Latest news with #PILT
CBC
9 hours ago
- Business
- CBC
Federal appeal court rules in favour of Cold Lake in fighter base tax dispute
The City of Cold Lake may be in line to receive a hefty payout from the federal government after the Federal Court of Appeal found that a former minister was "unreasonable" in a decision that the city says undervalued Canada's busiest fighter base. For more than 10 years, Cold Lake has contended that the federal government has been undervaluing 4 Wing Cold Lake, effectively shorting the city's tax bill by $1.1 million to $1.8 million annually. The city said from 2013 to 2021, short payments totalled almost $14 million, and the community's taxpayers have had to cover the difference. Last week, the Federal Court of Appeal issued a judgment in favour of Cold Lake. The court has now directed that the minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada reconsider the earlier position in light of the court's interpretation of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act. "It's been an interesting journey," said Mayor Craig Copeland told CBC about the appeal ruling, which was made on July 23 and found the minister's decision unreasonable. "I really appreciate council [and] administration sticking to their guns over the years and every new council that came on board, we've championed this, that we feel that it's not right." Valuation Multiple ministers handled the PILT dispute with Cold Lake, including Anita Anand and Helena Jaczek. The program sees the government make a payment in lieu of tax as set out by the PILT Act. It is supposed to be the same as what would've been paid in property tax, had the federal property been taxable In February 2022, the Cold Lake PILT matter went before a dispute advisory panel, which was tasked with providing advice to the minister regarding the valuations and payments at issue. Differing advice emerged from the panel. A majority of the panel put forward a recommendation that the valuation of the base exclude water and sewer mains, while a minority advised that the valuation should not ignore any positive impact on the value of the land from the water and sewer mains. The minister at the time, who was Jaczek, issued a decision in November 2022 that agreed with the majority opinion of the panel, that the water and sewer mains should be excluded for all purposes. This is the decision the Federal Court of Appeal found was unreasonable. It noted that the minister failed to meaningfully account for the central concerns raised by the city, and disregarded an earlier panel that concluded the opposite. National implications The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents municipalities across Canada, intervened at the Federal Court of Appeal on the side of the City of Cold Lake. The federation would not comment when asked by CBC, further stating, "We recognize the importance of this decision and are taking the time to evaluate it thoroughly before commenting." Copeland said the decision has significant implications for municipalities across Canada. "This has huge implications to communities like Edmonton. Like all you gotta do is sort of look at a community and the federal properties in your community. So certainly in Ottawa, Halifax, Montreal, it's huge," Copeland said. "The federal government owns a lot of property, which is great, they need to contribute to the tax base, like every person does, and we shouldn't be making special carve outs, and we just want everybody to contribute to running a municipality in a fair, equitable way and I think that's what the judges saw here in this case." University of Alberta Prof. Andy Knight specializes in researching Canadian defence and foreign policy and said it's is an important case given 4 Wing is Canada's busiest fighter base. "For the city of Cold Lake, where nearly one-third of the land falls on the federal ownership, I think this is really a game changer for the city," Knight said. "[The base] isn't just a strategically important area of Canada, but it's also an economic anchor for the region, and I think to properly assess what the valuation of that property is, this goes a long way in making sure that there's accountability by the federal government for treating that area fairly. And the court simply reaffirmed that principle." Public Services and Procurement Canada said it is reviewing the court's ruling and is unable to comment at this time. The Canadian government is now tasked with making a new decision based on the finding of the Federal Court of Appeal or make an application to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Gamble for Montana's future:' Report says transferring federal lands to state would cost billions
Emigrant Peak in the Custer-Gallatin National Forest (Photo by Jacob Frank | National Park Service | Flickr). In Montana, where land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management comprises 30 million acres — roughly a third of the state — the notion of turning swaths of terra firma to state control could be costly, according to a newly published report. The report, written by longtime natural resources manager John Tubbs, calls the financial implications of federal lands transfer 'staggering and disproportionately impactful for a rural state with large swaths of national public lands.' 