HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-05 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdf
City of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
• May 1, 2018
• May 15, 2018
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
Note: Item 4.1 was deferred from the May 22, 2018 Council Meeting
4.1 Maple Ridge Sport Network
Staff report dated May 22, 2018 recommending that the Sport Network Terms of
Reference be endorsed and that a proposed Sport and Physical Activity Strategy
Implementation Plan be provided.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
June 5, 2018
6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by
the City of Maple Ridge.
REMINDERS
June 5, 2018
Audit and Finance Committee Meeting 5:00 p.m.
(in Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City Hall)
Council Workshop Agenda
June 5, 2018
Page 2 of 4
Note: Item 4.2 was deferred from the February 6, 2018 Council Workshop
4.2 Rental Housing Program: Rental Options for New Development
Staff report dated February 6, 2018 recommending that staff bring forward
reports outlining a Density Bonus approach and a Community Amenity
Contribution approach as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program.
4.3 Regional Context Statement Update
Staff report dated June 5, 2018 recommending that the Regional Context
Statement as reviewed be submitted for re-acceptance by the Metro Vancouver
Regional District Board.
4.4 Agri-Food Hub: Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan Update
Staff report dated June 5, 2018 recommending that the proposed consultation
program for the Maple Ridge Agri-Food Hub Implementation Plan be endorsed.
4.5 Tempest Software Program
Presentation by the Chief Information Officer and the Manager of Bylaw and
Licensing Services
4.6 BC Hydro Alouette Water Licence
Staff report dated June 5, 2018 recommending that a Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU”) among Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation, Alouette
River Management Society (ARMS) and the City of Maple Ridge be prepared for
coordination of an aligned request to BC Hydro regarding fish passage,
compensation and restoration related to the Alouette Watershed; that a process to
engage an independent Project Coordinator be pursued; and that the MOU and the
costs of the project coordinator be brought back to Council for consideration.
Council Workshop Agenda
June 5, 2018
Page 3 of 4
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 City of Langley – Provincial Employer Health Tax
Letter dated May 17, 2018 from Kelly Kenney, Corporate Officer, City of Langley,
urging municipalities to write to the provincial government requesting the
elimination or reduction of the newly implemented Employer Health Tax.
5.2 Upcoming Events
June 6, 2018
6:00 p.m.
Thomas Haney Secondary School Graduation Ceremony,
Queen Elizabeth Theatre, 650 Hampton Street, Vancouver
Organizer: Thomas Haney Secondary School
June 6, 2018
9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
KPU Advanced Manufacturing Meeting & Forum, Kwantlen
Polytechnic University,
Organizer: Kwantlen Polytechnic University
June 7, 2018
1:00 p.m.
Mayor’s Business Walk, E-one Moli Energy, 20000 Stewart
Crescent, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Maple Ridge Economic Development & Civic
Property Department
June 9, 2018
9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
3rd Annual Car Boot Sale, Burnett Fellowship, 20639 123
Avenue, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Burnett Fellowship
June 9, 2018
12:50 p.m.
354 Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps 10th Annual Review,
Maple Ridge Baptist Church, 22155 Lougheed Highway,
Maple Ridge
Organizer: 354 Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps
Council Workshop Agenda
June 5, 2018
Page 4 of 4
June 12, 2018
7:00 p.m.
Ridge Meadows College Graduation Ceremony, Riverside
Centre, 20575 Thorne Avenue, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Ridge Meadows College
June 12, 2018
2:30 and 6:30 p.m.
June 13, 2018
10:30 a.m., 2:30 and
6:30 p.m.
June 14, 2018
10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.
Douglas College Summer 2018 Graduation Ceremonies,
Laura C. Muir Performing Arts Theatre, New Westminster
Campus
Organizer: Douglas College
June 14, 2018 Continuing Ed Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows, School District
No. 42, Riverside Centre, 20585 Thorne Avenue, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Adult Recognition Planning Committee, Riverside
Centre
June 17, 2018
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Father’s Day Fish Release, Maple Ridge Park, 23200 Fern
Crescent, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Alouette River Management Society & Maple
Ridge Adopt-a-Stream Program
June 20, 2018
4:00 p.m.
Samuel Robertson Technical Secondary School Graduation
Ceremony, Hard Rock Casino Vancouver, 2080 United
Boulevard, Coquitlam
Organizer: Samuel Robertson Technical Secondary School
6.MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
7.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
8.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9.ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: ________________
2.0 Minutes
2.0
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
May 1, 2018
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on May 1, 2018 at 6:04 p.m. in the
Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the
purpose of transacting regular City business.
0BPRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read P. Gill, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell D. Pope, Acting General Manager of Parks, Recreation &
Councillor K. Duncan Culture
Councillor B. Masse F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor G Robson Services
Councillor T. Shymkiw L. Benson, Director of Corporate Administration
Councillor C. Speirs 1BOther Staff as Required
2BC. Carter, Director of Planning
3BB. Elliott, Manager of Community Planning
4BL. Zosiak, Planner 2
5BL. Siracusa, Manager of Economic Development
6BR. Brummer, Manager of Business Operations
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Note: Councillor Shymkiw was not in attendance at the start of the meeting.
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
R/2018-240
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda of the May 1, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting be adopted
with the addition of Item 4.6 Motion by Councillor Bell re: BC Housing and
Public Consultation on Royal Crescent and that the agenda as amended be
adopted.
CARRIED
Councillor Duncan - OPPOSED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 1, 2018
Page 2 of 6
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the March 27, 2018 and April 3, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2018-241
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of March 27, 2018 and
April 3, 2018 be adopted.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
Note: Councillor Shymkiw joined the meeting at 6:19 p.m.
4.1 BC Hydro Presentation– Discussion on Water Licence Renewal Application
and Process
• Maureen DeHaan, Technical Strategic Principal, BC Hydro
Ms. DeHaan gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following:
• Information on the Alouette Licence Renewal process
• System Overview of the Alouette/Stave/Ruskin System
• Details on the Alouette facilities and operations
• Detailed overview of the water licencing renewal process and the
application to renew by BC Hydro
• Outline of a Water Development Plan Content
• Information on the consideration of fish passage restoration
• Clarification on differences between a water licence and a water use plan
order
• Breakdown of contributions by BC Hydro to the Province, various
monitoring programs, an entrainment strategy and the Fish and Wildlife
Compensation Program
4.2 Ridge Meadows Division of Family Practice Presentation - Recruitment and
Retention of Family Physicians
• Treena Innes, Executive Director, Ridge Meadows Division of Family
Practice
• Dr. Bob Harrison
• Dr. Kandas Gounden
Council Workshop Minutes
May 1, 2018
Page 3 of 6
Ms. Innes introduced members of the Project Team for Physician Recruitment
& Retention. She gave a PowerPoint presentation and provided a background
on physician recruitment, differences in how recruitment was done in the past
compared to the present and the challenges surrounding bringing new family
doctors in the community once current physicians choose to retire.
Ms. Innes explained how the situation with the lack of family practitioners
developed, highlighting the lack of oversight by a government body for family
doctor recruitment and support across the Province, the increase in the local
population and changes in how younger doctors choose to join the workforce.
She emphasized that local physicians cannot keep up with demand and are at
capacity.
Dr. Bob Harrison spoke to the need for more doctors and advised that one-
third of persons living in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows do not have a family
doctor. He also spoke to the extended wait times to either see a family doctor
or to see a doctor in a drop-in clinic. He expressed concern with the Provincial
Government’s initiative of a primary care network and reiterated that the
system requires more doctors.
Dr. Kandas Gounden provided an outline of what can be done to deal with the
doctor shortage situation. He provided information on the Red Carpet
Program currently being run to help new physicians and their families with
transition into the communities. He advocated for a Provincial agency to take
ownership of the recruitment process and requested a partnership and/or
funding, either through local or provincial government, for a recruiter to
encourage new physicians to move to the area. Dr. Gounden expressed
concern with the continued impact of the family physician shortage on both
practicing doctors and citizens.
Ms. Innes summarized the concerns of the Ridge Meadows Division of Family
Practice. She spoke on the work being done to involve other agencies and
emphasized the need to find partners to assist and to get funding to hire a
recruiter for the communities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.
R/2018-242
It was moved and seconded
That staff provide a report on how the City of Maple Ridge can advocate for
the physician recruitment and retention issue raised by the Division of Family
Practice.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 1, 2018
Page 4 of 6
4.3 Strategic Property Management Presentation
• Lino Siracusa, Director of Economic Development
The Director of Economic Development gave a PowerPoint presentation
providing information on the following:
• Achievements in terms of property management by the City of Maple Ridge
• Observations on how land and property management can be more
strategic in the future
• Explanation of land ownership in British Columbia
• Importance of strategic land management to the City of Maple Ridge and
benefits to the city
• Next steps in future property management
4.4 Detached Garden Suite Program Review: Pilot Project Process
Staff report dated May 1, 2018 recommending that staff proceed with the
Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project Process as outlined in this report.
The Planner gave PowerPoint presentation providing the following:
• Background information on the secondary suites and detached garden
suite programs
• Review of the programs and recommendations based on public input
received
• Results of the program based on Council direction
• Information on the pilot project including the process and the timeline
R/2018-243
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to proceed with the Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project
Process, outlined in the report titled, Detached Garden Suite Program Review:
Pilot Project Process, dated May 1, 2018.
CARRIED
Councillor Speirs - OPPOSED
4.5 Whonnock Lake Centre Operating Model
Staff report dated May 1, 2018 recommending that staff be directed to
update the Fees and Charges Bylaw to reduce off-season wedding rates for
Whonnock Lake Centre.
The Manager of Business Operations reviewed the staff report.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 1, 2018
Page 5 of 6
R/2018-244
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to update the Fees and Charges Bylaw to reduce off-
season wedding rates for Whonnock Lake Centre.
CARRIED
4.6 Motion by Councillor Bell re: Royal Crescent
Councillor Bell put forward a motion and provided reasons as to why she
would like the motion considered by Council.
R/2018-245
It was moved and seconded
That BC Housing and the Provincial Government be requested to hold a public
consultation session prior to advancing the temporary housing project on
Royal Crescent.
CARRIED
Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Speirs – OPPOSED
5. CORRESPONDENCE – Nil
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8. MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Councillor Shymkiw
Councillor Shymkiw announced that he will not be running for again for local
government.
Councillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs wished Councillor Shymkiw luck in the future.
Councillor Duncan
Councillor Duncan encouraged the public to bring electronics which need
repairing to local ‘Repair Cafes’. She acknowledged Councillor Shymkiw as a
colleague.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 1, 2018
Page 6 of 6
Councillor Robson
Councillor Robson advised that he will propose that the local Chamber of
Commerce become involved in the physician recruitment issue. He provided
an update on work being done by the Pitt Meadows Airport Society.
Mayor Read
Mayor Read acknowledged Councillor Shymkiw and his role on Council. She
spoke on her participation in the co-hosting session of the Linda Steele show
on CKNW. Mayor Read also participated in a Maple Ridge Business Walk and
highlighted a visit to Brikers, a local company. She helped with the kick off of
a sleep out for homelessness by the Maple Ridge Christian School. She
attended a meeting of the Metro Vancouver Board and other regional
meetings.
9. ADJOURNMENT - 9:02 pm.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
L. Benson, Corporate Officer
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
May 15, 2018
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on May 15, 2018 at 6:38 p.m. in the
Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the
purpose of transacting regular City business.
0BPRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read K. Swift, Acting Chief Administrative Officer/General
Councillor C. Bell Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Councillor K. Duncan F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor B. Masse Services
Councillor G Robson L. Benson, Director of Corporate Administration
Councillor T. Shymkiw T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Councillor C. Speirs A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
1BOther Staff as Required
2BR. MacNair, Manager of Bylaw and Licensing Services
3BD. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
R/2018-271
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda of the May 15, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting be amended
to add Item 4.1 2018 Freshet Update and be renumbered accordingly, that
Item 8.1 Bear Concerns be added and that the agenda as amended be
adopted.
CARRIED
2.MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the April 17, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2018-272
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of April 17, 2018 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 15, 2018
Page 2 of 6
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 2018 Freshet Update
The Emergency Program Coordinator provided an overview of the local freshet
situation and the actions the City has been taking to prepare for any flooding.
He gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following information:
• Notifications carried out
• Upcoming weather forecast
• Fraser River levels at Hope current to May 14, 2018
• Precautionary steps being put into place
• Structure chart of the Emergency Management Team
• Next steps for the Emergency Operations Centre
4.2 Remedial Action for the Removal of Hazardous Building Located at 11271
206 Street
Staff report dated May 15, 2018 recommending that building at 11271 206
Street, Maple Ridge, BC be declared a hazardous condition.
The Manager of Bylaw and Licensing Services reviewed the report.
R/2018-273
It was moved and seconded
1. That the building at 11271 206 St., Maple Ridge, BC, legally described
as PID 011-317-639, Lot 756 District Lot 278 Group1 Township 12,
New Westminster District Plan 8654 be declared a hazardous condition
within the meaning of paragraph 73 1 (a) of the Community Charter;
2. That the Owner must, no later than thirty (30) days after receiving a copy
of this resolution, remove the unsafe building.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 15, 2018
Page 3 of 6
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 Fraser Health – Ridge Meadows Hospital Parking Rates
Letter dated April 12, 2018 from Michael Marchbank, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Fraser Health, responding to a letter from the City of Maple
Ridge requesting a plan for a substantial reduction in hospital parking rates at
Ridge Meadows Hospital.
R/2018-274
It was moved and seconded
That the letter dated April 12, 2018 from Michael Marchbank, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Fraser Health, responding to a letter from the City of
Maple Ridge requesting a plan for a substantial reduction in hospital parking
rates at Ridge Meadows Hospital be received into the record.
CARRIED
5.2 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”) – Nominations to Board of
Directors 2018
E-mail dated April 12, 2018 from Sylvie Delaquis, Corporate Secretary, CEO’s
Office, FCM, providing information on nominations to FCM’s Board of Directors
for the 2018 election period.
Councillor Speirs advised on his intent to run for the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities Board of Directors and requested support from Council.
5.2.1
R/2018-275
It was moved and seconded
That Councillor Speirs be endorsed to stand for election to the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM’s) Board of Directors for the period
starting in June 2018 and ending June 2019, and
That Council assumes all costs associated with Councillor Speirs attending
FCM’s Board of Directors meetings and annual conference.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 15, 2018
Page 4 of 6
5.2.2
R/2018-276
It was moved and seconded
That Council expense reporting acknowledge a redistribution of Council
expense allocations to allow for Councillor Speirs’ attendance at FCM
Board of Directors meetings and annual conference.
R/2018-277
It was moved and seconded
That Council expense reporting acknowledging distribution of Council
expense allocations be deferred to the June 5, 2018 Council workshop
Meeting.
CARRIED
Note: The meeting was recessed at 7:04 p.m. and reconvened at 7:18 p.m.
5.3 Chamber of Commerce – Proposed Shelter on Burnett Street
Letter dated April 23, 2018 from Ken Holland, President, Maple Ridge Pitt
Meadows Chamber of Commerce expressing concern with the lack of public
input pertaining to the proposed shelter on Burnett Street.
R/2018-278
It was moved and seconded
That the Letter dated April 23, 2018 from Ken Holland, President, Maple
Ridge Pitt Meadows Chamber of Commerce expressing concern with the lack
of public input pertaining to the proposed shelter on Burnett Street be
received into the record.
CARRIED
5.4 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural
Development, BC Geographical Office – Proposals to Adopt Official Names for
Peaks in the Pacific Range
Letter dated March 9, 2018 from Carla Jack, BC Geographical Names Office
providing information on the proposals to adopt official names for three peaks
in the Pacific Range and requesting advice and comments on the names
chosen.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 15, 2018
Page 5 of 6
R/2018-279
It was moved and seconded
That the letter dated March 9, 2018 from Carla Jack, BC Geographical Names
Office providing information on the proposals to adopt official names for three
peaks in the Pacific Range and requesting advice and comments on the
names chosen be received into the record.
CARRIED
Note: Councillor Shymkiw left the meeting at 7:28 p.m. He did not return to the
meeting.
5.5 Upcoming Events
May 26, 2018
1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Karina LeBlanc Field Opening – Merkley Park
Organizer: City of Maple Ridge
May 27,2018
9:00 a.m.
VistasRun 2018, Kanaka Creek Regional Park
Organizer: Ridge Meadows Hospice Society
May 30-June 1, 2018
Recycling Council of BC Conference/Trade Show – Whistler, BC
Organizer: Recycling Council of BC
June 3, 2018
Registration: 10:00 a.m.
Walk Start: 11:00 a.m.
Walk for ALS, Tri-Cities/Ridge Meadows, River Secondary
School, Port Coquitlam
Organizer: ALS Society of BC
6. MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting at 7:31 p.m. He did not return to the
meeting.
Councillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs attended two breakfasts in honour of volunteers, the ‘Humans in
Maple Ridge’ display and the opening of the Maple Ridge Lawn Bowling Club season.
He also attended the Katzie First Nation Inauguration and meetings at the UBC
Malcolm Knapp Research Forest.
Councillor Masse
Councillor Masse attended meeting of the Maple Ridge Environmental Advisory
Committee and the Alouette River Management Society.
Councillor Duncan
Councillor Duncan attended the ‘Humans in Maple Ridge’ display, the Katzie First
Nation Inauguration, the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Annual General Meeting
and the Home Show.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 15, 2018
Page 6 of 6
Councillor Bell
Councillor Bell attended the Citizen of the Year celebration and the Lower Mainland
LGA conference.
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8.1 Bear Concerns
Councillor Bell referred to an e-mail received from Councillor Masse
expressing concern with the heavy presence of bears getting into garbage due
to residents not abiding to bylaws dealing with garbage. She asked whether
the Bylaws Department can be encouraged to enforce those bylaws.
The Manager of Bylaw and Licensing Services advised on steps currently
being taken in response to concerns over bears.
9. ADJOURNMENT – 7:58 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
L. Benson, Corporate Officer
REPORT: Maple Ridge Sport Network Page 1 of 3
Date: May 22, 2018
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: May 22, 2018
and Members of Council DOC NO: 1929994
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Regular Council
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Sport Network
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Parks, Recreation & Culture (PRC) staff have been meeting with key individuals, sport groups, and
agency partners to share the Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity Strategy (‘the Strategy’)
(Attachment 1) adopted by Council on June 26, 2016, and to facilitate the formation of the Maple
Ridge Sport Network. Proposed Terms of Reference (Attachment 2) have been developed through
consultation with the newly formed Sport Network. With Council’s endorsement of the Terms of
Reference, the Sport Network will proceed with the development of an implementation plan for the
Strategy, including potential budget considerations, for Council’s review.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Sport Network Terms of Reference be endorsed and that staff report back with the Sport
Network’s proposed Sport and Physical Activity Strategy implementation plan.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
The Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity Strategy was endorsed by Council in 2016 and is
intended to guide collaborative discussions on the growth and sustainability of sport
leadership and skill development in the community. A number of Sport Strategy action items
have been accomplished since endorsement. Recent accomplishments include:
•Incorporated physical literacy concepts into children’s recreation programs offered by
the City of Maple Ridge;
•Provided extensive consultations with user groups on recreation infrastructure projects;
•Held community sport workshops and education opportunities on a number of topics,
including National Coaching Certifications, concussion management sessions and non-
profit board management;
•In partnership with School District 42, facilitated Active Noon Hour programs at 5
elementary schools to increase physical literacy and active participation.
4.1
REPORT: Maple Ridge Sport Network Page 2 of 3
Date: May 22, 2018
A priority goal of the Sport Strategy is the development of a Sport and Physical Activity
Network, consisting of representative of various agencies and community sport stakeholders
that would have a key role in providing leadership and input toward the implementation of
Strategy actions. The newly formed Network is growing into a broad and diverse group,
currently with representatives from 15 different sports, Pacific Sport Fraser Valley, Fraser
Health Authority and School District 42. The Sport Network will serve as an advisory function
for Council and will drive initiatives endorsed through the business planning process. The
Sport Network will provide Council with progress updates on these initiatives and the
outcomes of the Sport and Physical Activity Strategy goals twice annually. The attached
Terms of Reference outline the vision, mandate, governance structure of the Sport Network,
and includes the process to apply for membership. With Council’s endorsement of the Terms
of Reference, the Sport Network’s first major project will be to develop the implementation
plan for the Strategy’s priority goals and actions.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome is the successful implementation of the priority goals outlined in the
Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity Strategy as guided by the Sport Network.
c) Strategic Alignment:
The establishment of the Sport Network aligns with the endorsed Sport and Physical Activity
Strategy and the Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Plan.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The membership of the Sport Network encompasses a diverse group of individuals. In
addition to City staff, School District 42 and Fraser Health Authority representatives, current
members from the sport community include Albion Football Club, WestCoast Autogroup
Football Club, Golden Ears Athletics, Golden Ears Winter Club, Maple Ridge Figure Skating
Club, Maple Ridge Tennis Club, Ridge Meadows Burrards, Ridge Meadows Minor Baseball,
Ridge Meadows Minor Hockey, Ridge Meadows Canoe and Kayak Club, Bateson Martial Arts,
Maple Ridge Squash Club, Haney Neptunes Swim Club, Haney Seahorses Swim Club and
Jeong’s Taekwondo.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
Support from staff is required to ensure City representation as a key stakeholder in sport,
health and wellness in the community, and to facilitate progress on the Strategy actions and
goals. Staff will help ensure the members at the table are adequately meeting the
membership application criteria, established Terms of Reference and will play a key role in
providing support should concerns or issues arise. The Network membership is expected to
grow and develop in the first year, and staffs role is an advisory or liaison role that provides
support to the Sport Network, much like the existing Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Katzie
Community Network or Seniors Network.
REPORT: Maple Ridge Sport Network Page 3 of 3
Date: May 22, 2018
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
PRC was successful in receiving a $30,000 start-up grant in July 2017 through Fraser
Health/BC Alliance for Healthy Living. The funding has been used to support the Network
through additional staff time and key initiatives; however, a long term solution for ongoing
support to the Sport Network will be required. This and any other financial implications
related to the Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity Strategy implementation plan will be
brought forward for Council’s consideration as part of the 2019-2023 Business Plan process.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Maple Ridge Sport Network is composed of passionate community members working alongside
City staff, SD42 and FHA to advance sport and recreation in this community. The Sport Network will
work to foster greater collaboration amongst groups, contribute to the future training of athletes,
coaches and volunteers, support programs that provide fundamental movement skills, and promote
inclusivity and diversity across the Maple Ridge sport community.
“Original signed by Dave Speers”
Prepared by: Dave Speers, Recreation Coordinator
“Original signed by Christa Balatti”
Reviewed by: Christa Balatti, Manager Health & Wellness
“Original signed by Danielle Pope”
Reviewed by: Danielle Pope, Director Recreation & Community Services
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Kelly Swift, MBA, BGS
General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
(1) Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity Strategy
(2) Maple Ridge Sport Network Terms of Reference
SPORT &
PHYSICAL
ACTIVITY
STRATEGY
Maple Ridge
2016 - 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
1
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Contents
Acknowledgments 3
Executive Summary 4
Setting the Stage - Introduction 8
Anticipated Outcomes 14
Background 16
Goal Statements 22
The Game Plan 24
Priority Goals 26
2
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
3
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
The City of Maple Ridge would like to acknowl-
edge and appreciate the numerous individu-
als who contributed to the development of
this document.
School District 42
Fraser Health
Pacific Sport Fraser Valley
Ridge Meadows Minor Baseball
Ridge Meadows Minor Hockey
Bateson Martial Arts
Ridge Meadows Minor Lacrosse
Albion Football Club
Haney Neptunes Swim Club
Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows HUB (bicycling)
Ridge Meadows Bruins Rugby Club
Speedminton Club
West Coast Football Club
Revolution Basketball
Pitt Meadows Paddling Club
Pickleball Representatives
Haney Seahorses Swim Club
Maple Ridge Squash Club
Golden Ears Physiotherapy
Pitt Meadows Arena
Meadow Ridge Knights Football
Among others that participated in on-line re-
search survey’s, community conversations
and shared their passion for sport.
The Community Development, Parks and
Recreation Department’s, Health and Well-
ness Staff facilitated the research and devel-
opment of the City of Maple Ridge’s Sport
and Physical Activity Policy and contributed
tremendously to this Strategy.
Acknowledgments
4
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
The City of Maple Ridge is deeply rooted in
sport participation and excellence. Situat-
ed between majestic mountains, rivers and
lakes, and having plenty of parks, trails,
sports fields and indoor facilities, there are
numerous opportunities to participate in ac-
tivity.
With over 80 organized Sport Clubs (profit
and non-profit) in the community, emerging
and well established sport organizations
abound as is evident when one enters the
bustling arenas, gymnasiums, fields, sport
boxes, courts and pools throughout the year.
These locations become much more than
just a playing surface; it is where children of-
ten score their first goal, where parents and
caregivers can socially connect and share
stories, and where coaches guide and men-
tor youth, instilling confidence, teamwork
and commitment to our youngest residents.
Sport helps build strong, connected commu-
nities where participation and fun are the ul-
timate outcome.
The Maple Ridge Physical Activity Strategy
(“the strategy”) was developed to create a
roadmap for discussion, action and change;
taking sport to that ‘next level’ and to con-
tinue the dialogue of prioritizing health and
activity as paramount in community well be-
ing. The development included community
sport leaders in a collaborative, engaging
consultation process that was rooted in com-
munity development principles. Recognizing
community sport is largely delivered by way
of local sport organizations (both formal and
informal), schools, non-profit groups, private
business, engaged and passionate citizens,
and educators and through the municipal
recreation department, drawing on these sec-
tors formed the foundation of the team that
contributed to the strategy. As was evident in
this process, sport plays a vital role in build-
ing social capital, connected community net-
works and life-long relationships.
These sport, health and education sec-
tors together align to create a participation
Executive Summary
5
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
continuum where residents of all ages may
participate in sport or be physically active
throughout their lifespan and becoming AC-
TIVE FOR LIFE. According to the Participation
Report Card on Physical Activity for Children
and Youth, 77% of kids ages 5-19 participate
in organized physical activity or sport.* How-
ever this same report notes participation in
organized physical activities and sport is no-
tably lower among girls, children and youth
with a developmental disability. An outcome
of this strategy is to identify and address bar-
riers and continue to provide opportunities
for every resident to be physically active and
further increase sport participation. Physical
literacy was added as a new indicator and
measured in the report card, and a base
line developed by which to measure for fu-
ture years. Nonetheless, education and infor-
mation describing and informing parents on
physical literacy is a top priority recommend-
ed by both the report card and as well within
this strategy.
The implementation of the strategy will rely
on the foundation of which it was built. It ac-
knowledges that community leaders, School
District 42, local health agencies, physical
Footnote: 2016 Active Healthy Kids
Canada – Report Card of Physical
Activity for Children and Youth http://
www.participaction.com
activity advocate agencies and the Parks and
Recreation Department will drive the actions
forward and this living document will be up-
dated as new commitments, initiatives and
partnerships are developed.
Existing relationships both new and long
standing formed the foundation of the devel-
opment of a steering committee that initiat-
ed the process with the development of the
strategy vision:
VISION Statement:
For present and future sport and physical ac-
tivity: Maple Ridge will strengthen our commu-
nity by providing lifelong sport and physical
activity opportunities so that all residents may
experience the joy of participating in sport,
and achieve their full potential in the areas of
sport skill development, excellence and sport
leadership.
6
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
7
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
The commitment to open communication,
collaboration and the desire to be involved
in the creation of a collective plan to support
sport and physical activity resulted in numer-
ous sport champions having involvment in
various stages of the creation of this docu-
ment. It is with these groups and the com-
mitment to continue with the passion and
momentum that the strategy goals and ac-
tions will come to life.
The Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity
Strategy consist of seven priority goal state-
ments that guide the overall direction of the
strategy. The 7 goals are:
Goal # 1
Strengthen interaction between sport deliv-
ery agencies
Goal # 2
Enhance Physical Literacy (Fundamental
Movement Skills)
Goal # 3
Quality Facilities for Participation and Perfor-
mance
Goal # 4
Leadership and Community Involvement
Goal # 5
Accountability
Goal # 6
Inclusion and Diversity
Goal # 7
Communication
Under each goal statement a number of spe-
cific actions are included and sport sector
and agency leads identified. The leads will
require support and involvement from local
sport organizations, school representatives
and other interested community residents
to address the action that supports the goal
statement.
The Strategy was developed to create a coor-
dinated vision for sport and physical activity
to support life long participation for increas-
ing the health and wellness of community. In
doing this, the strategy will enhance capac-
ity and foster alignment and collaboration
between sport and recreation and empower
the sport sector to advance local sport in our
communities.
7 Goals
8
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Setting the Stage - Introduction
Citizens residing in Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows are active and participate in sport
and physical activity with 97% of residents
using at least one recreation service or fa-
cility at least once per year and where the
majority of residents participating in physical
activity to stay healthy and fit.*
The Sport and Physical Activity Strategy’s Vi-
sion and Priority Goals provides a framework
to support opportunities for residents to be
engaged, active and provide life skills that is
crucial to healthy development and wellness
throughout ones life.
Physical activity is a key determinant of
health status and is essential to personal
health and quality of life. Municipal recre-
ation by way of various facilities, parks, trails,
programs and services provides affordable
and accessible opportunities that can pos-
itively impact the health and well-being of
residents, especially vulnerable sectors that
may not otherwise have an opportunity to
participate. The same principles apply to or-
ganized and informal sport where sport par-
ticipation can provide the glue for social con-
nectedness and foster a sense of ‘we’ and
belonging. These factors along with physi-
cal activity provided by education institutions,
were key in the development of the strategy.
Regardless of culture, economic status and
physical ability, as identified in focus groups
sessions, the shared goals for these sectors
is to increase participation for residents to
become and stay active and healthy through-
out their lives.
The Governor General of Canada proclaimed
“2015 – The Year of Sport in Canada.” The
theme; Canada: A Leading Sport Nation.
This proclamation and the value placed on
the power of sport and participation is truly
the essence of the Sport and Physical Activ-
ity Strategy.
The strategy was developed using a multi-sec-
toral approach and those involved were instru-
9
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
mental in forming the process that values the
underlying importance and positive impact of
being physically literate and actively engaged
building strong families and healthy commu-
nities.
Municipal recreation has always played a sig-
nificant role in the continuum of sport and
active participation. Parks and Recreation
Departments will often be the first provider
of initial experiences with sport through ear-
ly skill development. It is at these “Learn
To” or introductory level programs that the
child plays, has fun, gains confidence, and
becomes familiar with how their bodies can
move as they participate in physical activity.
From here children may enter into community
based sport associations, or continue their
journey being active and physically literate
by running, jumping and throwing on their
own through active play and later as they
enter the education system. The link there-
fore between municipal recreation, sport as-
sociations and schools is already connect-
ed. Recreation has a role to support sport
in both the community level and within the
schools as kids transition to community or
school sport programs. It is however at this
junction that the three, with similar goals and
outcomes can strengthen the link and be bet-
ter connected. The strategy is intended to
foster collaboration between these sectors
and continue the partnerships on the deliv-
ery of sport and physical activity to children
and youth as they intertwine between school
sports participation, community sport par-
ticipation and eventually remain active into
adulthood.
Recreation also support sport through pro-
viding facilities (pools, gymnasiums, arenas,
fields, multi purpose spaces), parks and
trails, coaching and volunteer training, assis-
tance with special event hosting, expertise
sharing, grant applications and allocations
and facility booking/joint use agreements.
Footnote: *2014 Sentis Market Re-
search Inc. Parks and Leisure Services
Survey.
10
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Over the past few years, numerous commu-
nity leaders championed initiatives that have
benefited and continue to support sport in
Maple Ridge. With the announcement of
Vancouver – Whistler’s bid to host the 2010
Winter Olympics Games, the spark was ignit-
ed locally to celebrate the power of sport in
our own backyard. Maple Ridge hosted their
own celebratory events at Game time, renew-
ing a sense of energy and pride for sport and
volunteerism within the community.
This vibrancy continued well into 2011 with
a cohort of sport advocates aligned with the
British Columbia KidSport Association to
create a local KidSport Chapter in our area.
Backed by a staggering statistic that 1 in 3
Canadian children cannot afford to ‘get in the
game,’ KidSport continues to provide mone-
tary support to children and youth where fi-
nancial limitations are a barrier to participa-
tion. Because of compassionate volunteers
that strongly believed that all children should
be afforded the opportunity to play, KidSport
Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows quickly became
and remains a successful funding body with-
in the community.
Maple Ridge is fortunate to have a Canadian
Tire Jumpstart Chapter that provides finan-
cial support to children and youth who can-
not afford the costs associated with sport,
recreation and active programs. Thanks to
the generosity of the local Canadian Tire,
and affiliated businesses, on average, 500
children and youth per year received financial
assistance so as to remain involved and con-
nected to sport in their communities.
These examples are indicative of how the
community values the importance of sport in
a child’s life and the firm belief that partici-
pation is more than just ‘being on a team.’
That being connected to a sport team or as-
sociation fosters not only physical literacy
and healthy habits in young people that will
carry them through to adulthood, but as well,
provides an environment where leadership
How We Got Here
11
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
skills, social connections for both player and
parents are built, and confidence and self es-
teem develops.
With the success of KidSport, volunteer en-
ergies shifted to creating an event to provide
information to parents and families of the
numerous sports available to play in Maple
Ridge. With this idea, the Maple Ridge Pitt
Meadows Sports and Recreation Expo came
to life. The interactive event showcased
sport, recreation, and sport funding orga-
nizations in the area and provided a range
of activities for all ages to experience. This
grassroots event became a platform for dis-
cussions with participating sport groups to
share their strengths, challenges and oppor-
tunities and with the conversations emerged
the realization and desire for greater commu-
nity sport collaboration.
The Expo embraced new themes each year
and in 2012, the theme was Physical Liter-
acy, a relatively unknown term in local sport
language. The event drew a dynamic speaker
from then, Vancouver 2010 Legacies Now,
who spoke on the underlying principles of
Physical Literacy and Active for Life, both
components of the Canadian Sport for Life
Principles.
