DISTRICT OF MISSION - - PDF document

DISTRICT OF MISSION

• PUBLIC BUDGET

CONSULTATION MEETING MARCH 17, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGES Introduction ......................................................................................................1 Council’s Goals & Objectives ..........................................................................2 - 5 Provisional Operating Plans/Budgets.............................................................6 – 8 Property Tax Revenue from New Construction..............................................9 Public Safety and Transit.................................................................................10 – 12 Municipal Grants ..............................................................................................13 – 14 Summary of Provisional Budgets/Tax Increases ...........................................15 – 16 Tax Classes.......................................................................................................17 Permissive & Revitalization Tax Exemptions .................................................18 – 19 Capital Plans.....................................................................................................20 Utilities .............................................................................................................21 - 26 Debt .................................................................................................................27 Property Assessments and Taxation ..............................................................28 Overall Increase in Municipal Taxes & Utilities ..............................................29 Taxing Authorities ............................................................................................30 Concluding Remarks........................................................................................30 District of Mission Elected Officials and Officers...........................................31

Page 1

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• INTRODUCTION
• Council is pleased to present its financial operating and capital plans/budgets to the community.

These financial plans/budgets are focused on achieving council and community goals/objectives and maintaining the current level of municipal services. These plans/budgets represent a balance between the present and the future and between the need for new services/programs and related taxation levels. In striking this balance, Council recognizes that difficult choices or decisions have to be made, especially considering the many needs within our growing community. Before final budget decisions are made, Council would appreciate your feedback and input. The District’s financial plans/ budgets represent Council’s proposed balance between the present and the future and between the need for new services/ programs and related taxation levels.

Page 2

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• COUNCIL’S GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Waterfront To develop a long-term, comprehensive, multi-use development plan for the waterfront

with maximum community involvement so that it reflects the vision and aspirations of the community. Progress to Date:

Council endorsed a planning process for the waterfront area and a major charrette

planning session (facilitated by a consultant) was held in August of 2006. The planning session resulted in an overall Waterfront Conceptual Plan.

Public meetings were held in October of 2006 to garner feedback on the Waterfront

Conceptual Plan. A staff report outlining the next steps, in terms of the planning process, was then forwarded to council in January of 2007.

Various applications were made to federal/provincial grant programs in February of

2007 to obtain funds for more detailed waterfront planning including related studies.

The District was advised in the fall of 2007 that the various grant applications were

• unsuccessful. Staff will be reporting to council in early 2008 outlining alternate

grant/funding strategies to further Mission’s vision for the waterfront area.

Progress has been made with designing a highway bypass, as well as identifying

property for a new civic complex.

Crime Reduction To adopt, implement and review the three-year Strategic Policing Plan with the following

five priorities:

• Youth involvement in crime;
• Public disorder;
• Property crimes;
• Traffic safety; and
• Drug activity associated with organized crime.

Progress to Date:

Additional policing resources have resulted in a steady and marked reduction in crime

(17% drop from 2006 to 2007), including break and enters, thefts, assaults, and property damage.

A comprehensive Policing Strategic Plan was adopted by council in December of

• 2007. This Plan provides for an incremental increase in RCMP members on an annual

basis.

To review with the Crystal Meth Task Force its recommendations and identify priorities

and to secure funding for treatment/detox facilities. Progress To Date:

Council met with the Crystal Meth Task Force in June of 2007. A staff report will be

forwarded to council.

Page 3

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• COUNCIL’S GOALS & OBJECTIVES cont’d

Social Development To

• develop a Social Development Strategy for Mission that describes the priority action

areas related to the social well-being of residents and outlines where the various agencies and jurisdictions (including the District) will partner together to support, advocate for and/or deliver specific community services or initiatives. Progress to Date:

The Social Development Committee was formed in February of 2006 and the first

committee meeting was held in December of 2006.

An initial Phase I draft of Mission’s Social Development Plan was completed in

December of 2007. Council adopted a Social Development Plan implementation strategy in November of 2007.

A Community Planning Session was held on February 7 & 8, 2008, to finalize the

social development strategy.

To increase the recognition of, and support for, community involvement and

volunteerism in Mission. Progress to Date:

A community involvement and volunteerism strategy is being drafted and is due to be

presented to council around the middle of 2008. This strategy will explore various methods of increasing volunteerism in the community.

To continue to implement the Arts and Cultural Strategy by reviewing and identifying

specific actions which need to be addressed.

• Progress to Date:

A Cultural Resources Commission has been formed to implement council’s previously

adopted arts and culture strategy. Council recently approved budget funds for this Committee.

Silverdale Neighbourhood To ensure compliance and community awareness of the Silverdale Urban Residential

Neighbourhood Planning Terms of Reference for any new development in South West Mission. Progress to Date:

Council, in consultation with the community, has adopted a detailed neighbourhood

planning process with related milestone timelines for development of the first neighbourhood plan in South West Mission. The first neighbourhood plan is targeted for completion in July of 2008.

Page 4

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• COUNCIL’S GOALS & OBJECTIVES cont’d

Environment To create an Environmental Charter so that all residents and businesses understand and

practice what is expected of them in regards to the District’s environmental policies, regulations and practices. Progress to Date:

The District’s environmental services manager is in the process of drafting an

Environmental Charter for the District of Mission, which is due to be presented to council by the middle of 2008.

To

• have the District take a leadership role in demonstrating exemplary environmental

practice within all its policies and operations. Progress to Date:

The following actions have occurred to date:

• District recently signed on to the Province’s Climate Action Charter
• A ban on the disposal of recyclable materials at the landfill has been

implemented

• Have diverted brush and clean wood waste from the landfill through

composting and re-sale of compost material

• A landfill gas collection system (green energy production) is being

evaluated

• Innovative rainwater management practices are being implemented
• A rain barrel program has been initiated to promote water conservation

This objective will be addressed further through the above noted Environmental

Charter.

Official Community Plan To adopt and implement a revised Official Community Plan (OCP) that reflects the

aspirations of the community. Progress to Date:

Various draft versions of the new Official Community Plan (OCP) have been

reviewed by council, staff and the public. The final OCP, which will incorporate the feedback received, is expected to go to a public hearing in 2008.

• To
• create a means for residents and neighbourhood associations to undertake

neighbourhood planning. Progress to Date:

This project will proceed after the new Official Community Plan (OCP) is adopted by

council.

Page 5

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• COUNCIL’S GOALS & OBJECTIVES cont’d

Economic Development/Employment Opportunities To facilitate the sale of 85% of the properties within the new industrial park.

