A Group of Residences and CPA’s used the information provided from the Stonebridge Work Group (SWG) Presentation to calculate the Levy assessment.

We are happy to share this information with all Stonebridge residence

This link is to download the Excel Calculations Spreadsheet

Images of Excel Calculations.

MPAC Yearly Rate Increase, calculation are based on SWG presentation and number of homes provide by Mr. Stirling

MPAC Yearly Rate Increase, calculation are based on SWG presentation and number of homes provide by Mr. Stirling

MPAC Yearly Rate Increase, calculation are based on SWG presentation and number of homes provide by Mr. Stirling

Email us: info@stonebridgefacts.com or stonebridgefacts@gmail.com

Follow Us: facebook.com/groups/Stonebridgefacts/

35 Replies to “Levy Breakdown Calculations.”

  1. I totally agree with the view in the above levy breakdown calculation and truly believe that the 80% of non-golf properties shouldn’t bear the burden for the 20% golf properties.

    As far as I know, many Stonebridge residents don’t care too much about Mattamy building houses on Golf courses or not, as it has very minimal impact on their daily lives and property values, due to their properties are very far from the golf courses.

    Even if majority of the Stonebridge residents/households truly would like to pay levy in order to keep the low house radio and green space, then the levy needs to be recalculate and to be based on the value impact of properties (i.e. If Mattamy does build houses on the golf courses, then non-golf properties value impact is probably a few hundred to a couple thousand, while the golf properties value impact is at least $50K.) The golf properties should pay significantly higher amount of levy in order to get benefit of protecting their lot premium.

    1. Hi Katie

      Thank you for your comment.
      Yes, the golf course properties do pay a household levy based on the value of their homes, so they do pay a higher levy individually. However, collectively, the golf course properties only pay a total of 19% of the proposal whereas you, us, and everyone without golf course properties pay 81%.

      This is unfair.

      Please visit and sign the petition at this link

    2. A question that no one has answered, what is the minimum amount of voting residents acceptable to impose the levy? I sense some apathy from people in our community who do not live on the golf course.
      Hypothetically let’s say only 700 people vote, 351 could impact the lives of about 3,000 of us in Stonebridge. That concerns me.

  2. I purchased in Stonebridge in order to live in the area, not because l wanted to have my back yard face the golf course. For those of you that spent the extra lot costs for the privilege to faced the course, you bear the extra taxes to do so, the same as when you first purchased your home. Why would l subsidizes you for that privilege. Are you willing to reduce my taxes for not backing onto the course. I pay $6800.00 a year , which is fine , but to add $475.00 more for your Privilege the answer is NO , NO , NO.

  3. Thank you very much to the organizers of the website and those spreading the word too the community about this. I could not agree more with you guys on this issue, and the message needs to get out to each member of the community as I have a feeling that a large majority are unaware of what is happening. We need numbers to vote this down, which will take place in Fall 2019 according to SCA. Hopefully this will information will reach enough people in time so that the vote goes well.

    1. How about giving me a tax break because I don’t live on the golf course? If Mattamy’s proposed development goes ahead it does nothing to affect me, despite the self-interest assertions of those wealthy home owners who want me to help them retain their property values…. such arrogance.

      1. Hi Eric, thank you for your response, we are a group trying to get the word out to all Stonebridge residences who are against the SCA proposal. We are not the SCA or SWG. We are as concerned as you are. We suggest sign the petition,on our homepage, write the city Councillors, we need voices to be heard. The SCA just put out the new proposal and they are asking for more money to also finance and maintain the golf club andit won’t stop there, the proposal will be accepted October 1, 2019. Please spread the word.

  4. There are so many questions still left unanswered on this topic and I too remain on the fence until most of them get answered. However, I want to raise this: Focusing only on the cost of the levy vs property values issue – This site says:

    “Stonebridge residents already pay a property tax premium to live in a golf course community. It is at least three basis points higher than surrounding communities.”

    Lets clarify some of the terms in this sentence. “property tax premium” – I assume this means that our property values are higher (based on MPAC evaluations) and we therefore pay more tax – I don’t see any separate tax on my bill for living in Stonebridge! So what this sentence is saying is that our house is worth more because of the golf course – whether we back on it, or not. I actually debate this, I think Monarch sold some nice homes, on nice lots with ample frontage and lot separation. But I digress… Back to the finances:

    So if I had a $500,000 home, my “premium” to live in Stonebridge = $15,000 increase in property value ($500,000 x 0.03 basis points) over other communities. If the land is developed, one would assume that this advantage would go away.

    However, if I pay an annual levy of $500 for 10 years, that would cost me $5,000.

    So a $5K investment earns me $10K. What am I missing?

