HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-26 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES –July 22, 2013
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Update on the Agricultural Land Commission Decisions to Exclude Land from the
Agricultural Land Reserve for 23451 and 23623 105 Avenue
Staff report dated August 26, 2013 providing an overview of the Agricultural Land
Commission decisions and implications for advancing the Block Exclusion
applications for properties located south of 105 Avenue in the Albion Flats.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
August 26, 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
August 26, 2013
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
August 27, 2013
Public Hearing 6:00 p.m.
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
August 26, 2013
Page 2 of 4
4.2 Laserfiche Discovery Document – Review and Next Steps
Discussion of Item 1133 on the August 26, 2013 Committee of the Whole Agenda
4.3 Financial Update
Staff report dated August 26, 2013 providing a financial update to the end of June
2013.
For information only
No motion required
4.4 Property Tax Collection Period
Presentation by the Manager of Revenue and Collections
4.5 2013 Business Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated August 26, 2013 providing information on tax rates assessed to
Business Class 6 properties in 2013.
4.6 September Public Hearing
Consideration of change of date from September 24, 2013 to September 16, 17
or 23, 2013
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 Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia (MIABC) - Voting Delegate
E-mail dated August 12, 2013 from Marisa Newton, MIABC requesting
appointment of a voting delegation and two alternates for the 26th Annual General
Meeting.
Council Workshop
August 26, 2013
Page 3 of 4
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
August 26, 2013
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 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
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
July 22, 2013
The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on July 22, 2013 at a.m. in the
Blaney Room of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British
Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular Municipal business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor E. Daykin J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Ashlie K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor C. Bell Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor J. Dueck P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor A. Hogarth F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor B. Masse Services
Councillor M. Morden C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other Staff as Required
S. Blue, Manager Strategic Economic Initiatives
D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
J. Bastaja, Director of Corporate Support
S. Matthewson, Recreation and Social Planning
Coordinator
L. Holitzki, Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws
F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications
Note: These Minutes are posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted with the addition of the following items:
4.7 Letter to Ombudsperson re: Investigation of BC Hydro projects
5.2 Requests for Meeting with Ministers at the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities Conference
2.0
Council Workshop Minutes
July 22, 2013
Page 2 of 6
2. MINUTES
R/2013-317
Minutes It was moved and seconded
July 8, 2013
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of July 8,
2013 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Education Task Force Composition and Scope of Work
Staff report dated July 22, 2013 recommending that the proposed
composition, scope and objectives of a Post-Secondary Education Task Force
be approved, that staff be directed to carry out and oversee its formation, that
two Councillors be appointed to the Task Force and that the Financial Plan be
adjusted.
The Manager Strategic Economic Initiatives reviewed the report.
R/2013-318
Education Task It was moved and seconded
Force
Forward to Council
That the report dated July 22, 2013 titled “Education Task
Force Composition and Scope of Work” be forwarded to the
July 22, 2013 Council Meeting: and further
That Councillor Hogarth and Councillor Masse be included in
the resolution as the Council appointees.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 22, 2013
Page 3 of 6
4.2 Housing Action Plan Update
Staff report dated July 22, 2013 recommending that the report titled “Housing
Action Plan Update” be received for information.
The Recreation and Social Planning Coordinator reviewed the report.
R/2013-319
Housing Action It was moved and seconded
Plan Update
Receive for information
That the report dated July 22, 2013 titled “Housing Action Plan
Update” be received for information.
CARRIED
4.3 Fibre Optic Network – Status Update and Next Steps
Staff report dated July 22, 2013 recommending that a process for the
Request for Expressions of Interest (“RFEI”) for participants in a District’s
communication conduit network and services for economic development
purposes be undertaken and that staff prepare amendments to Subdivision
and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993 to more formally define
communications conduit development standards.
The Director of Corporate Support reviewed the report.
The Municipal Engineer provided clarification on the differences of between
the Subdivision Bylaw and Development Cost Charges
R/2013-320
Fibre Optic Network It was moved and seconded
Forward to Council
That the report dated July 22, 2013 titled “Fibre Optic Network
– Status Update and Next Steps” be forwarded to the July 23,
2013 Council Meeting.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 22, 2013
Page 4 of 6
Note: The meeting was recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:10 a.m.
4.4 Proposed Sign Bylaw No. 7008-2013
Staff report dated July 22, 2013 providing information on and a draft of
proposed Maple Ridge Sign Bylaw No. 7008-2013,
The Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws reviewed the report. She
advised on significant changes and improvements to the definitions section of
the bylaw and the amount of signage encroaching onto municipal property.
R/2013-321
Proposed Sign It was moved and seconded
BL No. 7008-2013
Receive for information
That the report dated July 22, 2013 titled “Proposed Sign
Bylaw No. 7008-2013” be received for information.
CARRIED
4.5 August-December 2013 Council Matrix
Staff report dated July 22, 2013 recommending that the Council Matrix
attached as Appendix I to the staff report be adopted.
The Manager of Legislative Services reviewed the report and the attached
appendices.
R/2013-322
Council Matrix It was moved and seconded
Adopted
That the Council Matrix attached as Appendix I to the staff
report dated July 22, 2013 be adopted.
CARRIED
4.6 Policy Review - Committees of Council
Staff report dated July 22, 2013 advising that Policy 3.11, Committees of
Council has been reviewed and that no changes are recommended.
The Manager of Legislative Services reviewed the report.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 22, 2013
Page 5 of 6
4.7 Letter to Ombudsperson re: Investigation of BC Hydro projects
Councillor Ashlie expressed concerns with practices being followed by Flatiron
and BC Hydro relating to transmission line expansion and streamside
protection. She asked that a letter be forwarded to the Ombudsperson
requesting that a review of the practices of contractors working on
transmission line expansion projects for BC Hydro.
Mayor Daykin will write a letter to the Ombudsperson putting forward a
request that the issue be reviewed.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
Note Mayor Daykin excused himself at 12:15 p.m. from discussion of Item 5.1 as
he is the Chair of the Youth Diversion Program Board. Councillor Masse
served as Chair.
5.1 Ridge Meadows Youth Diversion Program – Fee for Service Funding
Letter dated June 28, 2013 from Ranjit Kingra, Program Coordinator, Ridge
Meadows Youth Diversion Program, requesting consideration of an increase in
fee for service funding and exemption from rent.
R/2013-323
Youth Diversion
Program – Fee for It was moved and seconded
Service Funding
That the letter dated June 28, 2013 from Ranjit Kingra,
Program Coordinator, Ridge Meadows Youth Diversion
Program be referred to staff.
CARRIED
Note: Mayor Daykin returned to the meeting at 12:17 p.m. and resumed as Chair.
