2016/03/07 · regular meeting of council agenda . march 7, 2016 . a . regular meeting of council....

Regular Meeting of Council

Agenda March 7, 2016

A Regular Meeting of Council will be held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall at 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C.

Commencing at 1:00 p.m. for Committee of the Whole

Immediately followed by a Closed Council meeting

Reconvening at 7:00 p.m. for Regular Council proceedings

1. CALL TO ORDER (1:00 P.M.)

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

3. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

4. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

(a) WIND Mobile telecommunication network launch in Mission

This report is to advise Council of the launch of the WIND Mobile telecommunication network in Mission, and that Staff are in receipt of two wireless telecommunication tower applications (TEL16-001 and TEL16-002) from Cypress Land Service Incorporated on behalf of WIND Mobile to construct freestanding telecommunications towers in Mission at two locations: 32086 Lougheed Highway and 8294 Cedar Street.

A third rooftop telecommunications structure is part of the proposed network. It does not require consultation as per LAN.46, given the proposed tower height to be installed on top of the building is less than 3.0 metres (9.8 ft).

The applications are the first of a series of proposals aimed at launching the provider’s telecommunications wireless network service in the municipality.

Page 9

1

Regular Council Agenda March 7, 2016

(b) Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Tower in Steelhead

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That application TEL15-001 for a proposed telecommunications wireless tower west of Dewdney Trunk Road in the Steelhead area, as described in the report from the Planner dated March 7, 2016, be supported subject to the conditions outlined by the District’s Forestry, Engineering and Emergency Services Departments; and

2. That once these conditions have been satisfied, staff be directed to forward the District’s “concurrence” with the proposal to Industry Canada.

Page 15

(c) Rezoning R15-028 and Street Naming for a 3-lot rural residential development

This report details the rezoning and street naming applications related to the development of the property located at 11445 Wilson Street and identifies the necessary bylaw amendments.

Staff support the applications moving forward and as such have listed the Zoning Amending Bylaw and the Street Naming Bylaw under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council agenda.

Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for March 21, 2016.

Page 72

(d) Rescind Readings to Zoning Amending Bylaw 5464-2014-5050(157) for the Property Located at 7680 Strachan Street

This report brings forward the rezoning application to rezone the property located at 7680 Strachan Street to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into two (2) lots and identifies the property owner’s request to withdraw their application and the need for Council to rescind 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings to the Zoning Amending Bylaw 5464-2014-5050(157).

The matter has been listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

Page 87

5. CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

(a) Quarterly Financial Reporting – December 31, 2015

This report is to brief Council on the current status of the 2015 budget and provide a projection of the District’s overall financial results to December 31, 2015. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.

Page 90

2


(b) BC Transit Operating Reserve Account

RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve:

1. That approval be granted to acknowledge the terms and conditions of the operating reserve outlined in the letter from BC Transit dated February 22, 2016; and

2. That an appropriated surplus account be established to record the District’s balance in the BC Transit operating reserve account.

Page 106

(c) 2015 Budget Carry Forward Requests


1. That the 2015 capital budget carry forwards attached as Appendix “A” to the report from the Manager of Accounting Services dated March 7, 2016, be approved and that the District’s Financial Plan be amended accordingly (final dollar amounts will depend on year-end balances); and

2. That the 2015 operating budget carry forwards attached as Appendix “B” to the report from the Manager of Accounting Services dated March 7, 2016, be approved and that the District’s Financial Plan be amended accordingly (final dollar amounts will depend on year-end balances).

Page 110

(d) Youth Engagement Committee Name and Terms of Reference


1. That the Youth Engagement committee be renamed the Young Adult Engagement Committee to more accurately reflect the committee mandate;

2. That the committee terms of reference, as provided in Appendix A of the Manager, Civic Engagement & Corporate Initiatives report dated March 7, 2016 be approved; and

3. That the committee be directed to recruit up to four new members within the 18 – 35 demographic to bring forward to Council for appointment.

Page 118

6. FORESTRY

(a) Forestry Operations 2015 Quarter 4 (Q4) and Year-End Budget Report

This report provides a summary of the fourth quarter financial results for the forestry operation together with additional information on forestry reserves, strategies, plans and activities. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.

Page 122

3


7. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS

(a) New Federal Grade Crossing Regulations

This report details the requirements of the newly published Canadian Grade Crossing Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards, and requests funding to engage a consultant to ensure that Mission meets the new standards at all the grade crossings in the District.


1. That $40,000 be approved to engage a consultant to conduct a detailed safety review of four public grade crossings for which the District is responsible;

2. That the required funds come from the General Capital Reserve Fund; and

3. That the District’s 2016 Financial Plan be amended accordingly.

Page 129

(b) Data Sharing Agreement with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Management

RECOMMENDATION: Council consider and resolve:

That the District enter into a data sharing agreement with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Management to allow their street mapping system to be updated regularly with the District’s street database.

Page 132

(c) Renovations to Municipal Hall

This report seeks Council approval for the reallocation of funds that were previously approved for the supply and installation of modular office space at Municipal Hall.


1. That the existing approved $216,000 budget for the modular ancillary structure be transferred to the renovation project for Municipal Hall;


Page 137

8. FIRE/RESCUE SERVICES

(a) BCEHS Naloxone First Responder (FR) Program

This report is to brief Council on the recent change to the First Responder program to allow First Responders to administer Naloxone in drug overdose emergencies.

Page 144

4


9. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

(a) Service Provider Insurance Coverage


That the terms of the new MIA Service Provider Program be extended to cover the contracted providers of caretaking services at Heritage Park and the Mission Rotary Sports Park, special event programming services at Heritage Park and the Producers of the Envision Financial Twilight Concert Series.

Page 157

10. RESOLUTION TO RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

RECOMMENDATION: Council consider and resolve to rise from Committee of the Whole

11. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC, RECESS THE PUBLIC MEETING UNTIL 7:00 P.M. AND IMMEDIATELY CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION


1. That pursuant to Section 90 of the Community Charter, the public be excluded from this portion of the meeting as the subject matter being considered relates to the following:

• Section 90(1)(a) of the Community Charter – personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;

• Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter – the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; and

• Section 90(1)(g) of the Community Charter – litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality.

2. That the public portion of the meeting be recessed until 7:00 p.m.; and

3. That Council immediately resolve into the closed portion of their meeting.

12. RECONVENE (7:00 P.M.)

13. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

(a) Committee of the Whole report dated March 7, 2016

Report of recommendations to be circulated at the 7:00 p.m. reconvened public meeting

5


14. DELEGATIONS

(a) Mission Chamber of Commerce

Dave Sawatzky of the Mission Chamber of Commerce will appear before Council to discuss the expansion of the inter-municipal business licensing program

Page 163

15. PRESENTATIONS

(a) The Government Finance Officers Association Canadian Award for Financial Reporting

Presentation of the Canadian Award for Financial Reporting Achievement to the Finance Department of the District of Mission

Page 164

16. PROCLAMATIONS

None

17. PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) Public Hearing Notice for March 7, 2016

For reference

Page 165

(b) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5549-2016-5050(191)

R16-004 (Jack) – a bylaw to rezone the property at 35344 McEwen Avenue from Rural 80 (RU80) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone

Copy of Notice to Owner/Occupant and previous staff report included as background information

Page 166

18. ADOPTION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

None

19. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES

RECOMMENDATION: That the following minutes be received as information:

(a) Mission Traffic and Transit Committee Meeting – December 3, 2015

Page 176

(b) Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting – January 12, 2016

Page 179

(c) Mission Community Wellness Committee Meeting – January 12, 2016

Page 182

(d) Cultural Resource Commission Meeting – January 19, 2016 Page 188

6


20. CORRESPONDENCE

None

21. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION

(a) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5464-2014-5050(157)

R14-026 (Kubas) – a bylaw to rezone property at 7680 Strachan Street from Urban Residential 558 Zone (R558) to Residential Compact 465 Secondary Dwelling Zone (RC465s)

See “Development Services” in Section 4(d)

Rescind First, Second and Third

Readings

Page 191

(b) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5545-2016-5050(188)

(District of Mission) – a bylaw to increase the lot size for the Urban Residential 669 (R669) Zone from 30% to 35%

Adoption

Page 192

(c) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5549-2016-5050(191)

R16-004 (Jack) – a bylaw to rezone the property at 35344 McEwen Avenue from Rural 80 (RU80) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone

See “Public Hearings” in Section 17(b)

Third Reading and Adoption

Page 193

(d) 2015-2019 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5495(1)

A bylaw to incorporate budget amendments into the Financial Plan for 2015 to 2019

Adoption

Page 194

(e) User Fees and Charges Amending Bylaw 5552-2016-4029(12)

A bylaw to amend User Fees and Charges Bylaw 4029-2007 to include fees for events and rentals at the Fraser River Heritage Park

Adoption

Page 200

(f) User Fees and Charges Amending Bylaw 5553-2016-4029(13)

A bylaw to amend User Fees and Charges Bylaw 4029-2007 to include fees for rental of the artificial turf fields

Adoption

Page 202

(g) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5554-2016-5050(193)

R15-028 (Orca Pacific Developments) – a bylaw to add a new Comprehensive Development Zone (CD38) to the zoning bylaw and to rezone the property at 11445 Wilson Street from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone and Comprehensive Development 38 (CD38) Zone

See “Development Services” in Section 4(c)

First and Second Readings

Page 203

7


(h) Street Naming Bylaw 5555-2016 (Kennedy Terrace)

A bylaw to name a street running southwest over a portion of 11445 Wilson Street as “Kennedy Terrace”

See “Development Services” in Section 4(c)

First, Second and Third Readings

Page 209

22. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CONSIDERATION

None

23. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

(a) RECOMMENDATION: That the minutes of the February 15, 2016 Regular Council Meeting be adopted.

Page 211

24. RESOLUTIONS RELEASED FROM CLOSED

(a) Mission Community Wellness Committee Appointments

This report is being provided for information purposes. Council action is not required.

At the February 15, 2016 Closed Council meeting, the following information was released from Closed Council:

Mission Community Wellness Committee Appointments

The following individuals have been appointed as Members-at-Large to the Mission Community Wellness Committee for two year terms commencing February 16, 2016:

a) Paul Horn; b) Michelle Chapman-Sheaves; c) Judith Ray; and d) Elizabeth Thomas.

Page 223

25. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS

None

26. NOTICES OF MOTION

27. QUESTION PERIOD

28. ADJOURNMENT

8

Development Services Staff Report to Council

STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 6

File Category: 5500-04-02 File Folder: P2016-009/TEL16-001 & P2016-010/TEL16-002

DATE: March 7, 2016

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Fiona McDougall, Planner

SUBJECT: WIND Mobile telecommunication network launch in Mission

ATTACHMENT: Appendix 1: WIND Mobile network launch locations. Appendix 2: Telecommunication Tower proposed location at 32086 Lougheed

Highway. Appendix 3: Telecommunication Tower proposed location at 8294 Cedar Street. Appendix 4: Telecommunication Tower proposed location at 32700 7th Avenue.

This report is to advise Council of the launch of the WIND Mobile telecommunication network in Mission, and that Staff are in receipt of two wireless telecommunication tower applications (TEL16-001 and TEL16-002) from Cypress Land Service Incorporated on behalf of WIND Mobile to construct freestanding telecommunications towers in Mission at two locations: 32086 Lougheed Highway and 8294 Cedar Street.

A third rooftop telecommunications structure is part of the proposed network. It does not require consultation as per LAN.46, given the proposed tower height to be installed on top of the building is less than 3.0 metres (9.8 ft).

The applications are the first of a series of proposals aimed at launching the provider’s telecommunications wireless network service in the municipality.

SUMMARY:

The District of Mission is in receipt of two telecommunications applications from Cypress Land Service Incorporated on behalf of WIND Mobile. The proposed tower locations are at 32086 Lougheed Highway and 8294 Cedar Street. The proposed telecommunications towers will allow WIND Mobile to launch its wireless network service in Mission (Appendix 1). Establishing its wireless network requires the installation of three telecommunications towers in the community, which are to consist of two freestanding towers and one rooftop structure located on top of an apartment building.

TEL16-001: 32086 Lougheed Highway

The proposed tower at 32086 Lougheed Highway is for a 41 metres (134.5 ft) high monopole tower situated at the rear of the property directly behind the existing Mission Sikh Temple (Appendix 2). Access to the facility will be through the Temple’s existing parking area.

TEL16-002: 8294 Cedar Street

The application at 8294 Cedar Street is for a 10.9 metre (35.8 ft) high monopole tower located in the southwest corner of the property. The subject property is situated in an established residential neighbourhood, north of Best Avenue along Cedar Street. The property is supported by a 7.2 metres

9


(23.6 ft) high retaining wall along Cedar Street upon which the structure will be sited approximately 11 metres (36.1 ft) to the east in the front yard of a single family residence (Appendix 3). WIND Mobile is proposing to locate the telecommunication tower with accessory equipment behind an existing hedge.

32700 7th Avenue

The tower located at 32700 7th Avenue is proposed to be installed on the top of the existing apartments, i.e., Chartwell Carrington House Retirement Residence. The tower is 2.8 metres (9.2ft) high and is located on the east elevation of the building (Appendix 4).

LAND USE POLICY: LAN.46 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS

The District’s Land Use Policy LAN.46 Wireless Telecommunication Towers identifies that the installation of freestanding telecommunication towers that are greater than or equal to 12 metres (39.4 ft.) in height, or telecommunication towers to be installed on top of a building that are greater than or equal to 3 metres (9.8 ft.) in height, require an application and public consultation.

Based on the above criteria, the telecommunication tower at 32086 Lougheed Highway is subject to consultation. While the tower proposed for 32700 7th Avenue does not require consultation as per LAN.46, given that the tower is less than 3.0 metres (9.4 ft) in height, it forms part of WIND Mobile’s network infrastructure and therefore is identified within this report. Staff advised Cypress Land Services Incorporated and WIND Mobile that the proposed tower at 8294 Cedar Street would also be the subject of the consultation due to its overall height and location, i.e., total vertical distance of approximately 18.1 metres (59.3 ft.) from retaining wall footings to the top of the tower.

As per LAN.46, letters will be sent out to community groups and landowners within 246m (807.1ft) for the proposed tower at 32086 Lougheed Highway and 152m (498.7ft) for the proposed tower at 8294 Cedar Street on Tuesday, March 8, 2016. Notices will be placed in the Mission City Record on Friday, March 11, 2016. A public information meeting for the two freestanding telecommunication towers (TEL16-001 & TEL16-002) is scheduled to occur on Wednesday, March 30, 2016 from 5:30pm to 7:00pm, at the Mission Leisure Centre – Main Purpose Room #4, 7650 Grand Street..

A report summarizing the feedback received at the public information meeting will be provided to Council following consultation. While Industry Canada and the various private telecommunication service providers will work with local governments and their respective communities to address any concerns that might arise as a result of public consultation, a municipality’s participation and decision-making role is limited to providing Industry Canada with a statement of ‘concurrence’ or ‘non-concurrence’ on a particular proponent’s proposal.

SIGN-OFFS:

Fiona McDougall, Planner

Reviewed by: Chris Laing, Manager, Development Services

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed

10


Appendix 1

WIND Mobile network launch locations

32086 Lougheed Highway

32700 7th Avenue

8294 Cedar Street

11


Appendix 2

Telecommunication Tower proposed location at 32086 Lougheed Highway

12


Appendix 3

Telecommunication Tower proposed location at 8294 Cedar Street.

13


Appendix 4

Telecommunication Tower proposed location at 32700 7th Avenue.

14



File Category: LGMA 5500-04-02 File Folder: P2015-008/TEL15-001

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Fiona McDougall, Planner

SUBJECT: Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Tower in Steelhead ATTACHMENT(S): Appendix 1 - Subject Property and Proposed Tower Location

Appendix 2 - Land Use Policy LAN. 46 Wireless Telecommunication Tower Appendix 3 - Area and Road Plan Appendix 4 - Site Plan and Tower Profile Appendix 5 - Public Consultation Meeting Summary

CIVIC ADDRESS: West of Dewdney Trunk Road in Steelhead on Crown Land

APPLICANT: TM Mobile Inc., (TELUS) c/o Cypress Land Services Inc.

OCP: Municipal Forest

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: N/A

LOCATION: Steelhead

15



1. That application TEL15-001 for a proposed telecommunications wireless tower west of Dewdney Trunk Road in the Steelhead area, as described in the report from the Planner dated March 7, 2016, be supported subject to the conditions outlined by the District’s Forestry, Engineering and Emergency Services Departments; and

2. That once these conditions have been satisfied, staff be directed to forward the District’s “concurrence” with the proposal to Industry Canada.

BACKGROUND The District is in receipt of an application from Cypress Land Service Incorporated on behalf of TM Mobile Inc. (TELUS) for a 60 metre (197 ft.) telecommunications tower at Red Mountain located on Dewdney Trunk Road in the Steelhead area (refer to Appendix 1). The property is Crown owned land located on the east side of Red Mountain. The site is largely removed from residential uses and public views. With the establishment of this telecommunications tower, TELUS seeks to maintain and improve their network services to its customers in the Steelhead community. The Steelhead community is known to have poor telecommunications reception. In conjunction with this application, TELUS has also submitted a corresponding Crown land application for a Communication Tenure to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources in order to allow for the tower siting on Crown land, which has passed the province’s preliminary review. While Rogers Communication Inc. had interest to co-locate with TELUS on the proposed telecommunications tower, staff have since been informed that Rogers no longer has an interest to co-locate. The application was first introduced to Council at the January 18, 2016 regular meeting of Council. A public information meeting was subsequently held on January 27, 2016 at the Steelhead Community Hall. Although Industry Canada has exclusive jurisdiction in the licensing of radiocommunication sites, including this proposed tower, the Ministry requires all proponents to consult with the local land use authority and the public to address any concerns that they might have. The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the feedback received from at the public consultation meeting on this proposal and to recommend conditional support of the application when forwarding a decision to Industry Canada. LAND USE POLICY LAN. 46 “WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS” In accordance with Council Policy (Appendix 2), proponents of freestanding telecommunication towers greater than or equal to 12 metres (39.3 ft) in height are required to undertake a public consultation process. The Policy outlines the public consultation process, siting, co-location and design criteria for proposed cell towers proposed within the municipality. The Policy also incorporates standard practices that are endorsed by Industry Canada and provides Council with some criteria when evaluating cell tower proposals within the District.

16


SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROPOSAL OVERVIEW Location TELUS has identified the subject property as a viable site for the proposed 60 metre (197 ft.) high self-supporting tower. The subject site is located west of the Steelhead community and is currently designated as Municipal Forest in the District of Mission Official Community Plan (OCP). While the property itself is 555 hectares (1,372 ac) and is located in an area used by the community for recreation activities such as mountain biking and hiking (including the Mission Rod & Gun Club located to the east), the site proposed for the telecommunications tower and the supporting infrastructure is approximately 3.6 hectares (8.9ac) (Appendix 3). Alternative sites considered TELUS undertook an analysis of existing structure and towers within a 5 km radius of the Steelhead site. The nearest tower is owned by Rogers Communications and is almost 4 km away from where TELUS would like to provide service. TELUS have informed staff that the Rogers’ tower would not provide adequate coverage to the Steelhead area. Another site considered was located east of Steelhead, however this site was also disqualified due to the unavailability of land. TELUS considers the proposed location to be appropriate and reflective of the objectives outline in the District’s Policy. The site is located on Crown land on the east side of Red Mountain and is largely removed from residential properties and is minimally visible from public roadways. Site access Access will be obtained via an existing forest service road, which is managed and maintained by the District’s Forestry Department. Construction of the tower is anticipated to take 30 to 45 days. Once complete, the site will only be accessed for routine maintenance visits which typically occur once or twice a month. Safety requirements Industry Canada requires all wireless carriers to operate in accordance with federal safety standards. TELUS has advised that the installation and operation of the proposed tower will be in compliance with the following safety standards:

a) Public Health and Safety – TELUS attests that the proposed tower will at all times comply with

Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 limits;

b) Environmental Assessment - TELUS confirms that the installation is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act;

c) Design - the proposed tower will be constructed in compliance with all applicable building standards and comply with good engineering practices including structural adequacy. The proposed tower has been designed to suit future users, upgrades and accommodate additional equipment (Appendix 4). The location of the tower will largely be screened by mature trees on the hill top; and

17


d) Transport Canada’s Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements - TELUS attests that the proposed tower will be in compliance with Transport Canada / NAV CANADA aeronautical safety requirements. The tower will be marked in accordance with the Department of Transportation and NAV Canada requirements. No lighting or marking is required.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION Notification, Venue & Attendance TELUS hosted a public information meeting on January 27, 2016 at the Steelhead Community Hall between the hours of 5:30 pm and 7:00 pm to provide information and receive comments on the proposed tower. A summary of the public consultation meeting prepared by Cypress Land Services Incorporated is included in Appendix 5. In accordance with the District’s Policy, the District notified the community of the public information meeting by placing a notice in the Mission City Record on January 8, 2016 and distributed letters in proximity to the site. Letters were also sent to the Mission Rod & Gun Club, the Crown Provincial, the Fraser Valley Mountain Bike Association and the Steelhead Community Association. A second notice was placed in the Mission City Record on January 15, 2016 to correct a date error on the original notice. TELUS also provided their own notification packages including an invitation to the public information meeting. On January 11, 2016, the packages were sent to approximately 27 property owners and occupiers of lands by mail and email. Approximately 37 people (including the District’s Land Use Planner) attended the meeting. Representative from TELUS (Debra Pankratz, Real Estate & Government Affairs) and Cypress Land Services Incorporated (Chad Marlett, Government Affairs Manager and Tawney Verigin, Municipal Affairs Specialist) attended to answer questions and receive comments during the public information meeting. The public information meeting included storyboards explaining the project as well as literature on telecommunication networks and health and safety of telecommunications towers. Public Information Meeting Input In total, seven (7) written comments were received. TELUS prepared a comment sheet that included questions relating to location, appearance as well as space for additional comments. The following is a summary of the comments provided by the proponent (Appendix 5): • All of the residents expressed support for the proposed tower and indicated that they have been

waiting a long time for cell services. They also noted that their landline services are not always reliable and requested improved internet/TV services from TELUS via fibre optics services that TELUS is rolling out across the BC. Seven written comments in support were received.

• TELUS representatives acknowledge that they regularly hear from Steelhead community

members regarding poor wireless services and indicate that TELUS is committed to moving forward with this project in overwhelming response to local demand. Representative also indicated that TELUS is in the process of installing fibre optic services to many communities across western Canada to improve services but are unsure at this time when improvements will be coming to the Steelhead community.

18


• Some community members indicated (made reference to) the “tree” designed tower near Haztic Lake. While that is an innovative design, the proposed tower design will better suit any future users of the tower as it can be easily upgraded to add additional equipment. Further to this, the location of the tower will largely be screened by mature trees on the hill top and is well setback from any nearby homes.

Other Comments Received A number of community members who attended the public information meeting highlighted the lack of cell service which made it difficult to call emergency services. REFERRALS The application was referred to the following Departments: Forestry Department: The Forestry Department has no objection to the proposal and informed planning staff that their comments had previously been provided as part of the Crown Land application referral. It is noted that the Forestry Department is responsible for the management of Tree Farm Licence 26 (TFL26), in which the proposed powerline and communications site will be wholly contained. As such, the Forestry Department assisted TELUS in the field in choosing suitable locations for the powerline and communications site. While the Department generally supports the application, their support is contingent upon the following conditions:

1. The District of Mission requires ‘first right of refusal’ on all timber to be cut as issued under an Occupant Licence to Cut by the Crown, as it currently contributes to the District’s annual allowable cut. The District of Mission will provide bucking specifications as well as decking locations.

2. TELUS, Rogers, or any other company co-locating on the communications tower site is

required to negotiate an annual road maintenance agreement with the District of Mission for use of the road permit road (R05420) required for access to the powerline and communications site.

3. Known recreation resource features were not included in the Management Plan presented. It

should be noted that the ‘Arduum’ multi-use trail is located in mature timber between where the powerline leaves the logging road (DT2) and crosses into a previously logged cutblock (RM13). Impact will be clearing of trees and overhead linework. TELUS should consult with the Fraser Valley Mountain Bike Association in regards to some mitigativate measures or maintenance funding compensation upon completion of the powerline construction in the event that logging access damages the trail.

4. Powerlines should be to industry standard or higher, to allow for safe passage by logging

equipment and must follow the existing road alignment.

5. TFL26 will not allow trees to be topped or pruned to accommodate reception of cell signals. The communications tower must be constructed high enough that residual surrounding timber adjacent will be permitted to grow unfettered until such time it reaches a harvestable culmination age and size.

19


6. It was confirmed via email during this application referral period that the powerline on the

upper logging road will follow the existing right of way, thereby not isolating timber or causing damage to the wildlife tree patches designated with the crown.

7. The District of Mission’s Emergency Services (RCMP, Fire, and Ambulance) would like to

negotiate a repeater on the proposed tower prior to any concurrence forwarded to Industry Canada.

8. At this time, it is estimated that about 3.6 hectares will be required to be removed from TFL26

permanently for the powerline and communications site. The Forest Act, Section 60.2 provides the provision for deletion of Crown land from a tree farm licence area for the purposes of powerline transmission under Section 60.1(b)(iii). Compensation in respect of tree farm licence areas is specifically defined in Section 60.6 for loss of allowable annual cut area and under Section 60.92 for compensation for improvements.

Under Section 60.92, the District of Mission will lose all silvicultural investments to date on blocks DT2, RM13 and RM5 and estimates investments calculated as follows: Block Logging

Date Hectares Affected (est).

Planting costs $1.20 per tree 1400 trees per ha

Brushing cost

Plantation survey costs

Total

RM5 2005 0.084 $141.12 No brushings 2 surveys@$250=$500 $641.12 DT2 2004 0.133 $223.44 2 brushings@

$650/ha = $172.50 2 surveys@$250=$500 $895.94

RM13 2011 0.438 $735.84 No brushings 2 surveys@$250=$500 $1235.84 TOTAL $2772.90

The District would expect to negotiate compensation at the earliest convenience for loss of silvicultural investments as listed above and loss of productive growing sites in perpetuity on 3.6 hectares. The negotiations should take place prior to any concurrence forwarded to Industry Canada. The Forestry Department also highlights that the Department would not be supportive of any additional towers on Red Mountain and that any future carriers would be required to co-locate on this proposed tower. Mission’s Emergency Services (RCMP, Fire, Ambulance): Mission’s Emergency Services has no objections to the proposal, but have requested that a repeater is installed on the proposed tower. Engineering Department: The Engineering department has no objections to the proposal, but would like the applicant to clarify the width of clearing for the tower and associated infrastructure.

20


CONCLUSION While Council may resolve to support or deny the application without further consideration or conditions, staff are recommending that Council support the application (TEL15-001) for a proposed telecommunications tower in Steelhead provided the conditions set out within the referral section of this report have been adequately addressed by the proponent. Under this determination, staff would inform the proponent that the telecommunications tower is supported, however, concurrence with the proposal would be held until such the conditions of the affected departments have been met and signed off by the relevant Department Directors. Once this has occurred, staff will forward a letter of concurrence to Industry Canada.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Financial implications have been identified in the referral comments provided by the Forestry Department. No other financial implications have been identified.

SIGN-OFFS:

Fiona McDougall, Planner

Reviewed by: Dan Sommer

Director of Development Services

21

Appendix 1

Subject Property and Proposed Tower Location

22

Appendix 2

Land Use Policy LAN. 46 Wireless Telecommunication Tower

23

Appendix 3

Area and Road Plan

25

Appendix 4

Site Plan and Tower Profile

26

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION MEETING SUMMARY

TELUS Site: BC1393 - Steelhead

Proposed Location: Red Mountain, Dewdney Trunk Road, Mission BC

Description: 60m self-support

Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Meeting Location: Steelhead Community Hall 32972 Cardinal Street, Steelhead, Mission, BC

Meeting Time: 5:30pm – 7:00pm

TELUS Representatives: Debra Pankratz (Real Estate & Government Affairs)

Cypress Representatives: Chad Marlatt (Government Affairs Manager) Tawny Verigin (Municipal Affairs Specialist)

Meeting Details The District of Mission has adopted a “Land Use Wireless Telecommunication Towers Policy, LAN.46” which outlines a detailed process under which tower applications are managed. Following this policy, Cypress Land Services consulted with the District of Mission’s planner Fiona McDougall and held a Community Consultation Meeting for the proposed tower on Red Mountain in Mission on Wednesday, January 27, 2016 from 5:30 to 7:00pm. The meeting was held at the Steelhead Community Hall located at 32972 Cardinal Street, Steelhead, Mission, BC. Representatives from TELUS included Debra Pankratz (Real Estate & Government Affairs) and representatives from Cypress included Chad Marlatt (Government Affairs Manager) and Tawny Verigin (Municipal Affairs Specialist). Fiona McDougall was on hand to represent the District of Mission. Notification and Invitation Notification packages including an invitation to the open house were sent to approximately 27 owners, occupants and other recipients on January 11, 2016 via mail and email (please see Schedule 1: Affidavit). A notice was also placed in the Mission City Record on January 8 inviting the public to the meeting (please see Schedule 2: Tearsheet). Attendance and Meeting Overview Approximately 36 residents signed in at the Community Consultation meeting (please see Schedule 3: Meeting Sign in). All of the residents expressed support for the proposed tower and indicated that they have been waiting a long time for cell service. They also noted that their land line service is not always reliable and requested improved internet/TV services from TELUS via fibre optics services that TELUS is rolling out across the BC. Seven written comments in support were received (please see Schedule 4: Comments).

28

fmcdougall

Typewritten Text

fmcdougall

Typewritten Text

fmcdougall

Typewritten Text

fmcdougall

Typewritten Text

fmcdougall

Typewritten Text

fmcdougall

Typewritten Text

fmcdougall

Typewritten Text

fmcdougall

Text Box

Appendix 5 Public Consultation Meeting Summary

TELUS representatives acknowledge that they regularly hear from Steelhead community members regarding poor wireless services and indicated that TELUS is committed to moving forward with this project in overwhelming response to local demand. Representatives also indicated that TELUS is in the process of installing fibre optic services to many communities across western Canada to improve internet/TV services but are unsure at this time when improvements will be coming to the Steelhead community. Some community members indicated (made reference to) the “tree” designed tower at Haztic Lake. While that is an innovative design, the proposed tower design will better suit any future users of the tower as it can be easily upgraded to add additional equipment. Further to this, the location of the tower will largely be screened by mature trees on the hill top and is well setback from any nearby homes. Meeting Set Up Upon arrival to the meeting guests were greeted at a welcome table where they were politely asked to sign in on the sign in sheets. The room was set up with various story boards around the perimeter of the room explaining various aspects of the proposal (please see Schedule 5: Storyboards). TELUS representatives were available to provide information and answer questions as they arose. In addition, wireless literature was provided as take home materials should attendees need additional information. The literature provided included: Wireless Communication and Health, Connecting Canadians, CPC, CWTA Subscriber Facts, SC6 Fact Sheet & Myth busters, it’s your Health, Statement of the Chief Medical Officer, Cell Towers in Your Community.

29

SCHEDULE 1: AFFIDAVIT

30

Appendix A: Notification Letter

32

P a g e 1 | 9

Community Consultation Meeting Invitation: Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2016

From: 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm Location: Steelhead Community Hall

32972 Cardinal Street, Steelhead, Mission, BC

January 11, 2016 Dear Property Owner / Occupant, Re: Proposed 60m TELUS Radiocommunications Facility Address: Red Mountain, Dewdney Trunk Road, Mission BC PID: N/A Coordinates: 49.20442° N, 122.33528° W TELUS Site: BC1393 - Mission – Steelhead

What is TELUS Proposing? TELUS is proposing to install a 60m self-support tower on Crown land at the above-noted coordinates. The ancillary equipment necessary to operate this facility will reside within a shelter located at the base of the tower. An aerial photo of the proposed location and a photo-simulation of the proposed tower is included as part of this notification package. TELUS seeks to continue to provide high quality wireless telecommunications services to Canadians. Increasingly, Canadians depend on wireless voice, data and internet communications for business, personal enjoyment and personal security reasons. In response to demand for improved coverage in the Steelhead area TELUS is proposing the construction of a new radiocommunications installation. Regulatory Authority Telecommunication providers are required by Industry Canada to consult with the local municipality and the general public regarding new installations. Industry Canada does have exclusive jurisdiction over the approval and placement of radiocommunications installations. The consultation process will provide an opportunity for residents, stakeholders and landowners to obtain detailed information regarding the proposal and to provide comments for the consideration. Any inquiries that are received as a result of this notification will be logged and submitted to the District of Mission and Industry Canada as part of our application for concurrence.

