HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-27 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdf
City of Maple Ridge
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the September 4, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Agri-Food Hub: Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan
Staff report dated November 27, 2018 recommending that the Agricultural
Advisory Committee explore options to build community capacity for a food hub in
Maple Ridge.
4.2 Parks, Recreation & Culture Infrastructure Projects
Update by the Director Parks & Facilities
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
November 27, 2018
1:30 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
November 27, 2018
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop Agenda
November 27, 2018
Page 2 of 3
4.3 Social Media and Communications
Staff report dated November 27, 2018 providing information on the City’s social
media policy and practices around managing digital interactions.
Presentation by the Manager of Community Engagement & Relations
4.4 TransLink Major Road Network Expansion
Staff report dated November 27, 2018 providing information on the expansion of
the major road network within Maple Ridge.
4.5 Grant-in-Lieu of Property Tax Payment
Verbal presentation by the Chief Financial Officer
4.6 Maple Ridge Ale Trail Initiative
Staff report dated November 27, 2018 providing information on the City of Maple
Ridge’s participation in the Ale Trail Program.
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 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) – Notification of Executive
Vacancies
Correspondence dated November 19, 2018 from UBCM Executive notifying
members of Executive vacancies and outlining the process to be followed for filling
vacancies.
Recommendation:
Council Workshop Agenda
November 27, 2018
Page 3 of 3
5.2 Ministry of Citizens’ Services – 2018 Grant-in-Lieu of Property Tax Payment
Correspondence dated November 8, 2018 from Jinny Jogindera Sims, Minister,
Ministry of Citizens’ Services advising the City of Maple Ridge on the issuance of
the 2018 grant-in-lieu of property tax payment.
Recommendation:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will
be taken
5.3 Upcoming Events
December 1, 2018
4:00 to 6:00 pm
Parade: 6:00 pm
Christmas in the Park and the Santa Claus Parade,
224 Street, Maple Ridge BC
Organizer: Maple Ridge Christmas Festival Society
December 10, 2018
3:00 to 6:00 pm
Alouette Addictions Christmas Open House,
#106, 22838 Lougheed Highway, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Alouette Addictions
December 17, 2018
Train arrives 7:30 pm
Event: 7:45 to 8:15 pm
CP Holiday Train, Port Haney, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Friends in Need Food Bank
December 24, 2018
6:00 to 9:00 pm
Christmas Haven, The Act Arts Centre,
11144 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Christmas Haven Committee
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: ________________
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
September 4, 2018
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on September 4, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers 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 K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Councillor K. Duncan D Pollock, Acting General Manager Public Works and
Councillor B. Masse Development Services
Councillor G Robson L. Benson, Director of Corporate Administration
Councillor T. Shymkiw T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Councillor C. Speirs 1BOther Staff as Required
2BC. Carter, Director of Planning
3BB. Elliott, Manager of Community Planning
4BR. MacNair, Manager of Bylaw & Licensing Services
5BA. Bowden, Planner 1
6BD. Hall, Planner 2
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Note: Councillor Duncan was not in attendance at the start of the meeting.
1.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
R/2018-470
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda of the September 4, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting be
approved as circulated.
CARRIED
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 2 of 8
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the July 17, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2018-471
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of July 17, 2018 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
Note: Councillor Duncan joined the meeting at 6:04 p.m.
4.1 Lougheed Transit Corridor Study Scoping Report
Staff report dated September 4, 2018 recommending that the process and
engagement strategy for the Lougheed Corridor Study and the study area
boundaries be endorsed.
A. Bowden, Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following
information:
• Background and Policies
• Study Area Boundaries and Phasing
• Timeline and Engagement Strategy
• Recommendations
MAIN MOTION
R/2018-472
It was moved and seconded
1. In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act, requirement for
consultation during the development or amendment of an Official
Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is
required with specifically:
i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the
plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan;
ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area
covered by the plan;
iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area
covered by the plan;
iv. First Nations;
Council Workshop Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 3 of 8
v. Boards of Education, Greater Boards and Improvements District
Boards; and
vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies.
and in that regard, it is recommended that the only additional consultation
to be required in respect of this matter beyond the engagement strategy
and timeline process outlined in the report titled “Lougheed Transit
Corridor Study Scoping Report”, dated September 4, 2018 is the early
posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the City’s
website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, and;
2. That the process and engagement strategy for the Lougheed Transit
Corridor Study outlined in the report titled “Lougheed Transit Corridor
Study Scoping Report”, dated September 4, 2018 be endorsed; and
3. That the study area boundaries outlined in Appendix C of the report
titled “Lougheed Transit Corridor Study Scoping Report”, dated
September 4, 2018 be endorsed.
MOTION TO AMEND
R/2018-473
It was moved and seconded
That Item 2 in the main motion be amended to add the text “and
encompassing both Phase 1 and 2” following the text “September 4,
2018,”
AMENDMENT CARRIED
MOTION TO AMEND
R/2018-474
It was moved and seconded
That Item 3 in the main motion be amended to add the text “with the
addition of properties adjoining Dewdney Truck Road, Carshill Street and
Patterson Avenue” following the text “September 4, 2018,”
AMENDMENT CARRIED
Question on the main motion
The question was then called on the Main Motion as amended.
CARRIED AS AMENDED
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED
1. In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act, requirement for
consultation during the development or amendment of an Official
Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is
required with specifically:
Council Workshop Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 4 of 8
i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the
plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan;
ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area
covered by the plan;
iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area
covered by the plan;
iv. First Nations;
v. Boards of Education, Greater Boards and Improvements District
Boards; and
vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies.
and in that regard, it is recommended that the only additional consultation
to be required in respect of this matter beyond the engagement strategy
and timeline process outlined in the report titled “Lougheed Transit
Corridor Study Scoping Report”, dated September 4, 2018 is the early
posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the City’s
website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, and;
2. That the process and engagement strategy for the Lougheed Transit
Corridor Study outlined in the report titled “Lougheed Transit Corridor
Study Scoping Report”, dated September 4, 2018, and encompassing
Phase 1 and Phase 2, be endorsed; and
3. That the study area boundaries outlined in Appendix C of the report
titled “Lougheed Transit Corridor Study Scoping Report”, dated
September 4, 2018, with the addition of properties adjoining Dewdney
Trunk Road, Carshill Street and Patterson Avenue, be endorsed.
4.2 Cannabis Retail Amendment Options
Staff report dated September 4, 2018 providing options to introduce zoning
bylaw amendments directing the sale of cannabis within the community.
D. Hall, Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following
information:
• Background
• Overview of Federal, Provincial and Municipal Jurisdictions
• Scan of what other municipalities are doing in terms of municipal
bylaw
• Options for the City of Maple Ridge
• Recommendations for changes to the Zoning Bylaw
• Next steps in process
• Recommendations
Council Workshop Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 5 of 8
MAIN MOTION
R/2018-475
It was moved and seconded
1) That the proposed Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7487-2018
attached to this report be brought forward at the September 18, 2018
Council Meeting for First and Second Readings and forwarded to Public
Hearing; and
2) That staff be directed to bring forward bylaw amendments to the
Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw to establish business licencing
fees and conditions for cannabis retail use; and further
3) That staff be directed to bring forward bylaw amendments to the Zoning
Bylaw to regulate the commercial production of cannabis on lands within
the Agricultural Land Reserve.
CARRIED
AMENDMENT TO MAIN MOTION
R/2018-476
It was moved and seconded
That Item 1 be amended to read “That proposed Maple Ridge Zone Amending
Bylaw No. 7487-2018 attached to this report be brought forward at the
September 18, 2018 Council Meeting for first and second readings and
forwarded to Public Hearing with an amendment to consider the 1000 metre
separation outside the downtown area only and whereby applications within
the downtown area will be considered on an application by application basis
to a maximum of four outlets and that Items 2 and 3 reflect this amendment
also.
AMENDMENT DEFEATED
Mayor Read, Councillor Bell, Councillor Masse, Councillor Robson, Councillor
Shymkiw - OPPOSED
Question on the Main Motion
The question was called on the Main Motion.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 6 of 8
4.3 Amendment to 2018 Council Meeting Calendar
Staff report dated September 4, 2018 recommending that Council Workshop
Meetings scheduled for October 2018 be cancelled and that the remaining
Council Meetings be advanced.
