HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-03 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES –February 17, 2014
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Act Pertaining to Bicycle Use
Staff report dated March 3, 2013 recommending endorsement of
recommendations presented by the Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory
Committee and the RCMP regarding cyclists in the downtown core.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
March 3, 2014
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
March 3, 2014
Closed Council 11:45 p.m.
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
March 11, 2014
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
March 3, 2014
Page 2 of 4
4.2 Commercial/Industrial Review
Continuation of discussion from the January 20, 2014 Council Workshop Meeting
4.3 Hammond Area Plan Scoping Report
Staff report dated March 3, 2014 recommending the endorsement of the
‘Consultation and Communication’ section of the report titled “Hammond Area
Plan Scoping Project”.
4.4 Zoning Bylaw Update
Verbal update by the Manager of Development and Environmental Services
4.5 Gaming Revenue Policy
Staff report dated March 3, 2014 providing information on the Gaming Revenue
Policy
4.6 Preliminary 2013 Year End Update (General Revenue Fund)
Staff report dated March 3, 2014 providing a preliminary update on 2013 results
in the General Revenue Fund.
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 Metro Vancouver – Former Albion Ferry Site – 23864 River Road, Maple Ridge
Letter dated February 12, 2014 from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board
advising that Metro Vancouver will not be participating in the acquisition of the
Albion Ferry Site.
Council Workshop
March 3, 2014
Page 3 of 4
5.2 Agricultural Advisory Committee – Letter in Support of the Agricultural Land
Commission
Correspondence dated March 3, 2014 from Candace Gordon, Chair, Maple Ridge
Agricultural Advisory Committee requesting that the committee’s recommendation
to support the Agricultural Land Commission and send a letter to appropriate
Ministeries be accepted.
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
March 3, 2014
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
February 17, 2014
The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on February 17, 2014 at 9:00
a.m. in the Blaney Room of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge,
British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular Municipal business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Acting Mayor R. Masse, J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Ashlie K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor C. Bell Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor J. Dueck F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor A. Hogarth Services
Councillor M. Morden C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
ABSENT Other Staff as Required
Mayor E. Daykin R. Carmichael, Director of Engineering Operations
C. Carter, Director of Planning
C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental
Services
D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
L. Holitzki, Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws
D. Spence, Fire Chief
C. Nolan, Manager of Accounting
T. Thompson, Manager of Financial Planning
F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications
Note: These Minutes are posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as circulated.
2.MINUTES
R/2014-066
Minutes It was moved and seconded
February 3, 2014
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of February
3, 2014 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED 2.0
Council Workshop Minutes
February 17, 2014
Page 2 of 8
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1 RCMP Introductions, Superintendent Fleugel, Ridge-Meadows RCMP
Detachment
Superintendent Fleugel introduced Staff Sergeant Roxanne Dowden, Staff
Sergeant Phil Neetz, Sergeant Bruce McCowan and Constable Chris Fread.
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Bicycle Advisory Committee Structure
Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Cycling
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CAP) Bylaw No. 7057-2014 be
considered at the February 25, 2014 Council Meeting.
The General Manager of Public Works and Development reviewed the report.
R/2014-067
BL No. 7057-2014 It was moved and seconded
Defer to April 7, 2014
That Bylaw No. 7057-2014 be deferred until the completion of
the review of Advisory Committees and Commissions
scheduled for April 7, 2014.
CARRIED
4.2 Tandem and Off-Street Parking Open House Summary
Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and
Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be revised.
The Manager of Development and Environmental Services gave a PowerPoint
presentation providing an update and outlining revisions to the tandem and
off-street parking bylaw.
Council Workshop Minutes
February 17, 2014
Page 3 of 8
R/2014-
BL No. 7024-2013 It was moved and seconded
BL No. 7025-2013
Revise
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street
Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be
revised as per the staff report dated February 17, 2014.
CARRIED
Councillor Masse, Councillor Bell - OPPOSED
4.3 Transportation Plan (10:00 a.m.)
Presentation by John Steiner, Urban Systems
The Municipal Engineer gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining work done
on the draft Transportation Plan as a result of consultations with Council, the
public and other departments. He highlighted what will be addressed in the
presentation by Urban Systems and the work which will be involved in the next
steps of the process;
John Steiner, Urban Systems, gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an
overview of the draft transportation plan document. He highlighted issues
currently involving the community, aspects of regional growth and the effect of
the transportation plan on the capital plan. He addressed strategies within
the plan as well as priorities and costs.
Note: The meeting was recessed at 11:59 a.m. and reconvened at 2:55 p.m.
Note: Councillor Dueck was not in attendance when the meeting reconvened.
4.4 Proposed Noise Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013
Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Noise
Control Bylaw No. 7038-2013 be finalized and brought forward to the next
appropriate Committee of the Whole meeting.
The Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws reviewed the report. She
outlined the proposed changes to the bylaw, spoke to the purchase of decibel
readers and highlighted fines to be implemented in response to noise
complaints.
Council Workshop Minutes
February 17, 2014
Page 4 of 8
R/2014-069
Proposed Noise It was moved and seconded
Control Bylaw
No. 7038-2013
That draft Noise Bylaw No. 7038-2013 be finalized and
brought forward to the next appropriate Committee of the
Whole for Council’s consideration.
CARRIED
4.5 Remedial Action for the Demolition of Derelict/Unsafe Structure at 22033
Lougheed Highway
Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that the owner of the
property at 22033 Lougheed Highway be required to perform remedial action
requirements within 30 days of the receipt of a resolution of Council
The Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws reviewed the report. She
outlined the damage to the existing building and reviewed the ongoing safety
concerns.
The Fire Chief advised on the process being following by the Fire Department
with respect to the site.
R/2014-070
22033 Lougheed It was moved and seconded
Highway
Remedial Action
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved:
• THAT Council hereby consider that the property located
at 22033 Lougheed Highway, and legally described as
PID 009-504-834, Lot 6, District Lot 397, Group 1, New
Westminster Plan 11251 (the “Property”) is in a
hazardous condition and creates an unsafe condition
within the meaning of Sections 73 (2)(a) and 73 (2)(b) of
the Community Charter , as a result of the Structure
being fire damaged and insecure from time to time over
the past two years and the Structure’s continual
structural deterioration that the Structure contravenes
the Maple Ridge Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012 and the
BC Building Code.
Council Workshop Minutes
February 17, 2014
Page 5 of 8
• THAT Council hereby declares that the Property is a
nuisance, within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the
Community Charter, as Council considers the Structure
to be so dilapidated and unclean as to be offensive and
pose a risk to the community, and Council considers that
there is a danger to people adjacent to or visiting the
Property, especially children due to the likelihood of
harm or personal injury.
Council therefore resolves that within thirty (30) days of
receiving a copy of this resolution, the Owner of the Property
is required to perform the following Remedial Action
requirements:
1. Demolish the Structure, remove the foundation and all
demolition materials from the site.
2. Any excavation resulting from the demolition must be
filled in to prevent water from ponding on the site.
3. The owner must follow all Work Safe BC Hazardous
Materials requirements for the safe removal of any and
all hazardous materials in the structure.
In the event the Owner has not performed all of the Remedial
Action requirements within 30 days after notice of this
resolution is delivered to the Owner, the District may, by its
own forces or those of a contractor engaged by the District,
enter the Property and perform the Remedial Action
requirements.
In the event the District takes the above referenced action,
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.
If a person with notice of this resolution wishes to request
reconsideration of these requirements by Council, written
notice of this request must be provided to the Manager of
Legislative Services within 14 business days of that person
receiving notice of this resolution.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
February 17, 2014
Page 6 of 8
4.6 Remedial Action for the Demolition of Derelict/Unsafe Structure at 22043
Lougheed Highway
Staff report dated February 17, 2014 recommending that the owner of the
property at 22033 Lougheed Highway be required to perform remedial action
requirements within 30 days of the receipt of a resolution of Council
R/2014-071
22043 Lougheed It was moved and seconded
Highway
Remedial Action
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved:
• THAT Council hereby consider that the property located
at 22043 Lougheed Highway, and legally described as
PID 009-504-818, Lot 5, District Lot 397, Group 1, New
Westminster Plan 11251 (the “Property”) is in a
hazardous condition and creates an unsafe condition
within the meaning of Sections 73 (2)(a) and 73 (2)(b) of
the Community Charter, as a result of the Structure
being fire damaged and insecure from time to time over
the past two years and the Structure’s continual
structural deterioration that the Structure contravenes
the Maple Ridge Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012 and the
BC Building Code.
