With 2025 being a revaluation year, the way that the area mill rate is calculated differs from a regular year, and some municipalities will see an increase in their 2025 potash tax sharing, while others will see a large decrease.
“The assessment of the mines is the current year assessment, but the mill rate is calculated based on prior year’s information from the rural municipalities,” explained Doug Fisher, Special Projects with the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. “That happens every year that’s not a revaluation year, and the calculation uses data of the total taxable assessment from the RM for the prior year and the total tax levy for the RM for the prior year.”
Every four years when a revaluation year rolls around, assessment values are updated—placing a wrinkle into the regular calculation method.
“You can’t have a situation where you’re using new assessment data with old tax rates,” Fisher said. “The (Municipal Tax Sharing – Potash) Act and regulations provide for a variation of the calculation in a revaluation year where the first aspect is the total in calculating the mill rate, the total revenue generated is the same as the year prior.
“The second factor we use is from SAMA (Saskatchewan Assessment Management Association), who does the assessment,” continued Fisher. “We get an assessment figure of the mines for the new year before they do what they call maintenance. So every year, SAMA does what they call a maintenance routine, where the assessment value for the mines is updated to reflect the changes in equipment that’s being used—building additions, deletions, the normal type of maintenance that happens from year to year in the assessment role. Now, in a revaluation year, in addition to that normal maintenance, they update the base year values used in the assessment.”
What results is the assessment used in that mill rate calculation is the prior year’s data for assessment, but updated with a new base value—before the adjustments for maintenance.
“So the mill rate is calculated using that prior year revenue figure and this assessment figure that is prior to having the maintenance applied for the new year, and those two figures are used then to calculate the mill rate,” Fisher said. “It is a bit confusing, but that’s what happens every evaluation year.”
The 2024 Potash levy before discounts amounted to $8,164,631.79 and the 2025 taxable assessment before maintenance adjustments came to $1,221,832,245 with an area mill rate of 6.6823. The total amount going to municipalities from Nutrien’s Rocanville and Scissors Creek plus Mosaic’s K1, K2, and K3 locations is $8,103,704.59, split 90 per cent to RMs and 10 per cent to urban municipalities
Another change that has affected the 2025 numbers if the closure of the Mosaic K1 and K2 sites at Esterhazy back in 2021. Under the Act and regulations, once a site has been closed for three years, they are no longer used in the calculation of the area of influence.
“So for 2025, the K1 and K2 locations were removed from the calculation of the area of influence, which had an impact on the estimated distribution that’s happening for 2025,” Fisher said.
Plus, there are more changes ahead as the area of influence will change effective Jan. 1, 2026, which has been well-known for the past few years. What will happen next year is instead of calculations based on an area of influence, they will be determined by individual mine, which has shifted distributions to some municipalities. Projections around the closure of both mines have been sent out to municipalities since 2020/21.
“There’s still the impact happening next year where each mine is going to have its own area of influence, but for the most part, the Mosaic impact of K1 and K2 happened this year rather than next year because of the mine closure in 2021,” Fisher said. “Obviously, the change next year with the moving to individual mine areas of influence, that’s a change that will be a once in a lifetime change. So, we’ve got a convergence of a number of things in 2025/2026 that’s causing some uncertainty, and probably a bit of confusion about all the calculations.”
Most municipalities see an increase
So what does it all mean? For most municipalities, not much change at all. However, for some there will be big changes. The Village of Spy Hill will see a reduction of almost 73 per cent as their estimate for this year is $9,443.86; down from last year’s actual of $34,891.79.
The RM of Churchbridge, RM of Saltcoats, and RM of Langenburg will also see decreases: 68.38 per cent for Churchbridge ($98,368.41 from $311,101.91), 52.36 per cent for Saltcoats ($85,365.45 from $179,195.64), and 31.33 per cent for Langenburg ($801,937.20 from $1,167,792.08).
Overall, municipalities both rural and urban will note a projected increase in the potash tax share of 4.61 per cent or about $356,920 from the year previous.
“Esterhazy feels very fortunate to benefit from the potash tax sharing program,” said Esterhazy Mayor Randy Bot. “Any additional revenue that comes into our community is always welcome, and we’re truly grateful for the support.”
Esterhazy noted a 8.26 per cent increase for an estimated $370,985.35 this year.
“One of the greatest strengths of this program is that the funding is provided without strings attached, giving us the flexibility to direct it where it’s needed most—whether that’s ensuring budget stability, investing in infrastructure, or planning for long-term growth,” Bot said. “We firmly believe that local communities are best positioned to decide how their funds should be used, and this program respects and supports that local autonomy.”
The Town of Rocanville also saw an 8.26 per cent increase in their projected dollars, and Mayor Ron Reed also credited the projected $194,117.71 tax share for helping the local budget.
“That’s one of those programs that we’ve come to rely on,” he said. “Regular income for the community, and obviously a little bit of money coming in is nice. Anything we can get government-related is nice, that we don’t have to rely on that funding from our tax base to get the same things accomplished in town.”
Knowing a ballpark figure is certainly helpful, especially when the potash tax sharing numbers are usually released prior to or in the midst of municipal budget discussions.
“Every year we get some advanced notice of what that number will be,” Reed said. “We do have it in advance of finalizing our budget so we’re able to make some decisions based off that number.”
Here’s a breakdown of how much the 2025 estimate varies from last year’s actual numbers:
Beginning with the rural municipalities, an increase of 26.27 per cent is projected for the RM of Moosomin ($279,834.52 from $221,615.67), RM of Martin ($265,686.85 from $210,418.91), RM of Silverwood ($52,297.26 from $41,418.43), RM of Rocanville ($2,193,417.42 from $1,737,144.69) and the RM of Grayson ($9,561.41 from $7,572.37). A 12.53 per cent increase went to the RM of Spy Hill ($1,727,015.30 from $1,534,697.70), and an 11.22 per cent increase is projected for the RM of Fertile Belt ($1,414,842.28 from $1,272,061.94).
Urban municipalities with an increase of 8.26 per cent were the Village of Atwater ($1,473.90 from $1,361.39), the Village of Bangor ($2,183.55 from $2,016.87), RV of Bird’s Point ($8,188.32 from $7,563.25), Town of Bredenbury ($21,071.27 from $19,462.76), Town of Churchbridge ($47,273.88 from $43,665.66), Town of Esterhazy ($370,985.35 from $342,665.66), Village of Gerald ($28,167.81 from $26, 017.58), Town of Langenburg ($60,811.90 from $56,169.74), Town of Rocanville ($194,117.71 from $179,299.45), Village of Stockholm ($17,959.71 from $16,588.73), Village of Tantallon ($18,341.83 from $16,941.68), Town of Wapella ($17,632.18 from $16,286.20), the RV of West End ($2,238.14 from $2,067.29), and the Village of Yarbo ($10,481.05 from $9,680.96). Yarbo’s calculation went to the RM of Langenburg in advance of the village dissolving. Distributions for the next two years will also follow the same route.
Comments