Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2007-09-10 - Committee of the Whole - Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA September 10, 2007 1:00 P.M. Council Chamber Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review and debate of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more in formation or clarification. Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair: Acting Mayor DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS - (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 uGreen Taxi Proposal - Mr. Karl Sawaf 1.2 Paving and Maintenance of 130th Avenue - Nancy Gomerich, Kevin Fredrich, Nancy and Edward Auersperg and Madelaine and Norbert Schottko PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes. •t. Committee of the Whole Agenda September 10, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 CP/059/07, 13080 240 Street, Low Density Urban Residential to Conservation Staff report dated August 21, 2007 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6506-2007 to adjust a portion of the Conservation area boundary in the Silver Valley Area Plan be given first reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. 1102 RZ/034/07, 10529 245B Street and 10579 245B Street, RS-2 to RS-lb Staff report dated August 28, 2007 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6505-2007 to permit a 9 lot subdivision be given first reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. 1103 Demolition and Removal Order - 11731 Fraser Street Staff report dated July 31, 2007 recommending authorization of a demolition and removal order for Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 - 11731 Fraser Street. 1104 St. Patrick's School Walk-a-thon, Use of Streets Staff report dated August 28, 2007 recommending the use of municipal streets be authorized for the St. Patrick's School Walk-a-thon on Friday, September 28, 2007. 1105 Louis Leather Shop 7th Annual Fundraising Event, Use of Streets Staff report dated August 30, 2007 recommending the use of municipal streets be authorized for the Louis Leather Shop 7th Annual Fundraising Event on Sunday, October 7, 2007. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 Disbursements for the month ended July 31, 2007 Staff report dated August 15, 2007 recommending that the disbursements for July 31, 2007 be approved. Committee of the Whole Agenda September 10, 2007 Page 3 of 4 1132 Property Tax and Utility Billing System Staff report dated September 5, 2007 recommending negotiations with the Tempest Development Group for the replacement of the existing Taxation and Utility Billing system. 1133 Fee for Service Agreement - Animal Control Services and Shelter Operations Staff report dated June 18, 2007 recommending that the Mayor and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal a Fee for Service Agreement with the BCSPCA for the provision of Animal Control Services and Shelter Operations and that the Business Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department implement a comprehensive dog licencing program. (Deferred from the July 16, 2007 Committee of the Whole Meeting) COMMUNI1YDEVELOPMENTAND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 Request for Proposal - Preventative Maintenance Services for HVAC Staff report dated September 5, 2007 recommending that the contract for Preventative Maintenance Services for HVAC Services be awarded to PML Professional Mechanical. CORRESPONDENCE 1171 OTHER ISSUES 1181 11 7. ADJOURNMENT Committee of the Whole Agenda IL September 10, 2007 Page 4 of 4 8. COMMUNITY FORUM COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to speak with Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing by-laws that have not yet reached conclusion. Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second opportunity is permitted if no one etse is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). The total time for this Forum is limited to 15 minutes. If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a response will be given. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. If a member of the public has a concern related to a Municipal staff member, it should be brought to the attention of the Mayor and/or Chief Administrative Officer in a private meeting. Other opportunities to address Council may be available through the office of the Manager of Legislative Services who can be contacted at 463-5221 or by e-mail at cmarIo@mapleridee.ca . Checkec1y:______________ Date: 07 MAPLE RIDGE British Cotumbia TO: FROM: SUBJECT DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: August 21, 2007 and Members of Council FILE NO: CP/059/07 Chief Administrative Officer ATIN: C of W First Reading Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6506 - 2007 13080 240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to adjust a portion of the Conservation area boundary in the Silver Valley Area Plan in the Official Community Plan, as shown on Figure 2 (Land Use Plan), Figure 3D (Horse Hamlet Land Use Plan) and Figure 4 (Trails / Open Space). This application is being processed in conjunction with Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6481-2007. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6506 - 2007 be given first reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; That Council considers it unnecessary to provide further consultation opportunities under Section 879 of the Local Government Act in respect of Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6506 - 2007, except by way of holding a public hearing on the bylaw; That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6506 - 2007 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; That it be confirmed that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6506 - 2007 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Pivotal Develoment Consultants Ltd. Owner: 0767322 BC Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 10, Section 27, Township 12, NWD Plan 2622 OCP: Existing: Low Density Residential, Conservation Proposed: Low Density Residential, Conservation 1101 Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Surrounding Uses North: Use: One Family Residential Zone: RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Designation Low Density Urban South: Use: One Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Low Density Urban, Medium Density Residential, and Conservation East: Use: One Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), Designation: Conservation West: Use: One Family Residential Zone: RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Designation Low Density Urban Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing: Companion Applications: b) Project Description: One Family Residential One Family Residential 2.012 HA 240 Street To be provided through a Rezoning Servicing Agreement and at Subdivision RZ/119/06, SD/119/06, and DP/119/06 The subject property is located within the Silver Valley Area Plan, to the north of Horse Hamlet, and is designated Low Density Residential and Conservation. Millionaire Creek crosses through the southeast corner of the site. Application RZ/119/06 (Bylaw 6481 - 2007) received third reading from Council on July 24, 2007. The applicant proposes to rezone a portion of the property located at 13080 240 Street from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) to permit the future subdivison into 5 lots, each having a lot size of not less than 557 m 2 . The future lots will front onto 240 Street between 130A Avenue and Shoesmith Crescent. The remainder of the property, approximately 75% of the site, will be dedicated as Park. A Watercourse Protection Development Permit is also required and will be brought before Council for consideration with the fourth reading of the rezoning application. Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: Although the plan of development is in compliance with the policies of the Silver Valley Area Plan of the Official Community Plan, the boundary between the residential and conservation land uses requires an adjustment to include additional land into the conservation area of the site. Approximately 4160m 2 will be added to the Conservation area, and all of the conservation area on this site will be dedicated as Park if the zone amending bylaw is adopted. Zoning Bylaw: Application RZ/119/06 received third reading from Council on July 24, 2007. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 5 lots which meet the minimum lot width, lot depth and lot area requirements of the RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone. Development Permits: A Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit is required for the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment of Millionaire Creek. Intergovernmental Issues: Local Government Act: An amendment to the Official Community Plan requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 882 of the Act. The amendment required for this application is an adjustment of the boundary between the residential and conservation land uses to provide additional land for conservation and is considered to be minor in nature. It has been determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments. Section 882(3) of the Local Government Act also requires that the local government consider the Financial Plan and Waste Management Plan when adopting the OCP amendment. The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and is considered to be consistent with both documents. Environmental Implications: The inclusion of this additional site area into the Conservation Land Use designation will provide protection of the ecologically sensitive area adjacent to Millionaire Creek. -3- CONCLUSION: It is recommended that application CP/059/07 be favourably considered and that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6506 - 2007 (Appendix B) be read a first time and be forwarded to Public Hearing. Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT Planning Technician 1 proved by: Jane Pickering, MCP, MCIP Director of Planning /7c( Approved by:/ Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule / Chief Administrative Officer AE/ d p The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Bylaw No. 6506 - 2007 -4- 38 APPENDIX A F 13185 13188 I3I91 g 12 37 / 20 17 13186 13 13175 13175 /13181 13178 - 8 Cl 14 36 IL 21 16 13176 35 13155 P2622 I3165 13168 13171 0. 15 418 35 22 1 5 13166 55 13157 13155 13158 13161 6 16 ARK 34 23 14 13155 Cl 13147 17 8 7 13145 13148 13151 13146 33 24 13 13138 13141 ________ 4 0 ° 13139 13129 18 5 0 13135 13128 13155 55 25 12 32 13131 3 19 13125 t26 13126 2 20 13118 13121 13ll6 21 , 1 / 27/ 10 13188 13111 --- 13108 PARK /28 9 13098 13101 BCP 24019 c 8 — 13088 13091 30 55 7 op 13078 13581 31 6 0 13068 13571 BCP 19418 13080 1 2 3 5 I I _____________________________ ________________________ P 22 a 88 _______ ISUBJECTPROPERn'J 130 A AVE. Rem23 A 10 11 12 BCP 7889 PARK 130 AVE. - T 12954 2 F 2622 LU 10 6 794 P7794 C 22 12933 46 Distnct of I.... Pitt Meadows. aIIs 13080 240 STREET 9 83 0 ay CORPORATION OF — L THE DISTRICTOF N MAPLE RIDGE District Langley PNNING DEPARTMENT SCALE 1:2,500 ____ - DATE: Aug 1, 2007 FILE: CP1059/07 BY: PC River ri7ap o CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6506-2007. A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Section 10.3, Part IV - Silver Valley Area Plan, Figures 2, 3D and 4 of the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 6506-2007." Figure 2 and Figure 3D are hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 10, Section 27, Township 12, New Westminster Plan 2622 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 733, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby redesignated to Conservation. Figure 4 is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 10, Section 27, Township 12, New Westminster Plan 2622 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 733, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby added to Conservation. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.6425-2006 is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TIME the day of , A.D. 200. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 200. READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 200. READ A THIRD TIME the dayof ,A.D.200. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200. MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER 73745 I 34 33 bm I-TIJ5 32 / 13125/ 23 14 13748 13157 24 13 /Xig 13141 13129 25 12 13131 - - I 26 11 /13118 13721 27 10 /13108 73777 28 /73098 13101 U) I— 1 29 8 173146 4 13136 13126 2 13116 13706 17 1J12 20 21 RK BCP 24019 2.023 Inc. - I ki 13088 13091 OQ.. -, 30 jo / 3078 , 13087 cn 31 6 • 13068 13071 CN IBC 1941 13080 1 2 3j oN 5 P 622 HLU 130 A AVE. Al 0 10 11 .0 BCP 7889 lr) PARK 0920 ho 2.023 ha. 2.023 ho. i71 Ik 5 8430 130 AVE. 72954 i EP 59987 2 3 4 5 P MAPLE PIDGE OFJCLAL COMMUNITY PLAN IA NAFNDING, 3ylaw No. 6506-2007 \,1 cp No. 733 Low Density Urban Residential Jo: Conservation •MJl11IIIcT DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE• TO: His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: August 28, 2007 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/034/07 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATIN: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6505-2007 10529 245B Street & 10579 245B Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), to permit a 9 lot subdivision. This application is in compliance with the Albion Area Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6505-2007 be given first reading and be forwardod to Public Hearing; and That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading. I) Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement including the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; Registration of Section 219 Covenant for a Geotechnical Report that addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; Road and walkway dedication as required; DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: ABM Engineering Services, A B Mikes Owner: Joao M Da Costa Nick S Tarasiuk Bibiane J Tarasiuk Grazia Pacheco Paul Amaral James R lsherwood Legal Description: Lot: 5 & 6, Township: 12, Plan: 72100 141410 Existing: Low/Medium Density Residential Proposed: Low/Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: One Family Residential Zone: RS-ib (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential Designation Residential Low/Medium Density South: Use: One Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Residential Low/Medium Density East: Use: One Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Residential Low/Medium Density West: Use: Institutional Zone: P-i (Park and School) Designation: Institutional Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing: Companion Applications: Project Description: One Family Residential One Family Residential 0.80 HA (1.98 acres) 245 Street and 245B Street Full Urban SD/034/07 & VP/034/07 An application has been submitted to rezone the properties located at 10529 & 10579 2456 Street from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-ib (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) to permit the subdivision into 9 lots. The minimum parcel size prescribed for the RS-ib (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone is 557m 2 . The future lots will front onto 245 Street and 245B Street. It is proposed that the two existing dwellings and one garage building will remain. The proposed single family lots created by subdivision will have a minimum lot area of 674 m 2, which is consistent with the future lot pattern for the area. Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: Albion Area Plan The properties are designated Low/Medium Density Residential on the Albion Area Plan and the proposal complies with this land use designation in the Albion Zoning Matrix (Section 10.2.7). -2- Zoning Bylaw: A preliminary review of the plans in relation to the Zoning Bylaw requirements has revealed that the proposal complies with the bylaw, with exception to the height and siting of the existing accessory building on the future Lot 4. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 9 lots which meet the minimum lot width, lot depth and lot area requirements of the RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone. A Development Variance Permit application has been received to vary the height of an existing garage building from the maximum 4.5 m permissible under the proposed zone to 4.9 m. In addition, the applicant has also requested a variance to the side yard setback for the existing garage building on the proposed Lot 4 from the required 1.5 m to 1.15 m. The Planning Department is in support of this request because the variance is adjacent to a dedicated walkway that will provide pedestrian access to the school site to the West. This will be brought before Council for consideration at a later date. Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department reviewed the servicing for the development and provided their comments as follows: - The sanitary sewer on 245 Street requires extension to the north property line of the South lot. - The existing houses will connect to the new sanitary sewer main. Environmental Implications: The proposed development site gently slopes from southeast to northwest and is not impacted by watercourses. A tree assessment has been completed for the site which identified two trees on Lot 9 that have potential to be retained. CONCLUSION: The proposed RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone conforms to the land use designation in the Albion Area Plan zoning matrix. It is therefore recommended that application RZ/034/07 be favourably considered and that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6505-2007 (Appendix B) be read a first time and be forwarded to Public Hearing. - 3 - Prepared by: Erika Syvokas Planning Technician CL Ap1'ed by: Jane Pickering, MOP, MCIP Director ofPlanning Approved by: 'rank Quinn, MBA, REng M: Publio-3orks & Development Services Con4árrence: J. L. (J2m./nistrative ) Role Chief Officer ES/dp The following appenftfces are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B- Bylaw No. 6505-2007 Appendix C- Proposed Subdivision Plan -4- 76 77 78 150 1,319 PARK 5562 4 [SUBJECT PROPERTIES 5 P 75957 P 75957 10583 10578 P72103 "4 P72100 P72100 6 7 10570 10579 BCP5562 5 8 A 10529 10530 10501/ 0 o 9 N- CL 10481 N 3 BCP 5562 10469 P 18280 PARK B 10470 2 P72100 P 12923 10455 10445 10 10412 6 9 P72100 \' 104-41 728 L±4 29 SCALE 1.2,500 N istrict of I Langley - N _______________ PNNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Apr 26, 2007 FILE: RZ/034/07 BY: PC Appendix B- Bylaw No. 6505-2007 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6505-2007 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal 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 Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6505-2007." Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 5 Section 10 and 11 Township 12 Plan 72100 New Westminster District And Lot 6 Section 10 and 11 Township 12 Plan 72100 New Westminster District and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1405 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RS-lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of A.D. 200. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 200. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 200. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 200 RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of A.D. 200. MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER PARK ~Bcp_________ 13 / 5562 / p 7595 — 0.435 ha / PARK 2 0.429 ha 6 ios 1.361 ha 5958 6 6CP 29522 ,' 0.860 ha 5 / 10582 8 I p 75957 Y4R I / /1r • 058 I P 72103 BCP 13768 P 72100 P 72100 5 70579 70570 1.601 ha - SOP 5562 5 8 A 70529 70530 5.46 ho • ___________________ 70501 Q (I) (N 4 70481 / CN 0.809 ho / (N BCP 5562 1045,9 P 18280 1/ ?AR /RW _ 1.12 I 70470 2 70455 P 72100 10445 10 10412 nc P72100 104411 104 AVE. DCE ZONE AMENDNC 3av: No. 6505-2007 405 PS-2(One Pamy Suburban Pesiden5o) PS— b(One PamHy Urban(medium density)Pesdentia 28 I / 48 )II /\X, 1:2500 HIQPU5LL) Jk1Of VISION PLAN OF LOTS 5 AND 6. SECTION 10. TOWNSHIP 12. NW.!).. PLAN 72100 9.C.G.S. 920.028 SC4L( 1.250 ,mEGR4TFD SUIsEr AREA N. .15 (M4PLE RIDGE) MD-83 (cSRS) wm- Appendix C- Proposed Subdivision Plan LQ LO ('I 5) F- LI LI F-. 5) CQ 5) - District of Maple Ridge jiJI1.lIIIel Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: July 31, 2007 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: COW SUBJECT: Demolition and Removal Order - 11731 Fraser Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Division 12 of Part 3 of the Community Charter authorizes Council to require the owner of a building or other structure to remove or demolish or otherwise deal with the building or other structure where Council considers that the building or other structure is in or creates an unsafe condition. Over the past few years, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, 11731 Fraser Street, Maple Ridge, BC, legally described as Strata Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, District Lot 398, Strata Plan NWS8 have been vacant due to a fire in April of 2005. The British Columbia Fire Code requires owners of vacant buildings to ensure the building remains secure at all times to prevent safety concerns due to unauthorized entry. Both Fire and Bylaw Enforcement staff have confirmed that the building has been insecure a total of eleven times since October of 2006. Appendix A lists the dates that District officials have contacted the property owner to report the building insecure along with a number of photographs of the insecure building. The RCMP has also reported attendance at the vacant building ten times since June 2006 for various disturbances occurring in and about the vacant building. There is concern that this failure on the part of the owner to secure the building in a manner that prevents unauthorized entry, may result in personal injury to individuals due to the unsafe condition of the building and/or property damage to surrounding buildings due to a fire. RECOMMENDATION(S): WHEREAS Division 12 of Part 3 of the Community Charter authorizes Council to require the owner of a structure or erection to remove or demolish or otherwise deal with the building or other structure where Council considers that the building or other structure is in or creates an unsafe condition. AND WHEREAS Jagdev Singh Athwal is the registered owner (the "Owner") of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, 11731 Fraser Street, Maple Ridge, BC, legally described as Strata Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, District Lot 398, Strata Plan NWS8 (the "Property"), and the Owner has failed to maintain the Property in a safe and secure manner. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, resolves as follows: 1103 Council hereby declares that the Property is in and creates an unsafe condition, within the meaning of Section 73(2)(a) of the Community Charter, as a result of being insecure on numerous occasions over the past two years. Council requires the Owner to demolish and remove, no later than thirty (30) days after a copy of this resolution is delivered to him, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, 11731 Fraser Street, Maple Ridge, BC. Council requires the Owner to fence the area where Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 were formerly located. The fence must be stable and at least 1.5 metres tall. In the event the Owner has not demolished and removed the units required to be removed under Section 2 and fenced the area required by Section 3 within thirty (30) days after a copy of this resolution is delivered to them, the District may by its own forces or those of a contractor engaged by the District, enter on the Property and demolish and remove the units required to be removed under Section 2 and fence the area required under Section 3. In the event that the District takes action under Paragraph 4 of this resolution, the District may recover the expense from the Owner, together with costs and interest, in the same manner as municipal taxes in accordance with Sections 17, 258 and 259 of the Community Charter. DISCUSSION: Background Context: In April of 2005 a fire rendered the four townhouse units located at 11731 Fraser Street uninhabitable. Fire restoration permits were issued for each of the units between April and August of 2005 by the District of Maple Ridge. None of the repairs were completed and the permits expired in April and July of 2007. The British Columbia Fire Code requires owners of all vacant buildings to ensure the building remains secure at all times to prevent safety concerns as a result of unauthorized entry. Since October of 2006, both the Fire and Bylaw Enforcement Departments have responded to 11731 Fraser Street on 11 separate occasions as a result of the building being insecure. Orders to secure the building were issued to the Owner for each occurrence by District officials. On a number of occasions it appeared that the building had been occupied as articles of clothing and other items were noted by District officials. During the unauthorized entry to the building many of the plumbing and electrical fixtures including wiring and piping were removed rendering the units unsafe. Fire Department officials continue to respond to concerns that the building is insecure. Unfortunately, this requires resources and takes Fire officials away from completing other duties. The municipality is not currently in a position to recover these costs from the property owner and therefore the costs are borne by all taxpayers. Desired Outcome(s): It has been over two years since a fire occurred at the Property and although fire restoration permits were issued for repairs to the building no works have occurred. In fact, many of the undamaged fixtures, piping and wiring in the building have been removed by individuals who have gained unauthorized entry to the building. This type of activity will certainly add to the costs of repair and is a direct result of the failure to secure the building. The Owner has suggested that repairs have not been completed due to a disagreement with the insurance company over his claim for damages. During the past two years, District officials have met with the Owner a number of times to impress upon him that he must ensure that while the insurance claim remains outstanding, and no repair work is commenced, the building must remain safe and secure. It was suggested to the owner that he hire an individual to monitor the building and deal with any unauthorized entry immediately. Unfortunately, no efforts that we are aware of have been made by the Owner to address the problem of regular unauthorized entry. The British Columbia Fire Code requires all property owners to secure vacant buildings from unauthorized entry. The Owner of this particular building has made no attempts to work with the District to resolve the ongoing problem of unauthorized entry. Rather, the Owner seems to rely on District officials to alert him to a problem with the building. This practice cannot continue and we are requesting that Council consider a demolition order to address this dangerous situation. C) Citizen/Customer Implications: Insecure buildings create unsafe conditions for residents residing in the immediate neighborhood. Fire officials are concerned that unauthorized entry into the building may result in personal injury or accidental fire which may impact surrounding buildings. Insecure buildings also attract homeless individuals and although the building may provide shelter from the outside elements the building does not comply with any building code or health requirements for occupation. Financial Implications: Dealing with insecure buildings requires on site inspections by either Fire or Bylaw Officers with costs attributed to the general taxpayers. It is uncertain what impact the demolition of the building will have on the Owner's insurance claim. Alternatives: District officials can continue to respond to reports that the building is insecure and issue orders to the Owner to secure the building. Council may consider any alternatives for effectively dealing with the Property which may be forthcoming from the Owner as a result of Council's consideration of a demolition order. CONCLUSIONS: The building located at 11731 Fraser Street has been vacant due to a fire since April of 2005. Over the past year, District officials have attended the Property numerous times to deal with the building being insecure. The Owner has been encouraged to take measures to effectively deal with the situation but to date has done little to address the situation. In order to address the safety concerns associated with the building at 11731 Fraser Street being insecure on numerous occasions over the past year and the failure of the owner to seriously address this situation, staff is recommending that the building be demolished. A Prepared by: Brock McDonald Directo6f BusinessJjcences, Permits and Bylaws Approved by: Frank Quinn General Ma 4er of Public Works and Development Services Concurrep.ce: J.L. (J e -(l Chief Administrative Officer Attachments Appendix 1 11731 Fraser Street, MaIe Ridge, BC Bylaw Enforcement Activity Files Date Complaint Folder # Photos Att'd October 17, 2006 Insecure 06-119160 No December 28, 2006 Insecure 06-123171 Yes January 8, 2007 Insecure Nil created Yes February 6, 2007 Insecure 07-106851 Yes February 18, 2007 Insecure 07-107484 No February 27, 2007 Insecure 07-108248 Yes June 2, 2007 Insecure 07-113519 No June 6, 2007 Insecure 07-113757 07-113743 Yes June 20, 2007 Insecure 07-115247 Yes LJuIy 26, 2007 Insecure 07-116821 Yes July 31, 2007 Insecure 07-117046 Yes ma I own MA 42, It / All December 28 2006 #06-123171 JOY va VE I : •\ 4I NMI 30 +! p sme II IL NlY VIA low NMI Ilk RN QWN- : ii 2 1 1 2 L 41 I 2 '1 • J3nu3ry 8, 2007 No File Cr POOJO G ON LOOJnuor Dg APP -04 P""', ZN I .• .• S. JI . 211 Mo, .• : 11 y • •• ae 11 hull ill • •• • February 6. 2007 1111 File #07 851 • February 27, 2007 - File #07 408248 -- -- - - -'p :o3 •1 IIPI!IY s1 .0 J! AN • 0 I r • • June 6, 2007 File #07J •57 ROW V : • . tVV V V V VV V . V V _V V V V • V. V V VVVV V V V V V I ": V VVVV V V V V Zl- If All gq VV , V• V 44 V V V V V • V VV V • • V V V : VVVV V VV V V ' V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V •V VVV V V V V ,•',V V VV V VV V V V 1I VV V VV V _VV VVV VV V V V V V V V V ,2V V VV V :V V V V V V V V V V V •V'VV V' V V V •VV V V V • V V V V 4 V June 9 2007 June 22, 2007 HIe#07 247 9 RAq S S 1S :5 555 55 Own _2 I IR 55 S5 •S :•:;:J :: Ilk : I II t S 5S S 5L IVA S Rx 55S 55 Jury 26, 2007 He #07 821 July 30, 2007 File #07117046 4 i.'J1I'IeJ 1tIT1T Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: SUBJECT: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: August 28, 2007 and Members of Council FILE NO: E01-035-001 Chief Administrative Officer ATIN: C of W St. Patrick's School Walk-a-than EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A request has been received from St. Patrick's School to use municipal streets for their annual Walk- a-thon on Friday September 28, 2007 from 9:45 am to 1:00 pm. Participants will walk on sidewalks and no road closures are required. Authorization from Council is required in accordance with the "Maple Ridge Highway and Traffic By- law 3136-1982" to allow the event to occur in Maple Ridge. THAT use of municipal streets be authorized for the St. Patrick's School WaIk-a-thon on Friday September 28, 2007, provided the conditions outlined in Schedule 'A' attached to the staff report dated August 28, 2007 are met. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: From time to time, the Municipality is requested to allow the use of municipal streets for organized events. Unless there are some unusual safety implications, approval is usually given on condition that the Municipality be indemnified against any liability for injury or damage resulting from the event. The conditions of approval of the event are attached as "Schedule A." The WaIk-a-thon participants are scheduled to leave the school at 9:45 AM and return at approximately 1:00 PM. Approximately 300 students and adults will be walking the route. Participants will walk on sidewalks and there will be no road closures. Participants will travel north on 227 Street to 128 Avenue, head east on 128 Avenue to 232 Street and head north on 232 Street to Maple Ridge Park. Participants will return using the same route. '4 Strategic Alignment: Permitting of Maple Ridge street events promotes community development and often highlights Maple Ridge's natural and built features. Citizen/Customer Implications: Permission to use municipal streets may cause some delays and inconveniences to other road users. However, traffic control will be provided by the Walk-a-thon organizers. Interdepartmental Implications: The road use permit establishes that the Walk-a-thon organizer must obtain the approval of ROMP and must notify the Fire Department and BC Ambulance Services as well as coordinate with Coast Mountain Bus Company (transit service). Business Plan /Financial Implications: The Business Plan recognizes that the District processes requests for use of municipal streets as part of its services. The financial impact of the specific road use is limited to staff processing effort. Policy Implications: Permission to use municipal streets is grantable under the District's policy practices. Alternatives: The District could refuse to permit the Walk-a--thon to occur. In this event, the organizer would have to cancel the WaIk-a-thon. CONCLUSIONS: From time to time, the District is requested to allow the use of municipal streets for various events and activities. The St. Patrick's School Walk-a-thon has been held in Maple Ridge for several years without incident. t Submitted by: Af'drew Wood, PhD., PEng. Munic ip4l Approved by: t er,~l k Quinn, MBA, PEng. Manager: (ublic Works & Development Services J.L. (JJn) Rule Chi Administrative Officer AW/mi Schedule 'A' To Council Memorandum Dated August 28, 2007 St. Patrick's School WaIk-a-thon Condition of Approval Approval for the event is given on condition that the organizers: provide all necessary traffic controls, parking and emergency access acceptable to the R.C.M.P., and the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge (the District); notify local Fire Department, and Ambulance Services of the event; make arrangements with Coast Mountain Bus Company for any required rerouting of buses; obtain any required permits from the District of Maple Ridge Parks and Leisure Services Department for park facility use; advertise the event in a local newspaper and notify all surrounding businesses and residents of the event (a minimum of one week prior to the event date); must maintain access for emergency services to the effected areas at all times. hold and save harmless the District from and against all claims, and damages arising out of or in any way connected with the event; obtain and maintain during the term of this event a comprehensive general liability insurance policy providing coverage of not less than $5,000,000.00, naming the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge as an additional named insured and MUST have the following statement written in the policy: "Naming the District as an additional insured and providing that the said policy shall not be cancelled, lapsed or materially altered without 30 days notice in writing to the District." Policies without this statement or an altered statement will NOT be accepted. The policy shall also include a Cross Liability Clause. A copy of such policy shall be delivered to the Corporate Officer prior to the event; and refurbish all municipal infrastructure to an equal or better condition than that which existed prior to the event, all within 24 hours of the completed event, to the satisfaction of the District.. The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge reserves the right to withdraw permission to use municipal streets for this and future events should the organizers fail to comply with the above requirements. Chief Administrative Officer T. PATQ.ICK' 1 50 YEAR ANNIVERSARY July 13, 2007 &. Patrick choo1 22589 121 St Avenue. Maple Ridge. B.C. V2X 3T5 Telephone: 604-467-1571 - Fax: 604-467-2686 email: schoöstpatsschool.org Mr. Matthew Li Maple Ridge Engineering Dept. Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Dear Mr. Li, St. Patrick's School requests permission to hold our annual Walk-a-thon on Friday, September 28, 2007. We will leave the school at 9:45 am and return approximately at 1:00 pm. Approximately 250 students and 50 adults will walk the route. The following is the Walk-a-thon route: Walk along 227th Street north to 1281h Ave. Proceed along 128th East to 232nd Street Turn on 232 d Street to Maple Ridge Park Return route the same. We are waiting to hear from Corporal R. E. Lemon for permission. All other agencies in Maple Ridge will be notified. Sincerely, /YVV-i 4 Mrs. Anne Kully,) Pnncipal Y 08/22/2e07 2:37 6044572686 ST PATS SCHOOL PAGE 1/4 ToP. _ '4 Phone FaxPhone L17 7,tz5 &. Patrick &hcol 22589 121s1 Avenue, Maple Rde, B.C. V2XT5 Telephone 604-467-1571 Fax: 60-67-2685 c. shcufliszpaisschoi.oiC Date Number of pages induding_çç'er sheer 7. FROM: J\1ijiE 1<Uh4)' Phone 1(604)467-1571 1 (604) 467-2686 website www.stpatsschoo!. og E-Mail schooIpatsschoo!.org T. PATICyC& \ $_7 I SUBJECT: REMARKS: LII Urgent Foryourreview LI Reply ASAP [] P/ease Comment F ;14 im 00 08/22/207 2:37 t;uZ 20U7 106nol - Inter 644E72E86 6:4A ST PATS SCHOOL PAGE 2/@4 No 25 HUB International TOS Limited Insuranct Sej'vices wLbIflmTTUII(r,cOn1 CERTFCATE OF INSURANCE The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC VZX 6A9 Named Insured: The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver As Represented by St. Patrick's School 22589-121 Avenue Maple Rlde, BC V2X 3T5 RE Walkathon being held September 28 2007 ThflS IS TO CERTIFY THAT INSURANCE HAS BEEN AFFECTED AS FOLLOWS: g]Jcy Nos,: 0106955FX01 - Primary Liability C3C190999 - Umbrella Liabflfty Limits: Primary Liability $2000.000.00 - Each Occurrence Limit S2,000,000.00 - Agaregate Limit Umbrella Liability $3,000.000 00 - Each Occurrence Limit 3,000,00000 - Aggregate Limit covercloei Commercial General LiablUty & Umbrella Liability Including Cross Liability Subject to the terms, conditions. and exclusions of the applicable policies insurers: Primary Liability: Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Umbrella Liability Lombard General insurance Company Policy Term: March 1,2007 to March 1.2008 It is hereby understood and agreed that The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge is added as an Additional Insured but only with respect to liability arising vicariously out of the Named Insured's operations with respect to the above noted event HUB INTERNATIONAL lOS LIMITED PER .8 J. August 23, 2007 E &o E. Prt.