Thunder Bay City Budget 2021: And Now for New Police Facilities

Thunder Bay is surveying its residents for input into the 2021 budget and as part of the budget input process a virtual town hall was held Wednesday this week to overview and answer questions.  Surprisingly, no questions were answered about the pinhole leak problem but then it was not a live phone or zoom in but one with “submitted questions” and this careful screening undoubtedly eliminated such awkward inquiries.  As part of its new autocratic behaviour, Thunder Bay City Council is rapidly overtaking the Communist Party of China for the breathtaking nature of its staged theatrical consultations. 

The 2021 budget includes a tax supported infrastructure deficit estimated to be $21.7 million annually, while the rate supported infrastructure deficit is estimated at $7.6 million annually.  The budget process is still advancing the prospect of a two per cent tax levy increase.  However, that does not factor in expenses related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic which would result in a 6 percent tax levy increase.

While the town hall noted that the City will be looking to reserves and other sources to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 it remains that the words of the Finance Committee Chair alone are not enough to keep the levy at 2 percent.  Many of the councilors will be happy with exploring an increase between 2 and 6 percent as part of a convoluted political ballet of creative manoeuvre to pursue additional spending agendas.  

In terms of spending, along with the coming Turf Facility (with a cost range of anywhere from $30 to $42 million), many have forgotten that new police facilities are also coming down the pipeline and Monday night’s meeting will see a needs assessment study with a veritable alphabet soup range of options -  A,  B, B1, B2, C, C1, D and E – with options B1 and B2 in particular reminiscent of beloved  Australian children’s television characters.

In brief, with estimated construction and separate total project costs at the end of each option, here are the nominees:

OPTION A Base Case New HQ any location $45,025,668 / $ 49,875,204

OPTION B New Central HQ with South Satellite (south core satellite includes Exhibits, Comm Services) $48,638,522 / $ 54,117,483

OPTION B1 New Central HQ with South Satellite (south core satellite includes Patrol & Comm Services) $49,568,285 / $ 55,068,311

OPTION B2

New Central HQ with South Satellite (South core satellite includes Patrol) $48,736,702 / $54,078,066

OPTION C

Existing HQ with South and North Satellites (perhaps they will be named Deimos and Phobos though being associated with Mars they are also the Greek Gods of fear, panic and terror and therefore probably not appropriate names to be associated with modern policing) (South core satellite includes Exhibits, Range North core satellite is covert (no public access) $50,939,978 / $ 62,626,447

OPTION C1 Existing HQ with South & North Satellites (south core satellite includes Comm Services Support Bldg includes Exhibits, Range, Comm Services) $49,133,748 / $ 62,878,096

OPTION D
New South HQ with North Satellite (satellite is covert (no public access) includes Range) $48,371,662 / $ 53,581,582

OPTION E

New South HQ with North Satellite (north satellite includes Comm Services). $46,635,047 / $51,791,507

This is going to be a fairly complicated decision but the long and short of it is that new police facilities will have a total cost of anywhere from $ 49,875,204 to $62,878,095 and that is before any of the inevitable cost overruns that usually characterize public sector construction projects in Thunder Bay. Some of us are now old enough to have seen it all and examples of cost overruns include the new hospital – whose costs ultimately more than doubled from initial estimate to final project - to most recently the Marina Park pedestrian overpass refurbishment which is now $500,000 overbudget – an increase of 38 percent.   

The direction of the project is definitely towards a new build, not only because the word “new” appears in 6 out of the 8 options but because the existing HQ with north and south satellite options (C and C1) seem to have the largest spread between construction and total project costs and ultimately the highest total costs.

So, the die is cast.  Not only is $40 million dollars or more headed towards a new turf facility but another $50-$55 million dollars is headed towards a new police facility which is close to $100 million in new capital infrastructure spending before the inevitable costs overruns of which only 30-40 percent is probably a lower end estimate.  It is no wonder Thunder Bay City councillors and staff are remaining silent on fixing the leaky pipe infrastructure – they have other priorities for Thunder Bay’s tax dollars which incidentally are financed by the second highest residential tax rates of 35 Ontario municipalities.

 

 

 

Municipal Autocracy is Alive and Well in Thunder Bay

 

The Mayor and Council of the City of Thunder Bay grow ever more divorced from the needs and interests of the public they are supposed to serve with their behaviour sometimes reminiscent of 19^th century Russian aristocrats.   They pursue grand public schemes and profess concern for the public but are deaf to plights raised that diverge from their own views of what is best for the city.  In this, they are aided and abetted by their administrators whose chief interest seems to be maximizing revenues and spending – at least in areas where they see fit. 

