Principles of Good Property Taxation
A Primer
Prepared by Frances Woolley, Department of Economics, Carleton University for the City of Ottawa Task Force on Property Taxation, September, 2001.
Principles of Good Taxation
There are some basic principles for good taxation that most people agree on.
Pretty well everybody would agree that taxes are necessary to raise revenue. But ideally they should raise revenue without creating big distortions in people’s behaviour.
Most people would agree that taxes should be, in some sense, “fair”, whether that means that people in the same situation pay the same tax, or, by another definition of fairness, that people who can afford to pay more do pay more.
In a democracy, the process of taxation needs to be responsive, open, and politically accountable: people need to know how much they are paying in taxes, how their taxes are calculated, and have a meaningful input into the policy formation process.
But when it comes down to designing property tax policies for the new City of Ottawa, there are difficult tradeoffs and choices to be made.
There are trade-offs between fairness and revenue needs. Fairness, for example, may mean giving low-income people and certain other individuals and organizations some form of property tax relief, but this costs municipal governments revenues, and raises the tax burden on other people. How should this tradeoff be managed?
There are trade-offs between achieving fairness and maintaining stability. Fairness means that existing inequities in the property tax system should be removed as quickly as possible; yet when inequities are removed, some people will face unanticipated increases in their property taxes, compromising the stability of the tax system and creating hardship that did not exist before.
None of the goals listed below is an “absolute good”. Each is desirable in some senses, but a good taxation system is a tradeoff between a range of desirable goals. In a democracy the tradeoffs are made with input from taxpayers, and they need to feel that the balances achieved reflect their values and their needs.
Given limited resources, and limitations on the City of Ottawa’s jurisdiction, what goals should the City of Ottawa try to achieve?
What are the trade-offs between the various goals of a good taxation system?
Taxes should not distort economic behaviour, including decisions about where to live and work and what improvements to make to one’s property.
An entrepreneur is deciding where to set up her business. She faces the same property tax rate whether she locates on Merivale Road in Nepean, Richmond Road in Ottawa or Edgewater St. in Kanata. Property taxes do not affect her location decision.
Is it neutral to have the same tax rates if some locations have better services than others, e.g. are closer to transit?
Rural areas within the City of Ottawa and rural areas outside the City’s boundaries pay different property tax rates. What does neutrality mean for rural areas?
Nonresidential property tax increases are capped, generally at five percent a year. How long will it take to equalize effective property tax rates? Should they be equalized? By what definition?
The tax system should be fair in its relative treatment of different individuals. This has several different aspects.
Fairness can be thought of in terms of ‘vertical equity’, ‘horizontal equity’ and the application of the ‘benefit principle’. These are defined below.
People who have a greater ability to pay taxes should pay higher taxes.
The Pilons have a household income of $150,000 a year and own a home assessed at $250,000. Their property taxes are 2 percent of $250,000 or $5,000.
The Sheppards have a household income of $50,000 a year and own a home assessed at $125,000. Their property taxes are 2 percent of $125,000 or $2,500.
The Pilons pay twice as much property taxes as the Sheppards. According to the principle of vertical equity, this is good, because they have a greater ability to pay taxes.
The Pilons pay twice as much property taxes, but have three times the
income. This is not unusual: high income households on average pay a
lower percentage of their income in property taxes than low income
households. Is this fair?
What about property taxes on commercial properties? Commercial properties are valued according
to how much income they generate. Does
this measure “ability to pay” for a business?
What sort of exemptions and deferrals should there be for low income
families, seniors, and others with reduced ability to pay taxes?
Should property taxes be used to redistribute income? Or should property taxes be more like a fee, designed to charge each person for municipal services such as parks, skating rinks and garbage collection?
People who are the same in all relevant respects should be treated equally.
The Hill family and the Collins family are neighbours. Each family’s income is $70,000 per year. Each family lives in a house assessed at $135,000. The two families are the same in all relevant respects, and pay the same taxes. According to the principle of horizontal equity this is a good thing.
What happens when neighbours have very different income levels? For example, one owner of a house valued at $135,000 might be a young single earning $70,000 a year, another owner might be a single mother with two children and an income of $30,000 a year. Is it fair that these two very different families pay the same property taxes?
