HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-04 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES – May 14, 2012
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 2012 Residential Class Property Taxation
- Paul Gill, General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services
Staff report dated June 4, 2012 providing information on municipal taxes
assessed to Class 1-Residential.
4.2 Proposed Community Development Policy (P92) Update
Staff report dated June 4, 2012 providing information on the Community
Development Policy update process.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
June 4, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification.
REMINDERS
June 4, 2012
Closed Council 11:00 am.
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
June 4, 2012
Page 2 of 3
4.3 Healthy Community Initiatives
Staff report dated June 4, 2012 providing an update on the development of a
District of Maple Ridge partnership with Fraser Health to participate in the Healthy
Communities Initiative.
4.4 Town Centre Events Update
Staff report dated June 4, 2012 providing an overview of municipal festivals and
activities that will take place in Maple Ridge Town Centre throughout this summer.
4.5 Silver Valley Parks – Update
Verbal report by the Manager of Park Planning and Development
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.
5.1
Recommendation:
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
June 4, 2012
Page 3 of 3
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 for a 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 enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) 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 enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the 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.
District of Maple Ridge
TO:His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE:June 04, 2012
and Members of Council
FROM:Chief Administrative Officer ATTN:Workshop
SUBJECT:2012 Residential Class Property Taxation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
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 January, a detailed analysis of
2012 property assessments was presented.Recently, Council received information on our 2011
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 increased
4.9% from 2011. This is because, overall, market based property assessments were only slightly
higher in 2012 than in 2011, and the tax rate was adjusted to generate the funding required in the
financial plan.Of the surveyed municipalities, nine municipalities saw decreases in their tax rates
and seven saw increases. Decreases ranged from a high of 12.7% in West Vancouver to a low of
0.4% in the City of North Vancouver, and increases ranged from a high of 4.9% in Maple Ridge to a
low of 0.7% in Delta.
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’
Survey
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 ranks as being
thirteenth lowest among the municipalities surveyed.
4.1
Page 2 of 7
RECOMMENDATION(S):
This report has been provided for information only.No resolution is required.
DISCUSSION:
For 2012 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 2012, properties are assessed at what their market value would have been on July 1, 2011.
When compared to 2011 Residential Class 1 assessed values for Single Family Dwellings,2012
Residential Class 1 assessed values for Single Family Dwellings in Maple Ridge increased less than
1.0%.
For 2012,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 slight increase to assessed values and the authorized increase to
revenues, the end result is an overall increase to the Residential Property Class 1 tax rate of
approximately 4.9%.These changes amount to a tax increase of approximately $77.90 or 4.9% to
the ‘average home’. In addition, there were increases to sewer, water,and recycling rates. The
aggregate impact of all these changes is about $131.50 or 5.6%, as described on page 24 of the
Financial Overview Report presented to Council in December 2011.
1.Residential Tax Rates Comparison:
Figure 1 shows the Residential Class 1 municipal tax rates and the percentage change from 2011 to
2012 for the surveyed municipalities. Also shown is the percentage changed from 2011 to 2012 for
an average single family dwelling in the surveyed municipalities for each of total municipal taxes,
total utilities,and total municipal taxes and total utilities combined.Caution should be exercised in
considering this data, as focusing on tax and utility rates does not account for the differences in
assessed values.
In the surveyed municipalities, nine municipalities saw decreases in their tax rates and seven saw
increases.The change in tax rates is largely a function of the change in assessed values.Looking at
the percentage change from 2011 to 2012 for the total municipal taxes for an average single family
dwelling, all municipalities saw increases ranging from a high of 10.5% in Richmond to a low of 0.3%
in Mission. All municipalities also experienced increases in their total utilities from a high of 11.9% in
Surrey to a low of 1.5% in Mission; and, for overall percentage changes for total municipal taxes and
utilities all municipalities also had increases ranging from a high of 9.0% in Richmond to a low of
0.7% in Mission.
Page 3 of 7
Figure 1:Residential Class 1 Municipal Property Tax Rates and Percentage Changes from 2011
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 2012,sample property assessed values increased as much as
5.5% in Area #1, Silver Valley, and decreased as much as 5.8% in Area #5, the strata property
located in Central Maple Ridge.Taxes for the sample properties increased as much as 9.6% in Area
#1, Silver Valley and decreased 2% for the strata property located in Area #5, Centre Maple Ridge.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.
