File 0540-58-0003

CITY OF POWELL RIVER

FINANCE COMMITTEE

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2019 (1:00 PM)

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL

AGENDA

1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

2.1 Minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held October 3 - 6 22, 2019

3. DELEGATIONS

4. CORRESPONDENCE

5. REPORTS

5.1 Report dated November 28, 2019 from the Chief Financial 7 - 11 Officer regarding Interest Rate Risk and Long-term Debt

5.2 Report dated November 28, 2019 from the Chief Financial 12 - 19 Officer regarding Municipal Finance Authority Long-Term Borrowing – Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019

5.3 Report dated November 28, 2019 from the Chief Financial 20 - 28 Officer regarding Revenue Neutral Flat Tax Reduction Schedule

5.4 Report dated November 28, 2019 from the Chief Financial 29 - 77 Officer regarding Comparable Communities for Financial Planning

6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7. NEW BUSINESS

8. MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA

9. QUESTIONS

10. ADJOURNMENT

Page 2 of 77 DRAFT OCTOBER 22, 2019 Finance Committee Minutes File 0540-58-0005

CITY OF POWELL RIVER

Minutes of the Finance Committee held in the Council Chambers, City Hall on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:03 PM.

PRESENT: Councillor G.W.F. Doubt, Chair Mayor D.J. Formosa (arrived at 1:05 pm) Councillor C.A. Elliott Councillor M.J. Hathaway Councillor C.A. Leishman Councillor J.G. Palm Councillor R.R.D. Southcott

ALSO PRESENT: Russell Brewer, Chief Administrative Officer Malonie Shaffer, Deputy Corporate Officer/Recording Secretary Adam Langenmaier, Chief Financial Officer Tor Birtig, Director of Infrastructure Services Ray Boogaards, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture Nagi Rizk, Manager of Engineering Services Ryan Youngman, Acting Manager of Accounting Services Dave Brindle, Communications Coordinator Members of the Public Media Representatives

1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Moved and seconded that the agenda for the October 22, 2019 Finance Committee be adopted. CARRIED

2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held July 25, 2019 Moved and seconded that the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held July 25, 2019 be adopted. CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS

4. CORRESPONDENCE

5. REPORTS 5.1 Report dated October 22, 2019 from the Director of Infrastructure Services regarding Proposed Development Cost Charges Bylaw 2230,

Page 3 of 77 DRAFT OCTOBER 22, 2019 Finance Committee Minutes File 0540-58-0005

2009 Update

The Director of Infrastructure Services introduced Rachael Sansom, Land Development Consulting, to provide an overview of the report. Committee discussion included:

 Park Improvement category;  Road maintenance issues;  Transportation Master Plan;  Comparison regarding development cost charges in other communities (Gibsons, Sechelt, Courtenay, Comox, Port Alberni, Qualicum Beach, Parksville and Cumberland);  Coverage provided under development cost charge (DCC) bylaw;  Affordability going forward;  Removal of Marine Avenue from list;  Consultation requirements;  Grants and other funding mechanisms;  Wording needs to be more defined regarding reduced development costs charges for all development areas;  Industrial and commercial rates;  Legislation behind DCC.

By unanimous consent, the report dated October 22, 2019 from the Director of Infrastructure Services regarding Proposed Development Cost Charges Bylaw 2230, 2009 Update was referred to a future Council meeting.

5.2 Report dated October 22, 2019 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture regarding Willingdon Beach Campsite Bylaw

By unanimous consent, the report dated October 22, 2019 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture regarding Willingdon Beach Campsite Bylaw was referred to the November 7, 2019 Council meeting with the Committee recommendation that campsite fees and charges for Beach Front sites increase $2.50 in the first year and $2.50 in the second year for all seasons regardless of the length of stay.

5.3 Report dated October 22, 2019 from the Acting Manager of Accounting Services regarding Citizen Budget – 2020 Financial Plan Public Engagement

By unanimous consent, the report dated October 22, 2019 from the Acting Manager of Accounting Services regarding Citizen Budget – 2020 Financial Plan Public Engagement was referred to the November 7, 2019 Council meeting.

5.4 Report dated October 22, 2019 from the Chief Financial Officer regarding Deferred Property Tax Report

Page 4 of 77 DRAFT OCTOBER 22, 2019 Finance Committee Minutes File 0540-58-0005

During discussion, Mayor Formosa left the meeting at 2:35 pm and returned at 2:37 pm.

By unanimous consent, the report dated October 22, 2019 from the Chief Financial Officer regarding Deferred Property Tax Report was received for information.

5.5 Report dated October 22, 2019 from the Chief Financial Officer regarding 2020 – 2024 Financial Plan Assumption Report

During discussion, Councillor Hathaway left the meeting at 2:45 pm and returned at 2:49 pm.

During discussion, Councillor Leishman left the meeting at 2:53 pm and returned at 2:55 pm.

By unanimous consent, the report dated October 22, 2019 from the Chief Financial Officer regarding 2020 – 2024 Financial Plan Assumption Report was referred to the November 7, 2019 Council meeting.

5.6 Report dated October 22, 2019 from the Chief Financial Officer regarding Short-Term Borrowing Resolution for 2019 Capital Projects

By unanimous consent, the report dated October 22, 2019 from the Chief Financial Officer regarding Short-Term Borrowing Resolution for 2019 Capital Projects was referred to the November 7, 2019 Council meeting with the Committee recommendation that the loan amount change from $375,000 to $360,000.

5.7 Report dated October 22, 2019 from the Chief Financial Officer regarding Annual Property Tax Sale Report

By unanimous consent, the report dated October 22, 2019 from the Chief Financial Officer regarding Annual Property Tax Sale Report was received for information.

Mayor Formosa thanked Finance Department staff for all their hard work.

6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Council Policy 261, Community Partnerships - Investment through Grants and Permissive Tax Exemptions - Mayor Formosa

Mayor Formosa spoke about Council Policy 261, Community Partnerships - Investment through Grants and Permissive Tax Exemptions. Discussion

Page 5 of 77 DRAFT OCTOBER 22, 2019 Finance Committee Minutes File 0540-58-0005

included:

 Capping on permissive tax dollars;  What is being done in other communities;  Prioritizing and categorizing i.e. – providers of affordable housing;  May need phased approach;  Comparison of our policies with those of other communities;  Possible topic for Community Advisory Finance Committee;  Non-profits.

By unanimous consent, staff was directed to prepare a report on what other communities are doing and include discussion of existing bylaws and policies and suggested next steps.

8. MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA

9. QUESTIONS 9.1 Prior to adjournment the Chair received a question from the media regarding the following:  Community Advisory Finance Committee

10. ADJOURNMENT Moved and seconded that the meeting adjourn at 3:25 pm. CARRIED

CERTIFIED CORRECT: Malonie Shaffer Deputy Corporate Officer

The next regular Finance Committee meeting will be held at 3:30 pm on November 28, 2019.

Page 6 of 77 City of Powell River

REPORT

File No. 1760-01 DATE OF MEETING: November 28, 2019

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Adam Langenmaier BBA, CPA, CA Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Interest Rate Risk and Long-term Debt

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receive Interest Rate Risk and Long-term Debt report for information and discussion.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation.

Russell Brewer, CAO

ORIGIN/PURPOSE: To provide Council with information regarding interest rate risk associated with long-term debt and how strategies can be undertaken to reduce interest rate risk.

BACKGROUND: The City of Powell River is expected to undertake significant borrowing over the next several years to fund Liquid Waste Treatment Plant (LWTP) construction. The maximum that the City is currently authorized to borrow is $27,280,000. This is not a small amount of money in relation to the size of Powell River and we should be aware that small changes in interest rates can significantly impact our interest expenses over the expected 30 year borrowing period.

Council should be made aware of the possible impacts of shifting interest rates and the risk associated with these changes. Furthermore, Council should be made aware that there are strategies that can be undertaken to reduce the impacts of interest rate risk on the City.

There are other types of risks associated with financial instruments that should be considered however, the largest risk to the City is the interest rate risk. All risks must be identified, and actions taken to mitigate these risks. The extent of these actions will depend on the exposure to each type of risk.

Page 7 of 77 Interest Rate Risk and Long-term Debt 2 of 5 November 28, 2019 ______

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Strategic Corporate Priorities  Financial Resiliency – The City will strive towards long-term financial sustainability and best practices in internal processes.

EXISTING POLICY: None

ANALYSIS AND IMPACT: When assessing risk, consideration must be given to both sides of the transaction at hand. In the case of borrowing, the City borrows through the Municipal Finance Authority (MFA). The MFA provides cash to the City. The City provides semi-annual interest payments to the MFA along with annual principal payments.

The MFA is not a bank, it is not in the business of holding cash. The MFA is more of a conduit to allow municipalities to access cash through the world markets. A municipality twice per year has the opportunity to access cash through the MFA for long-term debt. Once a municipality has gone through the process and the MFA has a defined amount of money it has been requested to raise, the MFA will issue bonds on the world markets.

A bond is a contract to pay a certain amount of money at a future date. The MFA collects cash from bond sales and distributes it to municipalities. In turn the municipalities pay off their loans and the money is held by the MFA until the bonds issued by the MFA mature. At this point the municipalities have paid off their debts and the MFA has paid their bondholders.

As this cycle continues, there is always risk exposure. This risk impacts the City as the holder of debt, the MFA as the issuer of bonds, and the bond holders. Some risks are more focused on certain areas. The analysis below identifies risk, impact, and mitigating factors. Interest rate risk is discussed in further detail below.

Types of risks to be considered:

(a) Credit risk is the risk that one party to a financial instrument will cause a financial loss for the other party by failing to discharge an obligation. (b) Currency risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in foreign exchange rates. (c) Interest rate risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in market interest rates. (d) Liquidity risk is the risk that an enterprise will encounter difficulty in meeting obligations associated with financial liabilities. (e) Market risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in market prices. Market risk comprises three types of risk: currency risk, interest rate risk and other price risk.

Risk Level Impact Mitigation Credit Low The MFA will not Borrowing through a provincially appropriately discharge sanctioned finance authority bonds sold on behalf of the provides adequate safeguards from City at the end of the term. credit risk as the MFA has

Page 8 of 77 Interest Rate Risk and Long-term Debt 3 of 5 November 28, 2019 ______

maintained AAA credit rating annually from Standards & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings and AAA credit rating from Moody’s Investors Service. Currency Low / NA None, as all transactions between the City and the N/A MFA are in Canadian funds. Interest Moderate Affordability of debt will The City can use a hedging / become increasingly difficult ladder strategy to spread out the if interest rates rise before concentration of interest rate risk City locks in at a fixed rate. by accessing long term debt in Increases to interest rate smaller increments over the term of will result in more interest construction of the LWTP. If paid by the City, thus interest rates increase over the increased property taxation construction term the City will and sewer fees will be benefit from some of the debt being required to provide the at lower rates, thus only portions of same services. the debt will be subject to higher interest rates. Liquidity Moderate Property tax and sewer fees The City can use a hedging / must increase to meet ladder strategy to reduce the financial obligations. individual impact of each renewal Liquidity risk will be term. By reducing the total debt concentrated at each loan taken at one time and spreading refinancing period this burden over several years it (10,15,20,25yrs) as interest will spread the liquidity risk over rates are subject to several years, thus giving the City renewal. flexibility to adjust property tax and sewer rates to cover debt payments adequately. Further mitigation will occur if the historical time value of money persists (inflation) as future payments will be less significant in relation to expected future earnings (taxation). Market Low (yr 1- The type of debt that the The MFA continues to strive 10) City accesses through the towards the best credit ratings Moderate MFA is sold by the MFA as available. Their unique design, (yr 11-30) 5 -year and 10-year bonds. security backing (provincial In the event the future bond property taxation) and history have market deteriorates the City allowed them to maintain AAA could be faced with credit ratings even through increased interest rate risk financial crisis and the associated costs.

Interest Rate Risk Interest rate risk is the most significant risk to the City and residents as it could have a significant impact on future property tax rates and sewer rates. With the borrowing that will be required for the LWTP that has been authorized for up to $27,280,000 the City will be more

Page 9 of 77 Interest Rate Risk and Long-term Debt 4 of 5 November 28, 2019 ______affected by interest rate risk. This risk will be concentrated if the City chooses to convert all borrowed funds to long-term debt at the completion of the project. Risk is concentrated as the City has no control over future interest rates and are at the mercy of the open market at the time the long-term debt is taken on.

Mitigation Strategies The City has the ability to access long-term debt over the construction phases of the LWTP. The City will have several loans associated with the LWTP construction instead of one large loan. By accessing long-term debt several times, the City will reduce the concentration of interest rate risk by reducing total amount borrowed and subject to fixed interest rates at a given point in time. By accessing long-term debt numerous times each loan issue acts as a hedge to reduce the impact of future interest rate volatility as each loan will reduce the total amount of available funding exposed to future interest rate volatility. The drawback is if future interest rates decline the City will be in a position where it is paying more interest on its loans, however this is the tradeoff that must occur to provide more certainty and the reduction of interest rate risk. Further interest rates are currently at near historical low rates with limited ability to drop any lower thus making the risk of further interest rate reductions have a limited impact. The downside to low interest rates is that it leaves plenty of opportunity for rates to increase.

The table below is an outline or example of a tentative borrowing schedule. This schedule is subject to change depending on construction and the interest rate environment.

Date Loan Rate Balance subject to interest rate risk Fall 2019 $27,280,000 Spring 2020 $10,000,000 2.2%-2.8%* $17,280,000 Spring 2021 $7,000,000 Unknown $10,280,000 Spring 2022 $5,000,000 Unknown $5,280,000 Spring 2023 $5,280,000 Unknown $0

*Expected rate

Once the City accesses the long-term debt, interest and principal payments will be required commencing 6 months after the date of issue. The MFA requires 1 principal payment per year and 2 interest payments per year.

Alternative The City has the ability to convert the authorized loan of $27,280,000 with a temporary borrowing bylaw that would allow the City to access the funds as needed similar to a line of credit. The City is required to pay only interest on the actual amount borrowed on a monthly basis. The interest rate that is applied to temporary borrowing is variable and could fluctuate daily. The current (November 11, 2019) variable interest rate is 2.46%. A temporary borrowing bylaw has a maximum lifespan of 5 years. At the end of the construction period the City can convert the balance borrowed under the temporary borrowing bylaw to long-term debt. At this time the interest rate would become fixed. If this method is selected the total balance borrowed would be subject to interest rate risk and since future interest rates are not known this risk concentration would be high.

Page 10 of 77 Interest Rate Risk and Long-term Debt 5 of 5 November 28, 2019 ______

Conclusion There is no perfect solution that can mitigate all risk and ensure the City pays the lowest interest rates, however there are strategies to consider that will help reduce risk. There will always be an element of risk. What Council should be aware of is the risks and the possible mitigating factors. Staff will continually monitor the interest rate environment and bring further recommendations to Council as required to modify the borrowing strategy in an effort to reduce future interest expenses and mitigate identified risks.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact can be quantified at this time as future interest rates are not known. Strategies can be undertaken to reduce interest rate risk in the future.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT: No additional public engagement is slated beyond the public meeting process.

OPTIONS: 1. THAT Council receive this report for information and discussion.

Page 11 of 77 City of Powell River

REPORT

File No. 3900-20-2551 DATE OF MEETING: November 28, 2019

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Adam Langenmaier BBA, CPA, CA Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Municipal Finance Authority Long-Term Borrowing – Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019.

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approves long-term borrowing from the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, as part of their 2020 spring borrowing session, in the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000), as authorized by the City of Powell River Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019, for borrowing funds to construct the Liquid Waste Treatment Plant; and

THAT the qathet Regional District be requested to consent to the City of Powell River borrowing these funds from Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, over a 30- year term, and that the qathet Regional District include the borrowing in their security issuing bylaw.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation.

Russell Brewer, CAO

ORIGIN/PURPOSE: This report is provided to Council to recommend that the City request the qathet Regional District to borrow ten million dollars ($10,000,000) from the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia (MFABC) in the 2020 Spring issue.

BACKGROUND:  On April 4, 2019 the City of Powell River gave three readings to the Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 giving authorization to borrow necessary funds to construct the Liquid Waste Treatment Plant.  On May 31, 2019, this long-term borrowing bylaw was given statutory approval by the Inspector of Municipalities.  On August 20, 2019, a Certificate of Approval was issued by the Deputy Inspector of Municipalities.

Page 12 of 77 MFA Long-term Borrowing-Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 2 of 3 November 28, 2019 ______

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Vision – A sustainable Powell River that provides for:  Economic Diversity – resilient economy  Social Well-being – a vibrant, safe and healthy community  Healthy Environment – a diverse and healthy natural environment

Strategic Community Priorities  Sustainability – The City will be a leader in increasing the community’s environmental, social, cultural, and economic sustainability.

Strategic Corporate Priorities  Financial Resiliency – The City will strive towards long-term financial sustainability and best practices in internal processes.  Asset Management – The City will follow best practices in asset management and seek to maximize capital utilization and stewardship.  Community planning – The City will lead the community in safeguarding and enhancing the positive physical and environmental attributes of Powell River.

EXISTING POLICY: None.

ANALYSIS AND IMPACT: The City is currently working towards breaking ground on the Liquid Waste Treatment Plant project. To ensure smooth construction the City should have adequate cash on hand to pay construction expenses as they are incurred.

