City Budget 2010

[Northern Light]

Quick intro, I know there are 2 other threads that touch on this, but one is very property-tax centric, and one about very tightly woven about Shelly Carroll and Miller politics.

I am starting this thread to discuss specifics of the actual budget proposal and what people like or dislike and what they would change.

I would respectfully ask that people not name-call or promote or diminish any politician in this thread, but stick strictly the budget document, and to the detail it offers and/or omits.

I will start in the post below.

Before I do, a quick note that I will be having some 'input' on the budget (no guarantee it will go anywhere) but I will endeavour to bring any constructive ideas forward. (I am not a politician or staffer)

For details on the budgets, please follow this link:

http://www.toronto.ca/budget2010/index.htm

Note that the detailed analyst notes are on the left side of the page in the green bar

 

[Northern Light]

My Budget Suggestions:

Raise parking revenues - use these funds to reduce or eliminate recreation user fee increases and to reduce the multi-residential tax rate.

Reasoning: Parking charges are well below market value and what many other City's charge:

On-street rates (top):

Vancouver: $5 per hour
Calgary : $5 per hour
Chicago: $4.25 per hour
Toronto: $3.50 per hour

Also, permit rates are way below market-value for spots, (currently a person WITH a driveway pays $50 per month (after the new increase) or $1.67 per day for parking! Good luck finding a space that cheap in the private marketplace!

Alternately, Toronto should be charging young people for leisure swimming as they fee $1 per swim may seem small, but at just twice per week for a 2 child household, that's $208 per year. For many low-income earners that's a burden they can't overcome, and one that might end up costing us in policing dollars for bored teens.

Finally, if there were still a surplus after the rise in parking charges I propose, then I would apply it making the residential mil rate uniform among classes (single-family and multi-res) as the could reduce average rent by more than $100.00 per month and making housing much more affordable to those who need it.

****

Detailed increase proposal.

1) on-street parking , raise by $1 per hour in peak zones, .50c per hour elsewhere
2) charge (pay-and-display) for on-street parking in residential areas near busy retail districts (exempting permit holders from paying twice) (big money maker in The Beach or the Annex or Greektown).
3)Charge for parking in now free-lots at City parks, arenas etc.
4)Raise parking permit rates to market-value or closer there to, say $1 per day for the 1st permit, $2 per day for the second, and $3 for anyone who actually has a driveway) (monthly rates 30/60/90)

Total new revenue: AT LEAST 35M (possibly a lot more)

 

[kettal]

Alternately, Toronto should be charging young people for leisure swimming as they fee $1 per swim may seem small, but at just twice per week for a 2 child household, that's $208 per year.

Hyperbole. A 1-year swim pass for a child/youth/senior is $60. I'd support lowering the yearly pass price, though.

 

[js97]

We all know where the line is divided in this budget


That being said, I would like to point out the two items in the capital budget that really stick out (and really irk me) after a brief review.
St. Lawerence Market revitalisation:
1 million planned for 2010, 24Mmillion thereafter until 2014. A little back-end heavy? (It seems to be the trend in the capital budget)
Could they not partner with the private corporation to provide some sort of development deal?

Also, funding sources 33% debt, 18% 'other'. Any city insiders can tell me what 'other' means? (I'm thinking 'new tax sources')

But the biggest problem is in the funding plan.

It's very clear that this capital budget is tremendously back-end heavy, yet, the projected funding that has been secure is mind boggling front-end committed. Starting from 2.4 billion, down to 8 million in 2019. Now that itself is somewhat manageble if spending is more or less leveled, but when you're proposing the opposite trend by substantially increasing spending in the later periods, that combination creates a fairly large fiscal gap that is not accounted for.

Reminds me of some of the mortgage products produced down south - heavily discounted rates as introductory, then a substantial premium in the second portion of the term.

I don't think too many people would put themselves in that sort of financial predicament (I take that back, I'm sure some have overleveraged in their homes), but those that haven't, how is it justified for the city to do that?

Either way, the next mayor will have quite the mess in their hands, go broke to continue the legacy, or get crucified for 'cutting' programs.


I figure the city has 3, maybe 4 terms (I'm being generous) of this before it goes belly up like Greece

 

[Glen]

Finally, if there were still a surplus after the rise in parking charges I propose, then I would apply it making the residential mil rate uniform among classes (single-family and multi-res) as the could reduce average rent by more than $100.00 per month and making housing much more affordable to those who need it.

Actually, if you reduced the mill rate on multi-residential the value would go up. The average assessment for a unit of multi-residential in Toronto is ~$85,000. When such units are converted to condominiums the are reassessed as residential. The new assessment under residential is usually ~2.5-3x the previous one. The reduced tax rate increases the value and in the end the total tax amount is roughly the same.

Just like commercial. The high rates bring in little extra revenue, they just scare away development.

 

[Glen]

As per my above,

A report done for the city of London Ontario found.......

What are the tax savings available uponconversion?

Calculating the potential tax differential between multi-res and condos is not a simple matter,as
multi-res assessment values are significantly lower than residential. It is not as simple as taking the
existing taxes and dividing by 2.1455 (the 2007 tax ratio for multi-res). Upon conversion, the
assessment value increases, however the actual amount of the increase may vary considerably,
based on the expected market value of each condo unit. With the increase in assessment value,
the education taxes increase, while the municipal portion of taxes generally declines (dependent on
the amount of the assessment increase).

....
What are some actual tax impacts in London for 20077
The attached chart shows the impact on assessed value and taxes for 17 properties (representing
more than 32 buildings). Properties ranged from an overall tax increase of 8.6% to a decrease of
36.5%. In summary, assessment values increased 55%, the municipal taxes decreased 27.8%
($658,000), with overall taxes including education decreasing20.6% ($533,500).
What are other municipalities experiencing?
Although we are not privy to the same level of detail in other municipalities, we have been advised
that properties in Toronto and the GTA, as well as Hamilton, are typically seeing the same or higher
taxation upon conversion to condos. "