June 15, 2009 - District of Mission

1
DISTRICT OF MISSION
Regular Council Agenda
June 15, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC
1. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
2. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Barb Strachan
Re: Town Square Sub-Committee
Jacquie Symington (on behalf of Clegg Street Flood Victims)
Re: , Clegg Street Flooding
Allison Whipple
Re: Employment Lands in Mission
KC McPherson
Re: Amendment to Development Permit for 32966 Cherry Avenue
Page 4
Page 5
Page 8
3. PLANNING
(a) Rescind Zone Amending Bylaw 3864-2006-3143(231) and Close Page 9
Development Application Files R05-032 and DV05-018
(b) Rezoning Application R09-004 (Toor/McPherson) at 31509 and Page 11
31591 Israel Avenue
(c) Spirit Square Update Page 19
(d) Agricultural Land Reserve Exclusion — 31380 Lougheed Highway Page 23
(e) Consideration for Form and Character Covenant Amendment Page 29
4. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
(a) Cultural Infrastructure Study Page 52
5. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
(a) Policy COU.22 — Role of Council Liaison Page 56
(b) Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula Page 61
(c) 2008 Annual Report Page 86
(d) Audit Results and Communications Page 178
(e) Social Development Report Page 207

Regular Council Agenda
June 15, 2009
2
(f) Enforcement of Lawn Sprinkling Page 219
(g) Dangerous Dogs — Bylaw Options Page 221
(h) Business Licence Statistics and Compliance Page 228
6. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS
(a) Upgrading of Penitentiary Pump Station and Gravity Main Page 229
(b) Landfill Fees Page 242
(c) Requirement for Garbage Cans Page 244
7. PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH
(a) Don Chapman Page 245
Re: Burning Bylaw
(b) Mission Institution Report — May 2009 Page 249
(c) Ferndale Institution Population Profile — June 2009 Page 256
8. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORT
9. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT
10. MINUTES
(a) Special Council Meeting — May 14, 2009 (Mission Clubhouse Society) Page 257
(b) Regular Council Meeting — June 1, 2009 Page 259
(c) Special Council Meeting — June 2, 2009 (Fraser River Heritage Park) Page 275
11. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
12. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORT
13. MAYOR'S REPORT
14. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND ACTIVITIES
15. BYLAWS
(a) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 3864-2006- Rescind First, Second
3143(231) (R05-032 — Rockwell) — a bylaw to rezone property and Third Readings
located at 33815 Cherry Avenue from RS-2 One Unit Suburban
Residential zone to RS-1 One Unit Urban Residential zone
(b)
District of Mission Sewer Bylaw 5033-2009 — a bylaw to repeal Adoption
and replace sewer bylaw 1849-1989
(c) District of Mission Officers Amending Bylaw 5035-2009-3986(7) Adoption
— a bylaw to rename the title of economic development officer

Regular Council Agenda
June 15, 2009
3
(d)
District of Mission Street Naming Bylaw 5036-2009 — a bylaw to
name a portion of road as McQuarrie Lane (extension)
Adoption
(e) District of Mission Council Procedures Amending Bylaw 5037-
2009-3694(8) — a bylaw to include provision for remote
participation in a council meeting
(f) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5039-2009-
3143(328) — a bylaw to rezone property at 31509 and 31591
Israel Avenue from RU-1 Rural One zone to RS-2 One Unit
Suburban Residential zone
Adoption
First and Second
Readings
(g)
District of Mission Penitentiary Sewage Lift Catchment Area
Fee Bylaw 5040-2009
First, Second and
Third Readings
(h) District of Mission Municipal Ticket Information Amending
Bylaw 5041-2009-2646(14) — a bylaw to increase the fine
amount for lawn sprinkling
First, Second and
Third Readings
(i) District of Mission Street Naming (Kenny Avenue Extension) First, Second and
Bylaw 5042-2009
Third Readings
16. CORRESPONDENCE
(a)
(b)
Howard Meakin
Re: Application for Detailed Site Investigation — former Meeker
Cedar Products Sites
Neil Kernahan
Re: Reader Board Proposal
Page 278
Page 288
(c) Pat Bays (Stand Up for Mental Health)
Re: Official Host Community for the Valley Comedy Festival
Page 293
17. QUESTION PERIOD
18. ADJOURNMENT

4
DISTRICT OF MISSION
REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION
Date: / e 5/c
,1-
To: Dei7Ais Clark, Director of Corporate Administration
2°/ 1 hereby request permission to appear as a delegation before District of Mission
Mayor and Cou cil with reference to the following topic:
I understand that the deadline for submission of the request is 4:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding the
date of the meeting and that once my appearance has been confirmed, I will be allotted a maximum of 10
minutes to make my presentation.
Name:

5
From: Jacquie [gagnon00@telus.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:41 AM
To: Jennifer Russell
Subject: mayor and council
To: Mayor and Council
From: Jacquie Symington and Clegg St Rood victims
May 28, 2009
I am writing to request time on June 15, 2009; before Mayor and council in order to discuss and provide information to
council members of the flood that took place on Clegg St May 11' of this year. This has been an ongoing issue for over 20
years and we would like time to talk about the issue and hopefully come to an agreement on how to correct this problem.
Thank you,
Jacquie Symington
604 820 1599
daonon00@telus.net
Cc. Marc Hanslo
(Resident of Clegg St)
mhanslo03@vahoo.co.uk
1

6
Clegg Street Presentation Outline
• Power point-Jacquie Symington
• Clegg Street Flood History-Nathan Grant
Marc Hanslo and Nathan Grant will field any questions brought by the council members
Clegg street delegation:
• Jacquie and Andrew Symington-8034 Clegg st
• Marc Hanslo-8026 Clegg st
• Jason Larose-8044 Clegg st
• Marina and Calvin Wagner-8048 Clegg st
• Nathan and Debbie Grant-8019 Clegg st

co
3 5 PVC/
c6Ncil
300 CONC
340 CUP
375 375 C ONC 00 CONC L.,
—3 4
7 .
9.4
I•7
C.O.
C.0
250 PVC
POND
7 2 0 PV
300 375 CON 250
202051 CONC 250 250 CONC
IIIIIII 1.1CO gimormili
Witioraigisei immineoltionlvfigit
•
1111•11 1
HommumonlikintelmwAri
2s0 conk
111" `110
low
11111111,0
C..
30
CON
450
CONC
6
375 CONC
7
^
• 250
mompis
PVC
IN" sormanst
LIPm.- ILI mom
ENIE
00
ummeavv --ritottorma
grim R4b= ror e,C1111
Add
lairrAMICENIMA RN
noi 30imir
is
CO
6
9.48
Excomosi
Immo
walip
wowPERF
375
1).25,
50
ON
300
ENE
iv roar300al
300 C P CMP PVC CONC
14 th AVE.
200
PVC
5.9
(-4_,J c-DecN\ I- c
\C*c C, `)k
/F5 I 92 al i pg.() eatrie5
NouS s
L-4-6,A-%es
c\,, 61Q ",---.)‘-)9, tem
HAW 114014Ne @elk) eg 1-4 orrN-Q3)
THE DISTRICT OF MISSION DOES NOT
ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY
ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. ALL INFORMA-
TION MUST BE CONFIRMED IN THE
FIELD BY THE USER.
i'DM "MO ania
IFNS 17285 a271
gEaa a
CHECKED
DISTRICT OF MISSION
STORM AINAGE
EET

W3r4:b/ZVV IV 40 1- 8A
8
DISTRICT OF MISSION
REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION
Date:
To: Dennis Clark, Director of Corporate Administration
al, I hereby request permission to appear as a delegation before District of Mission
Mayor and Council with reference to the following topic:
Le
c.,N e•-•_,)
0 I) (rC-'
e• -• T V\71-:' CLQA
I understand that the deadline for submission of the request is 4:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding the
date of the meeting and that once my appearance has been confirmed, I will be allotted a maximum of 10
minutes to make my presentation,
Name: rLI.A Cl`).\ F

Memo
9
FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV
R05-032/DV05-018
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Planner
Date: June 8, 2009
Subject: Rescind Zone Amending Bylaw 3864-2006-3143(231) and Close
Development Application Files R05-032 & DV05-018
Recommendation
That 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd readings of zone amending Bylaw 3864-2006-3143(231) be rescinded; and
That Rezoning application R05-032 and Development Variance Permit application DV05-018 be
closed.
Background
Rezoning application R05-032 and Development Variance Permit application DV05-018 are
associated to the property located at 33815 Cherry Avenue (Map 1). The applicant, Lorne
Rockwell, submitted these applications on December 9, 2005. The purpose of the rezoning
application was to rezone the subject property from RS-2 One Unit Suburban Residential zone
to RS-1 One Unit Urban Residential zone to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the
subject property into 5 lots.
The zone amending bylaw received 1 St and 2 nd reading on February 20, 2006, the public hearing
was held on March 27, 2006, and 3 rd reading was granted on December 4, 2006.
On March 24, 2009, a letter was sent to the applicant requesting him to complete the
outstanding rezoning requirements or to apply for a rezoning extension by April 24, 2009. On
May 6, 2009, the applicant advised staff that he no longer wishes to pursue the development of
his property at this time.
In light of this information, it is recommended that 1 st 2 nd and 3 rd readings of zone amending
Bylaw 3864-2006-3143(231) be rescinded and Rezoning application R05-032 and Development
Variance Permit application DV05-018 be closed.
Ryan Anderson
a \COMDEVTONNA-LEECOW Reports \2009 Reports\ R05-032 & DV05-018 Rescind Bylaws & Close Files 2009-05-19.doc
PAGE 1 OF 2

:61
itILcc:
sz‘z
COCK
0
i
3 7!8
8316 8317
rO
0 rtp:4
3 6 93i3ctivs,
iiiip 3379 II 8il 1 l:,
CLERI11:5
:
77
:37:3
3:
3 78 tta 3
37
905f
a
to
33 736
33732 m
3374 0
33744
3753
3757
31
2 -1
:1 7141: i 33777 $.
33801
PH
3811
I*
. ,
t
L92
N
iii
1/YA
3 p ag 3388:15:
14:"0 47- 33834 :CI .
66
33842
il‘ iitett.
8n ago
r \
" 1000 C°
) ‘
. ) ,
i
0: 3 387 8
.6- 40
.46-
33664 c p366m sde
)4- "-
111
==
33680
33704
3 3 8 5 6
33709
=az oz=
0 C " 4
0
CO
0
co
Vi
3,374 7
33755 437_
t.::
7'1 71 1
02 C°
O. 4/2 0 4.
t4 14
33697
33731
33739
V " 0
-- 2., C•11
-3illya
co
CO
CO
CO
C9££
33863
8479
8473
0 4. 0 co
co co
co
co
to
8478
8472
A 4.
co
3. . 821 33830 N
3-3 CO
83
33845 33834 r-
III
I I i 7;
26 -i
el ./06
33652
Ul
57 CO
t4,
co
STAVE I I S hvia
LAKEsr ). -
co
N
8558
8550
33736
33740
33758
O
rn
3366(
33681
337(
337
337-
337
337
337
33764
33782
33790
KIMBALL
S7
33810
33820
33

Memo
1 1
FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON
R09-004
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Planner
Date: June 15, 2009
Subject: Rezoning Application R09-004 (Toor/McPherson) at 31509 and 31591 Israel
Avenue
Recommendation
1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R09-004 (Toor/McPherson), the Director of
Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 3143-
1998 by rezoning the properties located at 31509 and 31591 Israel Avenue and legally
described as:
Parcel Identifier: 009-281-185, Lot 2, Section 30, Township 17, New Westminster District
Plan 23910 and;
Parcel Identifier: 009-281-126 Lot 1, Section 30, Township 17, New Westminster District
Plan 23910.
from RU-1 Rural One Zone to RS-2 One Unit Suburban Residential Zone;
that the bylaw be considered for 1 st and 2 nd reading at the Regular Council Meeting on June
15, 2009; and
that following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on July 27, 2009..
2. That the five percent parkland provision in Section 941 of the Local Government Act be •
applied as cash-in-lieu of parkland to subdivision file S09-004.
3. One new road extension over a portion of Lot 1 and 2, Section 20, Township 17, New
Westminster District Plan 23910, (Plan 3) be named with the:
■ Road running east from Nelson Street as Kenny Avenue Extension.
Summary of Proposal
An application has been received from Gary Toor and K.C. McPherson to rezone the properties
located at 31509 and 31591 Israel Avenue (Map 1) from RU-1 Rural One zone to RS-2 One
Unit Suburban Residential Zone to facilitate the creation of 6 single family lots with a minimum
parcel size of 0.36 hectares (0.88 acres) and one large remainder lot, proposed Lot 7, of 0.696
hectares (1.71 acres), which has the potential for future subdivision into two lots under the RS-2
zone. Although both the parent parcels (Map 1) will be rezoned, proposed Lot 7 which has
potential for future subdivision will not be developed at this time. For Lot 7 to be developed into
two lots, land from the property owner to the north is required. Therefore, to ensure that Lot 7 is
developed with the property to the north and that the road is built thorough connecting Nelson
Street with Kenny Avenue, a no-build covenant will be registered on title of proposed Lot 7.
Although it is not the practice of the District to pre-zone lands without all applications running
concurrently, as it can lead to land speculation that drives up raw land costs and drawn out
development process, the registration of a no build covenant with a forward plan of subdivision
will ensure that prior to any sale of the property the developer is aware of the lot layout and road
construction the District will be requiring for any future development .

12
Background
The two parent properties total 3.0 hectares (7.5 acres). Both properties are flat with one
dwelling and several out buildings which will be removed as part of the subdivision. There is
one existing dwelling located on proposed Lot 4 (Map 1) that will be retained as part of the
subdivision.
The surrounding area is composed of large estate lots with single family dwellings, similar to the
lots in this proposal.
Official Community Plan Designation
The subject properties and the surrounding area designated suburban in the Official Community
Plan. No amendment to the Official Community Plan is required.
Zoning
The subject properties are zoned RU-1, Rural One zone which has a minimum parcel size of 1.8
hectares (4.44 acres). The area has been undergoing redevelopment over the past few years
with a number of properties in the area being rezoned to RS-2 One Unit Suburban Residential
zone to facilitate subdivision into parcels with minimum parcel sizes of 0.36 hectares (0.88
acre).
Communitygontribution
In accordance with Council Policy LAN. 40 — COMMUNITY AMENITY CONTRIBUTIONS, the
applicant has volunteered $9,550.00 for the creation of five ( 5) new parcels. As there is already
2 parcels there are only 5 new parcels being created.
Tree Retention and Replanting
The tree survey attached as Appendix 2 identifies five (5) trees located within the proposed
septic fields on proposed Lots 3 and 4 that will need to be removed as part of the subdivision.
As these are large suburban lots, with few trees, no other trees require removal as part of the
subdivision. Thus, as the requirement to plant 2 trees per lot for a total of fourteen (14) trees is
greater than the five (5) trees that will be removed, the developer will be required to plant the 14
trees prior to final subdivision approval.
Parkland
A referral was sent to the Parks, Recreation & Culture Department and their recommendation is
to accept cash in lieu, as the Mission Sports Park is down the road and provides lots recreation
opportunities.
Internal Comments
The application was reviewed at the Pre-application meeting with the developer, Planning and
Engineering. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal with comments outlined
in the Engineering Department Rezoning Comments attached.
External Referrals
There are no watercourses on or adjacent to the subject properties, and therefore, there will be
no referral to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However, the usual external referrals
will be made to the various utility agencies as part of the subdivision process.

13
Road Construction
As shown on Plan 3, Kenny Avenue will be extended to connect to Nelson Street.
Public Hearing Information Package
In accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
PACKAGES, a package of information will be produced containing material related to this
development application.
Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw
• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of S9,550.00.
A letter of credit for installing and maintaining trees identified the Tree Survey.
Engineering requirements attached
• Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council
consideration of the application.
Staff recommends that the rezoning proposal proceed to Public Hearing on July 27, 2009.
Marcy Bond
C:\COMDEV\MARCY\ APPLICATIONS \ REZONING \2009 APPLICATIONS\R09-004 SUB09-004 TOOR MCPHERSON BENCH AVE \ COW.DOC;

31475
3 1422
3
31573
31574
31545
GO75
WADE TERR.
31522
315X1
BOW
WATKINS TERR.

15
PLAN
Lot layout
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION OF
LOTS 1 and 2
SECTION 30 TOWNSHIP 17
NWD PLAN 23910
j)J517ICT Of 0551()71 FILE:
PIM 2099
OAR 1.140117405
cn
ROA&
•
7717)
: ' 1
..
12: • ....-
....• : • - , • ---J
71.17.37C,
1 .. _........,--1
;SRAE! AVENUE
APPLICANT: 71 TOOP
7A771,1 11E101171175:
101 009-26j-129
101 2 J.-. 009-251-185
DOC' AM7117:
77 009 101011 417001
3159i 15:10E4 AiINUE
1077101e5 411071719; 72 7157017 Cl i.CESON 0777711::
(01 (lM,T11510110 017095 f809
l'Jtoc ,esocote.: tYx, .5J,:voymc,
Lond
UmsJon
J,:j(11 , 726-9561 or 477-475
Jjor. 4575-07 p;,
07EPA9177 7017 71507
074 WOK; 11 j
ANL 7. 2015

16
PLAN 2
Tree Survey
TREE INVENTORY OF LOTS 1 and 2 PLAN 23910
(TO ACCOMPANY DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION)
■•■
DISTRDT OF VISSMA' 5LE.
! : .50!!
.0.17415r.
!!! 4. 4 la=
2.17Ca ippOrM -
1,, 3,09 !VvYr.
LOT = LW!,
11:
AVENI.)
i=1,1 ,Irmirnt ; 44,4■71,1 G 7OR
FGGGe.. 32.9561 G, VD-47:7

17
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION OF
LOTS I and 2
SECTION 30 TOWNSHIP 17
NWD PLAN 23910
Plan 3
Road Extension
070704IC7 OF 11.!5Si0N FILE:
! LOGO
s 5 .7 aen
PONi 20590
PLAN
239:6
APPUCANT: C TOOT,'
PARCEL 06:07010:7.
COT 09-26,-165
COLT ADOREEL
}1002 COAOI. AVM:
.37606 6515EL 4VE0E
006670:105 ACCORM:: 05310N 0APPW5
Via Associott, (0,1 Scm,ying
LoAU Surveyor,
Simvon 1,A0A
Poem, 604.. 021,456; or 46,;-

18
Appendix 'I
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REZONING COMMENTS
RLE: R119-004
June 01. 200g,
CMC ADDRESS: 31509•31S91 lsrael Avenue
1.DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS:
Municipal water is available on Israel Avenue. no further upgrading required.
2.S ANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS:
No munk..:ipal t,:artitary sewer available.
S. STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS:
Municipal storm sewer is available on israel Avenue, no further :upgrathng: reourecf.
4. ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION
From an :enginee,ring :point of view the rezoning appfisation may proceed to final aPortion.
En2irs4-1 7,1 Rgzarzt9 Oor -.17,;:nt

mi.s.sTsRicoT
nOF
ON THE FRASER
FILE: PRO.WAT.SPI
Reports and Presentations to Council
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Director of Planning
Date: June 15, 2009
Subject: Spirit Square Update
Memo
19
Recommendation
That staff proceed with the tender process and the hiring of contractors for the foundation for the
Spirit Square, and the construction and landscaping of the Spirit Square.
Update
Design adjustments
Some adjustment to the original design have been required to deal with unexpected
encumbrances that have arisen when constructing on a dike and dealing with in-ground
services. For the most part, this has resulted in a re-configuration of elements on the Spirit
Square rather than elimination (Appendix 1).
The gabion wall has been replaced with a sierra green wall that will result in significant
vegetation growth along Harbour Avenue. In addition, approximately 5 metres of park-like
landscaping will occur along Harbour Avenue at street level, which increases the width of the
square and provides a strong entrance to the Spirit Square at Durieu Street. The cross walk at
Durieu now lines up with the stairs up onto the Spirit Square. The wheel chair access has been
moved to the west side of the Spirit Square adjacent to the stairs and cross walk, and out of the
space currently used for on-street parking.
The Spirit Square is narrower than originally planned in order to avoid in-ground services;
however, additional width has been added in the landscaped area below the sierra green wall
along Harbour Avenue. Also, the natural seating area on the water side of the Spirit Square has
been shifted to the east end of the Spirit Square increasing the width of the usable area of the
square. The water gage, Mt. Baker, and harbour and river activities are all visible from this
natural seating area.
The Spirit Square will still have benches and picnic tables as well as banners and lights,
sturgeon art feature and the water gage feature. The public art features have been forwarded to
the Culture Commission who will be soliciting proposals from the arts community for the
banners, sturgeon seat and water gage.
Timeline
While the date for breaking ground has been delayed slightly so that construction is not
occurring on the dike until after the freshet is over, the project is still on schedule with
completion by October 31, 2009.
PAGE 1 OF 4

20
Budget
The District of Mission received a provincial grant of $345,000 for the Spirit Square, which was
matched with Gaming ($295,000) and Gas Tax ($50,000) revenue providing a total of $690,000
to plan and construct the Spirit Square. There is an additional $20,000 from the Tourism grant
for public art.
The project is on budget with existing contingencies built into the construction and landscaping
budget totaling approximately $79,800. These contingencies could be used for additional
elements that have been listed in the budget separately for Council's consideration; however,
staff suggests that the contingencies are best left in place until construction is nearing
completion. Once the final construction costs are confirmed, staff will forward a report to Council
with options for use of the contingency dollars if they have not been needed for the construction
of the square.
Sharon Fletcher
I am in agreement with the financial aspects of this report.
Ken Bjorgaard, Director of Finance
G:COMDEV/Sharon/COW Reports/ Spirit Square Update
FILE: PRO.WAT.SPI PAGE 2 OF 4
Reports and Presentations to Council

APPENDIX 1
FILE: PRO.WAT.SPI PAGE 3 OF 4
Reports and Presentations to Council

Mt I
-
1:11.111••10 V •VVIM.
.401
•15410
mo,f!,V 17,1 , 111"Ii
•
,.,501.■
0:vrt-R,3 ....In,: A
•
15.1 It 114
•
tral06:110
— a
.r•—u■
•••,.
-" •
X
..1,t•
i
•
-
=1
\ ,
1
'CA 071,31,,,
•L:••••:'•
1*liYi,WflhitYN
.11
•V.3 41.
103 W1-76W OW 13 ',I,
'J,h,W!IqW ,10q
MAW,/ PtIM Sot
wl., 31,', 167,P. ,
Cit J.113,0J
Vat,
. Usik y • YO a 2,0 01,11...
AAP %/el. '
J.1.3 b...r!
NI 711.
OH INV. Iv,
kik., Trig 7C0V.V OVW
INVANNY1.1rom .
t.PSCiflSi 444101
,pc;:,
itV NV,
v7,17.•■ eef
CR6031
0
0
(I)
0
CO
co a>
LL
vc)
o_ 0-t
uig
E. cc

lsslon
MDISTRICT OF
ON THE FRASER
Corporate Administration
INFORMATION Memorandum
23
File Category: PRO.DEV.ALR
File Folder: Lougheed Highway 31380
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Director of Corporate Administration
Date: May 28, 2009
Subject: Agricultural Land Reserve Exclusion - 31380 Lougheed Highway
I have recently received information regarding the ALR exclusion application for
31380 Lougheed Highway.
Attached are:
1. A copy of a letter from the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) regarding an
ALR exclusion application for 31380 Lougheed Highway - Illahae Farms.
2. A letter from the owner of the subject property, Mr. Kalvan Gill
Related to this matter, council adopted resolution 08/959 on November 17, 2008,
as follows:
"That Agricultural Land Reserve application ALR08-003 (Gill/Illahae Dairy
Farms) for exclusion of the property located at 31380 Lougheed Highway
and legally described as:
Parcel Identifier: 013-373-544; Parcel "C" (Reference Plan 5455) West half
of the South West Quarter Section 19 and of the Fractional North West
Quarter Section 18, Township 17 Except; Firstly: Part on Statutory Right of
way Plan 908, Secondly: Parcel "One" (Reference Plan 5456) Thirdly: part
on Statutory right of way plan LMP3745, fourthly: Part Dedicated road on
Plan BCP1336 Fifthly: Part Dedicated Park on Plan BCP21764, Sixthly: Part
Subdivided by Plan BCP21765 New Westminster District
Be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Reserve Commission, with support."
In Mr. Gill's letter he notes that he has reclaimed 102 acres of agricultural land on
the north side of Lougheed Highway, west of Nelson Street. The ALC letter
indicates that is sees this as an act of good faith in support of the application.
The ALC also notes that before moving forward, it requires information from the
District with respect to its review of industrial land needs. Council is currently
reviewing this matter. However
Page 1 of 2

24
council could, by resolution, advise the ALC that while the study is under
discussion it supports the inclusion of the subject property for future industrial
development. This approach would seem to reflect the resolution adopted by
council on November 17, 2008 supporting the application.
Page 2 of 2

25
DATE PREPARED: 14 May 2009
TO:
FROM:
,VISJECT:
Note to File
Application File #MM-37779
Tony Pellett, Regional Planner
Discussion involving Erik Karlsen
Sylvia Pranger
Michael Bose
John Tomlinson
Tony Pellett
ALC Chair
Chair, South Coast Panel
Commissioner
Commissioner
Staff
The application proposes exclusion of the following property from the Agricultural Land
Reserve pursuant to section 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.
Property:
PID: 013-373-544
Parcel "C" (Reference Plan 5455) of the West % of the South West % Section 19,
Township 17, New Westminster District; except:
Firstly: Part on Statutory R/W Plan 908
Secondly: Parcel "One" (Reference Plan 5456)
Thirdly: Part on Statutory RAN Pian LMP3745
Fourthly: Part Dedicated Road on Plan BCP13366
Fifthly: Part Dedicated Park on Plan BCP21764
Sixthly: Part subdivided by Plan BCP21765
•
Location of Property:
31380 Lougheed Highway (also bounded by Nelson Street, Gill Avenue and Silver
Creek)
Size of Property:
25.2 ha (The entire property is in the ALR)
Local Government:
District of Mission
DISCUSSION
At a January 26, 2009 meeting with the Commission the applicant advised of his
willingness to explore opportunities to offset impacts to the agricultural land base and
to adjacent agricultural operations if the application for exclusion is approved. More
specifically, the applicant suggested the potential inclusion of land into the ALR. As a
result of this discussion the Commission expressed some interest in getting more details
from the applicant.

26
Page 2 of 2 - 13 May 2009 — Note to file
File # MM-37779
Since the January meeting the applicant has provided more detail with regard to the
potential inclusion of land(s) into the ALR and the enhancement of a 41.5 ha parcel in
the ALR diagonally across the Lougheed Highway to the northwest of the subject
property. That neighbouring property is described as the remainder of the North East %
of Section 24, Townshipl4, New Westminster District. The applicant described the
improvements as:
• clearing the land of all debris;
• repairing the entire barn;
• removing all blackberry bushes;
• removing beaver dams to allow water to drain from the land;
• depositing clean soil subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission
Act, and
• installing chain-link fencing around a ± 0.4 ha area surrounding the barn, to allow
for safe storage of farm equipment.
Recently the applicant has undertaken improvements to that neighbouring property
on his own initiative as a gesture of good faith and without any assurances from the
Commission with respect to the disposition of his application.
On 01 May 2009, the South Coast Panel discussed the amended proposal and reached
a consensus that it would be appropriate to pursue a more in-depth review of the
applicant's proposal and associated agricultural improvement options, but only after
receiving information from the District of Mission regarding its technical planning review
of the industrial land supply in the community and future growth objectives for various
types of industry. The Commission believes that this information will be crucial to its
review of the proposal, thus further consideration of the application should be deferred
pending receipt of this planning information. The Commission does not know the timing
for receipt of this information from the District of Mission.
The Commission agreed that when it receives this information from the District of
Mission it will review it in relation to the application and associated proposals, and will
inform the applicant and the District of its disposition of the application.
The Commission will inform the applicant and the District of Mission about the foregoing
discussion and will not engage in further review of the application or discussion with the
applicant about the application and associated matters until it has considered information
provided by the District of Mission.
Nothing in these notes or previous communications with the applicant should be interpreted
to fetter the discretion of the Commission in future deliberations or decisions on
this application.
END OF FILE NOTE
Signature
Date
fisl ir4 ©0 Q

27
District of Mission IlahaeDairy Farms Ltd.
8645 Stave Lake Street 33467 Broadway Ave.
Mission B.C,
Mission B.C.
V2V-4L9
V2V-2W8
604-826-1186
May 26, 2009
Attn: Mayor & Council
Re: ALR Exclusion Application # MM-37779
On Monday June 1, 2009 in a regular Council meeting you will be asked to reaffirm the
Community Need for additional employment lands, with respect to our property that is
subject to the above noted application. The ALC has been supportive in this application
process and has asked in recent correspondence that we have the Municipality reconfirm
the previously stated need for this land as employment lands.
In 2004 the District of Mission completed its report entitled — Future Employment Lands
— from the perspective of Community Need, which recognized the very real need for
additional employment land, to aid in employment and increase tax revenue.
In 2005 the District filed an application for an ALR exclusion, which included our
property, in recognition of the need for employment lands, Since that time our population
has grown, and the need is now greater than ever.
During the period of time since the District prepared the above mention report, Soltera
Industrial Park has now sold all but four lots and building is well under way. We need
additional industrial lands!
We would also like the Mayor and Council to be aware that in a spirit of cooperation and
as an act of good faith respecting our ALR application, we have proceeded to clear all of
o o /zoo LE:OL 8004122/90

28
the blackberries and garbage from the property that is located at 31042 Lougheed Hwy.
This is a large (102.65 acres) piece of prime agricultural land that has sat idle for more
than 20 years and it has been a substantial undertaking to bring it back to its original
Agricultural significance.
Clearing of this property began on May 1, 2009 and as of May 29, 2009 the land will be
clean and ready for planting.
We have had a lot of positive feedback from locals regarding the clearing of this land and
are proud of the progress that we have made.
Please advise the ALC that the Community Need for employment lands is still the same
as previously indicated and that the District of Mission still supports the removal of this
land from the ALR to assist the District in becoming a self sustaining community.
I would like to thank you for your continued support and we look forward to hearing
from you in this regard.
Kalvan Gill
COO/800e
XVJ ZVOL 600Z/a/90

mis.sTs.i.conoF
ON THE FRASER , /e-
Memo
29
FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON
R06-030
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Deputy Director of Planning
Date: June 1, 2009
Subject: Consideration for Form and Character covenant amendment
Recommendation
That the Council resolve to amend the covenants placed.on the properties to allow the front
elevations to be as proposed on Appendix 4, to allow two storey building with a basement.
Summary of Proposal
The applicant has progressed to the Building Permit stage of .the development and there have
been enough changes to the design and general form and character of the development that
necessitated bringing the application back for Council resolution.
Background
In July of 2006, Council was introduced to a rezoning proposal to allow for a six-lot subdivision
located at the corner of Cherry Avenue and Judith Street (Appendix 1). For Council to consider
approval of the rezoning, the developer volunteered to enter into a restrictive covenant for form
and character for the proposed residences.
The intent of entering into the design covenants is to ensure that Council may make informed
decisions regarding rezoning, and that Council might have the ability to manage form and
character along this important corridor.
Furthermore, as the development progressed through the subdivision process, staff worked with
the developer to ensure that the homes for the lots that were envisioned could be built and be
liveable. To this end, staff supported numerous variances to enhance private rear yard amenity
space and reiterated the importance of achieving a street presence along Cherry Avenue
(Appendix 2).
Design Analysis
The Public Hearing presentation for both the rezoning and the supplementary variance
portrayed a streetscape with two storey buildings for which the Planning Department could
accept for the zone proposed. Attached are two slides that appeared in both presentations that
show the general form and character guidelines and the streetscape (Appendix 3).
Although not specifically stated within the reports to Council, nor the presentations to the public,
an important component to the design of the homes was the massing to which these properties
would develop. The two storey scale for which the proponent presented to staff was supported
for two very important reasons:
Firstly, in consideration of the neighbouring properties to the rear of the lane, the two storey
massing did not present an imposition.
Secondly, given that the structures would be two storeys, an illegal basement suite could not be
constructed. In fact, the presentations regarding the style of homes that are proposed indicated
that the homes were to have the main living spaces on the ground floor.
PAGE 1 OF

30
With the proposed changes to the elevations, these two concerns warranted comment back to
Council for information and for direction.
Massing
For the first issue of massing, because the elevation changes between the rear and the front of
the proposed lots, it has been deemed that the affect on neighbouring properties will be
minimal.
Subsequently, the change in massing along Cherry Avenue will be affected. Instead of having a
two storey building facing Cherry Avenue, the proponent had proposed close to a three storey
building. Working with the Planning department and by adding considerable landscaping and
changing the effective finished grade, the street elevation is close to what was originally
proposed (Appendix 4).
Basement Suites
Basement suites have been an issue in Mission for quite some time. Although the concept of a
secondary suite on a property is generally supported by the Planning Department, either
situated within a single family dwelling or outside of it, as in the case of a carriage home, and, in
some cases even encouraged; the concern is with illegal suites that are not built to code and
pose a life safety risk for the residents. Other concerns such as parking, amenity space, access
and egress are supplementary to the primary concern of safety.
When the Planning and Building Departments see single family residential buildings that are
designed to accommodate a suite that is not allowed within the zone, flags are raised.
Elements that are in drawn into the design that are clear indicators a suite will likely be installed
after occupancy include:
■ Separate entrance to the suite by way of a exit door;
■ Bar sink, where a kitchen unit may be installed;
• Clear separation between the main living area and the future suite.
Although seeing a bar sink, or clear separation between the living areas are not guaranteed
indicators, the combination of the three elements almost always concludes with a suite.
To discourage illegal suites from being installed into a single family dwelling after occupancy is
granted, one of the measures utilized is to disallow the separate entrance by way of an exit door
into the suite.
For this development, the developer has proposed to include a separate entrances to the
basement for most of the lots of the development, even though this has been discouraged by
staff. That being said, the developer is willing to apply to rezone the properties to allow for a
suite. Staff supports the developer with this proposal so that due diligence, the public process,
can occur with the proposal.
Analysis of Proposal
In speaking with the developers of this project, and given the developers willingness to follow
the public process, the amendment to the covenant for a change in streetscape and elevation
design of the individual homes is supported.
Barclay D.e rify, MCIP
GACOMDEVIBARCLAY\CoW Heoorts\Toor - MePnerscri Memo.aoc
FILE: PRO.DEV.ZONE PAGE 2 OF 2
R06-03C

APPENDIX 4
LOT 2
LOT 1
idUPP 1,11111116:.,.
i4FP'11101rir(
=.:1 11111,
Arl

APPENDIX n
on Memo
32
FILE: PRO DEV. ZON
R06-030
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Planner
Date: July 6, 2007
Subject: Rezoning Application R06-030 (McPherson) - 32966 Cherry Avenue
Recommendation
1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R06-030 (McPherson), the Director of
Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 3143-
1998 by rezoning the property located at 32966 Cherry Avenue and legally described as:
Parcel Identifier: 011-168-200 East Half Lot 2 Except: Firstly: Part Subdivided by Plan
60080; Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan LMP41748, Section 28, Township 17, New
Westminster District Plan 5659.
from RS-2 One Unit Suburban Residential zone to RS-1A One Unit Small Lot Urban
Residential zone;
that the bylaw be considered for 1 51 and 2 nd reading at the Regular Council Meeting on July
16, 2007; and
that following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on August 27,
2007.
2. That the five percent parkland provision in Section 941 of the Local Government Act be
applied as cash-in-lieu of parkland to subdivision file S06-027
3. That the lane over a portion of East Half Lot 2 Except: Firstly: Part Subdivided by Plan
60080; Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan LMP41748, Section 28, Township 17, New
Westminster District Plan 5659, be named with the:
■ Lane running west off of Judith as Everett Lane and the existing unnamed lane on
the east side of Judith also be named as Everett Lane
4. That Council accept the developers offer of $25,000 for the Parks Recreation and Culture
Department as detailed in the report from the Planner dated July 6, 2007.
Proposal
An application has been received from 410374 B.C. LTD. (K.C. McPherson) to rezone 32966
Cherry Avenue (Map 1) to accommodate a 6 lot single family subdivision under the RS-1A
zoning with a minimum parcel size of 465 sq. metres (5005 sq. feet). Proposed Lot 1 is 588.6
sq. metres (6329 sq. feet) with every other lot being 465.98 sq. metres (5015 sq. feet). The
property is designated Single Family Residential in the Cedar Valley Comprehensive
Development Plan, and therefore, an Official Community Plan amendment is not required.
A fundamental component of this development is moving the temporary existing detention pond
and placing it in an underground structure in the park adjacent to the proposed development.
PAGE 1 OF 8

33
Site Description
The subject property is approximately 0.4 hectares (0.99 acres). The property rises to a small
knoll on proposed Lot 6 and slopes down toward the existing temporary detention pond, located
on proposed Lots 1 and 2. The property is sparsely vegetated.
To develop the 6 lots on the property the existing temporary detention pond must be removed.
The developer's engineer has prepared a design for an underground storm water detention
pond to be installed on Griner Park. The Parks Department has confirmed that the underground
detention storage pond in Griner Park is acceptable.
Neighbourhood Context
The proposal is in an area where the neighbourhood character is in transition, due to
development as proposed in the Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan.
Properties on the south side of Cherry Avenue, east of Cedar Street have been developed into
single family lots, with little room remaining for further subdivision. Properties on the north side
of Cherry Avenue are single family but designated for multi family development in the Cedar
Valley Comprehensive Development Plan.
Official Community Plan Designation
The application is in conformance with the Single Family Residential designation in the Cedar
Valley Comprehensive Development Plan, and therefore, no Official Community Plan
amendment is required.
Zoning
The application is to rezone the property at 32966 Cherry Avenue from RS-2 One Unit
Suburban Residential zone with a minimum lot size of.36 (.88 acre) to RS-1A One Unit Small
Lot Residential zone with a minimum lot size of 465 sq. metres (5005 sq. feet) to allow for the
creation of 6 single family lots.
In 2004 Council established a policy to only approve RS-1A zoning where 4 lots or less were
being created. Although the creation of six single family lots under the RS-1A zone is contrary
to Council policy staff is able to support this rezoning for the following reasons:
1) Due to the location of the temporary detention pond encumbering 2 lots, if the developer
chose he could rezone to create 4 lots which would meet the 2004 policy and then
rezone and subdivide the remainder, to create '2 additional lots. The end result would be
6 lots under the RS-1A zoning. By subdividing into 6 lots, the temporary detention pond
will be relocated permanently in Griner park, reducing the required volume of the storm
water detention facilities for development north of the subject property, that are currently
being planned in the Cedar/Tunbridge Area.
2) The developer is volunteering $25,000 to the parks department to off set the burden of
locating the underground detention pond in the park to be used to purchase additional
park or to enhance an existing park facility at the discretion of the Parks, Recreation and
Culture Department.
3) The developer has volunteered to register a restrictive covenant for form and character
for garages to be located off the lane. Additional design elements include ornamental
detailing, front entrances facing Cherry Avenue with front walkways, fencing or shrubs
no higher than 3 1/2 feet along front property line. The purpose of these design
requirements is to ensure that the front of the dwellings face Cherry Avenue and create
street presence similar to the houses to the east, along Cherry Avenue.
FILE:PRO.DEV.ZON
R06-030
PAGE 2 OF

34
4) No variances are required under the RS-1A zoning.
Community Amenity
in accordance with Council Policy LAN. 40 —FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR COMMUNITY
AMENITIES POLICY, the applicant has submitted a letter volunteering to contribute $1,000 per
single family lot for a total amount of $5,000 payable prior to the adoption of the zone amending
bylaw.
Street Naming
The proposed subdivision at 32966 Cherry has one new lane (Plan 2) with an existing unnamed
lane to the east of Judith, which is almost directly across from the new lane. It is proposed that
both lanes be named Everett Lane. The following new lane name is from STR.28 STREETS
and ROADS Street Naming policy:
EVERETT
Elmer Everett was a fruit grower in Mission. She owned property in Steelhead and near Sabo
Street. She was also on the Woman's Auxiliary from 1915 to 1938. There is no information
available on the dates of her birth or death.
Parkland
In accordance with section 941 of the Local Government Act and Council Policy LAN. 26-
SUBDIVISION FOR PARKLAND, subdivisions proposing three or more new lots are reviewed
by staff with respect to park land requirements. Due to the existing park land immediately west
of the proposed development the developer has agreed to offer the required 5% under the Local
Government Act as cash in lieu of park land. This requirement under the Local Government Act
is in addition to the volunteered contribution of $25,000 for park land purchase or enhancing
existing park facilities.
Internal Comments
The application was reviewed at the Development Committee meeting, which has
representation from Community Development, Engineering, Inspection services, Fire, RCMP
and Parks and Recreation. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal with
comments outlined in the Engineering Department Rezoning Comments attached as
Appendix 1
External Referrals
There is no watercourse on or adjacent to the properties, and therefore, no referral to
Department of Fisheries and Oceans is required. However, the usual external referrals will be
made to the various utility agencies as part of the subdivision process.
Public Hearing information Package
In accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
PACKAGES will be produced containing material related to the development application.
Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw
• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $ 5,000.
• A letter of credit for installing and maintaining trees proposed in the Tree Plan letter, as per
our Poiicy.
• Engineering requirements (no works required)
F!LE:PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 3 OE 8
R06-030

35
Appendix 1
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REZONING COMMENTS
October 19, 2006
CIVIC ADDRESS: 32966 Cherry Avenue
REL FILE: R0,6.-030
1. DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS:
Municipal water is avaitaole, on Cherry Avenue and on Judith Street. No further
=grading is moulted.
2. SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS:
Municipal sanitary sewer is available on Judith Street.. No further upgrading
required.
3. STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS:
Municipal storm sewer is available on Cherry Avenue anti along the east side of
Griner Park adjacent to the site. No further upgrading required.
A. ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS:
Cherry Avenue and Judith Street provide paved access m the site. No further
upgrading required.
RECOMMENDATION
From an engineering point of view the rezoning application may proceed to fin& adoption.
f:'1/4en,oinearicevcor‘RD6-030: 2.29 ,60 Cherry lingineenng;tc.izonincri Comments
FILE:PRO.DE.V.ZON PAGE 8 OF 8
R06-030

36
• Letter volunteering $25,000 for park land purchase or enhance existing park facilities
• Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council
consideration of the application.
Summary
In summary, staff recommends that the rezoning proceed to Public Hearing on August 27, 2007.
Marcy Bond
G:\COMDEV\MARCY\Rezoning & subdivision applications\Marcy's SUBDIVISON REZONING FILES12006 Applications\Sub 06-027
R06-030 DV06-014 McPherson (Cherry Ave)\CoW report for McPherson.doc
FILE:PRO.DEV.ZON
R06-030
PAGE 4 OF E

7.1
O F
rn
o • •
co -0
o
C.)
0
z
212 8206
!019
JLtlJD
32839
32845
32857
877 8200
979 8202
953
969
8208
8216
13183
McINTYRE S7:
32952
I3
110
g
1973
-,080 laZVH
co
r.)
co
2]
8195
03 0)
3.3 o.)
to
0)
co
n.1
co
t4
co
1,4
ov
03
61.
6,2
BOWYER DR.
91 co co co co''
f■J 1■1
8"
32955
32967
8262
32956
32968
32974—
32986
32957 4
32967
32983 Oblib t
32835
AO.
Vvr
■13
32985
32836
32841 32848
LA
in;
so
ID
32909
32919
32939
32959
(.4
8
co
U'
32910
32928
32944
(.4
co
32960
7.1
ry
Co
a C
-o
(-1)
11
226
3013
1211
3031
tom., t.3
DOGWOOD ST
2
3045 co co
co co CO
3.3
41.
VIOLA PL
330801
1085
33090 0
33081
OI
'364:60
a
32998
8278
33044
33050
33066
33084
33090
zu9
Ri c
32997 32996
33005 33006
33015
33025
33035
33020
33024
c.a
33033
33045
33047
33053 33050 2 33057
33067
33058 111
33083
33064 33065
33072 33071
33091
33086
32993
It" (-4 ig 8
33027 33028
33083
33038
33048
33056
33068
33086
8425
33019
33035
33067
33085
CO
6.1
JUDITH ST
co
4.
4.
CO
CO
ID
a)
co
0
- 11

38
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
PLAN 1
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
REM. EAST 112 LOT 2, PL. 5659 NWD &
PLAN LMP 41750
I URBAN
I 750
:Or-0;7
ADDRESS : 32966 CHERRY AVE.
CHERRY AVE.
111,.5t
• DFTENT1ON
PO40
465.98 ti.21 "s1,65.98
•
465.98 11^2
16 3.5 16 3. .S
IS
2
. .
672 72 r,
"
• -r
cC.+
9 \ 70 17
72
P' 41475
13
1 4
—3
PLAN PREPARED BY
WALEMCO ENGINEERING LTD,
IOL-33070 FFT AVE., MISSION BC V7.61 11,5
PR. 60L-625-405.:,
PLAN REVISED ON SEPT. 25. '05
GARY TOOK
3375 VERES TERRACE
MFSSION. BC V2V 7C5
PH. 601.-626-952
FILE:PRO.DEV.ZON
R06-030
PAGE 6 0= e

I
39
ADDRESS 33955 CHEW, AVE
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
REM. EAST 1/2 LOT 2. PL 5659 NWD 6
PLAN LIP 11750
PROPOSED STREET NAMES
PLAN 2
EJ
750
CHERRY AVE.
tet,
(4-)
tr) -.17) . 46.00
•
(g,
455.95 5-2
iE.9
Everett Lane]
5tia.t.."2
70
11 I 12
LEE
FLAN PREPARED EY
WALEKCCI FamiNEERIPJG LTD.
/5;4 55DTD FIrTH AVE.. MISSION 72V IVS
3p. 6S4-5;,6-404-
PLAN NEVISOE, LEL SERI. 25, '55
1/AR' 747:33:
557:5 ERRED TERRACE
MiSS,031. EC 929 CZ
VII 6OL.525,9152
R06-030
S06-027
DV06-014 MAP 1 aN 1 : r
sz7
3.9m5
3257I
L
........,
11111
SYLVIA AVE.
1 awl
can
a535
155a
Ulla
s., arm :
DM
0•51
ow 50917
saw 1443
____,_,
1
..._,..„4._
5372
.0
OR
GHERRYGOEDAVE
ri 321/63 E a.,
i -
SUBJECT
PROPERTY 4' 41
, Viibi
., .,
10e, . 0:018273
I 2 2 •
1 1271 1::: r115116
nas ; ;1,,,,,
aze3 to .1.2.5 it> 1-12'-2 82561
E-L_,__.,,—,i_i___,
ll iii/
02
1152 vile' ..,,,, ertaa I OW pr i.a 4. .2..
"1° BOWYER Dit I#
1 i 1
'woo P.I A vig 1E ,- -
F,IFR,j....t-P--- .
'
1131 -,
. ill
i 1 Nil i
HAWTHORAEAVE
." ii
1 2 ilsynalill ill i
illii0 1 11140 ill 111
WHIDDENAVE
Z 1!Liz, 21 zi ..... ilE1 2 n '2" El iiiiili l;
I2g7 Its51
11747
It an° 1 9255
°.'
1257,
.24,
52aa
EA"
1
j 1;;;; LUZ 122E 1 lam 0232 gZ37 1z , li IV 1 1/521221
1,,,,n,
I I
'73 ili: iE ; 3"3' Eliii
Everett Lane I
FILE:PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 7 OF 8
R06-030

APPENDIX 2
District o _Mission Memo
40
FILE: PRO DEV. DEV
DV09-012
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Planner
Date: July 24, 2008
Subject: Development Variance Permit Application DV08-008 (McPherson) — 32966,
32978, 3298Z 32988, 32994 and 32996 Cherry Avenue
Recommendation
That Development Variance Permit Application DV08-008, in the names of 410374 BC Ltd. and
Braaksma Homes Ltd., for the properties located 32966, 32978, 32982, 32988, 32994 and
32996 Cherry Avenue and legally described as:
Parcel Identifier: 027 545 563.; Lot 1 Section 28 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan
BCP36532
Parcel Identifier. 027 545 571; Lot 2 Section 28 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan
BCP36532
Parcel identifier. 027 545 580; Lot 3 Lot 2 Section 28 Township 17 New Westminster District
Plan BCP36532
Parcel Identifier: 027 545 598; Lot 4 Lot 2 Section 28 Township 17 New Westminster District
Plan BCP36532
Parcel identifier: 027 545 601; Lot 5 Lot 2 Section 28 Township 17 New Westminster District
Plan BCP36532
Parcel Identifier. 027 545 610; Lot 6 Section 28 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan
BCP36532
to vary Section 302.7 Setbacks of District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 3143-1998 by reducing the
minimum required setback to the front lot line for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 from 6 metres (19.68 feet)
to 4 metres (1312 feet) for new dwellings; the minimum required setback to the front lot tine for
Lot 6 from 6 metres (19.68 feet) to 5 metres and the minimum required setback to the exterior
side lot line for Lot 6 from 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) to 3 metres (9.84 feet) for a new dwelling
be forwarded to Council for public input and consideration of approval on August 25, 2008.
Proposal
A development variance application has been received from 410374 BC LTD. (KC McPherson)
for lots 1 to 6 of Plan BCP36532 (Appendix A) to allow new dwellings to be located closer to
the front lot lines to provide larger backyards, detached garages and allow for a better building
layout.
Site Description
The lots were recently created under Rezoning Application R06-030 and Subdivision Application
S05-027; there are currently no dwellings on the lots. The tots are zoned RS-1A One Unit Small
Lot Residential. All of the lots meet the minimum parcel size requirement of 465 square metres
(5005.3 sq. ft.).
PAGE 1 OF 4

41
Neighbourhood Context
The proposal is in an area where the neighbourhood character is in transition due to
development as proposed in the Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan.
Properties on the south side of Cherry Avenue, east of Cedar Street have been developed into
single-family lots. Properties on the north side of Cherry Avenue are currently single-family
however designated for mufti-family development in the Cedar Valley Comprehensive
Development Plan.
Development Variance Permit DV08-008
As part of the construction of the infrastructure, two issues surfaced affecting the layout of the
subdivision:
1. The lane at the rear of each proposed property shifted north; and
2. The right of way for storm water was increased affecting the amount of back yard space.
Due the above constraints, the applicant initially proposed two separate variances for rear yard
setbacks on two lots, Lots 1 and 2, because the garages could no longer be detached; the
detached garages could not be built on a required right of way.
The result of attaching the garages to the dwelling and reducing the rear yard setback would
have meant no useable yards for use by the residents. Therefore, staff recommended that the
developer apply for front yard setbacks, instead of rear yard setback variances, on all the lots
fronting Cherry to facilitate larger, more usable rear yards.
On Lot 6, although a detached garage can be accomplished similar to Lots 3, 4, and 5, the
applicant has provided an attractive alternative showing the attached garage maintaining a
significant useable, private rear yard.
By reducing the front yard setback coupled with front porches as part of the design of the
homes, a greater street presence along Cherry Avenue can be achieved.
Attached are the site plans of Lots 1 through 6 showing the building envelopes and associated
proposed setback variances. (Appendix B)
Summary
Staff recommends that Development Variance application DVO8-008 be forwarded to public
input meeting and consideration of approval on August 25, 2008.
Marcy Bond
SZ(14/0t4lARMAPPLICATIONSIRUOKING■2226AppkabonalSuis 06-027 R06-030191/064114 kilaPrierson (Chan IV DV tor Lad 2 & e lot maPhelsonAkt
FILEPRO.DEV.DEV PAGE 2 OF 4
0/08-008

32909
32919
32939
7) 0)
0 c
13 co
m m
—I 0
m
cn
32910
32928
32944
.2956
;2968
2974
2986
-2998
278
3044
;3050
13066
32957
32987
32966
32959
32977
2985
33053 33050 A:1 0 33057 33056
Z
33067
33058 1/1
33087
al.
32983
Cr°
11k
32997 32996 32993 8425
33005 33006
on ao
33015 33020
33019
0 0
.tcol 33025 33024
33027 33028
33035 to
CA 33033 33038
Z
lb 33045
to o 33035
ol 33047 33048
ao
ao
4:••
JUDITH S7:
co
32960
co
co
co
cm
0
5 0

43
Appendix. B
Site Plans
PAgGE 4 OF 4

LANE
48

49
OHERRY AVE.
113.35
LOT 6
465.95 sq. m

Form and Character
• Front porch with all main
living spaces are on the
ground floor
• Garages accessed from
the lane. Front yard
setback will be staggered
within the minimum
setback allowed under the
zone.
• Mix front elevation and
roof design to reduce
perception of massing
along Cherry Ave.
• Vary colour, building
material and design
elements such a cedar
shakes, rock work and
window trim.
A
1t41., ROVI- 1.3.041 /3311,
1. 1.fti5 1,54 7,11. 9572 56
-6 , 1 , W=021.1 03.+41;
,63 !,....5/5/
%6 °'^i
Awn ,
■jannnwrniah.
Apgoartn,SAIIIIIAIMIth
Attultumumatm. 'quit:mat.
41.
FRONT ELEVATION
LOT .