Municipality
2012
Municipal
Tax Rate
2011 to
2012
% Change
2011
Municipal
Tax Rate
2011 to
2012
Total
Municipal
% Change
2011 to
2012
Total
Utilities
% Change
2011 to
2012
Total
Municipal &
Utilities
% Change
West Vancouver3 1.81450 -12.7%2.07900 2.4%9.9%4.2%
Richmond5 2.00128 -7.4%2.16085 10.5%6.1%9.0%
Vancouver 2.02002 -5.1%2.12815 7.6%8.9%8.0%
Burnaby1 2.23260 -6.1%2.37710 8.3%6.0%7.6%
Surrey4 2.35469 -1.0%2.37807 5.3%11.9%7.8%
North Vancouver - District 2.36446 -4.4%2.47291 3.6%9.9%5.8%
North Vancouver - City 2.38015 -0.4%2.38906 5.4%8.1%6.2%
Coquitlam2 3.02810 -0.7%3.04860 5.0%4.7%4.9%
Langley - Township 3.19978 2.2%3.12939 3.3%6.2%4.4%
Port Moody 3.30760 2.9%3.21450 7.2%3.2%6.0%
Delta 3.51604 0.7%3.49209 3.8%6.4%4.6%
New Westminster 3.54410 -1.9%3.61310 4.3%6.3%4.9%
Port Coquitlam 3.71290 1.2%3.66900 4.0%5.0%4.3%
Pitt Meadows 3.72580 4.0%3.58140 5.2%3.4%4.5%
Maple Ridge 4.08880 4.9%3.89780 5.2%7.0%5.7%
Mission 4.82645 1.0%4.77970 0.3%1.5%0.7%
Notes:
1-Garbage/recycling included in municipal taxes.
2-In 2011, utilities reported included a $37 fee for multi-family. This has been corrected and is reflected above.
3-Rec'd clarification for Solid Waste, Water & Sewer utility rates from DWV staff. According to
DWV staff, the median charge is used because it is more representative of what people actually
pay. The 'average' is skewed by a number of very large residential water users. Utilities for 2012
and 2011 reflect this.4-Water and sewer utilities average calculated based on the metered rates and an average consumption of 475 cubic meters.
5-Water and sewer utilities average calculated based on the average meter usage from the previous year for 2012 and 2011.
Page 4 of 7
Figure 2: Sample Properties History of Assessed Values and Property Taxation
Assessed Values
Location 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Silver Valley 437,000 493,000 742,000 722,000 703,000 656,000 746,000 787,000
2 Albion/Kanaka 371,000 393,000 449,000 516,000 516,000 489,000 544,000 531,000
3 Whonnock 355,700 380,000 423,000 532,000 532,000 487,000 518,000 532,000
4 Central MR 295,000 289,100 340,000 387,000 387,000 384,000 418,000 420,000
5 Central MR- strata 171,000 210,800 234,200 262,600 262,600 236,500 243,000 229,000
6 West MR 427,000 425,000 476,000 562,000 562,000 579,000 610,000 597,000
7 Lower Hammond 190,600 182,300 201,100 239,600 239,600 224,300 219,100 219,300
8 Upper Hammond 284,000 293,000 375,000 460,000 460,000 425,000 450,000 429,000
Total 2,531,300 2,666,200 3,240,300 3,681,200 3,662,200 3,480,800 3,748,100 3,744,300
Change in Assessed Values
Location 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Silver Valley 30.8%12.8%50.5%-2.7%-2.6%-6.7%13.7%5.5%
2 Albion/Kanaka 20.1%5.9%14.2%14.9%0.0%-5.2%11.2%-2.4%
3 Whonnock 21.7%6.8%11.3%25.8%0.0%-8.5%6.4%2.7%
4 Central MR 24.4%-2.0%17.6%13.8%0.0%-0.8%8.9%0.5%
5 Central MR- strata 15.8%23.3%11.1%12.1%0.0%-9.9%2.7%-5.8%
6 West MR 22.3%-0.5%12.0%18.1%0.0%3.0%5.4%-2.1%
7 Lower Hammond 17.4%-4.4%10.3%19.1%0.0%-6.4%-2.3%0.1%
8 Upper Hammond 21.9%3.2%28.0%22.7%0.0%-7.6%5.9%-4.7%
Total 22.6%5.3%21.5%13.6%-0.5%-5.0%7.7%-0.1%
Taxation (Municipal General/Debt/Library)
Location 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Silver Valley 1,738 1,925 2,576 2,303 2,342 2,370 2,660 2,916
2 Albion/Kanaka 1,475 1,534 1,559 1,646 1,719 1,767 1,940 1,968
3 Whonnock 1,414 1,483 1,469 1,697 1,772 1,759 1,847 1,971
4 Central MR 1,173 1,129 1,181 1,235 1,289 1,387 1,490 1,556
5 Central MR- strata 680 823 813 838 875 854 866 849
6 West MR 1,698 1,659 1,653 1,793 1,872 2,092 2,175 2,212
7 Lower Hammond 758 712 698 764 798 810 781 813
8 Upper Hammond 1,129 1,144 1,302 1,467 1,532 1,535 1,604 1,590
Total 10,065 10,409 11,251 11,743 12,199 12,574 13,363 13,875
Change in Taxation (Municipal General/Debt/Library)
Location 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Silver Valley 14.6%10.8%33.8%-10.6%1.7%1.2%12.1%9.6%
2 Albion/Kanaka 5.2%4.0%1.6%5.6%4.4%2.8%9.6%1.4%
3 Whonnock 6.6%4.9%-0.9%15.5%4.4%-0.7%4.8%6.7%
4 Central MR 9.0%-3.8%4.6%4.6%4.4%7.6%7.3%4.4%
5 Central MR- strata 1.5%21.0%-1.2%3.1%4.4%-2.4%1.3%-2.0%
6 West MR 7.2%-2.3%-0.4%8.5%4.4%11.8%3.8%1.7%
7 Lower Hammond 2.8%-6.1%-2.0%9.5%4.5%1.5%-3.7%4.1%
8 Upper Hammond 6.8%1.3%13.8%12.7%4.4%0.2%4.4%-0.1%
Total 7.4%3.4%8.1%4.4%3.9%3.1%6.1%3.8%
Page 5 of 7
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.
