Even though Wellington North has agreed to drop development charges for agriculture, Mayor Mike Broomhead believes it will place a further burden on local taxpayers.
In April, nearly 300 members of the farm community attended a meeting in Arthur to blast council for even considering putting development charges on agricultural properties. Now that farmers got the answer they wanted, no one bothered to come to council to hear why it made the decision.
As Broomhead read his report, the only person to hear council’s response was a lone representative of the Wellington Federation of Agriculture.
“Thank you to the Township of Wellington North farmers and other members of the agricultural sector for their attendance and input at the public meeting on April 16.
“Council have reviewed and taken into consideration all comments and correspondence … As development charges are charges levied to pay for growth-related capital costs such as widening of roads, increased fire protection, and are used to fund initial capital costs to establish infrastructure needed to serve new growth both residential and non-residential,” he read.
“They do not pay for operating costs or for the future repair and rehabilitation of infrastructure.”
Broomhead said, “I spoke with all council members to find out their feelings on development charges for agricultural buildings.
In their deliberations and careful review, council acknowledged the fact that there are municipalities in Ontario that do have development charges for agricultural development. Some of these municipalities also have some exemptions in regards to agricultural buildings.”
He added that council surveyed all municipalities of the county and find they do not have agricultural related development charges.
“Because of input received by council, with respect to farm buildings and residences being demolished by cash croppers and the fact that council wishes to encourage growth of the farming community council will be proposing an exemption for agricultural buildings by way of an amendment to the development charge bylaw.”
He said development charges will still apply to non-agricultural growth in the rural area. Council remains firm that growth related capital costs still need to be covered, and it has chosen not to exempt non-agricultural development, such as residential single detached houses.
“An amendment to the present development charge bylaw retroactive to Sept. 1, 2008 is being drafted and will address the following:
– 100% exemption for all bona fide farm uses, which means the proposed development will qualify as a farm business and shall include new farming operations and farm operations associated with the Mennonite community, excluding commercial and residential buildings.
He said that will be applicable to all farms, and will include new farming operations and farm operations “associated with our Mennonite community.
Broomhead added that non-residential (commercial, industrial, and institutional) is proposed to be amended to include commercial wind turbines.
However, Broomhead offered his personal take on the situation.
“I wrestled with this quite a bit,” he said.
The previous report, he said, was based on a consensus of council.
“I’ve always been open with my opinion good or bad, and I know some people are not going to like this. I just feel that what we’ve done is maybe the right thing under the circumstances of what’s going around in the county and neighbouring municipalities.”
“But do I think this is fair? And I’m just speaking for Mike Broomhead. No, I don’t think it is fair. All this is doing is shifting development charges onto the taxpayer.
At a local level, 1% of the (municipal portion) of the tax bill is $40,000. At the county level, 1% equals over $600,000. Development charges are coming in at all levels such as the school boards and the county.”
Using arbitrary figures, he stated that if council did not collect $200,000 in development charges in a given year, that alone would represent nearly 5% of a person’s tax bill.
He asked whether or not he agreed with the report, he had read. “I do.”
However, he added, “I do not believe it is fair (to the remaining taxpayers).”
He said if councillors do not address the need for the funds collected through development charges, that will catch up with them.
Broomhead said that tax increases will affect all farmers, not just those improving their farms.
“It goes onto the farmers just trying to eke by.”
And yet, those seemed to be the ones council heard from the most, he said.
“It’s going to hit them because it will be going straight onto their tax bill.”
Councillor Ross Chaulk said he believes there should be no development charges in rural areas on farms.
He said he knew of three farmers who moved some operations to Grey County last year because they did not want to pay development charges to expand their operations locally.
He suggested the average age of farmers in Wellington North is between 70 and 72.
Chaulk said he knew of farmers who did not really survive the BSE (mad cow disease) scare and ended up selling their cattle at a loss, and their properties sold to cash croppers.
While the older couple remained in the home, the barn has already been knocked down and if the house is eventually knocked down, more assessment is lost, Chaulk said.
“It’s a vicious circle,” he said. “We’ve gotta do something and this is what we have. I totally support this.
“You can argue whether or not it will be revisited 10 years down the road. Gosh knows, maybe it will.”
Councillor John Matusinec said that while he agrees with the report, some may be mad about it.
The difference, he said, is that developers have the chance to recoup some of the charges, in farm operations the building of a new barn is for personal use.
The bylaw amendment will before council next week.
