HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-02 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the October 19, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
•Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel – July 14, 2015
•Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee – September 24, 2015
•Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission – August 11, 2015
•Maple Ridge Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues –
September 17, 2015
•Maple Ridge Public Art Steering Committee – July 22, 2015
2.3 Discussion on issues arising out of Committee and Commission minutes
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
November 2, 2015
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by
the City of Maple Ridge.
REMINDERS
November 2, 2015
Closed Council cancelled
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
November 10, 2015
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
November 2, 2015
Page 2 of 4
4. MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS 9:15 – 9:30 a.m.
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Update on the Development Liaison Committee 9:30 – 9:50 a.m.
Update by the General Manager of Public Works and Development
5.2 Business Licensing Process 9:50 – 10:10 a.m.
Verbal presentation by the General Manager of Public Works and Development
and the Coordinator of Licences and Permits
5.3 Transportation Plan 10:10 – 11:45 a.m.
Presentation by the Municipal Engineer
5.4 Fire Apparatus Service Life Analysis 11:45 a.m. to noon
Staff report dated November 2, 2015 providing an analysis of the impact of
extending the service life of certain fire department vehicles.
6. 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.
6.1 Upcoming Events
November 11, 2015
10:45 am
Remembrance Day Service – Memorial Peace Park
Organizer:
November 24, 2015
5:00 pm
Annual Dinner Fundraiser – Samuel Robertson Secondary
Organizer: Golden Ears Gogos
November 26, 2015
9:30 am
Workshop – Ramada Plaza
Organizer: Maple Ridge Regional Library
Council Workshop
November 2, 2015
Page 3 of 4
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
November 2, 2015
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
2.1 Council Workshop Meetings Minutes
2.1
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
October 19, 2015
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on October 19, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in
the Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for
the purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read F. Quinn, Acting Chief Administrative Officer/General
Councillor C. Bell Manager Public Works and Development Services
Councillor K. Duncan K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor B. Masse Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor G Robson P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor T. Shymkiw C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
Councillor C. Speirs Other Staff as Required
Superintendent D. Fleugel, Ridge Meadows RCMP
C. Carter, Director of Planning
J. Charlebois, Manager of Community Planning
D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental
Services
D. Denton. Property and Risk Manager
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Councillors Duncan, Masse and Robson were not in attendance at the start of
the meeting.
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as circulated.
2.MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the October 5, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2015-443
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of October 5, 2015 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 2 of 8
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
•Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel – June 14, 2015
•Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee – June 25, 2015
•Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility
Issues – June 17, 2015
•Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission –
July 9, 2015
•Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Committee – June 3 and September
9, 2015
R/2015-444
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel of June 4, 2015,
the Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee of June 25, 2015, the Maple
Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues of
June 17, 2015, the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services
Commission of July 9, 2015 and the Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory
Committee of June 3 and September 9, 2015 be received.
CARRIED
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1 RCMP Integrated Teams Presentation
•Assistant Commissioner Dan Malo
Superintendent Fluegel introduced Assistant Commissioner Dan Malo.
Assistant Commissioner Malo gave a power point presentation providing an
overview of the five Lower Mainland Detachment Integrated Teams; IHIT, ERT,
IPDS, IFIS and ICARS.
Note: Councillor Duncan joined the meeting at 9:07 a.m. and Councillor Robson
joined the meeting at 9:15 a.m.
4.MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Councillor Duncan
Councillor Duncan attended a Fire Department Open House and the Golden
Harvest event. She provided an update on the Strong Kids Team meetings.
Councillor Duncan will be attending conference on Public Art in Kelowna.
Council Workshop Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 3 of 8
Councillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs attended the Golden Harvest event, the Ridge Meadows
Hospital Foundation Arabian Nights gala and a meeting of the UBC Research
Forest Advisory Committee.
Councillor Shymkiw
Councillor Shymkiw attended the Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation Arabian
Nights gala. He provided an update on Open Government Task Force and a
report submitted by a Citizens group.
Mayor Read
Mayor Read attended a Best Practices for Housing First forum, CM Facilitators
meeting and met with the Canadian Alliance for Housing. She will be
attending the 2015 National Conference on Ending Homelessness in
Montreal. Mayor Read participated in UDI Fraser Valley Mayors’ Forum,
attended the Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation Arabian Nights Gala, and
the Albion FC Gala. She also attended a variety of meetings including a
meeting with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to discuss the
Haney Bypass.
5.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Maple Ridge Community Amenity Program
Staff report dated October 19, 2015 recommending that the Maple Ridge
Community Amenity Program Decision Table be used as the method to
determine the components of a community amenity program and that staff be
directed to prepare the necessary policies and/or bylaws for approved once
components are determined.
The Director of Planning introduced the item. The Manager of Community
Planning gave a power point presentation providing an overview of the staff
report.
5.1.1 Contribution Approach
a) Percentage Value of Lift
R/2015-445
It was moved and seconded
a) THAT a percentage value of lift be applied as the contribution approach for
the community amenity program.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 4 of 8
5.1.2 Geographic Area
a) City-Wide
R/2015-446
It was moved and seconded
That the contribution approach identified in category 1 of the Maple Ridge
Community Amenity Program Decision Table be applied city-wide.
R/2015-447
It was moved and seconded
That the motion be amended by removing the text “identified in category 1 of
the Maple Ridge Community Amenity Program Decision Table.
CARRIED
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRED
R/2015-448
It was moved and seconded
That the Town Centre Area Plan area be excluded from the city-wide
community amenity program.
CARRIED
5.1.3 Albion Density Bonus Framework
a) Keep Albion Density Bonus
R/2015-449
It was moved and seconded
That the Albion Density Bonus Framework be maintained in the Official
Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw and the amenity contribution rate be set at
$3,100 per lot.
Note: Councillor Masse arrived at 11:21 a.m.
CARRIED
Councillor Bell, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Shymkiw - OPPOSED
Note: The October 19, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m. and
was reconvened at 3:00 p.m. on October 27, 2015. An additional item was
added at the October 27, 2015 meeting as Item 5.4 - Pitt Meadows Airport
Resolution
Council Workshop Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 5 of 8
5.1.4 Application of Program
a)Residential Building Forms
R/2015-450
It was moved and seconded (i through vi in same motion)
That single family dwellings be included in the community amenity program
for development applications containing 3 or more new residential lots.
That duplex dwellings be included in the community amenity program for
development applications containing 2 or more new residential buildings.
That triplex dwellings be included in the community amenity program for
development applications containing more than 1 new residential building.
That fourplex buildings are included in the community amenity program.
That townhouses buildings of all forms are included in the community amenity
program.
That apartment buildings are included in the community amenity program.
CARRIED
R/2015-451
It was moved and seconded
That all rental apartment units, secured through a housing agreement and all
special needs and affordable housing be exempt from the community amenity
program.
CARRIED
OPPOSED – Councillor Shymkiw
b)Employment Lands
i) Commercial
R/2015-452
It was moved and seconded
That commercial developments are exempt from the community amenity
program, except where residential dwelling units are included in a mixed-use
development. Where rental housing units are included in and are secured as
rental housing by a housing agreement, and where special needs and
affordable housing units within the development, those dwelling units will be
exempt from the community amenity program
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 6 of 8
ii) Industrial
R/2015-453
It was moved and seconded
That industrial land uses are exempt from the community amenity program.
CARRIED
5.1.5 Tools to Establish the Program
a) Official Community Plan Policy
R/2015-454
It was moved and seconded
That an Official Community Plan amending bylaw be prepared that includes
the components of the community amenity program as established by the
Maple Ridge Community Amenity Program Decision Table.
CARRIED
Councillor Masse, Councillor Robson - OPPOSED
5.1.6 In-stream Applications
R/2015-455
It was moved and seconded
That in-stream applications be subject to the community amenity program as
established by the Maple Ridge Community Amenity Program Decision Table,
except those that have received third reading of the Official Community Plan
and/or zone amending bylaw(s).
CARRIED
5.1.7 Reserve Fund
R/2015-456
It was moved and seconded
That a follow-up report of a Reserve Fund bylaw be prepared and presented
to Council for consideration at a future meeting.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 7 of 8
Note: Item 5.2 was rescheduled to the November 2, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting
5.2 Transportation Plan
Presentation by the Municipal Engineer
5.3 Sale of Municipal Property – 280 Street Roadway (28000 block of 96 Avenue)
Staff report dated October 19, 2015 recommending that the process for the
sale of the decommissioned portion of 280 Street (28000 block of 96
Avenue) roadway including the preparation of a Highway Closure and
Dedication Removal Bylaw be commenced and upon approval of same, the
subdivision and disposition process of the resulting land parcels.
R/2015-457
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to commence the process for the sale of the
decommissioned portion of 280 Street (28000 block of 96 Avenue) roadway
including the preparation of a Highway Closure and Dedication Removal Bylaw
and upon approval of same, the subdivision and disposition process of the
resulting land parcels.
CARRIED
5.4 Pitt Meadows Airport Society – Resolution to postpone Annual General
Meeting
R/2015-458
It was moved and seconded
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the Pitt Meadows Airport
Society members’ resolution to postpone the Annual General Meeting to
November 26, 2015.