'The costs associated with maintaining national public lands at the state level — ranging from wildfire operations to the loss of essential federal funding for rural counties — would be far too great for Montana to bear per capita,' the report states. It amounts to an $8 billion 'gamble on Montana's future.' Tubbs, who authored the report with support from the Montana Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Mountain Mamas and the Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund, is the former director of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation under Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock. The long simmering dispute over whether the federal government should relinquish lands managed by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to individual states has been turned up at all levels, from the halls of Congress to Montana's capitol. The estimated roughly $8 billion increase to Montanan's balance sheet would be primarily driven by the costs of managing the land, according to the report, including for wildfire, deferred maintenance backlogs, and abandoned mine reclamation. Citing reports by the Legislative Fiscal Division, the report states that during the last 20 years, Montana has paid more than $2.3 billion in wildfire mitigation costs on federal land — comprising just 25% of total cost, as the federal government covers 75% of costs. A transfer of federal lands to state management would shift the cost of future wildland fire suppression to state taxpayers to the tune of $5.5 billion — the bulk of the total. On a press call about the report, Tubbs pointed to the essential partnerships with federal agencies — including the large fleets of firefighting aircraft operated by the Forest Service — and the difficulty in replicating that from the state or private industry. 'That is untenable,' he said. Tubbs also focused on Payment in Lieu of Taxes funds the federal government disseminates. The PILT program channels money to rural counties with swaths of untaxable federal land to support vital services such as public safety, housing, social services and transportation. In fiscal year 2023, Montana counties received more than $40 million in PILT funds — and another $16 million from the similar Secure Rural Schools program — a loss the state likely couldn't make up. Tubbs said such a loss would result in the largest 'unfunded mandate' in state history, and 'several of Montanaʼs counties would be bankrupt—- in particular, the 11 counties in which more than half of the acreage is owned by the federal government.' The report also states that Montana would be on the hook for $623 million in deferred maintenance and repairs on current federal lands; between $474 million and $1 billion for reclamation work on the state's 5,000 abandoned mines; and a 1,600% increase in grazing fees. 'The state simply cannot afford the responsibility of managing such vast swaths of land without significant financial strain,' the report concludes. Tubbs said the value of public lands goes far beyond the numbers, and supporters need to strengthen efforts. 'The core value I think most of us find in public lands is there's some landscape that means something to each of us,' he said on the press call. Discussions about the federal lands transfer came to the forefront in Washington D.C. and nationwide following statements by the Trump administration that federal lands are part of the nation's 'balance sheet' and could be utilized to help pay off the national debt. Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate passed a federal budget in a series of late night votes, and one particular budget amendment saw Montana's two Republican Senators buck their party. The amendment, brought by Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colorado, would have prevented the sale of public lands to lower the federal deficit. Montana Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy joined all Democrats in supporting the amendment, but it was defeated 51-49. In a similar vein, Republican U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, Montanan's western representative, reintroduced his 'Public Lands in Public Hands Act,' earlier this year with a Democratic senator from New Mexico. The provision would ban the U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Forest Service from selling or transferring 'most public lands' except in specific circumstances. It also would require Congressional approval for disposals of publicly accessible federal land tracts over 300 acres and for public land tracts over 5 acres if accessible via a public waterway. 'In Montana, public lands are our way of life. It's not just Yellowstone and Glacier, it's also the BLM and Forest Service areas where a kid fills their first tag, a lake in the Beartooths that is the perfect picnic spot, and the trail just down the road that helps you clear your head after a long workday,' Zinke, a former Secretary of the Interior during Trump's first term, said in a press release. 'Public lands must remain public, and the federal government has a responsibility to manage and ensure access to those lands.' Earlier this month, Montana's eastern representative, Republican Troy Downing, signed on as a cosponsor to the legislation, as did Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson. In Helena this legislative session, Montana's state lawmakers also got to offer their own takes on the issue thanks to a lawsuit filed by the State of Utah against the federal government in favor of land transfer. The suit, which claimed federally-managed land infringed on the state's sovereignty and sought a return of millions of acres, was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite that, freshman Rep. Tom Millett, R-Marion, introduced a resolution supporting Utah's position. While Millett stated House Resolution 24 did not concern Montana's federal public lands, his comments were broadly applicable to all states. 'Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to hold vast unreserved swaths of unreserved territory in perpetuity over the states' express objection,' he told the House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee during a hearing. 'The U.S. generates significant revenue from these unappropriated lands — millions of dollars annually that would go toward our counties and schools. But instead, we get but a pittance, leftover crumbs from what should be our lands.' The bill passed out of committee on partisan lines, but saw broad bipartisan opposition on the floor. 'Montanans have overwhelmingly rejected transfer time and time again,' Rep. Debo Powers, D-Whitefish, told her colleagues during the debate. 'In fact, 87 percent of Montana voters considered the conservation — not the transfer, but the conservation — of public land to be influential in their voting decisions. That's why so many political candidates in Montana from every political party pledged to keep public lands in public hands.' The bill failed to pass the House floor in a bipartisan 33-66 vote.
CBC
20-02-2025
- Business
- CBC
City's court challenge of federal tax-like payments dismissed
Social Sharing A federal court has dealt a blow to Mayor Mark Sutcliffe's Fairness for Ottawa campaign, dismissing the city's argument that it's getting shortchanged on payments for servicing tax-exempt government buildings. The City of Ottawa applied to federal court to review the situation and side with it — restoring roughly $22 million in what are called payments in lieu of taxes or PILTs. It said the federal government took advantage of a COVID-era provincial tax break meant to provide relief to struggling businesses. But Justice Panagiotis Pamel found "nothing unreasonable." Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) argued it was compelled to pay the lower amount by federal statute. It said the payments must reflect what a private property owner would be charged — and the judge agreed. "Ottawa seems to be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole on the coattails of statutory intent and purpose," Pamel wrote in his Wednesday Federal Court decision. "The starting point should be the text of the PILT Act itself." WATCH | How Ottawa relies on tax-like payments from the federal government: Court battle over federal government building taxes could leave taxpayers on the hook 3 months ago Duration 3:09 What are PILTs? The federal and provincial governments are constitutionally exempt from being taxed by municipalities, but they use the PILT Act to calculate similar 'voluntary' payments. Ottawa has the most, and the most valuable, federal properties of any city and relies on the annual revenue. Just like with any private property, these payments are calculated by multiplying the value of a property by the applicable tax rate. But governments can unilaterally adjust those calculations and pay less. That's what happened in this case, where PSPC lowered its payments to match a discounted tax rate set by the provincial government and collected by cities — an unexpected "windfall" for the federal government that came at the city's expense, according to Ottawa's legal team. Ontario had lowered the rate as an olive branch for businesses during the pandemic, but asked the federal government and Crown corporations to continue paying the previous, higher, rate. PSPC said it could not. Pamel noted in his written decision that there was no "bad faith" by the province, which itself paid the higher PILT rate. He laid out why Ottawa is "understandably unhappy," but ultimately said the court cannot decide the case based on the provincial government's intent. "The city is asking me to read into the legislation something that is not there," Pamel said. Multi-million dollar hole to fill The Ontario government has stepped in to provide the city with $35 million to make up for three years of lower payments. It's said it will not be providing any additional money. Staff said last fall that the shortfall in educational taxes will add up to $140 million over the next decade, with court documents suggesting the whole may need to be filled with a property tax hike to Ottawa residents of as much as 1.5 per cent. The City of Ottawa said in a statement that it's still reviewing the decision and considering its next steps. PSPC did not provide a response before deadline. The city has other PILT-related disputes. It remains in negotiations with the National Capital Commission over disagreements related to the agency's declaration that a raft of properties are parks or pathways — a move that makes them exempt from tax-like payments. The mayor has been lobbying the federal government to address the city's position since last summer as part of his Fairness for Ottawa campaign.