 

The situation of ratepayers and homeowners in Thunder Bay often seems to be akin to the welfare of  Russian peasants whose fate was the lot of the ‘unfortunates’ to whom ‘God is high above and the Tsar is far away.’  Just ask the homeowners whose pleas about the damages they are incurring to their property from pipes leaking are met with silence.  Indeed, there may be a lot in common in the general attitudes of the Mayor and Council of Thunder Bay and the Czar and his assorted Grand Dukes given that Czar Nicholas II filled in his occupation during the 1897 Russian Census simply as “The Owner of the Russian Land.”  I suppose the leaky pipe protestors last week should consider themselves blessed that the Mayor and Council did not summon mounted police to disperse them.

 

Nowhere is this autocratic arrogance more blatantly demonstrated than in the 2021  “Budget Survey” that Council is now asking input for on its website.  It begins by asking for a line by line ranking of programs in terms of importance to you that include: Roads, Winter Maintenance, Drinking Water, Wastewater (Sewer), Stormwater Management, Garbage and Recycling, Long Term Care Services, Parks, Recreation Programs and Facilities, Child Care, Libraries, Economic Development, Communication and Resident Engagement, Animal Services, and By-Law Enforcement. 

 

This is ceremonial accountability at its best as it allows for input on items so broadly defined that a ranking is meaningless.  Honestly, are we being threatened with an end to clean drinking water or garbage collection or a shut-down of City long-term care facilities, if we refuse to hand over our taxes?  Everyone knows that choices need to be made but there is a difference between explaining  the options and implicit threats of service cuts that smack of bullying ratepayers.

 

However, the most striking question is the one that brings the impact of COVID-19 into the budgetary discussion.  As the section reads:

 

“The financial impact of COVID-19, due to revenue losses and increased costs, has been estimated at over $8 million for 2021 (4.2% of the municipal taxes levy). City Administration will be presenting City Council with options to address these costs. To cover these increased costs, what option(s) would you support?

 

a.         Temporarily reduce/modify services in 2021

b.         Temporarily increase user fees in areas that have increased costs due to COVID-19

c.         Increase taxes in 2021

d.         Draw from the reserve fund that is set aside for emergencies and budget to replenish in future years.”

 

Take careful note of the nuances here.  First, the financial impact of COVID-19 for 2021 is set at $8 million but nowhere is there mention of the nearly $9 million dollars that has been received in pandemic aid to date from higher levels of government that has apparently resulted in a $1 million operating surplus for 2020. 

 

Second, the mention of these costs as 4.2 percent of the municipal tax levy is a hint that what the City probably really wants is a 4.2 percent tax increase.  This is an increase in spending on the 2020 tax levy of $199.4 of an additional $8.4 million and assumes there will be no additional assistance or support from the provincial or federal government in 2021.  Given that they did not have to draw down on emergency reserves for 2020, doing it in 2021 is a legitimate option that should be given greater weight.

 

In light of the twin pandemics of both COVID-19 and leaky pipes that have hit the homeowners and taxpayers of Thunder Bay, The City of Thunder Bay needs to limit its tax levy increase this year to no more than 2 percent as mentioned earlier this year.  Instead of bullying taxpayers by implicit threats to reduce their garbage collection or snow removal if they don’t get their 4.2 percent, they should look at making core services like roads, water, sewer, sanitation a priority while reducing their emphasis on other things or by looking for ways to do them more efficiently.  As to how to do it, it is indeed up to the administrators to provide the options and for the councilors to choose among the options - that is what they are being paid for.

 

And as a final point, they do need to provide affected homeowners some assistance with respect to the leaky pipe pandemic.  Without commenting on the situation or compromising their “legal position” they could in recognition of the economic and mental burden of the pandemic temporarily suspend the hundreds of dollars in fees they charge homeowners to turn off and turn on the water when faced with ruptured pipes.  Continuing to do so means they are treating the misfortune of the leaky pipe situation as simply an opportunistic source of municipal revenue. 

 

 

Saving Money in a Roundabout Way

 

The theme at the November 2^nd Thunder Bay City Council, Meeting will be “saving money in a roundabout way.”  Despite all the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth during the spring and summer over the impact of COVID-19 it turns out that for 2020 the City of Thunder Bay will be seeing a positive variance on their operating budget – that is, a surplus – of about $1 million.  However, this positive outcome is not really the result of any great fiscal sacrifice or structural reforms on the part of our municipal councillors but mainly the result of money from other levels of government coming to the rescue. 

