Municipal Study 2007

Table of Contents
TAB PAGE NUMBER DESCRIPTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 1 6 INTRODUCTION MUNICIPAL PROFILE
• Population •%

Statistics (1996-estimated 2006) of Dwellings Built Before and After 1986 (NEW) • % of Dwellings Requiring Major Repair (NEW) • Land Area and Density • Assessment Per Capita • Change in Unweighted Assessment 2004-2007 • Assessment Composition By Class • Consolidated Unweighted Assessment (Residential vs. Non-Residential) • Shift in Tax Burden—Unweighted to Weighted Residential Assessment • Building Permit Values/Activity
3 43 MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL INDICATORS
• Net • Net

Municipal Levy Per Capita Municipal Levy (Upper Tier, Lower Tier and Single Tier Splits) (NEW) • Net Municipal Levy Per $100,000 of Assessment • Reserves as a % of Total Expenditures • Reserves as a % of Total Expenditures (Excluding Water/Sewer) • Water Reserves as a % of Water Expenditures • Sanitary Reserves as a % of Sanitary Expenditures • Reserves (Excluding Water/Sewer) as a % of Taxation and sorted by Location • Debt Charges as a % of Total Expenditures • Debt Charges as a % of Total Expenditures (Excluding Water/sewer) • Water Debt Charges as a % of Water Expenditures • Sanitary Sewer Debt Charges as a % of Sanitary Sewer Expenditures • Debt Charges as a % of Taxation • Outstanding Debt to Reserve Ratio • Water Debt to Water Reserve Ratio (NEW) • Sewer Debt to Sewer Reserve Ratio (NEW) • Debt and Reserves Per Capita • Debt Outstanding and Unfinanced Capital Per Unweighted Assessment (NEW) • Financial Position (NEW) • Taxes Receivable as a % of Tax Levies and sorted by Location

371

Municipal Study 2007

Table of Contents (cont’d)
TAB
4

PAGE NUMBER
90

DESCRIPTION
Revenue and Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs
• Fire—Net

Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP Expenditures Per $100,000 CVA and MPMP • POA—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Roadways—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Winter Control—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Transit—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Parking—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Sanitary Sewer—MPMP • Storm—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Water—MPMP • Waste Collection—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Waste Disposal—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Recycling—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Public Health—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Ambulance—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Cemeteries—Net Expenditures Per Capita • General Assistance—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Assistance to the Aged—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Child Care—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Social Housing—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Parks—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Recreation Programming—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Recreation Facilities Golf, Marina, Ski Hill Expenditures Per Capita • Recreation Facilities Other Expenditures Per Capita • Recreation Programming and Facilities (Combined)—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Library—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP • Cultural Services Expenditures Per Capita • Planning and Zoning—Net Expenditures Per Capita • Commercial and Industrial—Net Expenditures Per Capita
• Police—Net

372

Municipal Study 2007

Table of Contents (cont’d)
TAB
5

PAGE NUMBER
141

DESCRIPTION
Select User Fees and Revenue Information
• Development • Building

Charges Permit Fees • Commercial Solid Waste Tipping Fees • Transit Fares • Ontario Unconditional Grants--Ontario Municipal Partnership Grant (OMPF) • Ontario and Canada Conditional Grants • Licencing, Permits & Rents etc. Per Capita • Penalties & Interest on Taxes and Other Fine Revenues per Capita • Investment Income Revenue • Gaming and Casino Revenues Per Capita • Contributions from Reserves, Reserve Funds • Revenues From Government Business Enterprise
6 169 TAX POLICIES
• Comparison • Delegation • Summary • Summary

of Tax Ratios

of Optional Classes of Tax Policies

7

178

COMPARISON OF RELATIVE TAXES
• Residential • Multi-Residential • Commercial • Industrial • Farmland

8 9 10

305 318 329

COMPARISON OF WATER/SEWER COSTS TAXES AS A % OF INCOME ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
• Municipal

Land Assembly Retention & Expansion Programs • Downtown/Area Specific Programs • Brownfield Redevelopment • Industrial Parks (NEW)
• Downtown

373

Municipal Study 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—CITY OF THUNDER BAY
This section of the report encompasses economic and demographic characteristics that effect community demands, such as demands for public safety, capital improvements and social services. The following provides some of the key municipal profile statistics. The results have been presented to show a comparison to the overall survey average of 79 Ontario municipalities as well as a comparison to the average within the geographic location. Population & Growth Profile

2001-2006 Population Increase 2006 Building Permit Activity per Capita

Thunder Survey North Bay Average Average 0.1% 9.0% 0.6% 825.1237 $ 2,183 $ 1,092
Thunder Bay 7.1% 83% 333 Survey North Average Average 6.0% 7.6% 65% 83% 630 181

Dwelling & Density Profile

% Dwellings Requiring Major Repair % Dwellings Constructed Before 1986 Population Density per sq. km.

Assessment Profile
2007 Unweighted Taxable Assessment Per Capita % of Residential Assessment % of Non-Residential Assessment

Thunder Survey North Bay Average Average $ 58,016 $ 97,261 $ 52,686 78.8% 85.7% 79.5% 21.2% 14.3% 20.5%

Changes in community needs and resources are interrelated in a continuous, cumulative cycle of cause and effect. For example, a decrease in population decreases the demand for housing and causes a corresponding decline in the market value of housing. A gradually increasing population trend is generally considered favorable. Another growth related indicator is the building permit activity. Changes in building activity impact other factors such as the employment base, income, and property values. Information on the condition of dwellings in a municipality provides a general indication of age of the municipality, the infrastructure and the mix of new versus older growth. Population density indicates the number of residents living in an area (usually measured by square kilometre). Density readings can lend insight into the age of a city, growth patterns, zoning practices, new development opportunities, the level of multi-family unit housing, whether a municipality may be reaching build-out, as well as service and infrastructure needs. Assessment per capita statistics have been included to provide an indication of the “richness” of assessment base in each municipality. Assessment composition has also been included to provide an understanding of the mix of assessment.

Executive Summary

1

Municipal Study 2007 Financial Indicators
Levy Per Capita
2007 Net Municipal Levy Net Municipal Levy per Capita Net Municipal Levy per $100,000 CVA Thunder Survey Bay Average $ 1,216 $ 1,121 $ 2,096 $ 1,270

In order to better understand the relative tax position for a municipality, another measure that has been included in the study is a comparison of net municipal levies on a per capita basis. This measure indicates the total net municipal levy to provide services to the municipality. Net levy per $100,000 of assessment provides a measure of the burden on properties with the same assessed value. This analysis does not indicate value for money or the effectiveness in meeting community objectives which varies from municipality to municipality. Expenditures Per Capita Costs will vary significantly based on a number of factors including but not limited to: • Size of municipality and mix of urban and rural coverage • Service levels • How the service is provided • Geographical factors • Accounting and reporting practices It is important to review trends overtime to determine how costs are growing compared with revenue growth.

2006 FIRs and MPMPs Fire per Capita Police per capita (MPMP) Roadways Operating Costs per Lane Km (MPMP) Winter Control Operating Costs per Lane Km (MPMP) Transit per Capita Parking per Capita Storm Sewer per Capita Waste Collection per Capita Waste Disposal per Capita Recycling per Capita Public Health per Capita Ambulance Services per Capita Cemeteries per Capita General Assistance per capita Assistance to Aged per Capita Social Housing per capita Library per Capita Cultural Services per Capita Planning per Capita Parks, Recreation & Facilities Operating Costs per Capita (MPMP) Commercial and Industrial

Thunder Bay $ 178 $ 249 $ 781 $ 1,266 $ 69 $ 6 $ 6 $ 29 $ (8) $ 9 $ 29 $ 52 $ 3 $ 175 $ 106 $ 74 $ 43 $ 21 $ 11 $ 163 $ 62

Survey Average $ 111 $ 220 $ 2,065 $ 1,371 $ 52 $ 6 $ 13 $ 16 $ 17 $ 17 $ 24 $ 52 $ 4 $ 144 $ 20 $ 81 $ 36 $ 10 $ 19 $ 121 $ 25
Survey Average 1.1409% 2.2821% 1.9101% 2.5719% 2.7244% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.7042% 2.2574% 2.3568% 1.4049% 2.5461% 3.6143% 4.8298% 5.0816%

Municipal Revenues Revenues determine a municipality’s capacity to provide services. Under ideal conditions revenues would grow at a rate equal to or greater than the combined effects of inflation and expenditures. A municipality’s largest source of revenues are from taxation. The following is a comparison of the rates within the survey. It should be noted that a comparison of the tax rate in isolation does not reflect the relative tax burden for various properties within the municipality. Comparisons of relative tax burden, as will be shown later in the report must also consider the assessments within a municipality for comparable properties.

Tax Rates Residential - Municipal Multi-Residential - Municipal Commercial Residual - Municipal Standard Industrial - Municipal Large Industrial - Municipal Residential - Education Multi-Residential - Education Commercial Residual - Education Standard Industrial - Education Large Industrial - Education Residential - Total Multi-Residential - Total Commercial Residual - Total Standard Industrial - Total Large Industrial - Total

Thunder Bay 1.6152% 4.4257% 3.1541% 3.9250% 4.2440% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.5751% 3.3377% 3.6089% 1.8792% 4.6897% 5.7292% 7.2627% 7.8529%

Executive Summary

2

Municipal Study 2007
Thunder Bay $ 1,350 $ 40 $ 13 $ 22 $ 240 $ 40 $ 585 $ 14 $ 114 $ 24 Survey Average $ 1,527 $ 76 $ 42 $ 29 $ 61 $ 12 $ 185 $ 24 $ 56 $ 19

The table to the right provides a comparison of some additional revenue sources on a per capita basis as well as a comparison of building permit fees on a residential home.

Select User Fee & Revenue Information 2007 Building Permits Fees on Residential Home 1,800 sq.ft Solid Waste Licenses, Permits, Rents per Capita Gaming & Casino Revenues per Capita OMPF Grants per Capita Canadian Conditional Grants per Capita Ontario Conditional Grants per Capita Investment Income per Capita Contributions from Reserves and Reserve Funds per Capita Penalties, Interest & Fine Revenues

Reserves

Reserve Analysis Reserves as a % Total Expenditures Reserves as a % Total Expenditures (Excluding Water/Sewer) Reserves as a % Total Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer) Reserves per Capita

Thunder Survey Bay Average 35.5% 41.9% 26.4% 43.1% 61.3% 73.1% $ 1,134 $ 718

Reserves are a critical component of a municipality’s long-term financing plan. The purpose for maintaining reserves is to: • Provide stability of tax rates in the face of variable and uncontrollable factors • Provide financing for one-time or short term requirements • Make provisions for replacements/acquisitions of assets/infrastructure • Provide a source of internal financing • Ensure adequate cash flows • Provide flexibility to manage debt levels and protect the municipality’s financial position • Provide for future liabilities incurred in the current year but paid for in the future Debt
Debt Analysis Debt Charges as a % of Expenditures Debt Charges as a % of Expenditures (Excluding Water/Sewer) Debt as a % of Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer) Debt Per Capita Debt Outstanding / Unweighted Assessment Thunder Survey Bay Average 7.5% 4.4% 5.7% 3.8% 13.2% 6.5% $ 2,016 $ 510 $ 3,474 $ 721

An examination of a municipality’s debt, particularly over time can reveal the municipality’s: • Reliance on debt to finance infrastructure • Expenditure flexibility (due to fixed costs in the form of debt) • The amount of additional debt a municipality can absorb

Executive Summary

3

Municipal Study 2007
Debt to Reserve Ratio Municipal credit rating agencies recommend a debt to reserve ratio of 1.0, in other words, for every $1 in debt there should be $1 in reserves.
Thunder Bay 1.8 Survey Average 0.9

Debt Analysis Debt to Reserve Ratio

Taxes Receivable Every year, a percentage of property owners is unable to pay property taxes. If this percentage increases over time, it may indicate an overall decline in the municipality’s economic health. Additionally, as uncollected property taxes rise, liquidity decreases. If the percentage of uncollected property taxes increases, the municipality should try to identify the causes and devise action strategies
Thunder Bay 7.8% Survey Average 6.0%

Taxes Receivable as a % of Tax Levies

Financial Position A municipality’s financial position is defined as the total fund balances including equity in business government enterprises less the amount to be recovered in future years associated with long term liabilities. A comparison was made of each municipality’s overall financial position (assets less liabilities). This is calculated as follows:
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Accumulated net revenue or deficit of the operating fund—this is the current year’s operating surplus or deficit Plus the capital fund position—this is the surplus or deficit in the capital fund Plus the reserves and discretionary reserve funds—this does not include obligatory reserve funds such as DCs and park dedication which must be used for specific purposes Plus equity in business enterprises—this is the municipality’s share in hydro operations. Less long term liabilities—this is the debt outstanding Less post employment benefits—this includes accumulated sick leave, vacation pay and WSIB claims

The following table provides a comparison of the financial position per capita against the total survey average. A comparison of the change in financial position over time will assist in understanding the trend within the municipality.
Thunder Survey Bay Average $ (636) $ 306

Financial Position per Capita

Executive Summary

4

Municipal Study 2007 Taxes and Comparison of Relative Taxes
The purpose of this section of the report is to undertake “like” property comparisons across each municipality and across various property types. In total, 11 property types were defined based on those property types that were of most interest to the participating municipalities. There are many reasons for differences in relative tax burdens across municipalities and across property classes. These include, but are not limited, to the following: • The values of like properties varies significantly across municipalities • The tax burden within a municipality varies based on the tax ratios used. As such, it is possible for a municipality to have a relative low tax burden in a particular class of property and a relatively high tax burden in another class • The use of optional classes • Non-uniform education tax rates in the non-residential classes • Level of service provided and the associated costs • Extent to which a municipality employs user fees

Access to other sources of revenues such as dividends from hydro utilities, gaming & casino revenues
Average Within Population Range

Thunder Bay

Survey Average

Location Group Average

100,000 + Detached Bungalow Property Taxes Senior Executive Property Taxes Walk Up Apartment per unit Property Taxes Mid/High Rise per unit Property Taxes Office Building /sq. ft. Property Taxes Neighbourhood Shopping /sq. ft. Property Taxes Hotels /Suite Property Taxes Motels /Suite Property Taxes Industrial Standard /sq.ft Property Taxes Industrial Large sq.ft Property Taxes Industrial Vacant Land per acre Property Taxes $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,777 5,910 1,315 1,809 5.01 4.95 2,945 1,683 2.39 1.86 4,243 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,750 5,038 1,312 1,469 2.94 3.43 2,029 1,347 1.91 1.35 2,969 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,014 5,328 1,499 1,572 3.51 4.16 2,220 1,477 2.28 1.44 4,397 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

North 2,480 5,052 1,104 1,362 3.16 3.45 2,439 1,491 2.04 1.97 1,919

Executive Summary

5

Municipal Study 2007 Comparison of Water and Sewer User Costs
A comparison was made of water/sewer costs in each municipality. In order to put into perspective the impact of water/sewer costs on the overall burden to a property owner, typical consumptions were estimated for property types that followed predictable patterns. The following table summarizes the costs in the municipality for water and sewer on typical annual consumption against the overall survey average.
Water/Sewer Residential - 300 m3 Commercial - 10,000 m3 Industrial - 30,000 m3 Industrial - 100,000 m3 Industrial - 500,000 m3 Industrial - 1,000,000 m3 Thunder Bay $ $ 560 8,436 $ $ $ $ $ Survey Average 700 18,598 54,745 176,558 874,665

$ 25,260 $ 84,141 $ 420,605 $ 841,185

$ 1,724,486

Taxes as a % of Income
This section of the report provides a comparison of the availability of gross household income to fund municipal services on a typical household. This provides a measure of affordability within each community.
Thunder Bay Property Taxes as a % of Household Income Water/Sewer + Taxes as a % of Household Income 3.8% 4.7% Survey Average 3.2% 4.2% North Average N/A 5.0%

Next Steps—Trend Analysis
For municipalities participating in the study for a number of years, there is the ability to undertake a trend analysis. A trend analysis offers several advantages: ♦ It provides information on changes in the municipality in the most recent years, revealing the most current trends and their relative impact on the financial health of the municipality ♦ It allows the evaluator to determine how quickly an indicator is changing and in which direction ♦ It permits one trend to be evaluated in conjunction with other trends ♦ It allows local trends to be compared with Regional/Provincial trends ♦ It provides a database that can be used to make long-term projections necessary for effective budgeting, capital programming and master planning efforts and general decision making ♦ It builds awareness and the potential need to modify policies ♦ It provides useful information to efficiently manage public funds and to provide adequate services ♦ It educates citizens about potential areas of need for additional tax revenues and/or changing priorities ♦ It provides a good indication of where a municipality is heading

Executive Summary

6

Municipal Study 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary provides a high level overview of the analysis contained in the comprehensive report with averages calculated for municipalities within geographic locations. The following table provides a summary of the municipalities included in the study within geographic locations.
Eastern Belleville Brockville Cobourg Cornwall Kawartha Lakes Kingston Ottawa Peterborough GTA Ajax Aurora Brampton Burlington Caledon Clarington East Gwillimbury Georgina Halton Hills King Markham Milton Mississauga Newmarket Oakville Oshawa Pickering Richmond Hill Toronto Vaughan Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Niagara/Hamilton Fort Erie Grimsby Hamilton Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln North North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Barrie Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Gravenhurst Huntsville Orangeville Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Southwest Amherstburg Brantford Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Guelph Kitchener Leamington London Middlesex Centre Norfolk North Dumfries Owen Sound Sarnia St. Thomas Stratford Tillsonburg Waterloo Wellesley Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich

The study includes a good cross section of Ontario municipalities including:

Number of Municipalities 23 17 19 20 79

Populations 100,000 or greater between 50,000 - 99,999 between 20,000 - 49,999 less than 20,000 Total

The results for each area municipality have been included in the detailed report, along with comparisons against geographic areas and within population ranges.

Executive Summary

1

Municipal Study 2007

Municipal Profile
This section of the report includes information on population changes since 1996 by municipality, density and land area as well as assessment information and building permit activity to assist in understanding some of the basic facts about each municipality and the overall growth patterns.

Population

The report includes an analysis of 79 Ontario municipalities, representing in excess of 80% of the Ontario population:

Ranging in population from 5,800 to approximately 2.5 million—there was a good distribution of comparable properties across various population groups Ranging in land area from 16 km to 3,200 km Ranging in population per square kilometre (Density) ranges from 15 to 3,900 Includes single tier and two-tier municipalities Includes municipalities from across all parts of Ontario—North, South, East and West

• • • • •

Average estimated population growth of municipalities in the study between 2001-2006 is 9.0% and the Ontario average is 6.6%.

2001 - 2006 Population % Growth by Location Rank Against 2001-2006 Survey Area Growth Average GTA 18.1% Above Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin 9.4% Above Southwest 5.9% Below Niagara/Hamilton 5.2% Below Eastern 4.5% Below North 0.6% Below Survey Average 9.0%

• •

Municipalities surrounding the City of Toronto have experienced the largest population growth. The Town of Milton which grew by 103% was by far the fastest growing municipality.

Executive Summary

2

Municipal Study 2007 Age Demographics
The age profile of a population may affect municipal expenditures. For example, expenditures may be affected by seniors requiring higher public service costs and families with young children demanding services for recreational, and related programs. As shown in the table, the GTA, on average has a lower median age than the rest of the geographic areas. For example, the GTA municipalities have on average 11% of the population 65 years of age or greater compared with 19% in Eastern Ontario municipalities.
Area GTA Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Southwest Niagara/Hamilton Eastern North 0-19 20-64 65+ 28% 24% 26% 24% 23% 24% 61% 59% 59% 59% 59% 61% 11% 17% 15% 17% 19% 16% Median Age 37.8 42.2 39.2 42.0 42.5 41.4

Age and Condition of Private Dwellings
These statistics provide a general indication of the age of the infrastructure and the growth rate of a municipality. Northern Ontario has the highest percentage of dwellings constructed before 1986 and the highest percentage of dwellings needing major repairs.
Area GTA Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Southwest Niagara/Hamilton Eastern North % of % of Dwellings Dwellings Requiring Constructed Major Repair Before 1986 4.5% 51% 6.0% 57% 6.0% 70% 6.5% 73% 7.2% 75% 7.5% 83%

Assessment Per Capita
Average Taxable Assessment per Capita by Location Rank Against Survey Area Amount Average GTA $ 125,463 Above Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin $ 119,755 Above Niagara/Hamilton $ 87,256 Below Southwest $ 84,356 Below Eastern $ 78,431 Below North $ 52,686 Below Survey Average $ 97,261

Unweighted assessment per capita which is a measure of the “richness” of the assessment base ranged significantly across the survey, from $46,466 to $194,729 with a survey average of $97,261. The taxable assessment on a per capita basis in the GTA is over twice that of Northern municipalities.

Executive Summary

3

Municipal Study 2007

Change in Unweighted Assessment
% Change in Unweighted Assessment 2006 -2007 Rank Against Survey Area %Change Average GTA 3.3% Above Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin 2.3% Above Southwest 2.3% Below Eastern 1.9% Above Niagara/Hamilton 1.6% Above North 0.7% Below Survey Average 2.0%

From 2006—2007 assessment increased by 2.0% on average. The GTA experienced the largest increase at 3.3%. The change in assessment between 2006 and 2007 reflects primarily the impact of growth as there was no reassessment.

Building Permit Value
Building permits per capita were analyzed between 2003-2006 to provide a measure of relative building activity in each municipality. The range in activity for 2006 was $632 per capita to $9,474 per capita, with an average of $2,183.

2006 Building Permit Activity per Capita by Location Per Capita Rank Against Building Survey Activity Average $ 2,845 Above $ 2,506 Above $ 2,031 Below $ 1,823 Below $ 1,727 Below $ 1,344 Below $ 2,183

Area GTA Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Southwest Niagara/Hamilton Eastern North Survey Average

Executive Summary

4

Municipal Study 2007

Financial Indicators
Net Municipal Levy per Capita
This analysis does not indicate value for money or the effectiveness in meeting community objectives. Net municipal expenditures per capita may vary as a result of: • Different service levels • Variations in the types of services • Different methods of providing services • Different residential/non-residential assessment composition
• • • • • • • •

Varying demand for services Locational factors Demographic differences Socio-economic differences Urban/rural composition differences User fee policies Age of infrastructure What is being collected from rates as opposed to property taxes
2007 Net Municipal Levy per Capita and by $100,000 of Assessment (by Location) Area North Eastern Niagara/Hamilton Southwest Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin GTA Survey Average Per Capita $ 1,110 $ 1,165 $ 1,174 $ 1,070 $ 1,086 $ 1,143 $ $100,000 Assessment $ 2,125 $ 1,570 $ 1,396 $ 1,331 $ 952 $ 945 1,270

1,121 $

Net municipal levy per capita was calculated using 2006 Stats Canada population and the 2007 municipal levies. The net levy on a per capita basis ranged across the municipalities from $744 to $1,696 (with an average of $1,121 per capita). Average spending per capita is within a 10% range, however, because of the variations in assessment in each of the areas, there is a substantial range in levy per $100,000 of assessment.

Executive Summary

5

Municipal Study 2007

Municipal Position
A municipality’s financial position is defined as the total fund balances including equity in business government enterprises less the amount to be recovered in future years associated with long term liabilities. A comparison was made of each municipality’s overall financial position (assets less liabilities) over time. As shown in the table to the right, there is a significant range in municipal financial position across Ontario, with the GTA municipalities, on average having the strongest financial position.
Area Eastern Southwest North Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Niagara/Hamilton GTA Survey Average Average Municipal Position Per Capita $ 60 $ 123 $ 175 $ 289 $ 486 $ 528 $ 306

Reserves
Reserves are a critical component of a municipality’s long-term financing plan. The purpose for maintaining reserves is to: • Provide stability of tax rates in the face of variable and uncontrollable factors (consumption, interest rates, unemployment rates, changes in subsidies) § Provide financing for one-time or short term requirements without permanently impacting the tax and utility rates § Make provisions for replacements/acquisitions of assets/infrastructure that are currently being consumed and depreciated § Avoid spikes in funding requirements of the capital budget by reducing their reliance on long-term debt borrowings § § § § Provide a source of internal financing Ensure adequate cash flows Provide flexibility to manage debt levels and protect the municipality’s financial position Provide for future liabilities incurred in the current year but paid for in the future
Reserves as a Water Sewer % of Reserves as a Reserves as a Expenditures % of Water % of Sewer Excluding W/S Expenditures Expenditures 41.9% 31.4% 191.0% 3.4% 57.6% 24.8% 1013.7% 0.0% 45.0% 31.9% 267.0% -22.9%

Reserves

Average Median Maximum Minimum

Executive Summary

6

Municipal Study 2007

Debt
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regulates the level of debt that may be incurred by municipalities, such that no more than 25% of the total own purpose revenue can be used to service debt and other long term obligations without receiving OMB approval. In addition to confirming that the debt is within the legislated limits, Government Finance Officers’ Association (GFOA) recommends the following analysis be undertaken: Measures of the tax and revenue base, such as:
• • •

projections of key, relevant economic variables population trends utilization trends for services underlying revenues

Evaluation of trends relating to the government’s financial performance, such as:
• • • •

revenues and expenditures net revenues available after meeting operating requirements reliability of revenues expected to pay debt service unreserved fund balance levels

Debt service obligations such as: • existing debt service requirements • debt service as a percentage of expenditures, or tax or system revenues Measures of debt burden on the community such as:
• •

debt per capita debt as a percentage of full or equalized assessed property value

Debt Charges Average Median Maximum Minimum

Water Debt Sewer Debt Debt Charges Charges as a Charges as a as a % of Total % of Water % of Sewer Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures 3.8% 7.1% 10.9% 3.6% 2.2% 5.9% 12.0% 39.4% 61.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Executive Summary

7

Municipal Study 2007 Taxes Receivable
Every year, a percentage of property owners is unable to pay property taxes. If this percentage increases over time, it may indicate an overall decline in the municipality’s economic health. Additionally, as uncollected property taxes rise, liquidity decreases. If the percentage of uncollected property taxes increases, the municipality should try to identify the causes and devise action strategies.
Taxes Receivable as a % of Tax Levies % of Tax Area Levies Eastern 4.7% Southwest 4.8% GTA 6.1% North 6.3% Niagara/Hamilton 7.5% Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin 7.7% Survey Average 6.0%

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs
The following summarizes the lowest, highest and survey average of net expenditures per capita for select municipal services.
Low Net Expenditures per Capita High Net Average Net Expenditures Expenditures per Capita per Capita 199 374 3 292 94 227 29 55 59 62 35 50 487 27 528 106 48 229 67 202 63 35 60 199 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 111 220 (5) 113 23 52 6 13 16 17 17 24 52 4 200 20 16 81 35 68 36 10 19 25

Municipal Service Protective Services Fire $ 38 $ Police $ 86 $ POA $ (17) $ Transportation Services Roadways (lower and single tier) $ 14 $ Winter Control (lower and single tier) $ 1 $ Transit $ 3 $ Parking $ (5) $ Environmental Services Storm $ $ Waste Collection $ (33) $ Waste Disposal $ (21) $ Recycling $ (4) $ Health Services Public Health $ 13 $ Ambulance $ 18 $ Cemeteries $ $ Social and Family Services General Assistance $ 33 $ Assistance to the Aged $ 1 $ Child Care $ (5) $ Social Housing $ 15 $ Recreation and Culture Parks - MPMP $ 1 $ Recreation Programs and Facilities (combined) - MPMP $ 12 $ Library $ 1 $ Cultural Services $ (34) $ Planning and Development Services Planning and Zoning $ (6) $ Commercial and Industrial $ $

Executive Summary

8

Municipal Study 2007
As illustrated on the previous page, there is a wide variation across the survey in the cost of municipal services. Certain factors may be attributed to factors beyond the control of the municipality such as location, topography, climate conditions, demographics and economic conditions. Factors that a municipality controls include how the service is provided, extent to which user fees are established, service levels and service standards. MPMPs have been included in the report.

Select User Fee and Revenue Information
The Select User Fee and Revenue Information section of the report includes select user fees based on feedback received from the participating municipalities. The following information is provided to assist municipalities in understanding some basic facts about each municipality included in the study. • Development Charge Fees • Building Permit Fees and Comparison of Building Permit Costs on a Residential Property • Commercial Solid Waste Tipping Fees • Transit Fare Comparison • Penalties and Interest on Taxes and Other Fine Revenues • Gaming and Casino Revenues Per Capita • OMPF Per Capita • Contributions from Reserves, Reserve Funds

Development Charges
The following table summarizes the findings for 2007 development charges. Information on each of the municipalities is included in the study. There are some clear trends across Ontario in terms of Development Charges and costs, with the lowest DCs generally in the North and the East and the highest DCs in the GTA where the majority of growth is occurring. Note: some municipalities do not charge any development charges.
NonNonResidential Residential Apartments Commercial Industrial Sq. Units >=2 Sq. Ft. Ft. $ 10,025 $ 7.16 $ 4.92 $ 8,372 $ 5.98 $ 5.02 $ 696 $ 0.30 $ 0.19 $ 21,993 $ 17.22 $ 12.63
NonNonResidential Residential Apartments Commercial Industrial Sq. Units >=2 Sq. Ft. Ft. $ 1,984 $ 0.67 $ 0.67 $ 5,626 $ 4.40 $ 4.88 $ 6,344 $ 4.55 $ 4.56 $ 6,967 $ 6.30 $ 3.57 $ 10,892 $ 5.73 $ 4.54 $ 17,368 $ 11.66 $ 6.24 $ 10,013 $ 7.15 $ 4.85

Development Charges Average Median Min Max
Average Development Charges North Eastern Southwest Niagara/Hamilton Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin GTA Average

Residential $ 15,813 $ 12,751 $ 1,216 $ 35,148

Multiples Dwelling 3+ $ 13,087 $ 10,514 $ 901 $ 28,723

Residential $ 3,405 $ 8,537 $ 9,919 $ 12,046 $ 16,610 $ 27,391 $ 15,788

Multiples Dwelling 3+ $ 2,511 $ 7,102 $ 8,132 $ 9,175 $ 13,386 $ 23,350 $ 13,064

Executive Summary

9

Municipal Study 2007 Building Permit Fees
Building permit fees were calculated on an 1,800 sq. ft. residential property with a construction value of $135,000. Building permit fees ranged from a low of $825 to a high of $2,402 across the 79 Ontario municipalities, with a survey average of $1,527.
Building Permit Fees by Location (Residential 1,800 Sq. Ft. Property, $135,000 Value) Area Amount Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin $ 1,284 Eastern $ 1,402 Southwest $ 1,392 North $ 1,568 Niagara/Hamilton $ 1,629 GTA $ 1,663 Survey Average $ 1,527

Commercial Solid Waste Tipping Fees
Commercial solid waste tipping fees ranged from a low of $40 per tonne to a high of $120 per tonne, with an average of $76 per tonne

OMPF Grants Per Capita
The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund assists municipalities with their social program costs; includes equalization measures; addresses challenges faced by Northern and rural municipalities and responds to policy costs in rural municipalities.

OMPF Grants per Capita by Location Area Amount GTA $ 5 Niagara/Hamilton $ 39 Southwest $ 58 Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin $ 83 Eastern $ 111 North $ 329

Other Revenue Sources Per Capita
Average Revenues per Capita $ 185 $ 42 $ 19 $ 24 $ 29 $ 56 $ 26

Other Revenues Ontario & Canada Conditional Grants Licenses, Permits, Rents, etc. Penalties and Interest on Taxes Investment Income Gaming & Casino Revenues Contributions From Reserves Revenues From Government Business Enterprise

Low Revenues High Revenues per Capita per Capita $ 1 $ 1,040 $ $ 187 $ 8 $ 41 $ 1 $ 77 $ 4 $ 88 $ $ 469 $ 3 $ 74

Executive Summary

10

Municipal Study 2007

Tax Policies
The following table summarizes the tax ratios ranking across the survey for each of the classes.
Municipality Barrie Belleville* Brantford* Brockville Central Elgin* Chatham-Kent* Cornwall Dufferin Durham Essex* Guelph Halton Hamilton* Kawartha Lakes Kingston Lambton* London Middlesex Centre Mississauga Muskoka Niagara Norfolk North Bay Northumberland Ottawa* Owen Sound Oxford Parry Sound Peel (Brampton, Caledon) Peterborough (City) Sault Ste. Marie* Simcoe St. Thomas* Stratford* Sudbury* Thunder Bay Timmins* Toronto* Waterloo Windsor* York Average Minimum Maximum Provincial Threshold MultiResidential 1.0787 2.5102 2.1355 1.8500 2.3458 2.1488 2.3492 2.6802 1.8665 1.9554 2.7400 2.2619 2.7400 1.9931 2.7389 2.5014 2.1455 1.7697 1.7788 1.0000 2.0600 1.6929 2.2436 2.2160 1.8000 2.6424 2.7400 1.5145 1.7050 2.0440 1.2829 1.5385 2.4987 2.1539 2.0591 2.7400 1.6816 3.6350 2.2400 2.7400 1.0000 2.1175 1.0000 3.6350 2.7400 Commercial (Residual) 1.4331 1.9191 1.9360 1.9785 1.6376 1.9671 1.9650 1.2200 1.4500 1.0697 1.8400 1.4565 2.0591 1.2782 1.9800 1.6585 1.9800 1.1449 1.4098 1.1000 1.7586 1.6929 1.9048 1.5152 2.1461 2.3683 1.9018 1.6646 1.2971 1.8912 1.6730 1.2521 1.9475 2.1638 1.7206 1.9527 1.7501 3.6737 1.9500 1.9833 1.2070 1.7536 1.0697 3.6737 1.9800 Industrial (Residual) 1.5163 2.9261 2.9842 2.6276 2.2251 2.4370 2.6300 2.1987 2.2598 1.9425 2.6300 2.3599 3.4273 1.7825 2.6300 2.0536 2.6300 1.7451 1.5708 1.1000 2.6300 1.6929 1.4000 2.6300 2.7468 2.9067 2.6300 1.5162 1.4700 2.6300 1.9251 1.5385 2.2281 3.3123 2.5596 2.4300 2.1783 4.0900 2.4500 2.4233 1.3737 2.3034 1.1000 4.0900 2.6300 Industrial (Large)

2.8318 2.9289

2.2598 2.6861

4.0189

3.0124

2.3588 5.0172

2.7431 2.6774 2.9012 2.6275 2.7114

3.2377

3.0009 2.2598 5.0172 2.6300

* denotes municipalities with one or more ratios above the Provincial Threshold
XXX XXX reflects increase in tax ratios reflects decrease in tax ratios

The highlighted cells reflect changes in tax ratios between 2006 and 2007

Executive Summary

11

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Relative Taxes
Like property comparisons were undertaken on 11 property types that were of most interest to the participating municipalities.
Residential

Multi-Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Farmlands

In order to calculate the relative tax burden of “like” properties, every effort was made to hold constant those factors deemed to be most critical in determining a property’s assessed value. However, given the number of factors used to calculate the assessed value for each property, and the inability to quantify each of these factors, the results should be used to provide the reader with overall trends rather than exact differences in relative tax burdens between municipalities. By selecting multiple property types within each taxing class (e.g. Residential—Detached Bungalow, Executive), and by selecting multiple properties from within each municipality and property subtype, the likelihood of anomalies in the database has been reduced. Every effort was made to select a minimum of 3-8 properties from each municipality and from within each property type.

There are many driving factors impacting a municipality’s relative property tax position, including but not limited to the following: There are many reasons for differences in relative tax burdens across municipalities and across property classes. These include, but are not limited, to the following: • The values of like properties varies significantly across municipalities • The tax burden within a municipality varies based on the tax ratios used. As such, it is possible for a municipality to have a relative low tax burden in a particular class of property and a relatively high tax burden in another class • The use of optional classes • Non-uniform education tax rates in the non-residential classes • Tax burdens across municipalities also vary based on the level of service provided and the associated costs of providing these services • Extent to which a municipality employs user fees • Access to other sources of revenues such as dividends from hydro utilities, gaming & casino revenues

Executive Summary

12

Municipal Study 2007
Area Eastern GTA Niagara/Hamilton North Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Southwest Survey Average Detached Bungalow 2,623 3,161 2,849 2,480 2,329 2,498 2,750 Senior Executive $ 4,975 $ 5,255 $ 5,178 $ 5,052 $ 4,575 $ 4,929 $ 5,038

Residential

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Multi-Residential Comparison by Location Area Eastern GTA Niagara/Hamilton North Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Southwest Survey Average Walk-Up Mid/High-Rise 1,479 $ 1,624 1,368 $ 1,409 1,286 $ 1,412 1,104 $ 1,362 1,050 $ 1,280 1,333 $ 1,591 1,312 $ 1,469

Multi-Residential

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Commercial

Eastern GTA Niagara/Hamilton North Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Southwest Survey Average

Commercial Properties Neighb. Office Shopping $ 3.40 $ 3.98 $ 3.23 $ 3.73 $ 2.25 $ 3.25 $ 3.16 $ 3.45 $ 2.19 $ 2.48 $ 2.76 $ 3.34 $ 2.94 $ 3.43

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Hotel 2,225 1,856 2,310 2,439 1,784 1,818 2,029

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Motel 1,446 1,302 1,272 1,491 1,156 1,386 1,347

Industrial

Eastern GTA Niagara/Hamilton North Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Southwest Survey Average

Industrial Properties Standard $ 1.51 $ $ 2.26 $ $ 1.78 $ $ 2.04 $ $ 1.27 $ $ 1.92 $ $ 1.80 $

Large 1.32 1.38 1.14 1.97 1.19 1.31 1.35

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Vacant 2,092 4,810 2,511 1,919 2,256 2,001 2,598

Executive Summary

13

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

The establishment of water and sewer rates is a municipal responsibility and the absence of standard procedures across Ontario has resulted in the evolution of a great variety of rate structure formats. There was considerable diversity across the survey in terms of the costs of water/sewer and how services are charged. Municipal decisions on whether the rates are uniform, increasing or decreasing, whether the rate varies by meter size or whether a service charge is levied impacts the relative ranking across the various property types
Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs by Various Consumptions Residential Commercial Industrial Industrial Industrial 300 m3 10,000 m3 30,000 m3 100,000 m3 500,000 m3 5/8" 2" 3" 4" 6" $ 700 $ 18,598 $ 54,745 $ 176,558 $ 874,665 $ 675 $ 17,601 $ 51,564 $ 170,795 $ 852,011 $ 319 $ 7,439 $ 22,316 $ 74,385 $ 300,132 $ 1,215 $ 39,612 $ 118,748 $ 328,000 $ 1,640,000

Volume Meter Size Average Median Min Max

Industrial 1,000,000 m3 6" $ 1,724,486 $ 1,699,336 $ 580,130 $ 3,280,000

Taxes and Water/Sewer as a % of Income
A comparison was made of relative property tax burdens and water/sewer costs on comparable properties against the median household incomes. The report also calculates the total municipal tax burden as a percentage of income available on an average household. As shown below, the ability to pay for municipal services (measured in municipal burden as a percentage of household income) in the GTA is greater than other geographic locations.
Total Property Municipal 2007 Est. Avg. 2001 Average Taxes as a % Burden as a Household Value of of Household % of Income Dwelling Income Household Income $ 60,460 $ 122,588 4.0% 5.0% $ 70,250 $ 162,695 3.6% 4.7% $ 65,263 $ 144,372 3.4% 4.5% $ 66,563 $ 166,641 3.2% 4.5% $ 73,314 $ 165,196 3.2% 4.3% $ 105,436 $ 259,535 2.8% 3.3% $ 79,304 $ 186,462 3.2% 4.2%

Area

North Niagara/Hamilton Eastern Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Southwest GTA Survey Average

Executive Summary

14

Municipal Study 2007

Economic Development Programs

A summary was completed on programs that municipalities have implemented to promote economic development. This included a review of the following:
• • • •

Municipal Land Assembly & Industrial Land Prices Business Retention & Expansion Programs Downtown/Area Specific Programs Brownfield Redevelopment

Municipal Land Assembly—approximately 50% of the municipalities surveyed have municipal industrial lands. Business Retention and Expansion Programs—the majority of the municipalities surveyed provide programs to retain existing business and attract new businesses. These include company visitation programs, seminars, ambassador programs, business enterprise centres, partnership funds, entrepreneurship centres, recruitment programs, marketing alliances, venture centres and cluster marketing. Downtown/Area Specific Programs—These include interest free loans, business incentive programs, waiving of fees, grants, tax incremental waiver programs, façade programs and tax rebates. Hamilton, London, Cambridge, Oshawa, Kitchener and Waterloo have numerous proactive programs to encourage economic redevelopment, particularly targeted to their downtown cores. Brownfield Redevelopment—several implemented their Brownfield programs. municipalities have developed and

Executive Summary

15

Municipal Study 2007

Introduction

1

Municipal Study 2007

Introduction

For the past seven years, BMA Management Consulting Inc. has annually completed a municipal comparative study on behalf of participating Ontario municipalities. In 2007, the study included approximately 80 Ontario municipalities, representing in excess of 80% of the population. The analysis was completed using the most recent information available as provided by the participating municipalities including: • 2006 current value assessment • 2007 tax policies • 2007 levy by-laws • 2007 development charges • 2007 water/sewer rates • 2006 FIRs (as available) • 2006 MPMP Reports • 2007 User Fees • Economic development programs The study includes: • Municipalities ranging in size from 5,800 to 2.5 million • Two tier and single tier municipalities • Municipalities from all geographical areas of Ontario To facilitate the analysis, given the significant volume of information included in the report, the information is also accessible through BMA’s online password protected database. This provides the participating municipalities with the ability to select only those municipalities that are of interest and to focus on specific areas of interest. The database also provides the ability to analyze trends, with data available from 2003—2007. The database can be accessed from the BMA website: www.bmaconsult.com This information can be downloaded from the website into Excel to allow municipalities the ability to track their progress over time, to focus their analysis on specific comparators which can be incorporated into reports and presentations. For more information please feel free to contact: BMA Management Consulting Inc. 139 Markland St., Hamilton, L8P 2K3 Phone (905) 528-3206 Fax (905) 528-3210 bma@on.aibn.com Contacts: Jim Bruzzese or Catherine Minshull

Introduction

2

Municipal Study 2007

Municipal Study Database

Introduction

3

Municipal Study 2007

Why Participate in a Study?

The study identifies both key quantifiable indicators and selective environmental factors that should be considered as part of a comprehensive evaluation of a local municipality’s financial condition. Use of the study over a number of years provides trends to allow decision makers to monitor selected indicators over time. Trend analysis helps to provide interpretative context. Additional context can come from comparing a municipality’s own experience with the experience of other municipalities. While the study includes 79 municipalities, it is recommended that the users take advantage of the online database to focus on similar municipalities. Many of the analytic techniques included in the report, mirror approaches used by credit rating agencies and also used by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The information contained in this report can help local municipalities analyze and interpret financial, economic and demographic trends. Trend analysis is critical to truly understand and evaluate a municipality’s financial condition and to provide early warning signals of potential or emerging financial problems. It is anticipated that the consolidation of the financial and economic indicators contained in the Municipal Study will achieve the following goals and objectives:
• • •

To help municipal decision-makers in assessing market conditions; To understand the unique characteristics of each municipality; To understand the relationship between various controllable and uncontrollable factors in addressing a municipality’s competitive opportunities and challenges; To develop a database of material that can be updated in future years to assess progress and establish targets; To create awareness of the trends and the potential need to modify policies; To assist in aligning municipal decisions in property taxation with other economic development programs and initiatives; To assist municipalities in developing a long term strategy for property taxation to achieve municipal competitive objectives in targeted property classes; To create a baseline source of information that will assist municipalities in addressing specific areas of concern and gain a better understanding of how other municipalities have addressed similar concerns; To understand the impact of reassessment and growth; and To identify areas that may require further review (e.g. service levels, user fees, service delivery)

• •

• •

Introduction

4

Municipal Study 2007

Municipalities Represented in the Study
Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara falls Niagara -on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich

Introduction

5

Municipal Study 2007

Municipal Profile

Municipal Profile

6

Municipal Study 2007

Municipal Profile Municipal Profile

The Municipal Profile section of the report includes the following information to assist municipalities in understanding some basic facts about each municipality included in the study.

• • • • • • • • • • •

Population Statistics (1996-2006) Population Growth Projections (NEW) Age Demographics (NEW) % of Dwellings Constructed Before and After 1986 (NEW) % of Dwellings Requiring Major Repair (NEW) Density and Land Area Summary of Municipal Tier (Governance) and Location Assessment Per Capita Change in Unweighted Assessment 2003-2007 Assessment Composition By Class Consolidated Unweighted Assessment (Residential vs. NonResidential) Shift in Tax Burden—Unweighted to Weighted Residential Assessment Building Construction (Residential, Non-Residential) Building Permit Values/Activity
Number of Municipalities 23 17 19 20 79

• •

The study includes a good cross section of Ontario municipalities including:

Populations 100,000 or greater between 50,000 - 99,999 between 20,000 - 49,999 less than 20,000 Total

Municipal Profile

7

Municipal Study 2007

Population Statistics
The table is sorted from highest to lowest based on the 2006 populations.
% % Change Change 1996 2001 2001 2006 4.0% 0.9% 7.3% 4.9% 12.6% 9.1% 4.8% 2.9% 21.3% 33.3% 3.3% 4.7% 20.3% 25.4% 37.3% 31.2% 5.4% 3.9% 6.7% 7.5% 12.7% 14.4% 10.1% 9.0% 29.8% 23.2% -5.4% 1.7% 3.5% 1.8% -1.3% 2.2% 31.0% 23.8% 8.8% 9.1% 1.4% 2.6% 10.8% 8.3% 18.5% 27.2% -4.1% 0.1% -2.1% 0.8% 11.0% 12.6% 2.0% 4.4% 14.5% 22.3% 10.3% 0.8% 2.5% 4.3% 15.2% 11.4% -6.9% 0.5% 2.7% 4.8% 1.8% 7.8% 15.2% 12.9% -2.6% 0.8% -2.0% 103.4% 0.5% 2.8% 26.9% 12.7% 13.7% 14.7% -2.9% 2.3%

Municipality Toronto Ottawa Mississauga Hamilton Brampton London Markham Vaughan Windsor Kitchener Oakville Burlington Richmond Hill Sudbury Oshawa St. Catharines Barrie Cambridge Kingston Guelph Whitby Thunder Bay Chatham-Kent Waterloo Brantford Ajax Pickering Niagara Falls Clarington Sault Ste. Marie Peterborough Kawartha Lakes Newmarket Sarnia Milton Norfolk Caledon Halton Hills North Bay

1996 Population 2,385,421 721,136 544,382 467,799 268,251 325,646 173,383 132,549 197,694 178,420 128,405 136,976 101,725 164,049 134,364 130,926 79,191 101,429 112,605 95,821 73,794 113,662 109,650 77,949 84,764 64,430 78,989 76,917 60,615 80,054 69,535 67,926 57,125 72,738 32,104 60,534 39,893 42,390 54,332

2001 Population 2,481,494 774,072 612,925 490,268 325,428 336,539 208,615 182,022 208,402 190,399 144,738 150,836 132,030 155,219 139,051 129,170 103,710 110,372 114,195 106,170 87,413 109,016 107,341 86,543 86,417 73,753 87,139 78,815 69,834 74,566 71,446 69,179 65,788 70,876 31,471 60,847 50,605 48,184 52,771

2006 Population 2,503,281 812,129 668,549 504,559 433,806 352,395 261,573 238,866 216,473 204,668 165,613 164,415 162,704 157,857 141,590 131,989 128,430 120,371 117,207 114,943 111,184 109,140 108,177 97,475 90,192 90,167 87,838 82,184 77,820 74,948 74,898 74,561 74,295 71,419 64,000 62,563 57,050 55,289 53,966

Municipal Profile

8

Municipal Study 2007

Population Statistics (cont’d)
% % Change Change 1996 2001 2001 2006 0.0% 4.0% -0.4% 6.1% 15.2% 18.6% -3.7% 0.7% -8.0% -1.6% 12.9% 7.9% 6.0% 8.4% 3.7% 6.6% 2.7% 2.3% 3.5% 6.3% 6.9% 6.2% 17.4% 6.6% 11.0% 10.8% 10.0% 8.1% 8.7% 12.4% -1.7% 2.7% 0.3% 1.4% 5.5% 6.9% 9.6% 5.4% 4.0% 2.5% 5.1% 8.0% 1.7% 5.1% 0.0% 0.8% 8.9% 5.4% 0.9% 1.0% 6.1% 6.0% 7.5% 15.0% 6.5% 5.8% 4.0% 13.8% 9.7% 9.5% 42.8% 22.7% 6.4% 5.5% 4.5% 5.4% 6.6% 7.3% 1.1% 3.5% 8.7% 1.3% 8.1% 4.5% 12.2% 3.4% 0.1% 5.5% -3.2% -5.0% 7.3% 9.0% 6.6%

Municipality Welland Belleville Aurora Cornwall Timmins Georgina St. Thomas Woodstock Stratford Fort Erie Leamington Orangeville Whitchurch-Stouffville Bradford West Gwillimbury Grimsby Brockville Owen Sound Amherstburg Lincoln East Gwillimbury Woolwich King Port Colborne Huntsville Thorold Cobourg Wilmot Pelham Bracebridge Middlesex Centre Wasaga Beach Tillsonburg Niagara-on-the-Lake West Lincoln Central Elgin Gravenhurst Wellesley North Dumfries Wainfleet Parry Sound Survey Average Ontario Average

1996 Population 48,411 46,195 34,857 47,403 47,499 34,777 31,407 32,086 29,007 27,183 25,389 21,498 19,835 20,213 19,585 21,752 21,390 19,273 18,801 19,770 17,325 18,223 18,451 15,918 17,883 16,185 13,831 14,343 13,223 12,985 8,698 13,211 13,238 11,513 12,156 10,030 8,664 7,817 6,253 6,326

2001 Population 48,402 46,029 40,167 45,640 43,686 39,263 33,303 33,269 29,780 28,143 27,138 25,248 22,008 22,228 21,297 21,375 21,456 20,339 20,612 20,555 18,201 18,533 18,450 17,338 18,048 17,172 14,866 15,272 13,751 14,242 12,419 14,052 13,839 12,268 12,293 10,899 9,365 8,769 6,258 6,124

2006 Population 50,331 48,821 47,629 45,965 42,997 42,346 36,110 35,480 30,461 29,925 28,833 26,925 24,390 24,039 23,937 21,957 21,753 21,748 21,722 21,069 19,658 19,487 18,599 18,280 18,224 18,210 17,097 16,155 15,652 15,589 15,234 14,822 14,587 13,167 12,723 11,046 9,789 9,063 6,601 5,818

Municipal Profile

9

Municipal Study 2007

GTA Municipalities
(% change in population between 2001-2006)
120%

100%

The GTA accounted for 45% of Ontario’s population between 2001 to 2006. The Town of Milton is by far the fastest growing municipality during this period of time. The majority of the GTA municipalities exceeded the average growth of the entire survey.
Total Survey Average

80%

60%

40%

Location Average
20%

0%
Aj ax Au ror Ha a lto nH ils Oa kv Ne wm il e ark e Ca t W hit led ch urc Cla on h-S ring tou ton ffv M ile iss iss au Bu ga rlin gto Ge n org ina Ea st Gw K ilim ing bu ry Os ha wa To ron Pic to ke rin g M Br ilton am pto Va n ug ha n W hitb M y Ric arkh hm am on dH il

The GTA population increased by 18.1% between 2001-2006, exceeding the overall survey average of 9.0%.

GTA Municipalities—15 year trend
% Change % Change 1991 - 1996 1996 - 2001 0.6% 1.7% 3.9% 3.5% 4.8% 4.0% 7.6% 4.0% 5.7% 10.1% 15.1% 10.3% 8.1% 11.0% 16.9% 12.9% 17.5% 12.6% 12.0% 12.7% 15.1% 13.7% 12.3% 14.5% 22.5% 15.2% 18.3% 15.2% 14.1% 26.9% 25.6% 15.2% 12.7% 20.3% 20.4% 18.5% 14.4% 21.3% 0.1% -2.0% 26.9% 29.8% 19.0% 37.3% % Change 2001 - 2006 5.1% 1.8% 0.9% 2.5% 9.0% 0.8% 10.8% 7.9% 9.1% 14.4% 14.7% 22.3% 11.4% 18.6% 12.7% 12.9% 25.4% 27.2% 33.3% 103.4% 23.2% 31.2% % Change 1991-2006 (15 years) 7.5% 9.5% 10.0% 14.7% 26.9% 28.0% 32.9% 42.4% 44.3% 44.4% 50.2% 57.2% 57.3% 61.7% 63.2% 63.4% 70.1% 81.4% 85.0% 99.5% 103.0% 114.5%

Municipality King Oshawa Toronto East Gwillimbury Burlington Pickering Whitchurch-Stouffville Georgina Mississauga Oakville Halton Hills Ajax Clarington Aurora Caledon Newmarket Markham Whitby Brampton Milton Richmond Hill Vaughan

There is a significant range in the population growth patterns across the GTA, ranging from a low of 7.5% to a high of 114.5%.

Municipal Profile

10

Municipal Study 2007

Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin (% change in population between 2001-2006)
25% 20% 15%
Location Average

The Simcoe/Muskoka and Dufferin area average population growth of 9.4% slightly exceeded the total survey average 9.0%. Barrie experienced growth of 23.8% during this period of time. Parry Sound experienced a 5% decline in population during this period of time.

10% 5% 0% -5%
Ba rrie W as ag aB ea ch Br Br ad ac for eb dW rid es ge tG wi l im bu ry Or an ge vil le Hu nts vil le Gr av en hu rst Pa rry So un d

Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin—15 year trend
% Change 1991-2006 (15 years) -5.0% 10.6% 21.9% 27.2% 35.8% 50.2% 104.7% 132.8%

Municipality Parry Sound Gravenhurst Huntsville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville Barrie Wasaga Beach

% Change % Change 1991 - 1996 1996 - 2001 3.3% -3.2% 0.4% 8.7% 6.1% 8.9% 7.4% 4.0% 14.2% 10.0% 20.0% 17.4% 26.2% 31.0% 34.7% 42.8%

% Change 2001 - 2006 -5.0% 1.3% 5.4% 13.8% 8.1% 6.6% 23.8% 21.0%

The Simcoe/Muskoka and Dufferin area has experienced significant variation over the past 15 years. Barrie and Wasaga Beach have been increasing consistently in each of the 5 year increments. Municipalities within this geographic area, further north have experienced slower levels of growth.

Municipal Profile

11

Municipal Study 2007

Southwest (% change in population between 2001-2006)
16% 14% 12%

Total Survey Average
10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
W ilm Mi dd Wa ot les ex terlo Ce o ntr Ca e mb ri St dge .T ho m as Gu elp h W oo lwi ch Kit c Am hene he r rst W burg oo ds Le tock am ing to Til n so nb urg Lo nd W on ele sle Br y an tfo rd W Ce inds ntr or No al E rth lg Du in m frie s No rfo St lk Ow ratfo en rd Ch Sou ath n am d -K en t Sa rnia

Location Average

While a select few municipalities in the Southwest area exceeded the total survey average such as Wilmot, Waterloo and Middlesex Centre, the remainder were at or below the total survey average. The location average was 5.9%, compared to the overall survey average of 9.0%.

Southwest—15 year trend
% Change 1991 - 1996 -1.9% -0.3% -1.3% 3.4% 4.8% 3.3% 4.5% -0.2% 6.7% 5.2% 3.5% 6.0% 9.9% 9.3% 8.3% 5.5% 14.6% 9.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A % Change % Change % Change 1991 - 2006 1996 - 2001 2001 - 2006 (15 years) -2.6% 0.8% -3.7% -2.1% 0.8% -1.6% 0.3% 1.4% 0.4% 2.0% 4.4% 10.0% 2.7% 2.3% 10.1% 5.4% 3.9% 13.1% 3.3% 4.7% 13.1% 5.1% 8.0% 13.2% 3.7% 6.6% 18.0% 8.1% 4.5% 18.9% 6.0% 8.4% 19.0% 6.7% 7.5% 21.6% 6.4% 5.5% 23.3% 8.8% 9.1% 29.7% 10.8% 8.3% 30.0% 7.5% 15.0% 30.4% 12.2% 3.4% 32.9% 11.0% 12.6% 36.9% 5.5% 6.9% N/A 1.1% 3.5% N/A 6.9% 6.2% N/A 9.7% 9.5% N/A 0.5% 2.8% N/A

Municipality Sarnia Chatham-Kent Owen Sound Brantford Stratford Windsor London Woolwich Woodstock Wellesley St. Thomas Kitchener Tillsonburg Cambridge Guelph Wilmot North Dumfries Waterloo Amherstburg Central Elgin Leamington Middlesex Centre Norfolk

Waterloo Region and Guelph have experienced the largest percentage of growth over the past 15 years. Municipalities further west have generally experienced lower growth during this time.

Municipal Profile

12

Municipal Study 2007

Niagara/Hamilton (% change in population between 2001-2006)
13%

11%

Total Survey Average
9%

With the exception of Grimsby, all Niagara municipalities experienced growth rates less than the total survey average. Grimsby, West Lincoln and Fort Erie are the fastest growing municipalities in the area. The location average was 5.2%, compared to the overall survey average of 9.0%.

7%

Location Average
5%

3%

1%
Fo rt E rie Pe lha m Ni ag W ara ain -on fle et -th e-L ak e Lin co Ni ln ag ar aF al s W ela nd Ha m St ilto .C n ath ari ne s Th or Po rt C old olb orn e Gr im sb W y es tL inc oln

Niagara/Hamilton—15 year trend
% Change 1991-2006 (15 years) -0.9% 2.1% 3.9% 5.0% 6.4% 9.0% 11.7% 12.7% 15.1% 21.2% 21.2% 26.7% 29.2%

Municipality Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Welland Wainfleet Niagara Falls Hamilton Niagara-on-the-Lake Fort Erie West Lincoln Pelham Lincoln Grimsby

% Change % Change 1991 - 1996 1996 - 2001 -1.7% 0.0% 1.3% -1.3% 1.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 2.0% 2.5% 3.6% 4.8% 2.3% 4.5% 4.5% 3.5% 6.0% 6.6% 7.6% 6.5% 9.6% 9.6% 5.8% 8.7%

% Change 2001 - 2006 0.8% 2.2% 1.0% 4.0% 5.5% 4.3% 2.9% 5.4% 6.3% 7.3% 5.8% 5.4% 12.4%

There is significant variation in the population growth patterns across the Region of Niagara over the past 15 years, from a reduction of 0.9% in Port Colborne to an increase of 29% in Grimsby, the Niagara municipalities with the closest proximity to the GTA.

Municipal Profile

13

Municipal Study 2007

Eastern (% change in population between 2001-2006)
10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%
Ot taw a Pe ter bo ro ug h Be lle vil le Br oc kv il e Co rn wa ll Kin gs ton Co bo urg La ke s
Location Average Total Survey Average

Kawartha Lakes is the fastest growing municipality in the survey of eastern Ontario municipalities. The Eastern survey average of population growth is 4.5% compared with the total survey average of 9.0%.

Ka wa rth a

Eastern—15 year trend

Municipality Cornwall Brockville Kingston Peterborough Ottawa Cobourg Belleville Kawartha Lakes

% Change % Change 1991 - 1996 1996 - 2001 0.6% -3.7% 0.8% -1.7% 4.4% 1.4% 1.7% 2.7% 6.3% 7.3% 7.3% 6.1% N/A -0.4% N/A 1.8%

% Change 2001 - 2006 0.7% 2.7% 2.6% 4.8% 4.9% 6.0% 6.1% 7.8%

% Change 1991-2006 (15 years) -2.5% 1.7% 8.7% 9.5% 19.8% 20.8% N/A N/A

Growth in eastern Ontario has been relatively modest over the past 14 years. Ottawa and Cobourg are the fastest growing eastern municipalities in the survey.

Municipal Profile

14

Municipal Study 2007

Northern (% change in population between 2001-2006)

9% 7% 5% 3%

Total Survey Average

The Northern survey average population growth is 0.6%, compared with the total survey average of 9.0%.
Location Average

1% -1% -3% -5%
Su db ury Sa ult St e. M ari e Th un de rB ay No rth Tim m ins Ba y

Northern—15 year trend
% Change % Change 1991 - 1996 1996 - 2001 0.1% -8.0% -1.7% -6.9% -0.2% -4.1% -1.9% -2.9% 1.8% -5.4% % Change 2001 - 2006 -1.6% 0.5% 0.1% 2.3% 1.7% % Change 1991-2006 (15 years) -9.4% -8.0% -4.2% -2.6% -2.1%

Municipality Timmins Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay North Bay Sudbury

It is interesting to note that in every northern municipality,, growth in the last 5 years exceeded growth in the prior 5 year increments. For example, North Bay experienced a reduction of 1.9% and 2.9% respectively between 19911996 and 1996-2001, but experienced an increase from 2001-2006 of 2.3%.

Municipal Profile

15

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Population Statistics
The municipalities in the survey represent approximately 80% of the Ontario population.
Municipality Milton Brampton Vaughan Whitby Markham Barrie Richmond Hill Ajax Wasaga Beach Aurora Wilmot Halton Hills Oakville Bracebridge Newmarket Caledon Waterloo Grimsby Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA Simcoe/Musk./Duff. GTA GTA Simcoe/Musk./Duff. GTA Southwest GTA GTA Simcoe/Musk./Duff. GTA GTA Southwest Niagara/Hamilton % Change 2001 - 2006 103.4% 33.3% 31.2% 27.2% 25.4% 23.8% 23.2% 22.3% 22.7% 18.6% 15.0% 14.7% 14.4% 13.8% 12.9% 12.7% 12.6% 12.4%

High Growth Municipalities
• •

Municipalities surrounding the City of Toronto have experienced the largest population growth The table to the right reflects the municipalities that experienced an increase of 12% or greater in population between 2001 and 2006:

12 of the top 18 growth municipalities are in the GTA

Slow Growth Municipalities
% Change 2001 - 2006 3.9% 3.5% 3.4% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 1.8% 1.7% 1.4% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% -1.6% -5.0%

Municipality Windsor Central Elgin North Dumfries Hamilton Norfolk Brockville Kingston East Gwillimbury Stratford North Bay St. Catharines Oshawa Sudbury Owen Sound Gravenhurst Thorold Toronto Port Colborne Pickering Chatham-Kent Sarnia Cornwall Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Timmins Parry Sound

Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Niagara/Hamilton Southwest Eastern Eastern GTA Southwest North Niagara/Hamilton GTA North Southwest Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Niagara/Hamilton GTA Niagara/Hamilton GTA Southwest Southwest Eastern North North North Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

The table to the left includes those municipalities with population increases of less than 4%, between 2001 and 2006. All northern municipalities included in the study experienced growth below 4% (Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, North Bay, and Sudbury).

Municipal Profile

16

Municipal Study 2007

Population Projections (Excerpts from Ministry of Finance)
• •

Ontario's population is projected to experience fairly robust growth over the projection period, 20062031. The population age 65 and over more than doubles from 1.6 million or 12.9% of the population in 2006 to 3.5 million or 21.4% in 2031. The growth in seniors' share of the population will accelerate after 2011 as baby boomers begin to turn age 65. This same cohort will begin to reach age 75 a decade later, in 2021. The median age of Ontario’s population is projected to rise to 43 years in 2031 from 38 years in 2006. The number of children under age 15 rises by only 323,000, or 14 per cent, over the projection period, from 2.3 million to 2.6 million, while their share of the population falls from 17.8 per cent in 2006 to 15.7 per cent in 2031. The core working-age population, ages 15-64, is projected to increase by 18 per cent, from 8.8 million in 2006 to 10.4 million by 2031. Not all regions of Ontario are projected to experience the same rate of population growth. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA), comprised of the City of Toronto and the regional municipalities of Durham, Halton, Peel and York, will be by far the fastest-growing region. It is projected to grow from 5.9 million in 2006 to 8.3 million in 2031. The GTA's share of total Ontario population will rise from 46.4 per cent in 2006 to 50.1 per cent in 2031, or over one-half of Ontario's population. In Durham, Halton, Peel and York, growth ranging from 46 to 73 per cent is projected over the next 25 years. Many Census Divisions surrounding the GTA (Simcoe, Dufferin, Wellington and Waterloo) are projected to continue to experience above average growth. The population of Central Ontario is projected to grow from 2,759,000 in 2006 to 3,536,000 in 2031. Many Census Divisions surrounding the GTA (Simcoe, Dufferin, Wellington and Waterloo) are projected to continue to experience above-average population growth. The population of Eastern Ontario is projected to grow from 1,661,000 to 2,060,000 in 2031. Ottawa is projected to grow fastest, above the provincial average, from 840,000 in 2006 to 1.1 million in 2031. The rest of Eastern Ontario is projected to experience growth below the provincial average, with Frontenac growing fastest. The population of Southwestern Ontario is projected to grow from 1,579,000 in 2006 to 1,858,000 in 2031. Growth rates within Southwestern Ontario will vary, with Essex growing fastest. The population of Northern Ontario is projected to decline by 4.5 per cent over the period, from 806,000 in 2006 to 770,000 in 2031. This projected decline reflects Northern Ontario’s migration trends and age structure. Among northern Census Divisions growth varies. Parry Sound is projected to experience the fastest population growth and Cochrane is projected to experience the fastest population decline. The overall dependency ratio, the ratio of the 0-14 and the 65+ age groups to the 15-64 age group will continue its decline until 2011, falling gradually from 44.5 “dependants” for every 100 workingage individuals in 2006 to 43.6 in 2011. The favourable pattern of low dependency ratios will begin to change after 2011 with the arrival of large cohorts of baby boomers in the group age 64 and over. The dependency ratio will climb to over 59 by the year 2031.

• •

• •

• •

Municipal Profile

17

Municipal Study 2007

Projection Population, Ontario Regions, 2006, 2016 and 2031

9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% GTA Central

2006

2016

2031

East

Southwest

Northeast

Northwest

Source: Ministry of Finance

Proportionate Share of Total Ontario Population
2006 GTA Central East Southwest North 46.4% 21.7% 13.1% 12.4% 6.4% 2016 48.5% 21.5% 12.7% 11.8% 5.5% 2031 50.1% 21.4% 12.5% 11.3% 4.7% % change 8.0% -1.4% -4.6% -8.9% -26.6%

As shown above, it is projected that the GTA will continue to experience the highest percentage of population growth over the next 15 years. By 2031, it is projected that the GTA will comprise over 50% of the Ontario population, while each of the other regions will experience reductions in the proportionate share of the total Ontario population. The North, while expected to grow over the next 15 years will comprise approximately 26.6% less of the proportionate share of the Ontario population.

Municipal Profile

18

Municipal Study 2007

Age Demographics
The age profile of a population may affect municipal expenditures. For example, expenditures may be affected by seniors requiring higher public service costs and families with young children demanding services for recreational, and related programs.
Municipality Belleville Brockville Cobourg Cornwall Kawartha Lakes Kingston Ottawa Peterborough Eastern Average Ajax Aurora Brampton Burlington Caledon Clarington East Gwillimbury Georgina Halton Hills King Markham Milton Mississauga Newmarket Oakville Oshawa Pickering Richmond Hill Toronto Vaughan Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville GTA Average Fort Erie Grimsby Hamilton Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln Niagara/Hamilton Average 0-19 23% 22% 22% 24% 23% 22% 24% 22% 23% 31% 31% 30% 25% 29% 30% 27% 33% 29% 27% 26% 27% 27% 29% 28% 25% 28% 27% 22% 29% 30% 25% 28% 24% 25% 25% 27% 24% 20% 25% 21% 23% 24% 25% 23% 31% 24% 20-64 59% 57% 54% 58% 58% 62% 63% 58% 59% 61% 60% 62% 60% 62% 60% 62% 56% 61% 60% 64% 65% 63% 61% 60% 61% 62% 63% 64% 61% 61% 59% 61% 58% 59% 60% 56% 59% 56% 59% 57% 59% 61% 61% 60% 59% 59% 65+ 18% 21% 24% 19% 19% 16% 12% 19% 19% 8% 9% 8% 15% 9% 10% 10% 11% 10% 13% 11% 8% 10% 10% 12% 14% 9% 10% 14% 10% 9% 15% 11% 18% 15% 15% 17% 17% 24% 17% 21% 18% 14% 14% 17% 10% 17% Median Age 41.8 44.2 46.1 43.0 45.1 40.0 38.4 41.7 42.5 35.4 37.2 33.7 40.3 37.7 36.9 40.5 38.5 37.9 41.1 38.1 34.4 36.7 37.2 38.4 39.4 38.3 37.8 38.4 35.9 35.8 42.2 37.8 43.1 41.2 39.6 41.0 41.5 49.1 43.8 44.9 41.7 39.8 42.5 41.5 36.5 42.0

Municipality North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins North Average Barrie Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Gravenhurst Huntsville Orangeville Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Average Amherstburg Brantford Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Guelph Kitchener Leamington London Middlesex Centre Norfolk North Dumfries Owen Sound Sarnia St. Thomas Stratford Tillsonburg Waterloo Wellesley Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Southwest Average Average Median Min Max

0-19 24% 22% 24% 23% 26% 24% 28% 23% 28% 19% 23% 30% 22% 20% 24% 27% 26% 28% 25% 25% 25% 25% 28% 24% 28% 24% 29% 23% 23% 25% 24% 22% 26% 37% 27% 25% 25% 27% 26% 26% 25% 19% 37%

20-64 60% 59% 62% 61% 62% 61% 61% 59% 63% 59% 58% 60% 54% 55% 59% 61% 60% 61% 61% 59% 63% 63% 57% 62% 59% 58% 60% 56% 59% 60% 60% 55% 63% 54% 58% 61% 59% 58% 59% 60% 60% 54% 65%

65+ 16% 19% 15% 17% 13% 16% 11% 19% 9% 22% 18% 10% 25% 25% 17% 12% 15% 11% 14% 16% 12% 12% 15% 14% 14% 17% 10% 21% 18% 15% 16% 23% 11% 9% 15% 14% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 8% 25%

Median Age 40.8 43.9 41.1 41.7 39.6 41.4 35.4 44.5 36.7 46.8 43.4 35.4 46.3 48.8 42.2 38.6 39.1 36.4 42.5 41.2 36.4 36.6 37.1 38.2 41.2 43.4 39.0 43.4 43.2 38.8 41.1 43.9 35.4 30.9 39.3 37.5 39.7 38.9 39.2 40.1 39.7 30.9 49.1

(Source: Statistics Canada—2006)

Municipal Profile

19

Municipal Study 2007

% of Dwellings Built Before and After 1986, Condition of Dwellings
This statistic has been included as it provides a general indication of age of the municipality, the infrastructure and the mix of new versus older growth.
% of % of Dwellings Dwellings Requiring Requiring Geographic Location Median Age Major Repair Major Repair Eastern high 6.1% mid mid mid Avg. % of Dwelling Requiring 6.3% Major Repair high 7.4% high 7.2% mid 6.6% mid high high 8.1% % of Dwellings Constructed high 7.2% high before 1986 high 8.0% high high high 75% 7.6% GTA Avg. % of Dwelling Requiring Major Repair 4.5% low low low low low low low low low low low mid low low high mid low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high low mid high mid high high high high high 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 3.0% 4.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 4.3% 4.6% 3.3% 3.4% 4.0% 4.3% 5.0% 8.2% 4.5% 5.2% 4.7% 6.5% 7.0% 7.8% 5.2% 3.9% 4.6% 4.4% 7.5% 5.4% 8.5% 7.4% 6.8% 7.4% 8.4% 6.3% 9.0% low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low high low mid low mid high high mid low low low high mid high high mid high high mid high 2007 Net Levy Per 100,000 Assessment high mid low high high high high high low low mid low mid low mid low low low low low mid low low mid low low low low high mid mid mid low mid mid high mid high high high mid high high

Municipality Cobourg Ottawa Kawartha Lakes Kingston Peterborough Belleville Cornwall Brockville Vaughan Richmond Hill Whitby Markham Clarington Aurora Ajax Brampton Newmarket Caledon Milton Oakville Pickering Mississauga Whitchurch-Stouffville Georgina Halton Hills East Gwillimbury Burlington King Oshawa Toronto Lincoln Grimsby Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham West Lincoln Thorold Fort Erie Hamilton Niagara Falls Welland Wainfleet St. Catharines Port Colborne

% Dwellings Constructed before 1986 66% 67% 71% 72% 76% 79% 83% 83% 24% 29% 38% 41% 41% 41% 41% 45% 45% 48% 48% 49% 49% 54% 56% 56% 58% 62% 62% 73% 77% 81% 57% 63% 64% 64% 64% 73% 76% 77% 78% 79% 82% 82% 87%

% Dwellings Constructed before 1986 mid mid mid mid high high high high low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid high high low mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high

% of Dwellings Constructed before 1986 51%

Niagara/Hamilton Avg. % of Dwelling Requiring Major Repair 6.5%

% of Dwellings Constructed before 1986 73%

(Source: Statistics Canada—2006)

Municipal Profile

20

Municipal Study 2007

% of Dwellings Built Before and After 1986, Condition of Dwellings (Cont’d)

Municipality Sudbury North Bay Thunder Bay Timmins Sault Ste. Marie

% of % of Dwellings Dwellings Requiring Requiring Geographic Location Median Age Major Repair Major Repair North mid 7.8% high mid high Avg. % of Dwelling Requiring 8.4% Major Repair high 7.1% high 7.6% % of Dwellings Constructed mid 7.9% high high mid before 1986 6.7% 83% Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Avg. % of Dwelling Requiring Major Repair 6.0% % of Dwellings Constructed before 1986 57% Southwest Avg. % of Dwelling Requiring Major Repair 6.0% high low low low high high high high low mid mid mid low low high mid low low mid high low mid low mid mid high low mid mid high high 4.3% 4.0% 4.6% 5.3% 8.2% 7.2% 8.6% 11.1% 3.9% 5.7% 5.3% 5.1% 5.9% 5.2% 5.3% 5.8% 5.7% 4.9% 5.1% 6.2% 5.3% 4.0% 6.0% 8.4% 6.5% 6.7% 6.4% 6.9% 7.5% 8.1% 8.9% 6.0% 5.9% 2.5% 11.1% low low low mid high high high high low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid low mid mid mid low mid high mid mid mid mid high high high

% Dwellings Constructed before 1986 80% 82% 83% 84% 86%

% Dwellings Constructed before 1986 high high high high high

2007 Net Levy Per 100,000 Assessment high high high high high

Wasaga Beach Barrie Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville Huntsville Bracebridge Gravenhurst Parry Sound Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot Middlesex Centre Cambridge Guelph Tillsonburg Amherstburg Kitchener Wellesley Woodstock Central Elgin Leamington Woolwich London St. Thomas Brantford Norfolk Windsor Stratford Chatham-Kent Owen Sound Sarnia Average Median Min Max

33% 38% 52% 55% 61% 65% 69% 84% 54% 55% 57% 61% 62% 63% 65% 65% 69% 69% 69% 71% 71% 71% 73% 75% 77% 77% 78% 78% 83% 84% 85% 65% 67% 24% 87%

low low low low low mid mid high low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high

low mid low mid low low low mid mid low low low mid mid high mid mid low high mid mid low high high high mid high mid mid high high

% of Dwellings Constructed before 1986 70%

Municipal Profile

21

Municipal Study 2007

Land Area and Density
Population density indicates the number of residents living in an area (usually measured by square kilometre). Density readings can lend insight into the age of a city, growth patterns, zoning practices, new development opportunities and the level of multi-family unit housing. High population density can also indicate whether a municipality may be reaching build-out, as well as service and infrastructure needs, such as additional public transit or street routes. Density also affects the cost of municipal goods and services. Some communities have compact boundaries and high population density, making the provision of public services such as street maintenance, fire and police protection typically less costly per household. However, as stated by the ICMA in their publication “Evaluating Financial Condition,” the cost function can take on a “U” shape when population becomes extremely high. The reason is probably that densely populated central cities often bear the burden of social problems that may make the per-person costs of municipal service high. There is a significant degree of variability across the survey in terms of land area and density. The following table summarizes the largest 10 municipalities in the study in terms of land area:
Population Land Area Density per (Square Km) Sq. Kilometre 3,201 49 24 3,059 2,962 15 2,778 292 44 2,458 1,607 39 1,117 452 703 26 687 83 3,974 630

Municipality Sudbury Kawartha Lakes Timmins Ottawa Chatham-Kent Norfolk Hamilton Huntsville Caledon Toronto

With the exception of Toronto, municipalities with the largest land areas have below average density per square kilometre (630). The table on the next page is sorted by population density per sq. km. For every square kilometre, the City of Timmins has 15 residents compared with the City of Toronto that has 3,974. The City of Timmins has the third largest land area in the survey but the lowest density.

Municipal Profile

22

Municipal Study 2007

Land Area and Density

Population Land Area Density per Density Municipality (Square Km) Sq. Kilometre Ranking low Timmins 2,962 15 low Gravenhurst 518 21 Kawartha Lakes 3,059 24 low Bracebridge 617 25 low Huntsville 703 26 low Middlesex Centre 588 27 low Wainfleet 217 30 low West Lincoln 388 34 low Wellesley 278 35 low Norfolk 1,607 39 low Chatham-Kent 2,458 44 low Central Elgin 280 45 low North Dumfries 187 48 low Sudbury 3,201 49 low King 333 59 low Woolwich 326 60 low Wilmot 264 65 low Caledon 687 83 low East Gwillimbury 245 86 low 110 low Niagara-on-the-Lake 133 110 low Leamington 262 Amherstburg 117 low 186 118 low Whitchurch-Stouffville 207 120 low Bradford West Gwillimbury 201 127 low Clarington 611 128 low Pelham 126 133 mid Lincoln 163 mid Georgina 288 147 mid Port Colborne 122 152 mid North Bay 315 171 mid Milton 367 174 Fort Erie 166 180 mid Belleville 247 198 mid Halton Hills 276 200 mid Thorold 83 220 mid Wasaga Beach 58 259 mid Kingston 450 260 mid Ottawa 2,778 292 mid

Municipality Thunder Bay Sault Ste. Marie Grimsby Pickering Niagara Falls Sarnia Parry Sound Hamilton Welland Tillsonburg Cornwall Whitby Woodstock Cobourg London Vaughan Burlington Owen Sound Aurora Oshawa St. Thomas Brockville Cambridge Oakville Stratford Markham Brantford Peterborough Guelph Ajax St. Catharines Windsor Kitchener Waterloo Richmond Hill Brampton Barrie Orangeville Newmarket Mississauga Toronto Total Survey Low Total Survey High Total Survey Average Ontario Average

Population Land Area Density per Density (Square Km) Sq. Kilometre Ranking 328 333 mid 222 338 mid 347 mid 69 232 379 mid mid 210 391 165 434 mid 13 448 mid 452 mid 1,117 81 621 mid 22 664 mid 743 mid 62 147 759 mid mid 44 806 22 813 mid 421 837 high 873 high 274 186 885 high 24 906 high 960 high 50 146 972 high high 35 1,032 21 1,046 high 113 1,067 high 1,196 high 139 25 1,218 high 213 1,228 high 1,260 high 72 58 1,291 high high 87 1,326 67 1,346 high 96 1,375 high 1,474 high 147 137 1,495 high 64 1,521 high 1,613 high 101 267 1,628 high high 77 1,668 16 1,729 high 38 1,952 high 2,313 high 289 630 3,974 high 13 3,201 411 15 3,974 630 134

Municipal Profile

23

Municipal Study 2007

Assessment Per Capita
Assessment per capita statistics have been compared to provide an indication of the “richness” of assessment base in each municipality. This measure is important in understanding the relationship to tax rates. The following tables provide the assessment per capita using unweighted and weighted assessment. Unweighted assessment includes all taxable assessment including PILs and excludes exempt properties. Some municipalities do not include PILs in their calculation of their weighted taxable assessment for tax rate calculations.

Trends and Observations - Assessment Per Capita
Assessment is important because municipalities depend largely on the property tax base for a substantial portion of their revenue. The following summarizes some of the key observations:

16 of the 27 municipalities ranked as high assessment per capita are within the GTA—this provides an indication of the “richness of the assessment base.” A number of municipalities with high assessment per capita are located in “cottage country” which is impacted by high assessed values for lakefront properties and also low permanent resident populations

Municipality Gravenhurst King Whitchurch-Stouffville Niagara-on-the-Lake Vaughan Oakville Wasaga Beach Caledon Richmond Hill Huntsville Markham Aurora East Gwillimbury North Dumfries Middlesex Centre Bracebridge Toronto Burlington Mississauga Halton Hills Milton Newmarket Pickering Woolwich Ottawa Wilmot Kawartha Lakes

Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff GTA GTA Niagara/Hamilton GTA GTA Simcoe/Musk./Duff GTA GTA Simcoe/Musk./Duff GTA GTA GTA SouthWest SouthWest Simcoe/Musk./Duff GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA SouthWest Eastern SouthWest Eastern

2007 Unweighted CVA/Capita $ 194,729 $ 180,962 $ 172,810 $ 168,530 $ 165,275 $ 157,873 $ 145,892 $ 144,428 $ 143,726 $ 136,950 $ 136,904 $ 131,224 $ 130,268 $ 128,010 $ 127,432 $ 126,952 $ 126,635 $ 125,510 $ 122,158 $ 116,361 $ 115,998 $ 113,003 $ 111,537 $ 110,654 $ 106,967 $ 102,189 $ 102,079

Relative Position high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

Municipal Profile

24

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Assessment Per Capita
Change % Unweighted to Weighted -0.4% -0.6% -1.2% -1.2% -1.3% -1.5% -1.8% -2.0% -4.3% -5.1% -5.7% -5.9% -6.5% -7.3% -10.2% -11.5% -20.3%

Farmland properties - A number of municipalities have a reduced assessment base when comparing unweighted to weighted assessment as a result of a relatively large share of farmland properties. The table to the right reflects those municipalities with a proportionally larger share of farmland assessment As will be shown in the “like” property comparisons, assessment per capita is a reasonably good predictor of relative property values across the survey - i.e. municipalities with higher assessments per capita tend to have properties valued higher than their counterparts in other jurisdictions

Municipality Caledon Whitchurch Stouffville Wilmot Kawartha Lakes Amherstburg Bradford West Gwillimbury Georgina East Gwillimbury West Lincoln King Chatham-Kent Wainfleet Norfolk Leamington Central Elgin Wellesley Middlesex Centre

Municipal Profile

25

Municipal Study 2007

Taxable Assessment Per Capita

Municipality Gravenhurst King Whitchurch-Stouffville Niagara-on-the-Lake Vaughan Oakville Wasaga Beach Caledon Richmond Hill Huntsville Markham Aurora East Gwillimbury North Dumfries Middlesex Centre Bracebridge Toronto Burlington Mississauga Halton Hills Milton Newmarket Pickering Woolwich Ottawa Wilmot Kawartha Lakes Whitby Bradford West Gwillimbury Ajax Brampton Waterloo Georgina Wellesley Pelham Wainfleet Central Elgin Grimsby Lincoln Clarington

2007 Unweighted CVA/Capita $ 194,729 $ 180,962 $ 172,810 $ 168,530 $ 165,275 $ 157,873 $ 145,892 $ 144,428 $ 143,726 $ 136,950 $ 136,904 $ 131,224 $ 130,268 $ 128,010 $ 127,432 $ 126,952 $ 126,635 $ 125,510 $ 122,158 $ 116,361 $ 115,998 $ 113,003 $ 111,537 $ 110,654 $ 106,967 $ 102,189 $ 102,079 $ 101,283 $ 100,551 $ 98,731 $ 98,121 $ 97,945 $ 96,773 $ 95,156 $ 94,232 $ 93,255 $ 92,407 $ 91,357 $ 91,017 $ 89,808

2007 Weighted CVA/Capita $ 195,517 $ 171,681 $ 171,691 $ 177,856 $ 173,821 $ 175,559 $ 147,608 $ 143,817 $ 146,677 $ 137,829 $ 141,425 $ 134,253 $ 127,607 $ 141,265 $ 101,525 $ 127,489 $ 221,846 $ 144,673 $ 138,394 $ 123,646 $ 128,388 $ 116,900 $ 120,607 $ 119,053 $ 132,839 $ 100,998 $ 100,863 $ 110,008 $ 99,008 $ 106,204 $ 105,342 $ 118,028 $ 95,028 $ 84,207 $ 95,254 $ 87,741 $ 83,024 $ 97,469 $ 93,563 $ 92,760

Change % 0.4% -5.1% -0.6% 5.5% 5.2% 11.2% 1.2% -0.4% 2.1% 0.6% 3.3% 2.3% -2.0% 10.4% -20.3% 0.4% 75.2% 15.3% 13.3% 6.3% 10.7% 3.4% 8.1% 7.6% 24.2% -1.2% -1.2% 8.6% -1.5% 7.6% 7.4% 20.5% -1.8% -11.5% 1.1% -5.9% -10.2% 6.7% 2.8% 3.3%

Relative Position CVA/Capita high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

Municipality Guelph Barrie Fort Erie Amherstburg Norfolk Niagara Falls Orangeville Parry Sound Cobourg Cambridge Kingston Oshawa Stratford West Lincoln Hamilton Leamington Kitchener Peterborough Thorold St. Catharines London Chatham-Kent Windsor Tillsonburg Sarnia Brantford Port Colborne Belleville Woodstock Brockville Owen Sound North Bay Thunder Bay Welland St. Thomas Sudbury Cornwall Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Average Minimum Maximum Median

2007 Unweighted CVA/Capita $ 89,226 $ 88,403 $ 85,102 $ 84,180 $ 83,798 $ 83,204 $ 82,447 $ 82,114 $ 81,515 $ 81,501 $ 81,293 $ 80,805 $ 79,238 $ 77,307 $ 76,678 $ 76,649 $ 75,044 $ 74,034 $ 73,972 $ 73,776 $ 73,616 $ 72,843 $ 72,465 $ 72,339 $ 68,212 $ 68,036 $ 67,938 $ 67,189 $ 66,786 $ 66,654 $ 64,802 $ 60,495 $ 58,016 $ 57,961 $ 57,663 $ 51,731 $ 47,719 $ 46,721 $ 46,466 $

2007 Weighted CVA/Capita $ 111,757 $ 94,828 $ 94,313 $ 83,124 $ 78,377 $ 103,365 $ 91,004 $ 95,635 $ 95,280 $ 102,793 $ 101,146 $ 92,303 $ 101,102 $ 74,004 $ 95,635 $ 71,073 $ 92,805 $ 89,397 $ 86,553 $ 85,774 $ 89,630 $ 68,682 $ 98,150 $ 91,338 $ 83,264 $ 85,464 $ 77,834 $ 88,399 $ 83,174 $ 84,966 $ 92,799 $ 74,264 $ 74,973 $ 66,448 $ 76,752 $ 62,878 $ 62,999 $ 55,732 $ 57,839 106,928 55,732 221,846 95,635

Change % 25.3% 7.3% 10.8% -1.3% -6.5% 24.2% 10.4% 16.5% 16.9% 26.1% 24.4% 14.2% 27.6% -4.3% 24.7% -7.3% 23.7% 20.8% 17.0% 16.3% 21.8% -5.7% 35.4% 26.3% 22.1% 25.6% 14.6% 31.6% 24.5% 27.5% 43.2% 22.8% 29.2% 14.6% 33.1% 21.5% 32.0% 19.3% 24.5% 12.1% -20.3% 75.2% 10.4%

Relative Position CVA/Capita mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low

97,261 $ 46,466 194,729 89,808

(Data sorted and ranked by unweighted assessment per capita)

There is a wide range of assessment per capita values (unweighted) across the survey ($46,466 $194,729), with an average and median assessment per capita of $97,261 and $89,808 respectively The City of Timmins has the lowest unweighted assessment per capita. This contributes to the City having the highest residential tax rates. In fact, all northern municipalities have low assessment bases upon which to fund municipal services

Municipal Profile

26

Municipal Study 2007

Taxable Assessment Per Capita (Grouped by Location)
2007 Unweighted CVA/Capita $ 106,967 $ 102,079 $ 81,515 $ 81,293 $ 74,034 $ 67,189 $ 66,654 $ 47,719 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 180,962 172,810 165,275 157,873 144,428 143,726 136,904 131,224 130,268 126,635 125,510 122,158 116,361 115,998 113,003 111,537 101,283 98,731 98,121 96,773 89,808 80,805 168,530 94,232 93,255 91,357 91,017 85,102 83,204 77,307 76,678 73,972 73,776 67,938 57,961

Municipality Ottawa Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Kingston Peterborough Belleville Brockville Cornwall King Whitchurch-Stouffville Vaughan Oakville Caledon Richmond Hill Markham Aurora East Gwillimbury Toronto Burlington Mississauga Halton Hills Milton Newmarket Pickering Whitby Ajax Brampton Georgina Clarington Oshawa Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Wainfleet Grimsby Lincoln Fort Erie Niagara Falls West Lincoln Hamilton Thorold St. Catharines Port Colborne Welland

Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

Relative Position high high mid mid low low low low high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high mid mid mid mid mid mid high mid mid mid mid mid mid low low low low low low

$

78,431

$

125,463

$

87,256

Municipal Profile

27

Municipal Study 2007

Taxable Assessment Per Capita (Grouped by Location cont’d)

Municipality North Bay Thunder Bay Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Gravenhurst Wasaga Beach Huntsville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Barrie Orangeville Parry Sound North Dumfries Middlesex Centre Woolwich Wilmot Waterloo Wellesley Central Elgin Guelph Amherstburg Norfolk Cambridge Stratford Leamington Kitchener London Chatham-Kent Windsor Tillsonburg Sarnia Brantford Woodstock Owen Sound St. Thomas

Location North North North North North Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

2007 Unweighted CVA/Capita $ 60,495 $ 58,016 $ 51,731 $ 46,721 $ 46,466 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 194,729 145,892 136,950 126,952 100,551 88,403 82,447 82,114 128,010 127,432 110,654 102,189 97,945 95,156 92,407 89,226 84,180 83,798 81,501 79,238 76,649 75,044 73,616 72,843 72,465 72,339 68,212 68,036 66,786 64,802 57,663

Relative Position low low low low low high high high high mid mid mid mid high high high high mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid low low low low low low low low low low low

$

52,686

$

119,755

$

84,356

Municipal Profile

28

Municipal Study 2007

Taxable Assessment Per Capita Ranking Compared to Household Income Ranking
(Sorted by unweighted assessment per capita)
Relative Position of Household Income low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid low mid low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid low mid low mid high low mid mid mid

Municipality Timmins Sault Ste. Marie Cornwall Sudbury St. Thomas Welland Thunder Bay North Bay Owen Sound Brockville Woodstock Belleville Port Colborne Brantford Sarnia Tillsonburg Windsor Chatham-Kent London St. Catharines Thorold Peterborough Kitchener Leamington Hamilton West Lincoln Stratford Oshawa Kingston Cambridge Cobourg Parry Sound Orangeville Niagara Falls Norfolk Amherstburg Fort Erie Barrie Guelph Clarington

2007 2007 Relative Unweighted Household Position CVA/Capita Income CVA/Capita $ 46,466 $ 59,500 low $ 46,721 $ 57,000 low $ 47,719 $ 53,700 low $ 51,731 $ 62,500 low low $ 57,663 $ 61,000 $ 57,961 $ 56,100 low low $ 58,016 $ 63,100 $ 60,495 $ 60,200 low $ 64,802 $ 55,500 low $ 66,654 $ 64,200 low $ 66,786 $ 63,900 low low $ 67,189 $ 60,100 $ 67,938 $ 53,900 low low $ 68,036 $ 62,700 $ 68,212 $ 66,600 low $ 72,339 $ 65,700 low $ 72,465 $ 67,900 low $ 72,843 $ 63,000 low low $ 73,616 $ 67,200 $ 73,776 $ 60,200 low low $ 73,972 $ 62,700 $ 74,034 $ 62,400 low $ 75,044 $ 68,500 low $ 76,649 $ 68,600 low $ 76,678 $ 66,900 low low $ 77,307 $ 74,200 $ 79,238 $ 66,400 mid mid $ 80,805 $ 69,600 $ 81,293 $ 66,100 mid $ 81,501 $ 76,700 mid $ 81,515 $ 65,800 mid $ 82,114 $ 53,500 mid mid $ 82,447 $ 75,000 $ 83,204 $ 62,200 mid mid $ 83,798 $ 64,400 $ 84,180 $ 87,300 mid $ 85,102 $ 56,900 mid $ 88,403 $ 77,400 mid $ 89,226 $ 79,200 mid mid $ 89,808 $ 85,200

Municipality Lincoln Grimsby Central Elgin Wainfleet Pelham Wellesley Georgina Waterloo Brampton Ajax Bradford West Gwillimbury Whitby Kawartha Lakes Wilmot Ottawa Woolwich Pickering Newmarket Milton Halton Hills Mississauga Burlington Toronto Bracebridge Middlesex Centre North Dumfries East Gwillimbury Aurora Markham Huntsville Richmond Hill Caledon Wasaga Beach Oakville Vaughan Niagara-on-the-Lake Whitchurch-Stouffville King Gravenhurst

2007 2007 Relative Unweighted Household Position CVA/Capita Income CVA/Capita $ 91,017 $ 79,000 mid $ 91,357 $ 91,400 mid mid $ 92,407 $ 80,700 $ 93,255 $ 59,264 mid mid $ 94,232 $ 83,800 $ 95,156 $ 72,240 mid $ 96,773 $ 69,600 mid $ 97,945 $ 92,100 mid $ 98,121 $ 94,100 mid mid $ 98,731 $ 95,700 $ 100,551 $ 85,500 mid mid $ 101,283 $ 99,800 $ 102,079 $ 62,400 high $ 102,189 $ 84,600 high high $ 106,967 $ 87,400 $ 110,654 $ 88,200 high high $ 111,537 $ 116,000 $ 113,003 $ 102,200 high $ 115,998 $ 99,900 high $ 116,361 $ 104,700 high $ 122,158 $ 96,800 high high $ 125,510 $ 97,100 $ 126,635 $ 79,800 high high $ 126,952 $ 71,200 $ 127,432 $ 97,800 high $ 128,010 $ 85,977 high high $ 130,268 $ 113,800 $ 131,224 $ 131,700 high high $ 136,904 $ 112,400 $ 136,950 $ 60,800 high $ 143,726 $ 109,300 high $ 144,428 $ 121,800 high $ 145,892 $ 57,900 high high $ 157,873 $ 130,500 $ 165,275 $ 121,200 high high $ 168,530 $ 95,700 $ 172,810 $ 107,300 high $ 180,962 $ 161,100 high high $ 194,729 $ 51,200

Relative Position of Household Income mid high mid low mid mid mid high high high high high low mid high high high high high high high high mid mid high high high high high low high high low high high high high high low

As shown above, there is typically a relationship between assessment and income levels in the various municipalities. Some anomalies exist but can be explained. For example, a number of the “cottage areas” have higher assessment due to cottages but residents incomes are not at a high level (e.g. Gravenhurst, Wasaga Beach, Huntsville, Kawartha Lakes).

