HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-25 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
October 25, 2010
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st 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
October 26 2010
Public Hearing
Council Meeting
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES -October 18, 2010
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
6:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
3.1 Metro Vancouver - Development of Emission Regulations for Non -Road Diesel
Engines
- Derek Jennejohn, P. Eng., Senior Project Engineer, Air Quality Policy and
Management
- Ray Robb, P. Eng., Regulation & Enforcement Division Manager
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Recycling Update
Verbal update by the Executive Director of the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
Council Workshop
October 25, 2010
Page 2 of 4
4.2 Storm Water Utility Update
Staff report dated October 19, 2010 providing an update on a review of a
stormwater utility and the proposal of a stormwater facilities levy to be considered
at 2011 Business Planning
4.3 Award of Tenders, Construction of North Alouette River Greenway Bridge
Abutments and Vernon Trail Bridge Replacement
Staff report dated October 21, 2010 recommending that the tenders for the
construction of North Alouette River Greenway Bridge Abutments and for the
Vernon Trail Bridge Replacement be awarded to M2K Construction.
Report to be circulated separately.
4.4 Health and Wellness Update Presentation
Verbal update by the Recreation Manager, Health & Wellness
4.5 Blue Mountain Trails Management Plan - status of regulation/s/implementation
Verbal update by the General Manager of Community Development, Parks and
Recreation Services
4.6 Lower Mainland Municipal Tax Increases and Development Cost Data (Revised)
Staff report dated October 20, 2010 providing information on municipal tax and
utility rate increases and development cost charges.
4.7 Reserves
Staff report dated September 15, 2010 providing an overview of the financial
resources of the District of Maple Ridge.
Council Workshop
October 25, 2010
Page 3 of 4
5, CORRESPONDENCE
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
Note: Item 5.1 has been forwarded from the October 18, 2010 Council Workshop
Meeting
5.1 Ridge Meadows Recycling Society - Green Waste/Organics Drop off - Maple
Ridge Transfer Station
Letter dated September 13, 2010 from Kim Day, Executive Director, Ridge
Meadows Recycling Society asking Council to send a letter to Metro Vancouver
asking for consideration of alternatives to handle organics locally in Maple Ridge.
Draft letter from Maple Ridge Council to Metro Vancouver attached.
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by:
Date: Q i
Council Workshop
October 25, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may b?,glc?,� 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 hold or is being considered for a pQsition 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 properly of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation f i rovements. 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 potential 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 privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
0) Information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy 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 pre ring an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, 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 authorily under section 91(other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local goy-emmentl2articipation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
Metro Vancouver's Non -Road Diesel Engine Initiative — Reducing diesel emissions improves air
quality and public health in Metro Vancouver and is an effective means of immediately slowing climate
change.
Metro Vancouver (the Greater Vancouver Regional District) would like to update stakeholders on
development of the Non -Road Diesel Engine Initiative. The Initiative includes development of regulations
for particulate matter (soot) emissions from existing non -road diesel engines and equipment that operate
in the private sector and in the public sector in Metro Vancouver, as well as an incentive fund to assist
private sector engine owners with achieving emission reductions from their engines.
Metro Vancouver held a series of Work Group meetings through the summer to discuss proposed private
and public sector regulatory requirements that would apply to owners and operators of non -road diesel
engines and equipment. The Work Groups consisted of representatives from industry, engine and
emission control dealers and suppliers, and other sectors. The Work Group meetings are complete and
proceedings are posted on our website.
Draft emission regulations will now be prepared for consideration by the Metro Vancouver Energy and
Environment Committee and Board of Directors, at their November meetings. If adopted, the private
sector regulation would require owners of Tier 0 and Tier 1 non -road diesel engines to register, label and
pay fees for their engines. Regulatory fees would be used to establish an emission reduction incentive
fund to assist engine owners replace, remanufacture, retrofit or repower these older, more polluting
engines. The public sector regulation would require that publicly -owned fleets meet an emission rate
target for their entire fleet of non -road diesel engines. Fleet targets would become more stringent over
time. Under both proposed regulations, anti -idling and smoke opacity limits would apply to all non -road
diesel engines.
If you represent an association, equipment supplier or similar, please feel free to forward this message to
your members, associates or clients.
To learn more about the Non -road Diesel Engine Initiative, please visit
www.metrovancouver.oLg/services/permits/DieselEmissions or contact Metro Vancouver with any
questions.
Regards,
Ray Robb, P. Eng.
EEIV.robb@metrovancouver.org
604-451-6696
Regulation & Enforcement Division Manager
Derek Jennejohn, P.Eng.
derek.jennejohn @ metrov_ancouver.orq
604-436-6744
Senior Project Engineer, Air Quality Policy & Management
Metro Vancouver
3.1
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: '
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
DATE:
October 19, 2010
FILE NO:
E05-011-016
ATTN:
Workshop
Stormwater and Drainage Utility Examination Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In April, Council directed staff to investigate and develop guiding principles for a Stormwater and
Drainage Utility. The Engineering Department conducted research and evaluated various drainage
utility models and examined Maple Ridge's current management and funding model. From this
review a set of guiding principles were prepared and circulated to various departments for review.
The review highlighted a growing focus and need to rehabilitate and upgrade existing
infrastructure as well as complete infrastructure systems. There are currently a number of gaps in
the storm sewer system where pipes of facilities are required.
Currently, the funding of stormwater operation and maintenance activities within Maple Ridge is
from General Revenue. Upgrades of existing facilities, as a result of development activity is
funded in part by Development Cost Charges, while General Revenue and Infrastructure
Sustainability Reserve fund the replacement and improvements of existing facilities. The current
five year plan insufficiently funds the necessary capital needs. As well, additional funds are
needed to develop longterm asset management plans.
As a first step towards a dedicated stormwater utility to fund stormwater improvements, staff are
proposing that a stormwater facilities levy be submitted as part of the 2011 Business Plan, to be
considered by Council in the context of the Financial Plan and the other needs of the community.
A levy in the short term, allows for access to general revenue funds to bridge large capital projects
and address emergency needs. It also does not change the current allocation of stormwater costs
among property owners.
This annual levy, if approved by Council, will be used solely for the purposes to upgrade and
replace existing stormwater and drainage facilities, and will be reviewed annually by Council.
This report provides an update on staff's review of a stormwater utility and informs Council that
staff will be proposing a stormwater facilities levy for Council's 2011 Business Plan consideration
as part of the District's longterm Financial Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is for information.
4.2
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Stormwater and drainage facilities provide for the protection of property and the natural
environment. Much of the infrastructure is beginning to require not only replacement, but
upgrading. Some of this has been influenced in recent years by provincial government
regulations and guidelines that view stormwater as a resource and stewardship
responsibility. This 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 also established in part in Metro Vancouver's Integrated Liquid Waste
and Resource Management Plan.
The challenge for stormwater management in Maple Ridge is multi -dimensional. The built
systems are aging, and the natural systems (creeks and rivers) require upgrades to
accommodate changing flows and enhanced retention, detention and bio-filtration and
drainage systems. Whether through climate change or other factors, the need to mitigate
against flood events and the protection of public and private property has become
prevalent.
Stormwater infrastructure has many similar components as water and sewer
infrastructure. However, unlike the water utility and sewer utility, stormwater and drainage
improvements rely on general revenue for funding.
There is growing competition for General Revenue funds. This has resulted in limited
opportunities to plan and implement capital projects and a very long project cycle.
A number of Metro Vancouver municipalities have concluded that dedicated funding for
stormwater and drainage infrastructure improvements makes sense. Different models
exist from a specified levy to full blown utility. Based on Maple Ridge's needs, the
introduction of a stormwater levy appears to make sense as a first step towards a
stormwater utility.
The advantages of phasing in dedicated funding through a levy include:
• The targeted additional revenue can be assessed in the context of all of the
District's priorities
• Allows a phasing in of capital and replacement improvements
• Allows for a transition period to meld existing funding with new funding into a
comprehensive utility
• Allows a period of assessment on how the strategy is working
• Allows for an adjustment period for citizens
• Provides for immediate funding should an emergency arise
Principles of a levy
Should Council approve a levy, the recommended principles for the levy are as follows:
1. A stormwater facilities levy has to be considered in the context of the corporate
financial plan and other community needs.
This principle allows Council the ability to assess levies not is isolation but in the context
of the corporation's overall finances and strategic plan.
2. A stormwater facilities levy will be used solely to upgrade existing stormwater and
drainage facilities and to install new infrastructure where they are needed to improve
service deficiencies within the drainage system.
There are cases when facilities are needed to complete infrastructure gaps or re-route
storm flows for the District's benefit. For example, there are places where a storm main is
required to adequately drain a road and if constructed would allow the District to re-
distribute stormwater flows, but residents are not willing to fund it through a Local Area
service. In addition, the District may wish to upgrade structures, such as culverts to
achieve environmental goals such as increased fish passage. These projects would be
funded through the levy.
3. The levy will be assessed on an annual basis.
To make it simple for residents to understand, the property owners will be levied in the
same manner as the existing levies.
4. The levy for each year shall have specific identified projects, work plans and
associated budgets.
The levy shall clearly identify the projects that are to be funded to ensure transparency
and public accountability. This may also be used by Council to determine the success of
and performance using the ievy.
Business Plan/Financial Implications
The introduction of a stormwater levy cannot be decided on in isolation. It must be
assessed in the overall context of the District's Business Plan and financial priorities.
During the upcoming Business Plan process, how a levy fits into the overall financial plans
will be presented for Council's consideration. In addition, the levy and projections over the
five year will also be presented.
Should a levy be created, the following table illustrates the level of funding and program
that could be achieved, even over a 3 year period.
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Total
Number of District
Parcel Folios*
26,468
26,865
27,268
N/A
OPTION A - Levy
starts at $5
Administered
Drainage Levy
$5
$10
$15
N/A
Drainage Levy
Collected
$132,340
$268,650
$409,020
$810,010
Example Levy Capital
Program
$130,000
$270,000
$400,000
$800,000
OPTION B - Levy
starts at $10
Administered
Drainage Levy
$10
$20
$30
N/A
Drainage Levy
Collected
$264,680
$537,300
$818,040
$1,620,020
Example Levy Capital
Program
$260,000
$540,000
$800,000
$1,600,000
OPTION C - Levy
starts at $15
Administered
$15
$ 25
$35
N/A
Drainage Levy
Drainage Levy
Collected
$397,020
$671,625
$954,380
$2,023,025
Example Levy Capital
Program
$400,000
$600,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
* Excludes properties that are exempt from taxes and allows for an annual growth rate of 1.5%
A sample list of potential projects currently in the long term capital plan (beyond 2015) is
provided as Appendix A.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome of this report is to update Council's on staff's review of a stormwater
utility and identify to Council, staff's desire to proposing a levy as part of the Business
Plan.
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 how to improve and stabilize funding for improving stormwater facilities is in
alignment with this direction and a levy is a step in that direction.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Should Council approve a levy during the Business planning process, staff will need to
prepare materials and present information to the public and stakeholders that explains
the approach and its advantages and disadvantages.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The establishment of a stormwater levy will require the involvement of the Finance
Department.
f) Alternatives:
The alternative is to continue to manage stormwater and drainage infrastructure in the
same manner as currently. This will lead to chronic underfunding of the infrastructure.
CK�1►L�i�1�yN1►6�
Council provided direction in April to examine a stormwater utility. Staff have examined a number
of utility models and propose that instead of a utility, a levy be presented to Council for
consideration in the upcoming Financial Plan.
Prepared by: Stephen Judd, PEng.
Manager of Infrastructure Development
Reviewed b :, An rew ood, PhD., PEng.