‘Single family dwelling’ is one category of BC Assessment’s property classes. It is comprised of single
family detached residences or houses. Earlier in this report, we referred to an ‘average home’which
is comprised of single family homes and multi-family units such as townhouses and apartments.
Both calculations are commonly used methodologies. For the purposes of this report,we have used
the ‘average single family dwelling’ as our comparison method.
The data compiled is shown on Figure 3. It shows that the municipal portion of residential property
taxes for the ‘average single family dwelling’in Maple Ridge at $1,890 is amongst the lowest of
those municipalities surveyed.When municipal taxes are combined with property utilities for a total
of $2,706, Maple Ridge is still amongst the lowest of the surveyed municipalities.
When we conducted our survey,two municipalities, the City of Surrey and the City of Richmond,
brought to our attention changes in the methodology for calculating the water and sewer utilities for
an average single family dwelling in their municipalities. In both municipalities,residential metering
programs,where the costs for water and sewer are based on usage,were introduced to residents
some time ago.The number of residents now on metered utility accounts more accurately represents
an average single family dwelling rather than the previous reported flat utility rates for water and
sewer. This is noteworthy because had we gone with our previous method, the City of Surrey’s total
utilities charge would have been $1,371 and their total municipal taxes and utilities charges would
have been $2,985, and in the City of Richmond,their total utilities charge would have been $1,272
and their total municipal taxes and utilities charges would have been $3,259,and this would
affected both of their rankings in Figure 3.
Page 6 of 7
Figure 3: Summary of Survey Results –2012 ‘Average Single Family Dwelling’
Municipality
Average
Assessed
Value*
Municipal
Taxes
Rank
(highest to
lowest)
Total
Utilities
Municipal
Taxes &
Utilities
Rank
(highest to
lowest)Notes
Surrey 614,771 1,614 16 1,016 2,630 16 (10)
Langley-Township 506,454 1,621 15 1,052 2,673 15
Pitt Meadows 455,477 1,697 14 986 2,683 14
Maple Ridge 462,137 1,890 12 816 2,706 13
Port Coquitlam 524,684 1,948 11 865 2,813 12
Mission 390,205 1,803 13 1,088 2,891 11 (3)
Richmond 993,118 1,988 10 915 2,903 10 (7)
North Vancouver-City 861,797 2,051 8 870 2,922 9 (5)
Delta 586,293 2,061 6 915 2,976 8 (2)
Burnaby 920,290 2,055 7 946 3,000 7 (1)
Coquitlam 676,062 2,047 9 1,107 3,154 6
Vancouver 1,165,300 2,354 3 1,028 3,382 5 (9)
Port Moody 735,045 2,431 2 962 3,394 4 (6)
New Westminster 660,389 2,340 5 1,078 3,418 3 (4)
North Vancouver-District 990,375 2,342 4 1,294 3,636 2
West Vancouver 1,964,018 3,564 1 1,222 4,785 1 (8)
Average 781,651 2,113 1,010 3,123
Median 668,226 2,049 1,001 2,949
Highest 1,964,018 3,564 1,294 4,785
Lowest 390,205 1,614 816 2,630
Notes:
•All values have been rounded.
*
(1)Recycling/Garbage included in municipal taxes. Water & Sewer Rates reflect a 5% discount.
(2)
(3)
(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)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Clarification rec'd for Solid Waste, Water & Sewer utility rates from DWV staff. The median charge is used
because it is more representative of what people actually pay. The 'average' is skewed by a number of very large
residential water users. Rates for 2012 and 2011 reflect this new information. Utility rates reflect a 10%
discount.
Land Assessment Averaging for eligible properties; redistribution of 1% tax levy from non-residential to
residential property classes.
