The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
City council's controversial plan to boost taxes on low-end homes hit a snag last week when opponents appeared likely to force a make-or-break hearing. A public meeting on the plan drew 40-plus residents, many of whom were against the proposal to fund police and fire protection through a service fee rather than traditional property taxes. 'My fear is that the seniors in the uptown area and the South Hudson area (are) going to suffer from this,' said Cal Huntley, a former city councillor, after rising to speak in the City Hall Council Chambers. Huntley said the service fee has the effect of upping taxes on low-end homes while decreasing them on high-end homes _ 'and I think we should all just realize that that's what we're doing.' Dennis Hydamaka, a volunteer with the Lord's Bounty Food Bank, said he worries more taxes on low-end rental buildings will mean higher rents for struggling welfare recipients. Saying most welfare clients already dip into their food budget to make rent, Hydamaka said he would have no choice but to bill the city if the service fee increases demands on the food bank. Another man said his property taxes will have tripled in just four years, from an initial $500 a year, if the service fee gets the green light. 'I want to know when you are going to quit, because I am on a fixed income,' he told council. Coun. Tim Babcock said taxes have gone up not because of council, but because the assessed value of many homes has surged. Coun. Babcock said the revenue-neutral service fee is only the first step of council's plan, with the second step being to raise the mill rate for all homes by two points. So while the service fee would initially lessen taxes on high-end homes, some or all of the savings for those homeowners would be negated by the mill rate increase. Armed with a tax chart, Municipal Administrator Mark Kolt said the biggest tax increase any one homeowner would face under the service fee would be about $350. That figure does not include council's planned mill rate increase. Such statements did not deter the 23 residents who have already told council, in writing, that they oppose the service fee. Nor were the opponents in attendance at the April 16 meeting swayed. As a result, it is quite likely that the Manitoba Municipal Board, which has the final say on the fee, will hold a public hearing in Flin Flon as early as next month. Members of the Municipal Board would hear directly from opponents and supporters of the fee, using the feedback to reach a final, binding decision. That didn't stop city council from approving first reading of a motion to bring in the fee. The vote carried 4-1 at the regular council meeting that followed the public meeting to discuss the service fee. Council will only be allowed to proceed with the third and final reading if the Municipal Board gives its blessing. Council's plan would see the $1.6 million annual cost of the Flin Flon RCMP and the Flin Flon Fire Dept. removed from property taxes. That amount would then be evenly divided among all taxpaying properties in the community _ $536.62 per residential property in 2013 and about $550 in 2014. Coun. Karen MacKinnon, who supports the fee, said something should be done to diminish the disparity among residents' tax bills. Coun. MacKinnon said her taxes are $248 a year while Coun. Babcock, who lives nearby with fewer amenities, pays over four times more than that at $1,100. 'So how is that fair?' Coun. MacKinnon asked. Greg East, a landlord who owns several low-end homes, agreed those types of houses should be charged higher taxes. Several times during the meeting, proponents described the fee as a way of creating wiggle room for future mill rate increases, which disproportionally impact high-end homes. See 'Concern' on pg. Continued from pg. Council's concern, Kolt said, is that continued mill rate boosts will halt high-end construction in Flin Flon, pushing it to cottage subdivisions and Creighton. In such a scenario, Kolt said, low-end properties would still see taxes rise 'just because there's no alternative.' Kolt said the city continues to face fiscal challenges, the latest being the potential $350,000 needed to repair the roofs at the RCMP and Fire Hall complex, City Hall, Community Hall and library. Coun. Babcock said the city's 'one-year emergency plan' contains expenditures totalling $12 million even though there is just $600,0000 to $1.2 million available for those projects. But Coun. Skip Martin, council's lone opponent of the service fee, called on his fellow councillors to join him in finding other ways to cover rising expenses. 'With this proposal, we're not gaining any extra money,' said Coun. Martin. 'We're just shifting the tax burden...from the high end to the low end in the residential areas.' Coun. Martin portrayed the fee as Robin Hood in reverse, saying it will see the bottom 70 per cent of homes collectively pay about $400,000 extra while the top 30 per cent saves about $140,000. Coun. Martin said basing property taxes strictly on assessed value is the 'fairest' approach, adding that low-end homeowners 'don't necessarily have' more money to spend on taxes. Added cost To further bolster his case, Coun. Martin twice mentioned that Flin Flonners are going to face another added cost in the form of rising utility bills. Another concern raised was the potential impact on residents who own vacant _ yet taxable _ lots near their homes. Coun. Babcock said the intent is not to make an individual pay the service fee multiple times, so this is a situation council is working to address. One reason for the service fee, Coun. Colleen Mckee said, is that Manitoba municipalities, unlike those in Saskatchewan, are not permitted to charge a minimum property tax. Creighton has for years charged a minimum tax of $700, and proponents suggested no ill effects have resulted. But not all Saskatchewan communities apply a minimum tax. Coun. Martin said Moose Jaw rejected the idea in part because 'it raised the lower-end properties a high percentage amount.' As for the worry that seniors will be disproportionally impacted by the fee because many live in low-end homes, Coun. MacKinnon said she knows retirees in high-end homes who will probably have to sell because of rising taxes. Coun. MacKinnon called council's proposal 'a fairer distribution of our services.' A number of those in attendance agreed. A show of hands revealed 15 of 40-plus attendees backed the fee. Another eight were neutral, with the remainder _ about half the room _ presumably opposed. Kolt pointed out that other Manitoba municipalities have implemented such service fees, which are allowed under provincial legislation. The goal is to glean more tax revenue from low-end homes, many of which are worth so little that they do not receive the full $700 annual homeowners' grant offered by the Manitoba government. If charged more under the service fee, some of those homeowners will be able to claim a greater share of the provincial grant. If approved, the new service fee would be added as a separate line to each homeowner's tax bill, similar to a debenture.
