Attention: Rick Bomhof Director of Engineering and Public ...0995.0035.01 August 21, 2007 #2353 13353 Commerce Parkway Richmond, BC, V6V 3A1 Phone: 604-273-8700 Fax: 604-273-8752 Development

2353 - 13353 Commerce Parkway, Richmond, BC V6V 3A1 Telephone: 604-273-8700 Fax: 604-273-8752

August 22, 2007 File: 0995.0035.01 District of Mission 8645 Stave Lake Street Mission, BC V2V 4L9 Attention: Rick Bomhof Director of Engineering and Public Works RE: District of Mission Development Cost Charge Review Report We are pleased to provide the District of Mission with 7 copies of the final report “Development Cost Charge (DCC) Review 2007”. This revised version reflects all of the changes we have recently discussed. It has been a pleasure working with you on this review, and we thank you for the assistance you provided throughout the project. Should you have any questions or concerns about the final document, please do not hesitate to contact me at 604.273.8700. Yours truly,

URBAN SYSTEMS LTD. Fraser Smith, P. Eng., MBA Principal /al 2007-08-22_RBomhof_Mission DCC Review_Ltr

www.urban-systems.com CALGARY | EDMONTON | FORT ST. JOHN | KAMLOOPS | KELOWNA | NELSON | QUESNEL | RICHMOND

0995.0035.01 August 21, 2007

#2353 13353 Commerce ParkwayRichmond, BC, V6V 3A1 Phone: 604-273-8700 Fax: 604-273-8752

Development Cost Charge (DCC) Review 2007

Final Report

This report is prepared for the sole use of the District of

Mission. No representations of any kind are made by Urban

Systems Ltd. or its employees to any party with whom

Urban Systems Ltd. does not have a contract.

Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction..........................................................................................1

1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 Guiding Principles ............................................................................... 2 1.4 Use of the Best Practices Guide ......................................................... 10 1.5 DCC Bylaw....................................................................................... 10

2. General Considerations ......................................................................11 2.1 Legislative and Regulatory Background .............................................. 11 2.2 Public Participation Process ............................................................... 11 2.3 Bylaw Exemptions ............................................................................ 13 2.4 Collection of Charges ........................................................................ 13 2.5 In-stream Applications and Grace Periods........................................... 14 2.6 Municipal Assist Factor...................................................................... 14 2.7 DCC Recoverable Costs ..................................................................... 16

3. Growth Estimates and Planning Assumptions....................................17 3.1 Relationship to Other Municipal Documents ........................................ 17 3.2 Estimation of New Development ........................................................ 17 3.3 Estimated Residential Development Units ........................................... 17 3.4 Commercial Development Estimates................................................... 18 3.5 Industrial Development Estimates...................................................... 18 3.6 Institutional Development Estimates .................................................. 19 3.7 Equivalent Unit Calculations .............................................................. 19 3.8 Allocation of Costs ............................................................................ 19

4. Road Development Cost Charges .......................................................21 4.1 Road DCC Program........................................................................... 21 4.2 Development Cost Charge Calculation for Roads ................................. 22

5. Storm Drainage DCC Program ............................................................25 5.1 Storm Drainage DCC Program ........................................................... 25 5.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Storm Drainage .................. 25

6. Water DCC Program............................................................................28 6.1 Water DCC Program ......................................................................... 28 6.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Water ................................ 28

i 2007-08-21 DCC Background Report-Final.doc

Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

7. Sanitary Sewer DCC Program .............................................................31 7.1 Sanitary Sewer DCC Program ............................................................ 31 7.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Sanitary Sewer ................... 31

8. Silvercreek Parkway Parkland Development Cost Charges...............33 8.1 Silvercreek Parkway Parkland Acquisition DCC Program ....................... 33 8.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Silvercreek Parkway

Parklands......................................................................................... 33

9. Silverdale Industrial Water And Sanitary Sewer DCC Program ........35 9.1 Silverdale Industrial Water and Sanitary Sewer DCC Program............... 35 9.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Water and Sanitary

Sewer.............................................................................................. 35

10. Regional Water Supply DCC Program.................................................36 10.1 Regional Water Supply DCC Program ................................................. 36 10.2 Development Cost Charge Calculation for Water.................................. 36

11. Regional Sewage Treatment DCC Program ........................................38 11.1 Regional Sewage Treatment DCC Program ......................................... 38 11.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Sanitary Sewer ................... 38

12. Summary of Development Cost Charges ............................................40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: All Areas DCC Plan .............................................................................. 4 Figure 2: Cedar Valley (Area B) .......................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Silverdale Industrial Water and Sewer (DCC Area) ................................. 6 Figure 4: Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway (DCC Area) ....................................... 7 Figure 5: DCC Program, Areas A, B and C Roads ............................................... 23 Figure 6: DCC Program, Cedar Valley Roads...................................................... 24 Figure 7: DCC Program, Area B – Storm Sewer ................................................. 27 Figure 8: DCC Program, Area B – Watermain .................................................... 30

ii 2007-08-21 DCC Background Report-Final.doc

Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: DCC Levied by Land Use...................................................................... 8

Table 2: Applicable DCCs by Area...................................................................... 9

Table 3: Municipal Assist Factor by DCC Type................................................... 15

Table 4: Type of Equivalency Units.................................................................. 19

Table 5: Trip Generation ................................................................................ 22

Table 6: Impact Ratios ................................................................................... 26

Table 7: Water Population Equivalents............................................................. 28

Table 8: Sanitary Population Equivalents.......................................................... 31

Table 9: Equivalent Population Factor.............................................................. 34

Table 10: Population Equivalents ...................................................................... 37

Table 11: Population Equivalents ...................................................................... 39

Table 12: Proposed DCC Rate Summary ............................................................ 41

APPENDICES

A Population and Growth Projections

B Public Open House Material

C Capital Cost Estimates

D Road DCC Program and Calculations – Areas A, B, and C

E Road DCC Program and Calculations – Area B

F Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway DCC Program and Calculations

G Drainage DCC Program and Calculations – Area B

H Water DCC Program and Calculations – Area B

I Sanitary Sewer DCC Program and Calculations – Areas A, B, and C

J Silvercreek Parkway Parkland Acquisition DCC Program and Calculations – Areas A, B, and C

K Silverdale Industrial Water and Sanitary Sewer DCC Program and Calculations – Specified Area

L Regional Water Supply and Sewage Treatment DCC Program and Calculations – Areas A, B, and C

M The Proposed Development Cost Charge Bylaws

iii 2007-08-21 DCC Background Report-Final.doc

Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The District of Mission (the “District”) is in the process of updating most of their

existing Development Cost Charge (“DCC”) bylaws including their DCC funding of the

Abbotsford/Mission Water and Sewer Services (regional needs) water supply and

sewage treatment DCCs. The District has recently reviewed their growth trends for

the community and has estimated growth to 2033. The District has also had the

opportunity to assess its capital needs in the areas of roads, sanitary, drainage,

water and parkland. In assessing its capital needs in these areas, consideration was

given as to how these projects could be funded. In order to adequately finance the

costs of implementing these various projects, the District has decided to review its

current DCC program. The updated capital costs from the various reviews have also

been incorporated into the DCC model. The results of these reviews form the basis

for this report. This report is also an update of the DCC background report prepared

in 2004.

This DCC review will focus on the following DCC Bylaws:

1. Bylaw 2847-1995 Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway DCC;

2. Bylaw 3753-2004 Road and Parks District Wide DCCs, Cedar Valley Area B (Road, Drainage, Water and Sanitary Sewer);

3. Bylaw 2065-1990 Silverdale DCCs for Water and Sewer; and

4. Bylaw 3821-2005-3753 Water Supply and Sewage Treatment District Wide.

There are a number of existing DCC bylaws that were not reviewed as part of the

current process, they include:

1. Bylaw 3748-2004 Silverdale Creek Bridge and Approaches DCC;

2. Bylaw 3753-2004 Cedar Valley Environmentally Sensitive Parkland Acquisition DCC; and

3. Bylaw 3753-2004 Cedar Valley Sewer Extension DCC.

1.2 Objectives

The purpose of this DCC Review is to:

1. provide for the development of specific road, storm drainage, water and sanitary sewer infrastructure projects including regional water supply and sewage

treatment infrastructure, and for the acquisition of open space parkland through

means of DCCs;

1 2007-08-21 DCC Background Report-Final.doc

Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

2. determine the various factors that are used to set out a DCC, such as community growth estimates, equivalent unit calculations, analysis of community needs,

allocation of those needs between the existing population and new growth, and

the municipal assist factor; and

3. set out the assumptions that were made during the course of this review.