5.2 Requests for Meeting with Ministers at the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities Conference
Mayor Daykin requested that Councillors indicate which Provincial Ministers
they would like to meet with. Council members will provide a list to the
Mayor.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 22, 2013
Page 6 of 6
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT – 12:37 p.m.
_______________________________
E. Daykin, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: August 26, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop
SUBJECT: Update on Agricultural Land Commission Decisions to Exclude Land from the
Agricultural Land Reserve for 23451 & 23623 105th Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On August 15, 2013 the District of Maple Ridge received two letters from the Agricultural Land
Commission advising of its decisions relating to the exclusion applications for two properties in the
Albion Flats: 23451 105th Avenue (Wynnyk) and 23623 105th Avenue (533014 BC Ltd & 610
Investments Ltd) (refer to appendix A & B). In both instances, the ALC Resolutions state “THAT the
request for the exclusion of the subject property from the ALR be refused.”
The following report is intended to provide an overview of the Agricultural Land Commission
decisions, and implications for advancing the Block Exclusion applications for properties located
south of 105th Avenue in the Albion Flats.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the report “Update on Agricultural Land Commission Decisions to Exclude Land from the
Agricultural Land Reserve for 23451 & 23623 105th Avenue” dated August 26, 2013 be received as
information.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
i)Albion Flats Concept Plan
On January 11, 2010 Council directed that a concept plan be prepared for the Albion Flats. On
February 15, 2010 Council gave consideration to the “Albion Flats Concept Plan Process” report
dated February 8, 2010 and resolved that the process recommended in that report be approved.
At the outset of the process Council advised the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) that the District
of Maple Ridge (DMR) was in the process of considering its approach to advancing an area plan
review for the Albion Flats, and requested that a meeting be convened between Council and the ALC
to ascertain whether the Commission would be prepared to considered exclusions within the study
area. In a letter dated January 7, 2010 the ALC advised the District of Maple Ridge that it would be
inappropriate for the Commission to discuss the exclusion of lands in advance of a land use planning
exercise, and suggested that Council proceed with the preparation of a concept plan, noting that the
Commission staff could be made available for assistance. Following the completion of the draft
concept plan, the ALC extended an offer to provide comments in advance of an application.
The District of Maple Ridge followed the ALC’s advice and following a Council approved Public
Process submitted a concept plan to the ALC for comments in May, 2011.
4.1
2
On July 4, 2011 the Commission hosted a workshop meeting with the District to discuss the Draft
Albion Flats Concept Plan. On November 29, 2011, the Commission sent the District its comments
pertaining to the Concept Plan. To summarize, the Agricultural Land Commission did not endorse
the draft concept plan it its entirety, noting that the land north of 105th has agricultural capability; is
suitable for agricultural use; and is appropriately designated as Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
Amongst other things, the ALC Resolution states that the District should submit an exclusion
application for the lands south of 105th Avenue, noting that the exclusion may be conditional on
certain improvements occurring in the Albion Flats.
Based on the feedback received from the Commission, in January 2012 Council considered three
alternatives for advancement of the Concept Plan:
“ 1) The District Submits an Exclusion Application for lands south of 105th Avenue;
2) The District Submits an exclusion Application for all of the lands in the Albion Flats;
3) A Hybrid Option, where the owner(s) of land north of 105th Avenue submit an application(s) for
the lands north of 105th Avenue, and once the ALC decision is known, the District will submit an
exclusion application for the lands south of 105th Avenue.”
Earlier reports identified that some property owners in the area north of 105th Avenue had indicated
that they intended to submit their own application(s) for exclusion from the Agricultural Land
Reserve. It was also noted that the ALC’s decision on the lands north of 105th, may have
implications for land use; drainage improvement requirements; and additional studies for lands to
the south. It was further noted that if the Commission approves an exclusion application on lands to
the north, the District may not need to prepare an agricultural remedial action plan and
comprehensive drainage study. Conversely, if the ALC were to deny an application for exclusion on
lands to the north, the District of Maple Ridge may wish to refine its concept plan for lands to the
south to maximize the amount of commercial and employment space.
On January 24, 2012 Council passed the following Resolution:
“That staff be directed to advance Alternative Three identified in the staff report entitled “Draft
Albion Flats Concept Plan – Agricultural Land Commission Feedback & Next Steps report”, dated
January 23, 2012.”
ii) Application to Exclude Land from ALR – 23451 105th Avenue (2012-061-AL)
In July 2012, Council gave consideration to an application to exclude 16.655 hectares (41 acres) of
land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (Wynnyk). The application was accompanied by an
agrologist report in support of the application. The premise of the report is that drainage issues have
severely compromised the agricultural capability of the property. The proposed benefit to agriculture
was to transport the fertile soil to an agricultural property in Mission. There was no explicit
statement of intent for the development of the property if excluded from the Agricultural Land
Reserve.
At the Council meeting of July 17, 2012 Council expressed concern about the lack of information
with respect to future plans for the property and disappointment with the proposed removal of top
soil from the property for relocation to property in Mission. At that same meeting, Council passed the
following resolution:
“That Application 2012-061-AL be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission
with a summary of Council’s comments.”
3
iii) Application to Exclude Land from ALR - 23623 105th Avenue (file 2012-086-AL)
In August 2012, Council gave consideration to an application to exclude 8.085 hectares (20 acres)
of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (533014 BC Ltd and 610 Investments Ltd). There was no
explicit statement of intent for the development of the property if excluded from the Agricultural Land
Reserve. However, the applicant acknowledged the need for the future development of the site to be
consistent with the Albion Flats Concept Plan.
In its consideration Council expressed a desire to be consistent in its approach to forwarding
exclusion applications in the Albion Flats to the Commission. Council also discussed the significance
of the Albion Flats Concept Plan previously forwarded to the Commission. At the August 28, 2012
Council meeting, the following resolution was passed:
“That Application 2012-086-AL be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission
with a summary of Councils Comments.”
b) Update on ALC Decisions
On August 15, 2013 the District of Maple Ridge received copies of two letters from the Agricultural
Land Commission advising of its decisions relating to the exclusion applications for two properties in
the Albion Flats: 23451 105th Avenue and 23623 105th Avenue. In both instances, the ALC
Resolutions state:
“THAT the request for the exclusion of the subject property from the ALR be refused.”
While the body of each decision is different, the conclusions of the Commission are almost identical
in both decisions and read:
“The Commission concluded
That the agricultural suitability problems encountered by the applicants are real,
That they result primarily from inadequately serviced urban development,
That ultimate responsibility for ensuring adequate urban development servicing lies with the
local government, which now operates the drainage district1
Thus the District of Maple Ridge, in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, is in a
position to ensure that the problems are remedied and agricultural suitability is restored.”
