HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-16 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES –July 9, 2012
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Port Haney Neighbourhood Change Project Report
Yvonne Desabrais and Graeme Ross, Co-chairs of the Port Haney
Neighbourhood Change Initiative
4.2 Capital Works and Development Update
Presentation by the Municipal Engineer, the Director of Parks and Facilities and
the Manager of Development and Environment Services
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
July 16, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification.
REMINDERS
July 16, 2012
Audit and Finance Committee Meeting 8:00 a.m.
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
July 16, 2012
Page 2 of 4
4.3 Animal Control Bylaw
Staff report dated July 16, 2012 providing information on a proposed new animal
control bylaw.
4.4 Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses – Process Report
Staff report dated July 16, 2012 recommending that the secondary suites review
process be endorsed.
4.5 Maple Ridge Floodplain Fill Policy
Staff report dated July 16, 2012 recommending that the “Regulation of Earth Fill
within Floodplains Policy” be forwarded to the Council Meeting of July 24, 2012.
4.6 2012 Business Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated July 16, 2012 providing information on the tax rate assessed to
Business Class 6 properties.
4.7 2012 Major Industry Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated July 16, 2012 comparing the District of Maple Ridge’s current
Major Industry tax rate to other municipalities in the area.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
5.1 Alcohol and Other Drug Monitoring Project - increase in BC overdose
hospitalizations
E-mail dated June 21, 2012 from the Alcohol and Other Drug Monitoring Project
providing information on a study finding an increase in BC overdose
hospitalizations.
Recommendation: Forward to the Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory
Committee
Council Workshop
July 16, 2012
Page 3 of 4
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
July 16, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of an onymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations , where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
Page 1 of 4
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: July 16, 2012
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer Meeting: Workshop
SUBJECT: Animal Control Bylaw
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed Animal Control Bylaw replaces the Dog Pound and Dog Control Bylaw 4524-1991, the
Exotic Animal Bylaw 5755-1999 and the Large Animal Control Bylaw No. 2518-1977. The original
bylaws are outdated ranging from 1977 to 1999. This new bylaw is intended to update and simplify
language making the content easier to interpret, educate and enforce.
The proposed new Animal Control Bylaw will include the following:
Aggressive Dog definition and relevant sections replacing the Vicious Dog definition and
sections;
Breed specific language;
New regulations for Rabbits, Pet Stores, Dog Boarders and Dog Walkers;
New definitions added to increase clarity;
New regulations for dog licence revocation; and
Reduced dog licence fees for senior citizens over the age of 65 years.
Two of the more significant contemplated changes are the proposed regulations around Pit Bull
Terriers and the proposed regulations around Pet Store operators. The proposed regulation regarding
Pit Bull Terriers is to include breed specific language within the definition of Aggressive Dog.
Categorizing Pit Bull Terrier breeds and similar breeds as Aggressive provides the ability to introduce
restrictions for ownership designed to encourage responsible pet ownership thereby reducing the
number of aggressive situations and dog bite incidents. The proposed regulation regarding Pet Store
operators is designed to support animal population control and to regulate the living conditions.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That this report be received for information and a discussion.
DISCUSSION:
Weekly, staff receives complaints of unlicensed dogs while the District contractor, the SPCA,
commonly field stray dog and animal welfare concerns calls. Seasonally, both departments receive
calls about animals left in hot vehicles, unleashed dogs on the dykes and in parks or unrestrained
dogs transported in open vehicles. Under the proposed Bylaw, wording and sections are proposed to
better address these more commonly reported offences.
4.3
Page 2 of 4
All relevant bylaws are amended to reflect that a Dog means any animal of the canine species. By
aligning the wording in all bylaws, dog owners may only have 3 dogs per lot with the exception of
properties that qualify for either a hobby kennel permit or commercial kennel licence. This is
desirable to discourage backyard breeders. The only remaining section specifying a distinction
between what constitutes a “puppy” lies within the Animal Control Bylaw which states that Dogs over
the age of 4 months are required to be licensed. Staff continues their efforts to educate the public
about licensing and kennel requirements.
The Vicious Dog references are annexed in favor of reflecting Community Charter verbiage for
Aggressive Dogs. There is no reference for Vicious Dogs within the Community Charter. It addresses
both Aggressive and Dangerous Dogs; therefore, our bylaw will now reflect that wording.
There is a proposed definition and sections pertaining to Rabbit ownership. This is necessary to
proactively address the possibility of Rabbit over-population as faced in jurisdictions such as Ladner,
Richmond, Kelowna and Vancouver Island. The purpose is to encourage existing Pet stores to alter
the Rabbits prior to adoption. Existing Pet stores may continue to sell live animals as long as their
business remains active at that location without lapsing for 6 months or more. The legislation is
designed to prohibit future Pet store operators from selling live animals.
There are several new definitions including Dog Boarding, Dog Daycare and Dog Walker that are
added to more accurately reflect dog related careers. Dog Boarding and Dog Daycare are distinctly
different. Dog Boarding is permitted in the A-1, A-2 and A-3 zones for commercial kennels. These
zones are designed for overnight and extended stays ranging from days to weeks. Dog Daycare is
designed for care while the owner is away at work between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm. The
permitted zones would include some commercially zoned properties in addition to the A-1, A-2, and
A-3 zones.
Dog licence revocation is not a common practice currently; however, with the introduction of the
Aggressive Dog sections, it is important to have language that spells out the consequence for failing
to meet the specifics of the bylaw. It is hard to predict the frequency this clause will be utilized, but,
recognizing that aggressive and dangerous dogs pose a safety concern for residents is paramount.
Pit Bull Terriers:
Breed specific language is proposed in the Aggressive Dog definition due to the large population of
dogs that are, or are substantially similar in appearance to a Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull
Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier or a cross of any of the
aforementioned breeds in the District. Each year, Staff and SPCA receive a number of reports
concerning aggression or bites involving breeds of all types; however, there is significant public
discussion and fear of Pit Bull Terriers and substantially similar dogs. Categorizing these breeds and
similar breeds as Aggressive provides the ability to introduce restrictions for ownership designed to
encourage responsible pet ownership thereby reducing the number of aggressive situations and dog
bite incidents.