Physical literacy is the motivation, confi-
dence, physical competence, knowledge and
understanding to take responsibility for en-
gagement in physical activities for life.*
In 2013, another well-respected key note
speaker from Legacies Now, delivered a mes-
sage, speaking to those in attendance about
“getting people working together.” His mes-
sage centred on the importance of collabora-
tion and the strength in numbers when pur-
suing improvements or change movements in
sport. The Sport and Recreation Expo proved
to be a vehicle to build relationships and
gain a better understanding of sport stake-
holders all of which are local sport groups,
the volunteers within those groups and the
participants of sport and physical activity in
our community.
Consistent with the practice of collaboration,
information was collected from champions
within a variety of sports and preliminary re-
search focused on building capacity and de-
veloping a process to work together towards
common goals at the grassroots level. It was
at this time the benefits of working together
for a shared plan become clearly evident.
Footnote: *International Physical Liter-
acy Association, May, 2014
12
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
13
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Why Develop a
Sport & Physical
Activity Strategy?
The Sport and Physical Activity Strategy is
a means to guide and provide a reference
tool for the recreation department, sport
and community groups and School Dis-
trict, and work together towards common
goals to the benefit of a healthy and ac-
tive community. The strategy will provide
the basis of building a healthy community
where citizens are encouraged to main-
tain a healthy and active lifestyle through
life-long participation in sport and recre-
ational activities.
The strategy is intended to identify short
term and long term goals which was devel-
oped with the community but will be facilitat-
ed and led by staff in the Parks and Leisure
Department. The Priority Goal Statement
and subsequent Action Plan will require a
network of community residents represent-
ing sport and physical activity groups, clubs
or agencies who will collaborate and engage
their own groups in the completion of the ac-
tions. This will require a commitment to the
shared vision and direction set forth in the
strategy, but most of all for continued advo-
cacy for sport and active living.
14
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
15
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
In 2010, Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks and
Leisure Services Commission endorsed the
Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan.
This strategic planning document involved ex-
tensive research and analysis and continues
to serve as an important guide to identifying
priorities in the community. The development
of the strategy is a recommendation related
to service delivery and programming within
the PRC Master Plan. The importance and
value to strengthening community capacity
building, group development and delivering
sport and physical activity through a network
approach aligns with the Parks and Leisure
long range plans for continuous improvement
and growth.
The strategy and the actions embedded with-
in each priority goal statement are anticipat-
ed to produce tangible outcomes that will
further the physical activity movement and
deepen sport development Some of these
outcomes include:
Enhanced working relationships between
recreation, education, sport and health.
Development of short term and long term
community goals based on shared collective
actions.
Increase in sport and physical activity
participation and program and services inclu-
sivity and accessibility.
Understanding groups capacities and
abilities for involvement in a collaborative
network now or in the future.
Commitment to coordinated and sus-
tainable approaches in utilizing shared re-
sources; find links and common themes be-
tween the groups.
Adoption and endorsement of Canadian
Sport for Life and the Long Term Athlete De-
velopment Framework within local sport gov-
ernance.
Development of a Sport Network; lo-
cal sport organizations that advocate, share
best practices and advise on the advance-
ment of sport and physical activity.
Supporting engagement in enhanced plan-
ning of new facilities, programs, services and
partnerships.
Providing a vehicle for supporting new,
expanding and emerging sport organizations
and understanding and addressing sport
needs, gaps and successes
Fostering community leadership and ca-
pacity.
Greater shared understanding of Active for
Life Principles through the process of net-
work development and enhanced collabora-
tion.
Greater global understanding of physical
literacy by the community.
Supporting and providing the ability for
residents to be active and healthy through
improved health and wellbeing.
Anticipated
Outcomes
16
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Throughout the development of the Strate-
gy, reference was made to key best practice
research and guiding complimentary frame-
works on sport, community health and phys-
ical activity. The Canadian Sport Policy sets
the national expectations on promotion and
celebration of sport participation and ex-
cellence that includes values such as fun,
commitment, personal development, acces-
sibility, respect and fair play. As is relevant at
all levels of government, the policy notes ef-
forts must be made to increase collaboration
amongst federal and provincial government
towards the Canadian Sport Policy goals:
1. Introduction to sport
2. Recreational Sport
3. Competitive Sport
4. High Performance sport
5. Sport for Development
Background
The policy goals and outcomes are a frame-
work for the development of action plans at
various levels, and was influential at a local
level in the Sport and Physical Activity Strat-
egy whereas improved health and wellness
and participation is a combined desired out-
come both nationally and locally.
The Canadian Sport for Life model aims to
improve the quality of sport and physical
activity in Canada.* Within the model are
pillars to accomplish the goal, which include
physical literacy, long term athlete develop-
ment and active for life.
Physical Literacy a key component of the strat-
egy as competence in movement provides the
individual with the ability to confidently navi-
gate ones world. Physical literacy is learned
and strengthened through sport and through
non-sport activities such as recreational play
both structured and unstructured, hence its
value and tie with other service partners
such as schools childcare centres and other
17
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
community based recreation groups. Physi-
cal skills learned can be transferred to mul-
tiple environments throughout ones lifetime
and provides the basis for an individual to be
active for life through lifelong participation in
sport and physical activity.
The idea of leading an active lifestyle outside
of sport is identified within this document as
Physical Activity. Sport alone does not define
how every resident in Maple Ridge choses to
be active. For some, the word ‘sport’ may be
a barrier in itself for engagement. Therefore
it’s not important that every person partici-
pates in sport, but rather every person par-
ticipates in some sort of physical or wellness
activity.
The strategy aims to support long term ath-
lete development, although does not specifi-
cally include defined goals to enhance athlet-
ic excellence. Rather, fundamental movement
skills which are building blocks to any mas-
tery of a physical movement, will support the
broader strategy and goals of improved phys-
ical literacy and participation.
The Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity
Policy provides clear direction on the philoso-
phy of working together for the advancement
of sport and activity in our communities.
Sport & Physical Activity
Policy Vision:
Maple Ridge values and celebrates sport and
physical activity as an integral component in
a healthy and active community, essential to
quality of life.
Participation in sport is increased by strength-
ening sport and community partnerships, and
committing to coordinated and cooperative
approaches in identifying common interests,
goals and challenges in the provision of qual-
ity sport and physical activity opportunities.
Footnote: *canadiansportforlife.ca
18
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Sport & Physical Activity
Policy Guiding Principles
The following principles support Maple
Ridge’s vision and provides a framework for
Parks and Leisure Services to work collab-
oratively with new, forming and established
Community Groups in the growth of physical
activity and sport.
We believe:
1. All children and youth should have the op-
portunity to access affordable sport and
recreation in their community.
2. In providing inclusive, accessible and life
long opportunities for sport participation
in the health and well being of residents.
3. All residents should be provided a variety
of physical literacy competency opportu-
nities towards being active for life.
4. In enhancing working relationships and
partnerships between recreation, edu-
cation, sport, health, transportation and
tourism.
5. Collaboration and sharing knowledge and
expertise benefits the development of
quality sport in the community.
6. In recognizing the relationship and mutu-
al benefit between sport, community and
business stakeholders.
As the policy informed the strategy, together
the documents identified issues, pressures
and opportunities within the community sport
delivery model recognizing the role municipal
recreation plays in supporting and improv-
ing community health and physical activity.
These components were identified through
sport group consultations.
The strategy is intended to be a five year
working document, that will provide a longer
term vision of sport and physical activity, yet
recognizes the need to be flexible to allow for
refocusing as needed, in response to com-
munity trends, best practices and industry
standards.
19
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Sport Group Findings
Key themes emerged:
Strengths and Opportunities
Volunteer and coaches recruitment is
stable for some, but succession planning
continues to be top of mind for organizations
with long-term volunteers
Desire for increased collaboration and
communication with other groups, with the
City and School District
Desire to build on groups promotional
tools to increase awareness and further grow
the sport
Strengthen promotions, branding, and
awareness campaigns on volunteer commit-
ments and administration responsibilities
Groups looking for accessible and af-
fordable community based coaches training
Desire to establish code of conduct and
best practices for coaches
Realization for the need for mentorship
opportunities such as player to coach con-
tinuum
Opportunities to learn from each other,
use expertise, learn from experience, share
resources
KidSport and Jumpstart funding ave-
nues are valued and recognized as key
An existence of organized networks:
Field Allocation Users, Field Sports Associ-
ation, Ice Allocation, Sport and Recreation
Expo Committee, desire to utilize
There is tremendous expertise and
willingness to transfer knowledge within the
community and individual sport associations
Some sport groups have a long histo-
ry within the community and volunteers have
deepened pride within the organization.
Continue to have a committed and en-
gaged volunteer base. Strong leadership ex-
ists within many groups
Many groups believe sport involvement
for all involved is all about fun, health, friend-
ship and social connections
Sport associations value the confidence
building, skill development, spirit, sportsman-
ship, competition, teamwork that comes with
involvement in sport
Belief that sport is building self-esteem,
confidence, integrity, honesty, respect in chil-
dren and youth
Membership continues to grow some-
times beyond volunteer capacity in some
groups
Technical skills and passion evident in
coaches
Understanding that sport builds a strong
sense of community
All groups focus on player development
and recognize the contribution to high level
athletics
20
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
21
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Challenges &
Growth Areas
Physical literacy education and aware-
ness. Canadian Sport for Life principles still
fairly unknown
Need to address burn out of highly com-
mitted and engaged volunteers
Feeling of a lack of volunteer engage-
ment
Perceived lack of facilities for individual
sport needs and desires
Feeling of a threat to loss of existing
facilities due to growth of other sports
Sport specialization at a young age
Lack of physical activity. Kids not de-
veloping fundamental movement skills and
children entering programs can lack basic
movement skills
Feeling of a lack of qualified volunteer
coaches; passionate parents taking roles
above skills level to support registration
numbers in the sport
Groups seeking support in developing
programs. Looking to others for expertise
Player retention; youth may drop out due
to bad experiences, not fun, too much pres-
sure to succeed
Assistance required for promotion and
increased awareness of some sports
Lack of large enough facilities to host
flagship tournaments in one place
Facility (fields) availability continues to
be a challenge due to growth of field sports
Programming in areas to support the
sport i.e youth introduction to specific sport
ie. learn to skate for older age groups
Continue to improve collaboration be-
tween sport groups – work together; meet-
ings on best usage; meetings for input on up-
grades to facilities; improved communication
and relationships
Understanding groups capacities and
abilities for involvement in a collaborative
network now or in the future. Build relation-
ships and lay the foundation for collaboration
22
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
23
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Priority Goal
Statements
The Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity
Strategy consists of seven priority goal state-
ments that guide the overall direction of the
strategy.
Priority Goal # 1
Strengthen interaction between sport deliv-
ery agencies
• Maple Ridge is a model of cooperation
and collaboration amongst government
and non-governmental organizations in
the delivery of sport in the community.
Priority Goal # 2
Enhance Physical Literacy (Fundamental
Movement Skills)
• Every individual in Maple Ridge regard-
less of age, will be physically literate and
have the fundamental movement & sport
performance skills to enjoy sport & physi-
cal activity, to the best of their ability.
Priority Goal # 3
Quality Facilities for Participation and Perfor-
mance
• There will be an adequate number and
quality of sport facilities to support ex-
panding participation and ability to host
sport events.
Priority Goal # 4
Leadership and Community Involvement
• Maple Ridge will have sufficient number
and quality of volunteers and staff who
are skilled in coaching, officiating and ad-
ministering the sport system.
Priority Goal # 5
Accountability
• Maple Ridge staff will monitor and report
back to Maple Ridge Council and other
key stakeholders on the Strategy goals
and actions.
Priority Goal # 6
Inclusion and Diversity
• Maple Ridge provides opportunities for all
residents to access affordable sport and
recreation activities, and is recognized for
its inclusivity of people with disabilities,
visible minorities and financial challenges
Priority Goal # 7
Communication
• Citizens of Maple Ridge are aware of and
understand the key benefits of participa-
tion in sport and physical activity.
24
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
25
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
The Game Plan
The following Strategy Implementation Plan
encompasses the prioritized strategic goals
and actions and identifies the communi-
ty sport stakeholders, physical activity and
health agencies among other champions that
will be responsible for delivering the actions
within the recommended timelines. The ac-
tions identified in the plan can be achieved
through participation of local sport associa-
tions and their board members, volunteers
and parents and participants, key represen-
tatives from School District 42, PacificSport
Fraser Valley, Parks and Leisure staff.
Items requiring funding will be identified and
determined how best to support with a po-
tential to utilize City capital reserves, Parks,
Recreation and Culture Master Plan growth
funding, grants and sponsorship funding.
The implementation solidifies the communi-
ty’s investment in sport and physical activity.
Glossary:
Sport Network - Proposed organization com-
prised of community groups and agencies
who provide sport, physical activity or health
programs or services in Maple Ridge/Pitt
Meadows
Local Sport Organizations – Non-profit Sports
Clubs & Associations
Regional Sport Advocate Agencies – Pacific-
Sport Fraser Valley, Canadian Sport 4 Life,
viaSport
“Maple Ridge will strengthen our community by pro-
viding lifelong sport and physical activity opportu-
nities so that all residents may experience the joy of
participating in sport, and achieve their full potential
in the areas of sport skill development, excellence and
sport leadership.”
26
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Priority Goal #1 - Strengthen interaction between sport delivery agencies.
Maple Ridge is a model of cooperation and collaboration amongst government and non-govern-
mental organizations in the delivery of sport in the community.
ACTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE
1.1 Develop and facilitate lectures and
workshops for community sport groups
and educators that focus on the de-
velopment of physical literacy, coach-
ing certification programs and other
sport related training. Other sport
leadership development workshops
may include volunteer management,
non-profit board development, sponsor-
ship and fundraising
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organizations
School District 42
Regional Sport Advocate
Agencies
November 2017
1.2 Create mechanisms and opportunities
for community sport groups to mobi-
lize and share information and best
practices, techniques and resources
in areas such as multi-sport technical
leadership, biomechanics, sport physi-
ology, training methods etc.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organizations
Regional Sport Advocate
Agencies
November 2017
1.3 Develop an integrated approach for
community sport groups to focus ef-
fort and resources on physical literacy,
fundamental movement skills and
technical sport skill development for
children and youth.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organizations
September 2017
27
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Priority Goals
Priority Goal #2 - Enhance Physical Literacy
Every individual in Maple Ridge regardless of age, will be physically literate and have the funda-
mental movement and sport performance skills to enjoy sport & physical activity to the best of
their ability.
ACTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE
2.1 Raise awareness and promote the impor-
tance of physical literacy skill development
through a multi-sport framework for sport
leaders, educators and parents through
educational opportunities, workshops, and
distribution of physical literacy resources
and promotions.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organiza-
tions
Regional Sport Advo-
cate Agencies
School District
November 2016
2.2 Provide opportunities for sport administra-
tors, recreation program leaders, commu-
nity sport coaches, educators and fitness
professionals to learn methods of teaching
physical literacy skills to children, youth,
adults and seniors.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organiza-
tions
Regional Sport Advo-
cate Agencies
School District
Summer 2017
28
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
2.3 Work with partners to provide Canadian
Sport For Life sanctioned physical literacy
skill development programs for children and
youth in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
schools. Inclusive of Long Term Athlete De-
velopment and high performance programs.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
School District
Local Sport Organiza-
tions
Regional Sport Advo-
cate Agencies
September 2018
2.4 Identify and seek to address challenges
that are preventing various high-barrier
groups from developing physical literacy
skills and getting adequate levels of physi-
cal activity.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organiza-
tions
Regional Sport Advo-
cate Agencies
School District
January 2018
2.5 Provide physical literacy resources to school
administrators, educators, recreation admin-
istrators, recreation program leaders, local
sport administrators, community coaches
and early childhood educators and childcare
operators and parents.
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organiza-
tions
Regional Sport Advo-
cate Agencies
School District
September 2017
2.6 Collaborate with School District 42 to inte-
grate Strategy goals with the new BC School
Curriculum.
Parks and Leisure
School District
April 2017
ACTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE
29
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Priority Goals
Priority Goal #3 - Exceptional Facilities for Participation and Performance
There will be an adequate number of sport infrastructures to support expanding participation
and capacity to host sport events.
ACTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE
3.1 Conduct a sport facility analysis identi-
fying the current inventory and existing
capacity.
Parks and Leisure April 2017
3.2 Explore and identify facility types that
will support the future growth of sport
and physical activity.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organizations
City Departments
August 2016
3.3 Continue to support the facility use
agreements between the City of Maple
Ridge, City of Pitt Meadows and School
District 42 with emphasis on sport
access.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
School District
September 2017
3.4 Research the application process and
deadlines for Provincial Gaming grants
and Federal/Provincial Infrastructure
grants that fund capital development
facility projects.
Parks and Leisure ongoing
30
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Priority Goal #4 - Leadership and Community Involvement
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows will have sufficient numbers and quality of volunteers and staff
who are skilled in coaching, officiating and administering the sport system.
ACTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE
4.1 Form a Sport and Physical Activity Network
comprised of representatives of Maple Ridge
and Pitt Meadows community sport organiza-
tions, School District 42 and Fraser Health to
determine who will represent on the network.
This group will provide leadership, provide an
advisory function and will support to foster an
inclusive sport and physical activity community
network.
Parks and Leisure
School District
Fraser Health
Local sport organi-zations
January 2017
4.2 Plan and facilitate fun and affordable multi-
sport skill development activities for children
in local schools. Provide introduction to main-
stream and emerging sports to children 6-12
years of age.
Parks and Leisure
School District
January 2017
4.3 Liaise with local sport alumni and use exper-
tise and share experiences and knowledge
in sport development (coaching, mentoring,
administration, officiating, tournament organiza-
tion etc.) Support athletes as leaders and role
models within their chosen sport and in the
community.
Sport Network
Local sport organi-zations
Athletes
April 2018
4.4 Host Coaching Development and Certification
Programs and other relevant workshops for
local sport organization coaches, board mem-
bers and volunteers.
Sport Network
Local Sport Orga-nizations
Regional Sport Advocate Agencies
Parks and Leisure
September 2016
4.5 Partner with Fraser Health in delivering physical
activity promotions and programs.
Sport Network
Fraser Health
Local Sport Orga-nizations
Parks and Leisure
January 2018
31
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Priority Goals
Priority Goal #5 - Accountability
Maple Ridge Parks and Leisure Services staff and the Sport and Physical Activity Network will
monitor and report back to the City Councils, Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Sport Network mem-
bers and other key stakeholders on the strategy goals and actions.
ACTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE
5.1 The proposed Sport and Physical Activity Network
will oversee the delivery of the goals and actions
outlined in the Maple Ridge Sport and Physical
Activity Strategy.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Ongoing
5.2 Develop benchmarks and success indicators to
measure and evaluate the achievements of the
Maple Ridge Sport and Physical Activity Strategy.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organi-
zations
April 2017
5.3 Report twice annually to Council on the status of
achieving the goals and actions identified in the
strategy. Identify and respond to emerging issues,
trends opportunities as they align with the strategy.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Twice Annually;
Ongoing
32
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
33
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Priority Goal #6 - Inclusion and Diversity
Maple Ridge provides opportunities for all residents to access affordable sport and recreation
activities, and is recognized for its inclusivity of people with disabilities, visible minorities and
financial challenges.
ACTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE
6.1 Conduct research to determine financial
barriers that prevent residents from par-
ticipating in local sport activities, and take
action to provide programs that reduce
these barriers.
Parks and Lei-
sure
Sport Network
January 2018
6.2 Conduct research to determine barriers
to participation in sport by our diverse
multi-cultural community, and build capacity
to address their sport program and facility
needs.
Sport Network
Parks and Lei-
sure
Local Sport Orga-
nizations
September 2018
6.3 Explore ways to retain existing sport and
physical activity participants so they con-
tinue to participate in sport and physical
activity for their lifetime (i.e. affordable pro-
grams, accessible facilities, health promo-
tions and program/facility use subsidies).
Sport Network
Parks and Lei-
sure
April 2018
Priority Goals
34
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
35
Maple Ridge SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY | 2016-2021
Priority Goals
Priority Goal #7 Communication
Citizens of Maple Ridge will be aware of and understand the key benefits of participation in
sport and physical activity.
ACTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TIMELINE
7.1 The proposed Sport and Physical Activity
Network will develop a communications plan
to share information between members and to
communicate information to residents regard-
ing community sport opportunities, the benefits
of participation in sport and physical activity,
fundamental movement skills, coaching educa-
tion programs, tournaments and events etc.
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
December 2017
7.2 Raise awareness and promote the many sport
and physical activity opportunities that are
available in the communities of Maple Ridge
and Pitt Meadows (i.e. listing of sport agencies
in Leisure Guides, on-line information on Sport
Network and City websites etc.)
Sport Network
Parks and Leisure
Local Sport Organi-
zations
April 2018
Maple Ridge Sport Network Terms of Reference 1
Maple Ridge Sport Network
Terms of Reference
Vision
Maple Ridge Sport Network will strengthen our community through lifelong sport and physical activity
opportunities so that all residents may experience the joy of participating in sport, and achieve their
full potential in the areas of sport and physical activity.
Mission
The Sport Network promotes and supports a coordinated and cooperative approach in identifying
common interests, goals and challenges in the provision of quality sport and physical activity
opportunities.
Values
1.All children and youth should have the opportunity to access affordable sport and recreation
in their community.
2.All residents should have access to inclusive, accessible and lifelong opportunities for sport
participation.
3.All residents should be provided a variety of physical literacy competency opportunities
towards being active for life.
4.The Sport Network aims to enhance working relationships and partnerships between
recreation, education, sport, health, transportation and tourism.
5.The Sport Network values collaborative approaches, and sharing knowledge and expertise to
benefit the development of quality sport in the community.
6.The Sport Network recognizes the relationship and mutual benefit between sport, community
and business stakeholders.
Functions
•Membership will represent the sports community and act in both an advocacy and advisory
role for Council driven initiatives or as directed.
•Report progress updates to Council annually.
•Develop an implementation plan for the Sport & Physical Activity Strategy.
•Align the initiatives of the Sport Network with City Council’s strategic direction through the
business planning process.
ATTACHMENT #2
Maple Ridge Sport Network Terms of Reference 2
Network Composition
The Sport Network shall be comprised of the following members:
• School District No. 42 Staff, Assistant Superintendent or designate.
• Fraser Health Authority, Community Health Specialist or designate.
• Pacific Sport Fraser Valley Staff, Executive Director or designate.
• City of Maple Ridge Parks, Recreation & Culture Staff (non-voting), Health & Wellness
Coordinator.
• Community Based Sport Organization Representatives, Executive Members or designates
• Local Athletes.
• Local Businesses with a common goal of advancing sport and physical activity in Maple
Ridge.
• Community at Large with a common goal of advancing sport and physical activity in Maple
Ridge.
Membership Process
1. All applicants should bring sound knowledge and/or experience relevant to the Maple Ridge
Sport Network, and support the Sport Network purpose statement.
2. The membership application process includes criteria that emphasize the selection of
members with complementary and varied skill sets from a variety of sport and/or physical
activity backgrounds so as not to over-represent from a single sport or activity. The onus to
insure cross-sectional representation will fall to the Membership Selection Committee.
3. The Sport Network will appoint a Chairperson on an annual basis.
4. The Membership Selection Committee is comprised of the Chairperson, SD42, FHA, Pacific
Sport, and City staff liaison(s), and two additional Sport Network members endorsed by the
Network. The Selection Committee is responsible to review applications, interview selected
applicants and approve membership. The City of Maple Ridge staff liaison is responsible for
scheduling and coordinating the interview selection process.
5. The two Membership Selection Committee positions reserved for Sport Network members
will be nominated by the Network and endorsed on an annual basis.
6. The Membership Selection Committee may appoint additional community members at large
who possess sport knowledge and expertise that could be an asset to the Network in
achieving the Sport Strategy goals.
7. Members shall reconfirm their affiliation to the Sport Network on a yearly basis, in writing, by
January 31 of each calendar year.
8. A dispute resolution process will be established by the Sport Network and reviewed and
updated as needed bi-annually.
Maple Ridge Sport Network Terms of Reference 3
9. The Membership Selection Committee may remove a member, should the member’s actions
be in direct conflict with the Vision and Values of the Sport Network.
Meetings
• The Sport Network will meet a minimum of four times per year, or at the call of the Chair to a
maximum nine meetings per year.
• City Staff will take minutes and distribute to members in a timely fashion.
• Due to the length of time that may occur between meetings, members are encouraged to
bring forward any inaccuracies found in minutes at the earliest opportunity via electronic
mail rather than waiting for the next meeting to do so.
• Members are encouraged to be active participants in meetings and other Sport Network
endeavors.
• Roberts Rules of Order will apply to all meetings.
Agenda Development
• Committee members are responsible to forward any agenda items to the Chairperson at
least two weeks in advance of all meetings.
• The Chairperson shall develop the agenda with support from the City of Maple Ridge staff
liaison and distribute the agenda to all members one week prior to the next scheduled
meeting.
Subcommittees
• Subcommittees shall be established from the Sport Network membership as needed.
• The process in forming Sport Network sub-committees will be determined by the Sport
Network.
• Subcommittees may include community volunteers who are aligned with a member
organization. (i.e. secondary school students, non-profit sport group volunteers)
• Subcommittees shall provide updates to the Sport Network at their regularly scheduled
meetings.
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 6, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Rental Housing Program: Rental Options for New Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Existing City policy encourages the voluntary provision of rental housing, through which 604 secured
rental units have been proposed through recent commercial, market condominium or purpose-built
rental projects. These rental housing units would represent approximately 23% of the total number of
dwelling units being proposed through new development. Building from this success to-date, and in
pursuit of Council direction to identify options to encourage greater rental housing opportunities in
the City, staff and a consultant have prepared an overview of additional options available to the City
related to rental housing.
CitySpaces Consulting, the consultant involved with the development of the City’s Housing Action
Plan, was re-engaged to provide an overview of municipal best practice regarding rental policy and
regulatory options from around the Metro and Fraser Valley regions (Appendix A). While many
municipalities rely on policy and some utilise zoning tools, municipalities such as the Cities of North
Vancouver, Richmond and New Westminster have developed programs that make clear their
respective interests in securing rental units and/or cash in-lieu contributions through new
development. Additionally, in the City of Chilliwack, a non-profit Housing Hub represents an example
of a non-governmental approach towards addressing the rental housing needs in their community.
The policy and regulatory options presented in this report and its attachment are being presented to
inform Council’s deliberation on how to address the matter of securing rental units at the time of
development. In doing so, staff is recommending two options that would augment the City’s existing
voluntary approach, both of which would necessitate follow up reports be brought forward to outline
the necessary policy and/or regulatory amendments, if approved. Alternatively, Council may prefer to
establish a new Community Amenity Contribution (CAC), by increasing the existing CAC contribution
rates, which would be targeted towards affordable, rental and special needs housing.
RECOMMENDATION:
1)That, as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program, staff bring forward reports
outlining:
a)A Density Bonus approach that would optionally require, in exchange for bonus density, the
provision of secured rental units, secured affordable rental units, and/or a cash -in-lieu
contribution;
b)A Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) approach that would maintain existing CAC
contribution rates, but allocate 20% of all CAC funds received towards affordable housing.
4.2
2
BACKGROUND:
On September 14, 2015 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Implementation
Framework. The HAP Implementation Framework builds from the key strategies recommended in the
Housing Action Plan. Strategy Four of the HAP is to Create New Rental Housing Opportunities.
On August 29, 2016, during a follow-up Workshop discussion related to the prioritisation of the list of
available regulatory and infill measures to facilitate the development of greater rental opportunities
in the City, Council directed staff to prepare a detailed report and amending bylaw package for the
following actions:
1. Review and expand the Secondary Suites Program;
2. Review and expand the Detached Garden Suites Program;
3. Permit duplexes in Single Family zones without rezoning, on minimum, lot sizes of 557 m2
in the town Centre and 750 m2 within the Urban Area Boundary; and
4. Develop a policy to support rental units above commercial.
On October 24, 2016, Council directed staff to prepare reports on the following incentives for rental
housing:
1. Fast Tracking Applications
2. Reduce/Waive Development Cost Charges
3. Reduce/Waive Rezoning, Development Permit and Building Permit Fees
4. Payment of Fees for Legal Documents
5. Detached Garden Suites Pilot Project
On September 19, 2017, Council directed staff to initiate a community engagement process to gain
feedback on a number of possible options to expand the City’s Secondary Suites program as part of
the City’s effort to encourage greater rental opportunities in the City, and to report back the results
for next step directions.
On October 3, 2017, in a further effort to foster more rental housing, Council endorsed a community
engagement process to review possible opportunities to expand the City’s exiting Detached Garden
Suite program and to report back outcomes for further direction.
On December 12, following a discussion related to Community Amenity Contribution and affordab le
housing, Council expressed interest in receiving a report outlining options to facilitate the
development of rental housing in the Maple Ridge.
DISCUSSION:
Based on Council’s direction stemming from their August 29, 2016 workshop meeting, staff’s
original focus was the creation of rental housing opportunities above commercial uses. Council has
subsequently been addressing this specific interest as individual applications come forth, each on a
case by case basis.
To date, Council has required residential units above some commercial developments, including
Silver Valley Road and 232 Avenue, and 240 Street and 112 Avenue; however, Council has waived
this requirement for other commercial developments, including the medical building/Doctors office
on Lougheed Highway, just east of 216 Street, and the two commercial developments located at
11951 240 Street (Tim Hortons) and 11939 240 Street.
3
In addition, through ongoing Council conversations, the interest in rental housing has broadened
beyond commercial developments to include other forms of development, notably multi-family
residential projects. Council specifically raised questions about pursing cash in-lieu of the direct
provision of rental units through the evaluation of the rezoning at 22638 119 Avenue and 22633
Selkirk Avenue.
Given the evolution of the conversation on rental housing, and in response to Council’s 2016 and
more recent December 2017 discussions that expressed an interest in examining opportunities to
gain more rental housing stock, staff widened the focus of their original assessment. Staff also
sought additional insights from a consultant, CitySpaces Consulting, given their familiarity with the
City’s and other municipal Housing Action Plans. This report and the attached consu ltant research
brief examines the City’s existing practices to encourage rental housing through development in light
of best practices identified from across the Metro and Fraser Valley regions. The report further
outlines for Council a number of possible options and considerations for facilitating the delivery of
rental housing through both development, be it rental over commercial or market rental through
residential projects.
This staff report is the third report coming forward in response to Council’s interest in creating more
rental opportunities in the City, and relates to the parallel discussion held by Council regarding the
use of Community Amenity Contributions to address housing affordability, in part. Separate and
future reports are anticipated in early 2018, including an assessment of the possible financial
incentive opportunities that may be considered towards incentivising the development of rental
housing in the City. The overall intent of this and the reports to come will be to help establish the
framework for a potential Rental Housing Program in Maple Ridge.
a) Existing Rental Housing Policies
From a review of our surrounding communities in the Metro and Fraser Valley regions, and from the
research undertaken by the consultant, municipalities generally appear to favour policy and zoning
measures to influence the delivery of affordable housing. Typical measures include:
Official Community Plan and Area Plan policies encouraging the provision of housing choice;
Permitting secondary suites or detached suites (a.k.a. garden suites) in single family zones;
Density bonus provisions for affordable housing;
The permitting of infill housing forms (e.g. triplex, fourplex, smaller lots, etc.) in certain single
family zones;
The requirement and use of Housing Agreements to secure affordable housing.
While the City utilises many of the above tools, our approach is fundamentally policy based (as
opposed to reliant on zoning) and is voluntary. Through the City’s Official Community Plan, rental
housing is encouraged:
Policy 3 – 31: Maple Ridge supports the provision of rental accommodation and encourages
the construction of rental units that vary in size and number of bedrooms.
Policy 3 – 32: Maple Ridge supports the provision of affordable, rental and special needs
housing throughout the City. Where appropriate, the provision of affordable, rental, and
special needs housing will be a component of area plans.
4
Consistent with the above direction, the City’s Housing Action Plan establishes as a key strategy the
creation of new rental housing opportunities. As a short term action item, the endorsed 2015
implementation plan suggests the widening of the City’s residential-over-commercial zoning
regulations to include more zones, zones that apply to areas of density transition, as well as the
potential use of density bonuses, and other incentives to foster greater rental housing in the City.
b) Rental Market Snapshot
According to CMHC’s 2016 Rental Market Report, the regional rental market remained tight in 2016.
Strong demand for rental units in the Metro Region outpaced new additions to the supply. Such
pressures caused vacancy rates to decrease while rents continued to rise in 2016. Across the
region, the overall vacancy rate declined to 0.7 per cent from 0.8 per cent in 2015. In the Ridge
Meadows sub-region, a more significant decline was observed with vacancy rates falling from 1.6 in
2015 to 0.5 in 2016. In terms of rents, regionally rents increased by about 6%, resulting in an
average of about $1,200. For our more local sub-region, average rents were seen to be about $864.
Breaking this data down further by structure type, the CMHC average rent data for Maple Ridge
largely focused on private apartment units. In the Ridge Meadows sub-region, there were 1,566
apartment units with the average rents being about $837 in 2016. For comparison purposes, staff
examined how local rents might have changed over the past year by undertaking an assessment of
rental listings in Maple Ridge for the period of October 1st to the 31st, 2017. From the assessment,
staff identified that the average rents for an apartment in Maple Ridge as of October 2017 were
roughly $1,100. As with the CMHC 2016 data, there were few 3+ bedroom apartment rental listings.
c) Rental Units in Stream
Looking forward, staff also examined the future supply of new rental units that are anticipated
through our development process. As of October 2017, there are currently 604 rental units being
proposed through current development applications across the City, with the majority proposed in
the Town Centre.
By comparison, for the same moment in time there were currently about 2,060 units/lots (non-
rental) being proposed across the City. With that, it appears that about 23% of all units currently
being proposed could be rental, pending final reading.