R/2018-477
It was moved and seconded
That the 2018 Council Meeting Calendar be amended as follows:
• Cancellation of Council Workshops on October 2 and October 16;
• Move the Regular Council Meeting and Closed Meeting on October 9 to
October 2;
• Move the Public Hearing on October 16 to October 9;
• Move the Regular Council Meeting and Closed Meeting on October 23 to
October 16;
• No meetings scheduled on October 23.
CARRIED
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 Metro Vancouver Board – Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future Land
Use Designation Amendment Request – Township of Langley – Williams
Neighbourhood Plan
Letter dated July 26, 2016 from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board
providing notification to affected local governments and other agencies of a
proposed amendment to Metro 2040 by the Township of Langley and
requesting written comment on the proposed amendment.
The Manager of Community Planning provided clarification on the request by
the Township of Langley.
R/2018-478
It was moved and seconded
That the letter dated July 26, 2016 from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver
Board providing notification to affected local governments and other agencies
of a proposed amendment to Metro 2040 by the Township of Langley and
requesting written comment on the proposed amendment be received into
the record for information.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 7 of 8
5.2 Port of Vancouver – Federal Funding for Key Goods-Movement Infrastructure
Projects
Letter from Peter Xotta, Vice President, Planning and Operations, Vancouver
Fraser Port Authority providing an update on federal funding commitments for
projects within the Greater Vancouver Area.
R/2018-479
It was moved and seconded
That the letter from Peter Xotta, Vice President, Planning and Operations,
Vancouver Fraser Port Authority providing an update on federal funding
commitments for projects within the Greater Vancouver Area be received into
the record for information and be forwarded to the Engineering Department.
CARRIED
5.3 Upcoming Events
September 8, 2018
9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Parkinson SuperWalk, Spirit Square, Pitt Meadows, BC
Organizer: Parkinson Society British Columbia
September 15, 2018
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
GETI Fest, Memorial Peace Park, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Golden Ears Transition Initiative
September 15, 2018
8:00 p.m.
Hammond Movie Night, Hammond Stadium, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Maple Ridge Parks, Recreation & Culture
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8. MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Councillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs awarded medals for children participating in the Summer
Reading Club at Maple Ridge Library. He attended Pride in the Park, Bard in
the Bandstand openings and the Lapidary Club BBQ. Councillor Speirs
participated in a tour of the SunLab and attended an event titled “An Event to
Acknowledge Lives Lost”
Councillor Masse
Councillor Masse spoke on a newspaper article titled “Study Shines Light on
Student Struggles” which addresses mental illness in youth. He provided
general information on the Foundry and the Youth Wellness Centre and events
planned for fundraising.
Council Workshop Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 8 of 8
Councillor Duncan
Councillor Duncan attended the opening ceremony for a mural done in
downtown Maple Ridge by Brandon Gabriel of the Kwantlen First Nation. She
also attended an educational event at Anita’s Place.
Councillor Bell
Councillor Bell commented on the connection between the new mural in
downtown Maple Ridge and the naming of the new school in Albion. She
advised on the status of the hospital parking issue in Maple Ridge and
expressed concern that this issue has not reached the Parliamentary
Secretary. She requested a follow up prior to the end of the term of the
current Council.
Councillor Robson
Councillor Robson commented on talks between the Alouette River
Management Society, Kwantlen and Katzie First Nations and BC Hydro
pertaining to the Alouette River Water Licence.
9. ADJOURNMENT - 8:06 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
L. Benson, Corporate Officer
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: November 27, 2018
and Members of Council FILE NUMBER: 2017-359-CP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Agri-Food Hub: Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of their Council directed 2017 and 2018 work plan, the Agricultural Advisory Committee
(AAC) has been exploring the feasibility of an agri-food hub as a way to support small scale
farming in the community as well as to facilitate job creation. A food hub is a centrally-located
facility which aggregates, processes, and distributes agricultural products and would support the
local farming community by potentially sharing and therefore minimizing the costs and other
challenges compared to those of individual Maple Ridge farmers. In the summer of 2017,
Upland Agricultural Consulting Ltd was engaged to affirm potential demand and, with
considerable stakeholder involvement, to draft an Implementation Plan for a food hub in Maple
Ridge. With the Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan, the AAC is hopeful that it provides a
clear business model for a successful food hub, to be owned and operated by the local farming
community. With the Plan now complete, at the October 25, 2018 AAC meeting, the Committee
voiced its support for the final Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan and recommended
that it be forwarded to Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Agricultural Advisory Committee, as part of its 2019 Business Plan, explores options to
build community capacity for a food hub in Maple Ridge.
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.
4.1
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 the Lower Mainland 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 build upon past research and to develop an implementation plan for
a shared facility that would help local farmers capitalize on the demand for local farm products.
Specifically, the Plan outlines the business model upon which local farms could implement and
run a successful food hub in Maple Ridge. Such a food hub could reduce the time and money
typically required of local farmers as a result of processing and distributing their respective
products at one centralized location. Resources including staff and equipment would be shared,
by the operating group of farmers to lessen and distribute the often challenging costs of bringing
products to market.
b) Background
On December 15, 2009, Council endorsed the Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan, prepared in
collaboration with the Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC).
In 2013, work was undertaken with Pitt Meadows on a North Fraser Agri -Food Hub Feasibility
Analysis. The work reviewed agri-food distribution hubs in North America and explored the
potential demand and supply of Lower Mainland products.
On October 17, 2016, Council directed the exploration of a food hub in Maple Ridge as part of
the 2017 AAC 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.
In the spring of 2017 a Request for Proposals was issued for consulting services to develop an
implementation plan for a food hub in Maple Ridge. Building on the earlier studies, the intent of
the work was to create an action-oriented business plan outlining how local farms could
establish a food hub in Maple Ridge.
In the summer of 2017, with funding support from the Investment Agriculture Foundation of
British Columbia, Upland Agricultural Consulting Ltd was selected and engaged to develop an
organizational or business 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 fall of 2017, 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
from members of the AAC Food Distribution Subcommittee was submitted to the consultant via
the AAC Staff Liaison.
3
The consultant also provided updates to the AAC at large. On January 25, 2018 the consultant
presented a project update to the Committee and an overview of the draft Implementation Plan
on May 17, 2018. The draft Implementation Plan was available for community review over the
summer of 2018.
At the October 25, 2018 AAC meeting, the Committee supported the final Maple Ridge
Implementation Plan and recommended that the Plan be forwarded to Council.
DISCUSSION:
Working with the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) throughout 2017 and 2018, Upland
Agricultural Consulting Ltd. engaged with local stakeholders to solicit input and develop the
Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan (attached in Appendix A for information).
a) Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan Overview
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 a food hub 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 needed to promote and
market in order to increase product 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.
In order to realize this potential, the AAC worked with its consultant to establish t he Maple Ridge
Food Hub Implementation Plan to provide recommendations and a clear business plan for a five-
year pilot program. The 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 being operated by the local farming community in Maple Ridge.
The 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 Maple Ridge Food Hub
could grow to a much larger operation of up to over 35 farm members. The Plan proposes
starting with hardy crops already grown in Maple Ridge, such as cucumbers, leafy greens,
potatoes and garlic. The 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 Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan also identifies opportunities to partner with
local community members as well as farms from neighbouring communities, depending on
consumer demands. Initially, the Plan proposes residents, especially young 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.
4
For the first five years, the Plan proposes a virtual set-up that would utilize existing storage space
on a Hub 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 Plan suggests that pick-up sites
should be centrally located and easily accessible for both farmer drop-off and customer pick-up.
Operationally, the Plan proposes the Maple Ridge Food Hub would employ up to three staff
members over the first five years. While the hiring of staff would be the responsibility of the
group of participating farmers, it is recognized that 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 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. Further,
no assumption has been made in the Plan about the sources of such funding opportunities,
including what role, if any, could be played by the City. Based on the projected financials, the
Maple Ridge Food Hub could be solvent by Year 3 of the pilot project using a “price mark-up”
model that assumes an increase in farm and customer growth year over year.
