HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-26 Workshop Agenda and Reports'I
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP A GENDA
January 26, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and debate 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 stafffor more information or
clarification.
REMINDERS
January 26
Closed Council Meeting 11:00 a.m.
January 27
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
MINUTES - January 19, 2004
DELEGATIONS
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Meeting with MLA's
• Role of Provincial Government in the disposition of Household Hazardous Waste
Products
• Ministry of Children and Family Development Service Redesign
• Discussion of the RFP process for service providers.
• Process for determination of funding formula.
• Communications with governing authorities of service providers.
• Release by the Ministry of Children and Family Development Services of the
Service Redesign Report
• Distribution of Federal funding received by the Provincial Government for
early childhood development
Council Workshop
January 26, 2004
Page 2 of 3
4.2 February 2, 2004 Town Hall Meeting
Discussion of format for the public presentation of the Fire Department Master Plan.
4.3 CP/010/03 Official Community Plan Review Status Report
Staff report dated January 19, 2004 providing an update on the status of the OCP
review.
4.4 Council Year End Review
CORRESPONDENCE
BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7., MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked
Date:
1.
Council Workshop
January 26, 2004
Page 3 of 3
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered
relates to one or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a
position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed
by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a
municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on
condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council
considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the
municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to
harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an Act, regulation or bylaw;
(g) consideration of whether paragraph (e) or (f) applies in relation to a matter;
(h) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(i) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the
municipality, other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications
necessary for that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
Negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service
that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be
expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(k)Discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives,
measures and progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98
[annual municipal report]
a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the
meeting;
(I) a matter prescribed by regulation under section 242.8.
(m) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First
Nations, where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
ell, 0 La.
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
Tephone: (604) 463-5221 Fax: (604) 467-7329 ( E-mail: eriquiries@mapleridge.org
www.mapleridge.org Incorporated 12 September, 1874
Office of the Mayor
October 6, 2003
Honourable Joyce Murray
Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection
P0 Box 9047
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
Dear Minister:
RE: Inclusion of Milk Containers in Provincial Refund/Deposit System
Our File No.: E06-017-005.7
It is the District of Maple Ridge's understanding that in the very near future, the Minister of Water, Land and
Air Protection is expected to make a decision on whether to include milk containers in the deposit-refund
system or to allow them to remain exempt, based on a 'top-up fee' plan proposed by the Dairy Council.
I am writing this letter on behalf of Council to urge the Province to include milk containers in the deposit-
refund program, rather than adopt the top-up fee proposed by the Dairy Council.
Adding milk containers to the deposit-refund system would:
• Be consistent with the GVRD's Regional Solid Waste Management Plan (which was approved by the
Province)
• Be consistent to the Ministry's objectives of a standard litter deposit program
• Remove the financial burden for managing these materials from local government
• Reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed with BC
• Provide valuable plastic and paper fibre feedstock to BC's recycling industries
• Provides all drink containers in the same system
• Appropriately place the responsibility and incentive for managing end-of-life milk containers with
brand-owners/producers and not the general taxpayer
In conclusion, while the top-up fee has some merit, the
provides the best benefits to the overall long-term solid
questions, please feel free to contact me at 604463-5221.
inclusion of milk containers in the refund system
waste management plan. Should you have any
Respectfully,
#hyyorse
Mayor
KM/mi
cc Premier Campbell
Minister of Agriculture
Minister of State for Deregulation
Frank Quinn, GM: Public Works & Development Services, District of Maple Ridge
Andrew Wood, Municipal Engineer, District of Maple Ridge
"Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizens" 49*
100% Recycled Paper
Policy and Planning Department
Greater Vancouver Regional District Telephone (604) 432-6375
4330 Kin gsway, Bumaby, British Columbia, Canada V5H 4G8 Fax (604) 436-6970
- Committee Meeting Date: October 22, 2003
To: Solid Waste Committee
From: Nancy Knight
Demand Side Management Division Manager
Date: September 23, 2003
Subject: Milk Container Stewardship
Recommendation: That the Board decline participation in the Dairy Council's proposed 'top-up
payment' program and convey its support for milk containers to be included in the deposit-refund
system to the Premier, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the Minister of Agriculture
and the Minister of State for Deregulation.
PURPOSE
To provide an update on beverage container stewardship developments and assess the options being
proposed for milk containers.
CONTEXT
2.1 Introduction
Industry product stewardship is a system that shifts waste management responsibilities away from
general taxpayers towards producers and consumers. Product stewardship is a key component of the
Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) and has helped achieve the 50% reduction goal. Since the
beverage container stewardship program was expanded in 1998, the amount of plastic, metal and
glass beverage containers disposed per capita has been reduced by 42%, 72% and 57%.
