As expected, Monday evening’s City Council Meeting was a
long one wrapping up at 3am and as predicted the Turf facility is going forward
if by a slim margin of
7-6 in favour. For the record to assist you in decision
making next election, those in favour of spending more money despite the
caveats: Mayor Bill Mauro and councilors Albert Aiello, Shelby Ch'ng, Andrew
Foulds, Cody Fraser, Kristen Oliver and Aldo Ruberto. Those in favour of delaying the project in
light of the current situation: Mark Bentz, Trevor Giertuga, Brian Hamilton,
Rebecca Johnson, Brian McKinnon and Peng You.
In the end, Mayor Mauro got what he wanted and one wonders why he risked
so much political capital to drive something that a large
majority of the public seem to oppose.
The evening also discussed the budget and originally there
was a proposal to raise the 2021 tax levy by 3.45 percent in order to deal with
the $8.4 million in COVID-19 expenses – though left unexplained is why with $9
million in provincial and federal assistance coming, are those costs for 2020
not largely taken care of. In the end,
apparently the increase is now proposed at only 2 percent but that will likely
change given Thunder Bay’s deteriorating tax base and the “need” for more
money. And, there was plenty of evidence
in the documentation for Monday night’s meeting on the eroding tax base.
I suppose there was little time at Monday night’s meeting to
discuss other items of business such as Corporate Report No. R 18/2020 included
in the Committee of the Whole Agenda and buried on pages 236 to 239 (with a
lengthy Appendix afterwards). This report
was on Property Tax Accounts with 2018 Arrears.
Of course, the table of numbers spanning properties that stopped paying
their taxes over the 2008 to 2018 period was probably too much to process for
the bleary eyed councilors. Sometimes
one wonders if City Council is some type of cult designed to ram through
decisions by handing councilors 300 page documents and then depriving them of
sleep with long meetings. Of course, the more alert ones in favor of
the turf facility may have been alarmed at the prospect of discussing the
growing number of tax arrears properties at the same time new spending was
being proposed and heaved a sigh of relief it did get too much attention. Nevertheless, I suspect the numbers
themselves would have little impact - pictures are much better and as usual I
had to provide my own.
Figures 1 to 3 takes the data in the report and plots the
number of properties (both total and residential) in tax arrears, the total
value of tax arrears by year in dollars, and finally the value of those arrears
as a percentage of the total tax levy that year. The plots are disturbing as despite the
occasional up and down, they show a clear upward trend over time. Whereas the average annual number of
properties in arrears from 2008 to 2010 was close to 100, for the 2016 to 2018
period, it averaged close to 300. In essence,
the number of properties in arrears has tripled over the last decade. It is not just business properties, it is
also residential. The value of the tax
arrears in 2018 was $2.5 million – a not inconsequential sum given that the
original proposed tax increase of 3.45 percent would have likely added nearly
$7 million to the tax levy. Indeed, as a
percentage of the tax levy, the trend is also upwards and reflects foregone
revenue – which if looked at cumulatively since 2008 represents the evaporation
of nearly 10 percent of the tax levy.
If property owners in Thunder Bay are stopping to pay taxes
on their properties and giving up on them, there is a serious issue. The solution is not stricter enforcement and
chasing people down by hiring a Sheriff of Nottingham type with a half dozen tax
facilitators and support people to extract the cash. There are probably many reasons why people
are unable to meet their tax obligations and give up on the property they are
holding.
For some, it is being on a fixed income or job loss or
health issues. Some are seniors with dementia
whose families have lost track of the properties. For others, it is a simple calculation: - given
diminished circumstances, the value of what they own is not worth keeping given
the tax burden that has been imposed.
This is apparent from some of the properties listed which are
undeveloped lots and properties being taxed at high rates but often in
locations where there is no prospect of them ever being developed let alone a
market buyer found due to plans, zoning rules and regulations that only Thunder
Bay insiders can navigate.
What kind of city lets this happen? How can so many councilors talk incessantly
about how they care about social justice and equity and helping the socially
deprived and at the same time not realize the long-term effect of their decisions,
policies and actions in raising the economic burden on workers and families in Thunder
Bay? It is not just a provincial or
federal responsibility. Its theirs too.