highest, as it did in 2008; and, the tax bill for the CRU retail
unit ranked as second highest, as it did in 2008.
Page 1 of 3 4 A
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive for information.
DISCUSSION:
Property assessment appeals have been heard and adjudicated and BC Assessment has now
provided us with their revised roll. Changes were minimal with no impact on the 2010 Property
Assessment Review information provided to Council in January.
The attached Appendix A lists sixteen Lower Mainland municipalities and their ratio of Residential
and Non -Residential assessments. The ratios range from a low of 78/22 in Richmond to a high of
96/4 in West Vancouver with Maple Ridge having the third highest Residential component.
Appendix B is a survey prepared by the City of Vancouver comparing 2009 municipal property taxes
and utility rates for the average Residential property in the Greater Vancouver Regional area. This
report confirms that we are well positioned as the municipal portion of the annual tax bill of $2,115
for the average home in Maple Ridge is below the GVRD average of $2,278.
A report focusing on the Business Class property taxes was presented to Council in July 2009. The
report explained that the District's commercial tax rate was seventh highest of nineteen
municipalities. The difficulty with comparing commercial taxes with other municipalities lies in the
differences in actual business types. Nonetheless, three different business types and typical tax bills
were reviewed and compared to those of six other lower mainland municipalities. Business types
included a food store, a retail unit located in a strip retail centre, and a retail/restaurant, as shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1: 2009 Commercial Tax Bill
Food Store
CRU retail
CRU retail/restaurant
Coquitlam
$123,467
$7,288
$
7,895
Mission
$121,456
$5,207
$
5,786
Maple Ridge
$ 92,421
$5,455
$
6,365
Burnaby
$ 87,245
$4,959
$
5,372
Langley
$ 79,826
$4,740
$
5,469
N Van, City
$ 76,451
$5,200
$
5,616
Surrey
$ 71,612
$2,899
$
4,774
In 2009, the District's tax bill for the food store and the CRU retail/restaurant unit ranked as third
highest out of the six, as it did in 2008 and 2005. And, in 2009, the District's tax bill for the CRU
retail unit ranked as second highest, as it did in 2008, while it ranked as third highest in 2005.
Also included in the July 2009 report that went to Council was a comparison of tax multiples. Figure
2, on the next page, weighs the relative tax burden against Business (Class 6) as compared to
Residential (Class 1). In 2005, the District's tax multiple was eleventh highest; in 2009, it fell to third
lowest with Maple Ridge's being lower than the average of 3.9. This again bears out that we are well
positioned when compared to other municipalities.
Page 2 of 3
Figure 2: Business, Class 6 - 2009 Multiples, based on General Municipal Rates
Municipality
Multiples
Coquitlam
5.0
Vancouver
4.8
North Vancouver, City
4.1
Port Coquitlam
4.0
Burnaby
4.0
Mission
3.9
New Westminster
3.8
North Vancouver, District
3.7
Surrey
3.6
Pitt Meadows
3.6
Richmond
3.5
Delta
3.3
Port Moody
3.3
Maple Ridge
3.3
Langley Township
3.1
West Vancouver
2.3
To determine what the impact on the Residential (Class 1)/Light Industrial (Class 5) and Business
(Class 6) distribution would be, given different rates of growth, an assessment projection analysis
was prepared. The current distribution of assessments between Residential (Class 1)/Light Industrial
(Class 5) and Business (Class 6), is 91.8% and 8.2% respectively. Appendix C, attached, outlines four
scenarios where the Residential assessment base increases at a rate of 2% per year and the Light
Industrial and Business assessment base increases at various rates, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10%. In
Scenario 1, at the end of twenty years, with Class 1 growing at 2% per year, and Class 5 and 6
growing at 4% per year, the current distribution between the two is not greatly affected with Class 1
at 88.4% and Class 5 and 6 at 11.6% at year twenty. As evidenced by Scenarios 3 and 4, it would
take many years of high growth in Classes 5 and 6 to affect any significant change in the distribution.
CONCLUSIONS:
By performing regular reviews of its tax rates, the District continues to ensure that it remains
competitive and that its tax rates are reasonable in comparison to Jermunicipalitfes.
prepared by: J quie rgmann Prepared by: Silvia Rutledge
esearch Technician, Administration Manager, Revenue & Collections
Approved by. Pau Gill, BA, CGA
General Manager, CorpofEa e & Financial Services
Concurrence: J.L/(Jim) Rule '
Ctfief Administrative Officer
Attachments
SR/JB:sr/jb
Page 3 of 3
Appendix A
2010 Assessed Values
Municipalities
Rank of
Residential
(High to
Low)
%
Residential
% Light Ind
& Business
%
Everything
Else
Total General
Purposes Assessed
Value
Residential Cls1
Light Ind Cis 5
Business Cis 6
Richmond
16
78.139A
21.05%
0.82%
41,861,451,493
32,707,424,131
1,371,607,700
7,440,857,76
Burnaby
15
79,35%
19.67%
0.63%
43,765.248,290
34,725,787,350
811,755,100
7,797,060,429
Delta
14
79.85%
18.01 %
0.95%
18,800,582,333
15,011,374,249
1,042,980,900
2,342579,05
Langley-Townshi
13
81,50%
17.26%
1.11%
19,991,280,429
16,293,141,006
961,942,500
2,489;04B,701
North Vancouver -C'
12
82.59%
16.08%
0.31%
10,944,466,685
9,038.504,325
32,758,700
1,727,477,700
Vancouver
11
82.85%
16.67%
0.36%
162,389,523,327
134,534,509,363
537,928,601
26,533,213,701
PortCoquitlam
10
82,68%
16.70%
0.42%
8,778,299,057
7,275,769,304
326,545.600
1,139,299,701
Pitt M eadows
9
85.21 %
12.69 %
1.97 %
2, 778, 392,619
2,367, 429, 804
16, 581,500
336,094, 600
Surrey
8
66,40%
12.88%
0.57%
67,270,283,133
58,124,822,844
1,247,011,003
7,415,694,98
New Westminster
7
86,59%
12.47%
0.44%
9,859,655,9
8,537,446,502
77,315,600
1,151,984,10
Coquitlam
6
86.76%
12.72%
0.44%
21,924,609,277
19,020,990,735
274,523,800
2,514,447,601
Mission
5
90.43%
8.68%
o.89%1
4,817,234,152
4,356,039,110
63,278,600
355,029,70
Port Moody
4
91.11%
6.84%
0.340%
1 6,099,157,566
.5,556.949.5221
27,876,600
389,391,791
Maple Rldge
3
91.22%
8.12%
0.51%
11,434.999,756
10,430,685,62B
191,854,700
736.220.82
North Vancouver - Ustrict
2
91.79%
SIW%
0,31%1
21,599,343,709
19,826,025,117
41.261,950
1,448,779,92
West Vancouver
1
96.03%
3.64%
0.33%1
21,458,899,232
20,606,622,2321
1
780,419,000
Values downloaded from Assessment LinkBC website 2010-04-26
Appendix B
Metro Vancouver Authorities - 2009 Property Taxes and Utility Rates
Based on Averaae Residential Property
Authority Average
Residential
Property
Municipal Portion
of the Property
Tax
Utilities
Total
Utilities
Total Charges
(Munic. Portion
& Utilities)
Sewer
Water
Solid Waste
West Vancouver
1,383,2831
2,919
metered
metered
138
138
3,057
North Vancouver - District
671,813
1,648
346
369
201
9161
2,565
New Westminster
433,932
1,581
402
308
184
894
2,475
Vancouver
781,794
1,671
195
379
190
764
2,435
Delta
494,500
1,632
240
363
132
735
2,367
Coquitlam
513,740
1,464
324
328
238
890
2,354
Port Moody
503,296
1,514
276
302
241
819
2,333
Surre
471,036
1,063
503
526
212
1,2411
2,304
Port Coquitlam
427,806
1,480
579
176
755
2,235
Richmond
509,187
1,207
358
451
198
1,007
2,214
White Rock
536,148
1.738
396
incl
incl
396
2,133
Maple Ride
404,907
1,445
262
348
60
669
2,115
BurnabX
538,999
1,336
390
382
incl
773
2,109
Langley - Township
439,847
1,284
305
317
171
7941
2,078
North Vancouver -Ci
602,365
1,391
254
199
196
64
2,040
Pitt Meadows
1 361,599
1,159
262
338
215
815
1,974
Langley - City
329,802
1,197
240
317
195
752
1,949
Appendix C
Assessment Class Projection Analysis
Scenario 1 - Increase Class 01-2%, Class 05 & 064%
Total Value of
Class
%age of
total
Year 1
Year 5
Year 10
Year 15
Year 20
%age of
total
Class 01
10,430,685,626
91.83%
10,639,299,339
11,516,319,764
12,714,947,57
14,038,329,531
15,499,450,144
88.40%
Class 05 & 06
928,075,523
8.17°I
965,198,544
1,129,145,77
1,373,778,489
1,671,411,586
2,033,527,757
11.600/,
Totall
11,358,761,149
100.00%1
11,604,497,882
12,645,465,54
14,088,726,06115,709,741,1171
17,532,977,901
100.00%
Scenario 2 - Increase Class 01-2%, Class 05 & 06-6%
Total Value of
Class
%age of
total
Year 1
Year 5 Year 10
Year 15
Year 20
%age of
total
lass
1.8
10, 3 9
11,51 , 1 ,7 4 12, ,575
14, 5 1
15, ,144
Class 05 & 06
8.17°I
983,760.054
1721,974, 0 1.6 2, 41,91
27T, 86,998
2,975,463, 31
16.11%
Total
11,358,761,1491
100.00%1
11,523,059,39
12,758,29 ,1 7
16,262,516,5301
18,475,M
100.00%
Scenario 3 - Increase Class 01-2%, Class 05 & 06-8%
Total Value of
Class
%age of
total
Year 1
Year 5
Year 10
Year 15
Year 20
%age of
total
Class 01
10,430,685,626
91.83%
10,639,299,339
11,516,319,764
12,714,947,575
14,038,329,531
15,499,450,14
78.18°l0
Class 05 & 06
928,075,523
8.17°I
1,002,321,565
1,363,647,423
2,003,645,446
2,944,012,510
4,325,720,23
21.82°lo
Totall
11,358,761,149
1oo.00%1
11,641,620,903
12,879.967,187
14,718,593,021
16,982,342,0411
19,825,170,38
100.00%
Scenario 4 - Increase Class 01-2%, Class 05 & 06-10%
Total Value of
Class
%age of
total
Year 1
Year 5
Year 10
Year 15
Year 20
%age of
total
Class 01
10,430,685,626
91.83%
10.639,299,339
11,516,319,76
12,714,947,575
14,038,329,531
15,499,450,144
71.28%
Class 05 & 06
928,075,523
817%
1,020,883,075
1,494,674,911
2.407,188,890
3,876,801,180
6,243,628,03
28.72°/°
Totall
11,358,761,1491
100. 00%1
11,660,182,414
13,010,994,67
15,122,136,465
17,915,131,3111
21,743,078,178
100.00%
Values downloaded from Assessment Lin kBC website 2010-04-26
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
DATE:
April 27, 2010
FILE NO:
E05-011-016
ATTN:
Workshop
Stormwater and Drainage Utility Examination Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Across Canada and the US, many municipalities are implementing Stormwater and Drainage
Utilities (SDUs) to address the management relating to the impacts of rainwater challenges.