District of Mission Public Consultation The District of Mission has adopted a “Land Use Wireless Telecommunication Towers Policy, LAN.46” which outlines a detailed process under which tower applications are managed. This policy clearly outlines a defined review and consultation process. This letter provides written

33

P a g e 2 | 9

notification to adjacent landowners and stakeholders to provide you with an opportunity to engage in reasonable, relevant, and timely communication regarding this proposal. You have received a copy of this notification package because your property, or a property you have an interest in, is located within 6 times the tower height (or greater) of the proposed tower or you or your organization have been identified as an important stakeholder in to the area. The closing period for comments to be received by TELUS is February 9, 2016. TELUS is hosting a community consultation meeting. The meeting information is below: Community Consultation Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 From: 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm Location: Steelhead Community Hall 32972 Cardinal Street, Steelhead, Mission, BC Purpose The purpose of the proposed tower is to improve TELUS’ wireless coverage in the Steelhead area. Currently, there are no existing antenna support structures or other feasible infrastructure that can be utilized; as a result, a new antenna support structure is required. Location The tower will be located at the coordinates 49.20442° N, 122.33528° W. The proposed site is located on Crown land and situated to the west/southwest of the rural community of Steelhead. The land encompasses a mountain side known locally as Red Mountain. TELUS is proposing to install a 60m self-support tower. Safety Code 6 Industry Canada requires all wireless carriers to operate in accordance with Health Canada’s safety standards. TELUS confirms that the tower described in this notification package will be installed and operated on an ongoing basis so as to comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, as may be amended from time to time. Site Access Access will be obtained via an existing road. Construction is anticipated to take 30 to 45 days. Once complete, the site will only be accessed for routine maintenance visits which typically occur once or twice a month. To safeguard the site from the general public, the tower base and equipment shelter will be enclosed by a fence. Environment TELUS confirms that the installation is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

34

P a g e 3 | 9

Design This proposal is for a 60m self-support tower, related equipment area and fencing. A preliminary design of the site plan, compound plan and tower profile are included in this notification for your reference. Transport Canada The tower will be marked in accordance with the Department of Transportation and NAV Canada requirements. No lighting or marking is required. Structural Considerations TELUS confirms that the antenna structure described in this notification package will apply good engineering practices including, structural adequacy during construction. The facility will be built to the National Building Code as well as the BC Building Code. Local Municipality The District of Mission has adopted a “Land Use Wireless Telecommunication Towers Policy, LAN.46” which outlines a detailed process under which tower applications are managed. This policy clearly outlines a defined review and consultation process. General Information General information relating to antenna systems is available on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/h_sf01702e.html

Contacts: TM Mobile Inc. (TELUS) c/o Tawny Verigin of Cypress Land Services Agents for TELUS Suite 120, 736 Granville Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 1G3 Phone: (604) 620-0877 | Fax 604-620-0876 E-mail: [email protected]

Industry Canada Lower Mainland Office 13401 – 108 Avenue, Suite 1700 Surrey BC V3T 5V6 Tel: 604-586-2521 Fax: 604-586-2528 Email: [email protected] Fiona McDougall Planner – Development Services 8645 Stave Lake St • Box 20 Mission, BC V2V 4L9 Email: [email protected]

Should you have any specific questions regarding the proposal, please feel welcome to contact the above-listed herein, (email: [email protected]), or return the

comment sheet via fax (604) 620-0876 or by mail to TELUS by February 9, 2016.

35

http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/h_sf01702e.html

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/h_sf01702e.html

mailto:[email protected]



P a g e 4 | 9

Location Plan – Aerial

Proposed location

36

P a g e 5 | 9

SCHEDULE C

PHOTO-SIMUATION

View: Looking southwest towards proposed tower from Cardinal Street. Photo Simulation is a close representation and is for conceptual purposes only – not to scale.

Proposed design is subject to change based on final engineer plans The tower will be marked in accordance with Transport Canada Obstruction Marking and NAV Canada requirements.

37

P a g e 6 | 9

Key Plan

38

P a g e 7 | 9

Site Plan

39

P a g e 8 | 9

Tower Profile

40

P a g e 9 | 9

COMMENT SHEET

PROPOSED RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS TOWER Dewdney Trunk Road, Mission, BC TELUS SITE #: BC1393 – Steelhead

1. Do you feel this is an appropriate location for the proposed facility?

Yes No

Comments

2. Are you satisfied with the appearance / design of the proposed facility? If not, what changes would you suggest?

Yes No

Comments

3. Additional Comments Please provide your name and full mailing address if you would like to be informed about the status of this proposal. This information will not be used for marketing purposes; however, your comments will be only be used by TELUS in satisfying the District of Mission’s “Land Use Wireless Telecommunication Towers Policy, LAN.46” Name (Please print clearly) Email Address Mailing Address

TELUS c/o Cypress Land Services Inc. Suite 120, 736 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1G3 Attention: Tawny Verigin, Municipal Affairs Specialist

Thank you for your input.

41

Appendix B: List of Property Owners, Occupants and Other Recipients

42

hgould

Typewritten Text

hgould

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

hgould

Typewritten Text

SCHEDULE 2: TEARSHEET

44

A21Friday, January 8, 2016Mission City Record

Your Hometown Mortgage Broker Serving Mission for over 20 Years!

DONNA24 Years Experience

DOUG30 Years Experience

3 3 0 5 4 1 s t A v e n u e M i s s i o n , B C V 2 V 1 G 3P h o n e : 6 0 4 . 8 2 0 . 4 5 7 0 F a x : 6 0 4 . 8 2 0 . 4 5 6 2

www.doug l i f fo rd . com

Better than Bank Rates...at no charge to you!

DougLiff ordMortgageService

2.64% Owner occupied only. OAC.O i d l OOAC

2.20%5 Year Fixed*(Purchases Only OAC)

5 Year Variable** (P-.50%)

OR

...You can aff ord more than you think!FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS

*The annual percentage rate (APR), compounded semi-annually, not in advance. The APR is for a mortgage of $100,000 with monthly payments and a 25 year amortization.

APR assumes no fees apply. You may be required to pay additional fees which would increase your APR. Rates subject to change without notice.

**Interest rate is compounded monthly, not in advance. Variable rate mortgages o ers you a low variable interest rate based on the prime rate over a 5-year xed term.

The prime lending rate represents a variable rate of interest announced by the lender from time to time as its Prime Lending Rate. Rates subject to change without notice.

WE WELCOME BANK DECLINES, FORMER GROW-OPS AND FORECLOSURE PURCHASES!

Notice of Proposed TM Mobile Inc. ("TELUS") Telecommunications Facility & Community Consultation Meeting

Description: As part of the public consultation process required by the District of Mission and Industry Canada, TELUS is inviting the public to comment on a proposed telecommunications facility consisting of a 60 metre self-support tower and ancillary radio equipment to improve wireless service in the Steelhead area.

Proposed Location: Red Mountain, Dewdney Trunk Road, Mission BC, PID: N/ACoordinates: 49.20442° N, 122.33528° W

TELUS is inviting the public to a Community Consultation Meeting:Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2016

From: 5:30 pm to 7:00 pmMeeting Location: Steelhead Community Hall, 32972 Cardinal Street, Steelhead,

Mission, BC

For More Information:Contact TELUS at:Tawny Veriginc/o Cypress Land Services Inc.Agents to TELUS Communications Inc.Suite 120, 736 Granville StreetVancouver, BC V6Z 1G3tel: 604-620-0877email: [email protected]

The Public is welcome to comment on the proposal by the end of the business day on February 9, 2016 with respect to this matter.

TELUS File: BC1393 - Steelhead

Repairers Lien Act

Wayne Kenneth LitsterThe following will be sold to

satisfy funds owing to Murray GM Abbotsford.

$4578.43 Plus storage and all costs incurred by this

action.2007 Chevrolet Silverado

Vin: 3GCHK33D37F133419Sale date after Jan 27th 2016.

West Canada Civil Enforcement

www.repobc.ca 1-877-795-7337

Read the Classifieds

45

SCHEDULE 3: MEETING SIGN IN

46

SCHEDULE 4: COMMENTS

50

SCHEDULE 5: STORYBOARDS

59

TELUS intends to provide reliable, continuous wireless service to Steelhead and surrounding areas

Existing Wireless Service Improved Wireless Service After Construction of the Proposed Facility

*Green Areas with indicates Reliable Wireless Service

Reliable Coverage Reliable Coverage

60

Proposed location

61

Photo Simulation is a close representation and is for conceptual purposes only.

View: Looking southwest towards proposed tower from Cardinal Street.

62

LEGEND

Proposed self-support site - Dewdney Trunk Road, Mission, BC

Alternative sites considered – disqualified due to unavailability of land

Coverage Objectives

Local Terrain

Line ofSight

Willing Land

Owner

ZoningConstruction Feasibility

63

• The proposed 60m self-support and related equipment will reside within a chain-link fenced compound area at the base of the tower.

64

Project Timeline & Industry Canada Consultation Process

Construction of Tower

Concurrence Granted - (If concurrence is not granted, Industry Canada holds the final authority)

District of Mission review process and report to the District of Mission Council

January/ February 2016Cultural Heritage Overview Assessment (CHOA) report to be completed by Sto:lo Nation and TELUS to meet with Matsqui FN

January 2016Notification, Advertisement and Public Consultation Meeting – Comments received will be responded to in writing

November 2015Preliminary acceptance letter received from Ministry of Forests, Lands Natural Resources Operations

May 2015Crown Land Tenure application to FrontCounter BC for Communications Site & Powerline submitted

February 2015Development Permit Submitted to District of Mission

January 2013Site Selection Process

2011Service improvement needs identified by TELUS

65

TELUS representatives are on-site to answer your questions and receive

your feedback.

Please sign in and provide us your comments.

66

• One smartphone creates as much data traffic as 35 basic-feature phones.

• Data traffic is expected to double every year through 2016.

• Half of all phone connections in Canada are now wireless.

• Since 2008, with the growing popularity of devices that use data, TELUS has had to upgrade their networks to handle 5 times the volume of traffic.

• Canadians send 267.8 million text messages per day.

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mon

thly

Mob

ile D

ata

Traf

fic T

B

67

A network is a series of interconnected cells each containing a base station (antennas and

radio equipment). A high quality network offers continuous wireless service by placing

base stations in specific geographical locations that allow us to use wireless

devices.

When a base station reaches maximum capacity, the coverage footprint shrinks in

order to handle volume.

New base stations must be built to fill in the void areas and restore continuous wireless

service.

68

100%

0.1%

Wireless antennas are low-power, short range

radio systems.

EMF energy levels

diminish exponentially as you move away from antennas.

Typically towers operate less than 1%

of the maximum level measured at

ground level allowed under Safety Code 6

guidelines administered by Health Canada.

Please see handouts for additional information.

69

Our philosophy – We Give Where We Live™ – is about TELUS and our team memberssharing our generosity of spirit to make a meaningful difference for those in need.

TELUS, our team members and retirees have contributed more than $260 million tocharitable and not-for-profit organizations and volunteered 4.2 million hours of service tolocal communities since 2000.

TELUS was honoured to be named the most outstanding philanthropic corporationglobally for 2010 by the Association of Fundraising Professionals, becoming the firstCanadian company to receive this prestigious international recognition.

Community Investment by Type

70



File Category: 3310-15 P2015-061 R15-028 S15-018

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Robert Publow, Planner

SUBJECT: Rezoning R15-028 and Street Naming for a 3-lot rural residential development

ATTACHMENT(S): Appendix 1 – Information for Corporate Officer Appendix 2 – Location Map Appendix 3 – Zoning Amending Bylaw Reference Plan Appendix 4 – Draft Plan of Subdivision Appendix 5 – Proposed Comprehensive Development 38 (CD38) Zone Appendix 6 – Engineering Department Comments Appendix 7 – Forestry Department Comments

CIVIC ADDRESS: 11445 Wilson Street

APPLICANT: Ed Grice (Orca Pacific Developments)

OCP: This application is in conformance with the current Rural Residential OCP designation

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: February 4, 2016

LOCATION:

72


OVERVIEW AND STAFF COMMENTS

SUMMARY Development applications have been received from Edward Grice of Orca Pacific Development, for the property located at 11445 Wilson Street as shown in Appendix 2. The applications propose to rezone the western portion of the subject property from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone and the eastern portion to Comprehensive Development 38 (CD38) Zone as shown on Appendix 3.

The rezoning is to accommodate a two (2)-lot subdivision (Lots 2 and 3) with one larger remainder parcel, shown as Lot 1 in Appendix 4. Lot 1 would have potential for further subdivision into two (2) lots, for an eventual total of four (4) lots. Specifically, the proposal is to rezone the two western lots (Lots 2 and 3) to the RR7s Zone and to rezone Lot 1 to the proposed CD38 Zone. The applications also include the development of a new street to which the surname “Kennedy” is proposed.

The CD38 Zone is based largely on the RR7s Zone, which is considered consistent with the Official Community Plan (OCP) designation of Rural Residential.

The CD38 Zone, proposed for application on Lot 1 is intended to allow the developer to ultimately yield four (4) lots, while also facilitating the creation of the proposed new street (Kennedy Terrace), which will facilitate future development of lands to the south of the subject property.

The CD38 zoning regulations are detailed in Appendix 5 and the draft plan of subdivision is shown in Appendix 4.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located in the southern part of Stave Falls in an area designated within the OCP as Rural Residential. This designation envisions lots as small as 0.7 hectares (1.73 acres) in area. Within this area along Wilson Street, the development of lots to a density envisioned in the OCP is challenging due to a cliff that runs north - south and parallels Wilson Street thus limiting vehicular access to the majority of the area. West of the steep cliff is a plateau which holds potential for future development into lots as envisioned by the OCP.

Mr. Grice’s interest in developing the subject property presents an opportunity for the District of Mission to secure public access to the plateau west of the cliff through the development of a road constructed to municipal standards. Road access from Wilson Street is limited to the subject property where the alternative would be to allow of a series of panhandles and steep private driveways from Wilson Street.

The development of the proposed municipal road facilitating access to the top of the cliff through the subject property is considered to be a valuable and a necessary addition to the municipal road network. The new road will eliminate the need for numerous individual panhandle driveways and

This report details the rezoning and street naming applications related to the development of the property located at 11445 Wilson Street and identifies the necessary bylaw amendments.

Staff support the applications moving forward and as such have listed the Zoning Amending Bylaw and the Street Naming Bylaw under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council agenda.


73

allow access to areas with development potential and will facilitate development of the four properties south of the subject property to densities possible under the Rural Residential designation.

Staff are supporting the construction of a municipal road to ensure safe public access to the development lands beyond this property. With the construction and dedication of this new road, Mr. Grice will be contributing a valuable piece of infrastructure that has the potential to open future development opportunities on adjacent properties. Staff consider this access to be beneficial to the community as a whole by facilitating the OCP density objectives for the area.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS The subject property is approximately 3.1 hectares (7.67 acres) in size and is located west of Hayward Lake, close to the Mission / Maple Ridge municipal boundary. The property is well treed and slopes down from west to east, including several cliffs and natural rock outcrop features. No dwelling or structures have been developed on the property at this point in time; however, a building permit has been received for a single family dwelling to be located in the area proposed as Lot 1. Some clearing, lot grading and site preparations have been undertaken by the property owner, including significant works (grading and blasting) related to site preparation for the proposed road.

PLANNING ANALYSIS Zoning and OCP Bylaws Compliance

The subject property is currently designated Rural Residential in the OCP and zoned RU16 Zone. The proposal is to rezone proposed Lot 1 from RU16 to the proposed CD38 and to rezone proposed Lots 2 and 3 to the RR7s Zone, as shown on the Zoning Amending Bylaw Reference Plan, attached as Appendix 3. While a rezoning of the entire site to the RR7s Zone could yield a total of four (4) lots in the future if an alternative access were provided at an alternative location, the applicant has been requested to prepare a subdivision layout involving the dedication of a new municipal road. However, the maximum possible yield under the RR7s Zone would only be three (3) lots.

As acknowledgement of the community benefit of the proposed municipal road and the considerable works undertaken by the applicant to provide this public road access, staff have developed the proposed new CD38 Zone that would accommodate slightly smaller lots to offset the loss of land due to road dedication and thereby increasing the potential lot yield back to four lots making the project viable. The CD38 Zone is modelled after the RR7s Zone, with the only significant difference being the minimum lot area required to create new lots is slightly less; approximately 0.05 hectares (0.12 acres) less.

Within the RR7s Zone, the minimum lot area for a new lot is 0.7 hectares (1.73 Acres) and under the proposed CD38 Zone the minimum lot area required to create a new lot would be 0.65 hectares (1.6 Acres). The intent of the reduction in minimum Lot Area is to facilitate the future subdivision of Lot 1 into two (2) lots.

Both the RR7s Zone and the proposed CD38 Zone would allow for a secondary dwelling use on each of the proposed lots. Secondary Dwelling Unit uses (i.e., coach homes, garden cottages and secondary suites) are supported by a number of policies in the OCP and in particular on lots that are large enough to accommodate on-site parking that are separate and unencumbered from the off street parking of the primary residence, and where private outside amenity space is provided. Given the size of the proposed lots, meeting the off-street parking requirements is not expected to present any difficulty.

74

wW

W

A

tt

A

w

A

t

A

t

w

Neighbourho

The propertydwellings onestablished

Servicing

Municipal wby a professwell(s) suppWater Quarequirementserviced by

The properWastewaterproposed lodwelling uni

Access

The south-wthis developthe northeasline, approxsubdivision,subsequent

Street Nami

In accordanAppendix 4subject propwho was a L

Environmen

District of M

Geohazard

A preliminarprior to recodetermine ifthe subject p

COMMUNITAmenities)

Typically, incontribute $intended to to fund new

In this casconstructionwould typica

ood Charact

y is located n larger propneighbourho

water and sansional enginplying water lity – Aestts related toa single wel

rty owner wr Practitioneot to accomt, if propose

westerly conspment and thst corner of timately 165 attached asdevelopmen

ng (Policy S

ce with Cou4, staff recomperty be namLieutenant w

ntal Protectio

ission mapp

Hazard Ass

ry geotechnommending tf any geotecproperty, an

TY AMENIT

n accordanc$2,815 for eoffset the unfacilities an

e, the appn of this sectally be contr

ter

within a ruraperties. Stafood.

nitary servicneer with exp

to each prothetic and o water sysll.

will also ber (ROWP) thmodate thed.

struction of ahe lands to ththe subject pmetres wes

s Appendix nt applicatio

STR.28 Stree

ncil Policy Smmend that med Kenwith the Sout

on

ping indicate

essment

ical hazard this rezoning

chnical hazad to determi

TY CONTR

ce with Coueach new lonique financd/or ameniti

licant has tion of municributed follow

al neighbourff believe tha

ce is not avapertise in groposed lot mHealth Par

stem operato

e required hat an onsit discharge

a new road, he south. Tproperty untt of the east4. Future pl

ons for the co

et Naming)

STR.28, streethe road runnedy Terracth Albert Reg

s that there

assessmeng proposal fords exist thaine if a more

RIBUTION

uncil Policy ot created wial burden thes.

requested tcipal road aswing Council

rhood area cat the propos

ailable to theround water meets the prrameters. ors which w

to provide te sewage tfrom the pr

proposed ahe proposedil terminatingt property linans include ontiguous pr

et naming ofnning roughlyce in honour giment RCA

are no strea

t prepared bor final adopat could potee detailed lan

(LAN.40 –

LAN.40, awithin a prohat the Distri

that Councs being equal Policy LAN

comprised prsed develop

e property. Asupply, will

rovisions of In addition

would apply

confirmatioreatment syroposed prin

s Kennedy Td road will trg in a cul-de

ne, as shownthe continua

roperties are

f one new roy southwestr of World WAC.

ams on the s

by a qualifieption. The pentially affecndslide haza

– Financial

an applicantoposed deveict incurs fro

il consider al to or greatN.40. Staff a

rimarily of sipment will int

A hydrologis be requiredCouncil Pol, Fraser H

y if more th

on from a ystem can bncipal dwell

Terrace, is rravel generae-sac, adjacen on the drafation of this e submitted.

oad is requirt through a p

War II veteran

subject prop

ed professiopurpose of thct the proposard assessm

Contributio

t is requestelopment. Tom new resid

the road dter in value tare supportiv

ngle-family tegrate well

st’s report, pd to ensure icy WAT. 19

Health has an one dwe

Registered be installed oling and sec

equired to fally southwesent to the soft plan of road southw

red. As showportion of then Wilfred Ken

erty.

onal will be rhe assessmesed develop

ment is requir

on for Com

ted to volunThis contribdential deve

dedication athan the $8,4ve of the app

into the

prepared that the

9 – Well specific elling is

Onsite on each condary

acilitate st from outh lot

ward as

wn on e nnedy,

required ent is to

pment of red.

mmunity

nteer to bution is lopment

and the 445 that plicant’s

75

request as considerable efforts have been made by the applicant to ensure the District achieve further development of the surrounding area as envision by the OCP. Considerable costs related to blasting and grading of the road path have been expended by the applicant to meet current municipal road standards.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The applicant has requested that Council consider the construction of this road as an in-kind contribution in lieu of a voluntary contribution to the Community Amenity Fund as would be typically provided by developers. Staff support the applicant’s request and recommend that Council accept the applicant’s proposed contribution, as the proposed infrastructure can be considered a community benefit due to the road providing access to lands beyond the subject property for future development.

COMMUNICATIONS The developer has posted one (1) development notification sign on the site summarizing the proposed development. Provided a public hearing date is determined by Council, the sign will be modified to advertise the public hearing details (i.e., date, time and place). In addition, a notice will be mailed to the owners and to the occupiers of all properties within a distance of 500 metres (1,640 feet) of the development site notifying them of the public hearing details.

Policy LAN.50 - Pre-Public hearing Information Packages

A pre-public hearing information package will be prepared to include copies of all applicable documents and will be made available online or at municipal hall for public viewing.

Bylaw 3612-2003 Land Use Application Procedures and Fees

A notice of Public Hearing will be prepared in accordance with Bylaw 3612-2003 and the Local Government Act.

REFERRALS Engineering

The Engineering Department has no objection to the rezoning as outlined in Appendix 6.

Forestry Department

The Forestry Department has no objection to the rezoning as outlined in Appendix 7.

76

REQUIREMThe Final Re

1. Confirma

2. A well rereceived Council P

3. A prelimi

SIGN-OFFS

Robert Pub

Comment fr

MENTS PRIOeading of th

ation that a s

port, prepareand that th

Policy WAT.

nary geotec

S

blow, Planne

rom Chief Ad

OR TO FINAe Zoning Am

septic system

ed by a profe subject w19 – Well W

hnical hazar

er

dministrative

AL READINGmending Byla

m can be ins

fessional engwell(s) meetsWater Quality

rd assessme

e Officer

G

aw will be he

stalled to ser

gineer with es the provisiy – Aesthetic

ent prepared

ReviewChris L

eld until the

rvice each pr

expertise in ions of the c and Health

d by a qualifi

wed by: Laing, Manag

following ha

roposed new

ground wateSubdivision

h Parameter

ied professio

ger of Plann

ave been sat

w lot;

er supply, haControl By

rs; and

onal.

ning

tisfied:

as been law and

77

Appendix 1

Information for Corporate Officer

Civic Address:

11445 Wilson Street

PID: 008-621-039

Legal: Lot 19 Section 15 Township 15 New Westminster District Plan 39781

78

Appendix 2

Location Map

79

Legend

Cross Hat

Secondar

Shaded a

Developm

Zoning

tched area t

ry Dwelling (

area to be re

ment 38 (CD

Ap

g Amending

to be rezone

(RR7s) Zone

ezoned from

D38) Zone

ppendix 3

g Bylaw Re

ed from Rura

Rural 16 (RU

eference Pla

al 16 (RU16)

U16) Zone to

an

Zone to Rur

o Comprehe

ral Residenti

ensive

ial

80

Ap

Draft Plan

ppendix 4

n of Subdiv

vision

81

Appendix 5

Proposed Comprehensive Development 38 (CD38) Zone

SECTION 1238 CD38 A. Zone Intent

1. This Zone is based on the RR7s Zone and the intent of this zone is to provide one Single Family Dwelling with a Secondary Dwelling Unit in the Rural Residential area and compatible accessory uses, where significant community amenities and or benefits have been contributed, which are considered to offset the additional density achievable when compared to the RR7s Zone.

B. Permitted Uses

1. The following Principal Uses and no other shall be permitted in the CD38 zone:

a. Residential limited to:

i. Duplex, or ii. One Single Family Dwelling.

2. The following Accessory Uses and no other shall be permitted in the CD38 zone:

a. Agriculture limited to:

i. Hobby Greenhouse, ii. Small Scale Agriculture – provided minimum lot size is 0.36 ha (0.88 ac).

b. Residential limited to:

One of:

i. Bed and Breakfast, or ii. Boarding Use, or iii. Residential Care, or iv. Secondary Dwelling Unit (Section 106 Part F.), provided the Principal Use is not a

Duplex, limited to one of: Secondary Suite, or Coach House, or Garden Cottage

And,

v. Detached Garage, vi. Home Occupation

c. Storage limited to:

82

i. Enclosed Storage. C. Lot Area

1. Each Lot shall have a minimum area as shown on the following table:

Zone: Area CD38 0.65 ha

(1.6 ac) D. Setbacks

1. All Buildings and Structures shall be sited in accordance with the following minimum Setbacks:

Front Rear Interior Side

Exterior Side

Principal Building 7.5 m (24.6 ft)

7.5 m (24.6 ft)

3.0 m (9.8 ft)

4.5 m (14.8 ft)

Accessory Building/Structure

7.5 m (24.6 ft)

7.5 m (24.6 ft)

3.0 m (9.8 ft)

4.5 m (14.8 ft)

Hobby Agriculture Building/Structure

15 m (49.2 ft)

15 m (49.2 ft)

15 m (49.2 ft)

15 m (49.2 ft)

E. Lot Coverage

1. Buildings shall together cover not more than 15% of the Lot Area. F. Floor Space

1. A Floor Space Ratio is not applicable in these zones. G. Impervious Surfaces

1. Impervious Surfaces shall together cover not more than 25% of the Lot Area. H. Number of Residential Buildings

1. Buildings for a Residential Use shall be limited to one per Lot except where a Secondary Dwelling is located within a Coach House or Garden Cottage.

I. Height of Buildings

1. The Height of the Principal Building shall not exceed 11.0 m (36.1 ft). 2. The Height of an Accessory Building shall not exceed one storey to a maximum of 6.0 m (19.7

ft).

3. The Height of a Building or Structure for a Coach House shall not exceed 9.0 m (29.5 ft).

4. The Height of a Building or Structure for Hobby Agriculture use shall not exceed 11.0 m (36.1 ft).

83

J. Off Street Parking

1. Off Street Parking shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 109. K. Hobby Greenhouse Use

1. Shall be limited to a maximum of two Buildings not exceeding a total area of 70 sq m (750 sq ft).

2. Where Greenhouse use is artificially illuminated, light spillage shall not extend beyond the

subject property boundary.

3. A solid landscape buffer of a minimum of 2.0 m (6.5 ft) in height is required.

84

Appendix 6

Engineering Comments

85

Appendix 7

Forestry Comments

86


FILE: 3310-14 P2014-040 - R14-026


DATE: March 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Donna-Lee Lakes, Planner

SUBJECT: Rescind Readings to Zoning Amending Bylaw 5464-2014-5050(157) for the Property Located at 7680 Strachan Street

ATTACHMENT: Appendix 1 – Information for Corporate Officer

CIVIC ADDRESS: 7680 Strachan Street

APPLICANT:

Al Kubas

LOCATION: Mission Core

87



BACKGROUND

Mr. Al Kubas, who was the applicant acting on behalf of the property owners for Rezoning application R14-026, passed away on January 25, 2016. Following Mr. Kubas’s passing, Staff contacted Ms. Sharon Sorensen, the applicant’s spouse, who followed-up with the subject property owners who have since advised that they will not be pursuing the development of their property at this time.

The intent of the application was to rezone the property located at 7680 Strachan Street from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Residential Compact 465 (RC465s) Zone to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into two (2) lots of a minimum 465 square metre (5,005 square foot) lot size with each lot allowing for a secondary dwelling unit.

As the property owners do not wish to pursue developing their property at this time, closing the development application requires Council to rescind the readings granted to date to Zoning Amending Bylaw 5464-2014-5050(157).

Specifically, the rezoning application was submitted on September 23, 2014 and 1st and 2nd readings were granted on November 3, 2014. A public hearing was held on November 17, 2014 and 3rd reading was granted to the Bylaw that same evening.

SIGN-OFFS:

Donna-Lee Lakes, Planner

Reviewed by: Chris Laing, Manager of Planning

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed.

This report brings forward the rezoning application to rezone the property located at 7680 Strachan Street to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into two (2) lots and identifies the property owner’s request to withdraw their application and the need for Council to rescind 1st, 2nd and 3rd Readings to the Zoning Amending Bylaw 5464-2014-5050(157). The matter has been listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

88


Appendix 1


Civic Address:

7680 Strachan Street

PID: 010-282-157

Legal: Lot 30 Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 17501

89

Finance Department

Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 7

File Category: 05-1715-20

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Kerri Onken, Deputy Treasurer/Collector

SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Reporting – December 31, 2015 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix “A” - General Operating Fund Summary

Appendix “B” - Utility Operating Funds and Equipment Pool Operations Summary Appendix “C” - Capital Budget Variance Summary Appendix “D” - Service Levels Appendix “E” - General Operating Fund Contingency and Mayor’s Contingency Transactions

This report is to brief Council on the current status of the 2015 budget and provide a projection of the District’s overall financial results to December 31, 2015. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to brief Council on the current status of the 2015 budget and provide a projection of the District’s overall financial results to December 31, 2015.

BACKGROUND: As part of the District’s financial reporting system, budget status reports occur on the quarters ending June, September and December, to provide Council with timely information in terms of the District’s overall financial performance.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: This quarterly financial review is for the year ending December 31, 2015. Attached to this report are the following appendices:

• Appendix “A” summarizes year-end projections on a departmental basis for the general operating fund, and provides budget variance explanations where the variance is +/- $10,000 or 10%.

• Appendix “B” summarizes year-end projections for the utility operating funds and the equipment pool operations, along with a budget variance explanation where the variance is +/- $10,000 or 10%.

• Appendix “C” summarizes year-end projections for the capital budget and provides budget variance explanations for all unfavourable variances.

• Appendix “D” is an update on departmental service levels for the year ending December 31, 2015 with estimated service level projections for 2016.

• Appendix “E” summarizes the transactions funded from the general operating fund contingency account, the Mayor’s contingency account, and the District’s flexibility account.

90


Current projections indicate that by year-end the general operating fund will have a surplus of $1.6 million. It should be noted that year-end accruals and adjustments have not been finalized and these may materially affect the general operating fund projected surplus and the utility fund transfers. The auditors are scheduled to be on site March 30 to April 2, 2016 and the final numbers will be available in May.

General Operating Fund Projected Year-end Results The following table summarizes the projected year-end budget results on a departmental basis for the general operating fund.

Budget variance explanations for departments are included in the attached Appendix “A”.

General Operating Fund Net Budget Variance SummaryDecember 2015, Winter Budget Review

DEPARTMENT

FINAL/ AMENDED

2015 BUDGET

PROJECTED 2015 YEAR-END

BALANCE

Police Services 10,184,275 9,118,144 -1,066,132 -10%Public Works 3,568,645 3,266,403 -302,242 -8%

Development Services - Planning 1,112,854 893,943 -218,911 -20%Development Services - Inspections 171,249 -52 -171,301 -100%Finance and Purchasing 1,379,749 1,217,407 -162,342 -12%Engineering 126,630 14,709 -111,921 -88%Council 650,255 548,958 -101,297 -16%Fire & Emergency Operations 3,103,583 3,014,514 -89,069 -3%Parks 912,624 835,222 -77,402 -8%Municipal Buildings 746,705 718,696 -28,009 -4%Corporate Administration 2,206,309 2,179,393 -26,916 -1%Economic Development 269,162 260,247 -8,915 -3%Public Transit 2,156,372 2,151,191 -5,181 0%

Recreation Administration 529,240 532,839 3,599 1%Cemetery 21,818 38,554 16,737 77%General Government 3,728,099 3,764,866 36,767 1%Tax Levy -32,517,581 -32,448,209 69,372 0%Recreation Services 1,650,011 1,731,770 81,759 5%Payroll Overhead Recovery 0 515,811 515,811 * >100%

0 -1,645,596 -1,645,596 -191%

Projected Budget Surplus 0 -1,645,596 -1,645,596

* Historically, departments salary savings resulting from vacant positions, sick time and WorkSafe claims have been able to offset this deficit.

Negative variances = Under budgetPositive variances = Over budget

PROJECTED VARIANCE $ %

Und

er B

udge

tO

ver B

udge

t

91


In reviewing the departmental explanations, many departments experienced either a delay in hiring for vacant positions or staff illness where positions remained unfilled for a period of time. These hiring delays and staff illnesses’, making up most of the projected year-end balance variance, does not represent ongoing budget savings.

Staff have identified the following large (over $150,000) variances within the department summaries:

• The RCMP contract is showing an estimated surplus of $840,000. 92% of these savings are salaries and indirect cost that are based on complement numbers. The contract is funded for 50 members with the current complement (December 2015) at 45.3 members. This amount represents approximately 84% of the projected Police Services surplus.

• The 2015 Property Assessment Appeal Board reviewed several appeals. The impact on the District’s taxes collected is a reduction of approximately $135,000 in property tax revenue.

• Fire Administration ($126,000) and Planning Administration ($202,000) have substantial staff vacancies in 2015 that will have a projected budget surplus of $328,000. The budget saving in Fire Administration has been partially offset by an increase in emergency call outs.

• The Waste Management utility is projecting budget savings in Landfill Disposal site operating of approximately $116,000 plus and an estimated additional $78,000 budget savings from a revised contract for curbside recycling/compost collection. This will result in a higher transfer to the Refuse Reserve.

• Payroll overhead is under collecting approximately $515,000 from departments to cover the cost of employee related expenses (holidays, sick time, health benefits, statutory deductions). Budget savings from departments for vacant positions or staff illnesses have covered this shortfall for the past four years thus keeping property tax increases to the minimum. Staff will be reviewing this funding strategy to determine if and when this strategy should be changed.

• Building permit and building inspection activities have increased in 2015 resulting from additional fees collected estimated at $133,000.

• Leisure Centre facility operations is projecting a budget overage of $189,000 mainly from an $85,000 hydro bill from 2014 and H-Vac repairs estimated at $30,000. There are other issues from increased overtime to meet regulatory standards and other general operation costs contributing to this deficit. Within the Recreation Services budget, this deficit has been offset by other budget savings.

92


Utility Operating Fund Projected Year-end Results The following table summarizes the projected year-end transfer to reserves for the utility funds and the equipment replacement reserve as detailed in Appendix “B”:

All utility operating funds and the equipment pool operations are projecting higher transfers to reserves than budgeted.

Capital Fund Projected Year-end Results There are four projects in the general capital that are projecting to be over budget, (see Appendix “C”) Cemetery ($542), Corporate Administration Audio ($937), Parks ($5,587) and Recreation Air Handling unit ($10,946). This budget deficit, all funded by the General Capital Reserve (GCR), can be absorbed within the GCR funding allocation as approximately $84,000 of the 2015 GCR budget allocation is not being utilized for 2015 projects. The weakness in the Canadian Dollar has impacted two of these projects. Overall the general capital plan is projecting to be under budget by $127,000.