CARRIED
6.CORRESPONDENCE
6.1 Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee - Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan
Letter dated October 1, 2015 from Margaret Daskis, Chair, Maple Ridge
Agricultural Advisory Committee providing information on work on the
endorsed Agricultural Plan undertaken by the committee since December
2009.
Council Workshop Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 8 of 8
The request put forward by the Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee
will be considered once the Agricultural Plan questionnaire has been
completed by all of Council.
7.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
8.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
9.ADJOURNMENT – 4:41 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
2.2 Committee and Commission Meetings Minutes
2.2
Advisory Design Panel Minutes Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
ADVISORY DESIGN PANEL
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel held in the Blaney
Room at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 4:00 pm.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Blair Arbuthnot Landscape Architect
Roger Amenyogbe Architect
Johnny Leung Architect
Mark Lesack Architect
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
Adrian Kopystynski Staff Liaison, Acting Manager of Development and
Environmental Services
REGRETS
Kyoung Bae Park Landscape Architect
1.CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm.
2.AGENDA ADOPTION
R15-016 It was moved and seconded
That the agenda be amended to postpone Item 5.1 to the September meeting and be adopted
as amended.
CARRIED
3.MINUTES APPROVAL
R15-017 It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes of June 9, 2015 be approved.
CARRIED
Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel -Tuesday,July 14, 2015
Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Minutes Page 2 of 4
4.PROJECTS
4.1
Development Permit No:2015-043-DP
Applicant:Curtis Gray/Cheryl Bijl, Krahn Engineering
Project Architect:Larry Podhora
Project Landscape Architect:KD Planning and Design Ltd.
Owners:MDZ Holdings Ltd.
Proposal:A single-storey multi-tenant industrial concrete tilt-up
building.
Location:20159 115A Avenue
File Manager:Michelle Baski
The project applicant, architect and landscape architect were introduced.The Staff Liaison
provided an overview of the proposed project. The project team made a presentation of the
project plans.
R15-018 It was moved and seconded
That the application be supported and the following concerns be addressed as the design
develops and be submitted to Planning staff for follow-up:
1.Consider a corner massing element on the south west corner
2.Consider a stronger colour element on the building
3.Consider west façade entries with design elements that may include canopies
and spaces for signage for each unit
4.Consider providing a continuous pedestrian corridor along the west façade,
that matches hard scape surfacing of entry ways
5.Consider providing an outdoor amenity space
6.Portray an accurate image of the art work on the south façade
7.Consider additional architectural features on south façade (Consider
modifying design of windows on south elevation
8.Provide additional detailing for rear and east fencing
9.Provide additional security for rear access path
10.Provide additional detail for standalone sign to ensure sign does not conflict
with art work. In addition to confirming consistency of mate rials between
building and sign
11.Provide further design refinement of outdoor storage area (screening,
buffering of storage, fencing details)
12.Show bollards on elevations for overhead doors
13.Show further information on retaining wall details
14.Preference for providing accessible pathway connection between sidewalk
and building
15.Consider providing exterior lighting on artwork
CARRIED
Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel -Tuesday,July 14, 2015
Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Minutes Page 3 of 4
4.2
Development Permit:2015-081-DP
Applicant:Harj Sekhon
Project Architect:Heather Johnston
Landscape Architect:
Owners:931919 B.C. Ltd.
Proposal:Restaurant (Freshii)
Location:22464 Lougheed Highway
File Manager:Adam Rieu
The applicant and architect were introduced.The Staff Liaison reported that this was a
returning application from the June 2015 meeting and gave an overview of the
recommendations made at that time. The architect made a presentation of the revised
plans.
R15-019 It was moved and seconded
That the application be supported and the following concerns be addressed as the design
develops and be submitted to Planning staff for follow-up:
1.Confirm the cornice is within the property line on the east side
2.Provide further details on profile of canopy. Confirm canopy is within city bylaws for
covering sidewalk.Confine the canopy within the concrete pilasters
3.Consider consistency between front and rear façade materials
4.Consider additional architectural feature on rear upper façade
5.Consider formalizing the mural on the east façade with context for art and provide
further details on installation
6.Consider additional landscape details for planter boxes in front and rea r areas
7.Provide additional landscape in rear planter
8.Consider additional window features on frontage (for example awning on upper
windows)
9.Provide additional details for frontage hardscape pavers
10.Provide additional detail of garbage area and ensure materi als are consistent with
building façade
CARRIED
4.3
Development Permit No:2015-194-DP
Applicant:Stantec
Project Architect:Stantec
Project Landscape Architect:None
Owners:Narland Properties (Haney) Ltd
Proposal:Rebrand the west end of the existing shopping centre
structure from Target to Walmart.
Location:11900 Haney Place
File Manager:Amelia Bowden
Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel -Tuesday,July 14, 2015
Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Minutes Page 4 of 4
The Staff Liaison provided an overview of the plan to update the façade of 11900 Haney
Place. The colour scheme and logo elements will be updated.
R15-020 It was moved and seconded
That the application be supported and the following concerns be addressed as the design
develops and be submitted to Planning staff for follow-up:
1.Consider alternate texture transition for the pedestrian zone in front of main entry in lieu
of speed bumps. Should speed bumps be retained consider alternative texture at east
west drive aisles entering onto pedestrian crossing
2.Consider vertically aligning the pharmacy signage with main Walmart sign
3.Consider installing landscaping islands were previous cart corals were located
4.Review and supplement all landscape areas with new plant material for full coverage in
all existing landscape areas
5.Consider weather protection over west exit doors
CARRIED
5.NEW BUSINESS & UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.1 Village Commercial Development Permit Area Guidelines
Postponed
5.2 ADP Applicant Checklist
Feedback from panel members has been incorporated into the checklist. A printed
updated checklist was reviewed by the panel and further suggestions were made to
improve the form. Once these suggestions are included the form is ready for
distribution.
6.PRESENTATIONS -Nil
7.C0RRESPONDENCE -Nil
8.NEXT MEETING Tuesday,September 8, 2015
Applicant deadline:Monday,August 17, 2015
9.ADJOURNMENT
/ss
City of Maple Ridge
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, held in the Blaney Room,
at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall on Thursday,September 24,2015 at 7:00 pm.
____________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Bill Hardy Member at Large
Jennifer Zickerman Agricultural Sector
Margaret Daskis, Chair Community at Large
Stephanie James Equestrian Agricultural Sector
Al Kozak Agricultural Sector
Councillor Duncan City of Maple Ridge
Ian Brooks Member at Large
Candace Gordon Haney Farmers Market
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Siobhan Murphy Staff Liaison / Planner 2
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
REGRETS/ABSENTS
Councillor Speirs City of Maple Ridge
Chris Zabek Regional Agrologist, Ministry of Agriculture & Lands
Kimberley Lauzon, Vice Chair Member at Large
Lorraine Bates Agricultural Fair Board
1.CALL TO ORDER
There being a quorum present,the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm.
2.AGENDA ADOPTION
R15-013
It was moved and seconded
That the Agenda be amended to add Golden Harvest as Item 7.2, Water as Item 7.3,
Agricultural Plan Review as Item 7.4 and KPU Update as Item 7.5 and be adopted as
amended.
CARRIED
3.MINUTE ADOPTION
R15-014
It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes of June 25, 2015 be amended to accurately reflect Mr. Bill Hardy’s
Roundtable comment regarding concern with the cost of water and be adopted as amended.
CARRIED
AAC Minutes
September 24, 2015
Page 2 of 3
4.DELEGATIONS -Nil
5.NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Business Planning
5.1.1 More Peas Please –Consideration of request for funding
The process for evaluating requests for funding was discussed.The Staff
Liaison will follow up with Planning staff to review what criteria may have
been established in the past.The More Peas Please program will be gearing
up in the Spring and it was noted that it would be good to have funding
approval criteria in place for that time.
6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6.1 Backyard Chickens
Stephanie James provided information on municipalities within Metro Vancouver that
allow backyard chickens.Potential negative effects of allowing backyard chickens
were discussed.The Staff Liaison will contact municipalities with existing backyard
chicken bylaws to gather information and this item will be revisited at the next
meeting.
6.2 Letter of Support –Christian Cowley
The letter of support for the North Fraser Centre signed by Chair Margaret Daskis was
reviewed.
R15-015
It was moved and seconded
That Mayor and Council be sent the letter regarding the Agricultural Advisory
Committee support, in principle,for the proposed North Fraser Centre.
CARRIED
7.SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS
7.1 Food Garden Contest –Stephanie James
Stephanie James reported she had visited and judged the entries received for the
Food Garden contest.There were many great gardens entered this year and a good
number of entries were received.Winners will be notified by the City. Ms. James and
the Staff Liaison will make a short presentation and award certificates to the winners
at an upcoming Council meeting.It was suggested that City Communications staff be
engaged to publicize the event. This contest supports the goal of the AAC to promote
food gardening.
7.2 Golden Harvest
Kimberly Lauzon provided Golden Harvest tickets and a written update on event
plans (although she was unable to attend the meeting).Plans to promote the event
were discussed.
AAC Minutes
September 24, 2015
Page 3 of 3
7.3 Water
The Chair reported that water was discussed at the recent Metro Agricultural Advisory
meeting.An event is planned for next year on water and agriculture.
7.4 Agricultural Plan Review
The Staff Liaison reported that an overview of the Agricultural Plan was given to
Mayor and Council in July. Since then the Agricultural Review subcommittee has
created a document to show the current status of the goals o f the Agricultural Plan.
This document will be presented to Mayor and Council along with a questionnaire
that will allow Council to prioritize outstanding goals and associated actions.
Plans to communicate priorities to Mayor and Council were discussed.The “update
document” will be circulated to committee members for input.
7.5 KPU Update
The Chair reported that Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU)provided an update on
their Southwest BC Bioregional Food System project at the Metro Agricultural
Advisory Committee meeting.Research is ongoing.It was suggested that a request
be made to KPU for quarterly updates on the project.It was suggested that a
delegation from KPU be requested.
8.CORRESPONDENCE
9.ROUNDTABLE
Al Kozak supports the stance of the pope on climate change.
10.QUESTION PERIOD
11.ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded
That the meeting be adjourned at 9:02 pm.
/ss
Community Heritage Commission Minutes Page 1
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Community Heritage Commission,held in the Blaney
Room,at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place Road,Maple Ridge,British Columbia,on
Tuesday, August 11,2015 at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT
Len Pettit Community at Large
Eric Phillips Community at Large
Sandra Ayres Community at Large
Brenda Smith, Chair Maple Ridge Historical Society
Faye Isaac,Vice-chair Maple Ridge Historical Society
Cyndy Johnson-McCormick Community at Large
Steven Ranta Community at Large
Councillor Speirs Council Liaison
STAFF PRESENT
Lisa Zosiak Staff Liaison, Community Planner
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
GUESTS
Annette Fulford History of the Maple Ridge Heritage Awards Project
Report
REGRETS/ABSENT
1.CALL TO ORDER
There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm and
introductions were made.
2.AGENDA ADOPTION
R15-023 It was moved and seconded
That the Agenda be amended with the following additions:Item 7.4 Hammond Area Plan
Update and Item 6.2 Volunteer Appreciation Invitation and be adopted as amended.
CARRIED
Community Heritage Commission Minutes Page 2
3.MINUTE ADOPTION
R15-024 It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes of June 2, 2015 be approved.
Steven Ranta and Cyndy Johnson-McCormick entered the meeting at 7:08 pm.
4.DELEGATIONS
CARRIED
4.1 Annette Fulford -History of the Maple Ridge Heritage Awards Project Report
Annette Fulford presented the results of her Heritage Awards research project,which
reviewed the history of the program since the inception of this Committee of Council
(originally called the Heritage Advisory Committee).Ms.Fulford explained her
research methods and related her experience viewing the archives of the local News
and the Times newspapers.Ms.Fulford has created a binder which includes an
overview of the project,copies of the newspaper articles and the list of winners.Ms.
Fulford suggested some further steps to complete the records.
The Chair expressed to Ms.Fulford the appreciation of the Commission for
undertaking and completing this project.
5.FINANCE
5.1 2016 Business Plan
The Staff Liaison reported that the draft 2016 CHC business plan will be due at the
end of September, with the final report due in October.Updating the Heritage
Inventory was the main project scheduled for 2015 in the Heritage Plan ,however it
may need to be postponed as funding has not yet been secured.The existing
Heritage Inventory was created in 1998.The Commission discussed options for
obtaining funding,including investigating the option of fundraising,applying for
grants and seeking advice from City staff.
R15-025 It was moved and seconded
That the Chair and Councillor Speirs speak to Paul Gill,G eneral Manager, Corporate and
Financial Services,that the Staff Liaison contact the project consultant to discuss the project
and contact the Real Estate Foundation of BC to discuss a possible grant,and then proceed
or cancel the intended update starting in 2015,and (if cancelled)then renew the request for
funds in 2016.
6.CORRESPONDENCE
CARRIED
6.1 Maple Ridge Historical Society notification of revision to Haney House history
Erica Williams,President of the Maple Ridge Historical Society was present and read
her recent letter to the CHC regarding some inconsistencies in the history of Haney
House.
Community Heritage Commission Minutes Page 3
R15-026 It was moved and seconded
That the Maple Ridge Historical Society be thanked for their research.
CARRIED
6.2 Volunteer Appreciation Invitation
An invitation for a Volunteer Appreciation event on September 12th has been received from
Yvonne Chui,Arts and Community Connections Manager.
7.NEW &UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.1 Membership
7.1.1 Calendar of Events –Brenda Smith
The Chair reviewed upcoming events including the Volunteer Appreciation event on
September 12th,Music on the Wharf on August 24th,Local Voices starting September
3rd and GETIFest on September 19th.
7.1.2 CHC Binder Updates
The Committee Clerk gave a demonstration of the electronic CHC Binder including
how to navigate the file and a review of the Calendars section.
7.2 St.Andrews Heritage Church
The Staff Liaison reported that the property adjacent to the St. Andrews Heritage
Church has been sold.The Staff Liaison will report when the property line issue is
fully resolved.
7.3 Presentation to Council -October
The Chair will make a presentation to Council on October 27,2015 with an update
on the activities of the CHC.
7.4 Hammond Area Plan
The Staff Liaison provided an update on the development of the Hammond Area
Plan.Public input has been gathered and a conceptual plan is being developed.The
draft Concept Plan will be presented to Council in the Fall,with a future open house
to follow.
8.SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS
8.1 Communications Subcommittee
8.1.1 Heritage Here Newsletter
The Chair reported the latest issue was released in June.The next deadline
for article submission is September 15th.
8.1.2 Proposal to re-brand CHC publications
The Chair has received a quote to have the Commission logo updated or
redesigned for use on business cards,the newsletter template,and
letterhead.
8.1.3 GETIFest
Volunteers needed to support the booth on September 19th, 2015.
Community Heritage Commission Minutes Page 4
8.2 Recognitions Subcommittee
8.2.1 Heritage Marker Inventory Project
The Chair reported that this project is moving forward and the database
should be delivered in September.
8.2.2 Heritage Awards –Faye Isaac
Faye Isaac announced that the next meeting of the Heritage Awards
subcommittee will be held on October 6th at 6:00 pm (just prior to the next
regular meeting). All CHC members are invited to the meeting and should
bring nomination ideas.Ways to advertise the event were discussed.The
Chair will update the Heritage Awards brochure.
8.2.3 10th Anniversary Plaque Book Project
The Staff Liaison is working on this project.
8.3 Education Subcommittee
8.3.1 Fall CHC Field Trip
Sandra Ayres reported the CHC and invited guests will take a field trip on October
24th at 10:00 or 10:30 am for a private tour of the North Vancouver archives and
planned museum.The Staff Liaison will book the City bus for this field trip.
8.4 Digitization Project Subcommittee
The Digitization Project subcommittee has met with Stephanie Riley, Records
Management Coordinator,to discuss steps to begin the digitization project.The
Records Management Coordinator has the First Council book available for viewing
electronically.
8.5 Heritage Inventory Project Update
Previously discussed during Item 5.1.One additional item is the need to ensure all
past issues of both local newspapers are properly archived.It was suggested that
these old newspapers could be digitized to preserve them.
8.6 Robertson Family Cemetery Project Subcommittee
The Staff Liaison reported that the City has received advice on how to resolve
ownership and obtain a ‘Place of Interment’designation for this property.This
project is underway and a future update will be provided.
9.LIAISON UPDATES
9.1 BC Historical Federation
9.2 Heritage BC
The issue with the 2013 Networking Conference fees and membership fees has been
resolved.The Chair will correspond with Heritage BC.
9.3 Maple Ridge Historical Society
The three Music on the Wharf events held so far have been well attended.The final
Music on the Wharf is on August 24th.Volunteers recently carried out a cemetery
clean up.
Community Heritage Commission Minutes Page 5
9.4 Council Liaison
Councillor Speirs suggested holding a draw to include a couple of members of the
public in the upcoming North Vancouver museum field trip.
10.COMMUNITY FORUM –Nil
11.ROUNDTABLE -Nil
It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 9:00 pm.
/ss
MAPLE RIDGE/PITT MEADOWS
MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory
Committee on Accessibility Issues, held in the Meadows Room at the Pitt Meadows
Municipal Hall on Thursday,September 17, 2015 at 5:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Cydney Peacock, Vice-Chair Community at Large, Maple Ridge
Bernice Rolls Community at Large, Maple Ridge
Maria Kovacs Community At Large, Maple Ridge
Councillor Craig Speirs Council Liaison, City of Maple Ridge
Kevin Priebe, Chair Community At Large, Maple Ridge
Councillor Bruce Bell Council Liaison, City of Pitt Meadows
STAFF PRESENT
Petra Frederick Staff Liaison /Recreation Coordinator
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
REGRETS/ABSENT
Julie Lewis Fraser Health Authority
Gillian Small Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living
Greg Turnbull Community At Large, Maple Ridge
Mike Murray School District #42 Trustee
1.CALL TO ORDER
There being a quorum present,the Chair called the meeting to order at 5:07 pm.
2.AGENDA ADOPTION
R15-022
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda be amended to include Item 7.2 “Work BC event invitation”and
be adopted as amended.
CARRIED
3.MINUTES ADOPTION
R15-023
It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes of June 17, 2015 be adopted.
