Bruce County supports the…

Bruce County supports the government of Ontario’s goal to increase the supply of homes across Ontario to respond to the affordability crisis in housing, provided it is balanced with environmental protection, ensuring a good quality of life for residents and having a secure source of funding in order to deliver the services that contribute to good growth. Increasing the supply of housing is a goal of the County and its partner municipalities.
Bill 23 includes several important provisions that support our shared housing supply goals, including as-of-right permissions for gentle density through additional residential units in settlement areas and increased capacity at the Ontario Land Tribunal.
We support changes that build on the innovative and efficient development approval processes that have been put in place in partnership between Bruce County and its partner municipalities.

Additional Dwelling Units:
As-of-right permission for the creation of additional dwelling units (ADUs) in serviced settlement areas is a good idea. Permitting these units as-of-right in the Planning Act reduces the administrative burden of updating local planning documents. The creation of gentle density through ADUs is generally supported in serviced settlement areas, although several municipalities noted that parking may become an issue in communities without transit options.
Within Bruce County, four of eight municipalities have development charges. Several others are considering establishing development charges. Exempting an additional residential unit in order to support gentle density is not anticipated to have a major financial impact and may assist in making housing affordable for existing and new homeowners, as well as providing additional rental options in our primary settlement areas.

Certainty for Developers:
Bill 23 sets out a framework that provides developers with certainty of costs and fees. The removal of third-party appeals may also increase certainty of costs and timing to developers. We have been encouraging developers to build affordable housing through our recently released affordable housing toolkit. We sincerely hope that if these changes are implemented as proposed, the private sector will build more new and different forms of affordable or attainable housing that can increase housing supply in Bruce County.

Concerns with Bill 23 and associated Regulatory Changes:
While Bill 23 proposes broad legislative changes to increase the supply of housing across Ontario, there is significant risk of unintended consequences. The below section outlines concerns and recommendations that Bruce County asks the province consider.

Parkland:
Several changes are proposed to parkland provisions under section 42 of the Planning Act. While Bruce County’s local municipalities make limited use of Section 42 by-laws, requiring a parks plan to be completed prior to the implementation of an updated parkland by-law adds unnecessary cost and time for a municipality to implement changes proposed in Bill 23.
County staff and municipalities most often rely on the section 51 provisions for the provision of parkland in standard subdivisions and consents. The proposed changes in Bill 23 to reduce the supply of parkland by 50%, will reduce the quality of life for new communities with affordable housing units. Through the pandemic, we have seen the value that natural and outdoor spaces provide in communities. These spaces are also important as municipalities consider the impact of climate change and protection of important natural hazard and heritage features in their communities.
The proposed legislation would allow developers to provide parkland that could be encumbered by easements and strata. While this may be an approach that works in denser,
built-up urban areas, municipalities in Bruce County should be able to ask for parkland that is unencumbered for the benefit of residents.
Bill 23 also introduces a process whereby developers would identify lands to be dedicated to the municipality as parkland. Should the municipality decline to accept the lands for parkland purposes, there is a new mechanism where the developer can appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. This provision appears punitive to municipalities and out of line with the requirement for municipalities to complete a parks plan prior to making any updates to a parkland by-law. A parks plan will identify criteria and priorities for parklands in a municipality. The legislation references criteria to be set to help municipalities and LPAT evaluate lands for parkland purposes.

Recommendations:
1. That current parkland dedication rates be maintained.
2. That a parks plan continue to be required only if a municipality is implementing an alternate parkland rate.
3. That Municipalities outside of the GGHA do not have to accept encumbered lands as parkland.
4. That the province consult on and provide clarity around the criteria for parkland acquisition so Municipalities can incorporate it into parks plans.
5. That the appeal process for developers to appeal municipal parkland decisions be removed, given developers retain appeal rights on decisions.

Development Charges Act:
Bill 23 undermines the foundational principle that growth pays for growth in municipalities that rely on development charges to fund and pay for new growth-related infrastructure. The proposed changes shift development-related costs to existing taxpayers.
These changes to development charges come at a time where municipal and upper-tier government budgets are significantly impacted through inflation and are layered on top of the financial impacts of Bill 109 coming into effect from January 1, 2023.
Definition of Affordable and Attainable Housing:
The changes to the Development Charges Act introduce new definitions for affordable and attainable housing. Affordable housing would be defined as 80% of market rate ownership or rental. Bruce County is concerned that for many in our community, this definition does not provide affordable housing to those in the community who are the most vulnerable. Connecting the definition of affordable housing to market rate has the potential to limit the true affordability of these projects and does not reflect that affordable housing needs to be tied to income.
Of note, the definition of affordable housing in the Provincial Policy Statement is tied to income. We recommend that the definition of affordable housing remain consistent with the definition under the Provincial Policy Statement.
Details of the definition of attainable housing have yet to be established. The legislation points to a further regulation that will provide criteria to define attainable housing. With the threshold of affordable housing being set at 80% of market rent or ownership, the County is concerned that the definition of attainable housing may not significantly further the supply of attainable housing in our communities.
We understand that the province intends to publish a bulletin with an established market rent/price. These bulletins must reflect regional differences and include detailed methodology to ensure confidence that the rates reflect the local need for affordable and attainable housing.

Recommendations:
6. That the province remove affordable/attainable housing as a criterion for assessment of development charges, which relate to the services required by the unit and not its price. Municipalities could then consider providing exemptions or grants-in-lieu of development charges to maintain their ability to manage their budgets.
7. That, if the province proceeds with exemptions to municipal development charges, The definition of affordable housing be tied to incomes, not market rate, and reflect regional differences across the province.
8. That, if the province proceeds with exemptions to municipal development charges, it consult further on the definition of attainable housing prior implementing these changes. Without understanding the details of the threshold for attainable housing, it is impossible for municipalities to assess the financial impact and understand how this change increases the supply of affordable housing.
9. That, if the province proceeds with exemptions to municipal development charges, definitions of affordable and attainable housing be updated in the Provincial Policy Statement to align with the Development Charges Act.

Housing as an eligible Development Charge Expense
The proposed changes under Bill 23 remove housing as an eligible development charges service. While the County does not have an upper-tier development charge in place at the present time, the County as a provider of housing could currently use development charge revenues to fund the construction of housing that would meet the most affordable housing needs in our area.
The removal of housing services will reduce municipal participation in creating assisted/affordable housing units for the most vulnerable populations that would not be able to access affordable or attainable housing as defined through Bill 23.

Recommendations:
10. That housing remain an eligible Development Charge service so that municipalities can resource affordable housing to meet the needs of our most vulnerable residents.

Financial and Administrative Impact:
Bill 23 changes to development charges which are contrary to the widely accepted concept that growth should pay for growth. Municipalities that assess development charges will see a significant cumulative financial impact from these changes.
Without sustained alternative forms of funding from provincial or federal sources, municipalities will have to pass these costs over to the general tax base. As such, Bill 23 generates a significant financial shift from growth paying for growth, to growth being subsidized by existing taxpayers. This shift will make existing housing more expensive and undermine the province’s goals of increasing affordable housing. We note the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) comments on Bill 23 estimate the financial impact of these changes to Municipal revenues across Ontario to be approximately $5.1 billion dollars over the next 10 years.
The changes also generate additional financial and administrative burdens for municipalities. One example of this administrative burden is that affordable housing requires the developer to enter into a 25 year agreement. It will be up to municipalities to manage and monitor development to ensure it remains affordable over the 25-year timeframe. Another administrative burden for municipalities is generated through the phase in of development charges over 5 years.
Losing the ability to fund servicing master plans, environmental assessments, and official plans through development charges is also a tangible financial loss to municipalities.
Several Bruce County municipalities experienced significant growth over the past few years which has generated increased demand on servicing in settlement areas. In the absence of other funding to undertake the studies and pay for the infrastructure required to expand servicing, homes will not be able to built faster. Municipalities require steady and reliable revenue to be able to undertake the servicing required to support growth. Shifting costs to existing housing does not assist the province in achieving its goal of making housing affordable.
The further changes made to Bill 23 on November 22nd requiring phase ins of Development Charges by-law retroactive to by-laws passed as of January 1, 2022 versus June 1, 2022 as was originally introduced, further financially penalizes municipalities and increases the financial burden to municipalities and taxpayers.

Recommendations:
11. That studies such as development charge studies, official plans and servicing plans remain eligible services for development charges.
12. That Municipalities see a stable alternate source of funding to support planning for and implementing infrastructure to service growth should the changes to the Development Charges Act be implemented as proposed.

Consultation on Bill 23 Changes:
The timing of the release of Bill 23 and the limited commenting period that has been provided is a matter of great concern. The tabling of this legislation the day after the municipal election during a period where many local Councils and County Council were unable to hold meetings to review the proposed changes with staff and provide formal comment through Council resolutions is problematic. Given the significance of the proposed changes, staff are providing comment in the absence of County Council having the opportunity to provide formal comment.

Bruce County appreciated the apparent extension to consultation on the proposed changes in Bill 23 and was stunned and disappointed at the move to pass the legislation regardless. This submission is to record the County's displeasure with these actions taken by the Province, and the missed opportunity for meaningful consultation with municipalities about the foundational changes enacted through this legislation. We encourage the province to come to the table with organizations such as AMO, ROMA and the Warden’s Caucus’s across Ontario who represent the viewpoint of upper-tier and local municipalities across the province.

The County also encourages meaningful dialogue and consultation with First Nations communities across Ontario about the changes proposed in Bill 23. The extent of changes in Bill 23 have an impact on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. The changes in Bill 23, in addition to the changes in Bill 109, challenge the County’s ability to engage in meaningful consultation with the First Nation communities in whose territory we provide planning services. Consideration of the Crown’s Duty to consult with First Nations must be considered by the province as part of the consultation on the changes included in Bill 23.

Further Considerations:
The County of Bruce and its partner municipalities look forward to working in partnership with the provincial government to ensure the supply of attainable and affordable housing.
The County supports innovative changes that build on the County’s best practices of streamlining the development process. County staff continue to work with the Western Ontario Warden’s Caucus, County Planning Directors and AMO to share best practices.
Thank you for taking the time to read our comments and concerns on proposed Bill 23 and the associated consultation.