HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-047-20Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: November 16, 2020 Report Number: PSD-047-20
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Andrew C. Allison, CAO
By-law Number:
File Number: PLN 9.7 Resolution#: PD-191-20
Report Subject: Review of BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study
Recommendation:
1. That Report PSD-047-20 be received for information.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-047-20
Report Overview
Page 2
This report summarizes the key findings of the BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study that was
released in September 2020. The report identifies municipal timelines and fees involved in
the development process. The report reviewed 18 Greater Toronto Area municipalities,
including four in Durham Region (Clarington, Whitby, Oshawa and Pickering). The BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study used similar criteria and methodology to the Canadian Home
Builders' Association national study also undertaken by Altus Group. The purpose is to
determine the factors affecting affordability of homes. The overall ranking was carried out
using three categories: planning features, municipal charges, and approval times.
Clarington was ranked 4t" best overall and 1 st among the Durham Region municipalities
rated.
1. Background
1.1 The Municipal Benchmarking Study (Attachment 1) was commissioned by BILD (the
Building Industry and Land Development Association) to look at specific factors that
may contribute to housing affordability issues in the Greater Toronto Area. BILD is the
voice of the home building, residential and non-residential land development and
professional renovation industries in the Greater Toronto Area. BILD advocates on
behalf of the building industry and works with government partners on key policies and
issues that affect development, building and home ownership in the Greater Toronto
Area (GTA).
1.2 The purpose of the Municipal Benchmarking Study is to compare approaches that
different municipalities have in place for the approval of new housing development. The
report also evaluates the cost implications of the municipal processes and policies. The
report was based on research conducted on 18 municipalities in the GTA by the Altus
Group.
1.3 It is important to identify that the report looks at specific municipal approaches and
policies that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in the GTA. The report
is not an exhaustive list of all the factors or inputs that contribute to the development
process and housing affordability in the GTA.
1.4 By using similar methodology and criteria to the Canadian Home Builders' Association
(CHBA) national study there is the ability to compare and contrast the different
approaches to planning on a provincial basis and its implications on housing
affordability (Attachment 2). There is a lack of purpose-built rental housing being built in
Ontario compared to the rest of Canada. It was also noted that delegating approval of
applications that meet defined criteria to staff, as occurs in Saskatchewan and Alberta,
had a significant impact in reducing timelines and having overall costs for the
development; however, it cannot be shown that these savings are passed onto the
homebuyer.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-047-20
Limitations of the Report
1.5 The report identifies that the information presented is the author's (Altus Group)
interpretation of municipal policies, by-laws, rate schedules, etc. Other assumptions
made in the report for measuring the impacts of the municipal processes on housing
affordability include land values and development unit yields from hypothetical
development sites.
1.6 The municipalities studied in the report were not consulted to verify if the interpretations
made were correct or to ascertain if additional information was available that could have
assisted in the preparation of this report. Staff participated in the October 29 briefing by
BILD and Altus Group for Durham. It was explained by the consultant that they used
Council and Committee reports so as not to bias the datasets, it was also noted that the
tracking is of public/government process, there is no accounting for delays caused by
the developer or their consultants. Typical files were selected, those with significant
public resistance and those appealed to LPAT were not included.
2. Discussion
2.1 The report focuses on three categories or processes specific to municipalities. The
three categories include planning features, municipal charges, and approval times. The
report also identifies additional demographic background information based on the
census data and information related to the trends in the types and tenure of housing
being constructed in the selected municipalities.
Planning Features
2.2 This refers to the number of municipal tools and processes that municipalities have
implemented to assist the development community. The tools identified in the review
and the percentage of municipalities that utilized each tool is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Planning features reviewed and percentage of Municipalities that
implement each tool
% of Municipalities with Feature
Development Guide 67%
Terms of Reference 47%
Development Application Tracking 75%
System — Active Applications
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-047-20
w
Feature
Development Application Tracking
Database — Historic Applications (see
below)
Application Tracking — Map (see 2.4
below)
Application Tracking — Supporting Fili
and Studies
Zoning — GIS file available (see 2.4 bel
Zoning — GIS Portal / Mapping
Page 4
2.3 Clarington was identified as utilizing 5 of the 8 tools listed in the chart above. Clarington
does not currently have zoning GIS files, historic application tracking or an application
tracking map publicly available. Currently, these tools are not being utilized due to
limitations of the existing software available to staff. It is expected that the new
Municipal Business Solution software will provide an opportunity to implement more
options for communicating application information to the general public and
development community.
