The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-11-09 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA November 9, 2021 9:00a.m. PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN START TIME Virtual Online Meeting including Council Chambers 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. REMINDER: Council Meeting -November 9, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Green Infrastructure Management Strategy Update Presentation by Anne Marie Whittaker, Senior Planner, Ecoplan International Staff report dated November 9, 2021 recommending that the findings and framework of the Green Infrastructure Management Strategy be endorsed in principle and that staff prepare a Green Infrastructure Implementation Strategy in consultation with the Environmental Advisory Committee that identifies short-term high priority action items. 4.2 Community Amenity Contribution Rate Review Presentation by Justin Barer, Land Economics, Urban Systems Staff report dated November 9, 2021 recommending that feedback to the proposed amendments to Policy 6.31 -Community Amenity Contribution Program be obtained from the Urban Development Institute and other industry representatives and provided in a future staff report. 1 HOUR BREAK Doc#2908563 Council Workshop Agenda November 9, 2021 Page 2 of 2 4.3 Draft Regional Growth Strategy Metro 2050 -Summary of Referral Comments Staff report dated November 9, 2021 summarizing feedback received from Council on Metro 2050 during the September 27, 2021 Council Workshop Meeting and recommending that a formal letter incorporating the comments on the draft Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy be prepared for Metro Vancouver. 4.4 Quarter 3 Financial Update Staff report dated November 9, 2021 providing a financial update for the third quarter of 2021. 5. CORRESPONDENCE 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/ QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING 9. The meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90 (1) and 90 (2) of the Community Charter as the subject matter being considered relates to the following: Section 90(1)(e) The acquisition or disposition of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality. Section 90(1)(i) The receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. Any other matter that may be brought before the Council that meets the requirements for a meeting closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90 (1) and 90 (2) of the Community Charter or Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED BY: ~) J 'J,c-f~ DATE: PREPARED BY DATE: /'vOJ ~ 1 ,/ I/. A_ ll J, j CHECKED BY: 1'1 f. /V( '/,---~--------DATE: N~\I. 1, .1z1 TO: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: November 9, 2021 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Green Infrastructure Management Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: One of the key priorities identified in Council's 2019-2022 Strategic Plan was the preparation of a report to outline policy and action options associated with a municipal Green Infrastructure Management Strategy. On November 12, 2019 Council endorsed the development of a Municipal Green Infrastructure Management Strategy along with a process to determine how and where the City might integrate this kind of an approach into future decision making, departmental business plans, development review requirements, and urban design best management practices. This report introduces the Green Infrastructure Management Strategy (Appendix A), developed by Eco Plan International, which outlines why a green infrastructure approach is important for Maple Ridge and what next steps and options are appropriate. The focus of the Green Infrastructure Management Strategy applies mostly to urban growth areas but it includes consideration for both greenfield and urban infill development areas. Council is being asked to endorse in principle the framework, noting that this does not indicate support for moving forward with every action item identified in the strategy. Rather, the action items will be discussed in more detail in an Implementation Strategy Report that will be presented for Council's consideration in the future. Council's Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) has provided feedback into the findings and recommendations in the Strategy. On October 6, 2021, EAC members supported the Green Infrastructure Strategy being forwarded to Council for endorsement and provided written feedback as included in Appendix B. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the findings and overall framework of the Green Infrastructure Management Strategy be endorsed in principle, noting that the action items contained in the Strategy will be considered separately during the development of the Implementation Strategy; and 2. That staff, in consultation with the Environmental Advisory Committee, be directed to prepare a Green Infrastructure Implementation Strategy that identifies short-term high priority action items. 4.1 Doc#2908127 Page 1 of 4 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: On November 12, 2019 Council endorsed a process for the creation of a Green Infrastructure Management Strategy. The process included the establishment of the following: • An inter-departmental Task Force Group consisting of directors and managers from various municipal departments including Planning, Engineering, Parks and Leisure, Economic Development, Information Technology, Operations, Finance and Building. • The formation of the Council endorsed Environmental Advisory Committee Green Infrastructure Sub-Committee. This Sub-Committee consists of local experts and key community decision makers from the Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvement Association, architects, landscape architects, urban designers and planners, urban forestry experts, the nursery associations, and input from members associated with the development and public arts community. The Green Infrastructure Management Strategy development process is summarized in the chart below. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY STEPS 1. Council Endorse Scoping Report process • Council to direct staff to proceed with the Green Infrastructure November 2019 Management Strategy review; 2. Award Contract and Initiate Project -Eco Plan International May 2020 3. Phase I: Establish the Foundation & Understanding the Challenges June -October • Municipal Comparative Scan -Consultation with local governments 2020 and literature review. Report and presentation on lessons learned, comparative review, and determination of relevant applications and case studies for consideration by Maple Ridge • Internal Working Group Meeting -Identification of key challenges, strengths, and opportunities from each department related to Green Infrastructure • Spatial Analysis Review -Initial review and analysis of Town Centre, Lougheed Transportation Corridor and Silver Valley Lands 4. Update to Council November 2020 5. Phase II: Spatial Analysis of Urban Areas -Challenges and Opportunities January -March 2021 6. Implementation Gap Analysis Challenges and Opportunities February -April 2021 7. Update to Environmental Advisory Committee June 2021 8. Phase Ill: Identification of Options & Recommendations 9. Recommendations -Provide synthesis of key findings, options, and June -Sept 2021 recommendations for consideration by Council with respect to policy and implementation options for green infrastructure in the City 10. Final Report and Presentation to Council (WE ARE HERE) November 2021 Doc#2908127 Page 2 of 4 The Green Infrastructure Management Strategy includes information about what other communities are doing to help them meet their municipal priorities/objectives along with what they have learned about successful application and implementation of green infrastructure. It includes findings about opportunities and challenges facing Maple Ridge related to the application of green infrastructure with different departments, at various scales of development, and between various types of urban areas including Town Centre, major transportation corridors, and Silver Valley lands. The Green Infrastructure Management Strategy also focuses on developing a framework with recommendations about what is appropriate for Maple Ridge with respect to principles, goals, options, and potential implementation items. b) Next Steps: The Green Infrastructure Management Strategy includes a list of potential next steps and short, medium, and long-term implementation action items. Following Council's endorsement in principle of the Strategy, the larger more complex implementation action items will be broken down into short-term high priority action items and reviewed in more detail with Council. Staff are seeking an endorsement in principle to signal that Council is comfortable with the overall framework of the Strategy, and support further analysis being undertaken to evaluate the consultants recommended Action Items. This is similar to the approach taken with the Environmental Management Strategy 2014 which provided a road map on potential next steps. The Environmental Advisory Committee reviews the action items and Council considers the item as a component of annual business planning. c) Strategic Alignment: The Green Infrastructure Management Strategy includes a strong focus on current priorities of Council and falls within Council's fifth strategic priority "Natural Environment". Pursuant with the Council endorsed process, the consultant is presenting on the relevant findings and recommendations coming from discussions with various municipal appointed stakeholders, including the findings to date from other municipalities, from various departments from within the City of Maple Ridge, from the EAC and Green Infrastructure Sub-Committee members. d) Interdepartmental Implications: The Green infrastructure Management Strategy as noted in the report involved a number of different departments in supporting and participating in the engagement process, including various experts involved with development related professions and the business community working in Maple Ridge. It is anticipated that the recommendations outlined in the report will also create synergies with work that is already underway by various departments, municipal advisory committees, and with various initiatives that are being undertaken by professional organizations working with the City of Maple Ridge. e) Policy Implications: The Official Community Plan and Environmental Management Strategy establish goals, objectives, and policies in support of a complete and sustainable community that is vibrant, healthy and safe and also speak to supporting climate change resiliency opportunities which fall in alignment with this initiative. No policy changes are suggested at this time. Doc#2908127 Page 3 of 4 CONCLUSION: On November 12, 2019 Council endorsed the development of a Municipal Green Infrastructure Management Strategy along with a process to determine how and where the City might integrate this kind of an approach into future decision making, departmental business plans, development review requirements, and urban design best management practices. The Green Infrastructure Management Strategy provides a framework outlining the unique and appropriate vision, goals, objectives and next steps that the City of Maple Ridge can utilize to advance the application of green infrastructure in the City. This Strategy builds upon the objectives and priorities identified in the Official Community Plan, the Environmental Management Strategy, and is consistent with Council's strategic priorities including liveable, resilient, vibrant and affordable urban areas. The next step in this process would be for staff and the EAC to review the Strategy Implementation Section, to identify the short term, high priority items and present those recommendations to Council for approval prior to commencing any work. "Original signed by Rodney Stott" Prepared by: Rodney Stott, BA(Hons), MA.Dipl. Environmental Planner 2 "Original signed by Charles Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following Appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A: Green Infrastructure Management Strategy Appendix B: Green Infrastructure Management Strategy Feedback from EAC and GISC Members Doc#2908127 Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX A City of Maple Ridge GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MANAG.EMENli STRATEGY DEFINITION ............................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 4 CONTEXT -UNIQUE TO MAPLE RIDGE ..................................... 6 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ................................................... 8 GOALS ................................................................ 9 ACTIONS .............................................................. 9 Action Area 1. Inventory and Value the City's Natural Assets 10 Action Area 2. Encourage and Support Green Development and Neighbourhoods 12 Action Area 3. Establish Greenscaping Standards 14 Action Area 4. Engage and Build Awareness within the City and in the Community 15 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ........................................... 16 APPENDICES .......................................................... 19 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE refers to the natural assets such as forests, streams, wetlands, vegetation, soils and bioengineered or landscape design solutions that exist now and that have the potential to be incorporated into sites, streets, and neighborhoods that collectively provide the community with a broad array of products, services, and benefits that are crucial to health, livability, cost saving, and sustainable development. Adapted from Connecting the Dots -Regional Green Infrastructure Network Resource Guide, Metro Vancouver, 2014 Introduction Why Green Infrastructure It's a critical time to look at green infrastructure. Here in B.C., wildfires affecting air quality, record temperatures, drought, severe rain events, and flooding are becoming common annual events. Creating healthy, resilient and equitable living environments while adapting to increasing density and climate change impacts is the main reason for this strategy. Learning from other places around the world and locally, a proactive green infrastructure approach can help provide significant cost savings along with more effective, timely solutions. With redevelopment of our urban infill areas and expansion into greenfield areas, green infrastructure design options can help realize cost savings and provide better urban design to offset impacts on future generations of citizens. Purpose The Green Infrastructure Management Strategy aims to include green infrastructure in the City's municipal toolkit. This strategy provides a road map for the City on how and where green infrastructure can be better integrated into future decision making with regards to municipal operations, capital projects, area plans, and development design practices. The Strategy The strategy is a corporate, inter-departmental and municipal wide initiative. The actions outlined in this strategy support stakeholders and the City, its various departments, the development & business community and its tax payers in achieving objectives of the Official Community Plan (OCP), and Environmental Management Strategy (EMS). It will require an adaptive and incremental approach at various scales working with buildings, sites, streets, neighburhoods and a municipal wide level. Different areas will require appropriate solutions and this may change with time depending on densities, land uses, available resources, and community values. Green Infrastructure Opportunities Green infrastructure also addresses many of Council's strategic priorities. These include: • Safe and healthy communities, including resilience to climate change and mitigating impacts associated with urban densification; • Social well-being, liveability, access and connection to natural areas and complete healthy neighbourhoods; • Economic vibrancy, cost savings, and adding to a business-friendly environment; • Ecological health and fostering the importance of community connections to urban ecology. The outcome of acting today will build resiliency, create vibrant urban centres and support healthy living into the future. FIGURE: Green Infrastructure Opportunities and Benefits IMPROVED INCREASED HEALTH PROPERTY VALUE Roof gardens Urban greening reduce energy reduces impervious costs and extend areas and improves 1 roof life livability in higher density areas .-.---. j COMMUNITY CHARACTER Urban tree cover intercepts and evaporates rainfall l Maple Ridge is extremely fortunate to have existing natural assets and opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure into new development areas. Green infrastructure opportunities can be described from natural to bio-engineered solutions. Such strategies, or a hybrid of strategies, offer multiple benefits and result in a positive return on investment over the long term. They are a cost effective and proactive choice to manage unexpected events, future risks and known trends (for example, a changing climate, future urban growth, increased urban development). Green infrastructure increases the City's resilience and can help avoid unexpected costs and/or disruptions to the City and its residents. COOLER AIR reduces heat island effect FLOOD MITIGATION ACCESS TO NATURE AND RECREATION Street swales catch water and filter it slowly back into the ground BETTER AIR QUALITY Urban streams detain rainwater during peak flows, provide recreation opportunities and habitat value Rain barrels allow onsite water storage for times of drought Porous pavement allows water to pass through into the native soils Soil building with mulch and compost holds moisture, restores water table, and improves water quality outfall to urban stream City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy I 5 Context -Unique to Maple Ridge The following identifies trends and opportunities in Maple Ridge. It also highlights key challenges to address, and mitigate as part of longer-term planning and operations. Global and Regional Trends • Changing weather patterns including increased frequency and intensity of drought, severe rain events and flood risk create unexpected events and risks for the City and its residents. • Green infrastructure is increasingly emphasized by Metro Vancouver, outlined in Metro 2050, and to member municipalities as a much needed strategy to foster a highly resilient and livable sustainable metropolitan region. • Many other local governments are having to invest millions of dollars and decades in restoring natural systems and rehabilitating their urban areas while some fortunate communities, like Maple Ridge, still have existing natural assets to work with. WHAT IS ECO-SYSTEM SERVICES? Eco-system services refers to the benefits that healthy, natural eco-systems generate for society. This includes a range of aspects, such as recreational opportunities, clean air and more significant uses, such as stormwater management and flood control. Municipalities have begun to consider these services, assess the value of such assets and include alongside other built assets in municipal planning. 6 I City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy City of Maple Ridge Findings OPPORTUNITIES • Maple Ridge is well positioned to learn from others and adopt successful and appropriate measures. In addition, there are a number of existing initiatives and work of which the City can effectively build on, including existing natural assets, progressive protection and restoration regulations and integrated ecological development permit guidelines. • Maple Ridge has significant public owned lands around the municipality that also contain an abundance of natural areas that currently provide eco-system services to our community which help reduce costs to taxpayers. • The City has a decent tree canopy cover in its greenfield development areas. Adjacent municipal owned forest lands offer good opportunities with respect to economic, social and ecological services, benefits and cost savings that natural assets provide to the community. • The City is well equiped to update and work with existing information, data and mapping layers needed to support green infrastructure decision-making, tracking and measuring future green infrastructure progress. • Urban infill (the Town Centre and Lougheed Transit Corridor Areas) offer good opportunities to integrate green infrastructure within neighborhoods, streets, parking areas, sites and in building designs with redevelopment, densification and innovative use of green infrastructure design options. • In contrast to traditional clearing and subdivision development, future greenfield development provides opportunities to integrate green infrastructure. • A larger green infrastructure network identifies critical areas and better connects the many parks, natural areas and significant wildlife hubs and corridors across the City, while expanding the City's recreational network connections and function of eco-system services. • Existing and potential future City conservation areas and public greenspaces offer good opportunities to achieve multiple objectives, such as outdoor recreation, climate change resiliency, urban sustainability, and integrated stormwater management goals. • Developer and resident oriented, regulatory and incentive programs, performance targets, user fees, education/outreach, incentive programs and best practices for site runoff, increasing tree canopy, or stewardship of other green assets within private lands could further improve and help build the City's green infrastructure system. CHALLENGES • The population of Maple Ridge has been growing at a rate of 2% per year over the past 15 years. In the last two census periods, the City's population grew by 6,204 people, an average growth rate of 1.63%. With this, new residents' drive additional development and loss of natural assets. • The services & cost savings associated with natural assets or value of green infrastructure has not yet been included in economic analysis or business plans for new development. As such, it's difficult to determine the best or smart use of undeveloped land without information on available natural assets and natural capital we have and how it serves us. • Relative to other Lower Mainland municipalities, urban infill areas within Maple Ridge have a low tree canopy cover. This puts these areas at risk of increased run-off, flooding, poor air quality and urban heat island effect. • In urban infill areas (such as the Town Centre and along major corridors}, the City's green spaces are fragmented or disconnected. This includes watercourses and wetland/riparian areas. Along with pedestrian friendly streets and public greens paces, opportunities for other forms of urban greenscaping, gardens, and shared green spaces can be explored. • Existing natural assets on current undeveloped and developed lands are not well defined or included in the City's inventory or mapping database. • In some urban infill areas, there is limited space on sites, streets, and neighborhoods to provide required or recommended amount of green infrastructure (for example, pervious area, tree retention) without lot assembly. In some areas, there is also limited access to shared green spaces, parks, pedestrian friendly green streets, and gardens. • There is limited opportunity for on site retention or improvements in some areas with conventional development planning and design. Often costs and impacts are transferred onto the City and tax payers. Given limited space in some areas there is a need for integration of on site and off site natural services benefits from green infrastructure can be provided to future residents, businesses, and visitors in these areas. • Without established requirements, there is potential for loss of existing green infrastructure or natural assets on private lands with increasing density, especially within urban infill areas such as, the Town Centre, Dwedney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway corridors. City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy I 7 Guiding Principles Guiding principles are the values which support growth of green infrastructure in the City of Maple Ridge. • Long-term commitment: Action is needed now to see significant and measurable change for the future. Thinking and planning beyond election cycles are necessary to maintain momentum and planning into the future. • Adaptive and incremental: Green infrastructure requires ongoing collaboration, input and change from all City departments. • Strong leadership from various departments within the City and council: Actions will require support and resources to ensure success as well as some level of change within each department. A corporate wide initiative requiring all departments to be responsible along with senior management. • Inclusive engagement: Implementation will require everyone to work together (City Council, city staff, community, stakeholders, and residents). • Cost effective and resourceful: Working with and learning from other communities that have successfully managed to incorporate green infrastructure into their communities. Also building on existing programs, natural assets and municipal initiatives. • Relevance: Identifying locally relevant solutions to ensure a good fit for the City. Goals Goals are high-level and outline the outcomes of the strategy. 1. Increase the City's level of resilience to possible future shocks and stresses. 2. Foster a culture where natural and built infrastructure receive equal consideration in decision-making processes. 6. Maintain the long-term affordability of municipal services for all current and future residents. 7. Build partnerships and awareness around green infrastructure in the City. 3. Support a healthy, vibrant urban centre. 4. Further build the City's identity and brand as a unique and recognizable place with a strong connection to the natural environment. 5. Improve the health and social well-being for all current and future residents. Action areas include a rationale and a group of specific tasks related to policies, programs, plans and activities to be undertaken in Maple Ridge. Often, they are inter-related and build-on each other. There are 4 key action areas in the City of Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Management Strategy: 1. Inventory & Value the City's Natural Assets 2. Encourage and Support Green Development & Neighbourhoods 3. Establish Greenscaping Standards 4. Engage and Build Awareness within the City and in the Community policies programs plans activities City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy I 9 ACTION AREA 1: ft::\ Inventory and Value the City's Natural Assets ~~~~~--~~~~~~~~...__~~~~~~~~~~~ RATIONALE: Maple Ridge includes large areas of undeveloped, city owned, regional and privately held natural areas. Many of these undeveloped land areas currently offer valuable eco-system services. However, these services aren't traditionally recognized, valued and accounted for in the same way as engineered capital infrastructure assets are within the City's management and financial planning. Accounting for these natural areas allows the City to understand the real costs/benefits associated with conventional development, grey infrastructure, the loss of natural areas & maintaining natural assets. It will also form a foundation for the City to track, manage and monitor future green infrastructure performance. Departments Involved: • Information Services, Planning, Parks and Operations, Engineering, Economic Development, Building, Emergency Services and Finance 1.1 Identify the City's green infrastructure assets, including existing natural asset such as forests, trees, street trees and unique eco-systems. This includes the hubs, corridors and sites as they relate to the economic and social benefits and services offered to the City (i.e. aesthetics, stormwater management, recreation, wildlife management and safety, connectivity & biodiversity, climate resilience). This may include: • Development of criteria and metrics to value (monetarily) natural assets for eco-system services. • Assembly of remote sensing data and Lidar for routine analysis and monitoring of metrics. • Development of key indicators for tracking and performance of these assets. • Document the risks associated with changes or damages to natural assets in order to ensure the community understands the value of natural assets and associated risks of losing these assets. • Identify lands where development occurs within identified high priority areas in the City's green infrastructure network. (i.e. for 1 O I City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy private land natural asset protection) for potential covenants and easements. 1.2 Evaluate natural capital services or develop a Natural Asset and Ecological Management Strategy. This may include: • Identify assets that provide eco-system services -such as Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Sensitive Eco-systems Inventory lands, wetlands and riparian areas, municipal forests, deciduous and coniferous trees and tree canopy cover across the City. • Identify portions of Agricultural Land Reserve lands, community forest lands, watershed areas that support green infrastructure functions for the City. • Existing green infrastructure assets, pervious and impervious areas across the City, etc. • The objectives should be to identify and evaluate: -the benefits (in dollars) that intact eco-systems currently provide to the City (as a comparison to if these were replaced with grey infrastructure); -where green infrastructure exists and where it is needed; -where protection of critical green infrastructure hubs corridors are required; -high priority conservation & green infrastructure acquisition areas for protection and management. Management of edge areas around community forests, and functional risk management best management practices along with wildlife interface best management practices around new development including urban infill ecological best management practices, i.e. songbirds, habitat, pollinator gardens, community gardens. 1.3 Draft a Municipal Asset Management Policy that would include specific obligations to operate, maintain and replace natural assets alongside traditional capital assets. This could include requirements to: • Assess options to preserve, maintain, or enhance existing natural assets and the services they provide, before proposing new built assets. • Compare the life-cycle costs of natural and engineered assets before making capital investment decisions. -for example, a long term cost benefit analysis can be undertaken to understand the real costs/benefits associated with development & grey infrastructure with loss of natural areas & natural assets versus retention of these areas and assets that are essential for liveability and cost savings in all urban areas. • Integrate natural asset management into municipal finance planning, and include in long term financial plans (20 years+). • Recognize natural assets in the notes section of annual financial statements and other documents, including the need to manage them in conjunction with engineered assets. City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy I 11 ACTION AREA 2: Encoura e and Support Green Development and Neighbourhoods RATIONALE: Continued growth and development offers a number of opportunities to further develop "green" area plans to support and encourage green development. This is specifically targeted to the urban infill and redevelopment context. Incorporating a green development approach and practices, as opposed to retrofitting existing development. This will minimize negative impacts, or, ideally, have a net positive impact, on the long-term cost efficiency, health and wellness of residents, resiliency of the City, and protection of the environment and nearby eco-systems. Departments Involved: • Planning, Parks & Operations, Engineering, Operations, Information Technology, Economic Development, Building and Permits 2.1 Facilitate a green infrastructure urban design charrette with local experts and municipal stakeholders green infrastructure design options in action and conduct more detailed cost-benefit assessments to determine the most appropriate and viable options in a redevelopment context). 