Streetscape
r,
C)
V,__-I.
11111:
A1111•11111111111
1-2, 2
Lent I

DISTRICT OF
Mission
ON THE FRASER
Parks, Recreation & Culture
Memorandum
52
File Category: TYPE FILE CATEGORY HERE
File Folder: type File Folder Name here
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Date: June 15, 2009
Subject: Cultural Infrastructure Study
Recommendation
1. That approval be given for the attached Scope of Work to conduct a Cultural Infrastructure Study;
and
2. That approval be granted to spend $15,550 plus GST for consulting services to conduct the
Cultural Infrastructure Study, with the funds to come from Council contingency.
Background
One of Council's five priority areas for 2009-2011 is Cultural Infrastructure. The goal of this priority area
is to provide for cultural infrastructure needs in Mission. Cultural infrastructure includes physical space
for cultural, senior and youth facilities.
The attached scope of work document has been produced with the goal of completing the first two
objectives of undertaking a space and needs assessment as well as establishing principles to guide the
provision of cultural services by the noted deadline of February 2010. The proposed scope of work also
includes some recommendations that would lead into the third objective of providing appropriate spaces.
As noted in Council's Priority Areas and Goals document, consulting support is required to complete this
work, namely a Cultural Infrastructure Study. The document includes a quote of $15,550 plus GST to
complete the work.
As this is unbudgeted work, the Director of Finance is recommending that Council contingency be utilized
as the funding source for these consulting services.
Ray Herman
Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Page 1 of 1

53
DISTRICT OF MISSION
INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - CULTURE, SENIORS AND YOUTH
FINAL DRAFT - SUGGESTED SCOPE OF WORK - JUNE 7, 2009
INTRODUCTION
The District of Mission has recently identified a number of goals for the community, one of which is to
provide for cultural infrastructure needs, including physical space for culture, seniors and youth.
The District has also identified the following specific objectives:
1. To establish the principles that will guide the provision of cultural services and their use.
2. To undertake a space,and needs assessment for the various cultural, youth and seniors groups in
Mission.
3. To provide the most appropriate space in either existing facilities or new multi-use space, if
necessary, based on the principles and the space and needs assessment.
4. To utilize electronic technology to inform the general public of community events, including such
initiatives as creating a Hall of Excellence.
5. To prepare a report for the Council of the District of Mission, based on direction by municipal staff,
in consultation with the Cultural Resources Commission.
The first two of the objectives are to be addressed in 2009 and early 2010 (or earlier). It is anticipated that
the process will be initiated by first conducting the needs assessment, followed by the establishment of the
necessary principles.
SCOPE OF WORK
In order to complete this work, the following tasks should be undertaken.
Space and Need Assessment
1. Meetings with District officials, including District councilors, senior staff and the Cultural Resources
Commission (3 separate meetings) to discuss the process, gather any related studies or reports,
and to determine the timeframe for the study. (Information regarding the District's
population/demographics will be important in this regard.)
It is understood that members of the Cultural Resources Commission have initiated the process of
identifying local facilities that could be used for cultural activities, and that this information will be
refined and made available to the consultants.

54
2. A visit with staff to existing facilities (including those identified by the Cultural Resources
Commission).
3. Discussions with stakeholders involved with culture, seniors and youth. It is suggested that
meetings be arranged with key organizations to discuss each group's current activities and
needs, as well as the suitability, size, condition, location, and accessibility of facilities, their
ownership, and any issues related to each.
It is estimated that approximately 25 groups will be contacted, and that some meetings could
involve more than one organization. As a result, a total of 10 -12 meetings are anticipated. The
consultants will facilitate each meeting; however, staff assistance in making logistical arrangements
would be necessary.
4. Contact will be made with other communities to discuss current trends and best practices in the
provision of facilities and programs in the area of culture, seniors and youth; and to discuss other
communities' efforts related to strategies, goals and principles related to culture, seniors and youth.
Staff and the consultants will identify up to five communities and develop a questionnaire that can
be used to gather and summarize the information collected.
5. The information gathered from Steps # 3 and # 4 will be prepared for discussion with District of
Mission officials in order to review the findings and determine whether or not additional research is
necessary.
6. The consultants will prepare a Draft Report, including a list of facilities that will address cultural
interests, senior and youth, discuss the Draft with the client, and make necessary revisions. The
report would include an evaluation related to whether or not existing facilities can meet current and
future needs.
7. Following a review with Council, the report will be amended as required, and presented to Council
and the Cultural Resources Commission as the Final Report.
Principles
1. The consultants will review existing District policy documents relating to the provision of parks,
recreation, and cultural infrastructure, including but not restricted to the District's Cultural Master
Plan, its Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and its Cultural Policy; as well as any policy
documents relating to the District's overall Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals.
2. The consultants will facilitate a workshop with Council, the Cultural Commission and senior staff to
gain insights into Council's Values, as they relate to the provision of infrastructure for culture,
seniors, and youth.
3. The consultants will then review input received from other jurisdictions (as per # 4 above), the
results of the community consultation, and the results of the Council workshop to develop a draft
set of principles for the provision of infrastructure for culture, seniors, and youth.
4. The draft principles will be reviewed with staff and incorporated in a Draft Report, which will then be
presented to Council.

55
6. Following a review with Council, the report will be amended as required, and presented to the client
as the Final Report.
CONSULTANTS
In order to complete the project in the most efficient manner, PERC would assign three consultants to work
on the project. This would include Bill Webster, a Principal with the firm, who has worked on several projects
in Mission in recent years; Warren Sommer, Principal of Legacy Heritage Consultants, who has extensive
experience in conducting cultural studies throughout British Columbia, several of which have been with
PERC; and Erin Moore, a PERC Associate, who has worked on a number of projects with the firm in the
past.
The consultants would be able to initiate work on the project at the convenience of the client.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The following project schedule is proposed.
1. June Review of background materials, start-up meeting and tour,
Meeting with Commission
2. July - August Completion of questionnaire and, possibly, a number of
interviews
3. September - November Finalize research, prepare Draft Report by mid-November,
and Final Report by the end of November
PROJECT BUDGET
The total budget for the project would be $15,550 plus GST. Of this, fees would amount to $14,800 and
expenses would be $750. Expenses would primarily be related to travel and printing costs.

56
MDISTRICT OF
ON THE FRASER
Corporate Administration
Memorandum
File Category:
File Folder:
ADM.POL.PRO
COU.22
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Director of Corporate Administration
Date: May 15, 2009
Subject: Policy COU.22 - Role of Council Liaison
Recommendations:
1. That council review draft policy COU.22 - Role of Council Liaison and then
forward the policy to an open council meeting for adoption.
2. That council reconsiders the practice of appointing an alternate councillor in the
role of liaison, other than for other governmental boards and committees.
3. That council not enter into the practice of appointing a liaison to fee-for-service
organizations.
Summary:
Appointments to External Boards and Committees
Council has previously had interrupted discussions regarding the role of a councillor
that is appointed as a liaison to a board or committee. In order to resolve any
confusion over the role, council has asked that staff provide a "job description" for
the role of liaison. Attached policy COU.22 is intended to assist in this question.
Historically council liaisons have been appointed to external boards or committees,
at the request of the organizations. Council does not seek out appointments, and
not all requests have resulted in the appointment of a liaison.
When council does appoint a liaison, the role is intended to be a neutral
communication channel between council and the board or committee. The liaison is
not intended to advocate, or be an activist for, the external board or committee.
The liaison is also not intended to actively participate in the operation of the
external board or committee.
Council Appointed Committees
There are 3 types of committees appointed by council - task force, select
committee and commission.
Council does not appoint "liaisons" to either task force committees or select
Page 1 of 5

57
committees. There is a mixture of the roles of councillors who are appointed to
these groups.
In some cases the councillor is the chair of the committee while in other cases
council members simply participate as committee members. With one exception
council members can vote on any question that the committee is discussing. The
exception is the Economic Development Select Committee where the councillors
and the staff are "ex-officio" members with no voting privileges (1) .
If there is any confusion arising from the role of "liaison" it is in relation to
commissions, because these are the only committees to which council has
appointed a "liaison". The proposed policy is intended to clarify that role as well.
Alternate Appointees as Liaisons
Council appoints alternates for all liaisons. I am recommending that this practice
be reconsidered (except for other governmental boards or committees) based on
some simple assumptions:
(a)
(b)
it is difficult for an alternate to be familiar with the issues being discussed
unless they have attended previous meetings;
the minutes of the meeting will provide the information to council; if there is
any clarity required, the liaison can obtain the information at the next
board/committee meeting; and
(c) it is rare that the liaison is unable to attend their committee or board
meetings.
The exception to this might be if a liaison is expected to be absent for an extended
period of time
Fee-For-Service Organizations
Finally, council inquired whether a council liaison should be appointed to
organizations that receive fee-for-service grants. I do not believe that would be a
good practice for the following reasons:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Council approves funding on the basis of proposed services to be provided by
the organization.
The organization that receives the funds must provide an annual report to
verify delivery the services.
Council has no control over the operation of the fee-for-service organizations,
and that is appropriate.
There are other grants provided by council that include fairly similar amounts.
It would be impractical to require a council liaison to all organizations that
receive grants.
(1) It should be noted that it is not inherent that ex-officio members cannot vote, in fact it is usually the opposite. If voting
privileges are not extended then it must be based on a formal decision that this is the case.
Page 2 of 5

58
Background:
As noted in the summary, council has requested a job description for the role of
council liaison. The following information will attempt to address the
recommendations above as well as provide background for the proposed policy.
Overview of Commissions
Council has appointed 3 commissions, and the title of the councillor's role is
different in each. The Social Development Commission has the mayor appointed as
the "chair". The Cultural Resources Commission has Councillor Scudder appointed
as "council representative". It is only the Mission Community Heritage Commission
that has a "liaison" appointed - currently Councillor Scudder.
In practical terms, there is little or no difference between being a "liaison" or a
"council representative". The real question is what is the councillor's role in these
situations
It would be helpful to take a broader look at commissions, to try to determine what
the councillor role should be.
Role of Commissions
If we look to the defined role of a commission it is: "A commission may be
appointed by council from time to time to address a broadly defined mandate
representing a topic of community wide scope and complexity, which is defined by
the terms of reference adopted by council."
Council also specifically identifies:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
the product to be delivered by the commission;
the schedule for delivery of the product;
the specific terms of reference for the commission;
appointees to the committee including the designated council representative
and alternate;
the chair and vice chair of the commission;
the staff member(s) (if any) who may assist the select committee;
(g) whether funding is required for the commission to carry out its work, and the
source of that funding.
The people council selects for commissions are appointed based on a broad base of
expertise and interest. Council establishes the terms of reference for a commission
and the commission is then charged with developing a strategic plan to implement
the terms of reference, and to provide quarterly progress reports to council.
Underlying Operating Principle of Commissions
There is an underlying operating principle in relation to commissions that requires
clarification, and which should provide the answer to the role of the council
appointee to commissions.
Page 3 of 5

59
That principle is that the work of the commission is essentially independent from
council.
Council has provided the necessary terms of reference and guidelines for the
commission to do its work, and is supposed to receive quarterly progress reports.
Council has selected and appointed the people it believes can do the job on its
behalf. These are the control elements that council has implemented in relation to
commissions.
Council should then relinquish control of the operations of the commission and rely
upon the commission reports to determine that the assigned work is being
completed.
If council accepts the principle that the work of the commission is essentially
independent from council, then the role of the council appointee (i.e. "liaison")
would be virtually identical to the role of a council liaison to any board or
committee. According to the draft policy, the role would that of "neutral
communication channel between the board or committee, and council".
Given that council has employed the terms "council representative" or "liaison" (i.e.
the same role) for 2 of the 3 commissions, and the role of "liaison" predates any of
the commissions, it seems evident that council simply wanted to have a council
member present as a representative. In contrast is the one example of the mayor
being appointed as the chair of the Social Development Commission, clearly
envisioning a different and more active role.
Summation
The lack of a definition of the role of council liaison has created some confusion and
distress. The proposed policy is intended to clarify the role of an appointed council
liaison in all situations. That role is defined as "to provide a neutral communication
channel between the board or committee, and council".
The policy also provides guidelines to assist council members to understand the
role.
ennis Clark
g: \admin \closed counci meetings\ sed council 2009\0519 may 19\cou 22 memo.doc
Page 4 of 5

60
11.4".t
COUNCIL
ROLE OF COUNCIL LIAISON
POLICY COU.22
-,,oroZA.0.1,41717;4'..
7iretskbrc417.;•
POLICY
Date Policy Adopted:
Council Resolution Number:
Context:
Within the community of Mission there are several external organizations with
elected boards and committees with elected executives that pursue a philosophy or
agenda unique to that group of people.
Based on a request from the specific board or committee, council may consider
appointing a council member to act as liaison to that external board or committee.
Role of Council Liaison:
Should council agree to appoint a liaison, the councillor appointed will adhere to the
following guidelines for the role of liaison:
1. The role of the council liaison is to provide a neutral communication channel
between the board or committee, and council.
2. The liaison will bring forward requests from the board or committee to council,
and relay council responses (along with reasons) to the board or committee.
3. The liaison is not empowered to make decisions or commitments of behalf of
council, and is not intended to act as an advocate to council on behalf of the
board or committee to which they are appointed.
4. The liaison is the representative appointed by council. Other members of
council should divert any questions from the members of boards or committees
to the liaison, and should exercise care to not inadvertently insert themselves
into the role of the liaison.
5. To protect the neutrality and objectivity of the liaison, a councillor may only
serve as the liaison to any board or committee for a period of two years.
Page 5 of 5

M iD
DIS TRICT
S TsiOnO F
ON THE FRASER
FILE: FIN.BUD.DOM
Regional Utilities
Finance Department
Memorandum
61
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Director of Finance
Date: June 4, 2009
Subject: Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula
Recommendation
THAT District of Mission council approve the new regional water cost sharing formula as set out
in attached UMC report 32-2009 (Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula); and
THAT District of Mission council approve amending accordingly, the Joint Water Supply and
Distribution and Sewage Treatment Systems "Ownership & Governance Agreement" and
"Operation and Maintenance Agreement".
Background
The attached report entitled "Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula" was presented at the
May 14, 2009, Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission (WSC) meeting and the
following recommendations were approved:
"THAT Report No. UMC 32-2009, dated April 30, 2009, from the Wastewater Planning/Process
Engineer (Abbotsford), regarding the Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula, be received;
THAT the proposed cost sharing strategy for Joint Water Capital projects be approved in
principle by the WSC; and
THAT the WSC recommend the proposed cost sharing strategy be forwarded to Abbotsford and
Mission councils for approval and that the Joint Water Supply and Distribution and Sewage
Treatment Systems "Ownership & Governance Agreement" and the "Operation and
Maintenance Agreement" be amended accordingly."
As a result of the proposed funding increase for regional water capital projects, staff were
requested to discuss with Abbotsford staff ways of defraying escalating project costs and/or
deferring projects. From these discussions, a new joint water capital cost sharing formula was
created and presented to the WSC (see attached report UMC 32-2009 — Joint Water Capital
Cost Sharing Formula) for growth related projects. The highlights of the new formula are as
follows:
• Initial sharing of project costs based on the projected growth in each community that
would be serviceable by each asset;
• Growth projections used in the master planning process would be used as the growth
numbers in the formula with projections being updated every five years in conjunction
with master plan updates;
PAGE 1 OF 2

62
• Annual adjustments to project cost sharing based on actual growth in each community
as measured by peak day water demand over an average of the top 10 peak days each
year; and,
• The new formula would be implemented effective January 1 st, 2010.
Staff believe that the proposed cost sharing formula for growth related (DCC) regional water
capital projects is an improvement in terms of equity over our current cost sharing formula.
However, it should be noted that annual adjustments will be made based on average actual
peak day water demand (over 10 maximum days), which places greater emphasis on water
conservation and related control of demand to lower one's capital costs, and as Mission is
largely unmetered in comparison to Abbotsford which is largely metered, Abbotsford has greater
ability to influence water demand/usage. Strategies should therefore be put in place to lower
peak day demand in Mission.
Summar
Based on a staff recommendation, the WSC is now recommending a revised cost sharing
formula for regional growth related water capital projects. The new formula offers greater equity;
however, it does place great emphasis on controlling water demand to lower one's capital costs.
As per the joint utility agreement between Mission and Abbotsford, each council is to approve
new cost sharing strategies and changes to the "Ownership & Governance Agreement" and the
"Operation and Maintenance Agreement". Therefore, it is recommended that District of Mission
council approve this new Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula, and subsequent
amendments to the Joint Water Supply and Distribution and Sewage Treatment Systems
"Ownership & Governance Agreement" and the "Operation and Maintenance Agreement".
Ken Bjorgaard
GAFINANCEUTILITY TRANSFER \Budget Amendment Reports\Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula 090601.doc
FILE: FIN.BUD.DOM PAGE 2 OF 2
Regional Utilities

11111111/111111111111111111110,
Abbotsford
eftlika,./ Mission
Water & Sewer Services
REPORT
63
To: Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission (WSC)
From: Stella Chiu, P.Eng., Wastewater Planning/Process Engineer
Date: April 30, 2009
Subject: Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula
File: 5710-50
Report No.: UMC 32-2009
UTILITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (UMC) RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report No. UMC 32 -2009, dated April 30, 2009, from Stella Chiu, P.Eng.,
Wastewater Planning/Process Engineer, regarding the Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing
Formula, be received;
2. THAT the proposed cost sharing strategy for Joint Water Capital projects be approved in
principle by the WSC, and
3. THAT the WSC recommend the proposed cost sharing strategy be forwarded to
Abbotsford and Mission Councils for approval and that the Joint Water Supply and
Distribution and Sewage Treatment Systems "Ownership & Governance Agreement" and
the "Operation and Maintenance Agreement" be amended accordingly.
BACKGROUND
The City of Abbotsford and the District of Mission share the same water supply system which
includes the water source, the treatment system, and the transmission mains. At present, water
is supplied to Abbotsford and Mission from three sources: Norrish Creek, Cannel! Lake and
wells. Treatment is provided at individual source before water is conveyed through the
transmission mains to the distribution systems of Abbotsford and Mission.
The cost to upgrade the Joint Water Supply System (to increase capacity due to growth) is
shared between the two municipalities. In the past, the cost sharing of the capital projects was
undertaken on the basis of Average Day Demand (ADD; average water consumption over
365 days) split between Abbotsford and Mission of the previous year. For example, the ADD split
of Abbotsford and Mission in 2007 was 76.01% and 23.99%, respectively. As a result,
Abbotsford was responsible for 76.01% of the total Joint Water Capital Project cost in 2008 and
Mission was responsible for 23,99%.

64
UMC Report No. 32 -2009
Page 2 of 5
DISCUSSION
The WSC requested staff review the current formula due to the following reasons:
• The formula is currently based on historical flow split, but does not take into account the
future growth of the two municipalities. By nature, any Joint Water Capital Project is
initiated to accommodate future growth and is designed based on future growth. The cost
sharing of such should therefore also be based on future growth, but not past historical
flow record.
• The formula is currently based on flow split of Average Day Demand. However, the Joint
Water Capital upgrades are typically designed based on Peak (or Maximum) Day
Demand (maximum water consumption over 24 hours), which may exhibit a different flow
split between Abbotsford and Mission. The cost sharing strategy should therefore be
related to Peak Day Demand, instead of Average Day Demand.
Principles
Staff came up with a strategy to cost share Joint Water Capital Projects that would incorporate
the "future growth" and "Peak Day Demand" concepts. This proposed strategy would
accommodate deviations from the projected growth by each municipality.
Key principles of the proposed strategy are summarized as follows:
• Only the growth-related portion of the Joint Water Capital Projects is proposed to be
shared using this strategy. Non-growth related (e.g. asset replacement, etc) costs would
be shared using the Average Demand Day flow split formula as in the past.
• "Growth" is expressed in terms of "Peak Day Demand", or average of top 10 Peak Day
Demand days of the year (This is still in discussion, and will be further explained later in
the report under "Discussion on Peak Day Demands").
• For each asset, the actual "growth" of Abbotsford and Mission in percentage will be
compared to the projected "growth" documented in the 2008 Water System Optimization
Study (Associated Engineering) in percentage. Actual "growth" (or "Peak Day Demands")
will be recorded via flow meters at key locations. The projected "growth" will be updated
in each Master Plan, which is to be undertaken every 5 years. The updated projected
"growth" will only affect capital projects in the corresponding Master Plan.
The percentage contribution by Abbotsford and Mission changes each year in the
projected "growth". For example, the projected "growth" of Abbotsford and Mission in
2009 is 84.6% and 15.4% respectively; whereas in 2031, the projected "growth" of
Abbotsford and Mission will be 83,5% and 16.5%. (See Appendix A; Flow Projections
Sheet) The year when the designed capacity of the asset ends would be used to select
the appropriate projected "growth" percentage split.

65
UMC Report No. 32 -2009
Page 3 of 5
Principles (Cont'd)
• Revenues would be flowing between Abbotsford and Mission each year based on the
usage of "growth" capacity of the asset by each municipality. For example, the projected
"growth" (in terms of "Peak Day Demand" increase) for an asset is 10 MLD and 80% was
for Abbotsford (8 MLD) and 20% was for Mission (2 MLD). If the actual "growth" of
Abbotsford is 90% (10 MLD) and 10% (1 MLD) for Mission (with a total actual "growth" of
11 MLD), then Abbotsford is to pay Mission for the "over-usage" fee for using an
additional 10% of the asset in that particular year. This will be illustrated further in the
example included in Appendix A.
Framework
If there is no growth, there is no consumption of the asset. There are zero costs to be
contributed by each partner.
The strategy is developed using Microsoft Excel in a spreadsheet format. A step-by-step
example and a copy of the spreadsheets (with 6 capital projects) are included in Appendix A.
The following summarizes the key components of the spreadsheet framework:
• Input Information Sheet (Section A) - Joint Water Capital Project information such as the
growth-related budget, designed capacity, projected year when the capacity ends, and
additional capacity of each asset would be input in this sheet. This information is
automatically transferred to each "Capital Project Sheet' for calculation.
• Annual Flow Information - Input Sheet (Section B) - Peak Day Demands from each year
will be entered in this sheet. Increase in Peak Day Demand compared to the previous
year is automatically calculated in a table. Again, information on this sheet is
automatically transferred to each "Capital Project Sheet" for calculation,
• Flow Projections Sheet (Section C) - This sheet contains the projected Peak Day
Demand information in the 2008 Optimization Study, Accumulated increase in Peak Day
Demand from each municipality and its corresponding percentage split are automatically
calculated and transferred to each "Capital Project Sheet". No further information is
required to be entered in this sheet.
• Capital Project Sheet (Section D) - Each asset will have its own Capital Project Sheet.
This sheet compares the actual "growth" to the projected "growth" of the asset.
Percentage of asset use in the year is calculated by dividing the actual "growth" by the
additional capacity of the asset. A cost for the asset used is then calculated. The actual
"growth" and the projected "growth" of the asset in percentage are then translated to the
used cost of asset associated with growth. An adjustment is then calculated based on the
difference between the actual and the projected "growth" for each year.
• Summary Sheet (Section E) - Adjustments calculated for each asset in each year in the
Capital Project Sheets are summarized in this sheet.

66
UMC Report No. 32 -2009
Page 4 of 5
Benefits
The proposed cost sharing formula is an improvement to the current method and provides the
following benefits:
• Equitable - Joint Water Capital Projects are typically designed to accommodate "future
growth" and based on "peak day demands". This strategy incorporates the concepts of
"future growth" and "peak day demands" and is considered equitable to both
municipalities.
• Promotes Water Conservation — The proposed cost sharing formula calculates the
annual asset usage by each municipality based on "growth". Reducing the "growth"
(expressed in terms of "peak day demands") delays the time when the next asset is
required to come online, and therefore reduces the overall long term capital cost for the
Joint Water System. "Growth" reduction can be achieved by promoting water
conservation.
• Accommodates Deviations from Initial Projections — Annual adjustments will be made
between two municipalities on each asset based on the deviation between the actual
"growth" and the projected "growth".
Peak Day Demands
Historical Peak Day Demands from 2006 to 2008 have been reviewed and are included in
Appendix B. The percentage split between Abbotsford and Mission for (a) Peak Day;
(b) Average of Top 5 Peak Days; (c) Average of Top 10 Peak Days; and (d) Average of Top 20
Peak Days have been calculated and are summarized in the following table:
2006 (%) 2007 (%) 2008 (%)
Abby Mission Abby Mission Abby Mission
(a)Peak Day 80.8 19.2 75.0 25.0 76.9 23.1
(b)Avg of Top 5 Peak Days 81.4 18.6 76.0 24.0 77.1 22.9
(c)Avg of Top 10 Peak Days 79.8 20.2 75.8 24.2 76.0 24.0
(d)Avg of Top 20 Peak Days 79.1 20.6 75.6 24.4 74.9 25.1
Although the upgrades to the Joint Water System are typically designed based on Peak Day
Demand, using a single Peak Day Demand to determine the cost sharing of Joint Water Capital
Projects between the two municipalities can be unreliable, and may not capture the Peak Day
from the two municipalities.
As illustrated in the above table, the percentage split varies from (a) to (c), but in some cases is
relatively stable between (c) and (d). It is therefore proposed to use (c) Average of Top 10 Peak
Days in the cost sharing formula. This will also allow more peaks of both municipalities to be
captured.

67
UMC Report No. 32 -2009
Page 5 of 5
."§_11Qpr
F ild Logistics
A preliminary discussion has been initiated with the City of Abbotsford's auditor on the proposed
strategy with respect to the new Public Sector Accounting Board 3150 regulations (PSAB). No
major concern has been raised by the City's auditor at this point, except some changes to the
present administrative procedures.
Peak Day Demands usually happen during summer time when the weather is hot and water
consumption is high. The calculation of "over-usage" fee and the cashflow between the two
municipalities regarding the Joint Water Capital Projects based on Peak Day Demands is
expected to be completed before year end.
FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS
Initial contributions to the Joint Water Capital Projects by Abbotsford and Mission will be based
on the projected "growth" (Peak Day Demand Flow Split). Annual rebalancing of revenues will
occur for each asset every year based on the actual "growth" by each municipality until the end
of the additional system capacity the asset brings forth.
COMMUNICATION PLAN
Not applicable.
SUMMARY
The proposed cost sharing formula discussed in this report incorporates the concept of "growth"
and "Peak Day Demands". The formula accommodates deviations from the projected "growth"
by each municipality and provides a more accurate method of distributing costs. It is
recommended that the proposed strategy be approved by the WSC for determining the cost
sharing of Joint Water Capital projects from 2010 onwards.
Upon acceptance of this strategy, Staff will expand the spreadsheet framework to all Joint Water
Capital Projects; and will start developing a cost sharing formula for the Joint Sewer Capital
Projects y gi1ilar concepts discussed in this report.
Jim Gdon, P.Eng.
General Manager, Engineering and
Regional Utilities
Stella Chiu;\P„.E, M.Eng., LEED AP
Wastewater Pining/Process Engineer
Rob I ac,
Wastewater and Asset Engineering Manager

68
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED COST SHARING STRATEGY FOR JOINT WATER
CAPITAL PROJECTS

City of Abbotsford / District of Mission
Joint Water Capital Program
INPUT INFORMATION
Item
Description
Growth-Related
Budget
Designed
Capacity (MLD)
Year when
Capacity Ends
Projects Planned
Year
Corresponding Maximum
Day Demand (MLD) of Additional System Total System
System Capacity (MLD) Capacity (MLD)
09-1 Bell Road Soda Ash Facility (Norrish Creek pH Adjustment) $23,000 140 2021 2008 75 65 140
09-2 Mill Lake Production Wells (25 MLD) $838,0(10 25 2013
Madura Road Transmission Main Upgrade - Gladwin Road
2008 120 25 145
09-3 to U .er Maclure (Design $901,000 200 2031 2008 154 - 48 200
09-4 Gladwin, Bevan to Marshall $25,000 25 2013 2008 120 25 145
09-5 New Master Plan $262,500 2014
Norrish Transmission Main Twinning (Preliminary Design,
2008 120 109 229
09-6 Environmental Review) $1,500,000 140 2021 2008 75 65 140
TOTAL $3,549,500

(-4
City of Abbotsford / District of Mission
Joint Water Capital Program
Annual Flow Information - INPUT
Equivalent Population
'ADD (tic/d) Abby
Mission
‘MDD (1.../c/d) Abby
Mission
570 L/c/d
550 L/c/d
895 lic/d
1250 L/cld
Peaking Factors
MD:AD
MD:AD
F
ESTIMATED EQUIVALENT
MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND (MLD)
POPULATION
Year
Date Total Abby Mission Total Abby Mission
2008 7/16/2008 119.8 92.2 27.6
2009 123.0 95.0 28.0
2010 123.0 95,0 28.
2011 123.0 95.0 28_0
2012 123.0 95.0 28.0
20'13 123.0 95.0 280
2014 123 0 95.0 28.0
2015 123.0 95.0 28.0
2016 123.0 95.0 28.0
2017 123.0 95.0 28.0
2018 123.0 95.0 • 28.0
2019 123.0 95.0 28,0
2020 123.0 95.0 28.0
2021 123.0 95.0 28.0
2022 123.0 95.0 28,0
2023 123.0 95.0 28.0
2024 123,0 95.0 28.0
2025 123.0 95.0 28.0
2026 123.0 95.0 28.0
2027 123,0 95,0 28.0
2028 123.0 Q5.0 28.0
2029 123.0 95.0 28.0
2030 123,0 95,0 28.0
2031 123 0 950 28.0
MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND INCREASE
(MLD)
Total Abby Mission
- - -
3.2 2.8 0.4
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0

City of Abbotsford ! District of Mission
Joint Water Capital Program
Flow (Equivalent Population) Projections (From 2008 Optimization Study)
.
Maximum Day Damand (MLD)
Year Total Abby Mission
2008 119.8 92,2 27.7
2009 143.1 111.9 31.3
2010 166.4 131.6 34.8
2011 189.7 151.3 38.4
2012 213.0 171.0 42.0
2013 220,8 .177.6 432
2014 228.6 1842 44.4
2015 236,4 190.8 45.6
2016 244.2 197.4. 46:8
2017 252.0 204.0 48.0
2018 258.7 209.5 49.2
2019 265.3 214,9 •504
2020 272.0 220.4 51.6
2021 278.7 225.9 52.8
2022 285.3 231,..3 54,0
2023 292,0 236.8 55.2
2024 298.7 242.3 .56.4
2025 505.3 247.7 • 57.6
2026 312.0 253.2 bri a
2027 318.7 258.7 60.0
2028 325.3 2E14,1 61.2
2029 332.0 269.6- 62.4 .
2030 338.7 275.1 63.6
2031 345.3 280.5 64.8
2032 352.0 286.0 68.0
ACCUMULATED INCREASE IN MAXIMUM
DAY DEMAND (MLD)
PERCENTAGE
Total Abby Mission Abby Mission Year
- - 2008
23.3 19.7 3.6 84.62% 15.38% 2009
46.6 39.4 7.2 84.62% 15.38% 2010
69.9 59.1 10.7 84.62% 15.38% 2011
93.2 78.8 14.3 84.62% 15.38% 2012
101.0 85.4 15.5 84.62% 15.38% 2013
108.8 92.0 16.7 84.62% 15.38% 2014
116.6 98.6 17.9 84.62% 15.38% 2015
124.4 105.2 19.1 84.62% 15.38% 2016
132.2 111.8 20.3 84.62% 15.38% 2017
138.8 117.3 21.5 84.49% 15.51% 2018
145.5 122.8 22.7 84.38% 15.62% 2019
152.2 128.2 23.9 84.27% 15.73% 2020
158.8 133.7 25.1 84.18% 15.82% 2021
165.5 139.2 26.3 84.09% 15.91% 2022
172.2 144.6 27.5 84.01% 15.99% 2023
178.8 150.1 28.7 83.93% 16.07% 2024
185.5 155.6 29.9 83.86% 16.14% 2025
192.2 161.0 31.1 83.80% 16.20% 2026
198.8 166.5 32.3 83.74% 16.26% 2027
205.5 172.0 33.5 83.68% 16.32% 2028
212.2 177.4 34.7 83.63% 16.37% 2029
218.8 182.9 35.9 83.58% 16.42% 2030
225.5 188.4 37.1 83.53% 16.47% 2031
232.2 193.8 38.3 8349% 16.51% 2032
*Note:
Maximum Day Demand:
- Maximum Day Demand Projections for 2012, 2017, 2032 in Optimization Study (2008) have been used to interpolate the projection between years in a linear fashion.
- Actual maximum day demand in 2008 have been used.
Average Day Demand:
- Back-calculated trom Maximum Day Demand and Peaking Factors.
Equivalent Population
- Back-calculated from Average Day Demand and Per Capita ADD (1./c/d).

A I B I C 1 13 I E I F I 8 H
I i K 1 L I Kt i N
!tern No 09-1
El Project
Bell Road Soda Ash Facility (Norrish Creek pH Adjustment)
111
ail Budget
$23,000
Projected Year when Capacity is used up 2021
Additional Asset capacity
65 MLD
Total System Capacity
140 MLD
IYear
Total
A Growth M Growth Growth
Plan A% Plan M% (MLD) (MLD) (MLD)
Asset use
% Cost used A Actual M Actual A Pin M Pin Adj A Adj M
contributions
(2008 Optimization Study) 84.18% 15.82% $19,361 $3,639
2009 2.8 0.4 3.2 4.95°/. $1,139 $1,001 $138 $959 MO -$42 $42
III
2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
11111 2011 O.() 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
El
2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00°/0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
III 2013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
16 2014 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $O $0 $O $G $0
17 2015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $() $0
S 2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 % $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$ 0
I
2018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
21 2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
S
11
2021 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0
FS 2022 0.0 0 0 . G.0 ' Gi00% " St' $O - $O $0 - $0 so. $0
1111 2023 ' , ' 0:0 - 0 0 0,0 .. '.000%. , $0$ $0 , . sa ...$o . - . , . ., $0. .. $0
2024 '''. 0;) 3 0 :) o .. mos, -,T-.c, SO 3(1 $O • $O 10. $0
-2025 - 0 u 0 u . 0 1 M00% Sr! $11 $1 $0 ' tO , . $0' •SC3
' 8 2026 C.r) OS) '0 0- . ' - ; , '11:00%, -$0 SO $o SO, SR $O.
. $0
29
2027 n ;,-.1 0 0 0.0 . -
. AMYX , -.
SO
TO
SO . , $0 . ,$0,
El
2028 0.0 0 0 0 0; 4.00% $0
.t.,0
$O ' 86
$o.- - . . $O SO $o
ra - 2029 •0.0.. ...,i3,C3.... - .- . 3.0 .- -0,.00% '..• -. SI,I . . . • .Ui: . -, VI ., -
' $0.--
... 0 . $0 $0
32 2030 0. 0 - 0.0 ' - 0.0 0..00% - - 'SO - . - • $0 . ' '$0 • ' $0 .
. $0 - $0 $0
Joint'ater Capital Project - Cost Sharing 09-1 5%6/20095:0i PM

Item No. 09-2
Project
Mill Lake Production Wells (25 MLD)
Budget $838,000
Projected Year when Capacity is used up 2013
Additional Asset Capacity 25
MLD
Total System Capacity with Asset 145
MLD
Year
Initial contributions '
(2008 Optimization Study)
A Growth M Growth Growth Asset use
Plan A% Plan M% (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) % Cost used A Actual M Actual A Pin M Pin Adj A Adj M
84.62% 15,38%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016'
2017':
2018
2018
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026 ..
2927
2028 s:
2029 •
2030
.
.
.
.
,
. . .
•
$709,096 $128,904
2.8 04 3.2 12.88% $107,934 $94.862 $13,073 $91,332 $16..603 -$3.530 $3,530
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% -$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 • '0.0 . - ' .0,0 . . 0,00% $0. $0 .$0 ' ". '$0 . $0 $0 $0
0.0 - 0.0 0,0 0 -,J0'.1-, $0 $0 • - $0 so .- $0.. $0 - SO
0.0 0.0- 0 U 0 ,..lry-, $0 $0 , $0 so.... $0:.. $0
0.0 0,,,-t GI.,.) .0 0094 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . - $0 . $0
0.0 i.t.0 13 tt 0 00% $9 $0 $0 $0 - $0 $0 $0
9.0 o, 0 c,o :),o(),••, $0 $0 $0 '.1•B $9 . $0 $0
0 . 0 0 '1, ).0 0.0y./6 $0 .,0 $o so $o $o so
on. , o 0.0 0:00% $0 $t.1 - $0 0- $0 $0- $0
0,0-. ' -0.0 0.o 0.00% $0 ' ' $ $0 $0 ' $0 . , $0 . so
tip 0.0 o 0 0,0o% -$o So $0 ' $0 .. $0 So . $0
00:' 1) 0 00 03U„ $9 ..$0 $0, $0 $0 .-$0 $0
0:9 0 0 Q 0 C 003, $0 $0 $0 - $0 - $0 $0
'0,0 0.0. !) 0 0.00% $O, $0 $0 . $0 $0 - $0 $0
0,0 0:0
.
0.0 O. (P
$9
$9
$0 $0 - - $0 - $0. - . $0
0,0 , 0 n
0.0 ∎) tyryo $0 $0
SO
$0 $0 - - $0
$0
,00 •. - 04 -.:: 0:0:.-00.00%. sty... i$0.. -.$0'. - $0 ..-'$0 $o $0
0.0 " - 0;0 • 0.0 .0.00%' - $0 - $0 - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Joint Water Capital Protect - Cost Sharing 09-2 5/6120095:01 PM

Item No.
Project
Budget
Projected Year when Capacity is used up
Additional Asset Capacity
Total System Capacity with Asset
09-3
Madura Road Transmission Main Upgrade - Gladwin Road to Upper Maclure (Design)
$901,000
2031
46 MLD
200 MLD
A Growth M Growth Growth Asset use
Year Plan A% Plan M% (MLD) (MLD) (MLD) % Cost used A Actual M Actual A Pln M Pin Adj A Adj M
Initial contributions
(2008 Optimization Study) 83.53% 16.47% $752,640 $148,360
2009 2.8 0.4 3.2 7.00%, $63,070 $55,431 $7,639 $52,685 $10,385 -$2,746 $2,746
2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2011 • 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2012 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2014 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2015 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2016 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2017 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2019 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2021 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2022 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2023 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2024 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2025 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2026 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2027 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2028 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2029 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2030 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Joint Water Capital Project - Cost Sharing 09-3 516/20095:01 PM

Item No. 09-4
Project
Gladwin, Bevan to Marshall
Budget $25,000
Projected Year when Capacity is used up 2013
Additional Asset Capacity 25
MLD
Total System Capacity with Asset 145
MLD
1Year
Initial contributions
(2008 Optimization Study)
A Growth M Growth
Plan A% Plan M% (MLD) (MLD)
84.62% 15.38%
2009 2.8
2010 0.0
2011 0.0
2012 0.0
2013 0.0
201 4 0.0
2015 0.0
2016 0.0
2017 • 0,0
2018 0,0
2019 0.0
2020 0.0
2021 ,- 0.0
2022 0,0 -
2023 0.0
2024' 0.0
2025 0.0
2026 ' 0-0 '
2027 0.0
2026 0,0
2029
2030 0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
03) ''
'10
0 L.,
0,0
1.1 l'i
0 0
0 ti
') n
t` (2
c 0
0.0
U,0 '
0,0
0,G
0,0..
-0 0 •
0.0 -
Growth
(MLD)
Asset use
% Cost used A Actual M Actual A Pln M Pin Adj A Adj M
$21.154 $3,846
3.2 12.88% $3,220 $2,830 $390 $2,725 $495 -$105 $105
0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
'off mom. $o'$0 .$0 ' $0 ",. , ' $o $0 $0
'
-
.
9.0 0.00% . $O $0 $0 $(1 $0 $0. $0
1. 0 0.0094) '$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . . $0
0 0 0.00% $Q :;','•0 ',.-.O SC $0 $O- ' 10'
C 0 ' 0 dO7o" SO .$.0 :SO ::,C) $0 .$0 , $0
0.0 0,00% $0 $0 $1; $,'i $0 $0 $0
0 0 0 00bk SO $',7, $0 $0 $0 10 $0
n 0 0.00% $0 s0 $0 Sr, $0 S0 $0
0 n 000% $0 T.,,J $0 $0 SO $0 ' $0
0 0 0.00% SO `..,1) $0 $0 SO - $0 $0
0 0 - 0.00% $0 ::0 $0 $0 $0 .$0- $0
0 0 0.00% $0 $.. $0 $0 . $0 .10 , $0
0,0 0 00% $0 $0 $0 $0 , $0 . $0 $0
0 0 0.00%. 50 50 ' $0 $0 $0. •50 $0
C 0 0,00%•. , _ $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 . 'SO $0
-150 :.$0- $0' SO $0
'.0.0 . 0.00% .S,0 ' "$0 ' $0 • $0 $0 $0 $0
Joint Water Capital Project - Cost Sharing 09-4 5/6120095:01 PM

Item No. 09-5
Project
New Master Plan
Budget $262,500
Projected Year when Capacity is used up 2014
Additional Asset Capacity 109 MLD
Total System Capacity with Asset 229 MLD
A Growth
Year
Plan A% Plan M% (MLD)
Initial contributions
(2008 Optimization Study) 84.62% 15 38
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016:
2017
2018. -
2019 .
2020
2021
2022 -
2023:
2024
2025
2026
2027
.2028
2029
2030
`0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00;
0.0
M Growth
(MLD)
Growth
(MLD)
Asset use
% Cost used A Actual M Actual A Pin M Pln Adj A Adj M
•
•
•
.
.
: . .
•
•
.
. •
,
$222,121 .40,374
0.4 3.2 2.95% $7,755 $0 $0 $6,562 $1,193 $6,562 $1,193
0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
'0.0
:0.0' :.0.00%-
$O
$O: $0
0:0 OA
JO 00% SO • :•:$0 •••: .• $0. $0. • $0
-
.••••0k 0.0 0.00% $0 10 $0 •-••••$0-. So- $O
0,0 0,0 Q-o0,%.-: $0 $0 •$0 10 $0 ; :•$0•• - $0
0.0 0.0 0,00% 10 $0 •• $0 $0 :• •: $O• $O
0,0 0.0 0.00% $0 wa • $o $0. •, •. so $0
as) 0-0 - 0.00%
$...1
SO- •1$0
• •• $0 $0
0.0 0,0 0.00% $ ail SO $0 So. $0 so • •••. $0 •• •• • $0
C.0 0.0 0.00% 50 a' .
• , $0•• $0
o
0.0 0,00't,
$0
$0
0 0
n
,T0 so so $0 $0 $0
0:0
0.0
0,0
0.0
a 00=k,
0001,,o
$0
50 SO efj
so
$.°
$0
$0
••••••• $0 7.::. •
.50'
$0 .
$0
0.0 0.00% 50 $0 TO .F.:0 $0 .$0. $0
• 0.0 0;0 0.00% - o •••'so "SO • $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 SO. . .40 • • • $0 . • $0 $0 $0
Ja -11 Water Capital Protect - Cost Sharma 09-5 5:6;20095:01 PM

Item No. 09-6
Project
Nornsh Transmission Main Twinning (Preliminary Design, Environmental Review)
Budget $1,500,000
Projected Year when Capacity is used up 2021
Additional Asset Capacity 65
MLD
Total System Capacity with Asset 140
MLD
Year Plan A% Plan M%
Initial contributions
(2008 Optimization Study)
84.18% 15.82%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2026
2026
202T
: 2028 : , :r
2029'
2030
A Growth
(MLD)
M Growth
(MLD)
Growth Asset use
(MLD) % Cost used A Actual M Actual A Pin M Pin Adj A Adj M
, '
S1 262,666 237,334
2.8 0.4 3.2 4.95% $74,308 $65,308 $9,000 $62,551 $11,757 -$2,757 $2,757
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $O
0,0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0,0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0 00 0.0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- 0.0- .. . ,0.00% . $0 SO:- .. '40 ., . $0 $0 $0
-ILO , ' '. 9,0.--- - - ..'0.00% s SO , . ',', ' , SO - . '-„. $0'. r. $0 $0 $0
0.0 _ r C L) 0 0 - °mix, - 1 ,1 _ So $0 $0 $O- - $0
. O.° ,-e a -.1,0 ' -os00% $ a - .$a $0 $0 .$0 $0
0.0 (,() YA)0%
$ 0 ...:' ".
v
$1: $0 $O $O
- 0,0 0 0 () 0 (1.00% .,,.) To TO $0 $0 $O $0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% $0 _,L/ $t1 SO - $0 $0 $0
' ' 0i 0:i ii' '-. 0J00$$ - :-.!•.$0 -:-. .. ii :--40.'-.• '. -.)' - SU ' --.::..-$0 $O
0.0 - ' ' 0.00% ' ' $0 - - ' $0 ' ' - $0 ' $0 ' $o ' $0 SO
Joint Water Capital Project - Cost Sharing 09-6 516/20095:01 PM

City of Abbotsford / District of Mission
Joint Water Capital Program
Cost Sharing Summary
Project item No.
Year
Capital Project Budget
(Growth-Related) 09-01 09-02 09-03 09-04 09-05 09-06
TOTAL
(Mission to Abby)
2009 3 549,500 -$42 - 3, 30 -$2,746 -$105 $6,562 -$2,757 -$2,619
2010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2011 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2017 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2023 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2027 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2029 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2030 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

79
APPENDIX B
HISTORICAL PEAK DAY DEMANDS (2006 to 2008)

City of Abbotsford
Joint Water Capita Projects
2006 High Consumption Days
-Total Syste 1-0 ass
!Total System Peaks Ranking
Abbotsford Peaks
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
Date
i 11 7/22/2006
2 7 23/20 '
Max Day
Demand (MLD) Abby Mission '
26
26
alliaraMinalli
11IIIIIIIIall
7/20/2006 22
i s 7/2412006 120
' 7 7/26/2006
9
91
IIII I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I 1al I 1
1 0 7/25/2006 116 89
26
11 6/29/2006 115 93 23
12 8/3/2006 115 90 25
. 131 8/27/2006 114 87 27
141 8/6/2006 112 89 25
9/
Date
Max Day
Demand
(MLD)
1
1
0
9
7 2
1 7 21/20 26
2 7/2 2O6 96
1 7 23/2
6
14 7/19/2006
5 7/4/2006 26
16 9/2/2006 9 5
7 7/8/2006
18 8/26/2006 25
9
20
6/30/2006 25
8/19/2006 25
— Percentage Split ot Abby/Mission based on:
(1) Peak Day 137 80.8% 19.2%
(2) Avg of Top 5 Peak Days 130 814% 18.6%
(3) Avg of Top 10 Peak Days 124 79.8% 20.2%
(4) Avg of Top 20 Peak Days 119 79.1% 20.9%

2006 Joint Water System Demand (MLD)
160.00 r
20.00 i
0.00
CO
CO
CD
0 0 0
CO
0
CO
0 0 0
0
0
0
'..N 0
!-N cv
0

City of Abbotsford
Joint Water Capital. Projects
2007 Hign Consumption Days
!Total System Peaks
.:.
i
,..
Ea
4
MI
6
Max Day
Date
Demand (MLD) Abby Missio
7/1212007 139 104
11/907 135 101 34
8/2/2007 121 92
7/10/2007 119 90
29
7/15/2007 115 55
7/5/2007 115 87 28
7 8/15/2007 115 86 29
7/14/2007 83 29
8/16/2007 11111M111111 86 26
7/13/2007 111 26
11 7/62007 111 85 26
12 7/712007 111 35 2 5
13 /2007 110 al 29
141 7116/2007 'f 1 C: 32 28
SE
15
6
' 1C'
8/30/2007 ,` 109 83 _ ._.... 26
•...;,.:..014
:
z 11--, . ,
—...
1 _-,) ,
Nii431)" c... . .
l',`ZFROC,-
19-
90 tillardrftr Ira
-
•,,..
_,
Total System Peaks Ranking:
Abbots ord Peaks
7 2007 4
15 1li
16 7/16/2007
92
0
7
6
5
85
8
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
'""Percentage Split of Abby/Mission based on:
(1) Peak Day 139 75.0% 25.0%
(2) Avg of Top 5 Peak Days 124 76.0% 24.0%
(3) Avg of Top 10 Peak Days 119 75.8% 24.2%
(4) Avg of Top 20 Peak Days 114 75.6% 24.4%

2007 JoInt Water System Demand (MLD)
160.00
140,00
46
20
120.00
40.00
20.00
ki
PLL
0.00
0
0
LU
co
N-
o
0
N
CD
N-
0
06
1--- t,---
0 0
0 0
C.\4 (N3
---
CY, ,--,
--,
r— r-- r--
0 0 0
0 0
N N N
7 ---q."- T7.1-
csj :,-) •=i-
N.-
0
N
00
N
Date
-Total System Rows (MLD)
Abby Demand (MLD) -
-Mission Demand (MLD) -
---Daily Temperature

City of Abbotsford
Joint Water Capital Projects
2008 Hign Consurnotion Days
Totai System Peaks
Total System Peaks Ranking:
Ab.bots orcl a
6-10
11-15
16-20
Date
Max Day
Demand (IVILD) Abb Mission
7/16/2008 120 92 28
2 7/24/2008 120 93 26
3 7/17/2008 119 91 28
4 8/7/2008 117 89 29
8/6/2008 113 85 28
6
8/14/2008 112 83 29
i 7 7/1/2008 110 84 26
8 6/29/2008 109 81 2
11110
10
7 2J200 2 26
6/30/2008 107 28
8/15/2008 106 i 78 28
14 8/16/200b 10E 75 29
104 ; '-,
8513WIREje ,
. .:'.-
INF
Date
1 7/24/2008
Max Day -
Demana
MILD)
3
2 / ' 9 92
3 7/17/2008
4 /7/200
5
6
8
9
0
1
2
13
14
3
2
7/13/200 79
7/ 5/200879
7/20/2008 i 7
8/15/20;i:
krOZrZwincri47
7/20/2008 28
2
ac 8/30 2 2
lag
1111‘
2/28/20
28
8/10/2006 2
7/' 0 2
- "Percentage Split of Abby/Mission based on:
(1) Peak Day 120 76.9% 23.1%
(2) Avg of Top 5 Peak Days 117 77.1% 22.9%
(3) Avg of Top 10 Peak Days 113 76.0% 24.0%
(4) Avg of Too 20 Peak Days 109 74.9% 25.1%