The utility capital programs are within budget target, with several regional water and sewer projects not undertaken in 2015.

Departmental Service Levels The attached Appendix “D” shows the year-end service levels for each department in comparison to the prior years’ service levels of 2014 and the projected service levels for 2016.

General Operating Fund Contingency Account, Mayor’s Contingency Account and 2015 Flexibility Account Transactions Appendix “E” summarizes the transactions, approved by Council, that were funded from the 2015 general operating fund contingency account, Transactions from the Mayor’s contingency account and the 2015 Flexibility account are also included in this appendix.

Utility Funds and Equipment Replacement Net Variances SummaryDecember 2015, Winter Budget Review

BUDGETED TRANSFER

TO RESERVE

PROJECTED TRANSFER

TO RESERVE Sewer Utility Operating Fund 1,542,274 1,693,381 -151,107 10%

Waste Management Utility Operating Fund 237,587 383,651 -146,064 61%

Water Utility Operating Fund 3,061,395 3,124,279 -62,884 2%

Equipment Pool Operations 717,520 735,379 -17,859 2%

Negative variances = Additional Transfer to ReservesPositive variances = Reduced Transfer to Reserves


93


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: General Operating Fund: The general operating fund is projecting a surplus estimated at $1.6 million. Staff will present a report outlining options for Council to consider once all the year-end accruals and adjustments have been completed.

Utility Funds and Equipment Pool Operations: All utility operating funds and the equipment pool operations are projecting higher transfers to reserves than budgeted.

Capital Fund: There are four projects in the general capital that are projecting to be over budget, (see Appendix “C”). These projects can be covered as approximately $84,000 of the 2015 GCR budget allocation is not being utilized for 2015 projects. Overall the general capital plan is projecting to be under budget by $127,000.

The utility capital programs are within budget target, with several regional water and sewer projects not undertaken in 2015.

COMMUNICATION: No communication action is required.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: The quarterly financial review for the year ending December 31, 2015 summarizes the year-end projections at the department level along with budget variance explanations, where required.

Current projections indicate that by year-end the general operating fund is expecting a surplus. In reviewing the departmental explanations, many departments experienced either a delay in hiring for vacant positions or staff illness where positions remained unfilled for a period of time. These hiring delays and staff illnesses’, making up most of the projected year-end balance variance, does not represent ongoing budget savings.

The water utility operating fund, the sewer utility operating fund, the equipment pool operations and the waste management utility operations are projecting higher transfers to reserves than budgeted.

The capital fund for the most part is under budget with the exception of four projects in general capital program which are over budget. These projects can be covered as approximately $84,000 of the 2015 GCR budget allocation is not being utilized for 2015 projects.

It should be noted that year-end accruals and adjustments have not been finalized and these may materially affect the general operating fund projected surplus and the utility fund transfers. The auditors are scheduled to be on site March 30 to April 2, 2016 and the final numbers will be available by May. Staff will present a report outlining options for Council to consider once all the year-end accruals and adjustments have been completed.

SIGN-OFFS:

Kerri Onken, Deputy Treasurer/Collector

Reviewed by: Kris Boland, Manager of Finance

Comment from the Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed

G:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Budget 2015\Quarterly Reporting\Winter Financial Reporting Dec 31, 2015.docx

94

APPENDIX "A"

Page 1 of 2

General Operating Fund SummaryDecember 2015, Winter Budget Review

DEPARTMENT

FINAL/ AMENDED 2015

BUDGET

2015 YEAR TO DATE

RESULTS *


BALANCE VARIANCE EXPLANATION

Cemetery Revenue -259,607 -201,495 -258,113 1,495 -1% Cemetery Expenditures 281,425 252,419 296,666 15,241 5% Computer upgrades required; Cemetery beatification was needed.

21,818 50,924 38,554 16,736 77%

Council and Grants Revenue -261,950 -213,040 -249,100 12,850 -5% Donation-In-Kind and support of community groups at the Clarke Theatre were lower than anticipated therefore gaming revenue was reduced.

Council and Grants Expenditures 912,205 764,921 798,058 -114,147 -13% Donation-In-Kind and support of community groups at the Clarke Theatre were lower than anticipated; Not all of Council's flex funding was required.

650,255 551,881 548,958 -101,297 -16%

Corporate Administration Revenue -418,536 -381,497 -382,962 35,574 -8% Less funding from gaming reserve required for downtown security expenses.Corporate Administration Expenditures 2,624,845 2,477,178 2,562,355 -62,490 -2% Significant salary savings in department plus lower downtown security costs.

2,206,309 2,095,680 2,179,393 -26,916 -1%

Economic/Land Development Revenue -3,500 -5,879 -5,495 -1,995 57% Unanticipated recoveries from Scenic 7 partnership contributions.Economic/Land Development Expenditures 272,662 266,609 265,742 -6,920 -3%

269,162 260,729 260,247 -8,915 -3%

Engineering Revenue -1,280,750 -695,930 -1,569,746 -288,996 23% Shaw Pit royalties unknown at time of budgeting; increase in Soil Removal fees realized in 2015; increase in subdivision inspections performed in 2015.

Engineering Expenditures 1,407,380 1,591,693 1,584,455 177,075 13% Shaw Pit royalties that is transferred to reserve unknown at time of budgeting; increase in Soil Removal fees realized in 2015 increases the transfer to the Road Reserve.

126,630 895,763 14,709 -111,921 -88%

Finance Revenue -133,900 -168,840 -171,651 -37,752 28% Increase in local home sales have increased the number of tax certificate requests, cost recovery bylaw went into effect partway through 2015 increasing the administrative fee revenue.

Finance Expenditures 1,513,648 1,412,946 1,389,058 -124,590 -8% Budget savings in salaries due to staff absence/illness.1,379,749 1,244,106 1,217,407 -162,342 -12%

Fire & Emergency Operations Revenue -19,643 -67,258 -67,258 -47,615 242% Additional revenue from new cost recovery bylaw implemented partway through the year and BC Hydro Training Grant partially offset by reduction in Fire Investigation revenue.

Fire & Emergency Operations Expenditures 3,123,226 3,082,288 3,081,772 -41,454 -1% Salary savings due to delay in hiring for vacant and new positions, partially offset by large scale events and 32% increase in emergency calls created higher fire suppression costs.

3,103,583 3,015,031 3,014,514 -89,069 -3%

General Government Revenue -3,299,438 -5,027,662 -5,144,777 -1,845,339 56% Budget surplus mainly due to unbudgeted Gas Tax revenue and unexpected revenue from property sale. See below for offsetting transfer to reserves.

General Government Expenditures 7,027,537 8,572,313 8,909,643 1,882,106 27% Unbudgeted Gas Tax revenue and property sales revenue transferred to reserves.3,728,099 3,544,652 3,764,866 36,767 1%

Inspection Services Revenue -889,268 -998,403 -1,015,767 -126,499 14% Increase in Building permit and inspection actives during the year.Inspection Services Expenditures 1,060,517 1,015,226 1,015,715 -44,802 -4% Reduction in Animal Control costs plus staff vacancies.

171,249 16,823 -52 -171,301 -100%

Municipal Buildings Revenue -113,597 -94,025 -92,697 20,900 -18% Reduced rental income from property sold during the year.Municipal Buildings Expenditures 860,302 836,454 811,393 -48,909 -6% Several properties required reduced maintenance during the year, partially offset by higher maintenance for the Public Works complex.

746,705 742,429 718,696 -28,009 -4%

Parks Revenue -25,000 -9,226 -14,226 10,774 -43% Relamping of Sports Park project postponed and funding not required.

Parks Expenditures 937,624 849,866 849,448 -88,175 -9% Relamping at Sports Park postponed plus vacant position for part of the year partially offset by increase in repairs due to park vandalism.

912,624 840,639 835,222 -77,402 -8%

PROJECTED VARIANCE $ (a) %

95

APPENDIX "A"

Page 2 of 2

General Operating Fund SummaryDecember 2015, Winter Budget Review

DEPARTMENT

FINAL/ AMENDED 2015

BUDGET

2015 YEAR TO DATE

RESULTS *


BALANCE VARIANCE EXPLANATIONPROJECTED VARIANCE

$ (a) %

Payroll Overhead Recovery -6,323,089 -5,783,506 -5,765,707 557,382 -9% Staff vacancies have reduced amount collected from departments.Payroll Overhead Expenditures 6,323,089 6,275,714 6,281,518 -41,571 -1% Staff vacancies have reduced several employer costs, partially offset by increase in sick time, vacation expense, higher WorkSafe BC

costs and employers' portion of Canada Pension.

0 492,208 515,811 515,811 >100% Historically, Departments' salary savings resulting from vacant position, sick time and WorkSafe claims have been able to offset this deficit.

Planning Revenue -485,600 -239,793 -469,869 15,731 -3% Lower applications received than anticipated.Planning Expenditures 1,598,454 1,140,299 1,363,812 -234,642 -15% Overall surplus due to staff vacancies.

1,112,854 900,506 893,943 -218,911 -20%

Police Services Revenue -731,308 -802,821 -795,011 -63,703 9% New cost recovery bylaw went into effect partway through 2015, higher "document service" increasing the administrative fee revenue.Police Services Expenditures 10,915,584 9,770,844 9,913,155 -1,002,429 -9% Cost savings due to lower than anticipated referrals to Restorative Justice; delay in hiring new RCMP officers; budget savings on

prisoner expenses due to cell retro fit; staff vacancies.10,184,276 8,968,023 9,118,144 -1,066,132 -10%

Public Transit Revenue -726,397 -713,840 -713,840 12,557 -2% Lower ridership in local bus and handi-dart services.Public Transit Expenditures 2,882,769 2,412,608 2,865,031 -17,738 -1% Commuter rail service under projections.

2,156,372 1,698,768 2,151,191 -5,181 0%

Public Works Revenue -110,926 -104,574 -128,430 -17,504 16% Increase activity with Third Party billings and Access Permit administrative fee.

Public Works Expenditures 3,679,571 3,340,757 3,394,833 -284,738 -8% Limited snow removal in early 2015; Dry spring and summer forced shut down of mowing through summer; Fewer BC Hydro street light requests/repairs; Some minor road repairs delayed to 2016.

3,568,645 3,236,182 3,266,403 -302,242 -8%

Recreation Administration Revenue -226,682 -247,701 -247,684 -21,002 9% Unanticipated grant received through Social Development. See offsetting expense below.Recreation Administration Expenditures 755,922 780,649 780,523 24,601 3% Increase expense due to grant received by Social Development.

529,240 532,948 532,839 3,599 1%

Recreation Services Revenue -2,146,433 -2,295,593 -2,313,861 -167,427 8% Program participation continues to be strong.

Recreation Services Expenditures 3,796,444 4,038,872 4,045,631 249,187 7% Program expenses higher due to increase participation (see revenue above). A 2014 BC Hydro invoice paid in 2015, Fire at the Leisure Centre, overtime required to meet regulatory standards.

1,650,011 1,743,279 1,731,770 81,759 5%

Taxation/Grants In-Lieu Revenue -32,552,581 -32,477,468 -32,477,509 75,072 0% Property tax revenue lower as a result of outstanding 2015 Property Appeal approved by December 31. This reduction in revenue is partially offset by an increase to Grants-in-Lieu.

Taxation/Grants In-Lieu Expenditures 35,000 29,295 29,300 -5,700 -16% Lower interest rates reduced interest cost paid to customers who prepay property taxes.-32,517,581 -32,448,173 -32,448,209 69,372 0%

Projected General Operating Fund Balance 1 -1,645,596 -1,645,596

*2015 Year to Date Results includes expenditures posted up to February 18, 2016.(a) Negative variances represent higher revenue in the revenue section and lower expenses in the expense section.

96

APPENDIX "B"

Page 1 of 1

Utility Operating Funds and Equipment Pool Operations SummaryDecember 2015, Winter Budget Review

FINAL/ AMENDED 2015

BUDGET

2015 YEAR TO DATE

RESULTS *


BALANCE VARIANCE EXPLANATION

Water Utility Operating FundOperating RevenueNon-Regional Revenue -6,196,278 -6,046,533 -6,269,890 -73,613 1% Increase in metered water revenue and investment interest partially offset by lower revenue from flat rate water and water

service connections.Regional Revenue -17,933 -35,814 -37,216 -19,283 108% Unbudgeted insurance recovery from Norrish Creek Water Treatment Plant incident.

Subtotal Operating Revenue -6,214,211 -6,082,347 -6,307,106 -92,896 1%

Operating ExpendituresNon-Regional Expenditures 2,141,679 1,282,280 2,226,270 84,591 4% Water service repair calls were high; storm damage on the pressure reducing stations; Ruskin station needed additional

maintenance; partially offset by budget savings from vacant position and reduced costs associated with water service connections.

Regional Expenditures 1,011,137 909,829 956,558 -54,579 -5% Savings due to maternity leave, and decreased utilization of conservation rebate programs, offset by increased maintenance costs related to Norrish Creek Water Treatment Plant incident.

Subtotal Operating Expenditures 3,152,816 2,192,109 3,182,828 30,012 1%

Transfer to Water Capital Reserve Fund (b) -3,061,395 -3,890,238 -3,124,279 -62,884 2% Higher revenue collected partially offset by increased costs resulted in an increase in transfer to water capital reserve.

Sewer Utility Operating FundOperating RevenueNon-Regional Revenue -4,103,780 -3,950,333 -4,191,910 -88,130 2% Increased revenue from metered sewer rates, sewer connection administrative fee and additional investment income.

Regional Revenue -307,414 -479,430 -454,192 -146,778 48% Industrial extra strength revenue higher than budgeted from four large industrial customers, plus additional amount received from Sumas system due to favourable exchange rate.

Subtotal Operating Revenue -4,411,194 -4,429,763 -4,646,102 -234,908 5%

Operating ExpendituresNon-Regional Expenditures 1,736,193 956,153 1,723,032 -13,161 -1% Budget savings from vacant position and reduced costs associated with system flushing partially offset by increase costs for lift

station maintenance and interest transferred to reserves.Regional Expenditures 1,132,727 1,211,314 1,229,689 96,962 9% Increased costs for condition assessment, and additional maintenance required due to capital projects during the year. Also,

budgeted cost share was 21.88%, actual cost share is 23.73%.Subtotal Operating Expenditures 2,868,920 2,167,467 2,952,721 83,801 3%

Transfer to Sewer Capital Reserve Fund (b) -1,542,274 -2,262,296 -1,693,381 -151,107 10% Higher revenue collected partially offset by increased costs resulted in an increase in transfer to sewer capital reserve.

Waste Management Utility Operating FundOperating Revenue -4,441,114 -4,420,908 -4,436,732 4,382 0% Reduced revenue from lower scrap metal prices; lower curbside collection projections; lower revenue from regional recycling

program from reduced commodity prices; partially offset by an increase in commercial traffic at the landfill.Operating Expenditures 4,203,528 3,493,808 4,053,081 -150,447 -4% Budget surplus is mainly due to lower operating costs at the landfill, reduced curbside collection costs partially offset by increase

in regional recycling costs.Transfer to Refuse Reserve Fund (b) -237,587 -927,099 -383,651 -146,064 61% Lower operating costs partially offset by lower revenue created a net increase in the transfer to reserve.

Equipment Pool OperationsOperating Revenue -2,573,696 -2,487,152 -2,487,151 86,545 -3% Vehicle revenue was lower than projections.Operating Expenditures 1,856,176 1,704,503 1,751,772 -104,404 -6% Vehicle expenses came in under budget plus reduced staffing costs in administering the fleet.Transfer to Equipment Reserve Fund (b) -717,520 -782,649 -735,379 -17,859 2% The net of budget savings in fleet costs less the lower revenue resulted in a modest increase to the reserve transfer.

*2015 Year to Date Results includes expenditures posted up to February 18, 2016.(a) Negative variance represents higher revenue in the revenue section and lower expenses in the expense section.(b) Negative variance represents more funds available to be transferred to reserve than what was originally budgeted. Positive variance represents less funds available to be transferred to reserve than what was budgeted.

PROJECTED VARIANCE $ (a) %

97

APPENDIX "C"

General Capital Budget Variance Summary2015 Winter Budget Review

DEPARTMENT

FINAL/ AMENDED

2015 BUDGET

PROJECTED 2015 YEAR-

END BALANCE VARIANCE EXPLANATION

Municipal Buildings 2,740,233 2,215,544 (524,689) -19% Various roof projects finished under budget; savings in Welton Street Plaza Design (project concluded early).

Roads 4,333,952 4,116,358 (217,594) -5% Cedar St & 7th Ave traffic study completed below budget. Drainage 615,374 528,535 (86,839) -14% Drainage condition assessment and storm sewer system survey assessment were completed under budget. Parkland Purchases 758,088 701,250 (56,838) -7% Parkland purchase was completed under budget. Fire Operations 133,906 132,952 (954) -1% Minor savings in small fire fighting equipment and turnout gear. Engineering 558,296 557,601 (695) 0% Minor savings in miscellaneous engineering capital. Public Works 33,579 33,579 - 0% Major Corporate Projects 90,000 90,000 - 0% Finance 10,472 10,472 - 0% Police Services 9,592 9,592 - 0% Inspection Services 3,342 3,342 - 0% Planning 3,342 3,342 - 0% Cemetery 3,242 3,784 542 17% Project pricing increased due to weakened CAD dollar at time of purchase.

Corporate Administration 384,659 385,596 937 0% Council Chambers Audio System Replacement slightly more than budget.

Parks 4,224,247 4,229,834 5,587 0% Sports Park bleachers - Project pricing increased due to weakened CAD dollar at time of purchase.

Recreation Administration 554,115 565,061 10,946 2% Unforeseen repairs to Air Handling Unit were greater than expected. General Capital Projected Budget Variance 13,586,842 (127,313) -6%

Utility Funds and Equipment Replacement Capital Budget Variance Summary2015 Winter Budget Review

DEPARTMENT

FINAL/ AMENDED

2015 BUDGET

PROJECTED 2015 YEAR-

END BALANCE VARIANCE EXPLANATION

Regional Water 1,753,131 99,002 (1,654,129) -94% A number of projects that were in the capital plan were not undertaken in 2015.Regional Sewer 1,732,937 191,043 (1,541,894) -89% A number of projects that were in the capital plan were not undertaken in 2015.Non-Regional Sewer 734,577 647,550 (87,027) -12% Application work for Fraser River Sanitary Crossing and Falcon Pump Station work completed under budget.Non-Regional Water 2,404,387 2,348,655 (55,732) -2% Water contingency not needed; budget savings for the in-line value program and pressure reducing station.Equipment 1,399,863 1,394,105 (5,758) 0% Favourable pricing on full-size truck purchase compared to budget.Waste Management 314,711 309,287 (5,424) -2% Sale proceeds of AMRD Case Back Hoe were not expected or budgeted.

Projected 2015 Year-End Balance includes carry forwards if applicableNegative variances = Under budgetPositive variances = Over budget

Und

er B

udge

t U

nder

Bud

get

Ove

r Bud

get



98

APPENDIX "D"

1 of 6

Service LevelsDecember 2015, Winter Budget Review

2014Actuals

2015Forecast

2015Year-endActuals

% of 2015 Forecast

2016Forecast

CEMETERY

Activities - CemeteryNumber of full burials 30 39 19 49% 39Number of cremation burials 42 56 53 95% 56Number of columbarium burials 4 3 1 33% 3

CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

Activities - Corporate AdministrationNumber of bylaws prepared (prepared rather than adopted ) 70 60 58 97% 60Number of Regular Council Committee of the Whole meetings 24 24 23 96% 24Number of Closed Council meetings 25 27 40 148% 27Number of Special Council meetings 7 7 19 271% 7Number of Freestanding Committee of the Whole meetings 8 9 6 67% 9Freedom of Information Requests 50 55 66 120% 55Number of media releases 16 24 31 129% 30Facebook / Twitter followers combined N/A 1,250 4,456 356% 3,500Civic enagement Surveys 2 6 10 167% 12Survey Responses 600 1,000 1,823 182% 3,000Major public events (Open House, Town Hall etc.) 6 6 4 67% 8

Activities - Information TechnologyNumber of calls for service processed (estimated) 3,740 4,000 3,670 92% 4,000Number of calls for service processed - RCMP (estimated) 1,552 1,500 1,700 113% 1,500Number of computers supported (including remote computers) 355 365 365 100% 365Number of hits on the website 348,135 375,000 402,800 107% 375,000

Activities - Human ResourcesNumber of internal postings (unionized) 46 30 37 123% 30Number of external recruitments 31 15 41 273% 15Number of corporate training opportunities provided to staff 8 5 7 140% 5Number of employees participating in corporate training 37 150 40 27% 150

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Service Levels - Building Inspection and Bylaw Enforcement# Days from Complete Building Permit (BP) Appl. rec'd to BP issuance 22 20 19 95% 20# Days from Demo Permit Appl. rec'd to Permit issuance 3 3 2 67% 3# Days from Sign Permit Appl. rec'd to Permit issuance* 23 5 5 100% 5Number of dog licenses issued 6,110 5,800 5,966 103% 5,800Number of tickets issued 230 300 252 84% 300Number of Inter-municipal Business Licenses issued 69 75 80 107% 75*Length of time for issuance of sign permits can increase when incomplete and/or incorrect drawings are submitted.

Activities - Building Inspection and Bylaw EnforcementNumber of business licenses issued 1,587 1,600 1,612 101% 1,600

Resident 671 650 665 102% 650Home occupation 616 575 624 109% 575Non-resident 300 375 323 86% 375

99

APPENDIX "D"

2 of 6


2014Actuals

2015Forecast

2015Year-endActuals

% of 2015 Forecast

2016Forecast

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - Cont'd

# of residential building permits issued 119 70 150 214% 70Value of residential building permits issued $22,614,727 $15,000,000 $28,846,714 192% $15,000,000# of Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) building permits issued 47 35 41 117% 35Value of Industrial/Commercial/Institutional building permits issued $13,832,488 $10,000,000 $2,652,230 27% $10,000,000# of demo permits issued 12 20 15 75% 20

10 Year Building Permit History Residential Commercial Industrial

Numbers Dollars Numbers Dollars Numbers Dollars

2014 119 $22,614,727 28 $3,280,537 7 $2,301,0002013 96 $17,341,560 39 $4,381,183 3 $123,0002012 66 $12,670,842 24 $4,606,350 9 $2,301,0002011 89 $17,176,013 28 $12,201,621 23 $2,726,2692010 101 $19,814,532 23 $6,679,820 15 $3,145,0002009 96 $18,663,107 14 $594,000 13 $2,661,0002008 118 $23,820,736 13 $811,601 9 $8,493,5002007 213 $42,376,049 14 $2,953,000 5 $3,350,0002006 158 $26,317,260 15 $1,024,237 2 $1,360,0002005 172 $27,743,972 22 $10,944,001 3 $33,0002004 316 $48,956,542 24 $2,793,904 3 $508,2002003 270 $36,470,569 17 $4,620,500 3 $28,400

Service Levels - Planning# days to issue PAR letters* 28 15 27.9 186% 15# days 3rd reading to PLA issuance (Rez w. SD)** 52 75 48.3 64% 75# days all referrals received to PLA issuance (SD only) 48 15 38.3 255% 15# days from complete application received to public hearing 42 45 41.13 91% 45

Activity Levels - Planning# Lots created 29 50 47 94% 50# Units created 47 75 22 29% 75# PAR Meetings 63 60 21 35% 60# Rez, SD, OCP, DP, DVP applications 58 60 66 110% 60

ECONOMIC/LAND DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Activities - Economic DevelopmentNumber of business inquiries responded to* 251 265 243 92% 265Number of businesses contacted for retention purposes 18 30 28 93% 30Number of active businesses older than 10 years** 548 550 528 96% 530Number of promotional trade shows attended 6 6 3 50% 6 *Includes management of land use, business license, lease, and land and building purchase inquiries in 2015 YTD

Resident = 267 Home-Based = 204 Non–resident = 57 (all categories = 528 over 10 years)

*Complex or detailed development proposal often involve serveral meetings and further discussion with applicants to ensure accurate and detailed information is being provided.

**The following is the breakdown of businesses older than 10 years:

100

APPENDIX "D"

3 of 6


2014Actuals

2015Forecast

2015Year-endActuals

% of 2015 Forecast

2016Forecast

ENGINEERING and PUBLIC WORKS

Activities - EngineeringNumber of Street Use Permits issued 35 20 68 340% 50Number of Extraordinary Traffic Permits issued 9 15 6 40% 5Number of Hydrant Use Permits issued 13 15 13 87% 15Number of Filming Permits issued 8 15 21 140% 40

Activities - Public WorksAsphalt rehabilitated (square meters) 112,800 100,000 91,500 92% 100,000New sidewalk installations (kilometers) 0.24 0.30 0.60 200% 0.30Number of major road repairs 7 7 6 86% 7Kilometers of dike maintenance/upgrades 4 4 4 100% 4

FINANCE

Activities - FinanceAccounts Payable invoices processed 9,945 9,200 10,276 112% 10,500Accounts Payable electronic funds transfer processed 3,206 3,000 3,437 115% 3,200Accounts Payable cheques produced 1,899 2,000 1,901 95% 1,600Accounts Receivable invoices generated 581 600 657 110% 600Purchasing card invoices processed 1,986 2,900 2,700 93% 2,400EFT payments received from customers 8,093 7,500 8,878 118% 9,500Number of BC On-Line Tax Certificate requests 1,738 1,460 2,038 140% 1,800

Activities - Payroll Payroll Direct Deposits (average per bi-weekly pay) 376 375 0 0% 375Number of T4s * 528 475 550 116% 475Number of Record of Employments issued 65 64 0 0% 64* 2014 included T4As for the election workers

Activities - PurchasingNumber of purchase orders issued 879 750 836 111% 750Number of competitive processes administered 39 30 44 147% 30Purchasing card spending $401,434 $425,000 $485,089 114% $425,000Central stores sales $439,781 $330,000 $396,626 120% $330,000Central stores inventory value on hand $89,689 $80,000 $101,309 127% $80,000 (inventory value can fluctuate due to capital plan and seasonal needs creating higher value in the summer)

FIRE & EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

Activities - Fire Operations and Emergency ProgramsStructure Fire Calls 42 30 40 133% 30Fire Related Incidents 514 500 699 140% 750Medical Emergencies 505 600 823 137% 850Rescue (MVA, Electrical, Rope, etc.) 349 425 347 82% 250Fire Investigation 23 30 18 60% 30

Total Fire, Medical and Emergency Calls 1,433 1,585 1,927 122% 1,910

Number of Life Safety Inspections 394 250 830 332% 250Hours of Public Life Safety Education 36 40 85 213% 40Number of Paid-on Call Fire Fighters 78 74 80 108% 80Number of Career Fire Fighters 8 8 8 100% 8Smoke Alarm Campaign, homes visited 114 300 476 159% 300

101

APPENDIX "D"

4 of 6


2014Actuals

2015Forecast

2015Year-endActuals

% of 2015 Forecast

2016Forecast

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS

Activities - FacilitiesNumber of Civic Buildings maintained 21 21 18 86% 17

POLICE SERVICES

Activities - PolicingNumber of prisoners 629 450 342 76% 850Criminal Record Checks 1,910 2,100 2,263 108% 2,100Criminal Record Checks for 2014 BC Winter Games 453 N/A N/A N/A N/APrivacy Act Requests 1,011 855 1,090 127% 1,000Police Files processed 14,977 15,000 17,139 114% 16,000Number of Statements transcribed for court purposes 688 1,000 907 91% 1,000

* ATIP - Access to Information and Privacy

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Activities - Public TransitConventional Bus Service:

Number of "in service hours" per year 109,126 108,405 0 NA 108,405Yearly average ridership 2,347,899 2,372,840 0 NA 2,372,840

Handy-Dart Service HoursNumber of "in service hours" per year 26,927 27,116 0 NA 27,116Yearly average ridership 107,281 107,000 0 NA 107,000

Comments: BC Transit reporting is quarterly and at this time the Spring & Summer quarter data is not yet available. YTD amounts are estimated."In-Service Hours" are only provided annually from BC Transit.

RECREATION, PARKS and CULTURE

Activities - ParksNumber of parks maintained 32 38 38 100% 38Kilometers of urban trails maintained 6 6 6.0 100% 6Civic Properties 9 9 9 100% 9

Activities - RecreationNumber of Leisure Centre visits - membership 133,376 135,000 128,044 95% 135,000Number of pre-registered programs - unlicensed 7,972 7,959 7,621 96% 7,959Number of pre-registered programs - licensed (Club KIDS) 22,524 24,131 21,956 91% 22,131Number of Leisure Centre drop in visits 66,687 64,249 67,632 105% 64,249Number of pool visits* 205,029 201,290 202,908 101% 201,290Number of fitness room visits* 92,675 94,127 91,878 98% 94,127Number of Youth Lounge visits 4,262 3,235 3,944 122% 3,900Number of special events (offered through or participation in) 42 27 33 122% 30Number of limited income access passes (PLAY pass) 899 950 835 88% 950* Overlap may occur, as many patrons often participate in both swimming and fitness during visit. Pool stat includes spectators and swim lessons.

102

APPENDIX "D"

5 of 6


2014Actuals

2015Forecast

2015Year-endActuals

% of 2015 Forecast

2016Forecast

RECREATION, PARKS and CULTURE, Cont'd Activities - Social DevelopmentNumber of Mission citizens served in Mission Connect 300 150 137 91% 300Number of Service Agencies at Mission Connect 30 25 30 120% 25Number of participants in Youth Fest 80 120 80 67% 120Number of Service Agencies at Youth Fest 15 20 15 75% 20

50 50 50 100% 50Number of Annual Connect Events 2 2 2 100% 2

6 6 6 100% 6

TAXATION/GRANTS IN LIEU

Activities - TaxationNumber of properties on pre-authorized payment plan 1,621 1,655 1,582 96% 1,655Number of Tax Notices mailed to property owners 14,012 14,150 14,102 100% 14,150Number of penalties processed 2,042 1,900 2,032 107% 1,900Number of property deferment applications 181 200 201 101% 200Number of retro home owner grants processed 58 40 56 140% 40Number of delinquent properties January 1st 377 370 384 104% 370Number of delinquent properties July 1st 195 195 196 101% 195Number of delinquent properties at tax sale 5 10 4 40% 10

EQUIPMENT POOL OPERATIONS

Activities - EquipmentNumber of fleet assets 175 175 182 104% 177Number of licensed vehicles in fleet 92 93 96 103% 95Total number of work orders completed 1,114 1,500 1,373 92% 1,400Total number of work orders not completed 78 60 120 200% 75Total number of Preventative Maintenance services 471 340 321 94% 380Total number of Commercial Vehicle Inspections 36 38 35 92% 40Total number of Fire Apparatus Pump Tests 6 6 6 100% 6Litres of unleaded E10 used by District fleet 68,766 75,000 77,488 103% 75,000Litres of B5 biodiesel used by District fleet 183,059 175,000 174,879 100% 175,000Kilometers driven by District vehicles * 659,470 580,000 627,230 108% 580,000

SEWER UTILITY

Activities - Sewer Utility ServicesSewer mains television inspected (kilometers) 1 25 25 100% 25Sewer mains flushed (kilometers) 80 106 78 74% 110

* Every second year (2015, 2017, 2019, etc.) a flush is performed

* Kilometers are estimates. Fleet conducts an annual kilometer of equipment use for the fleet. Findings over past years do not indicate a great variance between years for total kilometers driven.

Service agencies participating in the Mission Outreach Network

Number of Faith Organizations involved with Social Development projects and events

103

APPENDIX "D"

6 of 6


2014Actuals

2015Forecast

2015Year-endActuals

% of 2015 Forecast

2016Forecast

WASTE MANAGEMENT UTILITY

Activities - Waste Management & Environmental Services

Corporate (buildings & Fleet) Greenhouse Gas Emissions N/A 2,750 N/A N/A 2,200Compost Diversion (curbside food & yard waste & landfill green waste) 4,062 3,900 3,737 96% 3,672Curbside Garbage 3,882 3,700 3,901 105% 3,969Curbside, Landfill, Recycling Centre Recyclables 2,328 2,600 2,620 101% 2,790Total # of loads received at Landfill 53,097 53,100 58,669 NA 59,739

# of loads received from account customers 2,418 3,600 2,612 73% 2,240# of loads received from cash customers 50,679 49,500 56,057 113% 57,099

In-area Customers 51,145 56,107 57,288Out-of-area Customers 99 404 271Municipal/curbside/free tipping 1,853 2,158 2,180

All data reported in tonnes.

WATER UTILITY

Activities - Water Utility ServicesWater main lines cleaned (kilometers) 28 28 32 114% 28AC watermain replaced (meters) 2,025 2,025 1,500 74% 2,025Number of ICI water meters read (quarterly) 379 380 381 100% 380Number of residential water meters read (annually) 367 450 450 100% 450Number of fire hydrants receiving semi-annual maintenance 1,035 1,035 1,035 100% 1,035Properties screened for leak detection 1,500 3,000 1,000 33% 3,000Results: Leaks located & repaired - Service Leak 1 1 3 300% 0

Leaks located & repaired - Water main leak 1 1 0 0% 0

104

of 1

APPENDIX "E"

District of MissionGeneral Operating Fund Contingency, Mayor's Contingency and Flex Fund Transactions

General Operating Fund Contingency Transactions

Date Motion Purpose Amount2015 Contingency Budget 38,000$

Approved Operating Uses07-Apr-15 RC15/171 Fraser River Regional Flood Management Strategy (2,000) 17-Aug-15 C15/242 Repairs to Clegg Street rental home (1,000) 08-Sep-15 C2015/256 Property taxes on properties purchased in 2015 (8,561) 30-Sep-15 COW15/056 Communities in Bloom membership fee (500)

Balance of General Operating Contingency 25,939$

Mayor's Contingency Transactions

Date Motion Purpose Amount2015 Mayor's Contingency Budget 2,000$

TransactionsJuly 20-15 RC15/416 Neighbourhood Initiative - Cultural Resources Commission (1,000)

Balance of Mayor's Contingency: 1,000$

2015 Flexibility Account Transactions

Date Motion Purpose Amount200,000$

Approved Operating Uses02-Mar-15 C15/060 Stave West Contract (36,000) *

16-Mar-15 C15/078 Fire Inspector position reinstated (45,600) 16-Mar-15 C15/078 Admin Clerk - Corp Administration (21,600)

Balance of 2015 Flexibility Account 96,800$ * One-time cost

105

Finance Department


Page 1 of 3

File Category: 05-1660-20-08

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Kris Boland, Director of Finance

SUBJECT: BC Transit Operating Reserve Account ATTACHMENT(S): Appendix A – Letter from BC Transit re: Operating Reserve

RECOMMENDATION(S): Council consider and resolve:

1. That approval be granted to acknowledge the terms and conditions of the operating reserve outlined in the letter from BC Transit dated February 22, 2016; and

2. That an appropriated surplus account be established to record the District’s balance in the BC Transit operating reserve account.