CARRIED
4.DELEGATIONS & PRESENTATIONS -Nil
MACAI Minutes
September 17, 2015
Page 2 of 3
5.COMMUNITY FORUM -Nil
Councillor Bell entered the meeting at 5:10 pm.
6.NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6.1 Survey Roll Out
The Staff Liaison presented a printed copy of the survey and outlined the
process for sharing the survey with the public. The survey will be available in
electronic and paper formats and will be open until November 30, 2015.
6.1.1 Communication
The Staff Liaison proposed engaging City Communications staff to work
to increase the profile of MACAI.Committee membership was
discussed.
6.1.2 GETIFest Opportunity
Bernice Rolls outlined the plans for MACAI’s attendance at GETIFest.
Feedback from citizens on accessibility (what cities are doing well and
what areas need improvement)will be gathered.The Accessibility
Survey will be available.
6.2 MACAI Awards 2015 Wrap Up
Feedback on the 2015 awards was provided. The event was very successful.
7.NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Adoption of 2016 Business Plan
The deliverables for the 2016 Business Plan were reviewed.After discussion
R15-024
It was moved and seconded
That the 2016 Business Plan be adopted.
CARRIED
7.2 Work BC Event
MACAI has been invited to attend a Douglas College / Work BC event coming up
on September 24th to recognize businesses who successfully employ people
with disabilities. Members were asked to RSVP to the Staff Liaison.
MACAI Minutes
September 17, 2015
Page 3 of 3
7.CORRESPONDENCE -Nil
8.ROUNDTABLE
9.AJOURNMENT 7:00 PM
It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 6:40 pm.
Chairperson
/ss
Public Art Steering Committee Minutes Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
PUBLIC ART STEERING COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Public Art Steering Committee, held in the Coho Room,at
Maple Ridge Municipal Hall on Wednesday,July 22,2015 at 3:00 pm.
____________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Susan Hayes, Chair Artist
Barbara Duncan Curator, Maple Ridge Art Gallery
Councillor Duncan City of Maple Ridge
Leanne Koehn Community at Large Member
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Yvonne Chui Manager, Arts and Community Connections
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
REGRETS/ABSENTS
Wayne Bissky Architect
Kristin Krimmel Artist
1.CALL TO ORDER
There being a quorum present,the Chair called the meeting to order at 3:02 pm.As guest
Sylvia Pendl was not yet present it was decided to proceed with Item 2.
2.AGENDA ADOPTION
R15-017 It was moved and seconded
That the agenda be amended to include Item 6.8 Meeting Schedule and to remove Item 6.2
Artist in Residence and be adopted as amended.
CARRIED
3.MINUTE ADOPTION
R15-018 It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes June 24, 2015 of be amended to replace the last sentence of Item 6.2
Artist in Residence with “Ms. Duncan will update the committee at a future date”and be
adopted as amended.
CARRIED
4.COMMUNITY FORUM -Nil
Regular Meeting –July 22, 2015
Public Art Steering Committee Minutes Page 2 of 3
5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.1 Creative Cities Network Conference
The Staff Liaison updated the committee that she has contacted Creative Cities and has
arranged for three committee members to attend the conference within the budget
already approved. Susan Hayes, Wayne Bissky and Leanne Koehn to attend.
5.2 Whonnock Public Art
The Staff Liaison reported that Collabor8 is planning a soft launch for their Whonnock
Lake Public Art Installation at the Farmers Market this week. A press release will be
done soon and will be provided to Council for information later this week.
6.NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Hammond Public Art
The Staff Liaison updated the committee that a new call for the Hammond Public Art
installation will go out in late August / early September, with 4 to 6 weeks allowed for
submissions. The committee will receive a draft of the call for submissions for review.
Potential installation locations at the stadium have been identified in conjunction with
the Parks Department. A web page will be dedicated to the call. This project will be
awarded in 2015 and installed in 2016 (installation needs to be scheduled around
baseball season).A subcommittee will be struck to evaluate submissions.
6.3 Community Public Art Program
The Chair reported the call for this project needs to go out in early September with a
deadline at the end of October. $4,500 remains in this allocation.The Staff Liaison will
issue a press release in August for distribution.
6.4 Public Art Cataloguing
The Chair reported that she and the Staff Liaison have been meeting with the
Community Heritage Commission subcommittee responsible for cataloging all heritage
plaques in the City. This subcommittee has hired a contractor to create a database to
hold the plaque records (including images and maintenance logs). After viewing the
database the Chair and Staff Liaison feel that a slightly modified version could be used
to inventory the City public art installations. The database would allow maintenance
timing and costs to be tracked efficiently. Funding for this project exists within the
already approved Committee budget.
The committee discussed required and planned maintenance for existing installations.
6.5 Business Plan 2016
The Staff Liaison asked that all members review the existing business plan over the
summer. The plan will be discussed in September. Cultural Mapping (long term cultural
planning) project will be a main item for the 2016 plan.
6.6 Collection Maintenance
Previously discussed under Item 6.4.
Regular Meeting –July 22, 2015
Public Art Steering Committee Minutes Page 3 of 3
6.7 Member Terms and Renewal
The Staff Liaison reported she had met with the Committee Clerk to discuss member
terms and recruitment plans. An artist and a developer will be recruited for the 2016-
2017 term.The Committee Clerk will circulate the recruitment ad to the committee for
distribution. Expiration dates for committee members were reviewed by the Staff
Liaison.
6.8 Meeting Schedule
After discussion it was agreed that the regular schedule of the meeting would be moved
to either the third or fourth Tuesday of the month at 3:00 pm.The Committee Clerk will
send an email to all committee members asking their preference.
7.ROUNDTABLE
The Committee discussed acknowledgement guidelines for the community public art grant
program. The Staff Liaison will remind applicants to follow the guidelines noted in the
application in future when projects are unveiled/opened and completed.
8.ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded
That the meeting be adjourned at 4:18 pm.
CARRIED
9.NEXT MEETING –To be determined
_____________________________________
Chairperson
/ss
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: November 2, 2015
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Fire Apparatus Service Life Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of the City’s commitment to serving the community efficiently and effectively, process reviews
are undertaken throughout the year. This report looks at the truck replacement practice of the Fire
Department, and identifies what a departure from that practice would mean for the City and its
citizens and businesses.
RECOMMENDATION:
No resolution required. For information only.
DISCUSSION:
a)Purpose:
When Council last considered the replacement of a fire truck, they requested a review of our fire
truck replacement practice. This report responds to that request.
The Maple Ridge Fire Department has a vehicle fleet with a replacement value of approximately $9
million. The fire-fighting trucks with pumping ability are referred to as “apparatus” and therefore that
term is used throughout this report. The focus of this report is the apparatus.
The purpose of this analysis is to see whether extending the service life of these vehicles would
result in cost savings that could be passed on to taxpayers, while also identifying other impacts, such
as service levels and safety. Our analysis is summarized in this cover report; the detailed analysis is
also attached.
b)Results:
There are two financial elements that require analysis. Extending the service life of the fire apparatus
has the potential to save the City money. However, this may result in higher insurance premiums for
Maple Ridge citizens and businesses, and increased operating and maintenance costs for the City.
Potential Savings
On the City cost-saving side, we looked at the 20-year replacement cycle used for fire apparatus and
calculated the financial savings of keeping the vehicles in service beyond 20 years. On the surface,
each additional extension year results in more cost savings.
1 5.4
These savings may be offset by higher operating, maintenance and testing costs. In addition,
although this is a financial analysis, non-financial community impacts must be considered. For
example, older apparatus may not be as mechanically reliable. This could have dire consequences,
depending on the timing of a breakdown. Also, older apparatus are not outfitted with the latest
safety equipment, such as air bags and pre-tensioning seatbelts. These are safety items we have
come to expect in our society, and employees driving in emergency mode should also have that
equipment.
• We determined that if all apparatus was kept one additional year each, the bottom line savings
could be $327,000. These savings wouldn’t occur in the first year because the trucks are in
varying stages of their respective life cycles. For example, extending the life of the first truck due
for replacement would save $39,000 in 2016. It wouldn’t be until 2035 that all trucks were
beyond 20 years.
• We also looked at extending one vehicle for multiple years. For example, the aerial unit could be
kept in service additional years, providing the appropriate application, testing and
documentation were undertaken. The annual contribution to the replacement reserve could stop
after 20 years (in 2016) thus saving $69,000 per year beginning in 2017, or $345,000 in total if
it is kept in service for 5 more years.
• Next, we polled other municipalities to see what their replacement practices were. We found that
most of them use the 20-year cycle, or replace earlier than that. Where they keep the vehicles in
service beyond 20 years, this is done primarily where the apparatus become reserve units, to fill
in while other vehicles are out of service, or to respond to major incidents. In one case financial
capacity was cited as a reason for extending the service life.
Community Insurance Premiums
While extending the service life of our apparatus could save some money, we also have to look at
what this would mean in terms of additional costs, both to the city and to its citizens. That is why we
looked at insurance premiums.
In determining insurance rates for both residential and commercial property owners, the insurance
industry considers a number of factors, including market conditions. Fire risk is one element that is
taken into account in setting insurance rates. This is one reason why the Superior Tender Shuttle
Service was researched and implemented in the eastern portion of the city a few months ago.
As far as fire risk is concerned, each community in Canada is “graded” by the Fire Underwriters
Survey (FUS), and insurance industry subscribers to this information can use these grades to inform
their insurance rate calculations. This is why we looked at what a potential change in this fire rating
would do to insurance premiums.
Using extremely conservative assumptions, multiple methods and various scenarios, we calculated
that the community would pay about $2 million more in insurance premiums if our fire rating is
changed. Given that extending the fire apparatus service life would save about $330,000, taxpayers
would be financial disadvantaged by the service life extension of fire apparatus.
Our calculated cost to the community, regardless of how conservative our assumptions, suggests
there will be an impact on insurance premiums. This is by no means clear. As stated above, FUS
grading is just one among a number of factors the insurance industry may use to calculate
premiums. Not all insurers use the grades in their premium calculations.
2
Sensitivity Analysis
Given the difficulty in quantifying the impact on insurance premiums, we also looked at how much
the insurance premiums would have to increase, to offset the savings that would result from
extending the service life.
We found that a cost increase to Maple Ridge homeowners and businesses of only 2% is enough to
eliminate any financial savings of extending each fire apparatus by one year. Additionally, this
doesn’t consider the non-financial benefits of renewing the apparatus on a 20-year cycle, such as
mechanical reliability of the truck and equipment, and the newer safety features that protect
employees and citizens.
c) Additional Comments:
It warrants comment that all fire trucks come from the United States. Even if they are assembled in
Canada, all the parts originate from the United States. For this reason, the U.S. exchange rate has a
substantial impact on the final cost of these units. Through the majority of 2011, we could buy US
dollars for as low as 95 cents, but the rate presently sits at around $1.33.
On an $800,000 truck, this translates into an additional cost of $300,000. On an aerial unit, this
would mean over $500,000. Holding foreign currencies is not without its complexities for
municipalities, but it, along with timing purchases when exchange rates are favourable, both warrant
consideration.
Currency fluctuations have a significant impact on our replacement costs.
d) Strategic Alignment:
The City of Maple Ridge strives for best value for its citizens and taxpayers. The City adheres to a
formal Business Planning framework to align operations with the direction of Council. An important
component of that framework is that formal Process Reviews are undertake throughout the
organization to ensure we are continually seeking out efficiencies and that resources are allocated
effectively and achieving intended outcomes. This Fire Apparatus Service Life Analysis is in
alignment with our continuous improvement culture.
In alignment with Council’s goal of Open and Transparent Government, a technical compendium
accompanies this report, so those wishing to review the data supporting the results of the analysis
can do so.
e) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Based on the analysis, extending the service life of fire apparatus could cost commercial property
owners $620,000 annually, and residential homeowners $1.5 million annually, for a total of over
$2.1 million. Offsetting this could be savings of about $330,000 in the City budget, which would be
passed on through reduced property taxes. The net cost to the community would be $1.8 million as a
very conservative estimate.
Safety of both citizens and our fire fighters also warrants consideration. As trucks age, they become
more susceptible to breakdowns. Newer standards and safety equipment are not present with older
apparatus. The human safety aspect is not a part of this analysis but should be a qualitative
consideration.
3
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
If trucks are kept in service beyond their planned service life expectancy, and the money is not
required for other replacements, there is a bottom line savings that could flow to taxpayers. It may
be offset by higher operating, maintenance and testing costs.
This must be considered in conjunction with the potential impact of insurance rates for property
owners in the City.
g) Policy Implications:
As mentioned previously, the relationship between community FUS grading and insurance premiums
is unclear. FUS has given a strong message that their temporary allowance for one apparatus to be
extended an additional five years is not intended to be used as a policy change justification. It was
meant to give municipalities additional time in cases where the cost of a replacement was financially
onerous.
Our current policy is to replace apparatus at 20 years, in alignment with recognized standards. In
reality, due to the lengthy design and delivery times, replacements have periodically occurred beyond
the 20 year timeline. This is evidenced by our current inventory, where one vehicle is almost 22 and
the other is almost 20, and neither have been ordered yet.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Fire Department has a practice of timing truck replacements to meet recognized standards. Over
the next several years, three apparatus need replacing at a cost exceeding $3 million. While
extending the service life of these vehicles will save the City money, the potential cost implications
on insurance premiums paid by property owners throughout the City could outweigh these savings by
a large margin. An increase of only 2% is enough to eliminate any financial savings of extending each
fire apparatus by one year. Further, non-financial implications such as mechanical reliability and up-
to-date safety features for the protection of our employees warrant consideration.
“Original signed by Laura Benson” “Original signed by Howard Exner”
Prepared by: Laura Benson, CPA, CMA
Manager of Sustainability and
Corporate Planning
Prepared by: Howard Exner
Deputy Fire Chief
“Original signed by Dane Spence” “Original signed by Paul Gill”
Approved by: Dane Spence
Fire Chief
Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A, C.G.A, F.R.M
General Manager: Corporate &
Financial Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
Concurrence: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix 1: Technical Compendium – Fire Apparatus Service Life Analysis (October)
4
Appendix 1
Technical Compendium
Fire Apparatus Service Life Analysis
October 2015
Table of Contents:
Schedule A: Maple Ridge Vehicle Replacement Cycle ........................................................................... 2
Table 1 – Fire Department Vehicle Inventory ............................................................................................... 2
Table 2 – Annualized Cost Savings of Service Life Extension ..................................................................... 3
Table 3 – Timelines for Annualized Cost Savings ........................................................................................ 3
Schedule B: Apparatus Replacement Practices at other municipalities ................................................ 4
Schedule C: Insurance Industry Fire Risk Analysis ................................................................................. 5
Calculating Insurance Rate Impacts is Challenging ....................................................................... 6
Schedule D: City of Maple Ridge Residential FUS grades ...................................................................... 7
Table 4 - Maple Ridge Average Home by FUS Grade ................................................................................... 7
Schedule E: Insurance Grading Map – Residential (based on FUS criteria) .......................................... 8
Schedule F: Insurance Rate Impact - Residential .................................................................................. 9
Figure 1 - FUS Example Insurance Premiums - Residential ........................................................................ 9
Table 5 - Maple Ridge Residential Insurance Rate Assumptions ............................................................. 10
Table 6 - Cost Increase Scenarios based on Figure 1 ................................................................................ 11
Figure 2 - Excerpt from FUS Town of Sidney 2014 Report ........................................................................ 12
Table 7 - Cost Increase Scenarios based on Figure 2 ................................................................................ 12
Schedule G: Conservative Residential Estimates ............................................................................... 13
Table 8 - Residential Premium Increase Scenario ..................................................................................... 13
Schedule H: City of Maple Ridge Commercial FUS grades .................................................................. 14
Schedule I: Insurance Grading Map – Commercial (based on FUS criteria) ....................................... 15
Schedule J: Insurance Rate Impact – Commercial ............................................................................. 16
Table 9 - Commercial Insurance Premium Scenarios ................................................................................ 16
Schedule K: Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................................... 17
Table 10 - Combined Community Cost Increase ........................................................................................ 17
Schedule L: City of Maple Ridge FUS requirements ............................................................................ 18
Figure 3 - FUS Service Schedule for Fire Apparatus .................................................................................. 18
FUS Response to City of Maple Ridge Service Life Extension Enquiry ...................................... 19
Schedule M: Letter from Fire Underwriters Survey, 2015-06-23........................................................ 20
Throughout this report:
• Tables created by the City of Maple Ridge are referred to as “Table 1, Table 2….” whereas
• Materials taken from other sources are referred to as “Figure 1, Figure 2…”
Schedule A: Maple Ridge Vehicle Replacement Cycle
Maple Ridge has a fleet of cars, trucks and heavy equipment. The service life of each vehicle is
determined by its ability to serve the organization in a safe and cost-effective manner. The
exception to this principle is the Fire Department’s aerial and pumper apparatus. We have 8
such apparatus, the replacement value of which is about $7 million, highlighted below.
Table 1 – Fire Department Vehicle Inventory
Vehicle Description Year Acquired Age at
End of 2015
Replacement
Value
Aerial and Pumper Apparatus: (considered in the Service Life Analysis)
Tower 1 1996 20 yrs $ 1,377,099
Engine 1 2009 7 yrs 762,783
Engine 1-2 2009 7 yrs 752,387
Engine 2 2008 8 yrs 770,623
Engine 3 2008 8 yrs 771,867
Engine 3-2 1994 22 yrs 770,837
Tender 1 1998 18 yrs 810,392
Tender 2 2014 2 yrs 762,783
Subtotal…… $ 6,778,771
Other Vehicles/Support Equipment:
Operational Support Unit 2014 2 yrs 867,124
Public Education Vehicle 2011 5 yrs 14,087
Rescue 1 2009 7 yrs 796,165
Rescue 2 2003 13 yrs 190,251
Initial Attack Unit 2008 8 yrs 14,996
Investigation Trailer 2005 11 yrs 12,035
Sprinkler Protection Unit 2008 8 yrs 14,996
Engine 7 – Training Apparatus 1989 27 yrs 489,864
Total $ 8,908,950
The City of Maple Ridge establishes the service life according to those accepted by Fire
Underwriters Survey (FUS), a third party organization that assesses and grades the fire risks and
defenses of all communities across Canada according to a standardized measuring system, as a
service to the insurance industry. FUS standards are based on two national firefighting apparatus
standard-setting organizations: the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada (ULC); and the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Extending the service life of fire apparatus may save the City money, by delaying the purchase of
replacement vehicles. These savings potentially could be passed onto taxpayers. We calculated
the financial savings of keeping the vehicles in service beyond 20 years. After the initial
purchase, each year’s budget includes one-twentieth of the estimated cost as a cost item so that
the money can be transferred to a replacement reserve fund. In year 21 this transfer is no longer
needed. This reduction would flow to taxpayers if the vehicle wasn’t replaced and the dollars
were not required for the next replacement. Each additional extension year results in more cost
savings.
