Mea culpa, sort of
I’ve written elsewhere that municipalities are largely responsible for not reducing their tax rates to offset assessment increases and I still stand firmly behind that.
However, in doing some research and calculations of my own, I underestimated the extent to which legislation ties municipalities’ hands in terms of a restrictive connection between the residential and non-residential/heavy industrial tax rates they may apply as per the Real Property Tax Act.
Want to understand our property assessment and taxation system better and make it work to your advantage?
See my new book:
Taxing New Brunswick: An Insider’s Guide to Successfully Challenging Your NB Property Assessment (available on Amazon)
Mea culpa for that underestimation. They say that when you know better, do better, so that’s what I’m going to try to accomplish here. (note: thanks to CBC reporter, Robert Jones, for drawing my attention to this).
Here’s the rub: whether we average residential property owners realize it or not, that restrictive relationship between the residential and non-residential/heavy industrial rates is costing us money and underscores how broken the system as a whole is in our province.
Why is this a problem?
Let me explain. According to Section 5 of the Real Property Tax Act (which is rife with all sorts of problems, in my opinion), a municipality is allowed to set whatever tax rate it wants on residential property. But legislation ties its hands on setting both the non-residential rate and the heavy industrial rate, each of which must be between 1.4 and 1.7 times the residential rate.
“So what?” you might say. Well the problem is twofold.
First, most municipalities have a great deal more residential than non-residential and heavy industrial assessment on their books. In Moncton in 2024, for instance, 78% of the overall assessment is classed residential while the remainder is classed as non-residential or heavy industrial.
Second, each classification experiences value increases to very different extents annually and this has been especially true in recent years. The value of the residential market in NB has skyrocketed (reflected in increased assessments, of course), while the non-residential and heavy industrial markets have not. Each is subject to different supply-demand pressures.
What this means is that municipalities much treat each classification very differently in terms of adjusting tax rates from year to year and this is where they are restricted in terms of what they’re allowed to do.
Lowering the residential tax rate to offset the entire residential assessment increase (which I have argued for) comes up against that 1.4 to 1.7 limitation, which means that a municipality cannot lower its residential rate enough to offset a significant assessment increase.
How exactly does that work?
Here’s an example.
The City of Moncton budgeted for approximately $185 million from property tax revenues in 2024 ($126.6 million from residential assessment and approximately $58.6 million from non-residential and heavy industrial assessment), based on a total assessment of $11.365 billion (lots of rounding here).
The expected revenue is based on a residential tax rate of $1.4287 (per $100 of assessed value) and a non-residential/heavy industrial rate of $2.3374. Note that this non-residential rate is 1.64 times the residential rate.
Let’s assume for the example that the City will need the exact same amount of property tax revenue in 2025, namely $185 million. However, the 2025 total residential assessment increases by 10%, while the non-residential/heavy industrial assessment increases by only 3%.
Let’s also assume that the municipality tries to be revenue neutral (i.e., decreases the tax rate to offset the assessment increases) in each of the classes. In other words, the residential tax rate is reduced 10% to $1.2988 and the non-residential/heavy industrial rate is reduced 3% to $2.2693. All of a sudden, the ratio between the two is 1.75, which is outside of the 1.7 maximum that the Real Property Tax Act allows.
This means that the most the City can reduce the residential tax rate without being offside is about 6.5% rather than the 10% of the assessment increase.
If the City didn’t have the 1.4 to 1.7 restriction, it could indeed be revenue neutral from year to year, if it so wished (which NB municipalities often don’t, unfortunately).
Clear as mud?
Note that the math above would be slightly different from what I’ve shown, but you get the idea.
I may have simultaneously oversimplified and overcomplicated (from a citizen-taxpayer’s perspective) this whole rate differential problem – takes a special skill to do that, if I do say so myself. But I think it’s important to understand at least the basics of this aspect of our very broken assessment and tax system.
Bottom line is that, if the municipalities had more leeway in applying different residential, non-residential, and heavy industrial tax rates, municipalities would at least have the option of rendering assessment increases revenue neutral. And we wouldn’t see residential taxpayers paying more and more into the tax pool relative to what non-residential and heavy industrial concerns are paying.
As it is, municipalities do not have that full flexibility, which means that increased assessments are by mathematics alone going to result in increased tax revenues to municipal coffers.
In the absence of something like direct tax rebates of some sort (which I’m uncertain would even be allowed), that money is not coming back to the beleaguered New Brunswick citizen-taxpayer in any direct way, who can only hope that the municipality is spending the unbudgeted windfall wisely.
Exemplars throughout Canada
As I’ve written elsewhere, “revenue neutral” assessment and tax systems exist throughout much of Canada, whereas the tax-rate-driven tax system of the type we have here in New Brunswick “fails to meet the test of open and transparent property taxation,” according to the International Association of Assessing Officers. But what could they possibly know?
As for the problem of the relationship between tax rates itself, I’m no expert on all jurisdictions, but I know that others allow for much greater flexibility (in terms of more categories and the decoupling of rates), all within a revenue neutral system.
What a pipe dream for NB: a revenue neutral assessment and taxation system that includes a flexible tax rate relationship (and assessment equity thrown in for good measure).
Dare we hope that New Brunswick leaves its archaic system behind to create an assessment and tax system that reflects these changes and is therefore truly fairer to all concerned?
Hard to say, as whatever the Holt government is planning in terms of property tax reform is all being done behind closed doors.
But I won’t hold my breath.
This piece was first published in the Northumberland Free Press, 2025-02-22
Excerpt from TAXING NEW BRUNSWICK
Other articles on assessment & taxation
(most recent article first)
Tax agents: Battling those big, bad assessors on behalf of the little guy?
With no revenue neutrality, NB “fails to meet the test of open and transparent property taxation”
Municipal budgets: About those ‘tax rate cuts”…
The ‘Spike Protection Mechanism (SPM) does property owners no big favour
Your Property Assessment Notice is here – now what?
New property assessment valuation date in 2025 – how does this affect you?
A TAXING NEW BRUNSWICK Christmas wish list
Property assessment and taxation reform: the Real Property Tax Act
Why “lowered tax rate” isn’t the right headline
Property assessment and taxation reform: the Assessment Act
Property assessment and taxation reform: backgrounder
Malign design: Nine ways to build a broken property tax system