The District will be able to accomplish several broad goals by completing this review.

The review ensures that there is consistency between the DCC program, the planning

objectives and the financial strategies of the District. This program will help to

ensure that the people who will use and benefit from the services provided pay their

share of the costs in a fair and equitable manner. Information that was used to

develop the DCCs has been made available to the public, thereby, creating a degree

of accountability to the public. The program creates certainty by providing stable

charges to the development industry and by allowing the orderly and timely

construction of infrastructure.

1.3 Guiding Principles

In general, the DCCs for the District will be on an area specific basis, rather than a

municipal wide basis. That is to say different DCCs will be assessed against the

same types of land use in different geographic areas throughout the District. The

reason for this is that each geographic area has its own particular capital projects

because of its different servicing requirements and estimated development. It would

be inequitable to charge the same DCC rate for properties which do not derive the

benefit from certain capital projects. In this manner, the rest of the District is not

unduly burdened with paying for projects, which would not have been necessary but

for that particular new development.

There are three large areas in which the many of the DCCs will be applied (see

Figure 1). Area A is the Central and Fraser Area. This area is comprised primarily of

the existing urban area of the District, containing single family and multi-family

dwellings as well as significant commercial development. Area B is the Cedar Valley

Comprehensive Development Plan (the “CVCDP”) Area (see Figure 2). This area is

expected to receive the majority of growth within the District in the next 10 years.

Growth will include single family dwellings, multi-family dwellings and commercial

space. Area C is composed of the Hatzic, Rural, Urban Reserve and Silverdale areas.

Although there are several constraints which affect the ability to develop these parts

of the District, some residential development is anticipated in the future.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

DCCs for the Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems will be on a municipal

wide basis (see Figure 1). Any development within the District of Mission that

connects to the municipal water system and/or the municipal sewer system will pay

the same DCC rates or charges for the same category of development.

As the CVCDP Area (Area B) is expected to experience substantial growth, additional

infrastructure will be required to service this area. Developments in Area B will be

required to pay District wide DCCs as well as area specific road, drainage, sewer and

water DCCs discussed in this DCC review.

The Silverdale Creek Industrial area is shown on Figure 3. This area has unique

water supply and sewer servicing requirements that only benefit this area. The area

is planned for industrial use only. Developments in this area will pay both the

regional water and sewer DCCs as well as additional water and sewer DCCs

specifically for the Silverdale Creek Industrial area.

The Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway also services a specific area that contains

multi-family residential and commercial land uses (see Figure 4). The pedestrian

walkway has been designed to service this unique area of Mission. Developments in

this area will pay District wide DCCs as well as additional DCCs for the Horne Street

Pedestrian Walkway.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

The DCCs shall be applied to certain categories of development, such as residential,

commercial, industrial and institutional, depending upon the specific DCC area. Not

all of the categories of development will be charged DCCs in these programs; this will

vary from area to area. The following tables set out what types of DCCs will be

assessed against a particular land use and in which areas of the District.

Table 1

DCC Levied by Land Use

DCC Type Levied on Which Land Uses?

Roads (District Wide) Residential(a), Commercial(b),

Institutional(c) and Industrial(d)

Roads (Area B) Residential(a), Commercial(b),


Drainage (Area B) Residential(a), Commercial(b),


Sanitary Sewer (Area B) Residential(a), Commercial(b),


Water (Area B) Residential(a), Commercial(b),


Parkland (District Wide) Residential(a)

Regional Water Supply (District Wide) Residential(a), Commercial(b),


Regional Sewage Treatment (District Wide) Residential(a), Commercial(b),


Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway (Horne St.) Multi-family and Commercial(b)

Silverdale Industrial Water (Silverdale Industrial) Industrial(d)

Silverdale Industrial Sewer (Silverdale Industrial) Industrial(d)

(a) Residential includes single family dwellings, cluster compact single family, compact

single family; apartments, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, and institutional residential units.

(b) Commercial includes local centre, neighbourhood centre, mixed use commercial/residential and comprehensive development.

(c) Institutional includes institutions and schools.

(d) Industrial includes the general industrial, industrial park and resource processing industrial zones.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

Table 2

Applicable DCCs by Area

DCC Area A Area B Area C Horne St. Silverdale Industrial

Roads (District Wide)

Roads (Area B)

Drainage (Area B)

Sanitary Sewer (Area B)

Water (Area B)

Parkland (District Wide)

Regional Water Supply (District Wide)

Regional Sewage Treatment (District Wide)

Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway (Horne St.)

Silverdale Industrial Water (Silverdale Industrial)

Silverdale Industrial Sewer (Silverdale Industrial)

The timeframe for each of the service-specific DCC programs will vary, depending

upon the location of the project. The DCC programs for Area A and C were originally

based on the 15-year Capital Expenditure Program. The original 15-year capital list

has been updated and expanded to estimate community needs to 2033. The

population and growth projections are found in Appendix A.

For Area B, the DCC program is based on a build out scenario, which was articulated

in the CVCDP and has been refined for this DCC review. The use of the build out

program will apply to the projects that are specific to Area B. Those same growth

estimates that are used for the Area B specific projects will also be used to represent

Area B in the calculation of DCCs which apply to all areas.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

The timeframe for each of the Water Supply and Sewage Treatment DCC programs

varies depending on the estimated service population of each program. The DCC

program for the Water Supply will meet community needs for the period extending

from 2007 to 2019 while the DCC program for Sewage Treatment will meet

community needs for the period extending from 2007 to 2031. The respective

programs are based on Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission – 2006

Updates of the Water Master Plan and Wastewater Master Plan.

1.4 Use of the Best Practices Guide

The Ministry of Community Services (the “Ministry”) has prepared a Development

Cost Charge Best Practices Guide (the “Best Practices Guide”). The purpose of this

document is to provide direction as to the accepted administrative practices for a

DCC program and allows for a streamlined review of the DCC program by the

Ministry.

This report was developed in consideration of the Best Practices Guide, which was

followed where it was appropriate to do so.

1.5 DCC Bylaw

The material provided in the background report is meant for information only. Refer

to the appropriate bylaws for the specific DCC for all land uses within the District.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 Legislative and Regulatory Background

The Local Gove nmen Act, formerly the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323 (the “Act”) provides the authority for a municipality to levy DCCs within the community. The purpose of a DCC is to assist the municipality in accommodating development by

providing a dedicated source of funding for the capital costs of:

r t

• providing, constructing, altering or expanding sewage, water, drainage and highway facilities (other than off-street parking); and

• providing and improving parkland.

In order to make this type of funding available to the District, the District must adopt

a bylaw in order to impose DCCs (the “DCC Bylaw”). The DCC Bylaw must specify in

a schedule the amount of the DCCs, which may vary with respect to:

• different zones or different defined or specific areas;

• different uses;

• different capital costs as they relate to different classes of development; and

• different sizes or different numbers of lots or units in a development.

The monies that are collected through DCCs must be deposited in a separate reserve

fund, which is set up for each type of DCC. These monies may only be used to pay

for the capital costs of the works or the principal and interest on a debt incurred for

those capital works. The costs for capital works include not only the actual

construction of the works but also the planning, engineering and legal costs which

are directly related to the works, as well as improving the parkland if a parkland

acquisition and development DCC is established.

2.2 Public Participation Process

Although the Act does not require a public participation process, the Best Practices Guide does suggest that a public participation process be included as part of the

development of the DCC program. The purpose of such a process is to create

transparency by allowing those people that are affected to know what the program

will entail and providing them with the opportunity to offer comments and input.

