This category of expenditure relates to Police and Fire. For Revelstoke it also includes the Provincial Emergency Program (PEP), Planning and Bylaw Enforcement and Animal Control.

The following two charts show Revelstoke’s position in relation to other municipalities. Revelstoke continues to be less than the average of All Municipalities and less than only Nelson, Merritt and Quesnel in the comparison group, except in the per capita chart where it is less only than Nelson and Quesnel.

The above chart continues to show Revelstoke favourably in comparison to the average of All Municipalities, Nelson and Quesnel. It should be noted that, since Golden’s population is less than 5,000, it does not pay for policing costs. In addition, Nelson has its own police force which is more expensive than contracting with the RCMP. Salmon Arm’s fire department is all volunteer.

The results in this category for the period 1996-2000 are similar to those for the period 1995-99.
 

Transportation services are essentially those provided by the Public Works department and include such functions as snow removal, street maintenance and lighting, transit, and equipment repair.

On a percentage basis Revelstoke continues to rank significantly higher than the average of All Municipalities and is higher than all but one of the remaining members of the comparison group. On a per capita basis Revelstoke is less than Nelson and Castlegar only. The most significant component of this category of expenditure for Revelstoke is snow removal and this is clearly the main cause of why the city ranks so highly.

However, when Revelstoke’s transportation expenditures are compared on a per kilometer basis, the city ranks marginally higher than the average of All Municipalities and less than Nelson, Castlegar and Merritt.
 

Recreation and Cultural Expenditures

During the period 1996-2000, Revelstoke spent about the average per capita on recreation and culture and slightly less than the average of All Municipalities when the percentage of this expenditure category to all others is considered. In both of the following charts Castlegar appears quite low but it should be remembered that this municipality receives a considerable portion of its recreational facilities from the regional district.

The expenditures in this category appear high compared with the average of All Municipalities and other members of the comparison group. However, it should be noted that the Economic Development Function in Revelstoke incorporates the annual Mt. Mackenzie Ski Hill subsidy, the ski hill litigation expenses that occurred during part of this period and the expenditures relating to the Oscar Street Mobile Home Park. The costs included in this function are therefore inflated by these factors. In addition, grants received from other agencies, such as FRBC, for special EDC projects have not been incorporated in this chart. These additional revenues help to mitigate the costs of this function.

The following two charts show that Revelstoke’s costs for this function have been about average compared to the average of All Municipalities for the period 1996-2000. It should be noted that Revelstoke began providing its own service in 1996 having contracted it out previously. Other municipalities have different methods of service delivery, for example, Salmon Arm allows private contractors to provide services and bill customers direct.

This category of expenditure includes, for Revelstoke, the cemetery and the health unit. It can be seen that Revelstoke spends on average more than all other members of the comparison group in the first chart, and less than Quesnel in the second.

This area of expenditure relates to capital expenditures and transfers to reserve funds, excluding the water and sewer utilities.

The following charts indicate that Revelstoke contributes less than the average of All Municipalities to its reserve funds and less than the majority of the other members of the comparison group.

This category of expenditure refers to the Regional District requisition from the municipality to pay for services provided by that authority. It does not include the landfill and recycling charge. These items form part of the Environmental Health cost function.

[Introduction]  [General Fund Debt per Capita] [General Fund Expenditures]  [Revenue Sources]  [Capital Expenditures]  [Reserves & Surpluses]  
[Water Fund]  [Sewer Fund]  [2001 Budget Compared to 10 Year Plan]  [Feedback]