Sophie Kuijper Dickson, LJI Journalist
MRC Pontiac’s December council of mayors meeting saw the long-awaited passing of a bylaw that will determine a new method for calculating the money each municipality pays to the county for a collection of shared services.
The Municipality of Alleyn and Cawood has been pushing for a new bylaw since the spring, arguing the now former system used to calculate shares was flawed and unfair.
Until the passing of this new bylaw, municipal shares were calculated based on a municipality’s assessed property value in year one, and based on its standardized value, determined by the comparative factor, in years two and three of the triennial assessment roll.
The comparative factor is a number produced in years two and three of an evaluation cycle, that reflects the difference between the property evaluations in year one and what the market is doing in those second and third years.
The number is used by the province and by some MRC’s to charge municipalities various taxes and shares based on a general calculation of their global property value in the years when they’re not getting a thorough property assessment done.
In 2023, the sale of a collection of empty lots to a developer for an inflated price caused a significant spike in Alleyn and Cawood’s standardized property evaluation, which in turn increased its shares from $112,539 in 2023 to $289,148 in 2024.
This increase did not represent the municipality’s actual property value, and so it was charged shares that it could not recuperate from its tax base. The municipality has been calling for doing away completely with the use of the comparative factor in calculating shares.
The bylaw passed in December is the MRC’s first attempt at mitigating the impact the comparative factor has on share calculations, but does not completely eliminate its use.
“We moved the bylaw tonight as a starting point,” said Warden Jane Toller following the meeting. “But if we find new information that could make our bylaw a better bylaw, we have the ability to create a new one, in this year. So this is a work in progress.”
Under the new bylaw, 50 per cent of shares will be calculated using a municipality’s year one property evaluation, and 50 per cent will be based on its standardized property evaluation, determined by the comparative factor, deposited in years two and three of its evaluation cycle.
Since the draft bylaw was tabled at the MRC’s November meeting, it was amended to note interest will be charged on any amount of shares due in 2024 but not paid by Jan. 1, 2025, at the rate of 2 per cent per month.
At the time of the MRC’s December council meeting, Alleyn and Cawood had yet to pay its 2024 shares.
Motion to defer vote rejected
Before the bylaw was voted on, Alleyn and Cawood mayor Carl Mayer tabled a motion to defer the vote until after the mayors received a presentation from former MRC evaluator Charles Lepoutre this month.
“It’s been going on long enough that I just hope delaying [the vote] one month so that you can get more information would be something we could align on,” said taskforce member Angela Giroux, addressing the mayors during question period before the motion was tabled.
While only four mayors, along with Mayer, supported the motion to defer the vote on the bylaw (Brent Orr of Bristol, Alain Gagnon of Bryson, Thorne pro-mayor Robert Wills and Otter Lake pro-mayor Robin Zacharias), the warden assured Lepoutre would still be invited to speak to the mayors in January.
Lepoutre is a longtime municipal assessor who established the MRC’s evaluation department in 1981. He spoke at an information meeting hosted by Alleyn in Cawood on Dec. 14 to explain why he believes the use of the comparative factor is flawed.
Toller, in attendance at this meeting, told Lepoutre she believes the standardized evaluations should not be used.
“I agree with you, we don’t need that information,” she said. “Have your property evaluated once, and then you’re fine until year four.”
This approach is what Alleyn and Cawood have been arguing since the spring.
At the MRC meeting four days later, THE EQUITY asked Toller what led her to support this approach, she said it was Lepoutre’s explanation that helped her better understand the problem with the comparative factor.
“I think that it was just always being referred to as the comparative factor. And it wasn’t until I heard the presentation that I actually understood that this was something that was . . . it was the way he expressed it.
He said, ‘That information is unnecessary. We don’t need that. Why is that information factoring in, when the evaluation is just done in the first year of the roll?’,” Toller said.
“In year two and three, in my opinion, nothing should change.”
Toller also said she believes moving towards a calculation of shares based on a weighted assessment of the resources and infrastructure in each municipality was a good idea.
“I think this makes perfect sense, to take all of our municipalities and weight them according to what is in the municipality. [ . . . ] And this could help us with how the shares are properly allocated.”