Municipal Engineer
f
Financial Review'by. Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
Genedl MaDner: CorrweraTC-a Financial Services
ti
Approved fay Frank Quinn, MEW, PEng.
General Manager: Public,Nbprks & Development Services
Concurrence: J.L. (Ji ) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
AW/mi
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE PROJECTS CURRENTLY IN THE LONG TERM CWP
BUDGET
245 ST (105 AVE - 106 AVE)
$
127,674
LAITYVIEW STORM SYSTEM PLAN
$
66,000
217 ST CREEK (126 AVE - 128 AVE)
$
20,000
244 ST (102 AVE - 102B AVE)
$
53,197
HORSESHOE CR. CULVERT UPGRADE (@ 112 AVE) PHASE 1
$
297,530
224 ST (125 AVE - 126 AVE) PHASE 1
$
300,000
ACADIA ST (100M W DOVER - DOVER)
$
40,000
LANE N SELKIRK (222 - 223)
$
63,909
ACADIA ST (100M W DOVER - DOVER)
$
40,000
LORNE AVE (205 - DARTFORD)
$
289,674
BROWN AVE (227 - 228)
$
379,066
132 Ave (236 - 239)
$
832,539
LOWER HAMMOND PUMP STATION - PHASE 3
$ 2,149,299
232 St @ 122
$ 151,286
GARDEN ST (DTR - 270M N)
$ 102,463
TOTAL
$ 4,912,637
deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE:
and Members of Council FILE NO:
October 21st, 2010
Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
Award of tenders for construction of North Alouette River Greenway Bridge
Abutments and Vernon Trail Bridge Replacement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Tenders for the construction of bridge abutments on the North Alouette River, and a replacement
bridge on the Vernon Trail capable of supporting pedestrian and equestrian traffic were received on
October 19th 2010. Four bids in compliance with the tender documents were received for the
Vernon Trail Bridge Replacement, and three compliant bids were received for the North Alouette
River Greenway Bridge Abutments. One bid received was non compliant.
The costs for this project have exceeded the preliminary estimates, and additional funding is being
requested to complete these projects.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1) That the Corporate Officer be authorized to enter in to an agreement with M21K Construction
Ltd. for the construction of:
a) Tender PL10-179 the North Alouette River Greenway Bridge Abutments for $353,301.25
plus HST, and
b) Tender PL10-187 Vernon Trail Bridge Replacement for $118,243.00 plus HST.
2) That Staff be authorized to reallocate $300,000.00 identified in the 2011 Parks Capital
budget, for a project that is not longer required, to this project in the 2010 Parks Capital
program, and
3) That Staff be authorized to amend the Financial Plan and the Development Cost Charges
Bylaw to reflect this change.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Council authorized staff to proceed with the North Alouette River Greenway (NARG) Bridge Crossing
Project in January 2009 as support for an application for a Local Motion Grant administered through
the Provincial Ministry of Community Development. The application was submitted requesting
Page 1 of 4 4■3
$49,500 which was the maximum funding that could be requested without having a detailed design
to submit with the application. On March 315t2009, the District received the full grant request.
In April 2009 the District retained a consultant to conduct a feasibility study of a shared pedestrian
and equestrian bridge over the North Alouette River in the vicinity of 22000 block of 136th Avenue,
north of the Maple Ridge Equi-Sport Centre. A preliminary budget was prepared based on a concept
that the bridge crossing would occur off of the Trethewey Edge dike connecting to the existing trail
surface. Preliminary figures for budgeting purposes suggested this crossing would cost $176,500.
In June 2009 Council authorized staff to proceed with a Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC)
Grant application for three projects, the NARG bridge crossing, the Vernon Trail Bridge, and a trail
head, all in the vicinity of the North Alouette River Greenway. The total cost for the three projects
was estimated at $500,000 as indicated in the grant application. On October 15t", 2009 the District
as notified that they would receive $165,500 in funding from the RInC program for the three
proposed projects.
Following the completion of the feasibility study for the NARG Bridge Crossing a conceptual design
was prepared for discussion with stakeholders and sharing with the public. As the design concept
would involve the Trethewey Edge Dyking District (TEDD), with a portion of the bridge being
supported from the dike, a discussion with the directors of TEDD was held early in 2010. Although
the TEDD directors were in support of the bridge and trail connections that would be available to the
equestrian community, they did not support having the bridge structurally attached to the dike, and
denied permission to build the bridge on or close to the dike
As a result a decision was made to investigate alternative locations for the crossing that would not
involve the dike structure. The alternative locations all would require the construction of two
abutments that would raise the underside of the future bridge structure above the adjacent top of
dike elevation to insure the bridge deck will not be affected during a significant flood event. The
addition of the second abutment would increase the estimated cost of the NARG crossing, however it
was anticipated that this extra cost could be accommodated within the recent estimates used for the
RInC application.
The Consultants determined a new crossing location based on access, the river pattern, and where
the new structure would have the least impact on river flows. A new concept plan was prepared and
this was shared with the public at an open house in June 2010. The design focus was to avoid the
need for any in stream works thereby reducing the impacts on the watercourse and the need for an
authorization from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for a harmful alteration, damage
and destruction of a water course. This required the bridge abutments to be completely outside of
the normal river channel and would also permit construction to occur outside of the seasonal
"Fisheries Window".
Comments received at the June open house focused on what impact the bridge structure would have
on restricting the flow of the river especially during periods of peak flow. This concern was common
to residents living in the floodplain up stream of the proposed crossing location. Residents living in
this area suggested that the crossing should not proceed until completion of the North Alouette River
study and flood mapping program that was being prepared for the District of Maple Ridge. As this
study was not scheduled to be completed within the time frame of the grant programs, it was
decided that the same Hydraulic Consultants working on the flood mapping and river modeling
program would be retained to complete an analysis of the proposed bridge and abutment design. As
Page 2 of 4
the river modeling program was still in development the analysis could not be completed until early
in September.
The Hydraulic Engineer completed the analysis of the design that had been prepared based on the
June concept. The results of the analysis using the model indicated that the impact of the proposed
bridge would be limited to the local area around the bridge. For the 10-year and 100 year flood
event, no measureable changes to water level were seen more than 75 m downstream or upstream
of the proposed bridge site. Frequent smaller events (2-year) will be contained within the active
channel and will not be affected by the proposed bridge.
Following review of the design by the Hydraulic Engineer some revisions were discussed with the
Structural Engineer (lead on the project), the Geotechnical Engineer, and the Environmental
Consultant. All of this input from these design professionals has contributed to a very specific design
for a specific location on the river. This process has also identified and addressed issues that were
not considered in the initial design concepts or included in the preliminary cost estimates, such as
long term river bank scour and this effect on the abutments. As a result the design is more
complicated incorporating and increased scope of work than was initially considered and this has
had an effect on significantly increasingthe costs of the final design as reflected in the tender prices.
Until the design of the NARG abutments was completed we did not proceed with the separate
tendering for the off -site fabrication of the bridge structure. It is anticipated that the bridge structure
will be tendered in November for delivery in early 2011.
During the development of the NARG concept plans and detailed design process, the Vernon Trail
Bridge design proceeded. A bridge has been fabricated to specifications prepared by the consultant,
and tender PL10-187 includes the installation of this structure on the bridge abutment design. The
increased cost of this project can be attributed to the addition of a water main utility that was not
originally considered in the initial design. The water line extension across the bridge is intended to
provide municipal water service to adjacent lands that were a condition of the recent land exchange
with, the District of Maple Ridge, the City of Pitt Meadows and Biln Farms Ltd.
b) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The three compliant bids received for Tender PL10-179 North Alouette River Greenway Bridge
abutments ranged from the low bid from M2K Construction Ltd. of $353,301.25 to a high of
$525,944.65.
The four compliant bids received for Tender PL10-187 Vernon Trail Bridge, ranged from the low bid
from M21K Construction Ltd. of $ 118,243.00 to a high of $225,817.00.
The budget for the NARG Bridge and abutments $285,512
Tender amount abutments only $353,301.25
Estimated bridge and contingency 100,000.00
Subtotal $453,301.25
Additional funding required ($167,789.25)
The budget for the Vernon Trail Bridge $ 81,000
Page 3 of 4
Tender for bridge and abutments $118,243.00
Bridge (actual) 26,000.00
Subtotal $144,243.00
Additional funding required ($63,243.00)
CONCLUSIONS:
These projects will complete an important pedestrian and equestrian connection for the community.
With the support of $215,000 from senior levels of government through two grant programs the
District will realize a significant benefit for the recreational trail system.
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod, MBCSLA,
Manager of Parks and Open Space
i
Approved by. Xelly Sw ft,
GeWral Manager Community Development
Parks and Recreation
fiL
Approved by:'Paul Gi ,
General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Concurrence: /J.L. (Jim) Rule
!Chief Administrative Officer
bmd
Page 4 of 4
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: October 20, 2010
FILE NO:
ATTN: Council Workshop
Lower Mainland Municipal Tax Increases and Development Cost Data (Revised)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Over the past several months, Council has received comparative information about the property
taxes that we charge. The data indicates that residential taxes in Maple Ridge are amongst the
lowest in the region. Further, the property tax burden to the Commercial and Light Industrial Classes
in Maple Ridge is very competitive. While the taxes we assess the Major Industrial Class are above
average, we have made significant improvement in recent years and we may be able to
accommodate further improvements in our 2011-2015 Financial Plan.
Two other pieces of data have come to our attention. Firstly, we conducted a survey of the municipal
tax and utility rate increases experienced by the average home in area municipalities. Our analysis
was somewhat complicated by the fact that a number of municipalities send out separate bills for
their utilities while others, like Maple Ridge, include the utilities on the tax bill. Our survey attempts
to report the total of these increases. The second piece is a development survey conducted by
NAIOP, a commercial real estate development association. While the information is about a year old,
it is information that Council should be aware of. An update of this information is expected later this
year and it will be forwarded to Council upon receipt.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Receive for information.
DISCUSSION:
Municipal Council is responsible for making sure that sufficient revenue is collected to provide the
services needed by our citizens. In doing this, Council takes care in making sure our taxes and fees
are reasonable. Throughout the year, Council receives business plans explaining the services
provided and the cost implications of them. As well, Council receives comparative information about
the property taxes that we charge. These surveys demonstrate that the tax burden in Maple Ridge is
very reasonable. Two additional pieces of data have since become available and we will comment
on each of these separately:
4.6
DISCUSSION (Cont'd.):
1. Lower Mainland Municipal Property Tax and Utility Charge Increases.
There is considerable variation in the services provided by Lower Mainland municipalities. For
instance, some have fully paid fire departments, others have volunteer departments and others have
a composite model. There are also variations in the solid waste collection area: Some communities
provide garbage pick-up as well,as a range of recycling services. Not only do the types of services
offered vary, the method by which these services are provided also varies. Some use their own
employees, others contract out with the private sector, while others use the services of not -for -profit
agencies.
The way these services are paid for also varies. Some municipalities send out separate bills for
utilities while others include them as part of the annual property tax bill. As a result, there can be
some confusion when trying to compare the amount of the increase from one community to the next.
In our survey, we looked at the impact to the average home of the services provided by the
municipality, without regard to the timing of the bill. While the data does not account for the differing
service levels from one community to the next, it does show the overall increase in municipal
charges. We used data from BC Assessment to produce this information and municipalities were
given the opportunity to review it.
Table 1: Municipal Property Tax and Utility Rate Increases
2010-2009
2009-2008
West Vancouver
3.2%
7.2%
New Westminster
3.7
6.0
Maple Ridge
5.7
6.1
Richmond
5.9
6.8
Delta
5.9
5.6
Port Coquitlam
5.9
7.6
Surrey
6.0
9.4
North Van Dist
6.6
5.4
Pitt Meadows
6.7
12.7
North Van City
6.8
5.0
Burnaby
7.4
6.5
Vancouver
7.7
10.9
Coquitlam
7.9
10.2
Port Moody
7.9
7.7
Mission
8.2
10.9
Langley Township
8.3
6.3
In 2010, the average home in Maple Ridge experienced a 3% increase in taxes for general municipal
purposes. There was an additional tax increase of 1% so that we could begin to spend more on
keeping our infrastructure in a better state of repair. The continued implementation of the Fire
Department masterplan, and the utility rate increases resulted in the 2010 municipal levies to the
DISCUSSION (Cont'd.):
average home increasing by $129 or 5.7% over 2009. This was amongst the lowest increases in the
lower mainland. The tax increases in the region range from a low of 3.2% in West Vancouver to a
high of 8.3% in Langley Township.
Having said this, focusing on the amount of the increase only tells part of the story. The absolute
amount paid is also important. In this respect, the survey that we conducted earlier this year showed
that Maple Ridge charges to the average home were the third lowest while West Vancouver was the
highest and New Westminster was the third highest.
Based on the foregoing, the property taxes assessed to the Residential Class as well as the amount
of these increases in the past two years are amongst the lowest in the area municipalities that were
surveyed.
2. NAIOP Industrial Development Cost Survey
This is an annual survey that was last conducted in the Fall of 2009. Data is collected from the
surveyed municipalities, based on the following industrial development scenario:
• 100,000 square foot distribution warehouse
• 5.5 acres of land
• 15,000 square feet of office space
• Rezoning, subdivision, development permit and building permit required
Municipalities were asked to provide information on their approval times and development costs for
such a project.
While some of the data is empirical as it is obtained from fee schedules and municipal bylaws, other
data that is time framed is more subjective, dependant on the party providing the data and is hard to
verify.
i) Approval Times
The approval times are provided to NAIOP by each individual municipality and include pre -application
time as well as time for the rezoning, development permit, subdivision approval and building permit
processes. While some of the time is under the control of the municipality, a portion of the time is
dependant on the time that the applicant takes to fulfill his requirements. The data we supplied is
based on our experience over the years and reflects our estimate of the time required to complete
the process, including the time taken by developers to complete after third reading. Whether other
municipalities use the same methodology is not clear. The veracity of these timelines would be
borne out by feedback from the development community to NAIOP.
DISCUSSION (Cont'd.):
Time Ranges vs Absolute Times
Municipalities choose to submit the processing timeline in different ways. Some provide an absolute
time whereas others submit a range of timelines. Maple Ridge submits a range based on its
experience in that no two applications are the same. For straight forward applications we estimate a
processing timeframe of 120 days. For complex applications or applications where outside agencies
are involved beyond the control of the applicant or municipality a file may take up to 210 days to
complete.
The time estimates for the surveyed municipalities ranged from a low of 90 days in Abbotsford and
Chilliwack to a high of 270 days in Vancouver and the City of North Vancouver. Maple Ridge
estimated that it would take 120 to 210 days to complete depending on the issues and complexity of
the project. On the summary chart in the NAIOP report however, the lesser time frame of 120 days is
ignored while the timeframe for more complex projects is used. This provides an inaccurate ranking
for those municipalities that have chosen to provide a range of times rather than an absolute. Using
a range of timeframes as the true measure, Maple Ridge's time frames are in the ballpark with the
majority of Metro Vancouver municipalities.
NAIOP is gathering information for its 2010 report, so we contacted them to see if more up to date
information was available. We were told that of the 20 jurisdictions that are included in the report,
five will be reporting an increase in the amount of time required for approvals. One will be reporting
a decrease from 270 days to 240 days. Maple Ridge reported no change. We contacted two
municipalities and asked about the increased processing times and were told that the data reported
previously was incorrect. This is one of the difficulties with collecting data that is difficult to verify
and reliant on the provider.
ii) Municipal Development Fees
Development fees, which include local Development Cost Charges (DCCs), range from a low of
$162,383 in Burnaby to a high of $879,264 in Richmond. Maple Ridge's fees are quoted at
$246,323 which was the fourth lowest. Burnaby, does not have local Development Cost Charges for
this type of development while in other municipalities, these charges range from a low of $19,166 in
New Westminster to a high of $749,000 in Richmond. Maple Ridge DCCs at $129,042 are amongst
the lowest. DCCs reflect the cost of certain additional offsite infrastructure that must be provided as
a result of development. This is why DCCs vary, depending on where a community is in its
development cycle. Communities with more established development patterns will generally have
lower DCCs than those developing in growth areas.
DISCUSSION (Cont'd.):
The following table looks at the fees alone, after taking out DCCs:
Fees
DCCs
Fees net of DCCs
Burnaby
$162,383 (1)
0 (1)
$162,383
(14)
New Westminster
$183,262 (2)
$ 19,166 (2)
$164,096
(15)
Port Moody
$236,365 (3)
$115,736 (4)
$120,629
(7)
Maple Ridge
$246,323 (4)
$129,042 (5)
$117,281
(6)
Port Coquitlam
$248,458 (5)
$ 96,521 (3)
$151,937
(13)
Chilliwack
$291,897 (6)
$207,259 (8)
$ 84,638
(1)
Mission
$318,845 (7)
$179,111 (7)
$139,734
(11)
Delta
$321,617 (8)
$219,893 (10)
$101,724
(3)
North Van Dist
$331,695 (9)
$161,026 (6)
$170,669
(18)
Pitt Meadows
$360,359 (10)
$244,834 (12)
$115,525
(5)
Abbotsford
$363,505 (11)
$274,820 (13)
$ 88,685
(2)
North Van City
$364,067 (12)
$212,737 (9)
$151,330
(12)
Vancouver
$404,790 (13)
$240,000 (11)
$164,790
(16)
Coquitlam
$438,199 (14)
$323,570 (14)
$114,629
(4)
Surrey
$517,152 (15)
$391,732 (15)
$125,420
(9)
Langley Twp.
$550,950 (16)
$430,034 (16)
$120,916
(8)
Langley City
$594,351(17)
$429,398 (17)
$164,953
(17)
Richmond
$879,264 (18)
$749,000 (18)
$130,264
(10)
If we remove the impact of DCCs, the ranking of some municipalities changes drastically. For
instance, Burnaby, which is shown to have the lowest fees inclusive of DCCs, drops to 14th in
ranking. Maple Ridge is the only community which ranks in the lowest third in all three categories.
The report also looked at the increases in fees since 2001 and concluded that Maple Ridge fees
increased by 51%. We do not have the details behind the 2001 numbers but surmise that a large
portion of the increase is attributable to DCCs. This should be expected as the cost of construction
increased very significantly over the time period covered by the survey. It is interesting to note that
only four municipalities had smaller increases than Maple Ridge. In 2009, all four of these
municipalities still had fees that exceeded ours.
CONCLUSION:
Residential property charges in Maple Ridge, as well as the rate by which these have changed in
recent years, are amongst the lowest in the region. Further, our development fees are very
competitive. Our development processing times on first blush seem to be on the high side. As
stated at the outset, the source of this information is difficult to verify.
(',I.
r
b Prepared : Paul Gill
GM: Corporate & Financial Services
Concurre�ce: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
ve _`_4u. W�it
METRO VANCOUVER CHAPTER
Municipal -
Development
Costs
New this year:
A Ksturical comparison of the
actual msr hcreases W the CPI
from the surveys inception in 2001
Some Positive
Highlights to Note:
■ 3 [Jtles, Vancouver, Cagpidam
and Port Moody have iovvered
their costs since 2001
i Processing tunes have remairwd
generally stahie with increases
in only 3 municipaiitles
■ Cne riunidpality, the District c-
tLlorhVencouver 1:as reduced;
processing tines by 2 months
and the District Mission has
posted a 1 month reduction.
13 cities, 8umahy, Delta and
Rldirnnnd hiave:llmimd
test increases to between
2 and 3 percerr
Some Not -So -Positive
Highlights:
T Must of the Municipalities
have posted creases inze
2001 equivalent to retvvaen
2 and 3 times CPI
7 .8utncattp New Westminster
vancivver,PittMeadaws,i gley
City and Richmond -posted,
increases1antiln0ftni 4 times
lc, 1 q lirfte5 Chi? LPf idle.
T Develrip 7e:1r cost rharge5
contl nut to increase En15 oS:ihe
1.8 citi25 m5ponding the survey.
Factold
■ At $20.4,000, the gap ksveen
iha lowest out ntunrdpaliti
(at $163,OUO) and the avamll
average{at i378,O0q{has .
reitialned constant for The fits
time. in bee surrey's history.
'LOTH ANNUAL
Regional
INDUSTRIAL
Development Cost Survey
Fall 2009
The Vancouver Chapter of NAIOP is pleased to present the 2009
edition of their Commercial and Industrial Development Municipal
Cost Survey
eth a global recession starting to rrmdr, our
federal budget in its first deficit since 1995 and
facing the largest deficit in the history of our Province.
the demand for Industrial development and space has
remained robust and stable, proving its worth as a
hedge both against inflationary and deflationary forces
battering the markets. However, there are storm clouds
on the horizon as a looming supply of new speculative
space coming to market at the time this publication
went to press is expected to increase upward pressure on
vacancy rates and the stability of the rental rates in the
short term.
The Survey, which is distributed to 20 communities
within die Lower Mainland, requires each municipality
to identify the costs and processing times associated with
the parameters of the case study outlined within this
article. For 200% the development project was, as per
the previous Surveys, the construction of a single storey.
100,000 square foot distribution warehouse on 5.5
acres of land requiring both subdivision and rezoning.
Recognizing the sign ificantjump in construction
escalation that had occurred since the inoeptian ofthe
Survey, in 2007 rbe constntction costs of the project were
increased to match marker condisions to creatr a realistic
baseline. Using this baseline, NAICIP is able to compare
and conrran growth in both fees and application times
across the region in the srimous two years.
As this is the five year mark, for the bi-annual industrial survey, we
thought it would be interesting to show the costs we first reported back
in 2001 at the Survey's inception to give some historical interest of the
increases (or decreases) compared to the CPI which has ranged between
1.0% and 3.4% since 2001 and averaged 1.9% during the time period.
We are sure you will find these particular results quite informative.
In producing this annual publication, NAIOP strives to provide its
membership and the business community as a whole with a reference
tool that quantifies the costs and processing times associated with typical
development projects within Lower Mainland jurisdictions. Moreover,
we believe the Survey can be utilized by the municipalities, whose
active participation makes this survey possible. as a gauge for their own
development costs and approval processes.
1X
Survey Scenario
3
Market Overview
5
Municipal Fees
g
Timing 8
MtrnicipaI Flees and Approval Titnes
g
Tact Writeup
12
Industrial to ReMdetrtlal Mill Rate Ratid — 2607
13
Move'fowards Green
14
Acknowledgement is
A dynamic blend of retail, office, health and residential space
encompassing 1.395 million square feet of buildable area on nine acres
next to the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster.
A vibrant, diverse and accessible urban community
A new location for health care
A unique retail district
A great place to work
An extraordinary place to live
Phase 1 Construction Construction begins early 2010
115,000 square feet
Retail anchored four -storey commercial building MAKE THE CONNECTION
- retail space for lease www.thebrewerydistrict.ca
- strata office space for purchase 6046941188
Reg;una:` industric;! rsevelopmem C.cst Sumer; — Fat@ 200c
is pear:, survey is ;
based on an industrial a i�rrNoFaii
- -
development scenario, ■ YAHcuuvrF
similar to the scenario tested ■
in 2001, 2003, 2005 and
2007 -- the construction aunHanr ■ate c y
of a 100,000 square foot ■X.. ■ r
distribution warehouse w""r'mo"'
on 5.5 acres of land. The nHu ■ euA2er son a•4 rn:<,;o,
development also includes necrA ■ . ■
15,000 square feet of ■ ■
office space within the aNnuv
warehouse. Municipalities
received a "development
proposal' where rezoning,
"
subdivision, development
permit and building permit
opportunities in their respective
approvals would be required. They then
jurisdictions.
reported ott development costs and approval
All municipalities were provided with
times according cc their usual standards and
an opportunity to review and comment
processes.
on the results prior to publication. Please
20 municipalities were sent the survey
note that the survey results are based solely
representing a real life situation in a mock
on the responses of the municipalities.
development scenario, intending for them to
The Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley
run this request through their approval time
District water and sewer charges have been
line and assess overall cost requirements.
broken out as separate items for comparative.