2008 Joint Water System Demand (MLD)
160.00
140.00 I
120.00
14 6. -1.0ost rkvin 149)
40
20
0
0
100.00
80.00
0 60.00
I ANAV"`i/Le-Wv".\11\1\- Pv\-;
40.00
20.00
i
0.00 .--
co
0.1
r
ca cc,
co
0 0 0 0 co co
0
co
0
co 0
co co co no
0 0 0
c‘,1 0
N C\3
0 0 0
0
N c
0
N 0
N 0
N
0
N
0 0 r.."-:
-(- 4 4 : \I C‘i
FNI CZ.,-5 it-)-
c".1
,ct in to
-(1- 3,
Zi3

86
Memo
FILE: FIN.AUD.VAG
Annual Report
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Director of Finance
Date: June 10, 2009
Subject: 2008 Annual Report
Report
The District's 2008 Annual Report, which includes our 2008 Audited Financial Statements, is
enclosed. Per the Community Charter, Council is to consider its Annual Report at a public
meeting. The Report also needs to be sent to the Ministry by June 30 th , 2009.
The highlights of the District's financial position and results are noted in the "Report from
Director of Finance" on page 3 of the Annual Report. Staff will once again be submitting our
Annual Report to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for consideration for an
award in financial reporting. Our auditor, BDO Dunwoody LLP, will be in attendance at the
meeting to address any questions, including those related to the audit reports within the Annual
Report.
Ken Bjorgaard
G:\FINANCE\Annual Report\2008 Annual Report\2008 annual report cover memo.doc
PAGE 1 OF 1

District of Mission, British Columbia
2008 Annual Report
(Includes Financial Statements for the year
ended December 31, 2008)
87

88
This document was prepared by:
District of Mission
Finance Department
8645 Stave Lake Street
Mission, B.C.
V2V 4L9
www.mission.ca
Photo Credits:
Photographs graciously provided
by the various departments of the
District of Mission.
Canadian
Award for
Financial
Reporting
Presented to
District of Mission
British Columbia
For its Annual
Financial Report
for the Year Ended
December 31, 2007
A Canadian Award for Financial Reporting
is presented by the Government of Finance Officers
Association of the United States and Canada
to municipalities whose annual financial reports
achieve the high program standards . for Canadian
Government accounting and financial reporting.
President
Afe,c/gm
Executive Director
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United
States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Canadian Award for
Financial Reporting to the District of Mission for its annual
financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.
The Canadian Award for Financial Reporting program was
established to encourage municipal governments throughout
Canada to publish high quality financial reports and to provide
peer recognition and technical guidance for officials preparing
these reports.
In order to be awarded a Canadian Award for Financial
Reporting, a government unit must publish an easily readable
and efficiently organized annual financial report, whose
contents conform to program standards. Such reports should
go beyond the minimum requirements of generally accepted
accounting , principles and demonstrate an effort to clearly
communicate the municipal government's financial picture,
enhance an understanding of financial reporting by municipal
governments, and address user needs.
A Canadian Award for Financial Reporting is valid for a period
of one year only. We believe our current report continues to
conform to the Canadian Award for Financial Reporting
program requirements, and as such we are submitting it to the
GFOA for consideration for the 2008 award.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

89
2008 Annual Report
District of Mission
British Columbia, Canada
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2008
GFOA Award Recipient for
Excellence in Financial Reporting
Prepared by:
Finance Department
District of Mission
8645 Stave Lake Street
Mission, B.C.
Telephone: 604-820-3717
Fax: 604-826-1363
www.mission.ca
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Community Profile
The District of Mission, one of the faster growing communities in the province, is an urban community
with a multi-cultured population of approximately 36,500 residents. Situated on a hillside located on
the north bank of the mighty Fraser River, Mission still maintains its small town friendliness and
charm.
Located within the expansive boundaries of Mission are many trails
of various physical levels and time durations for the hiking
enthusists.
Mrirririr
_44
90
Many of Mission's scenic backdrops have been featured in films,
movies of the week, mini-series and a variety of television
commercials. Mission is becoming a favourite spot for Fishin'
Canada to film sturgeon fishing episodes.
•
Sturgeon Fishing on the Fraser River . _
Mission, with Smokey the Bear in attendance, celebrated the 50th year
anniversary of its Tree Farm Licence. Celebrations started off with a
Community Tree Planting Day attended by approximately 100 people in
Steelhead, continued at the Children's Festival held at Heritage Park and a
logger sport demo provided by forestry staff during the Canada Day
celebrations. Final anniversary celebrations were held at the Celebration of
Community event at Heritage Park, recognizing past and present employees.
Our community helped celebrate BC's 150 th Birthday when the MV Native
paddlewheeler, made an overnight stop as part of the BC 150 Gold Rush
Paddlewheel event. As part of the CP Spirit of 150 Rail Tour a vintage steam
locomotive made a stop in Mission for a few hours to allow our citizens the
opportunity to view historic displays and interact with the costumed
performers.
Local hockey fans were elated as we welcomed our new junior hockey team the Mission Icebreakers.
Originally from Hope, the Icebreakers played their inaugural season in Mission in 2008. The Mayor
was on-hand to "drop the puck" at the opening home game in Mission.
In addition to the special events noted above taking place during 2008, our annual calendar of events
was full and included Mission Concert & Recital Society presentations; Mission Farmer's Market
(running from May through to September); Mission Raceway; Soap Box Derby; Fraser Valley Bald
Eagle Festival and the ever popular Candlelight Parade to start off the Christmas season.
In addition, Fraser River Heritage Park was booked most of the spring and summer with the Easter
Egg Hunt; Children's Annual Festival; Old Car Sunday; Canada Day Celebrations; Twilight Concert
Series running from June through to August; and the Celebration of Community and Illuminaria
Lantern Festival in September.
There are a variety of family-based events/activities taking place in Mission all year long. These
activities have helped to build a desirable community to live and/or work in. With the West Coast
Express train and expanded train bus services, commuting to and from Mission has been made even
easier.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

91
Table of Contents
Introduction and Overview
Mayor's Message 1
Chief Administrative Officer's Message 2
Report from the Director of Finance 3 - 4
Mayor and Council 5
Organizational Chart 6
Mission Statement and Service Standards 7
2008 Objectives, Measures and Accomplishments 8 - 10
2009 / 2010 Objectives and Measures 11 -14
Departmental Reports 15 - 24
2008 Business Awards of Excellence and 2008 Community Service Award Winners 25
Financial Statements
Table of Contents 26
Auditors' Report 27
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position 28
Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities 29
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 30
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements 431 - 40
Supplementary Financial Information 41 - 65
District of Mission Development Corporation Financial Statements 66 - 71
Statistical Information
Table of Contents 72
Demographic Statistics 73
Building / Development Statistics 74
Financial Statistics 75 -78
Property Taxation and Assessment Statistics 79 -80
2008 Permissive Tax Exemptions 81
Miscellaneous Statistics 82
Map 83
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary Introduction and Overview 92
Mayor's Message
As tour Maor awd ow behaLf of tour Couh,cil, a vu.
Leased to evtolorse awd support this anh,u.al, report which
outLi,t/Les the District's fi.h,ah,cisa, results for 2002 awd
the acc,ompLLskinkehts of c,ouh,cil, staff, awd the
covu.vu.uwttt iw geweral, over the past tear.
in, 2002, the mi,ssi,ow awd Abbots ford cewtral,
metropol.itaw Area was recogvazed as the fastest
growi,h,g area Lin, -B.riti,sk coLuvu.bia. Although this
growth provided couwci.l. with chatlein,ges,
remaLintol focused awd achieved most of its 2002 goals awd objectives. These goats awd
objectives 1,h,cLuded LmpLemehti,wg pLai&h.Lin,g processes aLmed at establ,Lski,h,g mi.ssLow as a
covupLete covu.vu.uwttt with abuvolaht ecovuowdc, social, recreati,owal, cultural., heritage,
ewvirowvu.ewtaL, pubLiz health awd sa fett opportuhaLes. i believe that these accomplIslimeiAts
have coh,trLbuted trekkeinziou.s value towards maIZLVI.g Dm of the most desirable
com.mui&iti,es tw British CoLuvu.bLa, 2 covu.vu.uwttt that we cah, GILL be proud to call home.
L-oo,i,wgi,wto the future, couh,cil has agai.es estabLLsked goals awd objectives for the intxt three
ears. while the gLobal, ecovovvdc situatLoh, is currewttt challewsi,wg, couwail coh,ti,h.Ltes to
Loolq, forward with ca utious opti.vulsm. cotsinzi.L's three-ear strategic priorities Lin,cLude
co vutt vt,i,ti,vto with comreheiA,sive p La h,h,LK,e awd 1, mp Le vue htati,o h, of the d ow htow 1/1, awd
waterfroht redeveLopmewts, expawdiwg ecowovvti,c deveLopmewt, Lmprovi-vLs health care services,
provLdi-wg for sefraors', tooth, awd cultural. 1,14,frastructure, awd establ,i,sgwg a Lowe term
visi,ow for missi.ow.
I am cowfi-oletAt that tour cou.h,ci,L, wori,h,g together with the ewti,re covu.vu.uwitt through
extewsi.ve coh,sultati,ve processes cah,posi-ti.veLij move forward the above outLi,h,eoi priorities awd
Izetp Missiow Dw the cohti,hm.ed path of reintwaL awd prosperit. It Ls the spirit of voLuhteerLsm
that builds great commuhaLes awd therefore eh,cou.rage tom to get i,h,voLved, eveh, Lin, a svu.aLL
rat, to work towards GI strowger awd better M1SSLOK,.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
1

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Chief Administrative Officer's Message
Introduction and Overview
93
This annual report contains a summary of the various departmental activities for 2008, and a progress
report on council's goals and objectives. The District of Mission completed a number of its goals in
2008 and progressed on others.
A new official community plan which will lay the framework for development over the next five to ten
years in Mission was adopted in early 2008. Work also progressed on a number of general planning
areas, including a major environmental constraint study for the waterfront area, completion of the public
hearings and bylaw adoptions for the Southwest Mission Phase One Development and preparatory
work for the Spirit Squares project to be located on Harbour Avenue.
In relation to environmental efforts, the District of Mission adopted, in principle, an environmental
charter in 2008. There are plans to implement the charter in 2009, with designated budget funds.
In the area of social development, the District has continued to work on implementation of the social
development plan. After being in operation for three years, Mission Restorative Resolutions was given
approval from the Ministry of Attorney General's Criminal Justice Branch to receive referrals from
Crown Counsel.
The District continued to pursue economic development activities, to ensure continued economic
prosperity, by preparing an employment land strategy, by promoting the existing Silverdale Industrial
Park and by planning initiatives in the downtown and waterfront areas.
The forestry department, in conjunction with economic development staff, undertook a feasibility study
to examine the potential of creating a managed recreation area along the west side of Stave Lake.
2008 also marked the 50th year for our municipal forest and various events were held to commemorate
this anniversary.
Public safety efforts saw the RCMP undertake an aggressive and successful campaign against illegal
drug operations in the community. A public safety inspection team was also established to address life
safety activities within residential areas.
Mission Fire Rescue enhanced its radio communications by creating an emergency channel that allows
for communication with BC Ambulance and police. Five tactical channels were also added to allow
Mission the same channels as all other departments dispatched by the Fraser Valley regional fire
dispatch.
In looking forward to 2009, council has established a three-year strategic plan, to guide their major
priorities. Council and staff will be focused on achieving this plan over the next three years. I am proud
to represent all of the staff that serve the residents of Mission and I know that each and every staff
member of the District of Mission works very hard to ensure that the high quality of life that Mission
residents' enjoy is maintained.
Glen Robertson, OAO
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
2

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary Introduction and Overview 94
June 12, 2009
Report from the Director of Finance
Your Worship and Members of Council:
I am pleased to present the District of Mission's 2008 Annual Report, which includes an
organizational overview as well as statistical and financial information (includes the District's audited
2008 financial statements). The District of Mission Development Corporation's financial position and
results are a part of the District's overall consolidated financial statements as presented. Separate
Development Corporation financial statements are also provided.
The 2008 financial statements have been prepared by District staff pursuant to section 167 of the
Community Charter and are the responsibility of management. Management's responsibilities also
include maintaining a system of internal controls for financial statement reliability purposes and for
the protection of the District's assets. The financial statements have been prepared in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles for local governments, as established by the Public
Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
BDO Dunwoody LLP, the District's independent external auditors, have examined the District's
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and in their opinion,
as expressed in the enclosed audit reports, the District's financial statements present fairly the
financial position of the District and the results of its operations.
Financial Results and Position
The District's accumulated General Operating Fund surplus increased by $273,966 in 2008. This
increase was the net result of a surplus of $308,109 and approved surplus spending of $34,143.
The 2008 surplus is generally attributable to higher than anticipated interest earnings on
investments, recovery of staff costs from an insurance claim and salary/benefit savings from vacant
positions in various departments. The District's accumulated General Operating Fund surplus as at
December 31, 2008, was $2,407,159. Water Operating Fund and Sewer Operating Fund
accumulated surpluses were unchanged from the previous fiscal year, and as at December 31,
2008, were at $830,048 and $697,701, respectively.
A loss of $195,020 was incurred in forestry operations in 2008 as a result of deteriorated market
conditions which resulted in lower logging volumes, lower prices and unsold inventory. This loss was
absorbed by the Municipal Forestry Reserve, leaving the Reserve balance at $754,800 (takes into
account the 2008 loss) as at December 31, 2008. The Municipal Forestry Reserve is in place to
safeguard against downward cycles in the forest industry.
The District's overall accumulated operating surplus/reserve account balances increased by
$1,630,131 in 2008, to $10,900,331 as at December 31, 2008. Statutory reserve fund balances
increased by $2,725,533 to $15,760,118 at the end of 2008, while restricted revenue (development
cost charges and the neighbourhood parkland reserve fund) balances increased by $1,654,324 to
$7,235,682 at the end of 2008.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
3

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary Introduction and Overview 95
The District currently has about $21.1 million of outstanding external debt, which is down from the
$22.5 million total at the end of 2007. Approximately $4.5 million or 21% of this debt is related to the
regional water and sewer systems. The District will aim to take advantage of early debt payout
opportunities in the future, to the extent that reserve levels allow for and as has been done in the
past, to reduce its overall debt levels.
Regional Utilities
The District of Mission and the City of Abbotsford, as joint owners of the regional water and sewer
utility systems, are in the process of completing comprehensive, long-term regional water and sewer
master plans. The financial implications of these master plans will have to be assessed once they
are completed. Indications are that the systems will require significantly more capital investment
over the coming years to address growth and infrastructure renewal. The District of Mission has
adopted a strategy to prepare for this impact, including incremental annual increases in utility rates,
increased development cost charges, the use of gas tax grant funds for priority projects, the use of
internal borrowing where possible and external borrowing if needed.
Development
The District of Mission, like many other communities in British Columbia, is experiencing a downturn
in development activity and related revenues. The District has taken steps to bridge this downturn in
2009 by utilizing 2008 development revenues. A similar strategy is in place for 2010. Should the
downturn perpetuate into 2011, the District will have to look at other measures to offset the loss of
development revenues.
Infrastructure Renewal
The new tangible capital asset reporting initiative will highlight, for all local governments, the
condition and value of important infrastructure (roads, buildings, water and sewer systems, etc.) and
the fact that in most cases insufficient funds are being set aside for infrastructure
renewal/replacement. Most local governments do not have the capacity to raise user rates and
property taxes to fully fund infrastructure renewal and to address this infrastructure deficit. Local
governments are in dire need of assistance from senior levels of government to address this problem
including other legislated sources of revenue and easily accessible, unconditional grants.
Ken Bjorgaard, MBA, CGA
Director of Finance
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
4

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
96
Mayor and Council
2008 - 2011
Councillor Mike Scudder; Councillor Danny Plecas; Councillor Paul Horn; Chief
Administrative Officer, Glen Robertson; Councillor Terry Gidda; (back row Ito r)
Councillor Jenny Stevens; Mayor James Atebe; Councillor Heather Stewart (front row
I to r)
Mission's Mayor and council were each elected for a three-year term in the municipal election that
was held in November of 2008. The Mayor chairs the regular meetings of council, (three meetings
per month), and the public is encouraged to attend. Each council member is appointed to a number
of boards and external committees, select and standing committees, commissions, and task forces
such as:
Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission; Mission/Abbotsford Transit Committee;
Communities in Bloom Committee; Downtown Mission Business Association; Fraser
Valley Regional District (FVRD) Board of Directors, and Hospital Board of Directors, and
Fraser Valley Treaty Advisory Committee and Regional Library Board; Lifetime Learning
Centre Society; Mission Association for Senior Housing; Mission Arts Council Board of
Directors; Mission District Historical Society; Mission Community Foundation; Mission
Community Health Planning Study Steering Committee; Mission Heritage Association;
Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce; Downtown Coalition; Economic Development
Select Committee; Municipal Grants Committee; Traffic Safety Select Committee; Social
Development Commission; Mission Community Heritage Commission; Cultural Resources
Commission; and the Downtown Mission Revitalization Task Force.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
5

97
Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Introduction and Overview
District of Mission Organizational Chart
as at December 31, 2008
Mayor and Council
Director of Corporate
Administration
Dennis Clark
Director of
Engineering g Public
Works
Rick Bomhof
Chief Administrative
Officer
Glen Robertson
Director of
Planning
Sharon Fletcher
Director of
Finance
Ken Bjorgaard
Director of Parks,
Recreation g Culture
Ray Herman
Fire Chief
Frank Ryan
Director of Forest
Management
Kim Allan
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
6

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
98
Mission Statement
Our purpose is to build a safe and healthy community abundant in
economic, cultural and recreational opportunities.
The District:
P Welcomes you
P Puts you first
P Listens
P Makes it easy for you to do business with us
p Does it right the first time
• Are accountable
• Keeps you informed
P Appreciates your input
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
99
2008 Objectives, Measures and Accomplishments
Objectives Measures Update/Accomplishments
Develop a long-term,
comprehensive, multi-use
development plan for the
waterfront with maximum
community involvement so
that it reflects the vision and
aspirations of the community.
WATERFRONT
> Completion of Spirit Squares
waterfront project.
> Success of 2008 waterfront
planning grant results.
➢ Begin the technical background
studies,
> Project design initiated; project set for
completion in October of 2009.
> Planning grants were not awarded.
➢ First major technical background study
well underway with completion set for
May 2009.
To adopt and implement a
revised Official Community
Plan (OCP) that reflects the
aspirations of the community.
Create a means for residents
and neighbourhood
associations to undertake
neighbourhood planning.
Adopt, implement and review
the three-year strategic
policing plan with the following
five priorities:
v Youth involvement in
crime;
v Public disorder;
v Property crimes;
v Traffic safety; and,
v Drug activity associated
with organized crime.
Review the Crystal Meth Task
Force recommendations and
identify priorities and secure
funding for treatment/ detox
facilities.
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
> OCP adopted.
> Zoning Bylaw will be amended to
comply with the OCP.
> Adoption of neighbourhood
planning policy by municipal
council as part of the OCP.
CRIME REDUCTION
>A further reduction of 2007 crime
statistics.
> Successful implementation of the
education strategy that arose
from the Task Force.
Development of an action plan to
seek funding from senior
government for a treatment/detox
facility.
> OCP adopted July 2008.
> Work on new Zoning Bylaw began.
> Zoning bylaw to be presented to council
in June of 2009.
> This project has been deferred until
2009.
> Resourcing of the strategic plan has
been scaled back to match population
growth.
> Detachment awarded the 2008 Youth
Mentorship award by Chamber of
Commerce.
> 87 cannabis grow-ops interdicted; $40
million of product seized and 75
persons charged.
> Latest official government statistics for
year end 2007 show an overall crime
reduction of 15.7% compared to 10-
year average and 9.6% reduction from
previous year.
> Council has expressed support in
general for facilities but has not
undertaken a specific funding request.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

100
Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
2008 Objectives, Measures and Accomplishments
Objectives Measures Update/Accomplishments
Create an Environmental
Charter so that all residents
and businesses understand
and practice what is expected
of them in regards to the
District's environmental
policies, regulations and
practices.
The District to take leadership
in demonstrating exemplary
environmental practice within
all its policies and operations.
To continue to implement the
arts and cultural strategy by
reviewing and identifying
specific actions which need to
be addressed.
To develop a social development
strategy for Mission that
describes the priority action
areas related to the social wellbeing
of residents and outlines
where the various agencies and
jurisdictions will partner
together to support, advocate
for and/or deliver specific
community services or
initiatives.
To increase recognition of
and support for community
involvement and volunteerism
in Mission.
ENVIRONMENT
D Final adoption by council of the
Environmental Charter and the
beginning of implementation.
D Adoption of the Environmental
Charter and subsequent policy
implementation to reach the goal
of the District of Mission
demonstrating exemplary
environmental practices.
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
D Implementation of the strategy by
the newly created Cultural
Resources Commission.
D Implementation of the social
development plan and substantial
progress of the ten subcommittees
to be formed in 2008.
D Implementation of the community
involvement and volunteerism
strategy.
D A draft Environmental Charter was
adopted in April of 2008. At that time,
council requested a few changes. An
updated Environmental Charter will be
brought back in 2009 for final adoption.
Funding to implement the Charter was
included in the 2009 budget.
D Various initiatives (i.e. banning disposal
of recycling material and a composting
pilot program at the landfill; improved
sprinkling restrictions and a rain barrel
program), have been endorsed by
council to implement the philosophy of
the Charter.
➢ Cultural Resources Commission
meetings are ongoing to implement the
strategy.
D Work has been ongoing throughout
2008 at both the commission and subcommittee
level. Numerous subcommittees
are nearing completion of
their objectives.
D Project has been deferred to 2009.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

101
Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
2008 Objectives, Measures and Accomplishments
Objectives Measures Update/Accomplishments
SILVERDALE NEIGHBOURHOOD
Ensure compliance and
community awareness of the
Silverdale Urban Residential
Neighbourhood Planning Terms
of Reference for any new
development in Southwest
Mission.
> Completion of the Neighbourhood
One plan and consideration of the
first rezoning applications for
Neighbourhood One.
➢ Neighbourhood One plan and zoning
bylaw adopted in March 2009.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
To facilitate the sale of 85% of
the properties within the new
industrial park.
To increase the amount of
designated OCP employment and
industrial property to meet future
needs.
To attract and retain commercial
businesses.
Expand post-secondary
opportunities in Mission by:
v Partnering with the
University of the Fraser
Valley (UFV) or other postsecondary
organizations
and the School District to
develop a new university /
college campus and
expanded programming.
• Expand post-secondary
programming by attracting
more private educational
opportunities.
To develop strategies and
identify actions to improve the
vitality and attractiveness of the
Mission downtown.
To continue to support the
implementation of Mission's
economic development strategy.
> 85% target achieved and 50%
building permits issued.
> Ensure sufficient designated
employment/industrial land to
meet employment needs as
determined by the employment
land strategy.
> Documented retention and
attraction statistics.
> Commitment from the University
of the Fraser Valley (UFV) to
Mission for short and long-term.
> Increase in post-secondary
programming.
:- More inclusive vibrant downtown
area.
➢ Strategy fully implemented.
> 80% of land is sold and two buildings
constructed.
> Employment lands study started -
completion expected by May of 2009.
> Ongoing actions were undertaken by
Economic Development Officer
throughout 2008 to both attract and
retain businesses.
> Discussion ongoing to increase UFV's
presence in Mission.
> Economic Development sub-committee
completed a study on expansion of
post-secondary programming.
:- Downtown Coalition and Downtown
Task Force have continued work to
improve the vitality of downtown.
> Original 2003 strategy has been largely
implemented. Council will be creating a
revised strategy in 2009.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

102
Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
2009 / 2010 Objectives and Measures
Objectives
Measures
Downtown and Waterfront
"To develop a realistic, coordinated, long-term plan for the
downtown / waterfront area."
Overall Objective:
To have a plan developed, which includes an
agreement with Canadian Pacific Railway that
provides for a physical linkage between the
downtown and the waterfront.
> A plan adopted by Council by September 2011.
Downtown Objectives:
To have a significant project break ground (e.g. Town
Square) by the end of 2011.
To have an effective working relationship between
the District, residents, community organizations and
businesses in the downtown area.
> Significant project under way by end of 2011.
> Evidence of new initiative to improve and to foster
a positive working relationship.
To have a coordinated action plan developed and
agreed to by organizations for the downtown area
that would include specific timelines and strategies
for:
➢
Development of a specific action plan by
September 2010.
v
v
v
v
Improving the physical appearance of downtown
(e.g. paving, transit exchange, murals, etc.)
Improving the security of the area
Becoming more pedestrian friendly
Other improvements as identified
Waterfront Objectives:
To have a realistic waterfront concept plan
developed, which includes a specific physical project
by 2012 and that all necessary agencies and
government approvals (e.g. DFO) be finalized for the
overall plan.
To have investors/developers inspired and investing in
the area based on the plan.
>
■
•
•
Overall plan approval (including:
All subcomponents by September 2011
An initial project identified and commitments
made to implement the project.
> Investors/developers purchasing properties and
preparing detailed development plans.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

103
Municipal Forest — 50' h Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
2009 / 2010 Objectives and Measures
Objectives
Measures
Health Care Capital Planning
"To improve the overall health and healthcare in Mission."
Specific Objectives:
To collaboratively create, adopt and implement a plan
with Fraser Health Authority which results in
improvements to Mission Health determinates.
To implement a plan that provides specific benefits to
Mission residents through initiatives that can be acted
upon with the resources and policies of the District of
Mission.
Plan approval by District of Mission and Fraser
Authority by September 2009.
➢ Detailed implementation plans underway by
September 2009.
➢ Specific planned projects underway by
September 2010.
Cultural Infrastructure
"To provide for cultural infrastructure needs in Mission, including physical space for
cultural, seniors' and youth facilities."
Specific Objectives:
To establish principles that will guide the provision
and use of cultural services.
To undertake a space and needs assessment for the
various cultural, youth and seniors' groups in Mission.
To provide the most appropriate space in either
existing facilities or new multi-use space (if
necessary) based on the principles and the space
and needs assessment.
To utilize electronic technology to inform the general
public of community events, including initiatives like
creating a Hall of Excellence.
➢ Principles established by September 2009.
➢ Assessment completed by February 2010.
➢ Development of a plan to address space and
needs assessment by May 2010.
➢ Use of new technology implemented by March
2010.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
104
2009 / 2010 Objectives and Measures
Objectives
Measures
Economic Development and
Post-Secondary Education
"To enhance overall economic health in Mission and increase the knowledge and skills of
individuals so they can enter or re-enter the labour market."
Specific Objectives:
To review and if necessary revise the existing
economic development structure so that it reflects
Council's immediate and long-term economic strategy
for Mission.
)--. Council agreement on economic development
operating model.
To review and if necessary revise the current
Economic and Employment Development Strategy.
This includes addressing the following questions:
v How we diversify our tax base and increase our tax
base in terms of industrial and commercial use
•:- How we reduce the net outflow of people going to
work outside of Mission
• How we attract new business and investment
v How we provide clarity on protecting our remaining
ALR lands
• How do we create sustainable economic
development
To expand post-secondary programming by:
v
v
v
v
Increasing the number of post-secondary
graduates from Mission
Broadening our post-secondary campus
opportunities
Examining our "Endowment Lands" relationship to
the post-secondary goal
Considering the Economic Development subcommittee's
report
> Existing strategy reviewed by Council and new
strategy in place by October 2009 addressing each
of the topics noted in the objectives.
>
D
➢
>
Number of graduates increased from 2009
Larger post secondary campus in planning stages
by September 2010
Post-secondary endowment land granted by
province by September 2010
Implementation of Economic Development
subcommittee's report by October 2010.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
105
2009 / 2010 Objectives and Measures
Objectives
Measures
Long-Term Sustainable Vision
"To create a long-term sustainable vision for Mission that is inspiring and supported by the
community. This vision will describe the future identity of the community, its unique
strengths and opportunities and the core values that will guide future decisions."
Specific Objectives:
To examine other vision statement examples and
decide how the vision will be developed in
consultation with the community, with specific
timelines and resources.
To engage the public in the development of the longterm
sustainable vision.
Vision statement created by February 2011
> Public contributes towards and positively supports
the vision statement
Mission-Oyama House Post Project
Mission - Oyama "Joined together in Spirit"
In 1996 Oyama became Mission's
Sister City.
The Mission House Post and Oyama
House Post were carved by four
Aboriginal Artists.
While in Oyama, to carve the Oyama
House Post, original AINU carvers of
Japan taught their traditional carving
techniques to our carvers.
Both the Mission House Post and the
Oyama House Post were created
from one log donated from the
Municipal Tree Farm.
The Mission House Post was
presented during the Fraser Valley
Bald Eagle Festival in November,
and resides at the Chamber of
Commerce grounds.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
106
CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION
The corporate administration department includes general government administration, human
resources services, information technology services,
inspection services and the social development
program.
Specific departmental duties include: managing
corporate legal issues, organizing and conducting local
elections, the preparation and safekeeping of all
council and committee meeting agendas and minutes,
preparing bylaws, initiating correspondence related to
council business, managing and coordinating the
records management function, administering the sale and purchase of municipal property and
property leases and coordinating the risk management program. The department assists the
general public by providing information on bylaws, agendas, meetings and other council activities.
The administration section of the department acts as the administrative arm of council, and is
responsible for overseeing all of the District's various operations in accordance with council policies
and procedures, and ensures that various council decisions and directives are completed.
The human resources function is responsible for all levels of staff recruitment, administration of the
District's occupational health and safety program, labour relations matters, development and
management of corporate training, and managing employee development programs.
The information services section is responsible for the day-to-day administration and operation of
the District's computer and telephone systems. Primary activities include ensuring network
functionality, providing corporate data recovery and security services, as well as hosting the
District's website. Information services manages and supports numerous other computer
applications including the District's financial systems, recreation programs, online applications and
Geographic Information System mapping systems.
The inspection services section administers and enforces the various regulatory bylaws of the
municipality, ensures buildings follow the BC Building Code, is
responsible for the Mission Animal Control Services, and
issuing business licenses. The department also proactively
identifies secondary residential suites so that additional utility
fees can be charged, thereby ensuring that utility users are
treated more consistently and fairly.
The department administers the District's social development
function through the director of a social development committee established by council, who is
charged with developing and implementing the District's social development plan. The social
development director also administers the District's successful restorative resolutions program. The
program is based on the principles of restorative justice, and offers an alternative process to resolve
disputes. This program, which is free and available to the entire community, is delivered by highly
trained volunteer facilitators.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50 Th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
107
CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION (cont'd)
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR PROJECTS
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Assisted council with implementation of its strategic planning initiatives.
Monitored the treaty negotiation process to protect local District of Mission interests.
Assisted with implementation of the planning process for the waterfront area.
Completed implementation of new human resources / payroll integrated system. Completed
enhancements to payroll/human resources system as well as MATS security upgrades and
modifications to the tax notification system.
Expanded and enhanced our network security infrastructure.
Assisted with nine successful grant applications which equate to approximately $5.4 million
in grants received in 2008.
Implemented new call-tracking help desk software to ensure all requests for assistance are
followed through on.
Assisted engineering and public works in the acquisition and implementation of a new
Geographic Information System (GIS).
Mission's restorative resolutions (MRR) received approval from the Ministry of Attorney
General's Criminal Justice Branch to receive referrals from Crown Counsel.
D MRR's core training program graduated 13 volunteers in June of 2008.
O Skellelv
- Dnron.c.pal Essede.
f.)
••■•
• EJStreetrctes Seettres•
- artho Ntatos
E./Year 1006 (select es
. EY.: Z)05 (Salad
- OToseeratslw
['contour unes
MATSOLII ISLAND
r •
A screen from the GIS
showing water and sewer
lines in the downtown area
of Mission.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

108
Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
The finance department is responsible for overall financial administration of the District of
Mission. The department provides stewardship over the District's financial resources and it
supports other departments in the provision of various services to the citizens of Mission.
Specific responsibilities of the department include: administration of the District's investment
portfolio, tax rate recommendations, processing and collection of property taxes, utility billings
and other receivables, maintenance of property records, internal and external financial
reporting, payroll and general accounting, procurement and payment of goods and/or services,
operation of central stores, and short and long-term operational and capital financial planning.
As most issues and decisions within local government have financial ramifications, the
department is intricately involved, on a daily basis, with assessing the financial impact of
various alternate courses of action and with supporting the District's general decision-making
and service delivery processes.
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR PROJECTS
■
Participated in negotiating terms of 20-year phased development agreement, including
amenities to be provided by developer, for major Silverdale Neighbourhood #1
development.
■ Participated in planning process for Southwest Mission (Silverdale Neighbourhood #1)
development including public hearing participation.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Researched and reported on community amenity practices in the province of BC, and
assisted in developing proposed community amenity approach for Mission, including list of
potential projects.
Participated in negotiating and drafting of servicing agreement with First Nation Band.
Led major tangible capital asset reporting and valuation process.
Participated in waterfront planning process.
Completed a comprehensive review of all stocked items in central stores and implemented
ongoing cyclical inventory counting process, in place of one-time per year physical count, to
ensure stock on hand is relevant and up to date.
Utilized BC Auction web-based auction site to maximize net proceeds from the sale of surplus
goods.
Participated in implementation of human resources / payroll integrated system.
Completed modifications to the tax certificate system.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary Introduction and Overview
109
PARKS, RECREATION and CULTURE
DEPARTMENT
The parks, recreation and culture department ensures that recreation, sport,
fitness, arts and culture activities, and parks, are available for the personal,
social, and environmental well-being of all Mission residents.
An extensive array of lessons, public sessions and programs are offered to residents of all
ages at various locations throughout the municipality. Leisure Guides listing these programs
are published seasonally and distributed to all Mission homes.
The department maintains the trails and parks, which include both active and passive spaces
that vary in size. Mission Rotary Sports Park is a hub of outdoor sporting activity, while the
Fraser River Heritage Park is a favourite location for outdoor festivals and concerts.
The department is also responsible for maintaining all municipally owned buildings and
grounds, and for the management and operation of the Hatzic Cemetery.
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR PROJECTS
➢ Hosted BC Hockey Male U17 BC Cup in partnership
with Mission Minor Hockey Association.
➢ Completed review of Cultural Master Plan. Cultural
Resources Commission was established.
➢ Supported the hosting of five provincial championships
in softball, ball hockey, and field lacrosse.
➢ Submitted a successful bid to host the 2014 BC Winter
Games.
➢ Supported a number of annual events such as Canada
Day, Celebration of Community, Volunteer
Appreciation Awards, Swim Meet and various
tournaments.
Ana:.
(ftimunit.
in ilioom
➢ Supported the Communities in Bloom Committee as
they achieved "Five out of Five Blooms" for the first
time, became the recipient of the Provincial award for "Heritage Conservation".
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
introduction and Overview
110
ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The engineering department includes public works and environmental services. Specific
departmental duties include subdivision infrastructure, soil removal and deposit, transit and traffic,
capital works projects and infrastructure planning.
The public works' section is responsible for drainage and diking, water and sewer utilities,
municipal equipment and road maintenance. Environmental services section is responsible for
waste and environmental management, drafting and implementation the Environmental Charter.
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR PROJECTS
➢ Drafted Environmental Charter (adopted by council in April of 2008),
which included initiatives such as:
low flow toilet reimbursement program
improved sprinkling restrictions
rain barrel program
➢ Implemented landfill (Minnie's Pit) diversion strategies including:
Composting pilot project started
Banning the disposal of recyclable materials
Potential Salvage
➢ Worked with BC Transit to expand the Cedar Valley transit route.
Environmental
Charter
°Adding AbilitytoSta
O,"
Mission's Plan for
Environmental Sustainability
➢ Applied non-slip surface to four hills / highway approaches in the downtown core
area.
➢ Installed audible pedestrian signals at 11 th Avenue and Stave Lake Street.
➢ Reconfigure Intersection at 7th and Cedar.
➢ Completed the River Crossing Study.
➢ Oversaw the construction of 2.4 km of new
roadway and 2.9 km of new sidewalks.
➢ Reconstructed 1 km of roadway at three different
locations amounting to $1 million in repairs.
➢ Expanded the equipment shed to provide
additional out-of-the-weather storage and
security for Municipal equipment and tools.
wy MAW
MUT
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

111
Municipal Forest — 5O Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REZONING PROPOSAL # R08005
The purpose of the Proposed Bylaw Amendment is to
accommodate a 15•bed care facility for individuals
with special needs.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT
Katalin Homes. 604-814-3352
PLANNING 604-820-3748
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING January 26, 2009
The planning department is responsible, in concert with
District of Mission council, for the land use planning
aspects of growth and development within Mission
through the processing of land development applications,
and varied short and long range land use planning
initiatives including neighbourhood planning and policy
updating.
The department also administrates the municipality's Official Community Plan (OCP) and Zoning
bylaws, as it reviews land development proposals, and makes professional recommendations to
council on specific development proposals.
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR PROJECTS
➢ Request for Proposal process for the design of the Spirit Square (Spirit Square is to be
constructed by October of 2009).
➢ Completed Request for Proposal for Phase 1 of the Technical Background Studies for the
waterfront planning.
)=. Led new Official Community Plan (OCP) process (adopted by council in July).
➢ Reviewed the Zoning Bylaw with the goal of forwarding a new Zoning Bylaw to
council for consideration in 2009.
➢ Received and processed a total of 77 varied land use applications including
rezonings, subdivisions, development permits and development inquiries (down from
89 applications the previous year).
➢ Developed a 'Site Assessment policy' for council to consider that requires the following
site constraints to be assessed and addressed prior to determining a lot layout for
subdivision:
Rationalize lot grading and tree retention objectives;
Survey ESA associated with watercourses; and
Identifying other on-site constraints.
➢ Developed a Floodplain Bylaw to manage
development in the floodplains.
➢ Identified hazard areas associated with steep slopes,
slope stability and floodplains and develop
Development Permit area guidelines.
Formalized the current process for implementing
streamside protection regulations with the
Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO).
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
112
Mission
ON THE FRASER
BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA
www. mission.ca
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The District of Mission economic development office was
created in July of 2003. The office oversees and coordinates
economic development and tourism and film activities in the
District of Mission.
Staff activities are guided by the District of Mission economic
development select committee, an advisory body to Council. The committee consists of community
representation from the following sectors / organizations:
- Education
- Tourism
- Commercial/Retail
- Community Development Agencies
- Manufacturing
- Community at Large
- Downtown Business Association
- Mission Regional Chamber of
Commerce
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR PROJECTS
➢ Facilitated the sale and development of industrial buildings in the Silver Creek Industrial Park,
and elsewhere in Mission.
➢ Partnered in the award winning Circle Farm Tour program.
➢ Sponsored the Mission Visitor Guide.
➢ Advertised Mission in the Vancouver Coast & Mountain Travel Experience Guide, Fishin'
Canada and the Western Investor.
➢ Served 110 business clients.
➢ Promoted Mission at a variety of industry Trade Shows, (Outdoor Adventure Show and the
Hotel Investment Show).
➢ Continued with the implementation of the Mission economic development strategy.
Mission Economic Development
34033 Lougheed Highway
Mission, BC V2V 5X8
Tel: (604) 820-3789 Fax (604) 820-6738
edc@mission.ca www.mission.ca/edc
Mayor Atebe with "Stone Cold" Steve Austin while he
was in town filming his new movie titled "Damage".
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
113
FIRE/RESCUE SERVICE DEPARTMENT
Our. Mission Statement
To provide service to the community by protecting life,
property and environment, through prevention, public
education and emergency response, with well
maintained equipment and highly trained dedicated
personnel.
The Mission Fire/Rescue Service department is responsible for the protection of lives and
property within the community, from the perils of fire and other emergencies. Specifically, the
service is responsible for the safe and efficient response to emergencies like: structural fires,
dangerous goods (awareness level), motor vehicle accidents requiring the jaws-of-life, medical
aid (at the request of ambulance services), rescue, forest and bush fires and other
emergencies. The service is also responsible for fire investigations, fire prevention inspections
and public fire education.
The staffing of the Fire department consists of a
career Fire Chief, two Assistant Fire Chiefs, a Fire
Prevention Officer, a Fire Inspector and one fulltime
and one part-time administrative clerk. These
positions work out of the main office located at Fire
Station No. 1 (33330 Seventh Avenue). The
remainder of the Fire/Rescue Service department
consists of approximately 80 volunteer paid on-call
staff, working out of three fire stations. The Fire
department operates five engines, three tankers, a
100' aerial ladder, and a rescue vehicle.
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR
PROJECTS
Organized the annual Fire and Life Safety Fair which 2,500 citizens attended.
Hired an Assistant Fire Chief — Training / Fire Prevention.
➢ Developed action plans based on a master plan for the Mission Fire and Rescue Service,
as approved by council.
➢ Increased public fire safety awareness through various media.
➢ Had three fire fighters complete the Company Officer Training program.
);- Conducted a 120 hour recruit training program for Fire stations no. 1, 2, and 3. Trained 12
new recruits in 2008.
➢ Completed the first National Fire Protection Association vehicle operators course
➢ Recognized for his 40 years of dedicated service was Captain Ken Lissimore Jr.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
The overall service' delivery model of the RCMP is community policing with the .s
goal of ensuring safe homes and communities. Mission detachment houses 49 4' (: 't.
.
full-time RCMP members plus 6 full-time RCMP members provincially funded, to '6,' ,;# .z
assist with policing the Regional District. Mission belongs to the Lower Mainland' 4.
Regional integrated teams for emergency response and homicide investigations.
This represents the equivalent of 3.5 members, however, Mission has access to
the entire team complement should a situation arise.
IH IT
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR PROJECTS
➢ A Crime Free Multi-Housing program was developed and implemented three apartment
buildings with the intent of reducing incidence of crime and to lowering fear.
➢ Security Assessments — a new crime prevention program, implemented by the crime
prevention coordinator, was designed and established through auxiliary constables who
have been trained to provide free security assessments for local homes and businesses.
➢ Detachment personnel were presented with the 2008 Youth Mentorship Award by the
Regional Chamber of Commerce for the ongoing work in support of local youth.
➢ Grow Operations — through the use of a dedicated coordinator, members executed
search warrants and shut down 87 criminal enterprises resulting in charges against 75
individuals. This translates into the seizure of in excess of $40 million worth of illicit
drugs. This represents a significant increase over 2007.
The Community Policing Access Centre
on First Avenue was renamed the Crime
Prevention Office
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Introduction and Overview
115
FORESTRY DEPARTMENT
The forestry department manages Mission Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 26, also known as the
Mission Municipal Forest, located generally in the northern part of the District of Mission. The
managed forest area is approximately 10,000 hectares, of which about 12% is municipally
owned and 88% is provincial crown land. The forest is
managed on a sustained harvest basis which is currently
about 45,000 cubic metres per year. Management
activities recognize the many forest values such as:
timber, wildlife, water, soils, fish, landscape aesthetics,
recreation, education, and biodiversity.
Major forestry programs included: harvesting, tree
planting, fertilization, plantation brushing, forest fire
prevention, educational school tours and trail maintenance
and construction. Information on our forestry recreation
trails can be obtained by contacting the forestry ,
department at 604-820-3762 or by visiting our website at www.mission.ca under Business and
Forestry Operations.
MAJOR INITIATIVES OR PROJECTS
➢ Maintained certification in the BC Forest Safety Council's SAFE companies SEBASE
program.
➢ Maintained ISO 14001 certification - an independent standard recognized worldwide
which helps with environmental and continuous improvement considerations.
➢ Scheduled and carried out activities for the 50th year anniversary of Mission Tree Farm
Licence.
➢
In regard to maintaining a continuously sustainable forest, planted 74,830 seedlings and
52.4 hectares of brushing.
➢ Opened a new hiking trail, Doreen's Trail at
Pike's pond, located at the end of Johnson
Road, which is an easy 2.2 km return hike.
➢ Continued to work with A-Zone Beat Patrol
Officer to minimize social disorder and criminal
behaviour in the Stave Lake area.
➢
Initiated discussion with the Ministry of Forests
and Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Arts on
the feasibility of developing campsites in the
west Stave area. Commissioned a consultant
to carry out an analysis of recreational
development opportunities.
➢ Started construction of a trail on the west side
of Hoover Lake.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest -- 50 111 Year Anniversary
Mission Regional Chamb
2008 Business Excellence Awards Winners
Customer Service of Excellence Award
Envision Credit Union
Entrepreneurial Excellence Award
Dragonaire / Cimtex Industries
Eco-Star Award
Bellbrook Nursery
The Design Award
Downtown Revitalization Task Force
Youth Mentorship Award
Mission RCMP
Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award
Brett Stenner and Kyle McIntosh, Valley Toys
Business of the Year Award
Fraser Valley Building Supplies
Business Leader of the Year
Carlo Billinger
introduction and Overview
116
District of Mission
2008 Community Service Award Winners
Community Service Award
Mal Wood, Flo Erskine, Heidi Smith and Fermin() "Scotty" Scodellaro
Against the Odds Achievement Award
Bobby Brar, Tony Carter and Russell Pattison
Lifetime Achievement Award
Mission Association for Community Living and Tom O'Malley
Sports Volunteer of the Year
Shannon and John Pederson, Shirley Olson and Bick and Brenda Benedict
Arts & Culture Award
Bill McAuley
Special Recognition Award
Mission Hospice Volunteers, The Pentones and the
Neighbourhood Planning Advisory Committee
Citizen of the Year
Eric LeBlanc
Freeman of the City Award
Joan MacLatchy, Ron Taylor, and Sharon Syrette
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 50 Th Year Anniversary
Table of Contents
Financial Statements
Financial Statements
117
District of Mission Financial Statements
Auditors' Report 27
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position 28
Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities 29
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 30
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements 31 - 40
Supplementary Financial Information
Schedules: 1) Statement of Financial Position —..by Fund 41 - 42
2) Statement of Financial Activities — by Fund 43 - 44
3) Restricted Revenues 46
4) Reserve Accounts 47 - 48
5) Reserve Funds 49 - 50
6) Equity, Capital Assets 52
7) Consolidated . Revenueg 53 - 54
8) Consolidated Expenditures byFunCtiOn 55 - 56
9) Statement ot Finar49. 1,Abfixitig.— by Sebment 57 - 60
L:064erniDbbt: 61 - 62
)',:internal: Debt/Transfers 63 - 64
12) Cemetery Pelipetual Care_Tnist Hind 65
District of Mission-Development CorPoration Financial Statements
Auditors' RepOrt to the Board 66
Balance Sheet 67
Statement of Operations 68
Statement of Cash Flows 69
Notes to the Financial Statements 70 - 71
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
1- 267

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
118
1BDO
BDO Dunwoody LLP
Chartered Accountants
600 Cathedral Place
925 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 31.2
Telephone: (604) 688-5421
Telefax: (604) 688-5132
'E-mail: vancouver@.bdo.ca
www.bdo.ca
Auditors' Report
To the Mayor and Council of the
District of Mission
We have audited the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position of the District of Mission as at
December 31, 2008 and the Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities and Changes in Cash
Flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the District's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit indudes examining,
on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of the District as at December 31, 2008 and the results of its operations and its cash flows
for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.
Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole. The supplementary information included in Schedules 1 through '12 is presented
for purposes of additional analysis. Such supplementary information has been subjected to the
auditing procedures applied in the audit of the consolidated financial statements and, in our opinion
is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated financial statements taken as
a whole.
'143 A••/1.•• ••
Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, British Columbia
April 9, 2009
BDO Dunwoody LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in Ontario
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 27 I

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position
Financial Statements
119
as at December 31
Actual
2008
Actual
2007
Financial Assets
Cash 4,657,425 $ 2,808,409
Portfolio and Mortgage Investments (Note 2) 36,907,873 30,560,624
Receivables (Note 3) 5,129,995 5,279,650
Deposits - Municipal Finance Authority (Note 4) 309,921 394,103
Other Assets 94,934 90,140
Log Inventory 380,498 286,672
47,480,646 39,408,398
Liabilities
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 5) 7,054,850 5,548,536
Deferred Revenues 3.665.266 2,765,652
Provision for Retirements (Note 6) 779,873 722,547
Restricted Revenues (Schedule 3) 7,235,682 5,581,358
Reserves - Municipal Finance Authority (Note 4) 309,921 394,103
Deposits 1,774,605 2,091,417
Long-Term Debt (Schedule 10) 21,162,610 22,571,410
41.982,807 39,675,023
Net Financial Assets (Liabilities) 5,497,839 (266,625)
Non-Financial Assets
Tangible Capital Assets (Note 7) 194,345.321 187,564,653
Net Municipal Position 199,843,160 $ 187,298,028
Fund Position
Financial Equity
Operating Surplus & Reserve Accounts (Schedules 1 & 4) 10,900.331 $ 9,270,200
Reserve Funds (Schedules 1 2,5) 15,760,118 13,034,585
26,660,449 22,304,785
Equity in Non-Financial Assets
Equity in Capital Assets (Schedule 6) 173,182,711 164,993,243
199.843.160 $ 187,298,028
Ken Bjorgaard, Director of Finance
Jamis Atebe, Mayor
To be read in conjunction with the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 28 I

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities
Financial Statements
120
for Vie year ended December 31
Budget
2008
(unaudited)
Actual
2008
Actual
2007
Revenues (Schedule 7 & 9)
Taxation, Grants in Lieu, Utility Taxes (Net) $ 24,262,109 $ 24,243,408 $ 22705,891
Sales of Services 5,365,194 5,358,083 5,163,794
User Rates, Rentals, and Other Fees 7,847,333 7,628,427 6,651 ,157
Permits and Licenses 858,935 896,189 990,062
Return on Investments 346,931 1,147,771 1,169,982
Contributions from Other Govls & Agencies 4,120,709 3,338,360 3,317,529
Municipal Forestry 3,442,000 1.979,156 5,248,089
Other Revenue 1591,784 6,890.296 3,231 705
47 ,834 ,995 51,481,690 48,478 209
Expenditures (Schedule 8 & 9)
General Government Services 6,042,837 6,017,858 3,420,753
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services 5,527,667 5,886,656 6,835,676
Planning and Economic Development 1,203,902 1,218,657 1,048 ,143
Protective Services 11,538,277 11,529,628 10,497,896
Public Health and Welfare 230,383 186,176 160,021
Sanitation and Waste Removal 7,166,799 2,525,557 3,212,259
Transportation Services & Public Works 10,697,615 8.267,029 8,168,858
Municipal Forestry 3 ,345 ,325 2.265,567 4,667,158
Water and Sewer 13,079,999 6,579,451 4,939,700
Long Term Debt Interest 1 ,198 ,764 1,210,457 1,443 ,546
Development Corporation 30,191 30,191 27,758
60 ,061 ,759 45,717,227 43,321,768
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenditures (12,226,764) 5,764,463 6,156,441
Debt
Long-Term Debt Principal Repaid (1,261,040) (1,261,040) (3,380,814)
Long-Term Debt Actuarial (147,759) (147,759) (383,848)
Increase in Financial Equity (13,635,563) 4.355.664 1,391,779
Consolidated Financial Equity, Beginning of Year $ 22,304,785 22,304,785 $ 20,913,006
Consolidated Financial Equity, End of Year $ 8,669,222 26,660,449 $ 22,304,785
To be read in conjunction with the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 29 I

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
Financial Statements
121
for the year ended December 31
Actual
2008
Actual
2007
Cash Provided By (Used For):
Operating Activities
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures 5,764,463 $ 5,156,441
Deduct Items not Involving Cash
Recognition of Restricted Revenues (2,411,491) (1,049,142)
Long-Term Debt Actuarial (147,759) (383,848)
(2,559,250) (1,432.990)
Changes in Non-Cash Operating Items
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities 1,506,314 633,626
Provision for Retirements 57,326 (7,059)
Deferred Revenue 899,614 116,962
Deposits (316,812) 540,757
Other Assets (4,794) 322,460
Log Inventory (94,926) (145,332)
Receivables 149,555 (197,089)
5,401,490 4,987,766
Financing Activities
Collection of and Interest on Restricted Revenues 4,065,815 1,196,130
Long-Term Debt Principal Repaid (1,261.040) (3,380 ,814)
2,804,775 (2 184,684)
Investing Activities
Decrease (Increase) in Portfolio Investments (6,357.249) (4,732,922)
Increase (Decrease) in Cash 1,849.016 (1,929,840)
Cash, Beginning of Year 2,808.409 4,738,249
Cash, End of Year 4,657.425 $ 2,808,409
To be read in conjunction with the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 30 I

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
Financial Statements
122
General
The notes and schedules to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of the
statements. They provide detailed information and explain the significant accounting and reporting
principles that form the basis for these statements. The notes and schedules also provide
important supplementary information and explanations, which cannot be conveniently integrated
into the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The principal activities of the District of Mission (the District) include the provision of local
government services to residents and businesses. The Community Charter of British Columbia
requires revenue and expenditure to be in accordance with the five-year financial plan adopted
annually by Council. The budget for each year of the plan must be balanced so that annual
expenditures will not exceed the total of revenue, transfers from reserves and surplus, and
proceeds from debt. Budget information presented in the consolidated financial statements reflects
the budget for the year 2008 of the District of Mission's 2008-2012 Five-Year Financial Plan
adopted by Council Bylaw #4047-2008, and this budget information has not been audited.
1. Significant Accounting Policies
a) Basis of Presentation
The Consolidated Financial Statements of the District are prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles for local governments established by the Public
Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. The
Consolidated Financial Statements reflect the combined results and activities of the District
and its wholly owned subsidiary, the District of Mission Development Corporation. All interfund
and inter-company balances and transactions have been eliminated. The District's
general classification of funds and the purpose of those funds are shown below:
i) Operating Funds
Operating Funds are established for general, water, and sewer operations of the
District. Operating Funds are used to record the costs associated with providing
District services.
ii)
Capital Funds
Capital Funds are established for general, water, and sewer capital. Capital Funds
track the acquisition costs of various capital assets and the financing of those assets,
including related debt.
iii) Reserve Funds
Under the Community Charter of British Columbia, Council may, by bylaw, establish
Reserve Funds for specific purposes. Monies in a Reserve Fund and interest earned
thereon must be used only for the purpose for which the Fund was established. If the
amount in a Reserve Fund is greater than required, Council may, by bylaw, transfer all
or part of the balance to another Reserve Fund.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
31 I

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
Financial Statements
123
iv) Cemetery Perpetual Care Trust Fund
This Fund is intended to provide earnings that can be used for the upkeep of the
cemetery, and has been established pursuant to the Cemetery Care Act. Interest
earnings on the Fund balance are transferred to general operations and are used for
cemetery maintenance per the Act. The Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund is excluded
from the District's Consolidated Financial Statements, per PSAB guidelines.
b) Basis of Accounting
i) Revenues
Revenues are recognized when they are earned using the accrual method of
accounting.
ii)
iii)
iv)
Expenditures
Expenditures are recognized as they are incurred and when the goods
and/or services are received and/or a legal obligation to pay is established.
Deferred Revenues
The District defers a portion of the revenue collected from permits, licenses and
other fees, and recognizes such revenue in the year in which the related inspections or
other related expenditures are incurred.
Restricted Revenues
Revenues or receipts, which are restricted by legislation or by agreement with external
parties, are deferred and reported as restricted revenues. When qualifying
expenditures are incurred, restricted revenues are recognized as revenues in order to
fund the said expenditures.
v) Government Transfers
Government transfers are recognized as revenue in the period in which events giving
rise to the transfer occurs, providing the transfers are authorized, and eligibility criteria
have been met and reasonable estimates of the amounts can be made.
c) Equity in Non-Financial Assets
Equity in Non-Financial Assets reflects the excess of the accumulated historical cost of
assets acquired, constructed or developed by the District, over the District's outstanding
debt. The value of capital infrastructure constructed by developers and transferred to the
District at no cost is reflected in Equity in Non-Financial Assets at fair market value. The
costs of repairs and upgrading, which do not materially add to the value or the life of an
asset, are recorded in the financial statements as operating expenditures. Disposals of
capital assets are recorded and relieved from Equity in Non-Financial Assets at cost.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
1 32 1

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary Financial Statements
124
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
d) Portfolio and Mortgage Investments
Portfolio and Mortgage Investments are recorded at cost, including bonds, which are
recorded net of premiums or discounts. Interest is accrued at the invested rate.
Investments are written down to net realizable value when there has been, in the opinion of
management, a decline in market value other than temporary.
e) Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles for local governments established by PSAB requires management to make
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of certain receivables and
accrued liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amount of related
revenues and expenses during the reporting period. As such, actual results could differ
from the estimates. Areas requiring the greatest degree of estimation include provision for
retirements, assessment of contingencies, landfill closure and post-closure liabilities, and
allowance for doubtful accounts receivable.
f) Amortization
Amortization of capital assets has not been provided for in these financial statements. See
note 7 for additional information on capital assets.
g) Inventory
Forestry log inventory and land held for resale are valued at the lower of cost and net
realizable value.
h) Long-Term Debt
Long-Term Debt is reduced annually by principal payments and actuarial earnings.
Principal debt repayment is recorded in operating funds in the year that it is repaid.
i) Employee Benefits
The District and its employees make contributions to the Municipal Pension Plan, and the
employees accrue benefits under this plan based on service. The District's contributions to
the Plan are expensed when incurred.
In addition to the Municipal Pension Plan, other retirement benefits also accrue to the
District's employees. The employee benefits and the District's liability related to these
benefits are determined based on service, estimated retirement age, and expected future
salary and wage rates.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 33 I

Municipal Forest — 5dh Year Anniversary
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
Financial Statements
125
2. Portfolio and Mortgage Investments
Portfolio and Mortgage Investments as at December 31 were comprised of the following:
Rate
Maturity
Date 2008 2007
M.F.A. Money Market Fund (a) Various N/A $27,222,253 $23,819,466
M.F.A. Intermediate Fund Various N/A 9,540,044 6,580,765
Mortgage receivable from Mission Regional
Chamber of Commerce, amortized over 25
years, payable in monthly installments of
$1,068 including interest at 5.5% per annum,
secured by general security agreement against
debtor's property and by promissory note; due
July 1, 2026. (a) 5.5% July 1, 2026 144,919 149,715
Subtotal $36,907,216 $30,549,949
Accrued Interest 657 678
Totals $36,907,873 $30,550,624
(a) Held or partially held by Development Corporation
The carrying value of securities is based on the cost method whereby the cost of the
security is adjusted to reflect investment income, which is accruing, and any decline in
market value other than temporary. The market value of the investment portfolio as at
December 31, 2008, is $36,907,873 (December 31, 2007, market value was $30,550,624).
Included in the cash balance ($4,657,425) and portfolio investments ($36,907,873) is
$15,760,118 set aside for statutory reserve funds and $7,235,682 for restricted revenues.
3. Receivables
Receivables consist of the following:
2008 2007
Accounts Receivable (includes commercial utilities) $2,310,018 $2,797,576
Development Cost Charge Receivables (note 12) 351,210 432,184
Development Corporation Receivables 15,046 20,415
Taxes Receivable (includes residential utilities) 2,453, 721 2,029,375
Total $5,129,995 $5,279.550
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 34 I

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
Financial Statements
126
4. Municipal Finance Authority Debt Reserve Fund
The District issues its debt instruments through the Municipal Finance Authority. As a condition
of these borrowings, a portion of the debt proceeds are withheld by the Municipal Finance
Authority, in a debt reserve fund. The District also executes demand notes in connection with
each debt issue whereby the District may be required to loan certain amounts to the Municipal
Finance Authority. These demand notes are contingent in nature. The balances of the cash
deposits and demand notes as at December 31, 2008, are as follows (includes Mission's share
of regional utilities cash deposits and demand notes):
Cash
Deposits
Demand
Notes
Total
Debt Reserve
General Operating Fund $223,701 $543,964 $767,665
Sewer Utility Operating Fund 42,905 99,878 142,783
Water Utility Operating Fund 43.315 102,492 145.807
Total 5309,921 $746,334 $1,056,255
5. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities consist of the following:
2008 2007
Accounts Payable $5,725,698 $4,331,616
Wages and Benefits Payable 879,394 777,366
Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Costs 449,758 439,554
Total $7,054,850 $5,548.536
The District's landfill site is regulated by the BC Ministry of Environment, and as such the
District is subject to certain operating, closure and post-closure obligations at the site.
The costs associated with landfill closure and post-closure care, are to be recognized over the
operating life of the landfill site as per PSAB standards. The District has estimated and
recognized a liability of $449,758 as at December 31, 2008, for future estimated closure and
post-closure costs at the landfill site. The estimated total expenditures for closure and postclosure
care are approximately $16.5 million, with approximately $16 million remaining to be
recognized. There are currently no assets designated for settling the landfill closure and postclosure
care liability.
The landfill closure and post-closure care cost liability is based on the discounted costs
associated with the phased closure of various landfill cells and environmental monitoring for 25
years after the landfill is closed. Approximately 70% of the landfill capacity remains, and the
landfill is predicted to reach capacity around 2048. See note 11 (Landfill Leachate Breakout)
for further information in relation to the landfill site.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 35 I

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
Financial Statements
127
6. Provision for Retirement
District employees are eligible for retirement benefits, provided they retire in accordance with
the provisions of the Pension (Municipal) Act. The amount of retirement benefit is determined
by the number of full-time years of service the employee has accumulated upon retirement from
the District. The significant actuarial assumptions adopted in measuring the District's accrued
Provision for Retirement are as follows:
2008 2007
Discount Rates 4.5% 4 .5%
Expected Wage and Salary Increases 2.5% 2.5%
7. Tangible Capital Assets
Tangible Capital Assets, at cost
2008 2007
Buildings $ 36,870,418 $36,181,359
Engineering Structures 68,072,965 65,525,006
Land 7,025,824 6,950,824
Machinery and Equipment 19,006,375 18,411,478
Sewer Utility Capital (Non-regional) 17,054,311 16,983,595
Water Utility Capital (Non-regional) 16,297,353 16,216,920
Sewer Utility Capital (Regional) 11,722,435 10,082,437
Water Utility Capital (Regional) 18,295,640 17 213 034
Total $194,345,321 $187,564,653
The PSAB has issued a major new accounting standard, which comes into effect on January 1,
2009. This standard requires that the District create and maintain a detailed listing of all of its
Tangible Capital Assets (on a historical cost basis) and amortize the cost of these assets over
their respective useful lives. A considerable amount of work will be required to comply with this
standard and to meet the deadline. To date, the District has:
• completed necessary background research;
• drafted a capital asset management policy;
• formed an inter-departmental committee to oversee the implementation;
• drafted a list of asset categories, expected useful lives and capitalization
thresholds; and
• started drafting inventory collection procedures.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I- 361

128
Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
8. Fair Market Value of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities
For certain of the District's financial instruments, including cash, receivables, and accounts
payable, the carrying amounts approximate fair market value due to the immediate or shortterm
maturity of these financial instruments.
The fair market value of the Portfolio Investments approximates the carrying value (including
accrued interest of the various instruments, based on quoted year-end market bid prices). The
fair market value of the Mortgage Investments and the long and short-term debt approximates
their carrying value, as the interest rates approximate borrowing rates available for loans under
similar terms and maturities.
9. Regional Water and Sewage Systems
Prior to January 1, 2005, water supply and distribution and sewage treatment were provided to
Mission and Abbotsford by the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD), who held the assets of
the systems in trust for the District of Mission and the City of Abbotsford. The assets, liabilities
and equities of the existing systems were transferred from the FVRD to Mission and
Abbotsford, effective January 1, 2005. Mission and Abbotsford now jointly govern and
administer the systems, pursuant to the Water Supply and Distribution and Sewage Treatment
Systems Ownership and Governance Agreement.
For any given year, ownership of any portion of the assets of the systems constructed, partially
constructed, or purchased during a year, is based on a percentage of each of Mission and
Abbotsford, calculated by measuring the sewage flow for the sewage system, and the water
flow for the water system for Mission and Abbotsford for the preceding year.
Any disposition of assets of the joint water and sewer systems is permitted only with the joint
consent of the parties, and the proceeds of such disposition is divided between Mission and
Abbotsford, based on Mission's and Abbotsford's actual ownership of each asset of the system,
as reflected in the financial statements of both Mission and Abbotsford.
Operating revenues and expenditures for any year of the joint water services agreement is also
based on a percentage calculated by measuring the water flow for each of Mission and
Abbotsford for the preceding year. Operating revenues and expenditures for any year of the
joint sewer services agreement is also based on a percentage calculated by measuring the
sewage flow for each of Mission and Abbotsford for the preceding year.
The District's share of revenues and expenditures was as follows:
2008 2007
Water System 23.99% 22.12%
Sewage System 20.76% 21.76%
The District's ownership share of the water and sewage capital assets was as follows:
2008 2007
Water System 21.68% 21.55%
Sewage System 18.40% 18.07%
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
37-1

Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
Financial Statements
129
10. Commitments and Contingencies
(a) Pension
The District and its employees contribute to the Municipal Pension Plan (the Plan), a jointly
trusteed pension plan. The Board of Trustees, representing the Plan members and
employers, is responsible for overseeing the management of the Plan, including investment
of the assets and administration of benefits. The Plan is a multi-employer contributory
pension plan. Basic pension benefits provided are defined. The Plan has about 150,000
active members and approximately 54,000 retired members. Active members include
approximately 32,000 contributors from local governments.
Every three years an actuarial valuation is performed to assess the financial position of the
Plan and the adequacy of Plan funding. The most recent valuation as at December 31,
2006, indicated a surplus of $438 million for basic pension benefits. The next valuation will
be as at December 31, 2009, with results available in 2010. The actuary does not attribute
portions of the surplus to individual employers. The District paid $821,119 for employer
contributions to the Plan in fiscal 2008, ($766,037 in fiscal 2007). Employees contributed
$747,885 to the Plan in fiscal 2008 ($686,898 in fiscal 2007).
Due to severe market declines, the 2008 investment return on Plan assets to September
30, 2008 was -6.86%, which is below the actuarial target and slightly below the benchmark.
The Plan could be at an underfunded position in comparison to the 2006 actuary reported
surplus position. If there is an underfunded liability, the employer's contribution rate may
increase. However, this increase may not be sufficient to keep the Plan fully funded.
The Plan's Board of Trustees has reviewed its asset allocation and will be making changes
to its Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures at its March 2009 Board meeting.
(b) Legal Actions
The District has been named as a defendant in various legal actions. No reserve or liability
has been recorded regarding any of these legal actions or possible claims because the
amount of loss, if any, is indeterminable. Settlement, if any, made with respect to these
actions would be accounted for as a charge to expenditures in the period in which
outcomes are known.
(c) Silverdale Creek Estuary Wetlands Property Purchase
In 2005, the District acquired a 25% interest in the Silverdale Creek Estuary Wetlands
property. The District also entered into a co-purchase agreement with Ducks Unlimited
Canada to acquire a further 25% interest in the property, for the amount of $300,000,
divided equally over 4 years. To date, the District has purchased a $75,000 fractional
interest in the property in each of 2006, 2007, and 2008, and is committed to purchase
additional fractional interest in the amount of $75,000 in 2009, as outlined in the Silverdale
Creek Estuary Wetlands Purchase Agreement dated September 30, 2004.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
38

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
Financial Statements
130
(d) Agreements and Contracts
The District has entered into various agreements and contracts for services and
construction. The District has approximately $3.3 million in commitments as at December
31, 2008, ($3.6 million as at December, 31, 2007), for capital projects which have not been
recorded. The funding for the majority of these obligations has been set aside in reserves
and deposits and will be used in the period the goods and/or services are constructed or
acquired.
11. Landfill Leachate Breakout
In February of 2006, a leachate (contaminated water) breakout occurred at the District's landfill
site as a result of heavy rains and a rise in the ground water table. Since the breakout
occurred, the District has completed various short-term remediation works at the site and has
conducted numerous studies to determine a final resolution to this problem. As the final
resolution, including costs, are yet to be determined, no provision has been made in these
financial statements for this item. These amounts will be recorded in the year the goods and/or
services are constructed or acquired.
12. Letters of Credit
In addition to the performance deposits reflected in cash balances, the District is holding
irrevocable Letters of Credit in the amount of approximately $6.87 million as at December
31, 2008 ($6.75 million in 2007), which were received from various parties to ensure the
parties complete various works within the District. These amounts are not reflected in the
financial statements but are available to satisfy any liability arising from non-performance
by the parties. The District is also holding irrevocable Letters of Credit as security against
development cost charges receivable in the amount of $150,855 as at December 31, 2008
($432,184 in 2007).
13. Federal Gas Tax Agreement
The following is a schedule of receipts and disbursements for the Federal Gas Tax Agreement
funds:
2008 2007
Opening balance of unspent funds $979,490 $575,402
Add: Amount received during the year 489,854 380,345
Interest earned 54,200 39,742
Less: Amount spent (55,603) (15,609)
Amount spent on administration (1,390) (390)
Closing balance of unspent funds $1,466,551 $979,490
Gas Tax funding is provided by the Government of Canada. The use of the funding is
established by a funding agreement between the District and the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities. Gas Tax funding may be used towards designated public transit, community
energy, water, wastewater, solid waste and capacity building projects, as specified in the
funding agreement. For further information on the Gas Tax see schedule 5 (Reserve Funds).
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
39 1

131
Municipal Forest — 50th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
14. Segment Reporting
Municipal services have been segmented by function, by combining activities that have
similar service objectives (see schedule 9). Revenues and expenditures reported are
directly attributable to the various segments, and may include internal transfers between
segments that are recorded at fair value. The major services provided by each segment
include:
• General Government: property taxation, investments, general fund debt, municipal
hall shared office services, insurance, municipal building operations and maintenance,
library operations, transfers to reserves, and general cost recoveries.
• Corporate Administration and Finance: general administration, financial
administration, purchasing, human resources, information technology, grants provided
to local organizations, restorative resolutions and social development.
• Equipment Fleet: operations and maintenance of municipal vehicles and equipment,
which are charged back to the user departments.
• Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services: leisure centre operations, arts and cultural
services, parks, trails, and provision of a variety of lessons, public sessions, and
programs.
• Planning: land use planning for growth and development, and administration of the
Official Community Plan (OCP) and zoning bylaws.
• Economic Development: coordination of economic development, tourism, and film
activities.
• Police Services: general duty policing, community policing, community response,
forensic identification, general investigations, police dog service, traffic and
administrative support.
• Fire & Emergency Services: emergency response, emergency planning, fire
investigations, fire prevention, and public fire education.
• Bylaw & Inspection Services: bylaw administration and enforcement, building permits
and inspections, animal control services, business licenses, and public safety
inspections.
• Cemetery: cemetery operations and administration.
• Refuse Collection and Landfill: curbside collection of refuse, compost, and
recyclables; and landfill operations.
• Engineering and Public Works: engineering administration, infrastructure planning,
road maintenance, drainage, diking, and snow removal.
• Transit Services: joint transit system with the City of Abbotsford providing bus service
to Mission and Abbotsford, and participation in the West Coast Express train and trainbus
service from Mission to Vancouver.
• Forestry: administration of the Mission Tree Farm License, harvesting, tree planting,
cone and seed collection, plantation brushing, tree spacing, pruning, forestry road
construction, forest fire prevention, and trail building.
• Water Utility: regional water supply and treatment systems with the City of Abbotsford,
local water distribution, and system maintenance.
• Sewer Utility: regional sewage treatment system with the City of Abbotsford, local
sewage conveyance to the treatment plant, and system maintenance.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
1-4701

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
132
SCHEDULE 1
Statement of Financial Position - by Fund
as at December 31
Operating Funds
General Water Sewer
Reserve
Funds
Financial Assets
Cash
Portfolio and Mortgage Investments
Receivables
$ 4,630,546
35,926,587
5,114,949
$ -
-
Deposits - Municipal Finance Authority 223,701 43,315 42,905
Other Assets 92,347 -
Log Inventory 380,498 -
Due from Own Funds and Entity 830,048 697,701 15,760,118
46,368,628 873,363 740,606 15,760,118
Liabilities
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities 7,049,000 -
Deferred Revenues 3,665,266 -
Provision for Retirement 779,873 -
Restricted Revenues 7,235,682 - -
Reserves-Municipal Finance Authority 223,701 43,315 42,905
Deposits 1,774,605
Long-Term Debt -
Due to Own Funds and Entity 17,287,867
38,015,994 43,315 42,905
Net Financial Assets (Liabilities) 8,352,634 830,048 697,701 15,760,118
Non-Financial Assets
Tangible Capital Assets
Net Municipal Position $ 8,352,634 $ 830,048 $ 697,701 $ 15,760,118
Fund Position
Financial Equity
Reserve Accounts $ 5,945,475 - $ - $ -
Reserve Funds - - 15,760,118
Operating Surplus 2,407,159 830,048 697,701
Share Capital -
8,352,634 830,048 697,701 15,760,118
Equity in Non-Financial Assets
Equity in Capital Assets -
$ 8,352,634 $ 830,048 $ 697,701 $ 15,760,118
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
41

Financial Statements
133
SCHEDULE 1
Capital Funds
General Water Sewer
District of Mission
Development
Corporation
Consolidated
Adjustments
Consolidated
2008
$ - $ $ - $ 26,879 $ $ 4,657,425
- 991,286 (10,000) 36,907,873
15,046 - 5,129,995
- - 309,921
2,587 94,934
- - 380,498
- - (17,287,867)
- 1,035,798 (17,297,867) 47,480,646
5,850 7,054,850
3,665,266
779,873
7,235,682
309,921
1,774,605
16,129,641 3,008,442 2,024,527 21,162,610
(17,287,867)
16,129,641 3,008,442 2,024,527 5,850 (17,287,867) 41,982,807
(16,129,641) (3,008,442) (2,024,527) 1,029,948 (10,000) 5,497,839
130,975,582 34,592,994 28,776,745 194,345,321
$114,845,941 $ 31,584,552 $ 26,752,218 $ 1,029,948 $ (10,000) $ 199,843,160
$ $ $ - $ - $ 5,945,475
15,760,118
1,019,948 4,954,856
10,000 (10,000)
1,029,948 (10,000) 26,660,449
114,845,941 31,584,552 26,752,218 173,182,711
$114,845,941 $ 31,584,552 $ 26,752,218 $ 1,029,948 $ (10,000) $ 199,843,160
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
42

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
134
SCHEDULE 2
Statement of Financial Activities - by Fund
for the year ended December 31
Operating Funds
General Water Sewer Reserve Accts
Revenues
Taxation, Grants in Lieu, Utility Taxes (Net) $ 24,172,619 $ 14,993 $ 55,796 $ -
Sales of Services 5,358,083 - -
User Rates, Rentals, and Other Fees 1,068,688 3,526,003 3,033,736 -
Permits and Licenses 896,189 -
Return on Investments 399,504 39,465 32,316 -
Contributions from Other Gov'ts & Agencies 2,377,074 72,079 - -
Municipal Forestry 1,979,156 -
Other Revenue 1,928,403 31,311 35,667 590,701
38,179,716 3,683,851 3,157,515 590,701
Expenditures
General Government Services 5,201,440
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services 5,537,180
Planning and Economic Development 1,207,219 -
Protective Services 11,367,435
Public Health and Welfare 186,176
Sanitation and Waste Removal 2,318,144 -
Transportation Services & Public Works 5,681,836
Municipal Forestry 2,260,851 -
Water and Sewer 1,833,485 1,872,210
Long Term Debt Interest 858,082 193,541 158,834
Development Corporation
34,618,363 2,027,026 2,031,044
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures 3,561,353 1,656,825 1,126,471 590,701
Debt
Long-Term Debt Principal Repaid (590,542) (584,003) (86,495)
Long-Term Debt Actuarial (80,781) (31,311) (35,667)
Excess (Deficiency) Before Transfers 2,890,030 1,041,511 1,004,309 590,701
Transfers From (To)
Development Corporation 25,000 - -
Operating Funds/Reserve Accounts (1,034,085) 49,685 (1,132) 780,625
Reserve Funds (1,606,979) (1,091,196) (1,003,177) -
Appropriated Surplus 34,143 - -
Subtotal Transfers (2,581,921) (1,041,511) (1,004,309) 780,625
Increase (Decrease) in Financial Equity $ 308,109 $ - $ 1,371,326
Financial Equity, Beginning of Year $ 2,133,193 $ 830,048 $ 697,701 $ 4,574,149
Surplus for the Year 308,109 -
Dividends Declared -
Transfers from Surplus (34,143) -
Transfers to Equity 1,371,326
Financial Equity, End of Year $ 2,407,159 $ 830,048 $ 697,701 $ 5,945,475
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Financial Statements
135
SCHEDULE 2
Reserve
Funds
Capital Funds
General Water Sewer
District of Mission
Development
Corporation
Consolidated
2008
$ $ -
-
-
-
$N. $
$ $ 24,243,408
5,358,083
7,628,427
896,189
-
636,456 - - 40,030 1,147,771
489,854 208,391 15,885 175,077 3,338,360
- - 1,979,156
799,122 1,838,916 825,719 840,457 6,890,296
1,925,432 2,047,307 841,604 1,015,534 40,030 51,481,690
816,418 - - 6,017,858
- 349,476 - - 5,886,656
- 11,438 - - - 1,218,657
- 162,193 - - 11,529,628
- - - - 186,176
207,413 2,525,557
- 2,585,193 - - - 8,267,029
- 4,716 - - - 2,265,567
- 1,163,041 1,710,715 6,579,451
- - - 1,210,457
- - - 30,191 30,191
- 4,136,847 1,163,041 1,710,715 30,191 45,717,227
1,925,432 (2,089,540) (321,437) (695,181) 9,839 5,764,463
(1,261,040)
(147,759)
1,925,432 (2,089,540) (321,437) (695,181) 9,839 4,355,664
- (25,000)
- 204,907 - -
800,101 1,884,633 321,437 695,181 -
- - - - 34,143
800,101 2,089,540 321,437 695,181 (25,000) 34,143
$ 2,725,533 $ $ $ $ (15,161) $ 4,389,807
$ 13,034,585 $ $ - $w $ 1,035,109 $ 22,304,785
- - - 9,839 317,948
- - - (25,000) (25,000)
- - - - (34,143)
2,725,533 - - - 4,096,859
$ 15,760,118 $ - $ $ $ 1,019,948 $ 26,660,449
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission

Municipal Forest — 5dh Year Anniversary • Financial Statements
136
Adding to the Mission Legacy . . . .
Maggie Henderson .... won Gold at the
Pan American Kayak Championships; received recognition -
at the Premier's Athletic Awards for her exceptional
performances in the sport of canoe and kayak; and was
named to the Canadian national canoe/kayak team.
. Brent Hayden .... named Sport BC's senior male
athlete of the year; received recognition at the
Premier's Athletic Awards for his world class
performances in swimming; and competed at the
2008 Beijing Olympics.
Scott Schmich .... won Gold at the Skills Canada
culinary national competition. Scott, a grade 12 student at
Hatzic Secondary School, was enrolled in the
cook training, level one apprenticeship program.
Kelly McLeod .... earned a Premier's Excellence Award
In recognition of her academic achievements, community
service and involvement in extra-curricular activities.
Bryan Brothers .... defended his title by winning
gold in the Master 1 division at the Canadian Powerlifting
Championships. Brian won his title by squatting 440 pounds,
benchpressing 230 pounds and deadlifting 480 pounds.
Tosh Sutherland .... earned a bronze in a solo tap dancing
performance at the world championships in Reissa, Germany.
Tosh is a member of the BC senior team and is a grade 11
student at Heritage Park Secondary School.
Captain Ken Lissimore Jr .... recognized for his
40 years with the Mission volunteer fire department and
his dedicated service to the community.
Taryn Hamilton .. . . achieving the title of "World's Best Junior
Dog Handler" at the Crufts Dog Show in England.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
45

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
137
SCHEDULE 3
Restricted Revenues
for the year ended December 31
Development
Cost Charges
Parkland
Acquisition
Charges
Total
2008
Total
2007
Beginning Balance $ 4,454,997 $ 1,126,361 $ 5,581,358 $ 5,434,370
Changes
Interest Allocated 221,071 62,936 284,007 281,553
Collections 3,295,145 486,663 3,781,808 914,577
Amortization from (to)
Reserve Funds (Internal Loans Repaid) (378,448) 37,926 (340,522) (309,399)
General Capital Fund (399,866) (399,866) (437,703)
Sewer Capital Fund (840,457) - (840,457) (95,455)
Water Capital Fund (830,646) (830,646) (206,585)
1,066,799 587,525 1,654,324 146,988
Ending Balance $ 5,521,796 $ 1,713,886 $ 7,235,682 $ 5,581,358
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
46

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
138
SCHEDULE 4
Reserve Accounts
for the year ended December 31
Gaming General Gravel Pit Insurance Policing
Equity, Beginning of Year $ 138,529 $ 389,319 $ 84,175 $ 465,127 $ 151,149
Changes in Equity
Collections 538,451 52,250 -
Transfers from (to)
General Operating Fund (117,290) 124,691 (112,941)
Forestry Operations 10,609
Sewer Utility Operating Fund 31,827
Water Utility Operating Fund 31,827
Transfer to Community Amenity Reserve Fund
General Capital Fund (68) (4,250)
421,161 176,873 (42,928)
Equity, End of Year $ 559,690 $ 566,192 $ 84,175 $ 422,199 $ 151,149
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
47

Financial Statements
139
SCHEDULE 4
Refuse
Stabilization
Municipal
Forestry
Sewer Utility
General
Water Utility
General
Total
2008
Total
2007
$ 2,167,204 $ 116,619 $ 949,820 $ 30,695 $ 81,512 $ 4,574,149 $ 4,335,166
590,701 187,279
725,462 598,574 1,218,496 458,243
(195,020) (184,411) 670,323
(30,695) 1,132 11,200
(81,512) (49,685) (122,020)
- (266,172)
(200,589) (204,907) (699,870)
524,873 598,574 (195,020) (30,695) (81,512) 1,371,326 238,983
$ 2,692,077 $ 715,193 $ 754,800 $ $ 5,945,475 $ 4,574,149
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
48

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
140
SCHEDULE 5
Reserve Funds
for the year ended December 31
General
Capital
Water
Capital
Sewer
Capital
Community
Amenity
Equity, Beginning of Year $2,078,996 $1,160,776 $5,500,041 $ 273,048
Changes in Equity
Interest Allocated 96,181 74,064 256,095 15,500
Community Works Fund Payments Received -
Municipal Finance Authority Surplus and Debt Reserve Refunds 806 239,611 27,533
Internal Loans Repaid from Restricted Revenue 107,682 21,094
Fees Collected 190,650
Land Sales
Transfers from (to)
General Operating Fund 768,029 -
General Operating Fund (Equipment Recoveries)
Sewer Utility Operating Fund 980,100
Water Utility Operating Fund 1,068,119
Community Amenity Reserve Account (Closed)
General Capital Fund (790,085) (52,744;
Sewer Utility Capital Fund (695,181)
Water Utility Capital Fund (321,437) -
182,613 1,060,357 589,641 153,406
Equity, End of Year $2,261,609 $2,221,133 $6,089,682 $ 426,454
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
49

Financial Statements
141
SCHEDULE 5
Arterial
Road Equipment Gas Tax
Information
Systems
Land
Sale
Property
Tax Sale
Total
2008
Total
2007
$ 311,108 $2,162,321 $ 979,490 $ 165,690 $ 402,872 $ 243 $13,034,585 $ 12,545,219
17,710 102,089 54,200 9,011 11,595 11 636,456 651,485
489,854 489,854 380,345
267,950 476,963
75,000 136,746 340,522 309,399
190,650 87,000
1,000
225,168 147,961 120,004 1,261,162 1,679,683
345,817 345,817 578,968
23,077 1,003,177 46,785
23,077 - 1,091,196 (578,848)
266,172
(65,846) (240,314) (56,993) (127,826) (550,825) (1,884,633) (2,322,146)
(695,181) (494,076)
(321,437) (593,364)
177,032 282,592 487,061 75,300 (282,480) 11 2,725,533 489,366
$ 488,140 $2,444,913 $1,466,551 $ 240,990 $ 120,392 $ 254 $15,760,118 $ 13,034,585
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
50

142
Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
MISSION MUNICIPAL FOREST
Tree Farm Licence
50th Anniversary Celebrations
Several community events were organized by Forestry Staff to raise awareness of the Municipal
Forest and to celebrate the 50th Year Anniversary of Mission's Tree Farm Licence.
February — Mission Archives
were provided with historic
photos and articles for a
Heritage Week Display
assembled at the Leisure
Centre.
May — Held Community Tree Planting
Day in Steelhead. Approximately 100
people were on hand to plant trees,
take guided hikes, ride an excavator
and visit with Smokey the Bear. A
commemorative sign was installed.
June — During the
Children's Festival at
Heritage Park, Smokey
the Bear was in
attendance to hand out
pencils and balloons.
July — Logger Sport Demo at Canada
Day Celebrations at Heritage Park was
held.
September — Had a Forestry
Display, official cake cutting, and
recognition of past employees at
Celebration of Community at
Heritage Park. Shown above is
former Tree Farm Manager Bruce
Webster with Mayor Atebe.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
51

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
143
SCHEDULE 6
Equity, Capital Assets
for the year ended December 31
General
Capital
Water
Capital
Sewer
Capital
Total
2008
Total
2007
Balance, Beginning of Year $110,267,703 $ 29,806,197 $24,919,341 $164,993,241 $155,833,660
Capital Expenditures
(by funding source)
Donations & Miscellaneous 1,386,075 (4,927) 1,381,148 86,372
Grants 208,391 15,885 175,077 399,353 637,615
Equipment Trade-Ins 52,975 52,975 46,959
Surplus 7,980
Restricted Revenue 399,866 830,646 840,457 2,070,969 739,743
Reserve Accounts 204,907 204,907 699,870
Reserve Funds 1,871,644 321,437 695,181 2,888,262 3,409,586
4,123,858 1,163,041 1,710,715 6,997,614 5,628,125
Cost of Assets Disposed of (216,943) (216,943) (233,206)
Debt
Actuarial Adjustments 80,781 31,311 35,667 147,759 383,848
Long-Term Debt Principal Repaid 590,542 584,003 86,495 1,261,040 3,380,814
671,323 615,314 122,162 1,408,799 3,764,662
Balance, End of Year $114,845,941 $ 31,584,552 $26,752,218 $173,182,711 $164,993,241
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
52

144
Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
SCHEDULE 7
Consolidated Revenues
for the year ended December 31 2008 2007
Taxation, Grants In Lieu, Utility Tax (Net)
Property Taxes $ 21,887,819 $ 20,396,053
Fraser Valley Regional Library 1,023,458 979,370
Special Assessments & Area Charges 233,416 257,720
Grants in Lieu of Taxes 708,580 704,740
1% Utility Taxes 390,135 368,008
24,243,408 22,705,891
Collections for Other Authorities
Province of B.C. - School Taxes 14,131,260 13,562,609 •
Fraser Valley Regional Hospital District 1,381,068 1,307,874
Fraser Valley Regional District 844,645 745,478
B.C. Assessment Authority 359,917 336,130
Municipal Finance Authority 959 1,170
Downtown Business Improvement Association 60,775 57,881
16,778,624 16,011,142
Payments to Other Authorities (16,778,624) (16,011,142)
$ 24,243,408 $ 22,705,891
Sale of Services
Sale of Services
Cemetery Services $ 172,442 $ 159,522
Landfill Services, Refuse Collection and Recycling 3,160,707 3,025,224
Private Driveway Access 4,353 8,598
Protective Services including Prisoner Accommodation 90,962 93,905
Recreational and Park Services 1,706,851 1,640,846
Advertising 41,015 42,999
Storm Sewer Connection Fees 23,670 31,316
Miscellaneous 158,083 161,384
5,358,083 5,163,794
User Rates, Rentals, and Other Fees
User Rates, Connection Charges & Service Charges
Sewer Utility (Non-regional) 2,544,084 2,380,862
Sewer Utility (Regional) 489,652 526,606
Soil Removal Royalties 94,010 109,268
Water Utility (Non-regional) 3,518,886 3,078,670
Water Utility (Regional) 7,117 17,097
6,653,749 6,112,503
Rentals and Leases
Police Building 16,831 16,965
Other Property Rental and Leases 60,968 67,611
77,799 84,576
Other Fees and Contributions
Community Amenity Contributions (Reserve Account) 39,000
Community Amenity Contributions (Reserve Fund) 190,650 87,000
Map Sales & Other 3,525 1,745
Parkland Development Contributions 52,250 9,750
Subdivision Development Fees 245,958 230,903
Subdivision Inspection Fees 404,496 85,680
896,879 454,078
$ 7,628,427 $ 6,651,157
Permits and Licenses
Building Permits $ 482,578 $ 605,498
Business Licenses 268,639 241,704
Commercial Vehicle Licenses 10,110 7,156
Dog Licenses 134,862 135,704
$ 896,189 $ 990,062
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
53

145
Financial Statements
Consolidated Revenues (continued)
SCHEDULE 7
for the year ended December 31 2008 2007
Return on Investments
Operating Funds $ 471,285 $ 470,417
Reserve Funds 636,456 651,485
Controlled Entity - District of Mission Development Corporation 40,030 48,080
$ 1,147,771 $ 1,169,982
Contributions from Other Governments & Agencies
Federal
Community Investment Support Program 9,379
Gas Tax - Community Works Fund 489,854 380,345
Provincial
Backflow prevention program 5,885 -
Capital asset study 2,076 -
Centrifuge Solids Dewatering 171,119 2,257
Child Care Capital Funding Program 3,919 -
Club Kids 31,425
Community Wildfire Protection 591
FIA-Forestry Recreation Grant 112,927
Flood Protection Works 175,816
Heritage Mapping Project 8,184
Infrastructure Planning Grant 16,824
JEPP Grant 12,214
Leak Detection Program 10,000
Major Storm Emergency 1,340,099 1,331,333
Municipal Emergency Program 1,375
Provincial Emergency Program 34,070 65,059
Reclaimed water study 1,882 -
Recreation Program Grants 132,958 120,896
Restorative Resolutions 3,500 9,000
Social Development 24,500
Spirit Squares 13,171
Street Lighting 1,599 1,599
Traffic Fine Sharing Revenue 542,563 526,907
Urgent Mitigative Flood Works - Capital 475,000
Urgent Mitigative Flood Works - Operating 83,547
Water Facilities Grant 72,079 72,079
Water to Triple Creek Feasibility Study 4,739
School District #75
Restorative Resolutions 8,500 5,000
School Liaison Officer 20,000 20,000
Other Agencies Funding
Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Landfill Studies 160,358
Fraser Valley Regional District - Search & Rescue Program 25,820 25,065
Community Tourism Program 80,821 19,555
$ 3,338,360 $ 3,317,529
Municipal Forestry $ 1,979,156 $ 5,248,089
Other Revenue
Donations & Miscellaneous - Capital Funding 1,381,148 86,372
Donations & Miscellaneous - Operating Funding 178,333 132,495
Equipment Sale Proceeds 52,975 46,959
Fines 7,561 6,161
Gaming Revenue 538,451 138,529
Land Sale Proceeds - 1,000
Municipal Finance Authority Actuarial Adjustments 147,760 383,848
Municipal Finance Authority Surplus and Debt Reserve Refunds 267,950 476,963
Penalties and Interest on Taxes 408,343 377,500
Recoveries & Reimbursements 1,146,296 532,736
Reversal of Provision for Doubtful Accounts 349,988 -
Restricted Revenues Transferred to Reserve Funds 340,522 309,399
Use of Restricted Revenues - Capital Funding 2,070,969 739,743
$ 6,890,296 $ 3,231,705
Total Revenues $ 51,481,690 $ 48,478,209
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
54

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary 146
SCHEDULE 8
Consolidated Expenditures - by Function
for the years ended December 31 2008 2007
General Government Services
Building and Grounds Maintenance $ 257,563 $ 195,005
Finance & Insurance 1,406,874 1,063,906
General Administration 2,892,273 1,466,271
General Office Supplies 161,600 155,109
Grants in Aid 356,252 356,442
Information Services 396,576 357,422
Legislative 444,703 439,475
Purchasing and Stores 244,103 234,264
Administrative Services Recovery (1,221,260) (1,333,519)
Capital Assets 816,418 276,392
Provision for Bad Debts 60,824 4,824
Post Retirement Costs 127,381 114,537
Other Fiscal Service Charges 74,551 90,625
$ 6,017,858 $ 3,420,753
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Parks and Recreation
Administration $ 1,073,638 $ 943,478
Arena and Curling Rink 406,922 425,613
Community Centre 389,854 376,501
Indoor Swimming Pool 1,129,896 1,120,577
Parks and Playgrounds 600,670 576,081
Recreational Programs 788,649 718,316
Library 1,147,551 1,073,986
Capital Assets 349,476 601,124
$ 5,886,656 $ 5,835,676
Planning and Economic Development
Community Planning $ 929,763 $ 822,572
Economic Development 277,456 211,447
Official Community Plan Project 6,825
Capital Assets 11,438 7,299
$ 1,218,657 $ 1,048,143
Protective Services
Animal Control $ 250,304 $ 246,597
Building and Plumbing Inspection 658,226 447,786
Bylaw Enforcement 350,550 278,863
Crime Prevention & Restorative Justice 328,512 271,353
Dike & Flood Works Maintenance 145,151 348,554
Fire Protection 1,735,059 1,707,363
Municipal Emergency Program 92,805 60,684
Police Protection 7,754,333 6,986,035
Victim/Witness Program 52,495 48,745
Capital Assets 162,193 101,916
$ 11,529,628 $ 10,497,896
Public Health and Welfare
Cemetery Operation and Maintenance $ 186,176 $ 160,021
$ 186,176 $ 160,021
Sanitation and Waste Removal
Administration and Other $ 189,822 $ 181,412
Curbside Recycling 501,725 485,263
Refuse Disposal Site 911,319 1,042,978
Residential Refuse Collection 715,278 690,114
Capital Assets 207,413 812,492
$ 2,525,557 $ 3,212,259
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
55

147
SCHEDULE 8
Consolidated Expenditures - by Function (continued)
for the years ended December 31 2008 2007
Transportation Services & Public Works
Road Transport
Drainage $ 730,984 $ 2,134,094
Engineering & Public Works 1,435,102 1,314,086
Roads and Streets 2,920,702 2,186,662
Sidewalks & Retaining Walls 67,342 78,318
Transit Subsidy 884,450 640,686
Equipment Fleet
Operating Costs 1,638,059 1,322,846
Less: Equipment Recovery (1,974,561) (1,889,796)
Fuel Recovery (20,242) (22,526)
Capital Assets 2,585,193 2,404,488
$ 8,267,029 $ 8,168,858
Municipal Forestry
Operating $ 2,260,851 $ 4,562,194
Capital Assets 4,716 4,964
$ 2,265,567 $ 4,567,158
Water and Sewer Operations
Water
Administration 643,825 $ 609,917
System Operation and Maintenance 607,280 659,793
Water Operations (Regional) 582,380 491,406
Capital Assets (Non-Regional) 80,434 183,233
Sewer
Capital Assets (Regional) 1,082,607 643,229
2,996,526 2,587,578
Administration 505,476 530,867
System Operation and Maintenance 551,733 454,936
Sewer Operations (Regional) 815,001 773,331
Capital Assets (Non-Regional) 70,717 137,018
Capital Assets (Regional) 1,639,998 455,970
3,582,925 2,352,122
Long Term Debt Interest
$ 6,579,451 $ 4,939,700
General Fund 858,082 869,458
Sewer Fund (Non-Regional) 36,648 36,648
Water Fund (Regional) 193,541 299,450
Sewer Fund (Regional) 122,186 237,990
$ 1,210,457 $ 1,443,546
Development Corporation
Legal & Advertising 4,436 3,417
Administration 25,755 24,341
30,191 27,758
Total Expenditures $ 45,717,227 $ 43,321,768
** See Consolidated Statements of Financial Activities Page 2
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
56

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary 148
SCHEDULE 9
Statement of Financial Activities - by Segment
for the year ended December 31
General
Government
Corp Admin &
Finance
Equipment
Fleet
Parks,
Recreation &
Culture Services
Revenues
Taxation, Grants in Lieu, Utility Taxes (Net) 24,172,619
Sales of Services 13,284 124,404 1,739,578
User Rates, Rentals, and Other Fees 303,868
Permits and Licenses 10,110
Return on Investments 705,800 -
Contributions from Other Gov'ts & Agencies 2,224,615 36,500 164,383
Municipal Forestry - - -
Other Revenue 4,482,051 122,069 9,638
31,902,237 293,083 1,913,599
Expenditures
Administration and Miscellaneous (64,040) 401,250 137,328
Administration cost recovery (673,950) - - -
Contracted Services (including RCMP Contract) 427,057 235,967 361,026
Equipment 36,332 3,303 1,638,059 143,220
Equipment Recoveries (1,994,803) -
Fees 23,510
Grants 360,989 -
Insurance and Professional Services 886,562 188,104 587
Library 1,023,458
Long Term Debt Interest 858,082 - -
Materials and Supplies 32,374 11,963 287,221
Salaries and Benefits 418,991 2,532,376 3,037,045
Utilities 196,625 - 466,825
Capital 655,202 94,948 293,289 252,299
3,796,693 3,828,900 (63,455) 4,709,061
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over $ 28,105,544 $ (3,535,817) $ 63,455 $ (2,795,462)
Expenditures before Debt & Transfers
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
57

Financial Statements 149
SCHEDULE 9
Planning
Economic
Development
Police
Services
Fire &
Emergency
Services
Bylaw &
Inspection
Services
- 9,351 83,220 7,742 -
248,352 16,831 176,400
886,078
1,000 79,821 562,563 38,034
300 35,125 84,790 824 10,909
249,652 124,297 747,404 46,600 1,073,387
40,307 143,273 73,770 192,782 66,574
1,786 22,052 6,318,086 83,757 273,093
113 12,658 361,833 40,120
1,000 52,495
19,516 51,870 26,702 64
7,342 70,263 36
868,041 111,131 1,303,465 1,002,182 754,423
3,297 549
11,438 - 72,217 89,976
941,201 277,456 7,822,983 1,810,285 1,224,286
$ (691,549) $ (153,159) $ (7,075,579) $ (1,763,685) $ (150,899)
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
(Continued on next page)
58

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary 150
SCHEDULE 9
Statement of Financial Activities - by Segment (continued)
for the year ended December 31
Cemetery
Refuse
Collection &
Landfill
Engineering &
Public Works
Transit
Services
Revenues
Taxation, Grants in Lieu, Utility Taxes (Net) -
Sales of Services 172,442 3,160,707 47,357
User Rates, Rentals, and Other Fees 323,238
Permits and Licenses
Return on Investments -
Contributions from Other Gov'ts & Agencies 46,437
Municipal Forestry -
Other Revenue 3,000 114,583
172,442 3,163,707 531,615
Expenditures
Administration and Miscellaneous 4,981 1,063,932 677,947 81,132
Administration cost recovery - - (547,310) -
Contracted Services 3,309 1,961,954 1,392,123 799,564
Equipment 27,084 3,460 686,546 771
Equipment Recoveries - -
Fees 16,979 795 _
Grants 2,138
Insurance and Professional Services 6,568 31,929
Library -
Long Term Debt Interest -
Materials and Supplies 15,403 5,759 440,413 790
Salaries and Benefits 134,771 96,120 2,320,073 4,244
Utilities 628 8,934 238,433 -
Capital 45,240 207,413 2,410,109
231,416 3,371,119 7,651,058 888,639
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over $ (58,974) $ (207,412) $ (7,119,443) $ (888,639)
Expenditures
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
59

Financial Statements 151
SCHEDULE 9
Forestry
Water
Utility
Sewer
Utility
Development
Corporation
Total
2008
Total
2007
14,993 55,796 24,243,408 22,705,890
- - 5,358,085 5,163,795
3,526,002 3,033,736 7,628,427 6,651,157
- - 896,188 990,062
113,530 288,411 40,030 1,147,771 1,169,982
112,927 72,079 3,338,359 3,317,529
1,979,156 1,979,156 5,248,089
- 1,112,067 914,940 6,890,296 3,231,705
2,092,083 4,838,671 4,292,883 40,030 51,481,690 48,478,209
120,634 288,228 326,734 30,191 3,585,023 3,471,145
- - (1,221,260) (1,333,519)
1,253,212 713,822 1,095,991 14,942,799 15,646,120
137,525 126,651 83,540 3,301,215 2,938,334
- - (1,994,803) (1,994,803)
143,455 270 35 185,044 195,472
- 416,622 405,253
34,826 2,349 3,057 1,252,134 802,991
1,023,458 979,370
193,541 158,834 1,210,457 1,443,546
17,402 175,817 58,078 1,122,861 1,136,001
553,797 516,289 291,203 13,944,151 13,037,426
- 10,058 13,574 938,923 966,306
4,716 1,163,041 1,710,715 7,010,603 5,628,125
2,265,567 3,190,066 3,741,761 30,191 45,717,227 43,321,768
$ (173,484) $ 1,648,605 $ 551,122 $ 9,839 $ 5,764,463 $ 5,156,441
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
60

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
152
SCHEDULE 10
Long-term Debt
as at December 31
L/A MFA Year of
Bylaw # Issue # Issue
Purpose
Year of
Maturity
Stated
Interest
Rate
Principal
Outstanding
31-Dec-08
General Debt
2983 68 1998 Firehall/EOC building 2018 5.550 $ 1,053,340
3523 81 2004 Leisure Center/Sports Park/Water Park 2024 4.860 4,783,079
3523 85 2004 Leisure Center/Sports Park/Water Park 2024 5.200 1,739,301
3761 95 2005 Leisure Center/Sports Park/Water Park 2025 4.170 2,685,514
3523 99 2006 Leisure Center/Sports Park/Water Park 2027 4.430 5,868,407
Subtotal General Debt $ 16,129,641
Sewer Utility Debt
Non-Regional Sewer Utility Debt
Cedar Valley sewer extension local
3355 75 2001 improvement 2021 5.690 $ 485,483
Regional Sewer Utility Debt
533 63 1996 Regional sewer infrastructure 2016 4.000 146,460
125/164/533 71 1999 Regional sewer infrastructure 2019 5.990 875,964
125 75 2001 Regional sewer infrastructure 2021 5.690 143,017
325 85 2004 Regional sewer infrastructure 2024 4.983 373,603
Subtotal Regional Sewer Utility Debt 1,539,044
Subtotal Sewer Utility Debt 2,024,527
Water Utility Debt
Regional Water Utility Debt
257 33 1983 Regional water infrastructure 2008 3.293
166 68 1998 Regional water infrastructure 2018 5.550 -
393 75 2001 Regional water infrastructure 2021 5.690 558,766
393 80 2003 Regional water infrastructure 2023 4.775 1,733,191
393 83 2003 Regional water infrastructure 2013 4.345 222,390
393 85 2004 Regional water infrastructure 2024 4.975 494,095
Subtotal Regional Water Utility Debt $ 3,008,442
Total Long-Term Debt $ 21,162,610
(a) Future payments do not include actuarial amounts.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
61

153

Financial Statements
154
SCHEDULE 10
FUTURE PAYMENTS (a)
(Principal & Interest)
Principal
Outstanding
31-Dec-07 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
$ 1,133,098 $ 130,462 $ 130,462 $ 130,462 $ 130,462 $ 130,462
4,975,631 433,634 433,634 433,634 433,634 433,634
1,809,320 164,485 164,485 164,485 164,485 164,485
2,794,480 225,845 225,845 225,845 225,845 225,845
6,088,435 490,655 490,655 490,655 490,655 490,655
$16,800,964 $ 1,445,081 $ 1,445,081 $ 1,445,081 $ 1,445,081 $ 1,445,081
$ 511,586 $ 56,127 $ 56,127 $ 56,127 $ 56,127 $ 56,127
161,067 19,837 19,837 19,837 19,837 19,837
934,686 118,467 118,467 118,467 118,467 118,467
150,707 16,534 16,534 16,534 16,534 16,534
388,643 34,365 34,365 34,365 34,365 34,365
1,635,103 189,203 189,203 189,203 189,203 189,203
$ 2,146,689 $ 245,330 $ 245,330 $ 245,330 $ 245,330 $ 245,330
147,949 -
296,458 - - -
588,809 64,599 64,599 64,599 64,599 64,599
1,809,687 162,298 162,298 162,298 162,298 162,298
266,868 54,142 54,142 54,142 54,142 54,142
513,986 45,448 45,448 45,448 45,448 45,448
$ 3,623,757 $ 326,487 $ 326,487 $ 326,487 $ 326,487 $ 326,487
$22,571,410 $ 2,016,898 $ 2,016,898 $ 2,016,898 $ 2,016,898 $ 2,016,898
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
62

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
155
SCHEDULE 11
Internal Debt/Transfers
as at December 31
Fund/Account
Lending
Fund/Account
Borrowing*
Year Funds
Advanced
Purpose
Reserve Funds
General Capital Reserve Fund Pedestrian Overpass DCC 2000
Pedestrian overpass (Westcoast
Express)
General Capital Reserve Fund Mission Roads DCC 2005 Cedar Connector road project
Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund Mission Roads DCC 2006 Cedar Connector road project
Land Sale Reserve Fund Cedar Valley Drainage DCC 2000
Land Sale Reserve Fund Cedar Valley Drainage DCC 2003
Sewer Capital Reserve Fund Cedar Valley Sewer DCC 2000 - 2001
Property purchase for detention ponds
(at Cedar Street & Dewdney Trunk Road)
Property purchase for detention ponds
(Dewdney Trunk Road)
Cedar Valley gravity trunk sewer/
forcemain/pump station project
Sewer Capital Reserve Fund
Cedar Valley Sewer L.I.P.
Area DCC
2002
Cedar Valley local improvement sanitary
sewer extension project
Restricted Revenues
Neighbourhood Parkland Reserve Fund Silverdale Bridge DCC 2005 Industrial subdivision bridge project
Surplus
Accumulated General Operating
Surplus
Operations 2005 Retirement costs
Development Corporation
Property Tax Revenue
(Industrial Subdivision )
2005 Industrial subdivision bridge project
* DCC - Development Cost Charges
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
63

Financial Statements
156
SCHEDULE 11
Planned
Year(s) of
Payback
Total
Balance
Outstanding
31-Dec-07
Re-Payments
Balance
Outstanding
Before Interest
31-Dec-08
Interest @
4.50%
Total
Balance
Outstanding
31-Dec-08
2006... $ 623,251 $ $ 623,251 $ 28,046 $ 651,297
2015 107,682 (107,682) 2,423 2,423
2006 - 2025 1,448,809 (75,000) 1,373,809 63,509 1,437,318
2006 - 2009 194,530 (136,746) 57,784 5,677 63,461
2006 - 2009 252,272 252,272 11,352 263,624
2006-2019 1,831,774 (20,370) 1,811,404 81,972 1,893,376
2006-2014 397,128 (724) 396,404 17,854 414,258
2006... 1,084,566 (37,926) 1,046,640 47,952 1,094,592
2006 - 2012 70,200 (15,000) 55,200 55,200
2010 - 2012 1,068,159 (87,135) 981,024 981,024
$ 7,078,371 $ (480,583) $ 6,597,788 $ 258,785 $ 6,856,573
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
64

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary Financial Statements 1 57
SCHEDULE 12
Cemetery Perpetual Care Trust Fund
as at December 31 2008 2007
Assets
Investments in Municipal Finance Authority Money Market Fund $ 662,741 $ 640,129
662,741 640,129
Liabilities
Payable to District of Mission
$ 662,741 $ 640,129
Financial Position
Financial Equity
Balance, Beginning of Year $ 640,129 $ 627,643
Add:
Interest earnings 29,524 53,135
Care Fund Contributions 22,612 12,486
Less:
Contribution to General Operating Fund (29,524) (53,135)
Balance, End of Year $ 662,741 $ 640,129
Note:
As described in Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Trust Funds are
not included in the District of Mission's Consolidated Financial Statements.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
65

158
Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
1BDO
BDO Dunw °oily LLP
Chartered Accountants
600 Cathedral Place
925 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 312
Telephone: (604) 688-5421
Telefax: (604) 688-5132
E-mail: max ver@bdo. ea
www.bdo.ea
Auditors' Report
To the Board of
District of Mission Development Corporation
We have audited the Balance Sheet of the District of Mission Development Corporation as at
December 31, 2008 and the Statements of Operations and Cashflow for the year then ended.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on
a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of the Corporation as at December 31, 2008 and the results of its operations and its cash
flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting
principles.
Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, British Columbia
April 14, 2009
BOO Dun woody LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership registered in Ontario
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
66

159
Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
DISTRICT OF MISSION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Balance Sheet
Financial Statements
As at December 31, 2008, with comparative figures for 2007
2008 2007
Assets
Cash $ 26,879 $ 37,219
Receivables 426 335
Portfolio and Mortgage Investments (Notes 1 & 2) 991,286 1,014,888
Inventory of Property Held for Sale (Note 1) 2,587 2,587
Due from Mission Heritage Association (Note 4) 14,620 20,080
Liabilities, Surplus and Share Capital
$ 1,035,798 $ 1,075,109
Liabilities
Accounts Payable $ 5,850 $ 5,000
Dividends Payable 25,000
5,850 $ 30,000
Surplus
Balance, Beginning of Year 1,035,109 1,039,787
Net Income (10,484) 20,322
Dividends Declared (25,000) (25,000)
Balance, End of Year 999,625 1,035,109
Share Capital
Authorized:
10,000 Common shares with a par value of 1 dollar each
Issued:
10,000 Common shares 10,000 10,000
$ 1,015,475 $ 1,075,109
Approve
P. Directors:
Jam
I Horn, Vice-President
See accompanying notes to financial statements
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
67

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
160
DISTRICT OF MISSION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Statement of Operations
Year ended December 31, 2008, with comparative figures for 2007
2008 2007
Revenue
Investment Income 40,030 $ 48,080
Expenses
Professional Fees (includes Advertising) 4,436 3,417
Miscellaneous (Note 3) 25,755 24,341
30,191 27,758
Net Income 9,839 $ 20,322
See accompanying notes to financial statements
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
68

Municipal Forest - 50th Year Anniversary
Financial Statements
161
DISTRICT OF MISSION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Statement of Cash Flows
Year ended December 31, 2008, with comparative figures for 2007
2008 2007
Cash Provided By (Used For):
Operating Activities
Net Income 9,839 $ 20,322
Changes in Non-Cash Operating Items
Accounts Payable 850
Dividends Payable (25,000) (40,000)
Due from Mission Heritage Association 5,460 5,460
Receivables (91) 11
(8,942) $ (14,207)
Financing Activities
. Dividends Declared (25,000) (25,000)
Investing Activities
Decrease (Increase) in Portfolio Investments 23,602 $ (32,528)
Decrease in Cash (10,340) $ (71,735)
Cash, Beginning of Year 37,219 $ 108,954
Cash, End of Year 26,879 $ 37,219
To be read in conjunction with the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
69

Municipal Forest - 50 th Year Anniversary Financial Statements
162
District of Mission Development Corporation
Notes to the Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
General
The District of Mission Development Corporation (Corporation) was incorporated on March 9, 1977, under
the laws of the B.C. Company Act and the B.C. Municipal Act. The Corporation's recent business
activities have involved providing loans and mortgages to various organizations, in order to generate
economic development activity within the District of Mission. These loans and mortgages, in turn,
generate interest earnings or income for the Corporation.
1. Significant accounting policies
(a) Inventory of Property Held for Sale
Inventory of Property Held for Sale is recorded at cost, which is less than net realizable value.
Cost is defined as original cost plus accumulated carrying costs, less sales proceeds
received up to and including 1982. Since 1982, sales proceeds have been recorded as
revenue. Costs are removed from inventory on a pro-rata basis, over total acreage held.
The 2008 market value (as determined by the B.C. Assessment Authority) of Property Held
for Sale is $3,834,000 (2007 was $3,834,000).
(b) Portfolio and Mortgage Investments
Portfolio and Mortgage Investments are recorded at cost, including bonds which are recorded
net of premiums or discounts. Interest is accrued at the invested rate. Investments are
written down to net realizable value when there has been, in the opinion of management, a
decline in market value other than temporary.
(c) Use of Estimates
These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian generally
accepted accounting principles which require management estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and
the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results
could differ from those estimates.
2008 Annual Report — District of Mission
7,7

Municipal Forest — 50 th Year Anniversary Financial Statements
163
District of Mission Development Corporation
Notes to the Financial Statements
for the year ended December 31, 2008
2. Portfolio and Mortgage Investments
2008 2007
M.F.A. Money Market Fund $845,710 $ 864,495
Mortgage receivable from Mission Regional
144,919 149,715
Chamber of Commerce, amortized over 25
years, payable in monthly installments of
$1,068 including interest at 5.5% per annum,
secured by general security agreement
against debtor's property and by promissory
note; due July 1, 2026.
Subtotal
Accrued Interest
$990,629
657
$1,014,210
678
Totals
$991,286 $1,014,888
3. Related Party Transactions
The District of Mission charges the Corporation for administrative salary costs related to carrying
out the Corporation's business activities.
4. Due from Mission Heritage Association
The Corporation has entered into a loan agreement with the Mission Heritage Association
whereby the Corporation loaned the Association $58,300. The loan amount outstanding is
$14,620 (2007 - $20,080). The loan amount is interest free and is repayable through annual
installments of $5,460. The loan matures on July 1, 2010, and is secured by a promissory note.
5. Fair Market Value of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities
For certain of the Corporation's financial instruments, including Cash, Receivables, and Accounts
Payable, the carrying amounts approximate fair market value due to the immediate or short-term
maturity of these financial instruments.
The fair market value of the Portfolio Investments approximates the carrying value (including
accrued interest) of the various instruments, based on quoted year-end market bid prices. The fair
market value of the Mortgage Investments approximates the carrying value given that the
inherent interest rate approximates market rate.
The fair market value of the Corporation's non-interest bearing loan receivable from Mission
Heritage Association as at December 31, 2008, was $13,846 compared to a carrying value of
$14,620. Fair market value has been calculated using the future cash flows (principal
repayments) of the actual outstanding debt instrument, discounted at current market rates
available to the Corporation for similar instruments.
6. Income Taxes
All issued shares of the Corporation are owned by the District of Mission, a local government in
the Province of British Columbia. Consequently, and pursuant to section 149(1)(d) of the Income
Tax Act, the Corporation is exempt from income tax.
2008 Annual Report — District of Mission

Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
164
Table of Contents
Statistical Information
Demographic Statistics
School Enrolment 73
Population Estimates 73
Building / Development Statistics
Number of Building Permits Issued 74
Development Activity 74
Financial Statistics
Restricted Revenues Collected 75
Financial Equity 75
Outstanding Long-Term Debt 75
General Long-Term Debt Servicing Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditurles 76
Per Capita General Long-Term Debt 76
Legal Legislated Borrowing Limit ........ .................... .. ........ . . 76
Revenue by Source 77
Expenditures by Function 77
Capital Expenditures by Function
,,
Funding Sources for Capita! Expe! di u 78
Property Taxation and- As itie0I.SfatiStiCs
Authenticated PrOVélti 4st rtients 79
.
Property TAX'Revenue. frorrrNew Construction , 79
, , , ,
2008 T4es CollecteCrfOr Various Taxing Authorities 80
Property Tax Collbdtions ' ' 80
Major Property Taxpayers 80
2008 PermissioryTax Exemptions
2008 PermissiVe Tax Exemptions 81
Miscellaneous Statistics
Miscellaneous Statistics 82
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
72

165
Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
Demographic Statistics
School Enrolment
(Source: School District #75-Mission)
7,500
7,000
6,500
6,000
LS FTE Funded Students (1) j
(1) Funded school age students in
District as determined at September 30 th
of each year
5,500
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Population Estimates
(Source: Government of British Columbia-BC Stats)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
37,000
36,500
36,000
35,500
35,000
34,500
34,000
33,500
33,000
32,500
*Population estimates to 2006 have been revised to align with the 2006 Census Population counts.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
73

166
Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
Building / Development Statistics
(Source: District of Mission Planning Department & Inspection Services)
Number of Building Permits Issued
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
■ Residential • Additions/ ❑ Institutional E Commercial E Industrial ❑ Misc. ❑ Demolitions ■ TOTAL
Renovations
50
Development Activity
40
30
20
10
0
11 omminuirrir—
pr
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
■ Subdivision Applications
• Rezoning Applications
• Development Permits ❑ Development Variance Permits
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 74 I

Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
167
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
Financial Statistics
(Source: District of Mission Finance Department)
Restricted Revenues Collected
o Neighbourhood
Parkland
Charges
■ Development
Cost Charges
$0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
$30,000,000
•
Financial Equity
(Reserves & Surpluses)
o Reserve Accounts &
Operating Surpluses
■ Reserve Funds
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000 -
$0
III
111 II I
111
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Outstanding Long- Term Debt
$18,000,000 -(
$16,000,000 -V-
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
2004 2005(3) 2006 2007 2008
El General Debt (1)
■ Sewer Utility Debt (2)
o Regional Sew er Utility Debt (2)
■ Regional Water Utility Debt (2)
(1) Supported by property taxes
(2) Supported by utility revenues including user fees
(3) The District recorded its share of regional utility debt effective January 1, 2005
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
75

168
Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
Financial Statistics (continued)
(Source: District of Mission Finance Department)
General Long-Term Debt Servicing Costs
as a Percentage of Total Expenditures
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Per Capita General Long-Term Debt
$0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Legal Legislated Borrowing Limit
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
76

Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
169
Financial Statistics (continued)
(Source: District of Mission Finance Department)
$25,000,000
Revenue by Source
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
Taxation, Sale of User Rates, Return on Other Gov'ts Municipal Permits & Other
Grants in Services Rentals & Investments & Agencies Forest Licences Revenue
Lieu, & Utility Other Fees
Taxes
$16,000,000
Expenditures by Function
(Operating S Capital)
$14,000,000
$12,000,000-1/
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
General
Government
Services
Planning & Protective
Economic Services
Development
P ublic Health Recreation, Sanitation and Transportation
Parks & Culture Waste Removal Services &
Public Works
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
77

170
Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
Financial Statistics (continued)
(Source: District of Mission Finance Department)
Capital Expenditures by Function
$12,000,000-/-
$11,000,000
$10, 000,000-""
$9,000,000-,
$8,000,000-r
$7,000,000-'
$6,000, 0001'
$5,000,000-'
$4,000,000-'
$3,000,000-'
General Parks, Planning & Protective Public Health & Sanitation & T ansportation Municipal Water Services Sew er
Government Recreation & Econorric Services Welfare Waste Removal Services & Forestry - RegionaVNon- Services -
Services Cultural Development
Public Works Regional RegionaVNon-
Services
Regional
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
Funding Sources for Capital Expenditures
ri I
Reserve Restricted Operations & Debt Government Third Party
Funds Revenues Surplus
Grants Funding
i ,
I-- 9.1.1 A51 •
F-0 2004
2005
ip 2006
■ 2007
▪ 2008
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
78

Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
171
4,500,000,000
4,000,000,000
3,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
1,000,000,000
500,000,000
0
Property Taxation and Assessment Statistics
Authenticated Property Assessment
Source: BC Assessment Authority
Residential Utilities Light Business/ Managed RecreationaV Farm
Industry Other • Forest NonProfit
2004
■ 2005
E 2006
❑ 2007
• 2008
*Includes Land & Improvements
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Residential $2,266,831,484 $2,732,196,002 $3,056,698,902 $3,699,456,002 $4,429,123,302
Utilities 4,753,185 5,011,685 5,403,095 5,636,440 5,495,215
Light Industry 31,675,500 34,251,600 34,773,300 42,340,700 53,077,900
Business/Other 195,178,535 203,308,507 220,629,296 286,884,928 333,122,806
Managed Forest 28,500 74,900 30,000 32,000 38,500
Recreational /
Non-Profit 9,213,800 9,696,700 9,390,500 12,507,700 13,192,100
Farm 3,081,100 3,102,000 3,209,064 3,065,215 3,008,810
TOTAL $2,510,762,104 $2,987,641,394 $3,330,134,127 $4,049,922,985 $4,837,058,633
PropertyTax Revenue from New Construction
(Source: BC Assessment Authority & District of Nission Finance Department)
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
79

Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
172
Property Taxation and Assessment Statistics (continued)
(Source: District of Mission Finance Department)
2008 Taxes Collected for Various Taxing Authorities
Fraser Valley
Regional Hospital
District, $1,382,929
or 3.49%
Fraser Valley
Regional District,
$845,788
or 2.13%
Fraser Valley
Regional Library,
$1,024,904
or 2.58%
BC Assessment
Authority, $359,914
or 0.91%
Municipal Finance
Authority, $958
or 0.01%
School Taxes,
$14,135,494
or 35.65%
Municipal Taxes,
$21,898,620
or 55.23%
Property Tax Collections
2004..., . :..if,, 2005', 20, 6
, '
Current taxes leviec1 ( $33,034,914 $34,696,363 $36,496,239 $38,717,033 $41,022,032
Uitr013t1thies 'co lle6ted: ' 1,360;617:; $33;267:;:3-64 „ -$35,00;7 71334; . 9;267562 ,
Current taxes outstanding
at Dec 31 $ 1,684.297 $ 1,429,199 $ 1,446.454 $1,382,752 $1,754,480
PetCebtade ,, ....,.,;,- , of ; current
,
:x.
. .
=tak§§,dollacte-d' 94.9% '.95.9% - ,. 96.0% t. - 96.4%
5.7°.%
(1) Includes residential flat rate utilities and collections for other authorities
Major Property Tax Payers (1)
(2008 Taxes)
'
.
.
Mission Valley_Shopping Centre $895,624 493989 BC Ltd. $103,452
,
;5d'Hydid-', ' , - - . -.$571'..,4$0., I'lu,and SEld'aidianea!',' ' l'''
9761 '
Loblaw Properties $299,627 JNJJ Enterprises
...
Ltd
.
$87,707
COrrectidn Servibes ,:Canda:.-- - $270;017 .:: Jayberg Enterprises 'Ltd .' t86,007'..-*
Daro Developments Ltd. $199,461 Anayat Holdings Ltd. $68,095
Mission City Holding§ Ltdy...: , '.$180,103 % CarhOUriI Stns.Enterprises,Ltd:' ii,'. , ... $65;444 .'
Terasen Gas $136,860 Derma Estates Ltd. $62,353
: Canadd.Saféway - Limited ,, . $136,7,16- .i : Ruth Singer Investments: Ltd - ';•A'$58":646;,..
Genstar Titleco Ltd. $135,420 Cressey Development Corp $56,357
Canadian PacifiC:Rgtlikay.: $1.26,174 . - BC Custom;Car A§sOCiatitin . -- - r s',t54,-,6721.
Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd. $111,603
(1). Includes mi.micipAlipoti6ird taiceS„lilprarli taxes, grants in lieu and 1% utility taxes;
doei not include special levies, utilities, and taxes levied by Other tax ig authorities.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
I 80 I

Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
173
' -
2008 Permissive Tax Exemptions Provided
Source: BC Assessment Authority & District of Mission Finance Department)
_ ;'," •,...
orieta iiiii,.-' , Valuet 0.43 -.1041
4 N • Orqinizatio
,
A ._._,_, Onretpry' ya ,,. ,
* dhetart Value
' e :Jue
sk, i0:
,."-it,
„, , , .,6-,-*-4, - -;;; ,,,_ t ruerimxermatTax •i6-,,=-m ,p91 :. ,,t.1•ti:
Taxes vir...44:- ortyaqirtres, r ,.,N,t.!., =.1`ofn" • 0
All Saints Anglican Church and Manse 675 316 991
Bethel Pentecostal Assembly 7,530 3,521 11,051
Cedar Valley_Mennonite Church 9,440 4,415 13,855
istia.h,MiOsighar}4•Ailjaneg Church $,0241-;. 2,630,., 8', 4'A
Four Square Gospel Church 3,085 1,443 4,528
Fraser House Society 2,244 1,456 3,700
.
Greek Orthodox Church 2;512.,. 1,175
_ .
3,687
aggiOti'',3"sbeliOideTiiiiiititiving; ' .6,132i*4. 3,960•, , , r Ir''.:410010' 1)
Mission Assoc. for Seniors' Housing 29,753 19,308 49,061
Mission Community Services Society 12,894 7,735 20,629
Mission Daycare Society 3.027
.
1,964 4,991
aiq0' biskict HistOrical;56Ciety
3095 -
;',1., 559). -
'5.0i':o.
Mission Elk's Lodge #30 2,947 1,378 ' 4,325
Mission Evangelical Free Church 1,346 630 1,976
Mission Gur Sikh Societ 17,292 8,087 25,379
•
.lailb• . ''''' ' Cl ' . '':' 3 600', : ".-7Q3, ' 8b3;:i''.;_:
Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce 14,070 8,440 22,510
Mission Zion Christian Fellowship 1,023 478 1,501
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church 3,357
1,570 4,927
,.....,
N ew -Ittbriiciri.36 iLawn Bc4lin .USdciefstv: 2.0052 -:,1:_,-01W , ,.
North Valley Baptist Church 4,548 2,127 6,675
Pleasant View Housing Society 1980 29,346 19,044 48,390
Royal Canadian Legion Branch #57 4,650 2,175 6,825
' Seventh. Day Adventists "
.
599 ,, ' , ata '
..
Silverdale Community Centre 5,002 2,544 7 ,546
Silverhill Hall Association 2,116 990 3,106
St. Andrew's United Church 3,834 1,793 5,627
Stqalw.Moil:Atolti- . .--'13;;:0e k..i.zofj.4- :- Y ,
St. Joseph's Catholic Church 4,247 1,986 6,233
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church 5,458 2,552 8,010
Steelhead Community Association 764 496 1,260
:Stifii;LO' HeritageSociety '.. A',4fill • '2,259. .. .: 5740 ::.
The Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation 16,758 10,875 27,633
Trustee of Mission Congregation of
Jehovah's Witnesses
2,653 1,241 3,894
Trustees of the Mission City
1,483 694 2,177
Congregation of Church of God (7 th Day)
- ,•
UniVersal'Hua'Tsand•1Onastery., • . 3;246 ••, 1.,51 ;4..4,764 ,:;.
West Heights Gospel Chapel 2,166 1,013 3,179
Women's Resource Society of the Fraser
Valley
Totals
1,723 1,118 2,841
" Includes: school taxes and Fraser Valley Regional District, Fraser Valley Regional Hospital, BC Assessment, and
Municipal Finance Authority levies.
** Does not include statutory tax exemptions provided to church property via legislation.
'M
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
81 I

Population
174
Celebrating Municipal Forest - 50 Years
Statistical Information
Corporate Administration
.E4(i6:150:::6 .f.340e.4:664i6;f0eS .Lit ' 7
Miscellaneous Statistics
(Source: Various Departments of the District of Mission and BC Stats)
: .10•,,04
4 , JtIO
...
..
2
,:21.,,960,, , 21'.960 j i 21,960' '4. 2,E 8...
,
Inspection Services
'. ''' , ..t,
.4,-;, ....Ccif.)St(411011:,,\r40e 00,181.16' rani
..
4,..: ''
3
190ritilfg issued: 4- ., -
'' '. , -
,
7 . .
, -, ti.
,. „.• ,
Number Business ■,:ipenses;speCv. . - .. ' 1';56:4,:::,, : .1, 5561
.'- 1 ,==
y '.."%444,';
, 67003•Vz
•'44 , --.•• m if,g,-., y• , : ,.:
,
. ,
N0 -f.Y..kidr04:)cibds.L1646,...1 6.kiiedf . 3,$88 3, ,274;§tr , 1 .:,
Fire Protection ,
'..::140'bill34.0. -4 -Qiigit.r.i':Fil.'e:F,ig ht6r' 76 74 7 , i ,. ' :; A,
Nu,rnbi-,of;'..E10;spofIse,,Calls 7451, 945 900 '.: :1 O '
'Kti`rxiba :ii.f..0,1ur,i,lei:pal'FireA4.drants -
:' 43 ..5: , "':,.,9.49' ' 95.:
Police Protection
It .*,
.tfAi-..'eill::;aAl:iiiibri. ,i4- St:440W 46 .. 'ay* - ., T,: ,
^
.'',. 4.
, . _ ., . -FfItjlieet:0 : Ratio : ;....-.. 1144.4 • r ' ,: 1761 1/7 .(4 : 1/756 ' ' i::;• •,, ' ''''
•Qrfoiel;144:-:(pr-,1 ,000 patiktrkil. 17:o 4
rifilieVAIZOde;011 eCidig :
.. .
5,,800 ,, -8;857:., .,
4'
, .1 .. : a.. 4c '
it FileëOitt (indlifae',Pi)Orlial -files) - 17,555v. • 17 552 1 9,902 17,447 F 77;465a`
Public Works
TOtal: :.,P.0ed..Roacis:.kixi. ․),.. 3 '' .,•;. -.., . ,
T.i0:11a1;::Saelit4e.Y-eli/er,F),•10.S:(kriis) • . , ' 136;„ ' , ' ' ;.P:
, :. , .. . .
Total:WA-far Rit-.).0"..(lcr:Clg 155: , ::i.:1 , •16.8'.:. - 170 :„,
Forestry Department
NOmbaettSeedtiodo,p141-1,tetp: - '1:06,76a:::::" 74,000 : ., 7;64 94;29 .,.',..14,8aci ,,.:
Area :of Manual: Brushing (Hectares )
, ,69:2 :,- :,,66.0::. .59.0' .. 76 ..6 ' 52.4
(1)Does not include the District's contribution towards the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT)
(2)
Does not include the District's contribution towards IHIT and the Lower Mainland Emergency Response Team (LMERT)
(3) Does not include the District's contribution towards IHIT and the LMERT, but does include 3 members belonging to new integrated teams,
Police Dog Service, Forensic, and Reconstructionist
* Statistics not available for these years.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
82

175
LOCATION and MAP OF MISSION
The District of Mission encompasses approximately 26,000 hectares,
and is nestled in the rugged Coast Mountains located north of the Fraser River.
Mission's summer temperature averages 21.93 °C and its winter temperatures average 7.5 °C.
2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
83

2008 Annual Report - District of Mission
176

177
Caitlyn Rhododendron — Mission's Official Flower
Eco-Audit
The District of Mission 2008 Annual Report is printed with vegetable-based inks on i 00% post-consumer recycled
and processed chlorine free paper.

178
IBC10
The District of Mission
Audit Results and Communications
Report to Council
December 31, 2008

179
BDO
April 16, 2009
Members of Council
The District of Mission
8645 Stave Lake Street
Box 20
Mission, BC
V2V 4L9
BDO Dunwoody LLP
Chartered Accountants
600 - 925 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC
Canada, V6C 3L2
Telephone: (604) 688-5421
Telefax: (604) 688-5132
E-mail: vancouver@bdo.ca
Dear Mayor and Council:
We have completed our audit of the financial statements of the District of Mission for its fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008. We take this opportunity to present our findings to you.
The responsibility for producing financial statements and ensuring adequate internal controls and sound
business practices is the responsibility of Council through management and is a part of management's
overall responsibility for the ongoing activities of the municipality. Policies and procedures developed by
the municipality to safeguard its assets and to provide reasonable assurance that errors and irregularities or
illegal acts are promptly identified, must be properly monitored to ensure that all staff are complying with
the guidelines provided.
The objective of an audit is to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of any
material misstatement. Auditors must be completely independent and objective in the application of their
testing.
We received full support from management and staff throughout our work and the scope of our audit was
not restricted in any way. Our audit opinion, which is bound into the published financial statements, is
without reservation indicating that our audit tests and procedures yielded reliable results.
Should you have any questions or concerns in regard to any of the items mentioned in this report, please
do not hesitate to contact us at any time.
Yours truly,
BDO DUNWOODY LLP
Per:
Bill Cox, CA
On behalf of Bill Cox, Inc.
Corporate Partner of BDO Dunwoody LLP

180
Contents
Audit Approach 2
Audit Findings 3
Audit Reporting 4
Auditor Independence 5
Possible Aggregate Misstatements 6
Appendix A — Management Letter 7
Appendix B — Letter of Representation 12
Appendix C — Audit Planning Letter (for reference) 16

181
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 2
Audit Approach
The audit followed a "risk-based" approach. This approach focuses on obtaining sufficient appropriate audit
evidence to reduce the risk of material misstatement in the financial statements to an appropriately low level.
This means that we focus our audit effort in areas that we believe have a higher risk of being materially
misstated and do less audit work in areas that are only low risk. The audit risk model in generally accepted
auditing standards has changed resulting in an increase in level of audit work.
To assess risk accurately, we need to have a clear understanding of the District's operations and the
environment it operates in. Much of our understanding is obtained through discussions with management and
staff. We would also appreciate any new information that you could provide to us about your operations,
internal controls or anything else that you feel is important to the audit as it may corroborate what we have
already learned from management and other sources, or it may be useful for future audit planning. We would
also appreciate any insights that you could provide to us on what you perceive to be high risk to the District as
that will make future audits more effective and efficient, which will benefit all concerned.
The following sections provide more detail on our audit approach for the year just audited.
Audit Scope
The scope of our audit of the consolidated financial statements of The District of Mission for the year ended
December 31, 2008 included the following:
• An audit opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the District of Mission
• An audit opinion on the financial statements of the District of Mission Development
Corporation
• Management letter report in regard to audit recommendations of significance (an appendix to
this package)
• Corporate income tax returns (first year of this requirement — will be no income tax liability)
Requests by Council
In the course of your duties as Council members, you may be aware of additional areas of concern from an
audit perspective that you would like us to address. We want you to know that we welcome discussion on
any areas of audit concern that you may have.
Overall Audit Strategy
General audit strategies include a "combined" audit approach or a "substantive" audit approach. In a
combined audit approach, we would obtain our assurance from a combination of tests of controls (compliance
procedures) and substantive procedures (such as analysis of data and obtaining direct evidence as to the
validity of the items). The substantive approach virtually ignores controls and focuses almost exclusively on
tests of accounting outputs.
As a result of changes to our professional audit requirements in recent years, auditors must have a good
understanding of the control systems. Having said that, the level of understanding required for audit purposes
is not sufficient for us to provide opinion on the overall effectiveness of the internal control environment.
So our audit process involved a fair degree of systems work coupled with verification of key balances by
substantive means.

182
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 3
Audit Findings
There are a number of matters that arose during the audit that we would like to bring to your attention,
although nothing that negatively impacted the audit. Each of these matters is summarized briefly below. We
would be pleased to discuss any of these items in more detail at our upcoming meeting.
Fraudulent and Illegal Activities
Our audit procedures were performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements
and although they might bring possible fraudulent or illegal activities to our attention, our audit
procedures were not designed to detect fraudulent or illegal activities.
In any event, we did not detect any fraudulent or illegal activities, or material misstatements resulting
from fraudulent or illegal activities during our audit.
Disagreements with Management
There were no significant disagreements with management.
Litigation Proceedings
We have communicated directly with the District's various legal counsels, who have indicated that there
are possible material claim outstanding against the District described the Cedar Connector Expropriation
Claims — the amount of which will likely be $1 million. This has already been identified in our audit in the
previous year.
The best estimate of the claim amount (i.e. $1 million) has been paid to the lawyers reserve and had been
previously expensed in the District's accounts.

183
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 4
Audit Reporting
Materiality
Materiality in an audit is used as a guide for planning the nature and extent of audit procedures and for
assessing the sufficiency of audit evidence gathered. It is also used in evaluating the misstatements found and
determining the appropriate audit opinion to express.
Since the determination of materiality is a matter of professional judgment, it is primarily dependent on our
evaluation of the relative importance of accuracy in the financial statements to the various users of those
statements. We have identified taxpayers, Council, the Ministry, various government agencies and
(indirectly) the Municipal Finance Authority as the most important users of the District's financial statements.
We describe the MFA as having an "indirect" interest because while they do not generally review the
financial statements of each municipality in detail, the combined financial status of British Columbia
municipalities is of importance to them and they would be particularly concerned with any qualified or denied
audit opinions should they occur.
Canadian generally accepted auditing standards require the use of both quantitative and qualitative factors in
determining materiality. For the audit of The District of Mission for the year ended December 31, 2008, we
have concluded that a materiality level of $910,000, based on 2% of expenditures, is appropriate for the
purposes of the audit.
Our Schedule of Possible Aggregate Misstatements is used to track audit differences to ensure that they do
not total greater than materiality. Our actual differences noted were nominal. This is further discussed in a
separate section in this report.
Auditors' Report
Our audit testing has shown that any differences from our audit work are not material. Accordingly we have
issued an unqualified opinion, the highest form of assurance that we can provide. Our audit report uses
standard wording as required by our professional regulations and is bound in with the financial statements.
Management Letter
Our audit provides insight into many of the District's financial operations and control systems. Points that
come to our attention along with recommendations for improvement are reported to you in this format. This
letter is included as an appendix to this reporting package.

184
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 5
Auditor Independence
Canadian generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) require us to communicate to Council, at least
annually, all relationships between BDO Dunwoody LLP (and its related entities) and the District of Mission
(and its related entities), that, in our professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on our
independence for the audit of the District.
In determining which relationships to report, we have considered the applicable legislation and relevant rules
of professional conduct and related interpretations prescribed by the appropriate provincial institute covering
such matters as the following:
• holding of a financial interest, either directly or indirectly in a client;
• holding a position, either directly or indirectly, that gives the right or responsibility to exert
significant influence over the financial or accounting policies of a client;
• personal or business relationships of immediate family, close relatives, partners or retired partners,
either directly or indirectly, with a client;
• economic dependence on a client; and
• provision of services in addition to the external audit engagement.
We are not aware of any relationships between the District and us that, in our professional judgment, may
reasonably be thought to bear on our independence to date.
GAAS requires that we confirm our independence to Council. Accordingly, we hereby confirm that we are
independent with respect to The District of Mission within the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct
of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of BC as of April 16, 2009.

185
Possible Aggregate Misstatements
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 6
During the audit we keep a list of differences between the financial statements and our audit findings
from third parties or other sources. This list, known as "Possible Aggregate Misstatements", is totaled to
ensure that the differences are not material. Should the list total become close to materiality, it is
necessary to do further audit work on the differences to determine if there really is an error in the
financial statements. The existence of items on our Possible Aggregate Misstatements listing is normal
and does not necessarily mean that the financial statements contain errors.
Possible Aggregate Misstatements
There were no uncorrected misstatements during the 2008 audit.
After considering both quantitative and qualitative factors with respect to the Possible Aggregate
misstatements above, we agree with management that the financial statements are fairly stated.

186
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 7
Appendix A — Management Letter
IBDO
BDO Dunwoody LLP
Chartered Accountants
600 - 925 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC
Canada, V6C 3L2
Telephone: (604) 688-5421
Telefax: (604) 688-5132
E-mail: vancouver@bdo.ca
April 16, 2009
Mr. Ken Bjorgaard, CGA, MBA, Director of Finance
The District of Mission
8645 Stave Lake Street
Box 20
Mission, BC
V2V 4L9
Dear Mr. Bjorgaard:
Re: Auditor's Management Letter
While performing our audit work in regard to the annual financial statements we remain alert to items that
come to our attention where we feel that our comment on such items would be beneficial. Items raised
usually relate to a best-practice that should be considered, a suggestion for enhancing internal control, or a
comment on specific business activities. We use the "management letter" to report significant items that have
been identified. Items of lower significance are discussed directly with your staff.
We issue a management letter subsequent to virtually every audit. It is important to note that the existence of
items to bring to your attention is a normal by-product of an audit. The existence of points does not mean that
there are critical problems to be addressed — in fact, if there were critical matters we would not wait to advise
you of these. Conversely, the absence of points in a particular year does not mean that your systems and
controls are perfect. Our audit plan changes from year to year and items that come,to our attention will vary.

187
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 8
Status of Prior Year Recommendation
There were a few carry-forward points from the prior year's management letter. We track these points to
ensure that recommendations are followed up and implemented (or alternatively found to be impractical).
Prior Year Recommendation
Current Status
1. Security of Cash Receipts
It had been noted in prior year that cashier
cash register keys were normally left in the
cash register and were not removed when
the cashier left their post. We had
recommended that cashier's registers should
be locked and the key taken with the cashier
when they leave their post to mitigate the
risk of unauthorized access.
We are pleased to note that the District had
purchased new cash register drawers. Management
has indicated that keys are removed from the cash
register drawers and only used in the morning
during opening and at the end of the day for
closing. During the day the keys are kept secure
and separate from the cash register drawer.
Current year observations:
1. Terminated Staff user accounts are not deactivated in a timely manner
During the audit it was noted that when District staff are terminated, the IT department is not notified
in a timely manner so that they can deactivate the staff accounts.
The potential issue is that there could be staff accounts within their Active Directory which are
indicated to be active even though the staff member has already left employment from the District.
This raises the issue that terminated staff can log back onto the District's network.
We recommend that formal procedures are implemented where HR notifies IT through a written
termination request before the staff's last day so that IT can deactivate the staff's account on the last
day of their work.
District's Response: This has been discussed with the Manager of Human Resources and the Manager
of Information Services and a procedure has been established whereby Human Resources will
formally note Information Services in a timely manner of all employees leaving the employment of the
District of Mission. Upon notification, Information Services will disable account(s).
2. User Privileges
Access rights are being reviewed at certain times throughout the year but there is no formal procedure
in place to ensure access rights are checked periodically. The potential issue is that staff could have
more privileges than they actually require which is problematic as staff could access to make changes
or even delete records in the system database.

188
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 9
We recommend that a formal policy be implemented where the IT department reviews user privileges
for systems and MAIS every 6 months.
District's Response: Finance is more conversant than IT in terms of MA'S access, therefore has
historically taken on the role of MA'S access administration. All MAIS access is periodically
reviewed when setting up new employees, changing passwords or performing other administration.
There has not been a lot of employee movement to warrant a more formal approach for reviewing
MAIS access.
IT handles access privileges for our other systems. Access rights are generally established by group
and when a person enters or transfers from a group access rights change. Not a lot of employee
movement has occurred at the higher level access areas. We do not see the need for a more formal
approach within MA'S or our other systems at this time.
3. Generic IT user access
Currently a generic username and password is used for printing cheques. Although the username and
password are only known to three Finance staff, there is the issue that cheques printed cannot be
traced back to the individual person who printed the cheques. If unauthorized cheques are printed,
the District would not be able to trace the occurrence to a particular staff member and this reduces
accountability.
We recommend that individual usemames and passwords to be setup for each staff member that will
be doing cash disbursements. Therefore, each user will have their own username and password to
print cheques.
District's Response: The accounts payable final cheque register shows the individual person's name
who produced the cheques, as each person signs on to MAIS (from one terminal) with a distinct user
name and password when producing accounts payable cheques. The individual who prints the
cheques also signs off on a manual cheque voucher reconciliation form immediately after printing
cheques. This form, together with the final cheque register, are both signed off by the Director of
Finance or his designee.
There is currently a programming issue related to the formatting of accounts payable cheques,
therefore, the cheques are run on one terminal that has one common user name and password;
however, as noted above individual user names and passwords are required to access MAIS to
actually run accounts payable cheques. The Information Services department will be looking into this
formatting issue.
4. GST
In early 2004 GST legislation was changed to allow municipalities to claim a 100% rebate. Because
of this change many supplies made by municipalities became subject to GST, such as licenses for real
property. GST has not been collected on some licenses for real property from the time the legislation
was changed until 2008.
During the audit in 2008, it was found there was approximately $3,505 in amounts owing to CRA for
GST that should have been collected in previous years and in 2008. Although from a financial
statement audit standpoint the amount is not significant, under a CRA audit the District could be
assessed interest for the period from when the tax should have been remitted up to the point in time it
is included in a subsequent return.

189
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 10
We recommend that the District invoice these tenants for the uncollected GST as soon as possible,
and include this tax in its GST return covering the period in which the tenant is invoiced.
District's Response: GST is now being remitted on all applicable licenses and leases. The license and
lease agreements that do not currently provide for GST payable will need to be up dated upon
renewal. We will not be taking further steps in terms of the historic GST due, as we were not aware of
the change in the legislation.
5. Segregation of duties in Utilities
Currently the Accounting Clerk responsible for meter utilities is entering the utility rates into the
system, inputting the metered information as well as reviewing the information. This results in a lack
of segregation of duties as the individual who is entering this information is also reviewing their own
work. This could result in potential misstatements if errors are not caught through this self-review.
We recommend that the duties of entering the rates and usage information, and having a detail review
of the rates be performed by different accounting staff to ensure that there is appropriate segregation
of duties.
District's Response: We have now implemented a change whereby the rates are entered by a
separate person from the person entering the usage and reviewing the charges. Also, every time the
rates are changed a second person will perform a review of the new rates and charges
6. Greenhouse Gas and Carbon tax initiatives
B.C.'s carbon tax took effect on July 1, 2008. In September the provincial government made the
surprise announcement of the Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program. This program provides
that municipalities can receive a rebate of the carbon tax they pay. To be eligible, communities must
sign on to the Climate Action Charter and commit to becoming carbon neutral by 2012.
Initial estimates made by several municipalities indicate that the carbon tax rebate (actually it will be
paid as a conditional grant) will not be substantial in the early years of the program. However, the
carbon tax, which starts at a rate based on $10 per tonne of carbon emissions, will rise $5 each year to
$30 per tonne by 2012. The tax works out to an extra 2.4 cents a litre on gasoline, rising to 7.24 cents
per litre by 2012. Over time, the costs will be increasing and the rebate will become more attractive.
Of course, from a non-financial sense, reducing carbon emissions is simply the right thing to do.
An organizational carbon inventory is best done sooner rather than later. This carbon inventory
establishes your baseline and allows you to see where your risks lie and where you can make the most
improvements. Importantly, having that baseline done early establishes a high current level and will
give you credit for all future reductions that you can make. It is anticipated that there could be new
*grants or credits available to those organizations that can make the most improvement. There is also
potential for selling credits back into the carbon credit pool depending upon the energy saving
technologies that you may implement.
We recommend that you start identifying areas where improvements can be made and discussing
various options. There are several companies that can assist you in this process including our
Greenhouse Gas Advisory Service (GAS). Our GAS service can help by providing a second opinion
on existing inventories along with strategies for becoming carbon neutral.

190
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 11
District's Response: The District has received a grant to assist with funding our corporate inventory
of greenhouse gas emissions. The District will be seeking competitive market quotes to complete the
inventory. The District is also aware of the fact that becoming carbon neutral by 2012 may require
the purchase of carbon offset credits in excess of carbon tax rebates.
This communication is prepared solely for the information of management and is not intended for any other
purposes. We accept no responsibility to a third party who uses this communication.
We would like to express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance which we received during the
course of our audit from Ken Bjorgaard, Kerni Onken, Kris Boland and the entire Finance Department.
We shall be pleased to discuss with you further any matters mentioned in this report at your convenience.
Yours truly,
BDO DUNWOODY LLP
Bill Cox, CA
On behalf of Bill Cox, Inc.
Corporate partner of BDO Dunwoody LLP
BC/
c.c. Mayor and Council

191
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 12
Appendix B — Letter of Representation
April 9, 2009
BDO Dunwoody LLP
Chartered Accountants and Advisors
600 - 925 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC
V6C 3L2
Canada
Dear Sir/Madam:
We are providing this letter in connection with your audit of the financial statements of The District of
Mission for the year ended December 31, 2008, for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the
financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, results of operations and
cash flows of The District of Mission in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.
We are responsible for the fair presentation of the financial statements of the municipality prepared in
accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles established by the Public Sector
Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
We are also responsible for the implementation and operation of internal controls that are designed to prevent,
detect and correct fraud and error.
We understand that your examination was made in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing
standards and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as
you considered necessary in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial
statements. We also understand that such an examination is not designed to identify, nor can it necessarily be
expected to disclose all fraud, shortages, errors and other irregularities, should there be any.
Certain representations in this letter are described as being limited to matters that are material. An item is
considered material, regardless of its monetary value, if it is probable that its omission from or misstatement
in the financial statements would influence the decision of a reasonable person relying on the financial
statements.
We hereby confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, as at April 9, 2009, the following representations
made to you during your audit:
Financial Statements and Disclosure
1. The financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
the municipality as at December 31, 2008 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year
then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.

192
2. The financial statements of the municipality:
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 13
(a)
(b)
appropriately measure and disclose all related party transactions.
use appropriate accounting policies that have been properly disclosed and consistently applied.
Completeness of Information
3. We have made available to you all:
- financial records and related data;
- minutes of the meetings of Council.
4. The minute books of the municipality are a complete record of all meetings and resolutions of Council
throughout the year and to the present date.
5. There are no material transactions that have not been properly recorded in the accounting records
underlying the financial statements.
6. We have disclosed to you all significant matters contained in the minutes of all meetings and resolutions
of Council throughout the year and to the present date.
7. We have identified to you:
- guarantees;
- indemnifications against damages, liabilities, costs, charges or expenses suffered or incurred by officers
or directors as a result of their service, and/or by any subsidiaries; and
- non-monetary transactions and transactions for no consideration.
8. We have advised you of all related parties and related party transactions of which we are aware.
Fraud and Error
9. We have assessed the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud,
and have determined such risk to be low.
10. We are not aware of any fraud, suspected fraud, illegal acts or possibly illegal acts affecting the entity
involving management, employees who have significant roles in internal control, or others, where these
matters could have a non-trivial effect on the financial statements. In addition, we have no knowledge of
any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity's financial statements communicated by
employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others.
11. We believe that the effects of unadjusted differences discovered by the auditors during the audit
are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the fmancial statements taken as a whole.
A summary of such items has been attached to this letter.

193
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 14
Existence, Completeness and Valuation of Specific Financial Statement Balances
12. All assets, wherever located, to which the municipality had satisfactory title at the year end, have been
fairly stated and recorded in the financial statements. There are no liens or encumbrances on the
municipality's assets.
13. Where the value of any asset has been impaired, an appropriate provision has been made in the financial
statements or has otherwise been disclosed to you.
14. Taxes and accounts receivable represent bonafide claims for taxation, sales or other charges arising on or
before the year end. They do not include any amounts for goods shipped on consignment or approval.
The total of taxes and accounts receivable written off during the year is hereby approved and, in our
opinion, the allowance for doubtful accounts is adequate to cover all known or anticipated losses from
uncollectible accounts and those accounts not paid within normal credit terms.
15. Notes and loans receivable represent bona fide claims arising on or before the year end.
16. The municipality has complied with all provisions in its agreements related to debt and there were no
defaults in principal or interest, or in the covenants and conditions contained in such agreements.
17. The employee future benefit costs, assets and obligation have been determined, accounted for and
disclosed in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. The source data and
plan provisions provided are complete and accurate. The plans included in the valuation are complete.
The determination of the discount rate and the use of specific actuarial assumptions are our best estimate
assumptions. We feel that the extrapolations are accurate and have properly reflected the effects of
changes and events occurring subsequent to the most recent valuation that had a material effect on the
extrapolation.
General Representations
18. The nature of all material uncertainties have been appropriately measured and disclosed in the financial
statements, including all estimates where it is reasonably possible that the estimate will change in the
near term and the effect of the change could be material to the financial statements.
19. There were no direct or contingent liabilities (including those associated with guarantees or
indemnifications provisions), unusual contractual obligations nor any substantial commitments, whether
oral or written, other than in the ordinary course of business, which would materially affect the financial
statements or financial position of the municipality, except as disclosed in the financial statements.
20. We have informed you of all outstanding and possible claims, whether or not they have been discussed
with legal counsel. These claims, once material individually or in the aggregate, have been appropriately
disclosed in the financial statements.
21. We have disclosed to you all significant customers, ratepayers, and/or suppliers of the municipality who
individually represent a significant volume of business with the municipality. We are of the opinion that
the volume of business (sales, services, purchases, borrowing and lending) done by the municipality with
any one party is not of sufficient magnitude that discontinuance would have a material negative effect on
the ongoing operations of the municipality.
22. There have been no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of
assets and liabilities.
23. No events or transactions other than those disclosed in the financial statements have occurred subsequent

194
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 15
to the balance sheet date that would require adjustment to, or disclosure in, the financial statements.
24. No significant matters, other than those disclosed in the financial statements, have arisen that would
require a restatement of the comparative financial statements.
25. We have made the following additional significant representations to you during the course of your audit
which we understand that you have relied upon:
- the amounts used as post closure costs for the landfill liability are the municipality's best estimate of
these costs.
Yours truly,
Signature
Position
Signature
Position

195
Appendix C — Audit Planning Letter (for reference)
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 16
January 9, 2009
Members of Council
District of Mission
8645 Stave Lake Street
Box 20
Mission, BC
V2V 4L9
Dear Members of Council:
Re: Audit of the Financial Statements of District of Mission
For the year ended December 31, 2008
This report is being sent to you to facilitate discussion about the external audit process for the 2008 fiscal year
and to provide background information in regard to our audit strategy. We look forward to discussing any
concerns that the Council may have to ensure that we understand what is important to you.
This report is prepared for the purpose noted above and should not be distributed without our prior consent.
We accept no responsibility to a third party who uses this communication.
Specific Changes That May Affect Accounting/Reporting
In this section, we generally discuss major changes that may affect an entity's accounting. We are not aware
of any major changes in District of Mission's operations that will affect accounting choices being made. The
Council may be aware of any such changes or areas of concern and we welcome any related discussion as it
will aid us in the planning process.
Tangible Capital Assets
In terms of reporting, the new standards for tangible capital assets start to have an impact for the District of
Mission in the year ended December 31, 2008. At this point, only relatively minor disclosures are required,
but over the period to 2009 the changes will begin to create significant impact.
Your staff are well on the way towards dealing with this significant undertaking. It would be useful for
Council to be regularly advised how the project is progressing and whether any difficulties are foreseen.
Segmented Disclosures
Segment reporting will need to be disclosed in the District's 2008 financial statements. The standard requires
that revenues and expenses be allocated to the government's main areas of activities (for Local Government
service lines are commonly used) and that the amounts presented show a total which reconciles with the
amounts presented in the Statement of Financial Activities. Governments are encouraged, but not required, to
also allocate assets and liabilities between segments. In addition, disclosure is required for the basis for
identifying segments, the nature of the segments and the activities they encompass and the method of
significant allocations to segments.

