TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on May 13 and 14, 1998

STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 7

1Provincial Property Tax System 4033

2Independent Review of Provincial Current Value Assessments 4041

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 7

OF THE STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on April 7, 1998,

submitted by Mayor Mel Lastman , Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on May 13 and 14, 1998

1

Provincial Property Tax System

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on June 22 and 23, 1998.)

(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on May 13, 1998.)

--------

(Clause No. 12 of Report No. 4 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

(1)recommends the adoption of Recommendation (2) embodied in the following transmittal letter (March 26, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force as follows:

"(2)that the Province of Ontario be requested to:

(a)end the business education tax rate that forces Toronto businesses to pay more education tax than other businesses in Ontario; and

(b)re-evaluate in 1998, commercial and industrial properties, with the idea of having an average of the 1996 and 1998 figures as being the property assessments to be used.";

(2)submits without recommendation, the following Recommendation (1) embodied in the aforementioned transmittal letter to Council:

"(1)that the following resolution be adopted:

WHEREAS there have been problems identified with the methodology utilized by the Province of Ontario in the creation of the new Current Value Assessment (CVA); and

WHEREAS highest and best use is an unfair assessment tool; and

WHEREAS there is insufficient time before the return of the Tax Roles (April30) to explore meaningful measures for long term solutions to assist those hardest hit by the negative impacts of CVA in the business community; and

WHEREAS it is generally believed that Graduated Commercial Rates would result in an unfair and unworkable tax system;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Province of Ontario be requested to defer implementation of the commercial, industrial, residential and multi-residential components of CVA for at least one year to allow time to explore measures for long term solutions."

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following transmittal letter (March 26, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:

Recommendations:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on March 23, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council:

(1)that the following resolution be adopted:

Whereas there have been problems identified with the methodology utilized by the Province of Ontario in the creation of the new Current Value Assessment (CVA); and

Whereas highest and best use is an unfair assessment tool; and

Whereas there is insufficient time before the return of the Tax Roles (April 30) to explore meaningful measures for long term solutions to assist those hardest hit by the negative impacts of CVA in the business community; and

Whereas it is generally believed that Graduated Commercial Rates would result in an unfair and unworkable tax system;

Therefore be it resolved that the Province of Ontario be requested to defer implementation of the commercial, industrial, residential and multi-residential components of CVA for at least one year to allow time to explore measures for long term solutions"; and

(2)that the Province of Ontario be requested to:

(i)end the business education tax rate that forces Toronto businesses to pay more education tax than other businesses in Ontario; and

(ii)re-evaluate in 1998, commercial and industrial properties, with the idea of having an average of the 1996 and 1998 figures as being the property assessments to be used.

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to:

(1) report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council, on the resolution set out in the foregoing recommendation No. (1);

(2)report back to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:

(i)on whether or not the City should examine an assessment system based on the average of a property's 1997 assessment (appropriately normalized), 1988 MVA assessment, and 1996 CVA assessment, and the legislative amendments that would be required to effect such;

(ii)with information as to the number of sales in each category taken into account in establishing assessed values in each category, and also the number of vacancies for commercial and industrial properties during the assessment period;

(iii)on the taxation of golf courses in the City; and

(iv)on whether or not another supplementary tax bill based on 1997 rates can be sent out;

(3)report back to Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on the idea of City Council requesting the Province to:

(a)implement business reassessment on the basis of value in current use; and

(b)provide City Council with the power to cap total business property tax increases for individual properties; and

(4)work with the Province in detailing the regulations and legislative changes that may be required and report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council on the implementation of the above.

Background:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on March 23, 1998, had before it communications from the following with respect to the Provincial Property Tax System:

-(March 19, 1998) from Councillor McConnell; and

-(March 23, 1998) from Councillor Bossons.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer gave a slide presentation on her findings with respect to the Commercial Graduated Tax rates, and provided copies of her report titled "1996 CVA City of Toronto Commercial Properties, Graduated Tax Rate Options", as well as a Summary of the Commercial Graduated Tax Rate Scenarios Preliminary Estimates.

Mr. Larry Hummel, Director of Appraisal Services, Property Assessment Division, Ontario Ministry of Finance, gave a slide presentation and provided copies of a document titled "Property Valuation Overview - Ontario Fair Assessment System".

--------

(Communication dated March 19, 1998, addressed to the

Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, from

Councillor McConnell)

The Task Force on Assessment and Policy has done a great deal to clarify the impact of the provincial government's new tax system.