There are two general approaches to product stewardship for beverage containers. In the first
approach, industryis directly responsible for operating and financing deposit-refund programs. In
the second approach, industry assumes indirect responsibility by providing some funding to local
governments for collecting and marketing empty containers. Deposit-refund programs generate the
highestreturn:rates(75%;to95%) 'compared to cürbidetö1leti6n (35% to• 50% reovery).
In 1970, British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in North America to implement a deposit-refund
system as a litter-control measure for soft drink and beer containers. The system was expanded in
1998 to include all ready-to-serve beverage containers, with the exception of milk and milk
substitutes. Since the exemption was granted, many organizations, including the Recycling Council
of British Columbia and several regional districts, have formally requested that milk containers be
included in the deposit-refund system.
Page 2 of 5
Milk Container Stewardship
Solid Waste Committee Meeting - October22, 2003
In 2002, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP) issued a business plan identifying
specific principles for product stewardship. First, waste management responsibilities are shifted to
producers and users,rather than generaL taxpayers. Second, a level playing field requires -the same
stewardship responsibilities for all brand-owners. Third, stewardship plans must be results-oriented
with clear recovery targets. Finally, industry must be fully accountable to government and the
public for environmental outcomes and allocation of revenues from fees/levies. This fall, the
Ministry is expected to make a decision regarding milk containers in order to level the playing field
for beverage container stewardship.
2.2 B.C. Dairy Council's Proposal
In advance of specific requirements from the Province, the B.C. Dairy Council is informally
circulating a proposal to pay local governments a limited portion of the cost of collecting plastic
milk jugs and polycoat milk cartons in municipal recycling programs, in lieu of inclusion in the
deposit-refund system. The Dairy Council has met with GVRD staff and provided some member
municipalities with a copy of the proposal (Attachment 1).
The proposed program would provide local governments with 'top-up payments' intended to cover
some of the differences between collection and processing costs, and revenues received from the
sale of collected materials. Top-up fees would be based on the market value of $450 per tonne for
plastic milk jugs (subject to a $200 per tonne floor price) and $250 per tonne for polycoat cartons
collected in the blue box. A transport supplement would be offered for jurisdictions outside the
Lower Mainland and early participants would receive funding for education programs. Individual
local governments would register on-line; until this system is in place a letter of understanding
would govern the agreement between themselves and the Council.
Before circulating this proposal the Dairy Council commissioned a pilot with the City of Abbotsford
and District of Mission from October 2001 to June 2003 to collect all dairy containers in their
curbside bluebag program. The City of Abbotsford reported that total system costs, including
collection and processing, were $530 per tonne for plastic milk jugs and $1055 per tonne for
polycoat cartons based on recovery rates of 83% and 27%. The City of Abbotsford has proposed to
continue collecting the material on a full cost recovery basis. The Fraser Valley Regional District
supported the pilot but has requested that milk containers be included in the deposit-refund program.
The Abbotsford-Mission blue bag system co-mingles all recyclables in one bag and uses single-
compartment collection trucks, which have excess capacity to accommodate the additional volume
associated with handling these new materials. GVRD member municipalities collect recyclables
separated into paper, cardboard and containers using the blue-box and additional bags. In source-
separated collection, trucks have multiple compartments: and do not have extra capacity to accept
additional waste streams, such as polycoat cartons, without incurring additional costs.
The Dairy Council's top-up pay7ment proposal has not been approved by the Ministry of WLAP.
However, the Dairy Council is lobbying the Ministry of WLAP, the Ministry of Agriculture, and
Ministry of State for Deregulation for approval to implement the program. Several regional
districts, including the Capital Regional District and the Nanaimo Regional District, have declined
participation in the Dairy Council's proposed program.
• Page3of5
• Milk Container Stewardship
I Solid Waste Committee Meeting - October 22, 2003
2.3 Analysis
Based on the evaluation 'of the top-up payment approach and the depositrefund system provided in
Attachment 2, the Dairy Council's top-up payment proposal does not meet the Ministry's
requirements for product stewardship. -Of particular concern is that should this shared stewardship
proposal be adopted local governments, it could set a precedent for other stewardship agencies to
seek a similar model based on the requirement for a level playing field. For example, municipal
collection is .a key component of Electronics Product Stewardship.Canada's proposed national
stewardship program.
Municipalities would incur additional costs associated with the administrative overhead of
collecting, sorting and weighing milk containers, as well as the administrative burden of marketing
polycoat containers, which have weak markets. The Dairy Council's top-up fees would not be
enough to cover program costs.
By contrast, adding milk containers to the deposit-refund system would mitigate the financial
burden of solid waste management on local government and correctly place the responsibility for
managing milk container recycling with producers and consumers, rather than the general taxpayer.
