|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on July 21 and 23, 1998
STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 13
1Residential Property Class - Phase-In Policy
2Multi-Residential Property Class -Tax Policy Options
3Property Tax Relief for Low-Income Senior sand Disabled Persons
4Commercial and Industrial Property - Tax Policy Options
5Property Tax Rebates for Charitable and Similar Organizations
6Tax Shifts - Effect of Changes to Transition Ratios
7Other Item Considered by the Committee
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 13
OF THE STRATEGIC POLICIES AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
(from its meeting on July 14, 1998,
submitted by Mayor Mel Lastman , Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
at its Special Meeting
on July 21 and 23, 1998
1
Residential Property Class - Phase-In Policy
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:
"It is recommended that:
(1)the report (undated) from Mayor Lastman, entitled 'Residential Property Class- A Compromise Proposal', embodying
the following recommendation, be adopted:
'It is recommended that, in order to allow individuals time to adjust their financial affairs, the increases and decreases
related to property tax reform with respect to residential property tax reform be phased-in over a five-year period in
combination with an annual minimum payment of $300.00 for tax increases and an annual minimum payment of $200.00
for tax decreases.';
(2)an arm's length municipal office be set up immediately to help the City's taxpayers to appeal their property tax
assessment;
(3)the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force be instructed to work towards a recommendation that a portion of one's
property taxes be based on income;
(4)WHEREAS, the stated purpose of any proposed phase-in program is to help long-term home owners 'get used to the
idea of paying more' and to prevent seniors, disabled and low or fixed-income residents from losing their homes because
of inability to pay their new increased tax rates;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Toronto Council petition the Province of Ontario to pass
legislation allowing that, upon the change of ownership on or after January 1, 1999, of any residential property, any tax
increase or decrease become immediately effective at its full new rate for the new owner, and excluding those changes
where title passes through the death of one or more partners in a home where the title is held by a
joint-tenants-in-common agreement held prior to July 1, 1998; and excluding those joint-tenants-in-common agreements
where title passes from parent to child, unless the child has already reached the age of55;
(5)the Province of Ontario be requested to provide legislation to allow the phase-in for decreases in effect be for three
years and the phase-in for increases be for five years with the thresholds recommended in the report from Mayor
Lastman; and further that the Province be requested to provide a one-time grant in the amount of the differential between
the phase-in of the increase and the decrease;
(6)the Province of Ontario be requested, for those instances where building permits are issued for changes to existing
residential buildings, to implement the same procedure that is followed for non-residential buildings which is that a
partial reassessment be carried out when the Province is informed of the value of the building permit, and a full
assessment be carried out when the building permit is closed;
(7)Council petition the Province of Ontario for additional tax tools for setting residential property tax rates, such tools
to include setting graduated tax rates such as the ones considered by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for
commercial and industrial taxes;
(8)Mayor Lastman be requested to write to the Minister of Finance again requesting:
(a)information respecting the Current Value Assessment (CVA) system which was originally requested by City Council at
its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998; and
(b)information previously requested in the communication dated April6,1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, addressed to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Office of Budget and Taxation, respecting necessary assessment
information to determine assessments based on current value in current use;
(9)Council record its appreciation for the diligence and professional conduct of all City staff involved in the tax policies
issues, in particular, staff of Finance, Economic Development, Legal, Housing, Information Technology, Clerk's and
Chief Administrative Officer's Office; and
(10)the report dated July 23, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer embodying the following
recommendations, be adopted:
"It is recommended that:
(1)Council authorize the levy and collection of taxes for the 1998 taxation year, the imposition of a penalty charge for
non-payment of 1998 taxes, the provision of interest to be added to tax arrears and to establish tax ratios for the year
1998;
(2)Council approve the levy of a special charge for 1998 for the following Business Improvement Areas and to provide
for its collection: Bloor by the Park; Bloor Court Village; Bloor West Village; Bloor-Bathurst-Madison; Bloor-Yorkville;
Bloordale Village; Corso Italia; Danforth by the Valley; Eglinton Way Village; Forest Hill Village; Gerrard India
Bazaar; Greektown on the Danforth; Harbord Street; Islington Village; Junction Gardens; Kennedy Road; Kingsway;
Lakeshore; Little Italy; Long Branch; Mimico Village; Old Cabbagetown; Parkdale Village; Queen/Broadview Village;
Roncesvalles Village; St. Lawrence Neighbourhood; Upper Village and Weston;
(3)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council to levy taxes for the year 1998 and to
provide for the collection of taxes for 1998 other than those levied under By-law No. 10-1998, to impose a penalty charge
for non-payment of taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears, to establish tax ratios for the 1998 taxation
year and to levy a special charge for 1998 for certain Business Improvement Areas and provide for its collection, in the
form or substantially in the form of the draft by-laws attached thereto; and
(4)subject to Council adopting a residential property class phase-in program with or without a threshold; and the
capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial
property classes, that leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto in the
form or substantially in the form of the draft by-laws attached hereto.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the transmittal letter (July13,1998) from the Assessment
and Tax Policy Task Force, without recommendation.
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the following motions to Mayor Lastman for a
report directly to City Council on July 21, 1998:
(1)"That Recommendation No. (2) be amended to read:
'(2)in considering the phase-in periods for increases and decreases related to residential property tax reform, that Council
be requested to vote in order of degree with the highest phase-in placed first, such votes to include using thresholds first
and not using thresholds second.'";
(2)"That Recommendation No. (2) be amended by deleting the word 'highest' and replacing it with the word 'lowest'.";
(3)"That Recommendation No. (1) be referred to Mayor Lastman for a report directly to City Council on July 21, 1998.";
and
(4)"That the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force
on an education program/counseling service to assist people who do not fall within the recommended programs who,
nevertheless have difficulty in paying their property taxes as a result of reassessment."
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following transmittal letter (July13, 1998) from the
Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:
Recommendations:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on July, 6, 7, 11, and 13, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee and City Council that:
(1)in order to allow individuals time to adjust their financial affairs the increases and decreases related to property tax
reform with respect to residential property tax reform be phased in over a seven and a half year period; and
(2)in considering the phase-in periods for increases and decreases related to residential property tax reform, that Council
be requested to vote in the order of degree with the highest phase-in placed first, such votes to include using thresholds or
not using thresholds.
The Task Force also reports having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to Council on
July 21, 998, on the following motion of Councillor Walker:
Whereas the Provincial Government is responsible for:
(i)authoring and implementing the legislation which imposed Current Value Assessment;
(ii)the assessment of all properties in Ontario;
(iii)the quality and accuracy of the assessments; and
Whereas the City of Toronto was not consulted as to the assessment of properties and had no part in designing the Current
Value Assessment system; and
Whereas the City of Toronto has repeatedly requested from the Province, impact studies and verification, independent or
otherwise, as to the accuracy of the assessments, to no avail; and
Whereas there are currently over 50,000 independent assessment appeals pending; and
Whereas an administration fee of $20.00 per residential appeal and $25.00 per commercial/industrial appeal is being
charged by the Province to pay for the costs of these appeals; and
Whereas the City of Toronto will assume responsibility for all assessment related costs, including re-assessment, appeal,
and administrative costs, after August 31, 1998;
Therefore Be It Resolved that:
(1)the City of Toronto refuse to assume any costs related to the implementation or operation of the Current Value
Assessment system until the Province has carried out a study which verifies the accuracy of their assessment data; and
(2)the City of Toronto refuse to assume any costs related to the implementation or operation of the Current Value
Assessment system until the assessment roll has been finalized and all appeals and re-assessments related to this year's
assessments have been processed and settled by the Provincial Government.
Background:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force was established by City Council at its meeting on March4, 5 and 6, 1998,
when it amended and adopted Clause 2 of Report No. 3 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, titled "Process
to Develop Property Tax Implementation Plan".
The Task Force met eleven times, scheduled three public meetings on April 6, 27, and July 6/7, 1998, at which
approximately 120 citizens deputed. The Task Force has received approximately 210 communications from interested
citizens commenting on the proposed new Ontario Fair Assessment System and taxation reforms which will affect
property taxes paid by all residents and businesses throughout the City of Toronto.
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force had before it a report (July 2, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer providing information to assist Council to develop a policy respecting the phase-in of assessment related
property tax increases and decreases for the residential property class pursuant to the Fair Municipal Finance Act.
The Task Force also had before it the following communications respecting the current value assessment and the
residential property class:
(a)(July 1, 1998) from Mr. Craig Nicholson;
(b)(June 30, 1998) from Mr. Dennis Choptiany, President, Lytton Park Residents' Organization;
(c)(July 2, 1998) from Ms. Oriella Reia Stillo;
(d)(July 2, 1998) from Mr. David Harrison;
(e)(July 2, 1998) from Ms. Maureen Williamson;
(f)(May 11, 1998) from Ms. Joanne Olsen;
(g)(June 29, 1998) from Dr. R.R. Tasker, MD, MA, FRCS(C), Division of Neurosurgery, Western Division, The Toronto
Hospital;
(h)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. George Milbrandt;
(i)(July 3, 1998) from Mr. Olev Johanson;
(j)(July 6, 1998)from Mr. David Vallance;
(k)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Brian Maguire, Director, North Hill District Homeowners' Association & Secretary-Treasurer
of the Confederation of Resident & Ratepayers Associations;
(l)(July 6, 1998)from Mr. David Godley;
(m)(Undated) from Ms. Mary Lou Dickinson;
(n)(Undated) from Ms. Micheline Czyzykowski;
(o)(July 6, 1998) from Ms. Cindy Weiner, President, and Mr. Alex Frirdich, Member of Executive, St. Andrew's
Ratepayers Association;
(p)(July 6, 1998)from Mr. Paul Siemens;
(q)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Bill Nemerson, Member of the Seniors' Task Force;
(r)(July 6, 1998 from Mr. David Bruce;
(s)(July 8, 1998) from Mr. John Caliendo;
(t)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Marc L. Johnson;
(u)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. David Hui & Mr. Steven K. Lam, Toronto Fair Tax Chinatown Committee;
(v)(July 8, 1998) from Ms. Judy MacAlpine;
(w)(July 2, 1998) from Ms. Leslie Dampier;
(x)(June 26, 1998) from Mr. Ben Barkow;
(y)(June 25, 1998) from Mr. Andrew Vernon-Betts; and
(z)(June 8, 1998) from Ms. Jennifer Carter.
The Task Force held public hearings on July 6, 1998, to hear from citizens on the reports from the Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer respecting Residential Property Class - Phase-In Policy, Multi-Residential Property Class - Tax Policy
Options, and Property Tax Relief for Low-Income Seniors and Disabled Seniors and Disabled Persons.
The following persons addressed the Task Force on July 6, 1998:
-Mr. Dale Ritch
-Mr. David Vallance
-Mr. Michael McCarty, South Armour Heights Ratepayers' Association
-Mr. Brian Maguire
-Mr. Steve Ellis
-Mr. Sam Lewkowicz
-Mr. George Milbrandt
-Ms. Mary Janet MacDonald
-Mr. David MacAlpine
-Ms. Mary Lou Dickinson
-Mr. Paul Siemens
-Mr. Hendrick Flakierski
-Ms. Judy MacAlpine
-Mr. Alex Frirdich and Ms. Cindy Weiner, St. Andrews Ratepayers' Association
-Mr. Giovanni Mosca
-Mr. Julian Smit
-Mr. Robert Sydia
-Mr. Olev Johanson
-Mr. Frank Buttigieg
-Mr. Allan Burke, East Beach Community Association
-Mr. Harry Beatty
-Ms. Elizabeth Holder
-Mr. Howard Tessler, Federation of Metro Tenants' Association
-Mr. Barry Lyon, Lyon Consultants
-Mr. James Clare
-Mr. David Jackson
-Mrs. Toby Frankel, Jonare Frankel Holdings Ltd.
-Mr. Dan Crimi
-Mr. Tim Sheeres
-Mrs. Mun-Julee
-Dr. W.E. Goodman
-Ms. Elizabeth Dingman
-Mr. Cliff Jenkins
-Ms. Joan Milne
-Ms. Teresa DeCarvalho
-Mr. Bill McLeod
-Ms. Deborah Pomper
-Ms. Elizabeth Kimball
(Copies of the communications referred to in the transmittal letter of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force have
been previously circulated to all Members of Council with the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force agenda and copies
thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
--------
(Report dated July 2, 1998, addressed to the
Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To develop a policy respecting the phase-in of assessment related property tax increases and decreases for the residential
property class pursuant to the Fair Municipal Finance Act.
Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The phase-in of assessment related increases must be funded through the phase-in of decreases within the same property
class. As such, there is no funding implication associated with this report. However, a shift of $15.3 million of new tax
burden onto the residential class has occurred. This shift, which is not due to any budgetary changes but results from the
Provincial calculation of the transition ratios, will cause an immediate non-phaseable increase of 0.0125 percent on
residential property owners.
Recommendation:
Within the existing legislative framework, Council can choose a phase-in period ranging from two to eight years. Should
Council elect to minimize the impact of assessment reform, the maximum eight-year phase-in is appropriate. Under this
phase-in period, 88.2 percent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $125.00.
However, given the fact that the next reassessment will be in three years hence, a phase-in period of three-years for
assessment-related property tax increases and decreases for the residential property class should be considered to alleviate
the confusion for the taxpayer, of carrying forward residual phase-in amounts from the 1998 reassessment while
implementing the full impact of tax changes resulting from the 2001 reassessment. Under a three-year phase-in period,
65.9 per cent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $167.00, and where 88.2 percent of property
owners would see an annual impact of less than $333.00.
Council can also choose to phase-in tax changes in combination with a threshold for tax increases and decreases that
would be paid in the first year of the phase-in period. Under a three year phase-in period and using a threshold for tax
decreases of $200, and a threshold for tax increases of $299, 35.4 percent of property owners would receive their full tax
decrease or increase in 1998. In the subsequent years of the phase-in period, 81.9 percent of property owners would see an
annual impact of less than $167.00 and 94.4 percent would see an annual impact of less than $333.00.
Reference/Background:
Bill 106, by amendment to section 372 of the Municipal Act, provides for the Council of a municipality to pass a by-law
in 1998 to phase-in 1998 assessment related tax increases or decreases, subject to certain requirements. First, the first year
of a phase in must be in 1998 and the last year must be the 2005 taxation year or an earlier taxation year (i.e., the 1998
assessment related increase or decrease can be phased-in over a period of up to eight years). Second, the amount to be
phased-in in a year, other than 1998, must be the same or less than the amount phased-in the previous year. Third, for
each property class for each year, the adjustments made under the by-law must not affect the total taxes for municipal and
school purposes on the land in the municipality that is in the property class and that is rateable for municipal purposes
(i.e., within property classes, phase-in of increases must balance with the decreases). Finally, the by-law may provide for
different phase-ins for different property classes and it may provide for no phase-in for some classes.
Should Council select any phase-in option, there will be an immediate first year impact for all properties in the residential
class. Although increases and decreases are equal under any phase-in program, there will be a one time tax impact of
$15.3 million for the 1998 tax year that must be absorbed by all properties in the residential class. This is due to the
revised preliminary transition ratios as provided by the Province which result in a tax shift among all the property classes
with some classes experiencing increases and some decreases. The creation of of a uniform Provincial residential
education tax rate would have shifted approximately $119 million from the multi-residential class to the residential class.
In setting the transition ratios, the Province has shifted back $104 million - which leaves $15.3 million of new tax burden
on the residential class.
The ratios do not nullify the effect of a uniform tax rate completely by filling it with municipal taxes and, as mentioned
above, does result in a shift of taxes onto the residential class that according to the Province, cannot be phased-in. The
difference caused by this shift for the residential class is about 0.0125 percent or an immediate increase of approximately
$28 for the average valued home of $220,000. Therefore, the analysis contained in the attached appendices exclude this
impact.
Discussion:
With respect to phase-in policy, the decision required by Council is relatively straightforward: for each property class, a
phase-in period of between one (i.e., no phase-in) and eight years must be adopted. The amount of increases phased-in
must be borne by those in the same property class who are entitled to decreases. Obviously, those properties which are
subject to a 1998 assessment related decrease will want the shortest phase-in period (i.e., no phase-in) in order to reduce
their taxes by the full amount immediately. On the other hand, those who are subject to an assessment related increase
will prefer the longest phase-in period allowed.
By choosing a phase-in period for each property class, Council must balance the needs of those who are entitled to
decreases with the needs of those who may experience the financial hardship of a tax increase. As Council has no control
of the amount of the 1998 assessment related increase or decrease, the only variable to work with is the phase-in period.
The final reassessment impact study indicates that 56.1 percent of residential assessment portions (300,866 portions) are
to receive a property tax decrease, averaging $491.00 per portion, while 43.9percent (235,521 portions) are to receive a
tax increase, averaging $692.00 per portion.
A primary objective of the phase-in policy should involve deciding upon an amount that is considered acceptable as an
annual increase (and consequently a decrease) for the majority within a class. For example, consider a household for
which the 1998 assessment-related increase is $1000.00. Without a phase-in, the household would be required to absorb
the entire $1000.00 increase in his or her 1998 property tax. To alleviate the financial hardship such a sudden increase
may pose to the householder, the increase may be phased-in over several years. If it is phased-in over two years, then the
household would experience a 1998 tax increase of $500.00 and a further increase of $500.00 for the 1999 taxation year.
If it is phased-in over three years, then the annual impact would be $333.00. Over four years, $250.00 per year, over five
years, $200.00 per annum, and so on, to the maximum phase-in period of eight years, which would result in an annual
impact of $125.00 in each of the eight years.
Appendix 1 shows the annual impact of various phase-in periods for the residential property class, along with the
percentage of the population affected. The detailed data used in this analysis is provided in Appendix 2. Appendices 7-9
present the same data assuming higher residential tax rates of 1.30 percent, 1.35 percent and 1.40 percent, to illustrate the
sensitivity of changes in the tax rates from the impact of any tax shifts from either multi-residential, commercial or
industrial properties onto the residential property class.
CVA Implementation - Options:
A.Immediate Implementation
Council can implement CVA immediately for the residential property class by choosing not to phase-in tax changes due
to reassessment. Under this scenario, 235,521 or 43.9 percent of residential properties would be required to pay their full
tax increase in 1998. Conversely, all properties that are entitled to a tax decrease under CVA, would receive their full
decrease in 1998.
The data shows that the average tax increase per portion is 26.9 percent or $692.00. Due to the delay of the assessment
roll in 1998, this tax increase would be required to be paid in the last four months of the year. Therefore, if Council
wishes to alleviate the financial hardship a sudden tax increase may pose to some homeowners, it should adopt a phase-in
program.
B.2 Year Phase-in
Under a two-year phase-in period, 65.9 percent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $250.00, and
where 88.2 percent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $500.00. Under the two-year phase-in,
there would be almost 10,683 properties with annual increases greater than $1000.00.
C.3 Year Phase-in
Under a three-year phase-in period, 65.9 per cent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $167.00,
and where 88.2 percent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $333.00. Under the three-year
phase-in, there would still be almost 4,493 properties with annual increases greater than $1000.00.
A phase-in period of three-years would also coincide with the next reassessment for 2001, which would alleviate
confusion for the taxpayer of carrying forward residual phase-in amounts from the 1998 reassessment while implementing
the full impact of tax changes resulting from the 2001 reassessment or attempting to implement another phase-in program,
if available.
D.4 Year Phase-in
Another option to be considered is a four-year phase-in (annual increases to the year 2002) for the residential property
class which would result in 88.2 percent of assessment portions (473,013 portions) experiencing annual tax increases or
decreases of less than $250.00 per annum over the four years it takes to achieve the total 1998 assessment related tax
increase or decrease. Under a four-year phase-in, 2,296 properties would experience annual increases greater than
$1000.00.
E.5 Year Phase-in
A five year phase-in period would result in 65.9 per cent of property owners having an annual tax increase of less than
$100.00, while 88.2 percent of property owners would have an tax increase less than $200.00. Under the five-year
phase-in, 1,404 properties would see annual increases greater than $1000.00.
F.6 Year Phase-in
Under a six-year phase-in period, 65.9 per cent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $83.00, and
88.2 percent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $167.00. Under the six-year phase-in, 978
properties would see annual increases greater than $1000.00.
G.7 Year Phase-in
Under a seven-year phase-in period, 65.9 per cent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $71.00, and
88.2 percent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $143.00. Under the seven-year phase-in, 758
properties would see annual increases greater than $1000.00.
H.8 Year Phase-in
An eight-year phase-in period is the maximum time period allowed under the legislation. Should Council elect to
minimize the impact of assessment reform, the maximum eight-year phase-in should be considered. Under this phase-in
period, 65.9 per cent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $62.00, and 88.2 percent of property
owners would see an annual impact of less than $125.00. Under an eight-year phase-in, 605 properties would see annual
increases greater than $1000.00.
The annual impact and percentage of assessment portions affected for the various phase-in options for all City wards are
shown in Appendix 10.
Given the preceding, if the objective is to maintain the increases at a tolerable level while balance the needs of those who
may be subject to a decrease, and reducing the confusion that will arise from the next reassessment program in 2001, then
a three year phase-in period is appropriate, as it contains the annual increases (and decreases) to within $167.00, for
two-thirds of the assessment portions (properties).
Council can also use thresholds based on a specified dollar amount, in combination with a phase-in program, as set out
below:
I.Phase-in Based on Threshold
Another option for a phase-in would be to specify a dollar threshold as a basis for phasing-in increases/decreases instead
of an annual percentage change. For example, instead of a phase-in of four years whereby the increase and decrease
change 25 percent annually for each of the four years, a dollar threshold of $200.00 could be selected over which any tax
increase/decrease would be phased-in each year over four years.
The distribution ranges of tax changes differ for tax increases versus tax decreases, with more portions decreasing than
increasing. As a result, the average tax increase is higher than the average tax decrease. Therefore, a threshold set for tax
decreases would result in a different threshold for tax increases. For example, a threshold for residential tax decreases of
$200.00 would result in a corresponding threshold for tax increases of $299.00. A threshold of tax decreases of $600
would require a threshold increase of $960.00.
The following table illustrates the impact of phasing in a tax increase of $900.00 with a threshold of $299.00 over 4 years.
Any tax increase less than or equal to $299.00 would be payable in the first year. The balance of the tax change can be
accomplished using one of two methods:
Tax Increase Payable |
Threshold Option 1: Pay threshold amount in Year 1 plus
phased-in balance of tax increase. |
Threshold Option 2: Pay threshold if total or annual tax increases
and decreases are less than threshold. Pay phased amount of total
if annual increases are greater than threshold. |
Year 1 |
$450.00 |
$299.00 |
Year 2 |
$150.00 |
$200.34 |
Year 3 |
$150.00 |
$200.33 |
Year 4 |
$150.00 |
$200.33 |
Total |
$900.00 |
$900.00 |
Threshold Option 1: Annual phase-in amount after Year 1 is less than $299.00 and is phased-in by the total number of
years. Total tax change less $299.00, divided by the length of the phase-in (in years), or
($900.00 - $299.00) ) 4 years
= $600.00 ) 4
= $150.00
Year 1 = $299.00 + $150.00 = $450.00
Year 2 = $150.00, etc until the end of the phase-in period.
Threshold Option 2: If the increase or the decrease is less than the threshold amount, the full amount is paid. If the total
tax increase or decrease is greater than the threshold, but the annual tax change under a phase-in is less than the threshold,
then the amount in Year 1 = threshold; balance is phased-in over the remaining years, or
$600.00 ) 4
= $150.00 per year
Annual phase-in amount < $299.00
Year 1 = $299.00
Year 2 = ($600.00-$299.00) ) (4-1) = $100.00, until the end of the phase-in period.
Where the increase and decrease is greater than the threshold, and the annual phase-in amount is greater than or equal to
the threshold, the annual amount paid equals the total tax change divided by the phase-in period, or
$1,500.00 ) 4 = $375.00 per year
Year 1= $375.00
Year 2= $375.00, etc until the end of the phase-in period.
In this example, the $375.00 is more than the threshold of $299.00 and therefore the threshold would not apply.
If Council chooses a threshold option, the preferred option to implement the balance of the tax changes is Option 2.
Threshold Option 1 results in a large proportionate share of taxes being paid in Year 1 while Option 2 achieves a more
balanced phase-in of any tax changes over and above the threshold. As a result, Threshold Option 2 is used as the basis of
the analysis below.
The following table summarizes three options using selected threshold levels and illustrates the number of portions that
would experience the full increase or decrease impact in the first year. The three options analyzed were (1) $299.00
increase with a $200.00 decrease; (2) $650.00 increase with a $400.00 decrease; and, (3) $960.00 increase with a $600.00
decrease.
Number of Assessment Portions That Receive Full Increases/Decreases
Under Selected Threshold Options In Year 1 |
Assessment
Portions |
$299 Increase
$200 Decrease |
$650 Increase
$400 Decrease |
$960 Increase
$600 Decrease |
# of Portions |
% of Total Portions |
# of Portions |
% of Total Portions |
# of Portions |
% of Total Portions |
Full Increase |
92,986 |
17.34% |
152,408 |
28.41% |
181,561 |
33.85% |
Full Decrease |
96,745 |
18.04% |
189,716 |
35.35% |
246,809 |
46.01% |
Total |
189,731 |
35.38% |
342,124 |
63.76% |
428,370 |
79.86% |
Using Option 2 as the method to phase-in tax changes above the threshold levels, the distribution of impacts of
implementing a phase-in policy with a threshold are summarized below:
(1)Increases of $299.00 and Decreases of $200.00 - 3, 5 and 8 Year Phase-in Periods
Appendix 3 shows the distribution of the assessment portions under this threshold option using a phase-in period of 3
years. In the first year (1998), 35.38 percent or 189,731 portions would see their full increase/decrease. For those that
exceed the threshold, the additional annual amount to pay in Years 2 and 3 of the phase-in period would be as follows:
(i)155,306 portions or 29 percent would see an impact of less than $83.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the phase-in period.
109,701 portions or 20.5 percent would receive annual tax decreases of less than $83.00 and 45,605 portions or 8.5
percent would receive annual tax increases of less than $83.00.
(ii)94,396 portions or 20.5 percent would see an impact of between $83.00 and $167.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the
phase-in period. 64,731 portions or 12 percent would receive annual tax decreases of between $83.00 and $167.00 while
29,665 portions or 8.5 percent would receive annual tax increases of between $83.00 and $167.00.
(iii)66,933 portions or 12.5 percent would see an impact of between $167.00 and $333.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the
phase-in period. 28,429 portions or 5.3 percent would receive annual tax decreases of between $167.00 and $333.00 while
38,504 portions or 7.2 percent would receive annual tax increases of between $167.00 and $333.00.
(iv)30,021 portions or 5.6 percent would see an impact of more than $333.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the phase-in
period. 10,331 portions or 1.9 percent would receive annual tax decreases of more than $333.00 while 19,690 portions or
3.7 percent would receive annual tax increases of more than $333.00.
Appendix 3 also shows the annual tax impacts based on a threshold for tax decreases of $200.00 over phase-in periods of
5 and 8 years. A longer phase-in period raises the threshold slightly for tax increases to $308.00, from $299.00. The
change in the tax increase threshold results in an additional 2,167 properties paying their full increase in Year 1. However,
the longer the phase-in period, the lower the annual tax impact in each of the subsequent years of the phase-in period. For
example, under a 5 year phase-in period, 496,485 portions or 92.2 percent would see an annual tax impact of less than
$200.00. Under an 8 year phase-in period, 495,555 or 92 percent would receive an annual tax impact of less than $125.00.
Appendix 4 shows a comparison between the annual tax changes and distribution of increases and decreases based on
phase-in periods of 3, 5 and 8 years. The table compares the distribution of portions in each tax change range that would
occur under a decrease threshold of $200.00 scenario, with the distribution of portions the would occur under a phase-in
without a threshold.
(2)Increases of $650.00 and Decreases of $400.00 - 3 Year Phase-in Period
Appendix 5 shows the distribution of the assessment portions under this threshold option. In the first year (1998), 63.78
percent or 342,124 portions would see their full increase/decrease. For those that exceed the threshold, the additional
annual amount to pay would be as follows:
(i)91,281 portions or 17percent would see an impact of less than $83.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the phase-in period.
66,723 portions or 12.4 percent would receive annual tax decreases of less than $83.00 and 24,558 portions or 4.5 percent
would receive annual tax increases of less than $83.00.
(ii)43,771 portions or 8.2 percent would see an impact of between $83.00 and $167.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the
phase-in period. 27,359 portions or 5.1 percent would receive annual tax decreases of between $83.00 and $167.00 while
16,412 portions or 3.1 percent would receive annual tax increases of between $83.00 and $167.00.
(iii)32,630 portions or 6.1 percent would see an impact of between $167.00 and $333.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the
phase-in period. 15,808 portions or 3 percent would receive annual tax decreases of between $167.00 and $333.00 while
16,822 portions or 3.1 percent would receive annual tax increases of between $167.00 and $333.00.
(iv)26,581 portions or 5 percent would see an impact of more than $333.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the phase-in
period. 10,331 portions or 1.9 percent would receive annual tax decreases of more than $333.00 while 16,250 portions or
3 percent would receive annual tax increase of more than $333.00.
(3)Increases of $960.00 and Decreases of $600.00 - 3 Year Phase-in
Appendix 6 shows the distribution of the assessment portions under this threshold option. In the first year (1998), 80
percent or 428,370 portions would see their full increase/decrease. For those that exceed the threshold, the additional
annual amount to pay would be as follows:
(i)48,431 portions or 9 percent would see an impact of less than $83.00 in each of Years2 and 3 of the phase-in period.
33,736 portions or 6.3 percent would receive annual tax decreases of less than $83.00 and 14,695 portions or 2.7 percent
would receive annual tax increases of less than $83.00.
(ii)20,243 portions or 4 percent would see an impact of between $83.00 and $167.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the
phase-in period. 11,870 portions or 2.2 percent would receive annual tax decreases of between $83.00 and $167.00 while
9,493 portions or 1.8 percent would receive annual tax increases of between $83.00 and $167.00.
(iii)17,612 portions or 3.3 percent would see an impact of between $167.00 and $333.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the
phase-in period. 8,119 portions or 1.5 percent would receive annual tax decreases of between $167.00 and $333.00 while
9,493 portions or 1.8 percent would receive annual tax increases of between $167.00 and $333.00.
(iv)20,731 portions or 3.9 percent would see an impact of more than $333.00 in each of Years 2 and 3 of the phase-in
period. 9,403 portions or 1.8 percent would receive annual tax decreases of more than $333.00 while 11,328 portions or
2.1 percent would receive annual tax increase of more than $333.00.
Impact of Next Reassessment on Phase-in Program:
A secondary but important issue that needs to be addressed during consideration of a phase-in period is the impact of
subsequent reassessments. The legislation prescribes that reassessment is to occur at three year intervals, with the next
assessment being effected three years hence for the 2001 taxation year. A distinct advantage of a three-year phase-in
period is that the entire assessment-related increase or decrease would be completely phased-in prior to the next
reassessment. This would alleviate the confusion for the taxpayer of carrying forward residual phase-in amounts from the
1998 reassessment while attempting to implement another phase-in program, if available, for the 2001 reassessment. This
reason provides a significant advantage over the alternative four-year phase-in presented in this analysis.
The next reassessment, which will occur for taxation in the year 2001, will be based on valuations as at June, 1999. At
this time, existing legislation does not permit any phase-in of tax changes resulting from the next reassessment.
The phasing-in of the reassessment changes occurring in 1998, if longer than 3 years, would continue until the phase-in is
completed and will not be eliminated with the next reassessment in 2001. The following examples, using both a 3 year
and 8 year phase-in scenario for the 1998 assessment-related tax changes, demonstrate what would occur with the 2001
reassessment.
Scenario:Phase-in beginning in 1998 for 3 and 8 years, with no change in CVA in 2001
1997 Taxes$3,000.00
1998 Preliminary Taxes$3,300.00
Assessment-related Tax Increase $300.00
Taxes Payable per Year (1997 Base Taxes = $3,000) |
Phase-in Period |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
3-Years |
$3,100.00 |
$3,200.00 |
$3,300.00 |
$3,300.00 |
$3,300.00 |
$3,300.00 |
$3,300.00 |
$3,300.00 |
8-Years |
$3,037.50 |
$3,075.00 |
$3,112.50 |
$3,150.00 |
$3,187.50 |
$3,225.00 |
$3,262.50 |
$3,300.00 |
Example 1: Phase-in with 2001 CVA reassessment increase
1997 Taxes$3,000.00
1998 Preliminary Taxes$3,300.00
Assessment-related Tax Increase $300.00
2001 Tax (reassessment re 1999 valuation)$3,600.00
Taxes Payable per Year |
Phase-in Period |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
3 Years |
Assessment-related tax change -
1996 Base |
$3,100 |
$3,200 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
Assessment-related tax change -
1999 Base |
|
|
|
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
Total Payable |
$3,200 |
$3,200 |
$3,300 |
$3,600 |
$3,600 |
$3,600 |
$3,600 |
$3,600 |
8 Years |
Assessment-related tax change -
1996 Base |
$3,038 |
$3,075 |
$3,113 |
$3,150 |
$3,188 |
$3,225 |
$3,263 |
$3,300 |
Assessment-related tax change -
1999 Base |
|
|
|
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
Total Payable |
$3,038 |
$3,075 |
$3,113 |
$3,450 |
$3,488 |
$3,525 |
$3,563 |
$3,600 |
Example 2: Phase-in with 2001 CVA reassessment decrease
1997 Taxes$3,000.00
1998 Preliminary Taxes$3,300.00
Assessment-related Tax Decrease -$300.00
2001 Tax (reassessment re 1999 valuation)$3,000.00
Taxes Payable per Year |
Phase-in Period |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
3 Years |
Assessment-related tax change -
1996 Base |
$3,100 |
$3,200 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
$3,300 |
Assessment-related tax change -
1999 Base |
|
|
|
($300) |
($300) |
($300) |
($300) |
($300) |
Total Payable |
$3,200 |
$3,200 |
$3,300 |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
8 Years |
Assessment-related tax change -
1996 Base |
$3,038 |
$3,075 |
$3,113 |
$3,150 |
$3,188 |
$3,225 |
$3,263 |
$3,300 |
Assessment-related tax change -
1999 Base |
|
|
|
($300) |
($300) |
($300) |
($300) |
($300) |
Total Payable |
$3,038 |
$3,075 |
$3,113 |
$2,850 |
$2,888 |
$2,925 |
$2,963 |
$3,000 |
Any property that is subject to a successful assessment appeal will affect the phase-in program. The reduction must be
taken into account and re-calculated as part of the phase-in program. If prior years were appealed the taxpayer would be
entitled to the full refund, however, the property would be subject to the requirements of the phase-in program.
If Council adopts an eight year phase-in program, it could repeal the by-law after the third year (2001) to coincide with
the next reassessment cycle. However, the initial eight phase-in program (and by-law) would have created expectations
among taxpayers that their tax increase would be phased-in over the eight years with a specified annual tax payable. To
repeal the by-law in 2001 might be seen as unfair and may cause undue financial hardship to those taxpayers expecting
the longer phase-in period, as any unpaid balance for the remaining five years, would become due in 2001. Since the City
would be carrying the phased-in decreases over the eight year period as well, the repeal of the bylaw after three years
would result in those taxpayers being credited with the total outstanding decreases at that time.
Conclusion:
The City may pass a by-law providing for the phase-in of assessment-related property tax increases and decreases
pursuant to the Fair Municipal Finance Act. The amount of increases phased-in must be borne by those in the same
property class who are entitled to decreases. By choosing a phase-in period, Council must balance the needs of those who
are entitled to decreases with the needs of those who may experience the financial hardship of a tax increase. This report
takes the approach of attempting to find a level of annual impact that may be acceptable to both the increase and decrease
sides. Should Council elect to minimize the impact of assessment reform, the maximum eight-year phase-in should be
considered. Under this phase-in period, 88.2 percent of property owners would see an annual impact of less than $125.00.
The analysis also shows that approximately two-thirds of all the residential assessment portions may be accommodated
with an annual impact of $167.00 or less if a three-year phase-in period is adopted. In fact, approximately nine-tenths of
the portions would see an impact of $333.00 or less (that is those entitled to decreases as well as those that may be
receiving increases). Furthermore, the three-year phase-in has a distinct advantage over longer phase-in periods in that the
entire assessment-related increase or decrease would be completely phased-in prior to the next reassessment. This would
alleviate the confusion for the taxpayer, of carrying forward residual phase-in amounts from the 1998 reassessment while
attempting to implement another phase-in program, if available, for the 2001 reassessment. For 1998, due to the
Provincial transitional ratios, there will be a one time tax shift to the residential class of $15 Million, which cannot be part
of any phase-in program and must therefore be absorbed by all properties.
Contact Names:
Paul Wealleans, 397-4208
Lynne Ashton, 397-4203
Adir Gupta, 392-8071
Insert Table/Map No. 1
appendix 1
Appendix 2
Residential/Farm Property Class - Phase-in Program - City Total
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
0 - 49 |
21,017 |
44,405 |
69,665 |
96,745 |
124,447 |
147,897 |
168,960 |
189,716 |
50 - 99 |
23,388 |
52,340 |
78,232 |
92,971 |
97,594 |
98,912 |
95,700 |
86,565 |
100 - 149 |
25,260 |
51,152 |
58,549 |
57,093 |
49,136 |
36,989 |
26,227 |
18,808 |
150 - 199 |
27,080 |
41,819 |
40,363 |
29,472 |
17,632 |
11,291 |
7,543 |
5,445 |
200 - 249 |
27,702 |
32,325 |
24,368 |
12,528 |
7,210 |
4,517 |
3,161 |
2,286 |
250 - 299 |
23,450 |
24,768 |
12,621 |
6,280 |
3,587 |
2,255 |
1,738 |
1,930 |
300 - 349 |
21,063 |
17,851 |
7,089 |
3,341 |
1,985 |
1,468 |
1,603 |
1,783 |
350 - 399 |
20,756 |
11,621 |
4,202 |
2,104 |
1,229 |
1,421 |
1,601 |
894 |
400 - 449 |
16,730 |
7,517 |
2,604 |
1,327 |
1,130 |
1,433 |
818 |
565 |
450 - 499 |
15,595 |
5,011 |
1,913 |
959 |
1,186 |
826 |
532 |
382 |
500 - 599 |
24,768 |
6,280 |
2,255 |
1,930 |
1,873 |
983 |
640 |
462 |
600 - 699 |
17,851 |
3,341 |
1,468 |
1,783 |
874 |
531 |
350 |
263 |
700 - 799 |
11,621 |
2,104 |
1,421 |
894 |
491 |
313 |
226 |
198 |
800 - 899 |
7,517 |
1,327 |
1,433 |
565 |
327 |
199 |
171 |
122 |
900 - 999 |
5,011 |
959 |
826 |
382 |
205 |
178 |
123 |
68 |
1,000 - 1,999 |
14,011 |
5,554 |
2,204 |
1,113 |
709 |
449 |
300 |
225 |
2,000 - 2,999 |
4,189 |
839 |
356 |
175 |
86 |
69 |
59 |
61 |
3,000 - 3,999 |
1,365 |
274 |
93 |
50 |
44 |
42 |
33 |
27 |
4,000 - 4,999 |
532 |
128 |
39 |
33 |
30 |
23 |
23 |
19 |
5,000 - 5,999 |
307 |
47 |
30 |
28 |
21 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
6,000 - 6,999 |
180 |
31 |
21 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
15 |
13 |
7,000 - 7,999 |
94 |
19 |
21 |
15 |
11 |
12 |
10 |
17 |
Over 8,000 |
450 |
225 |
164 |
137 |
118 |
102 |
89 |
72 |
Total Decrease Portions |
300,866 |
56.09% |
Average |
-$491 |
Median |
-$305 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
0 - 49 |
20,033 |
36,770 |
52,805 |
67,583 |
80,973 |
93,051 |
104,107 |
113,843 |
50 - 99 |
16,737 |
30,813 |
40,246 |
46,260 |
50,138 |
52,485 |
54,086 |
54,318 |
100 - 149 |
16,035 |
25,468 |
29,838 |
31,693 |
32,214 |
31,250 |
29,235 |
27,496 |
150 - 199 |
14,778 |
20,792 |
22,647 |
22,625 |
20,879 |
18,871 |
16,090 |
13,348 |
200 - 249 |
13,390 |
17,268 |
17,789 |
16,043 |
13,742 |
10,918 |
8,372 |
6,397 |
250 - 299 |
12,078 |
14,425 |
13,461 |
11,453 |
8,629 |
6,165 |
4,539 |
3,444 |
300 - 349 |
11,056 |
12,657 |
10,642 |
7,861 |
5,315 |
3,689 |
2,753 |
2,184 |
350 - 399 |
9,736 |
9,968 |
8,229 |
5,487 |
3,512 |
2,417 |
1,848 |
1,362 |
400 - 449 |
9,046 |
8,625 |
6,177 |
3,735 |
2,381 |
1,696 |
1,216 |
942 |
450 - 499 |
8,222 |
7,418 |
4,741 |
2,662 |
1,725 |
1,230 |
906 |
635 |
500 - 599 |
14,425 |
11,453 |
6,165 |
3,444 |
2,264 |
1,562 |
1,050 |
757 |
600 - 699 |
12,657 |
7,861 |
3,689 |
2,184 |
1,380 |
868 |
597 |
437 |
700 - 799 |
9,968 |
5,487 |
2,417 |
1,362 |
817 |
524 |
364 |
201 |
800 - 899 |
8,625 |
3,735 |
1,696 |
942 |
548 |
360 |
183 |
172 |
900 - 999 |
7,418 |
2,662 |
1,230 |
635 |
344 |
201 |
161 |
124 |
1,000 - 1,999 |
31,198 |
8,567 |
3,515 |
1,691 |
983 |
638 |
471 |
345 |
2,000 - 2,999 |
6,370 |
1,318 |
480 |
265 |
145 |
122 |
122 |
136 |
3,000 - 3,999 |
2,197 |
373 |
158 |
80 |
92 |
94 |
71 |
46 |
4,000 - 4,999 |
892 |
184 |
64 |
76 |
67 |
38 |
23 |
26 |
5,000 - 5,999 |
426 |
81 |
58 |
60 |
31 |
24 |
23 |
11 |
6,000 - 6,999 |
220 |
53 |
53 |
30 |
15 |
14 |
8 |
5 |
7,000 - 7,999 |
153 |
27 |
41 |
16 |
19 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
Over 8,000 |
605 |
260 |
124 |
78 |
52 |
41 |
36 |
32 |
Total Increase Portions |
235,521 |
43.91% |
Average |
$692 |
Median |
$399 |
Appendix 2 (continued)
Residential/Farm Property Class - Phase-in Program - City Total
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Percentage Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-(0.00% - 4.99%) |
50,752 |
113,596 |
176,378 |
227,105 |
261,669 |
279,280 |
289,553 |
295,115 |
-(5.00% - 9.99%) |
62,844 |
113,509 |
102,902 |
68,010 |
39,715 |
26,494 |
19,139 |
14,567 |
-(10.00% - 14.99%) |
62,782 |
52,175 |
19,390 |
10,659 |
8,072 |
4,081 |
1,245 |
255 |
-(15.00% - 19.99%) |
50,727 |
15,835 |
7,104 |
3,908 |
481 |
82 |
0 |
0 |
-(20.00% - 24.99%) |
34,564 |
6,269 |
3,682 |
255 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(25.00% - 29.99%) |
17,611 |
4,390 |
399 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(30.00% - 34.99%) |
10,273 |
2,918 |
82 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(35.00% - 39.99%) |
5,562 |
990 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(40.00% - 44.99%) |
3,555 |
173 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(45.00% - 49.99%) |
2,714 |
82 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(50.00% - 59.99%) |
4,390 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(60.00% - 69.99%) |
2,918 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(70.00% - 79.99%) |
990 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(80.00% - 89.99%) |
173 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-(90.00% - 99.99%) |
82 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Decrease Portions |
300,866 |
56.09% |
Average |
-17.29% |
Median |
-12.71% |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Percentage Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
0.00% - 4.99% |
39,825 |
70,862 |
98,434 |
120,365 |
138,697 |
154,106 |
167,026 |
177,545 |
5.00% - 9.99% |
31,037 |
49,503 |
55,672 |
57,180 |
54,330 |
49,243 |
42,850 |
36,555 |
10.00% - 14.99% |
27,572 |
33,741 |
32,063 |
25,804 |
19,157 |
13,639 |
9,888 |
7,257 |
15.00% - 19.99% |
21,931 |
23,439 |
17,180 |
10,751 |
6,705 |
4,369 |
2,637 |
1,623 |
20.00% - 24.99% |
18,332 |
15,482 |
8,835 |
4,789 |
2,828 |
1,368 |
1,019 |
792 |
25.00% - 29.99% |
15,409 |
10,322 |
4,804 |
2,468 |
1,008 |
756 |
475 |
340 |
30.00% - 34.99% |
12,920 |
6,527 |
2,776 |
1,044 |
695 |
414 |
255 |
259 |
35.00% - 39.99% |
10,519 |
4,224 |
1,593 |
579 |
352 |
217 |
221 |
236 |
40.00% - 44.99% |
8,624 |
2,888 |
866 |
501 |
227 |
210 |
191 |
240 |
45.00% - 49.99% |
6,858 |
1,901 |
502 |
291 |
184 |
155 |
236 |
223 |
50.00% - 59.99% |
10,322 |
2,468 |
756 |
340 |
294 |
370 |
338 |
290 |
60.00% - 69.99% |
6,527 |
1,044 |
414 |
259 |
321 |
289 |
244 |
313 |
70.00% - 79.99% |
4,224 |
579 |
217 |
236 |
272 |
224 |
293 |
238 |
80.00% - 89.99% |
2,888 |
501 |
210 |
240 |
181 |
190 |
177 |
57 |
90.00% - 99.99% |
1,901 |
291 |
155 |
223 |
150 |
209 |
94 |
42 |
Over 100.00% |
7,534 |
2,651 |
1,946 |
1,353 |
1,022 |
664 |
479 |
413 |
Total Increase Portions |
235,521 |
43.91% |
Average |
26.91% |
Median |
18.31% |
Insert Table/Map No. 1
appendix 3 - annual impact of phase-in policy with threshold
Insert Table/Map No. 2
appendix 4 - annual impact of phase-in policy comparison of inc/dec
Insert Table/Map No. 3
appendix 4 con'td - annual impact of phase-in policy
Insert Table/Map No. 4
appendix 5 - annual impact of phase-in policy with threshold
Insert Table/Map No. 5
appendix 6 - annual impact of phase-in policy with threshold
Insert Table/Map No. 6
appendix 7
Insert Table/Map No.7
appendix 8
Insert Table/Map No. 8
appendix 9
Appendix 10
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 01
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
911 |
1842 |
2775 |
3639 |
4451 |
5418 |
6352 |
7421 |
-($50 - $99) |
931 |
1797 |
2643 |
3782 |
3814 |
3513 |
2899 |
2009 |
-($100 - $149) |
933 |
1779 |
2486 |
1510 |
1080 |
617 |
426 |
336 |
-($150 - $199) |
864 |
2003 |
1027 |
499 |
290 |
218 |
151 |
111 |
-($200 - $249) |
812 |
844 |
414 |
205 |
146 |
85 |
79 |
64 |
-($250 - $299) |
967 |
666 |
203 |
131 |
70 |
65 |
38 |
29 |
-($300 - $349) |
934 |
320 |
129 |
62 |
56 |
29 |
32 |
34 |
-($350 - $399) |
1069 |
179 |
89 |
49 |
34 |
25 |
27 |
10 |
-($400 - $449) |
483 |
118 |
48 |
39 |
15 |
28 |
9 |
17 |
-($450 - $499) |
361 |
87 |
37 |
25 |
27 |
13 |
11 |
9 |
-($500 - $599) |
666 |
131 |
65 |
29 |
28 |
20 |
19 |
16 |
-($600 - $699) |
320 |
62 |
29 |
34 |
13 |
12 |
13 |
17 |
-($700 - $799) |
179 |
49 |
25 |
10 |
16 |
13 |
17 |
12 |
-($800 - $899) |
118 |
39 |
28 |
17 |
10 |
14 |
11 |
12 |
-($900 - $999) |
87 |
25 |
13 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
11 |
10 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
306 |
99 |
69 |
67 |
52 |
33 |
19 |
8 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
70 |
40 |
31 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
29 |
27 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
20 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
20 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
15 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
12 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Over -$8,000 |
18 |
10 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
Total Decrease Portions |
10,125 |
42.00% |
Average |
-$437 |
Median |
-$277 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
977 |
2035 |
3116 |
4217 |
5407 |
6546 |
7565 |
8423 |
$50 - $99 |
1058 |
2182 |
3430 |
4206 |
4392 |
4231 |
3896 |
3518 |
$100 - $149 |
1081 |
2329 |
2625 |
2354 |
1918 |
1542 |
1267 |
1083 |
$150 - $199 |
1101 |
1877 |
1606 |
1164 |
899 |
705 |
582 |
476 |
$200 - $249 |
1190 |
1376 |
940 |
675 |
491 |
384 |
287 |
239 |
$250 - $299 |
1139 |
978 |
602 |
408 |
301 |
224 |
170 |
91 |
$300 - $349 |
1019 |
684 |
409 |
286 |
189 |
135 |
70 |
47 |
$350 - $399 |
858 |
480 |
296 |
190 |
142 |
63 |
40 |
32 |
$400 - $449 |
748 |
378 |
226 |
132 |
64 |
32 |
29 |
8 |
$450 - $499 |
628 |
297 |
158 |
107 |
40 |
33 |
11 |
10 |
$500 - $599 |
978 |
408 |
224 |
91 |
52 |
22 |
14 |
14 |
$600 - $699 |
684 |
286 |
135 |
47 |
22 |
14 |
10 |
5 |
$700 - $799 |
480 |
190 |
63 |
32 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
7 |
$800 - $899 |
378 |
132 |
32 |
8 |
11 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
$900 - $999 |
297 |
107 |
33 |
10 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
1123 |
188 |
57 |
34 |
31 |
22 |
17 |
16 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
156 |
25 |
17 |
13 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
32 |
9 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
15 |
12 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
10 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
19 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Increase Portions |
13,980 |
58.00% |
Average |
$375 |
Median |
$319 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 02
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
1115 |
2325 |
3249 |
4052 |
4644 |
5132 |
5559 |
5925 |
-($50 - $99) |
1210 |
1727 |
1883 |
1873 |
1737 |
1711 |
1588 |
1493 |
-($100 - $149) |
924 |
1080 |
1060 |
918 |
924 |
760 |
646 |
507 |
-($150 - $199) |
803 |
793 |
651 |
575 |
434 |
322 |
237 |
217 |
-($200 - $249) |
592 |
456 |
462 |
321 |
224 |
162 |
186 |
218 |
-($250 - $299) |
488 |
462 |
298 |
186 |
124 |
153 |
193 |
205 |
-($300 - $349) |
427 |
304 |
190 |
105 |
129 |
169 |
175 |
108 |
-($350 - $399) |
366 |
271 |
132 |
112 |
144 |
156 |
89 |
57 |
-($400 - $449) |
267 |
185 |
85 |
98 |
126 |
84 |
53 |
51 |
-($450 - $499) |
189 |
136 |
77 |
120 |
110 |
53 |
46 |
28 |
-($500 - $599) |
462 |
186 |
153 |
205 |
106 |
79 |
51 |
58 |
-($600 - $699) |
304 |
105 |
169 |
108 |
70 |
42 |
51 |
74 |
-($700 - $799) |
271 |
112 |
156 |
57 |
37 |
44 |
67 |
40 |
-($800 - $899) |
185 |
98 |
84 |
51 |
42 |
53 |
35 |
6 |
-($900 - $999) |
136 |
120 |
53 |
28 |
31 |
44 |
10 |
3 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
621 |
449 |
262 |
181 |
108 |
28 |
8 |
6 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
342 |
155 |
26 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
107 |
26 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
73 |
0 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
82 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
22 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
4 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
Over -$8,000 |
24 |
18 |
12 |
11 |
11 |
7 |
7 |
2 |