Municipal Profile

29

Municipal Study 2007

Change in Unweighted Assessment 2004-2007
The tables on the next several pages reflect the change in unweighted assessment from 2004-2007 . The change between 2005-2006 includes the impact of reassessment as well as growth while the changes between 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 largely reflect the impact of growth as there was no reassessment. The table has been sorted from high to low for the 2006-2007 % change in assessment. Communities experiencing population and economic growth are likely to experience short-run increases in property values. This is because in the short run, the housing supply is fixed and the increase in demand created by growth will force prices up. Declining areas are more likely to see a decrease in the market value of properties or a slower than average increase in property values.
% Change % Change % Change in CVA in CVA in CVA 2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 3.4% 19.8% 10.8% 13.9% 21.7% 10.0% N/A 18.6% 5.8% 7.1% 18.6% 5.7% N/A N/A 5.5% N/A N/A 4.9% 3.3% 27.9% 4.1% 6.6% 17.7% 3.8% 2.4% 14.6% 3.6% 3.6% 17.7% 3.6% 5.6% 17.8% 3.5% 5.2% 15.5% 3.4% 2.7% 13.4% 3.3% N/A N/A 3.2% 5.6% 13.3% 3.1% 5.1% 16.5% 3.0% 2.3% 20.4% 3.0% 4.2% 19.6% 3.0% 2.1% 17.3% 2.9% 2.5% 15.0% 2.9% 2.4% 14.0% 2.7% 4.3% 18.6% 2.7% 0.8% 18.6% 2.6% 2.5% 16.3% 2.6% 2.1% 14.2% 2.4% N/A 12.2% 2.4% 2.5% 5.7% 2.4% 3.0% 15.1% 2.4% 3.1% 14.7% 2.4% 3.6% 16.7% 2.3% 2.1% 17.8% 2.2% 3.2% 16.6% 2.2% 2.4% 14.0% 2.1% 2.6% 18.4% 2.0% 2.1% 15.4% 2.0% Relative Ranking % increase 2006-2007 high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

Municipality Whitchurch Stouffville Milton Ajax Brampton Woolwich Wilmot Wasaga Beach Whitby Norfolk Halton Hills Barrie Vaughan St. Thomas Wellesley Markham Richmond Hill Brantford Oakville Niagara-on-the-Lake West Lincoln Burlington Grimsby Cobourg East Gwillimbury Oshawa Belleville Leamington Ottawa Cambridge Kitchener Pelham Clarington Guelph Lincoln London

Municipality Newmarket Aurora Kingston Peterborough Central Elgin Gravenhurst Waterloo Welland Mississauga Huntsville Bracebridge North Dumfries Thorold Orangeville Stratford Kawartha Lakes Hamilton Niagara Falls Pickering Georgina Fort Erie Timmins Sudbury Windsor Amherstburg Cornwall Caledon Toronto Thunder Bay Sarnia North Bay Chatham-Kent St. Catharines Port Colborne King Wainfleet Sault Ste. Marie Average Median Maximum Minimum

% Change % Change % Change in CVA in CVA in CVA 2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2.8% 16.9% 2.0% 5.6% 17.1% 1.9% 1.4% 18.7% 1.9% 2.5% 20.4% 1.9% N/A N/A 1.9% N/A N/A 1.8% 2.0% 15.2% 1.7% 1.0% 13.6% 1.7% 2.4% 13.7% 1.7% N/A N/A 1.6% N/A N/A 1.6% N/A N/A 1.6% 0.9% 16.6% 1.5% 2.2% 16.5% 1.4% 1.7% 14.7% 1.4% 1.5% 19.2% 1.4% 1.9% 16.4% 1.4% 2.7% 15.8% 1.4% 2.4% 16.5% 1.3% 1.9% 19.0% 1.2% 1.4% 14.1% 1.1% -0.1% 2.8% 1.1% 0.7% 8.8% 1.0% 3.5% 9.4% 1.0% N/A N/A 1.0% 1.0% 9.3% 0.9% 3.4% 17.0% 0.8% 0.9% 13.7% 0.8% 0.5% 9.5% 0.8% 0.9% 7.9% 0.7% 4.6% 9.6% 0.6% 0.3% 3.9% 0.6% 1.1% 18.0% 0.6% -0.6% 10.1% 0.6% 1.3% 17.4% 0.6% 1.0% 16.4% 0.5% N/A 3.0% 0.0% 2.7% 2.4% 13.9% -0.6% 15.2% 16.4% 27.9% 2.8% 2.4% 1.9% 10.8% 0.0%

Relative Ranking % increase 2006-2007 mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low

Municipal Profile

30

Municipal Study 2007

Change in Unweighted Assessment 2004-2007 (Grouped by Location)
Relative % Change % Change % Change Ranking % in CVA in CVA in CVA increase 2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2006-2007 0.8% 18.6% 2.6% high N/A N/A 12.2% 2.4% mid mid 3.0% 15.1% 2.4% 1.4% 18.7% 1.9% mid 2.5% 20.4% 1.9% mid low 1.5% 19.2% 1.4% 1.0% 9.3% 0.9% low 3.4% 13.9% N/A 7.1% 6.6% 3.6% 5.2% 5.6% 5.1% 4.2% 2.4% 2.5% 2.1% 3.2% 2.8% 5.6% 2.4% 2.4% 1.9% 3.4% 0.9% 1.3% 2.1% 2.5% 4.3% 2.1% 2.6% 1.0% 0.9% 1.9% 2.7% 1.4% 1.1% -0.6% 1.0% 19.8% 21.7% 18.6% 18.6% 17.7% 17.7% 15.5% 13.3% 16.5% 19.6% 14.0% 16.3% 14.2% 16.6% 16.9% 17.1% 13.7% 16.5% 19.0% 17.0% 13.7% 17.4% 17.3% 15.0% 18.6% 17.8% 18.4% 13.6% 16.6% 16.4% 15.8% 14.1% 18.0% 10.1% 16.4% 10.8% 10.0% 5.8% 5.7% 3.8% 3.6% 3.4% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7% 2.6% 2.4% 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.3% 1.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 2.9% 2.9% 2.7% 2.2% 2.0% 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% high high high high high high high high high high high high mid mid mid mid mid low low low low low high high high mid mid mid mid low low low low low low Average By Location 20062007

Municipality Cobourg Brockville Belleville Ottawa Kingston Peterborough Kawartha Lakes Cornwall Whitchurch Stouffville Milton Ajax Brampton Whitby Halton Hills Vaughan Markham Richmond Hill Oakville Burlington East Gwillimbury Oshawa Clarington Newmarket Aurora Mississauga Pickering Georgina Caledon Toronto King Niagara-on-the-Lake West Lincoln Grimsby Pelham Lincoln Welland Thorold Hamilton Niagara Falls Fort Erie St. Catharines Port Colborne Wainfleet

Eastern 1.9%

GTA 3.3%

Niag./Ham. 1.6%

Municipal Profile

31

Municipal Study 2007

Change in Unweighted Assessment 2004-2007 (Grouped by Location cont’d)
Relative % Change % Change % Change Ranking % in CVA in CVA in CVA increase 2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2006-2007 -0.1% 2.8% 1.1% low low 0.7% 8.8% 1.0% 0.5% 9.5% 0.8% low low 4.6% 9.6% 0.6% N/A 3.0% 0.0% low 3.3% 5.6% N/A N/A N/A 2.2% N/A N/A 2.4% 2.7% N/A 2.3% 2.5% 3.1% 3.6% 2.4% 2.1% N/A 2.0% N/A 1.7% N/A 3.5% 0.9% 0.3% 27.9% 17.8% N/A N/A N/A 16.5% N/A N/A 14.6% 13.4% N/A 20.4% 5.7% 14.7% 16.7% 14.0% 15.4% N/A 15.2% N/A 14.7% N/A 9.4% 7.9% 3.9% 4.1% 3.5% 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 5.5% 4.9% 3.6% 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% high high mid mid mid low high high high high high high mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid low low low low low

Municipality Timmins Sudbury Thunder Bay North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Wasaga Beach Barrie Gravenhurst Huntsville Bracebridge Orangeville Woolwich Wilmot Norfolk St. Thomas Wellesley Brantford Leamington Cambridge Kitchener Guelph London Central Elgin Waterloo North Dumfries Stratford Amherstburg Windsor Sarnia Chatham-Kent

Average By Location 20062007

North 0.7%

Sim./Musk./Duff. 2.3%

Southwest 2.3%

Municipal Profile

32

Municipal Study 2007

Assessment Composition (Unweighted)
Sorted alphabetically
Municipality Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk MultiResidential Residential Commercial Industrial 87.4% 1.9% 7.9% 2.4% 84.5% 1.1% 5.0% 2.2% 85.4% 1.2% 10.4% 2.7% 78.8% 3.6% 14.7% 2.6% 69.5% 5.9% 20.3% 2.8% 87.7% 1.2% 9.0% 1.2% 81.4% 1.3% 6.2% 3.5% 78.7% 2.5% 13.0% 5.3% 77.5% 4.3% 13.2% 4.5% 73.1% 6.0% 16.6% 3.9% 79.1% 3.9% 12.3% 4.3% 84.7% 0.3% 5.4% 4.6% 75.8% 3.7% 13.0% 7.0% 77.1% 0.2% 3.7% 0.6% 59.5% 2.2% 8.5% 2.5% 86.5% 0.8% 5.5% 2.8% 78.4% 3.9% 14.1% 3.2% 70.7% 5.5% 19.8% 3.4% 84.8% 0.3% 7.1% 2.4% 85.9% 1.3% 9.8% 1.7% 91.7% 1.2% 4.5% 0.4% 90.0% 1.0% 7.5% 0.6% 89.2% 0.8% 6.8% 1.3% 79.3% 5.2% 10.3% 4.9% 87.1% 1.3% 5.9% 3.3% 80.8% 5.1% 9.7% 2.4% 83.4% 1.0% 12.9% 1.6% 86.0% 1.4% 5.5% 0.8% 87.3% 0.2% 3.4% 0.8% 78.6% 6.5% 12.9% 1.3% 77.4% 8.0% 11.8% 2.6% 65.8% 2.1% 9.9% 2.9% 79.7% 0.5% 6.2% 2.9% 78.3% 5.9% 13.0% 1.8% 81.8% 0.8% 14.3% 2.8% 62.7% 0.1% 3.8% 0.7% 79.1% 1.2% 11.1% 5.6% 71.5% 3.9% 19.0% 5.4% 82.3% 1.8% 12.5% 3.2% 68.8% 3.1% 26.0% 1.3% 78.3% 0.6% 12.1% 0.9% 74.4% 0.9% 6.3% 1.2% Pipelines Farmlands Forests 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 6.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 7.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 4.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 17.9% 0.1% 0.9% 26.4% 0.0% 0.5% 3.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 5.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 2.0% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 1.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2.3% 0.0% 0.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 6.0% 0.3% 0.4% 7.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 18.7% 0.0% 0.7% 9.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 3.7% 28.9% 0.0% 0.7% 2.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 7.6% 0.0% 0.7% 16.4% 0.2%

Municipal Profile

33

Municipal Study 2007

Assessment Composition (Unweighted cont’d)

Municipality North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Average Minimum Maximum

MultiResidential Residential Commercial Industrial 73.9% 5.9% 16.4% 2.1% 70.7% 0.1% 8.4% 6.5% 84.1% 2.1% 10.0% 3.4% 82.1% 2.8% 12.0% 2.9% 78.0% 5.5% 11.7% 4.1% 76.5% 6.5% 14.5% 1.7% 73.1% 6.3% 17.4% 2.8% 72.8% 2.3% 23.1% 1.5% 90.8% 0.9% 3.3% 0.2% 78.7% 6.7% 12.4% 1.8% 82.7% 0.6% 11.9% 3.1% 83.6% 2.9% 6.4% 4.8% 87.4% 1.4% 9.3% 1.7% 76.1% 5.0% 12.6% 4.2% 75.1% 4.6% 14.9% 4.9% 80.8% 4.6% 12.0% 1.7% 77.7% 4.9% 11.6% 5.1% 79.3% 4.8% 11.2% 4.1% 76.4% 4.6% 14.3% 4.1% 80.7% 1.9% 8.7% 5.9% 75.1% 3.7% 15.9% 4.9% 77.2% 3.7% 12.1% 5.9% 75.1% 2.4% 13.7% 7.9% 71.7% 8.9% 17.4% 1.9% 75.4% 0.1% 16.3% 7.8% 85.6% 0.0% 2.1% 0.4% 95.1% 0.2% 4.3% 0.0% 80.9% 5.3% 10.0% 3.6% 83.5% 4.2% 9.6% 2.1% 67.5% 0.2% 2.8% 3.5% 77.9% 0.4% 3.8% 1.4% 84.4% 2.1% 10.1% 2.6% 87.0% 0.9% 6.6% 2.3% 80.8% 1.0% 4.5% 1.6% 71.0% 4.8% 18.8% 5.0% 78.2% 2.9% 12.3% 5.8% 71.3% 0.9% 10.9% 4.2% 79.2% 59.5% 95.1% 2.8% 0.0% 8.9% 10.8% 2.1% 26.0% 3.0% 0.0% 7.9%

Pipelines Farmlands Forests 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 9.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 4.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.6% 1.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 1.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 11.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 25.8% 0.0% 2.0% 14.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 3.0% 0.1% 0.4% 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 12.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 5.2% 3.6% 0.0% 28.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

Municipal Profile

34

Municipal Study 2007

Assessment Composition (Unweighted) - Trends & Observations
The proportionate contributions for residential, commercial and industrial tax revenue sources is important to understand, not Residential only on an annual basis, but also trends over time. This will help 95.1% identify increases, decreases and areas of growth. Trends for 91.7% each municipality can be reviewed using the online database 90.8% provided on www.bmaconsult.com.
90.0% 89.2% 87.7% 87.4% 87.4% 87.3% 87.1% 87.0% 86.5% 86.0% 85.9% 85.6% 85.4%

Municipality Wasaga Beach Georgina Pelham Gravenhurst Grimsby Bracebridge Richmond Hill Ajax King Halton Hills Whitchurch-Stouffville Clarington Kawartha Lakes Fort Erie Wainfleet Aurora

Residential • Residential: average proportionate share is 79.2%
• •

Survey range: 59.5% in Chatham-Kent to 95.1% in Wasaga Beach The table to the left summarizes those municipalities with 85% or greater of their assessment in the Residential Class

Multi-Residential • Multi-Residential: average proportionate share is 2.8% • Survey range: 0% in Wainfleet to 8.9% in Toronto • Typically, municipalities with higher than average proportionate Multi-Residential assessment are municipalities with older urban centres • The table summarizes those municipalities with 5% or greater of their assessment in the Multi-Residential Class

Municipality Niagara Falls Parry Sound Belleville Cornwall Mississauga Windsor Toronto Owen Sound Brockville North Bay Vaughan Thunder Bay

Commercial 26.0% 23.1% 20.3% 19.8% 19.0% 18.8% 17.4% 17.4% 16.6% 16.4% 16.3% 15.9%

Municipality Toronto Kitchener Peterborough Kingston Ottawa Owen Sound Brockville Belleville London North Bay Cornwall Oshawa Waterloo Guelph Hamilton Sarnia

MultiResidential 8.9% 8.0% 6.7% 6.5% 6.5% 6.3% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.5% 5.5% 5.3% 5.2% 5.1% 5.0%

Commercial
• • •

Commercial: average proportionate share is 10.8% Survey Range: Wainfleet 2.1% to Niagara Falls 26.0% The table summarizes those municipalities with 15% or greater of their assessment in the Commercial Class

Municipal Profile

35

Municipal Study 2007

Assessment Composition (Unweighted) - Trends & Observations (cont’d)

Industrial
• • •

Industrial: average proportionate share is 3.0% Survey range: 0% in Wasaga Beach to 7.9% in Timmins The table summarizes those municipalities with 5% or greater of their assessment in the Industrial Class

Municipality Timmins Vaughan Cambridge North Dumfries Tillsonburg Thorold Woodstock Milton Mississauga Brampton St. Thomas Windsor

Industrial 7.9% 7.8% 7.0% 6.5% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.6% 5.4% 5.3% 5.1% 5.0%

Municipality Middlesex Centre Chatham-Kent Wellesley Leamington Central Elgin Norfolk West Lincoln Woolwich Wilmot Wainfleet Lincoln North Dumfries King Niagara-on-the-Lake Bradford West Gwillimbury Amherstburg Kawartha Lakes East Gwillimbury

Farmlands 28.9% 26.4% 25.8% 18.7% 17.9% 16.4% 14.6% 12.2% 11.6% 11.2% 9.9% 9.1% 7.7% 7.6% 7.0% 6.7% 6.0% 5.1%

Farmlands
• • •

Farmland: average proportionate share is 3.6% Survey range: 0% in a number of municipalities to 28.9 % in Middlesex Centre The table summarizes those municipalities with 5% or greater of their assessment in the Farmland Class

Municipal Profile

36

Municipal Study 2007

Consolidated Unweighted Assessment (Residential vs. Non-Residential)

The tables on the next page show the relative strength of the municipality’s tax base. A higher percentage of non-residential assessment indicates higher revenue raising ability because commercial and industrial tax rates are higher than residential tax rates and therefore generate more tax revenue.

The following table groups: Residential Assessment includes: • Residential • Multi-Residential • Farmlands • Managed Forest Non-Residential Assessment includes: • Commercial • Industrial • Pipelines

As shown in the table on the next page, a number of municipalities rely heavily on Residential assessment such as Wainfleet, Wasaga Beach, and Pelham. These are all municipalities with populations less than 20,000.

Municipalities with Non-Residential assessment composition 20% or greater include Thunder Bay, Cambridge, North Bay, Timmins, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie, Vaughan, Mississauga, Cornwall, Belleville, Brockville, North Dumfries, Owen Sound, Parry Sound and Niagara Falls.

Municipal Profile

37

Municipal Study 2007

Consolidated Unweighted Assessment (Residential vs. Non-Residential)
NonResidential Unweighted Assessment 10.4% 7.7% 13.2% 17.5% 23.5% 10.8% 10.3% 18.5% 18.0% 20.9% 16.8% 10.2% 20.3% 4.8% 11.9% 8.8% 17.6% 23.6% 9.7% 12.0% 5.1% 8.9% 8.4% 15.4% 9.3% 12.6% 15.4% 6.4% 4.6% 14.5% 14.4% 13.4% 9.9% 15.1% 17.2% 8.3% 17.3% 24.6% 15.8% 27.7%

Municipality Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls

Residential Unweighted Assessment 89.6% 92.3% 86.8% 82.5% 76.5% 89.2% 89.7% 81.5% 82.0% 79.1% 83.2% 89.8% 79.7% 95.2% 88.1% 91.2% 82.4% 76.4% 90.3% 88.0% 94.9% 91.1% 91.6% 84.6% 90.7% 87.4% 84.6% 93.6% 95.4% 85.5% 85.6% 86.6% 90.1% 84.9% 82.8% 91.7% 82.7% 75.4% 84.2% 72.3%

Municipality Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Average Minimum Maximum

Residential Unweighted Assessment 86.5% 91.8% 79.9% 80.0% 86.4% 84.9% 84.0% 83.6% 79.5% 75.3% 95.8% 85.5% 84.9% 88.2% 88.9% 82.6% 79.7% 86.0% 82.9% 84.4% 81.2% 84.2% 78.8% 81.6% 77.8% 80.6% 75.8% 96.9% 95.4% 86.2% 87.9% 93.5% 92.9% 87.0% 91.0% 93.5% 75.9% 81.6% 84.5% 85.6% 72.3% 96.9%

NonResidential Unweighted Assessment 13.5% 8.2% 20.1% 20.0% 13.6% 15.1% 16.0% 16.4% 20.5% 24.7% 4.2% 14.5% 15.1% 11.8% 11.1% 17.4% 20.3% 14.0% 17.1% 15.6% 18.8% 15.8% 21.2% 18.4% 22.2% 19.4% 24.2% 3.1% 4.6% 13.8% 12.1% 6.5% 7.1% 13.0% 9.0% 6.5% 23.8% 18.4% 15.5% 14.3% 3.1% 27.7%

Note: Residential unweighted assessment includes residential, multi-residential farm, and managed forests assessment

Municipal Profile

38

Municipal Study 2007

Shift In Tax Burden—Unweighted to Weighted Residential Assessment (sorted by % change )
Municipality Toronto Owen Sound Windsor Cornwall Belleville Thunder Bay Stratford Brockville Tillsonburg Cambridge Brantford St. Thomas Guelph Hamilton Woodstock Timmins Kingston Niagara Falls Ottawa Kitchener North Bay Sarnia London Sudbury Peterborough Waterloo Sault Ste. Marie Thorold Cobourg Parry Sound St. Catharines Burlington Welland Port Colborne Oshawa Mississauga Oakville Fort Erie Milton Residential Residential Unweighted Weighted Assessment Assessment 71.7% 40.9% 73.1% 51.1% 71.0% 52.4% 70.7% 53.6% 69.5% 52.8% 75.1% 58.1% 79.3% 62.2% 73.1% 57.3% 77.2% 61.1% 75.8% 60.1% 77.5% 61.7% 77.7% 61.9% 79.3% 63.3% 80.8% 64.8% 78.2% 62.8% 75.1% 60.4% 78.6% 63.2% 68.8% 55.4% 76.5% 61.6% 77.4% 62.6% 73.9% 60.2% 76.1% 62.3% 78.3% 64.3% 76.4% 62.8% 78.7% 65.2% 80.9% 67.1% 75.1% 62.9% 80.7% 69.0% 78.4% 67.1% 72.8% 62.5% 80.8% 69.5% 79.1% 68.6% 83.5% 72.8% 83.6% 72.9% 78.0% 68.3% 71.5% 63.1% 84.1% 75.6% 85.9% 77.5% 79.1% 71.5% % Change -42.9% -30.2% -26.1% -24.3% -24.0% -22.6% -21.6% -21.6% -20.8% -20.7% -20.4% -20.3% -20.2% -19.8% -19.7% -19.7% -19.6% -19.5% -19.5% -19.2% -18.5% -18.1% -17.9% -17.7% -17.2% -17.0% -16.2% -14.5% -14.4% -14.1% -14.0% -13.2% -12.8% -12.7% -12.5% -11.7% -10.1% -9.8% -9.6%
Municipality Orangeville North Dumfries Whitby Pickering Woolwich Ajax Brampton Barrie Grimsby Halton Hills Niagara-on-the-Lake Vaughan Newmarket Markham Clarington Lincoln Aurora Richmond Hill Wasaga Beach Pelham Huntsville Bracebridge Gravenhurst Caledon Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Kawartha Lakes Amherstburg Bradford West Gwillimbury Georgina East Gwillimbury West Lincoln King Chatham-Kent Wainfleet Norfolk Leamington Central Elgin Wellesley Middlesex Centre Average Min Max Residential Residential Unweighted Weighted Assessment Assessment 82.1% 74.4% 70.7% 64.1% 84.4% 77.8% 82.7% 76.5% 71.3% 66.3% 87.4% 81.3% 78.7% 73.3% 78.8% 73.5% 89.2% 83.6% 87.1% 82.0% 78.3% 74.2% 75.4% 71.6% 82.3% 79.6% 81.8% 79.2% 86.5% 83.8% 79.7% 77.5% 85.4% 83.5% 87.4% 85.7% 95.1% 94.0% 90.8% 89.9% 83.4% 82.8% 87.7% 87.3% 90.0% 89.6% 84.7% 85.0% 87.0% 87.6% 80.8% 81.8% 86.0% 87.0% 84.5% 85.5% 81.4% 82.7% 91.7% 93.3% 84.8% 86.6% 77.9% 81.4% 87.3% 92.0% 59.5% 63.1% 85.6% 91.0% 74.4% 79.5% 65.8% 71.0% 77.1% 85.8% 67.5% 76.3% 62.7% 78.7% 79.2% 59.5% 95.1% 72.0% 40.9% 94.0% % Change -9.4% -9.4% -7.9% -7.5% -7.1% -7.0% -6.9% -6.8% -6.3% -5.9% -5.2% -4.9% -3.3% -3.2% -3.2% -2.7% -2.3% -2.0% -1.2% -1.1% -0.6% -0.4% -0.4% 0.4% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.6% 1.8% 2.1% 4.5% 5.4% 6.1% 6.3% 6.9% 7.8% 11.3% 12.9% 25.5% -9.3% -42.9% 25.5%

As shown in the table, tax ratios typically shift the burden from residential to non-residential properties. Approximately 78% of the municipalities surveyed, have a decrease in tax burden on the Residential class as a result of tax ratios for non-residential classes greater than 1.0

The implementation of tax ratios to the assessment base for municipalities with a larger proportion of farmland and managed forest results in an increase in the residential burden

Municipal Profile

39

Municipal Study 2007

Building Permit Activity (Sorted from highest to lowest 2006 activity per capita)
The table summarizes the 2006 residential and non-residential building permit values in each area municipality. To put these values into context, the building permit value per capita is also summarized to get an appreciation of the relative building activity in each municipality. The chart is sorted from highest to lowest based on building permit value per capita for 2006.
% % Non2006 Bldg Residential Residential Const. Value 2006 2006 Per Capita 98% 2% $ 9,474 67% 33% $ 5,941 73% 27% $ 5,703 76% 24% $ 5,622 75% 25% $ 5,469 65% 35% $ 5,039 67% 33% $ 4,011 71% 29% $ 3,984 34% 66% $ 3,905 79% 21% $ 3,546 71% 29% $ 3,395 63% 37% $ 3,048 64% 36% $ 3,018 54% 46% $ 3,014 67% 33% $ 2,977 72% 28% $ 2,975 64% 36% $ 2,944 65% 35% $ 2,893 23% 77% $ 2,674 56% 44% $ 2,658 41% 59% $ 2,601 44% 56% $ 2,525 41% 59% $ 2,461 20% 80% $ 2,382 41% 59% $ 2,329 84% 16% $ 2,296 64% 36% $ 2,242 62% 38% $ 2,193 72% 28% $ 2,082 82% 18% $ 2,075 41% 59% $ 2,063 61% 39% $ 2,026 74% 26% $ 2,024 75% 25% $ 2,023 52% 48% $ 2,022 20% 80% $ 1,975 82% 18% $ 1,922 61% 39% $ 1,877 61% 39% $ 1,844 32% 68% $ 1,793 87% 13% $ 1,731 53% 47% $ 1,728 34% 66% $ 1,712
% % Non2006 Bldg Residential Residential Const. Value 2006 2006 Per Capita 79% 21% $ 1,656 37% 63% $ 1,612 56% 44% $ 1,599 55% 45% $ 1,590 46% 54% $ 1,577 53% 47% $ 1,575 56% 44% $ 1,562 30% 70% $ 1,558 51% 49% $ 1,545 72% 28% $ 1,469 60% 40% $ 1,353 60% 40% $ 1,331 86% 14% $ 1,292 65% 35% $ 1,227 35% 65% $ 1,222 57% 43% $ 1,211 91% 9% $ 1,199 55% 45% $ 1,182 81% 19% $ 1,157 57% 43% $ 1,133 83% 17% $ 1,131 99% 1% $ 1,120 47% 53% $ 1,063 100% 0% $ 978 23% 77% $ 935 48% 52% $ 931 63% 37% $ 908 59% 41% $ 900 47% 53% $ 865 62% 38% $ 854 40% 60% $ 843 36% 64% $ 825 67% 33% $ 766 56% 44% $ 720 39% 61% $ 689 45% 55% $ 632 59% 61% 100% 20% 41% 39% 80% 0% $ $ $ $ 2,183 1,793 9,474 632

Municipality Whitchurch-Stouffville Niagara-on-the-Lake Ajax Wasaga Beach Vaughan Milton Wilmot Wellesley Woodstock Oakville Brampton Markham Clarington Pelham Woolwich Gravenhurst Barrie Huntsville Kingston Whitby Parry Sound Guelph North Dumfries Toronto Brockville Cobourg Halton Hills London Middlesex Centre Amherstburg Cambridge Burlington Richmond Hill Oshawa Ottawa Thorold St. Thomas Lincoln Kitchener Belleville East Gwillimbury Grimsby Caledon

Municipality West Lincoln Leamington North Bay King Brantford Mississauga Norfolk Windsor Owen Sound Sudbury Hamilton Tillsonburg Fort Erie Waterloo Orangeville Newmarket Central Elgin Niagara Falls Kawartha Lakes Stratford Wainfleet Georgina Sarnia Bracebridge Timmins St. Catharines Bradford West Gwillimbury Welland Chatham-Kent Peterborough Aurora Thunder Bay Pickering Port Colborne Cornwall Sault Ste. Marie Average Median Maximum Minimum

Municipal Profile

40

Municipal Study 2007

Building Permit Activity (2 and 3 year) (Grouped by Location)
The table has been sorted by 2006 building construction value per capita by location. Where information was available, 2 and 3 year averages have been included. The low, medium and high is a ranking for the entire database. This provides an indication within each geographic area the relative rankings across the entire survey.

Municipality Kingston Brockville Cobourg Ottawa Belleville Kawartha Lakes Peterborough Cornwall Whitchurch-Stouffville Ajax Vaughan Milton Oakville Brampton Markham Clarington Whitby Toronto Halton Hills Burlington Richmond Hill Oshawa East Gwillimbury Caledon King Mississauga Newmarket Georgina Aurora Pickering Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Thorold Lincoln Grimsby West Lincoln Hamilton Fort Erie Niagara Falls Wainfleet St. Catharines Welland Port Colborne

2004 Building Construction Value ($000) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 178,579 30,649 27,253 1,698,885 59,510 98,552 86,118 41,967 70,984 244,358 890,930 375,738 544,275 2,730,395 613,881 213,849 302,780 5,897,819 148,639 369,721 533,919 263,733 53,781 153,143 37,012 1,385,657 141,445 51,308 194,255 163,583 62,781 32,711 19,865 N/A N/A N/A 595,165 39,397 171,804 9,470 141,985 29,848 10,009

2005 Building Construction Value ($000) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 152,675 44,941 34,322 1,830,757 67,642 94,097 115,923 31,685 180,021 432,500 837,014 453,156 519,488 1,235,360 949,290 203,220 385,056 4,855,522 182,696 538,155 652,016 343,633 25,552 88,761 41,638 1,104,789 178,277 82,801 55,400 77,285 66,800 20,699 27,489 26,508 29,873 28,271 640,879 57,146 167,201 6,091 105,148 47,682 11,468

2006 Building Construction Value ($000) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 313,419 51,142 41,814 1,641,917 87,517 86,289 63,959 31,684 231,078 514,185 1,306,355 322,470 587,327 1,472,727 797,274 234,864 295,581 5,962,599 123,932 333,046 329,362 286,427 36,465 97,690 30,976 1,052,760 89,991 47,413 40,133 67,271 86,666 48,698 35,995 40,776 41,358 21,800 682,548 38,670 97,181 7,464 122,822 45,301 13,390

2006 Bldg Const. Value Per Capita $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,674 2,329 2,296 2,022 1,793 1,157 854 689 9,474 5,703 5,469 5,039 3,546 3,395 3,048 3,018 2,658 2,382 2,242 2,026 2,024 2,023 1,731 1,712 1,590 1,575 1,211 1,120 843 766 5,941 3,014 1,975 1,877 1,728 1,656 1,353 1,292 1,182 1,131 931 900 720

Ranking 2006 high high high mid mid low low low high high high high high high high high high high mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid low low low low high high mid mid mid mid low low low low low low low

Location 2006 Average

Bldg Const. Bldg Const. Value Per Value Per Capita Capita 2005-2006 2004-2006 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,968 2,188 2,059 2,110 1,589 1,210 1,188 682 8,263 5,369 4,408 6,360 3,268 3,190 3,363 2,752 3,168 2,122 2,691 2,527 2,892 2,162 1,430 1,520 1,833 1,539 1,741 1,457 998 775 5,202 2,125 1,713 1,512 1,492 1,879 1,293 1,593 1,589 1,027 860 923 658 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,802 1,924 1,859 2,090 1,470 1,249 1,171 750 6,449 4,554 4,196 6,877 3,267 4,428 3,037 2,732 3,110 2,170 2,683 2,404 3,002 2,034 1,747 1,820 1,836 1,675 1,774 1,349 2,045 1,081 4,883 2,077 1,493 N/A N/A N/A 1,244 1,502 1,749 1,170 929 813 613

Eastern $ 1,727

$

GTA 2,845

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Niag/Ham $ 1,823

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

Municipal Profile

41

Municipal Study 2007

Building Permit Activity (2 and 3 year) (Grouped by Location cont’d)
2004 Building Construction Value ($000) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 71,088 185,093 38,129 103,618 45,806 63,330 N/A 390,928 N/A N/A 45,099 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 295,727 N/A 647,283 30,931 N/A 214,273 91,112 433,623 71,594 122,160 59,011 336,236 N/A N/A 173,535 N/A 28,594 49,674 120,084 2005 Building Construction Value ($000) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 59,461 202,157 31,529 110,184 75,111 55,862 43,367 487,988 57,091 N/A 42,473 15,648 N/A 73,722 31,238 N/A 65,690 351,651 N/A 621,801 45,119 27,579 227,837 65,166 411,007 67,717 211,828 84,437 327,326 N/A N/A 199,460 17,890 47,846 58,030 114,603 2006 Building Construction Value ($000) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 86,276 231,908 40,204 90,054 47,388 84,492 32,864 378,041 52,892 15,134 32,910 15,305 21,823 68,570 38,999 138,539 58,526 290,233 22,301 772,698 32,450 45,118 248,365 69,405 377,350 46,475 142,227 97,704 337,196 33,600 19,724 119,623 15,261 34,512 75,932 93,529 2006 Bldg Const. Value Per Capita $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,599 1,469 935 825 632 5,622 2,975 2,944 2,893 2,601 1,222 978 908 4,011 3,984 3,905 2,977 2,525 2,461 2,193 2,082 2,075 2,063 1,922 1,844 1,612 1,577 1,562 1,558 1,545 1,331 1,227 1,199 1,133 1,063 865 Bldg Const. Bldg Const. Value Per Value Per Capita Capita 2004-2006 $ 1,340 $ 1,292 $ 849 $ 914 $ 744 $ $ 4,327 N/A 3,279 N/A N/A 1,429 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,697 N/A 1,913 2,320 N/A 1,901 2,076 1,978 2,129 1,735 1,271 1,517 N/A N/A 1,696 N/A 1,191 842 896

Municipality North Bay Sudbury Timmins Thunder Bay Sault Ste. Marie Wasaga Beach Gravenhurst Barrie Huntsville Parry Sound Orangeville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Wilmot Wellesley Woodstock Woolwich Guelph North Dumfries London Middlesex Centre Amherstburg Cambridge St. Thomas Kitchener Leamington Brantford Norfolk Windsor Owen Sound Tillsonburg Waterloo Central Elgin Stratford Sarnia Chatham-Kent

Ranking 2006 mid low low low low high high high high high low low low high high high high high high mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid low low low low low low

Location 2006 Average

$

2005-2006 $ 1,352 $ 1,363 $ 833 North $ 908 1,092 $ 813 $ $ $ $ 4,481 3,302 3,350 2,946 N/A 1,345 2,394 N/A 4,253 3,498 N/A 3,155 2,760 N/A 1,961 2,488 1,673 1,960 1,846 1,908 1,963 1,935 1,442 1,516 N/A N/A 1,634 1,392 1,331 926 959

$

$ Sim/Mus/Duff $ $ 2,518 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ Southwest $ $ 2,031 $

$ $ $ $

Municipal Profile

42

Municipal Study 2007

Municipal Financial Indicators

Municipal Financial Indicators

43

Municipal Study 2007

Municipal Financial Indicators

The Municipal Financial Indicators section of the report includes the following information to assist municipalities in understanding the financial aspects of each municipality included in the study.

• • • •

Net Municipal Levy (2007 Levy Bylaw ) Per Capita and sorted by Location Net Municipal Levy (Upper Tier, Lower Tier and Single Tier Splits) (NEW) Net Municipal Levy Per $100,000 of Assessment and sorted by Location Reserves (2006 FIR ) as a % of Total Expenditures
• • •

Reserves as a % of Total Expenditures (Excluding Water/Sewer) Water Reserves as a % of Water Expenditures Sanitary Sewer Reserves as a % of Sanitary Sewer Expenditures

• •

Reserves (Excluding Water/Sewer) as a % of Taxation and sorted by Location Debt Charges (2006 FIR ) as a % of Total Expenditures
• • •

Debt as a % of Total Expenditures (Excluding Water/Sewer) Water Debt as a % of Water Expenditures Sanitary Sewer Debt as a % of Sanitary Sewer Expenditures

• •

Debt Charges as a % of Taxation Outstanding Debt to Reserve Ratio
• •

Water Debt to Water Reserve Ratio (NEW) Sewer Debt to Sewer Reserve Ratio (NEW)

• •

Debt and Reserves Per Capita Debt Outstanding and Unfinanced Capital (2006 FIR ) Per Unweighted Assessment (NEW) Financial Position (2006 FIR ) (NEW) Taxes Receivable (2006 FIR ) as a % of Tax Levies and sorted by Location

• •

Municipal Financial Indicators

44

Municipal Study 2007

A concern in conducting municipal financial analysis is the lack of normative standards for the financial characteristics such as size, geography, demographics, revenue structure and responsibility or authority to provide services. Another concern is that financial statements do not show, on an annual basis, all costs that are being postponed to the future. They do not show erosion of streets, buildings or other fixed assets. Nor do they relate to economic and demographic change and changes in revenue and expenditure rates. Evaluating a municipality’s financial condition is a complex process that involves sorting through a number of factors. The factors include:
• • • • • •

the state of the economy service levels and standards of the municipality population level composition of the community local business climate internal finances of the municipality

Many of these are difficult to isolate and quantify. Relationships between the factors add to the complexity. Some are more important than others, but often cannot be determined until all the factors have been assembled. The information contained in this section of the report is intended as a management tool that pulls together information from each participating municipality’s budget and financial reports. This, combined with various economic and demographic data also included in other sections of this report helps to facilitate analysis and measurement by sharing information between municipalities. When the information is plotted over time, it can be used to monitor changes in financial condition and alert the municipality to future problems. We are committed to refining and developing additional data to have more efficient and effective benchmarking tools for municipalities. The data contained in this report cannot be viewed in isolation. It is critical that when comparing each municipality’s results that a more in depth analysis be conducted to gain a better understanding of the factors affecting each measure for each municipality.

Municipal Financial Indicators

45

Municipal Study 2007

Analysis of Net Municipal Levy Per Capita
In order to better understand the relative tax position for a municipality, another measure that has been included in the study is a comparison of net municipal levies on a per capita basis. This measure indicates the total net municipal levy to provide services to the municipality. This analysis does not indicate value for money or the effectiveness in meeting community objectives. Net municipal expenditures per capita may vary as a result of: • Different service levels • Variations in the types of services • Different methods of providing services • Different residential/non-residential assessment composition • Varying demand for services • Locational factors • Demographic differences • Socio-economic differences • Urban/rural composition differences • User fee policies • Age of infrastructure • What is being collected from rates as opposed to property taxes As such, this analysis is not an “apples to apples” comparison of services, but rather has been included to provide insight into the net cost of providing municipal services within each municipality. Further analysis would be required to determine the cause of the differences across each spending envelope and within each municipality. This analysis was completed using the most current information available - net municipal levies as per the 2007 municipal levy by-laws and the 2006 Stats Canada populations. Changes in per capita expenditures reflect changes in expenditures relative to changes in population. Increasing per capita expenditures may indicate that the cost of providing services is outstripping the community’s ability to pay, especially if spending is increasing faster than the resident’s collective personal income. Examining levy per capita shows changes in levies relative to changes in population size. As population increases, it might be expected that revenues and the need for services would increase proportionately, and therefore, that the level of per capita revenues would remain at least constant in real terms. However, this is not always the case as the cost of providing services is not directly related to population. If per capita revenues are decreasing, the municipality may be unable to maintain existing service levels unless it finds new revenue sources or ways to reduce costs.

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Profile

46

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Net Municipal Levy Per Capita

Net levy on a per capita basis ranged across the municipalities from $744 to $1,696 (with an average of $1,121 per capita). A review of the net levy per capita, the assessment per capita ranking and the density of the municipality ranking is shown to help understand some of the factors impacting relative taxes, which will be compared later in the report. There appears to be a certain degree of relationship between levy per capita and density ranking, particularly at the lower range of levy per capita comparisons. As well, 77% of the municipalities with low ranking for levy per capita had a population of 100,000 or less. Municipalities such as Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Port Colborne, Belleville, Woodstock and Windsor with high net levies and relatively low assessment bases to support the programs face additional challenges in terms of affordability and relative taxes. As shown previously in the report, these municipalities generally have older housing stock with a greater percentage of dwellings in need of major repair. Other influences on relative taxes include education tax differentials in the Commercial and Industrial classes as well as the tax ratios used in each municipality as will be profiled in the next section of the report. A detailed review of the service envelopes, revenues and socio-demographics of the municipality is required to understand the factors causing these differences. Some of the driving factors include social service costs, significant differentials in terms of service levels and the extent of user fees.

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

47

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per Capita
2007 Total Net Levy (Upper and Lower Tiers) $ 17,886,392 $ 7,866,375 $ 52,627,905 $ 11,356,558 $ 54,759,761 $ 19,245,736 $ 13,809,769 $ 26,098,039 $ 68,505,117 $ 15,835,589 $ 51,315,802 $ 5,493,806 $ 34,900,000 $ 423,311,499 $ 56,435,007 $ 19,571,738 $ 108,294,027 $ 74,932,949 $ 208,583,397 $ 682,911,946 $ 24,561,309 $ 43,987,625 $ 52,291,439 $ 164,358,541 $ 78,177,833 $ 134,057,417 $ 28,630,765 $ 19,402,047 $ 83,057,388 $ 49,190,838 $ 280,214,041 $ 22,678,758 $ 81,379,006 $ 23,704,896 $ 181,328,129 $ 24,598,069 $ 80,062,779 $ 16,855,728 $ 60,702,638 $ 48,466,824 $ 20,616,848 $ 16,718,797 $ 34,414,128 $ 17,691,342 $ 137,137,960 2007 Levy per Capita (2006 Population) $ 744 $ 804 $ 822 $ 863 $ 875 $ 885 $ 886 $ 905 $ 919 $ 926 $ 928 $ 944 $ 966 $ 976 $ 989 $ 996 $ 1,001 $ 1,009 $ 1,019 $ 1,021 $ 1,026 $ 1,039 $ 1,039 $ 1,041 $ 1,043 $ 1,044 $ 1,063 $ 1,065 $ 1,067 $ 1,070 $ 1,071 $ 1,076 $ 1,087 $ 1,091 $ 1,114 $ 1,120 $ 1,121 $ 1,122 $ 1,125 $ 1,127 $ 1,128 $ 1,128 $ 1,130 $ 1,130 $ 1,139 2007 Net Assessment Levy Per per Capita Capita Ranking low mid low mid low high low low low mid low mid low high low low low high low high low high low mid low low low mid low high low high low low low high low low low high low mid low mid low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid low mid mid mid low mid high mid high mid low mid mid mid high mid low mid low mid high mid low mid low mid high mid low mid mid mid high mid mid

Municipal Levies Bradford West Gwillimbury Wellesley Milton West Lincoln Norfolk Amherstburg Middlesex Centre Leamington Kawartha Lakes Wilmot Halton Hills Parry Sound St. Thomas Brampton Caledon Woolwich Chatham-Kent Newmarket Kitchener Mississauga Grimsby Georgina Welland Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie Barrie Orangeville Thorold Clarington Cornwall Markham East Gwillimbury Peterborough Lincoln Richmond Hill Brockville Sarnia Wasaga Beach North Bay Timmins Huntsville Tillsonburg Stratford Bracebridge Cambridge

Density Ranking low low mid low low low low low low low mid mid high high low low low high high high mid mid mid low mid high high mid low mid high low high mid high high mid mid mid low low mid high low high

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

48

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per Capita (cont’d)
2007 Levy per Capita (2006 Population) $ 1,143 $ 1,145 $ 1,149 $ 1,153 $ 1,155 $ 1,156 $ 1,161 $ 1,161 $ 1,164 $ 1,168 $ 1,175 $ 1,181 $ 1,191 $ 1,192 $ 1,212 $ 1,212 $ 1,216 $ 1,216 $ 1,221 $ 1,255 $ 1,270 $ 1,288 $ 1,305 $ 1,312 $ 1,313 $ 1,319 $ 1,331 $ 1,331 $ 1,333 $ 1,387 $ 1,424 $ 1,438 $ 1,511 $ 1,696 $ $ $ $ 1,121 744 1,696 1,127

Municipal Levies London Owen Sound Central Elgin Aurora Brantford North Dumfries Burlington St. Catharines Guelph Wainfleet Pelham Ajax Fort Erie Hamilton Ottawa Port Colborne Thunder Bay Woodstock Whitby Belleville Waterloo Toronto Oakville Vaughan Pickering Whitchurch-Stouffville Cobourg Kingston Oshawa Niagara Falls Windsor King Gravenhurst Niagara-on-the-Lake Average Minimum Maximum Median

2007 Total Net Levy (Upper and Lower Tiers) $ 402,755,873 $ 24,900,684 $ 14,623,685 $ 54,911,471 $ 104,210,474 $ 10,477,553 $ 190,821,740 $ 153,213,423 $ 133,810,329 $ 7,710,914 $ 18,988,119 $ 106,479,975 $ 35,635,902 $ 601,619,490 $ 984,034,207 $ 22,537,698 $ 132,696,000 $ 43,146,976 $ 135,800,622 $ 61,261,990 $ 123,806,737 $ 3,224,567,184 $ 216,124,444 $ 313,377,906 $ 115,327,714 $ 32,164,315 $ 24,229,947 $ 155,984,820 $ 188,684,682 $ 113,953,733 $ 308,321,981 $ 28,027,935 $ 16,688,399 $ 24,742,030

2007 Net Assessment Levy Per per Capita Capita Ranking mid low mid low mid mid mid high mid low mid high mid high mid low high mid high mid high mid high mid high mid high low high high high low high low high low high mid high low high mid high high high high high high high high high high high mid high mid high mid high mid high low high high high high high high

Density Ranking high high low high high low high high high low low high mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high mid low mid mid high mid high low low low

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

49

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per Capita (by Location)
2007 Levy per Capita (2006 Population) $ 919 $ 1,070 $ 1,087 $ 1,120 $ 1,212 $ 1,255 $ 1,331 $ 1,331 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 822 928 976 989 1,009 1,021 1,039 1,067 1,071 1,076 1,114 1,153 1,161 1,181 1,221 1,288 1,305 1,312 1,313 1,319 1,333 1,438 863 1,026 1,039 1,065 1,091 1,161 1,168 1,175 1,191 1,192 1,212 1,387 1,696 2007 Net Assessment Levy Per per Capita Capita Ranking low high mid low mid low mid low high high high low high mid high mid low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high low low low mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high mid high high high mid mid high high high high high mid mid high high high high high mid high low mid low low mid low mid mid mid low low mid high

Municipal Levies Kawartha Lakes Cornwall Peterborough Brockville Ottawa Belleville Cobourg Kingston Milton Halton Hills Brampton Caledon Newmarket Mississauga Georgina Clarington Markham East Gwillimbury Richmond Hill Aurora Burlington Ajax Whitby Toronto Oakville Vaughan Pickering Whitchurch-Stouffville Oshawa King West Lincoln Grimsby Welland Thorold Lincoln St. Catharines Wainfleet Pelham Fort Erie Hamilton Port Colborne Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake

Density Ranking low mid high high mid mid mid mid mid mid high low high high mid low high low high high high high mid high high high mid low high low low mid mid mid mid high low low mid mid mid mid low

Location Group Average

Eastern $ 1,165

GTA $ 1,143

Niagara/Hamilton $ 1,174

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

50

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per Capita (by Location—cont’d)
2007 Levy per Capita (2006 Population) $ 1,041 $ 1,043 $ 1,125 $ 1,127 $ 1,216 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 744 944 1,044 1,063 1,122 1,128 1,130 1,511 804 875 885 886 905 926 966 996 1,001 1,019 1,121 1,128 1,130 1,139 1,143 1,145 1,149 1,155 1,156 1,164 1,216 1,270 1,424

Municipal Levies Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Timmins Thunder Bay Bradford West Gwillimbury Parry Sound Barrie Orangeville Wasaga Beach Huntsville Bracebridge Gravenhurst Wellesley Norfolk Amherstburg Middlesex Centre Leamington Wilmot St. Thomas Woolwich Chatham-Kent Kitchener Sarnia Tillsonburg Stratford Cambridge London Owen Sound Central Elgin Brantford North Dumfries Guelph Woodstock Waterloo Windsor

2007 Net Assessment Levy Per per Capita Capita Ranking low low low low mid low mid low high low low low low mid mid mid mid high low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high mid mid mid mid high high high high mid mid mid high low high low high low low low low mid mid low low mid low high mid low mid low

Density Ranking low mid mid low mid low mid high high mid low low low low low low low low low high low low high mid mid high high high high low high low high mid high high

Location Group Average

North $ 1,110

Simcoe/Musk./Duff. $ 1,086

$

Southwest 1,070

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

51

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per Capita (Upper, Lower Tier by Tax Location)
This table reflects the upper and lower tier (or single tier) per capita levy by location. This has been broken down in more detail to provide comparisons, particularly in a two tier environment to assist in identifying the major drivers in the tax burden. It should be noted that comparisons between different geographic locations should be undertaken with caution as the services provided at the upper and lower tier differ from Region to Region. For example, transit and waste management are provided at the upper tier in some municipalities and at the lower tier in others.

Municipal Levies Orangeville Clarington Ajax Whitby Pickering Oshawa Amherstburg Leamington Central Elgin Owen Sound Milton Halton Hills Burlington Oakville Sarnia Middlesex Centre Huntsville Bracebridge Gravenhurst West Lincoln Grimsby Welland Thorold Lincoln St. Catharines Wainfleet Pelham Fort Erie Port Colborne Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake

Dufferin Durham Durham Durham Durham Durham Elgin Elgin Elgin Grey Halton Halton Halton Halton Lambton Middlesex Muskoka Muskoka Muskoka Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara Niagara

2007 Net 2007 Net 2007 Total Levy Lower Levy Upper Levy Per Tier Tier Capita $ 672 $ 392 $ 1,063 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 384 402 448 433 650 328 627 686 820 287 402 552 576 702 473 452 501 607 311 299 509 405 392 496 501 462 468 581 599 396 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 683 779 773 880 682 557 279 463 325 535 526 609 729 419 413 676 629 904 551 727 530 659 699 664 667 713 723 631 788 1,300 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,067 1,181 1,221 1,313 1,333 885 905 1,149 1,145 822 928 1,161 1,305 1,121 886 1,128 1,130 1,511 863 1,026 1,039 1,065 1,091 1,161 1,168 1,175 1,191 1,212 1,387 1,696

2007 Net Levy Per Capita mid mid high high high high low low mid mid low low mid high mid low mid mid high low low low mid mid mid high high high high high high

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

52

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per Capita (Upper, Lower Tier by Tax Location) - cont’d

Municipal Levies North Bay Cobourg Tillsonburg Woodstock Brampton Caledon Mississauga

Nipissing Northumberland Oxford Oxford Peel Peel Peel

2007 Net 2007 Net 2007 Total Levy Lower Levy Upper Levy Per Tier Tier Capita $ 1,125 $ 1,125 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 862 692 820 466 425 382 472 715 875 919 944 966 1,001 1,041 1,043 1,044 1,087 1,120 1,127 1,130 1,143 1,155 1,164 1,192 1,212 1,216 1,255 1,288 1,331 1,424 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 468 436 396 509 564 639 272 406 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,331 1,128 1,216 976 989 1,021 744 1,122 875 919 944 966 1,001 1,041 1,043 1,044 1,087 1,120 1,127 1,130 1,143 1,155 1,164 1,192 1,212 1,216 1,255 1,288 1,331 1,424

2007 Net Levy Per Capita mid high mid high low low low low mid low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high

Bradford West Gwillimbury Simcoe Wasaga Beach Simcoe Norfolk Kawartha Lakes Parry Sound St. Thomas Chatham-Kent Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie Barrie Peterborough Brockville Timmins Stratford London Brantford Guelph Hamilton Ottawa Thunder Bay Belleville Toronto Kingston Windsor Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Single Tier Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry

Cornwall

$

1,070

$

1,070

mid

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

53

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per Capita (Upper, Lower Tier by Tax Location) - cont’d

Municipal Levies Cornwall Wellesley Wilmot Woolwich Kitchener Cambridge North Dumfries Waterloo Newmarket Georgina Markham East Gwillimbury Richmond Hill Aurora Vaughan Whitchurch-Stouffville King Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo Waterloo York York York York York York York York York

2007 Net 2007 Net 2007 Total Levy Lower Levy Upper Levy Per Tier Tier Capita $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,070 281 296 270 403 457 274 486 429 561 369 444 387 486 448 466 601 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 522 630 726 617 683 882 784 580 478 703 633 728 667 864 853 838 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,070 804 926 996 1,019 1,139 1,156 1,270 1,009 1,039 1,071 1,076 1,114 1,153 1,312 1,319 1,438

2007 Net Levy Per Capita mid low low low low mid mid high low low mid mid mid mid high high high

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

54

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Net Municipal Levy Per $100,000 Assessment (Unweighted)
Net levy on a per $100,000 of assessment ranged across the municipalities from $685 to $2,426 (with an average of $1,270). There is a strong relationship between the assessment per capita and net levy per $100,000 of assessment such that for the most part, municipalities with high assessment bases have low net levy per $100,000 of assessment
2007 Net Levy 2007 Net Levy Per Assessment Per $100,000 $100,000 per Capita Municipal Levies Assessment Assessment Ranking Caledon $ 685 low high low high Middlesex Centre $ 695 Milton $ 709 low high low mid Bradford West Gwillimbury $ 740 Whitchurch-Stouffville $ 763 low high low high Wasaga Beach $ 769 Richmond Hill $ 775 low high Gravenhurst $ 776 low high low high Markham $ 782 Vaughan $ 794 low high low high King $ 795 Halton Hills $ 798 low high low high Huntsville $ 824 East Gwillimbury $ 826 low high low high Oakville $ 827 Mississauga $ 836 low high low mid Wellesley $ 845 Aurora $ 879 low high low high Bracebridge $ 890 Newmarket $ 893 low high Woolwich $ 900 low high low high Kawartha Lakes $ 900 North Dumfries $ 903 low high low high Wilmot $ 906 Burlington $ 925 low high low mid Brampton $ 994 Niagara-on-the-Lake $ 1,006 low high mid high Toronto $ 1,017 Norfolk $ 1,044 mid mid mid mid Amherstburg $ 1,051 Georgina $ 1,073 mid mid mid low West Lincoln $ 1,116 Grimsby $ 1,123 mid mid Ottawa $ 1,133 mid high mid mid Parry Sound $ 1,150 Pickering $ 1,177 mid high mid mid Barrie $ 1,181 Leamington $ 1,181 mid low mid mid Clarington $ 1,188
Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information 55

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Net Municipal Levy Per $100,000 Assessment (Unweighted) - continued
2007 Net Levy 2007 Net Levy Per Assessment Per $100,000 $100,000 per Capita Assessment Assessment Ranking $ 1,196 mid mid mid mid $ 1,199 $ 1,206 mid mid mid mid $ 1,244 $ 1,247 mid mid mid mid $ 1,253 $ 1,290 mid mid mid mid $ 1,297 $ 1,305 mid mid $ 1,358 mid low mid low $ 1,374 $ 1,398 mid mid mid mid $ 1,399 $ 1,426 mid mid high low $ 1,439 $ 1,468 high low high low $ 1,553 $ 1,555 high low high low $ 1,559 $ 1,573 high low high mid $ 1,632 $ 1,637 high mid high low $ 1,643 high mid $ 1,649 $ 1,666 high mid high low $ 1,676 $ 1,681 high low high low $ 1,698 $ 1,766 high low high low $ 1,784 $ 1,793 high low high low $ 1,821 $ 1,859 high low high low $ 1,868 $ 1,966 high low high low $ 2,013 $ 2,096 high low $ 2,233 high low high low $ 2,243 $ 2,426 high low $ $ $ $ 1,270 685 2,426 1,196
56

Municipal Levies Ajax Lincoln Whitby Central Elgin Pelham Wainfleet Orangeville Waterloo Guelph Kitchener Chatham-Kent Cambridge Fort Erie Stratford Thorold Peterborough London Hamilton Tillsonburg St. Catharines Cobourg Kingston Sarnia Oshawa Niagara Falls St. Thomas Brockville Brantford Owen Sound Port Colborne Welland Woodstock North Bay Belleville Windsor Sudbury Thunder Bay Sault Ste. Marie Cornwall Timmins Average Minimum Maximum Median

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per $100,000 Assessment (Unweighted) - By Location
2007 Net Levy 2007 Net Levy Per Per $100,000 $100,000 Assessment Assessment $ 900 low mid $ 1,133 $ 1,468 high $ 1,632 high high $ 1,637 high $ 1,681 $ 1,868 high high $ 2,243 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 685 709 763 775 782 794 795 798 826 827 836 879 893 925 994 1,017 1,073 1,177 1,188 1,196 1,206 1,649 1,006 1,116 1,123 1,199 1,247 1,253 1,399 1,439 1,555 1,573 1,666 1,784 1,793 low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high

Municipal Levies Kawartha Lakes Ottawa Peterborough Cobourg Kingston Brockville Belleville Cornwall Caledon Milton Whitchurch-Stouffville Richmond Hill Markham Vaughan King Halton Hills East Gwillimbury Oakville Mississauga Aurora Newmarket Burlington Brampton Toronto Georgina Pickering Clarington Ajax Whitby Oshawa Niagara-on-the-Lake West Lincoln Grimsby Lincoln Pelham Wainfleet Fort Erie Thorold Hamilton St. Catharines Niagara Falls Port Colborne Welland

Population mid high mid low high low mid mid mid mid mid high high high low mid low high high mid mid high high high mid high mid high high high low low low low low low mid low high high mid low mid

Density Ranking low mid high mid mid high mid mid low mid low high high high low mid low high high high high high high high mid mid low high mid high low low mid mid low low mid mid mid high mid mid mid

Location Group Average

Eastern $ 1,570

GTA $ 945

Niagara/Hamilton $ 1,396

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

57

Municipal Study 2007

Net Municipal Levy Per 100,000 Assessment (Unweighted) - By Location Continued

Municipal Levies North Bay Sudbury Thunder Bay Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Bradford West Gwillimbury Wasaga Beach Gravenhurst Huntsville Bracebridge Parry Sound Barrie Orangeville Middlesex Centre Wellesley Woolwich North Dumfries Wilmot Norfolk Amherstburg Leamington Central Elgin Waterloo Guelph Kitchener Chatham-Kent Cambridge Stratford London Tillsonburg Sarnia St. Thomas Brantford Owen Sound Woodstock Windsor

2007 Net Levy 2007 Net Levy Per Per $100,000 $100,000 Assessment Assessment high $ 1,859 high $ 2,013 $ 2,096 high high $ 2,233 $ 2,426 high $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 740 769 776 824 890 1,150 1,181 1,290 695 845 900 903 906 1,044 1,051 1,181 1,244 1,297 1,305 1,358 1,374 1,398 1,426 1,553 1,559 1,643 1,676 1,698 1,766 1,821 1,966 low low low low low mid mid mid low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high

Population mid high high mid mid mid low low low low low high mid low low low low low low mid low high high high high high mid high low mid mid high low mid high

Density Ranking mid low mid mid low low mid low low low mid high high low low low low low low low low low high high high low high high high mid mid high high high mid high

Location Group Average

North $ 2,125

Simcoe/Musk/Duff. $ 952

$

Southwest 1,331

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

58

Municipal Study 2007

Reserves
Reserves are a critical component of a municipality’s long-term financing plan. The purpose for maintaining reserves is to: • Provide stability of tax rates in the face of variable and uncontrollable factors (consumption, interest rates, unemployment rates, changes in subsidies) § Provide financing for one-time or short term requirements without permanently impacting the tax and utility rates § Make provisions for replacements/acquisitions of assets/infrastructure that are currently being consumed and depreciated § Avoid spikes in funding requirements of the capital budget by reducing their reliance on longterm debt borrowings § Provide a source of internal financing § Ensure adequate cash flows § Provide flexibility to manage debt levels and protect the municipality’s financial position § Provide for future liabilities incurred in the current year but paid for in the future

Debt
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regulates the level of debt that may be incurred by municipalities, such that no more than 25% of the total own purpose revenue can be used to service debt and other long term obligations without receiving OMB approval. In addition to confirming that the debt is within the legislated limits, Government Finance Officers’ Association (GFOA) recommends the following analysis be undertaken: Measures of the tax and revenue base, such as • projections of key, relevant economic variables • population trends • utilization trends for services underlying revenues Evaluation of trends relating to the government’s financial performance, such as: • revenues and expenditures • net revenues available after meeting operating requirements • reliability of revenues expected to pay debt service • unreserved fund balance levels Debt service obligations such as: • existing debt service requirements • debt service as a percentage of expenditures, or tax or system revenues Measures of debt burden on the community such as • debt per capita • debt as a percentage of full or equalized assessed property value A number of these indicators have been included in this section of the report

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

59

Municipal Study 2007

Reserves as a % of Total Expenditures
Total Total Reserves Expenditures (Excluding LESS Unfunded Obligatory) Liabilities $ 1,150,799 $ 32,013,914 $ 66,544,569 $ 689,590,310 $ 14,049,029 $ 127,146,527 $ 3,329,499 $ 28,700,664 $ 10,581,786 $ 89,517,081 $ 18,086,456 $ 147,942,365 $ 1,285,901,947 $ 8,536,282,883 $ 44,266,281 $ 282,199,013 $ 16,519,141 $ 92,604,611 $ 47,567,145 $ 259,378,376 $ 43,479,143 $ 235,728,463 $ 90,127,943 $ 486,214,727 $ 414,606,665 $ 2,197,822,477 $ 3,206,272 $ 16,928,686 17,950,018 $ 3,551,044 $ $ 47,288,789 $ 233,422,861 $ 23,900,452 $ 114,450,666 $ 29,721,595 $ 141,900,802 $ 2,647,468 $ 11,566,275 $ 28,988,856 $ 125,154,056 $ 51,271,705 $ 210,966,123 $ 23,489,214 $ 96,598,671 $ 8,546,348 $ 35,083,481 15,175,859 $ 3,873,416 $ $ 71,818,332 $ 269,902,981 $ 6,187,391 $ 23,063,241 $ 3,876,331 $ 14,171,782 $ 42,293,060 $ 151,548,848 $ 29,611,645 $ 105,454,678 $ 4,171,377 $ 14,744,335 $ 228,033,322 $ 793,819,006 $ 19,906,243 $ 68,450,658 $ 59,637,728 $ 204,220,551 25,828,486 $ 7,914,461 $ $ 378,671,645 $ 1,224,678,057 $ 47,200,653 $ 151,434,672 $ 10,362,155 $ 33,081,863 82,772,600 $ 26,773,500 $ $ 14,223,227 $ 43,375,866 $ 49,414,076 $ 147,389,035 $ 6,337,447 $ 18,673,872 59,019,442 $ 20,148,226 $ 12,888,811 $ 4,442,678 $ $ 118,900,008 $ 334,536,806 $ 22,651,345 $ 59,286,587 2002 Reserves 2003 Reserves 2004 Reserves 2005 Reserves 2006 Reserves as % Total as % Total as % Total as % Total as % Total Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures 25.1% 5.6% 7.4% 10.6% 3.6% N/A 16.8% 14.4% 10.5% 9.6% N/A 7.5% 7.8% 8.9% 11.0% N/A 16.4% N/A 8.9% 11.6% N/A 6.7% 8.2% 10.3% 11.8% 5.9% 7.6% 7.9% 11.9% 12.2% 14.0% 14.9% 15.0% 15.3% 15.1% 17.0% 19.3% 14.3% 18.2% 15.7% N/A 15.7% 15.6% 16.1% 17.8% 13.7% 12.2% 13.4% 15.0% 18.3% N/A 17.9% 17.7% 15.9% 18.4% 14.8% 15.0% 15.0% 16.3% 18.5% 14.8% 13.1% 14.5% 21.5% 18.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A 18.9% 26.5% 25.2% 22.0% 19.6% 19.8% 18.7% 17.9% 17.4% 20.0% 20.3% 14.6% 18.1% 17.0% 17.0% 20.9% N/A 11.1% 14.8% 18.2% 20.9% 26.0% 23.2% 17.9% 14.2% 22.9% 16.4% 23.1% 17.3% 18.5% 23.2% N/A 23.7% 23.1% 23.9% 24.3% N/A 24.3% 27.7% 25.2% 24.3% 28.8% 34.1% 36.4% 29.4% 24.4% N/A N/A N/A 30.3% 25.5% 21.9% 21.7% 19.6% 21.6% 26.6% N/A N/A N/A 26.1% 26.8% N/A N/A N/A 29.6% 27.4% 41.6% 33.9% 33.3% 29.5% 27.9% N/A 10.9% 28.4% 28.6% 28.1% 42.3% 35.2% 26.1% 27.4% 28.3% 28.0% 27.5% 27.0% 26.2% 28.7% N/A 19.9% 26.4% 43.5% 29.1% 37.2% 37.1% 26.8% 26.7% 29.2% 18.7% 19.8% 22.4% 24.8% 30.6% 32.0% 31.5% 32.8% 30.9% 30.9% 30.1% 30.7% 29.7% 29.5% 31.2% 37.4% 32.2% 28.9% 27.8% 31.3% 20.4% 27.3% 27.3% 29.4% 32.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A 32.8% 38.0% 30.0% 33.5% 31.5% 33.5% 45.9% 37.2% 28.4% 29.5% 33.9% 35.2% 32.6% 32.4% 31.9% 34.1% N/A N/A N/A 74.1% 34.5% N/A 28.7% 29.6% 29.6% 35.5% N/A 27.5% 31.5% 32.4% 38.2%

Municipality Orangeville Windsor Timmins Cobourg St. Thomas North Bay Toronto Kitchener Sarnia Chatham-Kent Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Ottawa Tillsonburg Port Colborne Brantford Oshawa Kawartha Lakes Pelham Niagara Falls Peterborough Belleville Halton Hills Huntsville Guelph Amherstburg Central Elgin Cornwall Waterloo East Gwillimbury London Newmarket Barrie Fort Erie Hamilton Oakville Georgina Stratford Brockville Burlington Niagara-on-the-Lake Pickering Bracebridge Thunder Bay Ajax

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

60

Municipal Study 2007

Reserves as a % of Total Expenditures (cont’d)
Total Total Reserves Expenditures (Excluding LESS Unfunded Obligatory) Liabilities $ 113,311,376 $ 291,987,117 $ 19,631,836 $ 50,440,799 $ 10,735,393 $ 24,831,379 $ 22,702,551 $ 50,385,379 $ 11,111,489 $ 24,535,195 $ 8,463,486 $ 17,420,345 12,958,947 $ 6,348,438 $ 43,323,715 $ 22,384,272 $ 42,453,614 $ 22,038,042 $ $ 55,463,239 $ 105,246,310 $ 40,510,863 $ 76,325,192 $ 105,177,658 $ 196,290,792 $ 76,273,529 $ 132,147,448 $ 12,796,419 $ 21,710,553 $ 10,073,844 $ 15,531,887 $ 9,684,820 $ 13,973,868 10,414,090 $ 7,336,971 $ 49,508,196 $ 35,198,850 $ 35,700,032 $ 25,946,600 $ $ 20,618,594 $ 26,811,593 $ 257,055,049 $ 317,444,144 $ 4,403,334 $ 5,244,917 $ 198,323,024 $ 227,900,448 $ 18,244,250 $ 19,550,526 $ 9,335,913 $ 9,770,011 $ 44,704,056 $ 46,333,541 49,669,426 $ 52,222,145 $ $ 582,227,296 $ 446,120,480 $ 28,032,256 $ 20,677,138

Municipality Kingston Woodstock Parry Sound Milton Wasaga Beach King Middlesex Centre Leamington Welland Cambridge Whitby Markham St. Catharines Whitchurch-Stouffville Lincoln Woolwich Wilmot Caledon Owen Sound Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Wellesley Vaughan Grimsby Gravenhurst Aurora Clarington Mississauga Thorold Average Median

2002 Reserves 2003 Reserves 2004 Reserves 2005 Reserves 2006 Reserves as % Total as % Total as % Total as % Total as % Total Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures 28.8% 33.9% 33.5% 34.3% 38.8% N/A N/A N/A N/A 38.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A 43.2% 49.6% 54.8% 56.9% 53.1% 45.1% 77.3% 64.9% 54.1% 39.5% 45.3% 62.2% 63.3% 64.8% 60.8% 48.6% N/A N/A N/A N/A 49.0% N/A 44.1% 47.0% 36.8% 51.7% 70.3% 68.8% 59.5% 61.3% 51.9% 27.9% 25.3% 21.5% 45.5% 52.7% 34.3% 38.3% 41.2% 45.9% 53.1% 50.9% 53.7% 48.9% 53.6% 31.7% 31.3% 28.5% 58.3% 57.7% 82.3% 50.2% 51.1% 55.0% 58.9% 61.3% 56.5% 53.8% 62.6% 64.9% N/A N/A N/A 57.6% 69.3% N/A N/A N/A 70.1% 70.5% N/A 15.8% 44.7% 36.5% 71.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A 72.7% N/A N/A N/A N/A 76.9% 148.2% 120.8% 103.2% 78.0% 81.0% N/A N/A N/A 71.2% 84.0% 53.3% 56.8% 51.9% 79.7% 87.0% 77.6% 70.8% N/A 85.5% 93.3% N/A N/A N/A 71.3% 95.6% N/A 19.6% N/A 105.8% 96.5% N/A 142.7% 99.1% 111.6% 105.1% 174.4% 155.6% 139.6% 131.5% 130.5% 170.4% 164.0% 140.9% 141.7% 135.6% 43.7% 31.7% 39.4% 27.5% 34.9% 27.7% 42.2% 29.6% 41.9% 31.8%

District Muskoka Region Durham Region Halton Region Niagara Region Peel Region Waterloo Region York Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

27,820,711 358,463,787 328,823,982 230,217,064 1,121,256,936 201,686,709 499,997,324

$ 120,580,106 $ 803,901,651 $ 552,442,765 $ 748,465,022 $ 1,268,669,575 $ 591,082,682 $ 1,165,822,562

N/A N/A 50.1% 23.7% 37.6% N/A 37.1% 37.6%

N/A 55.7% 54.2% 22.7% N/A 35.7% 54.5% 44.6% 54.2%

N/A 50.3% 55.4% 28.3% N/A 32.8% 49.2% 43.2% 49.2%

22.9% 45.8% 40.9% 41.7% N/A 15.9% 84.6% 42.0% 41.3%

23.1% 44.6% 59.5% 30.8% 88.4% 34.1% 42.9% 46.2% 42.9%

Note: Toronto Housing debt has not been consolidated on the City’s 2006 FIR

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

61

Municipal Study 2007

Reserves as a % of Total Expenditures (Excluding Water/Sewer)
Total Discretionary Reserves (Excluding Water and Sewer) $ 876,622 $ 6,469,681 $ 68,820,858 $ 1,983,871 $ 14,049,029 $ 16,558,009 $ 11,166,113 $ 1,113,812,984 $ 3,558,414 $ 70,234,665 $ 34,044,946 $ 42,466,142 $ 1,556,922 $ 24,003,021 $ 3,206,272 $ 12,980,486 $ 44,266,281 $ 42,369,001 $ 398,028,353 $ 47,534,812 $ 2,341,638 $ 23,900,452 $ 149,186,781 $ 3,551,044 $ 8,546,348 $ 3,873,416 $ 7,173,638 $ 47,570,031 $ 81,053,945 $ 46,894,238 $ 21,382,090 $ 40,906,150 $ 327,501,600 $ 27,001,996 $ 3,532,852 $ 5,087,152 $ 47,200,653 $ 83,405,156 $ 6,479,991 $ 49,414,076 $ 20,148,226 $ 4,442,678 $ 8,183,719 $ 17,751,588 $ 29,611,645 $ 22,651,345 Total 2006 Reserves Expenditures as % Total LESS Unfunded Expenditures Liabilities LESS (Excluding Water & sewer Water & Expenditures Sewer) $ 25,449,846 3.4% $ 76,474,794 8.5% $ 623,739,094 11.0% $ 16,671,497 11.9% $ 114,639,786 12.3% $ 131,723,831 12.6% $ 80,041,494 14.0% $ 7,400,415,369 15.1% $ 22,297,904 16.0% $ 439,880,952 16.0% $ 210,085,633 16.2% $ 232,088,670 18.3% $ 8,457,459 18.4% $ 129,490,698 18.5% $ 16,928,686 18.9% $ 68,173,027 19.0% $ 231,707,603 19.1% $ 221,534,567 19.1% $ 2,043,032,587 19.5% $ 238,725,446 19.9% $ 11,700,901 20.0% $ 114,450,666 20.9% $ 711,136,887 21.0% $ 16,109,807 22.0% $ 35,083,481 24.4% $ 15,175,859 25.5% $ 28,101,844 25.5% $ 185,140,244 25.7% $ 307,241,731 26.4% $ 175,207,767 26.8% $ 75,328,405 28.4% $ 139,241,785 29.4% $ 1,096,412,846 29.9% $ 88,639,685 30.5% $ 11,592,123 30.5% $ 16,441,103 30.9% $ 151,434,672 31.2% $ 263,577,485 31.6% $ 20,428,810 31.7% $ 147,389,035 33.5% $ 59,019,442 34.1% $ 12,888,811 34.5% $ 23,572,874 34.7% $ 50,234,316 35.3% $ 80,134,343 37.0% $ 59,286,587 38.2%
Total Discretionary Reserves (Excluding Water and Sewer) $ 14,223,227 $ 19,631,836 $ 5,207,604 $ 22,702,551 $ 9,699,273 $ 4,853,452 $ 8,929,852 $ 40,510,863 $ 6,638,546 $ 20,753,644 $ 66,446,319 $ 12,176,034 $ 97,458,370 $ 52,039,300 $ 5,733,922 $ 6,644,230 $ 35,198,850 $ 3,949,734 $ 257,055,049 $ 24,546,606 $ 17,880,914 $ 9,335,913 $ 52,222,145 $ 178,673,388 $ 40,947,871 $ 13,764,539 $ 582,227,296 $ 22,036,065 Total 2006 Reserves Expenditures as % Total LESS Unfunded Expenditures Liabilities LESS (Excluding Water & sewer Water & Expenditures Sewer) $ 36,634,228 38.8% $ 50,440,799 38.9% $ 12,433,642 41.9% $ 50,385,379 45.1% $ 21,403,086 45.3% $ 10,671,184 45.5% $ 18,281,033 48.8% $ 76,325,192 53.1% $ 12,174,287 54.5% $ 36,133,093 57.4% $ 108,197,306 61.4% $ 18,576,796 65.5% $ 144,386,310 67.5% $ 77,069,057 67.5% $ 8,426,806 68.0% $ 9,516,825 69.8% $ 49,508,196 71.1% $ 5,200,171 76.0% $ 317,444,144 81.0% $ 28,563,088 85.9% $ 20,438,325 87.5% $ 9,770,011 95.6% $ 49,669,426 105.1% $ 169,759,825 105.3% $ 37,228,969 110.0% $ 11,963,112 115.1% $ 446,120,480 130.5% $ 11,536,025 191.0% 43.1% 31.4%

Municipality Orangeville St. Thomas Windsor Amherstburg Timmins North Bay Belleville Toronto Cobourg Sudbury Brantford Chatham-Kent Pelham Kawartha Lakes Tillsonburg Sarnia Kitchener Sault Ste. Marie Ottawa Guelph East Gwillimbury Oshawa London Port Colborne Halton Hills Huntsville Georgina Peterborough Thunder Bay Barrie Stratford Cornwall Hamilton Niagara Falls Central Elgin King Oakville Kingston Fort Erie Burlington Pickering Bracebridge Leamington Newmarket Waterloo Ajax

Municipality Brockville Woodstock Niagara-on-the-Lake Milton Parry Sound Middlesex Centre Wasaga Beach Whitby Lincoln Welland St. Catharines Whitchurch-Stouffville Markham Cambridge Wilmot Woolwich Caledon Wellesley Brampton Owen Sound Bradford West Gwillimbury Gravenhurst Clarington Vaughan Aurora Grimsby Mississauga Thorold Average Median

Region Niagara District Muskoka Region Waterloo Region Durham Region York Region Halton Region Peel Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

137,520,262 25,497,317 152,231,929 280,136,309 455,916,590 266,742,888 819,928,229

$ 662,374,802 $ 103,015,398 $ 540,361,671 $ 659,030,591 $ 979,191,532 $ 430,920,193 $ 1,075,980,278

20.8% 24.8% 28.2% 42.5% 46.6% 61.9% 76.2% 43.0% 42.5%

Note: Toronto Housing debt has not been consolidated on the City’s 2006 FIR

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

62

Municipal Study 2007

Water Reserves as a % of Water Expenditures
2006 Water Reserves as a % of Total Water Expenditures 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 3.0% 4.1% 4.8% 5.2% 5.5% 6.1% 6.5% 10.8% 11.1% 11.9% 13.1% 13.6% 13.7% 15.5% 16.8% 19.2% 21.5% 23.5% 24.8% 25.1% 26.1% 27.7% 32.2% 33.8% 36.8% 39.0% 39.5% 40.4% 40.8% 40.8% 41.9% 45.5% 50.3% 51.2% 51.8% 62.7% 67.6%
2006 Water Reserves as a % of Total Water Expenditures 79.6% 88.4% 100.1% 105.4% 108.8% 132.2% 144.1% 152.9% 376.3% 1013.7% 57.6% 24.8%

Municipality Brockville Cobourg Kitchener Port Colborne Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Waterloo Welland Windsor Niagara-on-the-Lake Cornwall Orangeville Niagara Falls Owen Sound Belleville Cambridge Newmarket Fort Erie Thunder Bay Hamilton Peterborough North Bay Stratford Chatham-Kent Central Elgin Woolwich Whitchurch-Stouffville Ottawa Markham St. Thomas Sarnia Toronto Georgina Aurora Wasaga Beach Thorold St. Catharines Sudbury Parry Sound Pelham East Gwillimbury Vaughan Kawartha Lakes Bradford West Gwillimbury Grimsby Middlesex Centre Guelph

Water Reserves $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,900 $ 191,402 $ 142,721 $ 821,763 $ 212,219 $ 562,191 $ 951,418 $ 631,172 $ 338,633 $ 1,523,515 $ 7,665,292 $ 1,672,718 $ 1,307,655 $ 438,445 $ 2,647,542 $ 225,086 $ 454,188 $ 400,809 $ 16,578,312 $ 7,719,288 $ 2,127,533 $ 3,535,428 $ 144,888,234 $ 785,885 $ 1,839,330 $ 1,000,751 $ 1,190,313 $ 6,344,610 $ 9,563,666 $ 677,085 $ 566,821 $ 932,944 $ 14,066,430 $ 3,096,923 $ 1,736,295 $ 1,872,535 $ 643,949 $ 9,164,674

Total Water Expenditures $ 3,459,493 $ 3,449,733 $ 24,505,628 $ 1,178,376 $ 9,305,353 $ 8,271,679 $ 11,880,029 $ 3,767,169 $ 29,240,468 $ 3,340,485 $ 6,360,096 $ 3,446,000 $ 17,163,764 $ 4,047,367 $ 10,138,921 $ 15,711,711 $ 9,675,332 $ 3,148,472 $ 13,691,503 $ 64,640,677 $ 12,751,815 $ 9,582,696 $ 3,189,072 $ 17,129,844 $ 1,338,981 $ 2,360,504 $ 1,865,951 $ 70,662,354 $ 31,173,374 $ 8,479,619 $ 13,562,699 $ 523,629,230 $ 2,441,578 $ 5,443,850 $ 2,719,746 $ 3,048,888 $ 16,077,198 $ 23,679,637 $ 1,660,871 $ 1,387,962 $ 2,224,914 $ 30,948,172 $ 6,162,393 $ 3,393,994 $ 3,617,487 $ 1,026,614 $ 13,561,719

Municipality Brantford Leamington Barrie London Wilmot Kingston Lincoln Amherstburg King Wellesley Average Median

Water Reserves $ 11,567,301 $ 11,986,657 $ 15,777,204 $ 47,818,511 $ 1,164,208 $ 14,706,893 $ 1,075,971 $ 4,203,520 $ 2,923,669 $ 453,600

Total Water Expenditures $ 14,534,344 $ 13,564,578 $ 15,753,757 $ 45,378,067 $ 1,070,073 $ 11,122,264 $ 746,942 $ 2,748,474 $ 776,971 $ 44,746

District Muskoka Region Waterloo Region York Region Halton Region Durham Region Peel Region Niagara Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

224,819 8,257,804 37,141,061 30,708,464 29,932,953 110,607,618 54,347,859

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

8,111,110 28,039,654 89,482,006 64,751,745 60,817,657 92,369,762 32,344,361

2.8% 29.5% 41.5% 47.4% 49.2% 119.7% 168.0% 65.4% 47.4%

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

63

Municipal Study 2007

Sanitary Reserves as a % of Sanitary Expenditures
2006 Sanitary Sewer Reserves as a % of Sanitary Sewer Total Expenditures -22.9% -7.8% -6.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 4.2% 4.4% 6.0% 9.5% 15.5% 17.3% 17.8% 19.0% 19.8% 20.1% 20.3% 20.5% 22.7% 24.1% 30.4% 33.4% 33.6% 35.8% 38.4% 38.7% 42.0% 43.5% 44.2% 45.6% 47.8% 48.7%

Municipality Barrie Cobourg Windsor Amherstburg Brockville Kitchener Markham Ottawa Port Colborne Timmins Waterloo Sarnia North Bay Orangeville Toronto Niagara Falls Central Elgin Peterborough Whitchurch-Stouffville Newmarket Brantford Cambridge Cornwall Parry Sound Vaughan Sault Ste. Marie Chatham-Kent Pelham Wasaga Beach Bradford West Gwillimbury Leamington Owen Sound Niagara-on-the-Lake Kawartha Lakes St. Thomas St. Catharines Sudbury Wilmot Fort Erie

Sewer Reserves $ (3,033,714) $ (228,915) $ (2,276,289) $ $ $ -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

3,227 220,792 131,456 27,200,729 1,165,097 118,393 2,028,956 219,576 1,523,483 1,676,542 2,472,521 1,195,508 359,035 5,583,206 1,110,142 2,453,461 523,725 1,180,886 1,001,385 2,213,896 1,187,775 1,120,943 2,621,651 1,984,572 3,482,600 10,329,612 438,841 1,095,837

Total Sewer Expenditures $ 13,259,027 $ 2,953,027 $ 36,610,748 $ 3,643,270 $ 3,282,145 $ 25,985,782 $ 20,731,108 $ 84,127,536 $ 661,835 $ 4,235,062 $ 13,440,306 $ 10,868,885 $ 6,635,838 $ 3,118,068 $ 612,238,284 $ 19,350,607 1240678 $ 13,074,064 $ 1,267,806 $ 8,541,010 $ 8,802,884 $ 12,465,542 $ 5,946,967 $ 1,767,422 $ 27,192,451 $ 4,888,543 $ 10,159,862 $ 1,720,854 $ 3,534,416 $ 2,979,274 $ 6,186,263 $ 3,089,577 $ 2,899,745 $ 6,247,711 $ 4,562,668 $ 7,872,944 $ 22,654,138 $ 917,211 $ 2,251,204

Municipality Welland Aurora Grimsby Middlesex Centre Hamilton Thorold London Guelph Kingston Lincoln Georgina East Gwillimbury Stratford Woolwich Belleville King Thunder Bay Average Median

Sewer Reserves $ 1,284,398 $ 1,916,855 $ 2,607,176 $ 851,037 $ 43,504,753 $ 4,805,878 $ 31,028,030 $ 15,118,846 $ 15,199,327 $ 2,359,327 $ 2,402,632 $ 896,795 $ 4,952,965 $ 2,586,402 $ 11,760,910 $ 452,665 $ 36,322,548

Total Sewer Expenditures $ 2,553,352 $ 3,660,722 $ 3,969,927 $ 1,261,149 $ 63,624,534 $ 6,092,225 $ 37,304,052 $ 17,615,816 $ 17,287,368 $ 2,610,658 $ 2,538,441 $ 818,520 $ 4,255,123 $ 2,096,539 $ 6,418,256 $ 202,271 $ 13,603,572

2006 Sanitary Sewer Reserves as a % of Sanitary Sewer Total Expenditures 50.3% 52.4% 65.7% 67.5% 68.4% 78.9% 83.2% 85.8% 87.9% 90.4% 94.6% 109.6% 116.4% 123.4% 183.2% 223.8% 267.0% 45.0% 31.9%

Region York District Muskoka Region Halton Region Durham Region Niagara Region Waterloo Region Peel Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

6,939,673 2,098,575 31,372,630 48,394,525 38,348,943 41,196,976 190,721,089

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

97,149,024 9,453,598 56,770,827 84,053,403 53,745,859 22,681,357 100,319,535

7.1% 22.2% 55.3% 57.6% 71.4% 181.6% 190.1% 83.6% 57.6%

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

64

Municipal Study 2007

Reserves as a % of Total Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer)
Total Discretionary Reserves (Excluding Water and Sewer) $ 876,622 $ 1,983,871 $ 11,166,113 $ 6,469,681 $ 3,558,414 $ 1,556,922 $ 68,820,858 $ 2,341,638 $ 12,980,486 $ 23,900,452 $ 14,049,029 $ 16,558,009 $ 7,173,638 $ 3,206,272 $ 34,044,946 $ 3,551,044 $ 398,028,353 $ 1,113,812,984 $ 24,003,021 $ 47,534,812 $ 46,894,238 $ 149,186,781 $ 8,546,348 $ 3,532,852 $ 42,466,142 $ 70,234,665 $ 5,087,152 $ 8,183,719 $ 27,001,996 $ 3,873,416 $ 6,479,991 $ 47,200,653 $ 42,369,001 $ 44,266,281 $ 327,501,600 $ 83,405,156 $ 49,414,076 $ 20,148,226 $ 17,751,588 $ 14,223,227 $ 47,570,031 $ 4,442,678 $ 81,053,945 $ 29,611,645 $ 22,651,345 2006 Reserves as a % of Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer) 5.1% 15.8% 19.0% 19.1% 20.5% 21.1% 22.8% 25.4% 26.2% 26.6% 28.1% 28.4% 29.6% 31.6% 33.1% 34.0% 34.8% 34.9% 35.8% 36.0% 36.4% 36.8% 38.4% 40.6% 40.7% 42.8% 43.8% 44.1% 46.0% 47.8% 49.7% 50.3% 53.4% 53.4% 56.4% 56.4% 57.0% 57.0% 58.3% 59.1% 59.4% 59.6% 61.3% 61.9% 63.5%

Municipality Orangeville Amherstburg Belleville St. Thomas Cobourg Pelham Windsor East Gwillimbury Sarnia Oshawa Timmins North Bay Georgina Tillsonburg Brantford Port Colborne Ottawa Toronto Kawartha Lakes Guelph Barrie London Halton Hills Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Sudbury King Leamington Niagara Falls Huntsville Fort Erie Oakville Sault Ste. Marie Kitchener Hamilton Kingston Burlington Pickering Newmarket Brockville Peterborough Bracebridge Thunder Bay Waterloo Ajax

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Taxation 17,172,667 12,559,123 58,641,023 33,872,732 17,318,708 7,364,120 302,204,448 9,227,237 49,453,687 89,799,897 50,025,114 58,203,560 24,207,343 10,139,922 102,884,625 10,443,932 1,145,296,751 3,189,275,041 67,005,799 131,892,553 128,962,423 405,565,259 22,266,679 8,712,119 104,360,202 164,244,155 11,625,477 18,539,830 58,754,965 8,106,333 13,026,487 93,897,345 79,390,723 82,858,138 581,147,470 147,819,669 86,715,250 35,330,830 30,461,811 24,055,977 80,090,840 7,456,146 132,323,511 47,853,549 35,662,244

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

65

Municipal Study 2007

Reserves as a % of Total Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer cont’d)
Total Discretionary Reserves (Excluding Water and Sewer) $ 21,382,090 $ 8,929,852 $ 19,631,836 $ 4,853,452 $ 6,638,546 $ 5,207,604 $ 40,906,150 $ 40,510,863 $ 20,753,644 $ 52,039,300 $ 66,446,319 $ 97,458,370 $ 5,733,922 $ 22,702,551 $ 17,880,914 $ 12,176,034 $ 6,644,230 $ 13,764,539 $ 257,055,049 $ 24,546,606 $ 9,335,913 $ 35,198,850 $ 3,949,734 $ 52,222,145 $ 178,673,388 $ 9,699,273 $ 40,947,871 $ 582,227,296 $ 22,036,065 2006 Reserves as a % of Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer) 65.7% 66.6% 70.8% 72.8% 78.6% 82.9% 83.1% 85.3% 93.3% 96.6% 100.3% 103.7% 113.6% 115.3% 119.3% 119.9% 124.5% 129.7% 134.7% 141.9% 146.7% 149.9% 151.3% 162.8% 174.3% 177.0% 185.4% 218.6% 244.0% 73.1% 57.0%

Municipality Stratford Wasaga Beach Woodstock Middlesex Centre Lincoln Niagara-on-the-Lake Cornwall Whitby Welland Cambridge St. Catharines Markham Wilmot Milton Bradford West Gwillimbury Whitchurch-Stouffville Woolwich Grimsby Brampton Owen Sound Gravenhurst Caledon Wellesley Clarington Vaughan Parry Sound Aurora Mississauga Thorold Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Taxation 32,567,730 13,415,291 27,734,608 6,664,237 8,444,874 6,279,440 49,220,633 47,512,202 22,251,646 53,855,872 66,233,483 94,023,650 5,047,105 19,690,793 14,990,349 10,152,167 5,335,853 10,609,056 190,813,355 17,294,980 6,363,160 23,483,003 2,610,428 32,079,078 102,486,964 5,480,142 22,084,678 266,351,227 9,030,178

District Muskoka Region Waterloo Region Niagara Region Durham Region York Region Halton Region Peel Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

25,497,317 152,231,929 137,520,262 280,136,309 455,916,590 266,742,888 819,928,229

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

64,144,033 319,780,861 278,735,244 407,770,592 623,451,148 277,504,957 659,135,623

39.8% 47.6% 49.3% 68.7% 73.1% 96.1% 124.4% 71.3% 68.7%

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

66

Municipal Study 2007

Reserves as a % of Total Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer) - By Location
Total Discretionary Reserves (Excluding Water and Sewer) $ 11,166,113 $ 3,558,414 $ 398,028,353 $ 24,003,021 $ 83,405,156 $ 14,223,227 $ 47,570,031 $ 40,906,150 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,341,638 23,900,452 7,173,638 1,113,812,984 8,546,348 5,087,152 47,200,653 49,414,076 20,148,226 17,751,588 22,651,345 40,510,863 97,458,370 22,702,551 17,880,914 12,176,034 257,055,049 35,198,850 52,222,145 178,673,388 40,947,871 582,227,296 1,556,922 3,551,044 27,001,996 6,479,991 327,501,600 6,638,546 5,207,604 20,753,644 66,446,319 13,764,539 22,036,065 2006 Reserves as a % of Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer) Location Average 19.0% 20.5% 34.8% 35.8% 56.4% 59.1% 59.4% Eastern 83.1% 46.0% 25.4% 26.6% 29.6% 34.9% 38.4% 43.8% 50.3% 57.0% 57.0% 58.3% 63.5% 85.3% 103.7% 115.3% 119.3% 119.9% 134.7% 149.9% 162.8% 174.3% 185.4% 218.6%

Municipality Belleville Cobourg Ottawa Kawartha Lakes Kingston Brockville Peterborough Cornwall East Gwillimbury Oshawa Georgina Toronto Halton Hills King Oakville Burlington Pickering Newmarket Ajax Whitby Markham Milton Bradford West Gwillimbury Whitchurch-Stouffville Brampton Caledon Clarington Vaughan Aurora Mississauga Pelham Port Colborne Niagara Falls Fort Erie Hamilton Lincoln Niagara-on-the-Lake Welland St. Catharines Grimsby Thorold

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Taxation 58,641,023 17,318,708 1,145,296,751 67,005,799 147,819,669 24,055,977 80,090,840 49,220,633 9,227,237 89,799,897 24,207,343 3,189,275,041 22,266,679 11,625,477 93,897,345 86,715,250 35,330,830 30,461,811 35,662,244 47,512,202 94,023,650 19,690,793 14,990,349 10,152,167 190,813,355 23,483,003 32,079,078 102,486,964 22,084,678 266,351,227 7,364,120 10,443,932 58,754,965 13,026,487 581,147,470 8,444,874 6,279,440 22,251,646 66,233,483 10,609,056 9,030,178

GTA 93.4%

21.1% 34.0% 46.0% 49.7% 56.4% 78.6% 82.9% 93.3% 100.3% 129.7% Niagara/Hamilton 244.0% 85.1%

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

67

Municipal Study 2007

Reserves as a % of Total Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer cont’d)
Total Discretionary Reserves (Excluding Water and Sewer) $ 14,049,029 $ 16,558,009 $ 70,234,665 $ 42,369,001 $ 81,053,945 $ 9,699,273 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 876,622 46,894,238 3,873,416 4,442,678 8,929,852 9,335,913 1,983,871 6,469,681 68,820,858 12,980,486 3,206,272 34,044,946 47,534,812 149,186,781 3,532,852 42,466,142 8,183,719 44,266,281 29,611,645 21,382,090 19,631,836 4,853,452 52,039,300 5,733,922 6,644,230 24,546,606 3,949,734 2006 Reserves as a % of Taxation (Excluding Water/Sewer) 28.1% 28.4% 42.8% 53.4% 61.3% 177.0%

Municipality Timmins North Bay Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Parry Sound Orangeville Barrie Huntsville Bracebridge Wasaga Beach Gravenhurst Amherstburg St. Thomas Windsor Sarnia Tillsonburg Brantford Guelph London Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Leamington Kitchener Waterloo Stratford Woodstock Middlesex Centre Cambridge Wilmot Woolwich Owen Sound Wellesley

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Taxation 50,025,114 58,203,560 164,244,155 79,390,723 132,323,511 5,480,142 17,172,667 128,962,423 8,106,333 7,456,146 13,415,291 6,363,160 12,559,123 33,872,732 302,204,448 49,453,687 10,139,922 102,884,625 131,892,553 405,565,259 8,712,119 104,360,202 18,539,830 82,858,138 47,853,549 32,567,730 27,734,608 6,664,237 53,855,872 5,047,105 5,335,853 17,294,980 2,610,428

Location Average

North 65.2%

5.1% 36.4% 47.8% 59.6% 66.6% Simcoe/Musk./Duff. 146.7% 60.4% 15.8% 19.1% 22.8% 26.2% 31.6% 33.1% 36.0% 36.8% 40.6% 40.7% 44.1% 53.4% 61.9% 65.7% 70.8% 72.8% 96.6% 113.6% 124.5% 141.9% 151.3%

Southwest 61.9%

Reserves offer liquidity which enhances the municipality’s flexibility in addressing operating requirements and in permitting the municipality to temporarily fund capital projects internally, allowing it time to access debt markets and take advantage of favourable conditions. The level of reserves required will vary for a number of reasons including:
• • • • • •

Services provided by the municipality Age and condition of infrastructure, inventory of fleet and vehicles supporting municipal operations Level of expenditures Internal debt and reserve policies Targets, ranges established on a reserve by reserve basis Economic conditions and projections

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

68

Municipal Study 2007

Debt Charges as a % of Total Expenditures
Debt service costs as a percentage of the total expenditures highlights the magnitude of expenditures required to service past obligations, therefore not available for other services. Care must be used in evaluating this indicator. A high debt service ratio may indicate a municipality is taking on too much debt but it may also indicate an aggressive approach to debt repayment to reduce interest costs. In addition, municipalities are at different stages in addressing infrastructure deficits which may also impact the debt charges as a % of total expenditures calculation. Similarly, a low debt service ratio could indicate a municipality is strong financially and can internally finance most capital projects. It may also indicate the municipality has deferred capital projects and allowed infrastructure to deteriorate.

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

69

Municipal Study 2007

Debt Charges as a % of Total Expenditures
Total Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal and Interest) $ $ $ $ 568 $ 95,088 $ 52,441 $ 561,661 $ 1,751,911 $ 2,446,217 $ 248,397 $ 614,156 $ 6,095,041 $ 2,238,291 $ 2,343,705 $ 492,926 $ 1,716,003 $ 761,385 $ 6,249,936 $ 1,221,004 $ 136,319 $ 1,326,382 $ 6,422,379 $ 515,519 $ 4,602,162 $ 21,641,589 $ 417,198 $ 498,853 $ 41,926,732 $ 925,007 $ 3,160,409 $ 2,146,045 $ 2,889,240 $ 589,178 $ 1,250,598 $ 1,836,440 $ 5,861,685 $ 8,660,372 $ 11,170,272 $ 4,013,837 $ 12,492,057 $ 445,760 $ 2,599,802 $ 6,609,845 $ 840,978 $ 888,740 $ 10,646,368 $ 1,202,655 $ 714,475 $ 7,353,502 $ 3,556,557 $ 42,289,997 $ 460,749,737 $ 120,239,307 $ 826,719 $ 659,809

Municipality Markham Mississauga Whitchurch-Stouffville Brampton Timmins Woolwich Cambridge Vaughan Barrie Thorold Clarington Sudbury Cornwall Niagara Falls Parry Sound Stratford Halton Hills Kitchener Woodstock Wellesley Milton Sault Ste. Marie King Oakville Windsor Bracebridge Huntsville Hamilton Bradford West Gwillimbury St. Thomas Ajax Whitby Lincoln Orangeville Aurora Burlington Peterborough Guelph Belleville Kingston Wilmot Pickering North Bay Niagara-on-the-Lake Grimsby Brantford Fort Erie Central Elgin Kawartha Lakes Newmarket London Toronto Ottawa East Gwillimbury Pelham

Total Expenditures 2002 % LTD 2003 % LTD of 2004 % LTD 2005 % LTD of 2006 % LTD of Less Unfunded of Total Total of Total Total Total Liabilities Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures $ 196,290,792 N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $ 446,120,480 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $ 21,710,553 1.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% $ 317,444,144 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% $ 127,146,527 N/A 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% $ 13,973,868 N/A N/A N/A 0.5% 0.4% $ 105,246,310 1.3% 1.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% $ 227,900,448 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% $ 204,220,551 1.2% 0.9% 1.3% 1.9% 1.2% $ 20,677,138 3.6% 3.4% 10.3% 1.6% 1.2% $ 49,669,426 N/A 1.5% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2% $ 486,214,727 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% $ 151,548,848 3.6% 4.6% 2.2% 1.9% 1.5% $ 125,154,056 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.9% $ 24,831,379 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0% $ 82,772,600 6.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.3% 2.1% $ 35,083,481 2.9% 2.7% 2.6% 2.3% 2.2% $ 282,199,013 2.5% 2.8% 1.7% 1.9% 2.2% $ 50,440,799 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.4% $ 5,244,917 N/A N/A N/A 2.9% 2.6% $ 50,385,379 1.9% 1.4% 0.9% 2.4% 2.6% N/A $ 235,728,463 2.1% 2.6% 2.5% 2.7% $ 17,420,345 3.4% 3.3% 3.2% 2.7% 3.0% $ 151,434,672 3.6% 3.5% 3.0% 3.5% 3.0% N/A $ 689,590,310 6.3% 5.3% 3.8% 3.1% $ 12,888,811 N/A N/A N/A 1.0% 3.2% $ 15,175,859 N/A N/A N/A 3.0% 3.3% $ 1,224,678,057 3.6% 4.3% 4.1% 3.2% 3.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 26,811,593 3.5% $ 89,517,081 N/A 3.2% 2.3% 1.9% 3.5% $ 59,286,587 N/A 2.9% 2.9% 3.6% 3.6% $ 76,325,192 5.0% 5.0% 3.5% 2.8% 3.8% $ 15,531,887 5.7% 4.7% 4.3% 3.9% 3.8% $ 32,013,914 0.8% 4.7% 1.4% 1.3% 3.9% $ 46,333,541 N/A 0.0% N/A 4.0% $ 147,389,035 5.0% 4.1% 3.8% 4.4% 4.0% $ 210,966,123 N/A 4.2% 5.2% 4.0% 4.1% $ 269,902,981 5.5% 5.0% 4.6% 4.7% 4.1% $ 96,598,671 N/A 9.5% 5.3% 4.9% 4.2% $ 291,987,117 4.4% 4.4% 5.1% 4.3% 4.3% $ 10,414,090 N/A N/A N/A 4.3% 4.3% $ 59,019,442 2.1% 2.9% 3.0% 3.9% 4.4% $ 147,942,365 4.9% 4.8% 4.5% 4.7% 4.5% $ 18,673,872 2.4% 2.1% 3.6% 2.7% 4.5% $ 19,550,526 0.0% 0.2% N/A 4.5% 4.5% $ 233,422,861 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 4.6% $ 25,828,486 4.5% 5.0% 3.9% 4.4% 4.7% $ 14,171,782 N/A N/A N/A 1.1% 5.0% $ 141,900,802 N/A 6.3% 6.5% 5.8% 5.2% $ 68,450,658 N/A 3.3% 3.8% 6.9% 5.2% $ 793,819,006 4.7% 5.1% 5.6% 5.8% 5.3% $ 8,536,282,883 4.0% 3.7% 3.5% 4.2% 5.4% $ 2,197,822,477 6.2% 5.9% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% $ 14,744,335 7.9% 7.4% 6.3% 5.7% 5.6% $ 11,566,275 2.3% 2.1% 1.8% 5.5% 5.7%

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

70

Municipal Study 2007

Debt Charges as a % of Total Expenditures (cont’d)
Total Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal and Interest) $ 7,926,633 $ 2,970,384 $ 2,005,651 $ 1,772,813 $ 7,184,522 $ 16,646,423 $ 2,415,890 $ 674,686 $ 909,902 $ 3,232,884 $ 25,205,422 $ 1,355,541 $ 7,996,194 $ 3,770,258 $ 2,208,678 $ 4,647,396 $ 11,059,195 $ 2,031,172 $ 3,116,282

Municipality St. Catharines Caledon Georgina Cobourg Oshawa Chatham-Kent Owen Sound Gravenhurst Middlesex Centre Brockville Thunder Bay Port Colborne Waterloo Welland Amherstburg Leamington Sarnia Tillsonburg Wasaga Beach Average Median

Total Expenditures 2002 % LTD 2003 % LTD of 2004 % LTD 2005 % LTD of 2006 % LTD of Less Unfunded of Total Total of Total Total Total Liabilities Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures $ 132,147,448 4.8% 5.7% 5.8% 6.1% 6.0% $ 49,508,196 N/A 35.2% 5.4% 5.2% 6.0% $ 33,081,863 5.1% 7.2% 6.8% 6.0% 6.1% $ 28,700,664 N/A N/A 3.1% 6.3% 6.2% $ 114,450,666 2.9% 4.2% 3.8% 4.5% 6.3% $ 259,378,376 1.8% 2.8% 2.6% 5.9% 6.4% $ 35,700,032 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.8% $ 9,770,011 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 12,958,947 7.0% $ 43,375,866 N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.5% $ 334,536,806 N/A 3.5% 4.2% 4.7% 7.5% $ 17,950,018 6.2% 0.0% 8.7% 7.6% 7.6% $ 105,454,678 N/A 7.5% 7.2% 8.7% 7.6% $ 42,453,614 5.6% 5.3% 5.3% 8.4% 8.9% N/A N/A N/A $ 23,063,241 9.4% 9.6% $ 43,323,715 N/A 11.1% 7.3% 10.9% 10.7% $ 92,604,611 N/A 11.9% 12.6% 12.5% 11.9% $ 16,928,686 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.0% $ 24,535,195 11.7% 11.9% 13.2% 14.2% 12.7% 3.4% 3.4% 4.0% 3.3% 3.8% 3.5% 3.9% 3.8% 4.4% 4.1%

Region Peel Region Durham Region Waterloo Region Halton Region Niagara District Muskoka Region York Average Median

$ 21,318,000 $ 24,708,425 $ 19,907,352 $ 22,528,159 $ 31,952,918 $ 6,847,654 $ 117,227,129

$ 1,268,669,575 $ 803,901,651 $ 591,082,682 $ 552,442,765 $ 748,465,022 $ 120,580,106 $ 1,165,822,562

N/A N/A 3.2% 4.0% 4.2% N/A N/A 3.8% 4.0% N/A

2.6% 2.4% 3.1% 4.7% 4.7% N/A 2.1% 3.3% 2.9%

2.3% 2.4% 2.8% 4.4% 4.6% 6.8% 3.9% 3.6%

2.0% 3.0% 3.2% 4.6% 4.0% 5.6% 8.5% 4.4% 4.0%

1.7% 3.1% 3.4% 4.1% 4.3% 5.7% 10.1% 4.6% 4.1%

Note: Toronto Housing debt has not been consolidated on the City’s 2006 FIR

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

71

Municipal Study 2007

Debt Charges as a % of Total Expenditures Excluding Water/Sewer
Total Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal & Interest Excluding Water/Sewer) $ (2,000) $ $ $ $ 568 $ 7,599 $ 95,088 $ 136,610 $ 45,936 $ 89,794 $ 512,001 $ 4,163,574 $ 1,633,501 $ 132,596 $ 614,156 $ 1,732,138 $ 2,424,513 $ 193,997 $ 1,595,106 $ 389,422 $ 354,171 $ 761,385 $ 2,113,365 $ 126,570 $ 1,221,004 $ 332,764 $ 1,326,382 $ 6,100,521 $ 6,155,266 $ 17,734,737 $ 4,602,162 $ 417,198 $ 498,853 $ 7,930,180 $ 870,226 $ 38,501,577 $ 2,726,552 $ 2,146,045 $ 452,765 $ 1,036,356 $ 4,835,778 $ 457,253 $ 2,889,240 $ 10,284,573 $ 5,861,685 $ 7,446,806 Total Expenditures Total Debt LESS Unfunded Charges as % of Liabilities LESS Operating Costs Water & Sewer (Excluding Expenditures Water/Sewer) $ 20,428,810 0.0% $ 144,386,310 0.0% $ 446,120,480 0.0% $ 24,576,796 0.0% $ 317,444,144 0.0% $ 9,516,825 0.1% $ 114,639,786 0.1% $ 80,041,494 0.2% $ 21,403,086 0.2% $ 20,438,325 0.4% $ 77,069,057 0.7% $ 439,680,952 0.9% $ 169,759,825 1.0% $ 11,592,123 1.1% $ 49,669,426 1.2% $ 139,241,785 1.2% $ 175,207,767 1.4% $ 11,536,025 1.7% $ 75,328,405 2.1% $ 18,209,033 2.1% $ 16,441,103 2.2% $ 35,083,481 2.2% $ 88,639,685 2.4% $ 5,244,917 2.4% $ 50,440,799 2.4% $ 12,958,947 2.6% $ 50,385,379 2.6% $ 231,707,603 2.6% $ 221,534,567 2.8% $ 623,739,094 2.8% $ 151,434,672 3.0% $ 12,888,811 3.2% $ 15,175,859 3.3% $ 232,088,670 3.4% $ 25,449,846 3.4% $ 1,096,412,846 3.5% $ 76,474,794 3.6% $ 59,286,687 3.6% $ 12,433,642 3.6% $ 28,101,846 3.7% $ 129,490,698 3.7% $ 12,174,287 3.8% $ 76,325,192 3.8% $ 263,577,485 3.9% $ 147,389,035 4.0% $ 185,140,244 4.0%

Municipality Fort Erie Markham Mississauga Whitchurch-Stouffville Brampton Woolwich Timmins Belleville Parry Sound Bradford West Gwillimbury Cambridge Sudbury Vaughan Central Elgin Clarington Cornwall Barrie Thorold Stratford Wasaga Beach King Halton Hills Niagara Falls Wellesley Woodstock Middlesex Centre Milton Kitchener Sault Ste. Marie Windsor Oakville Bracebridge Huntsville Chatham-Kent Orangeville Hamilton St. Thomas Ajax Niagara-on-the-Lake Georgina Kawartha Lakes Lincoln Whitby Kingston Burlington Peterborough

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

72

Municipal Study 2007

Debt Charges as a % of Total Expenditures Excluding Water/Sewer (cont’d)
Total Long Term Debt Service Total Expenditures Total Debt Costs (Principal LESS Unfunded Charges as % of & Interest Liabilities LESS Operating Costs Excluding Water & Sewer (Excluding Water/Sewer) Expenditures Water/Sewer) $ 9,653,167 $ 238,725,446 4.0% $ 30,899,102 $ 711,136,887 4.3% $ 2,599,802 $ 59,019,442 4.4% $ 6,394,597 $ 131,723,831 4.9% $ 1,836,440 $ 37,228,969 4.9% $ 10,493,683 $ 210,085,633 5.0% $ 445,760 $ 8,426,806 5.3% $ 108,592,893 $ 2,043,032,587 5.3% $ 17,465,941 $ 307,241,731 5.7% $ 1,390,048 $ 23,572,874 5.9% $ 2,970,294 $ 49,508,196 6.0% $ 458,647,713 $ 7,400,415,369 6.2% $ 7,184,522 $ 114,450,666 6.3% $ 7,042,246 $ 108,197,306 6.5% $ 1,880,443 $ 28,563,088 6.6% $ 1,527,608 $ 23,063,241 6.6% $ 3,398,503 $ 50,234,316 6.8% $ 674,686 $ 9,770,011 6.9% $ 1,113,369 $ 16,109,807 6.9% $ 829,719 $ 11,700,901 7.1% $ 888,740 $ 11,963,112 7.4% $ 1,511,551 $ 20,297,904 7.4% $ 659,809 $ 8,457,459 7.8% $ 2,911,665 $ 36,634,228 7.9% $ 5,637,397 $ 68,173,027 8.3% $ 3,219,686 $ 36,133,093 8.9% $ 7,555,322 $ 80,134,343 9.4% $ 2,031,172 $ 16,928,686 12.0% 3.8% 3.6% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,155,991 1,454,230 12,240,624 21,318,000 18,671,798 34,873,789 30,485,360 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 430,920,193 103,015,398 659,030,591 1,075,980,278 540,361,671 979,191,532 662,374,802 1.2% 1.4% 1.9% 2.0% 3.5% 3.6% 4.6% 2.6% 2.0%

Municipality Guelph London Pickering North Bay Aurora Brantford Wilmot Ottawa Thunder Bay Leamington Caledon Toronto Oshawa St. Catharines Owen Sound Amherstburg Newmarket Gravenhurst Port Colborne East Gwillimbury Grimsby Cobourg Pelham Brockville Sarnia Welland Waterloo Tillsonburg Average Median Region Halton District Muskoka Region Durham Region Peel Region Waterloo Region York Region Niagara Average Median

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

73

Municipal Study 2007

Water Debt Charges as a % of Water Expenditures
Water Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal & Interest) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,180 $ 410,615 $ 3,402 $ 38,632 $ 9,396 $ 49,660 $ 375,835 $ 369,813 $ 122,802 $ 75,201 $ 116,580 $ 44,842 $ 194,197 $ 373,204 $ 94,538 $ 440,872 $ 889,672 $ 336,891 $ 171,172 $ 36,094 $ 56,908 $ 647,400 $ 212,432 $ 340,268 $ 130,186 $ 655,211 $ 302,146 $ 3,423,852 Total Debt Charges as % of Operating Costs Water 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 1.9% 2.0% 2.3% 2.7% 3.7% 3.8% 4.0% 4.5% 4.6% 4.8% 5.1% 6.2% 8.4% 9.7% 10.6% 11.0% 11.7%

Municipality Aurora Barrie Brantford Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Grimsby Guelph Lincoln Markham Sault Ste. Marie Thorold Timmins Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Kitchener Toronto Stratford Vaughan Niagara-on-the-Lake Cambridge Ottawa Hamilton Niagara Falls Newmarket Kingston Woolwich North Bay St. Catharines Brockville Waterloo Sudbury St. Thomas Welland King Port Colborne Peterborough Orangeville Owen Sound Central Elgin Kawartha Lakes Amherstburg Windsor

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Water Expenditures 5,443,850 15,753,757 14,534,344 3,449,733 6,360,096 2,224,914 3,617,487 13,561,719 2,610,658 31,173,374 9,305,353 3,048,888 8,271,679 1,865,951 1,070,073 24,505,628 523,629,230 3,189,072 30,948,172 3,340,485 15,711,711 70,662,354 64,640,677 17,163,764 9,675,332 11,122,264 2,360,504 9,582,696 16,077,198 3,459,493 11,880,029 23,679,637 8,479,619 3,767,169 776,971 1,178,376 12,751,815 3,446,000 4,047,367 1,338,981 6,162,393 2,748,474 29,240,468

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

74

Municipal Study 2007

Water Debt Charges as a % of Water Expenditures (cont’d)

Municipality Middlesex Centre Bradford West Gwillimbury Leamington London Belleville Georgina Wellesley Sarnia Fort Erie Parry Sound Thunder Bay Chatham-Kent Wasaga Beach Average Median

Water Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal & Interest) $ 125,377 $ 518,519 $ 2,104,952 $ 7,276,604 $ 1,716,727 $ 438,117 $ 9,749 $ 3,032,570 $ 823,749 $ 446,990 $ 4,273,238 $ 6,187,772 $ 1,072,924

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Water Expenditures 1,026,614 3,393,994 13,564,578 45,378,067 10,138,921 2,441,576 44,746 13,562,699 3,148,472 1,660,871 13,691,503 17,129,844 2,719,746

Total Debt Charges as % of Operating Costs Water 12.2% 15.3% 15.5% 16.0% 16.9% 17.9% 21.8% 22.4% 26.2% 26.9% 31.2% 36.1% 39.4% 7.1% 2.2%

Region Peel Region Niagara Region Waterloo Region Durham Region Halton District Muskoka Region York Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

821,619 1,235,554 5,544,071 11,624,730 2,411,896 41,014,899

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

92,389,782 32,344,361 28,039,654 60,817,657 64,751,745 8,111,110 89,482,006

0.0% 2.5% 4.4% 9.1% 18.0% 29.7% 45.8% 15.7% 9.1%

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

75

Municipal Study 2007

Sanitary Sewer Debt Charges as a % of Sanitary Sewer Expenditures
Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal & Interest Sewer) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 21,704 $ 1,691,409 $ 79,778 $ 21,051 $ 140,235 $ 107,538 $ 54,400 $ 84,853 $ 483,000 $ 152,685 $ 96,966 $ 117,495 $ 566,166 $ 1,041,795 $ 3,055,342 $ 167,940 $ 267,113 $ 195,179 $ 511,183 $ 226,681 $ 506,153 $ 1,517,105 $ 261,263 $ 378,924 $ 316,694 $ 4,114,291 $ 2,090,904 $ 378,817 $ 11,270,579 $ 379,400 Total Debt Charges as % of Operating Costs Sewer 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 1.7% 2.1% 2.8% 4.3% 4.6% 4.8% 5.4% 5.5% 6.3% 6.5% 6.9% 8.5% 8.6% 8.8% 10.4% 10.6% 11.0% 12.1% 13.1% 13.4% 14.9%

Municipality Aurora Cambridge East Gwillimbury Grimsby Markham Timmins Waterloo Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Woolwich Barrie Toronto Vaughan North Bay Kitchener Niagara Falls Thorold Newmarket Windsor Brantford St. Thomas Stratford Peterborough Sudbury Hamilton Orangeville Sault Ste. Marie Owen Sound St. Catharines Brockville Cornwall Guelph Cobourg Amherstburg Bradford West Gwillimbury London Kingston Niagara-on-the-Lake Ottawa Welland

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Sewer Expenditures 3,660,722 12,465,542 818,520 3,969,927 20,731,108 4,235,062 13,440,306 1,267,806 917,211 2,096,539 13,259,027 612,238,284 27,192,451 6,635,838 25,985,782 19,350,607 6,092,225 8,541,010 36,610,748 8,802,884 4,562,668 4,255,123 13,074,064 22,654,138 63,624,534 3,118,068 4,888,543 3,089,577 7,872,944 3,282,145 5,946,967 17,615,816 2,953,027 3,643,270 2,979,274 37,304,052 17,287,368 2,899,745 84,127,536 2,553,352

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

76

Municipal Study 2007

Sanitary Sewer Debt Charges as % of Sanitary Sewer Expenditures (cont’d)

Municipality Fort Erie Lincoln Leamington Georgina Sarnia Chatham-Kent Thunder Bay Port Colborne Kawartha Lakes Belleville Middlesex Centre Central Elgin Wasaga Beach King Average Median

Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal & Interest Sewer) $ 378,906 $ 131,925 $ 1,152,396 $ 531,178 $ 2,389,226 $ 2,528,471 $ 3,466,243 $ 185,264 $ 1,862,513 $ 2,160,500 $ 451,761 $ 451,693 $ 1,653,936 $ 125,254

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Total Sewer Expenditures 2,251,204 746,942 6,186,263 2,538,441 10,868,885 10,159,862 13,603,572 661,835 6,247,711 6,418,256 1,261,149 1,240,678 3,534,416 202,271

Total Debt Charges as % of Operating Costs Sewer 16.8% 17.7% 18.6% 20.9% 22.0% 24.9% 25.5% 28.0% 29.8% 33.7% 35.8% 36.4% 46.8% 61.9% 10.9% 5.9%

Region Peel Region Niagara Region Durham Region Halton District Muskoka Region York Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $

645,939 6,923,730 5,747,438 2,981,528 41,338,441

$ $ $ $ $ $

100,319,535 53,745,859 84,053,403 56,770,827 9,453,598 97,149,024

0.0% 1.2% 8.2% 10.1% 31.5% 42.6% 15.6% 9.2%

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

77

Municipal Study 2007

Debt Charges as a % of Taxation
This information assists in assessing the demands that are placed on the financial resources of the municipality. The following table provides a comparison of the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Long Term Debt Charges (Principal and Interest) as a percentage of Total Taxation. This analysis excludes long term debt charges associated with water and sewer operations.