"['his level playing field provides
purposes but have not been included in
meaningful comparison to actual building
totals due to regional variation in methods
and development permit requests made
for calculating these items. Due to a lack
by industry, and holds municipalities
of consistency in reporting of returnable
accountable for delivering on promises
letters of credit and security deposits, this
to efficiently process development
information has not been included in this
Win a Prize - Sign Up Now!
Sign up for our email distribution list and your name will be entered in
our prize draw for an Outerboundary SMARTech-jacket.
Visit www.csabc.ca for more info.
CSA The Construction
SafetyAzsociation
of British Columbia
/// building safety through training
x, ■
CHILIWACS
ABROT5r6HB :.12
■
c►S�ca
years survey and the next survey will be
modified to break out a separate category
for these refundable deposits (See detailed
tables on pages
Subject Property is currently:
• Not subdivided
• 7oned Residential
• 6.0 Acres
Development Proposal
• Single storey 100,000 square foot
concrete tilt -up building with 15,000
square feet of mezzanine office space
* Interior lot with 490 feet of frontage
on dedicated municipal roadway
• Net size of 5.5 acres after road and
other dedications
Required Municipal Processes
• Rezoning
• Subdivision
• Development Permit
• Building Permit
Construction Costs
• $79.50 PSF for the Building
(57.950,000)
• $7.50 PSF for site improvements
($750,000)
• $750,000 for street and drainage
improvements (nor DCC rebatable)
peap e. ,
lding.
progress.
T'WPLE
G rowI nq rel z tlur:s h i rss bulk i. do
equaiky. in eeg rl ty ana reslne C:.
BUILONG
P14aVidlr•.q value --added, 0F'AVAI
CSn tvactln9 and tiesign-
oulld serv:fvs-
PROGRESS
I.edding the way wllh InsplFed-
col laborativa sn lutions
stuart olson
www.stuadoIson.cam
Calgary, !-amantor:, VarIC011lFr. Saskataon.
Worldwide Expertise in Office or Industrial Space
RE/MAX agents have the global reach to help you make informed decisions in
• Commercial real estate sales or leasing • Property management
• Land development • Office or industrial space
• Farms and ranches
In 2008, in Western Canada alone, RE/MAX Commercial agents completed
over 2,500 transactions resulting in over $1.5 billion in sales volume.
{ r F
Locate a local RE/MAX agent at: COMMERCIAL
EucM1 oMcO rs rrdepuntlu,rtly ownN aM opemtH
Fegiotssl in ustr'fta! Dev,ek)prnsnt Cyst .wur've.v — Fali 20G5
5
Economy
A worldwide trend of decreased
economic activity has been d;recth•
reflected in BC as consumer spending
and provincial exports have both
decreased. Many of the contracting trends
displayed in previous quarters —including
unemployment, GDP, capital access, and
investor confidence —persisted through
the second quarter. At the conclusion
o{'2008,13Cs GDP was down 0.3%
from the previous year, the first year -
over -year decrease in over 25 years. This
figure is projected to decline further in
2009 to -2.5%, matching the national
figure. Employment in the province was
down 2.5 percentage points year -over -
year through May. The largest segment
affected by this drop in employment
was construction. This indicator can be
directly related to the decreased housine
starts experienced in the quarter. Housing
starts reached levels not seen since the
beginning of the 1980s. Economic
conditions are predicted to improve as the
2010 Olympics approach and both the
goods- and services sectors experience a
boost in revenue.
Overview
The Vancouver industrial market
continued to see vacancy rates and
vacant space increase over the quarter.
The contracting economy has forced
companies to delay spending activity, lay
oft employees and consolidate. affecting
real estate: requirements throughout the
region. Decreases in container movements
through the Port of Va icouver have
also contributed to slowing demand for
warehouses. Lagging the current economic
conditions, Vancouver experienced an
increase in both construction completions
and absorption over the quarter from space
decisions- made prior to the economic
change.
Vacancy rates increased in the region
for the second straight quarter to 4?°in,
up from 3.6%. Vacancy rates climbed
more than an entire percentage point in
the Fraser Valley municipalities, compared
to just three tenths of a percentage point
in the Lower Mainland. This discrepancy
an be explained by the large amount
of space becoming available in these
areas (notably Gloucester and Campbell
Heights). Lease rates have remained stable
over the last quarter in the range of $6.85
to $10.00 per square foot (psi). Despite
rising vacancy rates pressuring a tenant -
favourable market perspective, the large
amount of new supply commanding
higher rental rates has enabled lease rates
to remain stable. The overall average net
rental rare remained at $8.70 psf berween
the first and second quarters.
The level of construction completions
rose from 730,000 square feet (sf) in the
first quarter to over 1,840,000 sf in the
second quarter. This inventory surge
is represented in Port Coquitlam and
Richmond, which added nearly 1,370.000
sf. This rise in construction completions
accounts for the quarter's rise in positive
absorption. Absorption rose to over
670,000 sfofspace, compared to negative
42,000 sf only one quarter earlier.
NAIOP
p¢iaa r'w wco�r ¢A ,1• ¢a.abt>.�
2007
2668
-2R09F
GUPGrow;r
2-&°ii'
t,f°ee
-t?.9°I�
CPI Growth
2.1°(0
2,3°k
G.9°lo
Unemploymm;
4.0%
4.3�o
6.2%
Employment Growth
3.0%
1.1 %
f -0.5%
Source: Conference Board of Canada
OVERALL RENT VS. VACANCY
$10 5%
$8 4%
x�
$6 3%
$4 2%
$2 1%
U%
2Q07 4Q07 2Q08 44208 _ 2Q08
LEE Rental Rate -6- Vacancy Rate
Outlook
Vacancy rates are expected to continue
trending upward as the global and
domestic economies continue to seek
traction. This is going to place increased
pressure on rental rates that have thus
far proven stable in a struggling market.
Furthering this contracting trend, a supply
in excess of 1,220,000 sf is slated to come
to market by October, nearly a quarter
of which is being built without lease
commitments. This extra inventory will
further affect the market as demand for
space remains low. Many predict that the
approaching 2010 Olympics will provide
needed short-term, but not sustained,
economic stimulus to the area, given that
much of the Olympics -related construction
is already at or near completion.
The contracting economy has forced
companies to delay spending activity, lay
off employees and consolidate, affecting
real estate requirements throughout the
region...--
Regional IndustrW Deve;-,prune Cast Sure+ev — Falb 2CJS1
rgam,` yl ',Et
1 _
NAOP
•y.Twa •wFevfrver � �NYTLF
dlil'Yt31�691�i1'kBi
f M1iC�iry
= QltiiiA Ylra+s9 HIIR
]Yfi►Ohnia Enei {Illii
a3tr Co t9eslMl
Cmn'W1ul Ceagle N"
LYiFill lliplRdle '
Lid PIlLp
Abbotsford
6,777.235
2.8°r%
$6.25-8.50
35,000
10:,.(rU0
155,282
8825,000-1.000,0000
Burnaby
27,193,454
41.5°i6
$7.50-12.00-
915,979
135,545.
(493,898)
$11300,000-1,600,000
Coquillani
7,345,566
I
4.790
$7"Sn= o-.o-o-
0
I 0
(108,945)
$1,200,000-1,500,000
Delta
19,92-3,696
8,2%
$6.00-900
p
0
[725,2111
5950,000-1,300,000
Langley
15,359,501
4-$%
$600-9.00
42,290
0
464,582
$1,000,000-1,500,000
Mauls Ridgd
2,480,858
41%
S6.00-9.00
0
43,0570
256,E38
$675,000.1,000,000
New Westminster
4,375,230
' 1"3k 55.75-8.00
i
0
0
t45 a10
$1,000,000-1,200.000
North Shore
5,395,726
4.3°h
$1fl.40=1$.04
p
0
(175,579]
$2,000,000-2,F300,000
Port Coquitlam
5.974,832
3.51A
$8.00-9.50
0
564,000
560,876
$1,100,000-1,400,000
Port Moody
-_ �904,444 -
4-0%
$6.56-7.50
.0
0
55,197
$60171000-1.0001000
Riehmond
35,522,888
2-0 %
$6.00-9.50
452,345
804.180
1,462,691
$950,000-1,400,000
Surrey
28.571.902
4.9%
56.50-9-fm
963,43&
194,281
(423,8$6j
$1..100,000-1.;600,01)0
Vancouver
23,007,122
3-4%
$7.00-13.00
75,376
0
(304,076)
$1,500,000-2,500,0010
MElR4.T4FAL
182.831,5.v4
4.295
2.484,42B
..-
"..
4
Rental Was reflect$psf/year
FIND OUT MORE ABOUT US AND OUR CURRENT CAREER OPENINGS AT WWW.OMICRONAEC.COM
Reqionai Industrial Development Cost Survey — Fall 2009
El.
F 41
. LUL
S, pr( 5bit evis
a i c a I bry and, t ou:'
A i
e ..Envir e Envir t I inc.
"I -. . . A-1.
an _s .0 on d.platinum Or 01. A
ry toad. U a BCIV 3 15M
so-
NNersiorra4 tndc;striai Geveir n-tert Cost Survey — Fail 2009
N.A10P
�k
mom
l0creaseirvm20H7Survlry
1 Sewer and water hookup tees are estimates only. Actual hookup done at cast Decrease from 2007 Survey
2 Development Permit Fee provided would be required if this building was td be located in the City Centre Planning Area.
Outside of the City Centre a DP would not be required in most instances.
3 Survey not applicable due to no industriallyzoned land within the city.
4 Assumes development in. mainland area - It in Queensbgrough DCC charges of S292.288 would apply.
5 As in past surveys, Metro Vancouver / FVRD charges based on West Richmond. Richmond DCC charges are applicable City wide.
6 Developer installs sewerisanitary lines from property to main, through servicing agreement. Water hookup costs between $5,000 and $10.000 depending on depth and length.
7 Based on Area 1 DCCs. Area 2 DCCs would be approximately 9360.277.
6 Based m1 Area i DCCs.
9 Administration and Processing Tee includes GS T
10 DCC's variable within Mission, based on rates for non -Silverdale industrial Areas.
11 City of vancouver•s estimate of 687 sprinkler heads was applied to all municipalities
12 Using Scenario 2 figures to adjust for construction cost increases since survey inception -figures net published in 2007 report
A Based on 2008 Industrial mil rates using average land values and $7.950.000 of building/site improvements - see Mil Rate Table for additional details.
Timm
21t07 d
141;
2nat
fSurrlolpoli'y
FIG •Applicaildn Daiitln 'la7mr;nq F.rgp15= OdVdiepM5rn Permit
"ool" Pricks (dpysj
Sgpdi'p31:n Apprrvai
.(dens} -
golhlr+lQ Rerrx 1Ag9:Appgvai
tdysj : rimtag' -
.t007 Awvrui Timlry
.