Total Decrease Portions |
9,014 |
41.26% |
Average |
-$657 |
Median |
-$240 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
1360 |
2653 |
4068 |
5315 |
6463 |
7493 |
8485 |
9290 |
$50 - $99 |
1293 |
2662 |
3425 |
3975 |
4096 |
3903 |
3303 |
2766 |
$100 - $149 |
1415 |
2178 |
2545 |
2106 |
1408 |
878 |
684 |
524 |
$150 - $199 |
1247 |
1797 |
1358 |
660 |
472 |
306 |
212 |
144 |
$200 - $249 |
1148 |
1269 |
571 |
383 |
178 |
129 |
59 |
53 |
$250 - $299 |
1030 |
837 |
307 |
141 |
92 |
42 |
42 |
23 |
$300 - $349 |
992 |
392 |
198 |
104 |
34 |
34 |
16 |
20 |
$350 - $399 |
805 |
268 |
108 |
40 |
34 |
15 |
19 |
6 |
$400 - $449 |
748 |
218 |
81 |
27 |
18 |
16 |
5 |
2 |
$450 - $499 |
521 |
165 |
48 |
26 |
11 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
$500 - $599 |
837 |
141 |
42 |
23 |
18 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
$600 - $699 |
392 |
104 |
34 |
20 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
268 |
40 |
15 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$800 - $899 |
218 |
27 |
16 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$900 - $999 |
165 |
26 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
338 |
52 |
9 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
47 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Increase Portions |
12,835 |
58.74% |
Average |
$320 |
Median |
$248 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 03
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
702 |
1433 |
2253 |
3107 |
5326 |
6419 |
7242 |
8010 |
-($50 - $99) |
731 |
1674 |
4166 |
4903 |
4006 |
3669 |
3338 |
2955 |
-($100 - $149) |
820 |
3312 |
2171 |
2078 |
1463 |
1110 |
841 |
577 |
-($150 - $199) |
854 |
1591 |
1498 |
877 |
562 |
344 |
227 |
165 |
-($200 - $249) |
2219 |
1322 |
707 |
392 |
215 |
134 |
97 |
72 |
-($250 - $299) |
1093 |
756 |
403 |
185 |
104 |
78 |
49 |
49 |
-($300 - $349) |
823 |
492 |
223 |
106 |
69 |
40 |
36 |
18 |
-($350 - $399) |
768 |
385 |
121 |
59 |
34 |
34 |
16 |
6 |
-($400 - $449) |
580 |
233 |
81 |
47 |
32 |
12 |
5 |
3 |
-($450 - $499) |
742 |
159 |
53 |
25 |
22 |
9 |
4 |
2 |
-($500 - $599) |
756 |
185 |
78 |
49 |
16 |
6 |
3 |
7 |
-($600 - $699) |
492 |
106 |
40 |
18 |
6 |
3 |
7 |
4 |
-($700 - $799) |
385 |
59 |
34 |
6 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
-($800 - $899) |
233 |
47 |
12 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
-($900 - $999) |
159 |
25 |
9 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
422 |
78 |
19 |
17 |
12 |
11 |
5 |
6 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
70 |
11 |
9 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
8 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
8 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Decrease Portions |
11,881 |
61.74% |
Average |
-$385 |
Median |
-$280 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
632 |
1159 |
1713 |
2258 |
2699 |
3080 |
3361 |
3600 |
$50 - $99 |
527 |
1099 |
1367 |
1342 |
1331 |
1315 |
1340 |
1359 |
$100 - $149 |
554 |
822 |
748 |
795 |
809 |
793 |
837 |
908 |
$150 - $199 |
545 |
520 |
567 |
564 |
596 |
679 |
733 |
692 |
$200 - $249 |
441 |
430 |
444 |
476 |
536 |
569 |
453 |
365 |
$250 - $299 |
381 |
365 |
349 |
432 |
465 |
350 |
266 |
166 |
$300 - $349 |
281 |
306 |
350 |
404 |
288 |
204 |
119 |
87 |
$350 - $399 |
239 |
258 |
329 |
288 |
200 |
100 |
68 |
42 |
$400 - $449 |
228 |
229 |
313 |
227 |
118 |
69 |
38 |
19 |
$450 - $499 |
202 |
247 |
256 |
138 |
83 |
40 |
21 |
26 |
$500 - $599 |
365 |
432 |
350 |
166 |
74 |
39 |
46 |
49 |
$600 - $699 |
306 |
404 |
204 |
87 |
37 |
44 |
36 |
20 |
$700 - $799 |
258 |
288 |
100 |
42 |
28 |
31 |
15 |
7 |
$800 - $899 |
229 |
227 |
69 |
19 |
32 |
18 |
6 |
7 |
$900 - $999 |
247 |
138 |
40 |
26 |
27 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
1489 |
340 |
137 |
89 |
34 |
22 |
15 |
7 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
275 |
72 |
21 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
65 |
17 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
59 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
10 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Total Increase Portions |
7,363 |
38.26% |
Average |
$859 |
Median |
$418 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 04
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
1186 |
2761 |
4415 |
5948 |
7437 |
8464 |
9261 |
9826 |
-($50 - $99) |
1575 |
3187 |
4049 |
3878 |
3336 |
2941 |
2565 |
2296 |
-($100 - $149) |
1654 |
2516 |
1883 |
1579 |
1200 |
873 |
586 |
354 |
-($150 - $199) |
1533 |
1362 |
1058 |
717 |
408 |
198 |
109 |
61 |
-($200 - $249) |
1489 |
947 |
568 |
259 |
103 |
55 |
22 |
11 |
-($250 - $299) |
1027 |
632 |
305 |
95 |
47 |
15 |
7 |
4 |
-($300 - $349) |
797 |
421 |
134 |
45 |
12 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
-($350 - $399) |
565 |
296 |
64 |
16 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($400 - $449) |
521 |
156 |
37 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($450 - $499) |
426 |
103 |
18 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($500 - $599) |
632 |
95 |
15 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
-($600 - $699) |
421 |
45 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
6 |
-($700 - $799) |
296 |
16 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
13 |
6 |
15 |
-($800 - $899) |
156 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
5 |
15 |
0 |
-($900 - $999) |
103 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
12 |
14 |
0 |
0 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
167 |
5 |
33 |
34 |
21 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
4 |
32 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
15 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Decrease Portions |
12,591 |
63.93% |
Average |
-$289 |
Median |
-$206 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
1253 |
2012 |
2817 |
3541 |
4173 |
4884 |
5398 |
5793 |
$50 - $99 |
759 |
1529 |
2067 |
2252 |
2092 |
1645 |
1288 |
993 |
$100 - $149 |
805 |
1343 |
1192 |
736 |
482 |
327 |
236 |
172 |
$150 - $199 |
724 |
909 |
453 |
257 |
154 |
102 |
70 |
53 |
$200 - $249 |
632 |
472 |
218 |
115 |
67 |
43 |
42 |
49 |
$250 - $299 |
711 |
264 |
109 |
57 |
33 |
40 |
31 |
15 |
$300 - $349 |
514 |
157 |
66 |
34 |
33 |
24 |
11 |
9 |
$350 - $399 |
395 |
100 |
36 |
19 |
26 |
10 |
8 |
2 |
$400 - $449 |
283 |
70 |
26 |
30 |
13 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
$450 - $499 |
189 |
45 |
17 |
19 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
$500 - $599 |
264 |
57 |
40 |
15 |
9 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
$600 - $699 |
157 |
34 |
24 |
9 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
$700 - $799 |
100 |
19 |
10 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
70 |
30 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
45 |
19 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
159 |
35 |
14 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
26 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
7,104 |
36.07% |
Average |
$314 |
Median |
$202 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 05
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
767 |
1373 |
1904 |
2672 |
3437 |
4301 |
5254 |
6270 |
-($50 - $99) |
606 |
1299 |
2397 |
3598 |
5216 |
6841 |
7857 |
7820 |
-($100 - $149) |
531 |
1629 |
3076 |
4872 |
4968 |
3608 |
2127 |
1434 |
-($150 - $199) |
768 |
1969 |
3765 |
2948 |
1485 |
774 |
636 |
475 |
-($200 - $249) |
765 |
2383 |
2479 |
1016 |
482 |
437 |
147 |
47 |
-($250 - $299) |
864 |
2489 |
1129 |
418 |
373 |
69 |
36 |
319 |
-($300 - $349) |
953 |
1969 |
488 |
350 |
60 |
27 |
346 |
323 |
-($350 - $399) |
1016 |
979 |
286 |
125 |
25 |
308 |
285 |
31 |
-($400 - $449) |
1107 |
660 |
255 |
31 |
34 |
227 |
30 |
2 |
-($450 - $499) |
1276 |
356 |
182 |
16 |
324 |
126 |
2 |
6 |
-($500 - $599) |
2489 |
418 |
69 |
319 |
314 |
3 |
13 |
10 |
-($600 - $699) |
1969 |
350 |
27 |
323 |
2 |
12 |
6 |
7 |
-($700 - $799) |
979 |
125 |
308 |
31 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
9 |
-($800 - $899) |
660 |
31 |
227 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
9 |
0 |
-($900 - $999) |
356 |
16 |
126 |
6 |
6 |
12 |
0 |
1 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
940 |
681 |
35 |
27 |
17 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
672 |
26 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
9 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
13 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
13 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
11 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Total Decrease Portions |
16,765 |
92.39% |
Average |
-$630 |
Median |
-$489 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
468 |
806 |
902 |
1011 |
1033 |
1060 |
1074 |
1094 |
$50 - $99 |
338 |
205 |
158 |
83 |
82 |
70 |
124 |
116 |
$100 - $149 |
96 |
49 |
43 |
36 |
85 |
85 |
134 |
125 |
$150 - $199 |
109 |
34 |
27 |
80 |
132 |
120 |
14 |
17 |
$200 - $249 |
22 |
21 |
70 |
122 |
6 |
13 |
6 |
5 |
$250 - $299 |
27 |
15 |
15 |
3 |
10 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
$300 - $349 |
14 |
68 |
117 |
11 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
9 |
$350 - $399 |
20 |
12 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
$400 - $449 |
9 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
$450 - $499 |
12 |
117 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
15 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
14 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
68 |
11 |
5 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$700 - $799 |
12 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
117 |
5 |
12 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
25 |
21 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
19 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Increase Portions |
1,381 |
7.61% |
Average |
$308 |
Median |
$84 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 06
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
1308 |
2718 |
4087 |
5546 |
6608 |
7452 |
8091 |
8679 |
-($50 - $99) |
1410 |
2828 |
3365 |
3133 |
2800 |
2319 |
1851 |
1421 |
-($100 - $149) |
1369 |
1906 |
1664 |
1092 |
614 |
404 |
324 |
194 |
-($150 - $199) |
1459 |
1227 |
655 |
329 |
228 |
119 |
65 |
73 |
-($200 - $249) |
1062 |
729 |
251 |
150 |
56 |
60 |
47 |
22 |
-($250 - $299) |
844 |
363 |
153 |
44 |
48 |
25 |
14 |
18 |
-($300 - $349) |
639 |
171 |
91 |
37 |
24 |
13 |
15 |
7 |
-($350 - $399) |
588 |
158 |
28 |
36 |
11 |
15 |
7 |
13 |
-($400 - $449) |
437 |
75 |
31 |
12 |
11 |
6 |
13 |
5 |
-($450 - $499) |
292 |
75 |
29 |
10 |
10 |
8 |
2 |
7 |
-($500 - $599) |
363 |
44 |
25 |
18 |
11 |
11 |
14 |
7 |
-($600 - $699) |
171 |
37 |
13 |
7 |
8 |
11 |
4 |
6 |
-($700 - $799) |
158 |
36 |
15 |
13 |
10 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
-($800 - $899) |
75 |
12 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
-($900 - $999) |
75 |
10 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
139 |
50 |
33 |
18 |
11 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
32 |
15 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
18 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
9 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
6 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Over -$8,000 |
17 |
11 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
Total Decrease Portions |
10,474 |
65.88% |
Average |
-$369 |
Median |
-$190 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
1228 |
2234 |
3063 |
3745 |
4223 |
4522 |
4727 |
4859 |
$50 - $99 |
1006 |
1511 |
1459 |
1114 |
824 |
617 |
475 |
364 |
$100 - $149 |
829 |
777 |
448 |
280 |
168 |
102 |
55 |
58 |
$150 - $199 |
682 |
337 |
169 |
84 |
37 |
40 |
130 |
123 |
$200 - $249 |
478 |
188 |
76 |
29 |
86 |
121 |
24 |
14 |
$250 - $299 |
299 |
92 |
26 |
29 |
64 |
12 |
8 |
2 |
$300 - $349 |
205 |
63 |
16 |
106 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
$350 - $399 |
132 |
21 |
24 |
17 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
$400 - $449 |
111 |
18 |
94 |
10 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$450 - $499 |
77 |
11 |
27 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
92 |
29 |
12 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
63 |
106 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
21 |
17 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
18 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$900 - $999 |
11 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
166 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$5,000 - $5,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$6,000 - $6,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over $8,000 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
5,424 |
34.12% |
Average |
$258 |
Median |
$128 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 07
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
752 |
1658 |
2922 |
4055 |
5334 |
6449 |
7795 |
9016 |
-($50 - $99) |
906 |
2397 |
3527 |
4961 |
5327 |
4944 |
3812 |
2657 |
-($100 - $149) |
1264 |
2394 |
3459 |
2377 |
985 |
326 |
132 |
75 |
-($150 - $199) |
1133 |
2567 |
1485 |
280 |
91 |
29 |
17 |
10 |
-($200 - $249) |
1279 |
1645 |
253 |
64 |
14 |
9 |
4 |
4 |
-($250 - $299) |
1115 |
732 |
73 |
11 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
-($300 - $349) |
1346 |
214 |
20 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
-($350 - $399) |
1221 |
66 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
-($400 - $449) |
892 |
46 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
10 |
-($450 - $499) |
753 |
18 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
10 |
2 |
-($500 - $599) |
732 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
13 |
5 |
3 |
-($600 - $699) |
214 |
8 |
2 |
3 |
12 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
-($700 - $799) |
66 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
-($800 - $899) |
46 |
2 |
1 |
10 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-($900 - $999) |
18 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
25 |
21 |
21 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
6 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
15 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Decrease Portions |
11,797 |
85.97% |
Average |
-$310 |
Median |
-$273 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
547 |
1027 |
1375 |
1655 |
1782 |
1824 |
1873 |
1890 |
$50 - $99 |
480 |
628 |
449 |
235 |
115 |
81 |
35 |
19 |
$100 - $149 |
348 |
169 |
70 |
15 |
11 |
6 |
8 |
11 |
$150 - $199 |
280 |
66 |
11 |
4 |
7 |
9 |
6 |
2 |
$200 - $249 |
127 |
7 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$250 - $299 |
42 |
8 |
3 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$300 - $349 |
49 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$350 - $399 |
17 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$400 - $449 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$450 - $499 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
8 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Over $8,000 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
1,926 |
14.03% |
Average |
$212 |
Median |
$91 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 08
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
883 |
1657 |
2310 |
2874 |
3731 |
4337 |
5180 |
5835 |
-($50 - $99) |
774 |
1217 |
2027 |
2961 |
3142 |
3712 |
3514 |
3275 |
-($100 - $149) |
653 |
1463 |
1928 |
2214 |
2046 |
1488 |
1258 |
1060 |
-($150 - $199) |
564 |
1498 |
1784 |
1061 |
942 |
633 |
357 |
221 |
-($200 - $249) |
857 |
1038 |
870 |
751 |
349 |
189 |
135 |
109 |
-($250 - $299) |
606 |
1176 |
618 |
309 |
149 |
99 |
68 |
34 |
-($300 - $349) |
843 |
645 |
415 |
139 |
85 |
54 |
25 |
43 |
-($350 - $399) |
655 |
416 |
218 |
82 |
56 |
22 |
40 |
64 |
-($400 - $449) |
430 |
427 |
113 |
67 |
27 |
35 |
57 |
53 |
-($450 - $499) |
608 |
324 |
76 |
42 |
15 |
36 |
54 |
65 |
-($500 - $599) |
1176 |
309 |
99 |
34 |
63 |
89 |
99 |
53 |
-($600 - $699) |
645 |
139 |
54 |
43 |
83 |
93 |
28 |
13 |
-($700 - $799) |
416 |
82 |
22 |
64 |
71 |
25 |
10 |
2 |
-($800 - $899) |
427 |
67 |
35 |
53 |
48 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
-($900 - $999) |
324 |
42 |
36 |
65 |
9 |
3 |
2 |
6 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
639 |
259 |
221 |
75 |
53 |
60 |
58 |
54 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
105 |
67 |
35 |
52 |
18 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
154 |
8 |
25 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
57 |
35 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
10 |
17 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
62 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Total Decrease Portions |
10,896 |
63.23% |
Average |
-$619 |
Median |
-$373 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
957 |
1587 |
2181 |
2693 |
3181 |
3677 |
4047 |
4428 |
$50 - $99 |
630 |
1106 |
1496 |
1735 |
1812 |
1792 |
1744 |
1534 |
$100 - $149 |
594 |
984 |
1036 |
1041 |
900 |
593 |
346 |
215 |
$150 - $199 |
512 |
751 |
756 |
493 |
232 |
115 |
77 |
58 |
$200 - $249 |
488 |
565 |
424 |
163 |
59 |
50 |
38 |
49 |
$250 - $299 |
496 |
476 |
169 |
52 |
43 |
32 |
41 |
28 |
$300 - $349 |
370 |
322 |
75 |
37 |
25 |
34 |
22 |
10 |
$350 - $399 |
381 |
171 |
40 |
21 |
32 |
19 |
7 |
4 |
$400 - $449 |
285 |
100 |
28 |
24 |
23 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
$450 - $499 |
280 |
63 |
22 |
25 |
8 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
$500 - $599 |
476 |
52 |
32 |
28 |
11 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
$600 - $699 |
322 |
37 |
34 |
10 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
$700 - $799 |
171 |
21 |
19 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
$800 - $899 |
100 |
24 |
7 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
$900 - $999 |
63 |
25 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
159 |
46 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
42 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Increase Portions |
6,337 |
36.77% |
Average |
$335 |
Median |
$248 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 09
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
262 |
478 |
647 |
837 |
1091 |
1271 |
1448 |
1614 |
-($50 - $99) |
216 |
359 |
624 |
777 |
846 |
905 |
938 |
932 |
-($100 - $149) |
169 |
434 |
529 |
562 |
534 |
516 |
502 |
464 |
-($150 - $199) |
190 |
343 |
376 |
370 |
361 |
318 |
217 |
140 |
-($200 - $249) |
254 |
323 |
295 |
286 |
208 |
119 |
71 |
51 |
-($250 - $299) |
180 |
239 |
221 |
178 |
89 |
52 |
38 |
26 |
-($300 - $349) |
177 |
210 |
196 |
95 |
47 |
33 |
15 |
43 |
-($350 - $399) |
166 |
160 |
122 |
45 |
25 |
13 |
41 |
23 |
-($400 - $449) |
186 |
146 |
79 |
31 |
21 |
40 |
21 |
20 |
-($450 - $499) |
137 |
140 |
40 |
20 |
11 |
14 |
14 |
24 |
-($500 - $599) |
239 |
178 |
52 |
26 |
48 |
32 |
39 |
22 |
-($600 - $699) |
210 |
95 |
33 |
43 |
24 |
31 |
15 |
6 |
-($700 - $799) |
160 |
45 |
13 |
23 |
32 |
15 |
6 |
8 |
-($800 - $899) |
146 |
31 |
40 |
20 |
14 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
-($900 - $999) |
140 |
20 |
14 |
24 |
10 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
369 |
136 |
86 |
46 |
24 |
19 |
10 |
3 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
80 |
30 |
17 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
56 |
16 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
24 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
6 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
9 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Total Decrease Portions |
3,391 |
20.01% |
Average |
-$859 |
Median |
-$427 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
308 |
571 |
948 |
1294 |
1776 |
2132 |
2468 |
2850 |
$50 - $99 |
263 |
723 |
1184 |
1556 |
1912 |
2337 |
2800 |
3207 |
$100 - $149 |
377 |
838 |
1147 |
1619 |
1957 |
2300 |
2472 |
2413 |
$150 - $199 |
346 |
718 |
1190 |
1588 |
1766 |
1701 |
1503 |
1274 |
$200 - $249 |
482 |
838 |
1176 |
1354 |
1332 |
1034 |
787 |
747 |
$250 - $299 |
356 |
781 |
1124 |
1059 |
761 |
626 |
613 |
595 |
$300 - $349 |
336 |
799 |
971 |
773 |
526 |
513 |
511 |
530 |
$350 - $399 |
382 |
789 |
730 |
501 |
461 |
443 |
462 |
430 |
$400 - $449 |
429 |
712 |
635 |
386 |
391 |
394 |
383 |
369 |
$450 - $499 |
409 |
642 |
399 |
361 |
355 |
356 |
340 |
248 |
$500 - $599 |
781 |
1059 |
626 |
595 |
599 |
579 |
409 |
295 |
$600 - $699 |
799 |
773 |
513 |
530 |
503 |
333 |
242 |
180 |
$700 - $799 |
789 |
501 |
443 |
430 |
324 |
210 |
148 |
79 |
$800 - $899 |
712 |
386 |
394 |
369 |
210 |
149 |
71 |
63 |
$900 - $999 |
642 |
361 |
356 |
248 |
144 |
88 |
59 |
33 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
3080 |
2172 |
1359 |
650 |
357 |
206 |
148 |
114 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
1345 |
532 |
153 |
88 |
48 |
46 |
62 |
78 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
827 |
118 |
53 |
26 |
47 |
58 |
47 |
29 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
354 |
61 |
21 |
42 |
40 |
25 |
12 |
14 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
178 |
27 |
25 |
36 |
21 |
13 |
12 |
3 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
73 |
15 |
31 |
20 |
7 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
45 |
11 |
27 |
9 |
11 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
242 |
128 |
50 |
21 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
Total Increase Portions |
13,555 |
79.99% |
Average |
$1,650 |
Median |
$901 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 10
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
480 |
906 |
1364 |
1694 |
1964 |
2111 |
2243 |
2321 |
-($50 - $99) |
426 |
788 |
747 |
627 |
493 |
428 |
324 |
289 |
-($100 - $149) |
458 |
417 |
281 |
218 |
128 |
107 |
110 |
103 |
-($150 - $199) |
330 |
210 |
147 |
71 |
80 |
67 |
62 |
41 |
-($200 - $249) |
270 |
136 |
46 |
55 |
57 |
31 |
29 |
26 |
-($250 - $299) |
147 |
82 |
61 |
48 |
22 |
28 |
16 |
13 |
-($300 - $349) |
132 |
28 |
31 |
26 |
24 |
12 |
11 |
5 |
-($350 - $399) |
78 |
43 |
36 |
15 |
12 |
9 |
3 |
14 |
-($400 - $449) |
71 |
36 |
22 |
18 |
11 |
4 |
14 |
9 |
-($450 - $499) |
65 |
19 |
9 |
8 |
4 |
13 |
9 |
4 |
-($500 - $599) |
82 |
48 |
28 |
13 |
15 |
11 |
4 |
1 |
-($600 - $699) |
28 |
26 |
12 |
5 |
11 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
-($700 - $799) |
43 |
15 |
9 |
14 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
-($800 - $899) |
36 |
18 |
4 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($900 - $999) |
19 |
8 |
13 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
115 |
45 |
16 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
30 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
15 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Decrease Portions |
2,831 |
12.96% |
Average |
-$370 |
Median |
-$166 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
487 |
981 |
1547 |
2372 |
3221 |
4104 |
5347 |
6344 |
$50 - $99 |
494 |
1391 |
2557 |
3972 |
5380 |
6595 |
7413 |
7688 |
$100 - $149 |
566 |
1732 |
3331 |
4355 |
4865 |
4335 |
3259 |
2785 |
$150 - $199 |
825 |
2240 |
3264 |
3333 |
2243 |
1783 |
1642 |
1375 |
$200 - $249 |
849 |
2257 |
2767 |
1677 |
1333 |
1146 |
770 |
476 |
$250 - $299 |
883 |
2098 |
1568 |
1108 |
921 |
520 |
305 |
156 |
$300 - $349 |
1243 |
2061 |
985 |
844 |
468 |
253 |
107 |
84 |
$350 - $399 |
997 |
1272 |
798 |
531 |
237 |
88 |
65 |
25 |
$400 - $449 |
1091 |
1002 |
642 |
291 |
119 |
77 |
23 |
43 |
$450 - $499 |
1166 |
675 |
504 |
185 |
83 |
20 |
37 |
2 |
$500 - $599 |
2098 |
1108 |
520 |
156 |
51 |
55 |
10 |
1 |
$600 - $699 |
2061 |
844 |
253 |
84 |
47 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
$700 - $799 |
1272 |
531 |
88 |
25 |
10 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
$800 - $899 |
1002 |
291 |
77 |
43 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
$900 - $999 |
675 |
185 |
20 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
2959 |
310 |
62 |
17 |
22 |
21 |
14 |
9 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
253 |
5 |
16 |
9 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
57 |
12 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
17 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
Total Increase Portions |
19,012 |
87.04% |
Average |
$675 |
Median |
$541 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 11
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
|
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
-($0 - $49) |
869 |
1950 |
3239 |
4099 |
5000 |
5699 |
6254 |
7163 |
|
-($50 - $99) |
1081 |
2149 |
2460 |
3064 |
3847 |
4000 |
4301 |
3809 |
|
-($100 - $149) |
1289 |
1600 |
2199 |
2536 |
2012 |
1364 |
667 |
292 |
|
-($150 - $199) |
860 |
1464 |
1801 |
1273 |
328 |
201 |
56 |
20 |
|
-($200 - $249) |
901 |
1684 |
1160 |
215 |
80 |
16 |
15 |
19 |
|
-($250 - $299) |
699 |
852 |
204 |
77 |
13 |
15 |
12 |
13 |
|
-($300 - $349) |
555 |
856 |
159 |
14 |
13 |
10 |
12 |
5 |
|
-($350 - $399) |
909 |
417 |
42 |
6 |
10 |
11 |
4 |
2 |
|
-($400 - $449) |
735 |
91 |
11 |
11 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
|
-($450 - $499) |
949 |
124 |
5 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
|
-($500 - $599) |
852 |
77 |
15 |
13 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
|
-($600 - $699) |
856 |
14 |
10 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
-($700 - $799) |
417 |
6 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
-($800 - $899) |
91 |
11 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
-($900 - $999) |
124 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
116 |
25 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
|
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
20 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
5 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Over -$8,000 |
11 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
|
Total Decrease Portions |
11,343 |
65.97% |
Average |
-$427 |
Median |
-$297 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
921 |
1576 |
2225 |
2798 |
3384 |
3742 |
4083 |
4382 |
$50 - $99 |
655 |
1222 |
1517 |
1584 |
1499 |
1554 |
1473 |
1302 |
$100 - $149 |
649 |
944 |
903 |
914 |
753 |
443 |
226 |
121 |
$150 - $199 |
573 |
640 |
651 |
388 |
139 |
66 |
40 |
29 |
$200 - $249 |
586 |
501 |
340 |
91 |
35 |
23 |
12 |
4 |
$250 - $299 |
358 |
413 |
103 |
30 |
18 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
$300 - $349 |
341 |
260 |
43 |
17 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
$350 - $399 |
299 |
128 |
23 |
12 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
$400 - $449 |
263 |
55 |
12 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
$450 - $499 |
238 |
36 |
11 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
413 |
30 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
260 |
17 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
128 |
12 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
55 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
36 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
63 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
Over $8,000 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
Total Increase Portions |
5,852 |
34.03% |
Average |
$347 |
Median |
$215 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 12
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
1381 |
2932 |
4176 |
5687 |
7035 |
8275 |
9396 |
10376 |
-($50 - $99) |
1551 |
2755 |
4099 |
4689 |
4897 |
4675 |
4206 |
3694 |
-($100 - $149) |
1244 |
2588 |
2956 |
2574 |
1941 |
1511 |
1299 |
1056 |
-($150 - $199) |
1511 |
2101 |
1719 |
1120 |
873 |
665 |
372 |
222 |
-($200 - $249) |
1348 |
1556 |
923 |
676 |
424 |
186 |
99 |
46 |
-($250 - $299) |
1240 |
1018 |
588 |
380 |
142 |
66 |
25 |
12 |
-($300 - $349) |
1121 |
652 |
440 |
147 |
60 |
19 |
12 |
9 |
-($350 - $399) |
980 |
468 |
225 |
75 |
22 |
9 |
6 |
2 |
-($400 - $449) |
855 |
391 |
122 |
30 |
9 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
-($450 - $499) |
701 |
285 |
64 |
16 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
-($500 - $599) |
1018 |
380 |
66 |
12 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
-($600 - $699) |
652 |
147 |
19 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
-($700 - $799) |
468 |
75 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($800 - $899) |
391 |
30 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
-($900 - $999) |
285 |
16 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
648 |
24 |
3 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
23 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
1 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Total Decrease Portions |
15,428 |
74.17% |
Average |
-$367 |
Median |
-$279 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
1294 |
2040 |
2759 |
3283 |
3824 |
4161 |
4404 |
4593 |
$50 - $99 |
746 |
1243 |
1402 |
1310 |
978 |
763 |
623 |
491 |
$100 - $149 |
719 |
878 |
542 |
331 |
250 |
189 |
117 |
114 |
$150 - $199 |
524 |
432 |
221 |
160 |
78 |
85 |
89 |
95 |
$200 - $249 |
541 |
209 |
128 |
46 |
80 |
82 |
86 |
46 |
$250 - $299 |
337 |
122 |
61 |
68 |
70 |
42 |
29 |
17 |
$300 - $349 |
243 |
103 |
31 |
35 |
39 |
26 |
8 |
6 |
$350 - $399 |
189 |
57 |
54 |
60 |
20 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
$400 - $449 |
110 |
29 |
30 |
29 |
12 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
$450 - $499 |
99 |
17 |
52 |
17 |
6 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
$500 - $599 |
122 |
68 |
42 |
17 |
8 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
$600 - $699 |
103 |
35 |
26 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
$700 - $799 |
57 |
60 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
$800 - $899 |
29 |
29 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
17 |
17 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
209 |
29 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
26 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Increase Portions |
5,374 |
25.83% |
Average |
$252 |
Median |
$147 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 13
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
1020 |
2405 |
4154 |
5809 |
7458 |
8849 |
10035 |
10947 |
-($50 - $99) |
1385 |
3404 |
4695 |
5138 |
4723 |
4201 |
3651 |
3054 |
-($100 - $149) |
1749 |
3040 |
2835 |
2103 |
1692 |
1125 |
672 |
454 |
-($150 - $199) |
1655 |
2098 |
1366 |
951 |
441 |
280 |
159 |
119 |
-($200 - $249) |
1649 |
1234 |
823 |
313 |
158 |
94 |
86 |
58 |
-($250 - $299) |
1391 |
869 |
302 |
141 |
77 |
63 |
37 |
39 |
-($300 - $349) |
1186 |
636 |
183 |
62 |
54 |
28 |
35 |
29 |
-($350 - $399) |
912 |
315 |
97 |
57 |
29 |
31 |
25 |
10 |
-($400 - $449) |
737 |
174 |
51 |
38 |
23 |
24 |
10 |
7 |
-($450 - $499) |
497 |
139 |
43 |
20 |
27 |
11 |
6 |
3 |
-($500 - $599) |
869 |
141 |
63 |
39 |
24 |
11 |
4 |
5 |
-($600 - $699) |
636 |
62 |
28 |
29 |
10 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
-($700 - $799) |
315 |
57 |
31 |
10 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
9 |
-($800 - $899) |
174 |
38 |
24 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
11 |
-($900 - $999) |
139 |
20 |
11 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
10 |
2 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
318 |
88 |
24 |
29 |
26 |
22 |
10 |
6 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
74 |
10 |
21 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
14 |
19 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
6 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
15 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
12 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Total Decrease Portions |
14,761 |
67.06% |
Average |
-$365 |
Median |
-$248 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
965 |
1772 |
2612 |
3343 |
3941 |
4429 |
4777 |
5088 |
$50 - $99 |
807 |
1571 |
1817 |
1745 |
1612 |
1444 |
1369 |
1233 |
$100 - $149 |
840 |
1086 |
905 |
785 |
690 |
594 |
546 |
514 |
$150 - $199 |
731 |
659 |
539 |
448 |
409 |
368 |
277 |
232 |
$200 - $249 |
598 |
465 |
370 |
331 |
217 |
197 |
131 |
85 |
$250 - $299 |
488 |
320 |
224 |
183 |
163 |
82 |
69 |
49 |
$300 - $349 |
348 |
273 |
225 |
134 |
68 |
55 |
36 |
20 |
$350 - $399 |
311 |
175 |
143 |
98 |
52 |
32 |
16 |
9 |
$400 - $449 |
246 |
146 |
105 |
47 |
39 |
17 |
9 |
7 |
$450 - $499 |
219 |
185 |
92 |
38 |
19 |
10 |
6 |
4 |
$500 - $599 |
320 |
183 |
82 |
49 |
18 |
9 |
5 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
273 |
134 |
55 |
20 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
$700 - $799 |
175 |
98 |
32 |
9 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
$800 - $899 |
146 |
47 |
17 |
7 |
0 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
$900 - $999 |
185 |
38 |
10 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
500 |
89 |
18 |
8 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
76 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
13 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
7,251 |
32.94% |
Average |
$440 |
Median |
$220 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 14
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
857 |
2028 |
3292 |
4798 |
6150 |
7276 |
8202 |
9000 |
-($50 - $99) |
1171 |
2770 |
3984 |
4202 |
3998 |
3756 |
3446 |
3127 |
-($100 - $149) |
1264 |
2478 |
2363 |
2032 |
1760 |
1403 |
1003 |
587 |
-($150 - $199) |
1506 |
1724 |
1393 |
1095 |
697 |
279 |
94 |
100 |
-($200 - $249) |
1352 |
1148 |
876 |
478 |
120 |
38 |
154 |
100 |
-($250 - $299) |
1126 |
884 |
527 |
109 |
27 |
150 |
19 |
4 |
-($300 - $349) |
926 |
616 |
216 |
31 |
147 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
-($350 - $399) |
798 |
479 |
63 |
69 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($400 - $449) |
639 |
308 |
27 |
88 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($450 - $499) |
509 |
170 |
11 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($500 - $599) |
884 |
109 |
150 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
-($600 - $699) |
616 |
31 |
16 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
-($700 - $799) |
479 |
69 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($800 - $899) |
308 |
88 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($900 - $999) |
170 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
309 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
4 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over -$8,000 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Decrease Portions |
12,926 |
87.05% |
Average |
-$349 |
Median |
-$261 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
586 |
1069 |
1617 |
1753 |
1789 |
1819 |
1841 |
1857 |
$50 - $99 |
483 |
684 |
202 |
104 |
84 |
73 |
58 |
46 |
$100 - $149 |
548 |
66 |
48 |
35 |
29 |
14 |
12 |
13 |
$150 - $199 |
136 |
38 |
25 |
11 |
7 |
10 |
7 |
3 |
$200 - $249 |
36 |
16 |
10 |
6 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
$250 - $299 |
30 |
19 |
4 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$300 - $349 |
22 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
$350 - $399 |
16 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
$400 - $449 |
10 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$450 - $499 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
19 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$600 - $699 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
10 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$5,000 - $5,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$6,000 - $6,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$7,000 - $7,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over $8,000 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
1,923 |
12.95% |
Average |
$201 |
Median |
$78 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 15
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
1098 |
2745 |
5356 |
8810 |
12021 |
14923 |
17220 |
18634 |
-($50 - $99) |
1647 |
6065 |
9567 |
9824 |
8359 |
6547 |
4721 |
3538 |
-($100 - $149) |
2611 |
6113 |
4666 |
2836 |
1697 |
870 |
529 |
405 |
-($150 - $199) |
3454 |
3711 |
1881 |
702 |
361 |
237 |
146 |
73 |
-($200 - $249) |
3211 |
1746 |
607 |
266 |
155 |
61 |
49 |
30 |
-($250 - $299) |
2902 |
1090 |
263 |
139 |
45 |
28 |
28 |
23 |
-($300 - $349) |
2297 |
471 |
130 |
39 |
27 |
27 |
12 |
11 |
-($350 - $399) |
1414 |
231 |
107 |
34 |
15 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
-($400 - $449) |
955 |
168 |
33 |
16 |
19 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
-($450 - $499) |
791 |
98 |
28 |
14 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
-($500 - $599) |
1090 |
139 |
28 |
23 |
10 |
4 |
1 |
7 |
-($600 - $699) |
471 |
39 |
27 |
11 |
4 |
1 |
7 |
3 |
-($700 - $799) |
231 |
34 |
10 |
3 |
1 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
-($800 - $899) |
168 |
16 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
-($900 - $999) |
98 |
14 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
242 |
41 |
18 |
19 |
14 |
9 |
4 |
3 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
36 |
13 |
7 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
5 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
7 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Over -$8,000 |
10 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
Total Decrease Portions |
22,750 |
93.64% |
Average |
-$312 |
Median |
-$239 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
490 |
789 |
1001 |
1113 |
1268 |
1366 |
1412 |
1436 |
$50 - $99 |
299 |
324 |
365 |
323 |
195 |
120 |
98 |
87 |
$100 - $149 |
212 |
253 |
84 |
50 |
55 |
42 |
23 |
12 |
$150 - $199 |
112 |
70 |
36 |
37 |
14 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
$200 - $249 |
155 |
27 |
32 |
9 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
$250 - $299 |
98 |
23 |
10 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$300 - $349 |
46 |
24 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$350 - $399 |
24 |
13 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$400 - $449 |
14 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$450 - $499 |
13 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
23 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
24 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$900 - $999 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$7,000 - $7,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Total Increase Portions |
1,544 |
6.36% |
Average |
$264 |
Median |
$97 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 16
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
425 |
928 |
1807 |
3315 |
4852 |
6733 |
8671 |
10099 |
-($50 - $99) |
503 |
2387 |
4926 |
6784 |
7522 |
7504 |
7243 |
6977 |
-($100 - $149) |
879 |
3418 |
4596 |
4138 |
4181 |
3626 |
2903 |
2263 |
-($150 - $199) |
1508 |
3366 |
2908 |
2839 |
1970 |
1476 |
1001 |
755 |
-($200 - $249) |
1537 |
2275 |
2318 |
1449 |
969 |
673 |
352 |
133 |
-($250 - $299) |
1881 |
1863 |
1308 |
814 |
518 |
180 |
71 |
28 |
-($300 - $349) |
1938 |
1677 |
954 |
479 |
158 |
49 |
15 |
15 |
-($350 - $399) |
1428 |
1162 |
522 |
276 |
57 |
14 |
14 |
3 |
-($400 - $449) |
1230 |
787 |
393 |
98 |
22 |
11 |
3 |
3 |
-($450 - $499) |
1045 |
662 |
280 |
35 |
11 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
-($500 - $599) |
1863 |
814 |
180 |
28 |
12 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
-($600 - $699) |
1677 |
479 |
49 |
15 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($700 - $799) |
1162 |
276 |
14 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($800 - $899) |
787 |
98 |
11 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($900 - $999) |
662 |
35 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
1702 |
49 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
45 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
4 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Decrease Portions |
20,287 |
90.35% |
Average |
-$505 |
Median |
-$402 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
392 |
600 |
785 |
934 |
1039 |
1127 |
1206 |
1309 |
$50 - $99 |
208 |
334 |
342 |
375 |
447 |
525 |
631 |
633 |
$100 - $149 |
185 |
193 |
304 |
343 |
392 |
367 |
242 |
156 |
$150 - $199 |
149 |
182 |
221 |
290 |
193 |
79 |
47 |
38 |
$200 - $249 |
105 |
177 |
226 |
129 |
38 |
33 |
14 |
8 |
$250 - $299 |
88 |
166 |
141 |
27 |
22 |
9 |
5 |
4 |
$300 - $349 |
79 |
185 |
60 |
28 |
9 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
$350 - $399 |
103 |
105 |
19 |
10 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
$400 - $449 |
122 |
77 |
23 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
$450 - $499 |
55 |
52 |
10 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
166 |
27 |
9 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
$600 - $699 |
185 |
28 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
105 |
10 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$800 - $899 |
77 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
$900 - $999 |
52 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
73 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
12 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Total Increase Portions |
2,166 |
9.65% |
Average |
$619 |
Median |
$275 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 17
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
600 |
1547 |
2706 |
4584 |
6335 |
7594 |
8570 |
9729 |
-($50 - $99) |
947 |
3037 |
4888 |
5145 |
5561 |
6590 |
7477 |
7647 |
-($100 - $149) |
1159 |
3010 |
3125 |
4455 |
4860 |
3941 |
2682 |
1546 |
-($150 - $199) |
1878 |
2135 |
3465 |
3192 |
1800 |
797 |
259 |
93 |
-($200 - $249) |
1751 |
2167 |
2572 |
1180 |
395 |
82 |
31 |
6 |
-($250 - $299) |
1259 |
2288 |
1369 |
366 |
53 |
15 |
3 |
11 |
-($300 - $349) |
976 |
1863 |
604 |
66 |
15 |
3 |
11 |
3 |
-($350 - $399) |
1159 |
1329 |
193 |
27 |
2 |
10 |
2 |
1 |
-($400 - $449) |
990 |
749 |
55 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
-($450 - $499) |
1177 |
431 |
27 |
2 |
12 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-($500 - $599) |
2288 |
366 |
15 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($600 - $699) |
1863 |
66 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($700 - $799) |
1329 |
27 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($800 - $899) |
749 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($900 - $999) |
431 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
465 |
16 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
Over -$8,000 |
450 |
225 |
164 |
137 |
118 |
102 |
89 |
72 |
Total Decrease Portions |
19,040 |
88.07% |
Average |
-$437 |
Median |
-$396 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
605 |
1138 |
1541 |
1814 |
1966 |
2109 |
2234 |
2336 |
$50 - $99 |
533 |
676 |
568 |
522 |
468 |
370 |
267 |
172 |
$100 - $149 |
403 |
295 |
283 |
143 |
71 |
34 |
19 |
18 |
$150 - $199 |
273 |
227 |
87 |
29 |
10 |
13 |
16 |
21 |
$200 - $249 |
152 |
98 |
26 |
7 |
14 |
17 |
16 |
11 |
$250 - $299 |
143 |
45 |
8 |
11 |
14 |
10 |
8 |
5 |
$300 - $349 |
125 |
22 |
7 |
10 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
$350 - $399 |
102 |
7 |
6 |
11 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
$400 - $449 |
56 |
5 |
9 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
$450 - $499 |
42 |
2 |
8 |
5 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
$500 - $599 |
45 |
11 |
10 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
22 |
10 |
7 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
7 |
11 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
43 |
14 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
7 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
2,579 |
11.93% |
Average |
$265 |
Median |
$121 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 18
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
148 |
341 |
688 |
1101 |
1783 |
3222 |
4755 |
7256 |
-($50 - $99) |
193 |
760 |
2534 |
6155 |
10437 |
13015 |
15014 |
14622 |
-($100 - $149) |
347 |
2121 |
6635 |
8981 |
8802 |
6656 |
3816 |
2327 |
-($150 - $199) |
413 |
4034 |
6380 |
5641 |
2349 |
1312 |
841 |
339 |
-($200 - $249) |
682 |
4964 |
4785 |
1493 |
914 |
313 |
177 |
127 |
-($250 - $299) |
1439 |
4017 |
1871 |
834 |
233 |
101 |
181 |
178 |
-($300 - $349) |
1533 |
3532 |
692 |
221 |
85 |
165 |
72 |
189 |
-($350 - $399) |
2501 |
2109 |
620 |
118 |
68 |
65 |
182 |
11 |
-($400 - $449) |
2601 |
1015 |
174 |
75 |
174 |
161 |
11 |
2 |
-($450 - $499) |
2363 |
478 |
139 |
52 |
11 |
39 |
2 |
1 |
-($500 - $599) |
4017 |
834 |
101 |
178 |
193 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
-($600 - $699) |
3532 |
221 |
165 |
189 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
-($700 - $799) |
2109 |
118 |
65 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
-($800 - $899) |
1015 |
75 |
161 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
-($900 - $999) |
478 |
52 |
39 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
1300 |
381 |
8 |
10 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
378 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
3 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
3 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
14 |
10 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
Total Decrease Portions |
25,076 |
97.55% |
Average |
-$594 |
Median |
-$508 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
87 |
145 |
200 |
236 |
267 |
307 |
349 |
392 |
$50 - $99 |
58 |
91 |
107 |
156 |
180 |
165 |
138 |
107 |
$100 - $149 |
55 |
71 |
116 |
80 |
46 |
45 |
59 |
58 |
$150 - $199 |
36 |
85 |
49 |
27 |
33 |
40 |
17 |
12 |
$200 - $249 |
31 |
55 |
21 |
27 |
32 |
7 |
10 |
9 |
$250 - $299 |
40 |
25 |
24 |
31 |
6 |
9 |
7 |
7 |
$300 - $349 |
42 |
15 |
29 |
6 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
$350 - $399 |
43 |
12 |
11 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
$400 - $449 |
31 |
18 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
$450 - $499 |
24 |
9 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
$500 - $599 |
25 |
31 |
9 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
$600 - $699 |
15 |
6 |
7 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
$700 - $799 |
12 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
$800 - $899 |
18 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
$900 - $999 |
9 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
52 |
18 |
14 |
12 |
12 |
8 |
9 |
8 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
11 |
7 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
7 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
22 |
14 |
11 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
Total Increase Portions |
630 |
2.45% |
Average |
$2,638 |
Median |
$312 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 19
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
546 |
1144 |
1631 |
1944 |
2272 |
2489 |
2669 |
2847 |
-($50 - $99) |
598 |
800 |
858 |
903 |
888 |
959 |
1066 |
1093 |
-($100 - $149) |
487 |
545 |
523 |
601 |
672 |
662 |
598 |
571 |
-($150 - $199) |
313 |
358 |
436 |
492 |
435 |
401 |
458 |
425 |
-($200 - $249) |
328 |
313 |
384 |
327 |
300 |
357 |
213 |
165 |
-($250 - $299) |
217 |
288 |
278 |
244 |
301 |
156 |
121 |
71 |
-($300 - $349) |
180 |
287 |
223 |
280 |
136 |
101 |
56 |
64 |
-($350 - $399) |
178 |
205 |
178 |
145 |
97 |
47 |
55 |
43 |
-($400 - $449) |
165 |
170 |
212 |
88 |
49 |
55 |
36 |
21 |
-($450 - $499) |
148 |
157 |
145 |
77 |
40 |
31 |
26 |
20 |
-($500 - $599) |
288 |
244 |
156 |
71 |
68 |
42 |
26 |
24 |
-($600 - $699) |
287 |
280 |
101 |
64 |
40 |
24 |
21 |
15 |
-($700 - $799) |
205 |
145 |
47 |
43 |
22 |
20 |
14 |
6 |
-($800 - $899) |
170 |
88 |
55 |
21 |
15 |
11 |
4 |
10 |
-($900 - $999) |
157 |
77 |
31 |
20 |
12 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
834 |
219 |
104 |
57 |
39 |
28 |
22 |
17 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
157 |
42 |
18 |
13 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
62 |
15 |
10 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
27 |
9 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
15 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
10 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
23 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Decrease Portions |
5,400 |
31.92% |
Average |
-$701 |
Median |
-$357 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
550 |
1192 |
1973 |
2888 |
3635 |
4476 |
5175 |
5790 |
$50 - $99 |
642 |
1696 |
2503 |
2902 |
3305 |
3452 |
3626 |
3716 |
$100 - $149 |
781 |
1588 |
1885 |
2138 |
2227 |
2103 |
1763 |
1374 |
$150 - $199 |
915 |
1314 |
1567 |
1578 |
1253 |
849 |
579 |
396 |
$200 - $249 |
747 |
1150 |
1239 |
914 |
552 |
348 |
185 |
117 |
$250 - $299 |
841 |
988 |
864 |
460 |
256 |
120 |
81 |
55 |
$300 - $349 |
699 |
873 |
533 |
263 |
100 |
61 |
46 |
33 |
$350 - $399 |
615 |
705 |
316 |
133 |
65 |
39 |
26 |
14 |
$400 - $449 |
571 |
525 |
225 |
72 |
39 |
31 |
12 |
3 |
$450 - $499 |
579 |
389 |
123 |
45 |
28 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
$500 - $599 |
988 |
460 |
120 |
55 |
26 |
12 |
8 |
7 |
$600 - $699 |
873 |
263 |
61 |
33 |
11 |
7 |
4 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
705 |
133 |
39 |
14 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
525 |
72 |
31 |
3 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
389 |
45 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
973 |
109 |
23 |
8 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
93 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
16 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
11,516 |
68.08% |
Average |
$508 |
Median |
$398 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 20
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
404 |
697 |
1015 |
1291 |
1648 |
1847 |
2058 |
2210 |
-($50 - $99) |
293 |
594 |
832 |
919 |
963 |
1041 |
1025 |
983 |
-($100 - $149) |
318 |
556 |
587 |
678 |
530 |
404 |
359 |
324 |
-($150 - $199) |
276 |
363 |
454 |
305 |
233 |
225 |
167 |
150 |
-($200 - $249) |
357 |
401 |
253 |
181 |
167 |
115 |
100 |
107 |
-($250 - $299) |
199 |
277 |
151 |
143 |
91 |
86 |
84 |
64 |
-($300 - $349) |
211 |
195 |
150 |
92 |
77 |
75 |
53 |
47 |
-($350 - $399) |
152 |
110 |
75 |
58 |
65 |
45 |
39 |
47 |
-($400 - $449) |
224 |
99 |
66 |
51 |
43 |
39 |
45 |
21 |
-($450 - $499) |
177 |
82 |
49 |
56 |
33 |
31 |
18 |
3 |
-($500 - $599) |
277 |
143 |
86 |
64 |
58 |
45 |
9 |
10 |
-($600 - $699) |
195 |
92 |
75 |
47 |
40 |
4 |
9 |
5 |
-($700 - $799) |
110 |
58 |
45 |
47 |
8 |
9 |
5 |
2 |
-($800 - $899) |
99 |
51 |
39 |
21 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
-($900 - $999) |
82 |
56 |
31 |
3 |
6 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
400 |
182 |
63 |
23 |
17 |
12 |
7 |
5 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
134 |
15 |
11 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
48 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
10 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
5 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
5 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Decrease Portions |
3,986 |
26.41% |
Average |
-$585 |
Median |
-$331 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
361 |
734 |
1137 |
1562 |
1988 |
2484 |
3010 |
3562 |
$50 - $99 |
373 |
828 |
1347 |
2000 |
2781 |
3507 |
4207 |
4719 |
$100 - $149 |
403 |
922 |
1684 |
2429 |
2983 |
3187 |
2797 |
2263 |
$150 - $199 |
425 |
1078 |
1823 |
2290 |
2046 |
1366 |
865 |
474 |
$200 - $249 |
426 |
1207 |
1761 |
1517 |
848 |
419 |
178 |
67 |
$250 - $299 |
496 |
1222 |
1426 |
746 |
317 |
102 |
36 |
14 |
$300 - $349 |
526 |
1226 |
836 |
335 |
94 |
28 |
6 |
6 |
$350 - $399 |
552 |
1064 |
530 |
139 |
28 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
$400 - $449 |
606 |
897 |
268 |
47 |
13 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
$450 - $499 |
601 |
620 |
151 |
20 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
1222 |
746 |
102 |
14 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
1226 |
335 |
28 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
1064 |
139 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
897 |
47 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$900 - $999 |
620 |
20 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
1287 |
22 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
22 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Increase Portions |
11,109 |
73.59% |
Average |
$593 |
Median |
$565 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 21
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
1068 |
2001 |
2797 |
3455 |
3938 |
4295 |
4611 |
4867 |
-($50 - $99) |
933 |
1454 |
1498 |
1412 |
1430 |
1438 |
1423 |
1412 |
-($100 - $149) |
796 |
840 |
844 |
866 |
791 |
749 |
651 |
555 |
-($150 - $199) |
658 |
572 |
594 |
546 |
463 |
352 |
279 |
242 |
-($200 - $249) |
483 |
501 |
426 |
343 |
247 |
196 |
149 |
97 |
-($250 - $299) |
357 |
365 |
323 |
212 |
161 |
94 |
81 |
73 |
-($300 - $349) |
316 |
301 |
203 |
130 |
83 |
70 |
57 |
43 |
-($350 - $399) |
256 |
245 |
149 |
112 |
60 |
52 |
38 |
19 |
-($400 - $449) |
272 |
203 |
102 |
48 |
49 |
37 |
17 |
22 |
-($450 - $499) |
229 |
140 |
94 |
49 |
33 |
20 |
18 |
10 |
-($500 - $599) |
365 |
212 |
94 |
73 |
48 |
27 |
23 |
15 |
-($600 - $699) |
301 |
130 |
70 |
43 |
21 |
17 |
9 |
7 |
-($700 - $799) |
245 |
112 |
52 |
19 |
16 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
-($800 - $899) |
203 |
48 |
37 |
22 |
12 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
-($900 - $999) |
140 |
49 |
20 |
10 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
551 |
167 |
60 |
32 |
20 |
13 |
5 |
6 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
130 |
23 |
11 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
37 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
16 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
7 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Over -$8,000 |
12 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Total Decrease Portions |
7,384 |
39.29% |
Average |
-$476 |
Median |
-$222 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
1232 |
2414 |
3521 |
4536 |
5484 |
6333 |
7100 |
7737 |
$50 - $99 |
1182 |
2122 |
2812 |
3201 |
3369 |
3308 |
3131 |
2881 |
$100 - $149 |
1107 |
1797 |
1969 |
1904 |
1594 |
1228 |
840 |
669 |
$150 - $199 |
1015 |
1404 |
1339 |
977 |
563 |
418 |
280 |
96 |
$200 - $249 |
948 |
1116 |
806 |
392 |
311 |
82 |
37 |
10 |
$250 - $299 |
849 |
788 |
422 |
277 |
48 |
21 |
11 |
9 |
$300 - $349 |
767 |
590 |
202 |
64 |
19 |
9 |
4 |
1 |
$350 - $399 |
637 |
387 |
216 |
32 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
$400 - $449 |
565 |
251 |
59 |
7 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
$450 - $499 |
551 |
141 |
23 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
788 |
277 |
21 |
9 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
590 |
64 |
9 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
387 |
32 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
251 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$900 - $999 |
141 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
383 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Increase Portions |
11,408 |
60.71% |
Average |
$339 |
Median |
$263 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 22
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
|
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
-($0 - $49) |
79 |
189 |
320 |
417 |
510 |
560 |
607 |
657 |
|
-($50 - $99) |
110 |
228 |
240 |
240 |
255 |
292 |
301 |
299 |
|
-($100 - $149) |
131 |
143 |
149 |
195 |
170 |
151 |
150 |
158 |
|
-($150 - $199) |
97 |
97 |
143 |
104 |
106 |
111 |
122 |
104 |
|
-($200 - $249) |
93 |
108 |
83 |
85 |
96 |
85 |
64 |
58 |
|
-($250 - $299) |
50 |
87 |
68 |
73 |
62 |
53 |
48 |
69 |
|
-($300 - $349) |
47 |
56 |
55 |
66 |
45 |
40 |
60 |
45 |
|
-($350 - $399) |
50 |
48 |
56 |
38 |
32 |
53 |
38 |
48 |
|
-($400 - $449) |
52 |
47 |
57 |
34 |
40 |
36 |
35 |
50 |
|
-($450 - $499) |
56 |
38 |
28 |
24 |
41 |
31 |
55 |
46 |
|
-($500 - $599) |
87 |
73 |
53 |
69 |
55 |
76 |
73 |
53 |
|
-($600 - $699) |
56 |
66 |
40 |
45 |
68 |
65 |
39 |
14 |
|
-($700 - $799) |
48 |
38 |
53 |
48 |
54 |
34 |
9 |
10 |
|
-($800 - $899) |
47 |
34 |
36 |
50 |
33 |
9 |
9 |
1 |
|
-($900 - $999) |
38 |
24 |
31 |
46 |
26 |
7 |
2 |
3 |
|
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
235 |
258 |
191 |
81 |
24 |
14 |
6 |
3 |
|
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
136 |
69 |
14 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
122 |
12 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
59 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
9 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Over -$8,000 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
|
Total Decrease Portions |
1,623 |
8.40% |
Average |
-$1,415 |
Median |
-$556 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
112 |
256 |
399 |
613 |
776 |
976 |
1239 |
1502 |
$50 - $99 |
144 |
357 |
577 |
889 |
1329 |
1841 |
2516 |
3488 |
$100 - $149 |
143 |
363 |
822 |
1315 |
2216 |