2.4 Clarington has zoning GIS files, historic application tracking and an application tracking
map; however, they are available to staff only and require a geospatial data license to
access. Staff are currently building a public development application tracking application
to show current and historic applications. Staff have created an open data working
group that when fully implemented will make data such as zoning available to the public.
Municipal Charges
2.5 Municipal charges looked at development charges, planning application fees and
building permit fees imposed by municipalities. The fees were reviewed in hypothetical
scenarios to measure their impact on the cost per unit for different forms of
development.
Development Charges
2.6 The report reviewed the increase in development charges from 2009 to 2020 in each
municipality. The report identified the increases to the local and upper tier portions of
the development charges. The average increase among the 18 municipalities surveyed
was 137 percent between 2009 and 2020. Clarington ranked 4'" lowest in the amount
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-047-20
Page 5
of increase at 54 percent. Clarington had the lowest increase among the 4 Durham
Region municipalities reviewed.
Development Scenarios
2.7 The report created a low-rise and high-rise scenario to apply against each municipality's
total fees to determine the municipal fees for cost per unit. The report does not identify
the additional costs of development and does not provide an expected rate on return on
investment that would represent the developers profit.
2.8 The average cost identified for the low-rise scenario for all municipalities was $93,700
per unit. Clarington had the lowest cost at $54,258 per unit. Clarington's fees
represented 7.1 percent of the cost of developing a low-rise unit.
2.9 The average cost identified for the high-rise scenario for all municipalities was $57,800
per unit. Clarington had the lowest cost at $30,497 per unit. Clarington's fees
represented 6.9 percent of the cost of developing a high-rise unit.
2.10 Overall Clarington ranked as one of the best for the municipal charges' category. In
both scenarios Clarington had the lowest government charges per unit.
Approval Times
2.11 There are several limitations identified in the report related to the analysis of the
average timelines. In order to have significant data samples the authors reviewed and
included applications dating back to 2015 where required. This may lead to the data not
reflecting recent changes to municipal processes or the most recent timelines
associated with each application type.
2.12 The report does not review or account for the possible reasons for delays in application
timelines including the number of submissions required, elapsed time between
submissions, the scale of the development or encumbrances on the lands to be
developed.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-047-20
Table 2: Average timelines for Development Application Approvals
Page 6
8-37 months 9-25 months 7-25 months 8-14 months 12-30 months 9-24 months
16 months 15 months 15 months 9 months 18 months
** 12 months 13 months **
15 months
13 months
** the consultants indicated there was not sufficient information in the Council reports
reviewed to determine the timing. Clarington has between 20 and 40 Site Plans per
year, approval is delegated to the Directors of Planning and Engineering and thus would
not appear in Committee or Council reports. Typically, Clarington has between 3 and 6
Condominium and Official Plan applications per year. This may not have met the
sample size necessary for the consultant to consider them.
2.13 Clarington was near the lowest of the identified timeframes and below the average for
both Zoning By-law Amendments and Plan of Subdivision applications.
2.14 The report also indicated the estimated amount of staff allocated to the implementation
of 1,000 housing starts. The average across all municipalities was 75.1 employees per
1000 housing starts. Clarington was below the average, tied for 5t" lowest overall and
the lowest in Durham Region, with 57 employees per 1,000 housing starts. Of the
municipalities that had lower employees per 1,000 housing starts, three had approval
timeframes that were almost twice as long as Clarington's.
2.15 The report further concluded that applications appealed to the Local Planning Act
Tribunal (LPAT) were approximately double the average timeframes identified,
significantly delaying projects.
2.16 Overall, Clarington was identified as having some of the fastest approval timelines and
has one of the lowest staff rates identified in the study.
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PSD-047-20
Takeaways from the BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study
2.17 The report identifies several demographic changes and housing trends across the 18
Greater Toronto Area municipalities using 2006 and 2016 Census Data. This
information is useful to identify how Clarington compares to other municipalities in the
GTA regarding these indicators. Clarington staff completes a Growth Trends Review
each year to help identify many of the same topics identified in this report to Council and
the local development industry. In addition, early in the new year Council receives an
annual application report from both Planning and Building.
2.18 The report identifies several initiatives that municipalities are undertaking to help reduce
their development review processes and timelines. It is important that municipalities
review and evaluate their development review and service review processes from time
to time to ensure their services are meeting the needs of residents and the development
community. This can help identify where efficiencies can be found and help streamline
the review process. Identifying what different processes and process reviews other
municipalities are undertaking can provide examples. Staff can monitor the outcomes
of those projects to understand if they could be beneficial to utilize or implement in
Clarington. In 2018 Clarington undertook a deep dive into specific development
processes as part of the Process Enhancement Program (PEP) with the local
development community. Since that time the learnings have been applied across all the
processes including updates to all our procedure manuals.
2.19 The BILD report highlighted emerging themes from process reviews. The themes
included the need for continuous improvement, effective communication, delegating
authority to senior staff, pre -zoning lands and using technology to its fullest potential.
2.20 Clarington continues to streamline by implementing and reviewing several of the themes
identified in the following ways:
• The recently finalized organizational review looked at how all staff involved in the
development process interact. Significant changes have already been made as
Building Services has joined Planning in the newly formed Planning and
Development Services Department and Engineering and Operations have formed
the new Public Works Department.
• Clarington is in the process of implementing a new Municipal Business Solution
software. This software should allow staff to implement better application tracking
and relay better information to Council, the development industry and the public.
• Council has delegated Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan applications to the
Directors of Planning and Engineering. This delegation needs to be updated to
reflect the organizational review (another report on the agenda addresses this).
• Clarington is currently in the process of updating the Zoning By-laws through the
Zone Clarington project. Each Secondary Plan process includes the drafting of
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PSD-047-20
zoning by-laws to be implemented and thus reduce the number of applications
required to implement development within those planning areas.
• Clarington staff currently engage the public and the development community with
up to date information on projects within Clarington using the E-update, website
and Growth Trends Review.
3. Conclusion
3.1 The key findings of the BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study will assist in knowing
where we can improve processes. Clarington ranked 4t" overall out of 18 GTA
municipalities reviewed. Clarington ranked 1st out of the 4 Durham Region
municipalities reviewed. The report is focused on the municipal development review
process and is based on several interpretations and assumptions which limits the
effectiveness of the takeaways.
3.2 Clarington has some of the lowest fees in the GTA and is one of the best municipalities
at minimizing timelines, especially when looking at staff committed to achieving those
approvals. Staff continue to review ways to improve our existing processes and policies
and have a number of projects underway that should help Clarington excel in many of
the areas identified in the report in the future.
Staff Contact: Brandon Weiler, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 x2424 or
bweiler@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — BILD Municipal Benchmark Study
Attachment 2 - Altus Group presentation on national review
Interested Parties:
BILD and DRHBA
BILD Munici
Benchmarki„y ..PLu.ay
September 2020
A&L
AltusGroup BILD
�.�
. k
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Prepared for:
Building Industry and Land Development
Association (BILD)
Prepared by:
Altus Group Economic Consulting
33 Yonge Street Toronto Ontario WE 1 G4
Phone: (416) 641-9500 Fax: (416) 641-9501
economics@altusgroup.com
altusgroup.com
September 2020
September 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Altus Group Economic Consulting was retained by BILD to undertake a study
of several factors that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in
major housing markets across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), such as
municipal approval processes, resulting timelines for approvals, and
government charges levied by municipalities.
The study compares approaches that municipalities have in place to deal
with the approval and ultimate development of new housing and highlights
key features (and associated benefits of those features) in bringing new
housing to approval and ultimate construction, as well as the cost
implications of the municipal processes and policies. The analysis presented
in the study was based on research done on 18 municipalities across the
GTA.
