[raisethehammer]

woohoo!!! thank-you Brian!

http://hallmarks.thespec.com/2008/08/mchattie-return.html

[SteelTown]

Lets keep this civil.

[SteelTown]

Kinda funny that Brad Clark wants to end area rating yet he's the one that brought in this whole area rating idea when he was in the Mike Harris cabinet. He was Mike Harris front hand man for Hamilton's amalgamation.

[hamiltonguy]

Kinda funny that Brad Clark wants to end area rating yet he's the one that brought in this whole area rating idea when he was in the Mike Harris cabinet. He was Mike Harris front hand man for Hamilton's amalgamation.

Area rating was only meant to be a measure to allow municipalities to adjust to amalgamation. Hamilton is the only city in Ontario that still maintains the split by former municipalities. All others have abandoned the system entirely or gone to an urban/rural split.

[raisethehammer]

of course we're the only one left doing it.
Hamilton's urban residents have been getting screwed for decades. Why stop now?

[SteelTown]

Council makes U-turn on tax shift debate
City to overhaul system by 2011

August 08, 2008
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator

In an abrupt turnaround, city council has agreed to revamp Hamilton's taxes before the next election.

Suburban and urban councillors voted unanimously yesterday to tackle the divisive issue together and implement a new system by 2011.

"I think it's a turning point," said Councillor Tom Jackson, noting both sides have moved their position to "work together as a team."

The decision was a sharp shift from the previous day when council, meeting in committee, voted 8-7 to delay any decision about the city's tax division until after the 2010 election. Councillors huddled privately to find the compromise on a timeline after a change in council attendance threatened to reverse the original vote and possibly force a decision this fall.

"Let's move forward. Let's work together," Councillor Scott Duvall urged his colleagues as he brought forward the revised plan.

"We all recognize we have a serious problem."

Historically, suburban councillors have been reluctant to re-examine area-rating, a tax system put in place after amalgamation to ease the tax burden on the communities that merged with the city. The suburbs pay less for receiving less of such services as culture and recreation, transit and fire.

Staff recently found faults in the system and recommended it be reviewed this fall.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who had supported the original delay, said the compromise is significant because it signals no one is deluded about the status quo continuing.

"At some point, adjustments have to be made."

Glanbrook Councillor David Mitchell agrees the current system needs improvement, but said he also sees potential to expand the services included in area-rating.

"It's about improving a practical management tool," he said. "Area-rating will never be gone. It's here to stay."

It remains to be seen in coming months if council will be able to stay united when it comes to deciding what model of taxation the city should adopt going forward.

The staff analysis noted the current tax divisions are based on old geographic boundaries even though services are not. In some cases, residents on opposite sides of the street are paying different amounts for the same services.

Staff want to put forward alternatives, such as eliminating area-rating completely or creating a new division between urban and rural residents. Any change will mean a tax shift for residents.

Under the compromise, staff will bring back a report this fall on the options. It will then be circulated in the community for input before coming back to council for a final decision before the next election.

The new system, which could be phased in, will start Jan. 1, 2011.

[SteelTown]

Council votes not to duck tax decision

August 08, 2008
Andrew Dreschel
The Hamilton Spectator

Credit Scott Duvall for getting Hamilton councillors to accept a deadline for tackling a controversial tax policy, rather than dodging it until after the next election as originally planned.

Before the Ward 7 councillor began bending his colleagues ears on the matter, councillors had voted 8-7 to maintain the status quo and basically spend the next two years - the balance of this term of council - studying the unfair and illogical system of area rating, but not taking any concrete steps to fix the problem.

After Duvall got the ball rolling, council yesterday agreed to a compromise.

Under the new plan, the status quo will still remain for two years, but council is unanimously committed to implementing a new policy that will kick in when the next council takes over in January 2011.

They may not be taking the minotaur by the horns, but at least the councillors are not melting into the woodwork like timid mice.

Clearly, area rating is a very delicate subject, especially in the suburbs.

The system has been used since amalgamation to soften suburban residential tax rates, by permitting different areas to pay different amounts depending on the recreation, fire, and transit services they receive.

The problem is, the system is artificially based on ward boundaries rather than, say, the difference between rural and urban service standards.

That means in some instances, homeowners in old Hamilton are paying more taxes than homeowners in the suburbs, for houses of equal value with similar access to services.

Thanks to the compromise, council now has two years to come up with, hopefully, a more equitable tax differential model.

Duvall readily admits his ability to propose an action timeline was strengthened when Councillor Brian McHattie returned from vacation specifically to vote on the issue.

