By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
Despite some protests from agricultural producers, the RM of Corman Park is keeping the $235 base tax per parcel and maintaining the same mill rate as the previous year for 2026 in order to provide some stability for ratepayers.
Councillors originally voted 8-1 during their April 14 administration committee meeting to recommend to council that they retain the existing mill rate of 4.78 and the current mill rate factors (agricultural 1.27, commercial 1.19 and residential 0.87), as well as the $235 base tax. Division 3 Councillor Lyndon Haduik voted in opposition.
This recommendation was later adopted by a vote of 7-2 during the April 28 regular council meeting. This time, Division 4 Councillor David Greenwood and Division 8 Councillor Wendy Trask were opposed.
A variety of options for the 2026 mill rate were presented to the administration committee on April 14 by Director of Finance and Information Technology (IT) Cal Hamm, who noted the RM was aiming to raise a total property tax levy of $16,750,055.
The first option, which was favoured by administration, was to maintain a revenue neutral mill rate with the existing base tax structure of $235 that was introduced in 2025.
In other words, any increase in taxes “would be primarily the result of assessment growth, year over year, which was a shade under three per cent for 2026,” he said.
The second option would be to maintain the same levy and mill rate factors but apply the base tax to all 5,168 unique property-owners within the RM. That would also entail raising the average base tax to $333.
This would reduce the impact on those who own multiple parcels of land, but could also result in higher taxes for those who own a single parcel of land.
Option 3 would be to maintain the status quo levy with a $235 base tax, but apply it to every unique property-owner. That would create a revenue shortfall of $500,000, which would necessitate dipping into reserves.
The fourth option would be to eliminate the base tax and increase the uniform mill rate to 5.3117, effectively shifting fully to an assessment-based system.
This option would see a 16% decrease in taxes for agriculture properties with an average assessment of $120,000, but commercial properties with an average assessment of $1.3 million would have their taxes increase by eight per cent and residential properties with an average assessment of $630,000 would see a two per cent increase.
Finally, council could opt to increase the uniform mill rate to 5.3117 and adjust mill rate factors to 1.80 agricultural, 1.36 commercial and 0.71 residential. With this option, residential properties with an average assessment of $630,000 would see a 16 per cent decrease in taxes, but agricultural properties with an average assessment of $120,000 would see their taxes spike by 19 per cent.
As well, commercial properties with an average assessment of $1.3 million would see a tax hike of 23 per cent.
“You would still generate the $16.7 million in property tax revenue, but there would be large swings in how those agricultural, commercial and residential properties would see their taxes when skewing those mill rate factors,” said Hamm.
Administration’s preference for Option 1 was to provide an “olive branch” to the ratepayers after introducing the $235 base tax last year, as this option offered the best stability year over year, Hamm noted.
COUNCIL REACTION
During the April 14 committee meeting, Division 2 Councillor John Saleski made the motion to go with Option 1, adding that he felt the ratepayers had had a year to digest the base tax and he thought it was settling well.
“I think as a council we’ve debated before that we thought that agricultural producers needed to up their… contribution to tax revenue, and I think that the base tax helped achieve that,” he said.
Greenwood recommended instead that they go with the third option of a status quo levy and $235 base tax per unique property-owner, noting that he had received a lot of calls from farmers and people with multiple parcels of land who are unhappy with the base tax.
“I like the idea of a base tax but I want to see it lower from when it was introduced,” he said.
Division 6 Councillor Steven Balzer indicated his agreement with Saleski, adding that last year was the first time they added a new tool to the toolbox in terms of ways to raise tax revenue. And best of all, it was a tool that didn’t have to be shared with the province.
While that base tax may not have been the most perfect solution possible, “I think stability is key in this journey,” he said.
During both the April 14 and the April 28 council meeting, Division 8 Councillor Wendy Trask brought up the numerous calls she had received from agricultural ratepayers who had been stung by the base tax.
She noted that some farmers were effectively being taxed for parcels they were unable to reach because they weren’t serviced by a road.
As well, she pointed out that the producers utilizing land in the community pasture located within Division 8 were being hit with the base tax on each parcel.
At the April 28 meeting, she instead pushed for council to consider the $333 base tax per unique property-owner.
Division 7 Councillor Calvin Vandraager pointed out that he was paying quite a bit in taxes, but recognized most producers were not paying enough.
He also noted that the majority of producers utilizing land in the community pasture were from outside of the RM.
Reeve Joe Hargrave said he had heard from a number of ratepayers speaking positively about the base tax, recognizing that the RM was trying to get everyone to contribute and not just the residential ratepayers.