Stormwater and drainage infrastructure have many of the same traits and similar features to
water and sewer infrastructure including pipes, manholes, pump stations, property connections
etc. In addition, drainage infrastructure encompasses many features including drainage channels,
settling ponds and bio-filtration ponds.
In Maple Ridge, water and sewer infrastructure have their own dedicated utility funding, however,
drainage infrastructure does not. The funding of drainage systems and facilities is currently
allocated from general revenue with the exception of major construction and facilities that are
funded in part from Development Cost Charges.
The authority to establish an SDU flows from the Community Charter. With limited resources and
increasingly tighter budgets, municipalities are investigating the merits of converting the funding
of their drainage systems and stormwater facilities to "user pay" fee -based operations. Several
municipalities in the lower mainland have implemented SDUs pursuant to the authority provisions
within the Community Charter.
The establishment of a SDU is a significant consideration and requires multiple steps prior to
implementation. Research shows that for many municipalities the first step to determine a set of
Principles to guide the establishment of an SDU. With a guiding set of principles in place, public
feedback is then solicited to inform the municipality on the public's response and issues. With
this information, a municipality can then decide on the desired approach of advancing an SDU.
Staff recommends that as a first step, a guiding set of principles be developed and presented to
Council. Should Council approve the principles, the next step would then include a public
consultation on the merits of a SDU.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT a guiding set of Principles for the possible establishment of a Stormwater and Drainage
Utility be prepared.
4.5
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Stormwater and drainage facilities provide for the protection of property and the natural
environment. In recent years, Provincial Government regulations and guidelines as well as
a changing view of stormwater as a resource and stewardship responsibility has required
municipalities to spend a great deal of time, effort and money in upgrading and
rehabilitating the stormwater collection systems, and to think about the possible need to
treat stormwater as is the case with sewage. These responsibilities are in part also
established in Metro Vancouver's Liquid Waste Management Plan.
In recognition of these requirements, a number of municipalities such as Surrey, West
Vancouver, and North Vancouver have moved to form Stormwater And Drainage Utilities
(SDUs). In doing so, they typically convert the general revenue drainage component of a
municipality's budget to a dedicated utility with user fees.
Because Maple Ridge has established self-liquidating utilities for water distribution and
sewage collection systems that have worked extremely well and resulted in a better
understanding by customers of the services and fees required to sustain them, it may now
be time to investigate the merits of progressing to a Stormwater and Drainage Utility.
Initial research indicates that there are various models for SDUs. Further research may
yield possible solutions that would be best for Maple Ridge. Questions that should be
examined to develop the principles include:
• What are other benefits of a SDU for Maple Ridge?
• Which current drainage expenditures should be moved into a utility?
• Who should pay user fees?
• How should fees be calculated and distributed (i.e., what should the basis of user
fees be?
• What costs should be attributed to the SDU?
• What would be the relationship be between a SDU and the diking districts?
• How can a SDU support environment preservation and protection goals?
• Can a SDU be used to as a demand side management tool for stormwater and
drainage?
The answers to these questions should be used in identifying a guiding set of Principles
for Maple Ridge.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome of this report is to obtain Council's approval to proceed with further
understanding of whether a SDU would be appropriate for Maple Ridge.
c) Strategic Alignment'
The District's Corporate Strategic Plan's financial management vision and strategies
promotes the examination of user pay approaches and sustainable infrastructure.
Examining if a SDU is appropriate for Maple Ridge is in alignment with this direction.
As well, the Corporate Strategic Plan identifies the District's commitment to preserve and
enhance the community's quality of life, air, water and land. A Stormwater and Drainage
Utility may also provide benefits in environment preservation and protection by linking the
benefits of storm water services to users of the system. In addition, the creation of a SDU
is consistent with Guiding Principles of the Sustainability Action Plan already endorsed by
Council.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Once a guiding of set of principles is established, the introduction and discussion with the
public about the utility approach is a crucial element of the next steps in examining a
stormwater utility.
The details of the public information and consultation process are yet to be worked out
but will be considered, should a guiding set of principles be approved. The District would
need to prepare materials and present information to the public and stakeholders that
explains the utility approach and its advantages and disadvantages.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
Because the establishment of a stormwater utility will require the participation of a
number of departments, many departments will be consulted in the development of the
principles.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The examination of a SDU is identified as part of the District's Business Plan. Ultimately,
should Council support the implementation of a utility, stormwater and drainage charges
that are currently levied as part of general revenue taxes would be eliminated and
recovered through utility fees and essentially be a "cost -neutral" initiative.
g) Alternatives:
The alternative is to continue to manage stormwater and drainage infrastructure from
general revenue. In this case, developing a set of guiding principles would not be
required.
CONCLUSIONS:
Council has identified that a SDU be examined and staff recommends that a set of guiding
principles be developed as a first step for Council's consideration of a "user pay" fee based utility
approach for operating the District's stormwater and drainage systems.
Council's endorsem nt to develop a guiding set of principles is recommended.
Prepared by: Andrew Wood, PhD., PEng.
Municipal Engineer
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
�IGeneral Manage . Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
AW/mi
Revised May , 2010
MASTER AGREEMENT
on
Cooperation for the
Joint Use of Public Facilities
and
Coordination of Services
Date of Agreement: May , 2010
between: The District of Maple Ridge (the District)
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge BC V2X 6A0
and: The Cityof Pitt Meadows (the City)
12007 Harris Road
Pitt Meadows BC V3Y 2135
(acting together through the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks
and Leisure Services Commission)
and
The Board of Education, School District No.42
(Maple Ridge -Pitt Meadows) (the School District)
22225 Brown Avenue
Maple Ridge BC V2X 8N6
Whereas:
The District and City have entered into an agreement to deliver
parks and leisure services jointly to the residents of both
municipalities,
And Whereas:
The District and the City have by bylaw established a Parks and
Leisure Services Commission to oversee the provision of these
services and have invited the School District to participate on the
Commission to facilitate enhanced cooperation between the
municipalities and the School District,
And Whereas:
It is deemed appropriate for the parties to enter into a further
agreement to establish their common beliefs and values respecting
the cooperative use of resources and the guiding principles for
entering into further more specific joint agreements.
Now therefore,
the District, the City and the School District agree with each other as
follows:
4.6
1. Definitions
In this agreement the following definitions apply:
Governing Body For the District and City means their respective
Councils and for the School District means the
Board of School Trustees.
Joint Agreements Means written agreements formally approved by the
Partners that provide for the terms and conditions of
specific initiatives, including the financial
obligation to each partner. Initiatives refer to joint
planning and use of facilities, coordination of
services and cooperative delivery of services.
Management Costs Means any out-of-pocket costs incurred by a Partner
in administering this Master Agreement. It includes
such costs as meeting and incidental costs and legal
costs. It does not include any costs incurred by a
Partner in the implementation or administration of
any Specific Joint Agreement, or any salary costs of
a Partner's committee representative or support
staff.
Partners Means the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks
and Leisure Services Commission (the
Commission), acting on behalf of the District of
Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows, and the
School District
Rental Agreement Means the written agreement between the Partner
that is the Owner or Manager of a building, facility,
site, service or playing field, and a Partner that is a
User, that sets out the terms and conditions of use.
Standing Committee Means the committee as described in paragraph 3.2
of this agreement.
2. Statement of Cooperation and Mutual Intent
2.1 Beliefs and Values: The Partners affirm to each other a commitment to
the following beliefs and values:
2.1.1 The Partners agree that the quality of life, and the sense of
neighbourhood and community, will be enhanced by making
public facilities and services accessible for use by neighbourhood
residents.
Residents of all ages will benefit from neighbourhood -based
facilities and services that are within walking distance of their
homes.
2.1.2 The Partners want to make the best possible use of facilities, sites,
equipment and services for the least cost.
2.1.3 The Partners want to make public facilities, sites and services as
available as possible for use by the community.
2.1.4 The Partners want to make the public aware of available facilities
and services and provide for easy access to them.
2.2 Guiding Principles: The Partners affirm the following guiding principles
to be followed in the information and administration of Joint Agreements:
2.2.1 Education, recreation and leisure time activities undertaken by
residents help to build a healthy community. Schools, municipal
recreation facilities and parks are places where neighbourhood
residents may meet to carry out these activities.
2.2.2 Each Partner respects the fiscal constraints, jurisdiction and
institutional values of the other Partners.
2.2.3 Access to programs, buildings, facilities or sites within
neighbourhoods must be planned, taking into account the potential
impact of the activities on the neighbourhood and its quality of life.
The needs of the community must be balanced against the impact
on the neighbourhood.
2.2.4 The following principles have been agreed to by the Partners.
They are the foundation for this agreement and any sub -
agreements entered into between the parties.
Financial Principles
F1 Financial Control
Each jurisdiction has limited financial resources and requires
the ability to control and manage the financial implication of
any commitment to a partnership.
F2 Exchanges as an Alternative to Cash Transfers
The concept of "trading in -kind" resources and service
commitments may be more useful than extensive cost -sharing
of another party's operation.
F3 Efficient Use of Taxpayers' Resources
Before building a community or school facility/amenity, any
potential joint use funding and/or service arrangements
should be discussed and, where appropriate, agreed upon.
F4 Equity
The overall contribution to joint use and collaboration should
be proportioned on a fair and equitable basis. Where such
3
costs are relatively equitable but not exactly equitable, cash
payments between parties should not be anticipated. Over
time it is anticipated that minor inequities will balance out.
A baseline for the measurement of equity relating to the Joint
Use of Facilities is defined in Appendix C.
F5 Users Pay Proportion of Costs
Where possible and appropriate, users of facilities should pay
a proportion or full costs as is appropriate.
F6 Graduated Fees
Fees shall be on a graduated basis, for example, with lowest
rates to children and youth 19 and under, adults paying a
greater proportion, and cost plus profit recovery rates for
commercial activities.
Healthy Community Principles
HC1 Empower Community Associations including School -
based Parent Advisory Committees
Community Resident Associations should be assisted to plan
and administer their own recreation and community service
programs where desirable as an alternative to government
agencies providing these services.
HC2 Neighbourhood Meeting Places
Healthy communities require neighbourhood meeting places
where residents can meet to work together to address local
needs.
HC3 Neighbourhood Based Activity Options for Children and
Youth
Young people should be encouraged to be active in recreation
and community life so they can be more able to meet their
potential and become healthy adults.
HC4 Adult Involvement in Their Neighbourhood
Adults should be encouraged to become involved in
neighbourhood recreation, educational and cultural activities so
they can become more informed parents and more proactive
community residents.
