Council here plans further public consultation before making a decision on a proposal to end a total development charges exemption for agricultural construction in the township.
Council also agreed to amend the 2016 development Charges Update Study to factor in increased estimates for the cost of upgrading water capacity.
Council approved both measures after receiving a staff report from CAO Brad McRoberts at the Oct. 25 meeting.
Mapleton’s current development charges bylaw includes a 100 per cent exemption for buildings constructed for “a bona fide farm use.”
A proposal presented at a public meeting on Oct. 11 would see the exemption reduced to 75%.
That would mean someone building a new barn, for example, would pay 25% of the non-residential rate of $2.65 per square foot of gross floor area, which works out to 66 cents/ft2.
The proposal drew opposition from the Wellington Federation of Agriculture and a number of area farmers at the Oct. 11 meeting.
The staff report recommended additional public consultation and also that a fact sheet of answers to a spate of recent questions on the topic be prepared for distribution at the upcoming public meeting and as required.
In the report, McRoberts also requested council direction on how to address the increase in projected water capacity enhancement costs.
The report explains that while the Development Charges Update Study was being completed a Water Capacity Environmental Study was being undertaken for the Drayton water system. Although the Water Capacity Environmental Study is still in draft form and being vetted with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, it contains estimates that the required upgrades could cost up to $3.1 million, an increase over preliminary estimates of $2.5 million.
Four options were presented to council for dealing with the higher cost estimates.
Option 1. Wait until the Water Capacity Environmental Assessment is completed and designed to amend the development charge bylaw
Option 2. Amend the current 2016 Development Charges Update Study to include an assumption that a provincial or federal grant equivalent to the increased cost will be secured.
Option 3. Amend the current 2016 Development Charges Update Study to include the increased water capacity cost estimates
Option 4. Wait until the current Development Charge Bylaw expires and update cost as part of the new bylaw.
Staff recommended option 3 be pursued, noting the option “ensures development charges are secured.”
Councillor Lori Woodham said she could not find “substantial reports from staff” indicating the need for the agricultural development charges and suggested council “Go with option 3 for water, but eliminate this change to development charges for the bona fide farmers.”
Councillor Michael Martin suggested supporting option 4 on the water capacity issue, until more concrete numbers are available.
“I would propose just waiting until this bylaw expires,” said Martin.
Martin said he also favoured waiting for more information to be available before proceeding with the farm charges issue. He noted there are still many questions outstanding on how the bylaw could be applied, including a clear definition of an accessory structure, which would remain exempt.
“We can definitely put this back if there’s more information required,” said Mayor Neil Driscoll. “There’s a lot of people in favour of this bylaw too. We’ve got to hear all sides.”
“I think the bona fide farm aspect of the development charges really overshadowed some of the positive stuff,” agreed Martin.
“I’m in favour of the 75 per cent exemption,” said Craven. “No matter how thick you make the asphalt, these big wide machines are going to ride along the very edge of it,” causing damage to the road.
Woodham said, “We’re an agricultural township, proudly an agricultural township, so I don’t understand why we would now start going this route.
“I have heard many times from members of our council that we’re proud of our roads. These farmers with big equipment – they also own land in other townships.”
She added farmers may opt to build where there are no development charges.
“I am proud of our roads. But I’m not proud of the fact that I can’t meet another tractor on some of our concession roads and not have someone have to go in the ditch,” responded Driscoll.
“We’ve all seen our asset management plan that shows our roads and the money that has to be spent on our roads over next nine-and-a-half years and we’re not raising that money through taxation at one or two percent increases.”
“I really would like one more public meeting,” said councillor Marlene Ottens. “I feel there’s a lot of misinformation, or there’s a perception that people just aren’t sure what is happening.”
After council approved a resolution to proceed with additional public consultation, Martin put forward a motion to proceed with Option 4 and wait until the current bylaw expires to deal with the issues of capacity-related charges.
Woodham asked for further information on why the staff report recommended Option 3.
“If we wait, we will miss (charges on) development that happens now – funds we could collect. That’s probably the downfall of not doing anything now versus later,” said McRoberts.
“Is there any way of guesstimating the potential loss of waiting a couple of years?” wondered Woodham.
“It all depends on what happens in terms of development in the community,” said Roberts.
“I completely understand staff rationale surrounding option number three,” said Martin. However, he added, “At the moment urban development is at a standstill because of our lack of capacity or lack of ability to increase capacity … it’s too preliminary.
“You’re exactly right. We can’t develop anything until we solve our wastewater.”
When the mayor called for a vote on the resolution, Woodham asked for it to be recorded.
The motion was defeated 4-1 with only Martin in favor.
Woodham then moved council accept Option 3.
“What I don’t want to happen is to accept these charges, we put this out there and then someone comes back and says, ‘Now your water tower is a $4-million project and we’re still not covering our costs,” said Driscoll.
Noting a water tower is the preferred option to address water capacity issues, public works director Jamie Morgan explained, “If we don’t build this for another three years, that’s the problem with inflation – that’s in current dollars … that’s the best estimate that Burnside, our engineering firm, is able to give us.”
“If we were to go ahead with this – is that going to raise enough money to build a water tower?” asked Driscoll.
“Even if we were to collect all the money from development that’s planned now, it wouldn’t cover the expansion. We’re trying to plan for what’s down the road as well,” said McRoberts.
“You’re always going to have a funding gap.”
“You’re saying whatever we do collect now will help, but it won’t correct the problem,” observed Craven.
In a recorded vote requested by Martin, the motion to accept Option 3 was approved 4-1, with Craven, Ottens, Woodham and Driscoll in favor and Martin opposed.