A single system for all beverage containers would be less confusing for consumers, provide a level
playing field for all beverage producers, and use an economic instrument that is proven to achieve
high recycling rates. Full producer responsibility also creates an economic incentive for industry to
design cost-effective, recyclable packaging and remove difficult to recycle container types such as
polycoat cartons. This will result in greater environmental benefits than could be anticipated
through local governments subsidizing the costs to handle milk containers.
One of the arguments commonly used by opponents to deposit-refund programs is that of
convenience. Returning milk containers to retail stores or depots is sometimes regarded as less
convenient than curbside pickup, particularly in the case of bulky milk containers. While curbside
collection programs do offer residents the convenience of regular collection and potentially reduced
storage requirements in the home, a 1998 study by Angus Reid found that 96% of British
Columbians support the deposit program because it gives people a financial incentive to recycle, and
that the inconvenience of returning containers for deposit is only a minor concern. These findings
are supported by consistently high recovery rates through B.C.'s deposit system, which had an
overall recovery rate of 84% in 2002 (ranging from 75% for non-alcoholic containers to 95% for
beer, cider and cooler containers).
One way to-ensure a convenient deposit system is by augmenting a return-to-depot system with
return-to-retail collection, giving consumers the option of taking empty containers back to the stores
when making new purchases. Retailers can minimize odour issues and hygiene concerns by
requiring containers to be rinsed before accepting containers and refunding deposits, as stated in the
Beverage Container Stewardship Rçgulation.
Milk is considered a staple food and the argument has been put forward that low income residents
should not be forced to pay additional costs for recycling. A deposit-refund program provides social
benefits to both consumers and taxpayers by fully refunding deposits and avoids increasing taxes to
fund expanded municipal collection programs. In comparison, the Dairy Council's top-up proposal
embeds non-refundable recycling fees in the price of milk and could cause taxes to increase to pay
for municipalities to subsidize the collection of milk containers.
Page 4 of 5
Milk Container Stewardship
Solid Waste Committee Meeting - October22, 2003
Deposits provide an economic incentive to reduce litter and offer a source of income to some
disadvantaged people. While some municipalities receive complaints about scavenging, scavenging
occurs only if deposit-return materials rnare incorrectly placed in blue boxes rather than returned
through the deposit system.
3. ALTERNATIVES
The Board could:
Agree to participate in the Dairy Council's proposed top-up payment program. Accepting the
Dairy Council's proposal would mean that municipalities would recover a small fraction of the
cost to collect milk containers and likely incur additional administrative costs that would
increase as recycling rates rise. Collecting polycoat milk cartons, but not juice cartons that are
currently included in the deposit system, could confuse consumers and contaminate other
recyclables in the blue box. Most significantly, accepting this shared stewardship model could
set a precedent for other existing or future stewardship agencies to share stewardship
responsibilities with local governments.
Decline participation in the Dairy Council's proposed top-up payment pro grain. Declining
participation in a shared stewardship program would confirm the Board's position, developed
through the SWIVIP, that the responsibility for product stewardship should be borne by industry
and consumers, and that all stewardship programs should meet the Ministry's criteria of
producer/user responsibility, level playing field, results-oriented programming, and
transparency/accountability. However, this option alone would not address the fact that plastic
milk jugs are collected by municipalities at their expense, and that there is no system for
recycling polycoat milk containers.
Decline participation in the Dairy Council's proposed top-up payment program and convey its
support to include milk containers in the deposit-refund system to the Premier, the Minister of
Water, Land and Air Protection, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for
Deregulation. This option would confirm the Board's position, developed through the SWMP,
that the responsibility for product stewardship should be borne by industry and consumers. At
the same time, this alternative would provide an effective solution for removing milk containers
from municipal blue box programs. If milk containers were included in the deposit refund
system there would be no cost or administration overhead for local governments, the costs of the
system would be borne by the producer and consumer, and high return rates could be expected
based on the performance of B.C.'s deposit-refund system to date.
Receive this report for information and take no further action at this time. The Ministry of
WLAP has indicated that it will soon be making a decision about milk containers to level the
playing field for beverage containet stewardship. JLthe.Proinceaccepts theDairy,Council's
prop6sal,Tlocal governments would share stewardship responsibilities under a partial cost-
recovery model, which could set a precedent for other stewardship programs. If the Province
extends the dairy industry's exemption from the deposit-refund system, or takes no action with
respect to dairy container stewardship at this time, municipalities would continue to bear the cost
of recycling plastic milk jugs, and polycoat milk cartons would continue to go to landfills.
Staff recommend alternative (c).
