Mapleton council faced a tough conundrum on Oct. 11.
The purpose of the meeting, in part, was to get feedback on a development charges proposal that would see agricultural entities forced to contribute something towards the infrastructure costs the township faces in the future – specifically, 25% of the fee for normal development charges.
Historically, municipal councils have been quite sympathetic to the plight of the farmer. Agricultural buildings are large, cash-flow is difficult depending on sector, and generally folks on the rural routes are a low maintenance portion of the electorate. Mapleton township felt similarly all these years, providing an exemption for bona fide farmers expanding their operations.
Years after that methodology was adopted as an accepted practice amongst municipalities with a sizeable farm community, much has changed. Mayor Neil Driscoll alluded to that in his comments about why the municipality is even considering the change: they are tapped out.
Mapleton stands as a prima facie example of what happens when tax policies change at the provincial level, causing changes at the local level. The township remains stuck offsetting the cost of the former provincial rebate program for agriculture. Basically farmers kept their good deal on taxes at the expense of the local community. We’ve decried that policy for years, as have township councils across Ontario, to no avail.
In the absence of a fair deal on taxes from the province, Mapleton needs a mechanism to gain more revenue to keep up its infrastructure. It’s about that simple.
Delegations against changing the 100% exemption seemed to learn a lot that evening. One claim that farmers would have to pay into water and sewer costs was quickly dismissed as an inaccurate discussion point. All that Mapleton wants is a hand-up with municipal-wide services, such as roads and fire.
Seeking an effective rate of 25% – or in other words, 75% off what everyone else pays – seems neither punitive nor unfair. To be cautious, perhaps a threshold could be set to limit the new charges to only larger scale farm operations. What happens elsewhere is of little consequence and we hazard a guess pressures will force other municipalities to review their bylaws too.
While our heart and that of rural councillors most assuredly rests on the side of farmers, most operations today are indeed big business. The days of old Masseys and a wagon winding their way down a country lane are long gone. Equipment is of such a size and configuration that infrastructure needs are vastly different. To write off any discussion of a discounted development fee as simply unacceptable or unfair is itself unfair, if not extremely short-sighted.
Industrial, commercial and residential developments have paid fees since the inception of such bylaws. Often by virtue of location, these fees are sizeable – often including water and sewer charges, depending on the site.
Some municipalities have provisions to be a little easier on business, such as extending the time to pay the fees, but all other industries have bellied up and its past time that agriculture joins the club.