I have met with business leaders and constituents across my ward and clearly their understanding of the impact of the changes is growing. That is why, on March 12, the business people from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in my ward marched in the streets to oppose C.V.A.

Several other business associations in Don River will be taking to the streets in the next two weeks. Business leaders in my neighbourhood are very, very angry.

They are angry about all the issues that you and our colleagues have discussed over the last several weeks: punitive education taxes; a commercial property tax class that does not distinguish between a mom and pop corner store and a 50-storey bank tower; and a hastily administered assessment system that is riddled with errors.

The business leaders in Don River are not simply angry at the province's tax system that put them in this mess. They are angry at City Council for not taking a sufficiently clear and strong stand. I believe it is time for Council to take that stand, and that we cannot wait until the next scheduled Council meeting.

I believe that most Councillors agree that there are some steps that we must take to address the most pressing issues. I recommend that the Task Force on Assessment and Tax Policy adopt the attached resolution at their next meeting.

--------

(Motion Regarding the Provincial Property Tax System

by Councillor McConnell)

WHEREAS the Ontario Government is the only body that can create meaningful subclasses under the new tax system; and

WHEREAS most of the new tax threatening businesses is composed of the province's education tax levy; and

WHEREAS the province's hastily-implemented system has resulted in confusion, errors and oversights that are significant enough to threaten the survival of some small businesses; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

(1)That the City of Toronto call on the Province of Ontario to create a separate "retail strip" subclass that would allow a separate tax rate for small businesses.

(2)That the City of Toronto call on the Province of Ontario to end the punitive business education tax rate, that forces Toronto businesses to pay more education tax than any other businesses in Ontario.

(3)That the City of Toronto demand a one-year deferral of any implementation of the new tax system, while the errors and problems of the system are resolved.

(4)That these matters be presented to a special meeting of Council to be held prior to the 4th of April, and that this special meeting resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to hear deputations from the public.

--------

(Communication dated March 23, 1998, addressed to

the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, from

Councillor Bossons)

It is clear that the effects of reassessment and other provincially mandated business property tax changes will be to destroy many independent small and mid-size businesses in retail strips throughout the New City. Key strategic businesses - particularly in the arts - which attract tourists to Toronto will be devastated.

The provincial Minister of Finance, Mr. Ernie Eves, has made it clear that these effects are as unacceptable to the Province as they are to us. We consequently have an opportunity to work with the Province to re-design the tax changes and their implementation. I believe City Council should agree on a set of principles to govern business property tax reform and on a strategy to implement these principles.

Principles for Business Tax Reform:

(1)Our first priority should be to prevent business closures. No business should face a property tax increase that forces it to shut down.

(2)Business property taxes should be based on businesses' ability to pay taxes out of their current income. Any tax increase based on hypothetical forecast of profits from redevelopment of a property should be postponed until such time as redevelopment actually occurs.

(3)No class of business property should benefit from business tax reform through shifting taxes to other classes.

(4)Within any class of business property, tax changes that may be reversed in a subsequent reassessment should be prevented.

Implementation Strategy:

(1)Staff should be requested to recommend subclasses of commercial and industrial property for which different average property tax rates would be required to raise the same total tax revenue from each class as at present. At a minimum, such subclasses should include:

office buildings

small retail stores

arts-related businesses (galleries, cinemas, theatres, bookstore, etc.)

malls

others, as needed

(2)In analyzing the impact of graduated tax rates within each subclass, staff should examine the equity of such graduation and the potential for tax avoidance (e.g., through creating business condominiums).

(3)City Council should request the Province to implement business assessment within the City of Toronto on the basis of value in current use, as recommended by the Crombie "Who Does What" panel. Recognizing that this will take time to implement, Council's request should be that this be done by the time of the next general reassessment (2001).

(4)In the interim, pending such reassessment, Council should cap any business property tax increase on any individual property at a maximum of 30 percent, phased in over the next three years at 10 percent each year. To do so, Council should request the Province to provide it with the power to effect this and to ensure that this cap applies to the total of education as well as municipal property taxes.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council adopt the tax reform principles and implementation strategy set out above.

(2)That City Council request the Province (1) to implement business reassessment on the basis of value in current use by the time of the next general reassessment, and (2) provide City Council with the power to cap total business property tax increases for individual properties.

(3)That staff be requested to work with the Province in detailing the regulations and legislative changes that may be required and to report to Council on the implementation of all of the above.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following communication (April 7, 1998) from Councillor Duguid:

I understand that the Committee will be considering the above item at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. Regrettably, due to a previously scheduled commitment, I will be unable to attend and have put my concerns about Recommendation No. 1 of Item 13 in writing for your consideration.

While I recognize the difficult position many members of Committee are in as they consider how CVA impacts on the residents of your respective Wards, I consider it a priority to move forward with residential property tax reform without delay.

Without doubt, the adjustments to CVA will impact negatively on some of the older areas of Toronto. For that reason, I support the proposal of property tax relief for low-income seniors and how-income disabled persons. However, I cannot support any proposal that would delay justice being served on residential property owners who have been paying more than their fair share of property taxes for over a decade.

The increases that property taxpayers in older parts of the City will be experiencing would quite likely pale when compared to the cumulative amount of extra property taxes that those benefiting from CVA have paid in the past.

I would like to advise the Committee of my opposition to a one year delay or any other proposal that would pre-empt those property owners entitled to a decrease from receiving that decrease immediately. These residents have waited as successive provincial governments under intense pressure from the former City of Toronto backed off property tax reform time and time again. In 1992, when Metro Council finally reached a compromise, pressure from the former City of Toronto forced the Provincial Government of the day to back down. As a result, six years later, the property tax inequities still exist.

With each delay, the injustice of our property tax system worsens. I would ask Committee members to remember that justice delayed is justice denied.

While a compromise would have been appropriate and acceptable to my residents six years ago, I believe that after so many years of injustice, they would be fiercely opposed to any delay in receiving fair and equitable treatment.

(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following individuals in support of capping the tax increase on residential properties at 2.5percent, as proposed for commercial and rental properties:

(i)(April 9, 1998) from the President, The South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association;

(ii)(Undated) from Mr. F. Altmann, Toronto;

(iii)(April 16, 1998) from Ms. C. Helmstadter, Toronto; and

(iv)(April 16, 1998) from Ms. J. Puncher, Toronto.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a submission on Current Value Assessment (undated) from Mr. C. Kotoulas, Toronto.)

2

Independent Review of Provincial Current Value Assessments

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(a)the report dated May 7, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled 'Independent Review of Provincial Assessments', as appended to the communication dated May 12, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, subject to deleting Recommendation No. (2), so that the recommendations embodied in such report shall now read as follows:

'(1)no action be taken with the unsolicited proposal from Royal LePage to conduct a limited scope review of the quality of the provincial assessments; and

(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.'; and

(b)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, upon receipt of the final assessment rolls from the Province of Ontario, be requested to conduct an evaluation study for the specific purposes of ascertaining the quality and accuracy of the final assessment rolls.")

(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on May 13, 1998.)

--------

(Clause No. 27 of Report No. 4 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following transmittal letter (April6, 1998) from the Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force to City Council, without recommendation:

Recommendation:

On behalf of the members of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force who were present on April6, 1998, I am forwarding, for consideration by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the report (April 2, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting the independent review of Provincial Current Value Assessments.

Background:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, having regard for the fact that no quorum was present at the specified time and in view of the fact that notice had been placed in the newspaper that a public hearing would be held on the Property Assessment and Tax Policy System recently implemented by the Provincial Government, heard presentations from the public on this matter and continued to meet informally and to discuss this and other matters.

The members of the Assessment and Task Policy Task Force who were present had before them a report (April 2, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer not engage a consultant to undertake an independent review of the quality and accuracy of the provincial assessments given that a study based on a statistically valid number of properties could not be completed in a timely manner for Council to consider.

For the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, I advise that the Task Force, at its meeting held on March 3, 1998, requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to conduct an independent audit of the quality of the reassessment that was carried out by the Province.

As Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, I am forwarding the abovementioned report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for consideration.

--------

(Report dated April 2, 1998, addressed to

the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force,

from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)

Purpose:

This report outlines two approaches to provide Council with an independent review and analysis of the new provincial current value assessments.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The conduct of an independent review and evaluation of the quality and accuracy of the new provincial current value assessments in Toronto is a detailed and lengthy undertaking, which could conceivably require funding of approximately $1 million.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer not engage a consultant to undertake an independent review of the quality and accuracy of the provincial assessments given that a study based on a statistically valid number of properties could not be completed in a timely manner for Council to consider.