2.2 Incorporate broader green infrastructure objectives & targets into new area plans, the Official Community Plan goals and objectives, capital works projects, and new park designs or park upgrades. • Identify green infrastructure options and costing or CBA for Town Centre, and along major corridor redevelopment areas. • Street design charrette. 2.3 Bridge the gap between area planning and site planning by creating clear design standards and performance targets for sites, servicing and streets. 2.4 Outline performance targets for various development types and accountability. Contributions towards these targets can be applied both on site (new development) and off site (within the area plan). 2.5 Explore the creation and implementation of a Green Infrastructure/Sustainability Development Checklist for identification 12 J City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy and protection of lands where development occurs within identified high priority areas in the City's green infrastructure network. 2.6 Outline regulations, design standards, and best management practices for green infrastructure in the public realm in areas identified within the green infrastructure network. This includes design of new park space, recreation areas and other greenspaces, for example, rain gardens, pollinator gardens, etc. 2.7 Review development procedures and process for incorporating green infrastructure. This may include: • Update development process checklists to include green infrastructure goals. • Review initial applications to focus on prioritizing and making better use of existing assets on the land, prior to the development design stage. • Review land assembly of smaller lots (up to 1 acre) within infill areas, to ensure green infrastructure opportunities and targets can be maximized. • Set development/redevelopment run-off volume control targets or targets for rainfall management (i.e. development must treat the first 25mm of rainfall on site or manage 90% of all rainfall) for new or infill development. Allowing for on/off-site options. • Set targets for shared open space areas, above ground detention ponds, green buildings (roof gardens, green walls, etc.) and urban infill greening/landscape. 2.8 Offer development incentives and consider potential amendments to the Development Cost Charges Bylaw (DCC Bylaw) to share costs and identify funding opportunities for natural asset retention, restoration, and enhancement. • Development incentives: accelerated approval processes, density bonus for developments that integrate green infrastructure or retention and use of natural assets I eco-system services above what is required, or a reduction in DCCs for developments which include green infrastructure (see next bullet point). • DCC amendment consideration: where a DCC eligible project that meets the requirements of a capital cost supporting an eligible green infrastructure service, and where restoration and enhancement will service the development in which the charge is imposed (as opposed to applying to engineering assets only), allow for a reduction in DCCs. 2.9 Look for opportunities in private-public partnerships to implement green infrastructure pilot or demonstration projects for design, construction and management of projects that integrate green infrastructure. Explore, evaluate and identify the additional tools, resources, funding and programs that best fit the City to support implementation of green infrastructure with development. Some options may include: • Performance Targets and User Fees for Development Types. -performance targets that support objectives to create liveable neighborhoods and reasonable access to green spaces for future residents, business owners, and visitors. -user fees or off-site compensation requirements (i.e. obtain credits for reduced runoff-to be implemented with a stormwater user fee system). • Incentive Based Tools. -consider rebates to home owners (one-time payment) for installation of targeted green infrastructure elements. -tax incentives/tax credits or Payments for Eco-system Services (PES) in exchange for protection or improved management and stewardship of natural assets. • Regulatory and Cost Sharing. -explore green infrastructure utility and amenity charges for servicing requirements, off site local community facilities for both stormwater management, open space natural areas, and urban landscaping requirements for liveable neighborhoods and connections to meet municipal objectives related to safety, health, sustainability, energy, etc. City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy I 13 ACTION AREA 3: @ Establish Greenscaping Standards RATIONALE: Future shocks and stressors may have a growing impact on the City in the coming decades. Adapting policy and implementation of new green infrastructure initiatives now is a smart future investment. With these changes come multiple benefits, a healthier City, and more attractive places to live and do business. Departments Involved: • Planning, Parks Planning & Development, Engineering, Parks Operations, Information Technology, Operations, Finance 3.1 Prepare a Landscape Design Standards for City Streets and Public Realm. • Establish rainwater and landscape integrated management targets with quantifiable metrics. • Include aesthetic/social value as part of the design standards. • Include diverse selection of green stormwater infrastructure treatments for streets -rain gardens & infiltration bulges/ bioswales, pervious paving, and infiltration trenches. • Establish maintenance and monitoring programs. • Allocate secured funding for the operations and maintenance of assets. • Track performance and incorporate lessons learned. 3.2 Increase the City's tree canopy and landscaping, in particular, in areas of the City identified as having a low tree canopy coverage (<30%) and areas with high impervious (a low capacity for infiltration) surface area (>40%). This should focus on: • Tree Retention. • Onsite/Off-site options (where development occurs). • Tree Replacement. 14 I City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy • Life Cycle Management. • Landscape Design Standards. Consider moving towards a municipal urban forest management plan to help manage municipal forest assets, street trees, and to achieve municipal and community performance targets, and replanting objectives in a more comprehensive & timely manner. 3.3 Identify new programs, initiatives and stewardship opportunities for private residential lots to maintain or improve landscaping, reduce stormwater run-off and build the City's Green Infrastructure Network-options may include: • One time tax rebates programs to home owners for low impact development. • Tax incentives/tax credits or Payments for Eco-system Services (PES) in exchange for protection or improved management and stewardship of natural assets identified in the City's Green Infrastructure Network. • Encourage volunteer stewardship of natural assets. • Tree programs for home owners (discounted nursery stock) to increase tree canopy cover in areas that have been identified as deficient within the Green Infrastructure Network. ACTION AREA 4: En a e and Build Awareness within the Cit and in the Community RATIONALE: The success of building green infrastructure into the City's standard toolkit relies heavily on its acceptance and support within the community. As such, it is important that residents are fully engaged, understand and value the benefits of green infrastructure in the City, now and for its future livability, health and resilience. Departments Involved: • Planning, Communications 4.1 Identify resources, new potential staff positions and training needs required to support implementation of the green infrastructure strategy. 4.2 Coordinate a green infrastructure outreach, education and awareness program targeting the development community, public and other stakeholders, this may include: • Green infrastructure webpage. • Green infrastructure brochure. • Public meetings and workshops. • Info-sharing and fact sheets through webpage. • Guided tours of existing green infrastructure assets. • Green infrastructure network layer on Ridgeview on line mapping. Partnership programs, local volunteer and stewardship opportunities. 4.3 Further connect and develop partnerships with local groups, neighbouring jurisdictions and governments, such as, Metro Vancouver, neighbouring First Nations communities and municipalities, UBC Malcom Knapp Research Forest, Ministry of Forests (Woodlots), Tourism BC, local stewardship groups, etc. • To protect important areas. • Share data and align green infrastructure initiatives. • Work with local groups on stewardship and restoration of critical sites. • Other: -deliver community-based initiatives and partnerships delivered through non-profit community organizations. -apply for Provincial and Federal funding to support new green infrastructure assets. -partnerships with federal and provincial agencies on programs like Backyard Habitat Planting, Adopt a Park, Community Gardens, Pollinator programs, Songbird and Raptor programs, Ongoing investment in Wildsafe BC education program including Bear Aware. City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy I 15 Strategy Implementation Actions in this strategy require clear implementation to move forward. At such time that this management strategy has been endorsed by Council, it will be the role of staff, the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Internal Inter-Department Task Force to confirm the implementation plan and move forward on action areas outlined through annual business planning. The following table outlines actions and priorities. The table includes level of effort, timing, recommended priority and departments involved for all tasks within each action area. Some of the tasks have been identified as relatively low effort and considered quick wins, others require additional consideration, complexity and resources and may take a longer time for implementation. This is reflected as follows. LEVEL OF EFFORT REQUIRED • Low effort -can be completed internally with little to no funding, requires limited inter-department collaboration. • Medium effort -primarily can be completed internally, with additional time/budget or contracted work. Involves higher level of multi department input and possible moderate funding requirements for external assistance or contracts. • High effort -managed internally. Involves multi-department collaboration and higher level support between departments, with external assistance and ongoing support from Corporate Management Team and Council. TIMING FOR IMPLEMENTATION • Short term: within 1 -3 years • Medium: within 4 - 7 years • Long: within 8 years or more • Ongoing RECOMMENDED PRIORITY The recommended priority outlines key action areas and tasks that might be prioritized as foundational items in order to move forward with green infrastructure in the City. • Low -can be completed independently or as part of general business planning. • Medium -an important aspect or component of building green infrastructure, but does not have to happen immediately in order to ensure implementation of green infrastructure actions within the City. Requires scoping report and RFP. • High -identified as a foundational component to the implementation of the green infrastructure strategy and success of building green infrastructure in the City. Timing important. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED As part of the internal inter-departmental task force, it is important to note that a successful green infrastructure strategy requires full support from various departments, senior management, and Council, as well as careful coordination of resources. This column outlines the key departments involved in the task. Staff will determine who will take the lead and responsibility for outcomes as each task is implemented. 16 I City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy ACTION AREA & TASKS LEVEL OF EFFORT TIMING RECOMMENDED PRIORITY DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Action Area 1: Inventory & Value the City's Natural Assets Identify green assets (mapping) Medium High ! • Parks, Recreation : Short Natural Asset and Ecological Management Strategy (evaluation of natural capital services) \ and Culture ! • Planning : i,, • Information Technology j • Engineering : j • Operations i • Emergency ! Services j • Economic j Development i i i Medium ! Short i High i • Planning ' ! i • Parks, Recreation ! ! anfd Cult~re , , • In ormat1on ! ! Technology j j • Engineering ) ) • Finance 1 ( • Operations ! ! • Economic 1 1 Development ······································································································································i·······························'1·······························i················································i··························································· .. Develop a Municipal Asset Management Policy ! Medium ! Medium ! Medium ! • Finance which includes new policy language with a focus I ! ! ! • Engineering on natural assets and natural capital evaluation j j i j • Planning opportunities j j j • Parks, Recreation i i i and Culture 1 1 1 • Information i i i Technology Action Area 2: Encourage and Support Green Development and Neighbourhoods Coordinate a GI Design Charrette for certain Medium Short High i • All (Inter-urban infill areas to encourage more innovative design, integration of green infrastructure design options, and cost benefit analysis at site, street & block level j ~~rca:itment Task j • EAC j • Stakeholders i • Development ' i Community ...................................................................................................................................... ; .............................. .L ............................ ; ................................................ t ..... ~~.~.1!.~ .................................... . OCP Amendment & Area Planning -review and ( Low ( Ongoing ( High \ • Planning incorporate GI objectives (& targets) j j j j Develop GI Design Standards & Performance i,, Medium :.::. Ongoing i,, Medium i,, ·. Planning Targets (servicing and streets) Engineering !:.i. !,, 1 I: ~~?i,~~ons .................................................................................................................................... ..!. ............................ ..!. .............................. · .............................................. ..!..~ ... ~n:~~~o~~~; ..................... . Set Performance Targets for various development i Medium i Short i High i • Planning types & accountability i j i i • Engineering 1 1 1 • Building 1 : ( • Operations .................................................................................................................................... ,.1-······························,·······························.················································,···························································-Explore Development Permit Area ; Medium · Medium ( Medium ( • Planning j • Engineering 1 • Parks, Recreation ( and Culture ! • Finance ...................................................................................................................................... • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••.••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• = •••.•••••.••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy I 17 ACTION AREA & TASKS LEVEL OF EFFORT TIMING RECOMMENDED PRIORITY DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Action Area 2: Encourage and Support Green Development and Neighbourhoods (continued) Outline Landscape Management, Maintenance & Design Best Management Practices for green infrastructure In the public realm Medium Medium Medium !,,. • Parks, Recreation and Culture 1 • Operations j • Planning ! : • Engineering Review the Development Procedures and Process i Medium j Medium j Medium j • Planning . ..for .inrnrporating. GI. (review. process .. a nd .. Bylaw) ......................................... J.. ............................. · ................................................ :,, • .... Engi.neerl ng ..................... . Review/ consider incentives and amending the ( Low ( Medium ( High ( • Planning Development Cost Charges Bylaw (DCC Bylaw) to ( : : : • Engineering support GI : : : : ...................................................................................................................................... i·······························-i·······························-i················································-i···························································~ Identify private-public partnerships/pilot project & j Medium j Ongoing j Medium \ • Various other funding mechanisms : to high j j : Action Area 3: Establish Greenscaplng Standards Landscape Design Standards for City Streets & Public Areas i,,. • Parks, Recreation and Culture Low Medium Medium 1 • Planning . . . j • Engineering OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo,,ooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo,oOOOOOOOOOOOOoo••••••••••••••••••••••••••ooOOOOOOOo,,oo,OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo,o1•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-r•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-r•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••<>M ~~~f ~i~;r~ir~~:;:r~~~s & Management Plan for I Medium I Long I Medium 1 · :~~k~u~~c;:atlon i i ' ! • Information GI Residential Programs, Incentives and Stewardship Opportunities Action Area 4: Engagement and Build Awareness I I ! . !tc~~i~~gy ! Medium : Ongoing : High ! • Parks, Recreation I I and Culture 1 : • Planning : : • Communications Internal Education and Training Medium ! Ongoing High 1 • All Green Infrastructure Education & Outreach j Medium j Medium j Medium i • Planning Initiatives : : i : • Communications Identify key partnerships (academic, regional, etc.) i Low j Ongoing i Medium i • Planning Stakeholders and Green Infrastructure Inter-departmental Task Force Maintain and set regular meeting dates to continue the Green Infrastructure Inter-departmental Task Force Group to focus on support for short term action items. The Inter-departmental Task Force will be responsible for monitoring the progress of Actions and tracking the phasing and prioritization of related tasks within other departments. 18 I City of Maple Ridge· Green Infrastructure Management Strategy City of Maple Ridge -Green Infrastructure Management Strategy I 19 Appendix B: Risks The Green Infrastructure Management Strategy is just one step towards furthering green infrastructure in the City. Continual effort is needed to ensure the success of each action with the strategy. The following risks and mitigation strategies represent challenges identified by staff and stakeholders to the implementation of this management strategy. I RISK MITIGATION Silo Departments Regular communication through the Internal Staff Task Force Group Council involvement ........................................................................................................................................ ~!:1~.i.~?..~.~~!:1.t.~.1 ... r..1~.~·~·i·~·~·~·~~.rr.i.P.!?..~ .................................................................................... . Lack of Uptake in the Development Provide information and consult with the development community Community Identify key partners ....................................................................................................................................... 1.dentify. key. development .incentives. for .green.infrastructure ................... . Lack of budgets or staff to support green Grant applications infrastructure initiatives Partnerships with Metro Vancouver (i.e. sharing data), ....................................................................................................................................... neigh.bouring. communities, .. academ ic. institutions .............................................. . Lack of Community Support and Partnerships Regular communication on green infrastructure initiatives and progress Identify pilot projects and relevant community groups to support community-based initiatives ....................................................................................................................................... 1.nvolve .. commu.nity .. leaders ........................................................................................................ . Existing policy remains unchanged Risk of ongoing impacts and costs of not incorporating green infrastructure on residents (taxpayers) and the City's systems Policy review included as tasks within action areas Council update, endorsement and staff recommendation to implement tasks outlined Internal Staff Task Force to track and monitor Council support and leadership Resident and development community engagement External partnerships (regional, academic, etc.) Document prepared with the asssistance of: EcoPlan International 208-131 Water Street Vancouver, BC V6B 4M3 www.ecoplan.ca MAPLE RIDGE ----------Bnl1sh Columb1.J (EAC) Voting Member 1 Yes. I support the strategy in it's entirety Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members The City should also be commencing work on all of the recommended studies & incremental action items concurrently to work towards the various goals identified in the report Continue to learn from others. Already a lot of good work that has been done by other cities and experts. The Greenscaping standards -these exist -this should be more research and gathering to understand, implement, and potentially embed in policy, regs, standards etc. Develop a big bold long term GI vision that cannot be easily altered by changes to staff and or Council, embed it in policy, regulations and best practices for all depts. Enroll stakeholders across the City. The goals and priorities are good and should be done concurrently vs in order. First step however is to complete the inventory and identify the values or benefits associated with natural assets Understand what we are managing, what services it provides and how we are doing. Also part of the first step, broad scale education needs to begin immediately. Continue with programs like guest speakers and design charrettes to inform and educate all stakeholders What will prevent Maple Ridge from becoming a world leader amongst cities of similar size will be not starting with the end goal in mind. We need to start this vision and work now. As MVH said, do nothing that is not a net gain for both the environment and the community with new development. Using the end goals of liveability, resiliency, vibrancy and affordability as the lens to which every single thing the City does and is measured through - without waivering or exception. If other cities around the globe can do it, we can too! Page 1 of 19 )> iJ iJ rn z CJ X CD (EAC) Voting Member 2 Yes Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members I support the 6 action items as listed. I have fully reviewed the documents. I believe that the documents clearly state the reasons why we need a GI strategy and provides some good strategies for moving forward. One thing that I would like to see changed is a focus on the urgency of implementing a green strategy. Regardless of your views on whether climate change is caused by humans or a natural occurrence, it is changing at a rapid rate and is having a major impact on the environment including the infrastructure of our towns and cities. The time is now for implementing change. I personally would like to see more of a move away from wording such as "encourage", "possibly incentivizing" and " Look to incorporate" and replace with a I believe the order in which the next steps are listed is correct as to their level of importance. As for the first step I think that most of the focus should be on providing the tools and capacity for green infrastructure. If there are decision makers, senior managers and heads of departments within City Hall who are not aware of the need for a Green infrastructure strategy, how climate change currently affects the City, their department, or citizens and how it will affect their departments in the future, or if they are resistant to implementing this type of strategy immediately, they should be replaced with ones that do. Everyone is concerned about the impacts associated with climate change, densification, and loss of the natural environment. It is a priority. It is time to make some hard decisions and deal with the In my opinion there are several reasons why the Strategy could fail in moving forward and to no surprise they are not new. The first and foremost is an ill informed and apathetic public. If council perceives that there is little interest from the public in implementing and supporting the cost of a GI Strategy they wont support it. The second is push back from developers. While I have not been a part of the discussions with developers, I spent several years working in the Real Estate Divisions of two large BC retail organizations and I am pretty sure I know what their issues are. One of the things I like about the strategy is the suggestion in offering incentives for developments that integrate green infrastructure. Aside ; from these incentives, I think the City I should make a bi~ deal about Page 2 of 19 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members detailed time frame, stronger performance targets and requirements for implementation. I am aware of the issues involved with doing this but I believe that the time is now for bold action necessary changes and meet the challenges. My observations on some key and controversial development issues in Maple Ridge have not given me much faith that there is a strong will or desire within departments or in City Hall to do the right thing in a timely manner, and strongly challenge the conventional thinkers and practitioners I hope I am wrong developers who proactively offer substantial GI options in their projects. They could be recognized with full page ads in the local paper with acknowledgement from council on their truly green project. This would not only give them public\positive recognition it would help promote their project and show other developers that MR is serious about GI. The third is internal resistance to change. While council may believe that they manage the city, in reality the city is run by the bureaucrats and if they are not on side with the concept it is doomed to failure. Last but not least is lack of leadership i.e. Council support. While I believe that the majority of Maple Ridges current council are intelligent, educated and dedicated people, and have all made statements as to the importance of sustainability\climate Page 3 of 19 (EAC) Voting Member 3 YES I support the GIMS moving forward Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members I I also support the 6 action items I and believe that obtaining data/conducting mapping to support the green infrastructure implementation and valuing the City's Existing Natural Assets are high priorities (it's hard to protect or talk about until you know where and what it is). Mapping and valuing the Natural Assets would feed into vulnerabilities and helping to determine where the City's Level of Resilience can be improved as part of an overall strategy to combat climate change and other stressors. The other actions are also important so it's hard to rank them as they need to become the norm and happen simultaneously. change, they appear to be reluctant to support anything that would potentially negatively affect development in MR and I sincerely hope they recognize the importance of this work for the larger community & future generations. If the strategy fails in moving forward, it's likely due to fear of new processes and potential unfamiliar/untried ways of doing things and the associated costs. Hopefully there is enough information to understand what the costs are of not moving ahead with this work in the long run? Cumulative knowledge from other jurisdictions and even from within Maple Ridge to provide a good level of comfort to at least move forward. Page 4 of 19 (EAC) Voting Member 4 Yes, I fully agree with and support the Green Infrastructure Management Strategy study moving forward! Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members Yes, I fully support the six (6) action items outlined by the consultant EcoPlan in their report. 1. Build the City's Level of Resilience (to the changing climate and other shocks and stressors) 2. Value the City's Existing Natural Assets in Municipal Financial and Business Planning 3. Encourage and Support "Green" Development 4. Obtain data and conduct mapping to support green infrastructure implementation in the City 5. Build internal knowledge, coordination, tools and capacity for green infrastructure 6. Engage and Build Awareness in the Community -Lack of moving forward on the action items in a time-effective manner. These are action items that need to be implemented quickly and efficiently to maximize cost savings and minimize climate change effects. Page 5 of 19 (EAC) Voting Member 5 (EAC) Voting Member 6 I strongly support the Green Infrastructure Management Strategy. I support the Green Infrastructure strategy. Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members Two that stand out for me are the mapping and data collection (you can't protect what you don't know about) and the community awareness. While I can't really rank the six items 1-6, I see these going on concurrently in the next 3-5 years, with efforts to inform the community happening concurrently with the behind the scenes stuff. I think would rank the items as follows: 1. Encourage and Support "Green" Development (however this should be Require), 2. Obtain data and conduct mapping to support green infrastructure implementation in the City, and 3. Engage and Build Awareness in the Community as the highest priorities (in order) and should be undertaken immediately (1-3 years). Value the City's Existing Natural Assets in Municipal Financial and I feel that efforts to inform and engage may help mitigate against the reason this would be most likely to fail, that being fear of the unknown and falling back into familiar comfort zones. Page 6 of 19 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members Business Planning is an extension of item two, and should commence once resources are mapped. Build internal knowledge, coordination, tools and capacity for green infrastructure requires internal training/hiring, and is a pre- requisite for Build the City's Level of Resilience (to the changing climate and other shocks and stressors). I would think all of these items should be addressed in the short term (3-5 years). Page 7 of 19 (GISC) Member 1 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members Agricultural lands are not pulling their weight or faced with the same requirements as developers, even if directly adjacent. ALC should be included and required to face the same requirements and regulations as developers or civil works, not only to be equitable, but also to increase the balance of positive efforts vs historic practises that cause more damage than good. The main challenge as a developer is the lack of calculatable or measurable instruction from the City on how to reach certain targets or goals through the development process. If a clear outline of requirements and measurable results was available at scale, estimating costs and ensuring equitable and sustainable practises would be much more straightforward. The action item that has stayed with me from 1 1 o_ur video presentations, is the double treed sidewalks that create a shaded and green · surround amenity for the public. This method not only provides a natural buffer to traffic (between the curb and sidewalk) but also helps reduce temperatures on hot days, increases green view, and helps relieve air congestion from traffic and the like. I support this action item as a developer because it can be implemented easily and improves the look and feel of each neighbourhood. I As new high-density clusters rise up in the I , downtown area, the center and connective pathways should be pedestrian focused, I linking each building and retail strip, with J parking and car roadways secondary to c.__ ____ ,__ ______________ __,_ _________________ ~1 pedestrian use. Page 8 of 19 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members ··1· .~~~ti·tqP.?;C,~Q,~$9~Jfll~~ d9 · ... ·1,y,P~V:~fil~~~t~t)~wletQ~rr,ttt· •··•·· qfp,ffr:J,~l,.9:~.~~~~J9,~Jnt ... ; : .,) •• ,!;'!~~:~!Ill~\~ !i,/1, .;j· ·.J,w~;,~~~~r~.i ""~J~r.]•~~,,~~l~,;. .••. c·.•· ,Cp(t:i~~ffi}•!f\l~;f~r.gr~!tJfl,lCc.if C ·· .... ·••·· .•. . ·.: ·i:''"''''~~~flt~f~i11$J~;~fgl~ ~j~,~ .. (M1,.$.11¥er:V~UtY}? (GISC) Member2 1. Failure to protect existing trees from full site clearing -without exploration of alternatives. 2. Lack of coordination between arch/civil/landscape on finding creative ways to protect and enhance existing green infrastructure 3. Without a formal policy or a guideline -development will continue in its current fashion that could have irreversible consequences for community resources like Trees/streams/ sa I mon a. Bringing developers together with the consulting team and having meaningful and reasonable discussion around financial goals and environmental goals of the project. b. Ensuring that there is a coordinated effort from architecture with Landscape and · with civil to bring fruitful ideas to the planner for consideration c. Reversing the existing approach to . development that looks to maximize units 1 for a site. What other incentives might be offered to I . reduce units or to reduce footprint of a development? Can developers achieve rezoning with experimental type ideas that may result in greater vertical height or density if significant community green infrastructure is protected? pri~~it(~r,~n. · .. · .. ~~~ot'tu~~1~~a.,ii,1~t . adtlon itemsthat,vhu'tftllnf ,:r~.i~pp~ni!pr Jti~~J,r §~, ur~~~ . .. ~~,,t~~ilqp~,pt .~~~rti~rtn j-~-5 .. ~ .• · a. Establish a process for talking about protection of GI and bringing the development community to the table with reasonable incentives or flexibility to help achieve both financial viability and environmental protection. b. Require development to follow "Salmon safe" approach -present a strategy for each site to protect fish habitat. c. Consider 'experimental zoning' in areas of MR that are highly sensitive in terms of riparian areas and habitat. Perhaps developers could present ideas to achieve density and protect resources in these areas? d. Ensure that Arborists, landscape architects, architects, and engineers have a conference with planners to discuss opportunities and constraints for the site - unbridled by purely economic goals for the site. Page 9 of 19 (GISC) Member3 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members a. Loss of significant trees b. Increase in impermeable surfaces c. Increased density without an increase in amenity spaces and places for the increased population on site and off-site d. Lack of streetscape improvements and tree planting for necessary increase in canopy cover and accommodation of pedestrian street amenities e. Pedestrians should be first and SOV last. a. Perceived additional costs of environmental improvements born by the developers b. Engineering push back on street greenfrastructure design and innovations c. Cost of land J ~l\~a.{, t~e tQ~ .~ pd~rityQr~~n · 1ntr~tr~~~r~. (<ilJ~~J)()'U~~~~~~#r · ~eti~nit~rn~ tt,a,t:yq~1tfiin~,.ri~1miP~~! fg~ ,y~~fijl•.~Jjm~lem~J!!~lt~n;!~r~<ith.,µr~an · .. ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·1•.· .• ·.• ......... i.··.·.•.".·.··:····.·.n·· ..•. ·.·.·.:·J·.'····;·······.·.a •..••• ·.·.·.·.r.•.·.e···.··.·.as·.·.•.·•.·.•.·'.,.•.a .• n.•.· .. }.•.•·'.ri .... Qtr····.: ... ·.·.·.•.g.· .. ··.·.ri. e ... •.e ... ·.·.·.·." ..... ·•·.f··.·.··1e 1 •. ·•• .. ,.·.•.·.d.• .. , .... a •.. • •. /1 .. ;v.· ..... ~.•.··.·1··.·.P ... •· .• '.P·····.m··.·, ent : ... ~rQan ar~sin tµ~sbqa,:term~,.e. ij .. 15 J;J88.t$)9 . . ' . . .. . . a. Mandatory Green checklist b. Create requirements for "Net Environmental and Community Gain" with development applications c. Citywide and Neighbourhood Greenways Plan d. Affordability first and environment second d. Green demonstration projects like e. Community and development values of Yennadon Neighbourhood Employment Area trees and streams Green Plan e. Green Streets and Stewardship Program Page 10 of 19 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members \.\lbattop ? Q,Q~e~: •· :·.· ·.· .. < •.. you h~!ff~tE!~UtiFc ..... :: <1.1rb~od~j~f,f 1 •·.·•.· .. •··. \T ........ •.·••• ·.·.p.· ''.tf~i~. ~ .. s.• ........ , ...••. ~r.··.:.·• .... · I :• :, . .,:•:· .... +·'····c,r,,. .r·: y?c·:· ..• ,<>~~~~r,;J ! . ? .•... r .ice ~~rri~~t,f~1, I • · • ·. t •]J~v~t~~mept•, I ... · (i.e~'.Silte:t~aU~y}? (GISC) , 1. Primarily with the way we put all Member 4 storm drainage into pipes especially within city rights of way. In a majority of cases where developments occur that have creative storm drain systems with day-lighting, above ground water features, plants etc., they nearly always end up in a pipe or underground on the city side of the development. 2. Use of impermeable surfaces. Even if parking lots had planted swale system within them. See casino parking lot at 227th and Lougheed Hwy. Consider multiple uses and benefits ie. Fields for Kids parking lot at 104th Ave. Sometimes we have to set examples. 3. Our Transit stops are not very inviting places, little if any green or human scale around them. 4. We have a lot of water that falls that should and could be stored and re-circulated for watering, private and public spaces with innovative landscaping drainage practices. 5. I think we are doing a fairly good job of protecting our waterways, however they are used for dumping . Whii¢ are :the tbp .. p prlori~.Green ,.t .• ·::: ·it:•·:····, '':i• , .. ;: i• <•·:l Jr;i~r,~t~~~t~ (~Jl,P!~,~~,i~ap~(o~ '·.· .. ···.i··.•.·.·.:··.~ ... ·.e·;···· •... ~.•.'.~.;.•.·.".·.·.· •. ·.··.·.·.1• ... ·.t··.·.•.e ..•.. ·.·.·.,n .. • •. '.··.s··.·.· .. •.• •... t ... ·.·.' .. ~.~.·.·.·.a···.· .. · . .t .. · .. ··.' .. '.'.·.· .. ··.• .. ~ . .:··.·;·~·.····'· '.··,··.~.: ... '. f:1.·.·. l<·.c··;··.·.·.· •. • •. a··.··.;.· ... ~ •. •.·.·.·.i'.·.'.·.•.·.·.m.·•.•,.· .. ··.·.·.P.· .. ··.·o····.···.tta··· .. · .. · ·.• .. ".··.·.l.f:o ... · .. ·.r ... · ... · .. . •: l JU,eo~glGJ,1rn11.em~ntat1qnfor:1:>oth ur;ban. .. J,jn~1.,.~~~~s~~~~t~,,~~n;fi~ld·(~~~,19,1m~rt ··rt;~:,,~~jpJ~thotf~~~\te~·,~~· 1. We need to find what works best to suit 1. One of the main action items that should 1 our landscapes with a proper cost, benefit be undertaken is the effects of Global ' and savings analysis, in c-operation with all Warming at a local level. People need to departments -each will have a role. understand how our landscapes and 2. Once appropriate systems are chosen ecosystems maybe or will be affected then City Engineering Standards must be without action. The Melboure examples of addressed. There is an aversion by the cisterns, swales and greenways was a good Engineering Department to move away from example of keeping the urban area green. the norm and try new innovative 2. I realize this maybe a monumental task approaches. This risk avoidance has met a but understanding Global Warming at a local number of criteria of City policies and level is virtually important to understanding practices, especially avoiding claims. Green Infrastructure. 3. Buy in from developers, builders and the 3. We need to see where day-lighting of public especially where there is a cost engineered storm system may be associated with the innovation that will they undertaken and apply G.1 practices to the will have to pay. How will it affect the day-lighting system. affordability issue that's at the fore-front of 4. What are fair compensations for adding to politicians and the public. Cost may be an areas G.I System. One property may give added to a development but they are always nothing in terms of land while another may passed onto the consumer, have to contribute more than 50%. Can we Is there a method of D.C.C. forgiveness or set a number that all lands contribute 5% an additional D.C.C. charge for the public those that do not give dollars. What works, maintaining or adding these I amounts are fair? innovations into developments or to the developers list of requirements. Is the public prepared to accept the costs, or will they understand the savings. 4. The introduction of G.I. in an area will have to be well thought out an how or when Page 11 of 19 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members our storm water . The City usually includes pre-development and post development flow requirements, but there does not seem to be a system of scrubbing or collecting water before entering streams. Insufficient performance in dealing with water quality. Filtration or transpiration system can help improve the water quality before entering the natural systems. .~ti~t>a(! ~ei~<lp p pri9rir~~~~n I t?fr~trq~i,'.(~() q;~p~~un1,1~,ntf/~r ·. ... . • . . • .. · ... )~~iq~Jt~m~.1~~~:~U,,~h;J9l(~f:~i~p~~At f()( >· .·~¥:~f~~!;~l,irn~,m8;~~a~r~~Q~th~r~an •···. · .. ··.j~fJIJ,~,;~~ fQ.fi.~~t 0~~,,f1~J~.;~~~JR~~~"t · .. ·.l.··.·.· .. ·.u··· Jib.'.·. ij*1.· .... ·.· a .. ··.'.•.·e .... a.s .... ·•."Ji~~.e ... ·.·· .. ~h~ft .. ··.· .. ··.·.•.·.:te·· ..•. · ... '.' m ... • :r •• ,.·~ .. ?i·····.·.e···.'.··." '".: m.·.·.·.··.·.· .. ·.. • can it spread into surrounding areas. Part of this is a land use planning issue, there are areas immediately around the downtown core that have been designated as having relatively low density (duplex, tri- plex, possible townhouses) potential. Most of the land around the edge of the core area has larger lots (8,000 -10,000 sq. Ft.) and have great potential for assembly for condominiums. Setting G.I. standards for those lands with higher density has a greater opportunity to succeed. Introduce standards with density. 5. As we have progressed in our planning advances in the last 2 decades we have also deduced the buildable areas available. Not saying that these are bad, but we have some fairly good setbacks from waterways and have done a fair job of negotiating with developers for more with density bonusing, D.C.C. forgiveness etc. We have also seen set backs on the Urban Edge from A.LR. lands, forest edges and slopes. G.I. has potential or is likely to take more of the known buildable area, so how do we justify, is it through increased density, D.C.C.'s or buy in. . ~eatsJ? . ··. ·. ·· ·. ...... , '· · ·. ·.· .j, ,. . . • • L . . .. . . Page 12 of 19 1 GISC I Member5 i Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members Losing more and more natural assets due to development The public is looking for increased parking spaces downtown, while we should be aiming for a more "pedestrian friendly" Town Centre Adaptability to climate change Ability to finance Green Infrastructure Plan Ability of staying "ahead of the curve"; ie management and maintenance of GI design & development practices Mind you I'm convinced: Benefits will be plentiful and increase quality of life: health, cultural, water quality, recreation, wildlife habitat... ..... Continuous community engagement and participation is absolutely critical to ensure the inclusivity, multi- functionality and clarity about the utter importance of Green Infrastructure Losing natural assets due to development Asses natural assets across our municipality and density and establish a clear and understandable Need to complete and update the City's local natural assets inventory mapping and data of GI assets inventory Try to identify, manage and use our present Need to integrate green infrastructure into natural assets Town Centre and Lougheed Corridor(streets, Figure out risks of present assets parking areas ) and identify the Develop operations/management plan with opportunities CLEAR policy & guidelines Encourage people to be "one car family" Develop permit bylaw for developers to and increase "pedestrian friendly" areas preserve present (maybe "hidden"?) natural (BIG challenge to entice people out of their assets, prior to development car!) Development Cost Charges to be extended, to include developer contributions to natural assets (could potentially reduce DCC's in the future) Page 13 of 19 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members 1.) Low permeable surfacing/lack of 1.) Insufficient resources for operations to exposed or accessible topsoils maintain trees, landscapes and natural 2.) Lack of planning for functional areas soils to support long term tree growth 2.) Insufficient resources for staffing and 3.) Engineering requirements or operations to oversee or supervise cost of construction often trump construction mature tree retention 1 3.) Lack of detailed standards for design 4.) Trees retained through planning and construction that ensure protection of but then killed during construction retained trees and natural areas due to lack of care 4.) Inconsistent messaging from 5.) Polluted runoff to streams/storm departments during development planning system 5.) Developer expectations for densification is high. There is little appetite to give up land. Need strong and clear performance requirements or regulations around green infrastructure applications 1.) Review and update all bylaws related to natural areas so they are consistent and strengthen each other. The tree bylaw, watercourse protection bylaws, Watercourse Protection DP Guidelines, wildfire DP, and tree risk policy 2.) Set targets for tree canopy cover for the City and each neighborhood through an Urban Forest Strategy 3.) Bonding that is high enough and extends for long enough for retention of trees and restoration projects. Set substantial penalties for tree impacts during construction 4.) Natural soils and microbial communities lost through greenfield development. Salvage natural topsoils and native plants from greenfield developments I for restoration projects in natural areas. I Provide a storage area to stockpile this resource. I 5.) Develop restoration guidelines for I natural areas that target climate adaptable '-------'------------------'---------------------'-1 _a_n_d_d_r_ought tolerant plant communities Page 14 of 19 (GISC) Member7 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members 1. Allowing variances from OCP, area plans, and City zoning requirements, permeable areas, stormwater requirements, tree retention/replacement areas, and landscaping areas. 2. If new urban infill development cannot meet requirements on site, then the City should be considering off site options - shared community spaces with GI facilities that everybody developing pays into to promote more liveable, resilient, affordable urban centres and make up for losses due to impacts from densification. This includes consideration for above ground water features such as retention/detention ponds to help with drainage, cooling of the air, aesthetically pleasing feature for public gathering areas. 3. Poor understanding of the value of protecting existing trees which are of greater value 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Lack of a full understanding of the value of green infrastructure from a quantitative and qualitative perspective. Identify the various kinds of benefits, services, and monetary cost savings it provides Lack of awareness of economic benefits as well as cost savings for more vibrant business centre, affordable urban centres, and significant cost savings to the community from larger municipal owned forests that currently support more liveable, healthy, and resilient residential areas. Change the misconception that GI should be a secondary consideration vs one of the primary or complimentary drivers especially for development of new neighborhoods. City resources (staff, lands, and financial) are limited as we grow. Through densification we can better share costs & longer term impacts with the development community. Lack of a firm commitment to action items or implementation items for GI in the short, medium, and long term. Lack of a big bold long-term vision. 1. Inventory, measure and value current natural assets and constructed GI elements. Record and acknowledge them within City financials, business plans, and land use decisions as we do other types of municipal assets. 2. Consider GI in every single development application and at the street, neighborhood and area level. 3. Put people ahead of cars especially in urban infill areas that will become congested soon, think 15-minute City, think multi-mobility. 4. Make plans with design charrettes that include a range of both community experts, and external experts including, planners, architects, landscape architects, City staff and Council, Chamber, BIA, developers/builders, and the broader community where possible. 5. Develop a big bold long term GI vision that cannot be easily altered by changes to staff and or Council, embed it in policy. 6. Demonstrate strong leadership and commitment to the environment and the community. Page 15 of 19 Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members than smaller replacement trees especially in the urban infill areas as well as valuable more mature forests in greenfield areas. 4. Not measuring, evaluating, and incorporating the values of GI, the contribution of GI with all new area plans, or for the larger denser developments. Treat GI like we currently treat parking, as a requirement for all new developments in urban areas with clear performance targets including new multi family, town house developments. 5. Ignoring GI when considering commercial industrial expansion, equally critical in these developments, need to do it right. 6. Lack of a big bold long-term vision Page 16 of 19 GISC) Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members The possibility of "Public Art" to the GI document. Form and Function In both the earlier presentations by Mark van der Zalm and Michael von Hausen, Public Art was mentioned -as stand alone pieces that can also contribute to the dialogue (Water features in False Creek, Vancouver) and as part of a urban landscape in recreational uses and drainage design -skateboard area example. When designing GI, as in the case of permeable surfaces of structures surrounding new tree plantings, text could be added (stamped cement?) to highlight the purpose of the plantings or in the case of Maple Ridge's "Sidewalk Poetry" to give some GI inspirational thoughts. Art and aesthetic design would help to engage the public and community to invest the GI concept. Other stand public art commissions could be included by collaborating with the PASC. Thank you for the opportunity to engage with the GI committee. Page 17 of 19 (GISC) (GISC) Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members · 1J~~·,~,n~~~.,~~h,:~,t~t~r~~;~~t!*,~~~~,1~,1 .•• r~rof~JQ,Q~f <~Xr~r~,P,,rr,e2'"~P !'~f\~~,,r 8~} Off-site opportunities in developments. Maple Ridge could improve green network availability. Perhaps using GIS tools on site would help. I Needs flexibility. I Needs clear standards and direction. Competing interests can get in the way such as the fire dept. not approving roads with GI as they want more I space for trucks, etc. ~ 1 . Departments need to work together rather than become 1 silos on their own ---I GISC) Many positive ideas seen. Lack of clarity in process leads to many developers I Would like to see clear goals and check boxes I having already "walked away from Maple Ridge" Also would like to see an increase in current processing I 1 speed/response time I · (GISC) Would like to see tree retention. I Need to have good collaboration in staff Perhaps City could use incentives such as developments that retain · large tree(s) go into a different "green" category and move faster through the process. Have fire dept. at table early on & focus on community enjoyment vs. Public safety. Strong incentives to help development come on board with GI. Encourage vs. Punish Can use calculators to determine amounts of rainwater, etc. Page 18 of 19 (GISC) (GISC) (GISC) (GISC) Maple Ridge Green Infrastructure Feedback from EAC and GISC Members Retention of Trees, Tree stands, and Significant Trees on municipal lands and development areas. Create and implement an Urban Forest Management Strategy. (Action Item #5) Assess options to preserve existing natural assets and their services before proposing new built assets to save costs and maximize financial benefits from natural assets, including mature trees. (Action Item #3) Conduct mapping and data collection to support green infrastructure implementation in the City focusing on wetlands, watercourses, fish- bearing streams, forests, and wildlife corridors, (Action Item #2). Create a plan for Green Development coordinating with developers to maximize financial benefits and cost-savings by retaining existing natural assets on site, as well as ensuring adequate protection of them during construction (Action Item #4). Build internal coordination & good communication among City, developers, architecture, etc. to set clear standards for easy implementation for green infrastructure (Action Item #1). Encourage community education on the benefits of implementing green infrastructure through homeowner tree planting incentives and volunteers for care and education of natural asset retention (Action Item #6). What about areas on outskirts of downtown? If higher density could be had, streams could be day-lighted. Opportunities need to be identified. Urban food systems and urban ecology stewardship such as fruit tree planting incentives & pollinator programs i.e. pollinator plants and beekeeping opportunities. Also would like to see engagement of businesses. Would like to see involvement of community -citizens, community groups, and private land owners, even in "little ways" such as adopting trees, collecting rainwater, etc. Lack of efficiency in moving forward and implementing action items. The Planning Department needs to be closely involved. City maintenance of blackberries, street trees, etc. needs to be kept up Maintenance needs to be kept up on green infrastructure, trees, etc. Page 19 of 19 l~-mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: November 9, 2021 FILE NO: 13-6440-20 MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The intent of this report is to update Council on the City-Wide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program and to present the outcomes of the 2021 review of the current CAC rates. Council initiated a City-Wide CAC program, which established voluntary amenity contribution expectations for new rezonings in Maple Ridge, in March 2016. The CAC program, enacted through Policy 6.31 (Appendix A), has subsequently been reviewed in 2017, 2018 and 2019. A summary of amendments and related staff work is provided in Appendix B. As of October 2021, 65 eligible development applications have been submitted since the City's CAC program was introduced. These development applications included 597 new single-family lots, 830 new townhouse or ground-oriented dwelling units, and 704 new apartment dwelling units, for a total collection of $9,760,300 in fees. In the fall of 2021, Urban Systems Consultants was retained by the City of Maple Ridge to assist staff in reviewing the CAC rates. The Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review, dated October 29, 2021, (Appendix C) outlines the financial analysis and recommendations. The consultant's report recommends the following rate adjustments to the City's existing CAC program: Typology Current CAC Rate CAC Rate CAC Rate Starting mid-2022 Starting mid-2023 Apartment $3,100 per unit $4,300 per unit $5,600 per unit Townhouse $4,100 per unit $5,700 per unit $7,400 per unit Single Family $5,100 per lot $7,100 per lot $9,200 per lot The recommended rates, discussed in this report, would require changes to Council Policy 6.31, which provides the framework for the City's CAC program. Should Council direct moving forward updated rates to the CAC program, staff recommend that the proposed amendments be received for information at this time, to allow for more detailed discussion with industry representatives. An alternative recommendation is also provided should Council opt to move forward with the policy amendments now, noting Council may change its policies at any time. RECOMMENDATION: That feedback on the proposed amendments to Policy 6.31 -Community Amenity Contribution Program be obtained from the Urban Development Institute and other industry representatives, and provided to Council in a future staff report. 4.2 Doc # 2906598 Page 1 of 7 1.0 BACKGROUND In 2016, Council initiated a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program, which established voluntary amenity contribution expectations for new rezonings in Maple Ridge. The CAC Program is enacted by Council Policy 6.31 (adopted March 14, 2016; amended December 12, 2017). Policy 6.31 (Appendix A) establishes the forms of development the CAC Program applies, the contribution rate, and the types of amenities the CAC's may fund. Since 2016, a number of reports and updates have been provided to Council. For a detailed history of staff work on the City's Community Amenity Contribution and Density Bonus Programs, please see Appendix B. The following presents a summary of staff work since the previous presentation to Council on the Community Amenity Contributions and Density Bonus Analysis and Outcomes on July 23, 2019: • On March 8, 2021, the Director of Finance presented a 2020 Amenity Contributions Report to the Audit & Finance Committee; • On June 14, 2021, the Director of Finance presented a review of the Community Amenity Contributions Programs to the Audit & Finance Committee. Noting Council comments in mid-2021, Urban Systems Consultants were engaged to conduct a CAC rate review and possible update to the City's CAC program. The review took place in the fall of 2021 and the outcomes are the subject of this report and detailed in the Discussion Section below. i) Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program in Maple Ridge The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is enacted by Council Policy 6.31 (adopted March 14, 2016; amended December 12, 2017). Policy 6.31 (Appendix A) establishes the forms of development the CAC Program applies; the contribution rate; and the types of amenities the CAC's may fund. In short, the CAC Program: • applies city-wide; • applies to all residential development, including mixed-use developments, with the following exceptions: o affordable and special needs housing (secured through a Housing Agreement); o rental housing units (secured through a Housing Agreement and subject to a Section 219 covenant); o the first dwelling unit of a duplex, triplex, fourplex or courtyard development; o single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots; o secondary suites and detached garden suite applications; • sets out a contribution rate of: o $5,100 per single-family lot created, o $4,100 per townhouse or other attached ground-oriented dwelling unit, and o $3,100 per apartment dwelling unit. • can contribute the funds to any of the following eligible amenities: o Affordable or special needs housing units; o Acquisition of land for the provision of affordable or special needs housing, parks, trails, and significant ecological features; o Conservation of significant ecological features o Heritage conservation o Park or trail construction and/or maintenance; o Civic facility; o Public art; • Stipulates that a specific amenity, as opposed to a cash-in-lieu contribution, may be considered by Council. Doc # 2906598 Page 2 of 7 ii) Status of CAC Funds A summary of the funds collected and authorized draws to the end of September 30, 2021 is provided: Community (CACs) Collections 2015 2016 229,500 2017 958,200 2018 3,605,300 2019 1,852,500 2020 2,021,300 2021 (to Sept) 1,093,500 Total Collections 9,760,300 Interest 229,436 Total Collections and Interest 9,989,736 Community Authorized Draws (CACs) Albion Community Centre (2,600,000) Telosky Turf and Fieldhouse (3,000,000) Additional Sheet of Ice (1,500,000) Total Authorized Draw (7,100,000) Unencumbered Balance (Funds Available) 2,889,736 As of October 2021, 65 eligible development applications have been submitted since the City's CAC program was introduced. These development applications included 597 new single-family lots, 830 new townhouse or ground-oriented dwelling units and 704 new apartment dwelling units, for a total collection of $9,760,300 in fees. Doc # 2906598 Page 3 of 7 2.0 DISCUSSION Based on Council direction for a CAC rate review, staff initiated a comparative analysis of the City's CAC rates by engaging the land economists at Urban Systems. The findings of the rate review research and analysis are provided below with the full report available as Appendix C. 2.1 Community Amenity Contributions -Municipal Comparison To start, Urban Systems reviewed eight jurisdictions across the Lower Mainland (Abbotsford, Langley Township, Langley City, Port Moody, Pitt Meadows, Surrey) and Vancouver Island (Nanaimo, Victoria) to guide the target CAC rate review. Supplementing the municipal comparison, Urban Systems conducted a number of interviews with Developers. Key take-aways (available in full in the Executive Summary of Appendix C) from the municipal comparison and set of interviews include: • CACs are common practice around Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island. • Use of density bonusing and CACs in conjunction, either in different areas of a municipality, or in 'layers' is common. Density bonusing can be quite effective for projects that do not require rezoning, while CACs will cover projects that go through a rezoning process. • Developers value transparency and certainty. All density bonusing and CAC rates should, ideally, be presented in clear tabular format with full clarity on how rates are going to be changing over time. • Rates should be updated regularly to reflect changes to market conditions. Some municipalities have automatic rate adjustments built into their policies. • A "stepped" approach, whereby different rates may apply to different density ranges, building types, or geographic areas, may be beneficial. • If and when a land lift approach1 is used (either on a project-specific negotiation, or as the basis for target rate setting), municipalities tend to aim for a capture of anywhere between 25% and 75% of the lift. Communities with significant development demand tend to have contribution targets at the higher end of this range, while smaller municipalities with less demand, or those that are only beginning to use amenity contributions, tend to be closer to the lower end. • Some municipalities elect to charge CACs on all units, while others will credit the first unit or lot, or whatever the maximum unit count could have been under existing zoning. 