Progress to Date:

As of January of 2008, 80% of the properties have been sold, three development

permits have been issued, and one building is under construction.

To expand post secondary opportunities in Mission.

Progress to Date:

A meeting was held with University College of the Fraser Valley (UCFV) and the

province’s Advanced Education Minister in September of 2007.

Staff are presently working towards a joint meeting with Ministry and UCFV

representatives and towards making a formal application for a Crown Land Grant.

A task force, created by the Economic Development Committee, will investigate

expanding post-secondary, technical and trades training opportunities in Mission.

To continue to support the implementation of Mission’s Economic Development

Strategy. Progress to Date:

Based on the economic development officer’s (EDO) work plan, 26 of the 31 action

items have been completed and the balance initiatives are ongoing.

To increase the amount of designated OCP employment and industrial property to meet

future needs. Progress to Date:

Completion of an employment land strategy is part of the proposed South West

Mission development. An overall District plan will be completed once the OCP is adopted by council.

To attract and retain commercial businesses.

Progress to Date:

Mission’s economic development officer has assisted 115 businesses in 2007.

To develop strategies and identify actions to improve the vitality and attractiveness of

the Mission Downtown. Progress to Date:

A Downtown Revitalization Task Force was formed by council in the spring of 2007. A valuable Crime Reduction Workshop was held with the various stakeholders in

September of 2007. Several elected officials and staff members from the City of Nanaimo were present at the workshop to share effective strategies implemented in their community.

Page 6

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• Expenditures and Transfers - 2008 Budget

(Total $43,799,988) Police Services 18.67% Fire/Rescue Service 3.90% Building & Bylaw Enforcement 3.58% Public Transit 3.20% Debt Repayment and Transfers to Reserves 8.93% Social Services 0.41% Library & Facilities 2.59% Parks, Recreation & Culture 10.34% Utility Operations (Water, Sewer & Refuse includes transfer to Captial Reserves) 22.14% Corporate Administration & Finance 10.74% Engineering & Public Works 11.31% Planning & Economic Development 3.60% Other Costs 0.60%

Expenditures and Transfers - 2009 Budget

(Total $46,369,401) Social Services 0.39% Library & Facilities 2.59% Fire/Rescue Service 4.42% Building & Bylaw Enforcement 3.97% Debt Repayment and Transfers to Reserves) 8.72% Public Transit 3.81% Parks, Recreation & Culture 10.18% Utility Operations (Water, Sewer, & Refuse includes transfer to Captial Reserves) 22.49% Corporate Administration & Finance 10.21% Engineering & Public Works 11.09% Other Costs 0.67% Planning & Economic Development 2.56% Police Services 19.01% Expenditures and Transfers - 2010 Budget (Total $48,786,418)

Other Costs 0.66% Planning & Economic Development 2.51% Police Services 19.01% Fire & Rescue Services 5.16% Social Services 0.38% Building and Bylaw Enforcement 3.39% Library & Facilities 2.56% Debt Repayment and Transfers to Reserves) 9.32% Public Transit 3.79% Parks, Recreation & Culture 9.90% Utility Operations (Water, Sew er & Refuse includes transfer to Captial Reserves) 22.55% Corporate Administration & Finance 9.91% Engineering & Public Works 10.86%

• PROVISIONAL OPERATING PLANS/BUDGETS

The District’s 2008, 2009, and 2010 provisional operating plans/budgets, both expenditures and revenues, are highlighted below. The District’s Forestry area is not reflected in the figures and graphs, as it is a self-sufficient business enterprise that aims to cover all of its costs and to generate profit that can be used for other municipal purposes.

• Expenditures
• Planned/budgeted operating expenditures total $43,799,988, $46,369,401, and

$48,786,418, in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Utility operations, police services and engineering/public works continue to be the larger slices of the expenditure “pie”. The utility operating expenditures are offset or covered by user fees (see revenues on page 7).

• Budgeted
• perating

expenditures total $43.8 million, $46.4 million, and $48.8 million, in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively.

Page 7

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• Revenues and Transfers - 2008 Budget

(Total $43,799,988) Property Taxation 54.10% Transfers 0.76% Long-Term Debt 0.19% Special Levies, Grants in Lieu & Utility Co.Taxes 2.91% User Rates 25.56% Contributions from Other Gov't Agencies 1.60% Other Revenue (incl property rentals & leases) 0.46% Recoveries 6.02% Investment Income 0.52% Sale of Services 5.88% Licences, Permits & Fines 2.01% Revenues and Transfers - 2009 Budget (Total $46,369,401) Investment Income 0.53% Recoveries 5.79% Licences, Permits & Fines 1.96% Contributions from Other Gov't Agencies 1.54% Other Revenue (incl property rentals & leases) 0.30% Transfers 0.36% Long-Term Debt 0.24% Sale of Services 5.74% User Rates 25.79% Special Levies, Grants in Lieu & Utility Co.Taxes 2.85% Property Taxation 54.90% Revenues and Transfers - 2010 Budget

(Total $48,786,418) Property Taxation 55.40% Special Levies, Grants in Lieu & Utility Co. Taxes 2.77% User Rates 26.38% Sale of Services 5.67% Contributions from Other Gov't Agencies 1.50% Licences, Permits & Fines 1.89% Long-Term Debt 0.29% Transfers 0.28% Recoveries 5.02% Other Revenue (incl property rentals & leases) 0.29% Investment Income 0.50%

PROVISIONAL OPERATING PLANS/BUDGETS cont’d

Revenues

• About 54% of the District’s services are paid for through property taxes. The balance of the costs

are paid for through

• ther

municipal revenues/transfers (non-property tax based revenues/transfers), e.g. sale of services, user rates, property rentals, investment income, contributions from other governments and agencies, etc. The District’s various budgeted revenue sources for 2008, 2009 and 2010 are highlighted in the graphs below.

Page 8

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• 54.1%

45.9% 54.9% 45.1% 55.4% 44.6%

$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 2008 2009 2010

Revenues

Other Revenues Property Taxes

• PROVISIONAL OPERATING PLANS/BUDGETS cont’d

Revenues cont’d

• Council has taken a proactive approach to generating other municipal revenues by instituting a

formal fee review process and by approving certain multi-year fee increases. This approach will reduce our dependence on property taxes over the long run.

Fees and charges are formally reviewed on an annual basis. For every 1% increase in property taxes, approximately $204,256 of tax revenue (for 2008) is generated for municipal services or programs.