Lastly, based on the projected financials, a stand -alone bricks and mortar location will not be
feasible during the initial five year timeframe. The Plan states that a bricks and motor location
could only be considered within the five year pilot project should a site, facility, and all associated
overhead costs (e.g. utilities, rent, fees & taxes) be donated. However, the 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 provided in the Implementation Plan would need to be
reassessed at that time. The Plan does identify that the bricks and mortar location, criteria and
feasibility should also be re-assessed following the successful completion of the five year pilot
project.
b) Next Steps
With the Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan now complete, the Agricultural Advisory
Committee (AAC) is optimistic that the Plan establishes a workable business model upon which
local farmers can establish a viable food hub. As a next step, and s hould Council so direct,
members of the AAC will take advantage of the momentum and local farming interest devel oped
through the recent process to begin building community ownership of the Maple Ridge Food Hub
concept. Initial thinking recommends transitioning the Implementation Plan to the community
through an AAC-facilitated meeting of interested farmers and local organizations to identify next
step opportunities such as potential funding and grant sources. As well the discussion intends to
identify interested parties that could take on the responsibility of moving the Maple Ridge Food
Hub project forward and, ultimately, for the ownership of the Maple Ridge Food Hub. This work is
envisioned as part of the AAC’s 2019 Business Plan.
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
The Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) has been a strong proponent of exploring the
feasibility of a food hub for Maple Ridge farmers and has been working to implement one of the
visions stated in the Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan. Specifically, a Maple Ridge Food Hub is
intended to encourage sustainable farming opportunities that engages with local residents,
attracts new entrants, and takes profitable advantage of local marketing opportunities. Early on,
the AAC set up a Food Distribution Subcommittee which oversaw and guided the development of
the Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan.
5
At key project milestones, the project consultant met with members of the AAC Food Distribution
Subcommittee for direction and feedback. At the January 25, 2018 AAC meeting, the consultant
provided an overview of the work done to-date, including project background, methodology,
situational analysis, proposed product mix and anticipated target sectors for food hub sales to
the AAC at large. At this meeting, members of the AAC provided feedback to the consultant which
was then incorporated into the next phase of work.
At the October 25, 2018 AAC meeting, the Agricultural Advisory Committee passed a resolution
supporting the Final Plan and recommended that it be forwarded to Council.
The AAC 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 be owned and operated by local farmers in
an effort to reduce the time and financial costs by processing and distributing their respective
products at one centralized location. This report provides Council with an overview of the work
that has been completed to-date and seeks direction for the AAC, as part of their 2019 Business
Plan, to explore options to build community capacity for a food hub in Maple Ridge.
“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 Paul Gill”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A – Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan
Maple Ridge Food Hub
Implementation Plan
Operational and Financial Recommendations
for a Five Year Pilot Project
October 2018
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: 35TURoaring Fork LifestyleU35T
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 MRFH Governance ................................................................................... 1
2.2 MRFH Staffing ........................................................................................ 2
2.3 MRFH Partnerships .................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 CEED Centre .................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Haney Farmers Market Society ............................................................... 4
2.4 MRFH Customers..................................................................................... 4
2.4.1 Expected Value of Weekly Orders ........................................................... 5
2.5 MRFH Members & Product Mix ..................................................................... 5
2.6 MRFH 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 MRFH Order Aggregation and Distribution ....................................................... 8
2.7.1 MRFH Site Location Criteria .................................................................. 9
2.7.2 Other Site Location Considerations......................................................... 10
2.8 MRFH Promotion .................................................................................... 10
2.8.1 Name and Logo ................................................................................ 10
2.8.2 MRFH Website ................................................................................. 11
2.8.3 Social Media.................................................................................... 11
2.8.4 Public Relations, News Releases, and Print Media ....................................... 11
v
3. Financial Considerations ............................................................................ 11
3.1 Start-up Funding ................................................................................... 11
3.2 Product Pricing ..................................................................................... 12
3.3 MRFH’s Advantages ................................................................................ 13
4. Financial Projections ................................................................................ 13
4.1 Brokerage Fee Rationale....................................................................... 13
4.1.1 Anticipated Suppliers and Sales ............................................................. 14
4.2 Income and Expense Projections ............................................................. 17
4.2.1 Variable Expenses ............................................................................. 17
4.2.2 Fixed Expenses ................................................................................ 17
4.3 Cash Flow Projection ............................................................................. 20
5. Ratios .................................................................................................. 22
6. Risk and Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................ 23
6.1 Risk Scenario 1: Lack of Start-up Capital ....................................................... 23
6.2 Risk Scenario 2: Product Sales Level Adjustments ............................................ 24
6.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Variable and Fixed Expenses in Year 1 and Year 3 ................ 25
7. Balance Sheet Summary ............................................................................. 27
8. Breakeven Analysis ................................................................................... 28
9. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 29
Appendix I ................................................................................................... II
Appendix II ................................................................................................. III
vi
Table of Tables
Table i. Summary of key features of the MRFH 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 MRFH during Years 1 - 5. 16
Table 3. Staffing wages over Years 1 - 5. 17
Table 4. Anticipated Income and Expenses Years 1 - 5. 19
Table 5. Anticipated cash flow for the MRFH pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5. 20
Table 6. Operating loan and debt repayments for the MRFH pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5. 21
Table 7. Anticipated liabilities and equity for the MRFH pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5. 21
Table 8. Anticipated financial ratios for the MRFH pilot project from Year 1 to Year 5. 22
Table 9. Risk analysis scenario with $50,000 vs. $5,000 of startup capital in Year 1. 23
Table 10. Change in brokerage fees and associated net income during Year 1 and Year 5. 24
Table 11. Sensitivity analysis for Year 1 – Variable Expenses. 25
Table 12. Sensitivity Analysis for Year 1 – Fixed Expenses 25
Table 13. Sensitivity analysis for Year 3. 26
Table 14. Summary balance sheet for the MRFH Year 1 through Year 5. 27
Table 15. Breakeven analysis for Year 1 through Year 5. 28
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 both 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
CustomersP0F
1
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
This 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 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 Plan is to develop a strategy for 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. Overhead
and operational costs would be
minimized. The Plan includes a series of
recommendations for a five-year pilot
program and presents a business case to
get the first steps underway. It builds upon
the Situational Analysis and Market
Identification Report documents that were
developed in support of the Plan.
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 to ensure that the
hub is functional:
• Governance: under what business
model will the hub operate?
• Staffing: what are the 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? What products will
customers be able to choose from?
• 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 deliveries be
coordinated?
• Marketing and Promotion: how will
the hub be advertised and how will
farm members benefit from this
promotion?
The recommendations address these
operational questions so that the
implementation of the food hub can be
undertaken right away, and will likely
require adjustments over the life of the
food hub. The recommendations should be
revisited from time to time, particularly if
targets within the associated business plan
are either not being met or are being
exceeded, and most importantly at the end
of the five year pilot program, before
additional investments are made.
2.1 MRFH 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 hubsP1F
2
P. A local
2 For example: the Cowichan Cow-Op, Sechelt Farm
Collective, and Merville Organics have followed this route
(either formally or informally).
2
champion will need to step forward to get
these first steps underway. This champion
will complete the co-operative’s
organizational paperwork and establish 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 MRFH 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 multiple 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 five years, the 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.
3
Table 1. Staffing requirements over the five year pilot project.
Job Title Role Level of
Employment Effort
Contract AmountP2F
3
Food hub
manager
Manage all day to day operations.
General organizational management.
Supplier relations.
Order coordination.
Developing relationships with
potential funders.
Overseeing and managing the budget.
0.75 FTEP3F
4
P 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
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 MRFH Partnerships
A number of Maple Ridge-based
organizations may provide partnerships
with MRFH. The Community Education on
Environment and Development (CEED)
Centre and the Haney Farmers Market
Society (HFMS) are described here,
however others may exist and naturally
emerge as the food hub gets underway.
A mutually beneficial relationship is
expected between the MRFH and 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 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 for community gardens,
school gardens, and organic farming. The
CEED Centre provides 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.
