Fee-for-Service Grants ................... . . - - PDF document

SLIDE 1

SLIDE 2

Table of Contents

................................................................................................................

Introduction 1

......................................................................................................

Council Objectives 1 - 2

I

..........................................

2007, 2008,

& 2009 Provisional Operating PlansBudgets 3 - 4

................................

Property Tax Revenue from New Construction ................... .

. .

5

...............................................................................................................

Public Safety

6 . 7 Summary of 2007, 2008 & 2009 Provisional Budgetsmax Increases .......................... 8 Fee-for-Service Grants ................... .

.

.....................................................................

9

..............................................................................................

...................

Utilities

. .

8 - 1 1 Debt .......................................................................................................................... 12 Major Capital Projects ................................................................................................ 13 Mission Landing Development Concept ..................................................................... 14

...........................................................................

Property Assessments and Taxation 15

.......................................................................................................

Collection Agency 18

...................................................................................................

Concluding Remarks 16 Distrifl of . Mission Eleked Officials and Offlcers

..........................................................

17

?

SLIDE 3

Council recently introduced improvements to the District's overall planninghudgeting systems. These improvements focus on linking Council and community goalslobjectives with budget or resourn allocations through longer term planning. As a result,

detalled operating plans for the next 3 years (2007, 2008, and

2009) are now being considered by Council, including taxation and municipal services and related service levels in each of these

years.

1

Council & community

f l w

• are

linked w-th

budged

allocatrons fhtvugh

longer tern planning. %e intent is that Council will not only approve 2007 servicehxation levels but will also approve, in principle, 2008 and 2009 levels as well. This longer term approach adopts best

plannlng practices by ensuring that both long-term and short-term impacts are considered and balanced for the good of the community.

Council

appreciates M b a c k

and Input

m c u l t choices or decisions are a part of any budgeting process. This

Is even more true today, in llght of the rising cost of services and the

many needs within our growing community. Council would appreciate

your feedback and input before making i

t s final choices, as budget

decisions directly Impact you.

5

develop a long-term, comprehensive, mufti-use development plan for the waterfront with maximum community Involvement so that it reflects the

vision and aspirations of the community.

P %

develop a Social Development Strategy that descrlbes 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 andlor deliver specific community sewices or Initiatives. The plunning pmcas increase the recqnltfon of, and support for, community Involvement and volunteerism in Mission.

> % continue to implement the Arts and Cultural Strategy by reviewing and identifying

specific actions which need to be addressed. I

t

ensure compliance and community awareness of the Silverdale dban Residential Neighbourhood Planning Terms of Reference for any new development in South West Mission.

1

SLIDE 4

B %

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.

% have the District take a leadership role in demonstrating exernplay environmental

practlce within all its policies and operatlons.

I

ReSo~rceQ

are allocafed

& moblllmd fowards meeting Council's obJaettves.

F % adopt and implement a revised Ofticial Community Plan

(OCP) that reflects the aspirations of the community. Z % create a means for residents and neighbwrhood associatlons to undertake neighbourhoal planning.

Tconmnic Derehpmnt/Trnplbyment O

p p

• r

t u n i t i e s

P 5 facilitate the sale of 85% of the properties within the new industrial park.

I

5

expand post secondary opportunities in Mission.

9 5

continue to support the implementation

• f Mlsslon's Econornlc Development Strategy.

P 5

increase the amount o f designated OCP employment and industrial property to meet future needs.

I

6

attract and retain commercial businesses.

P %

develop strategies and identify actions to lmpmve the vitallty and attractiveness of the Mission Downtown.

I

5

adopt, implement and review the three-year Strategic Poliung Plan with the following

five priorities:

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

Council is making ste8dy progrears towards achieving its obiecfives.

I

I

> %

review with the Crystal Meth Task Force its recommendations and ideitlfy priorities end to secure funding for treatmentldetox facilities.