 

While there was indeed some cause for concern as user fee revenues dried up when the pandemic took hold, the City has been bailed out by other levels of government.  First, there was over $9 million dollars in assistance from federal and provincial levels of government of which some will carry over into 2021. Second, the city was quick to issue temporary layoffs to about 800 workers which was not as regrettable as city officials might have you think because with layoffs in early April, most would have ended up on the Federal CERB – more government money. 

 

The positive variance for 2020 means another $1 million will end up going to reserves which again means business as usual as the last five years will have now seen nearly $14 million dollars in accumulated positive variances.  The City of Thunder Bay seems to typically overestimate spending and underestimates revenues and the inevitable resulting surplus is then banked.  Taxpayers are thus not only paying for services but also for an indirect roundabout municipal savings program with tax levy increases since 2015 ranging from 2.3 to 5.7 percent. 

 

There is fiscal prudence and then there is crying wolf. Indeed, between the “accidental surpluses” and the deliberate direction of funds into reserves as part of operating and capital budgets, the City of Thunder Bay has seen its reserve funds grow from approximately $99 million in 2015 to an estimated $137 million in 2019. Returning at least a portion of the “accidental” surplus to ratepayers in the form of lower tax levies is not something the City seems interested in doing given its insatiable need for more legacy projects.  For 2021, ratepayers in Thunder Bay have already been prepared in a roundabout way for a tax levy increase of 3.45 percent as bringing about only a two percent increase would require $5 million in “savings”.   

 

And speaking of savings and roundabouts, the other way to save money that will come up at this week’s meeting is a proposed roundabout at the intersection of Redwood and Edward.  The concept of a traffic roundabout is actually quite good and common in many other cities – particularly in Europe.  It can help smooth traffic flow provided they are properly constructed and properly used given the average Thunder Bay driver’s pathological inability to manage a merge lane.  There is a small roundabout at Marina Park but that is not a real test under traffic flow conditions as it essentially connects road access within the park to parking lots.

 

The initial proposal was for a roundabout at Ford and Victoria but the City’s Engineering Division after a study said the intersection did not warrant one.  A proposal for one at Edward and Redwood seems odd given that the intersection was just fixed and repaved but apparently there is more sewer work planned so now is a time to replace more expensive traffic lights with a roundabout.  While building the roundabout will cost $1 million dollars compared to $850,000 for regular traffic signals, savings will emerge over time in a roundabout way through lower operating costs over 20 years which will be $150,000 annually compared to $275,000 annually for traffic lights. That seems like a lot for annual maintenance for either option given that in other cities the annual maintenance estimates are closer to $10,000 but hey this is Thunder Bay so let us go with it.

 

If you simply sum up the costs over 20 years, the traffic lights will cost $5.6 million over that period but the traffic roundabout $3.85 million generating a total cost difference of $1.75 million at the end of 20 years.   If we assume that the numbers for maintenance over 20 years are instead totals over 20 years then what you actually get is a total cost of $1.15 million for the roundabout and $1.125 million for the traffic lights - making the roundabout only slightly cheaper over 20 years.  So, what really should be done is a cost benefit analysis under differing interest rate/discount rate scenarios.  That is, there needs to be not only an estimate of the costs but a monetary estimate of the benefits in terms of commuting time saved or lives saved and injuries from the expectation of fewer accidents in a roundabout relative to traffic lights. 

 

And you also need to apply a discount factor or interest rate given the weighting of benefits over time – a dollar today is not the same as a dollar tomorrow.  Basically, projects with high-up front benefits and lower-upfront costs tend to be favored in any cost-benefit analysis but we have really no way of determining that in this case because all we have are cost estimates and no publicly available monetary estimate of anticipated benefits.

 

Still, costs are what are going to be used and it looks like savings so the Councillors will go for it whether there really are going to be savings over the next 20 years or not.  It is likely none of them will be on council 20 years from now for a final reckoning.  The Councillors are desperate for some feel good achievements given the beating they have taken over the spending on the turf facility and their cone of silence on the pinhole leak issue.  At the midpoint of their mandate, they are not doing so well politically given a recent TBNewswatch Poll grading their performance that saw 50 percent of respondents give them a collective “F” and another 25 percent a D. Only 1.6 percent gave them an A.  With those kinds of marks, none of them will be going to Thunder Bay’s political graduate school – higher political office.

