Rural Tax Rates Rise!

Recently my local municipal Council has, like many other rural municipalities set their annual budget and have noted that due to lost revenue from the Provincial Government have had to raise our taxes. This has been an ongoing problem for such municipalities for four or five years now due to the “downloading” of the Farm Tax rebate and Managed Forest tax rebate program costs to said municipalities. Prior to 2006 the province paid for these tax discounts directly and promised to compensate the townships for such costs when they changed the manner of administering the program for the 2008 taxation year.

Since that time there has been a steady dwindling of funding returning to rural townships to cover the reduced taxation on these properties (such rebates are MANDATED by the province should property owners apply for same). The Association of Municipalities of Ontario says that “Today it pays only $65.8 million, about one-third of the original amount allocated” and that “ the total amount of the tax rebate that municipalities would expect under the original plan, because of higher assessments, has ballooned to $253.2 million, almost four times what the province pays rural municipalities now. Municipalities have had to come up with a whopping $187.4 million from other tax sources to make up the difference.”

More specifically - North Dundas a municipality “heavily dependent on agriculture which collected $13.1 million in taxes in 2009, is short $800,000 in tax revenue because the province has reneged on its promise to pay the full tax rebate.”

“North Dundas is not alone. SDG collected $31.2 million in taxes last year but lost $4.4 million or 14 per cent of the revenue because of the decreased farm tax rebate.”

“Prescott-Russell County is losing almost as much as SDG. Areas with an agricultural base are highly affected. Some of the rich agricultural counties like Middlesex in western Ontario have the same problem.”

“In the Municipality of Brighton, (they) get nothing from the province. The reneged deal means the township has to collect $140,000 more through increased property and industrial taxes.”

“Kawartha Lakes collected $908,789 from eligible farmland and managed forests in 2009. But if the land had been taxed at the full tax rate, the city would have received $3.6 million. The consequence was the $2.6 million shortfall that Kawartha Lakes believes should have been paid by the province was charged to local property and business owners.”

And in my own Township of Chatsworth, Mayor Greig says “They lost 273 thousand dollars in Ontario Municipal Partnership Funding and another 400 thousand from the farm tax rebate program. ……. the shortfall translated to 12.7 per cent of their budget.”

“He says the province's new funding formula is seriously flawed and "it's almost criminal what they're doing".

For those that are unaware of this program and the way such tax rebates work here are a few details:-

Farm properties satisfying the eligibility requirements are taxed at 25% of the municipal residential tax rate. The farm residence and one acre of land, surrounding it, will continue to be taxed as part of the residential class.

OMAFRA has the responsibility to determine and report eligible properties to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation from property owners submitting the multi-year application.

To be eligible for the Farm Property Class tax rate, the following criteria must be satisfied:

The property must be assessed as farmland it must be part of a farming business generating over $7000 of gross farm income and be reported to Canada Revenue Agency. The farm business operating on the must have a valid Farm Business Registration number. More than 50% of the property must be owned by Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada. If the property is owned by a business which is a sole proprietorship, the owner must be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

To receive the Managed Forest tax rebate the property owner must submit an approved forestry plan (renewable every 5 or 10 years) and the plan and forest must be reviewed by a licensed forestry technician for approval and renewal. The plan can only be applied to properties over 10 acres and a minimum of one acre surrounding any residential areas cannot be included. It cannot be applied to “commercial operations” and a minimum density of trees also is required.

Until recently Townships have been quietly lobbying the Ontario government to stand up to their promises to fully compensate municipalities for said rebates because “.It’s an issue we hate to bring up because it can reverberate back on farmers. Some people think farmers should pay the full tax rate." No doubt some of our urban cousins will be of that opinion, but such a point of view shows a lack of understanding of the plight of our farming community (particularly the family farm) and perhaps a lack of acknowledgment of the need for the preservation of forested lands for future generations health and well-being.