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, however the
scope and intent of a 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 MRFH 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 provides a detailed
summary of the potential demand for local
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
demographic is based on anecdotal
evidenceP4F
5
P and by spending trends noted by
the Canadian Organic Trade AssociationP5F
6
P.
In order to bolster the value of sales, the
MRFH is also expected to solicit larger
orders from medium-scale retailers in the
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.
5
region (e.g. Bruce’s, Hopcott’s). The
recommended focus is therefore 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.
2.4.1 Expected Value of Weekly Orders
A 2016 reportP6F
7
P 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)P7F
8
P. 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 higherP8F
9
P. 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 customerP9F
10
P.
The MRFH financial models are built on the
assumption that annual target sales of
$75,000P10F
11
P 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
7 Provincial Health Services Agency, 2016. Food Costing in
BC 2015.
8 Statistics Canada, 2016. Average household food
expenditure, by province (British Columbia).
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.
be at least 60 customers spending an
average of $35 a week Year 1 (see call-out
box, below), rising to over 800 customers
by Year 5. An example of a typical weekly
order, totaling $38, is provided in the call-
out box on the following page.
2.5 MRFH Members & 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
production 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
Question:
How many customers does the food
hub need to reach $75,000 of total
sales in its first year?
Answer:
60 customers spending $35 a week
over 36 weeks (about 9 months)
would amount to $75,600 in sales.
6
small and medium-scale operators can be
showcased as achieving success through
the hub it may encourage others to start
farming activities on land that is currently
unproductive or underproductive.
If the hub is challenged with membership
early on the scope of possible members
could be widened to producers in
communities such as Pitt Meadows,
Mission, and across the Fraser River into
Langley and neighboring communities. By
the end of the five year pilot project the
MRFH membership should 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 was 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 can ensure are consistently
availableP11F
12
P. Crops that farmers are already
producing will directly influence the
product mix during the first year or two,
after which the product mix will naturally
become more market driven and guide
production. This speaks to the importance
of crop planning based, in part, on sales
generated during the previous season.
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, below.
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
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
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 were 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.
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 MRFH 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
MailChimpP12F
13
P. 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 listservP13F
14
P
1. Farmers send in a list of type,
quantity, and price of products
to MRFH staff.
2. MRFH staff sends out weekly
fresh sheet lists and associated
pricing through the listserv to
customers (e.g. individuals
and/or retail buyers).
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
3. Orders are returned to MRFH
staff by a weekly deadline.
4. Follow-up/confirmation of order
is made to ensure accuracy and
confirm payment.
For example, if 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).
2.6.2 Online Software Platform for
Individual Customers
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. As per the listserv approach,
online software provides pricing flexibility
for farmers. This will allow for price
differentiation between organic and non-
organic products.
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:
ULocal Food Marketplace (LFM)UP14F
15
LFM 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.
15 Local Food Marketplace:
ULocal OrbitUP15F
16
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/CityFolkP16F
17
P research indicates
that in order 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. It is
expected that retail customers would be
small or medium-sized commercial
operations. There is an opportunity for
MRFH to sell excess products, or develop a
standing order for specific products, with
retailers in the area such as Bruce’s
Country Market and Hopcott Meats. 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
may also expect the order to be delivered
at a pre-arranged schedule.
2.7 MRFH Order Aggregation and
Distribution
Once orders are placed, operators will be
required to bring their products to a
central aggregation point on a weekly
basis. During Years 1 to 4 of the pilot
project this will ideally be located at a
16 Local Orbit
17 FarmFolk CityFolk Food Hub Report 5
9
members’ farm, with access to cold
storage. As the membership and customer
base grows, and if the financial targets are
being met, the hub would be able to plan
to move into a physical location (bricks &
mortar) once the pilot program is
completed.
Based on projected financials, a bricks &
mortar location will not likely be feasible
during the first five years of the hub’s
inceptionP17F
18
P, unless the space and all
overhead costs (e.g. hydro) are donated.
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.
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 HFM; the CEED
Centre; or a local or regional retailer. 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.
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.
2.7.1 MRFH 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 alsoP18F
19
P:
• 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.
It is important to note that the Agricultural
Land Commission’s regulations and
policiesP19F
20
P 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-
19 The bricks & mortar criteria should also be re-considered
once the five year pilot project is completed successfully
20 ALR Regulations & ALR Policies
10
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
bylawP20F
21
P and would therefore require a text
amendment or re-zoning application if it
were to be located on an Agriculture-zoned
parcel. It is important to note that there
may be a fee associated with this re-zoning
process. Primary processing, warehouses,
and wholesale use are permitted, but only
in certain zones (e.g. Service Industrial
zone M1) and Business Park zone (M3)).
Locating the food hub outside of the ALR or
the Agricultural zones and directing it
towards Industrial or Business Park
(Commercial) zones is likely to create a
simpler business licencing and permitting
process. 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
21 City of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw. Agriculture zones are
A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5.
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.
2.8 MRFH 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 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
MRFH 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
11
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 MRFH 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 farm members, 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.
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
12
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).
3.2 Product Pricing
While the marketplace effectively
establishes final pricing, the right
brokerage fee (see definition in the call
out box on the following page) set by the
MRFH will 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 feeP21F
22
P.
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 ensure
that farmer members understand where
and how the brokerage fees are being
used. The manager will also need to track
and evaluate customer response to pricing.
The price that the farmer decides to set
will depend on a number of factors, and
may vary week-to-week. Factors include:
• Whether the product is certified
organic;
• 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
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.
13
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 MRFH’s Advantages
Product suppliers will be able to 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, 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 farm members to save
time by accessing an 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
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
spinach is being sold by the hub for
$4.00 a bunch, 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
for income, expense and cash flow, the
following ratio is used:
This ratio between brokerage fees is
maintained, for example 20% of brokerage
fees is equivalent 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 benchmarksP22F
23
P for
small-scale fruit and vegetable growers
(see Figure 1, p16). The data represented
in Figure 1 incorporates a 25% 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.
23 Government of Canada. 2015. Industry Canada: Financial
Performance Data by Industry.
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 MRFH Situational Analysis
indicated that the average annual farm
sales (gross farm receipts) per hectare in
Maple Ridge was $27,579 (or $11,000 per
acre) in 2015P23F
24
P. 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.
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 in
Figure 1, 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
24 Census of Agriculture, 2016. Land in crops excluding
Christmas trees.
100% of brokerage fees is
equivalent to 25% of product sales
15
through the MRFH. It is also expected that
some farm members would still maintain a
portion of sales avenues through the HFM,
farm gate stands, and small retailers.
Agri-business guidebooks published by the
BC Ministry of Agriculture in 1995 suggested
that 1.25 ha (3 acres) of vegetable
production could generate over $45,000 in
direct market sales, or $36,000/ha (gross
revenue) in 1995 dollars.
This is equivalent to $68,500 direct market
sales or $54,800/ha, in 2018 dollars.
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 per year.
Notes:
BC Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and
Food. Direct Farm Market Guide, 1995.
16
Figure 1. Industry Canada benchmarks for small-scale fruit and vegetable farm operations when a 25% brokerage
fee is applied.
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
-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
Legend
17
4.2 Income and Expense
Projections
The following discussion presents the
income and expense projections and the
cash flow projections 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 Fixed Expenses
Wages are the main component of the
$50,000 annual fixed expenses in the first 3
years (Table 3). Other fixed expenses are
explained in the following page and are
listed in Table 4 (Lines #7 – #18)P24F
25
P.
Table 3. 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
25 Note that corporate income taxes are not considered as
the assumption is that the hub will initially be a non-profit
organization.
18
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. 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.
• 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 (following page) 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.
19
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). Loan
repayments 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
21
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
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
22
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 ratio: 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%
23
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
24
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 brokerage fees - Year 5
%
Change
in Fees
Brokerage
Fees
Net
Income
$
DSCRP25F
26
P
%
%
Change
Net
Income
%
Change
in Fees
Brokerage
Fees
Net
Income
$
DSCR % %
Change
Net
Income
-50 9,375 -44,906 -6,094 16% -50 131,250 -33,910 -85,313 -166%
-40 11,250 -43,688 -4,875 13% -40 157,500 -16,848 -68,250 -133%
-30 13,125 -42,469 -3,656 9% -30 183,750 215 -51,188 -100%
-20 15,000 -41,250 -2,438 6% -20 210,000 17,277 -34,125 -66%
0 18,750 -38,813 0 0% 0 262,500 51,402 0 0%
20 22,500 -36,375 2,438 -6% 20 315,000 85,527 34,125 66%
30 24,375 -35,156 3,656 -9% 30 341,250 102,590 51,188 100%
40 26,250 -33,938 4,875 -13% 40 367,500 119,652 68,250 133%
50 28,125 -32,719 6,094 -16% 50 393,750 136,715 85,313 166%
26 DSCR is the Debt Service Coverage Ratio, which refers to the amount of cash flow available to pay debt obligations.
25
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%
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%
26
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 13).
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%
27
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
28
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
29
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 expand 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.
II
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
III
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
Doc # 2089626 Page 1 of 1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: November 27, 2018
and Members of Council FILE NO: Doc # 2089626
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Social Media & Communications
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Maple Ridge seeks to engage citizens through a variety of channels. In 2011, the City
established Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and You Tube accounts to support community engagement
with citizens.
In conjunction with the launch of the social media channels, the City established the Social Media
Policy 30.10 (Attached) to guide our interactions and assign roles and responsibilities for the
management of these tools.
The largest social media site is the City’s Facebook page, which is followed and ‘liked’ by over 8500
citizens. The City leverages social media assets to direct citizens to our largest digital engagement
asset, the City website, at mapleridge.ca for more detailed information on important topics.
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the City’s Social Media Policy and practices around
managing our digital interactions.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information [no recommendation].
“Original signed by Fred Armstrong”
Prepared by: Fred Armstrong
Manager Community Engagement & Relations
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Kelly Swift, MBA
General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
Concurrence: Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
(A) City of Maple Ridge Social Media Policy 30.10
4.3
Page 1 of 6 Policy 30.10 (Rev. 2)
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Social Media
Policy No: 30.10 (Rev. 2)
Supersedes:
Social Media 30.10 (Nov. 16, 2012)
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date: October 31, 2014
Review Date: 2016
Background Statement:
The City of Maple Ridge seeks to engage citizens and provide information through a variety of
communications media. The City understands that Social Media, in its many forms, has become a
common form of engagement and communication for citizens to interact with the City.
The term ‘Social Media’ describes the use of Internet-based communications tools that focus on
interactivity, immediacy, user participation and information sharing in multiple ways.
The launch of the City of Maple Ridge website, www.mapleridge.ca, and the growing use of email has
accelerated the pace of interaction for citizens, elected representatives and staff of the City. In the last
decade a number of platforms have been developed creating online digital communities where
participants share information. In addition, the growth of search engine technology has dramatically
changed how Internet users locate information.
By participating in Social Media conversations, the City can reach out to citizens who are active on
various platforms. By adding Social Media to the communications tools used by the City we can
improve the quality of service to citizens by increasing the transparency of operations and the
immediacy of responses to questions, requests and comments. Social Media also offers the delivery of
time sensitive information as quickly as possible (i.e. Emergency communications).
This Policy seeks to define the best practices in the hosting of Social Media sites and managing the
interaction with the community.
Purpose:
This Policy applies to City employees with regard to their participation in City Social Media sites or any
Social Media conversation related to the business of the City of Maple Ridge, or to the professional
portfolio of the employee. It also sets out guidelines for hosting of discussion forums on City sites.
Key Principles:
a. Respect for our citizens’ privacy and rights;
b. The City will keep the interactions factual;
c. The City will be transparent, open and objective in our interactions;
Page 2 of 6 Policy 30.10 (Rev. 2)
d. The City will provide links to credible and more detailed sources of information to support our
interactions when possible;
e. The City will publicly correct any information that we have communicated that is later found to
be in error, and do so in a way that acknowledges the error;
f. The City will be forthright about our relationships, opinions and identity;
g. The City will respect the rules of the Social Media venue (i.e. Facebook terms of use, Twitter
terms of use, etc.)
h. The City will protect privacy and permissions and move interactions off line to ensure the
privacy and confidentiality of citizens;
i. When the City moderates interactions, a poster’s opinion will be respected and accepted
regardless of whether it is positive or negative, provided that the opinion is ‘on topic’ and not
offensive, denigrating, or out of context;
j. Employees of the City will conduct themselves, at all times, in accordance with all City policies.
Interaction on City Social Media sites will be considered as conducting City business.
Employees found in violation of this Policy may be subject to disciplinary action;
k. The City reserves the right to restrict or remove any content or users deemed in violation of this
Policy or any applicable law.
Harmonizing Social Media Activity With Other Communications Channels:
The City of Maple Ridge website, www.mapleridge.ca, will remain the City’s primary and predominant
Internet presence.
Content provided to the Social Media Site Administrator should, when possible, refer users to links at
www.mapleridge.ca so that the public can access detailed information, relevant forms and other
documents related to the post. Content on Social Media posts should be consistent with information
provided through other communications channels such as print advertising, media releases or
publications available to the public. Links and content from external sources will, as much as possible,
be aggregated to the City website.
City Social Media Site Postings
Postings will consist of communications that support the City’s Vision, Mission, Value Statements and
Strategic Goals. Social Media sites may be used for:
a. Announcements, such as community or public events organized by the City or partner
organizations, and engagement not subject to legal processes as defined by the Municipal Act
(e.g. the Public Hearing process);
b. Links to information or media releases relating to programs and initiatives of the City;
c. Photo or video galleries of community events or gatherings;
d. Information on volunteer opportunities and programs from partner organizations of the City;
e. Links to career postings for employment at the City;
f. Public safety information from the RCMP, Maple Ridge Fire Department or Emergency
Operations personnel as approved by Site Administrators;
Page 3 of 6 Policy 30.10 (Rev. 2)
Social Media sites will not be used for:
a. Personal postings by employees. Employees communicating through City Social Media sites
will do so only in their official capacity. Further, when employees intervene on external Social
Media sites with regard to either professional or City issues, they are expected to identify their
connection and position with the City.
b. Hosting of conversations relating to issues that will be dealt with through public hearings or
other official consultations. These processes are subject to specific legislative processes and
have statutory conditions and obligations.
c. Platforms for campaigning during local, provincial or national elections or referendums.
Postings by elected officials, prospective or declared candidates or their supporters will be
removed immediately for the period of 60 days prior to the relevant election.
The City will post ‘Terms of Use Statements’ on each of its Social Media sites to ensure the content
guidelines described above are clearly understood (see section title ‘Comments’ for the Terms of use
Statement content).
The Social Media Site Administrator and Social Media Moderators may disclose titles and roles within
the City, as well as ‘official’ contact information such as City telephone numbers and email addresses,
as is the practice in media releases and print advertising. Personal contact information for City staff
will never be posted on Social Media sites.
Posters must understand that any comment posted online is permanently available to the public and
open to being reposted or published in other media. Personal privacy, libel, copyright and private-
sector data protection laws apply.
If an error is made on a post, accurate information will be reposted by a Social Media Site
Administrator or Social Media Moderator as quickly as possible with an acknowledgment of the error. It
is critical that City interactions are transparent and honest. Using the term ‘UPDATE’ or ‘REVISED’ in
front of a re-post, as well as a comment post to indicate that information has been updated is a
respectful and ‘best practice’ for interacting with the public.
Employees who have more than one identity on Social Media sites (i.e. a ‘work’ identity and a
‘personal’ identity) must understand that they are bound by their obligations of confidentiality and
accountability for ALL comments made in Social Media, not just those made on ‘official’ City Social
Media outlets. All employees should be aware that personal comments may be misinterpreted as
official City comments and therefore use social media responsibly.
Comments
Please note: This section of the Policy, up to and including point ‘l’ will serve as the Terms of Use
Statement for City Social Media Sites.
Comments on the City’s Social Media site posts are welcome. The Social Media Site Administrator
monitors all posts.
The Social Media Site Administrator or Social Media Moderators will respond to comments as quickly
as possible.
Page 4 of 6 Policy 30.10 (Rev. 2)
Comments or Posts containing the following forms of content will be reviewed and may be removed at
the discretion of the Social Media Site Administrator or Moderators:
a. Comments not topically related;
b. Profane language or content;
c. Content that violates the City of Maple Ridge Respectful Workplace Policy No. 30.11 or
violates the British Columbia Human Rights Code;
d. Sexual content or links to sexual content;
e. Solicitations of commerce unrelated to the work of the City or partner organizations;
f. Repetitive or multiple postings by the same user;
g. Conduct or encouragement of illegal activity;
h. Information that may compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems;
i. Content that violates the legal ownership interest of any other party;
j. Comments that contain insults or disparaging comments about the general public, other
posters, City staff or Council members;
k. Content that violates our Public Hearing rules or other official consultations that are part of
defined legislative processes;
l. Comments that cannot be attributed to an individual, where the identity of the person writing
the post is obscured or unclear.
If a discussion is moved off the Social Media site due to privacy matters, a subsequent post will be
made to inform others that the matter has been dealt with.
Posts in violation of this Policy will be retained by the City in hard copy along with a description of the
specific reason that the content was removed, and:
Posters making the offending post will be contacted and given the reason(s) for the removal of
the post and the Poster will be reminded of the site Terms of Use;
Posters making more than two posts that are removed based on the criteria described in this
Policy may be permanently banned from interacting on any or all City Social Media sites;
Posters that are banned from City Social Media sites will be contacted and given the specific
reasons for their removal from interaction on City sites.
Post threads relating to service delivery questions or issues of concern to citizens should be brought to
the attention of the Social Media Site Administrator, General Manager and Director as quickly as
possible for review to determine if any action needs to be taken.
Facebook Friend Requests within the City
Senior staff should be aware that other employees may feel uncomfortable if they are approached with
a ‘Facebook Friend’ request from a Supervisor, Manager, Director, General Manager or the Chief
Administrative Officer. As a matter of policy, managers will not send ‘Facebook Friend requests’ to
employees or employee’s families. Employees are free to send ‘Friend Requests’ to their managers,
who are then free to accept or decline the requests as they see fit.
Definitions:
City means the City of Maple Ridge.
Employees means the employees of the City of Maple Ridge.
Page 5 of 6 Policy 30.10 (Rev. 2)
Partner Organization refers to groups whose work is funded in whole or in part by the City of Maple
Ridge or groups that work under the umbrella of the Community Festival Network.
Post means the term used to describe a message that placed on a Social Media site.
Posters means anyone who places text on the City’s Social Media sites.
Social Media means Internet and mobile-based tools used for sharing and discussing information,
including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Social Media describes the convergence of
telecommunications, computing and social interaction to allow people to interact and share their
opinions, photographs, videos and links to material from a wide variety of sources. The broad
definition of Social Media currently includes message boards, blogs, video posting sites, photo posting
sites, social networks, forums and online customer chat sites.
Social Media Sites used by the City of Maple Ridge currently include Facebook, Twitter, Google+,
Instagram and YouTube.
Social Media Site Administrator means the individual responsible for the oversight of the City’s Social
media policy and is designated approve the posting of material on the City’s Social Media sites.
Social Media Moderators means the employees of the City of Maple Ridge who have been appointed
to speak on behalf of the City and post content on the City’s Social Media sites. The Social Media
Moderators will be identified as ‘organizational’ users on Social Media sites making it clear that they
are speaking on behalf of the City.
Staff means an employee of the City of Maple Ridge.
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
Responsibility
1. Users of the City’s Social Media sites will be provided with
training to ensure compliance with and adhere to:
a. All applicable federal and provincial laws, regulations and
policies including copyright and privacy provisions;
b. The Terms of Use posted on each of the City’s Social
Media sites;
c. City policies and guidelines;
d. Observation of the City’s Information Technology security
protocols in all Social Media interactions.
All Staff
All Staff
All Staff
All Staff
2. Establish corporate standards for online communication on
Social Media.
By This Policy
3. Understand and adhere to the City’s Social Media Policy. All Staff
4. Assignment of a Social Media Site Administrator to speak on
behalf of the City of Maple Ridge and train and manage the
team of Social Media Moderators.
CAO
5. Assignment of Social Media Moderators to assist in the
monitoring of City Social Media Sites and make posts and
respond to enquiries consistent with this Policy.
Social Media Site Administrator
Page 6 of 6 Policy 30.10 (Rev. 2)
6. Coordinate training sessions for Social Media Moderators and
other related employees on use of the City’s Social Media
sites.
Social Media Site Administrator
7. Ensure that all employees using the City’s Social Media sites
are aware of this Policy.
Human Resources
8. Approval of all content that will be put on City Social Media
sites including posts, photos, video and links.
Social Media Site Administrator
or designates
9. Monitor feedback and participation on Social Media sites, and
respond to posts in a timely and appropriate manner in
accordance with this Policy.
Social Media Site Administrator
Social Media Moderators
10. Maintaining the security of the City’s Social Media tools with
respect to login information and passwords, proprietary
information, content and confidentiality in accordance with
policies set out by the City Information Technology
department.
Information Technology Director
11. Imbed Terms of Use statements, which outline the terms of
use as noted in this Policy, on all Social Media sites.
Social Media Site Administrator
12. Imbed contact information for the City, and ensure this
information is prominently displayed at all times on all City
Social Media sites.
Social Media Site Administrator
Social Media Moderators
13. Daily review of the City’s Social Media sites (a minimum of
once a day) to ensure that posts are in compliance with this
Policy.
Social Media Site Administrator
Social Media Moderators
14. Posting to the City’s Social Media Sites. As much as possible,
the Social Media Moderator who has the greatest knowledge
of a topic.
Social Media Site Administrator
Social Media Moderators
15. Approval of surveys or solicitations for input from the public on
non-legislative issues.
Social Media Site Administrator
16. Contact of Posters who have had posts removed from City
Social Media sites.
Social Media Site Administrator
17. Decision making for Posters who will be banned from
interacting on City Social Media Sites.
Social Media Site Administrator
18. Contact of Posters who are banned from interacting on City
Social Media sites.
Social Media Site Administrator
19. Retain hard copies of offending posts. Social Media Site Administrator
05-1855-20 Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: November 27, 2018
and Members of Council FILE NO: 05-1855-20
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: TransLink Major Road Network Expansion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Upon its creation by the Province in 1998, TransLink has assumed many of the transportation
responsibilities previously held by the provincial government in Metro Vancouver (the Region). In
addition to the various transit modes, TransLink has oversight of the Major Road Network (MRN) that
when instituted in 1998 included over 600 kilometres (or 2,370 lane-kilometres) of major arterial
roadways to promote the efficient movement of people and goods across the Region. TransLink
provides funding for the on-going operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of the MRN roadways as
well as capital funding and the municipalities are required to maintain the MRN roads at established
performance levels.
In Maple Ridge, 69 lane-kilometres of roadways are currently designated in the MRN, namely
Dewdney Trunk Road (200 Street to 232 Street); 232 Street (Dewdney Trunk Road to 132 Avenue;
128 Avenue (210 Street to 224 Street); Abernethy Way (224 Street to 232 Street); Fern Crescent
(232 Street to Golden Ears Park) and Lougheed Highway (222 Street to Kanaka Way).
Phase One of the approved Mayors Vision includes a 10% expansion of the MRN for the whole
Region. In early 2018 TransLink initiated a review of the MRN and municipalities had the
opportunity to submit requests of candidate roads to be considered for inclusion in the expanded
MRN.
Through the evaluation process the candidate roads submitted by Maple Ridge were ranked highly
relative to other candidates across the Region resulting in an additional 18.96 lane-kilometres being
recommended for inclusion into the MRN, an increase of approximately 8% which is in the top two
largest increases in the Region.
The proposed MRN Expansion recommendations will be brought forward to TransLink’s December
Board Meeting for consideration. The supported locations in Maple Ridge are 240 Street (Lougheed
Highway to Dewdney Trunk Road); Dewdney Trunk Road (232 Street to 240 Street); 132 Avenue
(Sharpe Road to 210 Street); 210 Street (128 Avenue to 132 Avenue). A map is appended to this
report for reference. Inclusion of these roadways into the MRN will result in additional annual
funding of $391,000 for the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of roads. The allocated
funding for capital works will also increase, but the value is not confirmed at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only (No motion required).