Page 5 of 5
Milk Container Stewardship
Solid Waste Committee Meeting - October 22, 2003
4. CONCLUSION
In 1998, the deposit-refund system was expanded to include all alcoholic and non-alcoholic
beverage containers, with, the exception milk and milk substitutes. The Ministry of WLAP is
expected to make aniniminent decision regarding milk containers in order to level the playing field
for beverage container stewardship. In lieu of inclusion in the deposit-refund system, the B.C. Dairy
Council is proposing to provide "top-up payments" to local governments for collecting milk jugs
and polycoat containers. These top-up fees, which are based on the ;market value of the material,
cover only a small portion of the total cost of recycling-dairy- containers .through municipal
collection programs. Of particular concern is that should this shared stewardship proposal be
adopted local governments, it could set a precedent for other stewardship agencies to seek a similar
model based on the requirement for a level playing field. An alternative option is to include milk
containers in the deposit-refund program, which would transfer waste management responsibilities
and costs to industry, yield high return rates, and create a single system for all beverage containers.
Attachments
BC Dairy Council, Milk Container Recycling Program Outline of the Participant Package
Comparison of the Dairy Council's Top-Up Payment Proposal and Deposit-Refund Option
\\sdhoservOl\P&P_RECORDS\Work\CR\CRI I GVRD Board Coinmittees\Solid Waste Commiuee\2003\10-22\nk (mdk) 030923 r milk container
stewardship(d)doc
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
Box 283, Maple Ridge, BC, V2X-7G2
Phone:(604) 463-5545 Fax:(604) 467-6100
Depot Location: 1 0092-236St. MapleRidgê, BC
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
September 26, 2003
TO: Mayor Kathy Morse & Council;
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC
V2X-6A9
Dear Mayor Morse & Council;
RE: INCLUSION OF MILK CONTAINERS IN PROVINCIAL REFUNDI DEPOSIT SYSTEM
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society urges Maple Ridge Council to tell the Province as soon as
possible to include milk containers in the deposit-refund program, not to adopt the top-up fee
proposed by the Dairy Council.
In the very near future the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection will make a decision on
whether to include milk containers in the deposit-refund system or to allow them to remain
exempt based on a 'top-up fee' plan they have proposed.
The Dairy Council is lobbying the Province [i.e, the Premier, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of
State for Deregulation (Deregulation Office in the Ministry of Competition, Science and
Enterprise) and Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection] to implement it's proposed top-up
payment proposal and remain exempted from the deposit-refund program.
It is imperative that local governments alert the above provincial ministries as soon as possible
of their desire to have milk containers included in the deposit-refund system, not the proposed
top-up fee program.
The Dairy Council proposal would pay local governments a top-up fee based on the
commodities market. Currently the top-up fee for milk jug plastics, HDPE is $450 per ton and
$250 per ton for polycoat containers.
At this time the market price paid to Ridge Meadows Recycling Society for HDPE is $390 per
ton,s,Q the.Dairy.Council'sprpposaLwould,add $60 per. ton rtotherevenuestream for•.the-40 or
so tons we ship a year. That $2400.00 doesn't come anywhere close to covering the cost of
collecting, processing and marketing milk jugs. If the dairy containers were included in the
deposit-refund system, each container would be worth the deposit amount to the Society. As a
comparison, 2 liter pop containers are worth $.20 each and if milk jugs had a $.20 deposit, they
would be worth $740.00 per ton.
2
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society has lobbied for years to have dairy containers included in the
deposit-refund program.
We believe that addingmilk containers to the system would:
• Remove the financial burden for managing these materials from local government
• Reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed with BC -
• Provide valuable plastic and paper fibre feedstock to BC's recycling industries
• Level the playing field by including all drink containers in the same system
• Correctly place the responsibility for managing end-of-life milk containers with brand-
owners/producers and not the general taxpayer
Additionally all deposits are fully recoverable by the purchaser and do not represent an
additional cost to the consumer.
I urge you to send a letter, cc'ing the appropriate provincial agencies, requesting that all dairy
containers be included in the deposit-refund program.
Yours truly,
Kelli Speirs,
Executive Director
CC: Frank Quinn, General Manager, Public Works & Planning
Andrew Wood, Municipal Engineer
Attachment 1
BRITISH COLUMBIA DAIRY COUNCIL
Milk Container Recycling Program
Outline of the Participant Package
June 2003
The British Columbia Dairy Council proposes to assist local communities in the collection and recycling of
used milk containers. To this end, the Milk Container Recycling Program will make the following package
available to participating regional districts, municipalities and/or their designated agents:
The Top-Up Program:
Top-up payments are intended to provide revenue stability for communities that collect and recycle used milk
containers. The program will provide registered participants with top-up payments based on the following
target prices
• C$450 per tonne for used, natural High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) milk jugs
(subject to a C$200 per tonne floor price).
• C$250 per tonne for used polycoat milk cartons (subject to a C$O per tonne floor price).