I submit to you that our farms and forests are critical for the future of all citizens in Ontario, indeed Canada, and not just the “local municipality”. If we are to have a tax incentive for these lands to continue to produce the food we eat and clean the air we breath (and I believe we should) then the cost of such programs must be spread across all those that benefit, and that includes residents of both rural AND urban areas. The rural population and farming population is steadily declining and such extra costs spread out over a small sparsely populated(by urban standards)area can be considerable.

It seems that the Ontario Government has already made their choice, rural municipalities are to be ignored, don’t fund their costs for provincially mandated programs, override their zoning bylaws and motions regarding wind turbine installations, enforce expensive water testing regimes and food processing regulations without regard to the effect upon the struggling rural areas. After all those rural folk are totally outnumbered by the urban population so their vote counts for little. By the time oil prices go through the roof, terminal seed terminates our crops, countries cease to export food in order to feed their own and urban populations look to us rural folk to feed them it will be to late. Multinationals will own all the land, our villages will be “retirement communities” and few will be left to care for our farms and forests.

Pessimistic, you bet, but it’s increasingly looking like a more lightly scenario.

I’m “Rural” and will do everything I can to remain so.

With extracts from

http://propertylimit.com/Prop_Farm_Properties.html

http://www.farmersforum.com/APR2010/p12.htm

A request for further information from Chatsworth Township did not receive any response.

A Comprehensive Vision Needed for Rural Ontario

This CFFO Commentary sums it up quite well, but who is going to form that "comprehensive team" and will any one with the power to implement change take any notice?

There are many factors that influence the shape of the countryside, but it seems that they often work at cross purposes. Provincial ministries, municipalities, and interest groups are all so busy pursuing their mandates that they end up battling each other. Is it possible that a comprehensive vision for rural Ontario would help reduce these clashes? Is it time to consider the value of having a comprehensive team establish a vision for rural Ontario?

There are many government ministries at work in rural Ontario. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is working to provide opportunities for farmers and rural residents. The Ministry of the Environment is busy developing rules and regulations to protect our air, water, and soil resources. The Ministry of Natural Resources is safeguarding our forests and repopulating or controlling wildlife populations in the province. While there is communication between these departments, they continue to serve their own agendas, which is arguably the proper course of action as things currently stand.

Then there are the interest groups that are vying for influence with government and its different agencies. Farm groups advocate for a variety of benefits for farmers, from tax breaks to easing regulations. Some environmental groups push for firmer rules to protect water, air and wildlife while others push for reforestation and naturalization projects.

Then there are municipalities that need to find ways to provide infrastructure and services to rural residents. This growing burden creates the need for new sources of property tax revenue. Ensuring that rural schools and hospitals remain available to rural residents, attracting employment opportunities and providing the latest in communication technology highlight today’s municipal responsibilities.

All of these goals and objectives have merit to varying degrees, but where is the vision that balances these goals and works to create a thriving rural Ontario? Are we ensuring that infrastructure needs are being met? Have we considered the best way to balance increasing wildlife and forestation with a profitable agriculture industry? Have we considered the need to improve transportation and water infrastructure so that agriculture is competitive in a global marketplace, while doing so in an environmentally responsible manner?

All of these conflicting agendas point toward the lack of a cohesive vision for rural Ontario. If rural Ontario is to thrive there needs to be a bridging of the different ministries, interest groups, and municipalities to generate a comprehensive vision that balances these interests to make rural Ontario a thriving and important part of the province.

Nathan Stevens is the Research and Policy Advisor for the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. The CFFO Commentary represents the opinions of the writer and does not necessarily represent CFFO policy.

www.christianfarmers.org/index.html.

Cooking by candlelight.

“Under the new rates announced this week, peak pricing will be 9.9¢ a kw/h beginning on May 1. The off-peak price will be 5.3¢ a kw/h. The Ontario Energy Board, responsible for setting the prices, said the increase will add $7.60 — or 8% — to the average monthly hydro bill.”

