Comment
Focus
The province moved to spur the pace of residential development in Ontario a couple of months ago. For the sake of getting directly to the meat (lightly seasoned) in this column, I will assume that most readers understand that new homebuilding is not only desirable in our community, but rather a necessity if we hope to stabilize home prices. Or encourage the development of affordable housing options. Or stem the decline in the County’s population.
In this context, the More Homes, More Choice Act (Bill 108) is a good thing. Not all, however, will see it this way. Some will see it as the Ford government giving ravenous developers too much leash. Municipal treasurers will bemoan the (slightly) narrower list of services for which they will be permitted to extract development charges. Still others will rail against the fettering of conservation authorities and the additional burden all of these changes will have on property taxpayers. Reasonable worries all.
Yet, the changes enacted in June amount to a tweaking, more than any fundamental shift of direction. Furthermore, it is simply unreasonable to continue to flounder with an overwrought development process that is often measured in decades. We ought to be able to build low-rise buildings and subdivisions safely, and with all the protections required to preserve heritage, unique community characteristics, architectural standards and the environment— and to do so within a year or two.
The More Homes, More Choice Act spans a wide array of provincial rules and regulations reaching into conservation authorities, local planning rules, and development charges legislation. Many of the repercussions will flow down in one form or another to local government— forcing councils to make some difficult choices.
In each case, the province has sought to clearly define the scope of its regulations and tighten the mandate of agencies, including municipalities. A worthwhile goal on its own merits. Changes affecting Conservation Authorities (CA), for example, are primarily aimed at clearly defining mandatory services and programs. Over time CA activities have evolved and broadened according to local needs and pressures. Some of these activities may now fall outside of the CA scope. Local councils will have to decide whether to discontinue some activities or pass the additional costs onto property taxpayers.
As rough as this may be, and I don’t wish to diminish the very real anguish it is likely to summon, it is surely healthy to examine such quasi-governmental activities from time to time, and make conscious choices about what we need, and what we merely desire.
Much has been written about provisions in Bill 108 that permit developers to pay a fee for a permit to harm, harass and kill endangered species. Many have decried the ugly spectacle of a price put on the heads of vulnerable creatures. Few of these commenters, however, seem to have noticed that since the current ESA legislation was enacted in 2013, by a previous government, not a single permit has been denied. Over 3,000 applications. Everyone approved. Bill 108, at the very least, establishes a funding source to begin to take meaningful action to protect these creatures.
Among the more contentious impacts of Bill 108, at least in Prince Edward County, are changes to development charges. These are the fees municipalities charge builders to fund the expansion of infrastructure (roads, bridges, waterworks) and services (firefighting and policing) to accommodate new residents. The underlying principle is that existing residents ought not to pay for a larger wastewater system if the current plant works just fine.
The County, however, was a decade late to the development charges table. When they got around to it in 2008, Shire Hall overshot the mark with some of the steepest development fees outside the Greater Toronto Area—seeking to make up for lost time. Council subsequently reduced these charges in serviced areas (with municipal water), partly in recognition that they had outpriced the County in a competitive regional market, and, partly as an attempt to turn around a homebuilding sector in steady decline.
Further evidence of our municipal lethargy is observed in the fact that it was only last year the County aligned its waterworks connection charges with the rules set out by the Development Charges Act enacted in 1997.
Now, Bill 108 narrows the items that can be included in development charges. Before this change, development charges included items such as the cost to expand soft services such as libraries and recreation services and facilities. These have been removed from the calculation.
Municipalities may instead establish Community Benefit Charges (CBC) to recoup all or part of the future costs of these soft services, but no longer will they be lumped into development charges. Moreover, municipalities will be discouraged from dumping all manner of expenses (future, existing, real or imagined) into the CBC. These will be subject to tight rules, and the municipality will be compelled to report annually.
Another change will introduce some cost certainty to the development business. Currently, development charges are assessed when the building permit is issued. But many years may elapse between when a developer embarks on a subdivision project and when the last building permit is issued. Bill 108 sets out conditions upon which the development charge could be frozen—delivering some much-needed cost certainty.
I will note, too, provisions that may allow developers to delay payment of development charges on multi-residential rental properties until the point at which the property is ready to be occupied. This will eliminate much of the burdensome cash flow lag between the moment the building permit is issued and when the first tenants move in.
This is just a cursory examination of changes coming. Some context for the sturm and drang that is sure to erupt when the effect of these changes land on municipal budgets.
Comments (0)