{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0354522":{"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP":[{"value":"70ffc41a-2a95-4455-b419-7d4f48b5af07","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"CONTENTdm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative":[{"value":"REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy":[{"value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1198198","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"British Columbia. Legislative Assembly","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2017-08-21","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1958]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0354522\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format":[{"value":"application\/pdf","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":" PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nDEPARTMENT OF\nMUNICIPAL AFFAIRS\nREPORT\nfor the Year Ended December 31st\n1957\nPrinted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty\nin right of the Province of British Columbia.\n1958  To His Honour Frank Mackenzie Ross, C.M.G., M.C., LL.D.,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour:\nI have the honour to transmit herewith the Annual Report of the Department of\nMunicipal Affairs for the year ended December 31st, 1957.\nW. D. BLACK,\nMinister of Municipal Affairs.\nVictoria, B.C.  Report of the Department of Municipal Affairs\nVictoria, B.C., January 23rd, 1958.\nThe Honourable W. D. Black,\nMinister of Municipal Affairs.\nSir,\u2014I have the honour to submit herewith the Annual Report of this Department\nfor the year ended December 31st, 1957.\nThe 1957 assessment rolls of cities, districts, and villages within the Province contained assessed values of land and improvements totalling $2,765,873,099, an increase\nof approximately $334,000,000 (9 per cent) over values appearing on the 1956 rolls.\nThis increase in gross assessed values resulted in an increase of approximately\n$280,000,000 in values taxable. The increase in values actually taxed for 1957 over\n1956 for municipal purposes, including debt, amounted to approximately $178,000,000\nand for school purposes approximately $268,000,000.\nIn 1957 eight city and six district municipalities levied a tax by mill rate for\nmunicipal purposes on landlord and tenant machinery and equipment.\nFigures are shown in the following tables:\u2014\nTotal Assessed Value of Land and Improvements\n1956 Total\nLand\nImprovements\nOther than Landlord and Tenant\nMachinery and\nEquipment\nLandlord and\nTenant\nMachinery and\nEquipment\n1957 Total\nCities    _   \t\nDistricts\t\nVillages  _\t\n$571,222,430\n835,551,790\n102,674,869\n$118,464,873\n187,072,601\n18,564,786\n$463,351,661\n711,699,403\n98,349,817\n$36,102,472\n100,431,106\n4,048,685\n$617,919,006\n999,203,110\n120,963,288\nTotals\t\nVancouver- ;.\n$1,509,449,089\n922,864,823\n$324,102,260\n250,854,000\n$1,273,400,881\n717,824,345\n$140,582,263\n59,109,350\n$1,738,085,404\n1,027,787,695\n$2,432,313,912\n$574,956,260\n$1,991,225,226\n$199,691,613\n$2,765,873,099\nValues Taxable\n$456,415,386    |      $93,674,184\n721,650,139    |      163,408,936\n81,869,349    |        16,704,425\n$368,163,705\n598,216,364\n75,136,375\n$32,830,966\n97,662,580\n3,323,283\n$494,668,855\nDistricts _.._\nVillages \t\n859,287,880\n95,164,083\nTotals\t\nVancouver \t\n$1,259,934,874    1    $273,787,545\n775,608,125    j      204,389,170\n$1,041,516,444\n606,938,725\n$133,816,829\n54,846,938\n$1,449,120,818\n866,174,833\n$2,035,542,999    |    $478,176,715\n1\n$1,648,455,169\n$188,663,767\n$2,315,295,651 FF 6\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nValues Actually Taxed\nMunicipal Purposes\n1956 Total\nLand\nImprovements\n1957 Total\n$262,763,287\n479,008,628\n58,398,713\n$93,471,929\n163,408,236\n16,703,280\n$200,766,238\n402,724,823\n52,988,371\n$294,238,167\n566,133,059\n69,691,651\nTotals  _.    -  - _\nVancouver _ \u2014\t\n$800,170,628\n438,219,581\n$273,583,445\n204,389,170\n$656,479,432\n281,483,194\n$930,062,877\n485,872,364\n$1,238,390,209\n$477,972,615\n$937,962,626\n$1,415,935,241\nSchool Purposes\n$349,999,684\n563,682,187\n62,806,812\n$93,497,179\n163,408,236\n16,456,017\n$300,447,378\n521,675,459\n58,464,912\n$393,944,557\n685 083,695\nVillages \t\n74,920,929\nTotals        \t\n$976,488,683\n610,138,920\n$273,361,432\n204,389,170\n$880,587,749\n496,339,246\n$1,153,949,181\n700,728,416\nVancouver \t\n$1,586,627,603\n$477,750,602\n$1,376,926,995\n$1,854,677,597\nDuring the year, approximately $13,960,000 in new debentures were approved,\nwhich is an increase of nearly $3,760,000 compared with 1956. The amount and purpose\nfor which new debentures were approved are set out below (Vancouver debentures do\nnot require approval):\u2014\nDistribution of Debenture Debt by Purposes for the Year 1957\nPurpose\nCities\nDistricts\nVillages\nTotal\nCivic projects \t\nElectric light and power-\nHospitals ._\nLocal improvements\t\nProtection to persons and property-\nRoads and sidewalks\t\nSewers\t\nWaterworks\t\nMiscellaneous....\nTotals..\n$849,000\n14,000\n446,000\n884,907\n195,000\n998,866\n346,000\n50,000\n$468,000\n1,152,000\n553,849\n32,000\n1,691,000\n2,529,000\n726,000\n44,000\n$157,500\n1,227,000\n1,599,500\n$1,317,000\n14,000\n1,598,000\n1,438,756\n189,500\n1,886,000\n4,754,866\n2,671,500\n94,000\n$3,783,773\n$7,195,849\n$2,984,000\n$13,963,622\nThe latest figures available for total debenture debt as at December 31st, 1956, are\nsummarized as follows:\u2014\nTotal Debenture Debt as at December 31st, 1956\nIssued, Sold,\nand Outstanding\nUnissued\nand Unsold\nTotal\n$37,266,659\n35,404,608\n4,467,963\n$1,209,844\n3,864,699\n791,600\n$38,476,503\n39,269,307\n5,259,563\nTotals\t\n$77,139,230\n122,061,019\n$5,866,143              $83,005,373\n4,910,000      |       126,971,019\n$199,200,249\n$10,776,143\n$209,976,392\nThis Department has been advised by the Department of Finance of the Federal\nGovernment that all semi-annual repayments have been made on loans which were\nobtained under the provisions of the \"Municipalities Improvements Assistance Act. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS\nFF 7\n1938.\"   The following table shows the loans made and the outstanding amounts as at\nJanuary 1st, 1958:\u2014\nLoans Made under the Provisions of the \" Municipalities Improvements Assistance Act, 1938,\" Guaranteed by the Province of British Columbia, as at\nJanuary 1st, 1958.\nMunicipality\nLoan\nNo.\nAmount\nAdvanced\nBalance\nOutstanding\n1\n2\n21\n22\n31\n32\n33\n54\n56\n57\n59\n60\n67\n68\n69\n81\n84\n85\n89\n94\n95\n$750,000.00\n390,000.00\n39,224.15\n200,000.00\n18,750.00\n11,000.00\n140,192.50\n130,000.00\n66,000.00\n10,000.00\n40,000.00\n40,000.00\n8,400.00\n41,000.00\n12,500.00\n44,000.00\n39,200.00\n100,000.00\n8,000.00\n15,000.00\n11,491.05\n$248,819.99\n57,647.52\n5,797.89\nCity of Prince George    ; _\n49,591.04\nCity of Trail        _\t\n15,448.78\nCity of Port Alberni   _ \t\n9,755.73\n19,595 70\nDistrict of Penticton2  _           \t\n4,872.32\nAnnable-Warfield Waterworks District3.\u2014\t\n7,766.20\n19,203.79\nDistrict of West Vancouver \t\n39,703.56\n1,182,51\n7,348.37\nTotals  _\t\n$2,114,757.70\n$486,733.40\n1 Now part of The Corporation of the District of Powell River.\n2 Changed from district to city status, April 30th, 1948.\n3 This liability now assumed by The Corporation of the Village of Warfield.\nAmortized payments due December 31st, 1957, and January 1st, 1958, made by all municipalities.\nShort-term capital borrowings were approved for six municipalities. Borrowings\nof this nature are an innovation introduced in the new \"Municipal Act.\" Some of the\nrestrictions and provisions are that the borrowing must be for a capital purpose, the\nmaximum term be five years, and the aggregate amount outstanding be limited to $5 per\ncapita or $100,000, whichever is the lesser.\nThe last two or three years have been particularly frustrating to Councils, who, on\nthe one hand, have been (and still are) faced with many essential capital projects and, on\nthe other hand, by strong competition for an inadequate supply of money, with resulting\nhigh costs for any money which they may have succeeded in borrowing. Recent months\nand weeks, however, have at last witnessed a turn for the better as far as the supply and\ncost of money is concerned, and the immediate outlook is therefore more encouraging\nthan it has been for some time.\nTwo routine inquiries were held into applications for certificates of approval to\nmoney by-laws.   In both cases the certificates were granted.\nDuring 1957 five municipalities were granted certificates of self-liquidation in respect\nof seven utility systems and two other municipal enterprises. Under the new \" Municipal\nAct,\" subsisting certificates of self-liquidation are necessary for the inclusion of the\nvalues of utility systems and other municipal enterprises in calculating the statutory maximum amount which may be borrowed by a municipality.\nOne municipality requested that the Department investigate and advise on various\nphases of its administrative affairs. This was carried out and recommendations made.\nAt the end of 1956, reserve funds amounted to $8,905,522, which is an increase\nover the previous year of $1,336,014.\nThe Pollution-control Board which was set up under the \" Pollution-control Act\"\nbegan operations during the past year. The Board was brought to full strength early in FF 8\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nthe spring, after which the administration organization was agreed upon and rules of procedure adopted. During the year twenty-one permits were granted to applicants who\nsought to discharge sewerage or industrial waste materials into the waters of the Lower\nFraser River or into the sea waters adjacent to the Lower Mainland. The application of\nthe Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District for permission to place a treatment plant on lona Island and to discharge the effluent into the waters of Sturgeon Bank\nwas opposed by the Municipality of Richmond, and it was therefore decided by the Board\nto hold a public hearing in Vancouver in connection with the application.\nThe advent of the training programme in municipal administration, being provided\nby the University of British Columbia under the sponsorship of the Department, has\nintroduced a new factor in connection with the certification of municipal officers undertaken by the Board of Examiners in accordance with Part XXVII of the \"Municipal\nAct.\" The Board has given considerable study concerning proposed revision of the regulations now in effect under the Act and expects to be able to make recommendations\nregarding changes in the future.\nThe year 1957 marked the graduation of the first class of the Municipal Administration Diploma course offered by the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration\nof the University of British Columbia under the sponsorship of the Department. This\nclass commenced in the fall of 1953. Total enrolment for the 1957\/58 year is made up\nof: First year, 49; second year, 38; third year, 37; and fourth year, 20.