Percg:R3ga 'U'hnnrc
M ETM VANCOUVB
1
r
Ahhvislord
nia
30-90
concurrent
concurrent
concurrent
90
90
0%
5
chllbwack
n/a
i 30-90
concurrent
concurrent
cgneurr"I
90
90
0%
2
2
Surrey
nia
30-99
concurrent
concurrent
e34
120
120
0%
2
2
Langley (City)
nla
30-90
concurrent
concurrent
<30
120
120
0%
3
2
Mission
3Q-91) .
concurrent
concurrent
<30
120 :-'
150
-20%
2
2
Pitt Meadows
5
30-90
concurrent
noncurrent
<30
120
120
0%
2
2
Township of Langley
ALL- - • -
90-120
concurrent
concurrent
concurrent
120
120
0%
3
3
Burnahy
nra
1201.50
concurrent
concurrent
con: urroor
150
150
0%
3
a
Richmond
5-10
120-150
concurrent
concurrent
concurrent
150
150
o",l�
5
3
District of North Vancouver
30
90-120
concurrent
concurrent
c$0 _ ._;
..t5.0 _• -
210
-29%
3
3
Pori Coquitlam
-
120-150
concurrent
concurrent
concurrent
150
150
0%
4
4
Part Moody
<30
150-180
concurrent
concurrent
concurrent
180
180
0%
5
5
Maple Ridge
n/a
90-120
concurrent
concurrent
3Cr-40
210
210
0°/.
3
6
Caquirlam
15
90-120
concurrent
concurrent
150
40%
1
6
New Westminster
5
90-120
�F !:
concurrent
concurrent
concurrent
concurrent
30.90
210
90
210
133%
0%
5
5
Delta
6
5
Vancouver
1
>1B0
30-90
concurrent
concur" at
270
270
0%
5
ff
City of North Vancouver
n!a
concurrent
30.90
210
29%
West Vancouver
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nie
n/a
nia
City of White Rock
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nla
n/a
n/a
'Outside estimate inclusive of concurrent processing of rezoning, subdivision, DP and BP where allowed. not including pre -application review.
' Survey not applicable due to no industrially zoned land within the city. ACpt9a8C1[p'zfC2lTdi'S11[.v9Y 'P•"� '_
r,
r.egianaE lnaus:ria[ }}nVei4p:17ent Cast Survey --- gall eu^"n �
NIP
Municipal Development Fees
Fees and Approval Times
^ _I .. �
a-- r
or 2009, the development
--- .—._-...��...
._............ ......:::..... .,, y„ ......
project was, as per the previous
Surveys, the construction of a
single storey 100,000 square foot
rr., _
industrial warehouse on 5.5 acres ol-
f
land requiring both subdivision and
y
reconing.
1
;g
F
Ni;' 5
.._.....
r
^. vw�
Municipal Approval Times
zr�
City of rJOfrh '.•2 ^n:O ttJ21' -
Fees and Schedule-
-27R
Irr he total fees levied by each
v -:.owa
. municipality for the construction
Delta -------
of a 100,000 square foot office
New%%stnilnste!
210
building (as described or, page 3) are
�"_
t iffani
__—
210
presented on the left, above. On the
t?Lit
..�_�
Maple Ridge --
—
-- —._.—210
right. the total approval times — from
application date to Building Pennit
Port Moody
— are shown. Approval time frames
Fort Cotlttitlam
1 SA
shown can and will extend bevond
15n
the periods noted if the developer
ylsttict of north Vancouver g
does not supply necessary information
Richmond
with the initia( application or respond
EutnaLy
V t STS '
to requests for additional detail or
'
- 120
clarification in a timely manner.
Town' 1t1a Gr a gtey $ '—
Carrying costs (interest and taxes)
t-'ill kleadovas
1;
represent a considerable component
1{r115$iGn s-'
120 I
of pre -construction expenses and
,�.„;�„�„,;
°.••••
1 2Q
additional Unte spent in themunicipal
Langley fCStyl __ :'
approval process increases those costs.
suf7r.'•; _ tl-.-....�-�.-.....--
12
Ch+llis,ack•
3�
............
Abt)flISArd
9;9
.. 50
10,0 155 2DO 250 5.00 350 C{l;:t
Days
AP P G L Pottinger Gaherty
E tdVI A ... ERTAL CCNSU�-TANIS
0 Regional €ndusviai Development Cost Survey— Fall 2009
N-A10P
�Au icip l Fees and Approval Timms,
Anneal Increase Compared to
CPI from 2001 (1.91%)*
CPi Comparison:
March 2001 to March 2009
lie Corporation of Delta deserves
„ • ..
fEm:...--_-7—
kudos for limitingthe increases'
in their fees to less than the rate of
::tugt�tsa�.: �
=-_ - 3 a °"'
inflation since 2001. Due primarily to a
Vancau --
significant decrease in development cost
City cr North
charges 'DCC s) effected in 2003, Port
,
Coqui-dam was the only jurisdiction that
try,tlm! :x' No- h Vz1rUu%reY
experienced a reduction in fees. Most
OVtiF
qy
✓ u
of the municipalities managed to limit
their increases to between 2 and 3 times
CPI with the exception of Buruaby, New—
Westminster, Vancouver, Pitt Meadows,
mawe Rtdne
Port moo„ :
€
�: c ; •:
Langley City and R chmond who posted
{vpw. 1M1�sftssirs€w,
-
increases ranging firm 4 times to 10 times
Burnaby
—.0
the CPI rate. Over this titne period: the
tL.L w
--
.
- IQ AIt
-'�.0', y, 0. — 5.
.All Goods Consumer Price Index" in the
Greater Vancouver Census Metropolitan
% Increase
Area increased by 1.9 19u.
*tlbbotMord. WSSim,, CF Mn1ack ware not sttcluded if, 20Li1 survey
(Source: BC Stars)
Percentage Change 2007 to 2009
...................... _- _ .......... .
Fee Changes 2007 to 2009
The graph below illustrates the
percentage change in development
y
fees levied by each municipality between
r f
2007 and 2009. Of the 18 municipalities
�,t
that responded to the survey, 15 reported
increases ranging frorn 2% to 43% with
"itr sr Nnrt7 a ixGVE
an average increase of just under I0%i
M es 3,
'-"
Pe! kuaev;:*
.: .
Fran �wy;rmair
='. ••.
par
"DI?"
Reg=lnal Invasteiel �evel�a:Me«t tips: Su vey — Fa!' �9;�5
F INk,--,(.)LJVE *, LTJ :]W :4 4h1 4
Whether you're a First tone buyer or a seasoned investor.
Cushman & Wakefield offers a full range of services to help you
meet your strategic goals.
With more than 538 employees in 16 offices across Canada
and resources that span the globe - Cushman & Wakefield has the
expertise and market knowledge to handle any assignment in any
corner of the country.
No matter where you are... We're There.
twww.cushmanwakr:; iield.vom
B2aimm�q Indust ial Deveioprnent Cui:l Survey --- Fali 2009
Comparative Tax Burdens
1#bile it may not be the primary
consideration, a growing
number of businesses are considering
the impact of the property tax
burden, and the variations in that
burden across the region, when
making the location decision.
Property taxes are not, for the most
part, factored into per :square -foot
lease prices but, like common area
and maintenance (CAM) costs, they
are paid on top of standard lease rates.
Municipal property taxes pay for
city services such as parties, roads,
utilities, policing, fire protection and
local improvements. Property tax
rates within any municipality are
impacted by two factors. The first
is the value of the property being
taxed and the second is the tax rate
(mill rate) that the municipality
applies to various property types.
Municipalities ensure their ability
to balance their budgets with their
ability to adjust mill rates.
The property tax burden for
businesses varies from jurisdiction
N l 'O P
:�eiacr mcr.� r.Fcr. �r -rn re
f � NA -is, O
to jurisdiction however, almpare:i
to residential tax rates, businesses
(`industrial' and 'commercial'
property designationsi pay a
significantly greater proportion of the
property taxes.
For light industrial and
commercial properties, research has
indicated that the ideal median tax
ratio (industrial/commercial tax rate
to residential tax tare) is 3 to 1. Less
than half the municipalities surveyed
are in line with this ratio. The
awareness among business owners
of the d isparity between commercial
and residential tax rates is growing.
In the City of Vancouver,
industrial and commercial business
owners pay municipal property taxes
at almost 5 times the rate paid by
residents, noting that Vancouver
City Council has begun to address
this inequity with a recent shift in
the ratio towards residential. In the
District of North Vancouver, the
rate is over 10 times the residential
rate, more than double its closest
neighbour of North Vancouver City
Metro Vancouver and Fraser
Valley Municipalities -- Light
Industrial to Residential Property Tax
Burden.
Of note this year is the dramatic
shifts in mill rates for West Vancouver
and the City of North Vancouver
which resulted in Notch Vancouver
shifting 5 spots in ranking from 15th
to IOth place and West Vancouver
shifting from I lth place to l5th.
For 2009, the five municipalities
with the lowest light industrial to
residential property tax burden (rated
fi-om lowest to highest) were:
1. Langley (City)
2. Chilliwack
3. Abbotsford
4. Surrey
5. Mission
The five Metro Vancouver and
Fraser Valley Municipalities with the
highest light industrial to residential
property tax burden (rated from
highest to lowest) were:
L District of North Vancouver
2. New Westminster
3. Port Moody
4. West Vancouver
5. Pitt Meadows
Industrial Businesses are essential
to the socio-economic health of the
community and for maintenance
and servicing of its essential services
such as retail stores and restaurants
which contribute to the goals of
compact sustainable cities. High
municipal property taxes for these
types of businesses have serious
impacts on our city, neighbourhoods
and employment opportunities for
our residents. Although, it is often
said that businesses "dont vote' in
local elections, in reality they do cast
a ballot, by making the decision to
relocate to lower cost jurisdictions in
which their business can thrive and
contribute to the sustainability and
vitality of their local communities.
City of Langley receives prestigious economic
development award for downtown master plan
he City of Langley is pleased to
announce that the Economic
Development Association of
British Columbia (EDABC) awarded the
prestigious "Economic Development
Marketing Project of the Year Award" to
the City of Langley at its EDABC Annual
Conference in Vancouver, BC on Sunday,
September 20, 2009.'1he award recognizes
community excellence and innovation in
economic development.
Mayor Peter Fassbender stated that
"Council could not be more thrilled than
to receive this honor from EDABC.
Our Downtown Master Plan and
complementary marketing initiatives
push the envelope of land use planning
and economic development in process
and content. The Plan takes the planning
process two steps further by truly
integrating the normally isolated policy
planning with urban design and land
economics. In addition, the Plan does
not sit on the shelfwaiting for interested
developers to call. The City actively
seeks to engage developers through
information sessions and other direct,
in person contact'
This proactive "action" combined with
a plan that includes both a vision for the
future, comprehensive economic analysis,
and policy that supports development
activity has made the City of Langley...
the place to be for developers.
Director of Development Services &
Economic Development, Gerald Minchuk,
stated upon accepting the award on
behalf of the Citv of Langley, "We are.
very proud to receive this prestigious
award from EDABC in recognition of
our Downtown Master Plan economic
development initiative. The City of
Langley Downtown Master Plan has
created an exciting vision for the
future redevelopment of Downtown
Langley that will serve as a catalyst
for generating new investment and
creating additional vitality. The plan
process, content, and innovative
marketing strategies represent a
progressive step forward for economic
development and municipal planning
and present a model for wide application
in British Columbia and Canada:'
tormore information about theawarrl
contact604-SI4-28oa
n. City of Langley,
Mayor Peter Fassbender
TAX SAVINGS
aminilnumofSMfllltl—armmt—iniamfor propertylrnprovennm5
Example of tax savings based on
thatyauma6t trmmdMam!e iadvalue0S1(l0A0Q.lfyaurnakemore
an assessed value of$100,000•
I[npfdlgmeRisdReryour.thltialappH�fion, y611 Cat1 apply fnr addltlanai
YEAR $853.30
tax tunW1hm.DevelopedinianS4ltatlonWlthk Domtownlangiry
YEAR $682.64
NletthadisAsoda[lanHvsine%Improvemcnthrea,thisTaxLxemplion
YEAR $511.98
Peogromsupportthe tityo Wt4ey'sraw vulpnkrthe4numas
YEAR $341.32
IdmtifiedinThe ]1owntowaASasterplan.
