Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-23 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge 1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2.MINUTES –September 9, 2013 3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 3.1 4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Environmental Management Strategy Update Presentation by Catherine Berris, Catherine Berris Associates Inc. 4.2 Secondary Suites Review – Policy and Bylaw Recommendations Staff report dated September 23, 2013 recommending that recommendations outlined in the report titled “Secondary Suites Review – Policy and Bylaw Recommendations” be endorsed. COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA September 23, 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 September 23, 2013 Closed Council following Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m. September 24, 2013 Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Workshop September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 3 4.3 Albion Flats Block Exclusion Application – Update on Agricultural Land Commission Soil Reclamation Requirement Staff report dated September 23, 2013 recommending that the report be received for information. 4.4 Review of Bicycle Advisory Committee Structure Staff report dated September 23, 2013 recommending that Terms of Reference be developed for a Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee. 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 Caledon Institute of Social Policy Report dated May 2013 from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy speaking to Federal Government’s decision to eliminate the long form census. Recommendation: Receive for information 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Checked by: ___________ Date: _________________ Council Workshop September 23, 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. 1 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 23, 2013 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Secondary Suites Review – Policy & Bylaw Recommendations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In July 2012, the process for completing the Secondary Suite Review was endorsed by Council, directing staff to undertake a review of the District’s current policies and regulations, and to identify a comprehensive list of issues and their potential solutions. A significant component of the process was consultation through focus groups, online questionnaires and a public open house. Since endorsement of the process, Council has been provided with a number of updates. On March 4, 2013, Council received a report summarizing the input received from the Consultation Program, relating this information to the preliminary issues raised by Council at the project outset. On June 17, 2013, Council received a report that provided additional discussion and recommendations for further direction. Council did not direct further action at this meeting. However, based on Council discussion, it was felt that there was support for many of the recommendations, particularly those pertaining to Zoning Bylaw amendments and Building Code Equivalencies. The June 17, 2013 Workshop report is appended to this document. This report outlines Council’s response to that report, and where appropriate, revises recommendations made for Council’s consideration, direction, and endorsement. New information has been received since the commencement of this project in July 2012. As a result, new policy recommendations have been formed for Council’s consideration, and will be discussed later in this report. The following singular recommendation encapsulates all of the recommendations on the issues discussed. Council may wish to consider the recommendations contained in this report individually. RECOMMENDATION: That the recommendations as outlined in the report titled ‘Secondary Suites Review – Policy & Bylaw Recommendations’ and dated September 23, 2013 be endorsed. BACKGROUND: The following issues identified through the June 17, 2013 discussion with Council are discussed with specific recommendations on each issue for Council’s consideration. Building Code Equivalencies Zoning Parking Owner Occupation Requirement Use of Restrictive covenants to prohibit illegal suites Rear basement access Prohibition of Temporary Residential Uses in R-3 Special Amenity Residential District Zone 4.2 2  Pursuing Compliance New item  Annual Licensing Fee i) Building Code Equivalencies: Council Input: Council consistently expressed support for the creation of equivalencies to allow existing structures to be retrofitted for secondary suites in compliance with municipal regulations.Concern was expressed around the need for equivalencies and the need to balance alternative standards with health and safety provisions. As a follow up to Council discussion, it should be noted that Council can, by resolution, establish alternative standards to reduce the difficulty associated with retrofitting older structures for this new use. A sample policy for Council’s consideration is attached as Appendix B. Recommendation:  That Council endorse a policy for construction alternative standards that defines acceptable risk for health and safety and applies to the creation of secondary suites in structures constructed prior to January 2004. ii) Zoning: Council Input: Some support was given for allowing secondary suites on lots as small as 371 square metres, which is consistent with the R-1 Residential District or the CD-1-93 Amenity Residential District Zones. Support was also expressed for amending the Zoning Bylaw to include a specific triplex and fourplex zone. Recommendations: a) That staff be directed to prepare Zoning Bylaw text amendments to allow secondary suites in the following zones: o The CD-1-99 Comprehensive Development Zone; o The R-1 Residential District Zone; and o The CD-1-93 Amenity Residential District Zone b) Prepare for Council’s consideration an analysis report outlining the implications of a new zone for triplex and fourplex housing developments, including establishing minimum lot sizes, development permit area guidelines, and recommended bylaw amendments to: o Official Community Plan. o Zoning Bylaw o The Off-street Parking Bylaw o The Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw iii) Parking Requirements: Council Input: No comments recorded. Recommendation:  No change to existing Off-Street Parking Bylaw provisions for off-street parking. 