Water and sewer utilities average calculated based on the metered rates and an average consumption of 475
cubic meters.
Average Assessed Value was determined by using BC Assessment's 2012 Revised Roll Totals, General Net
Taxable Value Totals for the Residential Single Family Property Class divided by Occurrences.
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.
Drainage Levy Rate/Amount excluded from this analysis. According to Mission staff, only approximately 30
homes are charged this levy.
Water and sewer utilities average calculated based on the average meter usage from the previous year. Utility
rates reflect a 10% discount.
Page 7 of 7
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
For 2012, 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
overall increase for an average single family dwelling’s municipal-controlled levies, including
Recycling, Water and Sewer, is about 5.7%.
The information in this report allows Council to see how our taxes compare to our neighbours.
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.
“Original signed by Jacquie Bergman”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by:Jacquie Bergmann
Research Technician
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
_______________________________________________
Approved by:Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule
_______________________________________________
Concurrence:J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
:jgbb
4.2
District of Maple Ridge
TO:His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE:June 4, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:CDPR-0640-30
FROM:Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:Workshop
SUBJECT:Proposed Community Development Policy (P92) Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached report and recommendation was approved by the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks &
Leisure Services Commission at their meeting of May 3, 2012 (attached).
Staff is presenting this draft policy as information on the Community Development Policy update
process.
RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation required.
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by:Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule
_______________________________________________
Concurrence:J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
SW:ik
Attachment
\\dove\Common Files\01-Admin\0550-Council-Meetings-Public\20-Workshop\02-Agendas\2012-06-
04_Workshop\Item_4.2\final PLSC_Community_Dev_Policy_Update report.doc #1
SUBJECT: PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICY (P92) - UPDATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The current Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Community Development policy has
been in place since June, 1998. Under the guidance of this policy, Parks and Leisure Services
understanding of the community development process has continued to evolve.
The 2010 Master Plan indicated that although the department is a strong leader in the field of
community development over time as the community development role has evolved some
inconsistencies in approach across the department has resulted. In addition, the recent focus on
Neighbourhood Development has contributed to the need to update this policy to ensure that it is
current and supports the ongoing development of the department’s role in this area. The proposed
policy update is intended to address this issue and reflects input from a number of community
processes and surveys combined with staff input and current best practices research.
The proposed update to the current policy is attached for Commission’s consideration to forward this
document for public consultation and feedback.
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be authorized to proceed with a public consultation process for the proposed update to Parks
and Leisure Services Community Development Policy #P92.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services has been operating under the guidance of the
Commission Community Development policy approved in June, 1998. Under this policy, Parks and
Leisure Services has had the opportunity to support the growth and development of the individuals
and community organizations that we work with, while continuing to grow our skills and
understanding of the community development process.
Although Parks and Leisure Services has been identified as a provincial leader in the community
development work that is conducted, the 2010 Master Plan indicated that the department needed
to revisit the current policy and update it. There was indication through the master plan
consultation processes that as the community development role of the department evolved there
were some inconsistencies in approaches across the department. The proposed policy update is
intended to address this issue.
The introduction of Neighbourhood Development as a key focus area in the department work has
also contributed to the need to update how Parks and Leisure Services works with, and supports the
community in this area. The attached proposed policy reflects the learning that the department has
gathered through the Neighbourhood Development work to date.
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
Parks & Leisure Services Commission Report
REGULAR MEETING
May 3, 2012
\\dove\Common Files\01-Admin\0550-Council-Meetings-Public\20-Workshop\02-Agendas\2012-06-
04_Workshop\Item_4.2\final PLSC_Community_Dev_Policy_Update report.doc #2
The proposed update to the current policy is attached for Commission’s consideration to forward
this document for public consultation and feedback. The proposed policy reflects input from staff
and community combined with current best practices research.
b) Desired Outcome:
That the community development policy be updated to reflect current research and guidelines that
will achieve the benefits outlined in the document.
c) Strategic Alignment:
The proposed policy update aligns closely to the values of “Connected, Collaborative, and
Energized” identified in the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan adopted by Commission and
Councils in 2010.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
This policy focuses on building both individual and community capacities. The research shows that
the development of social capacity is critical to the health and wellness of communities.
e) Policy Implications:
Updated to the June, 1998 Community Development Model Policy P92 (attached).
f) Alternatives:
That staff be asked to conduct further research and consultation related to this policy.
CONCLUSIONS:
As the department works to support the growth and development of both individual and the
communities’ capacities, staff are learning alongside community members. The need to update the
current Community Development Policy is critical to the continued growth and evolution of this
approach. The attached proposed policy reflects a combination of consultation with community and
staff combined with best practices that are being used globally. The intent is to receive endorsement
from Commission to forward the proposed policy for public consultation and feedback. Once that
consultation has occurred, an updated draft will be brought back to Commission for final consideration.
