Councillors here have some real concerns with proposed increases to development charges by Wellington County.
Treasurer Gord Duff was at a recent public meeting regarding the charges. Unfortunately, that meeting was the same date as Minto’s regular council meeting, so councillors were unable to attend.
Duff first noted that Wellington County’s portion of the development charges bylaw does not actually require renewal until September 2008.
However, Duff said it appears the plans in place are for the county to approve a development charges bylaw in January and implement it shortly thereafter. He noted that Watson and Associates [formerly CN Watson] is the same firm that developed Minto’s development charges bylaw.
Duff found no fault with with the concept that new development should bear the costs of new services required as a result of that development.
“It is a way so that existing ratepayers are not paying 100% of the cost for new development,” he said.
But Duff pointed out current regulations are very specific about the types of projects that development charges can be applied against. For example, he said, hospitals do not qualify for that levy, but specific road, water, and sewer projects do qualify.
Duff said the consultant considered Wellington County demographics, projected increases, and the costs associated with additional services needed.
“I have no quarrel with the concept or the methodology used,” he said.
Duff commented the issue does not seem to be a big one with the general public. At the public open house held by the county, he said there were only two members of the public in attendance. The rest were either municipal politicians or staff.
What is being proposed by the county is a 56% increase to development charges applied to residential development, and over 30 per cent to industrial and commercial developments.
One problem included the comparison areas used with the county study, Duff suggested. Some of the areas used in the comparative study of development charges include places such as Milton, Caledon, Halton Hills, Waterdown, Blue Mountain, Woolwich Township, Orangeville, Guelph, , Stratford, Owen Sound, and Goderich.
Those figures indicate Wellington’s charges would be in the upper middle range, and they might be fair when considering areas such as Erin or Guelph-Eramosa, Duff said.
“But those are not the areas we are competing with for development,” he said.
Wellington County is so large that the south and eastern portions now border on the Greater Toronto area, while the northern part is still relatively rural and a long way away from the GTA.
Minto’s competition for development, for example, includes North Perth and areas immediately to the north, west and east.
“There, the figures are quite different,” Duff said.
Competing areas such as South Bruce and Howick do not have any development charges. North Perth has neither county nor education development charges, and Southgate Township does not have education fees in the development charges. Wellington County does.
That, he believes, put the comparisons in a different light than a comparison of areas that do have upper tier development charges.
In a comparison of local development charges, Duff said the residential charges are still in the low end in a comparison of 15 municipalities.
Even when comparing new county charges, Minto’s overall development charge would be lower than its nearby Wellington County neighbours.
With a potential overall development charge of $5,615, that amount is substantially lower than Mapleton [$10,213], Wellington North [$9,590], or Centre Wellington [$17,768].
It is also substantially lower than North Perth [Listowel] which has a local development charge of $10,081, and it is on par with Southgate, which has a total development charge of $5,676.
“In Minto, it is a fairly insignificant part of our revenue. But, we still need to get development here in the first place,” Duff said.
As a result, hiss concern is not so much with how Wellington County developed the proposed charges, but how they will be implemented. He considered it a tight deadline, with comments to be forwarded to the county later this month, and with a decision to be made in January – for a possible February implementation.
He again said that the current county bylaw does not expire until September 2008.
Economic development officer Belinda Wick-Graham said the county did not need to apply for the maximum charge. She considers the increase as a potential barrier to local business development.
A study done in Minto earlier this year, stated development charges are already a concern to roughly 79% of the business community.
“It is already difficult to attract development to the area,” Wick-Graham said.
If implemented, Minto’s overall development charge would shift from $4,975 (2007) to $5,615 next year.
She said that $3.03 per square foot as a commercial and industrial charge may not seem like much, but if one considers the size of potential industrial expansions such at the 100,000 square foot addition for TG Minto, the cost is substantial.
She also wondered if Minto has the ability to lower its own development charges to offset the potential county increase.
Duff said that Minto’s development charges bylaw does not expire until 2010, but noted there would be little difficulty in the Minto reducing its charges. The challenge is when a municipality wants to increase the charge.
Anderson pointed out one of the reasons for the charges in the first place is to cover cost of providing extra services to accommodate new development.
Councillor Wayne Martin, however, believes council should take a serious look at providing competitive rates when it comes to development charges.
Councillor Larry Agla pointed out “our closest neighbours are also our stiffest competition.”
He agreed location is a factor in the development of certain areas, and in those areas high development charges might not be a deterrent.
However, in the northern part of Wellington County municipalities are trying to attract business and residential development. “We do not want to scare away any development,” Anderson said.
Duff said what is being discussed is the county proposal, which has yet to be passed.
Anderson noted it is a concern to local developers who were invited to the meeting. He further invited them to forward any concerns to the town, which, in turn, would ensure that those comments will reached the county for discussion.
“We have a couple of voices on county council, but the more submissions from developers would be better,” Anderson said.
Deputy-Mayor Judy Dirksen asked if there is a chance development charges could have different rates, based on geography in the county.
“Likely, the answer is no,” Duff said.
That idea was considered when development charges were first created. The reasoning not to make the distinction, Duff said, is the argument that all residents of the county benefited from the money spent from development charges.
“The reality is that there are so many different economies within Wellington County,” he said. “In the south, they are trying to cope with growth. In the north, we are trying to attract it.”