Pet Stores:
Currently, Pet Store operators are not regulated within our bylaws. Proposed changes are broken
down by general regulations for all animals and specific regulations for specific animals. The
legislation is designed to support animal population control and to regulate the living conditions.
This legislation is supported by BCSPA and is consistent with other lower mainland jurisdictions.
Page 3 of 4
Proposed Fees:
The bylaw creates a reduced fee schedule for seniors 65 years old and older. Frequently, Staff
receives requests to reduce the fees for seniors. Recommending a reduced fee for seniors reflects
the contribution seniors are making in our community. The proposed fee changes are as follows:
Schedule A – Impound Fees - Dogs
Existing
For Each Vicious or Dangerous Dog
(a) first impoundment $500.00
(b) subsequent impoundment $1000.00
Amendment
For Each Aggressive Dog
First impoundment $500.00
Subsequent impoundment $1000.00
Schedule B – Licensing Fees
Existing Prior to January 31 After January 31
Male or female dog $52.00 $68.00
Altered dog $25.00 $41.00
There are no proposed changes to these existing fees.
New Addition
Senior rate (65 and over) Prior to January 31 After January 31
Male or female dog $27.00 $34.00
Altered dog $12.50 $20.50
New Addition
Aggressive dog – Year round fee $200.00
Schedule B Amendment:
Removal of Section 4 as follows:
A rebate of fifty per cent (50%) of the licence fee paid shall be given to an owner who provides the
Corporation with a written application during the current year and reasonable proof of the death of
the licensed dog in the first six months of the year.
Rebating dog licensing fees if the dog dies in the first half of the years should be annexed. Staff
expends considerable effort to licence a dog. Returning money on a fee that is minimal in the first
instance is costly in terms of staff time. Staff recommends omitting this subsection in the new
bylaw.
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed Animal Control Bylaw will provide simple and clear language. It is in the public interest
to have specific and clearly defined rules to promote responsible dog ownership. Following Council’s
discussion on this report, staff will bring forward the Animal Control Bylaw in the near future for
Council’s further consideration.
Page 4 of 4
“Original signed by Diane Merenick”
_______________________________________________
Co- Prepared by: Diane Merenick
Bylaw Services Supervisor
“Original signed by E.S. (Liz) Holitzki”
_______________________________________________
Co- Prepared by: E. S. (Liz) Holitzki
Director: Licences, Permits and Bylaws
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
__________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
General Manager, Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by J.L (Jim) Rule”
____________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Office
DM/jd
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: July 16, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses - Process Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council has recently discussed the secondary suite and temporary residential use provisions in the
Zoning Bylaw. They have directed staff to undertake a review of the District’s current policies and
regulations to indentify a comprehensive list of issues and associated potential solutions pertaining
to each.
In 1999 Council amended the Zoning Bylaw to allow secondary suites in a limited number of single
family residential zones with minimum lot areas of 557m2 or greater. This was done as a means to
help provide affordable, rental housing within the District with the recognition that at that time, there
were many unauthorized suites within Maple Ridge. Secondary suites are not permitted in the
smaller residential zones including CD-1-93, R-3, R-1 or R-2.
Since then, Council has approved additional policies and regulations that allow temporary residential
accommodation (TRU’s) for family members and detached Garden Suites.
In spite of these attempts to regulate secondary suites and temporary residential uses, illegal suites
continue to be an issue in the District, creating neighbourhood concerns related to parking
maintenance, emergency response and Building Code compliance. At the same time the District is
under increasing pressure from developers and builders to allow secondary suites in smaller housing
forms.
With these issues in mind, the Review will include the establishment of an inter-departmental
working committee, focus group workshops with local developers, builders and community
associations and a public open house. Each of these components is intended to provide a wide
range of opportunities for input into the discussion and to establish the comprehensive list of issues
and potential solutions Council is seeking.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Secondary Suites Review process outlined in the staff report titled “Secondary Suites and
Temporary Residential Uses – Process Report” dated July 16, 2012, be endorsed.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Since 1999, The District has allowed secondary suites as an accessory use in some sing le family
residential zones, one of the first municipalities to do so in the Lower Mainland. The intent was to
4.4
provide affordable and rental housing options, as a ‘mortgage helper’ and in recognition of the
increasing number of illegal suites in the District.
Council has recently passed two Resolutions related to secondary suites, the first on April 16, 2012:
“That staff be directed to prepare a report identifying a comprehensive list of issues and
options pertaining to Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses.”
and the second on May 22, 2012 related to suites in the compact single family residential zones:
“That staff be directed to explore the possibility of a restrictive covenant to deal with
illegal suites in the R-1, CD-1-93, R-2 and R-3 zones.”
Council also directed that the practice of reviewing building permits to prohibit direct access to
basements and the use of tumbler lock and key systems discontinue pending review of this issue as
a component of the Review.
The Review is intended to provide a broad summary of the issues associated with secondary suites
and temporary residential units, to investigate options and ideas to solve the issues and to
recommend a set of policy and/or bylaw amendments for Council’s review and consideration. The
Review does not envision the complete prohibition of secondary suites in the community rather it is
intended to fine-tune the current Zoning Bylaw regulations.
b) Process:
The proposed process for the Secondary Suite Review is as follows:
Establishment of a Staff Working Group comprised of representatives from Planning,
Licences, Permits & Bylaws, Fire and others as required;
Preparation of an online questionnaire on general issues related to secondary suites
and temporary residential uses;
Research into the policies, regulations and practices of other Lower Mainland
municipalities and 2011 Census information;
Focus Group Workshops – with local community groups and organizations,
developers and builders
Community-wide open house event
Preparation of an Issues Summary including key issues and options for Council
consideration
Council update and further direction on policy, regulations or other mechanisms
available to the District.
Preliminary Issues List
As part of the Review, Council has directed staff to prepare a comprehensive list of issues relating to
secondary suites and temporary residential uses. As part of the recent discussions with Council at
Workshop on April 16 and May 14 and at the May 22 Council meeting, the following issues have
been identified:
Existing Zoning Bylaw provisions - zones that permit secondary suites and temporary
residential uses;
Building design;
Owner occupancy requirements; and
Challenges with enforcement of illegal suites;
The use of restrictive covenants;
BC Building Code requirements and potential equivalencies;
Lot sizes, subdivision design and parking impacts & implications; and
Regional approaches that may be applicable in Maple Ridge.