3630 |
5078 |
5930 |
$150 - $199 |
214 |
526 |
1019 |
2173 |
3743 |
4473 |
4111 |
3479 |
$200 - $249 |
163 |
603 |
1504 |
3074 |
3415 |
2818 |
2179 |
1537 |
$250 - $299 |
200 |
712 |
2126 |
2856 |
2259 |
1589 |
1036 |
766 |
$300 - $349 |
263 |
938 |
2386 |
2024 |
1385 |
832 |
619 |
445 |
$350 - $399 |
263 |
1235 |
2087 |
1455 |
813 |
543 |
369 |
255 |
$400 - $449 |
296 |
1457 |
1572 |
928 |
521 |
358 |
233 |
121 |
$450 - $499 |
307 |
1617 |
1246 |
609 |
375 |
233 |
123 |
80 |
$500 - $599 |
712 |
2856 |
1589 |
766 |
461 |
230 |
119 |
53 |
$600 - $699 |
938 |
2024 |
832 |
445 |
210 |
99 |
37 |
23 |
$700 - $799 |
1235 |
1455 |
543 |
255 |
100 |
34 |
20 |
9 |
$800 - $899 |
1457 |
928 |
358 |
121 |
42 |
19 |
8 |
5 |
$900 - $999 |
1617 |
609 |
233 |
80 |
18 |
10 |
5 |
1 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
7872 |
1667 |
392 |
91 |
34 |
14 |
10 |
8 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
1357 |
82 |
11 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
310 |
9 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
60 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
22 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
7 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
12 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
17,706 |
91.60% |
Average |
$1,183 |
Median |
$1,051 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 23
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
256 |
596 |
923 |
1222 |
1561 |
1725 |
1852 |
1989 |
-($50 - $99) |
340 |
626 |
802 |
767 |
642 |
703 |
747 |
729 |
-($100 - $149) |
327 |
503 |
379 |
439 |
456 |
400 |
362 |
339 |
-($150 - $199) |
299 |
264 |
324 |
290 |
249 |
229 |
227 |
223 |
-($200 - $249) |
339 |
214 |
231 |
190 |
184 |
183 |
129 |
95 |
-($250 - $299) |
164 |
225 |
169 |
149 |
148 |
89 |
87 |
87 |
-($300 - $349) |
127 |
171 |
133 |
131 |
77 |
75 |
64 |
45 |
-($350 - $399) |
137 |
119 |
96 |
92 |
58 |
58 |
39 |
41 |
-($400 - $449) |
115 |
110 |
103 |
49 |
64 |
40 |
39 |
24 |
-($450 - $499) |
99 |
80 |
80 |
46 |
36 |
35 |
23 |
17 |
-($500 - $599) |
225 |
149 |
89 |
87 |
62 |
35 |
34 |
38 |
-($600 - $699) |
171 |
131 |
75 |
45 |
32 |
31 |
25 |
20 |
-($700 - $799) |
119 |
92 |
58 |
41 |
20 |
24 |
19 |
13 |
-($800 - $899) |
110 |
49 |
40 |
24 |
29 |
17 |
13 |
10 |
-($900 - $999) |
80 |
46 |
35 |
17 |
15 |
12 |
6 |
4 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
467 |
214 |
119 |
85 |
46 |
24 |
14 |
6 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
162 |
67 |
20 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
52 |
18 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
44 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
23 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
10 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
8 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Over -$8,000 |
21 |
15 |
12 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
Total Decrease Portions |
3,595 |
20.49% |
Average |
-$1,074 |
Median |
-$347 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
255 |
561 |
795 |
1060 |
1367 |
1713 |
2073 |
2471 |
$50 - $99 |
306 |
499 |
918 |
1411 |
1888 |
2361 |
2758 |
2963 |
$100 - $149 |
234 |
653 |
1147 |
1603 |
1879 |
1888 |
1915 |
2100 |
$150 - $199 |
265 |
758 |
1214 |
1360 |
1304 |
1572 |
1660 |
1688 |
$200 - $249 |
307 |
784 |
1060 |
1004 |
1300 |
1284 |
1422 |
1472 |
$250 - $299 |
346 |
819 |
828 |
1096 |
1080 |
1201 |
1152 |
1042 |
$300 - $349 |
360 |
757 |
784 |
872 |
1010 |
961 |
858 |
719 |
$350 - $399 |
398 |
603 |
788 |
816 |
866 |
756 |
617 |
461 |
$400 - $449 |
389 |
528 |
668 |
797 |
705 |
544 |
403 |
321 |
$450 - $499 |
395 |
476 |
616 |
675 |
537 |
425 |
319 |
226 |
$500 - $599 |
819 |
1096 |
1201 |
1042 |
769 |
532 |
372 |
297 |
$600 - $699 |
757 |
872 |
961 |
719 |
472 |
312 |
239 |
179 |
$700 - $799 |
603 |
816 |
756 |
461 |
286 |
211 |
151 |
81 |
$800 - $899 |
528 |
797 |
544 |
321 |
217 |
147 |
74 |
67 |
$900 - $999 |
476 |
675 |
425 |
226 |
129 |
75 |
63 |
59 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
4256 |
2769 |
1277 |
683 |
422 |
283 |
207 |
144 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
2011 |
519 |
209 |
119 |
55 |
40 |
37 |
37 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
758 |
164 |
74 |
25 |
28 |
22 |
12 |
7 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
346 |
85 |
21 |
24 |
16 |
7 |
3 |
3 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
173 |
34 |
19 |
13 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
94 |
18 |
15 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
70 |
7 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Over $8,000 |
196 |
52 |
15 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
Total Increase Portions |
14,342 |
79.51% |
Average |
$1,625 |
Median |
$1,130 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 24
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
859 |
1751 |
2827 |
4062 |
5341 |
6276 |
7050 |
8223 |
-($50 - $99) |
892 |
2311 |
3449 |
4161 |
4023 |
4195 |
4071 |
3379 |
-($100 - $149) |
1076 |
2214 |
2561 |
2248 |
2037 |
1616 |
1383 |
1146 |
-($150 - $199) |
1235 |
1947 |
1634 |
1131 |
946 |
661 |
439 |
349 |
-($200 - $249) |
1279 |
1141 |
930 |
745 |
447 |
271 |
249 |
273 |
-($250 - $299) |
935 |
1107 |
686 |
401 |
225 |
207 |
243 |
298 |
-($300 - $349) |
774 |
650 |
417 |
195 |
173 |
209 |
259 |
438 |
-($350 - $399) |
1173 |
481 |
244 |
154 |
178 |
233 |
412 |
181 |
-($400 - $449) |
614 |
485 |
134 |
129 |
180 |
382 |
169 |
62 |
-($450 - $499) |
527 |
260 |
137 |
144 |
232 |
156 |
55 |
19 |
-($500 - $599) |
1107 |
401 |
207 |
298 |
424 |
143 |
46 |
30 |
-($600 - $699) |
650 |
195 |
209 |
438 |
124 |
27 |
28 |
16 |
-($700 - $799) |
481 |
154 |
233 |
181 |
38 |
22 |
10 |
4 |
-($800 - $899) |
485 |
129 |
382 |
62 |
22 |
14 |
3 |
10 |
-($900 - $999) |
260 |
144 |
156 |
19 |
15 |
3 |
8 |
7 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
1023 |
998 |
209 |
67 |
38 |
35 |
30 |
23 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
836 |
47 |
25 |
15 |
13 |
11 |
11 |
15 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
162 |
20 |
10 |
8 |
8 |
12 |
9 |
5 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
37 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
9 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
10 |
7 |
5 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
3 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
10 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
10 |
3 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
Over -$8,000 |
77 |
54 |
39 |
34 |
30 |
27 |
22 |
19 |
Total Decrease Portions |
14,512 |
70.61% |
Average |
-$923 |
Median |
-$356 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
927 |
1448 |
2016 |
2482 |
2810 |
2975 |
3158 |
3369 |
$50 - $99 |
521 |
1034 |
959 |
887 |
880 |
1034 |
1154 |
1183 |
$100 - $149 |
568 |
493 |
565 |
640 |
741 |
796 |
851 |
865 |
$150 - $199 |
466 |
394 |
469 |
543 |
615 |
612 |
491 |
377 |
$200 - $249 |
328 |
321 |
422 |
494 |
442 |
311 |
219 |
158 |
$250 - $299 |
165 |
319 |
374 |
371 |
240 |
164 |
88 |
32 |
$300 - $349 |
183 |
303 |
358 |
237 |
145 |
69 |
24 |
17 |
$350 - $399 |
211 |
240 |
254 |
140 |
79 |
23 |
16 |
9 |
$400 - $449 |
171 |
253 |
191 |
98 |
21 |
14 |
9 |
5 |
$450 - $499 |
150 |
241 |
120 |
60 |
15 |
10 |
3 |
0 |
$500 - $599 |
319 |
371 |
164 |
32 |
20 |
7 |
2 |
3 |
$600 - $699 |
303 |
237 |
69 |
17 |
5 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
$700 - $799 |
240 |
140 |
23 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
$800 - $899 |
253 |
98 |
14 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
$900 - $999 |
241 |
60 |
10 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
906 |
63 |
14 |
11 |
10 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
56 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
13 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Total Increase Portions |
6,039 |
29.39% |
Average |
$555 |
Median |
$308 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 25
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
415 |
852 |
1145 |
1398 |
1618 |
1802 |
1987 |
2117 |
-($50 - $99) |
437 |
546 |
657 |
719 |
716 |
700 |
634 |
633 |
-($100 - $149) |
293 |
404 |
419 |
385 |
358 |
348 |
325 |
272 |
-($150 - $199) |
253 |
315 |
281 |
248 |
234 |
172 |
166 |
146 |
-($200 - $249) |
220 |
217 |
190 |
176 |
117 |
119 |
90 |
63 |
-($250 - $299) |
184 |
168 |
158 |
96 |
98 |
67 |
36 |
34 |
-($300 - $349) |
185 |
119 |
96 |
90 |
61 |
30 |
30 |
24 |
-($350 - $399) |
130 |
129 |
76 |
56 |
29 |
27 |
21 |
20 |
-($400 - $449) |
104 |
100 |
69 |
40 |
21 |
18 |
17 |
18 |
-($450 - $499) |
113 |
76 |
50 |
23 |
22 |
18 |
20 |
6 |
-($500 - $599) |
168 |
96 |
67 |
34 |
27 |
26 |
10 |
8 |
-($600 - $699) |
119 |
90 |
30 |
24 |
25 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
-($700 - $799) |
129 |
56 |
27 |
20 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
-($800 - $899) |
100 |
40 |
18 |
18 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
-($900 - $999) |
76 |
23 |
18 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
305 |
102 |
51 |
24 |
17 |
10 |
11 |
10 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
70 |
19 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
32 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
11 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
8 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
3 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
17 |
7 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Total Decrease Portions |
3,374 |
22.64% |
Average |
-$722 |
Median |
-$267 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
426 |
887 |
1330 |
1909 |
2401 |
2949 |
3483 |
4013 |
$50 - $99 |
461 |
1022 |
1619 |
2104 |
2659 |
3059 |
3449 |
3757 |
$100 - $149 |
443 |
1040 |
1589 |
1995 |
2276 |
2535 |
2568 |
2426 |
$150 - $199 |
579 |
1064 |
1470 |
1762 |
1895 |
1653 |
1243 |
900 |
$200 - $249 |
492 |
1047 |
1328 |
1461 |
1115 |
736 |
535 |
312 |
$250 - $299 |
548 |
948 |
1207 |
965 |
586 |
384 |
150 |
58 |
$300 - $349 |
534 |
924 |
957 |
547 |
346 |
112 |
47 |
22 |
$350 - $399 |
530 |
838 |
696 |
353 |
130 |
38 |
13 |
3 |
$400 - $449 |
525 |
773 |
433 |
220 |
44 |
20 |
2 |
4 |
$450 - $499 |
522 |
688 |
303 |
92 |
25 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
$500 - $599 |
948 |
965 |
384 |
58 |
12 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
$600 - $699 |
924 |
547 |
112 |
22 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
$700 - $799 |
838 |
353 |
38 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
$800 - $899 |
773 |
220 |
20 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
$900 - $999 |
688 |
92 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
2177 |
90 |
20 |
20 |
11 |
12 |
10 |
4 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
81 |
11 |
9 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
9 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total Increase Portions |
11,526 |
77.36% |
Average |
$669 |
Median |
$573 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 26
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
970 |
1863 |
2609 |
3244 |
3744 |
4161 |
4518 |
4783 |
-($50 - $99) |
893 |
1381 |
1552 |
1539 |
1449 |
1339 |
1222 |
1134 |
-($100 - $149) |
746 |
917 |
821 |
717 |
642 |
557 |
460 |
369 |
-($150 - $199) |
635 |
622 |
518 |
417 |
330 |
229 |
194 |
195 |
-($200 - $249) |
500 |
410 |
335 |
248 |
150 |
148 |
139 |
105 |
-($250 - $299) |
417 |
307 |
222 |
121 |
119 |
112 |
70 |
67 |
-($300 - $349) |
357 |
240 |
143 |
108 |
99 |
57 |
53 |
18 |
-($350 - $399) |
265 |
177 |
86 |
87 |
53 |
50 |
15 |
14 |
-($400 - $449) |
199 |
140 |
62 |
65 |
42 |
16 |
14 |
14 |
-($450 - $499) |
211 |
108 |
86 |
40 |
34 |
10 |
14 |
6 |
-($500 - $599) |
307 |
121 |
112 |
67 |
17 |
20 |
10 |
11 |
-($600 - $699) |
240 |
108 |
57 |
18 |
20 |
10 |
7 |
2 |
-($700 - $799) |
177 |
87 |
50 |
14 |
6 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
-($800 - $899) |
140 |
65 |
16 |
14 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
-($900 - $999) |
108 |
40 |
10 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
421 |
119 |
40 |
17 |
8 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
93 |
14 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
26 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
12 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
14 |
9 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Total Decrease Portions |
6,736 |
29.14% |
Average |
-$462 |
Median |
-$214 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
1084 |
2173 |
3095 |
4081 |
5164 |
6131 |
7051 |
7823 |
$50 - $99 |
1089 |
1908 |
3036 |
3742 |
4094 |
4274 |
4355 |
4368 |
$100 - $149 |
922 |
2050 |
2461 |
2582 |
2554 |
2476 |
2262 |
2054 |
$150 - $199 |
986 |
1692 |
1813 |
1786 |
1612 |
1364 |
1175 |
1141 |
$200 - $249 |
1083 |
1435 |
1407 |
1233 |
992 |
944 |
796 |
513 |
$250 - $299 |
967 |
1147 |
1069 |
821 |
773 |
517 |
343 |
274 |
$300 - $349 |
920 |
1001 |
787 |
598 |
450 |
276 |
203 |
88 |
$350 - $399 |
772 |
785 |
577 |
543 |
260 |
191 |
76 |
41 |
$400 - $449 |
769 |
690 |
449 |
320 |
205 |
71 |
37 |
16 |
$450 - $499 |
666 |
543 |
495 |
193 |
92 |
37 |
17 |
19 |
$500 - $599 |
1147 |
821 |
517 |
274 |
85 |
37 |
31 |
14 |
$600 - $699 |
1001 |
598 |
276 |
88 |
34 |
28 |
6 |
6 |
$700 - $799 |
785 |
543 |
191 |
41 |
22 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
$800 - $899 |
690 |
320 |
71 |
16 |
10 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
$900 - $999 |
543 |
193 |
37 |
19 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
2475 |
438 |
78 |
32 |
20 |
16 |
13 |
7 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
382 |
22 |
13 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
56 |
10 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
15 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
7 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
13 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
16,382 |
70.86% |
Average |
$625 |
Median |
$424 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 27
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
842 |
1631 |
2476 |
3588 |
4808 |
5689 |
6434 |
7737 |
-($50 - $99) |
789 |
1957 |
3213 |
4149 |
4517 |
4409 |
4109 |
3134 |
-($100 - $149) |
845 |
2101 |
2914 |
2361 |
1399 |
987 |
770 |
580 |
-($150 - $199) |
1112 |
2048 |
1495 |
773 |
523 |
366 |
240 |
194 |
-($200 - $249) |
1220 |
1588 |
626 |
376 |
233 |
153 |
138 |
94 |
-($250 - $299) |
881 |
773 |
361 |
204 |
124 |
100 |
61 |
82 |
-($300 - $349) |
745 |
445 |
228 |
102 |
87 |
48 |
84 |
116 |
-($350 - $399) |
1303 |
328 |
138 |
92 |
48 |
69 |
101 |
84 |
-($400 - $449) |
866 |
214 |
78 |
59 |
52 |
84 |
74 |
38 |
-($450 - $499) |
722 |
162 |
75 |
35 |
60 |
75 |
37 |
32 |
-($500 - $599) |
773 |
204 |
100 |
82 |
129 |
79 |
52 |
31 |
-($600 - $699) |
445 |
102 |
48 |
116 |
68 |
41 |
23 |
13 |
-($700 - $799) |
328 |
92 |
69 |
84 |
43 |
22 |
12 |
17 |
-($800 - $899) |
214 |
59 |
84 |
38 |
24 |
9 |
13 |
15 |
-($900 - $999) |
162 |
35 |
75 |
32 |
9 |
12 |
16 |
5 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
492 |
352 |
163 |
81 |
68 |
51 |
32 |
24 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
241 |
52 |
40 |
22 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
111 |
29 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
33 |
20 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
19 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
21 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
8 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
Over -$8,000 |
31 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
Total Decrease Portions |
12,203 |
67.85% |
Average |
-$512 |
Median |
-$330 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
851 |
1651 |
2339 |
2886 |
3339 |
3749 |
4064 |
4325 |
$50 - $99 |
800 |
1235 |
1410 |
1439 |
1385 |
1235 |
1105 |
984 |
$100 - $149 |
688 |
863 |
806 |
659 |
514 |
430 |
384 |
330 |
$150 - $199 |
547 |
576 |
429 |
325 |
260 |
225 |
128 |
80 |
$200 - $249 |
453 |
399 |
254 |
189 |
159 |
66 |
49 |
29 |
$250 - $299 |
410 |
260 |
176 |
141 |
48 |
28 |
19 |
12 |
$300 - $349 |
315 |
185 |
139 |
42 |
25 |
16 |
13 |
9 |
$350 - $399 |
261 |
140 |
86 |
38 |
18 |
11 |
7 |
4 |
$400 - $449 |
230 |
105 |
35 |
14 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
$450 - $499 |
169 |
84 |
31 |
15 |
10 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
$500 - $599 |
260 |
141 |
28 |
12 |
10 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
$600 - $699 |
185 |
42 |
16 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
$700 - $799 |
140 |
38 |
11 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$800 - $899 |
105 |
14 |
7 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$900 - $999 |
84 |
15 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
250 |
30 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
25 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over $8,000 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Increase Portions |
5,782 |
32.15% |
Average |
$388 |
Median |
$201 |
Appendix 10 (continued)
Phase-in Distribution of Residential/Farm Property Class -
For Ward 28
Assessment Portions with Tax Decreases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Decrease |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
-($0 - $49) |
814 |
1654 |
2578 |
3497 |
4350 |
5128 |
5646 |
6165 |
-($50 - $99) |
840 |
1843 |
2550 |
2668 |
2650 |
2565 |
2357 |
2154 |
-($100 - $149) |
924 |
1631 |
1440 |
1528 |
1194 |
810 |
646 |
460 |
-($150 - $199) |
919 |
1037 |
1125 |
626 |
413 |
276 |
245 |
182 |
-($200 - $249) |
853 |
835 |
501 |
288 |
200 |
146 |
110 |
86 |
-($250 - $299) |
778 |
693 |
309 |
172 |
118 |
86 |
70 |
80 |
-($300 - $349) |
518 |
310 |
146 |
115 |
79 |
63 |
61 |
98 |
-($350 - $399) |
519 |
316 |
130 |
67 |
43 |
53 |
90 |
140 |
-($400 - $449) |
403 |
184 |
96 |
50 |
52 |
71 |
132 |
103 |
-($450 - $499) |
432 |
104 |
50 |
36 |
48 |
73 |
93 |
69 |
-($500 - $599) |
693 |
172 |
86 |
80 |
124 |
197 |
100 |
35 |
-($600 - $699) |
310 |
115 |
63 |
98 |
179 |
82 |
25 |
16 |
-($700 - $799) |
316 |
67 |
53 |
140 |
87 |
22 |
13 |
25 |
-($800 - $899) |
184 |
50 |
71 |
103 |
28 |
11 |
23 |
14 |
-($900 - $999) |
104 |
36 |
73 |
69 |
12 |
27 |
14 |
7 |
-($1,000 - $1,999) |
440 |
490 |
339 |
97 |
66 |
33 |
18 |
9 |
-($2,000 - $2,999) |
224 |
73 |
31 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-($3,000 - $3,999) |
266 |
24 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
-($4,000 - $4,999) |
40 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
-($5,000 - $5,999) |
33 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-($6,000 - $6,999) |
15 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-($7,000 - $7,999) |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Over -$8,000 |
14 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Total Decrease Portions |
9,648 |
68.66% |
Average |
-$562 |
Median |
-$277 |
Assessment Portions with Tax Increases - By Phase-in Years |
Amount Increase |
0 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
$0 - $49 |
713 |
1323 |
1841 |
2317 |
2709 |
3025 |
3250 |
3441 |
$50 - $99 |
610 |
994 |
1184 |
1124 |
975 |
847 |
738 |
646 |
$100 - $149 |
518 |
708 |
557 |
431 |
354 |
293 |
242 |
192 |
$150 - $199 |
476 |
416 |
290 |
215 |
173 |
114 |
95 |
72 |
$200 - $249 |
392 |
243 |
166 |
124 |
88 |
56 |
35 |
20 |
$250 - $299 |
316 |
188 |
127 |
68 |
36 |
29 |
16 |
13 |
$300 - $349 |
225 |
116 |
65 |
46 |
25 |
12 |
9 |
5 |
$350 - $399 |
191 |
99 |
49 |
26 |
11 |
8 |
4 |
6 |
$400 - $449 |
141 |
78 |
37 |
13 |
9 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
$450 - $499 |
102 |
46 |
19 |
7 |
7 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
$500 - $599 |
188 |
68 |
29 |
13 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
$600 - $699 |
116 |
46 |
12 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
$700 - $799 |
99 |
26 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
$800 - $899 |
78 |
13 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
. |
$900 - $999 |
46 |
7 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
. |
$1,000 - $1,999 |
160 |
27 |
11 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
$2,000 - $2,999 |
21 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
. |
$3,000 - $3,999 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
. |
$4,000 - $4,999 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
. |
$5,000 - $5,999 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
. |
$6,000 - $6,999 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
. |
$7,000 - $7,999 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
. |
Over $8,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Increase Portions |
4,404 |
31.34% |
Average |
$299 |
Median |
$187 |
he Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also had before it the following which were circulated to all Members of
Council with the Agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee Meeting held on July 14, 1998, and copies
thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:
-report (May 4, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, addressed to the Strategic Policies and Priorities
respecting the Residential Property Class; and
-communication (July 13, 1998) from Gordon Crann.
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause,
the following report (undated) from Mayor Mel Lastman:
Purpose:
To present a compromise proposal for the phase-in of assessment-related changes in the residential property class.
Financial Implications:
The compromise proposal will implement the new Provincial current value assessment system for 80percent of all
taxpayers within three years and provide an additional two years of phase-in for those with very large increases and
decreases.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that in order to allow individuals time to adjust their financial affairs, the increases and decreases
related to property tax reform with respect to residential property tax reform be phased in over a five year period in
combination with an annual minimum payment of $300.00 for tax increases and an annual minimum payment of $200.00
for tax decreases.
Discussion:
At its meeting of July 13, 1998, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee referred the following motions to me for a
report directly to City Council on July 21, 1998:
"¼ in order to allow individuals time to adjust their financial affairs, the increases and decreases related to property tax
reform with respect to residential property tax reform be phased-in over a seven and a half year period, ¼"
For over 40 years, the assessment system in the Province of Ontario has been broken. The Province is implementing a
new system - Current Value Assessment - that the City is required to use. The numbers show that 56 percent of taxpayers
will see assessment decreases averaging $491.00 and 44percent of taxpayers will see assessment increases averaging
$692.00.
Over the past four months, the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force has worked hard to develop its recommendations
and has heard hundreds of deputations from the public on what is fair and equitable for all citizens of this new City.
I have heard taxpayers on both sides - those with increases and decreases - and we need a compromise position that
recognizes the needs of all our citizens. I have worked hard to present this compromise proposal which takes care of 80
percent of all assessment changes within three years while allowing an additional two years for those with very large
changes.
My proposal is simple:
(i)adopt a five year phase-in plan for assessment increases and decreases;
(ii)adopt a minimum payment amount for assessment increases of $300.00 during each year of the phase-in period;
(iii)adopt a minimum payment amount for assessment decreases of $200.00 during each year of the phase-in period.
Appendix A illustrates how the proposal would work.
With this plan, those taxpayers with assessment decreases will effectively see the following with the minimum payment of
$200.00 annually:
(i)31.2 percent will get their full decrease in 1998 - an average of $155.00;
(ii)another 30.0 percent will get their full decrease by 1999;
(iii)another 18.4 percent will get their full decrease by 2000; and
(iv)a total of 79.6 percent of taxpayers will get their full decreases within 3 years.
With this plan, those taxpayers with assessment increases will be affected as follows:
(i)41.1 percent will pay up to $300.00 and receive their full increase in 1998 - an average of $136.00;
(ii)another 23.2 percent will see their full increase in 1999;
(iii)another 13.8 percent will see their full increase in 2000; and
(iv)a total of 78.2 percent of taxpayers will get their full increases within 3 years.
Appendix B highlights by ward how the decreases work with the minimum $200.00 payment over the first three years,
while Appendix C highlights the increases by ward with the $300.00 minimum payment.
Conclusion:
The implementation of Current Value Assessment in our new City is one of our biggest challenges. We have much work
ahead of us on many more issues. We need a compromise on how to balance the interests of all citizens affected by the
new Current Value Assessment system. A five year phase-in with annual minimum payments of $200.00 for decreases and
$300.00 for increases is the best compromise. It is a compromise that we can all work with.
(Appendix A)
The Compromise Proposal
ËPhase in assessment related increases and decreases over 5 years
<Apply a minimum decrease of $200.00 for those with decreases
<Apply a minimum payment of $300.00 for those with increases
ËGives 80 percent of all taxpayers their full decreases within 3 years
ËGives 80 percent of all taxpayers their full decreases within 3 years
Ë80 percent of taxpayers with increases would fully pay within 3 years
Ë80 percent of taxpayers with increases would fully pay within 3 years
|
Here is how it works:
(1)For taxpayers with assessment related decreases:
-The minimum payment applies if the total assessment related decrease is <$1000.00.
For example:
If your total assessment related decrease is:
(a)<$200-In 1998, the entire decrease would be paid.
(b)$200.00-$1000.00-The minimum payment of $200.00 would be paid each year until the total amount is paid. This
means that the total decrease will be paid before the five year phase-in period - more than one year but slightly less than
5 years.
(c)=$1000.00-$200.00 per year would be paid for each of the five years.
(d)>$1000.00-The total decrease would be paid over five years by taking the total amount divided by 5.
Here are some examples:
Assessment |
Phase in Period |
Decrease |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)$200 |
$200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b)$500 |
$200 |
$200 |
$100 |
|
|
$700 |
$200 |
$200 |
$200 |
$100 |
|
$900 |
$200 |
$200 |
$200 |
$200 |
$100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c)$1000 |
$200 |
$200 |
$200 |
$200 |
$200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d)$2000 |
$400 |
$400 |
$400 |
$400 |
$400 |
(2)For taxpayers with assessment related increases:
If your total assessment related increase is:
(e)<$300.00-In 1998, the entire increase would be paid.
(f)$300.00-$1500.00-The minimum payment of $300.00 would be paid for each year until the total amount is paid. This
means that the total increase will be paid before the five year phase-in period - more than one year but slightly less than
5 years.
(g)=$1500.00 -$300.00 per year would be paid for each of the five years.
(h)>$1500.00-The total increase would be paid over five years by taking the total amount divided by 5.
Here are some examples:
Assessment |
Phase in Period |
Increase |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(e)$200 |
$200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(f)$700 |
$300 |
$300 |
$100 |
|
|
$1000 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
$100 |
|
$1100 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
$200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(g)$1500 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
$300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(h)$2000 |
$400 |
$400 |
$400 |
$400 |
$400 |
insert Appendix B
Analysis of Decreases - $200.00 continuing
threshold over phase in period
insert Appendix C
Analysis of increases - $300 continuing
threshold over phase in period
(A copy of each of the following charts, appended to the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk:
(i)"Decreases - First three Years - $200.00 Threshold each year"; and
(ii)"Increases - First Three Years - $300.00 Threshold each year".)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July22,
1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
Attached for your information are additional threshold scenarios, as well as a table summarizing the City-wide impact of
each threshold.
This inforatmon replaces the tables circulated with my report dated July 21, 1998.)
(Summary of Threshold Options - City Totals)
Tble A-1
Table A-2
Table B-1
Table B-2
Table C-1
Table C-2
Table D-1
Table D-2
Table E-1
Table E-2
Table F-1
Table F-2
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 23, 1998) from
the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
Purpose:
To obtain Council's authority for the adoption of by-laws for the levying and collection of taxes for the 1998 taxation
year, to impose a penalty charge for non-payment of taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears, to establish
tax ratios for the 1998 taxation year and for the levying of a special charge for 1998 for certain Business Improvement
Areas. Also attached for Council's information are draft by-laws concerning the residential property class phase-in
program with or without a threshold and the capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the
multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council authorize the levy and collection of taxes for the 1998 taxation year, the imposition of a penalty charge for
non-payment of 1998 taxes, the provision of interest to be added to tax arrears and to establish tax ratios for the year
1998;
(2)Council approve the levy of a special charge for 1998 for the following Business Improvement Areas and to provide
for its collection: Bloor by the Park; Bloor Court Village; Bloor West Village; Bloor-Bathurst-Madison; Bloor-Yorkville;
Bloordale Village; Corso Italia; Danforth by the Valley; Eglinton Way Village; Forest Hill Village; Gerrard India
Bazaar; Greektown on the Danforth; Harbord Street; Islington Village; Junction Gardens; Kennedy Road; Kingsway;
Lakeshore; Little Italy; Long Branch; Mimico Village; Old Cabbagetown; Parkdale Village; Queen/Broadview Village;
Roncesvalles Village; St.Lawrence Neighbourhood; Upper Village and Weston;
(3)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council to levy taxes for the year 1998 and to
provide for the collection of taxes for 1998 other than those levied under By-law No. 10-1998, to impose a penalty charge
for non-payment of taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears, to establish tax ratios for the 1998 taxation
year and to levy a special charge for 1998 for certain Business Improvement Areas and provide for its collection, in the
form or substantially in the form of the draft by-laws attached hereto; and
(4)subject to Council adopting a residential property class phase-in program with or without a threshold; and the
capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial
property classes, that leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto in the
form or substantially in the form of the draft by-laws attached hereto.
Comments:
The draft by-laws are: (1) to levy and collect taxes for the year 1998, to impose a penalty charge for non-payment of 1998
taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears and to establish tax ratios for the year 1998; (2) to levy a special
charge in 1998 for certain Business Improvement Areas and to provide for its collection; (3) to phase-in tax changes in
the residential property class with or without a threshold; and (4) to cap increases and decreases of property taxes on the
commercial, industrial and multi-residential classes for the taxation years 1998, 1999 and 2000.
The levying by-law sets the final tax rates for all property classes, which are set out in Sections 6 and 7 of the attached
draft by-law. The tax rate for the residential property class of 1.259702 percent includes a non-phaseable portion of
.0217 percent relating to the finalization of various provincial components of the bill -- provincial tax ratios and full use
of the provincial education tax room. The by-law imposes a penalty rate of 1.25 percent per month for the non-payment of
taxes in the 1998 taxation year and provides for the payment of interest at 1.25 percent per month to be added to tax
arrears. The by-law also establishes tax ratios.
Budgets for the following Business Improvement Areas have already been adopted by Council: Bloor by the Park; Bloor
Court Village; Bloor West Village; Bloor-Bathurst-Madison; Bloor-Yorkville; Bloordale Village; Corso Italia; Danforth
by the Valley; Eglinton Way Village; Forest Hill Village; Gerrard India Bazaar; Greektown on the Danforth; Harbord
Street; Islington Village; Junction Gardens; Kennedy Road; Kingsway; Lakeshore; Little Italy; Long Branch; Mimico
Village; Old Cabbagetown; Parkdale Village; Queen/Broadview Village; Roncesvalles Village; St. Lawrence
Neighbourhood; Upper Village and Weston. It is now necessary to levy and collect a special charge for the Boards of
Management of each respective Business Improvement Area.
The attached draft by-laws, which have been prepared by the City Solicitor, give effect to the recommendations in my
reports respecting a residential property class phase-in program with or without a threshold (dated July 2, 1998); and
the capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the multi-residential (dated June 29, 1998) and
commercial and industrial property classes (dated June 26, 1998).
Contact Name:
Paul Wealleans, Phone: 397-4208)
(A copy of each of the by-laws, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 23,
1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
On July 21, 1998, Councillor Kinahan moved a motion to amend Mayor Lastman's motion to provide, among other
recommendations, that:
" (a) the phase-in for decreases in effect be three years and the phase-in for increases be five years with the thresholds
recommended in the report from Mayor Lastman;"
If enabled through Provincial legislative amendments, this would impact the City's cash flow beginning in 1999 and
would require higher levels of temporary borrowing and/or lower levels of interest income. It is understood that tax
billing in 1998 would proceed as per Mayor Lastman's proposal and that, when Provincial legislation was enabled, a
"catch-up" would occur in 1999 and 2000 for those taxpayers with large decreases that would have carried on to 2001
and 2002.
Due to the accelerated phase-in of tax decreases (over three years, compared with increases phased-in over five years),
the City would, in effect, have to borrow funds to cover the offset for those taxpayers with accelerated decreases which
were not covered in the first two years by those receiving increases. In aggregate, the City would have to borrow $16.6
million in 1999 (including that for education purposes) as shown below and that same $16.6 million would have to be
borrowed again in 2000. In addition, the City would have to borrow an additional $12.7 million in 2000 for that year's
accelerated decreases. By the third year, 2001, tax gains from those with increases would start to offset the cumulative
borrowing required for accelerated decreases from 1999 and 2000. Similarly, in 2002, the remainder of the increases
would accrue to the City to offset the balance of the accelerated decreases.
However, the interest expense is not the only component to be considered as the cost of this motion. The amount of taxes
raised in the years 1999 through 2001 would not fully meet the required amount for the respective budgets. Displayed
below are the additional taxes that would have to be written-off or recovered from other sources such as debt (if
permitted by legislative changes - special legislation would have to permit the borrowing for operating purposes),
including the School Board share:
$Million
1999200020012002
Taxes Required to be Billed:2.5312.5312.5312.531
Less: Accelerated Decreases Paid:
1999(16.6)(16.6)(16.7)(16.7)
2000(12.7)(12.7)(12.7)
Add Increases Paid
200118.418.4
2002 11.0
Budget Shortfall/Tax Writeoff(16.6)(29.3)(10.9)0.0
- or -
Accumulated Debt16.645.956.856.8
Interest Costs560k2.858k3.736k1.248k
Cumulative Interest Costs560k3.418k7.154k8.402k
Notes:
(1)If the cost of each year's shortfall is incorporated into each year's budget, $56.8 million would be the cost over the
three years.
(2)If the budget shortfall were debentured each year, the total cost of borrowing and repaying $56.8 million would be
$84 million (i.e., including annual interest charges).
(3)The above costs include 100 percent of total costs (City and School Board).)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (undated)
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
Attached please find the legal opinion on Councillor Walker's motion as requested.
As per the legal opinion, the City of Toronto cannot lawfully refuse to implement Current Value Assessment or to assume
the costs it is statutorily required to bear under the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation Act.
(Communication dated July 20, 1998,
addressed to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
from the City Solicitor)
I am writing in response to your request for a legal opinion to be included in your report to Council, as requested by the
Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, on the following motion made by Councillor Walker:
"..... Therefore Be It Resolved that:
(1)the City of Toronto refuse to assume any costs related to the implementation or operation of the Current Value
Assessment system until the Province has carried out a study which verifies the accuracy of their assessment data; and
(2)the City of Toronto refuse to assume any costs related to the implementation or operation of the Current Value
Assessment system until the assessment roll has been finalized and all appeals and re-assessments related to this year's
assessments have been processed and settled by the Provincial Government."
It would be unlawful for the City of Toronto to refuse to assume any of its statutory obligations with respect to the
implementation of Current Value Assessment or the costs associated therewith.
Pursuant to the Municipal Act and the Education Act as amended, the City is required to levy and collect taxes for
municipal and school board purposes on the assessment roll as prepared and returned by the Province. Consequently,
Council must implement Current Value Assessment by levying 1998 tax rates on the 1998 Current Value Assessments
reflected in the 1998 assessment roll returned by the Province.
Furthermore, the City has an obligation to assume a portion of the costs associated with the provision of assessment
services under the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation Act, 1997 (Schedule G of Bill 164).
While the Act received Royal Assent on December 18, 1997 (the "Act"), sections 9, 10, and 15 to 24 have not yet been
proclaimed into force. Thus, the Province will continue to pay all costs associated with the provision of assessment
services until subsection 9(1) comes into force (subsection 13(1)). However, the Ontario Property Assessment
Corporation (the "Corporation") is required to reimburse the Province for all such costs.
The Corporation shall require each municipality to pay an amount in each taxation year, in accordance with section 12,
beginning with the 1998 taxation year (subsection 12(1)), and the Corporation may charge interest and penalties on late
payments (subsection 12(8)). The date that these payment obligations are to commence, however, has not yet been
finalized.
Consequently, the City of Toronto cannot lawfully refuse to implement Current Value Assessment or to assume the costs it
is statutorily required to bear under the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation Act, 1997. If Council refused to fulfill
these obligations, it could be compelled to do so by way of court order.
If you have any further questions, please contact Christina Hueniken at 392-8429.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July23,
1998) from Councillor Raymond Cho, Scarborough-Malvern:
I am proposing three motions today regarding the implementation of CVA.
Please pay special attention to Motion No. (1). I feel this motion is a win-win proposal and it will work. It shows
residents of Toronto that our Mayor, and we, as Councillors, have compassion and understanding for both sides of the
issue and we sincerely want to do what is best for all of Toronto.
I appreciate your support and thank you for your interest.
(A copy of each of the motions, referred to in the foregoing communication, was circulated to all Members of Council at
the meeting of City Council on July 21 and 23, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 12, 1998)
submitted by Councillor John Adams, Midtown, addressed to The Honourable Ernie Eves, Minister of Finance, from the
City Clerk, advising that the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, in adopting, as
amended, Clause No. 3 contained in Report No. 3 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed
"Reassessment and Tax Policy Information and Communications Plan", in part, requested the Property Assessment
Division of the Ministry of Finance to:
(a)(i)make public and provide to the City of Toronto the valuation models used, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, to
value residential properties in the City of Toronto, including any statistical regression equations that were used, the
boundaries of the homogeneous neighbourhood areas within which it applies regression analysis and the database upon
which its regression analysis and other calculations are based;
(ii)make public and provide to the City of Toronto the quality control studies that were used to evaluate the accuracy of
these valuation models, including assessment-to-sale ratios, coefficients of variation and dispersion, and full listing of
property characteristics for properties in the ratio studies (including addresses and roll number);
(iii)make public and provide to the City of Toronto, in as much detail as possible, information on the valuation models
used to assess properties in the other property classes (multi-residential, commercial and industrial) along with results of
accuracy tests used for these classes, specifically including the comparability and interchangeability of the differing
assessment methodologies used to determine the value of commercial buildings (e.g.,the income method used to assess
office towers versus the arm's-length sales/regression analysis method used for strip retail);
(iv)because many businesses and homeowners have found their tax assessment was based on faulty data; and because
many businesses have found that their tax assessments were based on most lucrative use, rather than current use; and
because even where the errors are obvious, there is no guarantee that the appeal will be completed before taxes are
charged; and, because, some of the erroneous assessments would lead to taxes high enough to destroy the business in
question, and force the homeowner to sell their home, Council request the Province of Ontario to undertake an
arm's-length review of the quality and accuracy of the current reassessment in the City of Toronto;
and that the information be readable under Microsoft Access; include Property Class Code and Postal Codes, and each
Member of Council receive a copy of the CD-ROM version of the final assessment roll; and
(b)provide available assessment information necessary to determine assessments based on current value in current use.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 6, 1998)
submitted by Councillor John Adams, Midtown, addressed to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Office of the Budget and
Taxation, Ministry of Finance, and to the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Municipal Policy Development, Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, requesting, on behalf of the Council of
the City of Toronto, necessary assessment information to determine assessments based on current value in current use,
and further clarification on and the criteria that would be used in designating which property or properties that would be
eligible for current use provisions; and attaching a copy of an extract of Bill 106, Part I, of the Fair Municipal Finance
Act.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July21,
1998) from Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Rexdale-Thistletown:
Please find attached a copy of a letter and petition I have received from my constituents. These were sent to me by
residents residing in multi-residential as well as single-family dwellings. I feel that these will be of interest to my
colleagues.
As you will note, a number of residents reside outside of my Ward, however, the majority reside inside my Ward. There
are over 690 signatures on the petition (the entire list has been submitted to the clerk for the record).
Thank you for taking the above-noted into account.)
(A copy of the letter and petitions, referred to in the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July21,
1998) from Councillor Sherene Shaw, Scarborough-Agincourt:
Please find attached a petition signed by over 1,600 constituents of Ward 17, Scarborough - Agincourt. These are
signatures from taxpayers that have been scraping their pennies together for many years to cover their unrealistically
high property taxes. Ward 17 constituents have been paying for the tax holiday for others. Finally, there is a change to
achieve tax equality for our taxpayers.
Statistically speaking in 1997 the residential property taxes in Ward 17 added up to over $60.0 million. In 1998, the total
is $53.0 million with the implementation of CVA. That is a $7.0 million difference that my constituents have been paying
for many years. Or, in another sense, over 88percent of my constituents should be receiving an average decrease of
$437.00 dollars.
The hardships of Scarborough - Agincourt taxpayers need to come to an end. The implementation of immediate CVA for
residential/farm property class is the only solution that will undo years of discriminatory taxing that has been wrongfully
inflicted on Scarborough - Agincourt taxpayers.
I look forward to your support in undoing what has been unjust.)
(A copy of the letter and petitions, referred to in the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July23, 1998) from
Councillor David Miller, High Park-Parkdale, submitting samples of letters he has received from constituents relating to
Current Value Assessment; and advising that the originals of the letters are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following
individuals regarding residential property class:
(i)(May 11, 1998) from Ms. Joanne Olsen, Etobicoke;
(ii)(July 14, 1998) from Mr. Ken B. McLeod, Etobicoke;
(iii)(July 14, 1998) from Mr. Peter Storey;
(iv)(July 15, 1998) from Mr. Paul Fantauzzi;
(v)(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Ernie Ashford, Etobicoke;
(vi)(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Jarvis K. Postnikoff, Barrister and Solicitor, on behalf of owners of properties within
Toronto;
(vii)(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Gary M. Kuchar, Barrister and Solicitor, on behalf of owners of properties within Toronto;
and
(viii)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Helmut Boek, Toronto.)
(Councillor Adams at the Special Meeting of City Council on July 21 and 23, 1998, declared his interest in those potions
of the foregoing Clause respecting those instances where building permits are issued for changes to existing residential
buildings in that he and his wife are in the process of applying for a building permit to construct a new home.)
2
Multi-Residential Property Class -
Tax Policy Options
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(1)striking out Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the transmittal letter dated July 12, 1998, from the Assessment and
Tax Policy Task Force, and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (2):
"(2)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report on other ways to encourage construction of rental
buildings;"; and
(2)deleting from Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the transmittal letter dated July 12, 1998, from the Assessment
and Tax Policy Task Force, the words "be requested to", and inserting prior to the words "the Province", the words
"Council demand that", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"(3)Council demand that the Province amend the legislation to provide that the landlords be required to pass on any
decreases in taxation to tenants, with detailed deadlines for passing on any decreases and providing for mandatory fines
or penalties should the deadlines not be met;".)
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations in the
following transmittal letter (July 12, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:
Recommendations:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on July, 6, 7, 11, and 13, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee and City Council that:
(1)property tax increases due to reassessment for all multi-residential properties be capped at 2.5 percent in each of the
tax years 1998, 1999 and 2000 and be funded by proportionately reducing tax decreases within the multi-residential
property class;
(2)Council pass a by-law to create a property class for newly constructed rental buildings at the residential/farm tax rate
and that the Province be requested to make this a permanent tax policy tool;
(3)the Province be requested to amend the legislation to provide that the landlords be required to pass on any decreases in
taxation to tenants, with detailed deadlines for passing on any decreases and providing for mandatory fines or penalties
should the deadlines not be met;
(4)all tenants be informed of any tax increases and decreases due to reassessment or tax policy changes by the City and
that a plan for such notification be developed by the Chief Financial Office and Treasurer and that a budget for this
undertaking be produced and submitted to Council through the Budget Committee and the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee, following consultations with the Federation of Metro Tenants Associations;
(5)given that consultations have not provided a guaranteed strategy for ensuring that tax reductions will go to tenants:
(a)the City continue to lobby the Provincial Government to achieve legislative and regulatory reform which will
guarantee that tenants receive the benefit of tax reductions over the long term, including the removal of loopholes that
now exist;
(b)City staff develop detailed proposals to achieve these objectives; and
(c)there be no equalization tax shifts of the municipal share of property taxes between the multi-residential class and the
residential class until there are guarantees that the tenants will receive the benefits;
(6)because, under the current legislation, tax increases will be absorbed by tenants while tax decreases will largely go to
landlords, and because tenants are the most unfairly taxed group of residents in the City, Council should adopt a strategy
which minimizes the tax changes effecting tenants;
(7)a workplan be developed to formulate comprehensive tax policies, including development of a permanent solution to
ensure property tax equity between homeowners and tenants and a mechanism that would ensure tenants receive the full
benefit of any reduction in tax burden for the multi-residential class, including reports on the following:
(i)a "de-linking" process which separates the tax bill from the rent bill and that City staff develop a programme which
will allow this "de-linking" to take place and a complete set of provincial and/or municipal legislative, regulatory and
administrative initiatives which will achieve this objective;
(ii)the creation of subclasses or graduated tax rates in the multi-residential class for the purpose of creating progressive
tax rates for multi-residential buildings;
(iii)treating owner-occupied units in multi-residential class properties as residential/farm property in the same way the
Federal and Provincial Governments treat such units as a principal residence;
(iv)the number of multi-residential buildings with only seven or eight units and what options owners of such buildings
have in converting units to uses other than housing and what powers the City has in protecting rental units from being
converted to non-residential uses;
(v)commencing in 1999, on how to better inform the taxpayers of the nature and type of services being paid for in the
property tax bill, including education, services on property, services relating to people, i.e., "income redistribution"; and
(vi)the appropriateness of clawing back the education equalization imposed by the Province, even recognizing the
inability of the City to ensure that the tax reductions will benefit the tenants.
The Task Force reports having received for information, a report (June 23, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that
approximately 1,500 form letters had been received from citizens living in multi-residential apartments requesting that
their property taxes be equalized.
Background:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force had before it a report (June 29, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer outlining the tax policy options available to Council with respect to the multi-residential property class.
The Task Force also had before it the following communications respecting the Current Value Assessment and the
multi-residential property class:
(a)(July 3, 1998) from Mr. Gary Griesdorf, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Apartment Association;
(b)(Undated) from Mrs. Rosen;
(c)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Sam Lewkowicz;
(d)(Undated) from Mr. Julian Smit;
(e)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Howard Tessler, Federation of Metro Tenants' Association; and
(f)(July 7, 1998) from Councillor McConnell, Chair, Multi-Residential Work Group.
(Copies of the communications referred to in the transmittal letter of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force have
previously been circulated to all Members of Council with the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force agenda and copies
thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
--------
(Report dated June 29, 1998, addressed to
the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force from
the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
This report outlines the tax policy options available to Council with respect to the multi-residential property class.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The recommended capping of multi-residential properties will protect tenants from significant CVA-related tax increases.
However, if the cap is adopted by Council, budgetary tax increases, if any, in 1999 and 2000 would have to be funded
from uncapped properties. For every one-percent increase in the City's levy during the next two years, there would be a
2.8 percent increase in the City's municipal portion of the residential/farm tax rate or a 1.8 percent increase in the total
residential/farm tax rate.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)property tax increases due to reassessment for all multi-residential properties be capped at 2.5 percent in each of the
tax years 1998, 1999 and 2000 and be funded by proportionately reducing tax decreases within the multi-residential
property class;
(2)the Province be requested to rescind any provisions in Bill 16 which prevent a municipal council from funding a
budgetary tax increase from all property classes, should the capping provisions be adopted;
(3)a workplan be developed to formulate comprehensive tax policies, including development of a permanent solution to
ensure property tax equity between homeowners and tenants and a mechanism that would ensure tenants receive the full
benefit of any reduction in tax burden for the multi-residential class.