• THAT Council hereby declares that the Property is a
nuisance, within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the
Community Charter, as Council considers the Structure
to be so dilapidated and unclean as to be offensive and
pose a risk to the community, and Council considers that
there is a danger to people adjacent to or visiting the
Property, especially children due to the likelihood of
harm or personal injury.
Council therefore resolves that within thirty (30) days of
receiving a copy of this resolution, the Owner of the Property is
required to perform the following Remedial Action
requirements:
1. Demolish the Structure, remove the foundation and all
demolition materials from the site.
2. Any excavation resulting from the demolition must be
filled in to prevent water from ponding on the site.
3. The owner must follow all Work Safe BC Hazardous
Materials requirements for the safe removal of any and
all hazardous materials in the structure.
Council Workshop Minutes
February 17, 2014
Page 7 of 8
In the event the Owner has not performed all of the Remedial
Action requirements within 30 days after notice of this
resolution is delivered to the Owner, the District may, by its
own forces or those of a contractor engaged by the District,
enter the Property and perform the Remedial Action
requirements.
In the event the District takes the above referenced action, 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.
If a person with notice of this resolution wishes to request
reconsideration of these requirements by Council, written
notice of this request must be provided to the Manager of
Legislative Services within 14 business days of that person
receiving notice of this resolution.
CARRIED
4.7 Infrastructure Sustainability Funding
Staff report dated February 17, 2014 providing information on municipal
infrastructure sustainability funding.
The Manager of Accounting reviewed the report.
4.8 140th Birthday Celebrations
The General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation
provided on update on the status of planning for Maple Ridge’s 140 Birthday
celebration.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 National Dementia Strategy: Municipal Resolution and C-356
E-mail dated February 6, 2014 from Claude Gravelle, MP, Nickel Belt,
requesting a resolution in support of a National Dementia Strategy.
Council Workshop Minutes
February 17, 2014
Page 8 of 8
R/2014-072
National Dementia
Strategy It was moved and seconded
Support resolution
That the resolution from Claude Gravelle, MP, Nickel Belt
calling for a National Dementia Strategy be supported.
CARRIED
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8. ADJOURNMENT – 4:05 p.m.
_______________________________
E. Daykin, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 3, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: CDPR 0640-30-01
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop
SUBJECT: Enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Act Pertaining to Bicycle Use
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the November 12, 2013 Council meeting a discussion involving concerns about poorly illuminated
cyclists without helmets in the downtown core occurred. There was recognition that this issue was
broader than simply enforcing the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) to ensure that helmets and proper
illumination are adhered to. The following motion was passed:
That the issue of enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Act to enforce the Motor Vehicle Act as it
pertains to the safe operation, wearing of helmets and proper illumination of bicycles or other
motorized vehicles be referred to the Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Committee and
the RCMP for input by the first quarter in 2014.
Social Planning staff and the RCMP discussed the request and the RCMP began working on a research
project to identify the issues and tell the stories of individuals involved. This information, including
common themes, current RCMP practices and recommendations to move forward was presented to the
Social Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) at their January, 2014 meeting. SPAC passed a resolution
to have staff forward a report to Council with recommendations as presented by RCMP regarding
cyclists in the downtown core as well as a summary of the Committee’s discussions. A complete list of
these recommendations is listed in the Background Context section of this report.
The SPAC recognizes that addressing the issue of bike use in the downtown core by vulnerable
populations is complex and requires creative and collaborative approaches to ensure the safety of all
citizens. SPAC members agreed that supporting the RCMP approach to continue to connect vulnerable
populations to services will be most effective rather than wide spread enforcement of the MVA with
respect to the use of bicycle helmets and proper illumination.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the recommendations presented by Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Committee and the
RCMP regarding cyclists in the downtown core be endorsed as outlined in the staff report dated March
3, 2014.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
At the November 12, 2013 Council meeting a discussion involving concerns about poorly
illuminated cyclists without helmets in the downtown core occurred. There was recognition
14.1
that this issue was broader than simply enforcing the MVA to ensure that helmets and
proper illumination are adhered to. The root of the issue has broader social relevance that
includes community safety and livability and is influenced by the effects of poverty, social
isolation, the effects of mental health and substance misuse and lack of affordable and
adequate housing. As such, Council forwarded the motion to both the RCMP and SPAC for
their input.
Social Planning staff and the RCMP discussed Council’s request and the RCMP began
working on a research project to identify the issues and tell the stories of the individuals
involved. This information was to be part of a January presentation to SPAC which would
include some common themes, current RCMP practices and recommendations to move
forward. In late 2013, RCMP foot patrol began a six week social research project to get to
know the individuals that are frequently the cause of nuisance calls related to loitering,
asocial behaviour and non-compliance with the MVA in terms of cycling without a helmet or
proper illumination.
Through this six week period, the RCMP did a number of enhanced street checks on 20
individuals in the downtown core as well as a crime analysis of this area. The checks were
made at all different times of the day and throughout different locations. The enhanced
street checks resulted in a social history and human profile of 12 people. The social history
revealed some common themes including the age and gender of the individuals. Most were
male in their late 40’s with a history of mental illness and substance misuse, poor physical
health, unemployable, lacking in family supports and minimal financial support from social
services. They were often street entrenched and had engaged in crime primarily petty
crimes and misdemeanors. Most of the individuals have been ticketed for non-compliance
with the MVA. All of the individuals do not currently have a valid driver’s license rendering
ticketing non punitive as a contravention of the MVA where failure to pay fines results in an
inability to renew vehicle insurances and driver’s licenses.
Intensive enforcement of the MVA with respect to bicycle safety would take a significant
amount of resources and would need to include all sectors of the population. Zero
tolerance for riding without helmets or proper illumination could have negative community
consequences. RCMP experience demonstrates that increased education and ongoing
bicycle safety programs tend to net better compliance results.
The RCMP currently employs a number of strategies to address safety and improve
community outcomes. Ridge Meadows detachment works at modifying behavior using a
number of methods, including but not limited to; the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT), Safe
Streets Act, Crime Prevention Initiatives like Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED), Core Security, Bar Watch and Business Watch, Prolific Offender
Management Program, enforcement strategies, crime data analysis, crime prevention
initiatives, and on view street checks of suspicious individuals. In addition to enforcement
and some of the other strategies listed, the RCMP Downtown Foot Patrol uses a community
policing approach to build relationships with businesses and individuals that make
downtown their home or place of work. They also attempt to build relationships with
individuals that cause difficulty in the downtown core in order to connect them to resources
so they can find the support they need. Intensive enforcement of the MVA with respect to
2
bicycle safety would jeopardize the RCMP’s ability to build relationships that could result in
better outcomes for these individuals.
Proposed Recommendations:
The RCMP proposed a number of recommendations to improve the safety and livability of the
downtown core and the community as a whole:
•Improvement in lighting in the downtown area;
•Continued focus on CIT to build community relationships and engage a broad range of
stakeholders;
•Review the Business Watch Program to generate higher engagement by the business
community;
•Increased public education regarding bike theft and safety;
•Explore the renewal of a Community Policing Committee;
•Review the bylaw that allows cycling on sidewalks;
•Ensure an integrated process for all new developments – that uses CPTED and RCMP input;
•Engage partner support for retroactive CPTED reviews for developments like the Transit Hub.
