Development Charges. Someone Has to Pay, But Who?

Similar documents
Strategic Growth in the Rangeview Area Structure Plan

Mortgage Loan Insurance Business Supplement

Financing Growth Hemson Study Update

Saskatchewan Labour Force Statistics

REGIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PURPOSE 3.0 DEFINITIONS. Edmonton Metropolitan Region Planning Toolkit

Federal and Provincial/Territorial Tax Rates for Income Earned

Region of Peel. Review of Growth Infrastructure Financing Strategy. Growth Management Committee

Where are your taxes going?

BC JOBS PLAN ECONOMY BACKGROUNDER. Current statistics show that the BC Jobs Plan is working: The economy is growing and creating jobs.

Investor Presentation April 13, 2016

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY

OFF-SITE LEVIES UDI ALBERTA & CHBA ALBERTA RECOMMENDATIONS

Essential Policy Intelligence

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY

Net interest income on average assets and liabilities Table 66

Business Tax Burdens in Canada s Major Cities: The 2017 Report Card

MLS Sales vs. Listings (seasonaly adjusted)

August 2015 Aboriginal Population Off-Reserve Package

October 2016 Aboriginal Population Off-Reserve Package

April 2017 Alberta Indigenous People Living Off-Reserve Package

November 2017 Alberta Indigenous People Living Off-Reserve Package

December 2017 Alberta Indigenous People Living Off-Reserve Package

January 2018 Alberta Indigenous People Living Off-Reserve Package

HEMSON C o n s u l t i n g L t d

TOWN OF AURORA DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDY AND PROPOSED BY-LAW OFFICE CONSOLIDATION MARCH 12, (As Amended April 8 th, 2014)

2018 Development Charges Background Study The Cost of Growth. Council Workshop #2

Upper Warrell Creek Road Developer Contributions Plan August 2013

Net interest income on average assets and liabilities Table 75

2001 COOPERATIVE CREDIT ASSOCIATIONS - (in thousands of dollars) TABLE 1 - ASSETS

Individual Taxation Tax Planning Guide

Today we will discuss...

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN. HEMSON C o n s u l t i n g L t d. 30 Saint Patrick Street, Suite 1000 Toronto, ON, M5T 3A3

Budget As the leading voice CORE

Investor Presentation. September 2014

Oran Park and Turner Road Precincts Section 94 Contributions Plan

STAFF REPORT Financial Planning & Purchasing. Finance & Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Council/Committee Date: September 18, 2017

TOWN OF MILTON LONG-TERM FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF GROWTH Draft For Discussion Purposes

BUDGET DRAFT 1 November 19, 2019

Insolvency Statistics in Canada. September 2015

Branch: Urban Planning and Environment

Investor Presentation. June 2014

Development Charges in Ontario

Business Case* Official Community Plan Update. Submitted by: Phil Blaker. Acting General Manager, Planning and Development Services

HEMSON GROWTH FORECAST

How Investment Income is Taxed

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE 2016 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY. Draft for Public Circulation and Comment

Nith Peninsula, Brant County Fiscal Impact Study

POVERTY PROFILE UPDATE FOR

Report to: General Committee Meeting Date: December 5, 2017

City-Driven Major High Profile Projects Requiring 2006 Funding. January 2006

2010 CSA Survey on Retirement and Investing

2019 New Years Tax Changes

Exemptions and Other Special Tax Treatment

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING JANUARY 15, 2018

Development Charges and Cost of Growth Analysis Town of Whitby Case Study Friday, September 22, 2017

CITY OF GUELPH DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDY. Consolidated Report. Includes: Development Charge Background Study, Dated: November 1, 2013

