Description
Municipal services or city services refer to basic services that residents of a city expect the city government to provide in exchange for the taxes which citizens pay.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project
City of Saskatoon
Garman, Weimer & Associates Ltd.
2009
City of Saskatoon Municipal Services Benchmark Project
Report Highlights
Purpose of the Project
The objective of the project was to identify and quantify the factors contributing to different property tax rates between Saskatoon and the cities of Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary.
What Internal Audit Found
Of the five cities included in this study, the City of Saskatoon relied the least on taxation to fund its 2009 operating budget. The Cities of Regina ($6.7 million), Winnipeg ($7.9 million) and Edmonton ($12.7 million) budgeted withdrawals from their fiscal stabilization reserves in 2009; the City of Calgary budgeted a contribution to its fiscal stabilization reserve ($60.8 million). The City of Saskatoon budgeted for breakeven operations. The City of Saskatoon budgeted for the second lowest property tax revenue per capita. Average assessed property value in Saskatoon is higher than Regina and Winnipeg, but significantly lower than Edmonton and Calgary. The City of Saskatoon’s budgeted contributions to reserves (as a percentage of total operating expenditures) are the highest of the five cities. However, Saskatoon’s budgeted withdrawals from reserves (as a percentage of total operating revenue) are the lowest. The City of Saskatoon has the third highest tax-supported debt levels per capita and the lowest utility-supported debt levels per capita. Regarding Police Services, the City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per capita and number of police officers per 100,000 population are comparable to the other cities. Regarding Fire & Protective Services, the City of Saskatoon’s operations are comparable to the other cities on a per capita basis. The City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per lane kilometre for summer road maintenance is the lowest of the five cities examined. Regarding winter road maintenance, the City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per capita and general source funding per lane kilometre is comparable to Regina and Calgary, but lower than Winnipeg and Edmonton. Regarding Transit Services, the City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per capita and ridership per hour of service is the highest of those transit systems that do not operate light rail transit. General source funding per rider and per hour of service are comparable to the
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
other cities with the exception of Winnipeg which receives significant provincial grant funding for its transit system. The City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per capita is similar to Winnipeg and Calgary for solid waste collection. Tonnes collected per 1,000 population is comparable to Regina; Winnipeg has a significant commercial waste collection program. Regarding Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management, the City of Saskatoon’s budgeted general source funding per capita is among the lowest of the five cities, but budgeted general source funding per acre is the second highest. The City of Saskatoon budgeted the second highest general source funding per capita for its indoor and outdoor leisure centres. However, Saskatoon’s facilities are also the most utilized as measured by admissions and registrations per 1,000 population. The City of Saskatoon budgeted the second highest general source funding per capita for its libraries. However, Saskatoon’s libraries are also the most utilized as measured by number of items circulated per capita.
Acknowledgements
Garman, Weimer & Associates Ltd. wishes to extend special thanks to the staff of the Cities of Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary for accommodating our requests for information.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Key items ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Where does each City’s money come from? ........................................................................ 2
Budgeted Operating Revenue for 2009 .................................................................................................... 3 Taxation..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Grants in Lieu of Taxes .............................................................................................................................. 7 Utilities/Special Operating Agencies ......................................................................................................... 7 Self Generated Revenue ........................................................................................................................... 9 Government Grants/Support .................................................................................................................. 10 Reserve Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Other Revenue ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 3 Where does each City’s money go? .................................................................................... 12
Budgeted Operating Expenditures for 2009 ........................................................................................... 13 General Government Services ................................................................................................................ 13 Protection of Persons & Property ........................................................................................................... 14 Transportation ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Environmental Health ............................................................................................................................. 15 Societal Services ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Planning & Development ........................................................................................................................ 15 Recreation & Cultural Services................................................................................................................ 16 Debt Servicing and Debt Levels............................................................................................................... 17 Reserve Contributions and Balances ...................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 4 Which programs in each City need General Source funding to operate? .......................... 18
General Source Funded Programs .......................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 5 Where does that additional General Source funding come from? ..................................... 20
General Source Funding Sources ............................................................................................................ 21 Chapter 6 A closer look at certain programs in each City.................................................................... 22
Police Services ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Fire Services ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Summer Road Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 24 Winter Road Maintenance ...................................................................................................................... 26 Transit ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Solid Waste Collection ............................................................................................................................ 29 Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management ........................................................................................ 30 Leisure Centres ....................................................................................................................................... 32 Libraries................................................................................................................................................... 33
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: 2009 Budgeted Operating Revenue ................................................................................................ 3 Table 2: 2009 Taxation Revenue Sources..................................................................................................... 3 Table 3: 2009 Property Tax Factors .............................................................................................................. 5 Table 4: 2009 Effective Property Taxes per $100,000 Assessed Value – Municipal and Library ............... 5 Table 5: 2009 Assessed Value – Total, Per Capita and Average .................................................................. 6 Table 6: 2009 Business Tax Factors ............................................................................................................. 6 Table 7: 2009 Grants in Lieu of Taxes ......................................................................................................... 7 Table 8: 2009 Utility/Special Operating Agency Revenue ........................................................................... 8 Table 9: 2009 Self Generated Revenue......................................................................................................... 9 Table 10: 2009 Government Grants/Support .............................................................................................. 10 Table 11: 2009 Reserve Funding ................................................................................................................ 10 Table 12: 2009 Other Revenue ................................................................................................................... 11 Table 13: 2009 Budgeted Operating Expenditures ..................................................................................... 13 Table 14: 2009 General Government Services ........................................................................................... 13 Table 15: 2009 Protection of Persons & Property ...................................................................................... 14 Table 16: 2009 Transportation .................................................................................................................... 14 Table 17: 2009 Environmental Health ........................................................................................................ 15 Table 18: 2009 Societal Services ................................................................................................................ 15 Table 19: 2009 Planning & Development................................................................................................... 16 Table 20: 2009 Recreation & Cultural Services ......................................................................................... 16 Table 21: 2009 Debt Servicing and Debt Balances .................................................................................... 17 Table 22: 2009 Reserve Contributions and Balances ................................................................................. 17 Table 23: 2009 General Source Funding for Program Areas ...................................................................... 19 Table 24: 2009 General Source Funding Sources ....................................................................................... 21
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Figure 1: City of Saskatoon 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources..................................................................... 2 Figure 2: City of Regina 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources .......................................................................... 2 Figure 3: City of Winnipeg 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources ..................................................................... 2 Figure 4: City of Edmonton 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources .................................................................... 2 Figure 5: City of Calgary 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources ........................................................................ 2 Figure 6: City of Saskatoon 2009 Budgeted Expenditures ......................................................................... 12 Figure 7: City of Regina 2009 Budgeted Expenditures .............................................................................. 12 Figure 8: City of Winnipeg 2009 Budgeted Expenditures .......................................................................... 12 Figure 9: City of Edmonton 2009 Budgeted Expenditures ......................................................................... 12 Figure 10: City of Calgary 2009 Budgeted Expenditures ........................................................................... 12 Figure 11: City of Saskatoon 2009 General Source Funded Programs....................................................... 18 Figure 12: City of Regina 2009 General Source Funded Programs ............................................................ 18 Figure 13: City of Winnipeg 2009 General Source Funded Programs ....................................................... 18 Figure 14: City of Edmonton 2009 General Source Funded Programs ...................................................... 18 Figure 15: City of Calgary 2009 General Source Funded Programs .......................................................... 18 Figure 16: City of Saskatoon 2009 General Source Funding ..................................................................... 20 Figure 17: City of Regina 2009 General Source Funding........................................................................... 20 Figure 18: City of Winnipeg 2009 General Source Funding ...................................................................... 20 Figure 19: City of Edmonton 2009 General Source Funding ..................................................................... 20 Figure 20: City of Calgary 2009 General Source Funding ......................................................................... 20 Figure 21: Police Services - General Source Funding Required................................................................. 22 Figure 22: Police Services - General Source Funding Required per Capita ............................................... 22 Figure 23: Police Services – Number of Police Officers ............................................................................ 23 Figure 24: Police Services – Police Officers per 100,000 Population ........................................................ 23 Figure 25: Police Services – Dispatched Calls for Service per 1,000 Population (2008) ........................... 23 Figure 26: Police Services – Statistics Canada Crime Severity Index (2008) ............................................ 23 Figure 27: Fire Services - General Source Funding Required .................................................................... 24 Figure 28: Fire Services - General Source Funding Required per Capita ................................................... 24 Figure 29: Fire Services – Full Time Equivalents ...................................................................................... 24 Figure 30: Fire Services – Full Time Equivalents per 100,000 Population ................................................ 24 Figure 31: Fire Services – Population Served per Fire Hall/Station ........................................................... 24 Figure 32: Fire Services – Dispatches per 1,000 Population ...................................................................... 24 Figure 33: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required ............................................ 25 Figure 34: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required per Capita .......................... 25 Figure 35: Summer Road Maintenance – Lane Kilometers of Roadway ................................................... 25 Figure 36: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding per Lane Kilometer ........................... 25 Figure 37: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required .............................................. 27 Figure 38: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required per Capita ............................. 27 Figure 39: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding per Lane Kilometer of Roadway ......... 27 Figure 40: Winter Road Maintenance –Average Annual Snowfall (cm) .................................................... 27 Figure 41: Transit – General Source Funding Required ............................................................................. 28 Figure 42: Transit – General Source Funding Required per Capita ............................................................ 28 Figure 43: Transit –Budgeted Annual Ridership ........................................................................................ 28 Figure 44: Transit – General Source Funding per Budgeted Ridership ...................................................... 28
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Figure 45: Transit –Budgeted Annual Hours of Service ............................................................................. 28 Figure 46: Transit – General Source Funding per Budgeted Hour of Service ............................................ 28 Figure 47: Transit –Budgeted Ridership per Budgeted Hour of Service .................................................... 29 Figure 48: Transit – Statistics Canada Mode Share .................................................................................... 29 Figure 49: Solid Waste Collection – General Source Funding Required ................................................... 30 Figure 50: Solid Waste Collection – General Source Funding Required per Capita .................................. 30 Figure 51: Solid Waste Collection – Waste Collection 2008 (tonnes) ....................................................... 30 Figure 52: Solid Waste Collection –Waste Collected (2008) per 1,000 Population ................................... 30 Figure 53: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management - General Source Funding Required .................. 31 Figure 54: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management - General Source Funding Required per Capita 31 Figure 55: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management –Acres Maintained ............................................ 31 Figure 56: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management – General Source Funding per Acre .................. 31 Figure 57: Leisure Centres - General Source Funding Required ................................................................ 32 Figure 58: Leisure Centres - General Source Funding Required per Capita .............................................. 32 Figure 59: Leisure Centres – Admissions and Registrations (2008)........................................................... 33 Figure 60: Leisure Centres – Admissions and Registrations (2008) per 1,000 Population ........................ 33 Figure 61: Libraries - General Source Funding Required ........................................................................... 33 Figure 62: Libraries - General Source Funding Required per Capita ......................................................... 33 Figure 63: Libraries – Number of Items Circulated (2008) ........................................................................ 34 Figure 64: Libraries – Number of Items Circulated (2008) per Capita ....................................................... 34
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Chapter 1 Introduction
Background
In October 2008, the City of Saskatoon received a multi-city benchmarking report that identified and quantified the factors contributing to different property tax rates between Saskatoon and four other cities (i.e., Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary). The report was well received and a decision was made to update the report annually. In September 2009, Garman, Weimer & Associates Ltd. was engaged to conduct the 2009 update.
Key items
Population figures are according to the most recent information available. o Saskatoon: 209,400 (City Planning Branch, December 31, 2008 Census Estimate) o Regina: 179,246 (2006 census1) o Winnipeg: 666,600 (Office of the CFO, July 1st 2008 Estimated Population) o Edmonton: 752,412 (Municipal Census, April 2008) o Calgary: 1,042,892 (Municipal Census, April 2008) Approved operating budget figures have, in some cases, been reallocated among or between program areas and/or line items in order to ensure “like programs” are being compared. These figures may not specifically match those presented in the operating budgets approved by each city’s City Council. Citizen survey results are taken from the latest available survey reports. o Saskatoon: 2008 Civic Services Survey (November 2008) o Regina: 2008 Omnibus Survey (August 2008) o Winnipeg: Business Plans by Service 2008-2010 (December 2007) o Edmonton: 2008 Citizen Budget Survey (July 2008) o Calgary: 2008 Citizen Satisfaction Survey (October 2008) Certain figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and/or percentage point.
1
More recent information for the City of Regina is not available. For comparison, the City of Saskatoon’s estimated population has increased 3.5% sin ce the 2006 census.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 1
Chapter 2 Where does each City’s money come from?
Figure 1: City of Saskatoon 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Government Support/Grants 12.4% Self Generated Revenue 14.0% Taxation 46.0% Reserves 1.5% Other Revenue 2.9%
Figure 2: City of Regina 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Government Support/Grants 12.2% Reserves 2.5% Other Revenue 1.6%
Self Generated Revenue 15.1%
Taxation 49.0%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 21.6%
Grants in Lieu 1.6%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 16.1%
Grants in Lieu 3.5%
Figure 3: City of Winnipeg 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Government Support/Grants 13.2% Self Generated Revenue 13.5% Reserves 1.9% Other Revenue 1.9%
Figure 4: City of Edmonton 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Government Support/Grants 6.7% Self Generated Revenue 18.7% Reserves Other Revenue 1.6% 2.3%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 7.2% Grants in Lieu 3.9%
Taxation 58.4%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 18.5%
Taxation 50.9% Grants in Lieu 1.3%
Figure 5: City of Calgary 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Reserves Government 3.0% Support/Grants 3.1% Self Generated Revenue 22.6% Other Revenue 2.2%
Taxation 51.3%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 17.4%
Grants in Lieu 0.4%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 2
Budgeted Operating Revenue for 2009
Provincial legislation requires municipalities to budget enough operating revenue to balance their annual operating budget. In 2009, the city that had to generate the most revenue per capita to fund its activities was the City of Edmonton; the city that had to generate the least revenue per capita was the City of Winnipeg. Of note, the City of Calgary budgeted for a contribution to their fiscal stabilization reserve (i.e., an excess of revenues over expenditures) of approximately $60.8 million in 2009, whereas the Cities of Regina ($6.7 million), Winnipeg ($7.9 million) and Edmonton ($12.7 million) budgeted for a withdrawal from their fiscal stabilization reserve. Saskatoon did not budget for a contribution to, or withdrawal from, the fiscal stabilization reserve.
Table 1: 2009 Budgeted Operating Revenue
Saskatoon (in thousands) Taxation Grants in Lieu of Taxes Utilities/Special Operating Agencies Self-Generated Revenue Government Support/Grants Reserves Other Revenue $ $135,990.6 4,680.0 63,468.5 41,169.4 36,445.7 4,321.0 8,419.4 $294,494.6 Per Capita $1,406 % 46.0% 1.6% 21.6% 14.0% 12.4% 1.5% 2.9% 100.0% $ $136,145.0 9,690.9 44,785.1 41,936.5 33,811.1 6,929.3 4,562.7 $277,860.6 $1,550 Regina % 49.0% 3.5% 16.1% 15.1% 12.2% 2.5% 1.6% 100.0% $ $466,511.0 31,182.0 57,574.0 107,484.0 105,757.0 14,879.0 15,502.0 $798,889.0 $1,198 Winnipeg % 58.4% 3.9% 7.2% 13.5% 13.2% 1.9% 1.9% 100.0% $ $798,982.0 20,494.0 290,850.0 294,733.0 105,775.0 25,319.0 36,733.0 $1,572,886.0 $2,090 Edmonton % 50.9% 1.3% 18.5% 18.7% 6.7% 1.6% 2.3% 100.0% $ $1,068,200.0 8,784.0 362,885.0 471,998.4 65,027.0 62,583.0 45,836.0 $2,085,313.4 $2,000 Calgary % 51.3% 0.4% 17.4% 22.6% 3.1% 3.0% 2.2% 100.0%
Taxation
The largest component of taxation revenue in each city is property taxes, generally followed by business taxes for those cities that levy such a tax.
Table 2: 2009 Taxation Revenue Sources
Saskatoon (in thousands) Property Taxes (municipal and library) Business Taxes Special Taxes
1
Regina $ $132,260.4 3,284.6 600.0 $136,145.0 Per capita $737.87 18.32 3.35 $759.54 $
Winnipeg Per capita $574.39 84.76 29.65 2.33 8.51 0.19 $699.83 $
Edmonton Per capita $988.60 80.91 11.10 (18.71) $1,061.90 $
Calgary Per capita $839.91 174.85 9.50 $1,024.26
$ $136,174.4 44.1 (227.9) $135,990.6
Per capita $650.31 0.21 (1.09) $649.43
$382,887.0 56,504.0 19,762.0 1,554.0 5,675.0 129.0 $466,511.0
$743,834.0 60,874.0 8,354.0 (14,080.0) $798,982.0
$875,938.0 182,352.0 9,910.0 $1,068,200.0
Local Improvement Levy 2 Amusement/Entertainment Taxes Other Taxes (net) 3
1
The City of Regina levies a special tax against all properties that abut an alley. The tax funds the maintenance and reconstruction of alleys. The assessable rates for 2009 are $2.64/ft for paved and upgraded alleys and $1.66/ft for gravel alleys. The City of Winnipeg reallocated to the operating budget a portion of the frontage levy previously recorded in the Water and Sewer Utility. 2 Local Improvement Levies are collected from property owners adjacent to local improvements. Property owners can pay for the full cost of their share of the work when the work is completed or over time through local improvement levies. The Cities of Saskatoon and Regina record these amounts as revenue in their capital budgets. 3 The City of Edmonton issued rebates to help homeowners offset the increase in garbage fees that commenced January 1, 2009 as a result of the establishment of the Waste Management Utility.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 3
Property Taxes Property taxes are determined by applying the following formula to each taxable property in the city:
Taxable Assessment x Mill Rate x Mill Rate Factor
The taxable assessment for an individual property is determined in accordance with Provincial legislation. In Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, a market value assessment system is in place. In Alberta, legislation requires municipalities to update property assessments every year; in Manitoba assessments have been updated every four years, but commencing in 2010 assessments will be updated every two years. In Saskatchewan, property assessments are updated every four years. The taxable assessment is then multiplied by a percentage determined by each Province. For 2009, the Provincial percentages for the most common classes or property in each city are as follows: Saskatchewan – Saskatoon and Regina o 70% for residential, condominium and multi-unit residential property. o 40% for non-arable land. o 55% for other agricultural property. o 75% for elevators, rail right-of-ways and pipelines. o 100% for all other commercial and industrial property. Manitoba – Winnipeg o 45% for residential. o 26% for farm property. o 65% for institutional, legislative buildings and other property. o 50% for pipelines. o 25% for railways. o 10% for designated recreational properties (e.g., golf courses). o 0% for designated higher education property. Alberta – in Edmonton and Calgary, 100% of the taxable assessment is subject to taxation. The mill rate is applied to the taxable assessment to determine the total property tax revenue that will be generated. In Saskatoon and Regina, a separate mill rate is set for libraries. A mill rate factor may then be applied to redistribute property tax revenues between different property classes. In Edmonton and Calgary, rather than utilizing mill rate factors, different mill rates are set for different classes of property.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 4
The 2009 mill rates and mill rate factors, if applicable, are as follows:
Table 3: 2009 Property Tax Factors
Saskatoon Regina Mill Rate Municipal 10.66 13.442 25.448 Single family residential and farmland 3.9587 Other residential 4.5525 Non-residential 10.4512 Library 1.21 1.4967 Included above Mill Rate Factors Residential and Condominiums Multi-Unit Residential Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural Privately-Owned Light Aircraft Hangar Golf Courses 0.9329 1.0394 1.1782 0.6530 0.89783 0.9339 1.22945 0.92187 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Included above Included above Residential 2.6402 Farm land 12.1327 Non-residential 8.2132 Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Often, property taxes are expressed in terms of effective taxes for a property valued at $100,000 for each class of property. In the following table, effective property taxes are presented for five common property classes.