Page 9

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• $412,813 $385,565

$128,525 $352,776 $183,642 $288,749 $629,719 $508,072 $468,173 $560,504 $435,266

$- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

History of New Construction Revenue

• PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION

Each year, the property taxes that are generated from newly constructed properties (construction of new buildings and improvements as well as development of land) are used to pay for a portion of the added cost of municipal services. $435,266 of new construction revenue from new property assessments has been factored into the District’s 2008 budget. $400,000 of this amount is being utilized to reduce overall 2008 property taxes and the balance is being directed to reserves. $400,000 of base new construction revenue has also been estimated for each of 2009 and 2010, for planning purposes, and is again being used to reduce property taxation levels. Mission’s property assessment growth can be attributed, for the most part, to newly constructed residential homes, as opposed to new business or industrial

• development. Council has been working diligently at diversifying the District’s

tax/assessment base, through initiatives like a new industrial business park.

Approximately $435,266 of property tax revenue from newly constructed or developed property has been factored into the 2008 budget. Business and industrial development has a very beneficial effect on the District’s finances.

Page 10

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• $0

$2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 2007 2008 2009 2010

Policing Budget

Total Policing Budget Net Policing Budget (Expenditures less Revenues)

• PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSIT
• Council’s priorities are centered on public safety and transit. Policing, fire and emergency services,

and bylaw enforcement have been given priority in terms of public safety while new transit initiatives such as an additional bus transit route, more frequent Valley MAX bus service between Mission and Abbotsford, and the West Coast Train Bus Service have been given a priority in terms of transit.

Policing

As noted earlier, a large portion of the District’s budget is directed to policing. Mission RCMP detachment members are being added annually on an incremental basis to achieve council’s longer-term strategic policing plan. Part of Mission’s strategic policing plan involves participating, together with a number of other communities throughout the lower mainland, in a number of specialized and integrated police services that enhance public safety. These units consist of the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team (IHIT), the Emergency Response Team (ERT), Police Dog Services (PDS), Forensic Investigation Services (FIS) and Integrated Collision Reconstruction. These specialized units allow the RCMP to respond to crime and emergencies in a coordinated manner and with a level of resources that would not otherwise be available to individual

• municipalities. These units, however, do add to the level of policing costs.

The magnitude and impact of rising policing costs and added police resources is shown in the graphs below. Traffic fine sharing revenue received from the Province of BC offsets in a small way, part of the cost of additional policing resources.

• Mission’s

strategic policing plan involves participating, with a number

• f other

communities in the lower mainland, in a number of specialized and integrated police services that enhance public safety.

Page 11

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• Policing Costs as a Percentage of Property Taxes

35.21% 35.63% 33.81% 34.11% 33.88% 32.14% 32.13% 30.69% 31.20% 31.07%

28% 29% 30% 31% 32% 33% 34% 35% 36% 37%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Policing Costs Net Policing Budget [Expenditures less Revenues (mostly traffic fine sharing revenue)]

• PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSIT cont’d
• Composite Fire Department

Council recently approved the Mission Fire/Rescue Service 10-Year Master

• Plan. The Plan embraces the transition from a career administrative staff and

purely paid on-call volunteer fire fighter organization to a composite model consisting of career administrative staff and a combination of career fire fighters and paid on-call volunteer fire fighters. The Master Plan identifies that there will be 16 career fire fighters hired over a 4- year period beginning in July 2009. Strategically speaking, the transition to a composite department will begin with the hiring of a career Captain and three career fire fighters on July 1, 2009, and will continue with the same complement increase in each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. The Master Plan also identifies that the 16 career fire fighters will be assigned to Fire Station #1 located on Seventh Avenue. Upon completion of the 4-year hiring process, these career fire fighters will provide 24/7 coverage to the core area of the community as well as provide response to the rural areas as required.

Mission’s Fire/ Rescue Service will be moving towards a composite fire department starting in 2009, with the addition

• f career (full-

time) fire fighters.

Page 12

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSIT cont’d
• Transit

Council’s budget includes several transit initiatives, all aimed at increasing the level of transit convenience which is directly related to transit use. The budget provides for a third bus route in Mission (officially started in January 2008). This additional route provides improved service to central Mission and better linkage to the Cedar Valley area. An expanded Shopper Shuttle Service coverage area (almost doubled) and introductory transit service to Hatzic Bench were also implemented.

• The
• District is also proposing to increase peak time transit service, beginning in

September of 2008, on the Abbotsford-Mission commuter route, by increasing the frequency of this service to 15 minute intervals from the current 30 minute service, thereby cutting wait times in half. It is important to proceed with this service improvement as the connector buses will link up with the increased service being implemented in Abbotsford. Council has also provided funds for further transit improvements in 2009, however, a decision has not been made as to whether those improvements will be in the form of an additional fourth bus route or an increase in the frequency of service on existing bus routes. Other transit initiatives currently being considered include:

A UCFV U-pass - the concept is that each student, upon payment of a

set fee at the time of school registration, will be provided with a bus pass. This initiative requires further study before implementation can be considered.

Completion of a rider and stakeholder survey in the spring of 2008, to get

a snapshot of how people feel about the transit service and what improvements they would like to see.

An update of the five-year transit business plan to set the course for

future growth of the system.

A review of other avenues for revenue generation, besides general

taxation and fares, such as a gas tax.

• A third bus

route was added in January of 2008, resulting in improved transit service throughout Mission, including better linkages to the Cedar Valley area. Council has provided funds for further transit improvements in 2009, however, no decision has been made as to what form these services will take.

Page 13

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• MUNICIPAL GRANTS

Fee-for-Service Grants

Council recently undertook a comprehensive review of the services provided to Mission residents through our partner organizations and the related fee-for-service grant levels that the District provides to these organizations. The District had not increased fee-for-service grants for many years, yet the cost to these organizations of providing community services has increased incrementally each year. As a result of this review, Council is now providing for incremental annual increases for these organizations (2%, 5%, and 5%, for 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively, for most of the organizations). In addition, Council decided that budgeted funding for two new programs being offered through Mission Community Services should be provided. Together, all fee-for-service grant increases total $12,047 for 2008, $11,557 of which is funded via a 0.06% tax increase. Name of Organization 2007 Grant Amount 2008 Grant Amount 2009 Grant Amount 2010 Grant Amount Mission Arts Council $24,850 $25,347 $26,614 $27,945 Mission Adopt-A-Block ** $24,500 $24,990 $26,240 $27,551 Mission Historical Society $66,780 $68,116 $71,521 $75,097 Mission Heritage Society $10,300 $10,300 $10,815 $11,356 Mission Chamber of Commerce $30,900 $30,900 $32,445 $34,067 Mission Search & Rescue $4,737 $4,737 $4,737 $4,737 Mission Humane Society $21,200 $21,624 $22,705 $23,840 Mission Lawn Bowling $5,000 $5,100 $5,355 $5,623 Mission Lifetime Learning Adult Education $10,000 $10,200 $10,710 $11,246 Mission Community Services ARC $0 $4,000 $8,000 $12,000 Mission Community Services Seniors $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 Totals $198,267 $210,314 $229,142 $248,462 Estimated increase in taxes N/A 0.06% 0.13% 0.21%

** Funding from the Refuse Reserve (not taxes)

• Council has

provided for small annual increases to fee-for-service grant

• rganizations

in its 3-year

• perating plan.