What are the relevant dimensions for horizontal equity? Income, wealth, or assets?
Selling prices can be quite different for homes with similar assessed values. In a recent search of Ottawa realty sites, we found one property assessed at $230,000 (June 30, 1999 market values) which sold for $369,900 in 2001. Another property, assessed at $232,000, sold for $279,000, a full $90,000 less. What exactly do property assessments measure? How accurate are they?
Commercial and multiresidential properties pay more taxes for each dollar of current value. For example, a multiresidential property assessed at $500,000 would pay 2.34 times more property taxes than a Rockcliffe residence also assessed at $500,000. Is this fair?
People who benefit more from government services should pay more in taxes to support those services.
A house on Glebe Avenue valued at $237,600 has a frontage of 33 feet. A house on Fentiman Avenue valued at $180,000 has a frontage of 25 feet. The sidewalk in front of both homes is plowed by the City. The Glebe Avenue house has 32 percent more sidewalk, gets 32 percent more snow removal and pays 32 percent more property taxes. According to the benefit principle this is a good thing.
When do differences in benefits justify differences in taxes? The residential property tax rate in Osgoode for 2001 is 1.46 percent, lower than neighbouring Gloucester’s rate of 1.72 percent. Owners of property in Osgoode do not pay taxes for transit, and pay lower taxes for fire services. At the same time, they do not benefit from OC Transpo, and provide their own volunteer fire protection services. Here differences in taxes reflect different choices about municipal services.
Are the benefits received from City services fully reflected in property values? For example, some people live close to a transitway station, others far away. The people living close to the transitway may benefit more from City transit spending, but will they pay more in property taxes?
One third of Ottawa’s budget goes to “people services,” including social assistance and public housing. Does the benefit principle apply to these programs? The City of Toronto has argued for shifting the financing of these programs away from property taxes “The property tax is not equipped to deal with impacts from economic downturns when welfare costs soar and other revenues drop…. Social assistance and public housing ought to be funded from the income tax base, not from property taxes.”
What does the benefit principle mean for commercial properties? Do the higher tax rates paid on commercial properties reflect higher benefit levels?
Taxes should not fluctuate dramatically from year to year.
The Zhang family bought a home in 1999. Their 2001 tax bill is two percent higher than their 2000 tax bill, an increase less than the rate of inflation. They feel their property taxes are stable, and this allows them to plan for the future.
Ottawa homes are currently selling for more than their assessed value – sometimes substantially more, as shown in the table below. Since assessed values are supposed to reflect market prices, we can expect to see substantial changes in assessed values in the near future.
|
Examples of assessed value and 2001 selling price for selected Ottawa
homes |
||
|
|
2001 Assessed Value (June 30, 1999 Property Values) |
2001 Selling Price |
|
Roseberry
Crescent |
$130,000 |
$159,900 |
|
Mathers Avenue |
$163,000 |
$229,900 |
|
Fulton Road |
$181,000 |
$322,000 |
|
Concord St |
$216,000 |
$279,000 |
|
Palmerston
Avenue |
$230,000 |
$369,900 |
|
Sumac Avenue |
$232,000 |
$279,000 |
|
Sources: http://www.homesinottawa.com,
http://www.tracyarnett.com/list.htm, http://www.opac.on.ca. Assessed and selling prices are actual
figures; street names have been changed to respect owners’ privacy. |
||
What happens when there are large changes in property values? Will property taxes increase to reflect the
new current value of homes? Will tax
rates fall as the tax base increases?
Will property tax increases be capped or phased in gradually? Or will “current value” be gradually uncoupled
from market valuations?
Commercial property owners pay higher rates of tax than owners of residential properties. For example, the owner of a $200,000 commercial property in Ottawa paid 3.13 times more in property taxes than the owner of a $200,000 residential property in the year 2000. The Province of Ontario has introduced a “range of fairness” which states that taxes on a dollar’s worth of commercial property should be between 0.6 and 1.1 times the taxes on a dollar’s worth of residential property. Since the City of Ottawa’s tax ratios are above the provincially mandated range, it cannot raise the rate of tax on commercial property. This means more stability for commercial property holders, at the expense of less stability for residential property holders. Is this the right trade-off to make?
Taxes should respond to changes in economic circumstances.
