Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-06 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf District of Maple Ridge 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES –April 22, 2013 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 3.1 Metro Vancouver – Waste Flow Management Presentation by Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services and Esther Berube, Senior Project Engineer, Metro Vancouver 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Adopt-A-Block Presentation by Nicole Driedger, Education and Volunteer Coordinator, Alouette River Management Society and Maple Ridge Adopt A Block Society Staff report dated May 6, 2013 recommending that staff work with the Alouette River Management Society and the Adopt-A-Block Society on appropriate changes to the Letter of Understanding and the Fee for Service Agreement to reflect a merger between the two organizations. COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA May 6, 2013 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 May 6, 2013 Audit and Finance Committee Meeting 8:00 a.m. Closed Council following Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m. Council Workshop May 6, 2013 Page 2 of 3 4.2 Pedestrian Connectivity and Trails Strategy Verbal presentation by the Municipal Engineer and the Director of Parks and Facilities 4.3 Resident-Only Parking Policy No. 9.09 Staff report dated May 6, 2013 providing information on the adequacy of Policy No. 9.09 – Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking as well as examples of where the policy has been applied since its adoption. 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 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Checked by: ___________ Date: _________________ Council Workshop May 6, 2013 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: May 6, 2013 and Members of Council FILE NO: OPS1301 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop SUBJECT: Adopt-A-Block Society Proposed Merger with Alouette River Management Society EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Maple Ridge Adopt-a-Block Society (AAB) is a registered society active in Maple Ridge. It originated as an initiative by the Chamber of Commerce in the early 1990’s and has moved locations several times. In the mid 1990’s it entered into a Fee for Service Agreement with the District of Maple Ridge. The Alouette River Management Society (ARMS) is also a registered Society with charitable status. ARMS has a long standing Letter of Understanding with the District of Maple Ridge. In the mid to late 1990’s Adopt-a-Block began a close relationship with the Alouette River Management Society by sharing offices and staff time. AAB and ARMS are considering a merger which would have commonality in the purpose of organizing volunteers to do clean up on streets, parks and creeks. AAB has presented this concept to staff (Appendix 1 attached). District staff have met with representatives from both ARMS and AAB. From a synergy perspective the proposed merger makes sense. To reflect the proposed merger the Letter of Understanding and the Fee for Service Agreement are anticipated to require amendments. This report recommends that staff work with both ARMS and AAB in reviewing the Letter of Understanding and the Fee for Service Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Whereas a Letter of Understanding exists between the District of Maple Ridge and the Alouette River Management Society; and Whereas a Fee for Service Agreement exists between the District of Maple Ridge and the Adopt-A- Block Society; and 4.1 Whereas the Adopt-A-Block Society wishes to merge with the Alouette River Management Society; THAT staff be directed to work with the Alouette River Management Society and the Adopt-A-Block Society on the appropriate changes to the Letter of Understanding and the Fee For Service Agreement to reflect the merger between the Alouette River Management Society and the Adopt-A- Block Society and that those changes be brought back to Council for consideration. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The District of Maple Ridge supports both ARMS and AAB financially through a Letter of Understanding with ARMS and a Fee for Service agreement with AAB. Recently AAB has met with ARMS with a view to merging. The rationale for this is contained in AAB’s presentation to ARMS attached as Appendix 1 to this report. Under the Letter of Understanding and the Fee for Service Agreements, ARMS and AAB have defined obligations. Through the merger it is understood that AAB would become a program that would report to the ARMS Board of Directors while keeping it’s identity. AAB have made it clear that this program would have separately identified funding. In this way if the program was discontinued or modified then the funding could be severed in whole or in part without affecting the current funding to ARMS. b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome is to re-energize the AAB program through the synergies that are anticipated with the merger with ARMS. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: There are many dedicated Volunteers in our community. Adopt-a-Stream or Adopt-a-Block programs are attractive to people who want to help in a specific way. Volunteerism results in neighbourhood pride and the goals both lead to beautifying and protecting the environment. d) Business Plan/Financial Implications: In 2013 ARMS is budgeted to receive $20,000. AAB is budgeted to receive $25,000 plus $2,500 for supplies. This separation of funding is proposed to be continued and identified through the appropriate instrument (Letter of Understanding, Fee for Service or both). It is intended to work with ARMS and AAB to draft the appropriate agreement for Council’s consideration. CONCLUSION: AAB and ARMS are considering a merger which would have commonality in the purpose of organizing volunteers to do clean up on streets, parks and creeks. AAB has presented this concept to Staff (Appendix 1 attached). District staff have met with representatives from both ARMS and AAB. From a synergy perspective the proposed merger makes sense. To reflect the proposed merger the Letter of Understanding and the Fee for Service Agreement are anticipated to require amendments. This report recommends that staff work with both ARMS and AAB in reviewing the Letter of Understanding and the Fee for Service Agreement. “Original signed by Russ Carmichael”__________________ Prepared by: Russ Carmichael, AScT, Eng.L Director of Engineering Operations “Original signed by Frank Quinn”______________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng General Manager, Public Works and Development Services “Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule______________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: Appendix 1 – Maple Ridge Adopt-A-Block Society Presentation Proposal for a merger to the Alouette River Management SocietyAPPENDIX 1 WWe are: €Volunteers picking up litter€Community groups picking up litter€Businesses adopting streets€Shoreline and community clean-ups€Pitch In!The Maple Ridge Adopt A Block Society OOur identity: Vision€Everyone working together to make Maple Ridge the cleanest community in BC.Mission€Working with the community to reduce litter through education and a hands-onprevention plan.Values€Civic Pride €Environmental Awareness €Motivation €Partnerships €SupportThe Maple Ridge Adopt A Block Society Our Present What We Do Now:€500+ volunteers strong€Annual Great Canadian Shoreline clean-up€Annual Pitch-In Canada clean-up€Education program for elementary schools and preschools€Volunteer program for high school volunteer hours Our Future What we would like to do:€Litterbug program for community groups like scouts, school sport teams, dance teams, etc.€More regular community clean-ups€Volunteer appreciation€Continuation of our current programs€Adopt A Program Our Finances 51%26%7%7%3%6%Just Can ItContractorAdministratorInsurance/WCBRentPhoneProgramming Merging with ARMS €We would like to keep our identity, vision and values by:•Asking for 1 AAB board member to be a representative on the ARMS Board•Form a committee under ARMS€We would be able to use ARMS charitable number, therefore multiplying our funding€Long-time partnership with BC Corrections brings in lots of opportunities€Broader volunteer baseBenefits for Adopt A Block Merging with ARMS €We want to clean up litter on the street before it ends up in ditches or storm drains and in our creeks and rivers.€AAB has partnered with ARMS since 1994. Staff from AAB and ARMS have overlapped from 1995-2009 and 2012-2013.€AAB has rented office space from ARMS since the Rivers Heritage Centre opened. €ARMS currently runs Adopt A Stream. Access to ARMS volunteer base will increase AAB volunteers.How does Adopt A Block fit? Alouette River Management SocietyAdopt A ProgramsParkBlockStreamTrailEducationSchool ProgramsCampsFestivalsToursRivers Heritage CentreSalmonRestoration Allco Fish HatcheryHabitat RestorationPrivate Land RestorationFish Ladder AAB 3 Year Plan €Double our current income €Develop Litterbug Program€Redevelop Education Curriculum€Hold 4 volunteer thank-you events€Leadership programs in high schools €In the newspaper at least 4 times €Triple our current annual income€New display andpromotional materialsEnd of 2013 End of 2014End of 2015€Be in every elementary and high school in SD#42€Have 10 different businesses fund Litterbug Program€Web and Facebook site running and updated 3 times a week District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 6, 2013 and Members of Council FILE NO: E02-008-001 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Review of Policy 9.09 - Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In June 2012, Council approved Policy 9.09 - “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking” (Policy). As it is approaching one year since implementation, this report provides information on the adequacy of the Policy as well as examples of where the Policy has been applied since its adoption. The Policy appears to be working satisfactorily and no changes are recommended. RECOMMENDATION: For information only. No motion required. DISCUSSION: Residential areas adjacent to areas of high parking demand often have to deal with non-resident vehicles taking up the limited on-street parking. The Policy was created to address and resolve situations where a chronic and heavy demand for on-street parking by non-residents is a concern. It is noted that permit parking for residents in a neighbourhood allows residents to have parking priority in a signed area within a reasonable distance of their home but does not guarantee residents the right or ability to park in front of their own property. a)Background Context: The Policy recognizes that in single family residential areas adjacent to high demand hubs where there is competition for limited parking stalls there are two basic situations that may exist: a lack of available on-street parking, or a preponderance of non-resident vehicles that park within a neighbourhood and while residents may have adequate off-street parking on their properties it is seen as an imposition or detriment to the neighbourhood. Also, the Policy is intended for areas where there is a chronic and heavy demand for on-street parking by non-residents and not to address short term intermittent parking problems generated by schools, churches, pubs etc. Likewise, permit parking regulations are generally implemented in single family neighbourhoods and not intended to deal with the demands of higher-density residential uses such as townhouses or apartments as these zones are required to provide adequate off-street parking. 