PURPOSE: This report is provided to request Council’s approval to formalize the District’s contribution to the BC Transit operating reserve account, in order to maximize the investment in transit operations in light of the provincial government’s funding freeze for public transit service over the next three years.

BACKGROUND: On February 17, 2015, the Province unveiled its BC Budget with a clear objective to balance the budget. In support of this objective, the Province’s operating grant for public transit remains flat for the next three years. As the funding model for transit requires that both provincial and local government contributions work in lock step percentages, the total contribution from the District must also remain flat. Even if the District desired to invest more funding in transit service, it would not be allowed due to the provincial funding freeze and the lock step percentages. When faced with rising operating costs, the funding freeze could effectively force a reduction in transit service levels.

In order to mitigate this situation, BC Transit has been working with both local government and provincial partners to attempt to develop strategies to ensure the full budgeted investment in transit service can be maximized in order to maintain existing service levels. In support of this effort, the provincial government amended BC Transit’s regulations on October 9, 2015, through Order in Council 594, to assist in achieving this shared vision, while working within the approved funding amount.

The Order in Council allows any annual operating savings realized in the transit budget to be carried forward to offset anticipated cost increases to maintain existing service levels in future years. However, this carry forward is conditional on the municipal share of any savings being held by BC Transit, presumably to ensure that the lock step cost sharing percentages are perfectly maintained, and not subject to a future decision of the various municipal Council’s that partner with BC Transit.

Ironically, the 2016 BC Budget includes $7 million to expand service in BC Transit’s operating area outside of Metro Vancouver, with no mention of addressing the 2015 BC Budget funding freeze for existing public transit service.

106


DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: In simple terms, the Order in Council means that BC Transit will invoice the District based on budget, and any savings between budget and actual amounts will be deposited into an operating reserve account for use in future years. The provincial share of any savings between budget and actual amounts is also deposited into an operating reserve account, which maintains the lock step cost sharing arrangement.

Since the Order in Council was approved, staff have been working closely with BC Transit to ensure that the District’s concerns regarding the operating reserve account are addressed, and that the terms and conditions are fully understood. Following numerous discussions, staff met with the CEO of BC Transit, and their Director of Regional Transit Systems, on February 19, 2016, to discuss a number of issues, including the operating reserve account. BC Transit followed up with a letter dated February 22, 2016, outlining the provisions of the operating reserve account. The letter is attached to this report as Appendix A, and a summary of the key provisions follows:

• BC Transit will establish a deferred revenue account for the operating reserve fund, to record the District’s contributions that have been received but not yet earned (i.e. any savings between budget and actual that are paid to BC Transit);

• Any expenditure from the operating reserve account will only be credited towards eligible expenses for each local government;

• BC Transit will provide statements showing the funds accumulated in the operating reserve fund;

• The operating reserve fund will accumulate interest; and

• Should any monies remain in the operating reserve at the time the operating reserve is terminated, they shall be used to defray eligible expenses of the local government in the following year.

The terms in Appendix A satisfy staff’s concerns as to the creation, administration, and use of funds in the operating reserve account, and staff feels the proposal is in the District’s best interests. Staff recommends that Council provide approval to acknowledge the provisions outlined in Appendix A in writing to BC Transit, and to permit the necessary accounting required to enact the operating reserve.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications of the proposed operating reserve account will require the District to pay BC Transit the full amount of the budget for transit operations over the 2015/2016, 2016/2017, and 2017/2018 budget years, even if the actual expenses are less than budget (note that BC Transit operates on a March 31 fiscal year end, hence the split years for the budget). However, the difference between budget and actuals will be held by BC Transit in the operating reserve on behalf of the District. The start date for the proposed operating reserve account will be April 1, 2015, which is intended to align with the annual budget and Annual Operating Agreement that the District and BC Transit already have in place.

Any amounts that could be deposited into the operating reserve account are as per the District’s previously approved budget for transit service, therefore no increase in the budget is required as a result. However, any savings between budget and actual costs would effectively be held in an appropriated reserve for future use in the transit system, rather than flowing into the District’s general accumulated surplus as would otherwise occur.

107


In order to accurately reflect the true costs of providing transit service, from an accounting perspective, staff will record the actual expenses in the year they occur, and record the difference between budget and actual in an appropriated surplus account specifically for transit service. The appropriated surplus account will be reconciled to the operating reserve account as reported by BC Transit.

Based on current BC Transit budget projections, it is anticipated that the operating reserve will accumulate funds in the 2015/2016 budget year due to low fuel prices, and any accumulated funds will be fully spent by the 2017/2018 budget year in order to maintain current service levels. BC Transit is currently forecasting there will be a budget shortfall by the 2018/2019 budget year since the operating reserve is forecast to be fully spent by that time. Staff will continue to monitor this situation, as there are a multitude of factors that may affect this projected shortfall over the coming years.

Should Council decide not to approve acknowledging the provisions of the operating reserve account, the provincial share of any budget savings will not be deposited into the operating reserve, and given that costs are expected to rise in the coming years, this will likely result in a reduction of transit service levels due to a budget shortfall.

COMMUNICATION: Should Council approve the recommendations in this report, staff will provide acknowledgement in writing to BC Transit, accepting the provisions of the operating reserve arrangement.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: In light of the provincial government’s funding freeze on their contribution to transit service, for which the District is a partner to with BC Transit, staff have been working with BC Transit to ensure the investment in transit operations is maximized in the coming years. Staff have received written terms around the BC Transit operating reserve account which are satisfactory, and therefore recommend that Council endorse the proposed operating reserve, and authorize staff to provide written acknowledgement to BC Transit accordingly.

SIGN-OFFS:

Kris Boland, Director of Finance

Reviewed by: Scott Ross, Manager of Accounting Services

Reviewed by: Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services

Comment from the Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed

g:\finance\cow\draft reports\bc transit operating reserve.docx

108

Appendix A 109

Finance Department


Page 1 of 3

File Category: 05-1715-20

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Scott Ross, Manager of Accounting Services

SUBJECT: 2015 Budget Carry Forward Requests ATTACHMENT(S): Appendix “A” – 2015 Capital Carry Forward Requests

Appendix “B” – 2015 Operating Carry Forward Requests

RECOMMENDATION(S): Council consider and resolve:

1. That the 2015 capital budget carry forwards attached as Appendix “A” to the report from the Manager of Accounting Services dated March 7, 2016, be approved and that the District’s Financial Plan be amended accordingly (final dollar amounts will depend on year-end balances); and

2. That the 2015 operating budget carry forwards attached as Appendix “B” to the report from the Manager of Accounting Services dated March 7, 2016, be approved and that the District’s Financial Plan be amended accordingly (final dollar amounts will depend on year-end balances).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the various 2015 budget carry forward requests from departments for specific projects.

BACKGROUND:

Each year departments may have some budgeted projects that are, for various reasons, not completed within that budget year. Some projects span over more than one year creating budget timing issues that need to be accounted for in the financial plan. Other projects cannot be started until external factors, such as development and decisions by other levels of government, are known. Departments can request that the unspent budgeted funds be carried forward into the new year, so that the projects that have been started, can be completed.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The attached Appendix “A” summarizes the 2015 capital budget carry forward requests, as submitted by departments. Departments may request to carry forward unspent capital expenditure budgets if the project has started before year-end and there are actual expenditures or outstanding commitments against the project. In cases where projects are still required, but not for 2016, they are being requested to be carried forward and re-budgeted into a future year. The urgency, resource availability, and surrounding development for each project have been reviewed in determining the appropriate timing of when these project works would commence. It should be noted that the final dollar amounts of carry forwards will depend on year-end balances, and are subject to change.

110


Capital Budget Approximately 40.4% of the approved 2015 Final/Amended Capital Budget of $22,796,045 was spent in 2015. Table A below shows the actual 2015 capital expenditures compared to the Final/Amended Budget for each capital program.

Program NameFinal/Amended

BudgetActual

Expenditures% of Capital Plan

Completed Carry ForwardsGeneral Capital 14,456,439$ 6,679,554$ 46.2% 6,923,463$ Waste Management Capital 314,711 114,079 36.2% 195,207 Water Capital 2,404,387 1,093,714 45.5% 1,231,365 Sewer Capital 734,577 309,262 42.1% 332,439 Equipment Capital 1,399,863 314,630 22.5% 981,972 Subtotal - excl. Regional Capital 19,309,977 8,511,240 44.1% 9,664,446

Regional Water Capital* 1,753,131 494,874 28.2% pendingRegional Sewer Capital* 1,732,937 194,866 11.2% pendingTotal Capital Program 22,796,045$ 9,200,980$ 40.4% 9,664,446$

* The Regional Water & Sewer budget carry forwards are going to the March 10, 2016 Joint Shared Services Committee (JSSC) meeting.

Table A: 2015 Capital Expenditures Summary Actuals Compared to Budget

Staff are requesting a total of $9,664,446 to be carried forward from the 2015 budget to 2016 and future years. The Artificial Turf Field alone represents 29% of the total carry forward request. Table B below shows the breakdown of carry forwards by year:

2016 2017 2020 Total7,984,969$ 462,418$ 1,217,059$ 9,664,446$

Table B: 2015 Capital Carry Forwards Requested By Year

The major projects greater than $100,000 requested to be carried forward, by capital program, are as follows: General Capital Program:

• $2,857,657 for the Artificial Turf Field • $551,752 for the RCMP HVAC, DDC Controls & Boiler • $383,088 for eight separate Parkland Purchases (re-budgeted to 2020) • $382,182 for the BlackBerry Kitchen/Norma Kenney House Renovations • $311,280 for the Soil Stabilization Construction at Edwards • $280,314 for the Gill Ave Bridge Approach • $216,000 for the Ancillary Structure at Municipal Hall • $211,690 for the Skateboard Park Replacement • $206,053 for the Paving Program • $182,375 for the Signals at Stave Lake Street & Cherry Avenue intersection • $100,806 for the Leisure Centre Roof Replacement

111


Water Capital: • $561,000 Egglestone Watermain, West of Cedar (re-budgeted to 2020) • $553,456 for the Water Condition Replacement Program

Sewer Capital: • $267,788 for the Sewer Condition Assessment/Replacement Program

Equipment Capital: • $119,710 for the International Dump Truck Replacement • $382,418 for the Hyundai R200W Excavator (re-budgeted to 2017) • $260,034 for the John Deere 772B Grader Replacement (re-budgeted to 2020)

Operating Budget The attached Appendix “B” includes the operating budget carry forwards being requested by departments. Operating carry forwards are only considered in exceptional circumstances, such as projects of a non-recurring nature. Projects unable to be completed during the year that have a dedicated funding source such as a reserve, grant, or deposit account are requested to be re-budgeted in the following year using this identified funding source. Projects that are funded by general revenue (i.e. do not have a dedicated funding source) are classified as a carry forward item into 2016 through appropriated surplus.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In order for projects to be considered to be carried forward the department must be within their overall authorized budget. The amounts requested to be carried forward are all within the funding authorized in the 2015 Financial Plan.

COMMUNICATION: Departments will be advised on Council’s decision regarding the projects requesting 2015 budget to be carried forward.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: It is recommended that Council consider approving the projects identified in Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” and that the District’s Financial Plan be amended accordingly. Departments may request to carry forward unspent capital expenditure budgets if the project has started before year-end and there are actual expenditures or outstanding commitments against the project. In cases where projects are still required but not for 2016, they are being requested to be carried forward and re-budgeted into a future year. The urgency, resource availability, and surrounding development for each project have been reviewed in determining the appropriate timing of when project work would commence. It should be noted that the final dollar amounts of carry forwards will depend on year-end balances, and are subject to change. The amounts requested to be carried forward are all within the funding authorized in the 2015 Financial Plan.

SIGN-OFFS:

Scott Ross, Manager of Accounting Services Reviewed by: Kris Boland, Director of Finance

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed.

G:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Budget 2015\2015-2016 Carry forwards\2015-2016 Budget Carry Forward Memo.docx

112

APPENDIX "A"

G:\FINANCE\COW\Draft Reports\1 - Carry Forward from 2015 to 2016 Summary.xlsx Tab: Capital carry forwards 29/02/2016

2015 Capital Carry Forward Requests

Project #

Final / Amended Budget

Actual Costs

Available for Carry Forward

Dollars Requested for

Carry Forward Explanation/Notes

General Capital:Corporate Telephones 70100 120,000$ 53,722$ 66,278$ 66,278$ Project underway/split over two years.

Corporate LAN/WAN upgrades 70101 83,000 68,815 14,185 14,185 WiFi portion of project deferred until 2016.

Management information systems enhancements 70118 30,120 4,442 25,678 25,678 This budget is carried over and is funded every second year due to fluctuation in activities and is required for ongoing system upgrades and software development. 2016 budget is at $0.

Misc. Capital (ongoing) 70120 6,000 2,925 3,075 3,075 WiFi portion of project deferred until 2016.

Council Laptops 70121 20,000 852 19,148 19,148 Project deferred until 2016.

Electronic Document Filing System 70122 55,430 48,640 6,790 6,790 Ongoing software development.

Web content management 70201 24,084 11,381 12,703 12,703 This budget is carried over and is funded every third year due to fluctuation in activities and is required for ongoing system upgrades and software development. 2016 budget is at $0.

Misc. Capital - Corp Admin 70204 3,342 2,060 1,282 1,282 Ergonomic improvements to certain workstations are required to be done in 2016.

Mail machine 70219 12,255 5,369 6,886 6,886 Folder/inserter purchased in 2015, remaining funds needed in 2016 to replace current mail machine. Current machine is well past is expected life and has recently being having more failtures.

Phase 1 & 2 contaminated site assessments 78011 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 Project not started in 2015 but grant application to leverage funds with FCM is being drafted.

3D Digital Imagery 78019 40,000 19,988 20,013 20,013 Project delayed in 2015 due to scope changes. New property identified for 3D imaging.

Finance Capital - Miscellaneous 70300 4,358 1,943 2,415 2,415 Equipment needed to be purchased in 2016 once lower floor renovations have been completed.

Tax/Utility Spending Package Capital 70301 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 Related to comment above - expected to be continue in the Spring of 2016.

Purchasing Capital 70400 1,114 699 415 415 Adding to 2016 budget in order to provide adequate furniture for new employee hired late in 2015.

Miscellaneous Capital - RCMP 70504 9,592 6,408 3,184 3,184 Delay in obtaining services required for building security improvements. Will be done in 2016.

Small Fire Fighting Equipment 70608 38,495 36,789 1,706 1,706

Turnout gear 70615 63,200 60,131 3,069 3,069

Miscellaneous Capital - Inspection Services 70700 3,342 - 3,342 3,342 Funds requested for carry forward to support lower floor office configuration (spring 2016).

Planning Misc Capital 70802 3,342 703 2,639 2,639 Funds requested for carry forward to support lower floor office configuration (spring 2016).

Heritage Park Community Gym 72015 69,000 47,208 21,792 17,952 Project complete, remaining funds requested to be directed towards Mill Pond Improvements project 71040.

Leisure Centre Exit Doors 72017 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 Work rescheduled to 2016.

Leisure Centre Heat Exchangers 72018 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 Work rescheduled to 2016.

Water Slide Tube Retrofit 72019 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 Carry forward is required but project requires re-evaluation before it will proceed.

Leisure Centre Roof Replacement 72022 358,750 257,944 100,806 100,806 Work started in 2015 but will not be completed until 2016.

RCMP Cell Retro Fit 71018 812,603 767,359 45,244 45,244 Though the project is 98% complete there is still outstanding work to complete in 2016.

RCMP HVAC, DDC Controls, Boiler 71020 606,230 54,478 551,752 551,752 The contract has been awarded but works will not complete until spring/summer of 2016.

RCMP Parking Lot 71021 7,846 1,117 6,729 6,729 The asphalt has been placed but line painting must wait until the spring of 2016.

Project Description

Funds requested for carry forward to be directed towards fitness equip (misc capital project 70600).

113

APPENDIX "A"



Project #


Actual Costs



Carry Forward Explanation/NotesProject Description

Fire Hall #2 Roof Replacement 71028 132,884 116,711 16,173 16,173 Works will complete in the second week of January 2016 with final invoice to follow.

RCMP Building Envelope 71031 259,325 189,866 69,459 69,459 The project is 70% complete but some works will be defered until summer 2016.

Ancillary Structure Municipal Hall 71035 216,000 - 216,000 216,000 Report pending on alternative plans for municipal office space.

Parkland Acquisition - 32310 Tunbridge 70820 30,000 - 30,000 30,000

9414 Clay Street 70829 47,367 - 47,367 47,367

9386 Clay Street 70830 50,050 - 50,050 50,050

8863 Cedar Street (OCP) 70831 26,687 - 26,687 26,687

8998 Emiry Street 70832 31,116 - 31,116 31,116

9018 Clay Street 70833 139,922 - 139,922 139,922

8895 Cedar Street 70834 27,261 - 27,261 27,261

9004 Emiry Street 70835 30,685 - 30,685 30,685

Playground equipment/landscaping 70950 132,624 74,811 57,813 57,813 All of the carry forward available is requested to be re-directed to project 71015 Skateboard Park Replacement.

Picnic tables and benches 70951 5,830 1,994 3,836 3,836

Tunbridge Park development 70990 2,150 245 1,905 1,905

Parks, existing - upgrade 71009 61,253 46,934 14,319 14,319

FRHP plan 71011 24,000 - 24,000 24,000 Project to be started in 2016 and potentially into 2017.

Skateboard Park Replacement 71015 220,000 8,310 211,690 211,690 Project is being phased over two years.

Griner Park benches and picnic tables 71023 4,500 - 4,500 4,500 Project rescheduled to 2016.

Artificial Turf Field 71025 2,900,000 42,343 2,857,657 2,857,657 Project is being phased over two years.

Multi-purpose courts 71026 14,340 - 14,340 14,340 Project rescheduled to 2016.

Clayburn Building Construction 71042 175,000 120,749 54,251 54,251 Work is underway and will continue into 2016.

Blackberry Kitchen Business and Structural Review 71043 74,400 41,154 33,246 33,246 Business review complete. Remaining funds requested to be re-directed to project 71044 (see below).

Blackberry Kitchen/Norma Kenney House Renovation 71044 400,000 51,064 348,936 348,936 Work is underway and will continue into 2016.

Gill Ave Bridge Approach 42166 517,000 236,686 280,314 280,314 Project expected to complete spring of 2016.

Improvements Next To Subdivisions 42250 34,624 - 34,624 34,624 Funds have been committed to paying for a percentage of the ultimate storm system from Syliva to Cedar in 2016.

Walkways/Sidewalks Additions 42310 72,525 46,794 25,731 25,731 Project funding shared with utility and road projects.

Signals - Stave Lake & Cherry 42778 182,375 - 182,375 182,375 The project has been awarded and the work will start in January 2016.

Paint W.C.E. Overpass 42789 30,900 19,212 11,688 11,688 The inside work has been completed. The exterior will be done in 2016.

Tranportation study 42792 98,452 92,811 5,641 5,641 The project is expected to complete in Januray 2016.

Paving program 42800 3,129,965 2,923,912 206,053 206,053 Will continue in 2016 as weather improves.

Signals - Cade Barr & Best 42801 30,000 - 30,000 30,000 The project has been awarded and the work will start in January 2016.

DCC Program Review & Update 43077 21,000 - 21,000 21,000 Staff are currently drafting terms of reference for DCC update RFP, and plan to release RFP in Q1 - 2016.

Will be needed when development occurs - request to re-budgeted to 2020. If needed sooner a separate report to Council will be provided.

Work started in 2015 but needs to continue in 2016.

114

APPENDIX "A"



Project #


Actual Costs




Gaudin Creek Relocation 43090 35,548 4,921 30,627 30,627 Project is in progress and is expected to complete in 2016.

Culvert lining - 7th/Murray 43098 85,824 - 85,824 85,824 Project is postponed to 2016 - the budget will be transferred to 7th & Horne Culvert lining. A Council report is forthcoming.

Culvert lining - 7th/Horne 43099 76,704 15,272 61,432 61,432 Project under review. A report to council will be forthcoming.

Cedar Valley drainage master plan 43129 80,000 - 80,000 80,000 Needs to be re-budgeted to 2017. Start of the project is pending Development Service's project result.

Traffic Counters 46001 2,000 - 2,000 2,000 Parts will be purchased in 2016 to upgrade the equipment.

Noise/Dust Monitoring Equipment 46025 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 A slow start to the Shaw Pit has resulted in the need to carry forward this funding.

Asset Management Plan 46114 160,000 88,264 71,736 71,736 Project has extended into 2016.

Soil Stabilization - Edwards 46115 40,000 23,589 16,411 16,411 Project expected to complete spring of 2016.

Soil Stabilization Construction - Edwards 46117 311,280 - 311,280 311,280 Project expected to complete spring of 2016.

Bridge Inspection Consultant 50303 12,000 - 12,000 12,000 Project delayed to correspond with completion of Gill Bridge repairs.

Drainage infrastructure condition assessment and replacement

67001 200,000 124,673 75,327 75,327 Work started in 2015 but needs to continue in 2016.

Corporate mapping (GIS) 70102 22,638 2,625 20,013 20,013 The available budget needs to be carried forward to 2016 as the webmap software needs to be updated at that time when HTML5 is available. Currently it is not.

Handheld field data devices 44006 7,842 1,148 6,694 6,694 Purchase is backordered and is expected to arrive in early 2016.

LED replacement 44007 13,737 2,547 11,190 11,190 Outstanding work for the LED replacments to continue in 2016.

Subtotal - General Capital 12,656,911$ 5,729,607$ 6,927,304$ 6,923,464$

Waste Management Capital:Landfill Minor Capital 46755 72,000 36,123 35,877 35,877 Needed to resolve contaminated soil opportunity and

area required before asphalting around compost facility.

Cell C surface water management 46766 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 Relocation of clean water diversion swale along Cell C was not required in 2015. Will be required in 2016.

Design and operating plan 46767 35,814 34,393 1,421 1,421 Plan submitted in late 2015. Final review and revisions will happen in 2016.

Washroom building and safety upgrades 46789 14,790 2,246 12,544 12,544 Additional safety upgrades may be necessary pending 2016 MIA risk assessment.

Quonset 46791 45,425 - 45,425 45,425

Storage bunkers and classroom raising 46792 11,811 - 11,811 11,811

Bobcat 46795 34,902 18,296 16,606 10,278

Forklift 46796 9,085 7,822 1,263 1,263

Blue bag door repair 46798 4,543 - 4,543 4,543

Air transfer 46799 3,634 - 3,634 3,634

Paving front drop off 46800 4,543 - 4,543 4,543

Paving yard 46801 3,634 3,172 462 462

Newnes Baler-Knives Refit 46803 4,543 2,039 2,504 2,504

Mach II Tin Crusher Refit 46804 1,817 - 1,817 1,817

Eddy Current 46805 9,085 - 9,085 9,085

Subtotal - Waste Management Capital 305,626$ 104,091$ 201,535$ 195,207$

Was not acquired in 2015 due to uncertainty around participation with MMBC. Will be needed in 2016.

115

APPENDIX "A"



Project #


Actual Costs




Water Capital:

Capital equipment addition 92990 4,094$ 2,673$ 1,421$ 1,421$ Needed for larger purchase in 2016.

Flowmeters 93000 16,488 - 16,488 16,488 Flow meter at Horne St PR Station still needs replacing. Unable to get the work done in 2015.

Watermain condition replacement 93004 1,457,104 903,648 553,456 553,456 Unable to spend entire annual budget before year end. This was a 10 year budget to replace Mission's AC watermains. It may take closer to 14 years using funding that has been carried forward. We have a total of 45 KM of AC watermian to replace. We have a 10 year plan to replace about 17 KM. We are averaging about 1.2 KM per year plus carry forward. Will be reviewed during the 2017 budget process.

DCC update (water) 93005 14,000 - 14,000 14,000 Staff are currently drafting terms of reference for DCC update RFP, and plan to release RFP in Q1 - 2016.

Corrosion assessment ductile iron water mains 93013 35,000 - 35,000 35,000 We expect to tap into this funding in 2016 after the asset management system is up and running.

Egglestone Watermain, West of Cedar 93014 561,000 - 561,000 561,000 Requested to be rebudgeted in 2020.

Water metering on Wilson Street 93895 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 Work not done before year end. Work to be scheduled in 2016.

Subtotal - Water Capital 2,137,686$ 906,322$ 1,231,364$ 1,231,364$

Sewer Capital:DCC update (sewer, also see #43077 & #93005) 98663 14,000$ -$ 14,000$ 14,000$ Staff are currently drafting terms of reference for DCC

update RFP, and plan to release RFP in Q1 - 2016.

Sewer Condition Assessment/Replacement 98664 555,331 287,543 267,788 267,788 Work underway. Some projects such as works on Horne Street and installing a new sanitary main along Lougheed Highway in this program were deferred to 2016.

Hatzic pumpstation - upsize pumps 98669 50,651$ -$ 50,651 50,651 Hatzic Ridge Development started and consequently, the project will start in 2016.

Subtotal - Sewer Capital 619,982$ 287,543$ 332,439$ 332,439$

Equipment Capital:04 TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4 CREW CAB P/U 50910 54,363$ -$ 54,363$ 54,363$

92 INTERNATIONAL DUMP TRUCK 50910 119,710 - 119,710 119,710 77 PORTA-LEC GENERATOR 50910 42,745 42,745 42,745 84 GENERATOR-PLAY STATION 50910 31,065 31,065 31,065 97 UNDER BODY PLOW FOR 5196 50910 14,313 14,313 14,313 SANDER FOR 5196 50910 20,270 20,270 20,270 03 TOYOTA TACOMA 4X4 #128 50910 38,831 38,831 38,831 03 HYUNDAI R200W EXCAVATOR 50910 382,418 382,418 382,418 Same comment as above; this item is to be rebudgeted

in 2017.

89 HIGH PRESS WASHER #310 50910 12,937 - 12,937 12,937

93 JOHN DEERE 772B GRADER 50910 260,034 260,034 260,034 03 FORD F 150 XCAB PR&C P/U 50910 35,020 29,734 5,286 5,286 Project complete, savings to be redirected for

replacement of 94 CLARK FORKLIFT 6000 #

Subtotal - Equipment Capital 1,011,706$ 29,734$ 981,972$ 981,972$

Grand Total 16,731,911$ 7,057,297$ 9,674,614$ 9,664,446$

Deferred replacing equipment to 2016 as still economically beneficially to keep in service at this point and extend useful life for an additional year.

Same comment as above; although these two items are to be rebudgeted in 2020.

116

G:\FINANCE\COW\Draft Reports\1 - Carry Forward from 2015 to 2016 Summary.xlsx Tab: Operating Carry Fwd Page 1

Appendix "B"2015 Operating Carry Forward Requests

Project Description Project #

Approved/ Amended Budget Actual Costs


Dollars Requested for Carry Forward & Re-budget Funding Source Explanation/Notes

GENERAL OPERATING FUND

Re-budgeted items:

Cemetery Administration 34000-010 38,813 10,248 28,565 28,565 Financial stabilization

These funds were requested in order to secure additional staff time to reconcile historic cemetery records. Because the staff person identified for this project has left the District, an alternate process is being discussed with the union. It is expected that this work will ocur over the first six months of 2016.

Community Planning (Streetscape designs for 1st Ave and Railway) 30010-130 15,000 5,007 9,993 9,993 Gaming

Project was not able to be completed in 2015 due to delays in receiving approval from the Ministry of Transportation. Final review and DBA & public consultation to be completed in 2016.

Downtown Façade Review 30099-340 15,000 2,000 13,000 13,000 Gaming

The façade improvement Grant is an important tool for encouraging storefront improvements within the BIA. The program continues to garner interest from merchants and building owners and is an important means of encouraging these improvements, along with instilling community pride in the downtown core. The carry forward is a small but meaningful municipal commitment that will allow us to maintain the program and encourage new particpants.

Victim Services 25040-340 10,000 5,700 4,300 4,300 Gaming

Victim Services for E-Division computer initiative RC15/461 was not able to be completed in 2015. Project requested to be carry forward to complete in 2016.

OCP Project 30090-130 225,000 24,398 200,602 200,602 Financial stabilization

Project is underway and expected to complete by December of 2016.

Clarke Theatre 20504-340 116,000 73,100 42,900 37,500 Financial stabilization

Staff have provided an MOU to the School District that has yet to be signed off. Given that Council have approved these funds it is anticiapted that these funds will be released to the SD. There is a meeting with the SD on Jan 25th and this item is on the agenda. The funds should be carried forward in order to ensure that this contribution can be made to offset costs for the community theatre.

Small Park Maintenance 33130-390 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 Tree planting deposit Carry forward needed for tree planting activities.

Sports Park 33470-410 138,361 120,320 18,041 6,000 Financial stabilization

Re-lamping work to be done on diamonds 1 to 8 at Mission Sports Park. Work needed to maintain lighting quality for users (safety).

Pilot Projects and Research 46702-410 39,682 12,833 26,849 26,849 Waste management refuse reserve

These funds are requested to be carried forward to fund business case development work related to organics disposal, invasive species strategy, and water sampling at the Mission Landfill.

Learn to Play Project 16093-410 12,000 - 12,000 12,000 Provincial grantFunds received but project did not start in 2015. RC15/620 from November 16, 2015 approved the grant funding.

Carry forward items:

Stave West Contract 20610-390 36,000 16,249 19,751 19,751 Flex funding

Funds requested for carry forward for the contract with North Shore Project Leadership who are supporting the project as a consultant on education and training. This project was funded from flex funding.

General Operating Fund Totals 650,856$ 269,856$ 381,000$ 363,560$

117

Corporate Administration



DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Michael Boronowski Manager, Civic Engagement & Corporate Initiatives

SUBJECT: Youth Engagement Committee Name and Terms of Reference ATTACHMENT: Appendix A: Draft Terms of Reference - Updated


1. That the Youth Engagement committee be renamed the Young Adult Engagement Committee to more accurately reflect the committee mandate;

2. That the committee terms of reference, as provided in Appendix A of the Manager, Civic Engagement & Corporate Initiatives report dated March 7, 2016 be approved; and

3. That the committee be directed to recruit up to four new members within the 18 – 35 demographic to bring forward to Council for appointment.

PURPOSE:

This report is provided on behalf of the youth engagement committee and the committee chair to request a change in the committee’s name, an update to the terms of reference, and that the committee be directed to identify and bring forward new members for appointment by Council.

BACKGROUND: Appointed following the inaugural address on December 1, 2014, the youth engagement committee is mandated to engage young adults (teenagers through the 18 – 35 demographic) in civic governance and in fully participating within their community.

The updated Terms of Reference provided as Appendix A were developed following the appointment, and outline the scope of mandate, responsibilities, membership and roles, and term of appointment.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Name Change The committee name has proven a barrier in engaging with the target demographic as the group does not self-identify as youth, but rather as young adults. The name has led to some confusion between the role of this committee as related to the Child and Youth Committee, and has led to an ongoing challenge of revisiting the Terms of Reference to reaffirm the mandate.

The committee feels a formal change in name to the Young Adult Engagement Committee would assist in helping the public understand the role of the committee. Staff agree with this belief and recommend Council approve this request.

118


Terms of Reference

The updated Terms of Reference provided in Appendix A conform to the District’s standards, and include a new section on attendance and code of conduct. The committee felt that the addition of this section would assist in maintaining a well-functioning committee and in setting the standard for young adults who wish to represent the municipality.

Recruitment of New Members

The committee wishes to formally recruit up to four new members from the 18 – 35 demographic to assist in fulfilling its mandate. As initially appointed the committee is weighted towards the older end of the spectrum, and committee members would like to adapt the application form and process used for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to identify new members to bring forward for appointment.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this report.

COMMUNICATION: Following Council’s decision the staff liaison will communicate with the committee. Should Council agree to the recommendations the staff liaison will also facilitate the recruitment and selection of potential new committee members for consideration by Council.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: To better fulfill its mandate the Youth Engagement Committee is requesting its name be changed to the Young Adult Engagement Committee, that its terms of reference be updated to include attendance and code of conduct standards, and that they be directed to recruit up to four new members from the 18 – 35 year old demographic.

Staff support the recommendations.

SIGN-OFFS:

Michael Boronowski, Manager of Civic Engagement and Corporate Initiatives

Reviewed by: Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed

119

TERMS OF REFERENCE Page 1 of 2

YOUNG ADULT ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE

Adopted: <date> (Council Resolution No. >)

PURPOSE: The committee is responsible for engaging youth and young adult representatives to enhance communication between Council and these groups. They are also responsible for developing and supporting the implementation of youth and young-adult led initiatives which support greater engagement, either with civic governance or within the broader community as a whole.

Finally, the committee is responsible for providing insight into trends and issues among the youth and young adult populations of Mission to Council.

MANDATE:

The mandate of the Young Adult Engagement Committee is to engage youth and young adults (from teenagers through the 18-35 demographic) in civic governance and in fully participating within their community. The committee provides a direct link between Council and this population, as a reference group and a resource to assist Council in matters related to engaging youth and young adults.

To meet its mandate, the committee will work toward accomplishing the following objectives:

• Serve as the Committee advising Council on youth and young adult civic engagement; and

• Foster and maintain a close working relationship with leaders within the youth and young adult population of Mission; and

• Advise on issues, trends and future needs related to youth and young adults in Mission; and

• Engage youth and young adults in mission in direct participation with civic governance and social responsibility within their community.

MEMBERSHIP: The Committee is comprised of nine members:

• The Chair • Two Co-chairs • A staff liaison – non-voting status • Five general members

Between 4 and 6 youth members between the ages of 15 and 25 are to be recruited by committee members as young members representative of the most junior component of this cohort, with the intent of establishing a rolling roster of members who are continually refreshed

APPENDIX A 120

TERMS OF REFERENCE Page 2 of 2

as they age-out of the demographic. Before March of each year the committee will provide a list of proposed members to Council for appointment, of which no more than 5 may be older than the 18-35 year old target demographic. Council will appoint committee members from this list and may select appointees from the population at large, with members serving one-year terms from the date of appointment. The position of Chair will be determined by committee vote, to take place at the first meeting after new committee appointments are made by Council. For each term the Chair appoints Co-chairs from the committee members appointed by Council.

MEETING SCHEDULE: The committee would meet no less than 10 times per year. The committee will provide quarterly reports to Council trough staff including meeting minutes.

ATTENDANCE AND CODE OF CONDUCT: Committee members who miss two meetings in a row without providing at least 48 hours’ notice to the Chair, or miss more than 50% of meetings in a calendar year will be asked to step down and will not be put forward by the committee for appointment in the following year. Committee members are representatives of Mission and as such will comport themselves and communicate in a way that represents Mission in a positive light.

121

Forestry Department Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 7

File Category: FIN.BUD.DEP. File Folder: Forestry 2011-2015

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Dave Heyes, Manager of Forestry Business and Bob O’Neal, Director of Forestry

SUBJECT: Forestry Operations 2015 Quarter 4 (Q4) and Year-End Budget Report

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Forestry Operations Detailed Results

Appendix B – Forestry Operations Sales Analysis

This report provides a summary of the fourth quarter financial results for the forestry operation together with additional information on forestry reserves, strategies, plans and activities. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.

PURPOSE:

1. To provide financial results for the forestry operations for Q4 (October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015) and YTD (January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015).

2. To provide information on the strategies and plans.

3. To provide the status of the forestry reserves.

4. To provide an update on other forestry activities in Q4.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, staff has prepared this report regarding financial information for the forestry operations in Q4 of 2015 and for the year-end to December 31, 2015. This budget report includes a comparison of the previous year financial results, status of the forestry reserves and an update on other forestry activities during the quarter. Please note that while staff believes the figures presented in this report are final there is a possibility of changes due to ongoing year end processing and conclusion of the District’s annual financial audit.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:

The forestry financial results are reporting a Q4 2015 net profit of $111,123 (after fee/fund transfers) compared to the forecasted Q4 2015 budget net profit of $152,298 and Q4 2014 profit of $252,415. Sales revenue for the period was $1,149,665 for Q4 compared to a budget of $1,326,500 and Q4 2014 Actual of $1,274,474. Sales volume for the quarter was lower by 2,600 m3 against the budget due to timber sale with Canadian Overseas Log and Lumber Ltd. commencing in Q1 2016.

The forestry financial results are reporting a YTD 2015 net profit of $297,523 (after fee/fund transfers). In the 2015 budget we had forecasted a net profit of $211,225 and in 2014 we had a profit of $156,785 for the year.

122


Table 1 provides a summary of the quarterly results comparing 2014 actual, 2015 budget and 2015 actual. Table 2 compares the results for the year, through the fourth quarter. Table 3 provides an update on the Forestry Reserve balances.

Appendix A is a detailed report on the actual results versus budget for both the quarter and the year.

Table 1: Comparison of 2014 Q4 versus 2015 Budget and 2015 Actual Financial Results

2014 Actual 2015 Final Budget 2015 Actual

Q4 $/m3 Q4 $/m3 Q4 $/m3

Sales Revenue 1,274,474$ 122.24$ 1,326,500$ 94.75$ 1,149,665$ 100.93$

Direct Logging Expense 800,708 76.80 931,957 66.57 795,410 69.83

Gross Margin 473,766 45.44 394,543 28.18 354,255 31.10

Other Expenses 214,922 20.61 200,623 14.33 236,511 20.76

Transfers 6,429 0.62 41,622 2.97 6,622 0.58

Net Profit (Loss) 252,415$ 24.21$ 152,298$ 10.88$ 111,123$ 9.76$

Volume Sold 10,426 14,000 11,391

Timber Sale Volume - - -

Total Volume 10,426 14,000 11,391

Volume Logged 14,000 9,732

123


Table 2: Comparison of 2014 versus 2015 Year to Date Financial Results

Summary of the Strategies and Plans in 2015

2015 is the second year in the five year cut control period from 2014-2018 for Mission Tree Farm License 26 (TFL26). Log markets remain fairly strong. The lower Canadian Dollar continues to help offset the weaker log markets in Asia and the slower than anticipated growth in the North American housing market. Cedar markets have been robust all year with prices reaching record levels. We continue to add value by selling into the specialty markets. In 2015 we were successful in bidding out 2 timber sales, one which was logged in early 2015 and one which was awarded late in the year and will be logged in the first quarter of 2016:

Logging volume and planning –The actual Q4 production volume of 9,732 m³ was lower than the planned production volume of 14,000 m³. The timber sale for 14,000 m³ was awarded in October to Canadian Overseas Log and Lumber Ltd (COLL) will be harvested in the first quarter of 2016. This will reduce the volume harvested by our contractor in 2016. We plan to issue another timber sale later this year to be logged in 2017.

Log revenue, marketing and sales – The detailed log sales breakdown for both the quarter and year to date is in Appendix B. The 2015 Q4 and the YTD actual per unit log sales revenues were $98.36/m³ and $102.62/m³ respectively for the logs marketed and sold through our log broker COLL. This excludes the revenue received from the timber sale earlier this year. The actual unit values exceed the budgeted 2015 values of $93.13/m³. Sales were positively affected by our continued pursuit of specialty markets, especially poles & piling and the continued increased pricing in all cedar products. With the decline in the value of the Canadian Dollar we expect to export more logs in the first quarter of 2016.

2014 Actual 2015 Final Budget 2015 Actual

YTD $/m3 YTD $/m3 YTD $/m3

Sales Revenue 4,280,182$ 103.77$ 4,541,000$ 94.60$ 4,652,143$ 98.74$

Direct Logging Expense 2,890,595 70.08 3,195,281 66.57 3,187,992 67.67

Gross Margin 1,389,586 33.69 1,345,719 28.04 1,464,150 31.08

Other Expenses 1,087,086 26.36 988,007 20.58 1,020,141 21.65

Transfers 145,716 3.53 146,487 3.05 146,487 3.11

Net Profit (Loss) 156,785$ 3.80$ 211,225$ 4.40$ 297,523$ 6.31$

Volume Sold 41,246 48,000 42,825

Timber Sale Volume - - 4,289

Total Volume 41,246 48,000 47,114

Volume Logged 41,246 48,000 42,008

124


Operational costs – The detailed breakdown of costs by type are in Appendix B. For the quarter direct logging expenses were impacted negatively by $4.38/m³ by higher than budgeted stumpage. Road construction costs were higher by $2.67/m³ due to a $26,000 culvert purchase late in the year in preparation for 2016 logging. Contract costs were also higher in the quarter due to utilization of higher cost logging methods. For the year direct logging costs were $1.77/m³ higher than budget. Stumpage costs were $3.77/m³ above budget, contract road costs were $2.54/m³ above budget offset by lower contract logging costs which were $2.56/m³ below budget and lower salary costs ($1.05/m³) as the faller position was vacant for most of the year. Margin on direct logging expenses was $354,255 lower than the budgeted margin of $394,543 due mainly to lower than budgeted volumes in the quarter. For the year the gross margin is $1,464,150 versus a budget of $1,345,719 driven mainly by higher than forecast log sales revenue and offset by lower than budgeted sales volume (48,000 m³ budgeted vs. 47,114 m³ actual). Staff continues to monitor costs and has identified a number of areas to reduce costs. We have entered in to an agreement with Tamihi Logging Ltd. to do our Log Marketing and Dry Land Sorting which will save a minimum of $46,000 per year. We will continue to investigate cost saving initiatives such as reduced camp run sorting.

Other expenses and other revenue – The detail on other expenses is in Appendix A. In Q4 other expenses exceeded budget by $35,888. For the full year other expenses exceeded budget by $32,134 (3.3%).

Transfers to non-forestry reserves and administration charges – In 2015, $146,487 was transferred to non-forestry reserves and administrative charges. This is comprised of the $120,000 admin recovery fee as well as transfers for legal, insurance, and IT for $26,487.

Forestry reserve status

The minimum recommended balance for the Forestry Reserve Fund per the District’s Reserve and Surplus Policy (FIN.42) is $1,000,000 and the optimum balance is $1,500,000. The opening forestry reserve balance as at December 31, 2014 was $1,418,431. The forestry financial results are reporting a 2015 YTD net profit of $297,523 (after fee/fund transfers) resulting in an expected closing forestry reserve balance as at December 31, 2015 of $1,747,389.

Table 3: Comparison of Forestry Reserve Balances 2011-2015

Update of other forestry activities in Q4

In addition to our legal forestry obligations and our objective to optimize the financial return on the Tree Farm Licence investment we also manage the forestry operation to meet various recreation, education and community forestry responsibilities. Here is a summary of other forestry activities for Q4:

Stave West:

Follow up presentation and tour of Stave West for BCIT faculty and staff Attended the Bright New Day Workshop on Reconciliation at KFN (Kwantlen First Nation) Held discussions regarding summer student employment opportunities with KFN

2015

Estimated

2014

Actual

2013

Actual

2012

Actual

2011

ActualEnding Reserve

Balance 1,747,389$ 1,418,431$ 1,466,813$ 789,209$ 161,611$

125


Forestry projects:

2016 seedling growing contract for 2016 awarded to PRT-Hybrid 2016 brushing program awarded to GBF Technical Forestry Services Heli pruning completed on 2015 cut blocks

Other projects:

Three 1 hour forestry classes given at Hatzic Middle School for grade 8 students Successful FireSmart grant obtained for Steelhead - $8,000 +/- Experience the Fraser Trail route 1 – powerline to BCIT completed Campground suitability report developed Successfully completed recertification for BC Forest Safety Council

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The forestry financial results are reporting a Q4 2015 net profit of $111,123, a YTD net profit of $297,523 (after fee/fund transfers) resulting in an expected closing forestry reserve balance as at December 31, 2015 of $1,747,389. Please note that while staff believes the figures presented in this report are final there is a possibility of changes due to ongoing year end processing and conclusion of the District’s annual financial audit.

COMMUNICATION:

No communication action is required.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

The forestry financial results are reporting a Q4 2015 net profit of $111,123 and a YTD net profit of $297,523 (after fee/fund transfers) resulting in a closing forestry reserve balance as at December 31, 2015 of approximately $1,747,389. The financial performance in the Q4 is due primarily to continued strong log sales returns, especially in cedar and specialty products offset by higher stumpage and royalty in the quarter higher Stave West and costs of engineering. The Log Market continues to benefit from a lower Canadian dollar for exporting partially offsetting weaker log markets in Asia and the slower than anticipated growth in the North American housing market. However the domestic log markets remained relatively stable in the quarter and the log market forecasts look stable for the remainder of beginning of 2016. The District logged 46,297 m³ of volume including the timber sale of 4,289 m³ for the year versus a budgeted 2015 volume of 48,000 m³.

SIGN-OFFS:

Dave Heyes, Manager of Forestry Business


Bob O’Neal, Director of Forestry

126


Appendix A: Forestry Operations Detailed Results

Notes to Statements: 1. Silviculture costs incurred for Planting, Seedlings, and Brushing & Weeding. The majority of these costs

are incurred in the spring. For the year brushing costs were lower by $25,895, Seedlings were lower by $9,005 and planting costs were lower by $6,000. Brushing costs were lower mainly due to the extreme fire hazard limiting this activity in the quarter.

2. West Stave are costs incurred in the maintenance of Burma Rd. In the third quarter we incurred $30,000 for dust control as part of a prior agreement with the MOF. The remaining cost increase was to maintain the Florence Lake Road.

3. Engineering contract costs were higher by $36,000 for block layout. A total of 56,000 m3 was approved for CP in the year. All costs for next years as well as a portion of 2017’s harvest and regulatory submissions were made in 2015.

4. Patrol & Vandalism include costs for patrols on weekend by DOM staff as well as gate security provided by Kwantlen from June through Labour Day. Patrols for the year by DOM staff were increased this year due to high fire hazard. We spent $17,500 higher than forecast on patrols and vandalism in salary costs.

5. Recreation is cost incurred building trails at Hayward Lake. Projects were limited in the year due to higher spending in other areas.

6. Mission Interpretive forest costs are mainly contract costs incurred to complete the Stave West Master Plan and commencement of implementation.

Q4 Final

Revenue or cost per m3 Q4

Revenue or cost per

m3 YTD Final

Revenue or cost per

m3 YTD

Revenue or cost per

m3Log sales revenue 1,303,750$ 93.13$ 1,120,347$ 98.36$ 4,470,000$ 93.13$ 4,394,495$ 102.62$ Log sales revenue Timber Sales - - 186,582 43.50 Other revenues 22,750 1.63 29,318 2.57 71,000 1.48 71,065 1.51 Total revenues 1,326,500 94.75 1,149,665 100.93 4,541,000 94.60 4,652,143 98.74 Direct logging expenses

Contract Logging 458,844 32.77 342,901 35.23 1,573,180 32.77 1,398,779 30.21 DLS Contract 149,844 10.70 80,125 8.23 513,750 10.70 397,188 8.58 Stumpage 140,000 10.00 139,902 14.38 480,000 10.00 637,710 13.77 Contract Roads 38,540 2.75 52,786 5.42 120,000 2.50 233,440 5.04 Salaries 51,462 3.68 40,700 4.18 176,441 3.68 121,790 2.63 Equipment 29,101 2.08 20,128 2.07 104,617 2.18 74,609 1.61 Materials - - 2,167 0.22 7,294 0.15 6,272 0.14 Commission on Log Sales 46,667 3.33 5,385 0.55 160,000 3.33 172,741 3.73 Towing , FIL 17,500 1.25 49,100 5.05 60,000 1.25 121,201 2.62

Total Direct logging expenses 931,957 66.57 733,195 75.34 3,195,281 66.57 3,163,730 68.34 Inventory Change - - 62,215 5.46 - - 24,262 0.51

Gross margin 394,543 28.18 354,255 31.10 1,345,719 28.04 1,464,150 31.08 Other expenses

Administration 113,036 8.07 121,152 10.64 474,088 9.88 455,659 9.67 Silviculture - - 7,925 0.70 131,265 2.73 92,826 1.97 General 10,430 0.75 14,813 1.30 41,720 0.87 40,869 0.87 West Stave 20,819 1.49 37,295 3.27 83,276 1.73 133,330 2.83 Engineering 13,685 0.98 21,255 1.87 54,739 1.14 92,680 1.97 Patrols & Vandalism 10,621 0.76 5,175 0.45 59,789 1.25 83,471 1.77 Recreation 18,668 1.33 1,347 0.12 74,672 1.56 31,047 0.66 Mission Interpretive Forest 8,553 0.61 15,651 1.37 49,214 1.03 73,151 1.55 Other 4,811 0.34 11,896 1.04 19,245 0.40 17,108 0.36

Other expenses 200,623 14.33 236,511 20.76 988,007 20.58 1,020,141 21.65 Net profit (loss) before transfers 193,920 13.85 117,744 10.34 357,712 7.45 444,010 9.42 Transfers to non-forestry reserves 41,622 2.97 6,622 0.58 146,487 3.05 146,487 3.11 Net profit (loss) 152,298$ 10.88$ 111,123$ 9.76$ 211,225$ 4.40$ 297,523$ 6.31$

Gross margin percentage 30% 32% 30% 33%Volume (m3) Logging 14,000 9,732 48,000 42,008 Volume (m3) Timber Sales 4,289 Volume (m3) Logs Sold 14,000 11,391 48,000 47,114

2015 Actual2015 Final Budget 2015 Actual 2015 Final Budget

127


Appendix B: Forestry Operations Sales Analysis

Quarter 4

Year to Date

Cedar Fir HemlockSort m3 $/m3 Sort m3 $/m3 Sort m3 $/m3Ce Cns 215.2 118.05 Fi Plr OG 119.4 127.75 Hem CnS 0.0 - Ce Gang 793.6 215.35 Fir CnS 0.0 - Hem Exp S/l 891.7 107.62 Ce House 0.0 - Fir Ex Prem 97.3 120.71 Hem Gang 0.0 - Ce Merch 115.9 230.98 Fir Ex S/L 734.3 102.49 Hem Gang Plr 908.7 70.75 Ce Merch L 28.2 254.15 Fir Gang 0.0 - Hem Gang WS 0.0 - Ce Shingle 0.0 - Fir OS 140.1 132.47 Hem Piling 0.0 - Ce Utility 4.0 161.63 Fir Plr 2007.6 98.15 Hem Plr WS 2143.5 70.75 Ce Utility Sm. 0.0 - Fir Plr WS 0.0 - Hem Pulp -40.5 19.64- Cedar Poles 446.3 178.30 Fir Poles 323.6 142.84 Hem Pulp WS 833.4 40.43

Fir Cns WS 473.1 47.00 Hem Cns WS 44.1 47.00 Fir pulp 77.8 42.77 Hem/Fir Piling 1030.0 101.99 Fir Timber 10.7 125.75 KO 0.0 -

Cedar Total 1,603.2 193.66 Fir Total 3,983.9 98.14 Hem Total 5,810.9 78.05

14% 35% 51%M3 $/m3

Total All Species 11,398.02 98.36

Cedar Fir HemlockSort m3 $/m3 Sort m3 $/m3 Sort m3 $/m3Ce Cns 1948.4 110.70 Fi Plr OG 753.3 128.41 Hem CnS 195.1 47.30 Ce Gang 3556.2 204.31 Fir CnS 65.5 70.48 Hem Exp S/l 4983.0 110.29 Ce House 28.1 227.51 Fir Ex Prem 573.8 120.60 Hem Gang 381.9 75.50 Ce Merch 508.6 216.97 Fir Ex S/L 1152.8 98.40 Hem Gang Plr 4053.1 70.39 Ce Merch L 205.7 224.95 Fir Gang 1000.7 90.51 Hem Gang WS 865.1 75.75 Ce Shingle 12.9 160.00 Fir OS 596.3 129.93 Hem Piling 18.9 116.45 Ce Utility 457.5 104.21 Fir Plr 6691.8 98.18 Hem Plr WS 4558.7 70.92 Ce Utility Sm. 187.9 35.75 Fir Plr WS 45.2 90.75 Hem Pulp 1560.9 48.45 Cedar Poles 1142.6 212.76 Fir Poles 988.8 140.15 Hem Pulp WS 3101.2 44.88

Fir Cns WS 473.1 47.00 Hem Cns WS 44.1 47.00 Fir pulp 353.1 42.14 Hem/Fir Piling 1843.1 113.72 Fir Timber 367.5 108.75 KO 116.8 35.00

Cedar Total 8,047.9 174.56 Fir Total 13,061.9 101.73 Hem Total 21,721.9 78.01

19% 30% 51%M3 $/m3

Total All Species 42,831.71 102.62

128

Engineering & Public Works



File: 5400-16

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Michele Fernie, Engineering Technologist II - Assets

SUBJECT: New Federal Grade Crossing Regulations

This report details the requirements of the newly published Canadian Grade Crossing Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards, and requests funding to engage a consultant to ensure that Mission meets the new standards at all the grade crossings in the District.


1. That $40,000 be approved to engage a consultant to conduct a detailed safety review of four public grade crossings for which the District is responsible;

2. That the required funds come from the General Capital Reserve Fund; and


PURPOSE: This report details the requirements of Transport Canada’s new Canadian Grade Crossing Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards, and requests funding in the amount of $40,000 to engage a consultant to assist in identifying if the public grade crossings for which the District is responsible for are in compliance with the new regulations or what corrective measures are required to achieve compliance by the deadline.

BACKGROUND: On November 27, 2014, Transport Canada published new Grade Crossing Regulations (the Regulations) and Grade Crossing Standards (the Standards) for the purpose of improving safety at federally regulated grade crossings across Canada. A public grade crossing is where a road that is utilized by the general public and is owned by a public authority intersects with railway tracks at the same level.

The Regulations require that before November 27, 2016, railway companies and road authorities share information regarding existing public grade crossings. They additionally require that before November 27, 2021, all existing grade crossings must meet the Standards as set out in the Regulations. The Regulations are effective immediately when constructing new grade crossings or making changes to an existing grade crossing.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The District of Mission has four existing public grade crossings which are located on:

• Chester Street; • Dyke Road;

129


• London Avenue; and • Nelson Street.

The responsibility for the maintenance of these crossings is shared by the rail company and the road authority, the District. The railway is responsible for railway crossing signage, warning systems, the crossing surface, and sightlines within and over land adjoining the railway right-of-way. While the road authority is responsible for the road approaches, the design of the crossing surface, traffic control devices, excluding railway crossing signage, and sightlines within the road right-of-way and in the vicinity of the grade crossing.

The Regulations are phased-in regulatory requirements, identifying roles, responsibilities and processes, while the Standards establish best engineering practice, with crossing surface, road geometry, sightlines and warning system requirements specified. By November 27, 2021 all grade crossings must comply with the Standard. The requirements respecting sightlines do not apply to existing crossings equipped with flashing lights, bells and gates. All four public grade crossings in Mission are controlled by a warning system with lights, bells and gates.

A detailed safety assessment would identify any outstanding items that will need to be addressed prior to the November 2021 deadline. Staff is recommending that the District engage the services of a consultant to complete a detailed safety assessment for each public grade crossing to determine compliance with the Regulations and/or identify deficiencies. The approximate cost per crossing is $10,000, based upon similar projects conducted in the Fraser Valley.

Any deficiencies identified in the detailed safety review will be corrected prior to the November 27, 2021 deadline.

Transport Canada has a detailed process where, municipalities may consult with the railway company to assess the feasibility of whistling cessation. If crossings have sufficient safety measures in place, whistling cessation may be approved. However if safety measures are not sufficient, improvements would have to be completed before whistling cessation could be considered. Whistling cessation has been investigated in the District previously. The most recent decision Council made regarding whistling cessation was in 2013 when Council decided not to pursue whistling cessation due to the required safety upgrades being cost prohibitive.

This report is intended to address compliance with the Regulations and identify if any deficiencies exist. It is not intended to further investigate whistling cessation. If Council would like to revisit whistling cessation, they may direct staff to include a concurrent review of potential whistling cessation in the scope of this project, the inclusion of which may increase the per crossing costs.

COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report addresses Council’s Public Safety Goal of ensuring a safe environment for all citizens.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The estimated cost to engage a consultant to complete the inspection, assessment and provide recommendations for each railway grade crossing, including contingency, excluding GST is $40,000.

Funds for this project can be obtained from the General Capital Reserve Fund, which currently has an uncommitted balance of approximately $1.35 million.

The $40,000 doesn’t include funds to review whistling cessation or to address deficiencies. If a whistling cessation review is desired by Council, additional funding may be required. If major deficiencies are identified by the consultant, staff will report back to Council with an action plan.

130


COMMUNICATION: In accordance with the Regulations, District staff will share the required information with the railway owner. The Mission Traffic and Transit Committee (MTTC) will be informed of any safety improvements needed at public grade crossings in Mission.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: On November 27, 2014, Transport Canada published new Grade Crossing Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards to improve the safety at all federally-regulated grade crossings across Canada. By November 27, 2016 railway companies and road authorities must share safety information regarding their existing public grade crossings, and by November 27, 2021 all existing grade crossings must meet the standard as set out in the Regulations. The District of Mission has four existing public grade crossings and staff recommend that a consultant be engaged at a cost of $40,000 to a conduct detailed safety assessment for each public grade crossing to determine if they meet the new standard or to identify corrective measures to achieve the standard. In accordance with the Regulations, the District will share the required information with the railway company by the November 27, 2016 deadline, and if it is determined that any public crossings do not meet the standard, then corrective measures will be implemented before the November 27, 2021 deadline.

SIGN-OFFS:

Michele Fernie, Engineering Technologist II - Assets

Reviewed by: Kris Boland, Manager of Finance

Reviewed by: Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering & Public Works


131




File: 2240-25

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Richard Skelton, Draftsperson/GIS Technician

SUBJECT: Data Sharing Agreement with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Management

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - Data Sharing and Licensing Agreement


That the District enter into a data sharing agreement with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Management to allow their street mapping system to be updated regularly with the District’s street database.

PURPOSE: This report seeks Council approval to enter into a data sharing agreement with the GeoBC Base Mapping and Cadastre Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Management (Appendix A) to provide them with the District’s most updated and accurate street centerline datasets.

BACKGROUND:

GeoBC Base Mapping and Cadastre (GeoBC) is a Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Management (Ministry) that manages the Ministry’s base map online services. GeoBC provides fundamental information to its users to help better manage natural resources in British Columbia.

The Digital Road Atlas (DRA) program of the Ministry provides a single, authoritative source of road data for the Province. The program services clients and users in the DRA Partnership through ongoing provision of data and services to meet the partners' specific needs. Key business areas that the DRA supports include:

• Emergency dispatch (BC Ambulance Service, E-Comm, RCMP); • Disaster Management (Provincial Emergency Program, private partners from the oil and gas

sector, Ministry of Health, RCMP); • Planning and Analysis (Ministry of Forests and Range, Ministry of Environment, Integrated

Land Management Bureau, BC Assessment Authority, Natural Resources Canada); • Demographic Analysis (BC Stats, Ministry of Education, StatsCan); and • Elections (Elections BC, Elections Canada).

The DRA program also serves the general public with 'viewing-only' products made available through the Geographic Data Discovery Service.

132

https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/home.do


DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Fire Departments in some Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) municipalities, such as ours, rely on the Fire Dispatch Centre at the FVRD to receive fire emergency calls.

The Fire Dispatch Centre at the FVRD uses GeoBC and its DRA program to obtain the latest information on the street names and layouts at each jurisdiction. Therefore, it is vital for the District that the Fire Dispatch Centre at the FVRD uses the District’s most accurate street database when contacting the District’s Fire Department.

In order for GeoBC to provide its clients, such as the FVRD, with the most updated and accurate information, it needs to enter data sharing agreements with different jurisdictions to maintain their updated information on the road network and street names.

Staff recommend that Council approve entering into the data sharing agreement with the Ministry (Appendix A) which would allow GeoBC to update their mapping regularly with the District’s street database.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this report as all fees are waived by both parties.

COMMUNICATION: The District’s Corporate Administration Department will contact the Ministry to proceed with signing the agreement.

SIGN-OFFS:

Richard Skelton, Draftsperson/GIS Technician


Reviewed by: Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer


133

DATA SHARING AND LICENSING AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the 22nd day of January 2016 BETWEEN: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Management, GeoBC Base Mapping and Cadastre Branch (“BMC”) 1st Floor, 3400 Davidson PO Box 9375 Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria BC V8W 9M2 OF THE FIRST PART AND District of Mission (“DoM”) 8645 Stave Lake St P.O. Box 20 Mission, BC V2L 4L9 OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS:

A. GeoBC is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of a single, corporate Digital Road Atlas (DRA) program; and

B. DoM wishes to access DRA data and services.

NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows: 1.0 DEFINITIONS 1.01 In this Agreement, unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions will

apply:

(a) Area of Interest means the Regional Districts of Fraser Valley; (b) Data means Digital Road Atlas Data geometry and attribute data for

demographic and resource roads delivered under this Agreement; and

(c) DRA means the Digital Road Atlas. (d) GBAITN means the GeoBC Atlas Integrated Transportation Network

2.0 OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DATA

Appendix A 134

2.01 GeoBC warrants and represents to DoM that it is legally entitled to provide the Data. 2.02 DoMmay use the Data for internal purposes and may not share the Data with a third

party unless authorized to do so, in writing, by GeoBC; 2.03 DoM will ensure that each of its directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents and

representatives abide by the terms of this Agreement; and 2.04 DoM accepts the use of the Data on an "as is, and with faults" basis. GeoBC does not

warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any such information and data and assume no liability whatsoever to DoM in connection with the use by DoM of the Data.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3.01 GeoBC will provide monthly deliveries of DRA Product from the GBAITN master for the

Area of Interest in ESRI File Geodatabase format In BC Albers NAD 83 projection; and 3.02 DoM will endeavour to improve the quality, completeness, accuracy and reliability of the

Data by communicating to GeoBC through [email protected] during the term of this Agreement data errors, omissions, or inaccuracies that are encountered in working with the Data.

4.0 PAYMENT 4.01 Fees are waived under this Agreement. 5.0 CONTACTS 5.01 The Manager, BMC will administer this Agreement on behalf of GeoBC. 5.02 The Mayor, District of Mission and the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, District of

Mission will administer this Agreement on behalf of the District of Mission. 6.0 TERM 6.01 The term of this Agreement will, notwithstanding the actual date of execution and

delivery of this Agreement, commence on the date and year first above written and will end on March 31, 2018, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and the year first above written.

135


SIGNED on behalf of a duly authorized representative of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and a duly authorized representative for the District of Mission who will administer this Agreement on behalf of DoM and in the presence of: ______________________________ _________________________________ (Witness) Brad Hlasny Manager, Base Mapping and Cadastre, GeoBC _______________________________ __________________________________ (Witness) Randy Hawes, Mayor, District of Mission _______________________________ __________________________________ (Witness) Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer,

District of Mission

136




File: 0810-20-02

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Jay Jackman, Manager of Assets, Infrastructure & Projects

SUBJECT: Renovations to Municipal Hall ATTACHMENT: Appendix A – Floor Plan Concept Drawings

This report seeks Council approval for the reallocation of funds that were previously approved for the supply and installation of modular office space at Municipal Hall.


1. That the existing approved $216,000 budget for the modular ancillary structure be transferred to the renovation project for Municipal Hall;


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Annex was constructed in 2003 to address overcrowding at the Municipal Hall. It was intended to provide for ten years’ worth of growth; over twelve years have passed and the Municipal Hall is again facing a significant lack of space and overcrowding. Staff originally proposed that some municipal staff relocate to a modular ancillary structure to be located on the lawn behind the Municipal Hall. The estimated cost of the structure, including the supply, installation, servicing, 10% contingency and 5% administration, was $216,000. That estimate did not include plumbing.

Upon further deliberation, it was determined that a modular with no plumbing was not a good fit for Municipal Hall operations and so the focus was turned to space allocation of the existing building.

That focus has resulted in revised floor plans that eliminate many of the interior walls, opening up floor space for highly efficient desk solutions that will result in the creation of approximately 10 additional workstations on the main floor of municipal hall. The revised floor plan will be complemented with other minor renovations to improve efficiency of space and function throughout the building.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to let Council know that staff are now focusing their attention on planning a building renovation instead of purchasing a modular office space. The intent is for the renovation costs to fit within the budget that was approved for the modular office, and for the revised floor plan to satisfy all departments’ needs for additional workstations to accommodate the current and immediate future staffing levels. This solution will maximize all available floor space and will not allow for any further expansion of staffing at Municipal Hall. Within three to five years, it is likely that staffing levels will outgrow the current facility.

137


BACKGROUND: In 2003, it was identified that office space at the Municipal Hall had become congested, with severe overcrowding and a general lack of space for new staff. The Annex was constructed to address Municipal Hall office space requirements for the next ten years. Once constructed, the Engineering Department took residence, opening up office space in the original building. Since then, the Annex has also housed various Development Services staff, including planning, bylaws and building inspection staff.

In 2008, the CAO wrote a memorandum to Council recommending that staff proceed with steps to construct a second story addition to the Municipal Hall Annex at a cost of up to $700,000. Staff had also investigated the placement of a portable to address the requirement for additional space, but arrived at the conclusion that an addition to the building would add substantial value to the overall premises for resale purposes. At the February 27, 2008 Special Council Meeting (Admin & Finance), staff were advised that the Municipal Hall building expansion request was to be withdrawn and that alternate plans should be presented to Council at a later date. Staff have found draft plans for a building addition to the Annex, but no evidence that the idea was ever formally taken to Council. However, the requirement for additional space still exists.

All offices at the Municipal Hall are currently being utilized, in some cases with multiple staff sharing one office. Staffing vacancies over the past three years have veiled the issue, but now that staffing levels are approaching full, it is increasingly obvious that there is not enough space to house existing and newly approved staff positions. In an effort to alleviate the overcrowding, staff have moved to satellite locations; IT relocated to a portable in 2011, and the Manager of Long Range Planning & Special Projects relocated to Welton Commons in 2014. Additional space is now required at the Municipal Hall to address new staffing. Contributing further to the overcrowding is the lack of acceptable storage for drawings and files, as many of these files line the hallways.

In fall of 2015, staff took a report to Council recommending funding the purchase of an ancillary structure to provide the badly needed additional space within a short time frame. The funding request was approved, but upon closer look, the logistics of having staff or conference space in a portable structure were challenging and unappealing. As such, staff began looking into space planning in an effort to maximize every square foot of Municipal Hall.

After looking at many different possible floor plans, it was decided that the conference room would be repurposed into a smaller conference room and a staff lunchroom, freeing up the existing lunchroom for additional office space. The Annex would have walls removed, resulting in a more open floor plan that will be divided up into individual workstations totaling 16 plus a flex space. Additionally, walls would be removed from the area behind the front counter and the area behind the lower finance counter. This will open up floor space on the lower level of the main building for efficient use of space using a cohesive desk system solution. Upstairs, where HR staff are currently located, will be renovated to include a privacy wall, the Council Chamber doors will be fitted with sound mitigating material, and the Council Chamber office will be furnished as a first aid dressing station.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The Municipal Hall is at a point where we have no space for additional staff, with multiple offices housing more than one occupant and storage occurring in many hallways around the building. The addition of the Annex is no longer sufficient to provide space for current or future staff levels.