2.2 Financial Analysis -Overview Urban Systems conducted an economic analysis (Section 4.0 of Appendix C) to assess the potential increase in land value that could be supported after rezoning a site from the base density to a higher density. The economic analysis was prepared for three different scenario categories (apartments, townhouses and single-family dwellings) for a total of 10 unique case study sites, representative of the types of development applications that the City is receiving today and that are anticipated to continue into the foreseeable future. The financial analyses prepared for these case study sites are intended to illustrate the economic benefits to a developer from the additional density made available through rezoning and identify the potential for collection of CAC's, while still allowing for viable development projects under current market conditions. The results of these analyses indicate that there is evidence the City of Maple Ridge can increase the current CAC rates. 1 The act of increasing allowable densities or changing a land use (or both) will often be associated with an increase in the site's 'residual land value', or the land value supported by a given use at a given density. Otherwise known as value capture/ ability to pay. Doc # 2906598 Page 4 of 7 2.3 Financial Analysis -Outcomes and Recommendations With consideration both to the review of comparable policies in other municipalities and the results of financial analyses for the 10 case study sites, Urban Systems provided the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. Supportable Target Rates: • Case study financial analyses indicate that there is potential to increase target rates for apartments, townhouses, and single family to as much as $7,000, $8,000 and $10,000 per unit (or lot), respectively. • The above is based on capturing no more than 50% of the indicated lift, on the case study showing the lowest lift level. • The option to negotiate CACs should be maintained in some cases, such as those locations where certain amenities are desired, projects requiring major OCP amendments, and projects beyond a certain scale (e.g. multiple phases). 2. Gradual and Predictable Target Rate Adjustments: • Any increases to target CACs should be phased in gradually (e.g., over 2 to 3 years) • CAC target rate policy should include provision for a periodic comprehensive review, plus a more automated annual target rate adjustment mechanism. • There should be a grace period when introducing new target rates. One option is in-stream protection at current target rates for projects sitting at a certain point in the approvals process. 3. Target Rate Recommendations: • Based on Urban System's research and analysis, they recommend the following target rate adjustments: Typology Current CAC Rate CAC Rate starting CAC Rate starting mid-2022 mid-2023 Apartment $3,100 per unit $4,300 per unit $5,600 per unit Townhouse $4,100 per unit $5,700 per unit $7,400 per unit Single Family $5,100 per lot $7,100 per lot $9,200 per lot 4. Exemptions: • The current policy provides a series of exemptions, including for rental housing secured through a housing agreement. • Urban Systems recommends maintaining this rental housing exemption to CACs, due to: o Very limited evidence that market rental projects could support CAC contributions under current market conditions. o The recently completed Housing Needs Report identifying a need to incentivize the construction of secure, purpose built rental product in Maple Ridge • All of the other exemptions listed in the current policy (Policy 6.31, Appendix A) are reasonable, and consistent with CAC policies elsewhere. 5. Allocations and Alternate Approaches: • CAC policy should be clear about where funds are being allocated and in what proportions. • An alternate (or parallel) approach to arriving at reasonable CAC target rates is through the development of a costed basket of amenities that CACs are expected to fund, in what proportions, and then converting that to target rates based on expected development over a given period. Doc # 2906598 Page 5 of 7 2.4 Other Considerations and Next Steps Based on the outcomes and recommendations from the Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Rate Review (Appendix C), a draft update to Council Policy 6.31 is attached (Appendix D) that reflects the suggested target rates and timelines. Note that in considering draft Council Policy 6.31, Council has at its discretion the option of revising its policies at any time and does not require four readings and a public hearing. Should Council direct, staff will engage the UDI / HAVAN Development Liaison Committee for further discussion of the draft Council Policy 6.31 and report back to Council on the outcomes. Additionally, should Council opt to implement the proposed changes to Council Policy 6.31, either now or in the future, the generally accepted practice is to exempt those in-stream applications, from the newly approved policy, that have been presented at Public Hearing and have received third reading. 2.5 Alternative Recommendation Should Council wish to move forward now with the proposed amendments to Policy 6.31, noting Council has at its discretion the option of revising its policies at any time, the following alternative recommendation is proposed: That the proposed amendments to Policy 6.31-Community Amenity Contribution Program, as attached to the staff report titled "Community Amenity Contribution Program Review" dated November 9, 2021, be approved. 3.0 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT CAC's are a commonly used tool for development to help pay for community amenities that will support community growth. Utilizing CACs aligns with the focus area of Growth in the Strategic Plan and helps deliver on the philosophy that growth should pay for the public amenities that help to make growing communities more desirable places to live. 4.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The City of Maple Ridge Official Community Plan stipulates the use of Community Amenity Contributions and density bonus programs as key strategies for the creation and funding of new community amenities. 5.0 INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The Planning and Finance Departments continue to collaborate on amenity policy and zoning matters such as CAC and density bonus zoning to help foster greater community amenities in Maple Ridge. 6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Previously, Council established a City-Wide Community Amenity Contribution Reserve Fund to receive contributions from the City's CAC program, which is consistent with the requirements under the Local Government Act. The collection of amenity contributions, whether CACs or density bonus, is tied to development and occurs at final reading. Doc # 2906598 Page 6 of 7 CONCLUSION In the fall of 2021, Urban Systems was retained by the City of Maple Ridge to assist staff in reviewing and updating the City-Wide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) rates. The Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review, dated October 29, 2021, (Appendix C) outlines the financial analysis and recommendations. The consultant's report identifies possible rate adjustments to the City's existing CAC program: Typology Current CAC Rate CAC Rate CAC Rate Starting mid-2022 Starting mid-2023 Apartment $3,100 per unit $4,300 per unit $5,600 per unit Townhouse $4,100 per unit $5,700 per unit $7,400 per unit Single Family $5,100 per lot $7,100 per lot $9,200 per lot The updated rates outlined in this report would require changes to Council Policy 6.31, which provides the framework for the City's CAC program. Should Council direct moving forward with the revised rate updates to the CAC program, staff recommend that the proposed amendments be received for information at this time, to allow for more detailed discussion with industry representatives. An alternative recommendation is also provided should Council opt to move forward with the policy amendments now, noting Council may change its policies at any time. "Original signed by Amanda Grochowich" Prepared by: Amanda Grochowich, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 "Original signed by Charles Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning and Development "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A: Council Policy 6.31 Appendix B: Work history on CAC and density bonus items Appendix C: Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review (Urban Systems) Appendix D: Proposed amendments to Council Policy 6.31 Doc # 2906598 Page 7 of 7 Title: Community Amenity Contribution Program APPENDIX A POLICY MANUAL Policy No: 6.31 Supersedes: AMENDED December 12, 2017 Authority: ~ Legislative D Operational Effective Date: Approval: ~ Council D CMT December 13, 2017 D General Manager Review Date: December 2017 Policy Statement: The City of Maple Ridge is committed to providing a variety of amenities throughout the municipality, including the provision of affordable and special needs housing, in a financially sustainable manner. The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is comprised of the following components: 1. The CAC Program will apply city-wide. 2. Each CAC will be based on a contribution rate as follows: a) $5100 per single family lot created; b) $4100 per townhouse or other attached ground-oriented dwelling unit; c) $3100 per apartment dwelling unit. 3. The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings, including those that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with the following exceptions: a) Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing Agreement as established in Section 483 of the Local Government Act; b) Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established under Section 483 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act; c) Single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots -only the original lot is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional lot; d) Accessory dwelling units, such as a secondary suite or detached garden suite; e) Duplex, triplex and fourplex dwelling units, where only one building is being constructed -only the first dwelling unit is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional dwelling unit; Page 1 of 3 Policy 6.31 f) Courtyard dwelling units, located on a single property -only the first dwelling unit is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional dwelling unit. 4. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in addition to the city-wide CAC Program. a) For developments that take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area Plan, the amenity contribution rate will be: i) $5100 per single family lot created; ii) $4100 per townhouse or other attached ground-oriented dwelling unit; iii) $3100 per apartment dwelling unit; in addition to the $3100 density bonus rate. b) For developments that do not take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, the CAC rate will be the rate established in Section 2 of this policy. 5. The Official Community Plan may also establish additional or alternative community amenity contribution policies, guidelines and density bonus provisions for each Area Plan. 6. Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of the CAC Program Council Policy, will: a) be subject to the provisions of this Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw has received Third Reading; OR b) be subject to the provisions of this Policy if a condition for the Policy to apply was included in the first or second reading report of the applicable Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw. 7. All development applications that are seeking an extension under Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 (as amended), may be subject to the city-wide community amenity contribution program at the discretion of Council. 8. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may benefit from the community amenity contributions. 9. Community Amenity Contribution funds received will contribute to any of the following eligible amenities: a) Civic facility; b) Public art; c) Acquisition of land for the provision of: o Affordable or special needs housing; o Parks o Trails o Significant ecological features d) Park or trail construction and/or maintenance; e) Affordable or special needs housing units; f) Heritage conservation; or g) Conservation of significant ecological features. Page 2 of 3 Policy 6.31 10. The provision of a specific amenity, rather than a cash-in-lieu contribution may also be considered by Maple Ridge Council. If Council determines that the provision of an amenity is more desirable, the following list is to be used as a general guide for determining the type of community amenity: a) Public art; b) Heritage conservation; c) Land for the provision of: o Affordable or special needs housing; o Parks o Trails o Significant ecological features d) Affordable or special needs housing units; or e) Park or trail construction or improvements. Purpose: To provide direction on the implementation of a city-wide community amenity contribution {CAC) program, including the process to determine the contribution amount. Definitions: • "Community Amenity" means any public amenity that provides a benefit to the residents of the city or a specific neighbourhood as the result of increased residential density. Key Areas of Responsibility Action to Take Responsibility Page 3 of 3 Policy 6.31 APPENDIX B Appendix B -Recent Council Direction related to the City-Wide Community Amenity Contribution Program Key Dates: • September 14, 2015 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Implementation Framework. The HAP Implementation Framework builds from the key strategies recommended in the Housing Action Plan. Strategy #11 of the HAP encourages the use of community amenity contribution funding for affordable housing. • December 12, 2017 following a discussion related to Community Amenity Contribution and affordable housing, Council expressed interest in receiving a report outlining options to facilitate the development of rental housing in the Maple Ridge. • February 6, 2018, Council also debated two resolutions to amend Council Policy #6.31 -Community Amenity Contribution Program: to allocate all CAC funds collected from the Town Centre area to affordable housing until such funding reaches a maximum of 20% of the total CAC's collected City-wide; OR to increase the City's existing CAC contribution rates with the added contribution levels being applied to affordable housing. Following Council's discussion, a motion to defer was passed pending a referral to the UDI/GVHBA Development Liaison Committee. • March 6, 2018, Council debated two resolutions to amend Council Policy #6.31-Community Amenity Contribution Program: to allocate all CAC funds collected from the Town Centre area to affordable housing until such funding reaches a maximum of 20% of the total CAC's collected City-wide; OR to increase the City's existing CAC contribution rates with the added contribution levels being applied to affordable housing. Following Council's discussion, a motion to defer was passed pending a referral to the UDI/HAVAN Development Liaison Committee. • April 17, 2018, Council received a presentation from the UDI/GVHBA Development Liaison Committee. A key message offered was the preference for retaining the City's existing CAC rates as opposed to increasing CACs. The Committee representatives also took the opportunity to express support for density bonusing and pre-zoning as additional strategies to deliver affordable housing. • June 19, 2018, having reviewed the above noted two possible policy options for allocating CAC contributions towards affordable housing, Council directed that Council Policy 6.31 -Community Amenity Contribution Program should remain unchanged. • July 17, 2018, Council reviewed and approved in-principle a draft framework of density bonus regulations to encourage greater delivery of affordable, rental, and special needs housing options through development and directed that the draft regulations be included in the New Zoning Bylaw. • June 4, 2019, Council revisited the City's Community Amenity Contribution Policy 6.31, and draft Density Bonus zoning, as tools for securing additional affordable housing. In doing so, it was directed that the Density Bonus provisions in the New Zoning Bylaw were to be amended to eliminate the option of providing rental units; and that staff should bring back more information on Community Amenity Contribution rates, including information on the rates used in neighbouring municipalities. • July 23, 2019, as a follow-up and after reviewing the founding financial analysis that underpins the draft Density Bonus regulations, Council directed: That staff prepare a Zone Amending Bylaw to bring forward draft density bonus zoning which removes the optional requirement to provide rental floor space in exchange for bonus density and increases the cash contribution rates to reflect the analysis identified in the staff report titled "GAG and Density Bonus Analysis and Outcomes", dated July 23, 2019. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7569-2019 was presented to Council in the fall of 2019 and adopted on December 10, 2019. MAPLE RIDGE COMMUNITY AMENITY CONTRIBUTION TARGET RATE REVIEW October 29, 2021 lJRBAN SYSTEMS 550 -1090 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 2W9 I T: 604.235.1701 CONTACT: Justin M. Barer, M.PL., RPP, MCIP E: jbarer@urbansystems.ca APPENDIXC PREPARED FOR: City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 550 -1090 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 2W9 I T: 604.235.1701 USL File#: 1279.0040.0l This report is prepared for the sole use of the City of Maple Ridge. No representations of any kind are made by Urban Systems Ltd. or its employees to any party with whom Urban Systems Ltd. does not have a contract. © 2021 URBAN SYSTEMS®. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 11 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 FINANCING COMMUNITY GROWTH .................................................................................... 2 2.1 PH I LOSO PH I ES AND APPROACH ES ................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 DENSITY BONUSING ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 COMM UNITY AMENITY CONTRI BUTIONS ........................................................................................................ 3 2.4APPROACHES TO DENSITY BON USING AND CACS ................................................................................. 3 3.0 REGIONAL SCAN .............................................................................................................. 6 3.1 TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY ............................................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 CITY OF LANGLEY ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 3.3 PORT MOODY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 PITI MEADOWS ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.5 ABBOTSFORD ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.6 NANAI MO ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.7 VICTORIA. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.BSURREY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.9 TAKE-A WAYS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 CASE STUDY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 12 4.1 APPROACH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.2ASSU M PTI ONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 12 4.3 CASE STU DY SITE ANALYSIS SUM MARY ......................................................................................................... 16 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 19 5.1 TARGET RATE ADJUSTMENT CON SID ERATI ON S ...................................................................................... 19 5.2 TARGET RATE RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 21 5.3 0TH ER CONSIDERATIONS AND R ECOM MEN DATIONS ...................................................................... 21 URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Urban Systems Land Economics (USL) was retained to assist the City of Maple Ridge in reviewing and updating its City-wide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program. Specifically, USL conducted a review of the current CAC target rate amounts and has made recommendations for adjusted target rates based on a combination of case study financial analyses and a review of other jurisdictions. Regional Scan We prepared a review of approaches to CACs and Density Bonusing in a selection of Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island municipalities. This list is neither comp1·ehensive 1101· indicative of 'best practice' communities. Rather, it is simply an exploration of comparable municipalities (as selected in collaboration with City staff), that use CACs and/ or Density Bon using. This review is one component of the guide to target CAC rate adjustment. Municipality Township of Langley (adopted 2018, updated Apr. 2019) City of Langley (new rate adopted Aug. 2017) Port Moody (adopted Sept. 2017) Pitt Meadows (2017) URBAN SYSTEMS CAC Target Rates • $6,808 per new single family lot • $5,776 per ground-oriented multi-family unit I : $4,539 per low-rise apartment unit (6 storeys or less) $3,507 per mid-high-rise apartment (7+ storeys) $2,000 per new multi-family housing unit • $1.00 per sq.ft. at rezoning, to maximum of $6,000 per multi-family unit. • $6,000 per lot created through subdivision • Any floor area beyond 2.5 FSR subject to Density bonus provision in zoning bylaw, charged at 75% of land value of the additional density above 2.5 FSR. • $4,500 per new single family lot • $4,000 per new townhouse • $3,000 per new apartment Notable exemptions • Not for profit housing . • Subdivisions of less than 3 lots, original lot is exempt. • Accessory units . • First unit in a duplex, triplex or fourplex is exempt. • Units in Aldergrove Core Area Plan • Applies to all multi-family residential rezonings. • Discretionary waiver (council) for projects with affordable housing or other public amenity being directly provided by the applicant. • Excludes affordable and special needs housing secured by a housing agreement, and accessory dwellings. Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target · Rate Review I ii Abbotsford (2021) Nanaimo (2021) Victoria (2019) ··--. -• Community Benefit Contribution target rates of $625 per unit residential and $625 per 100 square metres of commercial. Currently under review • Density bonusing built into specific zones. • Single family: $3,000 per unit, • going to $5,500 per unit in 2023, 50% reduction for market rental dwellings $8,000 per unit in 2024 • 100% waiver for non-market rental units (with specific provisions re: household incomes, rent-to-income ratio, and ownership of the units). • Townhouse: $2,500 per unit, going to $5,000 per unit in 2023, $7,500 per unit in 2024 • Multi-family dwelling: $2,000 per unit, going to $3,500 in 2023, $5,000 in 2024. • • • J • • Commercial and industrial: $34/sq.m Liquor/ Cannabis store: $10,000 per store Student housing: $1,000 per bed . Level A: For specified areas, $5/sq.ft. of bonus floor area, up to OCP base density Level B: variable $/sq.ft. from base OCP to proposed density • 100% purpose-built rental projects (or mixed-use where 100% of residential is rental). with tenure secured for 60+ years. • In some areas, projects of >60 • 100% non-market projects owned by non-profit or gov't units must provide amenity in the form of inclusionary housing units agency (20% of project's total FSR or • Projects with heritage conseNation contribution greater than value of CAC units). • For "unique projects", CAC calculated through economic analysis based on land lift. ----------• Non-residential projects -.. Surrey • Two rate 'tiers' for CACs directed Not applicable to: (updated 2021) to Capital Projects. Tier l applied to Secondary Plan/OCP consistent projects; Tier 2 applied to Secondary Plan/OCP amendment projects. • Tier l rates set in 2019; revised Tier 2 rates set in early 2021. • Secondary suites • Purpose built rental (with housing agreement) • Social or non-market affordable units • Caretaker units • One-for-one rental replacement units (with housing agreement) • Non-residential uses. Following are key take-aways from the comparable communities review: URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I iii • Common Practice: CACs are common practice around Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island. • Not Either/ Or: Use of density bonusing and CACs in conjunction, either in different areas of a municipality, or in 'layers' (e.g., CAC at rezoning, and density bonus built into the zone to which the project has rezoned), is common. Density bonusing can be quite effective for projects that do not require rezoning, while CACs will cover projects that go through a rezoning process. • Transparency: Developers value transparency and certainty. All density bonusing and CAC rates should, ideally, be presented in clear tabular format with full clarity on how rates are going to be changing over time (or formula for such). • Updates: Rates should be updated regularly to reflect changes to market conditions. Some municipalities have automatic rate adjustments built into their policies. • Tiers or Steps: A "stepped" approach, whereby different rates may apply to different density ranges, building types, or geographic areas, may be beneficial. o Victoria, for instance, charges its first 'tier' of flat rates for the density between existing zoning and base OCP density, and a second 'tier' for the density above OCP base. Further, CAC target rates, or the stipulation for specific on-site amenity provision (e.g., inclusionary units) varies by area. This type of policy structure is responsive to the differential amenity needs by area (in this case, providing inclusionary units in the Urban Core and Town Centres), and the varied ability to pay CACs area to area. o Port Moody uses fixed target rate CACs City-wide at rezoning, up to a density cap, beyond which a proponent must negotiate a further amenity contribution based on the additional 'lift' generated by the additional density. This recognizes that most projects will likely fall within the simple CAC approach (and will thus be simple and transparent to developer and staff alike), while for those unique higher density projects the additional amenity provision is consistent with that given project's ability to pay. o Surrey has many rate classes for many sub-areas, recognizing the significant variability on the ability to pay CACs area to area, and the specific amenity needs of different parts of the City. o The stepped or variable rate system allows for greater control of development incentives and can also be used to better reflect development realities such as lower revenue potential in some areas, increased costs associated with shift from wood to concrete construction or provision of additional levels of underground parking. • Land Lift Capture: If and when a land lift approach is used (either on a project-specific negotiation, or as the basis for target rate setting), municipalities tend to aim for a capture of anywhere between 25% and 75% of the lift. Communities with significant development demand tend to have contribution targets at the higher end of this range, while smaller municipalities with less demand, or those that are only beginning to use amenity contributions, tend to be closer to the lower end. • Clarity of Protocol: Some municipalities elect to charge CACs on all units, while others will credit the first unit or lot, or whatever the maximum unit count could have been under existing zoning. o There is no clear direction on what "should" be done in this regard, but it is important to be clear on the expectation and use the correct assumptions when calculating the ability to pay CACs. URBAN Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I iv SYSTEMS Financial Analysis USL prepared economic analysis of the potential increase in land value supported after a rezoning to a higher density. We prepared these analyses for apartments, townhouses and single family dwellings. The results of these analyses indicate that there is evidence the City of Maple Ridge can increase the CAC target rates that are sought through the rezoning process. The City of Maple Ridge provided USL with 10 case study sites to use for financial modelling. The intent is for these cases to be representative of the types of rezonings the City is typically seeing, and expects to see in the future. The financial analyses prepared for these case study sites are intended to illustrate the economic benefits to a developer from the additional density made available through rezoning, and in turn, what potential there may be to collect CAC payments while still allowing for viable development projects under current market conditions. Conclusions and Recommendations With consideration both to the review of comparable policies in other municipalities and the results of financial analyses for the 10 case study sites, we are able to offer the following conclusions and recommendations for the City-wide CAC policy: l. Target Rates Supportable • Case study financial analyses indicate that there is potential to increase target rates for apartments, townhouses, and single family to as much as $7,000, $8,000, and $10,000 per unit (or lot). respectively. • The above is based on capturing no more than SO% of the indicated lift, on the case study showing the lowest lift level • The option to negotiate CACs should be maintained in some cases, such as those at locations where certain amenities are desired, projects requiring major OCP amendments, and projects beyond a certain scale (e.g., multiple phases). 2. Gradual and predictable target rate adjustments • Any increases to target CACs should be phased in gradually (e.g., over 2-3 years) • CAC target rate policy should include provision for a periodic comprehensive review, plus a more automated annual target rate adjustment mechanism. • There should be a grace period when introducing new target rates. One option is in-stream protection at current target rates for project sat a certain point in the approvals process. 