In addition to the above, the ALC minutes for 23451 105th (Wynnyk) identify that the chromium
levels on the property are unacceptably high. As a result the Commission is requiring that soil
reclamation be added to the list of conditions pertaining to the Districts block exclusion application
for the lands south of 105th Avenue. The minutes also note that the Commission believes that its
2011 stipulation for preparation and implementation of an agricultural remedial action plan is still
an appropriate course of action. This statement suggests that the Commission remains supportive
of the Block Exclusion for lands south of 105 th Avenue, subject to satisfying their stipulated
conditions.
c) Implications for the Albion Flats Block Exclusion Application
In 2011, the ALC provided comments on the Albion Flats Draft Concept Plan and passed a
Resolution stating that the District should submit an exclusion application for the lands south of
105th Avenue, noting that the exclusion may be conditional on certain improvements occurring in the
Albion Flats. The conditions identified at the time included: a comprehensive review of drainage and
1 The words “which now operates the drainage district” are not in the decision for 23623 105 th Avenue
4
stream flow conditions; preliminary consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada; the preparation
of an agricultural remedial action plan; and traffic study.
Terms of References for these studies were prepared in consultation with the Agricultural Land
Commission; consultants were retained; and these studies are in various stages of completion. The
goal being to submit the Block Exclusion application to the ALC in the fall/winter of 2013.
At the time of writing this report, Agricultural Land Commission staff were not available to provide
additional information pertaining to the new Soil Reclamation requirement. As a result, details
pertaining to the scope of this condition, and likely outcomes are not known. While this has not been
confirmed, staff anticipates that the Soil Reclamation requirement will trigger the need for a soil
reclamation study to be commissioned. Depending on the complexity of this study, it is likely that
delays on the timing of the block exclusion application may result. District staff will be speaking with
the ALC to gain a better understanding of this requirement, and will report back to Council once this
information is available.
CONCLUSION:
The District of Maple Ridge recently received correspondence from the Agricultural Land
Commission, advising of its decisions to deny the exclusion applications for 23451 105th Avenue
and 23623 105th Avenue, in the Albion Flats. The minutes attached to the decisions identify that the
Commission acknowledges that the problems with agricultural suitability on the lands are real, and
note that the District, in consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is in a position to
remedy the problems and ensure that agricultural suitability is restored.
The minutes further identify that the Commission has added a new condition, requiring that “soil
reclamation” be added to the list of requirements that the District must satisfy in order to advance
development in the Albion Flats. Staff will be meeting with ALC staff to discuss these decisions and
the new requirement, and will update Council once this information is available.
The minutes also note that the Commission believes that its 2011 stipulation of preparation and
implementation of an agricultural remedial action plan remains an appropriate course of action. This
statement suggests that the Commission co ntinues to support the Districts advancement of a block
exclusion for the lands south of 105th Avenue in the Albion Flats.
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Prepared by: Christine Carter, MPl, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Christine Carter" for
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A – ALC letter dated August 9, 2013 – 23451 105th Avenue
Appendix B – ALC letter dated August 9, 2012 – 23623 105th Avenue
$33(1',;$
APPENDIX B
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 26, 2013
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Records Management – Review and Next Steps
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Improved document and records management efforts have been underway at the District for
some time.
Managing digital and paper files, and organizing corporate memory is a legal requirement, and
the thousands of digital files being stored will be difficult to deal with over time without the aid of
a management tool. To prepare for the future, the District will need to concentrate corporate
practices on managing records in a more focused way. The District has been preparing for
implementation of a records management system for several years. Funds for such a system
started to be included in the Capital Budget since the 2000 Financial Plan and steps have been
taken to improve the management of electronic records which will enable an easier transition to
an electronic system.
As part of that on-going effort, a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for a document management
software system was undertaken in 2012 and resulted in the selection of a preferred software
product line, Laserfiche, and a preferred vendor, Ricoh. The Laserfiche product line has a big
presence in document and records management, and has many installs in the government
sector. The reseller, Ricoh, is a document management company specializing in managing paper
and electronic documents.
In an attempt to refine our understanding of the issues of project commitments and
organizational capacity, an interim ‘discovery’ research phase was undertaken. The vendor,
Ricoh, was retained to investigate more thoroughly how the Laserfiche product line can be utilized
at the District, and the costs and efforts required, prior to considering a final commitment to buy
and implement the software line.
The discovery report provided an analysis of each Department’s opportunities to utilize Laserfiche
and settled on a cost and effort commitment reflective of our organizational needs. It is
recommended that Council support the expenditure and effort required to purchase and
implement the Laserfiche product line to improve our document and records management
capabilities for the future.
1 4.2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Council support the purchase and implementation of the Laserfiche document
management software product line, noting that the one-time capital cost is $561,888 and
the annual operating cost is $72,819; and further noting that the capital cost has been
secured and $50,000 of the annual operating costs have been provided for in previously
approved Financial Plans; and further, the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute an
agreement with Ricoh Canada Inc. for the purchase; and
2. That the approved Financial Plan be amended to incorporate the additional annual software
maintenance required to complete the project, and include the temporary project staffing
position which is to be funded from Accumulated Surplus for a 2 year period; and
3. That adopting records management policy and practices, and implementation of an
electronic document management system, be a strategic commitment in all Departments
during Business Planning for the implementation stage.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
In 2012, a Request for Proposals process was undertaken to select document management
software. The Laserfiche product line, and Ricoh the vendor, were selected to address the document
management needs of the District.
The District undertook an additional investigation, termed a ‘discovery’, in 2013 to more fully define
what is necessary, and what will it cost, to implement the Laserfiche product line of document and
records management software tools and have it configured to our needs.
Discovery Project:
The ‘discovery’ phase was a more focused look at the District and how the solution could fit
corporate needs. The project had interviews with key staff in 15 departments and 2 unique areas
of responsibility (ie – the emergency program and the records management function).
For the discovery, a series of interviews were held with each department to review their business
processes, general document and records management needs, and collaboration challenges. The
discovery report then maps across to a tactical strategy where Laserfiche can be implemented in
all departments in a sequential way, while achieving key benefits quickly. The report also identifies
project dependencies and corporate policies that require definition.
In particular, it was to answer the following questions:
1. What work does the organization need to complete to prepare for an electronic
system?
2. What effort is required for a successful implementation?
3. What is the logical phasing of implementation?
2
What work does the organization need to complete to prepare for an electronic system?
In answering this first question, the report recognizes the work that has been accomplished to date,
all of which will assist in getting the District ready for a successful program. The remaining decisions
that are required revolve around policies and practices:
- Retention of email records: how does the District want to archive email records?
