City Water Tax Increase / Mill Rate Decrease
LISTENER32
raised the assesments as much as 70%, dropped the mil rate by .9% and then
turned around and raised the water tax!! What a help that is.
Thoughts??
Merry Christmas
and give them the FLICK for Christmas
jim
I've little regard for anyone down there but at least Shannie took a
realistic approach to city finance during her election campain. What
was it that Coombs said again? I could move to Paradise for a 9 mil
rate but then they have no services.
zippybear
> I've little regard for anyone down there but at least Shannie took a
> realistic approach to city finance during her election campain. What
> was it that Coombs said again? I could move to Paradise for a 9 mil
> rate but then they have no services.
You don't need services in Paradise, you can get them all from Sin
Jawns. ;-)
Uncle Mose
No one likes taxes. I wonder where does the city get the money it
needs to run itself? People want all these services from the clearing
of sidewalks to the new sewer treatment plant yet they want lower
taxes. The money as to come from somewhere or some government. Yes the
city can find ways to save money and it can waste less but it all
boils down to the cost of services. If you want these services you are
going to have to pay for them in one form or another. Yes keep the
councils feet to the fire and make sure they save every cent they can
and make sure no money is wasted but in the end it is your tax dollar
that pays most of the bills. So if you want less taxes then you must
put up with less services. Developement and business tax is one way
for a town to make money however you have to walk a fine line on these
taxes to as many companies will not grow or will even pull up stakes
if taxes are to expensive. So in the end your taxes wether they be
municipal or provincial or federal are the money that towns and cities
rely on to provide services. Yes no one likes a tax increase but do
you want services or not. Make sure these governments don't waste the
tax dollar and make sure it is well spent but tax reduction is always
an election ploy as you may get a break this year but you will pay for
it in another year via higher taxes or less services. Shanny Duff made
good sense when she spoke on this matter. Some offer pie in the sky
only to find out after the election they offered more pie than was
feasible.
KR
election campaign, or if they just all said they would support a
decrease in the mil rate (which did happen a bit). Even with the
decrease and the increase in taxes they will be getting, they are
saying they may run a deficit. It seems that they are poor city
planners... With increased housing (generating increased city
revenue) they have to get more services into those areas, but I would
think that it would be proportional (for each new house, the taxes
should pay for that houses snow clearing, garbage collection, etc.).
It will be interesting to see how the city fares with it's budget this
year!
We're waiting to see what will happen to our mil rate. I would say it
will stay the same since it's very low at 6.5, but we are on well and
septic.
KR
On Dec 15, 1:50 pm, "LISTENER32" <listene...@hotmail.com> wrote:
jim
The issue is not the mil rate, it is the increase in the assessment.
Father in law for example purchased a home in St. John's Central.
There was no new development in the area and it is a hodge podge of
homes styles ranging in age from 40 years to over a 100 years old - no
development (new) to drive up the property value when comparing homes
in that area. He paid $80k for the home in 1991. He require no renno,
just upkeep. No structure mod's to increase the value. Say at a mil
rate today of 11, at $80K the taxes would be roughly $880.00 per year.
The new assessment (for this fixed income individual) said the same
home today is worth $200K, yes $200K. His new tax bill (not including
water) is going to be $2200. Thats where the issue is for many people
like him. He will be taxed out of his home. As for services, this
individual is more worried about heating his home than side walk
clearing or the survival of Mile One.
Carter
Actually Jim the issue for city council *is* the mil rate. The
mill rate is the only thing the council has control of. The
government did not increase the value of your Father-in-law's
home, that increase was caused by the real estate market. The
government simply does an assessment of the value of property in
relation to the market and municipal councils tax that property
according to an established formula, i.e., a mill rate.
Your Father-in-law knew when he bought the property, and I
suspect hoped, that the property would increase in value. It
did, and if he were to sell now he would realize a handsome
profit. He would, of course, have to pay current market value
for another house. He also knew that the increase in value would
result in higher taxes.
Would you like to discuss whether or not the city should lower
the mill rate for people on fixed incomes in order to keep their
taxes lower?
Carter
Anon NLer
I would propose it is equally possible that he had no intention of
ever selling and intended to die in the house. This is entirely
possible and for most people outside the so-called urban areas of the
province this could be more the norm. It is certainly what I would
prefer to do, albeit I would have some hope that this would not happen
any time soon. I would prefer that the assessed value of my house be
evaluated at time of sale and the difference be something which could
be factored into a fee that would have to be paid to the city upon the
sale, which is something that has been done in different
jurisdictions. This would encourage people to pick their homes more
carefully, and perhaps to maintain them in a way that would ensure
long term viability of the property. Of course, this does not provide
the development-hungry members of the council (including several of
which who have made a tidy sum from the sudden increase in property
values) with the same sort of immediate windfall that helps run this
fine city; but it would actually be fair to the people that have
helped keep this city going while everyone went off during our
horrific have-not years. The idea of my assessment increasing so much
when the property has no additional value to me or anyone else (until
the time of sale) is not a particularly appealing one.
I would also suppose, since we can apparently suppose whatever we like
about other people, that most people do not expect the value of their
home to increase by more than 100% in 20 years. This may not be
realistic in today's agent driven real estate world, but it is more in
line with traditional growth in this province.
Carter
> I would propose it is equally possible that he had no intention of
> ever selling and intended to die in the house. This is entirely
> possible and for most people outside the so-called urban areas of the
> province this could be more the norm. It is certainly what I would
> prefer to do, albeit I would have some hope that this would not happen
> any time soon.
I agree on all counts. It matters not if one intends to sell a
property, he still has to understand and accept that, barring a
severe fiscal depression, it will increase in value over time and
along with that increase comes a corresponding increase in
municipal taxes.
I would prefer that the assessed value of my house be
> evaluated at time of sale and the difference be something which could
> be factored into a fee that would have to be paid to the city upon the
> sale, which is something that has been done in different
> jurisdictions.
I assume you mean a one time fee in lieu of yearly property
taxation? If that is what you mean I can't see it happening
because it would remove the much needed yearly revenue which runs
the city.
This would encourage people to pick their homes more
> carefully, and perhaps to maintain them in a way that would ensure
> long term viability of the property.
I really can't see how it would.
Of course, this does not provide
> the development-hungry members of the council (including several of
> which who have made a tidy sum from the sudden increase in property
> values) with the same sort of immediate windfall that helps run this
> fine city;
Of course, that's what defeats the idea.
but it would actually be fair to the people that have
> helped keep this city going while everyone went off during our
> horrific have-not years.
Actually I think it would not be fair because, as we agree, it
removes the yearly funding for the much needed city services.
The pay-back for having stayed during the have-not years lies in
the greater value of property now. Those returning are having to
pay that greater amount to own property.
The idea of my assessment increasing so much
> when the property has no additional value to me or anyone else (until
> the time of sale) is not a particularly appealing one.
Actually the only time it's not appealing is at tax time. With
exception of sale it has no other effect and at sale time it is
very appealing.
>
> I would also suppose, since we can apparently suppose whatever we like
> about other people, that most people do not expect the value of their
> home to increase by more than 100% in 20 years. This may not be
> realistic in today's agent driven real estate world, but it is more in
> line with traditional growth in this province.
I agree, it's not realistic, particularly in this time of
relative prosperity. Someone once said that it is wise to be
careful what you ask for. For a long time we asked for
prosperity for this province and I think what many forgot is that
along with prosperity comes a certain degree of fiscal inflation,
higher real estate prices and higher property taxes, etc., etc..
BTW, it is disingenuous to blame agents for driving the real
estate world, they don't, buyers do. I have bought and sold many
real estate properties and one question I always ask agents is;
what is the real value of this property? The best answer I ever
got to that question is; whatever someone is willing to pay for
it. The value of real estate is, in fact, directly controlled by
what buyers are willing to pay. Now that we are a 'have'
province buyers are willing to pay more because they have, or can
get, more.
Nothing I have said, however, addresses the problem of those
living on fixed incomes trying to get along in an inflated
economy. I don't think the solution to that problem lies in
depriving municipalities of the revenue needed to operate. It is
a social problem which governments at all levels need to
seriously begin addressing. It is also a problem which people
themselves can begin to alleviate by taking advantage of the
higher property values and selling rather than trying to maintain
those properties on an ever decreasing financial resource. I
know it's anecdotal but I know of two older couples who just
recently sold their homes for an amount of money which, properly
invested, will pay the rent on a couple of smaller apartments for
the rest of their lives.
Carter
Uncle Mose
Have to agree with you on this one Carter.
Marie
.09%. They still come out at the top of the heap. Then they raise water
taxes to pay for the harbour clean up - I've been hearing that song and
dance for the last 25 years and every year they've added money to the water
tax to pay for the harbour clean up. I say get rid of at least half the
councillors (they are dead wood anyway and the only time you hear their
names is when they run for re-election), drop the cruise ship foolishness
and the heritage crap (there is very little heritage in the St. John's
area - anything that was has already been torn down), sell Mile One to the
first company with a vision to turn it into a parking garage - that would
save us another $1.5 million. Train plow operators to actually plow the
street right the first time. They keep coming back plowing the same strip
of road and never widen it because they don't know how to operate the
equipment. This should save on personnel costs and fuel costs. Only treat
those homes without driveways in the downtown core as privileged during the
winter. If you have a driveway, use it. Why should streets like Smith
Avenue, Pennywell Road, etc.be considered downtown core. This is where all
of our tax dollars go in the winter to clean up streets that are no more or
no less than the majority of the city.
I could stay on my soap box for hours, but that`s all I have to say (for
now).
M
"LISTENER32" <liste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b27be0f$0$5325$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
Carter
> The city raised property values exhorbitantly.
No it didn't. Property values were raised by property buyers.
If you look at your property assessment the assessed value of
your property assigned by the city is likely below the real
estate market value.
Then they drop the mill rate
> .09%. They still come out at the top of the heap.
The 'they' you talk about is all of the citizens of St. John's
who demand services.
Then they raise water
> taxes to pay for the harbour clean up - I've been hearing that song and
> dance for the last 25 years and every year they've added money to the water
> tax to pay for the harbour clean up.
I would say that's money well spent.
I could go on and critique everything else you have said but I
think you get the message.
<snip>
Carter
Marie
wrong. But you are entitled to your opinion, and I do respect that.
M
"Carter" <per_ardua@ad_astra> wrote in message
news:4b2ad189$0$5363$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
carter
> Go ahead - critiquing doesn't make you right but neither does it make me
> wrong. But you are entitled to your opinion, and I do respect that.
Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion however wrong or right it
may be. However, re-read what I wrote and you should be able to
recognize that 99% of what I wrote is not opinion, it is fact.
Carter