\nInstitutes were held at the University in May, 1957, for the 1956\/57 year's classes,\nand the results of the examinations were as follows: Completing first year, 35; second\nyear, 23; third year, 18; and fourth year, 25.\nJunior and senior diplomas were granted by the University to all students successfully completing the second and fourth years of the course respectively.\nWhile not sponsored by this Department, information on and application forms\nregarding a training programme in the field of appraising, assessing, and land valuation\nwere sent by the Department to city, town, and district municipalities. Part of the\nprogramme consists of institutes at which concentrated instruction will be provided,\nculminating in examinations. It is felt the introduction of this course of study will be of\ngreat assistance to municipal assessing personnel.\nThe Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Municipal Officers' Association was held\nin Victoria on May 27th, 28th, and 29th, 1957. Practically the entire Conference was\ndevoted to the new \" Municipal Act.\" Panel discussions were held and numerous questions asked and answered, all of which resulted in many points being clarified. There was\nalso a discussion on determining the eligibility of applicants for grants under the \" Provincial Home-owner Grant Act.\"\nThe Union of British Columbia Municipalities held a very successful convention in\nNelson toward the end of September, where a number of important matters were considered. One of the most outstanding was the lengthy debate on legislative provisions\ngoverning the regulation of shopping hours.\nThree communities were incorporated during 1957\u2014one as a city municipality and\ntwo as village municipalities.  They are:\u2014\nMunicipality\nDate of\nIncorporation\nArea\n(in Acres)\nPopulation\nCity\nThe Corporation of the City of White Rock .\nVillage\nThe Corporation of the Village of Golden \u2014\nThe Corporation of the Village of Houston-\nApr. 15\nJune 26\nMar.   4\n3,463.0\n1,372.0\n407.4\n5,439\n1,245\n612 REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS\nFF 9\nThe Corporation of the City of White Rock was formerly a portion of The Corporation of the District of Surrey. The new area of the district is 89,297 acres and has a\npopulation of 43,927. For the Villages of Golden and Houston, they are the estimated\npopulation as at the date of incorporation. In the case of the City of White Rock and the\nDistrict of Surrey, the 1956 Census has been used, with the division between the city\nand district derived from information supplied by the Census Division of the Dominion\nBureau of Statistics.\nIn 1957 extensions of areas were granted to the Cities of Duncan and Vernon and\nthe Villages of Lake Cowichan, Mission City, Oliver, Quesnel, Sidney, Squamish, and\nWilliams Lake. Mission City and Quesnel were subsequently reincorporated as towns.\nThe following table shows the increases in area as well as population.\nMunicipality\nArea (in Acres)\nBefore\nExtension of\nArea\nContained in\nArea Added\nAfter\nExtension of\nArea\nPopulation\nBefore\nExtension of\nArea\nContained in\nArea Added\nAfter\nExtension of\nArea\nCity\nDuncan. \t\nVernon _\nVillage\nLake Cowichan..\nMission City\t\nOliver. _\nQuesnel\t\nSidney.\t\nSquamish\t\nWilliams Lake\u2014\n477.0\n1,963.0\n592.9\n821.0\n259.5\n1,575.0\n436.0\n655.0\n344.0\n376.0\n22.0\n13.3\n37.0\n127.0\n6.0\n142.0\n775.5\n843.0\n853.0\n1,985.0\n606.2\n858.0\n386.5\n1,581.0\n578.0\n1,430.5\n1,187.0\n3,247\n8,998\n1,949\n3,010\n1,147\n4,384\n1,371\n1,292\n1,790\n207\n10\n40\n243\n118\n3,247\n9,079\n1,949\n3,010\n1,354\n4,394\n1,411\n1,535\n1,908\nThe populations shown above are the 1956 Census plus additions brought about by\nextensions of areas since then to December 31st, 1957.\nThe boundaries of the District of Mission were redefined to make for greater certainty as to their location as well as to remove a water area fronting on Mission City and\ntransfer it to the administration of Mission City.\nAn innovation in the new \" Municipal Act\" is the provision whereby the status of\na municipality may be changed from one classification to another. In this event the\nLetters Patent incorporating the municipality are revoked and other Letters Patent issued\nreincorporating the municipality. Six municipalities availed themselves of this provision.\nThe classifications of Cumberland, Ladysmith, and Merritt were changed from a city to\na village; Dawson Creek from a village to a city, and Mission City and Quesnel from a\nvillage to a town. In each case the effective date of the change was determined as January 1st, 1958.\nThe new \" Municipal Act\" has now had a number of months of trial and appears\nto have been generally well received with the exception of one or two provisions, chiefly\nthose dealing with the regulation of shopping hours. The Act would appear to have\nachieved the major objectives for which the revision was undertaken.\nOther significant changes or additions enacted by the 1957 Session of the Legislature\nwhich affected municipalities are as follows:\u2014\n\"Assessment Equalization Act, 1953.\"\u2014As in the \"Municipal Act,\" \"Public\nSchools Act,\" and \" Taxation Act,\" the definition of \" improvements \" was amended to\ninclude closed-circuit television companies. Amongst other amendments was the extension to May 15th of the period for the Assessment Appeal Board to complete its decisions.\n\"Local Services Act.\"\u2014This is a new Act which allows the provision of certain\nworks and and services for the benefit of areas in unorganized territory. These include\nambulance, fire protection, garbage collection and disposal, home nursing care, homes\nfor senior citizens, and public comfort-stations.   