üd .Dorn'or of rtm 1itc Rook lqcpd office Abbotsford FC rntwoj Alrrove Wton "'5223 2.1' 60I299- 711 fl9-7i LanIov Pchrrnd North Vnoou.er Sourn Vtno&jvr Mpe Pdge Lnuly IS SCHOOL PAGE 3/4 8/22/207 20:37 6044672686 ST F_ ?Jjy 1j4 47:! 7P1RICKG PORM A Date: :JJ 4QQ 7 C n ti cJ Prcn f Tf_OritroI Pftrn: - i'5 n orth -k ro f .S4 1rr r &J 2 rcj $ -4rIc k+.irr -4 r-qe A pp r& i Porey*5! ThpcI-/(5 .47 , :rj SApD jST5 rOPoe Tr in ''Ji!ii wt a'e-icre ite bee," idvz-d 'i Qow'd EC; Transit. r2 r L)eparrinn -- mbuinc. Srvice Chr S4S A1 ç ; A. Lv i i ,.-.- J F 1 OV 8/22/207 2:37 64467268E ST PATS SCHOOL PAGE 04/4 L]7;]'I(j(1 15 :57 tA PATRcS P PatricX fl U n u FL fln I I ~ fl- 77. r 5t I - -,f - OLA - (I District Of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: August 30, 2007 and Members of Council FILE NO: E01-035-001 Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W Louis Leather Shop 71h Annual Fundraising Event TO: FROM: SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A request has been received from Louis Leather Shop to use municipal streets for their 7th Annual Fundraising Event on Sunday October 7, 2007 between 12:00 noon and 5:00 pm. This year's event is in support of the Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation. Authorization from Council is required in accordance with the "Maple Ridge Highway and Traffic By- law 3136-1982" to allow the event to occur in Maple Ridge. RECOMMENDATION: THAT use of municipal streets be authorized for Louis Leather Shop 7th Annual Fundraising Event on Sunday October 7, 2007, provided the conditions outlined in Schedule 'A', attached to the staff report dated August 30, 2007 are met. DISCUSSION: Background: From time to time the Municipality is requested to allow the use of municipal streets for organized events. Unless there are some unusual safety implications, approval is usually given on condition that the Municipality be indemnified against any liability for injury or damage resulting from the event. The conditions of approval of the event are attached as "Schedule A". Louis Leather Shop is requesting permission to use municipal streets on Sunday October 7, 2007 for their 71 Annual Fundraising Event. The event will take place on Fraser Street and would require that Fraser Street be closed to vehicle traffic from Lougheed Highway to North Avenue from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Strategic Plan Permitting of Maple Ridge street events promotes community development and often highlights Maple Ridge's natural and built features. 1105 Citizen/Customer Implications: Permission to use municipal streets may cause some delays and inconveniences to other road users. However, the event organizers will provide traffic control. In addition, the organizers will be distributing an information letter to affected businesses and residents. interdepartmental Implications: The road use permit establishes that the event organizer must obtain the approval of ROMP, for traffic control and must notify the Fire Department and BC Ambulance Services as well as Coordinate with Coast Mountain Bus Company (transit service). Business Plan/Financial Implications: The Business Plan recognizes that the District processes requests for use of municipal streets as part of its services. The financial impact of the specific road use is limited to staff processing effort. Policy Implications: Permission to use municipal streets is grantable under the Districts policy practices. Alternatives: The District could refuse to permit the event to occur. In this event, the organizer would have to cancel the event. CONCLUSIONS: From time to time, the District is requested to allow the use of municipal streets for various events and activities. Louis' Leather Shop Fundraising Event was held in Maple Ridge last year without incident. A{' itted1Ø':,JAndrw Wood, PhDREng. I ( / Muyicipai Eng&,) Approved by: ~General rank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng. Man er: Puic Works & Development Services I 1 Conurrence: 1im) Rule " Chief Adinistrative Officer AW/mi Schedule 'A' To Council Memorandum Dated August 30, 2007 Louis' Leather Shop 7th Annual Fundraising Event Condition of Approval Approval for the event is given on condition that the organizers: provide all necessary traffic controls, parking and emergency access acceptable to the R.C.M.P., and the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge (the District); notify local Fire Department, and Ambulance Services of the event; make arrangements with Coast Mountain Bus Company for any required rerouting of buses; advertise the event in a local newspaper and notify all surrounding businesses and residents of the event (a minimum of one week prior to the event date); notify surrounding businesses of pending road closures, by letter provided by the District of Maple Ridge on behalf of the organizer; must maintain access for emergency services to the effected areas at all times; hold and save harmless the District from and against all claims, and damages arising out of or in any way connected with the event; obtain and maintain during the term of this event a comprehensive general liability insurance policy providing coverage of not less than $5,000,000.00, naming the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge as an additional named insured and MUST have the following statement written in the policy: "Naming the District as an additional insured and providing that the said policy shall not be cancelled, lapsed or materially altered without 30 days notice in writing to the District." Policies without this statement or an altered statement will NOT be accepted. The policy shall also include a Cross Liability Clause. A copy of such policy shall be delivered to the Corporate Officer prior to the event; and refurbish all municipal infrastructure to an equal or better condition than that which existed prior to the event, all within 24 hours of the completed event, to the satisfaction of the District. The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge reserves the right to withdraw permission to use municipal streets for this and future events should the organizers fail to comply with the above requirements. Chief Administrative Officer Louis Leather Shop and Motorcycle Wear 11796 Fraser Street. Maple Ridge . B.C. V2X 6C7 August 21, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: , We are planning our sk annual fundraiser for Louis Leather Shop and Motorcycle Wear. It will be held Sunday October 7th2007 at 11796 Fraser Street between 12 noon and 5pm. We are planning to have a couple of bands play music. The Christian Motorcycle Association will serve hot dogs and hamburgers as well as assist with security, We have already submitted the street plan to the Ridge Meadows RCMP. If you have any questions please call 604-466-5010. Thank you Yours truly, (U Louis Bayard dba Louis Leather Shop rd 600ON SS H3 NdS2 * Cr\P HucPi\ T-f Details of the Event Date:: JcL'i ? i Z_x'7 Contact Person:Lots 14g Phone F a x co - -j 7 ' DetaHs: 2E_OL _/4/ Tith5 [c & t-L' f'Y7L I-tiD 4<-'_lO&.ycc..isfuii_J(_ /L;-j Fb (JrfL7 - _ff/h- L7.' TC-' /S c cT cI / Sketchof TrafficControlPlan: - - - C-C cc i . e RCMP concurrence for the proposed Traffic Control Plan The following agencies have been advised and acknowledge the event: BC Transit________ Fire Department Ambulance Services V Other Districtof Maple Ridge •T1 JU11I,Ic] Deep Roots Greater He9hts TO: His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Disbursements for the month ended July 31, 2007 August 15, 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council has authorized all voucher payments to be approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor, together with the Director of Finance. Council authorizes the vouchers for the following period through Council resolution. The disbursement summary for the past period is attached for your information. Expenditure details are available to any Council member for review in the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION: That the "disbursements as listed below for the month ended July 31, 2007 now be approved" GENERAL $18,614,436 PAYROLL $ 1,215,081 PURCHASE CARD $ 119,344 $19.948,861 DISCUSSION: Background Context: The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and provided authorization for expenditures to deliver municipal services. The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan. Community Communications: The citizens of Maple Ridge are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial disbursements. 1131 c) Business Plan / Financial Implications: Bynett Construction Services standby power system $ 156.902 Emergency Communications dispatch levy third quarter $ 253.620 GV Sewerage & Drainage Jan-Jun'07 DCC collection $ 640.787 GV Water District water consumption Mar 28 - May 1 $ 337.385 The municipality acts as the collection agency for other levels of government or agencies. The following collections were remitted in July. Provincial School Tax $14,179,962 Albion Dyking District of Maple Ridge $ 72.165 Road 13 Dyking District of Maple Ridge $ 80,754 Tretheway Edge Dyking District of Maple Ridge $ 33.258 City of Pitt Meadows $ 94.199 d) Policy Implications: Approval of the disbursements by Council is in keeping with corporate governance practice. CONCLUSIONS: The disbursements for the month ended July 31. 2007 have been reviewed and are in order. Prepared by: G'Ann Rygg Accounting Clerk II Approved by: Dennis Sartorius, CA Municipal Accountant Approved by: Pal Gill, BBA, CGA GM - Corporate & Financial Services Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer gmr CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - PERIOD 7, 2007 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT 470417 BC Ltd ROMP workout equipment ADG Products Screen printed banners Albion Dyking District 2007 collections BC Hydro Hydro charges July BC SPCA Contract July Billesberger, Valerie Records & archives services Feb - Jun Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd Maintenance: Albion Sports Complex 7.365 Banners 245 Cameras 3,576 Cemetary 913 Harris Road Park 150 Leisure Centre 128 Library 216 Maple Ridge Campground 139 Municipal Hall 482 Pumpstations 5.842 Randy Herman Building 135 ROMP 501 Rental properties 61 Street lights 6,654 Bynett Construction Services Standby Power System CUPE Local 622 Dues - pay periods 07/14 & 07/15 Ohairlines Randy Herman Building furniture 15,764 Leisure Centre furniture 14.204 Chevron Canada Ltd Fuel City Of Pitt Meadows Dyking District 2007 collections Durante Kreuk Ltd. Downtown beautification 8,255 MRSS track 8,146 Cottonwood North Park 678 Echologics Engineering Inc Condition assessment of water distribution system Emergency Communications Dispatch levy - third quarter Gr Vanc Sewerage & Drainage Jan - Jun07 DCC collection 640,787 Waste disposal 1.129 Greater Vanc Water District Water consumption Mar 28 - May 1/07 Guilevin International Inc Electrical supplies: Firehall 13.806 Operations 1.131 PM Rec. Centre 261 Hans Demolition & Excavating Building demolition at 13084 236 Street Lidstone Young Anderson Professional fees June Maple Ridge Historical Society Quarterly fee for service payment Maple Ridge Municipal Holdings Monthly common costs July Medical Services Plan Employee medical & health premiums Microsoft Licensing, GP:WRC-CA Annual software licensing Minister Of Provincial Revenue School tax remittance Municipal Pension Plan BC Pension remittance Novax Industries Corp Traffic signal DTR © 210 Street Pitt Meadows Heritage & Museum Semi-annual fee for service Pitt River Quarries Ltd Gravel Receiver General For Canada Employer/Employee remit PP07/14 & 07/15 501,173 ROMP auction proceeds 213 Radio licences 767 RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd Ice rental Mar, Apr, May & Jun 198.425 Curling rink operating expenses Apr & May 9.941 Ridge Meadow Comm Arts Council Art Centre grant Aug 36,870 Theatre rental 60 Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Quarterly operating grant Jul - Sep 36450 Fee for service 500 Senior week luncheon 120 Ridge Meadows Youth & Justice 2007 fee for service Ridgemeadows Recycling Society Monthly contract for recycling Jul 72,603 Weekly recycling 1.848 Litter pick-up contract 206 Road 13 Dyking District 2007 collections School District #42 Samuel Robertson turf field South Ridge Mechanical Ltd Maintenance: Albion Fairgrounds 1.156 Firehall 657 Greg Moore Youth Centre 382 Hammond Pool 2,871 Hammond Stadium 5,375 Haney House 130 Leisure Centre 4,729 Municipal Hall 191 PM Fam Rec Centre 243 PM Museum 191 Randy Herman Building 6.556 ROMP 884 Rental Properties 254 Telus Servces Inc Internet & email services May, Jun & Jul Terasen Gas Gas July Trethewav Edge Dyking District 2007 collections Ultra-Tech Cleaning System Ltd Maintenance July: Firehalls 1,129 Library 4,294 Municipal Hall 4,756 Operations Centre 556 Randy Herman Building 3,705 ROMP 3.832 Valley Landscaping Ltd Cottonwood North Park Western Pacific Enterprises GP Information services critical load isolation Winvan Paving Ltd Traffic circle at 105 Ave & Tamarack Lane 20,239 224 Street Improvements 15.396 203 Street Bike Lanes 52.324 210 Street & Dewdney Trunk Road 24.735 2007 roadwork projects 20.588 Worxers Compensation Board BC Employer/Employee remittance 2nd qtr 2007 Disbursements In Excess $15,000 17,848,795 Discursements Under $15,000 765,641 Total Payee Disbursements 18,614,436 Payroll PP 07/14 & 07/15 1,215,081 Purchase Cards - Payment 119,344 TOTAL PERIOD 7 2007 DISBURSEMENTS 19,948,861 P:ac ccauntng Remttances Dsausements ,2007 i MonthIy Counc! Reoort 200.xSJULC District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: September 5, 2007 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer A1TN: Committee of Whole SUBJECT: Property Tax and Utility Billing System EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current taxation and utility software was developed in-house in the early 1980's and has served us well, but is in need of replacement. A Request for Proposal was issued in May 2007 and the District received submissions from CSDC Systems Inc and Tempest Development Group. Evaluations and demonstrations have been conducted by a team of staff from Finance, Information Services and Development Services. The recommendation from this team is to proceed with negotiations with Tempest Development Group for the replacement of our tax and utility system. We hope that the negotiations result in a contract that can be brought forward for Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATIONS: That staff be authorized to enter into negotiations with the Tempest Development Group for the replacement of the existing Taxation and Utility billing system, noting that funding for this project is included in the approved 2007-2011 Financial Plan DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The current taxation and utility software was developed in-house in the early 1980's and has served us well. Over the years, changes and improvements have been made to keep it functional. Such changes have required significant effort because the system does not easily interface with standard desktop software. Staff access to data has also been difficult due to system limitations. Customers are also seeking online access and such access is not possible without extensive modifications. Overall, significant effort has been required from our Information Services Department to support this system. The Information Technology (IT) Strategic Plan developed in 1999 recommended the migration to software packages installed on more current architecture that allowed integration with the Oracle relational database, networks and with desktop programs like Word and Excel. This migration has been in progress for some time. AMANDA and ESRI (GIS) are but two examples of such migrations. 1132 Background Context (cont'd.): A Request for Proposal was issued in May 2007 and the District received submissions from CSDC Systems Inc and Tempest Development Group. Evaluations and demonstrations have been conducted by a team of staff from Finance, Information Services and Development Services. The recommendation from this team is to proceed with negotiations with Tempest Development Group for the replacement of our tax and utility system. We hope that the negotiations result in a contract that can be brought forward for Council's consideration. Desired Outcomes: We hope to have a new taxation and utility system in place for the 2008 billings. C) Strategic Alignment: The recommendation is in alignment with the IT Strategic Plan Citizen/Customer Implications: The implementation will result in improved service delivery to customers through online access to property tax information, including the electronic filing of home owner grants. We also hope to improve service to lawyers and notaries for conveyancing purposes by allowing them to produce their own tax certificates. Improved access to taxation and assessment data by staff will assist them in their customer service. It will also give staff greater flexibility in analysis and research. Interdepartmental Implications: Implementation and support will be cross- departmental. The Finance Department will be actively involved in this project and this is reflected in their current workplan. There will also be a big impact on the Information Services Department in terms of the support and services that they will be required to provide. While they will have to provide less programming support for a new system, they will be required to provide more support in other areas, notably web and data base support services. Business Plan/Financial Implications: Funding for this project is included in the approved 2007-2011 Financial Plan g) Alternatives: We could stay with our current software but there would be risks attached to this. For instance, the existing program is written in a declining computer language (COBOL) with an old data base and as such, has a limited life expectancy. Our ability to keep up with customer service needs in terms of internet capability, and changes related to other taxing authorities would also be limited. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective vendors have been evaluated and Tempest Development Group is the preferred vendor. Prepared by: Kathlen Gormley, Mnager of Finance Business Systems A Approved by: John!Bastaja, Chief1 lnformation Officer ~-1 --1' Approved by: Paul Gill, General Manager: Corporate and Financial Services Concurrence: 14.L (Jim) Ru1Ie Ch ief'Adrnki istrative Officer / TO: His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: June 18, 2007 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: COW SUBJECT: Fee for Service Agreement for the provision of Animal Control Services and Shelter Operations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current Fee for Service Agreement with the SPCA for the provision of Animal Control and Shelter Operations expired December 31, 2006. Staff solicited expressions of interest for the provision of these services through two calls for proposals covering both the current operation which includes the enforcement of the Dog Control Bylaw and the operation of the Animal Shelter and a second proposal call covering only the enforcement of the Dog Control Bylaw. In each case, proposals were only received from the SPCA. The attached Fee for Service Agreement focuses on service standards in the areas of animal care, animal adoptions, volunteer programs, customer service, staff qualification and training, animal control, emergency response, financial and statistical reporting and shelter operations. The suggested term of the agreement is from January 2007 until December 2011. It should be noted that the Fee for Service Agreement can be terminated by either party with six months notice and it will be necessary to amend, renegotiate or terminate the Fee for Service Agreement when the District proceeds with the construction of a new Animal Shelter. RECOMMENDATION(S): That the Mayor and Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal the attached Fee for Service Agreement with the BCSPCA for the provision of Animal Control Services and Shelter Operations within the District of Maple Ridge; and further that the Business Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department implement a comprehensive dog licensing program. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Historically, the enforcement of the District's Animal Control Bylaw and the operation of the Animal Shelter have been delivered through a series of Fee for Service agreements between the District and the SPCA. The Fee for Service Agreement identifies a number of service standards in the areas of animal control, animal care, volunteer programs, customer service, 1133 b) Desired Outcome(s): To effectively enforce the Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control Bylaw and operate the District's Animal Shelter by ensuring that the service provider meets the established service standards noted in the Fee for Service Agreement. C) Citizen/Customer Implications: The attached Fee for Service agreement requires the Animal Shelter to be open to the public and an Animal Control Officer to be available to respond to complaints on Monday through Friday between the hours of 9:00 am to 6:00 pm and on Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. A designated employee of the SPCA will act in the capacity of a volunteer coordinator to promote local involvement in programs such as dog walking, foster parenting, care and grooming of shelter animals and adoption programs. All staff at the shelter receive formal training in the areas of animal welfare, animal assessments, cruelty investigations, customer service and operational policies and procedures. The SPCA is required to maintain comprehensive files on all calls for service and provide statistical reports to the municipality on a regular basis. Business Plan/Financial Implications: The cost of the proposal for the first year of the agreement totals $252,071.00 and includes $139,729.00 for dog control enforcement services and $112,342.00 for the operation of the animal shelter. Additional costs for the provision of these services include approximately $20,000.00 for building maintenance and supplies. These costs are offset by budgeted dog licensing revenues of $183,225.00 for a net expenditure of $88,846.00. These costs compare to a 2006 actual net expenditure for the same service standards of approximately $158,000.00. The reduction in net expenditures is attributed to the 2007 increase in dog licensing fees charged by the municipality. The proposed agreement includes a provision for the municipality to receive all dog licence revenues as opposed to previous agreements which saw the SPCA retain 75% of dog licence revenues collected after the 1st of March. Staff are confident that with a comprehensive dog licensing program operating out of the Bylaw Enforcement and Licensing Department, it is possible that once the program is operational revenues generated from dog licensing fees could offset all expenses incurred for the provision of animal control and care services. These savings could then be applied to the construction costs of a new animal shelter. Once the District of Maple Ridge and th€ BCSPCA enter into a Fee for Service Agreement, discussions concerning funding sources and construction of a new animal shelter will continue. Staff will provide an update on progress towards the construction of a new animal shelter in the near future. Alternatives: Council may choose to provide in house services for the delivery of animal control and care services. It is anticipated that this method of service delivery will result in increased expenditures over those included in the Fee for Service Agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Staff are recommending that the attached Fee for Service Agreement with the BCSPCA be signed and sealed by the Mayor and Municipal Clerk. - /* / ~Zf~ Prepared by: Brock McDonald Director ot Biness Licences, Permfts and Bylaws Approved by: Pf'ank Quinn G.M. Public Works and Develojnt Services Concurrence J.L. (Jim) Yule Chief Adri'iinistrative Officer BM/bm SPCA CONTRACT FOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made the day of 2007 BETWEEN: THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, a District Municipality under the Municipal Act, RSBC, 1979, Chp 290 and having its offices at 11995 Haney Place, in the Municipality of Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, V2X 6A9; (hereinafter called the "District") OF THE FIRST PART AND: THE BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, duly constituted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, RS Chp 372 1996, and having its head office at 1245 7 Ave E, Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, V51 IR1 and having a local shelter office at 10235 Industrial Avenue, Maple Ridge; (hereinafter called the "SPCA") OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the District recognizes the commitment, excellence and dedication of the SPCA; AND WHEREAS, both the District and the SPCA want their relationship formalized in order to assist them in the budgeting and planning of their respective operations; THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements of the parties hereto, the parties hereto agree as follows: -1- Definitions 1. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: "animal control serv'ices" means all the work and services required to be performed by the SPCA under this agreement. "bylaws" means the District of Maple Ridge dog licensing and animal control bylaws; and the District of Maple Ridge cat spaying and neutering bylaw. "shelter" means the District of Maple Ridge animal shelter presently located at 10235 Industrial Avenue, Maple Ridge. "pound" means the District of Maple Ridge animal shelter located at 10235 Industrial Avenue, Maple Ridge. Any word or term not otherwise defined has the meaning given to it in the District's animal control bylaw. Scope 2. The scope of the agreement includes but is not limited to seven broad objectives: to ensure public safety with respect to contact with animals. to address all public concerns relating to "nuisance" caused by domestic animals (for the purposes of this agreement "domestic animals" shall include dogs and cats); to ensure the humane treatment of animals within the District; to provide broad ranging and quality public education in order to facilitate the above; to partner with the District in providing quality dog control services. to implement and maintain a comprehensive volunteer program, including, without limitation, dog walking, dog grooming, adoption assistance, fostering and humane education. to liaise and where feasible, collaborate with other local or regional groups involved in animal welfare. Term 3. The term of this Agreement shall be for five (5) years from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011, inclusive. Performance of Services The SPCA shall perform animal control services for the term in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in this agreement. Duties of the SPCA The SPCA acknowledges that the District has appointed the SPCA as the poundkeeper of the District under the bylaw, and the SPCA agrees to exercise the powers and perform all the duties of the poundkeeper as set out in the bylaw. This includes without limitation the following: to exercise the powers and perform the duties of animal control services as set out in the bylaws; in and for the District at any and all times during the term of this agreement and without limiting the generality of the foregoing to pick up or receive and impound, hold for claim by the owners or attendant in care, and dispose of by adoption or transfer, unlicensed stray dogs and licensed dogs or other domestic animals; to provide food, water, shelter and veterinary care, where appropriate to all animals received at the shelter; enforce all laws and bylaws and regulations in effect from time to time of local, provincial and federal authorities having jurisdiction pertaining to the control of animals; within the agreed response times and parameters established between the District and the SPCA respond, investigate and attend to complaints from the public regarding dogs at large or unlicensed or otherwise in contravention of the bylaw within the agreed response times and parameters established between the District and the SPCA; to provide the necessary communications equipment for two-way radio communication together with a base station, telephone recorder and mobile equipment as necessary in the performance of animal control services; respond, investigate and attend to any complaint alleging a vicious or dangerous dog running at large, as defined by the bylaw, within the agreed response times and parameters established between the District and the SPCA; maintain regular contact with the Bylaw Enforcement Department and the ROMP in order to maintain a cooperative working relationship that provides seamless delivery of animal control services. This includes the exchange of after hours telephone numbers of local personnel for 24 hour emergency response; responsible for operation of shelter including payment of all operating costs; -3- In Addition The SPCA Will Provide The Following Services: Shelter Operations/Animal Care the shelter will accept all stray or homeless domestic animals to the best of its ability. all animals at the shelter will be provided on a daily basis with good quality food which meets all the protein requirements and sustenance required to keep the animal in good health. all animals will be monitored daily in relation to the animals medical condition and those animals who appear sick will immediately receive appropriate veterinary care. The SPCA undertakes to have a certified Animal Health Technician examine each animal at the shelter a minimum of once per week. all animals entering the shelter will be appropriately vaccinated with the exception of very young animals and nursing mothers. all animals requiring medical attention beyond the scope of SPCA staff will be taken to a veterinarian for treatment. all animals at the shelter will be exercised regularly. the euthanasia of animals received by the SPCA will be restricted to those animals in critical distress under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, who are terminally ill with no hope of recovery; the animal is aged in the sense that it has lost control of normal faculties; the animal is extremely aggressive and as such poses a danger to the public. Records of all animals euthanized, along with the reason for the procedure, will be submitted to the District of Maple Ridge. Shelter Operations/Adoptions the SPCA will promote and operate an animal adoption program. The SPCA will be expected to aggressively promote the adoption program by way of its own Website, the District of Maple Ridge Website, community service announcement programs, written materials, public event attendance and other effective means. A pre-adoption form satisfactory to the District of Maple Ridge must be completed by all applicants prior to an adoption and all applicants must meet all requirements highlighted on the adoption application. the SPCA will ensure the following measures are carried out for each animal prior to the adoption: - the animal is spayed/neutered - micro-chipping of the animal/or -4- - tattooing of the animal - literature is provided on proper care and handling for the specific animal species being adopted. - a short checklist on each animal noting any obvious traits is provided to prospective owners. Shelter Operations/Volunteer Management the SPCA will operate a volunteer program to operate from the shelter. the SPCA will designate a staff person at the shelter to act in the capacity of volunteer coordinator and this individual will be trained in the area of volunteer coordination. The SPCA furthermore undertakes to involve its General Manager: Volunteer Development in the further development of the volunteer program within the District. volunteer programs including dog walking; dog and cat grooming; shelter maintenance/cleaning including kennels; food preparation/feeding; foster parents; animal adoptions; office assistants; and others where appropriate will be available at the shelter. all volunteers will be screened for suitability with the aid of a screening form designed by the SPCA for all volunteer positions. All volunteers will abide by the terms and conditions established by the Society from time to time. job descriptions/orientation sheets for each volunteer position will be available and will include the duties of the position and the expectations and responsibilities of the SPCA. volunteer recognition programs and events will be held regularly. Shelter Operations/Customer Service/Staff Qualifications all employees at the shelter will provide excellent customer service and the SPCA will develop a procedure for encouraging customer feedback including the development of customer feedback forms and procedures acceptable to the District of Maple Ridge for the tracking and resolution of customer complaints. Quarterly reports detailing customer complaints/resolutions will be forwarded to the District of Maple Ridge. the SPCA will maintain a telephone information line to provide after hours information on shelter operating hours, emergency phone numbers, 24 hour veterinary service providers, and other relevant information. the SPCA will provide information to the general public on how to properly care for their animal by way of its own Website, the municipal Website and written materials available at the shelter and other public facilities. all employees working at the shelter will have received training in animal control and welfare from a recognized institution/program and/or receive ongoing training as necessary. -5- 5) the SPCA will ensure all employees at the shelter receive regular performance evaluations. Hours of Operation and Staffing The animal shelter will be open to the public from 9:00 am until 6:00 pm Monday to Friday and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Saturday and Sunday excluding statutory holidays. SPCA staff will make themselves available for flexible evening hours as needed. Staff will be available to respond to emergencies including dangerous/vicious dogs at large; injured animals; other calls requiring immediate attention 24 hours per day seven days per week. The staff operating from the shelter will include a full time shelter supervisor, a full time Animal Control Officer, 1.5 Animal Control Attendants and a full time receptionist. The SPCA also agrees to provide a half time Manager and an Animal Protection Officer to investigate incidents of animal cruelty in the District. Fees Collected by the SPCA The SPCA will retain all fees collected at the animal shelter with the exception of the licence fees which will be remitted to the District on the first day of each month. Payment Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and in consideration of the performance of the services set out in Section 5 above, the District shall pay to the SPCA: For the period commencing January 1, 2007, and ending December 31, 2007, the amount of Twenty One Thousand Sixty Dollars ($21,060.00), monthly, payable on the first day of each month. For the period commencing January 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2008, the amount of Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Two Dollars ($21,692.00), monthly, payable on the first day of each month. For the period commencing January 1, 2009, and ending December 31, 2009, Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty Three Dollars ($22,343.00), monthly, payable on the first day of each month. For the period commencing January 1, 2010, and ending December 31, 2010, Twenty Three Thousand Thirteen Dollars ($23,013.00), monthly, payable on the first day of each month. For the period commencing January 1, 2011, and ending December 31, 2011, Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Three Dollars ($23,703.00), monthly, payable on the first day of each month. f) The District of Maple Ridge will provide .65 cents per pound for the incineration of pathological waste as a result of dead animals received by the shelter or animals euthanized at the shelter. Financial Statements 9. The SPCA will provide to the District: an annual Business Plan developed by and for the shelter in a form acceptable to the District by June 15, 2007, the first year of this agreement, and by October 31, preceding the business plan year, for each subsequent year, and an annual financial budget for the total shelter/pound operation by June 15, 2007, the first year of this Agreement, and by October 31 preceding the budget year, for each subsequent year; and annual financial statements (with budget and prior year comparisons) no later than 180 days after the fiscal year end of the SPCA. a statement of annual donations submitted to the SPCA by Maple Ridge residents for use in local animal humane activities. Operating Reports 10. The SPCA will provide monthly and annual operating reports which will contain the following: a) numbers of animals by type: received by the shelter adopted returned to owner transferred to other shelters euthanized picked up dead carried forward complaints on dogs at large other (as outlined in the SPCA proposal for service provision) b) a breakdown of the numbers in (a) that relate to the pound operation; C) a breakdown of the animals in (a)(v) that were reasonably not adoptable due to health or old age; -7- d) a narrative report on signiftcant issues and events at the shelter for the report period. A representative of the SPCA will make semi annual presentations to the municipal Council on issues relating to animal services within the District including updates on the operation of the shelter, volunteer activities, public comments and other significant issues. An annual written summary will also be provided. Insurance 11. The SPCA must obtain and maintain in force for the term: Comprehensive General Liability Insurance coverage in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) for each occurrence for bodily injury, death or property damage on an all risk occurrence basis. The said coverage must include coverage for all SPCA volunteers. The SPCA agrees to obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, in the name of the SPCA, at the SPCA's expense, insurance on all the SPCA's equipment, including motor vehicles, sufficient to replace the equipment as well as liability and collision insurance in an amount acceptable to the District. The SPCA will name the District as an additional insured on all insurance policies and the insurance shall contain a provision that the insurance shall apply as though a separate policy has been issued to each named insured. If the SPCA fails to obtain the required insurance, the District may obtain and maintain such insurance policies in the name of the SPCA and the SPCA hereby appoints the District as its true and lawful attorney to do all things necessary for the purpose. All moneys expended by the District for insurance under this section must be paid by the SPCA upon invoice from the District. Each policy of insurance mentioned above, must provide that it cannot be cancelled, lapsed or materially altered without at least thirty (30) days notice in writing to the District by registered mail. The District will require the SPCA to handle any claims made against the SPCA and make full compensation for any injury or damage done to or sustained by the District or any person or persons or any building or thing or any other property whatsoever and settle all claims in respect thereof and indemnify, protect and save harmless the District from and against all claims, demands, suits or actions of every kind, description and nature whatsoever arising out of or in any connection with the fulfilment of the contract including costs incurred by the District for defence of any such claims and in respect of anything done, suffered or omitted in the execution of or in connection with the contract. - 8 - f) The SPCA agrees to provide to the District proof of the above mentioned insurance before commencing any work under this Agreement. General Provisions 12. This Agreement shall not be assigned in whole or in part by the SPCA, without the prior written consent of the District and any assignment made without that consent is void and of no effect. 