 

 

 

The Big Challenges Addressing Ontario’s Deficit & Debt Problem

The last couple of days have seen two reports – one by Statistics Canada and one by the Ontario Financial Accountability Office – which taken together provide the best picture yet as to why Ontario faces a big fiscal challenge in resolving its deficit and debt issues.  First, the Financial Accountability Office (FAO) in its Spring 2019 Economic and Budget Outlook under its baseline projection projects that Ontario’s budget deficit decreases from $11.7 billion in 2018-19 to $7.3 billion in 2020-21 and improves rapidly over the following three years, reaching balance in 2022-23 and a relatively large surplus of $6.4 billion by 2023-24.  

Yet, the FAO notes that the 2019 Ontario Budget projects smaller deficits over the next two years due to the government’s more optimistic outlook for revenue growth.  However, beginning in 2021-22, the 2019 budget incorporates provisions for unannounced revenue reductions and spending measures. This would lead to higher deficits and add to Ontario’s debt. The Province should still achieve a balanced budget by 2023-24, due to its plan to significantly restrain the growth in program spending.  The 2019 budget will see program spending grow at just 1 percent annually over the next five years bringing per capita government spending from $10,494 in 2018-19 to $9,391 – a decrease of 10.5 percent.  Per capita government spending in Ontario is already the lowest in the country and this additional decline would widen the gap even more.

So why is Ontario unable to provide provincial government program spending closer to the national average? The answer to that lies in another report by Statistics Canada titled Income Growth per Capita in the Provinces since 1950 which examines GDP per capita and real GDI per capita over a 66-year period to provide insight on which provinces experienced the most growth over the course of this period, and how this affected per capita income levels across provinces.  The news for Ontario is pretty grim in terms of economic growth rates.  Whereas in 1950, Ontario had the highest GDP per capita of the ten provinces – followed by British Columbia and Alberta – by 2016 it was down to 4^thplace with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador in the top three positions.  More startling is the growth rate of per capita income – which places Ontario at the bottom of all the provinces over this period (See figure).

So, Ontario in a sense over the last 50 years has spent beyond its means in an effort to keep up with the other provinces in terms of the provision of public services but that has still not been enough.  It now has the lowest per capita spending of the ten provinces, the largest provincial total public debt, the second highest per capita public debt, and is engaged in an effort to balance its budget which will widen the program spending gap further with the other provinces.  Now some may point to the factor here as a revenue problem driven by the unwillingness of Ontario to raise taxes.  Ontario indeed has the lowest total revenue per capita among the ten provinces but it has the third highest per capita tax revenue – after Quebec and Newfoundland.  Ontario’s relatively higher per capita tax revenue is offset by lower revenues from resource royalties, federal transfers as well as all other revenues when compared to other provinces.  No, it is not a tax revenue problem.

The problem is three-fold: First, Ontario has had a weaker economic growth rate relative to the other provinces and needs to boost its productivity and economy to grow faster thereby expanding its tax base.  Second, Ontario has not had has a resource sector boom that has enabled provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan to leap ahead in terms of income and ultimately government spending and nor is it likely to get one from northern Ontario resources anytime soon given the slow pace of development.  Third, as a result of its strong tax base - all things considered – Ontario is still a source of federal government revenue and ultimately transfers to other parts of the country which allow those regions to maintain a higher level of spending.  While balancing the budget by 2022-23 will resolve Ontario’s fiscal situation, it remains that the long-term pressures driving its fiscal imbalance are still there.  

Ontario Budget 2019: Some Spending Details

Well, the dust is settling from the April 11^th 2019 Ontario provincial government budget and it is time to spend a little more time looking at some of the details in spending.  There are many stories in the media about assorted cuts coming down the pipeline, but it remains that overall spending is up and projected to continue rising though at a much lower rate.  Indeed, as discussed in my previous post, total spending is expected to rise from $162.5 billion in 2018/19 to reach $164.4 billion representing an overall increase in spending of 0.6 percent. This of course is a much lower growth rate in spending than was the case under the previous government.