Looking more closely at the 604 rental units that are currently proposed through new development:
66% (397) of the rental units are derived from 3 proposed purpose-built rental buildings;
34% (207) of the rental units are secured market rental units that are either proposed above
commercial uses in various projects throughout the City or form part of a larger market
condo project;
70% (424) of all of the proposed rental units are intended to be in the Town Centre, with the
remaining projects intended for the Port Haney, Silver Valley, or Albion neighbourhoods.
d) Municipal Comparison and Rental Housing Options
Specific to rental housing, the attached CitySpaces Consulting report (Appendix A) takes a closer look
at a number of surrounding and wider Metro municipalities, highlighting the best practices
undertaken towards encouraging and/or requiring the provision of rental units through new
development.
From the research, three possible options have emerged for addressing the delivery of rental
housing in the City:
5
1. Retain the Existing Status Quo:
Going forward, this option would see the City maintain is current use of policy to encourage
the voluntary inclusion of rental housing as a part of either a commercial or residential
development proposal. This option alone is not recommended, but such policies could be
augmented as discussed below, in order to expand the City’s ability to deliver rental housing.
2. Require Rental Housing through a Density Bonus:
Consistent with the approaches undertaken by the Cities of North Vancouver and Richmond,
this option would see City policy and zoning be amended to outline a set of density bonus
regulations that would optionally require the provision of rental housing at the time of
development, only if the developer chose to pursue the available bonused density. That is,
density bonus programs are optional in nature, and as illustrated below, such amenity zoning
would set out both a fixed base level of density available outright to all development and an
optional maximum permissible density that could be achieved should the applicant wish to
provide rental housing as an amenity contribution.
Figure 1: Illustration of Base Density (Light Blue)
and Bonus Density (Dark Blue) as part of a Density Bonus Program
From the Consultant’s report, such bonus density rental requirements could be tiered
depending on the type of rental unit prioritised by the City. For example, for market
condominiums or low-end of market projects (as defined in the Consultant’s report),
policy/zoning could require that 10% of the total proposed number of units be secured as
rental, in exchange for the bonus density. Similarly, should non-market units be prioritised,
the secured rental requirement could be lowered to 5% of the total propose d number of
rental units, in light of the increased cost to provide such units.
Such a density bonus approach could exist in parallel with the City’s existing policies that
encourage the voluntary inclusion of rental housing as part of a proposed development.
Further, and consistent with Council’s October 24, 2016 direction, any rental requirements
premised under a density bonus framework could include additional incentives that may
further encourage the provision of rental units. As noted in the October 2016 Council
discussion, such incentives may include: the covering of legal fees involved in registering
Housing Agreements; reducing rezoning, development permit and/or building permit fees;
fast tracking applications; and/or reducing development cost charges. From their research,
the Consultant has proposed that should Council opt for this direction, that similar to the City
of New Westminster such incentives be offered to help facilitate both increased levels of
6
affordability and the long-term preservation of such rental units, with a focus on secured
terms of at least 60 years (or life of building whichever is greater).
As outlined in the two municipal examples of the City of North Vancouver and City of
Richmond, such a density bonus approach could be further detailed by also outlining
requirements that of the secured rental units provided, that a number also be tailored
towards families by ensuring that a certain percentage of such units are three-bedrooms.
Should Council opt for this approach, management of any directly provided rental options
would require further direction (see below section Management of Rental Housing). However,
it is worth noting that under such an approach, cash-in-lieu of the direct provision of rental
units could still be a choice for future applicants. As in the case of the City of Richmond, a
cash in-lieu contribution may be provided where the small size of a residential project makes
the provision of rental units unfeasible, or where the project is a commercial development.
Based on the above, staff recommends preparing a report to further explore this option,
including identifying any implications to existing land economics and the City’s zoning bylaw.
3. Require an Affordable Housing Community Amenity Contribution
The City currently requires the provision of a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) at the
time of any rezoning, which may be applied at Council’s discretion towards the delivery of
future affordable, rental and special needs housing under the City’s CAC Legislative Policy
6.31. To provide greater clarity, this approach would necessitate that the existing CAC policy
be amended to identify the preferred allocation of all CAC funds received that should be
directed specifically towards the creation of affordable housing in the community. As Council
may recall from its recent December 12, 2017 CAC discussion, such an approach could take
two forms:
i) Council could opt to allocate at least 20% - or as Council may otherwise direct – of all
City-Wide CACs collected directly towards the creation of new affordable housing; or
ii) Council could increase current CAC contribution rates, which would effectively create a
new affordable housing CAC, over and above the CAC rates required across the City. This
approach could be in-lieu of any encouragement or requirement to provide rental units.
As noted in the December 2017 Council discussion, staff acknowledges that the City’s
Development Liaison Committee did not support an increase to our CAC contribution rates,
suggesting that it was too soon as the CAC program was only introduced in 2016. With that,
and in reflection of Council’s recent discussion, staff recommends preparing amendments to
Council’s Policy 6.31 to outline that a minimum of 20% of all City-Wide CAC’s collected be
directly reserved for investments in affordable housing.
In addition to the policy amendments, staff from the Planning and Finance Departments is
also recommending that an amendment bylaw to the City’s existing Reserve Fund be
prepared for Council’s approval.
Key to this cash contribution discussion is the valuation of such cash contributions in
comparison with directly provided rental/affordable housing units. A more detailed
discussion on this latter point is provided below.
7
e) Management of Rental Housing
As outlined in more detail in the attached CitySpaces report, the experience s from Richmond and
Chilliwack’s Housing Hub concept demonstrates that the non-profit sector is increasingly willing to
partner with the development community to administer and monitor rental units once created. As
also evidenced by the Richmond example, the City can play a role in facilitating such arrangements
through the establishment of a list of possible non-profit housing societies interested in managing
market and/or non-market rental housing components proposed through development. A recent
delegation by the YWCA indicated an interest in participating in such a program.
f) Direct Provision of Rental Units vs. Cash In-lieu
Throughout 2017, during the review and consideration of various development applications, Council
has debated the merit of seeking the direct provision of rental units vs. accepting cash in-lieu as part
of either a mixed-use commercial or larger residential condo project.
From the consultant report, it is noted that some municipalities like North Vancouver and Richmond
require the direct provision of secured rental units while New Westminster considers a voluntary
cash in-lieu alternative to the direct provision of rental units.
The evaluation of either seeking a direct provision of rental units and/or accepting a cash in-lieu
alternative depends greatly on the valuation of either the units provided or the cash contribution
rate. For clarity, the term “value” was examined by staff, in working with Rollo + Associates, through
three separate analyses: the construction value required to build one rental unit; the revenue value
expected from one rental units; and the sales value of one rental unit. Combined, these assessments
identified that the typical value of a market condo in Maple Ridge is about $250,000 - $300,000.
Such an achieved value under the direct provision approach would conceivably be challenging to
replicate under a strictly cash in-lieu option, especially if a development proposal had the potential to
contribute multiple rental units. However, it may be more equitable to conceive the value of a cash
in-lieu contribution as not being 100% equivalent to that of a unit gained through the direct provision
approach. Rather, a cash in-lieu option may be more likely to generate 20-25% of the estimated
value of a rental unit, which may be reflective of the typical partnership arrangements (i.e. with other
levels of governments, developers, non-profit groups, etc.) that are often entered into to build a
purpose-built affordable housing/rental project.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Noting the success of the City’s existing policies that encourage the voluntary delivery of rental units
through development, staff has put forth two recommendations that could augment our policy base,
towards directing density bonus incentives along with a specific percentage of CAC amenity funding
to help foster greater rental housing opportunities in the City. Acknowledging that CAC’s are a
requirement of any rezoning, staff note that the proposed density bonus approach would be optional.
With that, staff raises for Council an alternative approach to recommendation 1(b) above that would
establish a clear requirement for development to address the matter of rental housing:
1. b) That, in lieu of the direct provision of rental units at the time of development, staff be directed
to report back on an appropriate increase to the existing Community Amenity Contribution
(CAC) rates in order to create a new Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing CAC.
CONCLUSION:
Rental housing is a key policy interest, as set out in the Official Community Plan and the City’s
Housing Action Plan. Building from the success the City has had to -date in encouraging the voluntary
provision of rental housing through new development; the attached CitySpaces Consulting report
identifies a number of possible approaches to further advance rental housing opportunities in Maple
8
Ridge. From this work, and past discussions with Council and development industry representatives,
this report recommends two options to augment our existing voluntary policy approach; namely, the
development of new zoning that offers bonus density in exchange for the provision of secured rental
housing; and the use of the City’s existing CAC program to clarify and direct that 20% of all
contribution rates received be allocated towards future affordable housing. Alternatively, Council may
prefer to increase the existing CAC contribution rates, effectively creating a new CAC over and above
the current CAC rates required across the City, to be applied towards Affordable, Rental and Special
Needs Housing.
“Original signed by Brent Elliott”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Brent Elliott, MCIP, RPP,
Manager of Community Planning
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng.
General Manager, Public Works and
Development Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn” for
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment: CitySpaces Consulting, Research Brief - Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements, Jan. 31, 2018.
RESEARCH BRIEF
Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements
Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018
Photo: Lotus Johnson, Flickr Creative Commons
APPENDIX A
Table of Contents
Introduction 1 ........................................................................................................................................................
Regional Context 2 ...............................................................................................................................................
Regional Housing Pressures 2 ......................................................................................................................................
Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy 3 ......................................................................................
Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4 ...................................................................................................................
Comparable Municipalities 7 ..............................................................................................................................
City of North Vancouver 7 .............................................................................................................................................
City of Richmond 9 ........................................................................................................................................................
City of New Westminster 12 .........................................................................................................................................
Communities in the Fraser Valley 14 ...........................................................................................................................
Summary of Comparable Municipalities 16 ...............................................................................................................
Key Considerations for the City of Maple Ridge 18.........................................................................................
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018
Introduction
The City of Maple Ridge prepared its second Housing Action Plan in 2014. The Plan outlines priority issues
including the need for market rental housing, recognizing that the existing rental housing stock in Maple Ridge
is aging and the demand for rental housing is increasing. The Plan’s Strategy #4 to Create New Rental Housing
Opportunities suggests that the City could secure market rental housing through providing incentives,
including in new mixed-use commercial development projects with rental units above commercial floors.
The City has made progress since adopting the Housing Action Plan, including securing rental housing units:
•As of October 2017, there were 669 proposed rental units across the entire City of Maple Ridge. The
majority of which (489 or 73%) are located within the Town Centre, and the other (180 or 27%) are located
outside the Town Centre.
•As of October 2017, there were 2,060 market condominiums proposed for the entire City of Maple Ridge.
Combined with rental units, there are a total of 2,729 multi-family units being proposed for the City.
The market response to develop more rental housing units is directly responding to the housing need in Maple
Ridge, as well as the overarching rental housing policy established by the City through its Housing Action Plan.
Still, the policy is broad in its description and does not outline a minimum requirement for rental units within
new residential development projects. While it allows for development flexibility, the absence of a minimum
requirement can result in missed opportunities to secure rental housing, including rental housing that is more
affordable to low and moderate income earners.
In addition, since the endorsed Housing Action Plan in 2015, there have been considerable changes to the
market and, on the whole, there are more pressures and demand for rental housing, including market rental
and affordable rental units. This is being observed throughout the Metro Vancouver region, as described in the
regional context section of this report, which is affecting the availability and affordability of the rental housing
supply in Maple Ridge.
In August 2016, City staff were directed to explore the opportunities to include rental housing units over
commercial spaces. This research brief examines the broader perspective of securing rental units through all
forms of development, specifically how a select number of other municipalities in the region are securing
rental housing units in new development projects, with considerations for potential application in the City of
Maple Ridge. This research is an initial first step and it is anticipated that follow-up research will be undertaken
following Council’s direction on next steps.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 1
Regional Context
Regional Housing Pressures
The 2016 census reported the Metro Vancouver region as
having a population of over 2.4 million people, a 6.5%
increase since the 2011 census . Metro Vancouver’s member 1
municipalities that have experienced the most significant
population growth increases are outside Metro Vancouver’s
core, including Maple Ridge (+8.2%), Surrey (+10.6%) and the
Township of Langley (+12.6%)1. The population increases for
these municipalities can be attributed to many factors,
including migration from other areas of the province, the
country, internationally as well as intra-regional migration.
The increased population growth for communities like Maple
Ridge generates pressure on the local housing stock,
including homeownership, market rental and non-market
housing tenures. The median resale housing price in the
region for a detached dwelling is $1.4 million . With fewer 2
households able to enter the homeownership market, the
rental housing supply experiences added pressure. The
region’s overall vacancy rate is 0.7%, with the average rent for
all unit types at $1,223 . The most significant increase in rental 3
households is within the age cohort between 25 and 291, who
are spending more time in school and postponing “family
formation” given the high cost of housing and living. The
supply and demand dynamics of the region have placed
upward pressures on the cost of rent in the region.
The real estate market has responded to the surge of rental
housing demand, and starts for purpose-built rental units in the region have reached record highs3. While
there is movement to create new rental units throughout the region, the region is dredging out of a rental
housing supply deficit from the lack of rental housing construction in the past three decades. And, while new
market rental units are targeting moderate income earning households in the region, the average rents for
these new units remain largely unaffordable for low-income households and vulnerable populations. Over 43%
Statistics Canada, 2016 Census1
Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, December 2016 Market Highlight Report2
CMHC Market Rental Report, 20163
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 2
‣Market rental: Means market rental
units delivered by the private market
with rents determined at fair market
value. This includes purpose-built
rental housing as well as rental
housing delivered through the
secondary rental market such as
secondary suites, rental condominium
units, or other investor-owned
houses/units.
‣Low-end market rental: Means
rental units provided at slightly lower
rental rates than the average market
rental prices. Typically, low end
market rental is provided at 10%
below CMHC average market rents
for the area and households are not
eligible for subsidized non-market
housing.
‣Non-market rental: Means
affordable housing that is owned or
subsidized by government, a non-
profit society, or a housing co-
of renters in the Metro Vancouver region pay greater than 30% or more of their gross income on housing
costs1,. 4
Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy
In response to the regional growth pressures and housing affordability issues, and to advance its’ complete
community goals of Metro 2040 Strategy, Metro Vancouver prepared an update to its’ Regional Affordable
Housing Strategy in 2016. A strong focus of the strategy was on encouraging and facilitating the development
of rental housing throughout the region, outlining specific actions for the region as well as other jurisdictions,
including member municipalities. Specific strategies include:
•Expand the supply of rental housing, including new purpose-built market rental housing.
•Facilitate new rental housing supply that is affordable for very low and low income households, as well as
facilitate non-profit and co-operative housing providers to create new mixed-income housing through
redevelopment or other means.
•Increase the rental housing supply along the Frequent Transit Network (FTN), including to plan for transit station
areas, stop areas and corridors to include rental housing affordable for a range of income levels; as well as
encourage mixed-income rental housing near the FTN.
The Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy outlines specific considerations for municipalities
to implement the above strategies through local plans, policies and programs, as follows:
Table 1: Regional Affordable Housing Strategy - Excerpts for Municipal Considerations
2.f. Offer incentives and using tools that will help
make development of new purpose-built market
rental housing nancially viable (i.e. parking
reductions, fee waivers, increased density, and
fast- tracking) as needed.
3.n. Offer incentives to non-profits and cooperatives
for proposed new mixed income housing (i.e.
parking reductions, fee waivers, increased density,
and fast-tracking) to assist in making these housing
options financially viable.
2.g. Offer incentives and using tools to preserve
and sustain existing purpose-built market rental
housing (i.e. reduced parking, increased density
for infill development, transfer of density, one for
one replacement policies, standards of
maintenance bylaws) as needed.
3.o. Clearly state expectations and policies for
development of new non-profit rental and co-
operative housing.
Andy Yan, 20174
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 3
Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation
The Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC) is a non-profit organization that provides affordable
housing for low and moderate income households. The MVHC owns and operates 50 sites with market and
2.h. Facilitate non-profit housing organizations to
purchase existing rental buildings for
conversation to non-profit operation.
3.p. Ensure a portion of amenity contributions or
payments in lieu are allocated for housing
affordable to low and moderate income
households.
2.i. Supporting efforts to reduce rental operating
costs by improving energy performance of
purpose-built rental buildings through the use of
energy efficiency incentives offered by Fortis and
BC Hydro, such as energy advisors, energy
audits, demonstration projects, etc.
3. q. Allocate housing reserve fund monies to
affordable housing projects based on clearly
articulated and communicated policies.
2.j. Establish bedroom mix objectives to
accommodate families in new condominiums
and purpose built rental housing.
3. r. Work with non-profit co-operative housing
providers to address issues related to expiring
operating agreements, including renegotiating or
renewing municipal land leases, if applicable, with
suitable provisions for affordable housing,
facilitating redevelopment at higher density, and/or
other measures, as appropriate.
2.k. Provide clear expectations and policies for
increasing and retaining the purpose-built
market rental housing supply.
4. g. Establish transit-oriented inclusionary housing
targets for purpose built rental and for housing
affordable to very low to low income households
within 800 metres of new or existing rapid transit
stations and 400 metres of frequent bus corridors
that are anticipated to accommodate enhanced
residential growth.
2.l. Require tenant relocation plans as a condition
of approving the redevelopment of existing
rental housing.
4.h. Provide incentives for new purpose-built rental
housing and mixed-income housing located in
transit-oriented locations to enable these
developments to achieve financial viability, as
warranted.
2.m. Ensure that developers notify tenants
impacted by redevelopment of their rights under
the Residential Tenancy Act.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 4
subsidized rental housing for more than 10,000 people in the region, including the Fraserwood Apartment
building located at 22450 121st Avenue in Maple Ridge . 5
The Regional Affordable Housing Strategy outlines specific actions for the MVHC to address regional housing
issues. Specifically:
•Work with municipal partners to identify suitable MVHC sites for redevelopment at higher density to
increase the supply of mixed-income non-profit rental housing, providing that adequate municipal
incentives and / or other funding is available.
•Explore the sale of surplus or under-utilized MVHC sites with proceeds reinvested into other sites that offer
greater opportunity to supply more affordable housing units.
•Explore with municipalities opportunities on municipal sites for expanding the supply of mixed-income
non-profit rental housing.
•Consider management of affordable rental units obtained by municipalities through inclusionary housing
policies, provided the units can be managed by MVHC on a cost-effective basis.
•Create a tenancy management package providing MVHC estimated fees for services to manage, on a cost
recovery basis, various aspects of affordable housing units obtained through municipal policies.
•Explore making available for relocating tenants of redeveloping non-profit and purpose-built market rental
projects rental housing from within MVHC’s existing portfolio of market rental units.
The MVHC has continued to move forward on acquiring more units within their portfolio since the adoption of
the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, through a combination of new-build projects, redevelopment of
existing sites, and acquiring units generated through municipal policies such as inclusionary zoning.
One notable MVHC housing redevelopment currently underway is the Heather Place Redevelopment in
Vancouver. This redevelopment will replace the existing 86-unit townhouse complex with 230 purpose-built
rental apartments consisting of one, two and three bedroom units. As part of the terms established at rezoning,
the MVHC and the City of Vancouver entered into a Housing Agreement in the form of a Building
Use Covenant that requires 23% of future tenants to have rent-geared-to-income (RGI) under the MVHC’s
existing program, while an additional 11.5% will be rented at rates where the maximum occupancy charges are
affordable to households with an income at or below BC Housing’s Housing Income Limits (HILs). Essentially,
the future rents of 34.5% of Heather Place tenants will be calculated at 30% of their gross income, HILs, or less.
Affordable Rental Housing Guide, Metro Vancouver, 20165
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 5
Actively engaged in building their portfolio, there are opportunities for MVHC to work with municipalities, like
Maple Ridge, to invest, develop, redevelop, or acquire units through private market development projects and
public sector partnerships.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 6
Comparable Municipalities
A select number of member municipalities have updated their Housing Action Plans since the adoption of the
Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy in order to align their local actions with broader
regional initiatives, including requiring rental housing units in new development projects. Others have
developed stand-alone policies to encourage and facilitate more rental housing units in their communities,
many tied directly to a density bonus policy. The following section summarizes these actions.
City of North Vancouver
The City of North Vancouver prepared their first Housing Action Plan in 2016. While the City has implemented
housing policy for decades, this was their first comprehensive review and plan that compiled all City housing
policies in one cohesive document, and one that aligns with the City’s recently adopted Official Community Plan.
Below is a summary of select housing actions from their plan to secure rental housing units.
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City of North Vancouver defines affordable housing as rental housing that is affordable to low to moderate
income households, where households pay 30% or less of their gross income towards housing costs. Within this
broad definition is “mid-market rental units” - commonly referred to as “low-end market rental units”, are units
provided at slightly lower rental rates than the average market rental prices in North Vancouver and “non-market
rental units”, units occupied by households with incomes below the Housing Income Limits (HILs) defined by BC
Housing.
Table 2: City of North Vancouver Definition of Affordable Housing
MID-MARKET RENTAL UNITS
Unit Type Maximum Household Income
Limit for Eligible Applicants Average Rent (2015)Mid-Market Rents
Bachelor $31,400 $876 $788
1 bdrm $37,000 $1,024 $921
2 bdrm $46,000 $1,279 $1,151
3 bdrm $57,000 $1,586 $1,427
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 7
The definition of affordable housing outlined in Table 2 are calculated as follows:
•The maximum mid-market rents are based on 10% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for the City
of North Vancouver, by unit type.
•The maximum household income limits for mid-market rents are determined by calculating what 30% of
gross household income would be for the mid-market rents (rents determined by CMHC).
CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
To incentivize new mid-market rental units, the City utilizes its density bonus tool for new development projects,
where the City requires built mid-market rental units in exchange for additional density (1.0 floor space ratio
density bonus) for new projects. Specifically:
•All new 100% purpose-built market rental development projects seeking the density bonus incentive are
required to provide a minimum of 10% of units as mid-market rental units. All mid-market rental units
generated through private development must be secured up to a period of 10 years.
•In addition, 30% of increment/bonus amount of density is required to be provided as non-market rental
housing, secured in perpetuity.
•Cash-in-lieu contributions are accepted only in unique circumstances, and at the discretion of the City, in
order to assure timely mitigation of additional density in a neighbourhood, when deemed appropriate.
The City of North Vancouver also introduced a new family-friendly housing policy in order to increase the number
of multi-unit housing projects that meets the needs of families, given the current multi-unit stock has limited units
with enough bedrooms to accommodate all members of a family household and given that fewer families are
able to purchase larger units such as single-detached homes. The family-friendly housing policy requires:
•A minimum of 10% of units to be three or more bedrooms for all new multi-unit residential development
projects, including both purpose-built rental housing projects and condo/stratified projects.
In support of the family-friendly housing policy, the City is also looking to update their sustainable development
guidelines to incorporate design considerations that meets the needs of families, such as ground-oriented units,
multi-generational outdoor amenity spaces, and child and youth friendly spaces.
In addition to the above policy, the City may consider bonus density transfer to another site in order to maintain
an existing rental building. For this condition to apply, a recipient site for the density transfer must be determined
in advance, and at the City’s discretion, with a demonstrated business plan to upgrade/repair the existing rental
building.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 8
SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED
The City of North Vancouver planning department provided insight and lessons learned on their mechanisms to
secure rental units. The planning department indicated that the first units of the 10% mid-market units secured for
10 years are currently under construction. They recognized that their incentives have been working in securing
the units in recent developments, however they have not yet had to provide administration for these units. The
City also recognized that there will be a learning curve when these rental units are operational and require
administrative oversight.
The planning department also indicated that, because of increased demand for rental housing, Council has
recently directed staff to research the feasibility of increasing the percentage of required mid-market rental units
in a development from 10% to 20%. Council has also requested whether these units could be secured for a
longer period than 10 years. The planning department recognizes that there is a balance to find with incentivizing
mid-market rental units and also providing more non-market units in the City.
One unique challenge experienced by the planning department is related to their family friendly housing policy.
They have found that feedback has been overall positive, however some family friendly units are being rented to
downsizing retirees. To further incentivize family use of family friendly units, the planning department is
considering opportunities to integrate family-friendly design features into future units to ensure they are matched
to the target population of families. This process has not yet started.
City of Richmond
The City of Richmond initiated an update to their 2007 Affordable Housing Strategy, now their Housing Action
Plan, in 2016. The City undertook community consultation and policy research in 2016-2017, and are currently
drafting the Housing Action Plan, anticipated to be adopted in early 2018. Below is a summary of the supported
policy directions related to securing rental housing units.
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City of Richmond broadly defines affordable housing as rental housing that is affordable to low and
moderate income earners. The City has two affordable housing categories: low-end market rental (LEMR) units,
and non-market rental units. Both of these categories are defined by maximum total household income (to
determine household eligibility for units generated in these categories), and total maximum monthly rent by unit
type. These definitions apply to units secured through new development projects, described further under the
City’s mechanisms to require rental units in new projects.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 9
Table 3: City of Richmond Definition of Affordable Housing
The above definitions of affordable housing are calculated as follows:
•For LEMR units secured through development, income thresholds are based on 10% below BC Housing’s
Housing Income Limits (“HILs”), and maximum rents based on 10% below CMHC’s average market rents
reported for Richmond.
•For non-market rental projects supported by the City, income thresholds are based on 25% below BC
Housing HILs, and maximum rents are based on 25% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for
Richmond. Given the challenges to make non-profit / deeply subsidized housing projects viable, the City
considers flexibility to allow for a range of rent structures in cases where projects are proposed to be 100%
affordable rental (which can include low-end market rental and non-market rental units).
CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The City of Richmond utilizes an inclusionary housing approach to secure rental housing units in new
development projects, where a density bonus is required in exchange for “built” low-end market rental units
secured through a housing agreement registered on title. Since 2007 when the original City’s Affordable Housing
Strategy was adopted, the City had secured 423 LEMR units through development, of which 131 units have been
built.
•At that time, developers were required to contribute 5% of the total residential floor area for development
projects over 80 units as LEMR units in exchange for density bonus.
LEMR UNITS NON-MARKET RENTAL UNITS
Unit
Type
Maximum Total
Household Income
(“Threshold”) for Eligible
Applications
Maximum
Monthly
Rent
Maximum Total
Household Income
(“Threshold”) for Eligible
Applications
Maximum
Monthly
Rent
Bachelor $36,650 or less $759 $28,875 or less $632
1 bdrm $38,250 or less $923 $31,875 or less $769
2 bdrm $46,800 or less $1,166 $39,000 or less $972
3 bdrm $58,050 or less $1,436 $48,375 or less $1,197
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 10
•Also at that time, developers of projects with less than 80 units were required to make a cash-in-lieu
contribution.
As part of the updated Housing Action Plan, the City re-evaluated their policy for percentage requirement and
cash-in-lieu contributions. An economic analysis was undertaken to test the financial viability of increasing the
built requirement, as well as the viability of decreasing the project size threshold from 80 units to smaller 30 to 60
units. As a result of this analysis, the City is supporting the following policy directions in their anticipated Housing
Action Plan update:
•Increase the minimum developer contribution of built units from 5% to 10% total residential floor area,
applied to new multi-unit projects that are 60 units or larger (reduced from 80 units or larger).
•Cash-in-lieu contributions (generated through single-detached, townhouse, and multi-unit residential
rezoning projects) are applied to new development projects that are less than 60 units. Funds generated
through the cash-in-lieu policy are directed to the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Fund and used to
support affordable housing projects in partnership with the non-profit sector and senior levels of
government.
•As part of the updated Housing Action Plan, the City is raising the cash-in-lieu contribution rates to better
match the built-unit contribution towards supporting future affordable housing projects. The proposed rate
increases were informed by an economic analysis, which found that the City of Richmond’s floor area
contribution rate was higher than the equivalent cash-in-lieu contribution rates in terms of overall value of
affordable housing units produced. To create a more equitable approach, the cash-in-lieu contribution rates
are proposed to be increased to match the “built” value, as illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: City of Richmond Cash-in-Lieu Contribution Rates
In addition, the City is proposing a new policy to generate more family-friendly rental units in new residential
development projects. The family-friendly housing policy will require:
Housing Type Current Cash-in-Lieu Contribution
Rates ($ / square foot)
Proposed Cash-in-Lieu Contribution
Rates ($ / square foot)
Single-detached $2 $4
Townhouse $4 $8.50
Multi-unit Apartment $6 $10 (wood frame construction)
$14 (concrete construction)
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 11
•A minimum of 15% two-bedroom units and 5% three-bedroom units for all LEMR units secured in new
development projects.
Overtime, the City will monitor the policy and unit absorption and consider applying the same required
percentage of family-friendly units in all new market rental development projects.
The City has also established minimum LEMR unit sizes and are considering waiving development cost charges if
LEMR units are purchased by a non-profit housing society. The City has also made a commitment to facilitate
potential partnerships between developers and non-profit housing societies in the pre-application and rezoning
stages of development projects to address the management and administration of LEMR units generated
through private market development projects. The City, through its Housing Action Plan implementation, will be
issuing a RFP to create a pre-approved list of non-profit housing providers that can be informed about and
potentially partner on development opportunities to manage LEMR units.
SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED
The City of Richmond’s planning department provided insights and lessons learned on their mechanisms to
secure rental units. The planning department indicated that they recently implemented a policy change from 5%
of total residential floor area for projects of 80 units or more to 10% of total residential floor area for projects of
60 units or more. While 423 LEMR units were secured under the previous requirements, a couple of new
applications have been submitted under the new requirements but none have reached the housing agreement
stage yet.
The planning department had also made changes to requirements based on operational challenges for the low-
end of market units. To make it easier for operators, the City is encouraging low-end of market units to be
clustered in a development, rather than equally distributed across a project. This change is based on Council
direction to limit City involvement in management of the units and incentivize non-profit operators to become
involved. The planning department is also looking for ways to facilitate relationships between the non-profit
sector and developers, including creating a pre-qualified list of non-profit operators. The hope is to involve non-
profits in the development process early on to ensure success with non-profit friendly design and operations.
City of New Westminster
The City of New Westminster prepared an Affordable Housing Strategy in 2010, which was an update to their
original 1998 housing strategy. A key goal of this plan was to preserve and enhance the City’s rental housing
supply, and particularly housing for low and moderate income households. The following summarizes how the
City of New Westminster defines housing affordability, and an overview of their secured market rental housing
policy.
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City has a broad definition of affordable housing in their community, as described in their 2010 Affordable
Housing Strategy:
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 12
•“Affordable housing is homeownership and rental housing for low and moderate income households that
does not cost a household more than 30% of its gross income (before-tax)”.
CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The City of New Westminster has implemented actions within their Affordable Housing Strategy since its
adoption, including a policy for secured market rental housing originally prepared in 2013. The policy utilizes
financial incentives and bylaw regulations in order to retain and renew the existing rental housing supply and
to encourage the creation of new rental housing units.
•The City of New Westminster’s Secured Market Rental Housing Policy is designed to reduce the financial gap
between rental housing development and market ownership development towards making purpose-built
rental housing projects more likely to be viable.
Within this context, the City of New Westminster has three types of secured market rental housing categories: (i)
long-term; (ii) medium term; and, (iii) short-term. The City provides the most incentives for the long-term secured
rental housing projects, and less incentives/less certainty for medium and short-term projects.
•Long-term secured market rental housing projects: purpose-built rental housing units secured for 60 years or
the life of the building, whichever is greater. Incentive tools include density bonus, reduction in building
permit fees (50%), concurrent rezoning and development permit application process, and City payments for
legal fees to prepare housing agreement and covenant documents. Parking reduction incentives are
provided for sites located within 400m of skytrain stations, along the Frequent Transit Network or the
downtown, and payment in-lieu of parking for further relaxations on sites within 400m to transit.
•Medium-term secured market rental housing projects: are also purpose-built rental housing units, secured for
30 to 59 years. For this category, the City may offer most of the same incentives as the long-term secured
market rental housing projects (reduction in building permit fees, concurrent rezoning and development
permit process, and payment of legal fees). Outright parking reductions are not offered for this category,
however parking variances may be considered. The City uses their discretion to grant incentives, depending
on the model and program proposed.
•Short-term secured market rental housing projects: are also purpose-built rental housing projects, secured for
a minimum of 10 years. The City only offers an incentive to pay for legal fees to prepare and register housing
agreements and covenant documents. Outright parking reductions are not offered for this category, however
parking variances may be considered.
In New Westminster, there is no required percentage of units to be secured as market rental. The program is
voluntary for private developers if they wish to pursue the incentives. In some cases, the City may receive
applications that have a rental market component (not 100% purpose-built) which, at the City’s discretion, may
offer incentives for a component/portion of the project (i.e. 50% purpose-built may be offered half the density
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 13
bonus increase compared to 100% purpose-built rental projects). The City considers these on a case by case
basis and within the neighbourhood, location and scale context.
The New Westminster secured market rental policy and incentives are only geared towards market rental units,
and does not include low-end market rental units or non-market rental units. However, the City, through its
complementary Affordable Housing Strategy actions, encourages the inclusion of low-end market rental and non-
market units in these projects, but is not a requirement. The City also does not offer cash-in-lieu as a substitute for
built units, only payment-in-lieu for parking spaces.
In addition, the City of New Westminster was the first municipality in Metro Vancouver to introduce a family-
friendly housing requirement for all new multi-unit development projects, in 2015. The family-friendly housing
policy requires:
•For new multi-unit purpose-built rental projects, a minimum of 25% two and three bedroom units, and of
those 25% a minimum of 5% three or more bedroom units.
•For new multi-unit ownership/condominium projects, a minimum of 30% two and three bedroom units, and
of those 30% a minimum of 10% three or more bedroom units.
SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED
The City of New Westminster’s planning department shared insights and lessons learned on their mechanisms to
secure rental units. The planning department noted that they have received comments from developers that the
bonus density and the parking reductions have been significant factors in encouraging rental development. As of
January 2018, 330 secured market rental units have been completed through the policy. In addition, another 784
secured market rental units are under construction and 298 secured market rental units are currently going
through the development approvals process. The policy has been especially effective at encouraging new market
rental units in the downtown area.
The planning department recognized that there is also need to balance market rental with non-market rental
housing. The city is currently undertaking research related to other initiatives that could create more affordable
rental housing.