The SPAC endorsed the RCMP recommendations and made a number of additional
recommendations including:
•Requesting that Council advocate for additional mental health services including an
Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Team;
•That RCMP work with District staff and Translink to input to design improvements for the
current transit hub;
•Include RCMP feedback as part of the Design Review process;
•RCMP conduct a campaign to encourage businesses and individuals to report crime through
emergency and non-emergency phone numbers to identify “Hot Spots” and target high crime
areas;
•Investigate late evening/early morning criminal activity directly related to theft and drug
dealing. RCMP have acted upon this recommendation and have provided an update for the
preparation of this report:
o As per SPAC’s recommendations, the RCMP are currently investigating late evening and
early morning criminal activity directly related to theft and drug dealing through crime
analysis, crime reduction initiatives, and prolific offender management, using both high
visibility and covert operations. RCMP will provide updates to SPAC as information
becomes available.
The SPAC supports the above recommendations rather than a wide spread enforcement of the MVA
with respect to bicycle helmets and illumination. The listed recommendations are designed to
provide a starting point to address some of the community safety issues related to the original
motion. SPAC noted that there needs to be a wider engagement of different sectors including
businesses, social services, other municipal departments and other realms of government including
Translink and the province to address the underlying causes. There is also a need for some further
investigation to determine whether another element or cohort is involved in criminal or illegal
activity during late evening and early morning hours and, as noted above, the RCMP are conducting
this research.
b)Strategic Alignment:
This motion is aligned with safe and livable communities.
3
c)Citizen/Customer Implications:
There is a need to address the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists and a failure to do so
could result in a reduction of community and individual safety. The RCMP, in their efforts to ensure
enforcement of the MVA, utilizes tools that are proven to be effective in working with the vulnerable
sector defined in this report. Through building relationships and connecting these individuals to the
services and supports they need, results in a better outcomes. Addressing the needs of a
community’s most vulnerable population’ results in better overall quality of life for the whole
community.
d)Interdepartmental Implications:
Planning, Community Services, Engineering and RCMP will need to work together to follow up on
some of the recommendations outlined in the report.
e)Business Plan/Financial Implications:
Enforcement of the MVA within a zero tolerance framework would likely increase the need for Police
resources.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Social Planning Advisory Committee does not recommend a wide spread enforcement of the MVA
with respect to bicycle helmets and proper illumination. However, there is a need to address the safety
of cyclists, pedestrians and motorists; a failure to do so could result in a reduction of community and
individual safety.
There is recognition that this issue is broader than simply enforcing the MVA to ensure that
helmets and proper illumination are adhered to. The root cause of the issue has broader social
relevance that not only includes community safety and livability but is influenced by the effects
of poverty, social isolation, the effects of mental health and substance misuse and lack of
affordable and adequate housing. There needs to be a wider engagement of different sectors
including businesses, social services, other municipal departments and other realms of government
including Translink and the province to address these underlying causes.
‘Original signed by Shawn Matthewson”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Shawn Matthewson, Recreation Coordinator Social Planning
‘Original signed by Kelly Swift”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager
Community Development, Parks and Recreation Services
‘Original signed by Jim Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
sm
4
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 3, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-009-CP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop
SUBJECT: Hammond Area Plan Scoping Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the November 13, 2012 Council meeting, the following resolution was passed:
That the Albion Flats be reaffirmed as the priority for the preparation of
an Area Plan; and
That the Hammond neighbourhood be identified as the next location
for an Area Plan, based on the criteria established in Council Policy
6.30; and further
That staff be directed to prepare a report outlining the area planning
process for Hammond following clarification from the Agricultural Land
Commission on the ALR exclusion applicati ons for the properties north
of 105th Avenue.
On August 15, 2013, the District of Maple Ridge received two letters from the Agricultural Land
Commission advising of its decisions for two properties in the Albion Flats (23451 and 23623 –
105th Avenue). In both instances, the Agricultural Land Commission Resolution stated, “that the
request for the exclusion of the subject property from the Agricultural Land Reserve be refused”.
The decision by the Agricultural Land Commission means that the Albion Flats Area Plan will be
smaller in scope. Following this decision, the 2014 Business Plan included an incremental package
to pursue an Area Plan for Hammond while the work continues with moving forward on the Albion
Flats. The 2014 Financial Plan includes funding that will enable completion of Area Plans for the
Albion Flats as well as Hammond.
This report presents the process for the Hammond Area Plan. It is anticipated that the public
process will commence in Spring 2014 and Plan endorsement could take up to twelve months.
Approval and adoption of an area plan involves an amendment to the Official Community Plan.
Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act require public consultation to ensure that
appropriate and sufficient consultation has been undertaken by the municipality. This report
outlines the public consultation process in compliance with the provisions of the Local Government
Act.
4.3
- 2 -
Being an established neighbourhood, with an organized and active neighbourhood association, it is
not only important to engage the community early in the process, but also on an ongoing basis
throughout the process. It is anticipated that by involving the community early and encouraging
ongoing participation, through the MyHammond webpage and blog, many of the residents will feel
motivated to participate in both the online forum as well as at the public open house events.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended:
1) Whereas Council has considered the requirements of Section 879 of the Local
Government Act that it provide, in respect of an amendment to an Official Community
Plan, one or more opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation with persons,
organizations and authorities it considers will be affected and has specifically considered
the matters referred to in Section 879(2) of the Act;
2) And whereas Council considers that the opportunities to consult, proposed to be provided
by the District in respect of an amendment to an Official Community Plan, constitute
appropriate consultation for the purposes of Section 879 of the Act;
3) And whereas, in respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act, requirement for
consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan,
Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically:
a. The board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located,
in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan;
b. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan;
c. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan;
d. First Nations;
e. School District Boards, greater boards and improvement district boards, and
f. The Provincial and federal governments and their agencies;
4) And that the only additional consultation to be required in respect of this matter beyond
the consultation program outlined in this report titled, “Hammond Area Plan Scoping
Report”, dated March 3, 2014, and the early posting of the proposed Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan Amendin g Bylaw on the District’s website, together with an invitation to
the public to comment, is referral to the Katzie First Nation, City of Pitt Mead ows, and
School District 42 ;
5) And that the “Consultation & Communication” section of the report titled “Hammon d Area
Plan Scoping Report”, dated March 3, 2014 be endorsed.
- 3 -
a) BACKGROUND:
Located in the most southwestern part of Maple Ridge, the community of Hammond is one of the
oldest neighbourhoods in the District. It was incorporated “Port Hammond Junction” in 1883 in
anticipation of the C.P.R. train station, which opened in 1885. The townsite location was chosen by
John and William Hammond for its river access and was supported by the surrounding agricultural
and forest industries. Hammond is still well known for its intact historic character, but has also
grown and evolved over the decades. Long before it was known as Hammond, the lands were home
to the Katzie First Nation. The Katzie continue to reside between Hammond and Pitt Meadows and
they will be consulted throughout the area planning process.
Prior to 2006, there was a District initiated amendment to the Official Community Plan to re -
designate a considerable portion of the area from Commercial to Residential. The amendment was
necessitated to address issues relating to the non -conforming status of many of the single family
residences in the area, as well as to respond to findings stating that the area was over-supplied with
Commercial designated land. Since 2006, this area has experienced development applications that
are inconsistent with the Official Community Plan. At the January 2012 Public Hearing, Council
heard from area residents commenting on a development application, involving an Offici al
Community Plan and rezoning amendment, that was proposing a 36 unit apartment building in an
area predominantly designated for single detached residential use. It was at this Public Hearing that
the request to consider Hammond for a future area plan was made. Some of the comments
recorded from speakers at the Public Hearing were as follows:
“… concern as to the impact of the proposed application on the ne ighbourhood and on his
property…He requested that Council consider exploring a vision for the neighbourhood and
not grant proposals for lots here and there.”
“…spoke in favour of the proposal however he agreed with the concept of a plan for the
whole neighbourhood which would allow further development.”
“…agreed that an overall plan for the area is needed with an emphasis on the preservation
of existing heritage.”
Recent applications in Hammond suggest that development pressure is beginning to increase.
Council Policy 6.30, Area Planning Assessment, outlines five key considerations for Council in
selecting area planning priorities. Item five of the policy states: “The District will typically undertake
one area planning process at a time…”. The origin of this policy item is recognition of maximum
workload capacity for the current number of staff in the Planning Department.
- 4 -
On November 13, 2012, Council passed the following resolution:
That the Albion Flats be reaffirmed as the priority for the preparation of
an Area Plan; and
That the Hammond neighbourhood be identified as the next location
for an Area Plan, based on the criteria established in Council Policy
6.30; and further
That staff be directed to prepare a report outlining the area planning
process for Hammond following clarification from the Agricu ltural Land
Commission on the ALR exclusion applications for the properties north
of 105th Avenue.
On August 15, 2013, the District of Maple Ridge received two letters from the Agricultural Land
Commission advising of its decisions for two properties in the Albion Flats (23451 and 23623 –
105th Avenue). In both instances, the Agricultural Land Commission Resolution stated, “that the
request for the exclusion of the subject property from the Agricultural Land Reserve be refused”.
The decision by the Agricultural Land Commission means that the Albion Flats Area Plan will be
smaller in scope. Following this decision, the 2014 Business Plan included an incremental package
to pursue an Area Plan for Hammond while the work continues with moving forward on the Albion
Flats. The 2014 Financial Plan includes funding that will enable completion of Area Plans for the
Albion Flats as well as Hammond.
b) CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION :
The preparation of an area plan will require an amendment to the Official Community Plan and as
such, public consultation is required to ensure compliance with the following provisions of Sections
879 and 881 of the Local Government Act:
“Consultation during OCP development
Section 879
(1) During the development of an official community plan, or the repeal or amendment of an
official community plan, the proposing local government must provide one or more
opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations and
authorities it considers will be affected.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the local government must:
a. Consider whether the opportunities for consultation with one or more of the persons,
organizations and authorities should be early and ongoing, and
i. The board of the regional district in which the area covered by the plan is
located, in the case of a municipal official community plan,
ii. The board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area covered by the
plan,
- 5 -
iii. The council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the
plan,
iv. The council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the
plan,
v. First nations,
vi. School district boards, greater boards and improvement district boards, and
vii. The Provincial and federal governments and their agencies.
(3) Consultation under this section is in addition to the public hearing required under section
882(3) (d).
In addition, Section 881 of the Act requires consultation with the School Board during the
preparation of an Official Community Plan amendment:
(1) If a local government has adopted or proposes to adopt or amend an official community plan
for an area that includes the whole or any part of one or more school districts, the local
government must consult with the boards of education for those school districts
a. At the time of preparing or amending the community plan, and
b. In any event, at least once in each calendar year.
Timeline
The Hammond Area planning process will begin March 2014 and is anticipated to take up to twelve
months to complete (see Appendix A). With this process, it is proposed that social media is used as
much as possible to engage the community and facilitate an ongoing community dialogue
throughout the area planning process. The intent is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
the public engagement process that will help to strengthen the relationship between the municipality
and the community. Hammond has an active community association called “Hammond
Neighbours”. They have a website and a Facebook page with over 300 members engaged in
dialogue on the happenings in their neighbourhood. It is anticipated that connecting with this group
(and other similar groups) will help engage many members of the community in the area planning
process.
Traditional forms of public consultation and communication will also be utilized, such as public open
houses, postings in the local newspaper, etc. Additionally, the District will continue to respond to
communication received by letter, fax, telephone, or email.
The following phased process is recommended.
Phase I: Neighbourhood Context
Phase I will largely involve gathering and preparing background information for the public
engagement process. Some of the information needed includes “information primers” on specific
topics relevant to the Hammond Area such as: Heritage, Parks & Environment, Stormwater
Management, and Connectivity/Transportation. The Planning Department will be working with other
departments on the preparation of these primers including: Engineering, Parks & Leisure Services,
Communications, and Engineering Operations to name a few.
- 6 -
Community Character:
The community will be invited to become engaged during this initial phase to provide input on what
characterizes Hammond and identify what they like most about it. Opportunities to engage at this
early point in the process will be through various electronic and social media that includes the
District website and Facebook as well as notification in the local newspaper and through community
organizations. A “MyHammond” platform will be launched and accessed through social media.
During Phase I, the community will be asked to submit photos of what they value most about
Hammond and use one or two words to describe it. This input is intended to generate awareness
and interest in the area plan process and engage the community while stimulating thought and
discussion on the characteristics of Hammond through a visual medium. Finally, this initial piece of
community engagement will contribute to ongoing community discussions and presentations
throughout the process.
Boundaries:
There are various sources of reference that may help determine the boundaries for the area plan,
such as:
The Communities Map in the Official Community Plan;
School District 42 Catchment Area;
Historic original townsite map, from 1882/1883;
Multiple Listing Service real estate site.
However, the intent in the design of this process is to first hear from the community on where they
see the boundaries of Hammond. A questionnaire will be prepared to solicit information on the
Hammond boundaries and distributed at the public open house (in Phase II) and through social
media.
Phase II: Public Consultation
Phase II will be launched with the first public open house of this process in late spring 2014. This
event will present the information compiled from Phase I, including an outline of the public
engagement process, outcomes of the “Community Character” photo project and the information
primers. The community will be asked to provide comments on the outcomes of the “Community
Character” engagement piece from Phase I and also provide input on boundaries for the Hammond
area.
Information will also be provided on how the community may continue to participate and con tribute
throughout the process using social media. An interactive program will be established through the
MyHammond webpage link and will take the form of an ongoing blog with new topics introduced to
the forum on a regular basis. The Planning Department is investigating the idea of having
community members lead a series of blog discussions and we are working with the Communications
Department to set this up. There are a number of community conversations that will be introduced
at the first open house event, such as neighbourhood character and community connectivity that will
- 7 -
serve as the primary land use planning dialogue. These topics will also be presented at the public
open house and continued through the online community blog discussion.
The intent in Phase II is to establish an ongoing community dialogue that will be largely led by the
community. As such, consultation will be continuous throughout the process and members of the
community may participate at a level of their choosing.
Being an established neighbourhood, with an organized and active neighbourhood association, it is
not only important to engage the community early in the process, but also on an ongoing basis
throughout the process. It is anticipated that by involving the community early and encouraging
ongoing participation, through the MyHammond webpage and blog, many of the residents will feel
motivated to participate in both the online forum as well as at the public open house events.
Council will be updated on the results of Phase II in the fall of 2014 and asked to endorse the
formal area plan boundaries.
Phase III: Draft Hammond Area Plan
The draft area plan will build on the planning process conversations, incorporating the ideas and
issues identified by the community. It is anticipated that preparation of the area plan policies will
begin in late fall and the draft plan presented to Council in early 2015. With Council direction, the
draft plan will then be posted on the District’s MyHammond webpage and distributed through social
media, along with dates and times of a public open house event. The second public open house will
also be advertised through traditional methods of local newspaper advertisement and mailouts.
We will seek community input on the draft through both social media and through the more
traditional methods of written questionnaires, etc. All information on the draft plan will be available
at the Planning Department front counter and on the website for viewing and a summary report will
be prepared for Council’s information. Preparation of the final draft of the Area Plan will be
undertaken at the end of Phase III and incorporate final comments from the community and Council.
Phase IV: Draft Plan Endorsement
In Spring 2015, a report will be presented to Council for endorsement of the draft Hammond Area
Plan. Additionally, Council will be requested for direction to prepare the Area Plan bylaw package.
There are a number of tools available through the Local Government Act to achieve key
neighbourhood design elements that may be identified by the community. For example, one
possible tool is development permit guidelines, which can be utilized for multi-family, commercial,
mixed-use, and industrial land uses. These would be informed from the area plan “Community
Character” work undertaken in Phase I of the area planning process. Additionally, design guidelines
for heritage conservation purposes may be desirable to the residents living in the original Hammond
townsite. In addition to form and character guidelines, recommendations may be made for
amendments to the Zoning or other bylaws in order to fully implement the Area Plan.
- 8 -
Phase V: Hammond Area Plan Approval
An Official Community Plan amendment bylaw will be prepared to adopt the Hammond Area Plan
and brought back to Council for consideration of Three Readings, a Public Hearing, and a Final
Reading. After First Reading, the Area Plan will be referred to appropriate outside agencies (these
are listed in “Formal Referrals” below) for comment.
