HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-20 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES –October 6, 2014
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Managing Cellular and Radio Tower Installations
Presentation by Michael Krenz, Director Coastal Offices, Spectrum Management
Operations Branch, Industry Canada
Staff report dated October 20, 2014 providing background information on Industry
Canada’s responsibilities and outlining questions raised in Council discussions.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
October 20, 2014
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City 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
October 20, 2014
Closed Council 11:00 a.m.
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
October 21, 2014
Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
October 20, 2014
Page 2 of 4
4.2 Recommendations re: Council Advisory Committees
Staff report dated October 20, 2014 recommending that staff be directed to
prepare the necessary bylaws to enact the recommendations of the Advisory
committee Task Force.
4.3 Development Services Resources
Staff report dated October 20, 2014 recommending that staff be directed to
implement the addition of 4 new positions in Development Processing with the
funding source as outlined in Table 3 of the report.
4.4 Silver Valley Area Plan Update 2014
Staff report dated October 20, 2014 providing an overview of the Silver Valley area
as it has progressed since the initial adoption of the area plan in 2002.
4.5 2014 Business Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated October 20, 2014 providing information on the municipal
portion of the tax rate assessed to Business Class properties in 2014.
For information only
No motion required
4.6 2014 Major Industry Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated October 20, 2014 providing information on the current 2014
Major Industry Class municipal tax rate for the City of Maple Ridge.
For information only
No motion required
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
Council Workshop
October 20, 2014
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
October 20, 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.
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
October 6, 2014
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on October 6, 2014 at 9:28 a.m. in
the Blaney Room of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia
for the purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor E. Daykin 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 P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor A. Hogarth F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor B. Masse Services
Councillor M. Morden C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other Staff as Required
L. Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate
Planning
J. Bergmann, Research Technician
C. Carter, Director of Planning
F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications
Note: The meeting is being recorded for public record and the minutes are posted on the
City’s website at www.mapleridge.ca
Note: Councillor Morden was not in attendance at the start of the meeting
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as circulated.
2.MINUTES
R/2014-430
Minutes It was moved and seconded
September 15, 2014
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of
September 15, 2014 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
2.0
Council Workshop Minutes
October 6, 2014
Page 2 of 3
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Employment Land Investment Incentive Program
Staff report dated October 6, 2014 recommending that bylaws and
regulations to initiate the Employment Land Investment Incentive Program be
referred to the October 14, 2014 Council Meeting for first, second and third
readings and that bylaws and regulations to extend the Town Centre
Investment Incentive Program to referred to the October 14, 2014 Council
meeting for first, second and third readings.
Note: Councillor Morden joined the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
The Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning gave a PowerPoint
presentation providing details on the proposed Employment Land Investment
Incentive Program. She outlined the background of the program, advised on
the key principles and clarified which uses will be considered ineligible. She
also advised on the timeline for the project.
Note: The meeting was recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 2:28 p.m.
Note: Councillor Ashlie and Councillor Morden were not in attendance at the start of
meeting. Councillor Ashlie joined the meeting at 2:30 p.m. Councillor Morden
joined the meeting at 2:37 p.m.
Discussion on the Employment Land Investment Incentive Program continued
when the meeting was reconvened.
R/2014-431
Employment Land
Investment It was moved and seconded
Incentive Program
1. That the enabling bylaws and regulations to initiate the
Employment Land Investment Incentive Program as
described in the October 6, 2014 report “Employment
Land Investment Incentive Program” be brought forward
to the October 14, 2014 Council meeting for consideration
of first, second and third readings.
Council Workshop Minutes
October 6, 2014
Page 3 of 3
2. That the enabling bylaws and regulations to extend the
Town Centre Investment Incentive Program be brought
forward to the October 14, 2014 Council meeting for
consideration of first, second and third readings.
CARRIED
Councillor Bell - OPPOSED
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 British Columbia Achievement Foundation Nominations
Letter dated September 2, 2014 from Christy Clark, Premier, Province of
British Columbia, Board Member, British Columbia Achievement Foundation
inviting nominations for the British Columbia Community Achievement Awards.
R/2014-432
BC Achievement
Foundation It was moved and seconded
Awards
That the letter dated September 2, 2014 inviting nominations
for the British Columbia Community Achievement Awards be
received for information.
CARRIED
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8. ADJOURNMENT – 2:57 p.m.
_______________________________
E. Daykin, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Industry Canada Presentation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Industry Canada is the Federal agency responsible for licencing radio installations, whether they be
cellular towers or radio antenna systems. Mr. Michael Krenz, Director Coastal Offices, Spectrum
Management Operations Branch, of Industry Canada has agreed to present to Council on the context
of managing cellular and radio tower installations, and how the regulatory environment is changing.
Staff believe it would be helpful to have a review from the regulatory body of the legislative context,
and may assist in defining where and how far the City can go in truly ‘regulating’ such installations.
RECOMMENDATION: For information only,
DISCUSSION:
Industry Canada is the Federal regulatory authority for radio installations. During the review of a
radio installation, Industry Canada requires the proponent to consider the views of local government
and the neighbourhood. To consider community views on installations, Industry Canada has a
‘default’ consultation process that a proponent can follow, and this has been used in the past at the
City.
In 2012, Council wanted to develop a more detailed consultation process and adopted our own
protocol in November. Although our protocol provides more direction on what is of importance to
Maple Ridge, there are still some limitations on issues that the Federal authority considers valid.
However, staff have not had an opportunity to utilize our protocol fully, and are awaiting further
legislative changes before reconsidering alterations.
However, some members of Council have expressed interest in a more formal control regime over all
tower and antenna installations than contemplated earlier.
Questions that have been raised in Council discussions:
- What towers are exempt from public consultation or siting review?
- What public concerns are limited in terms of their consideration by Industry Canada?
- Are there limitations on what a local government can consider when it comes to
reviewing and supporting, or not, an installation?
- Are tower installations built to a building code? And how are inspections carried out?
1 4.1
- What is Industry Canada’s expectations of us?
The presentation, and subsequent question and answer session, should answer these questions.
Our protocol will be updated and brought back for Council’s consideration as required.
“Original signed by J. Bastaja”______________________
Prepared by: J. Bastaja, Director Corporate Support
“Original signed by P. Gill”__________________________
Approved by: P. Gill, General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”____________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
2
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Advisory Committee Task Force MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Recommendations Re Council Advisory Committees
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the April 7, 2014 Council Workshop an Advisory Committee Task Force consisting of the Mayor,
Councillor Dueck and Councillor Hogarth was formed to review the Advisory Committees of Council
and to make recommendations to Council on each Committee. The Task Force met with the staff
liaisons of each of the eight committees under review and developed recommendations for the
Committees. The Task Force met 7 times since that April 7 meeting and are presenting
recommendations to Council for consideration. Recommendations are being made to bring
consistency to the bylaws of the committees, to make adjustments to the individual bylaws of the
Heritage Commission and the Social Planning Advisory Committee, to repeal the Bicycle Advisory
Committee bylaw, and to establish two new committees, the Integrated Transportation Advisory
Committee and the Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to prepare the necessary bylaws to enact the recommendations of the Advisory
Committee Task Force as detailed in the staff report dated October 20, 2014.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Following the formation of the Advisory Committee Task Force (“the Task Force”) at the April 7, 2014
Council Workshop, the Task Force reviewed background information on each of the committees and
met with the staff liaisons.
As directed by Council, the following committees were reviewed:
•Agricultural Advisory Committee
•Community Heritage Commission
•Cycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (proposed new committee)
•Economic Advisory Commission
•Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues
•Social Planning Advisory Committee
•Public Art Steering Committee
•Environmental Advisory Committee (proposed new committee)
4.2
The following committees were not reviewed:
•Parks & Leisure Services Commission (subject of a separate review of Joint Parks & Leisure
Services)
•Advisory Design Panel (legislated by Local Government Act)
•Audit & Finance Committee (this committee functions in a different manner, allowing Council
members a focused conversation with the external auditor)
•Liaison appointments to community organizations
Listed below are the changes suggested:
1.Amend all bylaws to:
a.include 1 council liaison for committees with 6 voting members or less (not counting
council liaison) or two council liaisons for committees with 7 voting members or more
(not counting council liaisons)
b.remove council liaison alternates
c.require the committees to meet at least quarterly
d.ensure appointments are staggered in a manner that ensures continuity in
membership and remove date specific terms
e. remove any language that is replicated from provincial legislation or city policy.
2.Provide a budget of a minimum of $10,000 annually to all Advisory Committees with the
exception of the Economic Advisory Committee which will remain at
$1,000. Currently no budget is provided to the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility
Issues.
3.Repeal the Bicycle Advisory Committee bylaw and replace that committee with an Integrated
Transportation Advisory Committee.
4.Amend the Community Heritage Commission bylaw to remove references to the Parks
Commission.
5. Create a new committee called the Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee.
6.Amend the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility issues to include in the mandate
“create a more inclusive city”.
7.Amend the membership of the Social Planning Advisory Committee to a) remove a member
from Community Living BC, a member from School District No. 42 senior staff, and a member
from a public post secondary institution and b) to replace “A member from the Ministry of
Child and Family Development” and “A member from Ministry of Housing and Development”
with “Two members from provincial government social service ministries”.
Attached as Appendix I is a spreadsheet listing each Committee and providing information on the
structure of the committee and any changes proposed. Attached as Appendix II are information
sheets on each of the eight Advisory Committees.
b)Business Plan/Financial Implications:
There will be financial implications from recommendations 2 and 5. $10,000 will need to be added
to the budget annually for the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues. Budget dollars
will also have to be included for the new Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee to cover
their $10,000 annual budget. As well, the hours of the Committee Clerk would have to be extended
to enable clerical support of the Committee. A staff liaison would also be assigned to the Committee
which will incur extra costs for that support as well. Further information is included in the
information sheets within Appendix II.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Advisory Committee Task Force has completed its review of the eight committees identified by
Council and is now seeking input from the balance of Council on the recommendations outlined in
this report.
“Original signed by Mayor Ernie Daykin”
Mayor Ernie Daykin
Chair, Advisory Committee Task Force
“Original signed by Councillor Judy Dueck”
Councillor Judy Dueck
Member, Advisory Committee Task Force
“Original signed by Councillor Al Hogarth”
Councillor Al Hogarth
Member, Advisory Committee Task Force
:cm
APPENDIX I
Committee # of Mtgs / Year Budget Membership Mandate Recommended By-law Changes
Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC)9 No change
$10,000
No change No change Global changes (listed below)
Bicycling Advisory Committee (BAC)
Community Heritage Commission
(CHC)
10 No change
$10,000
No change No change Remove any reference to Parks Commisison
Global changes
Economic Advisory Commission (EAC)10 or11 No change
$1,000
No change No change Global changes
Environmental Sustainability
Advisory Committee (ESAC)
Minimum of four $10,000 Proposed Details in
Appendix II
Details in
Appendix II
New Bylaw to be created, details in Appendix II
Integrated Transportation Advisory
Committee (ITAC)
Minimum of four $10,000 Proposed Details in
Appendix II
Details in
Appendix II
New Bylaw to be created, details in Appendix II
Municipal Advisory Committee on
Accessibility Issues (MACAI)
9 $10,000 Proposed
(See Info Sheet for
more details).
No change Addition of "create a more inclusive City"
recommended. (As shown on Info Sheet).
Global changes
Public Art Steering Committee (PASC)11 No change
$70,000
No change No change Global changes
Social Planning Advisory Committee
(SPAC)
11 No change
$10,000
Recommend the
removal of members
from: Community
Living BC, a public
post-secondary
institution and senior
School District 42
staff .
No change Under Membership it is recommended that "A member
from the Ministry of Child and Family Development" and
"A member from the Ministry of Housing and
Development" be replaced with "Two members from
provincial government social service ministries"
Global changes
Global Changes to Bylaws
It is recommended that all committee bylaws be modified to adhere to the following standards:
Eliminate council liaison alternates
1 council liaison for a committee with 6 members or less (not counting council liaison)
2 council liaisons for a committee with 7 members or more (not counting council liaisions)
Comittees meet at least quarterly
Term appointment start dates are staggered
Removal of specific terms start and end dates (ie "for a term beginning Jan 1, 2009)
Removal of maximum number of terms that can be served / number required for quorum / mention of conflict of interest. (These items are already specified in either policy, legislation or Robert's Rules of Order)
This committee will cease and be replaced by the Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
APPENDIX II
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Bylaw No: 6471-2007
Year Committee Was Formed: 2007
Annual Budget: $10,000
Number of Meetings Per Year:
Minimum quarterly
Nine (no meeting in July, August or December)
Meeting Date, Time and Location: Fourth Thursday of the month at 7:00 pm in the Blaney Room
Mandate:
The Committee is appointed for the purpose of advising the Council on agricultural matters and
undertaking and providing support for such activities as benefit and provide for the advancement of
agricultural activities in the City.
About the Committee:
The Agricultural Advisory Committee works in collaboration with related agencies and organizations
involved in the promotion of agriculture, the protection of farmland and the recognition of the need
for food security.
Membership:
The Agricultural Advisory Committee is comprised of the following individuals/organizations.
