The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) is going to cost municipalities more in the year ahead.
Puslinch councillors recently reviewed correspondence informing them of a 2.65% levy increase for 2017.
MPAC board of directors chairman Dan Mathieson stated, “After four years with an agenda focused primarily on finding efficiencies while increasing organizational effectiveness through our 2013-2016 strategic plan, the board has determined that the organization needs to make additional investment in its core business to ensure we continue to serve our stakeholders going forward.”
Mathieson said the Assessment Review Board’s strategy to eliminate backlogs and complete appeals within the assessment cycle will have a direct impact on MPAC’s staffing and resources.
“It is anticipated that MPAC will be required to respond to the scheduling of approximately 1,250 appeals per month.”
He added that a stable and predictable assessment base is similarly important to the board and the changes such as disclosure, pre-roll discussions and the extensive outreach activities implemented for the 2016 assessment update are a reflection of that commitment.
“Taking this approach forward and building on it for the 2020 assessment update requires the establishment of a larger reserve fund,” Mathieson said.
“The 2017 budget reflects the need to right size the number of senior valuation staff in the field to meet the demands of our workload, continue with programs to ensure the quality and consistency of data in our systems and continue to build our pool of accredited valuation experts and professionals.”
Councillor John Sepulis said that in talking with the township CAO, “it appears we have no recourse …”
Mayor Dennis Lever clarified the township does not pay the levy directly as the payment is made at the county level on behalf of the municipalities.
Lever said the bill is approximately $1.3 million.
He noted the document statement that MPAC’s focus was on very small increases.
Lever and the county treasurer also recently met with an MPAC vice president.
“We said we were more interested in MPAC being effective than their drive for efficiency … because (in the past) they’ve had some serious issues with effectiveness.”
