Please see the attached…

Please see the attached letter from the City of Kingston.
Key points are included below:
1. Required content of a Community Benefits Charge (CBC) strategy
City’s response
The City recently completed draft Community Benefit Guidelines to direct the implementation of Section 37 of the Planning Act. Those Guidelines include a requirement for potential benefits to be identified in either a City-approved plan (such as the Official Plan), or to be determined by the development proponent through a Community Services and Facilities Study (CSFS).
This requirement for a CSFS seems to be pre-empted by the content proposed to be included in the CBC Strategy by items 2, 5, 6 and 7. These items represent areas where the City may have detailed information available that would make their inclusion in the Strategy a simple exercise. However, for many areas of potential community benefits in a smaller city like Kingston, the City would need to undertake significant work in order to identify the anticipated increase in need for each benefit (item 2), the associated increased capital costs (item 5), the excess capacity that exists in those services (item 6), and the benefit to existing residents (item 7).
The purpose of requiring a CSFS for potential benefits that have not been studied in detail by the City is to ensure the cost of that work is borne by the proponent, and not the taxpayers. The cost and effort involved in creating a Strategy that examines all potential Community Benefits to the level of detail proposed is challenging in the timing suggested, which may to lead to inequity across areas of the city, by favouring those areas or services that have been already studied in detail., The City is looking for clarification on how often the Strategy would need to be updated, and whether there would be implications in what is included (or not) for potential appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). Could a proponent challenge the City on its forecasted needs for specific services, for example? Would the City need to be able to justify its service levels at the Tribunal? What resources exist for municipalities to ensure assumptions around needs for services are defensible?

2. Services eligible to be funded through development charges
City’s response
The inclusion of libraries, long-term care, park development, public health and recreation is a positive shift and a significant amendment from an earlier proposal where the new CBC would have financed these services. This provides the City with greater certainty on growth related capital funding of these services. The City along with other municipalities expressed concern on CBCs being able to adequately fund growth. Further information and modelling is required to fully understand what is proposed, but this is a welcomed improvement.
If public health is now included, the City would need to determine the details of how this would work as it currently owns 65.95% of the public health assets.

3. Percentage of land value for determining a maximum community benefit charge
City’s response
The City recommends that the government consider local land considerations in the percentage calculations. A big factor to consider is the prescribed valuation method meaning the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) value versus an independent appraiser value. MPAC land values can often understate the true market value resulting in reduced CBC revenue potential, and therefore not supporting the necessary growth expenditures.
In the absence of a full review, it is difficult to determine if a set percentage would be beneficial for the City’s development objectives.
Staff’s current understanding is that areas with higher land values will benefit far more from this approach than areas with lower land values. This creates/reinforces inequity across the Province. The City needs to have more information to fully understand the implications. Specifically, we are requesting clarification on whether the charge will be a percentage of the land value, or will the prescribed percentage be the maximum used to limit a charge per unit type, similar to the DC calculations based on the need for service from development? Will there be different rates for residential and non-residential based on benefits received?

4. Timeline to transition to the new community benefits charge regime
City’s response
The City has recently completed the background study to inform updates to its Development Charge By-Law, which expired September 29, 2019. Kingston’s updated Development Charges By-Law was passed on September 3, 2019 and came into force and effect on September 29, 2019. The City’s Community Benefits Guidelines were completed in late 2018 but have been put on hold pending the outcome of the Government’s proposed changes.
Based on the regime described, one year to transition to the new CBC regime is not enough time. There are several elements to the process of transitioning to the Community Benefits regime and with the assumption that the process will be similar to development charges, it will take time and resources to carry out the studies, undertake a public process and pass the necessary by-laws. The City is requesting that the specified date be extended to January 1, 2022 at a minimum.
If the requirements for the Strategy are lessened, and municipalities are able to tweak their existing regimes instead of starting from scratch, the transition time could be significantly shorter.

5. Community Benefits charge by-law notice
City’s response
The City supports enhanced levels of public consultation and has no objection to the notice requirements proposed. However, it is not clear what the benefit is to the municipality to enable CBC by-laws to be appealed. LPAT hearings are a huge cost for the City of Kingston, and the possibility of appeal and the lack of precedent for this type of hearing could be prohibitive to the City participating in CBCs. The City encourages the government to reconsider the ability to appeal CBCs as it could result in unintended financial costs to the municipality.

6. Minimum interest rate for Community Benefits charge refunds where a by-law has been successfully appealed
City’s response
The City is looking for additional clarification on the calculation under this section, for example whether the rate is based on the date payment was received until the appeal date or refund date. The Bank of Canada rate is a reasonable measure.

7. Building Code applicable law
City’s response
More information on this aspect is needed in order to define what the municipality’s role to administer this requirement will be under the Building Code. The City requests clarification if there be an additional administrative responsibility for the City to ensure the CBC payment has been received. This may not be too onerous but the City requests some additional information to better assess the implications.