Title Image
Title Image Caption
(File Photo)
Categories

Moose Jaw city council approved its 2025 tax policy Monday night, including mill rate factors that aim to keep property tax revenue neutral. However, council spent considerable time debating how fairly those mill rate factors would be distributed among property classes and how to fund potential losses from commercial and industrial property tax appeals. 

Currently, the city uses revenue neutrality by grouping major property classes—residential and commercial—rather than by subclass. Coun. Chris Warren questioned why council couldn’t adopt a revenue-neutral approach by subclass instead. 

Using 2024 and 2025 figures, Warren noted that three residential subclasses—single-family, multi-residential and multi-residential condominiums—show almost no shift in revenue between the two years, with a difference of under $300. He questioned whether similar minor differences existed on the commercial side. 

Director of financial services Brian Acker said there would be some redistribution within commercial classes, but fewer major-valued subclasses exist in that category. For instance, commercial revenue is expected to drop slightly from $12.1 million to $11.97 million. 

“The whole point of grouping is to smooth out those changes,” Acker explained. “Residential is by far our largest group, and that’s where the smoothing occurs.” 

Acker broke down the difference in taxation under three models. If council went revenue-neutral overall, it would collect $22.17 million. If neutral by subclass, that drops to $21.17 million. With neutrality by group, the total becomes $21.67 million—a $500,000 difference instead of $1 million. 

Warren argued that continuing with revenue neutrality by group results in a tax shift. Multi-family residential properties would see a $500,000 tax decrease, while single-family homes would see a $500,000 increase, with similar shifts in commercial subclasses. 

“It’s not residential versus commercial—it’s competition within the subclasses,” Warren said. 

City manager Maryse Carmichael added that single-family homes would see a higher tax increase this year because their assessed values rose, while multi-residential assessments remained flat. Warren questioned whether those rising assessments simply reflected inflation, but Acker said they result from multiple factors, including inflation and market demand. 

“If you subscribe to the ad valorem tax principle, then a higher value means a higher tax. That’s the whole point of reassessment,” Acker said. “You’re capturing gains or losses and adjusting taxes accordingly.” 

Warren said a property’s value could increase even if no improvements were made, which he felt was unfair. Acker countered that the valuation still reflects what someone would pay for the home today. 

While Warren favoured neutrality by subclass, Carmichael argued that would undo the work of the reassessment process. 

“If we go by subclass, we are essentially ignoring all the reassessment work. That process exists for a reason—to reflect changes in the market,” she said. 

Council ultimately voted to maintain revenue neutrality by major groupings. 

Council sticks with five per cent appeal allowance 

The second part of the debate focused on how to deal with assessment appeals. City administration recommended a five per cent allowance in anticipation of potential commercial and industrial property tax losses. 

Warren questioned the need to collect that allowance upfront. He suggested the city could handle appeal losses the same way it manages other budget overruns—by adjusting as needed or returning to council for direction. 

“Right now, we’re charging property owners based on what we think we’ll lose,” Warren said. 

Carmichael defended the recommendation, noting that Acker, who retires in August, has developed sound financial policies over many years. 

Acker said the city no longer has an accumulated surplus to fall back on due to nearly $3 million in operating losses over the past two years. Historically, the city has seen an appeal-related loss of about five per cent in the first year of each reassessment cycle. 

“I don’t see any reason that trend won’t continue,” Acker said. “Moose Jaw leads the province per capita in commercial assessment appeals. Cities like Regina and Saskatoon only see about one per cent.” 

Warren compared the situation to tax arrears, which the city budgets for as they occur, without upfront increases. Acker replied that the city already treats those similarly—by recognizing the revenue but setting aside funds to offset any shortfall, which is effectively what the appeal allowance does. 

Coun. Heather Eby supported Acker’s recommendation, saying his experience gives her confidence in the strategy. 

“I’m not willing to blow this up. I think we’re finally getting somewhere,” she said. 

Warren proposed an amendment to forgo the five per cent allowance and adjust the 2026 mill rate if losses occur. The amendment was defeated, and council passed the original recommendation to collect the five per cent allowance for appeal-related losses. 

Portal