Staff have reviewed available options for increasing office space. Staff recommended relocating some employees to a modular structure to be located on the lawn behind the Municipal Hall. Since making that recommendation, it has been agreed that a better solution can be designed using the existing building in a more efficient way.

138


Staff are now focusing their attention on preparing a procurement package to take to the market for the renovation of Municipal Hall. When costs are known, staff will draft a report to Council recommending the reallocation of funding as required. The intent is for the renovation costs to fit within the budget that was approved for the modular office, and for the revised floor plan to satisfy all departments’ needs for additional workstations to accommodate the current and immediate future staffing levels. Having said that, this solution will maximize all available floor space and will not allow for any further expansion of staffing at Municipal Hall. Within three to five years, it is likely that staffing levels will outgrow the current facility.

COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report addresses Council’s infrastructure goal to ensure ongoing maintenance and optimize use. Municipal Hall requires additional workstations to continue to provide the existing level of support and service. Optimizing the existing space will create an open concept floor plan allowing for the placement of highly efficient desk systems creating about ten additional work stations.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications directly associated with this report, as the intent of the proposed renovations is to work within the previously approved $216,000 budget for the modular ancillary structure.

It is important to stress the fact that the proposed renovations will maximize all available floor space and will not allow for any further expansion of staffing at Municipal Hall. Within three to five years, it is likely that staffing levels will outgrow the current facility, given the fact that the community is anticipated to continue to grow. Staff will follow up with Council to discuss options to consider accommodating future growth of staffing at Municipal Hall, as well as other municipal facilities that are at or nearing capacity.

COMMUNICATION: No communication action is required.

SIGN-OFFS:

Jay Jackman, Manager of Assets, Infrastructure & Projects


Reviewed by: Kris Boland, Director of Finance


139

Annex - revised 2007 - FLOOR PLAN.dgn 25/02/2016 2:49:08 PM

Appendix A 140

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

Main Building, Lower Floor

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Rectangle

Annex - revised 2007 - FLOOR PLAN.dgn 19/02/2016 3:27:55 PM

141

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

Municipal Hall - Annex

Annex - revised 2007 - FLOOR PLAN.dgn 26/02/2016 8:51:12 AM

142

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

Conference Room

ENGINEERING ANNEX - LOWER FLOOR PLAN.dgn 26/02/2016 9:07:15 AM

143

sjohannson

Typewritten Text

Upper Floor - HR Area

Mission Fire/Rescue Service Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 13

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Dale Unrau, Fire Chief

SUBJECT: BCEHS Naloxone First Responder (FR) Program

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A. BCEHS Naloxone Initiative for EMA FRs Appendix B. Coroners Service Illicit Drug Overdoses in BC Appendix C. Coroners Service Mission Illicit Drug Overdose Deaths Appendix D. Naloxone Approval for First Responders

This report is to brief Council on the recent change to the First Responder program to allow First Responders to administer Naloxone in drug overdose emergencies.

PURPOSE: This report is to inform Council of a recent change to the medical First Responder (FR) program with the approval from the Ministry of Health to allow FRs to administer naloxone in drug overdose emergency cases. BACKGROUND: On January 28, 2016, the Ministry of Health announced that first responders working for municipal fire departments will be permitted to administer naloxone in drug overdose emergencies. BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) oversees the FR program and will be working directly with fire departments that wish to participate in the naloxone program. Fire departments wishing to participate in the naloxone program must have a consent and indemnity agreement in place with BCEHS and receive training from BCEHS in the administration of naloxone. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Mission Fire Rescue Service (MFRS) currently responds to drug overdose emergencies as part of its council approved medical response protocols and has a consent and indemnity agreement in place with BCEHS. During these responses Mission Fire Fighters are currently only able to assist breathing, perform CPR and apply oxygen until an ambulance arrives on scene. Once an ambulance arrives on scene the ambulance crew is able to administer medication to counteract the effects of the drug overdose. With the recent approval from the Ministry of Health for first responder fire departments to be able to deliver naloxone in drug overdose emergencies, MFRS will be pursing training necessary to be able to administer this life saving drug. A free Train the Trainer program is delivered through BCEHS for FR instructors who after the training receive a complete training package to deliver to the members of their fire department. The training for FRs takes two hours and once they have taken the training it becomes a separate endorsement on their first responder license similar to endorsements they currently have for spinal management and Automatic External Defibrillator.

144


MFRS during 2015 responded to 25 overdose emergencies. During January and February of 2016 MFRS responded to 12 overdose emergencies. Statistics from the Coroner’s Service of BC indicate that there are between 3-5 drug overdose deaths per year over that last five year period. Having naloxone in the hands of Mission FRs will allow them to intervene with lifesaving medication in cases where BCAS is delayed in responding to overdose emergencies.


MFRS costs for implementing the use of naloxone will be for the one day instructor costs for attending the BCEHS Train the Trainer program and a less than $3.00 per dose (including needle) for the naloxone. MFRS career members will be trained on shift and paid on call members receiving training will be trained on regular Tuesday night practice nights thereby incurring no additional training costs.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Mission FRs currently respond to overdose emergencies as part of council approved medical response protocols for the MFRS. Adding naloxone to the FRs medical kits will allow them to intervene with a potentially lifesaving intervention in those cases where BCAS is delayed in their response with minimal costs be incurred by the District of Mission. MFRS intends on having training completed and be operational with naloxone before the end of the second quarter of 2016.

SIGN-OFFS:

Dale Unrau, Director of Fire/Rescue Servic Reviewed by: Blaine Odenbach, Assistant Chief

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed

145


APPENDIX A

146


147


APPENDIX B

148


149


150


151


152


153


APPENDIX C

154


APPENDIX D

155


156

Parks, Recreation & Culture



DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture

SUBJECT: Service Provider Insurance Coverage ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A- MIA Expansion of Services

Attachment B- MIA Service Provider Agreement


That the terms of the new MIA Service Provider Program be extended to cover the contracted providers of caretaking services at Heritage Park and the Mission Rotary Sports Park, special event programming services at Heritage Park and the Producers of the Envision Financial Twilight Concert Series.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to seek Council support to extend Municipal Insurance Association (MIA) insurance coverage under the expanded service coverage introduced in January 2015 and explained in detail in Attachment A of this report.

BACKGROUND: The District of Mission Parks, Recreation & Culture Department require proof of liability insurance for all service providers engaging in activities within DOM facilities or on DOM property. The District has directly engaged several contractors to provide specific services on behalf of the municipality. Staff believes that extending insurance coverage to these individuals/companies to ensure they are covered against any potential third party claims is reasonable. This report seeks a Council resolution as required by MIA.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The District of Mission Parks, Recreation & Culture Department has entered into agreements with several individuals/companies to provide services at Fraser River Heritage Park and the Mission Rotary Sports Park. Services undertaken in Heritage Park on behalf of the District include caretaking functions, special event coordination and producing the 2016 Envision Financial Twilight Concert Series. At the Sports Park a caretaker is in place to cover such matters as opening and closing gates and upkeep to the public washrooms and dressing rooms. Rather than have these individuals enter into separate liability contracts, staff are recommending that the terms of the new MIA Service Provider Program be extended to cover these service providers for 2016.

157



The costs to extend insurance coverage to all four service areas will not exceed $500.00 and can be absorbed into the 2016 Parks, Recreation & Culture Department operating budgets for Fraser River Heritage Park and the Sports Park.

COMMUNICATION:

Staff will complete the required paperwork to MIA and provide written follow-up to the affected service providers.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

This report is provided to ensure that Council is fully aware that insurance coverage is being extended to service providers at Heritage Park and the Mission Rotary Sports Park for work done on behalf of the District and under the direction of municipal staff.

SIGN-OFFS:

Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture

Reviewed by:

Stephanie Key, Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture


158

390-1050 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 2W9 Tel: 604-683-6266 Fax: 604-683-6244

Expansion of Coverage to the Liability Protection Agreement 2015

At the September 2014 AGM the membership voted in favor of expanding coverage in two significant areas, both of which will take effect as of January 1, 2015.

Associate Members Coverage will now be extended to individuals, groups and associations that provide services for, or on behalf of our members, upon request of an MIABC member, up to a limit of $5,000,000. These individuals, groups and associations must be individually sponsored by a member in order to qualify for “associate member” status. Once accepted as an associate member, these parties will be entitled to full coverage under the Liability Protection Agreement, but only for services provided for, or on behalf of, the sponsoring member. In order to qualify as an associate member, the following conditions must be met:

The associate member is sponsored by an existing MIABC member;

The sponsoring member has a written agreement for the provision of services

with the associate member (the “Service Provider Agreement”);

The services provided are services to the community provided for or on behalf

of the sponsoring member;

The Service Provider Agreement has been approved by the sponsoring

member’s council or board by resolution or bylaw; and

The MIABC has received payment of a premium from, or on behalf of, the

associate member.

It is important to understand that the sponsoring member’s deductible will apply to claims brought against the associate member and the sponsoring member will be responsible for the payment of any costs incurred below the deductible. In addition, all claims brought against the associate member will form part of the sponsoring member’s claims history and experience rating.

APPENDIX A 159

of 2

390-1050 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 2W9 Tel: 604-683-6266 Fax: 604-683-6244

The MIABC has drafted two versions of a service provider agreement template for your convenience. One version contemplates that the sponsoring member will be responsible for payment of the premium and deductible amounts and one contemplates that the associate member will be responsible for these payments. Electronic versions of these forms can be downloaded from our website or obtained by emailing Susan Ackerman at [email protected] or Megan Chorlton at [email protected].

Claims for Breach of Contract Coverage in 2015 will be expanded to include liability for breach of contract. The extension applies only to any compensatory damages (damages for what was lost due to the breach) that our members must pay as a result of a breach of contract claim. We will also cover breach of contract arising from the assumed liability of others, but only if the member is found to be at least partially liable for the loss. Please contact Susan Ackerman at [email protected] or Megan Chorlton at [email protected] if you have any questions about the implementation of either of these resolutions.

160





SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT This Service Provider Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of _____________________, ____________ by and in between ___________________________________ (the “Local Government”) and ____________________________________ (the “Service Provider”). The Service Provider agrees to provide the following services for or on behalf of the Local Government: _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________. The term of the Agreement is from the _____ day of _____________________, ____________ and

the _____ day of _____________________, ____________. The term of the Agreement is perpetual commencing the _____ day of _____________________,

____________. While providing the agreed service, the Service Provider agrees to comply with: all applicable laws, rules and regulations; the practices, procedures and policies of the Local Government; and any special instructions given to the Service Provider by representative(s) of the Local Government. The Local Government agrees to obtain commercial general liability insurance coverage from the Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia (MIABC) naming the Service Provider as an Additional Named Insured entitled to full coverage in the amount of $5,000,000 with respect to third party liability claims arising from the provision of the agreed service. The Service Provider agrees to carry its own statutory worker’s compensation insurance and automobile liability insurance, if appropriate. The Service Provider agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Local Government, its agents, servants, employees, trustees, officers and representatives from any liability, loss or damage which the Local Government may suffer as a result of any claims, demands, costs, actions, causes of actions, or judgments, including legal fees, asserted against or incurred by the Local Government arising out of, during, or as a result of the provision of services outlined in the Agreement except such liability, loss, or damage which is the result of, or arising out of, the sole negligence of the Local Government or that is covered by the MIABC liability insurance policy.

APPENDIX B 161

The Local Government agrees to be responsible for any and all deductible amounts including any claim expenses incurred and policy premium payments.

The Service Provider agrees to be responsible for any and all deductible amounts including any claim

expenses incurred and policy premium payments. The Local Government reserves the right to terminate this Agreement and the associated commercial general liability insurance coverage provided to the Service Provider by the MIABC at any time upon written notification to the Service Provider of the termination. ON BEHALF OF <LOCAL GOVERNMENT> ON BEHALF OF <SERVICE PROVIDER> Name: Name: ________________________________________ _______________________________________ Title: Title: ________________________________________ _______________________________________ Signature: Signature: ________________________________________ _______________________________________ Date: Date: ________________________________________ _______________________________________

162

Monday, March 7th, 2016 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Mission Municipal Hall

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

www.mission.ca

Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 464 and 466 of the Local Government Act, a PublicHearing will take place in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street,Mission, BC at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 7th, 2016 to consider the following proposed bylaw:

1. DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5549-2016-5050(191) (R16-004 -Jack)

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to facilitate the construction of asecondary dwelling unit in the form of a garden cottage.

This bylaw proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending thezoning of the following legally described property:

Parcel Identifier: 009-747-567 Lot B District Lot 476 Group 1 and Section 25Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 12639

from the Rural 80 (RU80) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone

The location of the subject property is 35344 McEwen Avenue and is shown on thefollowing maps:

Copies of the proposed bylaw and report relevant to this bylaw may be inspected at theMunicipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC, Monday to Friday, excluding statutoryholidays, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m from February 26, 2016 to March 7, 2016. The informationis also available on our website at www.mission.ca by searching “Public Meeting Information”.For further information regarding any of this bylaw, please contact the Development ServicesDepartment at (604) 820-3748.

At the Public Hearing, persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by thisproposed bylaw will have the opportunity to be heard.

Should you have any comments or concerns you wish to convey to Council and you cannotattend the meeting, please submit in writing to the Corporate Officer by 4:30 p.m. on Friday,March 4, 2016.

You may forward your submission by:

• Mailing or delivering to the Corporate Officer’s Office, P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave LakeStreet, Mission, BC, V2V 4L9

• Faxing: 604-826-1363 (Attn: Corporate Officer)

• E-mail: [email protected] with PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS as the subject line

Please note Submissions that are subject of a public hearing, public meeting or other publicprocesses will be included, in their entirety, in the public information package and will form partof the public record. Council shall not receive further information or submissions after theconclusion of the Public Hearing.

Following the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, council may consider advancing bylawsforward for additional readings.

Michael YounieCorporate Officer

Dated at Mission, BCthis 16th day of February, 2016.

165

P.O. Box 20, 8645 S tave Lake St ree t , Miss i on , B.C. V2V 4L9 Phone (604) 820-3748 Fax (604) 826-7951 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.mission.ca E-mail: [email protected]

D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S D E P A R T M E N T FILE: 3310-16 P2016-006 R16-004 DV16-002

February 22, 2016 Dear Owner/Occupant: Re: Rezoning Application R16-004 & Development Variance Permit Application DV16-

002 (Jack) - 35344 McEwen Avenue

As a property owner or neighbouring resident to the subject property located at 35344 McEwen Avenue, you are invited to attend a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 7th, 2016 and make known any comments that you may have. The Public Hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC. The following is an excerpt from the Public Hearing Notice: DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5549-2016-5050(191) (R16-004 - Jack)

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to facilitate the construction of a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a garden cottage.

This bylaw proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the following legally described property:

Parcel Identifier: 009-747-567 Lot B District Lot 476 Group 1 and Section 25 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 12639

from the Rural 80 (RU80) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone

The location of the subject property is 35344 McEwen Avenue and is shown on the following maps:

166

http://www.mission.ca/


2

The purpose of the development variance permit is to:

Vary Section 106 F. Secondary Dwelling Units, Subsection 2., B., by waiving the requirement for the proposed secondary dwelling unit to be located to the rear of the principal building;

Vary Section 106 F. Secondary Dwelling Units, Subsection 2., A., by increasing the maximum distance between the principal building and the proposed secondary dwelling unit from 25.0 metres (82.0 feet) to 85 metres (289 feet); and

Vary Section 102. Definitions, Garden Cottage, by waiving the restriction of basements in relation to the proposed garden cottage.

A copy of the proposed bylaw(s) and report(s) relevant to this bylaw may be inspected at the Municipal Hall, Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., from February 26, 2016 to March 7, 2016. The information is also available on our website at www.mission.ca by searching “upcoming public hearing”. If you are unable to attend the Public Hearing, you may send a written submission, including your name and address, to the attention of Michael Younie, Corporate Officer, or email [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. on the Friday preceding the date of the Public Hearing. All submissions will form part of the record of the Hearing. If you require additional information, please contact the Development Services Department at (604) 820-3748 or email [email protected]. Yours truly,

For, Chris Laing MANAGER OF PLANNING

167

http://www.mission.ca/





File Category: 3310-15 P2016-006 R16-004 DV16-002

DATE: February 15, 2016


FROM: Robert Publow, Planner

SUBJECT: Rezoning and Development Variance Permit Application to facilitate a secondary dwelling use in the form of a garden cottage at the property located at 35344 McEwen Avenue

ATTACHMENT(S): Appendix 1 – Information for Corporate Officer Appendix 2 – Elevation Drawings of Proposed Garden Cottage Appendix 3 – Proposed Site Plan

CIVIC ADDRESS: 35344 McEwen Avenue

APPLICANT: David and Sheila Jack

OCP: This application is in conformance with the current Urban Residential OCP designation

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE:

January 29, 2016

LOCATION

168



SUMMARY

An application has been received by David and Sheila Jack, the property owners of the property located at 35344 McEwen Avenue, to rezone the property to allow the placement of a modular home as a secondary dwelling unit (i.e., garden cottage). In addition, the proposed siting of the structure and the addition of an in-ground basement requires a development variance permit. Elevations of the proposed garden cottage are attached as Appendix 2.

Proposed Rezoning

The application seeks to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the property from Rural 80 (RU80) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone to facilitate the construction of a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a garden cottage.

Proposed Development Variances

The Zoning Bylaw requires that the garden cottage be located no less than 5 metres and no more than 25 metres from the principal residence and that the building be located entirely at the rear of the principal residence. The Zoning Bylaw also prescribes the siting of secondary dwelling units to ensure that these types of dwelling units form an integral component of the residential uses on a property and that they are clearly ancillary to the principal dwelling. As the definition of a Garden Cottage includes language prohibiting a basement in association with a Garden Cottage and the applicant has proposed a 2.75 metre (9 foot) high basement, a variance is required to allow the basement as proposed. Specifically, the request is to:

Vary Section 106 F. Secondary Dwelling Units, Subsection 2., B., by waiving the requirement for the proposed secondary dwelling unit to be located to the rear of the principal building;

Vary Section 106 F. Secondary Dwelling Units, Subsection 2., A., by increasing the maximum distance between the principal building and the proposed secondary dwelling unit from 25.0 metres (82.0 feet) to 85 metres (289 feet); and

This report details the rezoning and development variance permit applications for a proposed secondary dwelling use at 35344 McEwen Avenue and to vary the siting requirements and the provision that restricts basement development in the proposed secondary dwelling; and identifies the necessary bylaw amendment and variances to the Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009

Staff support proposed Zoning Amending Bylaw and as such have listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council agenda

Staff support the proposed variances to siting of a Secondary Dwelling Unit on the subject property. Staff do not support the applicant’s request to allow a basement in relation to the development of a garden cottage on the subject property. The accompanying Development Variance Permit will be listed at the same time as consideration of the adoption of the Bylaw.


The applicant has requested that Council waive all development application fees as applicable under Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003 as well that the District of Mission cover all the costs to placing a development notification sign as required in Council Policy LAN.3, Development Notification Signs.

169

Vary Section 102. Definitions, Garden Cottage, by waiving the restriction of basements in relation to the proposed garden cottage.

PLANNING ANALYSIS

Neighbourhood and Site Characteristics

The subject property is approximately 2.03 hectares (5.02 acres) in size and is located on a plateau west of Hatzic Lake. The property contains an existing single-family home and two existing accessory buildings. The proposed garden cottage would be located north of the existing home. The property is located within an area which is transitioning from predominantly large suburban properties to an area comprised of large urban single-family properties.

Zoning and OCP Bylaws Compliance

The subject property is currently designated Urban Residential in the Official Community Plan (OCP) and zoned RU80 Zone. The applicant proposes to rezone the property to RU16s Zone to allow for the placement of a modular home as a secondary dwelling use in the form of a garden cottage. Secondary Dwelling Unit uses (i.e., coach homes, garden cottages and secondary suites) are supported by a number of policies in the OCP and in particular on lots that are large enough to accommodate on-site parking that is separate and unencumbered from the off street parking of the primary residence, and where private outside amenity space is provided. Given the size of the property, off-street parking requirements are expected to be met.

Given that the subject property is designated as Urban Residential in the OCP and holds potential for future rezoning and subsequent development of urban lots, similar to adjacent properties to the north and west, the applicant is cautioned to carefully consider the location of the proposed garden cottage to ensure that future development potential is not negatively impacted.

Servicing

While municipal water is available, sanitary service is not available to the property. The property owner will be required to upgrade the existing water service with a water meter and to provide confirmation from a Registered Onsite Wastewater Practitioner (ROWP) that an onsite sewage treatment system can be installed to accommodate the discharge from the garden cottage or that the existing sewage disposal system has the capacity to service both the existing dwelling and proposed garden cottage.

Access

The subject property fronts onto McEwen Avenue. The access to the proposed secondary dwelling is indicated on the attached Site Plan (Appendix 3), which shows a new section of driveway branching off the existing driveway and running approximately 38 metres (125 feet) east to the proposed building site.

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT (Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009)

Proposed Siting Variances

The Zoning Bylaw requires that the garden cottage be located no less than 5 metres and no more than 25 metres from the principal residence and that the building be located entirely at the rear of the principal residence. The Zoning Bylaw also prescribes the siting of secondary dwelling units to ensure that these types of dwelling units form an integral component of the uses on a property and that they are clearly ancillary to the principal dwelling.

In this case the applicant has proposed to locate the secondary dwelling in front of the principal dwelling, on the north east side of the property at a distance of approximately 80 metres from the principal residence as shown in Appendix 3. The applicant has indicated that one of their primary

170

goals when considering the proposed location was to minimize any impact on the actively farmed portion of the property and as such have suggested the location identified in Appendix 3. The applicant has also indicated that placement of the garden cottages behind the principal dwelling as required by the Zoning Bylaw would be difficult due to the required setback from property lines, the location of existing buildings and the existence of mature landscaping features surrounding the principal dwelling.

Proposed Variance to allow a basement in a Garden Cottage

The Zoning Bylaw also defines a Garden Cottage as a “Secondary Dwelling Unit, separate from, and accessory to, the Single Family Dwelling on the Lot and is limited to one Storey, which may not include a Basement”. The intent of excluding basements within garden cottages is to reinforce that these types of dwellings are deemed secondary in nature, subservient and complementary to a principal residence.

In this case the applicant has requested to install a full basement with the placement of the garden cottage as a means to increase the floor space of the secondary dwelling. Generally, this could potentially allow a secondary dwelling of 220 square metres (2,368 square feet). The applicant has indicated that the basement would be used as farm related storage only; however, the District of Mission would have no mechanism to limit the use of the basement area for the current or future owners of the property.

One alternative that has been discussed with the applicant is to develop a coach house on the property instead of a garden cottage. A Coach House is defined as a “Secondary Dwelling Unit that is separate from and accessory to the Single Family Dwelling on the Lot and is located entirely above a Detached Garage”. In this case, an at grade level garage could provide the desired storage space, the existing modular home could still be utilized and the structure would be in full compliance with the Zoning Bylaw. Another alternative is to reduce the height of the proposed basement from 2.7 metres (9 feet) down to 1.8 metres (5.9 feet), which would be considered a crawl space and therefore permitted in association with the proposed garden cottage.

Staff are not supportive of the proposed basement as the expansion of potential livable space within the proposed garden cottage from the maximum permitted 110 square metres (1184 square feet) to 220 square metres (2,368 square feet) goes against the intent of the Zoning Bylaw to keep the size of secondary dwellings relatively small and accessory to the principal dwelling. In addition, alternatives are available to provide for the applicants stated desire for farm related storage, such as, constructing a coach house as detailed above or constructing a separate accessory building or agricultural building purely for storage purposes.

The Inspection Services Department will ensure that the proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit meets all of the other applicable requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and the BC Building Code during the building permit review and plan check process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The applicant has requested that Council waive all development application fees as applicable under Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003 and requested that the District cover all the costs of placing a development notification sign as required in Council Policy LAN.3.

Section 25 of the Community Charter prohibits local governments from providing assistance to businesses which includes the waiving of a fee. Providing assistance to non-profit organizations for projects that provide a community benefit is permitted and has been done in the past, however, staff do not recommend covering the fee in this instance as it contravenes the Community Charter and would set a precedent.

171

COMMUNICATION

The developer has posted a development notification sign on the property. The development notification sign will be required to advertise the public hearing details (i.e., date, time and place) should Council resolve to move forward with the Zoning Amending Bylaw. A notice will be mailed to the owners and to the occupiers of all properties within a distance of 152 metres (500 feet) of the development site notifying them of the public hearing details.

Policy LAN.50 - Pre-Public hearing Information Packages

A pre-public hearing information package will be prepared to include copies of all applicable documents and will be made available online or at municipal hall for public viewing.

Bylaw 3612-2003 Land Use Application Procedures and Fees

A notice of Public Hearing will be prepared in accordance with Bylaw 3612-2003 and the Local Government Act.

A notice of Development Variance Permit shall be mailed or otherwise delivered in accordance with Bylaw 3612-2003 and provisions of the Local Government Act.

REFERRALS

Engineering

The Engineering Department advises the rezoning application may proceed to final adoption, subject to the existing water service connection being fitted with a water meter. Mission Fire/Rescue Service

The Mission Fire/Rescue Service has no objection to the project.

INFORMATIONAL NOTES

Approval of Development Variance Permit DV16-0002 will be considered as part of the same Council agenda as the Zoning Amending Bylaw is considered for adoption.

SIGN-OFFS

Robert Publow, Planner

Reviewed by: Chris Laing, Manager of Planning


172

Appendix 1


Civic Address:

35344 McEwen

PID: 009-747-567

Legal: Lot B District Lot 476 Group 1 and Section 25 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 12639

173

Appendix 2

Elevation Drawings of Proposed Garden Cottage

174

Appendix 3

Proposed Site Plan

Location of Existing house

Proposed Garden Cottage location

175

District of Mission Minutes

File: 0540-20-12 Page 1 of 3

The Minutes of the Mission Traffic and Transit Committee meeting held in the Conference Room at the Mission Municipal Hall (8645 Stave Lake Street), on December 3, 2015 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Members Present: Councillor Danny Plecas, Chair Councillor Pam Alexis, Co-Chair Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering and Public Works

Bob Ingram, Mission Seniors Centre Association Ken Collier, Member at large, resident District of Mission Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services Jodi Marshall, School District #75

Sanjay Gulati, Mission Community Services Society Wayne Green, United Way Fraser Valley

Others Present: Erika Duplissie, Administrative Clerk - Planning

1) ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Moved by Bob Ingram, and seconded by Councillor Alexis RECOMMENDED: That the agenda of the Mission Traffic and Transit Committee meeting held on December 3, 2015 be approved with two additions by Tracy Kyle; 1) Dewdney Trunk Road at Lougheed Highway traffic signal, and 2) Speed readers/ICBC safety review.

CARRIED

2) MINUTES

Moved by Councillor Alexis, and seconded by Bob Ingram RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the Mission Traffic and Transit Committee meeting held on October 1, 2015 be approved. CARRIED

3) OLD BUSINESS

Late agenda items were provided to the Committee in the form of memos corresponding to some of the Old Business items.

(a) Traffic Safety Issues (follow up items)

Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering and Public Works deferred to Ibrahim Ghafoor, Traffic Technologist – Traffic, to provide updates on the follow up items.

Crosswalk Safety at Cedarbrooke Chateau (32419 7th Avenue) – Nothing further to report other than that the RCMP will need to monitor driver’s speed in the area Crosswalk on Hurd Street - nothing further to report Traffic Safety concerns near 32296 Bobcat Drive West – Councillor Alexis asked if concerns received are put on a list and passed on to the RCMP. Ibrahim Ghafoor responded that a list can be forwarded to the Community Policing office. Parking on Rai Avenue. Nothing further to report.

176

Mission Traffic and Transit Committee Minutes December 3, 2015

File: 0540-20-12 PAGE 2 of 3

Parking at Intersections – Ibrahim Ghafoor shared that the issue has been discussed with the bylaw officers and this is an enforcement issue and the bylaw department should be contacted if there are any specific complaints. Mission Secondary and Leisure Centre Issues – Staff observed that the streets in the surrounding area have a speed limit of 30 km/h on school days. The RCMP has confirmed that speed enforcement in this area is on their patrol list. There are three crosswalks within the school area on 7th Avenue and one crosswalk on Grand Street in front of the Leisure Centre. It was agreed to have a crosswalk sign installed on Grand Street as well as for Ibrahim to look into moving the speed signs further north on Grand Street so that cars are slowing down before the hill. Staff also observed the availability of parking in front of the school and found it to be adequate. Councillor Plecas stated that the left turn signal northbound on Grand Street at 7th Avenue is not long enough. Tracy Kyle will have Ibrahim review the sequence. Parking at Mission Memorial Hospital – Councillor Plecas spoke with the hospital’s ‘parking police’ and they acknowledge the issue and are looking at expanding the parking lot but there are seismic issues to be dealt with first. Councillor Plecas feels that Fraser Health is trying to come up with a long-term parking solution and he will follow up on that issue. He hopes to have received Fraser Health’s plan by the February meeting of this Committee. Sanjay Gulati shared that Mission Community Services has just purchased a van that is intended to provide rides for events and outings. They are currently working out logistics. Councillor Alexis suggested that Sanjay touch base with Mayor Hawes about this service.

4) NEW BUSINESS

Late agenda items were provided to the Committee in the form of memos corresponding to some of the New Business items.

Crosswalk request at Griner Park – Discussion about the possibility of moving the current sidewalk, the challenges and additional costs of closing in the ditch on the south side of Cherry Avenue to all for a sidewalk. Tracy Kyle will look into various options and associated costs. Complaint of speeding on Shook Road – review of letter from the Mayor stating that Community Policing has conducted speed checks at the location and that vehicles were found to be conforming to the speed limit. Nothing more is required from the Engineering Department on this matter. Review request for a 4-way stop on 7th Avenue at the entrance to Mission Secondary School. Letter from traffic technologist stating that a 4 way stop controlled intersection cannot be accommodated as the current school driveway is not part of an intersection was reviewed. Review request for traffic signal at the intersection of 7th Avenue and Murray Street. Tracy Kyle reported that this intersection was reviewed in 2013 and at time it was determined that installation of a traffic signal was not warranted and it was moved forward to 2018. Also in 2013, a 3 way stop was not warranted. Ibrahim Ghafoor will investigate the feasibility of this now and will report back at the February 2016 meeting. Tracy Kyle provided an overview of the Cedar Street and 7th Avenue intersection upgrades. Two concepts have been presented to council at this time and requests for federal funding are being looked at. Councillor Plecas stated that he will meet with Jati Sidhu, Member of Parliament, to discuss federal

177

Mission Traffic and Transit Committee Minutes December 3, 2015

File: 0540-20-12 PAGE 3 of 3

grants. Tracy shared that another report will be going to Council on December 7, 2015. Questions were raised about the future operation of the traffic signal on the Cedar Valley Connector at Briskham Street. Tracy asked Ibrahim to report back on the plans for that signal. Tracy Kyle shared that there have been concerns from residents about the lack of a traffic signal on the Lougheed Highway at Dewdney Trunk Road. Residents feel that the need will increase with the new development in the area. This request has been forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) and the Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for their consideration. MOTI will respond to the Mayor. Ibrahim to follow up to ensure that the Mayor does in fact receive a response. Councillor Plecas has an upcoming meeting with MLA Simon Gibson and he will bring this issue to the table at that meeting as well. Tracy Kyle shared that the District of Mission is in the process of purchasing two speed reader signs, with cost sharing from ICBC. Committee members suggested various locations for the readers and Tracy let them know that a connection to street lights for power is required, and that there are additional costs associated with taking them down and re-installing at new locations. Tracy asked Ibrahim to find out and confirm how many portable speed readers Community Policing currently has.

(b) Transportation Master Plan Update – Tracy Kyle

There is an open house being held today (December 3rd) at the Leisure Centre from 2:30-7:00pm. Tracy provided paper copies of the boards for the open house as well as the questionnaire for the Committee’s convenience.

(c) Transit – Dan Sommer

Dan shared that the Planning department has received a development inquiry for several properties on 2nd Avenue that could impact the location of the bus exchange. Discussion about possible relocation of the bus exchange and the balance between public and private space. Dan clarified that he is not making any recommendations at this time, just sharing comments with the Committee. Subcommittee Update – meet every two months. Trying to also sit down with management from the City of Abbotsford. Getting good feedback and want the opportunity to meet with Transit officials. Councillor Plecas asked if there is any new information about West Coast Express costs and Dan replied that it will come up at the JSSC soon. There are not any changes to service at this time. Councillor Alexis stated that it should be discussed at the February 2016 meeting as some changes may have to be made.

(d) Next Meeting

February 4, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at the Municipal Hall.

5) ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Bob Ingram, and RECOMMENDED: That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

178

File: 01-ADMINISTRATION Page 1 of 3 0540-20-09

The Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting held in the Conference Room at the Mission Leisure Centre on Tuesday, January 12, 2016 commencing at 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Paul Hockridge, Chair Ed Hodson Bob Ingram Dan Schubert Jim Shaw Danica Stene Rich Vigurs Laura Wilson

Members Absent: Manpreet Brar Others Present: Michael Boronowski, Manager, Civic Engagement and Corporate Initiatives, District of Mission Kirsten Hargreaves, Manager of Social Development, District of Mission Rachel Kleindienst, Booking Clerk Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. SELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR

Paul Hockridge was selected chair.

Bob Ingram selected vice-chair.


Moved by Bob Ingram and seconded by Laura Wilson.

CARRIED

4. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

Moved by Rich Vigurs and seconded by Bob Ingram

That the minutes of the December 8, 2015 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee be approved

CARRIED

179

Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes January 12, 2016


5. BUSINESS ARISING

(a) Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference were handed out at December 8, 2015 meeting.

Membership (pg. 4) was adjusted by Council to allow for 9 voting members from the original 7

Items will come to Committee via:

Council referral Staff referral Community referral

Discussion around putting an official delegation form together for public to fill-out and submit.

