An effort to reassess eight mining properties believed to have been valued too low fell flat, with the Tribunals Ontario Assessment Review Board supporting their established valuation.
With property taxes linked to assessed value, the effort, if successful, would have brought in more municipal tax revenue.
In past court documents from 2023, it was noted, “The city disagrees with the components and rates used by MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation). The city argues that MPAC used the wrong assemblies and rates.”
“Assemblies” are defined by MPAC as “building features.”
The province’s latest reassessment year was 2016, at which time the amount of municipal taxes paid by mining companies dropped. Reassessments are typically done on a four-year cycle, but the pandemic delayed matters, with 2016 still the latest reassessment year.
According to numbers provided to Sudbury.com by the city:
In 2012, mining companies paid the city $14.3 million.
In 2016, mining companies paid the city $13.8 million, followed by $13 million in 2017.
In 2023, mining companies paid the city $17.9 million.
As a percentage of total municipal taxes levied in Greater Sudbury, mining companies paid 6.66 per cent in 2012, which dropped to 5.79 per cent in 2016 and then to 5.23 per cent in 2017. In 2023, mining companies contributed 5.4 per cent of total municipal tax revenue.
In the Tribunals Ontario review of assessments, eight mining properties within City of Greater Sudbury limits were reviewed, including four owned by Vale Canada Ltd. (Copper Cliff Nickel Refinery, Totten Mine, Levack Mine and Coleman Mine), and four owned by Glencore Canada Corp. (Craig Mine, Fraser Mine, Nickel Rim South Mine and Strathcona Mill).
The city argued that MPAC undervalued heavy steel, roads, fences, guardrails and other components, and that other components should be taxable.
Citing precedent and supporting MPAC’s evaluations, Tribunals Ontario accepted MPAC’s expert evidence on the current value of all eight properties.
Sudbury.com reached out to City of Greater Sudbury communications staff to see whether any other steps were being taken to evaluate these properties and/or get more tax revenue from mining companies.
A phone interview request was not granted. After three days, the city issued the following two-sentence written statement which offered no specifics regarding the inquiry:
“The city conducts assessment protection on an ongoing basis. We are currently reviewing the recent decision and will provide a briefing to council in the near future.”
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