Council Reference/Background:

The Province notified property owners across Ontario of their new assessments in February. Public reaction to the new assessments in Toronto has been mixed. Some property owners claim the assessments are too high, while others suspect that their assessed values are on the low side. The Ontario Fair Assessment System (OFAS) initially allowed for property owners to appeal their assessments to the Assessment Review Board this year up until June 29. The Minister of Finance announced on March 27 that municipalities will be receiving final assessment rolls one month later (i.e. end of May) to permit municipalities to consider the new tools introduced by the Province. This effectively extends the appeal period to the end of July.

Council amended and approved Clause No. 3 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee Report No. 3 at its meeting on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, requesting the provincial government to undertake an arm's length review of the quality and accuracy of the current reassessment in Toronto. In addition, Council requested the Province to provide statistical information used to determine the level of quality and accuracy of the provincial assessments as well as other information used to base the assessments. Provincial officials appeared before the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force at its meeting on March 23, 1998, and presented information outlining the overall quality measures of the new assessments across Ontario. Provincial officials indicated that the new assessments are within the quality standards accepted by the assessment profession. Information pertaining to the statistical quality measures of the multiple regression analysis used to determine the new assessments is to be provided at a later time by provincial officials.

Discussion:

To ensure an independent review of the quality of assessments, the City of Toronto could engage a consultant to conduct a study. In order for the study to provide a meaningful and credible basis upon which to determine the quality and accuracy of the new provincial assessments, there must be a statistically sufficient sample size of properties from all property classes. Normally, a ten per cent. sample is considered adequate. This would imply that approximately 57,000 properties would need to be reviewed. The consultant would compare the new current value assessment of the sampled properties with the estimated sales price (as of June 30, 1998) as determined by the consultant. Statistical measures such as the assessment to sales ratio and others would be calculated to evaluate the results. However, to conduct a study of such a scale would be costly (requiring approximately $1 million) and require several months. This would not provide the Task Force with a study that it could consider within its timeframe of reporting to Council.

Alternatively, the City of Toronto could engage a consultant to undertake a study that is more limited in scope (i.e. not based on a statistically significant sample size) that provides a general indication of the accuracy of the new assessments. This study would be based on a selective sample of properties. This study essentially amounts to a shortened or scaled down version of the more detailed approach and could likely be completed within the Task Force's timeframe and at a significantly lower cost. However, without the statistical rigor of the formal detailed study, the analysis could not be extrapolated across the entire city to make conclusive statements about the quality and accuracy of the assessed values.

Conclusions:

Council requested the Province to conduct an independent review of the quality and accuracy of the new assessments. A study based on a statistically meaningful sample size is a very detailed undertaking requiring a lengthy period of time to conduct. A shortened version of the more detailed study involving a review of a select number of assessments could provide Council with comparisons, albeit on a limited basis, that could offer some insights into the quality and accuracy of the assessments. The limited study, however, would not be of a statistically valid size.

Contact Name:

Ed Zamparo 392-8641.

(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 15, 1998) addressed to CouncillorAdams, Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, from ProfessorJohnBossons, University of Toronto, providing comments with respect to the proposal for an independent quality audit of provincial current value assessments in Toronto, and requesting that the issue be referred back to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force in order that cheaper and more effective alternatives can be examined.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 22, 1998) addressed to Councillor Adams, Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, from the Vice President and General Manager, Central Canada Valuation and Consulting Services, Royal LePage, suggesting that a comprehensive review would require a significant amount of time and resources to review a statistically significant number of properties and that the City may consider a "Limited Scope" analysis to indicate whether a more detailed analysis would be beneficial; and outlining a proposed approach and methodology of such a scope.)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 12, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on May 12, 1998, submitted the report (May 7, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting the Independent Review of Provincial Assessments, to City Council without recommendation.

Comments:

The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force had before it a report (May 7, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer providing, as requested, a review of the issues which should be considered in the decision of whether or not to accept the Royal LePage proposal to review the quality of the provincial assessed values.

The Task Force decided to submit this report to City Council for consideration at its meeting being held on May 13 and 14, 1998, without recommendation.

(Report dated May 7, 1998, addressed to

the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force

from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.)

Purpose:

This report reviews the issues which should be considered in the decision whether or not to accept the Royal LePage proposal to review the quality of the provincial assessed values.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost of the independent limited scope review of the provincial assessed values, as contained in an unsolicited proposal, is $54,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)no action be taken with the unsolicited proposal from Royal LePage to conduct a limited scope review of the quality of the provincial assessments;

(2)should Council request a limited scope review of the quality of the provincial assessments, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer solicit proposals from interested parties in a competitive procurement process; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background:

At its meeting on May 4, 1998, the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force considered a report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer dated April 2, 1998 which recommended that the City of Toronto not engage a consultant to undertake a detailed review of the quality of the provincial current value assessments. In addition, the Task Force Chair has received a communication in the form of an unsolicited proposal to review the provincial assessments from Mr. Phil K. West, Vice President and General Manager, Central Canada Valuation and Consulting Services, Royal LePage, who also made a deputation at the Task Force meeting on April 27, 1998 on the same subject. The Task Force directed the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to review the proposal from Royal LePage and report back to the next Task Force meeting on May12, 1998 and to the subsequent Council meeting on May 13, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion:

In its proposal, Royal LePage confirms that a detailed review of the quality of the provincial assessments based on a statistically meaningful sample is a lengthy undertaking requiring a significant funding commitment. As a result, Royal LePage proposes an alternative approach to review the general accuracy of the provincial values. This alternative amounts to a limited scope review that could be completed within a three to four week period at a cost of $54,000.00 (excluding GST). The study would review the new assessed values of approximately 2,000 residential properties across the city. A number of issues regarding the limited scope review need to be considered in determining whether to proceed with the proposal.

(1)Updated Assessments:

The current value assessment data is preliminary and will be replaced by the values on the final assessment roll scheduled to be delivered at the end of this month. The upcoming new roll begs the question of whether or not it is appropriate to await the final assessment roll and conduct the study on the updated data. Some properties in the 2,000 residential property sample may have had their assessments reconsidered (i.e., through the first level of appeal) and may have been subsequently adjusted. A comparison between outdated assessments and appraised values would compromise the results of the analysis.

One would naturally want to use the most current data and therefore the study should be conducted on the final assessment roll. Furthermore, the review is not required by any specified date that would necessitate the project's immediate commencement.

(2)Single Source:

The unsolicited proposal from Royal LePage amounts to single sourcing the project. Council should encourage a competitive bidding process in a way that is open, fair and transparent. Unsolicited bids should only be considered when there are no other alternatives or if there are unique circumstances. The Royal LePage proposal has merit and would provide useful insight, albeit on a limited basis, into the accuracy of the provincial assessments. However, there are other firms who also possess the resources to conduct the study and should be invited to bid on the study. This way, the City has the benefit of selecting the best proposal from those submitted.

(3)Other:

Comparability: It is important to establish that the residential appraisals and the provincial assessments are comparable otherwise any comments regarding the level of quality of the assessments may not be accurate. Royal LePage states that the 2,000 residential properties were physically inspected for appraisal purposes. If these values represent appraisal values then there may be a discrepancy with the provincial assessment values. An appraised value represents an estimate of the value of an individual property that may only have limited consideration of other comparable properties in the area. Appraisals may be determined for a number of uses such as determining a reasonable offering price in a sale or for the disposition of a property in a marital breakup, and may not necessarily reflect the value of other comparable properties. The provincial assessments are the product of a mass appraisal approach, using a computer model that utilizes sales data in the area to determine the estimated sales value of comparable individual properties. The two approaches differ in how they estimate the sales price and may very well produce different estimates for the sampled properties.

Adjustment Factors: The proposal requires access to provincial time adjustment factors for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 to adjust the sampled properties to be consistent with the same sales period used by the Province (June 1996) to determine the assessed values. Should the Province either not make available these adjustment factors or experience a delay in providing them, what impact will this have on the study? Alternatively, would Royal LePage endeavour to determine estimated time adjustment factors for use in the study and accept responsibility for their accuracy?

Conclusions:

An independent and detailed review of the quality and accuracy of the provincial assessments is beneficial, although would require a large amount of resources in terms of both time and money. An unsolicited proposal from Royal LePage to conduct a limited scope review of the provincial assessments based on a sample of residential properties at a cost of $54,000.00 has been received. Based on a review of the proposal and other relevant issues, it is recommended that the City not proceed with this submission at this time. It would be prudent to invite other qualified firms to submit proposals and to conduct the study on the final assessment roll to be delivered at the end of May.

Contact:

Ed Zamparo 392-8641.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 22, 1998) from Mr. Phil K. West, Vice President and General Manager, Central Canada Valuation and Consulting Services, Royal LePage Professional Services Inc., addressed to Councillor John Adams, Chair of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, providing details with respect to the proposal for an independent review of the quality of the current value assessments provided by the Province.)

Respectfully submitted,

MEL LASTMAN,

Chair

Toronto, April 7, 1998

(Report No. 7 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998.)