Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-13 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA June 13, 2011 10:00 a.m. PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN TIME 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 June 13, 2011 Audit and Finance Committee Meeting 9:00 a.m. June 14, 2011 Council Meeting I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES - May 16, 2011 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL T:00 p.m. 3.1 Healthier Community Partnerships Presentation - Val Spurrell, Executive Director, Fraser Health, - Dr. Larry Gustafson, Medical Health Officer, Fraser Health - Erin Corry, Community Health Specialist, Fraser Health 3.2 Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Project Process - Committee Presentation - Chris Iversen and Yvonne Desabrais. Council Workshop June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 4 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Initiative Project Request Report from the Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Committee dated June 13, 2011 recommending that the report from the Port Haney Neighbourhood Chairs be accepted for information and that a request for additional funding to extend the project be approved. 4.2 Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy Staff report dated June 13, 2011 recommending that staff be directed to prepare a Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy. 4.3 Recreational Vehicle Parking/Storage in Residential Zones Staff report dated June 13, 2011 recommending that a Public Open House be held on June 29, 2011 to solicit feedback on potential changes to the Zoning Bylaw and that the feedback be reported back to Council. 4.4 Equestrian Trail 11700 Block of 260 Street Staff report dated June 13, 2011 recommending that an addition to the equestrian trail network in the 250 Street right of way from 116 Avenue north be endorsed. 4.5 Gaming Revenue Policy Staff report dated June 13, 2011 recommending that the proposed Gaming Revenue Policy be adopted. 4.6 2011 Residential Class Property Taxation Staff report dated June 13, 2011 providing information on municipal taxes assessed to Class 1 - Residential. 4.7 2011 Business Class Property Taxation Staff report dated June 13, 2011 providing information on the tax rate assess to Business Class 6 properties. 4.8 2011 Major Industry Class Property Taxation Staff report dated June 13, 2011 providing a comparison of the District's current Major Industry Tax rate to other municipalities in the area. Council Workshop June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 4 4.9 Letter of Concern - Shortage of Anaesthesiologists in Fraser Health Draft of letter proposed by Councillor Dueck to be sent to the BC Medical Health Association expressing concern pertaining to the shortage of anaesthesiologists in Fraser Health 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. Recommendation: G. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Checked by - Date: 1 r< Council Workshop June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered fora position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality; (b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; (c) labour relations or employee negotiations; (d) the security of property of the municipality; (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or Improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; (f) law enforcementif 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 sections 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 preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report] (m) a matter that, under another enactmentis 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 authority under section 91(other persons attending closed meetings) should be exercised in relation to a council meeting. (p) information relating to local government participation In provincial negotiations with First Nations, where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential. e0k� fraserheah aple Ridge Healthier Community Action Plan The Healthier Community initiative is a partnership between Fraser Health and its municipalities, which directly impacts the health of the citizens in each community. This partnership is an opportunity to move the focus of "health" from treatment and remediation to promotion and prevention through immediate action. This document begins with a "snapshot" of the health status of Maple Ridge, including demographics of the population, incidence of chronic disease, leading causes of death, and the health practices of the citizens. Health data described as the Maple Ridge Local Health Area (LHA) includes Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Katzie First Nation. An Action Checklist outlines a list of priority actions that lead to a healthier community. These activities have been selected from best practices identified in the Fraser Health Medical Health Officers' Annual Report, as well as other national and international initiatives. The municipalities along with other community partners create their "Community Action Plan" from priorities identified and tailored to the needs of their communities. To assist them, Fraser Health has dedicated a portion of the role of the Region's "Community Health Specialists". The role of these specialists is to bring best practice expertise and knowledge to the community partners in the development, implementation and evaluation of their Community Action Plans. With this input, each municipality can create measureable behaviour change and promote citizens' involvement in personal and community responsibility for better health. 3ml o� O U 'a R O' O �N' o a o 9 c O C4. j> m O N E N C o O M N Cal O fA E E \ M O W o a o o a o o r CO cD _ _ #� c ca G �U"'r0v aL°)da. `Z� d 00 u-i [+1 rYi M N N „� y ; E o4 p Q 0!00(o Ln Nr Q L .a m m0 =-a vJ C M Of o\°€a o o a o N M O M:m 4 N 0l A] - it 3 0 �' O G V N to C- C) C) Q _ QEM O d' M a� y o \' c CL M 0 O p 10 ro O O O O C. M n Ln O rn Ln w Q% rn is o� c a m o ;� N ra N o N V= N .--i 6i r lr W r*7 N +-i N p c N o 1 N .� CL O Q) a] O O j C O.. O n = c U m W 0 N M N.M � (0-0 O O C O C O N .tli iw o 'l Ltd 4 .,... - rn C QJ41 0 � N � rr [0~6 u' a ti I O L 7 R �� c � ,C 0 CD-L QJ O V O O- i F C ol U O C Q m s O ri rO �' iY L N C C O a.:� 0 i'O W iO ❑ ti i �, ❑ O CL /�r� •� G Q L O. G U aJ a V) N 1 0 � {n ' j Q �� a) C -2 '° U ci Oy 0 y �i, O 2 G O rn 3 Q) CO a i Cui y Q N m N ..� L y a `-Jac c •v' o o a w Ln V 'O � Ln-- m m u � m '�jft � ; �O F h Q � i� V)i 0 � ai 00 w o ca O¢ cn d cu _0 c .3 i Y o J U) Y N (D rA I) a) d M 7� C Z7 O rV [6 C a fro j m c O a O '""� v aCCO F Op r04P O. rQ 0 O aJ � � ¢ .— a O O N 7.. CL m V) .— 7 a) 00L IA Oa O aj drCJ3 m^u+ U aJ Op Wy N :E CL .0 7 m fl i aa) c — +' ,Y 10 0) L O 0. 0 U) C % V iUU U I =f0-0.EC 'G O E - ❑ a)� O -`e a)wZ O @ LTC00 ro a ro .0 �. L Q�ua 2OO UL � io n @ uJ � rCa QJ 0 cJ co m�vpo. a`ni v 0 +-iJ iA cn c � c QJ v 3 N 'U) --O L o\ v) -E U f N O u- V) fa U o� L U.)L s O N m a a 0 4' ' 7` L am_ C +' O O N N L j a) 00' y 0 6 O _Ql Ln 0) L s �'IV 0 ru mru ' '4aJ g (v cn0 C O CL 0-0.x O o .4 a co O O 3 .0 Ln L y Q QJ � Ln 0. N C r ci3 Qs fn l-n 3 J ❑ [o C rvCL as U) C 0 ra 41 a) u IV mn _ @_ QJ O .0 o a J O• a) u M V a •Q VOiE O [p 7 0 0 0 0 N V L W O_ LL 2 Ciy C. M o o" ro w rG0 rOi7 fo U d . — [G T7 O Q) OCL o2 0)u' Oao' aL--� r0 aJ ra n'a CD vi W Q CDQn U).0 Lf) N [LO rn o Cho {', ry fL0 Q) [7] E N IA L �wr N >. 2. Ql _p .� .w o ry O f0 7 f1' a] (J G o mac �� o a `� > H ro'O�= vOi aJ V Gov° rn �19 \ o u N N ...� o *1 Y3 in r0 — m. 0 M 0 O Y E w v) L V �' .+-+ O 3 In m N p' O CL A M f+ N c a � cn r- as Qi L E O a a)i E+T.C� in 7+at a o = a VI -0 �•ina Cs L m f- O t= QCJ V O j m0- CL � O 14 i r]. N' m m m C Ln `F' CL W En [�0 C QJ aJ 0 N i� CQ a) a) i 'O L 0. CL s !O IO 0 C •� o. al C y' ° M ----- -----".r _ C a m O o f V -00 N a) OC 0 'o U0 ?i 0 N U .r- +�+ 7 a O co Q Q Z N a) C it N LL ED r a N ^ 0 N � ti 1"' � `o N n N o c�€ o o m a 0 f4) , MLn Q V V r LO ivy a O }� U7 o L+ 0o Z 1 N e LO N Y E L- a o E N V LL c o u r- �b �v Gf T C o fu Cf U +� O yin a) 4J •U yam.. IL1-.3 N O Q CJ Ri N 7+ O CO u d L 0 L w 01 L T a � +C E� LC) CD w L 0 aJr a J J o al 'a wa " aJ" Nm 0�• c w a)-0ma)cn 0 M fu � 7 C aJ �J1' �' 'C7 QJ Z a) M al f6 C c @ ;[ aJ tO Q L, > L aJ 'D 4-1 t ['a LA L Q! aJ Q t°�a"'iwy(V LnM fA u 0 E�� Ul)� C aJ m ..� a) p = J u to p uJ G aJ ns � Cd�_ D B 41 O ut- N LO � > pOCD y V G li 4y4 ro U C C �G -01 'm DCa E E J � Yai L 6ti U W N C QO oL+� �L D m c 0 �. U fam 41 ,� Q tCl c V --a�y•� rn cn c E+ Q O N I� Vl C VI a3 _ N p uJ O +J 6 _ d-2 p tn L y —}�, a 0 m C 11 0D ru a Q N C D to C. X C H aJ D' t YO N ccAn u Q 2 E ai � Ln v d c E a) ro Ln ••C � G7 0 .0 I —�- V�41 0 Dc0 (A m aV %% O a �aJ �L6 u D vJ O 07� ui O Ot L�f) S a) C Ln fCL - � � Q. �. � N (a O CO � E aJ cfu +J � (u,rn > C C U rO N Q �. N N N C !0 .L fa C+-' H {' {•-�`F041 ra ¢ T +_ U!.e ;N 'a -0 ai C C.7 o y� TC lJ m '�D E 5, c On m L ^ a E aJ o� 2 c a) a`�J v � E a � � �c m E rn 0 m LL o LpJ N 4) �'-��S=r a,�a, � oaci _ 0 M " ca 8Q c'm � � U+ • • • V L U Ln ro (M•- � C 4_ a V) �. O j j L C O in N .G cn �; OL d cn � •�-�' i cU L a) .- V C � -O In CD Q .0 m m C31 C fa E _o o o�E`° mfuoo w-a -0 0) forma a- C7 � � • L a1 O C �" O " .0 u- J + L a) fa aJ C C a) C C O 4 w rn � N� O fa O N�� ; O C ]� y a1 � � L' O O O L � O Lnai foo.! ---L-0O 4;o a� c c-0Ew ��Ern {OJ O OC O fa •- 'L r1 O C M w (D 'vI c:n Oc� Q1 O .0 m r V U C G V C f1} a7 O G7 L V) C)'0 = C O aJ a] m C �' In `>+ fa E i fa O O_ L. cu 0 '- fll C O C C) .O W O A Cl7 � tn 4 �' O rn f�9 O 'j fa 1° O +' C ; w m-0 7 cD it N � w CX is W C) 0 St vO ' 'U) -N •- u N Cc O) d Crrdd aj a'��npoO L"LO:nn0 - Ln u0 (:) C L a U VI - V-) VLiNV1 fa i a7 -I fC L a) 4- O O .� .- o o X 1L faLn Q a) to o C v Quj C fa N Ln M a U 3 a U 4- Vi C 4- fn C N 0 rn 2 L u U + 0 0 0 ••- O 50 �. N� O sn N C cp t 0) 7 = -O 0 O ,c -O d C a) CL ,C (D a� a� LL. U- fa o Q V) L OJ fC< C Cn [d _0 O fa C p fa � a) C m fU C -� O O C u w CU U a) a) Cif i a) s- fa f�p �O+ C N C7 N L u C C T N C f0 ® _ M �O q3 9 C C a] 'O . iCi E 'u C] O �. Era�oE«sa+ 'aaVc�fvC V ,� 0 O V O QJ C U (V C y 0 O + 4 0 a Ln CS Ln C vo `—" 0) n 'i Aso o� ° O N m fn fa N E -D Ln E -a N fa L 41 Lnra C. +• CT lC c fo C = O Cf c t a1 c i qn M O C W H 'O N 1..�. _2 c iA N c O L. 46J G1a:�... N++a� !� y 41 AC t=a Vw c c v 0 .°c n 0 E o mo m cc,u ammIm- 1 c aifA c a� '+3 0 m ._ O O c ,� �'ij+_+,_ W._+'sn pOi00 �O��af.aO OE tnc (� '-'=o d� ai = O.0 0 0 c c 0 a c' © a t V �. to C iC O L O Vl ©N U V H © a O L > L v f0 ❑ O 41 O C n �' N - L 0O {J � U7 m C O C m O Cl O f0 3 B O O L Q= ra i C 0 (T1 L 0 L O 1� ❑ L} i-�+ � N N L U fu C 'a p L OC'1 ft3 'V C C C C L C L O Q7 O fO ❑ $� ❑ 4= C C) L > L o Cis w a ❑ U) � ❑ c .N n ~ �O }+ ~O Q7 N vi a r- � O C C� cu ���� W T o Q Q C D 0) cu o m p o p C O V) t j O 'j m Ln m a) a ra a Ln CD U L ❑ O O a)4, j O > > O > /p _ U O .a k .0 ro 4" U tU 4-U C a) N V- O d) to c C OL u I u O Q E C- L U m L- .� C O 'C m N fly I6 Y) ai Cl v C. in in N O E U N O- 0) L , Y C C) -[ C 0 O 0) O i O U) �'�`v o (U Q o 41 C- �E �E L y ro� o m ao L jq ,C m 0) a� a CL U C. V ,C 'U f4 'V f0 cuW >> a.., a--� f0 4., Cl O L a) >' O ++ 4- 'C 'C (4 m �. C � C C- CL C1 7 C Y +, :u C C= un C L L QJ � 'C � R: L C C C 7 Y Ln O •cA cn LnO Ln ❑ � ❑ 0 L N U U a+ U Ln O }s Ili C: !!7 Q C VI N m w Ln m N N Ln * O qJ in in QId 10 �— O++t �> E O > ,C E C CM $ m 3�,t s C ar CL C L. O O c IV-W O �+ O � CA0 O � � ^O O O O O L L a N 9 y, asp. CL.- O i+ C�c 0ea3 4.=_mm ©.=uo 14 N M Ln C a� Enro 41 w o N t] sue+ ro N am, C) G N N i] (V C Ln tE�Q.�ro o a o c o O Ln ro 0 p N n Q cu rEa Ln N Ln E E Ero E A 7� O 4 N O 4- O � 0 o 4y a N o +� o - Ln 7 (n to m O ro N o Q Ln o p. c C ,4 J c O cm a c ��� IV c c� c w m 0 0 .— a N EU-00.-Lu'°.0 E w .c c�;L.a�i0ac�aa(D c=-M 0) � 3 c ar c E .1w o fl � �. ti � � Vl •fi ©0.a.N30CL CL., 0 p- C L1. ,a N:U -O C C C 3 rofo -0.— O u (n .� m -o�.Ea'�ia in in 0 0-0 V) V ra U M O t N ro L C V a N f O` � C OV O CLO.� U O En (n C.7 IV W 6] O C N C p C) o rD Cc d rnicc�:LnNcLnELE c o m o Ln E �- +; fa .o o a C �.� c.(v n E E ro ru v u ro O ro p "O C v 'U O CL m Li 4T 0 OL -le v� p CL .M E avV'acn��tn :� 41 W o41 o. O v1 X CD � � ai Ln u ro t� e p O i a 2 41 C' ro M O C� C 4J aC� O W) O U CR ro a..' 0-0 C � `�° p� o a c w ou voi cC -0 ro ro � o �q CMG c�.if C` .m c� O E o D 0 O N 0 � 6 W cn 0 u CM.� E fV c Ln N C U� al � O EY=`� a0M CL to cm 0 t: c E O C ._ W 7 N CL 3 d °a. U�/1 M a o a� L a03 J--+ w O E, -a c '0 E al a c Fv L as m .L, av .L c -O -� O '> > `c t o G c p o _ c c° Mlz o Lu � ro � 0) O 4 O Q a w LT >, Cn +J a' ?' ' O. M LO n aiv `B E T E L a`) a) :3 U a Lo 7 O O -0 L t0 .0 M .o E � O m O Ln w G Ln Q m N � L ai N E - •C •� C •U O \ t,.i l6 . c '� fp o f6 U D N '' Q rj Q N v w E LD Qy N E 'rS o M 0 0 in O IT � cn ++ O Ln . -0 0. 4-1 d O o C1 co O o 0 T m O cu o@ O N� n in o� 0 9 U o a) O a) o m�� a� p W E L O m m 0 2 o p 0 0 7 0 o W O p cu O Y c = 0 0: C L!) O •� Ln fU O Q1 Ln L O 0 Ln = '> O L '> N ,--t CL 'O ,--t 'D r, E d - ++ 2 E Q -B Uf F\ : _ . i O cn C m (ap ,� L E E cn = Ln aJ aJ 0 aJ ui d 0., O O L Q O O a d C v m O arL woo ra {'m � > > a) a3 a a� c CL _0 -aol �ri ,a 42 ro moo� 'So��n o o L L 4.1 Q C c tU cn L LL.t Ol L c M ra M Ln a o 41 � a7 � r-a7 0 � Q 2 Q to to 4]' a)C U L U L :3 > m al m O 4) O LJ O U U O-0 OL 'a `7 A v O C 0 0 C C d aJ CLa1 t t0 Z" 5 m m a) al CL cn c r, ?. B (A �- O L N L m do 0 0 .4 E E m = a' +a a rry vi M Ln a s a O a N a N E V a f�fi y• V o a i] CA Q d a' O Ln O tai] Lan a/ O aJ �' LnO N LPL N .E C:1 iV E .� E Ln E .0 E rJ CL Ln CL O 3 m y ah Ln 't', a .°e � 'a f0 U 'L O G R Q. m . :� 41 H .0 V O G7 C 0 r-c *, .0 z _ ,� rn a.� w a-'O L. G1 GOl L] .M E L a1 O 'a ,C =aoc�� �U s��a`—n�g==°c r ++ l0 f0 �, 0. Vl w O d 3�3 Vl 07 ul O V O � = c roc a��N �yCOLL. °c'a�'� i� r 0 c tss O O ;= m L%) O ;, O O N_ 3 C G7 : O O W 7+ O N IQ 'vf to 1NA ul ate+ ': O �E M tl�l ul L/l fC Ln ,O ,ci��•U a��0��ia'� 03E�,�n�wc r�.a�E1. 