Currently I pay 5.8¢ per Kwh for the first 1,000Kwh, have been informed that the delivery charge will increase around 7% {3.3% of total bill, delivery is more than 50% of the bill} AND that HST will add a further 5%) So by my calculations if I manage to transfer ALL my hydro use to nighttime or weekends under the TOD metering I will save just 60¢ per month if I use 1000Kwh per month! (5.3 x 1.033 x 1.05 = 5.74)

If just 50% of my use is “on peak” my hydro bill will increase by abt $22 a month (9.9-5.8 x 500 x 1.033 x 1.05). With us old folks looking for bed by 9pm, not cooking a meal or doing the wash it looks like our already tight budget is going to take a shellacking once again.

It seems the incentive is not to be saving money on our hydro bill for using off peak but a substantial penalty for using it on peak. Given that non of us can totally eliminate the use of hydro before 9pm or after 7am your hydro bill is going to go up substantially and when all that “green hydro” get paid for at 400% to 800% the current PEAK rate (wind around 40¢, solar around 80¢) we will all be going back to cooking on the wood stove (something we here already do quite a bit off) and reading by candlelight!

As one who was original in favor of time of day metering (and still think the concept of shifting use to even consumption is a good plan) I am very disappointed that even major shifts in my hydro usage will not result in any saving to my wallet. I note here also that when originally proposed there were “mid peak” periods proposed that allowed some savings during less busy DAYTIME hours, this has been now eliminated!

One more thing - if I see one more report or flyers saying the price of hydro is in the 5¢ to 9¢ range I am going to sceam, its not as if I have a choice where I get it or that I can go to the generating station and get “a bucket of hydro”, the cost of hydro INCLUDES the delivery charge, the dept retirement payment, the line loss calculation, the “regulatory charges" AND the frigging TAX on it all!! That totals out to around 14c per Kwh at the CURRENT price of hydro.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2917937#ixzz0lO7OfTeW

Tip of the hat to http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/off-peak-hydro-rate-too-high-watchdog/

Funding Priorities

Regular readers will know that I still struggle with dialup internet, even here in SW Ontario just 20 minutes from town there is no dsl, wireless is "out of range" but with the need for a tower, hardware depost and high monthly fees is out of my price range anyway. The only other option, satelite internet is then wayyyyy out of my grasp!

For a take on this from someone who's view is not coloured by the frustration of a slooooow connection see This piece from Impolitical!

Its about time.

The Ontario budget that just came down has called for a wage freeze on all “non union” public workers and Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan has said that the government “will not fund” any wage increases in the unionized sector. Given that so many Ontarians, indeed Canadians, have been laid off, have run out of unemployment, are having difficulty finding new employment or are reduced to a part time job this is a quite reasonable and prudent thing to do.

Unfortunately the unionized sector will continue to get their “negotiated” raises and as the contracts come up will no doubt continue to demand “more” and threaten to walk off the job and disrupt services if they do not get their way. That government “will not fund further raises” is a bit of a non starter given that in both the heath and education sectors the government does not negotiate directly with those employees, so when, that’s when not if, these public employees with secure jobs and above average wages and benefits demand “more” where will it come from? Simply really, it will come out of the already stressed Hospital or School Board budgets and thus something else will suffer to pay for them.

This is not speculation, it is history folks, it has been this way for years and there is no reason for it to change. The union folk will cry “our members deserve a decent wage” whilst raking in two, three, four and even five time that received by those folk in those minimum wage jobs that for many are the only choice left. The teachers, nurses, technicians will decry cuts to services that may be needed to pay for their generous compensation but will they direct their unions to reduce any of their “demands”? Not a chance!

Bottom line, with an ever increasing demand for more government “services” and ever increasing demand by those providing those services for “better compensation” and an ever increasing percentage of our population working directly or indirectly for government, only two solutions exist. Increased taxes or reduced services.

Would that reduced compensation, reduced waste, and increased efficiency was in the government and union lexicon, and that the public reduce their ever increasing “need” for non essential services from government.

And that how it looks from one of the many who has been making do with less for some time now……

The Province of Toronto

Recently rural MPP Bill Murdoch created some attention to the disconnect between the majority of urban voters and the minority of those who compose citizens outside of major cities by suggesting that Toronto should become its own province. Whilst this may have been a somewhat tongue in cheek comment the idea that our provincial government is city centric is indeed something of great concern to many of us who do not belong to that majority. Be it wind power, water source protection, species protection, forestry management, agricultural practices or any other issue affecting rural landowners and residents the majority urban representatives have a much greater impact upon decision making than those closer to the land. This is no less true for Federal governance than Provincial, with 4 out of 5 Canadians living in urban areas it is understandable that those folks will have a greater impact upon decision making than “The Rural Minority”

What follows is the text of an article I wrote some 4 years ago on this subject and is no less valid now that it was then.

We, the rural population, are in my view, rapidly being viewed as irrelevant by both much of the urban (particularly large urban) dwellers and many of our Provincial and Federal Leaders. We have seen of late very little attention given to our farm families despite a few vocal rallies at Queens Park and Ottawa, many of the urban population and indeed our leaders have the view that if you cannot compete in the “global market” dominated by the multinationals then you should simply quit! The “clean water” initiative to protect source water is at first glance a great move but if one looks closer we see that Conservation Authorities and rural municipalities are expected to regulate and police the new rules with little or no funding from upper levels of government. There is at this point no indication of how our cash strapped farmers , as willing as they may be to protect our streams, can afford the time or money to comply with these changes. Many small communities are already struggling with the increased testing and filtration required for drinking water systems. In the past few years the formula regarding tax incentives for both farm and forest land have been changed to put an increased burden upon our local municipalities (and thus our rural taxpayers) to pay for this. Many programs mandated by the provincial or federal government are being funded in whole or in part at the municipal level and this often disproportionately impacts the less populated townships. There is much more, but in short, there is an ever increasing move to download the costs of programs and changes that benefit all citizens to the rural areas that have to implement them.

The above is hardly a surprise, we are after all governed by an electoral system that favors the majority and much as our representatives may endeavor to make rural points of view known when these changes come before parliament, but they too are a minority. If we look at some figures from StatsCan it can be seen just where things are going………

Across Canada the “rural” (StatsCan defines rural as centers with a population of less than 1,000 or with less than 400 persons per square km) population is just 20% of total population. In Ontario that drops to 15%, here in the Grey Bruce area it is slightly above 50%, which is why I suppose we are known as a rural area, but note that nearly half of our residents are in fact urban dwellers.

If we look at those that really comprise the working rural folk and attempt to make that area outside the urban areas productive and of benefit to us all, the story gets worse.

Farm families comprise just 2.4% of our total population and 1.6% in Ontario and the numbers are steadily declining total numbers being down 10 – 15% since 1996 (5 years, all the above being from the 2001 census being the last available info)

See http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/ for more information.

It can be thus seen why many of our political leaders who rely upon the MAJORITY to vote for them in order to get into power do not give much thought or effort to supporting rural and farm communities despite their importance to the health and sustainability of our Country.

How can we change this………………

Firstly communication, we must educate both our leaders and the urban population as to the importance of the wellbeing of our Farms, Forests, Streams, Natural and Open areas and those that care for and own them. Most Farmers and rural landowners are very conscious of the heritage that they own and try and maintain in a sustainable and ecological manner as much as possible, but unless their income and lifestyle is sustainable they cannot sustain that which they care for. We must tell them that the Family Farm is crucial to the survival of many small rural communities, each are interdependent. We must tell our fellow citizens that the multinational corporations that would have control of our food supply from seed (or birth) to market to processing to retail, MUST have some limits put upon them. We must tell governments that regulate (and the corporations that compete with) the small farm cooperatives and farm gate / farmers markets out of existence, that it is these places where the best product and value can be found and that every one gains not just the “middlemen”

We must support our rural communities by shopping at such places and encouraging what few independent food stores left to “buy local” wherever possible. Use those small local businesses whenever possible so that our cash stays in and supports our community, avoid those “big box” stores (easy to say but harder to actually do) whose profits not only do not stay in the community but often do not even stay in the country. Encourage and educate those tourists from the big cities who come to see our beautiful countryside, show them the crops, the cattle, the forests and the flowers, tell them how we care for this land that future generations may continue to enjoy the abundance that it provides. Tell them that we cannot continue to do so if we cannot sustain our community’s economy, if we must all travel to the city to find jobs for ourselves or our children or if our ability to care for our environment is compromised by a lack of resources.

We must start to beat our own drum and LOUDLY, we must get the attention of all those that would forget about us, not by demonstrating at Queens Park or blocking highways, but by constantly telling what we do for the area, Province and Country, even if that is only maintain a small forest to clean the air or a visiting garden to provide escape from the city. We must understand that by its very definition rural folks will always be in a minority (not everyone can, or wants to, live outside urban areas) and thus we can only change things by garnering support from those that do live in urban areas that understand the importance of sustaining our rural communities.

We must not become the FORGOTTEN MINORITY.

“Murdoch also cited the Liberal-created Green Energy Act, along with the Endangered Species Act and Ontario Water Resources Act as causing hardship for rural Ontarians. He said his latest criticism of Toronto speaks to bigger concerns with democracy at Queen's Park. Murdoch said the premier of Ontario's office holds too much power. Cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and parliamentary assistants should be selected by caucus, he said, and MPPs should not be forced to vote as the party dictates.”

From some of the on line commentary and less than complementary posts about both Bill and rural residents in general it would seem that both sides need to get some more perspective. Democracy is, or should be, inclusive not exclusive. For more of the rural perspective and Bill’s views see these owensoundsuntimes articles

Access to information cut by Feds.

This from The globeandmail is very troubling particularly for the rural communities and those for whom internet access is a luxury they can ill afford. The internet is in my view one of the few tools left to keep tabs upon government actions, both good and bad, federal or provincial, and is increasingly becoming essential in order to dig out the truth. That many of those who’s funding has been cut are those trying to help the less fortunate in out society, or those providing internet services to those who may not otherwise have it available for one reason or another, simply reinforces the belief that those in power to do everything they can to block information access from the general public. To eliminate funding for such help groups whether within 25km or within 1km of a library or not, particularly given the very modest amounts quoted, shows a total disregard and understanding of the operation and needs of such groups.

“The Conservative government is quietly cutting funding to hundreds of community groups and even hospitals that provide free Internet access to Canadians who might not otherwise have a chance to get online.

Organizations that benefit from Industry Canada's 16-year-old Community Access Program began receiving letters last week informing them that sites located within 25 kilometres of a public library would no longer be eligible for cash.

Groups had been receiving between $4,000 and $5,000 a year to buy computers and other hardware, such as printers and wireless routers; to pay for technical support and skills training; and sometimes to pay for the connection bills.

Organizations that have used the program include employment and youth drop-in centres, English-as-a-second-language programs, libraries, and seniors groups.

In rural areas, such organizations are often clustered in the middle of town and near the local library, meaning they are the most likely to be hit by the change in funding criteria.”

I said in a recent post that “the austerity program is about to commence” and I believe that there will be MUCH more along these lines, its not that government does not need to control spending but more about where those spending cuts will take place. We must take very close notice of the disconnect between what our governments at all levels say and what they actual do. I for one believe that past and current actions speak much more clearly to the direction our leaders wish to take us than the spin and BS that they feed us on a daily basis.