City of Revelstoke 2013 Budget Process Public Comments

March 28, 2013
Mayor David Raven & City Councilors

City of Revelstoke
Re: Municipal Fiscal Responsibility & Business Property Taxati on
REVELSTOKE +
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chamber Board of Directors and management have been approached by many local
business owners and Chamber Members to address the issue of increasing business property
taxes, specifically to Class 6. Our Policy & Advocacy Committee and Chairman, Nathan
Weston, has been working with City staff and the 2013 Financial Focus Group to better
understand the City's past budgets and the 2013- 2017 Financial Plan. This process has
provided us a good understanding of the challenges that Council and Staff undertake to provide
the services and programs that the citizens of Revelstoke benefit from.
The Chamber Board of Directors has three major concerns:
1. The overall spending of the City has increased alarmingly in the absence of any
significant growth in the town. The result is an onerous tax and debt burden on all
members of the community, with no signs of slowing.
2. The taxation on small business is wildly disproportionate vis-a-vis the residential tax rate.
3. The budgeting process that is used by the City does not allow careful examination of all
proposed costs (not just increases) by Council and the general public so examination
and discussion can lead to more informed decisions.
At the special Council meeting on February 19th, the Mayor's comments regarding earning a
living wage, while referencing the City's unionized workforce, can be echoed to the business
community at large. Ultimately, business property taxes and city fees are an expense that has
become a burden to many local merchants and building owners. Councilor Benders comments
that "very few people complain about tax increases" was of interest to the Chamber as this has
not been our experience.
In response to this, The Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce held an open house for members,
business owners and the general public on March 12
1
h, 2013. This was an opportunity to provide
input into the Chamber's review of the budget and proposed property taxation increases.
Throughout the day we had 57 participants of whom all but one Chamber Member felt the
process was helpful.
Our comments and recommendations are enclosed. The Chamber of Commerce Board and
Staff are committed to work with City Council and Staff to ensure our City is sustainable for
citizens to live, work and play as well as being "Open for Business" to encourage future growth.
Respectfully,
Board of Directors
Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce
REVELSTOKE +
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Revel stoke Chamber of Commerce
Municipal Fiscal Responsibility & Business Property Taxation
Submitted: March 28
1
h, 2013
By: Judy Goodman, Executive Director
On Behalf of: The 2013 Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
Steve Bailey, President
Mike Vopni, Vice President
Nathan Weston, Director
Chelsea Lamont, Director
Randy Driediger, Director
Scott Duke, Director
Trevor English, Director
Peter Nielsen, Director
Brydon Roe, Past President
2013-2017 FINANCIAL PLAN COMMENTS
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................... .. ........................... ............................................... .. .. .. ................ 2
Property Tax Equality ..................................................................................................................... 3
New Development and Economic Diversity ................. ........ .... ........... ........................................... 5
Fiscal Responsibility ....................................................................................................................... 6
General Administration ............................................................................................................... 6
Fire Department ......................................... .. ............................................................................... 7
Planning Department ....... ..... ....................................... ............... ............................ .................... 7
Public Works ........ ... .................. ................................... ........... .. ....................................... ..... ...... 7
Parks, Recreation and Culture ................... .................................. ........ ................ ............ ............ 8
Red Tape Reduction Advisory Committee ...... ...................................................... ......................... 8
Summary .................................... .. ............ ........................... ............ ....... ........................ ... .... .......... 8
II Page
Executive Summary
Enclosed is an overview of the Chamber's comments on the City of Revel stoke's proposed 2013 - 2017
budget and operational expenses. While these are the opinions of The Revelstoke Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors and Staff, they are not necessarily the opinion of each Member of the
Chamber.
The announcement of the expansion of Mount McKenzie in 2007 began a major change in our
community. There was an estimated expectation of a significant increase in population and, in turn, the
infrastructure and City services and resources that would be required to meet this growth. Many factors
contributed to the lack of anticipated growth and our community has remained stable, albeit with a
somewhat different population demographic today. The recently completed Integrated Community
Sustainability Plan (ICSP) sited that "the permanent population of approximately 7,924 is expected to
grow only by approximately 200 by 2031 unless there is an unexpected driver for population growth." The
Chamber is in agreement, as is the 2013 Financial Focus group in that "we need to align our spending to
reflect that reality."
Municipal operating expenses* have increased dramatically from $9.5 M in 2006 to $16.5 M in 2011 to a
budgeted $19.9 M for 2013. It is understandable that the City began to prepare for a development and
population growth through staffing in areas of planning and social infrastructures. However, it is no longer
sustainable to support the accrued operational cost structure given our current economic situation. The
citizens of Revelstoke are facing substantial infrastructure upgrades within our City and we do not have
appropriate reserves to finance these projects. Provincial and Federal programs are forthcoming in 2014
to cost share on projects and we must be ready to take advantage of these funds without taking on more
debt. Our current debt is costing tax payers well over $1 M per year in interest alone and the interest on
debt expense continues to compound.