Insolvency Statistics in Canada. April 2013

Provincial-Municipal Fiscal Transfers in Canada

Outline of significant changes to the Development Contributions Policy 2018/19

Finance and Treasury Department

FINANCIAL PLAN WATER AND WASTEWATER LINES OF SERVICE

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDY

Acting General Manager of Planning and Development Services

Background. Request for Decision. Proposed Changes to City's Development Charges By-Law and Rates. Recommendation. Presented: Tuesday, Apr 29, 2014

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE: SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITION CHARGE

2015 ASSESSMENT GROWTH BUSINESS CASE OVERVIEW REQUEST BY SERVICE PROGRAM. Funding Required for Growth ($) Program # Service Grouping

THE JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF CANADA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS AT MARCH 31, 2014

DRAFT MULTI-YEAR Water and Wastewater & Treatment Budget December 17, ANNUAL UPDATE INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE. london.

Total account All values as at September 30, 2017

How Investment Income is Taxed

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY UPDATE. General Committee May 1, 2017

Tax Alert Canada. Investment income earned through a private corporation

Committee of the Whole

2017 Q1. Brookfield Residential Properties Inc. March 31, 2017 President & Chief Executive Officer s Report

CREA Updates Resale Housing Forecast Ottawa, ON, September 15, 2016

AGENDA SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SCHEDULED RECESS AT 2:30 P.M.

Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services. Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan Phase One Report and Recommended Vision and Guiding Principles

City of Toronto 2018 Development Charges Bylaw Review. Statutory Public Meeting Executive Committee January 24, 2018

2017 Development Charges Background Study

Comments on Selected Financial Information. 4.3 Debt

Provincial and National Employment, Alberta and Canada Employment Rates 1, % 62.7% 62.7% 63.0% 63.5%

Alberta Labour Force Profiles

WORKSHOP 1: LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLANNING

City of Cornwall Development Charges Background Study. Council Presentation

Introduction to Development Charges (DCs)

C REVISED ATTACHMENT 5

2006 Property Assessment and Tax Analysis of 2005 Data. Prepared for Real Property Association of Canada. December 14, 2006

Public-Private Partnerships The Canadian Experience

Athabasca Grande Prairie. Banff - Jasper - Rocky Mountain House. Edmonton. Calgary

2012 Annual Alberta Labour Market Review

Tax Alert Canada Private company tax reform: Personal tax increases on noneligible dividends scheduled for 2018 and 2019

Table of Contents. Capital - 2

SAF/DL Policy and Rate Review & Final Phasing and Financing Plan Project Growth-Related Capital Projects List Review Session NOTES April 20, 2015

Edward R. Sajecki Commissioner of Planning and Building

Payments in Lieu of Taxes

Local Government Land Use and Asset Management Planning in BC: Proposed Sustainable Service Improvements. Kim Fowler, B.Sc., M.Sc.

Financial Plan Water and Wastewater Lines of Service


How Investment Income is Taxed

Transcription:

Development Charges Someone Has to Pay, But Who? Lynda Cooke Urban Systems Joel Short Urban Systems Kathy Dietrich City of Calgary Shanie Leugner City of Regina Kim Sare City of Regina

WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Presentation: Development Charges 101 Workshop: Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives BREAK (10 min) Workshop: Presentation: BREAK (10 min) Workshop: BREAK (10 min) Presentation: Wrap Up: Bringing Together Perspectives Calgary & Regina The Process Mock Technical Review Calgary & Regina The Policy Summary and Q&A

PRESENTATION Development Charges 101

Development Charges 101 CIP Conference June 2017

What are Development Charges? A means of pooling funds from a number of developers to pay for off-site capital projects which benefit them all. Off-Site Levies Service Agreement Fees & Development Levies Development Cost Charges No Specific Legislation or Term Alberta Saskatchewan Ontario British Columbia Manitoba Quebec Nova Scotia New Brunswick Newfoundland Prince Edward Island

Growth Cost Recovery Tools Options Vary by Jurisdiction: Parkland Municipal Reserve Dedication Density Bonusing Specified Area Charges or Local Improvement Tax Development Charges Community Amenity Contributions Grants/Cost Sharing Developer Funded- Latecomers/ Endeavors to Assist General Revenue Tax Incremental Financing Comprehensive Works and Services Agreements

Context is Key Legislation Rate of Growth Infrastructure Needs Financial Capacity of the Municipality Risk Tolerance Political Context Growth Pays For Growth

Understanding CONTEXT Through a Collaborative PROCESS Political Public Development Industry

Approach to Determining Charges Forecast Growth Plan What development are we planning for? Determine Infrastructure Needs What infrastructure is needed to serve the growth plan? Develop Infrastructure Delivery Philosophy Who builds what? Allocate Benefit Create Financial Model How much of the project can be charged to growth? How do we allow for inflation, interest and debt costs? Determine Charge Structure How will the charge applied to development?

Forecast Growth Plan Forecast Growth Plan What will be the assumed growth rate? How will this growth be distributed across the municipality?

Determine Infrastructure Needs Undertake Master Plans to determine infrastructure needs to serve the growth plan Compile List of Growth Related Infrastructure Required

Develop Infrastructure Development Philosophy CONSIDER: Legislation Does Growth Pay For Growth? Developer Funded Options Endeavours to Assist Debt Capacity Financial Risk Capacity of the Municipality Leading vs. Lagging Infrastructure

Allocate Benefit Legislation & Case Law set expectations for Allocating Benefit to Existing Users Sewer Twinning vs. Replacement New Treatment Plant vs. Upgraded Treatment Plant New Bridge vs. Bridge Widening

Create Financial Model Current Fund Balances Municipal-Wide vs. Area-Specific Charges Revolving Window vs. Build-Out Window Timeframe Financial Projections Model vs. Present Day Model DC Recoverable Costs Growth = DC Rate

Determine Charge Structure How will charges be applied to various land-use types and redevelopment? Apply charges by: Hectare Unit Sq. M. for Non-Residential Timing of Application of Charges Timing of Payment of Charges

Thank You!

WORKSHOP 1 Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives

Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives Read the scenario and your interest in the project. Your table represents a different stakeholder (Greenfield Developer, Infill Developer, Homebuyer, Taxpayer, Council) Discuss some questions about how you feel about the options, and some questions or suggestions you could make to address those concerns.

Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives 1 2 Which group were you? What were your feelings about the proposed policy options? 3 What changes would you suggest?

WORKSHOP 2 Bringing Together Perspectives

Bringing Together Perspectives In this exercise, all of you will consider yourselves as a Senior Planner in Cityville. You are responsible for bringing the project to a successful conclusion. In your tables, discuss: 1 What could you do to find a solution that would meet everybody s needs? (thinking about what you just heard from the round table) 2 What are some questions or suggestions you could make to Cityville Council, the taxpayers, and the land developers that would enable you to support a policy direction?

Bringing Together Perspectives 3 What could you do to find a solution to meet everyone s needs? 4 What were some questions or suggestions you came up with to ask or propose to others?

PRESENTATION Calgary & Regina The Process

Calgary and Regina Both updated their Development Charges in 2015 Facing a challenging development market in an uncertain economy Significant infrastructure upgrades required to service growth Needed to build trust through transparency to Transform Business as Usual Both engaged in an extensive process with the development community to gain understanding and support

Calgary The Process Development Charges Someone Has to Pay But Who? Building Resilience 2017 Saturday June 17, 2017

Issues with Off-Site Levy Off-Site Levy Bylaw had not been updated for 5 years Previous methodology did not capture 100% of costs Calculation process was not transparent Did not charge for redevelopment

The Process Conducted best practices research Established a process framework and timelines Established working groups Developed a broad stakeholder consultation strategy Phases: o o o o Projected population growth Identified infrastructure needs Estimated costs Calculated levies

Guiding Principles Guiding Legislation Certainty Policy Alignment Financial Sustainability Accountability Collaboration Efficiency Competitiveness Benefit Allocation Fairness & Equity o Clarity & Transparency

What We Heard

Working Groups Groups Members Role # of Meetings Internal Working Team Internal staff (crosscorporate) Research Calculations Options analysis 32 External Advisory Committee Developers (Greenfield and Established Areas) Internal staff Provide advice Feedback on options 12 Technical Subcommittee Developers Consultants Internal staff Scrutinize calculations 20 Established Area Group Inner City Developers (residential, commercial/ industrial) Internal staff Review established area proposals Develop transition options/incentive program 12

What We Learned Complexity Transparency Engagement Collaboration Data Feedback Refinement

Regina The Process Development Charges Someone Has to Pay But Who? Building Resilience 2017 Saturday June 17, 2017

34 What did we need? Policy that aligns with Official Community Plan and enabled its implementation Detailed policy on Servicing Agreement Fees that aligned with Growth Pays for Growth policy in OCP

35 Process Phase 1 Develop Options Phase 2 Preferred Option ENGAGEMENT Phase 3 Approval

36 Considered Various Variables What infrastructure projects were needed for growth How to allocate project costs between Development Charges, Developer Directly and City Including use of tax/utility and/or debt When projects were needed based on: Land development phasing plan and Impact on the City s cash flow

37 Engagement Overview 12 Sessions with Working Group Greenfield developers Infill developers Economic development organizations Homebuilders Open and grassroots-like process Worked to seek consensus on policy

38 Engagement Overview PLUS 2 Focus Groups with Taxpayers Telephone Survey with Taxpayers Number of Emails distributed to Interested Parties 6 Briefings with City Council Numerous workshops and sessions with staff

What Did We Learn? 39

Beware the Red Herring 40

41 Use Simple Messaging Other Fees and Charges Development Charge Rates Cash Flow City Debt Tax & Utility Rates

42 Recognize the Competitive Environment City transparent but developers can t always be Risk of a no win situation Lengthy, consultative process built long-term trust but was not the fastest approach to resolve this particular policy issue It was the long way around

WORKSHOP 3 Mock Technical Review

Mock Technical Review At your table, you ll find: Map Population projections Project Lists Provincial legislation Information about the community: interest in intensification, industrial development, debt limit capacity, redevelopment goals, etc.

Mock Technical Review Table 1/6: Large City in Alberta (250,000+) Table 2/7: Medium City in Saskatchewan (100,000-200,000) Table 3/8: Small city in Alberta (25,000-35,000) Table 4/9: Town in BC (5,000-15,000) Table 5/10: Rural Municipality in Alberta

Mock Technical Review 1. Determine what projects to include in your development charges (DC) program and why? 2. For each project that you include in your DC Program: a) Determine the possible methods you could use to allocate the benefit to existing development and to growth. b) Determine if you will charge the project on a municipality-wide or an areaspecific (catchment basis). Why? c) Determine if you will apply the charges to redevelopment or infill development. Why or why not? 3. Calculate the rate(s) for your development charge. 4. As you are developing your policy and rate, your municipality has hit an economic down-turn and development has slowed significantly. What considerations or concessions will you suggest to your Council with respect to the implementation of the new charges?

PRESENTATION Calgary & Regina The Policy

Regina The Policy Development Charges Someone Has to Pay But Who? Building Resilience 2017 Saturday June 17, 2017

REGINA Key Policy Directions 49

50 Key Policy Directions 1. Charge city-wide per hectare rate. Explored area-specific rates Explored development of land-use equivalency rate

51 Key Policy Directions 2. Maintain the OCP s growth pays for growth policy. Eligible growth-related capital costs were assigned to growth. Included major projects, including interchanges which significantly impacted the rate Related to discussion about who most benefits from projects should pay for the projects

52 Key Policy Directions 3. Focus DCs on system-wide infrastructure. Projects internal to subdivision were no longer eligible for DC funding Impacted all drainage projects, lift stations and some roads Reduced risk to the City

53 Key Policy Directions 4. Phase-in DCs Rates over three years. 2015 Rates: 235k areas: $304,960 300k areas: $359,089 Council-Approved Rates:

235K & 300K Neighbourhoods 54

Development Charge 55 Reserve Balance Projected DC reserve balance to be maintained at a deficit within $60M Actual DC reserve balance will be impacted by annual budget decisions and the pace of development. Maximum Deficit of ~ - $60 million

56 Development Charges and the Cost of a House $500,000 Cost of a House vs. DCs / Unit $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

57 Key Policy Directions 5. Assign a portion of growth-related costs to intensification. Resulted in removal in an Exempt Area that had been established in 1989 Improved transparency: previously costs of some projects were paid for by greenfield development Undertaking a study on how the costs associated with intensification will be covered

58 Anticipated Outcomes Long-term financial risk to taxpayers is minimized. Market choice is available. Neighbourhoods will build out faster. Reasonable service level is provided to both existing and new residents. The City can continue to invest in and renew existing infrastructure systems.

59 Next Steps Determining development charge policy for intensification of development within existing areas Conducting research on the barriers to industrial development

Calgary The Policy Development Charges Someone Has to Pay But Who? Building Resilience 2017 Saturday June 17, 2017

Calgary s Growth and Infrastructure Context High growth for many years creating demand for infrastructure Savvy development industry Political desire to minimize financial risk and to have a transparent and fair levy system Increasing redevelopment/intensification Alberta legislation limits what levies can be charged for Levy calculations were based on these assumptions (some things have changed)

861 861 Population (000) 905 922 933 956 992 1,020 1,043 1,065 1,072 1,091 1,120 1,157 1,195 1,231 1,235 Calgary has been growing fast. 1300 1200 2013 1100 1000 1991 900 Today s Boundary 800 700 More people + 374,000 since 2000 More land Spatial growth of +134 km 2 between 1991 and 2013.

What Infrastructure was included? Water/wastewater Treatment plants and linear connections Drainage Stormwater ponds Roads Major interchanges Community Amenities (voluntary charge) Regional recreation centres, fire stations, police stations, libraries, transit buses Redevelopment Initiated a treatment plant charge per unit

Allocation of Benefit Determined based on fairness (for both Greenfield and Established Areas) Determined based on development paying 100% of growth impact Developed different models for each infrastructure type: o o o Transportation traffic modeling Considered impact of traffic from outside of Calgary Water/waste water, drainage - based on actual needs Community amenities based on a hypothetical population projection model

Area Wide VS Site Specific? Greenfield o o o All infrastructure calculations based on city wide needs and averages everyone pays the same A per hectare charge (with the exception of drainage, which are based on catchments) Costs can vary greatly from one side of the municipality to the other (prairie vs foothills) Established Areas o Per unit charge based on unit type

Where do the levies apply? Off-site Levy Greenfield Area Components 2015 Levy ($/ha) 2016 Levy ($/ha) Transportation $130,289 $136,789 Water and Wastewater Linear $38,006 $76,774 Water and Wastewater Treatment $36,967 $129,660 Drainage by Watershed 1 Nose Creek Watershed $10,315 $11,325 2 Shepard Watershed $56,158 $42,704 3 Bow River Watershed $3,980 $6,983 4 Pine Creek Watershed $3,939 $16,812 5 Fish Creek Watershed $634 $0 6 Elbow River Watershed $342 $0 Water Resources $75,315 to $131,131 $206,434 to $249,138 Off-site Levy Total $205,604 to $261,420 $343,223 to $385,927