Background:
The report is set in the following sections:
Background:
Housing Stock and Households
History of Assessment of Residential Properties
Determination of Rental Income
Average Rents and Property Taxes
Comments:
Current Value Assessment - 1998
Implementation of CVA
Option 1 - Capping Tax Increases
Option 2 - Phase-in Program
Tenant Protection Act - Automatic Rent Reductions
Impact of Capping or Phase-in on Automatic Rent Reductions
Permanent Rent Reductions
Impact of Increased Profitability on Assessments
Options for Reducing Tax Burden on Multi-Residential Properties
Establish Uniform Municipal Tax Rate
Reduce Tax Ratio for Multi-Residential Class
Shift Taxes over Residential Phase-in Period - "The Kinahan Concept"
New Apartment Class
Conclusion:
Background:
Housing Stock and Households:
Ward profiles show that 51.5 percent of all residential dwellings in Toronto are occupied by tenants. Appendix 1 shows
the total number of occupied dwellings by tenure for each ward. However, in order to compare the number of owners and
tenants in the residential versus multi-residential property classes, the data should be separated by structure type, so as to
distinguish between tenants occupying single family homes in the residential class versus tenanted apartments in the
multi-residential class.
Appendix 2 shows the impact of current value assessment on all residential properties in the City, categorized by structure
type. Separate data is shown for single family homes (including attached and detached), condominiums and co-ops,
duplexes, multiplexes, residential above retail and apartments. As can be seen, the number of apartment units in the
multi-residential property class represents 32percent of all residential dwelling units.
History of Assessment of Residential Properties:
Prior to 1998, all properties were assessed based on market values. However, across Ontario, assessments were based on
values that were out of date, with assessments ranging from the 1940s to the early 1990s. The Province initiated
reassessment due to the fact that most municipalities were on different assessment base years.
Assessors use three basic methodologies to determine the assessed value of a property: comparative sales, income
capitalization and replacement cost. For residential homes, market values are determined based on comparative sales data.
Multi-residential properties are considered business properties and as a result, market values are determined based on the
rental income produced by the property.
Prior to the reassessment for 1998, once the market value of a property was calculated, the assessment was determined by
factoring that value back to the base assessment year for that particular municipality. However, different property classes
were assessed at different levels respective to their market values based on the ratio of existing (or frozen) assessment to
market value. Residential properties were generally assessed at a lower percentage (ratio) of market value than
commercial properties. Multi-residential properties were usually assessed at a higher percentage of market value than
other classes. Historical class tax burdens were preserved at levels which existed prior to the provincial takeover of
assessment in 1970, and continued through the policies and practices hidden within the assessment system.
Assessment to market value ratios in Metro Toronto prior to the current reassessment ranged from a low of 1.97 percent
for the residential class to a high of 10.74 percent for the multi-residential class. Set out below are the average assessment
to market value ratios in Metro Toronto prior to the 1998 reassessment.
Table 1
Assessment to Market Value Ratios - Former Area Municipalities |
|
Old
Property Class |
New
Property Class |
Toronto |
North York |
Scarborough |
Etobicoke |
York |
East York |
|
Class 0 (1-2 Units) |
Residential |
1.970% |
2.627% |
2.841% |
2.715% |
2.414% |
2.278% |
|
Class 1 ( 3-6 Units) |
Residential |
2.910% |
5.408% |
3.654% |
4.507% |
3.956% |
4.145% |
|
Class 2 (7+ Units) |
Multi-Residential |
9.791% |
9.923% |
9.414% |
10.738% |
10.154% |
10.292% |
|
Source: 1993 Equalization Factors.
Residential properties with 3-6 units have historically been assessed at levels slightly higher than single-family homes,
which resulted in slightly higher tax burdens. However, the methodology used to assess these types of properties was the
comparative sales method (the same method as single family residential), as opposed to the income method used for
high-rise apartment buildings. Assessment reform introduced by the Province has moved these 3-6 unit properties into the
residential property class, so that properties with less than seven units which have historically been assessed in a similar
manner as single-family home, will be taxed at the same rate as single family homes.
Appendix 3 shows the tax impact of current value assessment for properties (assessment portions) with 3 to 6 residential
units. Of the 8,706 properties in the residential property class with 3-6 units, 6,309 or 72.5 percent would experience tax
decreases and 2,397 or 27.5 percent would experience tax increases as result of reassessment. Since the properties with 3
to 6 units are now included in the residential class, and therefore taxed at the lower residential rate, there has effectively
already been a shift in taxes relating to these properties. The total reduction in taxes for these properties amounts to $11.7
million, which has now been redistributed among other residential properties.
The method for determining the assessed values of multi-residential properties resulted in high-rise apartments being
assessed at four to five times the rate of single family homes. Since a common mill rate was applied to the assessed value
of all residential properties, tenants paid taxes at higher effective tax rates than homeowners. However, the difference in
tax burden was hidden in the assessed value of the property and most tenants were not aware of how much property tax
they actually paid through their rent. With the 1998 reassessment, the difference in tax burdens between tenants and
homeowners has become transparent by having different tax rates for the residential and multi-residential property
classes. The updated preliminary transition ratio transition ratio for the multi-residential class in Toronto, as determined
by the Province, is 5.2355, which results in the updated preliminary tax rate for municipal purposes being five times that
of the residential class.
Determination of Rental Income:
Owners of rental income properties can claim deductions against income under the provisions of the Income Tax Act
(Revenue Canada). Expenses that can be deducted fall under the categories of current expenses or capital expenses.
Generally, current (or operating) expenses are recurring expenses that provide short term benefit such as repairs to ensure
the rental property is maintained. These would include expenses incurred for painting the exterior walls of a building.
Capital expenses provide a long term benefit and could include the purchase priced of the property, installation of vinyl
siding or other permanent improvement, or the replacement of major appliances.
Types of expenses that owners of rental properties can deduct from income include:
(i)property taxes;
(ii)advertising for available apartments;
(iii)insurance premiums;
(iv)interest on money borrowed to improve the property which could include certain fees such as mortgage application
fees, appraisals, etc.;
(v)management and administration fees;
(vi)motor vehicle expenses;
(vii)office expenses;
(viii)legal, administration and professional expenses;
(ix)salaries, wages and benefits;
(x)travel;
(xi)utilities; and
(xii)miscellaneous (i.e., landscaping)
These expenses allow the owner to reduce costs against income and is a key reason that multi-residential properties are
assessed as income-producing properties and are taxed at a higher rate.
Average Rents and Property Taxes:
According to CMHC's rental market survey, the average monthly rental costs in Toronto in 1997 for a bachelor apartment
were $555, for a one bedroom apartment $683, for a two-bedroom apartment $821 and for a three-bedroom apartment
$1,002. The average rent for all units was $756.
Prior to 1998, the assessment of every occupied unit was set out separately on the assessment roll. Property taxes for an
individual apartment unit could be estimated by multiplying the assessment by the mill rate. However, several factors
made it difficult to determine the actual property taxes paid by each tenant. Firstly, landlords may have included in their
rents an amount of tax for common areas (i.e., recreational facilities, parking garages) that may have been assessed
separately. Further, the method of apportionment could vary based on the number of units in the building, the size of the
units or the amount of rent paid by individual tenants.
Total property taxes as a proportion of rent for any particular unit may also vary based on the length of the lease. For
example, similar sized units may pay different rents if rented in different years or leased for different time periods. Rental
rates also vary depending on residential vacancy rates. As well, a lease can require a tenant to pay a set amount of
monthly rent for several years, while municipal taxes may change in the interim. For that time period, the tenant's rent
may fall behind other tenants in the building but could exceed other rents in a subsequent lease renewal. In addition, total
property taxes as a proportion of rent for social housing units with rent geared to income will vary based on the income of
each individual tenant.
Using the average monthly rental costs from the CMHC market rental survey and 20 percent as the average proportion of
property taxes to total rent as determined by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, average property taxes for
apartments in Toronto are set out below. However, actual property taxes paid for similar units may vary widely within the
same apartment building for the reasons outlined above.
--------
Table 2
Average Toronto Rents and Property Taxes - By Apartment Type |
Apartment Type |
Average Rent |
Average Property Taxes |
Per Year |
Per Month |
Bachelor |
$555 |
$1,332 |
$111 |
1-Bedroom |
$683 |
$1,639 |
$137 |
2-Bedroom |
$821 |
$1,970 |
$164 |
3-Bedroom |
$1,002 |
$2,405 |
$200 |
Appendix 4 compares the estimated average taxes per dwelling unit and per capita for each of the residential and
multi-residential classes. The table shows the average taxes per unit and per capita in 1997, as well the average taxes
based on the final CVA data. On a per unit basis, in 1997 residential taxpayers paid $2,363 a year per unit, or 18.95
percent more than tenants. The final CVA data shows that average taxes per residential unit are $2,388 a year, or 21.2
percent higher than the average multi-residential unit.
Comments:
Current Value Assessment - 1998:
The final tax impact study shows that 2,579, or 64 percent, of multi-residential properties would experience tax increases,
while 1,463 properties, or 36 percent would see their taxes decrease due to reassessment. The average tax increase is 19.7
percent, while the average tax decrease is 12.7 percent Of the number of properties increasing, 257 properties would
experience increases of greater than 100 percent, and 408 properties will receive tax increases of greater than $20,000.
The average tax increase for the 408 properties with tax increases of greater than $20,000 is $67,528 or 28.03 percent or
$512 per apartment unit. Appendix 5 shows the ranges of tax increases and decreases (percentage and dollar) for the
multi-residential property class.
The Fair Municipal Finance Act (Nos. 1 and 2) and Small Business and Charities Assistance Act (Bill 16), which
received Royal Assent on June 11, 1998, contain assistance measures that municipalities can use to offset or minimize the
impact of reassessment. The options available to Council are set out below.
Implementation of CVA:
Option 1 - Capping Tax Increases:
The Small Business and Charities Assistance Act (Bill 16) allows municipalities to limit property tax increases on
business properties, including multi-residential, to 2.5 per cent per year of 1997 taxes for 1998, 1999 and 2000. The Bill
specifies that the 2.5 per cent cap must apply for all three years.
Council may wish to cap tax increases for multi-residential properties. However, it should be noted that capping is a
short-term solution and, if used, cannot address the tax burden issue facing the multi-residential class in 1999 and 2000 --
Council's only opportunity is this year before applying the cap.
The final tax impact study showed that almost 60 percent of the properties in the multi-residential class would receive tax
increases but the taxes paid by these properties represent only 30 percent of the total taxes paid by this class. As a result,
capping tax increases at 2.5 percent significantly reduces the amount of decreases that can be provided over the three
years.
Capping increases at 2.5 percent would limit the increases being paid in Year 1 to $4.9 million. Since capping must be
funded within each property class, only $4.9 million in decreases would be allowed. However, the total decreases that
would have been received without capping total $46.9 million. As a result, in Year 1, decreases would be limited to 10.5
percent ($4.9 million ) $46.9 million) of the decreases that would have been received without capping.
In order to finance the capped tax increases within the multi-residential class, tax decreases in Year 1 of a three-year
capping program would be limited to 10.5 percent of the tax decrease that would have been received if there was no
capping. In Years 2 and 3, tax decreases would be limited to 18.9 percent and 26.0 percent respectively of the tax decrease
that would have been received without capping. For example, a property that would have received a 10 percent tax
decrease without capping, would only receive 1.05 percent (10 percent V 10.5 percent) in the first year, 1.89 percent in
the second year and 2.6 percent in the third year that capping is in place.
Option 2 - Phase-in Program:
The Fair Municipal Finance Act provides for the phasing-in of tax increases and decreases due to reassessment. The
maximum phase-in period is 8 years. Any phase-in must be financed within each property class, so that tax decreases are
phased-in to offset the phasing-in of tax increases within that class.
The phase-in options as they relate to the multi-residential property class have been reviewed. Annual tax increases that
would result under different phase-in scenarios were calculated for each property. The eight scenarios analyzed cover no
phase-in, as well as phase-in periods of 2 years through 8 years. Appendix 6 shows the number of assessment portions
and ranges of annual tax increases and tax decreases (dollar and percentage changes) that would occur under these
scenarios.
As shown in Appendix 6, 64 percent or 2,579 multi-residential properties would receive tax increases due to
reassessment. The number of apartment units that would be affected by a tax increase is 121,987. The average tax
increase is 19.7 percent, or $16,403 per property or $346 per unit. Of the properties receiving tax increases, 408
multi-residential properties, or 10 percent, would receive tax increases of greater than $20,000 with the average increase
for these properties being $67,528 or 28.03 percent or $512 per apartment unit. For these properties, the 8-year maximum
phase-in period would result in an average annual tax increase of 3.5 percent for the 53,801 apartment units affected.
Tenant Protection Act - Proposed Regulations for Automatic Rent Reductions:
The Tenant Protection Act came into force on June 17, 1998. Under this legislation, residential rents are automatically
reduced if the municipal taxes for the rental properties are decreased by a prescribed percentage. The Act requires
municipalities to inform landlords and tenants of the rent reductions through a notice that will specify:
(i)the fact that the lawful rents will be reduced;
(ii)the amount of the rent reduction as a percentage;
(iii)the date the reduction will take effect; and
(iv)the rights of the landlords and tenants to apply to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal if they disagree with the
amount of the reduction.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has prepared a discussion paper proposing the regulations which would
establish the conditions for automatic reductions in rents and municipalities were invited to provide their input on the
proposed regulations.
Highlights of the proposed regulations are as follows:
(i)all rental properties would be affected by automatic rent reductions, including apartment buildings, rented townhouses,
mobile home parks, boarding and lodging homes, rented condominiums, care homes, and "for-profit" cooperatives. Social
housing and certain types of care homes are exempt from these rules;
(ii)the types of tax decreases that would result in automatic rent reductions include: reassessment changes, amalgamation
of municipalities, the education portion of the municipal tax bill, and any phasing-in portion of the tax decrease up to 8
years;
(iii)the percentage of rent reduction would be calculated by multiplying the percentage of tax decrease between two
previous consecutive years by 20 percent, which is a Ministry estimate of the proportion of rent for municipal taxes;
(iv)tenants would be eligible for automatic rent reductions only when the reduction is at least 1 percent, which means
when the tax decrease must be 5 percent or more. When the rent reduction is less than 1 percent, tenants may apply to
obtain the reduction to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal;
(v)municipalities would only be required to send the notice to landlords and tenants of residential properties with at least
7 units. However, municipalities may choose to send notices to those buildings with less than 7 units;
(vi)the effective date for automatic rent reductions resulting from a tax decrease would be January1, 1999;
(vii)The first notice for the rent reductions would be required to be given to tenants and landlords on or before November
30, 1998. For subsequent years, the notice would be required no later than August 31;
(viii)Municipalities would be allowed to select the most appropriate method of delivering the notice from a number of
prescribed options including regular mail, hand delivery, leaving the notices where mail is ordinarily left for tenants, or
courier delivery.
At its meeting on May 28, 1998, the Task Force adopted recommendations for changes to the Tenant Protection Act and
the proposed regulations. The major changes requested included:
(i)authorization for the City to send notices to tenants in apartments with less than seven units;
(ii)reduction of the threshold for tax decreases which would cause an automatic rent reduction, from the proposed 5
percent to 2.5 percent;
(iii)legislation limiting the City's liability in the case of errors;
(iv)authorization for the City to rescind or amend notices;
(v)legal requirement for the landlord to post notice of all tax decreases and increases for a minimum of 120 days;
(vi)Provincial notification of both current and former tenants where there are successful assessment appeals and
retroactive rent adjustments;
(vii)City consultation prior to finalizing the notice for automatic rent reductions.
The Task Force also adopted motions requesting the Province to declare the current lawful rent to be the rent at the time
of the last legal increase and requested the Province to exempt Toronto from vacancy decontrol. The recommendations of
the Task Force were adopted by Council at its meeting on June 3, 1998.
In the past, the assessment roll contained detailed information for each residential unit including name, mailing address
and the assessed value for each unit. The final assessment roll for 1998 only includes individual tenants' names and the
specific apartment unit within the building but individual assessments for each unit are no longer apportioned. It is
anticipated that the City will be able to use the assessment roll as the source of data for the notices.
Assessment appeals will also impact the process of rent reductions as they are not considered as automatic rent reductions
unless finalized in the same tax year as the appeal. Tenants will have to apply to the Tribunal for a rent reduction for
appeals that are delayed. With the new provincial tax assessment system for 1998, it is expected that many residential
property owners will file assessment appeals. There are issues regarding the administrative resources required as well as
timing of the tax appeal decisions and notifying tenants of the individual tax decreases resulting from the appeals. It is
very likely that appeals will not be heard this year or perhaps even in 1999 due to volume which could result in delays in
legal rent reductions for 2 or more years (or until the appeal is finalized). The proposed regulations allow for tenants to
apply for an adjustment in rent for the period covered by an appeal decision and will have one year from the date of the
decision to make the application. However, the proposed regulations limit the retroactivity of rent reductions to the two
preceding years. This is not an automatic reduction but rather a process where application must be made.
There is an equity issue in the decision as to which type of rental buildings should receive the notice for automatic rent
reductions. While municipalities are not required by the proposed regulations to inform tenants of rental buildings with
fewer than 7 units, the City may choose to include these buildings for automatic notification in order to ensure equity for
all tenants. There are approximately 8,700 properties that contain 3-6 units which the City may wish to consider including
in the notification program.
Since August 1, 1985 and up until June 17, 1998 when the Act cames into force, rent setting legislation related to the
maximum rent which could be charged for a unit, not the amount of rent that the tenant in the unit actually paid. The
amounts can be different. Maximum rent is the amount of rent a landlord could have charged for a unit had all the rent
increase guidelines, as determined by the Province, been applied. The lawful rent is what the tenant pays (subject to
certain rules). The landlord can charge the tenant an amount equal to the maximum rent, or a lower amount.
There are also tenant situations where a rent reduction resulting from a tax decrease in one year could translate into higher
rents the following year. These would occur in buildings where the rents are below the legal "maximum" rent and would
only apply to tenants who already reside in the building ("sitting" tenants). Under this scenario, landlords could increase
rents to the "maximum" because a hearing before a tribunal is only needed for above "maximum" rents. The result would
be that in one year a rent reduction would be obtained by the tenant due to a tax decrease but in the following year, the
rent could be increased above the original rent level to bring it to the "maximum" allowable. This would mean the tenant
would face a higher rent in the second year than originally.
Ministry staff estimate that approximately 50 percent of all tenanted units in Toronto are below "maximum" rent. If one
assumes a turnover rate of 25 percent for all rental units as estimated by Ministry staff, then 12.5 percent (50 percent of
total units x 25 percent turnover rate) of units below "maximum" rent would see new tenants and the remaining 37.5
percent sitting tenants could experience increases to the "maximum" rent and therefore not benefit from the rent
reduction. Based on 168,341 rental apartment units in the multi-residential property class receiving tax decreases, there
could be 63,128 units (168,341 x 37.5 percent) that could see increased rents to the "maximum" and not benefit from rent
reductions in the long term. This is based on the assumption that all units below "maximum" would see tax decreases but
even if they do not, increases to "maximum" rent are possible.
Automatic rent reductions due to tax decreases must take into account any tax relief provisions that municipalities
implement due to reassessment. Consequently, any expected tax decrease that is reduced by capping or a phase-in must be
taken into consideration in the automatic rent reduction.
Impact of Capping or Phase-in on Automatic Rent Reductions:
Appendix 7 shows the number of properties that would qualify for an automatic rent reduction under the Tenant
Protection Act due to a decrease in municipal taxes under various phase-in scenarios. If there was immediate
implementation of CVA, approximately 1,102 properties would qualify for automatic rent reductions. The average tax
decrease is 12.7 percent, resulting in an average rent reduction of 2.5 percent. However, under an 8-year phase-in
scenario, only 30 properties would qualify for automatic rent reductions.
Ministry of Housing staff have indicated that approximately 50 percent of the tenants in the City of Toronto are not
currently paying maximum rents. Where tenants are not paying maximum rents, in one year a rent reduction would be
obtained by the tenant due to a tax decrease but in the following year, the rent could be increased above the original rent
level to bring it to the "maximum" allowable. Therefore, Appendix 7 also shows the estimated number of properties
where tenants that would benefit from automatic rent reductions given the impact of vacancy decontrol and the fact that
not all tenants pay maximum rent.
Analysis also shows that capping tax increases would significantly reduce the number of properties that would qualify for
an automatic rent reduction. Due to the disproportionate share of 1997 taxes for properties that would experience tax
decreases compared to properties that would experience tax increases, in Year 1 capping tax increases would result in
limiting tax decreases to 10.5 percent of the tax decrease that would have been received if capping had not been chosen.
In order to qualify for an automatic rent reduction under the Tenant Protection Act, the proposed regulations specify that
the property must experience at least a 5 percent decrease in municipal taxes on an annual basis. Using the 20 percent
proportion of property taxes to total rent, this threshold would result in an automatic rent reduction of 1 percent. With
only 10.5 percent of the percentage tax decrease being allowed in Year 1 under a capping scenario, only properties with
tax decreases of more than 48 percent (i.e., 48 percent V 10.5 percent = 5.04 percent) would qualify for automatic rent
reductions in 1998. The final tax impact study shows there are 18 such properties.
The impact of not having a threshold of 5 percent for tax decreases, or having a lower threshold as recommended by the
Task Force, on the number of properties that would receive automatic reductions is shown below:
Table 3
Impact of Capping on Automatic Rent Reductions |
Tax Decrease Threshold |
Automatic Rent Reductions - Number of Buildings |
Immediate CVA Implementation |
Capping |
5.0% |
1,102 |
18 |
2.5% |
1,277 |
156 |
0.0% |
1,463 |
1,463 |
* Although all buildings would receive notices, the percentage rent reduction for many would be extremely small.
Permanent Rent Reductions:
The Tenant Protection Act, 1997 provides for reduction of the lawful rent which may be charged by the landlord by the
reduction of municipal property taxes in certain prescribed circumstances. While the landlord is prohibited from charging
rent in an amount greater than the lawful rent permitted under the Act by subsection 121(1), the lawful rent for the first
rental period for a new tenant is set as the rent first charged to that new tenant (section 124). Thus, the landlord is free to
initially charge new tenants whatever rent the market will bear.
A reduction in municipal property taxes does not result in a permanent reduction in the lawful rent which may be charged
for a particular unit. The lawful rent is only reduced, in the prescribed circumstances, with respect to the existing tenant.
Once that tenant leaves and a new tenant agrees to rent the premises, the lawful rent is reset to the amount first charged to
that new tenant. Thereafter, the lawful rent can only be increased in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
It is important to note that the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act regarding automatic rent reductions resulting from
reductions in municipal property taxes will not result in permanent rent reductions. The lawful rent is only reduced with
respect to the existing tenant.
In addition, once that tenant leaves, and a new tenant agrees to rent the premises, the landlord is free to charge whatever
rent the market will bear. Subsequent lease renewals with the new tenant are subject to the conditions set out in the
Tenant Protection Act, until such time as that tenant vacates and the cycle begins again.
In order to equalize the tax rates between tenants and homeowners, Council may wish to shift some of the tax burden
from the multi-residential class onto the residential class. While reducing the tax burden on the multi-residential class
may benefit some tenants in the short term, the change in tax burden will not result in reduced rents across the City in the
long term and any financial benefit may only accrue to the owners of multi-residential properties.
Tenant populations tend to be highly transient with an average annual turnover rate of approximately 25 percent. As rental
apartments turn over from one tenant to the next, the landlord may charge whatever rent can be negotiated with the new
tenant.
The vacancy rate for rental housing in Toronto was extremely low in 1997 at 0.8 percent. As a result, landlords with
vacant apartments may be able to attract higher rents when leasing to new tenants than the rents that could otherwise be
attained during times when residential vacancies are high. Pressure on the residential rental market will continue through
1998 due to a number of factors. The CMHC attributes the low vacancy rate to three factors: Toronto leads the rest of
Ontario in employment growth; a stronger job market has increased in-migration to the Toronto area; and an improved
job market has lead to income growth which has allowed households to uncouple. Considering these factors, the CMHC
expects that the vacancy rate in Toronto will continue to decline in 1998.
Impact of Increased Profitability on Assessments:
The method of valuing multi-residential properties is based on the income generated. If rental properties experience
increased rents because maximum rents can be increased upon unit vacancy, an increase in value would follow. However,
to estimate the level of vacancies, the expected increase in rental income generated from new tenants and the resulting
impact on value without such data is speculative and difficult to determine.
In general, increased rents will increase values and affect tax rates. If municipal budget expenditures remain constant until
the year 2001 (the year of the next reassessment), an increased value of the multi-residential class with no change in the
budget would result in a lower tax rate.
Preferred Option - Implementation of CVA:
To implement CVA, Council can phase-in or cap tax increases and decreases. As noted above, where tax relief is
provided -- either through a phase-in program or a cap -- the immediate benefit to tenants and landlords of a tax
decrease will be significantly diminished.
Council can opt for a phase-in program of up to eight years. The shorter the period for the phase-in program, the greater
the number of tenants that will receive automatic rent reductions under the Tenant Protection Act. However, automatic
rent reductions under the Act will likely only benefit tenants in the short term and will not result in reduced rents over the
long term. Owners or landlords will be the taxpayers benefitting most from a tax decrease.
Council can opt for a capping program, but a capping program will virtually eliminate automatic rent reductions except
for 18 properties, or 288 units. The final CVA data indicates that 10 percent of the properties in the multi-residential class
will receive tax increases of greater than $20,000. These increases, with no cap, will result in 53,801 apartment units
receiving increases in rent of more than 5.6 percent.
The preferred option for implementing CVA in Toronto is therefore a capping program. A phase-in program may benefit
more tenants in the very short term but will only benefit landlords in the long term. A capping program will protect
tenants occupying 121,987 apartment units from permanent rent increases resulting from property tax increases.
Options for Reducing Tax Burden on Multi-Residential Properties:
A.Establish a Uniform Municipal Tax Rate for Residential and Multi-Residential Property Classes:
The Education Quality Improvement Act (Bill 160) provides for a uniform tax rate for education purposes for all
residential and multi-residential property owners across the Province. However, this uniformity in rates does not apply to
the municipal share of taxes. The transition ratios, which determine the municipal tax rate for each property class, were
established by the Province to maintain 1997 total tax burdens by class.
Council can, under the Fair Municipal Finance Act, establish a uniform tax rate for municipal purposes for both the
residential and multi-residential class by adopting a tax ratio of 1.00 for the multi-residential class. The updated
preliminary tax ratio for multi-residential as received from the Province was 5.2355.
A uniform municipal tax rate would result in a shift of $376.7 million in municipal taxes from the multi-residential
property class to the residential property class. The decrease in total tax burden for multi-residential properties would be
65.9 percent, while the increase in total tax burden for the residential property class would be 25.6 percent, or an average
of $610 per residential unit. The tax rate for the residential class would increase from 1.25 percent to 1.57 percent, while
the tax rate for the multi-residential class would decrease from 4.60 percent to 1.57 percent. For individual property
owners in these classes, the percentage increase or decrease would be over and above any tax change resulting from the
implementation of current value assessment and would be an immediate, non-phaseable increase.
Appendix 8 shows the impact on both the residential and multi-residential classes, if Council were to phase-in a uniform
municipal residential tax rate from two through eight years. The table shows that if a uniform tax rate were phased-in over
two years, the impact would increase total taxes for the residential property class by $188.35 million annually, or 12.8
percent per year. The average tax increase per residential unit would be $305 per year. However, if the phase-in period for
a uniform tax rate was extended to eight years, the annual tax shift to the residential class would be reduced to $47.09
million or 3.2 percent per year. The average tax increase per residential unit would be $76.00 per year.
B.Reduce the Tax Ratio for Multi-Residential Class:
The transition ratios, which determine the municipal tax rate for each property class, were established by the Province to
maintain 1997 total tax burdens by class. Council can reduce tax burdens for certain property classes, by adopting tax
ratios that are closer to the fairness ranges set by the Province.
The updated preliminary transition ratio calculated by the Province for the multi-residential property class is 5.2355. The
fairness range established by the Province for the multi-residential class is 0.6 to 1.1. Appendix 9 illustrates the impact on
the residential property class if Council wishes to reduce the tax burden for the multi-residential property class, by
adopting lower tax ratios of either 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0. In each case, the calculation assumes that the tax ratios for the
commercial and industrial classes would also be adjusted so that there would be no tax shift onto these classes.
As can be seen, in each case a shift in municipal taxes, from the multi-residential class to residential class, would occur.
For individual property owners in these classes, the percentage increase or decrease would be over and above any tax
change resulting from the implementation of current value assessment. However, if Council wishes to move towards
equalizing the tax burdens paid by tenants and homeowners but limit the impact on the residential class, it could phase-in
any change to the multi-residential tax ratio over a period of years, similar to that outlined in Appendix 8.
C.Reduce the Tax Ratio to Implement Uniform Education Tax Rate:
A transition ratio of 3.7530 has also been included in Appendix 9. This ratio is based on the preliminary method for
calculating transition ratios released by the Province in the summer of 1997.
The revised preliminary calculations show deliberate tax shifts between property classes resulting in an increase of
approximately $15.3 million onto the residential property class, based on the Province's transition ratios. The creation of
a uniform Provincial residential education tax rate would have shifted $119.7 million from multi-residential taxpayers to
residential taxpayers. The Province, in setting the transition ratios, has shifted back $85 million -- almost but not all of
the $119.7 million and has left $15.3 million of new tax burden on the residential class.
The updated preliminary transition ratio of 5.2355 prescribed by the Province tries to negate the effect of the uniform
education tax rate. Except for a $15.3 million shift onto the residential property class and a decrease of $4.6 million from
the multi-residential class, the prescribed updated preliminary transition ratio almost nullifies the effect of a uniform
residential education tax rate by filling the tax room created by the uniform residential education tax rate with municipal
taxes.
Council can reduce the tax ratio for the multi-residential property class to reflect the impact of a uniform education tax
rate. The tax ratio of 3.7530 reflects an additional shift of $104.3 million in education taxes that would have occurred due
to the Province establishing a uniform education tax rate and results in a tax rate for the multi-residential class of 3.76
percent. However, the tax shift would increase total taxes for the residential property class by 7.08 percent, or an average
of $169 per residential unit.
For individual property owners in the residential class, this increase would be over and above any tax change resulting
from the implementation of current value assessment, and would result in some homeowners who would have received a
tax decrease, now receiving a tax increase. In order to minimize the impact on the residential class, Council could also opt
to phase-in this change over a period of years by explicitly changing the tax ratio each year.
D.Shift Taxes over Residential Phase-in Period - "The Kinahan Concept":
Another option to be considered in order to achieve the total equalization of the multi-residential tax rate to the
residential, would be to calculate the dollar change from the residential phase-in options and use that value to be the tax
shift from multi-residential to residential.
The following table is an example of this concept, based on immediate implementation as well as phase-in periods of 3
and 8 years for the residential property class:
Table 4
Shift Taxes over Residential Phase-in Period - "The Kinahan Concept" |
|
No Phase-in |
3 Year Phase-in |
8 Year Phase-in |
Tax Shift Required to Achieve Uniform Residential and
Multi-Residential Tax Rate |
$376.7 Million |
$376.7 Million |
$376.7 Million |
Annual Tax Shift within Residential Class -
Increases/Decreases |
$162.8 Million |
$54.3 Million |
$20.4 Million |
Number of Years to Achieve Equity |
2 |
7 |
18 |
Annual % Tax Change |
|
|
|
Residential |
11.04% |
3.68% |
1.38% |
Multi-Residential |
-28.47% |
-9.49% |
-3.57% |
The total tax shift required to achieve a uniform residential and multi-residential rate is $376.7 million. If CVA were
implemented immediately, $162.8 million would shift between taxpayers with tax increases and taxpayers with tax
decreases in the residential class. Using this concept, and shifting an equivalent amount of taxes from the multi-residential
class, the theory is that residential decreases would be eliminated and tax increases would be doubled, and equity would
be achieved in 2 years. This concept would require an annual allocation of tax shift to achieve the tax changes noted
above.
It should be noted that legislation does not allow Council to phase-in tax increases resulting from a shift in tax burden
from other classes. Also, if Council wishes to reduce the tax burden of the multi-residential class, and also opts for
capping tax increases due to the reassessment, it can only shift taxes in 1998 prior to applying the cap. Once the cap is in
place, Council cannot shift tax burdens and would have to wait until the next reassessment, and the end of the capping
period, to reduce the tax burden of the multi-residential class.
None of the options for reducing the tax burden for the multi-residential property class are recommended at this time.
Additional work is required to define and develop tax policies that would ensure property tax equity for both homeowners
and tenants. The definition of 'fairness' as it relates to the tax burden for the multi-residential class must be considered
within the context of other tax structures, and must balance the needs of tenants in both the residential and
multi-residential property classes. Additional work is also required so that any reduction in tax burden for the
multi-residential class will provide the benefit intended (i.e., permanent rent reductions and increased rental housing
affordability).
New Multi-Residential Class:
The Fair Municipal Finance Act allows municipalities to request a separate class for new rental apartment buildings with
seven or more units. The legislation permits municipalities to request the new multi-residential class at any time.
Municipalities can tax these new buildings at a lower rate than the multi-residential class. Properties would remain in the
new apartment class for up to eight years, after which they would be moved to the multi-residential property class.
The intent of the legislation is to encourage investment in new rental housing, thus helping to create jobs and growth in
the construction sector. By encouraging rental building construction, it will increase the supply of rent housing.
It is not recommended that Council request the creation of a separate class for new constructed multi-residential buildings
until such time that Council adopts a policy respecting tax burdens between the residential and multi-residential property
classes. If a new apartment class was created, and there was no change in existing tax burdens between these classes,
these properties would face significant tax increases once they were moved from the new class to the multi-residential
class.
Conclusion:
It is recommended that Council cap tax increases for multi-residential properties at 2.5 percent per year for 1998, 1999
and 2000. To fund the capping program within the multi-residential class, it will be necessary to proportionately limit tax
decreases. Although Council could opt for a phase-in program to mitigate the impact of reassessment, a phase-in program
would not provide the extent of relief as capping would. A capping program will protect tenants occupying 121,987
apartment units from large rent increases resulting from property tax increases.
Unless Council opts for immediate implementation of CVA for the multi-residential property class, few tenants will see
significant reductions in their rents due to a reduction in municipal taxes. Sitting tenants that are currently not paying
maximum rents could see increased rents to the "maximum" and not benefit from rent reductions in the long term. A
phase-in program may benefit more tenants in the very short term but will only benefit landlords in the long term.
No other tax policy options, including shifting taxes from the multi-residential property class, are recommended at this
time. Additional work is required and should be continued to develop a permanent solution to ensure property tax equity
between homeowners and tenants, including defining 'fairness' as it relates to tax burdens for all classes. The definition of
'fairness' must be considered within the context of other tax structures, and must balance the needs of all taxpayers,
including tenants in both the residential and multi-residential property classes. Additional work is also required so that
any reduction in tax burden for the multi-residential class will provide the benefit intended (i.e., permanent rent
reductions and increased rental housing affordability).
Contact Names:
Lynne Ashton392-7828
Paul Wealleans392-6955
Bill Wong392-9148
--------
List of Appendices
Appendix 1Occupied Dwellings by Tenure - Ward Totals
Appendix 2Current Value Assessment and Total Taxes by Structure Type
Appendix 3Current Value Assessment and Total Taxes - Residential Properties (3-6 Units)
Appendix 4Average Taxes per Unit - Residential vs. Multi-Residential
Appendix 5Ranges of Tax Decreases and Increases - Multi-Residential Property Class
% Tax Change
$ Tax Change
Appendix 6Phase-in Distribution for Multi-Residential Property Class
Range of Dollar Increases and Decreases
Range of Percentage Increases and Decreases
Appendix 7Automatic Rent Reductions - Impact of Phase-in Program
Appendix 8Phased-in Reduction of Multi-Residential Tax Burden - Impact on Residential/Multi-Residential Property
Classes
Appendix 9Impact of Reduction to Multi-Residential Tax Ratio
--------
Appendix 1
Occupied Dwellings by Tenure - Ward Totals
|
Ward
|
Owned |
Rented |
Total |
Number of Units |
% of
Ward |
% of
City |
Number of Units |
% of
Ward |
% of
City |
Number of
Units |
% of
City |
1 |
East York |
20,363 |
46.2% |
4.8% |
23,683 |
53.8% |
5.3% |
44,046 |
5.1% |
2 |
Lakeshore-Queensway |
17,385 |
51.7% |
4.1% |
16,247 |
48.3% |
3.6% |
33,632 |
3.9% |
3 |
Kingsway-Humber |
16,647 |
55.3% |
3.9% |
13,461 |
44.7% |
3.0% |
30,108 |
3.5% |
4 |
Markland-Centennial |
17,049 |
63.9% |
4.0% |
9,633 |
36.1% |
2.1% |
26,682 |
3.1% |
5 |
Rexdale-Thistletown |
13,906 |
53.7% |
3.3% |
12,013 |
46.3% |
2.7% |
25,919 |
3.0% |
6 |
North York
Humber |
13,315 |
46.6% |
3.2% |
15,234 |
53.4% |
3.4% |
28,549 |
3.3% |
7 |
Black Creek |
11,369 |
38.3% |
2.7% |
18,331 |
61.7% |
4.1% |
29,700 |
3.4% |
8 |
North York
Spadina |
13,985 |
46.7% |
3.3% |
15,958 |
53.3% |
3.6% |
29,943 |
3.4% |
9 |
North York Centre
South |
14,679 |
61.0% |
3.5% |
9,400 |
39.0% |
2.1% |
24,079 |
2.8% |
10 |
North York Centre |
16,199 |
60.8% |
3.8% |
10,464 |
39.2% |
2.3% |
26,663 |
3.1% |
11 |
Don Parkway |
13,743 |
37.5% |
3.3% |
22,901 |
62.5% |
5.1% |
36,644 |
4.2% |
12 |
Seneca Heights |
17,631 |
59.5% |
4.2% |
12,005 |
40.5% |
2.7% |
29,636 |
3.4% |
13 |
Scarborough
Bluffs |
18,664 |
53.8% |
4.4% |
16,025 |
46.2% |
3.6% |
34,689 |
4.0% |
14 |
Scarborough
Wexford |
12,498 |
53.9% |
3.0% |
10,711 |
46.2% |
2.4% |
23,209 |
2.7% |
15 |
Scarborough City
Centre |
18,769 |
51.6% |
4.4% |
17,597 |
48.4% |
3.9% |
36,366 |
4.2% |
16 |
Scarborough
Highland Creek |
18,193 |
58.3% |
4.3% |
13,004 |
41.7% |
2.9% |
31,197 |
3.6% |
17 |
Scarborough
Agincourt |
17,024 |
68.9% |
4.0% |
7,686 |
31.1% |
1.7% |
24,710 |
2.8% |
18 |
Scarborough
Malvern |
19,341 |
65.2% |
4.6% |
10,320 |
34.8% |
2.3% |
29,661 |
3.4% |
19 |
High Park |
13,080 |
36.3% |
3.1% |
22,921 |
63.7% |
5.1% |
36,001 |
4.1% |
20 |
Trinity Niagara |
10,835 |
45.8% |
2.6% |
12,843 |
54.2% |
2.9% |
23,678 |
2.7% |
21 |
Davenport |
14,318 |
50.2% |
3.4% |
14,201 |
49.8% |
3.2% |
28,519 |
3.3% |
22 |
North Toronto |
15,668 |
38.5% |
3.7% |
25,032 |
61.5% |
5.6% |
40,700 |
4.7% |
23 |
Midtown |
13,599 |
37.6% |
3.2% |
22,566 |
62.4% |
5.0% |
36,165 |
4.2% |
24 |
Downtown |
9,540 |
25.3% |
2.3% |
28,203 |
74.7% |
6.3% |
37,743 |
4.3% |
25 |
Don River |
10,934 |
31.9% |
2.6% |
23,338 |
68.1% |
5.2% |
34,272 |
3.9% |
26 |
East Toronto |
17,834 |
56.3% |
4.2% |
13,823 |
43.7% |
3.1% |
31,657 |
3.6% |
27 |
York Humber |
14,567 |
47.2% |
3.5% |
16,281 |
52.8% |
3.6% |
30,848 |
3.5% |
28 |
York Eglinton |
10,959 |
43.1% |
2.6% |
14,489 |
56.9% |
3.2% |
25,448 |
2.9% |
Total - All Wards |
422,094 |
48.5% |
100.0% |
448,370 |
51.5% |
100.0% |
870,464 |
100.0% |
Source: Ministry of Finance, Assessment Information, 1996.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
revised appendix 2 - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 2
appendix 3 - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 3
appendix 4 - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 4
appendix 5 - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 5
appendix 5 cont'd - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 6
appendix 6 - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 7
appendix 6 cont'd - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 8
appendix 7 - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 9
appendix 8 - multi-residential property class
Insert Table/Map No. 10
appendix 9 - multi-residential property class
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the
Multi-Residential Working Group, addressed to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:
Purpose:
To provide information to Council on the potential to ensure that multi-residential tax decreases have a positive impact on
tenant rents.
Funding Source, financial Implications and Impact Statement:
None to report
Recommendations:
The Working Group recommends that Council adopt the following:
(1)That, given that consultations have not provided a guaranteed strategy for ensuring that tax reductions will go to
tenants:
(a)the City continue to lobby the Provincial Government to achieve legislative and regulatory reform which will
guarantee that tenants receive the benefit of tax reductions over the long term, including the removal of loopholes that
now exist
(b)City staff develop detailed proposals to achieve these objectives; and
(c)there be no equalization tax shifts between and the multi-residential class and the residential class until there are
guarantees that the tenants will receive the benefits.
(2)That the City advocate a "De-Linking" process which separates the tax bill from the rent bill and that City staff
develop a programme which will allow this "de-linking" to take place and a complete set of provincial and/or municipal
legislative, regulatory and administrative initiatives which will achieve this objective.
(3)Because, under the current legislation, tax increases will be absorbed by tenants while tax decreases will largely go to
landlords, and because tenants are the most unfairly taxed group of residents in the city, Council should adopt a strategy
which minimizes the tax changes effecting tenants. Options considered by the Committee included:
(i)that a 2.5 percent cap be implemented on rent increases and decreases for multi-residential properties, or;
(ii)that tax changes be phased in over a number of years for multi-residential properties.
(4)That, in accordance with the preference expressed by landlord representatives, the Province be requested to amend the
legislation to provide that the landlords be required to pass on any decreases in taxation to tenants.
(5)That all tenants be informed of any tax decreases by the City and that a plan for such notification be developed and
that a budget for this undertaking be produced and submitted to the Budget Review Committee following consultations
with the Federation of Metro Tenants Associations.
(6)That, for new rental multi-residential buildings, a the City establish a process to achieve equalized taxation between
multi-residential and residential properties. This would be accomplished by creating a separate class of property for new
rental multi-residential buildings and conversions from office/industrial buildings to rental multi-residential.
(7)That the Task Force investigate the appropriateness of clawing back the education equalization imposed by the
Province, even recognizing the inability of the City to ensure that the tax reductions will benefit the tenants.
Background:
The Multi-Residential working group was established by Council on May 13th to "initiate discussion with landlords in
order to obtain their support for regulatory changes that would insure that reductions in multi-unit residential taxes result
in benefit to tenants".
The Working Group met four times including meetings with representatives from landlord and tenant organizations on
two occasions. Landlords were represented by:
Phil Dewan, of the Fair Rental Policy Organizations (FRPO)
Gary Griesdorf, of the Greater Toronto Apartment Association (GTAA)
Tina Schickedanz, of the Tenant Landlord Coalition
Heather Waese, of Spar Property
Mary MacDonald, of the Multiple Dwelling Standards Association (MDSA)
Samuel Lewkowicz of the Multiple Dwelling Standards Association also contacted the Working Group by fax. Several
tenants also participated in the consultation meetings to provide their views.
The working group attempted to find points of consensus with landlord organizations, tenant organizations and the City
regarding changes to the Tenant Protection Act that could provide some certainty that tax cuts would benefit tenants now
and in the long term.
City staff made a detailed report to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on May 28, 1998. The report reviewed
proposed regulations under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997(TPA) and their impact on the City, and on tenants. The Task
Force made several recommendations regarding changes to the TPA. These recommendations were subsequently adopted
by Council. These recommendations formed the basis for discussion with landlords at the Working Group meetings.
Issues dealt with by the Working Group are discussed below under the following headings:
(1)Administrative Issues
(2)Threshold for Automatic Rent Decreases
(3)Notification about Tax Decreases
(4)Municipal Property Tax Appeals
(5)Vacancy Decontrol and Maximum Rent
Comments:
(1)Administrative Issues:
The May 28, 1998 report outlined a number of regulatory amendments relating to administrative issues for the City.
Landlord and Tenant representatives supported the requests. In particular, there was support for having clarity in the
regulations about municipal ability to rescind and amend incorrect notices.
(2)Threshold for Automatic Rent Decreases:
The proposed regulations set out that tenants would be entitled to an automatic rent decrease where the municipal
property tax decrease is 5 percent or greater. The May 28, 1998, recommendation was that the threshold be reduced to 2.5
percent. Landlord representatives agreed with the reduction and, in fact, suggested that it be reduced to 0 percent.
(3)Notification about Tax Decreases:
The City has sought methods of ensuring that new tenants are made aware of mandatory rent reductions resulting from tax
reductions. Landlord representatives supported the concept of posting the notices in general, but were concerned about
having posting as a legislated requirement. They did not believe that they could guarantee that the notice would remain
posted. They suggested that landlords could serve a copy of the notice on any new tenant along with their lease. Although
landlords were willing to entertain several notification options, landlords could not reach a clear agreement on including
any notification option in the regulations as a requirement.
(4)Municipal Property Tax Appeals:
On May 28, 1998 the Task Force made recommendations about changes to the regulations to ensure that tenants receive,
retroactively, the benefit of any tax savings resulting from appeals. Landlords did not agree to support those
recommendations citing administrative burden and complexity. There was some discussion on the part of the landlords
about retroactively raising rents to cover the cost of filing tax appeals or the cost of tax increases resulting from appeals.
Landlords raised doubts about whether tenants who left the unit owing back rents or damages should have the right to
make a claim on retroactive rent reductions. No landlord groups were prepared to formally support any program that
facilitated access to retroactive rent reductions even where appeals resulted in retroactive tax reductions.
(5)Vacancy Decontrol and Maximum Rent:
The most complex issue was that of maximum rent and vacancy decontrol.
Tenant Protection Act, 1997 (TPA) requires landlords to reduce rents whenever a tax reduction above 5 percent occurs.
However, the TPA also allows landlords to raise the rents of sitting tenants if the current "lawful rent" is below the
"maximum rent". (The maximum rent is fixed by the province in accordance with their rent increase formula.) A rent
reduction resulting from a tax reduction would automatically take the rent below the "maximum". The landlord would be
entitled to raise the rent by that amount within one year, effectively eliminating the mandatory rent reduction.
Vacancy decontrol allows landlords to set rents at any level once a unit is vacant. Again, rent reductions resulting from
tax reductions do not limit the power of landlords to raise the rents to any level and recoup some or all of the mandatory
rent reduction.
There was no agreement from the landlords to support the City in lobbying the province to remove maximum rent and
vacancy de-control provisions from TPA. Some landlords expressed the belief that the maximum rent provisions no
longer apply to many of units, however, subsequent discussions with the Province confirm that these provisions apply
even when maximum rent has been reached. (See Appendix "A")
FRPO expressed a strong belief that rents would fall and stay low once a tax reduction occurred. FRPO believed that
market forces provided an adequate guarantee of long term lowered rents, and that the market was the only appropriate
mechanism for protecting tenants. They stated flatly that FRPO was unwilling to support any efforts to reverse this
tendency in the legislation.
Other representatives express more varied views. A number of alternate ideas and proposals about maximum rent and
vacancy decontrol were put forward as follows:
(1)One-time Change to Maximum Rent:
It was proposed that maximum rent on units be allowed to decrease or increase on a one time basis to reflect tax changes.
Some questions were raised about whether a one-time only adjustment would be sufficient. Landlords indicated flexibility
about whether future changes could also be contemplated.
However, landlords were not prepared to eliminate the power to raise rents using maximum rent ceilings other than those
created by a tax cut. Since the most recent studies indicate that roughly 50 percent of all units are below maximum rent, a
significant number of units would still be subject to the re-raising of rents following a tax based rent reduction.
In addition, this proposal fails to provide any mechanism for ensuring that rents stay reduced when a new tenant moves
in. FRPO's argument that rents would stay low because tax decreases would drive down the market raises many
questions. Market rents are dependant on several variables, however, it is difficult to imagine that the market will push
down rent levels for new tenants while Toronto's vacancy rate is just .8 percent. Vacancy rates are forecasted to go lower,
and remain well below the healthy vacancy rate, in the range of 2.5 percent to 5 percent.
(2)Voluntary Lowered Maximum Rent:
Mary MacDonald of the MDSA proposed a system of voluntary compliance, whereby individual landlords would agree to
lower their maximum rent to the current lawful rent, in exchange for which, the City would classify them at a lower tax
rate.
Ms. MacDonald's support for the elimination of maximum rent provisions did not receive any clear support from other
landlords. Ms. MacDonald's proposal also violates the City's statutory obligation to set a single rate for multi-residential
tax class, and would prove difficult to enforce.
(3)"De-Linking":
A tenant representative suggested that the City separate property taxes from rents. The landlords would act as tax
collectors, issuing a bill for rent and a second bill for taxes. This "de-links" property taxes from rents and ensures savings
are passed on to tenants.
There are precedents for this model in the treatment of land-lease communities and mobile home parks. Tenants own their
units and rent the land and services. While this provides some advantages, problems arise when taxes not paid or liens
attached (i.e. one could not attach a lien against the trailer or an apartment for unpaid taxes).
Under this model the tenants would directly receive benefit of tax decreases, however, this would require several
legislative amendments and significant shift in treatment of property taxes. It would create an administrative burden in
terms of tax collection for the landlord and for the municipality and would result in very limited options for the
municipality when taxes were not paid. There was no clear support for this model form the landlords' representatives.
None of the models proposed met the objectives of the City and had broad support among the landlords' and tenants'
representatives. Only a "market forces" approach received strong support from landlords.
The Tenant/Landlord Coalition agreed with the position of the landlords. The Federation of Metro Tenants Associations,
by far the largest tenant body, strongly opposed the positions taken by the landlords. FMTA felt that there was no way to
ensure that tenants benefited from any tax cuts over the long term under the current law and indicated its opposition to tax
cuts under the current circumstances. (see appendix "B")
While there are several proposals now circulating, including proposals for legislative and regulatory changes adopted by
Council, there is no consensus at this time on any of the major points considered critical to ensuring tenants benefit from
multi-unit residential tax reductions. It may be possible to develop a broader consensus over the 1998-2001 period that
caps would apply to multi-unit residential properties.
Conclusion:
The Multi-Residential Working Group was established to "initiate discussion with landlords in order to obtain their
support for regulatory changes that would ensure that reductions in multi-unit residential taxes result in benefit to
tenants".
After meetings with landlord and tenant representatives, we were unable to reach agreement on anything but minor
administrative issues. Landlords' representatives are unwilling to support legislative changes that would address the
concerns raised by the City.
(Copies of Appendices A and B referred to above were previously circulated to all Members of Council with the agenda
of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause,
the following report (July 23, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
Purpose:
To obtain Council's authority for the adoption of by-laws for the levying and collection of taxes for the 1998 taxation
year, to impose a penalty charge for non-payment of taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears, to establish
tax ratios for the 1998 taxation year and for the levying of a special charge for 1998 for certain Business Improvement
Areas. Also attached for Council's information are draft by-laws concerning the residential property class phase-in
program with or without a threshold and the capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the
multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council authorize the levy and collection of taxes for the 1998 taxation year, the imposition of a penalty charge for
non-payment of 1998 taxes, the provision of interest to be added to tax arrears and to establish tax ratios for the year
1998;
(2)Council approve the levy of a special charge for 1998 for the following Business Improvement Areas and to provide
for its collection: Bloor by the Park; Bloor Court Village; Bloor West Village; Bloor-Bathurst-Madison; Bloor-Yorkville;
Bloordale Village; Corso Italia; Danforth by the Valley; Eglinton Way Village; Forest Hill Village; Gerrard India
Bazaar; Greektown on the Danforth; Harbord Street; Islington Village; Junction Gardens; Kennedy Road; Kingsway;
Lakeshore; Little Italy; Long Branch; Mimico Village; Old Cabbagetown; Parkdale Village; Queen/Broadview Village;
Roncesvalles Village; St.Lawrence Neighbourhood; Upper Village and Weston;
(3)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council to levy taxes for the year 1998 and to
provide for the collection of taxes for 1998 other than those levied under By-law No. 10-1998, to impose a penalty charge
for non-payment of taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears, to establish tax ratios for the 1998 taxation
year and to levy a special charge for 1998 for certain Business Improvement Areas and provide for its collection, in the
form or substantially in the form of the draft by-laws attached hereto; and
(4)subject to Council adopting a residential property class phase-in program with or without a threshold; and the
capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial
property classes, that leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto in the
form or substantially in the form of the draft by-laws attached hereto.