It is anticipated that the discussions with key stakeholders may identify additional issues or help
clarify specific aspects that will also be included in the Issues Summary for Council’s information.
Anticipated Timeline
The process for the Review is anticipated to be completed by end of 2012 based on the following
schedule of events:
Summer 2012
Inter-departmental Working Group – Preliminary issue identification
Online Questionnaire
Regional comparisons & background information
Fall 2012
Questionnaire Summary
Focus Group Workshops
Open House
Issues Summary
The work completed during the fall will align with the process and timeline of the Housing Action Plan
for the preparation of background studies and reports.
Late fall / winter 2012
Preparation of policy and/or regulation amendments
Council will be provided with updates at various stages throughout the Review process.
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Several opportunities for input into the Review will be provided for residents, developers and
buildings and local groups as identified in the Process section above.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
As identified, an inter-departmental Working Group will be established in order to help identify key
issues and develop options to address each for Council’s consideration.
The Planning Department will also work closely with the Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department to
ensure any long-standing enforcement issues are incorporated into the Review.
The Secondary Suites Review will also inform the Housing Action Plan and form part of the
background information for that work.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
This Review is work directed by Council that is in addition to the projects identified in the 2012
Business Plan for the Planning Department and other departments. This may have an effect on the
schedule of other work items, but efforts will be taken to minimize any potential impacts.
f) Policy Implications:
Included in the Issues Summary will be an assessment of any existing policies and/or regulations
that staff recommend be amended in order to address the key issues. Council will be provided with
a detailed assessment and rationale for each recommended policy or bylaw amendment related to
secondary suites and temporary residential units.
CONCLUSIONS:
The District has allowed secondary suites and temporary residential units as accessory residential
uses for more than a decade. Throughout that period, there have been changes to the BC Building
Code, single family housing forms, Zoning Bylaw additions, significant changes to the housing market
and a need for more affordable and rental housing accommodations in the community.
The process outlined in this report is intended to identify a wide range of issues associated with
secondary suites and temporary residential uses and provide a range of potential solutions for
Council’s review.
____________________________________________________
Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP
Manager of Community Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
_________________________________________________________
Concurrence: Liz Holitzki
Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM, Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
"Original signed by Jim Charlebois"
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
"Original signed by Liz Holitzki"
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: July 16, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: E05-008-001
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Floodplain Fill Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The placement of fill material on properties throughout the District is regulated by the issuance of
permits through “Bylaw No. 5763-1999: A Bylaw to Regulate the Placement of Fill on Land in the
District” (Bylaw) that allows the placement of fill in floodplains, agricultural, urban and rural areas as
long as the provisions of the Bylaw are met.
The application of the Bylaw however has not been consistent in the past due to a lack of clarity with
Section 5 of the Bylaw which deals with permit exemptions that are authorized when the placement
of fill is carried out in compliance with the relevant provisions and the fill is intended for one of the
identified exempt land uses associated with municipal works, development applications, farming
activities, material processing, burning or low fill volumes. In floodplains within the Agricultural Land
Reserve (ALR) fill material is usually placed with the intent to improve drainage, flood protection or
the construction of structures.
The District is dealing with increasing public pressures to resolve issues between property owners
regarding the placement of fill material on floodplains within the ALR. Residents adjacent to the
properties placing fill may believe that the fill material placed results in direct impacts to the
surrounding low lying properties whereas the property owner placing the fill will refer to the approved
land use. Both arguments require qualification but a lack of documentation may result in a "stand-
off" between property owners.
Residents in proximity to fill operations may rely on Section 6 of the Bylaw that states the District
should not issue a permit if the proposed placement of fill will endanger or otherwise adversely
affect any adjacent land, structure, road, or right-of-way, or foul, obstruct, impede or otherwise
adversely affect any stream, creek, waterway, watercourse, groundwater aquifer, waterworks, ditch,
drain, sewer or other established drainage facility. However, where the subject property is located
within the ALR and the property owner has received a letter of approval from the Agricultural Land
Commission (ALC) then a permit from the District is not required.
As noted in Section 3.2 of the Bylaw an exemption or approval of a permit under the Soil
Conservation Act does not exempt the owner from the provisions of the Bylaw and the senior
agencies have clearly indicated that while municipalities may not restrict the use of fill they have the
authority to regulate the placement of fill material. It is therefore within the District’s authority to
establish a policy in accordance with the Bylaw to evaluate fill applications for compliance with all
the provisions of the Bylaw prior to the provision or exemption of a fill permit.
This report reviews the provisions within the Bylaw and outlines a policy for consideration that
identifies additional information that should be incorporated into the processing of fill permits and
exemptions.
4.5
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the following recommendation be forwarded to the July 24, 2012 Council meeting;
THAT the “Regulation of Earth Fill within Floodplains Policy” be adopted.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Permitting Process
The District regulates development activities in floodplains through the Building, Subdivision
and Development or Zoning Bylaws. Each of these bylaws provides guidelines on the
property usage and establishes the necessary professional assessments of the land. Fill
activities to protect or improve the current operation of land in the floodplain are regulated
by “Bylaw No. 5763-1999: A Bylaw to Regulate the Placement of Fill on Land in the District”.
Currently, the District issues fill permits to applicants when the provisions identified in the
Bylaw are addressed through professional assurances provided in the Bylaw Schedules. In
the event that the proposed depth of fill exceeds 1m, a geotechnical report is also required.
The District typically grants permit exemptions to applicants for the identified land usages in
the Bylaw or when fill is pre-approved by Senior Agencies.
The sizeable portion of the ALR in Maple Ridge is located within floodplains, especially west
of 232 Street along the both the North and South Alouette Rivers and the ALC has the
regulatory authority to approve the use of fill but essentially the ALC identifies that local
bylaws can provide the ability to regulate but not restrict the permitting of approved fill.
Proposed Policy
Under the Bylaw the critical provision to be considered when providing a permit or exemption
is to ensure that the proposed work will not endanger or otherwise adversely affect any
adjacent land, structure, road or right-of-way. Previously, access to tools to effectively
address the impact of overland flood routing was not available and the District relied on the
senior agency approval as an acceptance to proceed.
The Planning Department is reviewing the Bylaw and has identified hydrology as one of the
challenges being experienced with soil deposition permits. To assess the full hydrological
impact on neighbouring properties it was suggested that additional hydrological studies, post
fill monitoring and securities be required and incorporated into the bylaw.
In response to growing concerns around development impacts in floodplains the District
commissioned an engineering study that undertook a technical review of both the North
Alouette and South Alouette Rivers to assist in the assessment of properties and processing
of applications within the floodplains.
With the completion of the technical study the District has the ability to provide consultants
with a River and floodplain Model to utilize in their evaluations and thereby complete a more
detailed hydraulic assessment of properties to identify the impacts of intercepting or
rerouting overland flood routes.
Under section 6.6 of the Bylaw the District has the authority to require better and more
detailed information to supplement the application, and that the application will be deemed
incomplete until the requested information is provided and the District can withhold the fill
permit or exemption until the hydrological study is submitted as requested. To effectively
assess if the application meets the provisions of the Bylaw the hydrological study would be
required to addresses each of the following topics:
1. Current Site Conditions
The assessment of the current site conditions provides a review of the sites’ existing
surface and underground drainage patterns to establish a baseline for assessing the
impacts of the proposed works. The report needs to include both internal drainage
and flood routing; as well as, a hydro-geotechnical assessment to address the sites
sub-surface conditions of the property.
2. Impact Assessment
The impact assessment shall clearly identify the proposed works and assess the
impacts on the overland drainage routing through the site as well as underground
impacts to aquifers and groundwater. The report should provide guidance for
mitigating any identified impacts to neighbouring properties including the redirection
of flood water, increase in flood levels, raising or lowering of the water table that
impedes the functioning of wells and septic systems.
3. Design Submission
The last part of the submission would be a set of detailed design drawings for the
work that conforms to the District’s design standards. The proposed works would
require a Works and Services Agreement and the provision of adequate financial
securities.
As noted, the Bylaw currently provides the District the authority to regulate the use of fill in
the floodplain regardless of senior agency approvals. Creating a policy/practice for all fill
permits in the floodplain to incorporate a hydraulic assessment the District can provide the
necessary regulation of pre-approved fill and address the concerns of both residents and
owners.
b) Desired Outcome:
To adopt a policy to require that all fill applications in the floodplain be required to submit a
hydraulic assessment and proposed remediation of the proposed works prior to approving an
application.
c) Customer Implications:
The requirement for the completion of a hydraulic assessment will result in an added
expense and time to process fill permit applications but the additional reporting will provide
the necessary assurances that any proposed fill operation will not negatively impact
neighbouring properties.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Engineering Department and the Environment Section of the Planning Department work
cooperatively on fill applications and this policy will provide consistency in considering
applications.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
It is anticipated that there will be little or no financial impact to the District with the proposed
policy as the work will be covered within the scope of existing duties for both Engineering and
Planning Department staff.
f) Policy Implications:
The new policy will assist in the governance and approval of fill operations within floodplains,
CONCLUSIONS:
The placement of fill material on properties located within floodplains is often an issue of contention
between the applicant and adjacent property owners with concerns around changes in the
hydrological regime and/or flooding as a consequence of the fill placement. It is recommended that
the District adopt the “Regulation of Earth Fill within Floodplains Policy” attached as Appendix A for
the regulation of fill in floodplains.
“Original signed by David Pollock for Stephen Judd”
_______________________________________
Prepared by: Stephen Judd, PEng.
Manager of Infrastructure Development
“Original signed by David Pollock”
_______________________________________
Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Att: Appendix A – Regulation of Earth Fill within Floodplain Policy
APPENDIX A
REGULATION OF EARTH FILL WITHIN FLOODPLAINS POLICY
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Regulation of Earth Fill within Floodplains
Policy No :
Supersedes:
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date: July 25, 2012
Review Date: July 2013
Policy Statement:
1. In support of “Bylaw No. 5763-1999: A Bylaw to Regulate the Placement of Fill on Land in
the District” (Bylaw) any applications within the boundaries of a floodplain shall be referred
to the Engineering Department. The applicant shall be required to submit a hydraulic
assessment of the proposed work addressing the following:
a. Current site conditions
b. Impact assessment of proposed works
c. Proposed Mitigation Plan.
2. No fill permit application will be considered complete within a floodplain without the
submission of a Hydraulic assessment.
3. No fill permit within a floodplain shall be approved or considered for exemption until a
complete application has been received and the hydraulic assessment reviewed by the
engineering department.
4. A Hydraulic assessment must be completed by a qualified professional, provide detailed
analysis of the existing site conditions, an assessment of the impacts of the proposed fill
on surface and groundwater hydrology and identify the criteria and concepts for proposed
mitigative works.
5. Any proposed fill that provides flood protection or alters the natural route of overland
drainage must also provide a hydraulic model simulating the pre and post flood conditions.
6. Conceptual mitigative works once reviewed must be re-submitted as detailed designs and
sealed by a qualified professional.
Purpose:
To establish a consistent methodology for evaluating the hydrological impact of the placement of
fill within floodplains and development of mitigation plans.
Definitions:
"Floodplain" shall be considered the boundaries where any storm event (not exceeding the 1:200)
result in the routing of a natural watercourse outside of the top of bank; or as identified by
Provincial mapping and regulations, the District GIS mapping system or any other comprehensive
drainage report.
"Flood protection" is the installation of physical measures such as earth berms to protect
properties against harm but without negatively affecting adjacent or surrounding properties.
"Qualified Professional" is a professional engineer acting alone or with another, in good standing in
British Columbia with expertise to review hydrological issues pertaining to proposed fill operations
in floodplains.
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
a) Location of application in relation to local floodplains
b) Assess proposed works for the provision of flood
protection.
c) Review Hydraulic Submissions
d) Review Design Submissions
e) Provide comments to be included in permit
f) Approve Fill Permit
Responsibility
a) Planning (Env. Sect.)
b) Engineering
c) Engineering
d) Engineering
e) Planning (Env. Sect.)
f) Planning (Env. Sect.)
4.6
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: July 16, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: 2012 Business Class Property Taxation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
It has been the practice of this municipality to review our tax rates to make sure that they are
reasonable in relation to other municipalities in the lower mainland. This report examines the tax
rate assessed to Business Class 6 properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report has been provided for information only. No resolution is required.
DISCUSSION:
There are a number of ways of looking at the taxes assessed against properties by reviewing:
1. The municipal tax rates to see where the District ranks in comparison to other municipalities.
While this type of analysis is straightforward to accomplish, it does not account for the
differences in assessed property values from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
2. The municipal tax rate assessed against one class, as compared to another class. In this
case, the Business Class 6 municipal tax rate is compared to the Residential Class 1
municipal tax rate using a ratio that is referred to as the tax “multiple”. While this method
looks at the relative tax burden amongst classes, it does not account for variable
assessment value changes amongst property classes.
3. Similar businesses in different municipalities and compare the actual municipal tax burden.
This report looks at the District’s Business Class 6 municipal tax rate from these three perspectives.
1. Municipal Tax Rate Comparison
All things being equal, one would expect municipalities with the highest property values to have the
lowest tax rates and municipalities with lower assessed values would have higher tax rates. This is
confirmed with West Vancouver, which has the lowest Business Class 6 municipal tax rate, and
Abbotsford, which has the highest municipal tax rate. There are some anomalies, however, such as
Vancouver, which has a tax rate that is relatively close to the tax rate in Maple Ridge even though
property values are much higher in Vancouver. This may be one of the reasons why Vancouver has
transferred some of the commercial tax burden to the Residential Class.
As shown in Figure 1, in 2012, the District’s Business Class 6 tax rate of $11.75 per $1,000 of
assessed value ranks as being seventh highest of the nineteen lower mainland municipalities that
Page 2 of 5
were surveyed. Of the surveyed municipalities, the Business Class 6 tax rates range from a low of
$4.75 per $1,000 in West Vancouver, to a high of $15.35 per $1,000 in Abbotsford. Five
municipalities increased their Business Class 6 tax rates from their 2011 rates, while the remaining
fourteen decreased their rates.
In January, 2012, the Province appointed an Expert Panel on Business Taxation to provide analysis
and recommendations on business tax competitiveness and administrative improvements to
streamline the Provincial Sales Tax. Staff from UBCM and Greg Moore, Mayor of Port Coquitlam,
presented a report to the Expert Panel on Business Taxation in June, 2012. The findings in the report
indicated that municipal taxation is a small portion of the tax burden on business, and that the
proportionate share of the tax burden paid by business is declining when compared with other costs,
including telephone and utilities.
Figure 1: Business Class 6 - Municipal Tax Rates
2. Tax Multiple Comparison
The tax multiple looks at the relative tax burden against Business Class 6 as compared to
Residential Class 1. The term “multiple” is often used to represent the ratio of the property tax rate
for a particular class or type of property where the property tax rate for the Residential Class is
considered 1.0. Therefore, the “Business Class multiple” would represent the ratio of the tax rate for
the Business Class to the Residential Class. The calculation is done by taking the Business Class
rate and dividing it by the Residential Class rate. A Business Class multiple of 3.0 would mean the
rate applied to the Business Class is 3.0 times more than the Residential Class rate. This has also
Municipality
2012
Business
Municipal
Tax Rate Rank
2011
Business
Municipal
Tax Rate
2010
Business
Municipal
Tax Rate
2009
Business
Municipal
Tax Rate‡
2008
Business
Municipal
Tax Rate‡
West Vancouver 4.75440 19 4.94390 4.83530 4.91000 4.70000
Surrey 7.07036 18 7.41846 7.37976 8.15000 6.80000
Richmond 7.53569 17 8.03836 8.36391 8.25000 7.90000
North Vancouver, District 8.53774 16 8.83668 8.63395 9.02000 8.60000
Langley, City 8.60500 15 8.87270 8.53380 9.10000 7.90000
Vancouver 8.78096 14 9.19882 9.78076 10.35000 10.80000
North Vancouver, City 9.14484 13 9.56623 9.79800 9.78000 9.10000
Langley, Township 9.48130 12 9.62380 9.12880 9.09000 6.30000
Port Moody 9.84060 11 9.82960 9.83430 9.99000 9.60000
Chilliwack 9.93134 10 9.90312 9.63174 10.36000 10.00000
Burnaby 10.10000 9 10.03070 10.02960 9.92000 9.40000
Delta 11.15179 8 11.04091 11.12795 11.86000 10.30000
Maple Ridge 11.75100 7 12.10450 11.74030 11.75000 11.10000
Pitt Meadows 11.85360 6 12.67130 12.07500 12.06000 11.50000
Port Coquitlam 13.07080 5 13.43770 12.42790 13.71000 11.60000
New Westminster 13.55380 4 14.12260 14.27050 13.96000 13.80000
Coquitlam 14.11730 3 14.78250 15.03180 14.58000 13.20000
Mission 15.12450 2 15.58720 14.94560 16.00000 13.50000
Abbotsford 15.34673 1 15.07560 13.57371 16.82000 11.70000
Page 3 of 5
been referred to as the “property tax gap”. The main weakness of this indicator is that it is greatly
affected by varying market value fluctuations between the classes.
In 2012, the assessed values for residential properties in Maple Ridge increased only slightly, about
1.6%. As a result, the District’s Residential Class tax rate went up to $4.09 per $1,000 of assessed
value, an increase of about 4.9% to generate the funding required in the Financial Plan. 2012
assessed values for commercial properties increased more significantly, about 9.8%. The Business
Class tax rate decreased to $11.75, in accordance with Council’s policy. Each year we adjust our tax
rates for market value assessment fluctuations; not all jurisdictions and taxing authorities follow this
practice.
As shown in Figure 2, in 2012, the District’s municipal tax rate multiple is 2.9, ranking as fifteenth
highest of the nineteen municipalities surveyed. Our multiple is below the average multiple of 3.3 for
the surveyed municipalities.
Figure 2: Business Class 6 - Multiples, based on General Municipal Rates
3. Business Class 6 Municipal Portion of Property Taxes Comparison
Finally, the municipal portion of the dollar impact on a Business Class 6 taxpayer is examined. For
this analysis, we contacted BC Assessment and asked them to provide assessed values for like
businesses in the surveyed municipalities. The main difficulty with this comparison is that it is
difficult to determine comparable businesses from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Another challenge with
this data is that it is somewhat subjective.