What is more interesting is what a more detailed analysis by ministry expense category reveals.  Approximately two-thirds of ministry expense categories are expected to decrease while one-third have actually experienced an increase. Table 1 lists the ministry expenses by ranked percentage increases whereas Table 2 does it by ranked expenditure decreases. Increases in spending range from 550 percent for the Treasury Board Secretariat Capital Contingency Fund to 0.5 percent for the Training, Colleges and University Base Budget. Despite what may seem to be very large increases for the Treasury Board Secretariat they are on amounts that represent less than one percent of total spending. With respect to the Treasury Board Secretariat, the government also notes that: “The Province has put in place a prudent Operating and Capital Contingency Fund housed in the Treasury Board Secretariat. This fund is the main driver of the increase in the Ministry’s 2019–20 budget, in addition to an increase in employee pension benefits paid.” (Ontario 2019 Budget, p. 298).  Other increase of note also include Infrastructure (Base) (261%), Total Transportation (10.9 %) and Interest on the Debt (6.4%).

It should be noted that Health and Long-Term Care and Education (Primary & Secondary) together represent in 2019/20 a total of $95 billion or about 60 percent of the spending total.  While there are changes within both these categories underway designed to create efficiencies it remains that Education is going to grow by 2.6 percent and Health by 2.2 percent.  It is fairly simply math to realize that if categories representing 60 percent of government spending are going to grow by over 2 percent when total spending is growing by 0.6 percent, then there are going to have to be reductions in many other categories which account for the other 40 percent of spending.

 
Here the list is much larger (therefore two tables) and some of the percentage increases also larger.  Reductions range from -0.4 percent for the base budget of Municipal Affairs and Housing to -67.1 percent for Natural Resources and Forestry Emergency Forest Fire Fighting.  However, the total budget for Natural Resources and Forestry is declining by -19 percent while the base budget is declining by -3.2 percent.  While the Total Budget for Training, Colleges and Universities is declining by -6.1 percent, its base budget is actually growing by 0.5 percent while the student assistance component is declining by -33 percent.

To its credit, the provincial government has embarked on what appears to be a pretty substantial review and restructuring of government spending in all categories.  Within expenditure categories it is choosing what to increase – albeit at a lower rate than in the past – and what to substantially reduce.  Some categories have been hit immediately with some large reductions.  Some of these reductions include the winding up of one-time funding and therefore appear quite large for the coming year which is why a comparison of base budget rather than overall totals might be more appropriate.  However, the ultimate aim appears to be a substantial restructuring with priorities being selected.  It would appear the priority is to deal with the province’s fiscal situation while ensuring that overall budgetary cuts do not occur particularly in the key areas of health and education.  Indeed, all things considered, the transfer partners in the municipalities, universities, schools and hospital sectors (MUSH) have gotten off relatively lightly.  This naturally means larger declines in the remaining 40 percent of government spending. It cannot realistically be otherwise.

Thunder Bay Taxes Are Going Up Again!

It is municipal budget season in Thunder Bay and the inevitable process of thrust, parry and spin is well underway. First the thrust: the amount spent by the City of Thunder Bay obtained from the tax levy is going up by 3.6 percent.  Moreover, water and sewer rates as well as tipping fees at the landfill will be going up by three percent.  In an effort to forestall the inevitable complaints that these increases are too high, the resulting parry and spin on the part of the City appears to be as follows. 

The 3.6 percent increase in the tax levy will only be a 2.9 percent increase to existing ratepayers after factoring in assessment growth.  According to the budget chair: “This is a budget that stays the course in terms of not reducing services but maintaining investments while living within our means.”

Moreover, much of the increase is going to hire new full-time positions and vehicles for the Superior North EMS.  The paramedic service has seen call volumes grow substantially in recent years as a result of the aging population and the opioid crisis. As well, according to the budget chair, in an ideal world “we would stay below the level of inflation,” but there has been a reduction in provincial transfer payments.

The efforts by the City to justify a 3.6 percent increase in the levy – that is in tax financed city expenditure – are pretty standard.  Differentiating between existing ratepayers and “new growth” conveniently sidesteps the fact that in the end it is all tax revenue coming from city ratepayers.  Arguing that we are “investing” in services and living within our means needs to be considered within the context of whether the services are cost-effective as well as the fact the money is not from some kind of endowment but comes directly from city ratepayers.   

As for the paramedic service, it would be nice to see some kind of breakdown in statistics as to exactly what the sources of the increased demand are in terms of case mix and demographic breakdowns.  In an interview on CBC Thunder Bay radio this morning, the chief of the Superior North Emergency Medical Services also noted that the city has a large transient population that is a source of increasing demand.  This raises the question as to whether city ratepayers rather than the province should be on the hook to fund what is increasing regional demand for emergency health services. However, as noted above, the province is apparently not very interested in raising its grant contribution.

The most entertaining line was the one that ideally, we would see tax increases that stay below the rate of inflation.  The last four years have seen increases in tax revenue all above the inflation rate suggesting that this aspiration has yet to be achieved by the current city council.  Nevertheless, given that it is an election year one should have goals and dreams to campaign on.

Given that it is an election year, it is also important to take a longer term look at municipal finances – in particular I want to focus on Thunder Bay municipal own-source revenue – that is tax and user fee revenues and then provide some comparisons to basic economic indicators for the city. The data on total municipal tax revenue, residential and non-residential tax revenue, and user fees spans the period 1990 to 2016 and is from assorted past City of Thunder Bay Consolidated Financial Statements as well as from the Financial Information Returns (FIR) maintained for each municipality by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.  For 2017 and 2018, I use current City of Thunder Bay budget summaries with the total for 2018 a forecast based on the tax levy increase of 3.6 percent. From Statistics Canada, I have the inflation rate - inflation is Ontario’s Consumer Price Index with 2002 as the base year – as well as median total tax filer income and annual employment for Thunder Bay. Population figures for Thunder Bay are from the Census of Canada.

One point with respect to City of Thunder Bay financial data is that the summaries and budget information over the last few years do not seem to provide the tax revenue breakdown between residential and non-residential revenue. I suspect the reason for this has less to do with economy of presentation and more to do with drawing attention away from the fact that the residential share of tax revenue has risen dramatically. While FIR does provide this information, unfortunately it only becomes available with a lag and 2016 is the last available complete set of FIR data. Overall, municipal finance data is rather opaque and difficult to use not just in Thunder Bay but Canada as a whole.  Cities could do better when it comes to being accountable to their ratepayers via concise, comprehensive and easy to use statistics.

For the period 1990 to 2016 (but forecast to 2018 for taxation revenue), Figure 1 plots taxation revenue and its two components – residential and non-residential taxation (commercial and industrial).  It then also plots user fee revenue (water & sewer and other fees) and then the total of taxation revenue and user fees. In 2016, tax revenues grew 2.2 percent with residential tax revenue growing at 3.8 percent and non-residential tax revenue actually declining 1.1 percent.  User fee revenue also declined 2.5 percent (despite rate increases the previous year). As a result, own source revenues in 2016 grew a modest 0.6 percent compared to 5.3 percent the year before.  If one looks only at total municipal tax revenue, it grew 5.7 percent in 2015, 2.2 percent in 2016 and based on recent estimates (and not FIR data) grew at 3.3 percent in 2017 and will grow 3.6 percent in 2018.

Figures 2 and 3 provide composition information for taxation revenue and total own source revenue for the period 1990 to 2016. When one considers only tax revenue, from a 50/50 split in 1990 the distribution by 2016 had evolved into a 70/30 split.  The residential ratepayer in Thunder Bay now provides the City of Thunder Bay with 70 percent of municipal tax revenue. When the picture is broadened to total own-source revenue, the residential ratepayer in 2016 provided about 46 percent of own-source revenue, the non-residential ratepayer 21 percent and user fees – which incidentally are paid by both residential and non-residential ratepayers -about 34 percent.  
 

Figure 4 plots the average annual growth rates for total taxation revenue as well as residential and non-residential tax revenue and user fees, alongside the growth rates for Thunder Bay’s population, employment and median total tax filer income and Ontario’s inflation rate.  The average annual growth rate for taxation revenue has been 4.1 percent but residential tax revenue has grown at 5.6 percent while non-residential taxes have been growing at 2.3 percent.  On average, both residential and non-residential taxes revenues have grown faster than either population (-0.2%), employment (-0.1%), inflation (1.9%) and median tax filer income (2.2%).  User fee revenue has also grown faster than all of these indicators at an average of 5 percent.

So, the 2018 municipal budget year is shaping up to be somewhat modest in terms of increases at least by historical standards.  Total tax revenue is anticipated to only go up 3.6 percent (as opposed to 4.1 percent) while user fee increases of 3 percent look pretty good compared to average increases of 5 percent.  But then, 2018 is an election year and I suspect that we will be in for some pretty steep increases in 2019 once the election dust clears.  If one goes back to the 2014 election, that budget year saw a 2.2 percent increase in municipal taxation revenue but they made up for it in 2015 with a 5.7 percent increase.

It probably is a smart strategy to moderate tax increases in an election year and then raise them steeply early on in the new mandate so that their memory fades by the time the next election rolls around. It may perhaps be seen as calculating and opportunistic behavior on the part of our municipal politicians but it seems to work. Thunder Bay residents keep re-electing the same people over and over again.