Please see the City of…

Please see the City of Waterloo's comments in the attached Word Document. The comments have also been posted below for reference but table formatting is lost.

1. Transition:
- Municipalities will need to meet this date in order to continue to collect revenues for DC soft services and bonusing (though it is unclear what the bonusing process and/or revenues will look like going forward). There is a significant amount of work to be done in advance of this date, including the preparation of a community benefits strategy and by-law that must include consultation with persons and public bodies yet to be identified by the Province.
- Considering that the regulations defining the formula and methodology are still being developed, that consultation on those items is expected to continue through late summer, and that implementation of the Legislation/Regulation will undoubtedly require a significant amount of unplanned and unbudgeted resources, having a longer time to transition would allow municipalities to be more prudent. As it will take some time to evaluate the approach to these studies, carry out the studies, undertake a public process and pass by-laws, the time frame is limited and should be extended.
- With regard to transition, we request that the Province provide clarity with regard to how a CBC will apply to applications that are appealed (e.g. where it was anticipated through the planning process that 5% parkland dedication would be applicable, but an LPAT hearing occurs after a CBC By-law has been approved).

2. Reporting on Community Benefits:
- In regard to amounts allocated, within the context of the legislation where 60% of funds must be spent or allocated annually, can amounts be allocated to a capital project account for future spending? What/is there a time limit to spend?

3. Exemptions from community benefits:
- Lack of definitions and the scope of the list have the potential to expose municipalities to financial risk if they are broad and wide-spread and could lead to disagreements with the development community around intent and interpretation.
- How will non-profit status (and maintenance of that status) be substantiated and confirmed over time?
- Does the phrase “universities and colleges” relate only to the academic space? Many municipalities impose charges on the housing related to the institution.
- Does “universities and colleges” include private institutions?
- That development types be scoped and defined in alignment with definitions that exist under current legislation yet allow municipalities to develop more detailed provisions that meet its intent. Leave the development of definitions to municipalities, based on local context (e.g. alignment with Zoning By-laws).
- Recommend that the Province define all development types exempt from CBCs prior to the ERO posting dealing with the prescribed CBC caps.

4. Community benefits formula:
Although the Ministry is seeking feedback related to the determination of percentages, it is difficult to comment in the absence of additional information. The Province has further advised that there will be further consultation on the proposed formula in late summer and we look forward to being included in that process. In the interim, we have the following comments/questions:
- What is meant by ‘historically collected’? What period of time? How will this be determined?
- What assumptions will be used, particularly with regard to density bonusing, where ‘facilities, services or matters’ are not necessarily quantified in terms of a monetary value (e.g. increased building heights in exchange for enhanced ‘landmark’ architecture)?
- How will density bonusing revenues be estimated going forward? This is unclear, given that it was a revenue stream that was not collected on all development applications and, where collected, the ‘revenue’ varied on a case by case basis (i.e. related to a specific development request/context) and was a shared benefit.
- Formula/methodology based on a percentage of land value will be insufficient; will need to recognize variables including planning framework as set out in the Official plan and Zoning By-law, development intensity, geographic location and land value uplift created as a result of the planning application approval.
- Will a range of percentages be prescribed to take into account varying values of land for different types of development?
-Will the range of percentages account for geographic differences in land values and land use or zoning?
- The formula should effectively accommodate the ‘alternative parkland rate’; this may require different CBC rates within the municipality (e.g. greenfield versus intensification areas).
- Without knowing what is in the regulation, there is a concern that this link between growth costs and the CBC will be lost and that the CBC will not be able to change over time as project costs vary. Land value, which sets a cap for the CBC, is not related to the cost of providing services.
- If a fixed cap is in place, it will need to be reassessed frequently enough to ensure that the CBC remains an effective tool for recovering growth related costs (as cost structures change).
- How will the cap work in a two-tier municipality
- How will the formula account for any demo credits for existing units/floor space? Is a credit approach permitted, if so municipalities then need to track whether any of those credits weren't collected because of the cap, but now could be because of land value change.

5. Appraisals for community benefits:
- Provide clarifying language regarding cost and which party is responsible for appraisal costs, and provide municipalities with a full cost recovery mechanism.
- Can costs for appraisals be included as eligible costs to be funded under the CBC?
- Is the third appraisal binding? Can this last appraisal be appealed?
- Potential to significantly delay projects.
- Concern if there is sufficient inventory of land appraisers to meet the demands and turnaround times specified within the Regulations.

6. Excluded services for community benefits:
- Municipalities have long held the position that there should be no ineligible services. These excluded facilities provide services that help municipalities create vibrant communities. Without a cost-recovery mechanism under the DCA or the PA, municipalities will continue to be challenged to build these important facilities without further impinging costs on existing residents.

7. Community planning permit system:
- The City of Waterloo does not use a CPPS and as such, this change does not apply.