The Best Practices Guide does not set a recommended format to be followed for

public participation; instead, the type of public participation to be used is to be

decided by the municipality itself.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

In order to adhere to the suggestion, the District has chosen to involve the public

through a public information session. The District also recognizes that the

development industry will be affected by changes to the current DCC program. The

District has invited the development industry to the public meeting in order to

provide the development industry with adequate information about the changes to

the DCC program.

On June 28, 2007 a public open house was held to present the draft Development

Cost Charge Bylaw rate structure and background information for the District of

Mission. Thirteen people attended the open house in addition to District staff and

Urban Systems. The materials presented at the open house included storyboards

showing the engineering capital works, information as to how the DCCs were

calculated, population estimates and the proposed and existing DCC rates. In

addition to the storyboards both engineering and finance staff were on hand to

answer questions from the public.

A handout was provided to all who attended the meeting. Also the draft DCC

background report was made available for the public at the engineering counter of

the District of Mission prior to the public meeting. The meeting was announced

through the local newspaper as well as through the postal service with a mail-out to

the development community. Approximately 70 notices were sent out.

A number of questions were raised during the public meeting. Many questions

related to the implementation timeline of the DCC bylaw. Additional comments were

related to the increase in the DCC rates and specifically the commercial and industrial

DCC rates. A total of three comment sheets were returned to the District. In

response to the questions raised, both staff and the consultant reviewed the basis of

the DCC calculations and also discussed possible options for the adoption date of the

new DCC bylaws.

A report to the District council provided council with an understanding of the

concerns expressed at the open house. District staff recommended that the

proposed new DCC rates come into effect on January 1, 2008. Further delays may

jeopardize the District’s ability to fund the necessary capital works needed to

accommodate growth. In response to the questions regarding the commercial,

industrial and institutional DCC rates, the equivalency factors and trip generation

values were checked and refined. This resulted in a small reduction in the ICI rates

and a small increase to the residential rates. The details of the council report and

public open house are included in Appendix B.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

District council gave the amending DCC bylaws first, second and third readings on

July 16, 2007.

2.3 Bylaw Exemptions

The Act is quite clear that a DCC cannot be levied if the proposed development does not impose new capital cost burdens on the District or if a DCC has already been

paid in regards to the same development. However, if additional further

development for the same development creates new capital cost burdens, the DCCs

can levied for the additional costs.

The Act further restricts the levying of DCC at the time of application for a building permit if:

• the building permit is for a church or place of worship;

• the value of the work authorized by the building permit does not exceed $50,000 or some other value established by Council by bylaw; or

• the building permit is for a residential building with fewer than four dwelling units.

Recent changes to the legislation now allow local governments to charge DCCs on

residential developments of fewer than four units, provided such a charge is provided

for in the local government’s DCC bylaw. At this time the District of Mission has not

reflected this condition in their DCC bylaw.

2.4 Collection of Charges

DCCs may be collected at the time of the approval of a subdivision or at the time of

obtaining a building permit in accordance with the Act. The District has decided to collect DCCs for:

• single family, duplex, and triplex dwelling units after the application for a subdivision has been made but before the final approval of the subdivision

has been given; and

• all other types of development after the application for a building permit has been made but before the building permit has been issued.

The reason for collection of DCCs by dwelling units at the subdivision stage is that it

is easier to determine the number of dwelling units at the time of subdivision than

the gross floor area of dwelling units at subdivision. This timing of collection is in

keeping with the current practices in most other communities.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

The reason for the collection of DCCs at the building permit stage for all other types

of development is that it is difficult to determine the size and the number of the

buildings that will be on the lot prior to the application for a building permit. This

method will allow for easier calculation of the DCCs based on the amount of the

gross floor area indicated on the building permit.

The DCC Bylaw will indicate by type of development when the DCCs will be collected.

Where a type of development has not been specified in the DCC Bylaw, the DCC that

is levied will be based on the rate of the most similar type of development.

2.5 In-stream Applications and Grace Periods

When a DCC Bylaw, which has higher rates, is introduced, a number of subdivision

applications may be at various stages of the approval process. Should a DCC Bylaw

be adopted without making provisions for those subdivision applications, that have

been received but have not yet been given final approval, the DCCs would then be

levied on these subdivision applications, thereby imposing unanticipated costs on the

applicant. In order to ensure a degree of fairness to this situation, section 943 of the

Local Government Act states that:

If, after …

(b) an application for a subdivision of land within a municipality has been

submitted to an approving officer and the applicable subdivision fee has

been paid,

a local government adopts a bylaw under this Part [Part 26] that would

otherwise be applicable to that subdivision, the bylaw has no effect with

respect to that subdivision for a period of twelve months after it was adopted

unless the applicant agrees in writing that it should have effect.

Building permits are not given any in-stream exemptions under the LocalGovernment Act. Further, in-stream building permit application status is not one of the grounds on which municipalities can vary DCCs. The District has decided to

establish a grace period for all development by setting the effective date of the DCC

bylaw to January 1, 2008.

2.6 Municipal Assist Factor

The Act recognizes that it would be unfair to impose on new development all of the costs that are attributable to new development. As such, the Act stipulates that an assist factor will be included as part of the calculation of the DCCs. An assist factor

represents the District’s contribution towards the capital costs for the projects


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

attributed to new development. This contribution is in addition to the costs that

were allocated to the existing population and that are to be paid by the District. The

portion of the costs that the District will have to cover because of the assist factor

will have to be financed through other means.

The actual amount of the assist factor is determined by the District. However, the

Ministry only accepts a minimum assist factor of 1%. While the District can have a

different assist factor for each type of capital works, i.e. sewer, water, storm

drainage, roads and parkland, the District cannot have a municipal assist factor that

varies for different land uses within the District, i.e. single family residential, multi-

family residential, commercial, etc.

According to the Act, the District should consider the following items when setting DCC rates:

• future land use patterns and development;

• the phasing of works and services;

• the provision of parkland described in the OCP;

• whether the charges are excessive in relation to the capital costs of prevailing standards of service;

• whether the costs will deter development; or

• whether the charges will discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing or the provision of reasonably priced serviced land.

In consideration of all of the above matters, the assist factor has been set at the

following rates for each type of DCC:

Table 3

Municipal Assist Factor by DCC Type

DCC Type Municipal Assist Factor

Roads 1%

Drainage 1%

Sanitary Sewer 1%

Water 1%

Parkland Acquisition 1%

Water Supply & Sewage Treatment (Regional) 1%

Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway 1%

Silverdale Industrial Water & Sewer 1%


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

2.7 DCC Recoverable Costs

The District has reviewed the District wide DCC road program. Projects that were

completed have been removed and some new projects were identified. These DCC

projects are for Areas A, B and C. The costs for those projects have been updated

and form the basis of the DCC Recoverable costs for this report.

A review of the engineering items in the Cedar Valley road, drainage, water and

sanitary sewer program has been completed. In addition all costs were also

reviewed and update as required. A summary of the cost estimates is included in the

DCC rate calculations while the details of the cost estimates are included in Appendix

C. These revised estimates were used in the calculations of this report.

In regards to the parks projects which will affect all areas, the costs of acquisition

were based on a unit increase in costs based on the 2004 Assessment Values for

those particular sites. The increase was based on recent land acquisitions in the

vicinity of the Silverdale Park area.

The capital costs for the Water Supply and Sewage Treatment programs are based

on the 2006 Water & Wastewater Master Plan Updates completed by Dayton &

Knight Ltd. with costs adjusted to reflect 2007 dollars.

The DCC recoverable costs for the projects include engineering costs and a

contingency amount. The capital costs do not include an allowance for grant

assistance or for cost sharing. The capital costs do not include charges for interim

financing or interest on long-term debt financing.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

3. GROWTH ESTIMATES AND PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

3.1 Relationship to Other Municipal Documents

Several sources have been consulted in order to develop this DCC program, including

the following:

• The District of Mission Official Community Plan Bylaw;

• The Background Report for Development Cost Charges for Development Cost Charge Bylaw, dated December, 2004;

• The Background Report for Development Cost Charges for Cedar Valley, dated January, 1997;

• The Subdivision Control Bylaw No. 1500, 1985;

• The District of Mission Development Cost Charge Bylaws where applicable

• Information provided by District staff;

• Development Cost Charge - Best Practices Guide, Ministry of Community Services, 2005;

• Joint Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Services - 2006 Update of the Water Master Plan;

• Joint Abbotsford/Mission Environmental System J.A.M.E.S. – 2006 Update of Wastewater Master Plan

3.2 Estimation of New Development

Growth is broadly classified either as residential growth or non-residential growth,

which includes commercial, industrial and institutional uses.

