HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-69-93
THE
DN: DEVT-CH.COU
OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PUBLIC MEETING
Monday, April 19, 1993
File#
Res. #
Meeting: Council
Date:
#
#: PD-69-93
File #: PLN 20.1
Subject: AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE POLICY REPORT
INDEXING CRITERIA
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX/BUILDING COST INDEX
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-69-93 be received;
2. THAT Council direct staff to bring forth an amending by-law to the
Development Charge By-law 92-105 for May 31, 1993 Council meeting
in compliance with the notice requirement of the Development Charge
Act to:
a) change the Construction Cost Index to Building Cost Index; and
b) maintain the current development charge quantum as indexed
last in October, 1992 to October 31, 1994.
3 .
THAT notwithstanding the requirement for the
indexing by the end of April, 1993, Staff
implementing the said indexing schedule; and
next scheduled
shall withhold
4. THAT a copy of Staff Report PD-69-93 and the decision of council be
forwarded to the Urban Development Institute, the Toronto Home
Builders Association and the Durham Home Builders Association.
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 Council, at its March 8, 1993 meeting, endorsed a resolution which
in part amended the lot development charge payment schedule as
described in the Development Charge Policy Report for Plans of
Subdivision.
. . .2
RECYCLED PAPIEIl
PAPER rlECVCLE:
REPORT: PD-69-93
PAGE 2
1.2 Additionally the resolution endorsed the following:
"That the Development Charge By-law be amended to change the
indexing from the Construction Cost Index to the Building Cost
Index and the amending by-law be brought forth for passage in
accordance with the procedure and requirements as set out in the
Development Charges Act."
2. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT:
2.1 The Development Charges Act provides through section (7) the
necessary mechanism by which a council that has passed a
Development Charge By-law the opportunity to amend said by-law.
2.2 Similar to the procedures followed in passing a Development Charge
By-law, council is required to hold at least one (1) public meeting
prior to any amending by-law being considered for approval. The
public meeting is to be held no earlier than twenty (20) days after
the requirements for the giving of notice has been complied with.
2.3 Staff would confirm that notice of the public meeting was placed in
the local newspapers serving the Town within the prescribed time
frame required in the Development Charges Act.
3. STAFF COMMENTS:
In addition to the proposed indexing change from Construction Cost
Index to Building Cost Index, this Report will also address the
issues of freezing the development charge indexing on a temporary
basis.
3.1
3.1.1
Chanqe from construction Cost Index to Buildinq Cost Index
As noted within staff Report PD-41-93, C. N. Watson and
Associates Ltd, in one of its 11 informational newsletters",
noted that several municipalities had contacted them to
inquire as to which indexing option - The Construction Cost
Index (CCI) or The Building Cost Index (BCI) would be
. . . 3
REPORT: PD-69-93
PAGE 3
considered to be the most appropriate for use by local
municipality in indexing a development charge.
3.1.2
In reviewing the basis for the two indexes, c. N. Watson and
Associates, concluded th~t the BCI may be more suitable for
Development Charge Indexing purposes. It was considered
generallY more consistent with requirements of municipal
projects included in the development charge calculations.
BASED ON SINGLE
FAMILY UNIT IN COURTICE
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX BUILDING COST INDEX
March, 1992 March, 1992
$4,797.00 $4,797.00
october, 1992 october, 1992
+2.98% ($143.00) -1. 24% (-$60.00)
$4,940.00 $4,737.00
April, 1993 April, 1993
+3.43% ($169.00) +7.15% ($339.00)
$5,109.00 $5,076.00
using the example of a
following chart would
construction Cost Index
single family unit in courtice,
provide a comparison between
and the Building cost Index.
the
the
3.1.3
3.1.4
Based on the consultant'S suggestion, staff concurred that an
amendment to the Development Charge By-law should be made to
change the indexing to the Building Cost Index.
3.2 FREEZING OF INDEX
3.2.1 The Durham Home Builders Association has requested council to
freeze the Development Charge indexing, presumablY to assist
the housing industry in this tough economic time. staff would
note for council's information that the Region of Durham has
. . .4
REPORT: PD-69-93
PAGE 4
3.2.2
3.2.3
recently reacted to
Development Institute
freeze of indexing of
a similar request from the Urban
(U.D.I.) and has imposed a temporary
the Regional charges.
The Durham Home Builders Association requested that the
development charge quantum of $4,797.00 as contained in By-law
92-105 be frozen for one year. Staff noted that the
development charge quantum was last indexed in October, 1992
to bring the amount to $4,940. and are of the opinion that any
discussion on the issue of freezing of indexing should be
based on $4,940. and not on $4,797. To consider using $4,797.
as a base for freezing the index would, in effect, suggest a
roll back of levy and refund of charges collected since the
last indexing in October, 1992, a position that staff cannot
recommend Council to accept. The development charge payments
made after October, 1992, were paid in compliance with the
terms and provisions of their respective subdivision
agreements, as well as being in compliance with the Town's
Development Charges By-law. Therefore, no refund or credit
should be considered for the difference in the development
charge amount resulting from the Town's contemplation of
freezing the indexing or changing the indexing from the
Construction Cost Index to the Building Cost Index.