Communities in the Fraser Valley
The City of Abbotsford, the City of Chiliwack and the District of Mission all have Affordable Housing Strategies,
prepared in 2011, 2008 and 2010, respectively.
The City of Abbotsford defines affordable housing within their Affordable Housing Strategy:
•“Affordable housing is when housing costs (rent or mortgage and property taxes, plus heating and electricity
costs) do not exceed 30% of gross household income”.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 14
The City of Chilliwack defines affordable housing within their Affordable Housing Strategy:
•“Affordable housing is defined as housing that should not cost more than 30% of a household’s gross income
regardless of whether they are living in market or non-market housing”.
The District of Mission defines affordable housing as:
•“Housing that is appropriate to household needs and whose cost, without compromising basic survival
needs, is within reach of household incomes”.
All three of these municipal strategies identify inclusionary zoning as a key action to leverage development
opportunities to deliver affordable housing units in exchange for increased density; however, they are all in
various stages of implementation. The City of Abbotsford is currently exploring the implementation of their
inclusionary zoning, including undertaking land economic analysis to inform the City’s ability to secure
voluntary built and cash contributions for affordable housing projects.
The District of Mission currently has policy to secure affordable housing units in new development projects, but
do not prioritize unit types, and do not specify term or cash-in-lieu options.
•Another idea for consideration is supporting a non-profit
driven approach to affordable housing initiatives. An
initiative that is in early formation in Chilliwack, for example,
is a “Housing Hub”. This is a non-profit led initiative, the
purpose of which is to connect residents to existing rental
housing in the private market, and to support the retention
of housing. The idea of the Hub is to recognize resources
that already exists in the community and connect people to
the housing or services they need. For example, the Hub
intends to cultivate a number of landlords or existing
private market rental units and match them with potential tenants. The Hub concept is still in early stages and
has not yet fully developed a structure, operation model, or approach to tenant selection.
•At this time, the Housing Hub does not have direct City funding, but was started through a federal grant for
a Housing Development Coordinator position. The application for funding was made by the City, Fraser
Health, and the Pacific Community Resources Society.
•A brief interview with the City of Chilliwack planning department noted that the City intends to provide in-
kind support to the Housing Development Coordinator position, such as providing a workspace at
municipal hall. There are no specific bylaws, policies, or City funds tied to this position or initiative. The Hub
will also require more funding from multiple levels of government to operate.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 15
‣While a typical municipal approach
focuses on generating and
administering new affordable rental
units through development projects,
the Housing Hub initiative is non-
profit led and focuses on utilizing
existing rental units in the private
market.
•While a municipal approach focuses on new affordable rental units through development projects, the
Housing Hub initiative is non-profit led and focuses on existing rental units in the private market.
As indicated in the Chilliwack Homelessness Action Plan (2016), the City views its role as primarily an advocate
for increased housing options and funding through other levels of government and local partnership
collaborations such as the Chilliwack Healthier Community network.
Summary of Comparable Municipalities
Below is a high-level summary of policies to secure residential units in new development projects in other
communities, and compared to the City of Maple Ridge
Table 5: Summary of Comparable Municipalities
City of North
Vancouver
City of
Richmond
City of New
Westminster City of Maple Ridge
Definition of
affordable
housing
Households pay
no more than 30%
of gross income
on housing costs;
and in relation to
average CMHC
rents
Based on BC
Housing HILs
calculations, and
average CMHC
rents
Households
pay no more
than 30% of
gross income
on housing
costs
Housing that is
adequate in standard
and does not cost so
much that individuals
and families have
trouble paying for
other necessities
such as food, health
and transportation on
an ongoing basis
Approach Required Required Voluntary Voluntary
Zoning or
Policy
Policy and Zoning Policy and Zoning Policy Policy
Types of
units
secured
Mid-market rental
units (same as
low-end market
rental units) and
non-market units
Low end market
rental units and
non-market units
Market rental
units
Market rental units
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 16
Term Min 10 years for
mid-market units
In perpetuity for
non-market units
In perpetuity 60 years or life
of building; or
39-50 years,
with less
incentives; or
10 years, with
minimal
incentives
None / currently
determined on a
case-by-case basis
Cash-in-lieu
option
Council discretion
for mid-market
units
None for non-
market units
For projects less
than 60 units
None None/ currently
determined on a
case-by-case basis
Required
family-
friendly
housing
units
Min 10% three or
more bdrms for
new multi-unit
projects, both
purpose-built
rental and condos
30% of increment/
bonus amount is
required for non-
market units
Min 15% two-
bdrm units and
5% three-bdrm
units for LEMR
units secured in
new
developments
Min 25% two
and three
bdrm and min
5% three or
more bdrms
for purpose-
built rental
projects
Min 30% two
and three
bdrm and min
10% three or
more bdrms
for ownership/
condominium
projects
None
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 17
Key Considerations for the City of Maple Ridge
Research from comparable municipalities indicate that there are a range of options to secure rental units through
new residential development projects or as part of a commercial development, often tailored to the community
context. Based on this research, preliminary considerations for the City of Maple Ridge are outlined as follows:
#1 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Market Rental Units
•For the purpose of secured market rental units, consider defining market rental housing as purpose-built
market rental units delivered by the private market. This does not include units delivered through the
secondary rental market such as secondary suites, market rental condominium units, or other investor-
owned houses/units.
•In all new multi-unit development projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 10% of units
be secured as market rental.
•For secured market rental units, consider determining rent ranges by the market or the average CMHC
average market rents for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”), without subsidy.
•Consider incentives for projects that meet or exceed the minimum levels of secured market rental housing
units as outlined in policy and/or zoning. These incentives should also be allocated according the the City’s
overall rental housing program, with the highest and best incentives oriented towards the most affordable
forms of rental housing and by length of the secured term. Some examples include: fast-tracking
applications, reduce/waive development cost charges, reduce/waive rezoning fees, reduce/waive
development permit fees, reduce/waive building permit fees, and payment of fees for legal documents.
With the exception of fast-tracking applications, consider applying these incentives only to the portion of
the building dedicated to the secured market rental units.
Table 6: Proposed Terms and Incentives for Secured Market Rental Housing Units
Long-term
(secured 60 years or life
of building - whichever is
greater)
Medium-term
(secured 30 to
59 years)
Short-term
(secured
minimum of 10
years)
Fast-tracking applications ✓
Reduce / waive development cost
charges ✓
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 18
•Recognizing that the City of Maple Ridge has a range of new rental housing projects in terms of size and
scale, considering providing options for smaller development projects that may be financially challenged
to incorporate built units. As such, consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built
market rental units for projects with fewer than 30 units, or at the discretion of the City, including all single-
detached, townhouse and multi-unit residential rezoning projects as well as commercial projects.
•Consider undertaking a financial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment
between the cash-in-lieu contribution rate and the value of the built units. Establishing an Affordable
Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated.
•Consider monitoring absorption rates and adjust policy if/when required over time.
#2 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Low-End Market Rental Units
•Should the City consider securing low-end market rental units, consider defining low-end market rental
housing as purpose-built market rental units delivered by the private market (not including units delivered
through the secondary rental market such as secondary suites, rental condominium units, or other investor-
owned houses/units), rented at slightly below (10% below) CMHC average market rents for Maple Ridge.
•In 100% purpose-built rental projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 10% of units be
secured as low-end market rental units, registered on title for the duration of that term.
•Consider calculating low-end market rental units as maximum rents based on 10% below CMHC’s average
market rents reported for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”). 6
Reduce / waive rezoning fees ✓
Reduce / waive development
permit fees ✓ ✓
Reduce / waive building permit
fees ✓ ✓
Payment of fees for legal
documents ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 7 calculations based on CMHC Rental Market Report, 2016. Calculations for LEMR units secured through private sector development 6
would need to be updated annually as CMHC market reports are issued.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 19
Table 7: Recommended Maximum Rents and Household Income for Securing Low-End Market Rental
Units in Maple Ridge
•Consider providing additional incentives for all projects that secure 10% of units as low-end market rental
which should include, at minimum, the same incentives provided for projects with secured market rental
housing plus additional incentives to make low-end of market rental more viable.
•Consider directly correlating the level of incentives by the length of the secured term, registered on title for
the duration of that term. There is opportunity to consider additional incentives, upon review and direction
from Council.
•Consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built low-end market units for projects that
generate less than 5 low-end market rental units, or at the discretion of the City. Consider undertaking a
financial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment to the value of the built units.
Establishing an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated.
•The minimum requirements to secure low-end market rental units outlined above are conservative, and it is
recommended that they be monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of
Maple Ridge desire higher requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive
financial analysis and test sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable.
Comprehensive financial analysis were undertaken by the City of North Vancouver (for density bonus in
exchange for mid-market units), City of Richmond (for density bonus in exchange for low-end market rental
units and non-market units, by location and construction methods), and by the City of New Westminster
LEMR UNITS - Secured through private sector development
Unit Type CMHC Average Market Rents
(Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows)6
LEMR Unit Rent (10%
below)
Maximum Eligible
Household Income
Bachelor $624 $562 $22,480
1 bdrm $762 $686 $27,432
2 bdrm $953 $858 $34,308
3 bdrm $1,070 $963 $38,520
4 bdrm ---
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 20
(for the family-friendly housing requirement). At minimum, the City should monitor absorption rates and
adjust policy if/when required over time.
#3 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Non-Market Rental Units
•For the purpose of secured non-market market rental units, the City may consider defining non-market
rental housing as units owned or subsidized by government, a non-profit society, or a housing co-
operative. Non-market housing units can be generated from purpose-built private market development
projects (not including units delivered through the secondary rental market such as secondary suites, rental
condominium units, or other investor-owned houses/units), rented at below (25% below) CMHC average
market rents for Maple Ridge.
•In 100% purpose-built rental projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 5% of units to be
secured as non-market rental units, registered on title for the duration of that term.
•Consider calculating non-market rental units as maximum rents based on 25% below CMHC’s average
market rents reported for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”). 7
Table 8: Recommended Maximum Rents and Household Income for Securing Non-Market Rental Units in
Maple Ridge
NON-MARKET UNITS - Secured through private sector development
Unit Type CMHC Average Market Rents
(Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows)7
LEMR Unit Rent (25%
below)
Maximum Eligible
Household Income
Bachelor $624 $468 $18,720
1 bdrm $762 $572 $22,860
2 bdrm $953 $715 $28,590
3 bdrm $1,070 $814 $32,550
4 bdrm ---
Table 8 calculations based on CMHC Rental Market Report, 2016. Calculations for LEMR units secured through private sector development 7
would need to be updated annually as CMHC market reports are issued.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 21
•Consider providing further incentives for all projects that secure 5% of units as non-market rental which
should include, at minimum, the same incentives provided for projects with secured market rental housing
and low-end market rental housing plus additional incentives to make non-market rental more viable.
•Consider directly correlating the level of incentives by the length of the secured term, registered on title for
the duration of that term. There is opportunity to consider additional incentives, upon review and direction
from Council.
•Consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built non-market units for projects that
generate less than 5 non-market rental units, or at the discretion of the City. Consider undertaking a
financial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment to built units. Establishing an
Affordable Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated.
•The minimum requirements to secure non-market rental units outlined above are conservative, and it is
recommended that they be monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of
Maple Ridge desire higher requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive
financial analysis and test sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable. As
noted above, comprehensive financial analysis were undertaken by the City of North Vancouver, City of
Richmond, and by the City of New Westminster. At minimum, the City may wish to monitor absorption rates
and adjust policy if/when required over time.
#4 - Family-friendly Housing Policy
•As the City evolves its discussion on rental housing policy and/or zoning, consider requiring a minimum
number of family-friendly housing units in all new multi-unit development projects, with an option to also
extend towards both market condominium and purpose-built market rental units. This policy could
facilitate the creation of more housing choices for low and moderate income family households in Maple
Ridge.
Table 9: Recommended Minimum Requirements for Family-Friendly Units in New Multi-unit Development
Projects
•The minimum requirements to require family-friendly units outlined above are conservative, and should be
monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of Maple Ridge desire higher
requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive financial analysis and test
sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable. Comprehensive financial analysis
New Multi-unit Market Condominium
Projects
New Multi-unit Market Rental
Projects
3+ bedroom units Minimum 5%Minimum 5%
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 22
were undertaken by the City of New Westminster (for the family-friendly housing requirement) to identify
their requirement. At minimum, the City should monitor absorption rates and adjust policy if/when
required over time.
#5 - Facilitate Partnerships between Developers and the Non-Profit Housing Sector
•For secured low-end market rental units and secured non-market rental units, the City may wish to consider
strategies to identify organizations to administer and monitor the units secured through new development
projects. Typically, non-profit housing societies acquire these secured units in partnership, such as the
Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, and are ideally introduced to the project concept in early stages of
the development process.
•It is recommended that the City research and outline strategies to facilitate partnerships between the non-
profit housing sector and private developers to ensure appropriate and sustainable management of
secured low-end market rental units and secured non-market rental units.
•For secured market rental units, these units are typically managed by the private sector either by the
developer or by a property management company engaged by the developer. Non-profit housing
societies typically do not manage market rental units secured through private market development
projects, unless there is a low-end market rental or non-market rental component. However, more non-
profit housing societies are becoming increasingly open to acquiring market rental units as part of their
portfolio, especially housing societies that have tenants who are no longer eligible for their subsidized
units (i.e. tenant household income has improved/increased). Having market rental units as part of a non-
profit housing society’s portfolio provides the housing society with flexibility to relocate tenants if needed.
There are a limited number of housing societies whose mandates support this approach.
•It is recommended that the City research and outline strategies to engage with non-profit housing societies
that have a market rental housing component within their mandate, and facilitate partnerships between
these select non-profit housing societies and private developers to administer secured market rental units
in cases where the developer does not intend or have the ability to manage the secured market rental
units.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 23
585 – 1111 West Hastings Street, Vancouver BC V6E 2J3 | 604.687.2281
101-848 Courtney Street, Victoria BC V8W 1C4 | 250.383.0304
www.cityspaces.ca
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 5, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Regional Context Statement Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City’s Regional Context Statement identifies the relationship between Maple Ridge’s Official
Community Plan (OCP) and Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. Under Local Government
Act requirements, the Regional Context Statement must be reviewed every five years to ensure it
continues to support the Regional Growth Strategy. Maple Ridge’s current Regional Context
Statement forms part of the OCP and a copy is included in this report as Appendix A.
The current Regional Context Statement was accepted by Metro Vancouver on September 23, 2013
and followed the approval of the Regional Growth Strategy. City staff and Council worked closely
with Metro Vancouver staff in the preparation of the Regional Growth Strategy, and issues raised
during the 2009 review process were reflected in the adopted Regional Growth Strategy. As a result,
the subsequent Regional Context Statement contained no inconsistencies with the Regional Growth
Strategy.
This year marks the trigger date by which the City must review its Regional Context Statement and
advise Metro Vancouver if there are any proposed changes. In light of the pending deadline, staff
have undertaken a review of the current Regional Context Statement, and have determined that the
Regional Context Statement continues to accurately identify the relationship between Maple Ridge’s
OCP and Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. As a result, no Regional Context Statement
updates are considered necessary at this five year interval. This report outlines the City’s Regional
Context Statement background and legislative framework, and recommends that at this time Council
request re-acceptance of the Regional Context Statement by Metro Vancouver.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Regional Context Statement be submitted for re-acceptance by the Metro Vancouver
Regional District Board.
BACKGROUND:
Legislative Requirements
The Local Government Act outlines the requirements for Regional Growth Strategies and a
municipality’s requirement to include a Regional Context Statement in their OCP (Part 25, Sec. 446).
After a new Regional Context Statement has been accepted by the Metro Vancouver Board there are
three instances in which municipalities are required to submit a revised or new Regional Context
Statement:
1.when a new OCP is being developed;
2.when amendments to an existing OCP are proposed that are not consistent with the
accepted Regional Context Statement; or
4.3
2
3. within five years of the Board’s latest acceptance of the Regional Context Statement.
Preparing a new or amended Regional Context Statement is an amendment to the OCP and as such,
must follow the requirements outlined in the Local Government Act respecting consultation during
the development or amendment of an OCP. In accordance with the Local Government Act, once a
municipal Regional Context Statement has been accepted by Metro Vancouver, it must be reviewed
at least every five years by the respective Council, and if there are no changes, resubmitted to the
Board for continued acceptance.
Consideration of Existing Regional Context Statement
The City last underwent a Regional Context Statement review process in 2012-2013, following the
adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy. The following resolution referring the draft Regional
Context Statement to Metro Vancouver was made on July 23, 2013:
That Bylaw No. 7002-2013 be given first reading; and
That Bylaw No. 7002-2013 be referred to Metro Vancouver as part of the formal referral process for
acceptance by the Metro Vancouver Regional Board.
Subsequent to Metro Vancouver’s review of the draft Regional Context Statement, the Metro
Vancouver Regional Board formally accepted the City’s Regional Context Statement on September
23, 2013. This acceptance allowed consideration of further readings of the Regional Context
Statement bylaw, resulting in final reading on November 26, 2013.
Consideration of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future Review
In September 2016, Metro Vancouver provided written communication to Council seeking comments
on the need for, and scope of, a review of the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future Regional
Growth Strategy. In response, Council provided the following resolution on October 24, 2016:
That staff advise Metro Vancouver that Maple Ridge Council recommends no full review of Metro
2040 – Regional Growth Strategy at this time, indicating, however, that concerns related to climate
change issues were raised.
The City’s position that no full review be conducted in 2016 was consistent with communication from
six other member municipalities; while no position was taken by remaining member municipalities.
Based on the responses Metro Vancouver received, no full review process was undertaken at that
time.
DISCUSSION:
The Regional Growth Strategy was adopted in 2011 following an involved review process between
Council and Metro Vancouver. In 2009, the City submitted formal comments and resolutions to
Metro Vancouver, and this feedback was reflected in the final Regional Growth Strategy. Because of
that detailed work, the Regional Growth Strategy and OCP were clearly aligned. The subsequent
preparation of the Regional Context Statement reflected the alignment between the Regional Growth
Strategy and OCP; and was favorably reviewed and accepted by Metro Vancouver staff and the Metro
Vancouver Board. Due to this earlier Regional Growth Strategy work, no inconsistencies are
identified in the Regional Context Statement.
Through the preparation of this report, the current Regional Context Statement was reviewed and no
necessary changes were identified. Staff does note that since the adoption of the current Regional
Context Statement, the City has completed a number of significant studies including the Strategic
3
Transportation Plan, the Housing Action Plan, and the Environmental Management Study. However,
as these policy initiative were undertaken as part of the implementation of the City’s OCP, and to
further support Metro’s Regional Growth Strategy as anticipated by our existing Regional Context
Statement, staff have confirmed that both the current Regional Context Statement and the City’s
OCP remain in line with the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. While some housekeeping
amendments to the Regional Context Statement are anticipated later this year to reflect the
endorsed plans and strategies completed by the City during the 2013-2018 period, it is felt that such
amendments will not alter the alignment currently in place between the Regional Context Statement
and the Regional Growth Strategy.
There is no requirement to update the Regional Context Statement if Council determines the
document still aligns with the OCP and Regional Growth Strategy. As there are no significant
amendments anticipated, staff recommend that Council adopt a resolution stating that consideration
was given to the existing Regional Context Statement, and that it should be forwarded to the Metro
Board for re-acceptance. In doing so, this approach will satisfy and achieve the City’s five year review
timeline.
NEXT STEPS:
In regards to updating Maple Ridge’s Regional Context Statement, staff recommend that
communication be sent to Metro Vancouver requesting re-acceptance of the current Regional
Context Statement. Such as timeline will be in keeping with our 2018 deadline and will facilitate a
September review by Metro Vancouver.
CONCLUSION:
The Local Government Act stipulates the conditions under which a municipality must submit a
revised Regional Context Statement. As Maple Ridge’s Regional Context Statement will be five years
old this year, staff have reviewed the Regional Context Statement and confirm that it continues to
accurately identify an aligned and supportive relationship between Maple Ridge’s OCP and Metro
Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. It is recommended that Council give consideration to the
existing Regional Context Statement and request re-acceptance of the Regional Context Statement
by the Metro Vancouver Board.
“Original signed by Amelia Bowden”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPP
Planner 1
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A – Regional Context Statement
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 13
1.4 REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT
On July 29, 2011, The Metro Vancouver Board of Directors approved the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional
Growth Strategy Bylaw, pursuant to SecƟon 863(1) of the Local Government Act.
Part 25 of the Local Government Act requires that an Official Community Plan must include a Regional
Context Statement that is accepted in accordance with SecƟon 866 of the Local Government Act by the Board
of the Regional Government, in this case Metro Vancouver. The Regional Context Statement must idenƟfy
the relaƟonship between the municipal Official Community Plan and the Regional Growth Strategy and if
applicable, how the OCP will be made consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy over Ɵme.
The Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy is organized into five main goals:
Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy
Goal 3: Protect the Environment and Respond to Climate Change Impacts
Goal 4: Develop Complete CommuniƟes
Goal 5: Support Sustainable TransportaƟon Choices
The RGS also includes Regional Land Use DesignaƟons that are aimed at achieving the five goal areas of the
Plan and include:
xGeneral Urban
xIndustrial
xMixed Employment
xRural
xAgricultural
xConservaƟon and RecreaƟon
In addiƟon a Regional Urban Containment Boundary has been established as a long-term area for urban
development across the Region, within which nine urban centres have been idenƟfied, including the Maple
Ridge Town Centre.
APPENDIX A
Chapter 1, Page 14 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN – STUDIES CURRENTLY UNDERWAY (JULY 2013)
The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking a number of significant studies that are anƟcipated to
result in policy amendments to the Official Community Plan (as of July 2013). These studies include:
xCommercial and Industrial Strategy – that will provide updated employment projecƟons and policy
recommendaƟons that strengthen the employment base (commercial, industrial and other employment
opportuniƟes) within the District.
xStrategic TransportaƟon Plan – that will provide long-term direcƟon for transportaƟon network
development and improvements, and may include revisions to the Major Corridor Network (OCP Figure
4), as well as other policy-related recommendaƟons.
xEnvironmental Management Strategy – that will strive to connect the exisƟng policy basis contained
within the Official Community Plan with environmental and watercourse development permit guidelines
and other Official Community Plan policies.
xHousing AcƟon Plan – as a requirement of the Regional Growth Strategy, that will follow Maple Ridge
Council’s consideraƟon of potenƟal bylaw amendments (e.g. Zoning Bylaw, Parking Bylaw) related to
Secondary Suites and Temporary ResidenƟal Uses.
xAlbion Flats Area Plan- preparaƟon of an area plan for the Albion Flats area of Maple Ridge, currently
designated as a Special Study Area within the Regional Growth Strategy.
xPopulaƟon and Dwelling Unit ProjecƟons – will be undertaken by the District to align with the Regional
Growth Strategy projecƟons prior to 2018.
Each of the above projects is expected to contain policy recommendaƟons that will be evaluated by District
staff and within the context of the Regional Growth Strategy. It is anƟcipated that these studies will
contribute to Maple Ridge working toward consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 15
GOAL 1: CREATE A COMPACT URBAN
AREA
“Metro Vancouver’s growth is concentrated in compact communiƟes with access to a range of
housing choices, and close to employment, ameniƟes and services. Compact transit-oriented
development paƩerns help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and polluƟon, and support both the
efficient use of land and an efficient transportaƟon network.”
STRATEGY 1.1: CONTAIN URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN CONTAINMENT BOUNDARY
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
Strategy 1.1.3a) Depict the Urban Containment Boundary
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies the Urban Area Boundary. This
boundary is generally consistent with the Urban Containment Boundary idenƟfied on the Maple Ridge
Regional Context Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map.
1.1.3b) Provide municipal populaƟon, dwelling unit and employment projecƟons
xThe 2041 RGS includes esƟmated projecƟons for the District of Maple Ridge that are intended to provide
guidance to assist in regional and local planning. The esƟmated projecƟons for Maple Ridge are:
xPopulaƟon = 132 000
xDwelling Units = 50 900
xEmployment = 48 000
xThe District’s esƟmated projecƟons are a guide for long-range planning purposes only and are the result
of a comprehensive demographic analysis completed as part of the 2006 Official Community Plan update.
The projecƟons are generally consistent with the 2041 RGS as follows:
xPopulaƟon = 118,000*
xDwelling Units = 45,000*
xEmployment = 42 500**
Chapter 1, Page 16 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
*The populaƟon and dwelling unit projecƟons are taken from the proposed updates to the RGS projecƟons
idenƟfied by Metro Vancouver that are reflecƟve of the 2011 Census. The targets included are the low range
for both populaƟon and dwelling units, as idenƟfied by Metro Vancouver
**Employment projecƟons have been taken from The Commercial & Industrial Strategy: 2012 – 2041
prepared by G.P. Rollo & Associates, as received by Maple Ridge Council on November 26, 2012.
STRATEGY 1.2: FOCUS GROWTH IN URBAN CENTRES AND FREQUENT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Strategy 1.2.6a) Provide dwelling unit and employment projecƟons that indicate the municipal
share of planned growth and that contribute to achieving the regional share of growth for Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 1.3 AssumpƟons and Targets idenƟfies the populaƟon,
density, housing and commercial projecƟons for the Regional Town Centre to 2021 as follows:
xPopulaƟon = 21,750 (approximately 24% of the total populaƟon)
xDensity = 70 to 100 persons per hectare
xHousing = 11,065 dwelling units (approximately 32.5% of total housing)
xCommercial goal to create between 0.25 to 0.75 new jobs for every new dwelling unit in the
Town Centre.
xThe District of Maple Ridge will work toward undertaking a review of the populaƟon, density, housing
and commercial goals within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries, which forms the extent of the
Regional City Centre. This review will be to beƩer align the projecƟons for the Regional City Centre with
the overall populaƟon, dwelling units and employment projecƟons for the enƟre District.
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas in Maple Ridge.
The Official Community Plan is consistent with the RGS.
1.2.6b) Include policies for Urban Centres which:
i) IdenƟfy the general locaƟon, boundaries and types of Urban Centres on a map
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan idenƟfies the boundaries of the Town Centre Area Plan,
which aligns with the locaƟon of the Regional Town Centre idenƟfied on Map 2: Regional Land Use
DesignaƟons of the RGS.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 17
ii) Focus growth and development in Urban Centres
xChapter 2 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 – Compact & Unique Community.
x10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟons 1.2.1 Goals and ObjecƟves; 1.3 AssumpƟons and Targets; 3.2
General Land-Use Requirements, policies 3-1 and 3-3.
iii) Encourage office development through policies and/or other financial incenƟves, such as zoning that
reserves capacity for office uses and density bonus provisions;
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.3.1 Commercial Strategy, policy 6-20.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, Chapter 3.2 General Land Use Requirements, policies 3-1 and 3-2
iv) In coordinaƟon with the provision of transit service, establish or maintain reduced residenƟal and
commercial parking requirements in Urban Centres, where appropriate
x10.4 Town Centre Area Plan parking standard; SecƟon 5.0 MulƟ-Modal TransportaƟon Network, policies
5-4, 5-5 and 5-6.
1.2.6c) Include policies for Frequent Transit Development Areas which:
i) IdenƟfy on a map, in consultaƟon with TransLink, the general locaƟon and boundaries of Frequent Transit
Development Areas
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas in Maple Ridge.
ii) Focus growth and development in Frequent Transit Development Areas
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas in Maple Ridge.
iii) In coordinaƟon with the provision of transit service, establish or maintain reduced residenƟal and
commercial parking requirements in Urban Centres, where appropriate
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas in Maple Ridge.
1.2.6d) Include policies for General Urban areas which:
i) IdenƟfy the General Urban areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent with the Regional Land
Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2).
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies lands designated Urban
ResidenƟal; Commercial, Industrial, InsƟtuƟonal, Parks and ConservaƟon and Urban Reserve that are
located within the Urban Area Boundary. These land uses are generally consistent with the Regional Land
Use DesignaƟons of “General Urban”, “Industrial” and “ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon” idenƟfied on the
Maple Ridge Regional Context Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map.
Chapter 1, Page 18 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
ii) Ensure development in General Urban areas outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development
Areas are generally lower density that development in General Urban areas within Urban Centres and
Frequent Transit Development Areas
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policy 2-3.
xSecƟon 10.1 Area Planning of the Official Community Plan establishes the area planning program for the
District. In addiƟon, SecƟons 10.2 – Albion Area Plan; 10.3 Silver Valley Area Plan; and 10.4 Town Centre
Area Plan establish policies and guidelines for development within each of the area plan boundaries.
xSecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons, Urban ResidenƟal policies 3-18 1) Neighbourhood ResidenƟal and
3-18 2) Major Corridor ResidenƟal.
xSecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria, policies 3-19, 3-20 and 3-21.
iii) where appropriate, idenƟfy small scale Local Centres in the General Urban areas that provide a mix of
housing types, local-serving commercial acƟviƟes and good access to transit.
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Local Centres in the District of Maple Ridge.
However, the following OCP policies reflect the spirit and intent of a ‘local centre’ as idenƟfied in the
RGS:
xSecƟon 6.3.5 Community Commercial Node, policies 6-26, 6-27, 6-28 and 6-29.
xSecƟon 6.3.6 Neighbourhood Commercial Centres, policies 6-30, 6-31, 6-32 and 6-33.
xSecƟon 6.3.8 Historic Commercial, policies 6-37, 6-38 and 6-39.
xChapter 10.3 Silver Valley Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 River Village and 5.2.3 Main Street Commercial
Areas.
iv) exclude non-residenƟal major trip-generaƟng uses, as defined in the Regional Context Statement, from
those porƟons of General Urban areas outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policy 7-11.
v) encourage infill development by direcƟng growth to established areas, where possible;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policy 2-3.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, SecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria, policies 3-19, 3-20 and
3-21.
1.2.6e) Include policies that, for Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas that
overlay Industrial, Mixed Employment, or ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon areas, the Industrial,
Mixed Employment, and ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon intent and policies prevail, except in the
Mixed Employment areas contained within the overlay area;
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 2.2.1 ProtecƟon of Natural Features, policies 2-1, 2-2, 2-13,
2-14 and 2-15.
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas or Mixed
Employment lands within the District of Maple Ridge.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 19
1.2.6f) for Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas and General Urban areas, include
policies which:
i) support conƟnued industrial uses by minimizing the impacts of urban uses on industrial acƟviƟes;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, policy 2-1.
xSecƟon 6.4.1 Industrial Lands, policies 6-40, 6-41 and 6-42.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments for the
support, protecƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial land uses.
ii) encourage safe and efficient transit, cycling and walking;
xChapter 7.3 Transit
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 Defining the TransportaƟon Network.
iii) implement transit priority measures, where appropriate;
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-3, 7-4 and 7-5.
xChapter 7.3 Transit, policies 7-16 through 7-24.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 Defining the TransportaƟon Network, policies 5-12 and
5-13.
iv) support district energy systems and renewable energy generaƟon, where appropriate.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 2.2 IntegraƟng Green Infrastructure, policy 2-19.
xChapter 5.5 Air Quality, policies 5-39 & 5-40.
xChapter 5.6 Preparing for Climate Change.
STRATEGY 1.3: PROTECT RURAL AREAS FROM URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Strategy 1.3.3a) idenƟfy the Rural areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent with
the Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2);
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies land uses outside of the Urban
Area Boundary that include Agricultural, Park, Parks Within the ALR, Forest, Rural ResidenƟal, Suburban
ResidenƟal, Estate Suburban ResidenƟal and ConservaƟon. These land uses are generally consistent with
the Regional Land Use DesignaƟons of “Rural” and “ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon” idenƟfied on the
Maple Ridge Regional Context Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map.
Chapter 1, Page 20 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
1.3.3b) limit development to a scale, form, and density consistent with the intent for the Rural
land use designaƟon, and that is compaƟble with on-site sewer servicing;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policies 2-4 and 2-6.
xChapter 2.2 .2.2 Land Use DesignaƟons, Agricultural, Rural ResidenƟal, Suburban ResidenƟal, Estate
Suburban ResidenƟal.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, SecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons, Rural ResidenƟal policies 3-6 through 3-9,
Suburban ResidenƟal policies 3-10 through 3-13 and Estate Suburban ResidenƟal policies 3-14 through
3-17.
xChapter 9.1 Municipal Services, SecƟon 9.1.2 SepƟc Systems, policies 9-5 and 9-6.
1.3.3 c) include policies which:
i) specify the allowable density and form, consistent with AcƟon 1.3.1, for land uses within the Rural land use
designaƟon;
xSecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons policies 3-6 through 3-17.
ii) support agricultural uses within the Agricultural Land Reserve, and where appropriate, outside of the
Agricultural Land Reserve.
xSecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community policy 2-6.
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟons 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy and 6.2.2
Sustainable Agriculture.
IMAGE
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 21
GOAL 2: SUPPOR T A SUS TAIN ABLE
ECONOMY
“The land base and transportaƟon systems required to nurture a healthy business sector are
protected and supported. This includes supporƟng regional employment and economic growth.
Industrial and agricultural land is protected and commerce flourishes in Urban Centres throughout
the region.”
STRATEGY 2.1: PROMOTE LAND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT SUPPORT A DIVERSE REGIONAL
ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT CLOSE TO WHERE PEOPLE LIVE
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
2.1.4 a) include policies that support appropriate economic development in Urban Centres,
Frequent Transit Development Areas, Industrial and Mixed Employment areas;
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policies 6-1, 6-2, 6-3 and 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments for the
support, protecƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial land uses.
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, policies 6-18, 6-20 and 6-21.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 1.2 – 8 Guiding Sustainability Principles, SecƟon 1.2.1 Goals
and ObjecƟves, Principles: 1 Each Neighbourhood is Complete 6 Jobs are close to home; and 7 The Centre
is disƟncƟve, aƩracƟve and vibrant.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements policies 3-1, 3-2, 3-3,
3-5, 3-6, 3-9, 3-14 and 3-15.
2.1.4 b) support the development of office space in Urban Centres, through policies such as zoning
that reserves land for office uses, density bonus provisions to encourage office development,
variable development cost charges, and/or other financial incenƟves;
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.31 Commercial Strategy policies 6-17, 6-18 and 6-21.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements, policies 3-2 and 3-6.