Table 4: 2009 Effective Property Taxes per $100,000 Assessed Value – Municipal and Library
Saskatoon Residential Condominiums Multi-Unit Residential Commercial and Industrial Agricultural $775 $775 $864 $1,399 $769 Regina $939 $939 $977 $1,837 $1,010 Winnipeg $1,145 $1,145 $1,145 $1,654 $662 Edmonton $396 $455 $455 $1,045 $396 Calgary $264 $264 $264 $821 $1,213
Based on the table above, one might conclude that property owners in Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg are more heavily taxed than Edmonton and Calgary. However, it is also important to take into account the assessed value of property subject to taxation in each city. Cities with a larger assessment roll (i.e., property tax base) may be able to adopt lower mill rates in order to generate the required level of property tax revenue.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 5
Table 5: 2009 Assessed Value – Total, Per Capita and Average
Saskatoon Preliminary Assessment Roll Preliminary Assessment Roll per Capita $11,674,398,500 $55,752 Regina $9,694,098,000 $54,083 Winnipeg $15,947,201,000 $23,923 Edmonton $135,912,908,600 $180,636 Calgary $224,285,108,700 $215,061
Average Assessment per Property Class Residential Condominiums Multi-Unit Residential Non-Residential, Commercial and Industrial $120,600 $92,350 $828,500 $1,027,300 $99,100 $85,100 $723,700 $982,200 $52,100 $50,200 $260,800 $571,800 $338,200 n/a $1,996,100 $2,363,200 $427,500 $278,500 n/a $4,416,100
Business Taxes Business taxes are levied in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary. For these cities, business taxes can represent a significant proportion of total taxation revenue – 12% in Winnipeg, 8% in Edmonton and 17% in Calgary. In May 2007, Edmonton’s City Council approved the elimination of business taxes over a fouryear period 2008-2011.
Table 6: 2009 Business Tax Factors
Winnipeg Business Tax Rate Basis of Tax 7.75% Area x Annual rental value (estimated net rent + costs to occupy premises) Number of Businesses Subject to Tax 12,700 approx. Edmonton 4.282% Area x net annual rental rate (annual rental value excluding operating and occupancy costs) 19,000 approx. Calgary 6.54% Area x net annual rental rate (annual rental value excluding operating costs) 25,100 approx.
Amusement/Entertainment Taxes The City of Saskatoon levies an amusement tax on the entrance/admission fee to the annual Saskatoon Prairieland Exhibition. The tax is 9% of the entrance/admission fee, with 5% of that amount retained by the Saskatoon Prairieland Exhibition Corporation as a commission. The City of Regina levies an amusement tax on commercial movie theatres. The tax is 10% of ticket sales, with 1/10th of that amount retained by the theatre as a commission. The City of Winnipeg levies an entertainment tax on certain venues hosting a performance with a ticket price of at least $5.00 (i.e., entertainment facilities with fixed seating capacity of at least 5,000 and for-profit cinemas of all sizes). The tax is 10% of the admission price and funds are allocated to a reserve to support arts and culture in Winnipeg.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009 Page 6
Grants in Lieu of Taxes
Grants in lieu of taxes are typically grant payments to municipalities from senior levels of government. Although senior government is exempt from taxes levied by local taxing authorities, it does make grant payments for government owned/managed properties. In the City of Saskatoon, a grant in lieu is also paid by the Land Bank ($250.0); in the City of Winnipeg, Golf Courses ($233.0) and Civic Accommodations ($125.0) also pay a grant in lieu.
Table 7: 2009 Grants in Lieu of Taxes
Saskatoon (in thousands) $ $4,430.0 250.0 $4,680.0 Per capita $21.16 1.19 $22.35 $ $9,690.9 $9,690.9 Regina Per capita $54.06 $54.06 $ $29,744.0 1,080.0 358.0 $31,182.0 Winnipeg Per capita $44.62 1.62 0.54 $46.78 $ $19,838.0 656.0 $20,494.0 Edmonton Per capita $26.37 0.87 $27.24 $ $8,784.0 $8,784.0 Calgary Per capita $8.42 $8.42
Property Taxes Business Taxes Civic Programs/Agencies
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies
The City of Saskatoon has established five utility funds – Water, Wastewater, Storm Water, Light & Power and Transit. General revenues from these utilities include grants in lieu of taxes, a return on the City’s investment in the Light & Power utility and an administrative cross-charge to cover the costs of providing certain corporate support services (e.g., legal, payroll, purchasing, accounts payable, etc.). Franchise fees are also received from SaskPower (10% surcharge and 5% of electricity sales) and SaskEnergy/TransGas (5% of the cost of supply and delivery). At its meeting on March 3, 2008, City Council approved the annual transfer of a portion of the accumulated return on investment from land development activities to general revenues. The City of Regina has established two utility funds – Water and Sewer. The utilities pay the City a “utility surplus transfer” equal to 7.5% of the budgeted utility revenues for the prior year and a “utility administration charge” to fund similar corporate costs as detailed above equal to 5% of the budgeted utility expenditures for the prior year. SaskPower provides all electrical services in the City of Regina and pays the City a 10% surcharge and 5% payment in lieu of taxes; SaskEnergy and TransGas franchise fees are calculated in the same manner as for Saskatoon. The City of Winnipeg has established four utility funds – Waterworks, Sewage Disposal, Transit and Solid Waste Disposal – and four special operating agencies – Fleet Management, Winnipeg Parking Authority, Golf Services and Animal Services. General revenue from these entities include grants in lieu, a return on the City’s investment (excluding Transit and Animal Services) and an administrative cross-charge to fund corporate costs (see above). Electrical and natural gas franchise fees are calculated based on 2.5% of domestic consumption (excluding for the
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009 Page 7
purpose of heating) and 5% on other than domestic consumption. On February 27, 2002, the City of Winnipeg approved Manitoba Hydro’s proposal to purchase Winnipeg Hydro. Terms include annual payments to the City - $25 million/year for the first 5 years; $20 million/year for years 6-9 and $16 million/year for year 10 in perpetuity. The City of Edmonton has established three utility funds – Sanitary, Land Drainage and Waste Management – and three municipal enterprises – Land Development, Municipal Use Property and Mobile Equipment Services. General revenue from these entities includes a return on the City’s investment (except Waste Management and Mobile Equipment Services) and a “local access fee” from the Sanitary utility (in essence, payments in lieu of taxes) equal to 8% of qualifying revenues. EPCOR, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the City of Edmonton, provides water and electricity services within the city. General revenue from this subsidiary includes dividends (based on a percentage of ongoing budgeted earnings) and franchise fees. In addition, in 1995, the City of Edmonton sold its telephone utility for $470.2 million. The proceeds have been placed in an endowment fund and annual dividends support general municipal operations. The City of Calgary has established two utility funds – Water Services and Water Resources – and the Calgary Parking Authority. General revenue from the utilities include dividends based on the amount of equity in each utility and franchise fees; an annual contribution is received from the Parking Authority based on 65% of its surplus plus the net revenue from parking enforcement. Electricity is provided by ENMAX, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the City. General revenue from this subsidiary includes an annual dividend which is determined by ENMAX’s board (generally based on a percentage of net income) and franchise fees.
Table 8: 2009 Utility/Special Operating Agency Revenue
Saskatoon (in thousands) Electricity Natural Gas Water/Wastewater Land Transit Solid Waste Disposal Parking Telecommunications $ $46,788.1 8,184.2 6,850.4 1,250.0 395.8 $63,468.5
1 2
Regina $ $26,103.5 10,013.5 8,668.1 $44,785.1 Per capita $145.63 55.86 48.36 $249.85 $
Winnipeg Per capita $50.21 8.28 25.60 2.04 0.18 0.06 $86.37 $
Edmonton Per capita $229.00 49.29 44.50 17.26 46.51 $386.56 $
Calgary Per capita $88.66 74.22 138.18 5.68 41.23 $347.97
Per capita $223.44 39.08 32.71 5.97 1.89 $303.08
$33,469.0 5,518.0 17,065.0 1,360.0 120.0 42.0 $57,574.0
$172,305.0 1 37,084.0 33,484.0
2
$92,458.0 77,400.0 144,105.0 5,922.0 43,000.0 $362,885.0
12,986.0 34,991.0 $290,850.0
Represents revenue from EPCOR which provides both water and electricity services. Represents revenue from drainage services only (i.e., wastewater).
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 8
Self Generated Revenue
Various services provided by each municipality are funded in whole or in part through fees paid directly by the user. Some services are expected to be self-sufficient, while others are only expected to recover a portion of their total costs from users. Also included are revenues representing a fine or penalty for non-compliance with a law or bylaw. Examples of services reflected in this category include: Public and/or specialized transit fares and charters. Land sales. Leisure facility admission, registration and rental fees (e.g., indoor leisure centres, outdoor pools, ice rinks, sportsfields). Parking meter, permit and ticket revenue. Traffic violations (manual and automated). Landfill tipping and recycling program fees. Cemetery grave, interment and monument sales. Zoning, sub-development and discretionary use fees. Golf course green fees and cart rentals. Zoo admissions. Building, plumbing and electrical permits. Business licenses. Animal licenses and tickets. Medical response service fees.
Table 9: 2009 Self Generated Revenue
Saskatoon (in thousands) Leisure Facilities Parking Services 1 Land Sales, Licensing and Permitting 2 Police Landfill and Recycling Building, Plumbing and Electrical Permitting Transit 3 Medical Response All Other $ $10,665.6 6,933.2 6,541.3 4,779.7 4,011.5 2,400.0 161.2 5,676.9 $41,169.4 Per Capita
1 2 3
Regina % 25% 17% 16% 12% 10% 6% 14% $ $6,713.9 3,223.3 5,726.2 3,667.0 8,029.4 1,406.1 6,087.3 7,083.3 $41,936.5 $233.96 % 16% 8% 14% 9% 18% 3% 15% 17% 100%
Winnipeg $ $13,395.0 3,397.0 24,444.0 8,873.0 13,203.0 1,228.0 18,371.0 24,573.0 $107,484.0 $161.24 % 12% 3% 24% 8% 12% 1% 17% 23% 100%
Edmonton $ $32,787.0 19,517.0 41,302.0 41,308.0 102,381.0 4,304.0 53,134.0 $294,733.0 $391.72 % 11% 7% 14% 14% 35% 1% 18% 100% $
Calgary % 5% 13% 11% 15% 9% 31% 1% 15% 100%
$23,960.4 60,691.0 51,788.0 70,677.0 42,976.0 146,226.0 5,607.0 70,073.0 $471,998.4 $452.59
100%
$196.61
The Cities of Winnipeg and Calgary operate parking services as special operating agencies/authorities. The City of Edmonton operates land services and landfill and recycling as utilities. The Cities of Saskatoon and Winnipeg operate public transit services as utilities and therefore only specialized transit service revenue is presented; the Cities of Regina, Edmonton and Calgary operate public transit services as civic programs and therefore both public and specialized transit service revenue is presented.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 9
Government Grants/Support
Both the Provincial and Federal governments provide grant funding to municipalities to aid in the delivery of certain programs and/or to support general operations.
Table 10: 2009 Government Grants/Support
Saskatoon (in thousands) Support for General Operations Program Specific Support $ $29,230.0 7,215.7 $36,445.7 Per capita $139.59 34.46 $174.05 $ $25,896.9 7,914.2 $33,811.1 Regina Per capita $144.48 44.15 $188.63 $ $38,002.0 67,755.0 $105,757.0 Winnipeg Per capita $57.01 101.64 $158.65 $ $102,290.0 3,485.0 $105,775.0 Edmonton Per capita $135.95 4.63 $140.58 $ $62,704.0 2,323.0 $65,027.0 Calgary Per capita $60.13 2.23 $62.36
Reserve Funding
Municipalities establish reserves to fund future expenditures (e.g., equipment replacement) and to minimize the effect of significant fluctuations in revenues and expenses at both the program level and corporate level (e.g., stabilization). In order to balance their operating budget, the Cities of Regina, Winnipeg and Edmonton have budgeted a withdrawal from their fiscal stabilization reserve; the City of Calgary has budgeted a surplus to be contributed to its financial stabilization reserve.
Table 11: 2009 Reserve Funding
Saskatoon (in thousands) $ Per capita $ Regina Per capita $ Winnipeg Per capita $ Edmonton Per capita $ Calgary Per capita
Program specific reserve funding Program Specific Reserve Funding $4,321.0 $20.64 $152.7 $0.85 $3,780.0 $5.67 $12,607.0 $16.76 $108,819.0 $104.34
General purpose reserve funding Fiscal Stabilization Other Transfers to Retained Earnings $4,321.0 Stabilization, Capital and Special Purpose Reserve Balances at December 31, 2008 $87,396.0 $20.64 $417.36 $6,731.4 45.2 $6,929.3 $61,683.0 $37.55 0.25 $38.65 $344.12 $7,917.0 397.0 2,785.0 $14,879.0 $252,410.0 $11.88 0.60 4.18 $22.33 $378.65 $12,712.0 $25,319.0 $242,803.0 $16.89 $33.65 $322.70 ($60,797.0) 14,561.0 $62,583.0 $861,721.0 ($58.30) 13.96 $60.00 $826.28
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 10
Other Revenue
For the most part, the majority of other revenue is interest earnings. We note that the City of Winnipeg allocates interest earnings on reserve balances to the applicable reserve, not to general operations.
Table 12: 2009 Other Revenue
Saskatoon (in thousands) Interest Earnings Tax Penalties Other $ $7,347.4 950.0 122.0 $8,419.4 Cash, Cash Equivalents and Bonds at December 31, 2008 $226,851.0 Per capita $35.09 4.54 0.58 $40.21 $ $3,066.1 1,165.0 331.6 $4,562.7 $161,983.0 Regina Per capita $17.11 6.50 1.85 $25.46 $ $3,026.0 6,300.0 6,176.0 $15,502.0 Winnipeg Per capita $4.54 9.45 9.26 $23.25 $ $30,032.0 6,701.0 $36,733.0 Edmonton Per capita $39.91 8.91 $48.82 $ $40,024.0 5,812.0 $45,836.0 Calgary Per capita $38.38 5.57 $43.95
$484,257.0
$1,049,142.0
$476,284.0
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 11
Chapter 3 Where does each City’s money go?
Figure 6: City of Saskatoon 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Reserves 11.7% General Government Services 9.7%
Figure 7: City of Regina 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Debt Servicing 1.0% Reserves 7.8% General Government Services 14.3%
Debt Servicing 3.8% Recreation and Cultural Services 16.5%
Recreation and Cultural Services 14.6% Planning and Development 8.0%
Planning and Development 7.4% Societal Services 0.4% Environmental Health 2.5% Protection of Persons & Property 32.5%
Societal Services 0.4% Environmental Health 3.6% Protection of Persons & Property 32.0%
Transportation 15.5%
Transportation 18.3%
Figure 8: City of Winnipeg 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Recreation and Cultural Services 11.4% Planning and Development 7.3% Societal Services 1.7% Environmental Health 4.1% Transportation 17.1% Debt Servicing 11.2% Reserves 0.2% General Government Services 8.8%
Figure 9: City of Edmonton 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Recreation and Cultural Services 12.3% Planning and Development 6.7% Debt Servicing 3.6% Reserves 1.2% General Government Services 20.9%
Societal Services 3.6%
Protection of Persons & Property 38.2%
Transportation 25.3%
Protection of Persons & Property 26.4%
Figure 10: City of Calgary 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Debt Servicing 5.6% Reserves 11.2% General Government Services 13.1% Protection of Persons & Property 25.2%
Recreation and Cultural Services 8.6%
Planning and Development 9.7% Societal Services 0.4% Environmental Health 5.0%
Transportation 21.2%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 12
Budgeted Operating Expenditures for 2009
Each city allocates the greatest proportion of its operating budget spending to protecting persons and property. Of note, the City of Edmonton operates all of its Environmental Health services (e.g., water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal) as utilities.
Table 13: 2009 Budgeted Operating Expenditures
Saskatoon (in thousands) General Government Services Protection of Persons & Property Transportation Environmental Health Societal Services Planning & Development Recreation & Cultural Services Debt Servicing Reserve Contributions $ $28,620.1 95,889.5 45,741.0 7,271.7 1,242.9 21,668.5 48,595.5 11,053.3 34,412.1 $294,494.6 % 9.7% 32.5% 15.5% 2.5% 0.4% 7.4% 16.5% 3.8% 11.7% 100.0% $ $39,861.6 88,918.9 50,742.1 9,967.1 1,184.4 22,114.0 40,609.3 2,830.9 21,632.3 $277,860.6 Regina % 14.3% 32.0% 18.3% 3.6% 0.4% 8.0% 14.6% 1.0% 7.8% 100.0% $ $70,645.0 305,850.0 136,392.0 32,618.0 13,533.0 58,152.0 90,695.0 89,078.0 1,926.0 $798,889.0 Winnipeg % 8.8% 38.2% 17.1% 4.1% 1.7% 7.3% 11.4% 11.2% 0.2% 100.0% $ $328,081.0 416,311.0 397,194.0 56,771.0 105,417.0 193,920.0 55,964.0 19,228.0 $1,572,886.0 Edmonton % 20.9% 26.4% 25.3% 3.6% 6.7% 12.3% 3.6% 1.2% 100.0% $ $272,986.0 528,163.0 441,057.0 104,239.0 8,487.6 202,003.9 179,299.2 116,472.8 232,604.9 $2,085,313.4 Calgary % 13.1% 25.2% 21.2% 5.0% 0.4% 9.7% 8.6% 5.6% 11.2% 100.0%
General Government Services
Several services provided by each city are related to the general operations of the municipality. These services are generally supportive in nature and can not always be allocated to specific programs cost-effectively. Examples of such services include: Legislative services (e.g., Mayor’s Office, Councillors, Committees, Advisory Boards). Administrative services (e.g., City Manager’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, Human Resources, City Solicitor’s Office). Financial services (e.g., Comptroller’s Office, Treasurer’s Office, Purchasing, Inventory Management, Investment Services). Assessment. Common services (e.g., Corporate Information Services, Facility Operations and Maintenance, Energy Management).
Table 14: 2009 General Government Services
Saskatoon (in thousands) General Government Services $ $28,620.1 Per capita $136.68 $ $39,861.6 Regina Per capita $222.38 $ $70,645.0 Winnipeg Per capita $105.98 $ $328,081.0 Edmonton Per capita $436.04 $ $272,986.0 Calgary Per capita $261.76
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 13
Protection of Persons & Property
The largest components of the Protection of Persons & Property cost category are Police, Fire and, if applicable, Medical Response Services. Effective April 1, 2009, responsibility for ground ambulance services in Alberta has been transferred from municipalities to the Province. The City of Calgary accounts for the operation of its 9-1-1 communication centre in a separate program area – Public Safety Communications.
Table 15: 2009 Protection of Persons & Property
Saskatoon (in thousands) Police Fire Medical Response Services Public Safety Communications Centre Other (e.g., Animal Control, Emergency Measures) $ $63,514.5 31,085.1 1,289.9 $95,889.5 Per capita $303.32 148.45 6.16 $457.93 $ $56,724.8 31,148.4 1,045.7 $88,918.9 Regina Per capita $316.46 173.77 5.83 $496.06 $ $177,120.0 89,848.0 37,438.0 1,444.0 $305,850.0 Winnipeg Per capita $265.71 134.79 56.16 2.17 $458.83 $ $262,461.0 140,281.0 10,057.0 3,512.0 $416,311.0 Edmonton Per capita $348.83 186.44 13.37 4.67 $553.31 $ $311,059.0 164,229.0 14,936.0 21,975.0 15,964.0 $528,163.0 Calgary Per capita $298.27 157.47 14.32 21.07 15.31 $506.44
Transportation
The largest components of the Transportation cost category are Transit and Street Maintenance. Regarding Transit services, the Cities of Edmonton and Calgary operate both buses and light rail transit (LRT) systems; the Cities of Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg do not have LRT systems.
Table 16: 2009 Transportation
Saskatoon (in thousands) Transit 1 (conventional and/or specialized) Street Maintenance (winter and summer) Other (e.g., street lighting, parking, traffic signals, planning and management)
1
Regina $ $24,626.0 15,125.1 10,991.0 Per capita $137.39 84.38 61.32 $
Winnipeg Per capita $70.88 102.07 31.66 $
Edmonton Per capita $327.95 142.90 57.04 $
Calgary Per capita $284.60 77.04 61.28
$ $21,456.2 11,363.9 12,920.9
Per capita $102.47 54.27 61.70
$47,246.0 68,042.0 21,104.0
$246,753.0 107,522.0 42,919.0
$296,805.0 80,340.0 63,912.0
$45,741.0
$218.44
$50,742.1
$283.09
$136,392.0
$204.61
$397,194.0
$527.89
$441,057.0
$422.92
The Cities of Saskatoon and Winnipeg operate public transit services as utilities and therefore only public transit subsidies and specialized transit service operating costs are presented; the Cities of Regina, Edmonton and Calgary operate public transit services as civic programs and therefore both public and specialized transit service operating costs are presented.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 14
Environmental Health
The Environmental Health cost category includes solid waste services (i.e., collection and disposal), environmental services (e.g., waste minimization/recycling) and land drainage/flood control for the City of Winnipeg. The City of Edmonton operates all of these services through utilities and therefore does not appear in the table below.
Table 17: 2009 Environmental Health
Saskatoon (in thousands) Solid Waste Services Environmental Services Land Drainage/Flood Control $ $6,270.8 1,000.9 $7,271.7 Per capita $29.95 4.78 $34.73 $ $8,987.9 979.2 $9,967.1 Regina Per capita $50.14 5.46 $55.60 $ $16,656.0 11,210.0 4,752.0 $32,618.0 Winnipeg Per capita $24.99 16.82 7.13 $48.94 $ $96,124.0 8,115.0 $104,239.0 Calgary Per capita $92.17 7.78 $99.95
Societal Services
The main components of the Societal Services cost category are Cemeteries and Housing Initiatives. Included in other expenditures for the City of Winnipeg are the costs associated with enforcing the Manitoba Public Health Act (i.e., public health inspection services at inner-city food establishments) and the Non-Smokers Health Protection Act.
Table 18: 2009 Societal Services
Saskatoon (in thousands) Cemeteries Housing Other $ $912.9 124.0 206.0 $1,242.9 Per capita $4.36 0.59 0.98 $5.93 $ $1,024.4 160.0 $1,184.4 Regina Per capita $5.72 0.89 $6.61 $ $1,630.0 3,476.0 8,427.0 $13,533.0 Winnipeg Per capita $2.45 5.21 12.64 $20.30 $ $2,090.0 51,181.0 3,500.0 $56,771.0 Edmonton Per capita $2.78 68.02 4.65 $75.45 $ $2,990.1 5,497.5 $8,487.6 Calgary Per capita $2.87 5.27 $8.14
Planning & Development
The Planning & Development cost category includes costs associated with planning, developing and maintaining land and encouraging economic development. There is a wide variety in the costs associated with Land Planning and Management and Permitting in each city, both in total and per capita. Factors that may be contributing to these differences include the level of permitting activity, the types of permits issued by each city and the rate of growth. In 2008: The City of Saskatoon issued 3,516 permits (value $610.2 million); the City administers the building and plumbing permitting processes; there were 2,319 housing starts in the census metropolitan area.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 15
The City of Regina issued 2,387 permits (value $342 million); the City administers the building and plumbing permitting processes; there were 1,375 housing starts in the census metropolitan area. The City of Winnipeg issued 9,120 permits (value $1,053 million); the City administers the building, plumbing and electrical permitting processes; there were 3,009 housing starts in the census metropolitan area. The City of Edmonton issued 8,768 permits (value $3.123 billion); the City administers the building and mechanical (i.e., plumbing, gas, sewer/water, heating, ventilation, air conditioning and electrical) permitting processes; there were 6,615 housing starts in the census metropolitan area. The City of Calgary issued 14,920 permits (value $4.142 billion); the City administers the building, electrical, mechanical (i.e., heating, ventilation and air conditioning), plumbing and gas permitting processes; there were 11,438 housing starts in the census metropolitan area.
Table 19: 2009 Planning & Development
Saskatoon (in thousands) Land Planning and Management Parks and Open Space Permitting Economic Development $ $6,067.3 9,794.3 3,157.1 2,649.8 $21,668.5 Per capita $28.97 46.77 15.08 12.65 $103.47 $ $6,672.5 11,588.7 1,512.9 2,339.9 $22,114.0 Regina Per capita $37.23 64.65 8.44 13.05 $123.37 $ $8,669.0 34,348.0 13,855.0 1,280.0 $58,152.0 Winnipeg Per capita $13.00 51.53 20.78 1.92 $87.23 $ $4,410.0 43,926.0 39,582.0 17,499.0 $105,417.0 Edmonton Per capita $5.86 58.38 52.61 23.26 $140.11 $ $57,316.5 76,046.9 61,367.0 7,273.5 $202,003.9 Calgary Per capita $54.96 72.92 58.84 6.97 $193.69
Recreation & Cultural Services
The Recreation & Cultural Services cost category includes a wide variety of services such as indoor and outdoor leisure facilities, golf courses, skating rinks, athletic fields, zoos, museums, galleries, libraries, conference centres, sports and entertainment centres and support for sport, arts and culture organizations. This is an area in which there is great variety in the manner in which cities deliver services (i.e., civic program incorporated non-profit organization, partnership, etc.). In addition, the extent to which there are opportunities offered by the private sector (e.g., private skating rinks, fitness centres, etc.) and the philosophy adopted by the city (e.g., to deliver, facilitate or support the provision of services) greatly affect the level of municipal involvement.
Table 20: 2009 Recreation & Cultural Services
Saskatoon (in thousands) Recreation & Cultural Services $ $48,595.5 Per capita $232.07 $ $40,609.3 Regina Per capita $226.56 $ $90,695.0 Winnipeg Per capita $136.06 $ $193,920.0 Edmonton Per capita $257.73 $ $179,299.2 Calgary Per capita $171.92
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 16
Debt Servicing and Debt Levels
Debt servicing costs include both principal repayments and interest charges. There are vast differences in debt servicing costs per capita which may be due to differences in the nature of debt outstanding – tax supported or utility supported. The City of Saskatoon has a AAA credit rating from Standard and Poor’s, the Cities of Regina, Edmonton and Calgary have a AA+ rating, and the City of Winnipeg has a AA rating.
Table 21: 2009 Debt Servicing and Debt Balances
Saskatoon (in thousands) Tax Supported Debt Servicing Costs Tax Supported Debt Special Operating Agency Debt Utility Supported Debt Balances as of December 31, 2008
1
Regina Per capita $52.79 $353.02 72.69 $425.71 $ $2,830.9 $8,400.0 19,600.0 $28,000.0 Per capita $15.79 $46.86 109.35 $156.21 $
Winnipeg Per capita $133.63 $313.24 64.08 338.15 $715.47 $
Edmonton Per capita $74.38 $727.95 655.66 $1,383.61 $
Calgary Per capita $111.68 $506.16 1,372.09 $1,878.25
$ $11,053.3 $73,923.0 1 15,221.0 $89,144.0
$89,078.0 $208,806.0 42,718.0 225,410.0 $476,934.0
$55,964.0 $547,718.0 493,327.0 $1,041,045.0
$116,472.8 $527,874.0 1,430,944.0 $1,958,818.0
Approximately $16.1 million of this total balance is Gas Tax supported debt (i.e., gas tax funds are used to fund principal and interest payments).
Reserve Contributions and Balances
As described in Chapter 2, municipalities establish reserves to fund future expenditures and to minimize the effect of significant fluctuations in revenues and expenses at both the program level and corporate level.
Table 22: 2009 Reserve Contributions and Balances
Saskatoon (in thousands) Reserve Contributions Balances as of December 31, 2008 $ $34,412.1 $87,396.0 Per capita $164.34 $417.36 $ $21,632.3 $61,683.0 Regina Per capita $120.68 $344.12 $ $1,926.0 $252,410.0 Winnipeg Per capita $2.89 $378.65 $ $19,228.0 $242,803.0 Edmonton Per capita $25.56 $322.70 $ $232,604.9 $861,721.0 Calgary Per capita $223.04 $826.28
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 17
Chapter 4 Which programs in each City need General Source funding to operate?
Figure 11: City of Saskatoon 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Recreation and Cultural Services Planning and 16.6% Development 6.6% Societal Services 0.2% Environmental Health 2.3% General Government Services 17.3%
Figure 12: City of Regina 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Planning and Development 7.6% Societal Services 0.1% Environmental Health 2.9% Recreation and Cultural Services 13.8% General Government Services 23.2%
Transportation 20.7%
Protection of Persons & Property 36.3%
Transportation 16.4%
Protection of Persons & Property 36.0%
Figure 13: City of Winnipeg 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Recreation and Planning and Cultural Services 11.8% Development 6.4% Societal Services 2.9% Environmental Health 2.5% General Government Services 12.8%
Figure 14: City of Edmonton 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Planning and Development 4.8% Recreation and Cultural Services 10.1% General Government Services 31.1%
Societal Services 1.1%
Transportation 25.5%
Protection of Persons & Property 38.1%
Transportation 23.0%
Protection of Persons & Property 29.9%
Figure 15: City of Calgary 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Planning and Development 6.6% Societal Services 0.2% Environmental Health 2.9% Recreation and Budgeted Surplus Cultural Services 4.1% 8.3%
General Government Services 29.9%
Transportation 18.7%
Protection of Persons & Property 29.3%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 18
General Source Funded Programs
As mentioned in Chapter 2, some civic services are funded in whole or in part through fees paid directly by the user and certain programs receive grant funding to aid in the delivery of their programs. Considering both these revenue sources and operating expenditures on a program by program basis allows for an assessment of how much each individual program either contributes to or draws from general revenue sources. Often, individual programs that draw from general revenue sources are called “mill rate funded” programs. However, since the mill rate (and resulting property taxes) are only one source of funding for such programs, the term “general source” programs is used in this report. Of the five cities included in this study, the City of Saskatoon had to fund the highest proportion of its total 2009 operating budget from general source funding.
Table 23: 2009 General Source Funding for Program Areas
Saskatoon (in thousands) General Government Services Protection of Persons & Property Transportation Environmental Health Societal Services Planning & Development Recreation & Cultural Services Budgeted Surplus $ $41,744.2 87,871.4 50,127.0 5,464.0 499.9 16,059.2 40,022.8 $241,788.5 Percentage of Total Operating Budget 82% % 17.3% 36.3% 20.7% 2.3% 0.2% 6.6% 16.6% 100.0% $ $51,901.9 80,885.3 36,747.6 6,623.3 327.1 17,090.5 30,951.7 $224,527.4 81% Regina % 23.2% 36.0% 16.4% 2.9% 0.1% 7.6% 13.8% 100.0% $ $80,298.0 238,915.0 160,686.0 15,430.0 17,940.0 40,072.0 73,735.0 $627,076.0 78% Winnipeg % 12.8% 38.1% 25.5% 2.5% 2.9% 6.4% 11.8% 100.0% $ $361,774.0 347,597.0 268,019.0 12,580.0 55,504.0 117,782.0 $1,163,256.0 74% Edmonton % 31.1% 29.9% 23.0% 1.1% 4.8% 10.1% 100.0% $ $449,235.8 439,297.0 281,025.0 42,960.0 3,543.3 98,604.1 124,902.8 60,797.0 $1,500,365.0 72% Calgary % 29.9% 29.3% 18.7% 2.9% 0.2% 6.6% 8.3% 4.1% 100.0%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 19
Chapter 5 Where does that additional General Source funding come from?
Figure 16: City of Saskatoon 2009 General Source Funding
Other revenue 3.5% Taxation 56.3%
Figure 17: City of Regina 2009 General Source Funding
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 19.9%
Other revenue 2.0%
Reserve funding 3.0%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 26.2%
Taxation 59.3%
Grants in lieu of taxes 1.9%
Grants in lieu of taxes 4.3%
Provincial revenue sharing 12.1%
Provincial revenue sharing 11.5%
Figure 18: City of Winnipeg 2009 General Source Funding
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 9.2% Grants in lieu of taxes 5.0% Other revenue Reserve funding 2.5% 1.3% Taxation 71.2%
Figure 19: City of Edmonton 2009 General Source Funding
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 25.0%
Other revenue 3.2% Reserve funding 1.1% Taxation 68.6%
Grants in lieu of taxes 1.8%
Provincial revenue sharing 10.8%
Provincial revenue sharing 0.3%
Figure 20: City of Calgary 2009 General Source Funding
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 24.2% Other revenue Reserve funding 2.9% 1.0%
Taxation 71.1%
Grants in lieu of taxes 0.6%
Provincial revenue sharing 0.2%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 20
General Source Funding Sources
The largest source of general source funding is taxation. Of the five cities included in this study, the City of Saskatoon relied the least on taxation to fund its 2009 operating budget.
Table 24: 2009 General Source Funding Sources
Saskatoon (in thousands) Taxation General Support/ Grants Grants in Lieu of Taxes Utilities/Special Operating Agencies Other Revenue Reserve Funding $ $135,990.6 29,230.0 4,680.0 63,468.5 8,419.4 $241,788.5 % 56.3% 12.1% 1.9% 26.2% 3.5% 100.0% $ $132,860.4 25,896.9 9,690.9 44,785.1 4,562.7 6,731.4 $224,527.4 Regina % 59.3% 11.5% 4.3% 19.9% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0% $ $446,749.0 67,755.0 31,182.0 57,574.0 15,502.0 8,314.0 $627,076.0 Winnipeg % 71.2% 10.8% 5.0% 9.2% 2.5% 1.3% 100.0% $ $798,982.0 3,485.0 20,494.0 290,850.0 36,733.0 12,712.0 $1,163,256.0 Edmonton % 68.6% 0.3% 1.8% 25.0% 3.2% 1.1% 100.0% $ $1,068,200.0 2,323.0 8,784.0 362,885.0 43,612.0 14,561.0 $1,500,365.0 Calgary % 71.1% 0.2% 0.6% 24.2% 2.9% 1.0% 100.0%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 21
Chapter 6 A closer look at certain programs in each City
Police Services
For each city included in this study, the program that requires the largest proportion of general source funding is Police Services. Operating costs are partially funded through user fees (e.g., criminal record checks, alarm fees, seized vehicle compound fees, etc.), fines (e.g., traffic violations (both manual and automated)) and government grants. Although the City of Saskatoon has the second lowest general source funding requirement and number of police officers, when considered on a per capita basis, the City of Saskatoon is comparable to other cities. The City of Calgary has the lowest number of police officers per 100,000 population and also the lowest crime severity index. The crime severity index is the newly adopted Statistics Canada indicator to measure police-reported crime in Canada.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Importance: 9.43 out of 10 Delivery: 7.73 out of 10 18% indicate policing is the single most important issue facing the city Regina 1 (very dissatisfied): 15.0 2: 12.5 3: 15.9 4: 21.8 5 (very satisfied): 34.8 27.5% indicate policing is the single most important issue facing the city Winnipeg Response to 911 calls Very satisfied and satisfied 76% Efforts in crime control Very satisfied and satisfied 63% Edmonton Somewhat satisfied: 43% Very satisfied: 25% Calgary Somewhat satisfied: 49% Very satisfied: 35% 29% indicate crime/ safety/ policing is the most important issue facing the city
Figure 21: Police Services - General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$300,000.0 $244,014.0
Figure 22: Police Services - General Source Funding Required per Capita
$300.00 $264.03 $250.00 $275.21
$268.63 $233.98
$220.06
$250,000.0 $202,121.0 $200,000.0 $146,694.0
$200.00
$150,000.0
$150.00
$100,000.0
$55,287.7 $50,000.0 $49,330.0
$100.00
$50.00
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 22
Figure 23: Police Services – Number of Police Officers
2,000.0 1,800.0 1,808.0
Figure 24: Police Services – Police Officers per 100,000 Population
250.00 200.57 212.00 202.22
1,600.0
1,400.0 1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 1,348.0
200.00
1,434.0
190.59 173.36
150.00
100.00
420.0 380.0
600.0
400.0 200.0 -
50.00
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Figure 25: Police Services – Dispatched Calls for Service per 1,000 Population (2008)
400.0 367.9 365.8
Figure 26: Police Services – Statistics Canada Crime Severity Index (2008)
180.0 160.0 140.0 137.8 124.4 131.4 122.0 89.7 164.8
169.9 163.1
162.5
350.0
300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 231.2 202.1 205.3
120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 84.7
50.0 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
20.0
Saskatoon Regina Violent crime severity index Winnipeg Edmonton Total crime severity index Calgary
Fire Services
For Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg, the program that requires the second largest proportion of general source funding is Fire Services. For Edmonton and Calgary, Fire Services requires the third largest proportion of general source funding, behind capital project financing costs. Although the City of Saskatoon has the second lowest general source funding requirement and number of full time equivalents, when considered on a per capita basis, the City of Saskatoon is comparable to other cities. Of note, in the City of Winnipeg, both an EMS and Fire Services team are dispatched to all priority medical calls. If these medical calls are excluded, dispatched calls per 1,000 population for Fire Services is 31.88 which is comparable to other cities.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Importance: 9.38 out of 10 Delivery: 8.67 out of 10 Regina 1 (very dissatisfied): 0.0 2: 0.0 3: 7.1 4: 35.7 5 (very satisfied): 57.2 Winnipeg Fire protection Very satisfied and satisfied 98% Fire & safety education Very satisfied and satisfied 96% Edmonton Somewhat satisfied: 38% Very satisfied: 44% Calgary Somewhat satisfied: 21% Very satisfied: 76%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 23
Figure 27: Fire Services - General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$180,000.0 $159,655.0 $160,000.0 $140,000.0 $120,000.0 $100,000.0 $80,000.0 $85,690.0 $138,762.0
Figure 28: Fire Services - General Source Funding Required per Capita
$200.00 $180.00 $172.66 $152.58 $128.55 $184.42 $153.09
$160.00
$140.00 $120.00 $100.00 $80.00
$60,000.0
$40,000.0 $20,000.0 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary $31,951.2 $30,948.5
$60.00
$40.00 $20.00 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Figure 29: Fire Services – Full Time Equivalents
1,600.0
Figure 30: Fire Services – Full Time Equivalents per 100,000 Population
180.0
1,400.0
1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton 310.6 293.0 913.0
1,358.0
160.0 148.3
163.5 137.0
1,047.0
140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0
139.2
130.2
60.0
40.0 20.0 -
Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 31: Fire Services – Population Served per Fire Hall/Station
35,000 30,096 31,603
Figure 32: Fire Services – Dispatches per 1,000 Population
100.00 90.00 89.35
30,000 26,175
25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Saskatoon (8 halls) Regina (7 halls) Winnipeg (26 halls) Edmonton (25 halls) Calgary (33 halls) 25,607 25,638
80.00
70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 39.42 28.46 46.55 47.82
30.00
20.00 10.00 Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Summer Road Maintenance
Summer road maintenance activities (e.g., pothole repair, patching, street sweeping, etc.) are highly visible civic services and are subject to much discussion given our reliance on, and investment in, transportation infrastructure. The proportion of general source funding for these services ranges from 2.0% (Saskatoon) to 4.6% (Edmonton). Of note, Winnipeg’s programspecific debt servicing costs of $49.387 million have been excluded from the analysis.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 24
There is great variability in the levels of funding committed to summer road maintenance in each city. Factors that may contribute to this include: Classification and funding of roadway surface treatments as capital expenditures vs. operating expenditures. Existing condition of transportation infrastructure, including the manner in which condition is measured and the thresholds or trigger points at which condition ratings change. The magnitude of the roadway maintenance backlog/deferred maintenance/infrastructure deficit. Environmental conditions (e.g., freeze/thaw cycles) and the impact on the useful life of the roadway. The type of roadway surface material in use (e.g., concrete, asphalt). Funding levels and funding sources to maintain or improve the condition of roadway infrastructure.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Major roadways/freeways Importance: 8.54 out of 10 Delivery: 6.26 out of 10 Neighborhood streets Importance: 7.96 out of 10 Delivery: 5.76 out of 10 Regina Streets & sidewalks 1 (very dissatisfied): 14.8 2: 27.4 3: 37.0 4: 17.6 5 (very satisfied): 3.2 18.5% indicate roads and sidewalks is the single most important issue facing the city Winnipeg Major streets Very satisfied and satisfied 52% Residential streets Very satisfied and satisfied 51% Edmonton Summer road maintenance Somewhat satisfied: 30% Very satisfied: 7% Calgary City-operated roads & infrastructure Somewhat satisfied: 46% Very satisfied: 9%
Figure 33: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$60,000.0 $53,365.4 $50,000.0
Figure 34: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required per Capita
$80.00 $70.93 $70.00 $60.00
$54,819.0
$40,000.0
$52.56
$50.00 $40.00 $31.52
$17,161.0
$30,000.0
$36.30 $25.74
$20,000.0
$6,601.0 $6,507.3
$30.00 $20.00
$10,000.0
$10.00
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
$-
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 35: Summer Road Maintenance – Lane Kilometers of Roadway
16,000 14,300 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary 3,250 2,035 6,750 11,600
Figure 36: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding per Lane Kilometer
$5,000.00 $4,500.00
$4,600.47
$3,833.50 $3,197.69 $2,542.37 $2,031.08
$4,000.00
$3,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton
Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 25
Winter Road Maintenance
Winter road maintenance activities include sanding, snow plowing and snow removal. With the exception of a very small dollar amount in the City of Winnipeg (0.1% of their program budget), winter road maintenance activities in each city are funded entirely from general revenue sources. There is great variability in the levels of funding committed to winter road maintenance in each city. This is most likely due to the varied service levels adopted by each city.
Saskatoon Priority/ Category 1 Freeways and major arterials Within 12 hrs. 9% of network Priority/ Category 2 Access to emergency locations and bus routes Within 36 hrs. 19% of network Regina Freeways/expressways, major arterials and emergency routes Within 24 hrs. 13% of network Minor arterials, major collectors, downtown Within 36 hrs. 10% of network Non-regional bus routes and collectors Within 36 hrs. 24% of network Winnipeg Regional streets and emergency route Within 36 hrs. 23% of network Edmonton Freeways, business areas, River Valley hills and bridges Within 48 hrs. 6.5% of network Arterials Within 48 hrs. 10% of network Calgary High traffic arterials, CBD and designated emergency routes 90% within 48 hrs. 19% of network Designated roadways and areas (signals, crosswalks, emergency routes) 90% within 96 hrs. 11% of network Priority/ Category 3 Minor arterials, collectors, streets adjacent to schools Within 72 hrs. 10% of network Priority/ Category 4 Major collectors, industrial/commercial, transit and truck routes Within 48 hrs. 18% of network Minor collectors, major locals leading to school bus unloading zones Within 60 hrs. 5% of network Residential and low volume industrial Within 5 working days 53% of network Collector I (carries traffic between arterials and locals) Within 48 hrs. 6% of network Collector II (designated bus routes through residential areas) Within 48 hrs. 13.5% of network Designated roadways and areas (school/play ground zones, hills, curves, bus stops) 90% within 8 days 5% of network Designated segments of residential roadways (school/playground zones, hills, curves, bus stops) 90% within 8 days Included in percentage above Overall 38% of network within 72 hrs. 46% of network within 60 hrs. 47% of network within 36 hrs. 100% of network within 5 working days Sidewalks Adjoining civic facilities, civic parks (incl. lit pathways) and city-owned property; leisure centres; fire halls; auditoriums. Within 48 hrs. Adjacent to city owned building, property and certain parking lots; certain bus stops; senior citizen complexes with more than 20 units. Within 72 hrs. Adjacent to priority 1 and 2 streets and priority 3 streets near senior citizen complexes if >5 cm snowfall; within 36 hrs. Adjacent to priority 3 streets if >8 cm snowfall; within 5 working days. Adjacent to city owned land. Within 48 hrs. Specific locations in CBD; adjacent to city owned property; bus stops. 42% of network within 48 hrs. 30% of network within 96 hrs.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 26
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Ice & snow management Importance: 8.99 out of 10 Delivery: 6.14 out of 10
Regina Snow removal 1 (very dissatisfied): 11.9 2: 22.3 3: 31.1 4: 28.3 5 (very satisfied): 6.4
Winnipeg Snow removal Very satisfied and satisfied 84%
Edmonton Snow & ice management Somewhat satisfied: 34% Very satisfied: 11% n/a
Calgary
Figure 37: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$60,000.0 $51,741.6 $50,000.0
Figure 38: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required per Capita
$80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $68.77
$40,000.0
$50.00
$30,737.0 $30,000.0 $22,171.0
$46.11
$40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $26.63 $29.75 $21.26
$5,576.7
$20,000.0
$10,000.0
$5,333.2
$10.00 $-
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 39: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding per Lane Kilometer of Roadway
$5,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,553.63 $4,460.48
Figure 40: Winter Road Maintenance –Average Annual Snowfall (cm)
140 121.4 120 105.9 100 97.2 110.6 126.7
$4,000.00
$3,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,715.91 $2,620.74
80
60
$1,550.42
$1,500.00
$1,000.00 $500.00 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
40 20 0 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Transit
The City of Saskatoon and the City of Winnipeg provide public transit services through utility funds. These two cities provide an annual contribution to the utility from general revenue sources to help fund operations; any net deficit/surplus that results from operations is funded from/transferred to a stabilization reserve. The other three cities provide public transit services as a civic program and any net deficit/surplus that results from operations is funded from/contributed to general revenue sources. We note that the City of Winnipeg receives significant funding from the Provincial government for transit services (2009 budget $28.18 million – 22% of operating costs) which likely contributes to their significantly lower costs per capita, per rider and per hour of service. In comparison, the City of Saskatoon budgeted to receive $503,400 from the Provincial government in 2009.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009 Page 27
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Public transportation/buses/ bus routes Importance: 6.81 out of 10 Delivery: 6.3 out of 10
Regina Bus service 1 (very dissatisfied): 7.4 2: 9.9 3: 37.3 4: 34.9 5 (very satisfied): 10.6
Winnipeg Very satisfied and satisfied 77%
Edmonton Somewhat satisfied: 34% Very satisfied: 16%
Calgary Somewhat satisfied: 44% Very satisfied: 19%
Figure 41: Transit – General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$140,000.0
Figure 42: Transit – General Source Funding Required per Capita
$180.00
$120,716.0 $120,000.0
$100,000.0
$122,626.0
$160.44
$160.00 $140.00 $120.00 $117.58
$80,000.0 $60,000.0
$100.00 $80.00
$88.29
$81.27 $56.88
$37,919.0
$40,000.0 $20,000.0 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary $18,488.4
$60.00
$40.00
$14,567.0
$20.00 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Figure 43: Transit –Budgeted Annual Ridership
Figure 44: Transit – General Source Funding per Budgeted Ridership
$2.50
120,000,000 95,500,000
100,000,000
$2.00
$2.00
$1.75 $1.58
80,000,000
69,039,400
$1.50
$1.28 $0.91
60,000,000 41,820,000
$1.00
40,000,000
$0.50
20,000,000
11,707,400
7,300,000
$-
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 45: Transit –Budgeted Annual Hours of Service
Figure 46: Transit – General Source Funding per Budgeted Hour of Service
$70.00
3,000,000 2,576,300 2,500,000 2,010,600 2,000,000 1,400,000
$60.04
$60.00 $50.92
$50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $27.09 $52.16 $47.60
1,500,000
1,000,000
$20.00
500,000
363,100 279,300
$10.00 $-
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 28
Figure 47: Transit –Budgeted Ridership per Budgeted Hour of Service
40.00 37.07 34.34 32.24 29.87 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary 26.14
Figure 48: Transit – Statistics Canada Mode Share
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
35.00
30%
20% 10% 0% Saskatoon - Motor vehicle as driver - Walked/bicycled Regina Winnipeg Edmonton - Public transit Calgary
- Motor vehicle as passenger - Other
Solid Waste Collection
Solid waste collection services require between 1.8% (Saskatoon) and 3.0% (Regina) of general source funding. The City of Edmonton operates its solid waste collection services through a utility and therefore is excluded from this analysis. We noted various approaches to residential waste collection services in each city: City of Saskatoon: once a week in the summer and once every two weeks in the winter (with the exception of the Christmas season) using a fully automated system. City of Regina: once a week using a fully automated system. City of Winnipeg: 50 times per year using a combination of automated (20%) and manual (80%) systems. City of Calgary: once a week using a combination of automated (5%; pilot project) and manual (95%) systems.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Front-street Importance: 7.43 out of 10 Delivery: 7.53 out of 10 Back-lane Importance: 7.77 out of 10 Delivery: 7.44 out of 10 Regina 1 (very dissatisfied): 3.2 2: 6.0 3: 18.4 4: 43.4 5 (very satisfied): 29.1 Winnipeg Very satisfied and satisfied 90% Calgary Residential garbage collection Somewhat satisfied: 22% Very satisfied: 71%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 29
Figure 49: Solid Waste Collection – General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$30,000.0 $26,400.0 $25,000.0
Figure 50: Solid Waste Collection – General Source Funding Required per Capita
$40.00 $37.75
$35.00
$30.00
$20,000.0 $15,297.0 $15,000.0
$25.00 $20.91 $20.00 $15.00
$6,766.5
$22.95
$25.31
$10,000.0
$4,379.3
$10.00 $5.00
$5,000.0
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Calgary
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Calgary
Figure 51: Solid Waste Collection – Waste Collection 2008 (tonnes)
400,000 349,075
Figure 52: Solid Waste Collection –Waste Collected (2008) per 1,000 Population
600 524 500
350,000
300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000
400
209,000
323 300
340
200
200
100,000 50,000 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg * Calgary 67,700 60,900
100
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg * Calgary
* Commercial waste collection accounts for approximately one third of total tonnage collected in Winnipeg; in other cities, the percentage is negligible or has been excluded.
* Commercial waste collection accounts for approximately one third of total tonnage collected in Winnipeg; in other cities, the percentage is negligible or has been excluded.
Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management
Parks, urban forestry and pest management requires from 3.8% (Edmonton) to 5.7% (Winnipeg) of general source funding. Variability in general source funding requirements per capita and per acre may be due to the following factors: Proportion of park space in each city that is subject to varying levels of service (e.g., highly maintained park space that is irrigated and mowed often versus natural park space that is largely left in its native state). The size of the urban forest and pruning cycle achieved. Whether Dutch Elm Disease has been confirmed within city limits (Regina and Winnipeg have confirmed cases).
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 30
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Maintenance of city trees Importance: 8.01 out of 10 Delivery: 7.53 out of 10 Maintenance of city parks Importance: 8.34 out of 10 Delivery: 7.44 out of 10 Accessibility of city parks Importance: 8.09 out of 10 Delivery: 7.58 out of 10 Mosquito control Importance: 8.10 out of 10 Delivery: 6.75 out of 10
Regina City parks & green spaces 1 (very dissatisfied): 1.2 2: 3.5 3: 16.9 4: 53.0 5 (very satisfied): 25.4
Winnipeg Condition of major parks Very satisfied and satisfied 91% Condition of local parks Very satisfied and satisfied 87% Insect control Very satisfied and satisfied 85%
Edmonton Parks & green space Somewhat satisfied: 35% Very satisfied: 51%
Calgary Parks & other open spaces Somewhat satisfied: 42% Very satisfied: 52%
Figure 53: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$70,000.0 $64,881.4
Figure 54: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management General Source Funding Required per Capita
$70.00 $62.99 $62.21 $53.93 $50.08
$60,000.0
$50,000.0 $40,000.0 $30,000.0 $20,000.0 $10,890.0 $10,000.0 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary $11,291.2 $35,949.0 $37,679.0
$60.00
$52.01 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $Saskatoon Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 55: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management – Acres Maintained
30,000 23,907
Figure 56: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management – General Source Funding per Acre
$6,000.00 $4,880.40 $3,973.00 $3,090.94
25,000 19,175
$5,000.00
20,000
$4,000.00
15,000
$3,000.00 $1,965.01
$2,713.91
10,000
3,653 2,741
$2,000.00
7,366
$1,000.00
5,000
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 31
Leisure Centres
The amount of general source funding required to operate indoor and outdoor civic leisure centres differs largely among the cities included in this study. This may be due in part to the number of facilities operated and the approach to service provision: The City of Saskatoon operates six indoor leisure centres and four outdoor pools. The City of Regina operates three indoor leisure centres and five outdoor pools. The City of Winnipeg operates twenty-one indoor leisure centres and ten outdoor pools. The City of Edmonton operates thirteen indoor leisure centres and five outdoor pools. One additional leisure centre, that receives limited general source funding, is operated in partnership with another organization. The City of Calgary operates fourteen indoor leisure centres. Seven outdoor pools are operated by a non-profit organization.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Indoor pools/community centres Importance: 7.67 out of 10 Delivery: 7.4 out of 10 Outdoor swimming pools Importance: 6.38 out of 10 Delivery: 6.54 out of 10 Regina Fitness centres 1 (very dissatisfied): 1.6 2: 5.9 3: 32.7 4: 46.0 5 (very satisfied):13.8 Neighborhood centres 1 (very dissatisfied): 2.3 2: 10.2 3: 43.1 4: 32.4 5 (very satisfied):11.9 Winnipeg Recreation programs Very satisfied and satisfied 80% Recreation facilities condition Very satisfied and satisfied 70% Edmonton Recreation facilities Somewhat satisfied: 46% Very satisfied: 29% Recreational programs Somewhat satisfied: 40% Very satisfied: 25% Calgary City-operated recreation facilities Somewhat satisfied: 52% Very satisfied: 37% City-operated recreation programs Somewhat satisfied: 57% Very satisfied: 33%
Figure 57: Leisure Centres - General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$35,000.0
Figure 58: Leisure Centres - General Source Funding Required per Capita
$50.00 $43.83 $41.02
$30,000.0
$25,000.0 $20,000.0 $15,000.0
$29,220.0
$45.00
$40.00
$35.00 $30.00 $17,466.6 $25.00 $20.00 $23.75 $16.75
$11,020.3 $10,000.0 $5,000.0 $$8,590.1 $4,257.6
$15.00
$10.00 $5.00 $-
$14.65
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 32
Figure 59: Leisure Centres – Admissions and Registrations (2008)
2,500,000 1,921,427
Figure 60: Leisure Centres – Admissions and Registrations (2008) per 1,000 Population
4,500 4,046 4,000
2,000,000
1,678,634 1,500,000 1,405,276
3,496 3,500 3,000 2,500
2,108
2,231
1,000,000
847,311 626,708
2,000 1,500 1,000 500
1,842
500,000
-
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Libraries
The Cities of Saskatoon and Regina have established separate mill rates to fund library operations; the other three cities in this study utilize general source funding to fund their library operations. The Cities of Saskatoon and Regina libraries are well utilized and have higher general source funding requirements per capita than the other cities. This may be due, in part, to the fact that the Saskatoon Public Libraries and Regina Public Libraries do not charge a fee for library use. However, fees are charged in the other cities (i.e., the Winnipeg Public Library charges $129/year for non-residents; the Edmonton Public Library charges $12/year for the first adult older than 18 in the household, $8/year for other adults in the household (to a maximum of $36/year per household) and an additional $60/year for non-residents; the Calgary Public Library charges $12/year for adults, $9/year for seniors, $6/year for young adults and $112/year for non-residents).
Figure 61: Libraries - General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$40,000.0
Figure 62: Libraries - General Source Funding Required per Capita
$90.00 $80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $79.57
$35,000.0
$30,000.0 $25,000.0 $20,000.0 $15,000.0 $10,000.0 $5,000.0 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg $13,872.2 $14,262.9 $22,555.0
$34,593.0
$35,799.0
$66.25
$50.00 $40.00 $33.84
$45.98
$34.33
$30.00
$20.00 $10.00 $Edmonton Calgary Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 33
Figure 63: Libraries – Number of Items Circulated (2008)
Figure 64: Libraries – Number of Items Circulated (2008) per Capita
20.00
18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 Saskatoon (7 branches) Regina (9 branches) Winnipeg (20 branches) Edmonton (17 branches) Calgary (17 branches) 3,614,781 2,624,321 5,479,525 9,787,701 15,354,315
18.00
17.26 14.72 14.64 13.01
16.00
14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00
8.22
6.00
4.00 2.00 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 34
doc_274522882.pdf
Municipal services or city services refer to basic services that residents of a city expect the city government to provide in exchange for the taxes which citizens pay.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project
City of Saskatoon
Garman, Weimer & Associates Ltd.
2009
City of Saskatoon Municipal Services Benchmark Project
Report Highlights
Purpose of the Project
The objective of the project was to identify and quantify the factors contributing to different property tax rates between Saskatoon and the cities of Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary.
What Internal Audit Found
Of the five cities included in this study, the City of Saskatoon relied the least on taxation to fund its 2009 operating budget. The Cities of Regina ($6.7 million), Winnipeg ($7.9 million) and Edmonton ($12.7 million) budgeted withdrawals from their fiscal stabilization reserves in 2009; the City of Calgary budgeted a contribution to its fiscal stabilization reserve ($60.8 million). The City of Saskatoon budgeted for breakeven operations. The City of Saskatoon budgeted for the second lowest property tax revenue per capita. Average assessed property value in Saskatoon is higher than Regina and Winnipeg, but significantly lower than Edmonton and Calgary. The City of Saskatoon’s budgeted contributions to reserves (as a percentage of total operating expenditures) are the highest of the five cities. However, Saskatoon’s budgeted withdrawals from reserves (as a percentage of total operating revenue) are the lowest. The City of Saskatoon has the third highest tax-supported debt levels per capita and the lowest utility-supported debt levels per capita. Regarding Police Services, the City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per capita and number of police officers per 100,000 population are comparable to the other cities. Regarding Fire & Protective Services, the City of Saskatoon’s operations are comparable to the other cities on a per capita basis. The City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per lane kilometre for summer road maintenance is the lowest of the five cities examined. Regarding winter road maintenance, the City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per capita and general source funding per lane kilometre is comparable to Regina and Calgary, but lower than Winnipeg and Edmonton. Regarding Transit Services, the City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per capita and ridership per hour of service is the highest of those transit systems that do not operate light rail transit. General source funding per rider and per hour of service are comparable to the
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
other cities with the exception of Winnipeg which receives significant provincial grant funding for its transit system. The City of Saskatoon’s general source funding per capita is similar to Winnipeg and Calgary for solid waste collection. Tonnes collected per 1,000 population is comparable to Regina; Winnipeg has a significant commercial waste collection program. Regarding Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management, the City of Saskatoon’s budgeted general source funding per capita is among the lowest of the five cities, but budgeted general source funding per acre is the second highest. The City of Saskatoon budgeted the second highest general source funding per capita for its indoor and outdoor leisure centres. However, Saskatoon’s facilities are also the most utilized as measured by admissions and registrations per 1,000 population. The City of Saskatoon budgeted the second highest general source funding per capita for its libraries. However, Saskatoon’s libraries are also the most utilized as measured by number of items circulated per capita.
Acknowledgements
Garman, Weimer & Associates Ltd. wishes to extend special thanks to the staff of the Cities of Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary for accommodating our requests for information.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Key items ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Where does each City’s money come from? ........................................................................ 2
Budgeted Operating Revenue for 2009 .................................................................................................... 3 Taxation..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Grants in Lieu of Taxes .............................................................................................................................. 7 Utilities/Special Operating Agencies ......................................................................................................... 7 Self Generated Revenue ........................................................................................................................... 9 Government Grants/Support .................................................................................................................. 10 Reserve Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Other Revenue ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 3 Where does each City’s money go? .................................................................................... 12
Budgeted Operating Expenditures for 2009 ........................................................................................... 13 General Government Services ................................................................................................................ 13 Protection of Persons & Property ........................................................................................................... 14 Transportation ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Environmental Health ............................................................................................................................. 15 Societal Services ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Planning & Development ........................................................................................................................ 15 Recreation & Cultural Services................................................................................................................ 16 Debt Servicing and Debt Levels............................................................................................................... 17 Reserve Contributions and Balances ...................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 4 Which programs in each City need General Source funding to operate? .......................... 18
General Source Funded Programs .......................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 5 Where does that additional General Source funding come from? ..................................... 20
General Source Funding Sources ............................................................................................................ 21 Chapter 6 A closer look at certain programs in each City.................................................................... 22
Police Services ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Fire Services ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Summer Road Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 24 Winter Road Maintenance ...................................................................................................................... 26 Transit ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Solid Waste Collection ............................................................................................................................ 29 Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management ........................................................................................ 30 Leisure Centres ....................................................................................................................................... 32 Libraries................................................................................................................................................... 33
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: 2009 Budgeted Operating Revenue ................................................................................................ 3 Table 2: 2009 Taxation Revenue Sources..................................................................................................... 3 Table 3: 2009 Property Tax Factors .............................................................................................................. 5 Table 4: 2009 Effective Property Taxes per $100,000 Assessed Value – Municipal and Library ............... 5 Table 5: 2009 Assessed Value – Total, Per Capita and Average .................................................................. 6 Table 6: 2009 Business Tax Factors ............................................................................................................. 6 Table 7: 2009 Grants in Lieu of Taxes ......................................................................................................... 7 Table 8: 2009 Utility/Special Operating Agency Revenue ........................................................................... 8 Table 9: 2009 Self Generated Revenue......................................................................................................... 9 Table 10: 2009 Government Grants/Support .............................................................................................. 10 Table 11: 2009 Reserve Funding ................................................................................................................ 10 Table 12: 2009 Other Revenue ................................................................................................................... 11 Table 13: 2009 Budgeted Operating Expenditures ..................................................................................... 13 Table 14: 2009 General Government Services ........................................................................................... 13 Table 15: 2009 Protection of Persons & Property ...................................................................................... 14 Table 16: 2009 Transportation .................................................................................................................... 14 Table 17: 2009 Environmental Health ........................................................................................................ 15 Table 18: 2009 Societal Services ................................................................................................................ 15 Table 19: 2009 Planning & Development................................................................................................... 16 Table 20: 2009 Recreation & Cultural Services ......................................................................................... 16 Table 21: 2009 Debt Servicing and Debt Balances .................................................................................... 17 Table 22: 2009 Reserve Contributions and Balances ................................................................................. 17 Table 23: 2009 General Source Funding for Program Areas ...................................................................... 19 Table 24: 2009 General Source Funding Sources ....................................................................................... 21
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Figure 1: City of Saskatoon 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources..................................................................... 2 Figure 2: City of Regina 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources .......................................................................... 2 Figure 3: City of Winnipeg 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources ..................................................................... 2 Figure 4: City of Edmonton 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources .................................................................... 2 Figure 5: City of Calgary 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources ........................................................................ 2 Figure 6: City of Saskatoon 2009 Budgeted Expenditures ......................................................................... 12 Figure 7: City of Regina 2009 Budgeted Expenditures .............................................................................. 12 Figure 8: City of Winnipeg 2009 Budgeted Expenditures .......................................................................... 12 Figure 9: City of Edmonton 2009 Budgeted Expenditures ......................................................................... 12 Figure 10: City of Calgary 2009 Budgeted Expenditures ........................................................................... 12 Figure 11: City of Saskatoon 2009 General Source Funded Programs....................................................... 18 Figure 12: City of Regina 2009 General Source Funded Programs ............................................................ 18 Figure 13: City of Winnipeg 2009 General Source Funded Programs ....................................................... 18 Figure 14: City of Edmonton 2009 General Source Funded Programs ...................................................... 18 Figure 15: City of Calgary 2009 General Source Funded Programs .......................................................... 18 Figure 16: City of Saskatoon 2009 General Source Funding ..................................................................... 20 Figure 17: City of Regina 2009 General Source Funding........................................................................... 20 Figure 18: City of Winnipeg 2009 General Source Funding ...................................................................... 20 Figure 19: City of Edmonton 2009 General Source Funding ..................................................................... 20 Figure 20: City of Calgary 2009 General Source Funding ......................................................................... 20 Figure 21: Police Services - General Source Funding Required................................................................. 22 Figure 22: Police Services - General Source Funding Required per Capita ............................................... 22 Figure 23: Police Services – Number of Police Officers ............................................................................ 23 Figure 24: Police Services – Police Officers per 100,000 Population ........................................................ 23 Figure 25: Police Services – Dispatched Calls for Service per 1,000 Population (2008) ........................... 23 Figure 26: Police Services – Statistics Canada Crime Severity Index (2008) ............................................ 23 Figure 27: Fire Services - General Source Funding Required .................................................................... 24 Figure 28: Fire Services - General Source Funding Required per Capita ................................................... 24 Figure 29: Fire Services – Full Time Equivalents ...................................................................................... 24 Figure 30: Fire Services – Full Time Equivalents per 100,000 Population ................................................ 24 Figure 31: Fire Services – Population Served per Fire Hall/Station ........................................................... 24 Figure 32: Fire Services – Dispatches per 1,000 Population ...................................................................... 24 Figure 33: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required ............................................ 25 Figure 34: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required per Capita .......................... 25 Figure 35: Summer Road Maintenance – Lane Kilometers of Roadway ................................................... 25 Figure 36: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding per Lane Kilometer ........................... 25 Figure 37: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required .............................................. 27 Figure 38: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required per Capita ............................. 27 Figure 39: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding per Lane Kilometer of Roadway ......... 27 Figure 40: Winter Road Maintenance –Average Annual Snowfall (cm) .................................................... 27 Figure 41: Transit – General Source Funding Required ............................................................................. 28 Figure 42: Transit – General Source Funding Required per Capita ............................................................ 28 Figure 43: Transit –Budgeted Annual Ridership ........................................................................................ 28 Figure 44: Transit – General Source Funding per Budgeted Ridership ...................................................... 28
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Figure 45: Transit –Budgeted Annual Hours of Service ............................................................................. 28 Figure 46: Transit – General Source Funding per Budgeted Hour of Service ............................................ 28 Figure 47: Transit –Budgeted Ridership per Budgeted Hour of Service .................................................... 29 Figure 48: Transit – Statistics Canada Mode Share .................................................................................... 29 Figure 49: Solid Waste Collection – General Source Funding Required ................................................... 30 Figure 50: Solid Waste Collection – General Source Funding Required per Capita .................................. 30 Figure 51: Solid Waste Collection – Waste Collection 2008 (tonnes) ....................................................... 30 Figure 52: Solid Waste Collection –Waste Collected (2008) per 1,000 Population ................................... 30 Figure 53: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management - General Source Funding Required .................. 31 Figure 54: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management - General Source Funding Required per Capita 31 Figure 55: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management –Acres Maintained ............................................ 31 Figure 56: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management – General Source Funding per Acre .................. 31 Figure 57: Leisure Centres - General Source Funding Required ................................................................ 32 Figure 58: Leisure Centres - General Source Funding Required per Capita .............................................. 32 Figure 59: Leisure Centres – Admissions and Registrations (2008)........................................................... 33 Figure 60: Leisure Centres – Admissions and Registrations (2008) per 1,000 Population ........................ 33 Figure 61: Libraries - General Source Funding Required ........................................................................... 33 Figure 62: Libraries - General Source Funding Required per Capita ......................................................... 33 Figure 63: Libraries – Number of Items Circulated (2008) ........................................................................ 34 Figure 64: Libraries – Number of Items Circulated (2008) per Capita ....................................................... 34
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Chapter 1 Introduction
Background
In October 2008, the City of Saskatoon received a multi-city benchmarking report that identified and quantified the factors contributing to different property tax rates between Saskatoon and four other cities (i.e., Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary). The report was well received and a decision was made to update the report annually. In September 2009, Garman, Weimer & Associates Ltd. was engaged to conduct the 2009 update.
Key items
Population figures are according to the most recent information available. o Saskatoon: 209,400 (City Planning Branch, December 31, 2008 Census Estimate) o Regina: 179,246 (2006 census1) o Winnipeg: 666,600 (Office of the CFO, July 1st 2008 Estimated Population) o Edmonton: 752,412 (Municipal Census, April 2008) o Calgary: 1,042,892 (Municipal Census, April 2008) Approved operating budget figures have, in some cases, been reallocated among or between program areas and/or line items in order to ensure “like programs” are being compared. These figures may not specifically match those presented in the operating budgets approved by each city’s City Council. Citizen survey results are taken from the latest available survey reports. o Saskatoon: 2008 Civic Services Survey (November 2008) o Regina: 2008 Omnibus Survey (August 2008) o Winnipeg: Business Plans by Service 2008-2010 (December 2007) o Edmonton: 2008 Citizen Budget Survey (July 2008) o Calgary: 2008 Citizen Satisfaction Survey (October 2008) Certain figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and/or percentage point.
1
More recent information for the City of Regina is not available. For comparison, the City of Saskatoon’s estimated population has increased 3.5% sin ce the 2006 census.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 1
Chapter 2 Where does each City’s money come from?
Figure 1: City of Saskatoon 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Government Support/Grants 12.4% Self Generated Revenue 14.0% Taxation 46.0% Reserves 1.5% Other Revenue 2.9%
Figure 2: City of Regina 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Government Support/Grants 12.2% Reserves 2.5% Other Revenue 1.6%
Self Generated Revenue 15.1%
Taxation 49.0%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 21.6%
Grants in Lieu 1.6%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 16.1%
Grants in Lieu 3.5%
Figure 3: City of Winnipeg 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Government Support/Grants 13.2% Self Generated Revenue 13.5% Reserves 1.9% Other Revenue 1.9%
Figure 4: City of Edmonton 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Government Support/Grants 6.7% Self Generated Revenue 18.7% Reserves Other Revenue 1.6% 2.3%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 7.2% Grants in Lieu 3.9%
Taxation 58.4%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 18.5%
Taxation 50.9% Grants in Lieu 1.3%
Figure 5: City of Calgary 2009 Budgeted Revenue Sources
Reserves Government 3.0% Support/Grants 3.1% Self Generated Revenue 22.6% Other Revenue 2.2%
Taxation 51.3%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 17.4%
Grants in Lieu 0.4%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 2
Budgeted Operating Revenue for 2009
Provincial legislation requires municipalities to budget enough operating revenue to balance their annual operating budget. In 2009, the city that had to generate the most revenue per capita to fund its activities was the City of Edmonton; the city that had to generate the least revenue per capita was the City of Winnipeg. Of note, the City of Calgary budgeted for a contribution to their fiscal stabilization reserve (i.e., an excess of revenues over expenditures) of approximately $60.8 million in 2009, whereas the Cities of Regina ($6.7 million), Winnipeg ($7.9 million) and Edmonton ($12.7 million) budgeted for a withdrawal from their fiscal stabilization reserve. Saskatoon did not budget for a contribution to, or withdrawal from, the fiscal stabilization reserve.
Table 1: 2009 Budgeted Operating Revenue
Saskatoon (in thousands) Taxation Grants in Lieu of Taxes Utilities/Special Operating Agencies Self-Generated Revenue Government Support/Grants Reserves Other Revenue $ $135,990.6 4,680.0 63,468.5 41,169.4 36,445.7 4,321.0 8,419.4 $294,494.6 Per Capita $1,406 % 46.0% 1.6% 21.6% 14.0% 12.4% 1.5% 2.9% 100.0% $ $136,145.0 9,690.9 44,785.1 41,936.5 33,811.1 6,929.3 4,562.7 $277,860.6 $1,550 Regina % 49.0% 3.5% 16.1% 15.1% 12.2% 2.5% 1.6% 100.0% $ $466,511.0 31,182.0 57,574.0 107,484.0 105,757.0 14,879.0 15,502.0 $798,889.0 $1,198 Winnipeg % 58.4% 3.9% 7.2% 13.5% 13.2% 1.9% 1.9% 100.0% $ $798,982.0 20,494.0 290,850.0 294,733.0 105,775.0 25,319.0 36,733.0 $1,572,886.0 $2,090 Edmonton % 50.9% 1.3% 18.5% 18.7% 6.7% 1.6% 2.3% 100.0% $ $1,068,200.0 8,784.0 362,885.0 471,998.4 65,027.0 62,583.0 45,836.0 $2,085,313.4 $2,000 Calgary % 51.3% 0.4% 17.4% 22.6% 3.1% 3.0% 2.2% 100.0%
Taxation
The largest component of taxation revenue in each city is property taxes, generally followed by business taxes for those cities that levy such a tax.
Table 2: 2009 Taxation Revenue Sources
Saskatoon (in thousands) Property Taxes (municipal and library) Business Taxes Special Taxes
1
Regina $ $132,260.4 3,284.6 600.0 $136,145.0 Per capita $737.87 18.32 3.35 $759.54 $
Winnipeg Per capita $574.39 84.76 29.65 2.33 8.51 0.19 $699.83 $
Edmonton Per capita $988.60 80.91 11.10 (18.71) $1,061.90 $
Calgary Per capita $839.91 174.85 9.50 $1,024.26
$ $136,174.4 44.1 (227.9) $135,990.6
Per capita $650.31 0.21 (1.09) $649.43
$382,887.0 56,504.0 19,762.0 1,554.0 5,675.0 129.0 $466,511.0
$743,834.0 60,874.0 8,354.0 (14,080.0) $798,982.0
$875,938.0 182,352.0 9,910.0 $1,068,200.0
Local Improvement Levy 2 Amusement/Entertainment Taxes Other Taxes (net) 3
1
The City of Regina levies a special tax against all properties that abut an alley. The tax funds the maintenance and reconstruction of alleys. The assessable rates for 2009 are $2.64/ft for paved and upgraded alleys and $1.66/ft for gravel alleys. The City of Winnipeg reallocated to the operating budget a portion of the frontage levy previously recorded in the Water and Sewer Utility. 2 Local Improvement Levies are collected from property owners adjacent to local improvements. Property owners can pay for the full cost of their share of the work when the work is completed or over time through local improvement levies. The Cities of Saskatoon and Regina record these amounts as revenue in their capital budgets. 3 The City of Edmonton issued rebates to help homeowners offset the increase in garbage fees that commenced January 1, 2009 as a result of the establishment of the Waste Management Utility.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 3
Property Taxes Property taxes are determined by applying the following formula to each taxable property in the city:
Taxable Assessment x Mill Rate x Mill Rate Factor
The taxable assessment for an individual property is determined in accordance with Provincial legislation. In Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, a market value assessment system is in place. In Alberta, legislation requires municipalities to update property assessments every year; in Manitoba assessments have been updated every four years, but commencing in 2010 assessments will be updated every two years. In Saskatchewan, property assessments are updated every four years. The taxable assessment is then multiplied by a percentage determined by each Province. For 2009, the Provincial percentages for the most common classes or property in each city are as follows: Saskatchewan – Saskatoon and Regina o 70% for residential, condominium and multi-unit residential property. o 40% for non-arable land. o 55% for other agricultural property. o 75% for elevators, rail right-of-ways and pipelines. o 100% for all other commercial and industrial property. Manitoba – Winnipeg o 45% for residential. o 26% for farm property. o 65% for institutional, legislative buildings and other property. o 50% for pipelines. o 25% for railways. o 10% for designated recreational properties (e.g., golf courses). o 0% for designated higher education property. Alberta – in Edmonton and Calgary, 100% of the taxable assessment is subject to taxation. The mill rate is applied to the taxable assessment to determine the total property tax revenue that will be generated. In Saskatoon and Regina, a separate mill rate is set for libraries. A mill rate factor may then be applied to redistribute property tax revenues between different property classes. In Edmonton and Calgary, rather than utilizing mill rate factors, different mill rates are set for different classes of property.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 4
The 2009 mill rates and mill rate factors, if applicable, are as follows:
Table 3: 2009 Property Tax Factors
Saskatoon Regina Mill Rate Municipal 10.66 13.442 25.448 Single family residential and farmland 3.9587 Other residential 4.5525 Non-residential 10.4512 Library 1.21 1.4967 Included above Mill Rate Factors Residential and Condominiums Multi-Unit Residential Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural Privately-Owned Light Aircraft Hangar Golf Courses 0.9329 1.0394 1.1782 0.6530 0.89783 0.9339 1.22945 0.92187 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Included above Included above Residential 2.6402 Farm land 12.1327 Non-residential 8.2132 Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Often, property taxes are expressed in terms of effective taxes for a property valued at $100,000 for each class of property. In the following table, effective property taxes are presented for five common property classes.