0�i'x § 2 E �fuE 2 E 2,- C) \ � � CL %\ 77 §p2 Ecn E 2 ok�f - E )ƒf�C \/4CLCD i & 22 E \ E o E CL § E E § 2 E cn CL% \ra :7 CL�� > ° � 3 0- § % § & 7 3 &E k k ):3 /%/f 7 2/e= Vol %± � m § E ƒ $ G 2§ o: emu: £ ® _ % G W (D % / V) » v § o CL @ ? ƒ $ 0 0DGe k@@§ E e -r- y �' E /q E CL E o S 'E\ m / q Efu § a § <§ ƒ § & V) E cnƒ E§E£EgG \§ SU)6£ak / ƒ ffa E 2 E 0� q� gG£ Rom/ %§ 29U e 2 § � §k: E � E E k�F--C u £oE\Fkt E§ES341 �E 22 E k\ ek k� CL �CL u &§ §/� �k EE : mE k /� e tL »esoc £ E 2L E b: /2 k 0� ¥22 \��K�k we5�7= cn cn cn (P \_ > c �M -C: M© �m.0= 41 2 40 ��0-0 ©2 � ■C■ a■— 2e eC®L. 22Z:§ g ®Z,c§2§ ■' — 2 c 5 ' u ■ » ■ § � § r © L. � § § § e � § p ®2 , g § e 2§ a o aI— e —E §—& M�§r- e :@ tW0CL V 2=0-�0� E�s� oa0.42 ou- ag%-■tnCL 0CLCL 14 ri (4 E Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: 9&]u SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 13, 2011 and Members of Council FILE NO: Social Planning Advisory Committee MEETING: Workshop Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Initiative Project Request EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the April 27, 2010 meeting, Council approved a proposal from the Social Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) to fund a Neighbourhood Change Initiative in the South Haney Neighbourhood area. This proposal was developed in response to a request from the Neighbourhood for support to develop a grass roots solution -oriented process to address their growing safety issues in the South Haney area. The proposed change initiative was designed to utilize a community development approach in three phases: research, neighbourhood engagement, and capacity building. Both the SPAC and Council have received regular updates of the change initiative. In March of this year, the co-chairs reported at a Council Workshop that the vision the Neighbourhood adopted honoured the historical community connections and that the new name, "Port Haney Neighbourhood", reflected this. The chairs shared the outcomes of the project, the achievements, and the work in progress at that time. With the change initiative project funding drawing to an end, the Port Haney Neighbourhood has put forward a request for additional funding for this work to continue. The Social Planning Advisory Committee has reviewed and discussed the Port Haney Neighbourhoods' Change Initiative status report. At the June 7, 2011 meeting the committee passed a resolution to recommend to council that the Neighbourhoods' report be accepted for information and that the request for additional funding to extend the project be authorized. The Committee's endorsement of this request is based on the recognition of the importance of continuing to support the Port Haney Neighbourhood in strengthening their capacity as a neighbourhood. The Committee recognizes that a continued investment in capacity building at this time funding will be critical in supporting the sustainable development of the Neighbourhoods' capacity to strengthen their connections, their leadership capacity, their community partnerships, and their ability to work together to achieve their vision for their neighbourhood. The Committee also recognizes the importance of this project in contributing to the development of a community -based model for supporting neighbourhood development in our community. The attached report from the Port Haney Neighbourhood outlines the budget for the requested funding. RECOMMENDATION: That the report from the Port Haney Neighbourhood Chairs be accepted for information; and that the request for additional funding in the amount of $15,000 to extend the Port Haney Neighbourhood Change project be authorized. 4A Page 1 of 3 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In response to a neighbourhood request to support a grass roots solution -oriented process to address their growing safety issues in the South Haney area, the Social Planning Advisory Committee presented a proposal to Council in the spring of 2010. At the April 27, 2010 meeting Council approved the request to redirect surplus funding from the Affordable Housing Strategy to support the proposed Neighbourhood Change Initiative in the South Haney area. SPAC formed a subcommittee to oversee the process to hire a Coordinator to support the Neighbourhood Development process. Neighbourhood stakeholders were engaged in developing the selection criteria, a consultant was hired and the project began in September of 2010. The proposed change initiative was designed to utilize a community development approach in three phases: research, neighbourhood engagement, and capacity building. The first two phases began concurrently due to the requests from the neighbourhood to respond to heightened concerns regarding safety issues. Research was conducted and shared with the neighbourhood by various municipal departments during the initial engagement meetings. Neighbourhood assets and safety issues were identified through neighbourhood walks and solutions were explored jointly by neighbourhood participants working closely with the Neighbourhood Development Coordinator to link with a variety of municipal departments. A visioning process allowed the Neighbourhood participants to identify and celebrate the strengths of their neighbourhood including both the physical and human capacities. The Port Haney Neighbourhood vision was proudly shared with Council by the two new Neighbourhood Committee co-chairs at a Council Workshop in March. They explained to Council that the Neighbourhood identified strong ties to the historical connections within the Neighbourhood and as a result have adopted the name "Port Haney" Neighbourhood. The co-chairs reported to Council that the Neighbourhoods' view of the future had been transformed by recognizing and celebrating their strengths. They gave an update on the progress on addressing the identified safety issues and highlighted the development of an action plan. The co-chairs thanked Council and the Social Planning Advisory Committee for their support. Attached is the June update report that the Port Haney Neighbourhood co-chairs will present to Council at the June 13, 2011 Council Workshop. The report highlights the accomplishments and progress on the Action Plan including: addressing safety concerns; the work of the Parking, Speeding and Traffic (PST) Sub -Committee; exploring potential neighbourhood park . space with the District of Maple Ridge; the development of a Communication Plan; exploring neighbourhood interest and future partners to develop a community garden; developing an annual Port Haney Days celebration event; and preparing to participate in the update of the community Affordable Housing Strategy. The Social Planning Advisory Committee has reviewed and discussed the Port Haney Neighbourhoods' Change Initiative status report. The committee passed a resolution to recommend to council that the report be accepted for information and that the request for additional funding to extend the change initiative be authorized. The Committee's endorsement of this request is based on the recognition of the importance of continuing to support the Port Haney Neighbourhood in strengthening their capacity as a neighbourhood. The Committee consensus is that a continued investment in capacity building at this time Page 2 of 3 would also contribute to supporting the sustainability of the Neighbourhoods' capacity to strengthen their connections, their leadership capacity, their community partnerships, and their ability to work together to achieve their vision for their neighbourhood. The Committee also recognizes the importance of this project in contributing to the development of a community -based model for supporting neighbourhood development in our community. The attached report from the Port Haney Neighbourhood outlines the budget for the requested funding. b) Interdepartmental Implications: This project has been led by the Social Planning Advisory Committee and supported by the Community Services Department. A number of municipal departments that are involved in providing services for neighbourhoods have been engaged in the process and a stronger model for an integrated departmental approach to working with Neighbourhoods is evolving as develops result of this pilot initiative. Departments actively contributing to the process include: Community Services (Social Planning and Neighbourhood Development), Parks and Facilities, Engineering, Operations, Planning, Licensing, Permits and Bylaws, and RCMP. c) Business Plan/Financial Implications: If council approves this recommendation, an amendment to the financial plan will be required. CONCLUSIONS: The Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Initiative has been very successful in supporting the neighbourhood in developing a neighbourhood vision and action plan that is currently in the planning and implementation phase. The Social Planning Advisory Committee is recommending that council accept the Port Haney Neighbourhood status report and that the request for additional funding in the amount of $15,000 to extend the project be authorized. SPAC recognizes that the extension of the funding will be critical in supporting the sustainable development of the neighbourhoods' capacity to strengthen: their connections, their leadership capacity, their community partnerships, and their ability to work together to achieve their vision for their neighbourhood through the implementation of their action plan. The Committee also recognizes the importance of this project in contributing to the development of a community -based model for supporting neighbourhood development in our community. Prepared by: Sub Wheeler Community Services Director Reviewed & Concurred by: Paul Gill General Manager, Corporate & Finance AOroved by: Linda Morgan Vice Chair, Social Planning Advisory Committee sw Page 3 of 3 Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Initiative — Looking Forward to Year Two Project Overview The Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Initiative was launched in spring 2010 in response to publicly voiced concerns about a range of growing problems in the Port Haney area. The Initiative built upon earlier community activities and provided an opportunity for community members to engage in an ongoing dialogue about neighbourhood issues and opportunities and to begin actively improving the area. Funding for the first year, $25,000, was provided by the District's Social Planning Advisory Committee and allowed for the hiring of a consultant to support the formation of a neighbourhood steering committee. This group met for the first time in September 2010 and have been meeting regularly since then. The purpose of the Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Initiative is to bring together community members in an inclusive and representative group to achieve the following goals: 1. Foster the development of neighbourhood leadership; 2. Proactively engage residents and stakeholders; 3. Create a vision for the neighbourhood; 4. Develop an action plan for moving towards the vision; 5. Develop and guide or implement neighbourhood improvement projects; 6. Share pertinent information with the whole neighbourhood; and, 7. Raise awareness throughout Maple Ridge about issues that affect the neighbourhood. In the first 10 months the Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Initiative has achieved: 1. A representative participant base that includes 40-50 meeting participants from the neighbourhood since start up with a core group of approximately 10 regular members; 2. An email distribution list containing all meeting participants that is used for regular updates on the group's activities and information related to the neighbourhood; 3. The election of two Port Haney residents as chair and spokespersons who are actively involved in leading and supporting the Initiative; 4. Regular monthly meetings of the committee with several additional sub- committee meetings; 5. The development of a Terms of Reference for the Committee and a Vision for the neighbourhood; 6. The identification of safety concerns in the neighbourhood and successful advocacy for addressing some of these concerns (additional and repaired street lighting, laneway and neighbourhood clean up, demolition of unsafe buildings). 7. The creation of a Parking, Speeding and Traffic sub -committee to address neighbourhood concerns — such as Westcoast Express station related parking problems, ignoring and running stop signs, speeding through the neighbourhood, and dangerous pedestrian jaywalking across Haney Bypass. The PST sub -committee convened a meeting with Translink and District Engineering and Bylaws staff to bring attention to the parking issue and work collaboratively towards pro -active solutions. The PST Committee also sent a letter to the RCMP regarding speeding and stop sign concerns and subsequently met with the Detachment Superintendent. 