Chapter 1, Page 22 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
2.1.4 c) include policies that discourage major commercial and insƟtuƟonal development outside
of Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas;
The Maple Ridge Regional City Centre is intended to serve as the main commercial area within the District
and provides a number of significant municipal services and faciliƟes. It is also intended to be the primary
locaƟon for any future post-secondary or technical insƟtuƟonal uses that do not require special site
characterisƟcs found elsewhere in the District.
xChapter 4.2 InsƟtuƟonal, policies 4-31 through 4-37.
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.3.1 Commercial Strategy, policy 6-22.
2.1.4 d) show how the economic development role of Special Employment Areas, post secondary
insƟtuƟons and hospitals are supported through land use and transportaƟon policies.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.5 Post Secondary EducaƟonal
InsƟtuƟons.
STRATEGY 2.2: PROTECT THE SUPPLY OF INDUSTRIAL LAND
2.2.4 a) idenƟfy the Industrial areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent with the
Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2);
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies land designated as Industrial
and Rural Resource. These lands are generally consistent with the Regional Land Use DesignaƟon of
“Industrial” idenƟfied on Maple Ridge Regional Context Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons
map.
2.2.4 b) include policies for Industrial areas which:
i) support and protect industrial areas;
xChapter 6.4 Industrial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.4.1 Industrial Lands, policies 6-40 through 6-46.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments for the
support, protecƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial land uses.
ii) support appropriate accessory uses, including commercial space and caretaker units;
xSecƟon 6.4.2 Business Parks, policy 6-47.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 23
iii) exclude uses which are inconsistent with the intent of industrial areas, such as medium and large format
retail, residenƟal uses (other than industrial caretaker units where necessary), and stand-alone office uses
that are not supporƟve of industrial acƟviƟes;
xWithin the District, ‘business parks’ are intended to provide a range of light industrial uses and supporƟng
industries. They are not considered to be the primary locaƟons for office uses (restricted to a maximum
of 25% of the total floor area of the development) or for professional and/or personal services.
xSecƟon 6.4.2 Business Parks, policy 6-49.
xSecƟon 6.5.3 Large Format Retail.
iv) encourage beƩer uƟlizaƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial areas for industrial acƟviƟes;
xSecƟon 6.4.1 Industrial Lands, policies 6-41, 6-42 and 6-44.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments for the
support, protecƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial land uses.
2.2.4 c) idenƟfy the Mixed Employment areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent
with the Regional Land Use DesignaƟon map (Map 2);
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
2.2.4 d )include policies for Mixed Employment areas which:
i) support a mix of industrial, commercial, office and other related employment uses, while maintaining
support for established industrial areas, including potenƟal intensificaƟon policies for industrial acƟviƟes,
where appropriate;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policy 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
ii) allow large and medium format retail, where appropriate, provided that such development will not
undermine the broad objecƟves of the Regional Growth Strategy;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policy 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
Chapter 1, Page 24 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
iii) support the regional objecƟve of concentraƟng commercial and other major trip-generaƟng uses in Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policies 6-1 through 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
iv) where Mixed Employment areas are located within Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas,
support higher density commercial development and allow employment and service acƟviƟes consistent with
the intent of Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policies 6-1 through 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
v) allow low density infill / expansion based on currently accepted local plans and policies in Mixed
Employment areas and support increases in density only where the Mixed Employment area has transit
service or where an expansion of transit service has been idenƟfied in TransLink’s strategic transportaƟon
plans for the planned densiƟes;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
2.2.4 e) include policies which help reduce environmental impacts and promote energy efficiency.
xChapter 5.5 Air Quality, policies 5-39 through 5-42.
xNote: The District is currently undertaking an Environment Management Strategy that may recommend
Official Community Plan amendments to include addiƟonal policies that promote energy efficiency.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 25
STRATEGY 2.3: PROTECT THE SUPPLY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PROMOTE AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY
WITH AN EMPHASIS ON FOOD PRODUCTION
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
2.3.6 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) specify the Agricultural areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent with the
Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2);
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies lands designated Agricultural
and Parks within the ALR. These land uses are generally consistent with the Regional Land Use
DesignaƟon of “Agriculture” idenƟfied on the Maple Ridge Regional Context Statement - Regional Land
Use DesignaƟons map.
2.3.6 b) include policies to support agricultural viability including those which:
i) assign appropriate regional land use designaƟons that support agricultural viability and discourage non-
farm uses that do not complement agriculture;
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policies 6-9 through 6-14.
ii) discourage subdivision of agricultural land leading to farm fragmentaƟon;
xSecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policies 6-12 and 6-13.
iii) where feasible, and appropriate with other governments and agencies, maintain and improve
transportaƟon, drainage and irrigaƟon infrastructure to support agricultural acƟviƟes;
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policy 7-9.
iv) manage the agricultural-urban interface to protect the integrity and viability of agricultural operaƟons
(e.g. buffers between agricultural and urban areas or edge planning);
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policies 2-2, 2-4 and
2-6.
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy, policy 6-6. (Note:
Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan endorsed by Council ResoluƟon R/09-516 in December 2009).
xSecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policies 6-10, 6-12 and 6-13.
Chapter 1, Page 26 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
v) demonstrate support for economic development opportuniƟes for agricultural operaƟons (e.g. processing,
agri-tourism, farmers’ markets and urban agriculture);
xSecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy, policies 6-5 through 6-8.
xSecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policies 6-9 through 6-14.
vi) encourage the use of agricultural land, with an emphasis on food producƟon;
xSecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy, policies 6-7and 6-8.
vii) support educaƟonal programs that provide informaƟon on agriculture and its importance for the regional
economy and local food systems.
xSecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy, policies 6-6 and 6-8. (Note: Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan
endorsed by Council ResoluƟon R/09-516 in December 2009).
IMAGE
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 27
GOAL 3: PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
AND RESPOND TO CLIMATE
CHANGE IMPACT S
“Metro Vancouver’s vital ecosystems conƟnue to provide the essenƟals of life – clean air, water
and food. A connected network of habitats is maintained for a wide variety of wildlife and plant
species. Protected natural areas provide residents and visitors with diverse recreaƟonal
opportuniƟes. Strategies also help Metro Vancouver and member municipaliƟes meet their
greenhouse gas emission targets, and prepare for, and miƟgate risks from climate change and
natural hazards.”
STRATEGY 3.1: PROTECT CONSERVATION AND RECREATION LANDS
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
3.1.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) idenƟfy the ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon areas and their boundaries on a map generally
consistent with the Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2);
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies lands designated ConservaƟon,
Forest, Park and Parks within the ALR. These land uses are generally consistent with the Regional Land
Use DesignaƟon of “ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon” idenƟfied on the Maple Ridge Regional Context
Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map.
3.1.4 b) include land use policies to support the protecƟon of ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon areas
that are generally consistent with the following:
i) public service infrastructure, including the supply of high quality drinking water;
xChapter 4.3 Heritage, SecƟon 4.3.1 Heritage RecogniƟon, policy 4-40, and SecƟon 4.3.2 Heritage
Management, policy 4-45.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policies 5-32 through 5-38.
ii) environmental conservaƟon;
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policies 5-1 through 5-8.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-9 through 5-16.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policies 5-28 through 5-32.
Chapter 1, Page 28 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
iii) recreaƟon, primarily outdoor;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, policies 4-7, 4-9 and 4-10.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-15 and 5-16.
xChapter 10.3 Silver Valley Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2.7 River Village Parks, SecƟon 5.3.8 Blaney, Forest and
Horse Hamlets Parks and Schools and 5.4.5 Eco-Clusters Parks.
iv) educaƟon, research and training faciliƟes and uses that serve conservaƟon and/or recreaƟon users;
xSecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, policies 4-5, 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.1 Tourism.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.4 Forest.
v) commercial uses, tourism acƟviƟes, and public cultural or community ameniƟes that are appropriately
located, scaled and consistent with the intent of the designaƟon;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, policies 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-10 through
4-13.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.1 Tourism, policies 6-54, 6-55
and 6-56.
3.1.4 c) include policies, where appropriate, that effecƟvely buffer ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon
areas from acƟviƟes in adjacent areas.
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policy 5-8.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-10 through 5-13 and 5-17.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, SecƟon 5.3.1 Hillside Development, policies 5-20 through 5-24.
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policy 6-12(b).
STRATEGY 3.2: PROTECT AND ENHANCE NATURAL FEATURES AND THEIR CONNECTIVITY
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
3.2.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements which include policies and/or maps that indicate how
ecologically important areas and natural features will be managed (as conceptually shown on
Map 10) (e.g. steep slopes and ravines, interƟdal areas and other natural features not addressed
in Strategy 3.1).
xSchedule “C” of the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan (Bylaw No. 6425-2006) idenƟfies Natural
Features including conservaƟon lands, forests and major parks; Fraser River 200 Year Floodplain, Kanaka
Creek Floodplain (interpreted) and AloueƩe River Floodplain, Canadian Wildlife Service Wetlands and the
Fraser River Escarpment.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 29
3.2.5 In collaboraƟon with other agencies, develop and manage municipal components of the
Metro Vancouver Regional RecreaƟon Greenway Network and connect community trails,
bikeways and greenways to the Regional RecreaƟon Greenway Network where appropriate.
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, policies 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10.
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policies 5-3, 5-7and 5-8.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-15 and 5-16.
xChapter 7.6 MulƟ-Use Equestrian Trails, policies 7-42 and 7-43.
3.2.6 IdenƟfy where appropriate measures to protect, enhance and restore ecologically
important systems, features, corridors and establish buffers along watercourses, coastlines,
agricultural lands, and other ecologically important features (e.g. conservaƟon covenants, land
trusts, tax exempƟons and ecogiŌing).
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policy 5-8.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policy 5-30.
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policy 6-12(b).
xChapter 8 Development Permit Guidelines, Watercourse ProtecƟon Development Permit Area Guidelines.
3.2.7 Consider watershed and ecosystem planning and/or Integrated Stormwater Management
Plans in the development of municipal plans.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policies 5-28, 5-29, 5-32 and 5-33.
STRATEGY 3.3: ENCOURAGE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE THAT REDUCE ENERGY
CONSUMPTION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
3.3.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) idenƟfy how municipaliƟes will use their land development and transportaƟon strategies to
meet their greenhouse gas reducƟon targets and consider how these targets will contribute to the
regional targets;
xChapter 5.6 Preparing for Climate Change, policies 5-43 through 5-45.
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1, 7-3 and 7-4.
Chapter 1, Page 30 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
3.3.4 b) idenƟfy policies and/or programs that reduce energy consumpƟon and greenhouse gas
emissions, and improve air quality from land use and transportaƟon infrastructure, such as:
xexisƟng building retrofits and construcƟon of new buildings to green performance guidelines or
standards, district energy systems, and energy recovery and renewable energy generaƟon
technologies, such as solar panels and geoexchange systems, and electric vehicle charging
infrastructure;
xcommunity design and facility provisions that encourages transit, cycling and walking (e.g. direct
and safe pedestrian and cycling linkages to the transit system);
xChapter 5.5 Air Quality, policies 5-39 through 5-42.
xChapter 5.6 Preparing for Climate Change, policies 5-43, 5-44 and 5-45.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 2.2 IntegraƟng Green Infrastructure, policies 2-21 through
2-24.
3.3.4 c) focus infrastructure and amenity investments in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit
Development Areas, and at appropriate locaƟons along TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network;
xChapter 9.1 Municipal Services, SecƟon 9.1.1 Municipal Infrastructure, policies 9-1, 9-2 and 9-3.
3.3.4 d) implement land use policies and development control strategies which support integrated
storm water management and water conservaƟon objecƟves.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policies 5-28, 5-30, 5-32 through 5-38.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 2.2.1 ProtecƟon of Natural Features.
image
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 31
STRATEGY 3.4: ENCOURAGE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND NATURAL HAZARD RISKS
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
3.4.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements that include policies to encourage seƩlement paƩerns
that minimize risks associated with climate change and natural hazards (e.g. earthquake, flooding,
erosion, subsidence, mudslides, interface fires).
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-10 through 5-14, 5-18 and 5-19.
xSecƟon 5.3.1 Hillside Development, policies 5-20 through 5-24.
3.4.5 Consider incorporaƟng climate change and natural hazard risk assessments into the
planning and locaƟon of municipal uƟliƟes, assets and operaƟons.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policy 5-9.
xChapter 5.6 Preparing for Climate Change, policy 5-43.
xChapter 9.1 Municipal Services, SecƟon 9.1.1 Municipal Infrastructure, policy 9-4
xSecƟon 9.1.2 SepƟc Systems, policies 9-5 and 9-6.
xSecƟon 9.1.3 Waste ReducƟon and Recycling, policies 9-7, 9-8 and 9-9.
image
Chapter 1, Page 32 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
GOAL 4: DEVELOP COMPLETE
COMMUNITIES
“Metro Vancouver is a region of communiƟes with a diverse range of housing choices suitable for
residents at any stage of their lives. The distribuƟon of employment and access to services and
ameniƟes builds complete communiƟes throughout the region. Complete communiƟes are
designed to support walking, cycling and transit, and to foster healthy lifestyles.”
STRATEGY 4.1: PROVIDE DIVERSE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHOICES
Role of Municipalities:
4.1.7 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) include policies or strategies that indicate how municipaliƟes will work towards meeƟng the
esƟmate future housing demand as set out in Appendix Table A.4, which:
i) ensure the need for diverse housing opƟons is arƟculated in municipal plans and policies, including
neighbourhood and area plans;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policies 2-1, 2-2, 2-3,
2-5 and 2-6.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, secƟon 3.1.1 Housing and Land Requirements, policy 3-1.
xSecƟon 3.1.2 Community Character and Sense of Place, policies 3-2, 3-3 and 3-5.
xSecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons policies 3-8, 3-12, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18 (1) and (2).
xSecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria, policies 3-19 (1) and (2), 3-20 and 3-21.
xSecƟon 3.1.5 Urban Reserve.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements, policy 3-1.
ii) increase the supply and diversity of the housing stock through infill developments, more compact housing
forms and increased density;
xSecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria
iii) in collaboraƟon with the federal government and the province, assist in increasing the supply of affordable
rental units for households with low or low to moderate incomes through policies, such as density bonus
provisions, inclusionary zoning or other mechanisms, parƟcularly in areas that are well served by transit;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing, policies 3-27 through 3-33.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 33
iv) encourage and facilitate affordable housing development through measures such as reduced parking
requirements, streamlined and prioriƟzed approval processes, below market leases of publicly owned
property, and fiscal measures.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements, policies 3-1, 3-7 and
3-8.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.0 MulƟ-Modal TransportaƟon Network, SecƟon 5.1
Offering TransportaƟon Choices, policy 5-4.
x*Note: SecƟon 10.0 of the Off-Street parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 (as amended), outlines
provisions for reduced parking standards for mulƟ-family non-market housing, Seniors Independent
Living, Assisted Living, SupporƟve Housing and Congregate Care faciliƟes.
4.1.8 Prepare and implement Housing AcƟon Plans which:
a) assesses local housing market condiƟons, by tenure, including assessing housing supply,
demand and affordability;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing, policies 3-27, 3-28, 3-29 and 3-31.
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 b) idenƟfy housing prioriƟes, based on the assessment of local housing market condiƟons,
and consideraƟon of changing household demographics, characterisƟcs and needs;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and special Needs Housing, policies 3-27, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31 and 3-32.
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 c) idenƟfy implementaƟon measures within the jurisdicƟon and financial capabiliƟes of
municipaliƟes, including acƟons set out in AcƟon 4.1.7;
xThe Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 d) encourage the supply of new rental housing and where appropriate miƟgate or limit the
loss of exisƟng rental housing stock;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and special Needs Housing, policies 3-30 through 3-33.
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 e) idenƟfy opportuniƟes to parƟcipate in programs with other levels of government to
secure addiƟonal affordable housing units to meet housing needs across the conƟnuum;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and special Needs Housing, policy 3-28.
Chapter 1, Page 34 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 f) cooperate with and facilitate the acƟviƟes of the Metro Vancouver Housing CorporaƟon
under AcƟon 4.1.5.
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and special Needs Housing, policy 3-28.
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
STRATEGY 4.2: DEVELOP HEALTHY AND COMPLETE COMMUNITIES WITH ACCESS TO
A RANGE OF SERVICES AND AMENITIES
4.2.4 Include policies within municipal plans or strategies, that may be referenced in the
Regional Context Statements which:
a) support compact, mixed use, transit, cycling and walking oriented communiƟes;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, SecƟon 3.1.2 Community Character and Sense of Place.
xSecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons, policies 3-18 (1) and (2).
xSecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria.
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness Community & Cultural Services,
policies 4-2, 4-5, 4-7 through 4-11 and 4-13.
xChapter 7.3 Transit.
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists.
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians.
xChapter 7.6 MulƟ-Use and Equestrian Trails.
xChapter 10.2 Albion Area Plan, SecƟon 10.2.6 Village Centre.
xChapter 10.3 Silver Valley Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 River Village and SecƟon 5.3 Hamlets.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 1.2 8 Guiding Sustainability Principles, SecƟon 1.2.1 Goals
and ObjecƟves, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements, SecƟon 4.0 Park and ConservaƟon, SecƟon
5.1 Offering TransportaƟon Choices and SecƟon 5.2 Defining the TransportaƟon Network.
4.2.4 b) locate community, arts, cultural, recreaƟonal, insƟtuƟonal, medical/health, social service,
educaƟon faciliƟes and affordable housing development in Urban Centres or areas with good
access to transit;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, Community & Cultural Services.
xSecƟon 4.1.4 Diverse PopulaƟon.
xChapter 4.2 InsƟtuƟonal.
xChapter 4.3 Heritage, SecƟon 4.3.2 Heritage Management.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.5 Post Secondary EducaƟonal
InsƟtuƟons.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 35
4.2.4 c) provide public spaces and other place-making ameniƟes for increased social interacƟon
and community engagement;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness Community & Cultural Services.
xSecƟon 4.1.4 Diverse PopulaƟon, policies 4-18 and 4-19.
4.2.4 d) support acƟve living through the provision of recreaƟon faciliƟes, parks, trails, and safe
and inviƟng pedestrian and cycling environments;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, Community & Cultural Services,
policies 4-5, 4-7 through 4-13.
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policies 5-7 and 5-8.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-10, 7-11, 7-13 and 7-15.
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists.
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians.
xChapter 7.6 MulƟ-Use and Equestrian Trails.
4.2.4 e) support food producƟon and distribuƟon throughout the region, including in urban areas,
roof top gardens, green roofs and community gardens on private and municipally-owned lands
and healthy food retailers, such as grocery stores and farmers’ markets near housing and transit
services;
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy.
xSecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture.
4.2.4 f) assess overall health implicaƟons of proposed new communiƟes, infrastructure and
transportaƟon services, including air quality and noise, with input from public health authoriƟes;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policy 2-5.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, SecƟon 3.1.2 Community Character and Sense of Place, policy 3-5.
xChapter 5.5 Air Quality, policies 5-39 through 5-42.
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1 and 7-4.
xChapter 10.1 Area Planning, policy 10-3.
4.2.4 g) support universally accessible community design;
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, policy 3-1.
xSecƟon 3.1.2 Community Character and Sense of Place, policy 3-5.
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians, policy 7-38.
Chapter 1, Page 36 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
4.2.4 h) where appropriate, idenƟfy small scale Local Centres in General Urban areas that provide
a mix of housing types, local-servicing commercial acƟviƟes and good access to transit. Local
Centres are not intended to compete with or compromise the role of Urban Centres and should
preferably be located within Frequent Transit Development areas;
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.3.6 Neighbourhood Commercial Centres, policies 6-30,
6-32 and 6-33.
xSecƟon 6.3.8 Historic Commercial, policies 6-37 through 6-39.
4.2.4 i) recognize the Special Employment Areas as shown on the Local Centres, Hospitals and Post
-Secondary InsƟtuƟons map (Map 11). Special Employment Areas are located outside of Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, and are region-serving, special purpose
faciliƟes that have a high level of related transportaƟon acƟvity due to employee, student or
passenger trips.
xMap 11 of the Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Special Employment Areas in the District
of Maple Ridge.
image
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 37
GOAL 5: SUPPOR T SUS TAIN ABLE
TRANSPOR TATION CHOICES
“Metro Vancouver’s compact, transit-oriented urban form supports a range of sustainable
transportaƟon choices. This paƩern of development expands the opportuniƟes for transit,
mulƟple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking, encourages acƟve lifestyles, and reduces energy
use, greenhouse gas emissions, household expenditure on transportaƟon, and improves air
quality. The region’s road, transit, rail and waterway networks play a vital role in serving and
shaping regional development, providing linkages among the region’s communiƟes and providing
vital goods movement networks.”
STRATEGY 5.1: COORDINATE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION TO ENCOURAGE
TRANSIT, MULTIPLE-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES, CYCLING AND WALKING
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
5.1.6 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) idenƟfy land use and transportaƟon policies and acƟons, and describe how they are
coordinated, to encourage a greater share of trips made by transit, mulƟple-occupancy vehicles,
cycling and walking, and to support TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network;
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1 through 7-5.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-9, 7-10, 7-11 and 7-15.
xChapter 7.3 Transit, policies 7-16 through 7-24.
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists, policies 7-25 through 7-33.
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians, policies 7-34 through 7-41.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 Defining the TransportaƟon Network.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, Figure 3 Future Rapid Transit Route idenƟfies the potenƟal future
locaƟon of a rapid transit route along the Lougheed Highway in the Regional City Centre.
xThe District will work towards consistency between the OCP and RGS over Ɵme through the compleƟon
of the Maple Ridge TransportaƟon Plan. (Note: The TransportaƟon Plan is currently under preparaƟon
with an anƟcipated compleƟon in 2013.)
Chapter 1, Page 38 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
5.1.6 b) idenƟfy policies and acƟons that support the development and implementaƟon of
municipal and regional transportaƟon system and demand management strategies, such as
parking pricing and supply measures, transit priority measures, ridesharing, and car-sharing
programs;
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.1 Offering TransportaƟon Choices, policies 5-4, 5-5 and
5-6.
xThe District will work towards consistency between the OCP and RGS over Ɵme through the compleƟon
of the Maple Ridge TransportaƟon Plan. (Note: The TransportaƟon Plan is currently under preparaƟon
with an anƟcipated compleƟon in 2013.)
5.1.6 c) idenƟfy policies and acƟons to manage and enhance municipal infrastructure to support
transit, mulƟple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking.
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1, 7-4 and 7-5.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network, policies 7-10, 7-11 and 7-14.
xChapter 7.3 Transit, policies 7-16, 7-17, 7-19, 7-20, 7-23 and 7-24.
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists, policies 7-25, 7-26 and 7-29 through 7-33.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.1 Offering TransportaƟon Choices, policies 5-1 and 5-2.
xThe District will work towards consistency between the OCP and RGS over Ɵme through the compleƟon
of the Maple Ridge TransportaƟon Plan. (Note: The TransportaƟon Plan is currently under preparaƟon
with an anƟcipated compleƟon in 2013.)
STRATEGY 5.2: COORDINATE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION TO SUPPORT THE SAFE
AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES FOR PASSENGERS, GOODS AND SERVICES
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
5.2.3 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) idenƟfy routes on a map for the safe and efficient movement of goods and service vehicles to,
from, and within Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas, Industrial, Mixed
Employment and Agricultural areas, Special Employment Area, ports, airports and internaƟonal
border crossings;
xFigure 4 – Proposed Major Corridor Network Plan (2005 – 2031) idenƟfies the current (Nov. 14, 2006)
and proposed major transportaƟon routes within the District.
xNote: The District is currently preparing a TransportaƟon Plan which may include proposed changes to
Figure 4 – Proposed Major Corridor Network Plan (2005 – 2031).
5.2.3 b) idenƟfy land use and related policies and acƟons that support opƟmizing the efficient
movement of vehicles for passengers, Special Employment Areas, goods and services on the
Major Road Network, provincial highways, and federal transportaƟon faciliƟes;
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 39
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, 7-12 and 7-14.
xNote: The District is currently preparing a TransportaƟon Plan that may include addiƟonal policies and
acƟons that further address this Strategy.
5.2.3 c) support the development of local and regional transportaƟon system management
strategies, such as the provision of informaƟon to operators of goods and service vehicles for
efficient travel decisions, management of traffic flow using transit priority measures, coordinated
traffic signalizaƟon, and lane management;
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policy 7-1.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-6 through 7-11.
xChapter 7.3 Transit, policy 7-18.
xNote: The District is currently preparing a TransportaƟon Plan that may include addiƟonal policies and
acƟons that further address this Strategy.
5.2.3 d) idenƟfy policies and acƟons which support the protecƟon of rail rights-of-way and access
points to navigable waterways in order to reserve the potenƟal for goods movement, in
consideraƟon of the potenƟal impacts on air quality, habitat and communiƟes.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-12 and 7-13.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2.2 Enhancing the MulƟ-Modal Network, policy 5-13.
xThe District will work towards consistency between the OCP and RGS over Ɵme through the compleƟon
of the Maple Ridge TransportaƟon Plan. (Note: The TransportaƟon Plan is currently under preparaƟon
with an anƟcipated compleƟon in 2013.)
REGION AL GROW TH S TRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
6.2 REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENTS: PROVIDING FOR APPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL FLEXIBILITY
6.2.7 A municipality may include language in its Regional Context Statement that permits
amendments to the municipality’s Official Community Plan to adjust the boundaries of regional
land use designaƟons (or their equivalent Official Community Plan designaƟon) within the Urban
Containment Boundary, provided that:
a) the municipality may re-designate land from one regional land use designaƟon to another
regional land use designaƟon, only if the aggregate area of all proximate sites so re-designated
does not exceed one hectare;
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
Chapter 1, Page 40 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
6.2.7 b) notwithstanding secƟon 6.2.7(a), for sites that are three hectares or less, the municipality
may re-designate land:
xfrom Mixed Employment or Industrial to General Urban land use designaƟon, if the site is
located on the edge of an Industrial or Mixed Employment area and the developable porƟon
of the site will be predominantly within 150 metres of an exisƟng or approved rapid transit
staƟon on TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network; or
xfrom Industrial to Mixed Employment land use designaƟon if the developable porƟon of the
site will be predominantly within 250 metres of an exisƟng or approved rapid transit staƟon
on TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network;
provided that:
xthe re-designaƟon does not impede direct rail, waterway, road or highway access for
industrial uses; and
xthe aggregate area of all proximate sites that area re-designated does not exceed three
hectares;
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
6.2.7 c) the aggregate area of land affected by all re-designaƟons under secƟon 6.2.7(a) and (b)
together cannot exceed two percent of the municipality’s total lands within each applicable
regional land use designaƟon.
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
6.2.8 A municipality may include language in its Regional Context Statement that permits
amendments to the municipality’s Official Community Plan to adjust the boundaries of the
municipality’s Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, provided such boundary
adjustments meet the guidelines set out in Table 3 (Guidelines for Urban Centres and Frequent
Transit Development Areas) of the Regional Growth Strategy.
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
6.2.9 MunicipaliƟes will noƟfy Metro Vancouver of all adjustments, as permiƩed by secƟons 6.2.7
and 6.2.8, as soon as pracƟcable aŌer the municipality has adopted its Official Community Plan
amendment bylaw.
xThe District of Maple Ridge will implement policy 6.2.9 of the Regional Growth Strategy.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 41
6.2.10 If a municipality includes language in its Regional Context Statement that permits
amendments to the municipality’s Official Community Plan to adjust the boundaries of regional
land use designaƟons within the Urban Containment Boundary or the boundaries of Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, as permiƩed by secƟons 6.2.7 and 6.2.8
respecƟvely, the prescribe adjustments do not require and amendment to the municipality’s
Regional Context Statement. All other adjustments to regional land use designaƟon boundaries
will require and amendment to the municipality’s Regional Context Statement, which must be
submiƩed to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance in accordance with the requirements of
the Local Government Act.
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
image
Chapter 1, Page 42 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 5, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Agri-Food Hub: Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2016, Council directed that the exploration of the feasibility of an agri-food hub be a part of
the Agricultural Advisory Committee workplan for 2017. A food hub is a centrally-located facility
which aggregates, processes, and distributes agricultural products and would support the local
farming community by potentially minimizing costs and other challenges faced by Maple Ridge
farmers. In the summer of 2017, Upland Agricultural Consulting Ltd was engaged to affirm
potential demand and to draft an Implementation Plan for a Food Hub in Maple Ridge. At the
May 17, 2018 Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting, the Agricultural Advisory Committee
endorsed the draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan and supported moving forward
with a proposed public consultation process to engage stakeholders and the community.
This report updates Council on the work that has been completed to-date and seeks
endorsement on a proposed consultation program to engage the community. Concurrently, the
report identifies a similar Agricultural Advisory Committee-proposed engagement process related
to backyard chickens.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.That the “Proposed Consultation Program” identified in the report titled “Agri-Food Hub:
Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan Update”, dated June 5, 2018 be
endorsed.
BACKGROUND:
a)Maple Ridge Context
The City of Maple Ridge has always had a strong agricultural sector. However, it also experiences
unique challenges as many of the farms are under eight hectares (20 acres) and current farmers
spend much of their time marketing and distributing, rather than farming. In addition, most
farmland owners rely on primary income from other sources to offset land and home costs,
making the time and effort required to market potential products another significant barrier. As
well, because the farms are small, additional costs associated with processing and preserving
facilities are difficult to justify, often resulting in the waste of unsold products and a limited
season to market their products.
A food hub could support the local farming community by potentially minimizing costs and other
challenges facing the City’s farmers. A food hub is a centrally-located facility which aggregates,
processes, and distributes agricultural products linking local producers with wholesale or retail
buyers.
4.4
2
Recent trends indicate that the demand for local products is high, with noted increases in sales
at farmers markets, restaurants and local retailers. Anecdotally, diners are seeking local options
at Maple Ridge restaurants, and customers are asking for local produce at grocery stores.
Demand for locally-sourced products is continuing to grow and is not only being noticed within
Maple Ridge and Greater Vancouver but across North America, indicating a broader consumer
support base for the local food movement.
With the intent of strengthening the local farming community, the primary goal of the Maple
Ridge Food Hub project is to develop an implementation plan for a shared facility that would help
local farmers capitalize on the demand for local farm products, while also leading to a reduction
in time and money by processing and distributing their respective products at one centralized
location. Resources including staff and equipment would be shared to lessen and distribute the
often challenging costs of bringing products to market among the group of local farmers.
b)Council Direction to Date
On October 17, 2016, Council directed the exploration of a food hub as part of the 2017
Agricultural Advisory Committee workplan through the following resolution:
That Option 2 identified in the report dated October 17, 2016 and titled “Agricultural Plan
Facilitated Session – Next Steps” be selected as the basis for the Agricultural Advisory
Committee actions in 2017, which includes:
a)Preparation of Development Permit Area (DPA) guidelines to protect agricultural land;
b)Exploration of the feasibility of an agro-industrial (food hub); and
c)Evaluation of the remaining action items in Table 1 for Council consideration in the
2017 Business Planning process.
Based on a past work program request, Council received information on approaches to
accommodating backyard chickens in residential areas in other municipalities in the summer of
2017. On July 18, 2017, Council directed:
That staff in consultation with the Agricultural Advisory Committee develop a backyard
chickens program to permit the keeping of chickens in residential areas as identified under
the Process section of the report entitled “Backyard Chickens – Discussion Paper” dated
July 18, 2017.
Through that Staff report, it was suggested that the backyard chicken program be presented to
the community to assess the level of support for the program and following the community
conversations, staff would prepare a follow-up report summarizing the consultation results and
potential next steps for Council’s consideration.
c)Work Completed to Date
A Request for Proposals was issued in the spring of 2017 for consulting services to develop an
implementation plan for the first phase of a food hub in Maple Ridge. With funding support from
the Investment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia, Upland Agricultural Consulting Ltd
was selected and engaged in the summer of 2017 to develop an organizational framework,
affirm potential supply and demand, and to determine if the food hub enterprise would have
sufficient support within the community to be viable.
Over the following year, the consultant conducted research and stakeholder engagement to
identify appropriate markets, review relevant regulations, determine workable governance
options, as well as develop a draft implementation plan. At key project milestones, feedback
3
from members of the Agricultural Advisory Committee Food Distribution Subcommittee was
submitted to the consultant via the Agricultural Advisory Committee Staff Liaison.
In addition, the consultant provided updates to the Agricultural Advisory Committee at large. A
project update was presented on January 25, 2018 and an overview of the draft Implementation
Plan on May 17, 2018. At the May 17, 2018 Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting, the
Committee endorsed the draft Maple Ridge Implementation Plan (Appendix A) and supported
moving forward with the proposed public consultation process to engage the community on this
and other Agricultural Advisory Committee initiatives.
DISCUSSION:
Working with the Agricultural Advisory Committee throughout 2017 and 2018, Upland
Agricultural Consulting Ltd. has engaged with local stakeholders to solicit input on the
development of the Implementation Plan. It is now time to bring forward the draft Maple Ridge
Food Hub Implementation Plan for further stakeholder review and for comment from the wider
community.
a)Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan
The City of Maple Ridge has always had a strong agricultural sector, however food processing
(e.g. aggregation, promotion and distribution) components of the food system are missing locally.
The gaps in local food system infrastructure are a challenge for farmers as they must spend
much of their time marketing and distributing rather than farming. As well, because the farms
are small, additional costs associated with processing and preserving facilities are difficult to
justify, often resulting in the waste of unsold products and a limited season to market their
products. The City’s Agricultural Plan identifies the need to explore the feasibility of agro-
industrial infrastructure as a means to support local producers and pursue economic
development opportunities locally.
A Maple Ridge Food Hub could benefit farmers by reducing the time they need to spend on
promotion, marketing and sales. Most farmland owners rely on primary income from other
sources to offset land and home costs, making the time and effort required to market potential
products another significant barrier to increasing production. However, based on industry data, if
fixed on-farm costs remain constant, a two-fold increase in product sales could result in an
increase of 20 – 35% for a farm’s direct return on sales.
The draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan (attached in Appendix A for information)
provides recommendations and a framework for a five-year pilot program. The draft Plan builds
on information gathered during earlier processes, including studies undertaken in partnership
with the City of Pitt Meadows, and sets out to determine the feasibility of a food hub in Maple
Ridge.
The draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan proposes a scalable business plan that
would begin with approximately five farm members. Over the first five years, the Food Hub could
grow to a much larger operation of up to over 35 farm members. The draft Plan proposes starting
with hardy crops already grown in Maple Ridge, such as cucumbers, leafy greens, potatoes and
garlic. The draft Plan identifies that there is room to expand to more perishable items, such as
tomatoes, strawberries and blueberries, as the capacity of the Maple Ridge Food Hub grows.
The draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan also identifies opportunities to partner
with local community members, such as the Haney Farmers Market and CEED Centre as well as
farms from neighbouring communities, depending on consumer demands. Initially, the draft Plan
4
proposes individuals, families and existing local small & medium sized retailers as the customer
base for the pilot project. However, it is anticipated that opportunities to support larger
restaurants and/or local institutions (e.g. hospitals and schools) may become available in the
future as the Maple Ridge Food Hub grows and in recognition of senior levels of government
supporting local farmers with the Grow / Buy / Feed BC program.
For the first five years, the draft Plan proposes a virtual set-up that would utilize existing storage
space on a farm member’s farm. Initially, food hub orders will be picked-up by the customer;
however delivery services may be available for a small additional fee. The draft Plan suggests
that pick-up sites should be centrally located and easily accessible for both farmer drop-off and
customer pick-up.
Based on the projected financials, a stand-alone bricks and mortar location will not be feasible
during this timeframe. The draft Plan states that a bricks and motor location should only be
considered within the five year pilot project should a site and all associated overhead costs (e.g.
utilities, rent, fees & taxes) be donated. However, the draft Plan does not account for such a
donation. Therefore, should a sizeable donation or subsidy be offered to the Maple Ridge Food
Hub, the financial feasibility and impact assessment would need to be independently reviewed at
that time. The draft Plan does identify that the bricks and mortar location, criteria and feasibility
should be re-assessed following the successful completion of the five year pilot project.
The draft Plan proposes to employ up to three staff members over the first five years. The first
hire, the Hub Manager, would oversee product aggregation, order coordination, delivery services
as well as marketing and promotional services, which may complement local agri-tourism
initiatives. The draft Plan notes that hiring an effective Hub Manager is a critical first step for the
Maple Ridge Food Hub and that without the right Hub Manager, it will be more challenging to
achieve the identified targets.
It is anticipated that the Maple Ridge Food Hub will require $50,000 in start-up funding for the
five year pilot project. This could come from a mix of loans, grants and in-kind support. Based on
the projected financials, the Maple Ridge Food Hub could be solvent by Year 3 of the Pilot Project
using a brokerage fee model assuming an increase in farm and customer growth year over year.
b)Proposed Public Consultation Program
The next phase of the Maple Ridge Food Hub project workplan is to discuss the proposed
Implementation Plan with the stakeholders and community to solicit feedback, determine levels
of community support, fine-tune the proposed Plan (if required) as well as to promote the plan to
the wider farming community and potential customer base.
WE ARE HERE
Prepare Draft Maple
Ridge Food Hub
Implementation Plan
Solicit Feedback from
AAC
Engage with
stakeholders and
wider community.
Report back to Council
& AAC
Finalize Maple Ridge
Food Hub
Implementation Plan
5
The consultation process proposed for Council endorsement includes:
•Outreach to local stakeholders such as agricultural producers and community groups
that have an interest in local agriculture to solicit feedback and buy-in to the proposed
Plan.
•Attending the Backyard Farming section of the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Agricultural
Association’s Country Fest, held July 28 & 29 2018 at the Albion Fair Grounds, to raise
public awareness and generate consumer interest in the Food Hub.
•Hosting a booth at the Haney Farmers Market on at least one weekend of the month in
July and August.
•A questionnaire to obtain feedback on the draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation
Plan. The questionnaire will be available on the City’s website and social media
platforms, as well as paper copies at outreach events.
•Process and event updates for interested producers and residents (opt-in required) from
the new agriculture@mapleridge.ca email address.
Where possible, stakeholder engagement and community consultation regarding the draft Maple
Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan will take place in conjunction with other on-going
Agricultural Advisory Committee projects including the 2018 Food Garden Contest and
community conversations on the keeping of backyard hens.
Regarding this latter initiative, in addition to working on the Maple Ridge Food Hub project,
members of the Agricultural Advisory Committee have been exploring the keeping of backyard
hens in residential areas in Maple Ridge. In July 2017, Council received a Staff report that set
out background, contextual information and possible regulatory areas of focus for keeping
backyard hens. Council directed this work be added to the Agricultural Advisory Committee
workplan for 2018 and, throughout 2018, the Agricultural Advisory Committee Backyard Chicken
Subcommittee has been working with Planning Staff to develop a backyard hen program that
aligns with the themes that emerged from the background review.
Consistent with the direction given by Council in July 2017, information regarding the keeping of
backyard hens will be available at the Backyard Farming section of Country Fest (July 28 & 29)
and on select Saturday’s at the Haney Farmers Market in July and August. These events will be
complemented by a questionnaire (available online and on paper) to obtain community feedback
and comments on the keeping of backyard hens.
Following the summertime stakeholder and community engagement activities, Council will
receive a summary of the feedback on the draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan and
on the review of the keeping of backyard hens. The draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation
Plan will then be finalized and brought before Council as well as possible policy and regulatory
options related to backyard hens.
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Working to implement one of the Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan’s visions towards encouraging
sustainable farming opportunities that engages with local residents, attracts new entrants, and
takes profitable advantage of local marketing opportunities, the Agricultural Advisory Committee
has been a strong proponent of exploring the feasibility of a food hub for Maple Ridge farmers.
Early on, the Agricultural Advisory Committee set up a Food Distribution Subcommittee which
oversaw and guided the development of the draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan.
6
At key project milestones, the project consultant met with members of the Agricultural Advisory
Committee Food Distribution Subcommittee for direction and feedback. At the January 25, 2018
Agricultural Advisory Committee, the consultant provided an overview of the work done to date,
including project background, methodology, situational analysis and proposed product mix and
target sectors for Food Hub sales to the Agricultural Advisory Committee at large. At this meeting,
members of the Agricultural Advisory Committee provided feedback to the consultant which was
then incorporated into the next phase of work.
At the May 17, 2018 Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting, the draft Maple Ridge Food Hub
Implementation Plan was presented to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and attending
members of the public. The Agricultural Advisory Committee supported the direction of the
proposed Plan and endorsed the draft Maple Ridge Implementation Plan (Appendix A) at that
meeting. The Agricultural Advisory Committee also supported moving forward with a proposed
public consultation process to engage stakeholders and the community on this and other
Agricultural Advisory Committee initiatives.
The Agricultural Advisory Committee also wishes to acknowledge the support of the City of Maple
Ridge and Investment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia in the development of the
Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan.
CONCLUSION:
Recently, the concept of an ‘Agri-Food Hub’ has garnered a great deal of interest locally by the
Agricultural Advisory Committee as well as our local community. With the intent of strengthening
the local farming community, the primary goal of Maple Ridge Food Hub project is to develop an
implementation plan for a shared facility that would help local farmers save time and money by
processing and distributing their respective products at one centralized location. This report
provides an update to Council on the work that has been completed to-date regarding the Maple
Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan and seeks endorsement on a proposed consultation
program on this and other Agricultural Advisory Committee initiatives.
“Original signed by Amanda Grochowich”_____________________
Prepared by: Amanda Grochowich, MCIP, RPP
Planner I
‘Original signed by Christine Carter”______________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Kelly Swift” for_______________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A – Draft Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan Report
Maple Ridge Food Hub
Implementation Plan
May 2018
APPENDIX A
ii
(Page intentionally left blank)
iii
Acknowledgements
This report was developed by Upland Agricultural Consulting in partnership with Farm|Food|Drink and
AEL Agroecological Consulting. Additional research assistance was provided by K. Bonner.
Invaluable input was provided by City of Maple Ridge staff and the City’s Agricultural Advisory
Committee’s Food Hub Subcommittee.
A number of stakeholders and experts were consulted throughout the course of this project, and we
sincerely thank them for the time and resources that they were able to contribute. A complete listing of
stakeholders is listed in Appendix I.
Cover photo credit: Roaring Fork Lifestyle
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vi
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Food Hub Governance ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Food Hub Staffing ............................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Food Hub Partnerships........................................................................................................................ 3
2.3.1 CEED Centre ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.3.2 Haney Farmers Market Society .................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Food Hub Customers ........................................................................................................................... 4
2.4.1 Expected Value of Weekly Orders ............................................................................................... 5
2.5 Food Hub Members and Product Mix ................................................................................................. 5
2.6 Food Hub Ordering Logistics ............................................................................................................... 7
2.6.1 Email Listserv................................................................................................................................ 7
2.6.2 Online Software Platform for Individual Customers .................................................................... 8
2.6.3 Retail Customer Ordering ............................................................................................................ 8
2.7 Food Hub Order Aggregation and Distribution ................................................................................... 8
2.7.1 Maple Ridge Food Hub Site Location Criteria .............................................................................. 9
2.7.2 Other Site Location Considerations ........................................................................................... 10
2.8 Food Hub Promotion ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.8.1 Name and Logo .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.8.2 Food Hub Website ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.8.3 Social Media ............................................................................................................................... 11
v
2.8.4 Public Relations, News Releases, and Print Media .................................................................... 11
3. Financial Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Start-up Funding ............................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Product Pricing .................................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Communicating the Hub’s Advantages ............................................................................................. 13
4. Financial Projections ........................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Brokerage Fee Rationale ................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Anticipated Suppliers and Sales ................................................................................................. 16
4.2 Income and Expense Projections ...................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Variable Expenses ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Other Fixed Expenses ................................................................................................................. 17
4.3 Cash Flow Projection ........................................................................................................................ 20
5. Ratios .................................................................................................................................................. 21
6. Risk and Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................ 22
6.1 Risk Scenario 1: Lack of Start-up Capital ........................................................................................... 22
6.2 Risk Scenario 2: Product Sales Level Adjustments ............................................................................ 23
6.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Variable and Fixed Expenses in Year 1 and Year 3 ....................................... 23
7. Balance Sheet Summary ..................................................................................................................... 25
8. Breakeven Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 25
9. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix I ...................................................................................................................................................... I
Appendix II .................................................................................................................................................... II
vi
Table of Tables
Table i. Summary of key features of the implementation plan over a five year pilot project period ix
Table 1. Staffing requirements over the five year pilot project. 3
Table 2. Anticipated suppliers, sales, and brokerage fees for the Maple Ridge Food Hub during Years 1 - 5. 17
Table 3. Breakdown of staffing wages over Years 1 - 5. 18
Table 4. Anticipated Income and Expenses Years 1 - 5. 19
Table 5. Anticipated cash flow for the Maple Ridge Food Hub pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5. 20
Table 6. Operating loan and debt repayments for the Maple Ridge Food Hub pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5. 20
Table 7. Anticipated liabilities and equity for the Maple Ridge Food Hub pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5. 21
Table 8. Anticipated financial ratios for the Maple Ridge Food Hub pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5. 21
Table 9. Risk analysis scenario with $50,000 vs. $5,000 of startup capital in Year 1. 22
Table 10. Change in brokerage fees and associated net income during Year 1 and Year 5. 23
Table 11. Sensitivity analysis for Year 1 – Variable Expenses. 23
Table 12. Sensitivity Analysis for Year 1 – Fixed Expenses 24
Table 13. Sensitivity analysis for Year 3. 24
Table 14. Summary balance sheet for the MRFH Year 1 through Year 5. 25
Table 15. Breakeven analysis for Year 1 through Year 5. 25
vii
Acronyms
ALC Agricultural Land Commission
ALR Agricultural Land Reserve
CEED Centre Community Education on Environment and Development Centre
DSCR Debt Service Coverage Ratio
FTE Full Time Equivalent
HFMS Haney Farmers Market Society
LFM Local Food Marketplace
MRFH Maple Ridge Food Hub
viii
Executive Summary
The Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan (the ‘Plan’) provides recommendations regarding a five-
year pilot program for hub operations and presents an associated set of financial projections. The Plan
supports the Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan by exploring the feasibility of a shared agricultural
infrastructure strategy. The Plan builds upon the Maple Ridge Food Hub Situational Analysis and Market
Identification Report to include a robust and scalable strategy for the food hub framework. The primary
goal of the Plan is to assist local farmers in saving time and money by selling their products collectively.
Resources, including staff and equipment, would be shared to minimize overhead and operational
costs.
The Maple Ridge Food Hub (MRFH) will be based on a broker fee model, whereby farmer members each
set their own prices for their products and the hub then retains a 25% fee for the services provided.
These services, overseen by a hub manager, include product aggregation, order coordination, delivery,
and promotion. The financial projections have been built with growth in mind over a five year pilot
program period.
The first two years represent the launch of the pilot program and therefore only a handful of suppliers
(farmer members) are expected to join during this initial period. Approximately 60 weekly orders
averaging $35 per week, over a nine month period, are targeted during the first year. An infusion of
$50,000 of external funds will be required to get the hub up and running and an additional infusion of
$15,000 of capital will be required during Year 2. These funds can be brought in as loans, grants, or a
combination thereof.
Once the initial proof of concept is demonstrated more members are likely to participate in the hub. By
Year 3 the hub is expected to be solvent, with steady growth in membership, customers, and brokerage
fees. By the final year of the pilot project (Year 5) the hub is expected to be fully self-sustaining with
three staff members, 35 farmer members, and a dedicated delivery truck. However, the financial
projections indicate that a bricks & mortar facility will not be affordable during the initial five year pilot
project. Rather, the financial model allows for compensation for a farmer member who will provide
space and cold storage for the other suppliers to use as a centralized aggregation point.
This report provides a detailed explanation of the assumptions and recommendations that are
demonstrated in the financial projections, which has been developed in a conservative manner. The
financial plan includes a cash flow projection and risk and sensitivity analysis. Table (i) on the following
page summarizes the main features of the proposed plan over the MRFH’s five year pilot program.
ix
Table (i). Summary of key features of the Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan over a five year pilot project period.
Stage of
Growth
Governance
Type
Target
Farm
Members
Target
Weekly
Customers1
Coordination
of Orders
Staffing Aggregation
Point
Distribution
Methods
Infrastructure Partnership
Roles
Up and
running
Years 1-2
Non-profit
co-operative
5 to 15 50 to 215
Email listserv
Online
software
platform
In-person
Hub
manager
Farm with
cold storage
Customers will
pick up most
orders
Cold storage
Assistance
with
promotion
Order pick-
up locations
Steady
growth
Years 3-4
Non-profit
co-operative
20 to 30 350 to 640 Online
software
platform
In-person
Hub
manager
Hub
assistant
Farm with
cold storage
Customers will
pick up most
orders
Deliveries for
additional fee
Cold storage
Freezer
Food
dehydrator
Assistance
with
promotion
Order pick-
up locations
Independence
Years 5 and
later
For-profit co-
operative
after Year 5
At least
35
At least
800
Online
software
platform
In-person
Hub
manager
Hub
assistant
Hub
promoter
Farm with
cold storage
Consider
shared space
with a
partner after
Year 5
Customers will
pick up most
orders
Deliveries for
additional fee
Dedicated
pick-up truck
or van
Cold storage
Freezer
Food
dehydrator
FoodSafe
kitchen after
Year 5
Assistance
with
promotion
Order pick-
up locations
Possible co-
location of
rented or
leased
space after
Year 5
1 Assumes customers will place average weekly orders of $35 over 9 months (40 weeks).
1
1. Introduction
The Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan (the ‘Plan’) supports Goal 7 of the Maple Ridge
Agricultural Plan to “Develop Local Food System Infrastructure Capacity” by acting on the associated
recommendation to “work with producers and local entrepreneurs to explore the feasibility of an agro-
industrial infrastructure strategy that could include: shared industrial spaces; branding; small scale
processing facilities; community kitchens; and mobile slaughter facilities.”
With the intent of strengthening the local farming community, the primary goal of the Maple Ridge Food
Hub implementation plan is to therefore develop a shared organizational structure that would help local
farmers save time and money by aggregating, storing, packing, processing, distributing, and marketing
their respective products together. Resources, including staff and equipment, would be shared to
minimize overhead and operational costs. This Plan provides recommendations regarding a five-year
pilot program for hub operations and presents a business case to get the first steps underway. It builds
upon the Maple Ridge Food Hub Situational Analysis and Market Identification Report to include a
robust and scalable strategy for the food hub framework.
2. Operations
A successful food hub is versatile and flexible, able to change course to meet and align with changes in
the marketplace from season to season and year to year. This versatility must be anchored within a solid
operations plan and be tied to a feasible and realistic financial plan.
The operations plan developed for the Maple Ridge Food Hub (MRFH) considers the following elements
in order to ensure that the hub is functional and successful from the moment it opens:
Governance: under what business model will the hub operate?
Staffing: what are the basic needs for managing the food hub and how might those needs shift
along with changes in profitability?
Partnerships: what kinds of partners would benefit from aligning with the food hub, and vice
versa?
Members: what types of producers can be expected to join the organization to sell products
through the food hub? What products will members of the food hub be able to offer to
customers?
Customers: what are the primary and secondary target customers and how much can they be
expected to spend per order?
Orders and deliveries: how will the orders be placed and how will the deliveries be coordinated?
Marketing and Promotion: how will the hub be advertised and how will farm members benefit
from this promotion?
The operations section of this plan addresses these questions so that the implementation of the food
hub can be undertaken right away. The recommendations presented in the operations portion of the
plan will likely require adjustments over the life of the food hub and should be revisited from time to
time, particularly if targets within the associated business plan are either not being met or are being
2
exceeded, and most importantly at the end of the five year pilot program, before additional investments
are made.
2.1 Food Hub Governance
A key first step in the development of the MRFH will be to establish the organization itself. It is
recommended that the food hub commence as a not-for-profit co-operative that will eventually evolve
into a for-profit co-operative. This approach has worked well for other food hubs2. In order for this to
occur a local champion will need to step forward to get these first steps underway. This champion will
assist in completing the co-operative’s organizational paperwork and establishing a volunteer Board of
Directors, who will set the direction of the hub’s policies and manage staff. This local champion may or
may not end up participating as a farmer, Board member, or working for the MRFH as a staff (e.g.
manager) but they will be instrumental in ensuring that these crucial first steps are completed. In
addition to the local champion, volunteer farmer members will be required. Since the food hub would
start out as a not-for-profit co-op, farmer members must be willing to volunteer some of their time to
help the organization in order for it to become successful. Under this governance model, all profits are
returned to the MRFH for re-investment into infrastructure and equipment.
2.2 Food Hub Staffing
The most important ingredient in operating a successful food hub will be to hire the best possible food
hub manager from day one. Without the right manager, it will be more challenging to achieve the
targets for farm membership, brokerage fees, and overall financial success during the pilot project
phase. Simply put, finding the right manager is the most critical first step.
The food hub manager will need to bring a combination of skills to the role, including agricultural
production, processing, business management, marketing, and communications. Long hours and hard
work will be required during peak summer months. Farming can be unpredictable, and therefore the
manager will need to be flexible enough to accommodate fluctuations in effort requirements. A
manager who knows the local farming community, and who has previous relationships with both
producers and buyers may be preferred, in order to jump-start the level of trust required to ensure that
the hub succeeds. However, business skills and project management abilities are of primary importance.
While three staff positions are recommended, only one is expected to be employed during the first
three years. Once the MRFH is financially solvent (by end of Year 3), hiring a second employee as an
assistant to the manager will become feasible. By the end of the pilot project (Year 5) the financial
model predicts that a third, albeit part-time, employee could be hired to focus on the ongoing
promotion of the hub. If, for whatever reason, the target revenues are not being met over the course of
the pilot project, then these recommendations should be reviewed and reassessed. For instance, if the
hub is solvent before Year 3, it is possible that an assistant could be hired by Year 2. If the hub takes
longer to generate revenues then the hiring of an assistant and/or promoter could be delayed.
A summary of the recommended positions are presented in Table 1.
2 For example: the Cowichan Cow-Op, Sechelt Farm Collective, and Merville Organics have followed this route (either formally
or informally).
3
Table 1. Staffing requirements over the five year pilot project.
Job Title Role Level of Employment
Effort
Contract Amount3
Food hub
manager
Manage all day to day operations. The
position would include general
organizational management, supplier
relations, order coordination, developing
relationships with potential funders, and
overseeing and managing the food hub’s
budget.
0.75 FTE4 during years
1, 2, and 3
1.00 FTE year 4 and
year 5 (includes a raise)
Year 1: $32,500
Year 2: $32,500
Year 3: $37,500
Year 4: $37,500
Year 5: $45,000
Food hub
assistant
Assist with the coordination of customer
orders, deliveries, and invoicing.
This position would
begin in year 4, once
the food hub becomes
solvent.
0.75 FTE in year 4
1.00 FTE in year 5 and
beyond.
Year 1: $0
Year 2: $0
Year 3: $0
Year 4: $25,000
Year 5: $33,000
Food hub
promoter
Coordinate and run all social media
accounts, advertising campaigns, and
general media and communications.
0.50 FTE beginning in
year 5.
Year 1: $0
Year 2: $0
Year 3: $0
Year 4: $0
Year 5: $22,000
2.3 Food Hub Partnerships
A number of Maple Ridge-based organizations may provide partnership possibilities for the food hub.
The Community Education on Environment and Development (CEED) Centre and the Haney Farmers
Market Society (HFMS) are described here, however others may exist and may naturally emerge as the
food hub gets underway. A mutually beneficial relationship is expected to emerge between the MRFH
and its partners, whereby cross-promotion is anticipated. Customers of the Haney Farmers Market may
also become customers of the MRFH and vice versa. One option could include purchasing food through
the MRFH and potentially picking up orders at the CEED Centre or the HFM. Additional examples are
provided below.
2.3.1 CEED Centre
The Community Education on Environment and Development (CEED) Centre serves the communities of
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Over the years, the organization has explored the feasibility of a local
food hub and continues to be active in programming regarding community gardens, school gardens, and
organic farming. The history and skills of the CEED Centre provide a natural partnership potential for the
MRFH. This may include using the CEED Centre as a possible order pick-up location, combining efforts
around advertising and workshops, or inviting CEED Centre staff and/or directors to join the food hub
Board of Directors.
3 The positions could be awarded through salaries or consulting fees.
4 FTE = full time equivalent position or 37.5 hour work week. Therefore a 0.50 FTE is equivalent to a 18.75 hour work week and
0.75 FTE is equivalent to a 28.125 hour work week.
4
2.3.2 Haney Farmers Market Society
The HFMS aims to provide the public with direct access to food producers, stimulate and support the
local economy, provide opportunities to inform and entertain and to support and strongly encourage
environmental sustainability. These goals align well with the MRFH and the HFMS would be a natural
partner. However, the scope and intent of that partnership will require further discussion as the food
hub gets underway and grows. The vendors who sell at the HFM may also be interested in selling a
portion of their produce through the food hub. The market location may provide an easy and accessible
order pick-up location during the months that it is in operation. Furthermore, members of the HFMS
may be interested in becoming Board Members of the food hub once the hub formally becomes a co-
operative organization. The food hub manager may wish to align with the HFMS to help plan the product
mix, consider sharing staff resource costs, branding, and marketing.
2.4 Food Hub Customers
In order to ensure that the pilot program is a success, both in terms of revenues and marketing, the
consumer sectors will need to be properly identified so that the amount of targeted sales, and
associated broker fees, are met. The overall approach towards growing a customer base at the start of
the hub’s establishment must also be based upon a modest level of effort expended, as all of the
MRFH’s operations will be managed by a single staff member during the first two years. The Market
Identification Report, produced during the initial stages of this project, provides a detailed summary of
the potential demand for local and organic produce. The recommendations provided here are based on
that report and on discussions with the AAC Food Hub Subcommittee and City staff.
Typical MRFH customers are expected to be single females and those buying food for households with
young children. This expected demographic is based on anecdotal evidence5, and is also backed up by
spending trends noted by the Canadian Organic Trade Association in their 2012 report on the BC organic
market sector6. In order to bolster the value of sales, the MRFH is also expected to solicit larger orders
from medium-scale retailers in the region (e.g. Bruce’s, Hopcott’s). Based on these discussions and on
the initial market research findings compiled to date, the recommended focus should be directed to the
following target sector sales:
Pilot project target sectors:
Individuals and families (similar to a CSA).
Existing small and medium sized retailers.
Longer term target sectors:
Institutions, restaurants.
5 Sechelt Farm Collective and Cowichan Co-op, personal communication (2018).
6 The BC Organic Market: Growth, Trends & Opportunities, 2013. S. MacKinnon. Canadian Organic Trade Association.
https://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/docs/BC%20Organic%20Market%20Report%202013.pdf
5
2.4.1 Expected Value of Weekly Orders
A 2016 report7 by the B.C. Provincial Health Services Agency
found that the average monthly cost of a nutritious food basket
for a family of four in BC was $974 (or approximately $244 per
week). According to Statistics Canada, the actual food
expenditures by the average BC household is $9,139 per year (or
an estimated $175 per week)8. A 2012 report by the BC Farmers
Market Association indicated that visitors to the Haney Farmers
Market spend on average $25-$30 per visit, and numbers
collected by the HFMS suggest this value may be higher9. In
addition, a farm retail collective on the Sunshine Coast reports
average customer sales in excess of $40 per order, and the Cowichan Co-op reports an average of $50-
$60 per weekly order per customer10.
The MRFH financial models are built on the assumption that annual target sales of $75,00011 will be met
in Year 1, rising to over $1 million per year by Year 5. In order to reach these targets, there will need to
be at least 60 customers spending an average of $35 a week Year 1 (see call-out box, above), rising to
over 800 customers by Year 5.
An example of a typical weekly order, totaling $38, is provided in the call-out box within section 2.5.
2.5 Food Hub Members and Product Mix
While the Market Identification Report pointed to the ability of both local and organic products to
receive higher price points in the marketplace, it is recognized that only a small base of farms within the
Maple Ridge community (approximately 10) are using practices that are certified organic. In order to
ensure that the food hub has a wide enough membership to succeed, it is recommended that
membership not be strictly limited to organic farms, although organic products will be welcomed. It is
expected that price points between the organic and non-organic products will differ accordingly. At the
end of the five year pilot program (or sooner if the demand and supply warrant) the possibility of an
organic product stream could be considered.
Since a goal of the food hub is to strengthen the local farm community and to encourage new farms to
enter into and increase production, it is recommended that membership target small and medium-scale
farms, as these operations are most likely to struggle with market entrance and expansion. If these small
and medium-scale operators can be showcased as achieving success through the hub it may encourage
others to farm land that is currently unproductive or underproductive.
If the hub is challenged with membership early on it could widen the scope of possible members to
producers in communities such as Pitt Meadows, Mission, and across the Fraser River into Langley and
other neighboring communities. By the end of the five year pilot project the MRFH membership should
7 Provincial Health Services Agency, 2016. Food Costing in BC 2015. http://www.phsa.ca/population-public-health-
site/Documents/2015%20Food%20Costing%20in%20BC%20-%20FINAL.pdf
8 Statistics Canada, 2016. Average household food expenditure, by province (British Columbia). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-
som/l01/cst01/famil132k-eng.htm
9 Economic and Social Benefits Assessment: Final Report. 2012. Haney Farmers Market. BC Association of Farmers Markets.
10 Sechelt Farm Collective and Cowichan Co-op, personal communication (2018).
11 As a point of reference, the Haney Farmers Market Society reports annual sales of over $400,000/year or approximately $15,000/week.
How many customers does the
food hub need to reach $75,000
of total sales in its first year?
60 customers spending $35 a
week over 36 weeks (about 9
months) would amount to
$75,600 in sales.
6
be reviewed to ensure that the membership criteria (location of farm members, farm size, and product
offerings) are meeting the hub’s needs.
In discussions conducted with representatives from local retailers, local food distributors, and local
restaurants for the Market Identification Report, the general consensus is that most local fruits and
vegetables sell well, although there may be challenges in selling any products that are new, or
unfamiliar, with the general public. Products such as berries, salad greens, root crops, and greenhouse
vegetables easily sell. Organic produce, in particular, is in growing demand, but is not necessarily a
requirement for sale. This reinforces the opportunity for the MRFH to provide a complement of organic
product sales, while leaving the membership open to non-organic producers. Hub membership and
corresponding product demand will therefore naturally affect the mix of products that are made
available.
While meeting demand is an important factor, during the initial stages it will also be important to offer
products that producers have consistently available12. What farmers are already producing will directly
influence the product mix during the first few years, after which the product mix will naturally become
more market driven and guide production decision-making amongst suppliers. This speaks to the
importance of crop planning based, in part, on sales generated during the previous season.
It is therefore recommended that the MRFH begin with a focus on a few key products that are both in
demand and that can be supplied consistently and at a high level of quality from local producers. It may
be prudent to focus on vegetables, in particular hardy crops, cucumbers, leafy greens, and possibly
blueberries during the first year or two, with tomatoes, strawberries, raspberries, sweet peppers and
other more perishable items added only when adequate storage and delivery systems are in place.
While the primary goal at the start of the MRFH is to create
capacity by attracting existing farmers to the hub, the
secondary goal will be to encourage new and emerging farmers
to participate. While cranberries, nursery plants, dairy, poultry,
eggs, and meat products are also produced locally, these
products tend to be produced through larger-scale operations
and/or must adhere to specific food safety and food quality
regulations (i.e. egg grading) and are therefore not further
considered for the purposes of launching the food hub.
However, they may be options that can be made available after
the pilot project is completed (i.e. after Year 5). It should be
noted that the food hub manager will need to pay close
attention to regulations affecting the aggregation, sales, and
processing of food products within BC, and if these regulations
shift then the product mix of the MRFH may need to change
accordingly.
An example of a typical weekly food hub order that could satisfy the needs of a couple or a small family
is presented in the call-out box, above.
12 Interviews with the Tofino Ucluelet Culinary Guild and other co-operative suppliers indicated that the initial farmer members and what they
are already producing will drive the product mix during the start of the food hub.
Example of a weekly food hub order
for a couple or a small family:
Bunch of kale: $4.00
Salad green mix: $4.00
Potatoes (1 kg): $4.50
Organic carrots: $4.00
Three garlic bulbs: $3.50
Four small onions: $3.00
Organic cabbage: $4.50
Broccoli head: $3.50
3 small cucumbers: $3.00
Pint of blueberries: $4.00
Total: $38.00
Note: prices are provided as
examples only and may not illustrate
exact final price points.
7
Product mix recommendations are therefore as follows:
Years 1 and 2: a mix of vegetables, including leafy greens, cucumbers, and root crops. The
seasonal addition of blueberries is possible, particularly if cold storage is available. Vegetable
examples include yams, potatoes, parsnips, garlic, onions, beets, carrots, rutabagas, turnips,
radishes, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, and squash.
Years 3 and beyond: add a wider selection of vegetables and berries. Examples include celery,
tomatoes, sweet peppers, and raspberries, strawberries.
2.6 Food Hub Ordering Logistics
It is expected that the MRFH will need to use a variety of ordering methods so that a wide range of
customers will be attracted to the hub. There are several tried-and-tested methods, including email
listserves, online ordering platforms (in conjunction with a website), and phone call or face-to-face order
placements. All of these methods are associated with varying degrees of effort. They are each
recommended for the MRFH and are described below.
2.6.1 Email Listserv
During Year 1, the MRFH is expected to consist of a relatively small number of farm suppliers (up to 15)
and less than 100 customers. At that scale, it will be efficient to start the ordering process with an email-
based listserv, such as MailChimp13. MRFH staff will be able to customize the email using a fresh sheet
approach, highlighting the availability of products on a weekly basis. The listserv can also direct
customers to the MRFH website, which will be the main platform for the eventual online ordering
software (see Appendix II for more details). The software will be purchased in Year 1 but may take time
to be established, therefore the email listserv can provide a good additional layer for ordering starting
immediately.
How it Works: Email listserv14
1. Farmers send in a list of type, quantity, and price of products to MRFH staff.
2. Hub staff sends out weekly fresh sheet lists and associated pricing through the listserv with
list of products to customers (e.g. individuals and/or retail buyers)
3. Customer orders are returned to MRFH staff at a weekly deadline.
4. Follow-up/confirmation of order is made to ensure order accuracy and confirm order
payment.
For example, producers send in their product availability and pricing lists to MRFH staff on Mondays, an
email can then be sent out by MRFH staff on Tuesday by noon to all potential customers. Orders are
returned via email to MRFH staff by Wednesday at 5pm, and are ready for pick-up or delivery on
Thursday afternoons. The cycle repeats weekly (days can be adjusted as needed to suit the needs of the
suppliers).
13 The Sechelt Farm Collective operates at a similar scale and uses MailChimp for all of it’s listserv-based orders.
14 Saanich Organics, a small-scale (3-7 farmers) business, uses this method and has a customized excel spreadsheet to manage orders and
inventory.
8
2.6.2 Online Software Platform for Individual Customers
Online software provides pricing flexibility for farmers (each farmer will be able to set their own price
for each of their products). As orders are made the information is delivered to farm operators regarding
the specific products and volumes that the orders require. This would also allow for price differentiation
between organic and non-organic products.
Individual and commercial customers order through an online interface where all the suppliers’ products
are listed in one place. MRFH staff would manage the software interface.
It is recommended that the MRFH investigate software platform options and choose the model that best
fits the needs and budget of the hub. The following two software platforms are used by other hubs and
farm collectives:
Local Food Marketplace15
The Local Food Marketplace (LFM) platform offers flexibility and scalability, including individualized
design to meet website branding and layout needs. It also allows for mobile app usage, e-commerce
options, and distribution routes based on orders placed. The price is approximately $1,500 to have the
software setup, and a $230/month fee thereafter.