196
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 17
Your staff is aware of this new disclosure requirement. We will assist management as necessary towards
complying with the new standard.
Audit Strategy
We will be performing the audit of the financial statements of the District of Mission for the year ended
December 31, 2008. We have adopted an audit approach that allows us to issue an audit opinion on the
financial statements of the District of Mission in the most cost effective manner, while still obtaining the
assurance necessary to support our audit opinion.
The audit will follow a "risk-based" approach. This approach focuses on obtaining sufficient appropriate
audit evidence to reduce the risk of material misstatement in the financial statements to an appropriately low
level. This means that we focus our audit effort in areas that we believe have a higher risk of being materially
misstated and do less audit work in areas that are only low risk. The audit risk model in generally accepted
auditing standards is changing and generally results in an increase in the level of audit work.
To assess risk accurately, we need to have a clear understanding of the District of Mission's operations and
the environment it operates in. Much of our understanding is obtained through discussions with management
and staff. We would also appreciate any new information that you could provide to us about your operations,
industry, competitive marketplace, internal controls or anything else that you feel is important to the audit as
it may corroborate what we have already learned from management and other sources, or it may be new
information to us. We would also appreciate any insights that you could provide to us on what you perceive
to be high risk to the District of Mission as that will make our audit more effective and efficient, which will
benefit all concerned.
The following sections provide more detail on our audit approach for the District of Mission for the current
year.
Audit Scope
We anticipate the scope of our audit of the financial statements of the District for the year ended December
31, 2008 to include the following:
• An audit opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the District;
• An audit opinion on the financial statements of the District of Mission Development Corporation;
and
• Management letter report in regard to audit recommendations of significance
Requests by Mayor and Council
In the course of your duties as members of Council, you may be aware of additional areas of concern from an
audit perspective that you would like us to address. We want you to know that we welcome discussion on
any areas of audit concern that you may have.
Overall Audit Strategy
General audit strategies include a "combined" audit approach or a "substantive" audit approach. In a
combined audit approach, we would obtain our assurance from a combination of tests of controls (compliance

197
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 18
procedures) and substantive procedures (such as analysis of data and obtaining direct evidence as to the
validity of the items). The substantive approach virtually ignores controls and focuses almost exclusively on
tests of accounting outputs.
As a result of changes to our professional audit requirements in recent years, auditors must have a good
understanding of the control systems. Having said that, the level of understanding required for audit purposes
is not sufficient for us to provide opinion on the overall effectiveness of the internal control environment.
Therefore our audit process will involve a fair degree of systems work coupled with verification of key
balances by substantive means.
Higher Risk Financial Statement Areas
Based on our knowledge of the District's operations, past experience with similar organizations, and
knowledge gained from management and you, we have identified the following financial statements areas as
having a potentially higher risk of material misstatement.
These risks arise mainly because of the complexity of the accounting rules, the extent of estimation and
judgment involved in the valuation of these financial statement areas, and the existence of new accounting
pronouncements that affect them. We have also provided a brief summary of how we plan to audit these
higher risk areas:
Higher Risk Financial Statement Areas
Proposed Audit Procedures
• Provision for retirement • Audit of significant assumptions
• Review of calculations
• Tangible Capital Assets • Assessment of status to date and of future
plans to comply with upcoming accounting
and disclosure requirements
• Review the reasonableness of the District's
processes for gathering tangible capital
assets inventory and approaches to
valuation of the assets
Higher Risk Financial Statement Areas
Proposed Audit Procedures
• Accounts payable • Third party confirmation
• Computer audit testing
• Cut-off testing
• Cash and investments • Confirmation of cash and investments
• Review of reconciliations
• Review of reports on return and investment
strategies
• Testing of investment transactions and
investment rollovers

198
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 19
• Staff Salaries • Computer audit testing
• Analytical review of staff and salary levels
• Systems testing and tests of controls
Materiality
Materiality in an audit is used as a guide for planning the nature and extent of audit procedures and for
assessing the sufficiency of audit evidence gathered. It is also used in evaluating the misstatements found and
determining the appropriate audit opinion to express.
Since the determination of materiality is a matter of professional judgment, it is primarily dependent on our
evaluation of the relative importance of accuracy in the financial statements to the various users of those
statements. We have identified taxpayers, Council, the Ministry and (indirectly) the Municipal Finance
Authority as the most important users of the District's financial statements. We describe the MFA as having
an "indirect" interest because while they do not generally review the financial statements of each municipality
in, detail, the combined financial status of British Columbia municipalities is of importance to them and they
would be particularly concerned with any qualified or denied audit opinions should they occur.
Canadian generally accepted auditing standards require the use of both quantitative and qualitative factors in
determining materiality. For the audit of the District of Mission for the year ended December 31, 2008, we
have concluded that a planning materiality level of $800,000 based on approximately 2% of net combined
expenditures, and adjusted by qualitative factors is appropriate for the purposes of the audit.
Audit Team
In order to ensure effective communication between the Council and BDO Dunwoody LLP, we briefly outline
below the key members of our audit team and the role they will play:
• Bill Cox, CA, Engagement Partner — overall engagement management
• Patrick Chan, CA, Audit Manager — fieldwork management
• Jessica Jang, CA finalist — audit senior
Timing of the Audit
We have tentatively set the following schedule for the conduct of the audit:
• Interim audit fieldwork • December 15 — 19, 2008
• Year-end audit fieldwork • April 6 — 9, 2008
• Review of draft financial statements • TBA
with Council
• Council post-completion meeting • TBA
• Finalization of financial statements • TBA
Communication of Results
At the completion of our audit, or earlier if considered necessary, we will communicate to you matters arising
from the financial statement audit. Our communication will include the following:

199
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 20
• Matters required to be communicated to the Council under GAAS including possible fraudulent
activities, possible illegal acts and significant weaknesses in internal control;
• Matters that have a significant effect on the qualitative aspects of accounting principles used in the
District of Mission's financial reporting;
• Matters previously agreed with you to be communicated to Council;
• Whether there are any unresolved issues or disagreements with management concerning the District
of Mission's internal controls, accounting policies, or disclosures in the financial statements;
• Whether there were any material claims outstanding against the District of Mission in respect of
which your lawyers have been retained on behalf of the District of Mission;
• The extent and nature of small immaterial unadjusted differences encountered during the course of
our audit;
• Significant management judgments and estimates made in the course of preparing the financial
statements; and
• Other matters arising from the audit that, in our professional judgment, are important and relevant to
Council.
At the completion of the audit we will also discuss matters that will be identified in our "management letter"
with the final version issued after finalization of our auditors' report.
Current Developments in the Profession
A summary of significant changes to accounting and auditing standards are included as an appendix to this
letter.

200
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 21
Independence
At the core of the provision of external audit services is the concept of independence. Canadian generally
accepted auditing standards (GAAS) require us to communicate to Council, at least annually, all relationships
between BDO Dunwoody LLP (and its related entities) and District of Mission (and its related entities), that,
in our professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence for the forthcoming
audit of the District of Mission.
In determining which relationships to report, we have considered the applicable legislation and relevant rules
of professional conduct and related interpretations prescribed by the appropriate provincial institute covering
such matters as the following:
• holding of a financial interest, either directly or indirectly in a client;
• holding a position, either directly or indirectly, that gives the right or responsibility to exert
significant influence over the financial or accounting policies of a client;
• personal or business relationships of immediate family, close relatives, partners or retired partners,
either directly or indirectly, with a client;
• economic dependence on a client; and
• provision of services in addition to the external audit engagement.
We have prepared the following comments to facilitate our discussion with you regarding independence
matters.
We are not aware of any relationships between the District of Mission and us that, in our professional
judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on our independence to date.
GAAS requires that we confirm our independence to Council in the context of the Rules of Professional
Conduct of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia as our governing body. Accordingly,
we hereby confirm that we are independent with respect to the District of Mission within the meaning of the
Rules of Professional Conduct as of January 9, 2009.
Responsibilities of Management and of the Auditor
It is important for Council to understand the responsibilities that rest with the District of Mission and its
management and those that belong to the auditor:
• Management is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements, which includes
responsibilities related to internal control, such as designing and maintaining accounting records,
selecting and applying accounting policies, safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting error
and fraud;
• The auditor's responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on an audit
thereof;
• An audit is performed to obtain reasonable, but not absolute, assurance as to whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement and, owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is
an unavoidable risk that some misstatements of the financial statements will not be detected
(particularly intentional misstatements concealed through collusion), even though the audit is
properly planned and performed;
• The audit includes:
o assessing the risk that the financial statements may contain misstatements that, individually or
in the aggregate, are material to the financial statements taken as a whole;

201
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 22
o examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements;
o assessing the accounting principles used and their application; and
o assessing the significant estimates made by management;
• A sufficient understanding of internal control will be obtained to plan the audit and, when control risk
is assessed below maximum, sufficient appropriate audit evidence will be obtained through tests of
controls to support the assessment, but the scope of the auditor's review of internal controls will be
insufficient to express an opinion as to the effectiveness or efficiency of the entity's controls; and
• The auditor will express an opinion as to whether the financial statements present fairly in all material
respects, in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles, the financial
position, results of operations and cash flows of the entity.
Conclusion
We hope that this letter will provide you with an update on the current developments within the accounting
profession, as well as clarify our independence, responsibility and audit approach.
We look forward to discussing these issues with you. Please do not hesitate to contact us about any of the
above items or other matters of concern to Council.
Yours truly,
BDO DUNWOODY LLP
Chartered Accountants
Per:
Bill Cox, CA
On Behalf of Bill Cox Inc.
Corporate Partner of BDO Dunwoody LLP
BC/

202
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 23
Appendix — Summary of New Accounting and Auditing Requirements
Accounting Standards
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) has had a relatively quiet year in regard to the
issuance of new standards in the Public Sector area. This is likely at least partially due to a realization of the
magnitude of work required by local governments as they prepare to implement the new Tangible Capital
Assets accounting standards for the 2009 calendar year.
Introduction to Public Sector Standards
The only final change made to standards was a change to the Introduction to Public Sector Standards in the
CICA Handbook that was revised to direct government business enterprises and government business-type
organizations to follow the CICA Handbook in presentation of their own financial statements.
Assessment of Tangible Capital Assets — Exposure Draft
In July 2008 final comments were received for an exposure draft related to the Assessment of Tangible
Capital Assets Statement of Recommended Practice. The main features of this Draft SORP are as follows:
• A government can choose to report only on individual, specific categories or groups of tangible
capital assets.
• Reporting on the physical condition of tangible capital assets is information that does not necessarily
have to accompany the financial statements. It could be included in a standalone report or in other
public reports such as a budget.
• Information should, at a minimum, include the overall average physical condition rating, average age
and useful life and the nature and extent of tangible capital assets in each category.
• Narrative information would include discussion of trends in changes in the physical condition and
identify the basis of measurement and measurement scale used to assess and report on the physical
condition of tangible capital assets.
Tax Revenue — Exposure Draft
In January 2008 an exposure draft "Tax Revenue" was issued. The focus of this exposure draft was
identifying the key distinctions between tax expenditures and transfers. Due to its nature it is applicable
mostly to senior governments.
Projects underway include:
• Government Transfers
• Environmental Liabilities

203
• Indicators of Financial Condition
• Financial Instruments Update
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 24
Government Transfers
After several exposures and re-exposures of recommended change that met with dissatisfaction from users,
the CICA has pulled back to carefully assess how to proceed in this contentious area. Nothing new is
expected in the immediate future.
Environmental Liabilities
A task force has been established to consider when and how environmental costs should be capitalized. Focus
is on site remediation and asset retirement obligations.
Indicators of Financial Condition
Project being developed to consider the most appropriate indicators for reporting on financial condition of a
government. The project has determined that it should be working within a framework of sustainability,
flexibility and vulnerability. Types of indicators will relate to government specific, government-related, and
economy-wide.
Financial Instruments Update
A Statement of Recommended Practice in relation to accounting for financial instruments has been developed
as we reported in our audit planning letter last year. The Statement is still not finalized but is expected to be
shortly. An update to the Statement will require that investments be reported at fair value when there is an
active market for such investments. This will have impact on volatility of government results.
International Standards — Government Business Enterprises and Government Business-Type
Organizations
As had been previously discussed, government business enterprises and government business-type
organizations will be expected to move to International Financial Reporting Standards ("IRFS") effective
January 1, 2011. The change made in 2011 must be made on a comparative basis which means that
information for 2010 must also be computed on an IFRS basis.
In many areas the IFRS standards require change in accounting method and/or increase in level of disclosure
from current Canadian standards. Planning for IFRS conversion should be underway for any affected entities.
International Standards — Government Financial Statements
Financial statements of government themselves will not be moving to IFRS. There are no IFRS standards for
government. However, there is an organization known as the International Public Sector Accounting
Standards Board ("IPSASB") that has been developing international standards for government.
It is probably fair to say that at this point the development of IPSASB is trailing that of our Canadian PSAB.
At some point it can be expected that PSAB will harmonize with IPSASB or be replaced by IPSASB, but this
is likely to be well past 2011.

204
Auditing and Assurance Standards
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 25
The pace of auditing and assurance standards changes has slowed as the CICA looks to harmonizing
Canadian audit standards with International Standards. (Note the harmonization of Canadian audit and
assurance standards with International Standards is a separate project from the adoption of IFRS accounting
standards. The harmonized audit and assurance standards will apply to all audits whether or not the entity
being audited is publicly accountable.)
The only new section brought into force in the current year has been HB Section 5925, "An audit of internal
control over financial reporting that is integrated with an audit of financial statements".
This new Section establishes standards and provides guidance regarding the auditor's professional
responsibilities when engaged to perform an audit of internal control over financial reporting that is integrated
with an audit of financial statements. In addition to the basic professional standards to be met in conducting
such engagements, the Section provides requirements related to such matters as:
• management's written assessment about the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting;
• integrating the audit of internal control over financial reporting with the audit of financial statements;
• use of suitable criteria;
• planning and performing the audit, using a risk-based approach;
• identifying and selecting controls to test, using a top-down approach;
• testing controls selected;
• evaluating identified deficiencies;
• forming an opinion;
• communicating certain matters; and
• reporting on internal control over financial reporting.
The Section is effective for audits of internal control over financial reporting that are integrated with audits of
financial statements for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2008.
As mentioned the main focus of the CICA in the audit and assurance area has been the harmonization with
International Standards. This will be done through the issuance of new sections known as "Canadian
Auditing Standards" or "CAS". These new standards will be applicable for audits of financial statements for
periods beginning on or after December 15, 2009. So for an entity with a calendar fiscal year end, the
international auditing standards will come into force a full year before the international accounting standards.
Canadian Auditing Standards that have been finalized include:
• CAS 230, Audit Documentation;
• CAS 260, Communications with Those Charged with Governance;
• CAS 540, Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related
Disclosures;
• CAS 560, Subsequent Events;
• CAS 580, Written Representations; and
• CAS 600, The Audit of Group Financial Statements
Brief highlights of some of these standards include:

205
District of Mission – 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 26
CAS 230 - a requirement that the final audit file would normally be assembled no more than 60 days after the
date of the auditors report.
CAS 540 – a requirement to understand risk assessment processes and procedures (including evaluation of
internal controls) used by management to make accounting estimates.
• Focus on estimates that have a high risk of material misstatement and those that have a high
"estimation uncertainty".
• Must look at the assumptions used by management as well as the assumptions or outcomes rejected
by management.
• Develop a range of outcomes to measure management's estimate against if management has not
adequately addressed the effects of estimation uncertainty.
• If there is an estimate giving rise to a significant risk, must assess management's disclosure.
CAS 560 – the date of the auditor's report is no earlier than the date on which the auditor has obtained
sufficient appropriate audit evidence. Sufficient appropriate audit evidence includes evidence that the entity's
complete set of financial statements have been prepared and those with recognized authority have asserted
that they have taken responsibility for them. The implication of this is that subsequent events work will have
to increase since the audit report dates will be later than they have been previously.
CAS 580 - Distinguishes between "general written representations" and "specific written representations"
and requires a disclaimer of opinion if a general written representation is not obtained and requires
determination of the relevant parties from whom written representations will be requested.
Other standards that are in process include:
• CAS 700, The Independent Auditor's Report on General Purpose Financial Statements;
• CAS 706, Emphasis of Matter Paragraphs and Other Matter(s) Paragraphs in the Independent
Auditor's Report;
• CAS 800, Special Considerations — Audits of Special Purpose Financial Statements and Specified
Elements, Accounts or Items of a Financial Statement ;
• CAS 805, Engagements to Report on Summary Financial Statements;
• CAS 705, Modifications to the Opinion in the Independent Auditor's Report;
• ISAE 3402 - Assurance Reports on Controls at a Third Party Service Organization;
• CAS 210, Agreeing the Terms of Audit Engagements;
• CAS 220 and CSQC1, Quality Control;
• CAS 265, Communicating Deficiencies in Internal Control;
• CAS 402, Audit Considerations Relating to an Entity Using a Third Party Service Organization;
• CAS 505, External Confirmations;

206
District of Mission — 2008 Audit Results and Communication
Page 2 7
• CAS 501, Audit Evidence Regarding Specific Financial Statement Account Balances and
Disclosures;
• CAS 710, Comparative Information — Corresponding Figures and Comparative Financial
Statements.
• CAS 620, Using the Work of an Auditor's Expert;
• CAS 530, Audit Sampling; and
• CAS 520, Analytical Procedures.

207
lsslon
MDISTRICT OF
ON THE FRASER
CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Manager of Social Development
Date: June 3, 2009
Subject: Social Development Report
Section 1— Update on Kirsten Hargreaves' current activities
Section 2 — Current Projects
Section 3 — Social Development Sub Committee Updates
Section 4 - Social Development Plan Review and Recommendations
Section 5 — Social Development Commission Update
Section 1: Update on Kirsten Hargreaves' current activities
I began my position as Social Development Manager January 26, 2009.
It is my intention to provide council with a report on my activities of the past four months as well
as outline my short term goals for the position of Social Development Manager for 2009. Thus
far, the Social Development Commission has held five meetings, February 5, 2009, March 12 th,
2009, April 9, 2009, April 23, 2009 and May 28, 2009. I have set up various community
representatives to speak as delegates at a few of the future Social Development meetings with the
goal of providing fresh and novel approaches to looking at areas of potential growth and
intervention within the community.
Mr. Andy Kwak of the Abbotsford Salvation Army spoke at our meeting on March 12th. Andy
introduced a program he is interested in starting in Mission called the 0.K Kids Program. This
program originated out of Moncton, New Brunswick with the purpose of providing a support
group for children and youth who are affected by parental incarceration. It is hoped that this
program will change how the community views these children, as well as provide them with a
support group in which they can express how they are feeling in a safe environment without
prejudice or judgment. This program will teach coping skills over a period of 14 weekly topics,
allowing these youth to develop a sense of community, while teaching them valuable social
skills.
As I am new to the community of Mission, I have made a concerted effort over the past month to
meet many members of the community in diverse service areas, giving me a clearer picture of
the services and resources offered in the District of Mission. It quickly became apparent to me
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826-1363 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.mission.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

208
2
that the Mission District is fortunate to have many dedicated and passionate individuals working
diligently in the area of social and community development. However, increased networking of
these individuals needs to be a future goal.
I felt it important to meet with each member of the Social Development Commission, to not only
gain a sense of each individual and their involvement with the Social Development Plan, but also
to give each member an opportunity in confidence to relay any concerns or suggestions they may
have regarding their previous experience with the Social Development Plan. The main
overlapping concern focused on the meetings being too lengthy in the past, and thus, members'
concerns with wanting to remain involved yet struggling with the balance between the time
commitments and needing to return to their places of employment. To remedy this and maintain
involvement, I have shortened the meetings to 1.5 hours instead of the previous 3 hours.
I met with Mike Younie, Sharon Fletcher and Kevin Poole to discuss the benefits of working
together in areas of mutual concern. I believe that the community of Mission will benefit from
increased networking between the areas of environmental, social and economic development. In
the future, I hope to meet with Sharon, Mike and Stacey either monthly or every second month.
I met with Jason Roufosse and Wendy McCormick of Parks and Recreation and was updated
with the strategies that Parks and Recreation are developing to implement The 40 Developmental
Assets which is one of the 10 initial priorities of the Social Development Plan that seems to be
extremely successful. I will provide additional detail in this area in Section 3.
I had an extensive meeting with Darryl Gehlen of Mission Restorative Resolutions in which we
discussed potential areas for networking as well as Darryl has provided me with old documents
and paperwork previously belonging to Michelle Royle which has been very helpful in gaining
more insight into the history of the position.
I also attended various sub committee meetings including the central resource bureau, BC
Housing, 40 Developmental Assets, Mission community food coalition and sustainability and the
Child and Youth Committee.
Additionally, I had meetings with Kevin Koopman and Stacey Corriveau of Abbotsford
Community Development. They shared with me, their ideas on the concept of transitional towns
for Abbotsford and Mission and invited me to attend a series of Fraser Valley Transitional
Towns Workshops. I also attended an ASDAC Meeting (Abbotsford Social Development Acting
Committee) to gain some insight into the related social issues in Abbotsford, meet key
community members and explore potential areas for networking.
I also met with Dr. Alanaise Goodwill from the Chilliwack MCFD to explore her concerns in
areas of Aboriginal Housing and Social Development in the Fraser Valley.
I met with Joy Cox and most recently, Mr. Tony LaPointe, the new Executive Director for
Mission Community Services. Additionally, I met with Mark Littlefield a community child and
youth development specialist, to seek out the programs offered through these individuals.
Sharon Fletcher, Dayle Reti and I attended a Regional Affordable Housing Meeting in the
Chilliwack District facilitated by Siri Brtelson. This meeting was very positive and members felt
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4 L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826.1363 8, (604) 820.3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

3
209
that it would be beneficial to hold a Regional Affordable Housing Meeting an estimated three
times a year to continue to build and strengthen networking capabilities between districts in the
Fraser Valley, as well as remain current and informed on shared social issues in these
communities.
Section 2: Current Projects
Project I — School based presentations on mental illness and stigma reduction
Currently, I am working on bringing a presenter into the Mission School District. The focus of
these presentations will be on mental illness, decreasing stigma and increasing awareness for
grade 10 students. This past Sept-Dec 2008, I was involved in an initiative through the Ministry
of Child and Family Development in partnership with the University of the Fraser Valley to hire
a student to develop a presentation aimed at grade 10 students focused around mental illness and
the reduction of stigma associated with mental illness. The successful candidate was Ms. Jessie
Kergan, an undergraduate student in the Bachelor of Social Work Program at UFV. Jessie was
funded to develop a presentation and deliver it to all Secondary Schools in Chilliwack, including
Sto:lo alternate and CHANCE alternate schools. The presentations have been met with huge
success. Thus, I am working on bringing them to Mission for Mission's grade 10 students.
To manage this task of implementation, I am facilitating the following three organizations:
Fraser House, Mission MCFD and the Mission School District. Fraser House has been very
helpful in coordinating presentation dates with some of the local schools and I have successfully
secured funding from them in the amount of $200 to pay for the services of Ms. Kergan's time
and effort. I have asked Ms. Kergan to draft an invoice and we are in the process of seeking out
additional funding for additional presentations.
I presented this initiative to Mission Ministry of Child and Family Development who are
supporting the presentations by offering a Masters level clinician at the end of each high school
presentation to both answer any student questions beyond Jessie's knowledge level and create
positive ties between the Ministry and the students.
I also presented this initiative to the Mission Education Committee who have asked me to
present at both the next School Board meeting and the next Principals' meeting.
Project 2 — Electronic Central Resource Bureau
Margaret Hardy of Demal Services Inc. has been engaged by the District of Mission to develop
and pilot an electronic "Central Resource Bureau" of community resources for the District of
Mission and surrounding areas. Margaret is working with the Central Resource Bureau Social
Development Commission sub committee. I have been meeting with Margaret and assisting her
in moving along with the necessary steps to develop and get this website up and running
Mission is continuing to move forward with the 'Go Mission' Project aimed at developing an on
line Central Resource Bureau in an accessible format to promote inclusion and bridge the
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820.3752 Fax (604) 826.1363 G (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

4
210
disconnect between the community and the resources available. We embarked on the planning
stages to build this 'clearing house of community information' by surveying selected members of
the community, including those with disabilities, to determine how and where they find
information they need; their assistive technology needs and future interest to 'test' website
accessibility. Margaret is working with the Social Development Commission Central Resource
Bureau sub committee to determine scope, boundaries and web format. We have also made
connections with local community services to gather information and are reviewing other
community databases.
We are also in the process of applying for monies through Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada. This money will go towards specialized applications on the website such
as ASL sign language for the hearing impaired and voice activation for the blind.
Project 3 — O.K Kids
Mr. Andy Kwak and I have been researching where there is a community need in Mission for his
program "OK Kids". This program was developed in Moncton, New Brunswick for children
whose parents are incarcerated. The program, which runs over a course of 14 weeks, acts as a
support group for these children in which to safely express feelings and learn coping skills in an
encouraging environment with peers experiencing the same situation. The next step is to research
and request the opinion of Corrections Canada in the Fraser Valley to assist us in determining
need. In March, 2009, Andy and I presented this program concept to The Rotary Club in
Mission. I also developed a power point presentation outlining the Social Development Plan.
Project 4 — Citizenship and Immigration Integration for Mission
On April 29, 2009, Meredith Egan of Mission Community Services held a workshop at the
Mission Leisure Centre entitled "Building More Welcoming and Inclusive Communities and
Workplaces". This all day workshop focused on creating a vision of what welcoming and
inclusive communities and workplaces look like for all Mission residents. A considerable
amount of time was spent discussing what inclusive, vibrant and welcoming support for
newcomers to Mission would include. The workshop concluded with creating a plan for
implementation of this vision.
The necessity for a workshop of this type in Mission arose out of the awareness of increasing
social issues in the immigrant population in Mission. One of these areas is in the rising rates of
alcoholism and domestic violence for immigrant children and families A second area of concern
is the cultural and language barrier existing between landlords and tenants. As Meredith Egan
has been compiling the results of this workshop, I have been searching for funding applicable to
the area of immigration and multiculturalism. Fortunately, funding has become available through
"Citizenship and Immigration Canada". This funding opportunity is available in one of three
categories:
1.Encouraging Ethno-cultural/racial minorities to participate in public decision-making
2. Engaging communities and the broad public in informed dialogue and sustained action to
combat racism (anti-racismlanti-hate/cross-cultural understanding).
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820.3752 Fax (604) 826-1363 & (604)820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

5
211
3. Assisting Public institutions to eliminate systemic barriers (institutional change).
Currently, I am meeting with the representatives from Citizenship and Immigration Canada to
discuss application and funding details. I then hope to partner with Meredith Egan and Mission
Community Services Society to identify a focus for our application and complete this as soon as
possible.
Section 3 - Social Development Sub Committee Updates
The sub committees represent the 10 following Initial Priority Areas:
1) 40 Developmental Assets, 2) Town Squares, 3) Housing, 4) Integrating Social Planning, 5)
Central Resource Bureau, 6) Outreach, 7) Detox facility and Treatment, 8) Community
Schools,i rd —
Spaces, 10) Transportation
40 Developmental Assets
The purpose of this sub-committee is to initiate the implementation of the Search Institute's 40
Developmental Assets throughout the community.
The 40 Developmental Assets are those assets identified by this organization as the building
blocks of development that help young people grow up healthy, caring and responsible.
They are built around eight key asset topics: support, empowerment, boundaries and
expectations, constructive use of time, commitment to learning, positive values, social
competencies and positive identity. These have been presented in poster form which can be used
by the community as a tool to create awareness.
A grant from the Union of BC Municipalities funded many initiatives including: articles in the
local paper and in a youth-oriented local magazine; dialogues with interested parties in the
community; local social service agencies will consider how to embed the 40 assets in their work;
connections with business to promote awareness of where they can support the assets.
The grant funded a professional survey of most Mission students from Grade 8-12. The results
will help provide insight into the perception the youth in our community have of themselves and
of the support they feel is provided in their lives.
The remainder of the grant has funded the creation of a youth website, MOLTspace.ca
(Mission on Line Teens Space) which will be up and running soon. Additionally, a forum
entitled "Focusing on Our Youth" was held at the Leisure Centre on March 26 th .
This forum was a gathering for Mission's citizens of all ages to celebrate our communities'
support of youth and to encourage dialogue to garner suggestions of how we can improve and
build on what we have.
There are many initiatives envisioned by the sub-committee that can be implemented and the
degree of success will depend on consistent support, participation and organization.
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826-1363 6 (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

6
212
Community involvement will be a necessary part of that support and needs to be encouraged and
promoted.
Additionally, the results are complete from the "40 Developmental Assets Survey" facilitated by
The Search Institute. As the results contain some concerning information, they are not being
released to the public without prior consent by either Randy Huth or myself. The 40
Developmental Assets committee is responsible for brainstorming and implementing strength
based solutions to selected community based survey results. At this time, I am meeting with both
Frank Dunham and Randy Huth to identify the 5 major strengths and weaknesses from the
survey results and decide how to best implement them. We will be presenting our findings to
Council within the next month.
Town Squares
The purpose of this sub-committee is to identify and facilitate the creation of town squares
throughout Mission. The goal is to establish public meeting spaces and places and enable
citizens to meet, socialize and feel like part of their community
The committee is currently working on the development of a Rain Garden/Park on the
municipally owned property on the corner of 7 th Avenue and Grand street.This location will
provide a destination and resting place along the walking route identified in the Parks and Trails
Master Plan.
As a Rain Garden, it will add bio-diversity to the neighborhood. It will be an interactive
demonstration of rain-water management and a self-sustaining environmental pilot project. It
will be an innovative educational 'green' experience, and an accessible social interactive space.
This will be a community project with the majority of resources being of volunteer labor and
material.
There are several other locations in the community being reviewed by the sub-committee as
potential 'squares' including Lane Creek Park adjacent to the library. Many smaller empty
spaces are being considered as potentials and owners are being approached with possible
peiniission for usage even if on a temporary basis until the future use is determined
Having as many places as possible located along the planned walking route is a focus but with an
over-all view of providing these spaces in every corner of the community and enhancing
downtown Mission. There is good energy in this sub-committee and all new corners are
encouraged to join and bring their visions and creativity with them.
Housing
The purpose of the Housing Committee is to advocate and establish for a wide variety of housing
options throughout Mission to meet the needs of its residents.
The focus of this committee at present is to develop tenant stability in Mission by encouraging
better relations between landlords, tenants and Non Profit Organizations. In February, the
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826-1363 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

7
213
housing committee met with landlords and service providers in a teleconference with Marg
Gordon of the BC Apartment Owners and Managers Association. In April, the housing
committee met with Dan Kipper, Housing Coordinator with Fraser Health to discuss successful
housing implementations for individuals with mental health challenges in the Fraser Valley.
The committee is arranging an educational campaign or event for landlords and tenants in
Mission and elsewhere in the Valley, in collaboration with the BCAOMA and the Tenant Rental
Advisory Council. These two bodies are already preparing a joint educational program for the
Fraser Valley. The most recent Fraser Valley Housing Initiative meeting also heard interest from
Chilliwack on the idea of holding education and support workshops for landlords.
Last week, the housing sub-committee received booklets and pamphlets on the Residential
Tenancy Act from BC Housing. I have placed some of these in City Hall both downstairs and
upstairs for the public to utilize Additionally, I will be distributing these at the Mission library,
MCSS and other community organizations. The pamphlets entitled "What every landlord and
tenant needs to know" has been translated into over a dozen languages. These will also be
available in Mission.
Integrate Social Planning
The purpose of this committee is to identify and initiate actions which integrate social
development into all aspects of operations throughout the community
Current initiatives in this area include the "Building a Community Vessel" initiative. This sub
committee in partnership with the 40 Developmental Assets sub committee is looking into
having a community canoe contructed for use by youth so that they may partipcate in padddling
events. It is believed that these paddling events will build critical skills in self esteem and
teamwork, as well as provide a positive and constructive use of time for youth.
Additionally, there is a significant Aborginal component to this activity bridging cultural ties and
increasing understanding. Individuals from this sub commitee have applied for some provinical
funding for this initiative but will likely require further community support. Both Inspector Pat
Walsh and Constable Sharon Siluch are spearheading and supporting this project.
It was announced last week that funding in the amount of a $17,000 grant has been secured for
the construction of the community canoe. Constable Sharon Siluch will be hosting information
meetings around the canoe and brainstorming methods in how best to utilize this funding.
Central Resource Bureau
The purpose of this committee is to identify and coordinate easy to access volunteer resources
and opportunities to maximize the benefits of the community.
The District of Mission engaged Margaret Hardy of Demal Services Inc. to create an electronic
"Central Resource Bureau" of community services. Mission is continuing to move forward with
the 'Go Mission' Project aimed at developing an on line Central Resource Bureau in an
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826-1363 g (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

8
214
accessible format to promote inclusion and bridge the disconnect between the community and
the resources available. We embarked on the planning stages to build this 'clearing house of
community information' by surveying selected members of the community, including those with
disabilities, to determine how and where they find information they need; their assistive
technology needs and future interest to 'test' website accessibility.
We are working with the Social Development Commission Central Resource Bureau sub
committee to determine scope, boundaries and web format. We have also made connections
with local community services to gather information and are reviewing other community
databases to determine best practices for grouping information. In the near future we plan on
organizing interagency meetings to create ongoing resource sharing and networking
opportunities. All these foundational steps will ensure that 'Go Mission' will create not only an
accessible website but a legacy of inclusion in Mission.
Outreach
The purpose of this committee is to improve access to programs and services by relocating
existing services and developing new services based on neighborhood needs.
This sub committee has been involved in many great community initiatives. An outreach literacy
bus has recently completed renovations. This literacy bus will provide outreach services within
the outer community and offer multiple resources such as "scribe services" assisting people fill
out crucial necessary forms to receiving assistance in various ways as well as health services
such as baby wellness check ups. Additionally, a book lending and informational resource
program will be offered out of the bus.
Youth Unlimited have created a parent-teen adventure retreat. This is being offered out of a local
couple's house with services offered on a sliding scale. This program allows parent and teen to
get away for the weekend and spend quality time together experiencing a therapeutic outdoor
environment. A highly successful Monday night youth group is currently offered through Youth
Unlimited and on Nov 22, 2008 an annual fundraising banquet at Four Square Church was held
to raise money for the youth group.
Tara Scheirer a UFV Social Work student coordinated the extreme weather shelter which opened
this past year on Nov 6, 2008 at The Friendship Centre. Mission Community Services recently
hired two new outreach workers to work with the street level homeless population in Mission
and coordinate housing options for them. The Union Gospel Mission introduced increased
programming and life skills tutoring for 2009.
The 1 st stage housing development on 1 st street and the Grand Street Lodge is a celebrated
success within the outreach sub committee. Currently, this sub committee is creating a Terms of
Reference and re-evaluating priorities for 2009. Presently, two areas of interest this
subcommittee is looking at is creating afterschool resources for kids and youth with disabilities
and reducing wait times for individuals seeking addiction and other social services.
Detox
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4 L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826.1363 g (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

9
215
The purpose of this committee is to identify the community need for Detox facilities and
advocate for the development of appropriate community based facilities and programs for the
treatment of substance abuse.
I believe there is value in combining the previously separate priorities of Outreach and Detox in
to one category. Both of these topic areas are very diverse to tackle on a community level. Issues
related to outreach are at risk of overlap with Mission Community Services. New definitions,
terms of reference and direction are needed as well as new subcommittee member representation.
The concept of a merger between these two priority areas is a topic that has been touched on in a
previous social development meeting and will be discussed further as the social development
plan and the present direction for the Social Development Commission is developed.
Community Schools
The purpose of this sub committee is to initiate and support dialogue and actions to better utilize
schools to strengthen neighborhood connections. Although this group has not met for many
months, efforts will be made to reunite this group and reestablish leadership, new priorities and
additional group membership.
Parks and Recreation has been involved in a one month Strong Start summer program focusing
on Kindergarten readiness. There is community support and engagement with the Literacy Bus
Program aimed at travelling to rural communities and providing a library service on wheels as
well as books specifically aimed at increasing literacy skills in children. Thus, this will be the
first focus of the re-establishing community schools sub committee.
3rd Spaces
The purpose of this sub committee is to promote awareness of the value of social interaction and
belonging in settings outside of the home or workplace / school and set about creating them.
A terms of reference is currently being created for this sub committee so that new strategic
direction can take shape for 2009.
Transportation
The purpose of this sub committee is to improve transportation accessibility for all citizens.
Again, a Terms of Reference document is being created for this sub committee to establish
current priorities. This sub-committee is not currently active.
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820.3752 Fax (604) 826.1363 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

10
216
•s..,21:01: 4 — Review and Recommendations
nave set a weekly check in time with Dennis Clark for Tuesdays at 3:30pm. This time frame
i 'Me provided as a space in which I can relay questions or concerns to Dennis and in which we
can share information.
Dennis and I have reviewed the Social Development Plan and will be making some revisions to
both the length and the content. The Social Development Plan is community based and quite
comprehensive; however, it is apparent that several terms (such as "Integrate Social Planning")
need to be better defined and broad goals are in need of being shortened and redirected into
action-based strategies. Proposed plan revisions will undergo review at Social Development
meetings.
My intent is to narrow the plan into manageable chunks and action based strategies. I believe that
10 priority areas are too high and 3-5 priority areas are ideal. It is apparent that some
subcommittee groups as well as individual members are feeling burnt out and lack direction. I
believe that by starting small and deciding on the end result and working backwards, it will give
new direction to sub committee members as well as ensure their actions have tangible outcomes.
Additionally, it has been brought to my attention by the Food Security Committee that
community food sustainability, nutrition and food security are not mentioned anywhere in the
Social Development Plan and should be incorporated into the ideals of "health and wellness".
Thus, revisions will most likely include the previously unthought-of area of food security and
sustainability.
Section 5 - Social Development Commission Update:
a) Report Card Style Forum
b) Volunteerism
c) New Membership
d) Community Networking
e) Terms of Reference
a) Report Card Style Forum
As part of the original Social Development Plan, a report back to the community was intended to
happen last spring 2008. This event has not taken place to date and the Social Development
Commission feels that a report card style event is integral to not only report back to the
community and share successes, but also, to share the challenges and barriers experienced up to
this point. This event would not be a duplication of previous workshops held. The format for this
event would most likely consist of an afternoon event held on a Friday. Currently, the
Commission is brainstorming best practices for facilitation of this type of event.
Utilizing a Historical Framework approach could be beneficial in determining contributing
factors for both strengths and weaknesses of the plan thus far. The purpose of a Historical
Framework is a reflective tool to review the past to prepare for the future. This method uses the
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826.1363 6 (604) 820.3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

217
11
ToP participatory planning approach. This approach derives high levels of involvement without
unfocused energy and conflict. Rather this approach evokes authentic dialogue, creative ideas,
genuine consensus, solid commitment and effective action. Currently, the estimated date for this
event is to hold it after the Celebration of Community in September, with the Report likely to
follow in October at the Mission Leisure Centre.
b) Volunteerism
One of the main concerns of the Social Development Commission at this time is around the issue
of Volunteerism. As volunteers are integral for the success of the Social Development Plan, it is
felt by the Commission that through reporting back to the community, we can also generate
increased awareness and recruit volunteers to not only sub-committees but also to community
organizations.
An additional aspect to Volunteerism is the necessity to both market for and coordinate the
networking for individuals in the community wanting to volunteer with local organizations. The
Central Resource Bureau sub-committee website will include a component on volunteering in the
community but does nor possess the ability or funding to be as comprehensive as is needed.
This report card style event could include a volunteer recruitment campaign as well as serve as a
networking function to network local social services agencies and businesses among others.
c) New Membership
The need for new members to sit on the Social Development Commission is a topic of current
discussion. Out of the original 11 members, three individuals Dave Perrit, Margaret Pfoh and
Tony Loyer have not attended since my position began. Although these members have been
unable to attend the meetings, they have all expressed a desire to remain on the Commission. At
this point, the Commission feels that their membership continues to be valuable and would like
to keep them on even if their attendance at meetings is minimal. There is a desire to establish
increased diversity among membership. Active youth representation is needed. I have raised this
issue with Randy Huth who will be contacting potential youth for expressions of interest.
Margaret Pfoh was the previous voice for First Nations issues. It is felt that a more active voice
is needed to attend regular meetings.
d) Community Networking
One of the greatest weaknesses I have observed in Mission is the lack of networking among
social service agencies. This is problematic not only for the organization who is unable to benefit
from potential partnerships, but also for the client who may not be referred to services offered in
Mission due to a lack of education for the service provider. There is also little to no networking
between First Nations and non First Nations service agencies. Although this is not uncommon in
communities, it is an area that needs improvement. Thus, the report back to the community as
discussed above could aim to include a networking function for these community partners.
e) Terms of Reference
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826-1363 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreaves@mission.ca

12
218
Initial attempts have been made to revise and clarify the Terms of Reference for both the Social
Development Commission and the Social Development sub-committees. The purpose of revision
is to analyze the areas that have been successful, thus identifying barriers and amending those
areas that have not seen follow through. With new Commission as well as community focus and
membership, the present direction of implementation of the Social Development Plan can take
place.
I have greatly enjoyed my position as Manager of Social Development thus far and have found it
to be both challenging and rewarding. I have enjoyed meeting the community and look forward
to furthering the implementation of the Social Development Plan.
Thank you,
Kirsten Hargreaves
Manager of Social Development
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3752 Fax (604) 826-1363 6 (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: khargreayes@mission.ca

219
DISTRICT OF
1S S ion --44*
ON THE FRASER
Inspection Services
Memorandum
To:
Chief Administration Officer
From: Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Date: May 26, 2009
Subject: Enforcement of Lawn Sprinkling
Recommendation:
Staff recommends increasing the Municipal Ticket Information (MTI) fine amount for lawn
sprinkling from $50.00 to $100.00 per offence and to keep the current procedure of enforcement
as is.
Background:
Staff was directed to provide a report containing options to create an increasing fine scale for
lawn sprinkling offences similar to that of the false alarm bylaw. Staff was also requested to
provide fewer warnings prior to issuing MTI fines.
Escalating Fine Scale:
The Community Charter sets out what a municipality can do under an MTI system
It is not permitted under the MTI system to use an escalating fine system but does provide the
ability to issue a ticket for each day an offence occurs, or continues to occur. The idea
underlying the system is that the municipality obtains provincial government approval for a list of
set fines before it implements an MTI bylaw and then it can take advantage of a more
streamlined court process. The maximum permissible fine is $1,000.
The difference between the MTI fine for non-compliance of the Lawn Sprinkling Bylaw and the
escalating fees for the False Alarm Bylaw is that one is a fine for non-compliance of a bylaw and
the other is the recovery of the cost of a service provided by the District.
Enforcement Procedure:
The issuing of a MTI fine is the last solution that a bylaw enforcement officer uses to gain
compliance. The goal of a bylaw enforcement officer is to achieve voluntary compliance and
understanding of the bylaw which is being enforced.
When appearing in Provincial Court on a disputed ticket one of the main elements the Local
Government must prove is whether the alleged offender was given every opportunity to rectify
the situation through warnings and education of the offence. If voluntary compliance after a
couple of warnings and education has not resolved the matter, then an MTI fine may be issued
to the alleged offender for the said offence. Circumstances are different with every call and
should be judged on its own merits.
Warnings and education are the standard and appropriate procedure used by the District (and
other Local Government) and assists in a positive outcome in court and maintains that the
District of Mission proceeded in a fair and just way when dealing with the public.
FILE: ADM.BYL.PRO PAGE 1 OF 2
Water Bylaw

220
If in the eyes of the Court sufficient opportunity is not given, it may result in the fine being
reduced, the person being found guilty but the fine waived or the squashing of the ticket. In this
case the District would still have the legal cost of proceeding with court action and end up with
an unfavorable result.
As the price for a permit in July and August is $100.00 an offender could receive two tickets
before the cost of a permit would be achieved. It is therefore recommended that the fine amount
be increased to be an additional deterrent to the offender and the procedure used by bylaw
enforcement staff be maintained so that the courts will recognize that the offender was given a
fair opportunity to comply.
Pat Northup
Senior Bylaw Enforcement Officer
G:\INSPECT\pat\sprinkling bylawl .doc
FILE: [CLICK HERE TO TYPE EFS FILE CATEGORY] PAGE 2 OF 2
[Click here to type EFS File Folder Name]

221
Corporate Administration
INFORMATION Memorandum
File Category:
File Folder:
ADM.BYL.BYL
Animal Control
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Director of Corporate Administration
Date: June 5, 2009
Subject: Dangerous Dogs - Bylaw Options
In response to council concerns, staff reviewed bylaws from Surrey, Vancouver,
Burnaby and Coquitlam. The review has focused on defining "dangerous dogs",
impounding and licensing fees, and the tools in the bylaws regarding the control of
such animals.
A summary table is provided on the last page of this report that provides the
highlights of each community's approach.
Each of the bylaws includes numerous other details that are peculiar to the
individual community but not relevant to the dangerous dog issue. Those details
have not been included in this report.
1. MISSION'S CURRENT BYLAW
Definition of Dangerous Dog
Our current bylaw does not define the term "dangerous dog". We rely instead on
the Community Charter which defines a dangerous dog as one that:
(a) has killed or seriously injured a person,
(b) has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal, while in a public place or while
on private property, other than property owned or occupied by the person
responsible for the dog, or
(c) an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe is likely to kill or
seriously injure a person.
In addition an animal control officer may seize a dog that the officer "believes on
reasonable grounds that the animal is a dangerous dog". In this circumstance the
officer must consider whether the dog was acting while in the course of:
(a) attempting to prevent a person from committing an unlawful act, or
(b) performing law enforcement work.
Page 1 of 7

222
Control of Dogs
The bylaw also includes some dog control provisions as follows:
"No person shall suffer or permit:
any dog owned, possessed or harboured by him to be on a highway or any public
place unless such dog is on a leash and is under the control of a person who is
competent to control the dog.
and
The owner of every dog shall, at all times when such dog is not on a leash and
under the control of a person who is competent to control the dog, keep such dog
securely confined on the premises owned or controlled by the owner by keeping the
dog indoors, within a fenced area sufficient to prevent the escape of the dog or
securely tethered in such a manner as to prevent the dog from leaving the
premises.
Impound Fees and Penalties
The current bylaw also requires the payment of fees for impounded dogs. The fees
are $50 for the first offence ($25 if the dog is licenced), $100 for the second
offence and $150 for the third and any subsequent offence. The bylaw also
provides for fines on summary conviction for offending the bylaw ($250 minimum
to $2,500 maximum).
2. CITY OF SURREY
Definition of Dangerous Dog
Surrey defines a dangerous dog as one that meets any of the following criteria:
(a) a dog that has attacked, bitten or caused injury to a person or has
demonstrated a propensity, tendency or disposition to do so;
(b) a dog that, while running at large, has attacked, bitten, killed or caused injury
to a domestic animal;
(c) a dog that, while running at large, has aggressively pursued or harassed a
person;
(d) a dog that, while running at large, has aggressively pursued or harassed a
domestic animal;
(e) a dog with a known propensity to attack or injure a person without provocation;
(f)
a potentially dangerous dog (defined elsewhere as any dog running at large):
i. that has been impounded 3 times within the previous 24 months;
ii. for which the owner has received a municipal ticket for running at large 3
times in the previous 24 months; or
Page 2 of 7

223
iii. for which the total number of impounds or tickets totals 3 within the
previous 24 months.
Control of Dogs
The Surrey bylaw includes typical wording regarding a dog out in public.
Of particular interest is that the Surrey bylaw defines "run at large" to include "a
dangerous dog that is on the premises of the owner that is not contained in an
enclosure of securely confined within a dwelling". The bylaw defines the enclosure
as "a fence or structure at least 6 feet in height and 4 feet in width, forming an
enclosure suitable to prevent the entry of young children, and suitable to confine a
dangerous dog..."
Licence Fees
The Surrey bylaw requires substantially higher licence fees for potentially
dangerous dogs ($100) and for dangerous dogs ($210).
Impound Fees
Surrey's impound fees are dramatically higher than any of the jurisdictions
reviewed in relation to dangerous dogs running at large. The first impound fee is
$1,000 and for the each subsequent impounding $5,000 per occasion. However if
the dangerous dog has caused injury to a person or to a domestic animal, the first
impound fee increases to $5,000.
The owner or harbourer of the dangerous dog is also responsible for any
"extraordinary costs" incurred by the animal control officer in seizing the dog(s).
3. CITY OF VANCOUVER
Definition of Dangerous Dog
Vancouver's bylaw refers to "aggressive dog(s)" which are defined as:
(a) a dog with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack without
provocation other domestic animals or human beings, or
(b) a dog which has bitten another domestic animal or human being without
provocation
Control of Dogs
The Vancouver bylaw requires:
(a) the muzzling of an aggressive dog on any property not owned or controlled by
the owner of the dog.
(b) an aggressive dog while on property owned or controlled by the owner must
either be confined indoors or if outdoors be confined in an enclosed pen capable
of preventing the entry of young children and adequately constructed to
prevent the dog from escaping or from biting a domestic animal or human
being.
Page 3 of 7

224
Licence and Impound Fees
Vancouver does not have any licence fee specific to "aggressive digs". It does
however have an impound fee of $275 for a licensed aggressive dog and $350 for
an unlicensed aggressive dog.
4. CITY OF BURNABY
Definition of Dangerous Dog
Burnaby's bylaw refers to "vicious dog" which is defined as:
(a) a dog that without provocation has bitten or caused injury to a human being or
to a domesticated animal, but does not include a dog that has bitten or injured
a trespasser, and
(b) a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Bull Terrier and any dog generally
recognized as a pit bull or pit bull terrier and includes a dog of mixed breed
with predominant pit bull or pit bull terrier characteristics.
Control of Dogs
The bylaw requires that "every owner of a vicious dog shall keep it muzzled while
on a public highway or public place".
The bylaw further requires that:
Every owner of a vicious dog shall, while the dog is on the owner's premises, keep
the dog securely confined either
(a) indoors, or
(b) within a fenced yard in an enclosure that is
i. capable of preventing inadvertent entry by any person including a child,
ii.
adequately constructed to prevent the dog from escaping or inflicting harm
on any person or domestic animal, and
iii. posted with a sign at each point of entry advising that a vicious dog is
within.
Licence and Impound Fees
Burnaby does not have any licence fee specific to "aggressive dogs". It does
however have an impound fee of $200 for a first impoundment of a vicious dog and
$400 for each subsequent impoundment.
5. CITY OF COQUITLAM
Definition of Dangerous Dog
Coquitlam defines a dangerous dog as :
(a) any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack without
Page 4 of 7

225
provocation, to cause injury or to otherwise threaten the safety of humans or
domestic animals,
(b) any dog which has, without provocation, bitten, inflicted injury, assaulted or
otherwise attacked a human or domestic animal,
(c) any dog which is owned primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting or
has been or is being trained for dog fighting, or
(d) an American Pitt Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire
Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier each as recognized any the Canadian Kennel Club, a Pit
Bull Terrier or Pit Bull, whether recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club, the
American Kennel Club or otherwise, and any dog whose breeding includes one
or more breeds enumerated in this paragraph.
Control of Dogs
The bylaw requires that:
"every Owner is responsible for ensuring that his or her domestic animal is not at
any time running at large in the municipality" and
".. with respect to any dog, every Owner is responsible for ensuring that the dog is
secured by a collar and leash suitable to the dog's size and the strength and that
such leash is under the control of the Owner or his or her agent".
There are several paragraphs that also refer to such things as a female dog in heat
and a whelping female dog.
With regard to vicious dogs, the bylaw requires to ensure that:
(a)
(b)
the dog is not permitted in any public place unless ... the dog is muzzled in
such a manner as to prevent it from being able to bite another domestic
animal or human; and
while the dog is on the premises of property owned by or within the
possession and control of the Owner it is contained within the premises on
such property or securely confined in a kennel located on the property
provided that the property is fenced or secured in such a manner that no
other domestic animals or children can access the kennel.
In addition the bylaw requires that:
(a)
(b)
Where any provision of the bylaw requires a kennel, the kennel must be at
least 1.83 meters in height and have a concrete, asphalt or wooden floor, and
sides and roof constructed of building materials that are sufficiently sturdy to
contain the domestic animal in a humane and safe manner, and have secure
fastening.
Where the animal is to be controlled within a property there must be a fence
1.83 metres high constructed in accordance with the municipality fence bylaw
requirement.
Page 5 of 7

226
Licence and Impound Fees
The licence fees for a vicious dog whether licenced or un-licenced are $200 for the
first impoundment, $500 for a second impoundment and $1,000 for all subsequent
impoundments. There is no special licence fee for a vicious dog.
SUMMATION
There is clearly limited consistency in how communities treat the topic of dangerous
dogs.
A review of the bylaws illustrates that Surrey takes the most aggressive approach
with respect to licence and impound fees. Both Burnaby and Coquitlam include
specific breeds in their definitions of dangerous dogs while the others do not.
All of the other communities require that a "dangerous dog" be muzzled in public.
But for those that do not include named breeds, the dog would presumably not be
considered to be dangerous until it had attacked a person or domestic animal. It
would also appear that this is how higher impound fees are determined.
All of the other communities also require that a dangerous dog (however
determined) while on the premises of the owner must be either inside the residence
or kept in an adequate enclosure, within an adequately fenced yard.
NEXT STEPS
Council may wish to consider amendments to the current Dog Licensing and Animal
Control bylaw to include any or all of the following:
1. modify the definition of dangerous dog, which may include specific breeds
2. increase licence fees for dangerous dogs
3. add a significant impound fee for dangerous dogs
4. add a requirement for muzzling dangerous dogs when in public
5. add a requirement for an enclosure of a specified size within a fenced yard
(with a specified height for the fence) on the owner's premises
If council wishes to pursue any of the above changes, I would also recommend that
we report back to council on both any legal issues and any practicalities of
enf•t.
Page 6 of 7