Page 14

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• MUNICIPAL GRANTS cont’d

Other Municipal Grants

Council provides a number of Municipal grants-in-aid to not-for-profit organizations each year. These grants are directed at fulfilling the District’s Mission Statement, which is, “. . . to build a safe, healthy and inclusive community that is abundant in economic, cultural and recreational

• pportunities”. A total budget of about $168,000 is directed to these grant programs.

A Municipal Grants Select Committee reviews all grant applications and forwards recommendations to council. Grants are provided under the following categories:

Arts & Cultural Grants (2008 budget of $46,000) Recreation & Social Services (2008 budget of $ 22,500) Clarke Theatre (2008 budget of $41,000) Community Events Grants (2008 budget of $43,300) Youth (2008 budget of $5,000) Other Grants (2008 budget of $10,500)

Page 15

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• Budget Dollars

Tax Increase in % Policing Services (RCMP contract & integrated services) 574,100.00 2.81% Wage & benefit increases 543,916.00 2.66% Transit (conventional & handi-dart) 42,131.00 0.21% Other Increases (contracts, inflation, insurance, etc.) 453,420.00 2.22%

Subtotal to Maintain Existing Services

1,613,567.00 7.90% Police Services 58,500.00 0.29% Fire & Emergency Services 90,950.00 0.45% Transit (3rd transit route, Valley MAX, West Coast Express Train Bus) 129,830.00 0.64% Other Transit - Week-end Train Bus Service ** 22,105.00 0.11% Security for museum & library 43,500.00 0.21% Bylaw enforcement 34,715.00 0.17% Administrative Support 39,320.00 0.19% Grants 16,557.00 0.08% Social Development & Heritage Commission 15,400.00 0.08%

Subtotal for New or Enhanced Services

450,877.00 2.21% New construction/development revenue (400,000.00)

• 1.96%

Increase in fees and other revenue (193,923.00)

• 0.95%

Subtotal for Additional Revenue Increases

(593,923.00)

• 2.91%

Total Budget & Tax Increase - 2008

1,470,521.00 $ 7.20%

** Subject to a final decision

2008

Cost of Maintaining Existing Services Cost of New or Enhanced Services Revenue Increases

• SUMMARY OF PROVISIONAL BUDGETS/TAX INCREASES
• The District’s provisional budget dollars and related tax increases are shown below. The proposed

municipal tax increase for 2008 is 7.20%, 2.21% of which is for new or enhanced services (mostly policing and public safety initiatives). The provisional tax increases shown for 2009 and 2010 are preliminary base rates at this point and are subject to change in the future. These base rates include provision for transition to a composite fire department (combination of paid career/full-time and paid on-call volunteer force) from a strictly paid on-call volunteer force.

Page 16

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• Budget Dollars

Tax Increase in % Policing Services (RCMP contract & integrated services) 284,962.00 1.18% Wage & benefit increases 391,171.00 1.63% Transit 11,512.00 0.05% Other Increases (contracts, inflation, insurance, etc.) 441,630.00 1.83%

Subtotal to Maintain Existing Services

1,129,275.00 4.69% Police Services 128,700.00 0.54% Grants 18,010.00 0.07%

Subtotal for New or Enhanced Services

146,710.00 0.61% New construction/development revenue (400,000.00)

• 1.66%

Increase in fees and other revenue (154,014.00)

• 0.64%

Subtotal of Additional Revenue Increases

(554,014.00)

• 2.30%

Budget & Tax Increase Prior to Composite Fire

721,971.00 $ 3.00% Combination of career/fulltime and volunteer force 396,172.00 1.65%

Subtotal for Composite Fire Department

396,172.00 1.65%

Total Budget & Tax Increase - 2010

1,118,143.00 $ 4.65%

Move to Composite Fire Department Cost of Maintaining Existing Services Cost of New or Enhanced Services Revenue Increases

2010

Budget Dollars Tax Increase in % Policing Services (RCMP contract & integrated services) 398,982.00 1.78% Wage & benefit increases 403,708.00 1.81% Other Increases (contracts, inflation, insurance, etc.) 362,384.00 1.62%

Subtotal to Maintain Existing Services

1,165,074.00 5.21% Police Services 192,500.00 0.86% Fire & Emergency Services 66,525.00 0.30% Transit 161,258.00 0.72% Grants 17,578.00 0.08% Leisure Centre and Parks Vandalism 18,940.00 0.08% Operating costs for Urban Trails 13,500.00 0.06%

Subtotal for New or Enhanced Services

470,301.00 2.10% New construction/development revenue (400,000.00)

• 1.79%

Increase in fees and other revenue (135,533.00)

• 0.61%

Subtotal of Additional Revenue Increases

(535,533.00)

• 2.40%

Budget & Tax Increase Prior to Composite Fire

1,099,842.00 $ 4.92% Combination of career/fulltime and volunteer force 205,321.00 0.92%

Subtotal for Composite Fire Department

205,321.00 0.92%

Total Budget & Tax Increase - 2009

1,305,163.00 $ 5.84%

2009

Cost of Maintaining Existing Services Cost of New or Enhanced Services Move to Composite Fire Department Revenue Increases

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONAL BUDGETS/TAX INCREASES cont’d

Page 17

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• TAX CLASSES

The various assessment/tax classes are highlighted below, together with the 2008 assessed values for each class and the percentage of municipal taxes that the District collects from each class. Approximately 75% of municipal taxes are levied from the residential tax class and about 19% from business. No taxes are collected from the major industry tax class as the District does not currently have any properties that fall under this assessment/tax class. The percentage of taxes that the District collects from each of the tax classes has traditionally remained around the same, except for the utility tax class which has been the subject of provincial legislation. Provincial legislation has resulted in major erosion of the District’s utility class assessment base and related tax levy,

• ver the last 10 years or so, by eliminating and/or reducing railway property

assessments.

