MINUTES – PUBLIC – FINANCE COMMITTEE – 3rd meeting – May 1, 2026 – 8:02 a.m. to 8:55 a.m.

5. Generalization of cost assessment practices: Update on ongoing work by the administration – Information item

An information item regarding the generalization of cost assessment practices is presented. It is specified that the work is at the beginning of the process, with the objective of establishing the framework and foundations of the approach. This subject is linked to file 4 of the 2026 Work Plan of the Finance Committee.

Richard Kouamé, Director of the Finance Department (SF), presents the breakdown, main milestones, and phases of the work plan to the members, namely:

• Definition of scope (January to March 2026 – ongoing) This phase aims to define the efforts and resources required, to carry out an internal diagnosis, and to identify cost-generating activities and services. It also includes the design of a methodology to capture costs.

• Development of the catalog and calendar (April to June 2026 – upcoming) This step will allow for the development, for each department, of a cost catalog to inform elected officials and citizens. The importance of having factual data to support informed decision-making is highlighted, particularly using the example of obtaining permits.

• Cost analysis (July to October 2026 – upcoming)

• Recommendations and follow-up (November to December 2026 – upcoming)

It is indicated that at this moment, the various municipal departments have been identified, as well as the processes to be analyzed. Cost drivers, such as permit applications, have also been targeted. The objective pursued by the Finance Department is to determine the real cost of these services for the City, which could eventually allow for setting a price, if applicable.

Exchange period

Following the presentation, it is specified that since the explanatory table is publicly accessible, the discussions will not focus on its details. A question is asked regarding a concrete example of the application of activity-based accounting. In response, the example of permit issuance is presented. It is mentioned that, generally, municipalities that do not have this method evaluate the cost of a service globally, by distributing it according to a simple calculation rule. Activity-based accounting allows instead for adopting a more detailed approach. It is explained that this methodology is based on four main steps, namely:

• The identification of activities carried out by the department, including the detailed mapping of actions taken, such as technical analysis of files, administrative follow-ups, or processing of requests.

• The determination of cost drivers, that is to say, the elements generating costs, such as the number of requests received, the number of hours of analysis, the inspections carried out, or the complexity of the projects.

• The evaluation of the cost of each activity, allowing for the determination of the cost associated with each step of the process, particularly based on the number of requests and the time required.

• The complete calculation of the cost of issuing a type of permit, taking into account the number of small, medium, or large-scale projects processed, in order to determine the cost corresponding to each category.

The advantages of this approach are highlighted, particularly the possibility of better allocating resources, modulating services according to the efforts required, and optimizing processes. To illustrate the point, the Department gives the example that the digitization of certain documents rather than processing them in paper format is a method that could save time and reduce certain costs in some cases. It is finally indicated that the objective is to put in place a uniform and reproducible methodology, which can be applied from one department to another, in order to ensure its generalization to the entire City in the long term.

7. Tax exemption for properties linked to religious institutions – Presentation

A presentation regarding the property tax exemption applicable to buildings linked to religious institutions is made by the Finance Department for recommendation purposes. This presentation is part of file 7 of the 2026 Work Plan. The objectives of the presentation are as follows: to present the state of the situation regarding property tax exemptions applicable to religious buildings, to expose the exemption criteria as well as the inventory of exempted buildings and the associated financial impacts, to examine the compensatory measures provided for in the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, and to formulate recommendations to the Finance Committee.

A context setting is first carried out. The Department presents the criteria and the inventory of exempted buildings, the compensation options provided for by law, the financial impacts that result from them, as well as the actions, schedules, and recommendations envisaged. It is specified that in Gatineau, no bylaw or agreement is currently in force to obtain compensation for municipal services provided to exempted buildings. It is recalled that issues of fiscal equity and updating of exemption statuses were raised by the press in the fall of 2025. In the current financial context, these elements led to an in-depth analysis of the situation.

It is indicated that the total value of buildings exempted under sections 204.8, 204.9, 204.12, and 204.17 of the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale amounts to approximately $200M, while the buildings covered by section 231.1 represent a value of $9.8M. The total of non-taxable values associated with presbyteries covered by section 231.1 reaches $6.1M in Gatineau.

An update is made regarding Bill 22, tabled on March 25, 2026, which proposes in particular modifications to the legislative provisions related to tax exemptions for certain buildings or properties associated with religious institutions. It is specified that this bill was tabled before the prorogation of parliamentary work and that there is a possibility that it will be taken up during the new legislature. Should the opposite be the case, the information presented would no longer be applicable, this clarification being provided as a context setting.