4.4
05-1855-20 Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The Province created TransLink in 1998 to assume responsibility for the majority of the
transportation network across Metro Vancouver including transit buses, Skytrain, Seabus
and the West Coast Express. TransLink also oversees the Major Road Network, over 600
kilometres (2,370 lane-kilometres) of major arterial roadways.
In Maple Ridge, 69 lane-kilometres of roadways are currently designated in the MRN, namely
Dewdney Trunk Road (200 Street to 232 Street); 232 Street (Dewdney Trunk Road to 132
Avenue; 128 Avenue (210 Street to 224 Street); Abernethy Way (224 Street to 232 Street)
and Lougheed Highway (222 Street to Kanaka Way).
Approval of the Mayors Vision 10-Year Plan included amongst other initiatives, a 10%
increase in the MRN for the whole Region. In consultation with municipalities, in early 2018
TransLink compiled a list of potential candidate roads that were then evaluated based upon
a suite of performance criteria. The roadways put forth by Maple Ridge were highly ranked
relative to other locations throughout the Region and as a result an additional 18.96 lane-
kilometres of roads in Maple Ridge are being recommended for inclusion into the MRN, an
increase of approximately 8% which is in the top two largest increases in the Region.
The proposed MRN Expansion recommendations will be brought forward to TransLink’s
December Board Meeting for consideration. The supported locations in Maple Ridge are 240
Street (Lougheed Highway to Dewdney Trunk Road); Dewdney Trunk Road (232 Street to 240
Street); 132 Avenue (Sharpe Road to 210 Street); 210 Street (128 Avenue to 132 Avenue).
A map is appended to this report for reference.
Inclusion of these roadways into the MRN will result in additional funds from TransLink for
the maintenance of the roads and for capital improvements, as outlined later in this report.
The expansion of Golden Ears Way to four lanes between Lougheed Highway and 210 Street
has become more pressing since the removal of the tolls on the Golden Ears Bridge. The City
will continue to lobby TransLink to address this network limitation.
b) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The expansion of the MRN recognizes the ongoing growth in Maple Ridge and the
accompanying additional funding will assist in the facility upgrades and maintenance to
improve capacity on these major corridors.
c) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Engineering and Operations Departments work closely to identify candidate projects for
capital improvements and Operations undertake all maintenance on the MRN roadways.
05-1855-20 Page 3 of 3
d) Business Plans / Financial Implications:
The Mayors Vision includes increased levels of funding dedicated to the MRN. The City
receives an annual allocation of funds specifically for capital projects as well as funding per
lane-kilometre for operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of the MRN. For 2018 the
capital funding allocation was $1,230,000 and the total maintenance funding was
$1,430,000.
The expansion of the MRN will increase these funds for operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation by approximately $391,000. The funding allocation for capital construction will
also increase but the actual amount has not been determined yet.
CONCLUSION:
The City receives funding from TransLink for capital improvements and maintenance of MRN
roadways. The expansion of the MRN, as identified in the Mayors Vision recognizes the continued
growth of the municipality and will include additional roadways in Maple Ridge being incorporated
into the MRN, and will provide additional funding for MRN roadways within the City.
“Original signed by David Pollock”
Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
General Manager Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
Concurrence: Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
(A) Map of Major Road Network and Proposed Additions
Doc # 2081228 Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: 2018-11-27
and Members of Council DOC NO: 2081228
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Ale Trail Initiative
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Consistent with the Tourism Strategy and the Cultural Plan, the City of Maple Ridge will participate
with Maple Ridge micro-breweries and interested pubs and restaurants in the Ale Trail initiative. The
goal of this co-op marketing program is to stimulate increased visitation and spending and to
develop various itineraries featuring destinations such as cafes, hiking and cycling trails, sightseeing
opportunities, arts and culture activities, overnight accommodations and more for a uniquely Maple
Ridge experience.
The Destination BC Ale Trail Program currently features 17 Ale Trails including, for example, Port
Moody, Squamish and Kelowna, and these communities are experiencing economic benefits through
pairing urban culinary experiences with an opportunity to discover BC’s spectacular wilderness and
scenery and a wide range of indoor and outdoor activities.
The Ale Trail program is supported by Destination BC and the BC Craft Brewers Guild and has solid
local support from Maple Ridge micro-breweries and various pubs. In order to meet the submission
program deadline of November 30, 2018 for next year’s participation, staff submitted a n initial
application for matching funding from Destination B.C.
A key activity to kick off the Maple Ridge Ale Trail will be a program launch, which will offer an
opportunity for both the City and the Province to showcase Maple Ridge as a global destination for
all-season tangible engagement with our unique and diverse culture, abundant agricultural tourism
options, vibrant urban cultural hub and new and emerging businesses. This launch event will be
planned in collaboration with community partners and the Mayor’s office.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provided for Information
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
With a number of wonderful local breweries already well-established in our area and a new
brewery proposed, it is important and timely that we support this industry so that it can
continue to grow, entice visitors and bring economic growth while supporting local spending,
local jobs and products. Provincially, the craft brewing industry is booming with 150 craft
breweries and new operations opening at an unprecedented rate.
4.6
Doc # 2081228 Page 2 of 3
The following craft beer establishments have collaborated with the City to research the BC
Ale Trail initiative and pledge support of the application for provincial funding: Silver Valley
Brewing Company, Maple Meadows Brewery Company, Ridge Brewing Company, Foamer’s
Folly Brewing Company, Kingfishers Waterfront Bar and Grill, Black Sheep Pub and Grill and
The Reach Neighbourhood Pub and Grill. Additional support has been provided by the BC
Craft Brewers Guild and the Destination BC Co-Operative Marketing Program.
The Maple Ridge Ale Trail planning marketing campaign will produce a number of positive
outcomes, including the development of branding and key messages from tourism marketing
experts that could be widely used to promote Maple Ridge. Other benefits would include:
- An increase in visitor repeat visits and positive and compelling experiences for both
tourists and local residents.
- The development of promotional materials (e.g. video and curated tour and overall Maple
Ridge campaign).
- The growth of strong connections between local businesses, the economy, community
identity, agri-tourism and farm to table experiences at local restaurants and pubs.
- An opportunity to showcase our local craft brewery industry through connecting world-
class products to excellent brew production and local experiences.
The Ale Trail has been successfully implemented in 17 communities including Victoria,
Whistler, Richmond, Surrey and Port Moody. Council may wish to view the on-line marketing
at www.bcaletrail.ca. Appendix 1 provides a sample itinerary.
b) Interdepartmental Implications:
The City has a supporting and guiding role in the development and direction of the Maple
Ridge Ale Trail marketing campaign. While the content is managed, curated and marketed by
the BC Ale Trail team without impacting City staff resources, there is an opportunity to
amplify the marketing campaign through the City website and social media channels.
c) Policy Implications:
The City’s participation in the BC Ale Trail marketing campaign works, both directly and
indirectly, to support strategic objectives in the Maple Ridge Tourism Strategy and to support
economic development and economic diversity through promoting new and emerging
businesses and through showcasing the City of Maple Ridge’s unique features. – Maple
Ridge Five-Year Tourism Strategy, December 2017.
d) Alternatives:
Should the community choose to not endorse participation in the BC Ale Trail campaign, the
City of Maple Ridge would no longer be a consortium partner of the Maple Ridge Ale Trail and
the City and participating business partners would have an opportunity to re-apply in
November 2019.
e) Financial Considerations:
The City, as a consortium partner, would be expected to provide some financial and in -kind
support in order to be eligible for greater matching support provided from the Destination BC
Funding Program. The City’s share of funding is estimated to be $5,000 and is available in
the tourism budget. As the program becomes established and other partners come on
board in future years, it is anticipated that City funding will be diminished and no longer
required. The chart below provides a breakdown of participant funding in the first year.
