HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinancial Overview Report 2017-2021.pdf
Financial Overview Report Financial Plan 2017 -2021
Page 3 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS How Have We Been Doing in Relation to Our Budget This Year ............................. 5 Property Tax Increases ..............................
7 Where Does the Money Come From and Where Does It Go? .................................... 9 Changes to Previous Operating Budget 13 Incremental Adjustments ......................
14 What Would a Zero Tax Increase Look Like? ............................................... 19 Efficiency & Effectiveness Improvements Implemented in Recent Years .................
23 Utilities & Recycling ................................. 26 Composition of Property Assessment Base .................................... 28 Staffing ...............................................
..... 29 Budget Summary ..................................... 30 Capital Program....................................... 31 Impact to the Average Home................... 41 So How Do
Our Taxes Compare to Those Around Us? ................................... 42 Financial Indicators ................................. 45 Conclusion ...............................................
49 Appendix A: Recommendations for 2017 -2021 Financial Plan .................... 50 General Information ................................ 51 Opening Remarks The Financial Plan for the
City of Maple Ridge outlines the services provided by the City and the financial implications thereof. This document provides an overview of the 2017 -2021 Financial Plan. In late November/early
December, Council receives the Financial Plan, more commonly known as the “budget”, along with the business plans from all city service areas. This allows for a fulsome discussion of
the services provided so that service level adjustments can be considered. In the interest of openness and accountability, all of Council’s budget deliberations are held in meetings
that are open to the public. This report begins with a discussion of the legislative framework that we operate in, as well as the process that we go through in developing the Financial
Plan. It then discusses the key cost drivers and financial strategies that are built into the plan. The impact of the Financial Plan to the average home is also highlighted. While this
report is prepared by the Corporate & Financial Services Division, it would not have been possible without the direction of City Council and the support of all other departments. Introduction
At the end of the day, budgeting is a balancing act between what the City would like to do and what it can afford. The decisions that are made are not just about the numbers; they affect
the programs and services that we depend on for our quality of life every day. In developing the plan, we try to keep our mind on the issues of the day, as well as those of tomorrow.
5-Year Financial Plan The current business planning and financial planning process has been developed over many years and while it is considered a best practice amongst local government
organizations, it has seen refinements each year. It begins with direction from Council which is set early in the planning cycle. Council considered the direction for the 2017 -2021
Financial Plan this past spring and held a public question and answer period at that time. As well, additional time was allowed for public input, before the guidelines were adopted
this past August. Since that time, staff has been working on developing a plan in alignment with Council’s direction. When Council receives this report, they also receive detailed Business
Plans from every department. The Business Plans identify specific workplan items that are aligned Financial Planning in the Budget Council Welcomes Your Input! FINANCIAL PLANNING
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 4 with Council direction and this material allows Council to consider workplan and service level adjustments that they may deem appropriate. As required
by section 165 of the Community Charter, our Financial Plan (budget) covers a time frame of five years, the year for which it is specified to come into force and the following four
years. The plan must be adopted annually, by bylaw, before the annual property tax bylaw is adopted. The content of the Financial Plan bylaw is prescribed by both the Community Charter
and the Local Government Act. The bylaw itself does not provide the typical reader with sufficient information. That is why we produce this report and provide detailed budgets for each
service area as part of the departmental business plans. Balanced Budget – Can’t Run Deficits The Community Charter specifies that all proposed expenditures and transfers to reserves
must not exceed the total of proposed funding sources and transfers from reserves. Simply put, this means that unlike other levels of government, we are not allowed to run a deficit.
If we want to spend money, we must identify where that money is coming from. Financial Planning vs Financial Reporting It is important to understand the difference between the objectives
of the City’s two main financial documents: The Financial Plan and the Financial Statements. The Financial Plan is a forward looking document, looking at a five-year time frame and
setting out what the City plans to do and how it plans to pay for it. In accounting terms, the Financial Plan is prepared on a “cash” basis. In contrast, the Financial Statements are
a backwards looking document showing the financial condition of the City as at December 31 of each year. The Financial Statements are prepared on an “accrual” basis, according to accounting
guidelines set by the Public Sector Accounting Board. It is important for the reader to keep these differences in mind when reading each of the documents. Open & Transparent Budget
Deliberations Section 166 of the Community Charter requires Council to undertake a process of public consultation before adopting the Financial Plan, but does not prescribe how to accomplish
that. It would be technically possible to meet the legislated requirement through a simple advertisement in the local newspaper inviting comment. In Maple Ridge, we are committed to
an open and transparent process, and offer several opportunities for citizens and stakeholders to contribute. We have a dedicated e-mail: budget@mapleridge.ca, as well as a dedicated
phone line (604)467-7484, and all of Council’s budget deliberations are open to the public. For the past several years, the City has hosted live stream events, providing an overview
of the proposed budget and an opportunity to ask questions through social media as well as by phone, e-mail, or in person. Last year, Council allowed additional time for public input,
prior to giving final consideration to the Financial Plan. Council and staff are interested in your ideas and suggestions. Financial Planning in the Budget
Page 5 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 HOW HAVE WE BEEN DOING IN RELATION TO OUR BUDGET THIS YEAR? As you can see it is hard to predict revenue. We don’t lock ourselves into expenditures at
a high level. 2016 Financial Performance As we begin to look forward to the 2017 -2021 Financial Plan, it is useful to take a look at how the current year is shaping up to provide some
context to the upcoming discussions. The focus of this discussion is the General Revenue Fund, as this is where Council has the most discretion and the transactions in this fund drive
property tax rates. Building permit revenue is a significant item in our Financial Plan. For the past number of years building permit revenues have been quite variable, exceeding Financial
Plan targets one year and missing them the next year. To manage this variability, the City uses its financial sustainability policies, conservative budgeting and a practice of planning
for the bad times during the good ones. Temporary shortfalls in revenue can be managed through the Building Inspection Reserve; the current balance in the reserve is $2.26 million,
and is the source of funding for additional staff, approved by Council, for development processing. In the last few years, development activity has been very brisk. For 2016, annual
building permit revenues will exceed our Financial Plan target of $1.7 million by approximately $1.5 million. The following table shows building permit revenues for the past 5 years.
The increase for 2016 is the result of an increase in building activity as well as an increase in the associated construction values. Historical Building Permit Revenue 2012 $1,285,502
2013 $1,761,604 2014 $2,037,077 2015 $3,035,374 2016 $3,173,754 (11 months) In 2010, the City began receiving revenues from the local gaming facility. To date, in 2016, we have recorded
$660,000 in gaming revenues and expect annual revenues to exceed our Financial Plan target of $1,050,000. Monies received from this source are allocated in line with Council’s policy.
Gaming revenues are inherently volatile in nature which is the reason Council adopted a policy framework to guide its use. How Have We Been Doing in Relation to Our Budget This Year?
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 6 Results to September indicate a General Revenue surplus at year-end. Overall cost containment by departments is a key contributing factor. Some departments
will be under budget at the end of the year due to timing issues related to ongoing projects; these amounts will be transferred to reserves as part of our year-end processes to allow
work to continue in 2016. Here are some comments on other trends that we are seeing: Revenues: Investment income in the General Revenue Fund is expected to meet financial plan targets
in 2016. At the end of September, investment income is $890,000 against a Financial Plan target of $1,165,000. It should be noted, that if the pace of capital project spending increases,
the size of the investment portfolio will decrease as will our investment earnings. Gravel revenues will miss Financial Plan targets by approximately $450,000 and revenue expectations
for future years will be adjusted. The Financial Plan included revenues of $1.7 million from the commercial section of the office tower. Current projections indicate that revenues will
miss this target by slightly more than 10% due to vacancies. Expenses: Overall, expenses are expected to come in within budget as a combined result of continued cost containment and
timing variations in the completion of various studies and projects. The following highlights some significant cost centres: The RCMP contract cost will likely come in under Financial
Plan targets. In line with Council practice, a portion of any savings will be transferred to the Police Services Reserve. There are some outstanding contractual issues, including wage
settlements that may have a retroactive impact. We may need to draw on the Police Services Reserve for funding. The longer the matter goes unresolved, the larger the potential draw
on the reserve will be. Fire Department costs are expected to be within the annual budget envelope as a result of careful cost containment. We will see some savings in the Engineering/Operations
area as a result of deferred work on various projects. These savings will be transferred to reserves at the end of the year in order to allow work to progress in 2017. As at the end
of September, Parks & Recreation costs are within financial plan targets and it is expected that any current year impacts from the dissolution of the cost share agreement with Pitt
Meadows will be managed within that envelope. General government costs are expected to be under budget at the end of the year. Much of this relates to the timing of various studies
and projects, as well as payments related to the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program. These savings will be transferred to reserves at the end of the year so that the funds are
available when required. General Revenue transfers for capital will exceed the $2.9 million target in the budget adopted in May as Council has approved an additional $2 million of capital
projects funded from General Revenue Surplus. The budgets for any projects still in progress at the end of the year will be transferred to reserves at year-end as work on the related
projects will continue in 2017. The above summary is based on results to the end of September and points to a General Revenue surplus for 2016. How Have We Been Doing in Relation to
Our Budget This Year?
Page 7 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 PROPERTY TAX INCREASES Property Tax Increases Council’s 2017 -2021 Budget Guidelines With that brief introduction, we will now turn our minds to the
2017 -2021 Budget Guidelines. These guidelines serve as direction to staff for developing the Financial Plan. Council first discussed the guidelines at the beginning of the summer and
held a public question and answer session at that time. Council then allowed additional time for public input on the guidelines before granting final approval. As can be seen on the
chart that appears below, the approved guidelines show a General Purpose tax increase of 1.90% which is the lowest increase in years. The guideline for the overall annual tax increase
for 2017 and 2018 was set at 3.15%. We are pleased to report that the Financial Plan that has been developed meets these guidelines. * The sewer user fee increases 3.6% annually and
the sewer parcel charge remains constant resulting in an overall annual increase of approximately 3.25% over the five years of the plan. ** The average composite home represents the
assessed value of all single family and multi-family homes Some additional history on our tax experience is shown in the chart that follows. An explanation of each component of the
proposed increase is also provided. Avg Composite Home, $400,000 Value** 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Property Tax increases General Purpose 2.25% 1.90% 1.92% 2.10%
1.90% 1.90% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Infrastructure Replacement 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% Fire Service Improvement 0.33% --------Parks and Recreation 0.13% 0.25%
0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Drainage 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Total Property Tax Increase 3.51% 2.95% 2.97% 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.25% 3.25%
3.25% User Fee Increases Water 5.50% 5.50% 5.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Sewer* 4.05% 4.07% 4.10% 3.21% 3.22% 3.24% 3.25% 3.25% 3.27% Recycling 3.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.67%
1.67% 2.76% 2.75% 2.75% Total Property Tax and User Fee income 3.91% 3.46% 3.49% 3.33% 3.38% 3.38% 3.48% 3.48% 3.49% Actual Proposed
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 8 Property Tax Increases General Purpose Increase – this is the portion of the increase that is used to cover the cost of existing services. The cost implications
of collective agreements are provided for in this section and have been revised to reflect recent contract settlements in the region. Infrastructure Sustainability – this portion of
the increase goes towards the rehabilitation and replacement of our existing assets and is discussed in detail later in the report. An increase of 0.70% is planned for each year of
the Financial Plan. In 2016, the increase in this section was 0.50%. Parks, Recreation & Culture – this funding is dedicated towards the improvements in Parks & Leisure Services. An
increase of 0.25% is planned for each year of this Financial Plan. Drainage Levy – this portion of the increase is dedicated towards storm water management. An increase of 0.30% is
planned for each year. Water Levy – this funding goes towards the cost of water services, including those services provided by Metro Vancouver. An increase of 4.5% is planned for each
year. Sewer Levy – this funding goes towards the cost of sanitary sewer services, including those services provided by Metro Vancouver. An annual increase of approximately 3.25% is
planned over the 5 years. Recycling Services – this money goes towards operating the recycling centre as well as for the blue box service. The approved guidelines showed an increase
of 2.75% for each year; our analysis now shows that the increase for each of the first two years of the plan can be reduced to 1.67%. With this understanding of Council’s budget guidelines
and the results that have been achieved, we turn our minds to a conceptual overview of the budget. General Purpose Infra-Infrastructure structure Drainage Parks & Rec. Fire Levy Town
Centre Total Increase 2021 2.00% 0.70% 0.30% 0.25% 3.25% 2020 2.00% 0.70% 0.30% 0.25% 3.25% 2019 2.00% 0.70% 0.30% 0.25% 3.25% 2018 1.90% 0.70% 0.30% 0.25% 3.15% 2017 1.90% 0.70% 0.30%
0.25% 3.15% 2016 2.10% 0.50% 0.30% 0.25% 3.15% 2015 1.92% 0.50% 0.30% 0.25% 2.97% 2014 1.90% 0.50% 0.30% 0.25% Inc. in GP 2.95% 2013 2.25% 0.50% 0.30% 0.13% 300,000 3.51% 2012 3.00%
1.00% 600,000 4.88% 2011 3.00% 1.00% 600,000 4.99% 2010 3.00% 1.00% 600,000 5.13% 2009 3.00% 1.00% 600,000 5.18% 2008 3.00% 1.00% 600,000 5.31% 2007 3.75% 600,000 1.00% 6.18% 2006 3.75%
600,000 1.00% 6.37% 2005 3.00% 600,000 1.00% 5.77% 2004 3.00% 1.00% 4.00% 2003 3.00% 1.00% 4.00%
Page 9 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go? WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM AND WHERE DOES IT GO? Conceptual Overview From time to time, we hear
from citizens asking why a tax increase is required, when there is additional money coming into the city from new construction. This section of the report provides a conceptual overview
of where the City's money comes from and where it goes. New Revenue The chart that follows shows the revenue coming into the City. We begin with the taxes that were collected last year
and adjust it for the taxes coming in from new construction. The new construction represents value that was not taxed previously and we refer to the additional tax revenue as Growth
Revenue. To this subtotal, we add the additional revenue requirements approved by Council that were discussed on the previous page. These include: The General Purpose component of
the increase is what is used to cover the cost increases of existing services (i.e. inflation). Infrastructure replacement funding which refers to the amount that will be invested
in the rehabilitation and replacement of our existing assets. The increase for Parks, Recreation & Culture which is to provide financial capacity to implement the recommendations
of the Parks & Recreation Masterplan. The Drainage amount is designed to provide increased funding for drainage works throughout the City. As well, there are tax adjustments that
have to be provided for as a result of assessment appeals and provincial rules around the tax rate applied to the Utilities Class. Projected revenue increases are also included. At
the end of the day, an additional $4.2 million in revenue is expected to accrue to the City in 2017. Conceptual Overview of New Revenue When Costs Go Up as a Result of Inflation, Increases
Must be Covered Within This Line I tem ($ in thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Previous Year's Taxation 72,150 76,190 80,215 84,420 88,850 Growth Rate 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
Growth Rate (Town Centre Incentive) 0.45% 0.15% Growth Revenue 1,770 1,635 1,605 1,690 1,775 Previous Year's Taxation + Growth 73,920 77,825 81,820 86,110 90,625 Property Tax Increases:
General Purpose 1.90% 1.90% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Infrastructure Replacement 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% Parks & Recreation Improvements 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Drainage Improvements
0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Total Property Tax Increase 3.15% 3.15% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% Property Tax Increase 2,330 2,450 2,660 2,800 2,945 Ut ility Class Cap. & Sup. Adj. Cont ingency
(60) (60) (60) (60) (60) Addit ional Property Taxes vs. Prior Year 4,040 4,025 4,205 4,430 4,660 Next Year's Taxation Base 76,190 80,215 84,420 88,850 93,510 Reduct ion In Gravel Sales
(200) ----Increases in Other Revenue 340 275 290 180 180 Increase in General Revenue 4,180 4,300 4,495 4,610 4,840
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 10 Transfers The previous section discussed the additional money coming into the city from tax increases, fees and charges, as well as new construction.
Now we turn our minds to the demands against that money. Reserves are an important part of our Financial Plan. The contributions to reserves are referred to as Transfers and our Financial
Plan relies on reserves to meet major expenditures. For example, rather than having to provide full funding in the year that we need to replace a fire truck, we try to set aside a smaller
amount each year over the useful life of the vehicle. This is done by putting money aside each year in what we call the Equipment Replacement Reserve. We keep a close eye on these reserves
to make sure that they are able to meet their obligations. Annual adjustments are made to the contributions to these reserves as required, and the table below shows the adjustments
included in this Financial Plan. A more fulsome discussion on our reserves is included beginning on page 33 of this report. Conceptual Overview of Changes to Transfers We Use Reserves
to Provide Long-Term Financial Stability Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go? I tem ($ in thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Addit ional General Revenue available 4,180
4,300 4,495 4,610 4,840 Transfers to Reserves: Capital Works Reserve 165 (90) (40) (45) (45) CWR Reduced Gravel Sales 200 ----Fire Department Capital (75) (80) (80) (85) (90) Equipment
Replacement Reserve (40) (85) (85) (90) (90) General Revenue Funded Capital (net CWR tfrs) (160) (160) (165) (175) (185) Recycling Reserve 45 20 (5) (5) (5) Police Services Reserve
(RCMP Contract) (295) (195) ---Reserve for Facilities Maintenance --(50) (75) (75) Building Permit Reserve (PW&D Staff Funding) (255) ----Available af ter t ransfers 3,765 3,710 4,070
4,135 4,350
Page 11 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go? Expenditures After we have adjusted for the reserve transfers, we must provide for expected cost
increases. Many of these cost increases are the result of contractual commitments. When looking at this table, keep in mind that we are looking at the additional funding required over
the previous year. For instance in the Fire Department, the 2017 costs are increasing by $370,000 from 2016 and are increasing by a further $395,000 in 2018. As already mentioned, we
have little discretion in funding these items as they are the result of existing contracts (labour agreements, RCMP and Fraser Valley Regional Library are some examples). Conceptual
Overview of Expenditure Changes Some of the larger expenditures are discussed below: Labour: This line reflects the financial impact of wage and benefit cost increases. Fire Department:
The evolution of our fire department to include full time paid responders took place over many years. Costs continue to increase, though no additional firefighters are provided for.
Operating costs for Fire Hall No. 4 are included in 2018. Policing: This line includes the cost for contracts associated with Police Services including RCMP, centralized dispatch services
and regional initiatives such as an Integrated Homicide Team, an Emergency Response Team, Forensic Identification, a Dog Unit and a Traffic Reconstruction Unit. The budget previously
included the addition of eight police officers over the 5-year life of the plan. The recommendation is now to hire four of these police officers in 2017 to increase front line police
resources and to use the Protective Services Reserve to manage the costs. There are a number of contracts already in place. There is little discretion in funding these commitments.
I tem ($ in thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Available af ter t ransfers 3,765 3,710 4,070 4,135 4,350 Increase in expenditures: Labour (excluding Fire Dept.) (595) (700) (615) (725)
(845) Fire Department (370) (395) (415) (290) (290) Parks & Recreation Master Plan (185) (195) (205) (215) (225) Policing Contracts (RCMP, ITEAMS, ECOMM) (725) (600) (845) (735) (790)
Fraser Valley Regional Library (90) (85) (85) (90) (90) Inflation Allowance (75) (225) (225) (235) (250) Infrastructure Replacement (515) (545) (575) (605) (635) Drainage Levy Related
Capital Projects (220) (235) (245) (260) (270) Growth Costs (380) (405) (405) (405) (405) Recycling Expenses (190) (70) (75) (75) (75) Arenas Contract (CPI adjustment) --(90) --Use
of Accumulated Surplus (PW&D Staff Funding) 125 (50) (75) Available af ter expenditures 545 205 215 500 475 Surplus from prior year 100 487 622 678 1,165 Other Adjustments & Rounding
(158) (70) (159) (13) 100 General Revenue Surplus 487 622 678 1,165 1,740
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 12 Library: We are part of a regional library system and so our costs are affected by a number of factors, including changes in relative service levels.
For instance, if one member opens up a new library, some of the costs are direct costs to the member while other costs are shared by the entire system. The cost of the contracted service
with the Fraser Valley Regional Library is expected to increase by about $90,000. Infrastructure Replacement: In 2008, Council approved a 1% tax increase to help maintain our existing
infrastructure. The annual increase for the years 2013-2016 was reduced to 0.5% though this amount is supplemented by committing a portion of gaming revenues and the growth in property
taxes due to the Town Centre Incentive Program to infrastructure replacement. For the 2017 -2021 Financial Plan, the annual tax increase for Infrastructure has been increased to 0.70%.
Additional discussion on infrastructure replacement is included on page 36. Inflation Allowance: The inflation allowance covers over 1,000 items, amounting to almost $10 million in
materials and services, for which increases are not specifically built into departmental budgets. An allowance of about 0.7% for 2017 and 2% per year for 2018—2021 is included in fiscal
services to cover inflationary cost increases. Budget Allocations for Growth: Maple Ridge is a growing community. Each year, more and more roads and sidewalks are built. More boulevard
trees are planted. All of these have to be looked after. In recognition of the additional work required each year, a portion of the new tax revenue from new construction is set aside
to meet the growth demands. The table below shows the growth amounts included in this Financial Plan. It should be noted that this allocation is subject to us meeting the growth revenue
projections. After providing for the expenditure changes identified on the previous page, the General Revenue Surplus is $487,000. As the reader will note, the cost increase in some
areas such as police and fire services is far more significant than in others. One question that we are often asked is “Why do the City's costs increase so much more than inflation?”
In asking this question, people are often referring to CPI (Consumer Price Index) which has been around 2% for some time. The short answer is that CPI refers to the price change of
a basket of goods that includes things like groceries. The purchases that the City makes are very different than those purchases that are included in the CPI basket. Where Does The
Money Come From and Where Does It Go? I tem ($ in thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 General Revenue Fund Fire Dept. Equipment Mtce. & Capital 50 50 50 50 50 Operations Department
65 65 65 65 65 Parks Maintenance 40 65 65 65 65 Software Maintenance 30 30 30 30 30 Public Works & Development (PWDS) 65 65 65 65 65 Corporate & Financial Services (CFS) 65 65 65 65
65 Parks, Recreation & Culture (PRC) 65 65 65 65 65 General Revenue Total 380 405 405 405 405 Water Revenue Fund -Maintenance 15 15 15 15 15 Sewer Revenue Fund -Maintenance 10 10 10
10 10
Page 13 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Changes to Previous Operating Budget The next section outlines the changes to this Financial Plan from the one that covered the years 2016-2020. If
we plan properly there should be few changes from one Financial Plan to the next one. Our last Financial Plan showed a surplus of $36,000 for 2017. Here is a summary of the changes
that have been made: 1. Labour and benefit cost estimates have been updated and this has had a favourable impact to the budget. 2. The inflation contingency has been reduced as costs
have been updated. 3. Crown Corporation/Utility Companies grants have been reduced to reflect current estimates. As a result, the 2017 surplus, prior to considering incremental requests
is $487,000. General Revenue Fund (GRF) Reconciliation of 2016—2020 Financial Plan Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go? ($ in thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Adopted
Financial Plan 2016-2020 General Revenue Fund (GRF) Surplus 36 46 57 491 n/a Changes Labour 235 331 418 418 Changes to MSP, pension & other benefit rates 90 100 84 75 Inflation 131
131 125 131 Terminating the Joint Leisure Services Agreement (1) 20 (3) 45 Grants-in-Lieu (33) (33) (33) (33) Other Adjustments 29 27 30 38 450 576 621 674 GRF Surplus before Incremental
Adjustments 487 622 677 1,165 1,740
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 14 Incremental Adjustments The last section showed that after dealing with existing commitments and policy direction, $487,000 is available to deal with
other Council priorities. We refer to these other priorities as “Incremental Adjustments”. Incremental adjustments represent service level changes not previously included in the Financial
Plan. For the past several years, due to the tough economic times and Council's desire to keep tax increases to a minimum, staff were directed to only bring forward incremental requests
for matters critical to their operations and/or if they represented health or life-safety risks. As a result, incremental requests were kept to a minimum. As Council will see in the
departmental business plans, organizational pressures are building up and this financial plan provides some relief. An incremental request was approved by Council in 2015 for additional
staffing in Public Works and Development Services. The financial impact of this is included in our financial plan. In addition, in recent years, Council has supported a Façade Improvement
Program, in partnership with the Downtown Business Improvement Association (DMRBIA). The annual cost of this program is $25,000 and we recommend that it be extended for 2017 and 2018.
The funding source for this would be Accumulated Surplus. In addition to the foregoing, the following enhancements are recommended by the Corporate Management Team. 1. Addition of 4
RCMP members in 2017 The existing Financial Plan provides for the addition of eight police officers over the 5 years of the Financial Plan. Our front line resources have been relatively
unchanged for the past several years and the addition of four officers in 2017 would allow an additional police officer to be added to each of the patrol watches. In essence, we would
be moving up the timing of officers that we would have hired later and the additional cost can be funded from the Protective Services Reserve. Further support for the RCMP will be looked
at, as financial capacity allows. 2. Research Technician This position in the Sustainability & Corporate Planning area is reliant on $50,000 annual funding from BC Hydro. The position
is integral to our work while BC Hydro’s funding commitment expires by mid-2018. We have structured the Financial Plan to provide an ongoing stream of our own funding to replace the
BC Hydro grant. We have the capacity to build in our own funding by 2018 and any shortfalls that we experience in the meantime will be funded from the Carbon Tax Rebates that we have
received, which are the result of the work performed by this section. 3. Support for Electronic Document Management The City has made a significant investment in the electronic document
management system. Funding to support the implementation and startup expires in mid-2017, though there is ongoing work to be done. Specifically, the system can be leveraged to create
electronic forms with automated built-in workflows. This will enhance customer service and increase the efficiencies for many departments – eliminating labour intensive paper forms
and paper handling by multiple individuals. The support is provided by a staff member who has gained valuable knowledge about the system. We will lose the benefits of this investment
if we do not continue with this position. Funding of $40,000 for 2017 and $80,000 annually thereafter is included in the plan. 4. Archive Preservation & Storage The Clerk’s Department
business plan outlines the digitization, preservation and storage work that needs to be done for our archives. While the work will be done over 5 years, we recommend that $50,000 be
set aside from surplus to fund this work so that it can be done as and when it makes sense. Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go?
