This sector assesses the economic impact contributed by commercial and non-commercial real estate owned by Canadians in Clinton County. Non-commercial real estate includes primary residential and seasonal/waterfront real estate. Commercial rentals are included as a leading indicator. The real estate sector was evaluated using methods similar to the 1994 study. In instances where methods changed slightly, attempts were made to recalculate 1994 values to provide comparability. One example of this deserves special note: A county-wide property revaluation occurred in 1995 and current assessment rolls reflect the new values. Generally speaking, a revaluation is performed periodically to bring property assessments current with "market" values. In order to mitigate the differences in assessed value between the 1994 period (prior to the assessment) and the 1996 period (post-assessment), we have "equalized" both estimates by the Real Property Tax Office equalization rates applicable to each town for the respective period. This adjustment should provide a better basis for current and future comparisons. Actual "taxes due" are unaffected by this change in reporting assessed values, but the 1994 assessment totals shown below differ slightly from those in the 1994 report. 

The comparison of 1994 and 1996 Canadian-owned commercial property indicates that total equalized assessed value increased by 17% and the total equalized taxable value increased by 26%. Total property tax generated from Canadian-owned commercial property increased 87% from 1994 to 1996. Of this increase, 84% was contributed to school taxes and 16% was contributed to municipal taxes. The greater increase in taxes generated as compared to the increase in equalized assessed and equalized taxable value is accounted for by two factors: 1) increases in the tax rates in addition to the assessed and/or taxable value; 2) figures for "total property tax generated" include Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) while the "equalized taxable value" figure does not include a proxy taxable value for those parcels enrolled in PILOT agreements.

A comparison of only those Canadian-owned commercial properties identified in both the 1994 and 1996 studies shows a 20% decrease in total equalized assessed value. The total equalized taxable value, however, remained relatively unchanged and total property tax generated increased by 20% over the period for these properties.

In 1996, 41% of the total equalized assessed value relates to new Canadian-owned commercial property not identified in the 1994 study. Thirty-seven percent of the total equalized taxable value and 42% of the total property tax generated in 1996 relates to these newly identified properties.

Methodological Notes: The above assessment data was generated from 2 sources. First, the Real Property Tax Office (RPTO) provided a listing of all properties whose owners had Canadian addresses along with their assessment, location, etc. The second source used town-by-town assessment and tax rolls for Canadian-owned businesses on the supplied list.

Since the actual taxes paid for this group were not easily available from RPTO in digital form, the taxes paid had to be collected or computed by other means. Taxes generated for 1994 were computed by applying approximate town, county and school tax rates. For 1996 taxes, we collected the actual taxes due on these properties from the tax rolls. Obviously the second method is the more precise and will continue to be used in future investigations.

In 1994, we determined assessments for 11 properties on the RPTO list and 27 on the Canadian-owned business list. In 1996, we found assessment data for 13 properties on the RPTO list and 42 on the Canadian-owned business list. The balance of the 81 enterprises on the 1996 Canadian-owned list either lease space or could not be definitively identified. A substantial portion of the increase is due to maturing PILOT (Payments In Lieu Of Taxes) agreements with these companies.

Recommendations for replication: The procedures used here can be replicated without modification.

Total equalized assessed value of IBB properties increased by 2157% from 1994 to 1996. Total equalized taxable value increased by 77% over the same period. Total property tax and PILOT payments generated from IBB property increased by 4216% from 1994 to 1996. The municipal portion generated increased by 7258% while the school tax portion increased by 1894% over the same period.

Methodological Notes:

Fewer than 20% of the businesses on the list (12 of 69) were positively identified in the tax rolls in the 1994 study. By contacting local assessors directly, we were able to increase the number of properties identified to 27 of 75 (36%).

Furthermore, many of the included companies are small and operate out of a site that includes the owner’s home. There is no easy way to separate the value of the residence from the commercial value. Finally, only a small proportion of the total list provided is able to be identified because many may be tenants or may own the businesses in some name other than that cited in the list. For these reasons the above data should be interpreted with caution.

Recommendations for replication: Replication should be straightforward.

Recommendations for replication: Replication should be straightforward.

Total equalized assessed value of all Canadian residential property increased by 10% from 1994 to 1996. This relates in great measure to the purchase of 20 seasonal properties by Canadians which increased the total equalized assessed value of Canadian-owned seasonal property by 21%. Five additional Canadian-owned primary residences purchased since 1994 increased the total equalized assessed value of nonseasonal property by 1.5%.

Total property tax generated by all Canadian residential property increased by only 1% from 1994 to 1996. The total property taxes generated by Canadian seasonal properties increased 6% over the same period, however, total property tax generated by Canadian primary residences decreased by 4%.

Methodological Notes:

RPTO supplied the listing of properties and their assessment. Taxes generated for 1994 were computed by applying approximate town, county, and school tax rates. For 1996 taxes, we collected the actual taxes due on these properties from the tax rolls. This second method is the more precise and should continue to be used in future investigations. The smaller increases in total property tax generated in relation to growth in total equalized assessed value from 1994 to 1996 may be a function of differing tax rates and/or the methodological change from 1994 to 1996.

Canadian residential ownership ($22.2 million) represents 1.4% of the total value of residential property, countywide in 1996, compared with 1.5% in 1994.

Recommendations for replication: The procedures used here can be replicated without modification.

Methodological Notes:

As in 1995, RPTO Transfer Tax forms (Form 5217) were used as the source for these data. The transfer tax rate did not change.

Comments: Given the small population of transfers, the totals are easily affected by a few large transactions. This was the case in 1994, which had 3 transactions that were over $100,000. In contrast, there were no transactions of that size in 1996.

Recommendations for replication: Replication should be straightforward.

Rental of Commercial Space in Clinton County by Canadians in Calendar Years 1994, 1996

Total commercial square footage rented to Canadians increased by 198% from 1994 to 1996. Rental square footage of office space to Canadians experienced a growth of 360%, while manufacturing/ warehousing square footage rented to Canadians increased by 196% over the same period. The total estimated annual rental value of commercial property leased to Canadians increased by 126% from 1994 to 1996.

Methodological Notes:

These data were collected through a survey of major landlords. In 1994, we based the rental value on estimates of the square foot rates for office and warehouse space. This time we asked the landlords for estimates of the rental value. This method is presumed to be more accurate and may affect the interpretation of the small increase in rental value in spite of the substantial increase in rented space. We do not know if all landlords or all the space used by Canadian firms is represented here.

Comments: Interpretation of these data must consider that 6 landlords responded for 1994 and 10 responded for 1996. Six landlords were common to both studies. The amount of commercial square footage and rental value of space rented to Canadians by these 6 landlords increased by 153% and 99%, respectively, from 1994 to 1996.

Recommendations for replication: It is encouraging to see that nearly twice the number of landlords were willing to respond to our requests for information this round. Hopefully future investigations will continue to expand the list of base landlords and thereby improve the value of the comparisons.

Dollar Increase in County Property Taxes per $1,000 of Equalized Assessed Value of Taxable Real Estate Necessary to Off Set a Loss of Clinton County Sales Tax Revenue Generated from Canadian Visitor Spending