YEAR 5 $170.66
ACCUMULATED TOTAL $2,599.90
iurmwxlll�PrfAGi1PR..WaterrthC Clf}'r3Figkf FY,
freYEhpmmf5ervkes A Rwomlc Pryekpment lkpartmem:
681573;284C.or rfrlttwrw.dfyfmyykRbr.ra
F,egiona? in. ustria` Development Cox: Survey - Fall 200p
Tax Ratlo
2007 NO.:
200Rank::
MLmiaotlfy
Ll,hE Industrial PAifl-Ralf
�FsidEntial �lifl Rate
L*t In+lWnal to Rez!tlaniial Tax
Mile
Metro Vancouver
1
1
Langley Glty)
{ 8,5331
--- 15311 -
"im
2
2
Ghilliwack
9.3274
3.9224
2.3760
3.
3
phhotsrard
4:4223 -
2.7897
4
4
6urrcy
7.0303
2,2575
3.1142
6
4
Mlasiaa12.'6775
4-t32
3.1165
6
S
Langley Tornsrripl ;
9.3034
2.9136
3.1674
4
6
Mrlple Aldpe17.7636---
. 3.5699
.33924
7
atlla
10.6436
9.2092
3.31n6
A
9
SrtmihY
9.9212 -
2A764
A.OQ31
9
9
Aichmona
9,7666
2.3?99
4.l211
iQ
10
Hara111aiicouver(Oity)
11A041
2;380 -
. 42279
11
11
P4rl Cegaalam
16.t09
3-46
4,7425
12
12.
Vancouver
70,340
3,W9
4.ed2d
13
F3
0ogclllam
14.S6ea
2.9306
4.9439
14
1e ..
P1tt:MaACows
4F.7134D.R19e
`_-•5.0360
1:
15
West Vancouver
13A755
2.11
6.1969
t6
le
PonAldgay.
10.32&5
3RQ72
6.A490
17
17
Oleo•Wevminms,
26.7465
3.6435
7.3409
Y3
13
WhOFrVancovverfDlsMd)
26 nttlE
2.4554
i mfl..
Light Industrial to Residential Tax Ratio
Ratio
NATOP would like to acknowledge and thank all 20 municipalities who took part in this year's Municipal Cost of Business Survey. Participation is voluntary
and the time expended to respond to it can be significant, not unlike a `real" development application. Development in any jurisdiction is a partnership between
business and the community. NAIOP is pleased to be in a position to murk, m behalfof our members, with the lower Mainland jurisdictions, which participated
in the publication ofthis information for the business community.
Thanks also to NAIOP members for their time in putting this project together:
Groeme Silvera, Plenary Group Cohado Ltd. Ed Wilson, Lawson Lundell LLP
Chair NAiOP Development Issues Committee Geoff Hev, GWC Realty Adv. NA10P
Andrea Wellbum, Cushman & Wakefield LePage Inc. Jos Sandhu, Colliers International C 0 n4 av E R C 1 A REAL ESTATE
Derek Jones, Concert Properties Ltd. Michael Musacehio a E V E >_ a s ra E t�': n$ 5 o C +a T' o a
Chris MaeCauley,Colliers International Rob Busch, Colliers International METRO VANCOUVER tlr CHAPTER
Cheryl Carter, Business in Vancouver Pedo Tavares - Altus Group Limited •
Darlene Schneider, RAIN Executive Director Wendy Waters- GWL Realty Advisors Inc.
ww.no iopvcr com
14
caionat indvnAat Deveiopment Cost Survey — Fa-H ZOG'
N1P
c�vgyp"" F v r a rdGreen
s a `snapshot' of -the increasing ma x towards
a,,ustainability amongst the municipalities. NAIOP
has included a section within its survey on whether
there are any sustainable/green building requirements
(beyond what's required by the BC Building Code)
or incentives in place within each municipality. This
year more than half (10 of the 17 municipalities who
responded) confirmed they have requirements and/or
incentives to promote sustainable building.
Some were voluntary measures covering all areas of
sustainability or smart growth, others were mandatory
actions on particular items such as stormwater
management and green (planted) roofs for buildings
over a certain size.
J'v3o st municipalities now require some form of
sustainability reporting as part of their rezoning/
development application, and many of these are
offering incentives including density bonusing, floor
area exclusions, transfers, DCC and. tax exemption,
as well as fast tracking the permit process for "green"
projects. In future, the expectation is that many of the
processes than are now voluntary will be formalized,
as municipalities raise the bar on what is considered
green.
✓ 1:
6urnaoy
✓
- S:nrn �.: 77 nd Eh !I Ii.:V'.nE d::•:1 pn •n VdIHill[ t0I k6•f CJ SCM1[!
NEY-, aVestrr,Iritrar.
✓
S r„lrt C. I'0'a rn ": tr.:. I!;t 15 q,:: I C R. nl3l! In J; 1n•.IIO:np in r.eali'e5:, rL: Jj vj it flit-'•
Par' Conuni;l.-
-
be..,r
-nreun rgrx.(er e�vtYdieMi:f?iWifY-'�JfA�} W �EsJ: si-. Pal. ,gar ±Q4?Isq .
a{�eUialoftieuWsoF,aw6?E41Y91f,'f _9blldy>� SAIq! Q
Pan Moody
y
Sirs:ahatiitty Che:ktist lot 4 �Il ;;s • ? rt Leo•+dYs scsWintt lit[y mogal: aniror,ma:rl,
Ec4nomin, ;o0,,? 4n4 Lul,ufal. reliulrmJ'or all devolopiviv FrM[asals
'lhdetArord
-
.y
Il rp%n1+I+ Ci'.1sma�iQf?up'ibp� , it ux+m11 piRi)gLlwn46lin 6y.
z Olt 4tCC B ' Sdtiisnpt,
Dotnct v Mr[:1 Vz-,rouye•
v
'11r:luolary yrotlm uulli inG program
f3e]ri
✓ -
",r
. Gal+]n+erelatslMlieu9en(nl a tequkr3hF Plskp.R Lf AJgtti nMf ity i�hack-
dN 1nsl�RarldhAdan9)Irclpkt-.
Ua`C17llYPr
�/
✓
cm, S:M119CIldinp $trafegy and'G+ena Harne3 Proq ream Floor spQe!
assetl1iQ 115iQLFY.prafliRA
for Mali mbIftto7ao peniltyfcrcanstnlorptvali OMhlp4tl edfa[p�1§ffiGa;icy
Cumrl1100
510 m f :3r-deeiQ[i rGoal r[ r 5[iL
F'.!chrmmd
✓
Bylaiu s}S5.'Grean itoEfs. �.4lherCp[lons lnvplvinq Intl u'Iuio3 6nHdinfls'tSqulle"p [hat
ind dstrlBl i` ltdRlq'S RRLS}IlB ttt 6&CG.� iNRfre; WltEra gross ilaur area of 2.08 m2 or to ors.
to radu& lhcamount of storm wales, ran-otf try at least 2G%-
-h
Il�ril.
l�II ll,..... E
.I_'S
villa%,
Urban Options: More buildings, more choice
With 11 uriique downtown offlice buildings to choose from, our inventory provifdes a wise
variety of urban ;easing options to accommodate your regUirernents.
LCU. f 3COMIJ-b04,00.51107
OVER 51 YFdR6 0F.. LIADERSH;P .
Iocnyi'!F. LF.cra 60=,00-5305
FV% MOOTflAhj TjG PEARS, CADILLAC FAIgYIEW HAS
777 PUN5Mu1R
701 WEST CEQrCIA
BEEN tsAD1NQ THC iYAV 1% COMME[,C]AL REAL ESTATg S
CANALCO R P T.O W LN
PRICEii'ATERF[G 4:5£f tld7ERa PLACE
WITH INNOVA1IVA.PE51FN, DZVELOVWFNT,AhV .];#
CRA OLLE'SptOARE
71 TQV,ER
MANAdmm-r. A CCEl TINUM F6eJJx L11L ANTIC'PATI Mr:
H50C BUILDING
'HE 5TAi 10N
APAP $XT15FYING THE EVOLVI NC HEEDS Orr ❑uR Office +�
700 WEST P6NDER
WATE$FYOUT CEA I'RL.
TE NANT5 Dr r i pi ES TISE GD1llf.0 FAI RV I EW A PP ROA C/1 -
750 WEST PENDER
_ -
TO P1j[ Vd 0114G REST IN CLASS DFFI C'_ EHV I RO N hrr NTS,
Regional industrial Development Co*t Su, :+Iuy -- fa;! 200R
t,a
Ir
Ure Trends
s an indication of what the
uture could bring, NAI0P
included a section within its survey
on future policy directions and
changes to existing policies that
were tinder consideration at the time
of publication.
This information comes with
a general disclaimer that all or a
majority of these potential changes
are subject to either council or staff
approval and final drafting. Below
are some highlights of what could
be coming in the near future to a
jurisdiction near you.
Municipality
Upconiing Planned Policy changes
• In Progress - Downtown Community Wan and 7vern,hnruegh Cam murkily Plan. The
❑uortshoruaph pimr.looks vcry WeScly M the 155ue Of MIJUStrlal Ian0 rg+ of l0n and
New Westminster
the anerfecs bftiLm indusirial land and residenliel uses Informalign on these plan
ppds[as can be rated at
www.newwwclt1'-caJoownwvin WY+w.nalvwesEClty-CdhlGedGgb0�ougM1
'he DCC Bylaw is btu l+: u pna l ad ir.•- DMM
-A revlew of the € OC llylalx is al mnsl c i npleN
Port Coquil[am
•A proposalta fricraase 9uHdih;.Nrmlt,feet will be tabled In2509
• ThesuhdMlalan bylaw drahp dpdeled fnr26-
• As a measure to sneamlEne the approval process fo• I4dtlsirial development permits,
IuSiSSion
council will be delegating approval anidnomy In rleportmeni heads, (now clog the
time required to conduct lengthy public input meatings.
`11stfictof North Vani miVef
• Municlpetl tax raia for Ilghtinousiry 16 dropping, decrpaain-yby8% In 2oa5 ml is
arilinpood to contlnu0 dropping for the text d-S years.
Pla Meadovis
The City Is rewlewing its Land U r a (noIng) ilytaw
ft City Of R!Chmond is currently In the prucosa of ravlelrrg the City Centro Arm N n
CCaFy. Ths ioliowleg ar; h+phlipMsrr[the CCAP:
•tEED Sliver will be Tr;quirad for all leanings df evais pav ilopmento over 2;D011 ro
tecehad slier 3enuary 1, 2Wd :
•.Tdie LEm Hart isisrd Ef1e6CRoot cram wirrba regdirld lar all m2anhlgs of pilvate.
ddYlloprl'-eel3 oV5rx.000 rrd roe xd ¢iter:Jenuary 1; 2009 {nvolrinq.ndn-ri o-
denErai build Ing a te.g:, camnEorcla!'s[IdSnttllstr!aij and ml0plea4ufi4 mWomial
REct mend
buiidlnos 0PWW Mll4 5lDreysexalsdfng parking [o-il, conorsEehigf rsepI
• The LEfO storm watur Manalrem erd credlt will be rEqulred tul z73 rewrnngs of
prWata developments OWDE 8.000 m? roceMed Oiler Jartuary1, 2Wg IdvolWng anI-
residgnHal buildings O.T. commercial and i!tdutriali end moltlple mdly re6ldenl1al
. buf!dlags Enllyding parking cancratuhlph rl"%. wood trams apdttmonix and
t�writuue771
•The Clty in In the proton of reviewing uio MC program. argendments to the C[ly
Wide XC5 sre-anticipatod to ae brought forward in corgnmtlenwith die adollllor)
-di t44 WAR.