McHattie, who favours changing the policy, would have tipped yesterday's ratification vote the other way.

Obviously, those who originally supported putting off a decision, realized if they didn't compromise they could end up losing this time out, particularly since their side was weakened by Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson's absence yesterday.

Duvall, who hated the thought of shirking responsibility, is delighted with the compromise.

"I didn't want to put this on another council," Duvall said in an interview.

"I know it's our responsibility and we've got to deal with it."

Exactly.

As Councillor Terry Whitehead suggested that the reason the province changed council terms from three to four years was so that they'd be more inclined to make tough decisions and not put them off.

There's no mystery why there's a willingness to find a middle way here.

Councillors on both sides are still feeling scalded, not to say a sheepish, over their mishandling of the Flamboro Downs subsidy in the spring.

You'll recall that a deeply divided council voted 8-7 to funnel $4 million in slot machines revenue into the general levy instead of following past practices and using it to offset jumbo tax increases in Flamborough.

Their stiff-necked inability to reach a compromise was, arguably, the lowest point of their term to date.

They unnecessarily angered and polarized the community and poisoned their own working relationships.

No doubt that it was the bitter aftertaste of that debacle that informed Mayor Fred Eisenberger's exceedingly timorous comment during the area rating debate that "harmony overrides fairness."

Hardly a political slogan for the ages, let alone Eisenberger's re-election campaign.

Nonetheless, it admirably conveys the depth of the divide between the old city and amalgamated suburbs.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Before the Ward 7 councillor began bending his colleagues ears on the matter, councillors had voted 8-7 to maintain the status quo and basically spend the next two years - the balance of this term of council - studying the unfair and illogical system of area rating, but not taking any concrete steps to fix the problem. [emphasis added]

-- Andrew Dreschel

QFT

[SteelTown]

Assessment map faces a change
Area rating could be on its way out

August 09, 2008
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator

If anyone can tee off on Hamilton's golf courses, who should foot the cost of running the greens?

As it stands, only residents of the old city pay to operate the municipal courses. It's the same tax policy across Hamilton.

Ancaster residents pay for their arena. Stoney Creek residents pay for Battlefield Park. And old city residents pay for the Farmers' Market and Dundurn Castle.

But probably not for long.

City council agreed this week to reopen the tax debate on who pays for what. It's a tough issue that's divided suburban and urban councillors and residents since amalgamation.

The formal term is area rating. The province gave the new city the tool after amalgamation to limit the tax impact for incoming communities. Essentially, the suburbs pay less for receiving less culture and recreation, transit and fire service.

Without area rating, places such as Flamborough would have seen an immediate tax hike of close to 30 per cent.

But over the years, city staff say, the tax policy has become less accurate. A recent review noted the tax divisions are still based on old boundary lines when services are not.

Staff plan to report back this fall on ways to improve the tax system. Area rating could be eliminated or broken down into a new urban-rural split.

Culture and Recreation:

In 2001, there were different fees for activities across the new city. Now everyone pays the same. Plus, staff question if it's still appropriate to only charge residents for facilities in their geographic areas when each of the facilities is open to everyone. Staff want to explore phasing out this form of area rating.

Transit:

Residents in suburbs pay far less for transit because they have less service -- but one trip connects riders to the whole system.

Transit taxes are currently decided by the number of service miles available in each community. But staff want to explore a new model that would determine the rate based on a two- or three-tier service rating. Essentially, prime transit areas would pay the most, secondary areas would pay less and areas without any transit would pay nothing.

Fire:

Taxes for fire service are cheaper in the suburbs, which continue to have composite workforces with both full-time firefighters and volunteers.

But some parts of the suburbs are now getting service from full-service stations without paying the extra cost. A consultant is mapping the city to see if there's a more equitable way to divide the cost.


Who pays for what?

What different residents pay based on an average house assessed at $207,000

905-526-3299

Stoney Creek

Fire: $191

Transit: $56

Culture & Rec: $66

Total: $313

Glanbrook

Fire: $62

Transit: $66

Culture & Rec: $34

Total: $162

Ancaster

Fire: $212

Transit: $36

Culture & Rec: $85

Total: $333

Hamilton

Fire: $341

Transit: $189

Culture & Rec: $165

Total: $695

Dundas

Fire: $224

Transit: $45

Culture & Rec: $85

Total: $354

Flamborough

Fire: $177

Transit: $32

Culture & Rec: $51

Total: $260

[adam]

Its amazing to me that downtowners pay the most for transit according to these stats and yet mountain councillors were crying how converting streets to 2 way would chew up so much of THEIR constituents' tax dollars... :shrug:

[SteelTown]

Residents in Downtown and Mountain pay the same for area rating.

[raisethehammer]

Whitebread actually has some good commentary on area rating on his website:

http://terrywhitehead.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/hamilton-area-r.html

[SteelTown]

Mayor Eisenberger wants public input on area-rating debate
Controversy could ‘drive a knife’ into successes, says rural councillor

By Kevin Werner, News Staff

News
Oct 16, 2009
http://www.ancasternews.com/news/article/191538

In an attempt to prevent a potentially explosive issue that could destroy this council’s term, Mayor Fred Eisenberger is proposing to delay a decision on the future of arearating until after 2010. Mr. Eisenberger confirmed he will introduce a recommendation to begin a public consultation process to debate the future merits of area-rating.

“I’m working on a process that would allow a greater degree of discourse that will be critically important,” he said in an interview. “I think it needs input, a greater degree of understanding.”

Mr. Eisenberger did not reveal the entire public process he is contemplating, but said it involves more than just holding public information sessions.

“It’s beyond public meetings,” he said. “I’m not ready to put the whole thing on the table. (But) it will be a fair, pro-active inclusive citizen engagement process.”

He expects the public process not to be finished until after the 2010 municipal election. Any new area-rating policy won’t be implemented until early in council’s next term, he said.

Hamilton politicians were getting ready to re-open the emotional hot-button issue in an attempt to restructure it, or at the insistence of some urban councillors, eliminate the tax policy altogether.

Mr. Eisenberger said he wants to avoid the discussion entirely because it will “kill the momentum” Hamilton has been generating recently.

Glanbrook Councillor Dave Mitchell said re-opening the controversial topic of arearating is the “biggest, hottest, major decision for this city going. It could drive a knife into any successes we’ve had.”

Last month some councillors confirmed city staff were recommending in a report a number of options for area-rating, including eliminating recreation and culture from the area-rating policy. The meeting was cancelled and the issue put off until October. City financial staff in 2008 had proposed a number of suggestions to reform area-rating, including having the former suburban areas pay for the services they receive on an urban/rural split, and systematically removing the services from the area-rating system. Eliminating all the services from area-rating could mean tax hikes of between 10 and 12 per cent for suburban residents. Under the Municipal Act once a service has been removed from being area-rated, it can’t return.

Mr. Eisenberger said he expects staff’s area-rating report will be presented to councillors either in late October or early November. He expects his motion will accompany the report.

When amalgamation occurred in 2001, area-rating was adopted to exempt suburban homeowners from paying taxes for services they don’t receive. It softened somewhat the blow of higher taxes that were expected from amalgamation. The services that were area-rated included storm sewers, seniors’ tax credit, Flamboro slot revenues, fire services, recreation and culture, and transit. Over the following eight years councillors have systematically removed the services from the system until only recreation and culture, transit and fire are now area-rated.

Suburban councillors remain adamant that area-rating remain.

“There is an inequity here,” said Mr. Mitchell.

If area-rating is eliminated, “people in Binbrook will pay for services they don’t receive.”

Mr. Eisenberger, who during his 2006 mayoral campaign, promised to keep arearating, now says the system needs to be transformed because of Hamilton’s changing demographics. Mr. Eisenberger has become more accepting of possibly establishing an urban/rural tax policy for the city along the lines of what Ottawa has installed.

“I’m not on for throwing it out,” he said. “But we need to look at what has changed over the last year and how the urban and rural (areas) have been altered. There is a sense an urban and rural split on area-rating makes some sense.”

[flar]

If area-rating is eliminated, “people in Binbrook will pay for services they don’t receive.”

Maybe people in Binbrook should come into Hamilton once in a while to take advantage of the services and all the other things a city has to offer.

[bigguy1231]

It's about time area rating was done away with. The outlying areas will never get the same services offered in the more urban areas of the city, if the city doesn't have the money to pay for them.

As it is right now any improvements made in the rural areas are being paid for by the old city residents and that has been the case since regionalization in 1972.

[adam]

I'd like to see a comparison of:

dollars collected in taxes for downtown per square foot
vs
dollars collected in taxes for low density areas (like Flamborough) per square foot.

I have heard people from Waterdown and Flamborough say their "density is high".. although a quick scan on google maps or google earth shows otherwise.

[SteelTown]

Get ready for the Area Rating War.....

Area Rating Options
http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/73A32FBE-3732-4593-8D66-4CAD6A41FF16/0/Nov24FCS09087AreaRatingOptions.pdf