Page 15 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 5. Advisory Committee Training & Networking The advisory committees have expressed a desire for a training event that would also allow them to network
with each other. These committees are an important part of the work of Council so we recommend that the estimated cost of $4,500 be supported and funded from surplus. 6. Emergency Program
Resources Due to recent retirements, we have seen significant turnover in the staff that would have responsibilities in an Emergency Operations Centre (EOC). Further, our training and
support materials have to be updated and the existing funding for this is inadequate. We recommend that for 2017, $10,000 be provided to support the work program. While this cost is
one-time in nature and can be funded from Surplus, we recommend that the annual budget for this area be increased by $3,000 to accommodate the ongoing workplan. 7. Funding for Community
Energy Management Program The City receives an annual Carbon Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) rebate on the carbon tax paid on fuels purchased. This rebate has been reserved
for activities that reduce corporate and/or community energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas emissions. Our work in the area of Community Energy Management to date has been limited
because there is no funding attached to it. We propose allocating $80,000 from our Carbon Tax Reserve to fund Community Energy Management work which will include outreach, education,
corporate waste pilot project(s) and communication. Funds may be used for consulting as well as hiring a summer student to assist with the work. Doing so will allow us to propel our
new Community Energy Management program forward and provide a valuable service to our current and future residents, builders, and business community. 8. Sustainability Reserve Contribution
Maple Ridge is a signatory to the BC Climate Action Charter. Prime Minister Trudeau has also stressed to provinces the importance of adopting carbon pricing schemes to acknowledge the
cost of greenhouse gas emissions. Although we measure and publicly report on these emissions, we have not set aside a pool of money to take corrective action. The BC Carbon tax is $30/tonne.
We recommend that we set aside a relatively modest amount of $3,000 for 2017, incrementing annually by $1,000 to acknowledge the importance of this issue and try to supplement this
amount by one quarter of one percent of our annual surplus. The funds would be used to support energy and emissions projects corporately and in the community. Council would control
the use of these funds. 9. Staff Retention and Attraction A number of staff have retired in the past few years and more are expected to retire in the coming few years. Additional funding
of $50,000 has been set aside in this financial plan for 2017, increasing to $150,000 in 2019 and years thereafter for retention and attraction initiatives. 10. Part Time Relief – Property
Tax Front Counter Staffing levels at the property tax counter have remained unchanged for many years while volumes have increased significantly. Online applications have provided some
relief, however pressures have built up to the point where additional staff support is required. The cost of added part time relief is $30,000 annually and has been provided for in
this Financial Plan. 11. Staff Support for Social Planning Staffing support in Social Planning is required to assist with the myriad of social issues that we are dealing with. Issues
associated with poverty, addiction, mental health, and homelessness are being handled by staff who have other responsibilities and this has created pressures that are not sustainable.
Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go?
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 16 Two additional staff at a cost of $195,000 are required to provide the necessary support. As well, with the dissolution of the joint agreement with
Pitt Meadows, our own Parks, Recreation & Culture division is evolving. The existing pool of funds allocated for Succession Planning can be used to fund the new positions in 2017. For
2018 and beyond, $100,000 per year will be provided. The balance will come from within existing envelopes, as the department evolves. 12. Museum and Seniors Programming The budgets
for these two service areas have remained relatively unchanged for many years though demand has increased. Allocating an additional $45,000 to each of these service areas will allow
them to better support their programs. 13. Cultural Plan In the 2016-2020 Financial Plan, $20,000 was allocated for a Cultural Plan. This has allowed for Phase 1 of the project to be
completed. Phase II requires a further investment of $15,000 which can be funded from surplus. 14. Staff Support for Development Services In 2015, Building Permit Revenue reached $2.7
million against an annual budget of $1.7 million. For 2016, revenues of $3.4 million are expected. Along with this revenue comes additional workload. To meet the level of service expectations
of the development and building communities additional resources are identified. We are recommending that the annual budgeted revenue for Building Permits be increased by $650,000 to
provide for the following: Transportation Engineer Engineering Technician Electrical Inspector Plan Check Supervisor Building Inspection Supervisor Environmental Technician
The incremental packages included in the business plans have additional detail on these positions. We expect building activity to remain brisk and in the event that we don’t meet the
revenue targets, we have $2.5 million in a Building Inspection Reserve account that can be used to bridge the shortfall until staffing adjustments can be made. 15. Fire Department Training
For the past several years, our Fire Department has used the Justice Institute of BC’s (JIBC) facility on 256th Street for training. This was done through an agreement with the JIBC
that expired in August, 2016. That agreement allowed us to obtain the required training time, in exchange for older fire department equipment that we had provided to the JIBC. JIBC
has advised us that an arrangement such as this is no longer acceptable to them and that we need to pay for the training on the same basis as other fire departments. In view of our
long standing positive relationship, JIBC has agreed to extend our previous arrangement until the end of this year. The annual value of the training is $175,000. After our own training
facility is built in conjunction with Fire Hall No. 4, this will be reduced to $75,000 as we will only need to use the JIBC facility for live fire training. We recommend that for 2017,
we set aside $350,000 from surplus to fund the first 2 years of these costs. From 2019 forward, the $75,000 required annually will be funded from growth funding allocated to the fire
department. 16. Growth Related Maintenance Requirements in Operations The Operations Centre requires additional funding for ongoing maintenance. This additional work can be funded from
the Utility (Water & Sewer) Funds and will thus have no impact on General Revenue. Sewer Pump Maintenance & Flushing Program $165,000 Water Pump Station & Reservoir Maintenance
$150,000 Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go?
Page 17 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 The annual allotments identified above will be phased in over three years to match the required maintenance program. 17. IT Business Solutions Support
The IT Department is responsible for looking after and growing our existing technologies and in helping departments achieve business solutions. These solutions often require the need
for improved corporate data management and purpose built applications that will deliver an improved customer experience and an increased ability for staff to find efficiencies in managing
their departmental resources. An additional staff resource in the Business Solutions stream will allow IT to focus efforts on purpose built, online tools that will serve our citizens
in engaging with us, accessing information and doing business with the City, without sacrificing existing services. In addition, tools for staff will be invaluable in managing resources
and solving business problems. Funding of $90,000 from General Revenue is required to fund this. 18. After-hours IT Response Since inception, the IT Department has been funded to provide
support from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday. Over the past decade, IT demands have increased well beyond these hours and resourcing has not kept up. At City Hall alone, we have
staff starting before 7:00 am and working well into the early evening. In addition, the Leisure Centre is open from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm, Bylaw officers work on the weekends, meetings
are live streamed in the evenings and Operations and Fire Departments run 24/7. Increasing Service Desk hours to 10:00 pm on weekday evenings and providing service on the weekends,
will allow us to support staff working non-standard hours and citizens accessing online services. In addition, timely response to requests for service will improve as this additional
resourcing will be devoted to maximizing the customer experience. Funding of $80,000 from General Revenue is required for this. 19. Economic Development Workplan The Tourism Task Force
is interested in developing a tourism marketing program as well as doing further work on the feasibility of a hotel. Additional details on the proposed work are available in the Economic
Development Workplan. $90,000 funded from surplus can provide for this work. 20. Growth Related Brushing Maintenance The Operations Department requires additional funds to continue
to deliver the levels of service for brushing maintenance and the chipping program. This can be funded through existing unallocated growth funds in the Operations Department and thus
will have no additional impact on General Revenue. The annual level of growth funding has been constant at $65,000 per year for the Operations Department to cover growth costs that
are not related to water or sewer. This amount will be reviewed in future years budgets to ensure that it is sufficient to cover the maintenance costs of additional municipal infrastructure
added by both by developers and through the City’s capital program. Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go?
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 18 Details on all of the incremental packages are available in the departmental business plans. The impact of these Incremental Adjustments is shown in
the following table. * Endnotes 1 to 19 are explained in more detail on pages 14 to 17 For 2017, our surplus of $487,000 has been reduced to $104,000. The effect is not as significant
as one might have thought due to the use of surplus, reserves and increased revenues. Additional items funded by the Utility Funds are shown below. These have no impact on the General
Revenue Surplus. Where Does The Money Come From and Where Does It Go? Item ($ in thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Proposed Ongoing Operating Items funded by Water and Sewer Revenue
Funds Water Reservoir Maintenance (20) (40) (60) (60) (60) Water Pump Station Maintenance (30) (60) (90) (90) (90) Water Revenue Funding 50 100 150 150 150 Sanitary Sewer Flushing (30)
(60) (90) (90) (90) Sewage Pump Station Maintenance (10) (20) (30) (30) (30) 225 Street Sewage Pump Station Maintenance (15) (30) (45) (45) (45) Sewer Revenue Funding 55 110 165 165
165 Item ($ in thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 General Revenue Surplus 487 622 678 1,165 1,740 Proposed Ongoing Incremental Operating Items Research Technician (Formerly Funded
by BC Hydro Grant) 2 -(25) (50) (50) (50) Electronic Document Management 3 (40) (80) (80) (80) (80) Emergency Program 6 -(3) (3) (3) (3) Property Tax Front Counter Support 10 (30) (30)
(30) (30) (30) Social Planning 11 (200) (100) (100) (100) (100) Succession Planning (Existing funding) 11 200 Museum /Seniors Programming 12 (90) (90) (90) (90) (90) IT Business Solutions
17 (90) (90) (90) (90) (90) After Hours IT Response 18 (80) (80) (80) (80) (80) Sustainability Reserve Contribution 8 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Staff Retention and Attraction 9 (50) (100)
(150) (150) (150) RCMP Members Accelerated Hiring 1 (300) (200) (100) RCMP Members (Police Reserve Funding) 1 300 200 100 Community Energy Management Program 7 (80) Carbon Rebate (Funding)
7 80 Staff Support for Development Services 14 Building Inspector (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) Building Inspector Supervisor (110) (110) (110) (110) (110) Building Department Plan
Checker Supervisor (110) (110) (110) (110) (110) Environmental Technician (93) (93) (93) (93) (93) Manager Of Transportation Engineering (141) (141) (141) (141) (141) Engineering Technologist
1 (96) (96) (96) (96) (96) Building Permit Revenue to fund staffing 650 650 650 650 650 Desks and Computers for 6 new staff (42) Desks and Computers (Building Reserve Funding) 42 Subtotal
General Revenue Surplus 104 20 -486 1,060 Proposed One Time Operating Items funded by Accumulated Surplus BIA Façade Improvement Program (25) (25) Archives 4 (50) Advisory Committee
Training & Networking 5 (5) Emergency Program 6 (10) Fire Training JIBC Rental 15 (175) (175) Cultural Plan 13 (15) Hotel Feasibility and Air BNB Study 19 (30) Tourism Coordinator (Contract)
19 (60) Previously Approved Capital Items funded from Accumulated Surplus Transportation Plan: Cycling Infrastructure (100) (100) (100) (100) Transportation Plan: Sidewalk Infrastructure
(400) (400) (400) (400) Transfer From Accumulated Surplus 870 700 500 500 General Revenue Surplus 104 20 -486 1,060
Page 19 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 WHAT WOULD A ZERO TAX INCREASE LOOK LIKE? A few communities speak about having achieved a zero tax increase and sometimes we are asked if we could do
the same. The answer is “Yes, absolutely we could achieve a zero tax increase. The key thing is to do it properly.” Here are some of the methods that are used and we strongly recommend
against them: Defer infrastructure renewal and maintenance -Some municipalities reduce expenditures in this area. From our perspective, this is short-sighted and can prove to be far
more costly in the longer term. The old Fram Oil Filter commercial and its “Pay me now or pay me later” slogan holds so true. The saying could actually be changed to “Pay me now or
pay me much more later.” Use savings to cushion tax increases in the short run -This approach has also been used by some municipalities and there is nothing wrong with it, providing
there is a plan to reduce the reliance on savings and a plan to replenish them. The question to ask is “what will you do when the savings run out?” Use unstable revenue sources to fund
core expenditures -There is general agreement in the municipal field that certain revenues such as revenue from gaming can be quite volatile and that such revenue should not be used
to fund core expenditures. That is because revenues can drop off with little advanced warning, creating difficulty in funding the associated costs. Our own policy on gaming revenue
warns against this, though some municipalities have used this approach to keep tax increases down. Defer capital projects -While it is important to take a look at capital projects and
their associated operating costs, automatically deferring capital projects can stagnate a city. It is important for the City to invest in capital projects so that others will see those
investments and will want to invest too. Capital projects including parks, recreation facilities, water, sewer and drainage systems must be done in a timely manner so that citizens
and businesses receive the services they need to succeed. Amend Financial Plan assumptions -As Council is aware, the Financial Plan includes realistic assumptions around revenue growth,
growth in the tax base and cost increases. By altering these assumptions, tax increases could be reduced. This may result in savings having to be used when projected results don’t materialize.
For this reason, this approach is not recommended. So what can we do to achieve a lower tax increase or even no tax increase? Well, the way to do this properly is to look at what is
driving the tax increase. In other words, which areas are costs going up in? For Maple Ridge, here are the key cost drivers for 2017: RCMP Costs 2016 2017 Increase RCMP Contract $18,355,000
$19,080,000 $725,000 Comments: The largest changes in the RCMP Contract costs are due to increases in compensation and RCMP Overhead, items that the City has no discretion with. Over
the life of this Financial Plan, we are trying to provide for the addition of about 1.5 members per year to keep up with workloads. One additional member costs about $150,000 so to
bring the RCMP budget in at a zero increase would result in the loss of about 5 members. This is not recommended due to the effect it would have on public safety. In fact with the incremental
package that is being supported by staff, we are trying to hire officers earlier than was previously planned to increase our front line police resources. What Would a Zero Tax Increase
Look Like?
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 20 Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal 2016 2017 Increase Annual Contribution $4,300,000 $5,145,000 $845,000 Comments: We have a huge infrastructure renewal/maintenanc
e deficit that we are starting to address. We do not have to do this and could continue to defer this item. Timely maintenance and renewal can help avoid larger expenditures later and
that is why we recommend that we not defer this item. Fire Department 2016 2017 Increase Annual Costs $10,210,000 $10,630,000 $420,000 Comments: The largest portion of the increase
in the Fire Department is related to the wages and benefits of the full time firefighters that are determined under a collective agreement. No additional personnel are included in the
budget. For the department to hold the line in its increase, it would have to take one truck out of service which would reduce costs by $500,000. This is not recommended as our response
times to calls for service will increase. Further, the composite model that we have spent some time developing may be compromised. This increase differs from the Fire Department item
in the expenditures chart due to $50,000 of growth funding reported separately. Parks, Recreation & Culture 2016 2017 Increase Master Plan Funding $515,000 $700,000 $185,000 Comments:
The Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan was adopted in 2010 through community consultation. There are a number of priorities in the plan that this funding could be allocated toward,
the specifics of which will be determined by Council. We could push back the phased-in funding which would delay planning and implementation of those priorities. Drainage Improvements
2016 2017 Increase Annual Levy $775,000 $995,000 $220,000 Comments: Parts of the community have high potential for flooding and we have been trying to systematically make improvements
to our drainage system. An increase of $220,000 was planned for 2017, but we do not have to do this. Pay me now — Pay me later! What Would a Zero Tax Increase Look Like?
Page 21 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Library—Eliminate Sunday openings — Closing our library on Sundays could save $38,000 annually. It may take some time for the full financial benefit
to be realized due to contractual commitments. Community Grants—Eliminate — Council has set aside $60,800 on an annual basis to support a range of community grants. This program could
be reduced and/or eliminated over a period of time. Port-a-Potties in Parks—Eliminate port-a-potties in City and community level parks and on the dyke trail system — This could save
$24,000, but result in lowered satisfaction by park and trail patrons who expect this level of service. Core Security—Eliminate on-site daily supervision and security services in Memorial
Peace Park and surrounding buildings — This could save $60,000, but result in risk of increased negative behaviours in the area and corresponding impact on RCMP resources. Accessibility
to Recreation Services—Eliminate some of the oversight to programs that increase access to parks and recreation services for citizens with unique needs or challenges including a disability,
financial limitations or other barrier. This will reduce costs by $34,000 and will result in reduced support for individuals and families dealing with situations that may limit or exclude
their access to recreation services. There is some potential for reduced participation from this sector and elimination of support to the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility.
Contribution to Reserves 2016 2017 Increase Fire Department $1,825,000 $1,925,000 $100,000 Capital Works 995,000 830,000 (165,000) Equipment Replacement 2,120,000 2,160,000 40,000 Comments:
The City relies on Reserve Funds to manage large expenditures and the above-noted increases in contributions were planned for 2017. These systematic contributions allow us to deal with
large capital items without having to pass large tax increases on to our citizens. As Council is aware, detailed analysis on all of our reserves is done to make sure that the balance
is adequate. We do not have to set aside this additional money into reserves, but reserves help us smooth the impact of larger costs over time and remove volatility in fees and charges.
General Inflation, Including Labour 2017 Increase Labour $595,000 Inflation 75,000 Comments: As Council is aware, most line items in the budget are held to no increase. The financial
impact of contractual agreements is built into the Financial Plan. In addition to making adjustments in the areas where costs are going up, Council can also consider service level adjustments.
Here are some of the areas that could be looked at, keeping in mind that these reductions are not recommended by staff. Service Level Reductions (not recommended) What Would a Zero
Tax Increase Look Like?
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 22 Brushing and Chipping Program—Eliminate — This could save $72,654. This program was implemented many years ago when an outdoor burning ban was placed
in the urban area. The intent was to offer citizens an alternative to burning branches or having to take such debris to the transfer station. Mosquito Control Program—Eliminate — This
could save $12,000. This program is offered by the GVRD and there are municipalities that choose not to participate. Contract with ARMS/KEEPS—Eliminate — This could save $40,000. These
are valuable community groups that receive assistance from us and Council may wish to reconsider this assistance. Our business planning methodology results in us looking at all that
we do to make sure that it is being done in the best way possible. The business plans that accompany this document as well as the next section of this report highlight some of the improvements
that have been made over the past few years. These changes have improved the efficiency and effectiveness of our services and resulted in significant savings for our citizens. Also,
if you go through the departmental budgets that are included with our business plans, you will see that most line items do not increase at all year over year. This, coupled with close
monitoring of expenses, is what allows us to keep our tax increases to a minimum. To achieve a lower tax increase, it is important to address the cost drivers or look at service level
reductions. What Would a Zero Tax Increase Look Like?
Page 23 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 So to reiterate, a zero tax increase or lower tax increase can be achieved. To do it properly, it should be done by looking at cost drivers and/or through
service level reductions. The reader should keep in mind that on an ongoing basis we look at ways to improve service delivery and save money. Over the past period of time, we have implemented
a number of initiatives that have done exactly this. Here is a selection of our more notable successes. Shared Services 1. Mutual Aid Agreements with Pitt Meadows, Mission and Langley
for emergency fire services. These agreements allow us to deal with peak loads more efficiently. 2. Fire Department has partnered with the Justice Institute to use their training facility
at favourable rates. 3. Partnership with Rogers Communications that allowed for the design and rebuild of an abandoned sewer line for communication services under the Haney Bypass for
our mutual use. 4. RCMP Regional Forensic Investigation Unit has been relocated to Maple Ridge providing us with enhanced service and rental income. 5. Operations Fueling – centralized
fueling of City fleet vehicles and bulk fuel purchases have resulted in favourable pricing. Presently, our price is about 0.15¢ per litre cheaper than retail. 6. Partnered with a number
of municipalities in BC to define the scope and participate in a joint RFP project for recreation software replacement. 7. Our Operations Centre is now doing routine maintenance on
the police vehicles and this has reduced our costs. 8. Partnering with post-secondary institutions such as BCIT and SFU to leverage student resources for mutual benefit. Includes development
of new technology to more efficiently establish forested area inventories and data development to support sustainable community performance measures. Business Process Efficiency 1.
Computer-aided dispatch and truck allocation in our Fire Department has increased reduced wait times for information. 2. Bylaw Adjudication System – a new way of ‘serving’ infractions
has saved us about $40,000 per year in Bylaw Officer time. 3. Vacant Positions – vacant staffing positions are subjected to reviews to ensure need and efficiency. 4. Operations adapts
dump trucks for snowplow use and Parks & Facilities licences certain lawnmowers for more efficient transportation between locations. 5. Issue and manage parking tickets in real time
in the field using smart phones. This eliminates duplicate data entry, reduces staff time and serves as a customer service boost as tickets are entered online and in real time. Service
Delivery Improvements 1. ePayments – online payments for certain City services are being widely embraced. 2. Customer Service Coordinator for business licences provides a one-on-one
interface for business licence applicants. We have received significant positive feedback on this change. 3. The Development Liaison Committee was established and is assisting with
the implementation of best practices to reduce processing times. This work was recognized with awards in 2015 and 2016 from the Commercial Real Estate Development Assoc. 4. WorkSafeBC
recognized our Health and Safety program with a rebate of $44,000 on our annual assessment. 5. Volunteerism – utilization of volunteers for festivals and events (30,403 hrs), Parks,
Recreation & Culture (14,220 hrs) and support EFFICIENCY & EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED IN RECENT YEARS Efficiency & Effectiveness Improvements Implemented in Recent Years
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 24 for RCMP programs (10,500 hrs) to augment objectives and contain staffing costs. 6. Civilianization of RCMP Roles – three police roles have been converted
to civilian roles in the last few years at substantial savings. 7. Bylaws/Permits Laptops in Vehicles – pilot project underway on in-field access to digital case files in vehicle laptops.
Expected to yield significant efficiency and time savings when fully operational. 8. Customer Service – renewed emphasis on customer service, including updated training for employees.
9. Service Automation – enhanced irrigation system for hanging basket fertilization reducing manpower costs. 10. Realignment of duties in the Information Technology department to improve
service delivery. 11. Realignment of downtown security services to improve service. 12. Live-streamed public question and answer sessions on our budget to increase transparency and
accountability. 13. Dissolution of joint Parks & Leisure Services Agreement with Pitt Meadows that has improved service to our citizens. 14. Collaboration/Communication Tools for internal
and external parties. The tools used to produce Maple Ridge this Week were adapted for use by the Economic Development Technology Task Force and Forward 2020 projects. We expect many
more groups to use this service going forward. Contract Arrangements 1. E-Comm Contract – entered a contract in 2011 for police dispatch services with E-Comm that reduced our costs
by $1 million over 5 years. The contract was renewed effective 2017 without a large increase. 2. Audit Services– renegotiated the agreement for a 5% reduction in our costs with improved
services. 3. Library – favourable change in cost-sharing formula. 4. Hammond Stadium Upgrade – internalized project management to potentially save up to $400,000 compared to the low
bid for the project. 5. The Operations Centre worked with ICBC and was able to achieve insurance rebates of $33,065 in 2016, compared to $6,050 the previous year. 6. Arranging our property
and insurance coverage through the Municipal Insurance Association has reduced our insurance costs. 7. Legal Services – renegotiated the agreement that has improved service and reduced
costs. 8. Entered into an Administrative Services contract for some of our employee benefits. It has improved service and reduced our costs. Technological Innovation 1. Leisure Centre
Retrofit – the use of solar power, dehumidification and heat recovery system water heating since 2011 has resulted in the recovery of the cost of the retrofit and a 60% decrease in
natural gas consumption for water heating. 2. Hybrid Vehicles – the fleet of hybrids saves the City $32,600 in fuel every year. 3. Electric Vehicles – the City deployed three fully
electric vehicles in 2013 with projected savings of $3,000 annually. 4. RCMP Roof Replacement Project – completed in 2013, this project saw the installation of a white roof which is
expected to save significantly on air conditioning costs over the course of the lifetime of the roof. 5. RCMP Asset Tagging Initiative – using radio frequency tagging of assets since
2011, the RCMP have realized efficiencies in staff time valued at about $12,000 annually. 6. Replaced Workstations with Thin Clients – replaced 200 PC’s with cheaper ‘thin clients’
saving about $500 per device. Further significant savings in power consumption and IT support, also received an efficiency award for power savings. Efficiency & Effectiveness Improvements
Implemented in Recent Years
Page 25 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 7. Reduced Number of Hardware Servers – ‘virtualization’ has allowed the City to host 80 ‘virtual servers’ on six physical machines saving about $5,000
per device. 8. LED Streetlights – Operations staff are testing LED streetlights for deployment in a new subdivision to determine citizen impact. LED streetlights are being added and
retrofitted on arterial and major collector roadways as scheduled projects present opportunities. These deliver savings quantified under Asset Management. 9. A computerized irrigation
control system was installed at several sport field locations which reduces commuting and site visits. Staff can now make changes to all irrigation systems at the touch of a button.
Asset Management 1. Adaptive Reuse of Old Infrastructure – the City has reused over 3,000 metres of abandoned underground pipes for our fibre optic network. Resulted in off-setting
costs of about $500,000 than if built from scratch. 2. City Lands – leveraged City land to get a new SPCA building built at substantial savings. As well, utilized City lands at the
top of Grant Hill to locate our own telecommunications tower at significant construction savings. Also, property on 119th Avenue was purchased, remediated and is now under a sales contract
resulting in a significant profit for the City. 3. Top Soil Reuse – construction of the Mountain Bike Skills Course at Albion Park was made possible through the relocation of organic
soil from the Albion Park playfield project. 4. Excavation Reuse – re-contoured berms onsite during playfield construction to accommodate excavated material thereby saving on hauling
costs. 5. Equipment Improvements – replaced single-use heavy backhoe with lighter multi-use tractor and attachments for use in cemetery, sports fields and for park maintenance. 6. Electricity
– the City is now saving about $240,000 annually in electricity and associated maintenance costs as a result of energy management improvements, and received rebates and grants of $150,000
over the past six years. 7. Tree watering bags were offered to residents for a returnable deposit of $10.00 per bag to assist staff with watering boulevard trees well as resident’s
own trees. This reduced the costs for watering young trees and also helped to reduce the number of trees that were lost as a result of the prolonged dry weather period. Alternative
Revenues 1. City Radio Tower – Grant Hill radio tower has offset operating costs of renting space elsewhere, and has also resulted in secondary revenue of over $50,000 per year in leasing
excess space. 2. Grants – recent grants received include Climate Action rebate of $50,000, BC Hydro Energy Manager grants of $350,000 from 2011-2018 and Workplace Conservation grant
of $5,000. 3. Having Abernethy Way designated a major regional road thereby leveraging funding from senior agencies. 4. Gaming Revenue contributing to infrastructure renewal and other
strategic priorities. 5. Introduction of Amenity Charges to pay for needed Community Infrastructure. 6. Pursuit of senior government grants for community projects, including sports
field upgrades. 7. TransLink contributes the majority of operating costs for Dewdney Trunk Road (200 Street to 232 Street) and Lougheed Highway (222 Street to Kanaka). These are costs
that we do not have to pay. Efficiency & Effectiveness Improvements Implemented in Recent Years
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 26 Water Utility Rates The majority of the Water Utility revenue is from the flat rate water levy and charges for metered water assessed to individual
properties. These revenues cover the costs associated with water purchases, maintenance and both regional and local capital infrastructure. The 2017 flat rate water fee is approximately
$548, half of which is required just for the purchase of water from the region. When setting water rates, we need to consider not only our own planned expenditures and infrastructure
requirements, but also those planned by the region. Several years ago, the Regional District had projected rate increases that were very significant with one year as high as 18%. Since
that time they have deferred projects and water rates increases were only increased marginally. The municipal rate increase has been reduced to 4.5% for each of the next five years.
This may need to be revisited depending on how quickly the region proceeds with projects that have been deferred. The other consideration is funding the replacement of water infrastructure
and how long we take to address this funding gap. UTILITIES & RECYCLING Utility user fees form a portion of the levies charged to our taxpayers. The next section provides some insight
into these rates. Unlike the General Revenue Fund that includes separate reserves for revenue smoothing, capital purchases and infrastructure replacement, the Water and Sewer Funds
use Accumulated Surplus for these purposes. As we start to set funds aside for water and sewer infrastructure replacement it may be worthwhile explicitly earmarking these funds in a
reserve in order to be clear about the purpose of these funds. Water and Sewer Infrastructure have a fairly long life and we are fortunate that our infrastructure is relatively young.
That being said, the costs are significant which is why it is important to start building the funds for the eventual replacement. There are two graphs below. The first shows the revenues
and expenditures and the impact this has on accumulated surplus. The accumulated surplus projected is heavily influenced by regional costs. The second graph shows how the accumulated
surplus compares to the accumulated amortization for City assets. The accumulated amortization is the prorated cost of the portion of assets currently consumed. For example, if the
useful life of asset was 50 years and it’s 25 years old the accumulated amortization would be about half of the original cost. The purpose of this graph is to show that we are getting
closer to establishing the financial capacity to replace our assets by creating financially sustainable utilities. The region also has significant investments in water and sewer assets
that will require replacement which will result in additional funding requirements for each member municipality. $0 M $5 M $10 M $15 M $20 M $25 M $30 M $35 M 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2020 2021 Water Revenue Fund (4.5% increase) Revenues Expenses Accumulated Surplus $0 M $10 M $20 M $30 M $40 M $50 M $60 M 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Water Revenue Fund Accum.
Amort (Historic Cost) Accumulated Surplus Utilities & Recycling
Page 27 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Sewer Utility Rates The Sewer Utility pays for regional capital expenditures through an allocation model that essentially spreads rate increases over
time to utility ratepayers. Additionally, the utility pays for our local sewer infrastructure and maintenance requirements. The 2017 sewer fees are about $343 per property, of which
approximately 60% is required for regional costs of wastewater treatment. Any cost impact that new wastewater regulations have on capital investment requirements will be addressed at
the regional level with member municipalities paying their respective portions. Implementation of changes to the regional cost allocation formula may be a significant factor in future
rate increases. The regional cost for sewer is expected to increase nearly 10% in 2017. By using the reserves that we have built up over the years, the increase that our residents pay
can be held to 3.6% Recycling Rates The Ridge Meadows Recycling Society (RMRS) is a charitable non-profit organization that provides a range of recycling services. They also provide
employment for adults with disabilities. Provincial regulations shifted recycling responsibilities to producers. As a result of the Multi-Materials BC contract, recycling fees have
remained unchanged since 2013. Annual rate increases of 1.67% are planned for 2017 and 2018 followed by 2.75% annually in 2019 through 2021, however rates will continue to be reviewed
annually. $0 M $5 M $10 M $15 M $20 M $25 M $30 M $35 M 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sewer Revenue Fund (3.6% increase) Revenues Expenses Accumulated Surplus $0 M $10 M $20 M
$30 M $40 M $50 M $60 M 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sewer Revenue Fund Accum. Amort. (Historic Cost) Accumulated Surplus Utilities & Recycling
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 28 COMPOSITION OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENT BASE Composition of Property Assessment Base Composition of Property Tax Base The tax rate charged to the Residential
class is relatively low when compared to the rate charged to the Business and Industry classes, so we need to keep an eye on the composition of our property tax base. The following
chart shows the residential proportion of the assessment base in area municipalities. The range is from a low of 70.88% in the City of Langley to a high of 97.45% in West Vancouver.
If you exclude the two municipalities that are on the high and low end of this range, the remainder are in a relatively narrow range. The chart also shows how this percentage has changed
between 2009 and 2016. Lower Mainland Municipalities % of Residential Class Property Assessment Values Twelve area municipalities including Maple Ridge have seen a reduction in the
proportion of the assessment base that is represented by Residential properties; Seven have shown an increase. Lower Mainland Municipalities % Change in % of Residential Portion of
Property Assessment Values from 2009—2016 One should be careful with conclusions that are reached by looking at this data. For instance, the changes could be simply the result of market
value fluctuations rather than new construction. It is just one piece of information that should be kept in mind in Council’s deliberations. Source: BC Assessment, 2009 and 2016 Revised
Rolls West Vancouver North Vancouver-District Maple Ridge Port Moody Mission Coquitlam Surrey New Westminster North Vancouver-City Pitt Meadows Vancouver Langley-Township Port Coquitlam
Burnaby Delta Richmond Langley-City 2016 97.45% 92.75% 91.22% 91.21% 89.91% 89.23% 86.17% 85.60% 83.71% 83.68% 83.10% 82.73% 82.35% 81.53% 80.44% 80.04% 70.88% 2009 96.51% 92.53% 92.28%
92.04% 91.62% 87.39% 87.61% 86.54% 83.41% 86.47% 82.93% 83.01% 85.11% 79.94% 81.53% 78.08% 73.67% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Langley-City Pitt Meadows Port Coquitlam Mission
Surrey Delta Maple Ridge New Westminster Port Moody Langley-Township Vancouver North Vancouver-District North Vancouver-City West Vancouver Burnaby Coquitlam Richmond %Change -2.79%
-2.78% -2.75% -1.70% -1.45% -1.09% -1.07% -0.94% -0.83% -0.29% 0.17% 0.22% 0.30% 0.94% 1.58% 1.83% 1.97% -3.50% -2.50% -1.50% -0.50% 0.50% 1.50% 2.50% 3.50% 4.50%
Page 29 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Staffing Update This chart shows the change in staff complement from 2016 to 2017, prior to taking into account the incremental requests included in
the 2017 -2021 Financial Plan. Of note, the staff complement in Parks, Recreation & Culture has been reduced by 22 due to the dissolution of the joint leisure services agreement with
Pitt Meadows. The addition in the Fire Department relates to the conversion of relief work that was being performed into a full time position. The changes in Licences, Permits & Bylaws
and in the Finance Department are related to the two positions (one in each area) that were approved last year and were implemented part way through 2016. Staffing STAFFING FY 17 FY
16 Change Admin CA0 Admin 5.5 5.5 -Communications 1.8 1.8 -Economic Development 4.0 4.0 -Emergency Program 1.4 1.4 -Human Resources 7.0 7.0 -19.7 19.7 0.0 CFS CFS Admin 2.0 2.0 -Clerks
8.5 9.0 (0.5) Finance 18.8 18.4 0.4 Information Technology 16.0 16.0 -Fire Department 9.0 9.0 -Firefighters 54.0 53.0 1.0 Police Services 46.6 46.6 -154.9 154.0 0.9 PRC PRC Admin 2.0
2.0 -Parks & Facilities 41.0 48.5 (7.5) Recreation & Community Services 61.3 75.8 (14.5) 104.3 126.3 (22.0) PWDS PWDS Admin 2.0 2.0 -Engineering 28.0 28.0 -Licences, Permits & Bylaws
32.8 32.3 0.5 Operations 74.9 74.9 -Planning 21.0 21.0 -158.7 158.2 0.5 437.6 458.1 (20.6) Grand Total
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 30 BUDGET SUMMARY Much of the discussions have been on what has changed each year. It is important not to lose sight of the relative costs of each area
given that some areas have significant revenues, such as development services and others (i.e. protective services) do not. This table summarizes the financial summary sheets included
in each departments business plan and provides some context to the relative reliance each area has on property taxes. A more detailed description of the composition of each areas budget
is included in each departmental business plans. Budget Summary Adopted All $ values in 000's (thousands) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Revenue & Taxation Financial Services -Revenue
& Taxation (79,185) (83,616) (87,892) (92,251) (97,196) (102,464) Admin Division Admin 811 821 837 852 870 889 Communications 281 282 287 292 297 303 Economic Development 468 477 487
496 507 518 Emergency 143 146 149 152 156 160 Human Resources 1,373 1,345 1,370 1,395 1,455 1,486 Legislative 634 645 657 670 682 695 3,711 3,716 3,787 3,858 3,967 4,051 Corporate &
Financial Services C&FS Administration 329 374 444 514 584 655 Clerks Department 1,260 1,235 1,313 1,232 1,253 1,275 Finance 1,424 1,474 1,504 1,535 1,572 1,611 Fire Protection 11,987
12,502 13,051 13,620 14,069 14,526 Fiscal Services (Capital & Other) 11,292 13,053 14,799 16,521 18,160 20,147 Information Technology 2,708 2,785 2,877 2,969 3,065 3,165 Police Services
20,756 21,516 22,177 23,085 23,890 24,753 49,755 52,939 56,166 59,477 62,593 66,133 Parks, Recreation and Culture PRC Admin 3,938 3,985 4,247 4,432 4,725 5,093 Community Services 835
825 843 861 881 902 Facilities 2,108 2,137 2,143 2,198 2,278 2,285 Parks & Open Space 2,119 2,359 2,488 2,558 2,693 2,769 Community Dev 548 553 564 575 588 602 Leisure Centre /Pools
1,177 1,437 1,491 1,542 1,598 1,657 Program Development 3,376 3,452 3,548 3,646 3,748 3,852 Recreation -Other 1,163 1,094 1,111 1,218 1,237 1,250 15,263 15,843 16,434 17,032 17,748
18,411 Public Works & Development PWD Administration 276 278 309 378 448 520 Engineering Management 1,943 1,954 1,932 1,947 2,061 2,051 Licence, Permits & Bylaws 821 842 876 911 1,007
1,112 Operations 5,496 5,636 5,799 5,963 6,137 6,313 Planning 1,921 1,923 1,965 2,008 2,068 2,134 Recycling, Sewer & Water ------10,456 10,632 10,882 11,207 11,722 12,130 * Recycling,
Sewer & Water are user fee based and are not funded from general taxation Total Annual Budget Surplus General Revenue Surplus available (before incrementals) 487 622 678 1,165 1,740
Less: Proposed Incremental Adjustments (383) (602) (678) (579) (580) General Revenue Surplus (after incrementals) 104 20 -586 1,160 Proposed
Page 31 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 What is important, is that when the projects are ready to proceed, they are in the approved budget and funding is in place. Status of 2016 Capital Projects
The budget for the Capital Works Program in 2016 is just over $106 million. This is higher than the budget in subsequent years because it includes projects approved in prior years that
are not yet complete, but are still a priority. Projects may take several years to deliver and their progress is often dependent on many factors. What is important, is that when the
projects are ready to proceed, they are in the approved budget with funding in place. The budget for projects that have been started is $87 million and consists of: Complete or nearly
complete $17.0M Well underway 38.0M Early stages of design and tendering 22.0M Early stages of review 10.0M The budget for projects not yet started is approximately $19 million
and consists of: Reliant on Other Capital Work $16.0M Land Acquisition Delays 4.0M Other 4.0M Strategic, Staffing & Technical Delays 5.0M The source of funding for capital projects
also has constraints or conditions. For example, debt is approved for specific projects such as the construction of Fire Hall No. 4 and the cemetery expansion. This debt cannot be transferred
to other projects. Similarly, projects funded by Development Cost Charges (DCC) ($43M for 2016) must fit certain criteria and must also be identified in a separate bylaw. DCCs cannot
be used to fund projects that do not meet this criteria and have not been included in the DCC Bylaw. The following is a list of the larger previously approved projects: Fire Hall
No. 4 Construction and Equipment Park Acquisitions (various locations) Road & Drainage Works: 240 St. (Lougheed Hwy. – 104 Ave.) Road Works: 128 Ave. (210 St. – 216 St.) 128 Ave.
(216 St. – 224 St.) 203 St. (Lougheed Hwy. – Golden Ears Way) Water Reservoirs Works: 270A St. Reservoir Silver Valley Reservoir McNutt Reservoir Projects that do not finalize in
2016 remain in the Capital Plan. They are reviewed at year-end and the projects as well as the associated funding are carried forward to be included in 2017 when the Financial Plan
is amended. CAPITAL PROGRAM Capital Program
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 32 Capital Program $ in thousands 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Government 800 270 880 290 780 Technology 1,816 1,413 2,457 2,057 638 Protective Fire 420 1,000
180 --Protective Police 30 190 ---Parks 7,320 3,808 1,990 5,455 4,640 Highways 9,639 11,353 8,698 11,719 11,568 Drainage 1,523 1,940 2,620 3,036 2,675 Sewage 1,946 6,002 5,083 1,918
683 Water 9,417 1,855 2,951 2,045 2,545 Grand Total 32,910 27,831 24,859 26,520 23,530 $ in thousands 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 General Revenue 3,302 2,996 2,812 3,946 2,935 Capital
Works Reserve 3,300 150 150 150 150 Development Cost Charges 10,408 7,467 4,979 8,181 6,720 Cemetery Reserve 60 ----Drainage Improvement Levy 994 1,227 1,472 1,731 2,003 Equip Replacement
Reserve 2,298 3,921 2,307 1,671 1,603 Fire Dept Capital Reserve 585 ----Gaming 200 200 200 200 200 Gas Tax 351 189 ---Grants, LAS, 3rd Parties 1,806 1,238 1,000 1,015 1,000 Infrastructure
Sustainability Reserve 3,637 4,239 4,705 5,155 5,640 Parkland Acquisition Reserve 200 200 200 200 200 Police Services Reserve 49 152 ---Recycling Reserve 320 40 390 60 300 Sewer Capital
1,617 3,934 3,655 1,248 395 Surplus 500 500 500 500 -Translink ---450 650 Water Capital 3,284 1,378 2,488 2,014 1,734 Grand Total 32,910 27,831 24,859 26,520 23,530 2017-2021 Capital
Plan The five-year Capital Works Program is $136 million; 2017 planned capital projects are $33 million, excluding projects that will be carried forward from previous years. It should
be noted that developers will contribute millions in subdivision infrastructure to our community and these contributions are not included in our capital plan. A detailed list of the
projects in the five-year Capital Works Program is attached to the Capital Works Program Business Plan. The following chart summarizes the Capital Program according to the type of project.
Proposed Capital Spending by Category By far, most of the projects are in the Parks category. The following table illustrates the sources of funding for these projects. The proposed
Capital Program is relatively large in some years due to projects funded through Development Cost Charges and Reserves. Proposed Capital Funding Sources
Page 33 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 A discussion of some of the key funding sources follows: General Revenue This represents funding contributed by general tax levies. Capital Works Reserve
This reserve, established by bylaw is designed to assist with the funding of Capital Projects that cannot be funded through development revenues. Development Cost Charges These are
revenues collected from development for specific capital works required as a result of development. The types of projects for which fees can be levied are determined by provincial legislation
and the funds can only be expended for those projects. Drainage Levy Funding for storm related works not resulting from development can be funded from this source. Equipment Replacement
Reserve The replacement of existing equipment is funded through this reserve, contributions to which are made annually. Infrastructure Replacement The annual funding set aside in our
Financial Plan is being used to fund capital projects (in addition to regular maintenance and renewal). Reserves The City also has financial resources held in reserves. These reserves
serve to stabilize taxes, fees and charges by providing funds during tight years and receiving those funds back during better years. Reserves shield our customers and taxpayers from
sharp rate increases. A list of all of our reserves follows and the main ones are discussed below. Examples of larger capital projects, either completed recently or still in progress,
include the: River Road Drainage Works ($2.65 million), Cemetery Expansion, Fire Hall No. 4 Construction ($6 million) and Leisure Centre Pool Replacement ($5.5 million). As stated earlier,
a list of capital projects is available in the Capital Works Business Plan. A more detailed look at our Reserves follows. Capital Program
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 34 Here is a recap of all of our Reserves, the main ones of which are discussed in the following pages. $ in thousands Total Reserves: Accumulated Surplus,
Reserve Funds and Reserve Accounts – $101.7 million Restricted Revenues are not considered reserves; rather they are liabilities, as they have been collected in advance of specific
expenditures. These are financial reserves only. Other assets, such as gravel resources are not shown, nor are they represented in our financial statements. A discussion of the key
reserves follows. Capital Program Accumulated Surplus General Revenue 9,859 General Revenue: Sewer Revenue 6,414 Specific Projects -Capital 6,144 Water Revenue 8,355 Specific Projects
-Operating 8,397 Total Accumulated Surplus 24,628 Self Insurance 830 Police Services 6,736 Core Development 1,720 Reserve Fund Balances Recycling 1,514 Local Improvement 2,551 Community
Development 1 Equipment Replacement 13,093 Building Inspections 2,495 Capital Works 11,623 Gravel Extraction 728 Fire Department Capital 7,054 Facility Maintenance 1,840 Sanitary Sewer
1,615 Snow Removal 686 Land 275 Cemetery Maintenance 31 Reserve Funds 36,211 Infrastructure Sustainability 2,040 Drainage Improvements 1,523 Critical Building Infrastructure 201 Restricted
Revenue Balances Infrastructure Grant Contribution 4 Development Cost Charges 33,972 Gaming Revenues 780 Parkland (ESA) Acquisition 1,203 General Revenue Reserve Accounts 35,670 Other
Restricted Revenues 6,511 Sewer Reserve Accounts 2,291 Total Restricted Revenues 41,686 Water Reserve Accounts 2,860 Total Reserve Accounts 40,821 Reserve Accounts
Page 35 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Capital Works Reserve The Capital Works Reserve Fund is intended to assist with funding capital projects, especially those that cannot be funded from
development revenues. Generally, this reserve builds funds for large projects and is then drawn down. Each year, general taxation and gravel revenue is added to this account along with
a portion of the proceeds from land sales and other fixed amounts. Projections of the demands on this account are also prepared. It has been Council’s policy to keep a minimum reserve
balance of 10% of the prior year’s property taxes in this account, to assist with unforeseen and uninsurable events. This account has also been used to finance the initial outlay for
certain projects that produce future savings, with the reserve repaid from future savings. This minimum reserve balance is temporarily used to internally finance the conversion of synthetic
fields in Albion for $3 million in 2017. Here is our analysis of the Capital Works Reserve. Capital Works Reserve Projection Capital Program $ in thousands 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Opening Balance 4,893 2,960 6,174 9,827 11,969 Inf lows GRF Annual Transfer 1,032 1,071 1,111 1,154 1,199 Gravel Revenue Adjustment (200) (200) (200) (200) (200) Adjust timing of CWR
transfer (50) ----Land Sales Proceeds 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,000 -Communication Tower Rent 49 49 49 49 49 Repayment of Energy Retrofit 65 65 65 65 65 Repayment of Pool Reno (Other Reserves)
-870 870 870 870 Total Inf lows 2,396 3,355 3,395 2,938 1,983 Outf lows Planned Capital Expenditures (3,300) (150) (150) (150) (150) Balance of GCF funded capital (481) 9 408 (646)
643 Debt (River Road) (549) ----Total Outf lows (4,330) (141) 258 (796) 493 Estimated Ending Balance 2,960 6,174 9,827 11,969 14,445 Min Reserve (10% PY Taxes) 6,886 7,215 7,619 8,021
8,442 Unencumbered Balance (3,927) (1,041) 2,208 3,947 6,003
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 36 Fire Department Capital Acquisition Reserve Each year a portion of general taxation is transferred to the reserve to build the financial capacity required
to respond to increasing the fire protection capacity needed as the community grows. The balance in this reserve was drawn down over the past few years to fund the construction and
renovation of Fire Hall No. 1. The planned capital expenditures are detailed in the following table: Fire Department Capital Acquisition Reserve Projection This projection takes into
account the repayment of debt related to Fire Hall No. 4 building construction. Fire Department Equipment Replacement Reserve The recognition of an appropriate level of funding to provide
for growth would not be complete without a discussion around how we intend to replace those assets. Replacement of fire equipment is funded through this reserve. Beginning in 2009,
infrastructure sustainability funds have been allocated to this reserve. Fire Department Equipment Replacement Reserve Projection Capital Program $ in thousands 2017 2018 2019 2020
2021 Opening Balance 636 1,204 968 1,620 2,566 Inf lows GRF Annual Transfer 679 763 832 946 1,067 Outf lows Planned Capital Expenditures (110) (1,000) (180) --Estimated Ending Balance
1,204 968 1,620 2,566 3,633 $ in thousands 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Opening Balance 5,490 5,688 6,549 7,540 8,667 Inf lows Growth Funding 230 230 280 330 380 GRF Annual Transfer 1,353
1,431 1,511 1,597 1,687 Outf lows Planned Capital Expenditures (585) ----Debt Repayments (Firehall 4) (800) (800) (800) (800) (800) Estimated Ending Balance 5,688 6,549 7,540 8,667
9,934
Page 37 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Infrastructure Sustainability Beginning in 2008, Council directed an annual tax increase of 1% to go toward infrastructure sustainability. This helps
with major rehabilitation and replacement of the City’s assets which currently have a replacement value estimated in excess of $1.4 billion. For the years 2013 through 2021, the amount
of the increase is between 0.50% and 0.70%. The table below illustrates the inflows generated from general taxation and how it has been allocated. Inflows from the Core Reserve are
allocated to maintaining those facilities related to the Town Centre project. If we look only at the roads component of our infrastructure, the historic annual amount spent on repaving
roads is only a small fraction of what is required to maintain the condition and, as a result, our roads are deteriorating. This deferred maintenance translates into a larger future
expenditure to resurface or perhaps even reconstruct roads. As we are several years into this funding model, the amounts dedicated are making an impact, however, we are still a very
long way away from dedicating the estimated $30 million needed each year to fund the replacement of our infrastructure. Depending on the scope of projects required, one year’s allocation
may not meet the funding requirements. In these cases, funding may be held over until enough has accumulated to allow the works to proceed, or borrowing may be considered. The charts
highlight the impact that the property tax increases have had on the infrastructure deficit. Infrastructure Sustainability Allocation of Funding We are making progress on the path to
bridging our infrastructure deficit. Capital Program $ in thousands 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Inf lows Property Taxes Prior Year 3,641 3,641 3,641 3,641 3,641 Property Tax Increase 517
1,062 1,635 2,238 2,872 Gaming Funds 550 550 550 550 550 Town Centre Incentive 437 549 549 549 549 Total Inf lows 5,146 5,802 6,375 6,978 7,612 Al locations Building Infrastructure
Planned 1,090 1,090 1,140 1,215 1,290 Fire Dept -Equipment Replacement 275 325 375 450 525 Highways ISR Capital Planned 2,992 3,479 3,830 4,170 4,540 Drainage ISR Capital Planned 760
875 990 1,100 1,215 Major Equipment/Systems Reserve 28 33 40 43 42 Total Al locations 5,146 5,802 6,375 6,978 7,612 Estimated Ending Balance -----
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 38 Parks, Recreation & Culture Community Investments The following Parks, Recreation & Culture community investments are included in the 2017 -2021 Financial
Plan. Synthetic Play Fields—A synthetic sports field is provided for in 2016 of the capital program for $2 million. In addition, the conversion of gravel fields to artificial turf at
the Albion Sports Complex, at a cost of $3 million, is included in 2017. A grant of $500,000 under the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program has been approved to assist with funding
the sports field in Albion. Leisure Centre Life Cycle Repairs—These repairs are now included in the Civic Centre project being considered for the downtown. In the event that this community
project does not move forward, the repairs could be completed using a combination of Infrastructure Reserve/Capital Works Reserve funding. Additional Parks, Recreation & Culture Investments
As part of last year’s Financial Plan discussions, Council received information on a funding strategy that would allow the community to move forward with significant Parks, Recreation
& Culture investments. The key features of this strategy are as follows: 1. The projects would be prioritized and phased in over several years. The model that Council saw last year
had these investments phased in over 5 years. 2. During the phase in period, we would access short term borrowing, with the approval of the elector. 3. Once the short term debt is converted
into long term debt, we estimated annual payments at about $6 million, based on capital spending of $110 million amortized over 25 years. Additional spending beyond $110 million can
be accommodated by extending the amortization period of the debt and/or by changing the variables noted in the next point. 4. A phased tax increase of 0.75% per year for a period of
time, the continuance of the 0.25% annual increase in Parks & Recreation Masterplan funding as well as the retirement of debt payments related to the Town Centre project in 2028 would
provide for debt servicing and operating costs. 5. While grant contributions and amenity charges were noted, they were not specifically included in the funding model. Funds realized
from grants and amenity charges would reduce our own spending requirements. Over the past year, Council has decided to move forward with the following: 1. Albion Community Centre, in
partnership with the School District 2. The Town Centre Civic Project as the one most likely to attract grants 3. Sports Fields for which some grant funding has already been approved
With respect to the Albion Community Centre project, we have purchased land and are working closely with the School District on our mutual requirements. As far as the Town Centre Civic
Project is concerned, we are working with our Member of Parliament and are actively pursuing senior government support. With respect to the sports fields, the 2017 Financial Plan allows
for the conversion of gravel fields at Albion Sports Complex to artificial turf. A grant of $500,000 has been approved for this last project, under the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure
Program. In order for projects to be eligible for grant contributions, the projects must be ready to go. This means that detailed designs must be done. The cost of the design works
for the Albion Community Centre and the Town Centre Civic Project are expected to approach $3 million to complete 100% of detailed design for both projects. Capital Program
Page 39 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 In addition to the noted projects, Council has also directed staff to look at acquiring land for other community projects. Property values can range
from $500,000 per acre to upwards of $1 million per acre. Acquisitions to this order have not been included in our Capital Plan nor our funding estimates. These projects can however
proceed, if we adopt a funding strategy as outlined on the previous page. In order for us to implement the funding strategy, approval of the elector is required. Staff recommend that
as part of the public input process that is taking place with respect to the community projects, Council endorse the funding strategy outlined on page 38 and direct staff to present
it as part of the public consultation that is taking place on community investments. Formal assent of the elector will follow this consultation. Capital Funded by Others The Capital
Program includes $1 million of funding each year as a place holder for Local Area Services that property owners may petition the City to construct. The cost of these local improvements
are typically recovered over 15 years as a separate charge included on the property tax bills of benefiting properties. In addition, $4 million of grants or other external funding is
planned over the next five years. Projects will be re-evaluated if funding is not secured. Borrowing Borrowing Capacity Under Community Charter legislation, the maximum amount of borrowing
the City can undertake is such that the annual cost to service the debt does not exceed 25% of revenues as defined in the legislation. As noted in our 2015 Annual Report the unused
liability servicing capacity at the end of 2015 was $22.8 million. Short Term Borrowing, under Sec. 178 of the Community Charter, is an option for borrowing for any purpose of a capital
nature that can be repaid within five years. The maximum amount to be borrowed is $50 multiplied by the population of the municipality as of the last census. For this borrowing, no
public approval is required but approval of the Inspector of Municipalities is. Currently, we have no borrowing under this section and a maximum permitted amount of approximately $3.8
million. Ministry and Elector Approval Borrowing by local governments cannot be undertaken without the approval of the Inspector of Municipalities. In addition, borrowing requires an
elector approval process in a majority of cases. An “approval-free liability zone” exists to allow borrowing without elector approval as long as current and proposed servicing costs
do not exceed 5% of the municipal revenue defined in the legislation. The City’s costs exceed this figure and therefore this provision would not exempt the City from obtaining elector
approval. Capital Program $ in thousands 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 118 Ave (230 -231) ---15 -288 St (Storm Main at Watkins Sawmill) -200 ---Abernethy (224 -227) Construction ---450 -Abernethy
(227 -232) Construction ----650 Albion Sports Complex Support Building 300 ----Albion Synthetic Conversion 500 ----Police Services (Cost Shared) 6 38 ---Grand Total 806 238 -465 650
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 40 Elector approval can be sought in one of two ways. One option is to receive the approval of electors by holding a referendum. The second and less-expensive
method is to hold an “alternative approval process.” If more than 10% of the electors express an opinion that a referendum should be held, by signing an Elector Response Form within
30 days of a second advertising notice, then Council would need to consider whether to proceed with the planned borrowing and, if so, a referendum must be held. Previously Approved
Borrowing Still Unissued The 2017 -2021 Financial Plan includes debt payments on the following previously approved projects.: Fire Hall No. 4 Construction ($6 million) Municipal Council
received an update on this project this past November, the City is now authorized to borrow $6 million for this project. The debt servicing costs for FH #4 are to be funded through
the Fire Department Capital Acquisition Reserve. The projected cost of $6 million is somewhat outdated and the design work planned for 2017 will provide a more accurate estimated. The
Financial Plan as well as the borrowing authority may have to be updated as additional information becomes available. Cemetery Expansion ($1,1 million) The City is also authorized to
borrow $1.1 million for the expansion of the cemetery. Debt payments associated with the land purchases for cemetery expansion are funded through increased cemetery fees. Two of the
three properties have been purchased and $2.22 million of external borrowing has been arranged. The key elements when considering debt funding are that the debt payments are being funded
by a secure funding source, the borrowing capacity exists and the appropriate public consultation and approval processes are undertaken. Public approval has been obtained for the projects
noted above. The 2017 -2021 Financial Plan includes borrowing associated with the Barnston/Maple Ridge Pump Station and a new water main, Maple Ridge Main West. These projects were
recently completed by Metro Vancouver, however, the construction of these significant investments spanned over half a dozen years. The amount of borrowing proposed is a maximum of $13
million, over a term of 20 years, with the funding source being Development Cost Charges (DCCs). The annual servicing cost or debt payments, assuming all funds are required to be externally
financed, will be approximately $875,000. A Loan Authorization Bylaw will be prepared in early 2017, now that the costs of these regional projects are finalized. The timing of the borrowing
is dependent on DCC collections and capital expenditures. Depending on DCC collections, borrowing may significantly impact the ability to fund future water projects. Metro Vancouver
was contacted to see if they would borrow on our behalf as they are constructing the capital works, however, they do not provide such a service. The City will need to go through the
borrowing process to seek borrowing approval to ensure that the authority to externally borrow exists. This project will be internally financed through other DCC funds (roads, drainage,
parks) unless those funds are also depleted. If external borrowing is required, the interest component of the debt payments cannot be funded through DCCs, unless permission is granted
by the Ministry. If external borrowing is required and the Ministry does not allow interest charges to be covered through DCCs then the Water Utility would fund the interest costs.
Capital Program
Page 41 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Impact to the Average Home At the end of the day, it is important to understand what this Financial Plan means to the average home. The assessed value
of the “average home” for the 2016 taxation year was approximately $400,000. The calculation includes all residential properties comprising both single family homes and multi-family
units such as townhouses and apartments. The following table demonstrates the impact to a taxpayer based on this “average home.” Service fees include flat rate water, flat rate sewer,
recycling and singlehome bluebox pickup. Within the General Purpose change of about 2%, existing service levels have been maintained and several significant cost increases have been
accommodated, including increases in the policing contract, labour costs and Fire Department costs. Impact to the Average Home IMPACT TO THE AVERAGE HOME The general property tax increase
averages under 2% per year over the life of this Financial Plan Residence Valued at $400,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average Home Municipal Levies: General Purpose (Gen. & ISR) 1,862.25
$ 1,911.63 $ 1,964.52 $ 2,019.14 $ 2,075.53 $ Drainage 20.72 26.42 32.30 38.37 44.64 Parks & Recreation 16.33 21.08 25.98 31.04 36.26 Subtotal Property Taxes 1,899.30 $ 1,959.13 $ 2,022.80
$ 2,088.55 $ 2,156.43 $ User Fees Recycling (fixed rate) 71.37 $ 72.56 $ 74.56 $ 76.61 $ 78.72 $ Water (fixed rate) 548.05 572.70 598.45 625.40 653.55 Sewer (fixed rate) 343.10 354.20
365.70 377.60 389.95 Total Property Taxes and User Fees* 2,861.82 $ 2,958.59 $ 3,061.51 $ 3,168.16 $ 3,278.65 $ * Does not include collections for others (School, BCAA, GVTA, GVRD,
MFA) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average Home Municipal Levies Increases: General Purpose 1.90% 1.90% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Infrastructure Replacement 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% Parks &
Recreation 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Drainage 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Total Property Tax Increase % 3.15% 3.15% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% Recycling Increase % 1.67% 1.67% 2.75% 2.75%
2.75% Water Increase % 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Sewer Increase % 3.22% 3.24% 3.25% 3.25% 3.27% Total Property Taxes and User Fees Increase 3.38% 3.38% 3.48% 3.48% 3.49%
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 42 So How Do Our Taxes Compare to Those Around Us? How Our Property Taxes Compare to Other Municipalities Each year, we look at how our taxes compare to
other municipalities. Our survey of 2016 Residential taxes was provided to Council on June 6, 2016 and the following table appeared in that report. The table compared the taxes assessed
against the average single family dwelling across surveyed municipalities. Maple Ridge ranked as the fifth lowest. It should be noted that the dwelling value used in this table is slightly
different than the one used on page 41 because the value on page 41 includes stratas. Survey of 2016 Residential Taxes on Average Single Family Dwelling SO HOW DO OUR TAXES COMPARE
TO THOSE AROUND US? Municipal i ty Average Assessed Value* Municipal Taxes Rank ( lowest to highest) Total Uti l i ties Municipal Taxes & Uti l i ties Rank ( lowest to highest) Notes
Pitt Meadows 509,558 1,931 2 1,020 2,951 1 Surrey 733,407 2,107 4 979 3,086 2 (6) Langley-Township 596,845 1,929 1 1,184 3,114 3 Mission 414,523 1,980 3 1,167 3,147 4 (3) Port Coquitlam
650,270 2,253 6 915 3,168 5 Maple Ridge 503,865 2,205 5 970 3,175 6 (8) Delta 703,975 2,400 8 1,000 3,400 7 (2) Richmond 1,160,068 2,383 7 1,135 3,517 8 (5,6) Burnaby 1,216,329 2,447
9 1,109 3,556 9 (1) Coquitlam 879,312 2,460 10 1,165 3,625 10 North Vancouver-City 1,140,767 2,674 11 1,011 3,684 11 (4) Vancouver 1,812,041 2,830 13 1,146 3,976 12 (7) Port Moody 938,092
3,015 15 1,037 4,052 13 (1) North Vancouver-District 1,281,302 2,708 12 1,542 4,250 14 New Westminster 829,483 2,835 14 1,521 4,356 15 (1) West Vancouver 2,758,473 4,071 16 1,584 5,655
16 (5,6) Average 1,008,019 2,514 1,155 3,669 Median 854,398 2,423 1,122 3,536 Highest 2,758,473 4,071 1,584 5,655 Lowest 414,523 1,929 915 2,951 Notes: Values are rounded. * (1) (2)
(3) (4) Water and Sewer Rates reflect a 5% discount for on time/early payment. (5) (6) (7) (8) Water, Sewer, Garbage/Recycling Rates receive 10% discount for on time/early payment.
Sewer and Water are metered and are therefore projected amounts. Land Assessment Averaging. Utility Rates include Water, Sewer and Recycling. Average Assessed Value determined by using
BC Assessment’s 2016 Revised Roll Totals, Property Class Residential Single Family, divided by number of occurrences. Value has not been adjusted for new construction or supplementary
changes. Water, Sewer, Garbage/Recycling Rates receive 5% discount for on time/early payment. Municipal tax rates are averaged. Drainage Levy Rate/Amount excluded from analysis. According
to Mission staff, only approximately 25 homes are charged this levy -not representative of an average home in Mission.
Page 43 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 In the 2016 survey on Residential taxes, we also looked at the tax increases over the past 3 years across surveyed municipalities. Tax increases in
2016 ranged from a low of 3.4% in Mission to a high of over 10% in North Vancouver city. The tax increase to the average single family dwelling in Maple Ridge was 4.0% Commercial Taxes
In 2016, we also surveyed taxes assessed against the Business Class 6 and a detailed report was provided to Council on June 20, 2016. One indicator that has been getting some attention
these days is that of the tax multiple. A tax multiple for Business Class 6 is calculated by taking the tax rate assessed against this class and dividing it by the Residential Class
tax rate. For 2016, our tax multiple was 2.71 (11.8801 Business Class 6 rate divided by 4.3761 Residential Class rate). A lower tax multiple is preferred by businesses. The table below
shows our tax multiple since 2012 and each year, it has improved. Maple Ridge Business Class, Residential Class, Tax Multiple So How Do Our Taxes Compare to Those Around Us? Year Business
Residential Multiple 2012 11.7510 4.0888 2.87 2013 12.2307 4.2833 2.86 2014 12.7314 4.4625 2.85 2015 12.3038 4.4713 2.75 2016 11.8801 4.3761 2.71 2014 Municipal Taxes Change Municipal
Taxes Change Municipal Taxes Langley Township 1,754 4.9% 1,840 4.9% 1,929 Pitt Meadows 1,835 0.6% 1,847 4.6% 1,931 Mission 1,842 3.9% 1,915 3.4% 1,980 Surrey 1,802 10.1% 1,985 6.2%
2,107 Maple Ridge 2,041 3.9% 2,120 4.0% 2,205 Port Coquitlam 2,048 4.1% 2,132 5.7% 2,253 Richmond 2,113 4.4% 2,205 8.0% 2,383 Delta 2,168 4.2% 2,260 6.2% 2,400 Burnaby 2,184 4.5% 2,281
7.3% 2,447 Coquitlam 2,244 3.8% 2,329 5.6% 2,460 North Vancouver City 2,252 7.4% 2,419 10.5% 2,674 North Vancouver District 2,485 3.9% 2,581 4.9% 2,708 Vancouver 2,541 5.7% 2,685 5.4%
2,830 New Westminster 2,534 3.9% 2,634 7.6% 2,835 Port Moody 2,674 4.9% 2,804 7.5% 3,015 West Vancouver 3,761 3.7% 3,901 4.3% 4,071 Municipality 2015 2016
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 44 So How Do Our Taxes Compare to Those Around Us? This chart shows how our tax multiple compares to surveyed municipalities. Our multiple is fourth lowest.
Caution should be used in reaching conclusions around multiples as multiples change as a result of differential changes in property assessed values. Nonetheless if Council wanted to
move towards a multiple of 2:1, this could be done by moving about $3.2 million in tax burden from the Commercial Class to the Residential Class. This would amount to a 6.2% increase
to the Residential Class and could be phased in over a number of years. At the end of the day, our budgets are balanced and benefits to one class are at the expense of another. Business
Class Tax Multiples, Based on General Municipal Rates Business Rate Business Rate Business Rate Rank Mission 14.55490 14.37490 14.27840 1 Coquitlam 13.81270 13.34520 12.46530 2 New
Westminster 13.22830 12.92410 12.34260 3 Maple Ridge 12.73140 12.30380 11.88010 4 Abbotsford 13.02217 12.49189 11.87810 5 Pitt Meadows 12.48220 11.18660 11.15130 6 Port Coquitlam 11.74160
11.46280 11.09220 7 Delta 10.81870 10.76928 10.51092 8 Chilliwack 10.26719 10.28317 9.77783 9 Langley, Township 9.94960 9.96950 9.69840 10 Langley, City 8.88270 8.79470 8.95290 11 Port
Moody 10.19280 9.95770 8.69510 12 Burnaby 9.35700 9.12440 8.46530 13 North Vancouver, City 8.57249 8.42034 8.20134 14 North Vancouver, District 8.47875 8.27863 8.14620 15 Surrey 7.01681
7.02465 7.05860 16 Richmond 7.28682 6.94287 6.66368 17 Vancouver 7.88427 7.34590 6.61254 18 West Vancouver 4.24510 4.31540 4.36470 19 2014 2015 2016 Municipality
Page 45 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Financial Indicators Financial Indicators Financial indicators provide information about an entity that may be useful in assessing its financial health
or comparing its financial picture with that of other municipalities. As with all statistical data, it’s important to keep in mind that ratios need to be interpreted carefully. They
provide information but, on their own, do not show whether the results are good or bad. The data for the indicators shown comes from the Province’s Local Government Statistics section
and is compiled from reports that each municipality is required to submit to the Province. The municipalities shown are all GVRD members (the smaller villages have been excluded), with
the addition of the neighbouring municipalities of Mission, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. The comparisons we have used are for the years 2013 and 2012 as 2014 information was not available
at the time this report was prepared. Here is a brief summary of the ratios presented in the tables that follow. Percentage of liability servicing limit used Under the Community Charter,
the provincial government has set the maximum amount that can be used for principal and interest payments on debt at 25% of certain revenues. This number is referred to as the liability
servicing limit. By looking at the percentage of this limit that is already committed to debt servicing, we get a picture of how much flexibility a municipality has to consider using
debt financing for future projects. Debt per capita This is the total amount of debt divided by the population of each municipality. It is a widely used ratio that shows how much of
a municipality’s debt can be attributed to each person living in the community. Debt servicing as a percentage of tax revenue This was calculated by dividing the total amount committed
to principal and interest payments by the total amount of tax revenue collected in the year. It shows how much of annual property taxes are required to make principal and interest payments
on outstanding debt. Total assets to liabilities Comparing total assets, both financial and nonfinancial, to total liabilities gives an indication of the total resources available to
a municipality to settle outstanding liabilities. With this ratio, it is important to keep in mind that the largest proportion of a municipality’s total assets are typically the non-financial
assets, mostly infrastructure and that in many cases there is no market available to sell them and realize cash to use to settle liabilities. Financial assets to liabilities Financial
assets are resources such as cash or things that are readily converted to cash, for example, accounts receivable. Comparing financial assets to liabilities provides an indication of
financial strength and flexibility. A ratio above 1 shows that the City has more financial resources (cash) available to it than it owes; a ratio below 1 shows that the City owes more
than its financial resources. Government transfers to revenues This shows the proportion of a municipality’s revenues that comes from grant funding. Expenditures per capita This shows
the amount of spending in a particular year for each person living in the community and can be affected by variations in annual spending, particularly capital spending. Expenditures
include annual spending for capital investment, but exclude the amortization of existing assets. FINANCIAL INDICATORS
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 46 While looking at the percentage of a municipality’s liability servicing limit that has already been used provides useful information it can be impacted
by decisions, such as to refinance debt. For example in 2013 Pitt Meadows shows 51% of the liability servicing limit already in use, but then this drops to 8% in 2014. The 2013 number
was impacted by a decision to repay temporary borrowing and turn it into long -term debt. The data shown is for 2013 and 2014 as 2015 information is not yet available. * in calculating
the average, the Maple Ridge numbers were not included to allow us to see how we compare to the average of other reported municipalities. Financial Indicators 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014
2013 Abbotsford 24% 25% 502 $ 559 $ 10% 10% Burnaby 0% 0% --0% 0% Chilliwack 3% 3% 81 92 1% 1% Coquit lam 19% 18% 183 267 7% 7% Delta 2% 6% 58 68 1% 2% Langley (City) 0% 0% --0% 0%
Langley (Township) 9% 11% 717 588 4% 5% Maple Ridge 16% 17% 466 506 6% 7% Mission 52% 24% 180 366 25% 11% New Westminster 34% 5% 895 947 21% 3% North Vancouver (City) 1% 1% 33 35 0%
0% North Vancouver (Dist rict ) 6% 6% 235 235 3% 3% Pit t Meadows 8% 51% 412 432 3% 22% Port Coquit lam 7% 7% 382 395 3% 3% Port Moody 12% 11% 391 423 5% 4% Richmond 3% 3% 253 6 1%
1% Surrey 10% 7% 479 509 4% 3% Vancouver 63% 69% 1,428 1,471 32% 35% West Vancouver 4% 4% 189 194 2% 2% White Rock 0% 2% 11 13 0% 1% Average* 13% 13% 338 347 6% 6% Percentage of Liability
Servicing Limit Used Debt Per Capita Debt Servicing as a Percentage of Tax Revenue Tax revenues per capita This shows the amount of property taxes collected in a particular year for
each person living in the community. Taxes per capita as a percentage of expenditures per capita This shows the proportion of annual expenditures that are paid for by property taxes,
providing an indication of a municipality’s reliance on revenues other than taxation.
Page 47 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 A comparison of assets to liabilities in any given year will be affected by business decisions made during the year that do not necessarily reflect
a decline in the fiscal health of a municipality. For example, a decision to borrow money will increase liabilities and reduce these ratios, as seen with Langley Township and Richmond
in 2014. The data shown is for 2013 and 2014 as 2015 information is not yet available. * in calculating the average, the Maple Ridge numbers were not included to allow us to see how
we compare to the average of other reported municipalities. Financial Indicators 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 Abbotsford 9.47 8.38 1.36 1.05 0.12 0.06 Burnaby 19.29 12.90 5.91 3.65
0.04 0.04 Chilliwack 11.78 11.84 2.14 1.90 0.07 0.06 Coquit lam 14.49 12.93 2.41 2.22 0.06 0.06 Delta 10.01 10.27 2.17 2.32 0.02 0.02 Langley (City) 10.87 10.44 2.44 2.44 0.17 0.18
Langley (Township) 7.31 7.90 1.08 1.09 0.02 0.04 Maple Ridge 8.49 8.14 1.41 1.33 0.02 0.03 Mission 17.03 11.48 2.46 1.68 0.13 0.06 New Westminster 6.28 5.49 1.35 1.11 0.07 0.17 North
Vancouver (City) 6.00 5.96 2.58 2.55 0.06 0.05 North Vancouver (Dist rict ) 6.58 6.56 1.88 1.85 0.06 0.02 Pit t Meadows 9.34 9.33 1.33 1.29 0.02 0.01 Port Coquit lam 9.39 10.72 1.73
1.76 0.01 0.02 Port Moody 19.17 16.93 1.67 1.53 0.07 0.05 Richmond 8.76 10.38 2.83 3.12 0.06 0.05 Surrey 10.70 10.36 0.99 1.08 0.06 0.07 Vancouver 4.50 4.32 0.96 0.89 0.03 0.02 West
Vancouver 6.01 5.84 1.06 0.96 0.10 0.12 White Rock 6.57 6.90 2.89 2.93 0.01 0.01 Average* 10.19 9.42 2.07 1.86 0.06 0.06 Total Assets to Liabilit ies Financial Assets to Liabilit ies
Gov' t Transfers to Revenue
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 48 Expenditures per capita are affected by annual variations in spending, particularly capital spending. In years where a greater amount of tangible capital
assets are acquired, expenditures per capita will be higher than in years where a lesser amount is acquired. For example, in 2012 we recorded $31.7 million for acquisition of tangible
capital assets; in 2013 we recorded $58.5 million. The data shown is for 2013 and 2014 as 2015 information is not yet available. * in calculating the average, the Maple Ridge numbers
were not included to allow us to see how we compare to the average of other reported municipalities. Financial Indicators 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 Abbotsford 1,417 $ 1,473 $ 912
$ 897 $ 64% 61% Burnaby 1,732 1,799 1,068 1,238 62% 69% Chilliwack 1,385 1,270 849 831 61% 65% Coquit lam 1,916 1,927 1,044 1,062 54% 55% Delta 2,162 2,056 1,205 1,183 56% 58% Langley
(City) 1,673 1,663 894 867 53% 52% Langley (Township) 2,016 1,986 957 953 47% 48% Maple Ridge 1,727 1,905 914 884 53% 46% Mission 1,553 1,442 801 787 52% 55% New Westminster 2,364 2,847
985 935 42% 33% North Vancouver (City) 2,039 2,607 1,041 982 51% 38% North Vancouver (Dist rict ) 2,122 1,764 1,012 946 48% 54% Pit t Meadows 1,676 1,713 896 857 53% 50% Port Coquit
lam 1,540 1,398 967 962 63% 69% Port Moody 1,692 1,721 1,015 974 60% 57% Richmond 2,142 1,871 985 954 46% 51% Surrey 1,833 1,807 624 615 34% 34% Vancouver 2,227 2,137 1,048 983 47%
46% West Vancouver 3,592 2,951 1,376 1,255 38% 43% White Rock 1,747 1,570 1,147 1,093 66% 70% Average* 1,938 1,895 991 967 53% 53% Expenditures Per Capita Tax Revenue Per Capita Tax
Revenue Per Capita as a Percentage of Expenditures Per Capita
Page 49 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 For 2017, the City expects approximately $4.2 million in new revenue. This is primarily due to property taxes, both new taxes due to additional development
and increases in property taxes. The majority of the additional revenue is used to fund the cost increases for existing services, such as labour and the RCMP Contract. A portion of
the property tax increase is dedicated to improve the level of infrastructure replacement, drainage infrastructure improvements and Parks and Recreation Master Plan funding. While inflation
has been less of a factor in pressure on property tax increases compared to years ago, the low rate environment and the housing price appreciation in the lower mainland have increased
the rate of development. This brisk pace of development has increased the workload in municipal departments that directly service the development community. Additional development staff
were added over the last two years, however the pace of development has continued to grow and additional staff is being recommended to address these workloads. Fortunately, the additional
costs can be offset by the increased development revenue associated with this work. Maple Ridge’s business planning culture also ensures the business and financial acumen exists to
address current community needs. A phrase that is often used to describe our business planning process is ensuring that we are, “Doing the right things, right.” This is achieved through
looking at what and how we do things and revisiting these processes to ensure we are getting the most value out of the time, effort and resources invested. This five year financial
plan builds on the groundwork set through many years of focus on a strong business planning culture. Council’s continued support of the business planning and the underlying financial
policies and business processes that support it, are key success factors for the community. It helps ensure that we, as public servants, provide the best overall service levels possible
within the constraints that exist. Council continues to recognize the value in focusing on long term financial planning in setting dedicated funding to be spent on infrastructure renewal
ensuring that the services our citizens currently enjoy from our assets is sustainable. Council also recognizes some areas require additional investment and continues to commit funding,
from a dedicated property tax increase, to be invested in drainage and parks and recreation improvements. Funding strategies have been developed to advance investments in parks and
recreation. Depending on the timing, size of investment, ongoing operating costs and level of senior government grants, the funding model can be adapted and the resulting magnitude
and duration of the dedicated property tax increase will likely need to be adjusted. Council can amend the Financial Plan Bylaw at any time and once the investments and associated funding
decisions have been made the Financial Plan can be amended accordingly. In summary, this Financial Plan allows the community to move forward, while respecting the current economic times.
CONCLUSION Conclusion
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 50 Recommendations for 2016 -2020 Financial Plan Recommendations for 2017 -2021 Financial Plan This past June, Council established the budget guidelines
for staff to use in developing the 2017 -2021 Financial Plan. We are pleased to report that the Financial Plan recommended to Council respects these guidelines which call for the lowest
tax increases in years. We now recommend that staff be directed to prepare the 2017 -2021 Financial Plan Bylaw, incorporating the following: 1. General Purpose Property Tax Increase
– 1.90% in 2017 and 2018 and 2.00% per year in 2019 through 2021. 2. Infrastructure Sustainability Property Tax Increase – 0.70% per year. 3. Parks, Recreation and Culture Property
Tax Increase – 0.25% per year. 4. Storm Water Property Tax Increase – 0.30% per year. 5. Water Levy Increase – 4.50% per year. 6. Sewer Levy Increase – 3.60% per year. 7. Recycling
Levy Increase – 1.67% in 2017 and 2018 and 2.75% per year in 2019 through 2021. 8. Growth in Property Tax Revenue Assumption – 2.00% per year. 9. Incremental Adjustments as outlined
in the Financial Overview Report 2017 -2021. 10. Provision for costs associated with growth as outlined on page 12 of the Financial Overview Report, subject to available funding. 11.
Capital Works Program totaling $32.9 million 2017, $27.8 million in 2018, $24.9 million in 2019, $26.5 million in 2020 and $23.5 million in 2021. 12. Cost and revenue adjustments from
page 13 of the Financial Overview Report, which reconciles the 2016-2020 Financial Plan with the 2017 -2021 Financial Plan. 13. That Council endorse the funding strategy discussed on
Page 38 of the Financial Overview report and that staff present this strategy to the public, as part of the public input process that is taking place on Community Investments. RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 51 Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Public Input Each year we invite citizens and stakeholders to provide comments on the Financial Plan. The first opportunity comes in the spring, when
Council adopts guidelines that will direct staff in the preparation of the Financial Plan. The second opportunity is in November/December, when Council formally considers the proposed
Financial Plan. The last several years have included the live streaming of overview information followed by a question and answer period. In addition, your comments and questions are
welcome any time of year. e-mail, addressed to: budget@mapleridge.ca voice mail, Budget Hotline: 604-467-7484 in writing, addressed to: Paul Gill, Chief Financial Officer City
of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Get a copy of the Financial Plan on our website www.mapleridge.ca GENERAL INFORMATION General Information
Financial Plan 2017 -2021 Page 52