• July, HIM Cawidi adopted a report radommeading Elie replacement of the vacuum
nwor system In Ilrfdgaview and South WestmliMer wllh a more Irad+'llonm sewer
Surrey
system that will result areas of 6rldgeviewand South Wostmincter being opened up
for new Industrial dav0opme0t. Details of this sewer replacemerd can be found in
Corporate Report R13a whloll can be round on the City's webslla
IQDFFm N K LEF LL,
BUSI NESS li..AWYFR.S
Our Commercial Real Estate practice
group represents clients in a variety
of complex real estate transactions
and development matters including
shopping centres, office buildings
and industrial parks, condominiums,
land assemblies, subdivision matters,
bare land strata developments, hotel,
recreational, residential developments,
leasing (industrial, office and retail, and
Patrick J. Julian
Direct Line: 604-891-3605
Email: pj)@kkbl.com
Stanley Wong
Direct Line: 604-891-3628
Email: aw@kkbl.com
First Nations) transactions, construction,
takeout and inventory financings,
the structuring of joint ventures, co -
ownership arrangements and real estate
syndications of all types including
limited partnerships, environmental
and municipal requirements, and
preparation and filing of Disclosure
Statements under the Real Estate
Development MarketingAct.
Leslie Tucker
Direct Llne: 604-891-3611
Email: lat@kkbLmm
Erin Tait
Direct l.{oe: 604-891-3618
Email: ekt@l kbl.c-
19th Floor, 885 West Georgia Street Vancouver, British Coltunbia W C 31-14 Canada
Telephone 604-891-3688 Fez 604-891-3788 w .kkbl.com
Regional industrial Development Cost Survey -- pall 2O09
NAIOP Vancouver committees are
very active and have won several
awards including Chapter of the
Year 2003, the Periodical Publication
Award 2004 for the Cost of Doing
Business Survey and the 2007 Annual
Publication Award from NAICP
NationaL
Through a grassroots network
NAIOP seeks to create, Protect and
enhance propertyvalues.
VANCOUVER
'r NA10P
1. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION'
ME'I'00 VA.Kr OUV€R x,' CHAT TER
NAI0P Is a professional association
with more than io,00u members
across North America who represent
the interests of developers and
owners of industrial, office and
related commercial real estate.
NAICIP's Canadian network
includes chapters in Vancouver.
Calgary and Toronto.
more information on
couverChap
arly of its even
it v, web
st .
.nalopvcrx 1
69 4=661
Bottom from L to R - Chuck We - Oxford Properties Group Inc., Bart Corbett - Cushman & Wakefield Ltd., Joceylne Legal - Cadillac Fairview
Corporation, Dave Liden - Remedios and Company, Geoff Heu - OWL Realty Advisors Inc., Darlene Schneider - Schneider & Associates
Consulting Group
Top Row from L to R —John Scott - CEI Architecture Planning Interiors, Graeme Sllvera - Plenary Group, Derek Jones - Concert Properties
Ltd., Jon Bishop - Devencore Newmark, Bill Tucker - Omicron, Andrew Allow, Jeff Rank - Cushman & Wakefield Ltd., Stephanie Setchell -
Farrell Estates Lid., Maury Dubuque - Bentall I.P.
✓ Local networking opportunities through monthly
breakfast speaker series and special events. Over
the years, the Vancouver Chapter of NAIOP has
featured speakers that include Mr. Bob Ackles, BC
Lions, Mr. Brian Burke, formerly with the Canucks,
Mayor Sam Sullivan, and the City of Vancouver
Planner, Mr. Brent Toderian.
✓ National networking through conferences and
access to NAIOP national database
s/ Industry and market information —through period
publications and reports
V Educational opportunities — through special issue
seminars and symposiums includingthe annual
Developer's Symposium
✓ Access to NAIOP's online database
and periodic newsletter
✓ Legislative voice — through our Legislative
Issues and Government Affairs Committees
✓ Industry recognition — through
our industry awards events
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
11831
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
Reserves
DATE: 15-Sept-2010
FILE NO:
ATTN: Council Workshop
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report is intended to provide an overview of the District's financial resources. They are grouped
into four categories: accumulated surplus (revenue funds), the cumulative balance of the excess of
revenues over expenses and net transfers to reserves; reserve funds, accounts established by bylaw for
specific purposes; reserve accounts, discretionary appropriations of surplus; and restricted revenues,
monies collected from others for which we are obligated to provide specific services. The amounts on
Schedule "A" detail the balances in each of these categories. At the end of 2009, the balance in the
accumulated surplus (revenue funds), reserve funds and reserve accounts totalled $57.4 million and
we had a further $36 million in restricted revenues.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is submitted for information only
DISCUSSION:
The District of Maple Ridge has financial resources that have been summarized on the attached
Schedule "A". Some of these resources are subject to legislation in the Community Charter while others
are not. As part of our financial planning process detailed projections are done for key reserves to
ensure that the available resources can support the planned activities.
The resources can be categorized as follows:
1. Accumulated Surplus (Revenue Funds)
The District's business is comprised of three major cost centres: General Revenue, the Sewer Utility
and the Water Utility. The excess of revenues over expenses and net transfers to reserves for each
cost centre flows to the accumulated surplus balance. The accumulated surplus balance in the
revenue funds at the end of 2009 is $11.4 million. Of this amount $6.4 million relates to the sewer
and water utilities and as per Council's rate stabilization policy these balances have been used to
mitigate the impact of regional rate increases. The general revenue fund has an accumulated
surplus amount of $4.98 million and can be used to provide funding for extraordinary one-time
items in line with Council's financial sustainability policies.
2. Reserve Funds
Reserve funds are established by bylaw and hold financial assets for specific purposes, typically for
capital investment. Once a reserve fund has been established, the funds in it can only be used for
the purposes noted in the establishing bylaw and any use of the funds must be authorized in the
Financial Plan Bylaw.
4.7
Page 1 of 6
The following provides a brief summary of the District's reserve funds:
i). Local Improvement
The balance in this fund is comprised primarily of monies returned to us by the Municipal
Finance Authority (MFA) when debt was retired for which sinking fund monies had been
held. These funds are intended to be used for capital purposes.
ii). Equipment Replacement
Each year we transfer monies to this reserve in recognition of the fact that the equipment
in use today will need to be replaced in the future.
iii). Capital Works
The capital works reserve provides for future capital investment. Each year 1% of general
taxation is credited to the reserve along with fixed transfer amounts of approximately
$200,000 as well as 75% of the proceeds from any land sales. Our practice is to retain a
minimum balance of 10% of the prior year's taxation in order to have some funds
available in the event of an emergency. Based on the current projection for this reserve
we will be pressed to maintain this minimum balance, and that is why a more healthy
balance in accumulated surplus is helpful.
iv). Fire Department Capital
Each year 2% of general taxation is credited to this reserve. The fund is intended to assist
with the provision of fire protection facilities as the community grows. The balance in this
reserve has been drawn down over the past couple of years to fund the construction and
renovation of Fire Hall #1.
v). Sanitary Sewer
This fund resulted from surpluses on sanitary sewer projects in previous years and is
available for use on current and future sanitary sewer projects.
vi). Land
This reserve receives 25% of the proceeds from land sales and is used for land
acquisitions. This fund was last used in the purchase of the Randy Herman Center for
Public Safety. In 2009 the fund received an infusion of $1.5 million as part of the year-
end process to provide funding for land acquisitions of importance for Council where there
is no other identifiable source of funding.
3. Reserve Accounts
Reserve accounts are discretionary appropriations of surplus, established to meet business needs.
They can be established or dissolved as Council directs to ensure that identified business needs are
met and risks are managed appropriately. .
The following provides a brief summary of the District's reserve accounts:
i). Committed Projects (capital and operating)
This represents items approved by Council in prior years that were not completed, but are
still deemed necessary. A number of the capital projects that will receive funding from
this reserve are reliant on third party funding and/or awaiting the outcome of property
acquisition negotiations. The amounts in these reserves have decreased by $702,250
from the 2008 balance. Key projects that will receive funding from this reserve include
Page 2 of 6
the downtown improvements on Lougheed Highway, the animal shelter and the audio
visual upgrades in Council Chambers.
ii). Self Insurance
In order to control insurance premium costs we have relatively high deductibles and have
chosen to self -insure many events. This reserve account provides funding for insurance
deductibles and for self -insured claims.
iii). Police services
This reserve was established a number of years ago to fund one-time police services
initiatives, such as renovating the Randy Herman Centre for Public Safety. As per policy,
50% of RCMP contract savings are transferred into this reserve each year. In 2010 this
reserve will provide the funding needed to renovate the RCMP cells to current standards.
iv). Core Reserve
This reserve was established at the outset of project to construct the new downtown
facilities to provide a mechanism to build our capacity to finance the project over time
while smoothing the impact to taxpayers. It assists in managing the cash flows related to
the commercial component of the project and is also available to assist with capital
improvements.
v). Recycling Reserve
The recycling reserve retains the balance of recycling levies in excess of contract costs as
well as the District's share of the Recycling Society's profits. The reserve is used to
provide funding for recycling related projects, such as studies or equipment purchases, or
to help offset losses incurred by the Society in the event of falling commodity values. The
2009 shortfall experienced by the Society will be drawn from this reserve.
vi). Building Inspections
This account is designed to allow us to deal with the impact of an unexpected reduction in
building permit revenues. For a number of years building permit revenues ranged
between $1 million and $1.5 million annually; in 2006, 2007 and 2008 revenues were
substantially higher than this as a result of brisk development activity in the community
and a portion of the favourable revenues were transferred to this reserve. We rely on
revenues from building permits to support our operations and should a shortfall in building
permit revenue result in an overall budget shortfall this reserve would provide the capacity
to sustain service levels in the short-term.
vii). Gravel
Soil removal fees are credited to this account each year. It is intended to assist with minor
infrastructure repair that may be required as a result of soil removal activities.
viii). Facility Maintenance
Not all facility maintenance is required on an annual basis and this reserve was
established to smooth the impact of annual fluctuations in required maintenance costs.
ix). Snow Removal
This reserve in intended to ensure that the District has the financial capacity to respond to
costs associated with higher than normal snowfall without the need to curtail other
services. Our annual budget for snow removal is approximately $214,000 and for the
past few years we have seen actual snow removal costs exceed this amount. The reserve
Page 3 of 6
was established in 1999 with a balance of $200,000; in each of 2007 and 2008, in
recognition of inflationary pressures and the increased costs associated with changing
weather patterns the balance in the reserve was increased and now has a balance of
$700,000.
x). Cemetery Maintenance
Any excess of revenues over expenses in the cemetery cost centre is transferred to this
reserve at year-end and is used as a funding source to maintain the cemetery function,
both the facility and the related technology. The perpetual care fund is a separate entity
and is managed as a trust.
xi). Infrastructure Sustainability
In 2007 the first infrastructure sustainability account was established in recognition of the
need to build the capacity to maintain our growing infrastructure. The replacement cost of
our infrastructure exceeds $1.2 billion and the level of annual maintenance and
rehabilitation spending required to maintain is estimated at over $40 million. Our actual
expenditures are less than a quarter of this amount. Starting in 2008 we began to set
dedicate 1% of taxation to address the gap between required and actual spending. As
part, of our 2009 year-end process we set transferred $1 million to the infrastructure
sustainability reserve for roads maintenance. As a result of this, a substantial amount of
road resurfacing work has been completed to date in 2010.
xii). Critical Building Infrastructure
This reserve was established in 2006 in recognition of the need to provide for emergency
or irregular items associated with facility maintenance. Facilities, such as the RCMP
building, Municipal Hall and the Leisure Centre were constructed at approximately the
same time; consequently some of the building infrastructure, such as the boilers, will likely
need to be replaced at similar times. Such infrastructure is costly to replace and our
existing lifecycle budget does not have the capacity to provide the necessary funding. This
reserve is intended to provide the necessary capacity without having defer other planned
facility infrastructure maintenance.
xiii). Infrastructure Grants Contribution
This reserve was established in 2008 in order to provide the capacity to take advantage of
infrastructure grant programs that typically require a municipality to provide matching
funds.