Voting Members:
• Two members from Council;
• One member nominated by the Haney Farmer’s Market;
• One member nominated by the Agricultural Fair Board;
• Five members actively involved in the agricultural sector appointed by Council;
• A maximum of four members-at-large appointed by Council with priority given to those who
reside in Maple Ridge and are knowledgeable about agriculture;
• One member nominated from the Maple Ridge Economic Advisory Commission.
Non-Voting Members:
• One member from the Agricultural Land Commission who shall serve as a liaison and attend
when available to do so;
• One member from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries who shall serve as a liaison
and attend when available to do so.
Term dates will be staggered
Highlights / Accomplishments:
• Work on the Agricultural Plan
• Promoting local agriculture
Staff Time Involvement:
• Committee Clerk; average of 12 hours per month.
• Staff Liaison; average of 22.5 hours per month, based on 9 meetings per year.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Community Heritage Commission
Community Heritage Commission
Bylaw No: 5908-2000
Annual Budget: $10,000
Year Commission Was Formed: 2000
Number of Meetings Per Year:
Minimum quarterly
Ten, there is no meeting in July or August
Meeting Date, Time and Location:
First Tuesday of each month at 7:00 pm in the Blaney Room
Mandate:
The Commission is appointed for the purposed of advising the Council on heritage conservation
matters and undertaking and providing support for such activities as benefit and provide for the
advancement of heritage conservation in the City.
Membership:
The Commission is comprised of the following membership.
Voting Members:
• One member from Council with a second Council liaison appointed when Commission
members (excluding Council liaisons) number seven or more;
• Two members from among the persons nominated by the Maple Ridge Historical Society;
• Four members from the community-at-large appointed by Mayor and Council;
• As many other members from persons selected by Council, nominated by citizens or
organizations as Council may choose to appoint with priority given to one youth member.
Non Voting Members:
● One member from among the persons nominated by the Parks and Recreation Leisure
Services Citizens Advisory Committee whom shall serve as a liaison and attend when
available to do so.
Term dates will be staggered. Any reference to the Parks Commission will be removed from the
bylaw.
Highlights/Accomplishments:
• Heritage Awards
• Heritage Plan
• Quarterly newsletter
• Updating Maple Ridge Community Heritage Register
• Conservation and feasibility plan for St. Andrew’s Church
Staff Time Involvement:
• Committee Clerk; average of 12 hours per month.
• Staff Liaison; average of 15 hours per month, based on 10 meetings per year.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Economic Advisory Commission
Economic Advisory Commission
Bylaw No:
6179-2003
Annual Budget:
$1,000
Year Commission Was Formed:
2003
Number of Meetings Per Year:
Minimum quarterly
Ten or eleven, with no meeting in August, and December at the call of the Chair
Meeting Date, Time and Location:
Third Thursday of each month at 7:30 am in the North Fraser Innovation Accelerator: Suite 300-
22470 Dewdney Trunk Road.
Mandate:
The Economic Advisory Commission is an advisory body to Council on matters relating to the
economic well-being of Maple Ridge and may make recommendations to Council relating to the
economic development of the City.
Commission’s Mission:
The Maple Ridge Economic Advisory Commission is a diverse group of stakeholders advising on
economic growth and representing the community in all aspects of economic and community
development. It is an experienced and interested group of volunteers, passionate about the future of
Maple Ridge and intent of serving as a beacon for local government and the community.
The Commission does not directly create new economic activity or jobs, but does provide advice to
the Maple Ridge Economic Development Department and city Council, with a view to influencing the
local business climate, facilitating economic growth and providing guidance to the community on
economic development issues. It does this by planning in a strategic manner to achieve the goals
related to economic growth and sustainability.
Membership:
The Economic Advisory Commission is comprised of twelve Commissioners. The Commissioners are
appointed by Council and are people who reside or work in Maple Ridge, with an interest in various
business, educational and industrial sectors in Maple Ridge.
Specific start and end dates for terms will be removed from the bylaw. Term dates will be staggered.
Highlights/Accomplishments:
• Attracting high value employment to Maple Ridge.
• Priority focus sectors include advanced technology, tourism, education and business.
Staff Time Involvement:
• Staff liaison; average of 25 hours per month.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues
Bylaw No:
5845-1999
Year Committee Was Formed:
1999
Annual Budget:
$0 $10,000 proposed - $8,000 from Maple Ridge Council, with an anticipated $2,000 from Pitt
Meadows Council
Number of Meetings Per Year:
Minimum quarterly
Nine, with no meetings in July, August or December
Meeting Date, Time and Location:
Third Thursday of each month at 5:00 pm in the Blaney Room
Mandate:
The purpose of the Committee is to create a more inclusive City and to advise, inform and educate
the Councils, municipal departments, community agencies and general public on accessibility and
disability issues.
About the Committee:
The Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues strives to remove the social, physical and
psychological barriers that prevent people from fully participating in all aspects of community life.
The Committee's focus is to create equal access in the areas of employment, education, housing,
transportation and recreation. Projects include sensitivity training for municipal staff and residents
creating a greater awareness regarding accessibility issues, public facility design consultations and
an annual award program.
Membership:
The Committee is comprised of fifteen members.
• One Councillor from the City of Maple Ridge;
• One Councillor from the City of Pitt Meadows;
• School Board of School District No 42;
• Ministry of Child and Family Development;
• Ministry of Human Resources represented by a community service provider;
• Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living;
• Fraser Health Authority;
• Six members-at-large who are residents of Maple Ridge, or employed in Maple Ridge or are
eligible to be on the Municipal voters list for the City;
• 2 members-at-large who are residents of Pitt Meadows, or employed in Pitt Meadows, or are
eligible to be on the Municipal voters list for the City.
Term start dates will be staggered.
Highlights/Accomplishments:
• Annual Accessibility Awards.
• Supported the Community Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion Events.
• Applied for and received funding through the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion Events for the
purchase of specialized accessible equipment.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues
• Supported the Age Friendly Communities Initiative.
• Applied for and received funding through the 2010 Legacy Now Measuring Up fund (funding
used to produce the Plan and Design for Choice – Universal Design Guidelines for Outdoor
Spaces and the insulation of accessible play equipment at Pitt Meadows Elementary School)
• Supported the 2009 Disability Games that were hosted in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
• Supported the 2010 Paralympic Torch Relay.
• Supported the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion 25 Anniversary event in both Maple Ridge and
Pitt Meadows.
• MACAI works closely with the Maple Ridge Engineering department identifying accessibility
concerns within the downtown core and surrounding areas.
• MACAI works Work closely with inter-municipal departments on accessibility and inclusion
initiatives.
Staff Time Involvement:
• Committee Clerk; average of 12 hours per month.
• Staff Liaison; average of 8.5 hours per month, based on 9 meetings per year.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Public Art Steering Committee
Bylaw No:
6659-2009
Annual Budget:
$70,000
Year Committee Was Formed:
2009
Number of Meetings Per Year:
Minimum quarterly
Eleven, with no meeting in August
Meeting Date, Time and Location:
Third Wednesday of the month at 3:00 pm in the Blaney Room
About the Committee:
The Maple Ridge Public Art Steering Committee, established by the Municipal Council, began
meeting in 2010. The purpose of the Committee is to:
• Recommend criteria for the commission of public art installations to Maple Ridge Council;
• Have authority for entering into agreements and contractual obligations within the limitations
of approved budgets for the commission of public art installations which meet the criteria
noted above;
• Have authority to spend money within an annual budget approved by the Maple Ridge
Council;
• Submit and annual report to Maple Ridge Council by the end of May each year describing the
activities of the previous year.
Membership:
The Committee shall be comprised of the following members.
• Two artists;
• An Arts Council staff member with the appropriate technical expertise to be appointed by the
Arts Council Board;
• One Landscape Architect, Architect or Municipal Planner familiar with public art programs;
• One developer of residential or commercial properties who is active in the Municipality;
• One member of Municipal Council;
• One community member.
Specific term start and end dates will be removed from the bylaw.Term dates will be staggered.
Staff Time Involvement:
• Committee Clerk; average of 12 hours per month.
• Staff Liaison; average of 8 hours per month, based on 11 meetings per year.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Social Planning Advisory Committee
Social Planning Advisory Committee
Bylaw No:
5972-2001
Year Committee Formed:
2001
Annual Budget:
$10,000
Number of Meetings Per Year:
Minimum quarterly
Eleven with no meeting in August
Meeting Date, Time and Location:
First Wednesday of each month at 7:00 pm in the Blaney Room
Mandate:
The Committee has the mandate to enhance the social well-being of present and future residents of
our community by advising Council on policy and on matters relating to social planning and the social
needs, social well-being and social development of the community and by identifying and addressing
social issues of concern to community residents while initiating social planning projects to enhance
the community.
Membership:
The Committee is composed of 24 members who are appointed from the following organizations:
For a one year term:
• Council may appoint two Councillors, as well as an alternative;Two members from Council;
• School District No. 42 will appoint a School Board trustee
• Fraser Health will appoint a senior staff member with expertise in public health, mental
health, continuing care and/or drug alcohol services;
For a two year term:
• A member from a public post-secondary institution;
• A member from the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Katzie Community Network;
• A member from the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Katzie Seniors Network;
• A member from the Ridge-Meadows RCMP;
• A member from the Ministry of Child and Family Development;
• A member from the Ministry of Social Housing and Development – Income Assistance
Branch;
• Two members from provincial government social service ministries
• A member from Community Living BC;
• A member from School District No 42 senior staff;
• A member from a community group for adults with development disabilities;
• A member from a community group for seniors;
• A member from an economically focused organization;
• A member from an organization that focuses on aboriginal services;
• A member from an organization that focuses on the multi-cultural community;
• A member from an organization that focuses on poverty alleviation services;
• Five community-at-large residents from the City;
• One resident from youth-adult population 19-25 years.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Social Planning Advisory Committee
Highlights/Accomplishments:
• Update community profile and development of Social Planning Strategic Plan
• Housing Action Plan
• Supporting community initiatives to obtain sustainable funding, ie Alouette Home Start
Society’s Youth Safe House and Community Outreach.
Staff Time Involvement:
• Committee Clerk; average of 12 hours per month.
• Staff Liaison; average of 50 hours per month, based on 11 meetings per year. These
numbers reflect only one staff liaison’s time for this committee.
• Parks & Leisure administration support; average of 10 hours per month.
• Social Planning administration support; average of 21 hours per month.
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee
*** NEW ***
Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee (“ITAC”)
Bylaw No: #
Year Committee Was Formed: 2015
Annual Budget: $10,000
Number of Meetings Per Year: Four – meet quarterly
Meeting Date, Time and Location: 3rd Monday of the month, 7:00-9:00 pm (Blaney)
Mandate:
The Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee is appointed for the purpose of advising Council
on strategic priorities, planning, policies and mobility issues relating to transportation in Maple
Ridge, using the Transportation Plan as a guide. The Committee shall work towards creating,
promoting, and improving an efficient, affordable, and safe transportation network that supports a
variety of transportation choices.
About the Committee:
The Integrated Transportation Advisory Committee will:
• Promote public education and awareness on the benefits, necessities and safety aspects of
active transportation.
• Advise on matters related to active transportation as it relates to; active workplace travel,
active commuting, active recreation, and active destination-oriented trips.
• Promote and enhance an improved pedestrian and multi-modal path networks for all ages
and ranges of mobility throughout their daily activities within the community and with its
connectedness to neighbouring communities.
• Encourage regulations and policy changes that support and strengthen multi-modal active
transportation and transit.
• Review and consider transportation policy in a regional context as it affects Maple Ridge, and
provide options on how to advance, promote, and improve the moment of people and goods
within the region.
• Review and make recommendations to Council with regards to active transportation
initiatives proposed by other levels of government and/or agencies.
Membership:
Members will be selected based on their demonstrated interest and participation in community and
transportation matters, availability, work experience and knowledge or professional expertise.
Voting Members:
• Two members from Council;
• One member from Chamber of Commerce
• Three members-at-large
• One member-at-large with a cycling interest
• One member representing the seniors’ community
• One youth representative (youth defined as “enrolled in, or less than two years since
graduation from post-secondary”
• Ridge Meadows RCMP
Staff Involvement:
• Staff Liaison from Engineering
• Committee Clerk
Advisory Committees of Council Information Sheets
Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee
*** NEW ***
Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee
(ESAC)
Bylaw No: #
Year Committee Was Formed: 2015
Annual Budget: $10,000
Number of Meetings Per Year: Four – meet quarterly
Meeting Date, Time and Location Suggestion: 2nd Wednesday of the month, 7:00-9:00 pm (Blaney)
Mandate:
The Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee is appointed for the purpose of advising
Council on the protection, enhancement, conservation and appreciation of our community through
planned environmental sustainability which will provide a healthy community for present and future
generations.
About the Committee:
The Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee will use the Environmental Management
Strategy to guide, advise and make policy recommendations including:
•Conserving and enhancing Maple Ridge’s natural landscape.
•Promote public education and awareness of environmental issues.
•Advocating responsible environmental practices and promoting sustainable policies.