8. The development of communications strategies and tools to promote the group and raise awareness of the issues that affect the neighbourhood; 9. Actively linking with community groups, resources and initiatives — ie the Downtown Business Improvement Association, Alouette Homestart Society outreach workers and the Salvation Army to foster collaboration in the neighbourhood; 10. A neighbourhood Christmas social that involved approximately 15 community members carolling from house to house and a hot chocolate warm up at the One -Way club; and, 11. A neighbourhood clean up day on April 301h that focussed removing garbage, woody debris and tall grass from a municipally owned property at 223 Street and St Anne. In the next few months the committee will continue to build the participant base, and advocate to have safety, parking, speeding and traffic concerns addressed. In addition, the committee is also beginning planning for a Port Haney Day celebration in September. The purpose of the event will be to draw together Port Haney community members to celebrate the assets of their community and get to know each other better. Request to Extend Funding The first year of the Port Haney Neighbourhood Initiative has been very active and the group has achieved a great deal. Members are clear that they would like to continue working together to achieve their vision for the neighbourhood. With continued funding from the District the following activities could be undertaken by the group during the second year of operation: • Continued work on parking, speeding and traffic issues • Continued work on safety concerns • Building the participant base • Exploring governance model options for the group and formalizing membership • Participating in the upcoming development of the District's Affordable Housing Strategy • Conducting the mapping and profiling of assets in the neighbourhood Debriefing and evaluating the first Port Haney Day celebration and planning the second year's events Port Haney Neighbourhood Development Funding Request — Budget Outline: Amount Item $8,000 Consultant fees; ongoing committee and project support including: supporting Neighbourhood engagement and capacity building; Additional PST Committee support; Additional Port Haney Day su ort; final report and documentation of the process $1,000 Mee tin ex enses $6,000 Neighbourhood Asset mapping $15,000 Total MAPLE RIDGE Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DATE: June 13, 2011 MEETING: Council Workshop/Council At the May 2, 2011 Council Workshop, Council was briefed on the proposed preparation of a Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy. The need for a policy stems from a proliferation of private property complaints recently received by the District. The current practice provides for any resident and/or business owner or operator to file a complaint regarding a potential violation of a municipal bylaw. At this time there is no limit to the number of complaints that one person can file at any one time. In addition there is no geographical limit on where a complaint can be made. This had led to instances where single complainants have generated significant complaints throughout the municipality. In addition complaint files have been opened in neighbourhoods by persons living outside those neighbourhoods. While there is common agreement that it is important to uphold community standards there is no current policy to address the potential for a "domino effect" where one complaint has led to multiple complaints. While the vast majority of these complaints are actual violations of current bylaw regulations, the net result has been a disruption to residents and neighbourhoods that would otherwise likely not have been disturbed. On May 2, 2011 staff briefed Council that the development of a policy would be beneficial. Council requested that in undertaking this review the practices of neighbouring municipalities be researched. This would include the municipalities to the east, south and west of Maple Ridge. The practices and or policies of eight (8) neighbouring municipalities were researched and reviewed. Appendix 1 to this report summarizes the findings of the review. Upon analyzing the findings it is recommended that a Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy be prepared for Council's consideration. This proposed Policy contemplates four prominent elements: • Setting a geographical limit on where complaints can be made; • Limiting the number of complaints that a single complainant can make within a defined period of time; • Non -acceptance of anonymous calls (except for life/safety concerns); • Accepted complaints remaining confidential. RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff to prepare a Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy based on the criteria set out in this reported dated June 13, 2011. 4.2 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Maintaining community standards is important to the residents of Maple Ridge. Residents expect the municipality to assist in maintaining those standards. This assistance is largely derived through responding to complaints about perceived bylaw infractions. Like most municipalities Maple Ridge relies on neighbourhoods to be its "eyes" and "ears" when it comes to bylaw enforcement. In other words bylaws are largely enforced only on a complaint basis. Over the past few months however there has been a proliferation of bylaw complaints, well beyond the norm. The District has responded to those complaints. At this time there is no limit to the number of complaints that one person can file at any one time. In addition there is no geographical limit on where a complaint can be made. In other words a complaint can be made for example from someone living in Albion about a property in Silver Valley. There has been an instance where a single complainant has generated a significant amount of complaints throughout the municipality. In addition complaint files have been opened in neighbourhoods by persons living outside those neighbourhoods. A "domino effect" has occurred where one complaint has led to multiple complaints. While the vast majority of these complaints are actual violations of current bylaw regulations the net result has been a disruption to residents and neighbourhoods that would otherwise likely not have been disturbed. In accordance with the Freedom of Information requirements complainants are kept anonymous unless they are required for Court purposes. Because complainants cannot be disclosed there is a perception among some residents that the District has moved to proactive enforcement. This is not the case and the District remains committed to enforcement on a complaint basis only (the exception being in the Downtown). On May 2, 2011 staff informed Council that the current practices needed to be reviewed and that a formal policy would be beneficial. Council requested that in undertaking this review the practices of neighbouring municipalities be researched. This would include the municipalities to the east, south and west of Maple Ridge. The practices and or policies of eight (8) neighbouring municipalities were researched and reviewed. Appendix 1 to this report summarizes the findings of the review. The bylaws enforcement practices and or policies of eight (8) surrounding municipalities have been researched and reviewed including: • Pitt Meadows • Port Coquitlam • Coquitlam • New Westminster • Mission • Township of Langley • Abbotsford • Chilliwack The following approaches to complaints have been identified: • Four (4) have no geographical boundaries set for taking a complaint. • Two (2) will take complaints from non-residents. • Four (4) require that the complainant must be directly affected. However the definition of directly affected is subjective often leaving it to the discretion of the bylaw officer. • None (0) accept anonymous complaints. However five (5) will act on anonymous complaints if it is believed there is a safety issue. • Seven (7) have no limit on the number of complaints that can be lodged by one person at one time. • One (1) limits the maximum number of complaints per complainant to be lodged at one time at three (3). • Five (5) have no written policy in place. Two (2) have a current written policy. While only two (2) of the eight (8) municipalities have current written policies such policies appear to be appropriate. A written policy gives clear direction to staff, reduces ambiguity, provides for consistency in enforcement and provides clarity to the public. The following analysis provides recommendations for the basic building blocks of a written Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy. These are the areas of most prominent concern to the public. b) Analysis: Geographical Limit Of the eight (8) municipalities researched four (4) have no geographical limit on where a complaint can be generated. The other four (4) state that they pursue complaints if the complainant is directly affected. However none have a defined geographical limit and it is largely left to the discretion of the Bylaw Department of that particular municipality. This discretion appears to range from 4 to 5 houses away to 3 to 4 blocks away. In reviewing a geographical boundary for complaints, use of a radius appears to make more sense than either a block or the number of houses away. The size and definition of a block is different for different subdivisions. In addition, describing 4 to 5 houses away does not necessarily include properties to the rear. Attached to this report are examples of what 50m, 100m and 500m radii would look like for different residential areas in Hammond, Albion and Silver Valley. A radius of 100m appears to capture most properties that could be considered directly affected. It is recommended that the geographical limit be considered at a radius of 100m. Number of Complaints per Complainant Of the eight (8) municipalities reviewed seven (7) have no limit on the number of complaints a complainant can make over a defined period of time. One municipality limits a maximum of three (3) complaints per complainant to be lodged at one time. Setting a limit of three (3) complaints per person per year appears to have merit. The idea of a limit is to deter what could be viewed as a "rogue" complainer. It would also address some current concerns about the filing of vindictive or retaliatory complaints. It is recommended that a limit of three (3) complaints per complainant be allowed per year. Anonymous Complaints None of the eight (8) municipalities accept anonymous complaints with the exception of life/safety issues. Anonymous complaints are not taken in Maple Ridge with the exception of there being a belief that the infraction could involve a life/safety issue. Examples include: • Unsafe electrical work • Open excavations • Homeless campfires • Tree cutting next to roadway (no flag people) • Needles found on municipal property • Debris dumped on roadway obstructing traffic It is recommended that this practice continue. Confidentiality of Complaints The complainant must identify themselves by providing their name, address and telephone number. In accordance with the Freedom of Information requirements, complainants are kept anonymous unless they are required for Count purposes. Because complainants cannot be disclosed there is a perception among some residents that the District has moved to proactive enforcement. This is not the case and the District remains committed to enforcement on a complaint basis only (the exception being the Downtown). This practice will remain in place. ALTERNATIVES: Council may wish to make no changes to the current practices. Other variations on the recommended approach are identified in Appendix 1. Council may wish to consider some of those. All new policies are reviewed after a year of being implemented. NEXT STEPS: Should Council direct staff to prepare a Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy a draft policy will be prepared for Council's consideration at the next appropriate Workshop. CONCLUSIONS: As per Council's request the practices and policies of eight (8) neighbouring municipalities were researched and reviewed. This includes the municipalities immediately to the east, south and west of Maple Ridge. Based on the findings of the research the preparation of a written policy is recommended. This report provides recommendations for the basic building blocks of a written Bylaw Complaint Criteria Policy. A written policy gives clear direction to staff, reduces ambiguity, provides for consistency in enforcement and provides clarity to the public. r Co- Pr pared by: E.S. (Liz) Holitzki Director, Licences Permits and Bylaws by. Frank Quinn _ Genera I-Managder, Pu is Works and Development Services Approval and Qbncurrence' J.L. (Jim) Rule f Chief Administrative Officer Coquitlam Complaint submission: Nothing required in writing unless it is a dog attack. Email Letter Phone Fax No geographical restriction and will take complaints from residents of other municipalities. No limit to # of complaints that can be lodged by one person at one time. Do not accept anonymous complaints but would use judgment if safety related. No policy in writing. This is historical practice. Port Coquitlam Complaint submission: Letter Email Phone call Walk-in Fax Must be directly affected - exception if there is a public safety issue. No limit to # of complaints that can be lodged by one person at one time. Do not accept anonymous complaints but will act if safety related. Very old policy in writing but not referenced. Instead, follow historical practice. I_1„:4►111KI Abbotsford Complaint submission Letter Email Phone call Walk-in Fax No geographical restriction and will take complaints from residents of other municipalities. No limit to # of complaints that can be lodged by one person at one time. Written policy not to accept anonymous complaints; No policy in writing. This is historical practice. Pitt Meadows Complaint submission: Letter Email Phone call Walk-in Fax Must be directly affected - no set boundary; however 4-5 houses away is the general rule. maximum oT J complaints per complainant to be lodged at one time. Do not accept anonymous complaints but will act if safety related. No policy in writing. is historical practice. Mission Complaint submission: Form which can be faxed, scanned, mailed or dropped off Letter Email Fax Must be directly affectec - no set boundary - just what they believe is reasonable. No limit to # of complaints that can be lodged by one person at one time. Do not accept . anonymous complaints but will act if safety related. No policy in writing. This is historical practice. New Westminster Complaint submission: Form which can be faxed, scanned, mailed or dropped off Letter Email Fax No geographical restriction and will take complaints from residents of other municipalities. No limit to # of complaints that can be lodged by one person at one time. Do not accept anonymous complaints. No policy in writing. This is historical practice. Complaint submission: Letter Email Phone call Walk-in Fax Illegal suite - letter or form Chilliwack residents only. No limit to # of complaints that can be lodged by one person at one time. Do not accept anonymous complaints even if they are safety related. Written policy exists. iownsmp or Langiey Complaint Submission: Parking Complaints by phone. Property complaints by letter. No email. Must have signature. Currently any resident who is directly affected. May change to 3 blocks in the future. No limit to the number of complaints that can be lodged by one person at one time. Do not accept anonymous complaints. If safety related it is at Bylaw Officers discretion. Written Policy MAPLE RIDGE British Cotumhla MAPLE RIDGE Brillsh Cotumbia I AV r I 1 Ski �Ck C r SILVE V F R AAVE 13 AVE f� O t The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or present status of the information shown on this map. 1 d f Pitt _ i Silver Valley Mea °'-"-s i Sample 