Examp/e If the market price for used HDPE is C$400 per tonne, the program will pay participants C$50 per
tonne. If the market price for polycoat is C$50 per tonne, the program will pay C$200 per tonne.
Floor prices are the minimum market prices to which top-up payments apply. For example, if the market
price for HDPE is C$150 per tonne, the maximum top-up payment is C$250 per tonne.
The Transportation & Collection Program:
(a) Standard Supplement: The program offers a financial supplement to communities for the collection and
shipment of used milk containers to recycling markets. Payments are based on the following 'zoned'
schedule:
Fraser Valley $ 7.50/IsvIT
Vancouver Island $30.00/MT
Bulkley Valley $40.00/MT
Cariboo $35.00/MT
Kootenays $35.00/MT
Okanagan $25 .00/MT
1 Peace River $40.00/MT
(b) 'Collection Only' option for remote communities: In Zones 3, 4, 5 and 7, registered communities may, at
their option, forego the standard supplement in favour of:
• 'Rack and Bag' collection equipment (provided at the program's expense).
- No feepickup ahd'transportation services ärrangèd and provided bythe program (subject to the
availability of contracted haulers).
The Communications & Education (C&E) Program:
A substantial budget allocation has been made to operate a province-wide Communications & Education
(C&E) program to promote milk container recycling among BC residents. In addition:
• Early participants will have accessto a pooLof funds to help launch thepromotionof milk-
container recycling in their communities. Funds will be available on a 'shared cost' basis.
• A C&E AdvisoryGroup will:be struck consisting of municipal and Dairy Council representatives.
Its role will be to provide the program with input on C&E initiatives, particularly as they relate to
local/community promotion.
Technical Support:
Through its affiliation with CSR: Corporatiqns Supporting Recycling, the Dairy Council will make available
technical support at the participants' request to facilitate operational improvements such as the identification
and implementation of collection and processing efficiencies, cost analysis and system design.
Over the longer term, a Working Group of municipal recycling coordinators may be established to help
identify opportunities for further operational improvements.
How to Participate:
The BC Dairy Council plans to implement an on-line registration system through which regional districts,
municipalities and/or designated agents will be able to join the program quickly and easily. Until this system
is in place, arrangements between the Dairy Council and the applicable Regional
District/municipality/designated agent will be governed by a simple Letter of Understanding.
Attachment 2
Comparison of the Dairy Council's Top-Up Payment Proposal and Deposit-Refund Option
Table 2.1 Evaluation of the two ottions against the Ministry of WLAP' s stewardship principles.
Dairy Council's top-up payment Proposal Deposit-Refund Option
Producer/User . Limited producer responsibility. Dairy • Full producer/user responsibility.
Responsibility industry provides funding only when markets
are weak.
• Local governments would be responsible for
collecting and marketing milk containers.
• Additional, uncompensated administration
costs would be incurred by municipalities to
sort and weigh material.
• Municipalities that do not have revenue
sharing clauses in their recycling contracts
would not benefit from top-up payments.
• Increased recovery rates would yield
increased costs that would not be
compensated_when_markets are_high.
Level Playing • Un-level playing field for dairy producers • Completely level playing field for all
Field over other beverage producers. beverage producers.
• Exempts single-serving milk containers. • AU beverage containers included.
Results-Based • Does not set a target recovery rate. • 85% target recovery rate in BC.
• Curbside collection generally recover X% of • Deposit-refund systems have recovery
beverage containers, rate of X%.
Transparency/ • Dairy industry would not be accountable to • Brand-owners are accountable for meeting
Accountability government and consumers because they recovery targets and covering all program
would only pay a fraction of the costs. costs.
• Proposal is based on weight, but the true cost • Annual reports ensure transparency and
of collecting milk containers is determined by accountability for environmental outcomes
volume, and revenue allocation.
Table 2-2 Additional Pros and Cons
Dairy Council's top-up payment Proposal Deposit-Refund Option
Pros • Convenient for residents. • Consistent with Ministry's principles.
• Does not encourage scavenging, since • Reduces municipal costs.
containers would have no value. • Economic incentive for industry to use cost-
effective, recyclable packaging.
• Consistent approach to all beverage containers.
• Reduces litter and clean-up costs.
• Initial cost increase for low-income residents
can be redeemed through refundable deposits.
Cons • Not consistent with Ministry's principles. • May be inconvenient for consumers.
• 'Shared stewardship' could set a precedent for • Additional space requirements to store empty
future programs, such as electronics. milk containers in homes and small retailers.
• No incentive for industry to improve the - • Encourages scavenging because of the value
recyclability of packaging. attached to containers.
