HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-25 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES – July 21, 2014
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Demonstration of the Audio/Video System
- Christina Crabtree, Director of Information Technology
4.2 Final Report on Joint Leisure Services Review
Staff report dated August 25, 2014 recommending that the recommendations in
the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Model Review prepared by Professional
Recreation Consultants Ltd. and the implementation of each recommendation as
described in the staff report be endorsed.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
August 25, 2014
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 25
Closed Council 10:00 a.m.
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
August 26
Public Hearing 6:00 p.m.
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
August 25, 2014
Page 2 of 3
4.3 Remedial Action for the Complete Replacement of the Damaged Garage Door at
20655 River Road W
Staff report dated August 25, 2014 recommending that the garage door at 20655
River Road W be declared a nuisance and that the owner repair or place the
garage door to meet community standards.
4.4 Recordings of Council Policy
Staff report dated August 25, 2014 recommending that the Recordings of Council
Policy be adopted.
4.5 140th Birthday Celebration
Presentation by the Manager of Corporate Communications
5. CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
5.1
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
August 25, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
July 21, 2014
The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on July 21, 2014 at 9:00 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
C. Carter, Director of Planning
D. Boag, Director of Parks and Facilities
J. Charlebois, Manager of Community Planning
S. Blue, Manager, Strategic Economic Initiatives
W. McCormick, Director of Recreation
C. Balatti, Recreation Manager, Health and Wellness
F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications
Note: These Minutes are posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Note: Councillor Hogarth not in attendance at the start of the meeting.
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as circulated.
2.0
Council Workshop Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 2 of 7
2. MINUTES
R/2014-315
Minutes It was moved and seconded
July 7, 2014
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of July 7,
2014 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Commercial Industrial Strategy
Staff report dated July 21, 2014 recommending that the Commercial and
Industrial Strategy be endorsed as amended and that staff be directed to
complete the implementation plan for the Commercial and Industrial Strategy.
Note: Councillor Hogarth arrived at 9:02 a.m.
The Director of Planning reviewed the report. She gave a PowerPoint
presentation providing a background on the commercial industrial strategy
including key dates in the process, a decision making chart and a summary of
resolutions passed. She outlined issues which Council indicated they wished
to discuss further.
Note: Councillor Dueck left the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
R/2014-316 4.1.1
Commercial and It was moved and seconded
Industrial Strategy
That the Commercial & Industrial Strategy, prepared for the
District of Maple Ridge by GP Rollo and Associates, be
amended and brought back to the August 25, 2014
Committee of the Whole Meeting for endorsement.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 3 of 7
R/2014-317 4.1.2
Commercial and It was moved and seconded
Industrial Strategy
That the staff recommendation to complete the
Implementation Plan for the Commercial and Industrial
Strategy based on the framework outlined in the report dated
July 21, 2014 and titled “Maple Ridge Commercial and
Industrial Strategy Draft Implementation Plan” be forwarded to
the August 25, 2014 Committee of the Whole Meeting for
consideration and endorsement.
CARRIED
Note: The meeting was recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:12 a.m.
4.2 Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Revenue Update – Q2
Staff report dated July 21, 2014 providing an update on revenue generated
through admissions and pass sales at the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre.
The General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation
Services reviewed the report.
The General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services addressed the
budgeting for Leisure Centre operations.
For information only
No motion required
4.3 Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Lifecycle Update
Staff report dated July 21, 2014 recommending that staff be directed to
develop a plan for future infrastructure needs for the Maple Ridge Leisure
Centre.
The Director of Parks and Facilities reviewed the report.
Note: Councillor Dueck returned to the meeting at 11:36 a.m.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 4 of 7
R/2014-318
Leisure Centre It was moved and seconded
Lifecycle Update
Develop Plan
That staff be directed to develop a plan, including funding
sources, for the infrastructure needs identified in the staff
report dated July 21, 2014.
CARRIED
4.4 Policy 3.07, Council Training, Conferences and Association Building Policy
Staff report dated July 21, 2014 recommending that Policy 3.07, Council
Training, Conferences and Association Building Policy be amended and
adopted as amended.
The Manager of Legislative Services reviewed the report.
R/2014-319
Policy 3.07 It was moved and seconded
Amend and adopt
as amended
That Policy No. 3.07, Council Training, Conferences and
Association Building attached to the staff report dated July 21,
2014, be further amended in Item 5 to reflect that written
rational be required for a request to carry forward unspent
monies to the following year;
That rational be included in the request; and further
That Policy No. 3.07 as amended be adopted.
CARRIED
4.5 Recordings of Council Policy
Staff report dated July 21, 2014 recommending that the Recordings Council
of Policy be adopted.
The Manager of Legislative Services reviewed the report. Amendments to the
policy were requested and staff will present an amended version at the
August 25, 2014 Council Workshop Meeting.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 5 of 7
Note: The meeting was recessed at 12:30 p.m. and reconvened at 4:20 p.m.
Note: Councillor Masse was not in attendance when the meeting reconvened
Note: Items 4.6, 4.7 and 5.1 were forwarded from the July 7, 2014 Council
Workshop Meeting
4.6 Purchasing Policy
Staff report dated July 7, 2014 providing information on the District of Maple
Ridge Purchasing Policy.
The General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services reviewed the report.
For information only
No motion required
4.7 2014 Council Matrix
Staff report dated July 7, 2014 recommending that the Council Matrix
attached as Appendix I be adopted.
The Manager of Legislative Services reviewed report.
R/2014-320
2014 Council Matrix It was moved and seconded
Amend and adopt
as amended
That the Council Matrix attached as Appendix I to the staff
report dated July 7, 2014 be amended to remove the tour of
E-Comm facilities scheduled for October 6, 2014 and that the
Council Matrix be adopted as amended.
CARRIED
Councillor Bell - OPPOSED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 6 of 7
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development – 2014 UBCM
Convention
Letter dated June 25, 2014 from Birgit Schmidt, Manager, Client Services,
Local Government Division, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural
Development providing the 2014 Provincial Appointment Book for use in
requesting meetings with provincial government staff at the 2014 UBCM
Convention.
Members of Council requested meetings with:
• the Ministry of Agriculture
• the Ministry of Children and Family Development
• the Ministry responsible for Housing
• BC Hydro
Note: Councillor Morden left the meeting at 5:06 p.m.
Mayor Daykin advised that the deadline for meeting requests is August 29,
2014.
5.2 Metro Vancouver – Notification of a Proposed Amendment to the Regional
Growth Strategy by the City of Surrey
Letter dated June 30, 2014 from Chris Plagnol, Acting Corporate Officer,
Metro Vancouver providing notification of a request from the City of Surrey for
a type three amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy.
R/2014-321
RGS Amendment It was moved and seconded
City of Surrey
Receive
That the letter dated June 30, 2014 from Chris Plagnol, Acting
Corporate Officer, Metro Vancouver providing notification of a
request from the City of Surrey for a type three amendment to
the Regional Growth Strategy be received for information.
CARRIED
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
Council Workshop Minutes
July 21, 2014
Page 7 of 7
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT – 5:08 p.m.
_______________________________
E. Daykin, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
. Marlo, Corporate Officer
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 25, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 0640-30-01
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W.
SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT ON JOINT LEISURE SERVICES REVIEW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A review of the Joint Leisure Services (JLS) model was included in the 2014 business plan. The
JLS model was adopted by the District of Maple Ridge and City of Pitt Meadows in 1994,
formalized through an agreement and bylaws, and made operational through the Maple Ridge
and Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services Commission.
Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants (PERC) was selected to conduct this review.
PERC met with both Councils three times each as well as key stakeholder groups during the
review process. In addition the consultant reviewed financial, business planning and other
pertinent documents. PERC’s final report on the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Model Review
is attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the recommendations in the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Model Review report dated
July 31, 2014 prepared by Professional Environmental Recreation Consultants Ltd. and
implementation of each recommendation as described in this report dated August 25, 2014 be
endorsed.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Previous reviews of this model were conducted in 2002 and 2010. Following each review
the model was refined. In 2010, a resolution was passed that scheduled the next review for
2015. However, both Councils asked that it be done sooner. Consequently, a review of the
JLS model was included in the 2014 work plan. A report on the project scope was brought
forward to Council on February 17, 2014 and following that Professional Environmental
Recreation Consultants (PERC) was selected through a formal request for proposal process
to conduct this review.
During the review process Mr. Brian Johnston, representing PERC, met with Council on three
occasions: on May 5, 2014 Council provided input on the current model; on June 9, 2014
Council heard and commented on input provided by all stakeholder groups; on
4.2
Joint Leisure Services Model Review 2
July 7, 2014 Council heard and commented on draft conclusions and recommendations
prepared by PERC. The final report on the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Model Review
has now been completed.
The report includes two key sections titled Conclusions and Recommendations. PERC
concludes that the JLS model is well grounded; that the five benefit categories that anchor
the agreement are still applicable today; that a sixth benefit could be categorized as the
ability for School District No. 42 to work with one unified parks and leisure service agency;
that the existing model should be retained; that “opting out” of services should be avoided or
only done in exceptional cases; and finally, that the model should be retained and improved
as outlined in the recommendations provided.
The Conclusion Section of PERC’s report also includes a list of “stresses and strains that
need to be resolved”. This includes: the need for clarity on the nature of the relationship
between the three parties to the JLS Agreement which PERC has defined as a partnership.
Further “stresses and strains” noted were the need for clarity on what is and what is not
included in the agreement; clarity and consensus on how to measure performance of the
system; clarity on the total cost savings and breakdown of same to both municipalities;
clarity on how to manage service level discussions; clarity on the role, structure and function
of the Commission; and the need to rectify Pitt Meadows concern about staff allegiance.
PERC has addressed these areas of concern in their recommendations.
For clarity, PERC has also identified “stresses and strains” that were raised that cannot be
put into effect without compromising the benefits that the agreement strives to attain. In
this regard PERC suggests that the partners not create variation to the approach and
delivery method of programs and services; not break down information (promotion and
public contact) systems by municipality; not opt out of services; and not duplicate services
beyond what is necessary. In addition, this section includes PERC’s assessment that the Pitt
Meadows Seniors Centre is operating at an equitable level of service within the current
model.
The conclusions described above lead to eight recommendations:
1. That any service change requests or concerns with service standards be forward directly
to the Commission.
The role of staff, Commission and Councils as well as communication between these
groups needs further clarification. Staff recommend that this be included as a
discussion topic at the workshop with both Councils.
2. That the Art Gallery support be added to the Joint Services Agreement.
Staff support this recommendation and will bring it forward during the 2015 business
planning process.
3. That net financial benefits be shared equitably.
Staff recommend that this item be referred to Finance representatives to review how
greater financial equity could be achieved.
Joint Leisure Services Model Review 3
4. That a joint Council workshop be hosted to deal with each Joint Service Model review.
Staff support this recommendation and if supported by Council, this workshop can be
planned to occur following this review and with each incoming Council.
5. That an annual senior management workshop be held.
Staff support this recommendation and will coordinate this workshop for the Fall of 2014
and on an annual basis, or more often if needed, in future.
6. Establishment of a City of Pitt Meadows staff member advocate and resource.
Staff support this recommendation and propose that this item be brought back to
Council with a recommended structure.
7. That a more complete set of performance measures be developed.
Staff support this recommendation and will bring it forward during preparation of the
2015 business plan.
8. Regularization of the schedule of full reviews of the agreement.
The current agreement identifies that a review will occur every three years and staff
support this review schedule.
b) Desired Outcomes:
This review process met the outcomes established in the scope of work by confirming the
benefits associated with the JLS model as well as any constraints; assessing the financial
benefit that a joint service delivery model provides to both municipalities; suggesting an
operating model for the delivery of parks, recreation and cultural services for the future; and
providing recommendations on how to improve the current service delivery model.
c) Strategic Alignment:
This review has confirmed that each municipality is utilizing the optimal operating model to
deliver good quality parks, recreation and cultural services to our citizens and customers.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The final report prepared by the consultant includes an evaluation of the benefits that the
JLS model provides to citizens in each municipality and confirms that all five of the
previously identified benefits are being achieved although it was noted that while there is a
net financial benefit of approximately $820,000, all of this benefit flows to Pitt Meadows. In
addition, a sixth benefit was identified regarding the enhanced level of cooperative planning
with School District No. 42 that is enabled through the JLS model.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The project team supporting this work included Finance representatives from both
municipalities and the General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
If supported by Council, the recommendations in the attached report will input to the
development of work plan items brought forward during the 2015 business planning
discussions.
Joint Leisure Services Model Review 4
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff support the recommendations PERC has provided in their Final Report on the Joint Leisure
Services Model Review and an outline regarding implementation of each recommendation has
been included in this report for Council’s consideration.
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Kelly Swift, General Manager Community Development,
Parks and Recreation Services
“Original signed by Trevor Thompson”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: Trevor Thompson, Manager, Financial Planning
“Original signed by Jim Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
:ks
Attachment:
Joint Parks and Leisure Services Model Review Final Report
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
Parks and Leisure Services
Joint Parks and Leisure Services
Model Review
Final Report
Submitted by: Professional Environmental
Recreation Consultants Ltd.
Submitted on: July 31st, 2014
Submitted to: Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
Parks and Leisure Services
Suite 400, 505 – 8840 210th Street, Langley, BC V1M 2Y2
Tel: 604.868.3604 www.perconline.com
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Evaluation of the Benefits Categories ...................................................................................................... 3
1. Equal Access to Services ............................................................................................................... 3
2. Access to Technical Resources ..................................................................................................... 5
3. Public Service Benefits (One Stop Leisure Information Shopping) ................................................. 6
4. Coordinated Service and Facility Planning .................................................................................... 6
5. Economies of Scale ...................................................................................................................... 7
6. School District Cooperative Service Planning ................................................................................ 8
Evaluation of Additional Information ....................................................................................................... 9
Clarity .................................................................................................................................................. 9
The Nature of the Relationship .......................................................................................................... 10
Governance ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Differences Between the Two Communities ...................................................................................... 11
Divergent Levels of Required Service Levels ....................................................................................... 11
Gaps in Service Delivery ..................................................................................................................... 12
Options to the Existing Delivery System ................................................................................................. 12
Options within the Existing Governance Model .............................................................................. 12
Options to the Existing Governance Model .................................................................................... 15
Overall Findings of the Review ............................................................................................................... 17
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 21
Addendum A – Summary of Financial Benefits of the Joint Delivery System ........................................ A - 1
Addendum B – Inventory of Parks Breakdown by Municipality ........................................................... B - 1
1 | P a g e
Introduction
In March of 2014 PERC was retained to undertake a review of the Joint Parks and Leisure Services
Agreement in which the District of Maple Ridge, the City of Pitt Meadows and School District 42 jointly
deliver public parks and leisure services within the two municipalities. This is the third in a series of
reviews mandated by the agreement that underpins the Joint Services Model, which has been in
existence for 20 years.
In the course of this review the consultant:
Compiled and analyzed a great deal of background data including budgets for Parks and Leisure
Services, agreements and contracts, previous reviews of the Agreement, results of surveys of
the general public and community groups;
Met with both councils three times before submitting and presenting this final report;
Solicited and obtained input from members of the Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows Parks and
Leisure Services Commission;
Met with groups representing front line service delivery staff, senior municipal staff at each of
the municipalities, and representatives of the Ridge Meadows Senior Services Society;
Solicited and obtained input from the staff and Board of School District 42;
Met with a Project Steering Committee representing the two municipalities five times before
undertaking the analysis that led to a draft report, and now this final report.
The consultant would like to thank all who had input to the review, and provided background
information. However, any errors or omissions in the information provided are the consultants’
responsibility.
The report provides some analysis, explores several options to the existing system, draws nine
conclusions and culminates in a set of eight recommendations.
Background
Twenty years ago the two municipalities, by by-law, agreed to enter into a Joint Parks and Leisure
Services Delivery Model representing the two municipalities. The Delivery Model is implemented by a
Joint Parks and Leisure Services Commission, which then entered into a master agreement and several
sub-agreements with the School District. The School District and each of the municipalities have three
elected representatives which sit on the Commission, which is augmented by six additional unelected
citizens at large (i.e. two from Pitt Meadows and four from Maple Ridge) for a total of fifteen voting
members.
Each municipality entered into a full range of parks and leisure services originally, and the range has
been extended over time as new facilities have been built or enhanced (e.g. South Bonson Community
Centre). However, Pitt Meadows has unilaterally opted out of a few services (e.g. Art Gallery) even
though the Agreement is not clear on how opting out is to occur. The parks and leisure services are
provided by the staff of Maple Ridge’s Community Development, Parks and Recreation Department,
which reports to the Commission for direction on service delivery.
2 | P a g e
The costs for each of the 21 services currently provided within the Agreement are calculated as follows;
Direct costs for each service are identified and any non-tax revenues associated with that service
(e.g. user fees and outside grants) are deducted;
Then a portion of a basket of Support Services is added to account for Departmental staff and
services which span a number of service areas;
Finally 4.5% is added to account for support from other Maple Ridge departments other than
Community Development Parks and Recreation. This includes Information Technology, Finance,
Human Resources, and the CAO’s office.
The result is the total cost for each service (and, by addition, all services) that must be paid by local
taxpayers.
Once the net tax support for each and all of the shared services is quantified, the total net cost to be
assumed by local taxpayers is split on the basis of proportional population. At present, that split is 80%
Maple Ridge (population of 79,142) and 20% Pitt Meadows (population of 18,648) and this ratio has
remained quite constant for many years.
When the Joint Services Model was originally being considered, the benefits of working together were
clearly articulated in an Investigative Report. These five categories of benefits became the basis for the
Joint Services Agreement and continue to be a base for reviewing the current relevance and
appropriateness of the Model. They are listed in Figure One along with some comments provided by
the consultant.
Figure One
The Benefits That Justified the Formation of the Joint Services Model
Categories of
Benefits
Some Explanation Consultant Comments
1. Benefits of
Equal Access
No delayed registration
or non-resident fees for
accessing parks and
leisure services in either
municipality
Access to an indoor pool continues to be one of main
issues here. While there are more opportunities for
Pitt Meadows to use indoor pools and other services
west and south than there were 20 years ago, this is
still a significant benefit.
2. Access to
Technical
Resources
Specialized training and
expertise is available that
might not otherwise be
justified (at least in the
smaller municipality)
This is still quite important and relevant, and may
actually be growing in importance as expertise
becomes more sophisticated. Specialized operating
and maintenance equipment also comes into play
now (e.g. a synthetic turf groomer used on both sides
of the border).
3. Public
Service
Benefits
Individuals and user
groups deal with only one
agency for accessing
information, facilities and
services
This continues be quite important and relevant, and
especially advantageous to user groups; most of which
have a membership which spans the two
municipalities.
3 | P a g e
Categories of
Benefits
Some Explanation Consultant Comments
4. Coordinated
Planning
No inappropriate
duplication of services;
rather a systematic
approach to services for
both communities
This is still quite relevant and a powerful overall
benefit. However, Pitt Meadows is requesting some
services which could cause inappropriate duplication
of effort. Also, when Pitt Meadows eventually gets an
indoor pool, it becomes less relevant as each
community will have some of almost all categories of
facilities.
5. Cost Savings One larger delivery
system can provide more
efficient services than
two separate smaller
delivery systems
operating in parallel
This continues to be quite important and relevant.
There are very significant cost savings overall
delivered through the joint model; especially to Pitt
Meadows.
Source of the first two columns: Ridge Meadows Parks and Leisure Services ; An Investigative Report, December 21st, 1992, page 12; the final
column represents the consultant’s understanding of the situation.
While not part of the original five categories of benefits, it is worth noting that a sixth area of substantial
benefit accrues to local residents due to the inclusion of the School District in the Joint Services Model.
The fact that School District 42, which has boundaries coterminous with the two municipalities, can deal
directly with the two municipalities through a single joint Parks and Leisure Services Commission of
which it is part, has allowed for substantially more cooperative planning and service delivery involving
school district property and assets than would have been likely if the School District had to work with
two separate municipal bodies in parallel to effect the same level of reciprocal benefit. In the
consultant’s experience, the list of cooperative projects entered into with this School District is atypically
high in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows when compared to other communities in British Columbia.
The above noted five categories of benefits and the sixth category of cooperative planning and service
delivery with the School District form the basis for this review and assessment of how well the existi ng
model is working.
Evaluation of the Benefits Categories
The information collected by the consultant as part of this review is analyzed and the results
summarized firstly under each of the six benefits categories introduced in the previous section and then
under a few additional headings that have broader application.
1. Equal Access to Services
The first category of benefits is the assurance that all residents of both municipalities have equitable
access to all public parks and leisure services available in both municipalities.
Every three years the Commission retains an independent research firm to conduct a random sample,
statistically reliable survey of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge residents to determine usage patterns and
satisfaction levels; in part to test this category of benefit. The most recent survey was completed in May
of 2014 and the results were considered as part of this review process. The following salient points
represent the overall findings that are most pertinent to this review.
4 | P a g e
An extremely high proportion (97%) of resident households has used the existing parks and
leisure services over the past year. About the same proportion of residents in both communities
have used one or more parks or leisure services, with most using multiple parks and leisure
services. Generally, there appears to be equitable access to all services.
Satisfaction levels with the existing parks and leisure service delivery system are very high, with
86% of respondents indicating that the services are excellent or good, and separately 62%
indicating that such services are equal to or better than comparable services in other Metro
Vancouver communities.
Usage rates and satisfaction levels are at or higher than experienced in the results of similar
surveys in previous years, which is a very good result.
A higher proportion of Pitt Meadows respondents (27%) indicated a need for more or better
parks and leisure services than did Maple Ridge residents (16%). More than half the need for
additional services in Pitt Meadows was specifically tied to a need for a new indoor pool.
In general, this most recent survey and past surveys have shown very similar usage rates of
parks and leisure services spaces and programs. However, for the first time, there is a
statistically significant difference in the proportion of households that have used the Maple
Ridge Leisure Centre indoor pool in the past year. Whereas 60% of Maple Ridge households
reported using the pool within the past twelve months, only 46% of Pitt Meadows households
reported using the same facility over the same time frame. This indicates that the single indoor
pool may not be serving both municipalities proportionately. The consultant wondered if Pitt
Meadows residents may be using indoor public pools west and south of the community as an
alternative to using the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre indoor pool. However, a smaller proportion
of respondents1 from Pitt Meadows (26%) indicated some swimming activity over the past year
than Maple Ridge residents (32%), which suggests that Pitt Meadows residents aren’t so much
using other pools as they are simply less likely to swim in any indoor pool. This survey result may
indicate a general pattern of use seen with other facilities whereby residents tend to use
facilities that are located geographically closer to them, or it may be an anomaly, or it may
represent a potentially emerging problem for the Joint Delivery Model that needs to be
monitored. If it is an anomaly, it won’t recur or it will reduce. If it indicates a growing trend, this
will have to be addressed.
Other issues were raised about equity of access to parks and leisure services. They include the following
points.
Concern was expressed by Pitt Meadows staff or elected officials that some services are
unbalanced and unfair to Pitt Meadows. A specific example is that the operating hours at and
services located within the Pitt Meadows Seniors Centre are not commensurate with the
operating hours at and services provided within the Maple Ridge Seniors Centre, even though
both are operated by the same organization. However, when this was discussed with the non-
profit organization that operates the two centres, it did not agree with that perception. It
clearly indicated to the consultant that the organization attempts to deal with both centres as
fairly as possible and that the differences are due to operating economies of scale, the relative
size of the population served, the specific differences in the two facilities, and the age and
1 The higher proportions for using the MRLC indoor pool (60% for MR and 46% for PM) were for household use,
whereas the lower proportions for swimming activity (32% for MR and 26% for PM) were for the individual
respondents.
5 | P a g e
evolution of one facility which is more advanced than the other. Board members of the group
from both Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge resisted any perception of inequity in service delivery
between the two communities and asserted that they knew best that both centres operated
equitably. It is also worth noting that the resources originally assigned to operate the Seniors
Centre in Pitt Meadows were sufficient for 20 hours of operation per week and that the society
operating both centres has been able to more than double that level of service through
reallocation of resources.
There are some areas in which Pitt Meadows does not participate financially in, and yet still
derives benefits from. For example, Pitt Meadows doesn’t participate in social planning
initiatives. So, Maple Ridge alone funds a Facilitator for the Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie
Community Network of social service providers which includes representation from all providers
serving the region except for the City of Pitt Meadows. Therefore, Maple Ridge funds something
that benefits Pitt Meadows and Pitt Meadows cannot easily be excluded from that benefit. Also,
Pitt Meadows has opted out of funding for the Art Gallery within the ACT facility. Yet,
attendance data shows that a significant amount of Art Gallery use is by Pitt Meadows residents
which continue to benefit from the service and cannot easily be excluded from that benefit.
2. Access to Technical Resources
There appears to be ample clarity and near unanimity that this benefit heading continues to be at least
as relevant as it once was and possibly even delivers more benefits now than it has in the past. This
would be due to increasingly sophisticated equipment and technical expertise being required i n the
delivery of certain parks and leisure services. In the area of technical expertise, examples include the
following.
In order to legally operate an outdoor pool, a technically qualified pool supervisor is
required who has training in water quality testing and control as well as thorough
knowledge of safety and operating issues. In the two communities, one such person is
available at the indoor pool to supervise the opening, operating and closing of both outdoor
pools. If the two municipalities operated independently, a second staff person would be
legally required to operate the Pitt Meadows outdoor pool.
The Parks Planning technician in the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Model has been
available to coordinate and supervise design and development of parks in both
communities. It would be much more difficult for both communities to justify retaining such
expertise separately and independently.
A Manager in the Joint Parks and Leisure Services Model acts as a Project Manager for such
capital projects as the Pitt Meadows Family Recreation Centre retrofit, and is available to
deal with technical HVAC and other facility operating issues in facilities on both sides of the
municipal boundary. It would be much more difficult for both communities to retain such
expertise separately and independently.
In addition to technical expertise, sophisticated technical equipment can be justified within a single
unified department, whereas it would be much less economical to duplicate that equipment in each
municipality if the two were to operate separately. Just one example of this type of equipment is the
synthetic turf groomer which is used to groom all three synthetic fields in Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows.
6 | P a g e
3. Public Service Benefits (One Stop Leisure Information Sho pping)
This benefit category suggests that citizens of both municipalities would benefit from dealing with a
single agency that provides service and attempts to ensure that everyone knows about the availability of
all leisure opportunities in the region and how to access them. It also suggests that one agency dealing
with all Ridge Meadows organizations, providing support and allocating indoor and outdoor spaces is
much easier than would be the case if these groups were to deal with two separate agencies.
Generally, this appears to be as compelling a benefit now as it has always been. Indeed a recent survey
of organized user groups probing for how supported they feel had very positive results and many user
groups benefit greatly from dealing with only one agency in terms of accessing spaces on both sides of
the municipal border. Also, most citizens appear to benefit from having access to all information they
might ever need through unified phone numbers and a common website.
However, there was one concern registered. Pitt Meadows staff and council report that some of its
citizens contact Pitt Meadows City Hall to obtain information about parks and leisure services, programs
spaces or special events. Although they are referred to the joint and common website, some would
prefer to obtain such information directly from City Hall.
4. Coordinated Service and Facility Planning
One of the benefit categories is coordinated service and facility planning to reduce duplication and
optimize service delivery. This doesn’t mean that there will only be one facility or one program of each
type in the region; each serving all residents of both municipalities. Instead, it means a hierarchy of
services and spaces with duplicates in each neighbourhood or community and some specialized spaces
and services provided in one location within the region as the total population grows to the point where
a second one is warranted. At that point, a second service or space can be provided where it is most
needed. It also means a systems approach to service delivery which includes more effective inter-
municipal trails and green spaces. While coordinated facility planning appears to be working well, the
notion of coordinating services between the two jurisdictions has exhibited some stresses and strains as
summarized below.
The consultant heard a few examples where a program or special event that should optimally be
provided in one location within the two municipalities, and possibly moved from one to the other over
time, is duplicated in both municipalities, usually due to requests from Pitt Meadows to have its own
permanent version of the program or special event. Also, some services are duplicated between the
two communities and this causes the staff to support two separate and independent functions (e.g. the
two municipal Public Art Committees).
Interestingly, the need for a new indoor pool in Pitt Meadows is a bit of a “two edged sword” in that:
On the one hand, a second pool in the region, located in Pitt Meadows, would benefit all
residents of both municipalities. It would directly impact Pitt Meadows positively, and indirectly
help Maple Ridge residents by freeing up capacity at the MRLC, thereby delaying the need for a
second pool in eastern Maple Ridge.
However, if a second pool is developed by Pitt Meadows under the terms of the current
agreement, the flows of net financial benefit will shift even more substantially in favour of Pitt
Meadows such that there could be pressure for Maple Ridge to opt out of the Joint Parks and
Leisure Services Agreement. This would increase costs to Pitt Meadows over and above the
costs of the new indoor pool and make it much more difficult for Pitt Meadows to sustain the
increased level of parks and leisure services on its own.
7 | P a g e
5. Economies of Scale
It continues to be quite clear there is net financial benefit to the entire system due to the Joint Delivery
Model. The actual figures are included in Addendum A. While the overall financial benefit is likely in the
order of $820,000 (or about $8 per citizen), it is more difficult (and less accurate) to clarify the benefit
for each of the categories of service. This is due to the large block of what is called “Support Services”
which includes all staff and all services that span several service categori es. This $2,100,000 block of
costs includes management staff and employees with a broad base of responsibilities as well as a
number of common services such as banking costs and vehicle insurance. The block is quantified and
then apportioned to each of the 21 service categories on a percentage basis. If each service were to be
broken out and operated separately, it would be difficult to reduce tiny pieces of several staff members
or systems. However, that has been done and the results are summarized in Addendum A. It shows
that virtually all of the financial benefit flows to Pitt Meadows which benefits most from the
partnership. In fact, it is possible that Maple Ridge taxpayers currently subsidize Pitt Meadows
taxpayers to a modest degree.
This financial benefit is reaffirmed by comparing what Pitt Meadows pays and the level of service it gets
against other lower mainland communities (e.g. City of Langley, City of White Rock and City of Port
Moody) of similar size and circumstance and other communities in BC. Figure Two provides some
comparison.
Figure Two
Comparison of Small Cities in the Lower Mainland
Community Population Net Public
Subsidy for Parks
and Leisure
Services
Net Public
Subsidy per
Capita
City of Pitt Meadows
Parks and Leisure Services in 2013, including support for an
indoor pool
18,648 2,195,000 $118
City of Langley
Parks and Leisure Services in 2012 but no support for an
indoor pool
27,000 1,268,000 $47
City of White Rock
Parks and Leisure Services in 2012 but no support for an
indoor pool
20,000 1,110,000 $56
City of Port Moody
Parks and Leisure Services in 2012 but no support for an
indoor pool
33,000 5,382,000 $163
City of Trail*
All parks and recreation in 2013, including support for an
indoor pool
8,000
2,057,000 $257
City of Williams Lake
All recreation in 2012, including indoor pool but no parks are
included
20,000
2,020,000 $101
* While the City of Trail provides services to another 8,000 residents in the outlying area, and some
contribute to the cost of parks and recreation services, the net cost to the 8,000 City residents is
$2,057,000.
As Figure Two shows, Pitt Meadows, which does not operate its own indoor pool, but which contributes
to the indoor pool in Maple Ridge, and enjoys most other types of services and facilities, invests more
8 | P a g e
per capita than two other smaller Lower Mainland Cities which also do not own an indoor pool but do
not contribute to the operation of the indoor pool in an adjacent municipality. It also spends less per
capita than the City of Port Moody which does not support an indoor pool. In all three of these
comparator urban centres, there is very little collaborative service delivery between the City and its
adjacent municipality that provides an indoor pool.
It is worth noting that smaller centres like Trail and Williams Lake which have a full complement of parks
and recreation spaces, including an indoor pool, spend significantly more than Pitt Meadows on a per
capita basis. Trail spends more than twice what Pitt Meadow spends, and Williams Lake, if the cost of
operating parks services were added, would certainly spend more than Pitt Meadows.
Maple Ridge also spends about $120 per capita on a full slate of parks and leisure services. In a series of
surveys of communities in BC, conducted by PERC over the past thirty years, Maple Ridge has
consistently reported about 10% less spending per capita than the average of large urban centres.
6. School District Cooperative Service Planning
Among the long list of successful municipal/school district collaborations, several examples stand out.
1. Sport and Recreation Facilities - SD42 and Parks and Leisure Services (PLS) have
collaboratively developed and maintained more than a dozen school and community sport
facilities that flowed from the Master Agreement, including several synthetic turf fields,
natural turf athletic fields, courts, diamonds and pitches, as well as several other school
amenities.
2. SD42 Use of PLS Facilities - More than 30,000 visits per year are made by SD42 students to
public facilities and amenities in the two communities as part of the school curriculum, with
swimming and skating the most popular categories of uses. In addition, SD42 operates a
Store Front School within Greg Moore Youth Centre (GMYC), and the School Outreach Team
brings students into the facility during unutilized times to connect with youth and to
connect youth to the centre and the services provided there.
3. Community Use of SD42 Facilities – More than 5,000 visits per year are made by residents
of the two municipalities to schools within SD42 to participate in programs and a range of
community group activities, all coordinated, scheduled and tracked by the department’s
registration software. Also, more than 1,000 hours of community group rentals are
recorded in school facilities each year resulting in more than 15,000 participant hours. In
addition to this usage, PLS offers summer day camps on weekends and during summer
school break at school sites such as the Lillooet (Old Yennadon Community) Centre and
Alexander Robinson.
4. Partnership Programs - The formation of the Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community
Network in 1999 and its evolution as a recognized and effective community planning table,
provided a valuable venue that strengthened the system’s ability to achieve Master
Agreement objectives. This has occurred through shared research such as the Early
Development Indicators (EDI), through dialogue between service providers about common
issues and community priorities, and through shared knowledge and resources to address
defined priorities. Examples of services that have resulted from discussions in this forum
include a Girls in Action Noon Hour Program, International Student Special Events, Listen to
Us Youth Forum, Neighbourhood School Gardens Project, Hive Neighbourhood Learning
Centre, School Yard Youth Action Park and Leadership Team, Active Kids Club, and the
Building Community Solutions Study Circles.
9 | P a g e
5. Other Examples of Collaboration - There are many ways that SD42 and PLS work together
outside of programming to benefit children, youth and families.
SD42 supports PLS staff to conduct regular focus groups with children and youth within
schools to gauge recreation interests and needs.
SD42 provides PLS with funding through the Tzu Chi Foundation to alleviate financial
barriers to recreation for SD42 students. PLS allocates that funding following SD42’s
criteria and reports back on participation levels.
PLS promotes Active Healthy Lifestyle and program opportunities through school
newsletters and publications; makes presentations to children and youth to promote
recreation and healthy living to staff at career days and at leadership classes.
PLS supports students to gain experience in recreation settings under the Career and
Personal Planning Program.
PLS works with SD42 Leadership Classes to host special events.
It is unlikely that all of these would have been initiated and operated as successfully as they have in both
municipalities if the School District had to deal separately with two municipalities within its boundaries
to effect such cooperation.
Evaluation of Additional Information
In addition to assessing how the original set of six benefits continue to be relevant, the consultant
received additional input which collectively fits under subheadings that span more than one of the six.
There is a perception, at least among staff and elected officials in Pitt Meadows, that the delivery system
is not working as well as it should. There are a number of examples of concerns expressed publicly, and
these concerns were registered with the consultant and summarized under a series of sub-headings as
follows.
Clarity
There is a lack of clarity about what is included in the Agreement and what is not; especially
when staff members originally involved in its implementation came to understandings that were
never documented as refinements to the Agreement. In some cases, new senior staff members
come into new roles and don’t have the background to understand what is included within each
of the 21 service categories.
On a related matter, there is little clarity on the specifics of defined service levels for each
category of service. That allows for expectations that are divergent on each side of the border.
For example, there is pressure to provide higher staffing levels at South Bonson Community
Centre than for similarly positioned community centres in Maple Ridge which are operated
differently.
Measuring the value of the partnership is difficult. In fact few measures are available on which
to base value of the cooperative effort. This leaves value open to individual interpretation
which allows for variance in interpretation of how well the model is working.
10 | P a g e
The Nature of the Relationship
There is some lack of clarity about the nature of the relationship between the two
municipalities. Some perceive it as a partnership and some perceive it as a contract for service.
This warrants some discussion. The consultant would suggest that a contract for service is a
simple relationship in which a municipality contracts another to deliver a service at a set price.
This works best where there is competition for the contract such that the purchaser has some
market assurance that it is getting good value for its service fee. At worst, it is a so called “soft
service” area without clarity of how to measure benefits (see first subheading above). It has also
been described as a “race to the bottom” where any entity that can provide the service cheaper
wins the contract because it is unclear that the level of service is also reduced.
On the other hand, a partnership is a more complex and broader relationship. It typically
involves two municipalities cooperating and giving up some things in order to gain others which
are deemed to be more important. For example, it could be that Pitt Meadows gives up some
degree of customizing of the services for its residents, in favour of the financial benefits of
standardized economies of scale in delivering services to both communities. Alternatively,
Maple Ridge might give up the right to provide local citizens with preferred access to its indoor
pool as it approaches maximum capacity, in return for the revenue it derives from the
partnership agreement. In the consultant’s opinion, the Joint Service Agreement describes a
partnership in which both parties “give and get” and both sacrifice some things in order to get
others deemed to be more important.
Governance
The employer of record is Maple Ridge, yet the employees have to take direction primarily from
the Commission in terms of how to implement the jointly funded service levels. There are cases
where there is some conflict, or at least perceived or potential for conflict, between the two
“bosses”.
The fact that all staff members are employees of the “other municipality” causes some angst
amoung staff and council of Pitt Meadows, who may not be convinced that they have Pitt
Meadows’ interests at heart. If the staff group were somehow neutral (i.e. retained by the
Commission as a separate employer, or by the Regional District in a regional function) this might
resolve this angst.
Structure of the Commission has been a cause of some minor concern. It currently includes
mixture of elected representatives and unelected representatives. Often the elected
representatives have a longer tenure on the Commission due to multiple three year terms than
the community representatives, and often also have more complete background about issues
before the Commission because they have dealt with them during council and budget meetings.
For example, one or more members and senior staff reporting to the Commission have a twenty
year history with the Commission and the model, while some lay Commission members have
only two or three years. This has the tendency to create two classes of voting members; those
with more background and knowledge, and those with less. And, this creates some inequity in
the debates of the Commission.
Also, with respect to the Commission, there is sometimes lack of clarity of the roles that el ected
Commission members play when they represent the Commission while sitting on Commission
11 | P a g e
Committees that liaise with community groups and partners. Whether an elected person is
representing the Commission or their Council is unclear on occasion.
Maple Ridge council, which is accountable to Maple Ridge residents for spending of their tax
contributions, funds 80% of the costs of Parks and Leisure Services but has only three of fifteen
votes on the Commission. This has, at times, caused council some concerns.
Differences Between the Two Communities
The perception has been expressed that “things are done differently here in Pitt Meadows” and
that the current Joint Services Model doesn’t appropriately respond to those differences. More
specifically, there is concern that the current model relies heavily on, and is focussed on a
community development approach to service delivery which, although approved by the
Commission, is sometimes understood differently and implemented differently in Pitt Meadows
than it is in Maple Ridge. Some Pitt Meadows representatives feel like their community has a
more “just get it done by staff” approach. However, the community development model
espoused by PLS is that a longer term investment in community organizations will be more cost
effective and better for the community in the long run, even if it takes longer to see the results.
Another example is that Pitt Meadows would prefer to have facility operating hours for Pitt
Meadows facilities like the South Bonson Community Centre different than what might be set by
the unified system. So, the management of PLS locates support staff at the centre in order to
oversee longer opening hours, even if that staff isn’t directly involved in community centre
operations.
Because it is a much smaller municipality, Pitt Meadows council interacts with its citizens
differently than does Maple Ridge. In Pitt Meadows, councillors have a great deal of day to day
interaction with its citizens about the specifics of the delivery of public leisure services that
happens in a different way in Maple Ridge. This interaction results in a great deal more
communication between the council of Pitt Meadows and senior management of PLS than the
staff has with the council in Maple Ridge. Also, councillors in Pitt Meadows interact with the PLS
staff in a very different way than the councillors in Maple Ridge. They are much more “hands
on” and more involved in day to day operating issues. The result is that PLS management staff
members spend much more time dealing with Pitt Meadows council than they do with Maple
Ridge council.
In Pitt Meadows, council sometimes wants to brand special events as municipal corporate
events and prefers that they be staff driven. In Maple Ridge, council supports community
groups to host events that are branded by the community groups that organize them. This
difference in approach causes differences in types and amounts of staffing support for special
events on each side of the border than the other.
Divergent Levels of Required Service Levels
Originally, the Joint Services Agreement included a wide range of service categories that were
available at that time. Several additional services have been added over time as they were
required. The Agreement also provides for the possibility that one municipality may request a
higher level of service (e.g. parks maintenance for a specific category of parks) than the basic
standard, and pay for it directly. However, the Agreement is not clear about what to do if one of
the two municipalities either wishes to opt out of a service or wishes to reduce service levels in
one or more service categories. There have been examples of both recently and they have been
referred to this review to address.
12 | P a g e
Gaps in Service Delivery
Representatives of Pitt Meadows felt that there was a gap in services for youth during the after
school hours on weekdays. They felt that the existing system wasn’t doing enough to respond
to the needs of all types of youth and keep them active and engaged in Pitt Meadows. While
there as a significant amount of youth oriented opportunity at the Pitt Meadows Family
Recreation Centre, this was perceived as not serving all segments of the youth demographic in
the community. This perception needs to be addressed
In summary, more concerns with the current Joint Services Agreement were raised in Pitt Meadows
than in Maple Ridge. Also, the concerns raised by both parties were quite different. Before drawing
conclusions on how to respond to these concerns and preparing recommendations on how to deal with
them, the consultant reviewed some options to the existing delivery system.
Options to the Existing Delivery System
The consultant reviewed two types of options to the existing system. In the first case, the review
examines options within the current governance model. These include the option of getting into or out
of specific types of service. Then the consultant reviewed different governance and funding models to
deliver the services currently being delivered.
Options within the Existing Governance Model
As Figure Three suggests, the existing system collaborates on and includes the vast majority of all parks
and leisure service categories.
Figure Three
The Continuum of Joint Service Delivery
There are very few areas where one of the two municipalities has determined that it would not
collaborate or share costs. Three were raised in this review as follows:
Adding the Art Gallery into the Joint Delivery Model – Pitt Meadows has opted out of this
category of service – however, Pitt Meadows residents continue to use and benefit from the Art
Gallery and can’t easily be excluded from those benefits;
I No Cooperation Cooperation on Everything I
I________________________________________________________________________I____I
A B C
The existing system is at point B on the continuum of cooperation. Breaking the Agreement
apart and allowing each municipality to proceed independently would take both back to point A
on the continuum. There is very little room to cooperate on more aspects of the parks and
leisure services system which would move to point C. If one of the two communities considers
opting out of some of the categories of service, it would move the system from point B, back
towards point A.
13 | P a g e
Cemetery services – Pitt Meadows doesn’t have a cemetery – it uses the one operated by Maple
Ridge and pays a non-resident premium to make use of it;
Social Planning Initiatives – Pitt Meadows has opted out of the service, but still benefits from
some of the Maple Ridge funded services.
At present, there has been little interest in Pitt Meadows to join and participate in the funding of any of
the three outstanding services that comprise the difference between points B and C along the
continuum in Figure Three.
In discussing some of the stresses and strains on the system with Pitt Meadows council, there appeared
to be some interest in opting out of and pursuing separately a few of the 21 existing jointly funded
categories of parks and leisure services. Therefore, the consultant assessed each of the 21 categories of
service independently and subjectively against each of the five benefits headings. The result is
summarized in Figure Four, in which each of the 21 services are subjectively assessed on the basis of
whether they deliver the benefit category in each column to a High degree, a Moderate degree or a Low
degree.
Those categories with a higher score are more relevant to remain in a joint service agreement.
Figure Four
Evaluation of Parks and Leisure Service Categories
Equal Access Access to Technical Resources Public Service Benefits Coordinated Planning Cost Savings Overall Score Comments
1. Pitt Meadows
Family
Recreation
Centre
M M M L L M The vast majority of use of this facility comes from Pitt
Meadows residents and most of its services also exist in
Maple Ridge. However, the high quality fitness centre may
draw uses from Maple Ridge.
2. South Bonson
Recreation
Centre
M M M L L M The majority of use of this facility comes from Pitt Meadows
residents and most of its services also exist in Maple Ridge.
3. Pitt Meadows
Heritage Hall
L L M L L L The vast majority of use of this facility comes from Pitt
Meadows residents and most of its services also exist in
Maple Ridge.
4. Arenas H H H H H H Arenas are used by Ridge Meadows groups that use all ice
surfaces in both communities through one coordinated
system with services at the two facilities planned in a
coordinated fashion.
5. Historic Sites H M H M M M More use of each site comes from its host community than
the other one. However, they are unique and different.
6. Outdoor
Pools
M H M H H H Specialized staff supervision is required, economies of scale
are significant and coordinated scheduling helps each other.
7. Municipal
Parks
H H H H H H These are specialized areas that draw use from across the
region, require specialized expertise and equipment and
exhibit significant economies of scale.
8. Community
Parks
M M H H M M These are less specialized so users tend to use the closest
one, but athletic uses need to be coordinated regionally,
technical expertise is required and economies of scale apply.
14 | P a g e
Equal Access Access to Technical Resources Public Service Benefits Coordinated Planning Cost Savings Overall Score Comments
9. Neighbourho
od Parks
L L L L L L These spaces are neighbourhood specific, with much less
technical expertise or equipment to maintain and fewer
economies of scale.
10. Trails and
Greenways
H M H M M M These spaces operated on a regional level with planning
required inter-municipally. However, there are fewer
economies of scale or specialized equipment or expertise
required.
11. Fairgrounds H M H H H H There is only one in the region and it is used regionally.
12. Arts and
Culture
H H H H M H These are specialized services operated regionally, and
mostly through a single fee for use arrangement.
13. Children’s
Services
M M M M H M While regionally planned, coordinated and advertised, this
program area tends to be more community specific than
some other areas of services (e.g. sport leagues, which are
quite standardized across municipal boundaries).
14. Neighbour-
hood
Development
M M L L L L This is quite community specific service.
15. Youth
Services
H H H M M H While these can be community specific, the two youth
centres share many users and are scheduled and operated
collaboratively with significant economies of scale.
16. Seniors
Services
H H H M M H These services can vary by community but the two seniors
centres operate synergistically through a single organization
with significant economies of scale.
17. Special
Events
M L L L M L Pitt Meadows council has an approach to Special events
which is different than in Maple Ridge and, while
coordinated regionally with a regional draw, they are quite
community specific.
18. Special
Access
H M H H H H This is a single system which is very expensive to duplicate,
and will be very similar in each community.
19. Maple Ridge
Leisure
Centre
H H H H H H This facility includes a pool which is the only one in the
region, and is therefore used heavily by residents of both
municipalities. However, if Pitt Meadows were to build an
indoor pool, the scores could change.
20. Whonnock
Community
Centre
L L M L L L The vast majority of use of this facility comes from Maple
Ridge residents and most of its services also exist in Pitt
Meadows.
21. Curling Rink H H H H H H This single facility is clearly used proportionately by
residents of both municipalities.
As Figure Four indicates, ten of the 21 service categories, including Maple Ridge Leisure Centre, arenas,
Fairgrounds, municipal parks, curling rink, special access, arts and culture services, youth services,
seniors services, and outdoor pools clearly benefit in a major way from continuing in the Joint Services
Agreement. Six other service categories, including two Pitt Meadows recreation centres, community
parks, children’s services, trails and greenways and historic sites exhibit significant, but less extensive
benefits of joint delivery. And, five service categories, including neighbourhood development,
neighbourhood parks, Pitt Meadows Heritage Hall, Whonnock Community Centre and special events are
15 | P a g e
more community specific and require a community specific approach. It is these five that could become
candidates for opting out of the Joint Services Agreement.
However, as the consultant looked more closely at the implications of opting out of any or all of these
five service categories, it became apparent that it would be difficult and expensive to take these out of a
Joint Delivery Model and deal with them separately in each municipality as they are so interdependent
with the other sixteen service categories. For example, even if special events were an “opt out”
consideration, they would still have to deal with the joint Parks and Leisure Services system for such
things as advertising, facility rental, and involve arts and sports groups which are al ready dealing with
the Commission. Also, there is an existing joint Festivals Network which is supported by the staff of
Parks and Leisure Services. If one municipality opted out, the group would still exist and would still be
supported, so the opting out municipality would save the costs but still get all the benefits of that
support.
It is worth noting that services like Public Art, which is currently not covered within the Joint Services
Agreement, would be the type of service that is so community speci fic that it would not qualify for
inclusion within it. However, a service like the ACT Art Gallery, which is a region wide venue with use
proportionately from both municipalities, would score highly under such an evaluation and woul d be a
candidate to add to the Joint Services Agreement.
On balance, the consultant believes that opting out of even one or two services would not be viable in
the long run. While it could deliver some incremental benefits, it would also experience new and costly
disadvantages. An “all or nothing” paradigm appears to be most suitable in the foreseeable future.
If, however, there were some appetite to proceed from point B to point C along the continuum in Figure
Three, the Art Gallery and Social Planning Initiatives are areas that currently benefit both municipalities
and where the benefit cannot easily be isolated to one or the other. They are logical candidates for
inclusion in the Agreement.
Options to the Existing Governance Model
Even if all 21 existing service categories continue to be within the Joint Delivery System, there can be
alternatives to the structure and function of that system. A variety of options exist.
Funding
The existing system includes all operating costs and revenues and a very small amount of depreciation
of some pieces of equipment which are embedded in equipment rental rates charged to the jointly
funded services. There appears to be no viable alternative to what is included within the cost sharing
agreement. Because all physical assets are owned by the municipality in which they are located, it is
that municipality’s responsibility to invest in their spaces sufficient to ensure they are operational and
sustainable.
However, it is possible to examine how the net costs are shared. In the case of the two communities,
the net costs are shared on the basis of proportionate population. Other alternatives exist.
Some inter-municipal systems share net costs on the basis of use. An example of this is the City and
District of North Vancouver. However, there are two compelling disadvantages to this approach:
Accurately measuring the residence of users is difficult, can be abused, and is expensive. It has
been argued, even in North Vancouver, that it costs more to measure use than advantage
gained to either party. And, in the long run, use tracks and should track very closely to
population, which is much easier and less expensive to measure.
16 | P a g e
The real benefits of parks and leisure services are not the direct benefit to users, but the indirect
benefit to all citizens, regardless of whether they use the service or not. For example, studies in
the US show that the economic benefit of parks to property values outweighs the cost of the
parks regardless of who is using them. In other words, neighbourhoods and communities with
parks have higher value homes than those without. Also, the social, community and health
benefits of parks and leisure services accrue to all citizens indirectly.
For those reasons, it is not prudent to share costs on the basis of use.
Another option used in BC is to share all or part of the costs on the basis of taxable assessment. This
applies and is more relevant when there is a significant variance in the net assessment per capita that
results in the sharing of some major commercial or industrial taxable assessment in a region. However,
currently, the net taxable assessment per capita is virtually identical in each of Pitt Meadows and Maple
Ridge, so sharing the costs on the basis of assessment would not change anything.
It is also possible to combine more than one base for sharing net costs. For example, in the Peninsula
Recreation system in the Capital Regional District, the three contributing municipalities share half the
net costs based on population and half on the basis of taxable assessment. However, there isn’t a
significant difference in the net taxable assessment per capita between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows,
so this option doesn’t offer any advantages.
Structure
In BC, inter-municipal parks and leisure services are essentially formed under two formats; inter-
municipal agreements (like the one currently used in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, but also used in
many other jurisdictions including the City and District of North Vancouver) and Regional District
Specified Areas (which form the vast majority of inter-municipal systems in BC, including areas like Trail
and District and Williams Lake and District).
The regional district format is worth considering. This is most popular in BC as it offers a well-developed
legislative system of governance and funding. In this model, the delivery system is se t up as a function
of the local regional district, operating within a specified benefitting area. While there are no such
examples in Metro Vancouver, many of the other regional districts have such functions. The advantage
of this model is the clarity of the role, and governing structure of the Commission and the regional
directors voting on the basis of population represented so that a direct relationship between funding
and control is guaranteed. Another advantage is that the staff members, often employees of the
Regional District, are not aligned with, nor seen to be aligned with any one municipal partner in the
system.
However, while this structure may be worth considering if the system were being developed today, it
would be costly to shift from the current structure to the new system and the costs of changing the
structure would likely outweigh any benefits derived.
Regardless of whether the joint system is created by way of an inter-municipal agreement or a Regional
District benefitting area, the system has options for how it delivers the service. In the case of the inter-
municipal agreement, the service is often provided by the staff of the larger of the participating
municipalities, as it is in the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows case. However, the joint commission can also
act as its own employer, as in the case of the North Vancouver Recreation Commission. Or, it can
contract to an outside entity, usually a not-for-profit agency. While these not for profit agencies work
reasonably well where a single facility needs to be operated with a single set of interests (e.g. a single
ice sheet arena used primarily by ice using groups that form a society to operate the arena), these
17 | P a g e
structures often breakdown where multiple sets of interests need to be arbitrated over time through
public policy (e.g. facility allocation priority policies).
One relatively new example in BC combines the public accountability with the notion of a not-for-profit
operating contractor. This example is in the five communities west of Victoria which used to be a
regional function called Juan de Fuca Parks and Recrea tion and is now called Westshore Parks and
Recreation Society. In this case, the five municipalities formed a not for profit society with five
municipal members. The society is then contracted to deliver the public services. However, during this
transition, little or no financial advantages were realized. The major reported benefit was to bring the
service back under direct control of municipal councils rather than through Regional District directors.
But, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows already have that in place.
The option of contracting out a public service to a not-for-profit or private agency has sometimes been
driven by an interest in providing lower cost service by shifting from a unionized environment to a non-
unionized operator. However, this has generally been viewed as either inappropriate or not viable in
the long term, and usually both.
It is worth noting here that the consultant also considered altering the structure and makeup of the
existing Commission to deal with the concern that elected members have a somewhat different status
than the unelected members. In BC there are generally two kinds of Commission; advisory and
operating. The advisory Commissions are generally weighted in favour of unelected members who
represent various community sets of interests and the community’s interests as a whole. In such cases
the municipal councils make all final operating decisions on the advice of these Commissions. The
operating Commissions are weighted heavily in favour of elected officials as only they can be held
accountable through a democratic process for public policy decisions of an operating nature. The
experience has been that it is difficult to appoint unelected members in a majority on a Commission and
hold it accountable for operating decisions. Therefore, experience suggests that to get the “best of both
worlds” in terms of accountability and public input, a mix of elected and unelected members is
appropriate. It may be more prudent then to deal with the relatively minor issue of differential status
between elected and unelected Commission members through a procedural response rather than a
structural one. That is the approach taken in the conclusions and recommendations that follow.
There was also a suggestion that the Commission was too large and required too many elected officials
from each partner. The consultant explored the implications of reducing the size of the Commission by
having only two elected representatives of each partner and only five non-elected representatives.
However, it appears to function quite well as a larger organization and, because parks and leisure
services represent one of the largest categories of public services, it could easily continue with three
elected officials from each municipality. So, no changes in the size of the Commission are indicated.
In summary, the consultant can find no viable option to the status quo for either funding or governance
that offers such significant benefits over the status quo that it is worth considering further.
Overall Findings of the Review
In the course of the review the consultant learned a great deal about how the Joint Delivery Model
currently operates and which issues or problems are in need of resolving. These learnings led to a
number of conclusions which are listed below and these conclusions are translated into a series of
recommendations in the next section for consideration by all three parties over the next year.
18 | P a g e
Conclusions
The Joint Services Model appears to be well grounded. A great deal of work was done 22 years
ago and that work formed a solid foundation on which to build trust and cooperation. A review
of that foundation showed insight and foresight, the value of which is relevant to this day. The
evidence of the enduring foundation is the 20 years of outstanding cooperation, which is a
major accomplishment indeed.
In general, the five categories of benefits that anchored the Joint Services Model continue to
apply today. The delivery system currently enjoys all five of the categories of benefits and each
on its own, and certainly all together, justify continuation of the relationship. While the financial
benefits may accrue to and be realized by one of the two municipalities more than the other, it
is clear that there is a significant net benefit to the region as a whole in the order of $800,000
dollars, as well as significant benefits in the other categories of benefit.
In addition to the five benefits categories referred to above, there is a sixth substantial benefit
of School District 42 working closely with a single unified parks and leisure service agency with
boundaries coterminous with its own. There would be diseconomies in both municipalities’
dealings with School District 42 if the existing model were to be phased out. It would be much
more difficult to engage the School District in the kinds of cooperative programs and services
that respond to shared mandates if the School District had to deal separately with each.
While the consultant recognizes and has referred to a number of different options to the
existing joint delivery model, no other alternatives have advantages that so clearly outweigh
the disadvantages that they should be adopted in favour of the existing model . If the joint
delivery model were being newly considered at this time, alternatives to the existing model
might be considered. However, to change the existing model, once it has evolved to its current
status, would add its own risks and costs and these, added to the fact that no alternative model
is substantially better than the existing one, suggest that considering alternatives to the existing
model is not prudent at this time. The current model, refined though recommendations herein,
should be continued.
The possible small exceptions to this conclusion may be one or two service areas where the
services are so local in nature, and respond separately to the uniqueness of each of the two
communities, that they may be candidates for “opting out” of the Joint Delivery Model by either
municipality, with permission of the other, through the vehicle of a Commission
recommendation. However, any opting out brings with it its own difficulties as all services are
so closely interdependent, and therefore difficult to separate. Both municipalities should think
long and hard before asking that they be allowed to opt out of even a single service category
and proceed alone with it. A more prudent approach might be to opt for an increased level of
service in a specific category, and to pay the difference. However, even this is difficult to
incorporate into the existing system and should be done only in exceptional cases with full
understanding of the difficulties it might create.
Over the past three years some modest stresses and strains have arisen which have challenged
the Joint Delivery Model. These relate to quite understandable differences in the two
communities; the way they operate and govern, and the respective differences in priorities. It
behooves all three partners to work on these relatively minor differences to resolve them,
rather than disband the model and proceed separately in parallel for the foreseeable future or
adopt an alternative model.
19 | P a g e
The stresses and strains that need to be resolved include the following.
o Clarity is required on the nature of the relationship between the three parties; that is
the fact that it is a partnership and not a contract for service. A contractual service
involves a municipality paying for a service and judging whether or not good value for
that payment is being received. A partnership is a broader, more complex relationship
in which two municipalities are prepared to give up certain things in order to realize
broader benefits that outweigh what is given up.
o Clarity is required on exactly what is and is not included in the Agreement and the
standard or level of service in each category of service is required.
o Clarity and consensus is required on how to measure performance of the system to
the satisfaction of all parties. The standard or level of service is being tracked now in a
periodic survey, but more clarity on how to measure the public benefits delivered within
each category of service would be helpful. Performance measures cannot vary by
municipality and need to be supported by both so that the system can be even more
accountable than it is at present.
o Clarity on the total cost savings and the breakdown of same to both municipalities is
also required. Greater shared understanding and consensus is required about the
magnitude and flow of the financial benefits. While this review attempts to shed much
light on such financial benefits, it can only achieve a margin of error of about +/2 %. It
behooves both parties to pursue even more clarity on both the magnitude and flow of
financial benefits over time and to reconcile the flow of net financial benefits so that
there is no inappropriate cross subsidization from on municipality to the other. At
present, it is possible that Maple Ridge subsidizes Pitt Meadows to a very modest
extent. However, the estimate error of the financial benefits is not sufficiently narrow
to be sure of that subsidy. Therefore, it needs to be tracked over time.
o Clarity is required on how to manage a situation where one of the two partners
wishes to opt out of a service, and/or wishes to reduce the level of service in a specific
area or across the board. The Agreement currently assumes an “all or nothing”
approach and so the above potential situations need to be clarified.
o Clarity is also required on the role, structure and function of the Joint Parks and
Leisure Services Commission, as it relates to the role and jurisdiction of the three
parent bodies. The two municipalities enter into a partnership by agreeing to a
complete set of service standards and providing the funds to realize those standards.
The Commission operationalizes those standards on behalf of the two municipalities.
There are, however, a few modest exceptions to the authority of the Commission,
where municipalities cannot delegate authority to the Commission (e.g. authority to
lease a municipal asset). However, for all other operating issues, the Commission has
authority to collectively represent its parent bodies and make decisions on their behalf.
While the two municipal councils retain responsibility for setting the budget, the
Commission operates the service within that budget. It would also be helpful if both
councils ensured that the council representatives appointed as liaison to various
committees and groups that are within the purview of the Commission are the same
council members that are appointed to the Commission to ensure consistency of
information flow.
20 | P a g e
o Because all staff members of the Parks and Leisure Services Model are employees of
Maple Ridge, there is a perception or potential perception that the staff may have
more allegiance to the District of Maple Ridge than to the City of Pitt Meadows. This
creates an “us” and “them” perception that needs to be rectified.
There were other stresses and strains that were identified by at least one person during the
review that the consultant does not believe can be easily remedied within the existing model.
These include the following.
o Varying the approach and delivery method of specific programs and services by
municipality such that they are signif icantly different in Pitt Meadows than they are in
Maple Ridge is untenable. Attempts to operate differently on one side of the municipal
border than on the other work against three of the five categories of benefit (i.e.
economies of scale, one stop leisure information, and coordinated service delivery) and
would reduce any cost savings in implementing service delivery in each municipality.
o Separating the sources of information for each municipality and breaking down the
information systems by municipality so that residents and groups based in each
contact only their own municipality for information about the availability of parks and
leisure services must be resisted. Separating information systems, even to a minor
extent, would work against the benefit of “one stop leisure shopping” for parks and
leisure services information. Other joint municipal operations (e.g. North Vancouver
City and District) have proved that a single unified delivery system with its own
information support can serve the residents of both municipalities well.
o Separating out a few of the specific categories of service that, on the surface, appear
to be more community specific, and taking them out of the Joint Delivery Model for
each community to implement separately is not prudent. If the pieces of the entire
Joint Service Model are separated, the synergy of the whole entity is jeopardized and
several of the benefits headings are jeopardized.
o Any concerns that the Pitt Meadows Seniors Centre is not operating at an equitabl e
level of service to the Maple Ridge Seniors Centre are unfounded. Such concerns
should be left to the Ridge Meadows Seniors Society to sort out and manage within its
relationship to Parks and Leisure Services. At present, any differences in services are due
to appropriate differences between the two communities, the size of the market in
each, the age and therefore degree of evolution of services in each and the uniqueness
of each Seniors Centre.
o When one party unilaterally opts out of a service area, and yet cannot be excluded
from the benefit of that service area (e.g. Pitt Meadows opting out of the operation of
the Art Gallery), there is virtually nothing that can be done about it. If and when one
of the two partners opts out too much, or the opting out appears to be abused too
much, the other partner’s only recourse is to cancel the entire Agreement and the two
parties will proceed independently and in parallel in the future.
o There is some tendency toward duplication of service in a few cases (e.g. sp ecial
events or specialized programs). Some can be condoned as appropriate responses to
differences in the two communities. Others may not be in the best interests of users
or taxpayers in the long run. If there are ever examples where one community
requests, through the Commission, to have a service which the staff believe to be
inappropriate duplication (i.e. not in the best interests of all citizens, or best use of
21 | P a g e
resources to have more than one such program in the region), the staff must make that
belief clear to the Commission in a recommendation, and the Commission will decide on
whether the service or program should be duplicated in each municipality. If deemed
by the Commission to be inappropriate duplication, the requesting municipality may
decide to have the duplicate program or service and pay for it as an enhanced level of
service within the agreement.
There are a few possibly foreseeable significant changes that could occur over time that will
cause such significant stresses and strains on the model that they will require a major change
to it, and trigger the possibility that the model be disbanded. These could include:
o The construction of a new indoor pool in Pitt Meadows, thereby creating a situation
where both municipalities have at least one of almost all categories of services and
facilities.
o Total population build out levels being reached in Pitt Meadows while the population of
Maple Ridge continues to grow significantly; thereby creating such an imbalance in the
funding levels as to make the partnership much less relevant.
o Evidence that residents of one municipality, likely Pitt Meadows, are becoming
significantly less likely to use a category of facilities, possibly an indoor pool, than
residents of the other municipality, likely Maple Ridge. Early indication that this could be
the case has recently been recorded and needs to be monitored to determine if it is an
anomaly, or is the beginning of an important trend in behaviour patterns.
Recommendations
The conclusions reached above, and the analysis in the previous sections, have triggered the following
recommendations by the consultant.
1. All service change requests or concerns with service standards should go directly to the
Commission
The General Manager and her Directors spend far too much time dealing with issues with the
two municipal councils that need to be dealt with by the Commission. These issues are often
dealt with at two or three tables resulting in a great deal of redundancy. These issues (e.g. one
partner’s concern that youth services are not delivered equitably in both municipalities) should
be dealt with at the Commission table where all parties get to hear about them and deal with
them within a single point of operationalizing the Joint Services Agreement. This may require
that a portion of each Commission meeting or an additional occasional meeting is/are required;
possibly in a monthly workshop mode to fully discuss such issues. In fact, workshopping these
issues outside of the formal meeting format may also help to ensure that all Commission
members are equally comfortable in debating and voting on the issues in the formal part of the
meeting. Furthermore, this will be the format for dealing with any issues of duplication of
service brought forward by staff or Commissioners.
2. Add the Art Gallery support to the Joint Services Agreement
One of the two municipalities unilaterally opted out of the cost sharing for this specific service in
spite of the fact that it continues to be used proportionately by Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
residents and the fact that Pitt Meadows residents cannot be isolated from its benefits. If one
partner wishes to opt out of a specific service area, such a request needs to be directed first to
22 | P a g e
the Commission which, after reviewing the situation, would make a recommendation to both
councils. This protocol, and the one in the first recommendation above, should also be
embedded in the Agreement.
The total Art Gallery budget at present is only about $22,000 per year, and therefore the cost to
Pitt Meadows of sharing this cost is quite limited. However, the service may be expanded in the
short term future. There are other categories of service that could take the Joint Services
Agreement from its current point B in Figure Three towards point C. The two other categories of
service which could be considered are cemetery operation and Social Planning. However,
funding for both is more complicated than the Art Gallery and both would require some
separate analysis to determine the feasibility of adding them to the Joint Services Agreement.
3. Net financial benefits need to be shared equitably
The issue of the magnitude and flow of financial benefits needs to be monitored on a regular
basis and any inequity needs to be dealt with. Equity does not mean equal. It simply means
that one partner should not be inappropriately subsidizing the other. It would appear that the
total net benefits are quite significant now, but that only one of the six significant categories of
benefit can be monetized. The attempt to quantify the net financial benefits of the sixth
category is summarized in Addendum A, and shows, with a margin of error of about +/-2%, that
it is possible that Maple Ridge could be seen to be subsidizing Pitt Meadows by about $200,000
annually. However, because this amount is just within the range of estimate error, the
consultant cannot conclude that it is significant. Rather it is an amount that needs to be
continually monitored. If this amount were to increase beyond the range of estimate error, it
becomes a situation where one municipality is inappropriately subsidizing the other. In that
case, the finance officers of both parties need to strategize on how to ameliorate that
imbalance. However, ameliorating any imbalance does not necessarily mean reducing it to zero,
as the benefits under the other five categories of benefits are also significant to both partners,
even if they can’t be monetized.
4. A Joint Council workshop is required to deal with each review
The clarity issues listed in the conclusions and any other significant concerns held by either
council need to be aired directly in a facilitated working session involving both councils. The
working session, possibly hosted by the Commission, should be planned for some time during
the year after this and any future reviews of the partnership.
5. Annual senior management workshop
As an extension of the Joint Council Workshop, and to leverage its value, the two municipal
senior management teams should meet annually around budget time to jointly reaffirm or alter
the existing service levels and agree on what that means in terms of changes to the budget. That
same meeting should address any outstanding issues of clarity as are listed under conclusions
above; possibly in a workshop mode.
6. City of Pitt Meadows staff member advocate and resource
The City of Pitt Meadows should consider designating one senior staff member to make
themselves intimately aware of such issues as parks and leisure service levels/standards, the
budget and any operating issues such that she/he can advise council accordingly. This may assist
in ameliorating the concern that the staff members of the Joint Services Model are all Maple
Ridge employees and may be seen to be protecting the interests of one municipality more than
the other. Pitt Meadows elected officials need to have advice on parks and leisure service issues
in which they have confidence, in the same way they have staff providing input on all other
23 | P a g e
types of public services. Council needs to know that staff providing advice are protecting its
interests.
7. Invest in a more complete set of performance measures
The Commission should invest in a more robust set of performance measures so that both
councils have greater comfort when comparing the costs of the service in relation to their
benefits. While the public survey is an excellent gauge of performance, and public perception of
satisfaction is one form of reality, additional measures are indicated that provide a more
nuanced evaluation of the performance of the system. This set of measures has to be embraced
by both councils for it to be helpful. Therefore, they need to be involved in crafting the set of
measures.
8. Regularize the schedule of full reviews of the Agreement
This review needs to be updated every three or four years to ensure it continues to meet the
needs of all parties.
A - 1 | P a g e
Addendum A – Summary of Financial Benefits of the Joint Delivery System
Category of
Services
Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge Consultant Comments
Net Costs
in the
Current
Model in
000’s
Net Costs of
Paying Only
for Their
Own
Services in
000’s
Net Costs
in the
Current
Model in
000’s
Net Costs
of Paying
for Their
Own
Services in
000’s
Administration
and
Management
80 180 250 320 MR would reduce by one manager within its Support Services mgt. team (dealt with under
subsequent headings) at 120k and PM would have to add a core of one manager at 120k and
one .4 Executive Assistant at 80k; special projects that are now included in the cost centre
would be duplicated. For example, the satisfaction survey and Master Plan.
Pitt Meadows
Family Rec
Centre
140 735 585 50 All the total costs would shift to the host municipality, with premium of about 10k added to
PMFRC to top up for extra costs involved in support services currently provided more efficiently
by MR (e.g. IT support). However, MR can’t realize all savings in reduced Support Services so still
has 50k in costs it must assume elsewhere.
South Bonson
Rec Centre
35 185 130 30 All the total costs would shift to the host municipality and an assumption that new PM staff
would be located there to compensate for no Support Services staff housed at this location to
broaden hours of operation. However, MR can’t realize all savings in reduced Support Services.
Pitt Meadows
Heritage Hall
30 100 70 5 All the total costs would shift to the host municipality. However, MR can’t realize all savings in
reduced Support Services.
Arenas 185 135 745 820 In addition to its contract with the private arena operator, PM requires a half time booking clerk
and some senior staff time to manage the contract and arena uses.
Historic Sites 55 110 225 175
Outdoor Pools 25 75 90 80 Costs should be split evenly for the two pools but cost reductions in MR can’t be realized due to
inability to realize savings in Support Services. Also a premium of 15k due to duplication of
supervisory and technical staff is added to PM.
Community
Parks
170 300 765 720 The net costs are first apportioned 74/26 as PM has 26% of park area in this category, then a
premium of 6,000 due to duplication of specialized equipment and expertise and addition of a
portion of a Director to manage parks system in PM and a premium of 29k added to MR due to
inability to reduce Support Services Costs.
Neighbourhood
Parks
80 120 340 300 No adjustments to this net cost. But costs shifted 71/29 as PM has 29% of park area so pays
accordingly.
A - 2 | P a g e
Category of
Services
Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge Consultant Comments
Net Costs
in the
Current
Model in
000’s
Net Costs of
Paying Only
for Their
Own
Services in
000’s
Net Costs
in the
Current
Model in
000’s
Net Costs
of Paying
for Their
Own
Services in
000’s
Municipal
Parks
390 325 1400 1560 The costs were split 86/14 as PM has 14% of park area in this category. There would be a
premium of 75k due to specialized equipment and expertise and a portion of Director to
manage the parks system in PM. Finally, MR adds a premium of 20k as it can’t realize all
benefits of reduced Support Services.
Fairgrounds 20 5 70 85 PM would pay a nominal amount for this service. The remainder would be MR’s cost.
Greenbelts
and Trails
65 80 260 250 Costs are first split 75/25 as PM has 25% of all maintained trails. A small premium is added for
duplication of services.
Insurance 0 60 135 75 PM would have to purchase insurance for its own facilities. It was formally in Support Services.
Arts and
Culture
135 130 585 720 Figures account for what PM would need to operate its own arts services, even if they wouldn’t
actually duplicate what is currently provided. Because the current total is a fee for service
contract that would not change if separated, MR could not reduce it.
Children’s
Services
50 105 170 135 Adjustment due to an analysis of where staff time is spent now and what PM would need to
operate its own children’s services; mostly in the area of Support Services. However, MR can’t
realize all savings in reduced Support Services Staff.
Neighbourhood
Development
20 20 70 90 Whereas fixed costs are such that MR couldn’t reduce its costs in this area, PM would have to
add costs to replace what was no longer provided in the shared service area.
Youth Services 145 260 610 525 While the volume of service at MR is higher than in PM, the hours of operation are roughly the
same, so the existing costs have been shared according to volume and hours of operation with a
premium of 20k in duplicate supervisory and management staff. Also, MR can’t realize all
savings in reduced Support Services.
Seniors
Services
70 125 280 255 While MR centre is higher volume and broader opening hours, there are still core services
required to operate each such that duplication of supervisory and support staff would be
required. Some costs have been shifted to account for volume of service and a premium of 20k
is added for duplicated staff. Also, MR can’t realize all savings in reduced Support Services Staff.
Special Events 70 110 290 290 Some costs need to be shifted to account for the fact that more than 20% of staff time and
support costs are currently allocated to PM. Also, a premium is added to account for
duplication of effort.
Special Access 45 65 185 175 While 20k would shift to PM in order to create its own service, there would be a total of 10,000
that MR would not be able to reduce on its side. So, the premium due to duplication of service
would be about 10k.
Maple Ridge
Leisure Centre
385 0 1475 1860 All the total costs would shift to the host municipality without any premium added.
A - 3 | P a g e
Category of
Services
Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge Consultant Comments
Net Costs
in the
Current
Model in
000’s
Net Costs of
Paying Only
for Their
Own
Services in
000’s
Net Costs
in the
Current
Model in
000’s
Net Costs
of Paying
for Their
Own
Services in
000’s
Whonnock
Community
Centre
5 0 15 20 All of the costs would shift to the host municipality without any premium added.
Curling Rink 5 0 15 20 All the total costs would shift to the host municipality without any premium added.
Total 2205 3225 8760 8560 The economic benefit of partnership is about $820,000 but appears to be very one sided.
Assumptions:
1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest $5,000 so as not to suggest a higher level of accuracy than is actually the case.
2. Usage, and therefore operating revenues, would remain constant in the two scenarios.
3. The standard and level of service would remain constant in the two scenarios.
4. Due to difficulties in determining how Support Services would be affected and how much of that $2,100,000 total could actually be
saved if the two municipalities dissolved the Joint Services Agreement, estimates of the total impact should be seen to be accurate only
to within about one or two hundred thousand dollars. To get more accurate would require a great deal more effort than allowed within
the Terms of Reference for this review.
It is important to note In understanding the table, that if the existing model were ever to be terminated, the two municipalities would likely not
spend exactly the total amounts at the bottom of the projected columns, as they would be free to increase or decrease service levels or get out
of some service lines completely that don’t make sense at the new, less cost effective level. All the figures at the bottom of projected colum ns
actually indicate is that if the two municipalities tried to duplicate the level and types of services they are now getting, the costs would likely be
in that range.
What the figures in the table suggest is that for Pitt Meadows, if it were to operate on its own, in order to deliver the same services it currently
receives, there would be a need to hire two senior director positions (Parks and Recreation) to replace the management currently provided in
the Joint Delivery Model and the two new directors would collectively require one full time senior clerical support person. The City would also
have to retain at least four programmers (in the areas of special events, arts, youth and children’s services), create a Special Access Program to
reduce barriers to participation, and add staff or contracted services in areas such as marketing, ice programming, facility lifecycle maintenance,
facility allocation, seniors services, and fitness services. It would have to assume operation of facilities such as the Pitt Meadows Family
A - 4 | P a g e
Recreation Centre, the South Bonson Community Centre, the Pitt Meadows Heritage Hall and the Harris Road outdoor pool, the Pitt Youth
Action Park, all at the current level of service and operating hours. It would also need to manage a multimillion dollar budget, house all above
staff (the cost of which is not currently accounted for in the table) manage and maintain 59 hectares of parks and athletic fields and several
kilometers of trails. Also, the City would have to acquire a great deal of capital equipment required to maintain such speci alized services such as
artificial turf, natural grass, and trails. The City would assume some staff from the existing Joint Services Model and would budget for some
initial expense of staff terminations where the new structure could not accommodate all existing staff. The costs of all that would be slightly
more than one million dollars more than the City currently spends, not including capital and the cost of housing new staff. This represents
almost a 50% increase in net tax support for parks and leisure services.
While the City would not likely do all of the above as it would li kely result in more cost than can easily be assumed by local taxpayers at one
time, and would result in a staff complement that is higher than what Cities of similar size can currently justify; but that is what would be
required to maintain the existing service levels currently enjoyed.
What the figures mean for Maple Ridge is that in order to downsize to meet only its own needs, the municipality would have to reorganize to
shift management responsibilities to reduce at least one Manager, shift a great deal of work within its department to reduce hours and
eventually staff positions in several areas, possibly including special events, youth programming, arts services and children’s programming. It
would also shed several staff positions in areas such as horticulture and parks maintenance, facility operation and maintenance. It would divest
itself of responsibility for the facilities and parks that would be assumed by the City of Pitt Meadows. It would not be abl e to downsize
proportionately to the loss of its 20% of revenue from Pitt Meadows in several areas such as Special Access, marketing, outdoor aquatics, youth
services and arts services. Over time, the municipality would manage staff such that staffing increases would be resisted in favour of using
existing positions to accommodate growth in the community. It would also be free to adjust service levels on its own both up ward and
downward. It would likely be able to sell some equipment and vehicles to Pitt Meadows. It would have to budget for some initial expense of
staff terminations where the new structure could not accommodate all existing staff. The Municipality would wind up saving up to $200,000
from what it currently spends. However, it is unlikely that it would be able realize much savings as the cost of dissolution and the turmoil of staff
downsizing would be expensive and so any potential savings would likely be phased in over time.
Finally, the increased costs to the School District due to dealing with two municipalities in parallel would need to be quantified and added to the
diseconomies of separating the two delivery systems.
As the table indicates, the net cost impact of abolishing the partnership and proceeding in parallel are quite negative for Pitt Meadows and more
neutral for Maple Ridge. But, in general, it would be negative for taxpayers of the region, with total costs increasing by about $800,000 which is
the net financial benefit of economies of scale. However, whatever the financial economies or diseconomies of partnership, they are only one of
five or six categories of benefit that are currently being realized by local citizens.
B - 1 | P a g e
Addendum B – Inventory of Parks Breakdown by Municipality
Maple Ridge Municipal Parks Area Ha PM Municipal Area Ha
Albion Fair grounds 12.73 Cottonwood 4.08
Jerry Sullina 19.14 Harris Landing 9.75
Maple Ridge Park 9.03 Menzies Crossing 1.67
Maple Ridge Upper Park 3.8 Shoreline 1.74
Memorial Peace Park 1.07
Whonnock Lake 60.53
106.3 17.24
86% 14%
MR Community Parks Area Ha PM Community Area Ha
Albion Park 13.96 Harris Road 4.08
Albion Sports Comp 12.36 Hoffmann 3.65
Allco 11.21 PM Athletic 15.07
Cliff 2.25 PM Civic 2.94
Crosses Cabins 1.92 PM Museum 0.1
Davidson Pool 0.61 PMSS Field 2.63
Fraser River Walk 0.04
Hammond Stadium 5.36
Haney House 0.39
Horsemans Park 3.64
Jim Hadkiss 0.81
Merkley 0.66
Reiboldt 2.24
Ruskin 6.4
Selvey 4.6
Thomas Haney 5.79
Thornhill Park 3.84
SRT 2.27
Westview Field 2.78
81.13 28.47
74% 26%
PM Neighborhood parks Area Ha PM Neigborhood
Parks
Area Ha
Alexamnder Robinson 0.95 Bonson Park 2.02
Alouette 0.5 Mitchell Road 2.85
Belle Morse 2.29 North Bonson 1.83
Boundary 1.04 Somerset 1.33
Brickwood 1.65 Waterfront Commons 0.24
Camwood 0.64 Davie Jones 1.88
Canoe 0.9 Edith MeDermott 1.8
Nokai 0.93
B - 2 | P a g e
Cook 0.27
Cottonwood North 1.9
Faqorview 1.28
Fletcher 0.78
Hammond 0.83
Hampton 0.47
Harry Hooge 3.74
Jordan 1.37
Kin 0.82
Lions 1.08
Pioneer 1.54
Reg Franklin 1.36
Tolmie 0.67
Volker 1.62
Cedar Park 1.2
Birch Park 0.1
Sword fern 0.32
Websters Corners Park 1.27
Westview Park 1.89
31.41 11.95
72% 28%
Mini Neighborhood parks Area Ha Mini Parks Area Ha
Callaghan 0.16 Advent Park 0.13
Chilcotin 0.07 Chestnut 0.38
Country Lane north 0.11 Linden Grove 0.28
Country Lane South 0.05 Lions Fun 0.17
Horseshoe creek 0.02 Morningside East 0.05
Storety Green 0.02 Morningside West 0.02
Holly 0.13 North Commons 0.22
Homestead 0.09 Roundabout 0.14
Dewdney Parkette 0.06 Shinglebolt 0.12
Creeks Crossing 0.08
Brown Ave 0.06
0.85 1.51
36% 64%
Total for MR 219.69 Total for PM 59.17
73% 27%
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: August 25, 2014
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer Meeting: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Remedial Action for the Complete Replacement of the Damaged Garage Door at
20655 River Road W
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The house located on the property at 20655 River Road W (the “Property”) is owned by Peter Charles
Watson (the “Owner”). The Bylaw Department has been responding to resident complaints at this
property since March of this year. The complaints started with the number, type and use of vehicles
on the driveway and now deal with the condition of the garage door.
Staff have attended this site on numerous occasions and requested that the Owner or the tenants
take steps to mitigate the nuisance in the community by removing the unauthorized vehicles and
immediately stop living in the vehicles. Once the offending vehicles were removed from the property
staff have been dealing with the owner of the property to repair or replace the garage door which is
on the front portion of the dwelling structure. The current condition of the garage is in a state of
serious disrepair compared to the other garage doors on the street and causes a nuisance in the
neighbourhood.
Staff have spoken directly with the owner and given him suggestions as to who he could hire to fix
the garage door for him. Letters also have been sent to the owner and each one was also hand
delivered. All of staff’s efforts to achieve compliance have met with negative results as the owner
refuses to agree to fix the garage door to bring his home into the same or similar appearance as the
rest of the neighborhood.
As Council is aware, Section 74 of the Community Charter provides authority to Council to pass a
remedial action requirement requiring an owner or occupier of real property to take measures to deal
with a declared nuisance.
If a person with notice of this resolution wishes to request reconsideration of these requirements by
Council, written notice of this request must be provided to the Manager of Legislative Services within
14 business days of that person receiving notice of this resolution.
In the event the owner or occupier has not performed all of the remedial action requirements within
the time provided for compliance after the resolution is delivered to them, the District may, by its
own forces or those of a contractor engaged by the District, enter the Property and perform the
remedial action requirements.
In the event the District takes the above referenced action, the District may recover the expense
from the owner or occupier, together with costs and interest, in the same manner as municipal taxes
in accordance with sections 17, 258, and 259 of the Community Charter.
Page 1 of 3 4.3
Based upon the above referenced information on this matter staff recommends Council pass the
following resolutions.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved:
THAT Council declare the garage door at 20655 River Road W, legally described as:
(a) PID 013-715-577, Lot 9 District Lot 278, Group 1 New Westminster District Plan
81218,;
a nuisance within the meaning of paragraph 74 (1)(d) of the Community Charter ;
THAT THE Owner must, not later than thirty (30) days after receiving a copy of this resolution, shall:
1. Repair or replace the garage door on the dwelling unit on the property so that it meets the
standards in the community; or
2. Retain a qualified contractor to repair or replace the garage door on the dwelling unit on
the property so that it meets the standards in the community;
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The original residents concerns were related to a large motor home and a car that were
plugged into the house and both were being used as sleeping accommodation. The people
in the motor home and the car were not owners of the property. After numerous warnings to
the owners of the motor home, vehicle and the property owner as well as Bylaw Officer
attendance that required Police assistance, the motor home was finally towed to Maple
Ridge Towing. The other vehicle on the driveway was driven away by the owner.
Once the vehicles were removed the physical condition of the garage door of the subject
property became quite obvious to the other residents on the street and staff received
numerous complaints on this issue. Once again staff visits to the property, discussions with
the owner and correspondence hand delivered to the property have all been ignored and the
garage door continues to deteriorate. This is not a Building or Fire Code issue and does not
fit into any of our municipal regulatory enforcement Bylaws. In speaking with our Solicitor the
only option to force the owner to repair the garage door is if Council determines the current
state of the garage door does not meet the standards of the neighbourhood and therefore is
a “nuisance” as set out in paragraph 74(1)(d) of the Community Charter.
b) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Complaints have been received on a regular basis from other property owners on this street,
including written submissions.
Page 2 of 3
b) Alternatives:
For Council to not pass the Remedial Action order and provide staff with alternative direction
in dealing with this situation.
CONCLUSIONS:
The damaged garage door creates a significant nuisance for the other property owners in this
neighbourhood. District staff has given the Owner ample opportunity to resolve the situation but it
appears that he does not intend to take any action in response to the problem. District staff
recommends that Remedial Action requirements as described in the Recommendation in this report
be adopted.
Photographs of the property taken at various stages during the course of the Bylaw investigation are
attached to this report as Appendix l.
The recommendations contained in this report have been reviewed by our municipal solicitors.
“Original signed by E.S. (Liz) Holitzki”________________________
Prepared by: E.S. (Liz) Holitzki
Director: Licences, Permits and Bylaws
“Original signed by Christine Carter” for___________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn
General Manager: Public Works and Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Office
Appendix l – Photographs
Page 3 of 3
20655 River Rd W
March 20,2014
March 20,2014
March 21,2014
March 21,2014
March 21,2014
April 05,2014
May 10,2014
July 7,2014
August 11,2014
Neighbourhood
Comparison
August 11,2014
Neighbourhood
Comparison
August 11,2014
Neighbourhood
Comparison
August 11,2014
Neighbourhood
Comparison
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 25, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Recordings of Council Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the July 21 Council Workshop, Council reviewed the draft Recordings of Council Policy attached to
the staff report dated July 21, 2014. Suggestions were made to amend the wording to indicate on
signage that meetings may be recorded, to identify specific reasons for Council to direct the removal
of recordings or portions of recordings from the website and to increase the retention period of the
recordings from four years to seven years.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Recordings of Council Policy attached to the staff report dated August 25, 2014 as
Appendix I be adopted.
DISCUSSION:
Changes have been made to three areas of the policy.
1.The words “may be” were inserted into the second paragraph to indicate in signage that
meetings may be recorded.
2.Following further discussion with the District solicitor, the language pertaining to Council’s
ability to direct staff to remove recordings or portions of recordings from the website was
simplified. Although it would be very rare for a Council to make such a ruling, the solicitor
indicated that it would be very difficult to specify the circumstances that could arise that
would lead a Council to make such a decision. Examples other than disclosure of personal
information include inappropriate language or gestures.
3.The retention period of the recording has been extended to seven years. The posting on the
website remains at four years.
“Original signed by Ceri Marlo”_______________________
Prepared by: Ceri Marlo, C.M.C.
Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”____________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
:cm 4.4
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Recordings of Council Meetings
Policy No :
Supersedes: NEW
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date:
Review Date:
Policy Statement: Public meetings of Council may be live streamed on the website and the
recordings posted to the website following meetings.
Purpose: This policy will provide guidelines for the live streaming and transparent management of
recordings of Public Hearings, Council, Committee of the Whole and Council Workshop meetings
held in the Council Chambers and Blaney Room at 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge.
Definitions:
Council: Council consists of seven elected officials and includes the Mayor and six Councillors
Formatted: Work performed to post the recording to the website with all presentation materials
and to include only recordings of the meetings from the call to order through to
adjournment.
Meeting: Includes Committee of the Whole, Council, Council Workshop and Public Hearing.
Does not include meetings that are closed to the public in accordance with the
Community Charter.
Website The website of the District of Maple Ridge.
Appendix I
Page 1 of 3 Policy
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
Public meetings of Council held in Council Chambers and Blaney
Room may be live streamed over the website and recorded. Any
meetings or portions of meetings that are closed to the public in
accordance with section Sections 90 and 92 of the Community
Charter will not be broadcast or recorded.
Signage shall be posted to ensure presenters and members of the
public are aware that public meetings are beingmay be live
streamed, recorded and made available over the website.
At the commencement of each meeting, the Mayor or Chairperson
shall notify those present, including members of the public, that
the meeting is being live streamed and recorded in accordance
with this policy for posting to the website.
A designated staff member will be responsible for the operation of
the live streaming and recording equipment
The Mayor or Chairperson has the discretion and authority at any
time to direct the termination or interruption of the live streaming
and recording of the meeting if he or she considers it prudent or
advisable to do so.
Council may, from time to time, direct staff to remove recordings
or portions of recordings from the website where it considers it
prudent or advisable to do so, including for the purpose of
avoiding the inappropriate publication of personal information.
There may be situations where due to technical difficulties the live
streaming and recording will not be available. If such
circumstances occur the Mayor or Chairperson will advise those
present that live streaming and recording is not available. In the
event the technical difficulties are not identified during the
meeting, this information will be displayed on the website.
The recording will be formatted and posted to the website within
three (3) days of the meeting.
Recordings will be available to the public over the website for a
period of four (4) years from the date of the meeting. Once the
four year (4) year retention period has elapsed the recording shall
be deleted from the website but retained as a record of the
meeting for an additional three (3) years .
Unless otherwise indicated, copyright to recordings of council
meetings made available on the District’s website is owned by the
Responsibility
Clerk’s Department
Mayor or Chairperson
Clerk’s Department
Mayor or Chairperson
Council
Mayor or Chairperson
Clerk’s Department
Clerk’s Department
Clerk’s Department
Page 2 of 3 Policy
District. Permission is granted to produce or reproduce the
recordings posted on the District’s website, or any substantial part
of such recordings, for personal, non-commercial, educational,
and news reporting purposes only, provided that the copied
material is not modified or altered and ownership of the material
is attributed to the District. For certainty, no person may use the
recordings for political party advertising, election campaigns, or
any other politically partisan activity. Unless expressly authorized
herein, no part of the recorded materials posted on the District’s
website may be reproduced except in accordance with the
provisions of the Copyright Act, as such Act may be amended or
replaced from time to time, or with the express written permission
of the District.
The adopted minutes of the meetings remain the official records.
The recordings are to promote broader access to meetings.
Page 3 of 3 Policy