Revelstoke is a unique community, blessed with natural beauty and challenged by lack of economic
diversity and living wage employment opportunities. Many of our residents and business owners struggle
to pay the taxes that have been imposed. Simply put, less spending= less required tax revenue.
Throughout this document it will be apparent that The Chamber is urging Council to take immediate steps
to reduce operating expenses.
The 2013 Focus Group reported: "The continued growth in spending is troubling. Revelstoke's population
is declining. Growth in the tax base has not kept pace with the rise in spending. Consumers in British
Columbia have the highest level of non-mortgage debt in Canada and it is growing. Continued tax
increases coupled with the rise in the cost of living in Revelstoke is eroding affordability and is not
sustainable."
The 2011 Financial Focus Group suggested: "We need affordability and equity in the business and
residential tax bases, value for tax dollars and accountability of city staff and Council." This concern was
echoed by the 2012 group and in the 2013 group's report stating; "Our concerns focus on: spending, tax
fairness and affordability, and funding of capital. We do not feel that the current approach is sustainable."
A strong and vibrant community and lower operating budgets are not mutually exclusive. With strong
leadership and smart choices, these goals can be achieved concurrently. City spending can be reduced
through tough and wise decisions. Some positions will have to be eliminated and some services
eliminated. These reductions can be done in ways that minimize their impact.
We hope that these recommendations, as well as those of the Financial Focus Groups, will be
thoughtfully considered and appropriately addressed by Council.
*Estimated Municipal Operating Expenses, not including Non TCA's or TCA's or other contributions from
grants etc.
21Page
2013- 2017 FINANCIAL PLAN COMMENTS
, Property Tax Equality
Recommendations
1. No tax increase in 2013 for existing Class 6, small business.
2. A commitment to a reduction of the mill rate for existing Class 6 tax revenue over the 2013-
2017 Financial Plan.
3. Develop a taxation and/or fee structure for vacation home rentals.
The expected tax revenue share from small business is unsustainable and needs to be addressed. There
is an inequitable balance of tax revenue generation from the unique property classes, mainly Class 1,
residential and Class 6. This balance must be corrected in order to maintain viable, competitive
businesses and services to the residents of Revelstoke. The future of our small business community and
those that they employ is at stake. As suggested by each of the Financial Focus groups (FFG), it is
essential that Revelstoke maintain a fair tax revenue system.
2011 FFG: "Council to reduce the current tax burden to Business Class 6 to promote the survival
and health of this class. This should be done in a phased approach. The impact of the change should
come from a combination of an increase in residential tax and a decrease in the overall budget.
2012 FFG: Freeze or Lower the Business Tax Burden
A thriving business community is the backbone of any community, providing most of the jobs and paying
a much larger proportion of taxes per dollar of value than a comparable _resident. The business
community in Revelstoke believes that, relative to other communities in BC, they pay a much larger
proportion of municipal taxes compared to residents ... There is considerable evidence that the "cost of
doing business" is higher here than in most if not all communities with a similar economic profile. Council
needs to revisit this issue and decide, in a sense, what is fair and to what extent Revelstoke is "open for
business".
2013 FFG: "Who should pay and the proportionate tax burden between classes continues to be a flash
point in the community ... Businesses do not bear their tax burden on their own. It touches customers,
employees and suppliers... "Relief in one tax class is simply passed on to those in the others, shifting the
problem from one group to another."
The City's current policy regarding equity is that "property taxation policy sets a target for the residential
share of municipal taxes at 50%". It is the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce that this is an unrealistic
goal given the current assessment value of business property is less than 20% of residential. The
Chamber does not support a long term goal of a 50% revenue split; however, we would support this for
the 2013 budget given the revenue proposal of 43% residential and 48% from class 6.
3IPage
The following chart shows the balance of expected revenue generation vs. assessed property value.
Amount of Taxes Paid per $lOOk Assessed Value
$2,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
The gap was narrowing up to 2012 but the proposed 2013 revenue expectation would reverse past
efforts, as per the City's charts below.
2013
2012
0%
0%
Small Busines
Note: It is understood that the assessment value of RMR residential units may shift from Class 1 to Class
6 in 2013. Our recommendation remains unchanged.
Public Comment from Open House
5 attendees agreed and 52 did not agree that a 3.5% increase in overall property tax is
acceptable;
51 attendees agreed and 6 did not agree that the City should strive for a minimum 50% parity in
property tax revenue from residential vs. business;
56 attendees agreed and 1 disagreed that developing a management, taxation and fee policy for
vacation home rentals within Revelstoke should be encouraged.
41Page
New Development and Economic Diversity
Recommendation
1. Council or independent Core Service Review of development services, including DCC fees and
revenue expectations.
2. Review of current holdings and "Land Acquisition Strategy."
As an advocate for business, the Chamber is mindful of the future of Revelstoke's new development
prospects and economic diversit . The trend shown in the New Construction chart below is of concern.
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
ion
-Residential
- Business
20,000,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
According to the DCC Rates published by the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development in
December 2011*, Revelstoke's fee schedule is ranked as the 24th most costly out of 114 Cities in British
Columbia. The 2013-2017 budget has DCC revenue projections of $1,220,000 per year and 5 year
Interest earnings of $800,000 totalling $6.9 million dollars. It is the opinion of the Chamber that this
prediction is grossly overstated given the current ecomonic environment and the history of project
approval through the Planning Department. If any portion of this projected revenue is allocated to future
upgrades to existing infrastructure it should be reviewed by Council.
Additionally, we believe there needs to be a balance that attracts new growth, investment, and
development. We must look to increase our tax base rather than continual tax rate increases on our
existing tax base. The cost of development must also include the process required for approval which in
Revelstoke is notorious for being cumbersome, time consumming and frustrating. The Chamber believes
that this has been, and will continue to be, a detriment to potential new investment and development in
our City.
The City of Vernon is just completing a Core Services Review**. There is a comprehensive audit of the
Building Services Department. Key points in the audit that Revelstoke could emulate are:
Service Delivery- Staff positions, responsibilites, service levels and client impact;
Finance- Cost of salaries, other expenditures and allocation vs. Income and Tax Revenue;
Recent Reviews with detailed comments including permit and approval timeframes with
comparable cities;
Application review- Total issued permit, lot and subdivision approvals granted and/or registered.
The 2013-2017 Financial Plan Community Goals (page v) notes: "Manage and acquire City owned lands
consistent with a Land Acquisition Strategy." Further information regarding the current holdings or
acquisition strategy was unavailable from the CFO or CEO. This may be an area for review.
56 attendees agreed and 1 attendee did not agree that Revelstoke benefits from new
development and should focus on being "open for Business".
5I Page
Fiscal Responsibility
Each of the Financial Focus Groups over the past 3 years has highlighted the rising expenses by
department. All have voiced a serious concern with the Fire Department, Planning and Public Works.
While the City's Department Leaders are experienced professionals who would be the obvious choice to
best manage service levels and costs within their departments, the direction for change must come from
Council.
The Chamber of Commerce fully supports the analysis and recommendations of the 2013 Financial
Focus Group report regarding spending, as per below:
"There's been a progressive service/program creep in the past 10 years such as: aquatic centre;
expanded transit; animal/bylaw control; fire training officer; first responder; highway rescue; planning and
the Unified Bylaw Development (UBD); curbside recycling; emergency services coordinator; IT
technology systems and support; and plaza extension. This budget proposes further additions: Corporate
Officer, officer ranks in the Fire Department, childcare staff. The combined impact of new initiatives along
with rising costs are diverting resources from ongoing reinvestment in infrastructure that must increasingly
be funded with debt.
In 2009, the City adopted accounting changes including a new definition of a "capital asset." Since then, it
budgets for tangible capital assets (TCA) that meet the new definition, and single-initiative operating
project type items (Non- TCA's) that do not. We are concerned about the later. In 2013, Non- TCAs
amount to $2. 7M. That 's 14% of operating costs, or roughly one quarter of all non-salaried operating
costs. We weren't able to trend this spending prior to 2009 for a baseline. We are concerned that this
process is inviting ad hoc spending without adequately assessing value contributions to service delivery
outcomes. We feel this process should be reviewed, and also recommend a rigorous review of all Non-
TCA spending to challenge the value-added and priority of the investment. We did not see much
discussion of these items during the budget process and we feel that they should be considered more
thoroughly.
It was unclear in the budget process how the City rationalizes service delivery on an ongoing basis.
Reductions are not apparent in the budget process. In its current form, we find the budget process does
not allow Council the time to effectively make requests for budget reductions as the fiscal year has
already begun. We have flagged some specific items further in this report that we feel warrant review.
We feel we need to remember that we are only 7500 people, and we need to align our spending to
reflect that reality. We have added, and continue to add services, staff positions etc, yet we don't always
see the benefit of those decisions. Yes, we need to plan for the future, but we should be realistic about
what we expect that future to look like, and plan/spend accordingly. As a city, we need to make these
decisions now, before reaching a point where it will really hurt to make changes."
General Administration
Recommendations
1. Available grant monies and provincial revenues should be used, when possible, towards
infrastructure requirements.
2. The proposed Corporate Officer position (about $92,000 including benefits) should be reviewed
prior to approval .
3. The proposed Child Care expense of $60,000 including benefits should be reviewed prior to
approval.
4. Postpone the City hall elevator project.
5. The proposed City Hall Stucco and renovation including benefits should be reviewed prior to
approval.
6IPage
The system of grants monies and provincial transfers is complicated. It is understood that many of the
available programs have conditions on usage. That said, when applicable over the next 2 years, funds
should be pooled towards infrastructure. i.e. Gas Tax Funds to sewer or water projects.
General Public Comment from Open House
57 attendees agreed that use of grant monies and provincial revenues should be used, when
possible, towards infrastructure requirements;
55 attendees agreed and 2 did not agree that an audit of General Government would be
beneficial ;
Fire Department
Recommendations
1. No additional authorized expenditures pre audit, including the $11 K proposed for institution of
Officer Ranks.
2. A series of public meetings be held to review the post audit results to determine the level of
service that is required and acceptable to the community at large.
The Chamber is supportive of the recommendations of all of the Financial Focus Groups and the current
audit process that has been requested.
55 attendees agreed and 2 did not agree that a post audit public review process to determine
acceptable service levels would be beneficial;
Planning Department
Recommendations
1. Council or independent audit of current staffing levels, and projected 5 year requirements given
our economic situation and lack of population growth and new development.
2. Revisit goals and objectives of the Planning Department to reflect a customer service, positive
experience to encourage future business and development opportunities.
55 attendees agreed and 2 did not agree that an audit of Planning would be beneficial;
Public Works
Recommendations
1. Council or independent audit of Public Works, including clear documentation of a cosUbenefit
analysis for services.
2. CosUBenefit analysis of contracted services, specifically where it would save increased fleet
expenses.
3. Review of Non TCA's, specifically leases and owned fleet overview.
54 attendees agreed and 3 did not agree to an external audit of Public Works.
71Page
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Recommendation
An annual cosUbenefit analysis and public review of programs and services would be beneficial.
Revelstokians enjoy a healthy environment, vibrant cultural and supportive social lifestyle. The ISCP
report states: "A thriving community with a unique and attractive identity and vibrant cultural elements
helps attract residents, which is essential to a sustainable community over the long term."
In "1 0 Trends for Smarter Communities, Gord Hume states:
"How communities protect and preserve their unique assets- heritage, properties, riverfronts, urban
green spaces, natural areas, etc. will speak volumes about the community. Communities will increasingly
be ranked on how they understand the importance of developing their public realm for the public's benefit;
in other words creating wonderful public places and exciting public spaces that provide safe social
interaction, cutting edge urban design and public gathering places that celebrate the culture, heritage, life
and people of the community."
The Chamber believes that we need to be fiscally responsible, but that it is also essential to retain the
vibrancy of our community.
56 attendees agreed and 1 did not agree that a public review of programs and services would be
beneficial.
Red Tape Reduction Advisory Committee
Recommendation
The Chamber of Commerce provides Terms of Reference and Process for a Red Tape Reduction
Advisory Committee. We would require a commitment from Council to appoint a councilor and a City
employee to participate on the committee.
The district of Sechelt has an online form for residents to report "Red Tape". It is not a "general
complaints department" and clearly outlines examples like being required to provide the same information
multiple times when accessing District services, having to wait an unreasonably long period while an
application is processed, or similar situations.
All of the attendees agreed that they would support a "Red Tape Reduction" process.
Summary
We believe the communication process for public input can be improved and are committed to assist in
this process. It is clear from many of the comments provided at our open house that the current
perception of the process and cost of service delivery is based on misinformation. This often leads to an
ill informed opinion and general frustration. Expectations and demands of local residents and taxpayers
will help to formulate the future of our community. Council and City Staff would be well served by
developing a communication and public engagement strategy, including better utilization of technology, to
encourage public engagement. The information provided to the public should be consistent including year
over year comparisons in a simple format. The Financial Plan recommended that City Staff "conduct a
81Page
community satisfaction survey". The Chamber would welcome an opportunity to participate in this and
assist City Staff in distribution.
Canadian Provinces have unilaterally downloaded responsibility and costs for a wide range of services.
The potential negative effect of this financial constraint on municipalities is a major concern.
Municipalities and their lobby associations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, need to become more
assertive in building new relationships with the Provinces. The Chamber is committed to working together
with the municipality and our business leaders to ensure the Provincial Government of BC understands
the challenges our community is facing and is engaged as part of the solution.