3.3 Estimated Residential Development Units

Residential development in the District can be accommodated through a variety of

land uses and densities. The DCC schedule has been developed in such a way as to

relate the impact of different land uses and the unit estimates provided in Appendix

A. Separate estimates have been prepared for Areas A, B, and C and for the areas

serviced by the Horne Street pedestrian walkway and Silverdale industrial area. All

of this information was used to form the basis of the calculations for the DCCs.

The Statistics Canada data for 2001 established the District of Mission population at

31,272 and in 2006 at 34,505. The District population is anticipated to be 52,551 by

2033, which means an increase of 18,046 new residents.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

A mix of 25% single family dwellings in the urban infill areas and 75% multi-family

dwellings is anticipated in order to accommodate the new growth. As for the multi-

family dwellings, it is expected that 40% of the new multi-family dwellings will be

townhouses and 60% will be apartments.

In Area B, the CVCDP has a variety of single family dwellings, in addition to different

types of multi-family dwellings. The types of single family dwellings include

traditional, suburban, compact and cluster styles; the multi-family categories range

from townhouses to garden apartments to institutional residential. For the purposes

of calculating the costs of projects, which are specific to Cedar Valley, the DCCs will

be charged against the specific type of land use. For the purposes of calculating the

proportionate costs of projects which are charged against all of the DCC areas, the

estimates for all of the types of single family residential in Cedar Valley will be

included in the single family category. The number for the multi-family dwellings will

be included in the multi-family category to which it belongs.

The tables which set out the estimated number of units by area for single family

dwelling units and multi-family dwellings are located in Appendix A. Also included in

Appendix A are the growth estimates used in the Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway

DCC calculation.

3.4 Commercial Development Estimates

Just as with residential development, the commercial development estimates have

been developed in such a way as to relate the impact of different land uses and the

unit projections. Commercial development estimates were developed for each of

Areas A, B and C. The estimated amount of required new commercial floor space is

57,248 square metres.

The growth projections and capital programs for the regional water and sewage

treatment DCC is based on a 12-year and 25-year basis. The sewer program

matches the timeframe in the master plan update. The water program is 12 years

since there is some uncertainty regarding water supply options beyond that

timeframe. Until further study is completed on the Miracle Valley source, final costs

beyond 12 years are less certain. The estimated amount of required new

commercial floor space to year 2019 is 33,096 square metres and to the year 2031 is

52,975 square metres.

3.5 Industrial Development Estimates

The total amount of industrial floor space required to supply the District’s needs is

estimated at 68,395 square metres (refer to Appendix A for details).


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

3.6 Institutional Development Estimates

The total amount of institutional floor space required to supply the District’s needs is

14,782 square metres of floor space area (refer to Appendix A for details).

3.7 Equivalent Unit Calculations

Equivalent units are used to represent population and the demands that new growth

population places on municipal services. Each type of development requires different

services. The use of equivalent units provides a means to compare the various

impacts of the different land uses. The calculations for the different types of services

were based on specific types of equivalency unit calculations, which are specified in

the table below.

Table 4

Type of Equivalency Units

Types of Service Equivalency Unit

Roads Trips per Unit

Drainage Impact Ratios

Sanitary Sewer Equivalent Population Factors

Water Equivalent Population Factors

Parks Equivalent Population Factors

Water Supply & Sewage Treatment (Regional) Equivalent Population Factors

Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway Trips per Unit

Silverdale Industrial Water & Sewer Equivalent Population Factors

3.8 Allocation of Costs

For each proposed infrastructure project, costs are allocated between existing

development and new growth. To determine the proper allocation for each project,

individual projects can be divided into two broad categories:

1. projects that upgrade the level of service or resolve existing deficiencies; and

2. projects that are required solely to accommodate new growth.

Projects in the first category provided some benefit to existing development, but they

also benefit new growth. In the regional water supply DCC benefit factors of 20%,

39% and 100% have been used to allocate the cost of the works between the


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

existing users and the future growth. The regional sewage treatment DCC benefit

factors have been established at 30%, 37% and 100% for the various DCC projects.

Projects in the second category are seen as benefiting new growth only. In other

words, they would not be contemplated if no new growth were forecasted. One

hundred percent of the benefit and cost of each project in this category has been

allocated to new growth. For most of the Mission DCC programs a 100% benefit

factor has been applied after a careful review of each project.

In each of the DCC programs, the exact percentage of the benefit that can be

attributed to new growth is indicated in the column entitled “Benefit Factor %”. That

factor is applied to the estimated costs to arrive at the amounts which can be

recovered by DCCs before the municipal assist factor is applied. That information

can be found in the column entitled “Benefit Factor” in all of the DCC programs in the

Appendices.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

4. ROAD DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES

4.1 Road DCC Program

The Road DCC program is separated into three programs. The first program applies

District wide (see Figure 5), including Cedar Valley, while the second program is

specific only to Area B Cedar Valley (see Figure 6). The reason for these two

separate Road DCC Programs is to ensure that the projects that are specific to Cedar

Valley and are required as a result of the new growth within that area is financed by

that new growth. The third separate transportation DCC is for the Horne Street

Pedestrian Walkway.

Projects identified for the Road DCC programs include the installation of signals,

widening of roads, land acquisition, provision of a variety of items such as street

lights, traffic signals, curbs and sidewalks, works to address safety concerns and

works to improve the appearance and viability of upgraded roads so as to offset the

impact of additional traffic volumes. A detailed cost estimate for each DCC project

has been completed and is attached in Appendix C.

Each Road DCC Program identifies the proportion of the costs attributable to future

growth and to the existing residents. A municipal assist factor of 1% was applied to

that amount in order to determine the amount of costs that is recoverable by DCCs.

The Road DCC Programs are included in Appendices D, E and F.

The following information summarizes the assumptions that were made in the

development of the capital costs.

The Road DCC Program for Areas A, B, and C

1. The cost estimates are based on the financial review done by Urban Systems Ltd. These cost estimates include contingencies, 10% allocated for engineering costs,

10% for contingencies and 5% for administration.

2. The costs have been allocated to the future population.

The Road DCC Program for Area B

1. The cost estimates are based on the financial review done by Urban Systems Ltd. These cost estimates include contingencies, 10% allocated for engineering costs,

10% for contingencies and 5% for administration.



Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

The DCC Program for the Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway

1. The cost estimate is based on the funds advanced from the general capital. This project has been completed and the DCC is being collected to reimburse the

general capital fund.


4.2 Development Cost Charge Calculation for Roads

By calculating the number of trip ends that result from new development within an

area, we have determined the degree of impact that the new development would

have on the road program.

The following table sets out the number of peak hour trips that would be generated

per development unit according to land use type.

Table 5

Trip Generation

Land Use Areas A, B, and C

Land Use Area B

Number of Peak Hour Trips per Unit

Single Family Residential Single Family, Suburban, Compact, Cluster 1.02 per unit

Multi-Family – Townhouse; Apartment; Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex, Sixplex

Townhouse; Garden Apartment; Institutional Residential .65 per unit

Commercial Local, Neighbourhood, Mixed Use Commercial/Residential 0.29 per square metre

Industrial CD Zone For Employment 0.0045 per square metre

Institutional Schools, Institutional 0.02 per square metre

Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway Apartment 0.52 per unit

Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway Commercial .029 per square metre

The net amount of the capital costs of the roads projects was divided by the total

number of trip ends in order to determine the DCC per trip end.

The detailed calculations are found in Appendices D, E and F.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

5. STORM DRAINAGE DCC PROGRAM

5.1 Storm Drainage DCC Program

The Storm Drainage DCC program consists of only the Area B Cedar Valley program

(see Figure 7). The type of projects identified for the Storm Drainage DCC program

include culvert crossings, detention ponds, storm sewers and other drainage works.

Each Storm Drainage DCC Program identifies the proportion of the costs attributable

to future growth and to the existing residents. A municipal assist factor of 1% was

applied to that amount in order to determine the amount of costs that is recoverable

by DCCs.

The following assumptions were made in developing the cost estimates.

The Storm Drainage DCC Program for Area B

1. The cost estimates are based on the information contained in the Cedar Valley Area Stormwater Management Plan Update, June, 2007 and additional review

and the costs have been updated to reflect current construction and land costs.

2. The allocation between new growth and existing population has been set at 100% from future growth

The Storm Drainage DCC Program is set out in Appendix G.

5.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Storm Drainage

By using an impact ratio derived from various runoff coefficients, the relative degree

of impact that the new development would have on the capital projects can be

ascertained. For this purpose, the following table sets the impact ratios that were

used to determine equivalent units according to various land use types. The impact

ratio is based on the degree of impact per 1,000 square metres.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

Table 6

Impact Ratios

Land Use Area B

Impact Ratio (using a Single Family Residential Unit as the

comparison point)

Single Family; Suburban, Compact; Cluster

1

Townhouse 0.58

Garden Apartment 0.25

Institutional Residential 1

Local, Neighbourhood, Mixed Use Commercial/ Residential

0.0032 per 1 sq. m.

Schools and Institutional 0.003 per 1 sq. m.

The impact ratios were used to determine the equivalent units. The net amount of

the capital costs for storm drainage was divided by the total number of equivalent

units to calculate the DCC equivalent drainage unit.

This process was used to determine the DCCs for Area B. The calculations for the

Storm Drainage DCCs are found in Appendix G.

The information listed below highlights certain assumptions within each of the

calculations.

The Storm Drainage DCC Program for Areas B

1. The estimated amount of new development comes from a refinement of the build out amounts in the Cedar Valley DCC Background Report.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

6. WATER DCC PROGRAM

6.1 Water DCC Program

This Water DCC program is for Area B only (see Figure 8). In order to accommodate

the growth in Cedar Valley, it is necessary to upgrade a series of water mains. The

costs of these works are based on recent cost estimates.

The DCC Program identifies the proportion of the costs attributable to future growth

to be 100%. A municipal assist factor of 1% was applied to that amount in order to

determine the amount of costs that is recoverable by DCCs.


The Water DCC Program for Area B

1. The cost estimates are based on estimates to upgrade a group of water mains.

2. The costs are allocated to be 100% the responsibility of growth.

The Water DCC Program is set out in Appendix H.

6.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Water

By using the estimated number of persons per unit for residential growth and

equivalent population for non-residential growth, the relative degree of impact that

the new development would have on the capital projects can be ascertained. For

this purpose, the following table sets the equivalents that were used to determine

the relative impact of each land use type.

Table 7

Water Population Equivalents

Land Use Area B Population Equivalent

Single Family; Suburban, Compact; Cluster 3.37 persons per dwelling unit

Townhouse 2.56 persons per dwelling unit

Garden Apartment 2.04 persons per dwelling unit

Institutional Residential 1.54 person per dwelling unit

Local Commercial 55 persons per hectare

Neighbourhood Commercial 75 persons per hectare

Mixed Use Commercial/Residential 75 persons per hectare

Schools and Institutional 150 persons per hectare


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

The population equivalents were used to determine the equivalent units. The net

amount of the capital costs for water was divided by the total number of equivalent

units to calculate the DCC equivalent water unit.

The calculations for the Water DCCs are found in Appendix H.


calculations.

The Water DCC Rate Calculation for Area B

1. The estimated number of units and area of new development were derived from a review of the original Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan DCC

Background Report and refinement of the estimates contained in that report.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

7. SANITARY SEWER DCC PROGRAM

7.1 Sanitary Sewer DCC Program

This Sanitary Sewer DCC program is for Area B only (see Figure 2). In order to

accommodate the growth in Cedar Valley, it was necessary to build a sanitary sewer

trunk line. The costs of the project are based on the actual tender price.

The DCC Program identifies the proportion of the costs attributable to future growth

and to the existing residents. A municipal assist factor of 1% was applied to that

amount in order to determine the amount of costs that is recoverable by DCCs.


The Sanitary Sewer DCC Program for Area B

1. The cost estimates are based on the actual tender price of the project.


The Sanitary Sewer DCC Program is set out in Appendix I.

7.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Sanitary Sewer




this purpose, the following table sets the equivalents that were used to determine

the relative impact of each land use type.

Table 8

Sanitary Population Equivalents

Land Use Area B

Population Equivalent

Single Family; Suburban, Compact; Cluster 3.37 persons per dwelling unit



Institutional Residential 1.54 person per dwelling unit


Neighbourhood Commercial 75 persons per hectare

Mixed Use Commercial/Residential 75 persons per hectare



Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01


amount of the capital costs for sanitary sewer was divided by the total number of

equivalent units to calculate the DCC equivalent sanitary unit.

The calculations for the Sanitary Sewer DCCs are found in Appendix I.


calculations.

The Sanitary Sewer DCC Rate Calculation for Area B

1. The estimated number of units and area of new development were derived from a review of the original Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan

DCC Background Report, and refinement of the estimates contained in that

report.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

8. SILVERCREEK PARKWAY PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES

8.1 Silvercreek Parkway Parkland Acquisition DCC Program

The Parkland DCC program applies District wide, including Cedar Valley.

The Parkland DCC Program identifies the proportion of the costs attributable to

future growth and to the existing residents. A municipal assist factor of 1% was

then applied in order to determine the amount of costs that is recoverable by DCCs.

The cost estimates contain the following assumptions.

The Silvercreek Parkway Parkland Program for Areas A, B, and C

1. The cost estimates are based on the 2004 B.C. Assessment Authority assessed values and a 45% increase based on current typical land values.

2. The allocation between new growth and existing population is based on the remaining lands to be purchased. The land acquisition program only includes

land required to support growth and therefore 100% of the land cost will be

included in the DCC calculation.

The Parkway DCC Program is set out in Appendix J.

8.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Silvercreek Parkway Parklands

By using an equivalent population factor, the relative degree of impact that the new

development would have on the capital projects can be determined and then used to

calculate the costs to be charged. For this purpose, the following table sets out the

equivalent population factors that were used for each type of land use. Since the

impact on parks will come principally from residential use, only residential types of

land uses will be charged a Parkland DCC.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

Table 9 Equivalent Population Factor

Land Use Areas A, B, and C

Equivalent Population Factor (Number of Persons per that type

of Dwelling Unit)

Single Family All Areas 3.37

Townhouse All Areas 2.56

Apartment All Areas 2.04

Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex, Sixplex All Areas 1.54

The factors were used to determine equivalent population units. The net amount of

the capital parkland projects was divided by the total number of equivalent units to

calculate the DCC per equivalent unit.

This process was used to determine the DCCs for the entire District. The calculations

for the Parkway Parkland DCCs are found in Appendix J.

Certain assumptions were made within each of the programs and are as follows.

The Silvercreek Parkway Parkland DCC Rate Calculation for Areas A, B, and C

1. The estimated amount of new development for residential land uses was based on a medium growth scenario (see Appendix A for details).


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

9. SILVERDALE INDUSTRIAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER DCC PROGRAM

9.1 Silverdale Industrial Water and Sanitary Sewer DCC Program

The Water and Sanitary Sewer DCC program is for a specified area of Silverdale.

The specified are is shown in Figure 3. In order to accommodate growth in the

Silverdale Industrial Area a unique water supply and sanitary sewer program was

developed. The costs of the project are allocated 100% to future growth.

The DCC Program identifies the proportion of the costs attributable to future growth.

A municipal assist factor of 1% was applied to that amount in order to determine the

amount of costs that is recoverable by DCCs.


The Water and Sanitary Sewer DCC Program for Silverdale Industrial Area

1. The cost estimates are based on the actual construction costs of the project.


The Water and Sanitary Sewer DCC Program is set out in Appendix K.