- Revisions to the file access permissions structure: the file access permissions need revisions to
reduce barriers to sharing;
- At what point is a document a ‘record’ and how does the District wish to deal with them?
- How does the District want to deal with paper in an increasingly digital world?
- What integrations are wanted to other enterprise software (eg – property system, financials
system, etc.)?
Staff are developing policies and procedures to answer these questions and will be coming forward
to Council at a later date with a corporate records management program bylaw for Council’s
consideration.
What effort is required for a successful implementation?
In answering the second question, what effort is needed to implement, the document notes that
organizational readiness is a key success factor:
- Creating and implementing policies that support the technology solution;
- Providing resources before, during and after implementation;
- Implementing a change management plan; and
- Having the ability and willingness to adopt the required changes.
In terms of staffing for the effort, the District project manager and Clerk’s records staff will be
required through-out the project. IT staff will likely have varied but on-going involvement.
Each department’s records representative will be needed for the duration of the implementation
in their area. The Department Manager will be needed for the definition and design stages, and
for Department close-out. All staff in a department will be needed for the training component.
The expected time commitments will be worked out in detail at the appropriate time, but can be
expected to be on the order of 40 days effort spread over 2 – 3 people per department. This is
not accounting for the District Project Manager’s effort, or the IT Department effort.
Finally, for the Clerk’s, HR and Finance Departments, they will have special resourcing
requirements as they will be implementing the extra functionality of an automated agenda
creation and circulation capability, and digitizing common forms. These Departments, and the IT
Department, have anticipated this project for some time and the effort required of them is already
included in their business plans.
For the rest of the organization, each department will need to build in the requisite time into their
business plans for the coming year.
As the project gets underway, a temporary staff position will need to be created for a 2 year
period that will allow for project and departmental support as the need arises. Further, a project
3
office will need to be set-up, and that the required departmental staff, when it is their turn, should
be sequestered as necessary to keep focused on project deliverables.
What is the logical phasing of implementation?
The report notes the strategy:
- Set-up the Laserfiche ‘repository’ and configure it’s associated elements;
- Reconstruct our corporate document folders into Laserfiche;
- Implement the Agenda Manager functions;
- Pilot implementation in Clerk’s Department;
- Get HR and Finance into Laserfiche, particularly for common forms;
- ‘On-board’ departments one at a time over a 21 month period.
The discovery report notes, in Section 5.6.2, 5.6.3 and 6.8, the expected time commitment by
area, and a preliminary departmental schedule. For each department, the time required, and staff
commitments necessary, will vary by stage as much of it relies on complexity and readiness.
These are best-guess estimates given what is known. They will be refined as we go through the
planning and design stage which will provide more detail.
b) Desired Outcome:
Implementing an electronic document and records management system will facilitate the timely
retrieval of records and promote the routine disclosure and active dissemination of documents. The
system will be configured to enhance the public’s right to access government-held information while
protecting the privacy of confidential information.
Specifically, the improvements planned will include:
- Corporate level protection for “records”;
- Improved search and retrieval of documents;
- Reduction in “paper” records in the organization;
- Enhanced electronic agenda management;
- Direct public access to public records;
- Improved digital document management;
- Electronic forms for improved automated business process flows.
c) Strategic Alignment:
Ultimately, corporate compliance with records management requirements should be improved,
organizational efficiency should be enhanced in terms of collaboration and service delivery to the
public, and a foundation will be laid for corporate readiness to operate in an increasingly digital
world. Preparation for an electronic tool-set has been underway for some time and this is the next
critical step.
4
d) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The project, as currently configured and implemented over a 3 year period, is expected to cost
$561,888 in software and professional services, and will see a $72,819 annual charge to the
software maintenance account in the IT Department. These are Ricoh’s best current estimates
given what they have learned, and what is required, and are considered ‘fixed’.
These costs are for the implementation of the base product line across the organization. It
includes the business process improvements of an automated agenda manager, and electronic
forms for a selection of common forms. Moreover, it includes 600 full user licences which will
allow all staff to take full advantage of the automation and record keeping functions.
Capital and Operating Expenditure
Software Costs $ 296,888
Professional Services $ 265,000
TOTALS $ 561,888
Annual software maintenance
$ 72,819
There may be some savings in how the project is designed and the functions implemented, but it
also can be expected there will be issues that arise, and new functions required as we proceed.
For example, the degree of integration with our current enterprise software systems (eg –
Amanda, ROSS, Class, etc.) will not only yield additional business process benefits but also
expenses in the future as we grow the system.
As well, there will likely be associated costs with respect to moving business processes away from
paper files, and in being better able to manage all document types (eg – large format drawings,
dealing with large repositories of microfiche files). These costs will be faced as the document and
records management program at the District matures.
The noted costs are in-line with that experienced in other communities undertaking similar
programs1.
It is important to note this project and the costs and effort required to implement have been
anticipated for some time, and preparations have been made. The capital program has $598,290
set aside in approved budgets for the one-time costs, and the IT operating software maintenance
account has been incremented for $50,000 in anticipation of the annual cost impact of
maintaining the software. To undertake the program as recommended, the Financial Plan will
need to be adjusted for about $23,000 in additional operating costs.
There are also additional operating costs associated with a temporary staff position for the
duration of implementation. It is recommended the source of funding be committed from
Accumulated Surplus for a 2 year period and these costs be included into the approved Financial
Plan.
1 Mission and Port Coquitlam have selected the Laserfiche product line and are implementing, or have plans to, their
document management solution.
5
e) Alternatives:
To achieve business process improvements, and to limit corporate disruption, the recommended
product line needs to be installed, configured and used across the organization in relatively short
order. As a consequence, there are limited opportunities for alternatives such as phasing or
stretching out the installation period.
The only alternative choice available is to conclude the current project and not proceed at this time;
This alternative is not recommended as the current manual method of records management is not
sufficient to meet the growing demands of the public for access to government records and may not
meet the requirements of the courts in the event of legal action.
CONCLUSIONS:
The District has been improving it’s document and records management capability over a number of
years. The recommended purchase and installation of the Laserfiche software product line is the
next step in securing a set of management tools that will support our efforts for the future.
The District will need to move forward in this area as document and information access and security
are paramount expectations of the public and of legal mandates. As well, greater employee efficiency
is anticipated as complex requirements, collaboration, quick search and response times, will lead to
business process improvements and better customer service. And finally, the digital corporate
memory will be more appropriately managed for the foreseeable future.
“Original signed by J. Bastaja”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: J. Bastaja, B.A., M.R.M.