Comments:
The draft by-laws are: (1) to levy and collect taxes for the year 1998, to impose a penalty charge for non-payment of 1998
taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears and to establish tax ratios for the year 1998; (2) to levy a special
charge in 1998 for certain Business Improvement Areas and to provide for its collection; (3) to phase-in tax changes in
the residential property class with or without a threshold; and (4) to cap increases and decreases of property taxes on the
commercial, industrial and multi-residential classes for the taxation years 1998, 1999 and 2000.
The levying by-law sets the final tax rates for all property classes, which are set out in Sections 6 and 7 of the attached
draft by-law. The tax rate for the residential property class of 1.259702 percent includes a non-phaseable portion of
.0217 percent relating to the finalization of various provincial components of the bill -- provincial tax ratios and full use
of the provincial education tax room. The by-law imposes a penalty rate of 1.25 percent per month for the non-payment of
taxes in the 1998 taxation year and provides for the payment of interest at 1.25 percent per month to be added to tax
arrears. The by-law also establishes tax ratios.
Budgets for the following Business Improvement Areas have already been adopted by Council: Bloor by the Park; Bloor
Court Village; Bloor West Village; Bloor-Bathurst-Madison; Bloor-Yorkville; Bloordale Village; Corso Italia; Danforth
by the Valley; Eglinton Way Village; Forest Hill Village; Gerrard India Bazaar; Greektown on the Danforth; Harbord
Street; Islington Village; Junction Gardens; Kennedy Road; Kingsway; Lakeshore; Little Italy; Long Branch; Mimico
Village; Old Cabbagetown; Parkdale Village; Queen/Broadview Village; Roncesvalles Village; St. Lawrence
Neighbourhood; Upper Village and Weston. It is now necessary to levy and collect a special charge for the Boards of
Management of each respective Business Improvement Area.
The attached draft by-laws, which have been prepared by the City Solicitor, give effect to the recommendations in my
reports respecting a residential property class phase-in program with or without a threshold (dated July 2, 1998); and
the capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the multi-residential (dated June 29, 1998) and
commercial and industrial property classes (dated June 26, 1998).
Contact Name:
Paul Wealleans, Phone: 397-4208)
(A copy of each of the by-laws, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July21,
1998) from Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Rexdale-Thistletown:
Please find attached a copy of a letter and petition I have received from my constituents. These were sent to me by
residents residing in multi-residential as well as single-family dwellings. I feel that these will be of interest to my
colleagues.
As you will note, a number of residents reside outside of my Ward, however, the majority reside inside my Ward. There
are over 690 signatures on the petition (the entire list has been submitted to the clerk for the record).
Thank you for taking the above-noted into account.)
(A copy of the letter and petitions, referred to in the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July14, 1998) from Mr.
Julian Smit, Tenant Landlord Coalition for Equal Taxation, submitting a petition signed by approximately 348
individuals demanding that the multi-residential class pay the same property tax rate as the residential class, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May1, 1998) from Ms.
A. Colletti-Ferrari, Toronto, Ontario, regarding the multi-residential property class.)
3
Property Tax Relief for Low-Income Seniors
and Disabled Persons
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(1)amending the recommendations embodied in the transmittal letter dated July 12, 1998, from the Assessment and Tax
Policy Task Force as follows:
(a)by adding the words "or a person by reason of age or infirmity who is in receipt of a pension" at the end of
Recommendation No. (2)(i), so that Recommendation No.(2) shall now read as follows:
"(2)the following eligibility criteria for low-income seniors be adopted:
To be eligible as a low-income senior, a person:
(i)must be 65 years of age or older, or in the case of a widowed person receiving the Spouse's Allowance, between the
age of 60 and 64, or a person by reason of age or infirmity who is in receipt of a pension;
(ii)must have owned and occupied the residential property for one year; and
(iii)must be receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) under the Old Age Security Act, and in the case of
widowed person between the age of 60 and 64, receiving a Spouse's Allowance under the Old Age Security Act;";
(b)by adding to Recommendation No. (2) the following:
"and further, that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood
Services strike a working group that includes staff and representatives from community senior citizens' organizations to
develop criteria for an enhanced residential property tax relief program, other than tax deferrals in respect of all or part
of assessment-related increases for low-income seniors and report back to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force by
September, 1998"; and
(c)by adding to Recommendation No. (3)(b) the words "other than tax deferrals" after the words "property tax relief
program", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"(3)(b)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services
strike a working group that includes staff and representatives from community organizations including ARCH to develop
criteria for an enhanced residential property tax relief program, other than tax deferrals, in respect of all or part of
assessment-related tax increases for low-income disabled persons and report back to the Task Force by September,
1998;";
(2)to provide that for assessment-related increases, the amount eligible for deferral shall be dependent on income as
follows:
Amount of assessment-related
Combined House Incomeincrease eligible for deferral (percentage)
GIS approx. $20,000.00
or less100%
more than $20,000.00 and less
than or equal to $25,000.0075%
more than $25,000.00 and less
than or equal to $30,000.00 50%
more than $30,000.00 and less
than or equal to $35,000.00 25%
(3)to provide that all seniors, as defined by Council, be eligible for relief from an assessment related tax increase as
follows:
(a)the first group to be eligible as per the low-income criteria being established, with the deferral being at a zero percent
interest rate; and
(b)the second group to include any other senior property owner, with the deferral being at an interest rate equal to the
rate being paid by the City (thus being at no expense to the City);
and the Province of Ontario be requested to enact enabling legislation in this regard; and
(4)by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that:
(a)an amount of $250,000.00 be provided in the 1998 Operating Budget to fund the first year of the tax deferral program
for low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons, and that such funds be provided from the Corporate
Contingency Account;
(b)the Province of Ontario be requested to extend the tax deferral program to allow municipalities the option to provide
tax deferrals to all low-income residents who own residential property; and
(c)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report to the appropriate Committee on the details
of the mechanism for establishing the tax deferral program.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations in the
following transmittal letter (July 12, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:
Recommendations:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on July, 6, 7, 11, and 13, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee and City Council that:
(1)a tax deferral program be approved to provide relief from assessment-related tax increases for eligible low-income
seniors and low-income disabled persons, pursuant to the Fair Municipal Finance Act;
(2)the following eligibility criteria for low-income seniors be adopted:
To be eligible as a low-income senior, a person:
(i)must be 65 years of age or older, or in the case of a widowed person receiving the Spouse's Allowance, between the
age of 60 and 64; and
(ii)must have owned and occupied the residential property for one year; and
(iii)must be receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) under the Old Age Security Act, and in the case of
widowed person between the age of 60 and 64, receiving a Spouse's Allowance under the Old Age Security Act;
(3)(a)the following eligibility criteria for low-income disabled be adopted:
To be eligible as a low-income disabled person, a person:
(i)must have owned and occupied the residential property for one year; and
(ii)must be receiving disability benefits under: (a) the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP); or (b) the Family
Benefits Act (FBA); or (c) the Guaranteed Annual Income System (GAINS);
(b)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services strike a
working group that includes staff and representatives from community organizations including ARCH to develop criteria
for an enhanced residential property tax relief program in respect of all or part of assessment-related tax increases for
low-income disabled persons and report back to the Task Force by September, 1998;
(4)the Province be requested to enact special legislation with an effective date of January 1, 1998, to authorize the City to
pass by-laws providing for residential tax deferrals whether or not a residential property's assessment increases as a result
of the implementation of Current Value Assessment, and that such legislation provide for the amount of taxes paid by the
City to the school board to be reduced accordingly;
(5)eligible low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons be also permitted to apply for a deferral of up to
$600.00 per year of the owner's residential tax bill in the program described in Recommendation 4 above;
(6)(i)the interest rate provided for the assessment-related deferral program in recommendation (1) be set at 0.0 percent;
(ii)the interest rate provided for the non-assessment related $600.00 tax deferral program in recommendations (4) and (5)
be set at 0.0 percent;
(7)the administrative terms and conditions set out in the report (June 30, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, as amended by the recommendations above be adopted;
(8)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect to the tax deferral program;
and
(9)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
The Task Force reports having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to City Council on
July 21, 1998, providing an analysis of the cost implications to the City leading up to maturity of the tax relief programs
noted above.
Background:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force had before it a report (June 30, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer providing a policy respecting property tax relief for low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons,
pursuant to the Fair Municipal Finance Act.
The Task Force also had before it the following communications respecting the Current Value Assessment and property
tax relief for low-income seniors and disabled persons:
(a)(July 3, 1998) from Councillor Anne Johnston, Chair, The Seniors' Task Force;
(b)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Harry Beatty, A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities;
(c)(July 1, 1998) from Mrs. Verna M. Averill; and
(d)(July 3, 1998) from Mr. George Thull.
(Copies of the communications referred to in the transmittal letter of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force have
previously been circulated to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force and
copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
--------
(Report dated June 30, 1998, addressed to
the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To provide a policy respecting property tax relief for low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons, pursuant to
the Fair Municipal Finance Act.
Funding Source, Financial Implication and Impact Statement:
The recommended property tax deferral program for low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons, with interest
being charged on deferred amounts, has no direct funding implications.
There are funding impacts associated with other tax relief schemes. The amount of the impact is contingent on the type of
the program, the eligibility criteria, actual participation rates, and whether or not any phase-in policy is adopted for the
residential property class. These other schemes may result in an annual impact ranging from several thousand dollars for a
deferment program in which an interest subsidy is provided, to tens of millions of dollars for cancellation programs, to be
funded from the operating budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)a tax deferral program be approved to provide relief from assessment-related tax increases for eligible low-income
seniors and low-income disabled persons, pursuant to the Fair Municipal Finance Act;
(2)the following eligibility criteria for low-income seniors be adopted:
To be eligible as a low-income senior, a person:
(i)must be 65 years of age or older, or in the case of a widowed person receiving the Spouse's Allowance, between the
age of 60 and 64;
(ii)must have owned and occupied the residential property for the past three years; and
(iii)must be receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) under the Old Age Security Act, and in the case of
widowed person between the age of 60 and 64, receiving a Spouse's Allowance under the Old Age Security Act;
(3)the following eligibility criteria for low-income disabled be adopted:
To be eligible as a low-income disabled person, a person:
(i)must have owned and occupied the residential property for the past three years; and
(ii)must be receiving disability benefits under: (a) the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP); or (b) the Family
Benefits Act (FBA); or (c) the Guaranteed Annual Income System (GAINS);
(4)the Province be requested to enact special legislation to authorize the City to pass by-laws providing for residential tax
deferrals whether or not a residential property's assessment increases as a result of the implementation of Current Value
Assessment, and that such legislation provide for the amount of taxes paid by the City to the school board to be reduced
accordingly;
(5)subject to the special legislation referred to in recommendation (4) being enacted, eligible low-income seniors and
low-income disabled persons be permitted to apply for a deferral of up to $600.00 per year of the owner's residential tax
bill;
(6)the amounts deferred be subject to simple interest at a rate not to exceed the market rate as determined by the City as
authorized by the Fair Municipal Finance Act;
(7)the interest rate provided for in recommendation (6) be set at 6.0 percent for 1998;
(8)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect to the tax deferral program;
and
(9)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background:
Pursuant to the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 (No.1 and No. 2 - the Act), Council must pass a by-law providing for
deferrals or cancellation of, or other relief in respect of all or part of assessment-related tax increases on property in the
residential/farm property class for owners who are, or whose spouses are, low-income seniors or low-income persons with
disabilities as defined in the by-law. The Act provides Council some discretion respecting the adoption of a criteria for
"low-income", "senior", and "disabled person", as well as in defining the form of tax relief, provided it is in respect of
assessment-related tax increases.
"Assessment-related" tax increases means tax increases beginning in 1998. If a tax increase is reduced as a result of a
by-law to phase-in increases and decreases, then the relief can only be given on the portion of the assessment-related
increase phased-in in any given year. For example, an $800.00 increase in conjunction with an eight-year phase-in would
result in a first-year tax increase of $100.00 which would qualify for a tax relief program. In the second year, the
qualifying amount would be $200.00. A municipality is not required to give relief in respect of the full amount of an
assessment-related tax increase, but may instead choose to give relief in respect of only part of such an increase.
The Act further provides for, where there is a deferral, the Treasurer to issue a tax certificate in respect of the property for
which taxes have been deferred, and to show the amount of the deferred taxes and any accrued interest on the certificate.
Interest may be charged on taxes deferred at a rate not exceeding the market rate as determined by the municipality.
As part of a deferral or cancellation of tax increases, or any other relief in respect of tax increases, the amount of taxes
paid by the municipality to the school board shall be reduced accordingly. When any deferred taxes and interest are paid
back to the municipality, the municipality must pay the school board its share thereof. The tax relief program can also be
provided as part of future reassessments.
Overview:
This report, after consideration of the options provided for by Act, as well as numerous other options requested by the
Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, recommends a program providing for the deferment of assessment-related tax
increases for eligible persons, with interest being charged on amounts deferred. In this way, the City will be effectively
providing funds to the homeowner in the amount of the assessment-related increase, the amount of which will be
registered against title to the property and recouped with interest when the property is sold or from the estate. This would
result in no funding impact to the City.
Such a program achieves the goal of striking a balance between providing those seniors and disabled persons deemed to
be in the most need of financial assistance while avoiding any burden on current taxpayers, and is within the available
legislative framework. The tax deferment program is also supported by the Municipal Finance Officers Association of
Ontario (MFOA), whose perspective is to help achieve consistency of application of the provisions of the Act across
Ontario's municipalities.
The key difference between a tax deferral program and a tax cancellation program is that, under a deferral, the City will
ultimately recoup the amounts deferred when the property is sold or from the estate, whereas with a cancellation, the
amount cancelled is not recoverable and must be funded entirely from the operating budget. From a financial accounting
perspective, deferred amounts would be accrued as a receivable. All else being the same, an eligible person will be
equally well off since he or she would not be paying that portion of the tax in either case. It does, however, affect the
estate. Under a deferral, the accumulated deferred amounts would be a debt obligation of the estate, while under a
cancellation, there would be no such debt obligation.
Based on a review of other public sector programs, the most common definition of "low-income senior" was found to
mean a person 65 years of age or older who is receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) under the Old Age
Security Act (the GIS is described in greater detail starting on page 16). The advantage of this definition is that the
determination of eligibility is administered by Human Resources Development Canada, thereby eliminating the need for
the City to establish and administer its own income means test, and would be the least intrusive for seniors seeking
financial assistance. Applicants need only demonstrate proof of GIS benefits to be eligible for tax relief. This definition is
supported by the MFOA, which found these criteria defining low-income seniors as the most commonly used throughout
Ontario. This report recommends the above criteria of "low-income senior" based on the foregoing reasons.
The MFOA also suggested a definition of "disabled" as "a person with substantial physical or mental impairment that is
continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more, effects the person's ability to attend to his or her personal
care and his or her function in the community and workplace, and that the impairment and its likely duration and the
restriction in the person's activities of daily living have been verified by a physician". A low-income disabled person
would be receiving disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) or the Family Benefits Act
(FBA) or the Guaranteed Annual Income System (GAINS). This report also recommends the foregoing criteria for
"low-income disabled person".
Discussion:
The Act provides Council with flexibility in developing a mandatory tax relief program, provided that any such relief is in
respect of assessment-related tax increases. A definition of "low-income", "senior" and "disabled", and the type of the
program (i.e., deferral, cancellation, or other) are required to be adopted by Council.
Various eligibility criteria and various tax relief programs can be considered. Variables include the eligibility age and
income, the type of program (i.e., deferral, cancellation, or other), and in the case of deferment, whether or not interest is
to be charged and at what rate. Various combinations of eligibility criteria and programs, along with estimates of the
financial impact of each combination are shown in the Appendices:
Appendix 1 - Analysis of assessment-related tax deferral and tax cancellation options
Appendix 2 - Analysis of general tax relief options
Appendix 3 - Analysis of uniform tax credit options
Appendix 1 describes options available to Council, pursuant to the Act. This includes tax deferral, tax cancellation, or a
combination thereof, provided that such relief is in respect of assessment-related increases. The Act provides for the cost
of such programs to be shared with school board in proportion to their share of tax revenue that would otherwise be levied
(on a preliminary basis, the City's share amounts to approximately 63 percent of the taxes levied on the residential
property class).
Appendix 2 describes those options that provide for tax relief whether or not an assessment increases. This includes tax
deferral (such as the $600.00 annual tax deferral program previously available in the cities of Etobicoke and York), tax
cancellation, or a combination thereof, irrespective assessment-related tax changes. Since the Act does not provide any
authority to effect such programs, the City would need to seek legislative changes or the enactment of special legislation
if any such program is recommended. It should be noted that in these cases, it is likely the City would have to bear the
entire cost of the program unless a cost sharing provision respecting the school board is provided for in the legislative
changes or special legislation.
Appendix 3 describes those options that provide for a uniform tax credit against property taxes for eligible low-income
seniors, pursuant to the existing Municipal Elderly Assistance Act. This option would be similar to the program
previously in place in the former City of Toronto, whereby eligible low-income seniors could apply for an annual $100.00
rebate against their property taxes. Council could choose another amount for the uniform tax credit. No additional
legislation is required to effect such a program. It should be noted that the school board is not required to share in the cost
of this program.
(A)Analysis of Potential Applicants (Low-Income Seniors):
This section provides an overview of population demographics in the City of Toronto respecting low-income seniors,
based on age and income, as part of developing a tax relief program.
Table 1 provides an estimate of the number of senior owner-occupied households by income distribution in Toronto. Two
age criteria defining seniors is shown: 65 years of age and over, and 60 years of age or older. Column 1 provides an
estimate of the total number of owner-occupied senior households by income range. Column 2 provides an estimate of the
number of these households projected to experience a tax increase. Column 3 provides an estimate of the total amount of
the tax increase due to reassessment. Appendices 4 and 5 provide additional information respecting the 65 and 60-year old
age groups, respectively, showing estimates of eligible households, participating households and amount of
assessment-related tax increases, which has been tabulated by income range. The information was compiled by
cross-referencing Revenue Canada's Income Tax Filer data with Statistics Canada demographic data at the ward level.
This information was further referenced with assessment data, also at the ward level. Income information is not available,
and would be confidential, at the individual property level.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
table 1 - 65 years of age or older
If "senior" is defined as 65 years of age or older, it is estimated that there may be in the range of 32,000 to 50,700
households (column 1) whose household income is less than $20,000.00 per year (the income figure represents a typical
upper limit for household income in order to qualify for the GIS). Of these households, it was projected that 12,700 to
20,100 households may experience tax increases due to reassessment (column 2). The total amount of the tax increase due
to reassessment (column 3) is estimated to be in the range of $6.5 million to $10.4 million, of which the City's portion
would be $4.1 million to $6.6 million. The average senior-household assessment-related tax increase was estimated to be
in the order of $570.00 per household.
If "senior" is defined as 60 years of age or older, it is estimated that there may be in the range of 37,800 to 59,900
households where the household income is less than $20,000.00, of which 15,000 to 23,800 households are projected to
experience tax increases due to reassessment. The total amount of the tax increase due to reassessment was estimated to
be in the range of $7.9 million to $12.4 million, of which the City's portion would be $5.0 million to $7.8 million. Since
the GIS is payable to pensioners aged 65 and older, adopting an age criteria of 60 would necessitate that the City
implement its own income means test if income is to be a criteria.
(B)Analysis of Potential Applicants (Low-Income Disabled Persons):
Information has been received from the Ministry of Community and Social Services respecting caseload statistics for the
disabled, which indicates approximately 1,120 disabled persons in receipt of the Family Benefit Allowance (FBA) and
owning their own home. Projections, as shown in Table2, suggest approximately 400 low-income disabled households
may experience an assessment-related tax increases, with the total amount of the tax increase estimated to be in the order
of $0.2 million, of which the City's portion would be $0.15 million. As with the seniors, the average assessment-related
increase was estimated to be $570.00 per household.
Table 2 - Estimated Number of Low-Income Disabled Persons
|
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Estimated Income of
Low-Income
Disabled Persons |
Estimated Total Owner-Occupied
Disabled Households (from MCSS)
|
Estimated Total Owner-Occupied Disabled
Households Projected to Experience Tax
Increases
|
Estimated Total Amount of
Tax
Increase**
($ Millions)
|
Less than $20,000 |
1,120 |
400 |
$0.2 |
** Average assessment-related tax increase estimated to be $570.00 per senior household; City portion would be 63% of Column 3
(C)Analysis of Options to Provide Relief from Assessment-Related Tax Increases:
Part I - Options Providing Relief from Assessment-Related Tax Increases
The options available to Council within the existing legislative framework include: (i) deferring all or any portion of the
assessment-related increase for eligible seniors or disabled persons; (ii) cancelling all or any portion of the
assessment-related increase for eligible seniors and disabled persons; or (iii) other relief from assessment-related
increases, which may include a combination of cancellation and deferral.
(i)Deferral of Assessment-Related Increases (Options Labeled "A" in Appendix 1):
Options A.1 to A.10 in Appendix 1 provide estimates of the projected number of participants and the financial impact of a
deferral program respecting assessment-related tax increases, using various age, income and interest rate criteria. A
participation rate of 5.0 percent was used to derive estimates for low-income seniors, and a 50.0 percent participation rate
was used to derive estimates for low-income disabled persons since this latter group tend, generally, to be in a greater
need of financial assistance. The 5.0 percent participation for seniors would appear to be reasonable given that in the
B.C.'s seniors' assistance program, which provides a subsidized interest rate without an income test, results in a 3.0
percent participation rate. The former cities of Etobicoke and York tax deferral program experienced similar participation
rates, estimated to be in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 percent.
The deferral options analyzed in this section considered various combinations of the following conditions:
(i)age criteria of 65 years of age and older, and 60 years of age and older;
(ii)qualifying household income criteria of less than $20.0 thousand (approximate income to qualify for the GIS), $25.0
thousand, $30.0 thousand, $35.0 thousand, and no income test;
(iii)interest charged on deferred amounts at 8.0 percent, 6.0 percent, 4.0 percent, 2.0 percent and 0.0 percent (no interest
charged); and
(iv)deferrals apply only to assessment-related tax increases.
If a deferral program is instituted, it would be anticipated that after an initial outflow of funds over the first several years,
some sales of these properties would occur and the deferred taxes plus interest would be paid back to the City so that at
some point, the outflows and inflows could match and the program could be self-sustaining if new deferrals approximated
the funds being received from sold properties. While there is no actual experience for the City of Toronto, the experience
with the Province of British Columbia's tax deferral program (discussed latter in the report) suggests an average term of
six years in the program.
With tax deferrals, the amounts deferred may be funded through a variety of cash management techniques with minimal
or no impact on the current budget. One technique would involve the use of working capital to fund deferred amounts, in
a manner similar to the treatment of other tax receivables. Working capital arises naturally during the course of business
during periods when current assets exceed current liabilities, providing a source of temporary funds. Alternatively, a
reserve fund could be also established to finance the program with initial funding being borrowed or transferred from
another appropriate reserve and paid back at a later date.
The Act further provides for interest to be charged on amounts deferred at a rate not exceeding the market rate as
determined by the municipality. The Municipal Act permits only simple interest to be applied against tax arrears. The
City's short-term earnings rate over the past several months has been in the range of 4.6 to 4.8 percent, while the rate of
return on the longer-term reserve and reserve fund investments has been around 6.65 percent. To the extent that deferred
amounts may be funding by a combination of working capital and/or reserves, then a blended rate of approximately 6.0
percent may be reflective of the opportunity cost associated with funding this program. Alternatively, one could use the
prime rate as a measure of the cost of funds, and the 6.0 percent figure would represent prime less one-half percent. The
City of Kingston uses prime less one-quarter percent as the interest charge for its deferral program. If interest is charged
on the deferred amounts at the City's imputed rate of return (i.e., 6.0 percent), then there would be no funding impact to
current taxpayers. If the interest rate charged on deferred amounts was less than the City's imputed rate, then the
difference would be effectively an interest subsidy to the deferees, which would have a negative impact on investment
earnings and thus the operating budget.
Based on projections, it is estimated that approximately 854 to 1,225 households of an eligible 13,078 to 20,494
households may participate in such a program where the age criterion is 65 years and the income criterion is receiving the
GIS (Option A.1.a). Participation rates would be higher should the eligibility criteria be made less restrictive. Depending
on whether or not interest is charged and at what rate, the funding impact may range from $0.0 to $115.0 thousand in the
first year, for a 6.0 percent and 0.0 percent interest rate, respectively, escalating to $689.0 thousand per annum by the
sixth year. At that time, the cumulative amount deferred could be as much as $11.5 million, depending on the chosen
criteria.
The estimates in Appendix 1 are exclusive of the phase-in of assessment-related tax increases, if any. Any phase-in policy
would reduce the first-year impact proportionately to the phase-in period, but in latter years, the impact would be the
same. Chart 1 below shows the accumulated deferred taxes over a 15-year period under a no phase-in, a 3-year phase-in,
and an 8-year phase-in scenario. This example is based on an age criterion of 65 years, an income criterion of receiving
the GIS, and assumes that interest equivalent to the City's imputed rate of return is charged on deferred amounts.
From Appendix 1, it can be observed that deferral programs are of the least costly of options available to the City.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
chart 1
(ii)Tax Cancellation Options (Options Labeled "B" in Appendix 1):
Under the tax cancellation options, the amounts cancelled would need to be funded from current property tax revenues
annually. Tax cancellation options have the greatest impact on current funding requirements.
It should be noted that the recently enacted Small Businesses and Charities Act, 1998 (Bill16), will have an affect on the
current funding requirements of tax cancellation options. This Act introduces the option for Council to cap property tax
increases in the commercial, industrial and/or multi-residential property classes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998,
1999 and 2000. The adoption of the capping option would limit the City's ability to raise general tax increases from the
capped property classes. Should Council wish to cancel taxes, then the entire amount of taxes cancelled would have to
borne by the uncapped property classes. If the capping option is not adopted, the cancellation would be a general tax levy
increase incorporated in the annual budget and borne by all property classes in proportion to their respective tax ratio.
Options B.1 to B.2 in Appendix 1 provides an estimate of the projected number of participants and the financial impact of
a cancellation program respecting assessment-related tax increases, using similar combinations of age and criteria as used
for tax deferrals on page8. For estimation purposes, a 100 percent participation rate was assumed for these options.
Depending on the chosen criteria, the cancellation of assessment-related tax increases for eligible persons would have an
estimated current funding impact to the City of $4.2 million to $38.3 million per annum. For example, if an age criteria of
65 years of age or older, and an income criteria of being in receipt of the GIS (approximately $20.0 thousand) is used
(option B.1.a), then it is estimated that a total of $6.5 million to $10.4 million in assessment-related tax increases would
be cancelled for approximately 13,078 to 20,494 eligible persons (City share $4.1 million to $6.5 million). These funds
are not provided for in the 1998 Operating Budget, and would result in a 0.4 to 0.7 percent increase in the residential tax
rate if the burden is maintained within that class (i.e., if capping is adopted for the commercial, industrial and
multi-residential property classes).
The above estimates are exclusive of the phase-in of assessment-related tax increases, if any.
A tax cancellation program would be the one of the most expensive of the options available to the City.
(iii)Other Options Providing for Relief from Assessment-Related Increases (Options Labeled "C" in Appendix 1):
Other options can be considered that includes combinations of deferrals and cancellations, such as providing for the
cancellation of assessment-related tax increases for eligible low-income seniors, where low-income is defined as receiving
the GIS, and providing tax deferrals for eligible seniors whose income is above the GIS level. The options labeled "C" in
Appendix 1 describe these options under various eligibility criteria, along with the financial impacts.
The financial impacts are essentially the cumulative effect of the impact of a cancellation and a deferral. The cancellation
component would result in a direct current funding impact as previously described in (ii) above. Depending on whether or
not interest is charged in the deferral component, there could be a funding impact as a result of lost interest earnings as
previously described in (I) above.
Such a program may result in a funding impact to the City from $4.3 million to $7.9 million in the first year of the
program, to $4.3 million to $8.9 million by the sixth year of the program. Appendix 1 indicates that combination
programs of this nature would also be one of the more costly of options available to the City.
Part II - Analysis of Other Tax Relief Schemes (Legislative Changes or Special Legislation Required):
This section covers other tax relief schemes that would apply whether or not an individual's assessment increased. These
options are labeled as options "D", "E" and "F" in Appendix 2. There is no existing legislative authority for the City to
provide property tax relief other than that for providing relief from assessment-related tax increases. Such programs may
include one where a tax deferral is provided for the entire property tax bill (similar to the British Columbia scheme), or
one where a fixed amount of taxes is deferred (similar to the programs previously in place in the former cities of
Etobicoke and York), or one where 50 percent of the tax bill is deferred (similar to the City of Kingston scheme), or some
combination thereof. The variables considered include the same as those outlined earlier under the tax deferral program.
(i)$600.00 Tax Deferral Program (Options Labeled "D" in Appendix 2):
The former Cities of Etobicoke and York provided a $600.00 tax deferral programs for low- income seniors. The
eligibility criteria was that, in order to qualify for the program, seniors must be 65 years of age or over, have owned and
occupied a home in the City for the past 3 years, and must receive a monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement under the
Old Age Security Act. The amount deferred was treated as a lien against the property, to be repaid without interest when
the property changed title. As of 1997, there were 159 liens in Etobicoke, with a total amount receivable of $285,800.00,
and 43 liens in registered in York, with the receivable being $25,800.00. These figures suggest a 2 to 3 percent
participation rate of potentially eligible seniors.
Authority for the City to provide for such a tax deferral program requires special legislation. For example, the City of
York applied for and was granted special legislation to enable it to establish the aforementioned tax deferral program for
senior citizens (Bill Pr44, "An Act Respecting the City of York, 1995").
The options labeled "D" in Appendix 2 describe the $600.00 tax deferral program using various eligibility criteria along
with the financial impacts. It is estimated that this program may result in a first year funding impact of up to $454.0
thousand (age 60 and no income test), which may be expected to escalate to up to $2.7 million per annum by the sixth
year. The total amount of deferred taxes at this time may be in the order of $7.8 to $11.1 million (age 65 receiving GIS) to
$28.6 to $45.4 million (age 60 and no income test). Chart 2 on the following page shows an example the accumulation of
deferred amounts, as well as the affects of a three-year and an eight year phase-in, should a phase-policy be adopted for
the residential property class. The example uses the criteria of 65 years, receiving the GIS, and that interest is charged on
deferred amounts at the City's imputed rate of return (Option D.1.a).
As previously noted, special legislation would be required to authorize the City to provide for such a program since it
goes beyond the scope of assessment-related increases. It should be noted that the school board would not be required to
participate in the financing of such a deferral program.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
chart 2
(ii)Deferral of Total Tax Bill (Options Labeled "E" in Appendix 2):
This is a program similar to that offered by the Province of British Columbia, which provided a province-wide program
allowing eligible residents to defer the payment of annual municipal or rural property taxes on their home. The age
criterion is 60 years or over. The program is also available to homeowners of any age who are widowed spouses, or who
receive a disability allowance or benefit under the Disability Benefits Program Act. Applicants are not income tested.
Deferees must be either a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant who have lived in British Columbia for at least one year
before applying for deferment benefits. Deferees must be the registered owner of the property and must maintain at least
25 percent owner equity in the home. Deferees may defer all or a portion of their property taxes, after deducting their
homeowner grant entitlement, if applicable. The deferred taxes are paid by the province to the taxing authority
(municipality), on behalf of the Deferee, who is required to fully repay the deferred taxes to the province, with interest,
either:
(i)before their home can be legally transferred to a new owner, other than their surviving spouse; or,
(ii)upon their death, with repayment through their estate.
Deferees are charged simple interest, at a rate not greater than 2 percent below the prime rate at which the province
borrows money. The interest rate is set semiannually by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. The rate
through to September 20, 1997, was 2.75percent.
In 1997, the total deferment clientele was expected to increase to 11,000 households province wide. This represents a
participation rate of about 3 percent of all eligible households in that province. As of 1997, the accumulated amount of
deferred taxes and interest was estimated to be $84 million. The annual interest subsidy cost to the province is estimated
at $1.7million, with a further $500,000 for program administration.
Option "E.4.e" in Appendix 2 would be comparable to the B.C. program. With an eligibility criteria of 60 years of age or
older, no income test, and a 2.0 percent interest subsidy, the first-year funding impact to the City may be estimated to be
in the order of $430.0 to $681.0 thousand, growing to $2.6 to $4.1 million by the sixth year. The total amount of taxes
deferred may be estimated to be in the order of $21.5 million to $34.0 million in the first-year, growing to $128.9 to
$204.3 million by the sixth year (the steady state level whereby it is projected that exits from the program may
approximate new entries).
Should interest be charged at the City's imputed rate of return, then there would be no funding impact. Other variations
on the deferral of the total tax bill are shown under the options labeled "E" in Appendix 2. These options would be more
costly than deferrals with respect to funding due to the greater number of eligible households that would be expected to
participate. It should be noted that the school board would not be required to participate in the financing of such a deferral
program.
(iii)Deferral of 50 percent of Tax Bill (Options Labeled "F" in Appendix 2):
This program was suggested as an alternative to the program of deferring the total tax bill, which is similar to a program
provided by the City of Kingston. The Kingston scheme, as enacted by special legislation, allows low-income senior
owners of residential property to defer up to 50 percent of the municipal tax bill (i.e., local share only) to a maximum of
$1000.00 per year. Eligibility criteria for the program requires applicants to be 65 years of age or older, and receive the
GIS. Interest is charged on the deferred portion of taxes a rate equivalent to the City's short-term bank borrowing rate,
which they quote as prime less one-quarter percent.
The options labeled "F" in Appendix 2 provide estimates of the financial impact of implementing such a system in the
City of Toronto using various eligibility criteria. The impact of these options is approximately half that described under
deferral of the total tax bill in (ii) above. It should be noted that the school board would not be required to participate in
the financing of such a deferral program.
Part III - Analysis of Other Tax Relief Schemes:
This section describes two other tax relief schemes. The first is a scheme that provides for a $100.00 credit against taxes,
similar to the program previously in place in the former City of Toronto. The second involves reverse mortgages, and this
description is provided only for information.
(i)100.00 Tax Credit Program (Options Labeled "G" in Appendix 3):
The former City of Toronto was the only former local municipality with a program to provide a property tax credit refund
in the amount of $100.00 against the City portion of realty taxes of eligible seniors. This program was initiated in 1974
through enactment of the Municipal Elderly Resident's Assistance Act, and subsequent City of Toronto by-law. In order
to qualify under the former City of Toronto's program, seniors must be 65 years of age or over, have owned and occupied
a home in the City for the past 5 years, and must receive a monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement under the Old Age
Security Act. In 1997, there were 4,138 eligible applicants in the City, for which a total of $413,800 was refunded as a
credit against the final tax bill.
The options labeled "F" in Appendix 3 describes this option using various eligibility criteria along with the financial
impact. Tax credits must funded from current revenues. If the former City of Toronto program is extended to all eligible
residents in Toronto (age 65 and receiving the GIS), it is estimated the number of eligible households may be in the range
of 33,095 to 51,801, and such a program would require funding from the operating budget in the order of $3.3 million to
$5.2 million. The impact of using other criteria is also shown in Appendix 3.
Through the Municipal Elderly Resident's Assistance Act, Council may by by-law provide such a tax credit program to
eligible seniors. This Act is still in force. It should be noted that the school board does not share in the cost of this
program. Although the Toronto by-law has not been repealed, Council at its meeting on March 4, 5, and 6, 1998, during
consideration of Clause 4 of Report No. 3 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee ("Seniors Property Tax
Credit") cancelled the Toronto tax credit program (as well Etobicoke and York's tax deferral programs) pending the
adoption of a new tax policy respecting property tax relief for low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons.
(ii)Reverse Mortgages:
Reverse mortgages are a relatively new concept in Canada, which is expected to grow in popularity in the next couple of
decades with the aging population. Reverse mortgages are designed for seniors who have most of their equity in their
home. A reverse mortgage unlocks that capital and advances a percentage of the house value to the homeowner, while
allowing them to continue to own and live in the home. The advance is registered against the title of the property as a
mortgage, and may be used to purchase a lifetime guaranteed income and/or as a lump sum cash payment. Revenue
Canada deems the interest from the annuity as tax-free.
A reverse mortgage varies substantially from a conventional mortgage in that no monthly repayments are required and the
homeowner is not borrowing money they don't already own. Reverse mortgages are simply a means of accessing the
money that is locked up in the home. The principal and accrued interest is paid back when the property is sold or from the
estate. Most of the major banks are currently offering reverse mortgages in one form or another. Most of the programs
require that there be a certain level of equity in the home.
A tax deferral program is similar to a reverse mortgage. In either case, funds are advanced, the amount of which is
registered against title of the property. In a tax deferral program, the amount advanced is the taxes payable on the
property, while in a reverse mortgage, funds may be advanced as a lump sum or as an annuity, and the total amount that
may be advanced would be some percentage of the homeowners equity, based certain actuarial calculations.
(D)Recommended Tax Deferral Program:
After consideration of all of these options, a program that provides for the deferral of assessment-related tax increases to
eligible low-income seniors and low-income disabled is deemed to be the most appropriate for the following reasons.
With respect to deferrals versus cancellations, all else being the same, an eligible person will be equally well off since he
or she would not be paying that portion of the tax in either case as long as they remain eligible for the program. However,
a tax deferral has the advantage over cancellation in that the City will ultimately recoup the amounts deferred when the
property is sold or from the estate. In this way, the tax deferral program achieves the goal of striking a balance between
providing those seniors and disabled persons deemed to be in the most need of financial assistance while minimizing the
burden on current taxpayers. Such a program is also within the available legislative framework.
GIS Eligibility:
With respect to income eligibility criteria, the use of the GIS has the advantage in that the determination of eligibility is
administered by Human Resources Development Canada, thereby eliminating the need for the City to establish and
administer its own income means test and would be least intrusive into the affairs of seniors seeking financial assistance.
This also provides for administrative ease and efficiency, as applicants need only demonstrate proof of GIS benefits to be
eligible for tax relief (or in the case of the disabled, proof of receipt of disability benefits under ODSP, or FBA or
GAINS).
The GIS is payable by the Federal Government to seniors whose combined household income is less than a prescribed
amount. The GIS is an income-tested, monthly benefit for Old Age Security pensioners with limited income apart from
the Old Age Security Pension. It is administered by Human Resources Development Canada. To qualify for the GIS, a
person must be receiving the Old Age Security pension, must be a resident in Canada, and their income must be at or
below the qualifying level. If the person is married (legal or common-law), then the combined income must be at or
below the qualifying level.
The GIS is payable to single, widowed or divorced pensioners earning up to a yearly income (excluding Old Age Security
and GIS) of $11,616.00, beyond which the pensioner(s) is no longer eligible to receive the GIS. For married couples,
where both are pensioners, the combined yearly income to qualify for the supplement must be below $15,168.00
(excluding Old Age Security, GIS, and Spouse's Allowance). For married pensioners whose spouse is not a pensioner and
is not eligible for Spouse's Allowance, the combined yearly income must be below $28,128.00 (excluding Old Age
Security, GIS, and Spouse's Allowance). The income cut-off is higher in this case because no Spouse's Allowance would
be payable. For married couples where one is a pensioner and the other is between 60 and 64 years of age, the combined
yearly income must be below $21,696.00 (excluding Old Age Security, GIS, and Spouse's Allowance). The income
cut-off is lower in this case since a Spouse's Allowance to a maximum of $8,668.00 would be payable. For widowed
persons who are eligible for Spouse's Allowance, the yearly income to qualify for the supplement must be below
$15,912.00 (excluding Old Age Security and GIS). Table 3 illustrates the income stream for the above situations,
assuming a combined yearly income apart from Old Age Security and supplement of $10,000.0 and $15,000.0 thousand.
Table 3
Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse's Allowance
Example of Yearly Income Apart from OAS and Supplement of $10 thousand and $15 Thousand
|
Yearly Income Apart
from OAS and
Supplement |
Old Age Security |
GIS |
Spouse's Allowance |
Total Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Single, widowed or divorces pensioners |
10,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
814.32 |
n/a |
15,700.12 |
Single, widowed or divorces pensioners |
15,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
0.00 |
n/a |
19,885.80 |
Married couples, both pensioners |
10,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
1,286.04 |
6,171.84 |
22,343.68 |
Married couples, both pensioners |
15,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
38.04 |
4,923.84 |
24,847.68 |
Married couples, not eligible for Spouse's Allowance |
10,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
4,534.32 |
n/a |
19,420.12 |
Married couples, not eligible for Spouse's Allowance |
15,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
3,286.32 |
n/a |
23,172.12 |
Married couples, spouse between 60 and 64 years of age |
10,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
2,918.04 |
2,918.04 |
20,721.88 |
Married couples, spouse between 60 and 64 years of age |
15,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
1,670.04 |
1,670.04 |
23,225.88 |
Widowed person, eligible for Spouse's Allowance |
10,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
n/a |
2,955.60 |
17,841.40 |
Widowed person, eligible for Spouse's Allowance |
15,000.00 |
4,885.80 |
n/a |
447.60 |
20,333.40 |
Source: Human Resources Development Canada Brochure, "Income Security Programs - OAS, GIS and Spouse's Allowance - Table of Rates in effect January-March 1998"
For the purposes of determination of eligibility for the GIS, Human Resources Development Canada determines the
combined yearly income of the pensioner and spouse. Income is on a gross basis, and exclusive of payments that may be
received as OAS, GIS and Spouse's allowance. Certain other income may also be included in the determination of
combined yearly income. This includes Future Economic Loss awards and pensions payable by the Workplace Insurance
Board (formerly WCB).
The use of an age criteria of 65 years or older is coupled with the income criteria in that, to be eligible for the GIS, a
person must be 65 years of age or older. If an age criteria of less than 65 years is considered, then the GIS income test
would not be applicable, and the City would be required to administer its own income means test. Furthermore, an age
criteria of 65 years of age or older defining "senior" is the most common definition used to determine eligibility in a
number of financial assistance or benefits programs, such as the Canada Pension Plan. This criteria for "low-income
seniors" achieves the goal of assisting those people in the greatest need of financial assistance, while also providing for
administrative ease and efficiency.
The criteria and administrative terms and conditions for the recommended program is as follows:
Eligibility Criteria - Low-Income Seniors:
To be eligible as a low-income senior, a person:
(i)must be 65 years of age or older, or in the case of a widowed person receiving the Spouse's Allowance, between the
age of 60 and 64;
(ii)must have owned and occupied the residence for the past three years; and
(iii)must be receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) under the Old Age Security Act, and in the case of
widowed person between the age of 60 and 64, receiving a Spouse's Allowance under the Old Age Security Act.
Eligibility Criteria - Low-Income Disabled Persons:
In order to be eligible as a low-income disabled person, a person:
(i)must be in receipt of benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP); or,
(ii)must be in receipt of disability amounts under the current Family Benefits Act (FBA); or,
(iii)must be in receipt of benefits under the Guaranteed Annual Income System (GAINS) for the Disabled, and be eligible
to claim a disability amount as defined under the Income Tax Act (Canada).
ODSP is a new program which replaces the former Family Benefits Act. Although the ODSP Act has received royal
assent, it has yet to be proclaimed in force. The advantage of this definition is that eligibility is determined by other
agencies, thereby eliminating the need for the City to administer its own means test.
Administrative Details:
The MFOA survey also identified a number of administrative details and considerations in conjunction with the definition
and eligibility criteria for a tax relief program. The MFOA suggests that the details and considerations outlined below be
considered by municipal councils in the development of their tax relief programs for low-income seniors and low-income
disabled persons. The administrative details and eligibility criteria are contained in a draft of the by-law on the tax
deferrals program as shown in Appendix 6.
--------
Administrative Terms and Conditions
(Applicable to both low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons)
(a)to qualify for tax deferral, applicants must have been owners of real property within the City of Toronto for three
consecutive years preceding the application;
(b)tax deferral is only allowed on one principal residence of the qualified individual or qualifying spouse. Appropriate
proof of residency establishing continuous (i.e., not part-time) residency must be provided. Verification of documentation
provided in conjunction with an application may be carried out independently at the discretion of the City;
(c)tax deferral applies to current taxes only (not tax arrears);
(d)tax deferral amounts are only advanced (or deferred) after payment in full is received for any current or past year
amounts payable;
(e)application for tax deferral must be made annually to the City to establish eligibility or continued eligibility.
Applications must be made by December 31 of each year on a form prescribed by by-law;
(f)for properties which are jointly held or co-owned by persons other than a spouse, both or all co-owners must qualify
for benefits under the income means test in order to receive tax deferral (i.e. this would include married couples, even if
one spouse is 60 to 64 years of age);
(g)tax deferral amounts provided under the by-law are not transferable to the estates of deceased owners;
(h)any tax deferral ceases to apply once the property is sold, or when the eligible applicant dies or ceases to be eligible
under the criteria established by the by-law. Any deferred amounts plus applicable interest charges become a debt payable
to the City, including part-year portions; and
(i)deferred amounts are subject to interest, and attract interest at a rate specified by by-law.
Financial Implications of Recommended Program:
With tax deferrals, the amounts deferred may be funded through working capital and/or borrowing from reserves. If
interest were charged on deferred amounts at the City's imputed rate of return, then there would be no financial impact to
current taxpayers. If no interest is charged, there would be a current funding impact arising from foregone interest revenue
on working capital and/or reserve amounts advanced to fund the deferrals. Any impact would also be contingent on the
phase-in policy, if any, which has yet to be considered and adopted by Council. Chart 1 on page 9 provides a projection of
deferred amounts under various phase-in scenarios for assessment-related deferrals, and Chart 2 on page 13 provides the
same information for a general tax deferral ($600.00 per annum).
The estimated impact of the recommended tax deferral program is shown in Table 4. An interest rate of 6 percent was
used to represent the City's imputed rate of return. For estimation purposes, a 5 percent participation rate was also
assumed for seniors (as deferral programs historically have resulted in low participation rates), while a 50 percent
participation rate was assumed for low-income disabled persons since this latter group tends to include persons in greater
need of assistance. Additional data is available under option "A.1.a" in Part 1 of Appendix 1.
Table 4 - Recommended Tax Deferral Program for Assessment-Related Increases
(Low-Income Seniors Aged 65 Years or Older on GIS and Low-Income Disabled Persons)
(6.0 Percent Interest Charge on Deferred Amounts)
(5 percent Participation Rate for Low-Income Seniors,
50 percent Participation Rate for Disabled Persons Receiving FBA)
|
Estimated Eligible
Households
(experiencing
Assessment increases) |
Estimated
Participating
Households |
Estimated City Share
of Deferred Taxes
$000's |
Estimated Amounts to be funded from Working
Capital and/or Reserves Impact to City
($000's) |
|
|
|
|
First Year |
Sixth Year |
Low-Income Seniors (Age
65+, Receiving GIS) |
12,678-20,094 |
634-1,005
(5 percent take-up) |
$206-$327 |
$206-$327 |
$1,236-$1,962 |
Low-Income Disabled
(Receiving FBA) |
400 |
200
(50 percent take-up) |
$72 |
$72 |
$432 |
Total |
13,078-20,494 |
854-1,225 |
$278-$399 |
$278-$399 |
$1,669-$2,393 |
The recommended program will result in no direct funding impact to the City. Participation is estimated to be in the order
of 854 to 1,225 households (low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons). In the first year, it is estimated that
the projected deferred taxes would be in the range of $278.0 thousand to $399.0 thousand, which could easily be funded
from working capital and/or from borrowing from reserves. Over the longer term, deferred taxes are projected to grow to
and stabilize to a level of $1.7 million to $2.4 million by around the sixth year, at which time it is anticipated that inflows
from the sale of properties would approximate new deferrals amounts. If a phase-in policy were adopted, then the
amounts deferred would be reduced in proportion to the phase-in period amounts (see Chart 1 on page 9).
Subject to the Province enacting special legislation, it is also recommended that the City provide a program for a general
tax deferral (600.00 per annum) to eligible low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons, also with interest being
charged on deferred amounts. When and if such a program is effected, participation is projected to increase (due to the
greater number of eligible applicants) to 2,159 to 3,094 households, as shown in Table 5, with additional information
shown under option D.1.a in Appendix 2. The first year deferred amounts would be estimated to be in the range of
1.3million to $1.9 million, and should stabilize at $7.8 million to $11.1 million by around the sixth year (see Chart 2 on
page 13). It should be noted that the school board is not required to participate in such a program, and hence the City
would have to finance the entire program.
Table 5 - General Tax Deferral Program ($600 per year) - Subject to Special Legislation being Enacted
(Low-Income Seniors Aged 65 Years or Older on GIS and Low-Income Disabled Persons)
(5 percent Participation Rate for Low-Income Seniors,
50 percent Participation Rate for Disabled Persons Receiving FBA)
|
Estimated Eligible
Households |
Estimated
Participating
Households |
Estimated City Share
of Deferred Taxes
(not shared by school
board)
$000's |
Estimated Amounts to be funded from Working
Capital and/or Reserves Impact to City
($000's) |
|
|
|
|
First Year |
Sixth Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low-Income Seniors
(Age 65+, Receiving
GIS) |
31,975-50,681 |
1,599-2,534
(5 percent take-up) |
$959-$1,520 |
$959-$1,520 |
$5,754-$9,120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low-Income Disabled
(Receiving FBA) |
1,120 |
560
(50 percent
take-up) |
$336 |
$336 |
$2,016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
33,095-51,801 |
2,159-3,094 |
$1,295-$1,856 |
$1,295-$1,856 |
$7,772-$11,139 |
(E)Information and Communication Plan:
Council approved a reassessment and tax policy information communications plan at its meeting on March 3 and 4, 1998.
Phase III of the plan provides for information to be communicated in newspaper advertisements outlining the details of
the proposed tax implementation plan, including details respecting property tax relief for low-income seniors and
low-income disabled persons. Although this phase was originally scheduled to be initiated in early May, it has been
rescheduled (tentatively) for July to accommodate the delay in the return of the 1998 roll. Subsequent to this, Phase IV of
the plan will advise taxpayers of the details of the property tax plan approved by Council. This information will be
communicated primarily through a brochure that will accompany the final tax bill. The brochure will also advise
residential taxpayers of its tax relief plan for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities and stipulate
eligibility criteria and other program details.
Conclusion:
The Fair Municipal Finance Act mandates that Council pass a by-law providing for deferrals or cancellation of, or other
relief in respect of all or part of assessment-related tax increases on property in the residential property class for
low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons. The Act provides Council with flexibility in defining the program
and eligibility criteria. Many options have been considered as requested by the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force
that examines the various program options (i.e., deferral, cancellation and other forms of relief), including various
combinations of age and income criteria and interest rates.
After consideration of the numerous options, a program providing for the deferral of assessment-related tax increases for
eligible persons, with interest being charged on amounts deferred, is recommended. Eligibility for low-income seniors is
defined as being 65 years of age or older and receiving the GIS. Eligibility for low-income disabled persons is defined as
receiving disability benefits under ODSP, FBA or GAINS.
An eligible person would be equally well off with a deferral program relative to a cancellation program because, all else
being the same, he or she would not be paying that portion of the tax in either case as long as they remain eligible for the
program. However, a tax deferral has the advantage over cancellation in that the City will ultimately recoup the amounts
deferred when the property is sold or from the estate. With respect to income eligibility criteria, the use of the GIS has the
advantage in that the determination of eligibility is administered by Human Resources Development Canada, thereby
eliminating the need for the City to establish and administer its own income means test, and would be least intrusive for
seniors seeking financial assistance. This provides for administrative ease and efficiency, as applicants need only
demonstrate proof of GIS benefits to be eligible for tax relief (or in the case of the disabled, proof of receipt of benefits
under ODSP, or FBA or GAINS). The use of an age criteria of 65 years or is coupled with the income criteria in that, to
be eligible for the GIS, a person must be 65 years of age or older. If an age criteria of less than 65 is considered, than the
GIS would not be applicable, and the City would then be forced to administer its own income means test.
In this way, the tax deferral program achieves the goal of striking a balance between providing those seniors and disabled
persons deemed to be in the most need of financial assistance while avoiding any burden on current taxpayers, provides
for administrative ease and efficiency, and is also within the available legislative framework.
The taxes deferred may be funded through working capital and/or borrowing from reserves. With interest being charged
on deferred amounts at a rate equivalent to the imputed rate of return, then there would be no funding impact to current
taxpayers. If no interest is charged, there would be a current funding impact arising from foregone interest revenue. Any
impact would also be contingent on the phase-in policy, if any, which has yet to be considered and adopted by Council.
There is a funding impact associated with other tax relief schemes. The amount of the impact is contingent on the nature
of the program, the eligibility criteria, actual participation rates, and whether or not any phase-in policy is adopted for the
residential property class. The annual impact may range from several thousand dollars for a deferment program in which
an interest subsidy is provided, to tens of millions of dollars for cancellation programs, to be funded from the operating
budget.