Committee is open to receiving input from groups or individuals. M. Sinclair will be support system in setting up delegations.

Should Facebook be used as a means of Communication? Need to be careful not to feed the negative.

(b) Council Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives were distributed at December 8, 2015 meeting.

By extension, it is the Parks and Advisory Committee’s responsibility to assist Council to achieve these goals and objectives.

Noted that this set of Goals and Objectives is very supportive of parks and recreation.

“Livable Community” is a strong theme seen throughout.

(c) Report to Council – Parks, Trails and Bicycle Master Plan

M. Sinclair will be presenting to Council on February 1, 2016.

Council to be informed that Master Plan was shown to Advisory Committee.

No recommendation being put forward at this time.

Discussion that the document does feel weighted, not enough focus on children or programming.

6. NEW BUSINESS

(a) An Overview of the Social Development Portfolio

K. Hargreaves provided a handout and presented an overview of her responsibilities as Manager of Social Development.

Key points:

$17.29/hour is living wage in Mission Supported housing is one of Mission’s highest needs Volunteer base really needs to be grown

180

Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes January 12, 2016


(b) Dog Parks in the District of Mission

Map of Off-Leash Dog Areas was distributed.

Advisory Committee asked to review the Delegation to Council by Artur Gryz on July 5, 2015.

Committee decision to watch delegation via Internet. M. Sinclair to arrange for viewing at February 9, 2016 meeting.

(c) School Champions Group and a Community Development

Report to Council submitted by M. Boronowski was distributed before meeting for Committee review.

Central Elementary and Christine Morrison Elementary came together to Champion French-Immersion Program. Central is under-enrolled which is extremely rare for a Dual Track School. Stigma surrounding Central is a concern.

Community came together and took part in a huge clean-up of the stairs and area surrounding Central. Trees and brush were pruned to improve sight-lines around school hopefully leading to less negative use or hazardous material being found.

Can this sense of Community be grown in other neighbourhoods?

Council would like to see an initiative bringing the neighbourhood and school communities together.

Follow a “Community School Model”.

Discussion about putting together a sub-committee that can work a framing model to present to Council and School District. Members to be selected at later date.

Is there an opportunity to tie-in with Cultural Commission and their Neighbourhood Initiative?

M. Sinclair to set-up open meeting for all interested.

7. NEXT MEETING

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:00pm in the Conference Room at the Mission Leisure Centre.

8. ADJOURNMENT

Motion to adjourn meeting moved by Bob Ingram

Seconded by Jim Shaw

The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

181

District of Mission Minutes


The Minutes for the Mission Community Wellness Committee meeting held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:00 p.m.

Members Present: Bob Ingram, Acting Committee Chair, Mission Seniors’ Centre Association

Shona Brown, Mission Division of Family Practice Marilyn Collins, Community Engagement Worker, Xyolhemeylh/Fraser

Valley Aboriginal Children and Family Services Society Cynthia Coyle, Executive Director, Fraser House Society Mission Grace Cunningham, Mission Friendship Centre Society Deborah Gardner, Women’s Resource Society Brian Gross, IMPACT/VYPER Sanjay Gulati, Executive Director, Mission Community Services

Society Kirsten Hargreaves, Manager of Social Development, District of

Mission Paul Horn, Riverside College Robert Jeffery, Centennial Place Andrew Larder, Fraser Health Authority Courtney Novotny, Mission Library Judith Ray, Seniors’ Housing / Community Member Anne Todd, Fraser Health Authority Laura Wilson, Early Childhood Development Committee Members Absent: Jamie Hayes, Mission Downtown Business Association Brittney Kroiss, Mamele’awt Qweesome Housing Society Steven Lamothe, Ministry of Social Development Elizabeth Thomas, Community Member Paula Young, Fraser Health Authority Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture, District of

Mission Others Present: Jenny Hill, Administrative Assistant, District of Mission Ken Leighton, Director, Sumas Regional Consortium for High Tech 1. CALL TO ORDER

Bob Ingram called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

182

Mission Community Wellness Committee Minutes – January 12, 2016

File: 01-ADMINISTRATION PAGE 2 of 6 0540-20-06


Moved by Paul Horn, and RECOMMENDED:

1. That Item 5(b), Walking Program (request for support and financial assistance), be deleted from the January 12, 2016 Mission Community Wellness Committee meeting agenda;

2. That item 6(d), Seniors’ Care Update, be replaced with an update on the status of the Mission Community Wellness Committee presented by Kirsten Hargreaves; and,

3. That the agenda for the Mission Community Wellness Committee meeting held on January 12, 2016 be adopted as amended.

CARRIED

3. COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

Moved by Judith Ray, and RECOMMENDED: That the minutes for the November 10, 2015 Mission Community Wellness Committee be approved.

CARRIED

4. PRESENTATIONS

a. SRCTec IT Hub Presentation

Ken Leighton, Director of the Sumas Regional Consortium for High Tech (SRCTec), provided a brief overview of the organization and how they can assist the MCWC in moving forward. He advised SRCTec is a not-for-profit coalition founded in 2006 made up of government, industry and higher education institutions governed by a group of technology executives that form a volunteer board of directors. SRCTec is focused on economic development through technology based investment in the Fraser Valley with their services being provided on a cost recovery basis. Discussion ensued in regards to the opportunity for consolidating websites through SRCTec and the associated cost savings. The committee discussed the idea of accessing information in regards to grant opportunities and grant application writing skills. Mr. Leighton advised that more information about the SRCTec can be obtained at: http://srctec.org/.

b. Volunteer Centre: Expression of Interest

Deborah Gardner from the Women’s Resource Society presented a proposal for a volunteer centre in Mission. During the last MCWC meeting, a small working group was organized to develop a model for a collaborative volunteer centre in the Mission area. The centre would assist in the development of volunteerism along with ensuring best practices around the engagement and development of volunteers. The centre’s mandate would be to build capacity around civic engagement, provide the tools for organizations to engage

183

http://srctec.org/



volunteers and help facilitate volunteerism stability and sustainability. The concept includes a bricks and mortar volunteer centre along with an online site. A proposal has been put forward for funding. The proposal suggests a two year pilot project in order to assess the level of interest in volunteer engagement and the needs of the various non-profit organizations. The centre would be able to match volunteers to the needs in the community along with providing training in regards to the management and recruitment of volunteers. The program will require a financial commitment by interested organizations but will not be cost prohibitive. This proposal will be revisited by the MCWC after funding for the centre has been secured.

Action Item: Deborah Gardner will prepare a letter for committee members to take to their respective boards of directors and other relevant agencies. The letter will provide a copy of the volunteer centre proposal along with a request for a response from agencies who can offer a commitment to support this project. Kirsten Hargreaves will distribute the letter to the committee membership. A copy of the letter will also be included in the March 8, 2016 Mission Community Wellness Committee agenda.

5. UPDATES

a. Back to Health Event Debrief

Kirsten Hargreaves, Manager of Social Development with the District of Mission, and Anne Todd of the Fraser Health Authority gave an overview of the 2016 Back to Health… For Good Health Fair. Many positive comments were received from the general public who attended the event, including comments in regards to the fair facilitating people’s ability to connect with each other. Although there was a reasonable turnout, attendance was down from previous years. It was noted that the District’s Official Community Plan workshop was held on the same day which could have contributed to the lower than anticipated attendance. The suggestion was made that perhaps future health fairs could be partnered with either the Mission Sports Expo, Mission Youth Fest event or Family Day.

Moved by Paul Horn, and

RECOMMENDED: That the Back to Health for Good organizing committee prepares a proposal to be brought back to the Mission Community Wellness Committee in regards to the future plans and configuration of the Back to Health… For Good Health Fair.

CARRIED

b. Stone Soup Update & Request to Members to Adopt a Dinner

Paul Horn of Riverside College and Kirsten Hargreaves reviewed the November and December Stone Soup fundraiser which successfully raised approximately $15,000. Some of these funds will be put towards the Anything Possible program and towards building a registry of volunteers,

184



skills, tools, and housing. This registry will be planned in cooperation with the proposed volunteer centre.

The Stone Soup information gathering session received very positive feedback and requests to continue the dinner gatherings. Mr. Horn noted an interest from a variety of faith-based organizations to sponsor a monthly Stone Soup Dinner on a rotating basis. Each dinner could have a theme and include a program, speaker or presentation. The dinner would include a diverse range of people to help facilitate community building, education and the sharing of ideas. Mr. Horn asked the committee to consider providing volunteers within their respective organizations to assist with this initiative. He estimated eight volunteers will be required for each dinner. Discussion ensued and the importance of having the dinners at the same location each month was noted. It was also suggested that organizations unrelated to faith groups could also sponsor the dinners. Mr. Horn advised that Carrie Prentice of Hope Central and Grace Cunningham of the Mission Friendship Centre will be consulted in regards to securing an appropriate venue for the monthly dinners.

Action Item – Kirsten Hargreaves will send out an electronic sign-up sheet to the committee to secure volunteers for this initiative.

c. Housing Committee Update

Judith Ray, community member, and Sanjay Gulati, Executive Director of Mission Community Services Society, provided a housing committee update. Ms. Ray gave an overview of two initiatives that are currently underway. The first is that they are working with Christine Elliott from the Mamele'awt Qweesome Native Housing Society and Christie Walker from Mission Community Services who will both be obtaining the Ready to Rent BC facilitator training at the end of this month. Ms. Elliott and Ms. Walker will then be working with Mission clients to assist them in the successful completion of the Ready to Rent BC program. The training fee will total $1,000 plus a $25 fee for each client put through the program. The funds which were raised from the Mission Food Centre/Christmas Bureau fundraiser will be used to pay these fees. In order to ensure legitimacy for the program, Ms. Ray noted that the clients recommended for the Ready to Rent BC program should be at a stage where they’re ready to go through the program and Mission Community Services Society is prepared to support these clients through their eventual tenancy. She noted that there is also the Tenant Wisdom program based out of the Yukon. The materials for this program have all been provided free of charge. Once the new facilitators have had some experience assisting clients with the Ready to Rent BC program, they will be assessing the Tenant Wisdom program for possible use with the clients.

Ms. Ray advised that they have made contact with the owner of a boarding home which has recently closed down due to the house having too many stairs for their aging clients. The house can accommodate 10 to 12 people and would be well-suited as a third stage housing option. The staff have a very good skill set in assisting people with mental health issues. They will consider the idea of opening a third stage housing program and, if they

185



decide to proceed, will get back to Mr. Gulati in early February with a business case.

Mr. Gulati apprised the committee of a couple other projects they are looking into. One initiative is the Maple View project located behind McDonald’s Restaurant at the end of 2nd Avenue. He and Ms. Hargreaves met with the developers and planner. Mr. Gulati noted the board seemed keen to include social housing, and the proposed plan is for a 24 unit townhouse complex which would potentially include 13 basement rental units. Mr. Gulati advised they will continue to follow the progress of this project.

Dan Shubert of Shubert Plumbing has purchased the building at the end of First Avenue and Grand Street. The building is a 14 bed unit which, at the current time, is fully rented. As Mr. Shubert is facing the problem of managing these clients and their specific issues, Mr. Gulati will be meeting with him next week to discuss the possibility of having the building leased and managed by the Mission Community Services Society.

d. Drug Forum Update (Request to MCWC for promotion support)

Cynthia Coyle, Executive Director for Fraser House Society in Mission, and Kirsten Hargreaves provided an update as to the status of the Drug Forum preparations. The forum will be held on Thursday, February 4th at the Clarke Theatre. The forum will be an all-day event divided into a morning symposium for service providers, an afternoon panel for FVRD mayors, councillors and administrators, and an evening panel/public forum. The poster for the evening forum was passed around to the committee. Ms. Hargreaves advised the posters for the daytime forums will be completed later in the week. Once these posters have been completed, Ms. Coyle advised the committee she can email them for posting and distribution. The planning committee asked for help in getting the word out about the forum and requested an email be sent to Ms. Hargreaves to advise of any further suggestions on who to invite.

e. Mission Community Wellness Committee Status Update

Kirsten Hargreaves provided an update as to the status of the Mission Community Wellness Committee. Ms. Hargreaves advised she has prepared a report to Council requesting official adoption of the new committee name and retention of all current members on the committee. The letter will be circulated to the committee membership to sign and will be presented to Mayor and Council prior to the February 1, 2016 Regular Council meeting.

f. Healthy Community Grant

Anne Todd advised that Fraser Health Population and Public Health Branch are offering grants to healthy community partnership tables. There are two rounds of grant funding. The deadline for the first round is January 22nd and the deadline for the second round is May 27th. A maximum of $5,000 is provided for each grant which must be a healthy community project. Due to the tight timeline she and Ms. Hargreaves prepared a proposal for three different projects:

186



I. $1,500 for the Mission Youth House ‘Anything is Possible’ Life Skills program and the Teen Group ‘Next Steps’ program;

II. $1,500 for the Newcomers Readiness Forum in the spring, a community engagement forum to help prepare people for the arrival of the Syrian refugees; and,

III. $500 to help enhance physical literacy through a free guided weekly walking program which would be coordinated by Stephanie Key, Deputy Director of Mission Parks, Recreation & Culture.

Discussion ensued and two other programs were suggested for inclusion in the grant application for the second round of funding: expansion of the Community Kitchen program and possibly $2,500 towards the Middle Development Instrument (MDI) and/or youth anxiety programs. Ms. Todd advised that there is another funding opportunity from the PlanH program which provides funding up to $15,000 to local governments to support community health and well-being. This organization has three streams of funding of which Mission is eligible for the second stream which could potentially help fund these two projects. Ms. Todd noted that in order to obtain the grant application form an online webinar on January 27th and 28th must be completed. She will distribute this information to the committee for further consideration.

Moved by Judith Ray, and

RECOMMENDED: That the committee supports the submission of the Fraser Health Population and Public Health Branch grant application prepared by Anne Todd and Kirsten Hargreaves.

CARRIED

6. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Paul Horn, and RECOMMENDED: That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 5:31 p.m.

Next meeting: March 8, 2016 at 4:00 p.m.

187

File: 01-ADMINISTRATION Page 1 of 3 0540-20->>>

The Minutes of the Cultural Resources Commission meeting held in the Conference Room at the Mission Leisure Centre, 7650 Grand St, Mission BC on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 commencing at 4:30 p.m.

Members Present: B. Sutherland, Chair P. Alexis, Council Liaison V. Billesberger M. Gauthier S. Key, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation & Culture D. Marshall K. McKillop J. Priestley

Members Absent: D. Handley, C. Lauzé

Others Present:

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:35pm.


Moved by S.Key and seconded by V. Billesberger.

1. That the following items be added to this agenda under “New Business”:

(e) 125th Anniversary of the District of Mission

(f) Date/time/content of February CRC meeting (g) Heritage Week

2. That the January 19, 2016 Cultural Resources Commission agenda be approved as amended.

CARRIED

3. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

Moved by M. Gauthier and seconded by V. Billesberger

That the minutes of the November 17, 2015 meeting of the Cultural Resources Commission be approved.

CARRIED

188

Cultural Resources Minutes January 19, 2016

File: 01-ADMINISTRATION Page 2 of 3 0540-20

4. NEW BUSINESS

(a) New CRC members

Council approved the following new members on January 18, 2016:

Michael Knight Liisa Nessim Sue Grass

V. Billesberger and D. Handley have been reappointed; B. Sutherland, K. McKillop and H. Scoular have completed their terms with the CRC.

(b) Good Neighbour Initiative

The name “Neighbourhood Spirit Program” was accepted and approved by Council to replace “Good Neighbour Initiative”. The program and toolkit were also accepted. The next step will be promotion for the program. The February Leisure Guide will contain information about the program.

(c) Public Art Policy and Program

M. Gauthier and D. Marshall met with Karin Jager, Dept. Head of Graphic and Digital Design at UFV. K. Jager suggested that her 24 graphic design students each form a proposal for a public art brochure (for online and print) for submission to the CRC. April 6th will be the final presentation of proposals. Action Item: M. Gauthier and D. Marshall will meet with the class to further explain the project in February or March and will report back to the CRC at the March meeting. They will also ask K. Jager about copyright agreements the school may have used in the past that could be a model for a contract between the CRC, UFV, and the student(s). Action Item: S. Key will inquire with the Corporate Administration Department about copyrights and information sharing on a brochure developed by the students. (i.e. artwork and photographs which may be used in brochure). Action Item: Credit or recognition of students and school will be discussed at a future CRC meeting. The Public Art Policy and Program is waiting for further comment and approval from other District of Mission departments before being presented to Council.

(d) Muse Awards

D. Handley was not present to provide update on how the plans were progressing. No nominations have been received so far.

Action Item: S. Key will phone or email D. Handley for an update.

(e) 125th Anniversary of the District of Mission

Heritage Canada contacted S. Key with information about funding available to help communities celebrate their anniversaries. Mission celebrates its 125th anniversary in 2017. Canada also celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2017. There is an application process for funding which S. Key is pursuing.

189

Cultural Resources Minutes January 19, 2016

File: 01-ADMINISTRATION Page 3 of 3 0540-20

It was suggested that the CRC may play a role in the planning and facilitation of the celebrations in 2017. It is likely that a community steering committee will be formed to oversee the celebrations. It is anticipated that the following sectors will be invited to participate: heritage, arts, theatre, business, First Nations, schools. The Heritage Commission should also play a role.

The following suggestions and thoughts were made to celebrate the anniversary:

-How Mission might celebrate its incorporation -Concert series event -Mural -Time capsule -Fraser River Heritage Park community celebration -Public Art -Regular stories/communication on the community history using print and social media -Year end (New Year’s) celebration

Action Item: CRC members should submit any additional ideas for the 2017 anniversary events to S. Key by January 25, 2016.

(f) Date/time and content of next meeting

1. It was decided to wait until the February meeting when new members will be in attendance to discuss schedule of future CRC meetings.

2. A new chair will be voted on at the February meeting.

3. Jennifer Russell from City Hall will address protocols for future meetings.

(g) Heritage Week

Plans are currently being finalized by the Community Archives and Mission Museum to celebrate this year's Heritage Week which is happening between February 15th and the 21st. V. Billesberger reported that the theme chosen by Heritage BC for Heritage Week 2016 is Distinctive Destinations. Mission’s celebrations will focus around “Places That Matter” which will include historic destinations and places that are memorable to residents and visitors. V. Billesberger contacted Mission Secondary art department and asked if students could create art and photography pieces that promoted the theme.

Action Item: Promotion of Heritage Week through Facebook and website. CRC will promote public art that week. A display case at the Leisure Centre will be made available to celebrate the week.

5. NEXT MEETING

Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 4:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at the Mission Leisure Centre, 7650 Grand St, Mission BC.

6. ADJOURNMENT

Moved, V. Billesberger

That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

190

BYLAW 5464-2014-5050(157)

A Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009"

WHEREAS, under the provisions of 903 of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw

5464-2014-5050(157)”.

2. "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended, is hereby further amended by:

a) rezoning the property located at 7680 Strachan Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 010-282-157 Lot 30 Section 20 Township 17 3 New Westminster District Plan 17501

from Urban Residential 558 Zone (R558) to Residential Compact 465 Secondary Dwelling Zone (RC465s).

b) amending the zoning maps accordingly.

READ A FIRST TIME this 3rd day of November, 2014

READ A SECOND TIME this 3rd day of November, 2014

PUBLIC HEARING held this 17th day of November, 2014

READ A THIRD TIME this 17th day of November, 2014

ADOPTED this day of , 2014 RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER

191

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5545-2016-5050(188)

Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009"

WHEREAS, under the provisions of 903 of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw

5545-2016-5050(188).”


(a) Deleting the following row from the table in Section 501, Urban Residential Zones, Part E. Lot Coverage, Subsection 1:

Zone: Lot Coverage

R669 30%

(b) and replacing it with the following:

Zone: Lot Coverage

R669 35%

READ A FIRST TIME this 1st day of February, 2016

READ A SECOND TIME this 1st day of February, 2016

PUBLIC HEARING held this 15th day of February, 2016

READ A THIRD TIME this 15th day of February, 2016

APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this 19th day of February, 2016

ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016 RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER

192

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5549-2016-5050(191)


WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw

5549-2016-5050(191).”


a) rezoning the property located at 35344 McEwen Avenue and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 009-747-567 Lot B District Lot 476 Group 1 and Section 25 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 12639

from Rural 80 (RU80) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone; and

b) amending the zoning maps accordingly.

READ A FIRST TIME this 15th day of February, 2016

READ A SECOND TIME this 15th day of February, 2016

PUBLIC HEARING held this __ day of ___, 2016

READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of ___, 2016

ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016 RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER

193

2015 – 2019 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5495(1)

Page 1 of 6

DISTRICT OF MISSION BYLAW 5550-2016-5495(1)

A bylaw to amend District of Mission

2015-2019 Financial Plan Bylaw 5495-2015 WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Community Charter, the Council for the District of Mission may, by bylaw, before the 15th day of May in each year, before the annual property tax bylaw is adopted, adopt a financial plan; NOW THEREFORE the Council for the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be known and cited for all purposes as "District of Mission 2015-2019 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5495(1)".

2. "District of Mission 2015-2019 Financial Plan Bylaw 5495-2015", is hereby amended by:

(a) deleting in its entirety Schedules B, C, D and E and replacing them with Schedules B, C, D and E attached to and forming part of this bylaw.

READ A FIRST TIME this 15th day of February, 2016

READ A SECOND TIME this 15th day of February, 2016

READ A THIRD TIME this 15th day of February, 2016

ADOPTED this xx day of March, 2016

RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER

194

Schedule “B” of Bylaw No. 5550-2016-5495(1) 2015 – 2019 Financial Plan 2015 Detailed Financial Plan Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5494(1)

Page 2 of 6

General

Operating

Internal

Adjustments

Water

Operating

Sewer

Operating

Refuse/

Recycling Forestry

General

Capital Water Capital Sewer Capital Total

Revenue

Property taxation -29,395,721 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -29,395,721Local Improvements -121,890 0 0 -45,598 0 0 0 0 0 -167,488Sale of services and regulatory fees -7,276,294 0 -5,962,408 -4,143,945 -4,411,114 -4,516,000 -94,375 -100,000 0 -26,504,136Government transfers -1,331,980 0 0 0 0 -67,250 -134,150 0 0 -1,533,380Amortization of restricted revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 -921,895 -567,549 -27,662 -1,517,106Investment income -613,297 0 -187,283 -221,651 0 0 0 0 0 -1,022,231Other revenue -1,517,992 0 -5,978 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,523,970Developer in-kind contribution for capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2,843,868 -346,553 -243,619 -3,434,040

Total revenue -40,257,174 0 -6,155,669 -4,411,194 -4,411,114 -4,583,250 -3,994,288 -1,014,102 -271,281 -65,098,072

Expenses

Administration and finance 4,900,880 -4,737 0 0 0 0 49,934 0 0 4,946,077General government and fiscal services 2,102,638 -1,315,638 0 0 0 0 227,250 0 0 1,014,250Protective services 15,028,238 0 0 0 0 0 1,857,091 0 0 16,885,329Engineering and public works 8,367,355 -937,375 0 0 0 0 1,952,423 0 0 9,382,403Transit services 2,882,769 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,882,769Waste management 0 0 0 0 4,335,411 0 192,339 0 0 4,527,750Development services 2,348,365 0 0 0 0 0 3,342 0 0 2,351,708Parks, recreation and cultural services 6,555,410 -20,000 0 0 0 0 996,646 0 0 7,532,056Library 1,381,404 0 0 0 0 0 3,114 0 0 1,384,518Cemetery 269,803 0 0 0 0 0 3,242 0 0 273,045Water utility 0 -58,542 4,128,164 0 0 0 0 409,836 0 4,479,458Sewer utility 0 0 0 3,655,992 0 0 0 0 208,070 3,864,062Forestry enterprise 0 0 0 0 0 4,426,102 0 0 0 4,426,102Internal recoveries -2,277,750 2,336,292 -58,542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total expenses 41,559,113 0 4,069,622 3,655,992 4,335,411 4,426,102 5,285,381 409,836 208,070 63,949,527

Annual (surplus) deficit 1,301,939 0 -2,086,047 -755,202 -75,704 -157,148 1,291,093 -604,266 -63,211 -1,148,545

Reserves, capital and debt

Tangible capital assets purchased 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,885,634 3,747,681 2,259,442 16,892,757Tangible capital assets contributed by developers 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,843,868 346,553 243,619 3,434,040New debt/temporary borrowing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Repayment of debt 545,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 545,160Transfers to reserves 5,204,598 0 3,316,202 1,831,449 338,616 200,255 0 0 0 10,891,120Amortization -5,544,329 0 -1,230,155 -1,076,247 -232,912 -43,107 0 0 0 -8,126,751Reserves/surplus used for capital funding 0 0 0 0 0 0 -15,020,595 -3,489,968 -2,439,851 -20,950,413Reserves/surplus used to fund operations -1,507,368 0 0 0 -30,000 0 0 0 0 -1,537,368

Total reserves, capital and debt -1,301,939 0 2,086,047 755,202 75,704 157,148 -1,291,093 604,266 63,211 1,148,545

195

Schedule “C” of Bylaw No. 5550-2016-5495(1) 2015 – 2019 Financial Plan 2015 to 2019 Summary Financial Plan Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5495(1)

Page 3 of 6

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Revenue

Property taxation -29,395,721 -29,669,544 -30,358,340 -31,002,409 -31,653,875 -152,079,889Local Improvements -167,488 -167,488 -167,488 -167,488 -167,488 -837,440Sale of services and regulatory fees -26,504,136 -26,740,821 -27,009,261 -27,326,009 -27,649,316 -135,229,543Government transfers -1,533,380 -1,907,301 -1,402,265 -1,403,805 -1,405,360 -7,652,111Amortization of restricted revenue -1,517,106 -3,350,692 -63,985 -5,409,302 -1,385,109 -11,726,194Investment income -1,022,231 -1,056,856 -1,078,183 -1,100,769 -1,155,950 -5,413,989Other revenue -1,523,970 -1,567,199 -1,611,723 -1,657,590 -1,619,849 -7,980,332Developer in-kind contribution for capital -3,434,040 -4,234,338 -3,842,913 -4,970,386 -4,349,211 -20,830,887

Total revenue -65,098,072 -68,694,239 -65,534,158 -73,037,757 -69,386,159 -341,750,385

Expenses

Administration and finance 4,946,077 4,661,401 4,769,229 4,832,821 5,343,657 24,553,185General government and fiscal services 1,014,250 803,079 819,578 775,761 774,831 4,187,499Protective services 16,885,329 15,382,979 15,733,416 16,091,989 16,458,890 80,552,603Engineering and public works 9,382,403 8,232,613 7,802,577 7,910,777 8,066,745 41,395,115Transit services 2,882,769 2,940,424 2,999,233 3,059,217 3,120,402 15,002,045Waste management 4,527,750 4,262,318 4,403,972 4,449,492 4,564,716 22,208,249Development services 2,351,708 2,169,175 2,212,492 2,256,675 2,301,741 11,291,790Parks, recreation and cultural services 7,532,056 6,872,175 6,851,163 6,975,518 7,148,882 35,379,793Library 1,384,518 1,404,159 1,435,712 1,448,505 1,471,223 7,144,116Cemetery 273,045 278,364 283,661 289,062 294,567 1,418,699Water utility 4,479,458 4,187,830 4,217,652 4,259,476 4,340,206 21,484,622Sewer utility 3,864,062 3,998,605 3,953,143 3,970,663 4,031,141 19,817,614Forestry enterprise 4,426,102 4,426,533 4,426,968 4,427,408 4,427,852 22,134,863Internal recoveries 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total expenses 63,949,527 59,619,654 59,908,796 60,747,363 62,344,852 306,570,192

Annual (surplus) deficit -1,148,545 -9,074,585 -5,625,363 -12,290,394 -7,041,307 -35,180,193

Reserves, capital and debt

Tangible capital assets purchased 16,892,757 12,159,159 8,457,355 12,848,207 8,489,558 58,847,036Tangible capital assets contributed by developers 3,434,040 4,234,338 3,842,913 4,970,386 4,349,211 20,830,888New debt/temporary borrowing 0 0 0 0 0 0Repayment of debt 545,160 568,078 591,980 616,907 506,470 2,828,595Transfers to reserves 10,891,120 10,913,577 11,017,939 11,113,724 11,273,108 55,209,468Amortization -8,126,751 -8,208,018 -8,290,098 -8,372,999 -8,456,729 -41,454,595Reserves/surplus used for capital funding -20,950,413 -9,637,373 -9,021,607 -7,914,660 -7,790,036 -55,314,089Reserves/surplus used to fund operations -1,537,368 -955,176 -973,119 -971,172 -1,330,276 -5,767,111

1,148,544 9,074,585 5,625,363 12,290,394 7,041,306 35,180,192

196

Schedule “D” of Bylaw No. 5550-2016-5495(1) 2015 – 2019 Financial Plan 2015 to 2019 Capital Plan Summary Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5495(1)

Page 4 of 6 PLANNED CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

TCA 1Small Capital TCA 1

Small Capital TCA 1Small Capital TCA 1

Small Capital TCA 1Small Capital TCA 1

Small Capital

General Capital Plan

Cemetery - 3,242 - - - - - - - - - 3,242

Corporate Administration 45,352 3,342 - 3,342 10,000 3,342 89,124 3,342 - 3,342 131,379 16,711

Engineering & Public Works 3,673,273 1,952,423 2,536,373 669,867 2,887,592 104,715 3,007,142 75,403 3,395,451 113,403 15,700,849 2,037,531

Finance & Purchasing - 10,472 - 4,456 - 4,456 - 4,456 4,456 - 28,297

Fire/Rescue Services 123,195 145,998 71,495 1,114 71,495 1,114 71,495 1,114 71,495 1,114 364,975 150,454

Forestry - - - - - - - - - -

General Government - 227,250 - - - - - - - -

Information Services 309,442 36,120 185,000 10,000 275,000 21,000 200,000 6,000 25,000 75,500 1,001,886 148,620

Inspection Services - 3,342 - 3,342 - 3,342 - 3,342 3,342 - 16,711

Library - 3,114 - 1,114 - 10,674 - 1,114 1,114 - 153,755

Parks, Recreation & Culture 4,156,716 996,646 63,348 220,155 93,503 76,875 68,203 76,625 68,203 123,000 3,844,822 1,018,900

Planning - 3,342 - 3,342 - 3,342 - 3,342 3,342 - 16,711

Police 7,846 1,707,750 100,000 7,798 - 7,798 - 7,798 7,798 145,952 1,449,722

Subtotal General Capital Plan 8,315,824 5,093,042 2,956,216 924,531 3,337,590 236,659 3,435,963 182,537 3,560,148 336,412 21,189,863 5,040,654

General Development Cost Charge (DCC) Capital Plan

Cedar Valley Drainage 115,548 - 1,109,721 - - - 1,805,000 - 101,000 3,112,269 -

Cedar Valley Environmentally Sensitive Parkland Acquisition 115,749 - 32,694 - 75,809 - 345,376 - 332,776 902,404 -

Cedar Valley Environmentally Sensitive Parkland Development - - - - - - - - - -

Cedar Valley Roads 30,000 - 964,000 - - - 250,000 - - 1,464,000 -

Roads - All Areas 518,938 - 702,260 - - - 3,125,000 - - - 4,346,198 -

Silver Creek Parkway Parkland 267,339 - 255,177 - 3,226 - - - 731,707 1,257,449 -

Subtotal Development Cost Charge (DCC) Capital Plan 1,047,574 - 3,063,852 - 79,035 - 5,525,376 - 1,165,483 - 11,082,320 -

Waste Management Capital Plan

Landfill 14,790 157,814 - 72,000 - 122,000 - 72,000 - 72,000 14,790 495,814

Regional Recycling 107,582 34,525 19,987 1,817 18,170 1,817 19,079 - 54,510 - 219,328 38,159

Subtotal Waste Management Capital Plan 122,372 192,339 19,987 73,817 18,170 123,817 19,079 72,000 54,510 72,000 234,118 533,973

Equipment Replacement Capital Plan 1,399,864 - 1,258,088 - 580,241 - 1,409,602 - 533,304 - 5,181,099 -

Water Utility Capital Plan

Cedar Valley Water DCC 561,000 - 238,000 - - - - - 74,250 - 873,250 -

Water Capital - Non-Regional 1,707,863 135,524 1,074,448 135,524 1,055,849 121,524 1,152,448 115,792 1,233,017 129,792 6,136,624 638,154

Water Capital - Regional 1,468,458 272,391 206,648 8,543 192,411 7,955 138,684 5,733 541,645 22,392 2,749,099 113,651

Regional Water Supply DCC 10,360 1,922 47,627 1,969 - - - - - - 47,627 1,969

Subtotal Water Utility Capital Plan 3,747,681 409,836 1,566,723 146,036 1,248,260 129,478 1,291,132 121,525 1,848,912 152,184 9,806,600 753,774

Sewer Utility Capital Plan

Sewer Capital - Non-Regional 581,662 152,915 1,272,048 115,235 1,939,759 101,235 264,364 101,235 282,495 115,235 4,340,327 585,857

Sewer Capital - Regional 1,607,501 52,845 1,592,384 173,988 1,254,300 137,048 893,534 97,630 811,873 88,707 5,243,053 572,868

Regional Sewage Treatment DCC 70,280 2,310 429,861 38,861 - - 9,157 828 232,833 21,049 671,851 60,738

Subtotal Sewer Utility Capital Plan 2,259,442 208,070 3,294,293 328,084 3,194,059 238,283 1,167,055 199,693 1,327,201 224,992 10,255,231 1,219,463

Total Capital Plan Expenditures: 22,796,045 5,903,287 12,159,159 1,472,468 8,457,355 728,238 12,848,207 575,755 8,489,558 785,587 57,749,231 7,547,864

TCA 1 = Tangible Capital Asset

2018 2019201720162015 Totals

197

Schedule “D” of Bylaw No. 5550-2016-5495(1) 2015 – 2019 Financial Plan 2015 to 2019 Capital Plan Summary Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5495(1)

Page 5 of 6

PLANNED CAPITAL FUNDING

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TotalsGeneral Capital Plan

Community Amenity Reserve Fund 517,620 38,992 38,992 38,992 38,992 298,586

Community Works Gas Tax Reserve Fund 5,118,483 1,560,188 1,560,188 1,560,188 2,007,337 11,806,384

Financial Stabilization Reserve Fund 286,122 - - - - 10,000

Gaming Reserve Fund 462,278 11,500 - - - 453,778

General Capital Reserve Fund 2,433,181 700,994 482,621 587,123 437,159 4,129,224

Information Systems Reserve Fund 315,478 189,000 220,000 170,000 94,500 986,825

Major Capital Reserve Fund 1,287,846 184,500 76,875 66,625 123,000 960,566

Policing Reserve Fund 276,718 - - - - 276,718

Roads Capital Reserve Fund 1,942,000 1,195,573 1,195,573 1,195,573 1,195,573 6,724,292

Sewer Capital Reserve Fund 35,000 - - - - 35,000

Water Capital Reserve Fund 15,000 - - - - 15,000

Reserve Funds 25,696,373

Accumulated Surplus 584,990 - - - - 534,144

Subtotal General Capital Plan 13,408,866 3,880,747 3,574,249 3,618,500 3,896,560 26,230,517

General Development Cost Charge (DCC) Capital Plan

Cedar Valley Drainage DCCs (Restricted Revenue) 114,393 1,098,624 - 1,786,950 99,990 3,081,147

Cedar Valley Env. Sensitive Parkland Acquisition DCC's (Restricted Revenue) 92,819 26,217 60,791 276,957 266,853 723,638

Cedar Valley Roads DCCs (Restricted Revenue) 29,700 954,360 - 247,500 - 1,449,360

Mission Roads DCC's (Restricted Revenue) 420,317 695,237 - 3,093,750 - 4,209,304

Silver Creek Parkway Parkland DCCs (Restricted Revenue) 264,666 252,625 3,194 - 724,390 1,244,875

Roads Capital Reserve Fund 4,546 16,663 - 33,750 - 57,159

General Capital Reserve Fund 26,758 20,126 15,050 86,469 74,250 222,462

Third Party Recoveries 94,375 - - - 94,375

Subtotal Development Cost Charge (DCC) Capital Plan 1,047,574 3,063,852 79,035 5,525,376 1,165,483 11,082,320

Waste Management Capital Plan

Refuse Reserve Fund 314,711 93,804 141,987 91,079 126,510 768,091

Subtotal Waste Management Capital Plan 314,711 93,804 141,987 91,079 126,510 768,091

Equipment Replacement Capital Plan

Vehicle and Equipment Reserve Fund 1,399,864 1,258,088 580,241 1,409,602 533,304 5,181,099

Subtotal Equipment Capital Plan 1,399,864 1,258,088 580,241 1,409,602 533,304 5,181,099

Water Utility Capital Plan

Water Capital Reserve Fund 3,471,161 1,360,586 1,277,738 1,312,657 1,827,588 9,160,496

Cedar Valley Water DCCs (Restricted Revenue) 555,390 235,620 - - 73,508 864,518

Water Capital DCCs - Regional (Restricted Revenue) 12,159 16,553 - - - 16,553

Sewer Capital Reserve Fund 18,807 - - - - 18,807

Third Party Recoveries 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000

Subtotal Water Utility Capital Plan 4,157,517 1,712,759 1,377,738 1,412,657 2,001,096 10,560,374

Sewer Utility Capital Plan

Sewer Capital Reserve Fund 2,439,851 3,007,360 3,432,342 1,362,603 1,331,824 10,635,164

Sewer Capital DCCs - Regional (Restricted Revenue) 27,662 71,455 - 4,145 220,368 295,968

Grants - 506,562 - - 506,562

Third Party Recoveries - 37,000 - - 37,000

Subtotal Sewer Utility Capital Plan 2,467,513 3,622,377 3,432,342 1,366,748 1,552,192 11,474,694

Total Capital Plan Funding: 22,796,045 13,631,627 9,185,592 13,423,962 9,275,145 65,297,096

198

Schedule “E” of Bylaw No. 5550-2016-5495(1) 2015 – 2019 Financial Plan 2015 Change in Net Financial Assets Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5495(1)

Page 6 of 6

Budget

2015

Surplus for the year 1,148,545

Acquisition of tangible capital assets (16,892,757) Amortization of tangible capital assets 8,126,751 (Gain) / Loss on sale of tangible capital assets - Proceeds on sale of tangible capital assets 5,955

(7,611,506)

(Increase)/Decrease in inventories of property - (Increase)/Decrease in prepaid expenses - (Increase)/Decrease in inventories of supplies -

-

Change in net financial assets/net debt (7,611,506)

199

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5552-2016-4029(12)

A bylaw to include fees for events and rentals at the Fraser River Heritage Park

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Community Charter, the Council for the District of Mission may, by bylaw, establish a fee payable in respect of: all or part of a service of the municipality; the use of municipal property; or the exercise of authority to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements. NOW THEREFORE the Council for the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This bylaw may be known and cited for all purposes as "District of Mission User Fees and

Charges Amending Bylaw 5552-2016-4029(12).”