Director Corporate Support
“Original signed by C. Marlo”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: C. Marlo,
Manager of Legislative Services
“Original signed by P. Gill”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: P. Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager: Corporate and Financial Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
6
District of Maple Ridge
TO: Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: 26-August-2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Financial Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report provides a financial update to the end of June, the half-way point of our fiscal year.
Forecasts of year-end results have not been provided as there is not yet enough data available to
make accurate predictions. The majority of revenues have been realized and expenses are at
slightly less than 50% of financial plan targets; capital expenditures are at $3.95 million. Overall,
results are in line with expectations.
RECOMMENDATION:
None required – information only
DISCUSSION:
Year-to-date financial activity
Our business cycle sees the majority of revenues, primarily property taxes, earned in the first part of
the year, and the bulk of our expenditures, particularly for capital investment, incurred in the latter
part of the year. The reason for this is seasonal variability in our expenses. While June represents
50% of the year, it’s normal to see revenues at, or close to, financial plan targets, expenses slightly
below 50% and expenditures for capital investment well below 50% of financial plan amounts. The
purpose of this report is to provide an overview of financial results to the end of June in the General
Revenue Fund, the Utilities, and the status of the capital program. Forecasts have not been
provided, as predictions of year-end results based on six months of activity are unlikely to be
accurate. Overall, results are in line with expectations at this point in time.
General Revenue
As noted above, the bulk of our revenue is received in the first half of the year. At the end of June we
had realized revenues of $115.2 million against a budget of $126.8 million.
The largest share of our revenue is generated through property taxation and at the end of June the
majority of our property taxes had been realized. Municipal property tax revenue totals $65.6 million
with an additional $0.9 million for utility fees at the end of June. Also included on the property tax
bills are user fees of $16.7 million for sewer and water, and the amounts we are required to collect
for other agencies; in 2013, this amounted to $38.6 million. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of taxes
collected for municipal purposes, utility charges, and amounts collected for other agencies. Final
amounts for 2013 may be affected by supplementary adjustments issued by BC Assessment.
1 of 7 4.3
Figure 1: Breakdown of property tax revenue compared to tax bill:
At the mid way point of the year, investment income is at $1.1 million, meeting our budget target of
$1.1 million, with an average rate of return of approximately 2.5%. Our financial plan targets take
into account planned spending, both operational and capital, over the long-term horizon, and the
current investment climate of lower returns to ensure that we maintain a sustainable income flow
over time. When planned spending is delayed, as is often the case with our capital program, we
have a larger pool available to investment, resulting in a favorable variance in investment income.
Building permit revenues have fluctuated over the past five years, missing financial plan targets in
2009, 2011 and 2012. In order to comply with accounting rules, the fiscal year for building permits
runs from November through October, so the 2013 fiscal year is 67% complete at the end of June
and revenues of $1.126 million, or 65%, have been realized against a budget of $1.734 million. To
date, Town Centre Investment Incentive Program (TCIIP) fee are approximately $66,000. This is
reflected in the building permit revenue number noted above.
In order to manage the impact of volatility in building permit revenues, Council established a reserve
account a number of years ago. In years where building permit revenues exceed financial plan
targets, a portion of the favourable revenues are transferred into the reserve so that in years where
financial plan targets are not realized we can draw on the reserve to minimize the impact of that
MFA
0.003%
Dyking District
0.567%
BCA
0.866%
GVRD
0.845%
BC
Transit
5.193%
School
29.269%
Utility Fees
0.895%
Municipal Taxes
62.362%
$65,573,731
$5,460,939
$30,776,866
$941,135
$2,860 $596,596 $910,432 $888,182
2 of 7
shortfall. At this time it does not appear that we will need to use the reserve this year. At the end of
June, the balance in the reserve was $1.6 million.
Expenses include the cost of goods and services, labour and debt servicing and are grouped by the
functional area (segment) in which they are incurred. The departments included in each segment are
detailed in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Breakdown of Departments in Each Reporting Segment
General Gov’t Protective Svc Recreation Planning; Public
Health & Other Transportation
Human Resources Police Parks Planning Engineering
Clerks Fire Leisure Svc Recycling Operations
Administration Bylaws Youth Svc Cemetery Drainage
Finance Inspection Svc Arts Social Planning Roads
Purchasing Emergency Svc Library
Information Svc
Legislative Svc
Economic Dev
Communications
Overall, expenses are in line with expectations and costs are within the allotted budget envelopes in
all areas as seen in Figure 3. Further discussion on each segment follows.
Figure 3: General Revenue Expenses
The majority of costs Protective Services are for the delivery of police and fire protection services. At
the end of June costs associated with the RCMP contract are within the budget envelope. In the Fire
48%
46% 42%
42% 46%
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
Actual
Budget
3 of 7
Department, costs are slightly higher than 50% of their budget envelope due to retroactive pay
associated with the recently completed contract negotiations with the IAFF. Savings are expected for
debt servicing associated with borrowing for Fire Hall #4 that has not yet been accessed. Funding
for this debt servicing will be provided from the Fire Department Capital Acquisition Reserve. Overall,
department costs in this reporting segment are as expected for the end of June.
In Recreation, costs overall are in line with expectations.
Overall General Government costs are at 42% of budget for the year. The 2013 budget provided
$1.07 million towards the District’s incentive program. To date we have issued payments totaling
$100,000 for partnering agreements under the TCIIP; any further payments issued this year will be
dependent on eligible activity in the Town Centre Areas. Council has dedicated this funding to the
incentive program and the timing of payments is dependent on eligible activity. Any unspent monies
remaining at the end of 2013 will be reserved for 2014. As part of our year-end wrap up this year we
will need to provide some funding for the implementation of a new accounting standard dealing with
liabilities related to contaminated sites as discussed at the Audit and Finance Committee meeting of
May 6, 2013.
Costs associated with one time projects for the Transportation segment have not yet been realized.
Funding for projects required but not completed by year-end will be transferred to reserves to allow
work to continue on them in 2014. The departments in this reporting segment experience a number
of seasonal influences that affect their expense patterns, snow and ice control providing a prime
example.
In the Planning & Public Health segment debt for the cemetery expansion has not yet been borrowed
as we have not acquired the land yet. Additionally, funding has been set aside for various projects
for which costs have not yet been realized.
Sewer and Water Utilities
The District operates the Sewer and Water Utilities as self-funding entities. This means that the
sewer and water levies collected on the property tax bill, as well as metered charges must be
sufficient to meet the current year operating costs as well as provide for the long-term capital needs
of the utilities.