9.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Water and Sanitary Sewer

By using the estimated equivalent population for non-residential growth, the relative

degree of impact that the new development would have on the capital projects can

be ascertained. For this purpose, the water and sanitary population equivalences

were set at 45 persons per hectare.


amount of the capital costs for water and sanitary sewer was divided by the total

number of equivalent units to calculate the DCC equivalent water and sanitary unit

respectively.

The calculations for the Water and Sanitary Sewer DCCs are found in Appendix K.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

10. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY DCC PROGRAM

10.1 Regional Water Supply DCC Program

This Regional Water Supply DCC program applies District wide. The following

assumptions were made in developing the cost estimates.

The Water Supply DCC Program

1. The cost estimates are derived from the capital program developed in the Joint Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission – 2006 Update of Water Master

Plan, prepared by Dayton and Knight Ltd. Consulting Engineers and adjusted to

2007 dollars. The proposed capital program will meet the community needs for

the period 2007 to 2019.

2. Depending on the capital project, the costs are allocated to be 20%, 39% or 100% the responsibility of growth.

3. A municipal assist factor of 1% was applied to that amount in order to determine the amount of costs that is recoverable by DCCs.

The Water DCC Program is set out in Appendix L.

10.2 Development Cost Charge Calculation for Water




this purpose, the following table sets the equivalents that were used for each land

use type.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

Table 10 Population Equivalents

Land Use Population Equivalent

Single Family; Compact; Cluster 3.37 Persons per dwelling unit



Institutional Residential 1.54 persons per dwelling unit

Industrial General 45 persons per hectare


Neighbourhood & Mixed Use Commercial/Residential 75 persons per hectare



amount of the capital costs for the water supply program was divided by the total

number of equivalent units to calculate the DCC equivalent water unit.

The calculations for the Water DCCs are found in Appendix L.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

11. REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT DCC PROGRAM

11.1 Regional Sewage Treatment DCC Program

This Regional Sewage Treatment DCC applies District wide. The following

assumptions were made in developing the cost estimates.

The Sewage Treatment DCC Program

1. The cost estimates are derived from the Capital Program developed in the Joint Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission – 2006 Update of Waste Water

Master Plan, prepared by Dayton and Knight Ltd. Consulting Engineers and

adjusted to 2007 dollars. The proposed capital program will meet the

community needs for the period 2007 to 2031.

2. Depending on the capital project, the costs are allocated to be either 30% or 100% the responsibility of growth.

3. A municipal assist factor of 1% was applied to that amount in order to determine the amount of costs that is recoverable by DCCs.

The Regional Sewage Treatment DCC program is set out in Appendix L.

11.2 Development Cost Charge Calculations for Sanitary Sewer




this purpose, the following table sets the equivalents that were used for each land

use type.


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

Table 11

Population Equivalents

Land Use Population Equivalent

Single Family; Compact; Cluster 3.37 Persons per dwelling unit



Institutional Residential 1.54 persons per dwelling unit

Industrial General 45 persons per hectare


Neighbourhood & Mixed Use Commercial/Residential 75 persons per hectare



amount of the capital costs for sewage treatment program was divided by the total

number of equivalent units to calculate the DCC equivalent sanitary unit.

The calculations for the Regional Sanitary Sewer DCCs are found in Appendix L.


40

Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

2007-08-21 DCC Background Report-Final.doc

12. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES

Various DCCs were developed for different types of land uses according to specific

areas. A summary of these proposed DCCs can be found in Table 12. As well, a

comparison of the proposed DCCs and the current DCCs is also shown in Table 12.

It is recommended that

• the new DCC rates be implemented in the new DCC bylaw;

• a tracking system is implemented for all of the DCC programs; and

• a review of the DCC programs is conducted every 4-5 years.

The implementation of a tracking system for the DCC programs should track the

status of the project from conceptual stage through to final construction and should

include final costs and budget sources. The District should track the construction

costs based on the tender prices that are received and the land costs based on the

actual price of the park land acquisition, road widening strips or other land required

for servicing purposes. By using this system to delete projects as they are

constructed and add new projects as they arise, the District shall be able to keep the

DCC program up to date.

Annual or bi-annual minor amendments of the DCC programs and rates can be based

on the information gained from the tracking system and any new information that

becomes available on the impacts of different land uses.

More major revisions of the DCC bylaw will occur when:

• significant land use changes are in process;

• new major servicing plans are prepared; or

• the information upon which the DCCs are calculated has become significantly outdated.

Based on experience, a major revision is likely needed every four to five years.

41 August 21, 2007

0995.0035.01 2007-08-21 DCC Background Report-Final.doc

Areas Land Use Unit of Measure

Cedar Valley Enviromentally

Sensitive Parkland

Acquisition (Area B)

Cedar Valley Enviromentally

Sensitive Parkland

Development (Area B)

Cedar Valley Sewer

Extension (Area B)(A)

Silverdale Bridge

Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Increase % Incr.

Area "A"

Single Family per dwelling unit 1,624.12 679.31 3,724.56 1,728.07 5,345.73 3,616.55 967.52 716.10 11,661.93$ 6,740.03$ 4,921.90$ 73%Townhouse per dwelling unit 1,034.98 452.87 2,829.34 1,312.72 4,060.85 2,747.29 734.97 543.98 197.62 134.31 8,857.76$ 5,191.17$ 3,666.59$ 71%Apartments per dwelling unit 827.98 452.87 2,254.63 1,046.07 3,235.99 2,189.25 585.68 433.49 197.62 134.31 7,101.90$ 4,255.99$ 2,845.91$ 67%Duplexes, Triplexes, c per dwelling unit 827.98 452.87 3,724.56 1,728.07 5,345.73 3,616.55 442.13 327.24 10,340.40$ 6,124.73$ 4,215.67$ 69%Local Commercial per m2 of floor area 46.18 21.89 6.08 2.82 8.72 5.90 11.02 6.49 72.00$ 37.10$ 34.90$ 94%Neighbourhood and Mixed Use Commercial / Residential per m2 of floor area 46.18 21.89 8.29 3.85 11.90 8.05 11.02 6.49 77.39$ 40.28$ 37.11$ 92%Industrial per m2 of floor area 7.17 4.08 4.97 2.31 7.14 4.83 19.28$ 11.22$ 8.06$ 72%Institutional per m2 of floor area 31.85 16.23 4.97 2.31 7.14 4.83 43.96$ 23.37$ 20.59$ 88%

Area "B"

Single Family per dwelling unit 1,624.12 679.31 3,724.56 1,728.07 5,345.73 3,616.55 967.52 716.10 3,936.22 3,342.16 6,981.56 3,664.41 623.60 855.72 1,151.60 661.71 995.07 70.21 344.28 25,764.46$ 16,673.59$ 9,090.87$ 55%Compact Single Family per dwelling unit 1,624.12 679.31 3,724.56 1,728.07 5,345.73 3,616.55 967.52 716.10 3,936.22 3,342.16 6,981.56 3,664.41 623.60 855.72 1,151.60 661.71 995.07 70.21 344.28 25,764.46$ 16,673.59$ 9,090.87$ 55%Cluster Compact Single Family per dwelling unit 1,624.12 679.31 3,724.56 1,728.07 5,345.73 3,616.55 967.52 716.10 3,936.22 3,342.16 6,981.56 3,664.41 623.60 855.72 1,151.60 661.71 995.07 70.21 344.28 25,764.46$ 16,673.59$ 9,090.87$ 55%Townhouse per dwelling unit 1,034.98 452.87 2,829.34 1,312.72 4,060.85 2,747.29 734.97 543.98 2,508.37 2,228.11 4,049.30 2,125.31 473.72 650.04 874.80 502.66 755.90 53.33 261.53 17,637.09$ 11,633.74$ 6,003.35$ 52%Garden Apartment per dwelling unit 827.98 452.87 2,254.63 1,046.07 3,235.99 2,189.25 585.68 433.49 2,006.70 2,228.11 1,745.39 916.10 377.49 518.00 697.11 400.56 602.36 42.50 208.41 12,584.24$ 9,037.72$ 3,546.52$ 39%Institutional Res. per dwelling unit 827.98 452.87 1,702.02 789.68 2,442.86 1,652.67 327.24 2,006.70 2,228.11 1,745.39 916.10 284.97 391.04 526.25 302.38 454.72 32.08 157.33 10,180.30$ 7,704.22$ 2,476.08$ 32%Local Commercial per m2 of floor area 46.18 21.89 6.08 2.82 8.72 5.90 111.91 107.69 22.34 11.93 1.02 1.40 1.88 1.08 198.13$ 152.71$ 45.42$ 30%Neighbourhood Commercial per m2 of floor area 46.18 21.89 8.29 3.85 11.90 8.05 111.91 107.89 22.34 11.93 1.39 1.90 2.56 1.41 0.77 205.34$ 157.69$ 47.65$ 30%Mixed Use Commercial / Residential per m2 of floor area 46.18 21.89 8.29 3.85 11.90 8.05 111.91 107.69 22.34 11.93 1.39 1.90 2.56 1.47 4.90 0.34 0.77 210.58$ 162.79$ 47.79$ 29%School per m2 of floor area 31.85 16.23 4.97 2.31 7.14 4.83 77.18 79.84 20.94 10.99 2.78 3.81 5.13 2.95 1.53 151.51$ 122.49$ 29.02$ 24%Institutional per m2 of floor area 31.85 16.23 4.97 2.31 7.14 4.83 77.18 79.84 20.94 10.99 2.78 3.81 5.13 2.95 1.53 151.51$ 122.49$ 29.02$ 24%

