Hamilton Conservation Authority wades into funding dispute

Report urges province to scrap levy regulations claiming they are unfair

The Hamilton Conservation Authority is urging the province to scrap a regulation that is at the heart of a funding dispute between its counterpart in Niagara region and the city.

A report submitted as part of a review of the Conservation Authorities Act argues authorities should only be able to base the levy on assessment within their geographic boundaries rather than a municipality’s total assessment.

Chief administrative officer Chris Firth-Eagland said there is some confusion over how to calculate levies because the Conservation Authorities Act’s more restrictive provisions that his agency favours conflict with a regulation enacted in 2000.

He said the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority used the regulation, known as 670/00, to calculate its $1.3 million levy for Hamilton for both 2015 and 2016 — up from $513,000 in 2014.

“It would hurt the municipality’s ability to pay. Something would have to give somewhere.”

The city is appealing the levy to Ontario’s mining and lands commissioner. A hearing date has not been set.

Firth-Eagland said the regulation is “much more lucrative” because Niagara can base its levy on 21 per cent of Hamilton’s overall assessment since its boundaries cover 21 per cent of the city’s land mass.

He said if the city’s two other smaller authorities — Grand River and Halton — took the same approach, the city could see total levies rise by $3 million without any change in services.

The Hamilton authority’s levy was $4.25 million this year.

“It could have quite an impact,” Firth-Eagland said. “It would hurt the municipality’s ability to pay. Something would have to give somewhere.”

Niagara authority chief administrative officer Carmen D’Angelo said his agency also wants the province to clarify how levies are charged but believes the regulation should prevail.

He said Niagara changed its levy because a majority of other authorities follow the regulation’s formula.