Contact Name:
Adir Gupta, 392-8071
Ed Zamparo, 392-8641.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 4
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 5
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 6
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 7
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 8
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 9
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 10
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 11
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 12
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 13
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 14
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 15
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 16
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 17
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 18
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Insert Table/Map No. 19
Appendices 1 - 4 - tax relief options
Authority:Strategic and Policies Committee
Report No. *(*), June , 1998
Intended for first presentation to Council: June , 1998
Adopted by Council:
CITY OF TORONTO
Bill No.
BY-LAW No.
To establish a property tax assistance program for
eligible elderly and disabled residents who are
Owners of real property in the City of Toronto.
WHEREAS Section 373 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, as amended by the Fair Municipal Finance Act,
1997, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 (No. 2) and the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998 provides
that the Council of a municipality shall, for the purposes of relieving financial hardship, pass a by-law providing for
deferrals or cancellations of, or other relief in respect of, all or part of assessment-related tax increases on property in the
residential/farm property class for Owners who are, or whose spouses are either low-income seniors as defined in the
by-law or low-income persons with disabilities as defined in the by-law.
Now, therefore, the Council of the City of Toronto HERBY ENACTS as follows:
1.In this by-law:
(a)"Assessment-related tax increase" means tax increases beginning in 1998, as defined under section 373 of the
Municipal Act, as amended by section 55 of the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997, section 43 of the Fair Municipal
Finance Act, 1997 (No. 2), and section 23 of the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998, or tax increases
beginning in a subsequent year and calculated in a similar fashion as 1998 assessment-related tax increases as further
defined in section 373;
(b)"Eligible person" means Low-income person with disabilities or a Low-income senior or the spouse of a Low-income
person with disabilities or a Low-income senior:
(c)"Low-income senior" means a person who is 65 years of age or older and in receipt of benefits under the Guaranteed
Income Supplement (GIS), or in the case of a widowed spouse, being between the age of 60 and 64 and receiving the
Spouse's Allowance, as provided for under Part II of the Old Age Security Act (Canada);
(d)"Low-income person with disabilities" means a person who is disabled or who has a disability and in receipt of
income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSP), a benefit under the Family Benefits Act
(FBA), or an increment under the Guaranteed Annual Income System (GAINS) as established under the Ontario
Guaranteed Annual Income Act;
(e)"Owner" means a person assessed as the owner of residential real property, and includes an owner within the meaning
of the Condominium Act;
2.Tax relief granted pursuant to this by-law shall be in the form of a deferral of the annual assessment-related tax
increase, provided that the Owner is an Eligible person and:
(1)occupies the property, in respect of which the application for property tax assistance is made, as his or her personal
residence;
(2)has been assessed as the Owner for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the date of application
for relief;
(3)where title to the property in respect of which the application for property tax assistance is made is held jointly, both
or all Owners are Eligible persons; and
(4)payment for all taxes payable for the current year and all previous years has been made and received in full.
3.Tax relief granted pursuant to this by-law shall attract an interest charge on deferred amounts at a rate as may be
provided from time to time by by-law passed by Council.
4.Annual deferred amounts, plus accrued interest thereon shall be deferred until such time as an Eligible person no longer
possess title to the property at which time the total deferred amounts plus accumulated interest thereon become a debt
immediately due and payable to the City of Toronto.
5.If at any time an Eligible person for which tax relief has been granted pursuant to this by-law ceases to be an Eligible
person, all tax relief ceases and all such amounts plus accumulated interest thereon become a debt immediately due and
payable to the City of Toronto.
6.The tax relief granted pursuant to this by-law shall constitute a lien against the property which shall be registered on
title and at the expense of the Owner.
7.An amount received in part payment of deferred taxes and interest will be credited towards the interest before being
credited toward the taxes.
8.No tax relief pursuant to this by-law shall be allowed in respect of more residential real property than one (1) single
family dwelling unit in any year.
9.Commencing January 1, 1998, Owners who are Eligible persons may apply to the City of Toronto for tax relief with
respect to their eligible property, on a form prescribed by the City of Toronto for this purpose.
10.All applications for tax relief must be in writing on a form prescribed by the City of Toronto for this purpose, and
must be submitted to the City of Toronto on or before (provide due date for applications for 1998) for deferrals of taxes
levied in 1998, and on or before the last day of the year preceding the year for which tax relief is sought for deferrals of
taxes levied in all subsequent years. Applications must include documentation in support thereof to establish that the
applicant is an Eligible person, and that the property with respect to which the application is made is eligible for such tax
relief under the terms of this by-law.
11.This by-law shall be deemed to have come into force on January 1, 1998.
ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.
MayorCity Clerk
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following transmittal letter (July 13, 1998) from
the Budget Committee:
Recommendation:
The Budget Committee on July 13, 1998 submits to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, without
recommendation, the transmittal letter (July 12, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force.
Background:
The Budget Committee on July 13, 1998 had before it the following:
(a)transmittal letter (July 12, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force forwarding their recommendations
for a tax deferral program for low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons; and
(b)report (July 13, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer regarding the funding implication of the
property tax relief program for low-income seniors and low-income disabled persons as recommended by the Assessment
and Tax Policy Tax Force at their meeting held on July 11, 1998.
--------
(Report dated July 13, 1998 addressed to the
Budget Committee from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To report on the funding implication of the property tax relief program for low-income seniors and low-income disabled
persons recommended by the Assessment and Tax Policy Tax Force at their meeting held on July 11, 1998.
Funding Impact:
The recommended tax relief program, to provide for property tax deferrals for assessment-related increases, in addition to
a general $600.00 property tax deferral program whether or not an assessment increases, with no interest being charged on
deferred amounts, will result in a first-year funding impact in the order of $95.0 to $135.0 thousand, to be funded from the
1998 Operating Budget. The annual impact by the sixth year of the program is estimated to be in the order of $658.0 to
$944.0 thousand.
Background/Comments:
On July 11, 1998, the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force considered the report "Property Tax Relief for Low-Income
Seniors and Disabled Persons" (June 30, 1998), from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.
The report recommended a property tax deferral program for assessment-related increases as well as a general $600.00
property tax deferral program, in which interest would be charged on deferred amounts at the City's required rate of
return of 6.0 percent (prime less one-half percent). This would result in no direct funding impact to the City.
The Task Force has recommended no interest be charged on deferred amounts. This would result in a funding impact to
the City arising from foregone interest earnings and/or from short-term borrowing costs.
The first-year funding impact is estimated to be in the range of $95.0 to $135.0 thousand, as shown in column 3 of Table
1. The sixth-year annual impact, a point in time where it is believed the program may become self-financing, is estimated
to be in the order of $658.0 to $944.0 thousand. The funding impact shown in Table 1 is calculated assuming a 6 percent
imputed required rate of return for City funds, with annual compounding on the interest foregone, as recommended by the
Task Force. It is noted that special legislation would have to be obtained from the Province in order to provide the
$600.00 general deferral program.
Table 1
Funding Impact of Tax Relief Program for Low-Income Seniors Aged 65 Years or Older on GIS and Low-Income Disabled Person receiving ODSP
(Various Interest Charge on Deferred Amounts - Annual Compounding)
(Assuming 6 Percent Imputed Required Rate of Return)
(5 Percent Participation Rate for Eligible Seniors, 50 Percent Participation for Eligible Disabled)
|
|
Interest Charge on Deferred Amounts |
Program |
Estimated No. of
Participating Households |
Year 1 |
Year 6 |
Year 1 |
Year 6 |
Year 1 |
Year 6 |
Mandatory Assessment-Related Deferral
Program |
854-1,225 |
17-24 |
116-167 |
6-8 |
50-71 |
0 |
16-23 |
General $600.0 Deferral Program (incl.
854-1,225 participants with
assessment-related increases)* |
2,125-3,094* |
78-111 |
542-777 |
26-37 |
231-331 |
0 |
76-109 |
TOTAL** |
2,125-3,094 * |
95-135 |
658-944 |
32-45 |
281-402 |
0 |
92-132 |
* Estimated No. of participating households for general tax deferral program includes those experiencing assessment-related increases
** Funding impact is cumulative total of both the assessment-related deferral and the general deferral, as an eligible person would be entitled to apply for
both components
Conclusion:
It is anticipated that the recommended assessment-related deferral program and the general $600.00 deferral program will
result in 2,125 to 3,094 participating households. The funding impact as a result of no interest being charged on deferred
amounts is estimated to be $95.0 to $135.0 thousand for the first-year, to be funding from the 1998 Operating Budget.
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause,
the following Briefing Note (July 21, 1998) prepared by the Finance Department and submitted by Councillor John
Adams, Chair, Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:
Issue/Background:
On July 11, 1998, the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force considered the report "Property Tax Relief for Low-Income
Seniors and Disabled Persons" (June 30, 1998), from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.
The report recommended a property tax deferral program for assessment-related increases as well as a general $600.00
property tax deferral program, in which interest would be charged on deferred amounts at the City's required rate of
return of 6.0 percent (prime less one-half percent). This would result in no direct funding impact to the City.
The Task Force has recommended no interest be charged on deferred amounts. This would result in a funding impact to
the City arising from foregone interest earnings and/or from short-term borrowing costs.
A subsequent inquiry was made requesting information on a variation to this program. The scheme would involve a
graduated tax deferral program for assessment-related increases in which the amount eligible for deferral would be
dependent upon household income.
This Briefing Note is to report on the funding implication of a graduated property tax deferral program for seniors and
disabled persons.
Key Points:
A graduated property tax deferral program for seniors, as shown in Page 2, in which the amount eligible for deferral is
graduated with respect to income, would result in an additional first-year funding impact in the order of $5.4 thousand to
$8.6 thousand, over and above the first-year funding impact of the previously recommended program of $94.4 thousand
to $135.3 thousand. The annual additional impact by the sixth year of the graduated component of $38.1 thousand to
$60.4, in addition to the funding impact of $658.5 thousand to $943.9 thousand. The funding impact assumes that no
interest is charged to the participants.
Questions & Answers:
For assessment-related increases, the amount eligible for deferral would be dependent on income as follows:
Combined Household Income |
Amount of Assessment-Related
Increase Eligible for Deferral
(Percentage) |
GIS (approx. $20k or less) |
100% |
Between $20k and $25k |
75% |
Between $25k and $30k |
50% |
Between $30k and $35k |
25% |
More than $35k |
Not Eligible |
The scheme would also provide for a general property tax deferral of $600.00 for low-income seniors (i.e., those
receiving the GIS), similar to the programs previously in place in the former cities of Etobicoke and York, as well as
provide for the deferral of assessment-related increases in addition to a $600.00 deferral for low-income disabled
persons (i.e., those receiving the ODSP).
In all cases, no interest would be charged on deferred amounts. The program would be expected to mature at around the
sixth year (as is the experience in the Province of British Columbia property tax deferral scheme), after which it is
anticipated it would become self-financing.
The first-year funding impact of such a scheme is estimated to be in the range of $100.0 to $144.0 thousand, as a result of
foregone interest on $1.7 million to $2.4 million in deferred property taxes. The sixth-year annual impact is estimated to
be in the order of $697.0 thousand to $1.0 million, with the deferred amounts accumulating to $10.0 million to $14.4
million. The funding impact is shown in Table 1 and is calculated assuming a 6 percent imputed required rate of return
for City funds, with annual compounding on the interest foregone. It is noted that special legislation would have to be
obtained from the Province in order to provide the $600.00 general deferral program.
It is noted that such a program would require the City to establish and administer its own income means test. It is
estimated that administering an income means test would necessitate additional resources of approximately 4.2 to 6.0
FTE's, with an associated annual funding impact in the range of $255.0 thousand to $365.0 thousand.
Table 1
Funding Impact of Graduated Tax Relief Program for Seniors Aged 65 Years or Older and
Low-Income Disabled Person receiving ODSP
(No Interest Charge on Deferred Amounts - Annual Compounding)
(Assuming 6 Percent Imputed Required Rate of Return)
(5 Percent Participation Rate for Eligible Seniors, 50 Percent Participation for Eligible Disabled)
Combined Household
Income |
Amount Eligible for
Deferral |
Estimated Number of
Participating
Households |
City Share of
Estimated Annual
Taxes Deferred
($000's) |
Estimated Funding Impact to
City ($000's) |
Previously Recommended Deferral Program: |
Respecting Assessment-Related Increases |
GIS (less than $20k) |
100% |
654-1,025 |
206.3-327.0 |
12.4-19.6 |
86.3-136.9 |
ODSP (disabled) |
100% |
200 |
72.0 |
4.3 |
30.1 |
Sub-Total |
|
854-1225 |
278.3-399.0 |
16.7-23.9 |
116.4-167.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respecting General $600.00 Tax Relief |
GIS (less than $20k) |
100% |
1,565-2,534* |
959.3-1,520.4 |
57.6-91.2 |
401.5-636.3 |
ODSP (disabled) |
100% |
560* |
336.0 |
20.2 |
140.6 |
Sub-Total |
|
2,125-3,094* |
1,295.3-1,856.4 |
77.7-111.4 |
542.1-776.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Previously Recommended** |
2,125-3,094* |
1,573.6-2,255.4 |
94.4-135.3 |
658.5-943.9 |
Additional Graduated Deferral Program (Respecting Assessment-Related Increases Only) |
$20k -$25k |
75% |
196-311 |
47.6-75.5 |
2.8-4.5 |
19.9-31.6 |
$25k - $30k |
50% |
166-263 |
16.0-25.3 |
1.6-2.6 |
11.5-18.2 |
$30k - $35k |
25% |
193-305 |
|
1.0-1.5 |
6.7-10.6 |
Total - Additional Graduated Deferrals |
555-879 |
91.0-144.1 |
5.4-8.6 |
38.1-60.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grand Total |
|
2,680-3,973 |
1,664.6-2,399.4 |
99.0-144.0 |
696.9-1,004.2 |
* Estimated No. of participating households for general tax deferral program includes those experiencing
assessment-related increases
** Funding impact is cumulative total of both the assessment-related deferral and the general deferral, as an eligible
person would be entitled to apply for both components
Conclusion:
It is anticipated that a graduated property tax deferral program for seniors in which the amount eligible for deferral is
graduated with respect to income would result in a first-year funding impact in the order of $99.0 thousand to $144.0
thousand. The annual impact by the sixth year of such a program is estimated to be in the order of $696.9 thousand to
$1.004 million. The funding impact assumes that no interest is charged to the participants. It should be noted that such a
program would require the City to establish and administer its own income means test, which necessitate additional
resources of approximately 4.2 to 6.0 FTE's, with an associated annual funding impact in the range of $255.0 thousand
to $365.0 thousand.
Prepared By:Adir Gupta, 392-8071.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July20, 1998) from Dr.
John Bossons, Professor of Economics, University of Toronto, suggesting that the recommendations of the Assessment
and Tax Policy Task Force be amended to allow any homeowner aged 65 or older to defer assessment-related tax
increases.)
4
Commercial and Industrial Property
- Tax Policy Options
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that Council request the Province of Ontario to:
(1)reassess all commercial and industrial properties solely on the basis of 'value in current use'; and
(2)provide, to City Council, the results of the assessment using 1998 values, in order that the issues of different classes
and other policy issues may be evaluated well prior to the return of an assessment based on 1999 values.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations in the
following transmittal letter (July 12, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:
Recommendations:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on July, 6, 7, 11, and 13, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee and City Council that:
(1)because of the concerns in the valuation of commercial and industrial properties and for the need to provide protection
to business tenants and to charities and similar organizations, and in order to limit the tax changes created by current
value assessment, all commercial and industrial assessment-related property tax increases be capped at 2.5 percent of
existing 1997 taxes (both realty and business occupancy taxes) per year for three years (1998-2000), and that these caps
be funded by withholding a proportionate amount of tax decreases from properties with tax decreases;
(2)the other tax policy measures available for the commercial and industrial property classes, including graduated tax
rates, separate classes and tax rebates, not be implemented at this time;
(3)prior to the full implementation of three-year averaging in 2006, the Province be requested to use a longer period of
time (e.g., ten years) to average assessed values, especially for commercial properties; and
(4)a work plan be developed to formulate comprehensive tax policies in advance of the return of 1999 current value
assessment, including the establishment of a Business Reference Group to assist in the process.
The Task Force reports having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to City Council on
July 21, 1998, on the following:
(1)any decisions of other major municipalities in Ontario on phase-ins, capping, etc.;
(2)background information on the average tax burden and average income of tenants versus homeowners; and
(3)an amendment to Table 7, attached to the report (June 26, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to
analyse the following proposal of Councillor Walker:
That City Council:
(i)create a separate tax class for office buildings;
(ii)create a separate class for shopping centres;
(iii)adopt graduated tax rates for the residual commercial class being:
(a)4.12 percent for the first $400,000.00 of a property's assessed value
(b)7.75 percent for the remainder of the property's assessed value;
(iv)provide tax rebates for properties receiving tax increases over 150 percent, to be financed by a 3.3 percent mill rate
increase for all commercial properties; and
(v)adopt an eight year phase-in of all commercial tax changes.
Background:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force had before it a report (June 26, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer outlining the various tax reform options available with respect to commercial and industrial property.
The Task Force also had before it the following communications respecting the Current Value Assessment and the
commercial and industrial property class:
(a)(July 2, 1998) from Ms. Mary Rose Ward, President, Mary-Rose Fashions;
(b)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. Peter Menzel, Toronto Automobile Dealers' Association (T.A.D.A.);
(c)(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Angela Robertson, Community Social Planning Council;
(d)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. John Campbell, President, Brookfield Management Services Ltd., Toronto Office Tower
Coalition;
(e)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. James H. Oestreicher, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto;
(f)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. John Barnoski, Ontario Specialty Tenants' Coalition;
(g)(July 8, 1998) from Ms. Lea Pyykkonnen, Executive Director, Toronto Finnish-Canadian Seniors Centre;
(h)(July 8, 1998) from Mr. Bruce McKelvey, President & Chief Executive Officer, CDI Education Corporation; and
(i)Mr. Terry Mundell, President, Ontario Restaurant Association.
The Task Force held public hearings on July 7, 1998, to hear deputations from citizens on the reports from the Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting Commercial and Industrial Property: Tax Policy Options, Property Tax
Rebates for Charitable and Similar Organizations, and Tax Shifts -- Effect of Changes to Transition Ratios.
The following persons addressed the Task Force on July 7, 1998:
-Mr. John Doherty, obo Planned Parenthood Toronto;
-Mr. George Springle
-Mr. David G. Fleet, Poole Milligan, Barristers & Solicitors, obo Toronto Office Tower Coalition
-Mr. David McAlpine
-Mr. Wayne Amundson, obo Canadian Society of Association Executives
-Mr. Terry Mundell, President, Ontario Restaurant Association
-Ms. Maggie Pettet
-Ms. Angela Robertson, obo Community Social Planning Council
-Mr. Walker Kwok, Co-Chair, Toronto Fair Tax Chinatown Committee & Toronto Chinatown Community Development
Association
-Mr. Dan Clement, obo United Way of Greater Toronto
-Ms. Midge Day, York Mills Heights Ratepayers' Association
-Mr. Peter Menzel, Toronto Automobile Dealers Association
-Mr. Richard D'Iorio, obo Toronto Arts Tax Alliance
-Ms. Asha Crogan, obo Professional Art Dealers Association of Canada
-Mr. John Barnoski, obo Ontario Specialty Tenants Coalition
-Mr. Kelly McCray, obo Toronto Arts Tax Alliance
-Mr. Loukas Stathokostas
(Copies of the communications referred to in the transmittal letter of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force have
previously been distributed to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force and
copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
--------
(Report dated June 26, 1998, addressed to the
Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To outline the various tax reform options available with respect to commercial and industrial property.
Financial Implication and Impact Statement:
The recommended capping of business properties will protect businesses from significant CVA-related tax increases.
However, if Council adopts the cap, budgetary tax increases, if any, in 1999 and 2000 would have to be funded from
uncapped properties. For every one-percent increase in the City's levy during the next two years, this could result in a 2.8
percent increase in the City's municipal portion of the residential/farm tax rate or a 1.8 percent increase in the total
residential/farm tax rate.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)because of the concerns in the valuation of commercial and industrial properties and for the need to provide protection
to business tenants and to charities and similar organizations, and in order to limit the tax changes created by current
value assessment, all commercial and industrial assessment-related property tax increases be capped at 2.5 percent of
existing 1997 taxes (both realty and business occupancy taxes) per year for three years (1998-2000), and that these caps
be funded by withholding a proportionate amount of tax decreases from properties with tax decreases;
(2)the Province be requested to rescind any provisions in Bill 16 which prevent a municipal council from funding a
budgetary tax increase from all property classes, should the capping provisions be adopted;
(3)the other tax policy measures available for the commercial and industrial property classes, including graduated tax
rates, separate classes and tax rebates, not be implemented at this time;
(4)prior to the full implementation of three-year averaging in 2006, the Province be requested to use a longer period of
time (e.g., ten years) to average assessed values, especially for commercial properties; and
(5)a work plan be developed to formulate comprehensive tax policies in advance of the return of 1999 current value
assessments, including the establishment of a Business Reference Group to assist in the process.
Reference/Background:
Bill 106 and Bill 149, the Fair Municipal Finance Act (Nos. 1 and 2), provided Council with some flexibility in setting
tax policy for commercial property (e.g., graduated tax rates and a maximum eight-year phase-in period). Bill 16 - "Small
Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998" includes a municipal option to limit the tax increases resulting from tax
reform to no more than 2.5 percent per year for the next three years. These caps can be applied to commercial, industrial
and multi-residential properties and would be funded by limiting the amount of tax decreases resulting from Current
Value Assessment (CVA). The legislation also provides municipalities the option of requesting the following new
property classes: office buildings, shopping centres, parking lots and vacant land and large industrial properties. The
graduated tax rate option is also now extended to the industrial class. Furthermore, tax rebates can provide additional
protection to businesses.
The recent 1998 Ontario budget will provide funding to those communities, like Toronto, with business education taxes
above the provincial average in order to reduce education tax rates for commercial and industrial properties. This
equalization plan will be phased-in over the 1998 - 2005 period. When complete, the plan will reduce business education
taxes in Toronto by an estimated $400 million. Legislation will be introduced to implement this plan.
Comments:
Introduction:
This report deals only with an implementation plan for CVA for the commercial and industrial property classes, within
the context of the existing provincial legislation. Other tax policy issues dealing with narrowing the gap between the
municipal tax rates for industrial and commercial property are addressed in a separate report. This report summarizes the
analysis and findings regarding the tax policy options for commercial and industrial properties, including graduated tax
rates, separate classes, tax rebates, phase-ins and capping provisions pertaining to commercial and industrial properties.
The summary financial information contained in the Appendix does not reflect the impact of the plan to reduce business
education tax rates announced in the 1998 Ontario budget. Further provincial details affecting the calculation of reduced
education tax rates are pending. Once completed, the education tax rate reduction plan in Toronto will have reduced the
preliminary estimated total commercial and industrial tax rates as follows:
Change in Tax Rates Resulting from Provincial Education Tax Rate Reduction Plan
|
|
Total Tax Rates |
Education Tax Rates |
|
1998
Estimated |
2005
Revised |
% Change |
1998
Estimated |
2005
Revised |
% Change |
Commercial |
7.75 |
6.66 |
(14.1) |
4.37 |
3.28 |
(25.0) |
Industrial |
11.00 |
7.53 |
(31.5) |
6.28 |
2.81 |
(55.2) |
These are preliminary estimates based on the final assessment roll and will be revised as part of the final tax calculations.
Current Value Assessment - 1998:
The preliminary work done by City staff (in February and early March) was based on a single tax rate for all commercial
property. Based on the final assessment roll received on June 15, 25 percent of commercial assessment portions (i.e.
properties) experience tax decreases and 75 percent face increases. The average decrease amounts to $56,192.00 or 31.7
percent and the average increase is $18,372.00 or 251.6 percent. The median or mid-point of decreases is $7,022.00 or
28.9 percent and the median increase is $5,979.00 or 120.9 percent. The analysis clearly shows that a significant number
of businesses in Toronto would face substantial tax increases. For example, almost half of the approximately 33,800
commercial properties face tax increases over 100 percent and almost 4,600 commercial properties face tax increases over
300 percent. The impact of CVA with one tax rate on commercial property is shown in the Table 1 in the Appendix.
The June 1996 values for commercial property were estimated by the Ministry of Finance using the income and sales
comparison approaches. Office buildings and shopping malls were generally assessed using the income method.
However, the assessed values for some smaller, older office buildings were determined using the sales comparison (or
market) approach. Most strip retail properties were also valued using the sales comparison approach. The CVA findings
showed that the office building sector in Toronto, which currently pays half the amount of total commercial taxes, would
receive a total reduction of $418 million. On the other hand, most strip retail type properties would experience increases
totaling $175 million.
Within the commercial class different types of commercial property have different effective tax rates, which are expressed
as 1997 taxes as a percentage of 1996 values. Groups within the commercial property class are at diverse starting
positions - some as low as 1.25 percent (e.g., vacant commercial land) and others as high as 12.06 percent (e.g., office
buildings). As a result, property types with current effective tax rates below 7.75 percent experience increases. Property
types with current effective tax rates above 7.75 percent (e.g. hotels, motels/taverns and department and discount stores,
etc.) on average, see tax decreases.
Furthermore, the existing effective tax rates of properties within property types vary. For example, some strip retail
properties are taxed at 1.0 percent, while others are taxed at 5.0 percent, compared to the average of 2.83 percent. This
additional level of discrepancy within types of property further exacerbates the problems associated with reform.
A number of tax policy options provided in both the Fair Municipal Finance Act (Nos. 1 and 2) and Bill 16 are available
to make the CVA impacts on commercial and industrial classes manageable. It would appear that municipalities could
implement change using either one of two approaches. A municipality could implement the assessment-related tax
increases for commercial and industrial properties using a combination of tax policy tools - graduated tax rates, separate
classes and tax rebates. Under one option a municipality could phase-in the impacts of the plan over a period of up to
eight years. Alternatively, under a second option a municipality could cap the assessment-related tax increases with or
without the tax policy tools. As discussed later in the report, capping without any other tax policy options is
recommended.
Tax Policy Options - Commercial Property:
This section provides a summary of the tax policy options available in the legislation to help municipalities implement tax
changes.
1.Graduated Tax Rates:
Graduated tax rates are provided to mitigate the impacts of both reassessment and the elimination of the business
occupancy tax on lower-value commercial properties. The Fair Municipal Finance Act allows a municipality to pass a
by-law creating two or three bands of assessed commercial value in order to apply lower tax rates to lower valued
commercial property. A different tax rate would apply to each band. The impact of using only graduated tax rates as a tax
policy tool has been examined using two and three-tier tax rate scenarios. The tax rates selected were based on reducing
tax shifts by recreating existing tax burdens by property value range The ranges of assessment value and tax rates under
the two and three tier tax rate models studied are presented below (see Table 2 in the Appendix for more details). Under
the two tier rate model, for example, the first $300,000.00 of current value could be taxed at a rate between 2.0 to 6.0 per
cent depending on the model selected. The amount of current value above $300,000.00, if any, would be taxed at a rate
between 7.9 to 11.0 percent, again depending on the option chosen.
Summary of Graduated Tax Rate Models
|
Two Tier Rate Models |
|
Three Tier Rate Models |
|
Value Range |
Tax Rate Range |
|
Value Range |
Tax Rate Range |
1st Tier |
$300K (low) |
2.0% - 6.0% |
|
$300K (low) |
3.0% - 5.0% |
2nd Tier |
$1.1M (high) |
7.9% - 11.0% |
|
$300K - $1.1M |
5.0% - 7.0% |
3rd Tier |
n/a |
n/a |
|
over $1.1M(high) |
8.5% - 10.0% |
Both the above exhibit and Table 2 in the Appendix were prepared using the preliminary assessment data from February.
Extensive analysis conducted on the preliminary data (24 different models which are summarized in Table 3) was not
repeated to the same degree using the June 15 assessment information. Instead the analysis was more focussed on the
selected graduated tax rate models that provided the greatest benefits based on the previous review of the preliminary
data. See "Model M2 GTR" section for this discussion.
The graduated tax rate options examined were only able to limit increases for most strip retail properties to no more than
100 percent. This was achieved by substantially increasing taxes on larger commercial properties particularly on office
buildings. Even then, about 2,800 strip retail properties would face tax increases over 100 percent. Although graduated
tax rates help to lessen the impact of CVA, they alone are not sufficiently flexible to reduce tax increases on commercial
property to acceptable levels.
2.Separate Classes of Property:
Bill 16 allows a municipality to adopt optional property classes, namely - office buildings, shopping centres, vacant land
and parking lots, and large industrial properties. The municipality has up to 30 days after the return of the assessment roll
to adopt any of the optional classes. The Minister of Finance may extend this period of time up to, but not exceeding 60
days after the roll return, if requested by the municipality. The City has requested such an extension. The review of the
office buildings constituted an important part of the examination of separate classes.
Separate Class for Office Buildings:
As noted, one of the reasons for the huge tax shifts within the commercial class is the valuation date (June 30, 1996) in
the current reassessment program. In 1996, office buildings (which currently pay half of all commercial property taxes in
Toronto) had values far below their replacement cost, because rents and vacancy rates were only beginning to recover
from their levels in the early 1990's. For example, Royal LePage reports that in 1996 the average net rent for "Class A"
office space in Toronto was in the $4.00 per square foot range.
While CVA, based on 1996 values, with one tax rate would have shifted over $400 million in taxes away from office
buildings and on to other commercial properties, this phenomenon is expected to be short-lived. Recent sales of office
buildings suggest that the value of office buildings in the downtown may have already doubled from their level in June
1996.
The next reassessment in 2001 will be based on 1999 values. By that time, it is reasonable to expect that the value of
office buildings will have substantially recovered and that the tax shift off office buildings and on to other commercial
property may be either eliminated or significantly moderated. For example, if the value of office buildings were to double
by 1999 and the value of other commercial property were to remain at its June 1996 levels, the tax shift away from office
buildings would be only $80 million compared to a $418 million shift based on 1996 values. In the example above, the
total tax rate for all commercial property would be 5.9 percent instead of 7.75 percent. But even with a 5.9 percent tax rate
for all commercial property, there would still be large tax increases for many strip retail properties.
Data from the proposed reassessment in Metro Toronto in 1992, based on 1988 market values did not show a significant
shift of taxes away from office buildings. Therefore, it seems that the values of office buildings fluctuate much more than
the values of retail properties, and that these office market cycles of about eight to ten years will create future tax shifts
off and on to office buildings. The three-year averaging proposal, which is to be incorporated into the assessment system
after 2005, will not be able to moderate these shifts, because it appears that the office market cycle is much longer than
three years. Accordingly, prior to the full implementation of three-year average in 2006, the Province should review
whether three years is an adequate period of time to average the current values of commercial properties.
In order to eliminate these large tax shifts within the commercial class, one could place office buildings in a separate
class. The difficult question is at what relative tax level? Bill 16 enables a municipality to adjust the existing tax burdens
of a separate office building class (i.e., a 12.06 percent tax rate) towards the average commercial class tax burden (i.e., a
7.75 percent tax rate). The analysis based on separate classes in this report assumes that existing tax rates for the optional
classes are not moved toward the commercial average.
Not all office buildings would have received the same magnitude of tax decreases based on CVA with one tax rate. While
attention has, to date, focussed on the large absolute dollar tax decreases that the "bank" towers would have received, the
smaller, older Class B and Class C office buildings would have received much larger percentage tax decreases. Therefore,
if office buildings were in a separate class, those buildings (mostly bank towers) that would have received small tax
decreases under CVA with one tax rate would receive tax increases under a tax system with office buildings in a separate
class. It is recommended, as part of a more comprehensive review for a long-term strategy, that office building valuation
scenarios be developed and tested against the available tax policy tools before separating them into a separate class.
Further analysis of the office building sector should also be accompanied by examining how small business, particularly
strip retail properties, can be protected. The Province has not created a separate class for strip retail properties apparently
because it would be very difficult to define this class, particularly if a comprehensive definition were desired. At its
meeting on April 28, 29, and 30 and May 1, 1998, Council recommended that the Province be requested to provide
municipalities with the authority to create a separate class for retail, restaurant, retail with residential above and retail with
office categories. Any definitional problem(s) associated with this new class of property should be reviewed along with
other initiatives discussed in the section "Comprehensive Tax Policies" prior to the next reassessment.
The option of separate classes on its own still results in significant tax increases for properties in the residual commercial
class, particularly for small or strip retailers. However, graduated tax rates can provide tax relief to some properties within
the residual commercial class. The creation of a separate class also locks-in properties at a tax rate that could be
significantly higher than the residual commercial class and as a result may be seen to be inequitable.
3.Tax Rebates to Business:
Bill 16 also enables municipalities to provide tax rebates to businesses with significantly high increases that need further
protection. The rebate program is primarily intended to provide assistance to the 'outliers' with large increases after other
tax policy options have been exhausted. It is not intended to emulate the capping option for tax increases for commercial
and industrial properties. The rebate would be funded by increasing the overall commercial tax rate by a sufficient amount
to offset the amount of the tax rebate. The amount by which tax rates are increased to fund the tax rebate is equivalent to a
budgetary increase for the year and is not eligible to be phased-in. This additional tax amount can be recouped from all
properties within the property class eligible for the rebate or from all uncapped property classes. The rebate cannot be
funded by withholding or clawing back a portion of the tax decreases within the commercial or industrial property classes.
The Minister shall determine within 30 days of receiving a municipality's rebate by-law whether education taxes would
also be eligible for any tax rebate program (i.e., whether the Province will fund the education portion of the rebate
program). This could be problematic if a municipality adopts a rebate program and approves its tax rates and the Minister
does not agree to fund the Province's share.
Table 3 in the Appendix compares a tax rebate program with the cap and claw back option for properties experiencing tax
decreases and increases under CVA. Most significantly, as a result of funding a tax rebate to cap increases at 2.5 percent,
properties experiencing tax decreases under CVA would receive reduced decreases and some properties with decreases
would end up with tax increases. A property with no tax change under CVA would experience a 35 percent increase if the
tax rebate program were funded within the class. Properties with more than a 2.5 percent increase under CVA would
receive a 38 percent increase under a rebate plan. Because the overall tax rate must be increased to finance the tax rebate,
properties with increases end up with a greater increase than the intended capped amount (i.e., 38 percent instead of 2.5
percent).
The number of business properties that benefit from a tax rebate program depends on the eligibility criteria. The number
of commercial properties benefiting, for example, under the 2.5 percent capping level shown in Table 3, would be 26,000.
Under a more restrictive scenario, for example properties with increases greater than 100 percent, the number of eligible
properties could conceivably range between 4,370 (under selected graduated tax rate models) to 15,250 (under CVA in
Table 1). The tax rebate option is not recommended in this report because the capping provision provides better protection
to businesses facing significant increases while at the same time, ensuring that no business with a tax decrease under
CVA experiences a tax increase.
4.Phase-in:
The legislation allows for the phase-in of assessment-related tax increases up to a maximum of eight years. Any phase-in
program must be self-financing so that the amount of the phased-in tax increases is offset by tax decreases within the
class. The phase-in program must begin in 1998 and the annual amount to be phased-in must be the same or less than the
amount phased-in the previous year. The phase-in provision for assessment-related tax changes for commercial and
industrial property on its own is not recommended because even with an eight-year phase-in period there are too many
large tax increases. The annual amount of average tax change that would be phased-in under CVA with one tax rate is
shown in Table 4. It is evident that some commercial types of property would experience over 20 percent annual tax
increases. By the third year of an eight-year phase-in period, almost 1,600 commercial properties would have received tax
increases greater than 100 percent.
As a result, a phase-in period longer than eight years would be required to mitigate the impact to a manageable and
sustainable level. A phase-in program will likely be considered as part of implementing the next reassessment. Depending
on the impacts arising from the next reassessment, a longer phase-in period (e.g., 10 to 20 years) may need to be
considered. Otherwise additional tax policy tools would be required to mitigate these increases.
Combinations of Tax Policy Tools:
This section summarizes the major findings from the analysis of tax options for the commercial class. The impact on tax
rates that result in each class of commercial property, if Council adopts the option to create separate classes, is shown in
Table 5. More detail about the impact of CVA with one tax rate on commercial properties in Toronto is provided in Table
1.
Model 1, in Table 5, examines a separate class for office buildings. Since office buildings are currently taxed at an
average tax rate that is considerably higher than the average for all commercial property, separating office buildings
reduces the tax rate on the residual or remaining commercial class to 6.09 percent. Although this helps the strip retail
properties, it does not provide as much assistance as would be expected if strip retail properties were in a separate class.
Model 2 looks at both a separate class for office and a separate class for the shopping malls. Since shopping malls have an
existing tax rate lower than the rest of commercial, the residual commercial tax rate is pushed up to 6.19 percent, from
6.09 percent in Model 1. Similarly, Model 3, which adds a separate class for vacant land and parking lots, raises the tax
rate on the residual commercial class to 6.44 percent.
Model M2 GTR is based on a separate class for office and a separate class for shopping malls, with the graduated tax rate
option used for the residual commercial properties. A tax rate of 4.12 percent on the first $400,000.00 of current value,
was used which allows the top rate to remain at 7.75percent, so that the hotels and other large properties in the residual
commercial class would be no worse off than they would have been under CVA with one tax rate.
Implementation Options - Commercial Property:
Option 1: 8 Year Phase-in, Graduated Tax Rates, Separate Classes and Tax Rebate - Model M2 GTR:
Model M2 GTR represents the most potentially viable option of the detailed models studied to date that can be considered
as an alternative to capping. In order to provide additional assistance to businesses experiencing significant increases
under Model M2 GTR, an eight-year phase-in and a tax rebate plan were also applied. A range of capped tax increases for
the first and third years of the phase-in period and the corresponding tax rate impact (to fund the rebated tax amounts) are
shown in Table 6. For example, in the first year of the phase-in period, commercial tax rates would increase by 1.7
percent in order to rebate commercial property with tax increases greater than 2.5 percent, and increases to 5.7 percent by
the third year as summarized in the following:
Change in Total Commercial Tax Rate to Fund Tax Rebate (selected scenarios) |
|
1st Year of Phase-in |
3rd Year of Phase-in |
Increases Greater Than are Rebated |
Tax Rate Increase Required to Fund
Rebate |
Tax Rate Increase Required to Fund
Rebate |
2.5% |
1.7% |
7.4% |
5.0% |
1.2% |
6.4% |
7.5% |
1.0% |
5.7% |
10.0% |
0.7% |
5.1% |
15.0% |
0.5% |
4.0% |
20.0% |
0.4% |
3.3% |
Tables 7 and 8 show the benefit that a Model M2 GTR phase-in plan combined with a tax rebate provides when compared
to a Model M2 GTR phase-in without a tax rebate. The reduced tax increases under the tax rebate option in Table 7 are
funded by an overall increase in the commercial tax rates. Therefore, some property types will experience, on average,
smaller decreases or even tax increases (e.g. office buildings, hotels, medical/dental offices and other commercial).
Accordingly, the impact of funding the tax rebate tends to cancel some of the benefits of the other features of Model M2
GTR for some properties. However, without a tax rebate there would be 1,595 properties with tax increases greater than
100 percent by the third year of the phase-in, as shown in Table 8.
The Model M2 GTR should be studied as part of the comprehensive review of tax options prior to the next reassessment.
The model creates separate classes for office buildings and regional shopping malls. The creation of separate classes, as
pointed out earlier, raises questions about the appropriate level of taxation for these new classes over the long term. Bill
16 allows for the shifting of taxes between the commercial and optional classes. Any downward adjustment to the office
building tax burden, for example, towards the average tax burden for the commercial class would require shifting taxes
either on to commercial properties below the class average or on to the residential/farm class or both. The creation of
separate classes should not be undertaken without a long-term strategy of the relative tax levels for new property classes.
Option 2: 2.5 Percent Cap on Tax Increases:
Bill 16 provides Council with the option to cap all commercial, industrial and multi-residential tax increases resulting
from tax reform at 2.5 percent per year for three years. If Council adopts this provision, it will be locked-in until the next
reassessment in 2001. Municipalities cannot opt out of the cap once imposed. Conversely, Council may not opt into the
cap after 1998. Most significantly, the cap limits any tax increase in those property classes that are capped to 2.5 percent
of their 1997 taxes. Any budgetary increases cannot be imposed on capped property classes. Council would have to fund
budgetary increases from uncapped property classes. This is a new development since the Minister of Finance's March 27
announcement of new tax tools, which made no reference to any such condition.
The tax reform legislation to date has either referred to assessment-related or tax policy changes (i.e., a tax shift between
classes) without any special rules relating to budgetary increases. Council should not be restricted in how it funds
budgetary increases from the property tax base. It should have the choice of funding a part of or all budgetary increases
from either an uncapped class (i.e., residential/farm class) or from all classes proportionately. It is recommended that the
Province be requested to rescind any restriction in Bill 16 that hinders Council's ability to fund budgetary increases from
all property classes should the capping provisions be adopted. However, the implementation of the 2.5 percent cap could
conceivably act as an incentive to freeze taxes over the next two years. If there were budget-related tax increases,
effectively resulting in a tax shift to the residential/farm class, this would not be inconsistent with the long-term tax
reform goal of reducing business property taxation levels in Toronto as discussed in an accompanying report.
A municipality has 30 days after the return of the assessment roll to adopt the capping provision. However, the Minister
of Finance may extend this deadline up to, but not exceeding 60 days following the roll return. The 2.5 percent cap on tax
increases would limit the tax decreases, by clawing back the amount of tax decreases to some sufficient level to fully
offset the cap on increases. Table 9 shows the impact of the caps on the tax decreases for each of the separate class
options discussed above. If Council chooses to proceed with CVA with one tax rate for commercial property and cap
increases, only 4.97 percent of the amount of tax decreases could be allowed (i.e., 95 percent of the tax decreases under
CVA would have to be clawed back) in the first year. For example, a business property with a $5,000.00 decrease would
receive a $248.50 decrease. The amount of the allowed decrease goes up to an estimated 10.16 percent in the third year,
resulting in a $508.00 decrease in the above example.
Many tenants in shopping centres have suggested that they would be facing increases well beyond the 2.5 percent cap as a
result of the building owner's allocation of the tax changes, including the elimination of the business occupancy tax,
among small and large stores in the building. Bill 16 protects tenants and ensures that the tenant pays only the tax amount
required under the lease in 1997. However, the legislation also provides for landlords to recoup more than the 1997 taxes
actually paid by tenants if this tax amount was less than the amount allowed under the lease.
It is important to appreciate that Model M2 GTR cannot provide the same protection to individual tenants, such as small
commercial tenants in shopping malls, that the 2.5 percent capping provision ensures. The capping option ensures that tax
reform does not result in additional tax shifts within a property caused by the elimination of the business occupancy tax.
The protection provided to tenants also makes the tax rebate program for charities and similar organizations redundant.
The cap ensures that tenants do not pay more than 2.5 percent more than in 1997, where tax increases are applicable,
thereby eliminating the need to rebate charities and similar organizations. By adopting the cap for commercial and
industrial property, Council avoids the administrative costs associated with tax rebates. The cap on commercial property
also ensures that the property of the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Hydro Electric Commission, which is
classified as commercial and pays taxes, would also be limited to an increase, where applicable, of 2.5 percent each year
in the 1998-2000 period.
Analysis of Option 1 vs. Option 2:
Despite the mitigating effect of graduated tax rates and separate classes, there would still remain a large number of
businesses with significantly high tax increases. Additional tax tools such as tax rebates and phase-ins would be
necessary. However, with the expected change in office building values by the next reassessment, as discussed previously,
it is not considered advisable to phase-in CVA tax impacts which are anticipated to be quite different from those in 2001.
The 2.5 percent cap also ensures that no business is significantly impacted, and in the interim allows for a limited amount
of tax change. The impact of CVA with one tax rate, the impact of a 2.5 percent cap on increases (for both the first and
third years of the capping option), and the impact in the first and third years of an eight-year phase-in are shown for each
separate class option. The results of these options are summarized in Tables 10 - 12 in the Appendix.
Table 10 shows the impact of CVA applied without any caps or phase-in. Table 11 shows the impact of the 2.5 percent
cap in the first and third years for each of the selected separate class options. Table 12 shows the impact in year 1 and year
3 of an eight-year phase-in for each of the selected separate class options. If Council wishes to cap the tax increases, it
does not make much difference which underlying tax policy option(s) is chosen. For example, by the third year under
capping (i.e., 2000), retail properties with residential uses above would have increased by 7.2 percent under CVA with
one tax rate, compared to 4.6 percent under Model M2 GTR.
Although Model M2 GTR is a promising model and is recommended for further study, it should be noted that it contains
a separate class for office buildings. As mentioned earlier, a separate office building class locks-in these properties at an
effective tax rate that continues their uncompetitive tax status among North American cities. This dampens the
competitive position of this sector, which constitutes about half of the employment base plays a crucial role in the
Toronto economy.
The benefit of capping vs. phase-in is that it provides Council with the ability to limit the impact of the effects of CVA
while still proceeding with some measure of tax reform, albeit on a limited scale. The cap is an interim step towards a
more detailed plan to be prepared in time for the next reassessment. In addition, the capped three-year period (1998-2000)
also allows for the updating of commercial assessments, particularly for office buildings, to more accurately reflect recent
rental activity in this sector. As well, the definitional problems in creating a separate strip retail class may also be
resolved.
Together the capping provisions along with the availability of all the current tax policy tools in 2001, effectively allows
for the deferral of comprehensive reform of business property taxation in Toronto until the next reassessment.
Consequently, Council is not locked into any long-term reform package that has not had the benefit of in-depth analysis
and review. An inappropriate tax reform plan, even if phased-in over a long period, could create serious impacts and
require significant remedial action(s). It is recommended that the capping provisions under Bill 16 be implemented and
the other tax policy measures available for commercial and industrial property, including graduated tax rates, separate
classes of property, tax rebates and phase-ins not be implemented at this time. This essentially endorses an Option 2
approach as discussed above.
It is important to note that although the capping provisions provide Council time to prepare for the next reassessment, the
cap itself reduces Council's flexibility in funding any budgetary tax increases. If this arises, capping commercial and
industrial properties provides Council with an incentive over the next two years to meet zero tax increases in those years.
During these three years, Council will only be permitted to fund budgetary tax increases from uncapped property classes.
For example, a one percent increase in the net levy funded exclusively by the residential/farm class amounts to a 2.8
percent increase in the municipal residential/farm tax rate or a 1.8 percent increase in the total residential/farm tax rate.
Budgetary tax increases could begin to reduce the comparatively higher taxes on business, and for multi-residential
properties for that matter, and make business taxes in Toronto more competitive. Capping requires substantial
administrative maintenance of the 1997 assessment data in order to calculate revised capped amounts. The administrative
requirements of a phase-in plan are somewhat less onerous. Phase-ins require that any physical changes to the property to
be updated, whereas capping requires that changes in commercial and industrial vacancies be maintained in addition to
physical changes.
Underlying Tax System:
If Council adopts the 2.5 percent cap, the impact of the decisions involving separate classes for office buildings and
graduated tax rate options becomes less significant. However, the direction of the tax changes can be influenced by any
choices that Council makes, if it elects to, around separate classes and graduated tax rates. For example, a strip retail
property currently taxed at a level well above most strip retail properties, but below the commercial average, might be
paying 1997 taxes at six or seven percent of its 1996 value. Under capping, this property would face a tax increase of 7.5
percent over three years, if all commercial property were taxed at one tax rate. On the other hand, if a separate office
building class was created and some form of graduated tax rates were implemented, this same strip retail property would
experience a tax decrease over the next three years. Different tax policy options will generally yield different results from
one another.
The choices made about the underlying tax system will also send a strong signal to markets about how Council intends to
set relative tax rates for each type of commercial property in the long-term. For example, should strip retail properties pay
taxes in the long run at the same level as other commercial properties? While certainty in the treatment of property over
the long-term is desirable, there is not sufficient time in which to completely identify or analyze the implications of the
multitude of possible options. Additional time to fully examine the results of using the new provincial separate class
definitions and the different tax rates applied to these types of property is necessary to implement these classes in a way
that is both fair and defensible. Input from the business community on these matters can play a valuable role and is further
discussed later in this report. There is also a very real risk that any hurried decisions made by Council over the next few
weeks may not be sustainable in the long run, and that yet another set of changes would be necessary in the future.
Industrial Class Tax Impacts:
The estimated tax impacts for industrial properties based on the final assessment roll shows that there are 30 percent
industrial assessment portions experiencing a decrease and 70 percent with an increase. The average tax decrease amounts
to $28,675.00 or 18.9 percent while the median decrease amount is $7,696.00 or 15.1 percent. In terms of increases, the
average increase is $11,527.00 or over 3,000 percent (largely due to vacant lands) and the median increase is $4,936.00 or
50.6 percent.
This section outlines the results of applying the tax policy options to industrial properties. Bill 16 introduced the option of
creating additional classes within the industrial class for large industrial properties. The graduated tax rate option was
extended to the industrial property class and the option of capping all tax increases at 2.5 percent per year for three years
was also introduced. Details about the impact of CVA with one tax rate on industrial properties in Toronto are provided in
Table 13.
Tax Policy Options - Industrial Property:
1.Graduated Tax Rates:
Similar to commercial property, Council can also consider using graduated tax rates to decrease the tax rate on lower
valued industrial properties. The application of graduated tax rates as the only tax policy option to industrial property was
tested under Model I-2 in Table 14. This model provides for the first $200,000.00 of CVA to be taxed at 7.0 percent, the
next $300,000.00 (i.e., $200,000.00 to $500,000.00) taxes at 11.0 percent and any CVA over $500,000.00 taxed at 12.52
percent. However, as shown in Table 14, overall there is not a significant difference on average between the graduated tax
rate option and CVA with a single tax rate. It appears that industry in residential property, industrial condominiums,
industrial property valued less than $1 million and small warehouses, in particular benefit from this model.
2.Separate Classes:
The "large industrial properties" class includes all industrial properties with gross floor area greater than 125,000 square
feet. Those buildings less than this threshold remain in the residual industrial class. Model I-1 in Table 13 shows the
impact of creating a separate class for large industrial properties. Since large industrial properties are taxed at an average
rate that is slightly higher than the average for all industrial property, separating them into their own class reduces the tax
rate on the balance of industrial properties. The tax rate on the residual industrial class does not change very much as a
result of separating the large industrial properties, because the large industrial properties are a small part of the industrial
tax base.
Council can choose to maintain the full differences in tax rates among any industrial classes that it creates. For estimate
purposes it has been assumed that Council will choose to maintain the differences in the tax rates among any new
industrial classes. Bill 16 allows Council the option of moving the tax rate for a new separate class towards the average
rate for the entire industrial class.
3.Tax Rebates:
The results of a tax rebate program on its own are shown in Table 15. Similar to the example for commercial properties,
the increase in the industrial tax rate to fund the rebate is significant. To provide assistance in the first year similar to the
2.5 percent capping option, the industrial tax rate would increase by 13.2 percent. The cost of funding the rebate and
consequently the impact on the industrial tax rate decreases as the threshold for the rebate declines. It would be more
appropriate to consider the rebate in conjunction with other tax tools, as is discussed below.
Implementation Options - Industrial Property:
The impacts of the tax policy options examined for industrial property are shown in Table 16. In addition to CVA with
one tax rate, Table 16 presents average tax changes for the first year of an eight-year phase-in; graduated tax rates and
graduated tax rates combined with a phase-in plan; a phase-in and tax rebate plan; and the 2.5 percent capping option. The
tax impacts in the third year of each of these options is presented in Table 17.
Option 1: Phase-in of Graduated Tax Rates and Tax Rebates:
The average tax impacts of the various options for industrial property as shown in Table 16 generally do not reflect the
range of diversity demonstrated by commercial property. This would suggest that the industrial property class might not
need many tax policy options to make the tax changes manageable, if a tax cap is not adopted.
Graduated tax rates for industrial property were combined with a phase-in plan. The impact of the first year of an
eight-year phase-in for the Model I-2 is shown in Table 14. A comparison of the first year of CVA with one tax rate and
the first year of the graduated tax rate model overall does not show a significant difference except for industrial
condominiums. Consequently, graduated tax rates combined with a phase-in plan are not recommended.
Alternatively, tax changes could be phased-in combined with a tax rebate to industries with significant increases. The
impact of funding a tax rebate program with an eight-year phase-in is not significant as shown in Table 15. The program
results in a 0.6 percent increase in the industrial tax rate in the first year of the phase-in, if tax increases are capped at, for
example, the 7.5 percent level. By the third year the impact would be 3.0 percent.
However, excluding vacant land can reduce the cost of the rebate program. For example, the cost of the rebate in the third
year ($10.2 million) can be cut by almost 50 percent and reduced to $5.4 million. From an economic development
perspective, tax assistance to vacant industrial land, in the form of a tax rebate program has some advantages as well as
some obvious disadvantages. Lowering the taxes on a vacant parcel would lower its carrying cost, make it more likely
that the owner continues to hold the land. It is then more likely that, in the case of an existing firm, on-site expansion will
occur rather than searching for another location, should its space requirements expand in the future.