3 iv) Requirement of Owner Occupation: Council Input: General support for owner occupation, but not unanimous. As a follow up to Council Discussion, the requirement of owner occupancy was supported during discussions with Council, but it was felt that on compassionate grounds, this requirement could be extended to include immediate family. Recommendation:  Continue requirement of owner occupation where secondary suites are present. Direct staff to exercise discretion when dealing with secondary suites where a family member resides on the premises. v) Restrictive Covenants: Council Input: Recognition of limitations and the value in using Restrictive Covenants. Recommendation:  Although restrictive covenants have a place in limiting development, it is not recommended that they be considered as the sole legal mechanism to prevent illegal suites from being constructed. vi) Design Review: Council input: While general support given for prohibiting rear basement access in order to discourage illegal suites, Council has also discussed and provided direction on the matter of basement entry and tumbler lock and key systems for the duration of the Secondary Suites Review. The following was noted in the report to Council, dated June 17, 2013: On July 16, 2012, Council directed that the practice of reviewing building permits to prohibit direct access to basements and the use of tumbler lock and key systems discontinue pending review of this issue as a component of the Review. The issue with a tumbler lock and key system is when it is put on an external door to a basement it provides direct access; facilitating the potential for an unauthorized secondary suite. Previously, Council directed staff to prohibit this practice at the building permit stage. Towards this end, sliding doors were accepted as they do not provide direct access with tumbler lock and key. The practice is currently being upheld pending the outcome of the Secondary Suites Review. Following Council discussion, as the Secondary Suites Review is nearing completion, a suggested outcome has been greater liberalization in the Zoning Bylaw to allow secondary suites on lots as small as 371 m2.(the R-1 Residential District and the CD-1-93 Amenity District Zones) A recommended approach is to continue to disallow secondary suites on the smallest lots, the R-3 Special Amenity Residential Zone. For this reason, it is also recommended that direct basement access through a tumbler lock and key system be prohibited in this zone. It should be noted that Development Permits for form and character apply to this intensive residential zone, making this requirement easier to enforce than other single family zones. 4 Recommendations: a) Rear basement access should continue to be disallowed in single family housing where secondary suites are not permitted. b) Consider the inclusion of a policy statement in the Housing Action Plan Study to support suite ready provisions for building permit applications for structures readily convertible to secondary suites. vii) Temporary Residential Uses (TRUs): Council Input: There is general support for Temporary Residential Uses, but no direction has been given on prohibiting them on the smaller lots. Recommendation:  Prohibit temporary residential uses in the R-3 Special Amenity Residential District Zone, and provide a period of grace for unauthorized TRU’s to come into compliance and be granted legal non-conforming status. FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION: i) Pursuing Compliance: Council Input: Suggestions were made that that the District should be more proactive in enforcing against illegal suites. Concerns around liability were expressed for turning a blind eye. In response to Council comments, it was pointed out that current staffing levels could not facilitate greater enforcement action. Legal Counsel for the District of Maple Ridge confirms that there is minimal risk of incurring liability with current practices. Recommendation:  That staff be directed to continue their current practices of pursuing compliance. ii) Annual Licensing Fee: Council Input: A business license requirement was discussed as an alternative to the owner occupancy requirement. As a follow up to Council Discussion, it should be noted that the Township of Langley recently established an annual licensing fee for all secondary suites within its jurisdiction. Prior to the issuance of this license, a Building Permit is required to ensure the secondary suite has been inspected and is appropriate for licensing. An additional charge for utilities also applies (as is the case with the District of Maple Ridge). Related information is appended as Appendix C. It should be noted that the Township also maintains an owner occupancy requirement. Legal Counsel for the District of Maple Ridge confirms that the District could consider adopting similar measures: however, the fees charged must reasonably reflect costs incurred with administering a secondary suites program (inspections and permitting). Recommendation:  That an annual licencing fee be set for the registration of secondary suites. 5 CONCLUSION: This report provides an approach to secondary suite regulation, based on previous extensive work. It is understood that further Council dialogue may be required to resolve issues raised over the course of this work. The approach taken here concerns the areas where, based on Council discussion, there was felt to be a shared understanding. If the recommendations outlined in this report dated September 23, 2013 are endorsed by Council, the Department of Bylaws, Licences and Permits will be able to commence an approach that establishes alternate standards for retrofitting older construction with secondary suites. Most of the further recommended actions will involve simple bylaw amendments (particularly to the Zoning Bylaw). Some of these recommendations, such as the introduction of a new zone, will require additional research and Council discussion. The new recommendation of an annual license fee, will require further review to establish a reasonable fee for services received. “Original signed by Diana Hall” ____________________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA, MCIP, RPP Planner "Original signed by Christine Carter" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM, Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by Jim Rule” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A : Council Workshop Report, Titled “Secondary Suites Review – Policy & Bylaw Recommendations”, and dated June 17, 2013. Appendix B: Sample Policy for Alternative Construction Standards. Appendix C: Information brochure from the Township of Langley regarding annual licensing for secondary suites. Page 1 of 2 Acceptable upgrades for Existing Suites The following requirements form an acceptable level of life safety for buildings constructed prior to January 1, 2004 that already contain finished basements. Exiting Complies Upgrade Required 1. Must have one entry/exit door leading directly to the outdoors and located within 15 metres of any point within the suite. 2. Bedroom window to comply with the requirements of Sentence 9.9.10.1.(2). Minimum dimension .38m (15”) clear opening with opening area of 0.35m2 (3.77 ft2) minimum 3. Exterior suite door must swing on a vertical access. Sliding doors are not permitted 4. Stairs to be safe, in good repair and to have equal risers 5. Code complaint guard and handrails required for stairs and openings 6. Window wells in side yard used as exit path are to be suitably covered to ensure safe exiting to street. Fire Containment 7. Walls and ceiling separating suite from remainder of dwelling to be covered with drywall or plaster. Must form a smoke tight barrier. (Ceiling tiles of any type are not an acceptable means of creating a fire barrier). 8. Walls and ceiling covered with wood panel type product. Material to be coated with a fire retardant (intumescent) paint 9. Mechanical room to be sealed as tight as possible with drywall and maintain clearances to combustibles. 10. Door to mechanical room to be solid wood and equipped with self-closure. 11. Make up air required directly into mechanical room. 12. Metal fan boxes required or joist space to be dry walled. 13. Provide at least one 5lb ABC fire extinguisher in kitchen Early Warning/Smoke Circulation 14. Interconnected hardwired Smoke detectors to be installed throughout the house incompliance with current building code (each bedroom and each floor) with battery back-up. 15. Houses prior to 1979 may be equipped with interconnected battery operated detectors. 16. Smoke detector to be installed within mechanical room when smoke tight barrier cannot be achieved. 17. If suite is heated by forced air then smoke detectors to be inter-connected with furnace to shut furnace down upon actuation. 18. Fire dampers to be installed on return air ducts. 19. Carbon Monoxide detector to be installed within 5m of bedroom if suite contains fuel fired appliance. Page 2 of 2 Livability/Quality of Space Complies Upgrade Required 20. 2.0m ceiling height minimum. May be reduced to 1.95m at ducts and beams 21. Kitchen fan to be ducted to the exterior. 22. Bathroom fan to be installed on timer to cycle 4 hours per day. Separate make-up air required for this fan. 23. Door viewer installed in door or window adjacent to door that allows visual access to area in front of door. 24. Verification that heating source is adequate for space (Sufficient outlets and returns). Plumbing Requirements 25. Shutoffs are required at water supply to each fixture. 26. Seismic restraint required for hot water heater. 27. Access to main water shutoff to be provided. 28. Plumbing contractor to certify plumbing code compliance. Electrical Requirements 29. Electrical contractor to review and certify wiring is in compliance with CEC. 30. Un-restricted access to electrical panel is required for tenant. Should un-restricted access not be provided a separate electrical panel is required. 31. Provide an adequate number of receptacles in each bedroom, living room and Kitchen. Circuits to be protected at panel to current code. Additional Requirements Secondary Suite General Information Secondary Suites Secondary suites offer many benefits to the community by providing different and more affordable housing options to residents. All existing and new secondary suites must conform to municipal bylaws and provincial standards for public health and safety. As of May 2013, all secondary suites, existing or newly constructed, are required to have a Secondary Suite Licence. A Building Permit is required to ensure the secondary suite has been inspected and can be licenced accordingly. For application requirements, visit tol.ca Secondary Suite Construction Requirements Your request for a secondary suite will be considered if it meets all the following criteria:  principal dwelling is owner occupied  only one suite being constructed  suite must be located in the single family dwelling, not in a detached building  suite cannot exceed 90m² (968 sq ft) of finished living area, not including common areas  suite cannot exceed 40% of the total living floor space of the building, not including the garage  minimum ceiling height shall not be less than 2.0m (6’6”)  suite cannot be subdivided from the building under the Strata Property Act  suite is not permitted in a townhouse or multi-family unit including the R-CL (CH), (RH), or (MH) zones Note: It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure all work in the construction of a secondary suite complies with the Part 9 Housing and Small Buildings requirements for secondary suites from the current edition of the BC Building Code and all other applicable Township of Langley bylaws, policies, and enactments. Obtaining a Secondary Suite Licence When a secondary suite has received an accepted final inspection in conjunction with a Building Permit, a Secondary Suite Licence must be obtained through the Township’s Permit, Licence, and Inspection Services Department. There is an annual licence fee of $350, plus an annual utility fee of 30% of the current rate for applicable water/sewer charges. The utility fees will be included on your Property Tax Statement. Existing Authorized Secondary Suites If you have an existing authorized secondary suite where a Building Permit application was submitted prior to March 5, 2013, the annual licence fee will be reduced. By obtaining a Secondary Suite Licence prior to December 31, 2013, the annual fee will be reduced to $175 per year for 3 years (if the house is sold within 3 years, the full fee will apply to the new owners). Additionally, utility fees will be deferred to the 2014 Property Tax Statement. Family-Occupied Secondary Suites Owners can request an exemption for secondary suites occupied by family members where there is no income or revenue generated from the secondary suite. A Statutory Declaration must be completed outlining specific information to obtain a reduced annual licence fee ($175) and utility fees exemption. The secondary suite is still subject to the requirements of a Building Permit and obtaining an accepted final inspection before occupancy. Existing Authorized Suite Removal Owners choosing not to licence an existing authorized secondary suite must apply for a Building Permit to decommission or remove the suite. There is no charge for this permit; however, an inspection is required to confirm removal of the secondary suite. Unauthorized Secondary Suites Penalties Unauthorized secondary suites are a contravention of Township bylaws. Owners will be subject to fines and/or other enforcement action, including fines up to $500 per day. Furthermore, a notice may be placed on the property tax information sheet which may affect the resale, refinancing, or sale of the property. Submitting a Complaint for an Unauthorized Secondary Suite Written complaints are accepted by the Township’s Permit, Licence, and Inspection Services Department at the Civic Facility. Complaints are handled in date order. Frequently Asked Questions What is a secondary suite? A secondary suite is a separate residential unit within a home; it is generally located in the basement and is significantly smaller than the dwelling. The suite can be a maximum size of 90m2 (968 sq ft) of total floor space. Can I put a secondary suite in my house? Properties must be reviewed for compliance with Township bylaws, policies, and enactments where applicable to determine if a secondary suite is permitted. Contact the Permit, Licence, and Inspection Services Department at 604.533.6018 to confirm if a building permit can be issued. How can I determine if a house has an authorized secondary suite? Prospective renters and homebuyers can determine if a secondary suite has been inspected and received an accepted final inspection by contacting the Permit, Licence, and Inspection Services Department at 604.533.6018. The property address is required for this search. Can a single family home have multiple suites? No, the Township’s Zoning Bylaw only permits one secondary suite per single family home. What if I don’t get a Secondary Suite Licence for my secondary suite? Owners who do not obtain a Secondary Suite Licence will be subject to fines and/or other enforcement action including fines up to $500 per day. Furthermore, a notice may be placed on the property tax information sheet which may affect the resale, refinancing, or sale of the property. More Information: Permit, Licence, and Inspection Services Department 20338 – 65 Avenue, Langley V2Y 3J1 604.533.6018 or cdinfo@tol.ca 1 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: September 23, 2013 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop SUBJECT: Albion Flats Block Exclusion Application - Update on Agricultural Land Commission Soil Reclamation Requirement 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 and 23623 105th Avenue. On August 26, 2013, Council considered a staff report that provided an overview of the recent ALC decisions, and the implications for advancing the Block Exclusion application for properties located south of 105th Avenue in the Albion Flats. The report noted that the ALC appeared to have added a new requirement of “Soil Reclamation” as a component of the Block exclusion application. Details regarding the Soil Reclamation requirement were not available at that time, and as a result the outcomes were not known. It was noted, that once a better understanding of the requirement was available, a report would be brought to Council to share the information. The following report provides an update on the Soil Reclamation requirement and its implications for the timing for the submission of a Block Exclusion application for the lands south of 105th Avenue in the Albion Flats. RECOMMENDATION: That the report “Albion Flats Block Exclusion Application - Update on Agricultural Land Commission Soil Reclamation Requirement” dated September 23, 2013 be received as information. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: i.ALC Decisions – 23451 & 23623 105th Avenue 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 stated: “THAT the request for the exclusion of the subject property from the ALR be refused.” In addition to the rational for its decision, the Commission identified that the chromium levels on one of the properties are unacceptably high, and noted that soil reclamation was to be added to the list of conditions pertaining to the Districts Block Exclusion application for the lands south of 105th Avenue. At the time of writing the earlier staff 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 were not known. 4.3 2 ii.Soil Reclamation Requirement Upon further research and discussion, it has been confirmed that the additional requirement of Soil Reclamation for lands north of 105th Avenue should not prove to be very onerous. While the ALC decision appears to have been linked to the reference to high chromium levels being found on one of the properties, ALC staff have confirmed that there is no expectation that the soil reclamation study is to address this. Rather, Soil Reclamation is to form a component of the Agricultural Remediation study, and is to provide guidance on how to remedy the low lying areas/depressions found on the properties. Research has also indicated that a Soil Reclamation study is a high-level study, and given that these lands are in private ownership, access to these properties is not required. The 2010 Agricultural Assessment that was prepared by Golder Associates on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge references that the lands do have depressional features and a complex slope pattern that have the potential to limit agricultural productivity. Similar information is also found in subsequent studies that are being undertaken as a component of the Block Exclusion application. Given that this baseline information is available, staff will be requesting that the District’s consultants prepare recommendations regarding how to remedy these soil depressions. This work will likely be in the form of a memo or addendum to an existing report, and is not anticipated to result in significant costs or delays to the process. 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 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 have since confirmed that the Soil Reclamation condition is intended to identify how soil depressions on the lands north of 105th Avenue can be remedied. Given that there is an Agricultural Assessment that was previously prepared for the District of Maple Ridge that speaks to depressions, and this information is also noted in subsequent studies, the formation of recommendations should not be onerous, and is not anticipated to result in significant costs or delays to the process. “Original signed by Christine Carter” Prepared by: Christine Carter, MPl, MCIP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” 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 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 23, 2013 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Review of Bicycle Advisory Committee Structure EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows have had a joint Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) since 1997. This committee was established by bylaw (Attachment A) to advise the two Councils on cycling issues in their community. Recently the City of Pitt Meadows has created its own Pedestrian and Cycling Committee, effectively withdrawing from the Joint Bicycle Advisory Committee. There is therefore a need to review the structure of the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Since a joint Committee is no longer an option this report provides the following options for Council’s consideration: Option A: A Stand Alone Bicycle Advisory Committee for Maple Ridge This would see the current Bicycle Advisory Committee continue without the attendance or participation of Pitt Meadows, with membership comprised of only Maple Ridge residents; Option B: A Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee This option would create a Maple Ridge Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee focused on issues of cycling and walking. RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT Council direct staff to develop Terms of Reference for a Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee for Council’s review and consideration. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows have had a joint Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) since 1997. This committee was established by bylaw (Attachment A) to advise the two Councils on cycling issues in their community. The Committee was comprised of seven (7) members. Recently the city of Pitt Meadows have created its own Pedestrian and Cycling Advisory Committee, effectively withdrawing from the Joint Bicycle Advisory Committee. 4.4 There is therefore a need to review the structure of the Bicycle Advisory Committee and determine what committee structure best suits the needs of Maple Ridge. b)Desired Outcome(s): Since a joint Committee is no longer an option this report provides the following options for Council’s consideration: Option A:A Stand Alone Bicycle Advisory Committee for Maple Ridge This option would see the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) continue albeit without the presence of Pitt Meadows representatives. The BAC would continue to advise Council on bicycling related issues. The Bylaw would need to be amended to recognize the new structure and refined mandate of the BAC. Option B: A Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee This option would see the creation of a Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee to advise Council on strategic priorities for both cycling and pedestrian related activities. The broadening of the committees mandate would include active transportation issues such as pedestrian activities would allow for greater synergies on potential projects. This report recommends that Option B be pursued. A Terms of Reference for the Committee will be prepared and brought forward for Council’s consideration. Should Council choose Option B, then the remaining members of the BAC will be made aware of this potential change in mandate. CONCLUSIONS: Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge have had a joint Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) since 1997. This committee was established by bylaw (Attachment A) to advise the two Councils on cycling issues in their community. Recently the City of Pitt Meadows have created its own Pedestrian and Cycling Committee, effectively withdrawing from the Joint Bicycle Advisory Committee. Since a joint Committee is no longer an option it is recommended that a Terms of Reference for a Cycling and Pedestrian (CAP) Advisory Committee for Maple Ridge be prepared for Council’s consideration. “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 The Case for a Canada Social Report by Ken Battle and Sherri Torjman May 2013 5.1 The Case for a Canada Social Report by Ken Battle and Sherri Torjman May 2013 Copyright © 2013 by The Caledon Institute of Social Policy ISBN 1-55382-582-9 Published by: Caledon Institute of Social Policy 1354 Wellington Street West, 3rd Floor Ottawa, ON K1Y 3C3 CANADA Tel./Fax:(613) 729-3340 E-mail:caledon@caledoninst.org Website:www.caledoninst.org Caledon Institute of Social Policy 1 Information is key Information is the life blood of sound public policy and good government. Without com- prehensive and reliable statistics, policy making will be done in the dark. Healthy public discourse requires a solid knowledge foundation. Sound statistics are essential but not the only requirement. We need a grammar of social policy that explains key concepts, principles and programs. We need a history of social policy to track and monitor changes in social programs and related tax measures. Without comprehensive information, Canadians are susceptible to the myths, misconceptions and half-truths that persist in social policy. Without an understanding of how programs operate, governments can get away with ‘social policy by stealth’ – cuts and other changes to programs imposed through arcane technical amendments that are poorly understood by the public and politicians alike. The assault on information Unfortunately, information is under attack in Ottawa. Canadians are facing a new and insidious threat from their very own federal government – ‘datacide.’ The heart of knowledge-gathering in Canada is the census, especially the mandatory long-form questionnaire that collected information on such important items as language, education, disability, landed immigrant status, citizenship, ability to speak official and other languages, ethnic or cultural origins, parents’ place of birth, labour market activities, incomes and dwellings. The controversial decision in 2010 to axe the long-form census grabbed media headlines and sparked a whirlwind of opposition from a wide range of institutions and researchers across Canada – from government to business to academe to think tanks and the voluntary sector. The Caledon Insti- tute was one of the first to speak out, in a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail, arguing that “Cuts to national sources of information are a form of social policy by stealth” [Battle, Torjman and Mendelson 2010]. The cut to the census might appear on the face of it to be motivated in part by money. There is an obvious desire to cut costs; the census, which counts the entire population, is expensive. But the reality is quite the opposite. Cancellation of the long-form census and its replacement by the voluntary National Household Survey in fact will cost more than the traditional census – a hefty $30 million more for a public campaign to convince Canadians to fill out the voluntary questionnaire, although the actual amount will come in at $15 million after taking into account $5 million for extra mailing and printing costs and $10 million for two new questions on language in the short census. And for this, we end up with a census that, in the words of Ian McKinnon, chair of the National Statistics Council which advises the Chief Statistician “will not have the detail or precision of the traditional long-form census... For small groups and small areas, it will be harder to get a clear view of Canada” [Chase and Grant 2013]. 2 Caledon Institute of Social Policy Like other departments and agencies of the federal government, Statistics Canada has been under pressure in recent years to reduce its expenditures. The 2012 Budget called for the agency to find savings of $33.9 million for fiscal year 2014-15. In June 2013, Statistics Canada imposed reduc- tions on 34 programs, including the invaluable Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) which tracked changes in individuals’ economic status over time. Ideology also plays a part. The Harper government appears to espouse the belief (unfounded) that Canadians object to state invasion of their privacy, such as the census. Another factor could be a distrust of research and statistics because they expose social problems which, in turn, bring pressure to remedy them – at a cost and expansion of government. One of the more insidious aspects of the damage done by cutting the long-form census is that important surveys undertaken by business, government, social agencies and researchers – including the Labour Force Survey and the Survey of Household Spending (upon which the Consumer Price Index is based) – no longer have available the statistical gold standard afforded by the census to calibrate their results. The voluntary long-form census (the optional National Household Survey) that replaces the traditional mandatory instrument no longer will provide information of the same quality and reliability. Sound trend data will be lost. In an unusual protest against the assault on the reputation and integrity of Statistics Canada, Chief Statistician Munir Sheikh resigned on July 21, 2010. Commenting on the release of the National Household Survey, he lamented the loss of the long-form census as “an anchor” for surveys and called on the government to “restore sanity and bring back the long-form census” [Sheikh 2013]. Ivan Fellegi, another former highly respected Chief Statistician, pointed to evidence from other countries that moving from a mandatory to voluntary long-form census hurts vulnerable groups in society (including the poor, Aboriginal communities, recent immigrants and some racial groups). They have low response rates and so are less likely to be counted in the voluntary long-form version. Sapping the census is not the only problem. Other crucial social and economic statistics have been disappeared in recent years. Here are some examples. The federal government is replacing the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS), Canada’s major source of information on persons with disabilities and the supports they require to live independently. Ottawa has said that it is designing a new strategy for data collection on the needs of this important population. Disability groups are closely monitoring this situation to ensure that the new strategy provides as rich a data capacity as previously. Unfortunately, scrapping the PALS survey makes impossible any accurate assessment of changes over time. Disability groups are unclear as to the merits of the new approach, and with the erosion of Statistics Canada’s survey tools, their con- cerns are understandable. Social Security Statistics: Canada and Provinces, a treasure trove of information on federal, provincial/territorial and municipal government programs, has disappeared from public view. In July 2012, Ottawa jettisoned the crucial longitudinal Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID), Caledon Institute of Social Policy 3 which gathered priceless information on changes experienced by individuals over time, such as move- ment in and out of poverty. The informative Social Assistance Statistics Report, published by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, was last released in 2010 and presented 2009 data – now four years old. The 2012 federal Budget abolished the National Council of Welfare, an advisory body to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. This cut placed in jeopardy the future of two of the Council’s most important products – Welfare Incomes and Poverty Profile. The Caledon Institute of Social Policy stepped in to rescue these two series, by taking on the task of gathering and analyzing the welfare and low income data. Caledon will seek continued input and advice from the provinces and territories in the preparation of welfare income statistics. Over the years, the provinces and territories have vetted and contributed to Welfare Incomes’ data and pro- gram information on social assistance and related income benefits. Their continued participation in and commitment to this vital work are imperative. Together, the welfare and low income information will figure among the first elements of a new Caledon product, the Canada Social Report. The Caledon Institute is uniquely qualified to take over the National Council of Welfare’s welfare and poverty data. Twenty-six years ago, Ken Battle and Sherri Torjman (then Director of the National Council of Welfare and consultant, respectively, now President and Vice-President of Caledon) created the welfare incomes methodology as part of the pioneering report, Welfare in Canada: The Tangled Safety Net. Sherri went on to write five more Welfare Incomes reports. Ken created the first Poverty Profile in 1982 and wrote several editions thereafter before he left the National Council of Welfare to found Caledon in 1992. The Canada Social Report: a national data hub The assault on data is not the only information-related problem Canada faces. The coun- try lacks a readily available, central source of timely and comprehensive information on social programs and related tax expenditures. While the Internet has made the search for and acquisi- tion of information much less onerous than in the past, it does not automatically come in an organ- ized and readable form with the context and explanation required for understanding: Information and data are not the same thing as knowledge. Rather than simply lamenting the recent attack on information, we see it as an opportunity to fill the data gap. The Caledon Institute is creating a Canada Social Report that will gather and house social program and policy information and related socioeconomic data, and monitor changes in these areas. The Canada Social Report will not only collect key program and socioeconomic statistics, but also undertake analyses that help explain the shape and implications of identified trends. It will track and document major developments in social policy in various domains. These include federal and provincial/territorial income security programs and provincial/territorial services such as early learning 4 Caledon Institute of Social Policy and child care, disability, mental health, home care and affordable housing, among others. Some areas, such as Canada’s aging society and Aboriginal matters, involve all three orders of government as well as the non-governmental sector. The Canada Social Report will not be a traditional paper document issued once a year and then relegated to a shelf. Instead, the Report will be a web-based online ‘living’ creation that will be continually updated and expanded. It will be hosted and housed by the Caledon Institute, but will encourage contributions from other individuals and organizations working in the social policy commu- nity. Caledon is frequently contacted by researchers, students, the media and others seeking infor- mation on social programs and socioeconomic data. The Canada Social Report will fulfil this impor- tant function. One of the advantages of housing the Canada Social Report in a non-governmental institution like the Caledon Institute of Social Policy is that the Report – like the Caledon Institute – will not be beholden to government for its existence. The Canada Social Report will strive to gather, analyze and distribute information in a neutral and objective manner. But the Report will not offer critical comment on the policy developments and party platforms which it reports and analyzes: That will remain a major role for the Caledon Institute. It is important to maintain a distinction between the roles and purposes of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy and the Canada Social Report. target audience The Canada Social Report will be of value to diverse audiences. Politicians and officials in all orders of government can use the material to formulate policy options, and to develop new or modify existing programs. Initially, the Report will focus on the fed- eral and provincial/territorial governments. But the Canada Social Report must take into account the reality that Canada is a highly urbanized country. Over time, the Report will seek to expand its reach to include selected municipal policy developments in major urban centres, such as St. John’s, Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria. Social policy is not confined to government. The non-governmental sector plays an important role in the delivery of some social services and in the public discourse on social policy. Material in the Canada Social Report will be of interest to a wide range of non-governmental organizations, includ- ing the private sector; unions and professional associations; universities, colleges and schools; social advocacy groups; foundations, research organizations and think tanks; pollsters and the media; and individual Canadians with an interest in social policy. The voluntary sector can employ the data from the Canada Social Report to make the case for social investment or to track progress around social concerns, such as poverty rates. Community Caledon Institute of Social Policy 5 groups involved in efforts to improve the quality of life in their respective communities can refer to the Report’s provincial Policy Monitor, which will be expanded next year to incorporate a municipal component. The information will help the media identify relevant stories and provide access to sub- stantiating background briefing material. Data and other information in the Canada Social Report will be of assistance to postsecondary researchers, teachers and students from diverse faculties and pro- grams. The Canada Social Report will become an invaluable resource for international organizations and researchers seeking up-to-date information and analysis on social developments in this country. Caledon participated as Canadian contributor (along with the Centre for the Study of Living Stand- ards) to the Bertelsmann International Reform Monitor that tracked developments in social policy, labour market policy and industrial relations in 15 countries. The Canada Social Report will adapt the methodology used in the Bertelsmann project to help track and monitor changes in Canadian social policy. The Canada Social Report will be used as the basis from which to create partnerships with organizations that have an interest in the collection and use of social information. These organizations include voluntary agencies, community groups and private foundations. The Report can provide the foundation for a truly pan-Canadian effort in data/information collection and trend analysis. data: social programs and tax expenditures The heart of the Canada Social Report is data on social programs. For a wide variety of federal, provincial/territorial and municipal social programs and tax measures, the Report will provide essential trend data on the number of beneficiaries and associated expenditures. The Canada Social Report will explain how key programs operate (including their purposes, objectives, eligibility rules and rates), their size relative to total government spending and GDP, and wherever possible the distri- bution of benefits over the income spectrum. Wherever possible, data will be broken down by such indicators as province/territory, household type, gender and age. Here is an initial list of potential items; it is not exhaustive: Federal programs Child benefits Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) Non-refundable Child Tax Credit (CTC) Adult benefits Employment Insurance (EI): regular and special benefits Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB) Minimum wages and labour standards Parental leave 6 Caledon Institute of Social Policy Seniors benefits and retirement programs Old Age Security (OAS), Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and Allowance Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Age credit and pension income credit Tax deductions for contributions to Registered Pension Plans (RPPs) and Registered Retirement Pension Plans (RRSPs) Other benefits Veterans’ benefits Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs) Transfer payments from federal government to provinces and territories - Canada Health Transfer (CHT) - Canada Social Transfer (CST) - equalization Provincial/territorial programs Child benefits Social assistance (welfare) Minimum wages (rates and workers) and labour standards Workers’ Compensation (WC) Quebec Pension Plan (QPP) Provincial/territorial top-ups to federal Guaranteed Income Supplement Social services (e.g., early learning and child care, supports for persons with disabilities, caregiving, recreation) Employment services (e.g., skills training, educational upgrading) Tax expenditures A wide range of federal and provincial/territorial social and economic tax expenditures offer tax savings or cash payments through deductions, non-refundable credits and refundable credits: Tax deductions Contributions to Registered Pension Plans and Registered Retirement Savings Plans Child care expense deduction Non-refundable tax credits Age Eligible dependant Contributions to Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan Employment Insurance premiums Pension income splitting Disability Medical expenses Charitable donations Education Textbook Tuition Registered Education Savings Plans Caregiver Caledon Institute of Social Policy 7 Infirm Dependant Family Caregiver Children’s Fitness Children’s Arts Volunteer Firefighter Home Buyer Refundable tax credits Canada Child Tax Benefit GST/HST credit Working Income Tax Benefit Refundable medical expenses supplement Taxes Federal and provincial/territorial income tax structure tax brackets and rates deduction and credits Trends in federal and provincial/territorial income taxes by income Payroll taxes: trends in gross and after-tax payroll taxes (Canada/Quebec Pension Plan contribution tax credit and Employment Insurance premium tax credit) GST/HST and associated refundable tax credit: estimated amounts, by household, province/territory and income data: socioeconomic and demographic Low income trends incidence, depth, dynamics working poor, other poor other characteristics poverty lines Inequality trends Gini coefficients average and median income, by household type, quintile and province sources of income (market, total, after-tax) Labour market labour force participation employment unemployment full-time/part-time work age of retirement 8 Caledon Institute of Social Policy Demographic trends in age groups, fertility and death rates (by income and ethnicity) Fiscal federal and provincial/territorial government expenditures and revenues, as percentage of total government spending and GDP other information Employer-sponsored pension plans Supplementary health and dental care Housing Mental health Persons with disabilities Aboriginals Literacy Immigration, refugees Community economic development/building community capacity international comparative data Low incomes, income inequality Minimum wages special subjects Occasionally, the Canada Social Report will focus on a subject of particular social relevance. This might be, for example, a section on Aboriginal education or on poverty and seniors. The Report also might delve into a specific program, such as the Working Income Tax Benefit, and associated trends in take-up and expenditure. Other possible topics include a sum- mary of provincial/territorial poverty reduction strategies and a survey of political parties’ social policy platforms. Finally, a partner organization may request that a section of the Canada Social Report explore a specific subject area, such as mental health. proposed format and data collection methods The Canada Social Report will be published as an online publication, which will allow for continual updating and widespread availability at relatively low cost. Announcements will be made Caledon Institute of Social Policy 9 whenever the data in a given section has been updated. The Report of course will utilize social media tools. As the Report evolves, a Wiki approach may be developed in which selected organizations and individuals are asked to make contributions to the material on a regular basis. This input would be particularly helpful in tracking relevant policy developments at the local level. The first product of the Canada Social Report is already available, in the form of Caledon’s online Policy Monitor, which tracks developments in federal and provincial/territorial social programs. The range will expand to include social policy developments at the municipal level. As noted earlier, the Canada Social Report will adapt the Bertelsmann Foundation’s International Policy Reform information-gathering template. We will have to develop a ‘look’ for the Canada Social Report. We will aim to write in plain language and present tables and graphs that are clear and readable. rollout The first product of the Canada Social Report is already available, in the form of Caledon’s online Policy Monitor which tracks developments in federal and provincial/territorial social programs. The range will expand to include social policy developments at the municipal level. Next will come Caledon’s update of welfare incomes and poverty trends, as well as a study on minimum wages. time frame The following components of the Canada Social Report will be completed by the end of December 2013: June 2013:welfare incomes December 2013:minimum wages December 2013:poverty trends resources and cost The Canada Social Report will comprise a major focus of work for Caledon staff and con- sultants. 10 Caledon Institute of Social Policy A modest amount has been included for the purchase of data. This may involve the purchase of data from Statistics Canada or from the Community Data Program currently being coordinated by the Canadian Council on Social Development. A small sum has been designated for web-based assistance. This technical support may be required for layout of the material and/or upgrading of current search functions. The total annual projected cost of the Canada Social Report is $150,000, broken down as follows. staff $105,000 consultants $20,000 web design and functionality $10,000 purchase and housing of data $15,000 total $150,000 It should be noted that the designated amounts may have to shift within these categories. For example, more money may have to be spent on the purchase of data and less on website design – or vice versa. structure Like Caledon, the Canada Social Report will be light on administrative structure and heavy on content. The proposed budget for the Canada Social Report is separate from that of Caledon. A group of funders will be required to build and maintain the Canada Social Report. Financial support will be sought from organizations and individual donors. A small informal advisory group will be created to provide advice on non-financial matters. summary Publicly available information is essential to democratic government and rational policy making. It is the life blood of fair and effective public policy. Unfortunately, Canada does not have a national repository of information on social programs and socioeconomic data. The need to fill this data gap is becoming all the more pressing as the fed- eral government sheds important data sources. The Caledon Institute believes that the public interest is best served by a robust public capac- ity to collect and analyze data. But the federal government clearly is not going to change direction and Caledon Institute of Social Policy 11 restore lost sources of information any time soon. So Caledon will fill the breach and launch a Canada Social Report, starting with our rescue of the National Council of Welfare’s series on welfare incomes and poverty trends. References Battle K., S. Torjman and M. Mendelson. (2010). Information Blackout. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, July. Chase, S. and T. Grant. (2013). “Experts debate how much National Household Survey statistics count.” Globe and Mail. May 6. Sheikh, M. (2013). “Canada has lost its census anchor.” Globe and Mail. May 9.