A proposal to impose development charges on agricultural construction in Mapleton Township was met with nothing but opposition at a public meeting here on Jan. 26.
About 80 people attended the gathering at the Maryborough Community Centre, where Mayor Neil Driscoll made it clear the event was an information gathering session, not a debate.
“We want to avoid a speaker being challenged by the public,” said Driscoll, noting speakers would be limited to 10 minutes each.
“Honestly, if you can speak for any more than 10 minutes you should be a politician,” the mayor quipped.
Not a single speaker expressed support for ending a 100 per cent exemption on development charges for buildings constructed for “a bona fide farm use.”
The township proposal would see the exemption reduced to 75%, meaning someone building a new barn, for example, would pay 25% of the non-residential rate of $2.65 per square foot of gross floor area, which works out to 66 cents/ft2.
Wellington Federation of Agriculture president Janet Harrop told council, “Many regions of Ontario have identified agriculture as a growth area and have implemented growth plans to attract agricultural businesses to their region by decreasing costs and barriers – like clear statutory development charges exemptions for farm buildings and structures, lowering building permit fees, and tax incentives.”
Harrop added, “Farmers are more than willing to invest in their businesses to create growth and efficiencies, but clear business plans and ability to cash flow are the basis of all successful growth. Development charges are a cost that we see no return on – the additional costs will mean scaling back or not moving forward with a project.”
Harrop also pointed out farming operations can appear more prosperous than they actually are.
“What often looks like a very successful, large scale agricultural business can be quite deceiving – capital items look big and shiny but their return on investment is calculated over decades, not years – they are required investments to run our businesses giving little choice of scale,” she said.
“Asking agriculture to pay more will ultimately have a negative economic impact on the municipality and drive businesses to other municipalities and/or counties with more business-friendly policies.”
Farmers understand municipalities struggle with finding the funds for infrastructure upkeep, said Harrop.
“Let us be part of the solution to create a plan to prioritize needs, lobby provincial government for infrastructure dollars, identify traffic needs and flows to move large agricultural equipment onto more appropriate roadways,” Harrop suggested. “Farmers do not determine provincial road and bridge standards for upgrade or replacement, but feel as if we are being blamed for them.”
Henry Stevens, secretary of the Christian Farmers Association of Wellington, said he was speaking on behalf of all of agriculture in Mapleton.
“The farm organizations and commodity groups are united in objecting to this proposal,” Stevens stated.
“Having said that, we are all aware of the financial constraints the municipality is facing. Cutbacks to the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund transfers, along with continued provincial downloading and changing ‘made-in-Toronto’ standards, have made it very difficult for rural municipalities, with smaller tax bases, to meet their infrastructure obligations. We are committed to working with you to find solutions that are acceptable to everyone.”
Stevens said development charges were intended to help municipalities recover the cost of new hard services, such as roads, water and sewers, recreational facilities and fire protection required because of such development.
“Non-residential, bona fide agricultural development is to be exempt from such charges. Can the municipality show how, in any such development, new hard services were required?”
Dave DeVries, who runs a farrow to finish hog operation in Mapleton with his wife Lauren, told council, like many young farmers “we’re already carrying substantial debt.”
DeVries added, “We need to do some serious innovations and replacement of our barns in the next few years.”
While the new structures would “provide more efficiency in the way we operate,” they don’t really represent growth of his operation.
“Moving to a different style of housing will require more square footage for the same number of animals,” he explained.
If the proposal proceeds, he said development charges would add about $10,000 to the cost of his barn and he doesn’t feel that represents an appropriate share of infrastructure costs.
“We aren’t the only one using the road … every morning there are hundreds of commuters going by to get to their workplace,” said DeVries.
Local sheep farmer Romy Schill told council “as young and invested producers, our goal is to grow and improve our farm. This involves building a new barn sometimes.”
On top of building permits and other existing costs, Schill said, “paying an extra $10,000 to $20,000 in a development charge is ridiculous.
“We would require no more services and no new roads if we build a barn,” Schill stated.
“This is a deal breaker. We won’t build a barn if we have to pay this tax.”
James Craig, who’s family owns farmland in both Mapleton and Wellington North, told council, “I guess you can help me make a choice where our farm should build any buildings next.”
He added, “I’m not the only one that could make that decision, too.”
Wallenstein-area farmer Carl Israel said the main purpose of the development charge proposal seems to be revenue for road services.
While conceding it may be “partially true” that farmers are damaging the shoulders of local roads with large equipment, Israel said, “In the rural areas there is a whole lot more traffic out there than just the rural traffic.”
Israel pointed out, “We get these nice roads and the urban people find the nice roads … Then when we’re on the road with our equipment we have to deal with these guys. If you’ve got to raise revenue to deal with keeping roads up to date, it should be the whole tax base and not just the farmer.”
David Martin pointed out farmers are required to provide higher standards of animal housing than in the past, “Therefore we are building large barns for more square footage per animal, not necessarily increasing the (number of) animals.”
Due to rising land prices and other costs, Martin said, “In order to be sustainable … we need to produce more, and produce more for less. So these charges that you are proposing … we are getting hit basically three ways … furthermore we are required to be environmentally friendly or good stewards, which requires proper feed storage, proper manure storage, etcetera, etcetera … there’s no extra money. It’s already all accounted for.”
Driscoll thanked the crowd for attending the meeting and providing input.
“Crowds like this really help council make their decisions,” Driscoll said.
He said council would discuss the development charge proposal at the Feb. 7 meeting and he anticipates a decision at the Feb. 21 meeting.
Proposed changes to the township’s development charges bylaw also include amending the 2016 Development Charges Update Study to factor in increased estimates for the cost of upgrading water capacity.