HC5 Accessibility
A healthy community has fair and open public systems
accessible to all persons, including those with special needs and
the financially disadvantaged.
Principles of "User Oriented" Service Delivery
CS 1 Access to Information
The access channels to appropriate information around joint
use opportunities shall be designed for minimum
inconveniences to the taxpayer across all jurisdictions
CS2 Homogeneous Fees and Policy Definitions
11
Fees and eligibility criteria of "community groups" and
booking policies should be standardized and aligned among
jurisdictions, where feasible.
CS3 Appropriate User Convenience
Any facility or program management system devised under a
Joint Agreement shall incorporate high standards of customer
convenience in its design and policies.
Principles of Management
M1 Cooperation
The senior administrators, and facility and program managers
of all joint use facilities and services should cooperate to
maximize joint use/cooperation/coordination.
M2 Special Circumstances to Owner
The Joint Agreement should identify circumstances and
conditions which are to be included, and in all other
circumstances the owner's jurisdiction shall have exclusive
priority.
M3 Responsive Resource Management
Facility/service managers shall retain their statutory or
delegated authority and responsibility to manage their
facilities in accordance with any joint agreement.
M4 Standing Committee
While the Joint Agreement provides a mechanism for sharing
resources, the jurisdictions shall provide a Standing
Committee as a monitoring mechanism to oversee and
interpret the spirit of the partnership.
Community Planning Principles
CPI Location
For new communities and in older communities with a
shortage of recreation facilities, plans for community centres,
community service centres, field and park amenities, and
schools should be designed to be built multi -use and co -
located.
Joint Use Agreement Development Principles
J1 Consultation
All major stakeholders in joint use shall be consulted in the
development of any agreements. Such consultation shall
include the partners' workforces, site administrators and
residents as well as the Standing Committee.
J2 Responsive
Using the principles as foundation, and with the analysis of
other Municipalities Joint Use Agreements as guides to
success, the following preferred options are identified as a
possible framework for specific joint agreement(s).
J2 (i) Field Use by Community and Schools
The Partners explore the concept of upgrading and
maintaining all fields to a mutually acceptable
standard, with a `quid pro quo' for other
considerations from respective Partners such as time
availability for community use of schools and
school use of community facilities. Included in this
concept would be the exploration of utilizing human
and other resources of the Partners to achieve a
more efficient and effective delivery of field
maintenance services of all fields under the
jurisdiction of the Partners. Each municipality will
consider upgrading school fields within its
municipal boundaries as resources permit.
To facilitate community access where demand
warrants consideration shall be given to:
a.) gating off access to school washrooms and
gymnasiums to isolate these from the rest of the
school.
b.) providing separate entrances to school
washrooms which can be secured and isolated
for sport field user access (no access to the
remainder of the school)
J2 (ii) Use of Municipal Park and Recreation Facilities
Under "quid pro quo" trade of services umbrella,
schools access municipal facilities at no charge in
exchange for other School District 42
considerations in community use of schools.
Staffing required to accommodate the use beyond
regular staffing levels shall be paid for by school
users.
J2 (iii) Community Use of Schools During Non -School
Hours
Consideration shall be given by the School District
to sharing facilities with the community for use
during non -school hours, in exchange for other
considerations in field maintenance and access to
municipal recreation and park facilities. Staffing
required to accommodate the use beyond regular
staffing levels shall be paid for by community users.
J3 Initiative Approvals
Where initiatives are explored by representatives of
the Parties and there is a mutual desire to proceed
with an arrangement, a joint report shall be prepared
Gel
3.
recommending terms and conditions of the
proposed Joint Agreement. Only upon approval of
the Partners can an initiative proceed to
implementation.
Administration of Joint Agreements
3.1 Partners' Authority
3.1.1 Each Partner will endeavor to act and exercise its authority and
rights in a manner that is consistent with, and that supports the
beliefs, values, guiding principles and general intent of this
agreement.
3.1.2 Each Partner will support, in word and in deed, everything related
to the development, implementation, review and maintenance of
Joint Agreements.
3.1.3. Each Partner accepts responsibility for matters within its
jurisdiction and authority and, except as may be expressly set out
in a Specific Agreement, a Partner will not have responsibility for
matters within the jurisdiction and authority of another Partner.
3.1.4 All decisions related to Joint Agreements require the unanimous
agreement of all Partners.
3.2 Standing Committee
3.2.1 The Partners will appoint representatives to the Standing
Committee as follows:
The Districts and
Commission (4)
School District (4)
General Manager: Community
Development, Parks and Recreation
Services
Director of Parks and Facilities
Director of Recreation
Director of Community Services
Secretary Treasurer
Director of Maintenance and
Facilities
Assistant Superintendent — Director
of Instruction
Principal
3.2.2 A Partner's Governing Body may change its Standing Committee
representative by giving written notice to the other Partners.
3.2.3 The Standing Committee will, in addition to the duties given to it
specifically in this and other Joint Agreements, generally review
and monitor Joint Agreements and, as necessary to achieve the
7
overall objectives of this agreement, recommend modifications for
approval by the Partners. The Standing Committee will follow the
principles set out in Item 2.2.4.
3.2.4 The Standing Committee will review this agreement annually.
3.2.5 The Standing Committee will consider and develop the Specific
Joint Agreements as provided by Paragraph 5, and will consider
other new agreements for recommendation to the Partners.
3.2.6 All decisions of the Standing Committee will, to be effective, be
unanimous. Where agreement cannot be reached then each
Partner's Standing Committee representative shall refer the issue to
the Partner's Governing Bodies together with a full description of
the issues, Partner's positions, options and recommendations in
accordance with the following dispute resolution provision:
Step 1 - As soon as possible after the dispute becomes apparent, a
meeting must be held with the Chief Administrative Officers of the
Municipalities, the Mayors of the Municipalities, the Maple Ridge
General Manager: Community Development, Parks and
Recreation Services, the Chair of the Board of Education, the
Superintendent of Schools, and the Secretary -Treasurer of the
School District who will attempt to resolve the dispute at the
meeting;
Step 2 — If the dispute cannot be resolved in Step 1, a mediator will
be chosen by a simple majority vote by those present at the above -
mentioned meeting, such mediator to assist the parties in achieving
an acceptable conclusion to the dispute, with the costs of the
mediator being shared equally between the Municipalities;
Step 3 - If a conclusion to the dispute is not resolved with the
addition of a mediator, the issue must be brought back before the
Councils and the School Board for final disposition.
3.2.7 The Standing Committee shall meet together as the Standing
Committee determines is necessary, but no less than twice per
calendar year. The Standing Committee may meet by telephone
conference.
3.3 Sharing Management Costs
3.3.1 Each Partner shall cover its own staffing costs and shall pay an
equal share of any common costs which may occur beyond staffing
costs in the administration of this agreement as determined by the
Standing Committee.
3.4 Termination
3.4.1 A Partner may terminate this Agreement by giving one year
written notice to each of the other Partners,
3.4.2 For certainty no termination of this agreement will affect any
Specific Joint Agreement.
4. Joint Planning
4.1 Joint Planning Essential
4.1.1 Joint planning between the Partners is essential to meet the
objectives and intent of this agreement, which includes optimizing
the use of taxpayers resources, while taking community needs into
account.
4.1.2 The Partners agree generally to include joint planning asset out in
this agreement in their respective decision and approval processes
relating to the acquisition, development and major redevelopment
of facilities and sites.
4.2 Joint Planning Principles
4.2.1 The Partners will cooperate with each other, and exchange plans
and information at the earliest stages of planning and site
acquisition related to the development and major redevelopment of
all school, municipal, recreation and park facilities and sites.
4.2.2 School, municipal, social, recreation and cultural facilities, playing
fields, and parks should be co -located or located on contiguous
sites to maximize their use.
4.2.3 School, municipal, recreation facilities, field and park amenities
should be designed for multi -use.
4.2.4 Planning conducted by the Partners should take into account the
long range needs of the community for schools, municipal, social
and recreational services and facilities, playing fields and parks.
4.2.5 Joint use, planning, facilities, programs and operations should
include appropriate volunteer involvement of the residents.
4.3 Joint Planning Projects
4.3.1 The matters to which joint planning will apply include the
following:
6
(a) New school, municipal, recreation and park facilities.
(b) Major additions and capital improvements to school,
municipal, recreation and park facilities. These projects
include additions and alterations which might ordinarily be
built as free-standing facilities.
(c) Site acquisition for school, municipal, recreation and park
facilities.
(d) Preparation and major updates of Official Community
Plans.
(e) Joint financial planning and budget review, with respect to
matters covered by Joint Agreements.
(f) Joint program planning with respect to matters covered by
Specific Joint Agreements.
(g) Joint advertising and information distribution with respect
to matters covered by Specific Joint Agreements.
(h) Boundary changes and capital works related to new site
developments, transportation and transportation
infrastructure as they relate to the planning of safe routes
for students to school and neighbourhood traffic patterns.
4.4 Joint Planning Committee
4.4.1 The Partners joint planning shall be undertaken by the Standing
Committee with the exception of those sub -committees established
within the terms of Specific Joint Agreements for such functions of
program planning and advertising.
5. Specific Joint Agreements
5.1 Specific Agreements
5.1.1 Agreements between the Partners regarding the joint development,
use or operation of any specific facility, or site or location, or
regarding expenditures of funds for such resources or regarding the
shared delivery or coordination of services may be developed.
5.1.2 Specific Joint Agreements shall be developed by the Standing
Committee and presented to the Partners for agreement and
approval.
10
5.1.3 When developing a Specific Joint Agreement, the Standing
Committee's considerations shall include the following operational
and cost issues:
(a) Cost sharing of capital costs, including site and facility
acquisition costs and construction costs.
(b) Conditions of use of a facility or site, and the
responsibilities for the provision of related services.
(c) Conditions and issues regarding responsibility for the
scheduling and operation of the facilities, including
booking, priority of use and hours of operation.
(d) Sharing of operating costs.
(e) Provision for maintenance and the sharing of maintenance
costs.
(f) Provision for renewal of the facility, including additions
and renovations, and the sharing of related costs.
(g) Sharing of costs and responsibilities related to cooperative
program development and/or advertising.
(h) Staffing and management agreements necessary for joint
operations.
(i) How the addition and deletion of new and unforeseen
programs during the life of the facility and related changes
in use will be addressed.
(j) The authority to be given to any Partner, and the manner
and mechanism of making joint decisions.
5.1.4 The Partners agree to fund this agreement and Specific Joint
Agreements, providing costs are shared equitably between them
and resources are available. The Standing Committee shall
provide for the following:
(a) Over the long term, expenditures by the School District and
the municipalities should equate, either in direct
comparison of costs or by equating costs and the offsetting
increase in community access to facilities (Appendix Q.
5.1.5 When developing a Specific Joint Agreement, the Standing
Committee's considerations shall include the following additional
issues:
11
(a) Term: The Specific Joint Agreements shall each have a
separate provision for the term of the Agreement,
considering the cost and other commitments the Partners
will make, and considering any limitations on authority to
enter into long term agreements.