In addition, certain specified provisions FF 10 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nof the \" Municipal Act\" may be made applicable to a local area established under this\nAct, in which case the Minister of Municipal Affairs may exercise the powers of a Municipal Council concerning such provisions.\n\" Motor-vehicle Act.\"\u2014This Act replaces the former \" Motor-vehicle Act.\" One\nitem of interest to municipalities is that commencing March 1st, 1958, the licence fee for\nall municipal vehicles will be at a flat rate of $2 per vehicle. Another is the introduction\nof a uniform code of rules for pedestrians and for the driving and operating of motor-\nvehicles on public highways in both municipalities and unorganized territory. It is a\nProvince-wide code.\n\"Municipal Superannuation Agreement Validation Act.\"\u2014Some municipalities have\nentered into certain agreements or contracts of doubtful validity in view of the provisions\nof the prevailing Statutes. This Act validates the agreements or contracts. However, the\nvalidation only extends for a period of one year from the coming into force of the Act.\n\"Provincial Home-owner Grant Act.\"\u2014This is a new Act which provides, subject\nto a minimum tax of $1, an annual Provincial grant of up to $28 to reduce the current-\nyear property tax of each eligible resident home-owner.\n\" Village Municipalities Assistance Act.\"\u2014The new category of a local district is\nincluded under this Act. It has been broadened to enable a Provincial guarantee to be\ngiven to a village or local district for borrowings for hospital purposes.\n\"Greater Nanaimo Water and Sewerage District Act.\"\u2014Formerly the title of this\nAct was \"Greater Nanaimo Water District Act.\" As the new title implies, the powers\nexercisable have been extended to include sewerage facilities. This Act will not have\neffect except by Proclamation, and to date has not become operative.\n\" Victoria City Act, 1957.\"\u2014Certain powers were granted with respect to the disposal of assets acquired for waterworks purposes.\n\" White Rock Incorporation Act.\"\u2014This Act was introduced as a public Bill following a referendum held in December, 1956, throughout the District of Surrey and the\narea known as White Rock. As mentioned earlier in this Report, The Corporation of the\nCity of White Rock was incorporated on April 15th, 1957. Concurrently, the boundaries\nof The Corporation of the District of Surrey were amended accordingly.\nThe staff of the Department worked unstintingly throughout the year in order to\ncope with the many tasks which were in part brought about by the transition from the old\nto the new \" Municipal Act.\" This situation, however, did prevent the Department from\ncompleting the usual number of visits to municipal offices during the year. Once again\nI would like to express my thanks to the municipal officials, both elected and appointed,\nfor their continued courtesy and assistance, to the members of the executive and executive\ndirector of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, to the departmental heads and\nstaff of the other departments of Government, and to you, Sir, for your direction and\nencouragement.\nJ. E. BROWN,\nDeputy Minister. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS FF 11\nREPORT OF THE SUPERVISOR OF MUNICIPALITIES\nVictoria, B.C., January 22nd, 1958.\n\/. E. Brown, Esq.,\nDeputy Minister of Municipal Affairs.\nSir,\u2014The past year has proved interesting, though strenuous, and the staff has found\nit difficult at times to keep up with the work load. The coming into force of the new\n\"Municipal Act,\" being chapter 42 of the Statutes of 1957, on the 1st day of July was\na prime factor in adding to the strain on our facilities, although our expanding economy\nalso continues to demand more services from the Department from year to year.\nThe members of the staff, as in the past, have continued to co-operate with extra\ntime and effort, and again holiday times were made subordinate to the necessity of providing assistance to municipalities and municipal groups.\nMost municipalities were visited at least once by a senior member of the Department,\nbut it proved impossible to attain our objective of visiting every municipality at least once\nin the year. In addition, this year a particular effort was made to attend, prior to the 1st\nday of July, all the regional meetings of all of the municipal associations affiliated with\nthe Union of British Columbia Municipalities.\nSeveral regional meetings of the Municipal Officers' Association were attended, as\nwell as some of the regional meetings of the British Columbia Association of Assessors.\nThe undersigned attended the annual meeting of the latter.\nIn May of this year the Municipal Officers' Association Conference, held in Victoria,\nwas extended to a three-day meeting rather than the customary two days, to allow for a\nthorough review of the provisions of the new \" Municipal Act.\" The members conducted\nseveral panel discussions on particular portions of the Act, which proved to be extremely\nwell done, and consequently this conference was one of the most successful and beneficial\ndeliberations held by the group. The Department attended in full force and assisted by\ntaking part in the question-and-answer portions of the proceedings. As in past years, the\nDepartment printed the proceedings, but it is felt that, due to the various factors involved,\nthe association should make its own arrangements in future. The proceedings could be\nmade available to the members at a much earlier date if a transcript of the proceedings\nwas taken at the time of the conference.\nThe following is a compilation of some of the functions of the Department during\n1957:\u2014\n(1) One hundred and eighteen visits were made to municipalities. The number\nof municipalities actually visited was ninety-nine, some receiving more\nthan one visit.\n(2) Four hundred and twenty-nine Orders in Council were prepared and\nsubsequently approved.\n(3) Ninety-two certificates of approval for municipal loan by-laws were issued.\n(4) Eighty-five debenture issues were certified by the Inspector of Municipalities, consisting of 14,703 debentures with coupons attached, which were\nexamined, checked, sealed, and certified.\n(5) Six hundred and forty-three village by-laws were examined, checked, and\nregistered. Many of these required advice and correspondence, resulting\nin resubmission in amended or altered form.\n(6) Hundreds of draft by-laws were submitted for review and comment, which\nresulted in considerable correspondence.\nThe first village submitting 1956 financial returns in 1957 was Parksville; the first\ncity, Rossland; and the first district, Kent. It is, of course, possible to publish the names\nof the municipalities which were the last to submit returns, but this would prove no useful FF  12\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\npurpose, as lateness is a matter of degree. However, it must be observed that the returns\nmade in 1957 were generally later than in the previous year. Aside from the disregard\nshown to statutory requirements, the late filing of returns caused a most serious delay in\nthe publication and issue of the 1956 Municipal Statistics. The U.B.C.M. executive and\nindividual Councils need this information, as well as other governmental and financial\nbodies, to assess the impact of certain financial problems. We are not publishing \" statistics for statistics' sake,\" and all municipal officials, both elected and appointed, should\nrealize that lack of facts and the consequent inability to make valid and current comparisons adds difficulty to the tasks facing the various levels of government when examining\nthe fiscal policies of our Province and our country.\nThe undersigned attended a week's conference at the Dominion Bureau of Statistics,\nOttawa, as a member of the Continuing Committee of the Dominion-Provincial Conference on Municipal Accounting. The time was devoted to matters pertaining to revision\nof the Manual of Instructions on Municipal Accounting, Reporting, and Terminology\nissued by the Public Finance Division of the Bureau. I was unable to attend the meeting\nin November, but the minutes of the proceedings were received and are under study.\nThe Continuing Committee is scheduled to meet again in April of 1958, with a full-scale\nconference planned for later in the year to finalize the work of the Committee and to\nconsider certain matters not within the terms of reference of the Committee.\nThis report continues the practice of including analytical studies relating to municipal administration.\nTable 1 shows the gross and net debenture debt of all cities (exclusive of Vancouver), all districts, and of Vancouver from the years 1921 to 1956, inclusive, and is\ngraphed on Chart 1.\nThere is very little difference in the net debenture debt of all cities in the Province\nover the previous year. The net debenture debt of districts, however, continues to rise,\nindicating the urban expansion which is still taking place.\nFurther comparisons follow:\u2014\n(Assessed taxable values in\nthousands of dollars.)\nCities (Other than\nVancouver)\nDistricts\nVancouver\n'\nAssessed\nValues\nPopulation\nAssessed\nValues\nPopulation\nAssessed\nValues\nPopulation\n1922  \t\n$155,800\n134.720\n$186,700\n721,650\n123,660\n406,342\n$211,700             125,000\n1956\n456.415               268.325\n775.608       !       365.844\nTable 2 shows the percentages of municipal revenues according to major sources for\nfour basic years.\nTable 3 relates the major sources of municipal revenue to a per capita basis for the\nsame basic years.\nTable 4 compares expenditures by functions on a per capita basis for two basic years.\nTable 5, introduced for the first time, shows, for the years 1936 to 1956, inclusive,\nthe percentage of current taxes collected, total collections as a percentage of the current\nlevy, and the outstanding taxes as a percentage of the current levy for all cities (except\nVancouver), districts, villages, and Vancouver.\nJ. D. Baird,\nSupervisor of Municipalities. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS\nSTATISTICAL TABLES\nFF  13\nTable 1.\u2014Gross and Net Debenture Debt for All Cities (Exclusive of Vancouver) and Districts and Vancouver, as at December 3 1st, in Each Year\nfor the Years 1921 to 1956, Inclusive.\n(In thousands of dollars.)\nYear\nAll Cities (Exclusive\nof Vancouver)\nGross\nDebenture\nDebt\nNet\nDebenture\nDebt\nAll Districts\nGross\nDebenture\nDebt\nNet\nDebenture\nDebt\nVancouver\nGross\nDebenture\nDebt\nNet\nDebenture\nDebt\n1921-\n1922-\n1923...\n1924...\n1925-\n1926-\n1927...\n1928-\n1929...\n1930...\n1931-\n1932...\n1933...\n1934-\n1935-\n1936...\n1937...\n1938-\n1939-\n1940-\n1941...\n1942...\n1943...\n1944-\n1945...\n1946-\n1947...\n1948...\n1949...\n1950...\n1951-\n1952-\n1953-\n1954..\n1955..\n1956-\n$39.\n40.\n39,\n39,\n39,\n39.\n39.\n40,\n40,\n41.\n40.\n40.\n39.\n39\n39\n38\n35\n35\n35\n35.\n32\n31\n30.\n29.\n29.\n31\n35\n37\n39\n38\n38\n39,\n39.\n39.\n37.