Centre Wellington council has approved its development charges bylaw but the decision is not unanimous.
Council voted 4-2 to approve a bylaw that has separate rates for urban and rural areas.
For a single family dwelling and a semi-detached, the rural area development will cost $9,611 and the urban area faces a fee of $17,930.
The difference in those fees is the cost of sewer and water, which can be applied only to those places that use those services. Development charges for water will be $2,603, and it is $5,686 for sewers.
Urban apartments of two bedrooms or more will be charged at a rate of $11,177 per unit, or $5,991 for rural apartments. The difference in all the charges are the sewer and water fees. Bachelor and one bedroom apartments will carry urban fees of $7,684 and rural ones are set at $4,119.
Multiple dwellings are levied at $14,379 per unit in urban areas, and $7,707 in the rural.
The commercial and industrial development charges are levied per square foot, and again, the major difference is for the areas receiving sewer and water services. Such developments have a fee of $8.26 per square foot, and rural developments are $3.39.
When Gary Scanlon, of CN Watson, presented his report, he told council that it has a “good working relationship” with developers, and he and Treasurer Wes Snarr had met with several of them who had concerns and questions.
Councillor Bob Foster had concerns about the $8.26 cost per square foot for industrial and commercial buildings. He asked how that compares to such fees in Owen Sound and Orangeville.
Scanlon said he did not have those comparisons with him, but he said charges outside of the Greater Toronto Area tend to range from $5 per square foot to $10 or $11.
Foster said it would cost someone building a 100,000 square foot building more than $12,000 before buying land or putting a shovel in the ground.
Scanlon said 90 per cent of the fee is strictly for roads, sewer, and water. Lowering the fees would shift the burden to property taxes or sewer and water costs.
When council considered its development charges bylaw, Foster asked that it be a recorded vote. He and councillor Walt Visser voted against third reading of the bylaw, which passed.
Visser said he opposed the bylaw because the plans for a $3-million development for Bissell Park were not included in the calculations, and he fears that expense might have to be paid by taxpayers.
Foster said after the meeting he is concerned the township’s high costs for industrial and commercial development will stop such growth coming to the township.
He said, “With the development charges that high, we’re not going to attract development. Our people need jobs and we need to attract industry to provide those jobs.”
Ross-Zuj, in an interview, was having none of Foster’s arguments. She said when she took office three years ago, “the township was in terrible straits for development charges. Developers have to pay their own way.”
If they get a break on development charges, taxpayers must make up the difference, and Ross-Zuj said council made a tough decision three years ago to force developers to pay their fair share. “We’ve toed that line,” she said, noting that Scanlon had referred to the report by saying the policy and fees are now “sustainable.”
“He’s talking about how well we’ve done,” she said. “Now is not the time to put the burden back on the taxpayer.”
Ross-Zuj said there was a drop-off in building permits for much of 2009, but the latest reports show builders are slowly beginning to start their work again. She does not blame them for being cautious because the recession might be over, but they want to see signs of progress.
As for the fees, which went up only minimal amounts, “We’re starting to see a bit of a turnaround,” Ross-Zuj said of the imbalance of costs once levied on taxpayers.
She added that she has travelled across Canada doing municipal work, and, other than cities, Centre Wellington’s fees are low.
She cited the Elora Meadows subdivision, where the developer knew the fees and completed an agreement so he could proceed to build. She said, “There was no burden on the taxpayers.” She concluded, “Our taxpayers can’t take that load on again.”