50, 100 and 500 metre Buffer of a Property ` o # CORPORATION OF ,; THE DISTRICT OF o ` MAPLE RIDGE N District of I Langley LICENSES, PERMITS & BYLAWS DEPT. DATE: Jun 9, 2011 BY: DT SCALE 1:10,000 �FRASER R �-�� Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: June 13, 2011 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop/Council SUBJECT: Recreational Vehicle Parking/Storage in Residential Zones EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The issues related to the parking and storage of Recreational Vehicles (RVs) in residential neighbourhoods are not unique to Maple Ridge. Across Canada and the US municipalities grapple with finding the appropriate community standards when it comes to the parking and storage of RVs in residential neighbourhoods. For example as recently as three months ago the Township of Langley went through almost the exact same situation that Maple Ridge is currently experiencing. The Langley Times, in March 2011, reported that ,after one resident complained to the Township about an RV it led to 40 other homeowners being targeted in the Forest Hills neighborhood". This led to many RV owners voicing their concerns to Langley Council. How Langley dealt with the issue is recorded later in this report. Research shows that finding the appropriate balance has challenged many municipalities and that a wide range of approaches are in use across Canada and North America. On May 2, 2011 Maple Ridge Council received a staff report regarding RV parking and storage in residential zones. The report detailed the conditions required under the current Zoning Bylaw for keeping recreational vehicles on residential property. The report was advanced in response to RV owners concerns with the enforcement of the current Zoning Bylaw requirements. Concerns were also raised about the complaint process itself. A separate report has been prepared to address issues related to the complaint process. The May 2, 2011 staff report recommended that the Zoning Bylaw be amended. In considering the May 2, 2011 report Council requested the following: • That the Zoning Bylaw as it relates to the parking and storage of recreation vehicles, boat trailers, trailers or boats be reviewed. • That staff take the time to extend its review to a broad range of bylaws from other municipalities including those with rural areas such as the municipalities in the Fraser Valley. • That a public process be held to solicit feedback. As requested a review of similar bylaws in a broad range of communities, including those in the Fraser Valley, has now been completed. Based on the research and analysis of these bylaws a number of options with respect to the keeping of recreational vehicles in residential zones are set out in this report. 43 The conditions set out in the current bylaw were established in 1985. Changes have occurred since then in terms of the size of RVs available and the types and sizes of residential zones permitted. A review of the bylaw at this time is appropriate. Since any changes to these sections of the bylaw could potentially impact residents across the municipality, including RV owners and non RV owners, it is recommended that a Public Open House be held on June 29, 2011 to solicit public feedback on the potential changes. The feedback from the Public Open House will be reported back to Council. Any change to the Zoning Bylaw requires a Public Hearing. The Public Hearing will provide another opportunity for public feedback prior to the bylaw amendments being voted on by Council. RECOM M EN DATION(S): That a Public Open House be held on June 29, 2011 to solicit feedback on the range of mechanisms presented in this report dated June 13, 2011 prior to amending Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as it relates to the parking and storage of recreation vehicles, boat trailers, trailers or boats. That the feedback from the Open House be reported back to Council at the next available Council Workshop following the Public Open House. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: A simple internet search reveals that municipalities across North America have grappled with and continue to grapple with issues related to the parking and storage of RVs in residential neighbourhoods. Often the issue comes to a head when a significant amount of complaints are either being enforced or the opposite, not being enforced. For example in March of this year the Township of Langley underwent a review of its bylaw in response to concerns when over 40 bylaw complaints were received and pursued by Langley's Bylaw Department within a short period of time. The same has occurred in Maple Ridge were concerns have been raised in response to the enforcement of Maple Ridge's current Zoning Bylaw. It is understood that Pitt Meadows is also reviewing its bylaw in response to concerns raised. Throughout North America establishing the appropriate community standards for individual municipalities with regard to RV storage and parking is a major challenge. Different standards have emerged based on location, demographic, the urban and/or rural nature of a community, the availability of secure affordable RV storage sites and the overall tolerance of the citizenry as a whole. Maple Ridge is therefore not unique. The regulations for the storage of RVs are set out in Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985. Concerns have been raised about the enforcement of these regulations. At the same time correspondence has been received demanding that no changes be made and that the bylaw continue to be rigorously enforced. On May 2, 2011 Maple Ridge Council received a staff report regarding RV parking and storage in residential zones. The report detailed the conditions required under the current Zoning Bylaw for keeping recreational vehicles on residential property. The report was advanced in response to RV owners concerns with the enforcement of the current Zoning Bylaw requirements. As directed by Council staff have reviewed bylaws from additional municipalities in the Fraser Valley and the revised list of this information is attached as Appendix 1. In reviewing bylaws in other communities the District's bylaw is quite similar or in a number of situations less restrictive than other municipalities in the Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland. b) Discussion: The conditions set out in the current zoning bylaw were established in 1985. Changes since then include the size of RVs available and the types of residential zones permitted. The use of RVs for vacationing purposes has steadily increased over the years since 1985. There are many different kinds of RVs and motorhomes. Using ICBC data, their figures suggest that approximately 8% of households in Maple Ridge own one form of RV. Manufactured by such companies as Fleetwood, Newell, Bluebird, Winnebago, Monaco, Four Winds, Airstream and Teton, RVs usually come with a variety of options and floor plans. They range considerably in size. At the large end are forty five foot motorhomes with the square footage and amenities of small apartments. The largest rigs are the size of a school bus. The smallest rig, a fold -out sleeping trailer is the size of a small to mid size car. RVs can be divided into two general categories: those with an integrated power train (engine and transmission) and those without an engine. The ones with integrated powertrains are called motorhomes. RVs that must be towed are called trailers. Within the category of trailers and motorhomes, RVs come in many different classes: Motorhome categories include Class A, Class B, van conversions, pickup -based campers, and custom vehicles. Among trailers are travel models, park models, pop -ups, and fifth -wheels. Appendix 2 to this report shows examples of motorhomes and trailers. In 1985 the regulations established a one size fits all enforcement requirement which means that no matter what the size of a driveway no RV greater that 24ft is permitted. The bylaw does not recognize that RV sizes have increased since 1985 nor that driveway sizes vary depending on the residential zone. Appendix 3 to this report shows the minimum setbacks for a residential building for each residential zone in Maple Ridge. Appendix 4 to this report lists the RV rental space lots that have business licenses in Maple Ridge. Appendix 4 also lists the available spaces and the cost of a rental space. Nearly all of these are fully occupied with only a handful of spaces available in total. The monthly costs range from $84.00 to $156.80 in Maple Ridge. c) Analysis: Appendix 1 to this report itemizes the results of the research completed on other municipalities. It shows a range of permissions in terms of what municipalities will allow with regard to the parking and storage of RVs on residential property. The length of RVs permitted in these other municipalities ranges from 6.Om (19.69ft), to 12.19m (40ft), to no restriction on the length of an RV. The range of locations where RVs can be stored or parked on residential property in these other municipalities include: • Must be parked in the rear yard only. • Must be completely enclosed within a building or underground if the length exceeds 7.6m (24.93ft). • In all residential zones, RVs, campers, trailers or boats shall be parked or stored a minimum of 1.6m from an exterior/front lot line. • Must be parked or stored in a rear yard or that portion of a side yard located behind the front yard setback except between May 15 and September 15 where a recreational vehicle may also be parked in the front yard provided it is not less than 1.6m from the front lot line. • Must be parked in rear yard only. Must belong to the occupants of the premises. • Parking space shall be located no closer to a lane than 22ft, and no parking within 5ft of any rear or side site line bounded by a street. • One recreational vehicle per dwelling unit not exceeding 4000kg (8,818 pounds). • Off street parking may not extend beyond the property line. • Off street parking shall not protrude onto public property or a dedicated public right of way. • One camper or recreation vehicle parked or stored on one residential parcel. By combining the allowable length and the permitted location the most liberal and most restrictive combinations can be derived. The most liberal combination is to have no length restriction and no location or set back restriction. This is currently allowed in Harrison Hot Springs. The most restrictive is a maximum length of 6m (19.69ft) and only allowed to park in the rear yard. This is currently Burnaby's regulation. The Township of Langley's response to the recent issues raised was to require that RVs be parked or stored in a rear yard or that portion of a side yard located behind the front yard setback except between May 15 and September 15 where a recreational vehicle may also be parked in the front yard provided it is not less than 1.6m (5ft) from the front lot line. It is understood that Langley's bylaw amendments were given final reading on May 30, 2011. It is understood that Pitt Meadows is close to completing a review of its RV requirements and will be proposing restricting the size of RVs to 7.5m as well as weight. Through the research some interesting cases have been revealed by other municipalities. One case cited was a yacht parked diagonally across the front yard barely inside the property lines. Others report challenges with RVs and boats being parked in the middle of front lawns in haphazard manners. They suggest that language be incorporated into the bylaw to mitigate against these circumstances from arising. They suggest that the language be clear that the storage of RVs be on the driveway or extended driveway portion of the front property. Potential Mechanisms For Maple Ridge The concerns about the storage and parking of RVs on residential properties are largely focused on safety and aesthetics. The safety concerns are primarily due to blocked sight lines as a result of an RV being parked in a driveway. This can potentially impact neighbouring drivers having to "inch" out from their driveways, pedestrians being obscured and children being screened from oncoming traffic. An internet search reveals that for non RV owners a major detraction from purchasing a house in a neighbourhood is the sight of an RV parked in a driveway. As a result most municipalities require some form of setbacks to reduce the potential for blocked sight lines and to lessen the prominence and visual impact of larger RVs. In keeping with this logic the following range of mechanisms are suggested for Council's consideration for presentation to the public for comment and feedback: • Permit any size of recreational vehicle on a residential property provided the entire vehicle is stored entirely on the private property. + Permit any size of recreation vehicle on a residential property provided the vehicle is set back a minimum of 1.6m (5ft) from all property lines. • Permit any recreation vehicle measuring 7.6m (24.93ft) to be parked in the front yard of residential property and any vehicle measuring greater than 7.6m to be parked behind the front yard setback for the property provided the entire vehicle is entirely stored on the private property. • Permit any recreation vehicle measuring 7.6m (24.93ft) to be parked in the front yard of residential property and any vehicle measuring greater than 7.6m to be parked behind the front yard setback for the property provided the entire vehicle is entirely stored on the private property and is sited a minimum of 1.6m (5ft) from all property lines. An additional concept for public comment is that the vehicles should be owned by the owner/occupier of the property. One of issues encounter during the research is the use of driveways for rental space for RVs. In addition the language will need to be clear that for those RVs parked at the front of the property that the storage of RVs be permitted only on the driveway, extended driveway (or pad) portion of the front property. Public Process Council has directed that public feedback be solicited prior to any amendments to the zoning bylaw being brought forward for consideration. It is recommended that a Public Open House be held on June 29„ 2011. Feedback from the Open House will be reported back to Council at the earliest