(b) Indemnity: It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto
that the Municipalities shall indemnify and hold harmless the
School Board and its employees, servants, agents and
contractors from any and all claims, losses, costs, damages,
expenses, including legal fees on a solicitor own client basis
excepting negligence of the School Board, arising out of, or in
connection with, the Municipalities' use and occupation of the
School Board's property, including use and occupancy by
others who are on the School Board's premises with the
permission of the Municipalities. The School Board shall
forthwith, upon receiving notice of any suit brought against it,
deliver to the Municipalities full particulars thereof and the
Municipalities shall render all reasonable assistance requested
by the School Board in the defense thereof.
It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the School
Board shall indemnify and hold harmless the Municipalities
and their employees, servants, agents and contractors from any
and all claims, losses, costs, damages, expenses, including
legal fees on a solicitor own client basis excepting negligence
of the Municipalities, arising out of or in connection with the
School Board's use and occupation of the Municipalities'
property, including use and occupancy by others who are on
the School Board's premises with the permission of the
Municipalities. The Municipalities shall forthwith, upon
receiving notice of any suit brought against them, deliver to the
School Board full particulars thereof and the School Board
shall render all reasonable assistance requested by the
Municipalities in the defense thereof.
(c) Liability: Each of the parties hereto agree to maintain
comprehensive general liability insurance coverage while
this agreement is in force to cover the use of the property
for the other. The parties hereto further agree to furnish
certificates confirming that such protection is in force if
requested by the other party.
(d) Dispute Resolution: The Standing Committee shall, with
each Specific Joint Agreement, consider any appropriate
dispute resolution provision. The Partners agree that it is in
each of their interests to minimize and resolve quickly any
disputes or disagreements that may develop, which can be
achieved through candid, timely discussion and negotiation.
12
6. Inventory of Joint Use Facilities, Resources and Services Covered by Specific
Joint Agreements
6.1 Appendix B is an inventory of the Partners' facilities, site, location,
resources and services that are the subject of a Specific Joint Agreement.
6.2 The Partners will cooperate to update Appendix B annually so that it
remains a current inventory of resources and services that could be the
subject of a Specific Joint Agreement.
7. Rental Agreements
7.1 The Partners will cooperate to develop standard terms and conditions of a
Rental Agreement to be signed by any user of a facility or service.
8. Dispute Resolution
8.1 Any disputes that occur regarding Partner's rights or obligations arising
from this agreement shall be dealt with as follows:
8.1.1 All such disputes shall first be referred to the Standing Committee
and the Partner's representatives shall have good faith discussions
and negotiations to resolve the matter.
8.1.2 If the matter cannot be resolved by the Standing Committee then
the Partners' Standing Committee representatives will refer the
matter to the Partner's Governing Bodies as set out in Paragraph
3.2.6.
8.2 For certainty, the Specific Joint Agreement may include dispute resolution
procedures different than the procedures contained in this agreement,
including arbitration provisions dealing with specific issues, such as the
determination of cost -sharing, term of agreement or other provisions.
9. General
9.1 The headings have been inserted for ease of reference only and are not
intended to be included in the interpretation of this agreement.
13
THIS AGREEMENT dated the 6th day of February, 2001
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year
first above written.
Signed on behalf of the
District of Maple Ridge
in the presence of:
Authorized Signatory
Authorized Signatory
Signed on behalf of the
District of Pitt Meadows
in the presence of:
Authorized Signatory
Authorized Signatory
Signed on behalf of
School District 42
in the presence of:
Authorized Signatory
Authorized Signatory
Witness
Witness
Witness
14
Title
APPENDIX A
Terms of Reference
Standing Committee
On Joint Agreements
The Committee shall be known as the Standing Committee.
Definitions
Purpose
"Joint Use" refers to the joint use of buildings, facilities, services, sites and
playing fields owned and operated by the Partners.
"Joint cooperation/coordination" refers to cooperative planning and delivery
of services and operations in general.
The purpose of the Standing Committee shall be to:
- review and monitor all Joint Agreements between the Partners and to
recommend modifications to these agreements.
- develop additional agreements where it considers there is mutual benefit
to the Partners in doing so.
- Promote the Joint Use, Cooperative/Coordination initiative
Establishment
The Standing Committee is established pursuant to the Master Joint
Agreement between the Partners.
Composition
The Committee is composed of the following members:
Authority
The Districts and General Manager: Community Development, Parks
Commission (3) and Recreation Services
Director of Parks and Facilities
Director of Recreation
Director of Community Services
School District (3) Secretary Treasurer
Director of Maintenance and Facilities
Assistant Superintendent — Director of Instruction
Principal
or as otherwise appointed by their respective Governing Bodies.
General Scope — The Committee shall:
15
Develop and recommend joint use and joint cooperation/coordination
agreements to the Governing Bodies.
Develop Joint Agreements, taking into account the principles as reflected in
Item 2.2.4 of the Master Agreement.
Review any area of interest which it considers appropriate as the subject of a
potential joint agreement. This may include, but is not limited to:
- Municipal, Commission and School District buildings and facilities,
- Playgrounds, playing fields, courts and associated field houses,
- Construction and maintenance equipment and services,
- Items identified in the Facilities and Service Inventory attached to the Master
Joint Agreement as Appendix "B".
- Program development and delivery.
- Distribution of public information on services, etc.
Develop and implement a process for the joint planning and review of the
budgets of each Partner with respect to matters impacted by joint agreements.
Budgetary planning and review shall be an ongoing function performed on a
periodic basis, as determined by the Standing Committee, and shall be focused
to minimize the impact of all joint programs and facilities on taxpayers.
Develop programs and public relations literature for the purpose of promoting
the concept of Joint Use, Joint Cooperation/Coordination and Specific
Agreements as appropriate.
Reporting
The Committee shall report to the Governing Bodies, on an annual basis,
regarding their review of the agreements, any significant issues flowing from
their review and on current and future planning issues being addressed by the
Committee.
The Committee shall make recommendations from time to time respecting the
development or monitoring of Joint Agreements.
Monitoring
The Committee shall monitor the implementation and application of
agreements, the financial impacts of the agreements on the Partners, issues of
equity between the Partners, and make such recommendations as it deems
appropriate regarding these items and the terms of the agreement.
Organization
The members of the Committee shall elect a chairperson.
The Committee shall be supported by a Committee Clerk provided on an
alternating basis by the parties.
16
The Committee may be augmented by other staff persons, for the development
of particular agreements or parts thereof. There shall be no direct costs to the
Committee for the involvement of such persons.
The Committee may strike "Task Groups" to work on specific aspects of any
activity related to the Committee's mandate.
Procedures
Meetings shall be at the call of the Chair.
Policies
A quorum shall consist of five of the eight members. Should there be any
disagreement with resolutions reached by the Committee during a member's
absence, the matter which is the subject of the disagreement shall be revisited
by the Committee.
If the Committee do not agree unanimously with a recommendation of the
Commission on a significant issue, the issue shall be referred to the Governing
Bodies of the Partners, in a format appropriate for their consideration. Issues
referred in this manner shall reflect all options under consideration.
The Committee shall identify any circumstance where existing policy of any
of the governing bodies is breached or proposed to be breached.
Committee Expenses
The Partners shall share equally in the expenses of operating the Committee.
17
Appendix B
Inventory of Shared Services, Facilities and Specific Agreements
Existing
1. SRT Field SROW, Operating and Construction Agreements
2. Westview SROW, Operating and Construction Agreements
3. Thomas Haney Ownership and Operating Agreements
4. Thomas Haney and Garibaldi Tennis Court Agreement
5. Pitt Meadows Secondary Field SROW, Operating and Construction Agreements
6. MRSS Lacrosse Box Maintenance Agreement
7. MRSS Track Maintenance Agreement
8. Edith McDermitt Park and School Site Agreement
9. Eric Langton All Weather Field Maintenance Agreement (Expired Aug 17, 2009)
10. Alouette Park and School Site Agreement
11. Alexander Robinson Park and School Site Agreement
12. After School Active Kids Club Agreement
13. Eric Langton Hive Agreement
14. School Site Acquisition Agreement (to be revised)
Proposed
15. Greg Moore Youth Centre — Alternate School
16. Merkley Park Maintenance Agreement
18
Appendix C
Baseline for the Measurement of Equity
Joint Use of Public Facilities
Total hours and value of "School Use" being made of Commission
- indoor facilities
- playing fields
plus
2. Total value of school playing field maintenance provided by the Commission
equaling
Total hours and value of "Community Use" being made of School District
- indoor facilities
- playing fields
less
4. Rental income charged to community groups as a user fee to offset the cost.
Note: None of the above calculations will include the value of payments for extra
staffing defined in J2 (i) and J2 (ii) of the Master Agreement.
19
MAPLERIDGE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
S U BJ ECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
WILD PLAY LICENSE TO OCCUPY
WJX@11jl1LTA I.JIJ►ViILTila1:�'ii
DATE: April 13, 2010
FILE NO:
ATTN: C.O.W.
The Maple Ridge Strategic Initiatives Department and Parks and Leisure Services staff conducted an
open house on March 25, 2010 to solicit feedback from nearby residents and other interested
individuals regarding a proposal from Wild Play Ltd. in response to a request for proposal issued by
the District of Maple Ridge for a family friendly outdoor recreation activity.
This proposal was considered at the Parks and Leisure Services Commission meeting on April 08,
2010, where it was endorsed and forward to Maple Ridge Council for final consideration.
RECOM M ENDATION(S):
That the Maple Ridge Campground site be approved for use as a "Wild Play Element Park" as
described in the proposal submission dated February 25 2010, which was previously distributed at
the Council Workshop meeting on April 26th 2010.
And
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the License to Occupy Agreement with Wild Play Ltd
for a period of 10 years, with the option to renew for an additional two periods of 5 years each as
outlined in the terms and conditions in the license agreement.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context: This concept of a treetop adventure course (or ropes course) was first
introduced to the Parks and Leisure Services Commission in March 2008, when the
Commission was provided with a presentation on this topic by a proponent of this type of
park. A recommendation was subsequently forwarded to Maple Ridge Council in May 2008,
recommending that a public consultation process be conducted to discuss the proposed
change of use, noting that if and when a decision was made to change the campsite use that
proposal would be sought through a formal request for proposals.
Maple Ridge Council approved the consultation, and a number of residents in the Silver
Valley area were contacted with regard to the proposal to utilize the Maple Ridge
Campground for this purpose. At that time the idea was met with some resistance from those
we spoke to from the Silver Valley Area (which was not a public meeting). It was determined
at that time that it would be best to wait until the New Year (early 2009) to conduct a more
comprehensive consultation. Economic development along with Tourism Maple Ridge and
Pitt Meadows assisted Parks and Leisure Services with this task by coordinating a more
Page 1 of 4 4.7
generic open house and survey on how residents felt about "Family Friendly Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism initiatives" in general in the parks system.
As a result of the open house there were 68 respondents to the survey with the majority in
favor of the Municipalities encouraging this kind of investment. 29.2% felt it was very
important and 41.5 % it was somewhat important to pursue this type of activity specifically.