Area "C"

Single Family per dwelling unit 1,624.12 679.31 3,724.56 1,728.07 5,345.73 3,616.55 967.52 716.10 11,661.93$ 6,740.03$ 4,921.90$ 73%Townhouse per dwelling unit 1,034.98 452.87 2,829.34 1,312.72 4,060.85 2,747.29 734.97 543.98 8,660.14$ 5,056.86$ 3,603.28$ 71%Apartments per dwelling unit 827.98 452.87 2,254.63 1,046.07 3,235.99 2,189.25 585.68 433.49 6,904.28$ 4,121.68$ 2,782.60$ 68%Duplexes, Triplexes, etc per dwelling unit 827.98 452.87 3,724.56 1,728.07 5,345.73 3,616.55 442.13 327.24 10,340.40$ 6,124.73$ 4,215.67$ 69%Local Commercial per m2 of floor area 46.18 21.89 6.08 2.82 8.72 5.90 60.98$ 30.61$ 30.37$ 99%Neighbourhood and Mixed Use Commercial / Residential per m2 of floor area 46.18 21.89 8.29 3.85 11.90 8.05 66.37$ 33.79$ 32.58$ Industrial per m2 of floor area 7.17 4.08 4.97 2.31 7.14 4.83 19.28$ 11.22$ 8.06$ 72%Institutional per m2 of floor area 31.85 16.23 4.97 2.31 7.14 4.83 43.96$ 23.37$ 20.59$ 88%

Silverdale Industrial (B) Industrial per m2 of floor area 7.17 4.08 4.97 2.31 7.14 4.83 19.28$ 11.22$ 8.06$ 72%

Industrial per ha of development area 49,407.64 14,576.38 13,950.47 6,784.42 6,761.76 70,768.44$ 70,119.87$ 648.57$ 1%

(A) Cedar Valley Sewer Extension only applies to specified properties in Area "B"(B) Area east of Nelson Street has an additional DCC for the Silverdale Bridge $49,407.64 unchanged from the existing DCC bylaw. Development pays both the m2 area DCC and the ha development area DCC.

Mission Central and Fraser Area

Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Area

Hatzic, Rural, Urban Reserve, Silverdale

Silvercreek Parkway Parkland Roads - All Areas

Regional Sewage Treatment Regional Water Supply

Silverdale Industrial Water

Silverdale Industrial Sewer Grand Totals

Horne Street Pedestrian Bridge

Cedar Valley Roads (Area B)

Cedar Valley Drainage (Area B)

Cedar Valley Sewer (Area B)

Cedar Valley Water (Area B)

et

Table 12 Proposed DCC Rate Summary

Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

APPENDIX A

Population and Growth Projections (prepared by the District of Mission Planning Department)


DISTRICT OF MISSIONResidential Growth Projections

(Medium Growth Scenario)

Appendix A

Residential One Unit

Residential Two Unit

Residential Townhouse

Residential Apartment

Residential, One Unit or

Two Unit

Compact Single Family Residential

Cluster Compact

Single Family Residential

Residential Use,

Townhouse

Residential Use, Garden Apartment

Institutional Residential/U

nitResidential

One UnitResidential

Two UnitResidential Townhouse


Residential One Unit

Residential Two Unit

Residential Townhouse


2007 22 27 41 127 32 27 83 27 235 151 386 1,157 36,399 3.3%

2008 22 27 41 127 32 27 208 68 276 854 37,253 2.3%

2009 22 27 41 127 32 27 83 27 235 151 386 1,157 38,410 3.1%

2010 25 27 44 130 35 27 29 246 71 317 988 39,398 2.6%

2011 16 20 30 18 83 27 61 133 194 530 39,928 1.3%

2012 16 20 30 18 30 27 91 50 141 419 40,348 1.0%

2013 16 20 30 18 86 27 61 136 197 538 40,886 1.3%

2014 20 20 30 18 11 40 30 27 106 90 196 531 41,417 1.3%

2015 19 20 32 20 69 27 66 121 187 516 41,932 1.2%

2016 19 23 35 51 27 11 69 29 137 127 264 769 42,701 1.8%

2017 19 23 35 51 27 69 100 29 226 127 353 1,069 43,770 2.5%

2018 19 23 35 51 27 11 69 50 40 29 137 217 354 932 44,702 2.1%

2019 20 23 35 51 27 29 127 58 185 558 45,260 1.2%

2020 17 23 35 55 30 11 72 33 146 130 276 807 46,067 1.8%

2021 17 20 31 53 150 29 249 51 300 954 47,020 2.1%

2022 17 20 31 53 14 24 29 113 75 188 557 47,577 1.2%

2023 17 20 31 53 12 50 80 29 111 181 292 714 48,291 1.5%

2024 18 20 31 53 12 24 29 112 75 187 553 48,844 1.1%

2025 11 20 34 54 100 32 197 54 251 784 49,628 1.6%

2026 11 13 21 12 58 22 45 92 137 376 50,005 0.8%

2027 11 13 21 58 22 33 92 125 336 50,340 0.7%

2028 11 13 21 12 52 200 22 245 86 331 1,008 51,348 2.0%

2029 11 13 21 58 22 33 92 125 336 51,684 0.7%

2030 11 13 21 12 45 22 45 79 124 297 51,981 0.6%

2031 11 13 21 58 100 22 133 92 225 673 52,654 1.3%

2032 13 13 21 16 46 22 51 80 131 319 52,973 0.6%

2033 13 21 58 27 27 92 119 316 53,288 0.6%

Total number of units 431 0 527 820 1,036 373 233 1,021 152 251 680 0 0 0 723 0 0 0 3,476 2,771 6,247 18,046 AVG. 1.5%

Population Equivalent 3.37 3.37 2.56 2.04 3.37 3.37 3.37 2.56 2.04 1.54 3.37 3.37 2.56 2.04 3.37 3.37 2.56 2.04 TotalPopulation Increase 1,452 0 1,349 1,673 3,491 1,257 785 2,614 310 387 2,292 0 0 0 2,437 0 0 0 18,046

Assumptions:

50% of Phase I in CV built in 5 years therefore 923 units per 5 years for phase I; 5 years to build out phases II, III and IV single family; multi family spread over 30 years25% of proposed units in the urban area are infill single family; 75% multi family of which 40% are townhouse units and 60% are apartment units due to waterfront development)Area C determined by adding Hatzic, suburban and rural unit projections together and subtracting 2006 projected population Medium Growth @ 2% growth per year table was used and projected population was divided over the 5 year period; Cedar Valley unit estimate tables were used for Cedar Valley which are based on number of units by zone and existing lot counts were subtracted Southwest Mission: 3400 acres/5 acre lot size x 3.37 people/household = 2,292 population increase

Area A - Mission Central and Fraser AreaSingle Family Multi Family

Total New Residential

Units

Area C - Southwest MissionSingle Family Multi Family

Total Multi-Family

Residential Units

Total Single Family

Residential Units

Projected Growth %Year

Area C - Rural MissionSingle Family Multi Family

Area B - Cedar ValleySingle Family Residential Multi Family Residential

Projected Population Increase

(based on # of units)

Projected Population

Base

U:\Projects_VAN\0995\0035\01\X-Single-File\REVISED 2007-03-14 from Sharron F Mission growth projections.xls Tab: Residential Growth 8/7/2007 10:55 AM

DISTRICT OF MISSIONCommercial, Industrial and Institutional Growth Projections

(Medium Growth Scenario)

Appendix A

Industrial

Local Centre (m2)

Mixed Use Commercial/Residential (m2)

Neighbourhood Centre

Commercial (m2) General (m2) m2 ha m2 ha

2006 0 0

2007 4,784 1,858 6,070 0.6 12,712 1.27

2008 1,605 6,070 0.6 7,675 0.77

2009 4,934 7,432 1,506 6,070 0.6 19,942 1.99

2010 1,940 6,070 0.6 8,010 0.80

2011 13,006 9,290 1,729 6,070 0.6 30,095 3.01

2012 158 1,004 1,162 0.12

2013 3,238 1,004 3,245 0.3 7,487 0.75

2014 5,574 3,245 0.3 8,819 0.88

2015 200 3,245 0.3 3,445 0.34

2016 11,148 4,534 3,245 0.3 18,927 1.89

2017 1,000 3,245 0.3 4,245 0.42

2018 4,459 4,459 0.45

2019 200 200 0.02

2020 0 0.00

2021 0 0.00

2022 1,004 1,004 0.10

2023 100 100 0.01

2024 0 0.00

2025 490 490 0.05

2026 1,003 1,003 0.10

2027 0 0.00

2028 6,725 400 7,125 0.71

2029 0 0.00

2030 0 0.00

2031 0 0.00

2032 0 0.00

2033 3,523 3,523 0.35

Totals 44,105 21,818 0 648 4,015 6,780 0 11,259 3,523 1,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,577 5 140,425 14

NOTES:m2 = meters squaredha = hectares Estimated build out over 5 year period divided by 5 equals a per year area in square meters developed (i.e. year DCCs are to be paid)Total square meters in each land use area:

Local commercial - 1/4 of total lot area in Cedar ValleyNeighbourhood and Mixed Use com/res. - 1/4 of total lot area in Cedar ValleyGeneral IndustrialSchool and Institutional (non-residential) - deleted elementary school from phase 1; divide lot area by 5 for elementary school in phase 2, did not include elementary school in phase 3 (too far out)

Area C - Southwest Mission - land use and density will be determined through a neighbourhood planning processAssumed no new schools or institutional However waterfront development could include post secondary school and an increase in civic useAssumed 1000m2 in Hatzic; 200m2 in Stave Falls; 100m2 in Steelhead and 400m2 in FerdaleMaximum floor area for Local Commercial - 223 sq m.Maximum floor area for Neighbourhood Commercial - 3700 sq m.or 1/3 of the gross lot area where the maximum floor area is greater than 50% of the gross lot areaThe estimate area in the Urban Reserve designation is 100,500 sq m. of useable area (or 70% of the total area minus the multi family and local commercial area) divided by 3 (or 1/3 of area = the estimated floor area)Not sure that the elementary school and fire hall in Phase I (AND THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN DELETED) and the secondary school in Phase II will be built.Exclude the Urban Reserve Area until actual land uses are clearer & most of local commercial in phase 4

Commercial (m²)

Industrial (m²)

Institutional (m²)

Industrial (m²)

Institutional (m²)

Commercial (m²)

Industrial (m²)Year

Area A - Mission Central and Fraser Area Area C - Rural MissionArea B - Cedar ValleyCommercial

Area C - Southwest Mission

Commercial (m²)

Institutional (m²)

Schools (m²)

Institutional (m²)

Industrial Industrial East of NelsonSilverdale Industrial

Total Hectares of

Development Area

Total m2 of Floor Area

8/7/2007 10:58 AM

DISTRICT OF MISSIONHORNE STREET PED. GROWTH

Appendix A

REVISED Growth Projections (from District March 13, 2007)

Old Report December 2004 From District March 13, 2007Area (Acre) Total Com. (m2) Total Multi. (units) Area (Acre) Total Com. (m2) Total Multi. (units)

Safeway LocaleCommercial (1699.7 m2/ ac.) 26.7 45,382 20.3 34,492

Multi Family (15/ac.) 26.7 400 20.4 306

Waterfront AreaCommercial (1133.0 m2/ ac.) 8.8 9,970 6 6,798

Multi Family (15/ac.) 8.8 297 7 105

Downtown East AreaCommercial (1699.7 m2/ ac.) 9.9 16,827 8.5 500

Multi Family 9.9 148Mini Storage 3100

Total 90.8 72179 845 62.2 44890 411

Note:(1) Conversion factor 1133 m2 per acre.

Updated March 13/07

Horne Street Pedestrian Walkway

Urban Systems Ltd.U:\Projects_VAN\0995\0035\01\X-Single-File\FINAL 2007-07-07 with_summary_table_Proposed DCC Rate Calc_merged.xls

8/7/20079:42 AM

Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

APPENDIX B

Public Open House Information


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01

APPENDIX C

Capital Cost Estimates


Development Cost

Charge (DCC) Review

August 21, 2007 0995.0035.01


ROAD CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES

District Wide (Areas A, B, and C)

Appendix C

SITE 1:Provide full signals at Murray and Seventh Avenue Updated 2007

UnitDescription Unit Quantity Price Total

Full signals including pedestrian crossing, siren actuatedpre-emption L.S. 1 150,000.00 150,000.00NOTE: This estimate will be less if existing ducts are not DCC items

Sub-total 150,000.00

10% - Engineering 15,000.0010% - Contingency 15,000.005% - Administration 7,500.00

TOTAL COST $188,000.00

SITE 2:Provide full signals at Cedar Street and Best Avenue Updated 2007


Full signals including pedestrian crossing, siren actuatedpre-emption L.S. 1 150,000.00 150,000.00NOTE: This estimate will be less if existing ducts are not DCC items



TOTAL COST $188,000.00

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS


DISTRICT of MISSIOND.C.C. Cost Estimate

U:\Projects_VAN\0995\0035\01\X-Single-File\Cost Estimates\2007-05-23 Road Cost Estimates.xls

Appendix C

SITE 4: Updated 2007Reconstruct Stave Lake Street from Best Avenue to Cherry (22nd) Avenue, from 7m rural to 14m urban arterial standardApproximate Section length: 390 m


Arterial Road Construction m 390 1,065.00 415,350.00Earthworks m 390 80.00 31,200.00Import Fill (allow average of 15 m3/m at $30.00/m3) m 390 375.00 146,250.00Retaining wall south of Cherry @ East side (Allowance) L.S. 1 150,000.00 150,000.00Storm Sewer m 390 455.00 177,450.00Pole Relocates (one side only) m 390 115.00 44,850.00



TOTAL COST $1,207,000.00




Appendix C

SITE 5: Updated 2007Reconstruct Stave Lake Street from Best Avenue to 11th Avenue to 14m urban arterial from 7mApproximate Section length: 933m


Arterial Road Construction m 933 1,065.00 993,645.00Earthworks m 933 240.00 223,920.00Retaining wall (933 x 2 x $300.00) m 933 350.00 560,000.00Storm Sewer m 760 455.00 345,800.00Pole Relocates L.S. 1 85,000.00 85,000.00

Sub-total 2,208,365.00


TOTAL COST $2,761,000.00




Appendix C

SITE 6: Updated 2007Wren Street from Stewart Street to Kenney is to be upgraded from 6m rural to 7m rural plus a 1.8m