Change to Community Services Charges (Greenfield Areas) Community Services Greenfield Area Components Community Services Charge 2015 Levy ($/ha) 2016 Levy ($/ha) Calgary Fire Department $22,275 $19,545 Calgary Public Library $6,389 $5,971 Calgary Police Service $8,633 $7,648 Recreation $37,985 $41,679 Calgary Transit $5,806 $4,007 Community Services Charge Total $81,088 $78,850 2015 Levy ($/ha) 2016 Levy ($/ha) Total Greenfield Off-site Levy and Community Service Charge $286,692 to $342,508 $422,073 to $464,777

Established Areas Application of Off-Site Levies No Off-site Levies Charged Centre City Levy Off-site Levies Paid Developed Areas Off-site Levies Paid Greenfield Areas

Established Areas Application of Off-Site Levies No Off-site Levies Charged Development Permits, 2011-2014 Commercial/Mixed Use (164) Multi-Family (351) Single/Semis (3,915)

Established Area Rates ($/unit, $/m 2 ) Residential Rate ($/Unit) Single Detached $6,267 Semi-Detached/Duplex $5,619 Multi-residential Grade-Oriented $3,890 Multi-residential Non Grade-Oriented (2 bedroom or more) $3,242 Multi-residential Non Grade-Oriented (1 bedroom or less) $2,593 Non-Residential Rate ($/m 2 Gross Floor Area) Commercial Development Levy Rate $36.62 Industrial Development Levy Rate $17.58 Maximum levy rate for Density 285 Equivalent Population/Hectare: $615,885/Ha

Density Incentive Program 1. Determine the site intensity: people + jobs 2. Determine the site density: (people + jobs)/area 3. If (people + jobs)/area is greater or equal to 285 4. Then the rate is capped at $615,885/ha Note: $2161 x 285/ha = $615,885/ha ($2161 is the per person treatment plant cost)

Greenfield Area Implementation February 1, 2016 Timing of Payment: o o o o 0 % payable at execution of an Interim Indemnity Agreement 30% - 1 year anniversary 30% - 2 year anniversary 40% - 3 year anniversary

Established Area Implementation Established Area: o Development Permits accepted prior to February 1st exempt o Phase in approach: o 2016 33% o 2017 66% o 2018 100% o Density Incentive Program o Timing of Payment Occupancy

$97,290 $141,148 $148,594 $171,450 $203,301 $218,000 $271,656 $302,486 $315,835 $400,606 $421,610 $435,373 $447,472 $451,000 (in 2018) $506,196 $590,116 $663,498 $1.2M Development Charges across Select Canadian Municipalities ($/ha) $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0

Percent of New Home Sale Price Approximate Percentage of New Home Price Attributed to Levies (%) 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 4.9 (in 2018) 4.0 3.0 2.4 2.7 3.3 2.0 1.0 0.0 CALGARY - EXISTING Edmonton CALGARY - PROPOSED Saskatoon Regina

Conclusion/ What We Learned Aligned with guiding principles Transparent/rigorous methodology Long term and sustainable strategy for funding the costs of growth Broad stakeholder engagement Off-site levies paid by development industry will help to continue to build great communities Captures 100% proportionate share Collaborative process internally and externally was the key to success Built trust and set the stage for continued collaboration

WRAP-UP

Key Policy Questions 1. Is growth going to really pay for growth or is the community (taxpayers) going to help pay for growth? 2. What types of projects are you going to include and how are you going to allocate a portion of each project to growth?

Key Policy Questions 3. How much growth do you expect and what impact does that growth have on infrastructure? 4. Are you going to charge on a community wide bases or area specific?

Key Policy Questions 5. How are you going to deal with infill and intensification? Are you going to allocate costs to infill or focus mainly on greenfield? 6. How your development charge policies interact with your land use and growth policies: Infill; Greenfield; Downtown Core; Industrial Areas?

Key Policy Questions 7. Will you be gradually phasing in the increases in charges or not? How often will you update the charges? Annually? Every 5 years? 8. How do your charges compare with others?

Questions and Comments

THANK YOU!