On the other hand, lowering taxes on vacant land will create an incentive to demolish existing industrial buildings, at
times when demand for these buildings is low, as was the case only a few years ago. The former assessment system
provided a similar incentive because land was effectively taxed at a much lower percent of value than were buildings, and
several older industrial and in some cases office buildings were demolished primarily for tax reasons. On balance, a lower
tax rate on land than on buildings should not be implemented.
Option 2: 2.5 Percent Cap on Tax Increases:
The mitigating impact of the 2.5 percent cap is shown in Table 14 for the first year of the three-year period. When
compared with CVA, the cap ensures that tax increases are manageable. In consultation with the Economic Development
Division, it is considered appropriate that the implementation of comprehensive tax reform should apply to both
commercial and industrial property classes simultaneously and not to one class only, while the other is capped.
Furthermore, commercial and industrial uses are inter-linked, particularly where both uses occupy the same property.
Therefore, it is recommended that industrial properties be treated in the same fashion as commercial properties, and that
all tax increases be capped at 2.5 percent per year for three years. As a result, it will be necessary to claw back a
significant portion of the tax decreases that would have resulted from CVA. In the first year, it will be necessary to claw
back 87 percent of the amount of tax decreases under CVA (i.e., 12.84 percent of decreases can be allowed), and in the
third year it will be possible to allow 23.47 percent of the amount of tax decreases otherwise permitted.
The underlying tax system for which the caps have been proposed is CVA with one tax rate. More detailed analysis is
required to determine whether or not the graduated tax rate system is more equitable or better from an economic
development perspective than taxing all industrial property at the same tax rate.
The tax rate on industrial properties is much higher than on commercial properties and creates a serious equity question,
which needs to be addressed. The industrial class has the highest tax rates of any property class in Toronto. The difference
in tax rates between industrial uses and commercial uses (11.06 percent and 7.75 percent respectively) is of particular
concern because many industrial properties contain both industrial and commercial tenants. In fact, the value of
commercial uses in industrial properties is almost as large as the value of industrial uses in industrial properties. The
difference in tax levels creates a powerful incentive for the owner of an industrial park or a multi-storey industrial
building to lease space to commercial users rather than industrial users, because the tax advantage helps commercial uses
out-bid manufacturers for industrial space. This situation creates potentially substantial negative employment and
investment impacts and further hinders the competitiveness of industry in Toronto.
This issue is further reviewed in an accompanying report which identifies the tax impacts of moving towards equity in
terms of relief for the industrial class, and for that matter, the commercial class as well. The resulting tax shifts in the
analysis identify the impacts on the residential/farm class which the new taxation system clearly shows is paying at a
lower rate of taxation. Changes to the comparative taxation levels among the property classes are needed to ensure that
Toronto remains as a competitive place for business.
Comprehensive Tax Policies:
It is difficult to attempt to make all of the complex decisions about the relative tax rates for each sub-class of commercial
and industrial property in the next few weeks. Bill 16 for the 1998 taxation year, requires a municipality to decide
whether it will opt any of the separate classes within 30 days following the return of the assessment roll (with a possible
30 day extension). This timeframe provides Council little time to explore the impact of all possible new classes in
addition to all the other tax reform decisions required.
Review of Model M2 GTR for the commercial property class indicates the level of detail required making the CVA tax
impacts manageable. This model consists of a full package of tax options - graduated tax rates, separate classes, a
phase-in and a tax rebate. Prior to the implementation of this option with all its details, additional time would be required
to study the full range of its impacts. As such, its implementation is not recommended at this time.
It is evident that the proposed 2.5 percent cap on increases is viewed as an interim solution, so that the City and the
Province have time to address all of the complex tax policy issues before the next reassessment. The Province has
indicated that all tax options including the ability to phase-in tax increases and decreases, create separate commercial and
industrial classes and impose graduated tax rates will be available to municipalities in the next reassessment. It is
proposed that a work plan be developed that would allow these tax policy options to be reviewed over the next two to
three years, including the establishment of a Business Reference Group to assist in the process.
This solution may not give as much comfort to commercial and industrial taxpayers facing large tax increases under
CVA, such as strip retailers, in the short-term, as a plan that clearly sets out where Council would prefer relative taxes to
be for the various sub-classes of commercial property. However, these taxpayers would at least have the comfort that the
tax increases under CVA with one rate are not intended to be a long run goal of Council. The cap ensures that businesses
will not be significantly impacted over the next three-years. Furthermore, tenants in commercial and industrial properties
will be protected from tax increases beyond 2.5 percent. Council's adoption of the 2.5 percent cap will also make
unnecessary the tax rebate mechanism for charities and similar organizations and will considerably decrease the
administration and cash flow issues for these organizations.
The 2.5 percent cap provision enables Council to begin providing relief to commercial and industrial properties by
shifting budgetary tax increases on to the residential/farm class. This is consistent with the long-term goal of reducing the
level of business property taxation that Council should consider as part of tax reform. The shift in taxes on to the
residential/farm class will begin moving towards property class tax equity and improve the competitive position of
business in Toronto, which is critical to maintaining the economic vibrancy of the Toronto economy.
Conclusions:
Council can implement tax reform for commercial and industrial property using either a detailed plan including some
combination of graduated tax rates, separate classes, phase-ins and a tax rebate. Alternatively, Council may cap tax
increases. It is recommended that all commercial and industrial property tax increases be capped, pursuant to Bill 16, at
2.5 percent of existing taxes per year for the 1998-2000 period and be funded by limiting the amount of tax decreases
resulting from reassessment. No other tax policy measures are recommended for commercial and industrial property at
this time, because there is not sufficient time to fully consider and make all of the necessary tax policy decisions.
The 1998-2000 period should be viewed as an interim step for commercial and industrial properties in terms of
assessment and taxation reform. It is recommended that a work plan be developed to address all of the tax policy issues
that need to be considered before the next reassessment in the 2001 taxation year. The issues that need to be addressed
over the next two to three years include the relative tax rates for different types of business property, consideration of
separate property classes for types of commercial and industrial property, and a further review of the tax policy tools
available to the City.
Contacts:
Peter Viducis392-1005
Ed Zamparo 392-8641
Bill Wong392-9148
Insert Table/Map No. 1
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 2
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 3
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 4
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 5
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 6
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 7
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 8
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 9
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 10
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 11
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 12
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 13
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 14
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 15
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 16
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 17
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 18
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 19
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 20
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 21
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 22
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 23
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 24
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 25
commercial properties
Insert Table/Map No. 26
commercial properties
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause,
the following report (July 23, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
Purpose:
To obtain Council's authority for the adoption of by-laws for the levying and collection of taxes for the 1998 taxation
year, to impose a penalty charge for non-payment of taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears, to establish
tax ratios for the 1998 taxation year and for the levying of a special charge for 1998 for certain Business Improvement
Areas. Also attached for Council's information are draft by-laws concerning the residential property class phase-in
program with or without a threshold and the capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the
multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council authorize the levy and collection of taxes for the 1998 taxation year, the imposition of a penalty charge for
non-payment of 1998 taxes, the provision of interest to be added to tax arrears and to establish tax ratios for the year
1998;
(2)Council approve the levy of a special charge for 1998 for the following Business Improvement Areas and to provide
for its collection: Bloor by the Park; Bloor Court Village; Bloor West Village; Bloor-Bathurst-Madison; Bloor-Yorkville;
Bloordale Village; Corso Italia; Danforth by the Valley; Eglinton Way Village; Forest Hill Village; Gerrard India
Bazaar; Greektown on the Danforth; Harbord Street; Islington Village; Junction Gardens; Kennedy Road; Kingsway;
Lakeshore; Little Italy; Long Branch; Mimico Village; Old Cabbagetown; Parkdale Village; Queen/Broadview Village;
Roncesvalles Village; St.Lawrence Neighbourhood; Upper Village and Weston;
(3)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council to levy taxes for the year 1998 and to
provide for the collection of taxes for 1998 other than those levied under By-law No. 10-1998, to impose a penalty charge
for non-payment of taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears, to establish tax ratios for the 1998 taxation
year and to levy a special charge for 1998 for certain Business Improvement Areas and provide for its collection, in the
form or substantially in the form of the draft by-laws attached hereto; and
(4)subject to Council adopting a residential property class phase-in program with or without a threshold; and the
capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial
property classes, that leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto in the
form or substantially in the form of the draft by-laws attached hereto.
Comments:
The draft by-laws are: (1) to levy and collect taxes for the year 1998, to impose a penalty charge for non-payment of 1998
taxes, to provide for interest to be added to tax arrears and to establish tax ratios for the year 1998; (2) to levy a special
charge in 1998 for certain Business Improvement Areas and to provide for its collection; (3) to phase-in tax changes in
the residential property class with or without a threshold; and (4) to cap increases and decreases of property taxes on the
commercial, industrial and multi-residential classes for the taxation years 1998, 1999 and 2000.
The levying by-law sets the final tax rates for all property classes, which are set out in Sections 6 and 7 of the attached
draft by-law. The tax rate for the residential property class of 1.259702 percent includes a non-phaseable portion of
.0217 percent relating to the finalization of various provincial components of the bill -- provincial tax ratios and full use
of the provincial education tax room. The by-law imposes a penalty rate of 1.25 percent per month for the non-payment of
taxes in the 1998 taxation year and provides for the payment of interest at 1.25 percent per month to be added to tax
arrears. The by-law also establishes tax ratios.
Budgets for the following Business Improvement Areas have already been adopted by Council: Bloor by the Park; Bloor
Court Village; Bloor West Village; Bloor-Bathurst-Madison; Bloor-Yorkville; Bloordale Village; Corso Italia; Danforth
by the Valley; Eglinton Way Village; Forest Hill Village; Gerrard India Bazaar; Greektown on the Danforth; Harbord
Street; Islington Village; Junction Gardens; Kennedy Road; Kingsway; Lakeshore; Little Italy; Long Branch; Mimico
Village; Old Cabbagetown; Parkdale Village; Queen/Broadview Village; Roncesvalles Village; St. Lawrence
Neighbourhood; Upper Village and Weston. It is now necessary to levy and collect a special charge for the Boards of
Management of each respective Business Improvement Area.
The attached draft by-laws, which have been prepared by the City Solicitor, give effect to the recommendations in my
reports respecting a residential property class phase-in program with or without a threshold (dated July 2, 1998); and
the capping of taxes at 2.5 percent per year for the years 1998 - 2000 for the multi-residential (dated June 29, 1998) and
commercial and industrial property classes (dated June 26, 1998).
Contact Name:
Paul Wealleans, Phone: 397-4208)
(A copy of each of the by-laws, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 20,
1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
At its meeting on July 11 and 13, 1998, the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force requested that the following
information be made available for Council's consideration of the proposed tax implementation plan at the special
Council meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998:
(i)background information on the average incomes of tenants and homeowners;
(ii)Ontario tax credit form included in the personal income tax form; and
(iii)Table 7 embodied in the report (June 26, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer entitled,
"Commercial and Industrial Property: Tax Policy Options" revised to provide additional analysis of Councillor Walker's
motion regarding the commercial property class.)
(A copy of the Ontario tax credit form, appended to the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 21,
1998) from Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Rexdale-Thistletown:
Please find attached a copy of a letter which I have received from business owners in my Ward.
I have received a total of 360 letters and have submitted them to the Clerk for the record.
Thank you for taking the above-noted into account.
(The 360 letters in support of the proposed 2.5 percent cap on commercial property tax, referred to in the foregoing
communication, are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following
individuals in support of the proposed 2.5 percent cap on commercial property tax:
(i)(June 29, 1998) from Mr. Robert Kelly;
(ii)(July 13, 1998) from Mr. John Campbell, President, Brookfield Management Services;
(iii)(July 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert C. Primeau, C.A., Vice President, Finance and Administration, Heidelberg Canada
Graphic Equipment Limited;
(iv)(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Diana Currie, Senior Vice President Director of Stores, Suzy Shier Inc.;
(v)(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Richard Burnet, C.A., Controller, The Forzani Group Ltd.;
(vi)(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Mitch Zarbatany, President and CEO, Guess?;
(vii)(July 17, 1998) from Mr. A. Sullivan, VP Finance and Administration, Laura Secord:
(viii)(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Brian Worts, President and CEO, S.C. Food Services (Canada) Inc.;
(ix)(July 20, 1998) from Yefih Grimblat, Crepe de Paris;
(x)(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Graham Canning, Vice-President, Controller, Thriftys;
(xi)(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Steve Somers, President, Dylex Woman's Wear Group;
(xii)(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Elliott Wahle, President and CEO, Dylex Limited;
(xiii)(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Marc Chouinard, President, BiWay Stores;
(xiv)(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Lee Albert, Director, Real Estate, le chateau;
(xv)(July 20, 1998) from Mr. I. Teitelbaum, Chairman of The Board, Suzy Shier; and
(xvi)(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Anne Pitts, Vice President Store Operations, La Senza Inc.)
5
Property Tax Rebates for Charitable and
Similar Organizations
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to:
(1)submit a report to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force in October, 1998, on any hardship cases arising from
the 2.5 percent cap for charitable and non-profit organizations;
(2)submit a report to Council, through the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in September, 1998, on a fair tax
policy for ethno-cultural centres; and
(3)prepare for Council a communication package summarizing the details of the tax plan.")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations in the
following transmittal letter (July 13, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:
Recommendations:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on July, 6, 7, 11, and 13, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee and City Council that:
(A)Since the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force has already recommended that Council adopt the capping provision,
as contained in the Small Businesses and Charities Protection Act, for the commercial and industrial property classes, it
recommends that:
(1)no property tax rebate program be instituted for charitable and similar organizations in the industrial and commercial
property classes for the duration of the capping period (1998-2000);
(2)options to protect charitable and similar organizations in the commercial and industrial property classes, including
requesting from the Province the creation of a separate class for such organizations, be included as part of the workplan to
review assessment and taxation changes prior to the next reassessment in 2001 in order to minimize any impact to
charitable and similar organizations arising from assessment and tax reform.
(3)no property tax rebate program be instituted for charitable and similar organizations located in taxable properties in
the residential or multi-residential property classes.
(B)Should Council not adopt the capping option on tax increases for the commercial and industrial property classes the
Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force recommends that:
(1)funding in the amount of $437.0 thousand be provided within Corporate Expenditures to provide for a mandatory 40
percent rebate on property taxes for registered charities in the commercial and industrial property classes; and
(2)funding in the amount of $3.4 million be provided within Corporate Expenditures to provide for a 40 percent rebate on
property taxes for similar organizations in the commercial and industrial property classes as shown in the Category 1(b)
and 1(c) type organizations listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this report.
(3)the following preliminary eligibility criteria for similar organizations be referred to the Municipal Grants Review
Committee to be considered as part of the development of a municipal grants policy, and that the Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer, after consultation with the Community Social Planning Council and the United Way of Greater Toronto,
be requested to advise on the administration of the tax rebate program to that Committee:
To be eligible as a similar organization under the tax rebate program, an organization(s):
(a)must demonstrate a concern for the relief of poverty, or for people in emotional, physical or spiritual distress; or,
(b)must provide a clear service or benefit to the community, in that it concerns itself with the advancement of science,
education, philosophy, religion, art, sports and other causes beneficial to the community (human services, culture and
heritage, public health, recreation, human rights and equity); and,
(c)must be operated on a not-for-profit basis (with no share capital) and be accountable to the community; and,
(d)services and activities must be accessible to the community as a whole or for an appreciable portion of it.
(4)No property tax rebate program be instituted for charitable and similar organizations located in taxable properties in
the residential or multi-residential property classes.
Background:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force had before it a report (June 30, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer on the implications of the Small Business and Charities Protections Act, 1998 (Bill 16) on property tax rebates
for charitable and similar organizations.
The Task Force also had before it the following communications respecting the current value assessment and the property
tax rebates for charitable and similar organizations:
(a)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. John Doherty, Interim Executive Director, Planned Parenthood Toronto;
(b)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. Jack Slibar, Chief Operating Officer, Toronto Humane Society;
(c)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. Dan Clement, United Way of Greater Toronto;
(d)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Sharon Saberton, Registrar, College of Medical Radiation Technologists of Ontario;
(e)(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Janine Sindrey, Administrator, Canadian Peace Alliance;
(f)(July 8, 1998) from Mr. David Tang, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Barristers & Solicitors;
(g)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. George R. Springle; and
(h)(June 15, 1998) from Anne Swarbrick, Manager, Toronto Operations and Dr. Phil Shore, Chair, North York District
Board, The Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
(Copies of the communications referred to in the transmittal letter of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force have
previously been circulated to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force and
copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
--------
(Report dated June 30, 1998, addressed to the
Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purpose:
To report on the implications of the Small Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998 (Bill 16) on property tax rebates
for charitable and similar organizations.
Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
A property tax rebate program for charitable and similar would not be necessary if Council elects to adopt the property tax
capping option in Bill 16 for the commercial and industrial property classes. A rebate program would be optional under
this scenario.
Should Council not elect to adopt the capping option for the commercial and industrial property classes, then a property
tax rebate program for charitable organizations in such classes would be mandatory. Bill 16 mandates a minimum 40
percent rebate for registered charities, and would result in a 1998 current funding requirement to the City estimated to be
in the range of $437.0 thousand (for a 40 percent rebate) to $1.1 million (for a 100 percent rebate), payable to
approximately 141 registered charities in the commercial and industrial property classes.
Council also has the option, whether or not it elects to adopt the capping provision, to extend the rebate program to
include organizations that are similar to eligible charities or a class of such organizations as may be defined by the City.
The rebate (expressed as a percentage), if any, need not be the same as that provided to registered charities. Preliminary
analysis indicates there may be 1,164 organizations whose activities may be similar to charities to the extent that they
may meet the preliminary eligibility criteria for similar organizations outlined in this report. The municipal portion of
taxes payable by these organizations is estimated at $8.5 million, and a 40 percent rebate would require current funding in
the amount of $3.4 million. Preliminary analysis also indicates that there may be in the order of 2,219 other organizations
or properties that received preferential tax treatment in 1997, and which are now taxable at the higher
commercial/industrial rate under tax reform. The municipal portion of taxes payable by these organizations or properties
is estimated at $13.9 million. A rebate for this latter group is not recommended.
Bill 16, which received Royal Assent on June 11, 1998, contains amendments to permit municipalities to rebate taxes to
charities or similar organizations located in the residential or multi-residential property classes. Organizations located in
such property classes are not affected by tax increases resulting from the elimination of the Business Occupancy Tax
(BOT), as is the case with properties in the commercial/industrial classes. A tax rebate would provide such organizations
with a financial benefit they did not previously enjoy, with direct funding consequences to the City. Preliminary analysis
indicates that, on average, taxable charitable and similar organizations in the residential and multi-residential property
classes will be paying less tax under Current Value Assessment (CVA) than under the former tax system. A 40 percent
rebate for these organizations would result in an additional current funding requirement of $4.1 million.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Should Council adopt the capping provision, as contained in the Small Businesses and Charities Protection Act, for
the commercial and industrial property,
(i)no property tax rebate program be instituted for charitable and similar organizations in the industrial and commercial
property classes for the duration of the capping period (1998-2000); and
(ii)options to protect charitable and similar organizations in the commercial and industrial property classes, including
requesting from the Province the creation of a separate class for such organizations, be included as part of the workplan to
review assessment and taxation changes prior to the next reassessment in 2001 in order to minimize any impact to
charitable and similar organizations arising from assessment and tax reform.
(2)Should Council not adopt the capping option on tax increases for the commercial and industrial property classes,
(i)funding in the amount of $437.0 thousand be provided within Corporate Expenditures to provide for a mandatory 40
percent rebate on property taxes for registered charities in the commercial and industrial property classes; and
(ii)funding in the amount of $3.4 million be provided within Corporate Expenditures to provide for a 40 percent rebate on
property taxes for similar organizations in the commercial and industrial property classes as shown in the Category 1(b)
and 1(c) type organizations listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this report.
(3)The following preliminary eligibility criteria for similar organizations be referred to the Municipal Grants Review
Committee to be considered as part of the development of a municipal grants policy, and that the Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer be requested to advise on the administration of the tax rebate program to that Committee:
To be eligible as a similar organization under the tax rebate program, an organization(s):
(a)must demonstrate a concern for the relief of poverty, or for people in emotional, physical or spiritual distress; or
(b)must provide a clear service or benefit to the community, in that it concerns itself with the advancement of science,
education, philosophy, religion, art, sports and other causes beneficial to the community (human services, culture and
heritage, public health, recreation, human rights and equity);
(c)must be operated on a not-for-profit basis (with no share capital) and be accountable to the community; and
(d)services and activities must be accessible to the community as a whole or for an appreciable portion of it.
(4)No property tax rebate program be instituted for charitable and similar organizations located in taxable properties in
the residential or multi-residential property classes.
Council Reference:
Bill 16, the "Small Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998" (the Act), amends the Assessment Act, the Municipal Act
and other statutes in relation to local government financing. Specifically, this proposed legislation provides measures to
protect all small businesses, as well as charities and similar organizations, from large property tax increases that result
from changes to the property taxation system made by the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 (Nos. 1 and 2).
The most significant change made by Bill 16 is that it adds a new Part XXII.1 (the "capping option") to the Municipal
Act. This new part introduces the option for a municipality to cap property taxes for the commercial, industrial and
multi-residential property classes to limit increases for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 to 2.5 percent per year.
The Act also replaces Section 442.1 of the Municipal Act, previously introduced under Section 48 of the Fair Municipal
Finance Act, 1997 (No. 2), respecting a property tax rebate program for charitable and similar organizations. The Act
introduces new requirements for a mandatory tax rebate program for registered charities in the commercial and industrial
property classes if the capping option for these classes is not adopted. However, should the municipality choose to adopt
the capping provision, tenants of leased premises, including eligible charities and similar organizations, will also be
protected by the 2.5 percent limit on property tax increases, and a rebate program would be unnecessary, but still optional
to the municipality.
The Act also permits municipalities to rebate taxes to charities or similar organizations located in the residential or
multi-residential property classes. Rebates to charities in these classes were not included in the original provisions of the
Bill.
Other provisions and definitions of the Act respecting a tax rebate program are as follows:
Program options (the following apply with respect to what a tax rebate program under this section may provide, but is not
required to provide):
(i)the program may provide for rebates to organizations that are similar to eligible charities or a class of such
organizations defined by the municipality;
(ii)the program may provide for rebates to eligible charities or similar organizations for taxes on property to which the
capping option applies;
(iii)the program may provide for rebates that are greater than 40 percent;
(iv)the program may provide for adjustments in respect of the rebates for a year to be deducted from amounts payable in
the next year for the next year's rebates;
(v)starting in the year 2000, the program may permit municipalities to match payment of rebates to charities and similar
organizations with tax installment dates. The municipality must pay the rebate installment to the organization at least 21
days before the tax installment is due, and each rebate installment must be the same percentage of each tax installment;
and
(vi)the program may provide for rebates to eligible charities or similar organizations located in the residential or
multi-residential property classes.
Rebates for charities (mandatory in the commercial and industrial classes if the capping option is not adopted):
(i)a charity is defined as eligible if it is a registered charity as defined in subsection 248 (1) of the Income Tax Act
(Canada) that has a registration number issued by the Department of National Revenue;
(ii)the amount of a rebate must be at least 40 per cent of the taxes payable by the eligible charity on the property it
occupies;
(iii)the program must provide for the payment of a first installment of the rebate on or before January 15 of the year. The
first installment must be at least half of the estimated rebate for the year;
(iv)the program must provide for the payment of the balance of the estimated rebate on or before June 30 of the year;
(v)the program must provide for rebates even if the charity does not begin to occupy property until after the installments
would otherwise be payable;
(vi)the program must provide for final adjustments, to be made after the taxes paid by the charity can be determined, in
respect of differences between the estimated rebate paid by the municipality and the rebate to which the charity is entitled;
and
(vii)the program must provide for a rebate for 1998 and subsequent years, however, the rebate for 1998 and the first
installment of the rebate for 1999 must be paid on or before October 31, 1998.
Sharing costs of rebates:
(i)the costs of a rebate of taxes on a property shall be shared by the municipality and school board that share in the
revenue from the taxes on the property in the same proportion as the municipality and school board share in those
revenues. The municipality shall also give the charity or similar organization a written statement of the proportion of the
costs of the rebate that is shared by the school board.
Regulations governing program:
(i)the Minister of Finance may make regulations governing programs under the tax rebate provision including prescribing
additional requirements for such programs and governing the procedural requirements that such programs may include.
Regulations, later date for payment for 1998 and 1999:
(i)the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing may make regulations prescribing a date later than October 31, 1998 on
or before which rebates for 1998 and first installments of rebates for 1999 shall be paid, and requiring and governing
interest to be paid by municipalities on rebates for 1998 and first installments of rebates for 1999 that are paid after
October 31, 1998.
Background:
This section provides a background of the intent of the tax rebate provision of Bill 16.
Section 3 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, exempts from assessment and taxation properties owned and occupied by
certain organizations as listed in the legislation. Such organizations include churches and religious organizations,
educational institutions, seminaries of learning maintained for philanthropic purposes, houses of refuge or for the care of
children, incorporated charitable institutions organized for the relief of the poor or similar incorporated institutions
conducted on philanthropic purposes and not for the purposes of profit or gain. In circumstances where the organization
does not own the property, it would be subject to property taxation. This Act does not necessarily exempt all registered
charities from property taxation.
Prior to the Fair Municipal Finance Act, in cases where the organizations occupied (owned or leased) properties in the
commercial or industrial property class, certain charitable organizations, not-for-profit organizations and other
Anon-business use@ entities, as determined by the Province, were exempted from paying the Business Occupancy Tax
(BOT) and were taxed at the residential property tax rate rather than the commercial tax rate.
Whereas prior to 1998, the Province was responsible for establishing the tax class of these entities, enactment of the Fair
Municipal Finance Act discontinues the Province=s role in this practice. Thus, those affected entities in the commercial
and industrial property classes are no longer classified for treatment at the preferential rate and are now taxable at the
commercial or industrial rate as the case may be. In its place, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, as amended by Bill 16,
allows municipalities to provide similar preferential tax treatment to eligible charities and Asimilar@ organizations
through a rebate program. The minimum 40 percent rebate is designed to offset the move to the commercial/industrial rate
and the accompanying transfer of the burden of the former BOT amongst that class. The Bill now provides the
municipality the option of providing a rebate greater than the minimum required and also allows the flexibility of having
different rates for charities versus similar organizations. If the capping option is not adopted, then the Bill mandates a
rebate for charities from 40 percent to 100 percent of property taxes. Whether or not the capping option is adopted, the
Bill allows municipalities the option to provide rebates of from zero to 100 percent of the property taxes to similar
organizations or any such class of organizations as may be defined by the municipality.
Charities and similar organizations located in the residential or multi-residential property classes would not be affected by
tax increases as a result of the elimination of the BOT, and will continue to be taxed at their respective residential or
multi-residential rate. The Act now provides the municipality the option to provide rebates of from zero to 100 percent of
the property taxes to charities and similar organizations in these property classes.
Discussion:
Eligible Charities:
Should the City not elect to adopt the capping provision, the Act mandates that all eligible charities in the commercial or
industrial property classes be granted a minimum of a 40 percent tax rebate. AEligible charity@ means a registered charity
as defined by subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) that has a registration number issued by the Department
of National Revenue.
To qualify for registration under the Income Tax Act, an organization must be established and operated for charitable
purposes, and it must devote its resources to charitable activities. The charity must be resident in Canada, and cannot have
any income payable to benefit its members.
Under the Federal Income Tax Act standards, as enunciated through common law, a charity has to meet a public benefit
test. To qualify under this test, an organization must show that:
(i)its activities and purposes provide a tangible benefit to the public;
(ii)those people who are eligible for benefits are either the public as a whole or a significant section of it in that they are
not a restricted group or one where members share a private connection, such as social clubs or professional associations
with specific membership;
(iii)the charity=s activities must be legal and must not be contrary to public policy; and
(iv)the organization has to be either incorporated or governed by a trust or constitution.
Based on 1995 Revenue Canada data, there are currently more than 75,000 registered charities in Canada, with
approximately 6,072 registered charities located in Toronto. A summary of these registered charities is shown in Table 1.
While there appears to be a significant number of locations occupied by registered charities, the tax rebate program would
not be applicable to most of these, as many of these organizations are owner-occupants and already exempt from taxation
through the Assessment Act, such as properties used for religious or educational purposes, or they are located in the
residential property class, to which the mandatory rebate program does not apply. Nevertheless, approximately 141
registered charities were identified from the 1997 Assessment Roll as being located in the commercial/industrial property
class, and now subject to the higher rate of taxation, and thus would be eligible for the rebate program.
TABLE 1
REGISTERED CHARITIES IN THE CITY OF TORONTO
REGISTERED CHARITY NUMBER OF% OF
TYPES LOCATIONSTOTAL
ANIMAL SOCIETIES210.3%
ARTS & CULTURE4347.1%
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION3175.2%
EDUCATION/TRAINING1,06217.5%
HEALTH4307.1%
HERITAGE540.9%
HOSPITAL470.8%
LIBRARIES/MUSUEMS891.5%
MILITARY UNITS110.2%
OTHER1682.8%
RECREATION921.5%
RELIGIOUS 2,03633.5%
WELFARE1,31121.6%
TOTAL6,072100.0%
"Similar Organizations":
Bill 16 further provides that the rebate may be extended to "organizations that are similar to eligible charities" or a class
of such organizations defined by the municipality. Such an extension of the rebate program is optional to the City whether
or not it elects to adopt the capping option. The Act extends the option to charities and similar organizations in the
residential or multi-residential property classes. The amount of the rebate, expressed as a percentage, need not be the same
between that provided to eligible charities and that to similar organizations.
This section provides a context in which to develop criteria to determine the eligibility of organizations that are similar to
eligible charities, should the City wish to consider this option under the tax rebate program.
The Ontario Law Reform Commission has released a working paper entitled "A Report on the Law of Charities" (1996).
Among other things, the report reviews three types of organizations (charities, non-profit corporations, and
unincorporated non-profit organizations). The report discusses the difficulties with the current common-law definition of
"charity", sets out the rudiments of a reformed definition, and identifies policy implications of that definition. The report
acknowledges that there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes activities similar in nature to charities,
and the interpretation of various definitions is largely philosophical in nature.
(i)The Commission recommends against the adoption of a statutory definition of charity, and instead recommends a more
liberal interpretation of the common-law definition. The Commission recognizes that the range of charitable activities is
so diverse that a specific definition would be problematic. The Commission also emphasizes that these improvements to
the common-law definition should be implemented by courts and public policy administrators, not by legislators. The
Commission presents, as a rudimentary definition:
"a truly charitable act is that act whose form, actual effect, and motive are the provision of the means of pursing a
common or universal good to persons who are remote in affection and to whom no moral or legal obligation is owed."
(ii)The second type of organization reviewed by the Commission was Non-Profit Organizations (NPO's). A NPO is not a
registered charity. The key distinction is that a registered charity can issue charitable receipts for tax purposes, whereas
NPO's cannot issue tax receipts for donations or membership fees contributed. Organizations can be incorporated as NPO
either federally or provincially but are not required to be incorporated. A NPO described in paragraph 149(1)(1) of the
Income Tax Act is a club, society, or association that is organized and operated solely for:
(a)social welfare; or
(b)civic improvement; or
(c)pleasure or recreation; or
(d)any purpose other than profit.
Also, no part of the income of these organizations can be payable to, or otherwise available for the personal benefit of any
proprietor, member, or shareholder, unless the proprietor, member or shareholder was a club, society, or association
whose primary purpose was to promote amateur athletics in Canada. The provincial requirement for NPO's essentially
mirrors that of the federal requirements.
Revenue Canada uses several indicators in assessing whether or not an organization is operated exclusively for non-profit
purposes or is carrying on a trade or business. Revenue Canada looks to the activities of the organization and how it is
operated in order to determine whether the organization is operated on a profit basis rather than a cost recovery basis.
The Commission concludes that the current statutory provisions governing NPO's in Ontario is in serious need of reform.
First, they note that it provides for only one class of non-profit corporation, and that class is identified by an open-ended
list of non-profit purposes. Second, it is unclear whether non-profit corporations are permitted to carry on ancillary or
incidental commercial activities. Thus, incorporation as an NPO is in itself not a definitive indicator of an organization
meeting the "pubic benefit" test that is characteristic for charitable activities.
(iii)The third type of organization reviewed by the Commission was unincorporated NPO=s and Associations. Of the
three forms of organization available to non-profit entities today, the unincorporated organization requires the minimum
in the way of legal sophistication to create and maintain. The diverse range of activities include social clubs, debating
societies, political interest groups and interest group coalitions, alumni associations, religious organizations and churches,
home and school associations, sports associations, and trade associations.
Eligibility Criteria for "Similar" Organizations:
Based on a review of the literature, including recent works, and from the foregoing discussion, it appears that a number of
criteria have been highlighted which could constitute a definition or framework to determine the eligibility of a "similar"
organization for a tax rebate, pursuant to Bill 16. The criteria includes:
(i)the organization must demonstrate a concern for the relief of poverty, or for people in emotional, physical or spiritual
distress; or,
(ii)the organization must provide a clear service or benefit to the community, in that it concerns itself with the
advancement of science, education, philosophy, religion, art, sports and other causes beneficial to the community (human
services, culture and heritage, public health, recreation, human rights and equity); and,
(iii)the organization must be operated on a not-for-profit basis (with no share capital) and be accountable to the
community; and,
(iv)the services and activities must be accessible to the community as a whole or for an appreciable portion of it.
These criteria, which arise from a more progressive interpretation of the common-law definition of charity, provides a
basis from which to evaluate the eligibility of the three types of organizations for the purpose of the tax rebate: charities
(other than charities registered under the Income Tax Act), incorporated non-profit organizations, and unincorporated
non-profit organizations.
The by-law outlining the details of the tax rebate could define "similar organizations" by listing all the organizations
deemed by Council to be eligible for the rebate. This would eliminate the administration required to determine which
organizations would be eligible for rebates. Alternatively, the by-law could contain clear criteria for defining a Asimilar
organization@ so that the criteria can be applied effectively by staff (see Administrative Issues on page 18).
(A)Analysis of Potential Applicants - Commercial & Industrial Property Classes:
As previously discussed, the Province has discontinued its role of classifying units assessed for the BOT as well as
identifying those units in either commercial or industrial properties to be taxed at the preferential residential rate. In
conjunction with this, the Fair Municipal Finance Act now requires that the assessment be based on property portions,
whereas previously, individual units were individually assessed. As such, the 1998 assessment information received
provides no information that may be used to identify units that were previously or might now be in a position to be a
potential applicant for a tax rebate. Furthermore, in the case of multi-use properties and leased premises, it is now the
landlord's responsibility to apportion taxes amongst tenants.
Notwithstanding the above limitations, an analysis was performed utilizing the returned roll used for 1997 taxation
purposes and by matching it to the 1998 phase-in tape. The 1997 tape provides information respecting all occupancies in
the industrial and commercial property classes that were taxed preferentially (i.e., no BOT and taxed at the residential
rate). The 1998 taxes payable, at the commercial rate, were estimated assuming any tax increase or decrease was passed
on proportionately to each tenant within the tax class. It is noted these are only estimates and are intended to provide an
order of magnitude. The tax impact estimates presented in this report were prepared based on the CVA base case (with
one tax rate for all commercial properties). Other factors, such as the number of vacant units in the property or whether
the tenant is on a gross lease or a net-net lease, and the specific terms of the lease, may also affect this estimate.
The estimates presented in this section are relevant only if Council does not elect to adopt the capping option for the
commercial and industrial property classes which would limit any tax increases to 2.5 percent.
The analysis revealed 3,524 locations receiving preferential treatment in 1997. A summary of the results is presented in
Table 2, and issues specific to the other organizations is presented in the following section.
Table 2
Summary of Eligibility Categories
(Organizations Located in the Commercial & Industrial Property Classes)
ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY |
NUMBER OF
LOCATIONS |
ESTIMATED
1997 TOTAL
TAXES ($000's) |
ESTIMATED
1998 TOTAL
TAXES ($000's) |
% CHANGE |
E
STIMATED MUNICIPAL
REBATE ($000's) |
ESTIMATED EDUCATION
REBATE ($000's) |
CATEGORY 1 - ACTIVITY TYPES APPEARING TO MEET PRELIMINARY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: |
|
|
|
1(a) |
REGISTERED CHARITY* |
141 |
2,251.7 |
2,501.4 |
11.1% |
437.0* |
1,092.5 |
563.5* |
1,408.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1(b) |
NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY
RELATED |
957 |
12,470.1 |
15,080.7 |
20.9% |
2,634.7 |
6,586.7 |
3,397.6 |
8,494.0 |
1(c) |
OTHER COMMUNITY RELATED** |
207 |
3,499.5 |
4,435.9 |
26.8% |
775.0 |
1,937.4 |
999.4 |
2,498.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUB-TOTAL - SIMILAR |
1,164 |
15,969.6 |
19,516.6 |
22.2% |
3,409.7 |
8,524.1 |
4,397 |
10,992.5 |
|
TOTAL - CATEGORY 1 |
1,305 |
18,221.2 |
22,017.9 |
20.8% |
3,846.6 |
9,616.6 |
4,960.5 |
12,401.3 |
CATEGORY 2 - ACTIVITY TYPES NOT APPEARING TO MEET PRELIMINARY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: |
|
|
2(a) |
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS |
839 |
12,303.5 |
14,212.3 |
15.5% |
2,483.0 |
6,207.5 |
3,201.9 |
8,004.8 |
2(b) |
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS -
COMMERCIAL |
1,380 |
11,711.5 |
17,697.7 |
51.5% |
3,091.9 |
7,729.8 |
3,987.2 |
9,967.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUB-TOTAL - CATEGORY 2 |
2,219 |
24,015.0 |
31,910.0 |
32.9% |
5,574.9 |
13,937.3 |
7,189.1 |
17,972.7 |
|
TOTAL - ALL |
3,524 |
42,236.2 |
53,927.9 |
27.7% |
9,421.6 |
23,553.9 |
12,149.6 |
30,374.0 |
Notes: Estimate based on 1997 roll and assuming landlord passes on tax increase/decrease proportionately* Mandatory minimum 40% rebate required if capping not elected
** Further investigation suggests that an appreciable number of these organizations are likely incorporate NPO's
Analysis of Category Types:
Category 1 Organizations:
The first category included those organizations that are charitable or appear to be similar to charitable in nature, based on
the limited information available, and according to the suggested eligibility criteria outlined previously. This category
includes:
(i)Registered Charitable Organizations;
(ii)Non-Profit Community-Related Organizations (incorporated); and
(iii)other Community Related Organizations (unincorporated non-profit).
This category includes organizations concerned with human and community services (such as family, health,
immigration, seniors, women, legal, daycare, etc.), arts and culture, recreation, and religion. Again, based on the limited
information, these organizations would appear to meet the public benefit test in that they provide what appears to be a
concern for the relief of poverty, or for people in emotional, physical or spiritual distress, there appears to be a clear
service or benefit to the community in the areas of science, education, philosophy, religion, arts, sports or other causes
beneficial to the community (human services, health, recreation, human rights and equity), the services appear to be
accessible to the community, and probably, many of these are non-profit in nature (incorporated or unincorporated). Table
3 provides a distribution of charitable activities referred to under category 1(a) of Table 2, and Table 4 provides a
distribution of activities that appear to be similar to charitable in nature and that appear to meet the preliminary eligibility
criteria, as referred to under categories 1(b) and 1(c) of Table 2.
Category 2 Organizations:
The second category ("Other Organizations") on Table 2 consists of those organizations, which after reviewing the
limited information, do not appear to meet the suggested eligibility criteria for similar organizations for one of two
reasons: (1) the activity does not appear to be charitable in nature or the organization would appear to provide benefit to a
narrow segment of the community (Category 2(a)); and (2) that it is a space occupied by individuals or commercial
entities for which the space was deemed to have no business use (Category 2(b)). Previous preferential tax treatment in
itself should not be considered as cause for the City to continue with providing preferential treatment, and some 1,400
locations of this type should not be included within the scope of the tax rebate program. These spaces include
not-specified properties, consisting of properties in commercial space occupied by individuals, parking spaces, storage
lockers, basements, garages, property rental offices and utility rooms, all of which the Province has previously coded as
non-business use. Table 5 provides a distribution of the activities covered by these other organizations. Specific issues are
discussed in the following section.
Table 3 - Category 1(a) Organizations
Charitable Organization Types
Located in Commercial & Industrial Property Classes
(Mandatory Rebate if Capping Option Not Adopted)
CHARITY TYPE |
NO. OF LOCATIONS |
ESTIMATED MUNICIPAL REBATE ($000'S) * |
|
|
40% |
100% |
CHARITABLE - ANIMAL SOCIETIES |
2 |
7.5 |
18.8 |
CHARITABLE - ARTS & CULTURE |
10 |
7.0 |
17.5 |
CHARITABLE - COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION |
5 |
9.2 |
22.9 |
CHARITABLE - EDUCATION/TRAINING |
16 |
47.3 |
118.3 |
CHARITABLE - HEALTH |
20 |
122.6 |
306.4 |
CHARITABLE - HOSPITAL |
1 |
2.1 |
5.3 |
CHARITABLE - RECREATION |
1 |
0.9 |
2.4 |
CHARITABLE - RELIGIOUS |
13 |
22.3 |
55.6 |
CHARITABLE - WELFARE |
35 |
122.8 |
307.1 |
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION - OTHER |
38 |
95.3 |
238.2 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
141 |
437.0 |
1,092.5 |
--------
Table 4 - Category 1(b) and 1(c) Organizations
Potential Applicants - Community-Related Organizations, Not-for-Profit or Otherwise
Located in Commercial & Industrial Property Classes
Appearing to Meet Preliminary Eligibility Criteria
(Optional Whether or Not the Capping Option is Adopted)
|
NO. OF LOCATIONS |
ESTIMATED MUNICIPAL REBATE* |
_
ACTIVITY TYPE |
NON-
PROFIT |
OTHER
COMMUNITY
RELATED* |
_
NON-PROFIT |
OTHER COMMUNITY
RELATED** |
TOTAL
ESTIMATED MUNICIPAL
REBATE |
|
Category 1(b) |
Category
1(c) |
40% |
100% |
40% |
100% |
40% |
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTS & CULTURE |
77 |
14 |
179.6 |
449.0 |
50.6 |
126.5 |
230.2 |
575.5 |
CHILDREN'S SERVICES |
14 |
- |
62.1 |
155.4 |
- |
- |
62.1 |
155.4 |
COMMUNITY SERVICES |
76 |
21 |
165.7 |
414.4 |
37.9 |
94.6 |
203.6 |
509.0 |
CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS |
62 |
13 |
128.5 |
321.4 |
39.7 |
99.1 |
168.2 |
420.5 |
DAYCARE |
12 |
9 |
35.2 |
88.0 |
35.3 |
88.3 |
70.5 |
176.3 |
EDUCATION/TRAINING |
41 |
14 |
126.9 |
317.3 |
57.2 |
142.9 |
184.1 |
460.2 |
FAMILY SERVICES |
11 |
5 |
17.3 |
43.3 |
8.5 |
21.2 |
25.8 |
64.5 |
FOUNDATION/INSTITUTE |
- |
3 |
- |
- |
5.6 |
13.9 |
5.6 |
13.9 |
COMMUNITY GROUPS - MISC. |
- |
16 |
- |
- |
95.7 |
239.3 |
95.7 |
239.3 |
HEALTH SERVICES |
41 |
8 |
155.6 |
389.1 |
21.4 |
53.5 |
177.0 |
442.6 |
HEALTH SOCIETIES & FOUNDATIONS |
48 |
- |
157.4 |
393.5 |
- |
- |
157.4 |
393.5 |
HOUSING |
12 |
- |
73.2 |
182.9 |
- |
- |
73.2 |
182.9 |
IMMIGRANT SERVICES |
14 |
8 |
25.4 |
63.4 |
14.8 |
36.9 |
40.2 |
100.3 |
LEGAL SERVICES |
12 |
- |
25.0 |
62.6 |
- |
- |
25.0 |
62.6 |
MEDICAL/HOSPITAL |
- |
2 |
- |
- |
61.4 |
153.4 |
61.4 |
153.4 |
NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS |
424 |
- |
1,256.3 |
3,140.7 |
- |
- |
1,256.3 |
3,140.7 |
POLITICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & LOBBY |
20 |
- |
21.5 |
53.9 |
- |
- |
21.5 |
53.9 |
RECREATIONAL |
20 |
15 |
42.6 |
106.6 |
109.9 |
274.8 |
152.5 |
381.4 |
RELIGIOUS |
45 |
71 |
77.0 |
192.6 |
218.8 |
547.1 |
295.8 |
739.7 |
SENIOR'S SERVICES |
3 |
2 |
10.8 |
27.1 |
5.6 |
13.9 |
16.4 |
41.0 |
WOMEN'S SERVICES |
16 |
2 |
25.1 |
6 2.8 |
2.3 |
5.7 |
27.4 |
68.5 |
YOUTH SERVICES |
9 |
4 |
49.2 |
123.0 |
10.4 |
26.0 |
59.6 |
149.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
957 |
207 |
2,634.4 |
6,587.0 |
775.1 |
1,937.1 |
3,409.5 |
8,524.1 |
Notes: * The City would also rebate the school board portion of the taxes on the property in the amounts shown in Table 2** Further investigation suggests that an appreciable number of these organizations are likely incorporate NPO's, and if so, would qualify under the eligibility criteria
Table 5 - Category 2(a) and 2(b) Organizations
Potential Applicants - Other Organizations
Located in Commercial & Industrial Property Classes
Not Appearing to Meet Preliminary Eligibility Criteria
(Optional Whether or Not the Capping Option is Adopted)
ACTIVITY TYPE |
NO. OF LOCATIONS |
ESTIMATED MUNICIPAL REBATE
($000'S) * |
CATEGORY 2(A): |
|
40% |
100% |
|
|
|
|
ARTIST STUDIO |
223 |
157.3 |
393.1 |
ASSOCIATIONS - PROFESSIONAL & TRADE |
95 |
550.9 |
1,377.2 |
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING |
1 |
1.1 |
2.8 |
CONSTITUENCY OFFICE |
47 |
60.3 |
150.8 |
CONSULATE OFFICE |
39 |
170.7 |
426.8 |
CREDIT UNION/PENSION |
8 |
6.5 |
16.2 |
FOREIGN TOURIST OFFICE |
12 |
17.6 |
44.0 |
FOREIGN TRADE OFFICE |
15 |
43.0 |
107.6 |
NON-PROFIT - LEGION |
7 |
46.4 |
115.9 |
NON-PROFIT - PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS, TRADE ASSOCATIONS |
142 |
454 |
1,135 |
NON-PROFIT - FOREIGN OFFICES |
14 |
31.3 |
78.3 |
POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT |
5 |
16.4 |
41.1 |
PRIVATE CLUB |
17 |
51.6 |
129.0 |
SOCIAL CLUB |
66 |
269.5 |
673.8 |
TRADE UNION |
132 |
539.9 |
1,349.9 |
VETERANS CLUB |
16 |
66.4 |
166.1 |
|
|
|
|
SUB-TOTAL CATEGORY 2(A) |
839 |
2,483.0 |
6,207.5 |
|
|
|
|
CATEGORY 2(B): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO BUSINESS USE - BASEMENT |
18 |
7.2 |
18.0 |
NO BUSINESS USE - COMMON AREA |
7 |
13.6 |
33.9 |
NO BUSINESS USE - GARAGE |
24 |
32.8 |
82.1 |
NO BUSINESS USE - MEETING ROOM |
5 |
10.3 |
25.7 |
NO BUSINESS USE - PARKING |
9 |
2.7 |
6.6 |
NO BUSINESS USE - PRIVATE SPACE |
19 |
12.5 |
31.2 |
NO BUSINESS USE - SHARED PARKING |
181 |
506.5 |
1,266.3 |
NO BUSINESS USE - STORAGE |
171 |
321.7 |
804.3 |
NOT SPECIFIED |
695 |
1,813.8 |
4,534.5 |
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT |
245 |
359.8 |
899.4 |
VACANT |
6 |
11.1 |
27.8 |
|
|
|
|
SUB-TOTAL CATEGORY 2(B) |
1,380 |
3,091.9 |
7,729.8 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL - CATEGORY 2 |
2,219 |
5,574.9 |
13,937.3 |
Notes: * The City would also rebate the school board portion of the taxes on the property in the amounts shown in Table 2
Other Organizations Specific Issues:
The preliminary eligibility criteria, as previously outlined, would exclude the organizations within the second category in
Table 5 above ("Other Organizations"). These organizations benefited from the tax reduction for non-business activities
under the old tax system. Council can identify which, if any, of these types of organizations might also be considered for
the tax rebate. The by-law would then include the desired organization(s) under the tax rebate program. The following
organizations have voiced concerns to date:
Artists Studios (223 organizations, municipal rebate $157.0 - $393.0 thousand):
Consists of private studios occupied by individuals or collectives (groups of artists working together under a group name)
for artistic purposes. Activities include the creation of works in the area of visual arts, film and video, choreography,
writing, music. Purpose may include some commercial activities, which may be incidental and subordinate in purpose to
the production process.
It is noted that the City has a grants program to assist artists. Rather than modifying the definition of "similar"
organizations to include activities of a limited membership or for which incidental and subordinate commercial activities
may be engaged in, an alternative approach my be to modify the existing grants program in order to provide additional
financial assistance. However, grants would be funded by the municipality and there would no sharing on the education
side.
Legion and Veterans Clubhouses (23 organizations, municipal rebate $113.0 - $282.0 thousand):
Consists of clubhouses and halls occupied by those who served in the armed forces of Her Majesty or Her Majesty's allies
in any war.
It should be noted that property tax relief for Veterans' Clubhouses may be provided through exemptions from general
purpose rates through the Municipal Act or by a municipality=s general power to make grants.
Prior to 1998, the former City of Toronto was the only municipality that provided a significant level of property tax relief
for Veterans' Clubhouses, which included City, Metro and school board taxes. The cities of York and Etobicoke provided
grants to Veterans' clubhouses, but their grants were limited to the municipal share of taxes only. The cities of
Scarborough, North York and the Borough of East York do not provide any property tax relief for Veterans' clubhouses.
By direction of the Budget Committee, status quo funding in the amount of $194,362.00 has been provided in the 1998
grants programs budget for Veterans' clubhouses. A separate report on Veterans' Clubhouses is included in the agenda of
the Task Force.
(B)Analysis of Potential Applicants - Residential & Multi-Residential Property Classes:
The Act as amended permits municipalities to provide tax rebates to eligible charities or similar organizations located in
the residential or multi-residential property classes.
It should be noted that the assessment data does not provide a unique identifier for charities or similar organizations
located in the residential or multi-residential property classes. Nevertheless, a sample survey was conducted using the
1997 Directory of Community Services in Metropolitan Toronto ("the Blue Book"). This directory provides a
comprehensive list of human services, community, cultural, arts, health, education and recreational organizations, which
are primarily non-profit in nature. The 1997 publication lists 1,275 such organizations in Toronto. Based on a sample,
estimates of the number of organizations within various property classes along with the old and new taxes payable is
shown in Table 6 below.
Charities or similar organizations located in the residential or multi-residential property classes are not affected by tax
increases resulting from the elimination of the Business Occupancy Tax, as is the case with properties in the
commercial/industrial classes. A tax rebate would provide such organizations with a financial benefit they did not
previously enjoy, with direct funding consequences to the City. From Table 6, a 40 percent rebate to charities and similar
organizations in the residential and multi-residential property classes would result in a current funding impact estimated at
$4.1 million (City share).
Table 6
Potential Applicants - Residential & Multi-Residential Property Classes
(based on sample from "Blue Book"*)
Property Class
_
|
Estimated No. of
Locations**,# |
Estimated 1997 Total
Taxes ($000's)**
|
Estimated 1998 Total Taxes
($000's)** |
Estimated 1998
Municipal Taxes
($000's)**
|
Change in Total
Taxes |
Residential |
85 |
12,300 |
6,500 |
4,100 |
(47%) |
Multi-Residential |
43 |
72 |
27 |
24 |
(63%) |
Sub-Total |
128 |
2,372 |
6,527 |
4,124 |
|
Commercial |
475 |
13,700 |
24,300 |
|
77% |
* 1997 Directory of Community Services in Metropolitan Toronto
** Projection based on sample size of 299 matches from total population of 1,275
# Balance of 26 locations in other property classes
Finally, it should noted that the tax rebate program under Bill 16 does not affect treatment of those properties that
currently enjoy either a tax exemption or a tax cancellation under a Private Member's Bill.
Administrative Issues:
The administrative details for the implementation of the tax rebate program, if required, have yet to be developed. The Act
now prescribes certain administrative procedures, including the timing of the tax rebates and a transition process for 1998.