Local Orbit16
Local Orbit offers a similar interface to LFM, with the ability to provide farmer profiles and stories
alongside products, advanced pricing options, inventory management, and more. The pricing is similar,
although there is no setup fee, the monthly rates for a package that would be useful for the Maple Ridge
food hub would be approximately $450 per month.
2.6.3 Retail Customer Ordering
FarmFolk/CityFolk17 research shows that to gain commercial customers (e.g. retailers, restaurants)
suppliers must be able to develop a relationship with produce managers by being able to contact the
businesses directly. This typically involves either direct calls or visits. MRFH staff would be expected to
meet the produce manager at their work place with samples and product information such as pricing,
farm source, and availability. Depending on the retailer, there may be an opportunity to sell MRFH
products in higher quantities if supply of certain products is high, or develop a standing order for specific
products over the course of the season. It may be expected that the MRFH offer discounted pricing
compared to the pricing being offered to individual customers, as the retailer will also need to include
their margin within their final sales. Retailers will also expect the order to be delivered at a pre-arranged
schedule.
2.7 Food Hub Order Aggregation and Distribution
Once orders are placed, operators will then be required to bring their products to a central aggregation
point. During Years 1 to 4 of the pilot project this will ideally be located at a members’ farm, with access
to cold storage. As the membership and customer base grows, and if the financial targets are being met,
15 Local Food Marketplace: http://home.localfoodmarketplace.com/
16 Local Orbit: https://localorbit.com/
17 FarmFolk CityFolk Food Hub Report 5:
http://www.farmfolkcityfolk.ca/PDFs_&_Docs/Distribution%20Research%20Reports/Report%205_Buyers%20Needs%20from%20a%20Small_M
edium%20Farm%20Product%20Distribution%20Service.pdf
9
the hub would be able to plan to move into a physical location (bricks & mortar) once the pilot program
is completed. However, based on the financial projections, a bricks & mortar location does not appear to
be feasible during the initial five years, unless the space and all overhead costs (e.g. hydro) are donated.
The bricks & mortar option is therefore a longer term goal outside the scope of this initial five year pilot
project. The financial margins for the food hub will be very slim until the average broker fees cover all
expenses. For instance, a dedicated MRFH pick-up truck is not a viable purchase until Year 5.
Therefore, the focus of the operations plan is on the majority of orders being distributed through
customer pick-up. Pick-up sites could include the main order aggregation site (likely a member’s farm);
other members’ farms, the Haney Farmers Market; the CEED Centre; or a local or regional retailer such
as Hopcott Meats or Bruce’s Country Market. Until such a time that a dedicated pick-up truck is
purchased (expected in Year 5), the MRFH will need to borrow a truck on a weekly basis to ensure that
the orders are dropped off at the pick-up locations. As one or two local retailers are also likely to form
part of the customer base, delivery will be required for these larger orders. In Year 5, a dedicated vehicle
would replace the borrowed truck, and the MRFH would then be able to make frequent smaller
deliveries to residential areas, thereby increasing the customer base. Delivery costs could be offset by a
small additional fee-for-service for smaller orders (e.g. $2 to $5 per delivery), in addition to offering pick-
up available at pre-arranged dates, locations, and times.
Based on projected financials, a bricks & mortar location will not likely be feasible during the first five
years of the hub’s inception18. Instead, it is recommended that the MRFH compensate a farmer member
with existing storage space to provide a centralized product aggregation site. This compensation is
established within the budget at 12% of the broker fees.
2.7.1 Maple Ridge Food Hub Site Location Criteria
For either farm-based order aggregation and/or a future bricks & mortar location, the potential site
must:
Be in a central location for individual farmers to make order drop-offs.
Be large enough for MRFH staff to physically arrange the orders.
Include cold storage on-site (or the ability to purchase a walk-in fridge to place on-site).
Be suitable (in terms of access, parking) for customers to pick-up orders safely.
Additional bricks & mortar location criteria must also19:
Be able to accommodate a FoodSafe kitchen for the production of value-added products
(this will become increasingly viable after the pilot project is successfully completed).
Have topography that is relatively flat for ease of building development.
Be located near a large group of producers who are members of the MRFH.
Have access to major transportation routes to accommodate trucks, customer access,
parking.
Consider provincial Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) regulation and align with municipal
zoning as much as possible.
18 After 5 years, it may be possible to possible to begin discussions with financial institutions, funding agencies, and/or private investors
regarding the establishment of a bricks & mortar facility.
19 The bricks & mortar criteria should also be re-considered once the five year pilot project is completed successfully
10
It is important to note that the Agricultural Land Commission’s regulations and policies20 will apply to
the MRFH if it is situated within the ALR. The following additional considerations would then need to be
made, and should be revisited after the pilot project is completed:
Storage, packing, product preparation or processing, and retail of farm products is only
permitted within the ALR if at least 50% of the farm (or co-operative’s) products are
produced on the farm. The 50% threshold is based on the quantity (measured by
volume or weight of processed farm products used) calculated over the full product line.
The parameters around the construction, maintenance and operation of a building for
the food hub would be partly regulated by the City, and would stipulate building
footprint and setbacks.
Since the food hub would likely be storing, aggregating, and distributing goods from multiple farms it
would be unlikely that any one farmer will be able to provide a minimum of 50% of the products.
However, if the food hub members formed a formal co-operative then the 50% rule would apply to the
co-operative itself and not to individual members.
The City of Maple Ridge’s Zoning Bylaw (1985) will also determine the potential location of a future
bricks & mortar food hub. “Food hubs” are not currently an expressly permitted use within the Zoning
bylaw21 and would therefore require a re-zoning application. It is important to note that there may be a
fee associated with this re-zoning process.
Locating the food hub outside of the ALR or an agriculturally zoned property and directing it towards an
Industrial or Business Park area may create a simpler business licencing and permitting process. Primary
processing, warehouses, and wholesale use are permitted in certain zones, namely the Service Industrial
and Business Park zones. As previously mentioned, if the food hub is to be located within the ALR then
both provincial and municipal zoning regulations will be applicable. If the land is outside of the ALR then
only the municipal zoning regulations will apply. The issue of zoning will be easier to address after the
end of the five year pilot program, at which point any specific potential food hub sites that have been
identified can be more thoroughly assessed.
2.7.2 Other Site Location Considerations
While the Albion Flats had been noted as a possible location for a food hub during earlier discussions
(e.g. when the Agricultural Plan was being developed), the MRFH implementation plan does not identify
any one particular location as an ideal possible site for a future bricks & mortar. Based on the criteria
identified during stakeholder engagement and presented in section 2.7.1, the Albion Flats may not be an
ideal fit for the food hub.
In addition, as identified in this report, a bricks & motor operation is not considered financially viable in
the first five years of MRFH operations. However, if donations or subsidies for a bricks & motor
operation arise, and the potential site aligns with the above criteria, this direction should be revisited.
2.8 Food Hub Promotion
Promotion will be required in order to attract and retain customers and suppliers to the MRFH.
Throughout all of the branding, marketing, and advertising efforts, statements representing the purpose
and values of the MRFH will need to be consistent. This clarity regarding food hub brand statements will
20 ALR Regulations - http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/171_2002;
ALR Policies - http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/legislation-regulation/alc-policies
21 City of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw. Agriculture zones are A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5. https://www.mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/587
11
help to strengthen messaging towards the target customer base and ensure that it is maintained in all
hub communications.
2.8.1 Name and Logo
While the True North Fraser brand is strong and well-recognized locally, it may not be the most
appropriate use for the food hub itself. Rather, True North Fraser can be viewed as a larger initiative
under which the hub is one component. It may therefore provide more clarity for customers if the food
hub is presented as a stand-alone entity that could be part of a larger True North Fraser campaign or
suite of initiatives.
A simple approach to developing a brand is recommended. A name, logo and tagline will need to be
developed for the MRFH, but this need not be complicated (such as Maple Ridge Food Hub or the Maple
Ridge Farm Collective). The food hub’s name and logo should be in place by the end of Year 1 and should
clearly express what the benefits will be for the distinct target audience segments (community, potential
consumers, stakeholders/members). Along with a name and logo, brand positioning and value
proposition statements must be developed, and may naturally begin to emerge over the first two years.
2.8.2 Food Hub Website
Creation of a website specifically for the MRFH will be required during Year 1. The website will be the
main touchpoint with the public and will need to be directly linked to any online ordering platform. A
main feature of the website should be profiles of each of the farms and operators, staff, and funders.
Links to social media accounts, news stories of the food hub, and contact information should also be
displayed.
2.8.3 Social Media
The MRFH should have several social media accounts, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
MRFH staff will maintain these sites with regular updates regarding farm members, product availability,
ordering deadlines, and special events. These accounts must be updated at least twice a week in order
for followers to maintain interest. Other features, such as the website and email listserv can also link to
the MRFH’s social media accounts.
2.8.4 Public Relations, News Releases, and Print Media
In addition to a social media campaign, in-person public relationship building will be key. This may
involve attending special events to represent the food hub (harvest fairs, farmers markets, community
events). News releases (which can be written in the form of articles and stories) should be regularly
submitted to local media. Once the food hub has a truck that it is using for deliveries the logo should be
placed directly on the truck. This can be done at a low cost using magnetic signage.
12
3. Financial Considerations
The following financial projections are based on a number of considerations, assumptions, and
recommendations. Achieving a positive cash flow is a critical goal that will be met, in part, with the
hiring of an adept and capable food hub manager. The manager will help to drive sales and assist
suppliers in setting pricing that meets the needs of both the farmers and the MRFH. The three key issues
that the MRFH manager will need to address at the start of implementation are start-up funding,
product pricing, and communicating the hub’s advantages over other sales avenues. These are discussed
here prior to the presentation of the financial projections in Section 4.
3.1 Start-up Funding
It is expected that the hub will require an infusion of funding of about $50,000 during Year 1 and an
additional $15,000 in Year 2 in order to become fully operational and financially solvent by Year 3.
Public or private funding (or a combination of both) could be used to initiate the food hub and help
move it forward, particularly as it graduates from Year 1 to Year 2. Without this additional funding the
food hub could still operate, however the main risk is that it would not be able to pay the MRFH
manager’s full wages. This management role is critical in getting the initiative off the ground and getting
sales to a level that allows the hub to reach a breakeven point.
The $50,000 could come from a mix of in-kind support, loans, and grants, such as:
In-kind support ($5,000): this type of support could be provided by hosting a webpage,
providing advertising, meeting room space, and other overhead and administrative needs. This
support could be provided by the City of Maple Ridge and/or partners such as the HFMS or the
CEED Centre.
Bank or Credit Union loan ($20,000 to $30,000): this would be achievable for a portion of the
required start-up cost, with an expected interest rate of approximately 10%. Major banks and
credit unions such as BMO Financial, Vancity, CIBC, RBC, New Westminster Savings, and TD have
small business start-up loans.
Investment Agriculture Foundation (IAF) grant ($5,000 to $10,000): IAF is an industry-led, not-
for-profit organization representing the agriculture, food processing, farm supply and post farm
gate sectors across BC. IAF invests in projects that enhance the competitiveness, profitability
and sustainability of BC agriculture and agri-food. The multi-million dollar Buy Local Program
offers funding to enhance local marketing efforts to increase consumer demand and sales of BC
agrifoods. Funding is 50% cost-shared.
Other Grants ($10,000 - $20,000): grants can be attractive because there is no need to pay back
the funding, however the reporting and other overhead can be somewhat onerous. Several
grant opportunities may exist for the food hub, including BC Gaming Grant, Real Estate
Foundation BC, or a grant from a credit union (e.g. Vancity, Westminster Savings).
13
3.2 Product Pricing
While the marketplace effectively establishes final pricing, the right brokerage fee (see definition in the
call out box) set by the MRFH is key to ensure that producers feel adequately compensated, customers
are willing to pay, and the food hub remains profitable (or break-even). The financial plan produced for
the MRFH has been developed using a 25% brokerage fee22.
Farmers will set their own product pricing to include the 25%
that will be allocated to the hub as a brokerage fee at the time
of sale. The hub will therefore ultimately be a price “taker”, not
a price maker. Transparency and direction from the MRFH
manager, as well as communication with suppliers on an
ongoing basis, will be offered to ensure that farmer members
understand where and how the brokerage fees are being used.
Tracking and evaluation of customer response to pricing will also
be an important component of the manager’s job.
The price that the farmer decides to set will depend on a
number of factors, and will likely vary week-to-week. Factors
include:
Whether the product is certified organic or not;
The amount of choice of similar products being offered
by the hub (supply);
The quality of the product being offered (demand
reflected through reputation); and
The availability (products that are only in-season for a short period of time may fetch a better
price).
The MRFH manager will need to track and assesses hub sales and monitor competitive pricing through
other retail channels (e.g. verifying pricing at local retailers, at farm gates, at the farmers market) to
ensure that the prices being offered by hub members is competitive.
The 25% brokerage fee will, in turn, provide several services for the farm members. These services will
include:
Access to a different demographic of customers (e.g. those that may not attend farmers markets
or visit the farm gate).
Order coordination, aggregation, and delivery.
Promotion and public awareness of the farm and farm’s products.
Time savings that can be redirected into additional production or other on-farm or off-farm
activities.
3.3 Communicating the Hub’s Advantages
It is worth noting that the suppliers can choose to offer as much product to be sold through the hub as
they wish. They may choose to continue to sell a portion of their products through farmers markets,
22 This fee was determined based on market research and discussions with existing food hub operators. A food hub on Vancouver Island with a
brokerage fee of 20% indicated that it if it could change one thing it would choose a higher brokerage fee in order to be able to be financially
self-sustaining. It is currently considering raising its fee. On the other hand, producers indicated that brokerage fees in the range of 40-50% was
too high to be an attractive avenue for sales.
Brokerage Fee:
The brokerage fee is sometimes
referred to as a “margin” or a
“markup” that is paid to the hub
at the time of sale. The fee is
used to help pay for the services
offered by the hub. For
example, if a bunch of spinach is
being sold by the hub for $4.00
and the brokerage fee is 25%,
then $3.00 is returned to the
farmer and $1.00 is returned to
the hub. The total price (in this
example, $4.00) is set and
controlled by the farmer.
14
CSAs, farm gate sales, and/or other avenues. Therefore, the MRFH manager must be able to adeptly
convey the benefits of selling through the hub. The ability for the farm members to save time by
accessing additional sales channel for some of their products is perhaps one of the biggest advantages
that the hub can offer. Ideally, farm operators will join the hub and experience an increase in efficiency
and a decrease in personal time/costs allowing them to increase capacity to a point where their true
success and profitability potential aligns. Time previously devoted to making sales pitches, posting on
social media, making deliveries, creating signs, and attending markets can now be re-directed to the
farm work itself. The farmer can now re-invest those hours into the planning and labour needed for the
farm to grow. This, in turn, will provide greater crop yield returns and result in more product being
made available to sell through the MRFH in future years.
To be clear, the hub model may not work for all producers. For very small-scale farm operations there
may be a capacity issue whereby economies of scale dictate that the costs of using a hub service
outweighs the income the producer may obtain through independent marketing and sales, which is a
fair consideration. The food hub manager’s role will be, in part, to identify which farms would be a
suitable fit as a supplier to the MRFH and to communicate to potential farmer members what the
benefits and level of services are, in exchange for the brokerage fees.
4. Financial Projections
The MRFH’s operational budget will be based mainly on brokerage fees from product sales revenue,
with an additional infusion of $50,000 of start-up capital in Year 1 and an additional $15,000 in Year 2.
The following discussion provides the rationale for the brokerage fee rate of 25% and the anticipated
sales and associated brokerage fees over the pilot project’s five year period.
4.1 Brokerage Fee Rationale
The brokerage fees represent 25% of total product sales. Throughout the projections for income,
expense and cash flow, the following ratio is used:
This ratio between brokerage fees is maintained, for example 20% of brokerage fees are equivalent to
5% of product sales, and so on.
As discussed previously in Section 3.2, a brokerage fee rate level of 25% of total product sales has been
selected based on market research and discussions with existing food hubs. The brokerage fee level of
25% is expected to both reflect the level of services offered by the hub while presenting an attractive
potential sales route for the producer.
This brokerage fee level was further tested using Industry Canada’s benchmarks23 for small-scale fruit
and vegetable growers (see Figure 1, next page). The data represented in Figure 1 incorporates a 25%
23 Government of Canada. 2015. Industry Canada: Financial Performance Data by Industry. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/pp-pp.nsf/eng/home
100% of brokerage fees is equivalent 25% of product sales
15
brokerage fee expense into typical product sales and returns on sales for small fruit and vegetable farms
at various total product sales. The benchmarking test indicates the following:
If fixed on-farm costs are constant (e.g. no reinvestments into infrastructure need to be made)
as product sales rise from $10,000 to $30,000, and a 25% brokerage fee is applied, it can be
projected that the farm’s direct return on sales will still rise from 5% to 23% for vegetable
growers and from -11% to 25% for fruit growers.
Therefore, the MRFH becomes an “affordable” (i.e. the return on sales is positive) sales channel for a
small-scale vegetable producer with a brokerage fee of 25% even if they are only generating $10,000
worth of annual sales (at which point the rate of return on sales would still be 5%). The rate of return for
a small scale fruit farm would be negative at $10,000 worth of annual sales, therefore the MRFH only
becomes a viable option for a fruit farm once that farm is generating approximately $20,000 worth of
annual sales.
For context, the Maple Ridge Food Hub Situational Analysis indicated that the average annual farm sales
(gross farm receipts) per hectare in Maple Ridge were $27,579 (or $11,000 per acre) in 201524. The food
hub will benefit these small and medium-scale farmers by reducing the time they need to spend on
promotion, marketing, and sales. With that additional time it is hoped that farmers will be able to focus
on production and see higher sales per acre in return.
24 Census of Agriculture, 2016. Land in crops excluding Christmas trees.
Agri-business guidebooks published by the BC Ministry of Agriculture in 1995 suggested that a well-managed
1.25 ha (3 acres) of mixed vegetable production could generate over $45,000 in direct market sales, or $36,000
per hectare (gross revenue) in 1995 dollars (this is equivalent to $68,500 and $54,800, in 2018 dollars,
respectively). One example of a small farm achieving these benchmarks is Three Oaks Farm, on Vancouver
Island, which generated over $60,000 of sales on 1.5 acres in 2012 (equivalent to $65,000 in 2018 dollars) when
the farm joined Saanich Organics, a small hub of growers who market and sell their products collectively. It is
therefore expected that a well-managed small-scale (less than 5 acres) mixed vegetable farm could feasibly
achieve $30,000 of product sales.
Notes:
BC Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food. Direct Farm Market Guide, 1995.
Fisher, R., Stretch, H. and R. Tunnicliffe. 2012. All the Dirt: Reflections on Organic Farming. Touchwood Publications.
16
Figure 1. Industry Canada benchmarks for small-scale fruit and vegetable farm operations when a 25% brokerage fee is applied.
4.1.1 Anticipated Suppliers and Sales
It is expected that in the first year of operation, the MRFH supplier (farm) membership will be low,
therefore a conservative estimate of 5 members has been used in the income and expense projection
modeling for Year 1, and gradually increases to 35 members by Year 5 (Table 2). Using the benchmarking
discussed in 4.1.1, (Figure 1, abouve), an expected initial product value per farm of $15,000 is used,
growing to an eventual value of $30,000 by Year 5. In other words, by the end of the pilot project it is
expected that the average food hub supplier will be able to sell $30,000 worth of farm products annually
through the MRFH. It is also expected that some farm members would still maintain a portion of sales
avenues through the Haney Farmers Market, farm gate stands, and small retailers.
-11%
16%
21%
25%
5%
19%
21%
23%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000Direct Return on Sales (%) Total Product Sales ($)
Industry Canada Benchmarks for Fruit and Vegetable Farm
Operations when a 25% Brokerage Fee is Applied
Fruit Growers Vegetable Growers
17
Table 2. Anticipated suppliers, sales, and brokerage fees for the Maple Ridge Food Hub during Years 1 - 5.
Line # Parameter Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 Number of farms 5 15 20 30 35
2 Product sales per farm $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000
3 Total value of product
(Line #1 x Line #2)
$75,000 $300,000 $500,000 $900,000 $1,050,000
4 Brokerage fees (%) 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
5 Brokerage fees ($)
(Line #3 x Line #4)
$18,750 $75,000 $125,000 $225,000 $262,500
4.2 Income and Expense Projections
The following discussion presents the income and expense projection and the cash flow projection along
with an explanation of assumptions used throughout all calculations.
4.2.1 Variable Expenses
Variable expenses are estimated to be 35% of brokerage fees (see Table 4, Lines #2-#5). Throughout the
pilot project’s five years, this 35% will consist of:
The MRFH’s rent, to provide compensation to a farmer in exchange for the use of their farm site
(12% of brokerage fees);
The costs associated with deliveries to retail customers and order drop-off locations (8% of
brokerage fees). These two expenses therefore represent a combined 20% of the MRFH’s
brokerage fees.
Merchant fees associated with processing credit card and debit card payments (10% of
brokerage fees).
An additional standard contingency rate of 5% of total brokerage fees is included as a financial
safety net.
As previously discussed, a bricks & mortar building would not be considered for the MRFH during the
five year pilot period. Rather, the MRFH would coordinate with a local farm to act as the drop-
off/aggregation point for all produce in exchange for compensation. This compensation would vary
based on total sales, and therefore on total brokerage fees collected.
4.2.2 Other Fixed Expenses
Fixed expenses (Table 4, Lines #7 – #18) are estimated to be approximately $50,000 annually in the first
three years25. Wages are the main component of these fixed expenses and are projected as follows on
Table 3 (following page).
25 Note that corporate income taxes are not considered as the assumption is that the hub will initially be a non-profit organization.
18
Table 3. Breakdown of staffing wages over Years 1 - 5.
Year Staffing Wages & Benefits Total Wages & Benefits
1 Manager: 0.75 FTE Manager: $32,500 $32,500
2 Manager: 0.75 FTE Manager: $32,500 $32,500
3 Manager: 0.75 FTE Manager: $37,500 $37,500
4 Manager: 1.00 FTE
Assistant: 0.75 FTE
Manager: $37,500
Assistant: $25,000 $62,500
5
Manager: 1.00 FTE
Assistant: 1.00 FTE
Promoter: 0.50 FTE
Manager: $45,000
Assistant: $33,000
Promoter: $22,000
$100,000
As previously described, a MRFH manager will need to be hired right away to develop the supplier base,
create the email listserv (and later, the online ordering platforms), and to start promotion of the hub.
This wage represents a relatively high fixed expense at start-up and will generate a loss in the first two
years of the pilot project (or until brokerage fees reach $125,000).
While the positions are referred to as “staff”, the tasks may be able to be completed by consultants or
contractors. This can be negotiated at the time of hiring, but should not affect the total amount
budgeted for wages without making similar adjustments throughout the projected income and
expenses. Within the total wages, the distribution amongst staff is somewhat flexible. For instance, if
the manager is performing well then that position could be offered a raise and a 0.25 FTE or 0.50 FTE
assistant could be hired with the remaining wages in Years 4 and 5. If the manager or assistant is capable
and efficient at promotion, then the $22,000 previously set aside for the promoter in Year 5 could be re-
distributed to other staffing needs.
If the MRFH total product sales are underperforming (and therefore the brokerage fees are lower than
targeted), then these staff wages and positions will need to be reviewed.
Other fixed expenses built into the income and expense projection assumptions include the following:
Line #8: Depreciation of assets: Based at 20% declining balance.
Line #9: Repairs and maintenance: $500 per year. As there are no owned facilities, the budget
allows for the repair and maintenance of some minor equipment only.
Line #10: Utilities and telephone: $50 per month ($600 per year) for cellphone communication.
Line #11: Rent: $200 per month to compensate for office space for staff who will be working
from home offices.
Line #12: Bank charges: Assumes $20 per month ($240 per year).
Line #13: Interest on loans: Based on an interest rate of 10% (see Loan Schedule, Table 6).
Line #14: Professional and business fees: Memberships in associations, accounting fees,
bookkeeping fees, legal fees, and permits for the MRFH and staff.
Line #15: Advertising and Promotion: Minimal, as advertising will likely be done through social
media, some print and listservs like MailChimp
Line #16: Travel (Mileage): Occasional mileage paid to MRFH staff to attend events and
meetings.
19
Line #17: E-commerce website: This line item includes $3,000 to build an online sales platform
and $2,000 for a website during Year 1 and ongoing software and website fees thereafter.
Line #18: Insurance: Assumes $4,000 per year to cover delivery truck insurance and some
liability insurance
Table 4 provides a breakdown of all anticipated income and expenses for the MRFH pilot project’s five
year period. The model indicates that the hub would be able to turn a profit before the end of Year 3
assuming that the supplier numbers and gross sales match (or exceed) the projections.
Table 4. Anticipated Income and Expenses Years 1 - 5.
# Statement of income and
expense
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 Income (brokerage fees) $18,750 $75,000 $125,000 $225,000 $262,500
Variable Expenses
2 MRFH location compensation at
12% of brokerage fees
$2,250 $9,000 $15,000 $27,000 $31,500
3 Delivery at 8% of brokerage fees $1,500 $6,000 $10,000 $18,000 $21,000
4 Merchant fees (credit card and
debit card processing fees) (10%
of brokerage fees)
$1,875 $7,500 $12,500 $22,500 $26,250
5 Contingency (5% of brokerage
fees)
$938 $3,750 $6,250 $11,250 $13,125
6 Total variable costs (35% of
brokerage fees)
$6,563 $26,250 $43,750 $78,750 $91,875
Fixed Expenses
7 Wages and benefits $32,500 $32,500 $37,500 $62,500 $100,000
8 Depreciation $500 $1,900 $1,520 $1,216 $4,973
9 Repairs and maintenance $500 $500 $500 $500 $500
10 Utilities and
telephone/telecommunication
$600 $600 $600 $600 $600
11 Rent $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400
12 Bank charges $120 $120 $120 $120 $120
13 Interest on loans $3,000 $4,009 $852 $0 $0
14 Professional and business fees $500 $750 $1,000 $1,000 $3,500
15 Advertising and Promotion $680 $250 $250 $250 $250
16 Travel $1,200 $600 $600 $600 $600
17 E-commerce website $5,000 $2,280 $2,280 $2,280 $2,280
18 Insurance $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
19 Total fixed expenses $51,000 $49,909 $51,622 $75,466 $119,223
20 Net operating income $-38,813 $-1,159 $29,628 $70,784 $51,402
21 Other income (income from
fundraising or interest-free grants)
$20,000
Net income $-18,813 $-1,159 $29,628 $70,784 $51,402
20
4.3 Cash Flow Projection
As previously discussed, a deficit of approximately $40,000 is projected over the first two years. Based
on the model a $20,000 operating grant together with a $30,000 loan or line of credit would cover the
deficit and also make debt repayment feasible. In Year 2, an additional $15,000 would be required for
equipment (Table 5). Lump sum repayments of loans could begin as early as the third year or when sales
exceed the $75,000 milestone (see Table 6).
The capital budget for cash flow projections includes funds for the following equipment:
Line #4: $2,500 in Year 1 and Year 2 for office equipment;
Line# 5: $5,000 in Year 2 for a walk-in refrigerator;
Line #5: $5,000 in Year 5 for additional warehouse equipment; and
Line #7: $15,000 in Year 5 for an additional delivery truck.
Table 5. Anticipated cash flow for the Maple Ridge Food Hub pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5.
Line # Cash flow Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 Net income $-18,813 $-1,159 $29,628 $70,784 $51,402
2 Add back depreciation $500 $1,900 $1,520 $1,216 $4,973
3 Loan principal repayments $-4,914 $-6,566 $-26,396 $-7,125 $0
4 Office Equipment $-2,500 $-2,500 $0 $0 $0
5 Warehouse Equipment $0 $-5,000 $0 $0 $-5,000
6 Leasehold improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7 Vehicles $0 $0 $0 $0 $-15,000
8 Subtotal (Lines 1 to 7) $-25,726 $-13,325 $4,752 $64,875 $36,375
9 Proceeds on loans $30,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0
10 Net change in cash $4,274 $1,675 $4,752 $64,875 $36,375
11 Opening cash $0 $4,274 $5,949 $10,701 $75,577
12 Closing cash $4,274 $5,949 $10,701 $75,577 $111,952
Loans and debt repayments are based on an operating line of credit with an interest rate of 10.0%. The
projections indicate that the balance could be paid out by Year 4 (Table 6).
Table 6. Operating loan and debt repayments for the Maple Ridge Food Hub pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5.
Operating Debt Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Opening balance $0 $25,086 $33,520 $7,125
Proceeds/Lump sum payments $30,000 $15,000 $-25,000 $-7,125
Interest at 10.0% $3,000 $4,009 $852 $0
Loan payments $-7,914 $-10,575 $-2,248 $0
Closing balance $25,086 $33,520 $7,125 $0
21
A summary of total liabilities and equity are provided in Table 7.
Table 7. Anticipated liabilities and equity for the Maple Ridge Food Hub pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5.
Liability and Equity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Working capital $4,274 $5,949 $10,701 $75,577 $111,952
Net equipment and vehicles $2,000 $7,600 $6,080 $4,864 $19,891
Total Assets $6,274 $13,549 $16,781 $80,441 $131,843
Operating Loan $25,086 $33,520 $7,125 $0 $0
Retained Earnings (Loss) $-18,813 $-19,971 $9,657 $80,441 $131,843
Total Liabilities and Equity $6,274 $13,549 $16,781 $80,441 $131,843
5. Ratios
The MRFH is projected to be solvent before the end of Year 3. The projected debt to equity ratio at the
end of Year 3 is 74% (Table 8).
Assumptions regarding ratios include:
Line #1: Debt to equity: The lower the positive ratio, the more solvent the business. At the end
of Year 3 the hub is solvent.
Line #2: Interest coverage ratio: The ratio of net income before interest to interest expense. This
ratio is an indication of debt risk. This ratio isn’t relevant in the first two years because there is
no interest coverage. The accumulated interest coverage at the end of Year 3 (Years 1 to 3
summed) is projected to be 28. That means earnings are 28 times higher than the projected
interest expense over the first three years.
Line #3: The debt ratio is calculated as total debt to total equity. This is also a solvency ratio
indicating ability to repay long-term debt. This ratio also indicates the extent to which the
business is financed. The lower the ratio the more solvent the business. The projected debt ratio
shows a low debt ratio by the end of Year 3.
Line #4: Revenue to equity is an indication of productivity and indicates how much revenue is
earned for the amount invested. Equity is negative in the first two years so the ratio is not valid.
Line #5: Net profit to equity is also an indication of productivity and is calculated as net
income/equity. In the first two years the ratio is not relevant because equity is negative.
Table 8. Anticipated financial ratios for the Maple Ridge Food Hub pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5.
Line # Financial ratios Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 Debt to equity ratio 133% 168% 74% 0% 0%
2 Interest coverage ratio -503% 72% 3148% N/A N/A
3 Debt ratio 400% 247% 42% N/A N/A
4 Revenue to equity ratio -100% -376% 1294% 280% 199%
5 Net profit to equity (%) N/A N/A 307% 88% 39%
22
6. Risk and Sensitivity Analysis
The following three scenarios were tested against the financial model in order to determine what
impacts to the income & expense projections and cash flow projections may occur if:
Scenario 1: Tests what occurs when the full $50,000 of startup capital is not raised.
Scenario 2: Tests what occurs when product sales (and therefore brokerage fees) do not meet
targets.
Scenario 3: Tests changes in projected variable and fixed expense levels in Year 1 and Year 3.
6.1 Risk Scenario 1: Lack of Start-up Capital
The investment in a competent MRFH manager at the outset is an important factor to the success of this
financial model. This scenario assumes that the efforts to raise $50,000 of startup capital is
unsuccessful, and only $5,000 is obtained, and therefore the funds for the manager’s salary are not
available. Without funding to hire a manager, the MRFH would have to rely on volunteers to promote
the hub to suppliers (farmers) and customers and to develop the sales and ordering process. The
volunteers would still need to generate the same amount in targeted brokerage fees in Year 1 to cover
other expenses, and the hub would still require an injection of $5,000 in cash (Table 9).
Table 9. Risk analysis scenario with $50,000 vs. $5,000 of startup capital in Year 1.
Projected Income and Expense Projections Year 1 –
$20,000 in grants
and $30,000 in loans
Year 1 –
$5,000 in grants
Brokerage fees $18,750 $18,750
Delivery, shipping and warehouse expenses $3,750 $3,750
Wages & benefits, rent, phone $36,100 $0
Other expenses $17,713 $17,713
Total expenses $57,563 $21,463
Income from fundraising $20,000 $5,000
Net income $-18,813 $2,288
Projected Cash Flow Projections Year 1 –
$20,000 in grants
and $30,000 in loans
Year 1 –
$5,000 in grants
Net income $-18,813 $2,288
Add back depreciation $500 $500
Loan principal repayments $-4,914 $0
Capital equipment, vehicles and leasehold
improvements
$-2,500 $-2,500
Proceeds from loans $30,000 $0
Net cash inflow $4,274 $288
Opening cash $0 $0
Closing cash $4,274 $288
23
6.2 Risk Scenario 2: Product Sales Level Adjustments
The second scenario tests the impacts that adjustments made to the targeted product sales (and
associated brokerage fees) have on the net income in Year 1 and Year 5. If product sales (and therefore
brokerage fees) are 50% lower than targeted in Year 1, net income would be 16% lower than projected.
In Year 5, a 50% variance in brokerage fees would impact the bottom line by 166% (Table 10). Once
sales exceed projected fixed expenses, sales variances will magnify the changes reflected in the net
income. This reinforces the notion that the efforts of the MRFH must be focused on driving sales (and
therefore brokerage fees) over the pilot project period of five years.
Table 10. Change in brokerage fees and associated net income during Year 1 and Year 5.