3. Target Rate Recommendations • Based on our research and analysis, we recommend the following target rate adjustments: URBAN SYSTEMS Typology Apartment f Townhouse Single Family Current CAC Rate 1. $3,100 per unit $4,100 per unit 1 $5,100 per lot ---CAC Rate starting mid-2022 i $4,300 per unit ]' $5,700 per unit i $7,100 per lot CAC Rate starting mid-2023 I $5,600 per u~it $7,400 per unit j $9,200 per lot Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I v 4. Exemptions • The current policy provides a series of exemptions, including for rental housing secured through a housing agreement. • We recommend maintaining this rental housing exemption to CACs. i. There is very limited evidence that market rental projects could support CAC contributions under current market conditions. ii. The recently completed Housing Needs Report indicates a need to incentivize the construction of secure, purpose-built rental product in Maple Ridge • All of the other exemptions listed in the current policy are reasonable, and consistent with CAC policies elsewhere. 5. Allocations and Alternate Approaches • CAC policy should be clear about where funds are being allocated, and in what proportions. • An alternate (or parallel) approach to arriving at reasonable CAC target rates is through the development of a costed 'basket of amenities' that CACs are expected to fund, in what proportions, and then converting that to target rates based on expected development over a given period. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the direction of City of Maple Ridge council, municipal staff have been tasked with updating the City's Community Amenity Contribution Program. Specifically, the requirement is to conduct a review of the current CAC target rate amounts, make recommendations for target rate adjustments, and also make recommendations on other elements of the existing policy including CAC exemptions and future rate adjustment protocols. Urban Systems' Land Economics group was retained by City staff to conduct this review and prepare recommendations for staff to bring back to council. Specifically, Urban Systems (USL) was tasked with: l. Providing a brief overview of the legislative framework for density bonusing and CACs, and key differences between these programs. 2. Examining and presenting CAC / density bonusing programs in comparable jurisdictions, for context. 3. Meeting with staff to review the existing policy and to identify 'case study sites' for review 4. Interview target short-list of developers to understand current market dynamics of development (revenues, costs, financing, profit etc.) 5. Prepare financial analyses for 10 case-study sites around the City to determine the potential levels of CACs supportable, given best available information on prevailing revenues, construction costs and land costs. 6. Provide recommendations on how to best manage the CAC program going forward, in a manner that reflects changes to market conditions. 7. Provide a rationale for increases to CAC per unit rates from the current rates in place since 2017: a. $5,100 per single family lot created b. $4,100 per townhouse or other attached ground-oriented dwelling unit c. $3,100 per apartment dwelling unit URBAN Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate s v s r E M s Review I l 2.0 FINANCING COMMUNITY GROWTH 2.1 PHILOSOPHIES AND APPROACHES As communities grow through new development, the demand for amenities also grows. Infill and higher density development increase a community's population, resulting in more people accessing the same services and amenities. To maintain a healthy community, it is crucial that municipal governments provide additional amenities in proportion with this growth. There are varying philosophies on the "best" approach to financing community growth. The "growth pays for growth" philosophy has evolved in Canadian communities over the last 20+ years, premised on the idea that new development must respect the capacity of existing community infrastructure, and should be fiscally responsible for required capacity increases (i.e., that new development should not be a burden on existing local taxpayers). Additionally, higher quality amenities are required to support changes to population and urban form. Local governments in British Columbia have tools available to ensure that new development pays for or contributes to the cost of new infrastructure and amenities. Municipalities can ensure that developers pay for built services on or off-site through the collection of Development Cost Charges (DCCs). DCCs are heavily legislated under the Local Government Act and may only be used to pay for new or expanded infrastructure such as sewers, water, drainage, parks, and roads. DCCs cannot be used to pay for additional community amenities such as libraries, fire halls, public art, and affordable housing. To secure these (and other) amenities, municipalities have been increasingly reliant on zoning-based tools such as Density Bon using and CACs. In general, there are two philosophical approaches to zoning-based tools for achieving community amenities. We refer to these as the "Basket of Goods" approach, and the "Value Capture/ Ability to Pay" approach. • The basket of goods approach mirrors the process of establishing a DCC bylaw. A list of amenities is created (i.e., the 'basket of goods') and associated capital costs for such are identified. The share of capital costs that are attributed to new growth is estimated, and those costs are then apportioned and converted into target rates based on projected growth (with consideration of a municipal assist factor). • The value capture/ ability to pay approach is based on the notion that rezoning and/ or additional density typically (but not always) creates increased land value. The act of increasing allowable densities or changing a land use (or both) will often be associated with an increase in the site's 'residual land value', or the land value supported by a given use at a given density. This is known as 'land lift'. Local governments effectively create this value by nature of their approving authority. This approach looks at who should benefit from land lift, and in what proportions. Generally, this is negotiated at the time of rezoning. 2.2 DENSITY BONUSING Density bonusing is one tool available for securing amenities. It permits developers to build additional floor space in exchange for specific community amenities (or cash in lieu). As noted above, density bonusing is legislated in the Local Government Act (Section 482). which establishes the framework for local governments to incorporate density bonusing into their zoning bylaws. Density bonusing provisions are intended to provide options for developers, to either build to a base density as-of-right or build to a bonus density in exchange for stipulated amenities or cash-in-lieu provision. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review 12 2.3 COMMUNITY AMENITY CONTRIBUTIONS CACs are another zoning-based tool to secure amenities. The key difference from density bonusing is that CACs are not explicitly legislated in the Local Government Act. The lack of clear legal authority has at times created some uncertainty about implementing CAC policies, and inconsistency in local governments' approach to implementation (and even terminology used).1 CACs are, effectively, an agreed upon contribution obtained by a local government at the time of rezoning. It is entirely optional or voluntary (i.e., it cannot be classified as a "fee"), insofar as a development could be undertaken under the as-of-right zoning conditions without a CAC. CACs are provided as either in-kind or cash-in-lieu payments. The former BC Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development published a provincial white paper on CACs in 2014.2 For seven years (and counting), this document has been a go-to resource for municipal governments looking to implement or adjust CAC policy. The guide provides some 'best practices' for CACs, such as: • Encourage density bonusing and fixed-rate CACs where possible • Discourage negotiated CACs that focus on capturing all land lift • CAC rates should be moderate/ proportional to avoid impact on development and should not negatively impact the price of housing • There must be a 'nexus' between the CAC and the needs of the community • CACs should be used to pay for capital costs only 2.4 APPROACHES TO DENSITY BONUSING AND CACS Local governments take different approaches to density bonusing and CACs. Generally, we can group these into four common approaches, each with their own sub-stream variations: l. Density Bonus provision within a zoning bylaw 2. Target fixed rate CACs at rezoning 3. Negotiated CACs based on land lift 4. Hybrid approaches 2.4.1 DENSITY BONUS PROVISION IN A ZONING BYLAW There are two ways to implement this approach. The first is to pre-zone specific parcels, or to include density bonus provisions into an existing zone. For example, the City of New Westminster uses the 'pre-zone' approach by including density bonus provisions within their townhouse and low-rise multiple dwelling zones. A fixed rate (based on $/sq.ft 1 There are cases where policies for density bonusing are referred to as CACs, and vice versa. 2 Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability. 2014. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 3 above a base density) is applied, and the rate varies depending on location within the City and built form. A developer may choose to build to the base density at no additional cost, or to the bonus density in exchange for payment of the stipulated bonus density rate. No rezoning is required, and the contribution is triggered by a development permit. Similarly, Maple Ridge has density bonusing built into its zoning bylaw for specific zones within the Albion Area Plan (Rs-lb, RSl-d, RM-1), the Town Centre, and Major Corridor Residential. Developers may 'access' the bonus density within the prescribed zones in exchange for specific density bonus payments, charged on either a per-square-foot (Town Centre) or per lot/ unit (Albion) basis. The second approach is to require a rezoning to access the increased density. Generally, this includes the following three options: • Rezone to an existing zone that includes a density bonus provision • Rezone to a custom zone (Comprehensive Development) that includes density bonus provisions • Rezone to a pre-prepared zone that is not currently applied to any parcels, but which a municipality has created to align with an OCP or area plan and allow for increased density. Returning to the example of New Westminster, that municipality has also implemented a rezoning approach to density bonusing in the high-density and mixed-use zones. Here, a rezoning to a specific 'density bonus zone' is required. • For example, to access the bonus density in the City's C4 zone, applicants must rezone to the C4 (DB) zone. • The rezoning triggers public consultation and council approval requirements • Similar to the pre-zone approach, rates are set on a $/sq.ft. basis, depending on the area of the City and the form of development. 2.4.2 TARGET FIXED RATE CAC AT REZONING This approach has been in use by Maple Ridge on a city-wide basis since 2017. Amenity contributions are paid at the time of rezoning and are stipulated on a per unit or per floor area basis. As discussed above, the process is entirely voluntary, and is initiated by the applicant. If additional density is to be accessed through the rezoning process, the fixed target rate approach is preferred (per discussions with developers, and the BC government guide to CACs). This approach allows for transparency and cost certainty for the developer, and relative simplicity of process for staff. 2.4.3 CAC BASED ON LAND LIFT (NEGOTIATED) Although this approach is not recommended in the Provincial guide, many local governments do use this approach based on economic analysis to determine land lift and associated CACs at rezoning. As discussed above, land lift is the additional residual value of land created by a change in use and /or density. Land values are typically a function of development entitlements and can be calculated through a residual approach: revenue minus cost minus profit equals land value. The negotiated CAC approach is grounded in a particular philosophy on who should benefit from land lift; is it the municipality (and by extension the taxpayers), the developer, the land vendor, or some combination? At times, the negotiated approach may be based in something more 'formulaic', such as past amounts achieved through previous negotiations, converted to $/sq.ft. equivalents, or based on a URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review 14 target that a municipal council hopes to achieve; the latter may be driven by cost estimates of future amenity requirements, or may be based in other considerations. Generally, negotiated approaches to CACs are most useful (and justifiable) for large, complex, multi-phase rezonings, where local government wants to have the latitude to ensure that the right mix of amenities is achieved. Negotiations often slow the rezoning process and can crate significant uncertainty for the development proponent. If all rezonings are subject to negotiated CACs (as they are in some places). this can reduce the supply of development sites and the overall pace of development, thereby contributing to higher housing costs. 2.4.4 HYBRID APPROACHES Many local governments create hybrid approaches, combining the above approaches or implementing others. Maple Ridge itself offers a hybrid approach through its current CAC policy, whereby certain zones have density bonusing provisions 'built in', and the city-wide target CAC rates are overlaid. The next section provides some real-world examples of the above approaches, looking at a select list of municipalities in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 5 3.0 REGIONAL SCAN Here we provide comparative information on CAC policies for a selection of municipalities in Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island. The selection is based on conversations with municipal staff and is not intended to be comprehensive or to highlight 'best practice'. The select municipalities are: . Township of Langley . City of Langley . Port Coquitlam . Pitt Meadows . Abbotsford . Nanaimo . Victoria . Surrey The table below provides a snapshot of CAC target rates in each of these communities, along with notable exemptions to those CACs. Municipality Township of Langley (adopted 2018, updated Apr. 2019) City of Langley (new rate adopted Aug. 2017) Port Moody (adopted Sept. 2017) URBAN SYSTEMS CAC Target Rates Notable exemptions I : $6,808 per new single family lot • Not for profit housing . $5,776 per ground-oriented multi-• Subdivisions of less than 3 family unit lots, original lot is exempt. l • $4,539 per low-rise apartment unit (6 storeys or less) • $3,507 per mid-high-rise apartment (7+ storeys) $2,000 per new multi-family housing unit • $1.00 per sqft. at rezoning, to maximum of $6,000 per multi-family unit. • $6,000 per lot created through subdivision • Any floor area beyond 2.5 FSR subject to Density bonus provision in zoning bylaw, charged at 75% of land value of the additional density above 2.5 FSR. • Accessory units . • First unit in a duplex, triplex or fourplex is exempt . • Units in Aldergrove Core Area Plan • Applies to all multi-family residential rezonings. • Discretionary waiver (council) for projects with affordable housing or other public amenity being directly provided by the applicant. Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 6 ----Pitt Meadows (2017) Abbotsford (2021) Nanaimo (2021) Victoria (2019) Surrey (updated 2021) URBAN SYSTEMS • $4,500 per new single~f~mily lot • Excludes affordable and • $4,000 per new townhouse special needs housing • $3,000 per new apartment secured by a housing agreement, and accessory dwellings. • Community Benefit Contribution 1 • Density bonusing built into target rates of $625 per unit specific zones. residential and $625 per 100 square metres of commercial. Currently under review • • • • • • • • • I • • • Single family: $3,000 per unit, • 50% reduction for market going to $5,500 per unit in 2023, rental dwellings $8,000 per unit in 2024 • 100% waiver for non-market Townhouse: $2,500 per unit, going rental units (with specific to $5,000 per unit in 2023, $7,500 provisions re: household per unit in 2024 incomes, rent-to-income Multi-family dwelling: $2,000 per ratio, and ownership of the unit, going to $3,500 in 2023, units). $5,000 in 2024. Commercial and industrial: $34/sq.m Liquor/ Cannabis store: $10,000 per store Student housing: $1,000 per bed . Level A: For specified areas, I • 100% purpose-built rental $5/sq.ft. of bonus floor area, up to projects (or mixed-use where OCP base density 100% of residential is rental). Level B: variable $/sq.ft. from base with tenure secured for 60+ OCP to proposed density I years. In some areas, projects of >60 I • 100% non-market projects units must provide amenity in the owned by non-profit or gov't form of inclusionary housing units I agency I (20% of project's total FSR or I • Projects with heritage units). I conservation contribution For "unique projects", CAC I greater than value of CAC calculated through economic I • Non-residential projects analysis based on land lift. Two rate 'tiers' for CACs directed Not applicable to: to Capital Projects. Tier l applied • Secondary suites to Secondary Plan/OCP consistent • Purpose built rental projects; Tier 2 applied to (with housing Secondary Plan/OCP amendment agreement) projects. • Social or non-market Tier l rates set in 2019; revised Tier affordable units 2 rates set in early 2021. • Caretaker units Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review J 7 l -• One-for-one rental replacement units (with housing agreement) • Non-residential uses. 3.1 TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY TYPE: CACs FORMULA: Varies by residential type. OBJECTIVES: to fund affordable housing, greenways, public art, police, fire, and recreation centres ELIGIBILITY: All rezonings with residential, save for list of notable exemptions including for existing lots/ units within subdivision, non-profit housing, and housing within particular plan area. NOTES: The CAC policy includes provisions for in-stream protection. For rezoning applications received prior to adoption of the policy, if that application had received Third Reading up to 10 months following that adoption, that project was eligible for exemption. The exemption eligibility would decrease to 50% and then to 25%, before being eliminated 2 years following adoption of the policy. 3.2 CITY OF LANGLEY TYPE: CACs FORMULA: flat rate for multi-family units OBJECTIVES: to fund key amenities (unspecified). including a public plaza ELIGIBILITY: all multi-family rezonings. NOTES: CACs were first charged in the City of Langley in 2008, at a rate of $500 per multi-family unit. The rate was increased in 2013 to $1,000 per unit, before being raised again in 2017 to $2,000 per unit. The staff report at the time noted that the new rate would allow Langley to have amongst the lowest combined DCC and CAC rates in the region, a key priority for positioning the City as "one of the most competitive municipalities for investment." 3.3 PORT MOODY TYPE: CACs and Density Bonusing FORMULA: $1.00 per sq.ft. to max. $6,000 per unit (multi-family), and $6,000 per new lot through subdivision. For any density above 2.5 FSR, that portion is charged based on a land lift calculation in which the contribution equals 75% of that lift. OBJECTIVES: to fund affordable housing and other priority amenities such as civic facilities, plazas, pedestrian and cycling improvements, recreation facilities, arts and cultural facilities, heritage conservation, land acquisition, environmental enhancements, and parkland improvements. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 8 ELIGIBILITY: NOTES: all multi-family rezonings and single-family subdivisions This is an example of a 'stacking' of a CAC policy (charged at rezoning) and density bonusing provision within a zoning bylaw. 3.4 PITT MEADOWS TYPE: CACs FORMULA: $4,500 per single family lot, $4,000 per townhouse, $3,000 per apartment, at time of rezoning. OBJECTIVES: to fund community civic facility, public art, affordable and special needs housing, parks, trails, significant ecological features, and other projects. ELIGIBILITY: NOTES: rezonings within the containment boundary, excluding affordable and special needs and accessory dwelling units. The policy has been in place since early 2017, and rates were adjusted upwards in 2018 to "reflect [a] change in fee conditions" with the conclusion of the South Bonson amenity fee. A 2018 staff report notes that no developers had gone through a rezoning process and thus no CACs were payable. This remained the case as of late 2020. Underground parking constraints have limited the size of development, as potential revenues would not be able to sufficiently offset the high cost premiums. As sales prices for multi-family product have risen considerably in the last year in this region, it is possible that we will see an uptake of the City's CAC policy in the near future. 3.5 ABBOTSFORD TYPE: CACs + density bonusing in select zones FORMULA: Negotiated CACs OBJECTIVES: initially slated to fund cycling, transit, pedestrian infrastructure plus park improvements. Was subsequently revised to allocate dollars to the above, plus affordable housing. ELIGIBILITY: The City began negotiating CACs in 2019. Target rates were adjusted in 2021. NOTES: The City is currently reviewing and updating its density bonusing and CACs framework. 3.6 NANAIMO TYPE: CACs FORMULA: URBAN SYSTEMS Target rates per unit for multi-family, and per-square metre for commercial and industrial. Contributions may be waived 100% for non-market rental housing meeting specific criteria. Can include in-kind contributions in the form of tangible capital assets (parkland, pedestrian pathways, on-site benefits). subject to conditions. In certain situations a negotiated CAC approach may be used, such as for a phased development agreement or amenity zoning bylaw. Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review\ 9 OBJECTIVES: To fund the City's Housing Legacy Reserve Fund along with a general basket of community amenity needs. ELIGIBILITY: NOTES: any project undergoing a rezoning or land use covenant amendment process. The policy remains in draft. 3.7 VICTORIA TYPE: CACs FORMULA: Target fixed rate CACs for 'standard' rezonings in certain sub-areas; negotiated CACs based on economic analysis in core areas. OBJECTIVES: to fund desired amenities as identified in the Neighbourhood Plans, plus affordable housing rental units as detailed in the Victoria Housing Strategy. In specific areas, provision of affordable units on-site is a requirement; in those cases, the total value of the affordable housing contribution (or affordable housing+ other amenity) should be 7S% of the increased land value resulting from a rezoning. ELIGIBILITY: Residential floor area, except non-market housing projects, purpose-built rental housing in certain areas, and projects with no residential use included. NOTES: The City uses a layered approach of target rates and negotiated CACs, depending on the project type and area. 3.8 SURREY TYPE: CACs payable before rezoning final adoption FORMULA: affordable housing contributions of $1,000 per unit, applicable to any zone that permits a dwelling unit for each additional unit above max density permitted in that zone. Tier l CAC formula same as above, with rate of $2,000 or $4,000 per unit depending on area. Tier 2 CAC formula appliable to any lots designated Urban, Multiple Residential, Commercial, Town Centre, or CBD in the OCP). with per-square-foot or per-unit rates variable by sub-area. OBJECTIVES: to help offset the impacts of growth and help to fund new community facilities including: parks, libraries, cultural facilities, sports & recreational facilities, fire & police facilities, affordable housing, public art and undergrounding of utilities. ELIGIBILILTY: to all residential developments seeking increased density beyond that permitted under current zoning. 3.9 TAKE-AWAYS • CACs are common practice around Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island. • Use of density bonusing and CACs in conjunction, either in different areas of a municipality, or in 'layers' (e.g., CAC at rezoning, and density bonus built into the zone to which the project has rezoned). is common. Density bonusing can be quite effective for projects that do not require rezoning, while CACs will cover projects that must go through a rezoning process. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 10 • Developers value transparency and certainty. All density bonusing and CAC rates should, ideally, be presented in clear tabular format with full clarity on how rates are going to be changing over time (or formula for such). • Rates should be updated regularly to reflect changes to market conditions. Some municipalities have automatic rate adjustments built into their policies. • A "stepped" approach, whereby different rates may apply to different density ranges, building types, or geographic areas, may be beneficial. o Victoria, for instance, charges its first 'tier' of flat rates for the density between existing zoning and base OCP density, and a second 'tier' for the density above OCP base. Further, CAC target rates, or the stipulation for specific on-site amenity provision (e.g., inclusionary units) varies by area. This type of policy structure is responsive to the differential amenity needs by area (in this case, providing inclusionary units in the Urban Core and Town Centres). and the varied ability to pay CACs area to area. o Port Moody uses fixed target rate CACs City-wide at rezoning, up to a density cap, beyond which a proponent must negotiate a further amenity contribution based on the additional 'lift' generated by the additional density. This recognizes that most projects will likely fall within the simple CAC approach (and will thus be simple and transparent to developer and staff alike). while for those unique higher density projects the additional amenity provision is consistent with that given project's ability to pay. o Surrey has many rate classes for many sub-areas, recognizing the significant variability on the ability to pay CACs area to area, and the specific amenity needs of different parts of the City. o The stepped or variable rate system allows for greater control of development incentives and can also be used to better reflect development realities such as lower revenue potential in some areas, increased costs associated with shift from wood to concrete construction or provision of additional levels of underground parking. • If and when a land lift approach is used (either on a project-specific negotiation, or as the basis for target rate setting), municipalities tend to aim for a capture of anywhere between 25% and 7S% of the lift. Communities with significant development demand tend to have contribution targets at the higher end of this range, while smaller municipalities with less demand, or those that are only beginning to use amenity contributions, tend to be closer to the lower end. • Some municipalities elect to charge CACs on all units, while others will credit the first unit or lot, or whatever the maximum unit count could have been under existing zoning. o There is no clear direction on what "should" be done in this regard, but it is important to be clear on the expectation and use the correct assumptions when calculating the ability to pay CACs. In the next section, we look at case study sites across the City through a financial lens, to assess the current ability of developers to pay CACs, and how that ability may vary by development type and area of the City. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review Ill 4.0 CASE STUDY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS In this section we present the results of residual land value analysis for ten case study sites located in various parts of Maple Ridge. These analyses have been undertaken as a partial basis for justifying adjusted amenity contribution target rates, examining how much 'lift' (and thus ability to pay a CAC) is generated by a variety of development typologies. 4.1 APPROACH Case study sites for financial analysis were selected by City staff. Proformas were set up for each case study site to test how much 'lift' could be generated by a hypothetical redevelopment under proposed rezoning scenarios. As such, the approach taken is a residual land lift analysis, whereby the land value supported by a new project after rezoning is compared to a base land value, and the difference is used as a guide to the amount of CAC that project could potentially contribute. Some projects will have the financial room to provide greater amenity contributions than others due to the variability in costs to develop, revenues that can be achieved, and the extent of permitted density. This is why it is important to run analyses for multiple case study sites in different parts of the city, and to examine how changes to key assumptions affect the lift value. We assessed financial performance of rezoning and redevelopment of each case study site to estimate the amount of land lift generated, and in turn the amount of amenity contribution supportable. The use and density assumptions for each case study site were guided by OCP designations and corroborated by City staff. Analyses were completed as follows: l. Case study sites were identified. Most sites are either vacant or improved with older single-family homes. These sites were selected to represent a cross-section of different neighbourhoods and the types of sites on which redevelopment activity is already occurring. 2. Existing or 'base' land values for each case study site were based on 2020 BC Assessment values, with adjustments. For most sites, we assume that a developer would need to pay at least a 20% premium over assessed value for a given parcel to create sufficient incentive for an existing owner to sell for redevelopment. This "assessed + 20%" is the base value for most of the financial analyses, unless otherwise specified. For our case studies involving single-family subdivision infill, there are different base land value assumptions used, as discussed further below. 3. We calculated the increase in land value associated with rezoning (the 'land lift') and the amount of lift per new housing unit created. 4.2 ASSUMPTIONS Input assumptions for each proforma vary property to property, reflecting specific neighbourhood market conditions based on feedback from some local developers and data gathered from a variety of sources.3 3 Key sources for pricing data (land and units) were Urban Analytics' "NHS Live" database of new condominium projects, and Altus Data Studio. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 12 4.2.1 CONDO APARTMENTS. RENTAL APARTMENTS, TOWNHOUSES Major input assumptions for condominium apartments, rental apartments, and townhouses, are as follows: 1. Average Sales Price assumptions vary by location and form. a. New condominium projects in or near downtown Maple Ridge, with underground parking, achieve $600 to $610 per square foot revenue on average. b. New condominium projects in lower density apartment structures near downtown, with surface parking, yield $550 per square foot on average. c. New rental apartments in or near downtown with underground parking rent for $2.30 per square foot per month and are valued at completion by applying a 4% market capitalization rate to the assumed Net Operating Income (NOl).4 d. New rental apartments in or near downtown with surface parking achieve $2.00 per square foot and are valued in the same manner described above. 2. Sales Commissions are assumed to be 3.6% of sales revenues on condo/ townhouse units. 3. Marketing is assumed at 2% of sales revenues for both sale of strata units and sale of rental projects at completion. 4. Rezoning costs are assumed to be between $200,000 and $300,000 per project. 5. Construction cost assumptions are as follows: a. Hard costs above grade excluding parking for wood frame apartment at $210 per square foot. For townhouse, $170 per square foot. b. Underground parking: if one level, $118 per square foot. If 2 levels, $160 per square foot.5 c. Surface parking: for apartments with surface parking, $18 per square foot. d. Garages: for double garages excluded from townhouse FSR, $20,000 per garage. 6. Landscaping is assumed at $15 per square foot of site area, applied to 50% of the site. 7. Servicing is assumed at $4,000 per metre of lot frontage. 8. Soft costs and professional fees at 8.5% of total hard costs, landscaping, and site prep. 9. Municipal Fees included per municipal bylaws, including area-specific density bonusing where applicable. 10. Property Taxes are based on most current mill rates and our estimates of property taxes paid during the sales process. 11. Contingency on hard and soft costs is set at 5%. 12. Construction Financing is charged on 75% of construction costs at 3.5%. In addition, land financing is assumed at 7% interest rate for 40% of land transaction cost. A 1% financing fee is charged based on total cost of construction. 13. Profit requirement for all scenarios is set at 15% of total project costs. This is a typical margin target for many developers. 4 The NOi calculation for new rental apartments assumes that for each unit there is additional revenue for parking and storage at $40 per stall and $35 per unit, per month, respectively. We also assume a 2% vacancy/ non recoverable expense allowance, and operating costs of $4,500 per unit per year. 5 Assumes an average stall is 350 square feet, including access/egress. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 13 4.2.2 SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION The analysis of single-family lot subdivisions is built around 4 case study sites ranging from 2.8 to 6.0 acres in size. All are currently improved with older single-family homes and have RS-3 zoning (minimum lot size of 2 acres). Approach Our approach to this analysis was as follows: l. First, we examined each project from the perspective of a land developer, who would purchase each site 'as-is', take it through the rezoning and subdivision process, and ultimately sell smaller R-2 (or equivalent) serviced lots to builders. 2. Second, we re-ran the analyses from the perspective of a home builder, assuming that builder is buying serviced urban lots, constructing homes, and selling those homes to end-users. It was necessary to run the single-family analyses from these two perspectives as they each provided a different picture of the economics of single-family home development in Maple Ridge today. Example Take the case of a 6-acre parcel in Silver Valley currently zoned RS-3 (One-family rural residential). improved with a single older dwelling, from each perspective: • Land Developer Perspective: the 6-acre RS-3 parcel is sold at a sizeable premium to assessed value, to a land developer.6 The developer then takes the parcel through the rezoning process, from RS3 to R2 (Urban residential district). The land is then subdivided into urban lots of approximately 5,100 square feet each 7, servicing is brought to the lot-lines, and the lots are sold to home builder(s). • Home Builder Perspective: one or more home builders purchases the serviced urban (R-2) lots, builds new homes, and sells those to end-users. Based on our analysis using available data, it appears there is a substantial differential in 'value capture' potential between the land developer and the home builder; the former is, according to our assessment, able to benefit from fairly substantial land lift, while the latter must work under tighter margins. • Assuming a 6-acre lot is sold for $1.2 million per acre, re-zoned, subdivided, and then sold as R-2 urban lots, there would be a land lift of $20,000 to $50,000 per lot.8 • If a home builder then purchased those urban lots, constructed homes, and sold them to end-users at price points consistent with those recently achieved in Silver Valley, that home builder would achieve profit-on-cost margins in the range of 12-15%. This would be considered viable. However those returns are predicated on new homes selling for nearly $530 per build able square foot. 6 Recent RS-3 lot transactions in Silver Valley indicate pricing of up to $1.2 million per developable acre (i.e., per acre of land that is not designated for a non-developable use such as conservation or open space). 7 This is the minimum average lot size to adhere to the lS units-per-hectare 'cap' for the subdivision. 8 Assumes the R-2 lots are sold at prices achieved on similar lots in Silver Valley area during 2021. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review) 14 The table below compares these scenarios. Table 1: Land Developer vs. Home Builder's Perspective -Sample Silver Valley 6-Acre Subdivision Variable Land Developer's Perspective Home Builder's Perspective Size of Lot Purchased 6 acres 5,100 square feet Zoning at Purchase RS3 R2 State of lot at purchase Mostly treed, one older home Vacant, services at lot-line Cost of Land $7.2m ($1.2m per acre) $150-$160 per lot sq.ft.9 ($4.9m per acre) Cost to re-zone, subdivide, Approx. $15m (>$400,000 per n/a service (incl. financing) lot, for 36 lots) Cost to build (incl. financing) n/a $200 per sq.ft. home ($600,000) Revenue per lot/ home $150-$160 per sq.ft. land $1.5 to $1.6m per home ($750,000 to $800,000 per lot) Profit Margin fixed at 75% Land Lift (per lot/ home) $20,000 to $50,000 per lot. Nil (profit margin often under 15%) Implications for Input Assumptions What can we conclude from this analysis about the ability for single family developers to pay CACs? • Risk is (or should be) Priced In o It is not surprising that a substantial land lift could be achieved by rezoning and subdividing a rural acreage parcel for urban residential lots (as per example above), as a developer's justified purchase price for the 'raw' (RS-3) parcel must price in the risk of not being able to achieve a re-zoning. o A $1.2m per acre purchase price may generate a healthy lift upon rezoning and sale of the R-2 parcels, but that price would be above what could be justified if the developer were buying under the assumption of having to sub-divide and sell three parcels of2 acres each (per RS-3). • At that purchase price, the 2-acre parcels would need to be sold for upwards of $3 million each for the project to be viable (i.e., to achieve a reasonable return). • If profit margins were substantially reduced (from 15% down to 5%), the sale price of the 2-acre parcels would still need to be over $2.9m each. • There is no evidence that $2.9+ million dollar 2-acre lots are feasible in the market presently. • Understanding Lift Sensitivity to Changing Prices is Key: o The 2020 assessed value of the example parcel, as-is (RS3), is approximately $1.6m, or $270,000 per acre. 9 Assume 70% of total site area is saleable, after dedications for roads etc. Result is a 36-lot subdivision URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 15 o Assuming the parcel were sold at $l.2m per acre (thus passing a substantial premium to the current land holder). the buyer has a situation where there could still be substantial lift if rezoning is achieved and if urban lot prices hold (or increase). o On the other hand, at $l.2m per acre, price retrenchment for the serviced urban lots can result in quick erosion of that lift: • At a sale price of $160 per square foot of land to the builder, the lift per lot is around $45,000 • At $170 per sq.ft. of land, the lift would increase to $90,000 per lot • At $150 per sq.ft. of land, the lift would be entirely eliminated. o This sensitivity must be kept in mind when setting CAC target rates, particularly when using limited case studies as the basis for setting target rates City-wide. 4.3 CASE STUDY SITE ANALYSIS 4.3.1 CONDO APARTMENTS, RENTAL APARTMENTS, TOWNHOSUES The table below provides a snapshot of the 6 case study sites for apartment and townhouses. The table presents: • Current zoning • Proposed uses and densities • Estimated base land values from which lift is calculated • Results of proforma residual analysis (maximum) • Land Lift per unit equivalent. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 16 Table 2:Case Study Site Land Lift Calculations -Apartments and Townhouses Site Current Proposed Use Proposed Estimated Pro #New Total Land Zone Density (FSR} Base Forma Units/ Lift per unit Value• Residual Lots at Value maximum (Max) density C2 Mid-rise mixed-1 Base: 2.5 $3.9m per j $6.9m per I 191 $9,300 use, condo or Max: 4.0 acre acre rental, with underground parking 2a RSl Low-mid rise Base: l.8 with $3.2m per $6.3m per 92 $18,000 (u/g condo with either surface parking acre acre parking) surface or underground Max: 2.5 $38,000 parking w/underground (surface parking parking) $3.2m per i $20,000 -2b RSl I Low-mid rise As above 92 nil 1 rental with either acre per acre surface or I underground parking --3a RSl Low-mid rise Same as Site 2 $3.9m per $6.4m 41 $16,000 (u/g) condo with either acre per acre surface or $29,000 underground (surface) parking i $3.9m per $570,000 -3b RSl I Low-mid rise As above 41 I nil I rental with either acre per acre ! I ! I surface or I underground I parking 4 RSl Townhouses with 0.6 FSR $3.Sm per l $4.3m per 41 ~-$20,000 double garages acre acre 5 RSl I Townhouses with Base: 0.6 FSR $2.9m per I $3.Sm per 68 1 $31,000 I double garages Max: 0.75 FSR, acre acre I I accessed I through density bonus charge J $16,000 6 J RS3 1 Townhouses with 0.6 FSR l $2.9m per I $3.Sm per j 30 double garages acre acre ------*Base values are the likely 'all-in' price that a developer would pay to purchase the land. The starting point is 2020 BC Assessment value for each property. To that, a 20% premium is added assuming that an incentive to sell the parcel is required. Atop that we calculate transfer tax and typical closing costs. The total lift amounts for condo apartments in case study sites 2 and 3 range from $14,000 to $18,000 for projects with underground parking, and $29,000 to $37,000 for lower-density projects with surface parking. Assuming that a target CAC were set at 50% of the lowest indicated lift amount, this would result in a maximum justified CAC target of about $7,000 per condo apartment unit. None of the rental residential scenarios show any residual land lift amount based on prevailing land costs, construction costs, and achievable rents. Some of these projects would likely be deemed viable as URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review 117 longer-term build-and-hold projects, however additional CACs would further diminish their viability (particularly in comparison to condo projects). Townhouse projects on case study sites 4, 5 and 6 show lift amounts ranging from $16,000 to $31,000 depending on sales prices, density, and location. Again, using a 50% CAC target on the lowest indicated lift amount, the maximum CAC target would be about $8,000 per unit. 4.3.2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS The table below provides snapshots of the 4 case-studies for single-family rezoning and subdivision, from the perspective of a land developer. Table 3:Case Study Site Land Lift Calculations -Single Family Rezoning and Lot Development Site 7 8 -Current Zone RS3 RS3 9 RS3 10 RS3 Proposed Use I R2 urban lots I I I I As above 1 Asabove As above Proposed Density (FSR) I Max oflS UPH, I resulting in I average lot of I I S,100 sq.ft. As above I As above As above Purchase Price Assumptions• $l.2m per acre As above -I AsA-bove As Above --------.. . -.. Supportable Purchase Price per Acre-Land Developer Lift for Land Developer per lot I $1.Sm per acre $45,000 I I I $l.4m per acre $40,000 . $13m3m per acre $20,000 $1.Sm per acre $57,000 *Based on highest achieved per-acre price for RS-3 lots in Silver Valley in last 12 months. As shown in Table 3, there is variability in lift between the case study sites, that the lift remains fairly high even assuming a $l.2m per acre purchase price. As discussed above, if purchase prices were reduced to those seen at other large RS-3 lots ($700,000 to $800,000 per acre). the lift would increase substantially. As with the multi-family examples, we recommend setting a target CAC rate at no more than 50% of the lowest calculated lift amount. This would translate into a maximum target rate of $10,000 per lot. It is also important to take a conservative approach as the target rates are being set City-wide, while the case studies are more focused on one sub-area. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review j 18 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 TARGET RATE ADJUSTMENT CONSIDERATIONS CAC target rate adjustments should take into consideration: a) What are the City's amenity needs, where are those needs, and what are CACs meant to pay for? b) How much can developers afford to contribute toward these amenities without adversely affecting the economic viability of their projects? c) What is the CAC 'landscape' in neighbouring and nearby municipalities? d) How does a CAC fit with all of the other municipal fees and charges? This report considers items band c. Each is discussed in the subsections below. 5.1.1 AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS Case study proforma analysis based on best available information shows that new apartment condominium, townhouse and single-family lot subdivision projects in Maple Ridge could potentially absorb CAC increases. This is despite recent increases to land prices and construction costs. We typically recommend that CACs should not exceed 50% of the lowest lift amount for a development type that is analysed. In this case, that would amount to approximately $7,000 per unit for apartments, $8,000 per unit for townhouses. These are the maximum target rates that could be recommended based on the case study financial analyses prepared. The financial analyses do not provide a solid grounding for rate adjustment for single family lots, given the levels of uncertainty in the lands market and prices being paid for serviced lots in recent months. Given this uncertainty, a target rate adjustment based on the percent increase proposed for multi-family product would be more appropriate so as not to over-estimate the CAC amounts payable. We recommend re-visiting the question of single-family lot CAC adjustments in 12-18 months to see how the transaction market may have changed and the associated justifiable CAC target rates. Note that the apparent ability for new projects to pay more CACs is premised on the high unit values and substantial price run-ups that have occurred over the last year. Relatively small decreases (or increases) in these prices would substantially reduce (or further increase) the amount of 'lift', and thus CAC payable, as shown in the sensitivity vignette presented in the box below. CAC Payable Sensitivity Test for Case Study Site 2a -Condominium at 25 FSR . . • Whether current market prices for new units and lots can be sustained or if we will see price retrenchment in the near or medium-term is a major question, given ongoing economic uncertainty amidst the fourth wave of COVID-19 in British Columbia. There are potential 'drags' on home prices on the horizon, including: • Rising interest rates10 • Fourth wave of COVID-19 delaying large tourism industry recovery • Fourth wave hindering consumer and business confidence At the same time, BC is showing many indications of a strong economic rebound that could help sustain and possibly further increase home prices: • Employment at 1.1% above pre-pandemic levels (Aug. 2021 vs. Feb. 2020)11 • Employment in professional, scientific, and technical service industries: +15.8% above pre-pandemic. • Year-over-year growth in hours worked amongst BC labour force is best in Canada • Labour force participation rates in BC are now above pre-pandemic levels All this is to say that snapshot-in-time financial analysis is a useful guide but should not be the sole basis upon which CAC target rates are set. Rather, they should be used as one of multiple indicators. 5.1.2 COMPARABLE COMMUNITY AND MUNICIPAL FEE CONSIDERATIONS Substantial CAC or density bonusing rate differentials between Maple Ridge and nearby communities may act as a deterrent for some developers to pursue new projects in Maple Ridge. It is important to consider where Maple Ridge 'fits' within the broader CAC ecosystem as it considers changes to target rates. Of the municipalities surveyed in Section 3.0, most have target CACs below what our financial analysis indicates the City of Maple Ridge could seek from rezonings today. The exception (for multi-family) is Surrey, where target rates are higher than Maple Ridge. In making this comparison it is also important to consider when the last rate updates were made, as economic conditions change quickly. The communities with the most recently updated CAC target rates are: • Surrey {2021, for "tier 2" rates): now ranging from $5/sq.ft. to $40/sq.ft12 for apartments (depending on neighbourhood). and $15,000/unit for single family or townhouse. • Nanaimo {2021-not yet adopted): $5,000 per apartment, $7,500 per townhouse, $8,000 per single family lot. 10 At time of writing, the 5-year Canada bond yield had moved up to levels not seen since pre-pandemic. Fixed mortgage rates at the major banks are moving in step. This is likely to have a slight dampening effect on price growth, particularly for unit types catering to first-time buyers. 11 BC is the only province with employment levels at or above pre-pandemic levels. 12·For an 850 square foot unit, this translates to a range of $4,250 to $34,000 per unit. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review j 20 • Langley Township (2019): $4,539 per low-rise apartment, $3,507 per high-rise apartment, $5,776 per townhouse, and $6,808 per single family home. 5.2 TARGET RATE RECOMMENDATIONS In setting target rates, municipalities should take a conservative approach in which rates are guided by the lowest indicated supportable figures from the financial analysis, along with a review of comparable communities' rates. This approach will help to ensure that any new target rates have minimal impact on development, and do not inadvertently steer borderline projects to non-viability. In addition, we typically recommend that target rates be set based on no more than a 50% capture of the calculated land lift (i.e., a $16,000 per-unit lift would yield an $8,000 per-unit rate). This builds in some flexibility for developers as they look to acquire parcels or lot assemblies for development, leaving some of the 'lift' amount to be passed down to the land vendor as an incentive. for the financial analysis results indicate that target rates could be increased as follows: • • • Apartment: Townhouse: Single Family: could increase from $3,100 per unit to as much as $7,000. could increase from $4,100 per unit to as much as $8,000 could increase Up to $10,000 per lot. The apartment and townhouse rate thresholds noted above represent the upper limit that the City should consider for target rate adjustments, based on the results of the financial analysis and the guiding principles noted above. Maple Ridge may consider phasing in the rate increases and setting them below the maximum figures outlined above. Given the above considerations, our recommended City-wide target CACs are as follows: Table 4: Typology Apartment Townhouse ---· Single Family Recommended Target CAC Amounts and Phasing Current CAC Rate $3,100 per unit $4,100 per unit $5,100 per Jot CAC Rate starting mid-2022 , $4,300 per unit ] $5,700 per unit ,-$7,100 per--lot J CAC Rate starting mid-2023 l $5,600 per unit 1. $7,400 per unit $9,200 per lot Note that these recommended target rates, phased in over 2 years, would not reach a point where the ask is equal to 50% of the lowest calculated lift amount from the case studies. Rather, that 50% consideration is used as a one of multiple guides to identifying appropriate target rates. 5.3 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.3.1 GRADUAL AND PREDICTABLE TARGET RATE ADJUSTMENTS As recommended in Section 5.2, the CAC target rates should be phased in gradually. Further, CAC policy should include provisions for both periodic comprehensive review (at a maximum 5-year interval) and provision for more "automated" annual target rate adjustments in the intervening period. A comprehensive review adjustment (such as this one) should itself not lead to a substantial upward "step" in rates overnight. Rather, the new target rates should be phased in over at least a 2-year period. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 21 There should also be an in-stream protection offered for projects that are at a pre-determined point in the approvals process at time of adoption (e.g., Third Reading approval, or another appropriate milestone). up to a pre-set date. Developers may also be offered an option of opting in to new, higher target rates early, to allow for greater cost certainty. After the initial target rate adjustment has come into full effect, further annual adjustments should be built into the policy by using some form of 'inflationary index', based on a transparent, replicable process using publicly available data. • The City of Vancouver, for example, uses an annual rate change index that is based on a blend of property value and construction cost inflation, and applies this to its development cost levy (DCL) rates, CAC targets, and density bonusing rates. The two main data sources for the index are BC Assessment (for net property value change). and Statistics Canada (for construction price index). • The City of Surrey adjusts its amenity contribution (density bonus) rates annually based on either the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or market condition adjustments, as appropriate. Our correspondence with UDI indicated a strong preference for a predictable adjustment mechanism grounded in some blend of construction cost, home, and land price inflation. 5.3.2 CAC EXEMPTIONS The current CAC policy offers exemptions for: • Affordable and special needs housing secured through a Housing Agreement • Rental housing secured through a Housing Agreement • First lot in a subdivision of fewer than 3 lots • Accessory dwelling units (secondary suite, garden suite) • First unit in a duplex, triplex or fourplex where only one building is constructed • First unit for courtyard dwelling units on a single property With regards to the rental housing exemption specifically, we make the following observations: • The proforma analysis showed that market rental apartment projects with underground parking do not currently show any ability to pay CACs. Those with surface parking conditions can generate a residual land value sufficient to pay a CAC. • The return potential on market rental projects does not match that of condominium projects under current market conditions, particularly where the rental project is evaluated on a build-and-sell basis. • There is an ongoing need for new purpose-built rental apartment units that are secured long-term through housing agreements in Maple Ridge. Below are excerpts from the City's 2021 Housing Needs Report which underscore this need: o "there is a significant need for additional rental housing in Maple Ridge." (p. 26) o "there is a desire for older residents to "age-in-place" and remain in Maple Ridge; however, a lack of accessible housing is proving challenging for downsizing seniors." (p.26) URBAN Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 22 SYSTEMS o "Stakeholders expressed a desire for additional rental housing in Maple Ridge, available to all households." (p. 27) o "With the rising cost of homeownership, many families that were previously able to purchase property [are] unable to do so." (p.27) o "There is a need for new rental housing, including units affordable to lower-income households" (p. S7) o "The number of purpose-built rental units has increased marginally over the last ten years, with 79% of the City's existing rental housing built prior to 1980. With limited new supply, rents have increased, and vacancy rates are likely lower than what was reported by CM HC..." (p .. S7) o "The City may consider exploring incentives for the type of development they would like to see, such as property tax reductions for rental housing." (p.20) We recommend that the City maintain its current CAC exemption for rental projects, given the following: • Proforma analysis indicates market rental projects under perform condo projects • Case study market rentals with underground parking cannot generate a positive land residual • The Housing Needs Report clearly indicates an ongoing need to incentivize the construction of secure, purpose-built rental product in Maple Ridge All of the other exemptions that currently exist are reasonable, and consistent with CAC policies elsewhere. 5.3.3 SPECIFY ALLOCATION OF COLLECTED CAC The CAC policy should be clear about where funds are being allocated, and in what proportions, for all cases where a developer is not directly constructing an amenity. Some examples include: • City of Victoria: Specifies a 70/30 CAC fund allocation between affordable housing and 'community amenities' more broadly. • Township of Langley: Specifies 15% to affordable housing reserve fund, 74% to "Township-wide enhancements (e.g .. , greenway, police, rec centres). and 11% to a specific area plan (Aldergrove). • City of Port Moody: 1/3 offunds to Affordable Housing Reserve Fund, and 2/3rds of funds to General Community Amenity Contribution Reserve. • City of Nanaimo: Specifies minimum 40% to Housing Legacy Reserve Fund The specific allocations for CACs should be developed through a review of community needs, including public engagement. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 23 5.3.4 CONSIDER 'BASKET OF GOODS' APPRAOCH TO FUTURE RATE SETTING The Provincial government recommends that municipalities use a 'basket of goods' approach for CACs (i.e., what amenities do we need, where, and what will they cost). The development community is generally more receptive to rates when there is a clear picture of what amenity monies are being collected to pay for. This process would require that council, City departments and committees, all identify specific amenities or facilities that will be required over a given time period, and estimate capital costs required to pay for them. This is the process used for setting DCC rates for DCC-payable infrastructure; capital costs are estimated, a 'municipal assist factor' is input, and per-unit or per-floor-area rates are set accordingly. 5.3.5 MAINTAIN AN OPTION TO NEGOTIATE IN SOME CASES Maple Ridge may consider specifying a small sub-set of conditions under which a negotiated CAC approach is used. Other communities have stipulated that amenity contributions are to be negotiated (and procedures for such) in cases such as: • Projects located within a specific area or areas of a municipality • Projects at locations identified as sites where specific amenities should be provided • Projects requiring major amendments to OCP or area plans • Projects of a certain scale If and when a negotiated CAC is deemed appropriate, an economic analysis should be requested from the applicant and then a negotiation on the basis of a review of this analysis, in conjunction with noted amenity needs, should proceed. The City may also consider maintaining an option for any project to engage in a negotiated CAC approach based on economic analysis. While the majority of projects would be unlikely to use this option, it could be a useful avenue for an applicant that does not believe the flat target rate amenity contributions are appropriate given the economics of that specific project. URBAN SYSTEMS Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Target Rate Review I 24 APPENDIX D POLICY MANUAL Policy No.: 6.31 Title: Community Amenity Contribution Program Supersedes: December 2017 Authority: Legislative 1:8'.1 Operational D Effective Date: Approval: Council 1:8'.1 CMTD General Review Date: ManagerD Policy Statement: The City of Maple Ridge is committed to providing a variety of amenities throughout the municipality, including the provision of affordable and special needs housing, in a financially sustainable manner. Purpose: To provide direction on the implementation of a city-wide community amenity contribution (CAC) program, including the process to determine the contribution amount. Definitions: • "Community Amenity" means any public amenity that provides a benefit to the residents of the city or a specific neighbourhood as the result of increased residential density. The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is comprised of the following components: 1. The CAC Program will apply city-wide. 2. Each CAC will be based on a contribution rate as follows: Per CAC Rate until CAC Rate from August 1, 2022 CAC Rate beginning July 31, 2022 to July 31, 2023 August 1, 2023 Apartment $3,100 per unit $4,300 per unit $5,600 per unit Dwelling Unit Townhouse or $3,100 per unit $5,700 per unit $7,400 per unit other attached ground oriented dwelling unit Single family $5,100 per lot $7,100 per lot $9,200 per lot lot created a) $5100 per single family lot created; b) $4100 per townhouse or other attached ground oriented dwelling unit; c) $3100 per apartment dwelling unit. Page 1 of 3 Policy 6.31 3. The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings, including those that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with the following exceptions: a) Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing Agreement as established in Section 483 of the Local Government Act; b) Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established under Section 483 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act; c) Single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots -only the original lot is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional lot; d) Accessory dwelling units, such as a secondary suite or detached garden suite; e) Duplex, triplex and fourplex dwelling units on a single property, where only one building is being constructed -only the first dwelling unit is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional dwelling unit; and f) Courtyard dwelling units, located on a single property -only the first dwelling unit is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional dwelling unit. 4. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in addition to the city-wide CAC Program. a) For developments that take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area Plan, the amenity contribution rate will be: • $5100 per single family lot created; • $4100 per townhouse or other attached ground-oriented dwelling unit; • $3100 per apartment dwelling unit; in addition to the $3100 density bonus rate. b) For developments that do not take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, the CAC rate will be the rate established in Section 2 of this policy. 5. The Official Community Plan may also establish additional or alternative community amenity contribution policies, guidelines and density bonus provisions for each Area Plan. 6. Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of the CAC Program Council Policy, will: a) be subject to the provisions of this Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw has received Third Reading; OR b) be subject to the provisions of this Policy if a condition for the Policy to apply was included in the first or second reading report of the applicable Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw. 7. All development applications that are seeking an extension under Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 (as amended), may be subject to the city-wide community amenity contribution program at the discretion of Council. 8. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may benefit from the community amenity contributions. 9. Community Amenity Contribution funds received will contribute to any of the following eligible amenities: a) Civic facility; Page 2 of 3 Policy 6.31 b) Public art; c) Acquisition of land for the provision of: o Affordable or special needs housing; o Parks o Trails o Significant ecological features d) Park or trail construction and/or maintenance; e) Affordable or special needs housing units; f) Heritage conservation; or g) Conservation of significant ecological features. 10. The provision of a specific amenity, rather than a cash-in-lieu contribution may also be considered by Maple Ridge Council. If Council determines that the provision of an amenity is more desirable, the following list is to be used as a general guide for determining the type of community amenity: a) Public art; b) Heritage conservation; c) Land for the provision of: o Affordable or special needs housing; o Parks o Trails o Significant ecological features d) Affordable or special needs housing units; or e) Park or trail construction or improvements. Page 3 of 3 Policy 6.31 ,~-mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: November 9, 2021 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Draft Regional Growth Strategy Metro 2050 -Summary of Referral Comments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The draft Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy was presented to Council at the September 6, 2021 Workshop meeting and Council provided some comments directly to Metro staff at that time. Subsequently, at the September 27, 2021 Workshop meeting, City staff presented on the Metro 2050 draft policy updates with suggested amendments, and following some discussion, Council passed the following resolution: That the comments from the September 27, 2021 Council Workshop regarding the staff report titled "Draft Regional Growth Strategy Metro 2050 -Request for Comments" be summarized and brought back to Council for consideration of a formal resolution prior to November 26, 2021. An important component of Metro Vancouver's engagement process is to seek formal comments from the Councils of all member jurisdictions, which will inform the final version of Metro 2050. These comments have been requested by November 26, 2021 in the form of a Council resolution. Comments are sought to provide feedback on the collective actions and direction that the Metro Vancouver region will take in the coming decade. Through inter-municipal and inter-governmental collaboration, the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) addresses issues and topics that all jurisdictions face and seeks to improve the livability of the region through collective action. The purpose of this report is to summarize all of Council's feedback received on Metro 2050, based on the discussion during the September 27, 2021 Workshop meeting. As Metro 2050 is an update to Metro 2040, and not an entirely new plan, the draft RGS aligns well with Maple Ridge Official Community Plan (OCP) policies. The introduction of new regional targets and stronger policy language regarding housing, the environment and growth management may be viewed as prescriptive and treading into local government's land use jurisdiction. The suggested feedback on Metro 2050 includes clarification on the definition and intent of some policies, specific policy wording changes to provide greater flexibility in policy implementation, and statements on current and future land use planning, which will have regional policy implications. Additional clarification is also provided regarding the existing tree canopy cover and amount of protected environmental land, as they relate to the new regional targets. 4.3 Doc#2899368 Page 1 of 9 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That staff prepare a formal letter to Metro Vancouver with the following comments on the draft Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy: Advocacy Comments: A. In response to policy 1.1.9 d), Maple Ridge requests Metro Vancouver advocacy to NAV Canada to increase the aircraft height above 3000 ft for Practice Areas 185 and 188, and to consult with Maple Ridge should any further changes to Maple Ridge's air space be considered. B. In response to policy 1.4.3 d), Maple Ridge requests that Metro Vancouver advocate to the Agricultural Land Commission to review Agricultural Land Reserve legislation to permit more intensive uses using technology. C. In response to policy 2.3.3, Maple Ridge requests further input and advocacy from Metro Vancouver to ensure that the economic viability of Maple Ridge's agricultural lands is addressed. D. In response to policy 2.3.12 c) v), Maple Ridge requests that Metro Vancouver advocate to the ALC to undertake a review of producing and non-producing agricultural lands. E. In response to policy 5.2.6, Maple Ridge requests advocacy from Metro Vancouver to CP Rail and CN Rail to address noise and vibration concerns caused by freight movement through Maple Ridge. Policy Edits Comments: F. Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 1.2.24: Member Jurisdictions will: 1.2.24 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: b) Include policies for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas that: iv) consider reducing residential and commercial parking requirements in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas and consider the use of parking maximums; viii) focus infrastructure and amenity investments (such as public works and civic and recreation facilities) in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, and at appropriate locations within Major Transit Growth Corridors and other key neighbourhood locations; G. Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 1.3. 7: Member Jurisdictions will: 1.3. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: g) consider providing design guidance for existing and new neighbourhoods to promote social connections, universal accessibility, crime prevention through environmental design, and inc/usivity while considering the impacts of these strategies on identified marginalized members of the community. Doc#2899368 Page 2 of 9 H. Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 2.1.10: Member Jurisdictions will: 2.1.10 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) include policies that discourage the development and expansion of major commercial and institutional land uses outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas and other key neighbourhood locations. I. Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 2.2.9: Member jurisdictions will: 2.2.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) include policies for Industrial lands that: i) consistently define, support, and protect industrial uses in municipal plans and bylaws, and discourage non-industrial uses; iii) consider excluding uses that are not consistent with the intent of Industrial lands and not supportive of industrial activities, such as medium and large format retail uses, residential uses, and standalone office uses, other than ancillary uses, where deemed necessary; d) include policies for Employment lands that: v) do not permit residential uses, except for an accessory caretaker unit or a live-work use; e) consider including policies to assist existing and new businesses in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing energy efficiency, and mitigating impacts on ecosystems. f) consider including policies that assist existing and new businesses to adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduce their exposure to natural hazards risks, such as those identified within the regional growth strategy (Table 5). J. Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 3.1.9: Member jurisdictions will: 3.1.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: b) consider including policies that support the protection and enhancement of lands with a Conservation and Recreation land use designation, which may include the following uses: i) drinking water supply areas; ii) environmental conservation areas; iii) wildlife management areas and ecological reserves; iv) forests; v) wetlands (e.g. freshwater lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, estuarine, marine, freshwater, and intertidal ecosystems); vi) riparian areas (i.e. the areas and vegetation surrounding wetlands, lakes, streams, and rivers); vii) ecosystems not covered above that may be vulnerable to climate change and natural hazard impacts, or that provide buffers to climate change impacts or natural hazard impacts for communities; and viii) uses within those lands that are appropriately located, scaled, and consistent with the intent of the designation, including: • major parks and outdoor recreation areas; Doc#2899368 Page 3 of 9 • education, research and training facilities, and associated uses that serve conservation and/or recreation users; A. commercial uses, tourism activities, and public, cultural, or community amenities; • limited agricultural use, primarily soil-based; and • land management activities needed to minimize vulnerability/risk to climate-related impacts. c) include policies that: i) protect the integrity of lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation from activities in adjacent areas by considering wild/and interface planning, and considering measures such as physical buffers or development permit requirements; K. Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 4.2. 7: Member jurisdictions will: 4.2. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) encourage the use of regulatory tools that protect and preserve rental housing; d) consider policies and actions that contribute to the following outcomes: i) encourage increased supply of affordable rental housing in proximity to transit and on publicly-owned land; ii) encourage increased supply of market and below-market rental housing through the renewal of aging purpose-built rental housing and prevention of net rental unit loss; iii) encourage protection and renewal of existing non-market rental housing; iv) encourage mitigating impacts on renter households due to renovation or redevelopment, and strengthened protections for tenants; and L. Maple Ridge requests the following edit in bold for draft policy 3.2. 7: Member jurisdictions will: 3.2. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: a) consider identifying local ecosystem protection and tree canopy cover targets, and create policy to contribute to the regional targets in Action 3.2.1; c) consider including policies that: i) address ecosystem services in land use decision-making and land management practices; Clarification Comments: M. Request clarification on suggested strategies to meet new environmental regional target, including strategies to maintain and increase tree canopy cover as the community grows. N. Maple Ridge requests a definition of integrated housing to understand the policy implication of policy 4.1.8 c) vii). 0. Maple Ridge requests a definition of affordable rental housing to understand the policy implication as it relates to the new housing target identified in policy 4.2. 7 a). Doc#2899368 Page 4 of 9 Participation and Training Comments: P. Maple Ridge requests additional tools, training and resources with respect to climate change, emergency and natural hazard preparation, as it relates to land use planning as outlined in Strategy 3.4 Member Jurisdiction Policies. Q. In response to policy 2.2.3, Maple Ridge requests participation in the preparation of the Industrial Implementation Guidelines identified in Metro 2050. Future RGS and RCS Amendment Comments: R. Maple Ridge intends to undertake the following Type 2 regional land use re-designations: • Yennadon and Lougheed Transit Corridor Lands, to Employment • Albion Industrial Park Expansion, Industrial Reserve, and Kanaka Business Park, to Industrial • Urban Containment Boundary alignment, as it relates to the above noted re-designations S. Maple Ridge intends to undertake the following Type 3 regional land use re-designations: • Albion Flats, to Employment within the Urban Containment Boundary (subject to ALC approvals) • Lougheed Transit Corridor, to Corridor Frequent Transit Development Area • 203 Street and Lougheed Highway and vicinity, to Station Frequent Transit Development Area 2. That the letter with resolutions identify Maple Ridge's intent to take its place in the region, support the creation of local jobs, and acknowledge the significant contribution the community's agricultural, rural, and conservation land base provide to regional environmental and climate change resiliency goals. 3. That the report titled "Draft Regional Growth Strategy Metro 2050 -Referral Comments" dated November 9, 2021, be provided to Metro Vancouver. 1.0 BACKGROUND: The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is a long-range, strategic land use plan for the Metro Vancouver Regional District (Metro Vancouver), a federation of 21 municipalities, one Electoral Area and one Treaty First Nation. One of Metro Vancouver's key roles is to collaboratively plan for and deliver regional-scale services. Metro 2040 Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Regional Growth Strategy (Metro 2040) was adopted by the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board (renamed to Metro Vancouver Regional District Board) in 2011. Since its adoption, Metro 2040 has been an effective tool representing the regional federation's collective vision for how to sustainably manage anticipated growth in the region. The Regional Growth Strategy's policies are aimed at advancing livability through containing and structuring growth to facilitate the development of complete, connected and resilient communities, protect important lands (i.e. agricultural, industrial and employment and conservation and recreation lands), and support the efficient provision of infrastructure, such as transit and utilities. Doc#2899368 Page 5 of 9 2.0 PLANNING ANALYSIS: Many policy actions in the draft Metro 2050 Regional Growth Strategy are the same or very similar to those that are working well in Metro 2040. The new or revised policy actions have been based on learnings and research from over 10 years of implementation and on the endorsed recommendations coming out of the Metro 2040 policy review process. It should be noted that Metro 2050 is an update to Metro 2040 and not an entirely new RGS. As such, the existing text of Metro 2040 is being used as the basis for the development of Metro 2050. Metro Vancouver hosted a virtual open house event on October 19, 2021. The City of Maple Ridge promoted this event and the public feedback opportunity on the City's website, local newspaper and Facebook page. A copy of Metro 2050 was also circulated to Council Committee members, along with information on how to provide feedback to Metro Vancouver. Metro 2050 Implications for Maple Ridge All member jurisdictions are required to complete a Regional Context Statement (RCS) as part of their OCP. With an updated RGS expected to be adopted in 2022, Maple Ridge will have two years to revise and submit a RCS that reflects the updates contained in Metro 2050. Many of the proposed RGS edits already align with Maple Ridge OCP policies and supporting strategies and plans and the draft document coincides with work that has been underway since 2011, including the following plans and strategies: • Environmental Management Strategy; • Commercial and Industrial Strategy; • Housing Action Plan; • Housing Needs Report; • "Walking Together" Cultural Plan; • Economic Development Strategy; • Community Social Safety Initiative; • Strategic Transportation Plan; and • New and in progress area plans. Additional ongoing work projects, such as Corporate and Community Sustainability, updates to the Zoning Bylaw and Tree Protection Bylaw, Child Care Action Plan, green infrastructure, and development applications reflect a number of other new and revised policies in the RGS. Metro 2050's new regional targets, maps, overlays, revised terminology, definitions, and updated land use descriptions are intended to help provide greater clarity for member jurisdictions. City of Maple Ridge Comments Compiled to Date on Metro 2050 The introduction of new regional targets and stronger policy language regarding housing, the environment, and growth management may be viewed as prescriptive and treading into local government's land use jurisdiction. On September 27, 2021, staff presented suggested feedback on Metro 2050, including clarification on the definition and intent of some policies, specific policy wording changes to provide greater flexibility in policy implementation, and statements on current and future land use planning, which will have regional policy implications (see Appendix A). Doc#2899368 Page 6 of 9 The key areas of feedback received from Council on September 27, 2021 are summarized as follows: • Maple Ridge is seeking to 'take its place' in the region, and wants to ensure that Metro 2050 provides flexibility in the realization of the City's future. • The creation of local jobs and a diversified tax base is a primary goal. • Maple Ridge has extensive rural, conservation and recreation, and agricultural land, which provide significant contributions to the region's environmental and urban containment objectives. General Comments Appendix A includes the City's comments of the draft Metro 2050 in sequential order including feedback that was received from Council at the September 27, 2021 Workshop meeting. Each comment is provided with the applicable draft RGS policy. Maple Ridge's comments include 22 policy wording changes to provide greater flexibility in policy implementation, five advocacy statements, three clarification comments, two participation and training requests as well as a list of forthcoming regional land use re-designations (see Appendix A). Identifying Frequent Transit Development Areas Frequent Transit Development Area (FTDA) is an overlay in the RGS that member jurisdictions can identify in their municipalities. Metro 2050 defines an FTDA as: Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs) are intended to be additional priority locations to accommodate concentrated growth in higher density forms of development. They are identified by member jurisdictions and located at appropriate locations within the Major Transit Growth Corridors. FTDAs complement the network of Urban Centres, and are characterized by higher density forms of residential, commercial, and mixed uses, and may contain community, cultural and institutional uses. Urban design for these areas promotes transit-oriented communities where transit, cycling, and walking are the preferred modes of transportation. Identifying FTDAs within the Major Transit Growth Corridors 1) provides greater certainty and integration between local, regional, and transit plans, and 2) supports transit-oriented development planning across jurisdictional boundaries. As outlined in Metro 2050, new FTDAs must be located on the Major Transit Growth Corridor, defined as: ... areas along TransLink's Major Transit Network where member jurisdictions, in consultation with Metro Vancouver and TransLink, may identify new Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs).... The Major Transit Growth Corridors have been identified as good potential locations for regionally-significant levels of transit-oriented growth based on a consideration of the following principles: anchored by Urban Centres or FTDAs, connected by the Major Transit Network, generally resilient to natural hazards, accessible to jobs and services, and walkable. Further, Translink's Major Transit Network is a new concept introduced in Transport 2050, as: the highest order of transit -with services that are high-capacity, high-frequency, fast, and reliable, travelling in dedicated rights-of-way all day, every day in both directions. Based on the definitions of FTDAs, Major Transit Growth Corridor, and Major Transit Network, Lougheed Highway west of the Town Centre is currently the only option to identify an FTDA. The Major Doc#2899368 Page 7 of 9 Transit Network is complimented by the Frequent Transit Network and the Local Transit Network, which provide additional transit services in the region. In Maple Ridge, Dewdney Trunk Road west of the Town Centre is identified for frequent transit, with service every 15 minutes, and local transit service is provided on 232 Street and 240 Street. Environmental Targets: With regard to Metro 2050's proposed new environmental targets and the recommended actions, outlined in the September 27, 2021 staff report, this section provides the information currently available to inform any further action. It is noted that the regional targets are not intended to single out any one municipality for not meeting targets at a local level. Metro Vancouver is encouraging municipalities to state what they determine as appropriate local targets in the Regional Context Statement and how the local target contributes to the regional context. Metro Vancouver's analysis indicates that it would be feasible to protect 50% of the regional land base, while also accommodating planned greenfield urban and industrial development, if the remainder of the sensitive and modified ecosystems identified in the regional Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI), as well as additional small young forested areas (between one to five hectares in total), are protected from development. The following discusses Maple Ridge Environmental Measures undertaken to date: • The City of Maple Ridge's Performance Dashboard Hub has a target set to reach 40% tree canopy cover as a percentage of total land area and also track the hectares of land protected by environmental covenants and park dedication. Currently, Maple Ridge has 618 hectares of dedicated and covenanted land for environmental protection (this includes conservation areas and municipal and regional parks). Currently, Maple Ridge is achieving a tree canopy cover of 48% as a proportion of the city's entire land base. In comparison, Metro Vancouver's current tree canopy cover within the Urban Containment Boundary sits at 32%. • The City's existing tree canopy target is different than the regional target, in that the Metro 2050 target is for lands within the Urban Containment Boundary and not the entire land base, which includes large areas of forested and low intensity rural development. Maintaining and increasing tree canopy cover may be addressed through outcomes and recommendations within the City's upcoming Green Infrastructure Management Strategy, Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, and possibly through pending municipal wide Urban Forest Management strategies. 3.0 NEXT STEPS: A formal submission will be made to Metro Vancouver with Council's resolution. These comments, as well as those of all other member jurisdictions, will be reflected in a revised version of Metro 2050. From there, Metro Vancouver will be starting the approval process of bylaw readings and member jurisdiction acceptance. Metro Vancouver's timeline is to have Metro 2050 in effect by summer 2022. Once the new RGS is in place, Maple Ridge will begin the process of updating its Regional Context Statement (RCS) to align with changes in Metro 2050. Largely, this alignment is consistent with policy work underway over the past decade. Part of the RCS process will be to review the regional land use designations and identify areas of change at the regional level. Included in the RCS process will be a comparison of the City's Urban Area Boundary and the regional Urban Containment Boundary to determine any necessary realignments. Doc#2899368 Page 8 of 9 Through these future land use redesignations, Maple Ridge re-affirms an employment future for areas such as Yennadon, Albion Flats, and Thornhill, and further reaffirms its intention to include Albion Flats in the Urban Containment Boundary. CONCLUS ION: This report outlines all of Mayor and Council's feedback on Metro 2050, based on the discussion during the September 27, 2021 Workshop. As Metro 2050 is an update to the existing Metro 2040 and not an entirely new plan, the draft RGS is generally in alignment with Maple Ridge OCP policies. The introduction of new regional targets and stronger policy language regarding housing, the environment and growth management may be viewed as prescriptive and treading into local government's land use jurisdiction. The suggested feedback on Metro 2050 includes clarification on the definition and intent of some policies, specific policy wording changes to provide greater flexibility in policy implementation, and statements on current and future land use planning, which will have regional policy implications. Additional clarification is also provided regarding the existing tree canopy cover and amount of protected environmental land, as they relate to the new regional targets. It is recommended that Council forward the City of Maple Ridge's Metro 2050 comments, included as Appendix A to the report titled 'Draft Regional Growth Strategy Metro 2050 Referral Comments' dated November 9, 2021 to Metro Vancouver. "Original signed by Amelia Bowden" Prepared by: Amelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 "Original signed by Charles Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A- Formal Referral Comments Index Appendix B - Link to Draft Metro 2050 (metrovancouver.org) Doc#2899368 Page 9 of9 City of Maple Ridge Formal Referral Comments Index Draft Metro 2050 Member Jurisdictions will: 1.1.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: d) Integrate land use planning policies with local and regional economic development strategies, particularly in the vicinity of the port and airports,to minimize potential exposure of residents to environmental noise and other harmful impacts. Member Jurisdictions will: 1.2.24 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: b) Include policies for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas that: iv) reduce residential and commercial parking requirements in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas and consider the use of parking maximums; viii) focus infrastructure and amenity investments (such as public works and civic and recreation facilities) in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, and at appropriate locations within Major Transit Growth Corridors; Member Jurisdictions will: 1.3.7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: g) provide design guidance for existing and new neighbourhoods to promote social connections, universal accessibility, crime prevention through environmental design, and inclusivity while considering the impacts of these strategies on identified marginalized members of the community. Doc#2891333 Maple Ridge requests Metro Vancouver advocacy to NAV Canada to increase the aircraft height above 3000 ft for Practice Areas 185 and 188, and to consult with Maple Ridge should any further changes to Maple Ridge's air space be considered. Member Jurisdictions will: 1.2.24 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: b) Include policies for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas that: iv) consider reducing residential and commercial parking requirements in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas and consider the use of parking maximums; viii) focus infrastructure and amenity investments (such as public works and civic and recreation facilities) in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, and at appropriate locations within Major Transit Growth Corridors and other key neighbourhood locations; Member Jurisdictions will: 1.3.7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: g) consider providing design guidance for existing and new neighbourhoods to promote social connections, universal accessibility, crime prevention through environmental design, and inclusivity while considering the impacts of these strategies on identified marginalized members of the community. Page 1 of 8 )> "'O "'O m z 0 x )> City of Maple Ridge Formal Referral Comments Index Draft Metro 2050 Member Jurisdictions will: 1.4.3 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: d) support agricultural uses within the Agricultural Land Reserve, and where appropriate, outside of the Agricultural Land Reserve; Member Jurisdictions will: 2.1.10 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) include policies that discourage the development and expansion of major commercial and institutional land uses outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas. 2.2.3 Prepare an Implementation Guideline covering the following topics: opportunities for Industrial lands to support new growth planning initiatives, new forms of industry and technologies, urban industry and e-commerce, design of industrial forms, guidance on setting criteria for trade-oriented lands, and other policy measures. Member jurisdictions will: 2.2.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) include policies for Industrial lands that: i) consistently define, support, and protect industrial uses in municipal plans and bylaws, and ensure that non-industrial uses are not permitted; iii) exclude uses that are not consistent with the intent of Industrial lands and not supportive of industrial activities, such as medium and large format retail uses, residential uses, and standalone Doc#2891333 Maple Ridge requests that Metro Vancouver advocates to the ALC to review ALR legislation to permit more intensive uses using technology. Member Jurisdictions will: 2.1.10 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) include policies that discourage the development and expansion of major commercial and institutional land uses outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas and other key neighbourhood locations. Maple Ridge requests participation in the preparation of the Industrial Implementation Guidelines identified in Metro 2050. Member jurisdictions will: 2.2.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) include policies for Industrial lands that: i) consistently define, support, and protect industrial uses in municipal plans and bylaws, and discourage non- industrial uses; iii) consider excluding uses that are not consistent with the intent of Industrial lands and not supportive of industrial activities, such as medium and large format retail uses, residential uses, and standalone office Page 2 of 8 City of Maple Ridge Formal Referral Comments Index Draft Metro 2050 office uses, other than ancillary uses, where deemed necessary; d) include policies for Employment lands that: v) do not permit residential uses, except for an accessory caretaker unit; e) include policies to assist existing and new businesses in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing energy efficiency, and mitigating impacts on ecosystems. f) include policies that assist existing and new businesses to adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduce their exposure to natural hazards risks, such as those identified within the regional growth strategy (Table 5). 2.3.3 Identify and pursue strategies and actions to increase actively farmed agricultural land, strengthen the economic viability of agriculture, and minimize conflicts between agriculture and other land uses, within or adjacent to agricultural land, in collaboration with the Province and the Agricultural Land Commission. Member Jurisdictions will: 2.3.12 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) include policies that protect the supply of agricultural land and strengthen agriculture viability including those that: v) demonstrate support for economic development opportunities for agricultural operations that are farm related uses, benefit from close proximity to farms, and enhance primary agricultural production as defined by the Agricultural Land Commission Act; Doc#2891333 uses, other than ancillary uses, where deemed necessary; d) include policies for Employment lands that: v) do not permit residential uses, except for an accessory caretaker unit or a live-work use; e) consider including policies to assist existing and new businesses in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing energy efficiency, and mitigating impacts on ecosystems. f) consider including policies that assist existing and new businesses to adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduce their exposure to natural hazards risks, such as those identified within the regional growth strategy (Table 5). Maple Ridge requests further input and advocacy from Metro Vancouver on policy 2.3.3 to ensure that the economic viability of Maple Ridge's agricultural lands is addressed. Maple Ridge requests that Metro Vancouver advocate to the ALC to undertake a review of producing and non-producing agricultural lands. Page 3 of 8 City of Maple Ridge Formal Referral Comments Index Draft Metro 2050 Member jurisdictions will: 3.1.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: b) include policies that support the protection and enhancement of lands with a Conservation and Recreation land use designation, which may include the following uses: i) drinking water supply areas; ii) environmental conservation areas; iii) wildlife management areas and ecological reserves; iv) forests; v) wetlands (e.g. freshwater lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, estuarine, marine, freshwater, and intertidal ecosystems); vi) riparian areas (i.e. the areas and vegetation surrounding wetlands, lakes, streams, and rivers); vii) ecosystems not covered above that may be vulnerable to climate change and natural hazard impacts, or that provide buffers to climate change impacts or natural hazard impacts for communities; and viii) uses within those lands that are appropriately located, scaled, and consistent with the intent of the designation, including: • major parks and outdoor recreation areas; • education, research and training facilities, and associated uses that serve conservation and/or recreation users; • commercial uses, tourism activities, and public, cultural, or community amenities; • limited agricultural use, primarily soil-based; and • land management activities needed to minimize vulnerability/risk to climate-related impacts. c) include policies that: i) protect the integrity of lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation from activities in adjacent areas by requiring wild land interface planning, and Doc#2891333 Member jurisdictions will: 3.1.9 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: b) consider including policies that support the protection and enhancement of lands with a Conservation and Recreation land use designation, which may include the following uses: i) drinking water supply areas; ii) environmental conservation areas; iii) wildlife management areas and ecological reserves; iv) forests; v) wetlands (e.g. freshwater lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, estuarine, marine, freshwater, and intertidal ecosystems); vi) riparian areas (i.e. the areas and vegetation surrounding wetlands, lakes, streams, and rivers); vii) ecosystems not covered above that may be vulnerable to climate change and natural hazard impacts, or that provide buffers to climate change impacts or natural hazard impacts for communities; and viii) uses within those lands that are appropriately located, scaled, and consistent with the intent of the designation, including: • major parks and outdoor recreation areas; • education, research and training facilities, and associated uses that serve conservation and/or recreation users; • commercial uses, tourism activities, and public, cultural, or community amenities; • limited agricultural use, primarily soil-based; and • land management activities needed to minimize vulnerability/risk to climate-related impacts. c) include policies that: Page 4 of 8 City of Maple Ridge Formal Referral Comments Index Draft Metro 2050 introducing measures such as physical buffers or development permit requirements; and Metro Vancouver will: 3.2.1 Implement the strategies and actions of the regional growth strategy that contribute to regional targets to: a) increase the area of lands protected for nature from 40% to 50% of the region's land base by the year 2050; and b) increase the total tree canopy cover within the Urban Containment Boundary from 32% to 40% by the year 2050. Member jurisdictions will: 3.2.7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: a) identify local ecosystem protection and tree canopy cover targets, and demonstrate how these targets will contribute to the regional targets in Action 3.2.1; c) include policies that: i) support the consideration of ecosystem services in land use decision-making and land management practices; Strategy 3.4 Encourage land use, infrastructure, and human settlement patterns that improve resilience to climate change impacts and natural hazards. 3.4.5 Adopt Regional Context Statements that include policies that: a) minimize risks associated with climate change and natural hazards in existing communities through tools such as heat and air quality response plans, seismic retrofit policies, and flood-proofing policies; and Doc#2891333 i) protect the integrity of lands with a Conservation and Recreation regional land use designation from activities in adjacent areas by considering wild land interface planning, and considering measures such as physical buffers or development permit requirements; Request clarification on suggested strategies to meet new environmental regional target, including strategies to maintain and increase tree canopy cover as the community grows. Member jurisdictions will: 3.2.7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: a) consider identifying local ecosystem protection and tree canopy cover targets, and create policy to contribute to the regional targets in Action 3.2.1; c) consider including policies that: i) address ecosystem services in land use decision-making and land management practices; Maple Ridge requests additional tools, training and resources with respect to climate change, emergency and natural hazard preparation, as it relates to land use planning as outlined in Strategy 3.4. Page 5 of 8 City of Maple Ridge Formal Referral Comments Index Draft Metro 2050 b) discourage new development in current and future hazardous areas to the extent possible through tools such as land use plans, hazard-specific Development Permit Areas, and managed retreat policies, and where development in hazardous areas is unavoidable, mitigate risks. 3.4.6 Incorporate climate change and natural hazard risk assessments into planning and location decisions for new municipal utilities, assets, operations, and community services. 3.4.7 Integrate emergency management, utility planning, and climate change adaptation principles when preparing land use plans, transportation plans, and growth management policies. 3.4.8 Adopt appropriate planning standards, guidelines, and best practices related to climate change and natural hazards, such as flood hazard management guidelines and wildland urban interface fire risk reduction principles. Member jurisdictions will: 4.1.8 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) identify policies and actions that contributed to the following outcomes: vii) integrated housing within neighbourhood contexts and high quality urban design; and Member jurisdictions will: 4.2. 7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: a) indicate how they will, within their local context, work towards the regional target of 15% affordable rental housing in redeveloped and new housing development within Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas; Doc#2891333 Maple Ridge requests a definition of integrated housing is needed to understand the policy implication of policy 4.1.8 c) vii). Maple Ridge requests a definition of affordable rental housing to understand the policy implication as it relates to the new housing target identified in policy 4.2.7 a). Page 6 of 8 City of Maple Ridge Formal Referral Comments Index Draft Metro 2050 Member jurisdictions will: 4.2.7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) identify the use of regulatory tools that protect and preserve rental housing; d) identify policies and actions that contribute to the following outcomes: i) increased supply of affordable rental housing in proximity to transit and on publicly-owned land; ii) increased supply of market and below-market rental housing through the renewal of aging purpose-built rental housing and prevention of net rental unit loss; iii) protection and renewal of existing non-market rental housing; iv) mitigated impacts on renter households due to renovation or redevelopment, and strengthened protections for tenants; and Member jurisdictions will: 5.2.6 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: e) identify policies and actions to mitigate public exposure to unhealthy levels of noise, vibration, and air pollution associated with the Major Road Network, Major Transit Network, railways, truck routes, and Federal/ Provincial Highways; Doc#2891333 Pro .. P.o.··.sed Resbtutiorl \,\',',, ',')<\i,;'i'/' <; ''i'"',f, Member jurisdictions will: 4.2.7 Adopt Regional Context Statements that: c) encourage the use of regulatory tools that protect and preserve rental housing; d) consider policies and actions that contribute to the following outcomes: i) encourage increased supply of affordable rental housing in proximity to transit and on publicly-owned land; ii) encourage increased supply of market and below-market rental housing through the renewal of aging purpose-built rental housing and prevention of net rental unit loss; iii) encourage protection and renewal of existing non-market rental housing; iv) encourage mitigating impacts on renter households due to renovation or redevelopment, and strengthened protections for tenants; and Maple Ridge requests advocacy from Metro Vancouver to CP Rail and CN Rail to address noise and vibration concerns caused by freight movement through Maple Ridge. Page 7 of 8 City of Maple Ridge Formal Referral Comments Index Draft Metro 2050 B. Following approval of the draft Metro 2050, the City of Maple Ridge will pursue the following regional land use re-designations: Location Current Proposed Regional Land Use Proposed Regional Overlay Regional Land Use Yennadon Lands General Urban Employment n/a Albion Industrial Park Rural Industrial n/a Expansion east of 240 St Industrial Reserve Land Rural Industrial n/a Kanaka Business Park Rural Industrial n/a Lougheed Transit Corridor General Urban General Urban Corridor Frequent Transit Development Area Area Plan Lougheed Transit Corridor General Urban Employment n/a Area Plan 203 Street and Lougheed General Urban General Urban Station Frequent Transit Development Area Highway and vicinity Agriculture -Employment (subject to ALC Albion Flats Special Study approvals), within the Urban n/a Area Containment Boundary Through these future land use re-designations, Maple Ridge re-affirms an employment future for areas such as Yennadon, Albion Flats, and Thornhill, and further reaffirms its intention to include Albion Flats in the Urban Containment Boundary. Doc#2891333 Page 8 of 8 TO: FROM: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: 09-Nov-2021 FILE NO: 05-1830-20 MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Quarter 3, 2021 Financial Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to provide a financial update for the third quarter of 2021, focusing on operating results for the City. In Q3, the City continued to address the ongoing COVID-19 situation. The Public Health Officer indicated that the Province would move into Phase 4 of its four-phase restart plan on September 7, however due to an increase of cases, this transition was put on hold and instead mask mandates were reintroduced for all indoor public spaces and a vaccine passport system was implemented. The City has incorporated these changes into our operations as required. As was noted in the Q2 Financial Update, the majority of the City's revenues are earned in the first half of the year, and while expenses are incurred more evenly, they tend to be weighted more to the latter part of the year. The Leisure Centre facility was able to return to full capacity late in Q3 so while we are still seeing an impact to Revenues, it is not as severe as that experienced in 2020. There is still a significant degree of uncertainty around the fourth wave of COVID-19 which introduces greater than normal challenges into predicting year-end results. For this reason, forecast results provides a wider range that would normally be included. RECOMMENDATION: For information. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The purpose of this report is to provide a financial update for Q3 of 2021, focusing on operating results for the City. Generally speaking, the majority of the City's revenues are recognized in the first half of the year and while expenses are incurred more evenly throughout the year, it is our experience that they tend to be weighted more to the latter part of the year. While estimated ranges for year-end results are included and have been refined from Q2, it should be noted that there is still a considerable amount of uncertainty around COVID-19 and any potential operational changes that may be mandated by the Public Health Officer making it more challenging to predict year-end results. The annual budget numbers indicate that should 2890567 Page 1 of 8 4.4 all activities in the proposed Financial Plan be completed in the year, we will draw down our operating Accumulated Surplus by $5.9 million, with just under $1 million of this coming from General Revenue. The impacts of COVID-19 are being felt for a second year and while the situation has improved, we continue to experience impacts to both Revenues and Expenses. As we continue to pivot our operations in response to changing Public Health Orders, we expect that we will see a reduced impact on Revenues and Expenses going forward. One of the areas that has been most impacted by the pandemic is our Recreation Department, in particular, the Leisure Centre. On September 7 following Provincial Health Orders, our Leisure Centre returned to full capacity including drop-in access to the pool area, fitness centre and gymnasium programs. Based on what we have seen since that transition, albeit a small sample size so far, we anticipate revenue for this area continuing to increase through Q4. The lifting of the Provincial State of Emergency on July 1 marked an end to the City's ability to seek reimbursement for eligible costs incurred to address COVID-19. Staff are in the process of preparing a claim to recover eligible costs from the Province and will provide a further update on recoveries in the Q4 update. Revenues: Under accounting guidelines, we recognize revenues as they are earned which is often at a different point in time than when the related cash is received. In this section, we have included information about both revenues and impacts to cash flows where appropriate. While there is an ongoing impact to 2021 revenues as a result of COVID-19, it is challenging to predict what the final impact will be with any certainty due to the number of operational pivots the City has had to make and may need to make in the future in order to comply with changing public health orders. The following provides some information on each of the City's revenue sources: 2890567 • Property Taxes: The Community Charter sets the due date for property taxes at July 2 each year and any amounts unpaid at that time are subject to penalty. Property taxes are the City's primary revenue source, and from an accounting perspective are recognized when levied, with cash collection following in the subsequent months. As of September 30, the City had received 97.1% of the total tax levy, slightly ahead of collections in 2020 when the penalty deadline was extended to October 1. When comparing to 2019, when the penalty deadlines were the same as 2021, collections are comparable. • User Fees & Other Revenues: This revenue category includes items such as building permit revenues, planning fees, sewer and water levies and recreation fees. When looking at the category as a whole, revenues have increased by approximately $5 million from the same time in 2020, driven in large part by increased Sewer and Water levies as well as increasing Recreational revenues. Building permit revenues are recognized on a different fiscal year to the rest of the organization, with revenues recognized from November 1 to October 31. At the end of Q3, we are seeing an increase in revenues from this source compared to 2020 and currently estimate that we will achieve the Financial Plan estimate of $2.8 million. Page 2 of 8 2890567 Overall, we are seeing an increase in planning fees compared to the past two years indicating there is strong interest in development in the community which is an early indicator of future growth in the tax base. In the Recreation area, revenues to the end of Q3 are up approximately 47% when compared to the same time last year. The increase in revenue can be attributed to the hard work of Recreation staff to get operations back to normal levels, while at the same time following Provincial Health Orders. As mentioned above, late in Q3 our Leisure Centre facility returned to full capacity for the first time since closing in March of 2020. At this time, we still anticipate a shortfall in revenues for the year and the magnitude of that shortfall will depend on the ability to continue operations safely as we follow Provincial orders. • Government Transfers: Grants are received from other levels of government and are typically linked to a specific program or service delivery area. In some instances, the City will receive funding in advance of incurring expenses and may be able to defer the timing of revenue recognition to align with the timing of the related expenses. One example of this is the annual funding the City receives from Translink to maintain the Major Road Network. In 2021, the City expects to receive approximately $1.9 million in funding from Translink for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the Major Road Network. As was touched on in the Q2 report, the funding expectations from Translink returned to normal this year after being cancelled in 2020 due to COVID-19. The City has received approximately $1.2 million to date in 2021. Late in Q3, the City received half of its awarded $1.2 million in funding for community strengthening. This funding has enabled the successful launch of the Community Resource Hub and also supported the transition to a 16/7 Community Safety Officer operating model. • Development Revenues: Much of the revenue included in this category is a recognition of previously collected amounts and variances to budget are offset by delays in expenditures. • Interest and Investment Income: The City invests any cash not immediately needed to settle its obligations in accordance with policy that prioritizes safety, liquidity and returns. We continue to see reduced interest rates that are significantly lower than what was previously available to the City, and accordingly, revenues are lower than the levels we saw in 2020 at this point in the year. As has been mentioned in previous reports, the interest and investment income area is one of the areas we anticipate seeing lasting impacts into future periods due to COVID-19. The ability to generate returns on investments has always been dependent on both available rates and the timing of expenditures, particularly for capital. Although we anticipate interest rates will come back up in the future, there is much uncertainty around when that will happen. At this time, we are still seeing significantly reduced interest rates. Given the information that is available to us, it is important to note that this is an area where we will likely see revenues come in below the levels that we have seen in previous years. We will continue to explore all options available to us in order to maximize our interest and investment returns going forward. Page 3 of 8 • Gaming Revenues: Under an agreement with the Province, the City receives a share of the net income from the local Chances Casino. On July 1, the gaming facility reopened with capacity restrictions in place. We have recently received notice from the Province that although the casino has successfully reopened and operated since July 1, there were expenses incurred while they were closed and that that revenue sharing payments through the end of our Qi 2022 will be adjusted to offset those expenses. For Q3, the City received a payment of $440,000 suggesting that there has been strong demand for the casino since reopening. Under policy, the majority of gaming revenues are used as a funding source for capital and infrastructure renewal. We currently have approximately $1.6 million of reserved gaming revenues meaning a shortfall in this revenue stream can continue to be offset in the short term. Expenses: On the expense side, Q3 results for most reporting segments are comparable to Q3 of 2020. As we continue working our way through the Provincial Restart Plan, we are beginning to see a transition back to regular operations which has caused some reporting segments, like the Recreation area, see their expenses start to return to normal levels. Overall, we are anticipating that results are likely to be comparable to 2020 by year end. There continues to be a number of staffing vacancies throughout the organization that will contribute to savings, in addition to this, as noted in the Q2 report, we are continuing to see the trend of on line delivery methods for events such as conferences and training that will also result in some savings. We are likely to see a number of deferred work plan items again this year which will result in some savings compared to budget, however we will likely see much of those savings transferred to Reserves to allow those deferred work plans to proceed in 2022. The following provides information on each reporting segment included on the Statement of Operations: • General Government: General government expenses are in line with where they were at the same point in 2020. At the end of the September, expenses in this area are at approximately 60% of the budget and if this trend continues, we could see a savings of approximately $3.6 -$5.1 million at the end of year. General Government is one of the areas that has experienced recruiting challenges resulting in salary savings. It is also important to note that recruiting challenges can delay some studies and projects and other work plan items, which result in savings that are transferred into Reserves at the end of the year to allow the work to continue in the following year. • Protective Services: Expenses for Protective Services to the end of Q3 are at 63% of the budget, slightly higher than the same time last year. On August 6, the RCMP union contract was ratified which will result in multiple years of retroactive pay being settled in future periods. At this time, we do not yet have an estimated cost to the City, however it is likely that this will be paid over several years. As was touched on in the Q2 update, there are funds available in the Police Services Reserve to cover the retroactive compensation. • Transportation: Expenses to the end of Q3 are at approximately 50% of the budget, in line with the same time last year. This reporting segment has experienced significant recruitment challenges for the past period of time and has recently been able to 2890567 Page 4 of 8 successfully fill a number of vacancies. Due to these resourcing challenges, we expect a number of studies and projects will be incomplete at the end of this year. If the current trends continue through the end of the year, it is expected that we will see savings in this area ranging between $2.8 and $4.3 million with some of this amount transferred to Reserves to allow work to continue next year. • Planning, Public Health & Other: Expenses in this reporting segment are in line with 2020 spending. At the end of Q3, expenses in this reporting segment are at approximately 70% of the budget and if current trends continue, we expect we will see a slight savings at year-end versus the budget. Any savings we see are likely to be transferred to Reserves to allow deferred work to proceed in 2022. • Parks, Recreation & Culture: As touched on earlier in this report, this is an area where we are seeing the expenses starting to return to their normal levels. Compared to the same point in time last year, we are seeing an increase of approximately $1 million. This was expected as the Department has had a number of ongoing operational pivots and has slowly increased capacity at facilities. The City's Recreation Department has been adapting to the changing health orders throughout the duration of the pandemic. They have gone from a complete shut down, to opening with limited capacity to opening facilities back at full capacity late in Q3. With the uncertainty around potential future health order changes, it is difficult to forecast this area to year end. With that being said, should the current trends continue, we anticipate savings of between $3.8 and $5.8 million by the end of the year some of which will be transferred to Reserves for work that will proceed in 2022. • Sewer: The annual sewer levy from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District was processed in Q3 resulting in the majority of the annual expenses being recognized in this quarter. When compared to 2020 we are seeing a slight increase in expenses which is due to an increase in the annual sewer levy. If current trends continue, we expect that expenses at the end of the year will range from approximately $10.5 million -$11.5 million which would result in savings between $700 thousand -$1.7 million. Final results will depend on progress on various projects and a portion of savings will be transferred to Reserves to allow work to continue next year. • Water: To the end of September, expenses in the Water Utility are at approximately 58% of the annual budget, mainly due to the timing of billing for water consumption from the regional district. At this time, we are forecasting expenses for the water utility to range from approximately $12 million -$13 million which would result in savings between $2.2 -$3.2 million. Final results will depend on water consumption trends for the remainder of the year. 2890567 Page 5 of 8 CONCLUSION: In conclusion, results to the end of Q3 are showing similar trends to what we have typically seen in prior years. We are seeing that the majority of revenues were recognized in the first half of the year while the expenses continue to be spread more evenly throughout the year with a higher weighting towards the end of the year. Operations for the City are starting the transition back to normal, and as such, we anticipate that operating results will start to follow over the coming months. With that being said there is still a significant degree of uncertainty and we expect that there will still be some lasting impacts that will be felt in future periods. We have provided a range of results within which we expect year end results to fall. We will continue to refine the ranges as we draw closer to year end. An updated report will be provided following the end of Q4 that will include preliminary year end results. Prepared by: Trevor Hansvall Accountant 1 QJL. Reviewed by: Catherine Nolan, CPA, CGA Deputy Director of Finance Reviewed by: ~nance. Approved by: Christina Crabtree GM, Corporate Services ~<:~ Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: (A) Schedule "A" -Quarter 3 Statement of Operations (B) Schedule "B" -Operating Accumulated Surplus Distribution 2890567 Page 6 of 8 City of Maple Ridge Quarter 3 Statement of Operations Ytd Actual Revenues Taxes for municipal purposes 98,370,203 User fees and other revenue 44,953,600 Government transfers 3,688,974 Development revenue 461,994 Interest and investment income 1,421,884 Gaming revenues 439,168 Disposal Proceeds 500,168 Total Revenue 149,835,991 Expenses (excluding amonization) General Government 12,350,717 Protective Services 28,598,010 Transportation 7,431,848 Planning; Public Health & Other 5,310,779 Recreation 13,984,589 Sewer 10,062,480 Water 8,898,833 Total Expenses 86,637,257 Annual Surplus 63,198,734 Internal transfers & principal payments Principal Payments 2,604,281 Transfers to(from) reserves 5,948,074 Transfers to capital !estimated) 5,814,723 Total Internal transfers & principal payments 14,367,079 Increase (decrease) in operating accumulated surplus 48,831,655 Ac-cumulated surplus· beginning of year 34,023,354 Estimated Accumulated surplus as at December 31, 2021 82,855,009 Schedule A Annual Budget % YE Estimates 99,130,772 99% S99.1 million 49,956,147 90% $48 -$51 million 4,039,792 91% S4.0 -S5.5 million 698,020 66% S0.5 -S.8 million 1,883,004 76% $1.6 -$2.1 million S0.43 -S0.8 million S0.5million 155,707,735 96% $154.1 • $159.8 million 20,603,378 6.Q"i, S15.5 • S17 million 45,619,937 63% S38 • $42 million 14,802,929 50% $10.5 -S12 million 7,632,039 70% $6.5 • S8 million 23,869,512 59;,", S18 -$20 million 12,191,441 83% S10.5 • S11.5 million 15,223,638 58% S:12 • $14 million 139,942,874 62% $111 • S124.5 million 15,764,861 3,304,401 S3.0 • $3.3 million 351,500 S10 • S28 million 17,997,160 $10 • S25.5 million 21,653,061 S23 • S56.8 million -5,888,200 S!27.2) • S25.8 million 34,023,354 S34 million 28,135,154 S6.8 -$59.8 million * Accumulated surplus is the balance of revenues in excess of expenses and net transfers to reserves that accumulates over time; it is not the result of one year of operations. 2890567 Page 7 of 8 Schedule B City of Maple Ridge Operating Accumulated Surplus Distribution Budgeted Change Opening Balance Budget Ending Balance General Revenue $ 11,096,393 $ (930,636) $ 10,165,757 Sewer Revenue 6,270,330 (1,583,202) 4,687,128 Water Revenue 16,656,631 {3,374.362) 13,282,269 $ 34,023,354 $ (5,888,200} $ 28,135,154 Q3Change: Opening Balance Q3 Change Ending Balance General Revenue $ 11,096,393 $ 35,377,642 $ 46.474,035 Sewer Revenue 6,270,330 4,462,117 10,732.447 Water Revenue 16.656,631 9,270,094 25,926,725 $ 34,023,354 $ 49,109,854 $ 83,133,208 * Accumulated surplus is the balance of revenues in excess of expenses and net transfers to reserves that accumulates over time; it is not the result of one year of operations. 2890567 Page 8 of 8