227
SUMMARY TABLE OF BYLAW REQUIREMENTS FOR DANGEROUS DOGS
Mission
Surrey
Vancouver
Definition
includes
breeds
no - use
community
charter
definition
no, but
includes a
definition
of
"dangerous
dog" and
"potentially
dangerous
dog"
no, but
defines
"aggressive
dogs"
Controls Licence Fees Impound Fees
For all dogs
1. leash
2. on premises-inside
a fenced yard, or
tethered
1. muzzle in public
2. on premises -
inside or in an
enclosure (6' h X
4' w)
1. muzzle in public
2. on premises
inside or in a pen
of sufficient size
Burnaby yes 1. muzzle in public
2. on premises -
inside or in an
enclosure within a
fenced yard
Coquitlam yes 1. muzzle in public
2. on premises -
inside or in an
enclosure within a
fenced yard (6')
No special fee
1. potentially
dangerous dog
$100.
2. dangerous dog
$210
No special fee
No special fee
No special fee
1. First $1,000
2. Thereafter
$5,000
$275 for
licenced and
$350 for unlicenced
1. first $200
2. thereafter
$400
•
No special fee 1. first $200
2. second $500
3. thereafter
$1,000
Page 7 of 7

DISTRICT OF
Mfission
ON THE FRASER
Inspection Services
Memorandum
228
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Manager of Inspection Services
Date: June 1, 2009
Subject: Business Licence Statistics and Compliance
The following chart shows the number of business licences issued over the past four years and
licences issued to-date, as per Council request.
2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
To Date
Resident 534 600 634 647 611
Home Occupations 543 525 578 667 593
Non-Resident 464 431 506 611 443
TOTAL LICENCES 1541 1556 1718 1925 1647
The following steps are carried out yearly by staff to ensure that the previous years business
licences are renewed:
■
■
▪
■
Prior to December 10th : Business licence renewal notices are mailed out to all existing
business licence holders.
Mid January: Final renewal notices are sent to all outstanding accounts with notification
that a 25% late payment penalty will be applied if payment is not received by January
31st.
After January 31st: All non-resident contractor accounts are inactivated and renewed
as need arises throughout the year.
Mid February: The bylaw enforcement officer endeavours to contact all known business
owners of resident and home occupation businesses that have not renewed their licence
within 30 days from the date of the second notice mailing to help avoid an additional
25% penalty if payment is not received by March 1 st .
To date 67 of the 2008 businesses have not renewed their business licences for 2009. 33 of
these are home occupations and the balance resident businesses. The bylaw enforcement
officers will be following up with these outstanding business licences to ensure they are either
no longer in business, or a business licence is purchased. Normally when outstanding Business
Licences are followed up it results in 100% compliance for those still in business.
Non Resident Contractors are not followed up in the same manner as Resident and Home
Occupation. They are typically out of town businesses that have applied on a one-time basis
only.
Throughout the year staff also actively seek out new businesses to ensure licences are
obtained. ,
f
Beverly Endersby
a \inspect \busIness12009 report
PILE: ADM.LIC.VAG PAGE 1 OF 1
Business Licence Statistics

District of Mission Memo
229
File Category:
File Folder:
INF.SAN.PUM
Penitentiary Pump Station
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Director of Engineering and Public Works
Date: May 26, 2009
Subject: Upgrading of Penitentiary Pump Station and Gravity Main
Recommendation
That $460,000 be included in the non regional sewer capital expenditure plan in year 2012 for
the upgrading of the Penitentiary Sewage Pumping Station and incoming gravity mains with the
funding source identified as the sewer capital reserve; and
That Council direct the Director of Corporate Administration to draft a fee bylaw in accordance
with the authority granted under Sections 12(1) and 194 of the Community Charter to establish
a fee per lot to be paid by property owners in the catchment area of the pump station as a
condition of subdivision approval or connection of existing dwellings to the sewer; and
That all fees received under the bylaw be deposited in the sewer capital reserve account; and
That the fee per lot under the bylaw be established at $2,995.
Background
In September of 2007 Paragon Engineering prepared a report which identified the need to
upgrade the capacity of the Penitentiary sewage pumping station and gravity mains upstream of
the pump station when flows from development reach a critical level.
The timing as to when the improvements to the pump station and incoming gravity mains must
be constructed will depend on the rate of development in the catchment area. Staff have
estimated that the upgrading will be needed by year 2012 based on development applications
and enquiries for properties in the area received to date. The attached sketch illustrates the
catchment area for the pump station.
Because there will be insufficient funds collected from developers under the recommended fee
bylaw by the time the work needs to be carried out in 2012, it is recommended that the project
be funded from the sewer capital reserve with fees received prior to construction being used to
offset a portion of the cost and fees received after the construction is completed being paid back
to the sewer capital reserve. At ultimate build-out the fees received from developers will have
paid the entire cost of the upgrade.
Staff are recommending a fee bylaw approach as opposed to creating a DCC area because of
the relatively small catchment area, the cost to create a DCC, and delays for implementation of
a DCC which would result in quite a number of developments not paying their fair share of the
cost if they proceed before the DCC would have been applicable.
The municipal solicitor is in agreement that section 194 of the Community Charter grants the
necessary authority to establish the bylaw. A copy of an email from Bob Walker which confirms
this and outlines a number of items that must be included in the bylaw is attached.
PAGE 1 OF 2

230
Council considered a similar recommendation on this matter at the closed Council of November
17, 2008. Staff were asked to recalculate the potential number of new lots in the area and to
provide an updated catchment area map.
Attached is a sub-catchment map from Paragon's report along with preliminary lot layouts for
those sub-catchments having development potential and a table that shows the number of
existing and potential lots in each sub-catchment. The table also tallies the potential number of
lots that could be expected to contribute to the cost of the improvements under the proposed
bylaw.
The $460,000 cost represents an estimate of the cost to install the improvements in 2012
dollars. A contribution of $31,125 has already been received from School District 75 and the
developer of catchment area "R" has already volunteered to contribute $18,630 in conjunction
with the rezoning of that property. Therefore, the remaining amount to be raised under the
proposed bylaw is $410,245. Per the attached table there are 137 potential units of
development in the catchment area which results in a per lot cost of $2,995.
It should be pointed out that the calculation does not include the proposed 94 lot development
east of City Hall. Staff has calculated that the capacity of the sewer system after upgrading to
the recommendations of the Paragon Engineering report would have sufficient capacity to
accommodate that development.
If that development were to proceed, the developer would be required to volunteer to pay a fair
share of the improvements in conjunction with the rezoning agreement for offsite works. This
could result in a change to the fee under the proposed bylaw.
Staff feels it is important to proceed with the fee bylaw now so that the District does not miss out
on revenue from developments in the currently designated development area. Staff will review
the bylaw in the future as required to update the charges based on actual costs and
development activity.
F:\ENGINEER\DRIECKENjreport on Pen PS upgrading(2).doc
Encl
I have reviewed the financial aspects of this report
Ken Bjorgaard
PAGE 2 OF 2

II
2
33429
33470
33475
5342
8334
5325
5322
5315
13590
13704
33132
3373.
r
33740
33/44
33750
Airmumwpowopt,,„,„,
34050 34055 34051
34051
34072 34059
O
M4111111 34035

232
Doug Riecken
From: Bob Walker [bob@woodwardwalker.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Doug Riecken
Cc: Rick Bomhof; Ken Bjorgaard
Subject: RE: Fees For Upgrading Sewage Pump Station
I think that the authority under section 194 is available to establish one or more fees for the
geographical area. The answers to the following questions would be needed to prepare the bylaw: Is
there a geographical area where the fee would apply Under what conditions would the fee be
payable The purpose of the fee; and the rationale for it . What would all the factors be under
194(2)(b) and 12(1) of the Community Charter that must be included in the bylaw Are some of them
contained in the consultant's report referenced in your memo. I also think that this approach is better
than relying on a voluntary contribution by a developer at rezoning. Bob Walker
Robert C. P. Walker
Woodward Walker
Banisters & Solicitors
Tel: (604) 541-9915, Ext. 206
Fax: (604) 541-9066
E-mail: bob@woodwardwalker.com
NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential or solicitor/client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
any disclosure, distribution or other use of this e-mail or the information contained herein or attached hereto is unlawful and
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this e-mail without
printing, copying or forwarding it to anyone. Thank you for your cooperation.
Robert C. P. Walker
Woodward Walker
Banisters & Solicitors
Tel: (604) 541-9915, Ext. 206
Fax: (604) 541-9066
E-mail: bob@woodwardwalker.com
NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential or solicitor/client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
any disclosure, distribution or other use of this e-mail or the information contained herein or attached hereto is unlawful and
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this e-mail without
printing, copying or forwarding it to anyone. Thank you for your cooperation.
Original Message
From: Doug Riecken [mailto:DRiecken©mission.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 3:47 PM
To: Bob Walker
Cc: Rick Bomhof; Ken Bjorgaard
Subject: Fees For Upgrading Sewage Pump Station
Bob,
Attached is a report which proposes getting developers in the catchment area of an existing sewage pump station
system to volunteer to pay a fee at rezoning stage to pay for upgrades to the system. This approach is being
considered to avoid the cost and delays associated with creation of a DCC charge in the area.
Ken is wondering whether it is possible to establish a Bylaw under Section 194 of the Community Charter to
impose the fees.
Can you please review this matter and get back to Rick and Ken on this.
1

,
tU C. IN U
STAVE — SOUTH OF DEWDNEY (EAST)
SCHOOL AND STRATA AREAS
cc
33
L _ _
HARMS AND KIMBALL AREAS
CEDAR VALLEY PHASE 4 AREA
STAVE — NORTH OF DEWDNEY (WEST)
-K
a
PUMP STATION
STAVE — NORTH OF DEWDNEY (EAST)
CHURCH AREA
PARK AREA
EXISTING PUMP STATION
CATCHMENT BOUNDARY
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AREA P1B
(DENSITY UNKNOWN)
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AREA P1A
(DENSITY UNKNOWN)
P4
MISSION PUBLIC
SCHOOL ADDITION
FERNDALE
INSTITUTION
° 150
(6)
8
150 AC
IIL
1 10
1 ,2
I
y
CD
2
WORKS
SCHOOL DiSTRIC1
MUNICIPAL HALL
DEWDNE
TR JNK
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
200 PVC FM
PVC
200 PVC
[Mt Y
CHURC
SITE
c.
4.40 Ha
lOppha
2.13 Ha C
CATCHMENT
lOppha
2.91 Ha
BOUNDARIES
9Oppliy
_r
0
0.14 Ha
55ppha
0-
cr
4
0.21 Ha
ppha
d
.
lar [°,..59.111 -
lowIr
200 PVC C.0 200 PVC 200 PVC
ZIA 1ummilidalg;:ail
411111
We C.O.
200 PVC
200 PVC
a IL C.0
441
111111:21011:11 0VCialit ' 0200
Iffli r°5•531:11pii
4112111k . 0114
haallE1
tr■AGE*
111111*
1111 Ow\fla
0.20 Ha
55ppha
3.72 Ha
lOppha
CATCHMENT NAME
CATCHMENT AREA
POPULATION PER
HECTARE
DESIGN FLOW DATAL
DESIGN FLOW 0 PUMP STATION = 19.86 L/s
DESIGN FLOW 0 PUMP STATION EXISTING PLUS SCHOOL = 19.98 L/s
DESIGN FLOW PUMP STATION EXISTING PLUS STRATA = 19.94 L/s
DESIGN FLOW 0 PUMP STATION EXISTING PLUS SCHOOL PLUS STRATA = 20.06 L/s
DESIGN FLOW PUMP STATION EXISTING PLUS SCHOOL PLUS HARMS = 22.11 L/s
DESIGN FLOW 0 PUMP STATION EXISTING PLUS SCHOOL PLUS KIMBALL = 20.05 L/s
DESIGN FLOW 0 PUMP STATION EXISTING PLUS SCHOOL PLUS HARMS PLUS KIMBALL =
D2 E2B3IG3 NFLOW L/s 8 PUMP STATION EXISTING
DESIGN FLOW @ PUMP STATION EXISTING
25.74 L/s
DESIGN FLOW (0 PUMP STATION EXISTING
DESIGN 1G FLOWS
@ PUMP STATION EXISTING
20.73 FLOW
DESIGN L/s PUMP STATION EXISTING
P2
POTENTIAL CATCHMENT EXTENSION
(7 .S.F. STRATA UNITS)
PLUS SCHOOL PLUS STAVE
PLUS SCHOOL PLUS STAVE
PLUS SCHOOL PLUS STAVE NORTH EAST =
PLUS SCHOOL PLUS STAVE EAST AND WEST =
PLUS ALL = 23.39 Lis
SOUTH = 20.78 L/s
NORTH WEST =
4/09/2007 CR PER DISTRICT
14/09/ 00 REPORT D. NO
ow
POTEN 1..ND
0 SCRIPT
This rowing and design the property of PARAGON ENGINEERING LTD end connat b us d, reused rep
In
pFirancon ENGINEERING LTD.
104-1515 BROADWAY STREET, PORT COQUITLAM, B.C. V3C 6M2
TELEPHONE:(604) 944-0820 FAX:(604) 944-0815
ad wIthou
the written consent of sold company.
411111t1\
1°FIRRMOD=11
ENGINEERING LTD.
DISTRICT OF MISSION
DISTRICT OF MISSION
PENITENTIARY PUMP STATION UPGRADE EVALUATION
LAND USES AND FLOWS
Scale: 1: 400
Drawn: N.S.R.
Designed: N.S.R .
P.W.
P.U.
Approved: J.S.K.
Mon. Proj. No.
Mun Dwg. No.
Job No. 2007-36
Dwg No.
01
Dote JULY 2007 Revision 3
destroy oil prints bearing preeous number t"---

Penitentiary Pump Station Catchment Area Development Potential
Sub Area Physical Development No of Equivalent Potential Number No of Units at Net Units to
Comments
Designation Area (Ha) Status Existing Units of New Units 3rd Reading Pay for Sewer
A 0.38 Developed 7
B 0.20 Developed 4
C 2.91 Developed 40
D 0.15 Developed 3
F 0.20 Developed 4
G + E 5.20 Undeveloped see note 1 43 0 43
H 0.59 Developed 11
I 0.40 Developed 7
J 0.50 Undeveloped see note 1 4 4 0 Based on draft plans submitted and number of lots draining to Kimball
K 0.11 Developed 2
L 0.06 Developed 1
M 0.21 Park
N 0.63 Developed 11
0 +Q 4.77 Undeveloped see note 1 26 0 26
P 0.32 Developed 6
R 1.13 Undeveloped see note 1 15 Developer has volunteered to pay $18,630 prior to 4th reading
S + T 2.23 Undeveloped see note 1 21 0 21
U 0.22 Undeveloped see note 1 5 5 0 Commercial(zoned - 75ppHa x.22Ha /3.2persons per unit = 5 units
V 1.57 Park
P1A 9.40 Undeveloped see note 1
P1B 9.50 Undeveloped see note 1
P2 2.18 Developed 7 7 0 7 Development is existing but on a private sewage system
P3 3.99 Undeveloped see note 1 40 0 40 Part of Cedar Valley Plan but could connect to future main on Harms
P4 2.29 Developed SD 75 have paid $31,125 towards PS upgrade
Public Works 2.49 Developed 19
City Hall 2.37 Developed 22
54.00 144 161 137
Note 1: Existing dwellings on undevelopmed properties not counted since all new lots will have to pay for sewer including any dwellings saved
Note 2: Corcan has 504 beds and could expand to 600 beds ; They will use 7.7 I/s of recommended 44.4 I/s future pumping capacity.
Note 3: School Property; existing population equivalent 53 persons/3.2 = 16.5 units; addition will add 3.7 I/s.
FAENGINEER\DRIECKEN \ Pen PS Development Area Units.xls
5/19/20098:28 AM

:
I
P 12,41-1 C T
fl
01-
4'22:
•--- _______________________________
---...
_.,.
. • .
\
‘...,
— ...-.. -- -----
6
-----, ,....,--....
,,,\ Toe OF RAN, -'
1
ale
--------,-___
I
- ' YNNA•M5) C R EEK
— T
it-,TERGOURSE'
/
/
C----E31: 72 ...._:,,,,
TOP OF
,4 1
er
b I; 112.43
f4
raL
't21
41126
EX Po. 13E66 of
3 Lor p P.A3 9506
. 0 17
,o;
e JG ACTOR SEirCh- -- ' —
4) 1 JO
,7 It
ROAA
- •44-,.;+, - - - - - -
Ma- JO = 4 ,
/
077 :
1
LOT qs
•• A
gi t
of
12
0847
!s1
t VI-OT #4 VA Tr„.
LOT #3
I \
*9.
710,
.•
{-GT #•2-1---.1047----
a,ti„ 1,, LZI:1
LwT I , 1°' 1c LOT #13 LO.. t:5 '
'CITE RIfY AVE.
I V
•
"
76 50 — • — •
. .
.4.2 1
!
I .,.
1000
—
— ri—;■;a72.7 —
771 7 I ACCESS TO WESTMINSTER
AF3461 LAILICS
q,,k3.3
—fa. —75,5 602
OT p q:"
25 I LC°
•A:
, ,L.I N-be„ • Et
I-
■ •
• \-
°
pZi
31 Las
2_
3 'tic; 710,
5,, 8 •
(-) -3
Da 5 74081'0.0 sow,
I
7601 PIP 001.1 CO 4765 _
A.L
1
CARSON NOFTLE
NARDIAL SANGFIA MACKENZIE PROPERTIES
OMEGA & ASSOCIA'rES I
rih--1 171,1(7717,PP71.17, 7 mr,
/2177.11, P ADOATTrinICK,
- 06-316-C-02

DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
LOT 35, PL. 65357 OF SEC. 27 TP 17 N.W.D.
URBAN
RS—I
SCALE 1:750
23k,
27
va. 0
26
BCP 6659
59
...........
41.2.5
p0
689.48W2
1228.91W2
57
cp.
99
3.00
PL 10687
>—
56
1.1
558.19W2- ..
....
559.63W2
558 -: 84m 2
•
18.87 16.20
rto 3,4)(
HERRY AVE.
PLAN PREPARED BY :
WALEMCO ENGINEERING LTD.,
33070 FIFTH AVE., MISSION, BC V2V IV5
PH. 604-826-4054
PLAN REVISED ON : MAR. 31, '08
TERRY ROCKWELL
PO.BOX 3003,
MISSION, BC V2V 4,J3
PH. 604-854-0454

LOT 27
LOT `6
I
I
NOTES:
1. LOTS FROM TING STAVE LAKE STREET
TO HAVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO
STAVE.
2. NO VEHICLE ACCESS PERMITTED TO
STAVE LAKE STREET.
3. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT REQUIRED
FOR HOUSE DESIGNS.
30
9.01
40 RI
1
726rn 2
.35,77
31.74
10 . 0
2
1 I-
EX . HUUSE
(,1 II BE RE -
TAINED)
7
786m2
'0.00
1
5652, 2
31.74
EX. HOT I
18.17
38.34
19.17
6
5
4 6581 2
465M 2
575m 2
17,97
; 4 t A roe^ -
CHERRY AVENUE
17.08 I 9.07 I f 31.14
ROAD DEDICATION
RS-1 & RS-1A ZONINE1
I
J
I
LOT 12 ! LOT 11 LOT 10
CIVIC CONSULTANTS
No.705-2760 .TRETHEWEY ST., ARROYSFORD. B.C.
TEL. (604) B52-4252 : (604) 552-6E310
civicconsulto,ts(Wtelus.riet
-1
LOT 9 LOT 8 I LOT 7 LOT 6
WILLIANI FAIRBAIRN
PLAN 10687, LOT 'A'
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PLAN
33849 CHEERY AVENUE, MISSION, B.C.
COPYRIGHT RESERVED — THIS PLAN
AND DESIGN IS 1HE EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY OF CIVIC CONSULTANTS
(CLEARRROOK) LT. AND CAN NOT NE
REPRODUCED OR COPIED, IN WHOLE
OR IN PART, WITHOUT 1HE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF SAID COMPANY.
Devi:T.:I , wz. Job No. :
07005
Drown : D.R.T. Scale : 1:500
Hate JULY 03, 2007 Revision :

DEWDNEY TRUNK RD.
°
1
6
2 6
k
5 I
1 2 11
,,3818
10 9
1 3
BOWIE DR.
2b Lc{-45
13 14
15 16 17
13818
L MP 3632
I 4 5
REM 49
P
4
- r - - — — ----,. H■_..,-11 .
( v- ,,,
./ / '-"
/
( --. / I. c7 ,. / 1
.•.), ,... -- ,_.- , er /0co•e0,, 0 i - " i
-_, -IN
/” 7' I,'' ., /
(,C) \ .,
rv-,,
Ey.
‘‘,
■
-..., -
IN
..-/
(PARR.)
_
L ,n/IF--"' .4 1354: - )
54 \ 9-, 4
'
, 73 \ 46
\ m \ 45'
LMP
4135 4
48
44 66 65
34
6
R V/ L MP
47,557
67 43
I 'I
-;9 :111

2 3 6(
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION OF
LOTS 1, 2 and 3 SECTION 27 TOWNSHIP 17
NWD PLAN LMP3632
SCALE 1 : 500
eistences are e, metres raid decimals
th ereof unless othervier ;retested.
10 5 0 10.0
200
PARCEL IDENTIFIER:
017-713-153 (LOT 1)
017-713-161 (LOT 2)
017-713-170 (LOT 3)
CIVIC ADDRESS:
33764 (LOT 1)
33762 (LOT 2) DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD, MISSION
33790 (LOTS)
ROAD ,i+'
180a
DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD
ROAD
law
29.82 6"›,,,,
6
g 511012
2
a
3
= 11110,2
S
4
59052
20.52
5
471m2
moo
1860
lax
18.00
1800
7800
29.16
27.16
6
832m2 'r i
7
9
558/1.2
8
559m2
7
55.9n2
J—
APPROX. LOCATION
—.- 4.4
7.
.,
1810
11100
1 6.00
26
BOWIE DRIVE
a
ROAD ...
PLAN
61656
14.43
16.43
lax
27.00
13 ..:,.
17
57152
70
8.15m2
M 11
a
sura z,-;
12
5i
9271112 0
MOO
14 611
4110012 8
51
15 7.-
a
46652
15.26
1626
18 00
moo
50
REM.49
F
PLAN LMP41354
PLAN BCP7291
B
PLAN
BCP7291
CONTOURS ACCORDING TO
DISTRICT OF MISSION MAPPING
Wade & Associates Land Surveying Ltd.
B.C. Land Surveyors
Mission dc Maple Ridge
Phone: (604) 626-9561 sr 463-4753
File: M3636-01 P1.5 R2
DRAWING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008

5
z i

BANNISTER
DR.
35 I " .4'
35 36 if is-7
1
. I I 7 -c
4-
1
f"
HARMS ST

242
Isslon
MDISTRICT 0,F
ON THE FRASER
ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS
File Category: PRO.DOM.LAN
File Folder: Fees
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Environmental Coordinator
Date: June 8th , 2009
Subject: Landfill Fees
Recommendation
THAT item 8 of Schedule A of the Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw 1387-1984 be
amended to reflect an $11 minimum charge per 73.5 kg load for customers from outside of
Mission and Electoral Areas C, F and G, effective July 1 st , 2009; and
THAT the surcharge for unsecured loads arriving at the landfill be increased to $10, effective
October 1 st, 2009.
Background
Minimum Charge for Out-of-Area Customers
Effective July 1 st, 2009, the minimum charge at the Maple Ridge transfer station will increase to
$10 for loads up to 140 kg. Staff anticipates that this increase may result in additional traffic to
the Mission landfill. The minimum charge at the Mission landfill is currently $5 for loads up to
73.5 kg. Being the only minimum charge provided for in the Refuse Collection and Disposal
Bylaw 1387-1984, it does not reflect the higher tipping fees charged to out-of-area customers,
which is set at $150 per tonne. Staff recommends increasing the minimum charge for out-ofarea
customers to $11 for loads up to 73.5 kg, which would reflect the $150 per tonne charge, in
order to discourage excessive vehicle traffic and the delivery of additional waste materials from
other jurisdictions. The change should be effective July 1 st, 2009, to coincide with the increased
minimum charge at the Maple Ridge transfer station.
Surcharge on Unsecured Loads
The $5 surcharge on unsecured loads was implemented in February 2008. From July 2007 to
January 2008, landfill customers who covered their loads had received a $2 rebate. During this
seven-month rebate period, the percentage of uncovered loads arriving at the landfill averaged
at 52% with no discernible downward trend. When the rebate was changed to a $5 surcharge,
the average percentage of uncovered loads dropped to 31% within two months, to 11% over the
next three months and finally appears to have bottomed out at an average 6% from July 2008 to
May 2009 (Graph 1).
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3703 Fax (604) 826-1363 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.mission.ca E-mail: grobertson@mission.ca

243
2
Uncovered Loads
July 2007 to May 2009
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
e 3000
2000
1000
0
70%
60% 4
50% g
40%
30%
20% 13
10%
0%
■is Total # of Loads
=333 # of Uncovered Loads
Percentage Uncovered
rebate
switched to
surcharge in
February '08
Graph 1 -
While the $5 surcharge has proven very effective in convincing the majority of landfill users to
cover their loads, a small, but persistent group of people has not yet come on board. As a result,
the overall amount of litter found along access routes to the landfill appears to have decreased,
however, it only takes one unsecured load to worsen the situation, so it is paramount to further
diminish the number of unsecured loads. Provided that the last eleven months have not shown
any further reduction in uncovered loads arriving at the landfill, staff recommends to increase
the surcharge for uncovered loads to $10 to heighten awareness, provide increased incentive to
change behavior and further reduce the litter found along landfill access routes.
It is anticipated that an increased surcharge will be more effective and result in less conflict at
the scalehouse than Maple Ridge's intended practice to not allow unsecured loads into its
transfer station. The increase should be effective October 1 st, 2009, to allow for adequate
advertising.
44/t6biA
Jennifer Meier
Environmental Coordinator
FAENGINEER\JMeier\Memos\Out-of-town Minimum Charge and Surcharge.doc
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3703 Fax (604) 826-1363 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: info@city.mission.bc.ca

244
MDISTRICT OF
ON THE FRASER
ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS
File Category: INF.WAS.WAS
File Folder: Vagrant
To: Chief Administrative Officer
From: Environmental Coordinator
Date: June 4th, 2009
Subject: Requirement for Garbage Cans
At its December 22 nd, 2008, meeting, Council approved staff's recommendation to require
curbside garbage to be contained in bins of up to 80 litres in volume, rather than bags, in order
to reduce the amount of litter generated by animals interfering with materials set out at the curb.
This change was to be effective June 1 st, 2009, and the recent tax mailout included information
along those lines. However, it has since been brought to staffs attention that 80-L garbage bins
are currently not readily available at local stores.
Staff will continue to work with stores to encourage stocking a larger number of cans, but is
advising residents in the meantime that the requirement for the use of garbage bins will not be
enforced for at least two months. It is anticipated that this grace period will provide sufficient
time for residents to source garbage bins, possibly from other areas, while avoiding
unnecessary frustration, especially given the fact that the recent switch to compostable bags for
curbside compost collection is still creating a fair number of complaints.
Staff will solicit feedback from the curbside collection service provider as to how much of a
shortage of bins there may be and continue to evaluate the supply and demand situation over
the next six weeks.
Jennifer Meier
Environmental Coordinator
F:\ENGINEER\J Meier\Memos\Garbage Can Grace Period.doc
P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9
Phone (604) 820-3703 Fax (604) 826-1363 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.mission.ca E-mail: grobertson@mission.ca

245
From: Jennifer Russell
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:07 PM
To: Jennifer Russell
Subject: FW: Burning ByLaw
Original Message
From: Paul Horn & Tracy Irwin [mailto:bootstrapconsulting@telus.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:53 PM
To: Don Chapman
Cc: James Atebe; Terry Gidda; Danny Plecas [External]; Mike Scudder; Jenny Stevens
[External]; Heather Stewart [External]; Iitzpatrick@mission.ca ; Mike Younie; Dennis Clark
Subject: Re: Burning ByLaw
Don,
I will ask that your correspondence be added to an upcoming agenda for discussion.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On 6-Jun-09, at 1:40 PM, Don Chapman
wrote:
> Dear Mayor & Council:
> Those of you who were members of the previous council will perhaps
> recall that I have written previously about my concerns regarding air
> quality in general, health concerns, and unnecessary open burning in
> our community.
> Specifically, during the review of the burning bylaw last year, I
> sought to have council ban all pit fires in the urban area of Mission,
> using similar criteria to those used to recently ban the burning of
> yard refuse.
> I was unsuccessful at that time, but certainly do not wish to see the
> matter die. Indeed, I have already spoken to the fire department
> regarding my concerns about the continued burning of yard refuse and
> other materials over this spring in my immediate neighbourhood, which
> is close to Central Elementary School.
> I am an asthma sufferer, although I have always been a non-smoker.
> I am sure you will have seen the front-page story in the Abbotsford
> News, June 6, dealing once again with our poor valley air quality,
> particularly as we enter summer.
> Clearly, there are all manner of pollution sources, some of which are
> under council control and others not. However, the continued burning
> in the urban area of Mission, and the existing backyard pit fires
> means that often I and my family have to close up our windows during
> the hot part of the year, just to avoid feeling as if we are living in
> a campground, and to avoid the health-related issues. In fact, I have
> taken to placing duct tape over the outdoor air intake for our
> furnace.
1

246
> My own personal choice would be a total open fire ban, consistent with
> our sister municipalities, in general recognition of our air quality
> concerns.
> If there is not the political will for this approach, then I certainly
> would like to see this ban in the urban area of Mission, which would
> move toward solving the problem in the immediate area of my own home.
> Another possible solution, although it would certainly require more
> administrative resources, would be to allow open pit fires by
> specific-event permit only. This would serve to help control the
> frequency of incidental fires, which would help people like myself,
> and would offer opportunities for fire education each time a permit
> was issued. And it would still allow for the occasional celebratory
> pit fire, which has been suggested to me still is an important aspect
> of our community culture.
> Again, I really would like to see council initiate a total ban, but
> perhaps some of the above offer transition points in what must
> inevitably happen if we are to be able to breath clean air. Much more
> must be done to bring about an air quality change in the Fraser
> Valley, but the issue I raise is not only under council control, but
> it would show leadership on this matter of increasing concern.
> Thank you for your attention.
> Don Chapman
2

247
From: Jennifer Russell
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:08 PM
To: Jennifer Russell
Subject: FW: Open Burning
Attachments: Larry Watkinson2.vcf
From: Larry Watkinson
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 2:11 PM
To: Dennis Clark
Cc: Ian Fitzpatrick
Subject: RE: Open Burning
Dennis, I don't feel the Fire Pits are the problem, most residence realize this is a perk of living in Mission and realize the
pit registration can be taken away by the Fire Dept. if abused. Currently We have over 500 registered fire pits. Open
burning in barrels, or slash from green pruning's cause the most problems, but these events are usually not from
registered fire pit residence. We do however respond to burning complaints where the residence has a fire pit but is not
registered and is "un aware of the bylaw" so we generally warn or fine them if it has been a 2nd offence and then have
them put the fire out until they have registered the pit with the Mission Fire / Rescue Service.
Thanks,
Larry.
Larry Watkinson,
Fire / Rescue
Assistant Fire C1 -.ef .
(604) 320-539ii
.f,604) 3024122
i-6114:,-8 (: -,E6 74
in,atkinson:T..'missmn . :a
33330 7th "
Mission BC. V2.1i 72E3
am„mission.com
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf, your receipt of
this message is in error. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading any such information. Any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
ICI please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Dennis Clark
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 13:21
To: Larry Watkinson
Subject: RE: Open Burning
Thanks for the prompt response Larry. This will be very helpful for council's discussion. From
the fire department perspective, do these fire pits pose a problem
Dennis
1

248
From: Larry Watkinson
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:00 AM
To: Dennis Clark
Cc: Ian Fitzpatrick
Subject: Open Burning
Hello Dennis, as per your request please read below research on the District of Maple Ridge, Abbotsford, and both
Langley's approach to back yard fire pits and other forms of permissible burning in urban areas.
Maple Ridge: Maple ridge residents are permitted to have outdoor fire pit fire year round if they live outside the urban
city core and live within the "Area open to Burning" which is outlined clearly on the districts map schedule "A" of the
bylaw. Backyard burning for disposal of yard trimmings etc. are permitted in the spring and fall of each year, a permit is
required and is valid for the period of April 15 th to May 15 or for the period of October 15 to November 15 th costing
$25.00 issued by fire department. Other Specific regulations are required to be met outlined clearly in the permit
issued in regards to backyard/campfires, all must be met including the Legislation on Waste Management Act R.S.B.C.
1996 Chap. 482 open burning smoke control regulation.
Abbotsford: No burning is permitted within the City of Abbotsford including rural areas. However, some rural residents
still have small fire pits against the bylaw.
Langley Township: No fire pits are permitted, however outdoor burning is permitted in the month of April and from
September 15 to the end of October under the following conditions: no person shall burn materials which are not
indigenous (natural growth and vegetation) to the site where the burning occurs. What they can burn is: Leaves,
branches, and other vegetation that grows on their property. What they can't burn is any materials hauled onto the
property from another site. Burning permits are required for all outdoor burning in Langley. Burning permits cost
$20.00.
No outdoor burning is permitted any time of year in the urban areas of Aldergrove, Murrayville, Fort Langley,
Brookswood, Walnut Grove, and Willoughby, burning permits must be kept available at the burning site.
Land clearing permits are required for all land clearing operations that involve open air burning. A Fire Department site
inspection is required before a permit can be issued. In some instances, the Fire Department may require the use of
forced air fans to accelerate burning. They must also obtain permission from Metro Vancouver.
Langley City: No outdoor open burning is permitted within the City of Langley including fire pits. The Fire Department
will action any reported fires that are in contravention of the bylaw.
Larry Watkin son
mission Fire Rescue
.:iissiszant Fire. C-ii.ef
f,60-=i; 8217, -E79E '
82.1.:-8524 - T.
777 30 =i,ve
Miss on
V7, 7=3
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf, your receipt of
this message is in error. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading any such information. Any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
2

06/03/2009 08:52 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 02/08 249
DISTRICT OF MISSION REPORT
MAY, 2009
Enclosures:
• District of Mission Public Safety Committee Report
• Definitions
• Major Offence Profile
• Institutional Programming and Community Involvement
i/casc mgt/private/ecm-clldDistriet of Mission Report Enclosures

ml-4E-1.379k ATGIA.10 1.11WM/A
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
MISSION INSTITUTION
DISTRICT OF MISSION PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT
2009
STATISTICAL INFORMATION UP TO AND INCLUDING THE LAST DAY OF EACH MONTH
Inside Institutional Count 272 274 276 278 276
Number of Inmates at Outside Court 0 0 1 0 0
Number of Inmates at Outside Hospital 0 0 0 0 0
Number of Inmates on Bail 0 0 0 0 0
Number of Inmates U.A.L. (1 since 1973) 1 1 1 1
Number of inmates on Temporary Absence 0 0 0 0
Total Number of Inmates at Mission 273 275 278 279 277
Transfer Out to Maximum Security
Transfer Out to Medium Security_ 1
2 0 2
1
Transfer Out to Minimum Security 6
6
2 0 4
Transfer Quito Other (Provincial, etc.) 0 0 0 0 0
Transfer In from Maximum Security 2
1 4
3
Transfer In from Medium Securi 4
5
5
4
3
Transfer In from Minimum Security
Transfer in from Other (Provincial, etc)
2
. 0
0
0
0
0 0
1
0
Transfer in from Multi-level Security 5 1 7
Transfer In from RRAC 3
5 2 6 2
Admitted by Suspension 5 7 2 3 1
Revocation 2 1
3 4 5
Day Parole
Full Parole 0 0 0 1
1
Statutory Release 11 9
5 13 4
Warrant Expiry 2 2 2 0
1
Death 0 0
0
0 0
Bail 0 0
0 0 0
U.A.L. 0 0 0 0 0
Court Ordered Release 0 0 0 0
Number of individual Escorted Temporary Absences' for the month.
Number of Inmates on an Unescorted Temporary Absence during the month. 0 0 0 1 1
Number participating in the Perimeter Work Clearance Program for the month. 3 3 1 2 2
Number of Inmates participating in the Work Release Program for the month. 0 0 0 0 0
'Figure-0°es nal Inducla Medical TerriaccaciAkeen.s

06/03/2009 08:52 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 04/08 251
DEFINITIONS
BAIL
Bail is an option for the courts or police to consider, in some cases, where an offender may be able to be released on
conditions, rather than being detained in custody prior to court appearance. Bail is also known as Judicial Interim Release.
TEMPORARY . ABSENCES AND DAY PAROLE
Temporary Absences (TAs) and Day Paroles allow the temporary release of offenders from institutions in order to access
programs and services available in the community. All provincesfterritories operate TA programs, and TAs may be granted
for personal development, medical, compassionate, employment, administrative, parental or family-related reasons, In
most cases, TA's are utilized for pre-parole preparation and planning.
TA's are either escorted (ETAs) or unescorted (UTAs). Typically, ETAs are not longer than eight hours and UTAs may
run from 8 hours to 60 days. The type of offence and sentence length determines whether the Correctional Service of
Canada or the National Parole Board has authority to issue TAs. In simplistic form, the National Parole Board determines
all TAs for offenders serving Life sentences and for other violent offences that resulted in serious harm to the victims. The
Warden, as the head of the releasing institution, retains complete responsibility for the final clearance of offenders being
released on TAs and provides a written recommendation to the N.P.B. when they possess the legal authority.
As a general rule, all offenders are eligible for E.T.A.s the moment they commence their federal sentences. In practice
however, very few offenders will receive authorization for TAs early within their sentence, with the exception of TAs for
medical and compassionate purposes. As a general rule, medical and compassionate TAs are escorted by what is
determined as a security escort (two officers who possess and utilize restraint equipment). However, for other types of
ETAs, the offender is usually escorted by one officer only. Variations in the level of security exist and is determined by
assessing the level of risk the offender poses to the public.
In terms of offender's eligibility for UTAs, this is determined by legal calculations of eligibility and vanes from one offender to
another depending on their sentence length. In the case of offenders serving a Life sentence, UTA eligibility is calculated
as three years before their full parole eligibility date.
Federal offenders may qualify to participate in work release programs outside of the correctional institution for a specified
period of time. These type of releases could see a single offender going out to work as well as groups of offenders,
However, they are usually escorted by at least one officer. In addition, UTAs may be granted to allow offenders to
participate in personal development programs or community service projects. UTAs are generally granted for a maximum
period of 15 days, although if the UTA is for participation in a personal development program, it may be extended to 60
days, renewable.
Day Parole is a flexible form of release that provides an opportunity for correctional officials to employ gradual release,
preparing the inmate for release on full parole and allowing the inmate the opportunity to participate in community-based
programs and become readjusted to life outside the institution,
Federal offenders, with the exception of those inmates in preventive detention or serving indeterminate sentences, are
eligible for day parole six months prior to their parole eligibility date or after having served six months of their sentence,
whichever is longer. The majority of the inmates on day parole reside in community-based facilities operated by the
provincial and federal corrections services or by private agencies on contract with the Correctional Service,
FULL PAROLE
Full Parole is a program of conditional release that allows inmates to serve a portion of their sentence in the community
under supervision. Inmates are generally eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence or seven years,
whichever is shorter. Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act enacted in 1992, however, sentencing judges
have the authority to set the parole eligibility for offenders convicted of violent and serious drug offences at one-half rather
than one-third of the sentence, In such cases, the period until parole eligibility cannot exceed ten years. Federal inmates
serving Life sentences are eligible for parole consideration after seven years in confinement, dated from the day the
offender was arrested and taken into custody. The exception to this are situations in which an offender is serving a Life
sentence with a mandatory minimum sentence. For example, a First Degree Murder conviction carries a mandatory 25
years confinement before parole eligibility.
STATUTORY RELEASE
Statutory Release has its origins in an amendment to the Parole Act in 1970. which created a mechanism to provide
assistance and control during the offender's readjustment to life in the community for inmates who had been denied parole,
In contrast to parole, statutory release involves the release of offenders from the institution after serving two-thirds of their
sentence, with the remaining one-third being served under supervision of the National Parole Board in the community.
Inmates released under statutory release are supervised by parole officers and must abide by mandatory and any additional
conditions set by the NPB that are deemed necessary to successfully manage the offenders risk in the community. A
violation of the conditions can result in suspension and revocation and return to the institution where the offender may have
to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Inmates can be Detained by the NPB and thus not released on statutory release. However, it has been determined in law
that offenders have the right to be released after serving two thirds of their sentences and thus, to detain an offender, there
must be significant grounds to establish that the offender would constitute a grievous threat to the community, or any
member thereof, if released. Following completion of their sentence, (Warrant Expiry Date), these inmates are released
into the community without any supervision or assistance. However, recent changes in the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act have made provisions to allow for the supervision of some offenders beyond their Warrant Expiry dates.
However, the changes in this law are not retroactive to offenders currently serving sentences and will likely involve a very
small group of offenders determined to be extremely dangerous,

06/03/2009 08:52 60413264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 05/08 252
Major Offence Profile
Offenders profile at the specified site and proportion for each major offence
Correctional Service of Canada
PROTECTED B
MISSION INSTITUTION
UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE 1 0.36%
FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - UNDER/RECOG I 0.36%
FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - UNDER/RECOG 1 0.36%
RAPE 2 0.73%
ESCAPE LAWFUL CUSTODY 1 0.36%
ESCAPE LAWFUL CUSTODY 1 0.36%
FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - UNDER/RECOG 1 0.36%
FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - JUDGE'S ORDER 1 0.36%
FAIL TO COMPLY W/COND OF UNDER/RECOG 2 0.73%
FAIL TO COMPLY W/COND OF UNDER/RECOG 6 2.18%
FAIL TO APPEAR - APPEARANCE NOTICE 1 0.36%
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION - TOUCH 1 0.36%
ANAL INTERCOURSE 1 0.36%
NON CAPITAL MURDER 2 0.73%
FIRST DEGREE MURDER 9 3.27%
SECOND DEGREE MURDER 6 2.18%
MANSLAUGHTER 1 0.36%
CAUSE BODILY HARM BY CRIM NEG 1 0,36%
FIRST DEGREE MURDER 26 9.45%
SECOND DEGREE MURDER 54 19.64%
MANSLAUGHTER 1 0.36%
ATTEMPT MURDER 2 0.73%
OVERCOME RESISTANCE - ADM DRUGS 1 0.36%
KIDNAP - HOLD FOR RANSOM 1 0.36%
DANGEROUS OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE 1 0.36%
DANGEROUS OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE 1 0,36%
FAIL TO PROVIDE BREATH SAMPLE 2 0.73%
IMPAIRED DRIVING - CBH 1 0.36%
OPERATE MV WHILE DISQUALIFIED 1 0_36%
UTTER THREAT TO CAUSE DEATH/HARM 2 0.73%
Date and time extracted: 2009/06/01 2:58:25PM EST Page 1 of 3
Print Date: 2009/06/01 2:59:09PM EST

06/03/2009 08:52 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 06/08 253
ASSAULT- USE OF FORCE 2 0.73%
ASSAULT - USE OF FORCE 2 0.73%
ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON 1 0.36%
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 4 1.45%
ASSAULT PEACE OFFICER 1 0.36%
SEXUAL ASSAULT 8 2,91%
SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH WEAPON 1 0.36%
SEXUAL ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM 2 0.73%
AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT 1 0.36%
FORCIBLE CONFINEMENT 5 1.82%
ROBBERY 1 0.36%
THEFT UNDER 1 0.36%
THEFT UNDER 3 1.09%
ARMED ROBBERY 1 0.36%
BREAK ENTER W/INTENT 2 0.73%
BREAK ENTER AND COMMIT 10 3.64%
DISGUISE WITH INTENT 1 0.36%
FOSS PROP OBT BY CRIME-OVER 3 1.09%
FOSS PROPERTY OBTAINED BY CRIME - UNDER 1 0.36%
FRAUD UNDER 1 0.36%
ATTEMPT 1 0.36%
MISCHIEF IN RELATION TO OTHER PROP 1 0.36%
ARSON - DAMAGE TO PROPERTY 1 0.36%
ATTEMPT IND OFFENCE 2 0.73%
ATTEMPT SUM CONY OFF 1 0.36%
CONSPIRE TO COMMIT MURDER 2 0.73%
CONSPIRE TO COMMIT IND OFF 1 0.36%
FAIL TO COMPLY W/PROB ORDER 1 0.36%
OFFENCE UNDER PROV STATUTES OF ONTARIO 1 0.36%
OFFENCE UNDER MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - B.C. 1 0,36%
CAUSE DEATH BY CRIM NEGL - ALL OTHERS 1 0.36%
MANSLAUGHTER - ALL OTHERS 10 3.64%
ATT MURDER - USE FIREARM 1 0.36%
ATT MURDER - ALL OTHERS 2 0.73%
C81-1W/INT TO WOUND - AIR GUN OR PISTOL 1 0.36%
SEXUAL ASSAULT W/WEAPON - ALL OTHERS 1 0,36%
SEXUAL ASSAULT CBI-1 - ALL OTHERS 2 0.73%
Date and time extracted: 2009/06/01 2:58:25PM EST Page 1 of 3
Print Date: 2009/06/01 2:59:09PM EST

06/03/2009 08:52 6048264319 *161 WARDEN PAGE 07/08 254
AGG. SEXUAL ASSAULT - ALL OTHERS 3 1.09%
KIDNAP - UNLAWFULLY CONFINE - ALL OTHERS 4 1.45%
KIDNAP - HOLD FOR RANSOM - ALL OTHERS 1 0.36%
ROBBERY - USE FIREARM 3 1.09%
ROBBERY - ALL OTHERS 33 12.00%
FAIL TO COMPLY W/ PROBATION ORDER 2 0,73%
POSS SCHEDULE II SUBSTANCE 1 0.36%
POSS SCHEDULE II SUBSTANCE 2 0.73%
POSS SCHEDULE I/II SUBST FOR PURP TRAFF 5 1.82%
UNLAWFULLY IN DWELLING HOUSE 1 0.36%
B E & COMMIT - NOT DWELLING HOUSE 3 1.09%
B E W/INTENT - NOT DWELLING HOUSE 1 0.36%
OPERATE MV - FLIGHT 2 0.73%
PERSONATION W/INT TO GAIN ADVANTAGE 1 0.36%
Total Number of Offenders: 275
Date and time extracted: 2009/06/01 2:55:25PM EST
Print Date: 2009/06/01 2:59:09PM EST
Page 1 of 3

06/03/2009 08:52 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 08/08 255
We created a new offender position as an Offender Ethonocultural Liaison. He
has numerous duties promoting Ethnoculturalism among the various offender
groups.
May was Asian Heritage month and we had a staff bulletin board near the front
entrance dedicated to this. We also held an Asian Food Theme Supper in the
kitchen for the offenders and provided them with information about Asian culture.
Michael Younie from the District of Mission attended our CAC meeting and
provided a presentation about Mission and the Environment. It was a very good
presentation the CAC asked numerous questions following the presentation.
Russ Bowden
Manager, Programs

256
Ferndale Institution Population Profile
June 2009
Population Total as of June 1, 2009 145 -
•
Number of Aboriginal Offenders 23
Number of Other Ethnicities 24
Number Of Caucasian 98
Age Groups

257
MINUTES of the SPECIAL MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF
MISSION held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake
Street, Mission, British Columbia, on May 14, 2009 commencing at 3:40 p.m.
Council Members Present:
Council Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
Mayor James Atebe
Councillor Terry Gidda
Councillor Danny Plecas
Councillor Jenny Stevens
Councillor Heather Stewart
Councillor Paul Horn
Councillor Mike Scudder
Dennis Clark, director of corporate administration
Kirsten Hargreaves, manager of social development
Christine Brough, administrative clerk
1. TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION
SC09/089
MAY 14/09
Mission Clubhouse Society
Mayor and council welcomed Margert Tomkinson, Anne Trainer and Jerri Laidlaw to
the meeting. Ms. Tomkinson, the coordinator for the Mission Clubhouse Society,
stated that the clubhouse provides refuge and a supportive environment for people
with mental health issues and that her goal is to create awareness of mental health
challenges as well as her organization.
Anne Trainer introduced herself and provided council with an overview of her
experiences as a person living with debilitating depression and related mental health
issues. She discussed the impact that the clubhouse has had on her life, noting that
when she first started attending approximately seventeen years ago she suffered
from agoraphobia and would only go to the clubhouse for short periods of time in the
company of a support worker. She said that she now volunteers and is actively
involved in the mood disorder group that meets on the first and third Saturdays of the
month from 1:00-3:00 p.m.
In response to questions from council, Margert Tomkinson stated that the Mission
Clubhouse Society regularly sends out notices of events to group homes to
encourage participation and that, on any given day, approximately twenty-five people
frequent the clubhouse. She also noted that space is an issue and that their current
needs include a laptop and a portable dishwasher.
Liana Rudolph of Mission Mental Health joined the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Responding
to council, she stated that there is a lack of sufficient psychiatry time in the region
and it is a struggle to meet the existing demand. She said that while recruitment
efforts are ongoing, this has met with limited success thus far.
Jerry Laidlaw, an advocate for people with mental health issues and a member of the
Mission Clubhouse Society, spoke about his experiences. He said that the clubhouse
provides a safe and welcoming place for people with a mental health diagnosis to
meet, volunteer and experience a sense of community and inclusion.

258
Special Council Meeting Page 2 of 2
May 14, 2009
Margert Tomkinson concluded the meeting with a presentation on the Mission
Clubhouse Society's Partnership Program, which is an education program that uses
story-telling as a basis for educating people about mental illness. She stated that the
primary goals of the Partnership Program are as follows:
• to help build relationships between professionals and the consumers of
mental health services and their families;
• to provide a vehicle for educating the public as well as the consumers of
mental health services and their families; and
• to maintain ongoing communication on the needs of those dealing with
mental health issues.
Ms. Tomkinson outlined some of the challenges facing people with mental health
issues as well as the many benefits of a partnership approach, noting that better
health education programs can help dispel myths and misunderstandings and lead to
a more tolerate and inclusionary community.
The mayor and council thanked Ms. Tomkinson, Ms. Trainer, Mr. Laidlaw and Ms.
Rudolph for their presentation and for sharing their experiences.
2. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Gidda, and
RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.
CARRIED
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR DENNIS CLARK, DIRECTOR OF
CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION
G:\clerk\minutes\sc090514b.doc

259
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 June 1, 2009 commencing at 6:30 p.m.
Council Members Present: Mayor James Atebe
Councillor Terry Gidda
Councillor Paul Horn
Councillor Plecas
Councillor Scudder
Councillor Jenny Stevens
Council Members Absent: Councillor Heather Stewart
Staff Members Present: Dennis Clark, director of corporate administration
Christine Brough, administrative clerk
Jennifer Russell, administrative clerk
1. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT
Mayor Atebe expressed sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the
following community members who very recently passed away: former councillor
Dave Adams, Kuldip Gill (May 10) and Elizabeth Pepper (May 16).
2. PUBLIC INPUT
RC09/31 5
JUNE 1/09
Development Permit Application DP08-007 — Krahn Engineering Limited
— 7266 River Place
Erik Wilhelm, planner, provided information regarding development permit
application DP08-007 in the name of Krahn Engineering Ltd. to provide conformity to
the official community plan guidelines for form and character for an industrial
development on property located at 7266 River Place, as shown on the following
map:

260
Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 16
June 1, 2009
The planner stated that the development proposes to provide for industrial uses with
associated offices configured into two buildings separated by a fenced courtyard. He
further stated that:
■ the property is in the Silver Creek industrial park and is already zoned M-10
Industrial Business Park zone;
■
■
■
the proposed development generally meets the official community plan form and
character guidelines and the overall design of industrial buildings within Silver
Creek Industrial Park;
the fenced enclosure area between buildings A and B could be converted to
buildable area for future tenants allowing for increased density;
a geotechnical report has been provided which identifies measures required to
address floodplain issues, however the land has been deemed 'safe for the use
intended';
• the site is flat with no watercourses; and
■
the total site coverage is 1177 sq. m. (12674 sq. ft.) or 37% of the entire site.
The director of corporate administration stated that no correspondence was received
regarding this application.
In response to questions from council, the planner stated:
• the fenced courtyard area is not included in the lot coverage calculation of 37%;
■
■
the majority of the remainder of the site will be covered either by parking area or
landscaping;
the entrance proposed is in line with others in the industrial park and is wide
enough;
• any subsequent development on the site would require another development
permit application and process; and
■
although the subject proposal does not specifically speak to the issue of a
permeable parking surface, the new official community plan does have guidelines
in place.
Hearing no further questions or comments, the Mayor declared the public input
session on District of Mission development permit application DP08-007 closed.
Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Stevens, and
RESOLVED:
That development permit application DP08-007 in the name of Krahn Engineering
Ltd. to provide conformity to the official community plan guidelines for form and
character for an industrial development on the property located at 7266 River Place
and legally described as: Parcel Identifier: 026-211-700 Lot 2 Section 19 Township
17 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP 15619, be approved.
CARRIED

261
Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 16
June 1, 2009
3. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RC09/316
JUNE 1/09
Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and
RESOLVED: That council now resolve itself into committee of the whole.
CARRIED
. 4. PROCLAMATIONS
RC09/317
JUNE 1/09
LATE ITEM — Request for Proclamation (Councillor Stevens)
Moved by Councillor Stevens, and
RESOLVED: That June 7, 2009 be proclaimed as "Canadian Forces Day" within the
District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto.
CARRIED
5. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
RC09/318
JUNE 1/09
Tracy Kyle, City of Abbotsford
Re: 2009 Water Master Plan
Tracy Kyle, water and solid waste engineering manager with the City of Abbotsford,
appeared before council to provide an overview of water source options for the 2009
water master plan.
Ms. Kyle stated:
■
■
■
■
our current water sources are Dickson Lake (providing 86m litres/day), Cannel!
Lake (providing 9m litres/day), and the aquifer (providing 61 m litres/day);
the aquifer is used mainly during the summer and supplies an average of 8% of
the total water consumed daily June through August (supplies nearly 25% on
peak days);
the aquifer is the only source of water south of the Fraser River; and
future long term plans include the expansion of the Bevan wells, investigation of
new sources, and to continue water restrictions and encourage conservation.
Ms. Kyle also summarized the three recommended options for a new water source:
Rocky Point option 3
■
■
■
■
the depth of water at this location in Stave Lake is estimated to be 300 feet;
water quality analysis has not been started, but it should be similar to the water
quality around the dam, but with less turbidity;
the pipeline will run through Crown Land so property acquisition and rights-ofway
(ROW's) are not an issue;
high elevation that optimizes energy use;

262
Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 16
June 1, 2009
■
it may be possible to store water in Cannell Lake; and
pipeline route may be difficult due to geography of the area.
Stave Lake option 6
■
■
■
■
provides both a Stave and Hayward intake for redundancy;
minimum water level concerns in Stave and contamination concerns in Hayward;
high elevation that optimizes energy use; and
property acquisition and ROW's may be an issue if route not kept to existing
roads.
Norrish Creek option 2
■
■
■
■
■
■
high elevation that optimizes energy use;
minimum water level concerns at Stave Lake by dam but option of taking water
from Rocky Point area could be investigated;
increases capacity at Norrish as planned in 2006 Master Plan;
property acquisition and ROW's may be an issue if route not kept to existing
roads (Stave portion);
alternate route on other side of Norrish Creek can be investigated for
redundancy; and
existing source as first phase may have faster timeline to get more water.
In response to questions from council, Ms. Kyle stated:
■
■
■
there would not be a way to close Stave Lake to recreational use if it was a
watershed area, such as for Norrish creek;
they did assess the Hatzic aquifer however it did not have the capacity to supply
a regional system; and
they will be investigating the possibility of raising the dam at Cannel! Lake for
more storage capacity.
The Mayor thanked Ms. Kyle for the presentation.
RC09/31 9
JUNE 1/09
Pat Bays
Re: Stand Up for Mental Health
Ms. Pay Bays, public relations and program coordinator for Stand Up for Mental
Health, appeared before council to introduce their program and to discuss building a
partnership with the District to help make their comedy festival an annual event.
Ms. Bays stated that the Stand Up for Mental Health (SMH) program uses stand-up
comedy to help break down the prejudice, stigma and discrimination that surround
mental illness. Laughter helps educate, empower and heal.

263
Regular Council Meeting Page 5 of 16
June 1, 2009
Ms. Bays provided an overview of the SMH projects to date, including coast-to-coast
comedy festivals, SMH days on campus during Mental Health Awareness Week,
performing at various hospital clinics, and participating in a pre-release program at
Ferndale Institution.
In conclusion, Ms. Bays stated that Stand Up for Mental Health will be bringing a
comedy festival to Mission on August 21 and 22 this year, and asked for the
assistance of mayor and council to make this an annual event.
The mayor thanked Ms. Bays for the presentation.
6. PLANNING
Councillor Gidda assumed the Chair as the alternate for Councillor Stewart.
RC09/320
JUNE 1/09
Rezoning Application R09-003, Development Variance Permit Application
DV09-002 and Development Permit Application DP09-001 (Redekop) — 32638
Cherry Avenue and 32657 Lissimore Avenue
Moved by Councillor Horn, and
RECOMMENDED:
1. That in accordance with rezoning application R09-003 (Rick Redekop Inc.) the
director of corporate administration prepare a bylaw to amend District of
Mission zoning bylaw 3143-1998 by rezoning the property located at 32638
Cherry Avenue and legally described as:
Parcel Identifier: 005-742-731; Lot 1 Section 29 Township 17 New
Westminster District Plan 59339
from RS-2 One Unit Suburban Residential zone to RS-1 F One Unit Compact
Urban Residential Two zone;
2. That the bylaw be considered for first and second readings at the regular
council meeting on June 1, 2009;
3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to a public hearing on
June 22, 2009.
4. That development variance permit DV09-002, in the name of Rick Redekop
Inc., to vary Section 304.3 Lot Area, Width at Front Lot Line and Depth of
District of Mission zoning bylaw 3143-1998 by reducing the minimum required:
Lot Depth from the required 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 26.901 metres
(88.3 feet) on proposed Lot D;
Lot Depth from the required 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 25.034 metres
(82.1 feet) on proposed Lot E;
Lot Depth from the required 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 23.108 metres
(75.8 feet) on proposed Lot F; and
Lot Depth from the required 30 metres (98.4 feet) to 21.009 metres
(68.9 feet) on proposed Lot G;
be forward to a public input meeting on June 22, 2009;

264
Regular Council Meeting Page 6 of 16
June 1, 2009
5. That development permit application DP09-001, in the name of Rick Redekop
Inc., to provide conformity to the official community plan guidelines respecting
building form and character for a proposed compact single-family residential
development on the property located at 32638 Cherry Avenue and 32657
Lissimore Avenue be forwarded to council for public input on June 22, 2009;
and
6. That the director of corporate administration prepare a bylaw to name the lane
extending west over a portion of Lot 1 Section 29 Township 17 New
Westminster District Plan 59339, as an extension of McQuarrie Lane as
"McQuarrie Lane".
CARRI ED
RC09/321
JUNE 1/09
Agricultural Land Reserve Exclusion — 31380 Lougheed Highway
Moved by Councillor Horn, and
RECOMMENDED: That further discussion regarding the agricultural land reserve
exclusion application related to 31380 Lougheed Highway be deferred until the
regular meeting of council on June 15, 2009 when Councillor Stewart will be present
to participate.
CARRIED
RC09/322
JUNE 1/09
Excerpts from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on July 28, 2008 and
Staff Report dated June 16, 2008 — Background for consideration of
adoption of bylaw 4062-2008-3143(300) (R08-011)
Excerpts from the minutes of the public hearing held on July 28, 2008 and a copy of
the supporting staff report were provided to council as background information to
assist in consideration of the adoption of bylaw 4062-2008-3143(300).
RC09/323
JUNE 1/09
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council (Public Hearing) held on
March 23, 2009
The minutes of the regular meeting of council (public hearing) held on March 23,
2009 were provided for the committee's information.
RC09/324
JUNE 1/09
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council (Public Hearing) held on
April 27, 2009
The minutes of the regular meeting of council (public hearing) held on April 27, 2009
were provided for the committee's information.
RC09/325
JUNE 1/09
LATE ITEM — Consideration for Form and Character Covenant Amendment
Moved by Councillor Stevens, and
RECOMMENDED: That the consideration of an amendment to the form and
character covenant for the property located at 32966 Cherry Avenue be deferred

265
Regular Council Meeting Page 7 of 16
June 1, 2009
until the final house design specifications and rezoning for secondary suites have
been addressed in the new zoning bylaw.
OPPOSED: Mayor Atebe
Councillor Scudder
Councillor Gidda
DEFEATED
RC09/326
JUNE 1/09
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and
RECOMMENDED: That the covenants placed on the proposed lots for the property
located at 32966 Cherry Avenue and legally described as:
Parcel Identifier: 011-168-200 East Half Lot 2 Except: Firstly: Part Subdivided
by Plan 60080; Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan LMP41748, Section 28,
Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 5659
be amended to allow the front elevations to be as proposed on appendix 4 to the
report from the deputy director of planning dated June 1, 2009, to allow a two storey
building with a basement.
OPPOSED: Councillor Horn
Councillor Stevens
Councillor Plecas
DEFEATED
7. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
Councillor Scudder assumed the Chair.
RC09/327
JUNE 1/09
Amendment to Parks, Recreation and Culture General Admissions
Policy FEE.18
Moved by Councillor Horn, and
RECOMMENDED:
1. That parks, recreation and culture general admissions policy FEE.18 be
amended to increase admission rates as set out in the report from the director
of parks, recreation and culture dated June 1, 2009;
2. That the new admission rates take effect on September 1, 2009; and
3. That approval be granted to establish the Senior admission rate at a point half
way between the youth and adult rates, with a three year phased
implementation period.
CARRIED
RC09/328
JUNE 1/09
Amendment to Parks, Recreation and Culture Facility Rentals
Policy FEE.37
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and

266
Regular Council Meeting Page 8 of 16
June 1, 2009
RECOMMENDED:
1. That parks, recreation and culture facility rentals policy FEE.37 be amended to
increase facility rental rates as set out in the report from the director of parks,
recreation and culture dated June 1, 2009; and
2. That the new facility rental rates take effect on September 1, 2009.
CARRIED
Staff were directed to provide a report with suggestions for expanding the use of the
mobile stage, with both community groups and commercial enterprises.
RC09/329
JUNE 1/09
Design Funding — LocalMotion Project
Moved by Councillor Mayor Atebe, and
RECOMMENDED: That up to $80,000 be approved for design work needed to
complete the East Mission Heritage Greenway project, using the gaming reserve as
the funding source.
CARRIED
OPPOSED: Councillor Horn
RC09/330
JUNE 1/09
Minutes of the Arena User Meeting held on April 29, 2009
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and
RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the arena user meeting held on April 29,
2009 be received as information.
CARRIED
RC09/331
JUNE 1/09
Minutes of the Field User Meeting held on May 6, 2009
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and
RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the field user meeting held on May 6, 2009
be received as information.
CARRIED
RC09/332
JUNE 1/09
Minutes of the Cultural Resources Commission Meeting held on
March 17, 2009
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and
RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the cultural resources commission meeting
held on March 17, 2009 be received as information.
CARRIED

267
Regular Council Meeting Page 9 of 16
June 1, 2009
RC09/333
JUNE 1/09
Minutes of the Cultural Resources Commission Meeting held on
April 21, 2009
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and
RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the cultural resources commission meeting
held on April 21, 2009 be received as information.
CARRIED
Staff were directed to draft a policy setting out the conditions for use of the District
logo by council commissions.
8. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
Councillor Stevens assumed the Chair.
RC09/334
JUNE 1/09
Economic Development Officer — Officers Bylaw Amendment
Moved by Councillor Gidda, and
RECOMMENDED: That District of Mission officers bylaw 3986-2007 be amended by
replacing the title "manager of economic development" with the title "economic
development officer".
CARRI ED
RC09/335
JUNE 1/09
Remote Participation in a Council Meeting
Moved by Councillor Horn, and
RECOMMENDED: That District of Mission council procedure bylaw 3694-2004 be
amended as follows:
1. Under section 3(k), insert a new subsection (3) "Rise and Report" and
renumber the subsequent sub-sections accordingly; and
2. Insert a new section 11 as follows and renumber all subsequent sections
accordingly:
"11. REMOTE PARTICIPATION
a. At the commencement of a regular council meeting, committee meeting
or special council meeting, council may resolve by majority vote to permit
remote participation by absent council member(s) provided that a majority
of council members are present at the location of the meeting.
b. Remote participation must conform to the following requirements:
i. participation may be by means of electronic or other communication
facilities / equipment;
ii.
the facilities / equipment must enable the participants to hear, or
watch and hear, each other.
c. Members of council who are participating in meetings in accordance with
this section are deemed to be present at the meeting.

268
Regular Council Meeting Page 10 of 16
June 1, 2009
CARRIED
d. Except for any portion of a meeting that is closed to the public, the
facilities / equipment must enable the public to hear, or watch and hear,
the participation of the member(s)".
e. A special council meeting may be conducted by means of electronic or
other communication facilities provided:
i. the notice under section 127 (2) of the Community Charter must
include notice of the way in which the meeting is to be conducted
and the place where the public may attend to hear the proceedings
that are open to the public, and
ii.
except for any part of the meeting that is closed to the public the
facilities must enable the public to hear, or watch and hear the
meeting at the specified place and a designated municipal officer
must be in attendance at the specified place.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions in this section, in cases of extreme
emergency when the majority or all of the council members may not be
physically able to meet in one location, including during a state of local
emergency, the mayor may convene a special meeting where most or all
council members participate remotely by whatever means are available."
RC09/336
JUNE 1/09
Minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee Meeting held on
April 16, 2009
Moved by Councillor Scudder, and
RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the economic development select committee
meeting held on April 16, 2009 be received as information.
CARRIED
RC09/337
JUNE 1/09
LATE ITEM — Community Resource Bureau Web Site
Moved by Councillor Horn, and
RECOMMENDED: That the core budget for account 20499 be increased by $10,000
commencing in 2010 to fund a fee-for-service grant, for Mission Community Services
to host and maintain a community resource bureau web site, with funds provided
through gaming revenue.
CARRIED
9. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS
Councillor Gidda assumed the Chair.
RC09/338
JUNE 1/09
Additional Funding for Odor Control Unit on Wren Street
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and

269
Regular Council Meeting Page 11 of 16
June 1, 2009
RECOMMENDED: That the 2009 sewer capital program be increased by $12,000 to
accommodate the additional cost to construct an odor control unit on Wren Street,
with funding to come from the sewer capital reserve fund.
CARRIED
RC09/339
JUNE 1/09
Request by BC Frozen Foods to Connect to District Sewer System
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and
RECOMMENDED:
1. That, notwithstanding the District's procurement policy FIN.24, Associated
Engineering (BC) be hired at their quoted fee of $12,476 to carry out a sewer
impact assessment study for a proposed connection to the District's sanitary
sewer system by the B C Frozen Foods Ltd. processing plant at 33920
Lougheed Highway;
2. That a budget of $12,500 be established for the study funded 50% from GL
account 98210 sewer main over-sizing and 50% by a contribution from B C
Frozen Foods Ltd.;
3. That staff is authorized to apply to the Province for an infrastructure planning
grant of $8,738 towards the cost of an impact assessment study; and
4. That in the event a grant is approved, the District refunds 50% of the grant
amount to B C Frozen Foods.
CARRIED
RC09/340
JUNE 1/09
Application to Brownfield Renewal Funding Program
Moved by Councillor Horn, and
RECOMMENDED: That discussions regarding the District's application to the
Brownfield renewal funding program be referred to the closed council meeting of
June 8, 2009.
CARRIED
RC09/341
JUNE 1/09
Repealing and Moving Forward with Adopting Mission Sewer Bylaw
Moved by Mayor Atebe, and
RECOMMENDED: That council repeal District of Mission sewer bylaw 1849-1989
and amendments thereto, and move forward with adopting the new Mission sewer
bylaw 5033-2009.
CARRIED
RC09/342
JUNE 1/09
Reconfiguration of 7th Avenue and Cedar Street Intersection
Moved by Councillor Scudder, and

270
Regular Council Meeting Page 12 of 16
June 1, 2009
RECOMMENDED: That the reconfiguration of the 7 th Avenue and Cedar Street
intersection be referred back to staff for inclusion as a 2010 budget spending
package for full signalization and options to add right-turning lanes.
CARRIED
RC09/343
JUNE 1/09
BC Transit's Corporate Strategic Plan
Moved by Councillor Horn, and
RECOMMENDED:
1. That the correspondence from Mike Davis, vice-president of business
development with BC Transit, dated May 4, 2009 regarding BC Transit's
corporate strategic plan be received as information; and
2. That a letter be sent to BC Transit stating:
(a)
(b)
CARRIED
their plan should wait for the strategic review of transit in the Fraser
Valley to be completed in order to incorporate the information into the
corporate strategic plan;
local needs must be considered in the global plan; and
(c) there should be continuity of local representation on the BC Transit
committee.
RC09/344
JUNE 1/09
Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission Meeting
held on April 9, 2009
The minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission water & sewer commission meeting held on
April 9, 2009 were provided for the committee's information.
Moved by Councillor Horn, and
RECOMMENDED: That the meeting be extended until all business on the agenda is
concluded.
CARRIED
10. PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH
Councillor Horn assumed the Chair.
RC09/345
JUNE 1/09
Ferndale Institution — April and May, 2009 Reports
Population reports from Ferndale Institution for the months of April and May, 2009
were provided for the committee's information.

271
Regular Council Meeting Page 13 of 16
June 1, 2009
RC09/346
JUNE 1/09
Mission Institution — April 2009 Report
A statistical year to date report from Mission Institution for the month of April, 2009
that provides a list of inmates classified by major offence profile was provided for the
committee's information.
11. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORT
Mayor Atebe resumed the Chair.
RC09/347
JUNE 1/09
Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and
RESOLVED: That the committee of the whole now rise and report.
CARRIED
12. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT
RC09/348
JUNE 1/09
Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Stevens, and
RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the committee of the whole, as
contained in items RC09/315 to RC09/347, except item RC09/329 (Heritage
Greenway project), be adopted.
CARRIED
RC09/349
JUNE 1/09
Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and
RESOLVED: That the recommendation of the committee of the whole, as contained
in item RC09/329 (Heritage Greenway project), be adopted.
CARRIED
OPPOSED: Councillor Horn
13. MINUTES
RC09/350
JUNE 1/09
Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and
RESOLVED: That the following council minutes be adopted:
1. regular meeting held March 23, 2009 (public hearing);
2. special meeting held April 6, 2009 (pavement management study);
3. regular meeting held April 27, 2009 (public hearing);
4. special meeting held April 29, 2009 (administration and finance);
5. special meeting held May 14, 2009 (administration and finance); and
6. regular meeting held May 19, 2009 (committee of the whole).
CARRIED

272
Regular Council Meeting Page 14 of 16
June 1, 2009
14. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
There was no business arising from the minutes.
15. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORT
The chief administrative officer was not present at the meeting.
16. MAYOR'S REPORT
The mayor reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the
last regular council meeting.
17. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND ACTIVITIES
Councillors Scudder, Plecas, Horn, and Gidda reported on the meetings and events
they had attended since the last regular council meeting.
Staff were directed to invite John Steiner to make a presentation to council regarding
local transit use.
18. BYLAWS
RC09/351
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 4062-2008-3143(300)
(R08-011 — Goerzen) — 33680 Cherry Avenue
Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission zoning amending bylaw 4062-2008-3143(300)
be adopted.
CARRIED
RC09/352
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5016-2009-3143 (323)
(R09-001 - DOM) — amending the definitions of "Boarding Use", "Family"
and "Accessory Boarding Use"
Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Gidda, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission zoning amending bylaw 5016-2009-3143 (323)
be read a third time.
CARRIED
RC09/353
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5019-2009-3143(325)
(R09-002 — Snider) — 33262 Richards Avenue
Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission zoning amending bylaw 5019-2009-3143(325)
be read a third time.
CARRIED

273
Regular Council Meeting Page 15 of 16
June 1, 2009
RC09/354
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5023-2009-3143(327)
(R09-003 — Redekop) — 32638 Cherry Avenue
Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission zoning amending bylaw 5023-2009-3143(327)
be read a first and second time.
CARRIED
RC09/355
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Repeal Bylaw 5032-2009
Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission repeal bylaw 5032-2009 be adopted.
CARRIED
RC09/356
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Sewer Bylaw 5033-2009 — a bylaw to repeal and
replace sewer bylaw 1849-1989
Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Horn, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission sewer bylaw 5033-2009 be read a first, second
and third time.
CARRIED
RC09/357
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Officers Amending Bylaw 5035-2009-3986(7)
Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission officers amending bylaw 5035-2009-3986(7) be
read a first, second and third time.
CARRIED
RC09/358
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Street Naming (McQuarrie Lane) Bylaw 5036-2009
Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Horn, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission street naming (McQuarrie Lane) bylaw 5036-
2009 be read a first, second and third time.
CARRIED
RC09/359
JUNE 1/09
District of Mission Council Procedures Amending Bylaw 5037-2009-3694(8)
Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and
RESOLVED: That District of Mission council procedures amending bylaw 5037-
2009-3694(8) be read a first, second and third time.
CARRIED

274
Regular Council Meeting Page 16 of 16
June 1, 2009
19.CORRESPONDENCE
RC09/360
JUNE 1/09
Howard Meakin
Re: Application for Detailed Site Investigation — former Meeker
Cedar Products Sites
Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and
RESOLVED: That the correspondence from Howard Meakin dated May 25, 2009
regarding the former Meeker Cedar Products site be received as information and
referred to the closed council meeting of June 8, 2009.
CARRIED
20.OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
21.QUESTION PERIOD
Council and staff responded to questions and comments from the following people:
Kalvan Gill asked why his ALR exclusion application was deferred again.
Mayor Atebe responded that it was deferred because one council member who was
not able to attend tonight's meeting wanted to be involved in the discussion. He
further stated it has been a council tradition that discussion would get held off at a
council member's request until that member can participate.
Mr. Gill asked why a decision could not be made to approve something that has
already been approved, since there is a quorum present at the meeting.
Mayor Atebe responded that the matter would be brought back for discussion and
vote on June 15.
Councillor Horn noted that it would also be useful to hear Ms. Whipple's delegation at
that same meeting.
22.ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and
RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.
CARRIED
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR DENNIS CLARK, DIRECTOR OF
CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

275
MINUTES of the SPECIAL MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF
MISSION held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake
Street, Mission, British Columbia, on June 2, 2009 commencing at 5:00 p.m.
Council Members Present: Mayor James Atebe
Councillor Terry Gidda
Councillor Paul Horn
Councillor Danny Plecas
Councillor Mike Scudder
Councillor Jenny Stevens
Council Members Absent: Councillor Heather Stewart
Staff Members Present:
Dennis Clark, director of corporate administration
Ray Herman, director of parks, recreation & culture
Wendy McCormick, deputy director of parks, recreation,
and culture
Kerry Bysouth, manager of parks and facilities
Carmelle Jullion, executive assistant
1. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
SC09/090
JUNE 2/09
Fraser River Heritage Park Overview/Update
Mayor Atebe welcomed Mission Heritage Association Board of Directors members
Bill McAuley, Klaus Werner, Jack Ethier, Stephanie Ediger and Don Brown, Manager
of the Fraser River Heritage Park (FRHP), and stated that the purpose of today's
meeting was to discuss and celebrate the successes achieved at the Fraser River
Heritage Park. The mayor commended and thanked the Mission Heritage
Association (MHA) for their dedication and commitment to the preservation of this
historical site and stated that without the MHA and its many volunteers the Fraser
River Heritage Park would not be the beautiful and welcoming space it is today.
Don Brown, Manager of Fraser River Heritage Park, distributed a document dated
June 2, 2009 titled "Planned Projects of the Mission Heritage Association at Fraser
River Heritage Park" and provided council with the following summarized information:
■
■
■
■
■
The Mission Heritage Association was founded in 1980 by Norma Kenney;
Through the efforts of MHA, the former OMI land, which had initially been
approved for a high density housing development, was allocated as parkland in
1986:
Since the acquisition in 1986, MHA has developed the park into a site which
serves Mission and the surrounding area with numerous cultural and community
activities all the while preserving its unique historical significance;
Approximately 60,000 people visit the park each year;
Including thousands of volunteer hours, MHA has contributed approximately
$1.86 million dollars in improvements and maintenance for the park since 1999.

276
Special Council Meeting Page 2 of 3
June 2, 2009
Current Projects:
■
■
■
■
Development of a perimeter trail: 2.3 km of walking trails/paths around the entire
boundary of park, 3 metres wide and surfaced to accommodate wheelchair use;
Restoration of the old orchard: clearing the blackberry bushes that have taken
over the slope, stabilizing the remaining fruit and nut trees, and planting heritage
fruit trees;
Development of a heritage walk: a rambling pathway throughout the park with an
estimated 15 resting stations which will feature historical storyboards, and
Landscaping projects: plantings of native specimen trees, the proposed
development of a riparian/pond area, the removal of existing cottonwoods, and
the removal of old dirt piles that have been overgrown with weed trees.
Mr. Brown also reviewed capital requirements over the next 5 years and stated that
some of the projects include:
■ A dedicated maintenance area and a new riding mower in 2010;
■
■
■
Expansion of the washroom, construction of a portion of the heritage walk, and
replacement the truck in 2011;
The construction of a heritage centre which would include a showroom, gift shop
and rental space in 2012;
Replacement of the large mower and construction of a trail to the Chamber of
Commerce in 2013; and
■ Replacement of the 4 wheel drive tractor/loader/mower in 2014.
In conclusion, Mr. Brown expressed his hope that council will continue to support the
park as a viable, ever expanding, ever improving, and changing space and that
council will continue to share MHA's vision for this unique and valued land.
Council thanked Mr. Brown for his presentation and indicated that the District of
Mission could align its capital projects with MHA to assist in facilitating their vision for
the park.
Mayor Atebe concluded the meeting by thanking all in attendance and expressing his
desire that communication between MHA and the District continue to improve in
order to maximize the potential of this historic first class site.
2. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Horn, and
RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.
CARRIED
The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

277
Special Council Meeting Page 3 of 3
June 2, 2009
JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR DENNIS CLARK, DIRECTOR OF
CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION
G: \clerk \minutes \sc090602.doc

278
May 25,2009
Howard D. Meakin
200-100 Park Royal
West Vancouver, B.C.
V7T 1A2
Mayor James Atebe and
Members of Council
The District of Mission B.C.
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of Council:
Re: Letter of Support, Brownfield Renewal Funding Program
Application for Detailed Site Investigations
Former Meeker Cedar Products Sites, Home and Harbour, Mission B.C.
The above mill was closed in 2005 and, as a result of a fire in 2008, the structures were
demolished. Deloitte and Touche Inc were appointed Receivers oil July 21,2008 and
proceeded to have a Phase 1 Environmental Study done which indicated that there is a
moderate to high likelihood of significant contamination in soil and groundwater on the
Site. A Phase 2 report was recommended but not undertaken by the Receivers.
I am interested in acquiring the site and am with the full knowledge of the owner, in the
process of applying for a Provincial Government grant to assist paying for a portion of
the Phase 2 Environmental Report. A copy of the Program guide is included. Council
support increases the likelihood of Brownfield funding participation.
The site occupies an important intersection at the off-ramp of the Abbotsford-Mission
Bridge and Horne Avenue and has not been occupied for four years.
We anticipate making a Development Permit Application within the next 30 days on this
property. We request that you provide us with a letter of support for me to apply for funds
under this Brownfield Renewal Funding Program.
Yours truly,
Howard Meakin

279
ITN
13L.sr Placc
H
BROWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING
PROGRAM GUIDE
Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
Crown Land Restoration Branch
Intake # 09-01
Open: April 9,2009
Application Due Date: June 15, 2009
Decisions on Applications: July 15, 2009
Funded Activities for Intake #09 -01 to be Completed by: January 15, 2011
** Note: Update made to Section 4.3 (May 11, 2009)
Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
Crown Land Restoration Branch
ww w .b row nf ield renew al.gov.bc.ca
brownfieldrenewal@gov.bc.ca
1-877-787-9730

280
'OWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDE Intake # 09-01
Tainie of Con
Program Overview 2
1.1 Context for Brownfield Renewal Funding Program 2
Eligibility 3
2.1. Eligible Applicants 3
2.2. Eligible Activities and Costs 3
2.3. Activities Ineligible for Funding 3
2.4. Costs Ineligible for Funding 4
Application Process 4
3.1. Application Limit 4
3.2. How to Apply 4
3.3. Application Guidelines 5
3.4. Where to Apply 6
3.5. Application Deadline 6
3.6. Application Review and Evaluation Criteria 6
Approvals and Payment of Grants 6
4.1. Terms and Conditions 6
4.2 Payment 6
4.3. Reporting Requirements 7
4.4. Claim Period and Expiry of Grant 7
APPENDIX 1.0 8

281
BROWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDE Intake # 09-01
Program Overview
1.1 Context for Brownfield Renewal Funding Program
Brownfields, as defined by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy,
are abandoned, vacant, derelict or underutilized commercial or industrial properties where past
actions have resulted in actual or perceived contamination and where there is active potential
for redevelopment." Cleaning up and redeveloping these sites has a number of benefits across
the triple-bottom-line (social, economic and environmental) such as:
• enhanced quality of life through neighbourhood revitalization;
• reduced sprawl and protecting green spaces by encouraging the re-use of brownfield
lands rather than undeveloped lands;
• farmland (ALR, local food supply) and green space preservation;
• re-use of infrastructure such as roads and utilities;
• increased tax base from lands that would otherwise sit vacant;
• providing opportunities for investment in brownfield sites that would otherwise sit idle;
and,
• reduced risks to environmental and human health and safety, through cleanup and
removal of site hazards.
In February of 2008, the British Columbia Government directed the development and
implementation of the BC Brownfield Renewal Strategy. The BC Brownfield Renewal Strategy is
designed to encourage brownfield redevelopment across British Columbia. To accomplish this,
the Strategy outlines changes to the current regulatory and incentives environment as well as
increasing awareness of redevelopment potential across the province. The Strategy will help
reduce risk and uncertainty in brownfield redevelopment. Specifically, the Strategy is designed
to:
• Strengthen public policy for environmental liability and risk management;
• Apply strategic public investments to encourage the redevelopment of idle sites;
• Build capacity and awareness of redevelopment tools and opportunities to enhance
information about brownfields;
• Lead by example through the redevelopment of key Crown brownfield sites by releasing
these sites to leverage triple bottom line development.
The Brownfield Renewal Funding Program addresses the need to 'apply strategic public
investments to encourage the redevelopment of idle sites'.
The Brownfield Renewal Funding Program is funded and managed by the Ministry of Agriculture
and Lands. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is administering the program in
behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.
1.2. Purpose of Program
The purpose of the Brownfield Renewal Funding Program (the Program) is to help to revitalize
inactive or unused lands across British Columbia by reducing the risk and uncertainty normally
associated with these types of sites. The Program will contribute funding to land owners or
developers for environmental investigations and related activities on brownfield sites where
market forces have not achieved redevelopment and where it is possible to achieve triplebottom-line
benefits.
2

282
BROWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDE Intake # 09-01
1.3. Amount of Funding for Program
The Provincial Government of British Columbia will provide a total of $1.8 million this year to the
Brownfield Renewal Funding Program to fund environmental investigations and related
environmental activities where applicants meet the criteria stated in this Program Guide and the
Application Form.
Successful applicants will be required to make a minimum direct financial contribution (not in
kind) to the cost of the work for which funding is being applied. The minimum required financial
contribution from the applicant toward total activities funded by the Province will vary depending
on the type of activity being funded. All activities funded by the Province must be conducted by
qualified professionals independent of the entity making application to the program.
Eligibility
2.1. Eligible Applicants
The following entities are eligible to submit an application to the Ministry Transportation and
Infrastructure under the Brownfield Renewal Funding Program:
• local governments;
• non-profit organizations;
• First Nations;
• private corporations or individuals who own the land for which the application is being
made; and,
• private corporations or individuals who have been authorized (in writing) by the owner of
the land.
2.2. Eligible Activities and Costs
The Province will only fund consultants' costs related to the activities outlined in Appendix 1.0.
Maximum funding provided for each application is based on the lesser of either a maximum
dollar amount or a maximum percentage of the activity for which funding is requested.
A summary of eligible activities and costs detailed in Appendix 1.0 is as follows:
• for Preliminary Site Investigations, up to 85% of eligible project costs or $40,000,
whichever is less;
• for Detailed Site Investigations, up to 70% of eligible project costs or $125,000,
whichever is less; and,
• for other environmental investigations or related environmental activities, up to 50%,or
$125,000, whichever is less.
2.3. Activities Ineligible for Funding
Projects must meet the criteria of the Program as outlined in this Program Guide. Projects will
be deemed ineligible if:
• work on the environmental investigation or any other activity funded by the Province has
begun
3

283
BROWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDE Intake # 09 -01
• the applicant has not complied with the eligibility requirements noted in section 2.1-2.2;
and/or,
• the funded activity is not completed and/or receipts are not provided to the province by
the date noted on the Application Form titled "Funded Activities for Intake to be
Completed by".
2.4. Costs Ineligible for Funding
The following types of costs are ineligible for funding from the Province:
• Administration or administrative overhead charges
• Costs incurred prior to the date of application approval
• Applicant's staffing costs
• GST
• Implementation of a Remediation Plan or any other costs not listed in Appendix 1.0
Application Process
A call for applications may be issued several times per year, determined by demand, budget
availability and other priorities. All work must be completed and all receipts and final reports
must be submitted by the date noted on the Application Form and the front of this Program
Guide as "Funded Activities for Intake to be Completed by".
3.1. Application Limit
Each applicant is permitted to submit one application per activity, per intake period, per
brownfield site.
3.2. How to Apply
Step 1: Read the Brownfield Renewal Funding Program Guide available at:
www.brownfieldrenewalmv.bc.ca or by calling 1-877-787-9730.
Step 2: Review the Application Form, Certification Form and Applicant Checklist available at:
wvvw.brownfieldrenewal.qov.bc.ca or by calling 1-877-787-9730.
Step 3: Complete the Application Form electronically using word processing software. Please
note that the area below each question will expand as necessary to provide additional space to
answer each question.
Step 4: Prepare supporting documentation that will be submitted with the Application Form (e.g.
detailed cost estimates, work plan, consultant's proposal, support letters, site plan, and council
resolution if applicable).
Step 5: Complete the Certification Form at the end of the Application Form. By signing this
form, the applicant is certifying that the information contained in the application is correct and
complete.
4

284
BROWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDE Intake # 09 -01
Step 6: Review the Applicant Checklist, at the end of the Application Form, to ensure that all
required information has been submitted. Incomplete applications will not be considered. It is
the applicant's responsibility to ensure their application is complete.
Step 7: Mail the completed Application Form and Certification Form and any supporting
documentation to the address noted in section 3.4 of this document. Make sure that everything
identified on the Applicant Checklist has been satisfied.
Once all required materials have been received by the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure, notification will be sent advising applicants that their application package has
been received. A decision will be made on what applications qualify for funding within one
month after the application due date.
3.3. Application Guidelines
Each project requires a completed Application Form along with signed Certification Form and
supporting documentation. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that full and accurate
information is submitted to the Ministry. Applications with incomplete information will not be
considered. Please ensure that all necessary information is included and all the appropriate
boxes have been completed.
Applicants should be aware that information collected is subject to the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act. The information being collected is for the purpose of
administering the Brownfield Renewal Funding Program and will be used for the purpose of
evaluating eligibility under the Program.
MANDATORY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
In addition to the fully completed Application and Certification Forms, applicants must include
the following documents in their application package:
• Copy of State of Title Certificate identifying registered land owner
• Confirmation of secured funding
• Detailed budget for environmental investigations or other related environmental activities
for which funding is being sought.
• Letter from owner of land authorizing the project and application if the applicant does not
own the land
• Resolution from Council for municipal projects
The mandatory supporting documentation provides the minimum amount of information that is
required to assess an application. Applications will be reviewed based on the information
provided. insufficient information may negatively impact the application.
OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
It is recommended that applications be submitted with additional documentation in order to fully
assess the funding requests; however, additional documentation is discretionary and not
required for the applicant to be eligible for funding.
5

285
BROWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDE Intake # 09 -01
• Letters and/or documentation demonstrating support from relevant regulatory agencies
(Council, Board, First Nations, local business associations, community groups, local
non-governmental organization etc.)
• Supporting evidence, such as reports, photos, certifications etc. to support sections E
and F of the application.
3.4. Where to Apply
All completed application forms along with the signed certification and supporting
documentation should be mailed to:
Brownfield Renewal Funding Program
do
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
Infrastructure Development Branch
PO Box 9850 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9T5
3.5. Application Deadline
Completed Application and Certification Forms and supporting documentation must be received
at the Ministry by the deadline on the Application Form in order to be considered. Late
applications will not be considered under any circumstances.
3.6. Application Review and Evaluation Criteria
The criteria against which applications will be evaluated will reflect sections C-F in the
Application Form. Additionally, applications may be evaluated based on regional representation.
Approvals and Payment of Grants
4.1. Terms and Conditions
All applicants will receive a letter advising of funding decisions. Funding will be subject to the
signing of a Contribution Agreement that sets out the terms and conditions of funding. Payment
of funds is subject to availability of funds in the fiscal year when payment to recipient falls. The
Contribution Agreement will confirm all parties' understanding of the funded activities and the
maximum award.
4.2. Payment
Funding will generally be paid in two instalments.
The first payment will be made upon receipt of copies of paid invoices confirming that at least 50
percent of the funded activity costs have been incurred and paid. This information must be
accompanied by a letter from the qualified professional undertaking the environmental
investigation work that payment for services rendered to date has been received.
The final payment will be made upon completion of the funded activity with the submission of
receipt copies and paid invoices confirming that 100 percent of the total funded activity costs
6

286
BROWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDE Intake # 09 -01
have been incurred and paid. This information must be accompanied a letter from the qualified
professional undertaking the funded activities that all payments for services rendered have been
received. A copy of the completed Project Report Form must also be included with the
submission of a final invoice.
The total amount of the funding payable will not exceed the amount stated in the Contribution
Agreement.
4.3. Reporting Requirements
In order to receive the initial payment, please submit an Initial Progress Report Form. In order to
receive the final payment please submit a Final Project Report Form as well as a declaration,
signed by the environmental consulting firm/qualified professional, verifying that the funded
activities have been completed to regulatory standards and are consistent with the application
and funding agreement.
Copies of these forms will be made available to successful applicants.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands Reserves the right to review reports resulting from funded
activities. Reports requested for review will not be kept on file by the Ministry of Agriculture and
Lands.
4.4. Claim Period and Expiry of Grant
The claim period for the project and the expiry date for payment will be set out in the
Contribution Agreement between the province and the recipient. Requests for extensions to this
claim period will only be considered where there are unforeseen or extenuating circumstances.
Such requests will not be considered if received after the end of the claim period. In any event,
no claims for payment received after the due date will be considered.
7

287
BROWNFIELD RENEWAL FUNDING PROGRAM GUIDE Intake # 09-01
APPENDIX 1.0
Eligible Activities for Funding
Eligible Activities and Maximum Provincial Contributions
Under the Brownfield Renewal Funding Program
Type of
Activity
Maximum
Provincial
Contribution
(%)A
Maximum
Provincial
Contribution
($)A
a. Preliminary Site Investigations 85% $40,000
b. Detailed Site Investigations
c. Analysis and interpretation, including tests, sampling, surveys,
data evaluation, risk assessment (human and ecological);
d. Evaluation of alternative methods of remediation;
e. Preparation of a remediation plan, including a plan for any
consequential or associated removal of soil or soil relocation
from the site;
f. Investigation and classification of on-site wastes not
associated with environmental media (soil, sediments, surface
water, groundwater, air/vapour, animals and plants), to
determine their status under the Hazardous Waste Regulation
and the Environmental Management Act for the purposes of
deciding on appropriate management (e.g., asbestos, lead
based paint, PCB-containing lamp ballasts, etc.)
g. Removal of above ground and underground petroleum or
chemical storage tanks; and
h. Quality assurance activities such as verification sampling,
analysis and monitoring related to items (f) and (g) above.
*As defined in Chapter 53, section 41 of the BC Environmental
Management Act
Ts u)
"' a S a) 1,=
E 03
c 0)
fri
'52 co
c
w —
c
— 03
c
(r.)
=
2
'5 (I)
c a)
w •:-.=•
.—
-0 a) 7.5
as <
T)
EL
ci.)—
_c
5
70% $125,000
50% $125,000
50% $125,000
"Maximum funding provided for each application is based on the lesser of either the maximum dollar
amount or the maximum percentage of the activity for which funding is requested.
Up to 10% of the funding received can be applied to any professional service costs that were incurred for
the preparation of the application to the Program.
8

288
From: Glen Robertson
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:11 AM
To: Jennifer Russell
Cc: Dennis Clark
Subject: FW:
Attachments: proposal to mission council.pdf; Bylaw fee structure.pdf
June 15th
Original Message
From: Paul Horn [mailto:bootstrapconsulting@telus.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:26 PM
To: Danny Plecas [External]; Dennis Clark; Glen Robertson; Heather Stewart [External]; James
Atebe; Jenny Stevens [External]; Mike Scudder; Terry Gidda [External]
Subject: FW:
Please add to an agenda as correspondence.
Paul
Original Message
From: Neil kernahan [mailto:'
Sent: May-27-09 6:22 AM
To: Paul Horn
Subject:
Thank you for your reply, I hope you can open these and see what we are
talking about, we would appreciate any suggestions.
Thanks
Neil
1

289
Mayor and Council of Mission
First let me ask if you have ever asked the business owners that make up you city what they want
Should they not have the right to advertise with what works for them
It is also unfair that the city may use the reader board, which they do, but need no permit and can erect
them wherever and for however long they wish.
Businesses have specials and promotions all year around. Some examples would be: case lot sales,
inventory sales, holiday events, and seasonal sales. There are truly an endless number of reasons to
promote and market a business on a consistent year round basis.
Fixed signs on the front of a business are static, expensive and cannot be changed. Newspaper ads cost
in excess of eight hundred dollars per week. Flyers are a comman marketing tool but they are rarely a
draw for a new client base and they are not environmentally friendly way of delivering a message as
most flyers will only see the recycle box. Reader boards are an economical way to achieve a flexible
marketing approach, visibility to a wide audience, and a professional appearance when they are well
maintained.
Polls show that most businesses would or do use reader boards and would be interested in using them
for more extended periods of time than the current by-law permits. There has been a strong
undercurrent to push for change on this topic. The current by-law appears to be a "cash grab" at the
expense of struggling businesses. The short amount of time allotted to an advertising period is
unreasonable and not comparable to other advertising firms.
The argument against reader boards is that they are distracting, but this can be said for many visual
cues along roadsides ie. flags, banners, sandwich boards, park benches, waving mascots etc... Reader
boards have actually been shown to increase sales during the period that the signs are erected and thay
promote a store's visibility within a community. For a new store opening this is a key detail in ensuring
a successful start. Stores that are not visible from the road also benefit from the message they can still
provide to the public that is passing by. At a time when a stimulus to the economy is most necessary the
City should push to provide every avenue possible for businesses to market their image and push thier
product. Happy thriving businesses will ensure jobs for our local citizens.
It can't be stressed enough that the city needs to show best business practices by loosening the
regulation on the current sinage by-law. Local businesses are hit with many tax levies and business
costs such as strata fees and leases. More fees in the form of costly reoccurring sign licenses could be
detrimental to the bottom line of a business. If the same fee could be applied to a longer period of
advertising time, there might be some relief to the small business budget,
Companies that rent reader board advertising should be held accountable for the condition ad
appearance of the product they market. This would relieve the City's concern about unsightly signs. The
current approach of allowing the boards but allowing only short periods of use and charging high fees
is not effective. Reader boards should be used to thier highest and best use and all businesses should
have an equal opportunity to use them. The current approach of making it so difficult for companies to
use reader boards is an underhanded way of attempting to ban them through over regulation. It would
be more reasonable to ascertain what the City wants in a reader board "look and feel" and to apply that
policy across the business populous.

We believe there should be special permits for stores that sell biodegradable products. They should be
allowed to use a reader board all , especially since most of the stores sell BC grown produce. They need
this to advertise weekly specials that bring customers into the stores.
290

291
Fee Structure Proposal
Proposal: A new policy that encompasses types of reader boards and their specific purpose
should be put in place. This policy will address the needs of the individuals who require the
marketing. The cost , of permitting and the marketing lifecycle for the reader boards will be
congruent with the type of business they aim to promote.
Definition of a Reader Board: These boards are moveable billboards that can have custom
designed marketing campaigns on them. The letters are designed to be bright and highly
visible in order to capture the eye of the public that is passing by. It is important to note that
the font colour choices can all be customized to meet the design requirements of a city
standard. In no way should they appear to be an eye sore or an unattractive distraction.
Types of advertising that require Reader Boards:
There are obviously thousands of types of marketing needs but for simplicity we have
narrowed it down to four main categories and we will describe the amount of time that each
might require for exposure time:
1/Specialty Items- These are unique marketing events and the marketing aims to target a
specific product. Typically the marketing lifecycle is short and the cost of licensing should be
no more than $40.00 for a 2 month lifecycle.
2/Seasonal Promotions- Many stores have to flex their marketing to fit the season they are
operating in. A season is obviously longer than 1 month and a license cost should refirct this.
Under the current guidelines a business receives a 2 month window and they are only able to
do this twice a year. Given that there are 4 seasons in a year, this is extremely restrictive. A
more practical approach would be to charge $50.00 for a 2 month period and the period is
renewable up to 4 times.
3/Special Events- This type of promotion is for a finite period of time and advertises a
singular event such as a sports competition or a non-profit charity. There are obviously
thousands of examples but the idea is that events are running fro a short and specific period
of time would be slotted under this heading. We would suggest that a short period of time, no
more than 1 month, and a fee of $30.00.
4/Biodegradeable Products- Products that are organic and can break down such as
produce would fall under this heading. Produce stands and markets require a great deal of
visual marketing to promote their product. As food is sold year round it becomes very
restrictive to limit them to twice a year. This type of business is extremely beneficial to a
community. Typically farmers and agricultural type businesses require a ban budget to make
promoting cost effective due to the narrow sales margins on food product. We are suggesting
a 1 year license fee of $350.00 as a standard. How can a City possibly ask a farmer to
promote their product only twice a year It seems obvious that sustainable business that is
extremely relevant to a community's growth should be supported in thos licensing program.
The goal of setting out a new licensing fee structure is to properly charge the correct

292
companies, associations, and individuals for their usage. Promoting varying fee structures
will ensure higher revenue for the city and proper exposure times for the sinage. The current
sign Bylaw doesn't have the backing of common sense. We suggest that provided the client is
ready to pay the fee associated with the type of marketing need, there is no reason to limit the
applications allowed per year. This type of fee structure will in fact encourage the right type of
businesses to have long term promotion and discourage sinage that might normally sit for two
months, but should be present for one month or only a few weeks.
Our company is prpared to work wih City Hall to provide sinage that meets the visual and
design requirements of Abbotsford residents. We understand that Abbotsford wishes to
present a clean professional appearance and we would adhere to the high standard of quality
that would be expected of any marketing material that is in the publice eye. We are
supportive of setting a new standard of appearance that has not previously been manfated by
other cities.
Ironically, different City organizations do employ the use of our boards and benefit from their
high exposure. We are certain that there can be a synergy between the traffic that these
boards drive and the need for a presentable marketing product. There haas been a
tremendous amount of support from our current clientele to bring this motion forward to City
Hall. We are respectfully asking that a better designed By-law be put in place that supports
the interests of City Hall and the marketing needs of our community's merchants. This would
indeed be a precedent setting move for other municipalities and would set a new standard for
Reader Boards and their use in a community.

293
From: Jennifer Russell
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:37 AM
To: Jennifer Russell
Subject: UFV Mission and Stand Up for Mental Health Day in October
Forwarded message from Pat Bayes
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:56:07 -0700
From: Pat Bayes
Reply-To: Pat Bayes
Subject: UFV Mission and Stand Up For Mental Health Day in October
To: bootstrapconsulting@telus.net
Hello Again Paul,
Thanks for taking the time out of shooting Grad Photos to talk with me today about Stand Up
For Mental Health.
You do an amazing job in working with Community Support Workers, who will be on the front
lines for the community each and every day dealing with mental health, homelessness and
addiction issues. We are all part of the critical discussion that is now taking place.
SMH would be most interested to bring SMH Day to UFV Mission Campus in the second or third
week of October ( Chilliwack Campus is set for Oct. 7 and Abbotsford for the 8th). We would
perform at lunch time for Students, Faculty and Staff and could also do a screening of
Cracking Up in the Evening. Where would you propose having this event, and how many people
would you expect to attend Let's try and figure out the logistics and feasibility of such an
event.
We would also be most interested in working with you throughout the school year to do SMH
mini-performances and workshops for students and staff around de-stigmatizing mental illness
and getting the conversation going.
Have attached a proposed News Advisory for the First Annual Valley Comedy Festival at the
Clarke Theatre in Mission, on August 21 and 22. It explains why we are creating it and who
our partners and supporters are.
We would be honoured to have the City of Mission be the Official Host Community for the
Festival, and hope that the City might officially declare it SMH Day in Mission during the
Festival. The Town of Sidney has graciously agreed to to both of these things for the First
Annual Island Comedy Festival in Sidney a week prior to the Valley Event.
Would you be kind enough to see if Mission City Council might agree to this
I look forward to discussing all of this further with you at your earliest convenienceperhaps
we might set up a meeting in the next 2 weeks.
Kind Regards,
Pat
Pat Bayes
Administrative, PR and Program Coordinator
Stand Up For Mental Health (The Trojan Horse)
Te1.604.707.0483 Email DatOstandudformentalhealth.com
Visit www.standupformentalhealth.com

294
From: Jennifer Russell
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 3:18 PM
To: Jennifer Russell
Subject: FW: City of Mission
From: "Pat Bayes"
Date: June 4, 2009 5:34:41 PM PDT (CA)
To:
Subject: City of Mission
Hello Paul,
You are correct in assuming that SMH is not asking for a financial contribution from the City.
We would like to have the support of the City as the Sponsoring Host Community, and be able to
use the City logo on our promotional materials. We would be thrilled to have it declared SMH
Day in Mission during the Festival, and hope to have Mayor Atebe or a Council Representative
officially Open the Festival.
Hope that this helps in your presentation to Council on our behalf.
Thanks so much for your enthusiastic support.
Kind Regards
Pat
Pat Bayes
Administrative, PR and Program Coordinator
Stand Up For Mental Health (The Trojan Horse)
Te1.604.707.0483 Email pat@standupformentalhealth.com
Visit www.standupformentalhealth.com
1