In order of importance those responding felt we should pursue:
1. A full service campground
2. Equestrian trail riding opportunities
3. A working historic farm
4. Advanced sport training (field sports)
5. Feature garden like Minter Gardens
6. Tree Top Adventure Course
7. Climbing Wall
8. Mini golf/batting cages
92.6% very or somewhat important
93.7%
85.3%
73.5%
72.3%
70.7%
62.1%
59.7%
Although the Tree Top Adventure area did not receive the highest level of support the
majority did feel it would be appropriate and should be pursued. When asked about
appropriate locations the response was equally positive for Albion Park (71.2%), Maple Ridge
Park (76.7%)
At that time staff was concerned that a number of community leaders in the Silver Valley
area that we had talked to were negative toward use of Maple Ridge Campground for this
purpose. That said they were likely not as familiar with the type of facility involved when we
talked to them as they might be with further review and presentations on this subject. They
may have a misimpression of the potential impacts of the facility. Their primary concern was
related to the amount of room it would require, parking, and traffic as well as such a facility
becoming an impediment to use of the park by the general public.
A public open house was also held on May 29. 2009, where residents were invited to view a
brief presentation on the type of installation being envisioned, at either Maple Ridge
Campground or Albion Park and were provided an opportunity to provide feedback via
comment sheets. This topic was also discussed at the June 11, 2009 Commission meeting
per the following excerpt:
Mike Murray reviewed the Tree Top Adventure Play Survey and Open House results with the
Commission and noted that there were between 20-30 residents present with only eight
completed surveys and three pieces of correspondence were received. Including those
completed on line. Mr. Murray advised the Commission that the majority of the respondents
were in favor of the proposed adventure development with four opposed subject to the
details being addressed appropriately. He mentioned additional public input would be sought
once a detailed proposal was received.
Although the District's Economic Development staff had discussed this potential opportunity
with about eight (8) companies, only three (3) responded to the expression of interest call.
The District subsequently issued a formal call for proposals from qualified companies with
experience in the type of Adventure Park, however only one complete proposal was received
through this process from Wild Play Ltd, who already operates three (3) similar adventure
parks that are located in Whistler, Nanaimo and West Shore (Victoria).
Page 2 of 4
An invitation to an open house on March 25, 2010 was advertised in the local newspapers
and letters were sent to the residents who had previously signed in at open houses, or had
completed comment sheets that had been submitted to the District in this regard. Copies of
the comment forms and emails received on this subject are attached.
b) Desired Outcome(s): The desired outcome would be the effective use of a community asset
in a fashion that would have a limited impact (if any) on the land and tree cover, achieving a
greater use of a public resource for positive family oriented physical activities and play.
c) Strategic Alignment (as appropriate): Promoting physical activity, involving all members of the
family while enhancing tourism and revenue, provided that the business case is sound and
the municipality's interests are well protected
d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Although there are several comment forms that are
supportive of the attached proposal, the respondents who have indicated that they are
opposed to the Family Friendly Outdoor Activity Proposal, have cited the following concerns.
1/ Noise, (Le. screaming)
It is agreed that there is some level of noise that is inherent when living close to a
neighborhood, community or municipal park setting, however it is believed that the periods
of noise associated with public attendance at the site will be less than what occurs with the
existing campground as there will no longer be any guests/campers staying overnight.
2/ After hours security
The campground has always had a resident caretaker who lives on the site, and the attached
proposal also identifies having an on site caretaker for site security reasons.
3/ Affordability
Through email discussions with the vendor, we have determined that where they do not
intend to offer family passes etc, they will be promoting special rate days where discounts
from 20% to 50% will be offered periodically throughout the year, which the vendor suggests
will provide opportunities for people for whom this might otherwise be a financial barrier to
participation.
4/ Affects on local residents / increased traffic
One of the reasons that this site is considered viable/desirable is because it is located on the
only route to and from Golden Ears Park. There will undoubtedly be some additional traffic
when local residents travel to the site, however with the attendance being spread throughout
the day, and a projected 150 attendees per day, staff believe that this is likely consistent
with the existing traffic associated with 50 campsites at the existing campground, and there
may not necessarily be a noticeable difference in the traffic pattern.
6/ Hours of operation.
The attached proposal suggests that the site will operate between 10am and 6pm in the low
season, and between 10am and 7pm in the high season. Making this a condition of the
agreement is likely appropriate, with provision to making a written request to the
Commission to reconsider changes at a later date (if appropriate)
e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Planning Department have confirmed that the zoning
one the site permits the District to grant a license to Wild Play for the purpose of constructing
and operating the proposed Wild Play Element Park.
Page 3 of 4
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The purpose of the proposal call and contractual
agreement would be to ensure that the District's and Commission's interests are well
protected and revenues are enhanced. The level of investment is anticipated to exceed
$750,000 not including the cost of the land and the vendor suggests that this attraction is
projected to attract up to 150 visitors per day in high season.
g) Policy Implications: The public consultation process including open houses and the collection
of feedback/comment forms has been completed as directed by Council and Commission.
One resident suggested specific meetings should have been scheduled with the Alouette
Valley Association and the Silver Valley Association. This has not been done at this point
since the proposal is for a Municipal park site and not a site intended to serve this
neighborhood only.
h) Alternatives: An alternative would be to reject this proposal in favor of focusing on alternative
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation initiatives identified through the initial public process in
this regard
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff believe that the attached proposal from Wild Play would be a very desirable attraction for our
residents and visitors to the community, and although the concerns raised by the residents in the
immediate area are considered valid, it is believed that their concerns can be resolved through the
addition of parking on the site, detailing expectation in the agreement with Wild Play Ltd. It is also
anticipated that this activity will be less of a burden on the immediate area, as the operation is not
expected to continue beyond 6pm in the low season and 7pm in the high season. As a result, the
existing noise and traffic associated with the existing campground later -in the evening will no longer
be an issue.
Prepa red'by' David Boag,
Director, Parks an ciiities
Apprpve rb • Mike Murray,
j --6e ral Manager, Comity Development, Parks and Recreation Services
4/ill -
~ -
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule `
Chief Administrative Officer
db
Page 4 of 4
4)
0
t)
a)
0�(DE
E
=
N-4E
��
0
2)o
a
Wit=
MI
U)
E
O
OL
N C N p
f ( O ca N
d U) o
J LL
r
E
LO
N
(�
J
m
•
O
4-4
E
Z
o
O ca
a)
v
CD
Lq
U
m
L
c
a
U
�/)
E
.�
r
(D
=
C
Z
Q
x
Z
J
cu
m
Q
N
w
m
n'
a)
a
o�
d-
�
O
m
�
(/}
Y
C
(0
a
U
O
O
O
J
�
�l
W
• O.
I
N
n�
n
m
O
C
LO
J
Q
jV
U)
O
O
O
J
ry
Q
G
.'• • fIII MELT&M,
Black Course
15 elements
Heights are between
6mand 12rn
Pendulum on Pulley
Multi Acti
Zip Line
p Line
able Car
Multi Activit)� ILadder - END
Nets
11
Flying Fox
Zip Line
Chariot
Grand Passage
a
0 2.5 5 10 15 20
Meters
Maple Ridge Perk Project
Crossing Net
Zip Line Wiggly's Rope
Rising Bridge Suspended Gate Bridge
X Bridge
Lumber Jack Log Chair Swing Zip In
pining Monkey Bridge
Flea Jump
Blue Course Ladder - Way Dow
12 elements
Heights are between
3.75m and 4.75m
0 2 4 8 12 16
Meters N
TME.5073-10.06 Is"INUMVINUM
Ladder
Bongo Balls
Flat Rising Net
Suspended Multi Activity
Narrow Plank Bridge
Ladder- Way Down
Zip Line
Red Course
12 elements
Heights are between
3.75m and 4.75m
High and Low Bridge
Suspended
0 3 6 12 18 24
Meters N
s ` 1 ` --- im
Gated Access
Ladder
Green Start
Whistler Bridge
Plank Bridge and Hands
Swinging Plateaux
fZlR Line
Green Course
11 Elements
Heights will vary between
2.50 m and 3.25 m off the ground
0 3.5 7 14 21 28
Meters N
V Shaped Nets
Foot Multi Activity
Green
Jane's
-Cable Car
Rising Net
0
Page 1 of 1
I Sent: April 1, 2010 11:24 AM
To: David Boag
Cc: Mike Murray; Craig Speirs; Ernie Daykin
Subject: Zip Line
Hi David
On behalf of the Silver Valley Association and the residents of Silver Valley. I wanted to point out a few
concerns we have on the Zip line project:
While most people welcome the concept, the company and the economic rewards, they are concern
with the lack of current roadways and transportation infrastructure supporting it.
Here in the Rock Ridge area, there are major safety issue for pedestrian to walk, there are no trails or
recreational path to connect the neighbourhood. The roads in Rock Ridge are barley adequate to
support its current local population. Adding more visitors and facilities will have fatal consequences.
The district must be responsible for the safety of the residents.
Until there is a clear confirmation that the issues -on roads, paths and park space in Rock Ridge is
addressed, the people in the Silver Valley area will display negative resistant against this and all projects.
I'll be happy to discuss these issues in more detail
O1/04/2010
March 25 2010
District of Maple Ridge
Mayor & Council
Parks & Leisure Services
Parks & Leisure Commission
Proposed Tree Top Adventure Area in Maple Ridge Park should not happen!
1) Fern Crescent & 236 Street are dangerous over burden streets at present without sidewalks or safe means of travel
for pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders. There has been a 300% increase in housing in Silver Valley, three more
development on 236 Street to be started soon, the movement of heavy duty equipment plus ever other aspect of
development means a constant stream of traffic in this area that does not have adequate safe roads to accommodate
them.
2) I do not think any public space, most of all green space designed as PARKLAND should allow private commercial
retail/sport.
3) At.present Maple Ridge Park is over crowded both for parking and play area. Maple Ridge Campsite is under
utilized and should be opened into general public walkways, picnic, meeting etc. & could still be utilized as group
campsite e.g. Scouts, Girl guides, etc. However the summer of 2009 saw an increase of families using the campsite
more then in recent years.
4) At present Maple Ridge Park & Campsite are frequently used for the Movie Industry and commercialization of this
space will limit this revenue.
5) At present there is a right of way along side of Maple Ridge Park for the continuation of Fern Crescent to 132 Ave.
to meet up with 236 St at the top of Rock Ridge,(also part of the horse trail system), this is the original road plan that
opened up Silver Valley for development. The completion of this road will take thousands of cars out of Maple Ridge
Park, open another access into Rock Ridge and sooner or later roust be completed, & would not be compatible with this
venture. (please could someone have the trailer full of garbage in the middle of this right of way, beside the horse trail
removed, It has been there for years & is a source of litter in the park not to mention unsightly)
6) Over the last few years Lipper Maple Ridge Park Ball diamond has been used as a medivac position to bring in
helicopters to air lift injured kids from Golden Ears Provincial Park, Crosses Cabins, Alouette River, sometimes a few
minutes matters.
7) At present during the sports season whether for baseball. soccer, dog shows, swimming at Crosses Cabin, parking
for Upper Maple Ridge Park is inadequate and 236th & Fern Cresent are over utilized and at times dangerous with the
large volume of traffic on Fern Crescent. Fern Crescent gets more volume of traffic into Golden Ears Provincial Park
then does any other Provincial Park, we can not handle more traffic. Litter is an increasing problem.
8) This does not mean that I do not think a family oriented outdoor recreation opportunities such as a tree top adventure
area would not profit some one just that government & public space has no place in business, promote it help it, but
let business do it.
9) A tree top adventure traveling from the outskirts of UBC Research Forest to Golden Ears Provincial Park, that
would provide a buffer between Silver Valley Urban Area and the forest, that could have a multi purpose trail beneath
a tree top walkway/zip line, with parking at either end, that would be a benefit to the community. Think of carbon tax
dollars. Go Green!
10) The boulevards around Maple Ridge Park have become part of the parking for the Park. Despite expensive
maintenance crews out grading & dumping gravel the areas around the Park on both Fern Crescent & 236 Street are
looking horrible, There appears to be no plan or control for what should & should not be a parking lot, Areas on Fern
Crescent & 236 Street that in the past have. been blocked off with posts have over the last couple of years become
parking spots in ver;1 dangerous traffic. The greenspace portions of the boulevard around the ball diamond gets smaller,
(�LJr more garbage dumped each year. The boulevard on 236 Street was never replanted after the sewer went in fifteen years
ago, no curbs, or sidewalks were provide as promised. Some sort of attractive barrier/trees are required in this areas
to prevent further deterioration and lowering of property values. This has been ongoing for years and is getting worse
not better, recent Public Hearing in Silver Valley have voiced the same concerns.
suoject: proposal for Maple Ridge Park
Mike, I have to second' opinion of the proposal. Our roads are extremely
dangerous to walkers, bikers, equestrians, dog walkers etc, due to the increased traffic due to new
development. I am opposed to bringing in more traffic until a traffic calming process has been
put in place. I fear for my life when I ride my horse or take my dog for a walk - and I am not
alone. More traffic into this area could be devastating! We do not want more animal deaths, let
alone human deaths, which will certainly occur if things don't change in this area. Thank you for
considering my opinion.
Subject: proposal for Maple Ridge Park
Hi Mike -I am opposed to any development or initiative which will bring more traffic into or through our
neighbourhood until a comprehensive traffic calming plan is in effect. As you are well aware, access in
and out of Silver Valley is an issue , and the Alouette Valley residents are once again being treated as if
our area is just a thoroughfare, not the unique and cohesive neighbourhood it is. Please remember a
neighbourhood is not created by the planning department but by the families who live there.
While this may or may not bring an economic benefit to the municipality, (not enough information is
available to comment on that), I have looked at the Wildplay website and do not believe this type of
development, while certainly a lot of fun, should necessarily be built in this location. Maple Ridge Park is
a. community park and should serve the needs of the local residents first. This will be the type of activity a
family may try once, but any activity which costs in the range of $20.00-40.00 per person is not the type of
activity a family will use often if at all.
Terri Dumas
To: Mike Murray; David Boag
Subject: Plans for Zip Line in Maple Ridge Park
Importance: High
Gentlemen,
We are residents of Maple Ridge and only became aware of the proposed zip line this week. We
object to the proposal for several reasons:
• If the zip line is popular, It will draw even more traffic to an already crowded corridor.
There is a lot of traffic already on the sections of 232 and Fern Crescent the park touches
upon at all times of the year. Entry on/off the corridor is difficult enough without adding to
cross traffic.
• When a person is enjoying the park for something other than zip lining, one is liable to a
rain of debris or having the ground littered. Items such as pocket contents, spit, mud from
shoes, etc. come to mind. Noise pollution of the zip line itself is also a hazard. The
alternative is the immediate area under the line becomes inaccessible, reducing the park
benefit for other, uses.
• Zip lines require maintenance and many anchor points. Either the anchor points have to
be affixed to new structures or the trees themselves. This all comes with stress to the
trees, clearing of corridors in the canopy or decreased area within the park for support
structures. Additionally, there is increased disturbance within the park by zip line
maintenance. If the zip lines aren't maintained, then we get people falling out of the sky.
• If the zip line isn't popular, then this will be a diversion of resources/effort from other
activities that could benefit a broader segment of the community. The plans include a
conversion of land to additional parking spaces — something that is of minor benefit in
that particular area.
We are surprised that this is being considered given the topology and positioning of the park. It
seems like a really poor place to put a zip line!
Sincerely,
Cc: David Boag
Subject: RE: Zipline in Maple Ridge Park
Thank you for your perspective ;. I will forward your comments to the Commission for
their information when they consider the proposal.
I should note that the zipline elements of the proposal are relatively small and very short,
certainly not of the scale we saw at Robson Square during the Olympics. I know some have
described the proposal as a zip line but it isn't primarily a zip line. It is much more an
adventure play area with a wide variety of climbing and ropes course challenges suitable for
both adults and children.
Mike Murray
General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
District of Maple Ridge
Sent: March 31, -2010 11:20 TO: Mike Murray
Cc: silvervalley@fastmail.fm
Subject: Re: Zipline in Maple Ridge Park
Hello Mike,
When considering the proposed zipline, the effects it would have on the existing community
should be the primary concern of parks and recreation. The private company would recognize the
profits from this venture while the community would inherit the problems —large numbers of
people visiting the area —traffic, congestion on local roads, noise, garbage problems, etc —and
people of the area would actually have less opportunity to use their own park. This zipline should
not be allowed to proceed.
David Boag
From: Mike Murray
Sent: April 1, 2010 7:59 AM
To: David Boag
Subject: FW: zip -line for mapleridge park
Mike Murray
General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
rlictrirt of MnnIA Ridoin
Sent: April 1, 2010 1:50 AM
To: Mike Murray
Subject: zip -line for mapleridge park
Hello Mike
I am writing to you to express my concerns about this proposal for a zip line and other
related activities for Maple Ridge Park.
This is valuable park space close to an urban area that is highly valued just as it is . For
it's peace and natural beauty, and not turning it into a destination recreational area , with
activities that are going to disturb this tranquility, and also likely have a significant cost.
This would perhaps be pleasurable and entertaining for a few, most likely from outside the
community and seen as an intrusion and distraction by many. This is a bad idea and
should be nixed now.
Sincerely,
IM on the go wi I. Try now.
01 /04/2010
ke, �"�
have- nod sees, a4,ty
I a ea;- Oka o-P 714i u U enfave, c� 1 thaw .T h2r to one hem -%w a .
� )'✓i4�C4',� lei � r�C a�n�C �-'tJl��
k
vey safe-s lase, Q �7%
o f
Y�1.O-s amot homes �beaome s vrj�712, irr'c
d r S � 1 WOIOrska d sham ka.ce �b s6rn
� e.
l,�s'I SGe.r MOa& a re, Yt o�-
YnoC�,t�e�e,
6i n o/V6r4ce -L re-u I e) -i�
,�'L.
P24* -crom 141bl-off a �� Grr�oc� h V�kn-4 pro(
+tc t? -k �v sir
'7QPX'hQ�r�S ,S�sla'J r�� C7 �410 be WorAeOt atee. U) IA
-�oY' fl(and rec scsns, park a�
T vjska lj p, die tj. ;tb ploy � gl4&5n paw+ � z �
p1�rrid5 harej b t
visrcR,l�z� 774m pU4 t be mbst� as t 5
CL
�or
ha,s cz, l e-n la-
�
& Oal �
my vi,51,DV3 /5 a-,300cq ls,)2ec�
w i loe 1;P,c-.j Co rat oiz)r (yiD k
-i-h-�2 4 ,gym ThaYn h iG{ ���► k' . f-h .e_j
wbw`O( vaimakar �..�
tw
Hr.6 ntm� af� 2�
Oe,4 6iai- .YOU' V'02�41r-o
eJ .14 Oc:�
Mike Murray
District of Maple Ridge
March 29, 2010
Good morning Mike,
I wanted to follow up on last week's open house on the Zipline proposed for Maple Ridge
Campsite. My comments are as follows:
1) If I had a choice
In terms of having such a facility in the immediate vicinity of my home, my preference, by far,
would be not to have the Zipline in the area at all. Actually, I would prefer the campground,
or, if the campground is no longer viable, that the area be returned to become part of Maple
Ridge Park with perhaps an expansion of the ball diamond/playing field area to accommodate
the increased demand that a rapidly increasing Silver Valley population produces.
2 Public Places
As I have stated in earlier comments, I'm fundamentally opposed to using public spaces for
private businesses. Parks should be available for all citizens and shouldn't have areas set up
just for paying customers. It amounts to a diminishment of available park space and a
transfer of public spaces into private hands.
3) We need more park space
The need for additional park space for Silver Valley residents is a major concern. We have
just had approval on a 51-unit townhouse complex that's less than 100 metres from the
Upper Park and there are more high densities slated for the area adjacent to the campsite
area. None of these homes will have significant backyards and will primarily be targeted to
first time buyers, a demographic that typically has young children. These families need all the
space they can get - and an expansion of the playing fields into the current campground
would be a far more community friendly approach.
4) If a Zi line is inevitable
There are a number of major concerns that will need to be addressed.
i) Parking — I'm not'sure you are aware of the numbers of vehicles that current)
y park in the
area around Maple Ridge Park — perhaps a survey in weekends would be advisable? When
there are games (soccer, baseball) being played in the park, it's not unusual to see all the
parking areas, including all the available street parking absolutely jammed full. Many times
236 Street from Fern Crescent all the way to the base of the hill is filled with vehicles on both
sides of the street and all the parking areas on Fern and the small 236 Extension on the
south side of MR Upper Park are full to overflowing.
The addition of a significant tourist attraction will require at least 20-30 additional parking
spaces in order to accommodate the expected traffic. It will serve neither the interests of
potential customers or WildPlay Element Parks if tourists decide to drive away because they
cannot find parking.
The best approach would be to keep the parking for the ball diamond as it is and put the
parking for the Zipline at the other end of the campground. (west end) where there is already
an entrance. It would be fitting to convert a few of the existing campsites into parking pads at
the west end of the campground (gravel surfaces to allow groundwater permeability are a
must) in order to capitalize on the natural image
ii) Hours of operation - You mentioned that the Zipline would be open until 6 pm and that
needs to be put in the contract. Looking at Wildplay's website it seems that their Nanaimo
operation is a year-round enterprise (they are offering a winter discount in order to attract
visitors).My understanding was that the Maple Ridge operation is intended to be a summer
operation, this needs to be clarified, explained to the public and included in the contract.
iii) Noise and security - As I mentioned during the open house the whole area around Maple
Ridge upper park is a bit of a "Party Place" for teenagers in their cars/trucks. We find empty
vodka/beer containers on a daily basis and often there is noise and various kinds of
"partying". I'm sure these people would be keen to try and "play" on the Zipline in the middle
of the night and security needs to take that into account. One thing I certainly don't want to
see, is bright security lighting (either permanent nor sensor operated) that not only makes it
difficult for wildlife but that totally destroys the nighttime atmosphere of area.
iv)Traffic - There is already a huge amount of traffic on Fern, particularly in the summer
Anything that adds to it is just going to compound the problem.