2
As Table 2 shows, keeping each apparatus for 21 years could save the City $327,000.
Table 2 – Annualized Cost Savings of Service Life Extension
ID Description Acquisition
Year
Age at
Dec’2015
Replacement
Cost
Service
Life
Annual
ERR*
FD1 Engine 3 2008 8 771,867 20 39,000
FD2 Engine 2 2008 8 770,623 20 39,000
FD4 Tower 1 1996 20 1,377,099 20 69,000
FD5 Tender 1 1998 18 810,392 20 41,000
FD19 Tender 2 2014 2 485,592 20 24,000
FD10 Engine 3-2 1994 22 770,837 20 39,000
FD14 Engine 1 2009 7 762,783 20 38,000
FD15 Engine 1-2 2009 7 752,387 20 38,000
327,000
*Annual ERR is the amount of general revenue funding transferred to the Equipment
Replacement Reserve on an annual basis to pay for the eventual replacement of each
vehicle.
The savings above assumes that all apparatus is the same age, although in reality they will all
reach 20 years at different times. Year 21 will fall in a different year for each vehicle, depending
on when each was purchased. As Table 3 shows, the full amount of annual savings wouldn’t
occur until 2035.
Table 3 – Timelines for Annualized Cost Savings
ID Description 2016 2017 2019 2029 2030 2035
FD1 Engine 3 - - - 39,000 39,000 39,000
FD2 Engine 2 - - - 39,000 39,000 39,000
FD4 Tower 1 - 69,000 69,000 69,000 69,000 69,000
FD5 Tender 1 - - 41,000 41,000 41,000 41,000
FD19 Tender 2 - - - - - 24,000
FD10 Engine 3-2 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000
FD14 Engine 1 - - - - 38,000 38,000
FD15 Engine 1-2 - - - - 38,000 38,000
39,000 108,000 149,000 227,000 303,000 327,000
Alternatively, apparatus could be kept in service longer than 21 years. The possible savings
resulting from this are shown in Table 3. For example, Tower 1 could potentially stay in service
for 25 years, with the 5 additional years saving 5 x $69,000 = $345,000.
The two scenarios presented above result in savings ranging from $327,000 to $345,000.
These savings must be weighed against increased operating and maintenance costs.
Replacement parts become more expensive and difficult to acquire. Furthermore, apparatus
downtime represents increased risk for the community in terms of life safety and property
damage. The risks associated with a potential failure during a response incident is not quantified
in this analysis but should be considered.
3
Schedule B: Apparatus Replacement Practices at other municipalities
We also took a look at the replacement practices of surrounding municipalities. It is important to
note FUS applies different standards according to population and population density. Maple
Ridge is considered a “medium-sized city.”
Replacement practices of other “medium-sized cities”:
• Abbotsford has two fire halls in rural areas, where apparatus are replaced at 20 years,
while at their six halls in more urbanized areas, the replacement schedule is 15 years.
Their three reserve engines are all under 20 years old.
• City of Langley aims for a 15-year replacement cycle for all first line duty apparatus, then
shifts them to second line duty status. Maintenance costs do start to add up with their
older apparatus. They will try to extend the life of their tower truck to 30 years, because it
is in excellent shape and they were allocated $300,000 to upgrade it. An engine came
up for 20-year replacement two years ago; Council deferred the funding for two years but
at the same time allocated $60,000 to keep it going as a reserve.
• Township of Langley normally replaces apparatus every 20 years. They kept two pumpers
beyond this cycle because they were using them for a purpose outside of the FUS
apparatus requirements, so there was no impact to their rating. In 2018 they will be
purchasing five pumpers/tankers to bring themselves back under the 20-year timeline.
• Port Coquitlam replaces their trucks at between 15 and 17 years. The timeline had been
reduced due to escalating maintenance costs and some were not going to make the 20-
year lifecycle mark.
• Pitt Meadows replaces apparatus on a 20-year cycle. They fairly regularly apply for
extensions through FUS, as the trucks are usually still in very good condition.
• White Rock replaces engines at 20 years and aerial units at 22.
Replacement practices of “major cities”:
• Coquitlam replaces apparatus on a 20-year cycle; however, they are only considered
used for frontline for the first 10 years. After that, they are only used as backfill during
the breakdown or servicing of frontline apparatus, and for call-out to major incidents.
Replacement practices of “small communities and rural centres”:
• Hope generally replaces apparatus on a 20-year cycle. In more recent years, it has
become challenging and a deviation from the practice occurs at times.
4
Schedule C: Insurance Industry Fire Risk Analysis
The insurance industry calculates premiums for fire and other risks based upon many different
factors. For this analysis, we are considering fire insurance premiums. Those paid by the City of
Maple Ridge, and also by residents and businesses in the community. Fire insurance premiums
are influenced in part by the risk of fire to businesses and homes that is both general in nature,
and risk that is specific to Maple Ridge.
The insurance industry uses the services of Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS), an independent
private company to assess the risk specific to each community. In their documentation, they
quote:
“Subscribers of Fire Underwriters Survey municipal grading data represent approximately 90
percent of the private sector property and casualty insurers in Canada.
Utilizing the staff of Opta Information Intelligence, the organization provides data on public
fire protection for fire insurance statistical work and underwriting by most of the member
companies of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. It also advises municipalities of its
deficiencies in their fire defences and recommends improvements to enable them to better
deal with fire protection problems.”
They conduct detailed field surveys of the fire risks and fire defenses maintained in communities
across Canada and then give them a grade. The intent of the grading system is to provide a
standardized measure of the ability of the protective facilities of a community to prevent and
control the major fires that may be expected to occur by evaluating in detail the adequacy,
reliability, strength and efficiency of the protective facilities and comparing the level of protection
against the level of fire risk in the built environment. The grading system gives insurers credible
data to help them develop premiums that fairly reflect the risk of loss in a particular location.
This analysis answers the following two questions:
1. If the extended service life of fire apparatus translates into a downgrade by FUS, will this
cost the community in terms of increased insurance premiums?
2. Is this burden enough to offset the cost savings of extending the vehicle service life?
FUS grades are calculated by Certified Fire Protection Specialists, Engineering Technologists and
Professional Engineers. There are two grading indices: one for residential dwellings, and another
for businesses and apartment buildings.
The grading calculation involves looking at about 50 factors in various categories. Each carries a
different weight in the grade calculation:
• Fire Department Strengths (40% of grade) - Factors under this category would include our
firefighting force relating to career/on-duty and training; firefighting apparatus quantity,
accreditation, design specifications, flow and pressure, maintenance history, test
records, and age.
• City Water Supply (30%) - Factors under this category would include capacity relating to
flow, pressure and availability.
• Fire Prevention Activities (20%) – Factors would include inspections, among other
factors.
• Communications and Dispatch (10%) – Factors include standards relating to alarms,
dispatch, pagers, etc.
5
The age of apparatus would affect the fire department strengths component of the grade.
Where standards exist from the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada (ULC) and the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), FUS generally aligns with their standards. For example, the ULC’s
S515 “Automotive Fire Fighting Apparatus” and the NFPA’s 1901 “Standard for Automotive Fire
Apparatus” are similar to the FUS “Service Schedule for Fire Apparatus for Fire Insurance
Grading Purposes.”
Historically FUS would review community grades every 25 years or so. In an effort to meet
insurance industry demand for more current information, they are moving toward shortening this
review cycle. They are also developing an online portal for fire chiefs, allowing them to log in and
perform scenario analysis that would assist in the type of analysis included in this staff report.
Calculating Insurance Rate Impacts is Challenging
Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, the insurance industry is not eager to share their
methodology for rate setting. Insurance underwriting is a complex and competitive business, and
their proprietary risk-premium analysis models are critical intellectual property.
We spoke to a number of senior people who work in Maple Ridge and Tri Cities, insurance
agencies as well as one who works in the Insurance Bureau of Canada. We were unable to get a
definitive number or range that would suggest that if our grade went down by “x”, premiums
would go up by “y”. We were told there are a number of variables that influence premiums, and
fire is just one risk factor that makes up insurance coverage. Furthermore, we were told that
premiums are heavily influenced by market conditions.
Every insurance company has its own formula for calculating their underwriting capacities and
insurance rates, and despite the efforts of staff, we were unable to determine the extent to which
any of them utilize the grades in their calculations. We were, however, able to get some general
ballpark numbers through a local insurance agent who has many years of industry experience in
Maple Ridge.
Having said this, if the majority of insurers use this index to inform their rate setting, along with
other factors, it stands to reason that a community that is less able to prevent and control fires
will eventually have to pay more for fire insurance coverage.
6
Schedule D: City of Maple Ridge Residential FUS grades
FUS has two different grading scales: one for residential and the other for commercial properties.
This section deals with residential properties, and the scale is referred to as the Dwelling Protection
Grade (DPG) scale. It ranges from 1 (properties with the best fire protection) to 5 (properties with
essentially no fire protection). Grade 3 is split into 3a and 3b, resulting in 6 potential grades.
FUS Dwelling Protection Grade Scale
Best
Worst
1 2 3 a 3b 4 5
Most Maple Ridge residential properties fall into the 3a category, as shown in Table 4. The line
showing 3a (STSS area) on the table is not a separate FUS category, but shows formerly 3b
properties, until the recent Fire Department initiative successfully gained accreditation from FUS for
Superior Tender Shuttle Service (STSS); With the accreditation, these properties were upgraded to
3a, resulting in potentially lower insurance premiums, and improved fire protection.
Table 4 - Maple Ridge Average Home by FUS Grade
Grade Description of Grade:
Property
Improvement
Values*
Number of
properties
Average value
of
improvements
3a Within 304m of a fire hydrant and
within 8km of a fire hall
4,493,243,483 24,988 179,816
3a
(STSS area)
More than 304m of a fire hydrant and
within 8km of a fire hall and within
5km of an approved water source
147,804,700 773 191,209
3b More than 304m from a fire hydrant
and within 8km of a fire hall
78,427,100 438 179,057
5 More than 8km from a fire hall 14,350,200 93 154,303
4,733,825,483
26,292
180,048
*Does not take into account (1) replacement value, and (2) the value of household contents that
residents may insure, and as a result, subsequent insurance premium estimates will be
understated.
The following map, developed in-house, illustrates the distribution of grades throughout Maple Ridge
using Dwelling Protection Grade criteria, which relates the location of homes to distance from fire
halls and hydrants.
7
Schedule E: Insurance Grading Map – Residential (based on FUS criteria)
8
Schedule F: Insurance Rate Impact - Residential
The Dwelling Protection Grade (DPG) is the grading scale used by FUS. Many insurers have simplified
the FUS scale into a 3-tiered system, with DPG grades 1, 2 and 3a considered Fully Protected, 3b
and 4 considered Semi-Protected, and 5 considered Unprotected.
3-tiered scale used by some insurers
Protected Semi-protected Unprotected
1 2 3 a 3b 4 5
Figure 1 comes from a Fire Underwriters Survey publication, and uses data from a number of
insurance quote calculations. It shows examples of insurance premiums at difference replacement
values, depending on the tiered protection level.
For example, in an unprotected area, the premium for a $175,000 home would be $2,040. In a
semi-protected area, the premiums would be $815, a reduction of 60%. In a fully protected area, the
premium drops a further 32% to $555. This table demonstrates the financial benefit to the
community of having a higher degree of fire service.
Figure 1 - FUS Example Insurance Premiums - Residential
The vast majority (98%) of the residential property value in Maple Ridge is considered protected.
FUS
grade 5
FUS
grades
3b, 4
FUS
grades
1, 2, 3a
9
Using the premium examples from Figure 1, we can convert these premiums to rates. So using the
$175,000 example from the previous page, dividing the $555 premium for a fully protected area by
the replacement value, and converting to a per-thousand-dollar amount, we get a rate of 3.171. We
can see the conversion of premiums to rates in the last three columns of Table 5; looking across the
$175,000 row, a premium of $555 generates a rate per thousand of 3.171.
Our average assessed in the protected category (3a, including the STSS area) is just over $180,000.
This is calculated by looking back at Table 4, taking the property improvement values for those two
lines, and dividing them by the number of properties. ($4,493,243,483 + $147,804,700) ÷ (24,988
+ 773). Looking at Table 5, the closest replacement value amount we have rates for is $175,000. So
looking across that line to the protected column, the rate we will use for the analysis for 3a
properties is 3.171.
A similar average home value is represented by the semi-protected properties in Maple Ridge (3b
values $78,427,100 ÷ 438). The $175,000 line below under the semi-protected column shows a
rate of 4.657. And for unprotected properties, the average home is closest to the $150,000 row
below, for a rate of 11.667. The final row on Table 5 shows these rates, which we will use for the
analysis.
Table 5 - Maple Ridge Residential Insurance Rate Assumptions
Replacement
Value
$
Example Premiums Rate per $1,000
Protected Semi-
Protected Unprotected
Protected
Semi-
Protected Unprotected
1, 2, 3a 3b, 4 5
100,000 $ 315 $ 465 $ 1,165 3.150 4.650 11.650
125,000 400 505 1,470 3.200 4.680 11.760
150,000 475 700 1,750 3.167 4.667 11.667
175,000 555 815 2,040 3.171 4.657 11.657
200,000 625 915 2,300 3.125 4.575 11.500
250,000 755 1,110 2,790 3.020 4.440 11.160
300,000 890 1,310 3,290 2.967 4.367 10.967
350,000 1,015 1,495 3,750 2.900 4.271 10.714
400,000 1,140 1,675 4,200 2.850 4.188 10.500
450,000 1,260 1,855 4,655 2.800 4.122 10.344
Rate to use=> 3.171 4.657 11.667
10
With rate estimates now established on the bottom row of Table 5, we applied those rates to the
Maple Ridge assessment data from Table 4. For example, the protected rate of 3.171 per $1000
from Table 5, applied to the 3a category assessed value of $4.5 billion shown in Table 4 drives an
insurance premium estimate of $14.3 million, and another $0.5 million for the 3a STSS properties,
shown below in Table 6. For the 3b semi-protected category, we applied the rate of 4.657 to the
Table 4 value of $78,427,100 for $400,000 in premiums. Another $200,000 for the unprotected
properties gives a total residential insurance cost of $15.3 million, based on our current grades.
The next column below shows what a drop of one grade level would do. Premiums would increase
45% to $22.1 million. The remaining three columns provide other scenarios.
Table 6 - Cost Increase Scenarios based on Figure 1
Residential FUS
Grade
Homeowner
cost at current
grade
Homeowner
cost at one-
level
downgrade
Homeowner
cost at 30%
premium
increase
Homeowner
cost at 20%
premium
increase
Homeowner
cost at 10%
premium
increase
3a $ 14.3 M $ 20.9 M $ 18.5 M $ 17.1 M $ 15.7 M
3a-STSS $ .5 M $ .7 M $ .6 M $ .6 M $ .5 M
3b $ .4 M $ .4 M $ .5 M $ .4 M $ .4 M
5 $ .2 M $ .2 M $ .2 M $ .2 M $ .2 M
Total homeowner
cost
$ 15.3 M $ 22.1 M $ 19.8 M $ 18.3 M $ 16.8 M
Difference in relation to current grade
homeowner cost
$ 6.9 M
45%
$ 4.6 M
30%
$ 3.1 M
20%
$ 1.5 M
10%
11
While the premium examples in Figure 1 represent “typical Canadian communities,” FUS completed
studies in other BC communities over the past few years, and we looked to those reports for further
insurance premium data. The following table shows numbers that FUS used in a 2014 Town of
Sidney study. These same examples were also used in a 2009 City of Campbell River study.
Figure 2 - Excerpt from FUS Town of Sidney 2014 Report
We repeated our calculations based on the insurance premium estimates from the Campbell River
and Sidney reports, converting them first to rates per thousand, then applying them to the Maple
Ridge average home assessments by FUS grade. Those results are shown below.
Table 7 - Cost Increase Scenarios based on Figure 2
Residential FUS
Grade
Homeowner
cost at current
grade
Homeowner
cost at one-
level
downgrade
Homeowner
cost at 30%
premium
increase
Homeowner
cost at 20%
premium
increase
Homeowner
cost at 10%
premium
increase
3a $ 16.6 M $ 27.3 M $ 21.6 M $ 19.9 M $ 18.3 M
3a-STSS $ .5 M $ .9 M $ .7 M $ .7 M $ .6 M
3b $ .5 M $ .5 M $ .6 M $ .6 M $ .5 M
5 $ .2 M $ .2 M $ .3 M $ .2 M $ .2 M
Total homeowner
cost
$ 17.8 M $ 28.9 M $ 23.2 M $ 21.4 M $ 19.6 M
Difference in relation to current grade
homeowner cost
$ 11. M
62%
$ 5.3 M
30%
$ 3.6 M
20%
$ 1.8 M
10%
Using data from the Sidney report, the existing cost would be $17.8 million at the current grading,
increasing 62% to $28.9 million if the City was downgraded one level.
Another option for insurance premium data would be to survey homeowners in the Superior Tender
Shuttle Service area. However, since the accreditation from 3b to 3a occurred just this spring, a good
portion of homeowners will not have renewed their insurance yet. Furthermore, this data would only
provide the change between a grade of 3a and 3b, not the other grades. And finally, homeowners
may change coverage when they renew, perhaps considering earthquake insurance, and this may
obscure the differences.
12
Schedule G: Conservative Estimates
Given the level of uncertainty surrounding the insurance rate estimates, we wanted to ensure the
analysis was on the conservative side. The following points demonstrate that assurance:
• We used two sets of insurance premium examples published by FUS: one representing
“typical Canadian communities” and the other used in studies completed for the Sidney and
Campbell River. We used the former in the final analysis, because the rates generate the
lowest community impact.
• Whereas the “one-level downgrade” has some basis in information provided through FUS,
and the “30% premium increase” has some basis with anecdotal remarks by homeowners
recently upgraded as a result of the Superior Tender Shuttle Service, and also through a local
insurance broker, we could have chosen the “20% premium increase” scenario as
representing about half of a downgrade, if there was such a thing. However, we selected the
“10% premium increase” scenario for analysis, to further remain on the conservative side.
• Our calculations use assessed value, whereas property owners would generally insure their
properties for replacement value. Therefore, these figures are on the low side. If replacement
values had been used, the cost differences in relation to current grade cost would be higher.
• A portion of property owners would also insure contents, whereas we have no data on this
value. Had these values been included, the cost differences in relation to current grade cost
would be higher.
Based on the assumptions outlined above, the cost to residential homeowners
of a FUS downgrade would be $1.5 million annually.
Table 8 - Residential Premium Increase Scenario
Residential FUS
Grade
Homeowner
cost at current
grade
Homeowner
cost at 10%
premium
increase
3a $ 14.3 M $ 15.7 M
3a-STSS $ .5 M $ .5 M
3b $ .4 M $ .4 M
5 $ .2 M $ .2 M
Total homeowner
cost
$ 15.3 M $ 16.8 M
Difference in relation to current grade
homeowner cost
$ 1.5 M
10%
The next step in the analysis is to consider the impact to commercial property owners.
13
Schedule H: City of Maple Ridge Commercial FUS grades
The grading scale FUS uses to assess commercial properties is called the Public Fire Protection
Classification (PFPC) scale. It ranges from 1 (properties with the best fire protection) to 10
(properties with essentially no fire protection).
Public Fire Protection Classification
Page 18 shows the FUS commercial property grading criterion applied to commercial and industrial
properties and apartment buildings.
• Grade PFPC-6 (shown in green) are within 150 metres of an acceptable fire hydrant and
within 5 kilometres of a fire hall. The City has just over $1 billion in assessed value in this
category;
• Grade PFPC-9 & 10 (shown in yellow) are all other commercial properties, valued at $165
million.
The following map, developed in-house, illustrates the distribution of grades throughout Maple Ridge
using Public Fire Protection Classification criteria, which relates the location of businesses to
distance from fire halls and hydrants.
14
Schedule I: Insurance Grading Map – Commercial (based on FUS criteria)
15
Schedule J: Insurance Rate Impact – Commercial
Methodology A – Rate per $100
The insurance industry quotes commercial rates in cost per $100 of insured (replacement) value.
The rates vary according to risk. For example, an office building might pay 20 cents per $100, while
a restaurant might pay between 50 and 70 cents per $100, given the higher risk of fire.
The assessed value on commercial property improvements is just over $1 billion for areas in Maple
Ridge considered by FUS to be “protected”. In evaluating the results of a downgrade, we have
ignored properties already classed as “unprotected.”
At various rates per $100 of value, the table shows what the fire insurance premiums would be:
Table 9 - Commercial Insurance Premium Scenarios
Fire Insurance per $100 $ 0.10 $ 0.20 $ 0.30 $ 0.40 $ 0.50 $ 0.60 $ 0.70 $ 0.80
Rate applied to assessed
value of commercial
improvements of
$1,034,038,509
$ 1.0 M $ 2.1 M $ 3.1 M $ 4.1 M $ 5.2 M $ 6.2 M $ 7.2 M $ 8.3 M
*Note that in the $0.20 scenario, the actual number is $2,068,077
The following points demonstrate the conservative elements of the estimate:
• We have used the 20 cents per $100 rate, and city-wide, this would be on the low side
• We have used assessed value, whereas usually property owners would insure for
replacement value (higher than assessed value)
• A percentage of property owners would also insure contents, whereas we have no data on
this value.
Acknowledging this number is on the low side, the fire insurance premiums paid by commercial
property owners across the City is assumed to be $2.1 million. In talking with an experienced local
broker, we selected a 30% increase assumption if FUS was to downgrade the City to PFPC-8. A 30%
increase on $2.1 million in premiums is $620,000 (rounded).
Methodology B – Average Premium
We were also told by our local advisor that the average commercial fire premium in Maple Ridge was
about $2,000. There are 1,052 commercial properties in the City, some who pay more, and some
who pay less. This number also comes to $2.1 million, matching the value under Methodology A from
applying 20 cents per $100 to the assessed value.
Based on both methodologies above, the cost to commercial property owners of
a FUS downgrade would be $620,000 annually.
16
Schedule K: Sensitivity Analysis
An alternative methodology to looking at the impact of extending the service life of fire apparatus is
determining how much of an insurance rate increase it would take to offset the savings to the City in
keeping the trucks in service beyond the FUS standards.
The conservative estimate for homeowner insurance cost increases is $1.5 million on an assessed
value of $4.7 billion, from a base of $15.1 million (Table 6 and Table 8).
On the commercial side, the cost increase is estimated at $620,000 on an assessed value of $1
billion, from a base of $2.1 million (Schedule J).
Table 10 - Combined Community Cost Increase
Assessed Value Current Cost Cost Increase
Residential 4,733,825,483 15,143,679 1,514,368
Commercial 1,034,038,509 2,068,077 620,423
5,767,863,992 17,211,756 2,134,791
The base we have used for current insurance premiums for the community, acknowledging this
figure is low (see Schedule G: Conservative Estimates), is $17.2 million.
As illustrated in Table 2, the maximum annualized savings of extending the life of all apparatus for
one year each is $327,000.
What increase in insurance premiums would it take to eliminate the savings on the service life
extension? To answer this, we can divide the annualized savings by the annual community insurance
premium estimate (current cost) from Table 10:
$327,000 / $17.2 million = Less than 2%
In other words, if premiums rise by about 2% as a result of extending the trucks one year each, the
savings are entirely offset by the premiums.
The savings of $345,000 from extending the life of Tower 1 for five years is also eliminated by a 2%
increase in insurance premiums for home and business owners.
We can conclude that if the extended service life of fire apparatus has the
potential to raise insurance rates by 2% or more, we should continue to operate
under the current FUS Service Schedule for Fire Apparatus, Schedule L.
And further, the 2% limit doesn’t take into consideration the non-financial
benefits of renewing the apparatus on a 20-year cycle, such as mechanical
reliability of the truck and equipment, and the newer safety features that protect
our employees and citizens.
This concludes the analysis. The following appendices provide additional information on Fire
Underwriters Survey.
17
Schedule L: City of Maple Ridge FUS requirements
The “Service Schedule for Fire Apparatus for Fire Insurance Grading Purposes” (see Figure 3)
shows a summary of fire apparatus requirements.
Figure 3 - FUS Service Schedule for Fire Apparatus
FUS last surveyed Maple Ridge in 1989. The requirements at the time, resulting in the current
grades shown on Schedules A and B (with the exception of the STSS upgrade in 2015) were as
follows:
• Six pumper apparatus and 1 reserve - full credit under pumper apparatus was received.
• One aerial apparatus was required - full credit under aerial apparatus was received.
• Total pump capacity needed was 3000IGPM with Max Required Fire Flow at 3500IGPM.
The District had 5377IGPM at that time and received full credit under pump capacity
apparatus.
As this survey is now 26 years old, the grading information is outdated. In 1989, Fire Hall No. 3
was still under construction, and the department was served by volunteer fire fighters. Significant
change has happened since to reduce the risk of fire damage to homes and businesses here,
including the completion of the third fire hall, the addition of career fire fighters, and 24/7
service capacity. On the flip side, the community has grown, becoming more dense and more
spread out geographically, and a detailed FUS study could potentially identify shortfalls relating
to growth.
In recent years FUS has recognized municipal budgetary constraints, and has modified its
apparatus age requirements. These modified requirements are shown on Schedule B,
specifically in notes 1 and 2. Maple Ridge is considered a “medium-sized city”, and therefore the
18
modified requirements can be assumed for apparatus to be used as a Reserve after the 20 year
mark. Further, there is a detailed process where an extension of up to five years may be
arranged if the Fire Department can demonstrate an acceptable replacement schedule and
three years of maintenance records for the apparatus in question. The final piece is that the
apparatus has to pass annual performance inspections to maintain the extension.
FUS Response to City of Maple Ridge Service Life Extension Enquiry
The following pages include a letter received back from FUS in response to our inquiry about
extending the service life of fire apparatus. The response depended on the 1989 FUS study, as
they have not yet undertaken any subsequent detailed analysis on our fire protection capacity.
In short, an extension would only be granted for one apparatus, providing this is a temporary
situation and not a policy shift. Anything more would result in a downgrade for Maple Ridge. If the
extension was for the aerial unit, only the commercial grade would decrease.
For an extension to be granted, we would need to apply to FUS, submit extensive testing
documentation from past years, and undertaken more significant and costly annual testing on
the vehicle in question.
19
Schedule M: Letter from Fire Underwriters Survey, 2015-06-23
20
21
22