Table 4: 2009 Effective Property Taxes per $100,000 Assessed Value – Municipal and Library
Saskatoon Residential Condominiums Multi-Unit Residential Commercial and Industrial Agricultural $775 $775 $864 $1,399 $769 Regina $939 $939 $977 $1,837 $1,010 Winnipeg $1,145 $1,145 $1,145 $1,654 $662 Edmonton $396 $455 $455 $1,045 $396 Calgary $264 $264 $264 $821 $1,213
Based on the table above, one might conclude that property owners in Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg are more heavily taxed than Edmonton and Calgary. However, it is also important to take into account the assessed value of property subject to taxation in each city. Cities with a larger assessment roll (i.e., property tax base) may be able to adopt lower mill rates in order to generate the required level of property tax revenue.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 5
Table 5: 2009 Assessed Value – Total, Per Capita and Average
Saskatoon Preliminary Assessment Roll Preliminary Assessment Roll per Capita $11,674,398,500 $55,752 Regina $9,694,098,000 $54,083 Winnipeg $15,947,201,000 $23,923 Edmonton $135,912,908,600 $180,636 Calgary $224,285,108,700 $215,061
Average Assessment per Property Class Residential Condominiums Multi-Unit Residential Non-Residential, Commercial and Industrial $120,600 $92,350 $828,500 $1,027,300 $99,100 $85,100 $723,700 $982,200 $52,100 $50,200 $260,800 $571,800 $338,200 n/a $1,996,100 $2,363,200 $427,500 $278,500 n/a $4,416,100
Business Taxes Business taxes are levied in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary. For these cities, business taxes can represent a significant proportion of total taxation revenue – 12% in Winnipeg, 8% in Edmonton and 17% in Calgary. In May 2007, Edmonton’s City Council approved the elimination of business taxes over a fouryear period 2008-2011.
Table 6: 2009 Business Tax Factors
Winnipeg Business Tax Rate Basis of Tax 7.75% Area x Annual rental value (estimated net rent + costs to occupy premises) Number of Businesses Subject to Tax 12,700 approx. Edmonton 4.282% Area x net annual rental rate (annual rental value excluding operating and occupancy costs) 19,000 approx. Calgary 6.54% Area x net annual rental rate (annual rental value excluding operating costs) 25,100 approx.
Amusement/Entertainment Taxes The City of Saskatoon levies an amusement tax on the entrance/admission fee to the annual Saskatoon Prairieland Exhibition. The tax is 9% of the entrance/admission fee, with 5% of that amount retained by the Saskatoon Prairieland Exhibition Corporation as a commission. The City of Regina levies an amusement tax on commercial movie theatres. The tax is 10% of ticket sales, with 1/10th of that amount retained by the theatre as a commission. The City of Winnipeg levies an entertainment tax on certain venues hosting a performance with a ticket price of at least $5.00 (i.e., entertainment facilities with fixed seating capacity of at least 5,000 and for-profit cinemas of all sizes). The tax is 10% of the admission price and funds are allocated to a reserve to support arts and culture in Winnipeg.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009 Page 6
Grants in Lieu of Taxes
Grants in lieu of taxes are typically grant payments to municipalities from senior levels of government. Although senior government is exempt from taxes levied by local taxing authorities, it does make grant payments for government owned/managed properties. In the City of Saskatoon, a grant in lieu is also paid by the Land Bank ($250.0); in the City of Winnipeg, Golf Courses ($233.0) and Civic Accommodations ($125.0) also pay a grant in lieu.
Table 7: 2009 Grants in Lieu of Taxes
Saskatoon (in thousands) $ $4,430.0 250.0 $4,680.0 Per capita $21.16 1.19 $22.35 $ $9,690.9 $9,690.9 Regina Per capita $54.06 $54.06 $ $29,744.0 1,080.0 358.0 $31,182.0 Winnipeg Per capita $44.62 1.62 0.54 $46.78 $ $19,838.0 656.0 $20,494.0 Edmonton Per capita $26.37 0.87 $27.24 $ $8,784.0 $8,784.0 Calgary Per capita $8.42 $8.42
Property Taxes Business Taxes Civic Programs/Agencies
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies
The City of Saskatoon has established five utility funds – Water, Wastewater, Storm Water, Light & Power and Transit. General revenues from these utilities include grants in lieu of taxes, a return on the City’s investment in the Light & Power utility and an administrative cross-charge to cover the costs of providing certain corporate support services (e.g., legal, payroll, purchasing, accounts payable, etc.). Franchise fees are also received from SaskPower (10% surcharge and 5% of electricity sales) and SaskEnergy/TransGas (5% of the cost of supply and delivery). At its meeting on March 3, 2008, City Council approved the annual transfer of a portion of the accumulated return on investment from land development activities to general revenues. The City of Regina has established two utility funds – Water and Sewer. The utilities pay the City a “utility surplus transfer” equal to 7.5% of the budgeted utility revenues for the prior year and a “utility administration charge” to fund similar corporate costs as detailed above equal to 5% of the budgeted utility expenditures for the prior year. SaskPower provides all electrical services in the City of Regina and pays the City a 10% surcharge and 5% payment in lieu of taxes; SaskEnergy and TransGas franchise fees are calculated in the same manner as for Saskatoon. The City of Winnipeg has established four utility funds – Waterworks, Sewage Disposal, Transit and Solid Waste Disposal – and four special operating agencies – Fleet Management, Winnipeg Parking Authority, Golf Services and Animal Services. General revenue from these entities include grants in lieu, a return on the City’s investment (excluding Transit and Animal Services) and an administrative cross-charge to fund corporate costs (see above). Electrical and natural gas franchise fees are calculated based on 2.5% of domestic consumption (excluding for the
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009 Page 7
purpose of heating) and 5% on other than domestic consumption. On February 27, 2002, the City of Winnipeg approved Manitoba Hydro’s proposal to purchase Winnipeg Hydro. Terms include annual payments to the City - $25 million/year for the first 5 years; $20 million/year for years 6-9 and $16 million/year for year 10 in perpetuity. The City of Edmonton has established three utility funds – Sanitary, Land Drainage and Waste Management – and three municipal enterprises – Land Development, Municipal Use Property and Mobile Equipment Services. General revenue from these entities includes a return on the City’s investment (except Waste Management and Mobile Equipment Services) and a “local access fee” from the Sanitary utility (in essence, payments in lieu of taxes) equal to 8% of qualifying revenues. EPCOR, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the City of Edmonton, provides water and electricity services within the city. General revenue from this subsidiary includes dividends (based on a percentage of ongoing budgeted earnings) and franchise fees. In addition, in 1995, the City of Edmonton sold its telephone utility for $470.2 million. The proceeds have been placed in an endowment fund and annual dividends support general municipal operations. The City of Calgary has established two utility funds – Water Services and Water Resources – and the Calgary Parking Authority. General revenue from the utilities include dividends based on the amount of equity in each utility and franchise fees; an annual contribution is received from the Parking Authority based on 65% of its surplus plus the net revenue from parking enforcement. Electricity is provided by ENMAX, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the City. General revenue from this subsidiary includes an annual dividend which is determined by ENMAX’s board (generally based on a percentage of net income) and franchise fees.
Table 8: 2009 Utility/Special Operating Agency Revenue
Saskatoon (in thousands) Electricity Natural Gas Water/Wastewater Land Transit Solid Waste Disposal Parking Telecommunications $ $46,788.1 8,184.2 6,850.4 1,250.0 395.8 $63,468.5
1 2
Regina $ $26,103.5 10,013.5 8,668.1 $44,785.1 Per capita $145.63 55.86 48.36 $249.85 $
Winnipeg Per capita $50.21 8.28 25.60 2.04 0.18 0.06 $86.37 $
Edmonton Per capita $229.00 49.29 44.50 17.26 46.51 $386.56 $
Calgary Per capita $88.66 74.22 138.18 5.68 41.23 $347.97
Per capita $223.44 39.08 32.71 5.97 1.89 $303.08
$33,469.0 5,518.0 17,065.0 1,360.0 120.0 42.0 $57,574.0
$172,305.0 1 37,084.0 33,484.0
2
$92,458.0 77,400.0 144,105.0 5,922.0 43,000.0 $362,885.0
12,986.0 34,991.0 $290,850.0
Represents revenue from EPCOR which provides both water and electricity services. Represents revenue from drainage services only (i.e., wastewater).
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 8
Self Generated Revenue
Various services provided by each municipality are funded in whole or in part through fees paid directly by the user. Some services are expected to be self-sufficient, while others are only expected to recover a portion of their total costs from users. Also included are revenues representing a fine or penalty for non-compliance with a law or bylaw. Examples of services reflected in this category include: Public and/or specialized transit fares and charters. Land sales. Leisure facility admission, registration and rental fees (e.g., indoor leisure centres, outdoor pools, ice rinks, sportsfields). Parking meter, permit and ticket revenue. Traffic violations (manual and automated). Landfill tipping and recycling program fees. Cemetery grave, interment and monument sales. Zoning, sub-development and discretionary use fees. Golf course green fees and cart rentals. Zoo admissions. Building, plumbing and electrical permits. Business licenses. Animal licenses and tickets. Medical response service fees.
Table 9: 2009 Self Generated Revenue
Saskatoon (in thousands) Leisure Facilities Parking Services 1 Land Sales, Licensing and Permitting 2 Police Landfill and Recycling Building, Plumbing and Electrical Permitting Transit 3 Medical Response All Other $ $10,665.6 6,933.2 6,541.3 4,779.7 4,011.5 2,400.0 161.2 5,676.9 $41,169.4 Per Capita
1 2 3
Regina % 25% 17% 16% 12% 10% 6% 14% $ $6,713.9 3,223.3 5,726.2 3,667.0 8,029.4 1,406.1 6,087.3 7,083.3 $41,936.5 $233.96 % 16% 8% 14% 9% 18% 3% 15% 17% 100%
Winnipeg $ $13,395.0 3,397.0 24,444.0 8,873.0 13,203.0 1,228.0 18,371.0 24,573.0 $107,484.0 $161.24 % 12% 3% 24% 8% 12% 1% 17% 23% 100%
Edmonton $ $32,787.0 19,517.0 41,302.0 41,308.0 102,381.0 4,304.0 53,134.0 $294,733.0 $391.72 % 11% 7% 14% 14% 35% 1% 18% 100% $
Calgary % 5% 13% 11% 15% 9% 31% 1% 15% 100%
$23,960.4 60,691.0 51,788.0 70,677.0 42,976.0 146,226.0 5,607.0 70,073.0 $471,998.4 $452.59
100%
$196.61
The Cities of Winnipeg and Calgary operate parking services as special operating agencies/authorities. The City of Edmonton operates land services and landfill and recycling as utilities. The Cities of Saskatoon and Winnipeg operate public transit services as utilities and therefore only specialized transit service revenue is presented; the Cities of Regina, Edmonton and Calgary operate public transit services as civic programs and therefore both public and specialized transit service revenue is presented.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 9
Government Grants/Support
Both the Provincial and Federal governments provide grant funding to municipalities to aid in the delivery of certain programs and/or to support general operations.
Table 10: 2009 Government Grants/Support
Saskatoon (in thousands) Support for General Operations Program Specific Support $ $29,230.0 7,215.7 $36,445.7 Per capita $139.59 34.46 $174.05 $ $25,896.9 7,914.2 $33,811.1 Regina Per capita $144.48 44.15 $188.63 $ $38,002.0 67,755.0 $105,757.0 Winnipeg Per capita $57.01 101.64 $158.65 $ $102,290.0 3,485.0 $105,775.0 Edmonton Per capita $135.95 4.63 $140.58 $ $62,704.0 2,323.0 $65,027.0 Calgary Per capita $60.13 2.23 $62.36
Reserve Funding
Municipalities establish reserves to fund future expenditures (e.g., equipment replacement) and to minimize the effect of significant fluctuations in revenues and expenses at both the program level and corporate level (e.g., stabilization). In order to balance their operating budget, the Cities of Regina, Winnipeg and Edmonton have budgeted a withdrawal from their fiscal stabilization reserve; the City of Calgary has budgeted a surplus to be contributed to its financial stabilization reserve.
Table 11: 2009 Reserve Funding
Saskatoon (in thousands) $ Per capita $ Regina Per capita $ Winnipeg Per capita $ Edmonton Per capita $ Calgary Per capita
Program specific reserve funding Program Specific Reserve Funding $4,321.0 $20.64 $152.7 $0.85 $3,780.0 $5.67 $12,607.0 $16.76 $108,819.0 $104.34
General purpose reserve funding Fiscal Stabilization Other Transfers to Retained Earnings $4,321.0 Stabilization, Capital and Special Purpose Reserve Balances at December 31, 2008 $87,396.0 $20.64 $417.36 $6,731.4 45.2 $6,929.3 $61,683.0 $37.55 0.25 $38.65 $344.12 $7,917.0 397.0 2,785.0 $14,879.0 $252,410.0 $11.88 0.60 4.18 $22.33 $378.65 $12,712.0 $25,319.0 $242,803.0 $16.89 $33.65 $322.70 ($60,797.0) 14,561.0 $62,583.0 $861,721.0 ($58.30) 13.96 $60.00 $826.28
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 10
Other Revenue
For the most part, the majority of other revenue is interest earnings. We note that the City of Winnipeg allocates interest earnings on reserve balances to the applicable reserve, not to general operations.
Table 12: 2009 Other Revenue
Saskatoon (in thousands) Interest Earnings Tax Penalties Other $ $7,347.4 950.0 122.0 $8,419.4 Cash, Cash Equivalents and Bonds at December 31, 2008 $226,851.0 Per capita $35.09 4.54 0.58 $40.21 $ $3,066.1 1,165.0 331.6 $4,562.7 $161,983.0 Regina Per capita $17.11 6.50 1.85 $25.46 $ $3,026.0 6,300.0 6,176.0 $15,502.0 Winnipeg Per capita $4.54 9.45 9.26 $23.25 $ $30,032.0 6,701.0 $36,733.0 Edmonton Per capita $39.91 8.91 $48.82 $ $40,024.0 5,812.0 $45,836.0 Calgary Per capita $38.38 5.57 $43.95
$484,257.0
$1,049,142.0
$476,284.0
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 11
Chapter 3 Where does each City’s money go?
Figure 6: City of Saskatoon 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Reserves 11.7% General Government Services 9.7%
Figure 7: City of Regina 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Debt Servicing 1.0% Reserves 7.8% General Government Services 14.3%
Debt Servicing 3.8% Recreation and Cultural Services 16.5%
Recreation and Cultural Services 14.6% Planning and Development 8.0%
Planning and Development 7.4% Societal Services 0.4% Environmental Health 2.5% Protection of Persons & Property 32.5%
Societal Services 0.4% Environmental Health 3.6% Protection of Persons & Property 32.0%
Transportation 15.5%
Transportation 18.3%
Figure 8: City of Winnipeg 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Recreation and Cultural Services 11.4% Planning and Development 7.3% Societal Services 1.7% Environmental Health 4.1% Transportation 17.1% Debt Servicing 11.2% Reserves 0.2% General Government Services 8.8%
Figure 9: City of Edmonton 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Recreation and Cultural Services 12.3% Planning and Development 6.7% Debt Servicing 3.6% Reserves 1.2% General Government Services 20.9%
Societal Services 3.6%
Protection of Persons & Property 38.2%
Transportation 25.3%
Protection of Persons & Property 26.4%
Figure 10: City of Calgary 2009 Budgeted Expenditures
Debt Servicing 5.6% Reserves 11.2% General Government Services 13.1% Protection of Persons & Property 25.2%
Recreation and Cultural Services 8.6%
Planning and Development 9.7% Societal Services 0.4% Environmental Health 5.0%
Transportation 21.2%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 12
Budgeted Operating Expenditures for 2009
Each city allocates the greatest proportion of its operating budget spending to protecting persons and property. Of note, the City of Edmonton operates all of its Environmental Health services (e.g., water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal) as utilities.
Table 13: 2009 Budgeted Operating Expenditures
Saskatoon (in thousands) General Government Services Protection of Persons & Property Transportation Environmental Health Societal Services Planning & Development Recreation & Cultural Services Debt Servicing Reserve Contributions $ $28,620.1 95,889.5 45,741.0 7,271.7 1,242.9 21,668.5 48,595.5 11,053.3 34,412.1 $294,494.6 % 9.7% 32.5% 15.5% 2.5% 0.4% 7.4% 16.5% 3.8% 11.7% 100.0% $ $39,861.6 88,918.9 50,742.1 9,967.1 1,184.4 22,114.0 40,609.3 2,830.9 21,632.3 $277,860.6 Regina % 14.3% 32.0% 18.3% 3.6% 0.4% 8.0% 14.6% 1.0% 7.8% 100.0% $ $70,645.0 305,850.0 136,392.0 32,618.0 13,533.0 58,152.0 90,695.0 89,078.0 1,926.0 $798,889.0 Winnipeg % 8.8% 38.2% 17.1% 4.1% 1.7% 7.3% 11.4% 11.2% 0.2% 100.0% $ $328,081.0 416,311.0 397,194.0 56,771.0 105,417.0 193,920.0 55,964.0 19,228.0 $1,572,886.0 Edmonton % 20.9% 26.4% 25.3% 3.6% 6.7% 12.3% 3.6% 1.2% 100.0% $ $272,986.0 528,163.0 441,057.0 104,239.0 8,487.6 202,003.9 179,299.2 116,472.8 232,604.9 $2,085,313.4 Calgary % 13.1% 25.2% 21.2% 5.0% 0.4% 9.7% 8.6% 5.6% 11.2% 100.0%
General Government Services
Several services provided by each city are related to the general operations of the municipality. These services are generally supportive in nature and can not always be allocated to specific programs cost-effectively. Examples of such services include: Legislative services (e.g., Mayor’s Office, Councillors, Committees, Advisory Boards). Administrative services (e.g., City Manager’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, Human Resources, City Solicitor’s Office). Financial services (e.g., Comptroller’s Office, Treasurer’s Office, Purchasing, Inventory Management, Investment Services). Assessment. Common services (e.g., Corporate Information Services, Facility Operations and Maintenance, Energy Management).
Table 14: 2009 General Government Services
Saskatoon (in thousands) General Government Services $ $28,620.1 Per capita $136.68 $ $39,861.6 Regina Per capita $222.38 $ $70,645.0 Winnipeg Per capita $105.98 $ $328,081.0 Edmonton Per capita $436.04 $ $272,986.0 Calgary Per capita $261.76
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 13
Protection of Persons & Property
The largest components of the Protection of Persons & Property cost category are Police, Fire and, if applicable, Medical Response Services. Effective April 1, 2009, responsibility for ground ambulance services in Alberta has been transferred from municipalities to the Province. The City of Calgary accounts for the operation of its 9-1-1 communication centre in a separate program area – Public Safety Communications.