Doc # 2081228 Page 3 of 3
Ale Trail Funding Allocations:
Funding Partners: 1st year start-up cost
Maple Ridge Businesses
Micro-Brewers $3,000.00
Pubs $2,000.00
City of Maple Ridge $5,000.00
Destination BC $10,000.00
Total Funding $20,000.00
CONCLUSION:
The Maple Ridge Ale Trail marketing initiative would support broader economic development
mandates and enhance opportunities for local employment, entrepreneurship and community-driven
tourism.
Prepared by: Kathryn Baird
Tourism Coordinator Economic Development and Civic Property
Approved by: Lino Siracusa, BA, MBA
Director Economic Development and Civic Property
Concurrence: Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
(1)Sample ale trail itinerary
"Original signed by Kathryn Baird"
"Original signed by Lino Siracusa"
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
www.ubcm.ca
MEMO TO MEMBERS
November 19, 2018
TO: UBCM MEMBERS
Attn: Elected Officials of Member Local Governments and First Nations
FROM: UBCM EXECUTIVE
RE: NOTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE VACANCIES
The purpose of this memo is to notify members of the direction taken by the Executive at their
meeting on November 16, 2018 with regards to Executive vacancies as a result of the 2018
Local Government Elections.
At the meeting, Executive members were advised of five vacancies, and the process for filling
those vacancies in accordance with the UBCM Bylaws and Policies:
• Second Vice President * – Executive CANNOT appoint a Vice President, but may ask a
sitting VP to move up and fill a vacancy; and Executive has the further option of appointing
an additional “acting” Director at Large to ensure a full board complement of 21 members.
• Director at Large (1) – Executive may appoint an eligible elected official.
• Vancouver Metro Area Representative (1) – Executive may appoint an eligible elected
official.
• City of Vancouver Representative – City of Vancouver has made its re-appointment;
Councillor Pete Fry.
• GVRD/Metro Vancouver Representative – Metro will make a re-appointment; that process
is underway.
The UBCM Bylaws and Policies, grant the Executive discretion on whether or not to fill
vacancies (see Appendix A for extracts of both documents). Upon consideration of the
Bylaws and Policies the Executive endorsed the following direction:
• Executive proceed to notify the membership of the vacancies on the Executive and seek
expressions of interest for each of these positions:
!Director at Large – 2 positions are available, to ensure a full board complement of
21 members
!Vancouver Metro Area Representative – 1 position available
• Executive agreed that the three vacancies should be filled prior to the next Executive
meeting scheduled for February 20-22, 2019.
*In accordance with the Bylaws, Third VP, Councillor Brian Frenkel has moved to Second
VP as a result of the vacancy left in this position.
5.1
www.ubcm.ca
Next Steps
This memo serves as notification to the membership that the UBCM Executive wishes to fill
vacancies for:
• Director at Large (2);
• Vancouver Metro Area Representative (1)
The process for filling vacancies will follow the process outlined in s. 9.5 of the Executive
Policies.
Eligibility for Office
Director At Large (2) – this position is open to all elected officials of UBCM.
Vancouver Metro Area Representative (1) – this position is open to elected members of either,
or both, a council of a member municipality of the GVRD or of the GVRD Board (a list of
eligible local governments is attached as Appendix B).
Process
Eligible elected officials interested in applying for either of these positions are encouraged to
submit an expression of interest for one of these vacancies, as outlined in s. 9.5 of the
Executive Policies. We would ask that potential candidates complete the attached nomination
form (Appendix C) and return it by email to the attention of the Past President. Candidates are
also encouraged to provide a short bio (not more than 300 words) with their nomination
form. All materials can be sent to the attention of Past President, Councillor Murry Krause,
care of the following email address: mcrawford@ubcm.ca
The submission deadline for expressions of interest (nomination form and bio) is:
Friday December 14, 2018.
The Executive will consider all expressions of interest and make a decision regarding whom
they will appoint to fill these three vacancies.
Following Executive deliberations, all members will be notified of the Executive’s decision.
Newly appointed board members will be invited to attend the February 20-22, 2019
Executive meeting in Victoria.
If you have any questions about the process please contact Councillor Murry Krause,
Past President at murry_krause@telus.net or Marie Crawford, General Manager, Richmond
Operations at 604-270-8226 ext. 104 or by email: mcrawford@ubcm.ca.
We welcome eligible interested candidates to apply. For further information about UBCM
and the Executive please see the UBCM website.
http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/main/about/executive/executive-members.html
www.ubcm.ca
APPENDIX A
EXTRACTS FROM THE UBCM BYLAWS AND EXECUTIVE POLICIES
UBCM Bylaws
Section 2 of the UBCM Bylaws provides the following definition for officers:
2. The Officers of the Union shall be: President, First Vice-President, Second Vice-
President, and Third Vice-President.
Section 3(d) speaks to filling vacancies: (bold italics indicate relevant sections)
(d) No person shall hold a position as Officer of the Union unless elected as an Officer
by the membership of the Union and no person shall be elected more than twice,
whether consecutively or otherwise, as President of the Union. …
In the event of a vacancy:
• amongst the Officers, other than President, the Executive may appoint, from
amongst persons qualified to be elected to the Executive, Acting Directors at
Large equal to the number of vacancies;
• amongst the Directors at Large, the Small Community Representative, the
Electoral Area Representative, or the Vancouver Metro Area Representatives,
the Executive may appoint a person qualified to hold the office to fill the
position for the term remaining;
• in the position of Vancouver Representative, GVRD Representative or amongst
the five Directors appointed by the Area Associations such vacancies shall be
filled in the manner of the original appointment.
Executive Policies
Section 9.5 of the Executive Policies outlines the process for appointing replacements:
9.5 VACANCIES ON THE EXECUTIVE
If one or more Executive positions become vacant following a local government election, the
Executive is authorized to appoint a replacement according to the following process.
1. UBCM shall notify local governments of any vacancy on the UBCM Executive and
distribute information about the process for appointing a replacement. The Executive shall
invite expressions of interest from local government elected officials who wish to fill the
vacant position(s).
2. An expression of interest must be supported by two elected officials from UBCM member
local governments.
3. An interested candidate may submit an expression of interest for one position only.
4. Expressions of interest shall be forwarded to the Past President, care of the UBCM office.
The Past President will prepare a report for the Executive on the materials received.
www.ubcm.ca
APPENDIX B
Vancouver Metro Area Representative – List of Eligible Members
Anmore
Belcarra
Bowen Island
Burnaby
Coquitlam
Delta
Electoral Area A (Metro Vancouver)
Langley City
Langley Township
Lions Bay
Maple Ridge
New Westminster
North Vancouver City
North Vancouver District
Pitt Meadows
Port Coquitlam
Port Moody
Richmond
Surrey
Tsawwassen First Nation
Vancouver
West Vancouver
White Rock
www.ubcm.ca
APPENDIX C
1NOMINATIONS FOR THE 2018/2019 UBCM EXECUTIVE
We are qualified under the UBCM Bylaws to nominate1 a candidate and we nominate:
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________
Position: (Mayor/Chief/Councillor/Director): _________________________________________________
Mun/RD/First Nation represented: _________________________________________________________
Nominated for (pick one only): __ Director At Large __ Vancouver Metro Area Representative
NOMINATED BY:
Name: ____________________________________ Name: ___________________________________
Elected Position: ___________________________ Elected Position: ___________________________
Mun/RD/First Nation: _______________________ Mun/RD/First Nation: _______________________
Signature: _________________________________ Signature: _________________________________
Date: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________________________
CONSENT FORM
I consent to this nomination and attest that I am qualified to be a candidate for the office I have
been nominated to pursuant to the UBCM Bylaws2.
CANDIDATE:
Name: ____________________________________ Elected Position: ___________________________
Mun/RD/First Nation: ____________________________________________________________________
Nominated for (pick one only): __ Director At Large __ Vancouver Metro Area Representative
Signature: _________________________________ Date: ____________________________________
Submission Deadline: December 14, 2018
1 Nominations require two elected officials of members of the Union [Bylaw 4(b)].
2 All nominees to the Executive shall be elected representatives of a member of the Union [Bylaw 3(c)].
Nominees for Electoral Area Representative, Small Community Representative and Vancouver Metro Area
Representative must hold the appropriate office.
1815/60/June 2018CC /Nomination Form
5.2