When the O-train line is opened, owners of property close to the railroad lines will be affected. Some will be hurt by increased noise, others will gain from quick and frequent public transit into the city. The benefits and costs of owning property close to the O-train will be reflected in changes in property values. People whose property becomes more valuable because of good access to public transit should see an increase in the assessed values of their homes, and their property taxes.
How well do MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation) assessments reflect changes in neighbourhood amenities? A recent study of property taxes in Hamilton found that cheap housing was overassessed, and variations in assessments favoured the suburbs.
What is the right balance between flexibility and stability?
The goal of accountability means that governments should be accountable to taxpayers both for the amount of taxes paid and the use of government revenues.
The amount a household pays in property taxes is the assessed value of their property times the property tax rate.
Accountability means that people know who is responsible for assessing the value of their property and how to appeal their assessment.
Accountability means that people know who is responsible for setting the property tax rate and know who to complain to if they think taxes are too high or too low.
Accountability means that people can find out the relationship between the taxes we pay and what we get for them. People know who sets policy.
The City of Ottawa and MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation) have taken measures to enhance accountability. The City of Ottawa and MPAC web sites provide information about how property taxes are calculated. The MPAC web site allows anyone to compare their property assessment to those of neighbouring properties, and provides a venue for appealing property taxes. Because property taxes are often paid directly, rather than deducted at source, people know how much they are paying in property taxes.
The amount any one household pays in property taxes depends upon decisions of three different players. Property assessments are done by MPAC. The guidelines MPAC uses to assess property are laid down by the Ontario provincial government. Tax rates for municipal services are set by the City of Ottawa, but the City’s choice of tax rates is constrained by Ontario provincial government policies. Education taxes are collected by the City of Ottawa as part of people’s property taxes, but education funds go to local school boards, which do not report to the City. Given this complicated tangle of responsibilities, who is accountable for an average person’s property taxes: MPAC, the provincial government, or the City of Ottawa? Or do overlapping jurisdictions mean taxpayers do not know who to hold accountable for what?
Municipal governments collect property taxes. But some of the programs property taxes pay for – such as income support programs – are mandated by provincial governments. The City is legally required to fund certain programs. Taxpayers can complain to municipalities that property taxes are too high, but municipalities can do little about the size of property tax bills if they are unable to control expenditure levels. Does taxpayer confusion between provincial and municipal responsibilities hamper accountability?
Municipal governments collect property taxes, but property tax assessments are carried out by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). Do taxpayers know where to go to complain about property tax assessments? Is the MPAC appeal process satisfactory? Who is MPAC accountable to? Ontario MPP Marcel Beaubien has alleged that MPAC “is fully accountable to municipalities and not at all accountable to its tax paying customers.” Municipal governments might argue that they are being blamed for MPAC assessments, but the assessment guidelines are set by the Ontario government.
Can taxpayers find out the relationship between the taxes they pay and what they get for them?
The tax system should be simple. For the City, simplicity means the tax system is easy and relatively inexpensive to administer. For taxpayers, a simple tax system is easier to understand, so more transparent.
A tax system is simple if the cost of running the tax system uses a small percentage of the revenue raised. People’s property tax assessments arrive on time and are simple and easy to understand.
Are property tax assessments clear and easy to understand? What parts of the assessment process are confusing? What could the City of Ottawa do to make property taxes easier to understand? What are the key concerns of business? The key concerns of residential property owners?
Enid Slack has argued that Ontario’s attempts to simplify property tax administration have failed. The system for setting tax rates is so complicated and has changed so many times that some municipalities have been unable to set tax rates correctly. What is the impact of this complexity on local taxpayers? What options does the City of Ottawa have within the current system?
Designing a good tax system involves many difficult trade-offs.
Sometimes the best solutions can be found by thinking “outside the box”.
If there is no way to devise a property tax that is fair, neutral, stable, flexible and accountable, perhaps it is best to raise more revenue from other tax sources.
For example, Greater Vancouver’s TransLink (Vancouver Regional Transit System) is partially funded by a 4 cent per litre gasoline tax.
Perhaps accountability can best be achieved by changing the ways cities operate – changing the mix of services cities are responsible for providing, or giving cities more authority to act in their citizens’ interests.
· Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) website at www.amo.on.ca.
See especially A Primer on Property Taxation and Assessment and press releases on related subjects. The AMO website also contains documents from the Ontario Department of Finance on taxation and assessment and links to other sites, including the Department of Finance Government of Ontario: http://www.gov.on.ca/, or go directly to http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/neweng.htm.
The AMO website also has links to another website called Your Local Government with a wealth of information on powers and responsibilities of municipalities, relations between provincial and municipal governments, and links to the websites of other towns and cities in Ontario.
· The City of Ottawa website has a wealth of information about assessment, taxation and what services are paid for out of property taxes. See the City’s website at http://www.city.ottawa.on.ca/
· The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) has details about how assessment is done. See the MPAC website at www.opac.on.ca. Another useful site to find out about property assessment is the City of Toronto’s Answers to questions on Property Assessment in Toronto http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/taxes/taxq_a.htm.
· Beaubien, Marcel (2001) Review of the Property Tax Assessment Process: Final Report http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/opacrepe.pdf
· Harris, Richard and Michael Lehman (2001) “Social and geographic inequities in the residential property tax: a review and case study” Environment and Planning 33: 881-900.
· Ontario. Fair Tax Commission (1993) Fair Taxation in a Changing World: Report of the Ontario Fair Tax Commission Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
· Slack, Enid (2001) “Understanding the Evolution of Property Tax Policy” paper prepared for 2001 - A Property Tax Odyssey, 34th Annual National Workshop, Canadian Property Tax Association Inc.
· Bish, Robert L. “Local Government Amalgamations: Discredited Nineteenth-Century Ideals Alive in the Twenty-First.” C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 150 (March 2001) http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/bish.pdf
Glossary
Assessed value is price placed on land and buildings by an assessor (i.e. for Ontario, an employee of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)) for use in levying property taxes.
Assessment measures how much a property should be taxed. In general:
Assessment x
tax rate = taxes paid.
In the current Ontario system, the assessment is an estimate of the market value of the property at a relatively recent date. Previously in Ontario, the assessment was related to the market value of a property at a much earlier date or through a formula which varied according to the property type. Methods of estimating the value of a property are set out under the entries: cost approach, income approach and direct comparison approach.
In some assessment systems, the figure placed on a property for taxation purposes is based on physical measurement rather than value. See unit assessment.
The ratio of the assessed value to market value is called the assessment ratio.
The Cost Approach is a form of market value assessment. It assumes that an informed purchaser would pay no more for a property (land and buildings) than it would cost to buy a similar piece of land on which a building is constructed with characteristics comparable to the property to be purchased.
The market value of a property is estimated as:
Value of Land
+ Cost of Improvements (i.e., Building) - Depreciation = Total Value of
Property
Depreciation has three components:
· Physical Depreciation - loss in value due to normal wear.
· Functional Depreciation - loss in value due to the structure's inability to function effectively.
· Economic Depreciation - loss in value due to location.
The Cost Approach is used most often when the property being appraised is new or nearly new, there are no comparable sales, or the improvements are relatively unique or specialized.
A property’s current value is an assessor's best estimate of what the property would have sold for on the open market at a specific time. In 2001, the value was based on the property's estimated sale price as of June 30, 1999.
The term “current value” is used to describe Ontario’s present system of property tax assessment. Current value assessment is a form of market value assessment, in that it is based on a property's estimated value if sold on the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer. The characteristics of a property like its size, age, location and amenities are considered when determining a property's value.
The term current value is used to distinguish Ontario’s present system of tax assessment from the previous market value system. Unlike Ontario’s previous market valuation assessment system, current value assessment includes annual updating of assessments (starting in 2004). Starting in 2006, current value assessment will be based on a three-year averaging of annual values, to reduce variability in assessments. See also “market value” and “fair market value”.
The Direct Comparison Approach estimates market value based on the sales of comparable properties. It assumes that an informed purchaser would pay no more for a given property than the cost of acquiring a comparable property.
When using the direct comparison approach, the sales price of comparable properties may be adjusted to reflect value trends in the market, location, or physical characteristics. Once the sale price of a comparable property is adjusted, the reconstructed value reflects the "probable selling price" of the property being appraised.
