Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFND-010-01 , . .. , CI!J!mgton REPORT FINANCE DEPARTMENT Date: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2001 Resolution #h/fI-'7%-o / Meeting: Report #: FND-010-01 File #: Pc9-~ By-law #: Subject: PROPERTY TAX CLASSIFICATION REVIEW Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT the recommendations included in Report FND-010-01 be adopted; and 2. THAT a copy of Report FND-010-01 be forwarded to the Property Tax Classification Review Project, led by Marcel Beaubien, M,P.P. Submitted by: Nancy , a r, B.BA, CA Director of Finance Reviewed b~ ~w2~ -(~ Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer NMT/hjl Attachment 939 ~ REPORT NO.: FND-010-01 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND 1,0 Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced on July 18, 2001 that he has extended the appointment of Marcel Beaubien, M.P.P. for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, as a special advisor to continue a review of the regulation which defines property classes under the assessment system, 1.1 The issues to be considered during this review include: . The number, scope and definition of property classes and subclasses; . The assessment methodology applied to unique properties such as hotels, farms and linear properties; and . The linkages between assessment classifications and related public policy objectives of the Government of Ontario, 1,2 Beaubien plans to conclude his review and report back to the Minister in the fall of 2001. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2.0 Included as Attachment "A" is a report from the Municipal Finance Officers Association of Ontario. MFOA's report includes general principles or observations that should guide the review of these issues (Part 1). The report also covers specific issues requiring review (Part 2 and 3). 2,1 The first principle is worthy of additional comment. The first principle is to "Understand the Tax Shifts Produced by Any New Recommendations". It is important to highlight that changes to assessment or property class definitions redistribute the tax burden. They do not reduce the Municipality's overall levy requirement. There may a very noble intent in cases such as assessment reductions in the Oak Ridges Moraine or rebates for heritage properties 940 " REPORT NO.: FND-010-01 PAGE 3 (currently being proposed), however, a tax impact analysis is crucial in order to determine the effect on other taxpayers before any proposal proceeds. 2,2 It is recommended that the Principles or Observations included in Part 1 of the Draft MFOA report be endorsed. 3.0 MFOA has included a fairly extensive list of specific issues. They have included a position/concern with each issue. 3.1 Staff would like to highlight an area of particular concern. 3.2 Linear Properties (MFOA, Part 2, Section 5) (a) Staff have strong concerns with respect to railroad and hydro rights of way. For 2001, the Province has frozen Clarington's rate at the 2000 level. The Province has indicated it will compensate for any shortfall, but a mechanism has not yet been established to do this. Finance will issue an invoice to the Province for our lost revenue in anticipation that the funds will be received. Our 2001 tax rates were established based on the assumption that 2001 rates would be used on the railway rights-of-way. (b) Since the standardized rates were calculated to yield the same tax impact province wide on the railways, it is unclear as to why the Province would freeze increases but still allow rates to fall in those areas moving down to the average provincial rate. This represents a direct reduction to the railway in their tax burden for 2001. (c) Initially, there were indications that the average rate would be indexed over time and this has not occurred. This again represents a benefit to both the railway and hydro rights-of-way. (d) With respect to hydro rights-of-way, upon privatization of Ontario Hydro effective April 1, 1999, former Hydro linear properties were moved directly to the 2005 prescribed rate. This should not have resulted in an increase in the burden to OPG and Hydro One because the rate represented the 941 REPORT NO.: FND-010-01 PAGE 4 Provincial average. Municipalities within geographic areas were impacted by increases or decreases but overall, the revenue should have been consistent. Staff have significant concerns due to uncertainty with respect to the Province's intention in this area, It is unclear whether changes are being proposed that could significantly affect the linear revenue that is relied upon by Clarington in maintaining reasonable tax rates. Clarington opposes any changes to the linear rights-of-way taxation that would have a detrimental impact upon our tax base. The standardized 2005 rate was based upon existing total burden to the property owners and did not represent any increase to their total requirements. CONCLUSION 4.0 It is recommended that the MFOA position paper be endorsed. Attachments: Attachment A - Draft Report from Municipal Finance Officers Association of Ontario Interested party to be advised of Council's decision: Marcel Beaubien, M.P,P, Lambton-Kent-Midd lesex Rm. 115, Legislative Building Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A8 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0608 942 88/38/81'88:38:14 EST: MunICIPAL FInA~-> 9115&Z341&9 M, M 30/0801 TIlU 09:0i FAX 416 440 088i MFOA/CIlUMS/ONE ATTACHMENT "A" MFOA MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS' ASllClCWION OF ONTARIO FAX 1'0: ALL MEMBERS FAXNUMUER: DATE: August 30, 2001 NUMBER OF PAGES 9 (including cover sheel) Attached, please ftnd a draft report dealing with a number of assessment issues identified in the initial review of the ""s"ssment sy.tem conducted earlier this year by Mr Marcel B""ubien M.P.!'. This p.per will go before the MFOA Bo."j ofDirecton; on September 14,2001. It is our intention to pre.ent a Board approved paper 10 Mr, Marcel Beaubien in early October, 1 would like to encourage you to: 1. Review and comment on this pa.per. 2. Consider making a presentation of your own to Mr. Beaubien. ), Con.ider supporting MFOA's principles identified in tne paper, (Even if you do not !llPport MFOA's position on a spo::ific issue, we think that most municipaHties would feel comfurtable supporting the principles_ From the desk of... 943 DAN COWIN Policy AdviS:OT 1867 Yonge Street Suite 802 Toronto. ON M4S lY5 (4t6) 440-0388 Fax: (416) 440-0887 Email: dan@mfoa.on.ca OOi38/01 88:30:45 EST; MunICIPAL FInA?-) 985&2341&9 M, Marano, Town of C Page 883 PRESENTATION TO MR. MARCEL BEAUBIEN, M.P.P. In the Final Report submitted by Mr. Beaubien to the Honourable James Flaherty, Minister of Finance, on April 2, 2001, a number ofisSll"" were identified for further review. On July 18,2001 the Finance Minister announced an extension of the appointment of Mr. Beaubien as a special advisor to continue a review of the reguJalion that defines property classes under the BSscs.'IIIIent syslm1. To ....ist in 1I1is worl<, Mr. Beaubien invited lvlFOA, and other interested parties, to submit proposals and recommendatiOJls. Although many of the iRSues identified for further review are technical in namre, wc nevatheJess feel that there are general principle. or observations that should guide tile review of these issues. We identifY these ill Part 1. Part 2 consists of a brief discussion on the !;pEcific issues identified in the original repon as needing further review. Part 3 identifies a nl1lllber of issues that have come to our attention but were not explicitly identified in the original Beaubien Report Part 1. Principles or Observations 1, Untkrstand the Tax Shifts Produced by Any New Recommendlltions Changes to ,assessment practice. or property class definitions will result in tax shifts among property classes. Tax shifts associated with proposals must be clearly understood by the Province before they become recommendations. Recommendations should be accompanied by a tax impact analysis that identifies affected municipalities and the degree of inter-class. and/or inter-municipaJ tax shifting resulting from the recommendations. 2. Implement Change on a "G" Funvard" Basis Only Any recommendations put forward that affect asses.ment or tax policy should be implemented for the 2003 tax year. In the past, too many taX changes have been made part way Ihrough the year. This leads to delays jll billing and confusion for ratepayers and municipal councils and staff. 11\e Province should state, as a fundamental principle, tbat it will no longer permit retroactive cnanges to the properry lax system. 3. A void Changing Tax Policy Through the Assessment System The Province should be cautious about recommendations that assist narrowly defmed groups of ratepaYeni_ Special tax treatment for special interest groups will only encourage fragmentation of the Ontario Fair Assessment System. Band aid approaches might bring tax relief to some groups but at the expense of encolll..ging others to seek special treatment and ultimately undennining the laJ< system altogether, Tax reductions should take piace through laJ< policy toot, available to munTcipal1tie~~ The Province should avoid the temptation to provide tax relief to special groups by altering asse!'l~ment dcfinitjon~ or valuation techniques unles~ a very sound case can be made that existing definitions are valuation techniques are inadequate. 4. Maintain Local Accountability Jor T/Jx Policy Nothing should be done to reduce the level of local re~ponsibility for local tax policy_ Pmpos3ls that call for the: eliminatif)n of local control, such a~ mandatory t<J:r: ratio reductions. are inconsistent with the principles captnred in current propeny tax legislation and should be: rejected. 944 BB/30/01 '00:31:38 EST; MUKICIPAL FIKA~-> 9856234169 M. Marano, Town of C Pa~e 884 J. Promote Consistent Application of Policies Province-Wide Every effort should be made 10 encourage consistent application of valuation techniques and practices among the field offices of the Municiptll Property As.sessment Corporation. 6. Do Not Provide Tax Relief Based on a "Benefits Received" Test Tax relief ,hould not be con,idered ,imply because ratepayers feel that they do not J'Cceive services commensurate with Ibe taxes p.id. The property tax i. . general putpO,e tax fur financing Ibe full range of municipal services and is nol . uSet' charge_ While MFOA supportS reductions in taxation for business cl~es in many municipalities, il does not support redUctiODS fur property own.... .imply on die basis that thcir taxes are high relative to the ,ervices they Cl;lnsume. Part 2: Issues Identified in the Original Beaubien Report 1. Industrial Property CIa.. . We understand that .ome propertY ownets have qUelltioned why their property is in tbe industrial cia.. when it used to be ......cd as commercial. These include groups 'uch a, dcnturists and software develop...., (Paragraph 6(1)1 ii of 0_ Reg. 282/98 .tates that industrial propenics include lands u,ed for "research OT development in connection with manufacturing..."). . It i. our understanding that the definition of industrial property is broader than it used [0 bc and there may be a case for revisiting the definition in light of what was originally intended to be captured. . We also understand that there ls a llscale" issue in the industrial c1ass_ Home hobby shops, for example, can bc classified as industrial where .0mOlbing is being produced (<>_g_ crafts such as bird feeders. pottery). Prior to tax. retonn, th"". types of pJ'OllOl'lies were assigned to a tax class based on tbe predominant use of the property. For example. a residential property with a garage that is equipped with a kiln for making pottery would bave been classified "-' fully residential and subje<:t to a residential tax rate becau~e tne predominant use was residential. Under tax reforml properti(."S with multiple uses have their various llSes. a~sjgncd to the appropriate fa... clas;l;. Under thi5 approach, the pottery shop in the garage would be cla.sified a, industrial (manufacture ofpoltery item,) and the rest of the house classed as residential. The industrial CV A would generally attract a higher tax rate such that the <'V.mil taxation on the property would he higher, all other things being equal. Generally, this approach produces greater equity in that properties with similar uses pay the same tax rate!t rather than the tax rate associated with the predominant use. F'ositirmIConcern: Any change that remov.. small scale properties from the indo.llial clas. has tlte potential to adversely affect the tax base of municipalities. Such a change should only be adopted if a deta;led tax impact analysis suggests that tax shifting wO\lld have minor impacts on oilier property cJtlsses. 2, Small Bnsine,s Property CIa.. . For a variety of reason,. mAAY municipal councils would have liked to be able to offer tax relief to truly ~man scale commercial enterprises. None of the current tax tool~ allows municipalities to mrget small bus.incss for ~pccial tax treatment. Effort.'\; have been ma.de to define fL small business class to permit targeting of tax relief, but defmitional problems have been significant. Definitions of ,mall business tI,at rely on square footage, for example. have the problem that some ~mal1 properties might actually be part ofa very Jarge business. (c.g. local branch ofa bank). 945 2 '89/38/8188:32:16 EST: MunICIPAL FlnA?-) 9856234169 M. Marano. Town of C Paye 885 . MFOA is supportive of efforts to give municipalities greater options related to the taxation of small business. However, we are also aware that, to date. efforts on this issue have not resulted in consensus positions. In addition,. with four possible commercial property classes now (i_e. commerclal~ shopping, office, parl<ing), MFOA i. concerned abont further fragmenting the c1as.. It is useful to remember that prior to taX reform, al1 commercial propertie~ were subject to the same tax rate. Overly fragmenting the commercial class into more subclasses wi11 take us further from a keystone principle of taXation that all properties in the same class pay the same tax. Furthermore~ the willingness to fragment the c1as. will doubtl"". lead to further requ..lll to create additional class.. for specia! properties (e.g. golf COUTSe class, heritage class. etc.). . Finally, il shoul<l be recognized that lowering talles fur one commercial sub-class resullll in higher taxes for the other commercia! sub-clas.... or for properties in other classes. Such reductions merely redistribute the tax burden, they do not reduce the municipality', overall levy requirements. PositionlConcem.' MFOA feels that caution is needed when considering the creation of nOW class'es. We could not fully endorse the creation of a small bu:!'liness class with""l knowing how ,uch a clllS' would be defined. 3. FlII"m Lands and Buildings . It is our undenrtanding that the main issue being raised with Mr. Beaubien on this matter deals with the tax treatment ofancUIary buildings on a farm, Ifa fanner has an apple olChartl, an<l has a building to store apple.. this is integral to thc operation of the farm and all elements of the property are classified as furm property. Assessors refer to this as value retention. However, if a building is being used to process what is grown into a sellable product (e.g, produce cidtT, pies, wine, etc,). then this is what assessors call vallie added, and such buildings will be assessed as industrial. Position/Concern: In cases where there is a "value added" acti.vity~ it is appropriate to classify affected buildings.. indusuial and tax them accordingly. . If a fanner l"""os slOnlge to other farmers, suoh facilities are classed a!l commercial since they are not integral to the fann opellllion of the owner, Thi. rai... problem. for fann co-ops where storage facilities are being provided by th.e co~op and classified as commercial. If own site storage would be taxed as farmland, then the assessmenf system should Dot discriminate against cooperative ventures by taxing co-op storage facilities as t:ommercial enlrcpri:'le~. Position/C(Jnc~rn_' F ann co-ops thai provide storage space for legitimate farm purp""" .hould be da....sified as farmland. 4. Managed Fores18 . We underotand that there are a number of administrative issues with the Ministry ofNarural Resources regarding the identification and administralion of lands designated lJ:li managed forests. In addition~ there are issues related to the way that these lands are ossessed when foresyg are ncar bodiC':!'l, of water. Forests near bodies ofw9ter tend '00 have higher valuations. <I To our knowledge. no suggestion has been made that managed forests be exempt in the game way that conselV'at10n lands are. Position/Collcern: MFOA would strongly oppose any attempt to exempt managed forests from taxatron. 946 3 IIB1311/111 '118:33:1111 EST: MUftICIPAL FlftA?-} 9115&2341&9 M. Marano, Town of C Page 1111& 5. Linear Properties I'. Pipeline..:: . 10 the ca,. of pipelines, the CV A i, establi,hed by applying a fixed value to each ,ection of pipe according to the size of the pipe. TIle tax rate for the cla!'ts is determined in the same fashion that alt other class tax rates arc determined, by using the municipalityls overall levy requiremenrs, its total weighted CV A aod its cl... tax ratios_ . In 2000, there w.. confusion among field officcs about the approprtate rates to apply to pipelines to ddennine their CV A. In some c...., pipeline CV M changed quite dramatically, We understand that the induslry is seeking clarification on the proper approach aod greater predictability foT theiT tax bunions in the future. Position/Concern: Generally, the AMOIMFOA supports the objective of consi,"'nt ....s.ment practices and prediotability of tax burdens. However~ any changes to current assessment practices for pipelines 9:hould be the focus of further consultation with at'fueted partie, and should be .ccompanied by a tax impact report, b_ Railroad and Hydro Rights of Way . Under taX refonn, railroad and hydro rights of w.y are to be t",,-ed by applying .tandanlized rates in nine geogrophic areas to the area of the right of way. The stlndardized tax rates were ealculatcd to yield the same tax 1M' the fragmented system of rates pTeviou,ly pTOduced. Across a broad geographic area, some municipalities are experiencing [ax revenue Josses (they had high rates that are moving to a lower average rate fOI" their area) and some are experiencing tax revenue gains (they had low Tates that are moving to a higher av""'ge rate lOT th.ir area). All municipalities were moving 'owan! the standardized rate oveT time. All municipalities arc 'uppo,ed to be at the ,tandard rate by 2005. . In 2001., the Province ha, frozen rates for municipaliti.. where rat.. were in"""",in~ but allowed rates to fall for tho,e moving down to the average rate, lbe Province ba, undertaken to compensate municipalities that were moving to higher rates for any tax: losses. It is not cleaf what impacl this change willllave on achieving the prescribed 2005 standardized rates. Position/Concern: MFOA supports the move to !'Otandaniized ratei!l and oppo!llie!!l 3I1Y move to reduce taxes paid by railroads in the nine geographic areas. c, Cable . Abandoned pipeline, are not subjec' to laxatioo. In some cases, cable lines are being run rhrough abandoned pipelines and no tax is being paid, l'osflion/Cancem: If cable OT internet inrrastructuTe is T\!n through pipeiines, these pipes should be a$scssed and taxed_ Consultation is required to determine the appropriate value to be attached to the pipelines in thi, case. 6. Hotels 11 Hotels ownern have raised issues related to the income approach used by the assessment corporation in determining values for hotels. Precise details of the issues involved are not known at this time. Obviously, asses~ment methodologies favoured by hotel owners would lea.d to lower hotel assessments. IVlFOA will not comment on the appropriateness of currenl assessmem methodologies in 947 4 BBi30tB188:33:42 EST; MunICIPAL FlnA?-) 985&2341&9 M, Marano, Town Df C Page BB7 accutakly assessing hOlelg. However, MFOA is concerned about the potential impacts of any change to the way that hotels are assessed. Position.lConcerm: No changes should be made to hotel assessments, OT to the assessments of other properties in the service sector, without deudled lax impact analyses. 7. Rooming Houses, Co-operative and CO""<lwnenhlp Buildings . The regulation currently uses the term nself coorained 1.Dtitslr in numerous poinTS in section 3 which sets out the definition of residential/farm property. This reference 10 self-contained unils bas created a degree of confusion with regard to 'orne types of specialized residential buildingll such as rooming ho..... and oo-operatives and co-<lwnership buildings. This ..sue is mainly a concern in Toronto. Position/Concern: MFOA ,uppOT1s any necessary cbange 10 the definition of the residential/fann property cla" to ensure that the full range of living aJTallgements is captured a, residential, including rooming hOUllings and co-operative buildings. 11. Vacant Lands with High-Density Residential ZOning . Vacant land thaI is zoned as high-<lensily residential is often coded on the roll as multi-residential, which canies a higher tax rate than the residential class, Developers argue that in mosl municipalities, high-density residential can include condominiums and lownbou."", both of which are ineluded in the residential/farm cl.... and not the multi-residential claos. . Tn many cases. the exact nature of the future buildings is not known, The argument from developers is that Ihese lands should be taxed al the lower residential rale since condominiums and townhonses are much more commonly developed than rnultiMTeJsidcntial rental units. At the very least. developers say. the lower "new multi,residential" rate should apply in municipalities thai have adop!ed il PositionlConcern: MFOA supports C1IITOnt approaches with respect to the codlD.$ of vacant lands with high donsity residential uses, 9. Multi-re.idential Property Class . Owm:n; of multi-residential units have been a.~king the government for mandatory reductions in tAA ratios for the multi-~idential c1fl$s. A key principle of ta.... reform was that municipalities were to have authority over tAX ratio adjustments. We continue to support Lhe notion that tax ratio reductions for multi-residential properties should continue to be a matter of local discretion. . Tax relief for the multi-residential class to date: o the education lllJ( ralt: for the multi.residential e1ass i, equal to the rate for !he residential elMS, This led to a reduction in ed1Jcation taxation faT multi-residential properties. o some municipalities have created a llnew multi-residentiall' class with lower tax ratios for new mutti-residential buiJdin2s for up 10 25 yoars. This is often coupled with a phased approach 10 lowering ratios for existing multi-residential buildings so that the ratios for new and old buildin~ are the same at the end of the 25 year phase-in peliod. o The application of the "levy restriction" in the capping legislation means that a municipality cannot pas.s On a tax increase to the multi-residential class if the m.x ratio for that class in greater than 2.7400. [f:a municipality has a tax increase~ and the multi..residcntial class m ratio is greater than 2.74. this is equivalent to a mandatory reduction in the 1'atio fOf 1hat class under existing legislation. Position/Concern: MFOA :itrongly supports the notion of municipal control over the movement of tax ratios for all dasses. including the multi-residential class. 948 5 HBi30/01 80:34:27 EST; nUnICIPAL FlnA?-) 985~2341~9 n. ~rano, Town of C Page 88B 10. Land. Being Farmed Pending Development . Mr. BeaubieJI will "evaluate the effectiveness or the current structure of the snb-c1a~cs of farmland pending developmenL" The preci.e nature oftbe issues relatoo to rannland pending development are not clear. . Currently, there are two sub-classes, which are taxed at lower rates, for fatmland pending development in each of four property classes: residentiaUfannland, multi-residential~ commercia.J, and indll.'~tria1. The lower tax rates apply to fannland in the eorly stages of development. The property i. not lllXeeI at the full cl8..... rate until ills developed and ocCllpieel. This confenl an advantage on the developer who does nol have to pay the full class tax rate while the lands are being developed or while approval. are being obtalned. . At the moment, .. property pas,es from one stage of development to another, the laXes on the property increase as a result of a higher CV A as well as the application of a higher lax rate, The higher CV A represents the greater value attached to the property as a result of its more advanced state of development . The cunent approach to fannland pending development confers significant benefits on developers who do not:tace \I1e fun Cb,"s tax rate nor the full CV A on the property until ills developed. Po,'1ition/Concern: The cunent treatment of farmland pending development be continued. 11. Environmental P~otection . Mr. Beaubien will review the tax treatment of land.. designed to protect and rehabilitate the environment. . Generally, municipalities are cautious about proposals to reduce taXes for ~jaHzed properties since the general """,ion of the base that this can create can be quite .ignifieanL Such erosion merely causes other cl..... to absorb more of the tax burden. However, in the case of lands that require environmental rehabili13t1on, lax con=.ions may well contribute to the rcslOl'lltlon of significal1t tr.ICtl! of urban land that can r..ult in mcrcased lax revenues and po.sibly the elimination of urban blight and stimulation of local employment. These are laudable goals. t, Bill 561 the Brownjields Sramte Law Amendment Act, received second reading on June 28. 200 I. The bill give powers to municipaiitie!\ to pass by-laws providing for municipal tax assistance to a.<;gigt with the environmental rehabilitation of properties that do not meet the standards prescribed for filing a record of site condition in the Environmental Site Registry in accordance with the amendments made to the Environmental Protection Act by Part II of the Bill. With the approval of the Minister of finance~ these by-laws may also apply to education taxes. Position/Concern: Municipalities should have discretion to provide tax assistanoe to properties that r~ire environmental rehabilitation. . With respect to environmentally sensitive lands. me tax. trea:hnenl depends: on the sitU8[ion. Conservation authority lands are exempt from taxation. However, no one would suggest that aU the lands embraced by the Oak. Ridges Moraine should be exempt or taxed at a lower rate. Most, however, would agree to more stril1gent development controls for such lands. There are many policy levers. available to protect environmentally ~en~iti\'t: lands and any attempt ro weer the property tax system in this regard should be subjected to [urLher consultation and economic impacl analysis before being enshrined in Jaw_ Position/Concern: Any changes to the tax t:teatment of enviTonment.1.lJy sensitive lands should be the subject of a separate consultation process 3Ild economic impact studies. 949 (j 88/39/81 '80:35:12 EST; MUKI~IPAL FIKA?-) 905&2341&9 M. Marano, Town of ~ Pa~e 809 ,'If".'- 13. Technical and Procednral Issue. . Mr. Beaubien propose!l to continue to review O. Reg. 282/98 to ensure that a. all proviI1cial policy objectives are being met~ b. ambiguities are clarified; and c. inconsistencies are rectified. Position/Concern: The Province .hould ensure that O. Reg_ 282/98 meets objeclives a, b and c above. ISSUES NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE BEAUBIEN REPORT 1. Mobile 110m.. . Some $o8$onal campgrounds in Onlario contain mobile horn.. that serve 8$ full time residential units but are not currently assessed. Mobile homL"S in on~ jurisdiction might be assessed while those in another arc not. Position/Concerns: Mobile horn.. used as full time _idmti.1 unit! should be assessed and taxed at the ",.identialifann rate_ The Municipal Property A....sment Corporation should ensure that roles for assessing mobile home~ 8houJd be consistent aoross the Province. 2. Boats . A float house is a house-like structure bullIon a floaling foundation that is not generally intended for use in navigation. It is essenliaUy a floating version of the mobile home issue identified sbove. Currently, marinas pay taxes for the overall site as a commercial entreprisc. Where a boal or float house is used as a residential home for people on a year round basis, there is a case for having a separate assessment as a residential unit. Position/Concerns: The assessment and taxation ofboatfi and float houses should be reviewed with a view to ta~ing such propertie5l as residential units where there is evidence that they arC occupied on a year round basis. 3. Commercial Use. on School Board Lands .. In some cases, school boards have permitted commercial activity to take placo on property owned by a 100111 Board of Education. In Vaughan, for profit day....-e facilities located on school board property have not been assessed. Another municipality has identified a fasl food outlet on exempt school board lands that is also not assessed and not taxed. . In the OPAC quaTl<...-ly Newsletter of April 2000, OPAC identified the issue of "the ass..sment of day care centres attacbed to schools" as a matter requiring legislstive/regulatOJY change. Posirion/Conce17lS: For profit activities taking place on exempt school board lands should be assessed as commercial and taxed appropriately. 4. Mine TaUings .11 !\4ining companies obtain the right to mine lands from al1lcvels of government One of tho conditions attached to the righr [0 mine is thm the company must develop a rehabilitation plan to dispose of any W31;te materials. Tn many case~ mining companies have built large containmenr strUctures to store 950 7 " B8i38fB1 'B8:35:52 EST; MunICIPAL FInA?-) 9856234169 M, Marano, Town of C Page B1B mine tailings costing millions of dolla"" Under the A.....ment Act, these Sll'Uctures are assessable and taxable. The a....sing autbority has historically treated mine tailing sites as vacant land wi1h liule or no assessment. In some cases, fhe mining operations have ceased and the mine tailing: structures are all that remain of the mine operation and mllnicipalities in this situation face tinandal hardship from lost tax revenUes. PositionlConcerns: The assessment of structum; built for the s{Orage of mine tailings should be rcvit.'wed. Nominal :assessments on structures costing millions of dollars seolllS inappropria.te andundu1y penalizes municipalities where [nining operations have ceased. 951 8