    BTW: I don’t back on the golf course and have no interest in buying or running one. If there are no further costs to me other than the levy as stated by the SWG and in the end I’ve protected my property value and got some green space I can actually use (I don’t play golf and I follow the “No Trespassing” signs) out of it – I would support it.

    1. First, we are not the SCA or the SWG.
      MPAC and the city lists criteria to assess properties. One of the ones we fall under is a community on a golf course. This increases our property tax for the same value of home not a golf course (e.g. Hlaf Moon Bay). So, a $500k home in HMB pays less in property tax compared to a Stonebridge $500k home. The percentage is kept unclear both by the city and MPAC except they say golf course communities pay an additional amount. The figure researched is anywhere from 3 to 8 basis points.

      This levy is now an ADDITIONAL TAX to what we all already agreed to pay purchasing a home here. Now, the report just submitted to the city states the amount will be higher for maintenance and recommends the city move forward with an indefinite higher levy (TAX) for maintenance and incidentals. Research shows a golf course smaller than SB averages US$500,000 to maintain so SB course would be close to $1M Canadian that you will pay for the golfers to enjoy. Wise use of our tax dollars.

      Additionally, research shows that residents who’ve purchased golf courses have seen their property values go down – because new buyers don’t want an added tax nor the responsibility of owning a golf course. Half Moon Bay/Quinn’s Point values will certainly go up.

      One last item, which should push you off of the fence, the report DOESN’T recommend putting it to a vote – only for the city to move forward on it. You should be asking the SWG to disclose all of the info and facts – not what is convenient for a committee with members having golf course properties.

      1. I don’t see any additional charge on my municipal tax bill stating I live in any special community. Visiting the City’s tax estimator, which does NOT ask for my address, I punched in all the info and it gave me an estimate TO THE PENNY of what I paid on my last tax bill.


        I think you need to check your facts before professing to be a facts site!

        1. Hello Robert
          Thank you for your comment. Here is a link to the MPAC site about how they value the taxes for communities and properties:


          You will see this:
          Site features can also increase or decrease the assessed value of your property. These include:

          traffic patterns;
          being situated on a corner lot; and
          proximity to a golf course, hydro corridor, railway or green space.

          Something HMB or Quinn’s Point doesn’t have
          Naturally, the tax calculator will state exactly what you paid because the algorithm is already programmed by MPAC to value accordingly for each community.

          Hope this clears things up

    2. Hi Robert,

      I think you are seriously misguided by the SWG. How did you come up $15K premium? Impact to your property value is unknown. Even if there is any it will be minor compare to the one backing/fronting golf course if. Let’s assume $15K decrease on your property value, then the value of houses with golf course premium could decrease $115K.

      They are asking you to pay $5,000 to protect $15,000 (33%), while they pay $6,000 to protect $115,000 (5%). If you think this is a fair, I really don’t know what to say.

      To be honest, $5000 over 9 years is not a big deal to me. I just cannot stand how SWG is misleading people like you. I was told that there are now 3000 impacted households. I am sure majority of those are not even aware they are subject to the levy.

      1. Hi Jae, thank you for your reply, you are right the SWG is saying whatever they need to get this passed. They have now turned to selling the greenspace concept to non-golfers. This is another question, How much will it cost the entire community to turn a golf course into a greenspace, They now want a HOA (Home owners Association) monthly fee to pay of all the extra cost, anyone who thinks this is straight forwards is not doing their reaseach. When has the city ever done anything right for the community. This will hurts many family’s household income not just the property values anymore. How do you sell your house with high taxes and a HOA attached. Please if you find any information post it on our facebook page and sign out petition.

  5. Thank you for taking this initiative and providing alternate facts/opinions than those coming from the SWG.

    My wife and I are retired and have lived in Stonebridge for 7 years. Although our home is not on the golf course, several of our friends do back on the course. You’ll be interested to know that they, like us, do not support the SWG proposal to buy the course. Our reasons are numerous, and most have been well covered in your website. Principle among them are the financial unknowns. I’m a golfer, and it’s well known that most public golf courses in the Ottawa region are money losers. The Stonebridge course is a jewel and one of Ottawa’s best, but I have no doubt it is losing money. It’s future, regardless of who owns it, is not positive. Monarch and the other builders in Stonebridge built the golf course as a loss leader to sell homes. It’s been paid for many times over on the lot fees charged to home purchasers. They’ve never made any attempt to run the course as a profit centre. It’s poorly managed, insufficiently advertised, and the clubhouse facilities are inadequate to serve its patrons and our community. And frankly, golfers are aging and younger folks have not taken up the game in sufficient numbers to replace them and support an overbuilt marketplace. If the SWG and SCA have done an objective due diligence by reviewing the club’s operating statements and the golf course environment, it must be shared with the community. It is irresponsible for them to recommend the purchase of the course without doing so. And it would be too risky for community members to take on such a financial burden without a major study.

