bc municipal spending watch 2015 -...

www.cfib.ca

Research November 4, 2015

BC Municipal Spending Watch 2015 8th Edition: Trends in Operating Spending, 2003-2013

Richard Truscott, Vice-president B.C. and Alberta Aaron Aerts, Economist

A BC family of four could have saved, on average, $8,035 in municipal taxes

over the past 10 years if municipal councils had kept their operating

spending increases in line with the rate of inflation and population growth.

Although the last few years have seen a modest slowdown in growth in

municipal operating expenditures, it is overshadowed by the 49 per cent

increase in overall inflation-adjusted operating spending that has occurred

over the last ten years. This is nearly four times the rate of population

growth over the same period, and represents $8.2 billion in cumulative

excess spending. Increases in municipal fiscal expenditures at current rates

are unsustainable.

Introduction

The BC Municipal Spending Watch analyzes

the sustainability of municipal finances by

ranking municipalities based on their

operating costs and their rate of operating

spending growth over the past 10 years.

From 2003 to 2013 (the latest data available),

BC’s population grew by 13 per cent while

inflation-adjusted municipal operating

spending increased by 49 per cent – more

than three and a half times population

growth (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

BC Municipal Operating Spending

Growth (Adjusted for Inflation)

and Population Growth, 2003–2013

Source: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural

Development; BC Stats, Population Estimates; BC

Stats, CPI. 2003-2013

49%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Operating Spending Growth (Excluding Capital Expenditures and adjusted for inflation)

Population Growth

CFIB BC Municipal Spending Watch 2015

www.cfib.ca

2 2

Municipalities are unable to run a budget

deficit, which means that any operating

spending growth beyond population and

inflation are likely paid for by raising taxes

and/or fees on residents and businesses.

Past research done by CFIB has shown that

increases in taxes and fees are often

transferred disproportionally to small

businesses1.

Increasing the taxes and/or fees on small

businesses has negative consequences for

the entire province. According to government

statistics, small businesses account for more

than half of BC’s private sector employment

and a third of its economic output2.

Increasing the tax burden on small

businesses makes it more difficult for them

to operate, negatively impacting BC’s

economy. Thus, unsustainable increases in

municipal spending are unfavourable for

small businesses as well as for residents.

This is why CFIB is advocating for

sustainable spending practices from

municipal governments. Small business

owners have consistently expressed through

CFIB surveys that increases in municipal

spending should be kept to the rate of

inflation and population growth3. CFIB

recommends that municipalities keep

spending increases to this level.

1 Truscott, Richard and Aerts, Aaron. 2015. B.C.

Municipal Property Tax Gap Report. 2 Government of BC, 2015, Small Business Profile. 3 Armstrong, Matthew and Jones, Laura. 2008.

British Columbia Municipal Spending Watch.

Outline Section 1: Introduction (pg 1-2) Section 2: Key Findings (pg 3-6) Section 3: Municipal Revenue Trends, 2000-2012 (pg 7-8) Section 4: Municipal Spending Trends, 2000-2012 (pg 8-10) Section 5: Municipal Spending Trends by Region (pg 11-16) Section 6: Conclusions and Recommendations (pg 17) Section 7: Sources (pg 18) Section 8: Appendices (pg 19-26)


www.cfib.ca

3 3

Key Findings

Highlights

Only six out of 152 municipalities in BC

have kept operating spending in line

with inflation and population growth

over the past 10 years. No large

municipalities (population of 25,000 and

over) made the list.

In 2003, BC municipal operating

spending per capita stood at $959. In

2013, that dollar amount increased to

$1,260 per person when adjusted to

inflation, representing a 31 per cent

increase in operating spending per capita

from 2003.

In 2013, the average cost of local

government per capita was highest in the

region of Northern BC at $2,443 and

lowest in Thompson Okanagan at $1,396.

The region of Vancouver Coast &

Mountains had, on average, the highest

operating spending growth over the past

10 years of all regions examined at 55

per cent, after being adjusted for

inflation.

Coldstream is the best overall performer

in BC, with a per capita spending of $607

and a growth of 4 per cent in real

operating spending per capita over the

last ten years (see Table 2).

Stewart is the worst overall performer in

BC owing to its high per capita spending

($5,018) and massive increase in real

operating spending per capita (116 per

cent - see Table 3).

BC’s major centres, Vancouver and

Victoria, increased their operating

spending by 29 and 28 per cent

respectively from 2003 to 2013, after

adjusting for inflation and population

growth (see Table 1). Together, it

represents about $1.9 billion in excess

spending over the past 10 years.

Recent trends demonstrate a modest

slowdown in operating spending growth

in BC municipalities compared to

previous years, although short and long

term operating spending are still above

the rate of inflation and population

growth.

A Note on Municipal Rankings

In this report, municipal performance is

assessed by ranking municipalities against

one another. The rank is calculated in such a

way that it is evenly split between two

different measures: a municipality’s 2003 to

2013 spending increase and its 2013 per-

person spending level, placing an equal

importance on a municipality’s long-term

spending trend and its latest spending level.

Both measures are important and distinct

from one another. For example, a municipality

may have had a low increase in its spending

from 2003 to 2013 but at the same time it

may have a high per-person operating cost. In

this case, the municipality will be rewarded

for its good long-term spending trend and

penalized for its poor per-person spending

level.

In general, a municipality with a large, positive

spending trend and a high current spending

level will receive a poor rank and a

municipality with a low spending level and

low or negative trend will receive a good

ranking. See Appendix 1 for a more detailed

discussion of the report’s methodology.


www.cfib.ca

4 4

Largest Municipalities

Campbell River is the best performing of

BC’s largest municipalities with a provincial

rank of 9 (see Table 1). It has had the lowest

growth in real operating spending per capita

from 2003 to 2013 amongst the largest cities

at 4 per cent. It also has a below average per

capita spending level. Port Coquitlam, the

second-best performing large municipality, is

ranked 16th overall and has the lowest per

capita spending level among the largest cities

at $1,176. Its real operating spending growth

from 2003 to 2013 of 25 per cent is lower

than the large city average.

At the other end, West Vancouver is ranked

worst amongst BC’s largest municipalities

with a provincial rank of 128. West

Vancouver had the highest per capita

operating spending of all large cities at

$2,678 and experienced a 43 per cent

increase in operating spending per capita

between 2003 to 2013.

Langford is the second worst performing

large municipality with a rank of 126. This is

owing to the fact that it has the highest real

operating spending per capita growth of any

major city between 2003 and 2013, a

whopping 100 per cent4.

Best Ranked Municipalities

Coldstream is the best ranked municipality

in BC, up from seventh place last year (see

Table 2). The municipality has a 2013 per

capita operating spending of $607 and has

increased its real operating spending per

capita between 2003 to 2013 by four per

cent.

View Royal is the province’s second best

ranked municipality. The municipality has a

relatively low operating expenditure per

capita of $903. Even more noticeable is the

4 This large expenditure increase is largely due to

the fact that transportation and transit expenditures increased from $6,3 million in 2012 to $23.5 million in 2013. CFIB reached out to Langford for comment but at the time of release of this report

has not received feedback.

fact that it has experienced a decline in real

operating spending per capita between 2003

to 2013, decreasing 2 per cent. Parksville

should also be commended for keeping their

2003 to 2013 per capita real operating

spending growth below the level of inflation

and population growth.

Worst Ranked Municipalities

Stewart is once again BC’s worst overall

spender (see Table 3). The municipality had

one of the largest 2013 per capita spending

levels of all BC municipalities at $5,018 per

person and despite a population decline of

30 per cent over the last 10 years, real

operating spending per capita grew by 116

per cent. (see Appendix 3).

Whistler and the Northern Rockies (Fort

Nelson) were ranked second and third worst,

respectively. Whistler has the highest

operating spending per capita in the province

at $5,898 despite experiencing a lower than

average 2003 to 2013 real operating

spending growth of 35 per cent. However,

Whistler is somewhat different than the

average BC municipality. A significant

portion of home-owners in Whistler maintain

their official residence elsewhere, and thus

are not counted in the number of permanent

residents (population). Further, owing to the

fact that Whistler has a sizeable tourist

industry (over 2.5 million visitors annually),

it provides a large amount of services to non-

residents. These two factors distort the per

capita operating expenditures.5

Another municipality of some concern is

Lantzville. While having the lowest level of

operating spending per capita in all of BC at

$573, it also possesses the highest spending

growth in BC over the past 10 years at 244

per cent, adjusted for inflation and

population growth. If it continues to increase

spending at this rate, it will quickly lose its

advantage in per capita spending.

5 2015. Whistler Stats & Facts


www.cfib.ca

5 5

Table 1

How BC’s Largest Municipalities Spend (population 25,000 and above) Listed from Best to Worst (by Overall Provincial Rank)

Municipality

Overall Provincial Rank (1=Best, 152=Worst)

Last Year Rank* (151 = Worst)

2003-2013 Real Operating Spending per

Capita Growth (%)

2013 Operating Spending per

Capita ($)

1 Campbell River 9 18 4 1,196 2 Port Coquitlam 16 43 25 1,176 3 Surrey 21 23 41 952 4 Chilliwack 24 51 39 1,020 5 Port Moody 26 50 21 1,393 6 Burnaby 27 24 26 1,296 7 Coquitlam 34 73 31 1,243 8 Richmond 36 44 25 1,382 9 Mission 37 33 34 1,200 10 North Cowichan 42 39 41 1,086 11 Saanich 43 42 36 1,205 12 Maple Ridge 47 59 39 1,176 13 Langley City 48 37 35 1,259 14 Kelowna 54 92 22 1,548 15 Nanaimo 58 49 33 1,339 16 Prince George 66 58 25 1,550 17 Vernon 72 82 47 1,191 18 Delta 74 66 27 1,615 19 North Vancouver City 75 93 27 1,630 20 North Vancouver District 77 89 32 1,542 21 New Westminster 79 68 18 1,888 22 Kamloops 82 72 37 1,560 23 Vancouver 87 86 29 1,782 24 Victoria 93 105 28 1,983 25 Abbotsford 97 94 67 1,255 26 Langley District Mun. 106 91 71 1,326 27 Penticton 109 119 34 2,267 28 Langford 126 113 100 1,400 29 West Vancouver** 128 117 43 2,678 Average: 36 1,453

The “overall rank” assigned to each municipality is an equally-weighted combination of two indicators: (1) 2003 - 2013 real operating spending per capita growth, or percentage growth in operating spending over the past 10 years, adjusted for inflation and population growth; and (2) 2013 operating spending per capita * Last year’s ranking is not directly comparable to the rank in this year’s report owing to a different base year being used. See appendix one for details. ** In this year’s report, West Vancouver’s transportation costs were re-added to the operating expenses. Previous reports excluded transportation costs as transportation costs increased in 2002 after the municipality took over the cost of running local bus service.

www.cfib.ca

6

Table 2

BC’s 10 Best Ranked Municipalities Listed from Best to Worst (by Overall Provincial Rank)

Municipality


Last Year Rank (151 = Worst)


Capita Growth (%)


Capita ($)

1 Coldstream 1 7 4 607 2 View Royal 2 90 -2 903 3 Parksville 3 6 -2 1,053 4 Cumberland 4 46 5 964 5 Fruitvale 5 4 15 802 6 Lake Cowichan 6 1 8 995 7 Port McNeill 7 12 17 849 8 Highlands 8 34 18 835 9 Campbell River 9 18 4 1,196 10 Metchosin 10 88 31 643

The “overall rank” assigned to each municipality is an equally-weighted combination of two indicators: (1) 2003 - 2013 real operating spending per capita growth, or percentage growth in operating spending over the past 10 years, adjusted for inflation and population growth; and (2) 2013 operating spending per capita

Table 3

BC’s 10 Worst Ranked Municipalities Listed from Worst to Best (by Overall Provincial Rank)

Municipality


Last Year Rank (151 = Worst)


Capita Growth (%)


Capita ($)

1 Granisle 143 142 55 3,421 2 Silverton 144 148 80 2,903 3 Masset 145 144 42 3,907 4 Sayward 146 131 97 2,856 5 Belcarra 147 125 158 1,834 6 Hudson's Hope 148 140 81 3,804 7 Lantzville 149 NA* 244 573 8 Northern Rockies 150 149 130 3,645 9 Whistler 151 150 35 5,898 10 Stewart 152 151 116 5,018

The “overall rank” assigned to each municipality is an equally-weighted combination of two indicators: (1) 2003 - 2013 real operating spending per capita growth, or percentage growth in operating spending over the past 10 years, adjusted for inflation and population growth; and (2) 2013 operating spending per capita *Lantzville is being ranked for the first time; previous reports did not rank Lantzville owing to the fact that its data only stretched back to 2003


www.cfib.ca

7 7

Municipal Revenue Trends, 2003 - 2013

In 2013, municipal revenue in BC totalled $8.4 billion6. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of municipal

revenues stem from property taxes (48 per cent). About one third of revenues are from the sale of

services such as business licences. Other sources of revenues include government transfers (7 per

cent), which refers to the transfer of funds from higher levels of government to lower levels of

government, developer contributions (9 per cent), which are costs a developer needs to pay to connect

a new community to municipal infrastructure, and investment income (2 per cent).

Small business owners are particularly affected by taxes on business property because they are taxed

at a much higher rate than residents, despite not consuming municipal services at the same rate7. In

2014, BC businesses paid, on average, 2.6 times more on municipal property tax than on a residential

property of equal value8. Raising property taxes on businesses is a politically easier alternative than

raising residential property taxes due to less potential for voter backlash.

Real municipal revenues from government transfers increased by 112 per cent over the past 10 years

(see Figure 3). While local governments argue that the large increases in municipal spending are due to

‘government downloading’, or the transfer of responsibility from provincial governments to municipal

governments, it is clear from the charts that municipalities have been given much support from

higher levels of government to administer the programs they have passed down. Another major

source of municipal revenue that has increased dramatically– over fifty per cent – in the past 10 years

is sales of services, which encompasses everything from parking fees to business licences. This is an

easy way for local governments to raise revenues without causing too much criticism, but the effects

of raised fees hurts small businesses tremendously.

Figure 2

Sources of Municipal Revenue, 2013

Source: Ministry of Community, Sport, & Cultural Development. 2013 Local Gov’t Stats. Revenue. Sch401_2013; BC Stats, CPI.

6 Ministry of Community, Sport, & Cultural Development. 2013. Local Government Statistics 7MMK Consulting Inc., City of Vancouver. 2007. Consumption of Tax-Supported Municipal Services, Volume 1 –

Main Report 8 Truscott, Richard and Aerts, Aaron. 2015. BC Municipal Property Tax Gap

Own Purpose

Taxation, 48%Sales of Services,

31%

Government

Transfers, 7%

Developer

Contributions, 9%

Investment

Income, 2% Other, 3%


www.cfib.ca

8 8

Figure 3

Growth of Revenue Sources, Adjusted for Inflation, 2003 – 2013

Source: Ministry of Community, Sport, & Cultural Development. 2013. Local Gov’t Stats. Revenue. Sch401_2003 -2013; BC Stats, CPI.

Municipal Spending Trends, 2003 – 2013

Aggregate municipal operating spending in BC totalled $5.9 billion in 2013. Over 40 per cent of this

was spent on general government and protective services (see Figure 4).

A large portion of operating spending is dedicated to wages and benefits (e.g. 60 per cent in

Vancouver9 and 62 per cent in Victoria10). Unfortunately, unlike provinces such as Alberta and Quebec

where the provincial government collects, aggregates, and publishes data on municipal salaries and

benefits as well as the number of employees a municipality has, the BC government does not require

such information. This makes it more challenging to have an expense breakdown in order to figure

out what exactly the money is being used for. It is CFIB’s position that to increase accountability and

transparency, the provincial government should begin requiring such information from municipalities.

In a past study done by CFIB, it was found that there is a large disparity between municipal sector and

private sector salaries, wages and benefits. CFIB’s Wage Watch Report found that in BC, there was an

average wage premium of 6.8 per cent for municipal sector workers, which balloons to 16.7 per cent

when municipal sector benefits are included11.

The substantial wage gap between private and public employees is in large part due to the inability of

municipalities to effectively negotiate reasonable compensation increases with labour unions.

Unfortunately, the clout that the unions wield often forces municipalities into situation where they

feel pressured into acquiescing to the unions’ demands. With roughly 60 per cent of most major cities’

budget going into labour costs, large increases in labour costs result in the municipality having to find

ways to raise new revenue. This is in large part why municipal ‘Own Purpose Taxation’ has risen 43

per cent and ‘Sales of Services’ by 53 per cent in the past ten years (see Figure 3). This result is

highlighted in the City of Vancouver 2016-2020 budget outlook, where they note that each 1 per cent

wage increase city-wide requires a property taxes to increase by 1.1 per cent to make up the increased

9 City of Vancouver, 2012 Annual Financial Report. 10

City of Victoria, 2012 Annual Report. 11 Canadian Federation of Independent Business. 2015. Municipal Wage Watch

43%53%

112%

214%

54%

Own Purpose Taxation

Sales of Services Government Transfers

Developer Contributions

Total Revenue


www.cfib.ca

9 9

expenditures12. Municipalities need to work together with the provincial and federal levels to find ways

to increase their negotiating leverage when creating new collective bargaining agreements and not

conitunally acquiesce to unsustainable and inequitable city worker wage increases.

Figure 4

Allocation of Municipal Spending, 2013

Source: Ministry of Community, Sport, & Cultural Development. 2013. Local Gov’t Stats, Expenditure. Sch402_2013.

Figure 5 outlines the growth in spending by expenditure category. ‘Solid waste management and

recycling’ experienced the highest increase at 69 per cent over the past ten years even after adjusting

for inflation (see Figure 5). With the exception of social services and other services, the inflation-

adjusted growth in all spending categories has exceeded BC’s population growth over three-fold the

13 per cent population growth from 2003 to 2013.

12

2016-2020 Vancouver Budget Outlook

13%

29%

5%

1%

3%11%

20%

15%

3%

General Government

Protective Services

Solid Waste Mgmt and Recycling

Health, Social Services and Housing

Development Services

Transportation and Transit

Parks, Recreation and Culture

Water and Sewer Services

Other Services


www.cfib.ca

10 10

Figure 5

Growth of Spending, by Expenditure Category, Adjusted for Inflation, 2003 –

2013

Source: Ministry of Community, Sport, & Cultural Development. 2003-2013. Local Gov’t Stats, Expenditure. Sch402_2003-2013; BC Stats, CPI.

Municipal Spending Trends by Region

2003-2013 Municipal Operating Spending Statistics

This section examines British Columbia’s municipal spending trends by the following geographic

regions:

Vancouver, Coast & Mountains

Vancouver Island

Thompson Okanagan

Kootenay Rockies & Cariboo Chilcotin Coast

Northern British Columbia

These regions are the same defined geographic areas used by the Government of British Columbia. For

balance, “Kootenay Rockies” and “Cariboo Chilcotin Coast” have been combined.

Figure 7 compares real operating spending growth at the regional level to that of population growth

over the last 10 years. Even when operating spending is adjusted to inflation, it still greatly outpaces

population growth – the pace by which it exceeded population growth can be seen above the bars.

Northern BC had growth in real operating spending per capita over the 2003 to 2013 period despite

the municipalities in the region experiencing a declining population, on average.

-17%

-1%

45%

46%

55%

55%

56%

59%

69%

-50% 0% 50% 100%

Health, Social Services and Housing

Other Services

Protective Services

Transportation and Transit

Development Services

General Government

Parks, Recreation and Culture

Water and Sewer Services

Solid Waste Mgmt and Recycling


www.cfib.ca

11 11

Figure 7

BC Regional Real Operating Spending Growth and Population Growth, 2003 –

2013

Source: Ministry of Community, Sport, & Cultural Development. 2003-2013. Local Gov’t Stats, Expenditure.

Sch402_2003-2013; BC Stats, Population Estimates 2003-2013; BC Stats, CPI.


Whistler and Hope are the worst performers in the region (see Table 4). Whistler has by far the highest

operating spending per capita in the region at $5,898. As mentioned earlier, Whistler has some

unique characteristics that make it hard to compare to the other municipalities. Hope experienced the

region’s largest growth in real operating spending per capita from 2003 to 2013 at 91 per cent. The

third worst performing municipality in the region, West Vancouver has the region’s second highest

operating spending per capita at $2,195.

BC’s largest municipality, Vancouver’s population has increased by 9 per cent since 2003 (see

Appendix 4) while its real operating spending per capita has increased by 29 per cent. Vancouver’s

operating spending per capita of $1,782 was higher than the region’s average.

No municipality in the Vancouver, Coast & Mountains region was able to keep its operating spending

to inflation and population levels during the past ten years. However, the municipalities within the

region had, on average, the lowest real operating spending growth per capita from 2003 to 2013.

55%52%

47%

43%41%

13%

7%5%

1% -3%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Van. Coast &

Mountains

Van. Island Thomp-Oak Koot-Rock & Carib-Chil Northern BC

Real Operating Spending Growth Population Growth

4 x population

growth

7 x population

growth

9 x population

growth

43 x population

growth

negative population

growth


www.cfib.ca

12 12

Table 4

Municipalities by Overall Provincial Rank, Vancouver, Coast & Mountains Listed from Best to Worst (by Overall Provincial Rank)

Municipality


Last Year Rank (151 = worst)


Capita Growth (%)


Capita ($)

1 Port Coquitlam 16 43 25 1,176 2 Surrey 21 23 41 952 3 Pemberton 22 36 21 1,379 4 Chilliwack 24 51 39 1,020 5 Port Moody 26 50 21 1,393 6 Burnaby 27 24 26 1,296 7 Gibsons 30 13 25 1,318 8 White Rock 31 63 24 1,350 9 Coquitlam 34 73 31 1,243 10 Richmond 36 44 25 1,382 11 Mission 37 33 34 1,200 12 Sechelt 39 103 34 1,195 13 Maple Ridge 47 59 39 1,176 14 Langley City 48 37 35 1,259 15 Powell River 55 29 15 1,696 16 Anmore 59 20 51 966 17 Squamish 61 69 21 1,604 18 Bowen Island 67 55 31 1,441 19 Kent 68 87 37 1,305 20 Delta 74 66 27 1,615 21 North Vancouver City 75 93 27 1,630 22 North Vancouver District 77 89 32 1,542 23 New Westminster 79 68 18 1,888 24 Vancouver 87 86 29 1,782 25 Abbotsford 97 94 67 1,255 26 Lions Bay 101 135 62 1,413 27 Pitt Meadows 102 112 69 1,259 28 Langley District Mun. 106 91 71 1,326 29 Harrison Hot Springs 116 85 62 1,875 30 West Vancouver 128 117 48 2,195 31 Hope 134 98 91 1,956 32 Whistler 151 150 35 5,898 Regional Average 38 1,562

Vancouver Island

The worst ranked municipality in the region is Lantzville. While the cost for the operations of the local

government in Lantzville is low per capita ($573), real operating spending per capita growth

skyrocketed by 244 per cent from 2003 to 2013, the largest increase in the region and in BC (see Table

5). The second worst ranked municipality in the region is Belcarra where municipal operating

spending has reached $1,834 per capita, and had a 158 per cent increase in real operating spending

per capita. While Tahsis improved its ranking, its per capita spending of $3,915 is the highest by a

large margin in the region and is the fifth highest in B.C.

Victoria ranked 93rd in this year’s report, up 12 spots since last year. Its real municipal operating

spending per capita has increased by 28 per cent since 2003 and its operating spending per capita of

$1,983 continues to be significantly higher than the regional average.

View Royal and Parksville are the only municipalities in the region that have kept spending to inflation

and population growth from 2003 to 2013. Due to relatively low average operating spending per

capita of the best performing municipalities in the region, Vancouver Island holds 8 of the top 10

positions in the province.


www.cfib.ca

13 13

Table 5

Municipalities by Overall Provincial Rank, Vancouver Island Listed from Best to Worst (by Overall Provincial Rank)

Municipality


Last Year Rank (151=worst)


Capita Growth (%)


Capita ($)

1 View Royal 2 90 -2 903 2 Parksville 3 6 -2 1,053 3 Cumberland 4 46 5 964 4 Lake Cowichan 6 1 8 995 5 Port McNeill 7 12 17 849 6 Highlands 8 34 18 835 7 Campbell River 9 18 4 1,196 8 Metchosin 10 88 31 643 9 Qualicum Beach 15 3 25 1,165 10 Duncan 18 22 27 1,184 11 Comox 19 16 34 1,064 12 Ladysmith 28 28 32 1,168 13 North Saanich 29 83 32 1,167 14 Port Alberni 33 30 13 1,610 15 Courtenay 35 38 25 1,370 16 Port Hardy 41 35 22 1,471 17 North Cowichan 42 39 41 1,086 18 Saanich 43 42 36 1,205 19 Colwood 44 104 49 945 20 Nanaimo 58 49 33 1,339 21 Central Saanich 62 67 35 1,324 22 Sidney 63 53 32 1,396 23 Port Alice 86 97 11 2,155 24 Victoria 93 105 28 1,983 25 Gold River 96 80 26 2,076 26 Esquimalt 99 95 51 1,621 27 Oak Bay 104 75 51 1,711 28 Sooke 108 147 106 725 29 Tofino 119 129 56 2,063 30 Ucluelet 125 139 37 2,686 31 Langford 126 113 100 1,400 32 Tahsis 137 143 2 3,915 33 Alert Bay 141 132 65 3,005 34 Belcarra 147 125 158 1,834 35 Lantzville 149 N/A* 244 573 Regional Average 41 1,448

*Lantzville is being ranked for the first time; previous reports did not rank Lantzville owing to the fact that its data only stretched back to 2003

Thompson Okanagan

Valemount is the worst performing municipality in the region (see Table 6). It has the region’s highest

operating spending per capita at $2,187. While Valemount’s real operating spending per capita

increased 57 per cent between 2003 and 2013, in recent years it has been making strides in getting

expenditures under control. Valemount’s 2013 per capita spending decreased by $785 compared to

2012, encouraging progress towards attaining sustainable operating spending. Sicamous is the second

worst ranked municipality in the region. It has had the region’s largest increase in spending from

2003 to 2013 at 82 per cent.

As a whole, municipalities in Thompson Okanagan have, on average, the lowest local government

operating cost per capita compared to the other four regions. The region of Thompson Okanagan

should be lauded for being the leader in costs per capita, but there remains substantial room for

improvement. For instance, no municipality in the Thompson Okanagan region was able to keep its

spending in line with inflation and population growth, although Coldstream was able to keep its

spending somewhat close to that benchmark.


www.cfib.ca

14 14

Table 6

Municipalities by Overall Provincial Rank, Thompson Okanagan Listed from Best to Worst (by Overall Provincial Rank)

Municipality




Capita Growth (%)


Capita ($)

1 Coldstream 1 7 4 607 2 Fruitvale 5 4 15 802 3 Armstrong 11 2 26 789 4 Keremeos 14 64 31 1,024 5 Lake Country 17 76 25 1,233 6 Salmon Arm 23 32 31 1,189 7 Oliver 25 31 36 1,069 8 Greenwood 32 54 15 1,533 9 Chase 40 11 41 1,059 10 Midway 46 27 20 1,566 11 Ashcroft 51 21 28 1,415 12 Kelowna 54 92 22 1,548 13 Cache Creek 69 78 15 1,804 14 Spallumcheen 70 8 65 766 15 Enderby 71 14 51 1,108 16 Vernon 72 82 47 1,191 17 Princeton 81 48 46 1,297 18 Kamloops 82 72 37 1,560 19 Peachland 89 74 51 1,386 20 Logan Lake 100 77 48 1,694 21 Osoyoos 103 102 65 1,367 22 Lumby 105 121 79 1,139 23 Penticton 109 119 34 2,267 24 Grand Forks 110 110 35 2,256 25 Merritt 114 79 72 1,590 26 Summerland 115 118 52 2,045 27 Sicamous 122 141 82 1,601 28 Valemount 123 145 57 2,187 Regional Average 40 1,396

Kootenay Rockies & Cariboo Chilcotin Coast

Silverton remained the worst ranked municipality in the region and one of the worst in the province

(see Table 7). Along with having the third highest operating spending per capita in the region,

Silverton has recorded a large 80 per cent increase in real operating spending per capita from 2003 to

2013. For another year, the second worst in the region was Wells, largely owing to the fact it holds the

region’s largest operating spending per capita at $3,352. However, it is important to note that both

Silverton and Wells appear to have begun addressing their spending problems. Since the last report,

their per capita spending decreased substantially - 17 per cent and 9 per cent respectively. Continued

progress reducing per capita spending is needed to alleviate the recent build up in operational

spending.

100 Mile House was the only municipalities in the region to keep spending in line with population

and inflation growth over the past 10 years.


www.cfib.ca

15 15

Table 7

Municipalities by Overall Provincial Rank, Kootenay Rockies & Cariboo Chilcotin

Coast Listed from Best to Worst (by Overall Provincial Rank)

Municipality


Last Year Rank


Capita Growth (%)


Capita ($)

1 Kaslo 13 9 13 1,324 2 100 Mile House 20 26 -4 1,863 3 Montrose 50 15 47 1,023 4 Rossland 52 10 25 1,493 5 Quesnel 53 52 9 1,833 6 Clinton 57 65 19 1,631 7 Castlegar 64 45 26 1,523 8 Creston 65 17 31 1,432 9 Fernie 73 60 4 2,092 10 Salmo 76 5 51 1,154 11 Nakusp 78 62 25 1,727 12 Cranbrook 84 81 39 1,527 13 Warfield 90 41 60 1,211 14 Kimberley 92 128 18 2,201 15 Williams Lake 94 99 32 1,916 16 Trail 95 71 25 2,061 17 Elkford 98 96 31 2,022 18 Sparwood 112 108 40 2,220 19 Nelson 118 120 12 2,954 20 Radium Hot Springs 120 127 34 2,548 21 Golden 127 137 86 1,773 22 Invermere 129 115 80 1,946 23 Slocan 131 124 70 2,155 24 New Denver 132 130 97 1,604 25 Revelstoke 135 133 77 2,261 26 Lillooet 136 134 103 1,748 27 Wells 140 146 41 3,352 28 Silverton 144 148 80 2,903 Regional Average 42 1,911


Stewart is the worst ranked municipality in the region and in BC again in this year’s report. This

municipality is also the region’s worst culprit in terms of its 2013 operating spending per capita

($5,018) and has had a huge increase in real operating spending per capita growth from 2003 to 2013

(116 per cent). An encouraging sign did emerge between 2012 and 2013, as Stewart decreased

operating spending per capita between 2012 and 2013 by 13 per cent; CFIB will continue to monitor

progress in this municipality and hopes this trend continues. Northern Rockies is Northern BC’s

second worst performing municipality. It had the region’s highest growth in operating spending per

capita from 2003 to 2013 at 130 per cent and also has the region’s fifth highest 2013 operating

spending per capita at $3,645.

On average, the local governments in Northern British Columbia have the highest operating cost per

capita among the regions examined (see Table 9). It also has the highest real operating spending

growth per capita from 2003 to 2013. Northern BC also stands out from the other regions as 18 out of

29 municipalities have undergone a population decrease from 2003 to 2013, yet most of these

municipalities increased their spending over that period.