Using the Direct Comparison Approach to value is most appropriate when the market is active and many properties with similar characteristics are selling.
"Fair Market Value" is the price for property that would be agreed upon between a willing and informed buyer and a willing and informed seller under usual and ordinary circumstances; it is the highest price a property would bring if it were exposed for sale on the open market for a reasonable period of time.
Many sales occur at prices other than the “fair market value.” Often the sale price is adjusted because of time pressures on the buyer or seller. Other factors that affect sale prices include owner-held mortgages and property transfers within families. This is the reason why a property’s “market value assessment” may be different from its purchase price.
The Income Approach assumes that the value of a property is equal to the income it will generate over its economic lifetime. When applying this approach, net operating income is estimated as:
Potential
Gross Income - Vacancy/Bad Debt = Effective Gross Income - Operating Expenses =
Net Operating Income
Based on expectations a typical investor would have for the property, the annual net income is converted to a capital value using a market-derived capitalization rate:
Value = Net
Operating Income / Capitalization Rate
The appraiser analyzes sales that occurred in the market place to determine what rate of return investors are seeking for the various types of properties. The capitalization rate increases proportionately with any risk.
The Income Approach is widely applied when appraising income-producing properties.
A “market value” system means that property assessments are based on potential selling prices at a specific point in time – such as the reference year. The Municipal Assessment Act defines “market value” as the most probable selling price had the property been sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer. When determining the market value of a property, assessors consider size, layout, age, location, quality and condition of buildings, selling price of comparable properties, and available services in the area. See also “fair market value” and “current value” above.
The amount of taxes paid per $1000 of
assessed value. Property taxes are now
calculated using tax rates instead of mill rates. A tax rate of 10% is equivalent to a mill rate of $100 (10% of
$1000 is $100, the amount of taxes paid per $1000 of assessed value).
An employee of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (For Ontario) who establishes an assessed value for a property.
A property classification is a grouping of the same type of property for assessment and taxation purposes. There are seven standard classes of property used in Ontario: residential/farm, multi-residential, commercial, industrial, pipe line, farmlands and managed forests.
Property taxes are calculated as:
Property taxes
= tax rate x assessed value of the property.
Property taxes in Ontario have several
components, including municipal (local) taxes to pay for municipally provided
goods and services, levies for special services such as fire or transit. and,
if applicable, a region or county tax. An education tax may apply to certain
property classes.
Land and buildings. Often called “property,” “real estate” or “land.” In some jurisdictions, including Ontario, fixtures such as air conditioning or hoists are included when valuing real property.
The process of creating a new base for property taxation by updating assessments to reflect more current values. Ontario had its first province-wide reassessment in 1997, and its second in 2000.
The Municipal Assessment Act defines “reference year” as the year immediately following the last general assessment. The reference year is also the specific year used to determine market values.
A percentage of the assessed value of a property. It is normally a composite of a municipal tax rate and an education tax rate, which is set by the Province. Each property class will have its own tax rate. Property owners are able to calculate how much tax they will owe on their property by multiplying the tax rate for the property class by the assessed value of the property.
The municipal government calculates the tax rate by, first, estimating the cost of locally-provided goods and services (for example, snow removal), and any other municipal expenses. This budget is then divided by the total dollar amount of all the assessed value of real estate in the tax district (provided by the assessor) to determine the tax rate.
Unit assessment is assessment based on physical measurement of a property, such as lot size, frontage, building area or the number or size of windows. The condition of the property may or may not be taken into account.
Ontario
Property Assessment Corporation. It was established
by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Act. OPAC started operating on
December 31, 1998, when the Government of Ontario transferred responsibility
for property assessment to the Corporation.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. (The following description is taken from the MPAC web site.) Originally named the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation, the Corporation became MPAC as a result of amendments included in the 2001 Ontario Budget. MPAC administers a uniform, province-wide system based on current value assessment. It provides municipalities with a range of services, including the preparation of an annual assessment roll for use by a municipality in calculating property taxes. MPAC carries out its activities in accordance with the provisions of the Assessment Act. Regulations made under the Act by the Province also apply to MPAC if they are related to assessment.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Association of Manitoba Municipalities
Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators
http://bcassessment.gov.bc.ca/3_val/3_app.html
http://www.winnipegassessment.com/AsmtPub/english/answerbook/default.htm
http://www.propertytaxax.com/faq.htm
http://www.opac.on.ca/htm/pages/profile/index.htm
http://www.assessor.com/faq.htm
http://www.opac.ca/htm/pages/faqs/index2.htm
List of Web Resources
Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC)
Alberta
Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA)
Association of Manitoba Municipalities (AMM)
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
Association of Yukon Communities
Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators (CAMA)
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)
Federation of Prince Edward Island Municipalities (FPEIM)
http://www.munisource.org/fpeim/
Newfoundland & Labrador Federation of Municipalities (NLFM)
NWT Association of Municipalities
Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM)
http://www.quantumlynx.com/sarm/
Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA)
Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM)
Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities (UNSM)
http://www.munisource.org/unsm
BC Assessment Authority
http://bcassessment.gov.bc.ca/
Ontario Property Assessment Corporation
Government of Alberta:
Government of British Colombia:
Government of Manitoba:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/index.shtml
Government of New Brunswick:
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador:
Government of Northwest Territories:
Government of Nova Scotia:
Government of Nunavut:
Government of Ontario:
Government of Prince Edward Island:
http://www.gov.pe.ca/index.php3/
Government of Québec:
http://www.gouv.qc.ca/Index_fr.html
Government of Saskatchewan:
Government of Yukon Territory:
City of Calgary:
City of Winnipeg:
http://www.city.winnipeg.mb.ca/interhom/
City of Toronto:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/
City of Vancouver:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/
City of Halifax:
http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/
City of Montreal:
http://www.ville.montreal.qc.ca/
100 Most Populous U.S. City Governments:
http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/cities.htm
Answers to questions on Property Assessment in Toronto:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/taxes/taxq_a.htm
Questions & Answers About Assessments in Ontario
http://www.opac.on.ca/htm/pages/assessment/index.htm
A Primer on Property Taxation and Assessment, AMO,
http://www.amo.on.ca/whats_new/whats_new.html
City of Winnipeg FAQ’s on property
assessment:
http://www.winnipegassessment.com/AsmtPub/english/answerbook/default.htm
Travis Central Appraisal District for city
of Austin (FAQ’s):
http://www.traviscad.org/trrr.html - TRRR_Ref1
Property tax information for city of Austin:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/budget98/098ptx.htm
Selected Corporate Tax Summary for city
of Phoenix: http://www.ci.phoenix.az.us/BUSINESS/mrkttax.html
·What effect will the changes to the property tax system have on community development financing in Minneapolis?
http://www.mcda.org/whats_new/cd_finances/QandA.htm
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Government/govt06a.htm
City of Seattle 2001 Adopted and
2002 Endorsed Budget:
http://www.cityofseattle.net/budget/0102adopted/default.htm
City of Austin draft policy budget,
2000-2001:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/budget/policy00-01.htm
Budget information of city of Portland:
http://www.ci.portland.or.us/finance/ADOPTED/volume2_01-02.htm
http://www.ci.portland.or.us/finance/ADOPTED/BudgetOverview00.pdf
Budget info for city of Phoenix:
http://www.ci.phoenix.az.us/BUDGET/budget00.html
Budget info for City of Minneapolis:
The City of Calgary 2001 Budget Overview
http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/finance/budget/2001_budget_overview.pdf
City of Winnipeg 2001 Adopted Budget Info:
http://www.city.winnipeg.mb.ca/interhom/whatsnew/
City of Toronto budget information
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/city_budget/index.htm
City of Toronto 2001 – Where the Money Goes… and Comes From
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/budget2001/backgrounder_30205.pdf
City of London Budget 2001
http://www.city.london.on.ca/Council/Budgets/2001/2001ApprovedBudget.pdf
City of Vancouver 2001 Operating Budget:
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/010315/csb3.htm
City of Halifax Approved 2000-01 Budget:
http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/budget/index.html
http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/budget/Summary_of_Operating_Budget_Rev.pdf
City of Montreal 2001 Budget info:
http://www.ville.montreal.qc.ca/budgets/documents/bgt2001/saillant2001.htm
http://www.ville.montreal.qc.ca/budgets/documents/bgt2001/bgt2001.pdf