Grant claims can be made as construction and expenditures are incurred; however, the City must pay construction costs upfront and then submit claims for reimbursement through the Provincial and Federal Governments. To prevent project delays, the City should ensure that there is adequate cash on hand for construction costs while grant claims are being processed.

The City is authorized to borrow up to $27,280,000.00 from MFABC for the construction of the Liquid Waste Treatment Plant. The City can access funding as required by entering into long term borrowing contracts with MFABC. These contracts are subject to fixed interest rates provided by MFABC and subject to what the interest rate environment is doing at the time of issue.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: See analysis from Appendix A Report – Liquid Waste Treatment Plan Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT: Communication regarding loan authorization was completed through the Liquid Waste Management Plan process, and the approval of Liquid Waste Treatment Plan Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019.

Page 13 of 77 MFA Long-term Borrowing-Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 3 of 3 November 28, 2019 ______

OPTIONS:

1. That Council approves long-term borrowing from the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, as part of their 2020 spring borrowing session, in the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000), as authorized by the City of Powell River Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019, for borrowing funds to construct the Liquid Waste Treatment Plant, and

That the qathet Regional District be requested to consent to the City of Powell River borrowing these funds from Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, over a 30- year term, and that the qathet Regional District include the borrowing in their security issuing bylaw.

or

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

AL/cs Attachment: Appendix A - Report – Liquid Waste Treatment Plan Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019

Page 14 of 77 APPENDIX A

CITY OF POWELL RIVER REPORT

File No. 3900-20-2551

DATE: March 27, 2019

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Adam Langenmaier, Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019

RECOMMENDATION: That City of Powell River Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 be read a first, second and third time and be considered for final adoption.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

Russell Brewer, CAO RB:eb ORIGIN/PURPOSE: To authorize borrowing of up to $27,280,000 through the Municipal Finance Authority (MFA) for the proposed Liquid Waste Treatment Plant (LWTP).

BACKGROUND: The City is required to improve the quality of treated sewage that is flowing out of the current sewage treatment plants, as it does not currently meet environmental guidelines. The City has received written warnings of alleged contraventions of the Fisheries Act from Environment and Climate Change Canada. If the City does not address the quality of treated sewage, it could be subject to significant fines and penalties.

The City has submitted a grant application that could fund up to 73.33% of the total LWTP project cost, with the remaining 26.67% funded by the City through a combination of debt and reserves. At the time of this report, the City has not received notification of whether the grant application will be approved.

The total project cost that was included in the grant application was $79,800,000. Of this amount, $76,000,000 is eligible for grant funding resulting in a maximum grant amount of $55,730,800 leaving the City to fund the remaining $24,069,200.

The Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) approved by Council in 2015 and conditionally approved by the Province in June 2016 outlined projected costs and provides the basis for loan approval. Once a LWMP is approved by the Minister of Environment, it gives the municipality the authority to borrow for the project identified in the LWMP. The total borrowing authorized by the LWMP is $27,280,000.

Page 15 of 77 Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Appendix A Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 2 of 5 March 27, 2019 ______

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Vision – A sustainable Powell River That Provides For: • Economic Diversity – resilient economy • Social Well-being – a vibrant safe and healthy community • Healthy Environment – a diverse and healthy natural environment

Strategic Community Priorities • Sustainability – The City will be a leader in increasing the community environmental, social/cultural and economic sustainability

Strategic Corporate Priorities • Financial Resiliency – The City will strive towards long-term financial sustainability and best practices in internal processes. • Asset Management – The City will follow best practices in asset management and seek to maximize capital utilization and stewardship. • Community planning – The City will lead the community in safeguarding and enhancing the positive physical and environmental attributes of Powell River.

EXISTING POLICY: None

ANALYSIS AND IMPACT: There is a strict process that must be followed by municipalities to access borrowing. This process is in place to ensure that municipalities do not become over leveraged and burdened with deb., Furthermore, the process requires adequate public input before Provincial approval. The City has sought public approval through the LWMP approved by Council and the Province.

Municipalities have debt servicing limits set out, similar to limits you would see set by the Federal Government for mortgage rules. Debt servicing costs can only makeup a certain percentage of regular reoccurring revenues to a municipality. This limit is designed to protect a municipality from taking on too much debt.

Borrowing Strategy The structure of long-term debt is strict and a municipality can only access funds at the two annual fund offerings by MFA, once in the spring and once in the fall. Once the municipality accesses funding and transitions the debt to long term there is a very limited opportunity to end the debt early or pay it off before the normal repayment schedule. This rigidity, although it may seem harsh, allows for the MFA to secure low interest rates and large sums of cash. In the spring and fall the MFA is not only providing cash to Powell River but any British Columbia Municipality, Regional District, Improvement District, or Hospital District.

Given the restrictions on long-term debt, the MFA provides a solution to allow municipalities to access cash throughout a project’s construction period and a method to finalize a long-term debt amount that could be equal to less than the amount approved in the borrowing bylaw. A municipality can pass a temporary borrowing bylaw in conjunction with a long-term borrowing bylaw that would allow the municipality to access funding like a line of credit up to the amount authorized by the long-term borrowing bylaw. This would provide cash to construct the project and once the project has been completed and the final cost determined the municipality could

Page 16 of 77

Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Appendix A Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 3 of 5 March 27, 2019 ______paydown some of the outstanding temporary borrowing with reserves or specific savings before transitioning the temporary borrowing to the rigid long-term borrowing.

Temporary borrowing has no set schedule of repayment, the only stipulation is that it must be paid off in full within 5 years. Interest is charged at a variable rate and can be either paid in cash or added to the temporary borrowing balance. This structure allows municipalities’ flexibility during construction. There could be a timing issue from when contractors require payment and grant agencies provide funding, this access to borrowing allows the municipality to manage the cashflow requirements of the project with a reduced risk of cashflow issues.

Questions & Answers Does the City have to borrow all approved funds? - No, the City only needs to borrow what is required to complete the project.

Why is the borrowing bylaw amount higher than the projected cost? - If there are cost overruns the City should position itself in such a manner that allows some flexibility to cover unexpected increased costs without having to create more borrowing bylaws.

How long is the loan for? - Due to the projected size of the loan it is recommended that a 30-year repayment period be used. There are options to reduce the total length if desired.

What is the interest rate? - The interest rate will be determined by the current market rate available to MFA at time of transition to long-term. - The fall 2018 MFA issues 10-year rate was 3.20%, - The spring 2018 MFA issues 10-year rate was 3.15% - The fall 2017 MFA issues 10-year rate was 3.15%. - Current temporary borrowing rate is 2.62%

What are the lengths of the interest rate terms? - There will be one 10-year term followed by four 5-year terms. Each term will have a fixed interest rate determined at the start of the term.

What is the repayment schedule? - The repayment schedule will depend on the interest rate and total length at the time the loan becomes finalized. The MFA requires an annual principal payment and semi-annual interest payments.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of the proposed debt is dependent on three main factors: Total borrowed, interest rate and total length. Since the total borrowed is uncertain, a series of scenarios have been created that outline the financial impact.

Assumptions: Interest rate: 3.2% Length: 30 years

Page 17 of 77

Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Appendix A Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 4 of 5 March 27, 2019 ______Grant 73.33% of Eligible Loan 26.67% of Annual Annual Debt Project Cost Project Project Principal Annual Interest Servicing Notes 83,010,800 55,730,800 27,280,000 573,405 872,960 1,446,365 1 70,000,000 51,331,000 18,669,000 392,409 597,408 989,817 60,000,000 43,998,000 16,002,000 336,350 512,064 848,414 50,000,000 36,665,000 13,335,000 280,292 426,720 707,012 40,000,000 29,332,000 10,668,000 224,233 341,376 565,609 30,000,000 21,999,000 8,001,000 168,175 256,032 424,207

Note 1 – This scenario is the maximum value that the City can borrow based on the authorization given by the Liquid Waste Management Plan. Also reflected is total maximum project cost.

The scenarios presented show possible borrowing usage for possible project costs. However; the City has cash reserves that could be used to reduce the total short-term borrowing before transitioning to long-term borrowing. The scenarios show the cost of borrowing at different loan amounts, this does not limit the city to borrowing in increments outlined in the scenarios.

Debt Servicing The Community Charter lays out limits to how much a municipality can borrow. These limits are based on the municipality’s ability to repay the debt on an annual basis given certain types of revenue.

The City’s annual debt servicing capacity for 2017 (most recent available information) is $7,371,169. Of this amount the we must remove current debt payments, add back maturing debt payments which will leave us with our remaining debt capacity. From this remaining debt capacity, we can subtract the proposed annual debt payments to determine if the City has adequate capacity to support the required payments.

Debt Capacity Summary

Annual debt capacity (2017) $7,371,169 Annual debt payments – subtract $1,805,963 Maturing debt – add $193,407 Excess capacity $5,758,613 Proposed LWTP debt (maximum) $1,446,365 Remaining capacity $3,312,248

If the LWTP debt is used to its full extent the City will be at 45% of its current debt capacity. This is an increase over pre LWTP debt capacity utilization however the City is still in an acceptable range for its debt capacity utilization.

The size and length of a loan will have varying effects on the impact to debt capacity utilization. A small loan with a short repayment period could have the same annual affect as a large loan over a long repayment period.

STAFF TIME/INPUT: 10 Hours

Page 18 of 77

Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Appendix A Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 5 of 5 March 27, 2019 ______PUBLIC CONSULTATION: Public consultation was sought through the Liquid Waste Management Plan process. Further consultation is sought through the open meeting process

OPTIONS: 1. THAT Council consider 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings of the Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019.

2. Provide staff with alternate direction.

Respectfully submitted,

Adam Langenmaier BBA, CPA, CA Chief Financial Officer

AL:jm Attachment(2)

A) Appendix A-Liquid Waste Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 2551, 2019 B) Appendix B-Liquid Waste Management Plan Stage 3 – Draft 8

Page 19 of 77

City of Powell River

REPORT

File No. 1970-02 DATE OF MEETING: November 28, 2019

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Adam Langenmaier BBA, CPA, CA Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Revenue Neutral Flat Tax Reduction Schedule

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council adopt a revenue neutral flat tax reduction schedule such that a residential property with improvements (buildings) would be $180.00 for 2020, $115.00 for 2021, and $50.00 for 2022 and the years thereafter.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation.

Russell Brewer, CAO

ORIGIN/PURPOSE: To provide Council with information regarding a residential flat tax, and to continue the revenue neutral flat tax reduction strategy.

BACKGROUND: November 22, 2018 – Council requested information regarding the City’s flat tax levy.

February 28, 2019 – Flat Tax Report (appendix A) was presented to Council per the November 22, 2018 information request.

May 13, 2019 – Council adopted the 2019 tax rate bylaw which includes a revenue neutral reduction in flat tax from $335 to $250 for improved residential properties.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Strategic Community Priorities: Economic Re-vitalization – The City will facilitate, promote and develop community economic resiliency and vibrancy.

Strategic Corporate Priorities: Financial Resiliency – The City will strive towards long-term financial sustainability and best practices in internal processes.

Page 20 of 77 Revenue Neutral Flat Tax Reduction Schedule 2 of 3 November 28, 2019 ______

EXISTING POLICY: Annual Property Tax Rates Bylaw 2542, 2019.

ANALYSIS AND IMPACT: In reference to the February 28, 2019 – Flat Tax Report (appendix A), the recommendation was to reduce the flat tax from $335 to $250 per the information provided in the report. Nothing has changed regarding the impacts and effects flat tax has on residents, and the recommendation to continue to reduce the flat tax follows the same rationale as the February 28, 2019 report.

Below is the proposed flat tax reduction schedule.

Proposed Flat Tax Reduction Schedule Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Flat tax $ 335.00 $ 250.00 $ 180.00 $ 115.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Reduction from prior year $ 85.00 $ 70.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 $ - % reduction 25.4% 28.0% 36.1% 56.5% 0.0%

Proposed Flat Tax as a % of Expected Property Taxes Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Average Tax $ 1,699.42 $ 1,767.40 $ 1,838.10 $ 1,911.62 $ 1,988.08 $ 2,067.61 Flat tax as a % of tax 19.7% 14.1% 9.8% 6.0% 2.5% 2.4%

Note that any reduction in flat tax will be revenue neutral, meaning that the foregone revenue as a result of the reduced flat tax will be recovered through an increase to the variable tax rate. This is a redistribution of the existing tax burden.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: In 2019 the City levied $1,382,250 in residential flat taxes on improved residential properties. There were 5,529 properties subject to the levy of $250. If the City reduces the flat tax to $180 (a reduction of $70) per improved residential property, the City would be expected to collect $995,220 in flat tax for 2020, a reduction from the prior year of $387,030. The corresponding increase in the residential mill rate would be 0.1991 based on the 2019 revised roll (assessment).

In 2019 the average house value was about $345,000. If we apply the expected change in mill rate (0.1991) to the average home value, we see that the variable property tax will increase by $68.70. This increase will be offset by the reduction in flat tax from 2019 ($250.00) to 2020 ($180.00) of $70.00 making the actual impact of the change in flat tax on the average home a reduction in property taxes of $1.30.

The table below outlines the impact of the proposed change to the variable tax rate based on the assessed value. If a house is valued at $200,000, the proposed increase to the variable tax rate would be $39.82. This amount will change with a change in assessed value. The flat tax remains the same throughout changes to assessed values as there is no correlation between assessment and flat tax. The net impact is the overall increase or (decrease) in combined taxation (variable + flat) that the property will be subject to.

Page 21 of 77 Revenue Neutral Flat Tax Reduction Schedule 3 of 3 November 28, 2019 ______

Assessment Increased Variable Tax Reduced Flat Tax Net Impact $200,000 $39.82 ($70.00) ($30.18) 250,000 49.78 (70.00) (20.22) 300,000 59.74 (70.00) (10.26) 345,000 68.70 (70.00) (1.30) 400,000 79.65 (70.00) 9.65 450,000 89.60 (70.00) 19.60 500,000 99.56 (70.00) 29.56 550,000 109.52 (70.00) 39.52 650,000 129.43 (70.00) 59.43 850,000 169.25 (70.00) 99.25 1,500,000 298.68 (70.00) 228.68

In 2019, 60% of homes (3,317) in Powell River have an assessed value of less than $350,000, and only 4% of homes (221) have an assessed value greater than $550,000.

By adopting a revenue neutral flat tax reduction strategy and schedule, the City can reduce its reliance on flat tax and reduce the regressive effects of flat tax on the community. Powell River is one of only 5 municipalities remaining in BC that still levy a flat tax. The proposed reduction strategy is not intended remove the flat tax; it is only intended to reduce the flat tax to a nominal amount.

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT: No public consultation has been sought at this time. Public consultation will be sought through the open meeting process and the 5-year financial planning process.

OPTIONS: 1. THAT Council adopt a revenue neutral flat tax reduction schedule as such that a residential property with improvements (buildings) would be $180.00 for 2020, $115.00 for 2021, and $50.00 for 2022 the years there after.

2. Provide other direction to staff

AL/cs Attachment: Appendix A – February 28, 2019 – Flat Tax Report

Page 22 of 77 Appendix A

CITY OF POWELL RIVER REPORT

File No. 1970-02

DATE: February 28, 2019

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Adam Langenmaier, Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Flat Tax Report

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the flat tax be reduced on improved residential properties to $250 and vacant residential properties to $50.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation.

RB:eb Russell Brewer, CAO

ORIGIN/PURPOSE: Council requested further information regarding the City’s residential flat tax levy from the November 22, 2018 Finance Committee Meeting.

BACKGROUND: In 1990, the Provincial Government granted municipalities the authority to levy a flat tax through the Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1990. The Province removed this option in 1992, through the Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1992. Only 5 municipalities had opted for the flat tax method. The municipalities that opted in all had relatively low residential property assessments and a high industrial assessment at the time.

Of the 5 municipalities that levy a flat tax none have removed the flat tax however some have been reducing the amount levied or are in discussion of reducing and removing the flat tax.

The table below outlines all BC municipalities that currently levy a flat tax.

Page 23 of 77 Flat Tax Report 2 ofAppendix 6 A February 28, 2019 ______BC Municipalities That Levy a Flat Tax 2018 Powell River Dawson Creek Kimberley Kitimat Trail Improved $ 335 $ 300 $ 546 $ 612 $ 260 Unimproved $ 87 $ 100 $ 310 $ - $ 260

Average Residential Value $ 252,699 $ 255,433 $ 248,245 $ 258,130 $ 178,200

Flat Tax Discussions in Discussions of Reducing $80 per Changes with No discussion Status progress reducing or year since 2016. annual tax of removal removing Was $786 in 2015 change. Little intention to remove

Primary Paper Oriented Strand Lead and Zinc Aluminum Lead and Zink Industry Board (OSB) mine (closed) smelter

Flat tax is a regressive form of taxation that does not encompass any method of assessing one’s ability to pay. The variable tax rate system is a fairer system that uses one’s property value as a proxy to estimate one’s ability to pay.

Flat tax is often seen as fair because it spreads the tax burden across all people the same; however, flat tax has a greater burden on lower income earners. The lower your income the greater the burden the flat tax is.

For example, the impact on a single pensioner with a fixed income of $1,800 a month ($21,600 annual) the flat tax represents 1.55% ($335/$21,600) of their total annual income. If you compare this with a couple who both work fulltime at $25 per hour and earn a combined $91,000, they pay the same flat tax of $335 which represents 0.37% ($335/$91,000) of their total income.