13. This is an Agreement for the performance of services and the SPCA is engaged under the Agreement as an independent contractor for the sole purpose of providing the services. Neither the SPCA nor any of the SPCA's members are engaged under this Contract as an employee, servant or agent of the District. 14. The SPCA agrees to be solely responsible for any and all payments and deductions required to be made by law including those required for Canada or Quebec Pension Plans, Unemployment Insurance, Worker's Compensation, Goods and Services Tax or Income Tax. 15. The SPCA shall not represent itself to be nor in any way hold itself out to be an employee or agent of the District. 16. This agreement may not be amended nor modified nor shall any of its terms and conditions be waived except by subsequent agreement in writing executed by both parties. 17. Any notice, request, direction or other communication desired or required to be given or made hereunder by either party shall be given or made in writing and may be served on the District or the SPCA by registered mail to the District or to the SPCA at the address shown on page 1 of this contract, respectively, and any notice, request, direction or other communication so given or made shall be deemed to have been effectively given if served personally, on the day it is delivered; and if forwarded by registered mail, when the postal receipt is acknowledged by the other party. 18. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of the contract and supersedes all previous negotiations, communications and other agreements relating to it unless they are incorporated by reference herein. 19. The SPCA acknowledges that the buildings situate on the property at 10235 Industrial Avenue forms part of the lands and premises, the registered owner of which is the District IME The SPCA agrees that the District may inspect, review, possess or copy records created, received, and/or acquired that are directly related to the provision of animal control services as set out in this agreement. Termination This agreement may be terminated by either party only upon the breach of a fundamental term of this agreement and once ninety (90) days notice is provided to the other party. The District shall pay the SPCA for the services satisfactorily performed to the termination date. This agreement may be terminated by either party without cause once six months notice is provided to the other party. The District shall pay the SPCA for services satisfactorily performed to the termination date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. The Corporate Seal of THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE was hereunto affixed in the presence of: MAYOR CLERK The authorized signatory for BRITISH COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY to ANIMALS signed this agreement in the presence of: Witness' Name Authorized Signatory Address Authorized Signatory Occupation IIIIIIIII01 District of Maple Ridge Deep Roots Greater Heights It. His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: September 5, 2007 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W. 1uJJJ*I Request for Proposal - Preventative Maintenance Services for HVAC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Proposals for Preventative Maintenance Services for Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) were received from five reputable companies on June 18, 2007. The Facilities Operations and the Purchasing Departments have reviewed and evaluated the submissions in accordance with the established evaluation criteria and have determined best value for a HVAC Service Contract. RECOMMENDATION: That the contract for Preventative Maintenance Services for HVAC Services be awarded to PML Professional Mechanical for an annual contract price of $45,366. Noting that the contract is for a two (2) year term, with an option to renew for an additional two (2) years. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: As outlined in Parks and Leisure Services, Facilities Operations 2007 Business Plan we committed to develop a Request for Proposal for Preventative Maintenance Services for HVAC Systems. This new HVAC Service contract is a critical tool to manage the preventive and re-active maintenance management programs in all government properties, historic buildings, parks buildings and recreation facilities in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The HVAC contract included itemized service levels, maintenance standards/plans, and detailed preventative maintenance routines in conjunction with seasonal shutdowns, service call response times and increased service warranties. All RFP submissions were evaluated from the criteria setout within the RFP instructions Cl to C4. These weighted criteria will enable the District to determine the best value for a Preventative Maintenance Service contract. The weighted criteria were based on percentages: • Cl - Statement of Departures • C2 - 20% Experience Reputation and Resources Proposal • C3 - 50% Technical Proposal • C4 - 30% Financial Proposal - (10% overall cost/labour cost per hour, 5% regular business labour rates, 5% after hours labour rates, 5% parts and material markup, and 5% service callout labour rate). Proposals were received from five companies with Professional Mechanical receiving the highest rating in the evaluation process. b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome is to achieve the best value of a RFP - HVAC Preventative Maintenance and Service Contract. 1151 Strategic Alignment: Our strategic alignment is to maintain existing Municipal infrastructure through the preparation of appropriate plans and contracts to ensure minimal facility disruptions and appropriate operating conditions within Municipal facilities. Citizen/Customer Implication: The contract will provide municipal employees, the general public and user groups with safe, healthy and efficient corporate buildings. Business PlyFinanci mplication: The co cPic overed within the existing budget. Prepared by: 'Michael Millward, PE Facilities Operations Manager, Parks and Leisure Services ped by.' /MikedMurray 1/ General Manager: Community Development, Parks and Recreation (7ncurrence: A. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer 07SEP/06/THU 09:35 AM BC SPCA FAX No. 6046817022 P. 001/002 BC -SPCA TA," Mayor and Council To: District of Maple Ridge From: Craig Daniell Fax: 604- 466-4308 Pages (including cover): 2 Phone: 6046471322 Date: September 6, 2007 Re: Provision of animal control services aC SPCA Administration Centre telephone 604 6817271 British Columbia Society for the 1245 East 7th Avenue tolL free 1 800 665 1868 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Vancouver, BC V5T IR1 facsimile 604 681 7022 e-mail offadmin®soca.bc.ca website www.spca.bc.ca Please respect confidentiality. This communication is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain 'mformation which is priveged and confidential. Please remit to the intended party. Copying or redistribution of this communication is strictly prohibited, if you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and return the original to us by maiL Please advise us if this transmission is incomplete. Thank you. -200?'SEP/06/THU 09:34 AM BC SPCA FAX No. 6046817022 P. 002 BCSPCA ADMtr1lsTITIoN CENTRE T 604.681.7271 F 604.68i.0 1245 East 7th Avenue i.800.66.i868 Vancouver BC V5T iRi www.spca.bc.ca BCSPCA September 6, 2007 Mayor and Council Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC . . . ..,... V2X6A9 . . . Dear Mayor and Council Re: Provision of animal control servIces . I understand that Council will be considering the provision of animal control services at its meeting next week Over the past few months various conversations have taken place between the Distnct and the BC SPCA with respect to the provision of such services I thought it might be helpful to Council to clearly articulate our position At the outset, it is important for Council to note that the BC SPCA is in favour of concluding a five-year fee for services agreement with the District of Maple Ridge. Our only qualification has been that the parties.agree on., the need Secondly, the BC SPCA stands ready to conclude a fee for services agreement with the District in accordance with the recommendations set out by District staff in its June 18 th report to Council. Such agreement would see the District assume responsibility for noise control and licensing, while the BC SPc. would assume responsibility for kennelling and the enforcement of animal control bylaws. The subsequent informal offer made by the BC SPCA to conclude a short term contract was made on the understanding that the District was in the process of transitioning to aservice model that would see Distnct staff assume responsibiUty for all bylaw enforcement matters. As we have stated previously, if this is indeed the intent of The District, then the BC SPCA will work with the District to ensure there is no disruption in services during the intervening period. Furthermore, the BC SPCA is willing to work with the District on the completion of a new animal shelterin Maple Ridge. We remain convinced, however, that any new facility requires careful planning to ensure excellent animal welfare. We encourage Council to consider options such as the BC SPCA's new animal centre in Penticton. In addition, the Society remains committed to active volunteerism and financial accountability with respect to the recording of SPCA donations by residents ofMaple Ridge and surrounding communities.. . . In conclusion, I would note that the BC SPCA has been part of the.Maple Ridge community for more than four decades and is committed to retaining its presence regardless of the ultimate decision of Council Craig Daniell Chief Execut e icer 5PEAKING FOR ANIMALS J British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Please note that the attached correspondence will be referred to by the delegation presenting to COW on September 10th in regard to paving and maintenance of 130th Avenue. September 2, 2007 Mayor and Council City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC, V2X 6A9 Dear Mayor and Council: Re: Maintenance and Paving of 130 Ave, Maple Ridge Background On December 4th 2006, the undersigned appeared as a. delegation before Committee of the Whole respecting the terms of a Local Area Service ("LAS") for the paving of 130 Ave. Following the Council decision on the LAS terms at the February 13, 2007 Council Meeting we submitted, by hand on March 2 w', the required form requesting that a paving LAS petition be prepared by staff. - The staff prepared LAS petition was received during the week of May 17th (total road estimate was provided verbally on April 19). To our surprise the paving estimate had grown from $75,000 in March 2006 to $137,000. The size of the estimate meant that there was not enough support for the LAS petition to be successful, so we decided to pursue paving the road directly ourselves. We obtained quotes to pave the road to standards we believe are adequate for our purposes, in the range of $10- 15,000. As we were about to proceed with this work, again to our surprise, the City informed us that we needed to take out a Highway Use Permit, amongst other requirements (May 7 th) providing no clarifying details. The details of the Highway Use Permit were obtained in the week of June 18th, the terms of which are not workable (details provided in Attachment Q. Note: The above summary of events is highly summarized for ease of reading; please refer to Attachment Afor details. Cunent Situation Following receipt of the Highway . Use Permit, given our frustration with the process, we decided to seek lcgal advice on this matter and to review the situation in detail. As a result of these actions we identified: • that the City-owned land along the road is not designated park, as advised by staff, but has an OCP designation of RLow and zoning of RS-lb (One Family Urban, Medium Density, Residential); • approximately 1/2 of the road is designated as part of the City's trail system (Reference: City's Long Term Multi-Purpose Trail Plan, Appendix E, Figure 5); and • the road is a City Road, not a "private road", and the City has a clear legal obligation to maintain this road and this obligation cannot be "offloaded". -1- Given the above, we sincerely believe that there is not only a strong business case, but also an obligation from a fairness perspective, for the City to take over the maintenance of this road. Please refer to Attachment B for details of our position. Our Request We request that the City either: Take over the full maintenance of the road, maintaining the road as a gravel road or paving it, as appropriate. Direct staff to (continue to) work with us to resolve the identified issues with the Highway Use Permit so that we can pave the road directly ourselves. And that the City agree to contribute it's fair share of these paving costs, andlor any other maintenance required on the road, should this paving option be pursued, or not. Direct staff to revise the paving LAS to increase the City contribution from $27,600 to $89,100-$102,800 (please see Attachment B, Section 2, for an explanation on why we have stated a range here). Our preferred option would be option 3, followed by option 2 (assuming the identified issues with the permit can be resolved) and then option 1. Concluding Comments We have been working at this issue since January 2006. While we are not blaming staff for anything, as we understand how busy they are, we have been provided with requested information slowly, and clearly some of the information has been incorrect and, at best, misleading (see Attachment A). At present the road is unsafe (in a very poor state of repair) as we cannot agree on proceding with any maintenance in light of the uncertainty of the paving situation. Additionally, the Auerspergs have their home up for sale and the road's condition and the uncertainty of it's status with the City is impeding the sale. For these reasons, we ask that the City respond to our request as soon as possible. In the attachments to this letter we have attempted to provide you information we feel is relevant to making this decision. Additionally, we ask that you take the time to view this road directly yourselves. We would be pleased to give you a "tour" and address (in person or by e-mail) any questions you may have (see phone and e-mail contacts below). We thank-you for our consideration of this issue and look forward to it's resolution. Sincerely, Nancy Gomerich & Kevin Fredrich 23930 & 23950 130A 604-463-9845; nancyg5gigs.com Madelaine and Norbert Schottko 23992 130 Ave 604-463-6581 maddy-schottko@shaw.ca Nancy and Edward Auersp erg 23970 130 Ave 604-467-3407 e@auersperg.ca -2- Attachment A - Summary of Events The summary below references only the communications with the City felt to be necessary/sufficient for the reader to gain an understanding of the process. Communications, other than those referenced below, did occur, but were primarily of a follow-up nature. All referenced e-mails and letters can be provided upon request. The intent of this summary is not to criticize or blame any City Staff, but to hopefully illustrate to Council why we are very frustrated with the process to date, and the huge time commitment we have made towards working with the City to improve the safety of our road. Date Action End of 2005 We recognize that we are unable to maintain the road in a safe, and cost effective, manner. We are unable to even get potential bidders, who would properly grade the road, to return our calls, let alone get a quote for the work. We agree to contact the City to see what options we have. January 2006 Various telephone discussions with a number of City staff (Amin ? in Engineering, Mr. Fryer, City Clerk, and Wayne Harding, Roads Superintendent) confirm that the City will not maintain the road as a gravel road, even if we agree to pay for the maintenance. We are told that if we want the City to take over the road it must be brought up to City standards (paved). We decide to obtain information on a paving LAS as this seems like the best long-term solution. Jan127/06 E-mail to Mr. Fryer, City Clerk, requesting: LAS paving information -confirmation of the number of benefiting property owners -city's position with respect to the LAS paving given its ownership of property along the road liability information (Who is liable for accidents on the road resulting from the state of the road?) details of the process to have the City change it's policy respecting maintenance on the road (should the paving of the road not proceed in a timely manner), and advising of the poor state of the road. Via telephone, Mr. Fryer advises that a Preliminary Petition needs to be submitted in order to obtain information on an LAS paving. Jan128/06 Preliminary Petition for LAS Road Paving delivered to City Hall (drop-box). Mar/20/06 Letter received from Mr. Scherban in response to the Preliminary Petition stating a paving estimate of $75,000 for a p'aving consistent with the minimum road standard (Rural Local Road). The letter does not provide the requested/expected information such as: who are the benefiting property owners, how the estimate -3- would be shared amongst these owners, or the City's position. Mar/27/06 E-mail sent to Mr. Fryer and cc'd to Mr. Scherban re-asking the questions posed on Jan/27/06 that were not responded to in the Mar/20/06 letter and specifically requesting how the estimate would be allocated to the benefiting property owners. Additionally, we asked