Long Island Lake landowners are mad their property tax has increased and have threatened to leave Westlock County in favour of the Summer Village of Larkspur.
Around 30 property owners turned out to the June 23 Westlock County council meeting to protest the quashing of bylaw 15-1996 — a move that saw the mill rate for Long Island Lake properties increase from 2.4 to 4.4 per cent.
Their grievances related to the increase, the way it was communicated, the services they receive for the amount they pay and a belief that upping the rate reneged on a deal made between landowners and the county in the 1990s.
“Last year I paid $2,600 for my cabin that was built in 1984 and this year my taxes are $3,100. Now that’s quite an increase in one year,” said long-time Long Island Lake resident John Navratil. “I don’t think that’s right, and I don’t think that’s fair.”
One of the key issues raised by land owners was the way the chance to the zoning in the area was communicated to those effected.
Apart from news coverage in the Westlock News, the county seems to have undertaken no effort to advise resident affected by the change.
“Councillors, the way you implemented this tax was shameful,” said one ratepayer. “I knew nothing about it until I got the increase with a 30-day due date.
“You have all of our information to send us an e-mail, send us a letter … your own website, under news releases has nothing on there.”
Reeve Bud Massey now acknowledges that the municipality could have done a better job of communicating the change.
“It likely is prudent we do a better job of our website,” Massey said.
“Was there an attempt at transparency? Absolutely. It was held at a public forum, it was reported in the newspaper. A lot of people knew. It didn’t become an issue until people go their tax notices.”
At times the discussion became heated as ratepayers challenged explanations for the rise offered by councillors.
Town of Westlock councillor David Truckey, who has land in the area, was one of the most vocal.
A polite but curt exchange between Truckey and Massey ended with the reeve stating that no decisions could be made during the meeting, especially not with a “smoking gun to our head.”
Truckey initiated the exchange, asking “Would Westlock County entertain the idea of our ratepayers joining Larkspur village? Because, this is the steepest hill you could possibly climb. For the summer village to annex us into the summer village, it has to have the blessing of Westlock County.”
“And the minister,” added Massey.
“Well, that’s the easy part,” said Truckey in reply.
“The provincial government has made it very clear that they want to get rid of summer villages, not increase them,” opined Massey.
“Yes, I know,” said Truckey. “But at this point it’s appearing that we don’t have a lot of options here and we’re not a hamlet, we’re not a summer village, and now we have the rug pulled out from under us on this tax classification.”
“In fairness Dave, we have committed to do additional research and then we’re going to do additional consideration,” Massey said. “We would like to do that because of the public presentation, not because you want to put a smoking gun to our head.
“If you want to initiate joining Larkspur, then talk about doing that. Then you’re wasting your time here today, just go and do it. But if you want to try and work together cooperatively to resolve the issue, then let’s do that.
“We’re not going make a decision here today, and you wouldn’t make it in your council chamber either, Dave. Treat us the same way that you would be treated in your council chambers.”
“Thank you for the lecture, reeve Massey,” responded Truckey.
There was also a level of misinformation floating about during the public hearing, including an accusation that the News failed to cover the issue appropriately.
After the bylaw was passed at the Feb. 10 meeting, the News covered the issue in detail, including reporting on both Massey’s claims that many residents were living in the area and denials from locals, who put the number at around five houses occupied year round.
At the time the News reached out to more than 10 people who owned property around Long Island Lake, including permanent and seasonal residents. None would speak on the recorded, sighting business concerns or lack of information.
A number of times during Tuesday’s meeting residents said the News reported that county stood to make $140,000 from the change of designation. In fact, the News reported that the county stood to gain an extra $40,000 from the move.
Both Massey and CAO Peter Kelly advised the group that the municipality would look into the concerns and that included having an assessor visit the area to make sure the value of properties was correct.
Yet, as one resident noted, reassessment of land value could also result in an even larger tax bill.
“If the assessor believes any property is under valued they also have to look at that as well,” said Kelly. “Our intent is not to raise assessment, our intent is to make sure they are fairly assessed.”
At about he half way point of the close to hour long public hearing, Coun. Jim Wiese said that the change had been made because the Municipal Government Act (MGA) prevented the county from having special taxation zones and that by knowingly allowing one would mean that all councillors could be removed from their positions.
Wiese continued that such an outcome would force a municipal election and that suggestion brought cheers from the public gallery.
A resident also questioned that interpretation on special taxation zones saying she has spoken to the Municipal Affairs and they had told her that the MGA did allow for municipalities to tax residents differently.
The MGA does allow for special levies and taxation regimes, but they are normally applied on top of the minimum rate to pay for special circumstances like new infrastructure in a localized area.
But it is not clear if the MGA allows for the creation of special taxation zones that provide for a tax rate lower than the base mill rate.
Many residents mentioned that they believed, historically, their tax rate was lower due to a deal made between them and the county 1980s or 1990s.
Kelly said was able to locate the bylaw approving the rate, but no documentation of a special agreement underpinning it.
“We’re still trying to find more, but to date we have not found the information,” he said.
“That doesn’t mean it’s not there, it just means that we have not yet located it if it is there.
“I can only go by the motions I see on the books or it may be in the background. If it’s done on a handshake, I can’t trace a handshake.”
Other residents felt that as they didn’t live at their holiday home full time, they were entitled to a lower rate.
But Massey tried to put the kibosh on that thinking, saying that other residents of the county take holidays and don’t get a tax break when they aren’t living in the area.
“There are several people in our county who go away for the winter and so even though they’re residential, they only spend half the season or half the year here,” he said.
Further grievances related to the services received from the county, stating that road grading was infrequent, that they didn’t have any water or sewage service and had no roadside trash collection. That in turn lead to suggestions that the ratepayers might push for a hamlet designation, which would require the county to provide utility services.
“A community can be a hamlet if it consists of five or more dwellings, has a generally accepted boundary, and a name, and contains land used for non-residential purposes, like the reserves,” Rodger Craig said.
“This sounds a lot like our community. According to the county water services leaflet, we would be entitled to water and sewage services like other hamlets in the county.”
At other points in the meeting, the option of joining Larkspur was raised.
Again, council countered such suggestions advising that the provincial government had been unwilling to allow changes to, or the creation of new summer villages.
It is expected that administration will report back to council on the issue as soon as possible.