Municipality
2012
Business
Municipal
Tax Rate
2012
Business
Multiple Rank
2011
Business
Multiple
2010
Business
Multiple
2008
Business
Multiple‡
Chilliwack 9.93134 2.1 19 2.2 2.2 2.5
Langley, City 8.60500 2.3 18 2.4 2.2 2.3
West Vancouver 4.75440 2.6 17 2.4 2.1 2.4
Abbotsford 15.34673 2.6 16 2.8 2.8 2.9
Maple Ridge 11.75100 2.9 15 3.1 3.0 3.3
Langley, Township 9.48130 3.0 14 3.1 2.9 3.1
Port Moody 9.84060 3.0 13 3.1 3.0 3.4
Surrey 7.07036 3.0 12 3.1 3.0 3.2
Mission 15.12450 3.1 11 3.3 3.2 3.5
Pitt Meadows 11.85360 3.2 10 3.5 3.4 3.7
Delta 11.15179 3.2 9 3.2 3.0 3.2
Port Coquitlam 13.07080 3.5 8 3.7 3.2 3.6
North Vancouver, District 8.53774 3.6 7 3.6 3.3 3.6
Richmond 7.53569 3.8 6 3.7 3.5 3.4
New Westminster 13.55380 3.8 5 3.9 3.7 3.8
North Vancouver, City 9.14484 3.8 4 4.0 3.9 4.1
Vancouver 8.78096 4.3 3 4.3 4.6 5.1
Burnaby 10.10000 4.5 2 4.2 3.9 4.0
Coquitlam 14.11730 4.7 1 4.8 4.7 5.0
Page 4 of 5
We looked at three different business types from a selection of seven municipalities, including Maple
Ridge, as follows:
1. Food Store: a typical well-located large format grocery store occupying space as a primary
anchor tenant in a strip retail centre.
2. Commercial Retail Unit (CRU) Retail Unit: a retail unit located in a strip retail centre, such as
a video store, dollar store, clothing retailer, and other general household retailers.
3. CRU Retail/Restaurant Unit: a restaurant unit located in a strip retail centre, such as
Starbucks, bagel shops, Subway, etc.
As shown in Figure 3, below, in 2012, the municipal portion of the District’s tax bill for the Food Store
is ranked as fourth highest, as it did in 2011 and 2010.
Figure 3: Food Store - Municipal Property Taxes
As shown in Figure 4, below, in 2012, the municipal portion of the District’s tax bill for the CRU Retail
Unit ranked as fourth highest, as it did in 2011.
Figure 4: CRU Retail - Municipal Property Taxes
As shown in Figure 5, in 2012, the municipal portion of the District’s tax bill for the CRU
Retail/Restaurant dropped to third highest in rank from second highest in 2011.
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2005
Coquitlam 153,020 148,361 150,863 123,467 111,899 115,599
Mission 130,081 129,272 126,561 121,456 113,338 102,997
Burnaby 123,160 113,255 113,242 87,245 82,871 84,705
Maple Ridge 101,066 107,559 106,519 92,421 87,460 87,076
N Van, City 99,122 87,239 82,970 76,451 70,842 66,775
Langley 84,682 98,234 95,143 79,826 75,687 76,716
Surrey 76,637 74,615 72,268 71,612 59,644 58,501
Average 109,681 108,362 106,795 93,211 85,963 84,624
Median 101,066 107,559 106,519 87,245 82,871 84,705
MR Ranking 4 4 4 3 3 3
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2005
Coquitlam 7,645 7,115 7,235 7,288 6,605 6,823
Mission 7,280 7,006 6,718 5,207 4,859 3,680
Burnaby 5,907 5,230 4,828 4,959 4,710 4,815
Maple Ridge 5,656 5,150 4,995 5,455 5,162 5,354
N Van, City 5,546 4,981 4,897 5,200 4,818 5,515
Langley 5,134 4,810 4,563 4,740 4,494 4,361
Surrey 3,829 3,866 3,686 2,899 2,414 2,497
Average 5,857 5,451 5,275 5,107 4,723 4,721
Median 5,656 5,150 4,897 5,200 4,818 4,815
MR Ranking 4 4 3 2 2 3
Page 5 of 5
Figure 5: CRU Retail/Restaurant - Municipal Property Taxes
CONCLUSION:
It is important for the District of Maple Ridge to review our municipal tax rates to make sure they are
reasonable in relation to other municipalities. This is not a simple task and each indicator has its
own strengths and weaknesses, and this is why we look at a variety of indicators over a period of
time.
The District’s Business Class 6 municipal tax rate in 2012 is seventh highest of the nineteen
surveyed municipalities. This is not unexpected as most municipalities in the survey group have
higher property assessment values. It is noteworthy that tax rates in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and
New Westminster are higher than the District’s, even though those communities likely have
assessed values higher than those in Maple Ridge. The District’s Business Class 6 multiple
continues to rank lower than the average. In 2012, assessed values for residential properties went
up slightly and the tax rate increased, while the assessed values of commercial properties increased
more significantly and the tax rate decreased.
With respect to actual municipal taxes payable, in 2012, Maple Ridge is at or a little above the
median when compared to neighbouring communities. When compared to a selection of
municipalities, the District ranks as fourth highest for grocery chain units and for retail units, and for
retail-type restaurant units, the District ranks as having the third highest municipal taxes payable.
Overall, our data indicates that the District’s Business Class 6 tax rates are reasonable when
compared to other lower mainland municipalities.
_”Original signed by Jacquie Bergmann”_______________
Prepared by: Jacquie Bergmann
Research Technician
_”Original signed by Paul Gill”________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
_”Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”___________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
:jgbb
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2005
Coquitlam 7,645 7,115 7,235 7,895 7,156 7,392
Mission 6,673 5,839 5,598 5,786 5,399 4,416
Maple Ridge 6,599 6,555 6,357 6,365 6,023 6,425
N Van, City 6,421 6,459 6,407 5,616 5,204 5,956
Burnaby 5,907 5,230 4,828 5,372 5,103 5,216
Langley 5,529 5,612 5,323 5,469 5,186 5,451
Surrey 4,657 4,671 4,481 4,774 3,976 3,085
Average 6,204 5,926 5,747 5,897 5,435 5,420
Median 6,421 5,839 5,598 5,616 5,204 5,451
MR Ranking 3 2 3 2 2 2
4.7
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: July 16, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: 2012 Major Industry Class Property Taxation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Finance Department provides Council with regular reports on property assessments and
taxation. This information allows Council to see how our tax policies compare to those of other
municipalities in our area. A report on Residential property taxes was provided on June 4, 2012, and
it concluded that Residential property taxes in Maple Ridge are amongst the lowest in the region.
In 2009 and 2010, our review of the tax rates charged to the Major Industry class indicated that
rates were relatively high and Council took steps to address this inequity by reducing the tax bill by
5% in both years. Improvement has been made as a result of this, and while further improvements
may be required, we suggest this matter be reviewed in 2013 as our current financial capacity is
tight. Having said this, in 2011, the Provincial government increased the reduction in Provincial
School Taxes for Light Industrial and Major Industrial class properties to 60% from 50%, which
offered some relief. The 50% reduction was introduced for the 2009 tax year.
The purpose of this report is to see how our current Major Industry tax rate compares to other
municipalities in our area, and to monitor whether a further shift in 2013 may be required.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report has been provided for information only. No resolution is required.
DISCUSSION:
In Maple Ridge, there are two properties (folio numbers) classed as Major Industry Class 4, and they
are owned by International Forest Products Ltd (Interfor). Figure 1 on Page 2 illustrates the year to
year changes in assessed values, municipal tax rates, municipal tax rate multiples and the municipal
taxes for this class in Maple Ridge.
The District’s taxation policy ensures that changes in assessed values due to market changes do not
give rise to changes in tax levies within property classes. For example if assessed values in one class
go up 15%, the municipal tax rate for that class is reduced by 15%, making the market change
revenue-neutral, prior to applying the approved increase in the Financial Plan. Not all taxing
jurisdictions apply this policy.
As is shown in Figure 1, in 2012, assessed values for the Major Industry Property Class decreased
approximately 1.1% from 2011 assessed values. The municipal tax rate was increased to 36.3418,
and the municipal tax rate multiple increased to 8.9. Municipal taxes are $640,633.
Page 2 of 4
Figure 1: Maple Ridge Major Industry Class 4 Year to Year Comparison
2012
2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Assessed Value
$17,628,000
$17,829,000 $18,076,000 $16,923,000 $16,923,000 $10,852,000
Municipal Tax Rate 36.3418 34.27340 32.20030 36.20440 38.10990 56.55520
Municipal Tax Rate Multiple 8.9 8.8 8.2 10.1 11.3 15.6
Municipal Taxes $640,633 $611,060 $582,053 $612,687 $644,934 $613,737
On March 27, 2012, municipal staff met with management personnel from the local mill. They
expressed their appreciation for the tax reductions that had been effected, and also felt that further
improvements were warranted.
As in previous years, we will look at two indicators to determine whether the District’s Major Industry
Class 4 municipal tax rate is reasonable when compared to other lower mainland municipalities.
Municipal Tax Rate Comparison to Other Municipalities:
This indicator looks at the municipal tax rate in our municipality and compares it to the municipal tax
rate for the same class in other municipalities. While this indicator is fairly easy to obtain, it is
problematic in that similar properties in one community may be valued very differently in other
communities.
As is shown in Figure 2, in 2012, the District’s Major Industry Class 4 municipal tax rate is $36.3418
per $1,000 of assessed value. Amongst the fourteen surveyed municipalities, our tax rate ranks as
fourth highest, while in 2011 it was sixth highest and in 2010, 2009 and 2008 it ranked as fifth
highest. In 2007, the District’s tax rate in this class, $56.56 per $1,000 of assessed value, ranked
as second highest amongst the surveyed municipalities.
Notable is the drop in the City of Coquitlam’s Major Industry Class 4 municipal tax rate in 2012 to
29.1861, from 49.8661 in 2011. Staff in Coquitlam advised that the drop in the municipal tax rate
is because Catalyst Paper ceased to operate their business in Coquitlam. When the machinery that
was used to operate the business was removed from the building, BC Assessment re-classed the
land and building into the Light Industry Class 5 category. Catalyst still owns the property, but it is not
operating a business at this time. Coquitlam staff thought that because they had no businesses in
the Major Industry Class 4 category and they would, therefore, not lose any potential tax dollars, the
timing was ideal to normalize the rate to what is considered to be mid-range in comparison with
other lower mainland municipalities.
It is important to remember that not all assessed values are comparable across the lower mainland.
The City of North Vancouver may have a lower tax rate, but the assessed values for a waterfront
property similar to those owned by Interfor in Maple Ridge would likely be much higher. Also, notable
is that the major industrial properties in the City of North Vancouver are located along the waterfront
and are operated as ports. Ports have a regulated Provincial Cap tax rate of $27.50 per $1,000 of
assessed value. For this reason, we should also look at another indicator such as the municipal tax
rate multiple.
Page 3 of 4
Figure 2: Major Industry, Class 4 Municipal Property Tax Rates
Municipal Tax Rate Multiple Comparison to Other Municipalities:
This indicator looks at the relative tax rate on one class, as a ratio of the tax rate charged to another
class. The “other” class used in this analysis is the Residential Class. As outlined in previous reports
to Council, the main weakness of this indicator is that it is greatly affected by varying market value
fluctuations between the property classes.
As is shown in Figure 3, in 2012, the District’s Major Industry Class 4 municipal tax rate multiple of
8.9 ranks as ninth highest amongst the fourteen surveyed municipalities, as it ranked in 2011 and
2010. In 2012, our tax rate multiple is below the average tax rate multiple of 11.0 for the surveyed
municipalities. This year all municipalities except for four saw increases in their multiples from 2011.
Since 2007, our multiple for this class has dropped from 15.6, making it one of the most
significantly improved of the surveyed municipalities. This is due to changes in the assessed values
and our tax policy of adjustment for market appreciation.
Langley, Township 8.88430 14 9.48120 9.07520 10.09650 9.51640 11.64290
Surrey 11.42530 13 11.68848 11.36379 11.79970 11.24650 13.47610
West Vancouver 13.21930 12 13.21930 13.07550 13.07550 12.70080 12.33360
Richmond 14.43540 11 12.96510 10.15272 10.14490 8.43530 9.00670
North Vancouver, City 27.50000 10 27.50000 27.50000 27.50000 27.50000 27.50000
Coquitlam 29.18610 9 49.86610 60.50650 57.92530 54.32760 57.47600
New Westminster 30.33470 8 29.45880 28.25280 27.94670 24.30150 30.33480
Vancouver 31.98356 7 31.46583 30.64936 30.28940 28.28630 30.25420
Delta 35.11852 6 31.83175 31.61645 28.88280 26.90410 27.78320
Pitt Meadows 35.39380 5 35.10470 31.98620 30.97950 29.76100 35.77070
Maple Ridge 36.34180 4 34.27340 32.20030 36.20440 38.10990 56.55520
North Vancouver, District 41.17101 3 42.48617 44.39072 47.61590 45.85600 49.85970
Burnaby 47.30730 2 43.72650 44.48440 44.32280 41.45650 47.27470
Port Moody 61.87760 1 57.45210 48.48230 50.16970 46.81200 53.13380
2009
Major
Industry
Municipal
Tax Rate
2008
Major
Industry
Municipal
Tax Rate
2011
Major
Industry
Municipal
Tax Rate
Municipality
2010
Major
Industry
Municipal
Tax Rate
2007
Major
Industry
Municipal
Tax Rate
2012
Major
Industry
Municipal
Tax Rate
Rank
Page 4 of 4
Figure 3: Major Industry, Class 4 Municipal Property Tax Rate Multiples
CONCLUSION:
The District’s position in terms of Major Industry Class 4 municipal property tax rates and multiples
has improved as a direct result of direction from Council. Maple Ridge now seems to be well placed
when compared to other municipalities in the lower mainland. Our Class 4 municipal tax rate is
ranked as fourth highest when compared to the fourteen surveyed municipalities, and our Class 4
municipal tax rate multiple ranks as ninth highest, below the average municipal tax rate multiple of
the fourteen surveyed municipalities.
It appears that the tax burden against Class 4 properties has become more equitable. As in past
years, we will look at our overall financial capacity at business planning time to see if further
improvements can be achieved. Additionally, we will continue to review the tax burden against our
other property classifications to make sure we remain well positioned.
_”Original signed by Jacquie Bergmann”_______________
Prepared by: Jacquie Bergmann
Research Technician
_”Original signed by Paul Gill”________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
_”Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”___________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Langley, Township 8.88430 2.8 14 3.0 2.8 3.5 3.5 4.0
Surrey 11.42530 4.9 13 4.9 4.6 5.2 5.3 5.9
Richmond 14.43540 7.2 12 6.0 4.2 4.3 3.7 3.7
West Vancouver 13.21930 7.3 11 6.4 5.6 6.2 6.2 5.5
New Westminster 30.33470 8.6 10 8.2 7.4 7.7 7.0 8.1
Maple Ridge 36.34180 8.9 9 8.8 8.2 10.1 11.3 15.6
Pitt Meadows 35.39380 9.5 8 9.8 8.9 9.3 9.5 10.7
Coquitlam 29.18610 9.6 7 16.4 18.9 19.8 19.9 20.1
Delta 35.11852 10.0 6 9.2 8.6 9.5 8.8 8.7
North Vancouver, City 27.50000 11.6 5 11.5 11.0 11.9 12.5 11.3
Vancouver 31.98356 15.8 4 14.8 14.3 14.2 13.3 12.5
North Vancouver, District 41.17101 17.4 3 17.2 17.1 19.4 19.5 19.6
Port Moody 61.87760 18.7 2 17.9 14.7 16.7 16.3 17.2
Burnaby 47.30730 21.2 1 18.4 17.2 17.9 17.5 19.1
2009
Major
Industry
Multiple
2010
Major
Industry
Multiple
RankMunicipality
2008
Major
Industry
Multiple
2007
Major
Industry
Multiple
2011
Major
Industry
Multiple
2012
Major
Industry
Municipal
Tax Rate
2012
Major
Industry
Multiple
:jgbb
5.1
From: Alcohol and Other Drug Monitoring Project [carbc-aod@lists.uvic.ca]
Sent: June 21, 2012 12:32 PM
To: carbc-aod@lists.uvic.ca
Subject: [CARBC-AOD] Study finds increase in BC overdose hospitalizations
STUDY FINDS INCREASE IN BC OVERDOSE HOSPITALIZATIONS
A new study by the University of Victoria’s Centre for Addictions Research of BC (CARBC) reveals an
increase in BC hospitalizations as a result of alcohol and illicit drug overdoses between 2002 and 2009.
The rate of alcohol overdose hospitalizations in the population rose by 16 per cent, while other drug
overdose hospitalizations rose by 33 per cent. In total, there were 3,753 overdose hospitalizations
recorded during this period for the province.
There are many more overdose events presenting to emergency rooms than are admitted to hospital.
For example, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority recorded 5,331 emergency room visitors who
presented as an overdose in 2010 alone.
“Alcohol poses a much higher risk of overdose than people realize,” says research collaborator Jane
Buxton, an epidemiologist with the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), an agency of the Provincial
Health Services Authority. “There needs to be much more awareness and education around the use of
alcohol, both on its own and in combination with other drugs.”
The study was published in the latest CARBC Bulletin and is a collaboration between BCCDC, Vancouver
Coastal Health’s Public Health Surveillance Unit and CARBC. The BC Coroners Service also contributed
data for this study.
Of the five geographic areas administered by the BC Coroners Service, Metro Vancouver had the highest
rate of drug overdose fatalities, with 7.6 deaths per 100,000 people. The Northern region recorded the
lowest overdose death rates with 2.15 per 100,000 people.
The research also shows that Vancouver’s supervised safe injection service, InSite, is helping manage
overdoses, providing Naloxone (Narcan), an opiate antagonist administered to people experiencing a
heroin overdose.
“There is an urgent need for more investment in harm reduction services and education about risk
factors for alcohol and other drug overdose,” says Kate Vallance, a research associate with UVic’s CARBC
and a co-author of the study. “We think this would go a long way to reducing the rate of overdoses in
BC.”
Victoria Campus Office
Room 273 - 2300 McKenzie Ave
Victoria, BC V8P 5C2
Phone: (250) 472-5445
Email: carbc@uvic.ca
Vancouver Office
909 - 510 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 3A8
Phone: (604) 408-7753
Email: info@carbc.ca