Upon approval, the Hammond Area Plan will become a sub-section of Chapter 10 in the Official
Community Plan, similar to other Area Plans. As stated above, this will require an amendment to the
Official Community Plan, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act.
Formal Referrals
All affected agencies will be invited to the open houses and provided with electronic links to
information and participate in the process. After First Reading, formal referrals will be sent to the
following organizations in accordance with Section 879 of the Local Government Act.
Katzie First Nation: As discussed above, the Katzie were early inhabitants of the present
Hammond area and they continue to reside along the Fraser River adjacent to Hammond.
Formal consultation with the Katzie First Nation will be initiated at the outset of the planning
process.
City of Pitt Meadows: The western boundary of Hammond borders the City of Pitt Meadows
and therefore, Pitt Meadows may be directly affected by outcomes of the Hammond Area
Plan. Formal consultation with Pitt Meadows will be undertaken, as required under the
Local Government Act.
School District 42: There are some schools within and near the Hammond area and
therefore, it is appropriate to include the School District in the process. The School District
will be invited to participate early in the process with formal consultation opportunities
included throughout the process.
Federal and Provincial government and related agencies: A copy of the Hammond Area
Plan will be referred to the appropriate Federal and Provincial departments for comment
after First Reading.
c) SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL ENGAGEMENT:
The Hammond community will be invited to begin participation in the area plan process at the outset
in the first phase of the project. Public input on all aspects of the area planning process is key to
the plan’s success. Methods of participation will include various forms of social media, as well as
traditional forms of written correspondence.
- 9 -
The following is a summary of the consultation strategy, including Council updates and
presentations, for the Hammond Area Plan process:
Phase I – Neighbourhood Context:
Preparation of information primers on neighbourhood topics, including Heritage, Parks &
Environment, Stormwater Management, and Connectivity/Transportation;
“Community Character” engagement through a “MyHammond” photo submission project
advertised through various electronic and traditional media to the community;
Phase II – Public Consultation:
Public Open House held in late spring will present outcomes from Phase I items, outline
ongoing consultation process, and solicit input on Hammond Area boundaries;
Launch “MyHammond” community led blog where a series of topics initially introduced at
the public open house are re-introduced and discussed on a regular basis;
Council update in Fall 2014.
Phase III – Draft Hammond Area Plan:
Council presentation on draft Hammond Area Plan in early 2015;
Present draft Hammond Area Plan at public open house;
Post draft plan on MyHammond webpage and continue to solicit public input;
Phase IV – Draft Plan Endorsement:
Council presentation on final draft of Hammond Area Plan in Spring 2015 for consideration
of Council endorsement;
With Council direction, prepare form and character guidelines;
Post final draft of Hammond Area Plan on MyHammond webpage;
Phase V – Hammond Area Plan Approval
Council presentation on Hammond Area Plan bylaw for Three Readings, Public Hearing, and
Adoption;
Formal referrals on Hammond Area Plan sent to affected outside agencies after First
Reading.
It is proposed that social media is used as much as possible to engage the community and facilitate
an ongoing community dialogue throughout the area planning process. The intent is to increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of public engagement that will help to strengthen the relationship
between the municipality and the community.
In addition to the above tools, traditional forms of public consultation and communication will also
be utilized, such as public open houses, advertisements in the local newspaper and mailouts to
ensure opportunities to participate exist for those not using electronic media. Additionally, the
District will continue to respond to communication received by letter, fax, or telephone.
- 10 -
d) INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES:
As discussed in the “Formal Referrals” section above, formal consultation is proposed with Katzie
First Nation, City of Pitt Meadows, School District 42 and any relevant Federal or Provincial
ministries or agencies.
e) INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
An interdepartmental working group is discussed about in the “Phase I: Neighbourhood Context”
section. It is anticipated that the departments listed (Engineering, Parks & Leisure Services,
Communications, and Engineering Operations), will be involved during Phase I particularly, but also
continue to provide input and assistance throughout the duration of the area planning process. It is
likely that other departments will also become involved in the process at specific junctures.
f) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Hammond Area Plan process will be completed under existing funding that was approved as
part of the 2014 Planning Department Business Plan. This includes:
$30,000 in consultant funding to prepare Development Permit Area Guidelines, or similar
document, and
The hiring of a temporary planner for one year, enabling the Planning Department to
advance the Hammond Area Plan process*.
* Note: This has occurred and a temporary Planner II is now in place.
CONCLUSION:
The focus of the Hammond Area Plan process is on community input and dialogue. The process is
designed so that there are numerous opportunities and means for the community to create the
vision for their neighbourhood and guide the policy framework for the are a plan. Ongoing dialogue
through social media is an important component of this process, as it taps into newer territory for
public consultation in the modern era of social networking and creates new avenues for future
public engagement processes.
- 11 -
While traditional methods of communication and input will continue to be utilized in this process, it
is anticipated that by using various means of communication and consultation, the maximum
number of local residents will feel encouraged and motivated to participate.
“Original signed by Lisa Zosiak”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Lisa Zosiak
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL., MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA. P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A: Hammond Area Plan Process Diagram
Open House Prep:
•Info Primers
•Community Character
photo project
•Social media prep
Phase I:
Neighbourhood
Context
2 Months
HAMMOND AREA PLAN PROCESS
Phase II:
Public Consultation
6 Months
Phase III:
Draft Hammond
Area Plan
2 Months
Phase IV:
Area Plan
Endorsement
2 Months
Phase V:
Plan
Approval
Through 2015
Open House Event
Launch “MyHammond”
community blog
“MyHammond” link to
project webpage
Council Update*
Present draft plan to
Council*
Post draft plan on
MyHammond webpage
Present draft plan at
public open house
o Solicit public input
Present draft to Council
for endorsement*
Prepare form and
character guidelines
Update MyHammond
webpage
*Council Update
Fall 2014
*Draft to
Council for
endorsement
Spring 2015
*Present draft
plan to Council
Early 2015
Prepare OCP
Amendment Bylaw
Present plan to Council
for Readings*
Outside agency
referrals
Make available for
public viewing
*Final Draft to
Council for
Readings
2015
Council
endorsement of
Area Plan Process
March 3, 2014
APPENDIX A
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 3, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Gaming Revenue Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached Gaming Revenue Policy was approved on June 13, 2011. It is largely intended to
ensure that the revenue is used to fund non-recurring items and in particular, capital improvements
that cannot be funded through development charges. These funds should not be viewed as long-
term sources of revenue to support on-going programs. This is because the nature of the revenue is
such that it could vary from year to year or come to an end.
Since the policy was adopted and as part of the 2014-2018 Business Plan deliberations, Council
approved an annual allocation of $550,000 of gaming revenue to fund infrastructure replacement.
This was done to reduce the property tax increase, while still allowing additional funding to go
towards much needed infrastructure. The infrastructure deficit that it is helping address is not a new
program; and this is an important distinction.
With the relocation of the gaming centre, there has been an increase in revenues. The new facility is
still in its early stages and with significant funds already directed towards infrastructure, it is
premature to consider amendments to the policy at this time.
Community groups may see gaming revenues as a way to increase service levels or address
increasing costs but this is contrary to the approach and fundamentals set out in the Gaming
Revenue Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
None. Report is for information purposes.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
The Gaming Revenue Policy ensures that the revenue stream is used to fund items that largely are
non-recurring with emphasis on capital improvements that cannot be funded through development
charges.
Page 1 4.5
There are a few items in the policy that are not capital in nature such as downtown security,
memorial park events, increased maintenance in Town Centre area and neighborhood initiatives.
These initiatives would either have to discontinue or be funded through general property taxes if
gaming revenues were not made available.
The Gaming Revenue Policy that was approved in 2011 is attached for reference.
Since the policy was adopted and as part of the 2014-2018 Business Plan deliberations, Council
approved an annual allocation of $550,000 of gaming revenue to fund infrastructure replacement.