if it would be acceptable for the LAS to be paved to a 4 meter width instead of a 6 meter width. Mar/27/06 to A number of calls and e-mails to City Staff requesting the above information. July/10/06 We are eventually referred to Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn advises that he will provide the requested information on three occasions by a specified date. He does not meet any of these dates, nor is any contact made to advise that the deadlines will not be met. July/10/06 E-mail complaint made about the slow response and discourteous service of Mr. Blackburn to J. Rule. July/17/06 Mr. Rule's Secretary sends an e-mail advising that the issue has been forwarded to Mr. Quinn for a response. No communications is received from Mr. Rule or Mr. Quinn. July/25/06 Letter received from Mr. Blackburn. Letter references our Jan/27/06 request for information, but does not answer questions (2) or (3) (see Jan/27/06 above), nor is the question re: how the paving cost allocation would be done in the e-mail of Mar/27/06, addressed. Letter does confirm the benefiting property owners and that the City will pay it's share as a benefiting property owner, but will not partake in the LAS vote. Letter also states that a 4 meter road paving is not an option under an LAS and states that the road is considered "private access". Aug/2/06 to Various E-mails to/from Mr. Blackburn to obtain answers to outstanding Aug/15/06 questions and to answer new questions as a result thereof. In response to our question: "Do we need to advise or ask permission from the City to undertake various maintenance activities as we see fit, or is there a specific process we need to follow? Is there limits in terms of the maintenance to be done?" Mr. Blackburn responds as follows: "Maintaining this type of access and the type of maintenance done does not require District approval. For example, the residents using this access could pave a 4 meter roadway *• This paved roadway would not be to District standards and would not be eligible for the LAS program. It would also be the responsibility of the residents to maintain the paving." * italics added for emphasis Sept/Oct After much discussion, we (three owners) agree to pursue an LAS paving, on the 2006 condition that one final appeal be made for a 4 meter paving. Contact is made with City Hall and the earliest meeting all of us can make is Dec/4/06. Late In a telephone discussions with another Engineer (did not write down his name) November to he indicates that the City cannot legally contribute to the LAS paving. We Dec/4/06 advise that the City has already committed to making a contribution as a benefiting property owner, in writing, and that the City can legally pay for the entire paving should it decide to do so. The Engineer reverses his position prior to the Dec/4/06 meeting. Dec/4/06 We attend Committee of the Whole as a delegation requesting that the LAS be for a 4 meter wide road instead of a 6 meter wide road. Feb/5/07 Committee of the Whole receives the staff report in response to the Dec/4/06 delegation. Committee resolves to recommend to Council to only support a paving LAS for a 6 meter (vs. 4 meter) road and formally agrees to pay it's share as a benefiting property owner. Feb/13/07 Council adopts the Committee Feb/5/07 recommendation. Feb/5/07 E-mail to Mr. Fryer requesting: -clarification on why liability created if 4 meter vs. 6 meter -petition process - what happens if the actual bid is over or under the petition estimate -what is the maximum LAS cost share amortization period -process timing - when and how long to tender Feb/19/07 Mr. Fryer responds to the Feb/5/07 questions. Mr. Fryer advises that the usual amortization period is 15 years. As the life of the road is expected to be much longer than this we ask (by e-mail) that the amortization period be extended to 25 or 30 years and the process we need to follow to effect this option. Mar/2/07 LAS Paving Petition delivered to City Hall. Receipt acknowledged by Mr. Fryer. Apr/4/07 By e-mail, advise Mr. Fryer that one of the owners is moving so please provide the LAS Paving petition response ASAP. Also remind Mr. Fryer of the amortization question still outstanding posed on Feb/19. Apr/i 3/07 By e-mail Mr. Fryer states that "I hope to have the letter to you prepared today." The letter refers to the LAS Paving petition response. Apr! 19/07 Mr. Fryer provides the total road paving estimate, but no details of the estimate allocation to the owners is provided. Mr. Fryer also advises that the amortization options will include 15, 20 and 25 years (in response to Feb/19 question). Apr/23/07 E-mail to Mr. Fryer advises that given that the paving estimate has almost doubled over the March 2006 estimate that it is unlikely that it will be supported, but that we will wait and review the information yet to come from the City -5- before finalizing our decision. We advise that we are going to obtain road paving quotes to complete a paving that meets our needs. Requested the names of the smaller paving companies Mr. Fryer felt would have responded to the City tender for this purpose (response to this request was never received, so names obtained from the yellow pages). Apr/25/07 We have obtained two quotes to pave the road directly ourselves for a total cost in the range of $12,000 and they seem to be for the same thing that the City is estimating, minus the drainage works and for a 4 meter road. By telephone and e-mail, request a meeting with Mr. Fryer (meeting was earlier offered by Mr. Fryer) to review the details of the LAS paving estimate so that we can better understand why the City estimate is so high. E-mail (and phone messages) state "...available any regular work day, most time slots. Let me know what works for you." Apr/25/07 to A number of e-mail and telephone reminders to Mi. Fryer to meet to review May/6/07 estimate. Mr. Fryer does not respond. We have now received three quotes to pave the road ourselves with the highest quote being $15,000. We complete reference checks, do a better business bureau check, and satisfy ourselves that the work proposed by the preferred vendor will meet our needs. We agree to meet on May/7 to finalize the details before contacting the vendor to award the work. May/07/07 E-mail from Mr. Fryer received advising that: -the e-mail of April 19th contained the details of the estimate (the e-mail did contain a breakdown of some components of the cost, but was not sufficient to compare to the quote we obtained, nor to assess what the City standards actually where) -the City would allow us to pave the road to "driveway standards", if a Highway User Permit and "appropriate insurance" are obtained; no information is provided re: Highway Use Permit (process, contents etc.), what driveway standard are, or what appropriate insurance is. We are surprised at the paving requirements now stated by Mr. Fryer given the earlier (August 2006) statements by Mr. Blackburn. We defer the planned meeting amongst ourselves and send an e-mail to Mr. Fryer asking for details and again requesting a meeting with him. Mr. Fryer does not respond. May/14/07 An e-mail sent to Mr. Quinn and Mr. Rule explaining our frustration with the process and requesting a meeting on this issue to try and get our questions addressed so that we can proceed with the paving. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Rule do not respond. May/15/07 LAS Petition Response letter is received in the mail (the petition was submitted on March 2, 2007). S May/i 6/07 The Mayor's office is contacted and a meeting is arranged with the Mayor and Mr. Fryer. May/25/07 Meeting with Mayor Robson, Mr. Rule, Mr. Quinn and Mr. Fiyer held. At this meeting we were told that we could pave the road if we took out a Highway Use Permit for a fee of $150 and obtained insurance. Details of the permit and insurance are not providedlavailable at the meeting. It is stated that we could restrict or block access to the road. In fact, Mr. Fryer suggested some wording for appropriate signage and cautioned us about putting up a gate given the need for emergency access. It is stated that we could pave the road to a standard that we set; an example of using cobblestones on the road was provided and we are told that this would be acceptable. A copy of the Highway Use Permit is requested at the end of the meeting so that we could begin the process, but Mr. Quinn advises that this would be mailed to us along with a letter clarifying the City's position on the road. As requested by Mr. Quinn, following the meeting an e-mail is sent to Mr. Quinn stating that the paving LAS will not be supported. May/26- Meet with own legal counsel who identifies that the road is a City owned road June/i 5 and accordingly the City has a legal obligation to maintain the road, as evidenced by the fact that the City will be liable for damage due to accidents on the road due to its condition. Research identifies that the City owned lot on the road is not designated (in the OCP) or zoned, park, as stated by staff, but is a developable residential lot. Research identifies that about V2 of the road is likely a current City trail (part of the City's Master Trail Plan), accessed by a trail along the unopened 240th Street road allowance that bisects our road, and existing onto Mill Street. This explains the growing number of walkers and bikers who regularly travel this route to access the trail at the end on Mill Street that goes to Alouette Lake or to travel to the Allouette River along Fern Crescent. Jun122/07 Letter dated June 15, 2007 received by mail from Mr. Fryer with an attached Highway Use Permit. Jul/22/07 E-mail to Mr. Fryer advising of a number of concerns with the Highway Use Permit and requesting a meeting to review these issues and details relating the LAS. We advise, given that the proposed terms of the Highway Use Permit do not reflect key terms as stated at the May 25th meeting with the Mayor and Staff, and given the additional information resulting from our research, that a revised LAS may indeed be a preferred, and viable, option. -7- Aug/09/07 We meet with Mr. Fryer, giving Mr. Fryer a "tour" of the road. Mr. Fryer provides an explanation of why the City road paving is so much higher than our quotes. Mr. Fryer agrees to pursue options to the Highway Use Permit to address our concerns. Mr. Fryer advises that if we would still like to pursue the LAS, with a greater City contribution, we need to go back to Council to make this request. We determine that the earliest Committee Meeting we can realistically meet is September 10th• Note: Mr. Fryer advised that his slow/lacking responses in AprillMay were a result of his attention being directed to the potential flood issue. We completely uriderstand why this would be the case, (although it would have been best to be advised of this fact prior to the May 25, 2007 meeting with the Mayor and Staff). In any case, Mr. Fryer, has always been courteous and professional and we sincerely appreciate his efforts in working with us to resolve this issue. Attachment B - Arguments In Support of City Maintenance of 130 Ave & Necessary City Contribution to Achieve Paving via LAS Section 1: Arguments In Support of City Maintenance of 130 Ave Afier reviewing this issue considerably, we believe there are a number of good reasons for the City to take over the full maintenance of this road: The City has a legal obligation to maintain the road, and this obligation cannot be "offloaded" (even via the current terms of the Highway Use Permit which include a save harmless clause). Simply put, the City should honour it's legal obligation. The City's property along 130 Ave. is approximately two acres and has a current Official Community Plan ("OCP") designation of RLow and zoning of RS-lb (i.e. not park as we have been told by staff and as reported to Council in staffs report in December 2006). Viewing the property on the City's website, this property appears to be developable into at least two lots (if not more) and the only logical access would be from "our" gravel 130 Ave. Mr. Fryer has advised that if there was a subdivision of a property on this road that a requirement of subdivision would typically be that the road be paved to City standards. When the City subdivides this property it would be obliged to follow its own "rules" to bring 130 Ave up to standard. Based on comments about the development of the Silver Valley Area in the current OCP it is likely that this development would occur in 10-12 years, or earlier. Given the environmental considerations of the other properties on the road, they will in all probability, never be subdivided (and if they do it would be way, way in the future).1 Given these probabilities, there is a good business case for the City to contribute additional funds towards the paving now, resulting in the LAS being supported, instead of the entire cost when it develops in the future. See Section 2 of this Attachment for the City contribution required to ensure a successful paving LAS. Note: The ability for an LAS to be successful will likely not be an option beyond 2007 given the current development of 13080 24e Street (parcel fronting 130th Ave and Mill Street, adjacent to the City's lot). Regardless ofwhether the road is paved or not, the City cannot eliminate it's liability on the road. A successful LAS will result in the road being brought up to standard which is substantially safer than a gravel road, and the City maintaining the road. These actions will substantially minimize the City's liability respecting any accidents/damage that might occur due to the state of the road. If we maintain the road ourselves, City staff have told us that we will bear some liability (see Attachment A), so we will absolutely want to take the City up on staff's offer to restrict access on the road as suggested at the May 24, 2007 meeting (see Attachment A). This will include signage (something like "Private Road. No Trespassing") and quite possibly a gate at Mill Street. This will likely not be accepted well by the general public. The only exception would be the Soles/Killacky property, 12954 Miii Street. However, given that the creek runs the full length of this property along 130Ave and the easy and substantial access to the property from Mill Street, we question that the requirement to pave 130 Ave could reasonably be made as a condition of subdivision. IRZ Quite regularly, an increasing number of residents (on foot and on bikes) from the development above us (or elsewhere?) use the unopened 240th road allowance (it is a physical trail) to access the gravel 130 Ave to access Mill Street (and then the trails into Golden Ears Park or to the River). Also, equestrians still regularly use this trail route. Ultimately, if we are not permitted to limit access on this road, then expecting us to assume legal liability (and 100% of the maintenance costs for that matter) for something over which we have not control, would be extremely unfair. Approximately, Y2 of the road is designated.as a current City Trail (see the City's Long- Term Multi-Purpose Trail Plan, Appendix E, Figure 5). As stated above, members of the public regularly use this "trail". Is it fair or reasonable for the City to expect us to maintain this road at our cost when the City is inviting the public to use this road (i.e. a significant public benefit exits)? At a minimum, the City should pay for the full maintenance of the section of this road that is designated and used as a public trail, plus an additional component to compensate for the fact that the City has property fronting the road and uses the road to access the same. Given the current LAS Paving estimate of $137,000 and the currently supported City share of the same at 20.14% as a benefiting property owner, the City contribution would be $82,300 (1/2 share of road for trail $137,000/2=$68,500 + LAS share of remaining road, as benefiting property owner ($137,000-68,500) x 20.14% = $13,802) It is not right that we should be asked to maintain a City road and according to City staff (see Attachment A) bear some liability. Our taxes are not less than any comparable properties in our area that have paved, city maintained roads. And, we cannot even protect ourselves as we cannot get liability insurance as the insurance companies have said the risk is too high (see Attachment D). Is it fair or reasonable for the City to allow us to be in a position to maintain a road for which we cannot even obtain basic liability insurance? The issue of maintenance of this road has been an on-going issue for many years and will undoubtedly remain one into the future should the situation remain unchanged. This issue has consumed much of staff and council time and incurred legal, and potentially other third party, expenses. Taking over the maintenance of this road will result in savings in City staff and Council time and certainly, legal fees, if not other third party expenses. In order for us to effectively maintain this road (as gravel or paved), we need to have an "agreement" between the three property owners on what to do, and how to share the costs. Unfortunately, when the City allowed the situation to occur, it did not require that something be put in place to legally compel all future owners to cooperate to maintain the road. So far, we have been able to reach agreement on doing basic maintenance, but we each have different "cost thresholds" at which we would sign a paving LAS. This is a very difficult situation that would be resolved if the City took over maintenance of this road. -10- I. Lastly, it should be noted that there is nothing on the titles to our properties notifying us that the City expects us to maintain the road. City staff advise that this notice is provided by signage near the start of the road that says "End of Municipal Road Maintenance." At the time of the last purchase of property on this road (by Nancy and Kevin) this signage was quite small and hidden under the branches of a large fir tree and was not discovered until after the purchase was complete. Of the three of us owners, only one owner was clearly aware of the City's requirement re: maintenance of this road prior to purchase. Further, if a court case were to arise, it could quite possibly be decided that a "reasonable person" would assume that Road Maintenance refers to relatively minor works such as snow clearing etc., but not to ensuring drivability. Council may be concerned that agreeing to fund an additional amount for an LAS paving for this road or to take the road over and maintain it as a gravel road, will set a precedence. We do not believe this is the case as this particular situation is unique (City-owned developable lot along the road, approx. V2 road is designated as current City trail, three residents on the road vs. one etc.). Section 2: Necessary City Contribution to Achieve Paving via LAS Currently, we are all willing to pay a maximum of $17,200 to pave the road. This is the highest of the three quotes we obtained to pave the road directly (including GST and additional insurance costs to be obtained by the vendor as required under the Highway Use Permit). This quote is for a road that we feel is adequate for our use (the specific specifications are outlined in Attachment C, point 1). This means that the maximum LAS share, attributable to either the Schottkos or the Auerspergs (both have the same frontage which is the basis of the LAS cost allocation), cannot exceed $5,700 in order for the