We’re on the same page for sure, but I do want to flag that the City of Ottawa has special levy areas where they do charge more taxes to cover hyper local costs. The easiest way to see this is the GeoOttawa overlay layers on the topic (under misc > property taxation boundaries)
Looks like there is just one right now but I know I’ve heard of more, maybe they are just in planning?
They also have DCs specific to rural transit! GeoOttwa is one of the best municipal GIS I’ve seen tbh.
This goes back to the idea of DC paying for growth and taxes/rates laying for operation and renewal/replacement.
But yes, we need to stop kicking the can down the road and start paying the actual costs of maintaining our infrastructure.
I know the special areas you’re talking about, but those aren’t typically applied to all of, for example, Nepean or Barhaven or Kanata. For example, Alta Vista used a special levy zone to pay for an arena. The various BIAs are under special levy zones that pay for things those zones need, like marketing. The Centretown BIA is one such rate. A similar rate used to apply to ByWard, before the BMDA was formed and it became a municipal corporation.
Also: Transit is also a specific levy on your property taxes. In rural Ottawa, that levy is lower than it is downtown. Since people who have lived there for 30 years would probably use transit as frequenty as people who’ve lived there for 30 minutes if transit was available, we should try increasing that and making transit available.
BIA levies only apply to member businesses, but yes I get the analogy.
I mentioned the transit DC specifically, because under the current way the long range financial plan (LRFP) is set up the DC is intended to fund the growth of the transit service to the area whereas the property tax levy is to fund operations and maintain the current level of service. It makes sense it’s less in the rural area now while the level of service is lower.
DCs need to be backed by studies and plans, which are subject to provincial scrutiny and approval if I am remembering correctly.
It might be easier to pivot to finding growth via property tax levies (which is what I think you are suggesting) but I don’t know the details of what it takes to change the LRFP, but I imagine the province isn’t going to jump in an say they need to lower taxes. Because that doesn’t help developers 😉
I’d personally love to see Ottawa increase rural transit, it’s been a real treat to be able to drive to the southern end and take the train in 🚇
(Eta: I hope this doesn’t come across as arguing, I am just excited to discuss Ontario municipal structure lol)
I mentioned the transit DC specifically, because under the current way the long range financial plan (LRFP) is set up the DC is intended to fund the growth of the transit service to the area whereas the property tax levy is to fund operations and maintain the current level of service. It makes sense it’s less in the rural area now while the level of service is lower.
It really doesn’t, though, if the goal is to actually bring transit to the area. Because as evidenced by the current state of suburban/rural areas of Ottawa, the DCs aren’t actually doing what they’re supposed to. That’s why transit still sucks in too many places today.
DCs need to be backed by studies and plans, which are subject to provincial scrutiny and approval if I am remembering correctly.
You are indeed remembering correctly. The problem is Ontario can also shape what those DCs look like, hence the various programs we’re talking about like the DCRP. Which is why Ottawa should be pursuing ways to do the same thing through increased taxes.
It might be easier to pivot to finding growth via property tax levies (which is what I think you are suggesting) but I don’t know the details of what it takes to change the LRFP, but I imagine the province isn’t going to jump in an say they need to lower taxes. Because that doesn’t help developers 😉
This may be where I need to double check my own memory, but I don’t think Ottawa needs provincial approval to set and adjust its property taxes. So if, for example, Ottawa decides that taxes absolutely need to be at 5% to catch up on the city’s backlog, Ontario doesn’t care. But of course that requires Ottawa to say taxes need to be 5%. McKenny lost for saying 3.
I’d personally love to see Ottawa increase rural transit, it’s been a real treat to be able to drive to the southern end and take the train in 🚇
Transit city-wide needs an overhaul, including the train, IMO. I’m not rural, but any trip that involves the train is going to involve a bus first, if it shows up properly. I would happily pay more in property taxes to see that fixed. It’s certainly not gonna be fixed with Sutcliffe’s 2.5%.
Your reply triggered me to read the Transit Master Plan amendments to support DCs and yikes lol. Can you tell my professional experience in municipal asset management is in a different sector? 😅
For other nerds:
The 2024 Provisional DC Study included the growth-related capital needs associated with Public Transit in the City. Public Transit is calculated on a city-wide level and is not differentiated by area.
Oh, I absolutely didn’t see that as a flex. In fact I kinda hoped your experience might catch something I missed. If anything I’m disappointed - in the city, not you.
We’re on the same page for sure, but I do want to flag that the City of Ottawa has special levy areas where they do charge more taxes to cover hyper local costs. The easiest way to see this is the GeoOttawa overlay layers on the topic (under misc > property taxation boundaries)
Looks like there is just one right now but I know I’ve heard of more, maybe they are just in planning?
They also have DCs specific to rural transit! GeoOttwa is one of the best municipal GIS I’ve seen tbh.
This goes back to the idea of DC paying for growth and taxes/rates laying for operation and renewal/replacement.
But yes, we need to stop kicking the can down the road and start paying the actual costs of maintaining our infrastructure.
I know the special areas you’re talking about, but those aren’t typically applied to all of, for example, Nepean or Barhaven or Kanata. For example, Alta Vista used a special levy zone to pay for an arena. The various BIAs are under special levy zones that pay for things those zones need, like marketing. The Centretown BIA is one such rate. A similar rate used to apply to ByWard, before the BMDA was formed and it became a municipal corporation.
Also: Transit is also a specific levy on your property taxes. In rural Ottawa, that levy is lower than it is downtown. Since people who have lived there for 30 years would probably use transit as frequenty as people who’ve lived there for 30 minutes if transit was available, we should try increasing that and making transit available.
I think I’m following, but a few clarifications:
BIA levies only apply to member businesses, but yes I get the analogy.
I mentioned the transit DC specifically, because under the current way the long range financial plan (LRFP) is set up the DC is intended to fund the growth of the transit service to the area whereas the property tax levy is to fund operations and maintain the current level of service. It makes sense it’s less in the rural area now while the level of service is lower.
DCs need to be backed by studies and plans, which are subject to provincial scrutiny and approval if I am remembering correctly.
It might be easier to pivot to finding growth via property tax levies (which is what I think you are suggesting) but I don’t know the details of what it takes to change the LRFP, but I imagine the province isn’t going to jump in an say they need to lower taxes. Because that doesn’t help developers 😉
I’d personally love to see Ottawa increase rural transit, it’s been a real treat to be able to drive to the southern end and take the train in 🚇
(Eta: I hope this doesn’t come across as arguing, I am just excited to discuss Ontario municipal structure lol)
It really doesn’t, though, if the goal is to actually bring transit to the area. Because as evidenced by the current state of suburban/rural areas of Ottawa, the DCs aren’t actually doing what they’re supposed to. That’s why transit still sucks in too many places today.
You are indeed remembering correctly. The problem is Ontario can also shape what those DCs look like, hence the various programs we’re talking about like the DCRP. Which is why Ottawa should be pursuing ways to do the same thing through increased taxes.
This may be where I need to double check my own memory, but I don’t think Ottawa needs provincial approval to set and adjust its property taxes. So if, for example, Ottawa decides that taxes absolutely need to be at 5% to catch up on the city’s backlog, Ontario doesn’t care. But of course that requires Ottawa to say taxes need to be 5%. McKenny lost for saying 3.
Transit city-wide needs an overhaul, including the train, IMO. I’m not rural, but any trip that involves the train is going to involve a bus first, if it shows up properly. I would happily pay more in property taxes to see that fixed. It’s certainly not gonna be fixed with Sutcliffe’s 2.5%.
Your reply triggered me to read the Transit Master Plan amendments to support DCs and yikes lol. Can you tell my professional experience in municipal asset management is in a different sector? 😅
For other nerds:
You have public sector asset management experience? I just fix computers. Well, and live amidst Ottawa’s shitshow.
Didn’t mean that as a flex, more like a self criticism for assuming shit.
Ottawa is a unique place. Good luck out there lol
Oh, I absolutely didn’t see that as a flex. In fact I kinda hoped your experience might catch something I missed. If anything I’m disappointed - in the city, not you.