Property Class 2008 Assessed Values(1) % of Municipal Property Taxes Collected from Each Tax Class Residential

$4,438,891,802 75.52%

Utilities

$5,495,215 1.11%

Major Industry

$0 0.00%

Light Industry

$53,329,900 3.08%

Business/Other

$332,784,806 19.47%

Managed Forest

$38,500 0.00%(2)

Recreational/Non-Profit

$17,522,900 0.57%

Farm

$2,957,468 0.25%

Total

$4,851,020,591 100.00%

(1) Assessment Information provided from the BCAA 2008 Completed Roll (2) Dollars raised are so small that the percentage registers as 0.00%

Approximately 75% of municipal taxes are levied from the residential tax class and about 19% from business.

Page 18

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• PERMISSIVE & REVITALIZATION TAX EXEMPTIONS

According to the Community Charter, council has the option to exempt certain properties (or portions thereof) from municipal taxes for up to ten years in the form of permissive and revitalization tax exemptions. In terms of revitalization tax exemptions, council has created a tax revitalization bylaw for property owners in the downtown area to encourage redevelopment of the downtown

• core. This bylaw exempts property owners, upon application, for the assessed portion of any

renovations/upgrades to their property and from related municipal property taxes, for up to ten years (phased out after five years). The estimated tax impact of the District’s permissive and revitalization tax exemptions provided for in our 3-year plan, is shown below:

ESTIMATED MUNICIPAL TAX EXEMPTIONS* OWNER/OCCUPIER 2008 2009 2010

PERMISSIVE TAX EXEMPTIONS All Saints Anglican Church & Manse*** $ 4,038.70 $ 4,274.56 $ 4,473.33 Christian & Missionary Alliance *** $ 10,083.74 $ 10,672.63 $ 11,168.91 Foursquare Gospel Church*** $ 13,267.03 $ 14,041.82 $ 14,694.76 Greek Orthodox Church*** $ 2,638.01 $ 2,792.07 $ 2,921.90 **Fraser House Society $ 2,501.77 $ 2,647.87 $ 2,771.00 Mennonite Brethren Church*** $ 10,667.54 $ 11,290.52 $ 11,815.53 Mission Association for Community $ 2,511.14 $ 2,657.79 $ 2,781.38 Living $ 1,878.67 $ 1,988.38 $ 2,080.84 $ 2,033.27 $ 2,152.01 $ 2,252.08 Subtotals $ 6,423.08 $ 6,798.18 $ 7,114.30 Mission Assoc. for Seniors Housing $ 28,564.21 $ 30,232.36 $ 31,638.16 Mission Community Services Society $ 13,905.20 $ 14,717.26 $ 15,401.61 Mission Daycare Society (Heritage Park Child Care Centre) $ 3,007.74 $ 3,183.39 $ 3,331.42 Mission Evangelical Free Church*** $ 2,909.61 $ 3,079.53 $ 3,222.73 Mission Gur Sikh Society*** $ 49,399.90 $ 52,284.85 $ 54,716.10 **Mission District Historical Society $ 882.90 $ 934.46 $ 977.91 $ 2,372.65 $ 2,511.21 $ 2,627.98 Subtotals $ 3,255.55 $ 3,445.67 $ 3,605.89 Mission Elks Lodge #30 $ 3,102.13 $ 3,283.29 $ 3,435.96 **Mission Horse Club $ 171.28 $ 181.28 $ 189.71 $ 2,840.93 $ 3,006.84 $ 3,146.66 Subtotals $ 3,012.21 $ 3,188.12 $ 3,336.37 **Mission Chamber of Commerce $ 11,943.22 $ 12,640.70 $ 13,228.49 Mission Zion Christian Fellowship*** $ 2,008.42 $ 2,125.71 $ 2,224.56 Mennonite Church of BC*** $ 15,730.22 $ 16,648.86 $ 17,423.03

• Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church***

$ 12,762.33 $ 13,507.65 $ 14,135.76 North Valley Baptist Church*** $ 9,611.28 $ 10,172.58 $ 10,645.60 **New Horizons Lawn Bowling $ 379.94 $ 402.13 $ 420.83 Association $ 1,623.38 $ 1,718.19 $ 1,798.09 Subtotals $ 2,003.32 $ 2,120.32 $ 2,218.92 Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada*** $ 13,747.81 $ 14,550.68 $ 15,227.29 **Pleasant View Housing Society $ 20,726.27 $ 21,936.68 $ 22,956.74 $ 10,306.92 $ 10,908.84 $ 11,416.10 Subtotals $ 31,033.19 $ 32,845.52 $ 34,372.84

Page 19

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• PERMISSIVE & REVITALIZATION TAX EXEMPTIONS cont’d

ESTIMATED MUNICIPAL TAX EXEMPTIONS* OWNER/OCCUPIER 2008 2009 2010

• St. Clare's Monastery ***

$ 8,111.74 $ 8.585.47 $ 8,984.69

• St. Joseph's Catholic Church***

$ 21,139.42 $ 22,373.96 $ 23,414.35 Seventh Day Adventist Church*** $ 15,484.62 $ 16,388.92 $ 17,151.00 Silverdale Community Centre $ 1,161.87 $ 1,229.72 $ 1,286.90 $ 3,901.33 $ 4,129.17 $ 4,321.18 Subtotals $ 5,063.20 $ 5,358.89 $ 5,608.08 Silverhill Hall Association $ 2,092.72 $ 2,214.93 $ 2,317.92

• St. Andrew's United Church***

$ 5,983.65 $ 6,333.10 $ 6,627.59

• St. Paul's Presbyterian Church***

$ 13,553.21 $ 14,344.72 $ 15,011.75 Sto:Lo Heritage Trust Society $ 3,499.66 $ 3,704.04 $ 3,876.28 The Mel Jr. & Marty Zajac Foundation $ 15,633.72 $ 16,546.73 $ 17,316.15 $ 45.91 $ 48.59 $ 50.85 $ 1,067.23 $ 1,129.56 $ 1,182.08 $ 2,272.21 $ 2,404.91 $ 2,516.74 Subtotals $ 19,019.07 $ 20,129.79 $ 21,065.82 Trustees of Mission City Congregation of church of God (7th Day)*** $ 1,729.53 $ 1,830.53 $ 1,915.65 Trustee of Mission Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses*** $ 7,581.01 $ 8,023.74 $ 8,396.84 West Heights Gospel Chapel*** $ 2,664.02 $ 2,819.60 $ 2,950.71 Women's Resource Society of the Fraser Valley $ 2,023.90 $ 2,142.10 $ 2,241.71 Royal Canadian Legion Branch #57 $ 4,797.32 $ 5,077.48 $ 5,313.58 **Steelhead Community Association $ 651.21 $ 689.24 $ 721.29 TOTAL $ 369,010.49 $ 390,560.65 $ 408,721.72 REVITALIZATION TAX EXEMPTIONS Chu, Ramona & Edmond $ 2,086.56 $ 2,208.42 $ 2,311.11 Mauricon Developments $ 5,060.69 $ 5,356.23 $ 5,605.29 TOTAL $ 7,147.25 $ 7,564.65 $ 7,916.40 * Includes Municipal levies (general, policing and library rates) but excludes School, FVRD, FVRHD, BCAA, and MFA levies ** Denotes property owned by the District of Mission *** Does not include statutory tax exemptions provided to church property via legislation