There is a lot more that I can say about this proposal but the above highlights some of my
main concerns.
David Boa
From:
Sent: !
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thanks for your comments :. We actually did have a public open house to talk about
this idea some time ago at Yennadon School. By far the majority of the feedback was
positive. That was also the case in the most recent open house when the specifics of the
proposal were identified. With that said we have received several e mails from members of
the two groups you have identified expressing concern and these will certainly all be
shared with the Parks and Leisure Services Commission when the proposal is considered.
The majority (but certainly not all) of the concerns shared with us have to do with
traffic in the area and the notion that any change of this nature will add to an already
stretched transportation network..
In response to your comments about a recreational plan I believe we do have a parks and
open space plan for the area which does take time to put in place. We continue to acquire
land as it comes available and we just opened our first small neighbourhood park a while
ago (the play equipment should be here shortly). There are many more of thease parks to
come and several trails already developed in the area being enjoyed by area residents.
With that said Silver Valley is an area in transition and it is unfortunate that the
nature of development is such that we can't have everything in place before new residents
move in. The interim period is nothing if not challenging both for residents and for
those of us charged with trying to meet the needs of a growing population.
Thanks again for your comments.
Mike Murray
General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-467-7337 Fax: 604-467-7393
www.mapleridge.ca
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
n
oposal.
I think the Zipline Proposal has merit and that it could fit into the vision that the AVA
and SVNA has for the area, however I feel that this project should not be a stand alone
project. It should instead be incorporated into comprehensive recreational plan for the
area that takes into account the needs of the neighborhood.
There is a long history of piecemeal development in Maple Ridge that seems to be
influenced by "flavor of the day planning". As the city grows this type of planning has
to give way to a more thoughtful and sustainable planning process that directly involves
the neighborhoods affected.
The Zipline proposal in isolation does not solve any problems it just creates more. More
traffic and.less public parks space are the most obvious and least addressed objections.
If the Zipline idea were to be incorporated into a comprehensive recreational area master
plan then I believe that it would be possible to find ways to mitigate the main
objections, as identified.
There is a lot of opposition to this plan in both the Alouette Valley and Silver Valley
and that opposition is growing. The feeling is that these types of initiatives are being
"shoved down peoples throats" and that they are a forgone conclusion. There is a
desperate need for an improved consultation process to be put in place with the relevant
neighborhood associations. If this approach were to be taken then I believe that the
opportunity to gain local support would have been greatly improved.
M
7
Pagel of 2
and Leisure Services Commission when they We
widerthe proposalill crtainly share those comments with the Parks
With respect to your comments about the park being a neighbourhood park, in our park system
Maple Ridge park is actually a Municipal Park intended to serve all the residents of the community
as well as visitors from outside our community. The Spray Park and adjacent play apparatus at the
park are good examples of Municipal Park scale amenities and have received very positive reviews
from the citizens. Of course we appreciate the importance of Maple Ridge Park to people who live in
the immediate area as well, particularly at this point in time before we have had a chance to develop
smaller parks closer to residents' homes. We just opened our first small neighbourhood park in
Silver Valley (the play equipment will be here shortly) and we look forward to completing more in
consultation with the neighbours over the next several years.
Just to clarify the proposal we are considering now for Maple Ridge park it is actually an adventure
playground for people of all ages (not a zip line such as we saw at Robson Square during the
Olympics) which in its other locations has been enjoyed primarily by families. There are two small zip
lines which are part of the site which includes opportunities for climbing and moving between the
trees in the canopy, providing a different perspective of the forest. One of our stated goals is to
encourage active outdoor play by families and -this is seen as another way to encourage that.
To your other comment I have had the pleasure of walking in many parks including Maple Ridge Park
over the years and I have also had several conversations with users and neighbours about what they
enjoy in the park system along with a few discussions about misuses by some people, including
some staying at the Maple Ridge Campground. Opportunities for reflection are certainly important to
them as are opportunities for play.
We are blessed with many trails and opportunities for reflection in our Park system which I agree are
very important. In fact the opportunities we have are numerous and I know some would suggest what
we have is never enough. With that said we need many things in our park system to meet all the
needs of our residents including opportunities for active play as well as reflection.
With fespect to the proposed revenue which will come to the Municipality if the proposal proceeds
that will ultimately depend upon the agreements which are negotiated but the initial suggestion is for
$$32,000 per year or a % of the gross income whichever is greater which is significantly more than
the revenue currently generated at the campground. In addition the proponent has suggested the
adventure play area will close at 6 p.m. in the evening. Public access to the ground level will remain
in place at all times.
As far as the clean up and maintenance of the site if the proposal is accepted that will be the
responsibility of the operators supported by a live in caretaker. The agreements we enter into will
ensure the responsibility is well understood and followed through just as they are with other
agreements we hold.
I hope this answers at least some of your questions.
Once again we will certainly share your comments with our Commission. Thank you again for taking
01 /04/2010
10.sGG V1G
the time to comment.
Thanks again for your comments.
Mike Murray
General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-467-7337 Fax: 604-467-7393
www.ma lerid e.ca
This is our neighbourhood park, is it not? What would ever possess the DMR to put a Zip Line or'Family
Entertainment' 'paying' concession into our neighbourhood park? Our park is for families, or people, like yourself
to come and walk in the park, admire our trees, river system, the natural beauty that is before our eyes.
How often Mike have you come, say, on your own and just walked for the pure pleasure through our park?
A privately owned and operated business adds a distraction to the park ambiance. Then there is traffic that will
have another impact on the park, garbage is another issue, who's going to. clean up the mess left from the
ashtray, candy wrappers and other plastic and cans that people blatantly dump in disregard, for our
neighbourhood?
Money generated from this business, well how much will the taxpayers actually see generated back into our
municipality?
Our Maple Ridge Park is not a mess, as stated in your comment, it WILL become a REAL MESS - and thanks to
you if you allow this proposal to go forward.
I'm not interested - Thanks for the time.
01/04/2010
To: Mike Murray; David Boag
Subject: Plans for Zip Line in Maple Ridge Park
Importance: High
Gentlemen,
We are residents of Maple Ridge and only became aware of the proposed zip line this week. We
object to the proposal for several reasons:
• If the zip line is popular, It will draw even more traffic to an already crowded corridor.
There is a lot of traffic already on the sections of 232 and Fern Crescent the park touches
upon at all times of the year. Entry on/off the corridor is difficult enough without adding to
cross traffic.
• When a person is enjoying the park for something other than zip lining, one is liable to a
rain of debris or having the ground littered. Items such as pocket contents, spit, mud from
shoes, etc. come to mind. Noise pollution of the zip line itself is also a hazard. The
alternative is the immediate area under the line becomes inaccessible, reducing the park
benefit for other uses.
• Zip lines require maintenance and many anchor points. Either the anchor points have to
be affixed to new structures or the trees themselves. This all comes with stress to the
trees, clearing of corridors in the canopy or decreased area within the park for support
structures. Additionally, there is increased disturbance within the park by zip line
maintenance. If the zip lines aren't maintained, then we get people falling out of the sky.
• If the zip line isn't popular, then this will be a diversion of resources/effort from other
activities that could benefit a broader segment of the community. The plans include a
conversion of land to additional parking spaces — something that is of minor benefit in
that particular area.
We are surprised that this is being considered given the topology and positioning of the park. It
seems like a really poor place to put a zip line!
Sincerely,
Sent: April 1, 2010 8:09 AM
To: Mike Murray
Subject: Zip line
Hello Mike
RE: Zip Line
I am disappointed that more clutter, junk and cars are coming to Silver
Valley. I am just stunned that there are still inadequate parks, sidewalks,
parking and emergency entry and exits from the area and yet here comes
something that frankly looks, well just silly when compared to the vision
the residents of Maple Ridge and Silver Valley created with our Area Plan...
Something that is heart breaking when you view what is actually gone in on
the ground since.
I admit to fatigue at the whole thing - when will something of true value
and sustainability be created and implemented in Silver -Valley or Maple
Ridge? Still waiting...
c: av oag; ran wnn; n rew Wood
Subject: RE: Zipline Proposal
Thanks for your comments I 1 will certainly pass them along to the Commission for review when
they consider the proposal. The proposal is to replace the campground with an all ages adventure
playground ...unfortunately it has been described by some as a zip line when there will only be two
small zip lines as part of the project.By far the majority of the experience will be climbing and moving
from tree to tree using a wide variety of progressively more challenging methods.
The traffic impact of this project to 132nd beyond what was already there in the campground should
be minimal since much of the use will likely come from Golden Ears Park. With that said there may be
some impacts.
I appreciate you and others are expressing concern about any proposal for development in Silver
Valley or a change in use like this in Maple Ridge Park because of your concern about traffic and the
need for transportation system improvements in the area. With that said I will pass your comments
along to Frank Quinn and Andrew Wood, particularly as they relate to your earlier suggestion for
changes to 132nd.
Mike Murray
General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-,467-7337 Fax: 604-467-7393
www.maplerid a -a
w.Ca]
Hope all is well.
I have no problem with recreational activities which can benefit the community from a tourism
perspective only if it has a minimal environmental footprint and is right for the area in which it
operates. My concern with this Zipline proposal in Maple Ridge Park is that we are creating a
destination which will create more use on 132nd ave. We have not had any movement from the
municipality to help make our recreational roadway safe for the hundreds of daily non -motorized
users who use this street. If Parks and Leisure wants my support, I must first see endorsement
and the beginning of work on the 132nd Avenue Roadway Plan along with improvements for
a main alternate traffic corridor to Silver Valley.
-----Original Message -----
From: Sheila Pratt [mailto:shpr@vcn.bc.ca]
Sent: March 30, 2010 2:21 PM
To: Mike Murray
Subject: MR Park
Dear Mr. Murray,
I'm concerned about the proposal to put a zip line in Maple Ridge Park
for 2 reasons, and not in order of importance:
If this proposal were in a location immediately off the Lougheed
Highway, this concern would be irrelevant, but as I live in the Silver
Valley area and pass the park or close to the park regularly, I worry
about what an "attraction" such as this will do to local traffic.
I'm not sure what "world class" means, but I do question the value of
this sort of activity. Unless it's in reference to something like a
musical performance or some type of spectator sports, when I hear
"world class" I think of places that have had large amounts of money
spent to build something. But we already have a beautifully natural
park that encourages families to participate in creative and healthy
play. Why impose structures that serve to remove an opportunity for
truly creative play or an opportunity to simply enjoy easily
accessible nature? (True creative activity needs to exist in relative
'emptiness'!)