LAS petition to be successful. Under the LAS the cost allocation to GomerichlFredrich would be $8,550 as these owners have additional frontage, and this allocation would be supported by these owners. This would bring the total paid by the three owners to $19,950 (vs. $17,200), reflecting the fact that the three owners have different "cost thresholds" at which they would sign the paving LAS. Based on the road paving allocations provided in the current LAS petition for $137,000, the total City contribution would have to increase from $27,600 to $89,100 to achieve the $5,700 share attribution to Schottkos and Auerspergs. However, we are concerned that the Soles/Killackys are included in the LAS, but that they will never receive any benefit from the paving given that the creek runs the entire length of their property along 130Ave and the ample access they have from Mill Street. Mr. Fryer has advised that they would benefit as their property has development potential, so upon subdivision, they would be required to pave 130Ave. We find this hard to believe as it does not seem fair given that they would never need to get access from I 3OAve. Therefore, we collectively cannot agree to sign any LAS that would commit the Soles/Killackys to pay for a share of the paving until the likelihood ofMr. Fryer's assertion, that they would be required to pave the road as a condition of subdivision, is provided to us in writing. If upon closer examination, this event is deemed unlikely, the City's contribution would -11- need to increase to from $27,600 to $102, 800 to achieve the $5,700 share attribution to Schottkos and Auerspergs. Note: The current City road paving estimate of $137,000 includes a contingency of 15% (approximately $18,000) and internal engineering design costs (i.e. costs that would be incurred by the City whether this road is paved or not) of 10% (approximately $10,500). Thus, in reality the incremental increase necessary in the City's contribution may be much less than $61,500- $75,200 stated in the above paragraphs. - 12 - Attachment C - Issues with the Highway Use Permit There are many issues with the Highway Use Permit that need to be resolved before we could consider signing it. They are as follows: Item #1, #3 and #16 on the Permit say that the plans and specifications for the paving are to be approved and ultimately inspected to meet the satisfaction of the City. At our meeting with Municipal staff and the Mayor on May 24 th we heard that we could pave the road to any standard we saw fit, and maintain it accordingly, so these clauses come as a surprise. Solution: Change permit to specifically state paving specifications as per our quote, specifically state the requirements to pass any inspections, and specifically state maintenance requirements. Our paving quote specifications are: eliminate all potholes and pre-fill, machine lay 2 3/4 inch minus gravel, grade and compact and pave to 2 Y2 inch #3 BIN paver asphalt (width 12 feet). Item #3 says that we are responsible for maintenance of "the works", but it is unclear when the term of this responsibility ends (when the permit expires or is the responsibility forever?) and what happens when the person who completes/signs the permit moves (does the responsibility end or...?). Solution: Specifically define "the works" as this specific paving. State that the permit ends the earlier of when the person who signed the permit moves or 12 years (estimated life of paving per our contractor - he said 10-15 years). What does clause #5 mean? What does clause #6 mean? Item #7 should be very clearly written to ensure that it refers only to the paving work (not bridge or trees falling on road or...) Clause #8 states that the insurance can be obtained by our contractor, which suggests that the insurance could be for the period of time of the paving .pRly. And, we cannot obtain any on- going insurance (see Attachment D). Solution: Clarify that the insurance is only for the time the paving work is going to be done only. Although we do not see that there would be any damage to any public work during the paving, the 24 hour period for clause #9 is not reasonable. Solution: A more appropriate clause would say, "as soon as practically possible". Clause #17 does not state whenlunder what terms, the refundable deposit will be refunded. Solution: State that the deposit will be refunded once the paving inspection has occurred. At the meeting on May 24 th we asked if we could restrict access on the road (such as signs, gates etc.) and were told we could do this, but the permit does not mention this option. The ability to do these things is only reasonable given that the City wants a save harmless clause with respect to the paving and the fact that we cannot obtain liability insurance on this road. Solution: Add the ability to restrict access into the permit. - 13 -. Attachment fl - Issues with the Highway Use Permit Attachment to be provided with original provided to City Clerk. - 14 - To: Mayor and Council From: Amanda Gaunt Subject: Delegation to Council Following are notes from Mr. Karl Sawaf providing an outline of his presentation at Committee of the Whole on September 10, 2007 dear Amanda Gaunt thank you very much for your e. mail my name is Karl k. Sawaf end of june i sold my company by the name diamond limousine one of largest in town . for the past 24 years i have been leader in the transportation busness for the past tow month i have taken ride in our local taxi many times i was descustet of the condition of the cars and the quality of the service . i need letter from the councel to go to the passenger transportation branch and aply for the green taxi a new company with brand new cars hibret cars that is inviromently frendly . and it will be first class service and a chow case for the 2010 olympic . your suport is essencial and you have my promisses in righting to do so karl sawaf Page 1 of 1 Cheryl Ennis From: Nancy Gomerich [nancyg©5gigs.com] Sent: Sep 2, 2007 10:28 PM To: Ernie Daykin; Judy Dueck; Al Hogarth; Linda King; Craig Speirs; Ken Stewart; Gordon Robson Cc: Terry Fryer; maddy-schottko©shaw.ca; eauersperg.ca Subject: Paving/Maintenance of 130 Ave Importance: High Attachments: 2007-07-28 I Mayor and Council - Maintenance and Paving 130 Ave v3.doc Please find attached a letter that will be included in your September 10th Committee of the Whole Agenda in support of a delegation addressing the Paving/Maintenance of 130 Ave. We are sending this letter to you now as it is quite comprehensive and we want to ensure you have sufficient time to consider the issues. As stated in the attached letter, we would like to invite you to contact any of us (contact information on page 2 of the letter) to arrange a "tour" of our road and to address any questions you may have on our current request. Sincerely, Nancy Gomerich 23930 130 Ave On behalf of Kevin Fredrich (23930 130 Ave), Nancy & Edward Auersperg (23970 130 Ave) and Madelaine & Norbert Schottko (23992 130 Ave) 09/04/2007 September 2, 2007 Mayor and Council City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC, V2X 6A9 Dear Mayor and Council: Re: Maintenance and Paving of 130 Ave, Maple Ridge Background On December 4th 2006, the undersigned appeared as a delegation before Committee of the Whole respecting the terms of a Local Area Service ("LAS") for the paving of 130 Ave. Following the Council decision on the LAS terms at the February 13, 2007 Council Meeting we submitted, by hand on March the required form requesting that a paving LAS petition be prepared by staff. The staff prepared LAS petition was received during the week of May 17" (total road estimate was provided verbally on April 19). To our surprise the paving estimate had grown from $75,000 in March 2006 to $137,000. The size of the estimate meant that there was not enough support for the LAS petition to be successful, so we decided to pursue paving the road directly ourselves. We obtained quotes to pave the road to standards we believe are adequate for our purposes, in the range of $ 10-15,000. As we were about to proceed with this work, again to our surprise, the City informed us that we needed to take out a Highway Use Permit, amongst other requirements (May 7 th) providing no clarifying details. The details of the Highway Use Permit were obtained in the week of June 18th, the terms of which are not workable (details provided in Attachment C). Note. The above summaiy of events is highly summarized for ease of reading; please refer to Attachment Afor details. Current Situation Following receipt of the Highway Use Permit, given our frustration with the process, we decided to seek legal advice on this matter and to review the situation in detail. As a result of these actions we identified: • that the City-owned land along the road is not designated park, as advised by staff, but has an OCP designation of RLow and zoning of RS-lb (One Family Urban, Medium Density, Residential); • approximately 1/2 of the road is designated as part of the City's trail system (Reference: City's Long Term Multi-Purpose Trail Plan, Appendix E, Figure 5); and • the road is a City Road, not a "private road", and the City has a clear legal obligation to maintain this road and this obligation cannot be "offloaded". -1- Given the above, we sincerely believe that there is not only a strong business case, but also an obligation from a fairness perspective, for the City to take over the maintenance of this road. Please refer to Attachment B for details of our position. Our Request We request that the City either: Take over the full maintenance of the road, maintaining the road as a gravel road or paving it, as appropriate. Direct staff to (continue to) work with us to resolve the identified issues with the Highway Use Permit so that we can pave the road directly ourselves. And that the City agree to contribute it's fair share of these paving costs, andlor any other maintenance required on the road, should this paving option be pursued, or not. Direct staff to revise the paving LAS to increase the City contribution from $27,600 to $89,1004102,800 (please see Attachment B, Section 2, for an explanation on why we have stated a range here). Our preferred option would be option 3, followed by option 2 (assuming the identified issues with the permit can be resolved) and then option 1. Concluding Comments We have been working at this issue since January 2006. While we are not blaming staff for anything, as we understand how busy they are, we have been provided with requested information slowly, and clearly some of the information has been incorrect and, at best, misleading (see Attachment A). At present the road is unsafe (in a very poor state of repair) as we cannot agree on proceeding with any maintenance in light of the uncertainty of the paving situation. Additionally, the Auerspergs have their home up for sale and the road's condition and the uncertainty of it's status with the City is impeding the sale. For these reasons, we ask that the City respond to our request as soon as possible. In the attachments to this letter we have attempted to provide you information we feel is relevant to making this decision. Additionally, we ask that you take the time to view this road directly yourselves. We would be pleased to give you a "tour" and address (in person or by e-mail) any questions you may have (see phone and e-mail contacts below). We thank-you for our consideration of this issue and look forward to it's resolution. Sincerely, Nancy Gomerich & Kevin Fredrich 23930 & 23950 130A 604-463-9845; nancyg@5gigs.com Madelaine and Norbert Schottko 23992 130 Ave 604-463-6581 maddy-schottko@shaw.ca Nancy and Edward Auersperg 23970 130 Ave 604-467-3407 e@auersperg. ca -2- Attachment A -Summary of Events The summary below references only the communications with the City felt to be necessary/sufficient for the reader to gain an understanding of the process. Communications, other than those referenced below, did occur, but were primarily of a follow-up nature. All referenced e-mails and letters can be provided upon request. The intent of this summary is not to criticize or blame any City Staff, but to hopefully illustrate to Council why we are very frustrated with the process to date, and the huge time commitment we have made towards working with the City to improve the safety of our road. Date Action End of 2005 We recognize that we are unable to maintain the road in a safe, and cost effective, manner. We are unable to even get potential bidders, who would properly grade the road, to return our calls, let alone get a quote for the work. We agree to contact the City to see what options we have. January 2006 Various telephone discussions with a number of City staff (Amin ? in Engineering, Mr. Fryer, City Clerk, and Wayne Harding, Roads Superintendent) confirm that the City will not maintain the road as a gravel road, even if we agree to pay for the maintenance. We are told that if we want the City to take over the road it must be brought up to City standards (paved). We decide to obtain information on a paving LAS as this seems like the best long-term solution. Jan/27/06 E-mail to Mr. Fryer, City Clerk, requesting: LAS paving information -confirmation of the number of benefiting property owners -city's position with respect to the LAS paving given its ownership of property along the road liability information (Who is liable for accidents on the road resulting from the state of the road?) details of the process to have the City change it's policy respecting maintenance on the road (should the paving of the road not proceed in a timely manner), and advising of the poor state of the road. Via telephone, Mr. Fryer advises that a Preliminary Petition needs to be submitted in order to obtain information on an LAS paving. Jan/28/06 Preliminary Petition for LAS Road Paving delivered to City Hall (drop-box). Mar/20/06 Letter received from Mr. Scherban in response to the Preliminary Petition stating a paving estimate of $75,000 for a paving consistent with the minimum road standard (Rural Local Road). The letter does not provide the requestedlexpected information such as: who are the benefiting property owners, how the estimate -3- would be shared amongst these owners, or the City's position. Mar/27/06 E-mail sent to Mr. Fryer and cc'd to Mr. Scherban re-asking the questions posed on Jan127/06 that were not responded to in the Mar/20/06 letter and specifically requesting how the estimate would be allocated to the benefiting property owners. Additionally, we asked if it would be acceptable for the LAS to be paved_to_a_4_meterwidth_instead_of a_6_meter_width. Mar/27/06 to A number of calls and e-mails to City Staff requesting the above information. July/10/06 We are eventually referred to Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn advises that he will provide the requested information on three occasions by a specified date. He does not meet any of these dates, nor is any contact made to advise that the deadlines will not be met. July/10/06 E-mail complaint made about the slow response and discourteous service of Mr. Blackburn to J. Rule. July/i 7/06 Mr. Rule's Secretary sends an e-mail advising that the issue has been forwarded to Mr. Quinn for a response. No communications is received from Mr. Rule or Mr. Quinn. July/25/06 Letter received from Mr. Blackburn. Letter references our Jan127/06 request for information, but does not answer questions (2) or (3) (see Jan/27/06 above), nor is the question re: how the paving cost allocation would be done in the e-mail of Mar/27/06, addressed. Letter does confirm the benefiting property owners and that the City will pay it's share as a benefiting property owner, but will not partake in the LAS vote. Letter also states that a 4 meter road paving is not an option under an LAS and states that the road is considered "private access". Aug/2/06 to Various E-mails to/from Mr. Blackburn to obtain answers to outstanding Aug/i 5/06 questions and to answer new questions as a result thereof. In response to our question: "Do we need to advise or ask permission from the City to undertake various maintenance activities as we see fit, or is there a specific process we need to follow? Is there limits in terms of the maintenance to be done?" Mr. Blackburn responds as follows: "Maintaining this type of access and the type of maintenance done does not require District approval. For example, the residents using this access could pave a 4 meter roadway*. This paved roadway would not be to District standards and would not be eligible for the LAS program. It would also be the responsibility of the residents to maintain the_paving."_* italics_added for_emphasis Sept/Oct After much discussion, we (three owners) agree to pursue an LAS paving, on the 2006 condition that one final appeal be made for a 4 meter paving. Contact is made with City Hall and the earliest meeting a11 of us can make is Dec/4/06. Late In a telephone discussions with another Engineer (did not write down his name) November to he indicates that the City cannot legally contribute to the LAS paving. We Dec/4/06 advise that the City has already committed to making a contribution as a benefiting property owner, in writing, and that the City can legally pay for the entire paving should it decide to do so. The Engineer reverses his position prior to the Dec/4/06 meeting. Dec/4/06 We attend Committee of the Whole as a delegation requesting that the LAS be for a 4 meter wide road instead of a 6 meter wide road. Feb/5/07 Committee of the Whole receives the staff report in response to the Dec/4/06 delegation. Committee resolves to recommend to Council to only support a paving LAS for a 6 meter (vs. 4 meter) road and formally agrees to pay it's share as a benefiting property owner. Feb/13/07 Council adopts the Committee Feb/5/07 recommendation. Feb/5/07 E-mail to Mr. Fryer requesting: -clarification on why liability created if 4 meter vs. 6 meter -petition process - what happens if the actual bid is over or under the petition estimate -what is the maximum LAS cost share amortization period -process timing - when and how long to tender Feb/19/07 Mr. Fryer responds to the Feb/5/07 questions. Mr. Fryer advises that the usual amortization period is 15 years. As the life of the road is expected to be much longer than this we ask (by e-mail) that the amortization period be extended to 25 or 30 years and the process we need to follow to effect this option. Mar/2/07 LAS Paving Petition delivered to City Hall. Receipt acknowledged by Mr. Fryer. Apr/4/07 By e-mail, advise Mr. Fryer that one of the owners is moving so please provide the LAS Paving petition response ASAP. Also remind Mr. Fryer of the amortization question still outstanding posed on Feb/19. Apr/13/07 By e-mail Mr. Fryer states that "I hope to have the letter to you prepared today." The letter refers to the LAS Paving petition response. Apr/19/07 Mr. Fryer provides the total road paving estimate, but no details of the estimate allocation to the owners is provided. Mr. Fryer also advises that the amortization options will include 15, 20 and 25 years (in response to Feb/19 question). Apr/23/07 E-mail to Mr. Fryer advises that given that the paving estimate has almost doubled over the March 2006 estimate that it is unlikely that it will be supported, but that we will wait and review the information yet to come from the City -5- before finalizing our decision. We advise that we are going to obtain road paving quotes to complete a paving that meets our needs. Requested the names of the smaller paving companies Mr. Fryer felt would have responded to the City tender for this purpose (response to this request was never received, so names obtained from the yellow pages). Apr/25/07 We have obtained two quotes to pave the road directly ourselves for a total cost in the range of $12,000 and they seem to be for the same thing that the City is estimating, minus the drainage works and for a 4 meter road. By telephone and e-mail, request a meeting with Mr. Fryer (meeting was earlier offered by Mr. Fryer) to review the details of the LAS paving estimate so that we can better understand why the City estimate is so high. E-mail (and phone messages) state " ... available any regular work day, most time slots. Let me know what works for you." Apr/25/07 to A number of e-mail and telephone reminders to Mr. Fryer to meet to review May/6/07 estimate. Mr. Fryer does not respond. We have now received three quotes to pave the road ourselves with the highest quote being $15,000. We complete reference checks, do a better business bureau check, and satisfy ourselves that the work proposed by the prefened vendor will meet our needs. We agree to meet on May/7 to finalize the details before contacting_the_vendor to_award the work. May/07/07 E-mail from Mr. Fryer received advising that: -the e-mail of April 19th contained the details of the estimate (the e-mail did contain a breakdown of some components of the cost, but was not sufficient to compare to the quote we obtained, nor to assess what the City standards actually where) -the City would allow us to pave the road to "driveway standards", if a Highway User Permit and "appropriate insurance" are obtained; no information is provided re: Highway Use Permit (process, contents etc.), what driveway standard are, or what appropriate insurance is. We are surprised at the paving requirements now stated by Mr. Fryer given the earlier (August 2006) statements by Mr. Blackburn. We defer the planned meeting amongst ourselves and send an e-mail to Mr. Fryer asking for details and again requesting a meeting with him. Mr. Fryer does not respond. May/14/07 An e-mail sent to Mr. Quinn and Mr. Rule explaining our frustration with the process and requesting a meeting on this issue to try and get our questions addressed so that we can proceed with the paving. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Rule do not respond. May/15/07 LAS Petition Response letter is received in the mail (the petition was submitted on March 2, 2007). May/16/07 The Mayor's office is contacted and a meeting is arranged with the Mayor and Mr. Fryer. May/25/07 Meeting with Mayor Robson, Mr. Rule, Mr. Quinn and Mr. Fryer held. At this meeting we were told that we could pave the road if we took out a Highway Use Permit for a fee of 150 and obtained insurance. Details of the permit and insurance are not providedlavailable at the meeting. It is stated that we could restrict or block access to the road. In fact, Mr. Fryer suggested some wording for appropriate signage and cautioned us about putting up a gate given the need for emergency access. It is stated that we could pave the road to a standard that we set; an example of using cobblestones on the road was provided and we are told that this would be acceptable. A copy of the Highway Use Permit is requested at the end of the meeting so that we could begin the process, but Mr. Quinn advises that this would be mailed to us along with a letter clarifying the City's position on the road. As requested by Mr. Quinn, following the meeting an e-mail is sent to Mr. Quinn stating_that_the_paving_LAS_will_not_be_supported. May/26- Meet with own legal counsel who identifies that the road is a City owned road June/15 and accordingly the City has a legal obligation to maintain the road, as evidenced by the fact that the City will be liable for damage due to accidents on the road due to its condition. Research identifies that the City owned lot on the road is not designated (in the OCP) or zoned, park, as stated by staff, but is a developable residential lot. Research identifies that about 1/2 of the road is likely a current City trail (part of the City's Master Trail Plan), accessed by a trail along the unopened 240 Street road allowance that bisects our road, and existing onto Mill Street. This explains the growing number of walkers and bikers who regularly travel this route to access the trail at the end on Mill Street that goes to Alouette Lake or to travel to the Allouette River along Fern Crescent. Jun122/07 Letter dated June 15, 2007 received by mail from Mr. Fryer with an attached Highway Use Permit. Jul/22/07 E-mail to Mr. Fryer advising of a number of concerns with the Highway Use Permit and requesting a meeting to review these issues and details relating the LAS. We advise, given that the proposed terms of the Highway Use Permit do not reflect key terms as stated at the May 25th meeting with the Mayor and Staff, and given the additional information resulting from our research, that a revised LAS may indeed be a preferred, and viable, option. -7- Aug/09/07 We meet with Mr. Fryer, giving Mr. Fryer a "tour" of the road. Mr. Fryer provides an explanation of why the City road paving is so much higher than our quotes. Mr. Fryer agrees to pursue options to the Highway Use Permit to address our concerns. Mr. Fryer advises that if we would still like to pursue the LAS, with a greater City contribution, we need to go back to Council to make this request. We determine that the earliest Committee Meeting we can realistically meet is September 1O. Note: Mr. Fryer advised that his slow/lacking responses in April/May were a result of his attention being directed to the potential flood issue. We completely understand why this would be the case, (although it would have been best to be advised of this fact prior to the May 25, 2007 meeting with the Mayor and Staff). In any case, Mr. Fryer, has always been courteous and professional and we sincerely appreciate his efforts in working with us to resolve this issue. Attachment B - Arguments In Support of City Maintenance of 130 Ave & Necessary City Contribution to Achieve Paving via LAS Section 1: Arguments In Support of City Maintenance of 130 Ave After reviewing this issue considerably, we believe there are a number of good reasons for the City to take over the full maintenance of this road: The City has a legal obligation to maintain the road, and this obligation cannot be "offloaded" (even via the current terms of the Highway Use Permit which include a save harmless clause). Simply put, the City should honour it's legal obligation. The City's property along 130 Ave. is approximately two acres and has a current Official Community Plan ("OCP") designation of RLow and zoning of RS-lb (i.e. not park as we have been told by staff and as reported to Council in staffs report in December 2006). Viewing the property on the City's website, this property appears to be developable into at least two lots (if not more) and the only logical access would be from "our" gravel 130 Ave. Mr. Fryer has advised that if there was a subdivision of a property on this road that a requirement of subdivision would typically be that the road be paved to City standards. When the City subdivides this property it would be obliged to follow its own "rules" to bring 130 Ave up to standard. Based on comments about the development of the Silver Valley Area in the current OCP it is likely that this development would occur in 10-12 years, or earlier. Given the environmental considerations of the other properties on the road, they will in all probability, never be subdivided (and if they do it would be way, way in the future).1 Given these probabilities, there is a good business case for the City to contribute additional funds towards the paving now, resulting in the LAS being supported, instead of the entire cost when it develops in the future. See Section 2 of this Attachment for the City contribution required to ensure a successful paving LAS. Note: The ability for an LAS to be successful will likely not be an option beyond 2007 given the current development of 13080 240 Street (parcel fronting 13e Ave and Mill Street, adjacent to the City lot). Regardless of whether the road is paved or not, the City cannot eliminate it's liability on the road. A successful LAS will result in the road being brought up to standard which is substantially safer than a gravel road, and the City maintaining the road. These actions will substantially minimize the City's liability respecting any accidents/damage that might occur due to the state of the road. If we maintain the road ourselves, City staff have told us that we will bear some liability (see Attachment A), so we will absolutely want to take the City up on staffs offer to restrict access on the road as suggested at the May 24, 2007 meeting (see Attachment A). This will include signage (something like "Private Road. No Trespassing") and quite possibly a gate at Mill Street. This will likely not be accepted well by the general public. The only exception would be the Soles/Killacky property, 12954 Mill Street. However, given that the creek runs the full length of this property along 1 3OAve and the easy and substantial access to the property from Mill Street, we question that the requirement to pave 130 Ave could reasonably be made as a condition of subdivision. S Quite regularly, an increasing number of residents (on foot and on bikes) from the development above us (or elsewhere?) use the unopened 240th road allowance (it is a physical trail) to access the gravel 130 Ave to access Mill Street (and then the trails into Golden Ears Park or to the River). Also, equestrians still regularly use this trail route. Ultimately, if we are not permitted to limit access on this road, then expecting us to assume legal liability (and 100% of the maintenance costs for that matter) for something over which we have not control, would be extremely unfair. Approximately, 1/2 of the road is designated.as a current City Trail (see the City's Long- Term Multi-Purpose Trail Plan, Appendix E, Figure 5). As stated above, members of the public regularly use this "trail". Is it fair or reasonable for the City to expect us to maintain this road at our cost when the City is inviting the public to use this road (i.e. a significant public benefit exits)? At a minimum, the City should pay for the full maintenance of the section of this road that is designated and used as a public trail, plus an additional component to compensate for the fact that the City has property fronting the road and uses the road to access the same. Given the current LAS Paving estimate of $137,000 and the currently supported City share of the same at 20.14% as a benefiting property owner, the City contribution would be $82,300 (1/2 share of road for trail $137,000/2$68,500 + LAS share of remaining road, as benefiting property owner ($137,000-68,500) x 20.14% = $13,802) It is not right that we should be asked to maintain a City road and according to City staff (see Attachment A) bear some liability. Our taxes are not less than any comparable properties in our area that have paved, city maintained roads. And, we cannot even protect ourselves as we cannot get liability insurance as the insurance companies have said the risk is too high (see Attachment D). Is it fair or reasonable for the City to allow us to be in a position to maintain a road for which we cannot even obtain basic liability insurance? The issue of maintenance of this road has been an on-going issue for many years and will undoubtedly remain one into the future should the situation remain unchanged. This issue has consumed much of staff and council time and incurred legal, and potentially other third party, expenses. Taking over the maintenance of this road will result in savings in City staff and Council time and certainly, legal fees, if not other third party expenses. In order for us to effectively maintain this road (as gravel or paved), we need to have an "agreement" between the three property owners on what to do, and how to share the costs. Unfortunately, when the City allowed the situation to occur, it did not require that something be put in place to legally compel all future owners to cooperate to maintain the road. So far, we have been able to reach agreement on doing basic maintenance, but we each have different "cost thresholds" at which we would sign a paving LAS. This is a very difficult situation that would be resolved if the City took over maintenance of this road. -10- Lastly, it should be noted that there is nothing on the titles to our properties notifying us that the City expects us to maintain the road. City staff advise that this notice is provided by signage near the start of the road that says "End of Municipal Road Maintenance." At the time of the last purchase of property on this road (by Nancy and Kevin) this signage was quite small and hidden under the branches of a large fir tree and was not discovered until after the purchase was complete. Of the three of us owners, only one owner was clearly aware of the City's requirement re: maintenance of this road prior to purchase. Further, if a court case were to arise, it could quite possibly be decided that a "reasonable person" would assume that Road Maintenance refers to relatively minor works such as snow clearing etc., but not to ensuring drivability. Council may be concerned that agreeing to fund an additional amount for an LAS paving for this road or to take the road over and maintain it as a gravel road, will set a precedence. We do not believe this is the case as this particular situation is unique (City-owned developable lot along the road, approx. Y2 road is designated as current City trail, three residents on the road vs. one etc.). Section 2: Necessary City Contribution to Achieve Paving via LAS Currently, we are all willing to pay a maximum of $17,200 to pave the road. This is the highest of the three quotes we obtained to pave the road directly (including GST and additional insurance costs to be obtained by the vendor as required under the Highway Use Permit). This quote is for a road that we feel is adequate for our use (the specific specifications are outlined in Attachment C, point 1). This means that the maximum LAS share, attributable to either the Schottkos or the Auerspergs (both have the same frontage which is the basis of the LAS cost allocation), cannot exceed $5,700 in order for the LAS petition to be successful. Under the LAS the cost allocation to GomerichfFredrich would be $8,550 as these owners have additional frontage, and this allocation would be supported by these owners. This would bring the total paid by the three owners to $19,950 (vs. $17,200), reflecting the fact that the three owners have different "cost thresholds" at which they would sign the paving LAS. Based on the road paving allocations provided in the current LAS petition for $137,000, the total City contribution would have to increase from $27,600 to $89,100 to achieve the $5,700 share attribution to Schottkos and Auerspergs. However, we are concerned that the Soles/Killackys are included in the LAS, but that they will never receive any benefit from the paving given that the creek runs the entire length of their property along 1 3OAve and the ample access they have from Mill Street. Mr. Fryer has advised that they would benefit as their property has development potential, so upon subdivision, they would be required to pave 1 3OAve. We find this hard to believe as it does not seem fair given that they would never need to get access from 130Ave. Therefore, we collectively cannot agree to sign any LAS that would commit the Soles/Killackys to pay for a share of the paving until the likelihood of Mr. Fryer's assertion, that they would be required to pave the road as a condition of subdivision, is provided to us in writing. If upon closer examination, this event is deemed unlikely, the City's contribution would S -11- need to increase to from $27,600 to $102,800 to achieve the $5,700 share attribution to Schottkos and Auerspergs. Note: The current City road paving estimate of $137,000 includes a contingency of 15% (approximately $18,000) and internal engineering design costs (i.e. costs that would be incurred by the City whether this road is paved or not) of 10% (approximately $10,500). Thus, in reality the incremental increase necessary in the City's contribution may be much less than $6 1,500- $75,200 stated in the above paragraphs. - 12- Attachment C - Issues with the Highway Use Permit There are many issues with the Highway Use Permit that need to be resolved before we could consider signing it. They are as follows: Item #1, #3 and #16 on the Permit say that the plans and specifications for the paving are to be approved and ultimately inspected to meet the satisfaction of the City. At our meeting with Municipal staff and the Mayor on May 24th we heard that we could pave the road to any standard we saw fit, and maintain it accordingly, so these clauses come as a surprise. Solution: Change permit to specifically state paving specifications as per our quote, specifically state the requirements to pass any inspections, and specifically state maintenance requirements. Our paving quote specifications are: eliminate all potholes and pre-fill, machine lay 2 3/4 inch minus gravel, grade and compact and pave to 2 V2 inch #3 BIN paver asphalt (width 12 feet). Item #3 says that we are responsible for maintenance of "the works", but it is unclear when the term of this responsibility ends (when the permit expires or is the responsibility forever?) and what happens when the person who completes/signs the permit moves (does the responsibility end or ... ?). Solution: Specifically define "the works" as this specific paving. State that the permit ends the earlier of when the person who signed the permit moves or 12 years (estimated life of paving per our contractor - he said 10-15 years). What does clause #5 mean? What does clause #6 mean? Item #7 should be very clearly written to ensure that it refers only to the paving work (not bridge or trees falling on road or ... ) Clause #8 states that the insurance can be obtained by our contractor, which suggests that the insurance could be for the period of time of the paving py. And, we cannot obtain any on- going insurance (see Attachment D). Solution: Clarify that the insurance is only for the time the paving work is going to be done only. Although we do not see that there would be any damage to any public work during the paving, the 24 hour period for clause #9 is not reasonable. Solution: A more appropriate clause would say, "as soon as practically possible". Clause #17 does not state whenlunder what terms, the refundable deposit will be refunded. Solution: State that the deposit will be refunded once the paving inspection has occurred. At the meeting on May 24th we asked if we could restrict access on the road (such as signs, gates etc.) and were told we could do this, but the permit does not mention this option. The ability to do these things is only reasonable given that the City wants a save harmless clause with respect to the paving and the fact that we cannot obtain liability insurance on this road. Solution: Add the ability to restrict access into the permit. - 13 - Attachment D - Issues with the Highway Use Permit Attachment to be provided with original provided to City Clerk. - 14 -