The Bill further provides for the Minister of Finance to make regulations governing procedural requirements that such a
program may include.
Any tax rebate would have to be implemented by by-law of the City. The by-law outlining the details of the tax rebate
could define "similar organizations" by listing all the organizations deemed by Council to be eligible for the rebate. This
would eliminate the administration required to determine which organizations would be eligible for rebates. Alternatively,
the by-law could contain clear criteria for defining a "similar organization" so that the criteria can be applied effectively
by staff.
Should the capping option not be adopted, significant administrative resources would be required to implement the tax
rebate program. This would involve screening all applicants and the determination of eligibility. The preliminary
estimates suggest 1,305 potentially eligible organizations in Category1, and it is anticipated that a significant number of
other organizations would apply for a rebate, and would be screened out as ineligible. An appeals process may then have
to be administered to ensure due process for those applicants determined as ineligible in the initial application. It is
estimated such a program would require the dedication of several staff persons.
A tax rebate program is not a grant program. However, the decision process shares similar issues and challenges that are
encountered in a grants program including the administration of an eligibility criteria and an appeals process. The
Municipal Grants Review Committee was established to oversee the development of a Municipal Grants Policy and to
provide direction with respect grants administration decisions. Many of the "similar organizations" identified as
potentially eligible for a tax rebate under the preliminary eligibility criteria outlined in this report already receive grant
support from the City for providing non-profit public services in the areas of human services, culture and heritage, public
health, recreation, human rights and equity. These organizations could be eligible for the tax rebate. It is recommended
that the preliminary criteria for the determination of the eligibility of similar organizations be referred to the Municipal
Grants Review Committee to be considered as part its development of a municipal grants policy.
A further report on the administrative procedures relating to the tax rebate program will be forthcoming if necessary.
Conclusion:
The Small Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998 (Bill 16), provides measures to protect all small businesses in the
commercial and industrial property classes, including charities and similar organizations, from large property tax
increases resulting from property tax reform made by the Fair Municipal Finance Act. The most significant change is that
it introduces the option for the City to cap property taxes for the commercial, industrial and multi-residential property
classes to limit increases for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 to 2.5 percent per year.
The Bill also introduces new requirements for a mandatory tax rebate program for registered charities in the commercial
and industrial property classes. However, should the municipality choose to adopt the capping option, tenants of leased
premises, including eligible charities and similar organizations, as well as owners, would also be protected by the 2.5
percent limit on property tax increases, and a rebate program would be unnecessary, but still optional to the municipality.
Should Council adopt the capping provision for the commercial and industrial property classes, this report recommends
that no property tax rebate program be instituted for the duration of the capping period.
Pursuant to Bill 16, should Council not adopt the capping provision, a minimum 40 percent tax rebate would be mandated
for registered charities (as defined under the Income tax Act that has a registration number issued by the Department of
National Revenue) located in the commercial and industrial property classes. Bill 16 makes it optional to provide a tax
rebate to organizations that are similar to eligible charities or a class of such organizations as may be defined by Council,
provided they are in the commercial or industrial property classes.
If Council does not adopt the capping provision for the commercial and industrial property classes, it is recommended that
a 40 percent property tax rebate program be instituted for registered charities, and similar organizations located in the
commercial or industrial property classes and that meet the eligibility criteria outlined in this report. Similar organizations
would include non-profit community-related organizations (incorporated or unincorporated) as shown under Category 1
of Table 2. Such a program would result in a 1998 current funding requirement of $3.8 million, which would benefit
approximately 141 eligible charities and 1,164 similar organizations potentially eligible under the eligibility criteria
presented in this report.
The recent (June 2, 1998) amendment to Bill 16 allows municipalities to rebate taxes to charities or similar organizations
located in the residential or multi-residential property classes. Organizations located in such property classes are not
affected by tax increases resulting from the elimination of the Business Occupancy Tax, as is the case with properties in
the commercial/industrial classes. A tax rebate would provide such organizations with a financial benefit they did not
previously enjoy, with direct funding consequences to the City. Preliminary analysis indicates that, on average, taxable
charitable and similar organizations in the residential and multi-residential property classes will be paying less tax under
CVA than under the former tax system. A 40 percent rebate to charities and similar organizations located in the residential
and multi-residential property classes would result in a current funding impact to the City estimated at $4.1 million. This
report recommends against extending the tax rebate to these property classes. Rather, financial assistance for charitable
and similar organizations should be considered by the Municipal Grants Review Committee under the overall grants
allocation policy yet to be established.
Contact Names:
Adir Gupta, 392-8071
Ed Zamparo, 392-8641
6
Tax Shifts - Effect of Changes to Transition Ratios
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(1)amending the recommendations embodied in the transmittal letter dated July 13, 1998, from the Assessment and Tax
Policy Task Force, as follows:
(a)by striking out Recommendation No.(2), and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(2)Council not consider any deliberate tax shifts between classes of property in 1998, 1999 and 2000."; and
(b)by striking out the following Recommendation No. 3(i):
"(3)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:
(i)once the 905 municipalities have set their final tax rates with an analysis of the difference in tax burdens with Toronto
and that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee then recommend whether or not Council should consider a
long-term plan to possibly reallocate property tax class burdens;";
so that the recommendations of the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force shall now read as follows:
"It is recommended that:
(1)the report (June 29, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting tax shifts, be received;
(2)Council not consider any deliberate tax shifts between classes of property in 1998, 1999 and 2000;
(3)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on
the advantages and disadvantages of different tax rates for the residential, multi-residential, commercial and industrial
tax groups; and
(4)Council reiterate its request to the Province to develop a multi-year strategy to reduce the burden on property taxes
caused by education and social service costs."; and
(2)adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that:
'WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has established "bands of fairness" whereby it deems that the
commercial/industrial tax rate should not be ten percent greater than the residential tax rate; and
WHEREAS the "principle of fairness" should differentiate between properties that are income-producing versus those
that are not;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council petition the Province of Ontario to review its "bands of
fairness" with a view to allowing more latitude in setting the tax rate for commercial/industrial properties.' ")
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations in the
following transmittal letter (July 13, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force:
Recommendations:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force on July, 6, 7, 11, and 13, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee and City Council that:
(1)the report (June 29, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting tax shifts, be received;
(2)Council not consider any tax shifts in 1998;
(3)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:
(i)once the 905 municipalities have set their final tax rates with an analysis of the difference in tax burdens with Toronto
and that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee then recommend whether or not Council should consider a
long-term plan to possibly reallocate property tax class burdens; and
(ii)on the advantages and disadvantages of different tax rates for the residential, multi-residential, commercial and
industrial tax groups, such report to be submitted at the same as the previously requested report in Recommendation (3)(i)
above; and
(4)Council reiterate its request to the Province to develop a multi-year strategy to reduce the burden on property taxes
caused by education and social service costs.
The Task Force reports having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to provide to Council on July 21,
1998, a copy of the Ontario Tax Credit form.
Background:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force had before it a report (June 30, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer providing information regarding the effects of using preliminary transition ratios from the other GTA regions,
the provincial "range of fairness" and the Board of Trade's alternative tax burden options.
The Task Force also had before it a communication (July 7, 1998) from Mr. Sam Lewkowicz
respecting the current value assessment and tax shifts -- effect of changes to transition ratios.
--------
(Report dated June 29, 1998, addressed to the
Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force
from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)
Purposes:
To provide information regarding the effects of using preliminary transition ratios from the other GTA regions, the
provincial "range of fairness" and the Board of Trade's alternative tax burden options.
Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There is no direct funding impact on the City of Toronto associated with this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)staff develop detailed options as part of a long-term plan to reallocate property class tax burdens for Council's
consideration in advance of the next reassessment that includes input from stakeholders representing all property classes;
(2)the guiding principles contained in this report be adopted as a basis for determining the reallocation of taxes among
property classes to be implemented in the next reassessment; and
(3)should Council consider any tax shifts in 1998, then the following priority be established:
(i)in order to reduce the property tax difference with the surrounding municipalities and improve the competitiveness of
business in Toronto, Council should:
(a)reduce the transition ratio for the industrial property class or
(b)reduce the transition ratio for the commercial property class or
(c)reduce the transition ratio for both the industrial and commercial property classes;
(ii)in order to provide relief to multi-residential properties, Council should reduce the transition ratio for the
multi-residential property class; and
(iii)in order to lessen the relatively higher tax burden of all property classes apart from the residential/farm class, Council
should reduce the transition ratios for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes of property.
Reference/Background:
Section 364 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997, provides for the
single-tier municipality, by by-law, to set tax ratios for the different property classes. Tax ratios are used to determine
property class tax burdens. Transition ratios are tax ratios that reflect the relative tax burden of each property class based
on 1997 tax levels and 1998 assessed values. The municipality may adopt a tax ratio for each property class which is
either the same as the transition ratio, or a tax ratio which is in the provincial "range of fairness", or a tax ratio which is
closer to the "range of fairness."
The legislation does not permit increasing the tax burden on any property class except on to the residential/farm class (in
the case of Toronto). This report provides information pertaining to the tax shifts on to the residential/farm property class
that would result from adopting different tax ratios.
The Minister of Finance announced in the recent 1998 Ontario budget that the Province would be providing funding to
those communities, like Toronto, with business education taxes above the provincial average in order to reduce education
tax rates for commercial and industrial properties. This equalization plan will be phased-in over the 1998 - 2005 period.
When complete, the plan will reduce business education taxes in Toronto by an estimated $400 million. Once completed,
the education tax rate reduction plan in Toronto will have reduced the preliminary estimated total commercial and
industrial tax rates as follows:
Change in Tax Rates Resulting from Provincial Education Tax Rate Reduction Plan
|
|
Total Tax Rates |
Education Tax Rates |
|
1998
Estimated |
2005
Revised |
% Change |
1998
Estimated |
2005
Revised
|
% Change |
Commercial |
7.75 |
6.66 |
(14.1) |
4.37 |
3.28 |
(25.0) |
Industrial |
11.00 |
7.53 |
(31.5) |
6.28 |
2.81 |
(55.2) |
These are preliminary estimates. For 1998, the details of this tax cut will be set out in regulation. Legislation for the
balance of the eight-year plan will be introduced in the fall.
Comments:
The impact of the provincial plan to reduce business education taxes in communities with education taxes above the
provincial average, is not included in this report. The estimated tax impacts presented in this report are based on
municipal taxes only and are unaffected by the provincial announcement to reduce education taxes.
Analysis of the estimated preliminary tax impact study based on the final assessment roll indicates a significant
discrepancy in tax burden among the property classes. The preliminary provincial transition ratios show that
multi-residential, commercial and industrial properties are taxed much higher than residential properties. This is primarily
the result of the assessment base not being regularly updated and kept current. The updated assessment base and separate
property class tax rates allow for a comparison between each property class's share of the assessment base and total taxes.
Without changes to existing tax burdens, the share of taxes raised from the multi-residential, commercial and industrial
classes will continue to be much higher than their respective shares of the assessment base as shown in Table 1 below.
--------
Table 1
Distribution of Assessment and City Taxes by Property Class
Property Class |
Share of Assessment Base (%)
|
Share of Taxes (%) |
Residential/Farm |
72.7 |
37.2 |
Multi-residential |
7.7 |
20.6 |
Commercial |
17.3 |
36.0 |
Industrial |
2.2 |
6.1 |
Pipelines |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
A tax ratio expresses the relationship that the tax rate for each class of property bears to the residential/farm class tax rate.
For example, if the commercial tax rate is 3.0 percent, and the residential/farm tax rate is 1.0 percent, then the commercial
tax ratio is 3.0. The transition ratios are calculated like tax ratios, but they are based on 1997 municipal taxes and 1998
assessed values. In effect, they represent the status quo at the time of reassessment and can be adopted as tax ratios to
avoid tax shifts between property classes. Once transition ratios are adopted by Council, they are referred to as tax ratios
in subsequent years.
It should be noted that based on the transition ratios provided by the Province, there is an initial tax shift of $15.3 million
on to the residential/farm class.
The setting of tax ratios determines the tax burden for each property class. When the tax ratios are set for classes that are
less than the transition ratios, there will be a shift to other property classes. The magnitude of the tax shifts is dependent
on the amount of change to the tax ratio(s). This report shows a few examples of tax shifts that have been reviewed to
help understand the order of magnitude involved with changes in class tax burdens.
Option 1: Shift to Provincial Ranges of Fairness
The Province has introduced "ranges or bands of fairness" for each class of property to identify what it considers as a
reasonable level of variance in tax burden among property classes. The application of the highest tax ratio within each
range of fairness (see Appendix 1), results in taxes on the residential/farm property class increasing by $861.1 million or
92.43 percent (see Column E in Appendix 2) on municipal taxes or 58.4 percent of the overall tax bill. Table 2 below
shows that the other classes would enjoy a tax reduction while the residential/farm property class experiences an increase.
This scenario would increase the preliminary residential/farm tax rate of 1.25 percent to 1.98 percent. The decrease in the
other property classes' tax rates is shown in Table 2.
--------
Table 2
Impact of Applying Provincial Ranges of Fairness |
|
Residential/ Farm |
Multi-Residential
|
Commercial
|
Industrial
|
Change in Taxes ($) |
$861.1 M |
($306.7 M) |
($455.0 M) |
($98.5 M) |
(%) |
92.4% |
(59.7%) |
(50.6%) |
(64.6%) |
Total Tax Rates: |
1.25 |
4.60 |
7.75 |
11.00 |
Revised Total Tax Rates: |
1.98 |
2.13 |
6.04 |
7.95 |
The ranges of fairness serve to guide changes in class tax burdens across Ontario municipalities. The timeframe in which
each municipality chooses to either move towards, if at all, or in fact achieve the ranges, is determined locally. In the case
of Toronto, whose preliminary transition ratios lay significantly outside of the provincial ranges, any change in tax burden
will require a long-term timeframe in order to minimize the impact on the residential/farm class.
Option 2: Shift to GTA Preliminary Transition Ratios
The result of using transition ratios similar to the GTA regions (see Appendix 1), shows increases or tax shifts between
$581.8 million to $724.1 million (Appendix 2) or 39.4 percent to 49.1 percent on to the residential/farm property class.
This change is attributed to municipal taxes and not education taxes, which are not affected by transition ratios. Generally,
taxes will be reduced for the other property classes by an equivalent amount. The greatest shift on to residential would
result from applying the York Region transition ratio - a 49.1 percent increase as shown in Table 3 below. The revised tax
rates for Toronto in Table 3 show an increase in the residential/farm class and corresponding decreases in the other
classes.
--------
Table 3
Impact of Applying GTA Transition Ratios on Toronto's Residential Taxes
|
Preliminary Tax
Rates |
Durham Region
Transition Ratios |
Halton Region
Transition Ratios |
Peel Region
Transition Ratios |
York Region
Transition Ratios
|
Provincial Range of
Fairness Transition Ratios |
Impact on Toronto
Residential Taxes ($) |
|
$600.3 M |
$581.8 M |
$720.9 M |
$724.1 M |
$861.1 M |
Increases (%) |
|
40.7% |
39.4% |
48.9% |
49.1% |
58.4% |
Residential/Farm |
1.25 |
1.76 |
1.74 |
1.86 |
1.86 |
1.98 |
Multi-Residential |
4.60 |
3.28 |
3.60 |
2.89 |
3.39 |
2.13 |
Commercial |
7.75 |
6.21 |
6.24 |
6.14 |
5.94 |
6.04 |
Industrial |
11.00 |
10.13 |
9.31 |
8.52 |
8.17 |
7.95 |
Movement towards the GTA transition ratios would make commercial and industrial taxes more competitive in Toronto
by bringing them closer to the rest of the GTA. This would be in addition to the reduced education tax rate plan
announced by the Province.
Option 3: Applying commercial transition ratio to the industrial property class
The results of setting the transition ratio in the industrial property class equivalent to that of the commercial property class
with no tax increase to the multi-residential property class is shown in Appendix 3. This analysis indicates an increase or
shift of $20.7 million or 1.4 percent to the residential class making the tax rate equal to 1.26 from 1.25 percent (see Table
4 below). In addition, there is an increase of $20.0 million or less than 1.0 percent to the commercial property class (tax
rate increases to 7.82 from 7.75 percent) and a reduction of $40.8 million or 11.5 percent on the industrial property class
(tax rate decreases to 9.73 from 11.00 percent).
--------
Table 4
Impact of Reducing Industrial Transition Ratio
|
Residential/ Farm |
Multi-Residential
|
Commercial
|
Industrial
|
Changes in Taxes ($) |
$20.7 M |
- |
$20.0 M |
($40.8 M) |
Total Tax Rates: |
1.25 |
4.60 |
7.75 |
11.00 |
Revised Total Tax Rates: |
1.26 |
4.60 |
7.82 |
9.73 |
The reduction in the industrial class transition ratio will enhance the competitiveness of industrial properties in Toronto.
The industrial class is effectively taxed at the highest level as evident by its high transition ratio and tax rate. The
improvement in the competitive tax level for industry will also create a more level playing field industrial and commercial
property.
Option 4: Reductions in multi-residential, commercial and industrial taxes
4A)Reduction of $100 million of municipal taxes from commercial and industrial classes
In the analysis shown in Appendix 3, the reduction of $100 million pro-rated between commercial and industrial property
classes which increases residential/farm taxes by $100 million or 6.8 percent. The multi-residential tax ratio was adjusted
to permit no increase in taxes. This results in a decrease of $86.0 million or 4.2 percent in commercial taxes and a $14.0
million or 3.9 percent decrease for industrial taxes. The dollar impact and change in tax rates for each property class is
shown in Table5.
--------
Table 5
Commercial and Industrial Taxes Reduced by $100 Million
|
Residential/ Farm |
Multi-Residential
|
Commercial
|
Industrial
|
Changes in Taxes ($) |
$100.0 M |
- |
($86.0 M) |
($14.0 M) |
Total Tax Rates: |
1.25 |
4.60 |
7.75 |
11.00 |
Revised Total Tax Rates: |
1.34 |
4.60 |
7.43 |
10.57 |
The $100 million reduction in the commercial and industrial class tax burdens improves the tax competitiveness of these
two classes while minimizing the impact on the residential/farm class.
4B)Reduced multi-residential tax scenarios
Alternatively, if $100 million were shifted from the multi-residential class (instead of the commercial and industrial
classes) on to the residential/farm class, there would be a 17.64 percent decrease on the multi-residential class. The
impacts on the multi-residential class using a number of different tax ratios are illustrated in Appendix 4 and summarized
in Table 6. The analysis assumes that the tax ratios for the commercial and industrial classes would be adjusted so that
there would be no tax shift on to these classes. Tax increases on the residential/farm property class as summarized in
Table 6 below, vary from $85.4 million to $376.7 million or from 5.79 percent to 25.55 percent. The residential and
multi-residential tax rates converge at 1.57 when the same transition ratio is applied.
--------
Table 6
Impact of Reducing Multi-Residential Transition Ratios |
Tax Ratios |
4.00 |
3.75 |
3.00 |
2.00 |
1.00 |
Residential/Farm
Increase: ($) |
$85.4 M |
$104.3 M |
$167.0 M |
$262.0 M |
$376.7 M |
(%) |
5.79% |
7.08% |
11.32% |
17.82% |
25.55% |
-Residential/Farm |
1.32 |
1.34 |
1.39 |
1.47 |
1.57 |
-Multi-Residential |
3.91 |
3.76 |
3.26 |
2.49 |
1.57 |
Table 6 provides a range of scenarios that indicate the amount of tax shifts on to the residential/farm class required to
achieve selected levels of tax burden equity between residential/farm and multi-residential classes of property.
4C)Same transition ratio for multi-residential, commercial and industrial
Council can adjust the transition ratios of the multi-residential and industrial property classes simultaneously so that
multi-residential, commercial and industrial property classes are subject to the same relative tax burden (i.e. at the current
commercial tax ratio). As shown in Appendix 5 and summarized in Table 7 below, this change results in decreases of
$32.9 million or 9.3 percent for the industrial class and $54.96 million or 9.6 percent for the multi-residential class and
increases of $87.5 million or 5.9 percent in residential/farm taxes. In addition, the commercial transition ratio was
adjusted from 4.18 to 3.87 in order to offset a $54.7 million or 2.68 percent increase that would otherwise have occurred.
--------
Table 7
Same Tax Burden for Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial Classes
|
Residential/ Farm |
Multi-Residential
|
Commercial
|
Industrial
|
Changes in Taxes ($) |
$87.5 M* |
($54.9 M) |
- |
($32.9 M) |
Total Tax Rates: |
1.26 |
4.60 |
7.75 |
11.00 |
Revised Total Tax Rates: |
1.33 |
4.16 |
7.75 |
9.98 |
*$337,000 would also shift on to pipelines.
This scenario permits Council to reduce the tax burdens of the three non-residential/farm classes at the same time. It also
would result in the creation of only two classes - residential and multi-residential/
commercial/industrial.
Option 5: Board of Trade's proposals
5A)All future tax increases are passed only on to the residential/farm property class:
Currently there is the desire to hold the line on tax rate increases. Over time, however, tax changes in expenditure levels
and tax rates are expected. Appendix 6 (see Option 5A) shows the effects on the property class tax rates when a future
annual increase of 2 percent is placed solely on to the residential property class. This chart assumes no new construction
and that market values rise at the same 2 percent annual inflation rate as municipal expenditures. This analysis indicates a
steady increase to the residential tax rate and steady decreases in the other property classes' tax rates. Appendix 7 which
presents tax dollar changes (see Option 5A) shows the increases to taxes in the residential/farm property class, whereas
the taxes in the other property classes remain the same. If this option was adopted, it should be noted that every 1.0
percent increase in the budget would result in a 1.8 percent increase to the total taxes (or 2.8 percent increase to the
municipal taxes) in the residential/farm property class. Although Appendices 6 and 7 were prepared using preliminary tax
rates (from February), using the revised tax rates would show the same general results.
In effect, the Board of Trade option is equivalent to the impact of the capping provisions in the new legislation - Bill 16,
"Small Business and Charities Protection Act, 1998". If multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes are capped,
then any budgetary increase could only be financed by increasing taxes on uncapped properties (i.e. residential/farm class)
over the 1998-2000 period.
5B)All future tax increases are shared among all property classes in proportion to market value:
When the assumed annual increase of 2 percent is shared proportionately based on each property class's share of total
market value, the effects on the property class tax rates are shown on Appendix6 (see Option 5B). Again, this chart
assumes no new construction and that market value increases at the same 2 percent annual inflation rate as municipal
expenditures. This analysis suggests a slower steady increase to the residential/farm tax rate and slower steady decreases
to the tax rates in the other property classes. Expressed in terms of tax dollar changes, Appendix 7 shows the
proportionate increases in taxes to all property classes (see Option 5B).
Approaches to Tax Change:
Perhaps the most challenging and contentious tax policy question for Council to address as part of tax reform is whether
to shift any tax burden away from the other property classes and on to the residential/farm class. This is the only type of
tax shift permitted under the new legislation in the case of Toronto. A number of options to alter class tax burdens have
been discussed above. Some are very specific in terms of their outcomes (i.e. options 1 through 4 involve specific ratios
or pre-determined amounts of tax shifts), while the Board of Trade options (5A and 5B) can be considered as more
gradual, long-term solutions. The Board of Trade options do not require an actual shift in tax burden until tax increases
occur, that is, no amount of taxes is shifted from one class to another until the City's spending level rises and results in a
tax rate increase. This provides for a change in tax burden by class that is open and accountable because Council would
control the amount of tax increase through the annual budget process. As mentioned above, model 5A is very much
similar to the provision in the new legislation that limits the funding of budgetary increases from only uncapped property
classes, if capping is adopted.
Should Council decide to adjust the class tax burdens in a more deliberate and structured way than suggested by the
Board of Trade options, then it is important to determine which class(es) should benefit and by how much. Based on a
review of the tax ratios and tax rates by property class, tax relief for the industrial property class should be considered as
Council's first priority. The uncompetitiveness of Toronto's industrial tax rates has a long-term effect on the local
employment base and economy. As a second priority, the negative consequences of Toronto's relatively higher
commercial tax rates on the economy should be addressed. It has been well documented that, for example, Toronto's
taxes on office buildings are the highest in North America. Higher education taxes have been a major factor attributable to
higher business taxes between Toronto and the 905. The Province's education tax rate reduction plan over the next eight
years will help make business property tax levels in Toronto more competitive. However, these changes relate to
education taxes and do not affect the municipal portion of the tax bill. As such, the tax ratios remain unaffected, leaving
the discrepancy in tax burdens among classes clearly as a matter for the City to address.
Council could remedy the higher tax rates on commercial and industrial properties through a tax policy that adjusts the
preliminary provincial transition ratios and reduces the tax burden on either one or both of these two classes of property.
Following an adjustment of the industrial and commercial class tax burdens, Council could then address the higher tax
burden on multi-residential properties. Alternatively, Council could provide tax burden relief to all three non-residential
property classes simultaneously as identified in scenario 4C or any other scenarios.
GTA Tax Competitiveness
The development of any long-term plan to adjust class tax burdens must take into account how much Toronto business
taxes vary from those in neighbouring communities. It is important to review the tax rates established in the rest of the
GTA to gauge the gap or the tax rate competitiveness for commercial and industrial properties between Toronto and the
surrounding municipalities. The 1998 tax rates in the 905 communities are unknown at this time. However, the
preliminary Toronto transition ratios compared to those in the rest of the GTA range between 2.9 to 3.8 times higher for
commercial property and 2.0 to 4.5 times higher for industrial properties. Many of the scenarios presented in this report
would reduce the level of tax rate difference between Toronto and the 905 municipalities and as a result, enhance
Toronto's tax rate competitiveness. The development of any class tax shift plan should await the final tax rates of the 905
municipalities and an analysis of the difference in tax burdens with Toronto.
Principles to Manage Tax Changes:
Should Council decide to apply the caps on tax increases of the eligible property classes, as provided for in Bill 16, then
this initial reassessment should be viewed as an interim tax reform. A more detailed reform package would be considered
at the time of the next reassessment in 2001. The changes to tax burdens may also await the next reassessment. However,
the study of changes in tax burdens among property classes should not be delayed until the next reassessment. This matter
should be reviewed and a plan developed prior to the implementation of the next reassessment. The following set of initial
principles can provide some guidance in Council's consideration of tax changes between property classes. These
principles include:
Certainty - The plan must provide taxpayers with a clear sense of what to expect over the next several years so that they
can plan their finances accordingly. For example, it should be made clear how any change in a particular class's tax
burden will be implemented (i.e. period of time over which changes will be phased-in).
Simplicity - The plan should not be complicated so as to minimize any risk of making it unworkable. Taxpayers'
understanding increases when few conditions are imposed.
Fairness - Fairness relates to the degree of acceptance of the difference that results from the different treatment of
taxpayers. Fairness does not necessarily mean taxing all property owners at the same rate of tax. For example, as part of
determining new class tax burdens, consideration should be given to the benefits arising from other forms of taxation (e.g.
businesses deductibility of property taxes), that affect a property's overall effective taxes and which are available to some
properties, but not to all. At a minimum, the plan should address inequities within each property class first before dealing
with inequities between property classes.
Stability - Any shift in tax burdens should be phased-in over a period of time whose length is commensurate to the degree
of change deemed to be acceptable. In other words, a significant tax shift should be achieved over a long phase-in period.
The differential tax burden between property classes did not occur overnight and any attempt to resolve the problem must
consider an appropriate timeframe to minimize serious negative effects.
The reforms to the taxation system have enhanced the system's transparency. The tax ratios allow for a clear comparison
of tax burdens between property classes. This comparison reveals that the residential/farm class has a lower tax burden
relative to other classes. How much the residential/farm class tax burden should be increased and how much other classes
should be reduced, is a complex matter. The change in class tax burdens should be reviewed as part of an implementation
plan for the next reassessment and should involve input from stakeholders representing all property classes. In the
meantime, should Council adopt the capping provisions for the commercial, industrial and multi-residential property
classes, then any budgetary-related tax increase would be raised from the residential/farm class. If there were any budget
increases in 1999 and 2000, which is a matter for Council to consider, this could begin reforming the class tax burden
issue in Toronto.
Conclusion:
This report indicates that there are many methods of shifting tax burdens with varying results on the residential/farm
property class. The outcomes of the various options are either very specific with well defined, pre-determined tax shifts or
they can achieve gradual changes in tax burdens as proposed in the Board of Trade's options.
This issue of shifting the tax burden off the multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes should be subjected to a
major review by staff after the final assessment roll has been returned for 1998 taxation. This analysis should include
other methods of shifting tax burdens not included in this report. A detailed plan to establish any changes in property
class tax burdens should be developed in time for the next reassessment scheduled in 2001.
If Council decides to shift taxes in a structured or pre-defined way, then it should consider as a priority, providing relief to
the business community first to improve its tax competitiveness before providing relief to the multi-residential class.
Alternatively, multi-residential, commercial and industrial properties should all receive tax relief simultaneously.
Contacts:
Bill Wong 392-9148
Ed Zamparo392-8641
Insert Table/Map No. 1
appendix 1
Insert Table/Map No. 2
appendix 2
Insert Table/Map No. 3
appendix 3
Insert Table/Map No. 4
appendix 4
Insert Table/Map No. 5
appendix 5
Insert Table/Map No. 6
appendix 6
Insert Table/Map No. 7
appendix 7
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee also submits the following joint report (June29,1998) from the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Chief Administrative Officer:
Subject: Overview of Tax Policy Reports
Purpose:
To provide a context for the comprehensive tax policy reports submitted to the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force
which collectively make-up the recommended tax implementation plan for the Task Force to consider.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no direct financial impacts on the Corporation in this report.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received as information.
Background/History:
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force was established by Toronto Council to review the property assessment and
tax system reforms and develop a tax implementation plan for Council to consider. The tax policies that support the
proposed tax plan are contained in the adjoining reports and address the following subjects:
(1)Residential property class (1-6 units)
(2)Multi-residential property class
(3)Tax relief for low-income seniors and disabled
(4)Commercial and industrial property
(5)Charities and similar organizations
(6)Tax shifts - effects of changes to transition ratios.
The reports are comprehensive and summarize the findings of staff in each specific subject area as well as the direction
provided by the Task Force during its deliberations. This report refers to the broader issues pertaining to the reform of the
assessment and taxation system that Council must be mindful of as it considers the proposed tax plan at its special
meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998. Also attached for information is a revised executive summary of the tax policy reports.
Comments:
New Taxation System
It is important to remember why the significant changes in the property taxation system are occurring. There was general
acceptance that the assessment and taxation system was out of date and needed to be reformed. The tax system was rigid
and provided municipalities with little flexibility. Many taxpayers in Toronto lost confidence in the assessed values and
appealed their assessments, which contributed to the erosion of the assessment base across the city. The tax burden among
property classes was inequitable as a result of the failure to keep the assessment base current. The class tax burden issue is
particularly problematic for Toronto businesses which have been paying at uncompetitive property tax rates compared to
other municipalities in the GTA and elsewhere.
The new assessment and taxation system - Current Value Assessment (CVA), provides Council with the ability to resolve
these problems. However, because the Toronto assessment base has not been reassessed in over 45 years there are
significant tax shifts among taxpayers and potentially between classes of property. Accordingly, tax reform should occur
over a period of time to ensure that changes are manageable and sustainable. Therefore Council must determine its
priorities in terms of what CVA is to achieve over time in order to make certain that taxpayers know what to expect from
reform.
In time, CVA should resolve the shortcomings of the former taxation system and produce an assessment base that is fair,
understandable and stable, resulting in reduced appeal activity. Most importantly, CVA provides Council with the
flexibility to address the class tax burden problem and the uncompetitive business tax rates in Toronto. In the case of
Toronto, the Fair Municipal Finance Act requires that any change in tax burdens between classes result in a tax shift on to
the residential/farm class, which is taxed at a relatively lower rate as the new estimated tax rates (based on the final
assessment roll) clearly show:
Revised Estimated Tax Rates |
Estimated Tax
Rates |
Residential/
Farm |
Multi-Residential |
Commercial |
Industrial |
Pipelines
|
Municipal (%) |
0.791 |
4.141 |
3.382 |
4.721 |
1.521 |
Education (%)* |
0.460 |
0.460 |
4.369 |
6.280 |
1.989 |
Total (%) |
1.251 |
4.601 |
7.751 |
11.001 |
3.510 |
*Province is responsible for education taxes.
New Vision
Changes to class tax burdens is the most challenging tax policy issue for Council to address. However, Council must
consider the importance of the long-term viability of the business sector to the Toronto economy. The Province has
introduced an education tax rate reduction plan which will reduce school taxes on Toronto businesses by $400 million
over the next eight years. However, even with these changes Toronto's commercial and industrial taxes are comparatively
higher rates than surrounding municipalities. As a result, tax competitiveness is still a matter that Council must address.
Relieving the tax burden on Toronto's businesses and making property tax rates more competitive should be a priority for
Council to consider as part of tax reform. Improved competitiveness will help retain existing business and attract new
investment and employment. The continuation of the current tax discrepancy with other municipalities will only
undermine Toronto's competitive position. For example, Toronto is noted as having the highest taxes on commercial
office buildings in North America. High business taxation impairs Toronto's ability to compete with world cities for
investment. Council's movement towards reduced business taxation should occur over a period of time commensurate
with the amount of tax shifted away from commercial and industrial property in order to minimize the impacts this will
create and to make this change sustainable.
Proposed Tax Policies
An analysis of the CVA impacts clearly indicates that the immediate implementation of these tax changes is not possible
without seriously affecting many taxpayers. The tax policies proposed in the adjoining reports suggest that tax reform
should proceed on an interim basis over the next couple of years while important concerns are addressed. With the 2.5
percent cap on tax increases in the commercial, industrial and multi-residential classes, 1998-2000 should be viewed as a
transition period for the market to adjust to the new 1996 assessed values and for the following issues to be addressed.
The large tax decreases that would occur in the office building sector under CVA are not expected to repeat in the next
reassessment in 2001. The upcoming 1999 assessed values are expected to be more reflective of the current rental activity
in the office building sector. Tax policies must be sensitive to the office building sector because it generates half the
employment base and constitutes half the commercial tax base in Toronto. The interim period also allows time to develop
an optional small/strip retail property class, which will help address the substantial tax increases that would have been
faced by this group of businesses under CVA. In addition, the 2.5 percent cap will provide protection for tenants in
commercial and industrial properties, including charities and similar organizations. In the interim the Province and the
City can develop an alternative approach that prevents these organizations from being seriously impacted in future
reassessments.
The interim period will provide adequate stability, which Council should consider as another priority throughout tax
reform, while these issues are resolved. At the same time, the capping provisions allow for any budgetary tax increases, if
any, to be funded from uncapped property classes (i.e., residential/farm). The Toronto Board of Trade made a similar
proposal to the Task Force during its deliberations. If budget increases did occur in 1999 and 2000, this would begin to
provide some relief to business and make their tax rates more competitive which is consistent with the proposed Council
priority discussed previously. This tax shift would also be achieved in an accountable manner through the annual budget
process. Alternatively, the potential tax shift to the residential/farm class could act as an incentive to Council to continue
with no budget-related tax increases.
The proposed tax policies also affect the residential and multi-residential classes. A tax deferral program is recommended
for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities to protect those eligible taxpayers who are less able to
cope with the tax changes. The proposed tax deferral should not financially impact the City. It is recommended that both
tax increases and decreases be phased-in to make the tax increases more manageable. The tax increases in the
multi-residential class should also be capped at 2.5 percent so that this class could also begin to benefit from tax relief,
much like commercial and industrial property, in the event of budgetary tax increases. The capping of commercial and
industrial property provides adequate protection and makes a tax rebate program for charities and similar organizations
unnecessary.
Reassessment is revenue neutral across the City (i.e. raises the same amount of taxes), but each individual taxpayer's
share may change. Although the ensuing tax changes are contentious, one should not lose sight of perhaps the bigger issue
- too much is funded from the property tax base. Two prominent themes in municipal finance over the past twenty years
stem from this issue. First, those services and responsibilities that represent income redistribution (e.g., welfare) should be
funded from other revenue sources such as income taxes. Secondly, if municipalities are to provide existing
responsibilities, access to alternative sources of revenue should be permitted to ensure that responsibilities are adequately
funded. The changes resulting from the provincial Who Does What process increased municipalities' dependency on the
property tax, making it by far the largest local revenue source. If the responsibilities now funded by the property tax are
not reformed, then access to other revenue sources becomes ever more important as a strategy to reduce dependency on
the property tax and, over the long-term, to help make property taxation matters, such as reassessment, less contentious.
Conclusions:
The recommended tax policies contained in the accompanying reports are proposed to make the implementation of CVA
and the resulting tax changes manageable during the 1998-2000 period. Overall, the tax policies ensure stability during
the interim period. The 2.5 percent capping provision can result in shifting part of the tax burden to the residential/farm
class. However, this fundamental change is consistent with the goal that Council needs to consider as part of taxation
reform of making business property tax levels more competitive in Toronto and to begin moving towards equity among
property class tax burdens.
Summary of Tax Policy Options Reports
The Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force was established by Toronto Council to review the property assessment and
tax system reforms - Current Value Assessment or CVA, and develop a tax implementation plan for Toronto Council to
consider at its special meeting on July 21 and 23. This summary highlights the main points of the reports submitted to the
Task Force by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. These reports include:
(1)Residential Class (1-6 units);
(2)Multi-Residential Class (7 units or more);
(3)Tax Relief for Low-Income Seniors and Disabled;
(4)Commercial and Industrial Property: Tax Policy Options;
(5)Tax Rebates for Charitable and Similar Organizations; and
(6)Tax Shifts - Effects of Changes to Transition Ratios.
In addition there is a report which provides an overview of the reports. The Task Force will review the proposals in the
reports and recommend a tax plan to Council.
Overview Report
This report highlights the key issues in the tax policy reports and identifies the need for Council to consider, as part of
long-term tax reform, improving the competitveness of businesses in Toronto by reducing property tax rates for
commercial and industrial property. The residential/farm class in Toronto has been taxed at relatively lower levels than
business. The proposed 2.5 percent cap on commercial, industrial and multi-residential tax increases during the
1998-2000 period can result in budgetary tax increases funded exclusively from the residential/farm class. If there were
any budget increases this shift in taxes would be consistent with providing relief to the business sector which should be
Council's long-term goal, as well as ensuring the economic well being of Toronto. The proposed tax policies ensure that
tax reform can be implemented in a way that makes the tax changes manageable. The report is provided to the Task Force
as information.
(1)Residential Class (1-6 units)
Background:
Immediate implementation of CVA reassessment results in 56.1 percent or 300,866 assessment portions (properties) that
decrease with an average decrease of $491 per portion while 43.9 percent or 235,521 assessment portions increase with an
average increase of $692. The only option available to municipalities to provide tax relief is a phase-in program of up to
eight years. Any phase-in program must be self-financing so that the amount of the phased-in increases must be offset by
tax decreases within the class. The phase-in program must begin in 1998 and the annual amount to be phased-in must be
the same or less than the amount phased-in the previous year.
Issues:
Council may wish to phase-in the tax changes in order to minimize the financial hardship of those with tax increases. An
eight year phase-in, which provides the maximum relief for those with increases, results in 88.2 percent of the total
portions (both increases and decreases) experiencing annual impacts of less than $125 and 65.9 percent of total properties
experiencing an impact of less than $62 annually. For a three-year phase-in, 88.2 percent will experience an impact of less
than $333 annually and 65.9 percent will have an impact of less than $167 annually. Council could also choose to utilize a
threshold for a phase-in based on a dollar amount.
Recommendations:
It is proposed that Council implement a phase-in plan. The impact on taxpayers is minimized through the longest phase-in
period of eight years. Alternatively, a period of three years would coincide with the next reassessment cycle and makes
the phase-in program more easily understood by taxpayers.
(2)Multi-Residential Class (7 units or more)
Background:
With CVA, 36 percent or 1,463 properties (168,341 units) experience tax decreases with the average decrease of 12.9
percent or $278 per unit, while 64percent or 2,579 properties (121,987 units) will increase with an average increase of
19.7 percent or $347 per unit. To provide tax relief, Council can either cap increases at 2.5 percent each year for the
1998-2000 period or implement a phase-in program.
Issues:
A capping program will provide greater protection for properties with increases than would a phase-in program. Since the
multi-residential class differs from the residential class in that its properties can be considered business properties, as they
generate income for owners for which expenses can be deducted from income, a capping program can be considered an
appropriate mechanism for tax relief (and similar to the commercial and industrial classes) than a phase-in program.
However, a cap is a short-term solution.
Options to reduce the tax burden on the multi-residential class were reviewed, but it is recommended that any tax shifts be
included as part of a comprehensive tax plan for the next reassessment in 2001. Some options include: a uniform tax rate
on the residential and multi-residential class; a reduction of the multi-residential transition ratio to reflect a uniform
education tax rate which shifts $102 million from the multi-residential class; a proposal whereby taxes are shifted from
multi-residential to residential at the same rate as residential tax decreases are phased-in; and, the removal of education
funding from the municipal tax base.
Automatic rent reductions under the Tenant Protection Act, 1998 will be severely limited with a capping program as tax
decreases will be limited to fund the cap on increases.
Recommendation:
Staff recommend that property tax increases due to reassessment be capped at 2.5 percent per year for 1998, 1999 and
2000 and be funded by reducing the tax decreases within the class by an adequate amount to finance the cap.
(3)Tax Relief for Low-Income Seniors and Disabled
Background:
Municipalities are required to pass a by-law to provide tax relief to homeowners or their spouses who are low-income
seniors or low-income persons with disabilities to offset assessment-related tax increases. The program can be a tax
deferral, tax cancellation or some other mechanism.
Issues:
Council must decide on the type of program to offer. A cancellation plan would require that the amounts canceled would
need to be funded from property tax revenues annually and would have the greatest financial impact on municipal
taxpayers. This is estimated between $4.3 to $38.3 million depending on the eligibility criteria. Council must weigh these
costs in an outright cancellation of taxes.
A tax deferral plan with an interest charge would not impact the City financially. An interest-free tax deferral provides a
small subsidy to recipients. A deferment plan would enable low-income seniors and disabled persons to remain in their
homes and, although the deferment amount accrues against the property, it would not become repayable until a change in
ownership or the estate is dissolved.
Other forms of tax relief exist, including those provided by the former Cities of Toronto ($100 tax credit); Etobicoke and
York (deferral up to $600) and elsewhere such as British Columbia (total tax bill). These programs provide relief from
existing taxes and not only from assessment-related tax increases. The City would need special legislation to provide
similar assistance across Toronto.
Recommendations:
A number of alternatives with respect to age and income criteria were reviewed and analyzed. A tax deferral program is
recommended with the following eligibility criteria: (1) Low-income senior: 65 years of age; owned the residential
property for 3 years; and be in receipt of Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) or Spouse's Allowance under the Old Age
Security Act and, for (2) Low-income disabled: owned the residential property for 3 years; and, be in receipt of disability
benefits under Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) or Family Benefits Act (FBA) or Guaranteed Annual Income
System (GAINS). A rate of interest equivalent to the City's imputed rate of return on investments should be applied to
deferred taxes.
The proposed tax deferral program provides a balance between meeting the needs of the low-income seniors and disabled
without impacting the City's finances. It is estimated that the deferred amount of City taxes under the proposed program
would level off at $1.7 to $2.4 million, based on anticipated participation rates and average term in the program. It is also
recommended that Council request the Province for legislation that allows the City to defer existing residential taxes.
(4)Commercial and Industrial Property: Tax Policy Options
Background:
The Fair Municipal Finance Act and the Small Business and Charities Protection Act provide tax policy options for
municipalities to help make the results of CVA manageable for commercial and industrial properties. It is estimated that
under CVA 25 percent commercial assessment portions experience a tax decrease and 75 percent face tax increases, and
of these tax increases 43percent are greater than 100percent. Industrial assessment portions with tax decreases amount to
30 percent and 70percent with tax increases.
The Province provides several optional tax tools to lessen the impact of CVA. Council may use any one or all of these
tools:
Graduated Tax Rates - Council can create up to three bands of assessed value in increasing amounts and apply a separate
tax rate to each band. For example, the lowest tax rate applies to the first $500,000.00 of assessed value and a higher rate
applies to any value above $500,000.00.
Separate Property Classes - Council may create optional classes: office buildings, shopping centres, vacant land and
parking lots, and large industrial properties.
Tax Rebates - Council may provide assistance to businesses with significantly high increases that need further protection
after other tools have been applied.
Phase-in - Council may phase-in tax increases by limiting decreases over a period of up to eight years. The phase-in must
be funded from within the property class.
2.5 percent Cap - Council may elect to cap tax increases on either multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes of
property to 2.5 percent of their 1997 taxes each year during 1998 - 2000 (i.e., 2.5 percent in 1998, 5.0 percent in 1999,
and 7.5 percent in 2000). A portion of the tax decreases would be clawed back in order to fund the cap.
Issues:
The tax impact analysis shows that the office building sector experiences significant tax decreases (over $400 million)
while other commercial properties, particularly small strip retail, face substantial increases. The optional tax tools help to
reduce the tax impacts, but also create other concerns. Graduated tax rates alone do reduce the number of properties with
big tax increases, but still result in many properties with increases greater than 100 percent. Separate classes lock-in
properties at a tax rate, which for a class like office buildings, places them at a higher tax rate of 12.06 percent compared
to 7.75 percent for the rest of the class. No strip retail class is permitted. Tax rebates would help properties with the
greatest tax increases, but must be funded by increasing the overall commercial or industrial tax rate. The 2.5 percent cap
provides the greatest protection, but Council would have to fund any future budgetary tax increases from uncapped
properties like the residential/farm class.
The application of the tax tools to industrial property did not result in significant reduction in the number of properties
with tax increases. Council has to decide whether to adopt the new separate classes and the capping provisions within 30
days of the return of the final assessment roll (i.e., by July 15). The City has requested an extension which the Minister is
permitted to provide.
Recommendations:
Staff recommend an interim strategy for the 1998 - 2000 period which caps commercial and industrial property tax
increases at 2.5 percent each year and withholds a sufficient amount of tax decreases to finance the capped increases. No
other tax policy options are recommended at this time. This approach will provide the greatest possible protection to
property owners and to their tenants. The cap also makes a tax rebate program to charities and similar organizations
redundant. It is also recommended that the Province allow Council to fund budget-related tax increases from all classes, if
it so chooses.
A number of notable concerns regarding commercial assessments and tax impacts have been expressed. In 1996 (the
valuation year), many office buildings were not leased out to the same level as today's higher level. It is anticipated that
office buildings, which constitute about half the commercial tax base in Toronto, will experience a different set of impacts
in the next reassessment. There is no separate class created for strip retail uses. Currently, there is inadequate time to fully
review the impacts of all the possible tax policy options. It is proposed that the appropriate course of action to address
these and other concerns is to develop a comprehensive implementation strategy prior to the next reassessment in 2001
that would involve a reference group from the business community.
(5)Tax Rebates for Charitable and Similar Organizations
Background:
The main reason a rebate program is necessary is to provide assistance to registered charities and similar organizations in
commercial and industrial properties which prior to 1998, were taxed at the lower residential tax rate and were not liable
to the business occupancy tax. The elimination of the business tax in 1998 results in increased realty taxes that impact
charitable and similar organizations.
It is mandatory for municipalities to provide a rebate of a minimum of 40 percent up to 100 percent of taxes to registered
charities in commercial and industrial properties if the municipality does not adopt the 2.5 percent capping option for
those classes. Whether or not the capping option is adopted, it is optional for the municipality to rebate "similar
organizations", as defined by the municipality, up to 100 percent for those organizations in commercial and industrial
properties as well as in residential and multi-residential properties.
Issues:
If a municipality adopts a 2.5 percent capping option, the need for a rebate program is severely diminished as the
maximum exposure to a tax increase for these organizations is 2.5 percent annually for the 1998 - 2000 period. However,
municipalities can elect to provide a rebate to both charities and similar organizations of up to 100 percent of taxes even if
the capping provision is adopted.
If a capping program is not adopted by Council, a rebate program must be implemented for registered charities. In that
event, it is recommended that the City provide a rebate of 40 percent not only for registered but also for certain, but not
all, similar organizations. The total cost of such a rebate program is estimated at $3.84 million annually to be funded
through the City's budget. If all the organizations that received relief in 1997 were continued, the total cost of the 40
percent rebate would be $9.4 million (municipal portion).
A registered charity is well defined by Revenue Canada. However, there is no clear definition of "similar organizations"
and Council must determine their eligibility criteria. This may prove problematic in terms of a suitable definition. Many
non-profit organizations benefit the community but the eligibility of some organizations is unclear.
There is a financial impact to the City's budget should a rebate program be implemented.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that if Council caps tax increases at 2.5 percent for the commercial and industrial property classes for
the tax years 1998- 2000, no rebate program be instituted. However, should Council not adopt the capping provisions,
then a 40 percent tax rebate program be implemented for registered charities and certain similar organizations. The
preliminary criteria proposed in the report serve as a basis to determine the eligibility of similar organizations. The
estimated cost of the program would at a minimum be $3.8 million (municipal portion) which would have to be provided
in the 1998 budget.
(6)Tax Shifts - Effects of Changes to Transition Ratios
Background:
The Fair Municipal Finance Act allows municipalities to set separate tax rates for each class of property. Transition ratios
provided by the Province are used to determine tax rates and the tax burden for each property class. These ratios express
the relationship that each class's tax rate bears to the residential/farm tax rate based on 1997 taxes and 1998 assessed
values. For example, if the City's commercial tax rate is 3.38 percent and the residential/farm tax rate is 0.79 percent, then
the commercial transition ratio is 4.28.
The provincial transition ratios indicate that multi-residential, commercial and industrial properties in Toronto are taxed
much higher than residential properties. As a result of the revised provincial transition ratios there is a $15.3 million tax
shift to the residential/farm class. If Council adopts the transition ratios, there will be no further tax shift between property
classes and the share of taxes raised from the multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes will remain higher than
their share of the assessment base:
Share of Assessment and City Taxes by Property Class
|
Residential/
Farm |
Multi-Residential |
Commercial |
Industrial |
Pipelines |
Total
|
Assessment Base |
72.73% |
7.67% |
17.25% |
2.20% |
0.15% |
100.0% |
Tax Base |
37.24% |
20.56% |
35.97% |
6.09% |
0.14% |
100.0% |
Council may adjust the transition ratios and shift taxes. In the case of Toronto, the Act does not permit increasing the tax
burden on any property class except on the residential farm class.
Issues:
Perhaps the most challenging tax policy question for Council to address is whether to shift any tax burden away from
other property classes to the residential/farm class. There are basically two ways in which Council can adjust tax burdens
- either shift a pre-determined amount from any class to the residential/farm class or fund budgetary tax increases through
the residential/farm class over a period of time, as is required under the 2.5 percent capping option in the Small Business
and Charities Protection Act.
Any consideration of tax burden changes must involve a review of tax burdens in the GTA. Toronto's tax competitiveness
and long-term financial and economic health can be improved if its business tax levels move towards those in the GTA.
Recommendations:
It is proposed that any change in the class tax burdens should be reviewed as part of a comprehensive implementation
plan to be developed prior to the next reassessment in 2001. In the meantime, should Council adopt the capping
provisions for the multi-residential, commercial and industrial classes, then any budget-related tax increases during 1998
- 2000 would be raised from the residential/farm class. This could begin reforming the class tax burden issue in Toronto.
Alternatively, the adoption of the capping provision could act as an incentive to Council in continuing no budget
increases in 1999 and 2000.
If Council decides to shift taxes in a pre-defined way, then it should consider as a priority, providing relief to the business
community first to improve its tax competitiveness before providing relief to the multi-residential class. Alternatively,
multi-residential, commercial and industrial properties should all receive tax relief simultaneously.
(City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause,
the following communication (July 20, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
At its meeting on July 11 and 13, 1998, the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force requested that the following
information be made available for Council's consideration of the proposed tax implementation plan at the special
Council meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998:
(i)background information on the average incomes of tenants and homeowners;
(ii)Ontario tax credit form included in the personal income tax form; and
(iii)Table 7 embodied in the report (June 26, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer entitled,
"Commercial and Industrial Property: Tax Policy Options" revised to provide additional analysis of Councillor Walker's
motion regarding the commercial property class.)
(A copy of the Ontario tax credit form, appended to the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.)
7
Other Item Considered by the Committee
(City Council, at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)Impact Of "Open" Building Permits On Current Value Assessment
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports having referred the transmittal letter (July 13, 1998) from
the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for a report, but not to
Council on July 21, 1998:
(July 13, 1998) from the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force regarding the impact of "Open" Building Permits on
Current Value Assessment and advising that the Task Force had referred a motion by Councillor Bossons to the Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer for a report directly to Council on July 21, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
MEL LASTMAN,
Chair
Toronto, July 14, 1998
(Report No. 13 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended
by City Council at its Special Meeting on July 21 and 23, 1998.)
|