Statistical and Demographic Overview
A review of statistical and demographic data in the municipalities under study
reveals several trends that are causes of, or effects of, housing affordability
issues throughout the GTA:
• Population is increasing in each municipality studied, and in most cases,
this trend is accompanied by falling average household sizes. This
phenomenon increases housing demand in two ways. The first effect is
through the straightforward addition of net new persons moving into a
municipality as part of an expanding population and the second effect of
household sizes falling results in needing more residential units at a
minimum just to house the existing population;
• There has been a significant increase in net international immigration and
net non -permanent residents (e.g. temporary workers, students, etc.) in
recent years, adding to demand for new housing;
In some areas of the GTA (Toronto, Peel, York), there has been a large
amount of net out -migration of residents from these areas to other parts
of the province (i.e. intraprovincial migration), particularly by adults
between ages 25 to 44 (as well as children aged 0 to 14), suggesting that
persons forming households, particularly young families, are searching
for locations with more affordable and/or suitable housing. The problem is
most evident in higher -priced markets that have fewer ground -related
family housing options being built;
• There has been a shift in the types of housing being built, with an
increased emphasis on apartment housing units in most municipalities
studied across the GTA. However, these housing units provide less
capacity for persons on a per -unit basis due to generally smaller unit
sizes, fewer bedrooms, etc. than most ground -related housing units;
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page i
September 2020
• While there has been a shift in household tenure towards renting in all
municipalities studied, the construction of purpose-built rental units
continue to be less than 10% of the housing starts in most municipalities
in the GTA (except in Toronto and Oshawa);
• Housing prices in the GTA municipalities studied have increased
significantly. Over the 2006-2018 period, average prices of absorbed
single detached homes have increased by an average of 158%, which
equates to average annual increase of 7.6%, compounded annually.
Analysis of Municipal Processes
To understand whether municipal processes could be improved to expedite
the review of new housing applications, or improve the quality of submissions
from applicants, we have reviewed the presence and nature of several
planning tools made available, or other features that may assist in making the
development application and approval more efficient:
• The method of implementation, level of transparency, and processes
regarding decision making can differ significantly from one municipality to
the next. There are large variations, such as the degree of authority
delegated to municipal staff, composition of planning approval
committees, structure of planning department, etc.
Some features, which could potentially help reduce development
approval timelines, are not used extensively by all municipalities.
Examples include development tracking portals that provide both an
applicant and other relevant parties insight into the status of applications
under review, easy to find resources that are frequently used or
requested like terms of reference for required studies, zoning maps and
other parcel level data, online submission portals to facilitate easy
submissions, etc.
• The number of studies that may be required by municipalities was found
to be onerous, with the requirements for an application in many
municipalities ranging from 17 to 28 different studies for a single project,
depending on the municipality, application type, and location of
development. The required quantity and variety of technical studies, even
if valid to ensure that developments are in the public interest, results in
significant costs to the applicant both directly in terms of time and
expense in retaining necessary experts to complete the required reports
and studies, but also the time to allow municipal staff to review and
comment on the findings of the various studies.
Analysis of Municipal Approval Timelines
After building a robust database of recently approved development
applications for the municipalities under study, it has been found that
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page ii
September 2020
Figure ES- 1
timelines for approvals from municipalities can, in some cases, take an
average of up to 2 years to obtain.
Applications requiring multiple application types took on average just 20% to
30% longer than applications that required one type of application,
suggesting that generally it is more efficient to bundle applications together
for concurrent review rather than to require them be submitted and approved
sequentially.
Applications requiring a ruling by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal
("LPAT"), either initiated by the applicant or another party, extended timelines
by nearly double compared to a municipal council approval. Seeking an
approval from the LPAT is very costly, time-consuming, and risky for the
applicant.
Additional time associated with getting overarching land use designations
approved, the pre -submission stage, and the construction approvals stages
were not part of the study, however, based on feedback from development
industry members, it is clear that the "pre -application" period represents
significant additional time over and above the timelines estimated for
development application approval.
Quantifying Municipal Charges on New Housing Development
The modelling of municipal charges on new housing development was based
on two hypothetical development scenarios — one low-rise, and the other
high-rise. The analysis found that in many municipalities there are significant
charges imposed by municipalities on new development, and that these
charges can vary significantly from one municipality to the next.
Development Scenario Average Government Average Government
Charge per Unit Charges as % of Housing
Prices
• - Development• 11 • ',
• - Development:11 1
For example, municipal charges on new housing developments are generally
the highest in municipalities located in York Region, Peel Region and the City
of Toronto.
The most significant charge in all of the studied municipalities is the
development charge (DCs), which are levied by each lower -tier, upper -tier
and single -tier municipality studied. Typically, DCs amount from 75% to 85%
of the total municipal charges payable for a new low-rise development, and
from 68% to 90% for high-rise.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page iii
September 2020
Figure ES- 2
The second most substantial charge was usually parkland dedication
requirement or cash -in -lieu payment, averaging to 17% of the total municipal
charges payable for low-rise development and 26% for high-rise.
Indirect Costs of Time Spent Gaining Approval
This report also quantifies the financial benefits of moving towards a more
efficient, responsive and/or streamlined municipal approvals, by quantifying
some of the "indirect" costs of time spent gaining municipal approvals. The
results of the modelling are expressed on the basis of `costs per month',
which puts all of the various elements of this analysis onto one equal basis
and allows for the calculation of impacts of time saved in the approvals
process to be quantified. The costs modelled include:
• Additional taxes payable on vacant land;
• Increases to municipal charges and fees;
• Carrying costs of loans;
• Construction cost and wage inflation
The costs stemming from each additional month a project spends in the
approvals process can add significantly to total project costs, and ultimately
those costs will be passed onto home buyers.
Low -Rise Development
High -Rise Development
Best Practices
$1.46 per square foot / month
$2.21 per square foot / month
The recently adopted Bill 108 has shortened timelines for municipal decisions
on development applications. Municipalities will have to render decisions
significantly more quickly in some cases. The benefit of these shortened
timelines should result in not only better timelines for developers, but it could
also create significant incentive for municipalities to re-examine their
processes, workflow, technology, and organizational structures to find
efficiencies and more effective ways of reviewing applications within the
allotted time.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page iv
September 2020
Figure ES- 3
ApplicationPlanning
Official Plan Amendment
0•
210 Days
0:
120 Days
Zoning By-law Amendment
150 Days
90 Days
Plan of Subdivision
180 Days
120 Days
Site Plan
30 Days
30 Days
Based on a scan of programs initiated by municipalities to improve their
development review processes, there are several key areas routinely
identified as being areas for improvement, including:
• Reducing miscommunication which can creates conflicts that lead to
delays;
• Pay close attention to workflows and team composition;
• Empower staff with more delegated powers;
• Reduce required statutory processes where possible; and
• Improvements are limited without technology.
Many of the best practices of the municipalities reviewed are highly
transferable, however, ultimately each municipality will have its own set of
unique circumstances that must be taken into account.
Conclusion
The overall findings in the report incorporate the rankings from the three
major elements studied that feed into housing affordability — providing tools
and features to improve quality of submissions, ensuring approvals are done
in an expedient manner, and housing costs stemming from government
charges that get borne by buyers/renters.
Overall, the municipalities of Barrie, Burlington and Oakville rank atop the list,
all three with top -half ranks in each of the categories. The largest
municipalities by population among those studied (Toronto, Mississauga,
Brampton, Markham, Vaughan) all rank on an overall basis no higher than
10th
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page v
September 2020
Figure ES- 4 Overall Scorecard - Planning Features, Government Charges, Approvals Timelines
Score
Planning
Government
Approvals
(Average
Features
Charges
Timelines
Rank)
rank = es
ran =owes
ran = es
ovver= a er
Barrie
2
3
5
3.3
Burlington
2
6
3
3.7
Oakville
2
9
4
5.0
Clarington
7
1
9
5.7
Oshawa
16
5
1
7.3
Rickering
11
2
10
7.7
Innisfil
15
7
2
8.0
Milton
7
10
n.a
8.5
Whitby
16
4
7
9.0
Toronto
1
14
15
10.0
Vaughan
6
17
8
10.3
Mississauga
9
11
13
11.0
Brampton
5
15
14
11.3
Richmond Hill
11
13
11
11.7
Caledon
9
12
16
12.3
Aurora
11
16
12
13.0
BWG
14
8
17
13.0
Markham
18
18
6
14.0
Note: Government Charges based on average of low-rise and high-rise scenarios, as measured by
government charges as % of housing prices
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
18
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page vi
September 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................... i
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................1
1.1 Background & Scope of Study..............................................................................1
1.2 Approach...............................................................................................................1
1.3 Caveats.................................................................................................................3
