City council approves 5.7% tax increase, wants education levy split from property tax
Edmonton city council finalized the municipal property tax increase at 5.7 per cent Wednesday, while council members pointed fingers at the province for an increase in its education tax.
Council passed a motion on Wednesday to have city administration work with Alberta Municipalities to explore how to separate the provincial education tax collection from municipal property tax.
The motion was put forward by Coun. Michael Janz and passed 9-4 with Tim Cartmell, Sarah Hamilton, Karen Principe and Jennifer Rice voting against the motion.
The motion initially included another directive that Mayor Amarjeet Sohi send an invoice to the Alberta government for the entire education property tax collection cost but it was struck from the motion before the final vote.
"We frequently get told to stay in our lane, and I'm growing increasingly frustrated that we are, as municipalities, kind of the proverbial punching bag," Janz told council.
"We've been advocating for the province to pay their grants in lieu of taxes. We've been advocating for the province to pay a number of things that are costs that we bear for them."
Education tax
In Canada, public education is the responsibility of provincial governments.
The provincial education portion of property taxes, about $98 per month or 25 per cent of the total property tax bill for a typical single detached property, goes to fund schools in Alberta, according to the City of Edmonton.
The municipal and provincial education taxes change at different rates each year, and are added together to make up the total tax amount property owners must pay.
The tax makes up 29 per cent of the education operating budget. But the provincial government has said it wants to raise the tax so it would make up 31.5 per cent of that funding in fiscal 2025 and 33 per cent in fiscal 2026.
Sohi said he wants the financial breakdown to be clear for Edmontonians.
"The principle should be, the government responsible for taxing people should be sending them the bill to collect that tax, not another order of government," Sohi said.
"We are required to collect taxes on behalf of the province that directly go to the province, but city council gets the blame for that tax, particularly at a time when people are struggling with the affordability crisis."
CBC has requested further comment from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Tax increase
With the 5.7 per cent increase, a homeowner will pay about $763 in municipal taxes in 2025 for every $100,000 of assessed home value, an increase of $51 from 2024.
The median assessed value for a home in Edmonton is $465,500 this year, which would have a $3,550 bill in annual property taxes.
"Eighty per cent of the services that people consume on a daily basis are delivered with that $3,550 that we collect to run a municipality. But people don't make that distinction, that one-quarter goes to the province," Sohi said.
Property taxes in 2025 will generate more than $2.2 billion to fund the 70 city services, including parks, trails, roads, bridges, transit, recreation centres, attractions, emergency services and social supports.
The 5.7 per cent increase is lower than the 6.1 per cent increase that council approved in December.
Council's motion will be brought forward as a resolution during Alberta Municipalities's fall convention this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
4 hours ago
Experts warn of Bill C-2 as 'anti-refugee' and 'anti-immigrant' giving Canada 'unchecked powers' like the U.S.
Mbonisi Zikhali came to Canada in 2009 from Zimbabwe to pursue a master's in journalism at Carleton University. Post-graduation, the international student found himself homeless in Windsor and applied for refugee status – a privilege soon unavailable if Bill C-2 becomes the law. The bill is unnecessary and not sympathetic at all to people's well-being, Zikhali said. Many experts and community groups working with newcomers in Canada agree. They are calling the Liberal government's sweeping new legislation, Bill C-2 or the Strong Borders Act, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee, and say they hoping the legislation does not become law. Zikhali said he came on scholarship and in 2012 found himself in Windsor picking tomatoes at a greenhouse. Soon enough, he was living on the streets, and lost his passport which also had his study permit in it. Applying for refugee status, Zikhali said, was his saving grace and worries this bill will deprive vulnerable people of a safe haven. What is Bill C-2? The legislation proposes changes to a number of laws including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 2 days agoDuration2:43The Liberal government proposed new border legislation this week. But critics say they worry the law will do more harm than good. The CBC's Pratyush Dayal reports. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for international students and temporary residents. Take this hypothetical: An Afghan international student who came to study here in July 2020. When the Taliban takes over in August 2021 and things become uncertain back home, that student could have applied for asylum. But with this bill, the one-year time period would have lapsed and they would be ineligible. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers — people who enter Canada between official ports of entry — to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada. Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending the measures (new window) . There's a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada, Diab told CBC News. We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone. 'Very U.S.-like' bill: refugee help centre director says Windsor's Matthew House gives refugees a place to live and helps them with resettlement. Mike Morency, the organization's executive director, says he worries this bill will put more vulnerable people at greater harm. It continues to align our immigration system with that of the United States, Morency said. Refugee claimants are not the problem. The one year-ban is a major concern for us. The other major concern for us is the ability of the government to declare an emergency and suspend applications. That one to me feels very U.S.-like. Morency said he understands the government's will to try to cut back on international students and migrant workers making a refugee claim as a way to stay in Canada, but worries for people who have a legitimate need for protection being unfairly targeted. It also feels very much like a workaround to our commitment to the Geneva Convention. If the government wants to step out of the Geneva Convention, then then we need to do it with integrity and we need to approach the UN and say we're going to withdraw, he said. Syed Hussan, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network, agrees saying the bill violates Canada's most basic legal obligations and is immoral . 'Gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status': Migrant Rights Network Hussan asserts the bill infringes upon Canada's legal commitments and ethical standards by granting the government excessive authority to cancel permits. Every refugee gets to have the right to have their case heard. That's now being taken away, he said. Collectively it's a bill that gives the government unchecked power to take away people's status… This is an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee bill. It's illegal. Without any ability for people to appeal or have their case individually heard, Hussan said, the bill allows the government to make people undocumented or just throw people out of the country in the hundreds of thousands . Syed Hussan says the Migrant Rights Network condemns Bill C-2's anti-Refugee and mass deportation provisions. Photo: CBC The changes also allow the federal immigration department to share information more widely with different agencies within Canada. Hussan said anyone who was not a citizen or later became a citizen will have their data impacted by the bill. Hassan said this is similar to the US immigration policies. This is Carney's first test and he's failed it. He's no different from Donald Trump. 'Major rollback of rights,' 'disservice to refugees': Queen's university law professor Sharry Aiken, professor of law at Queen's University, also finds the bill troubling. Very disappointing. It's a betrayal of many Canadians that supported this government in the most recent election, she said, noting these issues weren't part of the Liberal election campaign. The omnibus bill, she said, is quite complicated with 16 different parts and neither serves to reform the asylum system nor address Canadians' privacy rights. Typically, omnibus bills don't get the degree of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, she said, which is concerning. Aiken said the one year-bar for asylum claimants represents a major rollback of rights . No longer are these claimants eligible for a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division, she said. The division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) hears and decides claims for refugee protection in Canada. Aikens said this arbitrary bill will also very quickly develop a backlog. The bill proposes a legislative fix for a problem that doesn't require new law. It requires operational intervention, she said. This one year rule mimics what's in place in the U.S. and what has been the subject of extensive international criticism… This bill does a disservice to refugees and betrays the Canadian public's trust in the Liberal government for ensuring a fair refugee determination system consistent with international standards. She urges the MPs to separate out the provisions having the issues desegregated. 'Will make the process more cumbersome': immigration lawyer Toronto-based immigration lawyer, Mario Bellissimo, said with the bill creating arbitrary distinctions of 14 days and one year after June 2020, an individualized assessment approach is being taken away. While the number of refugee claimants have recently dipped, Bellissimo said the bill signals that Canada wants to potentially limit immigration. It wants to send messages to individuals who want to traverse the system over many years without legitimate claims that this is not a destination of choice for you, he said. Bellissimo agrees that targeting individuals who impact the immigration system in a negative way is important but the bill will end up targeting individuals in genuine need of assistance. Pratyush Dayal (new window) · CBC News
CBC
5 hours ago
- CBC
Halifax mayor defends motion to temporarily pause new bike lane infrastructure
Halifax Mayor Andy Fillmore is defending a motion he intends to put forward next week at regional council to temporarily pause awarding new design and construction contracts for bike lanes. In his memo to colleagues, which was posted to Reddit on Friday, Fillmore said the move is in response to frustration among residents and business owners over "worsening traffic congestion" and the escalating project costs for the AAA (all ages and abilities) bicycle network. Fillmore stated the municipality is also failing to deliver a "balanced and efficient mobility system" as per its integrated mobility plan. Fillmore told CBC Radio's Mainstreet Halifax on Friday that his goal is to build cycling infrastructure and active transportation infrastructure "in the right way, in a way that doesn't create the very unfortunate backlash that is very real in our city right now." The mayor said he'd like to create cycling infrastructure in Halifax that doesn't sacrifice the needs of others who use the roads, like bus drivers, people who ride the bus, delivery and commercial vehicle drivers, people who have to drive in a car because they're not on a bus route, and those who aren't able to ride bikes. "We have to have a very balanced approach and I just push back on any commentary that we're facing some sort of a binary choice," Fillmore told Mainstreet. "This is very much a pause so that we can all move forward together in a mindful way that reflects the changing reality we have in our growing and busy city." Only applies to tenders not yet awarded Fillmore said the municipal bicycle network was only meant to cost $25 million. He said $16 million has already been spent, but that the budget for the project now is $93 million. "That leaves $77 million yet to be spent. Only $8 million will come from provincial and federal sources, and that leaves an unexpected $69 million to be funded through the municipal tax rate," Fillmore said. Fillmore said construction being done right now will be finished. Tenders identified in the capital budget for the next four years — but not yet awarded — would be put on hold. "This gives us an opportunity to have staff come back to us with a list of all those projects that are in that capital budget with a red light or a green light," he said, adding projects that threaten to "worsen congestion" will be paused. "All that red light means is, OK, we're just going to take a redesign here," Fillmore continued. "I expect a great percentage of the project on that list will get a green light and may only have a holdup of a month or two." 'Misguided proposal' David Trueman, the chair of the Halifax Cycling Coalition, called Fillmore's recommendation a "misguided proposal." He's calling on people to write to their regional councillor and urge them to vote against it. "We just got the cycling infrastructure projects back on track with the report to council from staff where they took the plan that was supposed to be delivered by the end of 2024 and they presented a detailed plan to get to it by 2028," Trueman said. "If we have a temporary pause, this is going to be delayed by years. We have a lot of staff and consultants tied up in designing these infrastructure protects, which take years through the pipeline. If you stop the pipeline, the flow is cut off and there can be untold delays and escalating costs." Trueman said the roads are already built and cycling is catching up. He said the upkeep cost on cycling infrastructure is a tiny fraction of what it would be for road costs. Divisive issue "These projects include all the costs of revamping a given street, and often there are other aspects of the road improvement ... [that] reduce the impact on car traffic," he said, citing a flyover bicycle bridge planned for the Macdonald Bridge site. "If we weren't worried about cars, we could do a much less expensive solution there. It's our propensity to avoid any impact to cars that raises the cost of cycling." Trueman said he thinks Fillmore's proposal is politically motivated. "Halifax has the second highest rate of active transportation of any city in Canada. Surely we don't want to throw that away," he said. "But what Andy Fillmore is keying in on is that cycling is a divisive issue. There's maybe 30 per cent of the population that has their doubts or their objections to it and he wants to create a wedge issue."
Toronto Sun
9 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
SIMS: CBC set to get more money and power
The CBC building at Front and John Street in Toronto, Sept. 6, 2011. Photo by Alex Urosevic / Toronto Sun file photo Canada's government news organization is set to get fatter and more powerful. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account In the middle of the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to pay the CBC more money, waving around about $150 million in fresh taxpayer cash. CBC covered that big scoop with a headline calling the CBC 'underfunded.' Think about that scene. Imagine being a CBC employee asking questions at a news conference during the election, with Carney saying that, if he won, the CBC would get more money, while Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would defund the CBC. The CBC covered this funding story in the middle of the election. That's a conflict of interest so big it would dwarf Godzilla. Journalists should not be paid by the government and that scene in the election is a perfect illustration of why. In the speech from the throne, the Carney government announced: 'The government is determined to protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/Radio-Canada.' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. To get an idea of what that protection could look like, consider the federal government report delivered on Feb. 20, before the election. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said the government should nearly double the amount of money the CBC gets from taxpayers every year. 'The average funding for public broadcasters in G7 countries is $62 per person, per year,' St-Onge said. 'We need to aim closer to the middle ground, which is $62 per year per person.' If the government funded the CBC that way, the CBC would cost taxpayers about $2.5 billion per year. That amount would cover the annual grocery bill for about 152,854 Canadian families. St-Onge also pushed for the CBC mandate to be expanded to 'fight against disinformation.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I propose to anchor in CBC-Radio Canada's mandate its role in helping the Canadian population fight against disinformation and understand fact-based information,' St-Onge said. Carney's Liberal party platform pledged to 'fully equip them ( CBC) to combat disinformation, so that Canadians have a news source they know they can trust.' What does this mean? Will the CBC play a role as an official 'fact-checker' in Canada, or is this just clunky language urging the CBC to be more fact-based? What is clear is that the federal government is planning to hand the CBC more money and enshrine its funding into law, taking it out of the annual budget vote and clouding transparency. CBC hasn't improved its accountability after years of scrutiny from Canadians. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Former CEO Catherine Tait was being paid about half a million dollars per year. New CEO Marie‑Philippe Bouchard has started her new role where Tait left off, as she is also set to be paid between $478,300 and $562,700. After years of criticism over executive bonuses, the government media company finally said it would get rid of the bonuses but hike the salaries of the executives instead. With so many Canadians struggling to pay for the basics, the CBC needed to read the room and end the bonuses and knock the CEO down a few levels in pay. Taxpayers are forced to spend a lot of money on the CBC, but only a tiny fraction of them choose to watch it. For CBC News Network's flagship English language prime-time news program, the audience is 1.8% of available viewers, according to its latest quarterly report. That means more than 98% of TV-viewing Canadians chose to watch something else. The CBC is a waste of taxpayers' money. Nearly nobody is watching it and it is a severe conflict of interest for journalists to be paid by the government. The CBC doesn't need more money from taxpayers; it needs to be defunded and raise money based on its work. Kris Sims is Alberta director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and former longtime member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Olympics NHL Toronto & GTA Editorial Cartoons Ontario