This was done to reduce the property tax increase, while still allowing additional funding to go
towards much needed infrastructure. The infrastructure deficit that it is helping address is not a new
program; and this is an important distinction.
b) Financial Plan & Business Plans:
The Financial Plan and Business Plans are reflective of existing policy and Council’s direction to
allocate $550,000 of gaming funds to infrastructure replacement to achieve a lower property tax
increase while still funding infrastructure replacement at similar levels.
CONCLUSION:
The Gaming Revenue Policy is reflective of the nature of the revenue stream with an emphasis on
capital spending. The decision to fund a portion of infrastructure replacement through gaming
revenues, reducing the magnitude of the property tax increase aligns well with the intent of the
Gaming Revenue Policy.
Gaming Revenues are often targeted by community groups to increase service levels or cover
increasing costs. These types of costs are inconsistent with the approach and policy set around
gaming revenues.
Gaming revenue levels continue to be an area that is closely monitored. Once we have a year or two
of history of gaming revenue from the new facilities it may be desirable to update the Gaming
Revenue Policy.
“Original signed by Trevor Thompson”__________________
Prepared by: Trevor Thompson, CPA CGA
Manager Financial Planning
“Original signed by Paul Gill”__________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA CGA
General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”______________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 2
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Gaming Revenue
Policy No : 5.55
Supersedes: NEW
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date: June 15, 2011
Review Date: 2012
Policy Statement:
Gaming Revenue should be used to fund non-recurring items, and in particular, capital
improvements that cannot be funded through development charges. These revenues should not
be used for funding the District’s ongoing operating expenses.
Purpose:
The Host Financial Assistance Agreement between the District of Maple Ridge and the Province of
British Columbia requires the municipality to use funds received under the agreement for public
benefit. The allocation of funds should be in alignment with Council’s Vision for the community.
These funds should not be viewed as a long term source of revenue to support ongoing programs.
Rather, and respecting the nature of the revenue stream, it should be used to fund non-recurring
items, particular those of a capital nature.
There may be instances where certain programs are more directly related to the revenue stream
(ex security). Consideration can be given to funding these items from the Gaming Revenue stream,
as long as it is understood that reductions in the revenue stream will require an offsetting
reduction in the program.
Definitions:
Base: The base amount for the purposes of this policy is assumed to be $500,000. Gaming
revenue is variable in nature; the actual amount received in any given year could be either higher
or lower than $500,000. The base will be reviewed annually based on actual experience and
projections, and may be amended during the Business Planning deliberations.
Capital Improvement: Improvements to, or acquisition of major and minor capital assets
Council’s Vision: (Vision 2025, last amended 2007) The District of Maple Ridge is among the most
sustainable communities in the world. As a community committed to working toward achieving
carbon neutrality, residents experience the value of a strong and vibrant local economy and the
benefits of an ongoing commitment to environmental stewardship and creation of stable and
special neighborhoods. Maple Ridge is a world leading example of thoughtful development and a
socially cohesive community, especially as it relates to the use of leading edge “environmental
technologies,” social networks and economic development. Other municipalities consistently
reference the District of Maple Ridge for its innovative approaches to dealing with seemingly
intractable challenges.
Page 1 of 2 Policy 5.55
Minor Capital Improvements: Improvements to existing capital assets, or acquisition of minor
assets such as street furniture.
Gaming Revenue: The funding received from the Provincial of B.C. under the Host Financial
Assistance Agreement
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
Annually and as part of the Business/Financial Planning Process,
projections will be done on the Gaming Revenue expected for the
ensuing planning period
Gaming Revenue up to $500,000 (the Base amount) will be
allocated as follows:
a)Minor Capital Improvements in the Town Centre
Area 2 20%
b)Minor Capital Improvements, District-wide 2 20%
c)Capital Improvement Fund 1 15%
d)Downtown Security Presence 2 10%
e)Neighbourhood Initiatives/Social Capital 2 15%
f)Increased maintenance and upkeep in Town
Centre Area 2 10%
g)Memorial Peace Park Events 2 2%
h)Emerging Priorities 2 8%
Notes:
1 Revenue exceeding the base will flow to Capital
Improvement Fund, a General Revenue reserve account
to be used for Capital Improvements at Council’s
discretion.
2 Any annual funds remaining at year-end will be
transferred to the Capital Improvement Fund.
Develop recommended list of projects to which the gaming
revenues can be allocated, in alignment with Council’s Vision and
Financial Sustainability Policies
Review, amend and approve detailed allocation of gaming
revenue as part of Business/Financial Plan
Responsibility
Finance Department
Staff
Staff
Council
Page 2 of 2 Policy 5.55
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: 3-March-2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council workshop
SUBJECT: Preliminary 2013 year-end update (General Revenue Fund)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements are being drafted and will be finalized following the
completion of the annual audit, scheduled to start on March 10. The purpose of this report is to
provide Council with a preliminary update on 2013 results in the General Revenue Fund.
Overall results for 2013 were positive. Revenues for the year were $129.1 million, expenses and
transfers to reserves totaled $128.3 million. Preliminary results indicate we will have a General
Revenue annual surplus of $780,566 after providing for projects planned for 2013 that will proceed
in 2014 and items identified as funded from surplus in the 2014 Financial Plan.
Key variances contributing to the overall positive results include positive investment returns, higher
than anticipated gaming revenues and various user fees. On the expense side we experienced
savings from the RCMP contract and careful cost containment in all areas of the organization. This
was offset by a current year expense, recorded in accordance with accounting guidelines, for the
remediation works that will take place at the Cottonwood Landfill site over the next number of years.
A detailed review of the Consolidated Financial Statements will be provided in April, once the
statements are finalized.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
None required. For information only.
DISCUSSION:
The Financial Plan (budget) and the Financial Statements are two of the most important documents
produced by a municipality in a year and there are fundamental differences between the two
documents that are important to understand.
The Financial Plan sets out all of the planned uses of funds in a year and identifies the sources of
those funds. Planned uses include expenditures for our day-to-day operating activities, transfers to
reserves and investments in the infrastructure used for service provision. Planned sources include
property taxes, revenues from user fees, grants from other levels of government, investment income
and transfers from reserves. The Community Charter stipulates that the total of proposed
expenditures and transfers to reserves must not exceed the total of proposed revenues and
transfers from reserves. The result is a “balanced budget” where planned inflows of funding are
equal to the planned outflows. In simple terms, the financial plan looks forward to the next five years
and answers the question, “what are we going to do over the next five years, and how are we going
to pay for it?”
4.6
The Financial Statements compare our actual financial performance in a year against the activities
set out in the Financial Plan. The Community Charter stipulates that our financial statements must
be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for local governments. In
Canada, the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) sets those accounting principles and prescribes
the model used for our financial statements. The goal of the financial statements is to look back at
the year just ended and answer the question “what was our financial condition at the end of the
year?”
The different objectives of the Financial Plan and the Financial Statements can easily result in
confusion when trying to compare the two documents. For example, the Financial Plan treats
transfers to and from reserves as transactions, while the Financial Statements at the consolidated
level ignore transfers as they take place within the corporate entity. It’s important to keep those
different objectives in mind as we begin to look at the financial results for 2013.
General Revenue Update
Local government operations are extremely diverse; our business includes everything from the
provision of water, to maintaining our infrastructure to developing the plans and bylaws that will
guide our community’s growth, to fire protection services to providing swimming lessons. All of these
business streams have different resource demands and while some are supported by day-to-day
operations, other require long-term planning to ensure we’re positioned to meet the demands of a
growing community and build the capacity to sustain our infrastructure. Tools, such as our reserves,
the General Revenue Fund and the Sewer & Water Utilities help us manage both the short and long-
term demands of our business. This report will focus on operations in the General Revenue Fund as
this is the area where Council has the most discretion and it is the transactions in this fund that drive
property tax rates.
Overall 2013 results were positive and are shown in Appendix 1. Revenues for the year totalled
$129.1 million with positive variances realized from investment revenues, gaming revenues and
various user fees. On a further positive note, building permit revenues met financial plan targets in
2013 after falling short in each of 2012 and 2011. Expenses and transfers to reserves totalled
$128.3 million, with variances coming from savings from the RCMP contract and careful cost
containment in all areas. Offsetting this, is the current year expense, recorded in compliance with
accounting guidelines, associated with the remediation works that will take place at the Cottonwood
Landfill site over the next number of years. While these results are preliminary, they indicate we will
end the year with a general revenue surplus of $780,566 after providing for the items in the next
section.