    I share the often heard distrust of Mattamy’s objectives in offering the golf course to the community for the below-market price of $6.3M. Developers and large corporations are not known for their altruism. The SWG says it doesn’t want to speculate on their motives, but I suspect they know more than they’re saying. Could it be that Mattamy knows it could never get approval to develop the full 198 acre footprint of the golf course, even from a very compliant city planning committee. A large portion of the course is composed of wetlands that could not be filled in under current environmental standards. And given the public outrage that always occurs when developers apply to plow under a golf course (think Kanata Lakes and Glen Abbey), perhaps Mattamy has calculated that the negatives outweigh the positives vis-a-vis public perception and bad publicity. What better way for them to bypass years of negative publicity by transferring their problem, and it’s cost, to the community.

    The city, in it’s wisdom, says it’s taking a hands off approach and offering to “facilitate” negotiations between homeowners and Mattamy. Some hands off! What a great deal for them to have the property paid for by the homeowners and then given free to the city, with no commitment on the city’s part to cover golf course losses or green space development and maintenance costs. This is a fools game. Let’s not fall for it.

    Keep up the good work. I support you all the way.

    1. Hi Bob, thank you for your response, we are homeowner working hard to stop this process. The facts are not clear, nor is the actual cost to ALL homeowners. The SCS & SWG new proposal can out they are asking for the levy and additional money to maintain the golf club. There is no mention about a community wide vote, this proposal will be submitted Oct 1, 2019 and no doubt accepts by city for extra revenue. The cost to all of us will be higher than any of us expect. We appreciate if you would sign the petition and spread the word, We are always looking for volunteers. Feel free to contact us at info@stonebridgefacts.com Again thank you.

    2. After reading the articles recommended in this website, I’m more convinced than ever that the best option may be to allow Mattamy to build homes on at least part of the existing golf course. Perhaps the SCA can solicit a commitment from them, in return for no opposition of their plans, to donate 50% of the lands to the city for recreation and green space. That may not be ideal for those currently backing on the course who will end up with a home in their backyard where they once had a view, but it’s certainly better than living on a derelict golf course that’s become overgrown and unsightly because the community can’t afford to maintain it. And it’s certainly better than asking all residents of Stonebridge to pay higher taxes to maintain the views of a minority of residents.

      1. Thank you factchecker.

        As a brand new home owner and non golf property I did not buy this uniform house for golf course nor I take advantage of golf course such as walking through the golf course as trespassing is not allowed. The question then why I should be paying additional tax for the enjoyment of golf properties owners. That is totally unfair, irrational and unreasonable.

        We are already paying higher tax. No green space or walking path compare to Orleans. We just can not allow city nor the builders to levy extra tax on us. It has to be stopped. We need valid and required information, a thorough consultation process, an informed and educated voting to allow owners to make sound decision for the whole community.

        I appreciate that you take the initiative to inform us on this issue.

        1. Hello Yasmin
          Welcome to Stonebridge! It is a wonderful community for the most part, apart from those that are attempting to bulldoze this for their own self-interests.

          Like you, we moved here for the same reasons as you 4 years ago…but in no way do we want to own a golf course. It has been proven golf courses do not inherently add value to communities. It’s proven that residents who buy golf courses actually see a decrease in value as new buyers don’t want the expense, responsibility, and risks.

          We are presenting the facts and ask for people, like you to get involved and voice their concerns to councillors loudly. They are behind it and secretly pushing it. Please let us know through our email if you would like to join us – we need assistance. Also, please sign the petition and spread the word.

          This proposal MUST BE STOPPED

          1. Yes, I want to join in this initiative and as part of my joining to this initiative, i have signed the petition.

            As a new community member, i want to see the agreement between city and builder’s before making any decision and I strongly urge that other members do the same for the greater good of this community.

            Please let me know how i can be an assistance of.

    3. Have to agree with you. If Mattamy or SCA are not transparent in the operating costs or profit/
      losses of operating the course, the SCA is asking me to sign a blank check. Trust us s not good enough.

  6. The last meetings were held in the summer and many people were on holidays including myself. How convenient.

    I have had over 30 years in the Real Estate development business financing large development projects for people like Mattamy. One thing that is clear is that they spend a lot of money lobbying local politicians such as Jan Harder and others. The success of their business relies on it.

    In looking at the proposed levy, I and most of my neighbours see no advantage to paying the levy. If at all, only the people with homes on the golf course will benefit. I am not a golfer so could care less.

    A word of warning though. I do not trust Jan Harder and the City of Ottawa as far as I could throw them. I have been involved in several golf course developments where the city just changes the zoning making it unaffordable to run a golf course thereby forcing the land into residential development. Of course the so called aldermen loved this. More tax dollars and more voters.

    Since the last election, there have been rumours of our councillors not being at a total arms length from developers including Mattamy. I read a CBC report on this and in my experience in this business, where there is smoke there is fire.

    Now that the vacations are over, I would like to get more involved with this so please foo not hesitate to contact me,

    Yours truly,

    Ken Gordon
    BCOM(Econ), D.U.L.E., FRICS

    1. Hello Ken
      We really could use your help. We have a groing group of volunteers but require a variety of expertise and yours would be of tremendous value.
      Would you be so kind to send an email to stonebridgefacts@gmail.com with how we can contact you and I or another individual (I don’t want to name names here) will connect with you

      Thank you

  7. I do not support subsidizing residents whose property backs onto the golf course. I agree with other comments that there was no guarantee when these lots were purchased that they would be like this into perpetuity. I am also not willing to pay an additional levy to subsidize this – why would this be of benefit to our family who is not on a golf course lot. Like many other Stonebridge residents, I dont want Mattamy to build more homes in the green space – of course not, but the proposed solution is not a good one either. The rate of building in this entire area is beyond reasonable and no infrastructure is in place to support the thousands of homes being built. Where is our city Councillor in this – nowhere! Jan Harder is not an advocate for us (developers pay big money), and we need to find a way to advocate for ourselves to avoid this situation.
    A proper study should be done to support any next steps. I am not clear if we have a choice in this – or whose final decision it will be to sell the golf course to the community however I am not willing to pay for this and would really like the option to opt out!

    1. Hi Dawn, thank you for your reply, we are hearing from many homeowners who feel the same way, if you are interested in getting more involved contact us at info@stonebridgefacts.com. The sense out there is the vote won’t matter either that the levy is going to be put into play regardless of the vote outcome. The Councillors want this done. Not all homeowners know about this and they have been given wrong and misleading information which is why this group started this site to help education homeowners. Join our facebook page we are pushing for answers for the community https://www.facebook.com/groups/Stonebridgefacts/

  8. Hi Peter,

    OMG this website of yours is so biased! And, you have dummied it down to: “it is unfair for those not backing onto the golf course to pay the levy.” The development of 2,000+ homes on the golf course does not just affect those with homes backing onto the golf course. It affects everyone in the community. I do not back onto the golf course and do not play golf.

    If you vote “no”, then you are saying:
    1. I do not care about green space or living in a neighbourhood with green space.
    2. I do not believe or do not care if property values decrease if houses are built on the golf course.
    3. I do not care about increased traffic.
    4. I do not care about living in construction zone for several years.
    5. I do not mind living in a more densely-populated area.

    The average levy is $7M / 3,358 homes = $2,085 over 9 years or $232/year or 63 cents per day. It’s nothing!

    Also, if the golf course is eventually converted to green space, that is 198 acres of green space available for everyone to enjoy.

    I do not see any comments from “yes” voters on this website. Are you allowing them to post?


  9. I’m voting YES for the simple reason that I want to protect my home value.

    Assuming a 500k property value. At $4275 over 9 years, that amounts to less than 1% of my property value. If the golf course is torn up and 2000+ homes are developed on it, I guarantee we’ll lose more than 1% of our property value regardless if you back onto the golf course.

    1. Lee, you are not the only one we are replying to, we have many comments to get though, I will post your comment when I am ready. If you read, all YES and NO comments have been posted. You can post of the SCA site.
      Do not compare us to the SCA behavior we do not play that game. We have said from the beginning we will no stop post unless they are rude and bulling.

    1. Hi Paul,

      Question 1) NO we are 100% homeowners who are very concern with this proposal, we do not want any development in our community. And this deal going forward without a contract and having to pay extra taxes is mostly why we have taken the NO side. In no way am I trying to convince you one way or another I am just answering your question, We do not true Mattmamy or city going forward.

      We have not taken any money or help from the City or Mattamy or any other developer to push this deal through. I hope this clears up your question and would be happy to answer any more. The SCA & SWG have very close ties to Mattamy and Jack is part of the developer community and works for the city, but we do not. The SCA & SWG are made up of mostly the sane people.

      Question 2) A very small YES vote margin can impose the levy. Jan Harder can push this through if she wants to.

      Question 3) YES we are writing a blank cheque we have no guarantee at all. At the end of all of this Mattamy still builds and they can buy back the land and fully build and we loose our 6M the 1M will already been lost due to up front costs. The SCA & SWG & Mattanmy and Jan Harder & Carol Ann & Scott have set this up and we don’t know the details going forward they just want to lock in the levy and get the cost later.

      Thanks you for writing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *