New Development Charges By-Law

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report (April 28, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer;

(2)that the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism be requested to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the impact of development charges on business investment and companies within the City;

(3)that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the status of existing development charges reserve funds and the purpose for which these funds are held;

(4)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor be requested to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the status of collections made from developers under Section 37 agreements and how such agreements will be structured if the proposed development charge by-law is adopted;

(5)that the foregoing requested reports be submitted to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee prior to the proposed public meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee scheduled to be held on June 24, 1999; and

(6)that the Capital Program identified in the Development Charge Background Study be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its review.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to table with Council the City's development charge background study and to seek authorization to hold a public meeting pursuant to the provisions of the Development Charges Act, 1997, in order to consider public input before the passage of a new development charge by-law.

Financial Implications:

It is estimated that up to $40 million per year may be realized from the implementation of development charges as proposed in the background study and pursuant to the new Development Charges Act, 1997. The actual revenue to be realized is dependent upon a number of factors including the quantum of the adopted charge, the amount and type of development occurring and the impact of policy decisions regarding exemptions, phasing-in of the charge and other transitional provisions. The former municipalities of Metro, Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York generated approximately $14 million in revenue in 1998 under their existing development charge by-laws, however, all development charge by-laws enacted under the Development Charges Act, 1989, will expire on August 31, 1999.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the attached Development Charges Background Study dated April 19, 1999, be received;

(2)the public meeting required pursuant to Section 12 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 be held at the meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee scheduled on June 24, 1999; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the steps necessary to give effect thereto.

Background:

At its meeting of April 16, 1998, Council considered and adopted, with minor amendment, Clause No. 6 contained in Report No. 4 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee. That clause recommended, among other things, that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to undertake the requisite development charge background study, with a view to ensuring that the appropriate development charge by-law is in place within the time frame prescribed by the legislation.

Under the Development Charges Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "DCA"), all existing development charge by-laws in Ontario expire on August 31, 1999. In the context of the new City, development charge by-laws of the former municipalities of North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke and Metro Toronto which have continued in application since amalgamation, will expire on August31, 1999.

Before Council can pass a new development charge by-law, the DCA requires that a background study be completed and made available to the public at a public meeting. To that end, the economic consulting firm of C.N. Watson and Associates Ltd., considered a leading expert in the area of development charges, was retained to undertake the requisite background study.

The study which represents the combined efforts of the consulting team and representatives from virtually all City departments has now been completed. It is being made available two months in advance of the proposed public meeting in order to provide sufficient time for review and consultation. Any modifications to the background study will be provided to the public at least two weeks prior to that meeting.

The assessment of the various development charge options was made against the following principles:

(a)Growth ought to pay for itself so that the burden arising from development related costs should not fall on existing residents in the form of higher taxation and user fees;

(b)Development charges should be used to mitigate the City's capital pressures and to assist in providing the infrastructure required by future development in the City;

(c)Development charges should be fair and equitable to all stakeholders; and

(d)Development charges should not act as an unnecessary disincentive to growth and development occurring in the City.

The Proposed Schedule of Charges:

The background study has been prepared pursuant to Section 10 of the DCA. The study discusses the requirements of the Act and the approach taken by the City in meeting these requirements. It also sets out in comprehensive detail the methodology utilized in determining the maximum amount of the charges that can be imposed under the legislation. The resultant schedule of development charges that is proposed is shown in Exhibit I.

Exhibit I

Schedule Of Proposed Development Charges*

(As Determined By Background Study - April 19, 1999)

Residential Development$/Unit

Single and Semi-Detached4,795.00

Apartments, 2 bedroom and larger3,205.00

Apartments, bachelor and 1 bedroom2,051.00

Other multiples3,846.00

Non-Residential Development

(Per sq.ft. of gross floor area)$3.24

*A storm water management contribution in accordance with the anticipated cost of accommodating run-off may be applicable in addition to the above charges.

Services For Which No Development Charge Funding is Proposed at this Time:

A number of services are excluded from the City's development charge calculation at this time. These include the following services:

(a)GO Transit;

(b)Municipal Parking;

(c)Works Yards and Rolling Stock;

(d)Fire Vehicles, Equipment and Gear;

(e)Electrical Power;

(f)Local Roads and Services;

(g)Waste Water Treatment Plants and Major Trunks;

(h)Police Facilities and Rolling Stock;

(i)Homes for the Aged;

(j)Public Health Facilities;

(k)Social Services Facilities; and

(l)Ambulance Services

The reasons for excluding these services at this time are discussed in detail in Appendix E of the background study and range from specific statutory ineligibility to an absence of the required development related spending plans.

Services Included in the Development Charge Calculation:

The services for which the charges are proposed are set out under two categories - those services to which no statutory percentage reduction is required and those services which require a statutory percentage reduction. The development related costs, by service, for which the development charge is imposed are detailed in Appendix 1-1 (Services Where No Percentage Reduction is Required) and Appendix 1-2 (Services Where a Percentage Reduction is Required). These are summarized in Exhibit II.

Exhibit II

Impact on the Capital Program:

Appendix 2 summarizes the impact of development related capital projects on the City's capital program. The majority of the projects contained in the background study are reflected in the 1999 - 2003 Capital Program, as received by Council on March 2, 1999. The development related capital costs for the first five years, amount to $732 million, consisting of $730 million for projects already included in the five-year capital program and $2.0 million for a fire facility in Northeast Scarborough which was not in the original capital program received by Council.

For projects beyond 2003, gross capital costs amount to $756 million, for total project costs of $1,488 million. Of this total amount, $472 million, representing 32 percent of gross development-related capital costs, can be recovered from development charges.

GTA Development Charge Comparison:

Development charges are used as a mechanism to recover the costs of infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate new development. The philosophy behind these charges is based on the concept that growth ought to pay for itself and that the burden arising from development related costs should not fall on existing residents in the form of higher taxation and user fees. The ongoing maintenance costs related to these capital investments, and which benefits both new and existing development, are paid for by all taxpayers.

On March 2, 1999, City Council approved the 1999 Capital Budget that consists of a gross expenditure in excess of $1.5 billion. While the 1999 capital budget request is comparable to the 1998 approved capital program for most program areas, over the next five to ten years, the financing requirements of the capital program will have a dramatic impact on future operating budgets. This impact is primarily due to the significant cost of downloaded responsibility for transit and transportation, the cost of funding extraordinary items such as amalgamation related projects, Y2K projects and the Sheppard subway, the significant backlog of ongoing capital maintenance projects and other new initiatives to be adopted by Council.

In order to deal with these capital needs, the City must consider a variety of financing sources including debt, capital from current, sale of assets and other revenues, including the use of development charges. While the use of development charges as a capital financing tool is integral in addressing some of the City's capital pressures, its impact on development must also be considered. It is important that the charges do not act as a disincentive to growth and development occurring in the City.

Residential:

Appendix 3-1 provides a comparison of the current uniform residential development charge rates per fully serviced single detached dwelling unit in the GTA to the rate proposed for Toronto. The charge proposed for Toronto at $4,795.00 per single and semi detached unit is 69 percent lower than the average charge currently imposed in the GTA ($15,285.00).

Non-Residential:

Non-residential development charges currently imposed across the GTA and surrounding regions and the rate proposed for Toronto are shown in Appendix 3-2. The maximum potential non-residential rate of $3.24 per sq. ft. of gross floor area (GFA) amounts to 94 percent of the average GTA charge ($3.46). The proposed rate is generally lower than the rates charged throughout the Regions of Peel, York and Halton, while higher than those rates charged in Durham Region.

Development charges are only one of many municipal-related considerations affecting the business decisions of the land development community. Other considerations include market conditions, demand for their product and expectations of local economic conditions. Property taxation tends to also be a primary consideration in the real estate market, and in this regard, the tax rate in Toronto for the non-residential property class (commercial and industrial) is significantly higher than that of the surrounding municipalities. Under Current Value Assessment (CVA), the tax rate for a commercial property in Toronto is 109 percent higher than the average tax rate levied in the surrounding regions for a commercial property of equal value. For an industrial property, the Toronto tax rate is 106 percent higher. A comparison of the commercial and industrial tax rates for Toronto with the surrounding regions is shown in Appendix 4-1.

From the development community's perspective, both development charges and property taxation will have an impact on their business decisions. Property taxes represent an ongoing operating cost to the occupant. A development charge, from a cash flow perspective, is a one-time charge representing capital investment in municipal services that will generally serve the development over its life expectancy. As a capital investment, this charge would be amortized and expensed over a period of time. In such a way, property taxes and the amortized development charge expensed, represent the annual costs (capital and operating) related to municipal services.

For example, a small commercial property of 10,000 sq. ft. GFA assessed at $2.0 million would be required to pay $152,800.00 per annum in municipal and education taxes, while the annual development charge expensed would be $4,400.00 (if amortized over 10 years), for a total burden of approximately $157,000.00 per year. The total burden for a similar small commercial property would range from approximately $71,000.00 to $86,000.00 in the municipalities surrounding Toronto. The details of this comparison are shown in Appendix 4-2.

For a medium-sized industrial property of 40,000 sq. ft. GFA assessed at $1.0 million, property taxes would be $107,000.00 per annum and the development charge expense at $17,600.00 per annum (if amortized over 10 years) in Toronto, for a total burden of approximately $124,000.00 per year. For comparison, this burden would range from $55,000.00 to $87,000.00 in the municipalities surrounding Toronto. The detail of this comparison is shown in Appendix 4-3.

Although the non-residential development charge of $3.24 per sq. ft. GFA proposed for Toronto is generally lower than that imposed in the rest of the GTA, given the current property tax situation in Toronto and the limited ability to effect reductions in non-residential tax rates in the short run, Council does have greater discretionary capacity with regards to setting a non-residential development charge that provides some relief to the development community. Furthermore, the proposed non-residential development charge contains a portion of the rate supported capital program (water and wastewater) which is currently reflected in the water rate forecast, and therefore a policy decision will also have to be made in this regard.

Comparison of Existing Rate Structure with Proposed Rate Structure:

Currently, there is a wide disparity within Toronto's development charge rate structure and invariably, the introduction of a new development charge regime will have varying impacts on different areas within Toronto. These range from decreases in rates in areas such as the Yonge Centre of North York to increases in areas with no previous development charge.

A comparison of the current and proposed residential rate structure for Toronto is provided in Exhibit III. It is noted that the proposed rate shown is based on full cost recovery as determined by steps required in the calculation of a development charge as stipulated in the DCA.

Currently, the existing rates for single family detached units range from a high of $10,165.00 in the former North York Yonge Centre area to zero in the former Cities of East York, York and Toronto. The proposed rate for single and semi-detached units of $4,795.00 per unit is lower than those charges currently imposed in the North York Yonge Centre and Sheppard East corridor, while higher than the remainder of the City. The North York Centre charge consists of a City-wide charge, an area specific charge and the Sheppard Subway charge.

With respect to two bedroom or larger units within the City, current rates range from a high of $6,094.00 in the North York Yonge Centre area to a low of zero in the former cities of York and East York. In general, the proposed rate is lower than that currently being levied in the former North York Yonge Centre and Sheppard East corridor, while higher than those rates currently imposed in the remainder of North York and other municipalities.

The introduction of a non-residential charge will again have varying impacts on different areas in Toronto, depending on the non-residential land use proposed. A comparison of the existing non-residential rates to those proposed for industrial, commercial and office development is shown in Exhibit IV.

A wide range of charges currently apply across the City. For example, the North York Yonge Centre commercial charge is the highest in the GTA and in Ontario, whereas no development charge is currently being levied on commercial development in Etobicoke, York and East York. In addition, no industrial development charges are imposed in the majority of the former municipalities and the proposed rate will have a notable impact in that area.

It should be noted that, although it did not collect development charges, the former Toronto imposed a charge of $0.70 per square foot of townhouse, apartment and non-residential space pursuant to the Sewage Impost By-law. The proposed development charge by-law will supersede the Sewage Impost By-law, which will be repealed when the new development charge by-law comes into effect in the former Toronto.

Key Policy Issues:

The following section highlights some of the key policy and implementation issues raised by stakeholders in the course of the consultation process and identified by staff. A summary of these issues is listed below:

(i)Transitional Issues;

(ii)Affordable Rental Housing;

(iii)City-wide versus Area-specific;

(iv)Use of Section 37 of the Planning Act; and

(v)Section 14 Credits.

(i)Transitional Issues:

The development community has raised concerns with respect to the imposition of a development charge in areas where no previous charge existed (former Toronto, East York and York). The concerns are based upon the proposition that landowners have formulated business plans and made financial decisions on the basis of existing and foreseeable conditions, including existing municipal financial requirements. The introduction of a new charge which had not been contemplated in their financial proformas may have a significant financial implication on some projects.

This is a complex transitional issue that is dependant upon a variety of factors including prevailing market conditions, sophistication of landowners and the historical or original level of the development charge.