• Accepting milk, but not juice, cartons could
confuse consumers and cause contamination. - -
• Litterisuis ndtiddrsselT
• Municipal blue box recycling programs do not
have excess capacity to accept increasing
volumes of milk jugs and cartons.
• Consumers cannot redeem the non-refundable
recycling fee embedded in the cost of milk.
• Complex network of agreements and cross-
subsidies on a municipal basis.
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor K. Morse DATE: January 19, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: CPI010/03
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Official Community Plan Review Status Report
PURPOSE:
The following report provides an update of the status of the Official Community Plan review to January
30, 2004. This status update is intended to be a monthly update as information to Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report entitled "Official Community Plan Review Status Report" be received as
information.
DISCUSSION:
A status report for the Official Community Plan Review was last provided to Council in December, 2003.
The following identifies progress on various components of the work and events scheduled for early
February.
Status of the Official Community Plan Review:
The Official Community Plan review is organized into nine major issues. The following section of this
report identifies the status of the work on each issue.
Inclusion of Completed Reports - Policy outlines for previously adopted papers are underway for
inclusion in the Official Community Plan. The papers identified for inclusion are the Transportation
Plan; Economic Development Strategy; Parks Master Plan; Gravel Strategy; and Capital and
Financial Plans.
Heritage - The drafting of heritage policy derived from the completed Heritage Discussion paper has
begun and is on schedule.
Social Planning Policy - A draft of the Social Planning Discussion paper is nearing completion and
will be presented to the Social Planning Advisory Committee for comment in February or early
March. The Committee will be asked to appoint a focus group that will provide input for policy
direction arising from the discussion paper. The work of the focus group is scheduled to start in mid
March and to be completed by mid April.
Population. and:ResidentiaL Needs -Assessment The z:Sheltair Group conducted a successful
workshop in early December that sought input on housing market trends and preferences from a
broad base of community representatives. A second workshop that will explore various growth
scenarios will be held in February.
Commercial and Industrial - Paul Rollo, Land Economist has completed the Industrial Lands
Review and has submitted a final draft of a Commercial Lands Review. Presentation of these reports
to Council is anticipated for late February.
11.3
Enviromnent - The Environmental review is scheduled to begin in April.
Agriculture - The first of three agricultural workshops was scheduled to occur on Wednesday,
January 21, 2004. This workshop, which was held at the District Hall, sought the input of farm
operators. Topics of discussion focused upon the challenges farmers face, and their suggestions for
improvements. This input will form part of the background primary research for the Agricultural
Discussion Paper, which is currently underway, with anticipation for completion of the first draft in
April 2004. The Agricultural Land Commission has advised that they are undertaking a Soil
Suitability Survey of the District. This data will be vital to the Agricultural -Discussion Paper. The
Commission has targeted early April for completion. This has required an adjustment to the schedule
for completion of the Discussion Paper.
Residential Policy Review - Terms of reference for the work necessary to complete the background
report have been prepared and requests for proposals will be sent out in early February.
Reformat Official Community Plan - This work is underway. An outline has been provided and
conversion of relevant sections of the existing document into the new format has begun.
Regional Context Statement - The Regional Context Statement will be prepared in the winter of
2004.
CONCLUSION:
The work undertaken on the Official Community Plan Review during December and January is in
keeping with projected outcomes from earlier status reports. The schedule going forward into 2004 is
therefore the same as provided in November.
Prepared by: Moreno RosMBA, MCIP
Ija ic er , CP, MCIP
ML11
Approved by: / Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
,-M: Publiç,Wqrks & Development Services
Concurrence: AhiefL. (Jim) Rule
Administrative-Officer
MRJbjc
.1
- 2 -
(I
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: 2004 0122
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Recreation Facility Fees Amending By-law No. 6189 - 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council gave three readings to Bylaw 6 189-2003 at the last regular meeting and will consider final
reading on January 27 th Subsequent to Council giving three readings staff have received input with
respect to the family definition contained in the bylaw. Currently it reads "Family is defined as two adults
related by blood, marriage or common law with their own children under the age of 19". As a result of the
input received it is recommended that the bylaw be amended at third reading to include a new family
definition as follows. "Family is defined as one or two adults related by blood marriage or common law
with their own children or grandchildren under the age of 19." We are advised that final reading for the
amended bylaw will need to be considered at the next regular Council meeting to meet the procedural
requirements of the conmiunity charter.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the first three readings granted on January 13, 2004 to Maple Ridge Recreation Facility Fees
Amending Bylaw No. 6189-2003 be rescinded.
That Maple Ridge Recreation Facility Fees Amending Bylaw. No. 6198-2004 be read a first and
second time and that the rules of order be waived and Bylaw No. 6198-2004 be read a third time.