Three municipalities in the region, Prince Rupert, Port Clements and Taylor, kept their operating

spending growth well below the benchmark of population growth and inflation over the 2003 to 2013

period.


www.cfib.ca

16 16

Table 8

Municipalities by Overall Provincial Rank, Northern British Columbia Listed from Best to Worst (by Overall Provincial Rank)

Municipality




Capita Growth (%)


Capita ($)

1 Port Clements 12 40 -6 1,647 2 Prince Rupert 38 56 -12 2,148 3 Vanderhoof 45 25 38 1,182 4 Fort St. James 49 84 14 1,713 5 Terrace 56 19 28 1,431 6 Houston 60 47 25 1,518 7 Prince George 66 58 25 1,550 8 New Hazelton 80 61 17 1,899 9 Smithers 83 70 24 1,852 10 Mackenzie 85 106 16 2,055 11 Chetwynd 88 116 18 2,024 12 Telkwa* 91 138 55 1,386 13 Fort St. John 107 109 52 1,807 14 Burns Lake 111 114 68 1,611 15 Dawson Creek 113 123 24 2,553 16 Kitimat 117 136 33 2,489 17 Taylor 121 101 -7 3,399 18 Fraser Lake 124 111 65 2,054 19 Tumbler Ridge 130 57 50 2,585 20 Hazelton 133 107 52 2,665 21 McBride 138 126 81 2,480 22 Pouce Coupe 139 122 92 2,290 23 Port Edward 142 100 30 3,857 24 Granisle 143 142 55 3,421 25 Masset 145 144 42 3,907 26 Sayward 146 131 97 2,856 27 Hudson's Hope 148 140 81 3,804 28 Northern Rockies 150 149 130 3,645 29 Stewart 152 151 116 5,018 Regional Average 45 2,443

*Telkwa protective services includes provincial funds provided to fund Telkwa’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan.


www.cfib.ca

17 17

Conclusions and Recommendations

Municipal operational spending is considered to be sustainable when it is at or below the rate of

inflation and population growth13. However, over the past 10 years most British Columbia

municipalities have spent well in excess of sustainable levels. While the overall rate of spending

growth continues to slow, only a minority of BC municipalities have demonstrated real restraint.

Overspending by local governments leads to high taxation, putting pressure on local commerce and

stifling job growth. For local governments the choice is clear: address overspending now or leave a

greater burden for future governments to deal with down the road.

CFIB believes there is still time for municipalities to adopt more sustainable spending practices before

it is too late. Ultimately, it will require strong political leadership.

CFIB recommendations:

1. Municipal operating spending increases should be limited to the rate of population growth

and inflation.

2. Municipal governments should conduct reviews to identify core versus non-core services .

3. Municipal sector compensation should be aligned with the private sector. According to the

latest CFIB research, British Columbia currently has a 16.7 per cent gap between these sectors

when combining wages and benefits14. CFIB recommends freezing public sector wages until

private sector wages catch up and reach parity with those of the public sector. Municipalities

should also increase negotiating leverage to control public sector wage increases and bring

them more in line with private sector norms.

4. The transparency of reporting municipal financial data should be improved. While data is

collected and reported on an annual basis by the BC Government, the quality and coverage of

the data could use improvement. For example, the province should collect and publically

report the data on the number of employees and the total amount spent on wages, salaries

and benefits at the municipal level on a regular basis. This practice is already in place in

Alberta15 and Quebec16. In order to better inform the public as to where their tax dollars are

being spent, improving accountability in the process, employment and salary numbers should

be broken down by function and included in the annual reports submitted to the province by

municipal governments17.

5. All municipalities should support the mandate of the recommendations of BC’s new

municipal Auditor General. CFIB is encouraged that the provincial government followed

through on its commitment to create an independent Auditor General for Local Government

(AGLG). However, the long-term success and effectiveness of this new office will rely on the

cooperation of municipal governments. Therefore, we urge municipalities to commit to

working constructively with the AGLG to reverse the unsustainable spending trends outlined

in this report.

13 Based on CFIB survey data. Armstrong, Matthew and Jones, Laura. 2008. British Columbia Municipal Spending

Watch. 14 Canadian Federation of Independent Business. 2015. Municipal Wage Watch 15 Government of Alberta, Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 2012. Municipal Financial and Statistical Data. Financial

Activities by Type/Object; General Statistics 16 Gouvernement du Québec, ministère des Affaires municipales et de l’occupation du territoire, Rapport financier

des organismes municipaux. Analyse de la rémunération 17 Armstrong, Matthew and Jones, Laura. British Columbia Municipal Spending Watch.


www.cfib.ca

18 18

Sources

Armstrong, Matthew and Jones, Laura. Canadian Federation of Independent Business. 2008. British Columbia Municipal Spending Watch. http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/229-bc-municipal-spending-watch.html Tourism Whistler, 2015, Stats & Facts. http://media.whistler.com/all-about-whistler/stats-and-facts/ City of Vancouver, 2012 Annual Financial Report. http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2012-annual-financial-report.pdf City of Vancouver, 2016-2020 Budget Outlook http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2016-city-of-vancouver-budget-outlook.pdf City of Victoria, 2012 Annual Report. http://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Communications/Documents/CoV_Annual_Report_2013_e2.pdf Gouvernement du Québec, ministère des Affaires municipales et de l’occupation du territoire, Rapport financier des organismes municipaux http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/finances-indicateurs-de-gestion-et-fiscalite/information-financiere/profil-financier-et-autres-publications/rapport-financier-des-organismes-municipaux/ Government of Alberta, Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Municipal Financial and Statistical Data. http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/municipal_financial_statistical_data.cfm Government of British Columbia. 2012. British Columbia Municipal Police Unit Agreement http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/shareddocs/police-agreement-municipal-police-unit-2012.pdf Government of British Columbia, BC Stats. 2013. CPI BC, Vancouver, Victoria. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Economy/ConsumerPriceIndex.aspx Government of British Columbia, BC Stats. 2013. Population of BC.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx

Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. 2013. Provincial Guidance. http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/library/municipal_lgde_help_manual_sec5b.pdf Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Community, Sport, & Cultural Development. 2013. Local Government Statistics. http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/municipal_stats/municipal_stats2013.htm Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. 2015. Small Business

Profile. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/SmallBusinessProfile2015.pdf

Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Justice. 2014. Police Resources in British Columbia, 2013

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/shareddocs/statistics/PoliceResourcesBC2013.pdf

Truscott, Richard and Aerts, Aaron. Canadian Federation of Independent Business. 2015. B.C.

Municipal Property Tax Gaps: A 10-Year Perspective. http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/7649-cap-

the-tax-gap.html

Canadian Federation of Independent Business. 2015. Municipal Wage Watch. http://www.cfib-

fcei.ca/cfib-documents/researchreporten/rr3354.pdf

MMK Consulting Inc. 2007. City of Vancouver - Consumption of Tax-Supported Municipal Services,

Volume 1 – Main Report. http://fairtaxcoalition.com/pdf/ConsumptionStudyReport.pdf

http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/229-bc-municipal-spending-watch.html

http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/229-bc-municipal-spending-watch.html

http://media.whistler.com/all-about-whistler/stats-and-facts/

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2012-annual-financial-report.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2016-city-of-vancouver-budget-outlook.pdf

http://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Communications/Documents/CoV_Annual_Report_2013_e2.pdf

http://www.victoria.ca/assets/Departments/Communications/Documents/CoV_Annual_Report_2013_e2.pdf

http://www.mamrot.gouv.qc.ca/finances-indicateurs-de-gestion-et-fiscalite/information-financiere/profil-financier-et-autres-publications/rapport-financier-des-organismes-municipaux/



http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/municipal_financial_statistical_data.cfm

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/shareddocs/police-agreement-municipal-police-unit-2012.pdf

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/shareddocs/police-agreement-municipal-police-unit-2012.pdf

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Economy/ConsumerPriceIndex.aspx

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx

http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/library/municipal_lgde_help_manual_sec5b.pdf

http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/infra/municipal_stats/municipal_stats2013.htm

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/a4a89f2f-e7dd-48a2-8c7f-df56cadb324b/SmallBusinessProfile2015.pdf

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/shareddocs/statistics/PoliceResourcesBC2013.pdf

http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/7649-cap-the-tax-gap.html

http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/7649-cap-the-tax-gap.html

http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/cfib-documents/researchreporten/rr3354.pdf

http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/cfib-documents/researchreporten/rr3354.pdf

http://fairtaxcoalition.com/pdf/ConsumptionStudyReport.pdf


www.cfib.ca

19 19

Appendix 1

Methodology

The Municipal Spending Watch rankings are based on an equal weighting of growth in inflation-

adjusted operating spending per capita (2003 to 2013) and 2013 operating spending per capita18. In

order for the ranking system to be more intuitive, this year’s report changes the ranking system so

that the best performing municipality is given a rank of one. In previous editions of this report, the

worst ranked municipality was given a rank of one.

Capital expenditures, such as infrastructure building, are excluded from the report. This report only

looks at local government operating spending. Policing costs have been included in this year’s report

(see Appendix 2). An implication of this inclusion is that this year’s report is not comparable to

previous editions of the BC Municipal Spending Watch, since policing costs were excluded in previous

editions.

In total, 152 municipalities are covered in this report. Barriere, Canal Flats, Clearwater, Sun Peaks,

West Kelowna and Queen Charlotte were not included in this report since many of these

municipalities are newly incorporated and do not have data stretching back to 2003. Zeballos has

been excluded from this year’s report as the municipality has a very small population that has

decreased substantially since 2000. Lytton has also been excluded since, at the time this report was

written, the municipality had not yet submitted their 2012 financial records to the BC Ministry of

Community, Sport and Cultural Development for verification.

Municipalities are divided into the following geographic regions:


Vancouver Island

Thompson-Okanagan

Kootenay-Rockies & Cariboo-Chilcotin Coast


This report analyzes BC municipal spending statistics from 2003 to 2013, the most recent year

available. Unless otherwise stated, data on municipal revenues and expenditures have been obtained

from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. Figures and tables on municipal

spending represent CFIB calculations based on this data.

New to this report, the year 2003 is used as the base year for comparing operating spending. This

inevitably includes spending patterns during both economic upturns and economic downturns over

the past 10 years. Municipal operating spending is calculated using total municipal expenditures,

excluding capital spending. It is important to note that the rankings between this iteration of the

report and previous versions are not directly comparable. This is a result of CFIB’s methodology being

altered in this and subsequent reports to look at a rolling ten year period (i.e. 2003-2013, 2004-2014,

18A standardized index is created for each indicator (between 1 and 100). A municipality with the highest real

operating spending per capita growth is given a score of 1 while the municipality with the lowest 2003 – 2013 real operating spending per capita growth is given a score of 100. All other municipalities are given a proportionate score within that range. The same exercise is applied to the indicator for the 2013 operating spending per capita.


www.cfib.ca

20 20

etc) rather than in previous reports which used 2000 as the base year. Going forward, the comparison

of rankings will be more meaningful. While last year’s reports rankings are indicative of how the

municipalities compared in 2012 relative to spending in 2000, the length of the time period shifting

results in differences in the percentage change (which is a key part of how rankings are formed).

Municipal population growth rates and provincial inflation growth rates are calculated based on BC

Stats data from 2003 to 2013. The population figures have been updated from previous reports to

obtain more recent estimates. All municipalities have been allocated the provincial inflation rate with

the exception of those municipalities within the Greater Vancouver Region and the Capital Region, as

separate inflation values exist for these two regions. To evaluate the degree of sustainable spending

growth, CFIB considers population growth and inflation to be a reasonable benchmark for optimal

spending increases based on survey responses from small business owners in BC19.

Appendix 2

A Note on Policing Costs

Although excluded from past reports, policing costs started to be included in the 2014 report. The

reason for the previous exclusion is that most BC municipalities do not have an independent police

force but rather contract out to the RCMP. Due to this, municipalities have argued that they have little

control over their policing costs since the federal government, not the municipality, negotiates

policing wages. However, although municipalities that contract out to the RCMP may not have much

control over their contracts, they do have control over the number of police officers they hire20. CFIB

sees this as a credible reason to include policing costs in these calculations.

According to the BC Ministry of Justice, a municipality is responsible for its own police services once

it reaches a population of 5,00021. Before reaching a population of 5,000, municipalities are policed by

the provincial RCMP. The province pays for 70 per cent of the associated costs while the federal

government pays for the remaining 30 per cent. A portion (50 per cent) of the provincial component is

recovered through a municipal Police Tax.

Once a municipality has reached a population of 5,000, it has the choice of forming an independent

department, contracting with an existing department or contracting with the provincial government

for RCMP services. As of 2013, there are 75 BC municipalities that were given responsibility for

providing their own police services, 12 which have chosen to be policed by an independent force

(Vancouver, Victoria, Saanich, Central Saanich, Oak Bay, Delta, Abbotsford, New Westminster, West

Vancouver, Nelson and Port Moody; Esquimalt shares services with Victoria). These 12 municipalities

are responsible for 100 per cent of their policing costs and are governed by their own policing board.

Of the remaining 63 municipalities that are policed by the RCMP, those with a population of 5,000-

14,999 are responsible for 70 per cent of their policing costs. Municipalities with a population over

14,999 are responsible for 90 per cent. The federal government pays for the remaining portions.

19

Based on CFIB survey data. Armstrong, Matthew and Jones, Laura. British Columbia Municipal Spending Watch 20 Government of British Columbia. 2012. British Columbia Municipal Police Unit Agreement 21 Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Justice. 2014. Police Resources in British Columbia, 2013


www.cfib.ca

21 21

Appendix 3

2015 Overall Provincial Rank (1=Best, 152=Worst)

Municipality Overall

Provincial Rank

(1=Best, 152=worst)

Last Yr. Rank


Capita Growth (%)

2013 Operating

Spending per Capita ($)

Change in Municipal

Spending per Capita from

2012-2013 (%)

2003-2013 Real

Operating Spending Growth

(%)

2003-2013 Population Growth (%)

Coldstream 1 7 4 607 2 14 9 View Royal 2 90 -2 903 -10 25 27 Parksville 3 6 -2 1,053 -1 14 16 Cumberland 4 46 5 964 -1 38 31 Fruitvale 5 4 15 802 10 17 2 Lake Cowichan 6 1 8 995 5 16 8 Port McNeill 7 12 17 849 -5 7 -8 Highlands 8 34 18 835 7 44 22 Campbell River 9 18 4 1,196 -3 14 11 Metchosin 10 88 31 643 4 27 -4 Armstrong 11 2 26 789 3 42 13 Port Clements 12 40 -6 1,647 18 -29 -24 Kaslo 13 9 13 1,324 10 10 -2 Keremeos 14 64 31 1,024 -2 43 9 Qualicum Beach 15 3 25 1,165 7 51 21 Port Coquitlam 16 43 25 1,176 1 34 7 Lake Country 17 76 25 1,233 -2 62 30 Duncan 18 22 27 1,184 -1 28 0 Comox 19 16 34 1,064 5 58 18 100 Mile House 20 26 -4 1,863 5 0 3 Surrey 21 23 41 952 2 83 30 Pemberton 22 36 21 1,379 -2 60 32 Salmon Arm 23 32 31 1,189 4 45 11 Chilliwack 24 51 39 1,020 4 70 22 Oliver 25 31 36 1,069 -3 50 10 Port Moody 26 50 21 1,393 2 62 34 Burnaby 27 24 26 1,296 4 43 14 Ladysmith 28 28 32 1,168 -4 53 16 North Saanich 29 83 32 1,167 -5 35 2 Gibsons 30 13 25 1,318 7 41 13 White Rock 31 63 24 1,350 -1 29 4 Greenwood 32 54 15 1,533 -4 25 9 Port Alberni 33 30 13 1,610 3 9 -4 Coquitlam 34 73 31 1,243 -8 49 13 Courtenay 35 38 25 1,370 4 51 21 Richmond 36 44 25 1,382 2 40 13 Mission 37 33 34 1,200 -2 49 12 Prince Rupert 38 56 -12 2,148 0 -22 -12 Sechelt 39 103 34 1,195 -12 62 21 Chase 40 11 41 1,059 9 41 0 Port Hardy 41 35 22 1,471 -4 12 -8 North Cowichan 42 39 41 1,086 2 52 7 Saanich 43 42 36 1,205 4 37 1 Colwood 44 104 49 945 2 69 13 Vanderhoof 45 25 38 1,182 15 47 7 Midway 46 27 20 1,566 1 26 5 Maple Ridge 47 59 39 1,176 4 61 16 Langley City 48 37 35 1,259 6 44 7 Fort St. James 49 84 14 1,713 -3 19 4 Montrose 50 15 47 1,023 4 44 -2 Ashcroft 51 21 28 1,415 8 18 -8 Rossland 52 10 25 1,493 10 29 3 Quesnel 53 52 9 1,833 12 9 0 Kelowna 54 92 22 1,548 -4 42 16 Powell River 55 29 15 1,696 -6 17 2 Terrace 56 19 28 1,431 3 24 -4 Clinton 57 65 19 1,631 2 30 9 Nanaimo 58 49 33 1,339 -2 52 14

Anmore 59 20 51 966 11 107 37


www.cfib.ca

22 22

Municipality Overall Provincial

Rank (1=Best,

152=Worst)

Last Yr. Rank


Capita Growth (%)

2013 Operating


Change in Municipal


2012-2013 (%)

2003-2013 Real


(%)


Houston 60 47 25 1,518 7 19 -5

Squamish 61 69 21 1,604 9 53 26 Central Saanich 62 67 35 1,324 2 33 -1 Sidney 63 53 32 1,396 1 30 -2 Castlegar 64 45 26 1,523 1 43 13 Creston 65 17 31 1,432 16 58 6 Prince George 66 58 25 1,550 1 25 0 Bowen Island 67 55 31 1,441 2 38 6 Kent 68 87 37 1,305 4 58 15 Cache Creek 69 78 15 1,804 2 15 0 Spallumcheen 70 8 65 766 3 67 1 Enderby 71 14 51 1,108 -1 55 3 Vernon 72 82 47 1,191 -5 60 9 Fernie 73 60 4 2,092 9 5 1 Delta 74 66 27 1,615 3 28 1 North Vancouver City 75 93 27 1,630 2 42 11 Salmo 76 5 51 1,154 32 59 5 North Vancouver District 77 89 32 1,542 3 32 0 Nakusp 78 62 25 1,727 5 18 -6 New Westminster 79 68 18 1,888 3 37 17 New Hazelton 80 61 17 1,899 18 7 -9 Princeton 81 48 46 1,297 4 50 2 Kamloops 82 72 37 1,560 2 49 9 Smithers 83 70 24 1,852 7 21 -3 Cranbrook 84 81 39 1,527 1 34 6 Mackenzie 85 106 16 2,055 3 -19 -30 Port Alice 86 97 11 2,155 7 -9 -18 Vancouver 87 86 29 1,782 0 41 9 Chetwynd 88 116 18 2,024 -2 30 10 Peachland 89 74 51 1,386 2 61 7 Warfield 90 41 60 1,211 14 56 -3 Telkwa 91 138 55 1,386 -26 54 -1 Kimberley 92 128 18 2,201 -2 23 4 Victoria 93 105 28 1,983 1 36 6 Williams Lake 94 99 32 1,916 4 29 -2 Trail 95 71 25 2,061 13 24 -1 Gold River 96 80 26 2,076 4 20 -5 Abbotsford 97 94 67 1,255 -1 84 11 Elkford 98 96 31 2,022 -5 30 -1 Esquimalt 99 95 51 1,621 5 44 -4 Logan Lake 100 77 48 1,694 8 36 -8 Lions Bay 101 135 62 1,413 5 51 -7 Pitt Meadows 102 112 69 1,259 -1 106 21 Osoyoos 103 102 65 1,367 -1 79 9 Oak Bay 104 75 51 1,711 8 47 -3 Lumby 105 121 79 1,139 -5 91 7 Langley District Mun. 106 91 71 1,326 6 108 22 Fort St. John 107 109 52 1,807 -1 88 24 Sooke 108 147 106 725 -4 173 33 Penticton 109 119 34 2,267 2 43 6 Grand Forks 110 110 35 2,256 5 36 0 Burns Lake 111 114 68 1,611 -7 68 0 Sparwood 112 108 40 2,220 7 42 2 Dawson Creek 113 123 24 2,553 1 42 15 Merritt 114 79 72 1,590 6 74 1 Summerland 115 118 52 2,045 7 55 2 Harrison Hot Springs 116 85 62 1,875 11 67 3 Kitimat 117 136 33 2,489 -6 10 -17 West Vancouver 118 117 48 2,195 5 42 0 Nelson 119 120 12 2,954 3 24 11 Tofino 120 129 56 2,063 -7 102 29


www.cfib.ca

23 23


Rank (1=Best,

152=Worst)

Last Yr. Rank


Capita Growth (%)

2013 Operating


Change in Municipal


2012-2013 (%)

2003-2013 Real


(%)


Radium Hot Springs 121 127 34 2,548 -8 68 26 Taylor 122 101 -7 3,399 6 12 20 Sicamous 123 141 82 1,601 -15 67 -8 Valemount 124 145 57 2,187 -26 52 -3 Fraser Lake 125 111 65 2,054 11 64 -1 Ucluelet 126 139 37 2,686 0 53 12 Langford 127 113 100 1,400 46 213 57 Golden 128 137 86 1,773 -2 72 -7 Invermere 129 115 80 1,946 5 84 2 Tumbler Ridge 130 57 50 2,585 -7 83 22 Slocan 131 124 70 2,155 14 52 -11 New Denver 132 130 97 1,604 0 86 -6 Hazelton 133 107 52 2,665 20 31 -13 Hope 134 98 91 1,956 33 77 -7 Revelstoke 135 133 77 2,261 -1 72 -3 Lillooet 136 134 103 1,748 2 87 -8 Tahsis 137 143 2 3,915 -5 -34 -35 McBride 138 126 81 2,480 16 56 -14 Pouce Coupe 139 122 92 2,290 23 83 -5 Wells 140 146 41 3,352 -9 43 1 Alert Bay 141 132 65 3,005 7 33 -19 Port Edward 142 100 30 3,857 72 14 -12 Granisle 143 142 55 3,421 1 33 -14 Silverton 144 148 80 2,903 -17 65 -8 Masset 145 144 42 3,907 2 32 -7 Sayward 146 131 97 2,856 6 66 -16 Belcarra 147 125 158 1,834 25 129 -11 Hudson's Hope 148 140 81 3,804 18 87 3 Lantzville 149 N/A* 244 573 8 245 1 Northern Rockies 150 149 130 3,645 5 191 26 Whistler 151 150 35 5,898 8 38 3 Stewart 152 151 116 5,018 -13 51 -30

*Lantzville is being ranked for the first time; previous reports did not rank Lantzville owing to the fact that its data only stretched back to 2003


www.cfib.ca

24 24

Appendix 4

Overall Provincial Rank, in Alphabetical Order (1=Best, 152=Worst)

Municipality Overall

Provincial Rank

(1=Best, 152=Worst)

Last Yr. Rank


Capita Growth (%)

2013 Operating


Change in Municipal


2012-2013 (%)

2003-2013 Real

Operating Spending

Growth (%)

2003-2013 Population

Growth (%)

100 Mile House 20 26 -4 1,863 5 0 3 Abbotsford 97 94 67 1,255 -1 84 11 Alert Bay 141 132 65 3,005 7 33 -19 Anmore 59 20 51 966 11 107 37 Armstrong 11 2 26 789 3 42 13 Ashcroft 51 21 28 1,415 8 18 -8 Belcarra 147 125 158 1,834 25 129 -11 Bowen Island 67 55 31 1,441 2 38 6 Burnaby 27 24 26 1,296 4 43 14 Burns Lake 111 114 68 1,611 -7 68 0 Cache Creek 69 78 15 1,804 2 15 0 Campbell River 9 18 4 1,196 -3 14 11 Castlegar 64 45 26 1,523 1 43 13 Central Saanich 62 67 35 1,324 2 33 -1 Chase 40 11 41 1,059 9 41 0 Chetwynd 88 116 18 2,024 -2 30 10 Chilliwack 24 51 39 1,020 4 70 22 Clinton 57 65 19 1,631 2 30 9 Coldstream 1 7 4 607 2 14 9 Colwood 44 104 49 945 2 69 13 Comox 19 16 34 1,064 5 58 18 Coquitlam 34 73 31 1,243 -8 49 13 Courtenay 35 38 25 1,370 4 51 21 Cranbrook 84 81 39 1,527 1 34 6 Creston 65 17 31 1,432 16 58 6 Cumberland 4 46 5 964 -1 38 31 Dawson Creek 113 123 24 2,553 1 42 15 Delta 74 66 27 1,615 3 28 1 Duncan 18 22 27 1,184 -1 28 0 Elkford 98 96 31 2,022 -5 30 -1 Enderby 71 14 51 1,108 -1 55 3 Esquimalt 99 95 51 1,621 5 44 -4 Fernie 73 60 4 2,092 9 5 1 Fort St. James 49 84 14 1,713 -3 19 4 Fort St. John 107 109 52 1,807 -1 88 24 Fraser Lake 125 111 65 2,054 11 64 -1 Fruitvale 5 4 15 802 10 17 2 Gibsons 30 13 25 1,318 7 41 13 Gold River 96 80 26 2,076 4 20 -5 Golden 128 137 86 1,773 -2 72 -7 Grand Forks 110 110 35 2,256 5 36 0 Granisle 143 142 55 3,421 1 33 -14 Greenwood 32 54 15 1,533 -4 25 9 Harrison Hot Springs 116 85 62 1,875 11 67 3 Hazelton 133 107 52 2,665 20 31 -13 Highlands 8 34 18 835 7 44 22 Hope 134 98 91 1,956 33 77 -7 Houston 60 47 25 1,518 7 19 -5 Hudson's Hope 148 140 81 3,804 18 87 3 Invermere 129 115 80 1,946 5 84 2 Kamloops 82 72 37 1,560 2 49 9 Kaslo 13 9 13 1,324 10 10 -2 Kelowna 54 92 22 1,548 -4 42 16 Kent 68 87 37 1,305 4 58 15 Keremeos 14 64 31 1,024 -2 43 9 Kimberley 92 128 18 2,201 -2 23 4 Kitimat 117 136 33 2,489 -6 10 -17


www.cfib.ca

25 25


Rank (1=Best,

152=Worst)

Last Yr. Rank


Capita Growth (%)

2013 Operating


Change in Municipal


2012-2013 (%)

2003-2013 Real

Operating Spending

Growth (%)


Growth (%)

Ladysmith 28 28 32 1,168 -4 53 16 Lake Country 17 76 25 1,233 -2 62 30 Lake Cowichan 6 1 8 995 5 16 8 Langford 127 113 100 1,400 46 213 57 Langley City 48 37 35 1,259 6 44 7 Langley District Mun. 106 91 71 1,326 6 108 22 Lantzville 149 NA* 244 573 8 245 1 Lillooet 136 134 103 1,748 2 87 -8 Lions Bay 101 135 62 1,413 5 51 -7 Logan Lake 100 77 48 1,694 8 36 -8 Lumby 105 121 79 1,139 -5 91 7 Mackenzie 85 106 16 2,055 3 -19 -30 Maple Ridge 47 59 39 1,176 4 61 16 Masset 145 144 42 3,907 2 32 -7 McBride 138 126 81 2,480 16 56 -14 Merritt 114 79 72 1,590 6 74 1 Metchosin 10 88 31 643 4 27 -4 Midway 46 27 20 1,566 1 26 5 Mission 37 33 34 1,200 -2 49 12 Montrose 50 15 47 1,023 4 44 -2 Nakusp 78 62 25 1,727 5 18 -6 Nanaimo 58 49 33 1,339 -2 52 14 Nelson 119 120 12 2,954 3 24 11 New Denver 132 130 97 1,604 0 86 -6 New Hazelton 80 61 17 1,899 18 7 -9 New Westminster 79 68 18 1,888 3 37 17 North Cowichan 42 39 41 1,086 2 52 7 North Saanich 29 83 32 1,167 -5 35 2 North Vancouver City 75 93 27 1,630 2 42 11 North Vancouver District 77 89 32 1,542 3 32 0 Northern Rockies 150 149 130 3,645 5 191 26 Oak Bay 104 75 51 1,711 8 47 -3 Oliver 25 31 36 1,069 -3 50 10 Osoyoos 103 102 65 1,367 -1 79 9 Parksville 3 6 -2 1,053 -1 14 16 Peachland 89 74 51 1,386 2 61 7 Pemberton 22 36 21 1,379 -2 60 32 Penticton 109 119 34 2,267 2 43 6 Pitt Meadows 102 112 69 1,259 -1 106 21 Port Alberni 33 30 13 1,610 3 9 -4 Port Alice 86 97 11 2,155 7 -9 -18 Port Clements 12 40 -6 1,647 18 -29 -24 Port Coquitlam 16 43 25 1,176 1 34 7 Port Edward 142 100 30 3,857 72 14 -12 Port Hardy 41 35 22 1,471 -4 12 -8 Port McNeill 7 12 17 849 -5 7 -8 Port Moody 26 50 21 1,393 2 62 34 Pouce Coupe 139 122 92 2,290 23 83 -5 Powell River 55 29 15 1,696 -6 17 2 Prince George 66 58 25 1,550 1 25 0 Prince Rupert 38 56 -12 2,148 0 -22 -12 Princeton 81 48 46 1,297 4 50 2 Qualicum Beach 15 3 25 1,165 7 51 21 Quesnel 53 52 9 1,833 12 9 0 Radium Hot Springs 121 127 34 2,548 -8 68 26 Revelstoke 135 133 77 2,261 -1 72 -3 Richmond 36 44 25 1,382 2 40 13 Rossland 52 10 25 1,493 10 29 3 Saanich 43 42 36 1,205 4 37 1 Salmo 76 5 51 1,154 32 59 5 Salmon Arm 23 32 31 1,189 4 45 11 *Lantzville is being ranked for the first time; previous reports did not rank Lantzville owing to the fact that its data only stretched back to 2003


www.cfib.ca

26 26


Rank (1=Best,

152=Worst)

Last Yr. Rank


Capita Growth (%)

2013 Operating


Change in Municipal


2012-2013 (%)

2003-2013 Real

Operating Spending

Growth (%)


Growth (%)

Sayward 146 131 97 2,856 6 66 -16 Sechelt 39 103 34 1,195 -12 62 21 Sicamous 123 141 82 1,601 -15 67 -8 Sidney 63 53 32 1,396 1 30 -2 Silverton 144 148 80 2,903 -17 65 -8 Slocan 131 124 70 2,155 14 52 -11 Smithers 83 70 24 1,852 7 21 -3 Sooke 108 147 106 725 -4 173 33 Spallumcheen 70 8 65 766 3 67 1 Sparwood 112 108 40 2,220 7 42 2 Squamish 61 69 21 1,604 9 53 26 Stewart 152 151 116 5,018 -13 51 -30 Summerland 115 118 52 2,045 7 55 2 Surrey 21 23 41 952 2 83 30 Tahsis 137 143 2 3,915 -5 -34 -35 Taylor 122 101 -7 3,399 6 12 20 Telkwa 91 138 55 1,386 -26 54 -1 Terrace 56 19 28 1,431 3 24 -4 Tofino 120 129 56 2,063 -7 102 29 Trail 95 71 25 2,061 13 24 -1 Tumbler Ridge 130 57 50 2,585 -7 83 22 Ucluelet 126 139 37 2,686 0 53 12 Valemount 124 145 57 2,187 -26 52 -3 Vancouver 87 86 29 1,782 0 41 9 Vanderhoof 45 25 38 1,182 15 47 7 Vernon 72 82 47 1,191 -5 60 9 Victoria 93 105 28 1,983 1 36 6 View Royal 2 90 -2 903 -10 25 27 Warfield 90 41 60 1,211 14 56 -3 Wells 140 146 41 3,352 -9 43 1 West Vancouver 118 117 48 2,195 5 42 0 Whistler 151 150 35 5,898 8 38 3 White Rock 31 63 24 1,350 -1 29 4 Williams Lake 94 99 32 1,916 4 29 -2