4.3 Prior to the implementation of the Policy there were no areas within the District where parking is limited to local residents to the exclusion of others; there is a network of time limited parking areas, mostly around the Town Centre but also, for example on River Bend adjacent to the Haney Station or Patterson Avenue off 203 Street. The time limits range from 15 minutes for a loading zone up to 3 hours. The Policy established two basic types of permit parking regulations: Time Limited Parking with Resident Exemptions (RE) Time limited parking is generally set for one to two hours in order to allow parking for the general public while allowing residents to park for a longer period under a permit. Depending upon the adjacent land use, the time limited parking may be in place for a defined period each day, may be in place Monday to Friday, or may be in place 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Resident Only Parking (RO) This method is generally implemented where there is a demonstrated lack of available on-street parking, even for local residents, and there is considerable demand from external vehicles. Policy 9.09 - “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking” was adopted by Council on June 26, 2012 a copy of which is attached in Appendix A of this report. The Highway and Traffic Bylaw was amended in 2012 to include the annual fees for the RO and RE decals. Since the implementation of the Policy, there have been a small number of enquiries for the general areas in proximity to the West Coast Express stations but none of these have proceeded to the petition stage. There were three requests that did proceed to the petition stage, two of which were supported by the requisite 65% majority of residents and RE parking implemented. Neighbourhood residents seeking to park on-street for longer than the regulated two hours were able to attain exception permits by applying through the Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department at the Municipal Hall. Cutler Place & 212 Street There were long-standing concerns in the residential area west of Laity Street where residents were concerned about hospital employees and visitors parking for extended periods on the local streets. The RE petition went out to residents of:  Cutler Place, west of Laity Street  212 Street, north of 117 Avenue  212 Street, from 117 Avenue south to River Road  River Wynd, also from 117 Avenue south to River Road  117 Avenue, from Laity Street to Fraserview Street Based upon the response from residents only the first two locations reached the required majority and 2-Hour signage was installed in August 2012. Anderson Place Anderson Place is a cul-de-sac south of River Road, again in the vicinity of the hospital and residents had similar concerns to those stated above. This RE petition was again supported by the majority of residents and the 2–Hour signage installed in September 2012. Dogwood Avenue Some residents on Dogwood Avenue had concerns about patrons to the Black Sheep Pub parking in front of their properties and constraining access to driveways. A petition went out to all residences on Dogwood Avenue in October 2012 but in this case there was not sufficient support from the residents to merit installing any RE parking signage. The residents were informed of the unsuccessful petition in late October 2012. Having undertaken a number of petitions it appears that the policy as drafted meets the original intent and in the three cases noted performed satisfactorily. There have been no petitions to date in 2013. b) Desired Outcome: The implementation of a resident-exemption and/or resident-only parking policy provides some certainty for residents concerned about the livability of their neighbourhood by controlling the number of non-resident vehicles parking for extended periods of time. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: A consequence of limiting on-street parking for residents in a high-demand neighbourhood is the inconvenience in having visitors seek to park on the street and possibly be ticketed although this does not seem to be an issue in the three cases to date. Residents do have to come into the Municipal Hall to renew their permits annually but this doesn’t seem to be an issue so far. The policy does not allow for the issuance of visitor permits as they are often misused and it is d ifficult to track appropriate usage. It is noted however that the installation of a resident-exempt or resident-only parking zone does not guarantee that residents will be able to park in front of their residence. On-street parking is available to any eligible user. d) Interdepartmental Implications: The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department enforce the regulations within the designated RE or RO zones. The issuance of permits or decals is handled through the Bylaws Customer Service Counter in Municipal Hall. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: There is a cost to administer the issuance and record-keeping of the RE or RO decals that is dependent largely upon the number of streets where RE or RO is implemented. At this stage, with only three streets in place the costs are minimal. The annual fee for a single RE or RO decal is set in the Highway and Traffic Bylaw at $10 with replacement permits costing $5. The enforcement of the regulations is undertaken by Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department staff in the course of their regular shifts. f) Policy Implications: Policy 9.09 - “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking” will govern the consideration and implementation of RE or RO zones. g) Alternatives: The Policy could be repealed but then staff would then have to address issues of residential parking conflicts on a case-by-case basis without the benefit of a guiding framework. CONCLUSIONS: The endorsement of a Council Policy to address concerns of residents around excessive non-local vehicles parking has helped to alleviate potential conflicts and dissatisfaction of affected residents in neighbourhoods adjacent to areas of high parking demand such as hospitals, transportation hubs or commercial hubs. No changes to the Policy are recommended. “Original signed by David Pollock” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. General Manager: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer DP/dp Attachment: Appendix A – “Policy 9.09 - Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Policy” Appendix A Page 1 of 5 Policy 9.09 POLICY MANUAL Title: Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Policy No : 9.09 Supersedes: New Authority: Legislative Operational Approval: Council CMT General Manager Effective Date: June 27, 2012 Review Date: June 26, 2013 Policy Statement: Requests for Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking will be addressed in accordance with the strategies, practice and measures as contained in the document titled “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Procedures”, as attached. Purpose: Residential parking issues are a concern of both the District and its residents. The application of consistent processes and practices will ensure that neighborhood parking issues will be addressed in a balanced, efficient and cost effective manner that respects the needs of residents and road users. Definitions: See attached “Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking Procedures.” Page 2 of 5 Policy 9.09 Key Areas of Responsibility Action to Take Neighborhood request for Parking Restrictions Evaluate request based on procedures (see attached) and forward recommendation to Municipal Engineer Approval or denial Install signs Issuance of annual permit Parking enforcement Responsibility Residents Bylaws and Engineering Municipal Engineer Operations Bylaws Bylaws Page 3 of 5 Policy 9.09 RESIDENT-EXEMPTION AND RESIDENT-ONLY PARKING PROCEDURES (An attachment to Policy No. 9.09) INTRODUCTION Residential areas adjacent to areas of high parking demand such as hospitals, transportation hubs or commercial hubs often have to deal with non-resident vehicles taking up the limited on-street parking. To resolve such issues jurisdictions may choose to implement parking strategies in situations where a chronic and heavy demand for on-street parking by non-residents is a concern. Permit parking schemes for residents in a neighbourhood allows residents to have parking priority in a signed area within a reasonable distance of their home but at the same time it is noted that residents are not guaranteed the right or ability to park in front of their own property. Restricted parking schemes are generally implemented where there is a chronic and heavy demand from on-street parking by non-residents and is not to address short term intermittent parking problems generated by school, churches, pubs, etc. The form of parking scheme will vary with the intensity of the parking problem. In general terms access to on-street parking becomes more difficult once a level of 70 percent parking occupancy is reached. This threshold is applied as a guide for determining when parking control schemes should be introduced. Residential streets that consistently have parking levels less than this threshold will largely remain uncontrolled, apart from controls to maintain traffic efficiency and safety standards. Once the 70 percent parking occupancy threshold is consistently exceeded, the implementation of restricted parking zones will be considered if a majority of 65 percent of residents support the implementation on the affected length of street. OBJECTIVES The main objectives of a policy to guide requests for Resident-Exempt (RE) or Resident-Only (RO) parking schemes are:  Enhance residential amenity by eliminating or restricting opportunities for non-residents and commuters to park all day on residential streets in high-demand areas such as those adjacent to such as hospitals or institutions, transportation hubs or commercial hubs  Provide equitable on-street parking opportunities for road users  Support green transportation objectives and strategies  Encourage public transportation usage by limiting unrestricted parking in high demand areas. Permit parking regulations, whether they be RE or RO are generally implemented in single family neighbourhoods and not intended to deal with the demands of higher-density residential uses such as townhouses or apartments as these zones are required to provide adequate off-street parking. DEFINITIONS There are two basic types of permit parking schemes: RESIDENT-EXEMPTION (RE) PARKING: In this case an area is posted as a time-limited zone where the parking limit is generally set for one to two hours in order to allow parking for the general public. Residents are able to park for a longer period under a Resident-Exemption permit. Depending upon the adjacent land use, the Page 4 of 5 Policy 9.09 time limited parking may be in place for a defined period each day, may be in place Monday to Friday, or may be in place 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Residents are not guaranteed an on-street parking space and availability is on a first-come, first-serve basis. RESIDENT-ONLY (RO) PARKING: This strategy is generally implemented where there is a demonstrated lack of available on -street parking even for local residents and there is considerable demand from external vehicles. CONSIDERATION OF RE AND RO ZONES RE and RO parking areas should be considered for neighbourhood streets that are in close proximity to public facilities such as institution facilities, transit hubs, commercial districts and tourist attractions. If there is a desire for RE or RO parking on an applicable street the District’s Engineering Department (Traffic) will undertake a parking evaluation with assistance from Bylaws to determine the valid ity of the concern and appropriate measures. The evaluation may include the following:  Inventory of the existing number of on-street parking spaces  Survey of on-street parking demand  Review and evaluation by the Traffic Management Group comprised of staff from RCMP, Engineering, Bylaws, Speedwatch, Planning, Parks and ICBC. RE and RO parking areas will be considered on an area-specific basis with the minimum area being a complete street block, both sides. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Eligibility for a RE or RO permit will be determined as follows:  Single Family dwellings and Semi-detached dwellings (duplex, 3-plex and 4-plex) are eligible to receive a maximum of two permits, provided that there are two or more cars registered at the address.  Multi-family dwellings (apartments, townhouses, low and high rise buildings are not eligible for permits as these zones are required to provide sufficient off-street parking. In addition to the above;  The permitted vehicle must be registered to the residential address and cannot be a commercial truck, bus, caravan, recreational vehicle, boat trailer, nor can the vehicle exceed 5000 kgs L.G.V.W.  No visitor or temporary permits will be issued to eliminate mis-use.  Permit holders are permitted to park in designated areas and does not guarantee an on - street parking space. Parking availably will be on a first come first serve basis. CONSULTATION PROCESS All affected residents, business and/or property owners of the street proposed for permit parking will be notified in writing. A questionnaire survey on the proposal and/or some other form of communication such as neighborhood street meetings may be used to assess the area residents’ support and willingness to participate in the program. The District is looking for a minimum 65 percent participation rate in any identified area to initiate either a RE or RO scheme. Page 5 of 5 Policy 9.09 APPROVAL PROCESS The Municipal Engineer will have final authority on designating a subject neighbourhood as a RE or RO area. APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL PERMITS Residents seeking either RE or RO permits are required to make an annual application at the Bylaws counter at Municipal Hall. In applying for exemption, residents are responsible to provide the necessary documents to the District’s Bylaws Department as specified in the application forms. FEES Fees for permits shall be as listed in the District’s Fee and Charges Bylaw. These fees will be subject to annual review. Any replacement permits required due to damage to original permit, sale of vehicle etc. will be provided upon receiving new documentation and payment of fee. USE OF PERMIT Any issued permit is not transferable. Permits must reflect the vehicle plate number of the vehicle in which it is displayed and designated area in which it is parked. If circumstances change and the permit holder does not meet the eligibility criteria, the permit is no longer valid and must be returned. RENEWAL OF RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT Resident Parking Permits must be renewed at the beginning of each calendar year, subject to satisfying eligibility criteria. It is the permit holder’s responsibility to make sure that the permit is valid at all times. Residents must be aware that it is not an automatic renewal. RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY The Traffic Management Group will provide input to the Municipal Engineer for all new requests to establish permit parking areas. The Municipal Engineer will have final authority on designating RE and RO areas. The Engineering Department (Traffic) will be responsible for the installation of all traffic controls in designated RE and RO areas. The Bylaws Department is responsible for the processing of applications and issuance of all resident parking permits. The Bylaws Department is responsible for the enforcement of all permit parking areas.