The resources listed above represent the District's financial assets and do not include non -financial
assets, such as our Silver Valley land holdings, a strategic non-renewable resource available to
Council.
4. Restricted Revenues
Restricted revenues are monies collected from others for which we are obligated to provide specific
works. Due to the restrictions on their use, these monies are reported as a liability until the specific
works are undertaken.
The following provides an overview of the District's restricted revenues:
i). Development Cost Charges
These funds are collected from the development community and are used to assist in
funding the infrastructure requirements resulting from development. The balance in the
DCC fund has been drawn from 2007 levels as a result of lower than average collections in
Page 4 of 6
2008 and 2009, combined with an increase in spending on DCC funded capital over the
same time frame.
ii). Parkland Acquisition (ESA)
Monies paid by the development community that are used to acquire environmentally
sensitive areas, such as land required for watercourse protection. Land acquisitions along
the North Alouette and adjacent to Davison's Pool in 2007exhausted this funding source in
2007. Future collections will begin to rebuild this funding source.
iii). Downtown Parking Facilities
These funds are collected in lieu of providing parking spaces and is to be used for the
provision of parking in the downtown area.
iv). Developer Specified Projects
Charges collected from the development community to assist with the provision of certain
infrastructure works.
CONCLUSIONS:
The above information and attached schedule are intended to provide an overview of the District's
financial resources. At the end of 2009 our accumulated surplus (revenue funds), reserve fund and
reserve accounts total $57.4 million and we have a further $36 million in restricted revenues. Much of
this amount is held for capital investment in the community. Not included in these amounts are non-
financial resources, such as our land holdings in Silver Valley.
The District has a sound business planning framework which includes a series of financial sustainability
policies. The funds, accounts and revenues outlined in this report were established over many years
and assist Council in managing the municipality's finances.
d
Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CGA
Manager of Accounting
Approved by: Paul dill, CGA
GM: Corporate and Financial Services
Concurrence: J.. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 5 of 6
Schedule "A"
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
ACCUMULATED SURPLUS (REVENUE FUNDS)
General Revenue
$ 4,985,070
$ 4,448,718
$ 3,170,271
$ 2,442,301
$ 4,203,057
Sewer Revenue
3,059,571
2,963,911
3,527,232
3,401,602
4,021,712 I Note15
Water Revenue
3,383,195
3,712,928
3,330,097
3,353:988
2,846,785
11.427, 836
11,125, 557
10,027, 601
9,197, 891
11, 071,554
RESERVE FUNDS
Local Improvement
Equipment Replacement
Capital Works
Fire Department Capital Acquisition
Sanitary Sewer
Land
RESERVE ACCOUNTS
Specific projects - capital
Specific projects - operating
Self insurance
Police services
Core development
Recycling
Community development
Building inspections
Gravel extraction
Neighbourhood improvements
Facility maintenance
Snow removal
Youth and arts centre
Cemetery maintenance
Infrastructure Sustainability (town centre bldgs)
Infrastructure Sustainability (road network)
Infrastructure Sustainability (drainage)
Critical infrastructure reserve
Infrastructure grants contribution
Service severance
WATER AND SEWER RESERVE ACCOUNTS
Self Insurance -Sewer
Specific projects - Sewer
Self Insurance - Water
Specific projects - water
TOTAL RESERVES
2,145,754
2,077,103
1,973,590
1,771,407
1,630,531
6,937,477
7,329,490
8,049,670
7,095,537
5,918,359
8,404,633
8,686,373
9,055,490
10,600,326
10,393,493
1,807,185
6,062,996
7,140,170
6,775,809
6,050,724
1,524,971
1,442,312
1,390,549
1,372,742
2,376,005
1,919,946
406,056
268,712
2%,768
461331
22,739,966
26,004,330
27,8784181
27,972,599
2.6,832,443
4,408,631
4,239,744
4,152,968
3,344,791
3,615,454
2,253,608
3,124,747
3,701,663
1,607,441
1,304,871
914,702
938,349
922,602
787,729
11,015
2,618,915
2,259,704
1,858,021
1,979,364
1,504,580
1,116,807
1,129,505
970,325
620,938
835,713
1,634,271
1,475,367
1,618,549
1,428,698
1,301,754
1,218
1,176
1,134
1,092
1,053
1,761,704
1,704,522
968,034
457,461
441,590
419,417
549,384
496,450
482,519
475,263
60,697
58,688
56,571
54,525
52,634
515,408
360,508
89,519
87,187
-
700,000
700,000
350,000
200,000
200,000
3,708
8,535
8,535
8,535
11,010
151,980
109,457
103,224
139,347
117,821
-
295,385
200,000
-
1,225,B88
419,417
-
-
40,282
-
-
-
172,072
368,625
501,023
518,794
1,200,000
1,200,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
63,630
19,199,308
18,943,179
15,998 618
11718 421
9,935,388
95,873
36,184
89,684
83,183
76,684
2,160, 492
1,738,057
1,308,040
1,372,814
1,162, 519
99,528
93,028
86,528
80,028
73,528
1,722,636
_ 1,688,066
897,835
934,984
1,303,745
4,078,529
2,955,335
2,372,086
2,471,009
2,616,475
$ 46,_017,Sp3_
$ 47.902,778
$46,248,885
$ 42,062,019
$ 39, 385,306
TOTAL RESERVES AND REVENUE ACCUMULATED SURPLUS $ 57,445,639 $59,028,335 $56,276,486 $51,759,910 $50,456,860
Schedule 2
RESTRICTED REVENUES
Development cost charges
$ 31,644,928
$34,330,309
$36,704,662
$31,047,111
$21,796,131
Parkland acquistion
-
-
-
1,717,500
1,647,870
Downtown parking facilities
144,515
139,734
134695
129,821
125,318
Note 11
Developerspecified projects
4,367,763
4,129,236
4026358
3,W5,309
3,683,077
$ 36,157,206
$38,599,279
$40,865,715
$36,699,741
$27,252,396
Page 6of6
d�
Office of the Mayor
October 25, 2010
METRO VANCOUVER
4330 Kingsway Ave
Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8
ATTENTION: Johnny Carline, CAO
Fax# 604-451-6180
Re: Green Waste / Organics drop-off .- Maple Ridge Transfer Station
Attached is a copy of a letter dated September 10, 2010 from the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
to Metro Vancouver.
Metro Vancouver has a residential green waste drop-off area at the Maple Ridge Transfer station.
Maple Ridge Council fully supports the Recycling Society's request that Metro Vancouver redesign
this facility to allow commercial vehicle drop off of kitchen and green waste (organics.) The
Recycling Society believes that this facility has the capacity to handle additional tonnage if the idle
space on site is redeveloped for use.
Other Metro transfer stations have daily pickup and transfer to Fraser Richmond Biocycle Ltd. for
organics and we are requesting the same service here in Maple Ridge.
We look forward to your response as we look for ways to support Metro Vancouver's Zero Waste
Challenge.
Sincerely,
Ernie Daykin, Mayor
/sr
attach.
cc: Paul Remillard, (Contract Services Division Manager)
Mr. Ralph Randt, Senior Engineer, Contract Services
Frank Quinn, General Manager', Public Works and Development Services
Andrew Wood, Municipal Engineer
Kim Day, Executive Director, Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
District of Maple Ridge 5 A
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia V2x 6A9 CANADA
Telephone: 604-463-5221 • Fax: 604-467-7329 • Email: enquiries@mapleridge.ca • www.mapleridge.ca
A..
September 13, 2010
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC
V2X 6A9
c J
1 t"1_ 3-5541 J
t e,pc'), _ocai:;oin 10,09 -236 ;fit, Nlaple midge_,
, �
Other�
3 L
ATTENTION: Mayor Ernie Daykir, and Council
RE.- Green Waste I Organics Drop off — Maple Ridge Transfer Station
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society has been exploring options for maple Ridge to divert the 36% of -the
waste stream that has been identified zzs `organics" and a very big determining factor in the
development of a municipal wide program is the availability of a local drop-off or cornpositing
processing facility for this commodity.
Metro Vancouver has a residential green waste drop --off area at the Maple Ridge Transfer station. The
Society has sent two letters (November 2007 & July 2009) requesting this site be developed to allow
large commercial loads. Both times we were informed this site is at capacity: In their letter of
response, Metro Vancouver suggested an alternative location, Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre Port
Coquitlam, but this is not a long -terra solution as this facility only has a 2 year lease.
The Society has sent another letter to Metro Vancouver (attached) requesting they look at options for
Maple Midge and we are asking Mayor ,and council to also send a letter asking Metro to consider
alternatives to handle organics locally in Maple Ridge.
The new Solid Waste Management plan has a target of 70% diversion by 2015 and the only way to
achieve that goat is to aggressively target organics.
Sincerely
5 RECYCLING SOCIETY
Director
cc: Frank Quinn, Andrew Wood
Racyciing socjat�r
September 10,2010
13METRO \VANCOUIVER,
4330 Kingsviay Ave
Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8
Rhdg�e Meadvivs Rencycling
Box 283, Maple Ridge. 80, V2\;/\-7")
� Ij
F ;,i o ne: (a 041 ) 4 8 3 - 5- 5 4 5 _x: ( 6 0) 4 i A 6 7 - 6'10 0
D a p o t L o catj o n - 10 0 9 2 - 36 6 .5 r- N1 a P l e R'rr d g ---. S f' ,
Erinail org
" t �-) I- -\V-/,
n
F,ax# 604-451-6180
AT FENTION: Paul Remillard, (Contract Services Division Manager)
Rai Waste 10irgadico dinoiri-off - Mapile i.-Md(ge Irrans-11evStai, �Ofl-
9 It
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society/ fully supports Metro Vancouver's zero waste challenge initiatives
and the goal of 70% diversion by 2015, Based on a 2006 Waste composition study, 36%, of Maple
Ridge's garbage is organic waste; yard, food (kitchen) or wood waste. Together with our 559/o
recycling rate, the addition of organics to the recycling program would exceed the new regional
-target of 70% diversion
Metro Vancouver has a residential green waste drop-off area at the Maple Ridge Transfer station.
The Society has sent two letters (November 2007 & July 2009) requesting this site be developed -to
allow large commercial loads and we were informed this site is at capacity. Alternative locations
suggested (Fraser Richmond Soil & Fibre —Port Coquitlam) is not along -term solution. Maple Ridge
continues to urge Metro Vancouver to redesign this facility by exploring options for a local drop-off
or composting processing facility.,
vve are iookiing at options L;ancie i_w anics and' avallakiflity of- drop off is a very .,ig determining
factor in the development of a municipal wide program,
Sincerelyr'
R1 G 'qi;DOVV
Dav 11 , -
RECYCLING SOCIETY
Cc: Mr, Ralph Randt. (Senior Engineer, Contract Services)
District of Maple Ridge - Frank Quinn, Andrew Wood