In the short run, the incidence of a new development charge could only be borne by the existing developer/builder who currently owns developable land or the final purchaser. The extent to which a developer is able to pass on a levy to the final purchaser is dependent upon market conditions. If the demand for housing is fairly inelastic (i.e. home buyers are relatively insensitive to price) the development charge will be passed on in the form of a higher price. Conversely, if demand is relatively elastic, it is unlikely that much of the burden can be passed forward to the final purchaser. The burden of the charge under these circumstances will be borne by the developer through reduced profits on projects or possibly lost profits from not proceeding with planned projects.

In the long run, if landowners are reasonably sophisticated in their decisions relative to how much they are prepared to pay for a parcel of land, the development charge should be largely capitalized into predevelopment land values.

In response to these issues, consideration should be given to a phase-in of the proposed charge in the former municipalities where no charge currently exists. A lower charge to be phased-in up to the full charge over a two year period may provide for an orderly transition to the new development charge regime. Alternatively, a time limited exemption for building permit applicants who have submitted complete applications before a certain date (e.g. Development Charge By-law adoption) and are issued permits within a prescribed time period (e.g. by December 31, 1999) may be the appropriate transitional provision to an orderly implementation of the new regime of charges.

Input from the development community at the public meeting with respect to transitional matters along with assessment of the legal and financial implications on the City, will be considered before policy recommendations are made in this area.

(ii)Affordable Rental Housing:

In January of this year, the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force submitted its final report, which contained 105 recommendations comprising an action plan with multiple strategies. As part of the report, the Task Force documented the lack of affordable housing in Toronto, and concluded that new low-cost supply is vital to prevent further demand pressures at the low end of the rental market.

It was noted that the private sector has not met low income housing needs due to the fact that in new rental buildings the rents which are required to cover the costs of the new units (including a reasonable rate of return for the developer) are higher than prevailing market rents. To address this gap, the Task Force made several recommendations, including:

"Rec. 79: The City and its agencies, boards, and commissions should waive development charges, land use application fees, parks levies, hook-up fees, and other charges for housing developments that meet affordability criteria."

City Planning staff, in consultation with Community and Neighbourhood Services staff, will be bringing forward a report which will provide the context for defining city-wide affordable housing. It is important to note that rental housing cannot be considered to be affordable solely by virtue of the fact that it is rental or that units are small in size.

Financial proformas for new rental construction show that reasonable rates of return are achievable at the higher-end under current market conditions. However, to produce affordable rental housing for low-income households, incentives such as those identified in recommendation 79, are needed to reduce development costs, which would then have the effect of reducing the rents that are charged to the future tenants. While the City must seriously consider bringing forward incentives that fall within its mandate, it must also ensure that the end product will result in the production of affordable rental housing. The potential insertion of a definition of affordable rental housing in the development charge by-law, for the purposes of exempting such housing, may not be sufficient to ensure that the proposed housing meets Council's "affordability" criteria and that affordable rental housing is ultimately produced.

An outright exemption for affordable housing may also present other implementation problems. The issue of maintaining the units as rental units, and maintaining the rents at affordable levels once the units have been exempted from development charges, must be addressed. For example, to the issuance of a building permit for a rental project, for example, the City could not prevent or effectively refuse an immediate application for plan of condominium (i.e. prior to occupancy as a rental building). An effective implementation program, including monitoring and enforcement, for maintaining affordable rents, or collecting the appropriate development charges if affordability is not pursued, needs to be developed.

If the City were to effectively exempt a range of "affordable" rental housing from development charges, high-end or luxury rental housing should be subject to development charges. This would be consistent with recently approved Official Plan policies, which exempt high-end rental housing from the restrictions on conversion of rental housing. The issue of monitoring and enforcement of a threshold high-end rent level, above which development charges should be imposed, is again an implementation issue similar in nature to the monitoring and enforcement of affordable rent levels.

It appears that a rebate system is a more appropriate implementation mechanism for effectively exempting affordable housing, or rental housing other than high-end rental, from development charges. Such a system could minimize the risk that projects which do not meet the City's criteria would obtain exemptions. This type of program could apply Council-endorsed definitions of affordable housing outside of the Development Charges By-law coupled with appropriate mechanisms to ensure the project remains part of the rental stock. A rebate program would be more effective in protecting the public interest with respect to the provision of affordable rental housing.

Staff will report back in greater detail to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on the structure of a program for rebating development charges for affordable rental housing, including compliance and enforcement issues.

(iii)City-wide versus Area-Specific Charges:

To date, Toronto's existing development charge policy has been inherited unchanged from the seven former municipalities. As a result, it consists of a patchwork of schedules and coverage areas. Where they exist, these development charge coverage areas are "uniform municipal wide" charges with respect to the former municipalities, with three exceptions:

(a)former North York Yonge Centre;

(b)former North York Sheppard Subway Area; and

(c)former Etobicoke Motel Strip

The City is faced with a fundamental policy decision as to whether it wishes to recover development-related capital costs on a localized benefiting area basis or, alternatively, on a uniform City-wide basis.

A substantial majority of Ontario municipalities operate with a uniform, municipal-wide development charge policy for a number of reasons, including:

(1)many services, including roads, treatment plants and City-wide parks, provide services on a municipal-wide basis and are therefore best funded on that basis. The service areas for recreation facilities, fire halls and other services are not readily definable, as they draw users from, or provide services to, a wide and variable area;

(2)once boundaries have been defined for area-specific charges, those on the higher charge side of any particular boundary may be encouraged to appeal the policy in order to modify the location of the line, or the amount of the charge. As a result, area-specific charges are more contentious, subject to appeal, difficult to defend and administer;

(3)once a municipality has opted in favour of establishing some area-specific charges, it must deal with appeals to create new, smaller, differently configured areas. This involves making decisions as to creating new, smaller, differently configured areas. This, in turn, involves making decisions as to the treatment of sunk costs (i.e. oversizing) vs. future costs, as well as whether to charge in accordance with development potential vs. actual development as it occurs, in an attempt to achieve full cost recovery;

(4)when the City changes the timing, cost or nature of its servicing plan in any given area over time, this would potentially create the immediate need to revise area-specific charges and/or to make refunds for monies collected;

(5)the use of area-specific development charge collections is restricted to the specific purpose for which the collections were made, which reduces the City's flexibility to fund new works from a consolidated reserve fund, early in the period;

(6)with area-specific charges, the quantum of the charge will be less readily apparent to landowners and staff would have to tabulate and explain charges based on overlapping coverage areas for various services;

(7)applying the complexities of the DCA to individual areas would be much more time-consuming and contentious than doing so for the City as a whole; and

(8)the charge, in some areas, may be so high as to discourage development.

The advantage of area-specific charges which relates primarily to the fairness in directing the "true cost" of development to each area of development, is judged in this particular case, to be significantly outweighed by the factors noted above. At this stage in the City's restructuring, the use of a City-wide schedule of charges is recommended, in order to treat development throughout Toronto on a consistent basis.

(iv)Use of Section 37 of the Planning Act

It is important to note that the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act and the imposition of development charges under the Development Charges Act are distinct and separate tools available to municipalities. Section 37 is applied only when an owner seeks increases in the density and/or height otherwise permitted in the Zoning By-law. In such cases, the value of the public benefits is proportional to the value of the increased density. In effect, there is, as the legislation requires, an exchange, between the developer and the City, of extra density for specific facilities or benefits. A development charge, on the other hand, assuming such a charge is applicable, would apply to the entire building and relates to the capital costs of providing services for new development in the municipality.

Section 37 of the Planning Act provides that local municipalities may pass Zoning By-law amendments to increase height and/or density in return for the provision by the owner of facilities, services or matters as set out in the amending Zoning By-law. Section 37 requires that there must first be in place Official Plan provisions relating to such increases in height and/or density. The provision of these facilities, services or matters, commonly referred to as public benefits, can be secured through an agreement which may be registered on title.

Public benefits secured across the City in the past include a wide array of both on-site and off-site benefits including social housing, workplace daycare, heritage preservation, public art, community facilities (schools, recreation centres, libraries), and other improvements to the public realm such as streetscape improvements and park development. Some of these benefits can be funded through development charges (e.g. recreation centres) whereas others may not be fundable (e.g. social housing, workplace daycare facilities).

The new Official Plan will need to harmonize the use of Section 37 across the City (such policies are required to be in the Official Plan). In the meantime, staff are also responding to the need for a uniform approach incrementally. For example, a report titled: "The Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report: Recommendations and Policy Directions related to the Housing Policies of the Official Plan" will be before a special joint committee meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on May3,1999.

Included in that report is a recommendation that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to pursue contributions toward the provision of affordable housing pursuant to Section 37 for increases in permitted height and or density, with respect to the following situations:

(a)site-specific amendments to both the Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws throughout the City that are being approved for a specific development; and

(b)site-specific amendments to the Zoning By-law that are being approved and for which the appropriate Official plan provisions for the implementation of Section 37 are already in place.

In the future use of Section 37 across the City, both under current and future Official Plan policies, it is intended that there be a clear separation between Section 37 and development charges. Section37 agreements will not secure public benefits which are funded through development charges under the City's Development Charges By-law. Public benefits secured through Section 37 should be either those not funded through development charges, or those that are at a level of service above that which can be funded through development charges.

(v)Section 14 Credits:

Section 14 credits under the DCA, 1989 relate to circumstances before the coming into force of a development charge by-law. Where an owner paid all or any portion of a charge related to development (s.s.14(1)) or provided services in lieu of the payment of all or any portion of a charge related to development (s.s.14(2)), pursuant to an agreement under s.50 or 52 of the Planning Act, the municipality must give a credit for the amount of the charge paid, or the reasonable cost to the owner of providing the services.

Regulations enacted pursuant to the new Act provide that owners may apply to the municipality for a credit towards development charges for payments made pursuant to agreements relating to development. Applications for credits were required to be filed by March 1, 1999 and the City is required to advise the applicants by September 1, 1999, whether the credit is to be recognized or not. The City is in receipt of 25 credit applications. Staff are currently reviewing and assessing each request to determine whether the credit should be recognized. Where a credit is not recognized, the applicant has a right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Staff will report further with recommendations on these credit applications.

Conclusions:

The use of development charges as a capital financing tool is integral in addressing some of the City's capital pressures. Before Council can proceed to implement these charges, the Development Charges Act requires that a Background Study be completed and that it be made available to the public in advance of a statutory public meeting of Council. The Background Study has now been completed and it is being made available some two months in advance of the proposed Public Meeting of Policy and Finance Committee (scheduled for June 24, 1999) in order to provide sufficient time for review and consultation.

The Background Study addresses the level of charges that can be imposed under the Act in accordance with levels of service, spending plans and other circumstances in the City of Toronto. A decision will be required of Council, after receiving input at the public meeting, as to whether it wishes to establish the full charge, a partial charge or no charge, for each of the services involved with respect to the various categories of development. Other decisions surrounding the issues of exemptions, phasing-in, indexing, credits and City-wide versus area-specific policies will need to be considered before adopting a development charges by-law. The purpose of the public meeting and other ongoing consultation activity, is to obtain input on these matters.

Contact Name:

Shirley Siu, 397-4205

Joe Farag, 392-8108

--------

Appendix 1-1

1999 City-wide Development Charge Calculation

1999-2011

Appendix 1-2

1999 City-wide Development Charge Calculation

1999 - 2009

Appendix 4-3

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a joint communication (May 3, 1999) from Mr. Jim Murphy, Greater Toronto Homebuilders Association, Mr. Vince Brescia, Local 183, Mr. Richard Lyall, MTABA, and Mr.Stephen Kaiser, UDI, respecting the New Development Charges By-law for the City of Toronto; and forwarding the following recommendations:

(1)that a special meeting of this Committee be held in advance of the proposed June 24, 1999, meeting to hear deputations. We believe that June 24, 1999, will be too late to deal effectively with the issues given that the development charge by-law must be approved by Council prior to August 31, 1999;

(2)that the report from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be referred for review and input from the six Community Councils, the Economic Development Committee and Urban Environment and Development Committee. These committees should report prior to the scheduled June 24, 1999, statutory public meeting pursuant to the Development Charges Act;

(3)that the Urban Planning and Development Services Department be requested to report on the impact of the proposed development charges with respect to the cost of housing in the City and the impact such a policy would have on housing intensification; likewise the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department be requested to report on the impacts of development charges on business investment and expansion within the City;

(4)that the Finance Department be asked to provide a report on the current status of the reserve funds collected from development charges in the former City's of Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke, including the amounts collected and the projects/facilities to which such funds are being held in reserve; and

(5)that the Urban Planning and Development Services and/or Legal Department be asked to provide a report on the status of collections made by developers under Section 37 agreements (pursuant to the Planning Act). The report should address the amount of monies collected and the projects/facilities to which developers were asked to make such contributions. Furthermore, the report must address how Section 37 agreements will be structured if the proposed development charge by-law were in place.

________

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Mr. Cam Watson, C. N. Watson and Associates Ltd., gave an overhead presentation to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, and filed a copy of his presentation material.

The following persons appeared before the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Murray Goldman, Chairman, The Goldman Group; and

-Mr. Neil Rodgers, Director of Policy, Urban Development Institute, Ontario.

(A copy of the document entitled "City of Toronto Development Charge Background Study", prepared by C. N. Watson and Associates Ltd., was forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 4, 1999, agenda of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)