Council has established various reserves to help manage annual fluctuations in certain key revenue
and expense accounts. One of these key reserves is the Police Services Reserve, established to
assist with various policing issues as they are identified. Our practice of transferring a portion of any
savings from the RCMP contract into the Police Services reserve has allowed us to manage the cost
impact of work required when RCMP building standards are amended or to participate in new
initiatives, such as the Community Safety Officer program. In 2013, $961,640 was transferred to
the Police Services reserve from RCMP contract savings. A detailed presentation on reserves is
scheduled for the April 7 Council Workshop.
Year-end Provisions
As part of our year-end processes for 2013 we looked to Council identified priorities that called for
funding from annual surplus amounts in the current Financial Plan. The following items, listed on
page 9 of the Financial Overview report, have been provided for:
2014 2015
Flood study – North Alouette $ 150,000 -
ISMP Watershed review 350,000 -
Façade improvement program 25,000 -
Document management staffing 75,000 75,000
Hammond area plan 130,000 -
Treat noxious weeds on municipal property 50,000 50,000
Joint leisure services review 15,000 -
IT security audit 20,000 _ _______-
$ 815,000 $ 125,000
The Financial Overview report also identified funding from surplus for improvements planned for
2015 on Lougheed Highway between 224 & 226. This project will be funded from General Revenue
accumulated surplus when construction proceeds.
Conclusions
Final results for 2013 will be available following the completion of the audit. In the interim this
report provides an overview of General Revenue performance for the year. Preliminary results
indicate General Revenue accumulated surplus will increase by $780,566 after providing for
identified to be funded from surplus in the 2014-2018 Financial Plan.
______"Original signed by Catherine Nolan”________
Prepared by: Catherine Nolan CPA, CGA
Manager of Accounting
______”Original signed by Paul Gill”_______________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CGA
GM, Corporate & Financial Services
______”Original signed by Jim Rule”_________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A
Actual
Revenues
Taxes and grants in lieu 67,139,977-
Fees & Other Charges 14,816,908-
Investment income 2,079,025-
Proceeds and Gains 111,166-
Government Transfers 2,055,535-
Gaming revenues 896,008-
Equipment 3,035,704-
DCC & Other Contributed Revenue 342,459-
Collections for others 38,628,666-
Total Revenue 129,105,448-
Expenses (excluding amortization)
General Government 12,200,693
Protective Services 30,127,209
Transportation 8,541,558
Planning; Public Health & Other 5,876,544
Recreation 18,127,830
Principal Payments 2,585,309
Collections for Others 38,628,666
Total Expenses 116,087,809
Transfers
Transfers from reserve accounts 13,943,024-
Transfers to own reserves 19,933,693
Transfers to reserve funds 3,602,700
Transfers to GCF (fund inventory change)52,940
Transfers to Capital (Capital Program)2,479,925
Interest transferred to reserve accounts 110,839
Net Transfers 12,237,072
General Revenue Annual Surplus (to December 31)prelim 780,566-
General Revenue Accumulated Surplus - beginning of year 6,091,162-
General Revenue Accumulated Surplus - end of December 6,871,728-
General Revenue Fund Analysis
For the 12 months ended December 31, 2013
metrovancouver
fSERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION
Tel.
February 12, 2014
Mayor Ernie Daykin and Council
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Dear Mayor Daykin and Council:
Other.
�CtlCil I
Re: Former Albion Ferry Site — 23864 River Road, Maple Ridge
office of the Chair
Fax 604451-6614
PA-03-01-KAN-00
C-3�=C�i�7eJC=i�
Thank you for your letter dated August 29, 2013 regarding the potential partnered acquisition of
the decommissioned Albion Ferry site in Maple Ridge. I understand that a meeting was held on
January 31, 2014 between you, Metro Vancouver's CAO and Chair Deal of the Environment and
Parks Committee to discuss opportunities and challenges with respect to this parcel of land.
am advised that at this meeting the group discussed the key concerns that Metro Vancouver has
with respect to the acquisition of this site for regional park purposes including,
• the hydraulics of the Fraser River at the subject property is too fast for easy water access;
• the size of the site is too small for a boat launch facility; and
• the distance from Kanaka Creek Regional Park is too far to consider it an optimal addition to
that regional park
As discussed at the meeting, although Metro Vancouver continues to be interested in working with
the District of Maple Ridge to explore opportunities to provide trail linkages to Kanaka Creek
Regional Park, including future developments that might be occurring near the Fraser River and the
Kanaka foreshore, we have concluded that this particular site does not meet key criteria to be
included in the regional parks program. Therefore, Metro Vancouver will not be participating in the
acquisition of the Albion Ferry site.
4330Kingsway,Burnaby,BC,Canada V5H4G8 • 604-432-6200 •www.metrovancouver.org �� ■
Greater Vancouver Regional District •Greater Vancouver Water District •Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District •Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation
Mayor Ernie Daykin, District of Maple Ridge
Former Albion Ferry Site — 23864 River Road, Maple Ridge
Page 2 of 2
want to personally thank you for taking the time to meet about this project and especially for your
ongoing support for the regional parks program.
Yours truly,
Greg Moore
Chair, Metro Vancouver Board
GM/MS/BB/mlt
cc: Heather Deal, Chair, Metro Vancouver Parks and Environment Committee
Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development, District of Maple Ridge
8548174
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 3, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Agricultural Advisory Committee ATTN: Workshop
SUBJECT: Request from the Agricultural Advisory Committee for a letter in support of the
Agricultural Land Commission.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the January 23, 2014 meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Committee received
correspondence and passed a resolution to send letters of support to the appropriate Ministries in
support of the Agricultural Land Commission. The letter would reflect the District’s ongoing support
for the Agricultural Land Commission, with a request that the review process prioritizes the current
Provincial commitment in support of the role of the Agricultural Land Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council accept the recommendation of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, dated
January 23, 2014 in support for the Agricultural Land Commission and send a letter to the
appropriate Ministries.
DISCUSSION:
In December 2013, the Union of BC Municipalities issued a news release that outlined details of the
meeting between their executive and the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.
They were advised that the review currently underway is an ongoing process whereby Ministers have
the opportunity to identify specific proposals or areas of their ministry that could be considered as
part of the core review process. Once identified and accepted for review, a consultation process
would commence that would give affected and interested stakeholders an opportunity to voice
concerns.
At this stage, it is not clear how or if the Agricultural Land Commission would be affected. On this
basis, it was felt to be timely to reaffirm the importance of the Agricultural Land Commission in
meeting future challenges for growth management and protecting Provincial agricultural land supply.
A similar initiative has been taken by the City of Salmon Arm and by the Regional Planning and
Agriculture Committee of Metro Vancouver. Upon review of this correspondence, the Maple Ridge
Agricultural Advisory Committee passed the following resolution at their January 23, 2014 meeting.
That AAC adopt the recommendation as written to BC AAC by the City of Salmon Arm and
recommend that Council write a letter of support for the Agricultural Land Commission.
A sample letter for Council’s consideration is attached, as is related correspondence. In addition,
Council’s submission to the Union of BC Municipalities, dated September 2013 is attached.
5.2
Conclusion
The outcome of the core review process and its impact on provincial ministries is not clear at this
time. Concerns have been expressed about potential impacts to the Agricultural Land Commission.
For this reason, it is timely to send a letter in support of retaining current levels of commitment to the
Agricultural Land Commission.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Candace Gordon, Chair
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Attachment A Sample Letter in support of the Agricultural Land Commission.
Attachment B Correspondence from the City of Salmon Arm and Metro Vancouver
Attachment C District of Maple Ridge submission to the Union of BC Municipalities expressing
support for the Agricultural Land Commission.