Municipality Fort Erie Markham Mississauga Whitchurch-Stouffville Brampton Woolwich Timmins Belleville Bradford West Gwillimbury Parry Sound Cambridge Central Elgin Vaughan Barrie Clarington Thorold Sudbury Wasaga Beach King Halton Hills Cornwall Niagara Falls Georgina Woodstock Wellesley Stratford Oakville Middlesex Centre Orangeville Lincoln Bracebridge Windsor Ajax Whitby Huntsville Hamilton Milton Burlington Kingston Niagara-on-the-Lake Kawartha Lakes Guelph

Total Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal & Interest Excluding Water/Sewer) $ (2,000) $ $ $ $ 568 $ 7,599 $ 95,088 $ 136,610 $ 89,794 $ 45,936 $ 512,001 $ 132,596 $ 1,633,501 $ 2,424,513 $ 614,156 $ 193,997 $ 4,163,574 $ 389,422 $ 354,171 $ 761,385 $ 1,732,138 $ 2,113,365 $ 1,036,356 $ 1,221,004 $ 126,570 $ 1,595,106 $ 4,602,162 $ 332,764 $ 870,226 $ 457,253 $ 417,198 $ 17,734,737 $ 2,146,045 $ 2,889,240 $ 498,853 $ 38,501,577 $ 1,326,382 $ 5,861,685 $ 10,284,573 $ 452,765 $ 4,835,778 $ 9,653,167

Total Taxation $ 13,026,487 $ 94,023,650 $ 266,351,227 $ 10,152,167 $ 190,813,355 $ 5,335,853 $ 50,025,114 $ 58,641,023 $ 14,990,349 $ 5,480,142 $ 53,855,872 $ 8,712,119 $ 102,486,964 $ 128,962,423 $ 32,079,078 $ 9,030,178 $ 164,244,155 $ 13,415,291 $ 11,625,477 $ 22,266,679 $ 49,220,633 $ 58,754,965 $ 24,207,343 $ 27,734,608 $ 2,610,428 $ 32,567,730 $ 93,897,345 $ 6,664,237 $ 17,172,667 $ 8,444,874 $ 7,456,146 $ 302,204,448 $ 35,662,244 $ 47,512,202 $ 8,106,333 $ 581,147,470 $ 19,690,793 $ 86,715,250 $ 147,819,669 $ 6,279,440 $ 67,005,799 $ 131,892,553

2003 Debt as a % 2004 Debt as a 2005 Debt as a 2006 Debt as a of Taxation % of Taxation % of Taxation % of Taxation (Excluding (Excluding (Excluding (Excluding Water/Sewer) Water/Sewer) Water/Sewer) Water/Sewer) 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N/A N/A 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% 1.8% 1.6% 1.0% 0.2% N/A N/A N/A 0.6% N/A N/A N/A 0.8% 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% N/A N/A 1.7% 1.5% 1.0% 0.4% 0.5% 1.6% 1.2% 2.0% 2.8% 1.9% 2.5% 4.6% 2.0% 1.9% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.6% 2.5% 2.5% 1.9% 3.7% 2.9% 3.4% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 4.4% 4.1% 3.8% 3.4% 11.7% 5.3% 4.4% 3.5% 2.0% 2.4% 2.5% 3.6% 6.2% 5.7% 4.9% 4.3% N/A N/A 4.4% N/A N/A 5.0% 4.8% 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 4.9% 5.5% 4.1% 5.6% 4.9% N/A N/A N/A 5.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 6.8% 6.2% 5.6% 5.4% N/A N/A 0.0% 5.6% 12.2% 9.9% 7.6% 5.9% 4.9% 4.6% 6.1% 6.0% 9.0% 5.9% 4.7% 6.1% N/A N/A 5.7% 6.2% 8.2% 7.9% 6.1% 6.6% 4.1% 2.4% 6.2% 6.7% 7.6% 6.3% 7.3% 6.8% 7.3% 8.3% 7.1% 7.0% 4.1% 10.2% 7.6% 7.2% 8.7% 8.4% 7.5% 7.2% 6.6% 6.5% 7.3% 7.3%

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

78

Municipal Study 2007

Debt as a % of Taxation (cont’d)
Total Long Term Debt Service Costs (Principal & Interest Excluding Water/Sewer) $ 2,599,802 $ 6,100,521 $ 1,390,048 $ 7,930,180 $ 30,899,102 $ 6,155,266 $ 7,184,522 $ 2,726,552 $ 1,836,440 $ 888,740 $ 1,511,551 $ 445,760 $ 659,809 $ 829,719 $ 7,446,806 $ 108,592,893 $ 10,493,683 $ 674,686 $ 7,042,246 $ 1,113,369 $ 1,880,443 $ 6,394,597 $ 3,398,503 $ 5,637,397 $ 2,911,665 $ 1,527,608 $ 2,970,294 $ 17,465,941 $ 458,647,713 $ 3,219,686 $ 7,555,322 $ 2,031,172

Municipality Pickering Kitchener Leamington Chatham-Kent London Sault Ste. Marie Oshawa St. Thomas Aurora Grimsby Cobourg Wilmot Pelham East Gwillimbury Peterborough Ottawa Brantford Gravenhurst St. Catharines Port Colborne Owen Sound North Bay Newmarket Sarnia Brockville Amherstburg Caledon Thunder Bay Toronto Welland Waterloo Tillsonburg Average Median

Total Taxation $ 35,330,830 $ 82,858,138 $ 18,539,830 $ 104,360,202 $ 405,565,259 $ 79,390,723 $ 89,799,897 $ 33,872,732 $ 22,084,678 $ 10,609,056 $ 17,318,708 $ 5,047,105 $ 7,364,120 $ 9,227,237 $ 80,090,840 $ 1,145,296,751 $ 102,884,625 $ 6,363,160 $ 66,233,483 $ 10,443,932 $ 17,294,980 $ 58,203,560 $ 30,461,811 $ 49,453,687 $ 24,055,977 $ 12,559,123 $ 23,483,003 $ 132,323,511 $ 3,189,275,041 $ 22,251,646 $ 47,853,549 $ 10,139,922

2003 Debt as a % 2004 Debt as a 2005 Debt as a 2006 Debt as a of Taxation % of Taxation % of Taxation % of Taxation (Excluding (Excluding (Excluding (Excluding Water/Sewer) Water/Sewer) Water/Sewer) Water/Sewer) 4.5% 4.7% 6.2% 7.4% 6.1% 5.6% 6.4% 7.4% 9.4% 7.8% 7.6% 7.5% 3.0% 2.5% 6.5% 7.6% 6.2% 7.3% 7.9% 7.6% 5.8% 6.8% 6.5% 7.8% 6.1% 5.2% 6.3% 8.0% 4.6% 3.2% 3.5% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 0.4% 1.8% 9.0% 8.4% 3.8% N/A 8.7% 8.7% N/A N/A 9.5% 8.8% 3.0% 2.8% 8.4% 9.0% 11.0% 10.0% 9.5% 9.0% 7.3% 9.4% 8.2% 9.3% 10.1% 9.4% 9.1% 9.5% 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 10.2% N/A N/A 0.0% 10.6% 8.6% 9.5% 10.7% 10.6% 7.9% 11.2% 11.0% 10.7% N/A N/A N/A 10.9% 10.5% 10.5% 11.3% 11.0% 7.3% 8.4% 14.8% 11.2% 9.4% 10.5% 11.6% 11.4% N/A N/A N/A 12.1% N/A N/A 12.6% 12.2% N/A 13.9% 12.6% 12.6% 8.2% 9.4% 10.2% 13.2% 8.9% 8.6% 10.4% 14.4% 6.6% 7.9% 13.0% 14.5% 17.1% 15.3% 17.1% 15.8% N/A N/A N/A 20.0% 5.2% 4.9% 5.2% 4.7% 5.6% 6.1% 6.5% 6.7%

Region Halton District Muskoka Region Durham Region Peel Region Waterloo Region York Region Niagara Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,155,991 1,454,230 12,240,624 21,318,000 18,671,798 34,873,789 30,485,360

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

277,504,957 64,144,033 407,770,592 659,135,623 319,780,861 623,451,148 278,735,244

2.4% N/A 2.0% 4.6% 4.7% 3.3% 9.5% 4.4% 4.0% N/A

2.2% 2.6% 4.2% 4.7% 3.5% 10.3% 4.6% 3.8% N/A

1.9% 2.3% 3.2% 5.8% 5.6% 10.9% 5.0% 4.4%

1.9% 2.3% 3.0% 3.2% 5.8% 5.6% 10.9% 4.7% 3.2%

Municipal Financial Information Municipal Financial Indicators

79

Municipal Study 2007

Debt To Reserve Ratio
This includes all reserves and all outstanding debt as reflected on Schedules 60 and 74 of the 2006 FIRs.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Debt to Debt to Debt to Debt to Debt to Reserves Reserves Reserves Reserves Reserves Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.2 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.1 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.1 N/A N/A N/A 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 N/A N/A N/A 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.3 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3 N/A 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 N/A 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 N/A N/A N/A 0.5 0.3 N/A 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 N/A 0.0 N/A 0.4 0.3 N/A N/A N/A 0.5 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.4 N/A N/A N/A 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.8

Municipality Cambridge Cornwall Markham Mississauga Whitchurch-Stouffville Brampton Timmins Woolwich Thorold Bradford West Gwillimbury Barrie Vaughan Lincoln Wellesley King Whitby Milton Oakville East Gwillimbury Grimsby Woodstock Caledon Halton Hills Ajax Brantford Clarington Pickering Aurora Stratford Middlesex Centre Owen Sound Sudbury Niagara-on-the-Lake Sault Ste. Marie Burlington Wilmot Fort Erie Niagara Falls St. Catharines Parry Sound Kitchener Wasaga Beach

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

80

Municipal Study 2007

Debt To Reserve Ratio (cont’d)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Debt to Debt to Debt to Debt to Debt to Reserves Reserves Reserves Reserves Reserves Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio N/A N/A N/A 0.9 0.9 N/A N/A N/A 0.8 0.9 N/A N/A N/A 1.0 0.9 N/A N/A N/A 1.1 0.9 N/A N/A N/A 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.0 N/A N/A N/A 0.7 1.1 N/A N/A N/A 1.1 1.1 N/A N/A N/A 1.6 1.2 N/A N/A N/A 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.1 1.2 N/A N/A N/A 1.2 1.3 N/A N/A N/A 0.7 1.3 N/A N/A N/A 0.5 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.4 N/A N/A N/A 1.5 1.5 N/A N/A N/A 1.1 1.5 N/A 2.5 2.1 2.4 1.5 N/A N/A N/A 1.7 1.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.7 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.8 1.7 N/A N/A N/A 2.1 1.8 N/A N/A N/A 1.2 1.9 N/A 5.3 2.4 2.2 1.9 N/A 0.7 2.4 1.1 2.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.8 2.1 1.3 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.2 N/A N/A N/A 2.1 2.3 N/A N/A N/A 4.2 3.2 N/A 5.4 5.4 4.7 3.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.4 N/A 3.4 N/A 4.5 3.6 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6

Municipality Hamilton Kawartha Lakes Belleville Peterborough Kingston Welland Huntsville Ottawa London Gravenhurst Pelham Guelph St. Thomas Bracebridge Georgina Central Elgin Amherstburg Leamington North Bay Brockville Oshawa Thunder Bay Toronto Waterloo Newmarket Orangeville Port Colborne Windsor Chatham-Kent Sarnia Tillsonburg Cobourg Average Median

Region Peel Region Halton Region Durham Region Waterloo Region Niagara Region York District Muskoka Average Median

N/A 0.5 N/A 0.4 0.9 N/A N/A 0.6 0.5

N/A 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.5 N/A 0.5 0.4

N/A 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 N/A 0.5 0.5

N/A 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 2.2 0.8 0.6

0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.5

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

81

Municipal Study 2007

Debt and Reserves Per Capita
2006 Debt to Reserves Ratio 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9
2006 Debt to Reserves Ratio 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 0.9 0.6

Municipality Cambridge Cornwall Markham Mississauga Whitchurch-Stouffville Brampton Timmins Woolwich Thorold Bradford West Gwillimbury Barrie Vaughan Lincoln Wellesley King Whitby Milton Oakville East Gwillimbury Grimsby Woodstock Caledon Halton Hills Ajax Brantford Clarington Pickering Aurora Stratford Middlesex Centre Owen Sound Sudbury Niagara-on-the-Lake Sault Ste. Marie Burlington Wilmot Fort Erie Niagara Falls St. Catharines Parry Sound Kitchener Wasaga Beach Hamilton Kawartha Lakes Belleville

Debt Per Capita $ $ $ $ $ $ 0 $ 10 $ 32 $ 151 $ 136 $ 121 $ 239 $ 115 $ 92 $ 106 $ 191 $ 196 $ 153 $ 93 $ 240 $ 161 $ 184 $ 110 $ 169 $ 203 $ 250 $ 168 $ 330 $ 449 $ 299 $ 549 $ 305 $ 335 $ 319 $ 268 $ 280 $ 219 $ 396 $ 436 $ 1,396 $ 231 $ 1,143 $ 728 $ 768 $ 613

Reserves Per Capita $ 652 $ 954 $ 972 $ 1,329 $ 1,569 $ 942 $ 380 $ 676 $ 1,576 $ 996 $ 808 $ 1,507 $ 645 $ 519 $ 515 $ 899 $ 881 $ 687 $ 376 $ 954 $ 612 $ 669 $ 397 $ 603 $ 720 $ 861 $ 553 $ 1,072 $ 1,096 $ 708 $ 1,259 $ 681 $ 734 $ 609 $ 502 $ 504 $ 376 $ 622 $ 625 $ 1,884 $ 280 $ 1,379 $ 840 $ 879 $ 663

Municipality Peterborough Kingston Welland Huntsville Ottawa London Gravenhurst Pelham Guelph St. Thomas Bracebridge Georgina Central Elgin Amherstburg Leamington North Bay Brockville Oshawa Thunder Bay Toronto Waterloo Newmarket Orangeville Port Colborne Windsor Chatham-Kent Sarnia Tillsonburg Cobourg Average Median

Debt Per Capita $ 802 $ 1,000 $ 567 $ 291 $ 1,041 $ 1,056 $ 1,051 $ 389 $ 1,007 $ 738 $ 501 $ 476 $ 594 $ 684 $ 1,514 $ 622 $ 1,247 $ 732 $ 2,016 $ 1,255 $ 735 $ 676 $ 648 $ 477 $ 718 $ 1,487 $ 1,013 $ 899 $ 1,307 $ $ 510 362

Reserves Per Capita $ 866 $ 1,062 $ 596 $ 272 $ 956 $ 908 $ 900 $ 319 $ 794 $ 582 $ 358 $ 338 $ 409 $ 466 $ 1,001 $ 392 $ 752 $ 422 $ 1,134 $ 678 $ 391 $ 345 $ 309 $ 220 $ 314 $ 463 $ 307 $ 264 $ 366 $ $ 718 666

Region Peel Region Halton Region Durham Region Waterloo Region Niagara Region York District Muskoka Average Median

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

332 379 380 262 478 1,157 1,084 582 380

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,073 1,082 1,071 582 582 1,145 509 863 1,071

0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.5

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

82

Municipal Study 2007

Water Debt to Reserve Ratio

Municipality Cornwall East Gwillimbury Markham Whitchurch-Stouffville Aurora Pelham Lincoln Grimsby Thorold Brantford Guelph Cambridge Wellesley Region Waterloo Region Peel Toronto Region Niagara Barrie Sudbury Stratford King Vaughan Hamilton North Bay Kingston St. Catharines London Newmarket Amherstburg Bradford West Gwillimbury Niagara Falls Region Durham Middlesex Centre Niagara-on-the-Lake St. Thomas Peterborough Leamington Woolwich Ottawa Wilmot Region Halton Kawartha Lakes Wasaga Beach Sarnia Central Elgin Orangeville Georgina Parry Sound Owen Sound Region York Fort Erie Chatham-Kent Thunder Bay Belleville District Muskoka Kitchener Port Colborne Brockville Welland Waterloo Windsor Average

Water Reserves $ 191,402 $ 932,944 $ 7,719,288 $ 400,809 $ 1,839,330 $ 566,821 $ 1,075,971 $ 1,872,535 $ 1,190,313 $ 11,567,301 $ 9,164,674 $ 951,418 $ 453,600 $ 8,257,804 $ 110,607,618 $ 144,888,234 $ 54,347,859 $ 15,777,204 $ 9,563,666 $ 438,445 $ 2,923,669 $ 14,066,430 $ 7,665,292 $ 1,307,655 $ 14,706,893 $ 6,344,610 $ 47,818,511 $ 631,172 $ 4,203,520 $ 1,736,295 $ 821,763 $ 29,932,953 $ 643,949 $ 8,900 $ 2,127,533 $ 1,672,718 $ 11,986,657 $ 454,188 $ 16,578,312 $ 1,164,208 $ 30,708,464 $ 3,096,923 $ 1,000,751 $ 3,535,428 $ 225,086 $ 142,721 $ 785,885 $ 677,085 $ 212,219 $ 37,141,061 $ 338,633 $ 2,647,542 $ 1,523,515 $ 562,191 $ 224,819 $ $ $ $ $ $ -

Water Debt Outstanding $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 528,538 $ 789,038 $ 627,846 $ 721,610 $ 38,441 $ 280,000 $ 1,712,000 $ 1,886,269 $ 324,536 $ 5,229,108 $ 2,466,705 $ 19,888,911 $ 394,829 $ 2,694,954 $ 1,271,795 $ 610,536 $ 23,087,000 $ 588,256 $ 10,169 $ 2,455,065 $ 2,225,357 $ 16,410,920 $ 630,689 $ 25,329,317 $ 2,000,000 $ 95,090,176 $ 15,202,233 $ 5,397,060 $ 20,513,399 $ 1,485,071 $ 1,033,288 $ 6,400,000 $ 5,670,000 $ 1,822,769 $ 348,955,419 $ 3,721,507 $ 55,320,158 $ 39,993,394 $ 14,775,000 $ 24,640,436 $ 8,660 $ 270,127 $ 676,396 $ 2,719,458 $ 2,951,332 $ 28,515,958

Water Debt to Water Reserves Ratio 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 3.1 4.9 5.4 5.8 6.6 7.2 8.1 8.4 8.6 9.4 11.0 20.9 26.3 26.3 109.6

5.0

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

83

Municipal Study 2007

Sewer Debt to Reserve Ratio

Municipality Aurora Brantford Cambridge East Gwillimbury Grimsby Pelham Region Niagara Region Peel Region Waterloo Thorold Toronto Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Woolwich St. Thomas Sudbury Hamilton Guelph Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Lincoln Vaughan Stratford Newmarket Niagara Falls Peterborough King Owen Sound Kingston St. Catharines Belleville Thunder Bay Region Halton Region Durham Kawartha Lakes Welland Bradford West Gwillimbury London Niagara-on-the-Lake Fort Erie Middlesex Centre Georgina Parry Sound Leamington Orangeville Wasaga Beach District Muskoka Chatham-Kent Central Elgin Region York Cornwall Windsor Cobourg Port Colborne Kitchener Barrie Brockville Amherstburg Sarnia Ottawa Richmond Hill Wainfleet West Lincoln Average

Sewer Reserves $ 1,916,855 $ 1,676,542 $ 2,472,521 $ 896,795 $ 2,607,176 $ 523,725 $ 38,348,943 $ 190,721,089 $ 41,196,976 $ 4,805,878 $ 27,200,729 $ 219,576 $ 438,841 $ 2,586,402 $ 1,984,572 $ 10,329,612 $ 43,504,753 $ 15,118,846 $ 1,110,142 $ 220,792 $ 2,359,327 $ 5,583,206 $ 4,952,965 $ 1,523,483 $ 1,165,097 $ 2,028,956 $ 452,665 $ 1,187,775 $ 15,199,327 $ 3,482,600 $ 11,760,910 $ 36,322,548 $ 31,372,630 $ 48,394,525 $ 2,621,651 $ 1,284,398 $ 1,001,385 $ 31,028,030 $ 1,120,943 $ 1,095,837 $ 851,037 $ 2,402,632 $ 359,035 $ 2,213,896 $ 131,456 $ 1,180,886 $ 2,098,575 $ 2,453,461 $ 118,393 $ 6,939,673 $ 1,195,508 $ (2,276,289) $ (228,915) $ $ $ (3,033,714) $ $ $ 3,227 $ N/A N/A N/A

Sanitary Sewer Sewer Debt to Debt Sewer Reserves Outstanding Ratio $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 759,312 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 91,534 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 112,456 0.1 $ 844,949 0.1 $ 5,280,464 0.1 $ 3,401,467 0.2 $ 257,935 0.2 $ 56,055 0.3 $ 620,460 0.3 $ 1,497,000 0.3 $ 1,328,027 0.3 $ 457,171 0.3 $ 536,831 0.5 $ 1,376,924 0.7 $ 367,840 0.8 $ 1,132,806 1.0 $ 16,329,015 1.1 $ 3,767,511 1.1 $ 13,140,000 1.1 $ 44,407,296 1.2 $ 39,616,573 1.3 $ 66,661,000 1.4 $ 3,655,939 1.4 $ 2,013,951 1.6 $ 1,653,560 1.7 $ 61,637,694 2.0 $ 2,236,637 2.0 $ 2,840,792 2.6 $ 2,740,096 3.2 $ 9,930,716 4.1 $ 2,000,000 5.6 $ 12,450,821 5.6 $ 764,621 5.8 $ 9,324,874 7.9 $ 21,198,572 10.1 $ 29,360,124 12.0 $ 5,557,900 46.9 $ 337,706,146 48.7 $ 64,130,966 53.6 $ $ 1,809,044 $ 248,348 $ 520,060 $ 867,576 $ 1,345,185 $ 3,802,508 $ 19,223,868 $ 24,459,282 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.4

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

84

Municipal Study 2007

Debt Outstanding & Unfinanced Capital/ 100,000 of Unweighted Assessment
This indicates the level of total outstanding long term debt as a percentage of a municipality’s ability to pay. This indicator is calculated by dividing long term commitments by unweighted assessment.

Municipality Cambridge Cornwall Markham Mississauga Whitchurch-Stouffville Brampton East Gwillimbury Halton Hills Woolwich Oakville Wellesley Lincoln Caledon Barrie Pickering Milton Vaughan Burlington Whitby Woodstock Ajax Aurora Fort Erie Huntsville Grimsby Wilmot Clarington Brantford Kitchener King Thorold Middlesex Centre Bracebridge Niagara-on-the-Lake Georgina Pelham Timmins Sudbury St. Catharines Niagara Falls Newmarket Gravenhurst Waterloo Kawartha Lakes Port Colborne

Debt Outstanding (Principal Only) $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,807 $ 1,953,646 $ 6,064,098 $ 630,689 $ 25,409,252 $ 903,864 $ 2,491,743 $ 10,513,529 $ 15,589,814 $ 14,742,049 $ 12,527,328 $ 57,007,359 $ 44,018,679 $ 21,229,739 $ 5,702,980 $ 15,211,505 $ 15,723,531 $ 6,562,299 $ 5,314,094 $ 5,740,214 $ 4,778,897 $ 19,421,640 $ 18,311,936 $ 47,229,630 $ 2,065,521 $ 2,749,697 $ 4,656,849 $ 7,847,752 $ 4,889,032 $ 20,173,374 $ 6,290,612 $ 422,719 $ 48,117,671 $ 57,611,594 $ 32,557,649 $ 50,227,080 $ 11,610,121 $ 71,610,212 $ 57,244,423 $ 8,871,438

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Unfinanced Capital 427,986 1,445,642 231,533 28,876 25,900,863 2,915,672 6,611,101 1,247,040 10,643,552 2,293,455 2,869,551 4,903,302 2,184,795 10,985,527 8,140,548 2,057,552 1,324,804 937,426

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Unweighted Assessment 9,810,354,470 2,193,385,554 35,810,297,795 81,668,770,094 4,214,826,445 42,565,404,139 2,744,614,755 6,433,498,955 2,175,226,876 26,145,894,729 931,480,403 1,977,064,605 8,239,637,414 11,353,579,210 9,797,163,309 7,423,898,036 39,478,524,546 20,635,734,327 11,261,036,899 2,369,549,640 8,902,288,824 6,250,077,220 2,546,665,150 2,503,445,566 2,186,802,300 1,747,126,884 6,988,860,344 6,136,275,960 15,359,152,185 3,526,409,988 1,348,064,365 1,986,542,340 1,987,055,040 2,458,344,590 4,097,932,750 1,522,313,615 1,997,906,045 8,166,082,664 9,737,599,978 6,838,048,745 8,395,524,405 2,150,972,465 9,547,208,474 7,611,115,682 1,263,574,324

Debt Outstanding (Principal) Per 100,000 of Unweighted Assessment $ $ $ $ $ $ 0 $ 71 $ 94 $ 29 $ 97 $ 97 $ 126 $ 128 $ 137 $ 150 $ 169 $ 144 $ 213 $ 189 $ 241 $ 171 $ 252 $ 258 $ 212 $ 262 $ 274 $ 278 $ 298 $ 308 $ 59 $ 204 $ 234 $ 395 $ 199 $ 492 $ 413 $ 21 $ 589 $ 592 $ 476 $ 598 $ 540 $ 750 $ 752 $ 702

Debt Outstanding (Principal) + Unfinanced Capital Per 100,000 of Unweighted Assessment $ $ $ $ $ $ 0 $ 87 $ 94 $ 95 $ 97 $ 122 $ 127 $ 128 $ 137 $ 150 $ 169 $ 210 $ 213 $ 214 $ 241 $ 245 $ 252 $ 258 $ 262 $ 262 $ 274 $ 278 $ 298 $ 308 $ 360 $ 374 $ 379 $ 395 $ 398 $ 492 $ 557 $ 571 $ 589 $ 592 $ 595 $ 598 $ 635 $ 750 $ 770 $ 776

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

85

Municipal Study 2007

Debt Outstanding & Unfinanced Capital/ 100,000 of Unweighted Assessment (cont’d)
Debt Outstanding (Principal) Per 100,000 of Unweighted Assessment $ 784 $ 813 $ 912 $ 906 $ 949 $ 973 $ 567 $ 978 $ 1,028 $ 643 $ 991 $ 1,083 $ 683 $ 1,128 $ 991 $ 135 $ 1,230 $ 786 $ 847 $ 1,279 $ 1,243 $ 1,485 $ 1,700 $ 1,871 $ 1,434 $ 1,975 $ 1,603 $ 2,041 $ 3,474 $ $ 618 445 Debt Outstanding (Principal) + Unfinanced Capital Per 100,000 of Unweighted Assessment $ 784 $ 884 $ 912 $ 921 $ 949 $ 973 $ 977 $ 978 $ 1,028 $ 1,032 $ 1,052 $ 1,083 $ 1,108 $ 1,128 $ 1,184 $ 1,198 $ 1,230 $ 1,258 $ 1,279 $ 1,279 $ 1,444 $ 1,519 $ 1,864 $ 1,871 $ 1,918 $ 2,020 $ 2,181 $ 2,471 $ 3,474 $ $ 721 580

Municipality Wasaga Beach Amherstburg Belleville Oshawa Hamilton Ottawa Stratford Welland North Bay Central Elgin Toronto Peterborough Sault Ste. Marie Guelph Windsor Bradford West Gwillimbury Kingston Orangeville Owen Sound St. Thomas Tillsonburg Sarnia Parry Sound Brockville London Leamington Cobourg Chatham-Kent Thunder Bay Average Median

Debt Outstanding (Principal Only) $ 17,181,308 $ 14,880,813 $ 29,924,711 $ 103,680,335 $ 367,302,779 $ 845,287,636 $ 13,686,775 $ 28,536,774 $ 33,563,845 $ 7,558,900 $ 3,142,290,500 $ 60,040,661 $ 23,908,472 $ 115,729,889 $ 155,461,753 $ 3,259,347 $ 117,164,393 $ 17,442,186 $ 11,936,037 $ 26,634,769 $ 13,326,364 $ 72,344,780 $ 8,122,484 $ 27,387,959 $ 372,065,188 $ 43,646,618 $ 23,794,550 $ 160,813,543 $ 219,994,163

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Unfinanced Capital 1,310,945 1,744,029 9,900,463 4,579,778 193,683,150 14,874,877 30,252,083 25,705,109 10,484,284 6,090,922 2,160,220 1,675,828 781,296 125,615,811 986,343 8,583,748 33,870,086 -

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Unweighted Assessment 2,192,616,495 1,830,740,535 3,280,254,565 11,441,136,295 38,688,748,593 86,870,830,250 2,413,662,245 2,917,214,740 3,264,678,396 1,175,695,995 317,002,259,990 5,544,961,820 3,501,631,640 10,255,853,471 15,686,608,864 2,417,136,020 9,528,065,854 2,219,881,635 1,409,647,875 2,082,199,990 1,072,201,867 4,871,653,695 477,740,730 1,463,527,420 25,941,858,974 2,210,030,945 1,484,386,615 7,879,901,388 6,331,861,920

Region Halton Region Peel Region Waterloo Region Niagara District Muskoka Region York Region Durham Average Median

170,112,866 384,984,000 125,193,282 204,418,063 62,379,154 1,032,465,725 213,505,732

$ $

1,064,862 40,040,595

$ $ $ $ $ $

60,639,026,047 132,473,811,647 34,451,514,857 34,429,165,559 16,510,452,801 127,903,064,931 N/A

$ $ $ $ $ $ N/A $ $

281 291 363 594 378 807

$ $ $ $ $ $ N/A

281 291 366 594 620 807

452 371

$ $

493 480

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

86

Municipal Study 2007

Financial Position
A municipality’s financial position is defined as the total fund balances including equity in business government enterprises less the amount to be recovered in future years associated with long term liabilities. A comparison was made of each municipality’s overall financial position (assets less liabilities) over time. This is calculated as follows: ♦ Accumulated net revenue or deficit of Municipal Municipal Position Per the operating fund—this is the current Municipality Position Capita year’s operating surplus or deficit Windsor $ (253,491,579) $ (1,171) ♦ Plus the capital fund position—this is Amherstburg $ (22,559,321) $ (1,037) the surplus or deficit in the capital fund Chatham-Kent $ (109,506,370) $ (1,012) Toronto $ (2,056,757,800) $ (822) ♦ Plus the reserves and discretionary Orangeville $ (20,873,253) $ (775) reserve funds—this does not include Leamington $ (21,009,626) $ (729) obligatory reserve funds such as DCs Brockville $ (15,065,227) $ (686) and park dedication which must be Oshawa $ (92,874,475) $ (656) used for specific purposes Thunder Bay $ (69,429,709) $ (636) Bradford West Gwillimbury $ (14,097,878) $ (586) ♦ Plus equity in business enterprises— Sarnia $ (38,032,170) $ (533) this is the municipality’s share in hydro Kawartha Lakes $ (37,422,734) $ (502) operations. Ottawa $ (335,304,240) $ (413) Tillsonburg $ (6,102,493) $ (412) ♦ Less long term liabilities—this is the Stratford $ (12,473,459) $ (409) debt outstanding Gravenhurst $ (4,263,455) $ (386) ♦ Less post employment benefits—this Central Elgin $ (4,131,629) $ (325) King $ (6,303,614) $ (323) includes accumulated sick leave, London $ (109,250,626) $ (310) vacation pay and WSIB claims
Georgina Timmins Port Colborne Pelham Kingston Middlesex Centre Owen Sound East Gwillimbury Belleville Huntsville Whitby Guelph Fort Erie Hamilton Waterloo Newmarket Cobourg St. Thomas Welland Niagara Falls Ajax Whitchurch-Stouffville Clarington Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Wasaga Beach St. Catharines $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (10,990,293) (10,389,405) (3,852,057) (1,414,237) (7,235,372) (779,842) 1,093,616 2,114,468 6,683,145 2,978,277 19,049,794 21,676,916 6,648,673 145,612,426 28,763,205 23,312,657 5,836,444 15,000,527 21,584,592 37,401,930 44,224,733 12,218,894 39,787,065 38,528,101 28,902,585 8,669,718 77,046,102 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (260) (242) (207) (88) (62) (50) 50 100 137 163 171 189 222 289 295 314 321 415 429 455 490 501 511 514 536 577 584

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

87

Municipal Study 2007

Financial Position (Cont’d)
Municipal Position Per Capita $ 588 $ 677 $ 704 $ 710 $ 718 $ 764 $ 804 $ 809 $ 819 $ 920 $ 946 $ 965 $ 967 $ 1,023 $ 1,036 $ 1,079 $ 1,082 $ 1,083 $ 1,083 $ 1,096 $ 1,110 $ 1,136 $ 1,143 $ 1,152 $ 1,164 $ 1,332 $ 1,487 $ 1,645 $ 306

Municipality Bracebridge Caledon Sudbury Lincoln Peterborough Cambridge Pickering Burlington Niagara-on-the-Lake Halton Hills Kitchener Cornwall Milton Thorold Wellesley Oakville Aurora Brampton Barrie Wilmot Grimsby Mississauga Brantford Woodstock Markham Vaughan Woolwich Parry Sound Average

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Municipal Position 9,199,942 38,609,612 111,133,482 15,423,225 53,796,124 91,982,884 70,617,044 132,977,680 11,952,254 50,890,211 193,550,836 44,354,359 61,895,394 18,639,133 10,144,465 178,659,984 51,532,796 469,801,759 139,117,714 18,737,315 26,571,605 759,405,917 103,055,076 40,856,343 304,463,224 318,285,552 29,222,563 9,571,071

District Muskoka York Region Waterloo Region Niagara Region Durham Region Peel Region Halton Region Average

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

(80,704,076) (624,149,887) (43,219,613) (22,593,012) 212,853,964 686,287,129 373,206,400

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

(1,402) (699) (90) (53) 379 592 831 (63)

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

88

Municipal Study 2007

Taxes Receivable as a % of Tax Levies
The following chart reflects the total uncollected property taxes as a percentage of total tax levy. Every year, a percentage of property owners is unable to pay property taxes. If this percentage increases over time, it may indicate an overall decline in the municipality’s economic health. Additionally, as uncollected property taxes rise, liquidity decreases. If the percentage of uncollected property taxes increases, the municipality should try to identify the causes and devise action strategies. A municipality should assess their internal collection procedures to reduce uncollected property taxes. Further investigation should also be conducted to classify the uncollected property taxes (residential, commercial and industrial). If uncollected property taxes are rising, further investigation is needed to try to identify the causes (why is it happening?), assess the significance and devise action strategies (what can be done?)
2005 % 2006 % Receivables Receivables of Taxes of Taxes Levied Levied 3.6% 2.9% 3.9% 3.3% 3.7% 3.4% N/A 3.7% 4.4% 4.4% 5.5% 4.4% 7.2% 6.6% 9.1% 9.0% 2.4% 3.3% 4.0% 5.1% 4.3% 5.3% 5.6% 5.0% 4.7% 6.0% 5.8% 6.7% 7.3% 8.0% 9.3% 9.1% 7.3% 7.0% 11.6% 7.0% 10.3% 6.5% 4.5% 5.4% 3.9% 7.3% 8.0% 10.3% 7.1% 9.3% 23.1% 11.5% 2.1% 3.5% 3.9% 4.4% 4.7% 4.7% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.5% 5.8% 6.4% 6.6% 7.1% 7.3% 7.5% 7.6% 7.6% 8.6% 8.7% 10.5% 7.3% 4.3% 5.1% 6.3% 6.6% 7.1% 7.4% 8.7% 9.0% 9.5% 11.4%
2005 % 2006 % Receivables Receivables of Taxes of Taxes Levied Levied 3.3% 2.8% 4.8% 4.1% 5.0% 5.6% 9.4% 7.8% 10.1% 11.4% 2.3% 4.7% 5.1% N/A N/A 9.7% 10.3% 13.6% 2.1% 2.0% 2.3% 3.9% 4.2% 5.7% N/A 3.5% 4.3% N/A 4.5% 3.8% 6.0% 6.0% N/A 4.5% 6.5% N/A 7.5% 10.5% 8.6% 6.7%

Municipality Peterborough Cornwall Ottawa Brockville Kingston Belleville Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Oshawa Burlington Ajax Toronto Newmarket Halton Hills Milton Oakville Mississauga Whitchurch Stouffville Whitby Vaughan Georgina Markham Brampton Aurora Clarington Pickering East Gwillimbury Caledon King Fort Erie St. Catharines Pelham Thorold Grimsby Hamilton Port Colborne Niagara-on-the-Lake Niagara Falls Welland Lincoln

Location Average

Municipality North Bay Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Timmins Gravenhurst Orangeville Barrie Bradford West Gwillimbury Parry Sound Huntsville Wasaga Beach Bracebridge London Guelph Waterloo Brantford St. Thomas Wellesley Tillsonburg Woolwich Stratford Woodstock Cambridge Wilmot Leamington Chatham-Kent Middlesex Centre Sarnia Kitchener Owen Sound Windsor Amherstburg Central Elgin Total Average

Location Average

North 6.3%

Eastern 4.7%

2.5% 5.1% 5.8% 5.9% 8.1% 9.8% 11.6% Simcoe/Musk.Duff. 12.5% 7.7% 1.8% 2.5% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.7% 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4.3% 4.3% 4.5% 5.3% 5.3% 5.5% 5.9% 6.2% 6.5% 7.4% 8.1% 8.8% 6.0%

GTA 6.1%

Southwest 4.8%

Niagara/Hamilton 7.5%

Municipal Financial Indicators Municipal Financial Information

89

Municipal Study 2007

Revenue and Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMP

90

Municipal Study 2007
Changes in per capita expenditures reflect changes in expenditures relative to population. Increasing per capita expenditures can indicate that the cost of providing services is outstripping the community’s ability to pay, especially if spending is increasing faster than the resident’s collective personal income. If the increase in spending is greater than can be accounted for by inflation or the addition of new services, it may indicate declining productivity. This section also includes, where appropriate, calculations of the revenue recovery for various services. Staffing levels have also been included in select schedules. Note: the MPMPs are calculated using GROSS expenditures per capita.
Revenue & Expenditure Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs Analysis & MPMPs

The Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) is an initiative designed to provide taxpayers with useful information on service delivery and municipalities with tools to improve those services over time. This section of the report includes the following information .

Protection Services
• • • • • • • •

Fire—Staffing Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP, population range Police—Staffing Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP, population range POA—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, pop. Range

Transportation Services
Roads—# of kms, Net Expenditures and Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP, by location Winter—# of kms, Net Expenditures and Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP, by location Transit—Revenues, Expenditures, Revenues as % of Exp., Net Expend Per Capita, MPMP Parking—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita

Environmental Services
• • • • • •

Sanitary Sewer—MPMPs Storm Sewer—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP Waterworks—MPMP Waste Collection—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP Waste Disposal—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP Recycling—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP

Health Services
• • •

Public Health Services—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita Ambulance—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita Cemeteries—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, Revenues as % of Expenditures

Revenue & & Revenue Information MPMPs User Fee Expenditure Analysis &

91

Municipal Study 2007

Social and Family Services
• • •

General Assistance—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita Assistance to Aged—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita Child Care—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita

Social Housing

Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita

Recreation and Culture
• • • • • • •

Parks—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, MPMP Recreation Programs—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, Revenues as a % of Expenditures, MPMP Recreation Facilities, Golf Courses, Marina, Ski Hills—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, Revenues as a % of Expenditures, MPMP Recreation Facilities Other—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, Revenues as a % of Expenditures Recreation Programs, Recreation Facilities Combined—Net Expenditures Per Capita and MPMP Libraries—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita, Revenues as a % of Expenditures, MPMP Cultural Services—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita

Planning and Development Services
• •

Planning—Revenues, Expenditures, Net Expend. Per Capita Commercial and Industrial—Revenues, Expenditures, Revenues as % of Expenditures, Net Expenditures Per Capita

Revenue & & Revenue Information MPMPs User Fee Expenditure Analysis &

92

Municipal Study 2007

Fire
Net Expenditures Per Capita is calculated using the 2006 FIR, the 2006 population as provided by Stats. Canada. Also included is the MPMP fire operating cost per $1,000 of assessment as reported by the municipality.
MPMP Fire Operating Costs per $1,000 Assessment $ 0.42 $ 0.20 $ 0.27 $ 0.29 $ 0.37 $ 0.38 $ 0.34 $ 0.69 $ 0.40 $ 0.63 $ 0.60 $ 0.75 $ 0.42 $ 0.51 $ 0.56 $ 0.69 $ 0.59 $ 0.75 $ 0.31 $ 0.68 $ 0.70 $ 0.68 $ 0.55 $ 0.43 $ 0.59 $ 0.93 $ 1.24 $ 1.00 $ 0.71 $ 0.91 $ 1.05 $ 0.78 $ 1.08 $ 1.82 $ 0.95 N/A $ 1.21 $ 0.68 $ 0.91 $ 0.86 $ 1.39 $ 0.70 $ 1.43 $ 1.46 $ 1.42 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 Net Expenditures Fire Per Capita $ 38 $ 38 $ 43 $ 44 $ 47 $ 48 $ 50 $ 51 $ 53 $ 55 $ 55 $ 61 $ 68 $ 68 $ 70 $ 71 $ 71 $ 74 $ 76 $ 76 $ 77 $ 77 $ 86 $ 87 $ 92 $ 93 $ 95 $ 97 $ 98 $ 107 $ 109 $ 111 $ 111 $ 112 $ 114 $ 114 $ 114 $ 117 $ 118 $ 119 $ 120 $ 120 $ 122 $ 123 $ 124 $ 126 $ 128

Municipality Grimsby Gravenhurst Bracebridge Huntsville Wilmot East Gwillimbury Middlesex Centre Tillsonburg Woolwich Leamington Amherstburg Orangeville Wellesley Pelham Halton Hills Kawartha Lakes Lincoln Fort Erie Niagara-on-the-Lake Central Elgin Bradford West Gwillimbury Milton Caledon King Whitchurch-Stouffville Brampton Chatham-Kent Clarington Markham Mississauga Georgina Aurora Whitby Sudbury Waterloo Timmins Cobourg Oakville Burlington Parry Sound Hamilton Vaughan Kitchener Thorold Port Colborne Barrie Ajax

Net # of Full # of Part Expenditures Time Staff Time Staff Fire 4 0 $ 906,539 0 53 $ 419,613 0 5 $ 678,664 4 0.5 $ 808,620 2 2 $ 808,101 2 1 $ 1,020,346 1 1 $ 778,013 2 1 $ 759,294 1 141 $ 1,035,481 4 28 $ 1,592,058 5 58 $ 1,204,463 15 0 $ 1,647,202 0 62 $ 662,949 2 0 $ 1,101,756 24 12.9 $ 3,868,725 31 79 $ 5,270,288 3 98 $ 1,546,867 7 0 $ 2,228,758 3 1 $ 1,102,740 1 0 $ 965,090 11 2 $ 1,847,022 32 80 $ 4,918,612 16 1 $ 4,889,691 3 109 $ 1,699,741 18 49 $ 2,245,511 375 0 $ 40,286,312 73 3 $ 10,274,590 59 125 $ 7,525,516 236 0 $ 25,530,105 686 0 $ 71,665,695 38 0 $ 4,624,440 N/A N/A $ 5,302,051 120 2 $ 12,393,979 128 0 $ 17,670,357 117 0 $ 11,103,277 37 2 $ 4,901,438 17 15 $ 2,080,728 175 0 $ 19,457,455 179 4.2 $ 19,472,809 N/A N/A $ 691,823 512 40.3 $ 60,528,199 254 0 $ 28,742,855 212 3 $ 25,060,558 16 0 $ 2,238,958 15 1 $ 2,304,316 121 4 $ 16,194,468 100 1 $ 11,556,658

Population Range 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 under 20,000 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + under 20,000 under 20,000 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999

Source—2006 FIR Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs 93

Municipal Study 2007

Fire (cont’d)
MPMP Fire Operating Costs per $1,000 Assessment $ 1.16 $ 0.67 $ 1.56 $ 1.61 $ 1.66 $ 1.19 $ 2.54 $ 2.20 $ 1.17 $ 1.01 $ 1.63 $ 2.03 $ 2.69 $ 1.90 $ 2.06 $ 2.00 $ 2.26 $ 2.19 $ 2.02 $ 1.86 $ 2.83 $ 1.98 $ 1.93 $ 3.05 $ 2.38 $ 2.36 $ 2.82 $ 1.21

Municipality Ottawa Wasaga Beach Guelph London St. Catharines Pickering Sault Ste. Marie Welland Newmarket Toronto Cambridge Brantford Cornwall Peterborough Owen Sound Windsor Woodstock Belleville Stratford Kingston St. Thomas Oshawa Niagara Falls Thunder Bay Brockville Sarnia North Bay Average

Net # of Full # of Part Expenditures Time Staff Time Staff Fire 949 3 $ 104,444,526 14 0 $ 1,991,807 147 1 $ 15,599,834 405 0 $ 47,872,192 164 0 $ 18,288,880 98 0 $ 12,188,699 102 1 $ 10,407,815 56 0 $ 7,039,032 117 1 $ 10,575,333 3087 0 $ 361,165,156 144 0 $ 17,480,770 132 0 $ 13,107,683 65 0 $ 6,704,431 98 0 $ 11,305,490 32 0 $ 3,331,032 311 0 $ 34,133,684 52 0 $ 5,630,499 65 40 $ 7,949,055 52 0 $ 4,975,296 152 1 $ 19,413,914 59 0 $ 6,031,833 194 0 $ 23,712,117 114 0 $ 14,628,492 192 0 $ 19,431,879 39 6 $ 3,927,165 120 1 $ 12,955,475 89 1 $ 10,726,123

Net Expenditures Fire Per Capita $ 129 $ 133 $ 136 $ 136 $ 139 $ 139 $ 139 $ 140 $ 142 $ 144 $ 145 $ 145 $ 146 $ 151 $ 153 $ 158 $ 159 $ 163 $ 163 $ 166 $ 167 $ 167 $ 178 $ 178 $ 179 $ 181 $ 199 $ 111

Population Range 100,000 + under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999

Fire costs will vary significantly based on a number of factors including but not limited to: • • • • • • Size of municipality and mix of urban and rural coverage Volume of activity Composition of fire services—use of paid or volunteer firefighters Service levels on response time can affect the number of firefighters on staff and the number of fire halls and equipment Specialized services Accounting and reporting practices

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

94

Municipal Study 2007

Police
The following table is calculated using the 2006 FIR, the 2006 population as provided by Stats. Canada and the 2007 unweighted assessment as provided in the municipality’s by-law. Also included is the MPMP 2006 operating costs for police services per person as reported by the municipality. The table has been sorted in ascending order on a per person basis (MPMP).
MPMP Operating Costs For Police Services Per Person $ 86 $ 110 $ 124 $ 131 $ 144 $ 153 $ 172 $ 178 $ 181 $ 182 $ 183 $ 198 $ 199 $ 199 $ 200 $ 203 $ 203 $ 209 $ 212 $ 213 $ 214 $ 220 $ 222 $ 223 $ 230 $ 234 $ 235 $ 239 $ 243 $ 249 $ 250 $ 250 $ 264 $ 266 $ 267 $ 291 $ 301 $ 319 $ 330 $ 339 $ 374 N/A $ 220

Municipality Middlesex Centre Central Elgin Kawartha Lakes Muskoka District Tillsonburg Wasaga Beach Leamington Orangeville York Region Waterloo Region Halton Region Amherstburg Chatham-Kent Bradford West Gwillimbury Peel Region Kingston Durham Region Guelph Ottawa London Barrie St. Thomas Woodstock Peterborough Hamilton Sarnia Sudbury Brantford Niagara Region Thunder Bay Stratford North Bay Belleville Sault Ste. Marie Parry Sound Toronto Owen Sound Cobourg Windsor Cornwall Brockville Timmins Average

# Full Time Positions N/A Contract 62 N/A N/A Contract 59 53 1,720 932 754 34 244 N/A N/A 244 1,255 N/A 1,754 783 275 85 N/A 165 1,028 159 341 206 942 312 71 123 114 185 N/A 7,396 55 48 630 129 65 118

Net Expenditures Police $ 1,330,929 $ 1,658,244 $ 8,984,122 $ 7,501,109 $ 2,414,153 $ 2,409,395 $ 4,905,972 $ 4,865,483 $ 173,336,625 $ 91,290,493 $ 84,290,613 $ 4,497,787 $ 20,692,881 $ 4,843,046 $ 231,505,362 $ 25,234,893 $ 119,448,729 $ 26,215,503 $ 190,046,661 $ 75,713,670 $ 29,817,139 $ 7,648,574 $ 7,263,771 $ 16,652,769 $ 116,374,963 $ 16,466,494 $ 37,457,992 $ 23,165,997 $ 107,523,413 $ 29,132,752 $ 7,543,249 $ 13,520,278 $ 11,726,674 $ 19,766,466 $ 1,554,070 $ 814,073,374 $ 6,011,712 $ 5,804,324 $ 68,188,403 $ 13,651,682 $ 6,368,384 $ 11,180,156

Net Expenditures Police Per $100,000 CVA $ 67 $ 141 $ 118 $ 45 $ 225 $ 110 $ 222 $ 219 $ 136 $ 265 $ 139 $ 246 $ 263 $ 200 $ 175 $ 265 N/A $ 256 $ 219 $ 292 $ 263 $ 367 $ 307 $ 300 $ 301 $ 338 $ 459 $ 378 $ 312 $ 460 $ 313 $ 414 $ 357 $ 564 $ 325 $ 257 $ 426 $ 391 $ 435 $ 622 $ 435 $ 560 $ 284

Population Range under 20,000 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,000

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

95

Municipal Study 2007

Police (cont’d)

Police costs will vary significantly based on a number of factors including but not limited to: • Geographic mix (urban/rural mix) • One-time special events • Proximity and quantity of higher risk facilities (e.g. correctional , mental health facilities) • Service levels • Incident of more complex crimes • Specialized services (e.g. Emergency Task Force, Emergency Measures, Marine Unit, etc.) • Accounting and reporting practices

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

96

Municipal Study 2007

POA
The following table is calculated using the 2006 FIR, the 2006 population as provided by Stats Canada.
POA Expenditures $ 519,834 $ 1,082,778 $ 1,215,576 $ 1,441,265 $ 579,482 $ 525,505 $ 5,721,288 $ 1,037,807 $ 1,360,094 $ 361,711 $ 1,255,247 $ 5,059,348 $ 2,908,482 $ 1,138,017 $ 1,153,003 $ 3,533,361 $ 2,870,350 $ 5,348,711 $ 4,671,899 $ 861,443 $ 6,586,834 $ 435,784 $ 3,957,727 $ 468,872 $ 4,653,834 $ $ 186,490 $ 5,346,601 $ 2,995,432 $ 340 $ 33,831,500 $ 10,347,061 POA Revenues $ 1,507,141 $ 1,159,866 $ 1,868,899 $ 2,641,215 $ 1,316,231 $ 1,258,541 $ 6,740,004 $ 2,266,451 $ 2,131,975 $ 651,082 $ 1,756,525 $ 8,095,404 $ 5,771,685 $ 1,422,305 $ 1,588,762 $ 6,705,131 $ 3,415,138 $ 6,370,211 $ 6,684,384 $ 1,321,080 $ 9,731,144 $ 808,388 $ 4,895,878 $ 610,762 $ 5,492,690 $ 27,371 $ 428,845 $ 5,834,168 $ 3,021,966 $ 680 $ 32,356,119 $ 8,031,360 Net Expenditures $ (987,307) $ (77,088) $ (653,323) $ (1,199,950) $ (736,749) $ (733,036) $ (1,018,716) $ (1,228,644) $ (771,881) $ (289,371) $ (501,278) $ (3,036,056) $ (2,863,203) $ (284,288) $ (435,759) $ (3,171,770) $ (544,788) $ (1,021,500) $ (2,012,485) $ (459,637) $ (3,144,310) $ (372,604) $ (938,151) $ (141,890) $ (838,856) $ (27,371) $ (242,355) $ (487,567) $ (26,534) $ (340) $ 1,475,381 $ 2,315,701 POA Net Revenues per Capita $ (17) $ (13) $ (11) $ (11) $ (10) $ (10) $ (8) $ (8) $ (7) $ (7) $ (7) $ (6) $ (6) $ (5) $ (5) $ (5) $ (5) $ (5) $ (5) $ (4) $ (4) $ (3) $ (3) $ (3) $ (2) $ (1) $ (1) $ (1) $ (0) $ (0) $ 1 $ 3 $ (5)

Municipality Muskoka District Parry Sound Caledon Thunder Bay Kawartha Lakes Sault Ste. Marie Barrie Sudbury Chatham-Kent Timmins Peterborough Waterloo Region Hamilton North Bay Brantford Mississauga Guelph Windsor Brampton Kingston Ottawa Cambridge London Halton Hills Niagara Region Port Colborne Oakville Durham Region Burlington Wilmot Toronto York Region Average

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

97

Municipal Study 2007

Roadways
(data sorted by MPMP operating cost)
MPMP % of Paved Lane km Net where the Total Total Net Expenditures condition is Paved Unpaved Expenditures Roadways rated as Lane km Lane km Roadways Per Capita good/very good 431 101 $ 3,348,420 $ 180 17.4% 1,237 6 N/A N/A 97.3% $ 3,988,794 $ 94 60.1% 594 35 $ 2,771,391 $ 96 75.3% $ 6,951,201 $ 63 72.4% 400 100 $ 3,297,007 $ 137 82.5% 474 2 $ 4,249,787 $ 57 74.3% 607 12 $ 3,830,430 $ 42 78.1% 360 45 $ 3,242,015 $ 213 31.4% $ 3,492,270 $ 117 86.4% $ 3,853,467 $ 211 42.0% 367 257 $ 2,828,007 $ 181 45.8% 1,792 6 $ 11,187,388 $ 43 60.0% $ 26,996,857 $ 250 65.4% $ 1,982,594 $ 94 44.8% 1,720 52 $ 12,637,458 $ 53 100.0% 370 140 $ 1,485,492 $ 134 76.4% 200 66 $ 2,307,956 $ 127 N/A 686 232 $ 4,067,333 $ 46 83.8% 1,489 230 $ 9,628,705 $ 124 71.3% 1,932 200 $ 13,780,701 $ 126 13.5% $ 1,388,852 $ 94 67.9% $ 1,446,845 $ 74 48.3% $ 2,763,883 $ 58 70.8% $ 4,423,434 $ 204 61.1% 1,567 $ 18,650,354 $ 113 36.1% $ 8,647,326 $ 115 70.0% 1,175 23 $ 13,705,118 $ 119 51.0% $ 4,187,804 $ 59 57.7% 815 68 $ 6,052,475 $ 109 82.6% 1,272 272 $ (7,933,227) $ (139) 61.7% 1,723 58 $ 11,277,718 $ 96 71.7% $ 1,377,235 $ 141 100.0% 3,082 2,126 $ 10,580,472 $ 142 58.0% 550 600 $ 3,438,907 $ 221 54.5% 2,225 19 $ 17,464,489 $ 81 43.0% 800 17 $ 7,950,332 $ 124 66.3% 1,052 9 $ 12,265,518 $ 87 74.9% 560 1 $ 5,392,594 $ 117 53.7% 9,960 1,355 $ 106,725,974 $ 131 79.0% 1,700 $ 18,495,525 $ 112 65.2% 555 4 $ 6,961,972 $ 143 N/A $ 22,199,074 $ 51 59.2% 5,036 $ 34,022,367 $ 51 78.5% $ 48,286,192 $ 137 58.0% 1,396 4 $ 8,721,384 $ 43 61.0% 1,235 5 $ 13,687,773 $ 107 64.9% $ 2,509,719 $ 155 87.6% $ 10,842,095 $ 90 43.3% 2,974 598 $ 32,736,078 $ 207 52.7% 1,200 22 $ 4,785,652 $ 64 68.5% MPMP Operating Costs for Paved roads per lane km $ 327 $ 388 $ 406 $ 410 $ 467 $ 507 $ 508 $ 550 $ 572 $ 573 $ 579 $ 595 $ 601 $ 604 $ 650 $ 669 $ 670 $ 682 $ 700 $ 742 $ 781 $ 794 $ 828 $ 917 $ 919 $ 932 $ 969 $ 978 $ 1,012 $ 1,031 $ 1,043 $ 1,082 $ 1,101 $ 1,116 $ 1,144 $ 1,147 $ 1,158 $ 1,193 $ 1,231 $ 1,285 $ 1,523 $ 1,599 $ 1,615 $ 1,687 $ 1,707 $ 1,972 $ 1,990 $ 2,176 $ 2,230 $ 2,292 $ 2,315

Municipality Port Colborne Richmond Hill Georgina Leamington Whitby Bradford West Gwillimbury Newmarket Ajax Wasaga Beach Fort Erie Huntsville Bracebridge Markham Chatham-Kent East Gwillimbury Vaughan Gravenhurst Thorold Pickering Clarington Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Woolwich Aurora Lincoln Burlington Peterborough Guelph Sarnia Halton Hills Caledon Kingston Wellesley Kawartha Lakes Middlesex Centre Windsor Milton Oshawa Cornwall Ottawa Oakville Belleville Brampton Mississauga London Kitchener Barrie Pelham Cambridge Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie

Source—2006 FIR Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs 98

Municipal Study 2007

Roadways (cont’d)
MPMP % of Paved Lane km where the condition is rated as good/very good 65.7% 67.8% 63.1% 84.9% 75.0% 56.0% 35.5% 85.1% 70.2% 74.7% N/A 72.7% 43.8% 71.8% 92.3% 86.0% 89.7% N/A 68.7% 99.5% 63.9% 74.3% MPMP Operating Costs for Paved roads per lane km $ 2,354 $ 2,455 $ 2,653 $ 2,672 $ 3,014 $ 3,223 $ 3,403 $ 3,420 $ 3,469 $ 3,534 $ 3,589 $ 3,632 $ 4,503 $ 4,617 $ 4,617 $ 4,677 $ 4,968 $ 5,480 $ 5,985 $ 6,801 $ 9,088 $ 9,625 2,065 697 777 983 1,040 1,107 1,657 2,957 1,317

Municipality Woodstock Brockville Brantford Welland Wilmot Hamilton Central Elgin Niagara-on-the-Lake Whitchurch-Stouffville Niagara Falls Owen Sound Waterloo Grimsby St. Thomas Parry Sound Cobourg Toronto North Bay Stratford Amherstburg Orangeville St. Catharines Average Niagara Region Halton Region Peel Region Waterloo Region York Region Durham Region Muskoka District Average

Total Total Net Paved Unpaved Expenditures Lane km Lane km Roadways 481 12 $ 3,051,597 $ 307,413 1,026 $ 12,728,302 564 23 $ 8,719,280 $ 1,798,078 6,002 197 $ 65,806,251 265 143 $ 3,720,514 $ 2,220,632 $ 2,462,935 1,088 120 $ 8,917,612 $ 2,976,251 $ 3,163,336 315 $ 1,591,814 $ 1,924,670 104 2 $ 213,084 308 $ 3,781,833 13,317 $ 171,902,108 975 31 $ 8,071,563 361 $ 2,945,215 375 81 $ 4,484,759 238 $ 2,988,872 $ 18,599,964

Net Expenditures Roadways Per Capita $ 86 $ 14 $ 141 $ 173 $ 105 $ 130 $ 292 $ 152 $ 101 $ 109 $ 137 $ 32 $ 67 $ 53 $ 37 $ 208 $ 69 $ 150 $ 97 $ 206 $ 111 $ 141 $ 113 72 52 23 83 64 41 236 82

66.2% $ $ $ $ $ N/A $ 38.7% $ 35.7% $ 59.0% $ 68.0% 74.0% 85.2% 52.3%

1,492

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

30,648,010 23,535,223 26,287,141 39,656,026 57,185,058 23,286,850 13,592,674

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

The operating costs for paved roads can be influenced by: • Frequency of freezes and thaws
• • • • • •

Frequency and severity of rainfall Age and condition of network Accounting and reporting procedures Volume and type of traffic using the roads Municipality’s pavement standards Accounting and reporting practices

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

99

Municipal Study 2007

Roadways— grouped by location
MPMP Operating Costs for Paved roads per lane km $ 969 $ 1,082 $ 1,116 $ 1,231 $ 1,285 $ 1,599 $ 2,455 $ 4,677 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 388 406 467 508 550 601 669 700 742 917 932 1,031 1,043 1,158 1,193 1,523 1,615 1,687 3,469 4,968 N/A N/A

Municipality Peterborough Kingston Kawartha Lakes Cornwall Ottawa Belleville Brockville Cobourg Richmond Hill Georgina Whitby Newmarket Ajax Markham Vaughan Pickering Clarington Aurora Burlington Halton Hills Caledon Milton Oshawa Oakville Brampton Mississauga Whitchurch-Stouffville Toronto East Gwillimbury King Port Colborne Fort Erie Thorold Lincoln Pelham Welland Hamilton Niagara-on-the-Lake Niagara Falls Grimsby St. Catharines

Average Per Location

Municipality Thunder Bay Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Timmins Bradford West Gwillimbury Wasaga Beach Huntsville Bracebridge Gravenhurst Barrie Parry Sound Orangeville Leamington Chatham-Kent Tillsonburg Woolwich Guelph Sarnia Wellesley Middlesex Centre Windsor London Kitchener Cambridge Woodstock Brantford Wilmot Central Elgin Owen Sound Waterloo St. Thomas Stratford Amherstburg Norfolk North Dumfries

MPMP Operating Costs for Paved roads per lane km $ 781 $ 2,292 $ 2,315 $ 5,480 N/A $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 507 572 579 595 670 1,990 4,617 9,088 410 604 794 828 978 1,012 1,101 1,144 1,147 1,707 1,972 2,230 2,354 2,653 3,014 3,403 3,589 3,632 4,617 5,985 6,801 N/A N/A

Average Per Location

North $ 2,717

Eastern $ 1,802

$

Simcoe/Musk.Duff. 2,327

GTA $ 1,228

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

327 573 682 919 2,176 2,672 3,223 3,420 3,534 4,503 Niagara/Hamilton 9,625 $ 2,878

$

Southwest 2,380

King includes both paved and unpaved

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

100

Municipal Study 2007

Winter Control
(data sorted by MPMP operating cost)
Total Lane km Maintained in Winter 456 N/A 594 N/A N/A N/A N/A 266 N/A 532 1,150 N/A N/A 677 N/A 918 410 N/A N/A 619 559 1,631 216 N/A 315 586 1,588 493 510 880 N/A N/A 5,325 500 1,763 N/A 458 N/A 405 813 488 982 Winter Control Per Capita $ 1 $ 10 $ 5 $ 7 $ 16 $ 7 $ 19 $ 10 $ 11 $ 17 $ 38 $ 5 $ 14 $ 20 $ 16 $ 7 $ 15 $ 14 $ 11 $ 5 $ 16 $ 16 $ 11 $ 9 $ 10 $ 9 $ 8 $ 9 $ 45 $ 13 $ 15 $ 18 $ 69 $ 21 $ 14 $ 10 $ 31 $ 23 $ 27 $ 14 $ 8 $ 19 MPMP Winter Maintenance Per Lane KM $ 66 $ 175 $ 233 $ 247 $ 344 $ 358 $ 363 $ 434 $ 456 $ 500 $ 520 $ 542 $ 548 $ 572 $ 574 $ 579 $ 614 $ 630 $ 646 $ 693 $ 709 $ 745 $ 755 $ 777 $ 779 $ 780 $ 781 $ 807 $ 832 $ 852 $ 855 $ 872 $ 962 $ 1,033 $ 1,048 $ 1,052 $ 1,069 $ 1,087 $ 1,133 $ 1,177 $ 1,185 $ 1,187

Municipality Amherstburg Pelham Leamington Niagara-on-the-Lake Wellesley Lincoln Chatham-Kent Thorold Sarnia Port Colborne Middlesex Centre St. Catharines Fort Erie Woolwich Wilmot Pickering Central Elgin Cambridge Cobourg Ajax Belleville Clarington Tillsonburg St. Thomas Grimsby Welland Burlington Woodstock Gravenhurst Halton Hills Whitchurch-Stouffville East Gwillimbury Kawartha Lakes Bradford West Gwillimbury Oakville Whitby Bracebridge Peterborough Wasaga Beach Waterloo Newmarket Milton

Net Expenditures $ 30,230 $ 155,363 $ 138,268 $ 107,747 $ 154,279 $ 145,953 $ 2,076,505 $ 190,503 $ 807,338 $ 319,258 $ 597,448 $ 696,408 $ 420,333 $ 387,319 $ 276,567 $ 572,847 $ 191,618 $ 1,699,192 $ 198,907 $ 472,252 $ 772,328 $ 1,280,621 $ 164,629 $ 329,492 $ 245,295 $ 464,081 $ 1,235,907 $ 311,013 $ 495,510 $ 721,886 $ 372,678 $ 383,421 $ 5,114,327 $ 516,493 $ 2,303,748 $ 1,065,912 $ 489,312 $ 1,706,972 $ 403,739 $ 1,335,805 $ 574,045 $ 1,243,655

Source—2006 FIR Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs 101

Municipal Study 2007

Winter Control (cont’d)
Municipality Windsor Brantford Thunder Bay Richmond Hill Huntsville Caledon Kitchener Oshawa Brockville Georgina Aurora Cornwall Mississauga Kingston Guelph Brampton London Hamilton Stratford North Bay Orangeville Niagara Falls Markham Owen Sound Sudbury Vaughan Toronto Barrie Ottawa Sault Ste. Marie Parry Sound King * Timmins Average Muskoka District Halton Region Waterloo Region Durham Region York Region Niagara Region Peel Region Average

Total Lane km Maintained in Winter 2,338 1,026 2,132 1,243 N/A 1,542 1,400 1,083 N/A N/A N/A 560 4,994 1,781 1,198 N/A N/A N/A 361 1,006 238 1,156 1,798 N/A 3,572 1,772 13,317 1,240 11,315 1,222 106 N/A N/A

Net Expenditures $ 2,779,500 $ 1,259,079 $ 3,238,682 N/A N/A $ 2,134,563 $ 3,664,049 $ 1,705,087 $ 503,493 $ 930,581 $ 1,096,334 $ 1,403,644 $ 8,701,171 $ 3,386,579 $ 2,278,312 $ 4,659,572 $ 10,268,189 $ 15,741,252 $ 759,534 $ 2,162,430 $ 527,449 $ 2,631,361 $ 4,288,696 $ 1,013,215 $ 14,766,917 $ 8,206,245 $ 54,537,921 $ 6,146,210 $ 59,843,802 $ 5,766,398 $ 448,188 $ 369,312 $ 2,555,585

Winter Control Per Capita $ 13 $ 14 $ 30 N/A N/A $ 37 $ 18 $ 12 $ 23 $ 22 $ 23 $ 31 $ 13 $ 29 $ 20 $ 11 $ 29 $ 31 $ 25 $ 40 $ 20 $ 32 $ 16 $ 47 $ 94 $ 34 $ 22 $ 48 $ 74 $ 77 $ 77 $ 19 $ 59 $ 23 45 3 8 12 12 12 8 14

MPMP Winter Maintenance Per Lane KM $ 1,213 $ 1,227 $ 1,266 $ 1,376 $ 1,380 $ 1,384 $ 1,413 $ 1,423 $ 1,556 $ 1,566 $ 1,571 $ 1,743 $ 1,768 $ 1,902 $ 1,902 $ 1,904 $ 2,010 $ 2,057 $ 2,106 $ 2,150 $ 2,207 $ 2,276 $ 2,385 $ 2,799 $ 3,609 $ 3,859 $ 3,880 $ 3,964 $ 4,189 $ 4,212 $ 4,228 N/A N/A $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,371 1,748 1,772 2,219 3,067 3,093 3,167 4,176 2,749

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

$ 2,608,582 $ 1,540,491 $ 3,730,204 $ 6,498,500 $ 10,278,485 $ 5,228,315 $ 8,940,535

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

The operating costs for winter maintenance can be influenced by: • The frequency and severity of winter storm events
• • • •

The extent of the road network located in urban areas Municipalities service threshold for responding to winter storm events The municipalities service standard for road condition after a storm Accounting and reporting practices

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

102

Municipal Study 2007

Winter Control - grouped by location
MPMP Winter Maintenance Per Lane KM $ 646 $ 709 $ 962 $ 1,087 $ 1,556 $ 1,743 $ 1,902 $ 4,189 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 579 693 745 781 852 855 872 1,048 1,052 1,185 1,187 1,376 1,384 1,423 1,566 1,571 1,768 1,904 2,385 3,859 3,880 N/A $
MPMP Winter Maintenance Per Lane KM $ 1,266 $ 2,150 $ 3,609 $ 4,212 N/A $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Municipality Cobourg Belleville Kawartha Lakes Peterborough Brockville Cornwall Kingston Ottawa Pickering Ajax Clarington Burlington Halton Hills Whitchurch-Stouffville East Gwillimbury Oakville Whitby Newmarket Milton Richmond Hill Caledon Oshawa Georgina Aurora Mississauga Brampton Markham Vaughan Toronto King Pelham Niagara-on-the-Lake Lincoln Thorold Port Colborne St. Catharines Fort Erie Grimsby Welland Hamilton Niagara Falls Wainfleet West Lincoln

Average Per Location

Municipality Thunder Bay North Bay Sudbury Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Gravenhurst Bradford West Gwillimbury Bracebridge Wasaga Beach Huntsville Orangeville Barrie Parry Sound Amherstburg Leamington Wellesley Chatham-Kent Sarnia Middlesex Centre Woolwich Wilmot Central Elgin Cambridge Tillsonburg St. Thomas Woodstock Waterloo Windsor Brantford Kitchener Guelph London Stratford Owen Sound Norfolk North Dumfries

Average Per Location

North $ 2,809

Eastern 1,599

832 1,033 1,069 1,133 1,380 2,207 3,964 Simcoe/Musk./Duff 1,981 4,228 $ 66 233 344 363 456 520 572 574 614 630 755 777 807 1,177 1,213 1,227 1,413 1,902 2,010 2,106 2,799 N/A N/A

GTA 1,475

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

175 247 358 434 500 542 548 779 780 2,057 2,276 N/A Niagara/Hamilton N/A $ 791

Southwest $ 979

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

103

Municipal Study 2007

Transit Services
Factors that contribute to the cost of transit include: • Modes of transportation • Service levels and standards such as proximity and frequency of service • Accounting and reporting practices • Urban form (urban vs. rural) • Age of fleet
Net Expenditures Revenue as Transit % Expend. $ 94,337 89.3% $ 142,714 2.9% $ 107,381 2.0% $ 373,797 N/A $ 89,184 28.7% $ 98,318 16.1% $ 199,668 31.9% $ 522,520 15.3% $ 1,176,222 55.6% $ 375,171 24.1% $ 264,169 20.9% $ 1,130,803 N/A $ 869,725 62.2% $ 499,232 26.5% $ 886,826 58.0% $ 495,861 22.2% $ 1,920,699 8.4% $ 1,230,830 24.5% $ 3,033,807 64.8% $ 830,017 39.8% $ 6,708,655 56.2% $ 2,357,066 24.9% $ 3,821,877 35.8% $ 35,858,262 60.5% $ 5,044,250 36.7% $ 9,027,818 43.4% $ 7,382,834 38.1% $ 34,503,810 32.2% $ 13,313,732 51.9% $ 27,055,005 44.2% $ 10,446,907 35.3% $ 7,661,732 41.8% $ 3,556,390 53.9% $ 23,281,452 54.8% $ 8,910,958 44.2% $ 7,535,632 43.5% $ 3,214,033 22.2% $ 33,921,142 43.3% $ 2,165,651 20.7% $ 9,132,751 45.3% $ 5,967,741 35.2% $ 41,783,419 43.9% $ 6,573,506 31.0% $ 4,022,256 27.8% $ 113,669,100 26.1% $ 422,224,647 66.3% $ 184,340,278 43.5% Net Transit Costs per $100,000 Assessment $ 0 $ 2 $ 5 $ 4 $ 7 $ 4 $ 8 $ 7 $ 15 $ 17 $ 20 $ 16 $ 27 $ 34 $ 43 $ 33 $ 26 $ 52 $ 44 $ 59 $ 33 $ 81 $ 78 $ 44 $ 82 $ 111 $ 65 N/A $ 85 $ 64 $ 40 $ 80 $ 109 $ 90 $ 92 $ 119 $ 147 $ 98 $ 90 $ 89 $ 108 $ 108 $ 188 $ 201 $ 89 $ 133 $ 212 MPMP Transit Operating Cost Per Regular Service Passenger Trip N/A N/A $ 6.30 N/A N/A $ 7.20 $ 6.01 $ 9.52 $ 3.62 $ 5.66 N/A N/A $ 2.06 $ 5.40 $ 2.88 $ 6.46 $ 17.01 $ 5.26 $ 6.24 $ 4.05 $ 4.76 $ 7.72 $ 4.28 $ 3.13 $ 4.23 $ 3.15 $ 3.98 $ 4.87 $ 4.45 $ 4.65 $ 2.77 $ 3.90 $ 2.17 $ 2.25 $ 2.52 $ 4.34 $ 2.64 $ 3.52 $ 3.48 $ 2.52 $ 2.79 $ 2.68 $ 5.76 $ 5.33 $ 5.83 $ 2.28 $ 2.29 4.63 MPMP Transit Trips Per Capita N/A N/A 0.53 N/A N/A 1.01 1.16 3.35 5.89 3.01 N/A N/A 25.36 3.78 9.37 4.47 1.34 7.50 17.11 11.20 14.23 6.91 15.08 43.41 15.04 27.34 18.79 13.83 28.39 24.48 14.59 25.19 47.71 54.74 36.01 27.49 10.99 30.50 19.56 49.45 33.07 41.95 22.05 20.17 18.00 164.40 113.08 25.16 FIR Net Expenditures Transit Per Capita $ 0 $ 3 $ 4 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 7 $ 7 $ 11 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 $ 18 $ 23 $ 25 $ 27 $ 30 $ 35 $ 37 $ 38 $ 41 $ 47 $ 54 $ 54 $ 56 $ 57 $ 57 $ 61 $ 62 $ 62 $ 63 $ 65 $ 66 $ 66 $ 68 $ 69 $ 70 $ 71 $ 71 $ 79 $ 80 $ 83 $ 88 $ 94 $ 127 $ 169 $ 227 $ 52

Municipality Vaughan Halton Hills Leamington Ajax Port Colborne Huntsville Fort Erie Kawartha Lakes Chatham-Kent Orangeville Thorold Clarington Belleville Brockville St. Thomas Cobourg Milton Woodstock Niagara Falls Owen Sound Burlington Welland Sarnia Mississauga Brantford Sudbury Barrie Durham Region Windsor Brampton Oakville Kingston North Bay London St. Catharines Thunder Bay Cornwall Waterloo Region Stratford Guelph Peterborough Hamilton Sault Ste. Marie Timmins York Region Toronto Ottawa Average

Population Range 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 +

37.7% $

66 $

Halton Region Niagara Region Peel Region District Muskoka

$ $ $ $

7,546,122 28,306 8,868,074 -

N/A 84.7% $ N/A $ N/A

N/A 0 26 N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A

$ $ $ $

17 0 8 -

Source—2006 FIR Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs 104

Municipal Study 2007

Parking
Municipality Bracebridge Wasaga Beach Ottawa London Port Colborne Sault Ste. Marie Kawartha Lakes Kitchener Sudbury Whitby Lincoln Cornwall Timmins Whitchurch-Stouffville Ajax Barrie Caledon Newmarket Belleville St. Thomas Halton Hills Cobourg Chatham-Kent Woodstock Brampton Woolwich Orangeville Markham Parry Sound Clarington Gravenhurst Sarnia Leamington Niagara-on-the-Lake Welland Thunder Bay Pelham Huntsville Mississauga North Bay Tillsonburg Hamilton Owen Sound Brockville Peterborough Cambridge Oakville Stratford Burlington Windsor Kingston Guelph St. Catharines Brantford Toronto Waterloo Milton Oshawa Niagara Falls Average

Source—2006 FIR

Revenues as a Net % of Expenditures Expenditures $ (82,877) 825% $ (15,535) 102% $ (799,974) 107% $ (309,522) 113% $ (14,481) 281% $ (40,424) 110% $ 100% $ (42,221) 102% $ (11,557) 101% $ 2,554 100% $ 2,925 0% $ 11,645 97% $ 17,486 97% $ 14,072 0% $ 64,366 0% $ 118,221 88% $ 74,277 0% $ 117,988 57% $ 77,548 78% $ 59,708 41% $ 97,193 12% $ 37,989 61% $ 255,127 38% $ 88,120 32% $ 1,324,742 28% $ 65,895 0% $ 96,323 27% $ 945,353 0% $ 21,210 85% $ 293,753 0% $ 42,103 0% $ 286,592 54% $ 126,138 15% $ 67,584 92% $ 240,473 44% $ 605,373 69% $ 93,299 0% $ 108,490 37% $ 4,271,508 2% $ 369,212 66% $ 104,589 1% $ 3,812,912 58% $ 165,201 59% $ 169,708 53% $ 581,664 73% $ 1,180,780 9% $ 1,637,587 46% $ 314,609 57% $ 2,060,634 1% $ 3,115,782 50% $ 1,846,171 67% $ 1,849,245 61% $ 2,137,521 43% $ 1,466,387 28% $ 44,204,360 2% $ 1,929,709 13% $ 1,332,451 0% $ 3,247,380 25% $ 2,408,851 22%

Parking Net Expenditures per Capita $ (5) $ (1) $ (1) $ (1) $ (1) $ (1) $ (0) $ (0) $ (0) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 3 $ 3 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 7 $ 7 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 13 $ 14 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 18 $ 20 $ 21 $ 23 $ 29 6

38% $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

105

Municipal Study 2007
MPMP MPMP Operating Operating Costs for Costs for Collection per Treatment and Kilometre of Disposal of Wastewater Wastewater Main per Megalitre $ 2,403 $ 534 $ 2,897 $ 441 $ 7,397 $ 201 $ 16,800 $ 197 $ 8,427 $ 176 $ 3,105 $ 266 $ 4,389 N/A N/A $ 1,520 $ 3,658 $ 261 $ 3,045 $ 346 $ 1,974 $ 83 $ 7,109 N/A $ 4,552 N/A $ 6,065 N/A $ 32,622 N/A $ 1,542 $ 426 $ 9,918 $ 110 N/A N/A $ 2,277 $ 269 $ 6,418 N/A $ 5,065 $ 160 $ 7,300 N/A $ 1,896 $ 352 $ 1,763 N/A N/A N/A $ 3,637 $ 481 $ 9,870 $ 445 $ 5,842 $ 681 $ 1,829 $ 427 $ 5,540 $ 125 $ 4,906 $ 226 $ 3,697 $ 608 $ 646 N/A $ 2,779 $ 199 $ 3,254 N/A $ 7,715 $ 482 $ 4,478 $ 297 $ 5,413 $ 166 $ 4,090 N/A $ 1,692 $ 137 $ 2,513 $ 144 $ 8,388 $ 189 $ 3,537 N/A $ 8,162 $ 253 $ 3,087 $ 204 $ 10,017 $ 285 $ 3,635 $ 540 $ 5,399 $ 296 $ 6,499 N/A $ 4,290 N/A $ 3,311 N/A $ 7,313 N/A $ 4,367 $ 134 $ 4,389 N/A $ $ N/A N/A $ $ $ $ 4,776 13,455 N/A 3,572 6,891 5,508 5,762 $ $ N/A $ $ $ $ $ $

Sanitary Sewer MPMPs
Municipality Aurora Barrie Belleville Bradford West Gwillimbury Brantford Brockville Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Grimsby Guelph Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Newmarket Niagara Falls Orangeville Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woolwich Average Durham Region Halton Region Niagara Region Peel Region Waterloo Region * York Region Muskoka District Average

* Waterloo includes only North Dumfries and Wellesley

MPMP Operating Costs for Integrated System per Megalitre $ 600 $ 551 $ 304 $ 675 $ 379 $ 313 N/A N/A $ 382 $ 415 $ 203 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 483 $ 225 N/A $ 349 N/A $ 222 N/A $ 375 N/A $ 285 $ 568 $ 704 $ 816 $ 497 $ 202 $ 416 $ 747 N/A $ 247 N/A N/A $ 523 $ 320 N/A $ 177 $ 190 $ 407 N/A $ 441 $ 305 $ 416 $ 612 $ 477 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 183 N/A 412 441 412 N/A 226 N/A 1,032 528

333 $ 293 $ $ 305 146 $ 138 178 829 $ 315 $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

106

Municipal Study 2007

Storm Sewer
Municipality Clarington Amherstburg Niagara-on-the-Lake Ajax Grimsby Guelph Leamington Lincoln Whitby Mississauga Brampton Toronto Burlington Timmins Woodstock Vaughan Georgina Thorold Cornwall Milton Oakville Belleville Halton Hills Port Colborne Thunder Bay Kitchener Cambridge Aurora Ottawa Kingston Niagara Falls Barrie Oshawa Brantford Cobourg Pickering Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Chatham-Kent Sudbury Welland Tillsonburg Waterloo St. Catharines Hamilton Sarnia Wasaga Beach Windsor Brockville Parry Sound Peterborough Fort Erie London Stratford St. Thomas Richmond Hill Average

Source—2006 FIR

Net Expenditures $ 5,372 $ 9,992 $ 9,297 $ 140,720 $ 47,001 $ 266,652 $ 68,472 $ 68,614 $ 354,885 $ 2,501,308 $ 1,662,938 $ 9,869,948 $ 658,981 $ 178,835 $ 149,756 $ 1,103,377 $ 210,495 $ 92,868 $ 242,941 $ 347,585 $ 939,710 $ 279,466 $ 322,531 $ 108,814 $ 642,559 $ 1,392,673 $ 863,594 $ 390,101 $ 7,171,135 $ 1,056,190 $ 760,362 $ 1,211,536 $ 1,356,616 $ 916,958 $ 188,073 $ 954,866 $ 837,491 $ 658,283 $ 1,334,210 $ 1,963,044 $ 696,414 $ 221,589 $ 1,491,730 $ 2,103,398 $ 10,091,466 $ 1,856,325 $ 398,113 $ 5,820,625 $ 696,951 $ 191,132 $ 2,554,861 $ 1,237,564 $ 15,240,440 $ 1,495,736 $ 1,998,671 $ -

Revenues as a % of Expenditures 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 10% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 20% 5% 0% 0% 0% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 6% 4% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0%

MPMP Operating Costs Urban $ 1,302 N/A N/A $ 486 $ 227 $ 1,001 $ 1,082 $ 494 $ 658 $ 961 $ 1,767 $ 1,633 $ 900 $ 784 $ 520 $ 923 $ 860 $ 516 $ 551 $ 491 $ 207 $ 1,132 $ 589 $ 2,555 N/A $ 1,089 N/A $ 3,123 $ 1,753 $ 1,723 $ 848 $ 703 $ 2,115 $ 1,774 $ 1,154 $ 762 $ 2,441 $ 2,513 N/A $ 2,500 N/A $ 1,789 $ 4,360 $ 936 $ 1,545 $ 1,121 $ 1,871 $ 2,056 $ 3,755 $ 165 $ 1,729 $ 365 $ 2,720 $ 2,896 $ 7,788 $ 535

MPMP Operating Costs Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 124 N/A N/A N/A $ 1,213 N/A $ 2,764 N/A $ 224 N/A N/A $ 924 $ 1,204 N/A $ 126 N/A N/A N/A $ 588 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 175 $ 285 $ 772 N/A $ 905 N/A N/A $ 1,839 N/A N/A N/A $ 766 $ 296 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 890 N/A $ 1,585 N/A N/A $ 1,439 $ 427 N/A N/A $ 2,177 936

Storm Sewer Net Expenditures per Capita $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 3 $ 3 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 7 $ 7 $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 11 $ 11 $ 12 $ 12 $ 12 $ 14 $ 15 $ 15 $ 16 $ 20 $ 26 $ 26 $ 27 $ 32 $ 33 $ 34 $ 41 $ 43 $ 49 $ 55 N/A $ 13

3% $

1,515 $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

107

Municipal Study 2007

Water MPMPs
Municipality Windsor Cornwall Toronto Kingston Leamington Hamilton Ottawa London Barrie Peterborough North Bay Guelph Stratford Wasaga Beach Sarnia Thunder Bay Brockville Chatham-Kent Sault Ste. Marie Belleville Orangeville Sudbury Owen Sound Brantford Vaughan Aurora Niagara Falls Parry Sound Newmarket Markham Bradford West Gwillimbury Kawartha Lakes Central Elgin Amherstburg Cambridge Cobourg Fort Erie Georgina Grimsby King Kitchener Lincoln Middlesex Centre Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne Richmond Hill St. Catharines St. Thomas Thorold Timmins Waterloo Welland Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Woolwich Average Durham Region Halton Region Niagara Region Peel Region Waterloo Region * York Region Muskoka District Average

MPMP MPMP Operating Operating Costs Costs for MPMP for Treatment of Distribution per km Total km of Water Main drinking Water of Water Water Breaks per Megalitre Distribution Pipe Distribution Pipe /100 km $ 74 $ 3,572 1,111 20.7 $ 100 $ 2,015 367 9.5 $ 73 $ 16,154 N/A 17.5 $ 73 $ 10,321 558 11.6 $ 148 $ 4,394 330 2.7 $ 154 $ 6,879 1,992 14.1 $ 151 $ 7,775 2,715 9.8 N/A N/A N/A 8.8 $ 203 $ 4,820 577 4.7 $ 239 $ 5,394 405 6.9 $ 126 $ 10,167 379 15.6 $ 171 $ 9,233 517 11.0 $ 212 $ 6,148 173 13.3 $ 164 $ 3,177 244 $ 178 $ 4,196 N/A 13.8 $ 205 $ 6,854 726 9.2 $ 266 $ 8,638 N/A 10.4 $ 264 $ 2,816 N/A 8.6 $ 348 $ 5,404 437 19.7 $ 361 $ 9,305 N/A 8.0 $ 438 $ 5,555 112 2.7 $ 237 $ 9,779 895 10.5 $ 437 $ 3,592 216 7.9 $ 358 $ 8,886 472 2.3 $ 556 $ 5,548 791 3.9 $ 495 $ 8,266 N/A 5.5 $ 513 $ 8,583 420 19.3 $ 252 $ 16,171 38 13.2 $ 374 $ 16,108 249 5.6 $ 496 $ 11,051 919 2.6 $ 522 $ 7,918 87 4.6 $ 509 $ 10,225 307 24.8 $ 459 $ 16,448 58 6.9 N/A N/A 297 N/A N/A $ 6,996 N/A 3.9 $ 488 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 6,835 N/A 11.2 N/A $ 9,491 N/A 4.0 N/A $ 19,030 127 11.0 N/A $ 8,289 N/A 8.1 N/A $ 6,657 840 9.3 N/A $ 10,141 N/A 11.0 $ 1,097 N/A 60 13.3 N/A $ 5,734 N/A 6.6 N/A $ 4,732 N/A 9.9 N/A $ 4,549 180 6.1 $ 495 $ 7,468 462 7.6 N/A $ 13,707 $ 630 15.7 N/A $ 17,834 209 11.5 N/A $ 4,591 144 18.8 N/A N/A 4 4.4 N/A $ 8,377 360 8.3 N/A $ 8,769 282 12.8 $ 5,012 N/A N/A 6.8 N/A $ 8,014 N/A N/A N/A $ 6,269 109 6.4 $ $ N/A $ $ $ $ $ $ 221 203 306 415 662 336 $ $ N/A $ $ 5,361 7,558 451 207 $ $ N/A N/A 5,510 10,960 8,257 8,402 N/A N/A 3,868 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.8 4.3 2,324 N/A 7.3

MPMP Operating Costs Integrated System $ 130 $ 156 $ 280 $ 283 $ 289 $ 300 $ 326 $ 366 $ 381 $ 399 $ 414 $ 426 $ 427 $ 446 $ 454 $ 458 $ 469 $ 511 $ 526 $ 624 $ 635 $ 636 $ 636 $ 651 $ 668 $ 724 $ 726 $ 766 $ 804 $ 806 $ 890 $ 1,183 $ 1,995 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 569 476 408 N/A $ 314 N/A N/A 1,036 559

9.7 $ 4.8 5.2 $ $

$

4.5 $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

108

Municipal Study 2007

Waste Collection
Net Expenditures Revenues as Waste a % of Collection Expenditures $ (798,048) 706% $ (12,726,371) 174% $ (147,038) 179% $ (324,487) 130% $ 3,338 100% $ 37,602 0% $ 89,521 71% $ 114,793 83% $ 83,257 73% $ 965,243 23% $ 238,742 0% $ 2,310,882 6% $ 779,724 2% $ 1,140,794 17% $ 471,739 0% $ 205,257 2% $ 1,036,525 0% $ 1,038,926 0% $ 836,455 0% $ 41,765,914 9% $ 751,075 0% $ 4,325,101 2% $ 2,013,339 3% $ 1,989,460 0% $ 2,185,119 0% $ 833,566 0% $ 938,585 0% $ 7,449,408 5% $ 610,635 0% $ 571,977 11% $ 4,614,668 4% $ 1,693,325 5% $ 133,152 12% $ 3,276,230 0% $ 502,467 0% $ 1,853,805 3% $ 564,952 0% $ 4,145,605 1% $ 13,488,764 0% $ 528,440 0% $ 668,275 0% $ 3,141,861 0% $ 4,208,035 0% $ 701,175 0% $ 4,861,562 0% 36% MPMP Collection Gross Cost Costs Per per Capita Tonne $ 5 N/A $ 21 $ 65 $ 12 N/A $ 23 N/A $ 21 $ 130 $ 2 N/A $ 14 $ 82 $ 32 $ 252 $ 21 N/A $ 10 $ 27 $ 8 $ 71 $ 9 $ 28 $ 11 $ 34 $ 15 $ 43 $ 13 $ 36 $ 14 N/A $ 14 $ 69 $ 14 $ 51 $ 15 $ 18 $ 18 $ 71 $ 18 $ 53 $ 18 $ 78 $ 19 N/A $ 18 $ 38 $ 19 $ 96 $ 19 $ 20 $ 73 $ 22 N/A $ 21 N/A $ 24 N/A $ 22 $ 82 $ 24 $ 62 $ 26 $ 115 $ 23 N/A $ 24 $ 83 $ 26 $ 128 $ 26 N/A $ 26 $ 108 $ 27 $ 123 $ 27 $ 100 $ 27 $ 73 $ 29 $ 92 $ 37 $ 128 $ 55 N/A $ 59 N/A $ 20 $ 80 Net Expenditures Waste Collection Per Capita $ (33) $ (16) $ (9) $ (7) $ 0 $ 2 $ 4 $ 5 $ 6 $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 11 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 $ 17 $ 18 $ 18 $ 18 $ 18 $ 19 $ 19 $ 20 $ 21 $ 21 $ 21 $ 21 $ 23 $ 23 $ 23 $ 24 $ 25 $ 26 $ 26 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 29 $ 37 $ 55 $ 59 $ 16

Municipality Bradford West Gwillimbury Ottawa Middlesex Centre Cornwall Belleville Cobourg Brockville Owen Sound Tillsonburg Barrie Stratford Markham Sarnia Brantford St. Thomas Wasaga Beach Peterborough Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Toronto Georgina Vaughan Whitby Chatham-Kent Kingston Timmins Aurora London Leamington Orangeville Windsor Newmarket Parry Sound Oshawa East Gwillimbury Kawartha Lakes Amherstburg Sudbury Hamilton King Whitchurch-Stouffville Thunder Bay Guelph Central Elgin Niagara Falls Average

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

109

Municipal Study 2007

Waste Collection (cont’d)
Net Expenditures Waste Collection $ 5,546,065 $ 7,850,611 $ 238,336 $ 17,475,531 $ 9,283,981 $ $ 3,107,578 Net MPMP Expenditures Revenues as Collection Waste a % of Gross Cost Costs Per Collection Per Expenditures per Capita Tonne Capita 1% $ 10 $ 92 $ 10 1% $ 18 $ 112 $ 17 97% $ 20 $ 98 $ 1 1% $ 15 $ 62 $ 15 N/A $ 19 N/A $ 19 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 54 $ 159 $ 54 $ 23 $ 105 $ 19

Municipality Durham Region Halton Region Niagara Region Peel Region Waterloo Region York Region Muskoka District Average

Factors Affecting this Measure: • Service levels: frequency of pick-up, urban vs. rural service, residential vs. commercial and industrial service
• • • • • • •

The distance between pick-ups and the amount collected at each point Distance to disposal and transfer sites Precipitation which impacts the weight of waste collected The nature and extent of a municipality’s recycling efforts The number of materials included in the recycling program The effort expended on the promotion and enforcement of the recycling program User fees

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

110

Municipal Study 2007

Waste Disposal
Revenues as a % of Expenditures 142% 143% 122% 133% 119% N/A 76% 88% 83% 79% 83% 28% 81% 34% N/A N/A N/A N/A 29% 48% 10% N/A 10% 8% N/A 7% 22% 18% 20% 27% 1% N/A 9% N/A N/A N/A N/A 11% 14% 47% 1% Waste MPMP Disposal Net Disposal Expenditures Cost/Tonne Per Capita $ 43 $ (21) $ (11) $ 22 $ 30 $ (8) (8) $ 19 $ $ 71 $ (7) $ (2) N/A N/A $ 2 $ 59 $ 4 N/A $ 5 $ 43 $ 7 $ 62 $ 7 $ 34 $ 8 9 $ 104 $ N/A $ 11 11 $ 41 $ N/A $ 11 $ 13 N/A N/A $ 15 $ 15 N/A $ 63 $ 16 $ 75 $ 17 $ 47 $ 17 $ 82 $ 18 $ 119 $ 19 N/A $ 20 N/A $ 20 $ 61 $ 23 24 $ 109 $ $ 62 $ 25 26 $ 77 $ $ 125 $ 28 $ 28 N/A $ 89 $ 29 $ 30 N/A $ 41 $ 30 $ 117 $ 32 N/A $ 35 $ 141 $ 49 N/A $ 50 $ 51 $ 56 62 $ 77 $ 69 $ 17

Municipality Stratford Peterborough North Bay Thunder Bay Brantford Clarington Georgina Kawartha Lakes Waterloo Region Sudbury Niagara Region Ottawa Sault Ste. Marie London King Middlesex Centre Thorold Orangeville Halton Region Chatham-Kent Kingston St. Thomas York Region Belleville Leamington * Cornwall Hamilton Durham Region Barrie Windsor Peel Region Timmins Toronto Amherstburg Owen Sound Brockville Bradford West Gwillimbury Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Muskoka District Guelph Average
Source—2006 FIR

Net Expenditures $ (637,452) $ (809,744) $ (449,716) $ (890,065) $ (632,627) $ (169,033) $ 76,939 $ 290,396 $ 2,174,574 $ 1,115,955 $ 3,063,884 $ 6,381,031 $ 661,328 $ 3,771,117 $ 214,308 $ 177,322 $ 239,838 $ 392,811 $ 6,638,900 $ 1,762,139 $ 1,968,262 $ 613,682 $ 15,875,369 $ 934,202 $ 567,973 $ 920,241 $ 11,592,067 $ 13,273,121 $ 3,159,960 $ 5,541,563 $ 31,960,894 $ 1,189,660 $ 72,093,701 $ 645,546 $ 658,034 $ 707,244 $ 830,100 $ 282,346 $ 756,369 $ 3,200,518 $ 7,120,844

51% $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

111

Municipal Study 2007

Waste Disposal (cont’d)
Factors Affecting this measure: • Precipitation which impacts the weight of waste disposal
• • • •

The nature and extent of a municipality’s recycling efforts The number of materials included in the recycling program The effort expended on the promotion and enforcement of the recycling program Landfill hours of operation

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

112

Municipal Study 2007

Recycling
Revenues as Net a % of Expenditures Expenditures $ (49,915) $ (7,399) $ 3,202 0% $ 62,970 0% $ 353,563 61% $ 132,959 55% $ 938,349 24% $ 3,330,124 29% $ 2,690,179 18% $ 929,022 29% $ 1,723,530 25% $ 691,406 0% $ 1,746,401 78% $ 648,726 10% $ 1,669,514 16% $ 755,294 13% $ 345,832 55% $ 335,087 0% $ 352,866 0% $ 425,974 0% $ 474,980 26% $ 9,073,873 43% $ 354,803 0% $ 555,231 24% $ 1,452,895 27% $ 308,451 1% $ 2,470,985 49% $ 1,906,140 0% $ 5,534,526 7% $ 785,889 14% $ 1,704,199 54% $ 1,239,598 0% $ 2,020,772 0% $ 5,399,899 6% $ 20,497,169 15% $ 1,804,838 2% $ 4,767,845 11% $ 180,322 21% $ 2,579,194 0% $ 87,561,592 13% 19%
Source—2006 FIR

Municipality Central Elgin Timmins Thorold Woodstock Cornwall Middlesex Centre Thunder Bay London Vaughan Newmarket Barrie Belleville Guelph Georgina Chatham-Kent Aurora Owen Sound East Gwillimbury Brockville Whitchurch-Stouffville Orangeville Hamilton King Stratford Kawartha Lakes Wasaga Beach Kingston Brantford Markham St. Thomas Peterborough North Bay Niagara Falls Windsor Ottawa Sarnia Sudbury Parry Sound Sault Ste. Marie Toronto Average

MPMP % of Residential Recycling Diverted N/A 8% N/A N/A 20% N/A 25% 40% 32% 38% 44% 38% 53% 39% 29% 34% 46% 36% 43% 31% 39% 41% 30% 44% 37% N/A 42% 30% 70% 42% 48% 32% N/A 36% 35% 34% 44% 23% 37% 42%

MPMP Recycling Cost/Tonne N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 102 N/A $ 124 $ 114 $ 86 $ 140 $ 156 $ 115 $ 130 $ 130 $ $ $ N/A $ $ $ $ N/A $ $ $ $ $ $ N/A $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 81 143 88 183 378 202 206 136 147 99 96 170 90 110 161 158 96 179 98 111 47

FIR Net Recycling Cost/Capita $ (4) $ (0) $ 0 $ 2 $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 11 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 17 $ 18 $ 18 $ 18 $ 18 $ 19 $ 21 $ 21 $ 21 $ 21 $ 22 $ 23 $ 23 $ 25 $ 25 $ 25 $ 25 $ 30 $ 31 $ 34 $ 35 $ 17

38% $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

113

Municipal Study 2007

Recycling (cont’d)
Revenues as Net a % of Expenditures Expenditures $ (2,873,213) 120% $ 7,538,651 47% $ 4,993,083 46% $ 6,797,395 34% $ 10,276,010 40% $ 28,223,769 24% $ 2,830,005 9% 46% MPMP % of Residential Recycling Diverted 45% 41% 43% 42% 43% 45% 44% MPMP Recycling Cost/Tonne $ 166 $ 58 N/A N/A $ 117 $ 122 $ 204 133 FIR Net Recycling Cost/Capita $ (7) $ 8 $ 10 $ 15 $ 18 $ 24 $ 49 $ 17

Municipality Niagara Region York Region Waterloo Region Halton Region Durham Region Peel Region Muskoka District Average

43% $

Factors Affecting this Measure: • Service levels: frequency of pick-up, urban vs. rural service, residential vs. commercial and industrial service
• • • • • • •

The distance between pick-ups and the amount collected at each point Distance to disposal and transfer sites Precipitation which impacts the weight of waste collected The nature and extent of a municipality’s recycling efforts The number of materials included in the recycling program The effort expended on the promotion and enforcement of the recycling program User fees

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

114

Municipal Study 2007

Public Health Services
Public Health Net Expenditures per Capita $ 13 $ 13 $ 13 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 18 $ 18 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 20 $ 21 $ 23 $ 23 $ 24 $ 24 $ 24 $ 26 $ 26 $ 26 $ 27 $ 27 $ 28 $ 29 $ 30 $ 32 $ 39 $ 39 $ 50 24

Municipality Halton Region Windsor Barrie Cornwall Brockville Peel Region York Region Guelph Waterloo Region London Peterborough St. Thomas Parry Sound Durham Region Chatham-Kent Brantford Niagara Region Hamilton Kawartha Lakes Kingston District of Muskoka Stratford Ottawa Toronto Thunder Bay Belleville Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Sudbury North Bay Average

Net Expenditures $ 5,725,482 $ 2,793,160 $ 1,711,396 $ 681,560 $ 338,628 $ 17,920,037 $ 15,721,087 $ 2,098,389 $ 8,964,174 $ 6,728,152 $ 1,441,513 $ 728,472 $ 123,691 $ 12,750,473 $ 2,528,643 $ 2,132,373 $ 10,323,691 $ 12,338,568 $ 1,915,130 $ 3,022,801 $ 1,519,716 $ 814,238 $ 22,093,934 $ 68,863,820 $ 3,118,034 $ 1,456,691 $ 2,433,093 $ 1,662,642 $ 6,138,292 $ 2,696,066

Revenues as a % of Expenditures 75% 79% 1% 0% 0% 61% 67% 71% 69% 69% 77% 73% 71% 64% 69% 62% 59% 66% 9% 70% 0% 70% 56% 65% 76% 41% 79% 70% 68% 60%

57% $

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

115

Municipal Study 2007

Ambulance Services
Revenues as Net a % of Expenditures Expenditures $ 8,574,572 39% $ 20,803,125 42% $ 1,499,608 48% $ 8,048,204 0% $ 11,858,409 44% $ 2,317,368 0% $ 3,005,830 65% $ 21,638,226 52% $ 12,760,194 39% $ 15,944,721 41% $ 72,029,728 51% $ 12,472,707 40% $ 1,631,483 56% $ 27,430,828 23% $ 4,092,758 0% $ 1,513,539 81% $ 2,479,764 0% $ 767,081 0% $ 7,675,069 5% $ 4,731,779 0% $ 3,165,344 35% $ 1,541,481 0% $ 4,686,107 46% $ 2,165,879 0% $ 1,488,039 0% $ 5,691,824 62% $ 8,236,209 45% $ 4,512,069 45% $ 4,770,536 0% $ 2,832,746 65% Ambulance Services Net Expenditures Per Capita $ 18 $ 18 $ 20 $ 23 $ 24 $ 26 $ 26 $ 27 $ 28 $ 28 $ 29 $ 29 $ 30 $ 31 $ 32 $ 33 $ 33 $ 35 $ 35 $ 40 $ 42 $ 43 $ 43 $ 44 $ 49 $ 52 $ 52 $ 78 $ 111 $ 487 52

Municipality Waterloo Region Peel Region Sault Ste. Marie London Hamilton Brantford Guelph Ottawa Halton Region Durham Region Toronto Niagara Region North Bay York Region Barrie Cornwall Peterborough Brockville Windsor Kingston Kawartha Lakes St. Thomas Chatham-Kent Belleville Stratford Thunder Bay Sudbury Muskoka District Timmins Parry Sound Average

31% $
Source—2006 FIR

Factors that affect Ambulance Services costs:
• • • • • •

Service levels and standards How service is dispatched Urban vs. rural coverage Volume of activity Financial reporting practices Age and condition of fleet

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

116

Municipal Study 2007

Cemeteries
Municipality Markham Mississauga Vaughan Wellesley Whitby Port Colborne King Halton Hills Central Elgin Brampton Waterloo Clarington Orangeville Kawartha Lakes Middlesex Centre Welland Woolwich Georgina Wilmot Whitchurch-Stouffville Lincoln Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Sudbury Burlington St. Thomas Oshawa Leamington Brantford Huntsville Oakville Thunder Bay Pelham Gravenhurst Wasaga Beach Kitchener Hamilton St. Catharines Owen Sound Fort Erie Timmins Chatham-Kent Cambridge Niagara-on-the-Lake Brockville Grimsby Sault Ste. Marie Tillsonburg Niagara Falls Stratford Parry Sound Thorold Average Net Expenditures $ 17,440 $ 94,927 $ 45,864 $ 2,236 $ 28,171 $ 5,409 $ 5,746 $ 19,719 $ 4,818 $ 181,132 $ 49,142 $ 52,400 $ 18,133 $ 54,595 $ 14,598 $ 47,691 $ 19,880 $ 46,299 $ 19,097 $ 28,268 $ 29,896 $ 22,882 $ 36,109 $ 239,704 $ 299,690 $ 71,864 $ 283,751 $ 62,138 $ 211,883 $ 45,967 $ 418,152 $ 292,281 $ 47,314 $ 38,720 $ 57,636 $ 788,220 $ 2,026,313 $ 550,794 $ 93,242 $ 134,149 $ 215,030 $ 563,433 $ 656,274 $ 84,139 $ 134,181 $ 160,303 $ 742,020 $ 146,902 $ 1,196,536 $ 636,561 $ 136,582 $ 492,158 Revenues as a % of Expenditures 37% 35% 54% 0% 88% 0% 67% 94% 0% 51% 96% 77% 72% 63% 18% 50% 52% 62% 72% 69% 82% 61% 22% 86% 17% 0% 29% 21% 62% 59% 60% 34% 56% 54% 45% 55% 42% 60% 70% 37% 65% 57% 49% 71% 47% 33% 52% 49% 23% 35% 17% 23% Cemeteries Net Expenditures per Capita $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 6 $ 6 $ 7 $ 10 $ 10 $ 15 $ 21 $ 23 $ 27 4

Source—2006 FIR

49% $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

117

Municipal Study 2007

General Assistance
The following table is calculated using the 2006 FIR (schedule 40 and schedule 12) and the 2006 population as provided by Stats. Canada. Factors that affect General Assistance costs: • Number of recipients • Socio-demographics • Financial reporting practices • Provincial policies Note that in some cases, these costs are offset by the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) which is shown later in the report.
Net Net Expenditures Expenditures General General Assistance Per Assistance Capita $ 5,526,343 $ 96 $ 44,289,664 $ 99 $ 94,807,965 $ 106 $ 1,575,600 $ 37 $ 398,680 $ 69 $ 8,873,368 $ 77 $ 117,783,126 $ 102 $ 7,329,868 $ 98 $ 11,885,320 $ 93 $ 2,867,133 $ 94 $ 420,406,405 $ 168 $ 47,542,658 $ 99 $ 50,778,025 $ 119 $ 136,648,261 $ 168 $ 4,252,325 $ 118 $ 53,719,782 $ 152 $ 16,399,188 $ 152 $ 84,792,682 $ 168 $ 34,572,123 $ 160 $ 21,484,317 $ 183 $ 15,600,097 $ 173 $ 4,144,080 $ 189 $ 16,474,436 $ 220 $ 19,085,737 $ 175 $ 25,545,059 $ 162 $ 10,501,877 $ 215 $ 11,063,727 $ 205 $ 16,469,778 $ 220 $ 11,578,895 $ 252 $ 144 Net Expenditures per $100,000 CVA $ 33 $ 73 $ 74 $ 79 $ 83 $ 87 $ 89 $ 96 $ 105 $ 119 $ 133 $ 138 $ 147 $ 157 $ 204 $ 207 $ 208 $ 219 $ 220 $ 225 $ 254 $ 283 $ 297 $ 301 $ 313 $ 320 $ 339 $ 470 $ 528 $ 200

Municipality District of Muskoka Halton Region York Region Timmins Parry Sound Guelph Peel Region Kawartha Lakes Barrie Stratford Toronto Waterloo Region Niagara Region Ottawa St. Thomas London Chatham-Kent Hamilton Windsor Kingston Brantford Brockville Peterborough Thunder Bay Sudbury Belleville North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Cornwall Average

Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. GTA GTA North Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Southwest GTA Eastern Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Southwest GTA Southwest Niagara/Hamilton Eastern Southwest Southwest Southwest Niagara/Hamilton Southwest Eastern Southwest Eastern Eastern North North Eastern North North Eastern

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

118

Municipal Study 2007

Assistance to the Aged
Factors that affect Assistance to the Aged costs:
• • • • • •
Municipality Port Colborne Vaughan Markham Fort Erie Huntsville Brampton St. Catharines Sarnia Niagara-on-the-Lake Pickering Thorold Barrie Lincoln Welland Woodstock Georgina Halton Hills Grimsby Niagara Falls Cambridge Whitby Oshawa Guelph Waterloo Kitchener Kawartha Lakes District of Muskoka Waterloo Region York Region Peterborough Stratford Peel Region Niagara Region Parry Sound Toronto London Ottawa Sudbury Hamilton Belleville North Bay Cornwall Halton Region Sault Ste. Marie St. Thomas Brantford Windsor Chatham-Kent Durham Region Timmins Kingston Brockville Thunder Bay Average

User fees Case mix index Financial reporting practices Whether the municipality operates a facility Number of residents Service levels and standards

Source—2006 FIR

Net Assistance to Expenditures Revenues as a the Aged Net Assistance to % of Expenditures the Aged Expenditures per Capita $ 9,950 0% $ 1 $ 141,852 20% $ 1 $ 224,136 19% $ 1 $ 34,483 14% $ 1 $ 30,305 47% $ 2 $ 913,687 25% $ 2 $ 281,301 24% $ 2 $ 154,571 46% $ 2 $ 32,467 0% $ 2 $ 198,304 20% $ 2 $ 42,805 0% $ 2 $ 343,354 30% $ 3 $ 58,890 36% $ 3 $ 142,581 0% $ 3 $ 112,000 0% $ 3 $ 166,249 23% $ 4 $ 225,430 45% $ 4 $ 102,609 37% $ 4 $ 358,654 22% $ 4 $ 529,510 54% $ 4 $ 549,904 40% $ 5 $ 756,297 0% $ 5 $ 634,000 0% $ 6 $ 562,356 57% $ 6 $ 1,193,149 39% $ 6 $ 477,291 95% $ 6 $ 586,471 94% $ 10 $ 5,822,225 73% $ 12 $ 10,916,723 62% $ 12 $ 1,057,507 90% $ 14 $ 521,258 90% $ 17 $ 20,560,355 64% $ 18 $ 8,129,941 87% $ 19 $ 116,093 81% $ 20 $ 50,767,919 74% $ 20 $ 7,895,696 63% $ 22 $ 18,367,710 66% $ 23 $ 3,788,723 84% $ 24 $ 12,307,245 65% $ 24 $ 1,261,181 2% $ 26 $ 1,586,594 86% $ 29 $ 1,373,971 85% $ 30 $ 13,464,856 72% $ 30 $ 2,410,029 5% $ 32 $ 1,368,793 85% $ 38 $ 3,506,729 65% $ 39 $ 9,971,359 52% $ 46 $ 5,332,202 76% $ 49 $ 29,624,180 60% $ 53 $ 2,512,343 79% $ 58 $ 9,442,540 49% $ 81 $ 2,106,948 0% $ 96 $ 11,565,954 68% $ 106 47% $ 20

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

119

Municipal Study 2007

Child Care

Municipality Parry Sound Belleville Peterborough District of Muskoka Cornwall Kawartha Lakes Barrie Brockville Peel Region Kingston Halton Region Sault Ste. Marie York Region Brantford Waterloo Region Niagara Region Chatham-Kent Stratford Guelph St. Thomas Hamilton London Durham Region Sudbury Thunder Bay Windsor Ottawa Toronto North Bay Average

Revenues as a Net % of Expenditures Expenditures $ (26,842) 111% $ 132,128 0% $ 347,190 96% $ 416,416 80% $ 369,760 94% $ 624,711 84% $ 1,157,050 0% $ 203,709 0% $ 10,871,579 85% $ 1,245,606 84% $ 5,135,104 82% $ 945,741 86% $ 11,718,803 79% $ 1,190,368 79% $ 6,600,598 80% $ 5,941,454 77% $ 1,569,159 90% $ 467,643 92% $ 1,826,648 73% $ 648,473 83% $ 9,273,481 79% $ 7,378,492 76% $ 12,244,158 66% $ 3,537,982 79% $ 2,988,958 69% $ 6,033,038 85% $ 24,628,341 72% $ 79,441,635 76% $ 2,582,834 59%

Child Care Net Expenditures per Capita $ (5) $ 3 $ 5 $ 7 $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 $ 11 $ 11 $ 13 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 $ 15 $ 16 $ 18 $ 18 $ 21 $ 22 $ 22 $ 27 $ 28 $ 30 $ 32 $ 48 16

71% $

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

120

Municipal Study 2007

Social Housing
Social Housing Net Expenditures per Capita $ 15 $ 28 $ 31 $ 31 $ 34 $ 48 $ 53 $ 53 $ 54 $ 58 $ 59 $ 61 $ 66 $ 67 $ 74 $ 75 $ 80 $ 82 $ 84 $ 87 $ 88 $ 92 $ 99 $ 102 $ 103 $ 113 $ 121 $ 126 $ 132 $ 172 $ 229 81

Municipality Central Elgin Parry Sound Barrie Brockville Kawartha Lakes District of Muskoka Chatham-Kent Belleville Peterborough Waterloo Region Sault Ste. Marie Durham Region Kingston Peel Region Thunder Bay North Bay Halton Region Niagara Region Brantford London Guelph York Region Cornwall Sudbury Ottawa Stratford St. Thomas Hamilton Windsor Toronto Timmins Average
Source—2006 FIR

Net Expenditures $ 189,023 $ 160,410 $ 3,969,238 $ 679,319 $ 2,539,589 $ 2,745,846 $ 5,690,758 $ 2,610,914 $ 4,030,038 $ 27,528,625 $ 4,453,523 $ 34,244,106 $ 7,724,303 $ 77,138,558 $ 8,070,553 $ 4,071,701 $ 35,722,206 $ 35,163,623 $ 7,566,420 $ 30,763,589 $ 10,104,109 $ 81,934,646 $ 4,548,781 $ 16,109,273 $ 83,673,373 $ 3,452,133 $ 4,384,332 $ 63,711,783 $ 28,537,658 $ 430,368,632 $ 9,839,663

Revenues as a % of Expenditures 22% 0% 0% 0% 67% 22% 45% 0% 74% 46% 60% 37% 45% 49% 64% 41% 13% 22% 54% 26% 41% 29% 68% 45% 57% 52% 27% 28% 43% 41% 0%

36% $

Note: Toronto Housing debt has not been consolidated on the City’s 2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

121

Municipal Study 2007

Parks
MPMP Parks Revenues as a Parks Net Operating % of Expenditures Costs per Expenditures per Capita Person 4% $ 27 $ 1 0% $ 13 $ 11 15% $ 14 $ 13 34% $ 10 $ 15 9% $ 16 $ 16 13% $ 15 $ 16 5% $ 18 $ 16 8% $ 18 $ 17 3% $ 27 $ 18 3% $ 21 $ 19 1% $ 20 $ 20 3% $ 29 $ 22 1% $ 25 $ 23 1% $ 25 $ 23 0% $ 21 $ 24 0% $ 27 $ 24 10% $ 54 $ 25 2% $ 27 $ 26 19% $ 21 $ 27 11% $ 27 $ 27 9% $ 29 $ 28 5% $ 29 $ 28 0% $ 29 $ 28 6% $ 41 $ 29 1% $ 33 $ 30 3% $ 45 $ 30 1% $ 39 $ 30 2% $ 35 $ 30 0% $ 32 $ 30 0% $ 33 $ 31 19% $ 30 $ 32 4% $ 42 $ 32 1% $ 33 $ 32 2% $ 34 $ 34 0% $ 46 $ 34 1% $ 31 $ 35 8% $ 40 $ 36 0% $ 38 $ 36 5% $ 36 $ 37 0% $ 38 $ 37 5% $ 34 $ 38 4% $ 57 $ 38 13% $ 45 $ 38 4% $ 40 $ 39

Municipality Timmins Whitchurch-Stouffville Bradford West Gwillimbury Kawartha Lakes Orangeville Middlesex Centre Leamington Woolwich Clarington Huntsville Tillsonburg Amherstburg Chatham-Kent Markham Bracebridge Cornwall Wilmot Whitby Halton Hills Guelph Caledon Thorold King Newmarket Ottawa Wasaga Beach Pickering Peterborough Mississauga Hamilton Pelham Barrie Vaughan Kingston Fort Erie Grimsby Milton Burlington Sudbury Niagara Falls Lincoln Toronto Waterloo Cambridge

Net Expenditures $ 1,153,575 $ 328,110 $ 333,980 $ 732,337 $ 418,105 $ 231,560 $ 525,339 $ 355,978 $ 2,114,757 $ 389,228 $ 291,284 $ 641,491 $ 2,706,378 $ 6,468,282 $ 324,626 $ 1,247,843 $ 926,234 $ 2,956,054 $ 1,183,211 $ 3,099,418 $ 1,667,009 $ 536,399 $ 572,288 $ 3,036,370 $ 26,995,132 $ 670,750 $ 3,430,339 $ 2,608,768 $ 21,317,398 $ 16,744,542 $ 485,394 $ 5,343,136 $ 7,953,737 $ 3,991,799 $ 1,382,245 $ 739,887 $ 2,545,253 $ 6,231,822 $ 5,661,475 $ 3,135,406 $ 742,333 $ 143,761,256 $ 4,433,582 $ 4,758,178

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

122

Municipal Study 2007

Parks (cont’d)
MPMP Parks Operating Costs per Person $ 39 $ 40 $ 41 $ 41 $ 42 $ 43 $ 44 $ 44 $ 44 $ 45 $ 45 $ 47 $ 47 $ 48 $ 49 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 51 $ 51 $ 52 $ 52 $ 56 $ 56 $ 57 $ 58 $ 59 $ 67 $ 35

Municipality St. Thomas Woodstock Georgina Kitchener Belleville Brampton Parry Sound Ajax St. Catharines Central Elgin Sault Ste. Marie Aurora Windsor Owen Sound Richmond Hill Oshawa Sarnia Oakville North Bay Brantford Stratford Niagara-on-the-Lake Thunder Bay Welland Brockville Gravenhurst Cobourg Port Colborne Average

Revenues as a Net % of Expenditures Expenditures $ 1,409,744 0% $ 1,462,462 3% $ 1,966,167 13% $ 9,447,222 4% $ 1,970,609 0% $ 18,759,075 1% $ 361,892 0% $ 4,463,198 6% $ 6,699,285 6% $ 628,096 2% $ 3,481,912 0% $ 3,009,071 7% $ 10,360,618 3% $ 1,087,240 2% N/A N/A $ 7,451,744 3% $ 4,547,404 6% $ 9,908,013 2% $ 3,589,701 1% $ 4,471,750 11% $ 1,728,510 0% $ 880,025 1% $ 6,937,177 3% $ 2,802,814 1% $ 984,843 10% $ 627,439 0% $ 1,638,583 4% $ 1,575,279 1%

Parks Net Expenditures per Capita $ 39 $ 41 $ 46 $ 46 $ 40 $ 43 $ 62 $ 49 $ 51 $ 49 $ 46 $ 63 $ 48 $ 50 N/A $ 53 $ 64 $ 60 $ 67 $ 50 $ 57 $ 60 $ 64 $ 56 $ 45 $ 57 $ 90 $ 85 40

5% $

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

123

Municipal Study 2007

Recreation Programming
Rec Programs Revenues as a % of Expenditures N/A N/A N/A 20% 0% 12% 123% 159% 20% 360% 37% 14% 38% 52% 10% 484% 0% 147% 68% 6% 61% 27% 16% 36% 429% 98% 28% 22% 0% 1% 14% 141% 26% 5% 34% 40% 16% 65% 17% 25% 40% 43% 27% 70% 45% 22% Recreation Programs Net Expenditures per Capita N/A N/A $ (58) $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ (1) $ (3) $ 4 $ (14) $ 3 $ 6 $ 5 $ 4 $ 8 $ (35) $ 8 $ (5) $ 4 $ 14 $ 5 $ 11 $ 13 $ 9 $ (53) $ 0 $ 12 $ 15 $ 19 $ 19 $ 16 $ (9) $ 13 $ 54 $ 14 $ 14 $ 17 $ 8 $ 21 $ 18 $ 15 $ 16 $ 17 $ 8 $ 16 $ 22 MPMP Recreation Programs Operating Costs per Person $ $ $ $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 3 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 6 $ 7 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 $ 11 $ 11 $ 12 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 $ 15 $ 17 $ 18 $ 18 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 20 $ 21 $ 22 $ 22 $ 22 $ 22 $ 23 $ 23 $ 24 $ 26 $ 26 $ 26 $ 27 $ 27

Municipality Middlesex Centre Port Colborne Leamington Brockville Central Elgin Fort Erie Woolwich Pelham Sarnia Amherstburg Woodstock Sault Ste. Marie St. Thomas Niagara-on-the-Lake Whitby East Gwillimbury Cobourg Orangeville Kawartha Lakes St. Catharines Belleville Peterborough Windsor Welland Whitchurch-Stouffville Niagara Falls Kingston Clarington Wilmot Cambridge Sudbury Markham Grimsby Georgina Chatham-Kent Wasaga Beach Stratford King Guelph Thunder Bay Ajax Brampton Lincoln Mississauga Bradford West Gwillimbury Hamilton

Net Expenditures N/A N/A $ (1,679,491) $ 22,954 $ 18,903 $ 56,563 $ (12,342) $ (42,556) $ 291,783 $ (297,080) $ 111,353 $ 427,512 $ 174,156 $ 56,013 $ 883,195 $ (737,447) $ 153,608 $ (141,105) $ 262,969 $ 1,877,808 $ 238,953 $ 789,361 $ 2,792,482 $ 464,849 $ (1,295,035) $ 25,939 $ 1,456,689 $ 1,148,492 $ 324,590 $ 2,289,048 $ 2,552,258 $ (2,357,876) $ 310,556 $ 2,293,353 $ 1,532,484 $ 208,225 $ 527,238 $ 158,369 $ 2,426,097 $ 1,970,054 $ 1,327,936 $ 6,831,008 $ 379,234 $ 5,609,222 $ 376,213 $ 10,883,236

Population Range under 20,000 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 +

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

124

Municipal Study 2007

Recreation Programming (cont’d)

Municipality Owen Sound Huntsville North Bay Waterloo Kitchener Brantford Barrie Parry Sound Aurora Pickering Vaughan Richmond Hill Halton Hills Newmarket Milton Burlington Gravenhurst Oakville Caledon Toronto Cornwall Oshawa Ottawa Bracebridge Tillsonburg Timmins London Average

Net Expenditures $ 349,516 $ 71,136 $ 777,018 $ 2,881,284 $ 6,074,469 $ 1,574,094 $ 2,431,999 $ 164,908 $ 254,298 $ 2,019,746 $ 1,564,067 N/A $ 778,837 $ 2,885,771 $ 1,154,950 $ 4,599,250 $ 385,222 $ 3,820,897 $ 546,713 $ 110,703,778 $ 122,235 $ 5,302,810 $ 33,756,591 $ 582,084 $ 596,003 $ 35,068 $ 5,455,077

Rec Programs Revenues as a % of Expenditures 45% 84% 50% 24% 12% 47% 56% 21% 86% 43% 84% N/A 67% 31% 57% 39% 23% 51% 80% 22% 95% 41% 40% 54% 64% 78% 44%

MPMP Recreation Recreation Programs Net Programs Expenditures Operating Costs per Capita per Person $ 16 $ 28 $ 4 $ 28 $ 14 $ 29 $ 30 $ 32 $ 30 $ 32 $ 17 $ 32 $ 19 $ 35 $ 28 $ 36 $ 5 $ 36 $ 23 $ 37 $ 7 $ 39 N/A $ 41 $ 14 $ 42 $ 39 $ 43 $ 18 $ 44 $ 28 $ 45 $ 35 $ 46 $ 23 $ 46 $ 10 $ 47 $ 44 $ 47 $ 3 $ 51 $ 37 $ 59 $ 42 $ 60 $ 37 $ 90 $ 40 $ 99 $ 1 N/A $ 15 N/A 12 $ 25

Population Range 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + under 20,000 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + under 20,000 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 +

61% $

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

125

Municipal Study 2007

Recreation Facilities—Golf, Marina, Ski Hill
Recreation Facilities - Golf, Marina, Ski Hill Net Expenditures per Capita $ (1) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 3 $ 3 $ 4 $ 5 $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 11 $ 18 $ 18 4

Municipality Oakville Toronto Hamilton Vaughan Georgina Sarnia Brockville Waterloo Barrie St. Catharines Mississauga Peterborough Thunder Bay Windsor London Sudbury Leamington Cornwall Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Burlington Brantford Kingston Amherstburg Kitchener Port Colborne Belleville Stratford Cobourg Brampton Average
Source—2006 FIR

Revenues as Net % of Expenditures Expenditures $ (129,446) N/A $ (850,305) 108% $ 89,205 97% $ 57,541 77% $ 12,587 76% $ 22,322 69% $ 8,858 95% $ 52,883 97% $ 100,555 84% $ 165,074 78% $ 855,134 81% $ 109,388 25% $ 182,910 92% $ 385,532 83% $ 655,620 81% $ 293,759 46% $ 57,234 92% $ 95,842 17% $ 174,054 65% $ 133,229 49% $ 475,630 68% $ 269,540 87% $ 431,815 79% $ 100,242 33% $ 1,620,165 65% $ 150,885 74% $ 419,119 0% $ 347,412 0% $ 324,411 79% $ 7,739,583 11%

66% $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

126

Municipal Study 2007

Recreation Facilities—Other
Recreation Facilities Other Net Expenditures per Capita $ 9 $ 12 $ 14 $ 15 $ 17 $ 21 $ 23 $ 24 $ 25 $ 29 $ 33 $ 33 $ 33 $ 34 $ 34 $ 35 $ 36 $ 36 $ 36 $ 36 $ 36 $ 37 $ 38 $ 39 $ 40 $ 40 $ 42 $ 43 $ 43 $ 44 $ 44 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 $ 47 $ 47 $ 48 $ 48 $ 49 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
127

Municipality King Middlesex Centre Cobourg Brockville Kawartha Lakes Lincoln Gravenhurst Kingston Sarnia Whitby Brantford Barrie Wilmot Thorold Amherstburg Welland Port Colborne Peterborough Central Elgin Grimsby Pelham Kitchener Brampton Niagara-on-the-Lake Vaughan Milton Parry Sound Oakville Toronto Guelph St. Thomas Mississauga Hamilton Cambridge Pickering Woolwich Sudbury Halton Hills Markham Wellesley Chatham-Kent Burlington Ottawa Thunder Bay

Net Expenditures $ 179,902 $ 180,197 $ 249,047 $ 333,484 $ 1,300,358 $ 449,599 $ 249,670 $ 2,824,669 $ 1,777,791 $ 3,264,353 $ 2,958,848 $ 4,221,658 $ 567,712 $ 613,130 $ 736,783 $ 1,752,830 $ 666,215 $ 2,689,881 $ 458,444 $ 869,578 $ 587,842 $ 7,584,222 $ 16,583,684 $ 561,907 $ 9,454,781 $ 2,570,502 $ 243,899 $ 7,133,722 $ 108,587,673 $ 5,022,852 $ 1,595,564 $ 29,964,998 $ 22,692,997 $ 5,452,757 $ 3,984,816 $ 920,679 $ 7,424,029 $ 2,644,422 $ 12,591,621 $ 476,313 $ 5,359,763 $ 8,242,925 $ 40,822,508 $ 5,498,897

Revenues as % of Expend. 87% 73% 0% 63% 61% 51% 57% 50% 44% 70% 47% 43% 44% 44% 8% 22% 42% 69% 47% 47% 25% 44% 21% 44% 11% 43% 52% 1% 8% 50% 35% 13% 6% 38% 45% 48% 41% 41% 0% 52% 10% 29% 2% 40%

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

Municipal Study 2007

Recreation Facilities—Other (cont’d)
Recreation Facilities Other Net Expenditures per Capita $ 51 $ 51 $ 54 $ 56 $ 57 $ 57 $ 57 $ 58 $ 59 $ 61 $ 61 $ 63 $ 66 $ 75 $ 75 $ 76 $ 78 $ 79 $ 82 $ 84 $ 85 $ 93 $ 100 $ 107 $ 114 $ 116 $ 120 $ 128 $ 144 $ 162 55

Municipality North Bay Fort Erie Windsor Niagara Falls St. Catharines Owen Sound Ajax Caledon Georgina London Bradford West Gwillimbury Belleville Huntsville Stratford Wasaga Beach Clarington Timmins Orangeville Woodstock Sault Ste. Marie Newmarket Waterloo Aurora Leamington East Gwillimbury Cornwall Bracebridge Oshawa Whitchurch-Stouffville Tillsonburg Average
Source—2006 FIR

Net Expenditures $ 2,737,284 $ 1,526,357 $ 11,723,849 $ 4,577,399 $ 7,481,668 $ 1,238,477 $ 5,135,444 $ 3,289,982 $ 2,507,716 $ 21,326,756 $ 1,457,457 $ 3,098,900 $ 1,209,151 $ 2,271,274 $ 1,121,063 $ 5,880,535 $ 3,352,384 $ 2,135,263 $ 2,910,799 $ 6,280,683 $ 6,289,173 $ 9,063,087 $ 4,769,188 $ 3,080,851 $ 2,400,785 $ 5,352,396 $ 1,875,263 $ 18,154,881 $ 3,501,730 $ 2,394,301

Revenues as % of Expend. 32% 32% 18% 0% 8% 20% 48% 36% 36% 3% 9% 34% 23% 6% 7% 25% 27% 43% 27% 17% 22% 42% 31% 0% 0% 1% 6% 8% 0% 0%

30% $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

128

Municipal Study 2007

Recreation Programming and Facilities (Combined)
This provides a consolidated summary of recreation programming and facilities to improve consistencies in the comparisons.
Recreation Facilities - Golf, Marina, Ski Hill Net Expenditures per Capita $ $ $ $ $ 5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 18 $ 4 $ $ 8 $ $ $ $ 1 $ $ $ $ 2 $ $ 1 $ $ 3 $ 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2 $ (1) $ $ $ 2 $ $ 2 $ Total Net Expend. Recreation Programs and Facilities Combined per Capita $ 12 $ 16 $ 17 $ 21 $ 25 $ 29 $ 34 $ 34 $ 37 $ 38 $ 38 $ 39 $ 40 $ 40 $ 42 $ 44 $ 44 $ 46 $ 46 $ 48 $ 49 $ 49 $ 49 $ 51 $ 52 $ 53 $ 53 $ 53 $ 54 $ 56 $ 57 $ 58 $ 62 $ 64 $ 64 $ 65 $ 65 $ 65 $ 67 $ 67 $ 68 $ 68 $ 69 $ 70

Municipality Middlesex Centre Brockville King Kawartha Lakes Amherstburg Sarnia Thorold Pelham Whitby Central Elgin Lincoln Markham Cobourg Kingston Niagara-on-the-Lake Port Colborne Welland Woolwich Vaughan Peterborough Wellesley St. Thomas Grimsby Leamington Wilmot Barrie Fort Erie Brantford Mississauga Niagara Falls Gravenhurst Milton Halton Hills Chatham-Kent Cambridge Guelph Sudbury Oakville Hamilton Caledon North Bay Pickering Windsor Huntsville

Recreation Facilities Other Net Expenditures per Capita $ 12 $ 15 $ 9 $ 17 $ 34 $ 25 $ 34 $ 36 $ 29 $ 36 $ 21 $ 48 $ 14 $ 24 $ 39 $ 36 $ 35 $ 47 $ 40 $ 36 $ 49 $ 44 $ 36 $ 107 $ 33 $ 33 $ 51 $ 33 $ 45 $ 56 $ 23 $ 40 $ 48 $ 50 $ 45 $ 44 $ 47 $ 43 $ 45 $ 58 $ 51 $ 45 $ 54 $ 66

Recreation Programs Net Expenditures per Capita $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 8 4 (14) 4 (3) 8 1 17 (9) 8 12 4 9 (1) 7 11 5 13 (58) 19 19 2 17 8 0 35 18 14 14 19 21 16 23 22 10 14 23 13 4

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

129

Municipal Study 2007

Recreation Programming and Facilities (Combined cont’d)
Recreation Facilities - Golf, Marina, Ski Hill Net Expenditures per Capita $ 2 $ $ $ 18 $ 1 $ $ $ 8 $ $ 9 $ 2 $ $ $ 3 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2 $ $ 11 $ $ $ 2 $ 1 $ $ $ $ $ 1 Total Net Expend. Recreation Recreation Programs and Programs Net Facilities Expenditures Combined per per Capita Capita $ 18 $ 70 $ 28 $ 70 $ 15 $ 72 $ 16 $ 72 $ 14 $ 72 $ 16 $ 73 $ (5) $ 74 $ 30 $ 75 $ 16 $ 76 $ 5 $ 77 $ 15 $ 78 $ 1 $ 79 $ (35) $ 79 $ 28 $ 81 $ 3 $ 85 $ 44 $ 88 $ 14 $ 88 $ 15 $ 90 $ (53) $ 90 $ 6 $ 92 $ 42 $ 92 $ 17 $ 103 $ 5 $ 105 $ 54 $ 113 $ 3 $ 121 $ 30 $ 123 $ 39 $ 123 $ 37 $ 157 $ 37 $ 166 $ 40 $ 202 $ 12 $ 68

Municipality Thunder Bay Parry Sound Ajax Brampton St. Catharines Owen Sound Orangeville Kitchener Bradford West Gwillimbury Belleville London Timmins East Gwillimbury Burlington Woodstock Toronto Wasaga Beach Clarington Whitchurch-Stouffville Sault Ste. Marie Ottawa Stratford Aurora Georgina Cornwall Waterloo Newmarket Bracebridge Oshawa Tillsonburg Average
Source—2006 FIR

Recreation Facilities Other Net Expenditures per Capita $ 50 $ 42 $ 57 $ 38 $ 57 $ 57 $ 79 $ 37 $ 61 $ 63 $ 61 $ 78 $ 114 $ 50 $ 82 $ 43 $ 75 $ 76 $ 144 $ 84 $ 50 $ 75 $ 100 $ 59 $ 116 $ 93 $ 85 $ 120 $ 128 $ 162 $ 55

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

130

Municipal Study 2007

Parks, Recreation Programming and Facilities (Combined) MPMP Operating
MPMP Recreation MPMP Parks Programs Operating Operating Costs per Costs per Person Person $ 16 $ $ 22 $ 5 $ 32 $ 4 $ 15 $ 11 $ 59 $ 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 50 $ 5 $ 28 N/A $ 39 $ 8 $ 23 $ 19 $ 34 $ 17 $ 16 $ $ 13 $ 27 $ 34 $ 2 $ 23 $ 22 $ 44 $ 12 $ 17 $ 3 $ 31 $ 27 $ 25 $ 18 $ 30 $ 22 $ 37 $ 15 $ 57 $ 1 $ 30 $ 26 $ $ 9 $ 38 $ 26 $ 26 $ 8 $ 27 $ 23 $ 38 $ 47 $ 56 $ 14 $ 32 $ 35 $ 39 $ 19 $ 32 $ 39 $ 35 $ 20 $ 45 $ 2 $ 52 $ 8 $ 43 $ 26 $ 28 $ 22 $ 45 $ 7 $ 18 $ 18 $ 30 $ 14 $ 41 $ 32 $ 47 $ 14 $ 19 $ 28 MPMP Recreation Facilities Operating MPMP Costs per Subtotal per Person Person $ 41 $ 57 $ 34 $ 61 $ 33 $ 69 $ 45 $ 71 $ 5 $ 72 N/A $ 77 N/A $ 79 $ 29 $ 84 $ 57 $ 85 $ 39 $ 86 $ 45 $ 88 $ 40 $ 91 $ 77 $ 93 $ 56 $ 96 $ 61 $ 97 $ 53 $ 98 $ 42 $ 98 $ 78 $ 98 $ 41 $ 99 $ 57 $ 101 $ 51 $ 102 $ 51 $ 103 $ 47 $ 105 $ 49 $ 106 $ 99 $ 108 $ 44 $ 108 $ 75 $ 109 $ 58 $ 109 $ 25 $ 110 $ 41 $ 111 $ 46 $ 113 $ 56 $ 113 $ 42 $ 114 $ 59 $ 114 $ 69 $ 115 $ 55 $ 115 $ 47 $ 116 $ 67 $ 117 $ 70 $ 122 $ 89 $ 125 $ 82 $ 126 $ 53 $ 126 $ 65 $ 126 $ 79 $ 127

Municipality Middlesex Centre Amherstburg Pelham Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Wellesley London Sarnia Thorold St. Thomas Markham Kingston Leamington Bradford West Gwillimbury Fort Erie Chatham-Kent St. Catharines Woolwich Hamilton Wilmot Wasaga beach Niagara Falls Brockville Mississauga East Gwillimbury Lincoln Whitby Guelph Toronto Welland Barrie Cambridge Vaughan Grimsby Central Elgin Niagara-on-the-Lake Brampton King Sault Ste. Marie Clarington Peterborough Kitchener Windsor Huntsville

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

131

Municipal Study 2007

Parks, Recreation Programming and Facilities (Combined) MPMP Operating (cont’d)
MPMP Recreation MPMP Parks Programs Operating Operating Costs per Costs per Person Person $ 37 $ 19 $ 67 $ $ 30 $ 37 $ 50 $ 46 $ 27 $ 42 $ 30 $ 60 $ 41 $ 21 $ 51 $ 29 $ 16 $ 11 $ 29 $ 43 $ 51 $ 32 $ 40 $ 6 $ 11 $ 15 $ 49 $ 41 $ 36 $ 45 $ 36 $ 44 $ 28 $ 47 $ 42 $ 13 $ 52 $ 22 $ 48 $ 28 $ 44 $ 24 $ 58 $ 46 $ 24 $ 90 $ 50 $ 59 $ 38 $ 32 $ 44 $ 36 $ 56 $ 23 $ 24 $ 51 $ 47 $ 36 $ 20 $ 99 $ 35 $ 25 MPMP Recreation Facilities Operating MPMP Costs per Subtotal per Person Person $ 73 $ 128 $ 64 $ 131 $ 65 $ 132 $ 40 $ 135 $ 67 $ 136 $ 47 $ 136 $ 75 $ 137 $ 58 $ 138 $ 113 $ 139 $ 67 $ 139 $ 56 $ 140 $ 98 $ 143 $ 118 $ 143 $ 53 $ 143 $ 62 $ 144 $ 65 $ 145 $ 71 $ 145 $ 94 $ 150 $ 77 $ 151 $ 76 $ 152 $ 83 $ 152 $ 52 $ 156 $ 42 $ 156 $ 49 $ 158 $ 91 $ 161 $ 83 $ 163 $ 84 $ 163 $ 94 $ 169 $ 90 $ 174 $ 114 $ 233 $ 62 $ 121

Municipality Sudbury Port Colborne Pickering Oakville Halton Hills Ottawa Georgina North Bay Orangeville Newmarket Brantford Woodstock Whitchurch-Stouffville Richmond Hill Burlington Milton Caledon Belleville Stratford Owen Sound Ajax Gravenhurst Bracebridge Oshawa Waterloo Parry Sound Thunder Bay Cornwall Aurora Tillsonburg Average

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

132

Municipal Study 2007

Library
Library MPMP Uses/ Person N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 17 7 15 15 17 11 13 5 28 13 24 28 14 16 17 9 27 11 26 33 N/A 37 19 18 16 25 23 15 21 11 18 14 8 18 24 52 Library Net Expend. per capita Population Range $ under 20,000 $ 1 under 20,000 $ 2 under 20,000 $ 2 under 20,000 $ 3 50,000 - 99,999 $ 3 20,000 - 49,999 $ 16 50,000 - 99,999 $ 18 under 20,000 $ 22 under 20,000 $ 23 50,000 - 99,999 $ 24 under 20,000 $ 26 100,000 + $ 29 20,000 - 49,999 $ 29 100,000 + $ 30 20,000 - 49,999 $ 30 100,000 + $ 30 50,000 - 99,999 $ 31 under 20,000 $ 31 under 20,000 $ 32 20,000 - 49,999 $ 32 under 20,000 $ 32 50,000 - 99,999 $ 34 under 20,000 $ 34 20,000 - 49,999 $ 34 50,000 - 99,999 $ 35 100,000 + $ 35 100,000 + $ 35 20,000 - 49,999 $ 35 50,000 - 99,999 $ 35 under 20,000 $ 35 50,000 - 99,999 $ 35 under 20,000 $ 35 50,000 - 99,999 $ 36 under 20,000 $ 36 50,000 - 99,999 $ 36 100,000 + $ 36 20,000 - 49,999 $ 37 20,000 - 49,999 $ 37 50,000 - 99,999 $ 37 20,000 - 49,999 $ 37 100,000 + $ 38 under 20,000 $ 39 50,000 - 99,999 $ 39 20,000 - 49,999

Municipality Middlesex Centre Woolwich Central Elgin Wellesley Sarnia Amherstburg Kawartha Lakes Tillsonburg Parry Sound Peterborough Thorold Brampton Timmins Chatham-Kent Whitchurch-Stouffville Barrie Welland Cobourg Huntsville East Gwillimbury Port Colborne Sault Ste. Marie Wasaga Beach Brockville Newmarket St. Catharines Markham Lincoln North Bay Gravenhurst Ajax Niagara-on-the-Lake Waterloo Pelham Clarington Cambridge Georgina Fort Erie Milton Belleville Windsor Bracebridge Halton Hills Owen Sound

Revenues Net as % of Expenditures Expend. $ (4,502) 115% $ 13,636 0% $ 21,350 0% $ 18,617 45% $ 238,756 0% $ 75,997 0% $ 1,207,645 16% $ 269,903 16% $ 129,843 47% $ 1,706,987 13% $ 444,253 12% $ 11,080,647 3% $ 1,256,908 10% $ 3,175,256 9% $ 720,485 9% $ 3,833,411 10% $ 1,531,379 13% $ 555,763 42% $ 573,718 14% $ 669,587 7% $ 595,178 11% $ 2,426,405 16% $ 506,742 9% $ 743,521 13% $ 2,554,075 5% $ 4,573,950 9% $ 9,149,241 7% $ 761,608 9% $ 1,894,328 7% $ 387,763 15% $ 3,171,362 8% $ 513,632 11% $ 3,459,499 8% $ 573,829 13% $ 2,812,545 5% $ 4,358,706 12% $ 1,537,108 8% $ 1,094,311 6% $ 2,355,155 3% $ 1,798,344 10% $ 7,976,571 9% $ 597,060 19% $ 2,132,315 7% $ 839,948 39%

Library MPMP Cost/Use N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 1.86 $ 1.13 $ 3.99 $ 1.41 $ 1.84 $ 1.46 N/A $ 2.53 N/A $ 0.97 $ 2.65 $ 1.62 $ 1.31 $ 2.61 $ 2.04 $ 2.13 $ 3.73 $ 1.64 $ 2.63 $ 1.37 $ 1.04 $ 0.45 $ 0.92 $ 2.17 $ 2.04 $ 1.91 $ 1.29 $ 1.77 $ 1.90 $ 1.83 N/A $ 2.10 $ 2.60 $ 5.24 $ 2.18 $ 1.90 $ 0.79 $ 1.25

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

133

Municipal Study 2007

Library (cont’d)
Library MPMP Uses/ Person 22 22 25 18 13 20 24 37 18 22 25 22 11 38 21 26 34 28 29 24 81 23 25 26 32 23 16 34 Library Net Expend. per capita Population Range $ 39 100,000 + $ 40 100,000 + $ 40 100,000 + $ 40 50,000 - 99,999 $ 41 20,000 - 49,999 $ 42 50,000 - 99,999 $ 42 100,000 + $ 43 20,000 - 49,999 $ 43 20,000 - 49,999 $ 43 100,000 + $ 43 100,000 + $ 44 100,000 + $ 45 20,000 - 49,999 $ 45 20,000 - 49,999 $ 46 20,000 - 49,999 $ 47 100,000 + $ 48 100,000 + $ 50 20,000 - 49,999 $ 50 100,000 + $ 51 100,000 + $ 51 50,000 - 99,999 $ 52 under 20,000 $ 53 100,000 + $ 54 50,000 - 99,999 $ 55 20,000 - 49,999 $ 55 100,000 + $ 63 100,000 + $ 63 100,000 + 36

Municipality Whitby Mississauga Kingston Brantford Bradford West Gwillimbury Caledon Kitchener Grimsby Cornwall Sudbury Thunder Bay Vaughan Orangeville Woodstock St. Thomas Ottawa Oakville Aurora Guelph Burlington Niagara Falls King Hamilton Pickering Stratford London Oshawa Toronto Average

Revenues Net as % of Expenditures Expend. $ 4,388,240 6% $ 26,473,836 4% $ 4,661,943 19% $ 3,626,232 10% $ 977,066 $ $ 2,369,044 3% $ 8,592,268 4% $ 1,018,645 8% $ 1,956,634 10% $ 6,745,170 7% $ 4,724,417 5% $ 10,528,739 2% $ 1,215,235 8% $ 1,606,348 7% $ 1,670,582 4% $ 38,324,384 5% $ 7,946,557 3% $ 2,378,713 3% $ 5,769,117 7% $ 8,445,569 4% $ 4,221,717 4% $ 1,017,132 10% $ 26,907,167 6% $ 4,729,060 6% $ 1,661,939 10% $ 19,342,434 6% $ 8,868,551 1% $ 157,765,664 6%

Library MPMP Cost/Use $ 1.52 $ 1.81 $ 1.68 $ 2.21 $ 2.81 $ 2.15 $ 1.71 $ 1.07 $ 2.28 $ 2.03 $ 1.83 $ 1.69 $ 3.80 $ 1.35 $ 2.27 $ 1.72 $ 1.46 $ 1.68 $ 1.86 $ 1.87 $ 0.66 $ 2.39 $ 2.16 $ 1.87 $ 1.88 $ 2.07 $ 3.55 $ 1.76 1.96

11% $

22.1 $

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

134

Municipal Study 2007

Cultural Services
Cultural Revenues as a Services Net Net % of Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures per Capita $ (721,730) 0% $ (34) $ (225,140) $ (12) $ 9,462 0% $ 0 $ 2,310 0% $ 0 $ 26,912 0% $ 0 $ 5,780 0% $ 0 $ 224,436 0% $ 1 $ 38,050 47% $ 1 $ 13,486 0% $ 1 $ 1,127,307 16% $ 1 $ 186,982 9% $ 1 $ 19,411 4% $ 1 $ 97,723 0% $ 1 $ 754,922 6% $ 2 $ 102,000 0% $ 2 $ 134,075 40% $ 2 $ 90,106 0% $ 2 $ 125,627 4% $ 3 $ 78,522 0% $ 3 $ 64,387 67% $ 4 $ 182,025 0% $ 4 $ 2,856,586 9% $ 4 $ 115,165 1% $ 4 $ 318,207 0% $ 5 $ 2,553,024 9% $ 5 $ 438,768 39% $ 6 $ 729,697 33% $ 6 $ 532,841 21% $ 6 $ 498,870 7% $ 6 $ 122,280 4% $ 6 $ 110,346 32% $ 6 $ 325,598 11% $ 7 $ 860,470 0% $ 7 $ 1,132,735 10% $ 7 $ 312,477 24% $ 7 $ 174,935 0% $ 8 $ 661,096 5% $ 9 $ 689,830 7% $ 9 $ 193,759 20% $ 9 $ 493,255 0% $ 9 $ 228,101 19% $ 9 $ 399,303 22% $ 9 $ 1,365,068 0% $ 10 $ 153,421 26% $ 10 $ 357,086 5% $ 12 $ 5,202,979 25% $ 12
Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

Municipality East Gwillimbury Huntsville Ajax Wellesley Sarnia Wasaga Beach Niagara Region Caledon Pelham Peel Region Sudbury Bracebridge Kawartha Lakes Halton Region Welland Halton Hills St. Thomas Aurora Leamington Cobourg Cornwall Mississauga Orangeville Milton Waterloo Region Newmarket Cambridge Pickering Niagara Falls King Wilmot Belleville Barrie Burlington Timmins Amherstburg Sault Ste. Marie Clarington Lincoln North Bay Whitchurch-Stouffville Georgina Oshawa Tillsonburg Fort Erie Brampton

Population Range 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 +
135

Municipal Study 2007

Cultural Services (cont’d)
Cultural Services Net Expenditures per Capita $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 16 $ 16 $ 17 $ 17 $ 17 $ 18 $ 18 $ 18 $ 18 $ 19 $ 21 $ 21 $ 23 $ 24 $ 26 $ 26 $ 28 $ 28 $ 28 $ 29 $ 30 $ 32 $ 35 10

Municipality Markham Waterloo Chatham-Kent St. Catharines Hamilton Parry Sound Kitchener Oakville Ottawa Windsor Guelph Port Colborne London Thunder Bay Stratford Grimsby Woodstock Vaughan Brockville Toronto Niagara-on-the-Lake Kingston Peterborough Owen Sound Brantford Gravenhurst Average

Net Expenditures $ 3,526,574 $ 1,366,102 $ 1,541,786 $ 2,100,451 $ 8,304,691 $ 98,615 $ 3,487,448 $ 2,880,141 $ 14,228,466 $ 3,793,653 $ 2,023,915 $ 338,901 $ 6,645,313 $ 2,276,298 $ 647,448 $ 549,507 $ 846,145 $ 6,110,200 $ 567,072 $ 69,111,684 $ 404,889 $ 3,302,709 $ 2,161,958 $ 662,721 $ 2,924,772 $ 386,101

Revenues as a % of Expenditures 9% 2% 21% 5% 13% 0% 66% 34% 10% 37% 35% 0% 17% 52% 0% 18% 10% 3% 46% 49% 0% 24% 11% 39% 24% 34%

Population Range 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + under 20,000 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000

15% $

Source—2006 FIR

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

136

Municipal Study 2007

Planning
Net Net Expenditures Expenditures Revenues as a Planning and Planning and % of Zoning Per Zoning Expenditures Capita $ (103,647) 143% $ (6) $ (26,290) N/A $ (1) $ 31,999 77% $ 1 $ 153,335 78% $ 2 $ 73,358 80% $ 3 $ 327,668 0% $ 4 $ 1,383,217 78% $ 5 $ 189,673 26% $ 7 $ 146,769 47% $ 7 $ 202,106 34% $ 8 $ 271,700 46% $ 8 $ 837,325 44% $ 8 $ 370,877 33% $ 8 $ 606,956 35% $ 8 $ 1,034,539 37% $ 9 $ 977,776 36% $ 9 $ 4,757,586 49% $ 9 $ 1,121,398 35% $ 10 $ 6,627,315 31% $ 10 $ 97,165 31% $ 10 $ 636,424 73% $ 10 $ 251,471 51% $ 10 $ 1,354,769 7% $ 11 $ 26,869,557 38% $ 11 $ 1,228,192 12% $ 11 $ 540,641 6% $ 12 $ 609,136 13% $ 12 $ 223,891 19% $ 12 $ 277,362 29% $ 13 $ 950,278 40% $ 13 $ 241,565 16% $ 13 $ 211,708 23% $ 13 $ 4,729,561 17% $ 13 $ 648,796 7% $ 15 $ 871,534 28% $ 16 $ 479,418 25% $ 16 $ 316,700 15% $ 16 $ 251,935 35% $ 16 $ 1,463,823 59% $ 16 $ 1,339,960 10% $ 16 $ 2,649,375 16% $ 17 $ 2,997,714 35% $ 18 $ 276,045 68% $ 18 $ 2,339,962 20% $ 19

Municipality Wilmot Woodstock Stratford Sarnia Grimsby Sault Ste. Marie Markham Leamington Owen Sound Orangeville St. Thomas Whitby Belleville Kawartha Lakes Kingston Chatham-Kent Hamilton Guelph Mississauga Wellesley Milton Bradford West Gwillimbury Barrie Toronto Thunder Bay Cornwall Welland Cobourg Amherstburg Newmarket Port Colborne Pelham London Timmins Halton Hills Fort Erie Woolwich Middlesex Centre Brantford Niagara Falls Sudbury Burlington Wasaga Beach Cambridge

Population Range under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + 100,000 + under 20,000 100,000 +

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

137

Municipal Study 2007

Planning (cont’d)
Net Net Expenditures Expenditures Revenues as a Planning and Planning and % of Zoning Per Zoning Expenditures Capita $ 932,326 28% $ 20 $ 2,589,702 8% $ 20 $ 3,253,746 46% $ 20 $ 1,063,457 2% $ 20 $ 2,823,177 8% $ 20 $ 302,299 64% $ 20 $ 4,187,283 20% $ 20 $ 875,636 14% $ 21 $ 389,872 19% $ 21 $ 1,889,461 15% $ 22 $ 275,263 0% $ 22 $ 4,689,673 8% $ 22 $ 17,684,501 24% $ 22 $ 498,166 26% $ 23 $ 448,061 32% $ 23 $ 429,182 33% $ 23 $ 140,516 21% $ 24 $ 2,209,747 27% $ 25 $ 613,395 59% $ 25 $ 2,543,280 7% $ 26 $ 2,030,761 10% $ 26 $ 2,325,833 13% $ 31 $ 740,455 7% $ 34 $ 547,700 25% $ 38 $ 17,897,242 30% $ 41 $ 10,655,526 42% $ 45 $ 995,742 8% $ 47 $ 988,680 2% $ 63 $ 3,875,652 14% $ 68 $ 996,459 14% $ 90 31% $ 19

Municipality Aurora St. Catharines Oakville North Bay Oshawa Tillsonburg Kitchener Georgina Thorold Pickering Central Elgin Windsor Ottawa Lincoln King Huntsville Parry Sound Ajax Whitchurch-Stouffville Waterloo Clarington Peterborough Brockville Niagara-on-the-Lake Brampton Vaughan East Gwillimbury Bracebridge Caledon Gravenhurst Average

Population Range 20,000 - 49,999 100,000 + 100,000 + 50,000 - 99,999 100,000 + under 20,000 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 under 20,000 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 50,000 - 99,999 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 100,000 + 100,000 + 20,000 - 49,999 under 20,000 50,000 - 99,999 under 20,000

Peel Region York Region Niagara Region Halton Region Durham Region Waterloo Region Muskoka District Average Region

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

2,698,266 3,159,580 2,496,648 2,995,628 4,161,014 3,798,248 1,102,551

6% 11% 8% 13% 12% 6% 22%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

2 100,000 + 4 100,000 + 6 100,000 + 7 100,000 + 7 100,000 + 8 100,000 + 19 50,000 - 99,999 8
Source—2006 FIR

11% $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

138

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial and Industrial
Revenue as % Expend. 65.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 0.0% 0.2% 21.6% 1.9% 5.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.4% 34.9% 6.0% 2.9% 0.0% 15.9% 0.0% 19.2% 7.1% 64.7% 32.2% 8.4% 46.4% 16.1% 0.6% 6.6% 4.6% 8.8% 10.3% 1.9% 0.5% 36.0% 14.2% 0.0% 1.9% 9.2% Net Expend. Per Capita $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 3 $ 4 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 8 $ 8 $ 8 $ 9 $ 9 $ 10 $ 10 $ 10 $ 11 $ 12 $ 13 $ 13 $ 14 $ 14 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 18

Municipality Central Elgin Niagara-on-the-Lake Lincoln Pelham Markham Halton Hills Whitchurch-Stouffville Whitby Vaughan Ajax St. Thomas Oshawa Newmarket Amherstburg Grimsby Milton Leamington Kitchener Mississauga Tillsonburg Caledon Georgina Thorold Welland Waterloo Burlington Oakville Huntsville Kawartha Lakes Toronto Barrie Brampton Guelph St. Catharines Ottawa Cambridge Hamilton Belleville Woolwich Wasaga Beach Clarington

Net Expenditures $ 3,863 $ 5,485 $ 20,131 $ 19,321 $ 452,040 $ 181,480 $ 94,897 $ 453,121 $ 1,086,182 $ 412,861 $ 182,034 $ 717,055 $ 395,016 $ 118,656 $ 132,472 $ 365,813 $ 169,572 $ 1,285,236 $ 4,320,133 $ 100,007 $ 399,847 $ 297,646 $ 129,138 $ 380,733 $ 786,588 $ 1,327,712 $ 1,458,283 $ 170,625 $ 741,525 $ 25,255,723 $ 1,320,516 $ 4,687,792 $ 1,431,311 $ 1,726,458 $ 10,924,263 $ 1,647,669 $ 6,987,250 $ 734,796 $ 296,225 $ 232,023 $ 1,380,482

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

139

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial and Industrial (cont’d)
Revenue as % Expend. 0.0% 64.8% 27.6% 1.2% 9.2% 9.2% 29.5% 17.2% 14.1% 23.9% 40.0% 7.3% 10.0% 12.8% 33.6% 0.2% 0.0% 7.9% 21.6% 17.0% 18.3% 0.0% 3.1% 35.8% 1.7% Net Expend. Per Capita $ 19 $ 19 $ 21 $ 22 $ 22 $ 29 $ 29 $ 30 $ 30 $ 31 $ 32 $ 32 $ 32 $ 38 $ 38 $ 40 $ 42 $ 50 $ 53 $ 62 $ 63 $ 89 $ 126 $ 161 $ 199 25

Municipality Sarnia Port Colborne Peterborough Fort Erie Windsor Chatham-Kent Bracebridge Brockville Cornwall Orangeville Timmins Cobourg Woodstock Sudbury Owen Sound Niagara Falls Kingston Stratford London Thunder Bay North Bay Gravenhurst Brantford Parry Sound Sault Ste. Marie Average

Net Expenditures $ 1,371,342 $ 357,662 $ 1,581,335 $ 647,370 $ 4,829,435 $ 3,114,109 $ 451,867 $ 658,588 $ 1,386,993 $ 844,970 $ 1,365,348 $ 583,611 $ 1,144,142 $ 5,982,916 $ 834,773 $ 3,283,293 $ 4,980,755 $ 1,518,518 $ 18,606,412 $ 6,817,215 $ 3,384,879 $ 980,572 $ 11,392,707 $ 936,694 $ 14,927,375

13.1% $

York Region Halton Region Durham Region Muskoka District Niagara Region Average Region
Source—2006 FIR

$ $ $ $ $

816,516 807,236 1,717,943 268,120 2,127,728

49.9% 22.3% 16.4% 0.0% 0.0%

$ $ $ $ $

1 2 3 5 5 3

17.7% $

Revenue & Expenditure Analysis & MPMPs

140

Municipal Study 2007

Select User Fees and Revenue Information

User Fee & Revenue Information

141

Municipal Study 2007

Select User Fees Select User Fees && RevenueInformation Revenue Information

Analyzing revenue structure will help to identify the following types of problems: • Deterioration of revenue base
• • • • • •

Practices and policies that may adversely affect revenue yields Poor revenue-estimating practices Efficiency of the collection and administration of revenues Overdependence on intergovernmental revenue sources User fees that are not covering the cost of services Changes in the tax burden on various segments of the population

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Development Charges Building Permit Fees Commercial Solid Waste Tipping Fees Transit Fares Ontario Unconditional Grants Ontario and Canada Conditional Grants Licencing, Permits & Rents, etc. Per Capita Penalties & Interest on Taxes and Other Fine Revenues per Capita Investment Income Revenue Gaming and Casino Revenues Per Capita Contributions from Reserves, Reserve Funds Revenues From Government Enterprise

User Fee & Revenue Information

142

Municipal Study 2007
The User Fee and Revenue Information section of the report includes select user fees based on feedback received from the participating municipalities. In addition to a 2007 fee comparison, this section of the report also includes, a comparison of User Fee Revenues as a percentage of Total Expenditures (2006 FIRs) along with other sources of revenues such as CRF, gaming and other revenues. The following information is provided to assist municipalities in understanding some basic facts about each municipality included in the study.

User Fees as a % of Expenditures The accuracy of this indicator depends on the clear identification of all costs (direct and indirect) associated with a user charge supported activity. Across Ontario municipalities, full activity based accounting is not always the practice, however, the following schedules provide a general indication of the extent to which a service is being recovered from user fees. User Fee policies also vary across municipalities to the extent to which costs should be recovered from fees.

User Fees
User fees and charges are voluntary payments (“voluntary” in the sense that they are paid only to the extent the individual chooses to use the service) that are used to finance municipal services such as water, sewerage, transit, recreational activities and miscellaneous activities. These charges are for a particular benefit that an individual receives. Another way to define user fees is that they must exhibit the following three characteristics:
♦ ♦ ♦

Separability—are costs easily identifiable and separate beneficiaries identifiable? Voluntarism—can the user voluntarily decide whether to use the service? Chargeability—can the costs be efficiently collected from the public?

The Province passed the new Municipal Act in December 2001, which came into force on January 1, 2003. The new Act is meant to provide transparency in the process of implementing fees. Fees are addressed in Part XII, section 391 of the Municipal Act. The Act states that a municipality may pass by-laws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons:
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

For services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it For costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other municipality For the use of its property including property under its control For capital costs payable by it for sewer and water services or activities which will be provided or done on behalf of it after the fees or charges are imposed

User Fee & Revenue Information

143

Municipal Study 2007

Development Charges
The recovery of costs by Ontario municipalities for capital infrastructure required to support new growth is governed by the Development Charges Act (1997) and supporting regulations. Timing of By-Law Updates This legislation provides for the periodic (maximum 5 year) replacement of existing development charge by-laws, at which time a detailed background study is required to support new charges to be incorporated into the revised development charge (D.C.) by-law. The Act also provides that a municipality can, notwithstanding the term of the by-law, revise all or part of the current by-law in the event that material changes have occurred that require adjustments to the quantum of charges. In the case of revisions to the existing by-law, either as a result of the termination of an existing by-law or in the event that the current by-law is amended prior to its expiry, the Act is prescriptive in the documentation that must be included in the background study.

Comparison of Development Charges
A comparison of development charges was undertaken using the most current data available. These rates reflect properties in the urban areas. Municipalities with varying development charge rates based on location within the municipality have been included in the report for the urban centre. Examples include City of Hamilton, Ottawa, Greater Sudbury and Kawartha Lakes. The tables on the next few pages summarize the total development charges in each municipality, including upper, lower and education charges.

General Introductory Comments

The municipalities of Cornwall, Parry Sound, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Timmins do not charge development charges There were no school board charges for the Region of Niagara, Belleville, Brockville, Central Elgin, Chatham-Kent, Cobourg, Cornwall, Kawartha Lakes, Kingston, District of Muskoka, Middlesex Centre, Norfolk, North Bay, Owen Sound, Parry Sound, Peterborough, Sarnia, St. Thomas, Stratford, Sudbury, Tillsonburg, Windsor and Woodstock. There is a significant range in terms of development charges across the survey 12 municipalities have no municipal industrial development charges 4 municipalities have no municipal commercial development charges

• • •

User Fee & Revenue Information

144

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Development Charges
Total Development Charges Total Municipality Cornwall Parry Sound Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Timmins Norfolk Brockville Chatham-Kent Sudbury North Bay Sarnia Middlesex Centre Wainfleet Belleville St. Thomas St. Catharines Owen Sound Central Elgin Woodstock Brantford Tillsonburg Kingston Wellesley Amherstburg Port Colborne Thorold Kawartha Lakes Welland Stratford North Dumfries Toronto Cobourg Windsor West Lincoln Peterborough Grimsby Bracebridge Ottawa Huntsville Leamington Woolwich Gravenhurst Niagara Falls Wasaga Beach Single SemiDetached Dwellings per unit
none none none none none

Multiples Dwelling 3+ per unit
none none none none none

Multiples Dwelling 1&2 per unit
none none none none none

Non Apartment Apartment Residential units < 2 per units >=2 per Commercial unit unit per sq. ft.
none none none none none none none none none none none none none none none

Non Residential Industrial per sq. ft.
none none none none none

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,216 1,244 2,166 2,886 3,923 4,852 4,878 5,085 5,639 6,278 7,070 7,366 7,986 8,279 8,681 8,789 9,285 9,374 9,487 9,573 9,623 9,747 9,824 9,830 10,451 10,817 10,864 10,883 10,967 11,244 11,483 11,484 11,739 12,061 12,255 12,521 12,676 12,825 12,848

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

901 1,169 1,948 1,742 3,280 3,512 3,473 3,955 3,940 5,213 5,283 6,822 7,986 6,146 6,257 6,524 7,582 7,602 8,955 7,193 7,501 9,747 7,933 6,955 8,679 8,690 8,537 9,233 7,929 9,694 8,202 10,093 9,043 10,654 10,590 9,823 11,473 8,932 10,859

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

901 1,169 1,948 1,742 3,280 3,512 2,553 3,955 3,940 5,213 5,283 6,822 7,986 6,146 6,257 6,524 7,582 7,602 8,955 7,193 7,501 9,747 7,933 6,955 8,679 8,690 8,537 9,233 7,929 9,694 8,202 10,093 9,043 10,654 10,590 9,823 11,473 8,932 10,859

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

607 696 1,238 1,742 1,404 2,472 1,985 2,825 2,728 3,095 3,167 5,665 3,207 3,805 3,404 4,506 6,260 8,524 5,067 5,536 9,747 4,870 3,708 7,337 4,600 5,046 5,606 5,435 6,594 6,083 5,003 5,476 5,550 8,510 7,033 6,002 5,926 6,881

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

754 696 1,238 1,742 2,226 2,472 2,624 2,825 3,450 3,692 3,167 5,665 4,271 6,148 5,710 5,796 6,260 8,524 5,905 5,536 9,747 5,902 5,563 7,337 7,157 5,046 5,606 6,012 6,594 6,083 7,528 8,051 8,205 8,510 7,420 8,737 6,888 10,019

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

0.68 0.30 2.09 0.67 3.98 1.54 3.39 2.36 3.90 3.39

$

0.30

$ $ $ $

0.67 3.29 0.62 2.20

$

2.20

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

3.38 5.84 3.45 8.19 4.37 4.86 4.99 1.64 3.39 1.67 4.37 7.99 5.90 2.05 6.06 4.08 6.20 2.51 8.35 2.30 1.30 5.84 2.32 5.83 1.72

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5.12 8.19 4.37 3.32 2.20 1.64 2.20 4.37 0.22 5.90 4.87 5.01 2.51 8.35 1.28 1.30 5.84 2.32 2.20 0.19

User Fee & Revenue Information

145

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Development Charges (cont’d)
Total Development Charges Total Single SemiDetached Municipality Dwellings per unit Wilmot $ 12,866 Fort Erie $ 13,342 Guelph $ 13,464 Pelham $ 13,587 London $ 14,184 Niagara-on-the-Lake $ 15,737 Kitchener $ 16,237 Cambridge $ 17,040 Barrie $ 18,123 Lincoln $ 18,179 Orangeville $ 18,448 Waterloo $ 19,054 Hamilton $ 19,300 Mississauga $ 21,103 Oshawa $ 22,618 Burlington $ 23,167 Halton Hills $ 23,345 Caledon $ 24,099 Clarington $ 24,831 Whitby $ 25,262 Pickering $ 25,366 Ajax $ 25,411 Oakville $ 27,148 Brampton $ 27,514 Georgina $ 27,903 East Gwillimbury $ 29,289 Bradford West Gwillimbury $ 30,631 Newmarket $ 31,343 Whitchurch-Stouffville $ 31,885 King $ 32,343 Markham $ 32,413 Vaughan $ 33,395 Richmond Hill $ 33,504 Aurora $ 34,702 Milton $ 35,148 Average Median Minimum Maximum $ $ $ $ 15,813 12,751 1,216 35,148 Multiples Dwelling 3+ per unit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10,515 10,513 10,931 10,093 10,984 13,075 14,183 15,268 15,834 13,295 13,716 14,529 15,377 21,103 19,544 18,541 19,593 22,868 22,019 21,359 21,235 21,534 22,056 27,514 23,928 24,515 21,075 26,030 25,532 27,360 26,732 28,189 28,005 28,626 28,723 13,087 10,514 901 28,723 Multiples Dwelling 1&2 per unit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10,515 10,513 10,931 10,093 10,984 13,075 14,183 15,268 15,834 13,295 13,716 14,529 15,377 21,103 19,544 13,790 15,248 22,868 21,588 21,359 21,235 21,534 18,614 27,514 23,928 24,515 21,075 26,030 25,532 27,360 26,732 28,189 28,005 28,626 23,824 12,833 10,514 901 28,626 Non Apartment Apartment Residential units < 2 per units >=2 per Commercial unit unit per sq. ft. $ 7,188 $ 8,372 $ 5.54 $ 7,620 $ 7,620 $ 8.14 $ 5,976 $ 7,862 $ 8.16 $ 7,206 $ 7,206 $ 3.39 $ 6,858 $ 9,463 $ 13.47 $ 7,543 $ 9,506 $ 5.64 $ 10,309 $ 10,309 $ 5.65 $ 10,343 $ 10,343 $ 5.83 $ 8,803 $ 11,998 $ 12.07 $ 8,156 $ 11,227 $ 9.43 $ 6,857 $ 9,860 $ 8.89 $ 8,361 $ 11,420 $ 7.80 $ 7,703 $ 12,690 $ 17.22 $ 9,034 $ 15,618 $ 9.26 $ 9,904 $ 13,819 $ 8.51 $ 10,016 $ 13,833 $ 13.22 $ 10,249 $ 14,162 $ 13.15 $ 10,329 $ 17,097 $ 7.29 $ 14,890 $ 17,919 $ 9.01 $ 10,324 $ 15,451 $ 8.70 $ 10,210 $ 15,165 $ 8.04 $ 10,203 $ 14,723 $ 8.45 $ 11,503 $ 17,216 $ 15.78 $ 11,597 $ 20,546 $ 10.59 $ 12,013 $ 17,689 $ 12.88 $ 12,429 $ 18,297 $ 12.90 $ 14,587 $ 19,898 $ 10.29 $ 13,111 $ 19,648 $ 12.39 $ 14,174 $ 19,461 $ 15.80 $ 13,631 $ 20,041 $ 15.02 $ 13,732 $ 20,631 $ 11.75 $ 15,411 $ 20,215 $ 12.96 $ 15,331 $ 20,135 $ 13.92 $ 14,880 $ 21,282 $ 13.90 $ 16,028 $ 21,993 $ 15.03 $ $ $ $ 7,587 7,033 607 16,028 $ $ $ $ 10,025 8,372 696 21,993 $ $ $ $ 7.16 5.98 0.30 17.22 Non Residential Industrial per sq. ft. $ 5.54 $ 3.89 $ 5.02 $ 2.20 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4.45 5.65 5.83 7.83 8.24 8.89 7.80 3.46 6.78 3.14 10.07 10.00 5.19 2.00 1.66 2.67 2.03 12.63 7.34 6.46 6.48 8.76 5.97 9.38 8.60 5.33 6.54 6.11 7.48 11.19 4.92 5.02 0.19 12.63

The following municipalities have additional charges as indicated:
• • •

Markham $76,136 /hectare Mississauga $56,039 /hectare Pelham $33,848 residential, $9,939 non-residential

User Fee & Revenue Information

146

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Development Charges—Grouped by Location
North Ontario
Total Development Charges Total Municipality Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Timmins Sudbury North Bay North Average Single SemiDetached Dwellings per unit
none none none

Multiples Dwelling 3+ per unit
none none none

Multiples Dwelling 1&2 per unit
none none none

Non Apartment Apartment Residential units < 2 per units >=2 per Commercial unit unit per sq. ft.
none none none none none none none none none

Non Residential Industrial per sq. ft.
none none none

$ $ $

2,886 3,923 3,405

$ $ $

1,742 3,280 2,511

$ $ $

1,742 3,280 2,511

$ $ $

1,742 1,404 1,573

$ $ $

1,742 2,226 1,984

$ $

0.67 0.67

$ $

0.67 0.67

Eastern Ontario
Total Municipality Cornwall Brockville Belleville Kingston Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Peterborough Ottawa Eastern Average Single SemiDetached Dwellings per unit
none

Multiples Dwelling 3+ per unit
none

Multiples Dwelling 1&2 per unit
none

Non Apartment Apartment Residential units < 2 per units >=2 per Commercial unit unit per sq. ft.
none none none

Non Residential Industrial per sq. ft.
none

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,244 5,639 9,285 9,747 10,864 11,244 11,739 8,537

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,169 3,940 7,582 9,747 8,537 9,694 9,043 7,102

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,169 3,940 7,582 9,747 8,537 9,694 9,043 7,102

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

696 2,728 4,506 9,747 5,046 6,594 5,476 4,970

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

696 3,450 5,796 9,747 5,046 6,594 8,051 5,626

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

0.30 2.36 8.19 1.64 5.90 4.08 8.35 4.40

$ $ $ $ $ $

0.30 8.19 1.64 5.90 8.35 4.88

Niagara/Hamilton
Total Development Charges Total Municipality Wainfleet St. Catharines Port Colborne Thorold Welland West Lincoln Grimsby Niagara Falls Fort Erie Pelham Niagara-on-the-Lake Lincoln Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Average Single SemiDetached Dwellings per unit $ 5,085 $ 7,070 $ 9,573 $ 9,623 $ 9,824 $ 10,967 $ 11,483 $ 12,825 $ 13,342 $ 13,587 $ 15,737 $ 18,179 $ 19,300 $ 12,046 Multiples Dwelling 3+ per unit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,955 5,283 7,193 7,501 7,933 7,929 8,202 8,932 10,513 10,093 13,075 13,295 15,377 9,175 Multiples Dwelling 1&2 per unit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,955 5,283 7,193 7,501 7,933 7,929 8,202 8,932 10,513 10,093 13,075 13,295 15,377 9,175 Non Apartment Apartment Residential units < 2 per units >=2 per Commercial unit unit per sq. ft. $ 2,825 $ 2,825 $ 3.39 $ 3,167 $ 3,167 $ 3.39 $ 5,067 $ 5,905 $ 4.86 $ 5,536 $ 5,536 $ 4.99 $ 4,870 $ 5,902 $ 3.39 $ 5,435 $ 6,012 $ 6.06 $ 6,083 $ 6,083 $ 6.20 $ 5,926 $ 6,888 $ 5.83 $ 7,620 $ 7,620 $ 8.14 $ 7,206 $ 7,206 $ 3.39 $ 7,543 $ 9,506 $ 5.64 $ 8,156 $ 11,227 $ 9.43 $ 7,703 $ 12,690 $ 17.22 $ 5,934 $ 6,967 $ 6.30 Non Residential Industrial per sq. ft. $ 2.20 $ 2.20 $ 3.32 $ 2.20 $ 2.20 $ 4.87 $ 5.01 $ 2.20 $ 3.89 $ 2.20 $ 4.45 $ 8.24 $ 3.46 $ 3.57

User Fee & Revenue Information

147

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Development Charges—Grouped by Location
Southwest Ontario
Total Development Charges Total Municipality Amherstburg Brantford Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Guelph Kitchener Leamington London Middlesex Centre Norfolk North Dumfries Owen Sound Sarnia St. Thomas Stratford Tillsonburg Waterloo Wellesley Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Southwest Average Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Single SemiDetached Dwellings per unit $ 9,487 $ 8,681 $ 17,040 $ 7,986 $ 2,166 $ 13,464 $ 16,237 $ 12,255 $ 14,184 $ 4,878 $ 1,216 $ 10,451 $ 7,366 $ 4,852 $ 6,278 $ 9,830 $ 8,789 $ 19,054 $ 9,374 $ 12,866 $ 10,883 $ 8,279 $ 12,521 $ Multiples Dwelling 3+ per unit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,955 6,257 15,268 7,986 1,948 10,931 14,183 10,590 10,984 3,473 901 8,679 6,822 3,512 5,213 6,955 6,524 14,529 7,602 10,515 9,233 6,146 9,823 Multiples Dwelling 1&2 per unit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,955 6,257 15,268 7,986 1,948 10,931 14,183 10,590 10,984 2,553 901 8,679 6,822 3,512 5,213 6,955 6,524 14,529 7,602 10,515 9,233 6,146 9,823 8,092 Non Apartment Apartment Residential units < 2 per units >=2 per Commercial unit unit per sq. ft. $ 8,524 $ 8,524 $ 3,805 $ 6,148 $ 5.84 $ 10,343 $ 10,343 $ 5.83 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,238 5,976 10,309 8,510 6,858 1,985 607 7,337 5,665 2,472 3,095 3,708 3,404 8,361 6,260 7,188 5,606 3,207 7,033 5,522 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,238 7,862 10,309 8,510 9,463 2,624 754 7,337 5,665 2,472 3,692 5,563 5,710 11,420 6,260 8,372 5,606 4,271 7,420 6,344 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.09 8.16 5.65 1.30 13.47 1.54 0.68 4.37 3.98 3.90 1.67 3.45 7.80 4.37 5.54 2.05 3.38 5.84 4.55 Non Residential Industrial per sq. ft. $ $ 5.12 5.83

$ $ $ $ $ $

5.02 5.65 1.30 0.62 4.37 3.29

$ $ $

7.80 4.37 5.54

$ $

5.84 4.56

9,919 $

8,132 $

Simcoe/Muskoka/Dufferin Area
Total Development Charges Total Municipality Parry Sound Bracebridge Huntsville Gravenhurst Wasaga Beach Barrie Orangeville Bradford West Gwillimbury Simcoe/Musk./Duff Average Single SemiDetached Dwellings per unit
none

Multiples Dwelling 3+ per unit
none

Multiples Dwelling 1&2 per unit
none

Non Apartment Apartment Residential units < 2 per units >=2 per Commercial unit unit per sq. ft.
none none none

Non Residential Industrial per sq. ft.
none

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

11,484 12,061 12,676 12,848 18,123 18,448 30,631 16,610

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,093 10,654 11,473 10,859 15,834 13,716 21,075 13,386

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,093 10,654 11,473 10,859 15,834 13,716 21,075 13,386

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,003 5,550 6,002 6,881 8,803 6,857 14,587 7,669

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

7,528 8,205 8,737 10,019 11,998 9,860 19,898

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

2.51 2.30 2.32 1.72 12.07 8.89 10.29

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

2.51 1.28 2.32 0.19 7.83 8.89 8.76 4.54

10,892 $

5.73 $

User Fee & Revenue Information

148

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Development Charges—Grouped by Location

GTA Municipalities
Total Development Charges Total Municipality Toronto Mississauga Oshawa Burlington Halton Hills Caledon Clarington Whitby Pickering Ajax Oakville Brampton Georgina East Gwillimbury Newmarket Whitchurch-Stouffville King Markham Vaughan Richmond Hill Aurora Milton GTA Average Single SemiDetached Dwellings per unit $ 10,817 $ 21,103 $ 22,618 $ 23,167 $ 23,345 $ 24,099 $ 24,831 $ 25,262 $ 25,366 $ 25,411 $ 27,148 $ 27,514 $ 27,903 $ 29,289 $ 31,343 $ 31,885 $ 32,343 $ 32,413 $ 33,395 $ 33,504 $ 34,702 $ 35,148 $ 27,391 Multiples Dwelling 3+ per unit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,690 21,103 19,544 18,541 19,593 22,868 22,019 21,359 21,235 21,534 22,056 27,514 23,928 24,515 26,030 25,532 27,360 26,732 28,189 28,005 28,626 28,723 23,350 Multiples Dwelling 1&2 per unit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 8,690 21,103 19,544 13,790 15,248 22,868 21,588 21,359 21,235 21,534 18,614 27,514 23,928 24,515 26,030 25,532 27,360 26,732 28,189 28,005 28,626 23,824 22,538 Non Apartment Apartment Residential units < 2 per units >=2 per Commercial unit unit per sq. ft. $ 4,600 $ 7,157 $ 7.99 $ 9,034 $ 15,618 $ 9.26 $ 9,904 $ 13,819 $ 8.51 $ 10,016 $ 13,833 $ 13.22 $ 10,249 $ 14,162 $ 13.15 $ 10,329 $ 17,097 $ 7.29 $ 14,890 $ 17,919 $ 9.01 $ 10,324 $ 15,451 $ 8.70 $ 10,210 $ 15,165 $ 8.04 $ 10,203 $ 14,723 $ 8.45 $ 11,503 $ 17,216 $ 15.78 $ 11,597 $ 20,546 $ 10.59 $ 12,013 $ 17,689 $ 12.88 $ 12,429 $ 18,297 $ 12.90 $ 13,111 $ 19,648 $ 12.39 $ 14,174 $ 19,461 $ 15.80 $ 13,631 $ 20,041 $ 15.02 $ 13,732 $ 20,631 $ 11.75 $ 15,411 $ 20,215 $ 12.96 $ 15,331 $ 20,135 $ 13.92 $ 14,880 $ 21,282 $ 13.90 $ 16,028 $ 21,993 $ 15.03 $ 11,982 $ 17,368 $ 11.66 Non Residential Industrial per sq. ft. $ 0.22 $ 6.78 $ 3.14 $ 10.07 $ 10.00 $ 5.19 $ 2.00 $ 1.66 $ 2.67 $ 2.03 $ 12.63 $ 7.34 $ 6.46 $ 6.48 $ 5.97 $ 9.38 $ 8.60 $ 5.33 $ 6.54 $ 6.11 $ 7.48 $ 11.19 $ 6.24

Summary by Geographic Location
• • • • •

There are clear trends across Ontario in terms of the DC practices and costs, with the lowest DCs generally in the North and East and the highest DCs in the GTA 3 of the 5 North municipalities in the study do not have Development Charges Only one Eastern Ontario municipality has no DCs (Cornwall). Of the remaining Eastern municipalities, 2 exempt Industrial properties All Niagara/Hamilton municipalities charge DCs for all types of properties A number of Southwest municipalities exempt industrial properties from DCs to promote employment

User Fee & Revenue Information

149

Municipal Study 2007

Building Permit Fees
Bill 124, the Building Code Statute Amendment Act, 2002 was given Royal assent on June 27, 2002 and subsequently amended the Building Code Act, 1992 as it relates to imposing fees. The changes provided within the Act, are a result of the report recommendations of the Building Regulatory Reform Advisory Group (BRRAG), which were provided to address issues of public safety, streamlining and accountability. While portions of the amendments came into force on September 1, 2003, the amendments relating to fees came into force on July 1, 2005. As such, municipalities across Ontario review and update their fees to ensure compliance with the Act. With respect to establishing fees under the Building Code Act, Section 7 of the Act provides municipalities with general powers to impose fees through passage of a by-law. The Council of a municipality may pass by-laws: ♦ Requiring the payment of fees on applications for and issuance of permits and prescribing the amounts thereof ♦ Providing for refunds of fees under such circumstances as are prescribed The Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 imposed additional requirements on municipalities in establishing fees under the Act, in that: “The total amount of the fees authorized under clause (1)(c) must not exceed the anticipated reasonable cost of the principal authority to administer and enforce this Act in its area of jurisdiction.” In addition, the amendments also require municipalities to: ♦ Reduce fees to reflect the portion of service performed by a Registered Code Agency ♦ Prepare and make available to the public annual reports with respect to the fees imposed under the Act and associated costs; and ♦ Undertake a public process, including notice and public meeting requirements, when a change in the fees is proposed. O. Reg. 305/03 is the associated regulation arising from the Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002. The regulation provides details on the contents of the annual report and the public requirements for the imposition or change in fees. Section 11.2 of Bill 124 restricts the use of building permit revenues to recover only the “reasonable anticipated costs” of activities mandated by the Building Code Act. As the requirements of the Act do not limit municipalities to the costs directly related to the service, as provided within the Municipal Act for licensing fees, it would appear that Building Code Act fees can include general overhead indirect costs related to the provision of service (e.g. Council corporate services, etc.). Moreover, the recognition of anticipated costs also suggests that municipalities could include costs related to future compliance requirements or reserve fund contributions. As a result, the requirements of the Act suggest that Building Code Act fees can include direct costs, capital-related costs, indirect support function costs directly related to the service provided and general overhead indirect costs related to the service provided, as well as provisions for future anticipated costs.

User Fee & Revenue Information

150

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Building Permit Fees (sorted alphabetically)
Industrial / sq ft (finished) $5.50 m2 $.60 /sq ft $5.50 m2 $4.65 /m2 $10/$1,000 $8.00/$1000 first and up to 10,000 sq. ft. $0.52, next 10,000 sq. ft $.45, remainder $.22 $8.00 /m2 $11/$1000, min $50 $.35 /sq ft 2 up to 4650 m $7.47, then 2 $5.11 /m $.59 /sq ft $.68 /sq ft $4.28/$1,000 $10.50/$1000 $9.72 /m2 >2500 sq. ft. $1.10 /sq. ft. $9.00/$1000 $.77 sq ft $.74 sq ft $.88 /sq ft $8.00/$1000 $.39 sq ft $.689 / Sq ft $7.96 / m2 $5.87/m2 $8.00/$1000 $5.00 / m2 $.50 / sq ft + $200 $12/$1,000 $.70 / sq ft $7 /$1000 value $.70 / sq ft $5.80 /m2 2 $6.94 /m $1,800 up to 2,500 sq. ft, $.72 over 2,500 sq. ft. $.59 / sq ft $.70 / sq ft, <20,000 sq ft 2 $8.22 /m

Municipality Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge

Residential $8.50 m2 $.80 /sq ft $11 m2 $7.50 m2 $10/$1,000 $8.00/$1000

Retail / sq ft (finished) $6.50 m2 $.85 /sq ft $5.50 m2 $7.20 /m2 $10/$1,000 $8.00/$1000 first and up to 10,000 sq. ft. $0.52, next 10,000 sq. ft $.45, remainder $.22 $9.25 m 2 $11/$1000, min $50 $.35 /sq ft $10.10 /m $.96 /sq ft $.97 /sq ft
2

Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham

$1.03 / sq ft $10.50 /m2 $11/$1000, min $50 $825 / unit 2 2 up to 300 m $9.56 /m , 2 then $12.32 /m $.95 /sq ft $.95 /sq ft $1,000 up to 1500 ft2 2 $.66/ft over 1500 $10.50/$1000 $9.12 /m2

Middlesex Milton Mississauga Newmarket

$4.28/$1,000 $10.50/$1000 $11.85 /m2 >2500 sq. ft. $1.10 /sq. > 1500 sq. ft. $1.10 /sq. ft. ft. $9.00/$1000 $9.00/$1000 $1.17 /sq ft $.88 /sq ft $.87 / sq ft $.84 / sq ft $1.05 / sq ft $.88 /sq ft $8.00/$1000 $8.00/$1000 $.67 sq ft $.65 sq ft $.901/sq ft $.876/ sq ft $11.90 / m2 $10.85 / m2 $8.59 /m2 $6.68/m2 $8.00/$1000 $8.00/$1000 $6.82 / m2 $6.82 / m2 $.50 / sq ft + $200 $.50 / sq ft + $200 $12/$1,000 $12/$1,000 $1.03 / sq ft $1.22 / sq ft $.75 sq ft $7 /$1000 value $1.16 / sq ft $1.00 / sq ft 2 $ 7.30 /m $8.00 /m2 2 2 $9.03 /m $8.48 /m $1,500 / unit up to 2,000 $2,200 up to 2,500 sq. ft, sq. ft, $.75 / sq. ft over $.88 / sq. ft over 2,500 2,000 sq. ft sq. ft $.96 / sq ft $.87 / sq ft $.96 / sq ft 2 $13.77 /m $.97 / sq ft 2 $8.43 /m

User Fee & Revenue Information

151

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Building Permit Fees (sorted alphabetically)
Industrial / sq ft (finished) $.997 / sq ft $.75 / sq ft $45 1st $3,000 + $11 per $1,000

Municipality Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville

Residential $.891 / sq ft $1.14 / sq ft $45 1st $3,000 + $11 per $1,000 $2,100 up to 1,750 sq ft, $1.20 over 1,750 sq ft $.81 / sq ft $7.80 /m
2

Retail / sq ft (finished) $1.089 / sq ft $1.19 / sq ft $45 1st $3,000 + $11 per $1,000

$2,600 up to 2,500 sq ft, $2,600 up to 2,500 sq ft, $1.04 over 2,500 sq ft $1.04 over 2,500 sq ft $.69 / sq ft $.58 / sq ft $10.83 $14.07/$1000 $3.82/m2 > 15,000 sq. ft. $9/$1000
2 2

$14.07/$1000

Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St Thomas

St. Catharines Stratford Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor

Woodstock Woolwich

$7.53 /m for < 125000 m 2 $7.75 /m2 $8.97 /m2 finished, then $3.76 /m $13.50/$1000 $13.50/$1000 $13.50/$1000 2 $5.50 /m $7.50 / $1,000 $7.50 / $1,000 $7.00/$1000 $7.00/$1001 $7.00/$1002 $2,375 up to 2,150 sq ft $3,250 up to 2,500 sq ft $3,250 up to 2,500 sq ft $1.10 over 2,150 sq ft $1.30 over 2,500 sq ft $1.30 over 2,500 sq ft $9/$1000, min $50 $9/$1000, min $50 $9/$1000, min $50 2 2 2 $9.00 / m $8.00 /m $5.50 /m $.80 / sq ft $.75 / sq ft $.45 / sq ft 2 2 2 $9.50 /m $10 /m $8.10 /m $54 + $6.25/$1000 $54 + $6.25/$1000 $54 + $6.25/$1000 $10/$1,000 $10/$1,000 $10/$1,000 $25 1st $1,000 + $7 each $25 1st $1,000 + $7 $25 1st $1,000 + $7 each additional $1,000 each additional $1,000 additional $1,000 $.90 / sq ft first 10000 sq $.75 / sq ft first 10000 sq ft, $.85 sq ft 10001ft, $.70 sq ft 10001-50000, 50000, then $.80 / sq ft > then $.60 / sq ft > 50000 $.90 / sq ft 50000 sq ft sq ft $.87 / sq ft $.83 / sq ft $.73 / sq ft $10.70/$1000 $10.70/$1000 $10.70/$1000 $.71 / sq ft $.70 / sq ft $.51 / sq ft $10 /$1000 value $10 /$1000 value $10 /$1000 value $45 1st $1,000 + $45 1st $1,000 + $45 1st $1,000 + $10/$1,000 $10/$1,000 $10/$1,000 $50 + $11/$1000 $50 + $11/$1000 $50 + $11/$1000 $12.47 /m2 <7,500 m2, $13.61 /m2 $15.23 /m2 $11.02 > 7,500 m2 2 2 2 $9.75 /m $9.25 /m $7.65/ m up to 2,500 sq ft $2,300, up to 2,500 sq ft $2,300, up to 2,100 sq ft $1,900 over $1.10 sq ft over $1.10 sq ft $.60 / sq ft $.55 / sq ft $.55 / sq ft $.80 / sq ft $.95 / sq ft $.55 / sq ft $.75 / sq ft $.75 / sq ft $.49 / sq ft $.80 / sq ft $.95 / sq ft $.60 /sq ft $7.52 /m2 $7.41 /m2 $4.91 /m2 2 2 2 $8.50 /m $10.01 /m $8.18 /m $.70 / sq ft $.70 / sq ft $.59 / sq ft $.80 / sq ft $.60 /sq ft $.60 /sq ft $.95 sq ft + $400 $1.30 / sq ft $.90 / sq ft $.24 / sq ft up to 50,000 sq ft, $.12 / sq ft > 50,000 $.36 / sq ft $.76 / sq ft sq ft $.68 / sq ft $.45 / sq ft $.40 / sq ft

User Fee & Revenue Information

152

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Building Permit Fees (sorted by Location)
Municipality Brockville Kawartha Lakes Peterborough Cornwall Belleville Kingston Ottawa Cobourg King Whitchurch-Stouffville Oshawa Oakville Ajax Whitby Pickering Markham Clarington Richmond Hill Burlington Vaughan Caledon Milton Mississauga Brampton Aurora Georgina Halton Hills East Gwillimbury Toronto Newmarket Grimsby West Lincoln Thorold Welland Hamilton Port Colborne Fort Erie Niagara Falls Wainfleet Niagara-on-the-Lake Lincoln Pelham Residential $ per sq ft $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.46 0.63 0.68 0.70 0.75 0.90 1.01 1.10 0.50 0.70 0.72 0.72 0.79 0.79 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.98 1.02 1.05 1.11 1.17 1.26 1.28 0.67 0.70 0.71 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.89 1.06 1.14 1.16 1.32 Residential 1800 sq ft Location Average property $135,000 value $ 825 $ 1,141 $ 1,215 $ 1,265 $ 1,350 $ 1,620 $ 1,823 Eastern $ 1,980 $ 1,402 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,100 1,260 1,296 1,305 1,422 1,422 1,506 1,511 1,526 1,589 1,599 1,631 1,710 1,728 1,728 1,757 1,840 1,890 1,991 2,106 2,277 2,402 $

Municipality Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Sudbury Timmins North Bay Parry Sound Bracebridge Gravenhurst Huntsville Wasaga Beach Barrie Bradford West Orangeville Woodstock Sarnia Owen Sound St Thomas Central Elgin London Woolwich Leamington Tillsonburg Chatham-Kent Amherstburg Waterloo Wellesley Wilmot North Dumfries Brantford Norfolk Middlesex Stratford St. Catharines Guelph Cambridge Kitchener Windsor

Residential $ per sq ft $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.85 1.20 0.53 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.70 1.03 1.06 0.36 0.50 0.51 0.54 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.95 1.03 1.17

Residential 1800 sq ft Location Average property $135,000 value $ 1,350 $ 1,350 $ 1,445 $ 1,535 North $ 2,160 $ 1,568 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 945 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,255 1,854 Simcoe/Musk./Duff. 1,899 $ 1,284 648 898 920 963 1,198 1,221 1,224 1,350 1,385 1,418 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,458 1,485 1,497 1,500 1,566 1,620 1,622 1,710 1,854 2,110 $

GTA 1,663

1,206 1,258 1,278 1,350 1,437 1,440 1,566 1,604 1,900 2,052 2,088 Niagara/Hamilton 2,375 $ 1,629

Southwest 1,392

User Fee & Revenue Information

153

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Commercial Solid Waste Tipping Fees
The 2007 commercial solid waste tipping fees range from $40 in Thunder Bay to a high of $120 in Durham Region.
Municipality or Region Thunder Bay Lambton County Cornwall Oxford County Essex County Windsor Stratford Brantford North Bay Sudbury Waterloo Region Norfolk Sault Ste. Marie Niagara Region Kingston London Ottawa Belleville Peel Region Kawartha Lakes Northumberland County Peterborough York Region Chatham-Kent Halton Region Toronto Barrie Hamilton Muskoka Simcoe County Durham Region Average Median 2004 Per Tonne N/A 45 50 N/A N/A N/A 57 55 45 60 50 51 40 60 N/A 73 69 N/A 80 85 N/A N/A 86 97 98 95 N/A 84 N/A 105 90 70 69 2005 Per Tonne $ 36 $ 45 $ 50 N/A $ 53 $ 53 $ 58 $ 60 $ 48 $ 60 $ 53 $ 55 $ 55 $ 60 N/A $ 75 $ 70 N/A $ 80 $ 85 $ 85 $ 70 $ 86 $ 97 $ 98 $ 95 N/A $ 90 N/A $ 115 $ 90 $ $ 2006 Per Tonne $ 36 $ 45 $ 50 $ 45 $ 55 $ 55 $ 59 $ 60 $ 55 $ 60 $ 56 $ 55 $ 65 $ 70 N/A $ 75 $ 73 $ 99 $ 80 $ 85 $ 85 $ 70 $ 86 $ 97 $ 98 $ 95 $ 105 $ 102 $ 100 $ 115 $ 110 75 72 2007 Per Tonne $ 40 $ 45 $ 49 $ 50 $ 56 $ 56 $ 59 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 60 $ 65 $ 65 $ 70 $ 71 $ 75 $ 75 $ 80 $ 80 $ 85 $ 85 $ 85 $ 87 $ 97 $ 98 $ 100 $ 105 $ 105 $ 105 $ 115 $ 120 $ $ 76 75

$ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

70 $ 65 $

User Fee & Revenue Information

154

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Transit Fares
Cash Fares Student $ 2.25 $ 1.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.15 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 1.75 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.25 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.25 $ 1.00 $ 1.25 $ 2.00 $ 1.00 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.00 $ 2.25 $ 2.50 $ 1.50 $ 3.00 $ 1.50 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 1.50 $ 2.30 $ 2.25 $ 1.50 $ 1.85 $ 2.25 $ 2.25 $ 1.60 $ 1.00 $ 2.75 $ $ $ $ 2.03 2.00 3.00 1.00 Monthly Passes Adult Student Senior $ 68.00 $ 52.00 $ 46.00 $ 66.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 92.00 $ 86.00 $ 42.00 $ 60.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 55.00 $ 55.00 $ 55.00 $ 75.00 $ 64.00 $ 49.00 $ 35.00 $ 27.00 $ 27.00 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $ 54.00 $ 52.00 $ 26.00 $ 87.50 $ 75.00 $ 35.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 58.00 71.00 50.00 13.00 65.00 30.00 74.00 56.00 96.00 65.00 75.00 78.00 35.00 73.00 55.00 50.00 65.00 56.00 80.00 60.00 50.00 66.00 65.00 65.00 99.75 57.00 63.00 75.00 50.00 85.00 63.33 65.00 99.75 13.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 52.00 56.00 25.00 11.00 48.00 30.00 64.00 45.00 90.00 50.00 60.00 50.00 25.00 59.75 30.00 45.00 55.00 56.00 50.00 50.00 35.00 60.00 55.00 50.00 83.75 47.00 53.50 52.00 50.00 65.00 51.73 52.00 90.00 11.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 52.00 71.00 50.00 11.00 44.00 30.00 52.50 38.50 31.00 50.00 50.00 45.00 25.00 29.00 30.00 30.00 50.00 46.00 50.00 50.00 35.00 41.00 55.00 50.00 83.75 47.00 47.00 38.50 50.00 42.00 43.98 46.00 83.75 11.00

Municipality Barrie Belleville Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Chatham-Kent Cobourg Cornwall Durham Region Fort Erie Guelph Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha lakes Kingston Leamington London ^ Milton Mississauga * Niagara Falls North Bay Oakville Orangeville Ottawa Owen Sound Peterborough Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins Toronto Waterloo Region Welland Windsor Woodstock York Region Average Median Maximum Minimum

Adult $ 2.25 $ 2.10 $ 2.75 $ 2.15 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.25 $ 2.00 $ 1.50 $ 2.25 $ 1.75 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.25 $ 2.25 $ 2.50 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.00 $ 2.30 $ 2.25 $ 2.00 $ 2.75 $ 2.25 $ 2.25 $ 2.35 $ 2.00 $ 2.75 $ $ $ $ 2.23 2.25 3.00 1.50

Senior $ 2.00 $ 1.75 $ 2.75 $ 2.15 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 1.75 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 1.50 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.25 $ 2.00 $ 1.25 $ 2.00 $ 1.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.00 $ 2.25 $ 2.50 $ 1.50 $ 3.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 2.00 $ 1.80 $ 2.25 $ 1.50 $ 1.85 $ 2.25 $ 2.25 $ 1.60 $ 2.00 $ 2.75 $ $ $ $ 2.08 2.00 3.00 1.25

20 rides

10 rides 22 rides

* Mississauga weekly passes for adults and students ^ Post-secondary student

User Fee & Revenue Information

155

Municipal Study 2007

Ontario Unconditional Grants Ontario Municipal Partnership Grant (OMPF)
Municipality Ottawa Cobourg Kingston Kawartha Lakes Peterborough Brockville Belleville Cornwall Ajax Aurora Brampton Markham Newmarket Pickering Toronto Vaughan Whitby Halton Region Peel Region Mississauga Burlington Durham Region Halton Hills Clarington Oshawa Georgina East Gwillimbury York Region Milton Oakville Caledon Whitchurch Stouffville King Pelham St. Catharines Fort Erie Grimsby Niagara Falls Niagara Region Thorold Lincoln Welland Port Colborne Niagara-on-the-Lake Hamilton OMPF & Transition OMPF Funding $ 9,124,224 $ 442,080 $ 7,289,676 $ 6,770,129 $ 7,934,687 $ 2,399,118 $ 5,877,037 $ 16,900,584 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 21,400 65,000 337,000 82,000 116,000 401,000 239,216 150,315 7,052,288 780,029 3,163,855 1,300,429 618,300 539,249 26,000 250,000 88,000 99,360 1,327,507 9,206,299 493,245 1,177,000 3,310,856 1,593,237 1,253,546 52,866,720 Total As % of Expenditures Expenditures Per Capita $ 2,197,822,477 0% $ 11 $ 28,700,664 2% $ 24 $ 291,987,117 2% $ 62 $ 141,900,802 5% $ 91 $ 210,966,123 4% $ 106 $ 43,375,866 6% $ 109 $ 96,598,671 6% $ 120 $ 151,548,848 11% $ 368 $ 59,286,587 $ 46,333,541 $ 317,444,144 $ 196,290,792 $ 68,450,658 $ 59,019,442 $ 8,536,282,883 $ 227,900,448 $ 76,325,192 $ 552,442,765 $ 1,268,669,575 $ 446,120,480 $ 147,389,035 $ 803,901,651 $ 35,083,481 $ 49,669,426 $ 114,450,666 $ 33,081,863 $ 14,744,335 $ 1,165,822,562 $ 50,385,379 $ 151,434,672 $ 49,508,196 $ 21,710,553 $ 17,420,345 $ 11,566,275 $ 132,147,448 $ 25,828,486 $ 19,550,526 $ 125,154,056 $ 748,465,022 $ 20,677,138 $ 15,531,887 $ 42,453,614 $ 17,950,018 $ 18,673,872 $ 1,224,678,057 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 8% 8% 9% 7% 4% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0 0 1 1 1 3 6 7 8 12 19 23 25 28 2 2 3 4 16 22 27 54 66 86 86 105 Location Average

Eastern $ 111

GTA $ 5

$

Niagara/Hamilton 39

Source—2006 FIR User Fee & Revenue Information 156

Municipal Study 2007

Ontario Unconditional Grants Ontario Municipal Partnership Grant (OMPF) - cont’d
OMPF & Transition OMPF Funding $ 26,214,277 $ 17,610,999 $ 25,941,092 $ 15,368,941 $ 58,866,423 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 63,000 770,471 897,412 1,195,848 1,429,325 1,023,856 2,468,337 129,000 228,000 205,985 93,456 760,000 1,450,000 417,602 472,824 7,752,265 909,500 15,438,505 842,104 523,757 1,810,594 1,605,484 973,082 1,279,388 4,588,129 11,581,000 22,908,000 Total As % of Expenditures Expenditures Per Capita Location Average $ 334,536,806 8% $ 240 $ 147,942,365 12% $ 326 $ 235,728,463 11% $ 346 $ 127,146,527 12% $ 357 North 329 $ 486,214,727 12% $ 373 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 204,220,551 32,013,914 26,811,593 120,580,106 24,535,195 12,888,811 15,175,859 9,770,011 24,831,379 282,199,013 105,454,678 591,082,682 92,604,611 50,440,799 16,928,686 105,246,310 269,902,981 43,323,715 13,973,868 689,590,310 23,063,241 793,819,006 10,414,090 5,244,917 82,772,600 35,700,032 14,171,782 12,958,947 89,517,081 233,422,861 259,378,376 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 9% 9% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 4% 2% 8% 10% 2% 4% 7% 10% 5% 5% 9% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3 13 60 76 78 93 Simcoe/Musk./Duff. 424 $ 83 0 3 6 6 6 13 14 24 36 42 44 49 54 59 74 76 82 127 128 212

Municipality Thunder Bay North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Sudbury Barrie Orangeville Bradford West Gwillimbury District Muskoka Wasaga Beach Bracebridge Huntsville Gravenhurst Parry Sound Kitchener Waterloo Waterloo Region Sarnia Woodstock Tillsonburg Cambridge Guelph Leamington Woolwich Windsor Amherstburg London Wilmot Wellesley Stratford Owen Sound Central Elgin Middlesex Centre St. Thomas Brantford Chatham-Kent

Southwest $ 58

User Fee & Revenue Information

157

Municipal Study 2007

Ontario and Canada Conditional Grants
Canada Conditional Grants Per Capita $ $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ $ $ 0 $ 0 $ $ 1 $ 0 $ 1 $ 0 $ 5 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 17 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ $ 0 $ 0 $ 2 $ 0 $ 0 $ $ 5 $ 1 $ 0 $ 1 $ 0 $ 1 $ 3 $ 0 $ 2 $ 0 $ 1 $ $ $ 0 $ 11 $ $ 1 $ 1 $ 0 $ 21 $ 11 $ 23 $ 0 $ 1 Ontario Conditional Grants Per Capita $ 1 $ 1 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 2 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 8 $ 9 $ 10 $ 10 $ 11 $ 14 $ 14 $ 16 $ 20 $ 21 $ 23 $ 24 $ 24 $ 28 $ 34 $ 39 $ 40 $ 42 $ 48 $ 56 $ 57 $ 59 $ 61 $ 65 $ 69

Municipality Vaughan Brampton Clarington Milton Mississauga Georgina Whitby Wellesley Woolwich Pickering St. Catharines East Gwillimbury Halton Hills Thorold Kitchener Wilmot Pelham Aurora Welland Markham Lincoln Middlesex Centre Whitchurch Stouffville Cambridge Gravenhurst Newmarket Wasaga Beach Cobourg Port Colborne Bradford West Gwillimbury Sarnia Woodstock Barrie Huntsville King Ajax Oakville Niagara Falls Grimsby Central Elgin Waterloo Leamington Burlington Niagara-on-the-Lake Orangeville Bracebridge Fort Erie Owen Sound Tillsonburg Amherstburg Belleville Brockville

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Canada Conditional Grants 40,000 19,668 3,987 54,621 500 118,391 8,268 19,296 8,226 90,360 13,500 7,612 2,994 794,504 3,311 50,655 10,060 3,488 60,000 21,771 8,193 3,798 83,772 29,796 3,912 45,313 2,587 19,177 55,807 4,781 294,368 5,012 35,040 10,993 1,884,490 17,549 13,335 1,862 456,510 164,611 503,912 1,486 18,503

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Ontario Conditional Grants 147,850 569,263 140,827 120,090 1,266,015 90,754 249,994 23,375 50,265 234,281 401,917 65,198 204,413 69,477 803,347 70,023 67,788 203,298 220,185 1,149,114 100,908 75,995 124,274 640,413 68,766 468,170 97,076 141,000 159,123 233,173 720,510 380,685 1,759,483 251,861 308,591 1,763,893 3,502,880 1,879,044 575,299 309,860 2,702,576 994,300 6,459,911 577,565 1,117,838 750,046 1,687,716 1,236,253 871,357 1,330,848 3,190,755 1,512,227

Total Expenditures $ 227,900,448 $ 317,444,144 $ 49,669,426 $ 50,385,379 $ 446,120,480 $ 33,081,863 $ 76,325,192 $ 5,244,917 $ 13,973,868 $ 59,019,442 $ 132,147,448 $ 14,744,335 $ 35,083,481 $ 20,677,138 $ 282,199,013 $ 10,414,090 $ 11,566,275 $ 46,333,541 $ 42,453,614 $ 196,290,792 $ 15,531,887 $ 12,958,947 $ 21,710,553 $ 105,246,310 $ 9,770,011 $ 68,450,658 $ 24,535,195 $ 28,700,664 $ 17,950,018 $ 26,811,593 $ 92,604,611 $ 50,440,799 $ 204,220,551 $ 15,175,859 $ 17,420,345 $ 59,286,587 $ 151,434,672 $ 125,154,056 $ 19,550,526 $ 14,171,782 $ 105,454,678 $ 43,323,715 $ 147,389,035 $ 18,673,872 $ 32,013,914 $ 12,888,811 $ 25,828,486 $ 35,700,032 $ 16,928,686 $ 23,063,241 $ 96,598,671 $ 43,375,866

User Fee & Revenue Information

158

Municipal Study 2007

Ontario and Canada Conditional Grants (cont’d)
Canada Conditional Grants Per Capita $ 11 $ 37 $ 7 $ $ 21 $ 34 $ 30 $ 58 $ 29 $ 40 $ 41 $ 4 $ 0 $ 55 $ 54 $ 31 $ 52 $ 6 $ $ $ 40 $ 85 $ 20 $ 68 $ 2 $ 28 $ 14 $ 72 $ 12 Ontario Conditional Grants Per Capita $ 190 $ 194 $ 209 $ 250 $ 253 $ 264 $ 331 $ 370 $ 373 $ 398 $ 403 $ 420 $ 450 $ 493 $ 526 $ 535 $ 551 $ 558 $ 558 $ 583 $ 585 $ 585 $ 596 $ 656 $ 791 $ 880 $ 889 $ 1,040 $ 185

Municipality York Region Peel Region Halton Region Caledon Durham Region Waterloo Region Brantford Hamilton Kawartha Lakes Kingston Ottawa London Guelph Windsor St. Thomas Chatham-Kent Peterborough North Bay Stratford District Muskoka Thunder Bay Toronto Niagara Region Timmins Cornwall Sudbury Parry Sound Sault Ste. Marie Average
Source—2006 FIR

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Canada Conditional Grants 9,723,362 43,065,964 2,960,052 11,837,496 16,473,544 2,720,319 29,264,079 2,185,079 4,678,515 33,527,748 1,317,037 12,267 11,985,379 1,957,249 3,299,419 3,865,186 325,303 4,387,573 213,202,624 8,669,573 2,925,731 98,005 4,384,744 84,012 5,416,374

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Ontario Conditional Grants 169,256,875 224,748,418 93,964,978 14,239,904 142,166,466 126,031,890 29,839,039 186,703,276 27,833,125 46,609,639 327,319,842 148,159,695 51,712,274 106,650,860 18,978,315 57,881,981 41,266,517 30,105,283 17,010,580 33,537,084 63,801,423 1,465,564,977 254,818,836 28,188,576 36,342,127 138,912,019 5,170,161 77,954,188

Total Expenditures $ 1,165,822,562 $ 1,268,669,575 $ 552,442,765 $ 49,508,196 $ 803,901,651 $ 591,082,682 $ 233,422,861 $ 1,224,678,057 $ 141,900,802 $ 291,987,117 $ 2,197,822,477 $ 793,819,006 $ 269,902,981 $ 689,590,310 $ 89,517,081 $ 259,378,376 $ 210,966,123 $ 147,942,365 $ 82,772,600 $ 120,580,106 $ 334,536,806 $ 8,536,282,883 $ 748,465,022 $ 127,146,527 $ 151,548,848 $ 486,214,727 $ 24,831,379 $ 235,728,463

User Fee & Revenue Information

159

Municipal Study 2007

Licenses, Permits, Rents, Etc.
License, Permits, Rents $ $ $ 42,529 $ 367,692 $ 537,818 $ 53,935 $ 1,343,888 $ 157,410 $ 1,000,970 $ 218,773 $ 232,698 $ 1,469,529 $ 461,237 $ 1,256,001 $ 739,745 $ 3,635,894 $ 840,427 $ 402,497 $ 293,134 $ 278,059 $ 1,098,777 $ 2,529,063 $ 1,089,268 $ 1,241,270 $ 2,586,417 $ 443,970 $ 365,257 $ 488,169 $ 1,776,232 $ 1,296,022 $ 2,188,740 $ 598,518 $ 2,494,850 $ 470,696 $ 12,536,759 $ 1,267,269 $ 24,386,595 $ 3,403,422 $ 3,781,380 $ 2,397,145 Total Expenditures $ 23,063,241 $ 1,165,822,562 $ 803,901,651 $ 1,268,669,575 $ 552,442,765 $ 19,550,526 $ 591,082,682 $ 32,013,914 $ 59,019,442 $ 20,677,138 $ 17,950,018 $ 334,536,806 $ 43,323,715 $ 141,900,802 $ 33,081,863 $ 282,199,013 $ 151,548,848 $ 15,531,887 $ 12,958,947 $ 18,673,872 $ 120,580,106 $ 105,246,310 $ 42,453,614 $ 49,508,196 $ 269,902,981 $ 17,420,345 $ 12,888,811 $ 13,973,868 $ 92,604,611 $ 96,598,671 $ 125,154,056 $ 43,375,866 $ 59,286,587 $ 11,566,275 $ 748,465,022 $ 127,146,527 $ 2,197,822,477 $ 76,325,192 $ 291,987,117 $ 68,450,658 As % of Expenditures 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 4% 2% 1% 1% 4% 1% 4%

Municipality Amherstburg York Region Durham Region Peel Region Halton Region Grimsby Waterloo Region Orangeville Pickering Thorold Port Colborne Thunder Bay Leamington Kawartha Lakes Georgina Kitchener Cornwall Lincoln Middlesex Centre Niagara-on-the-Lake District Muskoka Cambridge Welland Caledon Guelph King Bracebridge Woolwich Sarnia Belleville Niagara Falls Brockville Ajax Pelham Niagara Region Timmins Ottawa Whitby Kingston Newmarket

Per Capita $ $ $ 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 2 $ 3 $ 6 $ 11 $ 12 $ 13 $ 13 $ 16 $ 17 $ 17 $ 18 $ 18 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 21 $ 22 $ 22 $ 23 $ 23 $ 23 $ 25 $ 25 $ 27 $ 27 $ 27 $ 28 $ 29 $ 29 $ 29 $ 30 $ 31 $ 32 $ 32

User Fee & Revenue Information

160

Municipal Study 2007

Licenses, Permits, Rents, Etc. (cont’d)
Municipality Halton Hills North Bay Waterloo Wilmot St. Catharines Oshawa Wellesley Sudbury Peterborough Cobourg Fort Erie Aurora Gravenhurst Barrie Sault Ste. Marie East Gwillimbury Woodstock Markham Mississauga Burlington Brampton Central Elgin Huntsville Clarington Chatham-Kent Oakville Bradford West Gwillimbury Owen Sound Vaughan Parry Sound London Milton Whitchurch Stouffville Wasaga Beach St. Thomas Brantford Tillsonburg Hamilton Stratford Toronto Windsor Average
Source—2006 FIR

License, Permits, Rents $ 1,805,803 $ 1,767,681 $ 3,293,008 $ 583,128 $ 4,508,301 $ 4,952,221 $ 367,533 $ 6,013,869 $ 2,870,703 $ 708,247 $ 1,171,288 $ 1,870,746 $ 436,515 $ 5,291,052 $ 3,316,015 $ 976,763 $ 1,663,919 $ 12,635,573 $ 32,695,546 $ 8,660,195 $ 22,899,290 $ 673,571 $ 1,025,793 $ 4,411,604 $ 6,719,140 $ 10,713,445 $ 1,559,332 $ 1,417,077 $ 16,302,756 $ 408,841 $ 26,886,316 $ 5,503,404 $ 2,114,514 $ 1,319,428 $ 3,214,176 $ 8,402,446 $ 1,394,948 $ 54,029,298 $ 4,748,010 $ 418,681,290 $ 40,401,994

Total Expenditures $ 35,083,481 $ 147,942,365 $ 105,454,678 $ 10,414,090 $ 132,147,448 $ 114,450,666 $ 5,244,917 $ 486,214,727 $ 210,966,123 $ 28,700,664 $ 25,828,486 $ 46,333,541 $ 9,770,011 $ 204,220,551 $ 235,728,463 $ 14,744,335 $ 50,440,799 $ 196,290,792 $ 446,120,480 $ 147,389,035 $ 317,444,144 $ 14,171,782 $ 15,175,859 $ 49,669,426 $ 259,378,376 $ 151,434,672 $ 26,811,593 $ 35,700,032 $ 227,900,448 $ 24,831,379 $ 793,819,006 $ 50,385,379 $ 21,710,553 $ 24,535,195 $ 89,517,081 $ 233,422,861 $ 16,928,686 $ 1,224,678,057 $ 82,772,600 $ 8,536,282,883 $ 689,590,310

As % of Expenditures 5% 1% 3% 6% 3% 4% 7% 1% 1% 2% 5% 4% 4% 3% 1% 7% 3% 6% 7% 6% 7% 5% 7% 9% 3% 7% 6% 4% 7% 2% 3% 11% 10% 5% 4% 4% 8% 4% 6% 5% 6%

Per Capita $ 33 $ 33 $ 34 $ 34 $ 34 $ 35 $ 38 $ 38 $ 38 $ 39 $ 39 $ 39 $ 40 $ 41 $ 44 $ 46 $ 47 $ 48 $ 49 $ 53 $ 53 $ 53 $ 56 $ 57 $ 62 $ 65 $ 65 $ 65 $ 68 $ 70 $ 76 $ 86 $ 87 $ 88 $ 89 $ 93 $ 94 $ 107 $ 156 $ 167 $ 187 42

3% $

User Fee & Revenue Information

161

Municipal Study 2007

Penalties & Interest on Taxes and Other Fine Revenues
Municipality Oshawa Wellesley Wilmot Peterborough Woolwich Tillsonburg Cornwall Middlesex Centre Halton Hills Chatham-Kent Orangeville St. Thomas Leamington Bradford West Gwillimbury Woodstock Brampton North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Ajax Stratford Sudbury Ottawa Cambridge Sarnia Pelham Whitby Belleville Newmarket Kawartha Lakes Clarington Grimsby Milton St. Catharines Brockville Amherstburg Guelph London Central Elgin Georgina Barrie Brantford Burlington Timmins Mississauga Fort Erie Kitchener Markham East Gwillimbury Owen Sound Waterloo Penalties, Interest on Taxes 967,351 88,887 161,656 616,621 200,977 163,087 518,450 176,802 559,779 1,221,312 299,825 430,689 350,370 296,787 413,399 5,502,612 398,616 1,066,000 1,011,793 274,954 1,882,024 9,525,770 1,626,536 997,022 184,711 1,729,853 601,233 801,212 1,170,189 1,185,897 383,025 705,520 1,713,225 296,830 395,123 1,047,950 3,781,774 236,971 676,056 1,574,842 1,397,774 1,948,175 836,412 5,840,811 478,946 2,364,411 3,436,394 422,367 303,093 971,360 Other Fines $ 103,372 $ $ 2,515 $ 145,483 $ 13,495 $ $ $ $ 130,188 $ 136,288 $ 57,893 $ 53,975 $ 38,705 $ 30,168 $ 81,065 $ 604,416 $ 363,447 $ $ 285,389 $ 168,770 $ 445,047 $ 2,530,839 $ 175,514 $ 76,944 $ 64,296 $ $ 187,246 $ 433,275 $ 81,486 $ 122,927 $ 31,114 $ 416,134 $ 601,989 $ 97,952 $ 310 $ 1,059,239 $ 2,771,881 $ $ 125,992 $ 877,944 $ 330,494 $ 1,229,140 $ $ 7,205,864 $ 106,443 $ 1,700,780 $ 1,798,388 $ $ 134,872 $ 991,601 Total Penalties, Interest on Taxes As % of and Other Fines Total Expenditures Expenditures Per Capita $ 1,070,723 $ 114,450,666 1% $ 8 $ 88,887 $ 5,244,917 2% $ 9 $ 164,171 $ 10,414,090 2% $ 10 $ 762,104 $ 210,966,123 0% $ 10 $ 214,472 $ 13,973,868 2% $ 11 $ 163,087 $ 16,928,686 1% $ 11 $ 518,450 $ 151,548,848 0% $ 11 $ 176,802 $ 12,958,947 1% $ 11 $ 689,967 $ 35,083,481 2% $ 12 $ 1,357,600 $ 259,378,376 1% $ 13 $ 357,718 $ 32,013,914 1% $ 13 $ 484,664 $ 89,517,081 1% $ 13 $ 389,075 $ 43,323,715 1% $ 13 $ 326,955 $ 26,811,593 1% $ 14 $ 494,464 $ 50,440,799 1% $ 14 $ 6,107,028 $ 317,444,144 2% $ 14 $ 762,063 $ 147,942,365 1% $ 14 $ 1,066,000 $ 235,728,463 0% $ 14 $ 1,297,182 $ 59,286,587 2% $ 14 $ 443,724 $ 82,772,600 1% $ 15 $ 2,327,071 $ 486,214,727 0% $ 15 $ 12,056,609 $ 2,197,822,477 1% $ 15 $ 1,802,050 $ 105,246,310 2% $ 15 $ 1,073,966 $ 92,604,611 1% $ 15 $ 249,007 $ 11,566,275 2% $ 15 $ 1,729,853 $ 76,325,192 2% $ 16 $ 788,479 $ 96,598,671 1% $ 16 $ 1,234,487 $ 68,450,658 2% $ 17 $ 1,251,675 $ 141,900,802 1% $ 17 $ 1,308,824 $ 49,669,426 3% $ 17 $ 414,139 $ 19,550,526 2% $ 17 $ 1,121,654 $ 50,385,379 2% $ 18 $ 2,315,214 $ 132,147,448 2% $ 18 $ 394,782 $ 43,375,866 1% $ 18 $ 395,433 $ 23,063,241 2% $ 18 $ 2,107,189 $ 269,902,981 1% $ 18 $ 6,553,655 $ 793,819,006 1% $ 19 $ 236,971 $ 14,171,782 2% $ 19 $ 802,048 $ 33,081,863 2% $ 19 $ 2,452,786 $ 204,220,551 1% $ 19 $ 1,728,268 $ 233,422,861 1% $ 19 $ 3,177,315 $ 147,389,035 2% $ 19 $ 836,412 $ 127,146,527 1% $ 19 $ 13,046,675 $ 446,120,480 3% $ 20 $ 585,389 $ 25,828,486 2% $ 20 $ 4,065,191 $ 282,199,013 1% $ 20 $ 5,234,782 $ 196,290,792 3% $ 20 $ 422,367 $ 14,744,335 3% $ 20 $ 437,965 $ 35,700,032 1% $ 20 $ 1,962,961 $ 105,454,678 2% $ 20

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Source—2006 FIR

User Fee & Revenue Information

162

Municipal Study 2007

Penalties & Interest on Taxes and Other Fine Revenues (cont’d)
Penalties, Interest on Taxes 453,431 213,966 385,297 972,892 359,662 481,585 397,493 111,805 2,586,314 2,045,777 1,597,617 757,463 4,416,924 1,698,253 510,751 423,340 1,179,009 469,942 8,879,805 423,314 2,269,631 4,773,280 367,476 29,626,862 Total Penalties, Interest on Taxes As % of and Other Fines Total Expenditures Expenditures Per Capita $ 508,015 $ 21,710,553 2% $ 21 $ 236,980 $ 9,770,011 2% $ 21 $ 399,734 $ 17,950,018 2% $ 21 $ 1,229,868 $ 49,508,196 2% $ 22 $ 403,438 $ 28,700,664 1% $ 22 $ 481,585 $ 15,531,887 3% $ 22 $ 416,826 $ 20,677,138 2% $ 23 $ 133,999 $ 24,831,379 1% $ 23 $ 3,908,234 $ 151,434,672 3% $ 24 $ 2,665,766 $ 334,536,806 1% $ 24 $ 2,969,160 $ 291,987,117 1% $ 25 $ 1,234,696 $ 46,333,541 3% $ 26 $ 6,196,150 $ 227,900,448 3% $ 26 $ 2,288,594 $ 59,019,442 4% $ 26 $ 510,751 $ 17,420,345 3% $ 26 $ 434,523 $ 12,888,811 3% $ 28 $ 1,399,416 $ 42,453,614 3% $ 28 $ 517,817 $ 15,175,859 3% $ 28 $ 14,302,914 $ 1,224,678,057 1% $ 28 $ 472,409 $ 24,535,195 2% $ 31 $ 2,727,870 $ 125,154,056 2% $ 33 $ 7,191,849 $ 689,590,310 1% $ 33 $ 568,164 $ 18,673,872 3% $ 39 $ 101,922,221 $ 8,536,282,883 1% $ 41 2% $ 19

Municipality Whitchurch Stouffville Gravenhurst Port Colborne Caledon Cobourg Lincoln Thorold Parry Sound Oakville Thunder Bay Kingston Aurora Vaughan Pickering King Bracebridge Welland Huntsville Hamilton Wasaga Beach Niagara Falls Windsor Niagara-on-the-Lake Toronto Average

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Other Fines $ 54,584 $ 23,014 $ 14,437 $ 256,976 $ 43,776 $ $ 19,333 $ 22,194 $ 1,321,920 $ 619,989 $ 1,371,543 $ 477,233 $ 1,779,226 $ 590,341 $ $ 11,183 $ 220,407 $ 47,875 $ 5,423,109 $ 49,095 $ 458,239 $ 2,418,569 $ 200,688 $ 72,295,359

User Fee & Revenue Information

163

Municipal Study 2007

Investment Income Revenue
Investment Income From Own Funds and As % of Per Others Exp. Capita $ 11,957 0.1% $ 1 $ 9,307 0.1% $ 1 $ 50,317 0.3% $ 3 $ 593,032 0.8% $ 5 $ 122,465 0.8% $ 7 $ 115,107 1.0% $ 7 $ 521,574 0.6% $ 7 $ 380,932 0.4% $ 8 $ 144,312 1.4% $ 8 $ 3,190,810 0.4% $ 9 $ 209,092 1.3% $ 10 $ 746,669 1.1% $ 10 $ 170,499 1.3% $ 11 $ 472,965 0.4% $ 11 $ 318,868 1.0% $ 12 $ 387,377 1.5% $ 13 $ 202,474 1.2% $ 14 $ 1,498,151 0.4% $ 14 $ 336,225 1.3% $ 14 $ 7,158,396 0.6% $ 14 $ 144,461 2.8% $ 15 $ 1,967,522 1.5% $ 15 $ 237,262 1.8% $ 15 $ 1,404,505 2.4% $ 16 $ 1,244,893 2.5% $ 16 $ 233,662 1.3% $ 16 $ 341,828 2.3% $ 16 $ 587,512 1.2% $ 17 $ 1,305,547 0.9% $ 18 $ 2,593,158 2.3% $ 18 $ 405,599 1.1% $ 19 $ 237,851 1.7% $ 19 $ 2,211,195 0.8% $ 19 $ 3,927,986 1.4% $ 19 $ 430,770 1.0% $ 20 $ 837,703 2.5% $ 20 $ 1,010,611 2.4% $ 20 $ 4,808,619 2.1% $ 20 $ 397,449 2.3% $ 20 $ 1,571,462 0.7% $ 21 $ 14,065,619 3.2% $ 21 $ 647,469 0.8% $ 21

Municipality Amherstburg Gravenhurst Port Colborne Whitby Huntsville Pelham Sarnia Belleville Wilmot London Lincoln Newmarket Middlesex Centre Timmins Orangeville Fort Erie Tillsonburg Thunder Bay Bradford West Gwillimbury Hamilton Wellesley St. Catharines Bracebridge Pickering Clarington Niagara-on-the-Lake East Gwillimbury Woodstock Kawartha Lakes Oshawa Owen Sound Central Elgin Kingston Kitchener Brockville Georgina Welland Vaughan King Sault Ste. Marie Mississauga Stratford

Municipality Thorold Caledon Burlington Grimsby Cornwall Aurora Markham Woolwich Oakville Chatham-Kent Sudbury Windsor Brampton Leamington Ottawa Niagara Falls Brantford Ajax Cambridge St. Thomas Guelph Waterloo Milton North Bay Barrie Halton Hills Cobourg Whitchurch Stouffville Wasaga Beach Peterborough Parry Sound Toronto Average

Investment Income From Own Funds and As % of Per Others Exp. Capita $ 416,908 2.0% $ 23 $ 1,418,402 2.9% $ 25 $ 4,095,877 2.8% $ 25 $ 597,789 3.1% $ 25 $ 1,149,879 0.8% $ 25 $ 1,227,649 2.6% $ 26 $ 7,166,617 3.7% $ 27 $ 538,670 3.9% $ 27 $ 4,561,448 3.0% $ 28 $ 2,996,965 1.2% $ 28 $ 4,438,267 0.9% $ 28 $ 6,254,040 0.9% $ 29 $ 12,592,716 4.0% $ 29 $ 872,783 2.0% $ 30 $ 25,895,598 1.2% $ 32 $ 2,697,326 2.2% $ 33 $ 3,051,046 1.3% $ 34 $ 3,071,564 5.2% $ 34 $ 4,153,825 3.9% $ 35 $ 1,250,423 1.4% $ 35 $ 4,061,230 1.5% $ 35 $ 3,448,433 3.3% $ 35 $ 2,475,649 4.9% $ 39 $ 2,190,068 1.5% $ 41 $ 5,336,348 2.6% $ 42 $ 2,470,543 7.0% $ 45 $ 887,927 3.1% $ 49 $ 1,251,323 5.8% $ 51 $ 794,449 3.2% $ 52 $ 4,352,912 2.1% $ 58 $ 406,553 1.6% $ 70 $ 192,591,819 2.3% $ 77 1.9% $ 24

Regions York Region Waterloo Region Peel Region District Muskoka Niagara Region Halton Region Durham Region Average

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

1,058,441 6,160,078 471,827 5,337,969 7,008,274 13,265,652

0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 1.3% 1.7%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

2 5 8 12 16 24 10

0.7% $

Source—2006 FIR

User Fee & Revenue Information

164

Municipal Study 2007

Gaming and Casino Revenues

Municipality Ottawa Chatham-Kent Hamilton London Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Windsor Thunder Bay Sarnia Woodstock Niagara Falls Ajax Brantford Fort Erie Milton Average $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Gaming and Casino 3,653,364 655,868 4,964,058 3,812,300 1,455,919 2,137,338 4,802,144 2,433,007 1,825,388 1,019,966 2,600,000 3,519,167 3,745,759 2,192,764 5,617,009

Total Expenditures $ 2,197,822,477 $ 259,378,376 $ 1,224,678,057 $ 793,819,006 $ 235,728,463 $ 486,214,727 $ 689,590,310 $ 334,536,806 $ 92,604,611 $ 50,440,799 $ 125,154,056 $ 59,286,587 $ 233,422,861 $ 25,828,486 $ 50,385,379

As % of Expenditures 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 6% 2% 8% 11%

Per Capita $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4 6 10 11 11 14 22 22 26 29 32 39 42 73 88 29

2% $

Source—2006 FIR

User Fee & Revenue Information

165

Municipal Study 2007

Contributions From Reserves and Reserve Funds

Municipality Bracebridge East Gwillimbury Gravenhurst King Markham Oshawa Whitchurch Stouffville Lincoln Amherstburg Wilmot Bradford West Gwillimbury Caledon Fort Erie Wasaga Beach Mississauga Halton Hills Leamington Ajax Central Elgin Peterborough Kawartha Lakes Port Colborne Oakville Middlesex Centre Pelham London Grimsby Huntsville St. Thomas Wellesley Woolwich Whitby Georgina Waterloo Orangeville Cambridge Kitchener Vaughan Sault Ste. Marie Niagara Falls
Source—2006 FIR

Contributions from Reserves and Reserve funds $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 17,125 $ 32,000 $ 58,919 $ 59,656 $ 102,347 $ 250,706 $ 212,360 $ 129,100 $ 6,280,300 $ 534,903 $ 284,750 $ 1,041,184 $ 190,311 $ 1,137,854 $ 1,186,899 $ 314,584 $ 3,292,135 $ 330,186 $ 349,313 $ 8,126,213 $ 579,722 $ 453,185 $ 979,431 $ 284,400 $ 576,545 $ 3,408,865 $ 1,493,479 $ 3,455,332 $ 973,232 $ 4,358,406 $ 7,456,852 $ 9,320,575 $ 3,002,260 $ 3,348,563

Total As % of Expenditures Expenditures Per Capita $ 12,888,811 0% $ $ 14,744,335 0% $ $ 9,770,011 0% $ $ 17,420,345 0% $ $ 196,290,792 0% $ $ 114,450,666 0% $ $ 21,710,553 0% $ 1 $ 15,531,887 0% $ 1 $ 23,063,241 0% $ 3 $ 10,414,090 1% $ 3 $ 26,811,593 0% $ 4 $ 49,508,196 1% $ 4 $ 25,828,486 1% $ 7 $ 24,535,195 1% $ 9 $ 446,120,480 1% $ 9 $ 35,083,481 2% $ 10 $ 43,323,715 1% $ 10 $ 59,286,587 2% $ 12 $ 14,171,782 1% $ 15 $ 210,966,123 1% $ 15 $ 141,900,802 1% $ 16 $ 17,950,018 2% $ 17 $ 151,434,672 2% $ 20 $ 12,958,947 3% $ 21 $ 11,566,275 3% $ 22 $ 793,819,006 1% $ 23 $ 19,550,526 3% $ 24 $ 15,175,859 3% $ 25 $ 89,517,081 1% $ 27 $ 5,244,917 5% $ 29 $ 13,973,868 4% $ 29 $ 76,325,192 4% $ 31 $ 33,081,863 5% $ 35 $ 105,454,678 3% $ 35 $ 32,013,914 3% $ 36 $ 105,246,310 4% $ 36 $ 282,199,013 3% $ 36 $ 227,900,448 4% $ 39 $ 235,728,463 1% $ 40 $ 125,154,056 3% $ 41

User Fee & Revenue Information

166

Municipal Study 2007

Contributions From Reserves and Reserve Funds (cont’d)

Municipality Woodstock Sudbury Burlington Barrie Ottawa Timmins Brampton Hamilton Clarington Sarnia Niagara-on-the-Lake North Bay Milton Guelph Brantford Belleville Aurora Welland Tillsonburg Newmarket Cornwall Pickering Owen Sound Chatham-Kent Stratford Thorold Cobourg Kingston Thunder Bay Windsor St. Catharines Brockville Toronto Parry Sound Average

Contributions from Reserves and Reserve funds $ 1,624,956 $ 7,235,675 $ 7,625,997 $ 6,048,635 $ 38,364,622 $ 2,064,124 $ 22,732,654 $ 26,963,621 $ 4,345,855 $ 4,403,820 $ 914,544 $ 3,526,663 $ 4,244,809 $ 7,713,294 $ 6,410,327 $ 3,571,787 $ 3,572,530 $ 3,855,844 $ 1,157,496 $ 6,166,668 $ 3,856,938 $ 7,377,154 $ 1,937,510 $ 9,867,848 $ 2,972,084 $ 1,838,772 $ 2,006,890 $ 13,114,483 $ 12,478,523 $ 26,283,878 $ 21,805,978 $ 5,345,774 $ 836,764,143 $ 2,726,521

Total Expenditures $ 50,440,799 $ 486,214,727 $ 147,389,035 $ 204,220,551 $ 2,197,822,477 $ 127,146,527 $ 317,444,144 $ 1,224,678,057 $ 49,669,426 $ 92,604,611 $ 18,673,872 $ 147,942,365 $ 50,385,379 $ 269,902,981 $ 233,422,861 $ 96,598,671 $ 46,333,541 $ 42,453,614 $ 16,928,686 $ 68,450,658 $ 151,548,848 $ 59,019,442 $ 35,700,032 $ 259,378,376 $ 82,772,600 $ 20,677,138 $ 28,700,664 $ 291,987,117 $ 334,536,806 $ 689,590,310 $ 132,147,448 $ 43,375,866 $ 8,536,282,883 $ 24,831,379

As % of Expenditures 3% 1% 5% 3% 2% 2% 7% 2% 9% 5% 5% 2% 8% 3% 3% 4% 8% 9% 7% 9% 3% 12% 5% 4% 4% 9% 7% 4% 4% 4% 17% 12% 10% 11%

Per Capita $ 46 $ 46 $ 46 $ 47 $ 47 $ 48 $ 52 $ 53 $ 56 $ 62 $ 63 $ 65 $ 66 $ 67 $ 71 $ 73 $ 75 $ 77 $ 78 $ 83 $ 84 $ 84 $ 89 $ 91 $ 98 $ 101 $ 110 $ 112 $ 114 $ 121 $ 165 $ 243 $ 334 $ 469 56

4% $

District Muskoka Niagara Region Peel Region Waterloo Region Durham Region Halton Region York Region Average

$ 645,618 $ 8,956,404 $ 37,953,562 $ 16,358,487 $ 23,329,160 $ 28,116,639 $ 111,629,450

$ 120,580,106 $ 748,465,022 $ 1,268,669,575 $ 591,082,682 $ 803,901,651 $ 552,442,765 $ 1,165,822,562

1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 10%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

11 21 33 34 42 63 125 47

4% $

User Fee & Revenue Information

167

Municipal Study 2007

Revenues From Government Business Enterprise
Other Revenues From Government Business Enterprise $ 60,766 $ 105,008 $ 175,772 $ 5,016,000 $ 310,780 $ 1,548,484 $ 1,811,131 $ 12,000,000 $ 39,845,930 $ 798,000 $ 3,415,316 $ 4,571,494 $ 419,249 $ 6,275,000 $ 975,580 $ 1,652,823 $ 1,517,229 $ 739,230 $ 1,926,000 $ 1,560,291 $ 3,794,709 $ 3,301,000 $ 2,460,000 $ 6,725,385 $ 1,832,724 $ 1,059,296 $ 511,246 $ 2,376,023 $ 600,000 $ 2,545,400 $ 3,972,834 $ 361,154 $ 6,192,038 $ 6,371,199 $ 9,964,556 $ 6,936,000 $ 3,827,500 $ 1,021,033 $ 2,256,451

Municipality Amherstburg Central Elgin Huntsville Hamilton Orangeville Cambridge St. Catharines Ottawa Toronto Belleville Kitchener Markham Grimsby London North Bay Brantford Clarington Woodstock Ajax Sarnia Sudbury Barrie Pickering Vaughan Milton St. Thomas Wilmot Peterborough Cobourg Sault Ste. Marie Guelph Wellesley Oakville Burlington Windsor Oshawa Newmarket Port Colborne Stratford Average
Source—2006 FIR

Total Expenditures $ 23,063,241 $ 14,171,782 $ 15,175,859 $ 1,224,678,057 $ 32,013,914 $ 105,246,310 $ 132,147,448 $ 2,197,822,477 $ 8,536,282,883 $ 96,598,671 $ 282,199,013 $ 196,290,792 $ 19,550,526 $ 793,819,006 $ 147,942,365 $ 233,422,861 $ 49,669,426 $ 50,440,799 $ 59,286,587 $ 92,604,611 $ 486,214,727 $ 204,220,551 $ 59,019,442 $ 227,900,448 $ 50,385,379 $ 89,517,081 $ 10,414,090 $ 210,966,123 $ 28,700,664 $ 235,728,463 $ 269,902,981 $ 5,244,917 $ 151,434,672 $ 147,389,035 $ 689,590,310 $ 114,450,666 $ 68,450,658 $ 17,950,018 $ 82,772,600

As % of Expenditures 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3% 4% 1% 5% 1% 2% 1% 1% 7% 4% 4% 1% 6% 6% 6% 3%

Per Capita $ 3 $ 8 $ 10 $ 10 $ 12 $ 13 $ 14 $ 15 $ 16 $ 16 $ 17 $ 17 $ 18 $ 18 $ 18 $ 18 $ 19 $ 21 $ 21 $ 22 $ 24 $ 26 $ 28 $ 28 $ 29 $ 29 $ 30 $ 32 $ 33 $ 34 $ 35 $ 37 $ 37 $ 39 $ 46 $ 49 $ 52 $ 55 $ 74 26

2% $

User Fee & Revenue Information

168

Municipal Study 2007

Tax Policies

Tax Policies

169

Municipal Study 2007

Tax Policies Tax Policies

The relative tax burden in each class of property will be impacted by the type of tax policies implemented in each municipality. As such, an analysis of the 2007 tax policies that impact the relative tax position was completed and has been summarized to include the following:
• • •

Comparison of Tax Ratios Delegation Summary of Optional Classes

Comparison of Tax Ratios
Tax ratios define each property class’s rate of taxation in relation to the rate of the residential property class. The tax ratios for the residential class is set by the province at 1.0000. The different relative burdens are reflected in the tax ratios. These relative burdens are used to calculate the municipal tax rate of each property class in relation to the residential class. The “Ranges of Fairness” represents what the Province determines as a fair level of taxation for various types of properties compared to the tax burden on the Residential class. According to the legislation, municipalities are not permitted to apply municipal levy increases on the Commercial, Industrial or Multi-Residential classes if the tax ratios for those classes exceed the prescribed “Threshold Ratios”. These threshold ratios define the average relative municipal tax for each property class in relation to the Residential/Farm class across the Province. For example, across Ontario, on average, Multi-Residential properties pay 2.74 times more municipal property taxes than their Residential counterparts.

Delegation
Under the rules and regulations established by the Province, upper and single tier municipalities are responsible for property tax policies. An exception to this rule is if an upper-tier municipality elects to delegate the property tax policy responsibility to its lowertiers. Of the municipalities in this study, only the Region of Peel (consisting of the City of Brampton, City of Mississauga and Town of Caledon) delegated such authority to its lowertier municipalities. Mississauga’s ratios are different from the City of Brampton and the Town of Caledon.

Tax Policies

170

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of 2007 Tax Ratios

Municipality Barrie Belleville* Brantford* Brockville Central Elgin* Chatham-Kent* Cornwall Dufferin Durham Essex* Guelph Halton Hamilton* Kawartha Lakes Kingston Lambton* London Middlesex Centre Mississauga Muskoka Niagara Norfolk North Bay Northumberland Ottawa* Owen Sound Oxford Parry Sound Peel (Brampton, Caledon) Peterborough (City) Sault Ste. Marie* Simcoe St. Thomas* Stratford* Sudbury* Thunder Bay Timmins* Toronto* Waterloo Windsor* York Average Minimum Maximum Provincial Threshold

MultiResidential 1.0787 2.5102 2.1355 1.8500 2.3458 2.1488 2.3492 2.6802 1.8665 1.9554 2.7400 2.2619 2.7400 1.9931 2.7389 2.5014 2.1455 1.7697 1.7788 1.0000 2.0600 1.6929 2.2436 2.2160 1.8000 2.6424 2.7400 1.5145 1.7050 2.0440 1.2829 1.5385 2.4987 2.1539 2.0591 2.7400 1.6816 3.6350 2.2400 2.7400 1.0000 2.1175 1.0000 3.6350 2.7400

Commercial (Residual) 1.4331 1.9191 1.9360 1.9785 1.6376 1.9671 1.9650 1.2200 1.4500 1.0697 1.8400 1.4565 2.0591 1.2782 1.9800 1.6585 1.9800 1.1449 1.4098 1.1000 1.7586 1.6929 1.9048 1.5152 2.1461 2.3683 1.9018 1.6646 1.2971 1.8912 1.6730 1.2521 1.9475 2.1638 1.7206 1.9527 1.7501 3.6737 1.9500 1.9833 1.2070 1.7536 1.0697 3.6737 1.9800

Industrial (Residual) 1.5163 2.9261 2.9842 2.6276 2.2251 2.4370 2.6300 2.1987 2.2598 1.9425 2.6300 2.3599 3.4273 1.7825 2.6300 2.0536 2.6300 1.7451 1.5708 1.1000 2.6300 1.6929 1.4000 2.6300 2.7468 2.9067 2.6300 1.5162 1.4700 2.6300 1.9251 1.5385 2.2281 3.3123 2.5596 2.4300 2.1783 4.0900 2.4500 2.4233 1.3737 2.3034 1.1000 4.0900 2.6300

Industrial (Large)

2.8318 2.9289

2.2598 2.6861

4.0189

3.0124

2.3588 5.0172

2.7431 2.6774 2.9012 2.6275 2.7114

3.2377

3.0009 2.2598 5.0172 2.6300

* denotes municipalities with one or more ratios above the Provincial Threshold
The highlighted cells reflect changes in tax ratios between 2006 and 2007
XXX XXX reflects increase in tax ratios reflects decrease in tax ratios

(only for those municipalities that participated in the 2006 Study)

Tax Policies

171

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Multi-Residential Tax Ratios
4.0

3.5

Average

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Mu sko ka Yo rk Sa ult Ste Barr . M ie arie Pa * rry So un d Sim co Pe el ( Tim e Bra min mp ton No s , r Mid Cale folk d dle sex on) C Mis entre sis sau ga Ott aw Bro a ckv ille Du rha m Ka wa rth Esse a x Pe Lake s ter bo rou gh Su db ury Nia g Bra ara ntfo rd Ch Lon ath do am n -Ke n No Str t rthu atfo mb rd erla nd Wa ter No loo rth Ba y Ha Ce lton ntr al E l Co gin rnw St. a Th ll om as La mb to Be n llev ille Gre Du y ffer Kin in gs ton W Th inds un o de r rB ay Gu elp h Ox ford Ha mil to To n ron to

With the exception of Toronto, all municipalities have a Multi-Residential Tax Ratio at or below the Provincial Threshold of 2.74. Muskoka, Barrie, and York are the only municipalities within the Provincial Range of Fairness (1.00 to 1.10) 6 of the 41 municipal entities decreased their Multi-Residential Tax Rate in 2006 including: • Region of Durham • City of Brantford • City of North Bay • County of Lambton • Region of Waterloo • City of Toronto All other factors being equal, municipalities with a high Multi-Residential Tax Ratio will have higher relative tax burdens

Tax Policies

172

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Commercial (residual) Tax Ratios
4.0

3.5

Average
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
Yo Du rk ffer in Pe el ( Kaw Sim Bra a mp rtha L coe ton a , C kes ale d Mis on) sis sau ga Ba rrie Du rha m No H rth um alton be Ce rland ntr al E lg La in Pa mbto n rry Sa ult Soun Ste d .M arie No rfo Su lk dbu ry Tim min Nia s ga ra Pe Gue l ter bo ph rou gh Ox No ford rth Ba Be y llev Bra ille n St. tford Th om W as Th aterlo un de o rB a Co y Ch ath rnwa am ll -Ke Bro nt ckv ille Lo nd o Kin n gst on Win dso Ha r mi lto Ot n taw Str a atf ord Gr e To y ron to Es s Mi M ex dd les usko k ex Ce a ntr e

With the exception of Hamilton, Windsor, Ottawa, Stratford, Toronto and Grey County all municipalities have a residual Commercial Tax Ratio at or below the Provincial Threshold of 1.98 The County of Essex and the District of Muskoka are the only municipalities that fall within the Provincial Range of Fairness 8 of the 41 municipal entities reduced their Commercial Tax Ratio in 2006 including North Bay, Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Brantford, Stratford, Hamilton, and Lambton County

Tax Policies

173

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Industrial (residual) Tax Ratios
4.5 4.0

Average
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Mu sko ka Pe el ( Yo Bra r No mp rth k ton Ba ,C y ale Pa don) rry So und Ba rrie S Mis imco e sis sau ga Mid No dle rfo s Ka ex C lk wa e rtha ntre L Sa ult akes Ste .M arie Es s Lam ex bto Tim n min s Du ffer Ce in ntr al E lg St. Th in om as Du rha m Ha lton W Th indso un de r rB Ch ay ath am -Ke nt Wa terlo Su o dbu r No Broc y kv rthu mb ille erla nd Nia gar a Pe Guelp terb h oro ugh Ox fo Co rd rnw all Lon d Kin on gst on Ott aw a Gre Be y lle Bra ville ntfo rd Str atfo rd Ha mil to To n ron to

With the exception of Belleville, Hamilton, Ottawa, Stratford, Toronto, Brantford and Grey County, all municipalities have a residual Industrial Tax Ratio at or below the Provincial Threshold of 2.63 The District of Muskoka is the only municipality that falls within the Provincial Range of Fairness 8 of the 41 municipal entities decreased their Industrial Tax Ratio in 2007 including Windsor, Chatham-Kent, Hamilton, Stratford, Waterloo, Niagara, Brantford and Toronto

Tax Policies

174

Municipal Study 2007

Summary of Optional Classes
New MultiResidential Barrie Belleville Brantford Brockville Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Cornwall Dufferin Durham Essex Grey Guelph Halton Hamilton Kawartha Lakes Kingston Lambton London Middlesex Centre Mississauga Muskoka Niagara Norfolk North Bay Northumberland Ottawa Oxford Parry Sound Peel (Brampton, Caledon) Peterborough (City) Sault Ste. Marie Simcoe St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins Toronto Waterloo Windsor York Office Building Shopping Centre Park/lot Vacant Land Large Industrial

ü

ü

ü

ü ü

ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

ü ü

ü ü

ü ü ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Tax Policies 175

ü ü ü

ü

ü

ü

Municipal Study 2007

New Multi-Residential Property Class
Municipal Councils have the ability to establish an optional class of property for New MultiResidential properties. Some municipalities established a New Multi-Residential class to provide a conducive tax environment to encourage the development of additional multiresidential units.

Municipality Guelph Halton Hamilton Kingston Niagara Ottawa Peterborough (City) Sudbury Timmins Toronto Waterloo

MultiResidential 2.7400 2.2619 2.7400 2.7389 2.0600 1.8000 2.0440 2.0591 1.6816 3.6350 2.2400 1.0000

New MultiResidential 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Optional Commercial Classes
Municipality Chatham-Kent Essex Grey Hamilton Lambton Ottawa Sault Ste. Marie Windsor Commercial (Residual) 1.9671 1.0697 2.3683 2.0591 1.6585 2.1461 1.6730 1.9833 1.5654 2.5928 2.4435 2.0165 2.1237 1.7852 1.7760 2.0364 Commercial (Office) 1.5853 1.1640 2.1461 Commercial (Shopping) 2.2705 1.1654 2.6094

York
Commercial (Parking) 1.3164 0.5620 1.1999 2.0591 1.1122 1.4062 1.2372 1.0446

Large Industrial Class
Municipality Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Essex Grey Hamilton Lambton Ottawa Sault Ste. Marie St. Thomas Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins Windsor Industrial (Residual) 2.2251 2.4370 1.9425 2.9067 3.4273 2.0536 2.7468 1.9251 2.2281 2.5596 2.4300 2.1783 2.4233 Industrial (Large) 2.8318 2.9289 2.6861 5.0172 4.0189 3.0124 2.3588 2.7431 2.6774 2.9012 2.6275 2.7114 3.2377

Tax Policies

176

Municipal Study 2007

Summary - Tax Policies
The tax ratios across the survey range significantly in each of the Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial classes. Provincial Threshold Analysis
• • •

Only 1 municipal entity in the survey has a ratio in the Multi-Residential Class that exceeds the Provincial Threshold of 2.74 6 of the 41 municipal entity in the survey have a ratio in the Commercial Class that exceeds the Provincial Threshold of 1.98 7 of the 41 municipal entity in the survey have a ratio in the Industrial Class that exceeds the Provincial Threshold of 2.63

Range of Fairness

Only 4 municipal entities have established ratios within the Provincial Range of Fairness for one or more of the Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial classes including:
• • • •

City of Barrie (Multi-Residential) County of Essex (Commercial) District of Muskoka (Multi-Residential, Commercial, Industrial) Region of York (Multi-Residential)

Optional Classes

22 of the 41 upper tier/single tier municipalities established optional classes, resulting in different tax ratios and relative tax burdens from the residual commercial and industrial classes. This will impact the relative tax position of properties within these classes, compared to the relative tax position of properties in the residual class. The impact may be an increased/decreased burden, depending on the value of the tax ratio. As such, the relative tax burden across the entire Commercial and Industrial classes, particularly for these municipalities may vary.
• • •

Approximately 29% of the municipal entities have also established a New MultiResidential optional class to encourage development of rental housing. Approximately 32% of the municipal entities have established a Large Industrial class. Approximately 10% of the municipal entities have established Optional Commercial classes.

Tax Policies

177

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Comparison of Relative Taxes

178

Municipal Study 2007
Comparison of Relative Comparison of Relative Taxes Taxes

Residential

Multi-Residential

Commercial

The purpose of this section of the report is to undertake “like” property comparisons across each municipality and across various property types. In total, 11 property types were defined based on those property types that were of most interest to the participating municipalities and that represented all potential optional classes. The Residential, Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial classes are represented in the study; classes where a municipality is typically competing for new growth opportunities.

In order to calculate the relative tax burden of “like” properties, every effort was made to hold constant those factors deemed to be most Industrial critical in determining a property’s assessed value. However, given the number of factors used to calculate the assessed value for each property, and the inability to quantify each of these factors, the results Farmlands should be used to provide the reader with overall trends rather than exact differences in relative tax burdens between municipalities. By selecting multiple property types within each taxing class (Residential, Multi-Residential, Commercial and Industrial), and by selecting multiple properties from within each municipality and property subtype, where available, the likelihood of anomalies in the database has been reduced. However, it is recommended that focus should be on the trends rather than the absolutes. Given that the selection process of properties is random based on properties meeting the outlined criteria, it would not be appropriate to use the selected property’s capped rate in the Multi-Residential, Industrial and Commercial classes. Using a property’s capped rates on a small sample could result in comparisons of properties in one municipality contributing to the cap and in another municipality benefiting from the cap. This would not provide a reasonable representation of the relative tax burdens in each jurisdiction for a typical property. As such, to provide a true indication of the relative tax burden, the tax liability on sample properties will be used in the comparisons. The tax liability was calculated using the property’s most current assessment and the 2007 tax rates for each municipality. Notes Urban rates were used in each municipality. In the case of the City of Hamilton, Ottawa, Norfolk, Greater Sudbury, Kawartha Lakes and Chatham-Kent, where amalgamations occurred and there continues to be area rating, the analysis was done by selecting properties from within the urban centres and applying the respective urban rates. The City of Toronto due to the size and current value assessment differentials across the City has been divided into four areas; North, South, East and West. For some property types, municipalities are not represented due to the lack of comparable properties available or a decision by the municipality not to include a particular category in the analysis.

Comparison of Relative Taxes

179

Municipal Study 2007

General Introductory Comments
There are many reasons for differences in relative tax burdens across municipalities and across property classes. These include, but are not limited, to the following:
• •

The values of like properties varies significantly across municipalities The tax burden within a municipality varies based on the tax ratios used. As such, it is possible for a municipality to have a relative low tax burden in a particular class of property and a relatively high tax burden in another class The use of optional classes Non-uniform education tax rates in the non-residential classes Tax burdens across municipalities also vary based on the level of service provided and the associated costs of providing these services Extent to which a municipality employs user fees Access to other sources of revenues such as dividends from hydro utilities, gaming & casino revenues

• • • • •

Methodology and Presentation of Results
“Like properties” were selected using the property descriptions outlined on the next two pages. Every effort was made to select a minimum of 3-8 properties from each municipality and from within each property type. In some cases, a decision was made by the participating municipality to limit the number of property types to be included in the study. As such, for some property types, less municipalities have been included in the sample. In addition, there are some municipalities where like properties were not identified. An average was used across the sample set within each municipality to calculate the relative tax burden. The results are presented using appropriate tax unit values such as per acre (vacant land), per unit (multi-residential, hotels and motels), per sq. ft. (office, industrial, neighbourhood shopping). Number of units, square footages, acres and current value assessment was provided by MPAC.

Comparison of Relative Taxes

180

Municipal Study 2007

Property Types

Residential

Residential - Single Family Detached Home (Property Code 301)
A detached three-bedroom single storey home with 1.5 bathrooms and a one car garage. Total area of the house is approximately 1,200 sq. ft. and the property is situated on a lot that is approximately 5,500 sq. ft. Comparison of taxes on a per household basis.

Residential – Senior Executive (Property Code 301)
A two-storey, four or five bedroom home with three bathrooms, main floor family room plus atrium or library. A full unfinished basement and an attached two car garage. The house is approximately 3,000 sq. ft., with an approximate lot size of 6,700 sq. ft. Comparison of taxes on a per household basis.

Multi-Residential - Walk-up Apartment (Property Code 340) MultiResidential
Multi-residential, more than six self-contained units but does not include row housing. Typically this type of property is older construction, two to four storeys high. Comparison of taxes on a per unit basis.

Multi-Residential - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (Property Code 340)
Multi-residential, more than six self-contained units and four + storeys but does not include row housing. Comparison of taxes on a per unit basis.

Commercial Commercial - Neighbourhood Shopping Centre (Property Code 430)
A neighbourhood shopping centre is typically the smallest type of center comprising of retail tenants that cater to everyday needs such as drugstores, convenience stores and hardware stores. Size varies from 4,000 to 100,000 square feet. Comparison of taxes on a per square foot of floor area

Commercial - Office Building Class (Property Code 402)
Selection was focused on buildings in prime locations within the municipality. Comparison of taxes on a per square foot of gross leaseable area basis.

Comparison of Relative Taxes

181

Municipal Study 2007

Property Types

Commercial Cont’d

Commercial - Hotel (Property Code 440)
Typically over 100 rooms. Comparison of taxes on a per suite basis

Commercial - Motel (Property Code 450)
Typically newer construction, franchised. Comparison of taxes on a per suite basis

Industrial

Industrial - Vacant Land (Property Code 106)
Selection of properties were based on serviced land under 5 acres Comparison of taxes on a per acre basis

Industrial - Large Industrial (Property Code 520, 510,513)
Greater than 125,000 sq. ft. Comparison of taxes on a per square foot of floor area basis

Industrial - Standard Industrial (Property Code 520, 510,513)
Under 125,000 sq. ft. in size typically characterized by newer construction and flexible design. Comparison of taxes on a per square foot of floor area basis

Farmland

Farmland Price Per Acre
This has been calculated by receiving information from MPAC on the cost per acre for Class 1 and Class 6 farmland on a per acre basis. This reflects the full range of farmland property.

Comparison of Relative Taxes

182

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Total Property Tax Rates (Municipal & Education—sorted alphabetically)
Municipality Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 1.3759% 2.3394% 3.0999% 3.0999% 3.0999% 3.0999% 1.3286% 2.3457% 2.6789% 2.6778% 1.6453% 2.9186% 1.1189% 1.1189% 2.5248% 2.5248% 2.5248% 2.5248% 1.3654% 1.4520% 3.1366% 3.1366% 3.1366% 3.1366% 1.7347% 3.9557% 4.9565% 4.9565% 4.9565% 4.9565% 1.3627% 1.3627% 1.9996% 1.9996% 1.9996% 1.9996% 1.2158% 1.7283% 2.7799% 2.7799% 2.7799% 2.7799% 1.1954% 1.8521% 2.7621% 2.7621% 2.7621% 2.7621% 1.6505% 3.2248% 4.7078% 4.7078% 4.7078% 4.7078% 1.5825% 2.7033% 4.8594% 4.8594% 4.8594% 4.8594% 1.0685% 2.0836% 2.5464% 2.5464% 2.5464% 2.5464% 0.9343% 1.4068% 2.4233% 2.4233% 2.4233% 2.4233% 1.3723% 2.7467% 4.2027% 4.2027% 4.2027% 4.2027% 1.6484% 3.5115% 3.7075% 3.7075% 3.7075% 3.7075% 1.8661% 3.7066% 5.1097% 4.1179% 3.4194% 5.8978% 1.4146% 2.4116% 3.1559% 3.1559% 3.1559% 3.1559% 1.6605% 3.3587% 4.0838% 4.0838% 4.0838% 4.0838% 1.9561% 4.2390% 5.7459% 5.7459% 5.7459% 5.7459% 1.1075% 1.1075% 2.5110% 2.5110% 2.5110% 2.5110% 1.5267% 2.8651% 3.8134% 3.8134% 3.8134% 3.8134% 1.3409% 1.3409% 2.7927% 2.7927% 2.7927% 2.7927% 1.2676% 1.2676% 1.8949% 1.8949% 1.8949% 1.8949% 1.4867% 2.7827% 3.7431% 3.7431% 3.7431% 3.7431% 1.3099% 3.1296% 3.8532% 3.8532% 3.8532% 3.8532% 1.0248% 1.9849% 2.4828% 2.4828% 2.4828% 2.4828% 1.5958% 3.9131% 4.5286% 4.5286% 4.5286% 4.5286% 1.2668% 1.2668% 1.8941% 1.8941% 1.8941% 1.8941% 1.3920% 2.5123% 3.0000% 3.0000% 3.0000% 3.0000% 1.0677% 1.0677% 2.4330% 2.4330% 2.4330% 2.4330% 1.5303% 3.6864% 4.4548% 4.4548% 4.4548% 4.4548% 1.3616% 2.7226% 4.1818% 4.1818% 4.1818% 4.1818% 1.5771% 2.8316% 2.9453% 3.2050% 1.5474% 3.2088% 1.4297% 2.6654% 3.6429% 3.6429% 3.6429% 3.6429% 1.5468% 3.0162% 4.9792% 4.9792% 4.9792% 4.9792% 1.0204% 1.0204% 2.4059% 2.4059% 2.4059% 2.4059% 1.1366% 1.8082% 2.6177% 2.6177% 2.6177% 2.6177% 0.9136% 1.7333% 2.3208% 2.3208% 2.3208% 2.3208% 1.0025% 1.5777% 2.5951% 2.5951% 2.5951% 2.5951% 1.1269% 1.1269% 2.5344% 2.5344% 2.5344% 2.5344% 1.5383% 2.8890% 3.8338% 3.8338% 3.8338% 3.8338% 1.1842% 2.1597% 3.2112% 3.2112% 3.2112% 3.2112% 1.3958% 2.1800% 3.8518% 3.8518% 3.8518% 3.8518% 1.7766% 3.6578% 5.1316% 5.1316% 5.1316% 5.1316% 1.0271% 1.9734% 3.5296% 3.5296% 3.5296% 3.5296% 1.0073% 1.9454% 2.4573% 2.4573% 2.4573% 2.4573% 1.4324% 3.3955% 2.8033% 2.8033% 2.8033% 2.8033% 1.7092% 2.9615% 3.5831% 3.5831% 3.5831% 3.5831% 1.1947% 1.9393% 3.7454% 4.5249% 2.4541% 3.1155% 1.4988% 3.5268% 4.7541% 4.2475% 2.3710% 5.1565% 1.2568% 1.7676% 2.5568% 2.5568% 2.5568% 2.5568% 1.4979% 2.8059% 3.7629% 3.7629% 3.7629% 3.7629% 1.4794% 2.7483% 4.2585% 4.2585% 4.2585% 4.2585% 1.3526% 2.2959% 3.0661% 3.0661% 3.0661% 3.0661% 1.8193% 3.4679% 4.3280% 4.3280% 4.3280% 4.3280% 1.0234% 1.0234% 2.4095% 2.4095% 2.4095% 2.4095% 1.6183% 3.6517% 4.0952% 3.8654% 2.7463% 5.2439% 2.1421% 2.6735% 5.1825% 7.5694% 3.8325% 5.5016% 1.6302% 3.0784% 3.9955% 3.9955% 3.9955% 3.9955% 1.5978% 3.5967% 4.5655% 4.5655% 4.5655% 4.5655% 1.3914% 2.6924% 4.6545% 4.6545% 4.6545% 4.6545% 1.9768% 3.7909% 4.9311% 4.9311% 4.9311% 4.9311% Industrial Residual 4.4816% 4.3412% 2.8325% 3.3052% 6.6099% 2.1800% 3.9216% 3.1503% 6.8882% 5.7508% 3.8281% 2.7664% 5.3323% 5.8690% 6.5534% 4.5690% 6.9837% 7.3992% 2.8168% 5.9073% 3.1374% 2.0754% 5.8022% 5.3714% 3.7251% 6.3506% 2.0745% 4.3030% 2.7621% 5.9626% 5.3059% 4.8233% 5.6524% 6.2532% 2.6972% 3.7957% 3.4626% 2.9412% 2.8434% 5.9378% 5.0067% 4.5458% 3.9821% 4.4866% 3.6838% 4.8455% 5.1999% 4.8554% 5.3093% 2.2747% 5.8317% 6.0855% 4.4290% 6.6769% 2.7013% 5.0851% 5.8325% 6.1796% 5.6073% 6.5985% 6.8239% Industrial Large 4.4816% 6.0030% 2.8325% 3.3052% 6.6099% 2.1800% 3.9216% 3.1503% 6.8882% 5.7508% 3.8281% 2.7664% 5.3323% 5.8690% 7.8762% 4.5690% 6.9837% 7.3992% 2.8168% 5.9073% 3.1374% 2.0754% 5.8022% 5.3714% 3.7251% 7.1386% 2.0745% 4.3030% 2.7621% 5.9626% 5.3059% 6.6697% 5.6524% 6.2532% 2.6972% 3.7957% 3.4626% 2.9412% 2.8434% 5.9378% 5.0067% 4.5458% 3.9821% 4.4866% 3.6838% 4.8455% 5.1999% 4.1695% 9.1643% 2.2747% 5.8317% 6.0855% 4.4290% 6.6769% 2.7013% 7.4590% 8.3109% 6.1796% 6.7381% 6.5985% 7.7346%

Comparison of Relative Taxes

183

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Total Property Tax Rates (Municipal & Education—sorted alphabetically cont’d)
Municipality Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Average Median Min Max Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 1.4941% 2.7979% 3.7561% 3.7561% 3.7561% 3.7561% 1.8792% 4.6897% 5.7292% 5.7292% 5.7292% 5.7292% 1.5305% 3.7343% 4.4687% 4.4687% 4.4687% 4.4687% 2.1894% 3.5018% 5.2426% 5.2426% 5.2426% 5.2426% 0.8528% 2.3522% 4.0933% 4.0933% 4.0933% 4.0933% 1.0148% 1.0148% 2.3992% 2.3992% 2.3992% 2.3992% 1.5953% 3.0066% 3.9342% 3.9342% 3.9342% 3.9342% 1.0564% 1.4330% 2.5395% 2.5395% 2.5395% 2.5395% 1.3401% 2.6746% 4.1400% 4.1400% 4.1400% 4.1400% 1.8051% 3.4387% 4.3031% 4.3031% 4.3031% 4.3031% 1.1896% 2.3374% 3.8465% 3.8465% 3.8465% 3.8465% 1.4784% 2.7657% 3.7285% 3.7285% 3.7285% 3.7285% 1.3814% 2.3496% 3.1077% 3.1077% 3.1077% 3.1077% 1.0310% 1.0310% 2.4187% 2.4187% 2.4187% 2.4187% 1.1811% 2.3182% 3.8298% 3.8298% 3.8298% 3.8298% 1.7226% 4.1285% 4.6998% 4.7786% 3.3307% 4.8258% 1.7283% 4.2761% 4.8448% 4.8448% 4.8448% 4.8448% 1.0823% 2.0970% 3.6372% 3.6372% 3.6372% 3.6372% 1.4049% 1.3914% 0.8528% 2.1894% 2.5461% 2.6735% 1.0148% 4.6897% 3.6143% 3.7431% 1.8941% 5.7459% 3.6368% 3.7431% 1.8941% 7.5694% 3.4641% 3.5831% 1.5474% 5.7459% 3.6480% 3.7285% 1.8941% 5.8978% Industrial Residual 5.8215% 7.2627% 6.2579% 6.6781% 4.3693% 2.6895% 6.0879% 3.6263% 5.2535% 6.6397% 4.8847% 5.7804% 4.4939% 2.7118% 4.8637% 5.9269% 6.7780% 4.6217% 4.8298% 4.8847% 2.0745% 7.3992% Industrial Large 5.8215% 7.8529% 6.2579% 8.3125% 4.3693% 2.6895% 6.0879% 3.6263% 5.2535% 6.6397% 4.8847% 5.7804% 4.4939% 2.7118% 4.8637% 7.9187% 6.7780% 4.6217% 5.0816% 5.1999% 2.0745% 9.1643%

Comparison of Relative Taxes

184

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Education Rates (sorted alphabetically)
Municipality Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5401% 1.6759% 0.8091% 1.6779% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5582% 1.5582% 1.5582% 1.5582% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.1340% 2.1340% 2.1340% 2.1340% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5881% 1.5881% 1.5881% 1.5881% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5539% 1.5539% 1.5539% 1.5539% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0236% 2.0236% 2.0236% 2.0236% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.2508% 2.2508% 2.2508% 2.2508% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.3747% 1.3747% 1.3747% 1.3747% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5539% 1.5539% 1.5539% 1.5539% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4404% 1.4404% 1.4404% 1.4404% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9582% 1.5781% 1.3104% 2.2602% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9679% 1.9679% 1.9679% 1.9679% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.4210% 2.4210% 2.4210% 2.4210% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9288% 1.9288% 1.9288% 1.9288% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.3747% 1.3747% 1.3747% 1.3747% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.7863% 1.7863% 1.7863% 1.7863% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.7910% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5581% 1.5581% 1.5581% 1.5581% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9807% 1.9807% 1.9807% 1.9807% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5407% 1.6765% 0.8095% 1.6785% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.4393% 2.4393% 2.4393% 2.4393% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.6187% 1.6187% 1.6187% 1.6187% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.3747% 1.3747% 1.3747% 1.3747% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5539% 1.5539% 1.5539% 1.5539% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9358% 1.9358% 1.9358% 1.9358% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.2502% 2.2502% 2.2502% 2.2502% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.3747% 1.3747% 1.3747% 1.3747% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.3779% 1.3779% 1.3779% 1.3779% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.7480% 2.1118% 1.1453% 1.4540% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.8435% 1.6471% 0.9194% 1.9996% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.9042% 0.9042% 0.9042% 0.9042% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9600% 1.9600% 1.9600% 1.9600% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.8491% 1.7453% 1.2400% 2.3678% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0404% 2.9801% 1.5089% 2.1660% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9681% 1.9681% 1.9681% 1.9681% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.2833% 2.2833% 2.2833% 2.2833% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9840% 1.9840% 1.9840% 1.9840% Industrial Residual 1.9689% 2.2732% 1.6581% 1.6352% 2.3961% 0.9715% 2.4573% 1.7811% 2.8212% 2.2863% 1.9296% 1.7811% 2.6169% 2.7886% 2.6490% 1.9689% 3.3109% 2.9490% 1.6581% 2.5865% 1.6581% 0.9715% 2.5865% 2.6208% 1.9296% 1.7863% 0.9715% 2.2923% 1.6581% 2.6763% 2.6169% 2.2726% 2.5865% 2.8796% 1.6581% 2.2730% 1.9296% 1.7811% 1.6581% 2.5865% 2.5865% 2.6298% 1.8644% 2.6169% 1.9296% 2.2769% 1.9339% 2.2989% 1.7930% 0.7694% 2.5865% 2.8890% 1.9689% 2.5865% 1.6581% 2.3038% 2.2169% 2.5865% 2.6356% 2.9681% 2.6132% Industrial Large 1.9689% 3.1434% 1.6581% 1.6352% 2.3961% 0.9715% 2.4573% 1.7811% 2.8212% 2.2863% 1.9296% 1.7811% 2.6169% 2.7886% 3.1837% 1.9689% 3.3109% 2.9490% 1.6581% 2.5865% 1.6581% 0.9715% 2.5865% 2.6208% 1.9296% 1.7863% 0.9715% 2.2923% 1.6581% 2.6763% 2.6169% 3.1426% 2.5865% 2.8796% 1.6581% 2.2730% 1.9296% 1.7811% 1.6581% 2.5865% 2.5865% 2.6298% 1.8644% 2.6169% 1.9296% 2.2769% 1.9339% 1.9741% 3.0948% 0.7694% 2.5865% 2.8890% 1.9689% 2.5865% 1.6581% 3.3793% 3.1589% 2.5865% 3.1671% 2.9681% 2.9619%

Comparison of Relative Taxes

185

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Education Rates (sorted alphabetically—cont’d)
Municipality Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Average Median Min Max Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Industrial Industrial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping Residual Large 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 2.5865% 2.5865% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.5751% 2.5751% 2.5751% 2.5751% 3.3377% 3.6089% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0600% 2.0600% 2.0600% 2.0600% 2.9270% 2.9270% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.8729% 1.8729% 1.8729% 1.8729% 2.4840% 3.0919% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.9758% 1.9758% 1.9758% 1.9758% 2.0599% 2.0599% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.6581% 1.6581% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 2.5865% 2.5865% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5881% 1.5881% 1.5881% 1.5881% 2.4573% 2.4573% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.6169% 2.6169% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 2.5865% 2.5865% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.6169% 2.6169% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 1.5929% 2.5865% 2.5865% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.4876% 1.9689% 1.9689% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.4929% 1.6581% 1.6581% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.6169% 2.6169% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.8071% 1.8374% 1.8071% 1.8555% 2.4513% 3.2751% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0600% 2.0600% 2.0600% 2.0600% 2.9270% 2.9270% 0.2640% 0.2640% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.0415% 2.6169% 2.6169% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.2640% 0.2640% 1.7042% 1.5929% 0.7910% 2.5751% 1.7159% 1.5929% 0.7910% 2.9801% 1.6437% 1.5929% 0.7910% 2.5751% 1.7185% 1.5929% 0.7910% 2.5751% 2.2574% 2.3961% 0.7694% 3.3377% 2.3568% 2.5865% 0.7694% 3.6089%

Comparison of Relative Taxes

186

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Municipal Rates (Upper and Lower Tier sorted alphabetically)
Municipality Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 1.1119% 2.0754% 1.6123% 1.6123% 1.6123% 1.6123% 1.0646% 2.0817% 1.1388% 1.0019% 0.8362% 1.2407% 0.8549% 0.8549% 1.0319% 1.0319% 1.0319% 1.0319% 1.1014% 1.1880% 1.5784% 1.5784% 1.5784% 1.5784% 1.4707% 3.6917% 2.8225% 2.8225% 2.8225% 2.8225% 1.0987% 1.0987% 1.2086% 1.2086% 1.2086% 1.2086% 0.9518% 1.4643% 1.1917% 1.1917% 1.1917% 1.1917% 0.9314% 1.5881% 1.2081% 1.2081% 1.2081% 1.2081% 1.3865% 2.9608% 2.6842% 2.6842% 2.6842% 2.6842% 1.3185% 2.4393% 2.6087% 2.6087% 2.6087% 2.6087% 0.8045% 1.8196% 1.1717% 1.1717% 1.1717% 1.1717% 0.6703% 1.1428% 0.8694% 0.8694% 0.8694% 0.8694% 1.1083% 2.4827% 2.1612% 2.1612% 2.1612% 2.1612% 1.3844% 3.2475% 2.2671% 2.2671% 2.2671% 2.2671% 1.6021% 3.4426% 3.1515% 2.5398% 2.1090% 3.6376% 1.1506% 2.1476% 1.6684% 1.6684% 1.6684% 1.6684% 1.3965% 3.0947% 2.1160% 2.1160% 2.1160% 2.1160% 1.6921% 3.9750% 3.3249% 3.3249% 3.3249% 3.3249% 0.8435% 0.8435% 1.0181% 1.0181% 1.0181% 1.0181% 1.2627% 2.6011% 2.2205% 2.2205% 2.2205% 2.2205% 1.0769% 1.0769% 1.2998% 1.2998% 1.2998% 1.2998% 1.0036% 1.0036% 1.1039% 1.1039% 1.1039% 1.1039% 1.2227% 2.5187% 2.1502% 2.1502% 2.1502% 2.1502% 1.0459% 2.8656% 1.9244% 1.9244% 1.9244% 1.9244% 0.7608% 1.7209% 1.1081% 1.1081% 1.1081% 1.1081% 1.3318% 3.6491% 2.7423% 2.7423% 2.7423% 2.7423% 1.0028% 1.0028% 1.1030% 1.1030% 1.1030% 1.1030% 1.1280% 2.2483% 1.4419% 1.4419% 1.4419% 1.4419% 0.8037% 0.8037% 0.9401% 0.9401% 0.9401% 0.9401% 1.2663% 3.4224% 2.4741% 2.4741% 2.4741% 2.4741% 1.0976% 2.4586% 2.1403% 2.1403% 2.1403% 2.1403% 1.3131% 2.5676% 1.4046% 1.5285% 0.7380% 1.5303% 1.1657% 2.4014% 2.0500% 2.0500% 2.0500% 2.0500% 1.2828% 2.7522% 2.5399% 2.5399% 2.5399% 2.5399% 0.7564% 0.7564% 0.9130% 0.9130% 0.9130% 0.9130% 0.8726% 1.5442% 0.9990% 0.9990% 0.9990% 0.9990% 0.6496% 1.4693% 0.9461% 0.9461% 0.9461% 0.9461% 0.7385% 1.3137% 1.0412% 1.0412% 1.0412% 1.0412% 0.8629% 0.8629% 1.0415% 1.0415% 1.0415% 1.0415% 1.2743% 2.6250% 2.2409% 2.2409% 2.2409% 2.2409% 0.9202% 1.8957% 1.6183% 1.6183% 1.6183% 1.6183% 1.1318% 1.9160% 1.9160% 1.9160% 1.9160% 1.9160% 1.5126% 3.3938% 2.8813% 2.8813% 2.8813% 2.8813% 0.7631% 1.7094% 1.4881% 1.4881% 1.4881% 1.4881% 0.7433% 1.6814% 1.0827% 1.0827% 1.0827% 1.0827% 1.1684% 3.1315% 1.4255% 1.4255% 1.4255% 1.4255% 1.4452% 2.6975% 2.0956% 2.0956% 2.0956% 2.0956% 0.9307% 1.6753% 1.9975% 2.4131% 1.3088% 1.6615% 1.2348% 3.2628% 2.9106% 2.6004% 1.4516% 3.1569% 0.9928% 1.5036% 1.6527% 1.6527% 1.6527% 1.6527% 1.2339% 2.5419% 2.1700% 2.1700% 2.1700% 2.1700% 1.2154% 2.4843% 2.2986% 2.2986% 2.2986% 2.2986% 1.0886% 2.0319% 1.5785% 1.5785% 1.5785% 1.5785% 1.5553% 3.2039% 2.7351% 2.7351% 2.7351% 2.7351% 0.7594% 0.7594% 0.9166% 0.9166% 0.9166% 0.9166% 1.3543% 3.3877% 2.2461% 2.1201% 1.5063% 2.8761% 1.8781% 2.4095% 3.1421% 4.5893% 2.3236% 3.3356% 1.3662% 2.8144% 2.4026% 2.4026% 2.4026% 2.4026% 1.3338% 3.3327% 2.5975% 2.5975% 2.5975% 2.5975% 1.1274% 2.4284% 2.3712% 2.3712% 2.3712% 2.3712% 1.7128% 3.5269% 2.9471% 2.9471% 2.9471% 2.9471% Industrial Residual 2.5128% 2.0680% 1.1744% 1.6700% 4.2139% 1.2086% 1.4643% 1.3692% 4.0670% 3.4645% 1.8985% 0.9853% 2.7154% 3.0804% 3.9043% 2.6001% 3.6728% 4.4502% 1.1588% 3.3208% 1.4793% 1.1039% 3.2157% 2.7506% 1.7954% 4.5644% 1.1030% 2.0107% 1.1040% 3.2863% 2.6891% 2.5507% 3.0659% 3.3737% 1.0391% 1.5228% 1.5330% 1.1600% 1.1853% 3.3513% 2.4202% 1.9160% 2.1177% 1.8697% 1.7542% 2.5686% 3.2659% 2.5565% 3.5163% 1.5053% 3.2452% 3.1965% 2.4601% 4.0904% 1.0432% 2.7813% 3.6156% 3.5931% 2.9717% 3.6303% 4.2108% Industrial Large 2.5128% 2.8596% 1.1744% 1.6700% 4.2139% 1.2086% 1.4643% 1.3692% 4.0670% 3.4645% 1.8985% 0.9853% 2.7154% 3.0804% 4.6924% 2.6001% 3.6728% 4.4502% 1.1588% 3.3208% 1.4793% 1.1039% 3.2157% 2.7506% 1.7954% 5.3523% 1.1030% 2.0107% 1.1040% 3.2863% 2.6891% 3.5271% 3.0659% 3.3737% 1.0391% 1.5228% 1.5330% 1.1600% 1.1853% 3.3513% 2.4202% 1.9160% 2.1177% 1.8697% 1.7542% 2.5686% 3.2659% 2.1954% 6.0695% 1.5053% 3.2452% 3.1965% 2.4601% 4.0904% 1.0432% 4.0797% 5.1520% 3.5931% 3.5710% 3.6303% 4.7727%

Comparison of Relative Taxes

187

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Municipal Rates (Upper & Lower Tier sorted alphabetically cont’d)
Municipality Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Average Median Min Max Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 1.2301% 2.5339% 2.1632% 2.1632% 2.1632% 2.1632% 1.6152% 4.4257% 3.1541% 3.1541% 3.1541% 3.1541% 1.2665% 3.4703% 2.4087% 2.4087% 2.4087% 2.4087% 1.9254% 3.2378% 3.3697% 3.3697% 3.3697% 3.3697% 0.5888% 2.0882% 2.1175% 2.1175% 2.1175% 2.1175% 0.7508% 0.7508% 0.9063% 0.9063% 0.9063% 0.9063% 1.3313% 2.7426% 2.3413% 2.3413% 2.3413% 2.3413% 0.7924% 1.1690% 0.9514% 0.9514% 0.9514% 0.9514% 1.0761% 2.4106% 2.0985% 2.0985% 2.0985% 2.0985% 1.5411% 3.1747% 2.7102% 2.7102% 2.7102% 2.7102% 0.9256% 2.0734% 1.8050% 1.8050% 1.8050% 1.8050% 1.2144% 2.5017% 2.1357% 2.1357% 2.1357% 2.1357% 1.1174% 2.0856% 1.6202% 1.6202% 1.6202% 1.6202% 0.7670% 0.7670% 0.9258% 0.9258% 0.9258% 0.9258% 0.9171% 2.0542% 1.7883% 1.7883% 1.7883% 1.7883% 1.4586% 3.8645% 2.8928% 2.9413% 1.5236% 2.9703% 1.4643% 4.0121% 2.7848% 2.7848% 2.7848% 2.7848% 0.8183% 1.8330% 1.5957% 1.5957% 1.5957% 1.5957% 1.1409% 1.1274% 0.5888% 1.9254% 2.2821% 2.4095% 0.7508% 4.4257% 1.9101% 1.9975% 0.8694% 3.3697% 1.9209% 2.0500% 0.8694% 4.5893% 1.8204% 1.7883% 0.7380% 3.3697% 1.9294% 1.9244% 0.8694% 3.6376% Industrial Residual 3.2350% 3.9250% 3.3310% 4.1941% 2.3094% 1.0314% 3.5014% 1.1690% 2.6366% 4.0532% 2.2678% 3.1939% 2.5250% 1.0537% 2.2468% 3.4755% 3.8510% 2.0048% 2.5719% 2.5686% 0.9853% 4.5644% Industrial Large 3.2350% 4.2440% 3.3310% 5.2206% 2.3094% 1.0314% 3.5014% 1.1690% 2.6366% 4.0532% 2.2678% 3.1939% 2.5250% 1.0537% 2.2468% 4.6435% 3.8510% 2.0048% 2.7244% 2.6366% 0.9853% 6.0695%

Tax Policies Comparison of Relative Taxes

188

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Municipal Rates (Upper Tier sorted alphabetically )
Ajax Amhersburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Collingwood Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 0.7337% 1.3695% 1.0639% 1.0639% 1.0639% 1.0639% 0.3942% 0.7708% 0.4217% 0.4589% 0.2215% 0.4594% 0.4957% 0.4957% 0.5983% 0.5983% 0.5983% 0.5983% Industrial Residual 1.6581% 0.7657% 0.6810% Industrial Large 1.6581% 1.0589% 0.6810%

0.6745% 0.4810% 0.4861%

0.6745% 0.7400% 0.8289%

0.7419% 0.6023% 0.6306%

0.7419% 0.6023% 0.6306%

0.7419% 0.6023% 0.6306%

0.7419% 0.6023% 0.6306%

0.7419% 0.7400% 0.7146%

0.7419% 0.7400% 0.7146%

0.4210% 0.3786% 0.6640% 0.5580% 0.7365% 0.4917%

0.9523% 0.6455% 1.4875% 1.3090% 1.3746% 1.0895%

0.6132% 0.4911% 1.2949% 0.9138% 1.0679% 0.7450%

0.6132% 0.4911% 1.2949% 0.9138% 1.0679% 0.7450%

0.6132% 0.4911% 1.2949% 0.9138% 1.0679% 0.7450%

0.6132% 0.4911% 1.2949% 0.9138% 1.0679% 0.7450%

0.9936% 0.5565% 1.6269% 1.2416% 1.6643% 1.2931%

0.9936% 0.5565% 1.6269% 1.2416% 1.6643% 1.2931%

0.4957% 0.7667% 0.4957% 0.6694% 0.7463% 0.4342% 0.6724% 0.4957% 0.6640% 0.3942% 0.7474% 0.4957% 0.4071% 0.4176% 0.4622% 0.4957% 0.7616% 0.6912%

0.4957% 1.5795% 0.4957% 0.6694% 1.5373% 0.9821% 0.6724% 0.4957% 1.4875% 0.7708% 1.5396% 0.4957% 0.7204% 0.9446% 0.8222% 0.4957% 1.5688% 1.4238%

0.5983% 1.3484% 0.5983% 0.7363% 1.3124% 0.6324% 0.7396% 0.5683% 1.2949% 0.4217% 1.3144% 0.5983% 0.4661% 0.6083% 0.6516% 0.5983% 1.3393% 1.2155%

0.5983% 1.3484% 0.5983% 0.7363% 1.3124% 0.6324% 0.7396% 0.5683% 1.2949% 0.4589% 1.3144% 0.5983% 0.4661% 0.6083% 0.6516% 0.5983% 1.3393% 1.2155%

0.5983% 1.3484% 0.5983% 0.7363% 1.3124% 0.6324% 0.7396% 0.5683% 1.2949% 0.2215% 1.3144% 0.5983% 0.4661% 0.6083% 0.6516% 0.5983% 1.3393% 1.2155%

0.5983% 1.3484% 0.5983% 0.7363% 1.3124% 0.6324% 0.7396% 0.5683% 1.2949% 0.4594% 1.3144% 0.5983% 0.4661% 0.6083% 0.6516% 0.5983% 1.3393% 1.2155%

0.6810% 2.0165% 0.6810% 0.7363% 1.9627% 1.0247% 0.7396% 0.6810% 1.6269% 0.7657% 1.9657% 0.6810% 0.7104% 0.9855% 0.7260% 0.6810% 2.0029% 1.8178%

0.6810% 2.0165% 0.6810% 0.7363% 1.9627% 1.0247% 0.7396% 0.6810% 1.6269% 1.0589% 1.9657% 0.6810% 0.7104% 0.9855% 0.7260% 0.6810% 2.0029% 1.8178%

0.5914% 0.4155% 0.4303% 0.7449% 0.3478% 0.7488% 0.7297% 0.8097% 0.4957% 0.5027% 0.7860%

1.3248% 0.9399% 1.1533% 1.3903% 0.9189% 1.5426% 1.3620% 1.6681% 0.4957% 1.2575% 1.6192%

1.1533% 0.6052% 0.5250% 1.0801% 0.8367% 1.3169% 1.0581% 1.4240% 0.5983% 0.8337% 1.3823%

1.1533% 0.6052% 0.5250% 1.0801% 0.7475% 1.3169% 1.0581% 1.4240% 0.5983% 0.7869% 1.3823%

1.1533% 0.6052% 0.5250% 1.0801% 0.4173% 1.3169% 1.0581% 1.4240% 0.5983% 0.5591% 1.3823%

1.1533% 0.6052% 0.5250% 1.0801% 0.9075% 1.3169% 1.0581% 1.4240% 0.5983% 1.0676% 1.3823%

1.4490% 0.9806% 0.9460% 1.6833% 1.0108% 1.9695% 1.6490% 2.1296% 0.6810% 1.0324% 2.0673%

1.4490% 0.9806% 0.9460% 1.6833% 1.7448% 1.9695% 1.6490% 2.1296% 0.6810% 1.5144% 2.0673%

Tax Policies Comparison of Relative Taxes

189

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Municipal Rates (Upper Tier sorted alphabetically cont’d)
Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 0.7619% 1.5696% 1.3399% 1.3399% 1.3399% 1.3399% 0.5092% 1.3951% 0.9683% 0.9683% 0.9683% 0.9683% Industrial Residual 2.0039% 1.3391% Industrial Large 2.0039% 1.3391%

Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich

0.4957% 0.7601% 0.2751% 0.6640% 0.7977% 0.5914% 0.7450% 0.7101% 0.4957% 0.5914% 0.4774% 0.5914%

0.4957% 1.5658% 0.4233% 1.4875% 1.6433% 1.3248% 1.5347% 1.3254% 0.4957% 1.3248% 1.3081% 1.3248%

0.5983% 1.3367% 0.3445% 1.2949% 1.4029% 1.1533% 1.3102% 1.0296% 0.5983% 1.1533% 0.9079% 1.1533%

0.5983% 1.3367% 0.3445% 1.2949% 1.4029% 1.1533% 1.3102% 1.0296% 0.5983% 1.1533% 0.9079% 1.1533%

0.5983% 1.3367% 0.3445% 1.2949% 1.4029% 1.1533% 1.3102% 1.0296% 0.5983% 1.1533% 0.9079% 1.1533%

0.5983% 1.3367% 0.3445% 1.2949% 1.4029% 1.1533% 1.3102% 1.0296% 0.5983% 1.1533% 0.9079% 1.1533%

0.6810% 1.9991% 0.4233% 1.6269% 2.0980% 1.4490% 1.9594% 1.6047% 0.6810% 1.4490% 1.2556% 1.4490%

0.6810% 1.9991% 0.4233% 1.6269% 2.0980% 1.4490% 1.9594% 1.6047% 0.6810% 1.4490% 1.2556% 1.4490%

Tax Policies Comparison of Relative Taxes

190

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Municipal Rates (Lower Tier AND Single Tier sorted alphabetically)
Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 0.3782% 0.7059% 0.5484% 0.5484% 0.5484% 0.5484% 0.6704% 1.3109% 0.7171% 0.7803% 0.3768% 0.7813% 0.3592% 0.3592% 0.4335% 0.4335% 0.4335% 0.4335% 1.1014% 1.1880% 1.5784% 1.5784% 1.5784% 1.5784% 1.4707% 3.6917% 2.8225% 2.8225% 2.8225% 2.8225% 0.4242% 0.4242% 0.4666% 0.4666% 0.4666% 0.4666% 0.4708% 0.7243% 0.5894% 0.5894% 0.5894% 0.5894% 0.4453% 0.7592% 0.5776% 0.5776% 0.5776% 0.5776% 1.3865% 2.9608% 2.6842% 2.6842% 2.6842% 2.6842% 1.3185% 2.4393% 2.6087% 2.6087% 2.6087% 2.6087% 0.3834% 0.8673% 0.5585% 0.5585% 0.5585% 0.5585% 0.2917% 0.4973% 0.3783% 0.3783% 0.3783% 0.3783% 0.4443% 0.9952% 0.8664% 0.8664% 0.8664% 0.8664% 0.8264% 1.9385% 1.3533% 1.3533% 1.3533% 1.3533% 1.6021% 3.4426% 3.1515% 2.5398% 2.1090% 3.6376% 0.4141% 0.7730% 0.6005% 0.6005% 0.6005% 0.6005% 0.9049% 2.0052% 1.3710% 1.3710% 1.3710% 1.3710% 1.6921% 3.9750% 3.3249% 3.3249% 3.3249% 3.3249% 0.3478% 0.3478% 0.4198% 0.4198% 0.4198% 0.4198% 0.4959% 1.0216% 0.8721% 0.8721% 0.8721% 0.8721% 0.5811% 0.5811% 0.7014% 0.7014% 0.7014% 0.7014% 0.3342% 0.3342% 0.3676% 0.3676% 0.3676% 0.3676% 0.4764% 0.9814% 0.8378% 0.8378% 0.8378% 0.8378% 1.0459% 2.8656% 1.9244% 1.9244% 1.9244% 1.9244% 0.3266% 0.7387% 0.4757% 0.4757% 0.4757% 0.4757% 1.3318% 3.6491% 2.7423% 2.7423% 2.7423% 2.7423% 0.3304% 0.3304% 0.3635% 0.3635% 0.3635% 0.3635% 1.1280% 2.2483% 1.4419% 1.4419% 1.4419% 1.4419% 0.3080% 0.3080% 0.3717% 0.3717% 0.3717% 0.3717% 1.2663% 3.4224% 2.4741% 2.4741% 2.4741% 2.4741% 0.4335% 0.9711% 0.8454% 0.8454% 0.8454% 0.8454% 0.9189% 1.7968% 0.9829% 1.0696% 0.5164% 1.0709% 0.4183% 0.8618% 0.7357% 0.7357% 0.7357% 0.7357% 1.2828% 2.7522% 2.5399% 2.5399% 2.5399% 2.5399% 0.2607% 0.2607% 0.3146% 0.3146% 0.3146% 0.3146% 0.4655% 0.8238% 0.5330% 0.5330% 0.5330% 0.5330% 0.2320% 0.5247% 0.3379% 0.3379% 0.3379% 0.3379% 0.2763% 0.4915% 0.3895% 0.3895% 0.3895% 0.3895% 0.3672% 0.3672% 0.4432% 0.4432% 0.4432% 0.4432% 0.5108% 1.0523% 0.8983% 0.8983% 0.8983% 0.8983% 0.2291% 0.4719% 0.4029% 0.4029% 0.4029% 0.4029% 1.1318% 1.9160% 1.9160% 1.9160% 1.9160% 1.9160% 1.5126% 3.3938% 2.8813% 2.8813% 2.8813% 2.8813% 0.1717% 0.3846% 0.3348% 0.3348% 0.3348% 0.3348% 0.3278% 0.7415% 0.4775% 0.4775% 0.4775% 0.4775% 0.7381% 1.9782% 0.9005% 0.9005% 0.9005% 0.9005% 0.7004% 1.3072% 1.0155% 1.0155% 1.0155% 1.0155% 0.9307% 1.6753% 1.9975% 2.4131% 1.3088% 1.6615% 0.8870% 2.3439% 2.0739% 1.8529% 1.0343% 2.2494% 0.9928% 1.5036% 1.6527% 1.6527% 1.6527% 1.6527% 0.4851% 0.9993% 0.8531% 0.8531% 0.8531% 0.8531% 1.2154% 2.4843% 2.2986% 2.2986% 2.2986% 2.2986% 0.3589% 0.6699% 0.5204% 0.5204% 0.5204% 0.5204% 0.7456% 1.5358% 1.3111% 1.3111% 1.3111% 1.3111% 0.2637% 0.2637% 0.3183% 0.3183% 0.3183% 0.3183% 0.8516% 2.1302% 1.4124% 1.3331% 0.9471% 1.8085% 1.8781% 2.4095% 3.1421% 4.5893% 2.3236% 3.3356% 0.5802% 1.1951% 1.0203% 1.0203% 1.0203% 1.0203% 1.3338% 3.3327% 2.5975% 2.5975% 2.5975% 2.5975% 1.1274% 2.4284% 2.3712% 2.3712% 2.3712% 2.3712% 1.7128% 3.5269% 2.9471% 2.9471% 2.9471% 2.9471% Industrial Residual 0.8547% 1.3023% 0.4934% 1.6700% 4.2139% 0.4666% 0.7243% 0.6546% 4.0670% 3.4645% 0.9049% 0.4288% 1.0885% 1.8388% 3.9043% 0.9359% 2.3798% 4.4502% 0.4778% 1.3043% 0.7983% 0.3676% 1.2530% 2.7506% 0.7707% 4.5644% 0.3635% 2.0107% 0.4231% 3.2863% 1.0621% 1.7850% 1.1002% 3.3737% 0.3581% 0.8124% 0.5474% 0.4340% 0.5044% 1.3095% 0.6025% 1.9160% 2.1177% 0.4207% 0.7736% 1.6226% 1.5827% 2.5565% 2.5055% 1.5053% 1.2758% 3.1965% 0.8111% 1.9608% 0.3622% 1.7489% 3.6156% 1.5258% 2.9717% 3.6303% 4.2108% Industrial Large 0.8547% 1.8008% 0.4934% 1.6700% 4.2139% 0.4666% 0.7243% 0.6546% 4.0670% 3.4645% 0.9049% 0.4288% 1.0885% 1.8388% 4.6924% 0.9359% 2.3798% 4.4502% 0.4778% 1.3043% 0.7983% 0.3676% 1.2530% 2.7506% 0.7707% 5.3523% 0.3635% 2.0107% 0.4231% 3.2863% 1.0621% 2.4683% 1.1002% 3.3737% 0.3581% 0.8124% 0.5474% 0.4340% 0.5044% 1.3095% 0.6025% 1.9160% 2.1177% 0.4207% 0.7736% 1.6226% 1.5827% 2.1954% 4.3247% 1.5053% 1.2758% 3.1965% 0.8111% 1.9608% 0.3622% 2.5653% 5.1520% 1.5258% 3.5710% 3.6303% 4.7727%

Tax Policies Comparison of Relative Taxes

191

Municipal Study 2007

2007 Municipal Rates (Lower Tier AND Single Tier sorted alphabetically
cont’d)
Multi Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Residential Residential Residual Office Building Park/Vac Shopping 0.4681% 0.9643% 0.8232% 0.8232% 0.8232% 0.8232% 1.6152% 4.4257% 3.1541% 3.1541% 3.1541% 3.1541% 0.7574% 2.0752% 1.4403% 1.4403% 1.4403% 1.4403% 1.9254% 3.2378% 3.3697% 3.3697% 3.3697% 3.3697% 0.5888% 2.0882% 2.1175% 2.1175% 2.1175% 2.1175% 0.2551% 0.2551% 0.3079% 0.3079% 0.3079% 0.3079% 0.5712% 1.1767% 1.0046% 1.0046% 1.0046% 1.0046% 0.5172% 0.7457% 0.6069% 0.6069% 0.6069% 0.6069% 0.4121% 0.9231% 0.8036% 0.8036% 0.8036% 0.8036% 0.7434% 1.5314% 1.3074% 1.3074% 1.3074% 1.3074% 0.3342% 0.7487% 0.6517% 0.6517% 0.6517% 0.6517% 0.4694% 0.9669% 0.8255% 0.8255% 0.8255% 0.8255% 0.4073% 0.7602% 0.5905% 0.5905% 0.5905% 0.5905% 0.2713% 0.2713% 0.3275% 0.3275% 0.3275% 0.3275% 0.3256% 0.7295% 0.6350% 0.6350% 0.6350% 0.6350% 1.4586% 3.8645% 2.8928% 2.9413% 1.5236% 2.9703% 0.9869% 2.7040% 1.8768% 1.8768% 1.8768% 1.8768% 0.2269% 0.5082% 0.4424% 0.4424% 0.4424% 0.4424% Industrial Residual 1.2312% 3.9250% 1.9919% 4.1941% 2.3094% 0.3505% 1.5023% 0.7457% 1.0097% 1.9552% 0.8188% 1.2345% 0.9203% 0.3727% 0.7978% 3.4755% 2.5955% 0.5559% Industrial Large 1.2312% 4.2440% 1.9919% 5.2206% 2.3094% 0.3505% 1.5023% 0.7457% 1.0097% 1.9552% 0.8188% 1.2345% 0.9203% 0.3727% 0.7978% 4.6435% 2.5955% 0.5559%

Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich

Tax Policies Comparison of Relative Taxes

192

Municipal Study 2007

Presentation of “Like” Properties
Given the size of the survey, it is difficult to graphically present 79 municipalities. As such, the survey of “like” property comparisons have been divided into four graphs:
• • • •

Populations less than 20,000 Populations between 20,000-49,999 Populations between 50,000-99,999 Populations 100,000 +

This grouping does not suggest which municipalities are most comparable, but is done simply for ease of viewing. The following table provides the municipal groups sorted from lowest to highest population.
Municipalities with populations less than 20,000 Parry Sound Wainfleet North Dumfries Wellesley Gravenhurst Central Elgin West Lincoln Niagara-on-the-Lake Tillsonburg Wasaga Beach Middlesex Centre Bracebridge Pelham Wilmot Cobourg Thorold Huntsville Port Colborne King Woolwich Municipalities with populations 20,000 – 49,999 East Gwillimbury Lincoln Amherstburg Owen Sound Brockville Grimsby Bradford W. Gwill. Whitchurch-Stouffville Orangeville Leamington Fort Erie Stratford Woodstock St. Thomas Georgina Timmins Cornwall Aurora Belleville Municipalities with populations 50,000 – 99,999 Welland North Bay Halton Hills Caledon Norfolk Milton Sarnia Newmarket Kawartha Lakes Peterborough Sault Ste. Marie Clarington Niagara Falls Pickering Ajax Brantford Waterloo Municipalities with populations 100,000 or greater Chatham-Kent Thunder Bay Whitby Guelph Kingston Cambridge Barrie St. Catharines Oshawa Sudbury Richmond Hill Burlington Oakville Kitchener Windsor Vaughan Markham London Brampton Hamilton Mississauga Ottawa Toronto

Comparison of Relative Taxes

193

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow

The charts on the following pages provide the relative taxes on a detached bungalow across the entire survey from lowest to highest.

The inclusion of the CVA bungalow ranking and the net levy per capita in each municipality reflects some of the key factors impacting the relative tax position. The taxes in the detached bungalow category of property ranged from $1,701 to $4,193. Current assessment ranged across the survey from a low of $101,250 to a high a $491,594, with an average of $210,850. A municipality’s relative tax burden is a function of a municipality’s net expenditures and the relative values of like properties The significant range in residential housing values, compounded with the range in municipal taxation and municipal programs and services, results in a large range in the relative taxes across the survey

• •

Comparison of Relative Taxes

194

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow (sorted lowest to highest)
Residential - Bungalow Municipality Wasaga Beach Huntsville Gravenhurst Woolwich Leamington North Dumfries Kawartha Lakes Parry Sound Sault Ste. Marie Bracebridge Norfolk Sudbury Middlesex Centre Guelph Tillsonburg Wilmot Wellesley Fort Erie Cornwall Toronto (East) Amherstburg Thorold Central Elgin St. Thomas Milton Stratford Timmins Belleville Owen Sound Port Colborne Kitchener Barrie Brockville Chatham-Kent Cambridge Wainfleet Sarnia Halton Hills Niagara Falls North Bay Kingston Peterborough 2007 Property Taxes 1,701 2,016 2,030 2,042 2,071 2,075 2,147 2,147 2,169 2,188 2,212 2,254 2,262 2,275 2,305 2,317 2,374 2,377 2,421 2,425 2,433 2,433 2,445 2,459 2,463 2,494 2,500 2,537 2,539 2,547 2,562 2,563 2,567 2,573 2,576 2,596 2,600 2,651 2,669 2,702 2,719 2,756 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

CVA Ranking low low low mid low mid low mid low low low low mid mid low mid mid low low high mid low low low high mid low low mid low mid mid low low mid low low high mid low mid mid $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Comparison of Relative Taxes

195

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow (sorted lowest to highest cont’d)
Residential - Bungalow Municipality Thunder Bay Clarington Cobourg Pelham Caledon East Gwillimbury Burlington Woodstock Georgina Newmarket Bradford West Gwillimbury London West Lincoln Oakville Windsor Toronto (West) Waterloo Lincoln Whitchurch Stouffville Aurora Niagara-on-the-Lake Richmond Hill Ottawa Welland Orangeville Grimsby Brantford St. Catharines Toronto (North) Brampton Mississauga Hamilton Whitby Ajax Oshawa Pickering Vaughan King Markham Toronto (South) Average Median Min Max 2007 Property Taxes 2,777 2,787 2,790 2,809 2,809 2,821 2,823 2,876 2,887 2,900 2,902 2,913 2,914 2,941 2,946 2,956 2,979 2,996 3,006 3,021 3,029 3,036 3,051 3,071 3,088 3,115 3,126 3,184 3,188 3,200 3,221 3,298 3,322 3,428 3,572 3,666 3,684 3,906 4,112 4,193 2,750 2,737 1,701 4,193 Relative Tax Burden mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

CVA Ranking low mid low mid high high high low high high high mid mid high mid high high mid high high high high high low high mid mid mid high high high mid high high mid high high high high high $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Comparison of Relative Taxes

196

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow—by Population Group
Detached Bungalow Property Taxes Municipalities with populations less than 20,000
Residential - Bungalow Municipality Wasaga Beach Huntsville Gravenhurst Woolwich North Dumfries Parry Sound Bracebridge Middlesex Centre Tillsonburg Wilmot Wellesley Thorold Central Elgin Port Colborne Wainfleet Cobourg Pelham West Lincoln Niagara-on-the-Lake King $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2007 Property Taxes 1,701 2,016 2,030 2,042 2,075 2,147 2,188 2,262 2,305 2,317 2,374 2,433 2,445 2,547 2,596 2,790 2,809 2,914 3,029 3,906 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid high high Average Within Population Range

$

2,446

$4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0
Was aga Beac h Hunt sville Grav enhu rst Woo lwich Nort h Du mfrie s Parry Soun d Brac ebrid ge Midd lesex Cent re Tills onbu rg Wilm ot Well esley Thor old Cent ral E lgin Grou p Av erag e Port Colb orne Wain fleet Surv ey A vera ge Cobo urg Pelh am Wes t Lin Niag coln ara-o n-the -Lak e King

Comparison of Relative Taxes

197

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow —by Population Group
Residential - Bungalow Municipality 2007 Property Taxes 2,071 2,377 2,421 2,433 2,459 2,494 2,500 2,537 2,539 2,567 2,821 2,876 2,887 2,902 2,996 3,006 3,021 3,088 3,115 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high Average Within Population Range

Detached Bungalow Property Taxes Municipalities with populations 20,000— 49,999

Leamington Fort Erie Cornwall Amherstburg St. Thomas Stratford Timmins Belleville Owen Sound Brockville East Gwillimbury Woodstock Georgina Bradford West Gwillimbury Lincoln Whitchurch Stouffville Aurora Orangeville Grimsby

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

2,690

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0

Leam ingto n Fort Erie Corn wall Amh erstb urg St. T hom as Strat ford Timm ins Belle ville Owe n So und Broc kville Grou p Av erag Surv e ey A verag East e Gwil limb ury Woo dsto ck Geor gina Brad ford W. G will. Whit Linc chur oln ch S touff ville

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Auro ra Oran gevil le Grim sby

198

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow —by Population Group
Residential - Bungalow Municipality Kawartha Lakes Sault Ste. Marie Norfolk Milton Sarnia Halton Hills Niagara Falls North Bay Peterborough Clarington Caledon Newmarket Waterloo Welland Brantford Ajax Pickering $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2007 Property Taxes 2,147 2,169 2,212 2,463 2,600 2,651 2,669 2,702 2,756 2,787 2,809 2,900 2,979 3,071 3,126 3,428 3,666 Relative Tax Burden low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high Average Within Population Range

Detached Bungalow Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 50,000—99,999

$

2,773

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Sarn ia Halto n Hil ls Niag ara F alls Nort h Ba y Surv ey A vera ge Pete rboro ugh Grou p Av erag e Clari ngto n Cale don New mark et Wate rloo Kaw artha Lake s Sault Ste. Marie Well and Bran tford Ajax Pick ering Norf olk Milto n

Comparison of Relative Taxes

199

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons — Detached Bungalow—by Population Group
Residential - Bungalow Municipality 2007 Property Taxes 2,254 2,275 2,425 2,562 2,563 2,573 2,576 2,719 2,777 2,823 2,913 2,941 2,946 2,956 3,036 3,051 3,184 3,188 3,200 3,221 3,298 3,322 3,572 3,684 4,112 4,193 Relative Tax Burden low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high Average Within Population Range

Detached Bungalow Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations 100,000+

Sudbury Guelph Toronto (East) Kitchener Barrie Chatham-Kent Cambridge Kingston Thunder Bay Burlington London Oakville Windsor Toronto (West) Richmond Hill Ottawa St. Catharines Toronto (North) Brampton Mississauga Hamilton Whitby Oshawa Vaughan Markham Toronto (South)

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

3,014

$4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Whit by Osha wa Vaug han Mark ham Toro nto ( Sout h)

Barr ie Chat ham -Ken t Cam bridg e King ston Surv ey A vera ge Thun der B ay Burl ingto n Lond on Oakv ille Wind sor Toro nto ( Wes t) Grou p Av erag e Rich mon d Hil l Ottaw a St. C atha rines Toro nto ( Nort h) Bram pton Miss issau ga Ham ilton

Sudb ury Guelp h Toro nto ( East ) Kitch ener

200

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow - by Location

Residential - Bungalow Municipality Wasaga Beach Huntsville Gravenhurst Parry Sound Bracebridge Barrie Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville

By Location

Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2007 Property Taxes 1,701 2,016 2,030 2,147 2,188 2,563 2,902 3,088

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low mid mid high

Average by Location

Simcoe/Musk./Duff. $ 2,329

Residential - Bungalow Municipality Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Timmins North Bay Thunder Bay

By Location

North North North North North

$ $ $ $ $

2007 Property Taxes 2,169 2,254 2,500 2,702 2,777

Relative Tax Burden low low low mid mid

Average by Location

North $ 2,480

Comparison of Relative Taxes

201

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow - by Location cont’d

Residential - Bungalow Municipality Woolwich Leamington North Dumfries Norfolk Middlesex Centre Guelph Tillsonburg Wilmot Wellesley Amherstburg Central Elgin St. Thomas Stratford Owen Sound Kitchener Chatham-Kent Cambridge Sarnia Woodstock London Windsor Waterloo Brantford

By Location

Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2007 Property Taxes 2,042 2,071 2,075 2,212 2,262 2,275 2,305 2,317 2,374 2,433 2,445 2,459 2,494 2,539 2,562 2,573 2,576 2,600 2,876 2,913 2,946 2,979 3,126

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high

Average by Location

$

Southwest 2,498

Residential - Bungalow Municipality Kawartha Lakes Cornwall Belleville Brockville Kingston Peterborough Cobourg Ottawa

By Location

Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2007 Property Taxes 2,147 2,421 2,537 2,567 2,719 2,756 2,790 3,051

Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid mid mid high

Average by Location

Eastern $ 2,623

Comparison of Relative Taxes

202

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Detached Bungalow - by Location (cont’d)
Residential - Bungalow Municipality Fort Erie Thorold Port Colborne Wainfleet Niagara Falls Pelham West Lincoln Lincoln Niagara-on-the-Lake Welland Grimsby St. Catharines Hamilton By Location 2007 Property Taxes 2,377 2,433 2,547 2,596 2,669 2,809 2,914 2,996 3,029 3,071 3,115 3,184 3,298 Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high Average by Location

Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Niagara/Hamilton $ 2,849

Residential - Bungalow Municipality Toronto (East) Milton Halton Hills Clarington Caledon East Gwillimbury Burlington Georgina Newmarket Oakville Toronto (West) Whitchurch Stouffville Aurora Richmond Hill Toronto (North) Brampton Mississauga Whitby Ajax Oshawa Pickering Vaughan King Markham Toronto (South)

By Location

GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2007 Property Taxes 2,425 2,463 2,651 2,787 2,809 2,821 2,823 2,887 2,900 2,941 2,956 3,006 3,021 3,036 3,188 3,200 3,221 3,322 3,428 3,572 3,666 3,684 3,906 4,112 4,193

Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

Average by Location

GTA $ 3,161

Comparison of Relative Taxes

203

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Senior Executive Home—sorted lowest to highest
The following chart provides the relative taxes on an executive home across the survey from lowest to
Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Wasaga Beach Toronto (East) Milton Caledon Kawartha Lakes Sault Ste. Marie Woolwich Stratford Norfolk Amherstburg Parry Sound Chatham-Kent Cobourg North Bay Brampton Middlesex Centre Clarington Huntsville Gravenhurst Kitchener Sarnia Barrie Cambridge Newmarket Aurora Mississauga Peterborough Guelph Woodstock Richmond Hill Orangeville Kingston Thorold Brockville Niagara-on-the-Lake Halton Hills Bracebridge Sudbury Pickering Whitby Grimsby

CVA Ranking mid high high high low low mid low low low mid low low low mid mid low mid mid low low mid mid high high high mid mid low high low low mid low mid high mid low mid mid mid

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

2007 Property Taxes $ 3,703 $ 3,795 $ 3,832 $ 3,834 $ 3,930 $ 4,077 $ 4,124 $ 4,126 $ 4,138 $ 4,168 $ 4,185 $ 4,236 $ 4,259 $ 4,305 $ 4,311 $ 4,328 $ 4,388 $ 4,454 $ 4,458 $ 4,502 $ 4,535 $ 4,606 $ 4,619 $ 4,662 $ 4,685 $ 4,685 $ 4,739 $ 4,742 $ 4,787 $ 4,813 $ 4,824 $ 4,856 $ 4,935 $ 4,937 $ 4,960 $ 4,963 $ 4,977 $ 4,982 $ 5,014 $ 5,024 $ 5,045
204

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Senior Executive Home—sorted lowest to highest (cont’d)
Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Wilmot Oakville Leamington Welland London Vaughan Cornwall Burlington North Dumfries Ajax Niagara Falls St. Catharines Belleville East Gwillimbury Tillsonburg Wellesley Hamilton Bradford West Gwillimbury Brantford Oshawa Pelham Georgina Markham Waterloo Toronto (North) Whitchurch Stouffville Central Elgin Thunder Bay Windsor Timmins Owen Sound Toronto (West) King Ottawa Toronto (South) Average Median Min Max
• •

CVA Ranking high high low low mid high low high high mid mid low low high mid high mid high low low mid high high high high high mid low mid low high high high high high

Relative Tax Burden mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

2007 Property Taxes $ 5,055 $ 5,100 $ 5,110 $ 5,154 $ 5,176 $ 5,189 $ 5,216 $ 5,222 $ 5,223 $ 5,224 $ 5,243 $ 5,290 $ 5,308 $ 5,324 $ 5,324 $ 5,326 $ 5,345 $ 5,393 $ 5,397 $ 5,441 $ 5,452 $ 5,518 $ 5,691 $ 5,714 $ 5,761 $ 5,774 $ 5,901 $ 5,910 $ 5,923 $ 5,988 $ 5,991 $ 6,146 $ 6,388 $ 6,553 $ 10,598 $ $ $ $ 5,038 4,998 3,703 10,598

The average current value assessment for a senior executive home in the survey is $390,000 There is significant range in average housing value across the survey ($190,000 to $1.242 million)

Comparison of Relative Taxes

205

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Senior Executive —by Population Group
Average Within Residential - Senior Executive Senior Executive Municipality Home Property Taxes Wasaga Beach Municipalities with populations less than Woolwich Parry Sound 20,000 Cobourg Middlesex Centre Huntsville Gravenhurst Thorold Niagara-on-the-Lake Bracebridge Wilmot North Dumfries Tillsonburg Wellesley Pelham Central Elgin King Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high 2007 Property Population Taxes Range $ 3,703 $ 4,124 $ 4,185 $ 4,259 $ 4,328 $ 4,454 $ 4,458 $ 4,935 $ 4,960 $ 4,977 $ 5,055 $ 5,223 $ 5,324 $ 5,326 $ 5,452 $ 5,901 4,885 $ 6,388 $

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0
each Woo lwich Wilm ot North Dum fries Parry Soun d Tills onbu rg Thor old Niag ara-o n-the -Lak e Hunt sville Well esley Pelh am Cobo urg Midd lesex Cent re Grav enhu rst Grou p Av erag e Brac ebrid ge Surv ey A vera ge Cent ral E lgin King

Was

aga B

Comparison of Relative Taxes

206

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Senior Executive —by Population Group
Average Within

Senior Executive Home Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 20,000 –49,999

Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Stratford Amherstburg Aurora Woodstock Orangeville Brockville Grimsby Leamington Cornwall Belleville East Gwillimbury Bradford West Gwillimbury Georgina Whitchurch Stouffville Timmins Owen Sound

Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high

2007 Property Taxes $ 4,126 $ 4,168 $ 4,685 $ 4,787 $ 4,824 $ 4,937 $ 5,045 $ 5,110 $ 5,216 $ 5,308 $ 5,324 $ 5,393 $ 5,518 $ 5,774 $ 5,988 $ 5,991

Population Range

$

5,137

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0
Auro ra Woo dsto ck Oran gevil le Broc kville Surv ey A vera ge Grim sby Leam ingto n Grou p Av erag e Strat ford Amh erstb urg Corn wall Belle ville East Gwil limb ury Brad ford W. G will. Geor gina Whit chur ch S touff ville Timm ins Owe n So und

Comparison of Relative Taxes

207

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Senior Executive —by Population Group
Average Within

Senior Executive Home Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 50,000—99,999

Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Milton Caledon Kawartha Lakes Sault Ste. Marie Norfolk North Bay Clarington Sarnia Newmarket Peterborough Halton Hills Pickering Welland Ajax Niagara Falls Brantford Waterloo

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high

2007 Property Taxes $ 3,832 $ 3,834 $ 3,930 $ 4,077 $ 4,138 $ 4,305 $ 4,388 $ 4,535 $ 4,662 $ 4,739 $ 4,963 $ 5,014 $ 5,154 $ 5,224 $ 5,243 $ 5,397 $ 5,714

Population Range

$

4,656

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0
Sarn ia Grou p Av erag e New mark et Pete rbor ough Halto n Hil ls Ajax Kaw artha Lake s Saul t Ste . Mar ie Niag ara F alls Cale don Nort h Ba y Wella nd Clari ngto n Pick ering Surv ey A vera ge Bran tford Wate rloo Milto n Norfo lk

Comparison of Relative Taxes

208

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Senior Executive —by Population Group
Average Within Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Toronto (East) Chatham-Kent Brampton Kitchener Barrie Cambridge Mississauga Guelph Richmond Hill Kingston Sudbury Whitby Oakville London Vaughan Burlington St. Catharines Hamilton Oshawa Markham Toronto (North) Thunder Bay Windsor Toronto (West) Ottawa Toronto (South)

Senior Executive Home Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations greater 100,000 +

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high

2007 Property Population Taxes Range $ 3,795 $ 4,236 $ 4,311 $ 4,502 $ 4,606 $ 4,619 $ 4,685 $ 4,742 $ 4,813 $ 4,856 $ 4,982 $ 5,024 $ 5,100 $ 5,176 $ 5,189 $ 5,222 $ 5,290 $ 5,345 $ 5,441 $ 5,691 $ 5,761 $ 5,910 $ 5,923 $ 6,146 $ 6,553 $ 10,598 $ 5,328

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$0
Toro nto ( East ) Chat ham -Ken t Bram pton Kitch ener Barrie Cam bridg e Miss issau ga Gue lph Rich mon d Hil l King ston Sudb ury Whit Surv by ey A vera ge Oakv ille Lond on Vaug han Burl ingto n St. C atha rines Grou p Av erag e Ham ilton Osha wa Mark ham Toro nto ( Nort h) Thun der B ay Wind sor Toro nto ( Wes t) Otta Toro wa nto ( Sout h)

Comparison of Relative Taxes

209

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Senior Executive — by Location
Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Wasaga Beach Parry Sound Huntsville Gravenhurst Barrie Orangeville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Relative Tax Burden low low low low low mid mid high Total Property Taxes 2007 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,703 4,185 4,454 4,458 4,606 4,824 4,977 5,393 Average Within Population Range

$

4,575

Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Peterborough Kingston Brockville Cornwall Belleville Ottawa

Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid mid high high

Total Property Taxes 2007 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,930 4,259 4,739 4,856 4,937 5,216 5,308 6,553

Average Within Population Range

$

4,975

Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Woolwich Stratford Norfolk Amherstburg Chatham-Kent Middlesex Centre Kitchener Sarnia Cambridge Guelph Woodstock Wilmot Leamington London North Dumfries Tillsonburg Wellesley Brantford Waterloo Central Elgin Windsor Owen Sound

Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high

Total Property Taxes 2007 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,124 4,126 4,138 4,168 4,236 4,328 4,502 4,535 4,619 4,742 4,787 5,055 5,110 5,176 5,223 5,324 5,326 5,397 5,714 5,901 5,923 5,991

Average Within Population Range

$

4,929

Comparison of Relative Taxes

210

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Senior Executive —by Location (cont’d)
Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins Location North North North North North Relative Tax Burden low low mid high high Total Property Taxes 2007 $ $ $ $ $ 4,077 4,305 4,982 5,910 5,988 Average Within Population Range

$

5,052

Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Fort Erie Thorold Niagara-on-the-Lake Grimsby Welland Niagara Falls St. Catharines Hamilton Pelham

Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

Relative Tax Burden

Total Property Taxes 2007 N/A 4,935 4,960 5,045 5,154 5,243 5,290 5,345 5,452

Average Within Population Range

mid mid mid mid mid high high high

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

5,178

Residential - Senior Executive Municipality Toronto (East) Milton Caledon Brampton Clarington Newmarket Aurora Mississauga Richmond Hill Halton Hills Pickering Whitby Oakville Vaughan Burlington Ajax East Gwillimbury Oshawa Georgina Markham Toronto (North) Whitchurch Stouffville Toronto (West) King Toronto (South)

Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high

Total Property Taxes 2007 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,795 3,832 3,834 4,311 4,388 4,662 4,685 4,685 4,813 4,963 5,014 5,024 5,100 5,189 5,222 5,224 5,324 5,441 5,518 5,691 5,761 5,774 6,146 6,388 10,598

Average Within Population Range

$

5,255

Comparison of Relative Taxes

211

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Summary
The following table summarizes the ranking of each municipality in the survey for the residential property classes. In an effort to focus on the trends, rather than the absolutes, the summary provides relative rankings as low, low-mid, mid, mid-high or high.
Municipality Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Cornwall Brockville Kingston Peterborough Belleville Ottawa Milton Toronto (East) Caledon Clarington Newmarket Brampton Burlington Halton Hills Aurora East Gwillimbury Georgina Mississauga Oakville Pickering Richmond Hill Vaughan Whitby Ajax King Markham Oshawa Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Toronto (West) Whitchurch Stouffville Fort Erie Thorold Port Colborne Wainfleet West Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Grimsby Pelham Welland Hamilton Lincoln St. Catharines Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Bungalow Summary low mid low mid mid mid mid high low low mid mid mid high mid mid high mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high low low mid mid mid mid high high mid high high high high Executive Summary low low mid mid mid mid high high low low low low low low mid mid mid high high mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high Blended low low-mid low-mid mid mid mid mid-high high low low low-mid low-mid low-mid mid mid mid mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high high high high high high high high low low-mid mid mid mid mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high high high high

mid

high mid mid high mid high high

Comparison of Relative Taxes

212

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Summary (cont’d)
Bungalow Summary low mid low low mid low low low low mid low mid high low low low low low low mid mid low mid low low mid low low mid low low mid mid high high high Executive Summary low low mid high high low low low low low mid high mid low low low low low low low mid low mid mid low mid high mid high high mid high high high high

Municipality Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Sudbury Timmins Thunder Bay Gravenhurst Huntsville Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Barrie Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville Amherstburg Middlesex Centre Norfolk St. Thomas Stratford Woolwich Cambridge Chatham-Kent Guelph Kitchener Leamington North Dumfries Sarnia Wilmot Central Elgin London Tillsonburg Wellesley Woodstock Owen Sound Brantford Waterloo Windsor

Location North North North North North Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

Blended low low-mid low-mid mid mid-high low low low low low-mid low-mid mid-high mid-high low low low low low low low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid mid mid mid mid mid mid-high high high high

Comparison of Relative Taxes

213

Municipal Study 2007

Residential Comparisons - Summary

low Amherstburg Fort Erie Gravenhurst Huntsville Kawartha Lakes Middlesex Centre Milton Norfolk Parry Sound Sault Ste. Marie St. Thomas Stratford Toronto (East) Wasaga Beach Woolwich

low-mid Barrie Bracebridge Caledon Cambridge Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall Guelph Kitchener Leamington Newmarket North Bay North Dumfries Sarnia Sudbury Thorold Wilmot

mid Brampton Brockville Burlington Central Elgin Halton Hills Kingston London Peterborough Port Colborne Tillsonburg Timmins Wainfleet Wellesley West Lincoln Woodstock

mid-high Ajax Aurora Belleville Bradford West Gwillimbury East Gwillimbury Georgina Grimsby Mississauga Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Oakville Orangeville Owen Sound Pelham Pickering Richmond Hill Thunder Bay Vaughan Welland Whitby

high Brantford Hamilton King Lincoln Markham Oshawa Ottawa St. Catharines Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Toronto (West) Waterloo Whitchurch Stouffville Windsor

Comparison of Relative Taxes

214

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Walk-up Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis)
• •

Tax ratios are a reasonably good predictor of a municipality’s relative tax position Toronto, Hamilton, Guelph, Dufferin (Orangeville), Thunder Bay, Windsor, Woodstock, Owen Sound, Tillsonburg and the City of Kingston have some of the higher tax ratios resulting in higher relative tax burdens With low Multi-Residential tax ratios, Barrie, Sault Ste. Marie and York and Muskoka municipalities tended to have lower relative tax burdens in the Multi-Residential Class The average CVA per suite was $52,000, with a range from $26,000 to $85,000

Comparison of Relative Taxes

215

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Walk-up Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted from lowest to highest
Multi-Residential - Apartment Walk-up Municipality East Gwillimbury Vaughan Norfolk Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Huntsville Newmarket Sault Ste. Marie Aurora Amherstburg Caledon Timmins Wainfleet Bracebridge Brockville Georgina Sudbury Woolwich Chatham-Kent Fort Erie Lincoln Niagara Falls Wilmot Mississauga Thorold West Lincoln Bradford West Gwillimbury North Dumfries Sarnia Milton Thunder Bay Cambridge Wellesley London Grimsby Peterborough Ottawa Kawartha Lakes Brantford

CVA Ranking mid high low mid mid high high low high low high low low high low high low mid low low low low mid high mid mid high low low high low mid mid mid mid mid high mid mid

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 634 $ 713 $ 743 $ 743 $ 749 $ 765 $ 768 $ 776 $ 800 $ 881 $ 917 $ 937 $ 977 $ 978 $ 997 $ 1,009 $ 1,025 $ 1,060 $ 1,114 $ 1,115 $ 1,119 $ 1,129 $ 1,155 $ 1,161 $ 1,207 $ 1,234 $ 1,235 $ 1,249 $ 1,276 $ 1,285 $ 1,315 $ 1,318 $ 1,324 $ 1,338 $ 1,354 $ 1,364 $ 1,365 $ 1,391 $ 1,398

Comparison of Relative Taxes

216

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Walk-up Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted from lowest to highest cont’d

Multi-Residential - Apartment Walk-up Municipality Port Colborne Stratford St. Thomas Clarington Halton Hills St. Catharines Pelham Pickering North Bay Owen Sound Hamilton Ajax Tillsonburg Kitchener Burlington Welland Cobourg Windsor Whitby Brampton Woodstock Belleville Waterloo Oakville Cornwall Guelph Toronto (West) Oshawa Toronto (East) Kingston Orangeville Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Average Median Min Max

CVA Ranking low mid low mid high mid mid high low low low high low mid high mid mid low high high low low high high low mid high high high mid mid high high

Relative Tax Burden mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

2007 Property $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Taxes/Unit 1,404 1,405 1,420 1,426 1,440 1,442 1,454 1,460 1,465 1,468 1,472 1,491 1,493 1,505 1,513 1,524 1,562 1,567 1,576 1,580 1,594 1,650 1,651 1,663 1,684 1,710 1,730 1,785 1,800 1,818 1,829 1,881 2,088 1,312 1,364 634 2,088

Comparison of Relative Taxes

217

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Multi-Residential Walk-Ups (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Population Group
Multi-Residential - Apartment Walk-up Municipality Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Huntsville Wainfleet Bracebridge Woolwich Wilmot Thorold West Lincoln North Dumfries Wellesley Port Colborne Pelham Tillsonburg Cobourg 2007 Average by Property Relative Population Taxes/Unit Tax Burden Range low $ 743 $ 749 low low $ 765 low $ 977 $ 978 low low $ 1,060 $ 1,155 low mid $ 1,207 $ 1,234 mid mid $ 1,249 $ 1,324 mid mid $ 1,404 $ 1,454 mid high $ 1,493 $ 1,562 high $ 1,157

Multi-Residential Walk-up Property Taxes Municipalities with populations less than 20,000

$1,600

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$0
Woo lwich Wilm ot Pelh am Parry Soun d Was aga B each Wes t Lin coln Nort h Du mfrie s Surv ey A vera ge Grou p Av erag e Port Colb orne Brac ebrid ge Tills onbu rg Hunt sville Well esley Wain fleet Cobo urg Thor old

Comparison of Relative Taxes

218

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Multi-Residential Walk-Ups (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Population Group
Multi-Residential - Apartment Walk-up Municipality East Gwillimbury Multi-Residential Aurora Walk-up Property Taxes - Municipalities Amherstburg Timmins with populations Brockville between 20,000— Georgina 49,999 Fort Erie Lincoln Bradford West Gwillimbury Grimsby Stratford St. Thomas Owen Sound Woodstock Belleville Cornwall Orangeville 2007 Average by Property Relative Population Taxes/Unit Tax Burden Range low $ 634 $ 800 low low $ 881 $ 937 low $ 997 low low $ 1,009 $ 1,115 low low $ 1,119 $ 1,235 mid mid $ 1,354 $ 1,405 mid mid $ 1,420 $ 1,468 mid high $ 1,594 $ 1,650 high high $ 1,684 $ 1,829 high $ 1,243

$2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0
Timm ins Auro ra Amh erstb urg Grim sby Stra tford St. T hom as Owe n So und Woo dsto ck East Gwil limb ury Gwil l. Grou p Av erag e Surv ey A vera ge ville Corn wall Oran gevil le Erie Broc kville Geor gina Linco ln

Brad ford W.

Belle

Fort

Comparison of Relative Taxes

219

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Walk-Up (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Population Group
Multi-Residential - Apartment Walk-up Municipality Norfolk Newmarket Sault Ste. Marie Caledon Niagara Falls Sarnia Milton Peterborough Kawartha Lakes Brantford Clarington Halton Hills Pickering North Bay Ajax Welland Waterloo 2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 743 $ 768 $ 776 $ 917 $ 1,129 $ 1,276 $ 1,285 $ 1,364 $ 1,391 $ 1,398 $ 1,426 $ 1,440 $ 1,460 $ 1,465 $ 1,491 $ 1,524 $ 1,651 Relative Tax Burden Range low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high $ 1,265 Average by Population

Multi-Residential Walk-up Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 50,000—99,999

$1,800

$1,600 $1,400

$1,200

$1,000 $800

$600

$400

$200

$0
Sarn ia Milto n Surv ey A verag e Pete rboro ugh Kaw artha Lake s Norf olk New mark et Sault Ste. Marie Cale don Niag ara F alls Grou p Av erag e Bran tford Clar ingto n Halto n Hil ls Pick ering North Bay Ajax Wate rloo Well and

Comparison of Relative Taxes

220

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Walk-Up (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Population Group
Multi-Residential - Apartment Walk-up 2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 713 $ 1,025 $ 1,114 $ 1,161 $ 1,315 $ 1,318 $ 1,338 $ 1,365 $ 1,442 $ 1,472 $ 1,505 $ 1,513 $ 1,567 $ 1,576 $ 1,580 $ 1,663 $ 1,710 $ 1,730 $ 1,785 $ 1,800 $ 1,818 $ 1,881 $ 2,088 Relative Average by

Multi-Residential Walk-up Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations 100,000 +

Municipality Vaughan Sudbury Chatham-Kent Mississauga Thunder Bay Cambridge London Ottawa St. Catharines Hamilton Kitchener Burlington Windsor Whitby Brampton Oakville Guelph Toronto (West) Oshawa Toronto (East) Kingston Toronto (North) Toronto (South)

Tax Burden Population Range low low low low mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high $ 1,499

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Lond on Ottaw a St. C atha rines Ham ilton Grou p Av erag e Kitch ener Burl ingto n Wind sor Whitb y Bram pton Oakv ille Guel ph Toro nto ( Wes t) Osha wa Toro nto ( East ) King ston Toro nto ( Nort h) Toro nto ( Sout h) Vaug han Sudb ury Chat ham -Ken t Miss issau ga Surv ey A vera ge Thun der B ay Cam bridg e

Comparison of Relative Taxes

221

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Walk-Up (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Location

Multi-Residential Apartment Walk-up Municipality Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Huntsville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 743 $ 749 $ 765 $ 978 $ 1,235 $ 1,829 Relative Tax Average by Location Burden low low low low mid high $ 1,050

Multi-Residential Apartment Walk-up Municipality Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Sudbury Thunder Bay North Bay Location North North North North North

2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 776 $ 937 $ 1,025 $ 1,315 $ 1,465 Relative Tax Average by Location Burden low low low mid mid $ 1,104

Multi-Residential Apartment Walk-up Municipality Wainfleet Fort Erie Lincoln Niagara Falls Thorold West Lincoln Grimsby Port Colborne St. Catharines Pelham Hamilton Welland Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 977 $ 1,115 $ 1,119 $ 1,129 $ 1,207 $ 1,234 $ 1,354 $ 1,404 $ 1,442 $ 1,454 $ 1,472 $ 1,524 Relative Tax Average by Burden Location low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high $ 1,286

Comparison of Relative Taxes

222

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Walk-Up
Multi-Residential Apartment Walk-up Municipality Norfolk Amherstburg Woolwich Chatham-Kent Wilmot North Dumfries Sarnia Cambridge Wellesley London Brantford Stratford St. Thomas Owen Sound Tillsonburg Kitchener Windsor Woodstock Waterloo Guelph Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest 2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 743 $ 881 $ 1,060 $ 1,114 $ 1,155 $ 1,249 $ 1,276 $ 1,318 $ 1,324 $ 1,338 $ 1,398 $ 1,405 $ 1,420 $ 1,468 $ 1,493 $ 1,505 $ 1,567 $ 1,594 $ 1,651 $ 1,710 Relative Tax Average by Burden Location low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high $ 1,333

Multi-Residential Apartment Walk-up Municipality East Gwillimbury Vaughan Newmarket Aurora Caledon Georgina Mississauga Milton Clarington Halton Hills Pickering Ajax Burlington Whitby Brampton Oakville Toronto (West) Oshawa Toronto (East) Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 634 $ 713 $ 768 $ 800 $ 917 $ 1,009 $ 1,161 $ 1,285 $ 1,426 $ 1,440 $ 1,460 $ 1,491 $ 1,513 $ 1,576 $ 1,580 $ 1,663 $ 1,730 $ 1,785 $ 1,800 $ 1,881 $ 2,088 Relative Tax Average by Burden Location low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high $ 1,368

Comparison of Relative Taxes

223

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Walk-Up (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Location (cont’d)

Multi-Residential Apartment Walk-up Municipality Brockville Peterborough Ottawa Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Belleville Cornwall Kingston Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

2007 Property Taxes/Unit $ 997 $ 1,364 $ 1,365 $ 1,391 $ 1,562 $ 1,650 $ 1,684 $ 1,818 Relative Tax Average by Burden Location low mid mid mid high high high high $ 1,479

Comparison of Relative Taxes

224

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Mid/High-Rise Apartment

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality Parry Sound East Gwillimbury King Whitchurch-Stouffville Newmarket Markham Vaughan Georgina Norfolk Lincoln Aurora Sault Ste. Marie Pelham Richmond Hill Grimsby Brockville Thorold Timmins Leamington Barrie Sudbury Bradford West Gwillimbury Ottawa Milton Halton Hills London Mississauga Stratford Amherstburg Brampton Niagara Falls Fort Erie St. Catharines Owen Sound Cambridge Brantford North Bay

CVA Ranking low mid high high high high high mid low low high low low high low low low low low high low high mid high high low high mid mid high mid mid mid low mid mid low

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

2007 Property Taxes per unit $ 601 $ 702 $ 825 $ 876 $ 885 $ 898 $ 911 $ 912 $ 947 $ 979 $ 988 $ 997 $ 1,007 $ 1,058 $ 1,090 $ 1,109 $ 1,185 $ 1,189 $ 1,190 $ 1,225 $ 1,246 $ 1,252 $ 1,357 $ 1,367 $ 1,385 $ 1,405 $ 1,425 $ 1,427 $ 1,446 $ 1,450 $ 1,507 $ 1,510 $ 1,516 $ 1,519 $ 1,527 $ 1,529 $ 1,568

13 of the 79 municipalities were not represented due to insufficient comparable properties The CVA per unit varied across the survey, with a range of $33,000 to $103,000 per multiresidential unit, with an average of $60,000

Comparison of Relative Taxes

225

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (cont’d)

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality Whitby Chatham-Kent Kawartha Lakes Clarington Windsor Burlington Welland Tillsonburg Peterborough Kingston Sarnia Hamilton Ajax Toronto (East) Oakville Belleville Cobourg Oshawa Kitchener Thunder Bay Woodstock Guelph Waterloo Port Colborne Toronto (West) Cornwall St. Thomas Toronto (North) Orangeville Pickering Toronto (South) Average Median Min Max

CVA Ranking mid low mid mid low high mid low mid low mid low high high high low mid mid mid low low mid high mid high low mid high mid high high

Relative Tax Burden mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

2007 Property Taxes per unit $ 1,602 $ 1,603 $ 1,627 $ 1,658 $ 1,682 $ 1,692 $ 1,697 $ 1,702 $ 1,705 $ 1,734 $ 1,739 $ 1,747 $ 1,753 $ 1,764 $ 1,770 $ 1,784 $ 1,785 $ 1,798 $ 1,802 $ 1,809 $ 1,818 $ 1,848 $ 1,863 $ 1,881 $ 1,882 $ 1,892 $ 1,994 $ 2,002 $ 2,043 $ 2,089 $ 2,115 $ $ $ $ 1,469 1,523 601 2,115

Comparison of Relative Taxes

226

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Population Group

Mid/High-rise Property Taxes Multi-Residential Apartment Relative Tax Municipalities with High-rise Municipality Burden populations less low Parry Sound than 20,000 King low
Pelham Thorold Tillsonburg Cobourg Port Colborne low low mid high high

2007 Property Taxes Per Unit $ 601 $ 825 $ 1,007 $ 1,185 $ 1,702 $ 1,785 $ 1,881

Average by Population Range

$

1,284

$2,000

$1,800

$1,600

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$0
King ourg age age am rg d Port Colb orne y So un Thor old Pelh p Av er ey A ver onbu

Parr

Grou

Surv

Tills

Cob

Comparison of Relative Taxes

227

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Population Group
2007 Property Taxes Per Unit $ 702 $ 876 $ 912 $ 979 $ 988 $ 1,090 $ 1,109 $ 1,189 $ 1,190 $ 1,252 $ 1,427 $ 1,446 $ 1,510 $ 1,519 $ 1,784 $ 1,818 $ 1,892 $ 1,994 $ 2,043 Average by Population Range

Mid/High-Rise Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 20,000-49,999

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality East Gwillimbury Whitchurch-Stouffville Georgina Lincoln Aurora Grimsby Brockville Timmins Leamington Bradford West Gwillimbury Stratford Amherstburg Fort Erie Owen Sound Belleville Woodstock Cornwall St. Thomas Orangeville

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid high high high high high

$

1,354

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
East Gwil limb Whit ury chur ch-S touff ville Geor gina Linc oln Auro ra Grim sby Broc kville Timm ins Leam ingto n Brad ford W. G will. Grou p Av erag e Strat ford Amh erstb urg Surv ey A vera ge Fort Erie Owe n So und Belle ville Woo dsto ck Corn wall St. T hom as Oran gevil le

Comparison of Relative Taxes

228

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Population Group
2007 Property Average by Taxes Per Population Unit Range $ 885 $ 947 $ 997 $ 1,367 $ 1,385 $ 1,507 $ 1,529 $ 1,568 $ 1,627 $ 1,658 $ 1,697 $ 1,705 $ 1,739 $ 1,753 $ 1,863 $ 2,089 $ 1,520

Mid/High-Rise Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 50,000-99,999

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality Newmarket Norfolk Sault Ste. Marie Milton Halton Hills Niagara Falls Brantford North Bay Kawartha Lakes Clarington Welland Peterborough Sarnia Ajax Waterloo Pickering

Relative Tax Burden low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Norf olk Sault Ste. Marie Halto n Hil ls Surv ey A vera ge Niag ara F alls Grou p Av erag e Nort h Ba y Clarin gton Well and Pete rboro ugh Sarn ia Milto n Ajax New mark et Bran tford Kaw artha Lake s Pick ering Wate rloo

Comparison of Relative Taxes

229

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Population Group
Multi-Residential Apartment Highrise Municipality Markham Vaughan Richmond Hill Barrie Sudbury Ottawa London Mississauga Brampton St. Catharines Cambridge Whitby Chatham-Kent Windsor Burlington Kingston Hamilton Toronto (East) Oakville Oshawa Kitchener Thunder Bay Guelph Toronto (West) Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high 2007 Property Taxes Per Unit $ 898 $ 911 $ 1,058 $ 1,225 $ 1,246 $ 1,357 $ 1,405 $ 1,425 $ 1,450 $ 1,516 $ 1,527 $ 1,602 $ 1,603 $ 1,682 $ 1,692 $ 1,734 $ 1,747 $ 1,764 $ 1,770 $ 1,798 $ 1,802 $ 1,809 $ 1,848 $ 1,882 $ 2,002 $ 2,115 Average by Population Range

Mid/High-Rise Property Taxes Municipalities with populations 100,000+
(Taxes per Unit)

$

1,572

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Mark ham Vaug han Rich mon d Hil l Barr ie Sudb ury Otta wa Lond on Miss issau ga Bram pton Surv ey A verag e St. C atha rines Cam bridg Grou e p Av erag e Whit by Chat ham -Ken t Wind sor Burl ingto n King ston Ham ilton Toro nto ( East ) Oakv ille Osha wa Kitch ener Thun der B ay Guelp h Toro nto ( Wes t) Toro nto ( Nort Toro h) nto ( Sout h)

Comparison of Relative Taxes

230

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Location

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality Parry Sound Barrie Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville

Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

Relative Tax Burden low low low high

2007 Property Taxes Per Unit $ 601 $ 1,225 $ 1,252 $ 2,043

Average by Location

$

1,280

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality Sault Ste. Marie Timmins Sudbury North Bay Thunder Bay

Location North North North North North

Relative Tax Burden low low low mid high

2007 Property Taxes Per Unit $ 997 $ 1,189 $ 1,246 $ 1,568 $ 1,809

Average by Location

$

1,362

Comparison of Relative Taxes

231

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Location (cont’d)
2007 Property Taxes Per Average by Unit Location $ 702 $ 825 $ 876 $ 885 $ 898 $ 911 $ 912 $ 988 $ 1,058 $ 1,367 $ 1,385 $ 1,425 $ 1,450 $ 1,602 $ 1,658 $ 1,692 $ 1,753 $ 1,764 $ 1,770 $ 1,798 $ 1,882 $ 2,002 $ 2,089 1,409 $ 2,115 $

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality East Gwillimbury King Whitchurch-Stouffville Newmarket Markham Vaughan Georgina Aurora Richmond Hill Milton Halton Hills Mississauga Brampton Whitby Clarington Burlington Ajax Toronto (East) Oakville Oshawa Toronto (West) Toronto (North) Pickering Toronto (South)

Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality Lincoln Pelham Grimsby Thorold Niagara Falls Fort Erie St. Catharines Welland Hamilton Port Colborne

Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

Relative Tax Burden low low low low mid mid mid mid high high

2007 Property Taxes Per Unit $ 979 $ 1,007 $ 1,090 $ 1,185 $ 1,507 $ 1,510 $ 1,516 $ 1,697 $ 1,747 $ 1,881

Average by Location

$

1,412

Comparison of Relative Taxes

232

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Mid/High-Rise Apartment (taxes calculated on a per unit basis) - sorted by Location (cont’d)
2007 Property Taxes Per Average by Unit Location $ 947 $ 1,190 $ 1,405 $ 1,427 $ 1,446 $ 1,519 $ 1,527 $ 1,529 $ 1,603 $ 1,682 $ 1,702 $ 1,739 $ 1,802 $ 1,818 $ 1,848 $ 1,863 1,591 $ 1,994 $

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality Norfolk Leamington London Stratford Amherstburg Owen Sound Cambridge Brantford Chatham-Kent Windsor Tillsonburg Sarnia Kitchener Woodstock Guelph Waterloo St. Thomas

Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high

Multi-Residential Apartment High-rise Municipality Brockville Ottawa Kawartha Lakes Peterborough Kingston Belleville Cobourg Cornwall

Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid high high high high

2007 Property Taxes Per Unit $ 1,109 $ 1,357 $ 1,627 $ 1,705 $ 1,734 $ 1,784 $ 1,785 $ 1,892

Average by Location

$

1,624

Comparison of Relative Taxes

233

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Summary
The following chart summarizes the municipality’s ranking in the two Multi-Residential classes by location. As shown in the table, there is a close relationship between the two multiresidential types of property classes
Relative Tax Relative Tax Burden Burden Ranking Ranking Walk-Up Mid/High low low mid low mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high mid high high high high high high high low mid low mid low low mid high mid high Relative Tax Burden Ranking Blended Apartment low low-mid mid mid high high high high low low low low low low low low low low low-mid mid mid mid mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high high high high high high high high low low low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid mid mid mid-high mid-high high

Municipality Brockville Ottawa Kawartha Lakes Peterborough Belleville Cobourg Cornwall Kingston Aurora Caledon East Gwillimbury Georgina King Markham Newmarket Richmond Hill Vaughan Whitchurch-Stouffville Mississauga Clarington Halton Hills Milton Brampton Burlington Pickering Whitby Ajax Oakville Oshawa Toronto (East) Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Toronto (West) Lincoln Wainfleet Fort Erie Grimsby Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Thorold St. Catharines West Lincoln Port Colborne Welland Hamilton

Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

low low low mid mid mid high high mid high high high high high high high high low low low mid low mid mid mid mid mid high high

Comparison of Relative Taxes

234

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Summary (cont’d)

Municipality Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Timmins North Bay Thunder Bay Barrie Bracebridge Huntsville Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville Leamington Norfolk Wilmot Woolwich Amherstburg Chatham-Kent Brantford Cambridge London North Dumfries Owen Sound Stratford Wellesley Sarnia St. Thomas Tillsonburg Windsor Guelph Kitchener Waterloo Woodstock

Location North North North North North Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

Relative Tax Relative Tax Burden Burden Ranking Ranking Walk-Up Mid/High low low low low low low mid mid mid high low low low low low mid high

Relative Tax Burden Ranking Blended Apartment low low low mid mid-high low low low low low low-mid high low low low low low-mid low-mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid-high mid-high mid-high mid-high high high high high

low low high low low

low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high

mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high mid mid high high high high

Comparison of Relative Taxes

235

Municipal Study 2007

Multi-Residential Comparisons - Summary
• •

There was a high degree of consistency in terms of the relative tax burdens across the two multi-residential property types Municipalities with higher tax ratios typically also have higher relative tax burdens in the multi-residential class. The tax ratio is a better predictor in the multi-residential class than the commercial and industrial classes because of the consistent Province-wide residential education rate All York municipalities, with a Multi-Residential tax ratio equal to the Residential class have a low relative tax burden Toronto, Dufferin, Oxford, Belleville, Northumberland, Guelph, Hamilton, St. Thomas, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Cornwall, Lambton and Kingston with relatively high MultiResidential tax ratios have Mid-high to High tax burden compared to the other municipalities in the survey

low Aurora Barrie Bracebridge Brockville Caledon Central Elgin East Gwillimbury Georgina Gravenhurst Huntsville King Leamington Lincoln Markham Newmarket Norfolk Parry Sound Richmond Hill Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Timmins Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Woolwich

low-mid Amherstburg Bradford West Gwillimbury Chatham-Kent Fort Erie Grimsby Mississauga Niagara Falls Ottawa Pelham Thorold

mid Brantford Cambridge Clarington Halton Hills Kawartha Lakes London Middlesex Centre Milton North Bay North Dumfries Owen Sound Peterborough St. Catharines Stratford Wellesley West Lincoln

mid-high Brampton Burlington Pickering Port Colborne Sarnia St. Thomas Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Welland Whitby Windsor

high Ajax Belleville Cobourg Cornwall Guelph Hamilton Kingston Kitchener Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Toronto (East) Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Toronto (West) Waterloo Woodstock

Comparison of Relative Taxes

236

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings

15 of the 79 municipalities were not represented due to insufficient comparable properties The CVA per unit varied across the survey, with a range of $35 to $166 per square foot, with an average of $82 per square foot The taxes on a per square foot basis ranged from $1.47 to $6.72 The average and median taxes per square foot for office buildings were $2.94 and $2.86 respectively The average square footage of the office building class is approximately 53,600 sq. ft. On average, education comprises 48% of the total taxes The addition of a non uniform education tax rate results in a change in the relative tax position across the survey

• •

• • •

The charts on the next page provide a sorting from lowest to highest in terms of total taxes for each of the population groupings. The group average and the total survey average are shown on the graph. Education and municipal taxes are shown in different colours to help identify the impact of non-controllable education taxes.

Comparison of Relative Taxes

237

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.71 $ 0.70 $ 0.61 $ 1.03 $ 1.02 $ 0.78 $ 0.70 $ 1.05 $ 1.17 $ 0.97 $ 1.12 $ 0.84 $ 0.89 $ 0.99 $ 0.82 $ 1.28 $ 0.96 $ 1.36 $ 1.32 $ 1.44 $ 1.43 $ 1.36 $ 1.46 $ 1.28 $ 0.91 $ 1.38 $ 1.32 $ 1.49 $ 1.06 $ 1.52 $ 1.58 $ 1.72 $ 1.64 $ 1.11 $ 1.58 $ 1.12 $ 1.68 $ 1.73 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.32 $ 1.16 $ 1.28 $ 1.71 $ 1.67 2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.76 $ 0.77 $ 0.88 $ 0.56 $ 0.60 $ 1.05 $ 1.13 $ 0.86 $ 0.74 $ 0.95 $ 0.83 $ 1.12 $ 1.10 $ 1.00 $ 1.18 $ 0.74 $ 1.11 $ 0.78 $ 0.95 $ 0.93 $ 0.95 $ 1.03 $ 0.95 $ 1.25 $ 1.62 $ 1.19 $ 1.27 $ 1.12 $ 1.59 $ 1.15 $ 1.12 $ 1.07 $ 1.16 $ 1.81 $ 1.35 $ 1.84 $ 1.31 $ 1.27 $ 1.50 $ 1.49 $ 1.69 $ 1.88 $ 1.85 $ 1.52 $ 1.61 2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Sq.ft Tax Burden $ 1.47 low low $ 1.47 $ 1.49 low low $ 1.59 $ 1.61 low low $ 1.82 $ 1.84 low low $ 1.91 $ 1.92 low $ 1.92 low low $ 1.95 $ 1.96 low low $ 1.98 $ 1.99 low low $ 2.00 $ 2.02 low low $ 2.07 $ 2.14 low low $ 2.27 $ 2.37 low low $ 2.37 $ 2.39 low mid $ 2.41 $ 2.53 mid $ 2.53 mid mid $ 2.58 $ 2.59 mid mid $ 2.61 $ 2.65 mid mid $ 2.67 $ 2.70 mid mid $ 2.79 $ 2.80 mid mid $ 2.92 $ 2.93 mid mid $ 2.96 $ 2.99 mid $ 3.00 mid mid $ 3.01 $ 3.01 mid mid $ 3.02 $ 3.04 mid mid $ 3.13 $ 3.23 mid mid $ 3.28
238

Commercial - Office Municipality Kawartha Lakes Leamington Milton Parry Sound Welland Amherstburg Whitchurch-Stouffville Sarnia Central Elgin Niagara-on-the-Lake Grimsby Bradford West Gwillimbury Halton Hills Norfolk Newmarket Port Colborne Georgina Timmins Fort Erie Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Hamilton Waterloo Caledon Brockville London Brantford Mississauga Belleville Niagara Falls Chatham-Kent Oshawa Markham Peterborough Vaughan North Bay Thorold Guelph Barrie Brampton Richmond Hill Aurora Clarington Stratford

CVA Ranking low low mid low low mid mid low low low low mid mid low mid low mid low low low low low low low high low low low high low mid low mid high mid high low mid mid high high high high high mid

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings (cont’d)
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 1.98 $ 1.46 $ 2.04 $ 1.71 $ 1.74 $ 1.60 $ 1.80 $ 1.87 $ 1.93 $ 1.83 $ 1.87 $ 2.14 $ 2.46 $ 1.56 $ 2.12 $ 2.43 $ 2.64 $ 2.76 $ 3.20 $ 2.88 $ 3.48 $ $ $ $ 1.53 1.46 0.61 3.48 2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 1.33 $ 1.86 $ 1.28 $ 1.63 $ 1.60 $ 1.78 $ 1.66 $ 1.60 $ 1.55 $ 1.72 $ 1.74 $ 1.59 $ 1.56 $ 2.48 $ 2.00 $ 2.26 $ 2.31 $ 2.25 $ 2.33 $ 2.69 $ 3.25 $ $ $ $ 1.41 1.29 0.56 3.25

Commercial - Office Municipality Sudbury Oakville Windsor Kitchener Ajax Burlington Whitby Tillsonburg Kingston Cambridge Cobourg Woodstock Owen Sound King Pickering Toronto (West) Ottawa Thunder Bay Cornwall Toronto (East) Toronto (South) Average Median Min Max

CVA Ranking mid high mid mid high high high mid mid mid high mid mid high high high high mid high high high

2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Sq.ft Tax Burden $ 3.31 high high $ 3.32 $ 3.32 high high $ 3.33 $ 3.34 high high $ 3.38 $ 3.46 high $ 3.47 high high $ 3.48 $ 3.55 high high $ 3.60 $ 3.73 high high $ 4.01 $ 4.04 high high $ 4.11 $ 4.69 high high $ 4.95 $ 5.01 high high $ 5.53 high $ 5.56 $ 6.72 high $ $ $ $ 2.94 2.86 1.47 6.72

Comparison of Relative Taxes

239

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings —by Population Group

Office Buildings Property Taxes Municipalities with populations less than 20,000
Taxes per Sq. Ft.

Commercial - Office Municipality Parry Sound Central Elgin Niagara-on-the-Lake Port Colborne Thorold Tillsonburg Cobourg King

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 1.03 $ 1.17 $ 0.97 $ 1.28 $ 1.73 $ 1.87 $ 1.87 $ 1.56

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.56 $ 0.74 $ 0.95 $ 0.74 $ 1.27 $ 1.60 $ 1.74 $ 2.48

2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.ft $ 1.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.92 $ 2.02 $ 3.00 $ 3.47 $ 3.60 $ 4.04

Relative Tax Burden low low low low mid high high high

Average per Population Range

$

2.70

$4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00

2007 Municipal Taxes

2007 Education Taxes

Thor old

Grou p Av erag e

Surv ey A vera ge

Cent ral E lgin

Tillso nbur g

Niag ara-o n-the -Lak e

Parry Soun d

Port Colb orne

Cobo urg

King

Comparison of Relative Taxes

240

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings —by Population Group
Office Buildings Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 20,000—49,999
Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.70 $ 0.78 $ 0.70 $ 1.12 $ 0.84 $ 0.96 $ 1.36 $ 1.32 $ 1.36 $ 1.38 $ 1.52 $ 1.28 $ 1.67 $ 2.14 $ 2.46 $ 3.20 2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.77 $ 1.05 $ 1.13 $ 0.83 $ 1.12 $ 1.11 $ 0.78 $ 0.95 $ 1.03 $ 1.19 $ 1.15 $ 1.85 $ 1.61 $ 1.59 $ 1.56 $ 2.33

Commercial - Office Municipality Leamington Amherstburg Whitchurch-Stouffville Grimsby Bradford W. Gwill. Georgina Timmins Fort Erie St. Thomas Brockville Belleville Aurora Stratford Woodstock Owen Sound Cornwall

2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.ft $ 1.47 $ 1.82 $ 1.84 $ 1.95 $ 1.96 $ 2.07 $ 2.14 $ 2.27 $ 2.39 $ 2.58 $ 2.67 $ 3.13 $ 3.28 $ 3.73 $ 4.01 $ 5.53

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid high high high

Average per Population Range

$

2.68

$6.00

2007 Municipal Taxes
$5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00

2007 Education Taxes

Leam ingto n Amh erstb Whit urg chur ch-S touff ville Grim sby Brad ford W. G will. Geor gina Timm ins Fort Erie St. T hom as Broc kville Belle ville Grou p Av erag e Surv ey A vera ge

Auro ra Strat ford Woo dsto ck Owe n So und Corn wall
241

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings—by Population Group
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.71 $ 0.61 $ 1.02 $ 1.05 $ 0.89 $ 0.99 $ 0.82 $ 1.44 $ 1.28 $ 0.91 $ 1.49 $ 1.58 $ 1.58 $ 1.68 $ 1.71 $ 1.74 $ 2.12 2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.76 $ 0.88 $ 0.60 $ 0.86 $ 1.10 $ 1.00 $ 1.18 $ 0.93 $ 1.25 $ 1.62 $ 1.12 $ 1.12 $ 1.35 $ 1.31 $ 1.52 $ 1.60 $ 2.00

Office Buildings Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 50,000—99,999
Taxes per Sq. Ft.

Commercial - Office Municipality Kawartha Lakes Milton Welland Sarnia Halton Hills Norfolk Newmarket Sault Ste. Marie Waterloo Caledon Brantford Niagara Falls Peterborough North Bay Clarington Ajax Pickering

2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.ft $ 1.47 $ 1.49 $ 1.61 $ 1.91 $ 1.98 $ 1.99 $ 2.00 $ 2.37 $ 2.53 $ 2.53 $ 2.61 $ 2.70 $ 2.93 $ 2.99 $ 3.23 $ 3.34 $ 4.11

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high

Average per Population Range

$

2.46

$4.50

2007 Municipal Taxes
$4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00

2007 Education Taxes

Norf olk New mark et Saul t Ste . Mar ie Grou p Av erag e Wate rloo Cale don Bran tford Niag ara F alls Pete rbor ough Surv ey A vera ge Nort h Ba y Clari ngto n

Kaw artha Lake s

Halto n Hil ls

Ajax Pick ering

Milto n Well and

Sarn ia

Comparison of Relative Taxes

242

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings — by Population Group
Office Buildings Property Taxes Municipalities with populations 100,000+
Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 1.43 $ 1.46 $ 1.32 $ 1.06 $ 1.72 $ 1.64 $ 1.11 $ 1.12 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.32 $ 1.16 $ 1.98 $ 1.46 $ 2.04 $ 1.71 $ 1.60 $ 1.80 $ 1.93 $ 1.83 $ 2.43 $ 2.64 $ 2.76 $ 2.88 $ 3.48 2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 1.27 $ 1.59 $ 1.07 $ 1.16 $ 1.81 $ 1.84 $ 1.50 $ 1.49 $ 1.69 $ 1.88 $ 1.33 $ 1.86 $ 1.28 $ 1.63 $ 1.78 $ 1.66 $ 1.55 $ 1.72 $ 2.26 $ 2.31 $ 2.25 $ 2.69 $ 3.25 2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.ft $ 2.37 $ 2.41 $ 2.59 $ 2.65 $ 2.79 $ 2.80 $ 2.92 $ 2.96 $ 3.01 $ 3.01 $ 3.02 $ 3.04 $ 3.31 $ 3.32 $ 3.32 $ 3.33 $ 3.38 $ 3.46 $ 3.48 $ 3.55 $ 4.69 $ 4.95 $ 5.01 $ 5.56 $ 6.72 Average per Population Range

Commercial - Office Municipality St. Catharines Hamilton London Mississauga Chatham-Kent Oshawa Markham Vaughan Guelph Barrie Brampton Richmond Hill Sudbury Oakville Windsor Kitchener Burlington Whitby Kingston Cambridge Toronto (West) Ottawa Thunder Bay Toronto (East) Toronto (South)

Relative Tax Burden low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high

$

3.51

$7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00

2007 Municipal Taxes

2007 Education Taxes

St. C atha rines Ham ilton Lond on Miss issau ga Chat ham -Ken t Osha wa Mark ham Surv ey A vera ge Vaug han Gue lph Barr ie Bram pton Rich mon d Hil l Sudb ury Oakv ille Wind sor Kitch ener Burl ingto n Whit by King ston Grou p Av erag e Cam bridg e Toro nto ( Wes t) Ottaw a Thun der B ay Toro nto ( East Toro ) nto ( Sout h)

Comparison of Relative Taxes

243

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings —by Location

Commercial - Office Municipality Parry Sound Bradford West Gwillimbury Barrie

Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 1.03 $ 0.84 $ 1.51

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.56 $ 1.12 $ 1.49

2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Location Sq.ft Tax Burden Average $ 1.59 low $ 1.96 low $ 3.01 mid $ 2.19

Commercial - Office Municipality Welland Niagara-on-the-Lake Grimsby Port Colborne Fort Erie St. Catharines Hamilton Niagara Falls Thorold

Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 1.02 $ 0.97 $ 1.12 $ 1.28 $ 1.32 $ 1.43 $ 1.46 $ 1.58 $ 1.73

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.60 $ 0.95 $ 0.83 $ 0.74 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 1.12 $ 1.27

2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Location Sq.ft Tax Burden Average low $ 1.61 $ 1.92 low $ 1.95 low $ 2.02 low $ 2.27 low low $ 2.37 mid $ 2.41 mid $ 2.70 $ 3.00 mid $ 2.25

Commercial - Office Municipality Leamington Amherstburg Sarnia Central Elgin Norfolk St. Thomas Waterloo London Brantford Chatham-Kent Guelph Stratford Windsor Kitchener Tillsonburg Cambridge Woodstock Owen Sound

Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.70 $ 0.78 $ 1.05 $ 1.17 $ 0.99 $ 1.36 $ 1.28 $ 1.32 $ 1.49 $ 1.72 $ 1.51 $ 1.67 $ 2.04 $ 1.71 $ 1.87 $ 1.83 $ 2.14 $ 2.46

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.77 $ 1.05 $ 0.86 $ 0.74 $ 1.00 $ 1.03 $ 1.25 $ 1.27 $ 1.12 $ 1.07 $ 1.50 $ 1.61 $ 1.28 $ 1.63 $ 1.60 $ 1.72 $ 1.59 $ 1.56

2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Location Sq.ft Tax Burden Average low $ 1.47 $ 1.82 low $ 1.91 low low $ 1.92 $ 1.99 low $ 2.39 low mid $ 2.53 $ 2.59 mid $ 2.61 mid mid $ 2.79 $ 3.01 mid $ 3.28 mid high $ 3.32 $ 3.33 high $ 3.47 high high $ 3.55 $ 3.73 high $ 4.01 high $ 2.76

Comparison of Relative Taxes

244

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Office Buildings —by Location (cont’d)
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 1.36 $ 1.44 $ 1.68 $ 1.98 $ 2.76 2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.78 $ 0.93 $ 1.31 $ 1.33 $ 2.25 2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Location Sq.ft Tax Burden Average $ 2.14 low low $ 2.37 $ 2.99 mid high $ 3.31 $ 5.01 high $ 3.16

Commercial - Office Municipality Timmins Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Sudbury Thunder Bay

Location North North North North North

Commercial - Office Municipality Kawartha Lakes Belleville Brockville Peterborough Kingston Cobourg Ottawa Cornwall

Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.71 $ 1.52 $ 1.38 $ 1.58 $ 1.93 $ 1.87 $ 2.64 $ 3.20

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.76 $ 1.15 $ 1.19 $ 1.35 $ 1.55 $ 1.74 $ 2.31 $ 2.33

2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Location Sq.ft Tax Burden Average $ 1.47 low mid $ 2.67 $ 2.58 mid mid $ 2.93 $ 3.48 high high $ 3.60 $ 4.95 high $ 5.53 high $ 3.40

Commercial - Office Municipality Milton Whitchurch-Stouffville Halton Hills Newmarket Georgina Caledon Mississauga Oshawa Markham Vaughan Brampton Richmond Hill Aurora Clarington Oakville Ajax Burlington Whitby King Pickering Toronto (West) Toronto (East) Toronto (South)

Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.61 $ 0.70 $ 0.89 $ 0.82 $ 0.96 $ 0.91 $ 1.06 $ 1.64 $ 1.11 $ 1.12 $ 1.32 $ 1.16 $ 1.28 $ 1.71 $ 1.46 $ 1.74 $ 1.60 $ 1.80 $ 1.56 $ 2.12 $ 2.43 $ 2.88 $ 3.48

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.ft. $ 0.88 $ 1.13 $ 1.10 $ 1.18 $ 1.11 $ 1.62 $ 1.59 $ 1.16 $ 1.81 $ 1.84 $ 1.69 $ 1.88 $ 1.85 $ 1.52 $ 1.86 $ 1.60 $ 1.78 $ 1.66 $ 2.48 $ 2.00 $ 2.26 $ 2.69 $ 3.25

2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Location Sq.ft Tax Burden Average $ 1.49 low low $ 1.84 $ 1.98 low $ 2.00 low $ 2.07 low mid $ 2.53 mid $ 2.65 $ 2.80 mid $ 2.92 mid mid $ 2.96 mid $ 3.02 $ 3.04 mid $ 3.13 mid mid $ 3.23 high $ 3.32 $ 3.34 high $ 3.38 high high $ 3.46 high $ 4.04 $ 4.11 high $ 4.69 high high $ 5.56 high $ 3.23 $ 6.72

Comparison of Relative Taxes

245

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping

• •

Only 1 of the 79 municipalities was not represented in the neighbourhood category Neighbourhood Shopping properties was one of the better commercial comparators in terms of identifying like properties in all but one of the municipalities The average square footage of the properties selected was approximately 32,000 square feet The average current value assessment across the survey for neighbourhood shopping was $98 per square foot, ranging from $44 to $179 per square foot The average relative tax burden in this class was $3.43 per square foot

• •

The charts on the next page provide a sorting from lowest to highest in terms of total taxes for each of the population groupings. The group average and the total survey average are shown on the graph. Education and municipal taxes are shown in different colours on the graphs to help identify the impact of non-controllable education taxes.

Comparison of Relative Taxes

246

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping
CVA Per Sq.Ft. Ranking low low low mid low low low mid low mid low low high mid mid low low low low low low high low low high high low high low low mid high mid low high low low mid low low mid mid 2007 Municipal Taxes Per 2007 Education Sq.Ft. Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 0.78 $ 0.56 $ 1.12 $ 0.61 $ 0.76 $ 1.11 $ 1.17 $ 0.77 $ 0.82 $ 1.32 $ 1.04 $ 1.14 $ 1.11 $ 1.07 $ 0.97 $ 1.31 $ 1.47 $ 0.82 $ 0.86 $ 1.43 $ 1.11 $ 1.20 $ 1.12 $ 1.27 $ 1.41 $ 1.01 $ 0.94 $ 1.49 $ 1.18 $ 1.35 $ 1.27 $ 1.29 $ 1.48 $ 1.09 $ 1.30 $ 1.28 $ 1.59 $ 1.01 $ 1.49 $ 1.11 $ 1.13 $ 1.55 $ 1.04 $ 1.68 $ 1.62 $ 1.15 $ 1.69 $ 1.14 $ 1.02 $ 1.82 $ 1.30 $ 1.61 $ 1.47 $ 1.43 $ 1.26 $ 1.68 $ 1.90 $ 1.12 $ 1.69 $ 1.35 $ 1.58 $ 1.45 $ 1.24 $ 1.80 $ 1.79 $ 1.27 $ 1.81 $ 1.30 $ 1.29 $ 1.85 $ 1.82 $ 1.34 $ 1.78 $ 1.39 $ 1.67 $ 1.54 $ 1.86 $ 1.39 $ 1.67 $ 1.59 $ 1.54 $ 1.73 $ 1.94 $ 1.34 2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.35 $ 1.73 $ 1.86 $ 1.94 $ 2.14 $ 2.17 $ 2.19 $ 2.28 $ 2.28 $ 2.29 $ 2.30 $ 2.38 $ 2.42 $ 2.42 $ 2.53 $ 2.56 $ 2.57 $ 2.58 $ 2.59 $ 2.61 $ 2.68 $ 2.72 $ 2.77 $ 2.83 $ 2.84 $ 2.90 $ 2.91 $ 2.95 $ 3.01 $ 3.04 $ 3.04 $ 3.05 $ 3.06 $ 3.11 $ 3.14 $ 3.16 $ 3.17 $ 3.21 $ 3.25 $ 3.26 $ 3.28 $ 3.28

Municipality Gravenhurst Parry Sound East Gwillimbury Bracebridge Middlesex Centre Leamington Stratford Amherstburg Timmins Wasaga Beach Kawartha Lakes Wellesley Huntsville King Georgina Norfolk Thorold Niagara-on-the-Lake Central Elgin West Lincoln North Dumfries Whitchurch-Stouffville Niagara Falls Sudbury Caledon Halton Hills Waterloo Bradford West Gwillimbury Welland Kingston Whitby Milton Oshawa Fort Erie Newmarket Pelham North Bay Ajax Belleville Kitchener Wilmot Grimsby

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

Comparison of Relative Taxes

247

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping (cont’d)

Municipality Orangeville Lincoln Burlington Guelph Oakville Markham Sarnia Aurora Richmond Hill St. Catharines Mississauga Tillsonburg Pickering Vaughan Barrie Woolwich Cambridge Brockville Clarington Port Colborne Windsor Sault Ste. Marie Owen Sound Chatham-Kent London St. Thomas Woodstock Cobourg Peterborough Ottawa Brantford Hamilton Brampton Thunder Bay Toronto (North) Toronto (East) Cornwall Toronto (West) Toronto (South) Average Median Min Max

CVA Per Sq.Ft. Ranking high mid high mid high high mid high high mid high mid high high high high mid low high mid mid low mid low mid mid mid high mid high mid mid high mid high high mid high high

2007 Municipal Taxes Per 2007 Education Sq.Ft. Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.74 $ 1.54 $ 1.92 $ 1.49 $ 1.59 $ 1.87 $ 1.75 $ 1.75 $ 1.55 $ 1.97 $ 1.34 $ 2.19 $ 1.96 $ 1.61 $ 1.46 $ 2.11 $ 1.42 $ 2.31 $ 2.25 $ 1.49 $ 1.51 $ 2.26 $ 2.03 $ 1.74 $ 1.95 $ 1.84 $ 1.44 $ 2.37 $ 1.94 $ 1.91 $ 1.71 $ 2.17 $ 2.03 $ 1.91 $ 2.12 $ 1.83 $ 2.09 $ 1.87 $ 2.51 $ 1.46 $ 2.45 $ 1.53 $ 2.42 $ 1.57 $ 2.49 $ 1.58 $ 2.52 $ 1.56 $ 2.20 $ 2.12 $ 2.46 $ 1.86 $ 2.49 $ 1.84 $ 2.25 $ 2.09 $ 2.43 $ 2.07 $ 2.43 $ 2.13 $ 2.61 $ 1.97 $ 2.89 $ 1.88 $ 2.11 $ 2.71 $ 2.72 $ 2.22 $ 2.82 $ 2.63 $ 2.84 $ 2.65 $ 3.42 $ 2.49 $ 3.28 $ 3.06 $ 3.79 $ 3.54 $ $ $ $ 1.78 1.69 0.76 3.79 $ $ $ $ 1.65 1.57 0.56 3.54

2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 3.28 $ 3.41 $ 3.47 $ 3.50 $ 3.52 $ 3.52 $ 3.57 $ 3.57 $ 3.73 $ 3.74 $ 3.77 $ 3.77 $ 3.79 $ 3.81 $ 3.85 $ 3.88 $ 3.94 $ 3.95 $ 3.96 $ 3.97 $ 3.98 $ 3.99 $ 4.07 $ 4.08 $ 4.32 $ 4.32 $ 4.34 $ 4.35 $ 4.51 $ 4.56 $ 4.58 $ 4.77 $ 4.82 $ 4.95 $ 5.44 $ 5.48 $ 5.92 $ 6.34 $ 7.33 $ $ $ $ 3.43 3.28 1.35 7.33

Relative Tax Burden mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

Comparison of Relative Taxes

248

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping - sorted by Population
Neighbourhood Shopping Property Taxes Municipalities with populations less than 20,000
Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Municipality Sq.Ft. Gravenhurst $ 0.78 Parry Sound $ 1.12 Bracebridge $ 1.17 Middlesex Centre $ 0.82 Wasaga Beach $ 0.86 Wellesley $ 1.12 Huntsville $ 1.41 King $ 0.94 Thorold $ 1.48 Niagara-on-the-Lake $ 1.30 Central Elgin $ 1.59 West Lincoln $ 1.49 North Dumfries $ 1.13 Pelham $ 1.82 Wilmot $ 1.54 Tillsonburg $ 2.03 Woolwich $ 1.71 Port Colborne $ 2.51 Cobourg $ 2.25 2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.35 $ 1.73 $ 1.94 $ 2.14 $ 2.29 $ 2.38 $ 2.42 $ 2.42 $ 2.57 $ 2.58 $ 2.59 $ 2.61 $ 2.68 $ 3.16 $ 3.28 $ 3.77 $ 3.88 $ 3.97 $ 4.35 Average per Population Range

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 0.56 $ 0.61 $ 0.77 $ 1.32 $ 1.43 $ 1.27 $ 1.01 $ 1.49 $ 1.09 $ 1.28 $ 1.01 $ 1.11 $ 1.55 $ 1.34 $ 1.73 $ 1.74 $ 2.17 $ 1.46 $ 2.09

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid high high high

$

2.74

$4.50

2007 Municipal Taxes
$4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00

2007 Education Taxes

Niag ara-o n-the -Lak e Cent ral E lgin Wes t Lin coln Nort h Du mfrie s Grou p Av erag e Pelh am Wilm ot Surv ey A vera ge Tillso nbur g Woo lwich Port Colb orne Cobo urg
249

Grav enhu rst Parry Soun d Brac ebrid ge Midd lesex Cent re Was aga Beac h Well esley Hunt sville

Comparison of Relative Taxes

King Thor old

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping - sorted by Population
Neighbourhood Shopping Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 20,000—49,999
Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 0.76 $ 1.04 $ 1.11 $ 0.97 $ 1.47 $ 1.18 $ 1.04 $ 1.26 $ 1.81 $ 1.86 $ 1.94 $ 1.74 $ 1.92 $ 1.46 $ 2.12 $ 2.49 $ 2.46 $ 2.49 $ 3.42 2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.11 $ 1.14 $ 1.07 $ 1.31 $ 0.82 $ 1.35 $ 1.68 $ 1.68 $ 1.30 $ 1.39 $ 1.34 $ 1.54 $ 1.49 $ 2.11 $ 1.83 $ 1.58 $ 1.86 $ 1.84 $ 2.49 2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.86 $ 2.17 $ 2.19 $ 2.28 $ 2.28 $ 2.53 $ 2.72 $ 2.95 $ 3.11 $ 3.25 $ 3.28 $ 3.28 $ 3.41 $ 3.57 $ 3.95 $ 4.07 $ 4.32 $ 4.34 $ 5.92 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high Average per Population Range

Municipality East Gwillimbury Leamington Stratford Amherstburg Timmins Georgina Whitchurch-Stouffville Bradford West Gwillimbury Fort Erie Belleville Grimsby Orangeville Lincoln Aurora Brockville Owen Sound St. Thomas Woodstock Cornwall

$

3.24

$6.00

2007 Municipal Taxes
$5.00

2007 Education Taxes

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

$0.00
East Gwilli mbur y Leam ingto n Strat ford Amh erstb urg Timm ins Geor gina Whit churc h-Sto uffvil le Brad ford W. G will. Fort Erie Grou p Av erag e Belle ville Grim sby Oran gevil le Linco ln Surv ey Av erag e Auro ra Broc kville Owe n So und St. T homa s Woo dstoc k Corn wall

Comparison of Relative Taxes

250

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping - sorted by Population
Neighbourhood Shopping Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 50,000—99,999
Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.11 $ 1.27 $ 1.62 $ 1.02 $ 1.30 $ 1.47 $ 1.90 $ 1.24 $ 1.29 $ 1.78 $ 1.67 $ 1.96 $ 1.95 $ 2.09 $ 2.42 $ 2.43 $ 2.61 2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.20 $ 1.29 $ 1.15 $ 1.82 $ 1.61 $ 1.43 $ 1.12 $ 1.80 $ 1.85 $ 1.39 $ 1.54 $ 1.61 $ 1.84 $ 1.87 $ 1.57 $ 2.07 $ 1.97 2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 2.30 $ 2.56 $ 2.77 $ 2.84 $ 2.90 $ 2.91 $ 3.01 $ 3.05 $ 3.14 $ 3.17 $ 3.21 $ 3.57 $ 3.79 $ 3.96 $ 3.99 $ 4.51 $ 4.58 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high Average per Population Range

Municipality Kawartha Lakes Norfolk Niagara Falls Caledon Halton Hills Waterloo Welland Milton Newmarket North Bay Ajax Sarnia Pickering Clarington Sault Ste. Marie Peterborough Brantford

$

3.31

$5.00

2007 Municipal Taxes
$4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00

2007 Education Taxes

Clarin gton Sault Ste. M arie Pete rboro ugh

Norfo lk Niag ara F alls

Ajax Grou p Av erage Surv ey Av erage

New mark et North Bay

Cale don

Sarn ia

ls

Kawa rtha L akes

Halto

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Picke ring

Bran tford

Wate rloo

Wella nd

n Hil

Milto n

251

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping - sorted by Population
Neighbourhood Shopping Property Taxes Municipalities with populations 100,000 +
Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.69 $ 1.69 $ 1.58 $ 1.79 $ 1.67 $ 1.59 $ 1.75 $ 1.55 $ 1.34 $ 1.42 $ 2.25 $ 1.51 $ 1.44 $ 1.94 $ 2.03 $ 2.45 $ 2.52 $ 2.20 $ 2.43 $ 2.89 $ 2.11 $ 2.72 $ 2.82 $ 2.84 $ 3.28 $ 3.79 2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 2.83 $ 3.04 $ 3.04 $ 3.06 $ 3.26 $ 3.47 $ 3.50 $ 3.52 $ 3.52 $ 3.73 $ 3.74 $ 3.77 $ 3.81 $ 3.85 $ 3.94 $ 3.98 $ 4.08 $ 4.32 $ 4.56 $ 4.77 $ 4.82 $ 4.95 $ 5.44 $ 5.48 $ 6.34 $ 7.33 Average per Population Range

Municipality Sudbury Kingston Whitby Oshawa Kitchener Burlington Guelph Oakville Markham Richmond Hill St. Catharines Mississauga Vaughan Barrie Cambridge Windsor Chatham-Kent London Ottawa Hamilton Brampton Thunder Bay Toronto (North) Toronto (East) Toronto (West) Toronto (South)

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.14 $ 1.35 $ 1.45 $ 1.27 $ 1.59 $ 1.87 $ 1.75 $ 1.97 $ 2.19 $ 2.31 $ 1.49 $ 2.26 $ 2.37 $ 1.91 $ 1.91 $ 1.53 $ 1.56 $ 2.12 $ 2.13 $ 1.88 $ 2.71 $ 2.22 $ 2.63 $ 2.65 $ 3.06 $ 3.54

Relative Tax Burden low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

$

4.16

$8.00

2007 Municipal Taxes
$7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00

2007 Education Taxes

Sud bury King ston Whit by Osha wa Kitch ener Surv ey A vera ge Burli ngto n Gue lph Oak ville Mark ham Rich mon d Hil l St. C atha rines Miss issau ga Vaug han

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Ottaw a Ham ilton Bram pton Thun der B ay Toro nto ( Nort h) Toro nto ( East ) Toro nto ( Wes Toro t) nto ( Sou th)

Barr ie Cam bridg e Wind sor Chat ham -Ken t Grou p Av erag e Lond on

252

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping—by Location
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 0.78 $ 1.12 $ 1.17 $ 0.86 $ 1.41 $ 1.26 $ 1.74 $ 1.94 2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.35 $ 1.73 $ 1.94 $ 2.29 $ 2.42 $ 2.95 $ 3.28 $ 3.85

Municipality Gravenhurst Parry Sound Bracebridge Wasaga Beach Huntsville Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville Barrie

Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 0.56 $ 0.61 $ 0.77 $ 1.43 $ 1.01 $ 1.68 $ 1.54 $ 1.91

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low mid mid high

Location Average

$

2.48

Municipality Thorold Niagara-on-the-Lake West Lincoln Niagara Falls Welland Fort Erie Pelham Grimsby Lincoln St. Catharines Port Colborne Hamilton

Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.48 $ 1.30 $ 1.49 $ 1.62 $ 1.90 $ 1.81 $ 1.82 $ 1.94 $ 1.92 $ 2.25 $ 2.51 $ 2.89

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.09 $ 1.28 $ 1.11 $ 1.15 $ 1.12 $ 1.30 $ 1.34 $ 1.34 $ 1.49 $ 1.49 $ 1.46 $ 1.88

2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 2.57 $ 2.58 $ 2.61 $ 2.77 $ 3.01 $ 3.11 $ 3.16 $ 3.28 $ 3.41 $ 3.74 $ 3.97 $ 4.77

Relative Tax Burden low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high

Location Average

$

3.25

Municipality Middlesex Centre Leamington Stratford Amherstburg Wellesley Norfolk Central Elgin North Dumfries Waterloo Kitchener Wilmot Guelph Sarnia Tillsonburg Woolwich Cambridge Windsor Owen Sound Chatham-Kent St. Thomas London Woodstock Brantford

Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 0.82 $ 1.04 $ 1.11 $ 0.97 $ 1.12 $ 1.27 $ 1.59 $ 1.13 $ 1.47 $ 1.67 $ 1.54 $ 1.75 $ 1.96 $ 2.03 $ 1.71 $ 2.03 $ 2.45 $ 2.49 $ 2.52 $ 2.46 $ 2.20 $ 2.49 $ 2.61

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.32 $ 1.14 $ 1.07 $ 1.31 $ 1.27 $ 1.29 $ 1.01 $ 1.55 $ 1.43 $ 1.59 $ 1.73 $ 1.75 $ 1.61 $ 1.74 $ 2.17 $ 1.91 $ 1.53 $ 1.58 $ 1.56 $ 1.86 $ 2.12 $ 1.84 $ 1.97

2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 2.14 $ 2.17 $ 2.19 $ 2.28 $ 2.38 $ 2.56 $ 2.59 $ 2.68 $ 2.91 $ 3.26 $ 3.28 $ 3.50 $ 3.57 $ 3.77 $ 3.88 $ 3.94 $ 3.98 $ 4.07 $ 4.08 $ 4.32 $ 4.32 $ 4.34 $ 4.58

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high

Location Average

$

3.34

Comparison of Relative Taxes

253

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Neighbourhood Shopping—by Location (cont’d)
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.47 $ 1.69 $ 1.78 $ 2.42 $ 2.72 2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 2.28 $ 2.83 $ 3.17 $ 3.99 $ 4.95

Municipality Timmins Sudbury North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay

Location North North North North North

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 0.82 $ 1.14 $ 1.39 $ 1.57 $ 2.22

Relative Tax Burden low low mid high high

Location Average

$

3.45

Municipality East Gwillimbury King Georgina Whitchurch-Stouffville Caledon Halton Hills Whitby Milton Oshawa Newmarket Ajax Burlington Oakville Markham Aurora Richmond Hill Mississauga Pickering Vaughan Clarington Brampton Toronto (North) Toronto (East) Toronto (West) Toronto (South)

Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 0.76 $ 0.94 $ 1.18 $ 1.04 $ 1.02 $ 1.30 $ 1.58 $ 1.24 $ 1.79 $ 1.29 $ 1.67 $ 1.59 $ 1.55 $ 1.34 $ 1.46 $ 1.42 $ 1.51 $ 1.95 $ 1.44 $ 2.09 $ 2.11 $ 2.82 $ 2.84 $ 3.28 $ 3.79

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.11 $ 1.49 $ 1.35 $ 1.68 $ 1.82 $ 1.61 $ 1.45 $ 1.80 $ 1.27 $ 1.85 $ 1.54 $ 1.87 $ 1.97 $ 2.19 $ 2.11 $ 2.31 $ 2.26 $ 1.84 $ 2.37 $ 1.87 $ 2.71 $ 2.63 $ 2.65 $ 3.06 $ 3.54

2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.86 $ 2.42 $ 2.53 $ 2.72 $ 2.84 $ 2.90 $ 3.04 $ 3.05 $ 3.06 $ 3.14 $ 3.21 $ 3.47 $ 3.52 $ 3.52 $ 3.57 $ 3.73 $ 3.77 $ 3.79 $ 3.81 $ 3.96 $ 4.82 $ 5.44 $ 5.48 $ 6.34 $ 7.33

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high

Location Average

$

3.73

Municipality Kawartha Lakes Kingston Belleville Brockville Cobourg Peterborough Ottawa Cornwall

Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.11 $ 1.69 $ 1.86 $ 2.12 $ 2.25 $ 2.43 $ 2.43 $ 3.42

2007 Education Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 1.20 $ 1.35 $ 1.39 $ 1.83 $ 2.09 $ 2.07 $ 2.13 $ 2.49

2007 Total Taxes Per Sq.Ft. $ 2.30 $ 3.04 $ 3.25 $ 3.95 $ 4.35 $ 4.51 $ 4.56 $ 5.92

Relative Tax Burden low mid mid high high high high high

Location Average

$

3.98

Comparison of Relative Taxes

254

Municipal Study 2007
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 451 $ 362 $ 500 $ 677 $ 758 $ 878 $ 804 $ 577 $ 825 $ 803 $ 621 $ 798 $ 737 $ 984 $ 1,052 $ 723 $ 777 $ 1,112 $ 648 $ 1,088 $ 1,084 $ 1,157 $ 759 $ 1,080 $ 1,067 $ 1,172 $ 1,067 $ 1,097 $ 1,348 $ 1,267 $ 1,362 $ 1,367 $ 1,139 $ 1,245 $ 897 $ 1,397 $ 1,282 $ 1,471 $ 1,488 $ 1,402 $ 1,379 $ 1,558 $ 1,406 $ 1,677 $ 1,621 $ 1,888 $ 2,086 $ $ $ $ 1,084 1,084 362 2,086 2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 372 $ 568 $ 505 $ 525 $ 471 $ 488 $ 576 $ 839 $ 610 $ 716 $ 927 $ 766 $ 865 $ 623 $ 575 $ 930 $ 987 $ 654 $ 1,143 $ 772 $ 789 $ 767 $ 1,240 $ 932 $ 985 $ 884 $ 1,037 $ 1,047 $ 842 $ 957 $ 887 $ 888 $ 1,139 $ 1,090 $ 1,478 $ 1,072 $ 1,211 $ 1,090 $ 1,191 $ 1,288 $ 1,324 $ 1,147 $ 1,388 $ 1,191 $ 1,324 $ 1,271 $ 2,045 $ $ $ $ 945 930 372 2,045

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Sarnia Wasaga Beach Norfolk Lincoln Chatham-Kent Timmins Fort Erie Milton Woodstock Clarington Mississauga Stratford Burlington Owen Sound Parry Sound Brampton Oakville Welland Caledon Oshawa Cornwall St. Catharines Markham Brockville Ajax Brantford Waterloo Kitchener Windsor Belleville Hamilton Sault Ste. Marie Guelph Ottawa Vaughan North Bay Cambridge Grimsby Kingston Whitby London Thorold Barrie Niagara Falls Thunder Bay Sudbury Niagara-on-the-Lake Average Median Min Max

CVA Ranking low low low low low low low mid low mid mid low high low high mid high low high mid low mid high low high low mid mid low low mid low mid high high mid mid high mid high mid high high high mid high high

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 823 $ 930 $ 1,005 $ 1,202 $ 1,229 $ 1,365 $ 1,380 $ 1,416 $ 1,435 $ 1,519 $ 1,548 $ 1,564 $ 1,603 $ 1,608 $ 1,627 $ 1,653 $ 1,764 $ 1,766 $ 1,791 $ 1,860 $ 1,873 $ 1,924 $ 1,999 $ 2,013 $ 2,052 $ 2,056 $ 2,105 $ 2,144 $ 2,190 $ 2,223 $ 2,249 $ 2,255 $ 2,277 $ 2,335 $ 2,375 $ 2,470 $ 2,492 $ 2,561 $ 2,680 $ 2,690 $ 2,703 $ 2,706 $ 2,795 $ 2,868 $ 2,945 $ 3,159 $ 4,131 $ $ $ $ 2,029 2,013 823 4,131

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

Commercial Comparisons—Hotels

The average number of rooms across the survey for hotel properties is 136 rooms The average current value assessment per unit for hotels in the survey is $55,000 per room, however, there was a significant range in terms of CVA values from $20,000 to $130,000 32 municipalities were not represented in the sample, either due to the municipality’s size and lack of a representative property, or because the participating municipality elected not to be included in all property types

Comparison of Relative Taxes

255

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Hotel by Population Group
Hotel Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations less than 20,000
Taxes per Room

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Wasaga Beach Parry Sound Thorold Niagara-on-the-Lake

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 362 $ 1,052 $ 1,558 $ 2,086

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 568 $ 575 $ 1,147 $ 2,045

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 930 $ 1,627 $ 2,706 $ 4,131

Relative Tax Burden low low high high

Average per Population Range

$

2,348

$4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

2007 Municipal Taxes

2007 Education Taxes

Grou p Av erag e

Was aga B each

Thor old

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Niag ara-o n-the -Lak e

Surv ey A vera ge

Parry Soun d

256

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Hotel—by Population Group
Hotel Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations between 20,000—49,999
Taxes per Room

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Lincoln Timmins Fort Erie Woodstock Stratford Owen Sound Cornwall Brockville Belleville Grimsby

CVA Ranking low low low low low low low low low high

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 677 $ 878 $ 804 $ 825 $ 798 $ 984 $ 1,084 $ 1,080 $ 1,267 $ 1,471

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 525 $ 488 $ 576 $ 610 $ 766 $ 623 $ 789 $ 932 $ 957 $ 1,090

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 1,202 $ 1,365 $ 1,380 $ 1,435 $ 1,564 $ 1,608 $ 1,873 $ 2,013 $ 2,223 $ 2,561

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid high

Average per Population Range

$

1,722

$3,000

2007 Municipal Taxes

2007 Education Taxes

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Broc kville Timm ins Linc oln Fort Erie Strat ford Surv ey A vera ge Grou p Av erag e Woo dsto ck Owe n So und Belle ville Corn wall Grim sby

Comparison of Relative Taxes

257

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Hotel—by Population Group
Hotel Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations between 50,000—99,999
Taxes per Room

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Sarnia Norfolk Milton Clarington Welland Caledon Ajax Brantford Waterloo Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Niagara Falls

CVA Ranking low low mid mid low high high low mid low mid high

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 451 $ 500 $ 577 $ 803 $ 1,112 $ 648 $ 1,067 $ 1,172 $ 1,067 $ 1,367 $ 1,397 $ 1,677

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 372 $ 505 $ 839 $ 716 $ 654 $ 1,143 $ 985 $ 884 $ 1,037 $ 888 $ 1,072 $ 1,191

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 823 $ 1,005 $ 1,416 $ 1,519 $ 1,766 $ 1,791 $ 2,052 $ 2,056 $ 2,105 $ 2,255 $ 2,470 $ 2,868

Relative Tax Burden low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high

Average per Population Range

$

1,844

$3,000

2007 Municipal Taxes

2007 Education Taxes

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Ajax Saul t Ste . Mar ie Well and Clari ngto n Bran tford Wate rloo Sarn ia Norf olk Grou p Av erag e Surv ey A vera ge Niag ara F alls Milto n Cale don Nort h Ba y

Comparison of Relative Taxes

258

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Hotel—by Population Group
Hotel Property Taxes Municipalities with populations 100,000+
Taxes per Room
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 758 $ 621 $ 737 $ 723 $ 777 $ 1,088 $ 1,157 $ 759 $ 1,097 $ 1,348 $ 1,362 $ 1,139 $ 1,245 $ 897 $ 1,282 $ 1,488 $ 1,402 $ 1,379 $ 1,406 $ 1,621 $ 1,888 2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 471 $ 927 $ 865 $ 930 $ 987 $ 772 $ 767 $ 1,240 $ 1,047 $ 842 $ 887 $ 1,139 $ 1,090 $ 1,478 $ 1,211 $ 1,191 $ 1,288 $ 1,324 $ 1,388 $ 1,324 $ 1,271

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Chatham-Kent Mississauga Burlington Brampton Oakville Oshawa St. Catharines Markham Kitchener Windsor Hamilton Guelph Ottawa Vaughan Cambridge Kingston Whitby London Barrie Thunder Bay Sudbury

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 1,229 $ 1,548 $ 1,603 $ 1,653 $ 1,764 $ 1,860 $ 1,924 $ 1,999 $ 2,144 $ 2,190 $ 2,249 $ 2,277 $ 2,335 $ 2,375 $ 2,492 $ 2,680 $ 2,690 $ 2,703 $ 2,795 $ 2,945 $ 3,159

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high .

Average per Population Range

$

2,220

$3,500

2007 Municipal Taxes
$3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

2007 Education Taxes

St. C atha rines Mark ham Surv ey A vera ge Kitch ener Wind sor Grou p Av erag e Ham ilton Guel ph Ottaw a Vaug han Cam bridg e King ston Whit by Lond on

Chat ham -Ken t Miss issau ga Burl ingto n Bram pton

Oakv ille Osha wa

Barr ie Thun der B ay

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Sudb ury

259

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Hotel—by Location
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 362 $ 1,052 $ 1,406 2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 568 $ 575 $ 1,388

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Wasaga Beach Parry Sound Barrie

Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 930 $ 1,627 $ 2,795

Relative Tax Burden low low high

Location Average

$

1,784

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Sarnia Norfolk Chatham-Kent Woodstock Stratford Owen Sound Brantford Waterloo Kitchener Windsor Guelph Cambridge London

Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 451 $ 500 $ 758 $ 825 $ 798 $ 984 $ 1,172 $ 1,067 $ 1,097 $ 1,348 $ 1,139 $ 1,282 $ 1,379

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 372 $ 505 $ 471 $ 610 $ 766 $ 623 $ 884 $ 1,037 $ 1,047 $ 842 $ 1,139 $ 1,211 $ 1,324

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 823 $ 1,005 $ 1,229 $ 1,435 $ 1,564 $ 1,608 $ 2,056 $ 2,105 $ 2,144 $ 2,190 $ 2,277 $ 2,492 $ 2,703

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid high high

Location Average

$

1,818

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Milton Clarington Mississauga Burlington Brampton Oakville Caledon Oshawa Markham Ajax Vaughan Whitby

Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 577 $ 803 $ 621 $ 737 $ 723 $ 777 $ 648 $ 1,088 $ 759 $ 1,067 $ 897 $ 1,402

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 839 $ 716 $ 927 $ 865 $ 930 $ 987 $ 1,143 $ 772 $ 1,240 $ 985 $ 1,478 $ 1,288

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 1,416 $ 1,519 $ 1,548 $ 1,603 $ 1,653 $ 1,764 $ 1,791 $ 1,860 $ 1,999 $ 2,052 $ 2,375 $ 2,690

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid high high

Location Average

$

1,856

Comparison of Relative Taxes

260

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Hotel—by Location (cont’d)

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Cornwall Brockville Belleville Ottawa Kingston

Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 1,084 $ 1,080 $ 1,267 $ 1,245 $ 1,488

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 789 $ 932 $ 957 $ 1,090 $ 1,191

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 1,873 $ 2,013 $ 2,223 $ 2,335 $ 2,680

Relative Tax Burden mid mid mid high high

Location Average

$

2,225

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Lincoln Fort Erie Welland St. Catharines Hamilton Grimsby Thorold Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake

Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 677 $ 804 $ 1,112 $ 1,157 $ 1,362 $ 1,471 $ 1,558 $ 1,677 $ 2,086

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 525 $ 576 $ 654 $ 767 $ 887 $ 1,090 $ 1,147 $ 1,191 $ 2,045

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 1,202 $ 1,380 $ 1,766 $ 1,924 $ 2,249 $ 2,561 $ 2,706 $ 2,868 $ 4,131

Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid high high high high

Location Average

$

2,310

Commercial - Hotels Municipality Timmins Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Thunder Bay Sudbury

Location North North North North North

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 878 $ 1,367 $ 1,397 $ 1,621 $ 1,888

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 488 $ 888 $ 1,072 $ 1,324 $ 1,271

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 1,365 $ 2,255 $ 2,470 $ 2,945 $ 3,159

Relative Tax Burden low mid high high high

Location Average

$

2,439

Comparison of Relative Taxes

261

Municipal Study 2007
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 257 $ 352 $ 442 $ 457 $ 468 $ 303 $ 529 $ 557 $ 581 $ 587 $ 553 $ 491 $ 363 $ 526 $ 608 $ 421 $ 505 $ 754 $ 678 $ 619 $ 546 $ 586 $ 649 $ 509 $ 604 $ 556 $ 658 $ 635 $ 508 $ 777 $ 716 $ 903 $ 523 $ 803 $ 737 $ 757 $ 808 $ 903 $ 806 $ 942 $ 788 $ 899 $ 816 $ 942 $ 901 $ 880 $ 1,058 $ 889 $ 970 $ 1,234 $ 993 $ 846 $ 1,273 $ 1,191 $ 1,432 $ 1,270 $ 1,234 $ $ $ $ 730 678 257 1,432 2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 347 $ 355 $ 289 $ 325 $ 325 $ 497 $ 305 $ 342 $ 326 $ 321 $ 356 $ 428 $ 575 $ 433 $ 371 $ 577 $ 499 $ 286 $ 364 $ 439 $ 564 $ 525 $ 473 $ 617 $ 546 $ 599 $ 499 $ 556 $ 758 $ 550 $ 618 $ 456 $ 852 $ 605 $ 711 $ 710 $ 665 $ 597 $ 702 $ 602 $ 773 $ 666 $ 816 $ 712 $ 783 $ 813 $ 676 $ 872 $ 940 $ 686 $ 946 $ 1,230 $ 1,018 $ 1,129 $ 894 $ 1,081 $ 1,163 $ $ $ $ 617 597 286 1,230 2007 Total Taxes Per Relative Tax Suite Burden low $ 604 $ 707 low low $ 732 $ 782 low $ 793 low low $ 800 $ 834 low low $ 899 $ 907 low $ 908 low $ 910 low $ 919 low low $ 938 $ 958 low low $ 979 $ 998 low $ 1,004 low low $ 1,040 $ 1,042 low low $ 1,058 $ 1,110 mid $ 1,111 mid mid $ 1,123 $ 1,126 mid mid $ 1,149 $ 1,155 mid $ 1,157 mid mid $ 1,191 $ 1,266 mid mid $ 1,327 $ 1,334 mid $ 1,359 mid $ 1,375 mid $ 1,408 mid mid $ 1,448 $ 1,467 mid mid $ 1,473 $ 1,500 mid $ 1,508 mid high $ 1,544 $ 1,562 high high $ 1,565 $ 1,633 high $ 1,655 high high $ 1,683 $ 1,694 high high $ 1,734 $ 1,761 high $ 1,910 high high $ 1,920 $ 1,939 high high $ 2,076 $ 2,290 high $ 2,320 high $ 2,326 high $ 2,351 high high $ 2,396 $ $ $ $ 1,347 1,266 604 2,396

Commercial - Motels Municipality Amherstburg Kawartha Lakes Wainfleet Pelham Fort Erie Wasaga Beach Welland Sault Ste. Marie Cornwall Parry Sound Oshawa Cobourg Richmond Hill Clarington Chatham-Kent Markham Leamington Owen Sound Port Colborne Woodstock Caledon Ajax Brantford Brampton Stratford Burlington St. Thomas Ottawa Mississauga Niagara Falls Brockville Thorold Vaughan North Bay Tillsonburg Kitchener Sarnia St. Catharines Whitby Sudbury Norfolk Grimsby Guelph Belleville Thunder Bay Cambridge Hamilton Barrie Waterloo Timmins London Milton Kingston Niagara-on-the-Lake Windsor Peterborough Pickering Average Median Min Max

CVA Ranking low low low low low mid low low low mid low low mid mid low high mid low low low mid mid low high low high low mid high mid low mid high low mid mid mid mid high mid high high high mid mid high mid high high mid high high high high high high high

Commercial Comparisons—Motel

The average per room taxes for motel properties in the survey is $1,347 per suite On average, the motels in the survey have 45 rooms 57 municipalities were represented in the comparison

Comparison of Relative Taxes

262

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Motel—by Population Group
Motel Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations less than 20,000
Taxes per Room
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 442 $ 457 $ 303 $ 587 $ 491 $ 678 $ 903 $ 737 $ 1,191 2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 289 $ 325 $ 497 $ 321 $ 428 $ 364 $ 456 $ 711 $ 1,129

Commercial - Motels Municipality Wainfleet Pelham Wasaga Beach Parry Sound Cobourg Port Colborne Thorold Tillsonburg Niagara-on-the-Lake

CVA Ranking low low mid mid low low low mid high

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 732 $ 782 $ 800 $ 908 $ 919 $ 1,042 $ 1,359 $ 1,448 $ 2,320

Average Per Relative Tax Population Burden Range low low low low low low mid mid high $ 1,146 1146

$2,500

2007 Municipal Taxes

2007 Education Taxes

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Pelh am Wain fleet Thor old Parry Soun d Port Colb orne Grou p Av erag e Surv ey A vera ge Was aga Beac h Tills onbu rg Cobo urg Niag ara-o n-the -Lak e

Comparison of Relative Taxes

263

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Motel—by Population Group
Motel Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations between 20,000—49,999
Taxes per Room

Commercial - Motels Municipality Amherstburg Fort Erie Cornwall Leamington Owen Sound Woodstock Stratford St. Thomas Brockville Grimsby Belleville Timmins

CVA Ranking low low low mid mid low low low mid high mid mid

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 257 $ 468 $ 581 $ 505 $ 754 $ 619 $ 604 $ 658 $ 716 $ 899 $ 942 $ 1,234

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 347 $ 325 $ 326 $ 499 $ 286 $ 439 $ 546 $ 499 $ 618 $ 666 $ 712 $ 686

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 604 $ 793 $ 907 $ 1,004 $ 1,040 $ 1,058 $ 1,149 $ 1,157 $ 1,334 $ 1,565 $ 1,655 $ 1,920

Average Per Relative Tax Population Burden Range low low low low low low mid mid high high high high $ 1,182

2007 motel 20,000 – 49,999
$2,000

2007 Municipal Taxes
$1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0
Fort Erie

2007 Education Taxes

Broc kville

Amh erstb urg

Strat ford

Owe n So und

St. T hom as

Woo dsto ck

Grou p Av erag e

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Surv ey A vera ge

Leam ingto n

Belle ville

Corn wall

Timm ins

Grim sby

264

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Motel —by Population Group
Motel Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations between 50,000—99,999
Taxes per Room

Commercial - Motels Municipality Kawartha Lakes Welland Sault Ste. Marie Clarington Caledon Ajax Brantford Niagara Falls North Bay Sarnia Norfolk Waterloo Milton Peterborough Pickering

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 352 $ 529 $ 557 $ 526 $ 546 $ 586 $ 649 $ 777 $ 803 $ 808 $ 788 $ 970 $ 846 $ 1,270 $ 1,234

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 355 $ 305 $ 342 $ 433 $ 564 $ 525 $ 473 $ 550 $ 605 $ 665 $ 773 $ 940 $ 1,230 $ 1,081 $ 1,163

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 707 $ 834 $ 899 $ 958 $ 1,110 $ 1,111 $ 1,123 $ 1,327 $ 1,408 $ 1,473 $ 1,562 $ 1,910 $ 2,076 $ 2,351 $ 2,396

Relative Tax Burden low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high

Average Per Population Range

$

1,416

$2,500

2007 Municipal Taxes
$2,000

2007 Education Taxes

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Ajax Nort h Ba y Grou p Av erag e Milto n Pete rboro ugh Well and Bran tford Wate rloo Sarn ia Clari ngto n Niag ara F alls Surv ey A vera ge Saul t Ste . Mar ie Kaw artha Lake s Pick ering Cale don Norfo lk

Comparison of Relative Taxes

265

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Motel—by Population Group
Motel Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations 100,000+
Taxes per Room
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 553 $ 363 $ 608 $ 421 $ 509 $ 556 $ 635 $ 508 $ 523 $ 757 $ 903 $ 806 $ 942 $ 816 $ 901 $ 880 $ 1,058 $ 889 $ 993 $ 1,273 $ 1,432 2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 356 $ 575 $ 371 $ 577 $ 617 $ 599 $ 556 $ 758 $ 852 $ 710 $ 597 $ 702 $ 602 $ 816 $ 783 $ 813 $ 676 $ 872 $ 946 $ 1,018 $ 894

Commercial - Motels Municipality Oshawa Richmond Hill Chatham-Kent Markham Brampton Burlington Ottawa Mississauga Vaughan Kitchener St. Catharines Whitby Sudbury Guelph Thunder Bay Cambridge Hamilton Barrie London Kingston Windsor

CVA Ranking low mid low high high high mid high high mid mid high mid high low high mid high high high high

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 910 $ 938 $ 979 $ 998 $ 1,126 $ 1,155 $ 1,191 $ 1,266 $ 1,375 $ 1,467 $ 1,500 $ 1,508 $ 1,544 $ 1,633 $ 1,683 $ 1,694 $ 1,734 $ 1,761 $ 1,939 $ 2,290 $ 2,326

Average Per Relative Tax Population Burden Range low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high $ 1,477

$2,500

2007 Municipal Taxes
$2,000

2007 Education Taxes

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
Osha wa Rich mon d Hil l Chat ham -Ken t Mark ham Bram pton Burl ingto n Ottaw a Miss issau ga Surv ey A vera ge Vaug han Kitch ener Grou p Av erag e St. C atha rines Whit by Sudb ury Guel ph Thun der B ay Cam bridg e Ham ilton Barr ie Lond on King ston Wind sor

Comparison of Relative Taxes

266

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Motel—by Location
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 303 $ 587 $ 889 2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 497 $ 321 $ 872

Commercial - Motels Municipality Wasaga Beach Parry Sound Barrie

Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 800 $ 908 $ 1,761

Relative Tax Location Burden Average low low high $ 1,156

Commercial - Motels Municipality Wainfleet Pelham Fort Erie Welland Port Colborne Niagara Falls Thorold St. Catharines Grimsby Hamilton Niagara-on-the-Lake

Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 442 $ 457 $ 468 $ 529 $ 678 $ 777 $ 903 $ 903 $ 899 $ 1,058 $ 1,191

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 289 $ 325 $ 325 $ 305 $ 364 $ 550 $ 456 $ 597 $ 666 $ 676 $ 1,129

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 732 $ 782 $ 793 $ 834 $ 1,042 $ 1,327 $ 1,359 $ 1,500 $ 1,565 $ 1,734 $ 2,320

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low mid mid mid high high high

Location Average

$

1,272

Commercial - Motels Municipality Oshawa Richmond Hill Clarington Markham Caledon Ajax Brampton Burlington Mississauga Vaughan Whitby Milton Pickering

Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 553 $ 363 $ 526 $ 421 $ 546 $ 586 $ 509 $ 556 $ 508 $ 523 $ 806 $ 846 $ 1,234

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 356 $ 575 $ 433 $ 577 $ 564 $ 525 $ 617 $ 599 $ 758 $ 852 $ 702 $ 1,230 $ 1,163

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 910 $ 938 $ 958 $ 998 $ 1,110 $ 1,111 $ 1,126 $ 1,155 $ 1,266 $ 1,375 $ 1,508 $ 2,076 $ 2,396

Relative Tax Location Burden Average low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high $ 1,302

Comparison of Relative Taxes

267

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Motel—by Location (Cont’d)
2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 257 $ 608 $ 505 $ 754 $ 619 $ 649 $ 604 $ 658 $ 737 $ 757 $ 808 $ 788 $ 816 $ 880 $ 970 $ 993 $ 1,432 2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 347 $ 371 $ 499 $ 286 $ 439 $ 473 $ 546 $ 499 $ 711 $ 710 $ 665 $ 773 $ 816 $ 813 $ 940 $ 946 $ 894

Commercial - Motels Municipality Amherstburg Chatham-Kent Leamington Owen Sound Woodstock Brantford Stratford St. Thomas Tillsonburg Kitchener Sarnia Norfolk Guelph Cambridge Waterloo London Windsor

Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 604 $ 979 $ 1,004 $ 1,040 $ 1,058 $ 1,123 $ 1,149 $ 1,157 $ 1,448 $ 1,467 $ 1,473 $ 1,562 $ 1,633 $ 1,694 $ 1,910 $ 1,939 $ 2,326

Relative Tax Location Burden Average low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high $ 1,386

Commercial - Motels Municipality Kawartha Lakes Cornwall Cobourg Ottawa Brockville Belleville Kingston Peterborough

Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 352 $ 581 $ 491 $ 635 $ 831 $ 942 $ 1,273 $ 1,270

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 355 $ 326 $ 428 $ 556 $ 717 $ 712 $ 1,018 $ 1,081

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 707 $ 907 $ 919 $ 1,191 $ 1,548 $ 1,655 $ 2,290 $ 2,351

Relative Tax Location Burden Average low low low mid high high high high $ 1,446

Commercial - Motels Municipality Sault Ste. Marie North Bay Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins

Location North North North North North

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Suite $ 557 $ 803 $ 942 $ 901 $ 1,234

2007 Education Taxes Per Suite $ 342 $ 605 $ 602 $ 783 $ 686

2007 Total Taxes Per Suite $ 899 $ 1,408 $ 1,544 $ 1,683 $ 1,920

Relative Tax Location Burden Average low mid high high high $ 1,491

Comparison of Relative Taxes

268

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Summary - Office
low mid Amherstburg Aurora Bradford West Gwillimbury Barrie Central Elgin Belleville Fort Erie Brampton Georgina Brantford Grimsby Brockville Halton Hills Caledon Kawartha Lakes Chatham-Kent Leamington Clarington Milton Guelph Newmarket Hamilton Niagara-on-the-Lake London Norfolk Markham Parry Sound Mississauga Port Colborne Niagara Falls Sarnia North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Oshawa St. Catharines Peterborough St. Thomas Richmond Hill Timmins Stratford Welland Thorold Whitchurch-Stouffville Vaughan Waterloo high Ajax Burlington Cambridge Cobourg Cornwall King Kingston Kitchener Oakville Ottawa Owen Sound Pickering Sudbury Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Toronto (East) Toronto (South) Toronto (West) Whitby Windsor Woodstock

Commercial Summary - Neighbourhood Shopping
low Amherstburg Bracebridge Caledon Central Elgin East Gwillimbury Georgina Gravenhurst Halton Hills Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Leamington Middlesex Centre Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Dumfries Parry Sound Stratford Sudbury Thorold Timmins Wasaga Beach Waterloo Wellesley West Lincoln Whitchurch-Stouffville mid high Ajax Barrie Aurora Brampton Belleville Brantford Bradford West Gwillimbury Brockville Burlington Cambridge Fort Erie Chatham-Kent Grimsby Clarington Guelph Cobourg Kingston Cornwall Kitchener Hamilton Lincoln London Markham Ottawa Milton Owen Sound Mississauga Peterborough Newmarket Pickering North Bay Port Colborne Oakville Sault Ste. Marie Orangeville St. Thomas Oshawa Thunder Bay Pelham Toronto (East) Richmond Hill Toronto (North) Sarnia Toronto (South) St. Catharines Toronto (West) Tillsonburg Vaughan Welland Windsor Whitby Woodstock Wilmot Woolwich

Comparison of Relative Taxes

269

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Summary - Hotel
low Brampton Burlington Chatham-Kent Clarington Fort Erie Lincoln Milton Mississauga Norfolk Oakville Owen Sound Parry Sound Sarnia Stratford Timmins Wasaga Beach Woodstock mid Ajax Belleville Brantford Brockville Caledon Cornwall Guelph Hamilton Kitchener Markham Oshawa Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines Waterloo Welland Windsor high Barrie Cambridge Grimsby Kingston London Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake North Bay Ottawa Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Vaughan Whitby

Commercial Summary - Motel

low Amherstburg Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall Fort Erie Kawartha Lakes Leamington Markham Oshawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sault Ste. Marie Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Welland Woodstock

mid Ajax Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Kitchener Mississauga Niagara Falls North Bay Ottawa Sarnia St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Thorold Tillsonburg Vaughan Whitby

high Barrie Belleville Cambridge Grimsby Guelph Hamilton Kingston London Milton Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk Peterborough Pickering Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins Waterloo Windsor

Comparison of Relative Taxes

270

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Summary

Municipality Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

Relative Tax Burden Ranking Office mid mid high high low high high mid high mid mid high mid mid low low high mid low mid low high mid high mid high high high mid high low low low mid mid low low low mid low

Belleville Brockville Cobourg Cornwall Kawartha Lakes Kingston Ottawa Peterborough Ajax Aurora Brampton Burlington Caledon Clarington East Gwillimbury Georgina Halton Hills King Markham Milton Mississauga Newmarket Oakville Oshawa Pickering Richmond Hill Toronto (East) Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Toronto (West) Vaughan Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Fort Erie Grimsby Hamilton Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln

Relative Tax Burden Ranking Neighbourhood Shoppping mid high high high low mid high high mid mid high mid low high low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high mid high high high high high mid low mid mid high mid low low mid high mid low mid low

Relative Tax Burden Ranking Hotel mid mid mid high high

Relative Tax Burden Ranking Motel high mid low low low high mid high mid mid mid mid low

mid low low mid low

mid low low low mid

low high mid

low high low

high high

mid mid

low high mid low high high

low high high mid high low low mid mid low low

mid high mid

Comparison of Relative Taxes

271

Municipal Study 2007

Commercial Comparisons - Summary (cont’d)
Relative Tax Burden Ranking Office Location North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins Barrie Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Gravenhurst Huntsville Orangeville Parry Sound Wasaga Beach Amherstburg Brantford Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Guelph Kitchener Leamington London Middlesex Centre Norfolk North Dumfries Owen Sound Sarnia St. Thomas Stratford Tillsonburg Waterloo Wellesley Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich North North North North North Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest mid low high high low mid low Relative Tax Burden Ranking Neighbourhood Shoppping mid high low high low high low mid low low mid low low low high high low high mid mid low high low low low high mid high low mid low low mid high high high Relative Tax Burden Ranking Hotel high mid high high low high Relative Tax Burden Ranking Motel mid low high high high high

Municipality

low

low low

low low low mid high low high mid low high high low mid mid mid mid high

low mid high low mid mid high low mid low high low low mid high mid

mid high low mid mid high low low low low mid

high high

mid low

high low

Comparison of Relative Taxes

272

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons - Standard Industrial
Industrial - Standard Municipality Parry Sound Huntsville Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Gravenhurst Bracebridge Barrie Kingston St. Thomas Owen Sound North Bay Pelham Cornwall Brockville Port Colborne Central Elgin Norfolk Fort Erie West Lincoln King Middlesex Centre Welland Kitchener Amherstburg Bradford West Gwillimbury Belleville Tillsonburg Thorold Sarnia Niagara-on-the-Lake Richmond Hill London Halton Hills Vaughan Whitchurch-Stouffville Lincoln Sault Ste.Marie Peterborough Waterloo Guelph Leamington Woolwich Orangeville Cambridge 2007 Municipal CVA Taxes per sq. Ranking ft. mid $ 0.63 mid $ 0.52 low $ 0.47 low $ 0.53 mid $ 0.54 high $ 0.62 mid $ 0.60 low $ 0.65 low $ 0.64 low $ 0.80 low $ 0.65 low $ 0.68 low $ 0.74 low $ 0.75 low $ 0.79 low $ 0.70 low $ 0.58 low $ 0.78 low $ 0.80 high $ 0.61 mid $ 0.63 low $ 0.97 low $ 0.82 mid $ 0.78 mid $ 0.63 low $ 1.07 low $ 0.90 low $ 0.94 mid $ 0.94 mid $ 0.84 high $ 0.69 low $ 0.97 high $ 0.87 high $ 0.70 high $ 0.72 low $ 0.99 low $ 1.16 low $ 0.99 mid $ 0.95 mid $ 0.98 mid $ 1.03 mid $ 0.85 mid $ 1.04 mid $ 1.00 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.32 $ 0.46 $ 0.53 $ 0.48 $ 0.48 $ 0.50 $ 0.58 $ 0.53 $ 0.56 $ 0.41 $ 0.57 $ 0.54 $ 0.49 $ 0.50 $ 0.51 $ 0.64 $ 0.77 $ 0.61 $ 0.64 $ 0.91 $ 0.93 $ 0.61 $ 0.80 $ 0.86 $ 1.04 $ 0.61 $ 0.79 $ 0.75 $ 0.78 $ 0.92 $ 1.09 $ 0.83 $ 0.94 $ 1.13 $ 1.13 $ 0.85 $ 0.71 $ 0.89 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.91 $ 1.10 $ 0.92 $ 0.96 2007 Total Relative Taxes per sq. ft. Tax Burden low $ 0.95 low $ 0.97 $ 1.00 low $ 1.01 low low $ 1.02 low $ 1.11 low $ 1.18 $ 1.18 low $ 1.20 low low $ 1.21 low $ 1.22 low $ 1.22 $ 1.23 low $ 1.25 low $ 1.30 low low $ 1.34 low $ 1.35 $ 1.39 low $ 1.44 low $ 1.51 low low $ 1.56 low $ 1.58 $ 1.61 low $ 1.63 low $ 1.67 low low $ 1.68 low $ 1.69 $ 1.70 mid $ 1.71 mid $ 1.76 mid mid $ 1.77 mid $ 1.80 mid $ 1.81 $ 1.84 mid $ 1.84 mid mid $ 1.85 mid $ 1.88 mid $ 1.88 $ 1.89 mid $ 1.92 mid mid $ 1.94 mid $ 1.95 mid $ 1.96 $ 1.96 mid

Comparison of Relative Taxes

273

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons - Standard Industrial (cont’d)
2007 Municipal CVA Taxes per sq. Ranking ft. low $ 1.09 mid $ 1.11 mid $ 1.16 mid $ 0.95 high $ 0.87 high $ 0.85 high $ 0.88 high $ 0.92 mid $ 1.20 high $ 0.77 mid $ 1.26 low $ 1.37 mid $ 1.38 high $ 1.09 mid $ 1.24 low $ 1.30 high $ 1.27 mid $ 1.58 high $ 0.91 mid $ 1.35 high $ 0.91 low $ 1.29 high $ 1.14 high $ 1.27 high $ 1.36 high $ 1.31 high $ 1.04 high $ 1.12 high $ 1.20 mid $ 1.58 mid $ 1.58 high $ 1.50 high $ 1.55 high $ 1.74 mid $ 1.78 high $ 1.96 $ $ $ $ 0.99 0.95 0.47 1.96 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.89 $ 0.90 $ 0.88 $ 1.10 $ 1.23 $ 1.25 $ 1.23 $ 1.20 $ 0.94 $ 1.40 $ 0.91 $ 0.81 $ 0.82 $ 1.11 $ 0.97 $ 0.91 $ 1.02 $ 0.72 $ 1.39 $ 0.97 $ 1.46 $ 1.10 $ 1.26 $ 1.14 $ 1.06 $ 1.17 $ 1.46 $ 1.41 $ 1.35 $ 0.98 $ 1.20 $ 1.35 $ 1.38 $ 1.23 $ 1.21 $ 1.75 $ $ $ $ 0.92 0.91 0.32 1.75

Industrial - Standard Municipality Stratford Grimsby Clarington Wilmot Aurora East Gwillimbury Newmarket Brampton Niagara Falls Caledon Wainfleet Timmins Oshawa Burlington Ajax Brantford Pickering Hamilton Mississauga St. Catharines Markham Thunder Bay Oakville Toronto (South) Whitby Toronto (North) North Dumfries Milton Georgina Sudbury Woodstock Ottawa Toronto (West) Windsor Chatham-Kent Toronto (East) Average Median Min Max

2007 Total Relative Taxes per Tax Burden sq. ft. mid $ 1.98 mid $ 2.01 mid $ 2.04 mid $ 2.05 $ 2.10 mid $ 2.10 mid $ 2.12 mid mid $ 2.12 mid $ 2.14 mid $ 2.17 mid $ 2.17 $ 2.17 mid $ 2.20 high $ 2.20 high high $ 2.21 high $ 2.21 high $ 2.29 high $ 2.30 $ 2.30 high $ 2.32 high $ 2.37 high high $ 2.39 high $ 2.40 high $ 2.41 high $ 2.42 $ 2.48 high $ 2.50 high $ 2.52 high $ 2.55 high high $ 2.56 high $ 2.79 high $ 2.86 $ 2.93 high $ 2.97 high $ 2.98 high $ 3.71 high $ $ $ $ 1.91 1.93 0.95 3.71

Comparison of Relative Taxes

274

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons - Standard Industrial

77 of the 79 municipalities are represented in the standard industrial comparison (Wellesley and Wasaga Beach did not have representative properties) The standard industrial properties have an average current value assessment per square foot of $44 with a range of $15 to $92 per square foot Education rates are determined by the Province and are not uniform - as such, the addition of industrial education rates changes the relative position of properties The average total taxes of the survey is $1.91 per square foot

Comparison of Relative Taxes

275

Municipal Study 2007

Standard Industrial Comparisons—by Population Group
Standard Industrial Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations less than 20,000 Taxes per Sq. Ft.
Industrial - Standard Municipality Parry Sound Huntsville Cobourg Gravenhurst Bracebridge Pelham Port Colborne Central Elgin West Lincoln King Middlesex Centre Tillsonburg Thorold Niagara-on-the-Lake Woolwich Wilmot Wainfleet North Dumfries 2007 Municipal CVA Taxes per sq. Ranking ft. mid $ 0.63 mid $ 0.52 low $ 0.53 mid $ 0.54 high $ 0.62 low $ 0.68 low $ 0.79 low $ 0.70 low $ 0.80 high $ 0.61 mid $ 0.63 low $ 0.90 low $ 0.94 mid $ 0.84 mid $ 0.85 mid $ 0.95 mid $ 1.26 high $ 1.04 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.32 $ 0.46 $ 0.48 $ 0.48 $ 0.50 $ 0.54 $ 0.51 $ 0.64 $ 0.64 $ 0.91 $ 0.93 $ 0.79 $ 0.75 $ 0.92 $ 1.10 $ 1.10 $ 0.91 $ 1.46 2007 Total Average Per Taxes per Relative Tax Population sq. ft. Burden Range low $ 0.95 low $ 0.97 low $ 1.01 low $ 1.02 low $ 1.11 $ 1.22 low $ 1.30 low $ 1.34 low $ 1.44 low $ 1.51 low $ 1.56 low low $ 1.69 mid $ 1.70 mid $ 1.76 mid $ 1.95 mid $ 2.05 mid $ 2.17 $ 2.50 high $ 1.51

$2.50

2007 Municipal Taxes
$2.00

2007 Education Taxes

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$0.00
King Grou p Av erag e Midd lesex Cent re Tillso nbur g Thor Niag old ara-o n-the -Lak e Surv ey A vera ge Woo lwich Wilm ot Wain fleet Nort h Du mfrie s Parry Soun d Hunt sville Cobo urg Grav enhu rst Brac ebrid ge Pelh am Port Colb orne Cent ral E lgin Wes t Lin coln

Comparison of Relative Taxes

276

Municipal Study 2007

Standard Industrial Comparisons—by Population Group
Standard Industrial Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations between 20,000– 49,999 Taxes per Sq. Ft.
Industrial - Standard Municipality St. Thomas Owen Sound Cornwall Brockville Fort Erie Amherstburg Bradford West Gwillimbury Belleville Whitchurch-Stouffville Lincoln Leamington Orangeville Stratford Grimsby Aurora East Gwillimbury Timmins Georgina Woodstock 2007 Municipal CVA Taxes per sq. Ranking ft. low $ 0.64 low $ 0.80 low $ 0.74 low $ 0.75 low $ 0.78 mid $ 0.78 mid $ 0.63 low $ 1.07 high $ 0.72 low $ 0.99 mid $ 1.03 mid $ 1.04 low $ 1.09 mid $ 1.11 high $ 0.87 high $ 0.85 low $ 1.37 high $ 1.20 mid $ 1.58 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.56 $ 0.41 $ 0.49 $ 0.50 $ 0.61 $ 0.86 $ 1.04 $ 0.61 $ 1.13 $ 0.85 $ 0.91 $ 0.92 $ 0.89 $ 0.90 $ 1.23 $ 1.25 $ 0.81 $ 1.35 $ 1.20 2007 Total Average Per Taxes per Relative Tax Population sq. ft. Burden Range $ 1.20 low $ 1.21 low $ 1.23 low low $ 1.25 low $ 1.39 $ 1.63 low $ 1.67 low low $ 1.68 mid $ 1.84 $ 1.85 mid $ 1.94 mid $ 1.96 mid mid $ 1.98 mid $ 2.01 $ 2.10 mid $ 2.10 mid $ 2.17 mid high $ 2.55 high $ 1.82 $ 2.79

$3.00

2007 Municipal Taxes
$2.50 $2.00 $1.50

2007 Education Taxes

$1.00 $0.50 $0.00
St. T hom as Owe n So und Corn wall Broc kville Fort Erie Amh erstb urg Brad ford W. G will. Belle ville Grou p Av Whit erag chur e ch-S touff ville Linc oln Surv ey A vera ge Leam ingto n Oran gevil le Strat ford Grim sby Auro East ra Gwil limb ury Timm ins Geor gina Woo dsto ck

Comparison of Relative Taxes

277

Municipal Study 2007

Standard Industrial Comparisons —by Population Group
Standard Industrial Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations between 50,000– 99,999 Taxes per Sq. Ft.
Industrial - Standard Municipality Kawartha Lakes North Bay Norfolk Welland Sarnia Halton Hills Sault Ste.Marie Peterborough Waterloo Clarington Newmarket Niagara Falls Caledon Ajax Brantford Pickering Milton 2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.47 $ 0.65 $ 0.58 $ 0.97 $ 0.94 $ 0.87 $ 1.16 $ 0.99 $ 0.95 $ 1.16 $ 0.88 $ 1.20 $ 0.77 $ 1.24 $ 1.30 $ 1.27 $ 1.12 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.53 $ 0.57 $ 0.77 $ 0.61 $ 0.78 $ 0.94 $ 0.71 $ 0.89 $ 0.94 $ 0.88 $ 1.23 $ 0.94 $ 1.40 $ 0.97 $ 0.91 $ 1.02 $ 1.41 2007 Total Average Per Taxes per Relative Tax Population sq. ft. Burden Range $ 1.00 low $ 1.22 low $ 1.35 low $ 1.58 low $ 1.71 mid $ 1.81 mid $ 1.88 mid $ 1.88 mid $ 1.89 mid $ 2.04 mid $ 2.12 mid $ 2.14 mid $ 2.17 mid $ 2.21 high $ 2.21 high $ 2.29 high $ 2.52 high $ 1.88

$3.00

2007 Municipal Taxes
$2.50

2007 Education Taxes

$2.00

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$0.00
Ajax Bran tford Pick ering Kaw artha Lake s Nort h Ba y Wate rloo Surv ey A vera ge Clari ngto n New mark et Niag ara F alls Cale don Sarn ia Halto n Hil ls Saul t Ste .Mar ie Pete rboro ugh Grou p Av erag e Norf olk Wella nd Milto n

Comparison of Relative Taxes

278

Municipal Study 2007

Standard Industrial Comparisons—by Population Group
Standard Industrial Property Taxes Municipalities with populations 100,000+ Taxes per Sq. Ft.
Industrial - Standard Municipality Barrie Kingston Kitchener Richmond Hill London Vaughan Guelph Cambridge Brampton Oshawa Burlington Hamilton Mississauga St. Catharines Markham Thunder Bay Oakville Toronto (South) Whitby Toronto (North) Sudbury Ottawa Toronto (West) Windsor Chatham-Kent Toronto (East) 2007 Municipal CVA Taxes per sq. Ranking ft. mid $ 0.60 low $ 0.65 low $ 0.82 high $ 0.69 low $ 0.97 high $ 0.70 mid $ 0.98 mid $ 1.00 high $ 0.92 mid $ 1.38 high $ 1.09 mid $ 1.58 high $ 0.91 mid $ 1.35 high $ 0.91 low $ 1.29 high $ 1.14 high $ 1.27 high $ 1.36 high $ 1.31 mid $ 1.58 high $ 1.50 high $ 1.55 high $ 1.74 mid $ 1.78 high $ 1.96 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.58 $ 0.53 $ 0.80 $ 1.09 $ 0.83 $ 1.13 $ 0.94 $ 0.96 $ 1.20 $ 0.82 $ 1.11 $ 0.72 $ 1.39 $ 0.97 $ 1.46 $ 1.10 $ 1.26 $ 1.14 $ 1.06 $ 1.17 $ 0.98 $ 1.35 $ 1.38 $ 1.23 $ 1.21 $ 1.75 2007 Total Average Per Taxes per Relative Tax Population sq. ft. Burden Range low $ 1.18 low $ 1.18 low $ 1.61 mid $ 1.77 mid $ 1.80 mid $ 1.84 mid $ 1.92 mid $ 1.96 mid $ 2.12 high $ 2.20 high $ 2.20 high $ 2.30 high $ 2.30 $ 2.32 high $ 2.37 high $ 2.39 high $ 2.40 high $ 2.41 high $ 2.42 high $ 2.48 high $ 2.56 high $ 2.86 high $ 2.93 high $ 2.97 high $ 2.98 high $ 3.71 high $ 2.28

$4.00

2007 Municipal Taxes
$3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00

2007 Education Taxes

Barr ie King ston Kitch ener Rich mon d Hil l Lond on Vaug han Surv ey A vera ge Guel ph Cam bridg e Bram pton Osha wa Burl ingto Grou n p Av erag e Ham ilton Miss issau ga St. C atha rines Mark ham Thun der B ay Oakv ille Toro nto ( Sout h) Whit by Toro nto ( Nort h) Sudb ury Otta wa Toro nto ( Wes t) Wind sor Chat ham -Ken t Toro nto ( East )

Comparison of Relative Taxes

279

Municipal Study 2007

Standard Industrial Comparisons—by Location
2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.63 $ 0.52 $ 0.54 $ 0.62 $ 0.60 $ 0.63 $ 1.04 2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.32 $ 0.46 $ 0.48 $ 0.50 $ 0.58 $ 1.04 $ 0.92

Industrial - Standard Municipality Parry Sound Huntsville Gravenhurst Bracebridge Barrie Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

2006 Total Relative Taxes per Location sq. ft. Tax Burden Average $ 0.95 low $ 0.97 low low $ 1.02 $ 1.11 low low $ 1.18 $ 1.67 low mid $ 1.27 $ 1.96

Industrial - Standard Municipality Kawartha Lakes Cobourg Kingston Cornwall Brockville Belleville Peterborough Ottawa Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.47 $ 0.53 $ 0.65 $ 0.74 $ 0.75 $ 1.07 $ 0.99 $ 1.50

2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.53 $ 0.48 $ 0.53 $ 0.49 $ 0.50 $ 0.61 $ 0.89 $ 1.35

2006 Total Relative Taxes per Location sq. ft. Tax Burden Average $ 1.00 low $ 1.01 low low $ 1.18 $ 1.23 low $ 1.25 low low $ 1.68 $ 1.88 mid high $ 1.51 $ 2.86

Industrial - Standard Municipality Pelham Port Colborne Fort Erie West Lincoln Welland Thorold Niagara-on-the-Lake Lincoln Grimsby Niagara Falls Wainfleet Hamilton St. Catharines Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.68 $ 0.79 $ 0.78 $ 0.80 $ 0.97 $ 0.94 $ 0.84 $ 0.99 $ 1.11 $ 1.20 $ 1.26 $ 1.58 $ 1.35

2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.54 $ 0.51 $ 0.61 $ 0.64 $ 0.61 $ 0.75 $ 0.92 $ 0.85 $ 0.90 $ 0.94 $ 0.91 $ 0.72 $ 0.97

2006 Total Relative Taxes per Location sq. ft. Tax Burden Average $ 1.22 low $ 1.30 low low $ 1.39 $ 1.44 low $ 1.58 low mid $ 1.70 $ 1.76 mid mid $ 1.85 $ 2.01 mid $ 2.14 mid mid $ 2.17 $ 2.30 high $ 2.32 high $ 1.78

Comparison of Relative Taxes

280

Municipal Study 2007

Standard Industrial Comparisons—by Location (cont’d)
Industrial - Standard Municipality St. Thomas Owen Sound Central Elgin Norfolk Middlesex Centre Kitchener Amherstburg Tillsonburg Sarnia London Waterloo Guelph Leamington Woolwich Cambridge Stratford Wilmot Brantford North Dumfries Woodstock Windsor Chatham-Kent Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest 2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.64 $ 0.80 $ 0.70 $ 0.58 $ 0.63 $ 0.82 $ 0.78 $ 0.90 $ 0.94 $ 0.97 $ 0.95 $ 0.98 $ 1.03 $ 0.85 $ 1.00 $ 1.09 $ 0.95 $ 1.30 $ 1.04 $ 1.58 $ 1.74 $ 1.78 2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.56 $ 0.41 $ 0.64 $ 0.77 $ 0.93 $ 0.80 $ 0.86 $ 0.79 $ 0.78 $ 0.83 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.91 $ 1.10 $ 0.96 $ 0.89 $ 1.10 $ 0.91 $ 1.46 $ 1.20 $ 1.23 $ 1.21 2006 Total Relative Taxes per Location sq. ft. Tax Burden Average $ 1.20 low low $ 1.21 $ 1.34 low $ 1.35 low $ 1.56 low $ 1.61 low low $ 1.63 $ 1.69 low mid $ 1.71 $ 1.80 mid mid $ 1.89 $ 1.92 mid $ 1.94 mid $ 1.95 mid $ 1.96 mid mid $ 1.98 $ 2.05 mid high $ 2.21 $ 2.50 high high $ 2.79 $ 2.97 high $ 2.98 high $ 1.92

Industrial - Standard Municipality North Bay Sault Ste.Marie Timmins Thunder Bay Sudbury Location North North North North North

2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.65 $ 1.16 $ 1.37 $ 1.29 $ 1.58

2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.57 $ 0.71 $ 0.81 $ 1.10 $ 0.98

2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ 1.22 $ 1.88 $ 2.17 $ 2.39 $ 2.56

Relative Location Tax Burden Average low mid mid high high $ 2.04

Comparison of Relative Taxes

281

Municipal Study 2007

Standard Industrial Comparisons—by Location (cont’d)
2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.61 $ 0.69 $ 0.87 $ 0.70 $ 0.72 $ 1.16 $ 0.87 $ 0.85 $ 0.88 $ 0.92 $ 0.77 $ 1.38 $ 1.09 $ 1.24 $ 1.27 $ 0.91 $ 0.91 $ 1.14 $ 1.27 $ 1.36 $ 1.31 $ 1.12 $ 1.20 $ 1.55 $ 1.96 2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.91 $ 1.09 $ 0.94 $ 1.13 $ 1.13 $ 0.88 $ 1.23 $ 1.25 $ 1.23 $ 1.20 $ 1.40 $ 0.82 $ 1.11 $ 0.97 $ 1.02 $ 1.39 $ 1.46 $ 1.26 $ 1.14 $ 1.06 $ 1.17 $ 1.41 $ 1.35 $ 1.38 $ 1.75

Industrial - Standard Municipality King Richmond Hill Halton Hills Vaughan Whitchurch-Stouffville Clarington Aurora East Gwillimbury Newmarket Brampton Caledon Oshawa Burlington Ajax Pickering Mississauga Markham Oakville Toronto (South) Whitby Toronto (North) Milton Georgina Toronto (West) Toronto (East) Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

2006 Total Relative Taxes per Location sq. ft. Tax Burden Average $ 1.51 low mid $ 1.77 $ 1.81 mid $ 1.84 mid mid $ 1.84 $ 2.04 mid mid $ 2.10 $ 2.10 mid mid $ 2.12 $ 2.12 mid $ 2.17 mid high $ 2.20 $ 2.20 high high $ 2.21 $ 2.29 high high $ 2.30 $ 2.37 high $ 2.40 high $ 2.41 high $ 2.42 high high $ 2.48 $ 2.52 high high $ 2.55 $ 2.93 high $ 3.71 high $ 2.26

Comparison of Relative Taxes

282

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons
Municipality CVA Ranking low low low low low low low mid low low low low low low low high high mid low mid high mid low low high low mid mid low mid high mid high high mid mid high mid high mid mid low mid low high 2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.35 0.38 0.45 0.47 0.43 0.51 0.56 0.65 0.58 0.62 0.56 0.56 0.47 0.58 0.68 0.70 0.48 0.66 0.92 0.75 0.54 0.67 0.76 0.71 0.70 0.68 0.54 0.74 0.51 0.51 0.68 0.74 0.52 0.87 0.74 0.76 0.71 0.74 0.74 0.96 0.63 2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.32 0.39 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.47 0.41 0.37 0.39 0.47 0.42 0.50 0.55 0.67 0.56 0.49 0.53 0.75 0.59 0.33 0.50 0.71 0.59 0.50 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.76 0.58 0.81 0.82 0.65 0.59 0.83 0.50 0.66 0.64 0.70 0.67 0.70 0.49 0.82 2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.42 0.55 0.57 0.72 0.74 0.79 0.84 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.93 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.10 1.13 1.14 1.17 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.24 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.32 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.41 1.41 1.44 1.45 1.45 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

Norfolk Clarington West Lincoln Fort Erie Kawartha Lakes Amherstburg Toronto (South) North Bay Niagara-on-the-Lake Kingston Welland Oshawa Stratford Chatham-Kent St. Thomas Barrie East Gwillimbury Kitchener St. Catharines Niagara Falls Whitchurch-Stouffville Toronto (East) Hamilton Cornwall Brampton Tillsonburg Brockville Thorold Sarnia Orangeville Aurora Ajax Markham Vaughan Cambridge Pickering Richmond Hill Belleville Toronto (West) London Waterloo Cobourg Guelph Owen Sound Woolwich

Comparison of Relative Taxes

283

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons Cont’d
2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.84 0.65 0.64 0.96 0.94 0.64 0.92 0.86 0.80 0.90 0.61 1.06 0.99 1.01 1.01 0.97 1.18 0.96 1.46 1.99 0.71 0.68 0.18 1.99 2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.64 0.84 0.90 0.59 0.60 0.98 0.71 0.78 0.86 0.81 1.11 0.73 0.81 0.86 0.91 0.98 0.83 1.06 0.91 1.18 0.64 0.60 0.24 1.18 2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.47 1.48 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.61 1.63 1.64 1.67 1.71 1.73 1.79 1.80 1.86 1.92 1.95 2.02 2.02 2.37 3.17 1.35 1.32 0.42 3.17 Relative Tax Burden high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

Municipality

CVA Ranking mid high high low mid high high mid high mid high mid high mid high high mid high mid high

Woodstock Milton Newmarket Sault Ste. Marie Port Colborne Mississauga Whitby Peterborough Halton Hills Leamington Caledon Brantford Grimsby Thunder Bay Ottawa Burlington Windsor Oakville Sudbury Timmins Average Median Min Max

Trends and Observations - Large Industrial
• •

65 of the 79 municipalities were represented in the Large Industrial comparison Of the municipalities surveyed, Hamilton, Sudbury, Chatham-Kent, Ottawa, Windsor, Timmins, Thunder Bay, St. Thomas, Sault Ste. Marie, and the Counties of Essex, Lambton and Grey established a large industrial class The average current value assessment for large industrial properties in the survey is $29, with a range from $10 to $63 The average square footage of properties included in the survey is 331,000 The average total taxes in this class is $1.35 per square foot

Comparison of Relative Taxes

284

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons—by Population Group
Large Industrial - Municipalities with populations less than 20,000 Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.31 0.43 0.67 0.71 0.74 0.63 0.94 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.26 0.47 0.59 0.56 0.67 0.83 0.60 2007 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.57 0.90 1.25 1.27 1.41 1.46 1.55 Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid mid high Average Per Population Range

Municipality

West Lincoln Niagara-on-the-Lake Tillsonburg Thorold Cobourg Woolwich Port Colborne

$

1.20

$1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00

2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft.

2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft.

Tillso nbur g

Wes t Lin coln

Surv ey A vera ge

Grou p Av erag e

Woo lwich

Thor old

Cobo urg

Niag ara-o n-the -Lak e

Port Colb orne

Comparison of Relative Taxes

285

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons —by Population Group
Large Industrial - Municipalities with populations between 20,000-49,999 Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.40 $ 0.38 $ 0.58 $ 0.56 $ 0.47 $ 0.48 $ 0.75 $ 0.76 $ 0.68 $ 0.54 $ 0.87 $ 0.96 $ 0.84 $ 0.90 $ 0.99 $ 1.99 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.32 $ 0.41 $ 0.47 $ 0.50 $ 0.67 $ 0.75 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.60 $ 0.76 $ 0.50 $ 0.49 $ 0.64 $ 0.81 $ 0.81 $ 1.18 2007 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.72 0.79 1.05 1.06 1.13 1.23 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.38 1.45 1.47 1.71 1.80 3.17 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high Average Per Population Range

Municipality Fort Erie Amherstburg Stratford St. Thomas East Gwillimbury Whitchurch-Stouffville Cornwall Brockville Orangeville Aurora Belleville Owen Sound Woodstock Leamington Grimsby Timmins

$

1.38

$3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00

2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft.

2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft.

Amh erstb urg Strat ford St. T hom as East Gwil limb Whit ury chur ch-S touff ville Corn wall Broc kvill e Oran gevil le

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Auro ra Surv ey A vera ge Belle ville Grou p Av erag e Owe n So und Woo dsto ck Leam ingto n Grim sby Timm ins

Fort Erie

286

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons —by Population Group
Large Industrial - Municipalities with populations between 50,000-99,999 Taxes per Sq. Ft.
2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.18 $ 0.31 $ 0.35 $ 0.47 $ 0.56 $ 0.69 $ 0.70 $ 0.74 $ 0.74 $ 0.71 $ 0.65 $ 0.64 $ 0.96 $ 0.86 $ 0.80 $ 0.61 $ 1.06 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $ 0.39 $ 0.41 $ 0.37 $ 0.53 $ 0.58 $ 0.58 $ 0.59 $ 0.70 $ 0.84 $ 0.90 $ 0.59 $ 0.78 $ 0.86 $ 1.11 $ 0.73 2007 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.42 0.55 0.74 0.88 0.93 1.22 1.27 1.32 1.33 1.41 1.48 1.54 1.54 1.64 1.67 1.73 1.79 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high Average Per Population Range

Municipality Norfolk Clarington Kawartha Lakes North Bay Welland Niagara Falls Sarnia Ajax Pickering Waterloo Milton Newmarket Sault Ste. Marie Peterborough Halton Hills Caledon Brantford

$

1.26

$2.00 $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00

2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft.

2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft.

Well and Niag ara F alls Grou p Av erag e

Pick ering Surv ey A vera ge Wate rloo

Norf olk Clari ngto n Kaw artha Lake s North Bay

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Milto n New mark et Saul t Ste . Mar ie Pete rboro ugh Halto n Hil ls Cale don Bran tford

Sarn ia

Ajax

287

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons —by Population Group
Large Industrial Municipalities with populations 100,000+ Taxes per Sq. Ft.
Municipality CVA Ranking low low low low high mid low mid low high high high mid high high mid mid high high mid high high mid high mid 2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.45 $ 0.51 $ 0.65 $ 0.62 $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ 0.68 $ 0.66 $ 0.92 $ 0.54 $ 0.51 $ 0.51 $ 0.68 $ 0.52 $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.74 $ 0.64 $ 0.92 $ 1.01 $ 1.01 $ 0.97 $ 1.18 $ 0.96 $ 1.46 2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.40 $ 0.41 $ 0.39 $ 0.42 $ 0.55 $ 0.56 $ 0.49 $ 0.59 $ 0.33 $ 0.71 $ 0.81 $ 0.82 $ 0.65 $ 0.83 $ 0.66 $ 0.64 $ 0.70 $ 0.98 $ 0.71 $ 0.86 $ 0.91 $ 0.98 $ 0.83 $ 1.06 $ 0.91 2007 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.84 0.92 1.03 1.05 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.24 1.24 1.25 1.32 1.33 1.33 1.36 1.40 1.40 1.44 1.61 1.63 1.86 1.92 1.95 2.02 2.02 2.37 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high Average Per Population Range

Toronto (South) Kingston Oshawa Chatham-Kent Barrie Kitchener St. Catharines Toronto (East) Hamilton Brampton Markham Vaughan Cambridge Richmond Hill Toronto (West) London Guelph Mississauga Whitby Thunder Bay Ottawa Burlington Windsor Oakville Sudbury

$

1.44

$2.50

2007 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft.
$2.00

2007 Education Taxes per sq. ft.

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$0.00
Toro nto ( Sout h) King ston Osha wa Chat ham -Ken t Barr ie Kitch ener St. C atha rines Ham ilton Toro nto ( East ) Bram pton Mark ham Vaug han Cam bridg Surv e ey A vera ge Rich mon d Hil Toro l nto ( Wes t) Lond on Guel ph Grou p Av erag e Miss issau ga Whit by Oakv ille Thun der B ay Ottaw a Burl ingto n Wind sor Oakv ille Sudb ury

Comparison of Relative Taxes

288

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons —by Location
2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.31 0.40 0.43 0.56 0.68 0.69 0.92 0.71 0.94 0.99 2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.26 0.32 0.47 0.37 0.49 0.53 0.33 0.56 0.60 0.81 2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.57 0.72 0.90 0.93 1.17 1.22 1.24 1.27 1.55 1.80 Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low low mid high high Location Average

Municipality

Location

West Lincoln Fort Erie Niagara-on-the-Lake Welland St. Catharines Niagara Falls Hamilton Thorold Port Colborne Grimsby

Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

$

1.14

Municipality

Location

Barrie Orangeville

Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.56 $ 0.68

2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.55 $ 0.60

2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ 1.10 1.28

Relative Tax Burden low mid $

Location Average

1.19

Municipality Norfolk Amherstburg Stratford Chatham-Kent St. Thomas Kitchener Tillsonburg Sarnia Cambridge London Waterloo Guelph Owen Sound Woolwich Woodstock Leamington Brantford Windsor

Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.18 $ 0.38 $ 0.58 $ 0.62 $ 0.56 $ 0.58 $ 0.67 $ 0.70 $ 0.68 $ 0.76 $ 0.71 $ 0.74 $ 0.96 $ 0.63 $ 0.84 $ 0.90 $ 1.06 $ 1.18

2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.24 $ 0.41 $ 0.47 $ 0.42 $ 0.50 $ 0.56 $ 0.59 $ 0.58 $ 0.65 $ 0.64 $ 0.70 $ 0.70 $ 0.49 $ 0.82 $ 0.64 $ 0.81 $ 0.73 $ 0.83

2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.42 0.79 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.14 1.25 1.27 1.33 1.40 1.41 1.44 1.45 1.45 1.47 1.71 1.79 2.02

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high

Location Average

$

1.31

Comparison of Relative Taxes

289

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons —by Location (cont’d)
2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.35 $ 0.51 $ 0.75 $ 0.76 $ 0.87 $ 0.74 $ 0.86 $ 1.01 2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.39 $ 0.41 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.50 $ 0.67 $ 0.78 $ 0.91

Municipality

Location

2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.74 0.92 1.25 1.26 1.38 1.41 1.64 1.92

Relative Tax Burden low low mid mid mid mid high high

Location Average

Kawartha Lakes Kingston Cornwall Brockville Belleville Cobourg Peterborough Ottawa

Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern

$

1.32

Municipality Clarington Toronto (South) Oshawa East Gwillimbury Whitchurch-Stouffville Toronto (East) Brampton Aurora Ajax Markham Vaughan Pickering Richmond Hill Toronto (West) Milton Newmarket Mississauga Whitby Halton Hills Caledon Burlington Oakville

Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.31 $ 0.45 $ 0.65 $ 0.47 $ 0.48 $ 0.66 $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 0.74 $ 0.51 $ 0.51 $ 0.74 $ 0.52 $ 0.74 $ 0.65 $ 0.64 $ 0.64 $ 0.92 $ 0.80 $ 0.61 $ 0.97 $ 0.96

2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ 0.24 $ 0.40 $ 0.39 $ 0.67 $ 0.75 $ 0.59 $ 0.71 $ 0.76 $ 0.58 $ 0.81 $ 0.82 $ 0.59 $ 0.83 $ 0.66 $ 0.84 $ 0.90 $ 0.98 $ 0.71 $ 0.86 $ 1.11 $ 0.98 $ 1.06

2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.55 0.84 1.03 1.13 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.30 1.32 1.32 1.33 1.33 1.36 1.40 1.48 1.54 1.61 1.63 1.67 1.73 1.95 2.02

Relative Tax Burden low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high

Location Average

$

1.38

Comparison of Relative Taxes

290

Municipal Study 2007

Large Industrial Comparisons —by Location (cont’d)

Municipality

Location

2006 Municipal Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ 0.47 0.96 1.01 1.46 1.99

2006 Education Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ 0.41 0.59 0.86 0.91 1.18

2006 Total Taxes per sq. ft. $ $ $ $ $ 0.88 1.54 1.86 2.37 3.17

Relative Tax Burden low high high high high

Location Average

North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay Sudbury Timmins

North North North North North

$

1.97

Comparison of Relative Taxes

291

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons - Industrial Vacant Land
Vacant Land Summary Municipality Middlesex Centre West Lincoln Norfolk North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Port Colborne Owen Sound St. Thomas East Gwillimbury Cornwall Sudbury Stratford Tillsonburg Belleville Parry Sound Amherstburg Cobourg Brockville Wilmot Fort Erie Sarnia Welland Chatham-Kent Leamington Woodstock Timmins Kingston Woolwich Peterborough Georgina Thorold Clarington Brantford Orangeville Lincoln Bradford West Gwillimbury Kitchener Barrie King Niagara Falls Waterloo London St. Catharines Guelph Newmarket Cambridge CVA Ranking low low low low low low low low mid low low low low low mid mid low low low low low low low mid low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high mid mid mid mid mid high mid 2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 233 $ 497 $ 451 $ 578 $ 689 $ 731 $ 820 $ 664 $ 522 $ 805 $ 844 $ 762 $ 743 $ 899 $ 962 $ 695 $ 783 $ 911 $ 712 $ 871 $ 901 $ 1,048 $ 1,033 $ 917 $ 987 $ 1,121 $ 1,030 $ 862 $ 1,116 $ 1,013 $ 1,203 $ 1,242 $ 1,361 $ 1,227 $ 1,314 $ 964 $ 1,356 $ 1,369 $ 1,098 $ 1,609 $ 1,480 $ 1,605 $ 1,780 $ 1,572 $ 1,301 $ 1,627 2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 348 $ 410 $ 619 $ 509 $ 422 $ 471 $ 418 $ 589 $ 747 $ 533 $ 524 $ 623 $ 652 $ 511 $ 457 $ 764 $ 706 $ 601 $ 829 $ 691 $ 746 $ 681 $ 701 $ 817 $ 750 $ 664 $ 839 $ 1,126 $ 1,009 $ 1,136 $ 962 $ 940 $ 944 $ 1,088 $ 1,129 $ 1,617 $ 1,319 $ 1,341 $ 1,649 $ 1,277 $ 1,469 $ 1,370 $ 1,281 $ 1,498 $ 1,820 $ 1,568 2007 Property Taxes Per Acre $ 581 $ 906 $ 1,070 $ 1,087 $ 1,111 $ 1,202 $ 1,238 $ 1,254 $ 1,269 $ 1,338 $ 1,368 $ 1,385 $ 1,395 $ 1,410 $ 1,419 $ 1,459 $ 1,488 $ 1,512 $ 1,542 $ 1,562 $ 1,647 $ 1,730 $ 1,733 $ 1,734 $ 1,737 $ 1,785 $ 1,869 $ 1,988 $ 2,125 $ 2,149 $ 2,165 $ 2,182 $ 2,305 $ 2,314 $ 2,443 $ 2,581 $ 2,675 $ 2,710 $ 2,747 $ 2,886 $ 2,949 $ 2,975 $ 3,061 $ 3,070 $ 3,122 $ 3,196 Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid
292

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons - Industrial Vacant Land (cont’d)
Vacant Land Summary Municipality Whitchurch-Stouffville Grimsby Niagara-on-the-Lake Whitby Windsor Thunder Bay Oshawa Milton Halton Hills Ajax Ottawa Caledon Hamilton Pickering Burlington Aurora Mississauga Brampton Oakville Markham Richmond Hill Vaughan Average Median Minimum Maximum CVA Ranking high mid mid high mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high 2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 1,273 $ 1,828 $ 1,605 $ 2,259 $ 2,396 $ 2,293 $ 2,743 $ 2,058 $ 2,261 $ 2,703 $ 2,582 $ 1,753 $ 3,017 $ 3,129 $ 2,803 $ 2,356 $ 2,298 $ 2,634 $ 3,081 $ 2,847 $ 2,969 $ 3,226 $ $ $ $ 1,477 1,234 233 3,226 2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 2,004 $ 1,498 $ 1,747 $ 1,762 $ 1,690 $ 1,950 $ 1,624 $ 2,590 $ 2,431 $ 2,118 $ 2,322 $ 3,170 $ 1,965 $ 2,505 $ 2,849 $ 3,326 $ 3,528 $ 3,399 $ 3,389 $ 4,543 $ 4,719 $ 5,185 $ $ $ $ 1,492 1,132 348 5,185 2007 Property Taxes Per Acre 3,277 3,326 3,353 4,021 4,085 4,243 4,367 4,648 4,692 4,822 4,904 4,923 4,982 5,634 5,651 5,681 5,825 6,034 6,470 7,390 7,688 8,411 2,969 2,379 581 8,411 Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

The average value for an acre of industrial land across the survey is $110,000. The CVA ranges from $24,000 to $481,000 per acre across the survey Every effort was made to select serviced properties between 1 and 5 acres. The properties selected were serviced land averaging 2 acres - this provided better comparators upon which to complete the relative tax burden analysis The average property tax is $2,969 per acre

Comparison of Relative Taxes

293

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons—Industrial Vacant Land—by Population Group
Industrial Vacant Land Property Taxes - Municipalities with populations less than 20,000
Taxes per Acres
Vacant Land Summary Municipality Middlesex Centre West Lincoln Port Colborne Tillsonburg Parry Sound Cobourg Wilmot Woolwich Thorold King Niagara-on-the-Lake CVA Ranking low low low low mid low low mid mid high mid 2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 233 $ 497 $ 731 $ 743 $ 962 $ 783 $ 712 $ 862 $ 1,203 $ 1,098 $ 1,605 2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 348 $ 410 $ 471 $ 652 $ 457 $ 706 $ 829 $ 1,126 $ 962 $ 1,649 $ 1,747 2007 Property Taxes Per Acre $ 581 $ 906 $ 1,202 $ 1,395 $ 1,419 $ 1,488 $ 1,542 $ 1,988 $ 2,165 $ 2,747 $ 3,353 Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low low low low low mid mid mid high

Average By Population

$

1,708

$3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0
Thor old Wes t Lin coln Tillso nbur g Cobo urg Wilm ot Grou p Av erag e Woo lwich King Surv ey A vera ge Niag ara-o n-the -Lak e
294

Port Colb orne

Midd lesex Cent re

Comparison of Relative Taxes

Parry Soun d

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons—Industrial Vacant Land —by Population Group
Industrial Vacant Land Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 20,000– 49,999
Taxes per Acres
Vacant Land Summary Municipality Owen Sound St. Thomas East Gwillimbury Cornwall Stratford Belleville Amherstburg Brockville Fort Erie Leamington Woodstock Timmins Georgina Orangeville Lincoln Bradford West Gwillimbury Whitchurch-Stouffville Grimsby Aurora CVA Ranking low low mid low low low mid low low mid low low mid mid mid mid high mid high 2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 820 $ 664 $ 522 $ 805 $ 762 $ 899 $ 695 $ 911 $ 871 $ 917 $ 987 $ 1,121 $ 1,013 $ 1,227 $ 1,314 $ 964 $ 1,273 $ 1,828 $ 2,356 2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 418 $ 589 $ 747 $ 533 $ 623 $ 511 $ 764 $ 601 $ 691 $ 817 $ 750 $ 664 $ 1,136 $ 1,088 $ 1,129 $ 1,617 $ 2,004 $ 1,498 $ 3,326 2007 Property Taxes Per Acre 1,238 1,254 1,269 1,338 1,385 1,410 1,459 1,512 1,562 1,734 1,737 1,785 2,149 2,314 2,443 2,581 3,277 3,326 5,681 Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high

Average By Population

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

2,077

$6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0
Owe n So und St. T hom as East Gwil limb ury Corn wall Strat ford Belle ville Amh erstb urg Broc kville Fort Erie Leam ingto n Woo dsto ck Timm ins Grou p Av erag e Geor gina Oran gevil le Linc oln Brad ford W. G will. Surv ey A Whit vera chur ge ch-S touff ville Grim sby Auro ra

Comparison of Relative Taxes

295

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons—Industrial Vacant Land —by Population Group
Industrial Vacant Land Property Taxes Municipalities with populations between 50,000– 99,999
Taxes per Acres
Vacant Land Summary Municipality Norfolk North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Sarnia Welland Peterborough Clarington Brantford Niagara Falls Waterloo Newmarket Milton Halton Hills Ajax Caledon Pickering CVA Ranking low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high 2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 451 $ 578 $ 689 $ 901 $ 1,048 $ 1,116 $ 1,242 $ 1,361 $ 1,609 $ 1,480 $ 1,301 $ 2,058 $ 2,261 $ 2,703 $ 1,753 $ 3,129 2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 619 $ 509 $ 422 $ 746 $ 681 $ 1,009 $ 940 $ 944 $ 1,277 $ 1,469 $ 1,820 $ 2,590 $ 2,431 $ 2,118 $ 3,170 $ 2,505 2007 Property Taxes Per Acre 1,070 1,087 1,111 1,647 1,730 2,125 2,182 2,305 2,886 2,949 3,122 4,648 4,692 4,822 4,923 5,634 Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high

Average By Population

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

2,933

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0
Nort h Ba y Saul t Ste . Mar ie Well and Pete rboro ugh Clari ngto n Ajax Bran tford Niag ara F alls Grou p Av erag e Wate rloo Surv ey A vera ge New mark et Halto n Hil ls Pick ering Norf olk Sarn ia Milto n Cale don

Comparison of Relative Taxes

296

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons—Industrial Vacant Land —by Population Group
Industrial Vacant Land Property Taxes Municipalities with populations 100,000+
Taxes per Acres
Vacant Land Summary Municipality Sudbury Chatham-Kent Kingston Kitchener Barrie London St. Catharines Guelph Cambridge Whitby Windsor Thunder Bay Oshawa Ottawa Hamilton Burlington Mississauga Brampton Oakville Markham Richmond Hill Vaughan
$9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0
Sudb ury Chat ham -Ken t King ston Kitch ener Barr ie Surv ey A vera ge Lond on St. C atha rines Guel ph Cam bridg e Whit by Wind sor Thun der B ay Osha wa Grou p Av erag e Ottaw a Ham ilton Burli ngto n Miss issau ga Bram pton Oakv ille Mark ham Rich mon d Hil l Vaug han

CVA Ranking low low low mid high mid mid mid mid high mid mid high high high high high high high high high high

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 844 $ 1,033 $ 1,030 $ 1,356 $ 1,369 $ 1,605 $ 1,780 $ 1,572 $ 1,627 $ 2,259 $ 2,396 $ 2,293 $ 2,743 $ 2,582 $ 3,017 $ 2,803 $ 2,298 $ 2,634 $ 3,081 $ 2,847 $ 2,969 $ 3,226

2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 524 $ 701 $ 839 $ 1,319 $ 1,341 $ 1,370 $ 1,281 $ 1,498 $ 1,568 $ 1,762 $ 1,690 $ 1,950 $ 1,624 $ 2,322 $ 1,965 $ 2,849 $ 3,528 $ 3,399 $ 3,389 $ 4,543 $ 4,719 $ 5,185

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2007 Property Taxes Per Acre 1,368 1,733 1,869 2,675 2,710 2,975 3,061 3,070 3,196 4,021 4,085 4,243 4,367 4,904 4,982 5,651 5,825 6,034 6,470 7,390 7,688 8,411

Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high

Average By Population

$

4,397

Comparison of Relative Taxes

297

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons—Industrial Vacant Land —by Location
Vacant Land Summary Municipality North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Timmins Thunder Bay Location North North North North North 2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 578 $ 689 $ 844 $ 1,121 $ 2,293 2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 509 $ 422 $ 524 $ 664 $ 1,950 2007 Vac. Land Property Relative Taxes Tax Burden Per Acre Ranking 1,087 low low 1,111 1,368 low 1,785 mid 4,243 high

Location Average

$ $ $ $ $

$

1,919

Vacant Land Summary Municipality Middlesex Centre Norfolk Owen Sound St. Thomas Stratford Tillsonburg Amherstburg Wilmot Sarnia Chatham-Kent Leamington Woodstock Woolwich Brantford Kitchener Waterloo London Guelph Cambridge Windsor Location Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 233 $ 451 $ 820 $ 664 $ 762 $ 743 $ 695 $ 712 $ 901 $ 1,033 $ 917 $ 987 $ 862 $ 1,361 $ 1,356 $ 1,480 $ 1,605 $ 1,572 $ 1,627 $ 2,396

2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 348 $ 619 $ 418 $ 589 $ 623 $ 652 $ 764 $ 829 $ 746 $ 701 $ 817 $ 750 $ 1,126 $ 944 $ 1,319 $ 1,469 $ 1,370 $ 1,498 $ 1,568 $ 1,690

2007 Vac. Land Property Relative Taxes Tax Burden Per Acre Ranking low $ 581 low $ 1,070 $ 1,238 low $ 1,254 low low $ 1,385 $ 1,395 low $ 1,459 low low $ 1,542 $ 1,647 low $ 1,733 low mid $ 1,734 $ 1,737 mid $ 1,988 mid mid $ 2,305 $ 2,675 mid $ 2,949 mid mid $ 2,975 mid $ 3,070 $ 3,196 mid high $ 4,085

Location Average

$

2,001

Vacant Land Summary Municipality Parry Sound Orangeville Bradford West Gwillimbury Barrie Location Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 962 $ 1,227 $ 964 $ 1,369

2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 457 $ 1,088 $ 1,617 $ 1,341

2007 Property Taxes Per Acre $ 1,419 $ 2,314 $ 2,581 $ 2,710

Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low mid mid mid

Location Average

$

2,256

Comparison of Relative Taxes

298

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons—Industrial Vacant Land —by Location (cont’d)
Vacant Land Summary Municipality Cornwall Belleville Cobourg Brockville Kingston Peterborough Ottawa Location Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern 2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 805 $ 899 $ 783 $ 911 $ 1,030 $ 1,116 $ 2,582 2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 533 $ 511 $ 706 $ 601 $ 839 $ 1,009 $ 2,322 2007 Property Taxes Per Acre $ 1,338 $ 1,410 $ 1,488 $ 1,512 $ 1,869 $ 2,125 $ 4,904 Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low low mid mid high

Location Average

$

2,092

Vacant Land Summary Municipality West Lincoln Port Colborne Fort Erie Welland Thorold Lincoln Niagara Falls St. Catharines Grimsby Niagara-on-the-Lake Hamilton Location Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 497 $ 731 $ 871 $ 1,048 $ 1,203 $ 1,314 $ 1,609 $ 1,780 $ 1,828 $ 1,605 $ 3,017

2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 410 $ 471 $ 691 $ 681 $ 962 $ 1,129 $ 1,277 $ 1,281 $ 1,498 $ 1,747 $ 1,965

2007 Property Taxes Per Acre $ 906 $ 1,202 $ 1,562 $ 1,730 $ 2,165 $ 2,443 $ 2,886 $ 3,061 $ 3,326 $ 3,353 $ 4,982

Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low low mid mid mid mid high high high

Location Average

$

2,511

Vacant Land Summary Municipality East Gwillimbury Georgina Clarington King Newmarket Whitchurch-Stouffville Whitby Oshawa Milton Halton Hills Ajax Caledon Pickering Aurora Burlington Mississauga Brampton Oakville Markham Richmond Hill Vaughan Location GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA

2007 Municipal Taxes Per Acre $ 522 $ 1,013 $ 1,242 $ 1,098 $ 1,301 $ 1,273 $ 2,259 $ 2,743 $ 2,058 $ 2,261 $ 2,703 $ 1,753 $ 3,129 $ 2,356 $ 2,803 $ 2,298 $ 2,634 $ 3,081 $ 2,847 $ 2,969 $ 3,226

2007 Education Taxes Per Acre $ 747 $ 1,136 $ 940 $ 1,649 $ 1,820 $ 2,004 $ 1,762 $ 1,624 $ 2,590 $ 2,431 $ 2,118 $ 3,170 $ 2,505 $ 3,326 $ 2,849 $ 3,528 $ 3,399 $ 3,389 $ 4,543 $ 4,719 $ 5,185

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2007 Vac. Land Property Relative Taxes Tax Burden Per Acre Ranking 1,269 low mid 2,149 2,182 mid 2,747 mid mid 3,122 3,277 high 4,021 high high 4,367 high 4,648 4,692 high high 4,822 high 4,923 5,634 high 5,681 high high 5,651 5,825 high 6,034 high high 6,470 7,390 high 7,688 high high 8,411

Location Average

$

4,810

Comparison of Relative Taxes

299

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Summary
Note that the blended ranking is for Standard Industrial and Large Industrial only.
Industrial - Summary Location Municipality Belleville Brockville Cobourg Cornwall Kawartha Lakes Kingston Ottawa Peterborough Ajax Aurora Brampton Burlington Caledon Clarington East Gwillimbury Georgina Halton Hills King Markham Milton Mississauga Newmarket Oakville Oshawa Pickering Richmond Hill Toronto (North) Toronto (South) Toronto (East) Toronto (West) Vaughan Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Fort Erie Grimsby Hamilton Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA GTA Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Niagara/Hamilton Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low low mid high mid high high high high high mid low mid high mid high high high mid high high high high Standard Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low low low low high mid high mid mid high mid mid mid high mid low high high high mid high high high mid high high high high mid high mid low mid high mid mid mid low low high mid mid low low Large Relative Tax Burden Ranking mid mid mid mid low low high high mid mid mid high high low low high mid high high high high low mid mid low mid mid mid high low low high mid low low high low mid low low Relative Tax Burden Industrial Ranking Blended low-mid low-mid low-mid low-mid low low high mid-high mid-high mid mid high mid-high low-mid low-mid high mid-high low mid-high high high mid-high high mid mid-high mid high mid mid-high mid-high mid high low-mid low mid-high mid-high mid low-mid low-mid low mid mid mid mid low low

high high high low high high mid mid high low mid mid low low

Comparison of Relative Taxes

300

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Summary (cont’d)
Industrial - Summary Location Municipality North Bay Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Thunder Bay Timmins Barrie Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Gravenhurst Huntsville Orangeville Parry Sound Amherstburg Brantford Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Guelph Kitchener Leamington London Middlesex Centre Norfolk North Dumfries Owen Sound Sarnia St. Thomas Stratford Tillsonburg Waterloo Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich North North North North North Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Simcoe/Musk./Duff. Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Vac. Land Relative Tax Burden Ranking low low low mid mid mid Standard Relative Tax Burden Ranking low mid high high mid low low low low low mid low low high mid low high mid low mid mid low low high low mid low mid low mid mid high high mid Large Relative Tax Burden Ranking low high high high high low

Relative Tax Burden Industrial Ranking Blended low mid-high high high mid-high low low low low low mid low low high mid low mid mid low mid-high mid low low high low-mid mid low low-mid low-mid mid mid high high mid

mid low low mid mid low mid mid mid mid low low low low low low low mid low high mid mid

mid

low high mid low mid low high mid low mid mid low low mid mid high high mid

Comparison of Relative Taxes

301

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Comparisons - Summary (Blended Standard Industrial and Large Industrial)
low Amherstburg Barrie Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Central Elgin Fort Erie Gravenhurst Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Middlesex Centre Norfolk North Bay Parry Sound Pelham St. Thomas Welland West Lincoln mid Aurora Brampton Cambridge Chatham-Kent Guelph Lincoln London Niagara Falls Orangeville Niagara-on-the-Lake Oshawa Owen Sound Port Colborne Stratford Richmond Hill Tillsonburg Sarnia Whitchurch-Stouffville St. Catharines Thorold Toronto (South) Vaughan Wainfleet Waterloo Wilmot Woolwich low-mid Belleville Brockville Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury mid-high Ajax Caledon Grimsby Halton Hills Hamilton Leamington Markham Newmarket Peterborough Pickering Sault Ste.Marie Timmins Toronto (East) Toronto (West) high Brantford Burlington Georgina Milton Mississauga North Dumfries Oakville Ottawa Sudbury Thunder Bay Toronto (North) Whitby Windsor Woodstock

Comparison of Relative Taxes

302

Municipal Study 2007

Farmland Property Taxes

BMA received requests during the last few years to include a relative tax burden analysis for Farmland properties. The approach undertaken was to contact MPAC to provide the CVA per acre for Class 1 and Class 6 farmland properties to provide the full range of Farmland taxes across the survey. The survey focused on those municipalities with a reasonable proportion of Farmland assessment composition.

Class 1 Farmland property is described as being the highest quality with good drainage, high quality loam texture, is nearly level and there are no physical limitations to the ability to farm the land.

Class 6 Farmland property is described as lower quality land with steep slopes, severe erosion, shallow soil and features that make cultivation impractical.

Comparison of Relative Taxes

303

Municipal Study 2007

Farmland Property Taxes

Municipality Amherstburg Aurora Belleville Brampton Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Grimsby Halton Hills Hamilton Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Milton Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Dumfries Oshawa Ottawa Pelham Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Thorold Timmins Vaughan Wainfleet Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Woolwich Average Median Min Max

CVA Class 1 Farmland $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,600 6,975 1,950 8,575 8,575 6,850 4,575 4,950 5,150 4,975 18,100 2,200 6,400 6,100 5,800 5,100 2,775 18,100 1,650 4,575 9,200 6,100 5,975 7,875 6,200 3,650 6,000 3,300 4,575 7,200 2,500 3,650 2,200 7,875 4,525 6,000 4,950 5,500 3,650 875 7,875 2,200 3,050 4,050 2,925 7,200 6,975 4,050 4,050 5,554 4,975 875 18,100

Taxes Per Acre Taxes Per Class 1 CVA Class 6 Acre Class 6 Farmland Farmland Farmland $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 15.28 19.51 8.46 25.63 18.32 16.00 15.70 20.40 21.14 14.08 50.12 8.40 21.45 22.67 11.89 17.69 9.66 48.31 6.31 15.57 36.27 21.80 22.67 20.09 11.33 14.04 17.76 11.52 11.75 24.61 5.97 13.67 10.01 20.15 18.31 24.45 19.77 19.13 13.63 4.79 19.98 8.77 13.76 12.05 10.81 19.89 17.98 11.96 11.96 17.46 16.00 4.79 50.12 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 700 1,050 300 1,275 1,275 1,000 675 750 775 750 6,325 275 2,250 925 875 775 425 6,325 250 675 1,375 925 900 1,175 925 550 900 500 675 1,075 375 550 275 1,175 675 900 750 825 550 125 1,175 275 450 600 450 1,075 1,050 600 600 1,003 750 125 6,325 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.33 2.94 1.30 3.81 2.72 2.34 2.32 3.09 3.18 2.12 17.51 1.05 7.54 3.44 1.79 2.69 1.48 16.88 0.96 2.30 5.42 3.31 3.41 3.00 1.69 2.12 2.66 1.74 1.73 3.67 0.90 2.06 1.25 3.01 2.73 3.67 3.00 2.87 2.05 0.68 2.98 1.10 2.03 1.78 1.66 2.97 2.71 1.77 1.77 3.09 2.34 0.68 17.51

Comparison of Relative Taxes

304

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

305

Municipal Study 2007

The establishment of water and sewer rates is a municipal responsibility and the absence of standard procedures across Ontario has resulted in the evolution of a great variety of rate structure formats. It is important that rates be based on sound policies and principles and that they are defensible by staff and Council. There are recognized processes to be followed in undertaking water/sewer rate studies, published by various industry leaders including the American and Canadian Waterworks Association (AWWA and CWWA). Municipalities however, are limited in their options based on the availability of information to calculate class rate structures. There will be additional requirements for certain types of user fees that will be addressed through separate legislation/regulations. It is anticipated that additional regulations will require a higher level of disclosure and public meetings prior to establishing rates. Bill 175 (Sustainable Water and Sewer Systems Act—SWSSA) addresses requirements for Water/ Sewer. SWSSA 2002 focuses on full cost recovery. Full costing includes costs of: ♦ Source protection ♦ Operating costs ♦ Financing costs ♦ Renewal, replacement and improvement costs ♦ Extraction, treatment and distribution costs ♦ Other costs as prescribed The SWSSA requires a cost recovery plan and requires an auditor’s opinion. Additionally, it may involve prescribed capping and ministerial exemptions to capping. BMA Management Consulting Inc. has undertaken water and sewer rate studies on behalf of municipalities. During these studies, our findings are consistent with that of the CWWA which states that despite industry trends in rate making, there is and always will be a lot of variation in rate setting practices given that there is no single rate setting approach or rate structure. Municipalities have different objectives in setting rates including but not limited to:
• • • •

Comparison of Water & Sewer Comparison of Water & Sewer User Costs User Costs

Conservation Revenue Stability Fairness Economic Development

• • • •

Financial Sufficiency Rate Stability Ease of Implementation Ease of Understanding

According to CWWA, no single rate structure or rate setting approach will suit every situation. The current trend is towards the constant unit charge rate structure with a constant unit volumetric charge and fixed charges based on meter size. The process typically followed by municipalities in setting water and sewer rates is to: • Identify Evaluation Criteria/Objectives • Identify Revenue Requirements For Each Service • Allocate Costs—Capital, Operating & Maintenance • Calculate Unit Costs—Allocate fixed and volumetric costs • Design The Rate Structure—Inclining, Declining, Uniform, # of blocks, etc. • Assess The Effectiveness In Meeting The Objectives • Assess The Impact On Various Classes And Types Of Users

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

306

Municipal Study 2007

Fixed Costs/Customer Related - Customer costs vary with the number of customers (active services) or the addition of customers served by a water system. These costs are typically a portion or all of the fixed expenses. Customer costs are related directly to the customer’s water service connection and to billing the customers. They include:

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

meter supply and repair billing and collection meter reading service connection and supply overhead/general administration capital related to meter replacement

In addition, it can be argued that the cost of debt service, reserve requirements, capital improvements and depreciation could also be included in the fixed monthly cost.

Municipalities must determine whether to charge separately a fixed cost to its customers and the types of costs that are to be recovered from a monthly charge. These decisions are made as well based on the overall objectives of the municipality. For example, a high allocation to the fixed charge is generally not practical since it results in a volumetric charge that is too low relative to the fixed charge. This is not recommended if water efficiency is an important objective in rate setting. While a high allocation of capital costs to volume will promote water efficiency, there is increased revenue risk brought about by the increased reliance on the volumetric charge to recover fixed costs.

Of the municipalities included in the survey, 57 of the 78 municipalities (73%) charge a monthly fixed charge to their customers to recover customer related costs. The extent to which these fees cover the above noted costs varies across the survey. A comparison was made of water/sewer costs in each municipality. In order to put into perspective the impact of water/sewer costs on the overall burden to a property owner, typical consumptions were estimated for property types that followed predictable patterns. With the assistance of a municipal water/sewer service provider, an analysis of consumptions for residential, commercial and industrial properties was undertaken.

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

307

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Residential Water/Sewer Monthly Fixed Costs
(sorted alphabetically)
Metre size (mm) Metre size (inches) Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls Water 15 5/8 $ 9.42 $ 12.25 N/A $ 5.64 $ 15.89 $ 13.64 $ 13.34 N/A $ 8.35 $ 10.50 $ 8.89 N/A $ 5.25 $ 13.50 $ 10.00 $ 9.42 $ 10.45 N/A N/A $ 18.18 N/A $ 13.64 N/A $ 3.90 $ 8.89 $ 6.55 $ 13.64 $ 14.30 $ 9.19 $ 8.55 N/A $ 13.50 $ 4.24 $ 0.47 N/A N/A $ 8.89 N/A $ 6.00 $ 20.07 Sewer 15 5/8 $ 3.65 $ 18.00 N/A $ 5.78 $ 6.67 $ 3.28 $ 11.34 N/A N/A $ 13.76 $ 9.52 N/A $ 3.11 $ 15.51 $ 13.00 $ 3.65 $ 11.41 N/A N/A $ 31.77 N/A $ 3.28 N/A $ 6.30 $ 9.52 $ 6.55 $ 3.28 $ 14.73 $ 10.20 $ 30.43 N/A $ 24.84 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 9.52 N/A $ 6.00 $ 18.58
Metre size (mm) Metre size (inches) Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound * Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Average
* Includes some of the volumetric through a minimum charge

Water 15 5/8 $ 8.98 $ 14.97 $ 3.51 $ 3.00 $ 8.89 $ 5.31 $ 9.42 N/A $ 18.26 $ 31.58 $ 8.25 $ 17.28 $ 9.42 $ 17.53 N/A $ 9.75 $ 11.94 $ 10.00 $ 14.50 N/A $ 12.80 N/A $ 4.10 $ 14.70 $ 2.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 2.42 $ 4.48 $ 3.00 N/A $ 9.42 N/A $ 4.00 $ 24.42 N/A $ 13.00 $ 10.42

Sewer 15 5/8 $ 20.97 $ 10.15 N/A $ 3.00 $ 9.52 $ 5.31 $ 3.65 N/A $ 17.35 $ 36.44 $ 6.17 N/A $ 3.65 $ 19.66 N/A $ 8.78 N/A $ 10.00 N/A N/A $ 14.59 N/A $ 2.87 $ 14.70 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 3.92 $ 3.00 N/A $ 3.65 N/A $ 4.38 $ 25.26 N/A $ 13.00 $ 11.12

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

308

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Residential Water/Sewer Fixed Costs as a Percentage of Total Annual Water/Sewer Costs (sorted alphabetically)

Municpality Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Grimsby Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls

Fixed Annual Fixed as 5/8 % of Total $ 157 26% $ 363 43% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 137 271 203 296 100 291 221 100 348 276 157 262 25% 33% 19% 36% 16% 51% 33% 15% 29% 42% 26% 47%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

599 203 122 221 157 203 348 233 468 460 51 6

53% 19% 20% 33% 26% 19% 30% 30% 59% 67% 5% 1%

$ $ $

221 144 464

33% 21% 51%

Municpality Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Average Median Min Max

Fixed Annual Fixed as 5/8 % of Total $ 359 41% $ 301 28% $ 42 8% $ 72 11% $ 221 33% $ 127 18% $ 157 26% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 427 816 173 207 157 446 222 143 240 174 329 84 353 30 55% 99% 24% 33% 26% 47% 31% 32% 30% 22% 37% 15% 50% 6%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

29 101 72 157 101 596 312 237 207 816

5% 11% 11% 26% 14% 72% 31% 31% 29% 0% 99%

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

309

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs (sorted alphabetically)
Municipality - Water & Sewer Costs Volume Meter Size Ajax Amherstburg Aurora Barrie Belleville Bracebridge Bradford West Gwillimbury Brampton Brantford Brockville Burlington Caledon Cambridge Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury Fort Erie Georgina Gravenhurst Guelph Halton Hills Hamilton Huntsville Kawartha Lakes King Kingston Kitchener Leamington Lincoln London Markham Middlesex Centre Milton Mississauga Newmarket Niagara Falls $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Residential 300 m3 5/8" 604 840 514 554 816 1,050 813 319 619 572 675 319 667 1,215 660 604 563 527 651 1,132 540 1,050 602 675 595 1,050 1,149 767 799 712 684 977 726 475 1,016 675 319 677 901 Residential 360 m3 5/8" 693 935 617 669 916 1,220 923 383 723 656 772 383 780 1,389 737 693 636 527 781 1,239 649 1,220 698 772 705 1,220 1,310 913 873 855 788 1,162 872 570 1,219 772 383 784 988 Commercial 10,000 m3 2" $ 14,145 $ 16,807 $ 17,126 $ 18,023 $ 27,514 $ 29,071 $ 25,696 $ 10,649 $ 17,423 $ 12,374 $ 18,541 $ 10,649 $ 19,055 $ 29,248 $ 13,706 $ 14,145 $ 14,015 $ 7,439 $ 28,885 $ 19,498 $ 18,014 $ 29,071 $ 17,127 $ 18,541 $ 19,029 $ 29,071 $ 27,710 $ 24,304 $ 12,073 $ 23,747 $ 17,554 $ 31,150 $ 15,089 $ 15,838 $ 32,800 $ 18,541 $ 10,649 $ 17,924 $ 17,351 Industrial 30,000 m3 3" $ 40,825 $ 48,940 $ 51,378 $ 53,736 $ 80,930 $ 87,411 $ 73,696 $ 31,946 $ 52,131 $ 30,325 $ 50,806 $ 31,946 $ 56,994 $ 87,048 $ 35,594 $ 40,825 $ 39,439 $ 22,316 $ 86,655 $ 59,873 $ 54,043 $ 87,411 $ 50,322 $ 50,806 $ 56,354 $ 87,411 $ 83,931 $ 72,834 $ 33,330 $ 71,241 $ 52,338 $ 93,017 $ 35,526 $ 47,514 $ 98,400 $ 50,806 $ 31,946 $ 53,484 $ 49,269 Industrial 100,000 m3 4" $ 125,465 $ 161,268 $ 171,260 $ 177,632 $ 242,189 $ 285,881 $ 241,696 $ 106,486 $ 173,267 $ 84,495 $ 159,956 $ 106,486 $ 189,414 $ 289,348 $ 75,202 $ 125,465 $ 125,985 $ 74,385 $ 291,055 $ 185,992 $ 180,144 $ 285,881 $ 164,093 $ 159,956 $ 184,708 $ 285,881 $ 271,875 $ 242,689 $ 103,727 $ 237,470 $ 174,082 $ 309,235 $ 114,827 $ 158,380 $ 328,000 $ 159,956 $ 106,486 $ 177,944 $ 155,883 Industrial 500,000 m3 6" $ 578,633 $ 801,048 $ 856,300 $ 883,928 $ 1,049,766 $ 1,415,681 $ 1,201,696 $ 532,428 $ 865,363 $ 383,403 $ 777,166 $ 532,428 $ 945,008 $ 1,445,348 $ 300,132 $ 578,633 $ 616,260 $ 371,925 $ 1,459,055 $ 900,587 $ 900,718 $ 1,415,681 $ 807,672 $ 777,166 $ 916,983 $ 1,415,681 $ 1,342,313 $ 1,213,289 $ 498,821 $ 1,187,350 $ 869,762 $ 1,544,035 $ 567,436 $ 791,900 $ 1,640,000 $ 777,166 $ 532,428 $ 889,144 $ 747,879 Industrial 1,000,000 m3 6" $ 1,141,128 $ 1,594,090 $ 1,712,600 $ 1,765,678 $ 2,056,633 $ 2,827,931 $ 2,401,686 $ 1,064,856 $ 1,730,363 $ 743,760 $ 1,533,610 $ 1,064,856 $ 1,889,855 $ 2,890,348 $ 580,130 $ 1,141,128 $ 1,226,255 $ 743,850 $ 2,919,047 $ 1,788,587 $ 1,801,436 $ 2,827,931 $ 1,607,675 $ 1,533,610 $ 1,829,975 $ 2,827,931 $ 2,677,313 $ 2,426,539 $ 985,320 $ 2,374,700 $ 1,739,357 $ 3,087,535 $ 1,054,649 $ 1,583,800 $ 3,280,000 $ 1,533,610 $ 1,064,856 $ 1,778,144 $ 1,476,279

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Note: Aurora, London and St. Thomas also have storm sewer collected on rates (excluded from above table)

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

310

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs (sorted alphabetically)
Municipality - Water & Sewer Costs Volume Meter Size Niagara-on-the-Lake Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries Oakville Orangeville Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Parry Sound Pelham Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne Richmond Hill Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines St. Thomas * Stratford Sudbury Thorold Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Toronto Vaughan Wainfleet Wasaga Beach Waterloo Welland Wellesley West Lincoln Whitby Whitchurch-Stouffville Wilmot Windsor Woodstock Woolwich Average Median Min Max Residential 300 m3 5/8" 878 1,081 509 672 675 724 604 695 773 825 712 627 604 952 511 711 446 789 783 594 894 706 560 704 498 475 518 N/A 402 638 940 672 553 604 502 740 832 422 1,002 700 675 319 1,215 Residential 360 m3 5/8" 982 1,237 601 792 772 844 693 766 843 844 820 711 693 1,053 613 809 545 899 905 691 1,007 801 610 787 591 573 621 N/A 402 760 1,108 792 633 693 602 868 879 497 1,140 804 780 383 1,389 Commercial 10,000 m3 2" $ 17,648 $ 20,875 $ 12,942 $ 20,170 $ 18,541 $ 20,282 $ 14,145 $ 21,266 $ 14,613 $ 39,612 $ 18,153 $ 13,079 $ 14,145 $ 18,154 $ 17,033 $ 18,339 $ 13,911 $ 18,828 $ 12,550 $ 16,506 $ 20,178 $ 15,445 $ 8,436 $ 16,041 $ 15,623 $ 16,311 $ 17,250 N/A N/A $ 20,434 $ 28,265 $ 20,170 $ 13,486 $ 14,145 $ 16,728 $ 21,416 $ 12,005 $ 12,660 $ 24,512 $ $ $ $ 18,598 17,601 7,439 39,612 Industrial 30,000 m3 3" $ 52,226 $ 57,799 $ 35,240 $ 60,339 $ 50,806 $ 60,146 $ 40,825 $ 63,798 $ 41,881 $ 118,748 $ 54,113 $ 35,860 $ 40,825 $ 55,489 $ 51,099 $ 52,831 $ 38,892 $ 55,992 $ 53,158 $ 48,893 $ 59,195 $ 46,885 $ 25,260 $ 46,538 $ 46,811 $ 48,827 $ 51,750 N/A N/A $ 61,311 $ 85,028 $ 60,339 $ 40,153 $ 40,825 $ 50,184 $ 64,046 $ 31,015 $ 37,894 $ 72,780 $ $ $ $ 54,745 51,564 22,316 118,748 Industrial 100,000 m3 4" $ 173,249 $ 188,236 $ 113,281 $ 200,564 $ 159,956 $ 199,637 $ 125,465 $ 212,660 $ 134,744 $ 294,939 $ 179,973 $ 101,617 $ 125,465 $ 174,848 $ 170,330 $ 169,173 $ 125,963 $ 184,920 $ 175,127 $ 161,842 $ 192,499 $ 156,925 $ 84,141 $ 149,723 $ 155,966 $ 162,033 $ 172,500 N/A N/A $ 203,411 $ 281,141 $ 200,564 $ 133,486 $ 125,465 $ 167,280 $ 213,351 $ 91,704 $ 128,276 $ 233,780 $ 176,558 $ 170,795 $ 74,385 $ 328,000 Industrial 500,000 m3 6" $ 864,809 $ 924,033 $ 559,230 $ 1,001,355 $ 777,166 $ 1,003,065 $ 578,633 $ 1,063,300 $ 658,109 $ 1,390,714 $ 899,173 $ 410,053 $ 578,633 $ 852,372 $ 851,650 $ 828,001 $ 622,867 $ 918,822 $ 865,782 $ 806,720 $ 1,602,749 $ 785,725 $ 420,605 $ 734,403 $ 779,710 $ 788,173 $ 862,500 N/A N/A $ 1,015,699 $ 1,400,767 $ 1,001,355 $ 666,819 $ 578,633 $ 836,400 $ 1,065,951 $ 416,515 $ 580,029 $ 1,153,780 $ 874,665 $ 852,011 $ 300,132 $ 1,640,000 Industrial 1,000,000 m3 6" $ 1,729,259 $ 1,839,025 $ 1,116,666 $ 2,001,355 $ 1,533,610 $ 1,990,637 $ 1,141,128 $ 2,126,600 $ 1,310,378 $ 2,802,934 $ 1,798,173 $ 790,050 $ 1,141,128 $ 1,695,372 $ 1,703,300 $ 1,643,291 $ 1,243,862 $ 1,833,822 $ 1,726,332 $ 1,612,054 $ 1,891,950 $ 1,571,725 $ 841,185 $ 1,459,397 $ 1,559,390 $ 1,555,167 $ 1,725,000 N/A N/A $ 2,030,699 $ 2,799,417 $ 2,001,355 $ 1,333,486 $ 1,141,128 $ 1,672,800 $ 2,131,601 $ 808,865 $ 1,147,927 $ 2,303,780 $ $ $ $ 1,724,486 1,699,336 580,130 3,280,000

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Note: Aurora, London and St. Thomas also have storm sewer collected on rates (excluded from above table)

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

311

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs—Residential (sorted lowest to highest)
Municipality - Water & Sewer Costs Meter Size Brampton Caledon Mississauga Wasaga Beach Woodstock Sault Ste. Marie Markham Toronto Timmins Whitchurch-Stouffville North Bay Richmond Hill Aurora Vaughan Cornwall Georgina West Lincoln Barrie Thunder Bay Cobourg Brockville Stratford Hamilton Guelph Ajax Clarington Oshawa Pickering Whitby Brantford Peterborough Waterloo East Gwillimbury Chatham-Kent Cambridge North Dumfries Wellesley Burlington Halton Hills Milton Oakville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Residential 300 m3 5/8" 319 319 319 402 422 446 475 475 498 502 509 511 514 518 527 540 553 554 560 563 572 594 595 602 604 604 604 604 604 619 627 638 651 660 667 672 672 675 675 675 675 Residential 300 m3 Ranking low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid
Municipality - Water & Sewer Costs Meter Size Newmarket Leamington Ottawa Tillsonburg Thorold Sarnia Kitchener Pelham Orangeville London Wilmot King Owen Sound St. Thomas * St. Catharines Kingston Bradford West Gwillimbury Belleville Parry Sound Windsor Amherstburg Niagara-on-the-Lake Sudbury Niagara Falls Welland Port Colborne Lincoln Woolwich Middlesex Centre Bracebridge Gravenhurst Huntsville Norfolk Fort Erie Kawartha Lakes Central Elgin Wainfleet Average Median Min Max $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Residential 300 m3 5/8" 677 684 695 704 706 711 712 712 724 726 740 767 773 783 789 799 813 816 825 832 840 878 894 901 940 952 977 1,002 1,016 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,081 1,132 1,149 1,215 N/A 700 675 319 1,215 Residential 300 m3 Ranking mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high N/A

$ $ $ $

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

312

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs—Commercial (sorted lowest to highest)
Municipality - Water & Commercial Sewer Costs Meter Size Cornwall Thunder Bay Brampton Caledon Mississauga Windsor Kingston Brockville St. Thomas * Woodstock North Bay Peterborough West Lincoln Chatham-Kent Sault Ste. Marie Cobourg Ajax Clarington Oshawa Pickering Whitby Owen Sound London Thorold Timmins Markham Tillsonburg Toronto Stratford Whitchurch-Stouffville Amherstburg Richmond Hill Aurora Guelph Vaughan Niagara Falls Brantford Leamington Niagara-on-the-Lake 10,000 m3 2" $ 7,439 $ 8,436 $ 10,649 $ 10,649 $ 10,649 $ 12,005 $ 12,073 $ 12,374 $ 12,550 $ 12,660 $ 12,942 $ 13,079 $ 13,486 $ 13,706 $ 13,911 $ 14,015 $ 14,145 $ 14,145 $ 14,145 $ 14,145 $ 14,145 $ 14,613 $ 15,089 $ 15,445 $ 15,623 $ 15,838 $ 16,041 $ 16,311 $ 16,506 $ 16,728 $ 16,807 $ 17,033 $ 17,126 $ 17,127 $ 17,250 $ 17,351 $ 17,423 $ 17,554 $ 17,648 Commercial 10,000 m3 Ranking low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

Municipality - Water & Commercial Sewer Costs 10,000 m3 Meter Size 2" Newmarket $ 17,924 Georgina $ 18,014 Barrie $ 18,023 Pelham $ 18,153 Port Colborne $ 18,154 Sarnia $ 18,339 Burlington $ 18,541 Halton Hills $ 18,541 Milton $ 18,541 Oakville $ 18,541 St. Catharines $ 18,828 Hamilton $ 19,029 Cambridge $ 19,055 Fort Erie $ 19,498 North Dumfries $ 20,170 Wellesley $ 20,170 Sudbury $ 20,178 Orangeville $ 20,282 Waterloo $ 20,434 Norfolk $ 20,875 Ottawa $ 21,266 Wilmot $ 21,416 Kitchener $ 23,747 King $ 24,304 Woolwich $ 24,512 Bradford West Gwillimbury $ 25,696 Belleville $ 27,514 Kawartha Lakes $ 27,710 Welland $ 28,265 East Gwillimbury $ 28,885 Bracebridge $ 29,071 Gravenhurst $ 29,071 Huntsville $ 29,071 Central Elgin $ 29,248 Lincoln $ 31,150 Middlesex Centre $ 32,800 Parry Sound $ 39,612 Wasaga Beach N/A Wainfleet N/A Average Median Min Max $ $ $ $ 18,598 17,601 7,439 39,612

Commercial 10,000 m3 Ranking mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

313

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs—Industrial (sorted lowest to highest)
Municipality - Water & Industrial Sewer Costs Meter Size Chatham-Kent Brockville Cornwall Peterborough Windsor Thunder Bay Kingston London Brampton Caledon Mississauga North Bay Ajax Clarington Oshawa Pickering Whitby Woodstock Cobourg Sault Ste. Marie Owen Sound West Lincoln Tillsonburg Niagara Falls Burlington Halton Hills Milton Oakville Toronto Timmins Thorold Markham Amherstburg Guelph Stratford Sarnia Whitchurch-Stouffville Port Colborne Richmond Hill Aurora Vaughan St. Thomas * Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial 1,000,000 m3 6" $ 580,130 $ 743,760 $ 743,850 $ 790,050 $ 808,865 $ 841,185 $ 985,320 $ 1,054,649 $ 1,064,856 $ 1,064,856 $ 1,064,856 $ 1,116,666 $ 1,141,128 $ 1,141,128 $ 1,141,128 $ 1,141,128 $ 1,141,128 $ 1,147,927 $ 1,226,255 $ 1,243,862 $ 1,310,378 $ 1,333,486 $ 1,459,397 $ 1,476,279 $ 1,533,610 $ 1,533,610 $ 1,533,610 $ 1,533,610 $ 1,555,167 $ 1,559,390 $ 1,571,725 $ 1,583,800 $ 1,594,090 $ 1,607,675 $ 1,612,054 $ 1,643,291 $ 1,672,800 $ 1,695,372 $ 1,703,300 $ 1,712,600 $ 1,725,000 $ 1,726,332 Industrial 1,000,000 m3 Ranking low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

30,000 m3 30,000 m3 3" Ranking $ 35,594 low $ 30,325 low $ 22,316 low $ 35,860 low $ 31,015 low $ 25,260 low $ 33,330 low $ 35,526 low $ 31,946 low $ 31,946 low $ 31,946 low $ 35,240 low $ 40,825 low $ 40,825 low $ 40,825 low $ 40,825 low $ 40,825 low $ 37,894 low $ 39,439 low $ 38,892 low $ 41,881 low $ 40,153 low $ 46,538 low $ 49,269 mid $ 50,806 mid $ 50,806 mid $ 50,806 mid $ 50,806 mid $ 48,827 mid $ 46,811 low $ 46,885 low $ 47,514 low $ 48,940 mid $ 50,322 mid $ 48,893 mid $ 52,831 mid $ 50,184 mid $ 55,489 mid $ 51,099 mid $ 51,378 mid $ 51,750 mid $ 53,158 mid

100,000 m3 100,000 m3 4" Ranking $ 75,202 low $ 84,495 low $ 74,385 low $ 101,617 low $ 91,704 low $ 84,141 low $ 103,727 low $ 114,827 low $ 106,486 low $ 106,486 low $ 106,486 low $ 113,281 low $ 125,465 low $ 125,465 low $ 125,465 low $ 125,465 low $ 125,465 low $ 128,276 low $ 125,985 low $ 125,963 low $ 134,744 low $ 133,486 low $ 149,723 low $ 155,883 low $ 159,956 mid $ 159,956 mid $ 159,956 mid $ 159,956 mid $ 162,033 mid $ 155,966 low $ 156,925 low $ 158,380 mid $ 161,268 mid $ 164,093 mid $ 161,842 mid $ 169,173 mid $ 167,280 mid $ 174,848 mid $ 170,330 mid $ 171,260 mid $ 172,500 mid $ 175,127 mid

500,000 m3 500,000 m3 6" Ranking $ 300,132 low $ 383,403 low $ 371,925 low $ 410,053 low $ 416,515 low $ 420,605 low $ 498,821 low $ 567,436 low $ 532,428 low $ 532,428 low $ 532,428 low $ 559,230 low $ 578,633 low $ 578,633 low $ 578,633 low $ 578,633 low $ 578,633 low $ 580,029 low $ 616,260 low $ 622,867 low $ 658,109 low $ 666,819 low $ 734,403 low $ 747,879 low $ 777,166 low $ 777,166 low $ 777,166 low $ 777,166 low $ 788,173 mid $ 779,710 mid $ 785,725 mid $ 791,900 mid $ 801,048 mid $ 807,672 mid $ 806,720 mid $ 828,001 mid $ 836,400 mid $ 852,372 mid $ 851,650 mid $ 856,300 mid $ 862,500 mid $ 865,782 mid

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

314

Municipal Study 2007

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs—Industrial (sorted lowest to highest)
Municipality - Water & Sewer Costs Meter Size Niagara-on-the-Lake Brantford Leamington Barrie Newmarket Fort Erie Pelham Georgina Hamilton St. Catharines Norfolk Cambridge Sudbury Orangeville North Dumfries Wellesley Waterloo Belleville Ottawa Wilmot Woolwich Kitchener Bradford West Gwillimbury King Kawartha Lakes Welland Parry Sound Bracebridge Gravenhurst Huntsville Central Elgin East Gwillimbury Lincoln Middlesex Centre Wasaga Beach Wainfleet Average Median Min Max Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial 1,000,000 m3 6" $ 1,729,259 $ 1,730,363 $ 1,739,357 $ 1,765,678 $ 1,778,144 $ 1,788,587 $ 1,798,173 $ 1,801,436 $ 1,829,975 $ 1,833,822 $ 1,839,025 $ 1,889,855 $ 1,891,950 $ 1,990,637 $ 2,001,355 $ 2,001,355 $ 2,030,699 $ 2,056,633 $ 2,126,600 $ 2,131,601 $ 2,303,780 $ 2,374,700 $ 2,401,686 $ 2,426,539 $ 2,677,313 $ 2,799,417 $ 2,802,934 $ 2,827,931 $ 2,827,931 $ 2,827,931 $ 2,890,348 $ 2,919,047 $ 3,087,535 $ 3,280,000 N/A N/A $ $ $ $ 1,724,486 1,699,336 580,130 3,280,000 Industrial 1,000,000 m3 Ranking mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high 2006 population

30,000 m3 30,000 m3 3" Ranking $ 52,226 mid $ 52,131 mid $ 52,338 mid $ 53,736 mid $ 53,484 mid $ 59,873 high $ 54,113 mid $ 54,043 mid $ 56,354 mid $ 55,992 mid $ 57,799 high $ 56,994 mid $ 59,195 high $ 60,146 high $ 60,339 high $ 60,339 high $ 61,311 high $ 80,930 high $ 63,798 high $ 64,046 high $ 72,780 high $ 71,241 high $ 73,696 high $ 72,834 high $ 83,931 high $ 85,028 high $ 118,748 high $ 87,411 high $ 87,411 high $ 87,411 high $ 87,048 high $ 86,655 high $ 93,017 high $ 98,400 high N/A N/A $ $ $ $ 54,745 51,564 22,316 118,748

100,000 m3 100,000 m3 4" Ranking $ 173,249 mid $ 173,267 mid $ 174,082 mid $ 177,632 mid $ 177,944 mid $ 185,992 mid $ 179,973 mid $ 180,144 mid $ 184,708 mid $ 184,920 mid $ 188,236 high $ 189,414 high $ 192,499 high $ 199,637 high $ 200,564 high $ 200,564 high $ 203,411 high $ 242,189 high $ 212,660 high $ 213,351 high $ 233,780 high $ 237,470 high $ 241,696 high $ 242,689 high $ 271,875 high $ 281,141 high $ 294,939 high $ 285,881 high $ 285,881 high $ 285,881 high $ 289,348 high $ 291,055 high $ 309,235 high $ 328,000 high N/A N/A $ 176,558 $ 170,795 $ 74,385 $ 328,000

500,000 m3 500,000 m3 6" Ranking $ 864,809 mid $ 865,363 mid $ 869,762 mid $ 883,928 mid $ 889,144 mid $ 900,587 mid $ 899,173 mid $ 900,718 mid $ 916,983 mid $ 918,822 mid $ 924,033 high $ 945,008 high $ 1,602,749 high $ 1,003,065 high $ 1,001,355 high $ 1,001,355 high $ 1,015,699 high $ 1,049,766 high $ 1,063,300 high $ 1,065,951 high $ 1,153,780 high $ 1,187,350 high $ 1,201,696 high $ 1,213,289 high $ 1,342,313 high $ 1,400,767 high $ 1,390,714 high $ 1,415,681 high $ 1,415,681 high $ 1,415,681 high $ 1,445,348 high $ 1,459,055 high $ 1,544,035 high $ 1,640,000 high N/A N/A $ 874,665 $ 852,011 $ 300,132 $ 1,640,000

14,587 90,192 28,833 128,430 74,295 29,925 16,155 42,346 504,559 131,989 62,563 120,371 157,857 26,925 9,063 9,789 97,475 48,821 812,129 17,097 19,658 204,668 24,039 19,487 74,561 50,331 5,818 15,652 11,046 18,280 12,723 21,069 21,722 15,589 15,029 6,601

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

315

Municipal Study 2007

Trends and Observations - Water/Sewer Costs

There are a number of factors that cause a municipality’s ranking to vary across the property types, including minimum/service charge, meter size differential charges and rate structure Uniform rates are the most common water/sewer structure—with approximately 56% of the municipalities surveyed using this method Declining rate structures are the second most common type of rate structure—this method used by approximately 23% of the municipalities surveyed Approximately 1% have an inclining rate structure 2 of the municipalities in the survey (Cornwall and Wasaga Beach) have a flat rate residential structure. The City of London and the City of Kingston have an inclining residential rate structure and a declining structure for commercial and industrial users. The Region of Halton and the City of Toronto have a rate structure in which the rates increase initially and then beyond a certain point, decline. The City of Toronto has a 7 block rate structure, with 5 block rates in the Region of Halton Some municipalities charged a minimum fee and others had a service charge structure based on the size of the metre. In some cases, such as the Regions of York and Niagara, the upper tier municipality sells water/sewer to the local tier, who then retails these services to property owners. As a result, there are different rates across each of the local municipalities in these regions.

• •

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

316

Municipal Study 2007

Water/Sewer Costs Type of Rate Structure
Fixed Water Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Water Rate Structure Residential D U U I D U I U U D I,D U U U D D I F I U U U D U I,D U U U I I U U U I U U I,D U U U Water Rate Structure Non-Res. D U U I D U D U U D I,D U U U D D I U I U U U D U I,D U U U I D U U U D U U I,D U U U

Municipality Ajax (Durham) Amherstburg (Essex) Aurora (York) Barrie (Simcoe) Belleville (Hastings) Bracebridge (Muskoka) Bradford West Gwillimbury (Simcoe) Brampton (Peel) Brantford (Brant) Brockville (Leeds and Grenville) Burlington (Halton) Caledon (Peel) Cambridge (Waterloo) Central Elgin (Elgin) Chatham-Kent Clarington (Durham) Cobourg (Northumberland) Cornwall (Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry) East Gwillimbury (York) Fort Erie (Niagara) Georgina (York) Gravenhurst (Muskoka) Grimsby (Niagara) Guelph (Wellington) Halton Hills (Halton) Hamilton Huntsville (Muskoka) Kawartha Lakes King (York Region) Kingston (Frontenac) Kitchener (Waterloo Region) Leamington (Essex) Lincoln (Niagara Region) London Markham (York Region) Middlesex Centre (Middlesex) Milton (Halton Region) Mississauga (Peel Region) Newmarket (York Region) Niagara Falls (Niagara R)

Municipality Niagara-on-the-Lake (Niagara R) Norfolk North Bay North Dumfries (Waterloo) Oakville (Halton Region) Orangeville (Dufferin) Oshawa (Durham) Ottawa Owen Sound (Grey) Parry Sound (Parry Sound) Pelham (Niagara Region) Peterborough Pickering (Durham Region) Port Colborne (Niagara Region) Richmond Hill (York Region) Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines (Niagara Region) St. Thomas Stratford (Perth Region) Sudbury Thorold (Niagara Region) Thunder Bay Tillsonburg (Oxford) Timmins (Cochrane District) Toronto Vaughan (York Region) Wainfleet (Niagara Region) Wasaga Beach (Simcoe) Waterloo (Waterloo Region) Welland (Niagara Region) Wellesley (Waterloo) West Lincoln (Niagara Region) Whitby (Durham Region) Whitchurch (York Region) Wilmot (Waterloo) Windsor Woodstock (Oxford) Woolwich (Waterloo)

Fixed Water Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N/A N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y

Water Rate Water Rate Structure - Structure Residential Non-Res. U U D D D D U U I,D I,D U U D D U U I I D D U U D D D D U U U U U U I I,D U U U U D D U U D D D D U U U U I,D I,D U U N/A N/A F F U U U U U U D D D D U U U U Summer Levy Summer D D U U

Legend U= Uniform I = Inclining D = Declining F = Flat I,D = Inclining, then Declining

Comparison of Water/Sewer Costs

317

Municipal Study 2007

Taxes as a % of Income

Taxes as a % of Income

318

Municipal Study 2007

Taxes as % of Income Taxes as aa % of Income

A comparison was made earlier in the report of relative property tax burdens and water/ sewer costs on comparable properties. This section of the report provides a comparison of the allocation of gross income to fund municipal services on a typical household in each municipality. The approach used to calculate taxes as a percentage of income was to compare the average incomes from the 2007 Financial Post Canadian Demographics in a municipality against the tax burden on a typical home in the municipality using average dwelling values (2001 Stats Canada) and applying the 2007 residential tax rates for each municipality.

Taxes as a % of Income

319

Municipal Study 2007

Average Household Income
2007 Est. Avg. Household Income $ 51,200 $ 53,500 $ 53,700 $ 53,900 $ 55,500 $ 56,100 $ 56,900 $ 57,000 $ 57,900 $ 59,300 $ 59,500 $ 60,100 $ 60,200 $ 60,200 $ 60,800 $ 61,000 $ 62,200 $ 62,400 $ 62,400 $ 62,500 $ 62,700 $ 62,700 $ 63,000 $ 63,100 $ 63,900 $ 64,200 $ 64,400 $ 65,700 $ 65,800 $ 66,100 $ 66,400 $ 66,600 $ 66,900 $ 67,200 $ 67,900 $ 68,500 $ 68,600 $ 69,600 $ 69,600 $ 71,200 $ 72,240 $ 74,200 2007 Est. Avg. Household Income low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

Municipality Gravenhurst Parry Sound Cornwall Port Colborne Owen Sound Welland Fort Erie Sault Ste. Marie Wasaga Beach Wainfleet * Timmins Belleville North Bay St. Catharines Huntsville St. Thomas Niagara Falls Peterborough Kawartha Lakes Sudbury Thorold Brantford Chatham-Kent Thunder Bay Woodstock Brockville Norfolk Tillsonburg Cobourg Kingston Stratford Sarnia Hamilton London Windsor Kitchener Leamington Georgina Oshawa Bracebridge Wellesley ** West Lincoln

Municipality Orangeville Cambridge Barrie Lincoln Guelph Toronto Central Elgin Pelham Wilmot Clarington Bradford West Gwillimbury North Dumfries** Amherstburg Ottawa Woolwich Grimsby Waterloo Brampton Ajax Niagara-on-the-Lake Mississauga Burlington Middlesex Centre Whitby Milton Newmarket Halton Hills Whitchurch-Stouffville Richmond Hill Markham East Gwillimbury Pickering Vaughan Caledon Oakville Aurora King Average Median Min Max

2007 Est. Avg. Household Income $ 75,000 $ 76,700 $ 77,400 $ 79,000 $ 79,200 $ 79,800 $ 80,700 $ 83,800 $ 84,600 $ 85,200 $ 85,500 $ 85,977 $ 87,300 $ 87,400 $ 88,200 $ 91,400 $ 92,100 $ 94,100 $ 95,700 $ 95,700 $ 96,800 $ 97,100 $ 97,800 $ 99,800 $ 99,900 $ 102,200 $ 104,700 $ 107,300 $ 109,300 $ 112,400 $ 113,800 $ 116,000 $ 121,200 $ 121,800 $ 130,500 $ 131,700 $ 161,100 $ $ $ $ 79,304 71,200 51,200 161,100

2007 Est. Avg. Household Income mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

source Financial Post Canadian Demographics 2007 ** source Stats Canada 2001 and inflated to 2007 levels

Taxes as a % of Income

320

Municipal Study 2007

Average Dwelling Value
(Note—this will be updated within the next few months as new information is available from Stats Canada.

Municipality Cornwall Timmins Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Owen Sound Welland Port Colborne St. Thomas Thunder Bay Fort Erie Parry Sound Brockville Chatham-Kent Belleville Sarnia North Bay Brantford Woodstock Thorold Niagara Falls Peterborough St. Catharines Windsor Norfolk Tillsonburg Leamington Gravenhurst Kawartha Lakes Cobourg London Kitchener Kingston Wasaga Beach Oshawa Stratford Central Elgin Huntsville Hamilton Wainfleet Bracebridge Cambridge Barrie Georgina

2007 Est. Avg. Household Income low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid low low mid mid mid mid low mid mid mid low mid low mid mid mid mid

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

2001 Average Value of Dwelling 98,084 113,941 114,023 121,671 121,720 121,754 123,012 126,935 127,452 127,519 129,029 129,550 131,150 132,650 133,176 135,852 136,482 137,224 137,876 139,813 140,096 141,937 142,002 145,075 146,827 146,831 146,899 149,399 150,135 155,689 157,719 158,363 158,492 159,102 160,527 162,753 163,485 166,783 167,850 167,983 168,719 172,452 175,803

2001 Average Value of Dwelling low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low low mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid

Municipality West Lincoln Lincoln Orangeville Amherstburg Guelph Clarington Grimsby Waterloo Ottawa Pelham Wilmot Woolwich Wellesley Ajax Bradford West Gwillimbury Whitby Brampton North Dumfries Burlington Middlesex Centre Pickering Newmarket Halton Hills Niagara-on-the-Lake Mississauga Milton East Gwillimbury Toronto Aurora Caledon Oakville Markham Richmond Hill Vaughan Whitchurch-Stouffville King Average Median Min Max

2007 Est. Avg. Household Income mid mid mid high mid mid high high high mid mid high mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high mid high high high high high high high high

2001 Average Value of Dwelling $ 177,531 $ 178,289 $ 180,197 $ 181,735 $ 184,123 $ 184,534 $ 187,426 $ 193,829 $ 196,698 $ 202,771 $ 203,026 $ 204,056 $ 204,536 $ 214,480 $ 214,587 $ 217,017 $ 218,799 $ 224,706 $ 228,054 $ 230,666 $ 232,163 $ 242,234 $ 243,114 $ 247,634 $ 255,365 $ 255,978 $ 262,065 $ 282,715 $ 285,768 $ 295,583 $ 306,209 $ 306,493 $ 312,071 $ 320,999 $ 324,797 $ 386,416 $ $ $ $ 186,462 167,983 98,084 386,416

2001 Average Value of Dwelling mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high

Note that there is a strong relationship between average household income and the average dwelling value.

Taxes as a % of Income

321

Municipal Study 2007

Property Taxes as a Percentage of Income
2007 Est. Avg. Household Income high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high mid low high high mid mid low mid mid high high mid high high high mid mid low mid mid mid low low low mid low low 2001 Average Value of Dwelling high high high high high high high high high high high high high high mid high mid high high mid high mid high high mid high low mid mid mid high mid high high high mid low low mid mid low low low low mid low mid Property Property Taxes as a Taxes as a % of % of Household Household Income Income 2.3% low 2.3% low 2.4% low 2.4% low 2.4% low 2.5% low 2.5% low 2.6% low 2.6% low 2.6% low 2.7% low 2.7% low 2.7% low 2.7% low 2.7% low 2.7% low 2.8% low 2.8% low 2.8% low 2.8% low 2.8% low 2.9% low 2.9% low 3.0% low 3.0% low 3.0% low 3.0% low 3.0% low 3.0% low 3.0% low 3.1% mid 3.1% mid 3.1% mid 3.1% mid 3.1% mid 3.1% mid 3.1% mid 3.2% mid 3.2% mid 3.2% mid 3.2% mid 3.3% mid 3.3% mid 3.3% mid 3.3% mid 3.3% mid 3.3% mid

Municipality Caledon Milton Oakville Halton Hills Aurora Woolwich Burlington East Gwillimbury King Mississauga Newmarket Middlesex Centre North Dumfries Vaughan Ottawa Pickering Amherstburg Brampton Markham Waterloo Wilmot Wasaga Beach Richmond Hill Whitby Cambridge Toronto Parry Sound Barrie Guelph Grimsby Bradford West Gwillimbury Clarington Niagara-on-the-Lake Ajax Whitchurch-Stouffville Kitchener Norfolk Brockville Bracebridge Lincoln Sarnia Thorold Owen Sound Peterborough Central Elgin St. Thomas Kawartha Lakes

2007 2007 Residential Residential Tax Tax $ 2,762 high $ 2,339 mid $ 3,085 high $ 2,491 mid $ 3,197 high $ 2,209 low $ 2,437 mid $ 2,902 high $ 4,126 high $ 2,560 mid $ 2,730 high $ 2,622 high $ 2,308 low $ 3,258 high $ 2,350 mid $ 3,140 high $ 2,415 mid $ 2,616 high $ 3,128 high $ 2,598 high $ 2,398 mid $ 1,674 low $ 3,194 high $ 2,998 high $ 2,315 mid $ 2,411 mid $ 1,622 low $ 2,355 mid $ 2,412 mid $ 2,786 high $ 2,609 high $ 2,610 high $ 2,933 high $ 2,951 high $ 3,349 high $ 2,147 low $ 2,025 low $ 2,050 low $ 2,289 low $ 2,549 mid $ 2,155 low $ 2,060 low $ 1,824 low $ 2,073 low $ 2,683 high $ 2,028 low $ 2,080 low

Taxes as a % of Income

322

Municipal Study 2007

Property Taxes as a Percentage of Income (cont’d)

Municipality Stratford Wellesley Leamington Georgina Huntsville Tillsonburg Fort Erie Orangeville Niagara Falls West Lincoln Cornwall London Brantford Windsor Pelham Gravenhurst Kingston Woodstock Cobourg Thunder Bay Belleville St. Catharines Sudbury Chatham-Kent Oshawa Welland Hamilton North Bay Port Colborne Timmins Sault Ste. Marie Wainfleet Average Median Min Max

2007 Est. Avg. Household Income mid mid mid mid low mid low mid low mid low mid low mid mid low mid low mid low low low low low mid low mid low low low low low

2001 Average Value of Dwelling mid high low mid mid low low mid low mid low mid low low mid mid mid low mid low low low low low mid low mid low low low low mid

2007 2007 Residential Residential Tax Tax $ 2,234 low $ 2,433 mid $ 2,316 mid $ 2,357 mid $ 2,071 low $ 2,247 low $ 1,947 low $ 2,581 mid $ 2,151 low $ 2,625 high $ 1,919 low $ 2,408 mid $ 2,253 low $ 2,446 mid $ 3,037 high $ 1,862 low $ 2,423 mid $ 2,372 mid $ 2,493 mid $ 2,395 mid $ 2,301 low $ 2,314 low $ 2,405 mid $ 2,447 mid $ 2,719 high $ 2,198 low $ 2,661 high $ 2,414 mid $ 2,238 low $ 2,495 mid $ 2,443 mid $ 2,678 high $ $ $ $ 2,478 2,414 1,622 4,126

Property Property Taxes as a Taxes as a % of % of Household Household Income Income 3.4% mid 3.4% mid 3.4% mid 3.4% mid 3.4% mid 3.4% mid 3.4% mid 3.4% mid 3.5% high 3.5% high 3.6% high 3.6% high 3.6% high 3.6% high 3.6% high 3.6% high 3.7% high 3.7% high 3.8% high 3.8% high 3.8% high 3.8% high 3.8% high 3.9% high 3.9% high 3.9% high 4.0% high 4.0% high 4.2% high 4.2% high 4.3% high 4.5% high 3.2% 3.2% 2.3% 4.5%

Taxes as a % of Income

323

Municipal Study 2007

Total Municipal and Property Tax Burden as a Percentage of Income
The following table includes water and sewer costs on a typical home and calculates the total municipal burden as a % of household income.
Total Municipal Burden as a Total % of Municipal Household Relative Tax Burden Income Ranking mid 2.5% low high 2.9% low high 2.9% low 3.0% low low mid 3.0% low 3.0% mid low high 3.0% low 3.1% high low low 3.1% low 3.1% high low mid 3.2% low 3.2% high low high 3.2% low high 3.3% low high 3.4% low low 3.5% low mid 3.5% low mid 3.5% low mid 3.5% low low 3.6% low high 3.6% low high 3.6% low 3.6% low low mid 3.6% low 3.7% mid low high 3.7% low 3.7% high low high 3.7% low 3.8% low mid mid 3.8% mid 3.8% mid mid low 3.9% mid high 4.0% mid high 4.0% mid low 4.1% mid low 4.2% mid low 4.2% mid low 4.3% mid mid 4.3% mid 4.3% mid mid low 4.3% mid 4.3% low mid

Municipality Caledon Aurora * Oakville Mississauga Milton Halton Hills King Vaughan Brampton East Gwillimbury Burlington Markham Pickering Newmarket Richmond Hill North Dumfries Ottawa Grimsby ** Waterloo Wasaga Beach Whitchurch-Stouffville Whitby Toronto Woolwich Wilmot Ajax Middlesex Centre Amherstburg Barrie Clarington Guelph Cambridge Niagara-on-the-Lake Bradford West Gwillimbury Brockville Georgina Kitchener Stratford West Lincoln Wellesley Sarnia Peterborough

2007 Est. Avg. Household Income high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high low high high mid high mid high high high mid mid mid mid high high low mid mid mid mid mid mid low

2001 Average Value of Dwelling high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high high mid mid mid mid high high high high high high high mid mid mid mid mid high high low mid mid mid mid high low low

2007 Residential Tax $ 2,762 $ 3,197 $ 3,085 $ 2,560 $ 2,339 $ 2,491 $ 4,126 $ 3,258 $ 2,616 $ 2,902 $ 2,437 $ 3,128 $ 3,140 $ 2,730 $ 3,194 $ 2,308 $ 2,350 $ 2,786 $ 2,598 $ 1,674 $ 3,349 $ 2,998 $ 2,411 $ 2,209 $ 2,398 $ 2,951 $ 2,622 $ 2,415 $ 2,355 $ 2,610 $ 2,412 $ 2,315 $ 2,933 $ 2,609 $ 2,050 $ 2,357 $ 2,147 $ 2,234 $ 2,625 $ 2,433 $ 2,155 $ 2,073

2007 Residential Water/Sewer Costs $ 319 $ 560 $ 675 $ 319 $ 675 $ 675 $ 767 $ 518 $ 319 $ 651 $ 675 $ 475 $ 604 $ 677 $ 511 $ 672 $ 695 $ 412 $ 638 $ 402 $ 502 $ 604 $ 475 $ 1,002 $ 740 $ 604 $ 1,016 $ 840 $ 554 $ 604 $ 602 $ 667 $ 878 $ 813 $ 572 $ 540 $ 712 $ 594 $ 553 $ 672 $ 711 $ 627

Total Municipal Tax Burden $ 3,081 $ 3,757 $ 3,759 $ 2,880 $ 3,013 $ 3,166 $ 4,893 $ 3,775 $ 2,935 $ 3,553 $ 3,111 $ 3,603 $ 3,744 $ 3,407 $ 3,705 $ 2,980 $ 3,045 $ 3,198 $ 3,236 $ 2,076 $ 3,851 $ 3,602 $ 2,886 $ 3,211 $ 3,138 $ 3,555 $ 3,637 $ 3,255 $ 2,909 $ 3,214 $ 3,014 $ 2,982 $ 3,811 $ 3,422 $ 2,622 $ 2,898 $ 2,860 $ 2,828 $ 3,177 $ 3,105 $ 2,867 $ 2,700

Taxes as a % of Income

324

Municipal Study 2007

Total Municipal and Property Tax Burden as a Percentage of Income (cont’d)
Total Municipal Burden as a % of Household Relative Income Ranking 4.4% mid 4.4% mid 4.4% mid 4.4% mid 4.5% mid 4.5% mid 4.5% mid 4.6% mid 4.6% mid 4.6% mid 4.6% mid 4.7% high 4.7% high 4.7% high 4.7% high 4.8% high 4.8% high 4.8% high 4.8% high 4.8% high 4.9% high 4.9% high 4.9% high 4.9% high 4.9% high 5.0% high 5.1% high 5.1% high 5.2% high 5.2% high 5.2% high 5.3% high 5.4% high 5.6% high 5.7% high 5.9% high N/A 4.2% 4.3% 2.5% 5.9%

Municipality Woodstock Leamington Orangeville Thorold Lincoln Pelham Tillsonburg Cornwall Parry Sound Brantford Cobourg Owen Sound Thunder Bay Bracebridge St. Thomas* Oshawa Norfolk London Windsor Central Elgin North Bay Hamilton Kingston Niagara Falls Chatham-Kent Timmins Sault Ste. Marie Huntsville St. Catharines Kawartha Lakes Belleville Sudbury Fort Erie Welland Gravenhurst Port Colborne Wainfleet Average Median Min Max

2007 Est. Avg. Household Income low mid mid low mid mid mid low low low mid low low mid low mid mid mid mid mid low mid mid low low low low low low low low low low low low low low

2001 Average Value of Dwelling low low mid low mid mid low low low low mid low low mid low mid low mid low mid low mid mid low low low low mid low mid low low low low mid low mid

2007 Residential Tax $ 2,372 $ 2,316 $ 2,581 $ 2,060 $ 2,549 $ 3,037 $ 2,247 $ 1,919 $ 1,622 $ 2,253 $ 2,493 $ 1,824 $ 2,395 $ 2,289 $ 2,028 $ 2,719 $ 2,025 $ 2,408 $ 2,446 $ 2,683 $ 2,414 $ 2,661 $ 2,423 $ 2,151 $ 2,447 $ 2,495 $ 2,443 $ 2,071 $ 2,314 $ 2,080 $ 2,301 $ 2,405 $ 1,947 $ 2,198 $ 1,862 $ 2,238 $ 2,678 $ $ $ $ 2,478 2,414 1,622 4,126

2007 Residential Water/Sewer Costs $ 422 $ 684 $ 724 $ 706 $ 977 $ 712 $ 704 $ 527 $ 825 $ 619 $ 563 $ 773 $ 560 $ 1,050 $ 858 $ 604 $ 1,081 $ 834 $ 832 $ 1,215 $ 509 $ 595 $ 799 $ 901 $ 660 $ 498 $ 446 $ 1,050 $ 789 $ 1,149 $ 816 $ 894 $ 1,132 $ 940 $ 1,050 $ 952 N/A $ $ $ $ 700 675 319 1,215

Total Total Municipal Municipal Tax Burden Tax Burden $ 2,793 low $ 3,000 mid $ 3,306 high $ 2,766 low $ 3,526 high $ 3,750 high $ 2,951 low $ 2,446 low $ 2,447 low $ 2,872 low $ 3,056 mid $ 2,598 low $ 2,955 low $ 3,339 high $ 2,886 low $ 3,323 high $ 3,106 mid $ 3,242 mid $ 3,278 high $ 3,898 high $ 2,923 low $ 3,257 high $ 3,222 mid $ 3,052 mid $ 3,107 mid $ 2,992 low $ 2,889 low $ 3,121 mid $ 3,103 mid $ 3,229 mid $ 3,117 mid $ 3,300 high $ 3,079 mid $ 3,138 mid $ 2,912 low $ 3,190 mid N/A $ $ $ $ 3,175 3,114 2,076 4,893

Taxes as a % of Income

325

Municipal Study 2007

Total Municipal and Property Tax Burden as a Percentage of Income by Location
Total Municipal Burden as a % of Household Relative Income Ranking 3.5% low 4.1% mid 4.3% mid 4.6% mid 4.6% mid 4.9% high 5.2% high 5.2% high 4.5%

Municipality Ottawa Brockville Peterborough Cornwall Cobourg Kingston Kawartha Lakes Belleville Eastern

Total Total Municipal Municipal Tax Burden Tax Burden $ 3,045 mid $ 2,622 low $ 2,700 low $ 2,446 low $ 3,056 mid $ 3,222 mid $ 3,229 mid $ 3,117 mid $ 2,930

Municipality Caledon Aurora Oakville Mississauga Milton Halton Hills King Vaughan Brampton East Gwillimbury Burlington Markham Pickering Newmarket Richmond Hill Whitchurch-Stouffville Whitby Toronto Ajax Clarington Georgina Oshawa GTA

Total Municipal Tax Burden $ 3,081 $ 3,757 $ 3,759 $ 2,880 $ 3,013 $ 3,166 $ 4,893 $ 3,775 $ 2,935 $ 3,553 $ 3,111 $ 3,603 $ 3,744 $ 3,407 $ 3,705 $ 3,851 $ 3,602 $ 2,886 $ 3,555 $ 3,214 $ 2,898 $ 3,323 $ 3,441

Total Municipal Burden as a Total % of Municipal Household Relative Tax Burden Income Ranking mid 2.5% low high 2.9% low high 2.9% low 3.0% low low 3.0% mid low 3.0% mid low high 3.0% low high 3.1% low low 3.1% low high 3.1% low mid 3.2% low high 3.2% low 3.2% high low 3.3% high low high 3.4% low high 3.6% low high 3.6% low low 3.6% low high 3.7% low mid 3.8% mid 4.2% low mid 4.8% high high 3.3%

Taxes as a % of Income

326

Municipal Study 2007

Total Municipal and Property Tax Burden as a Percentage of Income by Location (cont’d)
Total Municipal Burden as a Total % of Municipal Household Relative Tax Burden Income Ranking mid 3.5% low high 4.0% mid 4.3% mid mid low 4.4% mid 4.5% high mid high 4.5% mid 4.9% high high mid 4.9% high 5.2% mid high mid 5.4% high mid 5.6% high mid 5.9% high N/A 4.7%

Municipality Grimsby Niagara-on-the-Lake West Lincoln Thorold Lincoln Pelham Hamilton Niagara Falls St. Catharines Fort Erie Welland Port Colborne Wainfleet Niagara/Hamilton

Total Municipal Tax Burden $ 3,198 $ 3,811 $ 3,177 $ 2,766 $ 3,526 $ 3,750 $ 3,257 $ 3,052 $ 3,103 $ 3,079 $ 3,138 $ 3,190 N/A $ 3,254

Municipality Thunder Bay North Bay Timmins Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury North

Total Municipal Tax Burden $ 2,955 $ 2,923 $ 2,992 $ 2,889 $ 3,300 $ 3,012

Total Municipal Burden as a Total % of Municipal Household Relative Tax Burden Income Ranking 4.7% low high low 4.9% high 5.0% low high low 5.1% high high 5.3% high 5.0%

Taxes as a % of Income

327

Municipal Study 2007

Total Municipal and Property Tax Burden as a Percentage of Income by Location (cont’d)
Total Municipal Burden as a % of Household Relative Income Ranking 3.6% low 3.8% mid 4.0% mid 4.4% mid 4.6% mid 4.7% high 5.1% high 5.7% high 4.5%

Municipality Wasaga Beach Barrie Bradford West Gwillimbury Orangeville Parry Sound Bracebridge Huntsville Gravenhurst Simcoe/Musk./Duff.

Total Total Municipal Municipal Tax Burden Tax Burden $ 2,076 low $ 2,909 low $ 3,422 high $ 3,306 high $ 2,447 low $ 3,339 high $ 3,121 mid $ 2,912 low $ 2,941

Municipality North Dumfries Waterloo Woolwich Wilmot Middlesex Centre Amherstburg Guelph Cambridge Kitchener Stratford Wellesley Sarnia Woodstock Leamington Tillsonburg Brantford Owen Sound St. Thomas Norfolk London Windsor Central Elgin Chatham-Kent Southwest

Total Total Municipal Municipal Tax Burden Tax Burden $ 2,980 low $ 3,236 mid $ 3,211 mid $ 3,138 mid $ 3,637 high $ 3,255 high $ 3,014 mid $ 2,982 low $ 2,860 low $ 2,828 low $ 3,105 mid $ 2,867 low $ 2,793 low $ 3,000 mid $ 2,951 low $ 2,872 low $ 2,598 low $ 2,886 low $ 3,106 mid $ 3,242 mid $ 3,278 high $ 3,898 high $ 3,107 mid $ 3,080

Total Municipal Burden as a % of Household Relative Income Ranking 3.5% low 3.5% low 3.6% low 3.7% low 3.7% low 3.7% low 3.8% mid 3.9% mid 4.2% mid 4.3% mid 4.3% mid 4.3% mid 4.4% mid 4.4% mid 4.5% mid 4.6% mid 4.7% high 4.7% high 4.8% high 4.8% high 4.8% high 4.8% high 4.9% high 4.3%

Taxes as a % of Income

328

Municipal Study 2007

Economic Development Programs

Economic Development Programs

329

Municipal Study 2007

Economic Development Economic Development Programs Programs

Development inducements vary from city to city and frequently involve the formation of positive relationships and partnerships with the private sector. This evolving pro-business philosophy has led to new incentives designed to attract private development. There are many forms of economic development programs used across Ontario to encourage growth. Programs to promote economic development include, but are not limited to;
• • • • • • • Grants Interest Free Loans Tax Incremental Financing Corporate Visitation Programs Ambassador Programs Refund/waiving of fees Business Enterprise Centres • • • • • • Municipal land assembly Brownfield programs Downtown programs Heritage restoration programs Developing networks and business directories Developing newsletters

Some of these programs, such as Brownfield redevelopment, are new to Ontario. The number and types of incentives are still evolving. Economic development strategies and incentives are tailored to fit the needs of the community. A municipality’s decision to offer various incentive programs is also related to where the municipality is in terms of its phase of development; whether the municipality is in growth, stability, retrenchment or revitalization phase. Some municipalities included in the study advocate the use of economic development incentives as a tool to generate additional assessment. The increased amount of taxes and user fees generated, as well as the number of jobs created, serve to strengthen the local economy. Community improvement programs are undertaken to increase tax assessment, revive or further stimulate community vitality and encourage more efficient and effective use of land and existing services, facilities and infrastructure. Many community improvement programs are targeted to downtown cores and to specific forms of development. Business Retention and Expansion programs are face-to-face ways of finding solutions to local business problems. Corporate calling programs typically initiate discussions with businesses to identify if and how assistance can be provided in the following areas; relocation and expansion, strategic alliances, planning approvals, export information, government programs and municipal services. Most municipalities that have business retention programs identified them as a cost-effective approach to business development. Business incubator programs and facilities help to build strong, viable companies by providing support services and professional advice. A business incubator is an economic development tool designed to accelerate the growth and success of entrepreneurial companies through an array of business support resources and services. Incubators usually provide clients access to appropriate rental space and flexible leases, shared basic office services and equipment, technology support services, and assistance in obtaining the necessities for company growth.

Economic Development Programs

330

Municipal Study 2007

Ontario Legislation
The following section provides an overview of various Ontario legislation related to financial assistance and other financial incentives that may be used to encourage development and redevelopment in municipalities. This information has been taken from excerpts from a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing document “Municipal Financial Tools for Planning and Development”.

Municipal Act
The Municipal Act (subsection 111(1)) prohibits municipalities from directly or indirectly assisting any manufacturing business or other industrial or commercial enterprise through the granting of bonuses. Notwithstanding the bonusing rule, subsection 111 (2) of the Municipal Act permits, with the Municipal Affairs and Housing minister’s approval, certain financial assistance for the purpose of implementing a community improvement plan that has been adopted under the provision of Section 28 of the Planning Act.

Planning Act
Section 28 of the Planning Act sets out the authority for municipalities to designate community improvement project areas and adopt community improvement plans. This is done through a legal process involving public notice, a public meeting and the right of appeal. Once approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, a community improvement plan can provide municipalities with broad powers to acquire, hold, clear, lease and sell land in designated areas for the purposes of community improvement. Once a municipality has approved community improvement policies and designated a community improvement project area, it may use the powers afforded through subsection 28(7) to issue grants or loans to registered or assessed owners of lands and buildings within the designated areas.

Ontario Heritage Act
Section 39 of the Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to make grants or loans to owners of heritage designated properties. These grants or loans are to pay for all or part of the cost of alteration of the designated property, on terms and conditions established by municipal council.

Development Charges Act
The Development Charges Act, 1997 provides the legal basis for Ontario municipalities to impose growth-related development charges (sometimes known as impact fees) in order to recover some or all of the capital costs of new municipal infrastructure requirements resulting from new development. The services eligible to be funded from this source include transportation (roads and transit), sewer, water and other services that must be provided to serve residential and non-residential growth.

Economic Development Programs

331

Municipal Study 2007

Section 4 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 exempts the first 50 per cent of existing industrial building expansions from municipal development charges. Paragraph 10 of subsection 5(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 permits municipalities to give full or partial exemption for some types of development. In the interests of economic competitiveness and job creation or preservation, many Ontario municipalities have chosen to use this section to wholly or partially exempt new industrial development and larger expansions of existing industrial buildings from the imposition of local development charges and impact fees. Under subsection 2(7) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, municipalities may exempt areas of the municipality from the application of a development charges bylaw. Such areas could include a downtown or development area, including community improvement project areas under the Planning Act. Municipalities may also adopt area bylaws not including a specific area.

Bill 56—Brownfield Statute Amendment Act
Brownfields are defined by the Province as derelict, dysfunctional or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived contamination. Despite the complexity of developing these properties, they are often in desirable and strategic locations. Redeveloping brownfields means transforming environmentally challenged properties into productive properties. Brownfields are lands on which industrial or commercial activity took place in the past. They may be vacant, underused or abandoned. Brownfields are usually located in strategic areas of the community, with existing transportation, infrastructure and facilities and close to or in the downtown core. The Act removes the main barriers to brownfield cleanup and redevelopment. It sets out clear rules for the clean up of contaminated brownfield sites to ensure that environmental liability standards are met and public health protected. It would limit future environmental liability for municipalities, developers and owners of brownfield properties. In addition, it streamlines the planning process to expedite brownfield projects and help municipalities provide financial support for brownfield clean up costs. The Ministry has provided assistance to municipalities by establishing financial and liability tools. Financial Tools include—municipal loans and grants, tax incremental financing to leverage the difference between the current and potential tax yields on redeveloped properties, waivers of municipal fees where appropriate, and matching education tax rebates. Liability Tools include — MOE liability agreements signed with local municipalities and lenders that limit exposure to liability risks under circumstances such as site investigations, technology databases that provide remediation technology and project detail information, environmental liability insurance.

Economic Development Programs

332

Municipal Study 2007

Types of Programs That Promote Economic Development
• • • •

Municipal Land Assembly Business Retention & Expansion Programs Downtown/Area Specific Programs Brownfield Redevelopment

The next section of the report provides an overview of the various types of programs that promote economic development and their presence across the municipalities in the survey.

Economic Development Programs

333

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Ajax

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Corporate Calling Initiative - In September 2007, the Town of Ajax launched a Corporate Calling Initiative to meet with the Town's key businesses, starting with the manufacturing sector. Business Networking Seminars - As an educational and networking opportunity for the local business community, the Town organizes and hosts a quarterly seminar series entitled the Ajax Business Network. The sessions are free of charge and provide an opportunity to learn about business issues and to meet with business colleagues. Business Newsletter and Website - The Town's Business Newsletter, First News, along with the Town's website continue to be the key points of contact between the Town and the business community. The newsletter features timely articles on business issues while the website provides relevant research and information related to operating a business in the Town. Site Selection Services - A full array of services are available to both new and existing businesses wishing to re-located in the Town of Ajax. These services range from finding a location, to expediting the development approvals process, to assisting with the grand opening of the new facility.
The Town of Aurora has implemented a number of initiatives to promote economic development which include, but are not limited to the following: Business Networking/Information Seminars – Town staff host these sessions semi-annually. Some sessions are organized in conjunction with the Aurora Chamber of Commerce. Information seminars deal with informative topics of interest to local businesses. Business Newsletter – semi-annual publication is available to all local businesses and contains news and announcements dealing with Aurora companies. Aurora Business Ambassadors Program – created in 1996, the Program involves prominent local business leaders who promote the Town globally. Ambassadors provide important feedback to Town staff on a variety of business issues as well as contacts with national and international companies. Ambassadors will also be incorporated into the Town’s Corporate Visitation Program. Corporate Visitation Program – On a monthly basis, a team of Town officials, consisting of the EDO, the CAO, and Business Ambassadors, visit a local business in order to meet company representatives, tour facilities and discuss issues of importance to each company. Investment Retention & Attraction Strategy – the EDO acts as a champion for business interests, gathers community intelligence, prepares economic market information and provides a liaison between municipal government and local businesses. Development Coordination Role – Economic Development Division staff undertake a ‘One-Point-Of-Contact’ role, working closely with the development community to assist non-residential investors in navigating the municipal approvals process. The EDO is part of a municipal team working to expedite development approvals.

Aurora

Economic Development Programs

334

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Barrie

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Corporate Visitation Program – City officials undertake visits to businesses to: express to each company their importance to the community; learn more about the business and its management; and to offer services ensuring that any challenges they may be experiencing are addressed. Business Enterprise Centre. The Centre offers a library, forms and publications, seminars, workshops, workstations and other resources to help those interested in starting their own business and provides assistance and support to small and medium-sized businesses in both their startup and early growth stages. The City of Barrie, in partnership with the Ministry of Economic Development & Trade, Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Barrie Small Business Enterprise Centre host a number of seminars and events during the course of the year to provide professional development and information sharing opportunities for the business in the community. The City of Barrie works closely with a community based Doctor Recruitment Task Force with funding from the City of Barrie and the Royal Victoria Hospital. Business Ambassador Program – more than 200 local businesses make up Barrie’s Business Ambassadors. These influential and involved companies not only help sell Barrie but keep the City up to date on issues impacting the local business community. Workforce Development – Barrie works with local businesses and Georgian College to maximize opportunities for the integration of Georgian’s practical program into the business community. Bradford West Gwillimbury is part of the South Simcoe Economic Alliance which is dedicated to fully supporting strategic growth and offering a one-stop shop for site selection.

Bradford West Gwillimbury

Economic Development Programs

335

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Brampton

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Brampton continues to form strategic alliances with its industry clusters to manage effective local business relationships. Brampton’s BR&E program includes the following initiatives: Corporate Calling, Business Alliances, Attention = Retention, Inquiry Facilitation, and Economic Policy & Research. Workforce Development Brampton is a strong supporter of higher learning and advanced education. The city is a strategic partner and investor in the new Sheridan Centre for Advanced manufacturing and Design Technologies. Investment Marketing Program The Economic Development Office has set up a strategic economic development marketing initiative to continue to promote local business success and Brampton as a premier investment location in the GTA. Small Business Enterprise Centre The Brampton Small Business Enterprise Centre offers entrepreneurs and small business owners access to business planning, business registration, counseling, research. Leadership, and mentorship, advice, tools and seminars. Tourism Brampton highlights the uniqueness and brilliance of the City’s local venues and lucrative infrastructure development to attract residents and business to the City every year. Ambassador Program Senior business executives from some of Brampton’s largest businesses tout the benefits of Brampton as a city to live, work and play, both locally and abroad. ICI Land Use Strategy Brampton’s land use strategy preserves prime business-building lands for targeted development to ensure that new business owners coming to the City get the most out of their investment. Economic Development Research Program Brampton’s Research Program provides business owners, site selectors and ICI clients, with customized research on current economic trends, in addition to Brampton’s demographic, socio-economic and employment statistics. The Research Program serves as a data collection and dissemination centre utilizing government and private resources and to provide business owners and clients information in a timely manner.

Economic Development Programs

336

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Brantford

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
The City of Brantford administers a local Business Retention and Expansion (BR+E) program through the Economic Development and Tourism Department. The BR+E program supports local businesses by creating opportunities for direct firm assistance and enabling area businesses to become aware of programs and resources available to them, through ongoing local company visitations. The BR+E works to promote community-based business and organization economic development by offering services for location assistance, business planning, financial planning, exporting, training & development, market research, market plan development and human resources. The BR+E is undertaken through partnerships with the Economic Development Departments of the City of Brantford and the County of Brant, the Ontario Ministry of Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. The Brantford•Brant Business Resource Enterprise Centre provides information, resources and free professional consultation to entrepreneurs either staring a business or already operating a business. The centre is part of a network of offices that serve Ontario’s small business community and is a partnership with the City of Brantford, County of Brant, Ontario Ministry of Small Business and Entrepreneurship and local businesses. In 2007, the City and its community partners began a project to produce a Workforce Development Strategy for the Brantford area. The strategy is intended to address the short and long-term labour needs of current and future employers while ensuring employment opportunities for the citizens of the community. The project will undertake a comprehensive review of established local programs and services, provide clear identification of employer needs and employee skills gaps and prepare a workforce development strategy report that will form the basis of a community workforce development plan. The Leeds and Grenville Small Business Enterprise Centre offers information and advice to anyone starting or managing a business. Serving Leeds and Grenville, the Small Business Enterprise Centre is a one-stop source of information, with access to the Internet and resource materials. You will also get personal advice on preparing a business plan, financing and managing your business. Working in partnership with the local Community Futures Development Corporations provides expertise and start-up capital.

Brockville

Burlington

The City has a business-calling program operated by the Burlington Economic Development Corporation (BEDC). The program is based upon the retention and expansion software called Synchronist Business Information System. It allows for more sophisticated levels of programs and follows a rigorous process for selecting companies, arranging interviews, conducting interviews and recording and analyzing data. It has proven to be a powerful planning tool for service delivery in the municipality. Burlington also has a “Jobs Burlington Campaign” which set up a website for high tech businesses to link to labour.

Economic Development Programs

337

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Caledon

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
In addition to offering site selection, business research and development process facilitation services; The Town conducts a Corporate Visit Program. A Mayor’s Business Breakfast is held semiannually to offer the local business community networking opportunities and to hear from a keynote speaker. Published quarterly, the Economic Development & Communications Department Newsletter highlights local economic development news and activities. The Caledon Business Centre provides free consultations, business plan reviews, financing and mentoring services, free access to accountants, lawyers and other professionals, business registration, workshops and seminars to new and growing businesses. The Town of Caledon has successful, dedicated partnerships with established organizations, including the Caledon Chamber of Commerce, The Hills of Headwaters Tourism Association, Peel Federation of Agriculture, Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance and the Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium. Development charge exemption for accommodation facilities (minimum ten units). As a community health initiative, the Town of Caledon has implemented a Physician Recruitment Program aimed at attracting and retaining family physicians.

Cambridge

The City supports existing businesses with their expansion by having regular contact with the business community through networking and a visitation program. The City also provides information and resource material through the Business Enterprise Centre.

Economic Development Programs

338

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Chatham-Kent

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Business Development Services – acting as the champion and spokesperson for local business, gathering community intelligence and supporting business’ special issues, enhancing the existing business infrastructure. Entrepreneurial Services provide start up support and on-line business registration to new entrepreneurs in cooperation with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Economic Development Services promotes Chatham-Kent to the world, communicating with senior national and international business leaders and provincial and federal government decision-makers to identify ChathamKent as a location for new investment, maintaining an inventory of land and buildings available for development and assisting with site selection activities. The Agricultural Services area of the Economic Development Services works at promoting and developing agri-business opportunities. Working with the University of Guelph/Ridgetown College to provide business support services through the Agricultural Business Centre. Tourism Development Services – providing support to the local tourism sector through tourism destination marketing, developing partnerships with local tourism operations and attractions, operating seasonal visitor information services.

Clarington

The Business Retention and Expansion (BR&E) program includes two essential elements: First, the Visitation Program surveys a large sample of our local companies to determine the needs, concerns and opportunities of existing local companies in order that action could be taken to respond to the companies’ needs or development opportunities. Secondly, an ongoing BR&E Implementation Program sets out to implement the actions to help businesses become more competitive. The implementation of recommendations to proactively improve the local business climate will be the responsibility of the BR&E for the Municipality of Clarington in partnership with the Clarington Board of Trade, other organizations and members from the business community

Economic Development Programs

339

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Cobourg

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Once a year over 1,000 businesses are telephoned to update information and discuss any concerns. Manufacturers are contacted twice annually. Information and/or assistance are provided as well as appointments for personal visits by Town staff. Team Cobourg representatives, regularly visit industries that wish to expand or reorganize their operations. An Opportunity Analysis Program promotes a public forum for business to express views on present and future development. Entrepreneurial services are provided for start up and existing businesses through the Business Advisory Centre – Northumberland. This includes seminars and performance monitoring as well as a business reference library. Marketing programs such as the award winning “shop local campaign” are implemented jointly by the Town of Cobourg, Chamber of Commerce, local media and retailers from all nodes. Another example is the Town’s Tourism Partnership with wellness practitioners and accommodation businesses that mutually promote each other as Ontario’s Feel Good Town. The Town has partnered with the Life Long Learning Centre regarding skill development in Construction Trades including job placement. The Business Advisory Centre works in 6 Secondary schools promoting Business Plan Competitions and student summer businesses as future entrepreneurs. The Town works with area Chambers and EDO’s hosting manufacturing seminars.

Cornwall

The Cornwall Business Enterprise Centre is designed to allow “One-Stop” shopping for information on starting up and operating an existing business in the Cornwall / S.D. & G area. It offers support services such as: • Library of resource materials • A quiet place to work • Free publications • Counselling on general small business • Referral to more detailed sources of information • Computer and free internet access • Provide small business oriented seminars for the general public It also offers seminars, Stepping out on Your Own Business Information Sources, Youth Programs and a Corporate Centre Link.

East Gwillimbury

Business Development Committee—signage branding and promotion of local businesses. The Town continues to develop strategic initiatives in order to promote additional new industrial and employment growth in the municipality.

Fort Erie

Company Visitation Program.

Economic Development Programs

340

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Guelph

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Guelph Business Enterprise Centre – A partnership with the City of Guelph’s Economic Development Department, the Guelph Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). The centre answers questions on start-up businesses, provides one-on-one consulting, seminars and training, mentoring and networking. Local Best Practices Networking Group – A partnership between the City’s Economic Development Department and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT) and the Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium (EMC). This group promotes an emphasis on continuous improvement and increasing members’ competitiveness. Physician Recruitment Program is in effect to attract qualified doctors to open practices in the City. Business Attraction Marketing Program Business Retention Program Visitor & Convention Services Program

Grimsby

The Town conducts a Business Visitation Program that is intended to maintain contact with local businesses, as well as host business breakfasts on a semi-regular basis to provide the opportunity for the local Chamber of Commerce in this regard.

Halton

Proactive Business Contact Program. Access to Capital Program helps companies prepare for investor readiness. This involves seminar series with three components; understanding investor needs, preparation of the investment plan and negotiating with the investor. On completion of the seminars, the company can then do its presentation in front of a review panel of three experts, which will provide a critique. The Halton Apprenticeship Advisory Council is a joint public-private venture which reviews and addresses labour needs in Halton to provide the labour resources necessary for growth.

Hamilton

The City conducts a Corporate Visitation Program. In addition, the City participates in trade fairs in Canada and the US and takes local companies at no charge for their booth space. The Hamilton Small Business Enterprise Centre provides the information and tools that entrepreneurs need to grow their businesses. It is a one-stop source for business information, guidance and professional advice on starting and running a successful business.

Economic Development Programs

341

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Kawartha Lakes

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
The Kawartha Lakes Small Business Enterprise Resources Centre helps smaller businesses realize new opportunities and increase competitiveness. The objective is to ensure that the small business community continues to be supported in its growth, while increasing employment and investment within the City. The Kawartha Lakes Economic Development Office conducts visitation programs, opportunity alert services, investment network services, business consultations, and Government liaison services In an effort to provide maximum municipal assistance to community groups and organizations, the Economic Development Office has an Economic Development Partnership Fund Program. This loan repayment program is available to groups and organizations that have secured other financing but require assistance with start-up cash flow. Applications from the smallest event to those requiring the maximum loan of $80,000 will be considered. Based on Strategic Planning exercise looking to 2010, Tourism development Initiatives include: Premier-ranked Tourist Destination Framework (2007-2008) Product development and industry/association partnerships Branding, destination Marketing and website management The Kawartha Lakes Community Health care Initiative is a non profit corporation dedicated to facilitate the recruitment of new General Practitioners and the retention of existing ones via incentive programs and community-based initiatives. There are numerous programs to promote the agriculture business including, but not limited to the following: Agriculture Economic Impact & Development Study in partnership with Peterborough County and City Kawartha Farm Fresh – a guide to buying fresh local farm products Fostering partnerships through government programs, creation of linkages to increase economic activity and opportunities

Kingston

Kingston Economic Development Corporation’s (KEDCO) activities include the promotion of the city in the international marketplace; assisting local companies with expansion/modernization projects; maintaining a computer database of up-to-date economic indicators for the area; coordinating local economic development efforts and advising local and senior governments on economic development matters.

Economic Development Programs

342

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Kitchener

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
The City has a Corporate Calling Program. This program is used to help identify the City’s strengths for future marketing efforts. The City is reviewing clustering o pportunities of public and private companies. The City is also investigating strategic alliances to develop business relationships in the private sector. The City has a Business Enterprise Centre. The services provided include business plan review, market research, workshops and seminars, free computer use, free internet use, printing services, one-on-one business consultations, government information. The City, Provincial government and private sector sponsors provide funding for the Centre.

Leamington

The Leamington Economic Development Department’s services to business include: customized information services, market information, networking/contact, and small business consulting.

London

London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) is a partnership between the City and the private sector. Their goal is to facilitate the process of attracting and retaining investment to the City. The main sectors of focus for the LEDC are manufacturing, life sciences, information technology and other forms of technology. Business retention activities include providing site selection data, information on government programs, providing advice and assistance, acting as a liaison with the municipal government. The LEDC also partners with a host of local service providers to assist companies with financial, regulatory, taxation and legal issues.

Markham

Innovation Synergy Centre in Markham (ISCM) is a business advisory “hub” designed to accelerate the development of thriving enterprises with 10 to 50 employees. It is not an incubator but will partner with qualified companies to support their development into larger, more prosperous organizations. Since 1997, the Town has been marketing itself through a comprehensive economic development strategy as Canada’s High-Tech Capital. Markham has attracted the largest per-capita concentration of high-tech companies in Canada.

Milton

The City operates a proactive Visitation Program. The Milton Economic Development Advisory Committee (MEDAC) was established in order to obtain strategic advice from the business community comprised of 16 members from a broad spectrum of industries including manufacturing, financial institutions, real estate, small businesses and the Chamber of Commerce. The Economic Development Office works closely with the development community and the major landowners in the 401 Industrial Park to ensure that economic development prospects are serviced.

Economic Development Programs

343

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Mississauga

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Business Call Program - The City hosts a proactive corporate call program in key industry sectors. Elected officials and senior staff from the City visit major new companies to the City each year to develop a rapport with the business community, determine the level of satisfaction with City services and address issues. Mississauga Business Enterprise Centre (MBEC) – assists entrepreneurs to startup businesses and existing small businesses to grow and expand. Facilitation Services – site location assistance; industry and business networks; business and government contacts. In addition, the City supplies partnership options and offers seminars for small and medium sized companies.

Muskoka

Muskoka Enterprise Centre servicing all of Muskoka; it is funded from municipal contributions and grant from Province

Niagara Falls

The City operates a proactive Visitation Program.

Norfolk

Development Coordinating Committee – A monthly meeting of all Norfolk County departments provides a streamlined, proactive approach to processing and assisting key development applications. Business Visits Program – The Norfolk County Economic Development staff visit manufacturing, agricultural and tourism businesses on an ongoing basis and assist in facilitating any outstanding issues they may have, or connecting them with local, provincial and federal support programs. Site Selection – Norfolk County offers site location assistance for developers of industrial and commercial projects, including the maintenance of an inventory of available properties. Networking – Norfolk County offers networking opportunities for business through its Advisory Board, and networking teams for Industry, Agriculture and Tourism, through meetings, workshops, careers fairs and seminars Marketing Partner Program – Norfolk County works collaboratively with participating industrial, agricultural and tourism-related businesses on marketing campaigns and other initiatives, such as the annual Community Profile publication.

Economic Development Programs

344

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
North Bay

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
The City’s Economic Development Department provides turn key services to prospective investors including site searches, land sales, labour market analysis, public funding applications assistance, financial structuring and related services. North Bay’s Business Retention & Expansion program was implemented for the first time in 2005 as a communication tool between the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development in partnership with the North Bay & District Chamber of Commerce and the local business community. Phase one, now complete, was designed to gather empirical data from a wide cross section of firms in a variety of sectors through a confidential survey process. Results have provided the community with a better understanding of the benefits and challenges to doing business in North Bay as well as enabled firms and the City to capitalized on several value add and business expansion opportunities. Phase two, the on going company visitation program is now in place and continues to provide valuable feedback and facilitates issue resolution. The Business Centre - Nipissing Parry Sound, a partnership between the City, the Province of Ontario and various community stakeholders assists in the start-up and expansion of new and existing businesses. The Centre provides support through the first five years of operation, by offering business consulting services and information concerning market research, business plans and financing. Incentive and grant initiatives specific to Northern Ontario such as the Northern Ontario Young Entrepreneurs, Emerging Technology, Infrastructure and Community Development programs offered through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund and those available through FedNor and their Community Futures Development Corporations assist with the expansion of existing companies and the attraction of new investment to the region.

Oakville

The Oakville Economic Development Alliance (OEDA) – provides a company proactive Visitation Program to assist businesses and ensure that they are satisfied with Oakville. In addition OEDA provides site information, economic data and acts as the lead advisor to the Oakville Council, Chamber of Commerce and developers on expansion opportunities/constraints.

Orangeville

The Town operates a Small Business Enterprise Centre for business start-ups. The Orangeville & Area Small Business enterprise Centre (SBEC) provides guidance for start-up and existing companies.

Economic Development Programs

345

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Oshawa

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Business retention is part of the City’s Economic Development Strategy. Oshawa has a business retention and expansion/Corporate calling program which is designed to provide excellent customer service to existing businesses by opening lines of communication, creating loyalty and assisting Oshawa firms with business opportunities and addressing their issues and business concerns. Business Advisory and Enterprise Centre run through the region of Durham - on behalf of the City of Oshawa. Site selection services to allow for quick response to inquiries, maintain inventory of available lands and buildings and other critical data for site selection decisions. Advocacy – provide coordinating role to review and streamline approvals and provide connections with regional, provincial and federal organizations and agencies. Newsletter – publish a quarterly newsletter featuring local business expansions, openings, information which is mailed to over 6,000 businesses, federal and provincial departments, site selectors Outreach – organize quarterly information meetings on topics of interest to business community (i.e. automotive outlook, economic outlook, etc.)

Ottawa

The Entrepreneurship Centre is an initiative of the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (ORCI); dedicated to helping Ottawa entrepreneurs make educated decisions about starting and growing their businesses. The centre aims to promote Ottawa’s economy, through the development of products and services that encourage entrepreneurship and support business growth. The City of Ottawa, the Ontario Ministry Enterprise and Innovation, the Royal Bank, Nelligan O’Brien and numerous other business partners fund the Centre. The Centre provides links to other business organizations, seminars and entrepreneurial events, online training and many other tools and resources to assist budding entrepreneurs. BizPal – an initiative that has been developed with a lead group of government partners to provide businesses with a way to identify the entire permit and license requirements at one time. The Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI) is a not-for-profit organization supported by over 600 members. OCRI builds on the strengths of the region to advance research and development, lifelong learning, professional development and community infrastructure. Ottawa Global Marketing, a division of OCRI works with the private sector and all three levels of government to attract investment, people, and companies to the region. It is a lead organization in the branding and marketing of Ottawa internationally. The Ottawa Capital Network (OCN) assists in creating efficiencies in the capital market through programs aimed at educating the entrepreneurial community, creating linkages among the investment community and providing knowledge and support to the business community. 2007 Ottawa Small Business Forum – a unique learning and networking opportunity that focuses on supporting the success and growth of Ottawa’s small and medium size businesses. The Forum strives to provide entrepreneurs in growth mode with access to relevant and reliable information. Ottawa.com web site: - developed to position itself as the “official” source of information on Ottawa, which will be achieved through prominent positioning of the site on major search engines. Ottawa.com provides a strong, focuses and strategic web presence to enable an external audience to gather information on investment, employment, tourism and other opportunities in Ottawa.

Economic Development Programs

346

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Parry Sound Ambassador Program - The mission of the Town of Parry Sound's Business Development Plan is to diversify Parry Sound's economic base by building the economic capacity of the community and aggressively promoting the Town as a diversified vibrant centre which recognizes and embraces small town qualities, protects the natural environment, and promotes regional partnerships and cooperation. To this end, Council has appointed 42 local business people as "Ambassadors". The goal of the "Ambassador" is to work with the Business Development Team to attract the establishment of new businesses in order to create employment and business development in accordance with Council's Business Development Plan Mission. The Ambassador Program will enable the community to achieve a broader reach for its targeted business development marketing and promotion. The Ambassador program will take advantage of local business people who have occasion to travel throughout the province, nationally and internationally and can potentially court some key business development prospects for the Town.

Business Expansion and Retention Programs

Peterborough

Operated through the Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corporation (GPAEDC). The GPAEDC is governed as a public/private non-profit partnership corporation. The following programs are used: -Proactive business retention and expansion program, including business visitation programs, government funding programs, and acting as a government liaison -Maintain economic data, statistics and information -Develop partnerships to promote, support and sustain growth -Mediate conflicts and advocate for business concerns -Market Peterborough to prospective businesses The Business Advisory Centre has consultants to advise both prospective and established business owners on key aspects of start-up and maintaining successful businesses. The Centre provides information on government programs, library, trade show directory, internet access, personalized business consultations and seminars. Peterborough also has a Business Advisory Centre (Phase 2), which focuses on businesses that are 3 years old. Issues such as capital expansions, accounts -5 receivable and other financial matters are typically addressed. The City has a Physician Recruitment Program, which is funded by the Federal Government. There is full-time staff dedicated to the program. A program in the community has been established to offer incentives to attract new physicians to the community. Skilled Labour Recruitment Program, which is funded by the province to attract new manufacturing companies to the community and help retain a skilled labour force in existing companies.

Economic Development Programs

347

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Pickering

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Corporate Calling Program, connecting our office with: • Local businesses of all sizes and sectors as a means of engaging them in our local economic growth and providing an avenue for them to voice concerns and share successes • Government agencies and institutional and community groups that impact our local economy • External businesses and partners, representing the voice of both Pickering and Regional business interests The Economic Development Office partners with local, regional and provincial groups as a means to enhancing and protecting the interests of our local businesses. Partners include the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade (APBOT), The Greater Toronto marketing Alliance (GTMA), Durham Strategic Energy Alliance (DSEA), The Region of Durham Economic Development Office, the Durham Region Local Training Board, The Business Advisory Centre Durham (BACD) and more. Publications - Publish an Available Land & Space Directory, View on Business Newsletter, Economic & Community Profile, Business Start-Up Directory and Business Directory listing over 2400 local businesses by size and sector. The City also maintains a business website providing statistics, news, economic development program details. Film permit access, land and space inventories with aerial mapping, development news and images, links to all manner of local and regional business interests and much more. Seminars and Business Start-Up Consultations are also offered to anyone interested in business matters.

Port Colborne

Corporate Visitation Program. The Economic Development Office assists firms in developing new export markets and expanding existing companies.

Richmond Hill

Corporate Calling Program. This program responds to leads from within the local business community itself and through information obtained from professional affiliations and sources in a concerted effort to call on businesses of varying size and different stages of development. Small Business Coordinator - seminars, queries, etc. The Office of Economic Development (OED) will assist local industries to increase their international presence and competitiveness, penetrate new markets, develop new products and realize new business development. In order to ensure opportunities are realized, the Richmond Hill Office of Economic Development is facilitating strategic alliances to promote increased opportunities for Richmond Hill companies, which would result in diversification, expansion, and job creation. Film and Conference Attraction

Economic Development Programs

348

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
St Catharines • • • • • • •

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Corporate Visitation Program Physician Recruitment Domestic and International Marketing Event Planning Business Recruitment and Site Selection Small Business Development Industry Seminars & Workshops

St. Thomas

The St. Thomas E.D.C is active in encouraging and supporting business development through methods such as corporate visitation, the provision of aid with expansion planning, domestic and international marketing, business recruitment and site location. The St. Thomas E.D.C. has formed an association with Aylmer, Ingersoll, North Perth, St. Marys, Stratford, Tillsonburg and Woodstock called the Southwestern Ontario Marketing Alliance (SOMA). SOMA aggressively markets the region internationally to potential investors and actively supports business interests. There are no Industrial Development Charges in the City of St. Thomas

Stratford

The Stratford and Area Business Association is active in promoting and improving business development. Under the CASP program 24 companies were assisted in the development of business, marketing and financial plans. Presentations are made to business establishments. A survey was designed to determine the direction in which the business community would prefer to proceed in promoting future economic development plans. Training courses to local businesses are provided – computer, hospitality, and customer service. The City has formed an association with Aylmer, Ingersoll, North Middlesex, Woodstock, and St. Thomas called the Southwestern Ontario Marketing Alliance (SOMA). SOMA actively supports local manufacturers and their investments in the region by promoting their interests in the community

Sudbury

Regional Business Centre operating from the office of Sudbury Development Corporation, the Regional Business Centre is an independent multi-sector partnership, which includes the banking, educational, municipal, and private involvement that provides public access to all of the resources required for business start-ups, growth or expansion through one location. Workshops and seminars are provided. The City operates trades shows and conducts trade missions. In addition, businesses are visited on a regular basis through a visitation program.

Thunder Bay

The Thunder Bay & Area Entrepreneur Centre exists to offer free and confidential business consulting services to both new and existing small businesses. The services include providing information on various business topics to one on one consultation with a Small Business Consultant.

Economic Development Programs

349

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Tillsonburg

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Corporate Visitation Physician Recruitment

Timmins

Services include site selection, exporting information, community statistics and demographics and assistance on government assistance programs The Business Enterprise Centre (BEC) provides a full range of business support (training, business plan development, advice, referrals, a business library, provincial registration of businesses, etc). The City has formed a Community Development Committee which is comprised of a team of senior staff who meet weekly to deal with matters relating to land acquisitions/purchases, development proposals, special projects and are available to meet face-to-face with residents and business people to discuss issues and proposals relating to community development. Timmins and Area Business Self-Help Office offers a walk -in resource library of business information with a knowledgeable Business Consultant. Council has eliminated development charges in the City for all classes of development. The TEDC provides a full range of programs and services to support existing business and to attract new business to the City.

Toronto Economic Development assists small business, stimulating entrepreneurial development, and revitalizing commercial and industrial employment areas. Economic Development manages Enterprise Toronto www.enterprisetoronto.com, a public-private alliance assisting entrepreneurs and small business. Its four business centres provide one-on-one assistance to those starting or growing an early stage business. Toronto cost-shares capital improvement in designated retail business districts and traditional employment areas. Toronto’s Economic Development team provides specialized business knowledge and information on Toronto’s key industry clusters including: • • • • • • • information technology and digital media; biotechnology and pharmaceuticals; tourism; financial and business services; call centres; fashion and apparel; and food, beverage and packaging.

Economic Development Programs

350

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
Vaughan

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
Corporate Calling Program Partnerships and International Partnerships Business Link Newsletter, complimentary to all Vaughan businesses Online Business Directory, complimentary basic listing Vaughan Corporate Centre Vaughan Business Enterprise Centre Ambassador Program The EDO is involved in a number of programs:

Wasaga Beach

• • • • •

Marketing the community to attract tourists and other new businesses by attending trade shows, advertising and promotion initiatives Supporting existing businesses by having regular contact with the business community Providing an annual operating grant to our local Chamber of Commerce. This includes the facility and financial support for part time summer students for the visitors’ centres. Working closely with developers to market their properties Assisting with an annual Business Show

Waterloo (Region)

The Region co-ordinates an annual survey of all businesses in the community. This is done in conjunction with the lower tiers.

Welland

Site Location Business Facilitation Venture Niagara Club 2000

Whitby

Whitby First Promotion Program Entrepreneurship & Small Business Support Program, including Business Seminar Program, Whitby Business Resource Centre, One-on-One Consultation, Partnership in the Business Advisory Centre Durham Invest Whitby Support Program whose initiatives include: Business Planning Workshops, InvestmentLink Program, International Trade & Pre-Qualification Meetings, Government Funding Programs Tracking System Business Growth and Expansion Support Program Site Selection & Relocation Support Program Tourism Whitby Support Program Film Whitby Support Program Agricultural Support Program

Economic Development Programs

351

Municipal Study 2007

Business Retention & Expansion Programs
Municipality
WhitchurchStouffville

Business Expansion and Retention Programs
The Town began the BR&E Visitation Process in January 2007 and has since, completed 97 individual business interviews. The project has focused on retaining and growing existing businesses and downtown revitalization. The project was conducted in partnership with the Province of Ontario, Region of York, WhitchurchStouffville Chamber of Commerce and the Stouffville Business Improvement Area. Rural Development Consultations – These are used to identify appropriate and realistic ways in which rural areas can participate in the Town’s overall economic growth – for example, fostering ecotourism, entrepreneurship and agribusiness. General promotion for both business and tourism attraction. Continuous data collection and revisions to facilitate investment decisions in favour of WhitchurchStouffville.

Windsor

The City has a Corporate Visitation Program and a Business Self-help Centre

Services offered by Woodstock Economic Development include:
Woodstock • • • • • • • •

Land and building site selection information Provision of statistical and market data Promotional programs to encourage new investment Free assistance to new and existing local companies Product sourcing and potential market identification Assistance with business start-ups Liaison with provincial and federal governments Consultation and networking with local businesses and industry

Economic Development Programs

352

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
The following programs have been developed to address specific areas of improvements within municipalities. Some of the programs are available for all property types, while others target specific forms of redevelopment. The programs may be in the form of a loan, a grant, waiving of fees, tax rebates and tax forgiveness.

Municipality

Type of Program
Municipal Property Acquisition, Investment and Partnership Rehabilitation Tax Grants (not currently active)

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Rehabilitation of existing Town property, acquisition of property and public/private partnerships for rehabilitation of public or private lands Where rehabilitation/improvements result in an increase in assessed value, an annual grant equal to 80% of the increase in the Town’s taxes is provided for 10 years. Reimbursement of 80% to 100% of development and building permit fees Full exemption or reduction (50% to 75%) to encourage higher density and more intensive residential and mixed use developments Provides relief in form of reduced parkland dedication requirements for medium and high density residential development Relief in the form of a reduction in the number of parking spaces required

Ajax

Grant

DC Exemptions/Reductions

Parkland Dedication Reduction Exemption from Parking Requirements Barrie Loans

Grants DC Exemptions Tax Incremental Financing

The City of Barrie has implemented incentive programs in the City centre Planning Area to encourage development and redevelopment in the Downtown and Allandale communities. The historic downtown core and former Village of Allandale together form two focal points at either end of Kempenfelt Bay. The long term vision is to see the entire City centre area grow and offer more opportunities for business, residents and lifestyle/culture. The Downtown Community Improvement Pla n and the Allandale Community Improvement Plan complement each other and offer a range of programs in the form of loans, grants and tax incremental financing. A development charge exemption is also in place in certain areas within the Downtown Community I provement Plan and the m Allandale Community Improvement Plan.

Economic Development Programs

353

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Brampton

Type of Program

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
The Brampton Downtown Development Corporation (BDDC): a financially sustainable funded, semiautonomous organization that has evolved from the existing Brampton Downtown Business Association (BDBA), and will have expanded powers pursuant to existing municipal legislation, namely: Community Development Corporation, BIA, Municipal Business Corporations legislation. The Brampton Downtown Development Corporation is the first Development Corporation of this kind in the Province of Ontario. After a 5-year process, the regulation was finally passed through Provincial Cabinet in April 2005. It is a new development tool that will have the capacity to undertake considerably more than the existing BIA is able to currently undertake as a Part III Corporation. This includes undertaking a program of grant making, and other promotion, improvement, development and redevelopment programs.

Downtown Development Corporation

Brantford

Grant

The City provides a Performance Grant Program to assist businesses and property owners within the Downtown Community Improvement Project Area in the implementation of sound business plans that will generate increased economic activity in the Downtown. The grant is to assist with the financing of costs associated with the rehabilitation of lands and buildings relating to the implementation of such business plans. The City has reduced building permit fees to encourage construction activity in the Downtown Community Improvement Project Area. No development charges in Downtown BIA area.

Building Permit Fees

DC Exemptions

Caledon

DC Exemptions

Exemption of development charges for the Caledon East Commercial Core Area and the Bolton Business Improvement Area (BIA) The Town assists the Bolton Business Improvement Area (BIA) Board of Management by providing funds that are allocated to enhance the economic viability and competitiveness of the downtown core

BIA

Economic Development Programs

354

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Cambridge

Type of Program
Interest Free Loan With grant Option

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Building Revitalization Program - The City offers interest-free and partially forgivable loans (on a matching-share basis) for property improvements that focus on improving the street appearance of buildings and encourage structural and weather/waterproofing repairs. The City will lend up to $20,000 per building, with partial loan forgiveness of up to 35% available. (A maximum of $60,000 per property owner is available). Instead of entering into a loan arrangement with the City, the program can also be arranged so that the partially forgivable portion can be giv en as a grant.

Grants

Design Guide Program - This program offers grants for owners to retain professional assistance in designing property improvements. The City offers a $750 grant for design assistance in the downtown core. Realty Tax Rebate Program– a three year program that provides a rebate of a percentage of the City’s portion of the increase in City property taxes as a result of building improvements and/or new development. All properties in the core are eligible where the property improvements result in an increase in the City property taxes. Development Application Fee Waiver—no fees for applications under the Planning Act (Site Plan, Zone Change, Official Plan Amendment, Subdivision) for new residential development in the downtown core Building Permit and Sign Permit Fee Exemption—all properties in the core areas do not pay a fee for obtaining a building permit or permits for signs Upgrade to Building Code Grant Program. Intended to assist property owners with the financing of building improvements required to bring existing older buildings into compliance with the current Ontario Building Code. It will provide up to $10,000 or one third of the cost of building improvements. Signage Program. Assist business owners with financing the design and installation of new signage within the commercial zone (Main Street) of the Community Improvement Plan area. Provides a grant equivalent to 50% of the amount of new signage, not to exceed $2,000
Façade Improvement Grant Program. Available to registered property owners within the Community Improvement Area for the Municipality of Clarington. Grant covers up to 50% of the costs of the eligible work per building to a maximum of $5,000 per municipal street address or storefront, subject to an overall maximum of $45,000 per property owner for a building with multiple street addresses or storefronts.

Tax Rebate

No Fee

No Fee

Clarington Grant

Grant

Grant

Economic Development Programs

355

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality Type of Program
Loans, Rebates

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Heart of the City Program initiatives including: Tax rebates Tipping fee relief Façade improvements Planning, permit and development fee relief

Cornwall

Guelph

Interest Free Loan

Downtown Residential Incentive Grant Program – a tax incremental waiver program, which encourages the rehabilitation and renovation of the upper stories of existing buildings and their conversion to residential use.

Hamilton

Financial Assistance

The City of Hamilton offers financial assistance programs in the form of loans and grants to assist with various costs associated with the development/redevelopment of the downtown. Downtown development is exempt from development charges within a defined area. Additionally, there is a program to provide assistance to property owners within the 11 Citywide Business Improvement Areas for commercial property façade improvements.

Grant

BIA Commercial Property Improvement Grant is a program that provides financial assistance to commercial property owners and owner-authorized tenants within the 11 Citywide BIAs. The program provides financial assistance for façade improvements of commercial properties within the BIAs through a matching grant (to a maximum of $7,500 per property). The Hamilton Downtown Residential Loan Program was developed to provide a financial incentive to developers in assisting with the costs of converting commercial space in commercial buildings into apartments, or renovations to bring existing apartments into compliance with the property Standards By-law and Fire code. Under the program, loans will be interest-free for a maximum of 5 years. The principle repayable in annual amounts of ten (10%), in 12 equal monthly payments of the original loan amount. The balance outstanding will be paid by a balloon payment at the end of the fiveyear term. The maximum loan amount is calculated on the basis of $20 per square foot of habitable floor space.

Interest Free Loan

Grant

The Enterprise Zone makes tax grants available for developing, redeveloping or renovating residential/commercial lands and buildings located within the boundaries of the Downtown Hamilton Community Improvement Project Area. The program will authorize a nine-year grant, in an amount not exceeding the increase in municipal realty taxes as a direct result of the development/redevelopment of the land and/or building. Grants will not exceed the costs of the property’s development/redevelopment.

Economic Development Programs

356

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Kitchener Grant/Loan

Type of Program

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Façade Improvement Loan Program. The City may provide financial assistance for the façade and interior improvement of the building up to $15,000 per municipal address, $7,500 for interior work and $7,500 for exterior work. 15% of the financial assistance will be in the form of a grant given as a forgivable loan and 85% will be a loan. Upper Storey Renovation Program. The program will assist owners with renovation costs in the form of loan and grant funding, to a maximum of $100,000 per property, based on 50% of renovation costs.

Grant/Loan

Leamington

Loan

Façade Program. Assist owners in upgrading the facades of their buildings. Loan would cover up to 30% of the cost of eligible façade improvements to a maximum loan of $20,000

London

Loan

Façade Restoration Loan Program – assists Downtown property owners interested in improving their building façade. May be eligible for a ten-year interest-free loan up to a maximum of $25,000 or half the value of the façade improvements being proposed. Upgrade to Building Code Loan Program – assists Downtown property owners with interior improvements that relate to Fire and Building Code requirements. May be eligible for a ten-year interestfree loan up to a maximum of $50,000, or half the value of the work proposed. Economic incentive for the rehabilitation and/or redevelopment of commercial and residential buildings in the core. If property taxes increase as a result of a rehabilitation and/or redevelopment project, the City will grant back a portion of that tax increase every year, for ten years. A MainStreet London Program that provides grant money for building and business owners who want to improve the façade of their building.

Interest-free Loan

Grant

Grant

Economic Development Programs

357

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Newmarket Grants

Type of Program

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Façade Improvements & Restoration Program - The grant program will see property owners receive a matching grant of up to 50% of eligible costs to a maximum of $15,000.00 per property, except for corner and laneway properties which shall be eligible to receive a matching grant of up to 50% of eligible costs to a maximum of $20,000.00 per property. The Project Feasibility Study Program is intended to undertake studies necessary to determine project feasibility be they adaptive re-uses of existing facilities or complete redevelopment projects in the Community Improvement Plan. This program applies to all properties within the CIP. The grant program will see property owners receive matching grants of up to 50% of eligible costs to a maximum of $10,000.00 per property. Adjacent properties under the same ownership and land assemblies would only be eligible for one grant. The Interior Renovation and Improvement Program is intended to promote upgrading of and improvement to the interior of deteriorated or functionally obsolete buildings in order that they may be brought into compliance with the Building Code and the Fire Code. The grant program will provide property owners with a matching grant of up to 50% of eligible costs to a maximum of $15,000 per property. The Business Sign Program is intended to promote unified updated signage within the Main Street retail area as well as to promote an effective sign presence in the CIP area that requires signage. This program is directed at commercial and industrial properties within the CIP area to update their signs consistent with the neighbourhood. The grant program will provide property owners or business tenants up to 50% of eligible costs to a maximum of $2,500 per business. The Redevelopment and Rehabilitation Tax Incremental Program is intended to provide financial incentives in the form of grants to property owners who undertake appropriate redevelopment of properties that increases property assessment resulting in increased Town property taxes. This incentive program is meant to stimulate investment by the private sector that would otherwise not occur by providing an eligible property owner with a grant equivalent to a portion of the resultant Town property tax increases. This program will function as an annual grant for up to 10 years equivalent to a portion of the tax increase the property will experience as a result of the improvement/redevelopment.

Economic Development Programs

358

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Newmarket (continued) The loan program will provide property owners with an interest-free loan to pay for up to 50% of eligible costs to a maximum of $100,000 of the conversion of commercial/industrial space to residential units and construction of new units on vacant land or as part of an existing structure. Parking Relief Parking Requirement Program. Allows for relief or reduction or waiving of standard parking requirements.

Type of Program
Loan

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
The Residential Conversion and Intensification Program is intended to promote the conversion and intensification of second and third story spaces along Main Street for residential purposes.

Niagara Falls

DC Exemptions

Development Charge Exemption Program – will provide a financial incentive in the form of an exemption from payment of 75% of the City development charge on residential, commercial and mixed use development and redevelopment projects that create additional residential units and/or commercial space. Residential Loan Program – 0% interest loan based on $20 per sq. ft. of habitable residential space constructed to a maximum of $20,000 per residential unit created. Promote conversion, infill and intensification for Downtown area. Commercial Building Loan and Façade Grant – 0% interest loan equal to 50% of the cost of building maintenance and improvements to a maximum loan of $15,000 per property. Improvement, restoration and rehabilitation of existing commercial and mixed use buildings and building facades. Revitalization Grant Program – annual grant equivalent to 80% of the increase in City property taxes for first 5 years, 60% in years 6 and 7, 40% in year 8, and 20% in years 9 and 10. Building renovations, additions and new construction

Loan

Loan

Grant

Norfolk

DC Exemptions

No development charges for all developments within the boundaries of the Central Business Districts (Simcoe, Delhi, Port Dover, Port Rowan, Waterford) No development charges for roofed accommodation development (hotels, inns, bed and breakfast and other tourist accommodation) No development charges for brownfield developments, parking garages, affordable housing, temporary structures, farm help house development, and some others.

Economic Development Programs

359

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Norfolk (continued) Grants & Interest Free Loans Norfolk County has submitted a Community Improvement Plan to the Province of Ontario for approval. If approved, it is expected to include a Façade Improvement Program and other subsidies.

Type of Program
Non-Financial

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Norfolk County facilitates ongoing revitalization initiatives in its central business districts, such as Simcoe, Delhi and Port Dover.

North Bay

Grants/Interest Free Loans

Downtown Community Improvement Plan provides funding in the form of both grants and interest free loans to either building or business owners for façade/leasehold improvements, feasibility studies and the revitalization/redevelopment of buildings. Grants of up to $15,000 and interest free loans of up to $50,000. The City also operates a Conversion Credits Program for Community Improvement areas, where credits are based on per square foot, i.e. if converting from industrial to residential the owner gets a credit of approximately $8 per square foot for what has been demolished, to be used against the residential re-construction charges. The City of Oshawa received Provincial approval for a central business district (18 blocks). The loan programs consist of Façade Improvement Loan Program, Upper Storey Conversion to Residential Loan Program and Upgrade to Building Code Loan Program. The grant programs consist of Residential Development Charge Grant Program, Increased Assessment Grant Program, Building Permit Grant Program and Parkland Dedication Fee Grant Program. The City has launched an aggressive 37 step Downtown Action Plan which includes establishing a Downtown Development Corporation, converting some one way streets to two way, attracting residential builders to the downtown core to realize intensification goals, the development of an Urban Design Master Plan, etc. Development charges are waived in the downtown Shoulder Area CIP provides grants and loans similar to the downtown CIP as well as the Simcoe Street South CIP which provides a façade improvement loan program of up to $15,000 per municipal address The City of Ottawa offers the following incentives: No development charges for residential construction in the Central Area and Centretown Reduced parking requirements for mixed use development on selected downtown streets Expedited development approval process

Oshawa Loan/Grant

DC Exemptions

Ottawa

No Fee

Economic Development Programs

360

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Pickering

Type of Program
Non-financial

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Direct marketing to promote specific developments and targeted sectors.

Port Colborne Residential and Commercial Tax refunds

The City approved a by-law in 2004 to provide tax assistance in the form of refunds of the taxes for up to 10 years for City municipal purposes on all improved residential and commercial properties in the Community Improvement Plan Areas that have been increased as a result of improvements. Commencing in 2004, the City implemented a program to provide loans of up to $1,000 per project for design projects and up to $10,000 per project for improvement projects for commercial facades Exemptions for the creation of new residential or commercial units of building and planning fees as well as an exemption of parkland dedication fees and parking and loading space requirements

Commercial Façade Loans

Exemptions

Richmond Hill

Interest Free Loan

The City provides a façade matching interest free program of up to $10,000 for downtown properties.

Sarnia

Grant/Tax Relief The City provides grants to property owners who undertake renovations/rehabilitation to their properties that result in an increase in their assessment and a corresponding increase in their taxes. The grant is equal to any increase in taxes paid as a result of the work being done. The grant is available for a period of 10 years for non-heritage properties. The grant is 100% of actual tax increases as a result of increased assessment in years 1-8, decreasing to 75% in year 9 and 50% in year 10. Fees waived Building permit fees are waived in the downtown until January 1, 2007 Loans are available to a maximum of $20,000 per storefront or the total cost per storefront of the proposed eligible improvements whichever is the less, to a maximum of $60,000 per property. Interest will be charged at one half the prime rate of the City’s banker at the time of the application. Term is open not to exceed 10 years

Façade Loan

St. Thomas Grant

The City operates a Community Improvement Program whereby grants, interest-free loans, financial aid for façade improvements and the waiving of building permit fees are offered to pre-approved applicants.

Economic Development Programs

361

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Sudbury

Type of Program
Tax incremental financing

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Designated a Community Improvement Area to allow the City to provide a Tax Incremental Financing Scheme to support downtown redevelopment or rehabilitation. This is a 10-year program whereby the maximum amount of the tax rebate shall not exceed the anticipated increase in municipal realty taxes as a direct result of the redevelopment. The rebate is on a declining basis whereby in year 1 it is equal to 100% of the municipal realty increase, declining 10% each year. The total amount of the rebate shall not exceed the costs of the property’s rehabilitation. Elimination of development charges in the downtown core Permits the conversion of vacant commercial or retail space to residential uses without the requirement of providing parking. No zoning requirements for parking for commercial uses.

DC Exemptions Parking Requirements

Thorold

Grant

Façade Improvement Grant Program – grants will be available for the Downtown Thorold Area equal to 50% of the eligible costs to a maximum of $10,000 per building.

Thunder Bay Grant

Core Area Rehabilitation & Redevelopment Grant Program – eligible property owners can receive a grant equal to 100% of any increase in municipal taxes that result from the re-assessment of improved property for a ten-year period. Core Area Façade Loan Improvement Program – eligible property owners can receive interest-free loans, amortized over 10 years for 50% of the cost to improve the exterior facades of buildings to a maximum of $15,000 per loan. Amendments to the Central Business District Zones (CBD) now allow for an increased number of uses within the city’s downtown areas. It also alters various standards such as yard, frontage and parking requirements in an effort to facilitate positive development.

Loan

Tillsonburg

Approved Community Improvement Plan for the downtown core with tax increment financing, waiver of building and other fees.

Timmins

A Community Improvement Plan for the downtown core areas of the City is currently underway and will identify a variety of incentive programs to encourage investment and improvements.

Toronto

Façade

Supplementary programs in Streetscape Improvement, Commercial Facade Improvement, Banner and Mural, Commercial Research, and Community Festivals and Special Events are also offered.

Economic Development Programs

362

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Waterloo

Type of Program
Interest Free Loan

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
The City has a façade program that provides up to $15,000 in interest free loans.

Welland Loan

DC Exemptions Fees waived

Façade Improvement Loan Program. Provides assistance to rehabilitate and improve facades of commercial buildings in the Downtown Community Improvement Area. The loan covers 50% of the eligible improvement costs to a maximum of $15,000 per municipal address. Residential DC exemptions in the downtown Refunding most planning and building permit fees and parkland dedication fees. Assistance will be 50% for projects other than those creating new residential units and 100% for new residential rentals.

Interest Free Loans

Interest free loans to pay for conversion of existing commercial space to residential units and the construction of new units on vacant land. The maximum loan amount is to be calculated based on $10 per square foot of habitable space, with a maximum term of 10 years. This program promotes the redevelopment and rehabilitation of the downtown by removing the financial disincentive of increased property taxes associated with redevelopment in the short term. The municipality will give grants equivalent to a portion of the property tax increase for a period not to exceed 10 years (80% in year 1 and 2, 70% in year 3 and 4 etc.) Waiving or reduction in residential parking requirements for Improvements or change of use to existing buildings and additions or new building construction as set out in the Zoning by-law.

Tax Incremental Grant Program

Economic Development Programs

363

Municipal Study 2007

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Municipality
Whitby Grant

Type of Program

Downtown/Area Specific Programs
Façade Grant Program in place for 2 years – a minimum investment of $5,000 will result in a $2,500 grant for approved items. Applicants can reapply every 5 years. Applicants can get a grant for up to $1,000 for architectural, engineering and design fees. Downtown Development Office provides support to downtown property and business owners including publishing annual business directory. Advertising, special events, studies and information products, business recruitment and retention, banners and signage, etc. Ongoing program of enhanced capital improvements to public streets and parks in the downtown areas. Downtown Community Improvement Program – aims to revitalize the downtown area restoring the ‘country town’ feel and centrality to the community. The program has been designed to brand the downtown area, and create an atmosphere that encourages the consumer to visit and stay longer in downtown Stouffville.

WhitchurchStouffville

Woodstock

Downtown Improvement Area Grant Program – properties that are reassessed as a result of renovation, rehabilitation, or redevelopment are eligible to apply for a grant following work that would trigger a reassessment. The portion to be granted back only includes the increase in municipal taxes and BIA levy associated with the improvement. The portion of municipal taxation levied for Education and Upper tier purposes will not be granted back. The total value of the grant shall not exceed the value of the work done. The City offers Rehabilitation and Renovation Grants – applies to commercial, institutional or industrial buildings. For this program 80% of the increase is eligible in the municipal portion of the taxes and BIA levy in year one, decreasing to 60% in year two, 50% in year three, 40% in year four and 30% in year five following reassessment. Redevelopment Grants – applies to all classes of new buildings that are developed on vacant land or cleared sites within the downtown area.

Tax Rebate

Grant

Economic Development Programs

364

Municipal Study 2007

Brownfield Redevelopment
A “Brownfield site” is considered to be a property with or without buildings or structures, having a history of either industrial or commercial uses and which, as a result of these uses, has become environmentally contaminated under circumstances where there is no reasonable prospect that the remediation of such contamination will be accomplished solely by the private sector. Brownfields are viewed by many as opportunities for revitalizing urban communities. Some of the advantages of Brownfield Redevelopment include: • Revitalization of the downtown core and surrounding neighbourhoods • More effective use of existing municipal infrastructure • Reduction in pressure for suburban expansion • Clean-up of environmentally contaminated sites • Increased tax revenue • Create jobs • Improve the overall liveability of urban neighbourhoods
Municipality
Brantford

Brownfield Development
The Brantford Brownfields Financial Tax Incentive Program provides tax assistance to private developers for the rehabilitation and redevelopment of brownfield properties. The goal of this program is to work with developers by providing financial assistance for the redevelopment of brownfield properties so that these sites can be more competitive with Greenfield properties. This program implements, in part, Brantford’s Brownfield Sites Community Improvement Plan, which promotes the healthy rehabilitation and redevelopment of eligible brownfield sites for a defined period of time. The financial incentive program will allow successful applicants to obtain rebates on the municipal and school portion of the property taxes paid on rehabilitated brownfield properties. Up to 100% of the cost of environmental remediation may be eligible for rebates. The Brantford Brownfields Financial Tax Incentive Program is designed to work in conjunction with the Brownfield Financial Tax Incentive Program established in 2004 by the Province of Ontario. Application to the Brantford Brownfields Financial Tax Incentive Program will also serve as the application to the provincial program . Developers can receive a credit from development charges payable for a project for the cost of environmental remediation work carried out on the property. Brantford is actively involved in assembling brownfield properties, carrying out environmental site assessments and removing encumbrances and then requesting proposals for the redevelopment of these lands.

Economic Development Programs

365

Municipal Study 2007

Municipality
Cambridge

Brownfield Development
Opportunities are available to potential purchasers of contaminated sites to cancel a portion of all outstanding taxes. It may be possible to receive a Development Charges credit equal to the restoration costs of the property (not to exceed the total development Charges payable to the City on the project)

Clarington

No development charge shall be imposed with respect to developments or portions of developments that result in addition of a single unit within the existing footprint.

Cornwall

Tax incentives and tipping fee relief for a development in an existing brownfield site

Guelph

The City has developed a preliminary inventory of approximately 175 potential brownfield sites. Tax Increment Financing ‘Tax Increment Equivalent Grants’ are a method of using the future increases in tax assessment and property tax revenues on a property associated with site assessment and remediation. Tax Arrears Cancellation Policy This program would apply to brownfield properties that are in tax arrears where a bona fide third party purchaser is interested in acquiring the site and remediating it. The approach promotes the redevelopment of brownfield sites without exposing the municipality to the risk of ownership. Taxation Assistance During Rehabilitation The Brownfields Statute Law Amendment Act established a new financial tool, which would allow municipalities to freeze or cancel all or a percentage of municipal and education taxes (with Ministry of Finance approval for the latter) during the rehabilitation and redevelopment time periods. Development Charge Related Incentives The Development Charges Act – a by-law that provides a development charge credit on contaminated properties equal to the sire assessment and clean-up costs of the property.

Economic Development Programs

366

Municipal Study 2007

Brownfield Redevelopment
Municipality
Hamilton

Brownfield Development
Brownfield Redevelopment. The City has prepared a Community Improvement Plan, known as the Environmental Remediation and Site Enhancement Plan or ERASE Plan that provides incentives in the City’s 3,400 acre older industrial area ERASE Redevelopment Grants Grants are available to provide financial relief to property owners who undertake and complete brownfield redevelopment projects within the project area. Grants cover the following eligible program costs: • Environmental remediation and environmental studies • Demolition • Site preparation including construction/improvement of on-site public works. The grant is calculated as 80% of the increase in the municipal portion of property taxes and is paid on an annual basis for up to 10 years, commencing once the redevelopment is complete. ERASE Environmental Study Grants Matching grants are available from the City to pay for up to one-half the cost of a Phase II and/or a Phase III Environmental Site Assessment (Remedial Action Plan). The maximum City contribution per study is $10,000 to a maximum of two (2) studies per property. ERASE Planning and Development Fees Program A grant-in-lieu of planning and development fees paid on brownfield redevelopment projects within the project area is also available.

Kitchener

The City approved a recommendation to consider all of the City of Kitchener as a Community Improvement Project (CIP) are and develop a Brownfields Remediation Community Improvement Plan

Niagara Falls

Brownfields Development Charge Exemption Program – Region’s Development Charge Waiver/Exemption Program exempts a development from 75% of the Regional development charge if it is in a downtown, surrounding built-up urban area or brownfield area. Up to an additional 25% development charge exemption is provided depending on the Inclusion of Smart Growth principles into the proposed development. Norfolk County exempts approved brownfield developments from development charges. Further incentives for brownfield remediation are being studied as part of Norfolk County’s Community Improvement Plan.

Norfolk

Economic Development Programs

367

Municipal Study 2007

Brownfield Redevelopment

Municipality
Oshawa

Brownfield Development
Brownfields Renaissance Community Improvement Plan is applicable to lands throughout the City and includes grants for environmental studies of brownfield sites, tax cancellations program and redevelopment grants

Thorold

A property tax assistance that provides for the exemption of up to 100% of taxes levied, subject to budget consideration, for the period immediately following the approval of the Property Tax Assistance By-Law and continuing during the Rehabilitation Period and Development Period. The Minister of Finance may match the municipality’s tax assistance provided to a property owner through the education portion of the property tax.

Economic Development Programs

368

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Parks
Municipality Ajax Aurora Industrial Park Carruthers Creek Employment Westney Road & Bayly Street Aurora Gateway Business Park Aurora South Industrial Industrial Parkway North Hallgrove Business Park Aurora Business Park Mapleview West Industrial Park South Barrie Industrial Park Private Lands North-East North-West Multiple Braneida Industrial Jame Dick King & Benton Oak Park East Brant Trade Tillyard John G. Bloom Industrial Bolton Industrial Park Bolton Industrial Park Tullamore Industrial Park Mayfield West - Kennedy Road Victoria Business Park Cambridge Business Park L. G. Lowell Park Eastern Industrial Park Bloomfield Industrial Park Ridgetown Industrial Blenheim Industrial McGregor Industrial Clarington Science Park Clarington Energy Park Lucas Point Business & Industrial Cornwall Industrial Park Bales Drive Industrial Park Mount Albert Holland Landing South Green Lane East Queensville Hanlon Creek Business Coldpoint Business Park Ancaster Industrial Park Stoney Creek Industrial Business Park Lindsay Industrial Park Cataraqui Industrial Estates Clyde and Alcan Industrial Parks St. Lawrence Park 4 industrial parks Seneca Road Trafalgar Industrial Park Skyway Industrial - Phase 1 Innovation Park - Phases 1 to 4 Woodbine North Commerce Valley 407/404 Northeast Business District Airport Corporate Centre Gateway Business District Wesytern Business Park Meadowvale Business Park Size Acres 640 280 81 14 38 48 88 36 41 1000 150 25 N/A 52 143 300 84 30 85 398 217 148 358 83 850 1300 300 120 28 33 5 352 318 54 1000 100 48 212 94 954 20 60 88 250 200 140 50 160 20 35 140 570 67 15 10 555 110 552 130 648 Price Per Acre High Low N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 275,000 $ 175,000 275,000 $ 175,000 500,000 $ 425,000 N/A N/A 275,000 90,000 N/A 40000 N/A 220,000 145,000 150,000 N/A N/A N/A 40000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 145,000 145,000 N/A 70,000 11,050 29,000 41,400 N/A N/A 40,000 20,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 85,000 125,000 65,000 125,000 65,000 45,000 45,000 35,000 65,000 85,000 97,000 97,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ownership Public/Private Private Private Private Private Private Public

$ $ $ $ $

Barrie

Belleville Brampton Brantford

$ $ $

Brockville Caledon

Cambridge

$ $ $ $ $ $

Chatham-Kent

Clarington Cobourg Cornwall East Gwillimbury

$ $

Guelph Hamilton

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$ 225,000 Public $ 65,000 Public $ 125,000 Private $ 20,000 Public/Private N/A Private $ 99,000 N/A $ 95,000 Public $ 130,000 Private N/A Private N/A Private N/A Private 15000 N/A Private N/A Private N/A Private N/A Private N/A Private $ 145,000 Public $ 145,000 Public/Private N/A Private $ 55,000 Public $ 11,050 Public $ 29,000 Public $ 41,400 Public N/A Private N/A Private $ 30,000 Public/Private $ 10,000 Public N/A Private N/A Public/Private N/A Private N/A Private N/A Private $ 85,000 Public/Private $ 75,000 Private $ 75,000 Public/Private $ $ $ $ $ 75,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Private Public/Private Public Public Public

Kawartha Lakes Kingston

Kitchener Leamington London

Markham

Mississauga

$ 60,000 Private $ 55,000 Public $ 45,000 Public $ 55,000 Public $ 300,000 Private $ 300,000 Private $ 300,000 Private N/A Private N/A Private N/A Private N/A Private N/A Private

Economic Development Programs

369

Municipal Study 2007

Industrial Parks
Municipality Newmarket Niagara Falls Industrial Park Newmarket Industrial Business Mulock Drive/Harry Walker Parkway Montrose Business Park Muller Stanley Industrial Alfred W. Judd Industrial Park Norfolk Industrial Park Delhi Industrial Park Gateway Business Park North Bay Jack Garland Airport Stevenson Industrial Park Champlain Industrial Park Farewell Industrial Park Orleans Industrial Parks Kanata South Business Park Hawthorne Business Park Owen Sound Industrial Park Owen Sound Industrial Park Major Bennett Industrial Park Peterborough Industrial Park Brock Industrial Area Loyalist Industrial Park Babcock & Wilcox Property Highway 140 Industrial Area Beaver Creek Business Park Headford business Park Sarnia 402 Business Park Chippewas of Sarnia Business Park Sarnia Business & Research Park University Western Ont. R & D Vidal Industrial Park Sault Ste. Marie Industrial Park Gateway Industrial Park Bunting East Industrial Port Weller Industrial Louth Industrial Bunting Industrial Park Glendale Industrial Park Highbury Industrial Park Other Lands Wright Business Park Walden Industrial Park Valley East Radisson Industrial Park Balmoral IV Business Park Innova Business Park Municipal Industrial Park Noronta Industrial Park Private Property Size Acres 48 9 100 62 15 93 27 8 68 30 74 80 117 1100 300 200 840 74 100 50 400 85 328 200 614 433 85 200 200 80 33 45 1000 320 219 451 260 222 130 50 52 60 22 40 39 71 80 4 10000 1206 112 139 112 199 40 45 30 30 497 12 251 9 150 Price Per Acre High Low N/A N/A 450,000 $ 400,000 40,000 $ 20,000 100,000 $ 50,000 N/A $ 35,000 26,500 $ 26,500 30,000 $ 23,000 24,000 $ 24,000 20,000 $ 8,000 N/A N/A 275,000 $ 225,000 300,000 $ 225,000 275,000 $ 130,000 100,000 $ 50,000 120,000 $ 75,000 110,000 $ 80,000 40,000 $ 5,000 30,000 $ 30,000 40,000 N/A 40,000 N/A 250,000 $ 150,000 25,000 $ 21,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 600,000 $ 450,000 600,000 $ 450,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29,000 23,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 45,000 45,000 38,000 50,000 20,000 40,000 N/A 93,951 N/A 35,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 15,000 $ 12,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 45,000 $ 35,000 N/A $ 40,000 N/A $ 35,000 N/A $ 64,770 N/A N/A N/A 150,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 125,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 65,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ownership Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public/Private Public/Private Public/Private Private Public Public Public Private Public Private Public/Private Private Private Public Private Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Private Public/Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Public

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Norfolk

North Bay Oshawa

Ottawa

Owen Sound Peterborough Pickering Port Colborne

Richmond Hill Sarnia

$ $

Sault Ste. Marie St. Catharines

$ $

St. Thomas Stratford Sudbury

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Thunder Bay Tillsonburg Timmins Vaughan

Vaughan Enterprise Zone Vaughan Corporate Centre Vaughan 400 North Jane North Weston 400 North Wasaga Beach Wasaga Beach Business Park Whitby Durham Business Centre Thickson Woods Business Park Hopkins Whitchurch-Stouffville Stouffville Vandorf Gormley Cardico Windsor Twin Oaks Business Park Woodstock Average Median Source - Ontario Economic Development Community Profiles Pattullo Ridge Business Park

1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 150,000 250,000 180,000 200,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 130,000 $ $ $ 75,000 191,932 93,951

75,000 Public

$ 115,552 $ 70,000

Economic Development Programs

370

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.