•Review and make recommendations to Council with regards to environmental initiatives
proposed by other levels of government and/or agencies
•Measures to address climate change.
Membership:
Members will be selected based on their demonstrated interest and participation in community and
environmental matters, availability, work experience and knowledge or professional expertise.
Voting Members:
•Two members from Council;
•One qualified environmental professional
•One member from ARMS (Alouette River Management Society)
•One member from KEEPS (Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society)
•One member from Chamber of Commerce
•One member from the Urban Development Institute
•Four members-at-large with an environmental interest
Staff Involvement:
•Staff Liaison from Planning
•Committee Clerk
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Development Services Resources
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Since the mid 1990’s the City of Maple Ridge has been consistently recognized as a leader in
Business Planning. These award winning Business and Financial Plans have consistently strived to
balance needs with cost containment. Most recently through tougher economic times Council has
strived to reduce tax increases while at the same time maintaining levels of service. Requests for
additional staff resources have been tempered by the reality of the potential property tax
implications. In response to Council’s direction, incremental packages have been limited. At the
same time, the City has pursued an “Open for Business” perspective that stresses the necessity of
keeping the costs of development low as well as providing incentives to attract development
investment. These incentives include reduced building permit fees, reduced application fees,
development cost charge rebates and tax exemptions.
The National Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) is one of North America's largest real
estate organizations. Each year NAIOP surveys local municipalities for development application fees
and process timing. The 2013 NAIOP survey shows that Maple Ridge has some of the lowest fees
when the subdivision, rezoning, development permit and building permit fees are combined. The
survey suggests that Maple Ridge fees are 22% below the average. In fact, Maple Ridge was recently
recognized with an award from NAIOP for its low development fees.
The Town Centre Investment Incentive Program was introduced in 2011. It was anticipated based on
the economic times that 6 to 10 applications would be deemed a success. The actual number of
permits reviewed and approved was 80. The impact on levels of service took time to manifest,
however after about 18 months of the program it became clear that the sheer volume of applications
and the commitment to priority processing was having an impact on levels of service.
At the same time that the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program was in full bloom, the Real
Estate Investors’ Network (REIN) published its findings that concluded that Maple Ridge is the No. 5
top investment city in all of Canada and second only to Surrey in British Columbia. As a result
development interest in Maple Ridge increased dramatically further stressing the City’s resources.
Due to the interest in Maple Ridge the number of predevelopment inquires over the past few years
has been unprecedented. These types of inquiries consume huge amounts of staff time and yet
require no fees.
In response to the increased development, the City adjusted a number of processes and undertook
an organization wide Customer Service Initiative. All of these efficiency and effectiveness measures
continue to have a positive impact.
1 4.3
In the spring of 2014 Council asked that a report be provided on the needs of the development
staffing area in light of the fact that development interest in Maple Ridge is predicted to remain very
strong. The work matrix adopted by Council included a report on Development Services Resources.
The timing of the report was to follow Council’s decisions on a number of work items with potentially
significant impacts on staffing resources in the development processing area. These include the
Commercial Industrial Plan, the Employment Incentive Program, the Albion Flats Area Plan and to a
lesser extent the Transportation Plan.
The processing of development applications is primarily carried out through the Planning,
Engineering and Building Departments. Many of the staff involved in the processing of applications
also carry out work with no associated application fee. As such, staff in these departments is funded
through a number of funding sources including Development Application fees, Building Permit fees,
General Taxation, Water Utility Funds and Sewer Utility Funds.
This report is focused on examining how the level of service expected by the development
community can be met. Based on the Council direction to keep tax increases low and the costs to
the development community low the report proposes a financing methodology that will in the short
term (two years) have no requirement for adjustments to the approved tax levels and no increases to
the current application fee structure. This is achieved through a proposed combination of permanent
and interim funding. This model is not sustainable beyond two years. A permanent solution beyond
two years will have implications to taxes and/or development application fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That staff be directed to implement the addition of 4 new positions in Development Processing as
detailed in the staff report dated October 20, 2014; and further
That the funding source for the four positions be as outlined in Table 3 of the staff report dated
October 20, 2014.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
As part of the approved Council Matrix, Council has requested a report on the resources
required to meet the expected levels of service to the building and development community.
Since the mid 1990’s the City of Maple Ridge has been consistently recognized as a leader
in Business Planning. These award winning Business and Financial Plans have consistently
strived to balance needs against cost containment. Most recently through tougher economic
times Council has strived to reduce tax increases while at the same time maintaining levels
of service. It is within this context that incremental packages including requests for
additional staff resources have been kept to a minimum.
During this time the City has pursued an “Open for Business” perspective that stresses the
necessity of keeping the costs of development low as well as providing incentives to attract
development such as reduced fees and priority processing. In a recent NAIOP survey the City
was recognized for its low development fee costs.
2
Town Centre Investment Incentive Program
The Town Centre Investment Incentive Program was introduced in 2011. It was anticipated
based on the economic times that 6 to 10 applications would be deemed a success. The
actual number of permits reviewed and approved was 80. The impact on levels of service
took time to manifest, however after about 18 months of the program it became clear that
the sheer volume of applications and the commitment to priority processing was having an
impact on levels of service.
Real Estate Investors Network (REIN)
REIN has consistently cited Maple Ridge as a top 5 investment location in Canada and
second only to Surrey in British Columbia. The openings of the Golden Ears Bridge and the
new Pitt River Bridge have provided unprecedented access to this part of the region. It is
suggested that interest in development in Maple Ridge is at the highest it has been in
decades. While this interest has translated into multiple applications, it has also significantly
increased the number of pre-application inquiries, general inquiries and meetings. Not all of
these pre-application inquiries translate into applications however the staff time involved in
responding to potential applicant requests is significant. Nearly all of this work is not
recoverable from application fees. The amount of staff time involved in this development
related work with no associated fees cannot be overstated.
NAIOP
NAIOP is one of North America's largest real estate organizations. Each year NAIOP surveys
local municipalities for development application fees and process timing. While primarily
focused on commercial and industrial developments the findings are also indicative of the
residential process. The 2013 NAIOP survey shows that Maple Ridge has the some of lowest
fees when the subdivision, rezoning, development permit and building permit fees are
combined. The survey suggests that Maple Ridge fees are 22% below the average. Recently
Maple Ridge was recognized with an award from NAIOP for its low development application
fees. The NAIOP surveys are discussed in more detail later in this report.
Efficiency and Effectiveness
The City’s Business Plan Process requires all avenues to be explored before additional
resources are considered. As an ongoing process, efficiency and effectiveness measures are
examined. To that end there have been process reviews, customer service initiatives,
overtime approvals and temporary staff hired to try and defer the need for hiring permanent
staff.
Process improvements initiated include:
• Detailed Comprehensive Application Check Lists
• Getting the Applicant to First Reading Faster
• Planner of the Day (Planner assigned each day to address front counter inquiries)
• Internal Application Review Committee (all staff involved in an application)
• Detailed Pre-application Meetings
• Elimination of Secondary Suite Permit Referrals to Planning Department
• Elimination of Referrals to Operation Department
3
• Reduced Number of Plan Check Iterations
• Master Plan Reviews for Building Permits
• Pre-application Reviews on Building Permits
While these have added value and improvements to the process the file load per staff
member has not diminished. The reality is that no amount of process reviews can address a
situation where the sheer volume of applications and inquiries exceeds the capacity to attain
a desired level of service.
Complexity of Developments
Almost all projects are multi faceted. There are very few “easy” sites left to develop in Maple
Ridge. More and more today’s applications have a significant level of complexity spanning
geotechnical, environmental, transportation, legal document reviews, bylaw formulation and
unique servicing concepts that require a level of assessment not often seen in the past. Infill
projects which are readily serviceable are particularly challenging as they tend to generate
neighbourhood concerns and require considerable time.
Dormant Files
Many assigned files remain open, however are dormant due to inactivity of the applicant.
When the files becomes active again the applicants often expect staff to pick up immediately
on where the file was left off as if no delay on the applicant's part occurred. Such projects
can impact active applications significantly. As well some applicants will cite the original
application date when referring to the length of time the file took to process, omitting the
dormant time due to inactivity on the part of the applicant.
Development Process
As stated above, before an application even gets submitted staff spend a significant amount
of time on general inquires and pre-application meetings. This time is not recovered through
fees. The time spent on these inquiries, while necessary, takes staff away from spending
time on processing applications that have paid fees.
Development related applications may include:
• Official Community Plan Amendments
• Rezoning
• Development Permits
• Development Variance Permits
• Subdivisions
• Commercial and Industrial Temporary Use Permits
• Building Permits
• Plumbing Permits
• Electrical Permits
• Retaining Wall Permits
• Fill Permits
• Highways Use Permits
• Water Service Connections
• Sewer Service Connections
• Design Panel Reviews
4
• Public Hearings
This work is largely carried out by the development section of Planning Department, the
subdivision section of the Engineering Department and the plan checking section of the
Building Department.
Work Load
The Planning Department has provided 450 development related reports to Council over the
past 3 years. This is on average about 90 reports per staff person over that period of time.
The number of files currently being processed in the Planning Department is 256. This
amounts to an average of 51 files per development staff person in the Planning Department.
The Building Department has issued 3,885 building related permits in the past 5 years. This
translates to an average of 777 per year or 15 permits per week every week for 5 years.
As part of the development process review initiated in 2010, predevelopment application
meetings are standard procedure. In addition, the Planning Department allocates a staff
member to the front counter each day to respond to front counter inquires. Planning staff
have been tracking their time over the past year. On average each Planning Technician is
occupied at the front counter 57 days per year. This corresponds to over a day per week that
each Planning Technician is not available to process applications. In actuality many of the
inquiries received at the front counter require additional work and a day per week is
conservative.
The Planner of the Day was introduced in response to the need for more effective front
counter service. Similarly, Plan Checkers and Engineering Technologists are on call to
respond to front counter inquiries. These front counter inquires most often have no
application fees associated with the service and result on average to 2 to 3 person days per
week.
Each department’s development related section has working managers. For example the
Manager of Development is also the Approving Officer and works directly on assessing
applications. The Manager of Inspection Services reviews more complex building applications
and also undertakes inspections when understaffed due to illness or vacation.
There are no contingencies built into the system. What this means is that if a staff person
takes vacation or is sick there is no backfill. The use of overtime is also a “catch 22”
situation. The additional work will, over time, take its toll on the staff person. In addition the
time banked for overtime, when taken, means that person is now away.
The current development staff contingent is as follows:
Planning
• 1 Planner
• 4 Planning Technicians
Engineering
• 2 Engineering Subdivision Technologists
Building Department
• 4 Plan Checkers
5
Municipal Comparisons
Comparisons with other municipalities while helpful are also challenging. Those challenges
include ensuring that the data provided is thorough and that the comparison is “apples to
apples”. No two municipalities are set up exactly the same.
One of the first comparisons is a determination of how busy a municipality actually is. A
growing municipality with lots of developable land will be busier than a municipality that is
closer to build-out for example, and/or has little available land to develop. There are a
number of determinants of how busy a municipality is. One determinant is population growth.
Chart 1 below shows the Metro Municipalities projected population percentage increases to
2041. In looking at this chart Maple Ridge’s reality is most similar to the Township of
Langley, Coquitlam and Surrey. Comparisons with these municipalities makes sense. While
staffing levels comparisons are worthwhile the sheer volume of active files is probably most
indicative of how busy a municipality is. For example it makes little sense to compare Maple
Ridge with Pitt Meadows. In total Pitt Meadows has 27 active files compared to 256 in Maple
Ridge.
Chart 1 – Projected Population Growth
6
The following Table 1 provides a comparison for development processing staff based on
information received from the Cities of Surrey, Coquitlam and the Township of Langley.
Table 1 – Number of Development Staff and Files by Municipality
Department Surrey Coquitlam Township Of Langley Maple Ridge
Planning Development Staff 19 8 7 5
Engineering Subdivision Staff 7 10* 4 2
Building Plan Checkers 15 11 6** 4
No. of Active Planning Files 639 180 73 256
Files per Planning Staff 34 23 11 51
*some technologists also have other duties.
**some plan checkers also do building inspections.
Table 1 shows that Maple Ridge are below the staffing levels of the three other high growth
municipalities. It also shows that the file load per staff is higher in Maple Ridge than the
other three. Interestingly the Township of Langley in the most recent NAIOP survey showed
the least processing time of the four municipalities which is perhaps indicative of their lower
file per staff ratio.
It should be noted that the Building Department has been operating with 3 Plan Checkers for
most of 2014. This is a result of an illness. To try and address this, a temporary position was
posted (twice) through the course of the year. There were no successful applicants for this
temporary posting. It is anticipated that this position will be posted on a permanent basis in
the coming months.
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS – Performance Measures
It is acknowledged that “time is money” to the development community. In an ideal world the
development process would have municipalities staffed to provide almost instantaneous
responses. Due to funding constraints most municipalities are not staffed to drop files they
are working on to provide instantaneous responses to every applicant as well as the general
public. Instead, municipalities strive to set a level of service based on the quantity of
applications and the available resources; the available resources being dependent on the
corresponding available funding. Levels of service are of course dependent on the efficiency
and effectiveness of the process, the level of staff experience and how that process is
resourced. The efficiency measures implemented by Maple Ridge have been discussed
above.
The annual NAIOP survey requests that each municipality provide its timing in relation to the
processing of rezoning, subdivision and building permit applications. Table 2 shows the
survey information requested annually by NAIOP.
7
Table 2 – NAIOP Timing Survey
Process Timing
Rezoning Less than
30 days
30 to 90
days
90 to 120
days
120 to 150
days
150 to 180
days
Over 180
days
Subdivision Less than
30 days
30 to 90
days
90 to 120
days
120 to 150
days
150 to 180
days
Over 180
days
Building
permit
Less than
30 days
30 to 90
days
90 to 120
days
120 to 150
days
150 to 180
days
Over 180
days
In completing this survey Maple Ridge staff believes that it is our duty and obligation to
complete the survey based on reality. Some municipalities have previously reported
completing the rezoning process in less than 30 days. This appears to be legislatively
impossible unless the municipality forgoes the Public Hearing process review, combines
Bylaw readings, and does so on every application.
Based on our actual experience with files, the number of files and the resources available
our response over the past few surveys has been relatively consistent.
Rezoning 90 to 150 days
Subdivision 90 to 120 days
Building Permit 30 to 90 days
Depending on the application these processes can run concurrently. There are of course
applications that fall on either side of these ranges. For example, many building permits are
issued in less than 30 days. There are rezoning applications that take longer than 150 days.
It’s important to note that the process timing is also heavily reliant on the applicant. For
example the length of time an applicant takes to fulfill the conditions for final reading will
impact the completion time.
To provide a consistent level of service that will allow Maple Ridge to consistently fall in the
lower ranges of these surveys, the addition of the following staff positions to the
development review process is recommended:
• 2 Planners
• 1 Planning Technician
• 1 Plan Checker
• 1 Subdivision Technologist (Engineering)
Every year at Business Planning Council is informed that when positions become vacant due
to retirement or resignations those positions are assessed for optimum utilization. There
have been a number of retirements in the Engineering Department as well as the
unfortunate passing of one of the staff. As a result, the Subdivision Technologist
(Engineering) position is already accounted for in the approved budget, as this is an existing
position that is being re-classed following an assessment of vacant positions due to
retirements. Therefore of the positions above only 4 are additional.
8
Employment Lands Investment Incentive Program
Council recently adopted in principle a new incentive program to attract employment, and an
extension to an existing incentive program. Part of the discussion included the issue of
priority or expedited processing.
The Town Centre Investment Incentive Program was an outstanding success. It has been
cited across the Region as one of the best incentive programs ever implemented.
While priority processing was well received by applicants participating in the Town Centre
Investment Incentive Program, concerns were raised by applicants outside of the Town
Centre. Those concerns were primarily centered on a consistent level of service being
provided to all applicants. One of the issues raised was the fact that those applicants taking
advantage of the incentive program were having their application fees reduced while at the
same time receiving priority processing. Those applicants outside of the Town Centre had no
fee reduction and yet were being placed behind Town Centre applicants in the processing
queue.
The anticipated uptake on the Employment Lands Investment Incentive Program is not
anticipated to be as dramatic as the Town Centre Program because it is non-residential in
nature. However its uptake will be unknown until implemented. In the absence of additional
resources, there will be impacts on the timing for non-priority files.
Should Council wish to implement priority processing or an expedited process for both
programs, it could be achieved under the recommended staffing levels above without
significantly impacting applications outside of the program. However the hiring of staff is not
an immediate process and experience has shown that it can take months to fill positions with
appropriately qualified and experienced staff. It is therefore advised that additional staffing
levels be in place or in the process of being in place prior to priority processing or an
expedited process being implemented.
It has been suggested that applicants would pay more to have their applications processed
faster or to jump the queue. This is counter-intuitive to the incentive program which seeks to
reduce fees. In addition it sets up a two tiered system with an inconsistent level of service
being provided to different applicants, and would likely result in the development community
applications being processed faster than those made by an individual property owner. Also,
in speaking to experienced developers they have said that most developers would likely end
up paying the additional fees which would result in no benefit. If the development community
is willing to pay more as stated then a review of the application fees across the board is more
appropriate. This is discussed later in this report.
In contrast to a two-tiered system which allows the development community to set priorities,
expedited or priority processing allows Council to set the pace, fast-tracking projects that
most closely align with Council’s goals and objectives.
Position Qualifications Requirements
The staffing qualifications are necessarily significant. These qualifications are set through job
description analysis by Metro Vancouver. It is a requirement of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement with CUPE that job classifications are set via this third party. Changes to job
qualifications can not be made without CUPE’s agreement. Developments often result in
9
investments of millions of dollars by applicants. Applicants need to be assured that their
applications are being assessed and reviewed by appropriately qualified people. The City is
also open to liability for wrongly assessed applications.
The education and experience requirements for the various positions within the development
process include:
Planner - Master's Degree in Planning with some professional experience
in urban or regional planning. Considerable academic and
practical knowledge of principles, practices, and objectives of
urban and regional planning. Membership or eligibility for
membership in the Canadian Institute of Planners.
Planning Technician - A University Degree in a planning related discipline such as
Environmental Studies or Urban Geography. Fundamental
knowledge of planning practices, plus related office experience.
Plan Checker - Graduation with a Diploma from an Institute of Technology in
Building Technology, plus sound related experience in the
building construction industry or Municipal field, preferably Level
II Certification of the Building Officials Association of BC.
Subdivision Technologist - Graduate with a Diploma from an Institute of Technology in Civil
Engineering Technology and eligible for certification as an
Applied Science Technologist in the Province of British Columbia
plus related experience in a municipal engineering office or
equivalent.
There have been cases where a staff member has moved from one department to another.
In these cases they have had the necessary qualifications. In most cases the qualifications
are not transferable. For example a qualified accountant would not be qualified to move to a
planning position or vice versa.
The City has used and continues to use students where appropriate for short term
periods. By the very nature of their circumstances students need to get back to their
studies. The City does not maintain a unilateral right to deploy students as in the majority of
cases, the work being performed by students is typically bargaining unit work (i.e. work that is
performed by CUPE employees). Students can be used for research and finite projects
however are not at all suitable for application processing. Applicants for developments have
always informed the City that they prefer to have one file manager throughout the application
process. The short term nature of student deployment does not provide this
consistency. Most often their level of experience is limited, minimizing their utilization for
tasks required to be performed. Moreover, students require greater guidance and
supervision which results in a greater resource draw on existing supervisory/management
personnel.
Transferring or secondment of staff on an assignment basis from municipality to municipality
is not an accepted practice within the sector. Various collective agreements with different
provisions on items such as seniority accumulation, leave provisions, and different pay and
benefit structures would pose significant hurdles that must be overcome before this can be
considered a feasible option. Even if this could be achieved, the receiving municipality would
be responsible for the employee’s salary and benefit costs.
10
The creation of a position does not mean that it will be filled immediately. Until recently the
Engineering Department had extreme difficulties in trying to fill vacant positions. In addition
the Planning Department over the years has been subject to significant turnover as more
attractive higher paying positions in other municipalities became available. Temporary
positions are the most difficult to fill. Whereas in the past retirees were attracted to returning
to the workforce on a contract basis that is no longer the case. As stated earlier the Building
Department posted a Temporary Plan Checker position twice this year with no success.
b) Financial Implications
Based on Council’s direction to keep taxes low and application fees low the approved
budgets do not have the capacity to achieve the recommended staffing levels. Should
Council wish to move forward with the recommended staffing levels then a budget
amendment would be required. An interim temporary short term solution could be
implemented graduating into a permanent solution. A permanent stable solution will
ultimately require a combination of general revenue funding, utility revenue funding and
application fee adjustments.
The recommendation for the short term is to utilize funding from reserves combined with
funding already approved in the current budget. The following Table 3 provides a funding
strategy that would see the staffing levels accommodated in the short term through funding
already approved supplemented by temporary funding from reserves, Beyond the first two
years the strategy recognizes that permanent funding from general revenue, utility revenue
and applicant fees will be required.
Table 3 – Financial Implementation Strategy
Financial Implementation Strategy
*all dollar figures in thousands
Funding Previously Approved 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Re-classed Existing Positions $108 $110 $112 $114 $118
Existing Growth Funding 93 93 93 93 93
Total 201 203 205 207 211
Additional Funding Required
Reserves $198 $198 $0 $0 $0
Application Fees 0 0 100 100 100
General Revenue 0 0 114 122 124
Water Utility 0 0 25 26 27
Sewer Utility 0 0 25 26 28
Total 198 198 264 274 279
11
The Financial Implementation Strategy accommodates the 4 additional positions over a two
year period with a Planner, a Planning Technician and a Plan Checker in the first year and an
additional planner in the second year.
Funding Previously Approved
As stated above the position in the Engineering Department is a re-classed position the
funding for which is already approved. In addition each year the approved budget also
provides a small funding amount to accommodate addressed growth. The proposed strategy
utilizes this approved funding.
Temporary Funding from Reserves
Council has had numerous presentations on the status of the City’s reserve accounts. One of
those accounts, the Building Inspection Reserve, includes reserves to be used to offset
shortfalls in permit revenue. It is proposed that these reserves be used over a two year
period to assist in temporarily funding the recommended staff.
Application Fees
The 2013 NAIOP survey shows that Maple Ridge has the some of lowest fees when the
subdivision, rezoning, development permit and building permit fees are combined. The 2013
survey suggests that Maple Ridge fees are close to 22% below the average.
The following Table 4 shows how much would have been collected on an annual basis over
the past 6 years using a range of percentage increases.
Table 4 – Development Application Fee Revenues
Rate Increase Additional Annual Revenue
5% $102,300
7.5% $153,500
10% $204,700
12.5% $255,800
15% $307,000
22% $450,000
In keeping with the previous direction of Council no application fee increase is proposed in
the first two years. However it is suggested that a review of the application fee structure be
undertaken given the service being expected by the development community. It is
reasonable that in providing additional staff to the development process that the
beneficiaries of the additional staff be required to contribute.
12
c) Alternatives:
There are a multitude of combinations of general revenue, utility revenue and application
fees that could be explored. Deciding on the most appropriate combination could be
completed through the next Business Planning cycles.
Council could also decide not to proceed with additional staff at this time.
CONCLUSIONS:
In the spring of 2014 Council asked that a report be provided on the needs of the development
staffing area in light of the fact that development interest in Maple Ridge is predicted to remain very
strong. The work Matrix adopted by Council included a report on Development Services Resources.
The timing of the report was to follow Council’s decisions on a number of work items with potentially
significant impacts on staffing resources in the development processing area.
This report examines how the level of service expected from the development community can be
met. Recognizing the direction to keep tax increases low and the costs to the development
community low the report proposes a financing methodology that will in the short term (two years)
have no requirement for adjustments to the approved tax levels and no increases to the current
application fee structure. However this strategy recognizes that beyond two years a permanent
solution is required consisting of a combination of general revenue, utility revenue and additional
application fees.
Staff therefore recommends the addition of 4 new positions in Development Processing as detailed
in this report, with the funding source for these 4 positions as noted in Table 3 of this Report.
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”_____________________
Prepared by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
General Manager, Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Paul Gill”_________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill
General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”_____________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
13
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 20, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Silver Valley Area Plan Update 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Silver Valley is one of three areas in the District that have an individual area plan adopted into the
Official Community Plan: the other two are Albion and the Town Centre. Silver Valley’s unique
context and “land informs development” approach has enabled a high quality residential
development that protects natural features, retains the natural beauty of the area, and offers
attractive outdoor recreational opportunities.
Since its adoption in 2002, development in Silver Valley has been reviewed in light of these Area
Plan policies. The “land informs development” approach has resulted in ground truthing at the time
of development which often required adjustments to the Plan. These minor changes, combined with
public input about schools and local transportation have prompted Council to request more
information. At the April 22, 2014 Council meeting, the following resolution was passed
That staff prepare a report on the progress towards implementation of the Silver
Valley Area Plan including an update of density, population and capacity.
This report provides an overview of the Silver Valley Area as it has progressed since initial adoption
of the Area Plan in 2002. More than one decade since adoption, this review of the Area Plan as it
becomes physical reality offers significant insights into this newly created and evolving community.
There are also lessons to be learned about the “fit” between initial goals and the incremental steps
to their becoming realized. An analysis of this process and its outcomes reveals the influence of
circumstances, market forces, and senior agency involvement. More generally, there are
implications for growth management, area planning processes, and land development.
An update was provided to Council in December 2010 that summarized the initial goals as set out in
the Silver Valley Area Plan, its emphasis on green space, and protection of the natural environment.
The 2010 report also outlined development details as they pertained to the implementation of the
Plan.
This report augments this earlier information with a broader overview and policy perspective.
Census information will provide resident information, and reveal demographic trends and their
impacts on the pacing of development. An evaluation of the City’s progress in the Plan’s
implementation including the role of Translink and the School District will be provided.
4.4
2
Upon this evaluation, the report finds that the Silver Valley Area Plan is still in its early stages, but is
meeting the overall objectives as set out in the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report entitled “Silver Valley Update 2014 dated October 20, 2014 be received as
information.
BACKGROUND:
Silver Valley has been considered for urban development for several years prior to its inclusion in the
Urban Area Boundary in Maple Ridge. A brief chronology of this process is as follows:
1981- Silver Valley was designated “Urban Reserve” in the Official Community Plan
1988- Urban Growth Study was provided by UMA consultants.
1991- The Official Community Plan was amended to designate Silver Valley as Urban.
1992- Environmental Consultants Gartner Lee provided an Environmental
Assessment of the area.
1994- A Silver Valley Land Use Review was conducted by Arlington Consulting Group
and Quadra Planning.
1996 – The Silver Valley Land Use Review was adopted in the Official Community
Plan
1997- The first Zoning Bylaw amendment for the area occurred.
1999- Guide Plan for the Area was approved.
2001- Silver Valley Area Planning Study conducted by Civitas Consulting
2002– Adoption of the Silver Valley Area Plan.
The Silver Valley Area Plan spans several years of background research with a lengthy public
participation phase. There were two consultant reports compiled in support of the Area Plannin g
Process. As noted above, the first of these, the Silver Valley Land Use Review, dated 1994, was
created by the Arlington Consulting Group in collaboration with Quadra Planning. This document
focused on broad policy objectives and demographic forecasts at that time. The second report,
titled Silver Valley Area Planning Study, dated 2001 was prepared by Civitas Consulting. Planning
principles from this latter report were adopted by Council in 2001. It was the background report for
the creation of the Silver Valley Area Plan, which was adopted in 2002.
Study Area:
In 1994, prior to the area planning process, Silver Valley was a rural residential and large lot
suburban community of about 600 residents. The most recent 2011 Census indicates that the area
is now home to 4670 residents. The study area, not including the transportation network, is
estimated to be 581 hectares, of which 246 are designated for Conservation or Open Space.
Silver Valley Area Plan Principles:
The Silver Valley Area Plan provides a development model that is sensitive to the terrain/
topography; biodiversity; proximity to watercourses, the Malcolm Knapp Forest Reserve, Golden Ears
Park, and viewscapes. These features were to be considered community assets in determining
developable area. From its initial Guiding Principles, the Plan was driven by a broad conceptual
approach that necessitated innovation and flexibility in its implementation.
3
These Guiding Principles are as follows:
1. Environment First;
2. Sustainable Approaches;
3. Integrated Community;
4. Adaptability; and
5. Healthy Community.
The Guiding Principles provide a broad concept that is reflected in the Development Principles in
their focus on the physical, social and economic context. The Development Principles include the
following:
1. Planning & Urban Design;
2. Environment, Open Space & Recreation;
3. Infrastructure and
4. Economics.
It should be noted that Zoning Bylaw amendments made prior to the adoption of the Silver Valley
Area Plan (from 1997 to 2000), affected 96 hectares, of mostly developable land. These pre -zoned
lands were a significant portion of the developable land base and compromised the full
implementation potential of the Plan. These lands included early phases in Portrait Homes
development and Rock Ridge developments. There remains significant tracts of these pre -zoned
lands that have yet to develop.
The following is a summary of how the four development principles were to guide development:
1. Planning & Urban Design
The physical expression of these principals was to be realized in diverse housing forms of various
densities distributed within the Hamlets and areas outside the Hamlets, River Village and Eco -
Clusters. Each hamlet featured a central area with amenities that could include a park, school, local
commercial space, civic uses and higher density residential uses. A single hamlet was comprised of
multiple residential neighbourhoods developed in a manner to foster incremental density increases
nearest to the hamlet centre.
Residential forms differ based on their designation within the Plan, such as High, Medium, Low
density residential or a combination. For example, the land use designations in Blaney Hamlet
indicate 3 neighbourhoods of single family and limited town house forms to a total of 460 units. The
hamlet is surrounded by lower density eco-clusters. The Horse Hamlet is anticipated to
accommodate 240 residential units in two tightly compact neighbourhoods surrounded by eco
clusters. The Forest Hamlet, also surrounded by eco-clusters, contains within its core 3
neighbourhoods of single family and townhouse residential forms.
River Village, located on Fern Crescent between Maple Ridge Park to the south and an escarpment
to the north & east, was identified as the commercial heart of the Silver Valley Area. This centre was
anticipated to serve local needs for retail, service, office and civic uses. The proposed design
integrates a main shopping street with multi-family housing, a school, community and mixed use
buildings. Flexibility in permitted uses and mixed use provisions were incorporated to allow River
Village to develop and evolve over time.
4
Local commercial uses were encouraged within the Hamlet Centers within a 400 to 500 metre
radius with the intention of providing for limited food and service needs while reducing reliance on
the private automobile. Commercial buildings were expected to also accommodate residential uses
either on the upper floors or as interim uses, in a variety of forms except in the River Village
commercial designation.
The maximum commercial space within each hamlet was based on the projected number of
residential units it would eventually contain. For example, the commercial floor space in the Horse,
Blaney & Forest Hamlets is limited to 90 m2 to 140 m2 (these uses were anticipated to be on the size
and scale that were eventually built on 102 Avenue in Albion).
In support of residential diversity, there were 6 residential designations in the Area Plan. These are
as follows:
1. High Density Residential (village only), with proposed densities up to 70 units per net
hectare. (multi-family zones only)
2. Medium high density (village only), with proposed densities from between 30 and 50
units per net hectare. (small lot single family and townhouse zones only)
3. Medium high density (hamlets only) with proposed densities of between 18 to 40
units per net hectare (a range of single family zones permitted, along with
townhouse)
4. Medium density, with proposed densities from between 15 to 30 units per net
hectare, (a range of single family and duplex zones permitted)
5. Low / medium density, with proposed densities from between 12 to 18 units per net
hectare
6. Low density, with proposed densities from between 8 to 15 units per net hectare
(larger lot single family residential zones permitted)
7. Ecocluster , with proposed densities from between 5 and 15 units per net hectare
(all single family zones permitted along with duplex and townhouse)
The wide variety of zones permitted in these designations reflects the goal of fitting the housing form
to the physical characteristics of each site. By providing flexibility in housing form, multiple
objectives would be achieved, including reaching the overall density of the site as outlined in the
designation while protecting environmentally sensitive lands from development. A map showing
designations is attached as Appendix A.
2. Environment, Open Space & Recreation.
Consistent with the Plan’s ‘Environment First” Guiding Principle, development within Silver Valley
seeks to be sensitive to factors such as: flooding, fish habitats, view retention, rock outcropping, run -
off; tree protection; slope stability, and continuous wildlife corridors.
The development of a network of trails and open space was integral to the Plan. Properties
designated “Open Space” in the Silver Valley Area Plan represent areas that are intended to be left in
their natural state. The open space designation was established to maximize tr ee retention; protect
view-scapes; protect edge conditions on environmentally sensitive lands; and provide linkages and
connections to amenities and community features. The extent of the open space would be
determined upon completion of the physical inventory of a site (i.e. groundtruthing). The question of
public or private ownership of these lands would be determined on a case by case basis, as an
outcome of dialogue between prospective developers, Maple Ridge staff, and Council approval.
5
The Plan anticipated up to 21 public parks in the Silver Valley Area, mostly as “mini neighbourhood”
sites ranging in size from 0.5 to 1.5 acres. The park standard for Silver Valley is a 2 to 5 minute walk
from a hamlet residence to a mini neighbourhood park and a 5 to 10 minute walk from most
dwellings for a Park/ School site. It is anticipated that each mini park site would have children’s play
ground elements typical of neighbourhood parks.
3. Infrastructure:
The Area Plan is based on the distribution of development over four neighbourhoods that are non -
contiguous due to the existing physical terrain. In general the area rises away from the floodplain of
the Alouette River along the south and west boundary. While the grade rises generally to the north,
topological features due to the underlying bedrock, the North Alouette River, and Millionaire Creek
create significant irregularities in the terrain.
In order to be consistent with the Plan’s guiding principles, the placement of infrastructure has been
focused on minimizing changes to topography and discouraging the excessive use of retaining walls
and blasting. Where possible, road cross sections have been based on existing grades to reduce
steeper streets and minimize cutting into the terrain.
4. Economics
The Plan emphasized capitalizing on economic opportunities in the area by concentrating compact
residential development in hamlets that would foster commercial development, with the main
commercial centre in one village. Commercial buildings would be mixed use, integrating retail, office
use, and residential. Home based businesses would be encouraged, and the area’s equestrian and
recreational assets were recognized for their economic opportunities. It was recognized that
commercial development was population driven and that it would not occur until the later stages of
the Plan
DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic Assumptions: The decision to embark on an area planning process was largely driven
by the recognition of the need to manage growth and accommodate a growing population. The 1996
Official Community Plan forecasted that a Maple Ridge population of 122,900 was possible by the
year 2021. The 1994 Silver Valley Land Use Review noted an annual growth rate of 5.5% in Maple
Ridge since 1986, While this rate was expected to slow down, the expectation was a population
doubling and a population threshold of about 100,000 by 2020.
In 2004, Maple Ridge commissioned more background demographic research in support of the
Official Community Plan review. This document, titled Demographic Analysis and Population and
Housing Projection for Maple Ridge, 2001 – 2031, noted a range of population forecasts and growth
rates from different sources. The highest growth rate forecasted was 3.21%, while the lowest growth
rate from between 2001 to 2021 was 1.86%. This low rate was provided by BC Stats, and was at
the time considered to be conservative but defensible. A range of forecasts was noted for 2021,
from 95,700 to 122,900. Only one forecast for 2031 was included, from BC Stats, at 108,900,
Reality Check: When the Plan was developed, higher growth rates were being projected than are
actually occurring. As noted, the range of population projections for Maple Ridge is from 1.67 % to
3% for the years of 2001 to 2011. These projections were developed by credible sources who used
defensible criteria in their assessments. A further comment in the document, titled Demographic
Analysis and Population and Housing Projection for Maple Ridge, 2001 – 2031 was the observation
that average household size was declining significantly from its 2001 levels of 2.76, and this
6
demographic shift would have growth management implications, as soon the rate of demand for new
housing units would outpace the rate of population growth. This background paper predicted that
lands within the existing urban area boundary would reach development capacity shortly after 2021.
Between the years of 2001 to 2011, actual population growth has been more modest, and average
household size has had only marginal declines since 2001. Growth rates from 2001 to 2011 are
volatile, as shown in Figure 1, below. However, they average out at 1.6% average compound annual
growth for Maple Ridge and 1.3 % for Metro Vancouver over this time frame. BC Stats has provided
more recent population estimates for 2012 and 2013, and these indicate growth of 1% and 0.5%
respectively, suggesting a recent trend of declining growth. Census information reveals average
household size for 2011 in Maple Ridge of 2.68 people per household, and 3.28 people per
household in Silver Valley.
The combination of a lower rate of population growth and greater household size have the effect of
reducing development pressures, giving Maple Ridge more time to pace incremental growth.
Figure 1 Population Growth Rates in Maple Ridge and Metro Vancouver. Average annual compound growth is 1.6% for
Maple Ridge and 1.3% for Metro Vancouver
Silver Valley Resident Information By their very nature, area plans that increase density significantly
will introduce new residents who were likely not participants in the creation of the original plan. New
residents may have different values than those who were originally engaged in the Plan’s
development. To give a sense of who these recent residents are, this section compares r esident
characteristics between Silver Valley and Maple Ridge using the 2011 Census as shown in the
following tables.
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
MetroVancouver
Maple Ridge
7
Income. Silver Valley households are typically higher income earners than the rest of Maple Ridge.
This could be in part explained by the demographic composition of the area, of residents in their
prime earning years, more double income households, and fewer single occupant households.
Household Characteristics. Silver Valley Households are typically occupied by more people than the
rest of Maple Ridge. The persons per household size indicated in the Census is 2.68 in Maple Ridge,
and 3.28 in Silver Valley.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Under $40,000 $40,000 - $79,999 $80,000 or more
Maple Ridge
Silver Valley
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Maple Ridge
Silver Valley
8
Age. The differences revealed in age structure between Silver Valley and the rest of Maple Ridge are
consistent with predominantly family households, with children under the age of 12, and the bulk of
the population in the 35 to 54 age group. This demographic composition is consistent with the 1994
Silver Valley Land Use Review, which recognized the area’s attractiveness to families, and supported
housing forms that would be appropriate for family households .
Residential Structure Type. The 2011 Census revealed the predominant detached Single Family
housing type in Silver Valley Housing stock. More recent years have seen a shift in this trend
towards more multi-family developments, Municipal records to date indicate a total of 1582 single
family residences in Maple Ridge, and 175 row house units.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Development potential: The success of the Silver Valley Area Plan can be evaluated by its ability to
meet its original development goals. Table 1 below provides a breakdown of existing development, in
process applications, and the capacity of the remaining land, based on its designation. This
information indicates that all of these development areas have sufficient capacity to meet or exceed
the dwelling unit count as established in the Area Plan.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 to 4 5 to 12 13 to
17
18 to
24
25 to
34
35 to
54
55 to
64
65
years
and over
Maple Ridge
Silver Valley
9
Table 1. Existing & Potential Development in Silver Valley
Area
Plan/OCP
Targets Existing In Process
Capacity based
on OCP
Designation of
remaining land
base
Can
targets be
met?
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Blaney 460 233 175 43 74 75 yes
Forest 500 23 0 0 0 500 yes
Horse 240 47 0 54 0 191 yes
River
Village 400 154 0 0 33 265 yes
Blaney Hamlet, which is approaching build-out, indicates that the original targets have been realistic.
Lands outside of the hamlet radius are not included in the hamlet targets, but these areas have also
undergone some development at the 5 minute walking distance radius.
A map showing developed sites in the area is attached as Appendix A. This map notes a total of 591
hectares of site area, which does not include the road network. Of this area 82 hectares are
developed and 246 hectares are designated as Open Space or Conservation. Approximately 246
hectares retain their development potential.
MARKET ANALYSIS / HOUSING MARKET
Real Estate Market Potential: Assessed value has been used as an indicator of relative market
desirability in the Silver Valley area in comparison with the Albion Area. Municipal records of lot
value only for 240 R-1 Urban Residential properties indicate an average value of $262,000 per lot
compared with $232,000 average per lot value in Albion, based on a scan of 273 R-1 Zoned
properties in Albion. A local appraiser asserts that the two areas are in reality very similar in price
and absorption rate when there are comparable real estate products o n the market. However,
green space and views would set a higher premium on lot value. The relative abundance of these
amenities in Silver Valley may skew averages upward for Silver Valley lot prices. It should be noted
that the protection of these amenities was factored into the area planning process, and points to the
overall success of the Plan and its subsequent implementation.
Market Uptake: As noted, a critical mass of residential development is needed in order to provide a
sufficient consumer base to support commercial and other services. The 2010 Silver Valley Update
noted that development in the Plan area was expected to increase by 150 to 200 units per year. The
Civitas report noted that in its early stages, growth would be slower, but build out would be achieved
within the 20 year horizon. The growth rate has been slower but is gradually increasing, as shown
by Table 3, below
10
Table 3 Silver Valley Statistics Based on Occupancy Permits
Year
SF Units
Created Duplex Units Created Townhouse Created
2002 28
2003 37
2004 37 2
2005 78
2006 155
2007 103
2008 107
2009 85
2010 109
30
2011 101 2 65
2012 71
114
2013 102
2014 (September) 39
*Total 1052 4 209
To a significant extent, the slower than anticipated pace of development in Silver Valley can be
explained by the Regional population growth rates that have been lower than forecasted.
The rate of development in Silver Valley, based on unit counts appears to be escalating, as
predicted, suggesting maturation of the development phase. It may be too early to assess, but it is
clear that growth is occurring, and the market potential of the area remains strong. Appendix B
indicates the developed areas and the remaining development potential of the land base. This
information suggests that roughly 80% or 260 hectares of the land base still retains its development
potential.
IMPLEMENTATION
A few changes since adoption of the Silver Valley Area Plan have affected its implementation. In
addition to the large tracts of pre-zoned properties, the most prominent factor has likely been
population growth, which is lower than expected, as well as the larger household size. These two
factors combined tend to reduce development pressure, and increase the capacity of the area to
accommodate more residents than previously considered. A few other considerations are noted in
this section, including the role of the School District. The progress of development as it has affected
the original Development Principles are outlined as well.
*Two methods for calculating unit counts have been used in this report, and therefore, some discrepancies may occur. For
instance, a manual count of bare land strata units would be classified as Single Family as the housing form is single
detached, but electronic records could indicate these as townhouse due to their strata tenure. Similarly, attached fee
simple housing could be considered Single Family due to its tenure type, although its form is closer in appearance to
Townhouse developments. The overall unit would be the same for both methods.
11
School District
It was generally recognized that the School District would have an important role in in the anticipated
family neighbourhood that Silver Valley would become. From the outset, the Silver Valley planning
process was collaborative. School District 42 was consulted as the Silver Valley Land Use Review
was being prepared. The content of this document indicates School District 42 was involved in the
selection process for school sites on the Plan. The document also states that the School District
indicated agreement in principle with the plan. With on-going dialogue from the School District, the
Silver Valley Area Plan was adopted with a total of 4 school sites indicated, of which 3 were
elementary, and 1 was secondary.
During the review of the 2006 Official Community Plan, Staff met with School District Staff to discuss
school sites identified in the Plan, including the Silver Valley sites. No changes were requested at
that time. A formal referral was also sent to the School District and no comments were received.
Despite their initial involvement, correspondence from the School District after the adoption of the
Silver Valley Area Plan indicates the School District was reconsidering their earlier projections of 4
schools on the area site. Maple Ridge records indicate some time after the OCP referral, the School
District was considering whether the proposed secondary site was n ecessary, and was
contemplating pursuing just 3 elementary sites in Silver Valley. Since 2012, the School District has
stated that they would be pursuing just one elementary school site. A report on the location of this
site is in process.
This recent decision of the School District is a concern, especially given the family structure of many
Silver Valley households. It is also recognized that schools were from the outset considered to be
part of the community centre within each neighbourhood. Civitas consultants were asked to provide
feedback on this matter. Their response is as follows.
“ there exist other ways to provide a 'civic heart' to each hamlet using a park or
other open space, community facilities, and/or day care, to name a few, in place of
the schools.”
While it remains a priority for Maple Ridge to engage the School District in serving the community
with schools, there are reasonable community alternatives for these sites. These will be realized as
development occurs.
Wildfire Development Permit
The Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines have received first and second reading and will be going
to public hearing on October 21, 2014. Intended to be flexible with retention of existing
development potential and lot yield, these guidelines will protect both human safety and habitable
structures.
12
Silver Valley Principles
Silver Valley Principle - Planning & Urban Design: Single family housing in a variety of forms is the
predominant form to date, and most of the existing housing mix would be appropriate for families in
multiple person households. More diverse housing forms have been introduced recently, including
smaller single family dwellings, duplexes, and townhouses. The Street Townhouse Zone (RST-SV
zone), was newly created for the Silver Valley area and has been approved with some units currently
being constructed. The feedback from the development community is that they are selling well, as
buyers seem to appreciate these units as compared to conventional strata units due to the fee
simple tenure. Higher density apartments (in the River Village site) are yet to develop.
Opportunities for incremental density increases were part of the original vision. Additional
possibilities have been created or are in process since the adoption of the Silver Valley Area Plan.
Detached garden suites offer property owners with larger lots to build a detached dwelling unit on
their properties. In addition, Council recently directed that secondary suites be permitted in the R -1
Urban Residential Zone. This amendment will be reflected in the new Zoning Bylaw.
Silver Valley Principle - Environment. Open Space & Recreation: The objective to protect
conservation lands is being met through the designation and municipal acquisition of conservation
lands as development proceeds. Approximately 53 hectares (130 acres) have been acquired for
conservation purposes. Significant rock outcroppings and mature tree groves are being identified,
and protected through convenant or park dedication. An equestrian/multi-purpose trail network is
being developed through a collaborative process with applicants, municipal departments, and the
Haney Horseman.
The siting of trails and public access to parks can be challenging due to topography. Improved
connectivity is being achieved through new roads and park dedication as the development process
occurs. Due to the City’s significant holdings, land exchange to acquire “public park” lands in
preferred locations is an option.
The City has acquired eleven properties of various sizes that were designated for a neighbourhood
park function in Silver Valley. There are five neighbourhood parks identified on existing municipal
lands designated for future urban development. There are eight areas to acquire for neighbourhood
park as designated to achieve the objectives in the Area Plan for Silver Valley. Of the sites acquired
by the City, four have been developed (Cedar, Deer Fern, Red Alder, and Birch) with neighbourhood
park amenities.
Silver Valley Principle - Infrastructure:
Transportation: The Area Plan outlines a road network plan, and this original layout has been
generally followed. Some modifications have been made as development has occurred, for a
number of reasons, one being the housing form constructed. Multi family strata devel opments are
served by an on-site private road network, and therefore would not be considered as municipal
infrastructure. The challenging topography in Silver Valley is another reason that may result in a
variance in the layout of the overall road network. As development continues in Silver Valley the
overall road network becomes more integrated, with improved connectivity to eliminate dead-end
roadways – the current extension of Larch Avenue is an example of improving overall connectivity in
that portion of Silver Valley. There can be challenges along portions of the existing road network but
significant investments are being made in upgrading these corridors, such as 132 Avenue east of
232 Street. In October 2014, Cipe Developments agreed to build a portion of 128th Avenue to
improve the road network in the Horse Hamlet.
13
Servicing: The Silver Valley Area Plan has presented challenges in efficient servicing of sewer and
community water due to the area’s complex topography. Under ideal circumstances, a broader
overview of a site would provide sufficient site details so as to design efficient gravity fed systems to
serve incremental development. However, the complexity of the site was not conducive to ground
truthing prior to development occurring, so a master plan approach to development servicing was
not possible. Instead, site details emerged through ground truthing on an application by application
basis.
Water.The Silver Valley drinking water servicing plan has been developed through incremental
planning guided by area-wide studies produced in 2003 and 2005. Further to capacity planning
carried out in 2013/2014, a drinking water reservoir is under design for construction in 2015/2016.
Additionally, a consultant has been retained to produce an updated area-wide plan by December
2014.
Sanitary: Area-wide sanitary servicing has been reviewed as part of a Sanitary Master Plan scheduled
for completion by the end of 2014. Upgrades required to major sanitary pump stations will be
identified in the Master Plan. More detailed planning will be required once the sanitary master plan
has been finalized.
Stormwater: Rainwater has been managed in Silver Valley according to recognized best practices.
An Integrated Stormwater Management Plan (ISMP) covering much of the Silver Valley Area is
scheduled for 2014/2015. In conjunction with the ISMPs there have been a number of key
strategies and action items established, including the establishment of the Watercourse Protection
Bylaw in 2006 that acknowledges the treatment of water as a significant valuable resource, to
enhance the natural environment as well as protect the built environment. The use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to manage water is also important to reduce or avoid risks
associated with flooding, drought, and/or contamination of water quality. Implementation of Low
Impact Development BMPs also play an important role in guiding development in Silver Valley.
Developments within Silver Valley that have utilized the new stormwater and rainwater management
standards in Maple Ridge have received over 100 national, provincial, and regional awards in the
past decade for sustainable design.
Economics:
An objective in the Plan was the creation of vibrant neighbourhoods that supported a range of
economic activities in the commercial area, in the office spaces, and in the home based businesses.
This component of the Plan has been slower to develop, but from the outset it was predicted to
follow.
At this time, a full range of services is not available in the area. It should be noted that until there is
sufficient residential development to support local business, commercial development will not likely
occur. Transit services have also been slow to follow development in Silver Valley due to the lack of
people to support buses. Similar to commercial development, bus service will follow when an
appropriate numbers of riders are living in the area. The Civitas background study to the Area Plan
noted that commercial development would evolve slowly, following population growth1
1 A similar situation prevailed in the Albion Area, that was part of an area planning process commencing in (date). Only
recently has commercial development been constructed,
14
The recently endorsed Maple Ridge Commercial and Industrial Strategy recommends retention of all
of the commercially designated lands in the Silver Valley Area. As this area develops, these
commercial centres will be critical to defining the public realm. The Strategy also recommends
flexibility in permitted uses, especially for the River Village. A portion of the commercial lands could
be used for other community purposes, including libraries, community halls, and outdoor meeting
space.
Generally, the Silver Valley Area Plan should be considered on track, but with a somewhat different
pace than anticipated. As noted by Civitas Consultants:
“The key to the vision was the creation of a very robust plan that could accommodate a
diversity of people, housing types, and amenities and was balanced ecologically, socially,
and economically. A good plan should be structured to adapt to reasonable changes in
market and amenity demand that can be expected to occur over the time of build out. I
believe the Silver Valley Plan achieves all that.”
CONCLUSION
Although still in its early stages, the progress of the Silver Valley Area Plan may be evaluated on its
ability to meet its original objectives, despite the changes that have affected its implementation.
Population growth has been less than expected, and household size has not diminished. These two
factors have affected the pace of development and potentially the population base that could be
accommodated in the area. These impacts may be reflected in the development activity that has
occurred to date. The market potential of the area was compared with Albion. Based on a
comparison of over 200 single family lots in both areas, assessed values in Silver Valley were higher,
indicating that the green space amenity it offers increases the desirability of the area. This relative
market desirability points to the success of the Plan in its objectives to protect green space,
viewscapes, and environmentally sensitive areas, and the market response to those efforts.
The School District’s recent decision to reduce the number of school sites in the area has been a
concern, especially given the large family base in the area. However, the physical design of each
neighbourhood will remain, and the spaces that were considered for schools would be appropriate
for other civic uses. These would offer a similar function of community connection.
Commercial development is essential to the livability of the area. As expected, commercial
development has been slow to evolve. As it is population serving, the commercial spaces will not
likely be developed until the residential component of the Plan approaches buildout. For this
reason, commercial designations are recommended to be retained until there is market potential for
their realization.