Furthermore, a higher income earner has the luxury of choosing a non-essential expense that they could reduce to cover the flat tax. In contrast to the low-income who earner may not have the luxury of choosing a non-essential expense as it could be argued that a low-income earner does not have excess money for non-essential expenses, and in turn would be sacrificing an essential expense to pay the flat tax.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Strategic Community Priorities: Economic Re-vitalization – The City will facilitate, promote and develop community economic resiliency and vibrancy.

Strategic Corporate Priorities: Financial Resiliency – The City will strive towards long-term financial sustainability and best practices in internal processes;

EXISTING POLICY: Annual Property Tax Rates Bylaw 2508, 2018.

Page 24 of 77

Flat Tax Report 3 ofAppendix 6 A February 28, 2019 ______ANALYSIS AND IMPACT:

The table below is the complete history of flat tax levied on residential properties since inception. The column on the left is the amount levied, the column on the right is the amount levied inflated to todays dollars for a better comparison.

Flat Tax History Flat Tax in Todays $ Year Improved Vacant Year Original Inflated to 2018 1991$ 200 $ 50 1991 $ 200 $ 291 1992$ 111 $ 50 1992 $ 111 $ 160 1993$ 230 $ 50 1993 $ 230 $ 328 1994$ 238 $ 50 1994 $ 238 $ 339 1995$ 245 $ 50 1995 $ 245 $ 345 1996$ 246 $ 50 1996 $ 246 $ 343 1997$ 256 $ 63 1997 $ 256 $ 353 1998$ 265 $ 72 1998 $ 265 $ 363 1999$ 277 $ 75 1999 $ 277 $ 375 2000$ 287 $ 78 2000 $ 287 $ 381 2001$ 298 $ 82 2001 $ 298 $ 389 2002$ 306 $ 84 2002 $ 306 $ 392 2003$ 313 $ 86 2003 $ 313 $ 393 2004$ 325 $ 90 2004 $ 325 $ 402 2005$ 342 $ 95 2005 $ 342 $ 415 2006$ 375 $ 105 2006 $ 375 $ 447 2007$ 407 $ 114 2007 $ 407 $ 475 2008$ 442 $ 124 2008 $ 442 $ 505 2009$ 479 $ 124 2009 $ 479 $ 546 2010$ 479 $ 124 2010 $ 479 $ 536 2011$ 455 $ 118 2011 $ 455 $ 493 2012$ 432 $ 112 2012 $ 432 $ 451 2013$ 407 $ 105 2013 $ 407 $ 429 2014$ 387 $ 100 2014 $ 387 $ 399 2015$ 359 $ 93 2015 $ 359 $ 365 2016$ 335 $ 87 2016 $ 335 $ 347 2017$ 335 $ 87 2017 $ 335 $ 343 2018$ 335 $ 87 2018 $ 335 $ 335

The graph below is a summary of the information found above.

Page 25 of 77

Flat Tax Report 4 ofAppendix 6 A February 28, 2019 ______Flat Tax - Improved $600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$- 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Inflated Original

The graph below shows the total flat tax collected as a % of the total residential tax collection. Flat Tax as a % of Total Residential Tax Levy 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

In 2000, the flat tax represented 66% of the residential levy while in 2018 it has decreased to 20% and is forecasted to reduce further as variable taxes increase. This decrease in the flat tax to variable ratio will lessen the affect of any change to the flat tax.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City has the ability to adapt its taxation method to adjust our structure to collect the same amount of tax with a lower flat tax levied. As the flat tax is reduced the City’s variable tax rate will increase to offset the flat tax reduction.

Page 26 of 77

Flat Tax Report 5 ofAppendix 6 A February 28, 2019 ______There will be a reduction in property taxes levied on residential properties with a value of less than $308,000 while there will be an offsetting increase to properties above this value. Residential properties that are assessed at below $308,000 are carrying a larger representative tax burden than a property assessed above $308,000. As assessment decreases the unfair proportional tax burden increases.

Effective Tax Rates With Current Flat Tax Current Variable Effective Assessment Tax Rate taxes Flat Tax Taxes payable tax rate $ 104,000 5.2042$ 541.24 335.00$ $ 876.24 8.4254 $ 350,000 5.2042$ 1,821.47 335.00$ $ 2,156.47 6.1613 $ 650,000 5.2042$ 3,382.73 335.00$ $ 3,717.73 5.7196

Note - $104,000 is the lowest assessed single-family dwelling in Powell River.

The absolute lowest valued residential property in Powell River is assessed at $5,200, it is a very small portion of a commercial building. Under the current flat tax, the effective tax rate charged on this property is 69.6273 which is 1,238% greater than the current rate of 5.2042.

There are 2,700 residential properties with assessments below $308,000, this represents 47% of all residential properties.

The table below outlines in the impact of the reduction of flat tax across various assessment.

Assessment Tax Change % of Population Cumulative $0 - $308k Decrease 47% 47% $308k - $450k Increase of less 38% 85% than $40 $450k - $650 Increase between 12% 97% $40 - $100 $650k - $1M Increase between 3% 99.2% $100 - $191

There are 45 properties with a value greater than $1M, of these properties 11 are apartment buildings. The highest valued single-family dwelling is $1,512,000, which will pay $330 more in property tax if the flat tax is reduced.

Apartment Buildings Single Owner An apartment building that is owned by a single owner will only pay the flat tax once, even if the apartment building has more than 1 unit. If an individual owns a single apartment within an apartment building, they will pay the flat tax once. This creates a discrepancy between apartment owners, homeowners and apartment building owners from a tax fairness perspective.

An apartment building that is owned by a single owner that has more than 1 unit pays a total flat tax of $335 even if that building has 1,000 units. A reduction to the flat tax and a corresponding increase to the variable tax will reduce this discrepancy slightly. There are currently 11 apartment buildings that fall into this category with a cumulative 415 units. The flat tax paid by the 11 apartments annual is $3,685 (11 x $335) while the flat tax that could be paid on the per unit basis similar to an individual apartment would be $139,025 (415 x $335). The flat tax system has shifted the burden of tax onto homeowners.

Page 27 of 77

Flat Tax Report 6 ofAppendix 6 A February 28, 2019 ______The impact of the proposed change from $335 to $250 on the 415 rental apartment units carries a weighted average of $3.26 per unit per month which is equivalent to $39.12 per year. The impact to each unit varies on the number of units in the building, as the number of units increases the impact per unit decreases, this is in conjunction with the overall assessment of the building.

The highest valued apartment building is operated by a Not-for-Profit organization and has been granted a permissive tax exemption of 50% and will be less affected by this change.

Conclusion The flat tax method increases the tax burden onto lower value properties and thus assumingly lower income earners. Those who fall into this category have the least ability to carry the enhanced burden. Under the flat tax method 47% of Powell Rivers residential homeowners pay more than their equivalent BC counter parts in the other 157 BC municipalities that do not levy a flat tax.

STAFF TIME/INPUT: 25 Hours

PUBLIC CONSULTATION: No public consultation has been sought at this time. Public consultation will be sought through the open meeting process and the 5-year financial planning process.

OPTIONS: 1. THAT Council consider reducing the flat tax on improved residential properties to $250 and vacant residential properties to $50.

2. THAT Council give alternate direction

Respectfully submitted,

Adam Langenmaier BBA, CPA, CA Chief Financial Officer

AL:jm

Page 28 of 77

City of Powell River

REPORT

File No. 1970-02 DATE OF MEETING: November 28, 2019

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Adam Langenmaier BBA, CPA, CA Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Comparable Communities for Financial Planning

RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive Comparable Communities for Financial Planning report for information and discussion.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation.

Russell Brewer, CAO

ORIGIN/PURPOSE: To identify comparable communities for use in consideration of the financial planning process. Key areas of consideration for determining which communities are comparable will include: taxation, population, assessment, size, density, average home value, property tax rates and assessment mixture.

BACKGROUND: During the financial planning process Council is tasked with making decisions on behalf of the residents of the community they represent. Council often asks what other communities similar to ours are doing as a check for reasonability. Comparing our community to others is a very good practice as it tells us if Powell River is on the cutting edge of a service or if our tax burden is equal to surrounding communities.

All of the following statistical information has been sourced from the BC Government’s Website under Municipal General & Financial Statistics. This is available to the public and can be found at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/facts- framework/statistics/statistics

Page 29 of 77 Comparable Communities for Financial Planning 2 of 9 November 28, 2019 ______

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Strategic Corporate Priorities: Financial Resiliency – The City will strive towards long-term financial sustainability and best practices in internal processes.

EXISTING POLICY: None

ANALYSIS AND IMPACT: There are 162 municipalities within British Columbia. Vancouver has the largest population with 672,963 people, and Jumbo Glacier has the smallest population with 0 people. The second smallest population is Zeballos with 102 people. The average population of a municipality is 27,519. Historically, comparable communities have always been identified by size, and/or proximity to Powell River.

The chart segments presented below demonstrate various methods of comparing communities. The complete charts that show all BC municipalities have been included as attachments to this report.

Comparable Communities – Population (largest to smallest)

Rank Municipality Population 43 Comox 14,999 44 Sooke 14,298 45 Lake Country 14,027 46 Powell River 13,874 47 Parksville 13,323 48 Prince Rupert 12,821 49 Dawson Creek 12,775

Powell River ranks 46th largest of 162 municipalities in population. Population is a key driver in comparison as typically similar sized (population) communities will require similar services and have similar challenges. If we look closer at each of these communities, we will see that although population is similar there are some very different factors influencing each of these communities. Prince Rupert is comparable to Powell River in population, geographic isolation and industrial base (forestry). None of the other communities share such traits with Powell River.

Comparable Communities – Municipal Area (largest to smallest)

Rank Municipality Area (ha) 65 Hope 4,578 66 Princeton 4,512 67 Revelstoke 4,145 68 Powell River 4,133 69 Sun Peaks 4,108 70 Highlands 4,036 71 Quesnel 3,870

Page 30 of 77 Comparable Communities for Financial Planning 3 of 9 November 28, 2019 ______

Powell River ranks 68th largest of 162 municipalities in land size. The largest municipality in area is Northern Rockies Regional Municipality at 8,579,500 ha, however this municipality is more akin to a Regional District. The 2nd largest municipality is Tumbler Ridge at 154,907 ha or 1,549 km2. The physical size of a community will affect how services are delivered and determine the type of infrastructure required to deliver these services. Size and population have some correlation; however, some communities that are similar in size to Powell River do not share similar populations. Quesnel is reasonably comparable to Powell River for overall size as well as population and industry (forestry). Further, Quesnel is somewhat geographically isolated, being 120km to Prince George and 118km to Williams Lake.

Comparable Communities – Population Density (most dense to least dense)

Rank Municipality Population Density (per ha) 61 New Denver 3.6 62 Smithers 3.5 63 Williams Lake 3.5 64 Powell River 3.4 65 Maple Ridge 3.3 66 Invermere 3.3 67 Peachland 3.2

Powell River ranks 64th in population density out of 162 municipalities. The municipality with the highest density per hectare is Vancouver with a density of 59.1 people per hectare, followed by Victoria at 47.1, and North Vancouver at 45.4. Density will have a significant impact on the per capita cost to provide services as a decrease in density means services must be provided to a smaller population over a greater area which will typically be more costly. Williams Lake is comparable in both density and population. Further, Williams Lake has similar industry and is somewhat geographically isolated, being 118km to Quesnel, 240km to Prince George, and 290km to Kamloops.

Comparable Communities – Average House Value (highest to lowest)

Rank Municipality Average House Value 2019 78 Lake Cowichan $361,137 79 Duncan $356,721 80 Rossland $345,848 81 Powell River $344,487 82 Lumby $329,663 83 Sicamous $326,954 84 Fort St. John $325,113

Powell River ranks 81st in average house value out of 162 municipalities. The highest average house value is West Vancouver at $3,348,434. The average house value across BC with the highest and lowest outliers (West Vancouver, Jumbo Glacier) removed is $520,855. Fort St. John is the most reasonably comparable community with regards to average house value,

Page 31 of 77 Comparable Communities for Financial Planning 4 of 9 November 28, 2019 ______population and industry base. When comparing house value, all other comparable communities except for Fort St. John are significantly smaller than Powell River (5,200 or less population). Powell River is unique in its average house value when you consider the location, population, density and industrial bases.

Due to Powell River not having any reasonably comparable municipalities with regard to average house value, extra care will have to be taken when basing decisions on average house values. Decisions based on a neighboring community model could be poor decisions for Powell River due to the differences in average house values. For example: Rossland has a population of 3,909 and Lumby has a population of 1,929, making these communities incomparable to Powell River.

One significant decision that is often compared with neighboring municipalities is the property tax rate. Powell River’s property tax rate is often higher than neighboring municipalities due to the City’s lower average home values. What should be considered is not only the property tax rate but the assessment composition and the average values. It is not appropriate to strictly compare tax rates between communities as each community has its own unique assessment. Instead, it is more appropriate to compare average levies by community.

The closest (location) comparable communities in average value house value are:

Rank Municipality Average House % Change from Value 2019 Powell River 61 Parksville $497,076 44% 62 Courtenay 474,643 38% 71 Campbell River 419,705 22% 81 Powell River 344,487 0% 84 Fort St John 325,113 -6% 92 Port Alberni 291,407 -15% 93 Prince Rupert 282,640 -18%

Comparable communities to Powell River in average house value are few as our local neighboring communities have significantly higher average house values (Campbell River, Courtenay etc.). Port Alberni is the most comparable in size and home value however, the average value is 15% different than a house in Powell River which will make a notable difference when applying property tax rates for comparison.

Comparable Communities – Assessment Mix - Residential

Rank Municipality Residential Major Industrial Commercial Assessment Assessment Assessment 63 Central Saanich 87.9% 0.0% 9.5% 64 Gibsons 87.9% 0.0% 11.6% 65 Chase 87.7% 5.7% 6.4% 66 Powell River 87.6% 4.8% 7.3% 67 Sidney 87.4% 0.0% 10.5% 68 Oliver 87.3% 0.0% 11.2% 69 Osoyoos 87.3% 0.0% 11.6%

Page 32 of 77 Comparable Communities for Financial Planning 5 of 9 November 28, 2019 ______

Powell River ranks 66th highest in residential assessment as a percentage of total assessments out of 162 municipalities. The highest residential assessment as a percentage of total assessments is Anmore at 99.8%, followed by Lions Bay at 99.6%, and Montrose at 98.9%. The BC average residential assessment as a percentage of total assessments is 82.7% however, 75% of the province has a residential assessment average of 88.8%. Keep in mind that there are some significant outliers that are influencing these residential assessments as a percentage of total assessments; namely, Jumbo Glacier at 0%, Northern Rockies Regional Municipality (Fort Nelson) at 14.5% and Stewart at 34%.

Looking at the municipalities that are similar to Powell River with regards to percentage of residential assessment we can see that Chase is reasonably comparable as it has an industrial assessment that is similar to ours, and a commercial assessment that is also similar to Powell River’s. Central Saanich, Gibsons, Sidney, Oliver and Osoyoos do not have any industrial assessments. The lack of an industrial assessment will play a significant role in the composition of these municipalities’ property tax revenues and their correlating tax rates. Typically, industrial tax rates are significantly higher than residential tax rates, so a community with an industrial tax base will be taxed differently than one without an industrial tax base.

Comparable Communities – Assessment Mix – Major Industry

Rank Municipality Residential Major Industrial Commercial Assessment Assessment Assessment 20 Chase 87.7% 5.7% 6.4% 21 Vanderhoof 77.5% 5.4% 14.2% 22 100 Mile House 56.3% 5.0% 33.8% 23 Powell River 87.6% 4.8% 7.3% 24 Midway 84.6% 4.7% 4.5% 25 Castlegar 75.0% 4.6% 13.3% 26 Port Alberni 84.3% 3.8% 11.7%

Powell River ranks 23rd highest in major industrial assessment as a percentage of total assessments out of 162 municipalities. The highest industrial assessment as a percentage of total assessments is Logan lake at 36.6%, followed by Kitimat at 35.7%. 58% of BC municipalities have less than 0.1% industrial tax base as a percent of total assessment.

Looking at the municipalities that are similar to Powell River with regards to percentage of industrial assessment, Chase is a comparable community again. Furthermore, Port Alberni has made the list of comparable communities, and coupled with its geographic location and population of 18,803, Port Alberni seems to be a reasonably comparable municipality to Powell River.

Comparable Communities – Assessment Mix – Commercial

Rank Municipality Residential Major Industrial Commercial Assessment Assessment Assessment 107 Barriere 89.6% 1.5% 7.7% 108 Cumberland 90.8% 0.0% 7.5%

Page 33 of 77 Comparable Communities for Financial Planning 6 of 9 November 28, 2019 ______

109 Silverton 92.6% 0.0% 7.4% 110 Powell River 87.6% 4.8% 7.3% 111 New Denver 92.5% 0.0% 7.1% 112 Saanich 93.0% 0.0% 6.8% 113 North Cowichan 89.4% 2.3% 6.7%

Powell River ranks 110th of 162 in commercial assessment as a percentage of total assessment. The highest commercial assessment as a percentage of total assessment is Jumbo Glacier at 100% followed by the more representative 100 Mile House at 33.8%, Fort St. John at 30.5% and Dawson Creek at 26.6%. The provincial average is 11.3%.

Looking at the municipalities that are similar to Powell River with regards to percentage of commercial assessment we can see that few municipalities compare to Powell River. Barriere is significantly smaller in population at 1,821 but does share similar residential and industrial tax base. North Cowichan could be considered the most comparable under the circumstances having similar residential and industrial assessment mixtures, however the population of North Cowichan is 31,920, and it is a very geographically large municipality. North Cowichan encompasses the following “towns”: Chemainus, Westholme, Crofton, Somenos, Maple Bay, and half of what is considered the Duncan area. These differences from Powell River make North Cowichan a somewhat less appropriate comparison to Powell River.

Silverton and New Denver are two small municipalities in the Kootenays with a population of 202 and 499 respectively. New Denver has a comparable population density to Powell River.

Comparable Communities – Municipal Property Tax Levy 2019

# Municipality House Municipal RD* HD* Other* Total Parcel User Total Value Tax Levy Variable Tax* Fees* Residential 40 Lake Country $695,278 $2,074 197 172 27 3,444 200 892 4,536 41 Sun Peaks 900,206 2,055 819 407 170 5,158 0 1,181 6,338 42 Surrey 1,154,329 2,028 47 0 301 3,688 325 1,093 5,106 43 Powell River 344,487 2,015 235 46 13 3,018 346 521 3,885 44 Campbell 419,705 1,973 358 243 16 3,366 112 954 4,432 River 45 Port Alberni 291,407 1,964 124 64 11 2,729 0 811 3,540 46 Qualicum 674,725 1,961 831 110 26 3,932 211 376 4,520 Beach

*RD – Regional District *HD – Hospital District *Other – BC Assessment, Municipal Finance Authority *Parcel Tax can include flat tax, sewer, water garbage depending on the municipality. *User Fees can include sewer, water, garbage depending on the municipality.

Powell River Ranks 43rd in the amount of municipal tax levied on an average value house ($2,015). The highest levy on an average house is West Vancouver at $4,802, followed by Oak Bay at $3,788. The lowest levy on an average house is Jumbo Glacier at $0, followed by Wells at $306, and Port Clements at $340.

Page 34 of 77 Comparable Communities for Financial Planning 7 of 9 November 28, 2019 ______

The municipal tax levy only represents the taxes levied by the variable tax rate charged on the assessed value of a property. This amount represents the main source of income for a municipality. There are other levies such as parcel tax and user fees that are charged on a property, however these are secondary fees that are normally lower than the property tax levy and are used for specific services offered by the municipality.

Campbell River’s municipal tax levy is a similar amount to Powell River’s on an average valued house of $419,705. Surrey also levies a similar amount ($13 more), but the average house value is significantly different at $1,154,329. These two instances illustrate the impact of the average house value and the actual funds required to operate a municipality. Further analysis shows that although a Campbell River homeowner pays lower municipal tax, the overall total property tax paid by the homeowner is more than Powell River by $547, or 14%.

It is not appropriate to simply look at the municipal tax levied by each municipality. We must also consider other characteristics of these taxing authorities and the level of service they are providing. The Nanaimo Regional District charges tax of $831, and the qathet Regional District charges tax of $235 for a Powell River house. In Qualicum Beach, the municipal taxation is only $1,961, which is lower than the municipal taxation of Powell River, but the total taxes paid on an average house in Qualicum Beach are higher at $4,520 vs Powell River at $3,885 a spread of $635 or 16%.

Comparable Communities – Regional District Property Tax Levy 2019

Rank Municipality House Municipal RD* HD* Other* Total Parcel User Total Value Tax Levy Variable Tax* Fees* Residential 67 Merritt 264,205 1,368 241 121 43 2,372 360 813 3,545 68 Barriere 217,826 751 241 99 80 1,585 0 0 1,585 69 Enderby 309,056 1,071 239 89 105 2,105 523 608 3,236 70 Powell River 344,487 2,015 235 46 13 3,018 346 521 3,885 71 Highlands 850,462 1,939 221 180 352 3,900 0 0 3,900 72 Vanderhoof 231,331 1,241 220 318 87 2,652 343 532 3,528 73 Metchosin 799,381 1,353 215 169 306 3,178 0 0 3,178

*RD – Regional District *HD – Hospital District *Other – BC Assessment, Municipal Finance Authority *Parcel Tax can include flat tax, sewer, water garbage depending on the municipality. *User Fees can include sewer, water, garbage depending on the municipality.

Powell River ranks 70th in the amount the regional district levies on an average house. The highest regional district levy is Sechelt Indian Government at $2,634, followed by Gibsons at $912 and Fruitvale at $964. The lowest regional district levy on an average house is Jumbo Glacier at $0, followed by Northern Rockies Regional Municipality at $0, followed by Princeton at $31, Kitimat at $34, and Zeballos at $36.

The total amount levied by the regional district is in direct relation to the amount of services the regional district provides to the region. In some regions the regional district is responsible for all recreation services, while in other regions, recreation is left to the individual municipalities. Subtle differences like these will impact how much a regional district will have to levy along with

Page 35 of 77 Comparable Communities for Financial Planning 8 of 9 November 28, 2019 ______the amount a Municipality will have to levy. In the example of regional recreation, a municipality within this style of regional district will not have to levy tax to pay for recreation related services as all the recreation tax levy will be levied by the regional district.

When comparing municipalities, one must consider the services that are offered by the regional district versus the municipality to see if municipal taxation is comparable. Some municipalities fund different services that might be provided by a comparable municipality’s regional district.

Summary – Population, Area, Density, House Value

The table below summarizes each municipality’s ranking in each category. The average has been taken as a simple method to compare multiple categories. The plus / minus is the resulting numerical difference from Powell River as a baseline. An approach that applies different weighting to specific categories could be taken, however for this example simplicity was desired, thus each category is weighted equally.

Municipality Population Area Density House value Average Plus / Minus Courtenay 31 77 26 62 49 -16 Campbell River 27 24 94 71 54 -11 Comox 43 88 33 54 55 -10 Fort St. John 32 75 38 84 57 -8 Parksville 47 102 22 61 58 -7 Port Alberni 40 87 25 92 61 -4 Qualicum Beach 61 89 47 47 61 -4 Sechelt 59 60 84 45 62 -3 Powell River 46 68 64 81 65 - Dawson Creek 49 82 46 102 70 5 Terrace 51 53 91 85 70 5 Gibsons 81 137 24 39 70 5 Prince Rupert 48 38 111 93 73 8 Williams Lake 56 76 63 113 77 12

The table is a hybrid of both numerically comparable communities along with physical locations.

Conclusion The age-old request from Council when staff bring forth information and reports is “What are other communities doing?” or “How do we compare to other communities?” Each municipality is unique, no two are the same. The information that has been summarized shows how some communities might appear comparable in certain aspects, but very different in others. It has become clear that there is no simple solution to the question “What is a comparable community?” when you look beyond population and physical location.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A

COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT: No further communication sought beyond the open meeting process.

Page 36 of 77 Comparable Communities for Financial Planning 9 of 9 November 28, 2019 ______

OPTIONS: 1. That Council receive Comparable Communities for Financial Planning report for information and discussion.

AL/cs Attachment(s) Appendix A – Municipal Population Appendix B – Municipal Area (ha) Appendix C – Municipal population density Appendix D – Average house value Appendix E – Assessment mix - Residential Appendix F – Assessment mix - Industrial Appendix G – Assessment mix – Commercial Appendix H – Municipal tax levy Appendix I – Regional District tax levy Appendix J – Total charges

Page 37 of 77 Appendix A City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Population - Largest to Smallest Statistics Year 2018

BC Stats Population Rank Municipality Estimates 1 Vancouver 672,963 2 Surrey 569,065 3 Burnaby 248,476 4 Richmond 216,300 5 Abbotsford 151,923 6 Coquitlam 149,490 7 Kelowna 136,233 8 Langley 127,290 9 Saanich 122,245 10 Delta 109,484 11 Nanaimo 97,619 12 Kamloops 97,177 13 Victoria 92,041 14 Chilliwack 90,931 15 North Vancouver 90,814 16 Maple Ridge 88,626 17 Prince George 78,675 18 New Westminster 76,799 19 Port Coquitlam 62,844 20 North Vancouver 56,741 21 West Vancouver 44,886 22 Vernon 42,574 23 Mission 41,503 24 Langford 39,368 25 Penticton 36,647 26 Port Moody 35,613 27 Campbell River 35,141 28 West Kelowna 34,883 29 North Cowichan 31,920 30 Langley 27,577 31 Courtenay 27,533 32 Fort St. John 21,516 33 White Rock 21,370 34 Cranbrook 21,308 35 Squamish 21,229 36 Pitt Meadows 19,772 37 Salmon Arm 19,299 38 Oak Bay 19,228 39 Esquimalt 18,818 40 Port Alberni 18,803 41 Colwood 18,310 42 Central Saanich 18,139 43 Comox 14,999 44 Sooke 14,298 45 Lake Country 14,027 46 Powell River 13,874

Page 1 of 4 Page 38 of 77 Appendix A

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Population - Largest to Smallest Statistics Year 2018

BC Stats Population Rank Municipality Estimates 47 Parksville 13,323 48 Prince Rupert 12,821 49 Dawson Creek 12,775 50 Sidney 12,491 51 Terrace 12,248 52 Summerland 12,213 53 North Saanich 12,110 54 Whistler 11,901 55 Coldstream 11,395 56 Williams Lake 11,359 57 View Royal 11,318 58 Nelson 11,313 59 Sechelt 10,912 60 Quesnel 10,428 61 Qualicum Beach 9,502 62 Ladysmith 9,417 63 Castlegar 8,558 64 Kitimat 8,513 65 Trail 8,186 66 Revelstoke 8,129 67 Kimberley 8,032 68 Merritt 7,593 69 Hope 6,659 70 Kent 6,624 71 Smithers 5,706 72 Peachland 5,671 73 Creston 5,660 74 Armstrong 5,447 75 Spallumcheen 5,422 76 Fernie 5,384 77 Oliver 5,355 78 Duncan 5,241 79 Metchosin 5,075 80 Osoyoos 5,073 81 Gibsons 4,943 82 Northern Rockies - REGM 4,926 83 Vanderhoof 4,644 84 Port Hardy 4,393 85 Grand Forks 4,324 86 Cumberland 4,134 87 Sparwood 4,013 88 Bowen Island 3,977 89 Golden 3,934 90 Rossland 3,909 91 Mackenzie 3,858 92 Lantzville 3,762

Page 2 of 4 Page 39 of 77 Appendix A

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Population - Largest to Smallest Statistics Year 2018

BC Stats Population Rank Municipality Estimates 93 Invermere 3,601 94 Lake Cowichan 3,510 95 Houston 3,136 96 Enderby 3,122 97 Princeton 2,921 98 Pemberton 2,818 99 Chetwynd 2,685 100 Elkford 2,618 101 Sicamous 2,571 102 Highlands 2,451 103 Clearwater 2,440 104 Port McNeill 2,413 105 Anmore 2,389 106 Lillooet 2,382 107 Chase 2,380 108 Tumbler Ridge 2,169 109 Tofino 2,147 110 Logan Lake 2,122 111 Fruitvale 2,005 112 Ucluelet 1,930 113 Lumby 1,929 114 100 Mile House 1,892 115 Burns Lake 1,825 116 Barriere 1,821 117 Warfield 1,754 118 Nakusp 1,696 119 Harrison Hot Springs 1,640 120 Fort St. James 1,613 121 Keremeos 1,590 122 Ashcroft 1,588 123 Taylor 1,539 124 Lions Bay 1,407 125 Telkwa 1,404 126 Gold River 1,259 127 Salmo 1,180 128 Valemount 1,076 129 Hudson's Hope 1,071 130 Montrose 1,026 131 Fraser Lake 1,025 132 Kaslo 1,008 133 Cache Creek 947 134 Radium Hot Springs 939 135 Queen Charlotte 864 136 Masset 843 137 Pouce Coupe 835 138 Sechelt Indian Government 706

Page 3 of 4 Page 40 of 77 Appendix A

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Population - Largest to Smallest Statistics Year 2018

BC Stats Population Rank Municipality Estimates 139 Sun Peaks 706 140 Port Alice 703 141 Canal Flats 688 142 Greenwood 686 143 Belcarra 684 144 Midway 675 145 Clinton 662 146 McBride 640 147 Stewart 640 148 New Hazelton 609 149 New Denver 499 150 Port Edward 481 151 Alert Bay 474 152 Sayward 321 153 Hazelton 320 154 Granisle 309 155 Slocan 300 156 Port Clements 293 157 Tahsis 258 158 Lytton 257 159 Wells 233 160 Silverton 202 161 Zeballos 102 162 Jumbo Glacier 0

Page 4 of 4 Page 41 of 77 Appendix B

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Area - Largest to Smallest Statistics Year 2018

Rank Municipality Total Area (ha) 1 Northern Rockies - REGM 8,579,500 2 Tumbler Ridge 154,907 3 Hudson's Hope 91,119 4 Stewart 53,906 5 Abbotsford 39,045 6 Surrey 36,466 7 Delta 35,198 8 Prince George 35,187 9 Logan Lake 32,364 10 Kitimat 32,190 11 Langley 31,764 12 Kamloops 31,493 13 Chilliwack 29,181 14 Kelowna 28,166 15 Maple Ridge 26,710 16 Spallumcheen 25,884 17 Richmond 25,727 18 Mission 25,396 19 Whistler 24,567 20 Mackenzie 21,269 21 North Cowichan 20,432 22 Sparwood 19,856 23 Salmon Arm 18,882 24 Campbell River 18,690 25 Burnaby 18,580 26 Port Edward 18,387 27 Lake Country 16,801 28 North Vancouver 16,498 29 Wells 16,100 30 West Kelowna 15,630 31 Coquitlam 12,934 32 Elkford 12,656 33 Squamish 12,154 34 Vernon 11,765 35 Vancouver 11,396 36 Saanich 11,178 37 West Vancouver 9,893 38 Prince Rupert 9,880 39 Granisle 9,095 40 Nanaimo 9,056 41 Pitt Meadows 8,285 42 Coldstream 7,937 43 Metchosin 7,867 44 Summerland 7,442 45 Houston 7,071 46 Rossland 6,828

Page 1 of 4 Page 42 of 77 Appendix B

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Area - Largest to Smallest Statistics Year 2018

Rank Municipality Total Area (ha) 47 Sooke 6,786 48 Bowen Island 6,362 49 Chetwynd 6,188 50 Kimberley 6,160 51 Jumbo Glacier 6,131 52 Kent 5,977 53 Terrace 5,959 54 Langford 5,793 55 Vanderhoof 5,763 56 Clearwater 5,725 57 100 Mile House 5,518 58 Ashcroft 5,249 59 Pemberton 5,063 60 Sechelt 4,828 61 Port Hardy 4,731 62 Penticton 4,728 63 Central Saanich 4,680 64 North Saanich 4,625 65 Hope 4,578 66 Princeton 4,512 67 Revelstoke 4,145 68 Powell River 4,133 69 Sun Peaks 4,108 70 Highlands 4,036 71 Quesnel 3,870 72 Trail 3,683 73 Port Coquitlam 3,447 74 Cranbrook 3,334 75 Fort St. John 3,305 76 Williams Lake 3,291 77 Courtenay 3,256 78 Cumberland 3,002 79 Lantzville 2,987 80 Lillooet 2,823 81 Merritt 2,686 82 Dawson Creek 2,673 83 Port Moody 2,622 84 Fort St. James 2,427 85 Masset 2,331 86 Castlegar 2,242 87 Port Alberni 2,150 88 Comox 2,081 89 Qualicum Beach 2,005 90 Victoria 1,956 91 New Hazelton 1,889 92 New Westminster 1,847

Page 2 of 4 Page 43 of 77 Appendix B

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Area - Largest to Smallest Statistics Year 2018

Rank Municipality Total Area (ha) 93 Colwood 1,769 94 Taylor 1,759 95 Peachland 1,745 96 View Royal 1,647 97 Sicamous 1,645 98 Smithers 1,632 99 Nelson 1,602 100 Port Alice 1,510 101 Golden 1,472 102 Parksville 1,415 103 White Rock 1,402 104 Fernie 1,354 105 Oak Bay 1,269 106 North Vancouver 1,251 107 Belcarra 1,249 108 Ladysmith 1,247 109 Barriere 1,236 110 Esquimalt 1,232 111 Ucluelet 1,143 112 Grand Forks 1,133 113 Tofino 1,099 114 Invermere 1,086 115 Osoyoos 1,078 116 Cache Creek 1,076 117 Sechelt Indian Government 1,065 118 Nakusp 1,059 119 Canal Flats 1,049 120 Langley 1,025 121 Lake Cowichan 966 122 Gold River 910 123 Tahsis 818 124 Creston 816 125 Midway 809 126 Burns Lake 800 127 Clinton 799 128 Anmore 765 129 Sidney 714 130 Lytton 680 131 Harrison Hot Springs 679 132 Port McNeill 659 133 Radium Hot Springs 655 134 Telkwa 616 135 Oliver 584 136 Port Clements 574 137 Gibsons 540 138 Armstrong 534

Page 3 of 4 Page 44 of 77 Appendix B

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Area - Largest to Smallest Statistics Year 2018

Rank Municipality Total Area (ha) 139 Lumby 516 140 Fraser Lake 493 141 Hazelton 485 142 Kaslo 472 143 Valemount 467 144 Chase 457 145 McBride 444 146 Sayward 430 147 Enderby 429 148 Lions Bay 384 149 Pouce Coupe 326 150 Alert Bay 323 151 Zeballos 297 152 Keremeos 287 153 Greenwood 275 154 Fruitvale 273 155 Salmo 220 156 Duncan 216 157 New Denver 140 158 Montrose 132 159 Slocan 93 160 Silverton 38 161 Queen Charlotte 7 162 Warfield 1

Page 4 of 4 Page 45 of 77 Appendix C

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Population Density - Most to least Statistics Year 2018

Population Density (per Rank Municipality ha) 1 Warfield 1,754.0 2 Queen Charlotte 123.4 3 Vancouver 59.1 4 Victoria 47.1 5 North Vancouver 45.4 6 New Westminster 41.6 7 Langley 26.9 8 Duncan 24.3 9 Port Coquitlam 18.2 10 Sidney 17.5 11 Surrey 15.6 12 Esquimalt 15.3 13 White Rock 15.2 14 Oak Bay 15.2 15 Port Moody 13.6 16 Burnaby 13.4 17 Coquitlam 11.6 18 Saanich 10.9 19 Nanaimo 10.8 20 Colwood 10.4 21 Armstrong 10.2 22 Parksville 9.4 23 Oliver 9.2 24 Gibsons 9.2 25 Port Alberni 8.7 26 Courtenay 8.5 27 Richmond 8.4 28 Montrose 7.8 29 Penticton 7.8 30 Ladysmith 7.6 31 Fruitvale 7.3 32 Enderby 7.3 33 Comox 7.2 34 Nelson 7.1 35 Creston 6.9 36 View Royal 6.9 37 Langford 6.8 38 Fort St. John 6.5 39 Cranbrook 6.4 40 Keremeos 5.5 41 North Vancouver 5.5 42 Salmo 5.4 43 Silverton 5.3 44 Chase 5.2 45 Kelowna 4.8 46 Dawson Creek 4.8

Page 1 of 4 Page 46 of 77 Appendix C

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Population Density - Most to least Statistics Year 2018

Population Density (per Rank Municipality ha) 47 Qualicum Beach 4.7 48 Osoyoos 4.7 49 West Vancouver 4.5 50 Langley 4.0 51 Fernie 4.0 52 Abbotsford 3.9 53 Central Saanich 3.9 54 Castlegar 3.8 55 Grand Forks 3.8 56 Lumby 3.7 57 Lions Bay 3.7 58 Port McNeill 3.7 59 Lake Cowichan 3.6 60 Vernon 3.6 61 New Denver 3.6 62 Smithers 3.5 63 Williams Lake 3.5 64 Powell River 3.4 65 Maple Ridge 3.3 66 Invermere 3.3 67 Peachland 3.2 68 Slocan 3.2 69 Anmore 3.1 70 Chilliwack 3.1 71 Delta 3.1 72 Kamloops 3.1 73 Merritt 2.8 74 Quesnel 2.7 75 Golden 2.7 76 North Saanich 2.6 77 Pouce Coupe 2.6 78 Greenwood 2.5 79 Harrison Hot Springs 2.4 80 Pitt Meadows 2.4 81 Valemount 2.3 82 Burns Lake 2.3 83 Telkwa 2.3 84 Sechelt 2.3 85 Prince George 2.2 86 West Kelowna 2.2 87 Trail 2.2 88 Kaslo 2.1 89 Sooke 2.1 90 Fraser Lake 2.1 91 Terrace 2.1 92 Revelstoke 2.0

Page 2 of 4 Page 47 of 77 Appendix C

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Population Density - Most to least Statistics Year 2018

Population Density (per Rank Municipality ha) 93 Tofino 2.0 94 Campbell River 1.9 95 Squamish 1.7 96 Ucluelet 1.7 97 Summerland 1.6 98 Mission 1.6 99 Nakusp 1.6 100 Sicamous 1.6 101 North Cowichan 1.6 102 Barriere 1.5 103 Alert Bay 1.5 104 Hope 1.5 105 McBride 1.4 106 Coldstream 1.4 107 Radium Hot Springs 1.4 108 Gold River 1.4 109 Cumberland 1.4 110 Kimberley 1.3 111 Prince Rupert 1.3 112 Lantzville 1.3 113 Kent 1.1 114 Salmon Arm 1.0 115 Port Hardy 0.9 116 Cache Creek 0.9 117 Taylor 0.9 118 Lillooet 0.8 119 Lake Country 0.8 120 Midway 0.8 121 Clinton 0.8 122 Vanderhoof 0.8 123 Sayward 0.7 124 Fort St. James 0.7 125 Sechelt Indian Government 0.7 126 Hazelton 0.7 127 Canal Flats 0.7 128 Princeton 0.6 129 Metchosin 0.6 130 Bowen Island 0.6 131 Highlands 0.6 132 Rossland 0.6 133 Pemberton 0.6 134 Belcarra 0.5 135 Port Clements 0.5 136 Whistler 0.5 137 Port Alice 0.5 138 Houston 0.4

Page 3 of 4 Page 48 of 77 Appendix C

City of Powell River Comparable Municipalities Population Density - Most to least Statistics Year 2018

Population Density (per Rank Municipality ha) 139 Chetwynd 0.4 140 Clearwater 0.4 141 Lytton 0.4 142 Masset 0.4 143 Zeballos 0.3 144 100 Mile House 0.3 145 New Hazelton 0.3 146 Tahsis 0.3 147 Ashcroft 0.3 148 Kitimat 0.3 149 Spallumcheen 0.2 150 Elkford 0.2 151 Sparwood 0.2 152 Mackenzie 0.2 153 Sun Peaks 0.2 154 Logan Lake 0.1 155 Granisle 0.0 156 Port Edward 0.0 157 Wells 0.0 158 Tumbler Ridge 0.0 159 Stewart 0.0 160 Hudson's Hope 0.0 161 Northern Rockies - REGM 0.0 162 Jumbo Glacier 0.0

Page 4 of 4 Page 49 of 77 City of Powell River Appendix D Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Average House Value Assessment Year - 2019

Rank Municipalities House Value 1 West Vancouver 3,348,434 2 Whistler 2,355,863 3 Vancouver 2,290,135 4 Anmore 2,079,826 5 North Vancouver 1,754,705 6 Lions Bay 1,716,294 7 Richmond 1,673,022 8 North Vancouver 1,619,905 9 Burnaby 1,593,082 10 White Rock 1,512,377 11 Belcarra 1,491,539 12 Oak Bay 1,489,028 13 Port Moody 1,395,129 14 Coquitlam 1,300,441 15 New Westminster 1,203,842 16 Surrey 1,154,329 17 Bowen Island 1,151,773 18 North Saanich 1,056,883 19 Delta 1,045,339 20 Langley 1,015,301 21 Port Coquitlam 990,726 22 Squamish 931,497 23 Sechelt Indian Government 930,092 24 Saanich 923,516 25 Victoria 912,433 26 Sun Peaks 900,206 27 Langley 895,737 28 Tofino 886,959 29 Maple Ridge 853,209 30 Highlands 850,462 31 Pitt Meadows 802,139 32 Metchosin 799,381 33 Central Saanich 796,126 34 Sidney 784,046 35 View Royal 774,328 36 Pemberton 759,601 37 Abbotsford 750,887 38 Mission 747,931 39 Gibsons 743,031 40 Esquimalt 737,880 41 Lantzville 726,874 42 Kelowna 704,929 43 Lake Country 695,278 44 Colwood 679,808 45 Sechelt 679,577 46 West Kelowna 677,019 47 Qualicum Beach 674,725

Page 50 of 77 Page 1 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix D Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Average House Value Assessment Year - 2019

Rank Municipalities House Value 48 Langford 632,513 49 Coldstream 629,525 50 Chilliwack 614,213 51 Peachland 609,756 52 Harrison Hot Springs 604,690 53 Summerland 580,463 54 Comox 547,310 55 Fernie 527,027 56 Nanaimo 516,418 57 Sooke 505,435 58 Kent 501,385 59 Penticton 500,707 60 Vernon 498,523 61 Parksville 497,076 62 Courtenay 474,643 63 Invermere 474,144 64 Nelson 470,680 65 Cumberland 449,953 66 Revelstoke 446,821 67 North Cowichan 445,352 68 Kamloops 443,063 69 Ladysmith 439,939 70 Osoyoos 429,687 71 Campbell River 419,705 72 Ucluelet 418,113 73 Hope 410,895 74 Armstrong 402,560 75 Salmon Arm 398,835 76 Oliver 391,377 77 Spallumcheen 370,269 78 Lake Cowichan 361,137 79 Duncan 356,721 80 Rossland 345,848 81 Powell River 344,487 82 Lumby 329,663 83 Sicamous 326,954 84 Fort St. John 325,113 85 Terrace 313,921 86 Castlegar 309,686 87 Enderby 309,056 88 Prince George 302,133 89 Kimberley 301,859 90 Golden 301,010 91 Cranbrook 292,786 92 Port Alberni 291,407 93 Prince Rupert 282,640 94 Silverton 281,918

Page 51 of 77 Page 2 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix D Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Average House Value Assessment Year - 2019

Rank Municipalities House Value 95 Smithers 281,120 96 Montrose 278,192 97 Chase 276,558 98 Fruitvale 273,167 99 Keremeos 271,065 100 Merritt 264,205 101 Kaslo 263,814 102 Dawson Creek 260,036 103 Radium Hot Springs 254,331 104 Kitimat 252,813 105 Telkwa 252,628 106 Taylor 251,709 107 Creston 246,408 108 Grand Forks 245,676 109 Warfield 244,077 110 Nakusp 241,729 111 Clearwater 236,862 112 Vanderhoof 231,331 113 Williams Lake 230,834 114 Sparwood 230,572 115 Logan Lake 230,210 116 Elkford 228,759 117 Valemount 225,515 118 100 Mile House 223,429 119 Canal Flats 220,022 120 Lillooet 219,169 121 Barriere 217,826 122 Trail 217,654 123 Chetwynd 217,039 124 New Denver 215,035 125 Pouce Coupe 213,205 126 Sayward 213,193 127 Ashcroft 211,179 128 Midway 210,058 129 Port Edward 206,192 130 Port McNeill 204,758 131 Princeton 203,592 132 Quesnel 202,061 133 Salmo 191,329 134 Port Hardy 184,202 135 Queen Charlotte 176,256 136 Fort St. James 172,381 137 Hudson's Hope 166,336 138 Slocan 165,250 139 Gold River 158,846 140 Mackenzie 152,608 141 Burns Lake 151,832

Page 52 of 77 Page 3 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix D Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Average House Value Assessment Year - 2019

Rank Municipalities House Value 142 Houston 150,959 143 Cache Creek 150,095 144 Greenwood 138,427 145 Alert Bay 137,067 146 Fraser Lake 134,521 147 McBride 131,807 148 Lytton 131,499 149 Hazelton 128,666 150 Tumbler Ridge 126,293 151 Clinton 123,002 152 Port Alice 118,311 153 New Hazelton 117,123 154 Stewart 110,474 155 Northern Rockies - REGM 108,799 156 Masset 106,512 157 Tahsis 99,858 158 Wells 91,989 159 Port Clements 81,270 160 Zeballos 77,613 161 Granisle 52,845 162 Jumbo Glacier 0

Page 53 of 77 Page 4 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Residential Appendix E Assessment Year 2019 Residential assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 1 Anmore 99.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2 Lions Bay 99.6% 0.0% 0.1% 3 Montrose 98.9% 0.0% 1.1% 4 Belcarra 98.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5 Metchosin 98.0% 0.0% 0.8% 6 Coldstream 97.9% 0.3% 0.8% 7 Warfield 97.8% 0.0% 1.6% 8 Oak Bay 97.7% 0.0% 2.0% 9 Bowen Island 97.6% 0.0% 2.0% 10 Lantzville 97.1% 0.0% 2.2% 11 West Vancouver 96.8% 0.0% 3.0% 12 Telkwa 96.4% 0.0% 3.3% 13 Peachland 96.3% 0.0% 3.2% 14 Qualicum Beach 95.9% 0.0% 3.9% 15 Highlands 95.6% 0.0% 2.7% 16 White Rock 95.5% 0.0% 4.4% 17 Fruitvale 95.5% 0.0% 4.3% 18 Lake Country 95.3% 0.0% 3.8% 19 Comox 95.2% 0.0% 4.6% 20 Lake Cowichan 94.8% 0.1% 4.9% 21 Kimberley 94.6% 0.0% 4.8% 22 Rossland 94.3% 0.0% 4.8% 23 Summerland 94.2% 0.0% 4.3% 24 Sooke 94.2% 0.0% 5.4% 25 Colwood 94.0% 0.0% 5.7% 26 Sechelt 94.0% 0.0% 5.6% 27 West Kelowna 93.4% 0.2% 5.1% 28 Ladysmith 93.2% 0.6% 5.4% 29 Saanich 93.0% 0.0% 6.8% 30 Granisle 92.8% 0.0% 4.9% 31 Silverton 92.6% 0.0% 7.4% 32 Salmo 92.6% 0.0% 6.7% 33 Slocan 92.6% 0.0% 6.3% 34 Sun Peaks 92.5% 0.0% 6.6% 35 Mission 92.5% 0.0% 6.1% 36 New Denver 92.5% 0.0% 7.1% 37 Maple Ridge 92.4% 0.1% 5.9% 38 Esquimalt 92.3% 1.0% 5.9% 39 North Saanich 92.1% 0.0% 6.2% 40 Canal Flats 92.0% 0.0% 5.3% 41 Armstrong 91.9% 0.0% 7.8% 42 Kaslo 91.4% 0.0% 8.0% 43 Invermere 91.2% 0.0% 8.4% 44 Greenwood 91.1% 0.0% 7.8% 45 Cumberland 90.8% 0.0% 7.5% 46 Fernie 90.6% 0.0% 9.2% 47 North Vancouver 90.5% 1.2% 7.8% 48 Whistler 90.4% 0.0% 9.1% 49 Alert Bay 90.1% 0.0% 9.2%

Page 54 of 77 Page 1 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Residential Appendix E Assessment Year 2019 Residential assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 50 Keremeos 90.0% 0.0% 8.6% 51 Barriere 89.6% 1.5% 7.7% 52 Kent 89.5% 0.0% 3.7% 53 North Cowichan 89.4% 2.3% 6.7% 54 Port Moody 89.4% 1.7% 8.3% 55 Tahsis 89.3% 0.0% 6.5% 56 View Royal 89.1% 0.0% 10.5% 57 Enderby 89.0% 0.0% 9.9% 58 Campbell River 89.0% 0.1% 9.4% 59 Parksville 89.0% 0.0% 10.3% 60 Sicamous 88.9% 0.0% 8.6% 61 Sayward 88.6% 0.0% 3.0% 62 Coquitlam 88.2% 0.0% 10.6% 63 Central Saanich 87.9% 0.0% 9.5% 64 Gibsons 87.9% 0.0% 11.6% 65 Chase 87.7% 5.7% 6.4% 66 Powell River 87.6% 4.8% 7.3% 67 Sidney 87.4% 0.0% 10.5% 68 Oliver 87.3% 0.0% 11.2% 69 Osoyoos 87.3% 0.0% 11.6% 70 Hazelton 87.2% 0.0% 12.2% 71 Ashcroft 87.2% 0.0% 9.4% 72 Radium Hot Springs 87.1% 2.2% 9.5% 73 Surrey 86.9% 0.1% 10.8% 74 Creston 86.9% 0.0% 10.8% 75 Chilliwack 86.9% 0.0% 9.6% 76 Harrison Hot Springs 86.8% 0.0% 11.6% 77 Nanaimo 86.8% 0.5% 12.0% 78 New Westminster 86.7% 0.2% 11.9% 79 Hope 86.4% 0.0% 9.9% 80 Lumby 86.3% 0.0% 11.4% 81 Squamish 86.2% 0.3% 11.9% 82 Gold River 85.8% 0.0% 11.1% 83 Langley 85.7% 0.1% 9.4% 84 Salmon Arm 85.7% 0.2% 12.4% 85 Nakusp 85.6% 0.0% 13.4% 86 Courtenay 85.6% 0.0% 14.2% 87 Revelstoke 85.4% 0.5% 12.9% 88 Kamloops 85.3% 0.5% 13.0% 89 Langford 85.0% 0.0% 14.1% 90 Vernon 84.9% 0.0% 14.3% 91 Kelowna 84.8% 0.1% 13.5% 92 Midway 84.6% 4.7% 4.5% 93 Penticton 84.6% 0.0% 13.6% 94 Port Alberni 84.3% 3.8% 11.7% 95 Lillooet 84.3% 0.1% 12.4% 96 Spallumcheen 84.1% 1.8% 4.4% 97 Abbotsford 84.0% 0.0% 12.8% 98 Grand Forks 83.8% 3.4% 11.8%

Page 55 of 77 Page 2 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Residential Appendix E Assessment Year 2019 Residential assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 99 Queen Charlotte 83.5% 0.0% 14.1% 100 Pouce Coupe 83.5% 0.0% 13.7% 101 North Vancouver 83.4% 0.9% 15.2% 102 Ucluelet 82.9% 0.0% 16.6% 103 Pitt Meadows 82.8% 0.1% 13.7% 104 Port Coquitlam 82.7% 0.0% 13.6% 105 Nelson 82.6% 0.0% 12.3% 106 Clearwater 82.4% 1.9% 12.1% 107 New Hazelton 81.8% 0.0% 11.3% 108 Merritt 81.8% 1.1% 16.0% 109 Wells 81.4% 0.0% 17.7% 110 Pemberton 81.1% 0.0% 15.2% 111 Cranbrook 80.8% 0.0% 18.2% 112 Terrace 80.0% 0.5% 18.2% 113 Valemount 79.9% 0.0% 19.4% 114 Vancouver 79.8% 0.1% 19.2% 115 Delta 79.6% 1.3% 11.9% 116 Port Hardy 79.5% 0.0% 18.8% 117 Burnaby 78.9% 0.3% 17.7% 118 Zeballos 78.8% 0.0% 6.7% 119 Masset 78.7% 0.0% 19.9% 120 Port McNeill 78.6% 1.0% 12.8% 121 Richmond 78.6% 0.2% 17.7% 122 Port Clements 78.5% 0.0% 10.2% 123 Victoria 78.5% 0.0% 20.9% 124 Duncan 78.4% 0.0% 21.4% 125 Prince George 78.1% 2.6% 17.8% 126 Tofino 77.8% 0.0% 21.5% 127 Vanderhoof 77.5% 5.4% 14.2% 128 Smithers 75.3% 1.4% 21.7% 129 Castlegar 75.0% 4.6% 13.3% 130 McBride 74.7% 0.0% 22.8% 131 Langley 74.7% 0.0% 22.1% 132 Clinton 74.5% 12.0% 12.0% 133 Prince Rupert 74.0% 10.8% 13.1% 134 Houston 74.0% 8.1% 13.7% 135 Sechelt Indian Government 73.9% 0.0% 14.2% 136 Williams Lake 73.7% 2.2% 21.6% 137 Cache Creek 73.1% 0.0% 25.0% 138 Burns Lake 72.4% 0.0% 25.8% 139 Fort St. James 72.2% 8.0% 14.2% 140 Princeton 71.9% 13.8% 13.0% 141 Golden 71.5% 1.4% 25.1% 142 Dawson Creek 70.6% 1.5% 26.6% 143 Quesnel 70.4% 10.2% 17.9% 144 Fort St. John 67.9% 0.8% 30.5% 145 Trail 67.1% 19.5% 11.4% 146 Port Edward 66.0% 0.0% 18.8% 147 Lytton 65.0% 1.7% 23.3%

Page 56 of 77 Page 3 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Residential Appendix E Assessment Year 2019 Residential assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 148 Taylor 64.3% 16.8% 4.9% 149 Mackenzie 64.2% 15.7% 12.1% 150 Elkford 63.9% 28.2% 6.0% 151 Sparwood 62.6% 20.7% 12.1% 152 Chetwynd 61.3% 11.5% 19.8% 153 Port Alice 59.5% 35.2% 4.0% 154 Logan Lake 59.3% 36.6% 2.5% 155 Fraser Lake 58.7% 25.5% 5.6% 156 100 Mile House 56.3% 5.0% 33.8% 157 Hudson's Hope 53.0% 0.5% 7.7% 158 Kitimat 50.8% 35.7% 11.6% 159 Tumbler Ridge 49.2% 12.1% 10.1% 160 Stewart 34.0% 15.0% 11.6% 161 Northern Rockies - REGM 14.5% 20.2% 8.9% 162 Jumbo Glacier 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Page 57 of 77 Page 4 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Industrial Appendix F Assessment Year 2019 Industrial assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 1 Logan Lake 59.3% 36.6% 2.5% 2 Kitimat 50.8% 35.7% 11.6% 3 Port Alice 59.5% 35.2% 4.0% 4 Elkford 63.9% 28.2% 6.0% 5 Fraser Lake 58.7% 25.5% 5.6% 6 Sparwood 62.6% 20.7% 12.1% 7 Northern Rockies - REGM 14.5% 20.2% 8.9% 8 Trail 67.1% 19.5% 11.4% 9 Taylor 64.3% 16.8% 4.9% 10 Mackenzie 64.2% 15.7% 12.1% 11 Stewart 34.0% 15.0% 11.6% 12 Princeton 71.9% 13.8% 13.0% 13 Tumbler Ridge 49.2% 12.1% 10.1% 14 Clinton 74.5% 12.0% 12.0% 15 Chetwynd 61.3% 11.5% 19.8% 16 Prince Rupert 74.0% 10.8% 13.1% 17 Quesnel 70.4% 10.2% 17.9% 18 Houston 74.0% 8.1% 13.7% 19 Fort St. James 72.2% 8.0% 14.2% 20 Chase 87.7% 5.7% 6.4% 21 Vanderhoof 77.5% 5.4% 14.2% 22 100 Mile House 56.3% 5.0% 33.8% 23 Powell River 87.6% 4.8% 7.3% 24 Midway 84.6% 4.7% 4.5% 25 Castlegar 75.0% 4.6% 13.3% 26 Port Alberni 84.3% 3.8% 11.7% 27 Grand Forks 83.8% 3.4% 11.8% 28 Prince George 78.1% 2.6% 17.8% 29 North Cowichan 89.4% 2.3% 6.7% 30 Williams Lake 73.7% 2.2% 21.6% 31 Radium Hot Springs 87.1% 2.2% 9.5% 32 Clearwater 82.4% 1.9% 12.1% 33 Spallumcheen 84.1% 1.8% 4.4% 34 Lytton 65.0% 1.7% 23.3% 35 Port Moody 89.4% 1.7% 8.3% 36 Dawson Creek 70.6% 1.5% 26.6% 37 Barriere 89.6% 1.5% 7.7% 38 Smithers 75.3% 1.4% 21.7% 39 Golden 71.5% 1.4% 25.1% 40 Delta 79.6% 1.3% 11.9% 41 North Vancouver 90.5% 1.2% 7.8% 42 Merritt 81.8% 1.1% 16.0% 43 Port McNeill 78.6% 1.0% 12.8% 44 Esquimalt 92.3% 1.0% 5.9% 45 North Vancouver 83.4% 0.9% 15.2% 46 Fort St. John 67.9% 0.8% 30.5% 47 Ladysmith 93.2% 0.6% 5.4% 48 Revelstoke 85.4% 0.5% 12.9% 49 Hudson's Hope 53.0% 0.5% 7.7%

Page 58 of 77 Page 1 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Industrial Appendix F Assessment Year 2019 Industrial assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 50 Terrace 80.0% 0.5% 18.2% 51 Nanaimo 86.8% 0.5% 12.0% 52 Kamloops 85.3% 0.5% 13.0% 53 Coldstream 97.9% 0.3% 0.8% 54 Squamish 86.2% 0.3% 11.9% 55 Burnaby 78.9% 0.3% 17.7% 56 New Westminster 86.7% 0.2% 11.9% 57 Richmond 78.6% 0.2% 17.7% 58 Salmon Arm 85.7% 0.2% 12.4% 59 West Kelowna 93.4% 0.2% 5.1% 60 Maple Ridge 92.4% 0.1% 5.9% 61 Lake Cowichan 94.8% 0.1% 4.9% 62 Pitt Meadows 82.8% 0.1% 13.7% 63 Langley 85.7% 0.1% 9.4% 64 Surrey 86.9% 0.1% 10.8% 65 Lillooet 84.3% 0.1% 12.4% 66 Campbell River 89.0% 0.1% 9.4% 67 Vancouver 79.8% 0.1% 19.2% 68 Kelowna 84.8% 0.1% 13.5% 69 Victoria 78.5% 0.0% 20.9% 70 West Vancouver 96.8% 0.0% 3.0% 71 Anmore 99.8% 0.0% 0.0% 72 Lions Bay 99.6% 0.0% 0.1% 73 Montrose 98.9% 0.0% 1.1% 74 Belcarra 98.7% 0.0% 0.0% 75 Metchosin 98.0% 0.0% 0.8% 76 Warfield 97.8% 0.0% 1.6% 77 Oak Bay 97.7% 0.0% 2.0% 78 Bowen Island 97.6% 0.0% 2.0% 79 Lantzville 97.1% 0.0% 2.2% 80 Telkwa 96.4% 0.0% 3.3% 81 Peachland 96.3% 0.0% 3.2% 82 Qualicum Beach 95.9% 0.0% 3.9% 83 Highlands 95.6% 0.0% 2.7% 84 White Rock 95.5% 0.0% 4.4% 85 Fruitvale 95.5% 0.0% 4.3% 86 Lake Country 95.3% 0.0% 3.8% 87 Comox 95.2% 0.0% 4.6% 88 Kimberley 94.6% 0.0% 4.8% 89 Rossland 94.3% 0.0% 4.8% 90 Summerland 94.2% 0.0% 4.3% 91 Sooke 94.2% 0.0% 5.4% 92 Colwood 94.0% 0.0% 5.7% 93 Sechelt 94.0% 0.0% 5.6% 94 Saanich 93.0% 0.0% 6.8% 95 Granisle 92.8% 0.0% 4.9% 96 Silverton 92.6% 0.0% 7.4% 97 Salmo 92.6% 0.0% 6.7% 98 Slocan 92.6% 0.0% 6.3%

Page 59 of 77 Page 2 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Industrial Appendix F Assessment Year 2019 Industrial assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 99 Sun Peaks 92.5% 0.0% 6.6% 100 Mission 92.5% 0.0% 6.1% 101 New Denver 92.5% 0.0% 7.1% 102 North Saanich 92.1% 0.0% 6.2% 103 Canal Flats 92.0% 0.0% 5.3% 104 Armstrong 91.9% 0.0% 7.8% 105 Kaslo 91.4% 0.0% 8.0% 106 Invermere 91.2% 0.0% 8.4% 107 Greenwood 91.1% 0.0% 7.8% 108 Cumberland 90.8% 0.0% 7.5% 109 Fernie 90.6% 0.0% 9.2% 110 Whistler 90.4% 0.0% 9.1% 111 Alert Bay 90.1% 0.0% 9.2% 112 Keremeos 90.0% 0.0% 8.6% 113 Kent 89.5% 0.0% 3.7% 114 Tahsis 89.3% 0.0% 6.5% 115 View Royal 89.1% 0.0% 10.5% 116 Enderby 89.0% 0.0% 9.9% 117 Parksville 89.0% 0.0% 10.3% 118 Sicamous 88.9% 0.0% 8.6% 119 Sayward 88.6% 0.0% 3.0% 120 Coquitlam 88.2% 0.0% 10.6% 121 Central Saanich 87.9% 0.0% 9.5% 122 Gibsons 87.9% 0.0% 11.6% 123 Sidney 87.4% 0.0% 10.5% 124 Oliver 87.3% 0.0% 11.2% 125 Osoyoos 87.3% 0.0% 11.6% 126 Hazelton 87.2% 0.0% 12.2% 127 Ashcroft 87.2% 0.0% 9.4% 128 Creston 86.9% 0.0% 10.8% 129 Chilliwack 86.9% 0.0% 9.6% 130 Harrison Hot Springs 86.8% 0.0% 11.6% 131 Hope 86.4% 0.0% 9.9% 132 Lumby 86.3% 0.0% 11.4% 133 Gold River 85.8% 0.0% 11.1% 134 Nakusp 85.6% 0.0% 13.4% 135 Courtenay 85.6% 0.0% 14.2% 136 Langford 85.0% 0.0% 14.1% 137 Vernon 84.9% 0.0% 14.3% 138 Penticton 84.6% 0.0% 13.6% 139 Abbotsford 84.0% 0.0% 12.8% 140 Queen Charlotte 83.5% 0.0% 14.1% 141 Pouce Coupe 83.5% 0.0% 13.7% 142 Ucluelet 82.9% 0.0% 16.6% 143 Port Coquitlam 82.7% 0.0% 13.6% 144 Nelson 82.6% 0.0% 12.3% 145 New Hazelton 81.8% 0.0% 11.3% 146 Wells 81.4% 0.0% 17.7% 147 Pemberton 81.1% 0.0% 15.2%

Page 60 of 77 Page 3 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Industrial Appendix F Assessment Year 2019 Industrial assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 148 Cranbrook 80.8% 0.0% 18.2% 149 Valemount 79.9% 0.0% 19.4% 150 Port Hardy 79.5% 0.0% 18.8% 151 Zeballos 78.8% 0.0% 6.7% 152 Masset 78.7% 0.0% 19.9% 153 Port Clements 78.5% 0.0% 10.2% 154 Duncan 78.4% 0.0% 21.4% 155 Tofino 77.8% 0.0% 21.5% 156 McBride 74.7% 0.0% 22.8% 157 Langley 74.7% 0.0% 22.1% 158 Sechelt Indian Government 73.9% 0.0% 14.2% 159 Cache Creek 73.1% 0.0% 25.0% 160 Burns Lake 72.4% 0.0% 25.8% 161 Port Edward 66.0% 0.0% 18.8% 162 Jumbo Glacier 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Page 61 of 77 Page 4 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Commercial Appendix G Assessment Year 2019 Commercial assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 1 Jumbo Glacier 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 2 100 Mile House 56.3% 5.0% 33.8% 3 Fort St. John 67.9% 0.8% 30.5% 4 Dawson Creek 70.6% 1.5% 26.6% 5 Burns Lake 72.4% 0.0% 25.8% 6 Golden 71.5% 1.4% 25.1% 7 Cache Creek 73.1% 0.0% 25.0% 8 Lytton 65.0% 1.7% 23.3% 9 McBride 74.7% 0.0% 22.8% 10 Langley 74.7% 0.0% 22.1% 11 Smithers 75.3% 1.4% 21.7% 12 Williams Lake 73.7% 2.2% 21.6% 13 Tofino 77.8% 0.0% 21.5% 14 Duncan 78.4% 0.0% 21.4% 15 Victoria 78.5% 0.0% 20.9% 16 Masset 78.7% 0.0% 19.9% 17 Chetwynd 61.3% 11.5% 19.8% 18 Valemount 79.9% 0.0% 19.4% 19 Vancouver 79.8% 0.1% 19.2% 20 Port Edward 66.0% 0.0% 18.8% 21 Port Hardy 79.5% 0.0% 18.8% 22 Terrace 80.0% 0.5% 18.2% 23 Cranbrook 80.8% 0.0% 18.2% 24 Quesnel 70.4% 10.2% 17.9% 25 Prince George 78.1% 2.6% 17.8% 26 Wells 81.4% 0.0% 17.7% 27 Burnaby 78.9% 0.3% 17.7% 28 Richmond 78.6% 0.2% 17.7% 29 Ucluelet 82.9% 0.0% 16.6% 30 Merritt 81.8% 1.1% 16.0% 31 North Vancouver 83.4% 0.9% 15.2% 32 Pemberton 81.1% 0.0% 15.2% 33 Vernon 84.9% 0.0% 14.3% 34 Vanderhoof 77.5% 5.4% 14.2% 35 Sechelt Indian Government 73.9% 0.0% 14.2% 36 Fort St. James 72.2% 8.0% 14.2% 37 Courtenay 85.6% 0.0% 14.2% 38 Langford 85.0% 0.0% 14.1% 39 Queen Charlotte 83.5% 0.0% 14.1% 40 Houston 74.0% 8.1% 13.7% 41 Pitt Meadows 82.8% 0.1% 13.7% 42 Pouce Coupe 83.5% 0.0% 13.7% 43 Penticton 84.6% 0.0% 13.6% 44 Port Coquitlam 82.7% 0.0% 13.6% 45 Kelowna 84.8% 0.1% 13.5% 46 Nakusp 85.6% 0.0% 13.4% 47 Castlegar 75.0% 4.6% 13.3% 48 Prince Rupert 74.0% 10.8% 13.1% 49 Kamloops 85.3% 0.5% 13.0%

Page 62 of 77 Page 1 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Commercial Appendix G Assessment Year 2019 Commercial assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 50 Princeton 71.9% 13.8% 13.0% 51 Revelstoke 85.4% 0.5% 12.9% 52 Port McNeill 78.6% 1.0% 12.8% 53 Abbotsford 84.0% 0.0% 12.8% 54 Salmon Arm 85.7% 0.2% 12.4% 55 Lillooet 84.3% 0.1% 12.4% 56 Nelson 82.6% 0.0% 12.3% 57 Hazelton 87.2% 0.0% 12.2% 58 Mackenzie 64.2% 15.7% 12.1% 59 Clearwater 82.4% 1.9% 12.1% 60 Sparwood 62.6% 20.7% 12.1% 61 Nanaimo 86.8% 0.5% 12.0% 62 Clinton 74.5% 12.0% 12.0% 63 Delta 79.6% 1.3% 11.9% 64 New Westminster 86.7% 0.2% 11.9% 65 Squamish 86.2% 0.3% 11.9% 66 Grand Forks 83.8% 3.4% 11.8% 67 Port Alberni 84.3% 3.8% 11.7% 68 Gibsons 87.9% 0.0% 11.6% 69 Osoyoos 87.3% 0.0% 11.6% 70 Stewart 34.0% 15.0% 11.6% 71 Harrison Hot Springs 86.8% 0.0% 11.6% 72 Kitimat 50.8% 35.7% 11.6% 73 Trail 67.1% 19.5% 11.4% 74 Lumby 86.3% 0.0% 11.4% 75 New Hazelton 81.8% 0.0% 11.3% 76 Oliver 87.3% 0.0% 11.2% 77 Gold River 85.8% 0.0% 11.1% 78 Creston 86.9% 0.0% 10.8% 79 Surrey 86.9% 0.1% 10.8% 80 Coquitlam 88.2% 0.0% 10.6% 81 View Royal 89.1% 0.0% 10.5% 82 Sidney 87.4% 0.0% 10.5% 83 Parksville 89.0% 0.0% 10.3% 84 Port Clements 78.5% 0.0% 10.2% 85 Tumbler Ridge 49.2% 12.1% 10.1% 86 Hope 86.4% 0.0% 9.9% 87 Enderby 89.0% 0.0% 9.9% 88 Chilliwack 86.9% 0.0% 9.6% 89 Central Saanich 87.9% 0.0% 9.5% 90 Radium Hot Springs 87.1% 2.2% 9.5% 91 Ashcroft 87.2% 0.0% 9.4% 92 Campbell River 89.0% 0.1% 9.4% 93 Langley 85.7% 0.1% 9.4% 94 Fernie 90.6% 0.0% 9.2% 95 Alert Bay 90.1% 0.0% 9.2% 96 Whistler 90.4% 0.0% 9.1% 97 Northern Rockies - REGM 14.5% 20.2% 8.9% 98 Sicamous 88.9% 0.0% 8.6%

Page 63 of 77 Page 2 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Commercial Appendix G Assessment Year 2019 Commercial assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 99 Keremeos 90.0% 0.0% 8.6% 100 Invermere 91.2% 0.0% 8.4% 101 Port Moody 89.4% 1.7% 8.3% 102 Kaslo 91.4% 0.0% 8.0% 103 Greenwood 91.1% 0.0% 7.8% 104 North Vancouver 90.5% 1.2% 7.8% 105 Armstrong 91.9% 0.0% 7.8% 106 Hudson's Hope 53.0% 0.5% 7.7% 107 Barriere 89.6% 1.5% 7.7% 108 Cumberland 90.8% 0.0% 7.5% 109 Silverton 92.6% 0.0% 7.4% 110 Powell River 87.6% 4.8% 7.3% 111 New Denver 92.5% 0.0% 7.1% 112 Saanich 93.0% 0.0% 6.8% 113 North Cowichan 89.4% 2.3% 6.7% 114 Zeballos 78.8% 0.0% 6.7% 115 Salmo 92.6% 0.0% 6.7% 116 Sun Peaks 92.5% 0.0% 6.6% 117 Tahsis 89.3% 0.0% 6.5% 118 Chase 87.7% 5.7% 6.4% 119 Slocan 92.6% 0.0% 6.3% 120 North Saanich 92.1% 0.0% 6.2% 121 Mission 92.5% 0.0% 6.1% 122 Elkford 63.9% 28.2% 6.0% 123 Maple Ridge 92.4% 0.1% 5.9% 124 Esquimalt 92.3% 1.0% 5.9% 125 Colwood 94.0% 0.0% 5.7% 126 Fraser Lake 58.7% 25.5% 5.6% 127 Sechelt 94.0% 0.0% 5.6% 128 Ladysmith 93.2% 0.6% 5.4% 129 Sooke 94.2% 0.0% 5.4% 130 Canal Flats 92.0% 0.0% 5.3% 131 West Kelowna 93.4% 0.2% 5.1% 132 Taylor 64.3% 16.8% 4.9% 133 Lake Cowichan 94.8% 0.1% 4.9% 134 Granisle 92.8% 0.0% 4.9% 135 Kimberley 94.6% 0.0% 4.8% 136 Rossland 94.3% 0.0% 4.8% 137 Comox 95.2% 0.0% 4.6% 138 Midway 84.6% 4.7% 4.5% 139 White Rock 95.5% 0.0% 4.4% 140 Spallumcheen 84.1% 1.8% 4.4% 141 Summerland 94.2% 0.0% 4.3% 142 Fruitvale 95.5% 0.0% 4.3% 143 Port Alice 59.5% 35.2% 4.0% 144 Qualicum Beach 95.9% 0.0% 3.9% 145 Lake Country 95.3% 0.0% 3.8% 146 Kent 89.5% 0.0% 3.7% 147 Telkwa 96.4% 0.0% 3.3%

Page 64 of 77 Page 3 of 4 City of Powell River Comparable Communities - Assessment Mix - Commercial Appendix G Assessment Year 2019 Commercial assessment as a % of total assessment

General General General Purposes Purposes Purposes Bus. and Rank Municipalities Residential Major Ind. Other 148 Peachland 96.3% 0.0% 3.2% 149 Sayward 88.6% 0.0% 3.0% 150 West Vancouver 96.8% 0.0% 3.0% 151 Highlands 95.6% 0.0% 2.7% 152 Logan Lake 59.3% 36.6% 2.5% 153 Lantzville 97.1% 0.0% 2.2% 154 Bowen Island 97.6% 0.0% 2.0% 155 Oak Bay 97.7% 0.0% 2.0% 156 Warfield 97.8% 0.0% 1.6% 157 Montrose 98.9% 0.0% 1.1% 158 Metchosin 98.0% 0.0% 0.8% 159 Coldstream 97.9% 0.3% 0.8% 160 Lions Bay 99.6% 0.0% 0.1% 161 Anmore 99.8% 0.0% 0.0% 162 Belcarra 98.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Page 65 of 77 Page 4 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix H Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Municipal Tax Levy - Highest to Lowest

General Municipal Regional Rank Municipalities House Value Total District 1 West Vancouver 3,348,434 4,802 143 2 Oak Bay 1,489,028 3,788 489 3 Whistler 2,355,863 3,656 102 4 White Rock 1,512,377 3,479 67 5 Port Moody 1,395,129 3,346 63 6 Vancouver 2,290,135 3,059 95 7 New Westminster 1,203,842 2,949 54 8 Lions Bay 1,716,294 2,923 88 9 North Vancouver 1,754,705 2,915 74 10 Victoria 912,433 2,880 198 11 Anmore 2,079,826 2,838 358 12 Squamish 931,497 2,784 176 13 North Vancouver 1,619,905 2,742 70 14 Saanich 923,516 2,720 202 15 Tofino 886,959 2,670 382 16 Esquimalt 737,880 2,610 454 17 Richmond 1,673,022 2,592 69 18 Coquitlam 1,300,441 2,580 55 19 Delta 1,045,339 2,449 44 20 Bowen Island 1,151,773 2,426 46 21 Maple Ridge 853,209 2,417 37 22 Burnaby 1,593,082 2,409 64 23 Kimberley 301,859 2,385 190 24 Port Coquitlam 990,726 2,339 43 25 Abbotsford 750,887 2,321 63 26 Sechelt Indian Government 930,092 2,315 2,634 27 Fernie 527,027 2,242 382 28 Central Saanich 796,126 2,231 415 29 Mission 747,931 2,230 54 30 Kelowna 704,929 2,230 174 31 Prince George 302,133 2,218 160 32 Kamloops 443,063 2,206 137 33 Nanaimo 516,418 2,196 434 34 Cranbrook 292,786 2,187 47 35 Rossland 345,848 2,175 587 36 West Kelowna 677,019 2,132 176 37 Langley 1,015,301 2,126 43 38 Pitt Meadows 802,139 2,110 38 39 Langley 895,737 2,081 36 40 Lake Country 695,278 2,074 197 41 Sun Peaks 900,206 2,055 819 42 Surrey 1,154,329 2,028 47 43 Powell River 344,487 2,015 235 44 Campbell River 419,705 1,973 358 45 Port Alberni 291,407 1,964 124 46 Qualicum Beach 674,725 1,961 831 47 Highlands 850,462 1,939 221

Page 66 of 77 Page 1 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix H Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Municipal Tax Levy - Highest to Lowest

General Municipal Regional Rank Municipalities House Value Total District 48 Colwood 679,808 1,928 346 49 Chilliwack 614,213 1,852 56 50 Penticton 500,707 1,849 104 51 Sidney 784,046 1,829 361 52 Peachland 609,756 1,777 175 53 Ladysmith 439,939 1,770 340 54 Dawson Creek 260,036 1,762 183 55 Nelson 470,680 1,759 640 56 Vernon 498,523 1,756 302 57 View Royal 774,328 1,756 457 58 Parksville 497,076 1,732 634 59 Golden 301,010 1,731 154 60 Invermere 474,144 1,717 369 61 Revelstoke 446,821 1,714 115 62 Prince Rupert 282,640 1,696 55 63 Summerland 580,463 1,682 126 64 Belcarra 1,491,539 1,673 319 65 Salmon Arm 398,835 1,640 93 66 North Cowichan 445,352 1,624 373 67 Hope 410,895 1,618 377 68 Fort St. John 325,113 1,580 198 69 Sicamous 326,954 1,552 173 70 Terrace 313,921 1,550 191 71 Ucluelet 418,113 1,529 178 72 Courtenay 474,643 1,520 381 73 North Saanich 1,056,883 1,514 381 74 Coldstream 629,525 1,505 533 75 Sechelt 679,577 1,495 629 76 Langford 632,513 1,494 368 77 Telkwa 252,628 1,488 344 78 Harrison Hot Springs 604,690 1,487 121 79 Cumberland 449,953 1,471 326 80 Spallumcheen 370,269 1,428 73 81 Creston 246,408 1,387 720 82 Comox 547,310 1,386 425 83 Kent 501,385 1,382 43 84 Williams Lake 230,834 1,376 373 85 Merritt 264,205 1,368 241 86 Smithers 281,120 1,361 439 87 Sooke 505,435 1,353 475 88 Metchosin 799,381 1,353 215 89 Lake Cowichan 361,137 1,336 656 90 Duncan 356,721 1,328 504 91 Sayward 213,193 1,316 97 92 Granisle 52,845 1,312 49 93 Elkford 228,759 1,287 132 94 Tahsis 99,858 1,273 38

Page 67 of 77 Page 2 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix H Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Municipal Tax Levy - Highest to Lowest

General Municipal Regional Rank Municipalities House Value Total District 95 Vanderhoof 231,331 1,241 220 96 Pemberton 759,601 1,223 757 97 Chase 276,558 1,222 271 98 Hazelton 128,666 1,213 398 99 Gibsons 743,031 1,165 912 100 Kitimat 252,813 1,149 34 101 Clearwater 236,862 1,148 272 102 Grand Forks 245,676 1,141 517 103 Armstrong 402,560 1,140 109 104 Trail 217,654 1,139 521 105 Lantzville 726,874 1,138 424 106 Port McNeill 204,758 1,133 270 107 Alert Bay 137,067 1,132 121 108 Clinton 123,002 1,096 119 109 New Hazelton 117,123 1,081 259 110 Enderby 309,056 1,071 239 111 Ashcroft 211,179 1,068 201 112 Burns Lake 151,832 1,067 362 113 Houston 150,959 1,057 144 114 Port Hardy 184,202 1,050 165 115 Zeballos 77,613 1,039 36 116 Castlegar 309,686 1,031 407 117 Lillooet 219,169 1,010 151 118 Warfield 244,077 987 440 119 Keremeos 271,065 978 441 120 Quesnel 202,061 965 355 121 Fruitvale 273,167 964 886 122 Nakusp 241,729 957 490 123 Fraser Lake 134,521 942 141 124 Sparwood 230,572 940 154 125 Lumby 329,663 937 691 126 Chetwynd 217,039 935 402 127 Greenwood 138,427 925 72 128 Osoyoos 429,687 916 200 129 Mackenzie 152,608 898 94 130 Tumbler Ridge 126,293 892 72 131 Gold River 158,846 880 62 132 Port Alice 118,311 876 92 133 Taylor 251,709 865 119 134 Kaslo 263,814 864 570 135 100 Mile House 223,429 862 267 136 Silverton 281,918 845 288 137 Midway 210,058 818 96 138 Stewart 110,474 817 76 139 McBride 131,807 816 551 140 Canal Flats 220,022 780 125 141 Fort St. James 172,381 769 451

Page 68 of 77 Page 3 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix H Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Municipal Tax Levy - Highest to Lowest

General Municipal Regional Rank Municipalities House Value Total District 142 Lytton 131,499 769 130 143 Barriere 217,826 751 241 144 Port Edward 206,192 746 123 145 Radium Hot Springs 254,331 744 201 146 Princeton 203,592 732 31 147 Masset 106,512 720 102 148 New Denver 215,035 703 213 149 Slocan 165,250 696 354 150 Valemount 225,515 696 640 151 Logan Lake 230,210 694 210 152 Oliver 391,377 646 485 153 Pouce Coupe 213,205 628 149 154 Salmo 191,329 596 372 155 Hudson's Hope 166,336 582 73 156 Northern Rockies - REGM 108,799 572 0 157 Queen Charlotte 176,256 491 167 158 Montrose 278,192 486 875 159 Cache Creek 150,095 453 143 160 Port Clements 81,270 340 78 161 Wells 91,989 306 119 162 Jumbo Glacier 0 0 0

Page 69 of 77 Page 4 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix I Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Regional District Tax Levy - Highest to Lowest

General Municipal Regional Rank Municipalities House Value Total District 1 Sechelt Indian Government 930,092 2,315 2,634 2 Gibsons 743,031 1,165 912 3 Fruitvale 273,167 964 886 4 Montrose 278,192 486 875 5 Qualicum Beach 674,725 1,961 831 6 Sun Peaks 900,206 2,055 819 7 Pemberton 759,601 1,223 757 8 Creston 246,408 1,387 720 9 Lumby 329,663 937 691 10 Lake Cowichan 361,137 1,336 656 11 Nelson 470,680 1,759 640 12 Valemount 225,515 696 640 13 Parksville 497,076 1,732 634 14 Sechelt 679,577 1,495 629 15 Rossland 345,848 2,175 587 16 Kaslo 263,814 864 570 17 McBride 131,807 816 551 18 Coldstream 629,525 1,505 533 19 Trail 217,654 1,139 521 20 Grand Forks 245,676 1,141 517 21 Duncan 356,721 1,328 504 22 Nakusp 241,729 957 490 23 Oak Bay 1,489,028 3,788 489 24 Oliver 391,377 646 485 25 Sooke 505,435 1,353 475 26 View Royal 774,328 1,756 457 27 Esquimalt 737,880 2,610 454 28 Fort St. James 172,381 769 451 29 Keremeos 271,065 978 441 30 Warfield 244,077 987 440 31 Smithers 281,120 1,361 439 32 Nanaimo 516,418 2,196 434 33 Comox 547,310 1,386 425 34 Lantzville 726,874 1,138 424 35 Central Saanich 796,126 2,231 415 36 Castlegar 309,686 1,031 407 37 Chetwynd 217,039 935 402 38 Hazelton 128,666 1,213 398 39 Fernie 527,027 2,242 382 40 Tofino 886,959 2,670 382 41 North Saanich 1,056,883 1,514 381 42 Courtenay 474,643 1,520 381 43 Hope 410,895 1,618 377 44 Williams Lake 230,834 1,376 373 45 North Cowichan 445,352 1,624 373 46 Salmo 191,329 596 372 47 Invermere 474,144 1,717 369

Page 70 of 77 Page 1 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix I Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Regional District Tax Levy - Highest to Lowest

General Municipal Regional Rank Municipalities House Value Total District 48 Langford 632,513 1,494 368 49 Burns Lake 151,832 1,067 362 50 Sidney 784,046 1,829 361 51 Campbell River 419,705 1,973 358 52 Anmore 2,079,826 2,838 358 53 Quesnel 202,061 965 355 54 Slocan 165,250 696 354 55 Colwood 679,808 1,928 346 56 Telkwa 252,628 1,488 344 57 Ladysmith 439,939 1,770 340 58 Cumberland 449,953 1,471 326 59 Belcarra 1,491,539 1,673 319 60 Vernon 498,523 1,756 302 61 Silverton 281,918 845 288 62 Clearwater 236,862 1,148 272 63 Chase 276,558 1,222 271 64 Port McNeill 204,758 1,133 270 65 100 Mile House 223,429 862 267 66 New Hazelton 117,123 1,081 259 67 Merritt 264,205 1,368 241 68 Barriere 217,826 751 241 69 Enderby 309,056 1,071 239 70 Powell River 344,487 2,015 235 71 Highlands 850,462 1,939 221 72 Vanderhoof 231,331 1,241 220 73 Metchosin 799,381 1,353 215 74 New Denver 215,035 703 213 75 Logan Lake 230,210 694 210 76 Saanich 923,516 2,720 202 77 Ashcroft 211,179 1,068 201 78 Radium Hot Springs 254,331 744 201 79 Osoyoos 429,687 916 200 80 Fort St. John 325,113 1,580 198 81 Victoria 912,433 2,880 198 82 Lake Country 695,278 2,074 197 83 Terrace 313,921 1,550 191 84 Kimberley 301,859 2,385 190 85 Dawson Creek 260,036 1,762 183 86 Ucluelet 418,113 1,529 178 87 Squamish 931,497 2,784 176 88 West Kelowna 677,019 2,132 176 89 Peachland 609,756 1,777 175 90 Kelowna 704,929 2,230 174 91 Sicamous 326,954 1,552 173 92 Queen Charlotte 176,256 491 167 93 Port Hardy 184,202 1,050 165 94 Prince George 302,133 2,218 160

Page 71 of 77 Page 2 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix I Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Regional District Tax Levy - Highest to Lowest

General Municipal Regional Rank Municipalities House Value Total District 95 Golden 301,010 1,731 154 96 Sparwood 230,572 940 154 97 Lillooet 219,169 1,010 151 98 Pouce Coupe 213,205 628 149 99 Houston 150,959 1,057 144 100 West Vancouver 3,348,434 4,802 143 101 Cache Creek 150,095 453 143 102 Fraser Lake 134,521 942 141 103 Kamloops 443,063 2,206 137 104 Elkford 228,759 1,287 132 105 Lytton 131,499 769 130 106 Summerland 580,463 1,682 126 107 Canal Flats 220,022 780 125 108 Port Alberni 291,407 1,964 124 109 Port Edward 206,192 746 123 110 Alert Bay 137,067 1,132 121 111 Harrison Hot Springs 604,690 1,487 121 112 Taylor 251,709 865 119 113 Wells 91,989 306 119 114 Clinton 123,002 1,096 119 115 Revelstoke 446,821 1,714 115 116 Armstrong 402,560 1,140 109 117 Penticton 500,707 1,849 104 118 Masset 106,512 720 102 119 Whistler 2,355,863 3,656 102 120 Sayward 213,193 1,316 97 121 Midway 210,058 818 96 122 Vancouver 2,290,135 3,059 95 123 Mackenzie 152,608 898 94 124 Salmon Arm 398,835 1,640 93 125 Port Alice 118,311 876 92 126 Lions Bay 1,716,294 2,923 88 127 Port Clements 81,270 340 78 128 Stewart 110,474 817 76 129 North Vancouver 1,754,705 2,915 74 130 Hudson's Hope 166,336 582 73 131 Spallumcheen 370,269 1,428 73 132 Tumbler Ridge 126,293 892 72 133 Greenwood 138,427 925 72 134 North Vancouver 1,619,905 2,742 70 135 Richmond 1,673,022 2,592 69 136 White Rock 1,512,377 3,479 67 137 Burnaby 1,593,082 2,409 64 138 Abbotsford 750,887 2,321 63 139 Port Moody 1,395,129 3,346 63 140 Gold River 158,846 880 62 141 Chilliwack 614,213 1,852 56

Page 72 of 77 Page 3 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix I Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Regional District Tax Levy - Highest to Lowest

General Municipal Regional Rank Municipalities House Value Total District 142 Coquitlam 1,300,441 2,580 55 143 Prince Rupert 282,640 1,696 55 144 Mission 747,931 2,230 54 145 New Westminster 1,203,842 2,949 54 146 Granisle 52,845 1,312 49 147 Cranbrook 292,786 2,187 47 148 Surrey 1,154,329 2,028 47 149 Bowen Island 1,151,773 2,426 46 150 Delta 1,045,339 2,449 44 151 Kent 501,385 1,382 43 152 Langley 1,015,301 2,126 43 153 Port Coquitlam 990,726 2,339 43 154 Pitt Meadows 802,139 2,110 38 155 Tahsis 99,858 1,273 38 156 Maple Ridge 853,209 2,417 37 157 Langley 895,737 2,081 36 158 Zeballos 77,613 1,039 36 159 Kitimat 252,813 1,149 34 160 Princeton 203,592 732 31 161 Northern Rockies - REGM 108,799 572 0 162 Jumbo Glacier 0 0 0

Page 73 of 77 Page 4 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix J Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Total Charges - Highest to Lowest

Total Residential General BCA, Total Res Total Res Property Municipal Regional MFA and Variable Parcel Total Res. Taxes And Rank Municipalities House Value Total District Hospital Other Rate Taxes Taxes User Fees Charges 1 West Vancouver 3,348,434 4,802 143 0 873 8,437 0 1,978 10,416 2 Lions Bay 1,716,294 2,923 88 0 709 5,062 365 2,760 8,186 3 Oak Bay 1,489,028 3,788 489 314 318 6,697 0 1,271 7,968 4 Whistler 2,355,863 3,656 102 72 92 6,466 560 635 7,660 5 Sechelt Indian Government 930,092 2,315 2,634 210 107 6,507 508 634 7,649 6 Anmore 2,079,826 2,838 358 0 857 6,352 0 1,288 7,641 7 Vancouver 2,290,135 3,059 95 0 597 5,811 0 1,443 7,254 8 North Vancouver 1,754,705 2,915 74 0 457 5,136 0 1,677 6,813 9 White Rock 1,512,377 3,479 67 0 394 5,659 0 989 6,648 10 Belcarra 1,491,539 1,673 319 0 601 4,242 973 1,334 6,549 11 Port Moody 1,395,129 3,346 63 0 364 5,315 0 1,170 6,485 12 New Westminster 1,203,842 2,949 54 0 314 4,732 0 1,666 6,397 13 Sun Peaks 900,206 2,055 819 407 170 5,158 0 1,181 6,338 14 Bowen Island 1,151,773 2,426 46 0 627 4,000 721 1,467 6,188 15 Richmond 1,673,022 2,592 69 0 436 4,862 0 1,261 6,123 16 North Vancouver 1,619,905 2,742 70 0 422 4,794 0 1,106 5,899 17 Burnaby 1,593,082 2,409 64 0 415 4,526 552 713 5,791 18 Port Coquitlam 990,726 2,339 43 0 258 3,736 1,021 996 5,753 19 Coquitlam 1,300,441 2,580 55 0 339 4,412 451 830 5,693 20 Saanich 923,516 2,720 202 195 197 4,423 0 1,185 5,608 21 Victoria 912,433 2,880 198 193 195 4,561 40 973 5,574 22 Squamish 931,497 2,784 176 29 36 4,031 0 1,353 5,384 23 Tofino 886,959 2,670 382 196 207 4,785 0 540 5,325 24 West Kelowna 677,019 2,132 176 168 26 3,450 530 1,263 5,244 25 Delta 1,045,339 2,449 44 0 384 4,053 0 1,090 5,143 26 Surrey 1,154,329 2,028 47 0 301 3,688 325 1,093 5,106 27 Maple Ridge 853,209 2,417 37 0 222 3,763 213 1,031 5,007 28 Langley 1,015,301 2,126 43 0 265 3,636 0 1,344 4,980 29 Pemberton 759,601 1,223 757 23 195 3,019 146 1,666 4,832 30 Central Saanich 796,126 2,231 415 168 170 3,934 0 839 4,773 31 Fernie 527,027 2,242 382 74 21 3,838 117 806 4,761 32 Ladysmith 439,939 1,770 340 223 17 3,058 794 908 4,759 33 Gibsons 743,031 1,165 912 69 184 3,320 720 714 4,754 34 Rossland 345,848 2,175 587 90 103 3,769 216 746 4,731 35 Nelson 470,680 1,759 640 123 18 3,507 15 1,192 4,714 36 Mission 747,931 2,230 54 98 29 3,394 0 1,234 4,628 37 Summerland 580,463 1,682 126 153 23 2,917 485 1,178 4,581 38 Sechelt 679,577 1,495 629 63 238 3,332 650 587 4,568 39 Lake Country 695,278 2,074 197 172 27 3,444 200 892 4,536 40 Invermere 474,144 1,717 369 69 122 3,212 246 1,062 4,520 41 Qualicum Beach 674,725 1,961 831 110 26 3,932 211 376 4,520 42 Langley 895,737 2,081 36 0 234 3,412 0 1,094 4,506 43 Kelowna 704,929 2,230 174 175 28 3,593 50 852 4,496 44 Nanaimo 516,418 2,196 434 84 20 3,564 16 857 4,437 45 Campbell River 419,705 1,973 358 243 16 3,366 112 954 4,432 46 Prince George 302,133 2,218 160 159 12 3,269 0 1,141 4,410 47 Pitt Meadows 802,139 2,110 38 0 209 3,380 0 970 4,349

Page 74 of 77 Page 1 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix J Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Total Charges - Highest to Lowest

Total Residential General BCA, Total Res Total Res Property Municipal Regional MFA and Variable Parcel Total Res. Taxes And Rank Municipalities House Value Total District Hospital Other Rate Taxes Taxes User Fees Charges 48 Kamloops 443,063 2,206 137 204 17 3,405 0 939 4,343 49 Sidney 784,046 1,829 361 166 167 3,459 195 689 4,343 50 Kimberley 301,859 2,385 190 44 12 3,226 198 887 4,311 51 Abbotsford 750,887 2,321 63 98 29 3,565 0 744 4,309 52 Esquimalt 737,880 2,610 454 156 157 4,263 0 0 4,263 53 North Saanich 1,056,883 1,514 381 222 226 3,604 100 512 4,216 54 Courtenay 474,643 1,520 381 275 19 2,967 245 1,003 4,215 55 Vernon 498,523 1,756 302 143 19 3,063 0 1,140 4,202 56 Peachland 609,756 1,777 175 151 24 2,981 626 529 4,136 57 Penticton 500,707 1,849 104 133 20 2,910 0 1,216 4,126 58 Comox 547,310 1,386 425 317 21 3,039 90 966 4,095 59 Prince Rupert 282,640 1,696 55 179 11 2,655 0 1,408 4,062 60 Coldstream 629,525 1,505 533 181 25 3,307 158 594 4,060 61 Cumberland 449,953 1,471 326 260 131 2,920 272 823 4,015 62 Dawson Creek 260,036 1,762 183 154 10 2,828 0 1,177 4,005 63 Harrison Hot Springs 604,690 1,487 121 79 140 2,917 0 1,059 3,976 64 Lake Cowichan 361,137 1,336 656 184 113 2,891 240 784 3,914 65 Highlands 850,462 1,939 221 180 352 3,900 0 0 3,900 66 Powell River 344,487 2,015 235 46 13 3,018 346 521 3,885 67 Parksville 497,076 1,732 634 81 19 3,206 0 674 3,880 68 Salmon Arm 398,835 1,640 93 114 16 2,639 556 685 3,880 69 Chilliwack 614,213 1,852 56 80 139 3,069 0 780 3,849 70 Cranbrook 292,786 2,187 47 43 11 2,910 214 714 3,838 71 Sooke 505,435 1,353 475 107 108 2,761 622 435 3,818 72 Fruitvale 273,167 964 886 71 104 2,667 700 440 3,807 73 View Royal 774,328 1,756 457 164 165 3,472 0 323 3,795 74 North Cowichan 445,352 1,624 373 226 17 2,983 483 326 3,792 75 Telkwa 252,628 1,488 344 164 102 2,750 20 992 3,761 76 Colwood 679,808 1,928 346 143 145 3,529 22 200 3,751 77 Hudson's Hope 166,336 582 73 99 51 1,172 1,982 576 3,729 78 Revelstoke 446,821 1,714 115 129 17 2,718 110 900 3,728 79 Williams Lake 230,834 1,376 373 160 68 2,591 596 472 3,660 80 Hope 410,895 1,618 377 54 16 2,805 85 704 3,594 81 Creston 246,408 1,387 720 36 10 2,659 323 587 3,568 82 Merritt 264,205 1,368 241 121 43 2,372 360 813 3,545 83 Port Alberni 291,407 1,964 124 64 11 2,729 0 811 3,540 84 Lillooet 219,169 1,010 151 100 78 1,988 250 1,299 3,537 85 Montrose 278,192 486 875 72 104 2,191 576 762 3,529 86 Vanderhoof 231,331 1,241 220 318 87 2,652 343 532 3,528 87 Grand Forks 245,676 1,141 517 64 85 2,383 52 1,092 3,527 88 Golden 301,010 1,731 154 44 94 2,616 146 759 3,521 89 Ucluelet 418,113 1,529 178 92 105 2,716 160 640 3,516 90 Oliver 391,377 646 485 99 159 2,178 249 1,056 3,483 91 Duncan 356,721 1,328 504 181 115 2,723 20 698 3,441 92 Smithers 281,120 1,361 439 181 11 2,718 0 638 3,355 93 Castlegar 309,686 1,031 407 81 12 2,259 150 939 3,348 94 Lumby 329,663 937 691 95 107 2,387 0 900 3,286

Page 75 of 77 Page 2 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix J Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Total Charges - Highest to Lowest

Total Residential General BCA, Total Res Total Res Property Municipal Regional MFA and Variable Parcel Total Res. Taxes And Rank Municipalities House Value Total District Hospital Other Rate Taxes Taxes User Fees Charges 95 Sicamous 326,954 1,552 173 94 81 2,536 10 708 3,254 96 Warfield 244,077 987 440 67 98 2,166 1,077 0 3,243 97 Ashcroft 211,179 1,068 201 96 81 2,073 156 1,011 3,240 98 Enderby 309,056 1,071 239 89 105 2,105 523 608 3,236 99 Burns Lake 151,832 1,067 362 209 72 2,227 293 708 3,228 100 Kent 501,385 1,382 43 65 20 2,413 0 808 3,221 101 Hazelton 128,666 1,213 398 82 71 2,096 300 820 3,216 102 Terrace 313,921 1,550 191 203 64 2,820 0 377 3,198 103 Metchosin 799,381 1,353 215 169 306 3,178 0 0 3,178 104 Lantzville 726,874 1,138 424 119 175 3,024 0 139 3,162 105 Trail 217,654 1,139 521 57 9 2,236 150 773 3,159 106 Osoyoos 429,687 916 200 113 134 2,229 168 749 3,146 107 Valemount 225,515 696 640 125 70 2,068 95 922 3,085 108 Langford 632,513 1,494 368 134 135 3,030 0 0 3,030 109 Port Hardy 184,202 1,050 165 57 80 1,969 0 1,055 3,024 110 Nakusp 241,729 957 490 63 84 2,184 0 837 3,021 111 Kaslo 263,814 864 570 69 81 2,126 25 819 2,970 112 Chase 276,558 1,222 271 128 87 2,232 0 723 2,955 113 Fort St. James 172,381 769 451 237 62 2,105 120 680 2,905 114 Quesnel 202,061 965 355 140 8 2,123 169 535 2,827 115 Port McNeill 204,758 1,133 270 62 82 2,233 0 584 2,817 116 Sayward 213,193 1,316 97 123 78 2,008 0 799 2,807 117 Houston 150,959 1,057 144 97 69 1,758 402 631 2,791 118 Clearwater 236,862 1,148 272 94 81 2,045 140 599 2,784 119 Fort St. John 325,113 1,580 198 195 92 2,782 0 0 2,782 120 Pouce Coupe 213,205 628 149 126 80 1,571 448 740 2,760 121 100 Mile House 223,429 862 267 153 93 1,969 169 614 2,752 122 Armstrong 402,560 1,140 109 116 16 2,164 20 552 2,737 123 Queen Charlotte 176,256 491 167 114 67 1,556 410 743 2,709 124 Chetwynd 217,039 935 402 125 73 2,134 40 502 2,676 125 Alert Bay 137,067 1,132 121 42 63 1,818 290 546 2,653 126 Port Edward 206,192 746 123 136 53 1,579 360 708 2,647 127 Taylor 251,709 865 119 148 81 1,768 180 695 2,643 128 Elkford 228,759 1,287 132 33 72 2,010 117 505 2,631 129 Keremeos 271,065 978 441 72 89 2,127 122 365 2,614 130 New Hazelton 117,123 1,081 259 71 55 1,769 104 738 2,611 131 Silverton 281,918 845 288 73 77 1,971 0 631 2,602 132 Gold River 158,846 880 62 92 67 1,815 0 753 2,568 133 Sparwood 230,572 940 154 34 72 1,689 89 755 2,533 134 Fraser Lake 134,521 942 141 185 52 1,777 0 733 2,511 135 Tahsis 99,858 1,273 38 58 32 1,850 0 621 2,470 136 Salmo 191,329 596 372 50 81 1,491 0 943 2,434 137 Spallumcheen 370,269 1,428 73 106 14 2,342 19 54 2,414 138 McBride 131,807 816 551 74 55 1,810 0 587 2,397 139 Clinton 123,002 1,096 119 56 48 1,682 0 690 2,372 140 Radium Hot Springs 254,331 744 201 36 58 1,541 370 450 2,360 141 Granisle 52,845 1,312 49 73 33 1,646 0 626 2,272

Page 76 of 77 Page 3 of 4 City of Powell River Appendix J Taxes and Charges on a Representive House - 2019 Total Charges - Highest to Lowest

Total Residential General BCA, Total Res Total Res Property Municipal Regional MFA and Variable Parcel Total Res. Taxes And Rank Municipalities House Value Total District Hospital Other Rate Taxes Taxes User Fees Charges 142 Mackenzie 152,608 898 94 85 57 1,497 0 770 2,267 143 Kitimat 252,813 1,149 34 164 53 2,053 0 206 2,259 144 Logan Lake 230,210 694 210 105 71 1,515 240 467 2,222 145 Northern Rockies - REGM 108,799 572 0 5 31 1,097 404 720 2,221 146 Greenwood 138,427 925 72 38 55 1,415 0 777 2,192 147 Canal Flats 220,022 780 125 32 65 1,436 250 485 2,171 148 Lytton 131,499 769 130 60 48 1,397 0 763 2,160 149 New Denver 215,035 703 213 56 68 1,566 0 523 2,089 150 Midway 210,058 818 96 55 70 1,531 74 472 2,077 151 Masset 106,512 720 102 67 44 1,367 288 422 2,077 152 Slocan 165,250 696 354 43 57 1,490 0 585 2,075 153 Cache Creek 150,095 453 143 69 59 1,169 375 517 2,061 154 Zeballos 77,613 1,039 36 45 32 1,501 0 523 2,024 155 Tumbler Ridge 126,293 892 72 75 40 1,427 165 361 1,953 156 Port Alice 118,311 876 92 37 40 1,442 0 471 1,913 157 Princeton 203,592 732 31 54 67 1,344 0 541 1,885 158 Stewart 110,474 817 76 55 32 1,265 530 0 1,795 159 Wells 91,989 306 119 64 42 830 474 356 1,660 160 Port Clements 81,270 340 78 53 35 836 286 519 1,641 161 Barriere 217,826 751 241 99 80 1,585 0 0 1,585 162 Jumbo Glacier 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20

Page 77 of 77 Page 4 of 4