Change in brokerage fees - Year 1
%
Change
in Fees
Brokerage
Fees
Net
Income
$
DSCR26
%
%
Change
Net
Income
-50 9,375 -44,906 -6,094 16%
-40 11,250 -43,688 -4,875 13%
-30 13,125 -42,469 -3,656 9%
-20 15,000 -41,250 -2,438 6%
0 18,750 -38,813 0 0%
20 22,500 -36,375 2,438 -6%
30 24,375 -35,156 3,656 -9%
40 26,250 -33,938 4,875 -13%
50 28,125 -32,719 6,094 -16%
6.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Variable and Fixed Expenses in Year 1 and Year 3
In Year 1, a change in variable expenses (which are directly related to brokerage fees) will be less
impactful (or risky) than potential changes in fixed expenses, which do not correspond directly to the
collected brokerage fees (Table 11 and Table 12).
Table 11. Sensitivity analysis for Year 1 – Variable Expenses.
Change in variable expenses
% Change Variable
Expenses $
Net Income $ DSCR % % Change Net
Income
-20 5,250 -37,500 1,313 -3%
-15 5,578 -37,828 984 -3%
-10 5,906 -38,156 656 -2%
-5 6,234 -38,484 328 -1%
0 6,563 -38,813 0 0%
5 6,891 -39,141 -328 1%
10 7,219 -39,469 -656 2%
15 7,547 -39,797 -984 3%
20 7,875 -40,125 -1,313 3%
26 DSCR is the Debt Service Coverage Ratio, which refers to the amount of cash flow available to pay debt obligations.
Change in brokerage fees - Year 5
%
Change
in Fees
Brokerage
Fees
Net
Income
$
DSCR % %
Change
Net
Income
-50 131,250 -33,910 -85,313 -166%
-40 157,500 -16,848 -68,250 -133%
-30 183,750 215 -51,188 -100%
-20 210,000 17,277 -34,125 -66%
0 262,500 51,402 0 0%
20 315,000 85,527 34,125 66%
30 341,250 102,590 51,188 100%
40 367,500 119,652 68,250 133%
50 393,750 136,715 85,313 166%
24
Table 12. Sensitivity Analysis for Year 1 – Fixed Expenses
Change in Fixed Expenses
% Change Fixed Expenses
$
Net Income $ DSCR % % Change Net
Income
-50 25,500 -13,313 25,500 -66%
-40 30,600 -18,413 20,400 -53%
-30 35,700 -23,513 15,300 -39%
-20 40,800 -28,613 10,200 -26%
0 51,000 -38,813 0 0%
20 61,200 -49,013 -10,200 26%
30 66,300 -54,113 -15,300 39%
40 71,400 -59,213 -20,400 53%
50 76,500 -64,313 -25,500 66%
By Year 3, errors in projecting variable expenses are more critical. A 20% variance in fixed expenses will
impact net income by 35% and a variance of 20% in variable expenses will impact net income by 84%
(Table 12).
Table 13. Sensitivity analysis for Year 3.
Change in variable expenses
% Change Revenue
$
Variable
Expenses $
Fixed $ Net
Income $
DSCR % % Change Net
Income
-20 125,000 18,750 51,622 54,628 25,000 84%
-15 125,000 25,000 51,622 48,378 18,750 63%
-10 125,000 31,250 51,622 42,128 12,500 42%
-5 125,000 37,500 51,622 35,878 6,250 21%
0 125,000 43,750 51,622 29,628 0 0%
5 125,000 50,000 51,622 23,378 -6,250 -21%
10 125,000 56,250 51,622 17,128 -12,500 -42%
15 125,000 62,500 51,622 10,878 -18,750 -63%
20 125,000 68,750 51,622 4,628 -25,000 -84%
Change in fixed expenses
% Change Revenue
$
Variable
Expenses $
Fixed $ Net
Income $
DSCR % % Change Net
Income
-20 125,000 43,750 41,298 39,952 10,324 35%
-15 125,000 43,750 43,879 37,371 7,743 26%
-10 125,000 43,750 46,460 34,790 5,162 17%
-5 125,000 43,750 49,041 32,209 2,581 9%
0 125,000 43,750 51,622 29,628 0 0%
5 125,000 43,750 54,203 27,047 -2,581 -9%
10 125,000 43,750 56,784 24,466 -5,162 -17%
15 125,000 43,750 59,365 21,885 -7,743 -26%
20 125,000 43,750 61,946 19,304 -10,324 -35%
25
7.Balance Sheet Summary
The balance sheet presented in Table 14 summarizes many of the key points of the financial projections.
Table 14. Summary balance sheet for the MRFH Year 1 through Year 5.
Balance sheet Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Assets
Working capital $4,274 $5,949 $10,701 $75,577 $111,952
Office Equipment $2,500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Warehouse Equipment $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000
Leasehold Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Vehicles $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000
Accumulated depreciation $-500 $-2,400 $-3,920 $-5,136 $-10,109
Total fixed assets $2,000 $7,600 $6,080 $4,864 $19,891
Total assets $6,274 $13,549 $16,781 $80,441 $131,843
Operating loan $25,086 $33,520 $7,125 $0 $0
Total Equity
Retained earnings (accumulated deficit) -
opening
$0 $-18,813 $-19,971 $9,657 $80,441
Current year earnings (loss) $-18,813 $-1,159 $29,628 $70,784 $51,402
Cumulative earnings (loss) $-18,813 $-19,971 $9,657 $80,441 $131,843
Total liabilities and equity $6,274 $13,549 $16,781 $80,441 $131,843
8.Breakeven Analysis
The breakeven point in the MRFH pilot project will occur when net income is positive (Table 15, Line #7).
Based on the income & expense projections, this can occur by Year 3 (or more specifically before the
end of Year 3), when brokerage fees reach approximately $80,000. Since 35% of the brokerage fees will
be dedicated to variable expenses, the remaining 65% will be available to pay for fixed expenses (Table
15, Lines #3 and #4). With fixed expenses projected to be about $50,000 per annum, calculations
indicate that the MRFH should break even once brokerage fees reach $80,000 (this is equivalent to
product sales of roughly $320,000) (Table 15, Line #8).
Table 15. Breakeven analysis for Year 1 through Year 5.
Line # Breakeven Analysis Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 Brokerage fees $18,750 $75,000 $125,000 $225,000 $262,500
2 Variable expenses $6,563 $26,250 $43,750 $78,750 $91,875
3 Contribution margin $12,188 $48,750 $81,250 $146,250 $170,625
4 Contribution margin % 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%
5 Fixed expenses $51,000 $49,909 $51,622 $75,466 $119,223
6 Fixed expenses (Line #5) as a
% of brokerage fees (Line #1)
272% 67% 41% 34% 45%
7 Net operating income $-38,813 $-1,159 $29,628 $70,784 $51,402
8 Breakeven brokerage fees $78,462 $76,782 $79,418 $116,101 $183,420
26
9.Conclusions
The MRFH has the potential to be a centralized service for small and medium-scale producers to be able
to aggregate and coordinate the sale of their products in order to better meet local market demands.
This MRFH Implementation Plan provides a set of recommendations for operational and financial
management. The financial projections are based on a robust and conservative analysis.
Key recommendations include:
Establish the hub as a non-profit co-operative and move towards a for-profit co-operative
governance model at the end of the five year pilot project.
Raise $50,000 of startup capital in Year 1 and aim for an additional infusion of $15,000 in Year 2
through a combination of grants and loans.
Hire a dynamic and competent food hub manager immediately, and hire other staff at later
dates if profitability allows.
Target a minimum of 5 suppliers (farmer members) during Year 1, and grow to at least 35
suppliers by Year 5.
Target approximately 60 weekly customers by the end of Year 1, and aim to grow to over 800 by
Year 5.
Offer a product mix that includes a variety of vegetables and berries, and expands the fresh
sheet list as cold storage and supply allows.
Set up an online ordering platform and allow suppliers to set their own prices, which will be
monitored by the hub manager.
Ensure that the hub manager communicates back to the suppliers regarding appropriate price
points and general customer feedback.
Communicate the value of the hub services to potential suppliers, highlighting the savings of
time and money over the long term.
By following these recommendations, the financial projections indicate that the hub can become solvent
by Year 3 of the pilot project. A bricks & mortar location could be considered after the five year pilot
project has been successfully completed, but is not financially feasible during this initial timeframe.
I
Appendix I
Over two dozen stakeholders and experts helped to inform this report. The following is a list of the
farms, businesses, organizations, and agencies that were consulted with in the preparation of this
document. The communications included a combination of group meetings, phone calls, one-on-one
conversations, and emails. The stakeholders are presented in alphabetical order.
Amazia Farms
BC Vegetable Marketing Commission
Big Feast/Big Smoke
Blue Moon Organics
BMO Financial Group
CEED Centre
Cow-Op: Cowichan Valley Co-operative Marketplace
Discovery Organics
Duende Farm
Fable Kitchen Restaurant
Formosa Blueberries
Fresh Ideas and Solutions
Golden Ears Cheesecrafters
Haney Farmers Market Society
Hopcott Premium Meats
KitchenPick Culinary Herbs
Merville Co-operative Organics
Ministry of Agriculture (Sector Development Branch)
Ministry of Agriculture (Strengthening Farming Branch)
Red Barn Farm
RoosRoots Farm
Saanich Organics
Sechelt Farm Collective
Sustainable Produce Urban Delivery (SPUD)
Tofino Ucluelet Culinary Guild
Triple Creek Farm
Vancity Community Investment
Vancouver Foundation
Wandering Row Farms
II
Appendix II
Email listserv pros Email listserv cons
More direct communication with
farmers and customers, may help
develop trust
Farmers and Coordinator could
negotiation to set price for products
Coordinator can develop their own
technique of ordering and inventory
processes for the Hub
Coordinator may need to spend large
amounts of time organizing emails and
managing orders (especially when Hub is
just beginning)
May not be as organized and may lead
to more mistakes than other methods
Online Ordering Pros Online Ordering Cons
Easy for hub coordinator or farmers to
manage
Easy for customers to choose desired
products each week
Potential for easy method of inventory
Some have mobile apps, flexible
payment options, delivery truck route
mapping
After learning curve of software, it has
the potential to save producers and
buyers time
Marketing tools may be included in
software
Cost of monthly subscription
Initially may have to spend lots of time
learning how software works, if Hub
Coordinator employee changes
frequently, the time spent on learning
software increases
Farmers may also need to learn how it
works and need to update quantity and
type of produce available each week
Commercial buyers may need to spend
time learning how to use online ordering
website
May not provide everything the Food
Hub needs or wants in the way the
website is organized
In-person Ordering Pros In-person Ordering Cons
More direct communication with, may
develop trust
Time consuming for Coordinator and
potentially the commercial retailers
Expenses of driving to meetings
REPORT: Alouette Watershed Licence Page 1 of 3
DATE: June 5, 2018
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 5, 2018
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: BC Hydro Alouette Water Licence
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
BC Hydro is in the process of renewing one of its Alouette Water Licences. The Alouette Lake
Reservoir and Dam are within the unceded territories of the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations.
Recently, BC Hydro engaged the City of Maple Ridge and other stakeholders in the Alouette Water
Licence Renewal process as part of the Water Use Plan Order Review.
Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation, Alouette River Management Society (ARMS), and the City
of Maple Ridge intend to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to:
Collaborate to prepare a strong and aligned request to BC Hydro regarding fish passage,
compensation and restoration related to the Alouette Watershed.
Establish a Steering Committee to oversee the work of a Project Coordinator who will
research this issue and prepare agreed upon recommendations that will be presented to BC
Hydro on behalf of each organization and Nation.
Support from a Project Coordinator with knowledge in the subject matter area will be required to
coordinate and prepare this work.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That a Memorandum of Understanding among Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation, Alouette
River Management Society (ARMS) and the City of Maple Ridge be prepared for the coordination of
an aligned request to BC Hydro regarding fish passage, compensation and restoration related to the
Alouette Watershed; and
That a process to engage an independent Project Coordinator be pursued; and
That the Memorandum of Understanding and the costs of the project coordinator be brought back to
Council for consideration.
4.6
REPORT: Alouette Watershed Licence Page 2 of 3
DATE: June 5, 2018
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
The Alouette Lake Reservoir and Dam are within the unceded territories of the Katzie and
Kwantlen First Nations. Recently, BC Hydro engaged the City of Maple Ridge and other
stakeholders in the Alouette Water Licence Renewal process as part of the Water Use Plan
Order Review.
Through this process, Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations, ARMS and the City will be
advocating for a strong commitment from BC Hydro and the Province around reservoir
habitat restoration and species compensation.
In the coming weeks, City staff will be working closely with the Katzie and Kwantlen First
Nations and ARMS, to articulate shared expectations. While it is acknowledged that the
Alouette Lake Reservoir and Dam have created permanent change, to date, the above
stakeholders agree that the area has not received adequate funding to restore the
ecological, economic and cultural value that has been lost.
The City recently met with representatives from Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation
and ARMS. At that meeting it was agreed that the project be overseen by a Steering
Committee made up of representatives from Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation,
Alouette River Management Society and the City of Maple.
It was also agreed that support from a Project Coordinator with knowledge in the subject
matter area will be required to coordinate and prepare this work.
The scope of work for the Steering Committee would be established through a MOU.
b)Business Plan/Financial Implications:
It is anticipated that the cost of the Project Coordinator will be in the order of $5,000 to
$10,000.
c)Next Steps:
1.Develop draft Terms of Reference (TOR) and process for Alouette Watershed Steering
Committee’s review.
2.Develop a draft MOU.
3.Steering Committee to meet to confirm MOU, TOR and process.
4.Draft a report for Council’s consideration to request funding for a Project Coordinator.
5.Hire Project Coordinator to oversee the work.
It is intended that the response to BC Hydro’s renewal application will be submitted to the
Province by September of this year.
REPORT: Alouette Watershed Licence Page 3 of 3
DATE: June 5, 2018
CONCLUSIONS:
In partnership with Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations and ARMS the City of Maple Ridge will develop
formal recommendations for specific financial and restorative commitments from the Province and
BC Hydro as part of BC Hydro’s Water Licence Renewal Process.
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
Prepared by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng.
General Manager Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved By: Kelly Swift, MBA, BGS
General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
tc
File: 1610.00
May 17, 2018
BC Municipalities
VIA Email
Dear Mayor and Council:
Re: Provincial Employer Health Tax
At its May 14, 2018 Regular Council meeting, the Council for the City of Langley
considered a report from the City’s Director of Corporate Services regarding the
Province’s announcement that it will be implementing, commencing January 1, 2019, an
employer health tax to replace the Medical Services Plan premiums that individuals
currently pay. The report is enclosed for reference.
Council subsequently passed the following resolution:
WHEREAS the Province of BC has introduced an Employer Health Tax
(EHT) in the form of a new 1.95% payroll tax starting January 1, 2019 in
order to replace the Medical Service Plan (MSP) premiums which will not
be fully phased out until January 1, 2020;
WHEREAS in 2019, the City of Langley will be required to pay
approximately $236,000 for the EHT in addition to the $55,000 for the
MSP which will require a 1.0% property tax increase to fund the additional
costs;
WHEREAS the EHT will transfer the tax burden from individuals to
businesses causing unintended consequences on the local taxpayers as
the primary source of revenue for local governments is through property
taxation;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Province of BC exempt local
governments, regional districts and school boards from the imposition of
the EHT to lessen the financial burden on local taxpayers, especially those
that are on fixed incomes.
Council further resolved:
THAT correspondence be sent to all BC municipalities urging each
municipality to write to the provincial government requesting the
elimination or reduction of the newly implemented Employer Health Tax.
5.1
Provincial Employer Health Tax Page 2
Yours truly,
CITY OF LANGLEY
Kelly Kenney
Corporate Officer
Enclosure
REPORT TO COUNCIL
To: Mayor Schaffer and Councillors
Subject Provincial Employer Health Tax Report #: 18-29
File #: 1610.00
From: Darrin Leite, CPA, CA Doc #: 156637
Date: May 7, 2018
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council endorse the following motion to be sent to the Provincial government
to amend the implementation of the Employer Health Tax:
WHEREAS the Province of BC has introduced an Employer Health Tax (EHT) in the
form of a new 1.95% payroll tax starting January 1, 2019 in order to replace the
Medical Service Plan (MSP) premiums which will not be fully phased out until
January 1, 2020;
WHEREAS in 2019, the City of Langley will be required to pay approximately
$236,000 for the EHT in addition to the $55,000 for the MSP which will require a
1.0% property tax increase to fund the additional costs;
WHEREAS the EHT will transfer the tax burden from individuals to businesses
causing unintended consequences on the local taxpayers as the primary source of
revenue for local governments is through property taxation;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Province of BC exempt local
governments, regional districts and school boards from the imposition of the EHT to
lessen the financial burden on local taxpayers, especially those that are on fixed
incomes.
PURPOSE:
The City of Langley is expressing concern on behalf of the local property taxpayers
about the implementation of a new payroll tax being introduced by the Province of
British Columbia.
To: Mayor Schaffer and Councillors
Date: May 7, 2018
Subject: Provincial Employer Health Tax
Page 2
POLICY:
None.
COMMENTS/ANALYSIS:
The Provincial government announced that they will be implementing, starting
January 1, 2019, an employer health tax to replace the Medical Services Plan
premiums that individual’s currently pay. The UBCM surveyed local governments in
British Columbia to determine what the impact of the new 1.95% payroll tax would
have. The City of Langley is significantly impacted.
In 2017, the City paid $110,000 for MSP premiums and the payment reduced in half
to $55,000 in 2018. However, in 2019, the EHT will cost the City approximately
$236,000 in addition to the $55,000 MSP premiums that will not be fully eliminated
until January 1, 2020. The City will have to pass on this new financial burden to the
taxpayers in the City resulting in a 1% property tax increase in order to fund the
additional cost.
The City of Langley believes it is unfair to be required to pay both the EHT and MSP
premiums in 2019, the transition year, until the MSP premiums are fully eliminated in
2020. In addition, it is a concern when an increase in property taxes is being
required to fund provincial healthcare services.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
The City’s expenses will increase to $291,000 in 2019 from the $55,000 spent in
2018 on MSP premiums. This $236,000 will require a 1% property tax increase to
balance the budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
Forgo the opportunity to write a letter to the Province to express the concern over the
implementation of the new EHT.
To: Mayor Schaffer and Councillors
Date: May 7, 2018
Subject: Provincial Employer Health Tax
Page 3
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________
Darrin Leite, CPA, CA
Director of Corporate Services
Attachment(s): UBCM Employer Health Tax Impact on Local Government Survey
Results and Analysis
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:
I support the recommendation.
______________________
Francis Cheung, P. Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
Employer Health Tax Impact on
Local Governments
Survey Results and Analysis
Union of BC Municipalities
May 2018
2
Introduction
The Province of British Columbia’s 2018/19 – 2020/21 Budget and Fiscal Plan
includes a commitment to eliminate Medical Services Plan (MSP) premiums and
fund this change through the implementation of an employer health tax (EHT).
Since local governments are subject to this proposed tax, the Union of BC
Municipalities (UBCM), with support from the British Columbia Government
Finance Officers Association, surveyed local government financial officers in April
of 2018 to better understand the impact of the EHT on local government finance.
The data from the survey provided the basis for this report.
Local Government Finance
Local governments have a limited revenue base that relies heavily on property
taxation1. While the property tax provides revenue stability and predictability, it
does not fairly distribute costs across income levels, placing an undue share on
lower and middle income British Columbians. Local governments are also subject
to significant external cost drivers due to decisions made by other orders of
government. In recognition of both current and projected stresses, BC local
governments have called for a joint review of the local government finance
system.2 One of the objectives of such a review is to prevent the property tax
becoming unaffordable for a greater number of British Columbians.
UBCM Employer Health Tax Survey
77 respondents participated in the UBCM survey, representing just over 40% of
local governments in British Columbia. Respondents varied in population from
107 (Village of Zeballos) to 631,406 (City of Vancouver). The survey solicited
information on local government costs for employee MSP premiums and
estimated EHT costs for the period 2017-2020. This data is provided in the
Appendix to this report.
Employer Health Tax and Local Government
In 2017, all but one of the 77 survey respondents paid some portion of employee
MSP premiums. For unionized employees, employer-paid MSP contributions are
a negotiated benefit and vary from contract to contract. Local governments may
1 Union of BC Municipalities, Strong Fiscal Futures: A Blueprint for Strengthening BC Local
Governments’ Finance System (2013), 18.
2 Union of BC Municipalities, Local Government Finance Policy Paper (2013).
3
also pay a portion of MSP premiums for exempt staff, although this too is a
matter of local determination.
The employer health tax will be imposed upon businesses and organizations in
accordance with the size of their payroll. Businesses and organizations with
payrolls less than $500,000 will be exempt from the EHT. The tax rate will start at
0.98 percent for annual payrolls in excess of $500,000 and will gradually increase
to 1.95 percent for payrolls greater than $1,500,000 per year.
Due to differences such as population served, the degree of contracting out, and
levels of service, local government payrolls vary in size from hundreds of
thousands to hundreds of millions. As a result, the impact of EHT implementation
on local governments varies considerably (Figure 1).
Taking into account the elimination of MSP premiums effective January 1, 2020,
29% of respondents indicated cost reductions or cost neutrality as a result of
EHT implementation relative to 2017 MSP premium costs. Correspondingly, 71%
respondents indicated increased costs in relation to EHT implementation in
comparison to 2017, with 36% of respondents indicating increases of 25-100%
and 15% indicating increases greater than 100%.
Source: UBCM survey (77 of 189 local governments)
22
15
28
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Budget Decrease /
Cost Neutral
0%-25% Increase 25%-100% Increase >100% Increase
Figure 1: MSP Related Cost Impacts of EHT
(2017 vs 2020)
4
Another way of analyzing the survey data is to consider the impact on local
government as a sector. As a group, the 77 communities that contributed to the
survey will see its MSP related costs double between 2017 and 2020 as a result
of the EHT (Figure 2).
The survey responses also demonstrate that the provincial government decision
to reduce MSP premiums by 50% effective 2018 provided significant cost savings
for local governments that paid some portion of employee MSP premiums. This
relief was effectively eliminated by the introduction of EHT. The transition year of
2019, in which MSP premiums are retained while the EHT is phased in, will also
create an extraordinary single year increase in which MSP related costs will more
than quadruple for the respondents.
Given that UBCM’s survey data reflects information for 40% of BC local
governments, the actual increase in for the entire local government sector in
2019 and beyond resulting from EHT implementation are greater than indicated
by our survey.
Source: UBCM survey (77 of 189 local governments)
While 21 respondents will see a net cost savings by 2020 through the
implementation of EHT, the savings will be modest for most of this group.
Conversely, for communities facing cost increases due to EHT implementation,
the increases are dramatic. Increased employee MSP related costs for
$19,081,572.00
$9,894,888.00
$47,215,760.00
$37,879,258.00
$-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
$50,000,000.00
2017 (MSP
premiums)
2018 (MSP
premiums)
2019 (MSP
premiums + EHT)
2020 (EHT)
Figure 2: MSP Related Costs
by Year (2017-2020)
5
communities like Vancouver, Saanich, Victoria, and Burnaby will run into the
millions. Excluding these four communities, the majority of local governments
with populations greater than 50,000 will also see significant impacts, with an
average MSP related cost increase of $631,500, or a budget increase of 92%
from 2017 to 2020. Figure 3.1 demonstrates the range of cost increases due to
the EHT for a sample of municipalities based on a comparison of 2017 and 2020
MSP related costs.
Local government costs will be further increased when the effect of regional
districts is factored in (Figure 3.2). Regional districts cannot collect taxes directly
from residents, and instead rely on a requisition that is submitted to the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing and direct billing of municipalities. Regional
districts that see a net increase in costs as a result of EHT implementation may
choose to fund this increase through its requisition, thus further increasing the
impact of the EHT on taxpayers in municipalities and electoral areas within the
regional district.
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
Figure 3.1: Sample Cost Increases for
Municipalities by Percentage and Dollars
(2017 vs. 2020)
Dollars Percentage increase 2017 vs 2020
6
Local governments that have a MSP related cost increase due to the EHT will
need to consider how best to fund the change. As indicated in Figure 4, these
Councils and Boards will face a choice of reducing services, increasing property
taxation, or a mixture of both. The majority of respondents have indicated that
these options involve some form of property tax increase, with 15% indicating
that such increases are likely in the range of 1-2%.
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
$-
$75,000
$150,000
$225,000
$300,000
$375,000
$450,000
$525,000
Figure 3.2: Sample of Cost Increases for
Regional Districts by Percentage and Dollars
(2017 vs 2020)
Dollars Percentage increase 2017 vs 2020
7
Case Study: District of Saanich
The proposed employer health tax will have significant budget implications for the
District of Saanich. The estimated cost for Saanich in 2019 during the transitional
year of EHT implementation is $1.78 million for the new tax plus $209,000 for
employee MSP premiums. These costs will be distributed between the general
fund (property taxation) and the sewer and water utilities (user fees). The general
fund portion equates to a 1.3% property tax increase. In subsequent years, the
tax will rise in step with collective agreement settlements that are currently 2% to
2.5%. Saanich Council will be faced with a choice of increasing taxes, reducing
services, or a combination of the two. Budget reductions implemented after the
2008 economic downturn have left few options remaining.
If the assumption is that the increase should be managed through operating
budget reductions, the impact translates into a reduction of at least 15 positions
and therefore impactful reductions in service levels. Alternately, capital funding
could be reduced moving backwards on a decade of Council commitment to
achieve sustainable funding levels for infrastructure replacement.
39%
26%
15%
2%
6%
4%
4%4%
Figure 4: Local Government Options
for Funding EHT (2020)Property tax increase of 0.01% and
0.50%
Property tax increase of 0.50% and
1%
Property tax increase of 1%-2%
Property tax increase of 2%-4%%
Regional district requisition
Combine property tax increase
between 0.01% and 1% and
implement a service reduction
Alter employment structure
combined with reduction in sevice
delivery
Service Reduction
8
The impact on Saanich property owners could be compounded with increased
levies for the Capital Regional District and Hospital District, BC Assessment, and
BC Transit who would also be subject to the employer health tax and facing the
same challenges to fund it.
The impact on Saanich’s medium to large business property owners is twofold as
they face paying the EHT directly on top of any property taxation increases that
may be implemented. An option is to put the burden solely on residential
properties, but this is likely to meet strong resistance as 92% of Saanich’s
assessment base is residential and due to low non-market revenue in recent
years, annual tax increases are trending over 3%.
Employer-paid MSP premiums are a negotiated benefit. Implementation of this
tax applied will remove the ability for Saanich to negotiate this benefit as part of
collective bargaining. Where property tax currently funds only a small portion of
the premiums for some staff, a shift to the health tax confers a considerable
benefit without any bargaining and passes the cost on to Saanich property
owners.
Conclusion
The introduction of the employer health tax will lead to increased Medical
Services Plan related costs for a considerable portion of the local government
sector. While a small portion of local governments will see reduced MSP related
costs once the EHT is implemented, the savings for most of these communities
are negligible. Conversely, the cost impacts for some larger communities are
considerable. Based on the survey information provided to UBCM, Medical
Services Plan related costs for respondents would double between 2017 and
2020. On a one-time basis, due to implementation of the EHT while MSP
“Saanich cannot manage a
1.3% property tax increase
from this additional expense
through simple ‘belt
tightening’. We would have
to amputate a limb.”
Paul Thorkelsson, CAO
9
premiums are still in place, MSP related costs for respondents would quadruple
between 2018 and 2019.
Given that the communities most impacted tend to be larger population centres, it
is safe to conclude that the implementation of the EHT will lead to property tax
increases for the majority of British Columbia’s population. This will have a
particular impact on the private sector, since businesses that are already paying
the EHT directly will likely face increased property taxes as well.
Due to the extent of these impacts, many local governments are questioning a
tax policy that results in the funding of a provincial service (healthcare) through
property taxation.
10
Appendix A – Survey Results: Medical Services Plan (MSP) Related Costs by Year
Local Government
2017 (MSP
Premiums)
2018 (MSP
Premiums)
2019 (MSP
Premiums +
Employer Health
Tax)
2020 (Employer
Health Tax)
Alberni-Clayoquot RD $26,625.00 $19,000.00 $52,600.00 $34,300.00
Anmore $16,050.00 $8,100.00 $17,500.00 $9,400.00
Ashcroft $19,912.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00
Belcarra $10,502.00 $5,252.00 $11,421.00 $6,169.00
Burnaby $2,302,000.00 $1,086,000.00 $4,400,000.00 $3,300,000.00
Campbell River $336,211.00 $340,000.00 $562,300.00 $400,800.00
Capital RD $552,000.00 $271,000.00 $1,271,000.00 $1,000,000.00
Cariboo RD $83,000.00 $41,500.00 $141,500.00 $105,000.00
Chase $14,550.00 $8,550.00 $24,462.00 $15,912.00
Columbia-Shuswap RD $69,746.00 $35,000.00 $130,000.00 $96,900.00
Colwood $78,225.00 $39,113.00 $170,000.00 $130,000.00
Comox Valley RD $202,282.00 $220,000.00 $337,900.00 $241,500.00
Courtenay $188,000.00 $92,250.00 $317,250.00 $225,000.00
Creston $45,000.00 $22,500.00 $75,500.00 $54,000.00
Dawson Creek $195,825.00 $100,850.00 $352,315.00 $259,009.00
Duncan $45,600.00 $22,500.00 $75,577.00 $54,000.00
East Kootenay RD $84,038.00 $42,018.00 $139,919.00 $97,901.00
Elkford $40,472.00 $20,250.00 $79,868.00 $60,810.00
Enderby $15,075.00 $7,500.00 $22,575.00 $15,075.00
Fort St. John $265,266.00 $127,800.00 $524,366.00 $406,480.00
Fraser Valley $106,500.00 $53,000.00 $189,500.00 $136,500.00
Gold River $24,500.00 $14,000.00 $45,200.00 $31,200.00
Grand Forks $52,000.00 $26,000.00 $64,000.00 $65,500.00
Harrison Hot Springs $20,775.00 $12,060.00 $25,000.00 $12,500.00
Invermere $34,875.00 $17,100.00 $53,560.00 $36,460.00
Kaslo $12,150.00 $6,300.00 $12,500.00 $6,301.00
Kelowna $1,151,000.00 $575,520.00 $1,955,520.00 $1,407,600.00
Kent $33,750.00 $16,875.00 $88,407.00 $71,532.00
Keremeos $14,400.00 $7,200.00 $18,600.00 $11,600.00
Ladysmith $85,397.00 $42,683.00 $150,331.00 $107,648.00
Lake Country $97,875.00 $55,350.00 $163,400.00 $107,648.00
Langley District $630,500.00 $386,000.00 $1,666,000.00 $1,300,000.00
Langley City $110,000.00 $55,000.00 $291,000.00 $236,000.00
Lantzville $21,150.00 $11,250.00 $31,996.00 $21,161.00
Logan Lake $24,300.00 $12,150.00 $42,650.00 $31,000.00
Lytton $8,100.00 $4,050.00 $9,048.00 $4,998.00
11
Maple Ridge $350,000.00 $175,000.00 $875,000.00 $700,000.00
McBride $6,390.00 $6,300.00 $6,300.00 -
Merritt $62,452.00 $31,225.00 $138,027.00 $108,938.00
Metchosin $13,320.00 $6,660.00 $21,012.00 $14,636.00
Mission $268,000.00 $134,000.00 $499,650.00 $365,650.00
Nakusp $25,200.00 $12,600.00 $27,600.00 $15,225.00
New Denver $3,600.00 $1,800.00 $7,427.00 $5,739.00
New Hazelton $9,000.00 $4,500.00 $10,311.00 $6,012.00
New Westminster $706,200.00 $363,150.00 $1,817,450.00 $1,483,400.00
North Cowichan $222,500.00 $112,500.00 $405,000.00 $298,350.00
Oak Bay $167,099.00 $83,550.00 $451,004.00 $367,454.00
Okanagan-Similkameen RD $125,000.00 $65,000.00 $180,000.00 $120,000.00
Oliver $42,000.00 $22,000.00 $61,000.00 $41,000.00
Peace River RD $52,885.00 $30,000.00 $74,709.00 $48,165.00
Penticton $380,704.00 $190,352.00 $594,853.00 $404,501.00
Port Alice $13,538.00 $6,770.00 $13,026.00 $6,381.00
Port Coquitlam $340,000.00 $170,000.00 $785,000.00 $630,000.00
Port McNeill $9,900.00 $4,950.00 $15,453.00 $10,503.00
Port Moody $254,480.00 $130,000.00 $715,000.00 $600,000.00
Prince George $667,358.00 $333,679.00 $1,678,291.00 $1,371,504.00
Prince Rupert $213,000.00 $107,000.00 $394,000.00 $293,000.00
Quesnel $152,000.00 $76,000.00 $268,660.00 $192,660.00
Radium Hot Springs $12,600.00 $6,300.00 $13,300.00 $7,000.00
Saanich $417,420.00 $208,710.00 $1,989,410.00 $1,820,000.00
Sidney $90,990.00 $47,970.00 $142,970.00 $97,000.00
Sooke $54,975.00 $36,000.00 $114,000.00 $78,000.00
Squamish $237,033.00 $121,000.00 $440,828.00 $326,548.00
Squamish-Lillooet RD $14,659.00 $7,500.00 $51,293.00 $44,888.00
Summerland $111,450.00 $55,700.00 $197,200.00 $144,300.00
Sunshine Coast RD $334,000.00 $160,096.00 $415,856.00 $255,760.00
Thompson-Nicola RD $129,150.00 $65,000.00 $251,405.00 $186,405.00
Trail $87,600.00 $43,800.00 $76,200.00 $32,450.00
Tumbler Ridge $63,923.00 $44,775.00 $133,509.00 $90,198.00
Ucluelet $38,301.00 $21,600.00 $57,395.00 $36,511.00
Vancouver $5,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $17,500,000.00 $15,000,000.00
Vernon $436,635.00 $220,000.00 $668,500.00 $448,500.00
Victoria $800,000.00 $400,000.00 $2,300,000.00 $1,900,000.00
View Royal $25,200.00 $13,000.00 $81,000.00 $70,000.00
Warfield $6,900.00 $3,450.00 $8,950.00 $5,500.00
Williams Lake $113,059.00 $56,530.00 $199,706.00 $143,176.00
Zeballos $5,400.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 -