“Original signed by Sue Wheeler”
Prepared By: Sue Wheeler
Community Services Director
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved By: Kelly Swift
Title: General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
:sw
Attachments:
Proposed New Community Development Policy P92
Current Community Development Model Policy P92
\\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0340-Circs-Man-Policy-Templates\50-Policies-
Procedures\Community_Development_Policy_P92.doc 1
TITLE POLICY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICYCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICYCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICYCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICY
AUTHORITY: __________ EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2012
POLICY NO. P92 SUPERSEDES: June 1998
APPROVAL:
POLICY STATEMENT:POLICY STATEMENT:POLICY STATEMENT:POLICY STATEMENT:
Parks and Leisure Services will utilize an asset-based community development approach in the
provision of leisure services to support and encourage citizens, community organizations, and
networks to work collectively to build individual and community capacity to enhance quality of life.
PURPOSE:
The Parks and Leisure Services’ community development approach aims to support the development
of active and influential communities based on inclusion, equality, and mutual respect. This
approach values the engagement and participation of all citizens and recognizes the richness
achieved through diversity of perspectives. Careful attention is taken to remove the barriers that
prevent people from participating in the issues that affect their lives. The focus is on building
leadership capacity in order to support and encourage community groups and organizations to work
collectively to:
i) identify their strengths, needs, rights and responsibilities;
ii) build relationships which support, sustain, encourage, and value each participant;
iii) learn, plan, organize, make decisions and take action with others, in relation to things which
concern them;
iv) and together, assess the effect of any actions taken.
DEFINITIONS:
Community DevelopmentCommunity DevelopmentCommunity DevelopmentCommunity Development: Broadly, community development is a collective approach by a group of
people to undertake projects of their choice that will bring about positive change. This activity is
informed by a set of values that underpin the approach to the work. These values are: social justice,
self-determination, working and learning together, sustainable communities, participation, and
reflective practice.
Community Development Policy #2
\\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0340-Circs-Man-Policy-Templates\50-Policies-
Procedures\Community_Development_Policy_P92.doc
Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) ApproachAsset Based Community Development (ABCD) ApproachAsset Based Community Development (ABCD) ApproachAsset Based Community Development (ABCD) Approach: This approach considers local assets as
the primary building blocks of sustainable community development. Building on the skills of local
residents, the power of local associations, and the supportive functions of local institutions, asset-
based community development draws upon existing community strengths to build stronger, more
sustainable communities for the future. The principles of ABCD approach include:
• Asset-Based – build on positives, strengths and opportunities.
• Relationship-Driven – centered on the people in the community working together.
• Locally-Focused – place based.
The ABCD approach practices include:
• Asset Mapping – identifying all the strengths
• Asset Mobilizing – connecting assets and cultivating leadership
Capacity BuildingCapacity BuildingCapacity BuildingCapacity Building: Community capacity building describes the process of developing skills,
knowledge, confidence and structures that ensure that projects will succeed. Community capacity is
the combined influence of a community’s commitment, resources, and skills that can be deployed to
build on community strengths and address community problems and opportunities. Community
capacity building focuses on enhancing the assets and abilities of the community through a process
of identification, strengthening and linking of a community’s tangible resources (i.e. charitable
service clubs) and intangible resources (i.e. community spirit).
Social CapitalSocial CapitalSocial CapitalSocial Capital: Social Capital is the value generated by various forms of civic engagement, trust,
norms of reciprocity, networks, associations, and information sharing within a community. Social
Capital:
• helps information flow through the community;
• encourages norms of reciprocity that compel people to help others for mutual benefit;
• increases participation in democratic institutions, thereby improving their accountability;
• and helps the community become resilient to economic, social and environmental changes.
Resilient Communities:Resilient Communities:Resilient Communities:Resilient Communities: Resilient communities are healthy communities capable of “bouncing back”
from adverse situations by actively influencing and preparing for economic, social and environmental
change. Building resilient communities relies on building social capital because:
• in times of need, a resilient community will draw upon all of the resources that make it a healthy
community;
• during times of crisis, social capital provides a community with an informed communications
network and access to a wide range of resources, beyond the traditional labour market.
Community EngagementCommunity EngagementCommunity EngagementCommunity Engagement: : : : Authentic community engagement requires significant numbers of
community members and happens when:
• people in communities create structures and processes that are empowering for themselves
and others;
• and people in public agencies create structures and processes that are empowering for all
citizens.
Conscious consideration must be given to removal of barriers to ensure that citizens can participate.
Community Development Policy #3
\\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0340-Circs-Man-Policy-Templates\50-Policies-
Procedures\Community_Development_Policy_P92.doc
Community EmpowermentCommunity EmpowermentCommunity EmpowermentCommunity Empowerment: Authentic community empowerment provides opportunities and
processes that enable all citizens to play an active role in the decisions that affect their
communities. Assisting individuals and groups to recognize their own ‘gifts’ and connecting them to
community assets is critical to effective community empowerment.
Benefits of an Asset-Based Community Development Approach:
Utilizing the Asset-based Community Development approach enables Parks and Leisure Services to
create opportunities for connections that contribute to building citizen, community organizations,
networks and associations’ capacity.
Investing in Individual Capacity BuildingInvesting in Individual Capacity BuildingInvesting in Individual Capacity BuildingInvesting in Individual Capacity Building:
Investing time and attention to individual citizens’ development of their personal skills, knowledge
and development is vital to the health of the community and the successful development to leaders
in community processes. The personal development of individuals ‘gifts’ and talents and can be
nurtured through the creation of opportunities that contribute to building:
• Sense of Self ( self esteem)
• Sense of Competence
• Sense of Belonging
• Sense of Purpose
• Sense of Power (empowerment)
• Sense of Empathy (opportunity to practice compassion)
Investing in Community Capacity Building:Investing in Community Capacity Building:Investing in Community Capacity Building:Investing in Community Capacity Building:
Community capacity building ensures that communities take control of their own learning is such a
way that enables them to effectively address the needs and issues that are on their own agendas.
Supporting capacity building of community organizations, networks and associations contributes to:
• increased knowledge, skills and confidence through either/both informal and formal learning
and training opportunities and citizens are validated as worthwhile, capable people.
• the community feeling more confident and powerful and embracing a more positive self-image;
• the community displaying a “can do” attitude, seeing possibilities and not just problems;
• citizens see themselves as the potential producers of their own well being;
• through participation and networking, citizens seeing that they are not alone, that there are
partners for them in community work;
• and the development of structures, systems, and mechanisms to support ongoing collective
approaches to enable community to address issues and/or capitalize on opportunities.
Community Development Policy #4
\\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0340-Circs-Man-Policy-Templates\50-Policies-
Procedures\Community_Development_Policy_P92.doc
Guiding Principles:Guiding Principles:Guiding Principles:Guiding Principles:
AssetAssetAssetAsset----BasedBasedBasedBased
We believe that all citizens have “gifts”, talents and skills and that people can and want to contribute
and that they are healthier when they contribute. We believe in providing opportunities that
encourage both individual and community capacity building.
RelatiRelatiRelatiRelationshipsonshipsonshipsonships
We believe that strong relationships are at the core of a healthy community. We believe in investing
in building and nurturing strong mutually respectful relationships.
InclusiveInclusiveInclusiveInclusive
We value the engagement and participation by all citizens and recognize the richness achieved
through diversity of perspectives. We take responsibility for recognizing and removing the barriers
that prevent people from participating in the issues that affect their lives.
ConnectionsConnectionsConnectionsConnections
We believe in the “giving of gifts”. We believe that the gifts, talents and skills in the community are
boundless and that supporting processes that promote sharing of assets it critical.
GrassrootsGrassrootsGrassrootsGrassroots
We value, respect, nurture and encourage the community to identify their own priorities, to learn
together and collectively play a leadership role in its own development.
CollectiveCollectiveCollectiveCollective
We believe in the “power of association”. We believe that when community assets are connected
they become amplified, magnified, productive and celebrated. The connection of assets is essential
to community health, wellness, and resiliency.
REFERENCE:
Community Development Processes and Tools Attached:
1. Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) Approach Model (Source – “What is Asset Based
Community Development (ABCD)”).
2. Dimensions of Community Empowerment (source – CDX “What is community empowerment?”)
3. Sample Community Asset Map (source – “Discovering Community Power: A Guide to Mobilizing
Local Assets and Your Organization’s Capacity”)
4. Practices to Guide the Community Developer (Source – “What is Asset Based Community
Development (ABCD)”).
4.3
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 4, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: CDPR-0640-30
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Healthy Communities Initiative Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Representatives from Fraser Health attended the June 13, 2011 Council Workshop to introduce the
Healthy Communities Initiative and request that the District of Maple Ridge consider working in
partnership to create healthy community environments, promote healthy living initiatives and
support individual behaviour change. This initiative recognizes that in addition to healthcare,
individual health behaviours as well as the physical and social environments in which one lives
contribute greatly to overall health status and that healthy public policy can contribute to the
improvement of the health of citizens and the communities in which they live.
Under this initiative, provincial health authorities are working with municipalities to develop plans in
five focus areas with the goal of building a healthier community. The five focus areas include:
physical activity, healthy eating, tobacco reduction, healthy-built environments, and priority
populations.
At the June 14, 2011 meeting Council endorsed the proposed partnership and forwarded the
initiative to the Social Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC). SPAC reviewed the proposal and
directed staff to explore the opportunities with Fraser Health. Since that time a staff workshop was
held to inform staff of this initiative and resources, to begin to create an inventory of current
initiatives that promote healthy living, and to identify opportunities to build on current work.
Subsequently this information was used to create a display and to participate in the Healthy Living
Regional Trade Show. In addition, two professional promotional videos were created highlighting two
current innovative initiatives and these will be shared, along with videos from 20 comm unities,
across BC and will be available for Parks and Leisure Services promotions.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only, no resolution required.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
A representative from Fraser Health attended the June 13, 2011, Council Workshop meeting
to inform Council of a new Fraser Health initiative called Healthy Communities. Fraser Health
also requested that the District of Maple Ridge work in partnership with Fraser Health on this
new initiative.
The Healthy Communities Initiative is a component of the Healthy Families BC Strategy that
was launched in May, 2011. Under the Healthy Communities Initiative, the province is
partnering with communities in a grassroots effort to help families live healthier lifestyles and
prevent chronic disease with the goal of ultimately reducing the burden of health -care costs.
The focus is on creating healthy community environments, promoting healthy living initiatives
and supporting individual behaviour change.
As a part of this initiative, Provincial Health Authorities are working with communities to
develop plans to make their city or town healthier by promoting healthy solutions at a grass
root level by concentrating on five focus areas: physical activity, healthy eating, tobacco
reduction, healthy-built environments, and priority populations.
At the June 14, 2011 meeting Council endorsed the proposed partnership and forwarded the
initiative to the Social Planning Advisory Committee. The Committee reviewed the project
and directed staff to explore the opportunities with Fraser Health. As a result, Social
Planning and Fraser Health staff co-hosted a staff workshop designed to educate staff about
the Healthier Community Initiative and to assist municipal staff in identifying work they are
currently doing that supports the goals of this initiative, and to identify additional
opportunities. A number of departments participated in the interactive workshop and
contributed to beginning to develop an inventory of current projects, programs and services
that relate to this initiative. Individual departments were invited to explore opportunities for
future initiatives and encouraged to connect with the Healthy Living Team to access
resources and additional information.
In April of this year, Fraser Health hosted a regional Healthy Living Trade Show designed to
encourage local governments in the Fraser Region to share with each other their unique
healthy living initiatives, to learn from each other, to celebrate successes and to identify
opportunities for regional approaches and synergies that could create efficiencies and
shared leadership. A display was developed highlighting District of Maple Ridge and Maple
Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services initiatives that were identified at the staff
workshop. The display was very successful and the staff participating in the Trade Show
brought back a number of innovative ideas collected from other municipalities. The Trade
Show is expected to become an annual event.
Each municipality participating in the Trade Show was given a unique opportunity to work
with a professional videographer team, at no cost, to develop a two minute video highlighting
a “healthy living story”. Through the Parks and Leisure Services participation two videos
were developed regarding programs that are offered in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.
The Maple Ridge video highlighting the Thomas Haney School Yard Youth Action Park and the
Mentorship program received very positive feedback. The Pitt Meadows video highlighting
children’s after school programming was also positively received. These videos will be
utilized across BC to promote healthy living and have been made available to our
communities to use as healthy living promotion.
b) Desired Outcome:
Through this partnership with Fraser Health under the Healthy Communities Initiative we will
work together to develop a grassroots approach to encourage families to live healthier
lifestyles which will help prevent chronic disease and ultimately both reduce the health-care
cost burden and contribute to building a healthier community.
c) Strategic Alignment:
This initiative aligns with Council’s strategic direction of creating a safe and livable
community. This initiative recognizes that in addition to healthcare, individual health
behaviours as well as the physical and social environments in which one lives contribute
greatly to overall health status and that healthy public policy can contribute to the
improvement of the health of citizens and the communities in which they live.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is expected that as the Healthy Communities Initiative partnership between our community and
Fraser Health continues to develop so will the potential to effectively work together to create healthy
community environments, promote healthy living initiatives and support positive individual behaviour
change. Benefits derived from the partnership already include staff education, access to resources,
and the ability to network with other communities around innovative healthy living initiatives. The
initial inventory development demonstrated that there is an abundance of work being done currently
that aligns with the Healthy Living initiative. The focus now will be to work with Fraser Health and
staff to build the inventory and to begin to develop an Action Plan that departments can incorporate
into their annual business plans.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Sue Wheeler,
Community Services Director
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Kelly Swift,
General Manager: Community Development,
Parks and Recreation Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
sw
"Original signed by Sue Wheeler"
"Original signed by Kelly Swift"
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
4.4
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 4, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: CDPR-0640-30
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: TOWN CENTRE EVENTS UPDATE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Thanks to dedicated volunteers in Maple Ridge, the summer of 2012, our Town Centre will be
packed with many exciting events. This update includes an overview of municipal festivals and
activities that will take place in Maple Ridge Town Centre throughout this summer.
RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation required.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Festival partnerships and volunteers contribute social, recreational, cultural and economic value
to our community by creating vibrant gathering places that draw citizens and tourists together to
discover Maple Ridge’s unique arts and cultural amenities, local businesses and distinctive
geographic features. In addition, volunteer’s engagement and contribution to the benefit of our
community also delivers benefits to their own health and well-being.
In 2012, fifty-three annual community events will take place that will attract over 150,000
participants residents and tourists. 23,000 hours of volunteer efforts and staff support will
ensure the events are successfully and safely implemented, and that desired outcomes are
achieved. Key events that will occur in Memorial Peace Park in Maple Ridge Town Centre this
summer will include:
Adstock Alternative Music Festival
Antioch Medieval Festival
Bard on the Bandstand – Theatre series
Breastfest
Caribbean Festival
Christmas in the City
Earth Day
Family Fun Days in the Park
Festival of Light
GETI Fest
Haney Farmer’s Markets
Lunchtime BIA Concerts
Man in Motion Rick Hansen Event
Canada Day
Spirit of Wood Festival
Youth Art in the Park
Movies by Moonlight
Also noteworthy in 2012, was the first annual“Vibrant Maple Ridge Town Centre Forum” which
took place on March 14, 2012. Twenty-two people attended representing a diverse array of
festivals, stakeholders and the business community, with the purpose of sharing information and
looking for common goals on how we might collaborate to continue to evolve our collective
success and contributions to the vibrancy and health of our Town Centre. The Forum concluded
with a discussion on common goals and next steps. Action Items that forum participants
identified to continue to build a vibrant downtown include:
1. Host a Festival Organizers Workshop on co-promotion opportunities and tools.
2. Initiate a pilot project in collaboration with Economic Strategic Initiatives to measure
economic benefits.
3. Pilot a festival marketing initiative to repackage festivals in a manner that can be used to
increased sponsorship support.
4. Expand promotion on volunteerism to engage new volunteers in new roles.
5. Host a follow-up Festival Forum in 2013.
Family Fun Days in the Park began in July 2011 and again will continue every Sunday throughout
this summer. Activities in the park will commence on July 8, ending on August 26 from 12:00pm-
3:00pm. Family Fun Days provide a variety of free recreation activities for all ages with fun
themes that appeal to a diversity of participants. Weekly themes include Bike Day Physical
Literacy, Learn to Dance, Introduction to Fitness and a Sports Day. The events will provide the
community with self-guided play and semi-structured activities that is intended to provide a
means for family play experiences and an opportunity to connect with other families.
b) Desired Outcomes:
The desired outcome is to maintain and grow a welcoming, inclusive and vibrant Town Centre in
a manner that builds the capacity of citizens and our business community and contributes to the
overall health of our community.
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
A vibrant town centre is an important component of a safe and livable community where citizens
feel welcome and become engaged in diverse ways; as participants, as volunteers, as business
operators and by other means.
An active town centre provides a place for families to come together at a specific time and place
to demonstrate their community spirit and to develop relationships and make connections with
other families. This gives children the opportunity to participate in their community with their
families and alongside other adults which is key to positive social development.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Lisa Zosiak, Planner, Fred Armstrong, Manager Corporate Communications and Sandy Blue,
Manager Strategic Economic Initiatives supported planning for the Vibrant Town Centre Forum
and provided participants with forward-looking information on growth and development
anticipated in the Town Centre. Communications and SEI staff will continue to lend their
expertise to initiatives that will assist the festival and business community to collaborate on
growing and marketing a vibrant downtown.
e) Financial Implications:
Family Fun Days in the Park are funded through Gaming Revenues in 2012, following the
Gaming Policy adopted by Council in 2011.
Economic benefits derived from community events are measured using an Economic Impact
Formula to assess how events attract local spending. According to this model, it is estimated that
each tourist will spend approximately $30 per event day and residents will spend $20 each in
local businesses. One of Maple Ridge’s larger events, the Caribbean Festival, attracts 20,000
people over a two day period, encourages visitors to spend on accommodations, meals, and
memoirs of the event. An estimated half a million dollars is spent locally using this estimate,
which provides a boost to our local economy.
CONCLUSION:
Maple Ridge Downtown is host to a diverse array of festivals, recreation activities, and grass roots
initiatives on every weekend, and these efforts benefit citizens, families and our business
community. Staff continue to collaborate with festival organizers and other community stakeholders
to evolve and grow festivals and activities to maintain and grow a vibrant town centre in a manner
that anticipates significant growth through development and a doubling of the downtown population
by 2040.
“Original signed by Kathryn Baird”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Kathryn Baird, Events & Volunteer Coordinator
“Original signed by Wendy McCormick”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Wendy McCormick, Director of Recreation
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
____________ ___________________________________
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
kb: