FAQ's

The purpose of the Boundary Study is to recommend a boundary within Electoral Area F that could be explored in a potential future incorporation study. This boundary study is not exploring the detailed impacts of incorporation – that would be done in a subsequent study, if desired by the RDN and supported by the Province of BC. However, questions about potential incorporation impacts have arisen during the course of this study; therefore, there is some high-level information about potential incorporation impacts in some of the Boundary Study materials.

In July 2025, the consulting team (Neilson Strategies and Leftside Partners) will recommend a boundary option for consideration by the RDN and Province of BC as a study area that could be used as the basis for a potential future incorporation study. The recommendation will be based on detailed analysis and technical criteria, combined with input provided by residents through the open houses and survey. The recommendation will also consider feedback from residents to the extent possible, while minimizing servicing costs and financial implications.

The boundaries reflect a number of technical criteria that are intended to facilitate servicing and create a tax base and population of sufficient size to sustain a potential new municipality. Some parts of Area F are left outside the boundary options due to criteria such as farm land, or private managed forest land, or servicing of the associated road networks.

All preferences that are shared with the consultants will be considered as part of the final boundary recommendations. However, where individual requests to be within or outside a boundary are difficult to accommodate due to compromises to other criteria, they may not be reflected in the recommendation. For example, it may be difficult to exclude a property that is situated in the middle of a boundary option, and on a road that would be included as part of the final boundary.

At this point in the process, some impacts of the proposed boundary options can be identified at a high level, such as the requirement to pay for 70% of the municipal policing costs if the municipality exceeded 5,000 population, and the impact of having to pay for the full cost of the local road network. However, until a boundary, and the associated assessment base is determined, the full implications and cost comparisons cannot be calculated. Each boundary option has different infrastructure, road lengths, assessment bases, and populations that will impact the cost of services in an incorporation scenario. If an incorporation study proceeds at a later stage, it will be based upon a specific boundary, and will undergo a detailed comparison of the existing costs and services to provide information to the community so residents can make an informed decision on whether they would like to incorporate.

If an area incorporates and the resulting municipality has a population of less than 5,000, policing costs (levied through the provincial police tax) would increase slightly, but generally there would be very minor impact to the taxes or police services. If, however, the population of a new municipality is more than 5,000, the municipality would become responsible for paying for 70% of the RCMP police agreement costs for the municipality, which includes the officers assigned to the municipality for cost recovery purposes, as well as a share of any integrated teams (such as the Mobile Integrated Crisis Response team), in addition to some costs that the municipality is required to pay 100% of, such as an allocation of the detachment (portion of detachment “rent” is assigned to the municipality), furniture and “civilian” administration staff assigned to support the police detachment.

In BC, of all municipalities receiving RCMP services that are over 5,000 population (including those municipalities that just exceeded 5,000 in the last Census), the lowest number of “authorized strength” (sworn officers/members assigned to a detachment) assigned to and paid by any municipality of this size is four (4). An example of the costs associated with four officers is the rural municipality of Metchosin, which exceeded 5,000 population at the last Census. The estimated cost of policing in Metchosin in 2025, which provides four authorized strength officers, is $1,046,500 (2024 financial statements, and 2024 – 2028 financial plan). As a comparison, the entirety of Area F, including all property classes, contributed $417,000 in police tax in 2024, and an average residential property (assessed at $802,034) paid $96 in police tax. If, in the future, an incorporation study is conducted for a part of Area F that exceeds 5,000 population (or is likely to within 7 years), the associated impacts and costs would be explored and estimates developed as part of that study.

No. Road standards would not have to change if an area incorporated. The new municipality would be transferred ownership of the roads, and would therefore assume responsibility for maintaining the roads and associated ditches and drainage. Arterial highways would remain under provincial jurisdiction.

Residents of electoral areas currently contribute a provincial rural tax that goes toward maintaining the provincial roads at the current standard. However, the province does not fully recover the costs of maintaining roads from electoral area property taxes, so the amount currently paid is not reflective of the full cost of maintaining local roads. Conversely, a municipality would need to recover the full cost of maintaining roads from its tax base. For this reason, residents can expect to pay more toward the cost of roads in a municipality than in electoral areas. Due in part to the significant cost of maintaining roads, the province has provided assistance to new municipalities by continuing to maintain the roads for a transition period (in the most recent municipal incorporation, the offer to maintain roads was for a period of five years) to give the new municipality time to prepare for providing road services (acquiring staff and equipment, or securing contractor), and to give the municipality time to establish reserves during that transition period.

Properties that are currently assessed as Class 9 farms receive certain tax exemptions to help support farming and the viability of farms. One of the tax exemptions for Class 9 properties in electoral areas is from the provincial rural rate on the value of the residential dwelling. Once that same property is included in a municipality, the property no longer pays the provincial rural rate and instead pays the municipal residential tax rate on the value of the residential dwelling. There is no equivalent exemption from the municipal residential tax rate on dwellings located on Class 9 farms. All residential dwellings in a municipality pay the municipal residential tax rate.

A municipality can set its own Farm land Class 9 tax (mill) rate, but that rate only applies to the farm land (and not the value of the residential dwelling). The farm land in an electoral area receives 50% exemption from regional district services. Municipalities can create a Farm Class 9 tax rate that is 50% lower than the residential rate to provide equivalent land exemption, but because the farm land often represents a very low percentage of the overall property value (when there is a dwelling on the property), even providing a zero Farm Class tax rate does not fully compensate for the loss of the dwelling tax exemption received in electoral areas. Tax analysis was completed as part of the boundary option process, and on some of the Class 9 farm properties left outside the boundary the farm land value represents less than 2% of the farm property’s overall assessment.

Interested residents and Class 9 property owners are encouraged to share their preferences through the survey.

Based on the financial impacts that the loss in tax exemption represents to farm class properties, they are generally left outside the boundaries as the default starting point (where possible), to avoid negatively impacting residents and creating financial barriers to farming. Some farms and farm properties may want to be included within a study area boundary, and it is hoped that those interested in that option will share their preferences as part of the public input process.

a) If an incorporation study proceeds, followed by a referendum, and local electors within the study area chose to incorporate, then residents outside of the new municipality would continue to be part of Electoral Area F of the RDN. Residents would continue to be represented by the Electoral Area F Director, and RDN would continue to be their local government.

The province would work together with the Regional District to determine if any changes to the “remainder of Area F” are needed to ensure that the area continues to receive the same level of services and is not negatively impacted by the loss in any tax base. The loss in tax base is not necessarily a concern, and does not necessarily suggest that service costs will increase as a result. Regardless, the province would consider what the impact is on the remaining area, and determine if there is any need to adjust boundaries or consider consolidating areas to ensure electoral areas can continue to support the existing services. As part of an electoral area, road and police services would continue to be provided by the province.

b) If an incorporation study proceeds, followed by a referendum and the referendum is voted down, no changes would occur and the entire area would remain as Electoral Area F.

No. If an incorporation study proceeds, followed by a referendum, only eligible residents and property owners within the study area boundary would have the opportunity to vote in a referendum for that area to incorporate as a municipality.

The Local Government Act provides default numbers for council sizes of municipalities, based on population and on the overall size (land area) of the municipality. Based on the options under consideration, if any of these options were to incorporate, the default would be a council with seven (7) members (Mayor and six (6) councillors). However, a community could choose to have five council members instead (Mayor and four (4) councillors).