available Workshop following the Open House. In addition any recommended change to the zoning bylaw will require a Public Hearing which provides an additional forum for further public feedback on any proposed amendments. CONCLUSIONS: A review and analysis of other municipal bylaws pertaining to parking storage of recreation vehicles, boat trailers, trailers or boats has been completed. Based on this research a number of options have been identified to potentially present at a Public Open House for public feedback Once staff has had an opportunity to hold a public information meeting to discuss these potential changes to the bylaw an update report will be submitted to Council. ColPrepared by: E.S. (Liz) Holitzki Director, Licences Permits and Bylaws Co -Prepare y: Frank Quinn General Mana"lic Works and Development Services Approval a�Sd Concurrbnce: J.L. (Jim) Rule f Chief Administrative Officer APPENDIX 1 CITY PERMITTED RV LENGTH CONDITIONS In all residential zones, RV's campers, Abbotsford n/a trailers or boats shall be parked or stored a minimum of 1.6 metres from an exterior/front lot line. Must be Parked or Stored in rear yard only. Burnaby 6.Om (19.69 ft) One RV or trailer owned by the resident of the dwelling. Must be completely enclosed within a Coquitlam 7.6m (24.93 ft) building or underground if length exceeds 7.6 metres. Chilliwack n/a Off street parking may not extend beyond the property line Harrison Hot Springs n/a One camper or recreation vehicle parked or stored on one residential parcel. Off street parking shall not protrude onto Kent (Agassiz) public property or a dedicated public right of way. Must be parked or stored in a rear yard or that portion of a side yard located behind the front yard setback except between May Langley (Township) n/a 15 and September 15 where a recreational vehicle may also be parked in the front yard provided it is not less than 1.6 m from the front lot line. Must be completely enclosed within a Maple Ridge 7.5m (24.6 ft) building or underground if length exceeds 7.5 metres. Mission 7.5m (24.6 ft) Shall be completely enclosed within a Building if length exceeds 7.5 metres. Must be parked in rear yard only. Must belong to the occupants of the premises. New Westminster Parking space shall be located no closer to n/a a lane than 22 feet, no parking within 5 feet of any rear or side site line bounded by a street. Must be parked in rear yard only or North Vancouver (City) 12.192m (40 ft) completely enclosed within a building or underground it may be stored. Pitt Meadows n/a One recreational vehicle per dwelling unit not exceeding 4000kg (8,818 pounds). Port Coquitlam 8m (26.2 ft) One recreational trailer, utility trailer or recreational vehicle only. APPENDIX 2 Motor Homes - Class A Typical length = 11-14m (36-45ft) Motor Homes - Class C Typical length = 6-10m (20-32ft) P777_�_ w_- Travel Trailers Typical length = 4-11m (14-36ft) Folding Pop-up Typical length = 2-4m (8-14ft) .ja Motor Homes - Class B Typical length = 5-7m (16-23ft) Fifth Wheels Typical length = 6-12m (20-40ft) Toy Haulers Typical length = 6-11m (21-35ft) Miscellaneous Typical length = 4-6m (14-19ft) APPENDIX 3 ZONE DESCRIPTION MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE PRINCIPAL USE MINIMUM SETBACK FRONT REAR R-1 Residential District 371 m2 5.5m 8m R-3 Special Amenity Residential District 213 m2 3.Om 11m CD-1-93 Amenity Residential District 371 m2 3m 14.5m RS-1 One Family Urban Residential 668 m2 7.5m 7.5m RS-1a One Family Amenity Residential 668 m2 7.5m 7.5m RS-1b One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential 557 m2 6m 6m RS-1c One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential 1200 m2 9m 9m RS-1d One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential 2000 m2 9m 9m RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential 0.40 ha 7.5m 7.5m RS-3 One Family Rural Residential 0.80 ha 2.0 ha 7.5m 7.5m RS Special Urban Residential 837 m2 7.5m 10m RT-1 Two Family Urban Residential 891 m2 7.5m 7.5m RM-1 Townhouse Residential 557 m2 7.5m 7.5m RM-2 Medium Density Apartment 1300 m2 7.5m 7.5m RM-3 High Density Apartment 1300 m2 7.5m 7.5m RM-4 Multiple Family Residential 1115 m2 7.5m 7.5m RM-5 Low Density Apartment Residential 1115 m2 7.5m 6m RM-6 High Density Apartment Residential 2000 m2 4.5m 7.5m RE Elderly Citizens Residential 2.0 ha 7.5m 9m RMH Mobile Home Residential 4.0 ha 4m 4m RG Group Housing 0.80 ha 7.5m 9m RG-2 Suburban Residential Strata 4.0 ha 15m 15m RG-3 Rural Residential Strata 10.0 ha 15m 15m APPENDIX 4 RV RENTAL SPACE LOTS LOCATION MONTHLY RATE TOTAL SPOTS SPACES AVAILABLE Maple Ridge RV Park $84.00 50 None Fern Crescent Wasterval Storage $132.00 to $157.00 Unavailable None 118th Avenue Mayfair Self Storage $112.00 to $134.00 30 2 Maple Meadows Industrial Park Advance Storage $128.00 to $156.00 98 A Few Maple Meadows Industrial Park Centennial Motel & Trailer Park $100.00 3 None Lougheed Highway 4 � � Deep Roots Greater Heights Nte] FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: 2011-06-13 and Members of Council FILE NO: CDPR-Admin-0640-30 Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop Equestrian Trail 11700 Block of 260 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Haney Horsemen have applied for a highway use permit to allow for the construction of an equestrian trail on the unconstructed road right of way of 260 Street. As this proposed trail was not identified on the equestrian trail network map as an existing or proposed route, approval of adding this trail to the equestrian trail network is requested. The Parks and Leisure Services Commission endorsed the addition of this trail at their meeting of 2011-03-10. RECOMMENDATION: That an addition to the equestrian trail network for an equestrian trail in the 260 Street right of way from 116 Avenue for a distance of 400 metres be endorsed. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The addition of trails to the equestrian trail network typically occurs through the development servicing requirement for the rezoning of land and subdivision processes. As land use change is approved by Council the addition of new equestrian trails is typically included in that approval process. As there is no development application associated with this trail, Maple Ridge Council is requested to approve the addition of this trail to the equestrian trail network. There are anecdotal comments from residents in the area that an informal pedestrian trail, approximately 400 metres in length, has existed on this unconstructed road right of way for many years. Recently equestrians in the area were looking for a safer alternative route to access designated equestrian trails. At the request of local equestrians the Haney Horsemen have reviewed this pedestrian trail and considered its potential to be improved to support equestrian use. As a result the Haney Horsemen are suggesting that this trail be improved and included in the equestrian trail network. This new trail route would provide access to designated road shoulder trails on 116 Avenue which has a lower traffic volume. The alternative road shoulder for east to west movement in this area is Dewdney Trunk Road which is not a recognized equestrian route. A map is attached showing the location of existing equestrian trials and the proposed new equestrian trail. 4A Page 1 of 2 b) Desired Outcome: A new equestrian trail in this location will provide a safer route for equestrians to follow to access the existing equestrian trails in this area c) Interdepartmental Implications: The Engineering Department advises that it currently does not have any plans to construct a road through this right of way to access 116 Avenue. The Engineering Department is recommending that any trail be located to one side of the right of way so that it is not disturbed by any future road construction. As this proposed trail is located within the Agricultural Land Reserve it will be necessary to apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for a Recreational Trail within the. Agricultural Land Reserve. d) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The development of this trail will be funded by the Haney Horsemen. The Haney Horsemen hold events each year to raise funds for trail development. By agreement, the District of Maple Ridge matches the funds raised each year to a maximum of $8,000. CONCLUSIONS: By adding this trail to the equestrian trail network, the Haney Horsemen will proceed with the necessary approvals required to develop this important trail connection. This trail connection will provide a safer off road link for equestrians to follow to access existing equestrian trails in this area of Maple Ridge. The Parks & Leisure Services Commission reviewed the proposal at their meeting of 2011-03-10 and recommends endorsement by Maple Ridge Council. d� Prepared by: Bruce McLeod Manager, Parks & Open Space Approved Bj David Boag Director, Parr & Open Space Approved b : ly kw' , General Manager, Community Development rks & Recreation Concurrence: J.. (Jim) Rule Gfiief Administrative Officer BMc:ik Page 2 of 2 Gi f Pitt Mea ows ' J I � N -"�J � District of Langley SCALE 1:9,000 0 260 Street Right of Way 11700 Block LI _ CORPORATION OF f — ! THE DISTRICT OF Mn Fl� ` MAPLE RIDGE PARKS & LEISURE SERVICES DEPT. DATE: Mar 10, 2011 FILE: 260 Trail.mxd BY: BM q s s � Deep Roots Greater Hefrght= TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 13, 2011 and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop Gaming Revenue Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In November 2010, the District signed an agreement with the Province of British Columbia which grants the District a share of gaming revenues generated within Maple Ridge. In December 2010, Council adopted a financial plan that allocated this revenue for the 2011 year, and stated a desire to adopt a policy framework with which to guide future allocations. RECOM M EN DATION(S): That the Gaming Revenue Policy proposed in the June 13, 2011 Council report be adopted. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The District of Maple Ridge and the Province of British Columbia signed a Host Financial Assistance Agreement in November 2010. The agreement commits a portion of gaming revenues generated in Maple Ridge to flow to the District for "any purpose that is of public benefit" to the community. At that time, a financial plan for 2011 through 2015 was under development, and in December, Council adopted the plan, including the allocation of 2011 gaming revenue to several initiatives, with the direction to staff that a further conversation on the allocation of future revenues beyond 2011 was needed. b) Desired Outcome/Strategic Alignment: The intended outcome is a policy framework guiding the future allocation of gaming revenues, which is in alignment with Council's Vision for the community, and Council's Financial Sustainability Policies. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Utilizing a policy framework for funding allocation is more likely to achieve a strategic investment of community funds, and progress toward achieving the community vision. d) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The nature of the gaming revenue stream is such that it could vary from year-to-year, or come to an end. For this reason, it is important that the District not imbed the presumption that the revenue will occur, nor imbed intended spending that relies on the revenue stream as a funding source. Non -recurring items and one-time capital items with no ongoing operational costs are examples of cost categories that respect the nature of the gaming revenue stream. The Gaming Revenue Policy proposes an allocation of funds that focuses primarily on these categories. 4.5 Where specific funding allocation targets programs with ongoing operational costs, they should be restricted to those with a more direct relationship with the gaming revenue stream; for example, security. However, it is important that reductions in the revenue stream will be accompanied by an offsetting reduction in the related program funding. Due to the variability of the revenue stream, a percentage allocation to various initiatives is proposed, rather than flat amounts. In addition, a cap of $500,000 is set, with revenue exceeding that amount flowing to the initiative noted as Capital Improvement Fund. Allocations are proposed as follows: Minor Capital Improvements in the Town Centre Area 20% District Wide Minor Capital Improvements 20% Capital Improvement Fund *15% Downtown Security Presence 10% Neighbourhood Initiatives/Social Capital 15% Increased maintenance and upkeep in the Town Centre Area 10% Memorial Peace Park events 2% Emerging Priorities 8% * Revenue exceeding $500,000 to be allocated to Capital Improvement Fund As with all funding allocations, Council is the final decision -maker. The policy provides a framework to guide staff in bringing forward options for Council consideration, and provides Council with the opportunity to consider sound principles in the absence of a "wish -list" of potential initiatives. It is also within Council's authority to amend the policy and funding allocations as necessary. e) Alternatives: In the absence of a policy, Council will be faced with a funding decision each year, likely accompanied by a wish -list that outstrips the available funding. The wish -list is likely to contain items with ongoing funding requirements that are beyond the District's financial capacity. CONCLUSIONS: This report introduces a Gaming Revenue Policy which sets a framework for allocating future gaming revenue. The policy supports a strategic investment of community funds toward initiatives that align with Council's Vision for the community and Council's Financial Sustainability Policies. The policy also acknowledges that the variable nature of the revenue stream is most appropriate for non- recurring items. Prepared by: ra Benson, CMA Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning Approved by. Pau Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager: Corporate and Financial Services / L- Concurrence: J.L. (Ji ) Rule � Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: Gaming Revenue Policy Deep Roots Greater Heights Title: Gaming Revenue Authority: ® Legislative Approval: ® Council Policy Statement: ❑ Operational ❑ CMT ❑ General Manager POLICY MANUAL Policy No: Supersedes: NEW Effective Date: June 1, 2011 Review Date: 2012 Gaming Revenue should be used to fund non -recurring items, and in particular, capital improvements that cannot be funded through development charges. These revenues should not be used for funding the District's ongoing operating expenses. Purpose: The Host Financial Assistance Agreement between the District of Maple Ridge and the Province of British Columbia requires the municipality to use the funds received under the agreement for public benefit. The funds should be allocated in a manner that aligns with Council's Vision for the community. These funds should not be viewed as a long term source of revenue to support ongoing programs. Rather, and respecting the nature of the revenue stream, it should be used to fund non -recurring items, particular those of a capital nature. There may be instances where certain programs are more directly related to the revenue stream (ex security). Consideration can be given to funding these items from the Gaming Revenue stream, as long as it is understood that reductions in the revenue stream will require an offsetting reduction in the program. Definitions: Gaming Revenue: The funding received from the Provincial of B.C. under the Host Financial Assistance Agreement Council's Vision: (Vision 2025, last amended 2007) The District of Maple Ridge is among the most sustainable communities in the world. As a community committed to working toward achieving carbon neutrality, residents experience the value of a strong and vibrant local economy and the benefits of an ongoing commitment to environmental stewardship and creation of stable and special neighborhoods. Maple Ridge is a world leading example of thoughtful development and a socially cohesive community, especially as it relates to the use of leading edge "environmental technologies," social networks and economic development. Other municipalities consistently reference the District of Maple Ridge for its innovative approaches to dealing with seemingly intractable challenges. Page 1 of 2 Policy Key Areas of Responsibility Action to Take Responsibility Annually and as part of the Business/Financial Planning Process, projections will be done on the Gaming Revenues expected for the Finance Department ensuing planning period Gaming Revenues up to $500,000 will be allocated as follows: Staff i) Minor Capital Improvements in the Town Centre Area 20% ii) District Wide Minor Capital Improvements 20% iii) Capital Improvement Fund 15% iv) Downtown Security Presence 10% v) Neighbourhood Initiatives/Social Capital 15% vi) Increased maintenance and upkeep in Town Centre Area 10% vii) Memorial Peace Park Events 2% viii) Emerging Priorities 8% * Revenue exceeding the base will flow to Capital Improvement Fund Develop recommended list of projects to which the gaming Staff revenues can be allocated, in alignment with Council's Vision and Financial Sustainability Policies Council Review, amend and approve detailed allocation of gaming revenue as part of Business/Financial Plan Page 2 of 2 Policy RIDGEMAPLE District of Maple Ridge Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: SUBJECT: 2011 Residential Class Property Taxation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: June 13, 2011 Council Workshop Throughout the year, the Finance Department provides a series of financial reports. These reports provide Council with information to assist in their decision making. In early January, a detailed analysis of 2011 property assessments was presented. Recently, Council received information on our 2010 year-end financial statements and a detailed report and presentation on our financial reserves. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on municipal taxes assessed to Class 1-Residential. This is important as most of the District's assessment base is represented by properties in this class. It is also important to keep in mind that this report focuses on the municipal portion of property taxes because the levies by other jurisdictions are beyond Council's control. In our analysis, we have looked at three indicators: 1. Residential Class Tax Rates Comparison We have looked at the tax rate the District charges to the Residential Class to see how it has changed from last year, and to see how it compares to others in the region. Our tax rate decreased 0.4% from 2010. This is because, overall, market based assessments were higher in 2011 than in 2010, and the tax rate was adjusted to generate the funding required in the financial plan. Of the surveyed municipalities, all saw decreases in their tax rates, except for Mission where the rate increased slightly, 0.4%. Decreases ranged from a high of 10.6% in Richmond to a low of 0.3% in Pitt Meadows. 2. Assessment and Taxation Changes on Sample Properties We have been tracking the change in assessments and taxation on eight properties for several years, and a spreadsheet showing this information is included in this report. 3. Municipal Property Taxes and Utilities Assessed Against the 'Average' Single Family Dwelling Su rvey We conducted a survey of the municipal property taxes and utilities assessed against the 'average' single family dwelling. The data allows us to see how the taxes and utilities assessed in Maple Ridge compare to others in the region. It is interesting to note that our taxes remain amongst the lowest in the region and when the taxes are combined with annual utility rates, Maple Ridge is tied with Langley -Township as being the lowest among the municipalities surveyed. 4.6 RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive for information. DISCUSSION: For 2011 assessed values, BC Assessment continued with their regular practice of assessing properties (land and buildings) based on market value as of July 1 of the previous year. This means that for 2011, properties are assessed at what their market value would have been on July 1, 2010. When compared to 2010 Residential Class 1 assessed values, 2011 Residential Class 1 assessed values in Maple Ridge increased approximately 7.4%. For 2011, Council authorized a 3.0% increase for general taxes, a 1.0% increase for infrastructure sustainability, and an additional $600,000 plus growth for the Fire Services Improvement Levy. Taking into consideration the increase to assessed values and the authorized increase to revenues, the end result is an overall decrease to the Residential Property Class 1 tax rate of approximately 0.4%. These changes amount to a tax increase of approximately $74 or 5.0% to the `average home'. In addition, there were increases to sewer, water, and recycling rates. The aggregate impact of all these changes is about $124 or 5.6%. 1. Residential Tax Rates Comparison: Figure 1 shows the Residential Class 1 municipal tax rates for surveyed municipalities. Utility charges are not included in this analysis. Caution should be exercised in considering this data, as focusing on tax rates alone does not account for the differences in assessed values. Figure 1: Residential Class 1 Municipal Property Tax Rates Percentage Municipality 2011 Change 2010 West Vancouver 2.07900 -10.3% 2.31820 Vancouver 2.12815 -1.0% 2.14861 Richmond 2.16085 -10.6% 2.41731 Burnaby 2.37710 -8.1% 2.58670 Surrey 2.37807 -3.3% 2.46040 North Vancouver City 2.38906 -4.0% 2.48982 North Vancouver District 2.47291 -4.9% 2.60146 Coquitlam 3.04860 -5.0% 3.20770 Langley Township 3.12939 -2.3% 3.20283 Port Moody 3.21450 -2.4% 3.29200 Delta' 3.47645 -5.5% 3.67932 Pitt Meadows 3.58140 -0.3% 3.59340 New Westminster 3.61310 -5.5% 3.82410 Port Co uitlam2 3.66900 -4.9% 3.85670 Maple Ridge 3.89780 -0.4% 3.91240 Mission 4.77970 0.4% 4.76185 Notes: 1-The Tax Rate has been averaged. The General Rate depends on the benefitting area of the property. Drainage is also area dependent, and only applicable to land. The Drainage Rate has been averaged and multiplied by .70 (per Delta staff). Last year's rate has been adjusted to reflect this. 2-Rate has been adjusted from last year's reported rate of 3.83430 Page 2 of 6 In the surveyed municipalities, all municipalities saw decreases in their tax rates, except for Mission where the rate increased slightly, 0.4%. Decreases ranged from a high of 10.6% in Richmond to a low of 0.3% in Pitt Meadows. Earlier in this report, it is noted that there was an increase of 5.0% to the `average home', and that the total Residential property class experienced an increase in market value of 7.4%. The tax rate is adjusted to neutralize this impact, and as a result, Council was able to approve a tax rate for 2011 which is 0.4% lower than the 2010 tax rate. The District's 0.4% decrease includes the impact of the Fire Service Improvement Levy, representing a fundamental shift in service levels. Our rate actually decreased 1.3% excluding the change in the Fire Levy. 2. Assessment and Taxation Changes on Sample Properties: Figure 2 shows the taxes assessed against eight properties in the community, and we have been tracking this data for several years. This analysis shows the variability in taxes and assessment changes across the municipality. In 2011, sample property assessed values increased as much as 13.7%, with the exception of Area #7, Lower Hammond, where the sample property assessment decreased 2.3%. The taxes for the sample properties increased ranging from 1.3% to 12.1%, except for the Area #7 property where taxes decreased 3.7%. It is important to note that while some properties may experience the same percentage tax increase, the actual dollars paid will vary and depend on the assessed value. Figure 2: Sample Properties History of Assessed Values and Property Taxation Assessed Values Location 1 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 Silver Valley 334,000 437,000 493,000 742,000 722,000 703,000 656,000 746,000 2 FUbion/Kanaka 309,000 371,000 393,000 449,000 516,000 516,000 489,000 544,000 3 Whonnock 292,200 355,700 380,000 423,000 532,000 532,000 487,000 518,000 4 Central MR 237,100 295,000 289,100 340,000 387,000 387,000 384,000 418,000 5 Central MR -strata 147,700 171,000 210,800 234,200 262,600 262,600 236,500 243,000 6 West MR 349,000 427,000 425,000 476,000 562,000 562,000 579,000 610,000 7 Lower Hammond 162,400 190,600 182,300 201,100 239,600 239,600 224,300 219,100 8 Upper Hammond 232,900 284,000 293,000 375,000 460,000 460,000 425,000 450,000 Total 2,064,300 2,531,300 2,666,200 1240300 1681,200 3,662,200 3,480,800 3,748,100 Change in Assessed Values Location 2004 2005 1 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 2011 1 silver valley 11.7% 30.8% 12.8% 50.5% -2.7% -2.6% -6.7% 13.7% 2 FVbion/Kanaka 8.4% 20.1 % 5.9% 14.2% 14.9% 0.0% -5.2% 11.2% 3 Whonnock 21.4% 21.7% 6.8% 11.3% 25.8% 0.0% -8.5% 6.4% 4 Central MR 7.2% 24.4% -2.0% 17.6% 13.8%1 0.0% -0.8% 8.9% 5 Central MR- strata 3.6% 15.8% 23.3% 11.1 % 12.1 % 0.0% -9.9% 2.7% 6 West MR 2.0% 22.3% -0.5% 12.0% 18.1 % 0.0% 3.0% 5.4% 7 Lower Hammond 22.6% 17.4% -4.4% 10.3% 19.1 % 0.0% -6.4% -2.3% 8 Upper Hammond 13.1 % 21.9% 3.2% 28.0% 22.7% 0.0% -7.6% 5.9% Total 10.5%1 22.6%1 5.3%1 21.5%1 13.6% -0.5% -5.0% 7 7% Page 3 of 6 Taxation (Municipal General/Debt/Library) Location 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 Silver Valley 1,516 1,738 1,925 2,576 2,303 2,342 2,370 2,656 2 Albion/Kanaka 1,402 1,475 1,534 1,559 1,646 1,719 1,767 1,937 3 Whonnock 1,326 1,414 1,483 1,469 1,697 1,772 1,759 1,844 4 Central MR 1,076 1,173 1,129 1,181 1,235 1,289 1,387 1,488 5 Central MR- strata 670 680 823 813 838 875 854 865 6 West MR 1,584 1,698 1,659 1,653 1,793 1,872 2,092 2,172 7 Lower Hammond 737 758 712 698 764 798 810 780 8 Upper Hammond 1,057 1,129 1,144 1,302 1,467 1,532 1,535 1,602 Total 9,368 f 10,065 10,409 1 11,251 1 11,7431 12.199 1 12.574 1 13,344 Change in Taxation (Municipal General/Debt/Library) Location 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 Silver valley 5.6% 14.6% 10.8% 33.8% -10.6% 1.7% 1.2% 12.1 % 2 Albion/Kanaka 2.5% 5.2% 4.0% 1.6% 5.6% 4.4% 2.8% 9.6% 3 Whonnock 14.8% 6.6% 4.9% -0.9% 15.5% 4.4% -0.7% 4.8% 4 Central MR 1.3% 9.0% -3.8% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4% 7.6% 7.3% 5 Central MR- strata -2.0% 1.5% 21.0% -1.2% 3.1 % 4.4% -2.4% 1.3% 6 West MR -3.5% 7.2% -2.3% -0.4% 8.5% 4.4% 11.8% 3.8% 7 Lower Hammond 15.9% 2.8% -6.1 % -2.0% 9.5% 4.5% 1.5% -3.7% 8 Upper Hammond 6.9% 6.8% 1.3% 13.8% 12.7% 4.4% 0.2% 4.4% Total 4.4%1 7.4%1 3.4%1 8.1%1 4.4% 3-IN 3.1%1 6.1 3. Municipal Property Taxes and Utilities Assessed Against the `Average' Single Family Dwelling Survey: Looking at the taxes assessed against the `average' single family dwelling is challenging on many fronts. The methodology used to calculate the value of an `average' single family dwelling uses information from BC Assessment. The difficulty using this methodology is that an `average' single family dwelling in West Vancouver may be physically much different than an `average' single family dwelling in Maple Ridge, and this has not been taken into account. Additionally, municipalities provide different services at different levels and this has also not been taken into account. Nonetheless, this is a commonly used method and it does serve as one indicator of relative tax burden. The data compiled is shown on Figure 3. It shows that the municipal portion of residential property taxes in Maple Ridge at $1,797 is amongst the lowest of those municipalities surveyed. When municipal taxes are combined with property utilities for a total of $2,560, Maple Ridge's ranking ties with Langley -Township's as being the lowest. Page 4 of 6 Figure 3: Summary of Survey Results - 2011 'Average' Single Family Dwelling Rank Rank Average (highest Municipal (highest Assessed Municipal to Total Taxes & to Municipality Value* Taxes lowest) Utilities Utilities lowest) Notes Maple Ridge 460,945 1,797 13 763 2,560 15 Langley -Township 501,347 1,569 15 991 2,560 15 Pitt Meadows 450,407 1,613 14 953 2,566 14 Port Coquitlam 510,628 1,873 10 824 2,698 13 North Vancouver -City 814,484 1,946 8 805 2,751 12 (5) Burnaby 798,114 1,897 9 892 2,789 11 (1) Delta 568,717 1,986 6 860 2,846 10 (2) Surrey 576,645 1,532 16 1,331 2,863 9 Mission 392,273 1,797 12 1,072 2,869 8 (3) Richmond 832,719 1,799 11 1,193 2,993 7 Coquitlam 639,772 1,950 7 1,094 3,044 6 Vancouver 1,028,000 2,188 5 944 3,132 5 (9) Port Moody 705,389 2,267 2 933 3,200 4 (6) New Westminster 620,991 2,244 4 1,014 3,257 3 (4) North Vancouver -District 913,877 2,260 3 1,177 3,437 2 West Vancouver 1,673,943 3,480 1 1,277 4,757 1 (8) Average 718,016 2,012 1,008 3,020 Median 630,382 1,922 972 2,866 Highest 1,673,943 3,480 1,331 4,757 Lowest 392,273 1,532 763 2,560 Notes: • All values have been rounded. * Average Assessed Value was determined by using BC Assessment's 2011 Revised Roll Totals, General Net Taxable Value Totals for the Residential Single Family Property Class divided by Occurrences. (1) Recycling/Garbage included in municipal taxes. Water & Sewer Rates reflect a 5% discount. (2) Municipal taxes are averaged. The municipal tax rate is dependent on the benefitting area of the property, and for this analysis the Annacis area has been excluded; according to Delta staff, there are only 3 homes in this area. Drainage, included in municipal taxes, is also area dependent and only applicable to land -the Annacis area has also been excluded. For our purposes the drainage rate has been averaged and multipled by .70 (per Delta staff). (3) Drainage Levy Rate/Amount excluded from this analysis. According to Mission staff, only approximately 30 homes are charged this levy. (4) Recycling/Garbage, Water and Sewer Rates reflect a 5% discount. (5) Water and Sewer Rates reflect a 10% discount. (6) Recycling/Garbage, Water and Sewer Rates reflect a 5% discount. (7) Recycling/Garbage, Water, Sewer, Drainage Utility and Dyking Utility Rates reflect a 10% discount. (8) Water & Sewer utility rates taken from anticipated "median" user bills less 10% for payments rec'd by due date. Garbage/Recycling reflect a 10% discount for payment received by due date. (9) Land Assessment Averaging for eligible properties; redistribution of 1% tax levy from non-residential to residential property classes. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS For 2011, Council authorized a 3.0% increase for general taxes, a 1.0% increase for infrastructure sustainability, and an additional $600,000 plus growth for the Fire Services Improvement Levy. The information in this report allows Council to see how our taxes compare to our neighbours. Page 5 of 6 We have received information from the Provincial Government regarding the following changes to property taxation for 2011 as follows: • The Home Owner Grant threshold has been increased to $1,150,000. What this means is that for Residential Class 1 properties, the Regular Home Owner Grant of $570 is reduced by $5 for each $1,000 of assessed value over $1,150,000, and it is eliminated entirely on homes that are assessed at $1,264,000. For those that qualify, individuals aged sixty-five and older and certain veterans and persons with disabilities, there is an Additional Grant that can reduce property taxes by a further $275, for a total of up to $845. This grant would be eliminated for homes that are assessed at $1,319,000 and higher. • A new Farm Land Tax Credit has been implemented for 2011. Owners of Farm Class 9 properties are entitled to a credit equal to 50% of the school taxes levied to the property. This is similar to the property tax credit given to properties classed as Major Industry Class 4 and Light Industry Class 5. • In 2011, the Industrial Tax Credit for Major Industry Class 4 and Light Industry Class 5 properties has been increased from 50% to 60% of the school taxes levied to those properties. CONCLUSIONS: The Finance Department provides Council with a series of reports to assist in their decisions. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the municipal taxes assessed against residential properties. We have looked at three indicators, and can conclude that the taxes assessed in Maple Ridge are well positioned when compared to our neighbours. Prepared by: uie gmann Research Technician Approved by: Paul Gill, BA, CGA General Manager: Corpor Financial Services Concurrence: J.V(Jim] Rule ief Administrative Officer :jgbb Page 6 of 6 Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: June 13, 2011 and Members of Council FILE NO: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop 2011 Business Class Property Taxation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: It has been the practice of this municipality to review our tax rates to make sure that they are reasonable in relation to other municipalities in the lower mainland. This report examines the tax rate assessed to Business Class 6 properties. RECOMMENDATION: Receive for information. DISCUSSION: There are a number of ways of looking at the taxes assessed against properties: 1. Review the municipal tax rates to see where the District ranks in comparison to other municipalities. While this type of analysis is straightforward to accomplish, it does not account for the difference in assessed property values from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 2. Review the municipal tax rate assessed against one class, as compared to another class. In this case, the Business Class 6 municipal tax rate is compared to the Residential Class 1 municipal tax rate using a ratio that is referred to as the tax "multiple". While this method looks at the relative tax burden amongst classes, it does not account for variable assessment value changes amongst property classes. 3. Review similar businesses in different municipalities and compare the actual municipal tax burden. This report looks at the District's Business Class 6 municipal tax rate from these three perspectives. 1. Municipal Tax Rate Comparison All things being equal, one would expect municipalities with high property values to have the lowest tax rates and municipalities with lower assessed values would have higher tax rates. This is confirmed with West Vancouver, which has the lowest Business Class 6 municipal tax rate, and Mission which has the highest municipal tax rate. There are some anomalies, such as Vancouver, which has a tax rate that is close to the tax rate in Maple Ridge even though property values are much higher in Vancouver. This may be one of the reasons why Vancouver has transferred some of the commercial tax burden to the Residential Class. In 2011, the District's Business Class 6 tax rate of $12.10 per $1,000 of assessed value ranks as being seventh highest of the nineteen lower mainland municipalities that were surveyed. Of the surveyed municipalities, the Business Class 6 tax rates range from a low of $4.94 per $1,000 in 4,7 West Vancouver, Loa high of $15.59 per $1,000 in Mission. All municipalities, except for Richmond and Coquitlam, saw increases to their Business Class 6 tax rates in 2011. Staff at the City of Coquitlam advise that because their current Class 6 tax rate is quite high, especially when compared to other municipalities in the lower mainland, they are slowly normalizing those rates by shifting some of the tax burden from that class to the Residential Class. Staff at the City of Richmond advise that because the 2011 property assessments in Richmond increased quite substantially, (overall there was an almost 16% increase in value from 2010 to the City of Richmond's 2011 Revised Assessment Roll), the tax rate was lowered in almost all of their property classes to make the market change revenue neutral. Figure 1: Business Class 6 - Municipal Tax Rates 2011 2010 2009 2008 Business Business Business Business Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipality Tax Rate Rank Tax Rate Tax Rate$ Tax Rate$ West Vancouver 4.94390 19 4.83530 4.91000 4.70000 Surrey4 7.41846 18 7.37976 8.15000 6.80000 Richmond 8.03836 17 8.36391 8.25000 7.90000 North Vancouver, District 8.83668 16 8.63395 9.02000 8.60000 Langley, City 8.87270 15 8.53380 9.10000 7.90000 Vancouver 9.19882 14 9.78076 10.35000 10.80000 North Vancouver, City 9.56623 13 9.79800 9.78000 9.10000 Langley, Township 9.62380 12 9.12880 9.09000 6.30000 Port Moody 9.82960 11 9.83430 9.99000 9.60000 Chilliwack3 9.90312 10 9.63174 10.36000 10.00000 Burnaby 10.03070 9 10.02960 9.92000 9.40000 Delta 11.04091 8 11.12795 11.86000 10.30000 Maple Ridge 12.10450 7 11.74030 11.75000 11.10000 Pitt Meadows 12.67130 6 12.07500 12.06000 11.50000 Port Coquitlam 13.43770 5 12.42790 13.71000 11.60000 New Westminster 14.12260 4 14.27050 13.96000 13.80000 Coquitlam 14.78250 3 15.03180 14.58000 13.20000 Abbotsford' 15.07560 2 13.57371 16.82000 11.70000 Mission' 15.58720 1 14.94560 16.00000 13.50000 Notes: 1-The Tax Rate has been averaged; The Tax Rate is dependent on the location of the property. 2-The Tax Rate has been averaged. The General Rate depends on the benefitting area of the property. Drainage is also area dependent, and only applicable to land. The Drainage Rate has been averaged and multiplied by .61. Last year's rate has been adjusted to reflect this. 3-The Tax Rate has been blended. Land and Improvements are taxed at different rates. The assessment ratio is 59% Land and 41% Improvements. Last year's rate has been adjusted to reflect this. 4-rate + $161 drainage charge $rates rounded and as reported in previous reports to Council 2. Tax Multiple Comparison The tax multiple looks at the relative tax burden against Business Class 6 as compared to Residential Class 1. The term "multiple" is often used to represent the ratio of the property tax rate for a particular class or type of property where the property tax rate for the Residential Class is considered 1.0. Therefore, the "Business Class multiple" would represent the ratio of the tax rate for the Business Class to the Residential Class. The calculation is done by taking the Business Class Page 2 of 6 rate and dividing it by the Residential Class rate. A Business Class multiple of 3.0 would mean the rate applied to the Business Class is 3.0 times more than the Residential Class rate. This has also been referred to as the "property tax gap". The main weakness of this indicator is that it is greatly affected by varying market value fluctuations between the classes. In 2011, the assessed values for residential properties in Maple Ridge increased about 7.4%. As a result, the District's Residential tax rate went down to $3.90 per $1,000 of assessed value, a decrease of about 0.4%. 2011 assessed values for commercial properties increased slightly, about 2.7%. The Business Class tax rate increased to $12.10. This does not mean that we have given the residential class fairer treatment, just that we adjusted the rate for market value fluctuations. In 2011, District's municipal tax rate multiple is 3.1, tied for twelfth highest with three municipalities, Port Moody, Langley Township, and Surrey, in the nineteen municipalities surveyed. Our multiple is below the average multiple of 3.4 of the surveyed municipalities. Figure 2: Business Class 6 - Multiples, based on General Municipal Rates 2011 Business 2011 2010 2009 2008 Municipal Business Business Business Business Municipality Tax Rate Multiple Rank Multiple Multiple$ Multiple$ Chilliwack3 9.90312 2.2 19 2.2 2.5 2.5 West Vancouver 4.94390 2.4 17 2.1 2.3 2.4 Langley, City 8.87270 2.4 17 2.2 2.5 2.3 Abbotsford' 15.07560 2.8 16 2.8 2.7 2.9 Port Moody 9.82960 3.1 12 3.0 3.3 3.4 Langley, Township 9.62380 3.1 12 2.9 3.1 3.1 Maple Ridge 12.10450 3.1 12 3.0 3.3 3.3 Surrey4 7.41846 3.1 12 3.0 3.6 3.2 Delta 11.04091 3.2 11 3.0 3.3 3.2 Mission' 15.58720 3.3 10 3.2 3.9 3.5 Pitt Meadows 12.67130 3.5 9 3.4 3.6 3.7 North Vancouver, District 8.83668 3.6 8 3.3 3.7 3.6 Port Coquitlam 13.43770 3.7 6 3.2 4.0 3.6 Richmond 8.03836 3.7 6 3.5 3.5 3.4 New Westminster 14.12260 3.9 5 3.7 3.8 3.8 North Vancouver, City 9.56623 4.0 4 3.9 4.1 4.1 Burnaby 10.03070 4.2 3 3.9 4.0 4.0 Vancouver 9.19882 4.3 2 4.6 4.8 5.1 Coquitlam 14.78250 4.8 1 4.7 5.0 5.0 Notes: 1-The Tax Rate has been averaged; The Tax Rate is dependent on the location of the property. 2-The Tax Rate has been averaged. The General Rate depends on the benefitting area of the property. Drainage is also area dependent, and only applicable to land. The Drainage Rate has been averaged and multiplied by .61. Last year's rate has been adjusted to reflect this. 3-The Tax Rate has been blended. Land and Improvements are taxed at different rates. The assessment ratio is 59% Land and 41% Improvements. Last year's rate has been adjusted to reflect this. 4-rate + $161 drainage charge $rates rounded and as reported in previous reports to Council Page 3 of 6 3. Business Class 6 Municipal Portion of Property Taxes Comparison Finally, the municipal portion of the dollar impact on a Business Class 6 taxpayer is examined. The main difficulty with this comparison is that it is difficult to determine comparable businesses from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The values used in this analysis are from BC Assessment. They use a number of factors in determining assessed values for commercial properties, including applied market rent, income, and other factors and a significant amount of variability can follow. We looked at three different business types from a selection of seven municipalities, including Maple Ridge, as follows: 1. Food Store: a typical well -located large format grocery store occupying space as a primary anchor tenant in a strip retail centre. 2. Commercial Retail Unit (CRU) Retail Unit: a retail unit located in a strip retail centre, such as a video store, dollar store, clothing retailer, and other general household retailers. 