NPCA wins levy battle with Hamilton
Ministry rejects appeal that the authority was charging too much
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority has won a battle with Hamilton over its levy apportionment.
In a 35-page decision released Tuesday, Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner Marianne Orr rejected Hamilton’s appeal that the authority was charging too much.
It means the city will have to pay the full $1.16 million in its 2015 apportionment rate, more than double the $513,000 the city paid in 2014 and previous years.
Bruce Timms, former chair of NPCA, lauded the decision.
“Carmen D’Angelo, as CAO, and I as chair, supported by the board, put our efforts into getting Hamilton to pay their fair share for the watershed management,” said Timms, who was replaced by Sandy Annunziata as board chair last year. “The commissioner ruled we did the right thing in applying the formula.
“Carmen and I became aware of the issue back when we were looking at the development of the Hamilton end of the watershed. We were looking at the Lake Niapenco in the Binbrook Conservation Area, and we observed the growth and subdivisions there and started to question why the money received did not reflect the changes.
“Carmen went to work to find out what the formula was. We discovered there was no deal with Niagara or Haldimand County. We applied the provincial formula and that resulted in a substantial increase for Hamilton.”
“I am pleased as the former chair responsible for initiating this effort with the former CAO to find out we were in fact right.”
The City of Hamilton officials argued an “agreement” had been in place after the 2001 amalgamation of the city’s six municipalities with the three nearby conservation authorities, including NPCA, and with Haldimand and Niagara Region that allowed the city to pay a levy of 3.7 per cent rather than 21 per cent.
Hamilton argued the assessment by the authority should be only for the watershed properties that the authority has jurisdiction over, which is mainly in the rural area. Hamilton officials argued the assessment should not include the new urban area of Hamilton.
But D’Angelo told Hamilton councillors he questioned their city’s levy apportionment in 2014, believing it was too low.
When told by Hamilton officials an agreement was in place that allowed for the reduced levy, he told the hearing last May of the Mining and Land Commissioner he could never find the agreement in any of the municipalities’ archives.
“I did not find a record of the agreement,” he said. “I had a fundamental problem.” Hamilton councillors in 2015 were shocked and angered NPCA would increase Hamilton’s levy. Councillors immediately appealed the levy apportionment to the provincial agency.
But Orr sided with Niagara Region and NPCA that without an agreement Hamilton will have to pay the higher levy based upon the formula established by the Conservation Act.
“There is nothing to rely on to show that the NPCA and its three participatory municipalities formed a common bond dealing with apportionment values,” said Orr. “I cannot agree with and find no support for the city’s (Hamilton) interpretation … that the lands located outside the NPCA’s jurisdiction are to be excluded from the calculation.”
Orr referred to a 1997 decision of the City of London vs. Kettle Creek Conservation Authority, when the city argued the authority should not use the entire assessment of the recently annexed Township of Westminster lands as part of its apportionment. The commissioner at the time rejected the City of London’s levy appeal.
“Indeed, the notion of taking a municipality’s entire assessment value as a starting point in the calculation appears to have been the rule for years,” said Orr.