\n37\n,112\n,256\n,401\n,660\n,586\n,665\n,736\n,312\n,273\n,066\n,673\n,592\n,780\n,417\n141\n,417\n,939\n,323\n,387\n017\n,924\n846\n290\n,416\n,304\n,690\n,015\n422\n383\n442\n,466\n,606\n,533\n,456\n,512\n,267\n$33,459\n35,825\n33,279\n33,276\n34,081\n31,773\n31,010\n30,663\n29,726\n29,191\n29,034\n28,817\n28,060\n27,568\n27,016\n26,135\n27,190\n26,996\n27,156\n26,726\n24,863\n24,004\n23,503\n22,643\n22,775\n24,993\n29,511\n32,325\n34,091\n33,000\n33,474\n34,568\n34,121\n33,973\n33,845\n33,649\n$9,615\n9,458\n9,322\n9,327\n9,461\n9,928\n10,505\n11,021\n11,414\n12,254\n12,670\n12,684\n12,525\n12,259\n11,656\n11,712\n11,406\n11,468\n11,418\n10,780\n11,047\n10,498\n10,112\n9,827\n10,202\n11,803\n14,290\n16,032\n18,053\n17,652\n18,561\n23,215\n23,752\n28,656\n31,273\n35,405\n$7,966\n7,754\n7,514\n7,303\n7,169\n7,386\n7,737\n7,996\n8,625\n9,206\n9,608\n9,642\n9,504\n9,076\n8,034\n7,920\n7,367\n7,238\n7,014\n6,733\n7,153\n6,692\n6,279\n6,232\n6,428\n7,798\n11,542\n13,237\n15,117\n14,864\n15,872\n20,581\n21,230\n26,554\n29,488\n33,576\n$48,770\n49,048\n47,552\n47,121\n50,010\n53,262\n57,136\n58,794\n66,798\n72,513\n76,573\n76,058\n75,790\n75,498\n76,576\n75,712\n75,437\n74,381\n73,181\n71,459\n69,023\n66,328\n64,454\n61,510\n64,565\n65,512\n66,346\n74,442\n83,839\n88,578\n93,786\n101,005\n105,085\n115,001\n117,914\n122,061\n$39,091\n36,805\n38,042\n37,970\n38,219\n42,482\n45,639\n46,760\n53,765\n58,548\n61,568\n60,946\n60,794\n59,725\n60,113\n58,921\n58,102\n56,691\n55,317\n53,254\n51,010\n47,630\n44,799\n41,837\n42,991\n44,302\n42,970\n45,207\n54,240\n58,683\n62,718\n73,320\n81,361\n88,927\n89,328\n90,774 FF 14\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable 2.\u2014Percentage of Municipal Revenues by Major Sources\nfor the Years 1931, 1941, 1951, and 1956\nYear\nMunicipal Taxation\nProvincial\nGrants\nUtilities\nLicences,\nFines, and\nOther\nRevenue\nTotal\nFor Schools\nTotal\nRevenue\nAll Cities except Vancouver\n1931\t\n1941 _\t\n1951\t\nPer Cent\n29.10\n21.80\n22.50\n19.20\n24.62\n24.60\n24.70\n22.09\n30.30\n29.20\n31.85\n27.56\nPer Cent\n69.25\n65.60\n49.00\n54.69\n85.45\n79.10\n63.20\n70.76\n68.60\n82.20\n60.00\n66.53\n41.65\n64.24\n34.90\n51.57\nPer Cent\n20.39\n7.10\n23.25\n15.96\n5.32\n8.95\n22.95\n11.61\n9.82\n11.32\n27.20\n17.57\n28.20\n10.93\n34.90\n25.45\nPer Cent\n100\n8.55\n9.77\n8.73\n1.09\n1.01\n1.33\n2.39\n1.88\n3.76\n3.19\nPer Cent\n7.16\n18.75\n17.98\n20.62\n9.23\n11.31\n12.76\n16.62\n21.58\n6.48\n11.47\n13.51\n30.15\n22.94\n26.44\n19.79\nPer Cent\n3.20\n100\n100\n1956 ...                          \t\nVancouver\n1931 \t\n1941\n1951.             \t\n100\n100\n100\n1956..\t\nAll Districts\n1931    ____ _ \t\n1941\t\n1951\t\n1956. \t\n100\n100\n100\n100\nAll Villages\n1931 \t\n100\n1941\n22.01\n100\n1951\n100\n1956\n100\nTable 3.\u2014Per Capita Municipal Revenues by Major Sources\nfor the Years 1931, 1941, 1951, and 1956\nYear\nMunicipal Taxation\nProvincial\nGrants\nUtilities\nLicences,\nFines, and\nOther\nRevenue\nTotal\nFor Schools\nTotal\nRevenue\nAll Cities except Vancouver\n1931  _ _ _\t\n1941  \t\n19S1\n$13.35\n9.35\n19.80\n19.35\n19.95\n11.95\n21.10\n25.17\n9.62\n5.75\n18.15\n20.46\n$31.80\n28.20\n43.15\n55.11\n44.80\n38.40\n54.00\n80.62\n21.80\n16.20\n34.20\n49.41\n3.60\n3.81\n11.14\n29.71\n$3.29\n3.05\n20.45\n16.08\n2.79\n4.35\n19.60\n13.23\n3.12\n2.23\n15.50\n13.05\n3.78\n0.99\n11.13\n14.66\n$1.47\n3.67\n8.60\n8.79\n0.31\n0.93\n1.15\n6.76\n1.77\n0.17\n1.20\n1.84\n$9.39\n8.03\n15.80\n20.77\n4.91\n5.54\n10.97\n18.93\n6.83\n1.27\n6.54\n10.03\n4.04\n2.08\n8.43\n11.40\n$45.95\n42.95\n88 00\n1956.. .    __\n1931\t\nVancouver\n100.75\n52.50\n1941\t\n1951. .\n1956\t\n1931.\t\n1941\t\n1951\t\n1956   ..   ..\nAll Districts\n48.60\n85.50\n113.93\n31.73\n19.70\n57.00\n74.26\n1931...\nAll Villages\n13.42\n1941\n9.05\n1951\n12.68\n31.90\n1956.\t\n57.61 REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS\nFF  15\nTable 4.\u2014Comparison of per Capita Expenditure by Functions for All Cities\nexcept Vancouver, for Vancouver, and for All Districts for the Years\n1921 and 1956.\nAll cities except\nVancouver\nVancouver\nAll Districts\n1921\n1956\n1921\n1956\n1921\n1956\n$2.72\n2.71\n2.42\n1.10\n4.21\n.57\n.38\n.79\n11.45\n16.46\n.51\n6.14\n1.14\n$8.29\n6.00\n5.39\n2.19\n12.14\n4.45\n1.07\n1.64\n17.73\n14.71\n1.11\n1.99\n6.09\n6.87\n9.00\n1.20\n$1.85\n3.09\n3.86\n.75\n6.12\n1.77\n.48\n1.73\n12.02\n15.65\n1.26\n4.79\n1.37\n$5.23\n9.49\n13.00\n3.29\n6.90\n3.88\n2.97\n2.30\n21.76\n22.70\n1.83\n5.74\n9.19\n.78\n3.41\n$2.70\n.17\n1.13\n.31\n8.40\n.22\n.11\n.96\n8.32\n5.54\n1.99\n4.90\n.26\n$6.91\nFire\n3.11\n2.57\n1.16\n14.01\n1.92\nPublic health\t\n.70\n1.12\n18.79\nDebt               \t\n7.97\n1 49\n1 42\n1.91\n5 15\nCapital expenditure out of revenue\nReserve   _ \t\n5.37\n.54\nTotals   _   \t\n$50.60\n$99.87\n$54.74\n$112.47\n$35.01\n$74.14 FF 16\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\n_H5\u00ab3u\ng      MB\n_ O        ._ _) .\nc tj \u00a3\n<d u \u00a3_!\nv.o\"y.or~r^^o^ON\"^ir-oo\\0(N(N-oot^coo)C\\\n00_\\<3,_\\O\\_v^_\\_\\O\\O^O\\0\\O\u00bbOi_\\O\\O,OvO\\O\\\no\nH\no\nw\nI-l\n>J\no\nu\nX\no\n<\nH\n55\nW\no\nw\nPh\nw\n\u25baJ\nm\n<c\nH\n_\u00ab\u00bbSS>\n\u00abH S2 a> =) \u00ab\n3_\u00bbMaoi-i\n3 t_ = c >\nO  _ _  - 3  U\nO <U i\u00ab\n0 fc o\nP=3 3\n0.U\nS * -.2 J_ _,\nsoH _ . 3 .\n3\u00bb\"aUh,\na    Sc\nO aj _2 u 3 <\"\nH=*BOH\nO        4>sh\nU    ft o\nftU\n6DC\n2 \u00a3J >>\nSh <\u00a3 oj 3 o>\nvj\u2014    a. o\n_ o     cd ofc\n0)\n(J    ft o\nK\n<D     _.\n0CT3 -4-\u00bb\nu\nSs.\u00a3\nS3 3\nsso\noO'-'O'-'Ti-t-.vorof-imor-fN^-'Vit^'nmoomoo\noorocnt>r~^'npr^r^avovcs>\/\"-r'-_ir_o)pc-ip,<t\nOodOodt^^vo^CNr^^^Tf-^'vo^^'Tl-'^-rnr-i\n^tmtnnrnNfS'-lr-rH  H H;\u00abH  H 1H H H 1H rt iH\nOOOHt\\OTtHV.OV)*OW.f.h>Olr.tM\nm in m n rj -iovpc-)Osvom\u00a9oco(x.o.ovc>.Ov\nrtV oc ^' ^' d a in d 0\\ i^ wiV r~ d coV od h oo\noo.ovoooo\u00a9oavoso.o\\os\u00a9osovo.\u00a9as\ntn o. nr-Hcot>^Oooiom*Omrnor.mH(s\nnnmMmxMifHD*OM-\u00bb^iw.O\\HO*CO^.'t\nrnr^\\D^\"Mt^c^ai^rtOvO^C.rtrH<N'-<o00vl>\nfmmmmntSHHH i-i \u00bb-* ,-i i-i r-i \u00bb-. ,-h\nooovomw-ir-mmooosvomovvor-oomr-os\nn-HOohirr.MmoiNNtooHoo^.oinhO\n^inirihrtfg^Mri^r^t^i^o.r^a.do.d'-'\nOvo.ososo\u00a9ooe>avo.osasovoso\\oo\\00\nvomosvD\u00a9voTj-fnmoov-.Nr-Ofovo>r.rsovi-iov\nNr;OHOwOts-mtfiM\u00bbDOTOHint*OMM\nrtr^oc'r^^r^rtrtodr^c^odcoo-Ovooodoooor^\niosocnoor^cor-\u00a9csr--os\\o**-.\n\u2022 in cc th oo in cn rt th t- <> v~> os th\novo.c^MinVdNmWfnmmmm'mr.n'rr!^-\nr~r-ooooocooooaso\\osovOvososo\\osovovasovOs\n\\Dt-coaiO-<rNH'J'\u00ab.^hoooNOHMmTtin*o\nsntnencnrtrt-ttrtrtrtrtrtrtrtininininininin\nOsOvOvOsOvO>OnOSOsOvOsOsOsOvO\\OsOsOvOvOvOs REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS\nFF 17\n\u2014>\np\n\u25a0Ci\ns\n1\n1\nI\n9\n\\\n\\\n\\\n\\\nNv\nm\n\\\n9\n\\\n\u00b0s\n\\\n\\\nm\nH\ni\n\u00a3\n\u00b0s\n\\\n\\\n\\\n1\n\\\n<-\nT\n\/\ni\n*\ni\ni\nH\n\\\nS\ni\nA\n\\\nr\nA\n*\n?\n1\nA\n\/\n?\nI\nd1\n\/\n*\nf\n1\nA\nP\ni\nV\nt\n\u2014\nLEGEND\nNET DEBENTURE  DEBT FOR  ALL   CITIES   EXCEPT    VANCOUVER\nIN   TENS   OF   MILLIONS   OF   DOLLARS   p\u2014\u20140\u2014a -\u00b0\nNET DEBENTURE  DEBT  FOR   VANCOUVER   IN    TENS   OF    MILLIONS\nOF    DOLLARS     \u00ab \u2014-\u00bb-\u2014\u00b0\nNET  DEBENTURE  DEBT  FOR   DISTRICTS  IN   TENS  OF  MILLIONS\nOF   DOLLARS      \u00ab o o o\n?\nf\n1\ni\n)\n1\ni\nJ\nrO\n?\n1\nJ.\n1\n1\ni\n\/\n*>\n1\n1\n9\nri\n'\n\u00ab\nI\n\/\n'\n1\n\/\n*o\n1\nj\nro\nf\ni\nX\nS\nv\n\\\n(O\nV\nV\ni\nV\n\\\n\\\ni\nJ,\n<\nRl\n\"v\n\\\n1\n0       \/\nni\n1    i\n1\nA      6\n?      ?\n1      1\n4   4\nit.\n1     \/\ntsl\n_\/    _.\n<SJ\n<\nca\ns\n--\n-1\no\no\n>\nin\n0)\nt-\n3\no\n-J\ncc\nO\n(\/>\nO\nto\nin\n_l\na>\n1\n<\no\nH\nce\nuj\n>\n<\\J\nr>\no\ntn\n-\".\nrr\n<i\n<\n>\nni\nV\nh-\n(i\nhi\nUJ\n<)\nX\nX\nt-\nUJ\n\u2022\nrr\n<\no\nCO\nu-\n>\nn\nir\n_J\n<\no\nUJ\no\n>-\nT\nl\nm\nO\nH\nUJ\nO <\nu.\nCO\n,-<\nm\nui tr.\no UJ\nsi\no\n13 E\nz o\n<\nI FF 18 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nREPORT OF DIRECTOR, REGIONAL PLANNING DIVISION\nVictoria, B.C., January 21st, 1958.\n\/. E. Brown, Esq.,\nDeputy Minister of Municipal Affairs.\nMUNICIPAL PLANNING\nSir,\u2014Community plans in varying degrees of detail and with accompanying draft\nzoning by-laws were prepared for ten municipalities and draft zoning by-laws alone for\nfive others during the year ended December 31st, 1957.\nTwo cities commenced comprehensive city planning, assisted by the Division, preliminary to the engagement by one city of a staff consultant and by the other of a summer\nstudent. They continued the work as started by the Division, and this, in the case of the\nsummer student, included the information used by the Division in formulating a zoning\nby-law for the city.\nThe community planning provisions of Part XXI of the \" Municipal Act \" take the\nplace of the \" Town Planning Act,\" and various changes are thereby necessitated in\nmunicipal by-laws, particularly with reference to Boards of Appeal. Accordingly, all\nmunicipalities were notified and advised on the proper changes to make in their local\nlegislation. In most cases the amended or new by-laws were forwarded to the Division\nfor review and correction.\nThirty-five zoning, building, and subdivision by-laws and problems related thereto\nwere received for consideration and advice.\nThe help of the Division was sought on many subdivision matters. In some cases,\ncomments and suggestions only were required; in others, complete subdivision designs\nwere prepared. These latter included one for the Village of Fort St. John, containing\n50 acres in which provision was made for 190 lots, all of which will shortly be built on\nby Pacific Petroleum Company, and one for the City of Duncan, which is now a Federal-\nProvincial land assembly project. This is 47 acres in area and comprises 160 lots. For\nthe District of Salmon Arm, a sketch was prepared to serve as a master plan to guide\ntoward an orderly layout of the independent resubdivision of larger parcels into smaller\nparcels.    This plan covered over a quarter-section of land.\nREGULATED AREAS\nIn North Saanich Regulated Area a new land-use classification was added to the\nzoning subdivisions, and the Dawson Creek Regulated Area was increased by the addition of eight quarter-sections. The inspectional system was changed in Prince George,\nQuesnel, and Dawson Creek Regulated Areas, separate inspectors being engaged to do\nthe work instead of using the services of officials of the adjoining municipalities, as had\nbeen done previously.\nSome minor changes have been made in the zoning of Nanaimo Regulated Area to\nconform with the plans of the Greater Nanaimo Planning Board.\nThe Regulated Area of Golden was absorbed into the newly organized village of\nthe same name, and it is the intention of the village authorities that physical developments\nshall continue to follow very closely the lines set out in the regulations establishing the\nformer regulated area.\nAll plans for subdivisions in regulated areas are checked by the local inspector\nbefore being approved by the approving officer. Cases where he is not sure that the road\nprovision is satisfactory or is capable of improvement, or where the question is one of\ninterpretation of the subdivision regulations, he refers to this office for consideration and\npossible suggestions. r\nREPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS\nFF 19\nSimilarly, all applications for rezoning are heard first by the local Boards of Appeal.\nIf satisfactory from a local point of view, the applications are further investigated and\nreviewed in the light of technical considerations. Seventeen applications have been\napproved.\nIn addition to matters of routine administration, particular matters of importance\nfor various reasons in different areas were given special attention. These included the\npossible water-pollution effects of proposed subdivision developments in View Royal.\nIn this case, special precautions have been taken to avoid the possibility of contamination of Portage Inlet. Other matters dealt with included the provision of sites for industrial expansion, in the Dawson Creek area. Meetings were held with various officials\nconcerned, highway and Pacific Great Eastern Railway plans and possibilities were\ninvestigated, and soil-bearing qualities ascertained before the required area boundaries\nwere determined and an industrial zone established.\nThe developments at Taylor attendant upon the establishing there of a large plant\nby the Pacific Petroleum Company and of other industries led to the establishment of\na local area under the \" Local Services Act.\" This permitted, among other things, the\nmaking of subdivision regulations to prevent the spread of indiscriminate subdividing.\nStatistics relating to building construction are given in the following table:\u2014\nRegulated Area\nYear\nEstablished\nValue of All\nConstructor!\nin 1957\nNumber of\nResidence\nPermits\nOnly\nKelowna  __.\nVernon _\t\nConnaught Heights\nView Royal\t\nNorth Saanich \t\nPrince George District.\nNanaimo District\t\nKamloops District\t\nGolden District1..\t\nQuesnel District\t\nAlberni\t\nWoodhaven.__\t\nDawson Creek\t\nCampbell River...\t\nThetis..\t\nTotals for year 1957.\n1947\n1947\n1948\n1948\n1948\n1949\n1949\n1950\n1952\n1952\n1953\n1954\n1954\n1955\n1955\n$906,488\n387,621\n80,595\n174,810\n294,625\n603,325\n1,597,503\n1,000,700\n193,180\n117,225\n30,000\n19,813\n74,626\n191,987\n$5,672,498\n62\n31\n6\n19\n36\n48\n102\n50\n12\n9\n3\n4\n17\n399\n1 Golden incorporated as a village in 1957.\nContrary to the general picture of residential building across Canada, which shows\na 12-per-cent drop, the figures for regulated areas in British Columbia show an increase.\nThe total value of all construction increased by $170,000, and the number of residence\nunits increased by 16 per cent, bringing the total of residence units constructed to date to\n3,934, as shown in the table below. The increase in building, being contrary to the\nnational trend, would appear to indicate that regulated areas are becoming popular places\nto settle. Another reason is indicated in the permit information, which names 315 owners\nas builders as against seventy-three where the work is to be done by contractors. This\ninformation may be significant in other ways.\nTen years have now elapsed since the first regulated areas were established, and\nI think that, by and large, experience shows them to have been justified.\nTotal construction to date has amounted to a value of $39,937,911; that is, almost\n$40,000,000 worth of work has been done, and enough housing accommodation provided\nto form a city larger than Nanaimo. Thanks to the regulations, these developments have\ntaken place in a much more orderly fashion and to a higher standard than almost certainly\nwould have been the case without them. FF 20\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nHousing Units Provided in Regulated Areas\nRegulated Area\n1947\n1948\n1949\n1950\n1951\n1952\n1953\n1954\n1955\n1956\n1957\nTotal\n129\n15\n167\n51\n18\n7\n17\n116\n29\n6\n20\n58\n8\n170\n43\n28\n3\n25\n39\n46\n152\n24\n15\n4\n20\n26\n75\n120\n24\n11\n9\n5\n16\n25\n189\n81\n35\n8\n20\n29\n22\n6\n19\n33\n93\n83\n63\n9\n33\n35\n18\n8\n26\n18\n44\n91\n78\n5\n27\n1\n13\n50\n14\n3\n18\n32\n31\n107\n90\n10\n25\n1\n1\n149\n1\n3\n70\n14\n4\n12\n39\n23\n99\n60\n14\n21\n5\n3\n1\n65\n35\n7\n19\n36\n57\n108\n52\n13\n10\n3\n4\n17\n250\n64\nView Royal \t\n182\nPrince George District.\u2014  \t\n566\n1,011\n402\nQuesnel District   -\n136\n4\n11\n182\n2\nNakusp   \t\n3\n144\n260\n407\n336\n308\n399\n390\n364\n535\n365\n426\n3,934\nGENERAL\nIt might be mentioned that during its initial operations the Nanaimo Planning Board\nfound it helpful to refer questions of organization and procedure to the Division; later its\nplanning advisers frequently consulted with the Division, particularly with regard to the\nzoning of the part of the planning area within the Nanaimo Regulated Area.\nClose relationship was maintained with the two other planning area officials and with\nProvincial Government departments, and co-operation was freely extended.\nThe influence and interests of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in settlements in\nthe Peace River area were given attention with a view of taking the best planning action\nindicated.\nJ. H. Doughty-Davies,\nDirector, Regional Planning Division.\nPrinted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty\nin right of the Province of British Columbia.\n1958\n860-258-4102","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Legislative proceedings","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier":[{"value":"J110.L5 S7","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"1958_V03_15_FF1_FF20","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0354522","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"English","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"Victoria, BC : Government Printer","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source":[{"value":"Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS REPORT for the Year Ended December 31st 1957","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}