3. CRU Retail/Restaurant Unit: a restaurant unit located in a strip retail centre, such as Starbucks, bagel shops, Subway, etc. Because these are not actual properties and the current appraiser who is asked for this data may be different than the appraiser from the previous year, interpretation of the data may not be exactly the same from year to year. In our case, this year there was a new appraiser for the North Vancouver, City data as well as a new appraiser for the Burnaby and Coquitlam data. We've asked these appraisers to have another look at the information for 2010, so we can see how the changes from last year relate to this year by a similar interpretation. These changes are reflected in Figures 3, 4 and 5. As shown in Figure 3, below, in 2011, the municipal portion of the District's tax bill for the Food Store is ranked as fourth highest, as it did in 2010, while from 2007 to 2009 and in 2005 it ranked as being third highest. Figure 3: Food Store - Municipal Property Taxes 2011 2010 2009 2008 2005 Coq u it I am 148,361 150,863 123,467 111,899 115,599 Mission 129,272 126,561 121,456 113,338 102,997 Burnaby 113,255 113,242 87,245 82,871 84,705 Maple Ridge 107,559 106,519 92,421 87,460 87,076 Langley 98,234 95,143 79,826 75,687 76,716 N Van, City 87,239 82,970 76,451 70,842 66,775 Surrey 74,615 72,268 71,612 59,644 58,501 Average 108,362 106,795 93,211 85,963 84,624 Median 107,559 106,519 87,245 82,871 84,705 MR Ranking 4 4 3 3 3 Page 4 of 6 As shown in Figure 4, below, in 2011, the municipal portion of the District's tax bill for the CRU Retail Unit ranked as fourth highest, while in 2010, it dropped to being third highest from second highest in 2009 and 2008, and in 2005 it was ranked as being third highest. Figure 4: CRU Retail - Municipal Property Taxes 2011 2010 2009 2008 2005 Coquitlam 7,115 7,235 7,288 6,605 6,823 Mission 7,006 6,718 5,207 4,859 3,680 Burnaby 5,230 4,828 4,959 4,710 4,815 Maple Ridge 5,150 4,995 5,455 5,162 5,354 N Van, City 4,981 4,897 5,200 4,818 5,515 Langley 4,810 4,563 4,740 4,494 4,361 S u rrey 3,866 3,686 2,899 2,414 2,497 Average 5,451 5,275 5,107 4,723 4,721 Median 5,150 4,897 5,200 4,818 4,815 MR Ranking 4 3 2 2 3 As shown in Figure 5, below, in 2011, the municipal portion of the District's tax bill for the CRU Retail/Restaurant ranks as second highest, while in 2010 it dropped to being third highest from second highest 2009, 2008 and in 2005. Figure 5: CRU Retail/Restaurant - Municipal Property Taxes 2011 2010 2009 2008 2005 Coquitlam 7,115 7,235 7,895 7,156 7,392 Maple Ridge 6,555 6,357 6,365 6,023 6,425 N Van, City 6,459 6,407 5,616 5,204 5,956 Mission 5,839 5,598 5,786 5,399 4,416 Langley 5,612 5,323 5,469 5,186 5,451 Burnaby 5,230 4,828 5,372 5,103 5,216 S u rrey 4,671 4,481 4,774 3,976 3,085 Average 5,926 5,747 5,897 5,435 5,420 Median 5,839 5,598 5,616 5,204 5,451 MR Ranking 2 3 2 2 2 CONCLUSION: It is important for the District of Maple Ridge to review our municipal tax rates to make sure that they are reasonable in relation to other municipalities. This is not a simple task and each indicator has its own strengths and weaknesses, and this is why we look at a variety of indicators over a period of time. The District's Business Class 6 municipal tax rate in 2011 is seventh highest of the nineteen surveyed municipalities. This is not unexpected as most municipalities in the survey group have higher property assessment values. It is noteworthy that tax rates in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and New Westminster are higher than the District's, even though those communities likely have assessed values higher than those in Maple Ridge. The District's Business Class 6 multiple continues to rank lower than average. In 2011, assessed values for residential properties went up and the tax rates decreased, while the assessed values of commercial properties increased and the tax rates increased slightly. Page 5 of 6 With respect to actual municipal taxes payable, Maple Ridge is at or a little above the median when compared to neighbouring communities. In 2011, when compared to a selection of municipalities, the District ranks as fourth highest for grocery chain units and for retail units, and for retail -type restaurant units, the District ranks as having the second highest municipal taxes payable. Overall, our data indicates that the District's Business Class 6 tax rates are comparable with other lower mainland municipalities. Prepared by: Jag e Berk ann Research Technician Approved by: PauNGill, BBA, CGA eral Ma ger, rpora & Financial Services Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer :jgbb Page 6 of 6 At MAPLE RIDGE Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: June 13, 2011 and Members of Council FILE NO: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop 2011 Major Industry Class Property Taxation W010111ILVA:&*1►yi1► F-11:fA The Finance Department provides Council with regular reports on property assessments and taxation. This information allows Council to see how our tax policies compare to those of other municipalities in our area. The reports concluded that, overall, the rates that we charge against these classes are quite reasonable. In 2008, Council was presented with an overview of the Major Industry Class 4 property class which indicated that the property tax burden against this class was quite high. Council decided to take steps to deal with this inequity by transferring some of the tax burden to the Residential Class. In 2009 and in 2010, Council directed that the Major Industry tax rate be reduced by 5%. This has resulted in a slightly more equitable distribution of the tax burden, and while further improvement may be required, we suggest that this be reviewed in 2012 as our financial capacity in 2011 is limited. The purpose of this report is to see how our current Major Industry tax rate compares to other municipalities in our area, and to monitor whether a further shift in 2012 may be required. RECOMMENDATION: Receive for information. DISCUSSION: In Maple Ridge, there are two properties (folio numbers) classed as Major Industry Class 4, and they are owned by International Forest Products Ltd (Interfor). Figure 1 illustrates the year to year changes in assessed values, municipal tax rates, and municipal tax rate multiples for this class in Maple Ridge. The District's taxation policy ensures that changes in assessed values due to market changes do not give rise to changes in tax levies within property classes. For example if assessed values in one class go up 15%, the municipal tax rate for that class is reduced by 15%, making the market change revenue -neutral. Not all taxing jurisdictions apply this policy. As is shown in Figure 1, in 2011, assessed values for the Major Industry Property Class decreased approximately 1.4%from 2010 assessed values. The municipal tax rate was increased to counterbalance the market value decrease and the increase in the Provincial Industrial Property Tax Credit. Overall though, the Major Industry property owner will realize a savings of approximately $12,000 on their total tax bill. The municipal tax rate multiple has now increased to 8.8. Figure 1: Maple Ridge Major Industry Class 4 Year to Year Comparison 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Assessed Value $17,829,000 $18,076,000 $16,923,000 $16,923,000 $10,852,000 Municipal Tax Rate 34.27340 32.20030 36.20440 38.10990 56.55520 Municipal Tax Rate Multiple 8.8 8.2 10.1 11.3 15.6 As in previous years, we will look at two indicators to determine whether the District's Major Industry Class 4 municipal tax rate is reasonable when compared to other lower mainland municipalities. Municipal Tax Rate Comparison to Other Municipalities: This indicator looks at the municipal tax rate in our municipality and compares it to the municipal tax rate for the same class in other municipalities. While this indicator is fairly easy to obtain, it is problematic in that similar properties in one community may be valued very differently in other communities. As is shown in Figure 2, below, in 2011, the District's Major Industry Class 4 municipal tax rate is $34.27 per $1,000 of assessed value. Amongst the fourteen surveyed municipalities, our tax rate ranks as sixth highest, while in 2010, 2009 and 2008 it ranked as fifth highest. In 2007, the District's tax rate in this class, $56.56 per $1,000 of assessed value, ranked as second highest amongst the surveyed municipalities. Figure 2: Major Industry, Class 4 Municipal Property Tax Rates 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Major Major Major Major Major Municipality Industry Rank Industry Industry Industry Industry Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Langley, Township 9.48120 14 9.07520 10.09650 9.51640 11.64290 Surrey2 11.68848 13 11.36379 11.79970 11.24650 13.47610 Richmond 12.96510 12 10.15272 10.14490 8.43530 9.00670 West Vancouver 13.21930 11 13.07550 13.07550 12.70080 12.33360 North Vancouver, City' 27.50000 10 27.50000 27.50000 27.50000 27.50000 New Westminster 29.45880 9 28.25280 27.94670 24.30150 30.33480 Vancouver 31.46583 8 30.64936 30.28940 28.28630 30.25420 Delta 31.83175 7 31.61645 28.88280 26.90410 27.78320 Maple Ridge 34.27340 6 32.20030 36.20440 38.10990 56.55520 Pitt Meadows 35.10470 5 31.98620 30.97950 29.76100 35.77070 North Vancouver, District 42.48617 4 44.39072 47.61590 45.85600 49.85970 Burnaby 43.72650 3 44.48440 44.32280 41.45650 47.27470 Coquitlam 49.86610 2 60.50650 57.92530 54.32760 57.47600 Port Moody 57.45210 1 48.48230 50.16970 46.81200 53.13380 *fm 1-w/Provincial Cap 2-rate + $161 Drainage 3-The Tax Rate has been averaged. The General Rate depends on the benefitting area of the property. Drainage is also area dependent, and only applicable to land. The Drainage Rate has been averaged and multiplied by .62. Last year's rate has been adjusted to reflect this. Page 2 of 4 It is important to remember that not all assessed values are comparable across the lower mainland. The City of North Vancouver may have a lower tax rate, but the assessed values for a waterfront property similar to those owned by Interfor in Maple Ridge would likely be much higher. Also, notable is that the major industrial properties in the City of North Vancouver are located along the waterfront and are operated as ports. Ports have a regulated Provincial Cap tax rate of $27.50 per $1,000 of assessed value. For this reason, we should also look at another indicator such as the municipal tax rate multiple. Municipal Tax Rate Multiple Comparison to Other Municipalities: This indicator looks at the relative tax rate on one class, as a ratio of the tax rate charged to another class. The "other" class used in this analysis is the Residential Class. As outlined in previous reports to Council, the main weakness of this indicator is that it is greatly affected by varying market value fluctuations between the classes. As is shown in Figure 3, in 2011, the District's Major Industry Class 4 municipal tax rate multiple of 8.8 ranks as ninth highest amongst the fourteen surveyed municipalities, as it ranked in 2010. In 2011, our tax rate multiple is below the average tax rate multiple of 10.9 for the surveyed municipalities. This year, all municipalities, except one - Coquitlam, saw increases in their multiples from 2010. Since 2007, our multiple for this class has dropped from 15.6 to 8.8, making it the most significantly improved of the surveyed municipalities. Figure 3: Major Industry, Class 4 Municipal Property Tax Rate Multiples 2011 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Major Major Major Major Major Major Municipality Industry Industry Rank Industry Industry Industry Industry Municipal Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Multiple Tax Rate Langley, Township 9.48120 3.0 14 2.8 3.5 3.5 4.0 Surrey2 11.68848 4.9 13 4.6 5.2 5.3 5.9 Richmond 12.96510 6.0 12 4.2 4.3 3.7 3.7 West Vancouver 13.21930 6.4 11 5.6 6.2 6.2 5.5 New Westminster 29.45880 8.2 10 7.4 7.7 7.0 8.1 Maple Ridge 34.27340 8.8 9 8.2 10.1 11.3 15.6 Delta 31.83175 9.2 8 8.6 9.5 8.8 8.7 Pitt Meadows 35.10470 9.8 7 8.9 9.3 9.5 10.7 North Vancouver, City' 27.50000 11.5 6 11.0 11.9 12.5 11.3 Vancouver 31.46583 14.8 5 14.3 14.2 13.3 12.5 Coquitlam 49.86610 16.4 4 18.9 19.8 19.9 20.1 North Vancouver, District 42.48617 17.2 3 17.1 19.4 19.5 19.6 Port Moody 57.45210 17.9 2 14.7 16.7 16.3 17.2 Burnaby 43.72650 18.4 1 17.2 17.9 17.5 19.1 N otes: 1-w/Provincial Cap 2-rate + $161 Drainage 3-The Tax Rate has been averaged. The General Rate depends on the benefitting area of the property. Drainage is also area dependent, and only applicable to land. The Drainage Rate has been averaged and multiplied by .62. Last year's rate has been adjusted to reflect this. Page 3 of 4 CONCLUSION: The District's position in terms of Major Industry Class 4 municipal property tax rates and multiples has improved as a direct result of direction from Council. Maple Ridge now seems to be well placed when compared to other municipalities in the lower mainland. Our Class 4 municipal tax rate is ranked as sixth highest when compared to the fourteen surveyed municipalities, and our Class 4 municipal tax rate multiple ranks as ninth highest, below the average municipal tax rate multiple of the fourteen surveyed municipalities. It appears that the tax burden against Class 4 properties has become more equitable. As in past years, we will look at our overall financial capacity at business planning time to see if further improvements can be achieved. Additionally, we will continue to review the tax burden against our other property classifications to make sure we remain well positioned. Prepared by: pecs'earch uie gmann Technician Approved by. Paul Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager: Corporate inancial Services Concurrence: J.L. (Jim} u!e Chief A inistrative Officer Jgbb Page 4of4 Draft Only BC Medical Association # 115 — 1665 West Broadway Vancouver, B.C. V6J 5A4 At a recent meeting we were informed that Fraser Health is experiencing a shortage of anaesthesiologists. We are writing to you today to voice our concerns about this shortage which we understand is an ongoing challenge for hospitals across British Columbia. We are aware that it's typical for Health Authorities to have summer slowdowns for elective (scheduled) surgery due to the lower demand for services. However, there is potential for access to elective surgery to be more affected this summer due to the shortage of anaesthesiologists in Fraser Health. Fraser Health is the largest and fastest growing Health Authority in the Province, serving a population of 1.6 million. They have been successful with their recruitment in recent years with more than 100 anaethesiologists with privileges to work at hospitals across the region but they need more to enable them to continue to provide high quality and safe service that meets the needs of the growing population. As the Mayor of , I urge you to continue to work with the Ministry of Health and the anaesthesiologists to find a solution that works within the Physician Master Agreement so that our health authority can continue to meet the health care needs of our population. Sincerely, 4.9