Table 15: 2009 Protection of Persons & Property
Saskatoon (in thousands) Police Fire Medical Response Services Public Safety Communications Centre Other (e.g., Animal Control, Emergency Measures) $ $63,514.5 31,085.1 1,289.9 $95,889.5 Per capita $303.32 148.45 6.16 $457.93 $ $56,724.8 31,148.4 1,045.7 $88,918.9 Regina Per capita $316.46 173.77 5.83 $496.06 $ $177,120.0 89,848.0 37,438.0 1,444.0 $305,850.0 Winnipeg Per capita $265.71 134.79 56.16 2.17 $458.83 $ $262,461.0 140,281.0 10,057.0 3,512.0 $416,311.0 Edmonton Per capita $348.83 186.44 13.37 4.67 $553.31 $ $311,059.0 164,229.0 14,936.0 21,975.0 15,964.0 $528,163.0 Calgary Per capita $298.27 157.47 14.32 21.07 15.31 $506.44
Transportation
The largest components of the Transportation cost category are Transit and Street Maintenance. Regarding Transit services, the Cities of Edmonton and Calgary operate both buses and light rail transit (LRT) systems; the Cities of Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg do not have LRT systems.
Table 16: 2009 Transportation
Saskatoon (in thousands) Transit 1 (conventional and/or specialized) Street Maintenance (winter and summer) Other (e.g., street lighting, parking, traffic signals, planning and management)
1
Regina $ $24,626.0 15,125.1 10,991.0 Per capita $137.39 84.38 61.32 $
Winnipeg Per capita $70.88 102.07 31.66 $
Edmonton Per capita $327.95 142.90 57.04 $
Calgary Per capita $284.60 77.04 61.28
$ $21,456.2 11,363.9 12,920.9
Per capita $102.47 54.27 61.70
$47,246.0 68,042.0 21,104.0
$246,753.0 107,522.0 42,919.0
$296,805.0 80,340.0 63,912.0
$45,741.0
$218.44
$50,742.1
$283.09
$136,392.0
$204.61
$397,194.0
$527.89
$441,057.0
$422.92
The Cities of Saskatoon and Winnipeg operate public transit services as utilities and therefore only public transit subsidies and specialized transit service operating costs are presented; the Cities of Regina, Edmonton and Calgary operate public transit services as civic programs and therefore both public and specialized transit service operating costs are presented.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 14
Environmental Health
The Environmental Health cost category includes solid waste services (i.e., collection and disposal), environmental services (e.g., waste minimization/recycling) and land drainage/flood control for the City of Winnipeg. The City of Edmonton operates all of these services through utilities and therefore does not appear in the table below.
Table 17: 2009 Environmental Health
Saskatoon (in thousands) Solid Waste Services Environmental Services Land Drainage/Flood Control $ $6,270.8 1,000.9 $7,271.7 Per capita $29.95 4.78 $34.73 $ $8,987.9 979.2 $9,967.1 Regina Per capita $50.14 5.46 $55.60 $ $16,656.0 11,210.0 4,752.0 $32,618.0 Winnipeg Per capita $24.99 16.82 7.13 $48.94 $ $96,124.0 8,115.0 $104,239.0 Calgary Per capita $92.17 7.78 $99.95
Societal Services
The main components of the Societal Services cost category are Cemeteries and Housing Initiatives. Included in other expenditures for the City of Winnipeg are the costs associated with enforcing the Manitoba Public Health Act (i.e., public health inspection services at inner-city food establishments) and the Non-Smokers Health Protection Act.
Table 18: 2009 Societal Services
Saskatoon (in thousands) Cemeteries Housing Other $ $912.9 124.0 206.0 $1,242.9 Per capita $4.36 0.59 0.98 $5.93 $ $1,024.4 160.0 $1,184.4 Regina Per capita $5.72 0.89 $6.61 $ $1,630.0 3,476.0 8,427.0 $13,533.0 Winnipeg Per capita $2.45 5.21 12.64 $20.30 $ $2,090.0 51,181.0 3,500.0 $56,771.0 Edmonton Per capita $2.78 68.02 4.65 $75.45 $ $2,990.1 5,497.5 $8,487.6 Calgary Per capita $2.87 5.27 $8.14
Planning & Development
The Planning & Development cost category includes costs associated with planning, developing and maintaining land and encouraging economic development. There is a wide variety in the costs associated with Land Planning and Management and Permitting in each city, both in total and per capita. Factors that may be contributing to these differences include the level of permitting activity, the types of permits issued by each city and the rate of growth. In 2008: The City of Saskatoon issued 3,516 permits (value $610.2 million); the City administers the building and plumbing permitting processes; there were 2,319 housing starts in the census metropolitan area.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 15
The City of Regina issued 2,387 permits (value $342 million); the City administers the building and plumbing permitting processes; there were 1,375 housing starts in the census metropolitan area. The City of Winnipeg issued 9,120 permits (value $1,053 million); the City administers the building, plumbing and electrical permitting processes; there were 3,009 housing starts in the census metropolitan area. The City of Edmonton issued 8,768 permits (value $3.123 billion); the City administers the building and mechanical (i.e., plumbing, gas, sewer/water, heating, ventilation, air conditioning and electrical) permitting processes; there were 6,615 housing starts in the census metropolitan area. The City of Calgary issued 14,920 permits (value $4.142 billion); the City administers the building, electrical, mechanical (i.e., heating, ventilation and air conditioning), plumbing and gas permitting processes; there were 11,438 housing starts in the census metropolitan area.
Table 19: 2009 Planning & Development
Saskatoon (in thousands) Land Planning and Management Parks and Open Space Permitting Economic Development $ $6,067.3 9,794.3 3,157.1 2,649.8 $21,668.5 Per capita $28.97 46.77 15.08 12.65 $103.47 $ $6,672.5 11,588.7 1,512.9 2,339.9 $22,114.0 Regina Per capita $37.23 64.65 8.44 13.05 $123.37 $ $8,669.0 34,348.0 13,855.0 1,280.0 $58,152.0 Winnipeg Per capita $13.00 51.53 20.78 1.92 $87.23 $ $4,410.0 43,926.0 39,582.0 17,499.0 $105,417.0 Edmonton Per capita $5.86 58.38 52.61 23.26 $140.11 $ $57,316.5 76,046.9 61,367.0 7,273.5 $202,003.9 Calgary Per capita $54.96 72.92 58.84 6.97 $193.69
Recreation & Cultural Services
The Recreation & Cultural Services cost category includes a wide variety of services such as indoor and outdoor leisure facilities, golf courses, skating rinks, athletic fields, zoos, museums, galleries, libraries, conference centres, sports and entertainment centres and support for sport, arts and culture organizations. This is an area in which there is great variety in the manner in which cities deliver services (i.e., civic program incorporated non-profit organization, partnership, etc.). In addition, the extent to which there are opportunities offered by the private sector (e.g., private skating rinks, fitness centres, etc.) and the philosophy adopted by the city (e.g., to deliver, facilitate or support the provision of services) greatly affect the level of municipal involvement.
Table 20: 2009 Recreation & Cultural Services
Saskatoon (in thousands) Recreation & Cultural Services $ $48,595.5 Per capita $232.07 $ $40,609.3 Regina Per capita $226.56 $ $90,695.0 Winnipeg Per capita $136.06 $ $193,920.0 Edmonton Per capita $257.73 $ $179,299.2 Calgary Per capita $171.92
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 16
Debt Servicing and Debt Levels
Debt servicing costs include both principal repayments and interest charges. There are vast differences in debt servicing costs per capita which may be due to differences in the nature of debt outstanding – tax supported or utility supported. The City of Saskatoon has a AAA credit rating from Standard and Poor’s, the Cities of Regina, Edmonton and Calgary have a AA+ rating, and the City of Winnipeg has a AA rating.
Table 21: 2009 Debt Servicing and Debt Balances
Saskatoon (in thousands) Tax Supported Debt Servicing Costs Tax Supported Debt Special Operating Agency Debt Utility Supported Debt Balances as of December 31, 2008
1
Regina Per capita $52.79 $353.02 72.69 $425.71 $ $2,830.9 $8,400.0 19,600.0 $28,000.0 Per capita $15.79 $46.86 109.35 $156.21 $
Winnipeg Per capita $133.63 $313.24 64.08 338.15 $715.47 $
Edmonton Per capita $74.38 $727.95 655.66 $1,383.61 $
Calgary Per capita $111.68 $506.16 1,372.09 $1,878.25
$ $11,053.3 $73,923.0 1 15,221.0 $89,144.0
$89,078.0 $208,806.0 42,718.0 225,410.0 $476,934.0
$55,964.0 $547,718.0 493,327.0 $1,041,045.0
$116,472.8 $527,874.0 1,430,944.0 $1,958,818.0
Approximately $16.1 million of this total balance is Gas Tax supported debt (i.e., gas tax funds are used to fund principal and interest payments).
Reserve Contributions and Balances
As described in Chapter 2, municipalities establish reserves to fund future expenditures and to minimize the effect of significant fluctuations in revenues and expenses at both the program level and corporate level.
Table 22: 2009 Reserve Contributions and Balances
Saskatoon (in thousands) Reserve Contributions Balances as of December 31, 2008 $ $34,412.1 $87,396.0 Per capita $164.34 $417.36 $ $21,632.3 $61,683.0 Regina Per capita $120.68 $344.12 $ $1,926.0 $252,410.0 Winnipeg Per capita $2.89 $378.65 $ $19,228.0 $242,803.0 Edmonton Per capita $25.56 $322.70 $ $232,604.9 $861,721.0 Calgary Per capita $223.04 $826.28
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 17
Chapter 4 Which programs in each City need General Source funding to operate?
Figure 11: City of Saskatoon 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Recreation and Cultural Services Planning and 16.6% Development 6.6% Societal Services 0.2% Environmental Health 2.3% General Government Services 17.3%
Figure 12: City of Regina 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Planning and Development 7.6% Societal Services 0.1% Environmental Health 2.9% Recreation and Cultural Services 13.8% General Government Services 23.2%
Transportation 20.7%
Protection of Persons & Property 36.3%
Transportation 16.4%
Protection of Persons & Property 36.0%
Figure 13: City of Winnipeg 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Recreation and Planning and Cultural Services 11.8% Development 6.4% Societal Services 2.9% Environmental Health 2.5% General Government Services 12.8%
Figure 14: City of Edmonton 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Planning and Development 4.8% Recreation and Cultural Services 10.1% General Government Services 31.1%
Societal Services 1.1%
Transportation 25.5%
Protection of Persons & Property 38.1%
Transportation 23.0%
Protection of Persons & Property 29.9%
Figure 15: City of Calgary 2009 General Source Funded Programs
Planning and Development 6.6% Societal Services 0.2% Environmental Health 2.9% Recreation and Budgeted Surplus Cultural Services 4.1% 8.3%
General Government Services 29.9%
Transportation 18.7%
Protection of Persons & Property 29.3%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 18
General Source Funded Programs
As mentioned in Chapter 2, some civic services are funded in whole or in part through fees paid directly by the user and certain programs receive grant funding to aid in the delivery of their programs. Considering both these revenue sources and operating expenditures on a program by program basis allows for an assessment of how much each individual program either contributes to or draws from general revenue sources. Often, individual programs that draw from general revenue sources are called “mill rate funded” programs. However, since the mill rate (and resulting property taxes) are only one source of funding for such programs, the term “general source” programs is used in this report. Of the five cities included in this study, the City of Saskatoon had to fund the highest proportion of its total 2009 operating budget from general source funding.
Table 23: 2009 General Source Funding for Program Areas
Saskatoon (in thousands) General Government Services Protection of Persons & Property Transportation Environmental Health Societal Services Planning & Development Recreation & Cultural Services Budgeted Surplus $ $41,744.2 87,871.4 50,127.0 5,464.0 499.9 16,059.2 40,022.8 $241,788.5 Percentage of Total Operating Budget 82% % 17.3% 36.3% 20.7% 2.3% 0.2% 6.6% 16.6% 100.0% $ $51,901.9 80,885.3 36,747.6 6,623.3 327.1 17,090.5 30,951.7 $224,527.4 81% Regina % 23.2% 36.0% 16.4% 2.9% 0.1% 7.6% 13.8% 100.0% $ $80,298.0 238,915.0 160,686.0 15,430.0 17,940.0 40,072.0 73,735.0 $627,076.0 78% Winnipeg % 12.8% 38.1% 25.5% 2.5% 2.9% 6.4% 11.8% 100.0% $ $361,774.0 347,597.0 268,019.0 12,580.0 55,504.0 117,782.0 $1,163,256.0 74% Edmonton % 31.1% 29.9% 23.0% 1.1% 4.8% 10.1% 100.0% $ $449,235.8 439,297.0 281,025.0 42,960.0 3,543.3 98,604.1 124,902.8 60,797.0 $1,500,365.0 72% Calgary % 29.9% 29.3% 18.7% 2.9% 0.2% 6.6% 8.3% 4.1% 100.0%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 19
Chapter 5 Where does that additional General Source funding come from?
Figure 16: City of Saskatoon 2009 General Source Funding
Other revenue 3.5% Taxation 56.3%
Figure 17: City of Regina 2009 General Source Funding
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 19.9%
Other revenue 2.0%
Reserve funding 3.0%
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 26.2%
Taxation 59.3%
Grants in lieu of taxes 1.9%
Grants in lieu of taxes 4.3%
Provincial revenue sharing 12.1%
Provincial revenue sharing 11.5%
Figure 18: City of Winnipeg 2009 General Source Funding
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 9.2% Grants in lieu of taxes 5.0% Other revenue Reserve funding 2.5% 1.3% Taxation 71.2%
Figure 19: City of Edmonton 2009 General Source Funding
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 25.0%
Other revenue 3.2% Reserve funding 1.1% Taxation 68.6%
Grants in lieu of taxes 1.8%
Provincial revenue sharing 10.8%
Provincial revenue sharing 0.3%
Figure 20: City of Calgary 2009 General Source Funding
Utilities/Special Operating Agencies 24.2% Other revenue Reserve funding 2.9% 1.0%
Taxation 71.1%
Grants in lieu of taxes 0.6%
Provincial revenue sharing 0.2%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 20
General Source Funding Sources
The largest source of general source funding is taxation. Of the five cities included in this study, the City of Saskatoon relied the least on taxation to fund its 2009 operating budget.
Table 24: 2009 General Source Funding Sources
Saskatoon (in thousands) Taxation General Support/ Grants Grants in Lieu of Taxes Utilities/Special Operating Agencies Other Revenue Reserve Funding $ $135,990.6 29,230.0 4,680.0 63,468.5 8,419.4 $241,788.5 % 56.3% 12.1% 1.9% 26.2% 3.5% 100.0% $ $132,860.4 25,896.9 9,690.9 44,785.1 4,562.7 6,731.4 $224,527.4 Regina % 59.3% 11.5% 4.3% 19.9% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0% $ $446,749.0 67,755.0 31,182.0 57,574.0 15,502.0 8,314.0 $627,076.0 Winnipeg % 71.2% 10.8% 5.0% 9.2% 2.5% 1.3% 100.0% $ $798,982.0 3,485.0 20,494.0 290,850.0 36,733.0 12,712.0 $1,163,256.0 Edmonton % 68.6% 0.3% 1.8% 25.0% 3.2% 1.1% 100.0% $ $1,068,200.0 2,323.0 8,784.0 362,885.0 43,612.0 14,561.0 $1,500,365.0 Calgary % 71.1% 0.2% 0.6% 24.2% 2.9% 1.0% 100.0%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 21
Chapter 6 A closer look at certain programs in each City
Police Services
For each city included in this study, the program that requires the largest proportion of general source funding is Police Services. Operating costs are partially funded through user fees (e.g., criminal record checks, alarm fees, seized vehicle compound fees, etc.), fines (e.g., traffic violations (both manual and automated)) and government grants. Although the City of Saskatoon has the second lowest general source funding requirement and number of police officers, when considered on a per capita basis, the City of Saskatoon is comparable to other cities. The City of Calgary has the lowest number of police officers per 100,000 population and also the lowest crime severity index. The crime severity index is the newly adopted Statistics Canada indicator to measure police-reported crime in Canada.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Importance: 9.43 out of 10 Delivery: 7.73 out of 10 18% indicate policing is the single most important issue facing the city Regina 1 (very dissatisfied): 15.0 2: 12.5 3: 15.9 4: 21.8 5 (very satisfied): 34.8 27.5% indicate policing is the single most important issue facing the city Winnipeg Response to 911 calls Very satisfied and satisfied 76% Efforts in crime control Very satisfied and satisfied 63% Edmonton Somewhat satisfied: 43% Very satisfied: 25% Calgary Somewhat satisfied: 49% Very satisfied: 35% 29% indicate crime/ safety/ policing is the most important issue facing the city
Figure 21: Police Services - General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$300,000.0 $244,014.0
Figure 22: Police Services - General Source Funding Required per Capita
$300.00 $264.03 $250.00 $275.21
$268.63 $233.98
$220.06
$250,000.0 $202,121.0 $200,000.0 $146,694.0
$200.00
$150,000.0
$150.00
$100,000.0
$55,287.7 $50,000.0 $49,330.0
$100.00
$50.00
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 22
Figure 23: Police Services – Number of Police Officers
2,000.0 1,800.0 1,808.0
Figure 24: Police Services – Police Officers per 100,000 Population
250.00 200.57 212.00 202.22
1,600.0
1,400.0 1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 1,348.0
200.00
1,434.0
190.59 173.36
150.00
100.00
420.0 380.0
600.0
400.0 200.0 -
50.00
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Figure 25: Police Services – Dispatched Calls for Service per 1,000 Population (2008)
400.0 367.9 365.8
Figure 26: Police Services – Statistics Canada Crime Severity Index (2008)
180.0 160.0 140.0 137.8 124.4 131.4 122.0 89.7 164.8
169.9 163.1
162.5
350.0
300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 231.2 202.1 205.3
120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 84.7
50.0 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
20.0
Saskatoon Regina Violent crime severity index Winnipeg Edmonton Total crime severity index Calgary
Fire Services
For Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg, the program that requires the second largest proportion of general source funding is Fire Services. For Edmonton and Calgary, Fire Services requires the third largest proportion of general source funding, behind capital project financing costs. Although the City of Saskatoon has the second lowest general source funding requirement and number of full time equivalents, when considered on a per capita basis, the City of Saskatoon is comparable to other cities. Of note, in the City of Winnipeg, both an EMS and Fire Services team are dispatched to all priority medical calls. If these medical calls are excluded, dispatched calls per 1,000 population for Fire Services is 31.88 which is comparable to other cities.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Importance: 9.38 out of 10 Delivery: 8.67 out of 10 Regina 1 (very dissatisfied): 0.0 2: 0.0 3: 7.1 4: 35.7 5 (very satisfied): 57.2 Winnipeg Fire protection Very satisfied and satisfied 98% Fire & safety education Very satisfied and satisfied 96% Edmonton Somewhat satisfied: 38% Very satisfied: 44% Calgary Somewhat satisfied: 21% Very satisfied: 76%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 23
Figure 27: Fire Services - General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$180,000.0 $159,655.0 $160,000.0 $140,000.0 $120,000.0 $100,000.0 $80,000.0 $85,690.0 $138,762.0
Figure 28: Fire Services - General Source Funding Required per Capita
$200.00 $180.00 $172.66 $152.58 $128.55 $184.42 $153.09
$160.00
$140.00 $120.00 $100.00 $80.00
$60,000.0
$40,000.0 $20,000.0 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary $31,951.2 $30,948.5
$60.00
$40.00 $20.00 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Figure 29: Fire Services – Full Time Equivalents
1,600.0
Figure 30: Fire Services – Full Time Equivalents per 100,000 Population
180.0
1,400.0
1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton 310.6 293.0 913.0
1,358.0
160.0 148.3
163.5 137.0
1,047.0
140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0
139.2
130.2
60.0
40.0 20.0 -
Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 31: Fire Services – Population Served per Fire Hall/Station
35,000 30,096 31,603
Figure 32: Fire Services – Dispatches per 1,000 Population
100.00 90.00 89.35
30,000 26,175
25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Saskatoon (8 halls) Regina (7 halls) Winnipeg (26 halls) Edmonton (25 halls) Calgary (33 halls) 25,607 25,638
80.00
70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 39.42 28.46 46.55 47.82
30.00
20.00 10.00 Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Summer Road Maintenance
Summer road maintenance activities (e.g., pothole repair, patching, street sweeping, etc.) are highly visible civic services and are subject to much discussion given our reliance on, and investment in, transportation infrastructure. The proportion of general source funding for these services ranges from 2.0% (Saskatoon) to 4.6% (Edmonton). Of note, Winnipeg’s programspecific debt servicing costs of $49.387 million have been excluded from the analysis.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 24
There is great variability in the levels of funding committed to summer road maintenance in each city. Factors that may contribute to this include: Classification and funding of roadway surface treatments as capital expenditures vs. operating expenditures. Existing condition of transportation infrastructure, including the manner in which condition is measured and the thresholds or trigger points at which condition ratings change. The magnitude of the roadway maintenance backlog/deferred maintenance/infrastructure deficit. Environmental conditions (e.g., freeze/thaw cycles) and the impact on the useful life of the roadway. The type of roadway surface material in use (e.g., concrete, asphalt). Funding levels and funding sources to maintain or improve the condition of roadway infrastructure.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Major roadways/freeways Importance: 8.54 out of 10 Delivery: 6.26 out of 10 Neighborhood streets Importance: 7.96 out of 10 Delivery: 5.76 out of 10 Regina Streets & sidewalks 1 (very dissatisfied): 14.8 2: 27.4 3: 37.0 4: 17.6 5 (very satisfied): 3.2 18.5% indicate roads and sidewalks is the single most important issue facing the city Winnipeg Major streets Very satisfied and satisfied 52% Residential streets Very satisfied and satisfied 51% Edmonton Summer road maintenance Somewhat satisfied: 30% Very satisfied: 7% Calgary City-operated roads & infrastructure Somewhat satisfied: 46% Very satisfied: 9%
Figure 33: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$60,000.0 $53,365.4 $50,000.0
Figure 34: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required per Capita
$80.00 $70.93 $70.00 $60.00
$54,819.0
$40,000.0
$52.56
$50.00 $40.00 $31.52
$17,161.0
$30,000.0
$36.30 $25.74
$20,000.0
$6,601.0 $6,507.3
$30.00 $20.00
$10,000.0
$10.00
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
$-
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 35: Summer Road Maintenance – Lane Kilometers of Roadway
16,000 14,300 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary 3,250 2,035 6,750 11,600
Figure 36: Summer Road Maintenance – General Source Funding per Lane Kilometer
$5,000.00 $4,500.00
$4,600.47
$3,833.50 $3,197.69 $2,542.37 $2,031.08
$4,000.00
$3,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton
Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 25
Winter Road Maintenance
Winter road maintenance activities include sanding, snow plowing and snow removal. With the exception of a very small dollar amount in the City of Winnipeg (0.1% of their program budget), winter road maintenance activities in each city are funded entirely from general revenue sources. There is great variability in the levels of funding committed to winter road maintenance in each city. This is most likely due to the varied service levels adopted by each city.
Saskatoon Priority/ Category 1 Freeways and major arterials Within 12 hrs. 9% of network Priority/ Category 2 Access to emergency locations and bus routes Within 36 hrs. 19% of network Regina Freeways/expressways, major arterials and emergency routes Within 24 hrs. 13% of network Minor arterials, major collectors, downtown Within 36 hrs. 10% of network Non-regional bus routes and collectors Within 36 hrs. 24% of network Winnipeg Regional streets and emergency route Within 36 hrs. 23% of network Edmonton Freeways, business areas, River Valley hills and bridges Within 48 hrs. 6.5% of network Arterials Within 48 hrs. 10% of network Calgary High traffic arterials, CBD and designated emergency routes 90% within 48 hrs. 19% of network Designated roadways and areas (signals, crosswalks, emergency routes) 90% within 96 hrs. 11% of network Priority/ Category 3 Minor arterials, collectors, streets adjacent to schools Within 72 hrs. 10% of network Priority/ Category 4 Major collectors, industrial/commercial, transit and truck routes Within 48 hrs. 18% of network Minor collectors, major locals leading to school bus unloading zones Within 60 hrs. 5% of network Residential and low volume industrial Within 5 working days 53% of network Collector I (carries traffic between arterials and locals) Within 48 hrs. 6% of network Collector II (designated bus routes through residential areas) Within 48 hrs. 13.5% of network Designated roadways and areas (school/play ground zones, hills, curves, bus stops) 90% within 8 days 5% of network Designated segments of residential roadways (school/playground zones, hills, curves, bus stops) 90% within 8 days Included in percentage above Overall 38% of network within 72 hrs. 46% of network within 60 hrs. 47% of network within 36 hrs. 100% of network within 5 working days Sidewalks Adjoining civic facilities, civic parks (incl. lit pathways) and city-owned property; leisure centres; fire halls; auditoriums. Within 48 hrs. Adjacent to city owned building, property and certain parking lots; certain bus stops; senior citizen complexes with more than 20 units. Within 72 hrs. Adjacent to priority 1 and 2 streets and priority 3 streets near senior citizen complexes if >5 cm snowfall; within 36 hrs. Adjacent to priority 3 streets if >8 cm snowfall; within 5 working days. Adjacent to city owned land. Within 48 hrs. Specific locations in CBD; adjacent to city owned property; bus stops. 42% of network within 48 hrs. 30% of network within 96 hrs.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 26
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Ice & snow management Importance: 8.99 out of 10 Delivery: 6.14 out of 10
Regina Snow removal 1 (very dissatisfied): 11.9 2: 22.3 3: 31.1 4: 28.3 5 (very satisfied): 6.4
Winnipeg Snow removal Very satisfied and satisfied 84%
Edmonton Snow & ice management Somewhat satisfied: 34% Very satisfied: 11% n/a
Calgary
Figure 37: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$60,000.0 $51,741.6 $50,000.0
Figure 38: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding Required per Capita
$80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $68.77
$40,000.0
$50.00
$30,737.0 $30,000.0 $22,171.0
$46.11
$40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $26.63 $29.75 $21.26
$5,576.7
$20,000.0
$10,000.0
$5,333.2
$10.00 $-
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 39: Winter Road Maintenance – General Source Funding per Lane Kilometer of Roadway
$5,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,553.63 $4,460.48
Figure 40: Winter Road Maintenance –Average Annual Snowfall (cm)
140 121.4 120 105.9 100 97.2 110.6 126.7
$4,000.00
$3,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $1,715.91 $2,620.74
80
60
$1,550.42
$1,500.00
$1,000.00 $500.00 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
40 20 0 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Transit
The City of Saskatoon and the City of Winnipeg provide public transit services through utility funds. These two cities provide an annual contribution to the utility from general revenue sources to help fund operations; any net deficit/surplus that results from operations is funded from/transferred to a stabilization reserve. The other three cities provide public transit services as a civic program and any net deficit/surplus that results from operations is funded from/contributed to general revenue sources. We note that the City of Winnipeg receives significant funding from the Provincial government for transit services (2009 budget $28.18 million – 22% of operating costs) which likely contributes to their significantly lower costs per capita, per rider and per hour of service. In comparison, the City of Saskatoon budgeted to receive $503,400 from the Provincial government in 2009.
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009 Page 27
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Public transportation/buses/ bus routes Importance: 6.81 out of 10 Delivery: 6.3 out of 10
Regina Bus service 1 (very dissatisfied): 7.4 2: 9.9 3: 37.3 4: 34.9 5 (very satisfied): 10.6
Winnipeg Very satisfied and satisfied 77%
Edmonton Somewhat satisfied: 34% Very satisfied: 16%
Calgary Somewhat satisfied: 44% Very satisfied: 19%
Figure 41: Transit – General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$140,000.0
Figure 42: Transit – General Source Funding Required per Capita
$180.00
$120,716.0 $120,000.0
$100,000.0
$122,626.0
$160.44
$160.00 $140.00 $120.00 $117.58
$80,000.0 $60,000.0
$100.00 $80.00
$88.29
$81.27 $56.88
$37,919.0
$40,000.0 $20,000.0 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary $18,488.4
$60.00
$40.00
$14,567.0
$20.00 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Figure 43: Transit –Budgeted Annual Ridership
Figure 44: Transit – General Source Funding per Budgeted Ridership
$2.50
120,000,000 95,500,000
100,000,000
$2.00
$2.00
$1.75 $1.58
80,000,000
69,039,400
$1.50
$1.28 $0.91
60,000,000 41,820,000
$1.00
40,000,000
$0.50
20,000,000
11,707,400
7,300,000
$-
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 45: Transit –Budgeted Annual Hours of Service
Figure 46: Transit – General Source Funding per Budgeted Hour of Service
$70.00
3,000,000 2,576,300 2,500,000 2,010,600 2,000,000 1,400,000
$60.04
$60.00 $50.92
$50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $27.09 $52.16 $47.60
1,500,000
1,000,000
$20.00
500,000
363,100 279,300
$10.00 $-
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 28
Figure 47: Transit –Budgeted Ridership per Budgeted Hour of Service
40.00 37.07 34.34 32.24 29.87 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary 26.14
Figure 48: Transit – Statistics Canada Mode Share
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
35.00
30%
20% 10% 0% Saskatoon - Motor vehicle as driver - Walked/bicycled Regina Winnipeg Edmonton - Public transit Calgary
- Motor vehicle as passenger - Other
Solid Waste Collection
Solid waste collection services require between 1.8% (Saskatoon) and 3.0% (Regina) of general source funding. The City of Edmonton operates its solid waste collection services through a utility and therefore is excluded from this analysis. We noted various approaches to residential waste collection services in each city: City of Saskatoon: once a week in the summer and once every two weeks in the winter (with the exception of the Christmas season) using a fully automated system. City of Regina: once a week using a fully automated system. City of Winnipeg: 50 times per year using a combination of automated (20%) and manual (80%) systems. City of Calgary: once a week using a combination of automated (5%; pilot project) and manual (95%) systems.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Front-street Importance: 7.43 out of 10 Delivery: 7.53 out of 10 Back-lane Importance: 7.77 out of 10 Delivery: 7.44 out of 10 Regina 1 (very dissatisfied): 3.2 2: 6.0 3: 18.4 4: 43.4 5 (very satisfied): 29.1 Winnipeg Very satisfied and satisfied 90% Calgary Residential garbage collection Somewhat satisfied: 22% Very satisfied: 71%
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 29
Figure 49: Solid Waste Collection – General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$30,000.0 $26,400.0 $25,000.0
Figure 50: Solid Waste Collection – General Source Funding Required per Capita
$40.00 $37.75
$35.00
$30.00
$20,000.0 $15,297.0 $15,000.0
$25.00 $20.91 $20.00 $15.00
$6,766.5
$22.95
$25.31
$10,000.0
$4,379.3
$10.00 $5.00
$5,000.0
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Calgary
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Calgary
Figure 51: Solid Waste Collection – Waste Collection 2008 (tonnes)
400,000 349,075
Figure 52: Solid Waste Collection –Waste Collected (2008) per 1,000 Population
600 524 500
350,000
300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000
400
209,000
323 300
340
200
200
100,000 50,000 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg * Calgary 67,700 60,900
100
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg * Calgary
* Commercial waste collection accounts for approximately one third of total tonnage collected in Winnipeg; in other cities, the percentage is negligible or has been excluded.
* Commercial waste collection accounts for approximately one third of total tonnage collected in Winnipeg; in other cities, the percentage is negligible or has been excluded.
Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management
Parks, urban forestry and pest management requires from 3.8% (Edmonton) to 5.7% (Winnipeg) of general source funding. Variability in general source funding requirements per capita and per acre may be due to the following factors: Proportion of park space in each city that is subject to varying levels of service (e.g., highly maintained park space that is irrigated and mowed often versus natural park space that is largely left in its native state). The size of the urban forest and pruning cycle achieved. Whether Dutch Elm Disease has been confirmed within city limits (Regina and Winnipeg have confirmed cases).
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 30
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Maintenance of city trees Importance: 8.01 out of 10 Delivery: 7.53 out of 10 Maintenance of city parks Importance: 8.34 out of 10 Delivery: 7.44 out of 10 Accessibility of city parks Importance: 8.09 out of 10 Delivery: 7.58 out of 10 Mosquito control Importance: 8.10 out of 10 Delivery: 6.75 out of 10
Regina City parks & green spaces 1 (very dissatisfied): 1.2 2: 3.5 3: 16.9 4: 53.0 5 (very satisfied): 25.4
Winnipeg Condition of major parks Very satisfied and satisfied 91% Condition of local parks Very satisfied and satisfied 87% Insect control Very satisfied and satisfied 85%
Edmonton Parks & green space Somewhat satisfied: 35% Very satisfied: 51%
Calgary Parks & other open spaces Somewhat satisfied: 42% Very satisfied: 52%
Figure 53: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$70,000.0 $64,881.4
Figure 54: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management General Source Funding Required per Capita
$70.00 $62.99 $62.21 $53.93 $50.08
$60,000.0
$50,000.0 $40,000.0 $30,000.0 $20,000.0 $10,890.0 $10,000.0 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary $11,291.2 $35,949.0 $37,679.0
$60.00
$52.01 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $Saskatoon Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Figure 55: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management – Acres Maintained
30,000 23,907
Figure 56: Parks, Urban Forestry and Pest Management – General Source Funding per Acre
$6,000.00 $4,880.40 $3,973.00 $3,090.94
25,000 19,175
$5,000.00
20,000
$4,000.00
15,000
$3,000.00 $1,965.01
$2,713.91
10,000
3,653 2,741
$2,000.00
7,366
$1,000.00
5,000
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
$Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 31
Leisure Centres
The amount of general source funding required to operate indoor and outdoor civic leisure centres differs largely among the cities included in this study. This may be due in part to the number of facilities operated and the approach to service provision: The City of Saskatoon operates six indoor leisure centres and four outdoor pools. The City of Regina operates three indoor leisure centres and five outdoor pools. The City of Winnipeg operates twenty-one indoor leisure centres and ten outdoor pools. The City of Edmonton operates thirteen indoor leisure centres and five outdoor pools. One additional leisure centre, that receives limited general source funding, is operated in partnership with another organization. The City of Calgary operates fourteen indoor leisure centres. Seven outdoor pools are operated by a non-profit organization.
Saskatoon Citizen Survey Results Indoor pools/community centres Importance: 7.67 out of 10 Delivery: 7.4 out of 10 Outdoor swimming pools Importance: 6.38 out of 10 Delivery: 6.54 out of 10 Regina Fitness centres 1 (very dissatisfied): 1.6 2: 5.9 3: 32.7 4: 46.0 5 (very satisfied):13.8 Neighborhood centres 1 (very dissatisfied): 2.3 2: 10.2 3: 43.1 4: 32.4 5 (very satisfied):11.9 Winnipeg Recreation programs Very satisfied and satisfied 80% Recreation facilities condition Very satisfied and satisfied 70% Edmonton Recreation facilities Somewhat satisfied: 46% Very satisfied: 29% Recreational programs Somewhat satisfied: 40% Very satisfied: 25% Calgary City-operated recreation facilities Somewhat satisfied: 52% Very satisfied: 37% City-operated recreation programs Somewhat satisfied: 57% Very satisfied: 33%
Figure 57: Leisure Centres - General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$35,000.0
Figure 58: Leisure Centres - General Source Funding Required per Capita
$50.00 $43.83 $41.02
$30,000.0
$25,000.0 $20,000.0 $15,000.0
$29,220.0
$45.00
$40.00
$35.00 $30.00 $17,466.6 $25.00 $20.00 $23.75 $16.75
$11,020.3 $10,000.0 $5,000.0 $$8,590.1 $4,257.6
$15.00
$10.00 $5.00 $-
$14.65
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 32
Figure 59: Leisure Centres – Admissions and Registrations (2008)
2,500,000 1,921,427
Figure 60: Leisure Centres – Admissions and Registrations (2008) per 1,000 Population
4,500 4,046 4,000
2,000,000
1,678,634 1,500,000 1,405,276
3,496 3,500 3,000 2,500
2,108
2,231
1,000,000
847,311 626,708
2,000 1,500 1,000 500
1,842
500,000
-
Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Edmonton
Calgary
Libraries
The Cities of Saskatoon and Regina have established separate mill rates to fund library operations; the other three cities in this study utilize general source funding to fund their library operations. The Cities of Saskatoon and Regina libraries are well utilized and have higher general source funding requirements per capita than the other cities. This may be due, in part, to the fact that the Saskatoon Public Libraries and Regina Public Libraries do not charge a fee for library use. However, fees are charged in the other cities (i.e., the Winnipeg Public Library charges $129/year for non-residents; the Edmonton Public Library charges $12/year for the first adult older than 18 in the household, $8/year for other adults in the household (to a maximum of $36/year per household) and an additional $60/year for non-residents; the Calgary Public Library charges $12/year for adults, $9/year for seniors, $6/year for young adults and $112/year for non-residents).
Figure 61: Libraries - General Source Funding Required
(in thousands)
$40,000.0
Figure 62: Libraries - General Source Funding Required per Capita
$90.00 $80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $79.57
$35,000.0
$30,000.0 $25,000.0 $20,000.0 $15,000.0 $10,000.0 $5,000.0 $Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg $13,872.2 $14,262.9 $22,555.0
$34,593.0
$35,799.0
$66.25
$50.00 $40.00 $33.84
$45.98
$34.33
$30.00
$20.00 $10.00 $Edmonton Calgary Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 33
Figure 63: Libraries – Number of Items Circulated (2008)
Figure 64: Libraries – Number of Items Circulated (2008) per Capita
20.00
18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 Saskatoon (7 branches) Regina (9 branches) Winnipeg (20 branches) Edmonton (17 branches) Calgary (17 branches) 3,614,781 2,624,321 5,479,525 9,787,701 15,354,315
18.00
17.26 14.72 14.64 13.01
16.00
14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00
8.22
6.00
4.00 2.00 Saskatoon Regina Winnipeg Edmonton Calgary
Municipal Services Benchmark Project 2009
Page 34
doc_274522882.pdf