The Chamber team has been reading the "Municipal Knowledge Series" by Gord Hume, In his latest
book, 10 Trends for smarter communities, published in 2013, Gord sums up his Smarter Technology
Chapter with:
"Develop a bold community vision for the future, including commitments for investments in technology,
reducing costs of service delivery, clean energy, making civic services more user-friendly and responding
to the tech demands of a new generation for communication and interaction."
The Chamber of Commerce is mindful of our community's rich culture and the importance of attracting
economic diversity through continuing to offer an amazing City to live, work and play. Our Board and Staff
are committed to work with Council and City Staff to create a sustainable financial plan that supports the
needs of our residents, business owners and the community at large. Thank you for allowing us to be
part of this essential process.
The 2013 Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
Steve Bailey, President
Mike Vopni, Vice President
Nathan Weston, Director
Chelsea Lamont, Director
Randy Driediger, Director
Scott Duke, Director
Trevor English, Director
Peter Nielson, Director
Brydon Roe, Past President
Source References
*DCC comparison by BC City: http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/finance/development cost charges.htm
**City of Vernon preliminary Core Review information is available at http://www.vernon.ca/core review.
The format used in the report is clear and concise and easy to use for public comment.
91Page
Focus Group for the City of Revelstoke
2013-2017 Financial Plan
Recommendations to Mayor and Council
February 28, 2013
Thank you Mayor and Council for continuing with an focus group on the City's annual financial plan.
We appreciate your willingness to listen to outside perspectives, and hope that our input assists
you in choosing the appropriate financial plan for the City of Revelstoke.
We also thank city staff for the time they have spent in educating us on city operations and issues,
and in answering questions to assist us in our deliberations. This year's presentations were better
than the last, and the plan format has improved considerably since the first focus group three years
ago. Although we feel there is still more work to do, we appreciate the visible efforts heading in the
right direction.
Our concerns focus on: spending, tax fairness and affordability, and funding of capital. We do not
feel that the current approach is sustainable. We recommend Council:
1. Develop a far-reaching sustainable financial strategy
2. Limit tax increases to CPI
3. Get spending under control and better understand the local economic impacts of
city spending before tackling tax fairness.
4. Continue to recapitalize infrastructure and introduce an asset management
approach.
5. Address the adequacy of processes to drive accountability, efficiency, value-for-
money.
6. Update the budget process
7. Review some specific investment areas
The following describes our concerns in more detail.
1. Overall Financial Plan
The draft plan reflects Council's proposed cost of living increase (2%) to sustain status quo
operations, plus a further one-time tax increase of 3% in 2013 to reduce debt, plus increases of
15% to sewer and 2% to water rates. We do not support this direction as we feel it reinforces an
unsustainable approach: an ever increasing tax burden to support a continuous growth in spending.
We see how the 3% tax increase intended to reduce debt, is eaten up with spending. Not only does
debt not reduce, it grows further with the borrowing of another $2M.
The Financial Plan focuses on sources of funds and their uses on a department-by-department
basis. It's really more of a budget forecast than a financial plan. Although this content is important,
we don't feel that the plan deals with what we see as the most important issue facing the City -
long-term financial sustainability. We believe a more far-reaching approach is needed.
As part of Council's commitment to fiscal responsibility we would like to see the development of a
strategy that focuses on long-term financial sustainability. Partly visionary, partly policy, partly
tactical, it should lead to rationalized service deliverables matched with realistic resourcing
strategies and supporting tax policies, all that align with the values, objectives and realities of a
changing Revelstoke. It's an opportunity to address the recurring tensions of affordability, service
expectations, services supporting growth, and tax burden.
City of Revelstoke, 2013-2017 Financial Plan Focus Group Page 2
A strategy should consider the City's current financial position, long-term plans, priority goals, and
potential risks and opportunities. It should develop options Revelstoke can implement to maintain
required services and related capital/infrastructure, withstand economic disruption, and meet the
demands of growth, decline and changes as the City continues to evolve as resort community. It
should contain a cohesive policy framework to drive investment decisions to achieve community
objectives in a sustainable manner, and demonstrate sound financial management. It is a great
opportunity to engage citizens in finding the right balance between expectations and affordability
in achieving the vision for Revelstoke.
The City of Edmonton is one municipality doing some interesting work in this area. This link click
here can help explain the concept.
2. Spending
The continued growth in spending is troubling. Revelstoke's population is declining. Growth in the
tax base has not kept pace with the rise in spending. Consumers in British Columbia have the
highest level of non-mortgage debt in Canada and it is growing. Continued tax increases coupled
with the rise in the cost of living in Revelstoke is eroding affordability and is not sustainable.
There's been a progressive service/program creep in the past 10 years such as: aquatic centre;
expanded transit; animal/bylaw control; fire training officer; first responder; highway rescue;
planning and the Unified Bylaw Development (UBD); curbside recycling; emergency services
coordinator; IT technology systems and support; and plaza extension. This budget proposes
further additions: Corporate Officer, officer ranks in the Fire Department, child care staff. The
combined impact of new initiatives along with rising costs are diverting resources from ongoing
reinvestment in infrastructure that must increasingly be funded with debt.
In 2009, the City adopted accounting changes including a new definition of a "capital asset." Since
then, it budgets for tangible capital assets (TCA) that meet the new definition, and single-initiative
operating project type items (Non-TCA's) that do not. We are concerned about the later. In 2013,
Non-TCAs amount to $2.7M. That's 14% of operating costs, or roughly one quarter of all non-
salaried operating costs. We weren't able to trend this spending prior to 2009 for a baseline. We
are concerned that this process is inviting ad hoc spending without adequately assessing value
contributions to service delivery outcomes. We feel this process should be reviewed, and also
recommend a rigorous review of all Non-TCA spending to challenge the value-added and priority of
the investment. We did not see much discussion of these items during the budget process and we
feel that they should be considered more thoroughly.
It was unclear in the budget process how the City rationalizes service delivery on an ongoing basis.
Reductions are not apparent in the budget process. In its current form, we find the budget process
does not allow Council the time to effectively make requests for budget reductions as the fiscal year
has already begun. We have flagged some specific items further in this report that we feel warrant
review.
We feel we need to remember that we are only 7500 people, and we need to align our spending to
reflect that reality. We have added, and continue to add services, staff positions etc, yet we don't
always see the benefit of those decisions. Yes, we need to plan for the future, but we should be
realistic about what we expect that future to look like, and plan/spend accordingly. As a city, we
need to make these decisions now, before reaching a point where it will really hurt to make
changes.
3. Taxes
The Focus Group does not support the tax increases proposed for 2013: 2% +one time 3% + 2%
increase in water+ 15% increase in sewer. We feel we are at a critical point in the City financial
model. The easy way out is to simply increase taxes each year, as we have done. This does not
address the fundamental issue at hand, which is our spending habits. We are leveraging our
financial future to serve our current fiscal requirements. Until we have control over our spending
habits, we will not be able to control our tax increases and address the bigger issues of tax fairness
and affordability.
Who should pay and the proportionate tax burden between classes continues to be a flash point in
the community. It's a complicated subject. The business sector continues to lobby for lower taxes.
Businesses do not bear their tax burden on their own. It touches customers, employees and
suppliers. Likewise, some businesses benefit directly from City spending and others indirectly from
services that support business and growth. A growing tourism industry brings benefits and
demands for non-resident services alike. Again this year, the draft financial plan suggests a further
reduction of major industry (Class 4). This would be the 4th continuous reduction and place the rate
in the bottom quartile in the Province. The reasons for continued and significant tax reductions in
this class are unclear, as are the economic impacts. Increases will rise further if any relief is
provided between tax classes. Relief in one tax class is simply passed on to those in the others,
shifting the problem from one group to another.
Development Cost Charges help pay to build the services necessary to support development and
community growth. Revelstoke rates are middle of the pack, both among resort communities and
all municipalities in the Province. Are the current DCCs the appropriate ones for Revelstoke? We
have no indication oftheir efficacy in achieving Revelstoke's growth management objectives of
economic development, tax fairness or affordability. This is an important question that needs
answering in considering tax fairness solutions.
We feel that there are numerous issues that need to be considered in tax fairness. We feel that
Council should consider a cohesive approach to tax strategy. One that will support the combined
economic and social objectives as Revelstoke continues to evolve into a resort community. We
suggest that Council seek further advice and assistance necessary on the economics of taxing in
Resort Communities in addressing tax fairness issue.
4. Asset Base and Capital reinvestment requirements:
We support ongoing reinvestment to sustain necessary infrastructure. During the budget
presentations, we heard that the City intends to introduce asset management planning. We strongly
support this initiative. Done right, it can provide knowledge to make better choices about how and
when to intervene to optimize asset life-cycles, manage risk, and obtain sustained value-for-money
of assets. It can also drive innovation, support economic development and assist broader planning
efforts such as the recommended sustainable financial strategy with long-range infrastructure
planning. For example, reducing treated water loss in distribution systems can reduce operating
and provide environmental benefits. Introducing innovations such as rainwater harvesting for non-
potable uses have potential to drive economies in future infrastructure renewal or expansion.
Since 2009, operating costs have contained a capital replacement contribution (amortization) that
are recouped each year in property taxes. The amount is currently $1.7 M per year. We are
concerned about the use of these amounts. We believe that these amounts should be clearly
directed to fund capital replacement. It is disappointing, to see that these funds are being used for
Non-TCA which are operating and often discretionary items. Infrastructure is being financed with
debt and as a result discounted by interest costs.
5. Reserves
We suggest a review of the current approach and use of reserves for accountability and
transparency. The design and use of the current structure lacks clarity. Some appear to be
operating reserves to offset deficits or rainy day funds. What is a reasonable amount of reserves
and for what purpose, i.e. capital investments? We feel that individual reserves by department may
not promote the best use of funds, but rather reinforce a dept-by-dept approach to business. It is
also extremely difficult to follow the source and use of funds overall, clouding transparency.
6. Efficiency /Value-for-Money:
We continue to have the concerns voiced in previous Focus Group reports about the adequacy of
processes to drive accountability, efficiency, and value-for-money.
Investments in services and programs should be defined, matched with cost and benefits and
outcomes aligned with City goals and objectives. City processes continue to look at departments
activities and focus on operational delivery (the work) rather than outcomes (the result). This
makes it difficult to assess relevance and efficiency and adjust for changing priorities on the basis of
achieving objectives.
The City has a good track record of cost-sharing, accessing grants, and exploiting innovative funding
models. We encourage this to continue with the caution that opportunity alone should not drive
initiatives. Ill conceived, today's opportunity can become tomorrow's liability, e.g. more assets to
service. Going forward, when deciding if a venture is the right fit with community interests, business
cases should assess whole costs and financial servicing on a life-cycle basis. Taking an "eyes wide
open" forward looking approach at conception will avoid unplanned financial surprises later.
What is required in business cases? Are they adequate? How widely are they used? Do they
consider risk; require whole cost on a life-cycle basis; require rigorous definition of services and
expectations aligned with city objectives; identify service levels, users, expected outcomes. What is
the basis for when to contract/when to do in house; is the related local economic impact to
spending considered.
Are post-evaluations held? These can be especially valuable for big projects and where new
services are introduced to learn what worked and what need to do differently. How are the quality
of budget estimates, budget performance, and whether objectives were achieved assessed?
7. Financial Planning Cycle, Process and Review
The current plan is presented after the fiscal year has already started. We feel that the budget
process can be improved by changing the cycle to allow for earlier decisions and input to the
financial plan; clarifying roles; and adding more defined processes. It could benefit from reviews of
prior-year operations, and post-evaluations of significant projects, to incorporate lessons learned in
the current cycle.
We feel Council should provide concrete direction and priorities to drive the budget process, e.g.
specific budget priorities, focus and weight of capital investments, directions around any changes to
levels of service, areas of growth, taxation targets, etc. We feel the role of Finance Committee should
be concretely defined, as should the purpose and expectations of any public review group such as
the Focus Group.
Focus Group
This is the third year of involvement of a focus group in the annual financial plan. There is a steep
learning curve, considerable time investment, and an expectation that one's efforts will make a
difference.
To participate in a meaningful manner requires devoting some time to become familiar with the
nature of city operations and its financing operations. The learning curve could be significantly
shortened if a training package were available. Such a tool would speed understanding and allow
focus group members to spend their time in more value-added analysis and discussion instead of
trying to figure out the financing maze. It might result in more interest from citizens, and be a tool
of benefit for other audiences, e.g. council, constituents.
We suggest that a debrief meeting with the Mayor and CAO be added as part of any future focus
group activity. This will provide the opportunity to more fully explore and develop an
understanding of the group's observations and recommendations.
8. Specific Investments/Issues:
The following are some specific areas of concern that standout to us and we suggest be reviewed:
1. Fire Protection - Like other municipalities across Canada, we are concerned about the
affordability of fire protection services. The scope and costs of services have grown
substantially over the past 10 years. We see that the City is undertaking an independent review
of the Fire Department. We feel that this should provide information to address the concerns of
affordability, and identify any opportunities to adopt new approaches, e.g. such prevention
methods that build a more fire-proof city, and tailored response models that reduce equipment
needs such as those profiled in the National Post on February 9. 2013, all to help find the
appropriate balance of cost and service for Revelstoke going forward.
2. City Hall Renovations of $800k proposed for 2013 should not proceed without a comprehensive
look at the project needs (i.e. potential internal space configuration to better utilize space and
staff).
3. Information Technology- we continue to see increase in standalone systems and growth in City
IT infrastructure. We suggest that the City stand back and develop a comprehensive IT strategy
that focuses: Strategic investment in IT aligned to achieve City's strategic direction and optimize
the investment in IT. Including connectivity, systems integration, and potential for outsourcing.
4. Sewer and Water Rates- We are concerned about the makeup ofthe costs of delivering these
services. 20% of costs are Non-TCA and internal administrative costs. The later are $125k per
year, well over the cost of one FTE in each of the utilities. We recommend a review of the cost
of operating these services.
5. Use of the Gas Tax Revenues- we feel that these should be directed to highest use and where
possible to offset future debt. Gas tax can be directed at energy efficiency projects that surely
could eliminate the need for carbon-offsets. Rather, these funds continue to be directed to
planning, while at the same time the City spends ($26 k per year) to purchase carbon-offsets.
6. Fleet- The mobile equipment/vehicle fleet is a significant portion of capital and leasing costs. A
cursory review of costs ofleasing compared to purchase doesn't show reductions in
maintenance costs suggested as a benefit to leasing. We recommend a comprehensive
cost/benefit review of fleet/mobile equipment whether the most long-term economical
approach is leasing or implementing a government fleet purchase program.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a citizen's perspective on the 2013-2017 Financial
Plan. We would be pleased to meet to discuss our observations in more detail.
Respectfully Submitted
Financial Plan Focus Group
Dale Morehouse, Betty Sloan, Nathan Weston
Dawn Levesque
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Dawn:
Teresa Lerose
March-18-13 8:20AM
Dawn Levesque
FW: Budget
This is part of the public comment package for the City's budget.
Thank you.
Teresa
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Inglis
Sent: March-18-13 8:04AM
To: Tim Palmer; Teresa Lerose
Subject: FW: Budget
-----Original Message-----
From: Annie Purse [mailto:apurse@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:02 PM
To: Graham Inglis
Subject: H'udget
HI, this letter is in response to the article in the Times Review about the budget. For me things are quite simple
as I feel the city should be run as we run our household. There are important expenditures that we have to make each
month and then we put a bit into savings and if there is anything left over we may indulge in a treat.
With the city there are important areas of spending that benefit us all and also those who need a hand up as they are
not able to completely help themselves and then there should be a reserve. If there is money left over then all those
with their hands out for projects that do not benefit all of us can be considered.
At the moment I do not believe there is extra money in the City of Revelstoke coffers so we should not be spending our
money foolishly.
Until such time as the Revelstoke tax base grows again and our population increases I think belt tightening is in order. It
seems every month a business is shutting its doors and without a growing business sector we can not afford to waste
our money.
As a retired couple our monthly income is going to stay the same and with every increase in taxes, be it local or others
we are losing ground.
I think if councillors can not take the flack when services are cut or not increased they should not be in the job. We
elected the mayor and council to do make the tough decisions and spend our money wisely.
1
Thank You, Annie Purse.
2
Dawn Levesque
From:
Sent:
To:
noreply@civicplus.com
March-10-13 3:27 PM
ad min
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact Us
If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.
Contact Us
Your Name*
Thomas Bruchig
Email Address
tbruchig@gmail.com
How Would You Prefer To Be Contacted:*
()By Phone
(X)By Email
Which Department Do You Wish to Contact?*
(X)Ad ministration
( )Economic Development
( )Engineering
()Finance
( )Fire/Rescue
()Parks Recreation and Culture
( )Planning/Bylaw Enforcement
( )Public Works Operations
Please indicate how we can be of assistance to you.*
my input for the upcoming Budget discussion: Letter to the City; As you were looking
for input in regards to approving the new budget I would like to mention a couple of
things that I do not agree with. First of all I do not approve of using our tax dollars in
financial hard times for a unnecessary position like a commissionaire in a Town of this
size, to target residents of this city who pay for his salary by trespassing property and
wasting fuel circling and idling an oversized truck in the downtown core. Or maybe
because I did not grow up in Canada I am missing the purpose of this position entirely.
For a city with a downtown core of2 city blocks I do not see the need of him circling
Mackenzie Ave, 1st Street and Orton or Boyle, by using a Pickup truck with
unreasonable gas mileage, and keep idling the truck continuously in front of local
businesses. I have seen ticket clerks in this Country covering 5 to 10 city blocks on foot
in real cities with no car present. I understand that property tax is the main income for
the city to keep things running, but in times like this I do not agree to constantly raise
taxes on a yearly basis for property and small businesses, when the local economy is
fragile. We should be making every effort to make this town more inviting to young
1

City of Revelstoke 2013 Budget Process Public Comments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Revelstoke 2013 Budget Process Public Comments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 28, 2013

Mayor David Raven & City Councilors

You might also like