Large portions of the costs in both utilities are passed on to the District from Metro Vancouver
Regional District and as such, the District doesn’t control increases in those charges. In order to
smooth the impact of those rate increases on our ratepayers, Council has adopted a rate
stabilization policy. This may result in a deliberate accumulation of surplus amounts in the utilities
for a period of time followed by a deliberate draw down of those amounts to fund infrastructure
costs, such as the District’s share of large regional projects.
In the Sewer Utility, the 2013 budget for expenses is $8.1 million; $5.6 million, or 69%, of this is
remitted to Metro Vancouver for our share of operating and maintaining the regional sewer system.
The remaining $2.5 million provides for the maintenance and operation of the municipal sewer
system. Capital costs to expand the system and replace aging infrastructure are not included in
these amounts as they’re funded through our capital program.
In the Water Utility, the 2013 budget for expenses is $18.01 million. Of this amount $5.6 million is
for our share of regional infrastructure projects and an additional $7.6 million is for water purchases,
combined this amounts to 73% of the 2013 budget. The remaining $4.9 million provides for the
operation and maintenance of the municipal water distribution system. As noted for the Sewer
4 of 7
Utility, the capital cost to expand the system and replace aging infrastructure are not included in the
noted amounts as they’re funded through our capital program.
The data in Figure 4 shows the proportion of budget in each utility that is for the regional district. For
the Sewer Utility, this represents our share of operating the regional sewer system and in the Water
Utility for direct water purchases and regional water infrastructure projects.
Figure 4: Break down of Sewer & Water Utility Budgets
June represents 50% of the year and, logically, we’d expect expenses to be approximately 50% of
budget, similar to the General Revenue Fund. That’s not the case in the utilities due to timing
issues. For the Sewer Utility, payment to the Regional District for our share of the operation and
maintenance of the regional system was made in August. In the Water Utility, we had only been billed
for 3 months of water purchases as at the end of June; additionally, we expect to be billed up to $4.2
million for regional infrastructure projects currently underway.
At this point, indications are that expenses in both utilities will be within budget at the end of 2013.
Capital
Planned capital investment for 2013, net of expected developer contributions, is $77.67 million.
This amount is comprised of new projects approved for 2013, as well as projects approved by
Council in previous years. It is not unusual for capital projects to take more than one year to
complete. The time required to complete a project has to allow for things such as public input,
detailed design work, land acquisitions, development, and negotiating agreements with other levels
of government or other agencies. In cases where there’s a possibility of sharing costs with another
agency, we need to demonstrate that our share of funding for the project is secured. This is
accomplished by including the project in the current year capital program, but the project does not
proceed until the outside funding is secured. Figure 5 provides an overview of how the 2013 capital
program is impacted by the items noted above.
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
Sewer Water
Maple Ridge
Regional
Infrastructure
Metro Vancouver
5 of 7
Figure 5: Breakdown of 2013 Capital Program
As at the end of June, spending on capital projects totals $3.95 million. We typically see higher
levels of capital spending starting in the late summer and through the latter part of the year as work
proceeds on projects subject to time restrictions, such as from the Fisheries Department, and as
contractors’ billing catches up to work they have completed. At this point in the year, it is too early to
predict what the total investment in capital will be at the end of the year. In addition to investment in
annual programs to renew our roadways, sanitary sewer & water systems, some key projects that are
in the works include:
• Road works on Lougheed Highway between 226St to just east of the new Community
Gaming Centre
• The continuation of road improvements on 122 Ave east towards 224 St.
• Replacement of the 232St bridge over the North Alouette River.
• Improvements at the Albion Parks Sports Complex
• Pump station upgrade at 225 St.
Conclusions
This report provides an update on the District’s financial activity to the end of June, the mid point of
the year. Overall results are in line with expectations at this time.
Original signed by “Catherine Nolan”_________________
Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CGA
Manager of Accounting
Original signed by “Paul Gill”________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CGA
GM, Corporate and Financial Services
Original signed by “Jim Rule”_________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Planned Capital Investment 94.17
Less:Anticipated developer contribution (16.50) *Recorded at year-end
Tied to funding frm other agencies / levels of gov't (13.53) *Will proceed when outside monies secured
Early stages of design (22.54) *Will proceed to construction in the future
Tied to development / review (13.63) *Will proceed when related development occurs
Projects in progress 27.97
6 of 7
Appendix A
Actual Adopted Budget
Revenues
Taxes and grants in lieu 65,573,731- 66,987,869-
Fees & Other Charges 7,450,280- 14,400,397-
Investment income 1,122,637- 1,100,000-
Proceeds and Gains 108,951- -
Government Transfers 318,638- 1,998,764-
Gaming revenues 222,655- 500,000-
Equipment 1,513,951- 2,531,026-
DCC & Other Contributed Revenue 282,471- 392,293-
Collections for others 38,635,874- 38,879,446-
Total Revenue 115,229,188- 126,789,795-
Expenses (excluding amortization)
General Government 6,700,310 15,791,336
Protective Services 15,865,523 32,922,222
Transportation 4,043,915 9,433,661
Planning; Public Health & Other 2,259,863 4,912,121
Recreation 8,932,386 19,139,615
Principal Payments 1,274,133 2,610,190
Collections for Others 38,635,874 38,879,446
Total Expenses 77,712,004 123,688,591
Transfers
Transfers from reserve accounts 11,660,112- 13,650,926-
Transfers to own reserves 9,696,388 11,026,721
Transfers to reserve funds 3,975,013 3,177,229
Transfers to GCF (fund inventory change)
Transfers to Capital (Capital Program)2,844,832
Interest transferred to reserve accounts 54,221
Net Transfers 2,065,509 3,397,856
General Revenue Annual Surplus (to June 30)35,451,674- 296,652
General Revenue Accumulated Surplus - beginning of year 6,091,162- 6,091,162-
General Revenue Accumulated Surplus - end of June 41,542,837- 5,794,510-
General Revenue Fund Analysis
For the 6 months ended June 30, 2013
7 of 7
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: August 26, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: 2013 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.
In May of 2007, Council was presented with information about property taxation for the Business
and Light Industry classes, which indicated that rates in Maple Ridge were competitive with other
lower mainland municipalities. Our annual reviews since then have confirmed our competitiveness.
This report examines the tax rate assessed to Business Class 6 properties in 2013.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report has been provided for information only. No resolution is required.
DISCUSSION:
There are a number of ways to look at the taxes assessed against properties by reviewing:
1.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
differences in assessed property values from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
2.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.A sampling of eight commercial businesses from within Maple Ridge. We will look at the
property assessments and municipal taxation and the year to year changes from 2009 to
2013.
This report looks at the District’s Business Class 6 municipal tax rate from these three perspectives.
4.5
1. Municipal Tax Rate Comparison
All things being equal, one would expect municipalities with the highest 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, however, such as New
Westminster and Coquitlam, which have tax rates that are relatively close to the tax rate in Maple
Ridge even though property values are likely higher in those areas.
As shown in Figure 1, in 2013, the District’s Business Class 6 tax rate of $12.2307 per $1,000 of
assessed value ranks as being fifteenth lowest of the nineteen lower mainland municipalities that
were surveyed. Of the municipalities, the Business Class 6 tax rates range from a low of $4.2340 per
$1,000 in West Vancouver, to a high of $14.8879 per $1,000 in Mission. Eleven municipalities
increased their Business Class 6 tax rates from their 2012 rates, while the remaining eight
decreased their rates.
Figure 1: Business Class 6 - Municipal Tax Rates – lowest to highest
Note: Tax rates have been normalized to remove fees for dyking, BIA, etc.
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
Municipality
Business
Rate Rank
Business
Rate
Business
Rate
West Vancouver 4.23400 1 4.75440 4.94390
Surrey 6.98799 2 7.07036 7.41846
Richmond 7.62851 3 7.53569 8.03836
Vancouver 8.20424 4 8.78096 9.19882
North Vancouver, District 8.60129 5 8.53774 8.83668
North Vancouver, City 8.61408 6 9.14484 9.56623
Langley, City 8.78440 7 8.60500 8.87270
Burnaby 9.46120 8 10.10000 10.03070
Langley, Township 9.82990 9 9.48130 9.62380
Port Moody 10.04190 10 9.84060 9.82960
Chilliwack 10.13818 11 9.93148 9.90325
Delta 11.02225 12 11.14928 11.03829
Port Coquitlam 11.86070 13 11.79410 12.17660
Pitt Meadows 12.11050 14 11.85360 12.67130
Maple Ridge 12.23070 15 11.75100 12.10450
New Westminster 13.01990 16 13.55380 14.12260
Abbotsford 13.28372 17 11.86946 11.55196
Coquitlam 13.75540 18 14.11730 14.78250
Mission 14.88790 19 14.62160 15.10310
2013 2012 2011
Page 2 of 7
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
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 2013, the assessed values for residential properties in Maple Ridge decreased in market value
approximately 1%. As a result, the District’s Residential Class tax rate went up to $4.2833 per
$1,000 of assessed value, an increase of about 4.8% to generate the funding required in the
Financial Plan. 2013 assessed values for commercial properties increased in assessed market value
only slightly, about 0.3%, and the Business Class tax rate increased to $12.2307. In accordance with
Council Policy, each year we adjust our tax rates for market value assessment fluctuations; not all
jurisdictions and taxing authorities follow this practice.
As shown in Figure 2, in 2013, the District’s municipal tax rate multiple is 2.9, and ranks as fifth
lowest of the nineteen surveyed municipalities. Our multiple is below the average multiple of 3.2.
Figure 2: Business Class 6 - Multiples, based on General Municipal Rates – lowest to highest
Municipality
Business
Rate Multiple Rank Multiple Multiple
Chilliwack 10.13818 2.1 1 2.1 2.2
Langley, City 8.78440 2.3 2 2.3 2.4
West Vancouver 4.23400 2.5 3 2.6 2.4
Abbotsford 13.28372 2.5 4 2.5 2.8
Maple Ridge 12.23070 2.9 5 2.9 3.1
Surrey 6.98799 2.9 6 3.0 3.1
Port Moody 10.04190 3.0 7 3.0 3.1
Langley, Township 9.82990 3.0 8 3.0 3.1
Pitt Meadows 12.11050 3.1 9 3.2 3.5
Port Coquitlam 11.86070 3.1 10 3.2 3.3
Delta 11.02225 3.2 11 3.2 3.2
Mission 14.88790 3.2 12 3.2 3.3
North Vancouver, City 8.61408 3.5 13 3.8 4.0
Richmond 7.62851 3.6 14 3.8 3.7
North Vancouver, District 8.60129 3.6 15 3.6 3.6
New Westminster 13.01990 3.7 16 3.8 3.9
Burnaby 9.46120 4.2 17 4.5 4.2
Vancouver 8.20424 4.3 18 4.3 4.3
Coquitlam 13.75540 4.5 19 4.7 4.8
2013 2012 2011
Page 3 of 7
3. Business Class 6 Municipal Portion of Property Taxes Comparison
Finally, the municipal portion of the property tax dollar impact on the Business Class 6 taxpayer is
examined. In past years we looked at three different business types from a selection of
municipalities in the lower mainland, including Maple Ridge. This data was supplied by BC
Assessment. Each year we encountered complications with this data. Because we were dealing with
theoretical properties, we didn’t have actual properties to verify the data and to ‘see’ what those
properties might look like (except on paper) it was impossible. Additionally, interpretation of what a
‘typical’ hypothetical property might look like might change from appraiser to appraiser. So while on
a yearly basis, the data might look satisfactory, when we looked at it over several years, the data fell
short.
In addition to this, comparing similar businesses from one municipality to another was challenging.
No municipality is identical and each has their own special uniqueness which makes it difficult to
make an ‘apples’ to ‘apples’ comparison.
This year we are trying a different approach. We have selected eight sample commercial properties
from various locations within Maple Ridge and will look at the changes in property assessments and
the municipal portion of the property taxes over a five year period, from 2009 to 2013. We will look
at the following commercial property types:
1. Commercial office in a stratified building
2. Retail store
3. Convenience store with gas station
4. Small commercial building with a coffee shop and two other commercial units
5. Coffee shop
6. Family restaurant
7. Bank
8. Big box retail store
Figure 3 shows the property assessment values and the municipal portion of the property taxes for
each of the eight properties from 2009 to 2013.
First we’ll look at the property assessment values. Note that within BC Assessment’s Business
property class is that there are numerous categories that make up the Business Class, including all
of the commercial property types listed above and many more. While assessed property values for
one of the category types may experience an increase in values, other categories may experience
decreases.
On looking at the assessed property values for the sample properties, we note that there is some
variability in the year to year changes in value throughout the five year period. From year to year,
assessed property values have increased as much as 72.4% for the bank property in 2012, and
decreased 10.5% for the big box store in 2009.
We contacted BC Assessment about the rather large increase in assessed value for the bank
property. Staff at BC Assessment advised that they had conducted a review of all banks in the Fraser
Valley Assessment Area as result of a number of appeals and new lease information they had
received. Through this review, BC Assessment made a decision to use a consistent lease rate for
banks throughout the Fraser Valley and as a result some properties saw significant increases in
value. Depending on where the starting valuation point was, the increases were different in terms of
Page 4 of 7
percent change. BC Assessment staff advised that they experienced many property assessment
appeals as a result of these changes, but in the end the values were confirmed through their appeal
process.
In their news release of January 2, 2013, BC Assessment advised that owners of commercial and
industrial properties in the Fraser Valley would typically see changes in their 2013 property
assessments ranging from -5% to +5%. The changes in assessed values for our commercial sample
properties in Maple Ridge reflect this range. From 2012 to 2013, the change in assessed property
values in the sample properties ranges from an increase of 4.2% for the convenience store/service
station to a decrease of 3.8% for the family restaurant.
Next we’ll look at the municipal portion of the property taxes for the sample properties. As there is
variability with the assessed property values, there is also variability with the municipal property
taxes. Local governments do not have the legislative authority to smooth tax increases amongst
properties. Over the five year period from 2009 to 2013, yearly changes for the municipal portion of
the property taxes increased as much as 67.4% for the bank property in 2012, and decreased 5.4%
for the big box store in 2009.
From 2013 to 2012, the changes in municipal property taxes range from an increase of 8.5% for the
convenience store/service station to an increase of 0.1% for the family restaurant.
Figure 3: Sample Commercial Properties -History of Assessed Property Values and Municipal Property Taxation
Assessed Values
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1 Commercial Office-Strata 212,000 264,600 264,700 264,700 270,400
2 Retail Store 800,000 773,000 807,000 941,000 977,000
3 Convenience Store/Service Station 1,102,000 1,154,000 1,151,000 1,160,000 1,209,000
4 Small Commercial Building w/Coffee Shop & 2 Other Units 1,225,000 1,319,000 1,324,000 1,472,000 1,472,000
5 Coffee Shop 1,302,000 1,387,000 1,387,000 1,491,000 1,537,000
6 Family Restaurant 2,180,000 2,260,000 2,260,000 2,443,000 2,350,000
7 Bank 2,047,000 2,103,000 2,103,000 3,626,000 3,626,000
8 Big Box Retail Store 5,463,000 5,804,000 6,146,000 6,147,000 6,147,000
Total 14,331,000 15,064,600 15,442,700 17,544,700 17,588,400
Change in Assessed Values
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1 Commercial Office-Strata 0.0%24.8%0.0%0.0%2.2%
2 Retail Store 0.0%-3.4%4.4%16.6%3.8%
3 Convenience Store/Service Station 0.0%4.7%-0.3%0.8%4.2%
4 Small Commercial Building w/Coffee Shop & 2 Other Units n/a 7.7%0.4%11.2%0.0%
5 Coffee Shop 0.0%6.5%0.0%7.5%3.1%
6 Family Restaurant 0.0%3.7%0.0%8.1%-3.8%
7 Bank 0.0%2.7%0.0%72.4%0.0%
8 Big Box Retail Store -10.5%6.2%5.9%0.0%0.0%
Total -4.6%5.1%2.5%13.6%0.2%
Description
Description
Page 5 of 7
Municipal Taxation
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1 Commercial Office-Strata 2,492 3,106 3,204 3,110 3,307
2 Retail Store 9,403 9,075 9,768 11,058 11,949
3 Convenience Store/Service Station 12,952 13,548 13,932 13,631 14,787
4 Small Commercial Building w/Coffee Shop & 2 Other Units 14,398 15,485 16,026 17,297 18,004
5 Coffee Shop 15,303 16,284 16,789 17,521 18,799
6 Family Restaurant 25,623 26,533 27,356 28,708 28,742
7 Bank 24,060 24,690 25,456 42,609 44,349
8 Big Box Retail Store 64,210 68,141 74,394 72,233 75,182
Total 168,441 176,863 186,926 206,168 215,118
Change in Municipal Taxation
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1 Commercial Office-Strata 5.7%24.7%3.1%-2.9%6.3%
2 Retail Store 5.7%-3.5%7.6%13.2%8.1%
3 Convenience Store/Service Station 5.7%4.6%2.8%-2.2%8.5%
4 Small Commercial Building w/Coffee Shop & 2 Other Units n/a 7.6%3.5%7.9%4.1%
5 Coffee Shop 5.7%6.4%3.1%4.4%7.3%
6 Family Restaurant 5.7%3.6%3.1%4.9%0.1%
7 Bank 5.7%2.6%3.1%67.4%4.1%
8 Big Box Retail Store -5.4%6.1%9.2%-2.9%4.1%
Total 0.8%5.0%5.7%10.3%4.3%
Description
Description
Page 6 of 7
CONCLUSION:
It is important for the District of Maple Ridge to review our municipal tax rates to make sure 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 2013 is fifteenth lowest 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 and New
Westminster are higher than the District’s, even though those communities likely have property
assessment values that are higher than those in Maple Ridge.
The District’s Business Class 6 multiple continues to rank lower than the average. In 2013, property
assessment values for residential properties went up slightly and the tax rate increased, while the
property assessment values of commercial properties increased even less and the tax rate was
increased.
With respect to actual municipal property taxes, this year we tried a different approach and looked at
the municipal property taxes for eight sample properties within Maple Ridge. As there was some
variability with the assessed property values for these properties, there was also some variability
around the municipal property taxes as well.
Overall, our data indicates that the District’s Business Class 6 tax rates are reasonable when
compared to other lower mainland municipalities.
“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
Page 7 of 7
From: Marisa Newton [mailto:mnewton@miabc.org]
Sent: August-12-13 12:29 PM
To: Ron Riach
Subject: MIABC Voting Delegate
The 26th Annual General Meeting of the Subscribers of the Municipal Insurance Association of
British Columbia is scheduled to take place at 3 PM on Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 in the
MacKenzie Room, Fairmont Waterfront Hotel, Vancouver. This year for the first time, the
MIABC will be hosting a reception following the AGM in the Waterfront Ballroom, Fairmont
Waterfront Hotel, until 6pm.
At the AGM there will be two resolutions. The first will expand the definition of "Insured
Party". The second will allow the MIABC to offer property and other insurance
coverages. There will also be an election for one director at large for a two year
position. Interested candidates should contact Director Glenn McLaughlin, Chair of the
Nominating Committee, c/o the MIABC office.
In accordance with Article 6.13 of the Reciprocal Agreement, the following Delegate and two
Alternates have been registered with the MIABC to vote your interests. Any change to this
information shall require a resolution of Council/Board to be forwarded to the MIABC by
September 4th, 2013. Also, to improve communications, can you please provide us with e-mail
addresses for the delegate and alternates at your earliest convenience?
Voting Delegate: Councillor Cheryl Ashlie
Email address: cashlie@mapleridge.ca
Alternate #1: Councillor Michael Morden
Email address: mmorden@mapleridge.ca
Alternate #2:
Email address:
Regards,
Marisa Newton
5.1