The Durham Home Builder Association previously requested the
Town to freeze the index for one year. This would effectively
delay indexing to April, 1994. Since staff is suggesting
$4,940. be used as a base for the purpose of freezing the
index, we would have no objection if the freezing period be
extended another six (6) months to end on October 31, 1994.
Since freezing of the index was not originally contemplated in
the public notice, a second public notice will be required and
staff will bring forth an amending by-law at the council
REPORT: PD-69-93
PAGE 5
meeting of May 31, 1993 to address the recommendations as
contained in this Report.
4. CONCLUSION:
4.1 Staff feel that by maintaining the current development charge
quantum until October 31, 1994, is a very generous gesture by the
municipality as a precedent has been set by Durham Region.
However, staff cannot agree with the latest position of the Home
Builders Association, copy of which is attached for the information
and deliberation by Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
lA-ill\J
Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
Lawrence E. K
Chief Adminis
Officer
LDT*FW*jip
15 April 1993
*Attach.
V"tI.LOii;)v ~"".U'
U "fLU UUU Ui,",":'
\...oU.;,'It ":>UJ.Hnrt.~ \.:1:1..:>
...... l'n II \"':1.':> 1 Ln
l4J UO:!
Oshawa.
Durham
Home Builders'
Association
'~1EnWiEID)
APR 13 1993
TOWM Of MEWCASl1.E
PLANNING DEP^RTMENT
P.O. Box 704
Oshawa. Ontar 0 l1H 7M9
1416\579.8080
1993'.04-07
Mayor Hamre
The :\1un i ci pa 1 i ty of the Town of Newcast 1 e
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanvi1le~ Ontario
LIC 3A6
Dear ~ayor Hamre:
With reference to recent conversations with Mr. F. Wu, Director of Planning, and
yourself, and in recognizing the important modifications Council ha,s approved to the
Development Charges By-Law as they relate to the timing of the payment and indexing
of the levy~ the Oshawa/Durham Homebuilders' Association have developed and ratified
a proposal for your consideration.
The Oshawa/Durham Homebui1ders' Association requests that the Development Charge as
at November 1992 ($4,940.00 per single family dwelling unit) be fi>:ed at that rate
until April 1995. Further~ we ask that the index applied in April of 1995 be the
lower of either the Construction Cost Index or the Building Cost Index if (at
Council's discretion) an increase needs to be applied at all at thClt time, and that
werEl an increase deemed necessary it would be calculated using the then applicable
indElxing data and appl ied to the existing base levy amount ($4,940.,,00 per single
fam'ly dwell ing unit). In other words, no historical or cumulativf! calculation
wou~d be applied to the base levy amount in April 1995.
YOUl' Worship, members of Council ~ and staff have expressed an empa~hy for the
abYRmal market conditions evident in the building/development industry over the past
two years. We hppe you will view our proposal as an opportunity tl~ make a tangible
impact on improving the new home market, not just for builders but for new home
bUYI~rs a 1 so.
Cou~ci1ls acceptance of this proposal would, of course, preclude a1Y further require-
men't to proceed at the C.M.B.
We thank you for your consideration in this matter, and request that you contact the
undersigned with any Questions or comments you may have.
We look forward to a response at your earliest convenience.
cc:
- Mr. F. Wu, Director of Planning
The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
- Mr. F. Veltri, President, O.D.H.B.A.
- Mr. D. Horton, Executive Director
Ontario Homebuilders' Association
RA/sb
THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
NOTiCE OF PUBLIC MEETING
DEVELOPMENT CHA'RGE PROPOSALc .
The Town of Newcastle is consideringpassingariamendment to
the' Development Charge By-law 92-105' pursuant to the
Development Charges Act, 1989. Town Council will be holding a
pUblic meeting, in accordance with Section 4.ofthe Dev.eloP111eht
Charges Act, 1989, to enable the public to understand ~ger)eralJy
, , '. '.' "," '::, ,}
the amendment to the development charge by-law. AII'members
I' ,
of the public are invited to attend the meeting which wi,1I be held
on:
,:i
Monday, April 19, ,1993 '
9:30 a.m.
Council Chambers
Municipal Admlnlstratloh Centre
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanvllle, Ontario
Members of the public will be given an qppartunity at the meeting
to make representations regarding the proposed amendment to
the development charges. In addition, written sUbmissions may
be forwarded to the Town Clerk,' 40" Temperance Street,
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 no later than 4:30 p.m., April 19,
1993. Written submissions received by the Clerk will be'available
for public viewing during business hours at the Clerk's
department at the above address.
Submissions received in writing and those expressed at th~
puqlic meeting will be considered in preparation of the final
report(s) and implementing by-law. '
The purpose and effect of the proposed amendment to the
Development Charge By-law No. 92-105 is as follows:', '
i) to change the indexing factor from the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) to the,
Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (Bel).
Requests for information should bel directed to the Planning
Department, L. Taylor, Manager, Development Review Branch. : .
^7 ewcastre
~, ONTARIO
Date of Publication:
March 24, 1993
Patti L. Barrie, A.M.C,r'.
Town Clerk