I

I

P q e

2

W f i k I

B % e r

Consuitation Meeting - March 26,2007

SLIDE 5

%e District's 2007, 2008. and 2009 provisional operating planslbudgets, 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 sufflclent

Budgeted operating

business enterprise that aims to cover all of its costs and to

expenditurns fota1$38.3

generate profits that can be used for other municipal purposes.

million, $ 1 4 . 2 miilion, &

64

1.4 mli/ion, In 2007,

E p d z t u r e s

2008, & 2009, respectively.

I

Rannedlbudgeted operating expenditures total $38,335,544, $40,238,296, and $41,460,606, in

2007, 2008, and 2009, respedvely. Policing costs continue to make up the biggest slice of our expenditure "pien, followed by utility operations, and engineering & public works. Utility expenditures are offset or covered by user fees (see revenues on page 4).

Expendim

8 Transfers - 2007 Budget

• 1 -

s 3 8 3 3 5 , ~ ) Expm&ures & Tamfern 2008 Budget

ma

Uorn*)

EXpen&ures b Transfers 2008 Budget

ww~y

• m - O

n e

• (total = 541,460,609)

lranfm i a ~

n p ~

P l h d

Rat-

I

maw#s}*

1B.UU

CuLP2, 1 1 . m

Plamlng B E

w r m r c

• yg

2m ~PublleTmmY,

2.70%

Pdiceserurce!& m.m,

Engkmring

&

PubHc

• /-

W M , 1 6 , 1 4 % h p . Admink-

8

Finarm

12.14% Fire w

c y

SeMcs~. 4.51%

F e 3

M R c w

e t

Conmiruth MeeW -

march

26,2007

SLIDE 6

n

Olher municlpai

revenues are esfimated 1

1

at Sf7.8 milllon, &out

54 % of the District's servlces are pald for through property 1 $18.3 miillon. and 1

1

• ther munlclpal revenuesltransfers are shown below and are budget~d

at $17,865,683, $18,398,002, and $18,713,934 for 2007,2008 and 2009, respectively.

I

I

I

For every 1 % increase I

n p r o m

taxes, approximately $f88,000

• f

tax revenue (for 2007) is genemd for municipal sewices o

r

• programs. I

Council has taken a prudent and proactive approach to generating other municipal revenues by instituting a formal

fee review process and by approving certain multi-year fee

• increases. This approach senres to mlnimize overall

property tax increases and reduces our dependence on property taxes.

Revenues

I

Property T a m

J

SLIDE 7

G c h year, property taxes generated from newly mnstructed propetties (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 and to minimize the overall property tax increase.

Approximafdy $560,000 of

w o w

tax mvenue from

n

dppromimateiy $560,000 of new construction revenue from new property assessments has been factored into the District's

bgen

factored info the

2007 budget. $400,000 of new construction revenue has been

2007 budget.

estimated for each of 2008 and 2009. for ~lannina Durnoses.

• , ,

The Intent is to direct a portion of any excess new construction revenue generated in 2008 and 2009 to resenres (to be used for capital purposes), so as to minimire future capital debt.

Business & industrial

dewlopmenf has e very M c i a l

e # e d

• n

fhe DisWct's

mssion's property assessment growth has been mostly attributable to newly constructed residential homes, as opposed to new business

• r Industrial development. Business and Industrial development

results in higher assessed values and related property tax revenue, and thus has a very beneficial effect on the District's finances. Councll Is working hard at diversifying the District's taxlassessment

base.

History of New Construction Revenue

SLIDE 8

Council has been addressing public safety issues throughout the

community since its inauguration. 2007, 2008, and 2009 spending is focused in this area.

Council continues to

address public safety

issues as a budget

A

major portion of the District's budget is dlrected to police sewlces. The District's net policing expenditure/revenue budget has increased by about 22% or $1.2 million from 2005 to 2007 inclusive and is expected to increase by a further 8.3% or $540,000 by the end of 2008 and a further 5.3% or $376,000 by the end of 2009. Without the added traffic fine sharing revenue received from the Province, these increases would have been even greater.

Palicing Budget

• Net Pollclng Budget

(Expmndltuns Jars

• Rwanumr)

Integrated RCMP units

&ecialized, integrated police units are changing the face of policing throughout the lower mainland. These specialized units allow the RCMP to respond to crime in a coordinated manner and with a level of resources provide that would not othewise be available to individual municipalities. However, specialized local governments do lose some control over the costs associated with ms~umes.

u

these integrated units, once operational and financial resources are pooled.

I

Tqge 6

W f u :

+ e t Consudtattrm meeting -

March 26,2007

SLIDE 9

a l h e RCMP have integrated the homicide investigation and the emergency response team

functions throughout the lower mainland. The forensic identification, police dog, and accident investigation1 reconstruction police services are due to be integrated in 2008.

Pollcing Costs as a Percentage of Property Taxes

I

30% -

• I
• I

2006 2007 2008 2009

• .

.

• Total

Pollclng Costs

• Net

Police Casts (Policing Expenditures less Policing Revenues)

0 t h ?%6& S a f e t y Initiatives

Counoll Is addrasslng Its

L

crlme reductton (public

%e provisional budgets Include other important public safety

safety) objective through

initiatives, namely an additional bylaw enforcement officer,

the current provisional

additional funding for flre operations (includes funds to

budget allocations.

increase the pad-time fire inspector to a full-time position), and social development and restorative resolytioo funding. %e bylaw enforcement officer and fire inspector will be

Council is taklng a

instrumental In the District's on-going program t

• eradicate grow-
• ps and clandestine drug labs. Social development is aimed at

building a safe, healthy and Inclusive community, and restorative resolutions assists people in repairing incidents of harm and

• resolving conflicts.

SLIDE 10

S D y

0jFzoo~,2008,

&

2009 m S I Q N X

2M1!DGWS/fdX ImEAS!ES

fie District's provisional budget dollars and related tax increases are shown below. Planned tax increases are 5.11%, 4.84%, and 3.41%, for 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively. The 2008 and 2009 tax increases are estimates, and as such, only need to be approved in principle. It Is Council's intention to look at other revenue sources, e.g. additional traffic fine sharing revenue, shared transit funding andlor additional new construction revenue, to fund the West Coast Express Train Bus service and the additional policing resource initiatives noted in 2008.

PROVISIONAL BUDGETSflAX INCREASES

2007

Cost of Other New Servlces

Additional Budget Funds Equivalent Tax Increase1 Funding Source 2008

Cost of Maintaining Existing Services

Additional Budget

Funds

2009 Funds needed to

rnalntain munleipal

services (net of revenue increases) Funds needed to maintain police services (net of addltlonal trafflc fine sharing revenue) New Construction Revenue

Subtotal - Maintaining Exlstlng Sewlees

(I) Does not Include $65,000 & $1 50,000 from New Revenue Sources.

1

$1 50,000 $33,815

$183,815

• 98(l

West Coast Express Traln

Bus Service Other Programs

I

Sew ices

Subtotal - Other New Services Total Provlslonal Budgetflax Increases

Equivalent

Tax lncreasel

Funding Source Additional Budget Funds

0% 0%

0%

+ 3,410/P

New ~ e v e n u d

0.17%

0.17%

+ 4.84%

Equivalent

Tax lncreasei

Funding Source $697,804 $551,408 ($560,504)

S68),7Oe

$0

$0

$0

(6741.146

• $0

$49,095

s49,091 Cost of New Public Safety Initiatives

0% +0.26%

+0.26%

+ s.tl#

+3.69% +2,92% (2.97%) +3.64% Police Services

Fin

Operations & Bylaw Enforcement Soclal Development & Youth Services Subtotal-NewPubllc Safety Initiatives $687,526 $507,900

($400,000) $795,426

+0.17%

+0.14%

+ . 9 % +1.21%

$32,400 s28,806 $1 70,400 $229,606 +3.38% +2.49%

(I

.96%)

*3.91% $M,000

$1

54,557

60

$219,557

$539,428

$41

5,787 ($400,000)

$555,215

New Source

+0.76%

O X +0.76%

+2.48%

+1.91% (1.84%)

+2.55?4 $182,000 $ 3 , 9 3 1

$0

$185,931

+0.84% +0.02% 0%

+0.86%

SLIDE 11

Council wiIl be

Gunci~ has committed to undertaking a comprehensive review of fee- for-service grants (municipal services provided

by

partner

• rganizations) in 2007, including sewices provided and grant levels.

in 2007. Any 2007 grant increases would be funded from a one-time funding

source and then be built into subsequent year's tax increases.

Water

adSewer

%e District of Mission and the City of Abbotsford, as joint owners of the regional water and

sewer systems (assumed full responsibility for utlllties in September 20051, have now had the

• pportunity to undertake an extensive master planning process that looked at regional water

and sewer mpital needs over the next 25 years. As a result of this process, the 25-year regional water and sewer capital programs have increased significantly.

I

Regional water and sewer

capital needs for the next

25 years have increased

• sinniticanuy. I

%e regional water capital program calls for about $239 million

• f capital spending and the regional sewer capital program calls

for about $1 13 million [includes bath Development Cost Charge I F

• (DCC) and non-DCC projects] of capital. Mission's share of

these capltal expenditures based on our current usage levels is

25.68% (about $61 million) and 22.57% (about $25 million), for water and sewer respectively. About $48 million of the $61 million for water capital and about $23 million of the $25 mlllfon for

sewer capital is dlrectly related to projected growth.

5

ensure that Mission can provide for its share o f

future regional utility capital, ongoing annual

rate increases

• f about 8% and 3%, In water and sewer respectively, are needed.

I n addition to i

t s share of the regional water and sewer

systems, Misslon also has to provide for its own internal water

Water & s e w fmnts~e

distribution and sewage collection systems. For many years, certain property owners within Mission who had water andlor sewerlinesfronting thelrpropertles. butwerenotactually connected to the water andlor sewer systems, were assessed water andlor sewer frontage charges.

I

q g e 9

W I S c w e t

Consuitation

N e e

tiqg - march 26,2007

SLIDE 12

BU~CII

has decided to abolish frontage charges (subject to Provincial approval) and to only charge user fees to properties or

residents that are actually connected to the water andlor sewer

• systems. As a result of this change and the loss of revenue that

results, utility user fees have to be increased by a further 1.5% and 2.21%, for water and sewer respectively. Taking into account these adjustments and the

• ther increases noted above, water user rates will increase by 9.5% and sewer user rates will

increase by 5.21 % in 2007. Those properties or residents that have previously been assessed the water andlor sewer frontage charges will actually see a reduction in their overall utillty rates.

Water

Exwnditures & Tnnsfers - 2007 F i m

(Total Expondlturos 8 Trmsfen -

S&S81,41B)

I n 2007, water user rates

will increase by 9

. 5 A and

sewer user

rstes will

Major regional water infmsfnreture

I s

n88ded t

• accommodate growth

including a second

water source.

The JAMES Sewage Treatment Plant needs to

be expanded

to acmmmodaf@

• gmwth. I

Sewer Utilh

Expenditures & Transfers - 2007 Budagf

1 (Total Expendlium a Tnnnlm r $2,074,1#)

SLIDE 13

many are aware, in early 2006, a leachate (contaminated water) breakout occurred at the District's landfill. The Oistrlct has incurred major expenditures to date for remediation and studies (to come up with a longer term solution) at the site, It is expected that a longer tern solution will be arrived at over the next few months, after our specialized landfill consultants complete their investigation and

report.

A longer term solution for the leachate Bmakout will be ammved at within the next few mon

fhs. S s e d on our best information at this time, approximately $6.2 million

will have to be spent at the landflll site over the next f

e w

• years. The

District has applied for several grants from senior levels of government to assist with these costs. Council has also approved a strategy of increased refuse rates (20% per annum in each of 2007 and 2

8 ) ,

increased tipping fees, and a short-term loan of about $1,500,000 to address this issue. %e 20% increase in refuse rates (being increased from $94.20 per year to 4713.04 per year) for 2007 is now being implemented, The extent of future rate increases and any short-term borrowing will be re-examined once the flnal site costs are known and once the District is Informed of any grant funding.

utay m

t e s

A summary of all o

f the

District's utility rates are shown below.

S O L H

Water

SLIDE 14

%e District currently has about $26 million of outstanding external debt (see below). About $8.3 million or 32% of this debt is related to the regional water and sewer systems. This regional debt together with the related assets, were taken on by the Olstrict when it became a co-owner

• f the regional utility systems.

Outstanding External Debt as at December 31,2006 General Debt (for FlrehalVEOC

$1

7,443,332 Building & Leisure Central

Sports Park) Non-Regional Sewer Debt (for Cedar $536,446 Valley sewer extension) - debt servicing Is paid for by residents with

the local improvement area

Reglonal Sewer Debt (for regional $2,758,138 sewer infrastructure) Reglonal Water Debt (for regional $5,598,157 water infrastnrcture)

Total External Debt Outstanding $26,336,071 6 e Distkt always looks to b o r n internally (from its own reserve funds) before resorting to external borrowing and also tries to take advanbgeofearlydebtpayoutoptlons,finan~spermitting,whenthey become available. For example, the District recently paid out one of the regional water debt issues to save interest costs. %e District has been increasing capital transfers incrementally so that it has more capacity to finance capltal projects Internally, without debt. The Dlstrict will be In a better positlon in the future to avoid debt if it increases capital transfers even further, e.g. through excess new construction revenue. Debt sewicing costs on existing debt will decrease over the next few years.

Dew

Servicing Costs

$3LWnW0f

• ---

SLIDE 15

%e District has comprehensive, detailed long-term (15 years and more) capital plans. These plans are reviewed annually. Over the next five years, the District's planned capital spending totals approximately $44.6 million.

Majm CapitaC@ant Projects

%e District has submitted various grant appllcatlans to asslst with the maj& capital projects noted below:

I

> Landfill Capital

Works - total estimated cost of $6.2 million.

> Integrated Planning for Mission Waterfront -

total estimated cost of $1.5 million (see page 14).

> Transit Improvements at the 2'Ld

Avenue Transit Exchange - total estimated cost of $220,000.

> Pedestrian Walkway (overpass) between the Mission Hills Shopping Centre and the

Junction Shopplng Centre - total estimated cast of $1.2 million.

> Construction of an Artificial Turf Field at the Sports Park - total estimated cost of $2.6

milllon.

> Cannel Lake Water Treatment Plant (Filtration Plant) Phase I Project (joint

MissionlAbbotsford utility project) - total estimated cost of $18.5 milllon, of which Mission's share is $4.8 million. Some Federal Gas Tax Grant funds have already been committed for thls project from the Fraser Valley Regional District.

Abbotsford Mission Environmental System (JAMES) Sewage Treatment Plant Biesolids

Dewatering Project (joint Misslon/Abbotsford utility project) - total estimated cost of $1.4 million, of which Mission's share is $310,000. &me of the other major capital projects scheduled to start over the next five years are as follows:

I

Cedar Street upgrade program - budgeted cost of $3.6 million.

I

> Lougheed Highway and Nelson Street Intersection upgrade -

budgeted cost of $2 million. Booster sewer pump statlon for Fraser River crossing - budgeted cat

• f $1.8 million.

b Sewer infrastructure upgrade program -

• n-going program of about $270,000 per year.

Bulk water supply upgrade to Wren Street & Lougheed Highway - budgeted cost of $1.8 million.

> Water Infrastructure upgrade program -

• ngoing program of about $270,000 per year.

> 1 4 ~

Avenue Road upgrades - budgeted cost of $1

• 9

million.

SLIDE 16

• n

Residmnnd Nmighou

SLIDE 17

nstrict 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 17.90% 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 2007 the District raises overall taxes by 5.11%, then residents who experienced the average 17.90% assessment increase would pay 5.1 I

O h more in

municipal taxes. If one's assessment rose by more than the 17.90% average, then one would have a tax increase that is more than the 5.11%. How much more depends on how much one's assessment increase exceeded the 17.90%

• average. Conversely, if one's assessment went up by less than the

compensate for

higher

properfy

17.90% average, then one would see a tax increase which is less than the 5.1 1%. How much less depends on how much below the average of 17.90% that one's assessment increased by.

I

%e 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

• verall property taxes.

H

Total property assessments total

I I

approxima

fely $4.08 billion.

Ropedy assessments within the District of Mission, as compiled by the BC Assessment Authority, total approximately $4.08 billion. The majority of the District's assessment base is comprised of residential properties, with the businesslother 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 andlor reducing railway property assessments. Council is working hard at diversifying Mission's tax base.

Estimated 2007 Assessed Property Values for District of Mission

SLIDE 18

I

• f

ail prop&

taxes

%e District of Mission serves as a collection agency for other taxing

are lsrid

• authorities. Approximately 50% of the total property taxes collected
• n behalfof other

by the District of Mlssion are levied on behalf of other taxing

taxlngautho&s. I

• authorities. School

taxes comprise the majority of these other taxes. 1 1

• 1

1

Council does have some Input into the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Fraser Valley Regional Hospital District and the Fraser Valley Regional Library levies; however, Council has no say in the School, BC Assessment Authority, and Municipal Finance Authority tax levels.

1

2006 Taxes Collected by Various Taxing Authorities

Council

k looking at 3-year

budget and

tax lmpllcatlons. Spending k focusud

• n

public safety and addressing the

mot causes of crlme.

Council is looking at detailed %year budget and tax

• impllcations. Spending is focused on public safety

and addressing the root causes of crime, through initiatives such as social development and restorative justice. The budgeting process I s all about making difficult

It is important Ibr

choices and balancing present and future needs.

you t

• mice your

comments

1

mgarding budgets & related servlces t

• the District of Mission Council represents all citizens and taxpayers
• f Mission, it is important for you to voice your comments, regarding

budgets and related services, to Council andlor staff.

1

SLIDE 19

Elected

Wlcial&

• I

l1 I

Mayor Jams Atebe

I

I

I

• CUL. .

. . . . . . . . . .

,.--a

(Chair of E n #

• & hblic

W

• )

(Chalr of Publjc Safely & Heallh)

COU~CIIIO~

~ o n n rearson Councillor Jenny Stevens

I

I

Councillor nearner stewart

(Chaw of Planning) (Char of Adrrinistralion & FlnancsJ (Char of Parks, Recreallcn & Culture)

Offlcers

Chief Administrative Officer..

I

Glen Robertson

......................................................

Director of Corporate Administration..

...........................................

Dennis Clark

Director of Engineering & Public Works. ........................................

Rick Bomhof Director of Finance.

..................................................................

Ken Bjorgaard Director of Forestry Management..

...............................................

Kim Allan Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture

......................................

Ray Herman

Director of Planning .............................................................

Brett Owyer Fire Chief

...............................................................................

Frank Ryan Royal Canadian Mounted Police

..............................................

Inspector Pat Walsh

Fag@

1 7

m6fic Su&et Consultation Meeting - March 26,

2007

SLIDE 20

Produced by the District of Mission Finance Department Disbict of Mission 8645 Stave Lake Street P.O. Box 20 Misslon, B.C.

v2V 4L9

Telephone: 604-820-3700 Fax: 604-826-1 363 District of Mission webslte: w.misslon.ca