The City of Toronto’s land transfer tax just keeps on giving.

In 2013, the tax is now expected to bring in $346 million, almost $25 million more than projected due to a higher number and value of homes sold, says a staff report to the Sept. 3 budget committee.

The higher tax take, along with wage savings, lower diesel fuel costs and a drop in the welfare caseload, means the city is expected to record a surplus at year-end of $167 million.

The 2012 surplus was $248 million. Under council policy, three-quarters of the leftover cash goes to capital works projects and the rest to city reserves set up to cover unanticipated expenses.

Realtors have lobbied hard against the land transfer tax, introduced by former mayor David Miller in 2008, and Mayor Rob Ford has vowed to cut it by 10 per cent.

The tax works out to $5,725 on the purchase of a $500,000 home.

Ford recently repeated that vow in a speech to the Toronto Real Estate Board but said it could be difficult to do because many members of the 45-member council are “addicted” to the revenue.

The budget committee will wait until December or January, near the end of the 2014 budget review, before recommending whether the tax can be cut, said Councillor Frank Di Giorgio, the budget chair.

“Our objective is to reduce it by 10 per cent,” Di Giorgio said. “I need to see where all the other (cost) pressures are.”

Council makes the final decision, and there’s a lot of support to keep it as is, he said.

“Council may decide there’s a use for the money; I’m hoping that they don’t,” he said. “But I think there are a growing number of councillors that would prefer that the money be used for transit and other things.”

Councillor Janet Davis, who opposes Ford’s plan, said there’s a long waiting list for housing and child-care spots.

“There are people who think, as I do, that we should be investing in neighbourhoods and building the city, not tearing it down into the lowest-common-denominator kind of city,” Davis said.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“It makes no sense to cut the revenues and put ourselves in a position where we’re forced to cut programs or increase user fees.

“It really is about your vision for the city: Is it a minimalist place that offers very little to residents, or a city that supports communities?”