The City of Cambridge staff…

The City of Cambridge staff is providing this submission in response to the consultation document number 019-1406 posted for comment by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We are generally supportive of the comments provided by the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association (MFOA), our consultants Watson & Associates, and our upper-tier municipality, the Region of Waterloo.

In particular, the City’s main areas of feedback associated with the proposed regulations are as follows:

• Eligible D.C. services: The City wishes to acknowledge and commend the Province for heeding the feedback from the earlier solicitations regarding the inclusion of Parks Development, Recreation, and Public Libraries as D.C. eligible services and removing the previous mandatory 10% deduction on these services.

• Two frameworks: The creation of a new community benefits charge framework in addition to the development charges framework would lead to additional administrative costs for municipalities as well as the potential for increased confusion and less predictability for developers who would now have to monitor and estimate their costs under two very different frameworks. This is counter to the Province’s objective of more predictability for developers. The City recommends incorporating the eligible services from the community benefits charge into the D.C. framework.

• Timing of transition: With the number of municipalities in the province requiring services from a limited number of consultants, as well as the desire to align the community benefits charge study with the development charges background study for effective growth planning, the proposed one-year transition period is not sufficient. The City is recommending a transition period of the later of 2 years or expiry of the development charges by-law. This also provides time for municipalities to prepare their administrative processes and address staffing needs required for a completely new framework.

• Two tier municipalities: There remain a number of questions associated with how the community benefits charge framework would be administered and the funding collected, particularly if one tier opts in and the other does not.

• Growth studies: Studies remain an eligible cost under the definition of capital in the D.C. Act, however with a limiting listing of eligible services that excludes studies it remains unclear if general growth studies (i.e. Official Plan) would continue to be D.C. eligible. If these types of studies must be attributed to each individual service as well as the community benefits charge, this may become confusing and administratively burdensome. If they are now excluded from any D.C. funding, this would shift further costs to the taxpayers should a municipality not opt into a community benefits charge (i.e. in order to preserve existing parkland dedication through section 42 of the Planning Act) or if the community benefits charge exceeded the proposed cap.

• Maximum rates: There is concern that the proposed maximum rates are not high enough for revenue neutrality for municipalities, particularly in brownfield and higher density developments. Additionally, should different rates be applied for residential and non-residential, the residential rate would most likely exceed the maximum allowable percentage. This is counter to the Province’s objective of revenue neutrality for municipalities. Further, questions remain outstanding regarding how the community benefits charge will be applied in cases of redevelopment.

• Parkland acquisition vs dedication: Under the current Planning Act, the majority of the City’s parkland is acquired through dedication. There is concern that with the change to the community benefits charge regime, this will lead to increased costs for developers generally. Parkland acquisition in new developments will need to be negotiated on a case by case basis with each developer; if developers are not willing to provide sufficient parkland to meet the City’s master plan and growth needs, parkland may need expropriated facing even higher costs.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Regards,

Sheryl Ayres
Chief Financial Officer

Attachments:
Appendix A – Submission by MFOA
Appendix B – Submission by Watson & Associates
Appendix C – Submission by the Region of Waterloo