A final comment: when a friend and I went to visit my daughter who
lives in Whistler, she wanted to try their zip line. My daughter
didn't have to work to convince her that it wasn't worth the effort
for an adult. The playground equipment now at the park certainly is
adequate for children, and to make the playground "family friendly",
adults need only connect to what their children are doing and join in!
Sent: March 31, 2010 8:01 AM
To: Mike Murray
Subject: proposal for Maple Ridge Park
Hi Mike -I am opposed to any development or initiative which will bring more traffic into or through
our neighbourhood until a comprehensive traffic calming plan is in effect. As you are well aware,
access in and out of Silver Valley is an issue , and the Alouette Valley residents are once again
being treated as if our area is just a thoroughfare, not the unique and cohesive neighbourhood it
is. Please remember a neighbourhood is not created by the planning department but by the
families who live there.
While this may or may not bring an economic benefit to the municipality, (not enough information
is available to comment on that), I have looked at the Wildplay website and do not believe this
type of development, while certainly a lot of fun, should necessarily be built in this location.
Maple Ridge Park is a community park and should serve the needs of the local residents first.
This will be the type of activity a family may try once, but any activity which costs in the range of
$20.00-40.00 per person is not the type of activity a family will use often if at all.
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure. activity?
Optional: Respondent Nam(
Optional: Respondent Telel
Thank you for your time and
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most R2slitive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
-fie b\AuA AA"-
k � p0'r— "
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Name: _
Optional: Respondent Telephorn
Thank you for your time and insigh
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments acid feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most Rositive for Maple Ridge include the following:
L . i r r i
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the followinn:
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telephor
Thank you for your time and insig
)a
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 2S, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would. welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most Positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telephone
Thank you for your time and insight
IV
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I 4
believe will be the most positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
m st concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
'4,
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen. or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
X 1/!( 1"6 -cam P-�-[i C:'r7tTi
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telepho
Thank you for your time and insic
4
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most Rositive for Maple Ridge include the following:
�—uC'V"' \- V \-0 10u.�- VZO VL-�0"
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
CAA L OLrSi��
r o � i aT U L-
l�
(L-
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity? L
.D
ylLL-q, .
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Teleph
Thank you for your time and in:
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most positivc for Maple Ridge include the following:
es
�IIdll��rc �`
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge .inclu a the following:
c) Any other general comma as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to th roposed outdoor a venture ctivity?
Age- �m e f , ~4 � I
Ihe� �hd arKo� � { t~�
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telephoi
Thank you for your time and insig
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
W I I ( rvi.c� K e � c-�Tl� G..r�-� ��i=c- � lrk�--r_ v►
re qa4 :t j,• Q r-e
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple. Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
ar
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
UL't- V-Ct s 4 �'zJ-
Optional: Respondent Name: _
Optional: Respondent Telephom
Thank you for your time and insigh
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I .r
believe will be the mostsitive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
c) Any other general comma as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Name: _
Optional: Respondent Telephoi
Thank you for your time and insic
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I .f
believe will be the mOst 1120sitive for Maple Ridge include the following:
'-
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple_ Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
CAI
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Name: _
Optional: Respondent Telephony
Thank you for your time and insigh-
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most laositive for Maple Ridge include the following:
urzi a
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
PAI-t G OARZ
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
i IS AG-T L i
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telephone Email:
Thank you for your time and insights. We ask that you please submit any/all comments prior to April 1, 2010.
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
11�tnr.SS
-
—� �►rs5m
-
R. 1-
_101. _.
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Nam
Optional: Respondent Tele
Thank you for your time anc
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I..,
believe will be the most Positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
T t l� nkA " 0 l- G�a
ff-ZA-- 2
�5eZtA_k� _QtFC j Ct,
c) Any other general comments asr related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventi,rP artivifi,?
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telepho
Thank you for your time and insic
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
w:l:.r E r
F
4 ,0 !Lill f1�7 f (- L )-L._ i
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
-T" 5,4, ti rLd\f7f7%1 '� r4- iv(il F 1 JI! ���i [ �' -
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
relaters to the nronosed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telephone Email:
Thank you for your time and insights. We ask that you please submit any/all comments prior to April 1, 2010.
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I „
believe will he them st ROSitive for Maple Ridge include the following:
M—
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telepho
Thank you for your time and insi(
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation. Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most 112021tive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telephoi
Thank you for your time and insic
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I
believe will be the most Positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adventure activity?
J
Optional: Respondent Name:
Optional: Respondent Telephon(
Thank you for your time and insigh-
District of Maple Ridge
Family Friendly Outdoor Recreation Activity
March 25, 2010 Open House - Comment Sheet
As we move forward with the planning and development of this exciting new outdoor
adventure activity for Maple Ridge, we would welcome your comments and feedback to
the following statements.
a) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I „£
believe will be the most positive for Maple Ridge include the following:
b) The elements of the proposed outdoor adventure activity for Maple Ridge that I am
most concerned about for Maple Ridge include the following:
c) Any other general comments as related to what you have seen or heard today as
related to the proposed outdoor adv ntUre activity?
moep-�,r, 71% ae--j Ar
Optional: Respondent Name: t
Optional: Respondent Telepha
Thank you for your time and insi, prior to April 1, 2010.
Page 1 of 3
questions. I will pass them
tee: David Boac ; Ingrid ECrsus
'ant: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: Zipline in Meml� Diane Dar4
thank you for your comm___._.. I will certainly pass them along to the Parks and
_eisure Services Commission for their review when they consider the proposal.
In response to your question a final decision has not been made to proceed at this point although
a recommendation will be considered by the Commission shortly who will then forward whatever
recommendation they would like to make to Maple Ridge Council. Council will make the final
determination whether to proceed or not. An open house was held on both the concept (several
months ago) at Yennadon School and more recently to inform the public about what was being
proposed and to answer any questions. Both were advertised -although we appreciate not everyone
would notice an advertisement on this subject. We appreciate others sharing the information with
With respect to the location the site was identified because of its proximity -to Golden Ears Park
and because the tree cover is appropriate for this type of use (determined by an arborist's
assessment). Further the proposal is to close the Maple Ridge Campground (and eliminate some of
the late night problems associated with that site) and replace that use with this one.
To clarify further there are very few ziplines involved in the proposal and they are quite small by
comparison to what we saw at Robson Square. A more apt description is of an adventure
playground for all ages with progressively more challenging routes allowing participants to move
through the tree tops and experience the forest canopy from a different perspective.
Liability and other'contractual issues would all be addressed if the proposal proceeds as would the
subject of off street parking.
I am hopeful this will answer most of your questions. Thank you once again for
Mike Murray
General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-467-7337 Fax: 604-467-7393
www.ma lerid e.ca
07/04/2010
Page 1 of 2
Cc: mayorandcouncil@mapieridge.org; Mike Murray; David Boag
Subject: Zip Line in Maple Ridge Park
March 25 2010
District of Maple Ridge
Mayor & Council
Parks & Leisure Services
Parks & Leisure Commission
Attention Mike Murray
Tree Top Adventure Area in Maple Ridge Park should not happen!
Plans to open by Summer of 2010!
Parking off of 236 Street, parking lot to be enlarged,132 Ave entrance to be blocked off.
Maple Ridge communities need more park space not less space!
No plan to fence this area off at present, what about guaranteed for the future.
$30,000 a year sounds like a lot of money but the cost is too high.
Who does litter/noise control all around the park, at present the community does but it is
too much now!
1) Fern Crescent & 236 Street are dangerous over burden streets at present without sidewalks or
safe means of travel for pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders. There has been a 300% increase in
housing in Silver Valley, three more development on 236 Street to be started soon, the
movement of heavy duty equipment plus ever other aspect of development means a constant
stream of traffic in this area that does not have adequate safe roads to accommodate them.
2) I do not think any public space, most of all green space designed as PARKLAND should
allow private commercial retail/sport.
3) At present Maple Ridge Park is over crowded both for parking and play area. Maple Ridge
Campsite'is under utilized and should be opened into general public walkways, picnic, meeting
etc. & could still be utilized as group campsite e.g. Scouts, Girl guides, etc. However the summer
of 2009 saw an increase of families using the campsite more then in recent years.
4) At present Maple Ridge Park & Campsite are frequently used for the Movie Industry and
commercialization of this space will limit this revenue.
5) At present there is a right of way along side of Maple Ridge Park for the continuation of Fern
Crescent to 132 Ave. to meet up with 236 St at the top of Rock Ridge, (also part of the horse trail
system), this is the original road plan that opened up Silver Valley for development. The
completion of this road will take thousands of cars out of Maple Ridge Park, open another access
into Rock Ridge and sooner or later must be completed, & would not be compatible with this
venture. (Please could someone have the trailer full of garbage in the middle of this right of way,
beside the horse trail removed, It has been there for years & is a source of litter in the park not to
29/03/2010
Zip Lire in Maple Ridge Park 1 "s" ` — `
mention unsightly)
6) Over the last few years Upper Maple Ridge Park Ball diamond has been used as a medivac position to
bring in helicopters to air lift injured kids from Golden Ears Provincial Park, Crosses Cabins, Alouette
River, sometimes a few minutes' matters.
7) At present during the sports season whether for baseball, soccer, dog shows, swimming at Crosses
Cabin, parking for Upper Maple Ridge Park is inadequate and 236th & Fern Crescent are over utilized
and at times dangerous with the large volume of traffic on Fern Crescent. Fern Crescent gets more
volume of traffic into Golden Ears Provincial Park then does any other Provincial Park, we can not
handle more traffic. Litter is an increasing problem.
8) This does not mean that I do not think a family oriented outdoor recreation opportunities such as a
tree top adventure area would not profit some one just that government & public space has no place in
business, promote it, help it, but let business do it.
9) A tree top adventure traveling from the outskirts of UBC Research Forest to Golden Ears Provincial
Park, that would provide a buffer between Silver Valley Urban Area and the forest, that could have a
multi purpose trail beneath a tree top walkway/zip line, with parking at either end, that would be a
benefit to the community. Think of carbon tax dollars. Go Green!
10) The boulevards around Maple Ridge Park have become part of the parking for the Park. Despite
expensive maintenance crews out grading & dumping gravel the areas around the Park on both Fern
Crescent & 236 Street are looking horrible, There appears to be no plan or control for what should &
should not be a parking lot, Areas on Fern Crescent & 236 Street that in the past have been blocked off
with posts have over the last couple of years become parking spots in very dangerous traffic. The green
space portions of the boulevard around the ball diamond gets smaller, more garbage dumped each year.
The boulevard on 236 Street was never replanted after the sewer went in fifteen years ago, no curbs, or
sidewalks were provided as promised. Some sort of attractive barrier/trees are required in these areas to
prevent further deterioration and lowering of property values. This has been ongoing for years and is
getting worse not better, recent Public Hearing in Silver Valley has voiced the same concerns. Need no
parking along Fern Crescent in Maple Ridge Park & on 236 Street or similar barrier & green space as
232 Street across from the Park.
29/03/2010