15
The pace of eventual build-out in Silver Valley will depend on various factors such as population
growth, demography, economic opportunities, land ownership, market trends, land consolidation
potential, diversity of housing types, and the existing terrain, However, a review of development in
the area indicates that the implemention of the Plan is on track, although at a different pace than
originally imagined.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA, MCIP, RPP
Planner 2
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A: Map showing Silver Valley Unit Counts and Land Use Designations
Appendix B: Developed Areas in Silver Valley
"Original signed by Diana Hall"
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
DATE: Sep 26, 2014BY: DTActive Development ApplicationsCity of PittMeadowsDistrict ofLangleyDistrict of MissionFRASER R.´NorthAlouetteRiverNorthAlouetteRiverAlouetteRiverAlouetteRiver224 ST FERN CRES132 AVE136 AVE136A ST249 STALOUETTE RD129 AVE237A STMARC RD239 ST130A AVE235 ST141 AVE238 STMILL STEDGE STDOGWOOD AVE227B STST130 CONNECTOR227A ST142 AVE251A ST228A STCALVIN CRESROCK RIDG E DR226 ST228 ST137 AVEBIRCH AVE127 PL227B ST136A AVE137 AVE133A AVEBOUL D ER PL126B AVEBARNSDALE ST128 AVE235A ST253A ST130 AVE128 AVE237 ST127AV E233 ST236A ST230 ST238 ST136 AVE130A AVE229 ST230A ST134 LOOP2 2 9 LOOP135B AVE129 AVE132 AVE129 AVE128 AVE239B STST250 ST128 AVEMCCAULEY CRESHALEY ST248A STSSHELDRAKE CRT127 AVE127 AVE231 ST228A ST249 ST
LANE232 ST236 ST128 CRES234B ST128 AVE249 ST132 AVE240 ST228B STMCKERCHER DRBIRDTAIL DR132 AVEFERN CRES224 STDOCKSTEADER CIR235 STGRANITE WAY251 ST127 AVEHEMLOCK AVEHUSTON DR139 AVE139A AVEFOREMAN DRANDERS
O
N
C
R
DRPARKSIDE CR240 ST229LANEGILBERT DRDOCKSTEADER LOOP138A AVE132A AVESHOESMITH CRSHOESMITH LOOP130A AVE233 ST133 AVELARCH AVEBALSAM ST232A ST229A ST136 AVE136A AV E133 AVEVISTA RIDGEDRNELSON PE
A
K
D
RBRYANT DRBLAKE LPCROSS RD229 B ST230 ST
229 ST246 STBLANEY RD230A ST130 AVESILVERVALLEYRD226 AVE129 AVE138B AVESILVERVALLEYScale: 1:16,500¬«103¬«100¬«31¬«38¬«5¬«21¬«12¬«23¬«60¬«52¬«60¬«17¬«33¬«20¬«54School Site(DMR Property)School Site(Not Purchased)School Site(Partially Purchased)OCP DesignationSCHOOL/PARKECO CLUSTERSHIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALLOW DENSITY URBANLOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALDMRDMR¬«2¬«34¬«13CITY OF MAPLE RIDGEPLANNING DEPARTMENTBLANEYFORESTRIVER VILLAGEHORSEActiveDevelopmentApplications¬«16¬«18¬«20APPENDIX A
DATE: Oct 15, 2014FILE: SilverValley_DevelopedAreas.mxdDeveloped Areas in Silver ValleyCity of PittMeadowsDistrict ofLangleyDistrict of MissionFRASER R.CITY OF MAPLE RIDGEPLANNING DEPARTMENT´NorthAlouetteRiverNorthAlouetteRiverAlouetteRiverAlouetteRiverScale: 1:16,500BY: DT~ 591 ha.Silver Valley Area BoundaryDeveloped Area Green Space (OCP Designations)ConservationOpen Space~ 82 ha.~ 246 ha.APPENDIX B
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: October 20, 2014
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: 2014 Business Class Property Taxation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
It is the practice of this municipality to review our tax rates to make sure they are reasonable in
relation to other municipalities in the lower mainland.
In May of 2007, Council was presented with information about property taxation for the Business
and Light Industry classes which indicated that rates in Maple Ridge were competitive with other
lower mainland municipalities. Our annual reviews since then have confirmed our competitiveness.
This report examines the municipal portion of the tax rate assessed to Business Class properties in
2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is provided for information only. No resolution is required.
DISCUSSION:
We looked at the municipal portion of the tax rate assessed to Business Class properties by
reviewing:
1.Municipal Tax Rates
We looked at the municipal portion of the Business Class tax rate to see where Maple Ridge 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.Business Class Tax Multiples
We looked at the Business Class tax multiple to see where Maple Ridge ranks in comparison to other
municipalities. The Business Class multiple is calculated by taking the Business Class municipal tax
rate and dividing it by the Residential Class municipal tax rate. While this method looks at the
relative tax burden amongst the property classes, it does not account for the variability in assessed
property value changes.
4.5
Page 2 of 8
3. Sample Properties
We looked at the yearly percentage changes in assessed property values and municipal taxes from
2010 to 2014 from a sample of eight commercial businesses located within Maple Ridge.
This report looks at Maple Ridge’s Business Class municipal property tax rate from these three
perspectives.
1. Municipal Tax Rates
In Maple Ridge, Business Class and Light Industry Class properties have the same tax rate and are
treated as a composite class when setting the tax rates. This is done because the types of
businesses in each of the property classes are quite similar. This alignment was achieved over a long
period of time with small incremental adjustments. Not all municipalities follow this practice.
All things being equal, one would expect municipalities with higher assessed property values to have
lower municipal tax rates and municipalities with lower assessed property values to have higher
municipal tax rates. This is confirmed with West Vancouver, which has the lowest municipal tax rate,
and Mission, which has the highest municipal tax rate. There are some anomalies, such as New
Westminster and Coquitlam, which have municipal tax rates that are relatively close to the municipal
tax rate in Maple Ridge even though assessed property values are likely higher in those areas.
As shown in Figure 1, in 2014, Maple Ridge’s Business Class municipal tax rate of $12.7314 per
$1,000 of assessed value ranks as being fifteenth lowest of the nineteen lower mainland
municipalities that were surveyed. Of the municipalities, the Business Class municipal tax rates
range from a low of $4.2451 per $1,000 in West Vancouver, to a high of $14.5549 per $1,000 in
Mission. Ten municipalities increased their Business Class municipal tax rates from 2013, while the
remaining nine decreased their rates.
Figure 1: Business Class Municipal Tax Rates – lowest to highest
2012 2013 2014
Municipality
Business
Rate
Business
Rate
Business
Rate Rank
West Vancouver 4.75440 4.23400 4.24510 1
Surrey 7.07036 6.98799 7.01681 2
Richmond 7.53569 7.62851 7.28682 3
Vancouver 8.78096 8.20424 7.88427 4
North Vancouver, District 8.53774 8.60129 8.47875 5
North Vancouver, City 9.14484 8.61408 8.57249 6
Langley, City 8.60500 8.78440 8.88270 7
Burnaby 10.10000 9.46120 9.35700 8
Langley, Township 9.48130 9.82990 9.94960 9
Port Moody 9.84060 10.04190 10.19280 10
Chilliwack 9.93148 10.13818 10.26719 11
Delta 11.14928 11.02225 10.81870 12
Port Coquitlam 11.79410 11.86070 11.74160 13
Pitt Meadows 11.85360 12.11050 12.48220 14
Maple Ridge 11.75100 12.23070 12.73140 15
Abbotsford 11.86947 13.28373 13.02217 16
New Westminster 13.55380 13.01990 13.22830 17
Coquitlam 14.11730 13.75540 13.81270 18
Mission 14.62160 14.88790 14.55490 19
Page 3 of 8
2. Business Class Tax Multiples
Looking at property tax rates, easily apparent is the fact that for many years the Business Class
municipal tax rate for most communities has been higher than the Residential Class municipal tax
rate.
The tax multiple is one way that the tax rates between property classes are compared. To calculate
the Business Class multiple, the Business Class tax rate is divided by the Residential Class tax rate -
the resulting number is the Business Class tax multiple.
Maple Ridge’s Business Class multiple based on 2014 tax rates for municipal purposes is 2.85. The
Business Class municipal tax rate is 12.7314 and the Residential Class municipal tax rate is 4.4625.
The multiple is 2.85 (calculated as 12.7314 ÷ 4.4625). In other words, the business taxpayer’s rate
is 2.85 times higher than that of a residential taxpayer. Figure 2 is an overview of what our Business
Class tax rates, Residential Class tax rates and the tax multiples have looked like over the years.
Figure 2: Maple Ridge Business Class, Residential Class, Tax Multiple
Year Business Residential Multiple
2010 11.7403 3.9124 3.00
2011 12.1045 3.8978 3.11
2012 11.7510 4.0888 2.87
2013 12.2307 4.2833 2.86
2014 12.7314 4.4625 2.85
Since 2010, our Business Class tax multiple has gone up, gone down, and in recent years it has
been relatively stable.
The main weakness of the tax multiple is that it is greatly affected by varying market value
fluctuations between the property classes. In accordance with Council Policy, each year we adjust
our tax rates to neutralize market changes.
In Figure 3 we look at the effect of market value on Residential Class and Business Class municipal
tax rates and the Business Class multiple since 2010. Market change in the Residential Class
increased in 2011 and decreased in 2012, 2013 and 2014, while in the Business Class it increased
in 2011 and 2012 and decreased in 2013 and 2014.
The market change in each of the property classes differs from year to year, with the largest variance
occurring in 2012 when it decreased 0.02% in the Residential Class, and it increased about 8% in
the Business Class. For 2012, we required an additional 4.88% in funding to meet the approved
budget. Because market values in the Business Class increased so much, the municipal tax rate
decreased, and because they decreased in the Residential Class, the Residential Class municipal tax
rate increased. Variability in market changes between the property classes in any given year means
that there will be variability in the tax rate changes between the property classes. This has a direct
impact on the business class multiple.
The Business Class multiple initially goes up, but then decreases and continues to decrease. This
wasn’t a deliberate tax policy to close the gap between Business Class and Residential Class
municipal tax rates, but it was a direct result of the changes in assessed property values.
Page 4 of 8
Figure 3: Effect of Market Value on Municipal Tax Rates and Business Class Multiple
Residential 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Market change -5.38%-0.02%-1.20%-1.24%
Tax Increase -4.99%4.88%3.50%2.95%
Tax Rate 3.9124 3.8978 4.0888 4.2833 4.4625
Tax Rate Change --0.37%4.90%4.76%4.18%
Business 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Market change -1.83%8.04%-0.56%-1.10%
Tax Increase -4.99%4.88%3.50%2.95%
Tax Rate 11.7403 12.1045 11.7510 12.2307 12.7314
Tax Rate Change -3.10%-2.92%4.08%4.09%
Business Class Multiple 3.00 3.11 2.87 2.86 2.85
This table demonstrates that in the years when the market changes are similar for both property
classes, as in 2013 and 2014, there is little change in the Business Class multiple. In the years
where there is a significant difference in the market changes, as in 2011 and 2012, there is a
significant change in the Business Class multiple.
As shown in Figure 4, in 2014, Maple Ridge’s Business Class tax multiple is 2.9 (2.85 rounded), and
ranks as sixth lowest of the nineteen surveyed municipalities. Our multiple is below the average
multiple of 3.1.
Figure 4 Business Class Tax Multiples, Based on General Municipal Rates – lowest to highest:
Page 5 of 8
Figure 5 shows what the average Business Class multiple has looked like in BC since 1990. In recent
years, the overall trend is that the gap between the Business Class and the Residential Class is
getting smaller, just like in Maple Ridge and the majority of the surveyed municipalities.
Figure 5: Business Class Multiple – BC Average
In recent years, this issue has attracted a lot of attention in Vancouver. Figure 6 shows what the tax
multiples look like for Vancouver. Also shown is the median for Metro Vancouver and where Maple
Ridge fits.
Figure 6: Business Class Multiple – Metro Vancouver
Page 6 of 8
The basic taxation system that we have is one that is tax on the value of property. Property values
are determined by BC Assessment. Municipalities set the tax rates. When we set tax rates, we try to
neutralize the impact of market value changes. We don’t have to do this; we can focus on tax rates.
A multiple of 2:1 could be reached by reducing the taxes collected from the Business Class. Moving
about $3.4 million to the Residential Class would do this. This would equate to about a 6.5%
increase in the municipal tax rate for the Residential Class. More importantly, Council would be
allowing market value fluctuations to enter into the setting of taxation policies.
At the end of the day, budgets are balanced; however, benefits to one property class are at the
expense of another. This is illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Scenario – Existing Method vs 6.5% Increase
Scenario 1 - Existing 2014 Tax Rate Revenue
Residential 4.4625 51,558,602
Business 12.7314 13,340,441
Ratio 2.85:1 64,899,043
Scenario 2 – 6.5% Increase 2014 Tax Rate Revenue
Residential 4.7547 54,934,715
Business 9.5094 9,964,328
Ratio 2:1 64,899,043
3. Sample Properties
Finally, the municipal property taxes for the Business Class taxpayer in Maple Ridge are examined.