DISCUSSION:
a.) Background Context:
When Bylaw 6189-2003 was given three readings Council requested that notification be provided to
users of the Leisure Centre of the change. Notification has been provided at the front entrance and
through the newspapers. A limited amount of public input has been received. That input is related to two
areas of the proposed bylaw. The first has to do with the change in the family definition. One local senior
was concerned that the definition no longer permitted he and his spouse to bring their grandchildren into
the pooi under a family admission category. Two other seniors have expressed concern about the
elimination of the lower admission rate for using part of the facility.
With respect to the first concern we agree that this should be addressed and consequently we have
proposed a further amendment to the family definition. For clarity we have also added the notion that a
family admission would also apply to a single parent bringing this or her children to the facility.
With respect to the senior admission rates we recognize the change will result in an increase for those
seniors who have previously only used the lower rate admission category. Having said that the rates have
not increased in three years and remain among the lowest in the GVRD for Senior Citizens, as noted on
the attached comparison.
4.s
Desired Outcome:
The report offers a further amendment to the bylaw to address the first concern noted above. Overall, the
bylaw change will result in a simplified admission structure, the elimination of wristbands and an increase
in admission revenue to offset a portion of the increased costs experienced in running the facility.
Strategic Alignment:
The Business Planning guidelines of the District direct that fees will be reviewed on a regular basis and
increased as required to offset increasing operational costs and to avoid very large increases being
implemented over a longer period of time.
Citizen/Customer implications:
The increased cost to citizens has been documented previously. As noted in earlier reports the Parks and
Leisure Services Commission does provide a participation program to help those with lower incomes
access services including the Leisure Centre. Lower cost swims are also offered and will be expanded in
2004.
Interdepartmental Implications: N/A
I) Financial Implications:
The change in fees will save costs (approximately $20,000 in wristband supplies) and generate additional
revenue although the exact amount won't be finally known until the 2004 year-end. Rough estimates
suggest revenues may increase by as much as $40,000-60,000. The reduced costs and increased revenue
will help to offset some of the increased costs of the past two years related to utilities and staffing.
Conclusion:
Public input has been received with respect to the proposed rate increases. At least some modifications
are proposed as a result of that input.
by: Mike Murray / General Mager: Community Development, Parks and Recreation
LL
J. L. (Jim) Rife
Chief Administrative Officer
- -
(11pas6) _________ (poolonly)
ld
jj $ 2.50 $2.60 $ 2.25 $ 2.20 $ _2.00 $. 2.05 $ 2.40 $ 2.50 n/a
upass $ 22.50 $20.80 $ 19.13 $ _
19.8Q .$ 17.50 n/a $ 23.98 $ 20.00 n/a
20pass $ 40.00 n/a: $_ -35.10 $... 33.00 $ 32.60 n/a n/a _ . $ _37.40 n/a
1mo $ 25.00 n/a $ 21.60 $ 25.00 $ _ 25.60 $ 19.00 $ 21.00 $ 9.00 n/a
'mo $ _65.00 $63.00 $-54.27 $ .71.00 $ 70.85 $ 38.00 $ 47.05 $ .54.00 $62.40
6mo $ 125.00 $120.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 84.70 n/a $118.56
1yr $ 250.00 $_214.00 n/a $ 204.00 $_ 212.55 $ 114.00 $ _ 162.00 $ 190.00 $212.16
Student . . (youth13-18)
single $ 3.10 $.3.70 $ 3:05 $ 4:00 $ _2.75 $ _4.00 $ :3•55 n/a n/a
10pass $ 27.90 $:29.60 $ 25.93 $ 36.00 $ 23.40 n/a $_ 35.42 n/a n/a
20pass $ _49.60 n/a $ 47.58 $ _
60.00 $ 44.00 n/a n/a 1. . n/a n/a
1mo $ 31.00 n/a $_ 29.28 $ 38.00 $ 34.40 $ 36.00 $ 30.60 $ 27.25 n/a
3mo $ _85.40 $95.00 $ 73.57 $ 104.00 n/a $ 71.90 $ 69.70 $ 80.00 $92.30
6mo $ 167.00 $180.00 n/a n/a _. n/a n/a $ 125.05 n/a $175.37
tyr. $ 334.00 $321:00 n/a $ 371.00. n/a $_ 215.00 $_ 231.45 .$_ 265.00 $313.82
Adult . . .
ingle $ 5.00 $-4.95 $_ 4.25 $ 5.00 $ .3.50 $ _5.25 $ _4.75 $ _5.00 n/a
10pass $ 45.00
_
$_39.0 $ 36:13 $.. 45.00 $ 29.80 n/a $._ 47.41 $ 40.00 n/a
20pass $ _80.00 n/a. $ 66.30 $ 75.00 $ 56.00 n/a n/a -_. $ 75.00 n/a
1mo $ 50.00 n/aI $ 40.80 $ 50.00
_ $ 44.50 $. __48.00 $ 41.05
_ $ 38.00 n/a
3mo $ 130.00 $_126.00
_
$102.51 $ 140.00 $ 123.25 $ 96.00 $ _ 9340 $ 108.00 $123.50
6mo $ 250.00 $_240.00 n/a n/a _: n/a n/a -. $ .16795 n/a $234.65
1yr $. 500.00 $427.00 n/a $ _ 464.00 $.. 369.75 $. 287.00 $ _319.65 $ 380.00 $ _419.90 _
Senior 60+ 65+ 65+ 60+ 65+ 65+ 66+ 60+
single $ 2.80 $3.50 $ 2.95 n/a $ _2.50 $_ 4.00 $. _.3.20 $ 4.00 n/a
10pass $_ 25.20 $29.60 $_ 25.08 n/a $ .21.10. n/a. $ 32.01 $ _32.00 n/a
20pass $ 44.80 n/a $. 46.02 n/a $ 39:80. n/a n/a . $ _60.00 n/a
1mo I $ 28.00 n/a _t $_ 28.32 n/a $ _.31.45 $_ 36.00 $ .28.40 $ 30.00 n/a
75.20 $_95.00 $-.71.15 n/a $ _87.5 $. _71.90. $___ 63.00 $ 86.00 5 __.78.00
146.00 $1800 rj1a-,. ñ/. __- n/ n/a 11.3.25 n/a 1420 $ 292.00 $321.00 n/a . n/a .:: $ 262.05 $ 215.00 $ 215.55 $.308 $_265.20 _
Family (swim).
single $ 77 __7g n/a - 5 8.75 $_ 10:25 $ 7.00 n/a 12.40 5_ 10.00 n/a
10pass .$ .78:70 n/a - n/a $ 92.25
_ $_ 63.00 n/a . $ 23.98 $_ 80.00 n/a
20pass $ _140.00 n/a _- n/a - $ 153.75 $ 126.00 1 n/a n/a $ 150.00 n/a
1mo $ _ 87.50 n/a _. $ 84.00 $ 82.00 $- 89.00 n/a n/a. $ 76.00 n/a
3mo $ 231:10 n/a $211.05
_ $_ .238.00 $_ 246.50: n/a n/a : $216.00. $247:00
6mo $ 446.50 n/a __. n/a . n/a n/a n/a n/a .. n/a $469.30
.1yr $_ .893.00 n/a n/a $ 779.00 $_ 739.50 fl/a n/a __ . $715.00 $_839.80
Parent/Tot
single $ 5.00 $5.20 n/a $ 5.40 n/a n/a n/a__ -. n/a n/a
10pass
_ $ _
454)0 $41.60 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
AllAgesAll
Inclusive:
3mo.147.50
6mo.280.25
1yr.501.50
3mo. Minmum)
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
By-law No. 6198 - 2004
A By-law to amend Maple Ridge Recreation Facility Fees
By-law No. 4117— 1988 as amended.
WHEREAS the Council, may by by-law establish and regulate the fixing of fees for admissions
and/or use of sports, recreation and community use facilities;
AND WHEREAS, the Council has imposed fees and now wishes to amend those fees;
NOW THERFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open
meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Recreation Facility Fees Amending By-law
No. 6198 - 2004".
That Maple Ridge Recreation Facility Fees By-law No. 4117 - 1988 as amended, be
further amended by deleting Schedule "F' in its entirety and replacing with Schedule "F"
as attached hereto.
This By-law shall come into force and effect as of February 1, 2004.
READ a first time the day of ______,2004.
READ a second time the day of ______,2004
READ a third time the day of _________,2004
RECONSIDERED and finally adopted the day of .2004.
MAYOR
CLERK
Atuichments: Schedules "F
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 4117-1988
SCHEDULE "F"
6198 - 2004
ADMISSION FEES EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1,2004
All Inclusive
Single 10 Pass 20 Pass 1 Month 3 Month 6 Month 1 Year
Child 2.50 22.50 40.00 25.00 65.00 125.00 250.00
Student 3.10 27.90 49.60 31.00 85.40 167.00 334.00
Adult 5.00 45.00 80.00 50.00 130.00 250.00 500.00
Senior 2.80 25.20 44.80 28.00 75.20 146.00 292.00
Family 8.75 78.75 140.00 87.50 231.10 446.50 893.00
Parent & 5.00 45.00 80.00 50.00 130.00 250.00 500.00
Tot
Fees include use of Pools, Fitness/Weight room, Gym facility, Courts, Adult
Drop in, Gym Drop in Programs
Definition of 'Family" as of February 1, 2004:
"Family is defined as one or two adults related by blood marriage or common-law with
their own children or grandchildren under the age of 19."
I
'S