flag Street Lighting Problem
The StreetLighting Problem Council Streetlighting Charges From the Kincardine News
The StreetLighting Bylaw

STREET LIGHTING by Eugene Bourgeois

I was able to meet with the public works committee on Monday with Dugald Mackenzie. In keeping with my original commitment to him, I addressed his issues first, but told the committee that I was also representing the IDRA and would address these concerns next.

With Dugald, I felt there were two issues of substance to relate. The first was that it is simply inequitous to charge separate roll numbers as if each roll number represented a single property. In Dugald's case, his property contains 4 roll numbers, dating back to the historical and original constitution of Inverhuron. From the muncipality's perspective, and for all other intents and purposes, these 4 roll numbers represent one solitary property. In my own case, when we bought the Campbell property, it became amalgamated with ours in order to separate O'Brecht's from the Campbell property. Canadian Agra had amalgamated these two proerties when it purchased them, but sold them as two separate properties during receivership. We were allowed to change our lot line, thereby joining it with ours, and thereby freeing the O'Brecht property as a simple unit. From the municpality's perspective, this was one property, even though it continued to have 2 roll numbers. Thus I paid twice for street lighting charges. I argued that if the properties were one, and not separate entities with the rights [ertaining to separate properties, they should have only one street lighting charge.

With respect to the street lighting charges, these were levied solely on the residents of Inverhuron. Of the 4 roll numbers Dugald has, only 3 are in Inverhuron, and street lighting charges applied only to those 3. In 1997, around the same time as amalgamation, a whole segment of Inverhuron was removed and Inverhuron was described as in Schedule 3 of the new municipal plan. Since these street light charges pertained only to properties in Inverhuron, when these properties ceased being part of Inverhuron, street lighting charges ought to have stopped then too.

On behalf of the IDRA, I argued that we had appealed the township of Bruce for street lighting to mark each of the major intersections in Inverhuron. We were concerned about the possibility of an accident involving children at one of these intersections because, during the summer and at other times of the year, the streets belong to the children. We wanted both them and drivers, especially at the main street corners, to have the best visibility possible. We also were mindful of the costs of the service and wanted to insure that the costs to the township were minimal. Hence, we asked for and received minimal street lighting to serve the purpose we intended. Bruce township recognised our efforts and charged us $5 per year, an amount it estimated would cover the total costs of operations once the capital costs were returned. Each resident of Inverhuron paid a special billing for these capital costs. With Bruce township, we willingly paid for the service we received.

The municipality of Kincardine universalised its street lighting charges, failing to take into account the level of service received in Inverhuron. However, it continues to segregate the costs of these services and these costs for last year totalled about $890, or less than $4.75 per roll number billed. The municipality collected some $5880 from Inverhuron for this service.

Municipalities are allowed to charge constituents over and above the general tax assessment for special services that pertain to some, but not all, constiuents. They are not, however, allowed to use these simply to increase tax revenues, and that is what this appears to be. We do not have the level of service that other areas in the muncipality have, and nor do we request that level of service. We are more than content to pay for the service we do have and celebrate our civic responsibility in keeping these costs minimal. But we should not be paying for services we do not receive. In this respect, we should have been charged in the neighbourhood of $5 per property for street lighting, and that is what we want.

We also want a refund for our overpayments since amalgamation.

I think I scored points on all fronts. The issue has been sent to staff for a full report and that will be sent to me when it's written. Hewitt cautioned me that opening this issue to full council would likely result in all rural properties being charged for street lighting. I responded that if this were to happen, I would certainly challenge this decision and encourage others to do so too. But in any event, it wouldn't be any worse than we currently experience. Ribey piped in that he while he was in agreement with some of what I said, he was sure the next thing would be for retroactivity, which he couldn't support. I said that he was certainly correct about retroactivity, and since it was a charge that ought not to have been levied in the first place, and had a history of being challenged, retroactivity would be necessary.

The mayor walked in just as we had concluded and wanted a re-hash. Hewitt told him he wasn't prepared to re-open the discussion as we had concluded a plan, but that he would fill him in later. The mayor followed us out and I was able to give him a detailed description and he felt each objection was fair and sound.

I felt reasonably optimistic afterwards, but Dugald thought nothing would come of it. Once the report is prepared, we will have a chance to come back to it. The mayor's parting remarks was that he'd see me in the next meeting, to which I replied that we shouldn't need another meeting. The facts are simple and clear.

Council Agenda Subject: Streetlighting Charges
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
TRE 2007-25


Subject: Streetlighting Charges

Origin: Letter from ratepayer, review of Changes in conjunction with Bill 130 Amendments

Analysis: A ratepayer has on several occasions expressed directly to the Public Works committee as well as most recently in a letter to two Councilors, his dissatisfaction with the current methodology for assessing costs related to streetlights on his as well as other Inverhuron area properties. His latest letter is included in your package for review. On most occasions when the Public Works Committee discussed this issue, the Treasurer has attended those meetings and laid out the charging options available to Council. Each time, the Public Works Committee elected to maintain the current charging method. In an attempt to bring closure to this issue, Public Works has asked that a report be prepared for Council's review.
This report will first detail the charging options available, discuss the currently utilized methodology and then deal more specifically with the ratepayer's perspective.

A. Charging Options
While several amendments to the Municipal Act have taken place since amalgamation, the options, supported by their current statutory authority, remain as follows:
1. General Tax Levy (Section 290) Streetlights are deemed a service which benefits all. There is no requirement to determine exactly who, when or how much each benefits. Total costs form part of the general levy and as such are apportioned amongst all properties in relation to their weighted assessment and have priority lien status.
2. Area Rating of Special Services (Section 326 & OReg 585/06) Allows municipalities to impose a tax on property in a designated area of the municipality to fund all or part of the cost of providing a "special service", provided such service is not prohibited under OREG 585/06. A Municipality can use this power when it is providing a service to only part of the municipality, or is providing it at different levels or in different manners in different parts of the municipality. OReg 585/06 does not prohibit Streetlighting from being charged as a special service. This tax charge is collected like the general levy and has priority lien status. The municipality must 1) identify if a special benefit is received by some and not others for Streetlighting, 2) define the designated area in which the special service is provided and be ready to justify how these areas were defined
3) determine the costs of providing the service in each area and 4) calculate each area's tax rate based on the weighted assessments. Benefiting property definitions might be based on geographic area descriptions (polls or land use boundaries) or distance to a streetlight. Descriptions need to be regularly reviewed and updated as boundaries are amended or streetlights are added.

3. Fees & Charges (Sections 390 to 399 & OREG 581/06, 584,06) Allows for imposing a fee or charge on any class of persons for services or activities provided or done on behalf of the municipality. The streetlight fee can be added to the tax accounts but does not have priority lien status. Similar to the Area Charge, the municipality must
1) determine that a service is being provided to some and not others
2) identify those (persons or property) deemed to receive the benefit,
3) determine the cost of providing the service and
4) calculate the fee. In this case, the costs are apportioned amongst those benefiting in a manner other than weighted assessment ie calculated as a flat fee or fee per unit of service. Using this method the way in which those benefiting are defined and/or the costs allocated could produce either a uniform fee for all or a series of different fees. As with the Area Charge, Benefiting property definitions might be based on geographic area descriptions (polls or land use boundaries) or distance to a streetlight.

B.Current Methodology
At amalgamation, Council made the decision to charge streetlights using the same historical Statutory authority of Fees and Charges, Section 220.1, (now sections 390 to 399) as used by the previous municipalities. The properties designated as benefiting were the same as those previously designated by each former municipality. The methodology with respect to the allocation of costs however, changed from that used prior as follows: Post amalgamation: Total costs of Streetlighting divided by total number of deemed benefiting properties = single municipal flat fee.
Prior to amalgamation:
Costs for each area divided by each area's deemed benefiting properties = flat fee by area. ie several different flat fees Benefiting properties have been defined using geographic areas based in some cases on Polls (otherwise referred to as assessment or political boundaries) and in some cases using the hamlet or village description (land use boundaries) with the exception of those properties having a PIL sharing (generally government).

C. Ratepayer's Concerns It is the Treasurer's understanding that the ratepayer's concerns centre first on the determination of who benefits and secondly on the amount charged to each. He is asking Council to review past decisions and refund what he feels are overcharges back to amalgamation together with interest. His concerns are as follows:
1) He disagrees with Council's current definition of benefiting properties in the Inverhuron area. Ie that all non PIL sharing properties in Poll 4 of Ward 3 benefit from the streetlights. Further he feels there may be properties in Ward 2 that benefit but which are not currently charged.
2) He disagrees with the way the fee has been calculated post amalgamation. It is his position that instead of a uniform flat fee each defined area should be assessed the cost of streetlights for its area only. It is unclear to the Treasurer whether he prefers an area rate based on weighted assessment or a series of flat fees.

D. Critical Consideration
1. Council needs to determine whether it believes
a) streetlighting is a service available and benefiting all to some degree and whose benefit is not limited by someone else's use or
b) whether it believes some have such little benefit, it does not warrant charging them anything. This will determine if it is charged on the levy or as an area rate or fee.
2. If Council determines the latter, then they have two further decisions
a) how to define and justify the benefiting properties
b) how to allocate the costs Existing Policy: Municipal Act 2001, and related Regulations, Use of historical benefiting property definitions and method together with an amended cost allocation

FinancialConsiderations:
Total streetlighting costs will remain the same no matter what charging option is used. If the 2007 budgeted Streetlighting costs had been included on the general levy, the median assessed residential unit would have paid $22.17. Currently a smaller number of benefiting properties all paying a uniform fee is used resulting in all paying a flat $35.00 fee. Since all costs are grouped, additional work would need to be undertaken to determine a flat fee based on each group of defined benefiting properties.
Options: 1. Charge streetlights on the general levy
2. Charge streetlights as area charges setting different tax rates by area and review the current definitions of benefiting properties on cost allocations based on different service levels and review the current definitions of benefiting properties
4. charge streetlights as a uniform flat fee and review the current definitions of benefiting properties
5. support the status quo
Preferred Option:
1. Charge streetlights on the general levy. All properties benefit to some degree and the benefit to any one property does not deny benefit to any other. This is the method used in other municipalities as the most easily justified.

CAO's Comments: I concur

Delegations - Eugene Bourgeois

From the Kincardine News of
Wednesday December 12, 2007
Discussions must be worth the time they take

Troy Patterson
My thoughts on things...

Some things in municipal politics are worth discussing at length, but many times, that time is more valuable than the words that are spoken on an issue. Municipality of Kincardine council is doing a decent job at progressing the business for the people, but the multiple three-hour plus meetings are tiring, on the public watching the proceedings on Kincardine Cable, the media who gets a front row seat to all the 'action' and no doubt the councillors themselves.
Sadly, no popcorn or goodies.
The discussion that took place regarding streetlight payments was who is responsible within their proximity. Some were paying when they weren't in range of the lights, while others were paying multiple fees... both are unfair and had to be fixed.
Treasurer Brenda French brought forward a solution for all residents to pay across the general tax levy... with Ontario Power Generation paying its share, it'd be less than a dollar per month. Without OPG, about two dollars a month.
Followed by a delegation and much discussion, a positive, simple and seemingly fair path forward was put on the backburner, while a long and pointless discussion took place.
The minutes that passed blurred together and what seemingly could have been solved in 10 minutes, took far more than that. It was all over some unfair payments on the tax bills of some residents The solution would see everyone pay less than a dollar per month.
Most people lose that much change in their couch each week! As I said before, council's getting the job done, it's just taking far longer than our neighbouring councils (Saugeen Shores).
Discussion on a topic must be worth the time it takes to discuss it. In the case of streetlights, it cost more for the time to discuss the issue than many people would make to pay the entire bill for a year.
Council needs to have better constraints on time.

From the THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE
Council Minutes Wednesday, December 19, 2007
11.6 Streetlighting Charges - Resolution # 12/19/07 - 08


Moved by: Guy Anderson
Seconded by: Marsha Leggett
WHEREAS the Municipality of Kincardine has historically charged streetlighting as a flat fee, either by area or municipal-wide, to properties designated as benefiting from the service; AND WHEREAS it is felt that all properties in the municipality benefit to some degree from streetlighting and it is more appropriate that this charge be included in the general levy;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Treasurer be directed to incorporate streetlighting charges in the general levy for the municipal budget.


Recorded Vote
YES
NO
ANDERSON, Guy X  
CAMPBELL, Gord   X
CRAIG, Kenneth X  
HAIGHT, Laura X  
HEWITT, Ron   X
LEGGETT, Marsha X  
LEGGETT, Mike X  
ROPPEL, Randy   X
KRAEMER, Larry X  


home     top




revised 2010 Mar 10