Community Benefit Charge -…

Community Benefit Charge - Proposed Planning Act Regulation – ERO # 019-0183

Section 1. – Transition
• Proposed duration of the transition period (12 months - January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021) is insufficient on the basis of that such will not provide time to study or conduct public consultation with stakeholders in advance of enacting required by-law(s).
o Consideration should be given to extend the transition period to a duration not less than 18 months

Section 2 – Reporting on Community Benefits (CBC)
• Definition for ‘special account’ is required.
o Does ‘special account’ have the same meaning as ‘Reserve Fund” ?
• Requirement for 60% of funds to be spent or allocated annually
o Clarification regarding allocation is necessary to ensure multi-year capital projects can encumber allocation as opposed to a requirement that ‘special account’ funds are to be expended
o Similarly, can funds accumulate in advance of beginning a multi-year capital project ?

Section 3 - Reporting on Parkland
• As was referenced for the Community Benefit ‘special account’, does the Parkland ‘special account’ have the same intended meaning as a ‘Reserve Fund’ ?
• Clarification is required around eligible uses of funds under current provisions “for park or other public recreation purposes”, versus the scope defined in the Regulation which reads for “land and machinery”
o Consideration should be given to amend the reference to “land, structures and machinery/equipment”

Section 4 – Exemptions from Community Benefits
• Are for-profit developments of long-term care and retirement homes entitled to exemptions ?
o Consideration should be given to preclude exemptions to for-profit developments
• Are ‘private educational institutions’ eligible for exemptions from the CBC ?

Section 5 – Community Benefits Formula
• The provision for growth related studies is not referenced in the Regulations.
o This omission will place significant burden on smaller municipalities as such will have to be absorbed from tax or rate support sources of revenue
• There is a need for certainty around land use and/or zoning for multi-use development projects in the context of valuation for determining the CBC
• The lack of prescribed percentages creates uncertainty and fiscal exposure for the municipal sector
• The prescribed percentages need to account for existing municipal revenues and benefits that currently exist, such that municipal revenues/benefits do not decrease.

Section 6 – Appraisals for Community Benefits
• The lack of clarity around whether appraisal valuations can be appealed to the L.P.A.T. creates a fiscal exposure for the municipality
• Costs of conducting appraisals should be permitted to be funded as an eligible component of the CBC
• What process will be implemented to address non-arm’s length real estate transaction that adversely impact valuation principles?
• Clarification is required on how a discrepancy is to be resolved in the instance where the two appraisals are within 5 percent; is it expected that resolve be achieved through negotiation?
• How many appraisers need to be on the municipal list of appraisers?

Section 7 – Excluded Services for Community Benefits
• The Regulations do not clearly define eligible capital costs
o Clarification should be provided to confirm ‘eligible capital costs’

Section 8 – Community Planning Permit System
• Will the community planning permit system have the same percentage of land value restrictions as the CBC?