Page 20

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• 2008

2009 2010 2011 2012

General Capital Program Corporate Administration 46,961 $ 18,120 $ 3,120 $ 56,600 $ 14,560 $ Engineering - General Drainage 546,898 187,928 247,775 49,140 32,760 Engineering - General Roads & Miscellaneous 1,022,758 189,456 153,056 183,650 144,520 Finance & Purchasing 24,337 4,160 4,160 4,160 4,160 Fire/Rescue Services 71,996 22,672 22,672 22,672 86,736 Forestry 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 General Government - Major Projects 128,000 1,732,120 2,618,408 1,560,000

• Information Services

122,490 282,786 238,286 180,786 188,000 Inspection Services 94,890 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 Parks, Recreation & Culture 1,198,962 390,960 459,160 110,760 602,390 Planning 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 Police Services 131,880 2,080 102,880 2,080 4,160 Public Works 200,839 64,163

• 46,831

Subtotal General Capital Program 3,608,731 $ 2,916,285 $ 3,871,357 $ 2,191,688 $ 1,145,957 $ Waste Management Capital Program 3,968,425 $ 561,488 $ 62,717 $ 63,971 $ 65,251 $ Development Cost Charge (DCC) Capital Program Cedar Valley Environmentally Sensitive Parkland 76,477 $ 14,251 $

• $
• $
• $

Cedar Valley Drainage 286,976 507,775 1,981,909 144,600 1,135,700 Cedar Valley Roads 80,000 1,781,400 188,000 7,000 1,877,000 Mission Roads & Industrial Subdivision 245,000 901,400 188,000 7,000

• Silver Creek Parkway Parkland

75,000 75,000 642,060 214,893 154,545 Subtotal Development Cost Charge (DCC) Capital Program 763,453 $ 3,279,826 $ 2,999,969 $ 373,493 $ 3,167,245 $ Equipment Replacement Capital Program 1,223,936 $ 288,840 $ 1,546,648 $ 889,576 $ 311,844 $ Water Utility Capital Program Cedar Valley Water DCC Capital

• $

496,400 $

• $

217,000 $

• $

Water Capital - Non-Regional 679,201 1,820,479 370,516 366,143 368,114 Water Capital - Regional 2,759,670 3,498,750 2,302,633 56,377 68,372 Water DCC Capital - Regional 1,200,772 299,875

• 249,496

5,177,042 Subtotal Water Utility Capital 4,639,643 $ 6,115,504 $ 2,673,149 $ 889,016 $ 5,613,528 $ Sewer Utility Capital Program Sewer Capital - Non-Regional 1,231,819 $ 3,001,144 $ 931,149 $ 703,249 $ 345,291 $ Sewer Capital - Regional 647,900 442,188 318,874 302,785 50,862 Sewer DCC Capital - Regional 3,951,917 2,514,638

• 3,675,766

165,789 Subtotal Water Utility Capital 5,831,636 $ 5,957,970 $ 1,250,023 $ 4,681,800 $ 561,942 $

TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

20,035,824 $ 19,119,913 $ 12,403,863 $ 9,089,544 $ 10,865,767 $

Capital Expenditures Capital Funding Sources

$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 Surplus & Reserve Accounts $2,626,133 $577,088 $78,317 $79,571 $80,851 Neighbourhood Parkland Reserve 291,200

• 291,200
• Development Cost Charges

4,327,298 6,419,242 2,969,969 4,352,771 8,388,903 Reserve Funds 9,231,208 8,695,792 5,267,019 3,097,202 2,396,013 Other External Funding 247,906 1,422,200 2,308,488 1,560,000

• Grants

3,312,079 2,005,591 1,488,870

• 2008

2009 2010 2011 2012 Total $20,035,824 $19,119,913 $12,403,863 $9,089,544 $10,865,767

• CAPITAL PLANS
• The District’s capital spending programs/budgets span the next 15 to 30 years (depending upon the

capital program). The table below highlights planned capital spending over the next 5 years (2008 – 2012). The associated funding sources for these capital projects are highlighted in the graph. More specifics in terms of planned utility projects are provided in the following section.

Page 21

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• Water Operating Expenditures and Transfers

2008 Provisional Budget

(Total Expenditures & Transfers = $4,018,763)

Non-regional transfers $1,564,926 or 39% Non-regional operating expenditures, $1,215,491 or 30% Regional debt servicing costs $516,308 or 13% Regional operating expenditures, $722,038 or 18%

Sewer Operating Expenditures and Transfers

2008 Provisional Budget

(Total Expenditures & Transfers = $3,221,959) Non-regional debt servicing costs $ 56,127 or 2% Non-regional transfers $ 1,121,757 or 35% Non-regional operating expenditures, $962,034 or 30% Regional debt servicing costs $ 170,365 or 5% Regional operating expenditures, $911,676 or 28%

• UTILITIES

Water and Sewer

The District of Mission and the City of Abbotsford are joint partners in the major regional water supply and sewage treatment systems, which benefit residents in both communities. The District of Mission, like the City of Abbotsford, also owns and operates its own internal water distribution and sewer conveyance facilities. The maps that follow (see Figures 1 & 2) illustrate the extent and magnitude of these critical systems. Mission’s cost of operating its internal and regional utility infrastructure is highlighted below: User rate increases of 15% ($36.76) and 8% ($18.11) (for water and sewer respectively) are required in 2008 to ensure that the District of Mission can meet the community’s future needs in terms of water and sewer. Rate increases beyond 2008 will be dependent upon the exact timing of projects, the cost of construction and whether the District of Mission together with the City of Abbotsford is able to secure grants from the senior levels of government for vital water and sewer infrastructure. Regional water and sewer capital costs have risen dramatically (within the last two years by 40% on average). This has impacted the significant water and sewer capital spending programs that are required to renew or improve infrastructure and to provide for growth. The magnitude and highlights of the District’s utility capital programs are shown on the following pages.

Regional water and sewer capital costs have risen 40% over the last two years. In 2008, water user rates will increase by 15%

• r about $36 and

sewer user rates will increase by 8% or about $18.

Page 22

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• UTILITIES cont’d

WATER CAPITAL PROGRAMS

Name of Program Overall Cost

• f Program

Major Highlights General Water Distribution Capital (Non-Regional) $11.3 million 26-year internal water distribution system capital spending program.

• Bulk water supply to Wren & Highway # 7 is planned for

2008/2009 at $1.8 million

• Infrastructure replacement totals approximately $7.8 million

throughout the 26-year program Cedar Valley Water Distribution Development Cost Charge (DCC) Capital (Non-Regional) $3.3 million 26-year internal water distribution system capital spending program for the Cedar Valley area only (funded primarily by DCC levies from developers).

• Water main installation at Egglestone west of Cedar Street

is planned for 2009 at $495,000 Regional Water Non- DCC Capital $56.4 million (Mission’s share is $13.5 million) 20-year regional water supply capital spending program (costs are shared with the City of Abbotsford and are non-growth related).

• A Cannell Lake water treatment plant (stage 1) is planned

for 2008 to 2010 at $22.5 million (Mission’s share is $5.4 million) (the exact timing of project is dependent upon securing additional grant funds)

• Disinfection and upgrade of wells is planned for 2008/2009

at $5.3 million (Mission’s share is $1.3 million)

• Replacement of wells, sand filtration, and membranes,

$16.4 million throughout the 20-year program (Mission’s share is $3.9 million) Regional Water DCC Capital $229.6 million (Mission’s share is $55.1 million) 22-year regional water supply capital spending program funded primarily by developer DCC levies (costs are shared with the City of Abbotsford and are growth related).

• Maclure reservoir upgrades and new transmission main are

planned for 2011/2012 at $21.8 million (Mission’s share is $5.2 million)

• Norrish Creek water treatment plant upgrade is planned for

2015/2016 at $20.3 million (Mission’s share $4.9 million)

• Cannell Lake water treatment plant stage 2 is planned for

2019/2020 at $35.5 million (Mission’s share is $8.5 million)

• Cannell Lake water treatment plant stage 3 is planned for

2023/2024 at $35.5 million (Mission’s share is $8.5 million)

• New water supply source is planned for 2020 at $28.6

million (Mission’s share is $6.9 million) (project will most likely have to be advanced) Total Water Capital Spending $300.6 million (Mission’s total is $83.2 million

Page 23

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• UTILITIES cont’d
• SEWER CAPITAL PROGRAMS

Name of Program Overall Cost

• f Program

Major Highlights General Sewer Collection Capital Program (Non-Regional) $18.2 million 26-year internal sewer collection system capital spending program.

• Sewer extension east of Wren is planned for 2008 at

$655,200

• Booster pump station for river crossing is planned for 2009

at $1.7 million

• Health related extensions total approximately $6.6 million

throughout the 26-year program

• Infrastructure replacement totals approximately $6.8 million

throughout the 26-year program Regional Sewer Non- DCC Capital $11.8 million (Mission’s share is $2.5 million) 20-year regional sewage treatment capital spending program (costs are shared with the City of Abbotsford and are non- growth related).

• The bulk of these expenditures are currently due to occur
• ver the next 4 year period, distributed amongst numerous

smaller projects. Regional Sewer DCC Capital $129.8 million (Mission’s share is $27.3 million) 24-year regional sewage treatment capital spending program funded primarily by developer DCC levies (costs are shared with the City of Abbotsford and are growth related)

• Over one-third of these costs are planned to occur over the

next 4 year period

• Replacement of existing belt presses with centrifuges is

planned for 2008 at $4.5 million (Mission’s share is $1 million)

• Trickling filter #3 is planned for 2008/2009 at $13.9 million

(Mission’s share is $2.9 million) Total Sewer Capital Spending $159.8 million (Mission’s total is $48 million)

Page 24

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• FIGURE 1 - REGIONAL AND LOCAL WATER SYSTEMS

Page 25

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• FIGURE 2 – REGIONAL AND LOCAL SEWER SYSTEMS

Page 26

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• $534

$540 $541 $541 $541 $541 $541 $549 $558 $573 $590 $641 $717

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Recycling Refuse Water Sewer Total Utility Charges

UTILITIES cont’d

Refuse and Recycling

A 20% increase in refuse rates is needed in 2008 (rates will increase from $113.04 to $135.05 per year) to assist in resolving the leachate (contaminated water) breakout problem at the District’s landfill site. A waste water treatment plant may be needed at the landfill site to treat the leachate, which will cost up to $5.5 million, however, the District is currently exploring various options. The District has secured a $3.6 million infrastructure grant to partially offset the cost of a solution. Residential recycling user rates do not need to increase in 2008. These rates will remain at $56.28 per year for those in the urban area who have residential pick-up service and at $13.92 per year for those in the rural area who have drop off service

• nly.

Overall Utility Rates

Based on the previously noted water, sewer and refuse rate increases, overall, utility rates will increase by 12% from about $641 to $717 per year in 2008. A

• summary of the District’s utility rates, from 1996 forward, is provided in the graph

below: History of Utility Rates

In 2008, refuse rates will increase by 20%

• r about $22 and

recycling rates will remain the same as last year. Overall, utility rates will increase by 12%

• r about $76 in

2008.

Page 27

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• DEBT

The District currently has about $22.6 million of outstanding external debt. Debt payments (principal and interest payments) of about $2.2 million are required annually to service this debt. About $5.2 million or 23% of this debt is related to the regional water and sewer systems. This regional debt was incurred by the Fraser Valley Regional District, on behalf of the District of Mission and the City of Abbotsford, and was transferred on a proportionate basis to both Mission and Abbotsford when they became direct co-owners of the regional utility systems in 2005. The District always looks to borrow internally (from its own reserve funds) before resorting to external borrowing and also tries to take advantage of early debt payout options, finances permitting, when they become available. The District has been increasing capital transfers incrementally so that it has more capacity to finance capital projects internally, without debt. The District will be in a better position in the future to avoid debt if it increases capital transfers even further, e.g. through excess new construction revenue. Debt servicing costs on existing debt will decrease over the next few years. Outstanding External Debt as at December 31, 2007 Debt Principal Outstanding Annual Debt Servicing Costs on Outstanding Debt

General Debt (for Firehall/EOC Building and Leisure Centre/ Sports Park) $16,800,965 $1,460,381 Non-Regional Sewer Debt (for Cedar Valley sewer extension) – debt servicing is paid for by residents with the local improvement area $511,586 $56,127 Regional Sewer Debt (for regional sewer infrastructure) $1,635,103 $189,203 Regional Water Debt (for regional water infrastructure) $3,623,757 $521,727

Total External Debt Outstanding $22,571,411 $2,227,438

The District looks to borrow internally before resorting to external borrowing.

Page 28

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• $4,438,891,802

$5,495,215 $53,329,900 $332,784,806 $38,500 $17,522,900 $2,957,468

500,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 2,000,000,000 2,500,000,000 3,000,000,000 3,500,000,000 4,000,000,000 4,500,000,000

R e s i d e n t i a l U t i l i t i e s L i g h t I n d u s t r y B u s i n e s s / O t h e r M a n a g e d F

• r

e s t L a n d R e c r e a t i

• n

/ N

• n
• P

r

• f

i t F a r m

Estimated 2008 Assessed Property Values for District of Mission

• PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION

District of Mission residents received their property assessment notice from the B.C. Assessment Authority (BCAA) in January. Residential property values in Mission have once again increased – by 17.44% on average. People often wonder about the relationship between their assessed property value and their property taxes. To clarify, the District of Mission lowers its tax rate to compensate for higher property values. For example, if in 2008 the District raises

• verall taxes by 7.20%, then residents who experienced the average 17.44%

assessment increase would pay 7.20% more in municipal taxes. If one’s assessment rose by more than the 17.44% average, then one would have a tax increase that is more than the 7.20%. How much more depends on how much

• ne’s assessment increase exceeded the 17.44% average. Conversely, if one’s

assessment went up by less than the 17.44% average, then one would see a tax increase which is less than the 7.20%. How much less depends on how much below the average of 17.44% that one’s assessment increased by. The utility rate increases mentioned earlier and tax levies from other taxing authorities (provincial school taxes, regional district, regional hospital district, Fraser Valley Regional Library, Municipal Finance Authority and BC Assessment Authority levies), are also reflected on tax notices and will thus influence overall property taxes. The majority of the District’s assessment base is comprised of residential properties, with the business/other and light industrial classes being the next largest portions of the District of Mission’s assessment base (see graph below). Provincial legislation has resulted in major erosion of the District’s utility class assessment tax base, in the past, by eliminating and/or reducing railway property

• assessments. Council is working hard at diversifying Mission’s tax base.
• On average,

Mission residential property values have increased by 17.44%. Property assessments within the District total approximately $4.08 billion.

Page 29

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• 2007

2008 % Increase Dollar Increase

Average Assessed Value * 302,911 355,739 17.44% 52,828

A) For Residential Properties Connected to the Water & Sewer Systems

Municipal Taxes General Municipal Taxes 1,263.11 1,354.05 7.20% 90.94 Library Taxes 60.70 61.97 2.09% 1.27 Subtotal Municipal Taxes 1,323.81 1,416.02 6.97% 92.21 Municipal Utilities Water 245.08 281.84 15.00% 36.76 Sewer 226.40 244.51 8.00% 18.11 Refuse 113.04 135.65 20.00% 22.61 Recycling 56.28 56.28 0.00%

• 640.80

718.28 12.09% 77.48 Totals 1,964.61 2,134.30 8.64% 169.69

B) For Residential Properties With Only Rural Recycling

Municipal Taxes General Municipal Taxes 1,263.11 1,354.05 7.20% 90.94 Library Taxes 60.70 61.97 2.09% 1.27 Subtotal Municipal Taxes 1,323.81 1,416.02 6.97% 92.21 Municipal Utilities Rural Recycling 13.92 13.92 0.00%

• 13.92

13.92 0.00%

• Totals

1,337.73 1,429.94 6.89% 92.21 *Average increase; based on information from the BC Assessment Authority

Overall Increase in Municipal Taxes and Utilities for an Average Assessed Value Residential Property (Based on 7.20% Increase in General Municipal Taxes)

OVERALL INCREASE IN MUNICIPAL TAXES AND UTILITIES The impact of the 7.20% increase in general municipal taxes and the proposed utility rate increases, on an averaged assessed value home in Mission, for 2008, is highlighted below:

Page 30

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• 2007 Taxes Collected by Various Taxing Authorities

BC Assessment Authority $336,130 or 1% Fraser Valley Regional Hospital District $1,310,638 or 4% Municipal Taxes $20,396,053 or 54% Fraser Valley Regional Library $981,438 or 3% School Taxes $13,562,609 or 36% Fraser Valley Regional District $746,871 or 2% Municipal Finance Authority $1,170 or 0%

TAXING AUTHORITIES

In addition to its general municipal and library taxes, the District of Mission collects taxes for other taxing authorities on its tax notice. School taxes comprise the majority of these other taxes. Council has some input into the Fraser Valley Regional District and the Fraser Valley Regional Hospital District levies; however, Council has no say in the School, BC Assessment Authority, and Municipal Finance Authority tax levies.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Council is looking at a 7.20% municipal property tax increase for 2008. Spending is focused on public safety and transit. The budgeting process is all about making difficult choices and balancing present and future needs. As the District of Mission Council represents all citizens and taxpayers of Mission, it is important for you to voice your comments, regarding budgets and related services, to Council and/or staff.

Approximately 43% of all property taxes collected are levied on behalf of other taxing authorities. It is important for you to voice your comments regarding budgets and related services to Council and/or staff.

Page 31

Public Budget Consultation Meeting – March 17, 2008

• ELECTED OFFICIALS

Mayor James Atebe Councillor Scott Etches Councillor Terry Gidda Councillor Paul Horn

(Chair of Forestry)

(Chair of Engineering and Public Works) (Chair of Public Safety and Health)

• Councillor John Pearson Councillor Jenny Stevens

Councillor Heather Stewart

(Chair of Planning) (Chair of Administration and Finance) (Chair of Parks, Recreation and Culture)

• OFFICERS

Chief Administrative Officer………………………………………………… Glen Robertson Director of Corporate Administration……………………………………… Dennis Clark Director of Engineering & Public Works………………………………..… Rick Bomhof Director of Finance…………………………………………………………. Ken Bjorgaard Director of Forest Management…………………………………………… Kim Allan Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture……………………………….. Ray Herman Director of Planning … … … … … ... ……………………………………. Sharon Fletcher Fire Chief……………………………………………………………………. Frank Ryan Royal Canadian Mounted Police…………………………………………. Inspector Pat Walsh

Produced by the District of Mission Finance Department District of Mission 8645 Stave Lake Street PO Box 20 Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9 Telephone: 604-820-3700 Fax: 604-826-1363 District of Mission website: www.mission.ca