Last year we tried a different approach where we looked at eight sample commercial properties from
various locations within Maple Ridge. This year we will look at the same eight properties and the
yearly percentage changes in property assessments and the municipal portion of the property taxes
from 2010 to 2014.
We will look at the following types of commercial properties:
1. Commercial office in a stratified building
2. Retail store
3. Convenience store with gas station
4. Small commercial building with a coffee shop and two other commercial units
5. Coffee shop
6. Family restaurant
7. Bank
8. Big box retail store
Figures 8a and 8b show the yearly percentage changes in assessed property values and the
municipal portion of the property taxes for each of the eight sample properties. First we’ll look at the
change in assessed property values. There are numerous subsets of BC Assessment’s Business
Class, including the commercial property types listed above. While assessed property values for one
of the subsets may experience an increase in values, other subsets may experience decreases.
Page 7 of 8
On looking at the percentage change in assessed property values in Figure 8a, from year to year,
assessed property values increased as much as 72.4% for Sample #7- the bank in 2012, and
decreased 28.7% for that same property in 2014.
We contacted BC Assessment about the rather large changes in assessed values for the bank
property, Sample #7. BC Assessment staff advised that for the 2012 Assessment Roll, they
conducted a review of all banks in the Fraser Valley Assessment Area and as a result some
properties saw significant increases in value. In 2014, the owner of the bank appealed their 2014
Property Assessment which resulted in the value being reduced. BC Assessment staff said that as a
result of this appeal, they are currently reviewing older bank properties in Maple Ridge’s downtown
core.
In their news release of January 2, 2014, BC Assessment stated that owners of commercial and
industrial properties in the Fraser Valley would typically see changes in their 2014 Property
Assessments ranging from -5% to +5%. For the most part, changes in the assessed values for our
sample commercial properties reflect this range.
From 2013 to 2014, just as we saw with the Residential Property Class in the report provided to
Council earlier this year, there is variability in the changes in assessed values. The change in
assessed property values in the sample properties range from an increase 3.6% for the family
restaurant to a decrease of 3.6% for the big box retail store. An exception to this is the 28.7%
decrease in assessed value for the bank property explained earlier. Four of the sample properties
experienced no change to their assessed property values from 2013.
Figure 8a: Sample Commercial Properties – Change in Assessed Property Values
Next, in Figure 8b, we’ll look at the percentage change in the municipal portion of the property taxes
for the sample properties. As there is variability with the changes in assessed property values, there
is also variability with the changes in municipal property taxes. Local governments do not have the
legislative authority to smooth tax increases amongst properties. Over the five year period from 2010
to 2014, yearly changes for the municipal portion of the property taxes increased as much as 67.4%
for the bank property in 2012, and decreased 25.7% for the bank property in 2014.
From 2013 to 2014, there is a range in the municipal tax increases experienced by our sample
properties. Increases range from a low of 0.4% for the big box retail store to a high of 7.8% for the
family restaurant. An exception to this is the bank property which experienced a decrease in
municipal property taxes of 25.7%. It is important to note that while some of the sample properties
may experience the same percentage tax increase, the tax bills will vary depending on the assessed
property values.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1 Commercial Office-Strata 24.8%0.0%0.0%2.2%0.0%
2 Retail Store -3.4%4.4%16.6%3.8%0.0%
3 Convenience Store/Service Station 4.7%-0.3%0.8%4.2%0.0%
4 Small Commercial Building w/Coffee Shop & 2 Other Units 7.7%0.4%11.2%0.0%-1.6%
5 Coffee Shop 6.5%0.0%7.5%3.1%0.0%
6 Family Restaurant 3.7%0.0%8.1%-3.8%3.6%
7 Bank 2.7%0.0%72.4%0.0%-28.7%
8 Big Box Retail Store 6.2%5.9%0.0%0.0%-3.6%
Total 5.1%2.5%13.6%0.2%-6.8%
Description
Page 8 of 8Chief Administrative Officer
Figure 8b: Sample Commercial Properties – Change in Municipal Property Taxation
CONCLUSION:
It is important for the City 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. This is why we look at a variety of indicators over a period of time.
The City’s Business Class municipal tax rate in 2014 is fifteenth lowest of the nineteen surveyed
municipalities. This is not unexpected as most municipalities in the survey group have higher
assessed property values. It is noteworthy that tax rates in Coquitlam and New Westminster are
higher than ours, even though those communities likely have assessed property values that are
higher than those in Maple Ridge.
The City’s Business Class tax multiple continues to rank lower than the average. In 2014, assessed
property values for residential and commercial properties decreased by about 1%, and municipal tax
rates were adjusted to generate the funding required in the Financial Plan.
With respect to assessed property values and municipal taxes, we looked at the yearly percentage
changes in property assessments and the municipal portion of the property taxes from 2010 to
2014 for eight sample properties within Maple Ridge. As there was some variability with the
percentage changes in assessed property values for these properties, there was also some variability
around the percentage changes in municipal property taxes.
Overall, our data indicates that Maple Ridge’s Business Class municipal tax rates are reasonable
when compared to other lower mainland municipalities.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Jacquie Bergmann
Research Technician
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA, FRM
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1 Commercial Office-Strata 24.7% 3.1% -2.9% 6.3% 4.1%
2 Retail Store -3.5% 7.6% 13.2% 8.1% 4.1%
3 Convenience Store/Service Station 4.6% 2.8% -2.2% 8.5% 4.1%
4 Small Commercial Building w/Coffee Shop & 2 Other Units 7.6% 3.5% 7.9% 4.1% 2.4%
5 Coffee Shop 6.4% 3.1% 4.4% 7.3% 4.1%
6 Family Restaurant 3.6% 3.1% 4.9% 0.1% 7.8%
7 Bank 2.6% 3.1% 67.4% 4.1% -25.7%
8 Big Box Retail Store 6.1% 9.2% -2.9% 4.1% 0.4%
Total 5.0%5.7%10.3%4.3%-6.8%
Description
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
“Original signed by Jim Rule”
“Original signed by Jacquie Bergmann”
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: October 20, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: 2014 Major Industry Class Property Taxation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Finance Department provides Council with reports on property assessments and taxation. This
information allows Council to see how our taxes compare to those of other municipalities in our area.
A report on Residential Class property taxes was provided in June, and it concluded that Residential
Class property taxes in Maple Ridge are amongst the lowest in the region.
A review was done on the Major Industry Class tax rates and the recommendation from the Audit and
Finance Committee and Council was a 5% property tax reduction in both 2009 and 2010 to support
additional investments in the subject property and to keep rates competitive. In the 2014–2018
Financial Plan, Council directed that the property taxes charged to Major Industry Class properties be
reduced. For 2014, the Major Industry Class municipal tax rate was reduced and did not receive the
same budgeted tax increase that other Maple Ridge property classes received resulting in an overall
tax savings of about $70,000.
The purpose of this report is to see how our current Major Industry Class municipal tax rate in 2014
compares to other municipalities in our area.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report has been provided for information only. No resolution is required.
DISCUSSION:
In Maple Ridge, the only Major Industry Class properties are mill properties. In 2009 and 2010, the
municipal portion of the property taxes for the Major Industry Class was reduced by 5%, while other
property classes received the budgeted tax increase. In 2011 and 2012, the Major Industry Class
received the same property tax increase as the other property classes.
In 2013, a portion of the mill’s property previously included in the Light Industry Class was shifted to
the Major Industry Class. This would have generated additional revenue as it is considered a non-
market change and the municipal tax rate for Major Industry is higher than Light Industry, however,
the Major Industry Class municipal tax rate was adjusted to negate the additional property taxes that
would have been charged. As part of the Financial Planning discussions in December 2013, Council
authorized $70,000 to reduce the Major Industry Class property taxes and this is reflected in the
2014 Major Industry Class municipal property tax rates.
4.6
Page 2 of 4
Municipality
Major
Industry
Rate
Major
Industry
Rate
Major
Industry
Rate
Rank
Langley, Township 8.88430 8.83280 8.76410 1
Surrey 11.42530 11.41012 11.56272 2
Richmond 14.43540 14.42822 13.71527 3
West Vancouver 13.21930 13.86750 15.26860 4
North Vancouver, City 27.50000 27.50000 27.50000 5
Coquitlam 29.18610 29.19840 28.85520 6
North Vancouver, District 41.17101 36.76622 29.33316 7
New Westminster 30.33470 28.56440 29.51880 8
Vancouver 31.98356 32.98091 33.77460 9
Maple Ridge 36.34180 37.23420 34.91630 10
Delta 35.11888 35.11899 35.21332 11
Pitt Meadows 35.39380 37.52650 40.27550 12
Burnaby 47.30730 44.95180 47.10730 13
Port Moody 61.87760 65.28500 68.54770 14
20142013
Major
2012
Major
As shown in Figure 1, in 2014, assessed property values for the Major Industry Class decreased
1.3%. The Major Industry Class municipal property tax rate was adjusted to 34.9163. The municipal
tax rate multiple decreased to 7.8, and municipal taxes are $620,606.
Because we reduced the Major Industry Class municipal tax rate and did not apply the same
budgeted tax increase that other Maple Ridge property classes received, the overall tax savings
amount to about $70,000.
Figure 1: Maple Ridge Major Industry Class - Year to Year Comparison
2012 % Change 2013 % Change 2014
Assessed Value $17,628,000 2.20% $18,016,100 -1.34% $17,774,100
Municipal Tax Rate 36.3418 2.46% 37.2342 -6.23% 34.9163
Municipal Tax Rate Multiple 8.9 -2.33% 8.7 -9.99% 7.8
Municipal Taxes $640,633 4.71% $670,815 -7.48% $620,606
As in previous years, in this report we will look at two indicators to determine how the City’s Major
Industry Class municipal tax rate compares to other lower mainland municipalities.
Municipal Tax Rate Comparison:
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 shown in Figure 2, in 2014, the City’s Major Industry Class 4 municipal tax rate is $34.9163 per
$1,000 of assessed value. Among the fourteen surveyed municipalities, our tax rate ranks as tenth
lowest, while in 2013 and 2012 it ranked as eleventh lowest.
Figure 2: Major Industry Class Municipal Property Tax Rates – lowest to highest
Page 3 of 4
Municipality Multiple Multiple
Major
Industry
Rate
Multiple Rank
Langley, Township 2.8 2.7 8.76410 2.6 1
Surrey 4.9 4.8 11.56272 4.7 2
Richmond 7.2 6.8 13.71527 6.1 3
Maple Ridge 8.9 8.7 34.91630 7.8 4
New Westminster 8.6 8.1 29.51880 7.9 5
West Vancouver 7.3 8.2 15.26860 8.6 6
Coquitlam 9.6 9.6 28.85520 9.0 7
Delta 10.0 10.1 35.21332 9.8 8
Pitt Meadows 9.5 9.6 40.27550 10.0 9
North Vancouver, City 11.6 11.2 27.50000 11.0 10
North Vancouver, District 17.4 15.5 29.33316 12.0 11
Vancouver 15.8 17.4 33.77460 18.3 12
Port Moody 18.7 19.2 68.54770 19.5 13
Burnaby 21.2 20.1 47.10730 20.1 14
20142013
Major
2012
Major
It is important to remember that not all assessed property values are comparable across the lower
mainland. The Major Industry classification by BC Assessment can be very broad. It includes a wide
variety of major industry types, including saw mills, cement and asphalt plants, grain elevators, oil
refining plants, docks and wharves, shipyards and more.
North Vancouver City 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. Notable is that the
Major Industry 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.
Municipal Tax Rate Multiple Comparison:
This indicator looks at the relative tax rate on one class, as a ratio of the tax rate charged to another
property 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 shown in Figure 3, in 2014, the Maple Ridge’s Major Industry Class municipal tax rate multiple of
7.8 ranks as fourth lowest amongst the fourteen surveyed municipalities, while in 2013 and 2012, it
ranked as sixth lowest. In 2014, our multiple is below the average tax rate multiple of 10.5.
This year four municipalities saw increases in their multiples and nine experienced decreases. One
municipality, Burnaby, experienced no change. 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 property values and our tax policy of adjustment for market
appreciation.
Figure 3: Major Industry Class Municipal Property Tax Rate Multiples – lowest to highest
Page 4 of 4
CONCLUSION:
Maple Ridge’s position in terms of Major Industry Class 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 Major Industry Class municipal tax
rate is ranked as tenth lowest when compared to the fourteen surveyed municipalities, and our
Major Industry Class municipal tax rate multiple ranks as fourth lowest, below the average municipal
tax rate multiple.
It appears that the tax burden against Major Industry Class properties has become more equitable,
but further improvements are necessary. In the 2014–2018 Financial Plan, Council directed that the
property taxes charged to Major Industry Class properties be reduced. For 2014, the Major Industry
Class municipal tax rate was reduced and did not receive the same budgeted tax increase that other
Maple Ridge property classes received resulting in an overall tax savings of about $70,000.
We will continue to review the tax burden against our other property classifications to ensure we
remain well positioned when compared to neighbouring municipalities.
“Original signed by Jacquie Bergmann”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Jacquie Bergmann
Research Technician
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA, FRM
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by Jim Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer