News   Jul 16, 2024
 682     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
 604     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
 745     2 

New Transit Funding Sources

The Ontario NDP is now a populist party. Don't expect them to support any new taxes or fees for transit.

Will the revenue tools need new legislation? Or has the ability for Metrolinx to implement new revenue tools already been accounted for in the Act that created Metrolinx in the first place?

If it's the former, yes you're right it could be difficult. If it's the latter, the principle legislative way of stopping it was through an election, which the NDP today said they won't do.
 
The state of Minnesota is giving Minneapolis a new tax tool to fund its proposed modern streetcar line, the Star Tribune reports:
http://tinyurl.com/p2rat8r
"State gives city new tool to fund streetcars
Posted by: Eric Roper
Updated: May 21, 2013 - 6:46 PM

(photo - showing modern streetcar)

(article)
One provision in the state tax bill could have a significant impact on Mayor R.T. Rybak's dreams of building a streetcar in Minneapolis.

The bill allows the city to dedicate tax revenues from several specific parcels around Minneapolis to help pay for a new streetcar line.

The city pushed for the new funding method because, unlike regional transit like light rail, streetcars would be a localized project requiring more municipal investment.

Federal funding is still key to the deal.

The city won federal funding to perform an alternatives analysis for a line along Nicollet and Central Aves. -- which is almost complete -- and city staff are preparing to apply for a TIGER grant to help fund the line itself.

The "value capture district" designated by the state for funding streetcars is similar to tax increment financing.

It uses revenues from parcels near the transit line to pay off bonds issued to build it.

The money could be used to pay for planning and constructing the streetcar line, including transit stations, as well as acquiring or improving public space, according to the legislation.

Mayoral aide Peter Wagenius said they expect the parcels identified in the tax bill could generate about $5 million a year and support a $50 million bond issuance.

Minneapolis had pushed to give cities a broad authority to use tax increment for transit development, but walked away with a "pilot project" focused solely on the Nicollet-Central streetcar.

"This is a big victory," Wagenius said.

"In a session where nothing happened for transit, we found a way to keep moving forward on transit. And we're really proud of that."

So which parcels will generate the money for the streetcars?

They include the future location of two high-rise apartment buildings and several other sites where developments are already in the works.

That could set up some interesting discussions at the City Council, since property taxes from those properties would be directed into the streetcar rather than the general fund.

Hundreds of new residents -- the apartment buildings are 36 and 26 stories tall -- will simultaneously need city services, which puts more pressures on the city budget.

"What we hope to prove by the end of this project is that we will get an increase in value along the corridor beyond that which is projected on these six blocks," Wagenius said.

Wagenius noted that a another key difference between this and tax increment is that it benefits a public amenity rather than a single developer.
 
Meanwhile...

...there was a TTC meeting on Friday.

TTC board supports city manager’s recommendations for transit funding

From insidetoronto.com, at this link:

York Guardian
By Rahul Gupta

Despite a previous vote by city council only two weeks earlier that had rejected a majority of transit funding options, the TTC’s board of commissioners voted Friday to offer support for those same recommendations by city manager Joe Pennachetti.

The board, made up of seven city councillors and four civilian members, voted on Friday to support a motion by commissioner Josh Colle in support of dedicated revenue to pay for the province’s Big Move transit expansion plan. The plan was to be paid for through new taxes and fees under consideration by Metrolinx, which will release its final recommendations Monday on which of the revenue tools should be implemented.

But the board also voted in support of a friendly amendment from Councillor Glenn De Baeremaker, which endorsed not only the city manager’s initial recommendations regarding revenue tools, but council’s May 9 decision to reject many of those recommendations and include a slew of amendments calling for the completion of transit projects not included in the Big Move.

Dissenting commissioner John Parker called the board’s vote “amateur hour, phase two.â€

“Today the fundamental question that had been put on the floor of council two weeks ago was brought before the TTC and a different result transpired,†said Parker. “Members of the commission who voted one way at council have voted another way today. I don’t know what to make of that, and I don’t even know if they realize what they did, both at city council and today.â€

“I found myself totally disappointed in the way the matter was handled today.â€

Councillor Maria Augimeri said having the TTC endorse council’s support of unfunded transit proposals like a Scarborough subway to replace the RT was a “stupid decisionâ€.

“Premier (Wynne) has said personally she doesn’t support specifically any ideas about the Scarborough RT. That is going nowhere with this government. It’s as clear as a bell,†said Augimeri, who voted against the motion.

But despite the earlier decision by council, Colle insisted the TTC, as the largest transit provider in the region, should provide feedback to Metrolinx.

“TTC should be a leading voice on these issues and not take a back seat,†said Colle,

During the debate, TTC chair Karen Stintz, who voted in support of the motion, also defended the right of the transit agency to have its say.

She said the TTC’s decision to issue recommendations for revenue tools came before the city council vote to hold a debate, which in turn had overturned a deferral from the mayor’s executive committee until after Metrolinx’s report came out.

“What we are being asked to make a decision is something we asked to be here so we get an opportunity to say, or not, that the Metrolinx transit plan has merit,†said Stintz.

Despite his disapproval, Parker said he was relieved to be able to discuss matters not related to mayor Ford who during the meeting delivered a statement of denial regarding his alleged use of crack cocaine.

“Council will carry on, with or without the mayor,†he said. “But I do wish some of us would takematters seriously and conduct ourselves in a way that could give people confidence.â€
 
looks like they will be going with a 1% HST hike, 5 cent gas tax increase, a 25 cents a spot non residential parking levee, and a 15% hike in development charges.
Unless they apply the HST tax hike to the entire province, I really wonder how they are going to implement this - particularly on services. Or goods on the Internet.
 
Unless they apply the HST tax hike to the entire province, I really wonder how they are going to implement this - particularly on services. Or goods on the Internet.

Very easy to set the HST tax for the GTA. In the US, the cities have different sales tax along with the region they are in, in the same states. It makes no different if its goods or service.

Internet will take some doing, but overtime it can be done.

The $.25 a day parking charge is a joke and should be $1 at least. Both the fuel and parking revenue will fall overtime as cars use less fuel and parking spots being removed. In some cases, parking tax will be pickup by users or pass onto all buyers/workers.
 
Very easy to set the HST tax for the GTA. In the US, the cities have different sales tax along with the region they are in, in the same states. It makes no different if its goods or service.

Internet will take some doing, but overtime it can be done.

The $.25 a day parking charge is a joke and should be $1 at least. Both the fuel and parking revenue will fall overtime as cars use less fuel and parking spots being removed. In some cases, parking tax will be pickup by users or pass onto all buyers/workers.

I dont know if anyone will have the answer BUT...... I work at a church that only needs 2 parking spots for staff all week. On Saturdays and Sundays our parking lot fits about 30 cars. Would we be charged 25 cents a day for all 7 days or just for the weekends when the spots are used. Truthfully I would sell the parking lot to a developer but the city forces us to keep spots for the congregation.
 
I can see some legal problems with that... People wanting to not build parking spots to avoid the tax but being forced to because of zoning.. I see a lawsuit incoming.
 
I can see some legal problems with that... People wanting to not build parking spots to avoid the tax but being forced to because of zoning.. I see a lawsuit incoming.

Well for us we could only use the spots twice a week and when we use them unless it's a wedding or funeral we only use two thirds. Either way 70% of the time we are not using the spaces and the truth is we aren't really a money making business, rather our main focus is our food bank.
 
I dont know if anyone will have the answer BUT...... I work at a church that only needs 2 parking spots for staff all week. On Saturdays and Sundays our parking lot fits about 30 cars. Would we be charged 25 cents a day for all 7 days or just for the weekends when the spots are used. Truthfully I would sell the parking lot to a developer but the city forces us to keep spots for the congregation.

As a non-profit organization the church may be exempt (directly or through a rebate).
 
I can see some legal problems with that... People wanting to not build parking spots to avoid the tax but being forced to because of zoning.. I see a lawsuit incoming.

I've raised this issue in the past as well. As long as the city zoning by-law maintains a minimum parking standard, I think it's unfair for places to be charged a tax based on those spaces. I've designed quite a few site plans where the minimum parking space rate was significantly higher than what the client felt was needed.

I smell a few lawsuits as well, especially if there's a discrepancy between what the by-law demands and what the owner feels they need.
 

Back
Top