The compensation options provided for by the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale are then presented. It is explained that section 205 allows, by bylaw, to impose compensation for municipal services, applicable in particular to land covered by section 204.12. In this regard, examples of cities that have adopted this type of bylaw, such as Québec and Prévost, are mentioned. Section 206 allows for the conclusion of voluntary agreements to obtain payment in consideration of municipal services offered to certain exempted buildings. The advantages, disadvantages, and financial impacts associated with these two options are exposed. It is specified that, depending on the type of compensation chosen, the potential revenues for the City differ, namely approximately $16k in the case of regulatory compensation and up to $510k in the case of voluntary agreements.

Following the presentation of the compensation options, it is indicated that the actions and orientations to be favored will have to be transmitted to the executive committee, with a schedule envisaged between April and May 2026.

Exchange period

A question is asked regarding the total of non-taxable values of $6.1M presented on slide 9, namely what hypothetical revenue this amount could represent for the City in the absence of an exemption. The Department responds that by applying a residential rate of approximately 3%, this would represent approximately $180k, for purely illustrative purposes. Another question raised concerns the meaning of "voluntary contribution in consideration of municipal services" (slide 16). The Department explains that it is the "counterpart" of a negotiated agreement, by which the City formulates a proposal, the owner can submit a counter-proposal, and the parties agree on an amount paid voluntarily in order to compensate for the municipal services from which the building benefits. It is specified that this contribution is not imposed by bylaw, but that it rests on a choice negotiated and assumed by the owner.

Regarding option 2 aimed at voluntary agreements (slide 21), the real possibility of reaching the estimated potential revenue is questioned, given the non-mandatory nature of these agreements and the absence of such measures in the past. The Department indicates that it is only a potential, which will depend on the negotiation capacity and the parameters that will be entrusted to the administration. It is specified that it is not possible to confirm that this level of revenue can be reached. Regarding the incentives to negotiate, the Department explains that the buildings concerned benefit from municipal services in the same way as all citizens who pay taxes, while they do not contribute financially. This reality constitutes the basis for initiating negotiations, from a perspective of equitable contribution to the financing of infrastructure and municipal services. It is mentioned that the terms could vary according to the type of building and the owner, and that the analysis could be done on a case-by-case basis.

The chair formulates a comment recalling that the City does not have the possibility of choosing to whom it offers its municipal services. It is emphasized that, if the City collected these taxes, it could then decide whether or not to grant exemptions. The vice-chair emphasizes the difficult financial context, marked by an infrastructure crisis and a significant rise in costs. It is notably mentioned that the costs related to road infrastructure and the aqueduct (65% increase for 1 km of road and 88% increase for the aqueduct) have experienced significant increases, in a context where an investment delay of more than one billion dollars is observed. A desire for equity is expressed, by putting forward the principle according to which all actors should contribute to the financing of infrastructure.

A news follow-up is addressed in connection with an article published in December concerning certain buildings. The general management indicates that the information relating to these files, of a personal nature, will be treated privately. To a question from the members concerning the existence of other irregularities among the exempted buildings, it is answered that no other case has been identified to date. It is specified that the responsible department has undertaken new verifications with the organizations concerned to ensure the accuracy of the information, which relies on the declarations received. It is indicated that, when situations are discovered, retroactive corrections are applied within the applicable legal limits, and that certain civil remedies can be examined. A complete verification of the files is currently underway as part of the preparation of the next roll.

A question is raised regarding the limits applicable to retroactive corrections, particularly regarding the period covered. The general management indicates that certain information remains confidential and that certain situations, particularly in a succession context, may require delays before being settled, which can complicate the immediate application of corrections. Finally, a question of clarification is raised by members concerning the criteria presented on slide 7, namely whether the exemption rests on the ownership of the building or on its use, particularly when a building belonging to a non-religious owner is used by a religious organization. The Department specifies that the analysis must be done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the owner, the use of the building, and compliance with the conditions provided for by law. In the example mentioned, it is indicated that the exemption would not seem to apply, the use of the property constituting a determining element of the analysis.

CF-2026-03 Recommendation

The Finance Committee recommends to the executive committee, pursuant to section 206 of the Loi sur la fiscalité municipale, the development of negotiation parameters for voluntary agreements with the owners of exempted religious buildings.

Proposed by Tiffany-Lee Norris Parent Supported by Adrian Corbo

Adopted unanimously