"Original signed by Candace Gordon"
Office of the Mayor
February 25, 2014
Honorable Bill Bennett
Minister of Energy and Mines
(Minister Responsible for Core Review)
PO Box 9060 Station Provincial Government
Victoria, BC, V8W 9E3
Dear Minister Bennett:
Re: Agricultural Land Commission.
On March 3, 2014, Maple Ridge Council discussed the possible implications of the Provincial
Core Review in light of funding commitments to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC).
In September 2013, at the Union of BC Municipalities Conference, Maple Ridge Council raised
concerns about the need for increased support for the ALC in light of additional responsibilities
resulting from new Federal Guidelines for Medical Marihuana, Maple Ridge Council wishes to
reiterate this concern and take this opportunity to express support for the ALC. Specifically we
request that the budget for the ALC not be reduced.
Yours truly,
Ernie Daykin
Mayor
cc Maple Ridge Council
Doug Bing, MLA, Maple Ridge -Pitt Meadows
Marc Dalton, MLA, Maple Ridge -Mission
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia V2X 6A9 CANADA
Telephone: 604-463-5221 •Fax: 604-467 7329 °Email: enquiries@mapleridge.ca www.mapleridge.ca
To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee
From: Theresa Duynstee, Regional Planner
Planning, Policy and Environment Department
Date: October 18, 2013 Meeting Date: November 8, 2013
Subject: Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board request that the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of
Agriculture:
a) ensure the Provincial Core Review process protects and enhances the Agricultural Land
Reserve and Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) in support of mutual objectives to protect
the region’s supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability;
b) reconfirm the Provincial 2013 budget commitment to provide the ALC an additional $4 million
over three years to support the ALC in providing better oversight over the Agricultural Land
Reserve including working with local governments to encourage farming; and
c) ensure adequate consultation opportunities for the Metro Vancouver Board and all local
governments in the region.
PURPOSE
This report describes the importance of engaging in the Provincial Core Review as it pertains to the
ability of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) to oversee farming and nonfarm use activities
within the Agricultural Land Reserve.
BACKGROUND
The ALC is a critical partner for implementing Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS)
“Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping our Future”, adopted by the Board on July 29, 2011. The RGS
explicitly states the importance of protecting the supply of agricultural land and promoting
agricultural viability in collaboration with the Province and the ALC. The policy to maintain the
Urban Containment Boundary not only helps to concentrate growth in urban areas, but also
provides predictability and efficient use of financial investments in utility, road and transit
infrastructure. In addition, lands designated for agriculture are essential for agriculture economic
development, food security, as well as the future well-being of residents.
The Provincial Core Review was announced on July 31, 2013 to ensure the best possible use of
government resources with clear objectives to reduce costs and eliminate overlap. The work will be
accomplished through four phases to ensure completion of the process by December 2014 (Bennett
seeks a bold approach on core review September 24, 2013.html. Currently, the process is in Phase I
Mandate Review (October - December 2013), where the Ministers are asked to highlight the scope
of proposed changes to programs and services. Although Ministries are expected to undertake
targeted consultations with stakeholders, there is no information available about who will be
consulted and how or when this might occur.
Section E 3.4
Greater Vancouver Regional District - 251
Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission
Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2013
Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
The success of the RGS is dependent on a well functioning ALC that meets its responsibilities to
preserve agriculture land and encourage farming in collaboration with other communities of
interest. A comprehensive review of the ALC titled “Moving Forward: A Strategic Vision of the ALC
for Future Generations” was completed by Chair Richard Bullock on November 26, 2010 in response
to a request from the Minister of Agriculture. The Bullock report addressed the concerns raised by
the BC Auditor General (Audit of the Agricultural Land Commission September 2010), which
identified the challenges in administrating the Agricultural Land Reserve in the face of continued
pressure to convert ALR land to non-farm use and the lack of budget and staff resources provided
to the ALC.
In response to Chair Bullock’s report, the Province announced in November 2011 additional funding
and tools to enable the ALC to fulfill their mandate. On March 21st, 2012, the Metro Vancouver
Board sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture expressing appreciation for providing the
additional funding and also conveyed the Board’s determination to protect agricultural land and
enforce the Urban Containment Boundary set by the Regional Growth Strategy.
On June 10, 2013 the Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Pat Pimm, received a mandate from
the Premier with the government’s priorities, among which was to ensure the ALC is delivering the
improvements promised, ensure the Agricultural Land Reserve is working for British Columbians
and propose any changes necessary. The mandate further dictates that the changes must balance
the desire to protect valuable farmland while allowing for responsible economic development
opportunities, as well as encourage the stability of farm families and the farming industry in BC.
The question as to whether the ALC is at risk to losing its ability to protect farmland emerged when
the Minister in Charge of the Core Review process stated that they were specifically going to look at
the Agricultural Land Reserve and the ALC. This seemed inconsistent with previous provincial
direction to improve operations of the ALC, whose 2011 budget ($2.9 million) is less than 0.01
percent of the total provincial budget.
ALTERNATIVES
1. That the Board request that the Minister Responsible for Core Review and the Minister of
Agriculture:
a) ensure the Provincial Core Review process protects and enhances the Agricultural Land
Reserve and Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) in support of mutual objectives to protect
the region’s supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability;
b) reconfirm the Provincial 2013 budget commitment to provide the ALC an additional $4
million over three years to support the ALC in providing better oversight over the
Agricultural Land Reserve including working with local governments to encourage farming;
and
c) ensure adequate consultation opportunities for the Metro Vancouver Board and all local
governments in the region.
2. That the Board receive for information the report dated October 18, 2013, titled “Provincial
Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission”.
Greater Vancouver Regional District - 252
Provincial Core Review and the Agricultural Land Commission
Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: November 8, 2013
Page 3 of 3
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications to this report.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION
Three years ago both the ALC Chair and the BC Auditor General completed a substantial amount of
work that reviewed ALC operations and their ability to protect the Agricultural Land Reserve. In
response, the BC Government committed to an additional $4 million in funding and legislative
changes to help the ALC become a stronger organization and transition to a more self-supporting
model.
A well functioning ALC is an essential component to achieving Metro Vancouver’s regional land use
strategy to protect the supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability. The recent
announcements associated with the Provincial Core Review have created uncertainty about the
future ability of the ALC to fulfill its mandate. Rather than wait until after proposals to cut costs and
programs are announced, staff recommend informing the Ministers responsible for Core Review
and Agriculture about Metro Vancouver’s stance regarding the importance of the Agricultural Land
Reserve and the critical role the ALC plays in the implementation of the Metro Vancouver’s Regional
Growth Strategy. Staff recommends Alternative 1.
7956639
Greater Vancouver Regional District - 253
Meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture
Date: Monday, September 16, 2013
Time: 2:40 — 2:55 pm
Location: Premier Is Vancouver Office, Suite 740 — 999 Canada Place, Boardroom 2
Issue #1: Lack of overall funding for the ALC (especially in light of the
medical marijuana and the impact it may have on the capacity of
the ALC to respond to this new use on agricultural lands). ALC
funding is insufficient given the challenges posed by the federal
government's new approach to Medical Marihuana:
Request of the Province:
That the Provincial Government provide the necessary funding and resources to the
Agricultural Land Commission to enable the Commission to carry out the mandates and
regulations of senior governments.
Background:
New Federal Legislation will require significantly more resources from local governments
and Provincial agencies, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land
Commission. Concerns include:
• Enforcement or additional emergency response demands arising from this use.
• Industry requirements and acceptable accessory uses for the commercial production
of medical marihuana require clarification;
• Ministry of Agriculture guidelines or standards may not be applicable to medical
marihuana production.
In June 2013, the Commission confirmed this use as a bona fide farm use on lands within
the Agricultural Land Reserve. As a result, affected local governments are approaching the
Commission for assistance with Zoning Bylaw amendments to permit this use.
It is clear that additional resources need to be allocated into the research and development
of best management practices, and bylaw standards for this new use. In addition,
appropriate resources need to be allocated for assisting local governments in responding to
this use with zoning bylaw amendments.
The District of Maple Ridge has recently drafted bylaws to direct this use and has referred
them to the Commission for review.