THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY GF PORT CESUITLAM 2272 McALLISTER AVENUE PORT COQUITLAM, B.C. TELEPHONE: 941-5411 OUR FILE May 25, 1973 Honorable James Lorimer, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Parlianent Buildings, Victoria, B.C. RE: Municipal Treatuent Plant Assistance Act Dear Sir: The City Council has asked me to bring to your attention several problems that exist with respect to the above mentioned Act. I am sure that your Department is well aware of these problems and no doubt legislation is being considered to correct tha situation, however, we felt that a review of our owm situation may be beneficial to you. The City of Port Coquitlam along with the many other municipalities in the Province has been struggling under the provisions of the Assessment Equalization Act which opose annual linitaticns on assessment increases.” Although we are supposed to maintain assessrents at approximately 50% of market for school purposes the combina~ tion of the 10% limitation on assessment increases and the actual 20% to 30% increases in market values annually have brought about the situation where we have completely lost any internal equity in our assessment roll. Residential property is the high- est in relation to market and is around 32% of market. Some of our vacant residential land which is being held by speculators is as lew as 19% of market. Commercial and industrial land are also very low. Recent changes to the Assessment Equalization Act will improve the situation on the commercial and industrial properties, however, the changes in the Act will not guarantee to restore overall equity within the tunicipality. In view of the low relationship of assessment to market the value of 2 i nill levy within the City is quite low. I might also add that the City use the Same assesszent base for both school and general Purposes. With the low value of a 1 mill levy it follows that the City's mill rate for general purposes is quite high, approaching 47 mills in 1973, And we anticipate that by 1974 we will have reached the statutory mill rate limitation of 50 mills for general purposes. Our only solution, barring changes in legislation, is toe prepare a separate roll for general cunicipal purposes as provided for in the Act and assess at 100% of market thereby enabling us to restore equity within the roll and to gain relief from the mill rate linitaticns. This, of course, does not resolve the inequity problems that will still exist in the roll for school purposes. Many municipalities in the Province have used this solution and it does not present any particular problems except with respect to the Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Assistance Act mentioned above and the resulting loss of grants that could occur by going to a two roll system is of great concer to us. : veel2 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM Honorable James Lorimer May 25, 1973 This Act provides for a grant to the municipalities for the cost of constructing sewage treatment plants i: the amount of 752 of the cost in excess of a 2 mill levy. The value of a 2 mill levy is taken on the value of a mill for general purposes and you can see that the recoveries to Port Coquitlam could be substantial if we maintain our present basis of assessment (i.e. with a low value of a1 rill levy), however, iz we go to the two roll system the value of a 1 mill levy will increase threefold and nearly all the benefits under the Act will be lost. There are other complications in the application of the Act for example, the Act does not make provision for Participation by the Province with a regional district. As Port Coquitlam is a part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Sewage Systen and the component municipalicies within thts system are on a variety of assessment basis,some being cn the two roll system,others using assessments under the Assessment Equalization Act, there is no question that there will be a certain amount of confusion with regard to eligibility for grants for these various components. I estimate that the City of Port Coquitlam could recover in excess of $350,000. under the Act over the neat ten years and we are therefore reluctant to change the basis of Assessment for this reason. Other tunicipalities, however, have made this nove and I am sure that if the Act is going to remain in force and be applied to all municipalities on an equal basis that scne changes will be required, We would appreciate some indication from you as to whether changes in this Act are contemplated and furthermore whether you bave any knowledge of contemplated changes in the Assessment Equalization Act to remove the limitation on assessment increases. Your early reply will enable us to make plans for our 1974 assessment roll. Yours very truly, L.D. Pollock, City Administrator.