2. This bylaw shall amend “District of Mission User Fees and Charges Bylaw 4029-2007” by:

a. Replacing the words “ALL RATES ARE EFFECTIVE January 1, 2016” with the words “ALL RATES ARE EFFECTIVE January 1, 2016, unless otherwise stated in this Schedule” in Schedule 2.

b. Adding the following new section to Schedule 2 immediately following the table titled FIELD RENTALS:

FRASER RIVER HERITAGE PARK

Non-profit free community events

Non-profit community events with admission fees

Commercial events

Park Event Fee (grounds use)

Free

$100/day $300/day

Picnic Shelter $80/3hrs (min) Additional hours $20/hr

$100/3hrs (min) Additional hours $20/hr


Flag Plaza $80/3hrs (min) Additional hours $20/hr



Gazebo $40/3hrs (min) Additional hours $15/hr



Office Boardroom $30/3hrs (min) Additional hours $8/hr



Non-profit free community events – if booking the grounds the picnic shelter, flag plaza and gazebo will be offered free.

Damage deposits may be required Park event fee is based on a 9 hour day, events longer than 9 hours may be

charged an additional hourly rate of $50/hr over the posted rates.

200

User Fees and Charges Amending Bylaw 5552-2016-4029(12)

Page 2 of 2

The District of Mission has agreements in place with concession and parking vendors which define core events where their services must be used if it is deemed by the District that these services are required.

The District of Mission reserves the right to require park users to provide ad-ditional washrooms, garbage collection and security at their cost.

READ A FIRST TIME this 15th day of February, 2016 READ A SECOND TIME this 15th day of February, 2016 READ A THIRD TIME this 15th day of February, 2016 ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016 RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER

201

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5553-2016-4029(13)

A bylaw to include fees for rental of the artificial turf fields

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Community Charter, the Council for the District of Mission may, by bylaw, establish a fee payable in respect of: all or part of a service of the municipality; the use of municipal property; or the exercise of authority to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements. NOW THEREFORE the Council for the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This bylaw may be known and cited for all purposes as "District of Mission User Fees and

Charges Amending Bylaw 5553-2016-4029(13).”

2. This bylaw shall amend “District of Mission User Fees and Charges Bylaw 4029-2007” by deleting the table in Schedule 2 titled FIELD RENTALS and replacing it with the following:

Rates are effective September 1, 2016

FIELD RENTALS (Per Game / Per Field / plus tax)

Youth/Minor League

(teams with players up to

19 years)

Youth/Minor Tournament

(teams with players up to

19 years)

Adult League (19 years and up)

Adult Tournament

(19 years and up)

Commercial/ Non-

Resident

Private/ Non-Profit

Sports Park Grass Fields N/C 7.70/hr 15.80/hr 31.50/hr

Negotiated Minimum

$500 Negotiated

Artificial Turf Field-Main Field 19.00/hr 19.00/hr 38.00/hr 38.00/hr

Artificial Turf Field-Warm up Field 9.50/hr 9.50/hr 19.00/hr 19.00/hr

Other Sports Fields N/C 6.50/hr 10.50/hr 26.30/hr

Lights 11.40/hr 11.40/hr 11.40/hr 11.40/hr 11.40/hr 11.40/hr

Artificial turf field – main field booking includes free use of the warm up field. Warm up rate is applicable only when booking the warm up field.

READ A FIRST TIME this 15th day of February, 2016 READ A SECOND TIME this 15th day of February, 2016 READ A THIRD TIME this 15th day of February, 2016 ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016 RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER

202

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5554-2016-5050(193)


WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw

5554-2016-5050(193).”


a) inserting the Comprehensive Development 38 (CD38) Zone attached as Schedule A and forming part of this Bylaw;

b) rezoning the property located at 11445 Wilson Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 008-621-039 Lot 19 Section 15 Township 15 New Westminster District Plan 39781

from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone for the westernmost portion of the property and from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Comprehensive Development 38 (CD38) Zone for the easternmost portion of the property, as shown on Schedule B attached to and forming part of this Bylaw; and

c) amending the zoning maps accordingly.

READ A FIRST TIME this __ day of ___, 2016

READ A SECOND TIME this __ day of ___, 2016

PUBLIC HEARING held this __ day of ___, 2016

READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of ___, 2016

APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this __ day of ___, 2016

203

District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5554-2016-5050(193)

Page 2 of 6 ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016 RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER

204


Page 3 of 6

SCHEDULE A SECTION 1238 CD38 A. Zone Intent

1. This Zone is based on the RR7s Zone and the intent of this zone is to provide one Single Family Dwelling with a Secondary Dwelling Unit in the Rural Residential area and com-patible accessory uses, where significant community amenities and or benefits have been contributed, which are considered to offset the additional density achievable when compared to the RR7s Zone.

B. Permitted Uses

1. The following Principal Uses and no other shall be permitted in the CD38 zone:

a. Residential limited to:

i. Duplex, or ii. One Single Family Dwelling.

2. The following Accessory Uses and no other shall be permitted in the CD38 zone:

a. Agriculture limited to:

i. Hobby Greenhouse, ii. Small Scale Agriculture – provided minimum lot size is 0.36 ha (0.88 ac).

b. Residential limited to:

One of:

i. Bed and Breakfast, or ii. Boarding Use, or iii. Residential Care, or iv. Secondary Dwelling Unit (Section 106 Part F.), provided the Principal Use is not

a Duplex, limited to one of: Secondary Suite, or Coach House, or Garden Cottage

And,

v. Detached Garage, vi. Home Occupation

c. Storage limited to:

i. Enclosed Storage.

205


Page 4 of 6 C. Lot Area

1. Each Lot shall have a minimum area as shown on the following table:

Zone: Area

CD38 0.65 ha (1.6 ac)

D. Setbacks

1. All Buildings and Structures shall be sited in accordance with the following minimum Setbacks:

Front Rear Interior

Side Exterior

Side

Principal Building 7.5 m (24.6 ft)

7.5 m (24.6 ft)

3.0 m (9.8 ft)

4.5 m (14.8 ft)

Accessory Build-ing/Structure

7.5 m (24.6 ft)

7.5 m (24.6 ft)

3.0 m (9.8 ft)

4.5 m (14.8 ft)

Hobby Agriculture Building/Structure

15 m (49.2 ft)

15 m (49.2 ft)

15 m (49.2 ft)

15 m (49.2 ft)

E. Lot Coverage

1. Buildings shall together cover not more than 15% of the Lot Area. F. Floor Space

1. A Floor Space Ratio is not applicable in these zones. G. Impervious Surfaces

1. Impervious Surfaces shall together cover not more than 25% of the Lot Area. H. Number of Residential Buildings

1. Buildings for a Residential Use shall be limited to one per Lot except where a Secondary Dwelling is located within a Coach House or Garden Cottage.

I. Height of Buildings

1. The Height of the Principal Building shall not exceed 11.0 m (36.1 ft). 2. The Height of an Accessory Building shall not exceed one storey to a maximum of 6.0 m

(19.7 ft).

3. The Height of a Building or Structure for a Coach House shall not exceed 9.0 m (29.5 ft).

4. The Height of a Building or Structure for Hobby Agriculture use shall not exceed 11.0 m (36.1 ft).

206


Page 5 of 6 J. Off Street Parking

1. Off Street Parking shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 109. K. Hobby Greenhouse Use

1. Shall be limited to a maximum of two Buildings not exceeding a total area of 70 sq m (750 sq ft).

2. Where Greenhouse use is artificially illuminated, light spillage shall not extend beyond

the subject property boundary.

3. A solid landscape buffer of a minimum of 2.0 m (6.5 ft) in height is required.

207


Page 6 of 6

SCHEDULE B

Legend

Cross Hatched area to be rezoned from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural Residential Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone

Shaded area to be rezoned from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Comprehensive Development 38 (CD38) Zone

208

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5555-2016

A Bylaw to name a street within the District of Mission

WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Charter, may assign the name of any highway;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable to name certain streets within the Municipality;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Street Naming (Kennedy Terrace) Bylaw 5555-2016”.

2. The road running southwest over a portion of 11445 Wilson Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 008-621-039 Lot 19 Section 15 Township 15 New Westminster District Plan 39781

as shown on Schedule “A” attached to and forming part of this Bylaw, shall be named

Kennedy Terrace.

READ A FIRST TIME this XX day of XXX, 2016 READ A SECOND TIME this XX day of XXX, 2016 READ A THIRD TIME this XX day of XXX, 2016 ADOPTED this XX day of XXX, 2016


209

District of Mission Street Naming (Kennedy Terrace)

Bylaw 5555-2016 Page 2 of 2

SCHEDULE "A"

Kennedy Terrace

210

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on February 15, 2016 commenced at 1:00 p.m. for COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, and was immediately followed by a CLOSED MEETING of Council, and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. for REGULAR COUNCIL proceedings.

Council Members Present: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Pam Alexis Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Jim Hinds Councillor Rhett Nicholson Councillor Danny Plecas Councillor Jenny Stevens Staff Members Present: Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer * Kris Boland, Manager of Finance * Michael Boronowski, Manager of Civic Engagement and

Corporate Initiatives * Ted De Jager, Inspector Officer in Charge Haylee Gould, Administrative Assistant * Dave Heyes, Manager of Forestry Business * Jay Jackman, Manager of Assets, Infrastructure and Projects Stephanie Key, Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation and

Culture * Chris Laing, Manager of Planning * Heidi Lam, GIS Technician I * Gina MacKay, Manager of Long Range Planning * Kerri Onken, Deputy Treasurer/Collector * Robert Publow, Planner Jennifer Russell, Deputy Corporate Officer Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture * Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services *Present for a portion of the meeting

1. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Hawes called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.


RC16/075 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Alexis, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and

RESOLVED:

1. That late item Introduction of the new Manager for the Mission Library be added to the agenda; and

2. That the agenda for the regular Council meeting of February 15, 2016 be adopted, as amended.

CARRIED RC16/076 FEB. 15/16 LATE ITEM – Introduction of the new Manager for the Mission Library

Councillor Stevens introduced Courtney Novotny, the new Manager at the Mission Library. Ms. Novotny has been promoted after filling the role of Acting Manager at the Mission Library, and has previous experience with the Calgary Public Library.

211

Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 12 February 15, 2016

3. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

RC16/077 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Nicholson, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and

RESOLVED: That Council now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

CARRIED

4. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Councillor Alexis assumed the Chair.

RC16/078 FEB. 15/16

Rescind Readings to Zoning Amending Bylaw 5525-2015-5050(182) for the Property Located at 13011 Sabo Street

A report from the Planner dated February 15, 2016 regarding a request to close rezoning application R15-019 due to the sale of the property was provided for the Committee’s consideration. The associated amendment to the Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 has been listed to rescind readings under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

RC16/079 FEB. 15/16

Rezoning and Development Variance Permit Application to facilitate a secondary dwelling use in the form of a garden cottage at the property located at 35344 McEwen Avenue

A report from the Planner dated February 15, 2016 detailing the rezoning and development permit applications for a proposed secondary dwelling use at 35344 McEwen Avenue was provided for the Committee’s consideration. The Zoning Amending Bylaw is listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of amending the Zoning Bylaw to allow basements in secondary dwelling units on large parcels of land, the misunderstanding resulting from the similarity in the terms ‘mobile home’ and ‘modular home’, and the need to develop a procedure for written confirmations that clearly set out what is required in relation to land development and/or building permit inquiries.

Further discussion ensued regarding the request from the applicant to waive the development application fees and the cost of placing a development notification sign. The Committee expressed concern regarding the potential of setting an undesirable precedent should the District agree to cover the costs in this instance, as well as whether or not taking such action would be in contravention of the Community Charter.

Staff were directed to investigate what legal options the District has to waive or reimburse fees in situations where the District may be in error.

RC16/080 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Mayor Hawes, and

RECOMMENDED: That staff undertake a review of land use bylaws and policies, including the possibility of retaining the services of a consultant, and provide a report back to Council.

CARRIED

212


5. CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

Councillor Hamilton assumed the Chair.

RC16/081 FEB. 15/16

Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce Visitor and Business Service Agreement

A report from the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer dated February 15, 2016 to recommend the execution of the Visitor and Business Services Agreement between the District and the Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce was provided for the Committee’s consideration.

The Committee discussed the necessity of Council presence at various external committee meetings and considered options for keeping up to date with committees and groups in the community.

Moved by Councillor Plecas, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Mayor and Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the Visitor and Business Services Agreement attached to the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer’s report dated February 15, 2016; and

2. That Clare Seeley or another staff alternate be appointed to liaise throughout the year with Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce.

CARRIED

RC16/082 FEB. 15/16

Amendment to Financial Plan Bylaw 5495-2015

The Committee reviewed a report from the Deputy Treasurer/Collector dated February 15, 2016 regarding Council approved amendments to be incorporated into the 2015-2019 Financial Plan. The amendment to the 2015-2019 Financial Plan is listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda for first, second and third readings.

It was noted that the Neighbourhood Initiative on Table 3 on page 34 of the agenda was a Cultural Resource Commission initiative.

RC16/083 FEB. 15/16

2015 Investment Performance Report

A report from the Manager of Accounting Services dated February 15, 2016 summarizing the District’s investment holdings as at December 31, 2015 was provided for the Committee’s information.

RC16/084 FEB. 15/16

Stave West Initiatives

A report from the Manager of Civic Engagement and Corporate Initiatives dated February 15, 2016 to provide cost estimates for phase 1 of implementation for the Stave West Master Plan was provided for the Committee’s consideration.

Moved by Councillor Stevens, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That the capital costs and other one-time costs of $75,000 related to the 2016 Stave West project be funded from the Forestry Reserve Fund;

2. That $35,300 for ongoing operating costs related to the 2016 Stave West project be funded from the Forestry operating budget; and


CARRIED

213


The Committee discussed the work plan for the summer students from BCIT, using local graphic artists for media advertising of the Stave West project, and plans for the welcome centre with BC Hydro.

RC16/085 FEB. 15/16

Proposed Changes to FVRD Search and Rescue Funding Model

A report from the Director of Finance dated February 15, 2016 regarding a proposed amendment to the Fraser Valley Regional District’s Sub-Regional Search and Rescue Area Establishment Bylaw was provided for the Committee’s consideration.

Moved by Councillor Plecas, and

RECOMMENDED: That the District of Mission provide statutory consent to the Fraser Valley Regional District, in accordance with Sections 342(2)(c) and 346 of the Local Government Act, for the adoption of the Fraser Valley Regional District’s “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Search and Rescue Service Area Establishment Amendment Bylaw No. 1363, 2016.

CARRIED

RC16/086 FEB. 15/16

Approach to Regulating Secondary Suites in Mission

A report from the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and the Director of Development Services dated February 15, 2016 recommending steps to improve the regulation of existing secondary suites within Mission was provided for the Committee’s consideration.

The Committee discussed the implementation of the Secondary Suite Program, including the possibility of waiving the $77.44 inspection fee for homeowners who, upon inspection, do not have an occupied secondary suite. Random audits of properties that have applied for exemption and regulations for extended family occupying suites were also discussed.

Staff were directed to report back to Council with a communication plan, including a copy of the letter to be sent to the homeowners who have been identified as potentially having a secondary suite.

Moved by Councillor Nicholson, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That the existing approach to regulating Secondary Suites in the District of Mission continue and that the Immediate Next Steps, as listed in the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Development Services report dated February 15, 2016 be undertaken;

2. That authorization be given to hire a full time Tax Clerk and a half time Administration Clerk and required office equipment with funding from the Water Capital, Sewer Capital and Refuse Reserves; and

3. That staff be provided with direction as to developing a comprehensive Secondary Suite Program to formalize the current approach to regulating existing secondary suites in Mission.

CARRIED

214


6. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

Councillor Nicholson assumed the Chair.

RC16/087 FEB. 15/16

Leisure Access Programs

A report from the Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture dated February 15, 2016 was provided for the Committee’s information regarding Leisure Access programs administered by the Parks, Recreation and Culture Department.

It was noted that donations towards these leisure access programs are welcome either through the Leisure Centre directly for the KidSport Mission Program or through Canadian Tire for their Jumpstart Program.

RC16/088 FEB. 15/16

Fees and Charges – Fraser River Heritage Park

A report from the Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture dated February 15, 2016 regarding the proposed amendments to the User Fees and Charges Bylaw 4029-2007 to include fees for rentals and events Fraser River Heritage Park was provided for the Committee’s information. The amendment to the User Fees and Charges Bylaw is listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

The Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture provided the Committee with a revised table of fees for Fraser River Heritage Park, shown below, to replace the table listed in the District of Mission User Fees and Charges Amending Bylaw 5552-2016-4029(12) under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

FRASER RIVER HERITAGE PARK

Non-profit free community events

Non-profit community events with admission fees

Commercial events

Park Event Fee (grounds use)

Free

$100/day $300/day

Picnic Shelter $80/3hrs (min) Additional hours $20/hr



Flag Plaza $80/3hrs (min) Additional hours $20/hr



Gazebo $40/3hrs (min) Additional hours $15/hr



Office Boardroom $30/3hrs (min) Additional hours $8/hr



RC16/089 FEB. 15/16

Artificial Turf Field Fees and Charges

A report from the Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture dated February 15, 2016 regarding the proposed amendments to the User Fees and Charges Bylaw 4029-2007 to include fees for rentals of the artificial turf field was provided for the Committee’s information. The amendment to the User Fees and Charges Bylaw is listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

RC16/090 FEB. 15/16

Mission’s 125th Anniversary

A report from the Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture dated February 15, 2016 regarding the recently submitted grant application to the Canadian Heritage Community Anniversaries Program was provided for the Committee’s information.

215


7. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS

Councillor Plecas assumed the Chair.

RC16/091 FEB. 15/16

New Federal Grade Crossing Regulations

A report from the Engineering Technologist II dated February 15, 2016 regarding the new standards listed in the recently published Canadian Grade Crossing Regulations and Grade Crossing Standards was provided for the Committee’s consideration.

Moved by Councillor Stevens, and

RECOMMENDED: That consideration of the report from the Director of Engineering dated February 15, 2016 regarding new federal grade crossing regulations be deferred to the regular Council meeting of March 7, 2016.

CARRIED

RC16/092 FEB. 15/16

VERBAL ITEM – Mayor Hawes

Moved by Mayor Hawes, and

RECOMMENDED:

That staff contact the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Chilliwack) to request:

a) that lane markings on Highway 7 between Maple Ridge and Mission be repainted, and

b) that the crosswalks on First Avenue be repainted.

CARRIED

8. RESOLUTION TO RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Mayor Hawes resumed the Chair. RC16/093 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That Council rise from Committee of the Whole.

CARRIED

9. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC, RECESS THE PUBLIC MEETING UNTIL 7:00 P.M. AND IMMEDIATELY CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION

RC16/094 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Alexis, and

RESOLVED:

1. That pursuant to Section 90 of the Community Charter, the public be excluded from this portion of the meeting as the subject matter being considered relates to the following:

Section 90(1)(a) of the Community Charter – personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;

Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter – the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;

216


Section 90(1)(f) of the Community Charter – law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;

Section 90(1)(g) of the Community Charter – litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;

Section 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter – negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public.

2. That the public portion of the meeting be recessed until 7:00 p.m.; and

3. That Council immediately resolve into the closed portion of their meeting.

CARRIED

The meeting recessed at 3:21 p.m.

10. RECONVENE

RC16/095 FEB. 15/16

Mayor Hawes reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Council Members Present: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Pam Alexis Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Jim Hinds Councillor Rhett Nicholson Councillor Danny Plecas Councillor Jenny Stevens Staff Members Present: Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Michael Boronowski, Manager of Civic Engagement and

Corporate Initiatives Haylee Gould, Administrative Assistant Jennifer Russell, Deputy Corporate Officer Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services

11. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

RC16/096 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Alexis, and

RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the February 15, 2016 Committee of the Whole, as contained in items RC16/078 to RC16/092 be adopted.

CARRIED

12. DELEGATIONS

There were no delegations.

13. PRESENTATIONS

There were no presentations.

14. PROCLAMATIONS

There were no proclamations.

217


15. PUBLIC HEARINGS

RC16/097 FEB. 15/16

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5545-2016-5050(188)

(District of Mission) – a bylaw to increase the lot size for the Urban Residential 669 (R669) Zone from 30% to 35%

The purpose of the proposed Zoning bylaw amendment is to increase the allowable lot coverage specified in the Urban Residential 669 (R669) Zone from 30% to 35%.

The Mayor opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m.

Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services, showed a PowerPoint presentation that provided the following information:

1. Purpose and outline of the proposal.

2. Effect of bylaw change on lot footprint.

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that no written submissions pertaining to the subject application had been received.

Council discussed the rationale for lot coverage restrictions and noted that staff will be reviewing the land use bylaws and policies to ensure the regulations are in line with the needs of the community.

The Mayor opened the floor to the public for questions and comments.

Hearing no questions or comments, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing for District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5545-2016-5050(188) (District of Mission) closed at 7:18 p.m.

16. ADOPTION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

There were no informational items.

17. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES

RC16/098 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Stevens, and

RESOLVED: That the following minutes be received as information:

(a) Mission Community Heritage Commission meeting – December 2, 2015;

(b) Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting – December 8, 2015.

CARRIED

18. CORRESPONDENCE

RC16/099 FEB. 15/16

Mission Hospice Society Renovation Permits

Council discussed the letter dated January 26, 2016 from the Mission Hospice Society regarding building permits for an addition to the Hospice House at 32180 Hillcrest Avenue.

Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Alexis, and

RESOLVED:

1. That up to $2000 from the Contingency account be used to pay for the building permit fee and Temporary Use Permit renewal fee for the Mission Hospice Society for their Hospice House renovation at 32180 Hillcrest Avenue; and

218



CARRIED

19. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION

RC16/100 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and

RESOLVED: That the following bylaws be approved as listed:

(a) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5513-2015-5050(176) (R15-013 Klimaschek), a bylaw to rezone property at 30320 Nikula Avenue from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling Zone (RR7s), be adopted.

(b) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5525-2015-5050(182) (R15-019 Khoyratty), a bylaw to rezone property at 13011 Sabo Street from the Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to the Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone, rescind first, second and third readings.

(c) Street Naming Bylaw 5527-2015, a bylaw to name two streets (Preston Boulevard and Ross Drive) in the District of Mission, be adopted.

(d) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5545-2016-5050(188), a bylaw to increase the lot size for the Urban Residential 669 (R669) Zone from 30% to 35%, be read a third time.

(e) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5549-2016-5050(188) (R16-004 Jack), a bylaw to rezone the property at 35344 McEwen Avenue from Rural 80 (RU80) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone, be read a first and second time.

(f) 2015-2019 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw 5550-2016-5495(1), a bylaw to incorporate budget amendments into the Financial Plan for 2015 to 2019, be read a first, second and third time.

(g) User Fees and Charges Amending Bylaw 5552-2016-4029(12), a bylaw to amend User Fees and Charges Bylaw 4029-2007 to include fees for events and rentals at the Fraser River Heritage Park, be read a first, second and third time, as amended.

(h) User Fees and Charges Amending Bylaw 5553-2016-4029(13), a bylaw to amend User Fees and Charges Bylaw 4029-2007 to include fees for rental of the artificial turf fields, be read a first, second and third time.

CARRIED

20. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CONSIDERATION

There were no development permits for consideration.

21. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

RC16/101 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, and

RESOLVED: That the following minutes be adopted:

(a) Special Council Meeting (with the Downtown Business Association) – January 27, 2016;

(b) Regular Council Meeting – February 1, 2016.

CARRIED

219


22. RESOLUTIONS RELEASED FROM CLOSED

RC16/102 FEB. 15/16

2016 Community Service Awards and Community Service Awards Ceremony

A report from the Executive Assistant dated February 15, 2016 released the following resolution from Closed Council:

2016 Community Service Awards

That the Mission’s Special Olympics Soccer Team be awarded an Against the Odds Achievement Award in recognition of the outstanding way that they have represented the community in both national and international competition;

That Deborah Handley be awarded an Arts and Culture Service Award in recognition of her efforts on behalf of the Mission Folk Music Festival, the Serenada Singers, and the Cultural Resources Commission;

That the Neighbourhood School Champions be awarded a Community Service Award for their tireless efforts to preserve the concept of neighbourhood schools by working to build community and promote safety;

That the Canadian Cancer Society, Mission Unit, and Its Volunteers be awarded a Community Service Award in recognition of their fundraising efforts, their public awareness campaigns, and the kindness, encouragement and support that they demonstrate toward those individuals within our community who are living with cancer;

That Denyse Tavener be awarded a Community Service Award for her efforts on behalf of a variety of organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Fraser Valley Humane Society, the Seniors Visiting Program, Mission Communities in Bloom Society, and the Mission Arts Council;

That John Retallick be awarded a Community Service Award for his efforts on behalf of a variety of groups, including the Rotary Club and Mission Youth (MY) House;

That Gianluca (Luca) Paniccia be awarded a Community Service Award (under age 25) for his work on the annual Youth Fest Event, and his participation in various Leisure Centre activities/programs, including the Mission Leisure Centre youth mentorship program, the Family Night Activities, Tween program, and Me to We Day;

That the VYPER Youth Group be awarded a Community Service Award (under the age of 25) in recognition of their efforts on behalf of the youth of Mission, including their involvement in the “Pulling Together Youth Conference” and Mission Youth House;

That Sarah Baban be awarded a Community Service Award (under the age of 25) in recognition of her efforts on behalf of the Junior Optimists Club and the youth of Mission;

That Tom Nguyen be awarded a Sports Volunteer of the Year Award in recognition of his efforts as a coach and mentor to the youth of Mission and his efforts on behalf of the Mission Soccer Club;

That Rick Grant be awarded a Sports Volunteer of the Year Award for his many years of service on behalf of Mission Minor Hockey and the Pacific Coast Amateur Hockey Association;

That Eugene Sepke be awarded a Sports Volunteer of the Year in recognition of his efforts on behalf of both Mission sports in general and the hiking community, and in particular for his work with Mission Minor Football and the Fraser Valley Mountain Biking Association;

220


That Mission Youth (MY) House Volunteers be awarded a Special Accomplishment Award in recognition of their efforts on behalf of at risk youth in Mission;

That Michele Chapman-Sheaves be awarded a Special Accomplishment Award for her ongoing work with the Neighourhood School Champions, and her efforts to clean up the area around Mission Central School and Lane Creek;

That Heidi Smith be awarded a Special Recognition Award for her extensive volunteerism and the many ways that she contributes to the betterment of the community;

That Roy Archer be awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award for over 30 years of community volunteerism on behalf of the Mission Elks Club;

That Doug Pearson be awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of more than 25 years of volunteerism on behalf of a variety of community organizations;

That Ken Selvaraja be awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award for his generosity and his efforts on behalf of the Cedar Valley Lions Club, Mission Hospice, Canuck Place, Stone Soup, and other groups and initiatives within the community and the region;

That the Mission Healthcare Auxiliary Society be awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of over 90 years of service to the community;

That Mission Heritage Association and its Volunteers be awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of over 35 years of service to and volunteerism on behalf of the community;

That Paul Horn be awarded the Citizen of the Year Award in recognition of his work with the Stone Soup initiative, and for his many efforts to promote physical, mental and social health related causes within the District of Mission;

That Lilian Dudfield be posthumously awarded the 2016 Freeman of the City Award in recognition of her outstanding dedication and lifelong service to the community;

That Barbara Fehrmann be awarded the 2016 Freeman of the City Award in recognition of her outstanding dedication and lifelong service to the community;

That Judith Ray be awarded the 2016 Freeman of the City Award in recognition of her outstanding dedication and lifelong service to the community;

That Steve Sharpe be awarded the 2016 Freeman of the City Award in recognition of his outstanding dedication and lifelong service to the community; and

That Heather Stewart be awarded the 2016 Freeman of the City Award in recognition of her outstanding dedication and lifelong service to the community.

These awards will be presented at the 2016 Community Service Awards Ceremony on April 7, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Clarke Theatre (see Appendix A for more details). This is a community event and members of the public are encouraged to attend.

23. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS

There was no new/other business.

24. NOTICES OF MOTION

There were no notices of motion.

25. QUESTION PERIOD

There were no questions from the public.

221


26. ADJOURNMENT

RC16/103 FEB. 15/16

Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and

RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.


222

Corporate Administration Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 1

DATE: March 7, 2016


FROM: Christine Brough, Executive Assistant

SUBJECT: Resolution Released from Closed Council – Mission Community Wellness Committee Appointments

This report is being provided for information purposes. Council action is not required.

At the February 15, 2016 Closed Council meeting, the following information was released from Closed Council:

Mission Community Wellness Committee Appointments

The following individuals have been appointed as Members-at-Large to the Mission Community Wellness Committee for two year terms commencing February 16, 2016:

a) Paul Horn; b) Michelle Chapman-Sheaves; c) Judith Ray; and d) Elizabeth Thomas.

SIGN-OFFS:

Christine Brough, Executive Assistant


223

2016/03/07 · regular meeting of council agenda . march 7, 2016 . a . regular meeting of council....

Documents