2 MUNICIPAL DATA.............................................................................
5
2.1 Census Data.........................................................................................................5
2.2 Housing Tenure...................................................................................................10
2.3 Housing Starts & Completions............................................................................11
2.4 Other Municipal Data..........................................................................................13
2.5 Municipal Staff per Capita...................................................................................14
2.6 Summary of Findings..........................................................................................15
3 MUNICIPAL UTILIZATION OF TOOLS AND PROCESSES ...........17
3.1 Listing of Municipal Tools and Processes............................................................17
3.2 Scorecard on Planning System Features............................................................17
3.3 Study Requirements............................................................................................19
3.4 Conclusions........................................................................................................19
4 ESTIMATES OF MUNICIPAL APPROVAL AND PERMIT
TIMELINES...................................................................................... 21
4.1 Approach.............................................................................................................21
4.2 Findings — Development Approval timelines.......................................................22
4.3 Additional insights...............................................................................................25
4.4 Conclusions........................................................................................................28
5 MUNICIPAL CHARGES ON NEW HOUSING .................................
30
5.1 Development Charges........................................................................................30
5.2 Education Development Charges........................................................................32
5.3 Planning & Approval Fees...................................................................................33
5.4 Parkland Dedication / Cash -in -Lieu of Parkland..................................................34
5.5 Section 37...........................................................................................................35
5.6 Land Transfer Taxes............................................................................................37
5.7 Other Government Charges Not Included in this Report.....................................37
5.8 Emerging Trends.................................................................................................37
5.9 Quantification of Municipal Charges and Fees....................................................38
6 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE
MUNICIPAL PROCESSES..............................................................
44
6.1 Taxes Payable on Vacant Land...........................................................................44
6.2 Increases to Municipal Charges and Fees..........................................................44
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page vii
September 2020
6.3 Carrying Costs of Loans......................................................................................45
6.4 Cost Inflation.......................................................................................................46
6.5 Conclusions........................................................................................................47
7 BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL PROCESSES 49
7.1 Overview of Current Initiatives............................................................................49
7.2 Themes Emerging from Process Reviews..........................................................54
8 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................57
8.1 Summary of Findings..........................................................................................57
8.2 Recommendations..............................................................................................58
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page viii
September 2020
Figure 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND & SCOPE OF STUDY
Altus Group Economic Consulting was retained by BILD to undertake a study
of several factors that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in
the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
The study looks at several factors such as municipal approval processes,
timelines for approvals, and government charges, and compares approaches
that studied municipalities have in place to deal with the approval and
ultimate development of new housing and makes an effort to highlight key
features and associated benefits in bringing new housing to approval and
ultimate construction.
In addition to reviewing the direct costs municipalities place on new housing
developments, the study also looks at the potential implications of approval
processes and the typical approval timelines by estimating the indirect costs
associated with time that applications may spend in the review and approval
process.
1.2 APPROACH
1.2.1 Topics Covered
This report looks at several areas that have direct links to issues related to
housing supply and/or housing affordability, including factors that impact the
timeliness in which developers and landowners are able to bring new housing
supply onto the market, and the costs of developing new housing.
Subject Area Approach
Demographic and Statistical Provide overview of trends in housing construction
Overview (tenure, form, prices), and shifts in population.
Analysis of Municipal Planning Review of the features and tools utilized by
Approval Processes municipalities to facilitate more efficient and
transparent development processes.
Review of Municipal Charges Using two hypothetical development scenarios,
Imposed on New Development estimate the direct costs that municipalities levy on
new housing developments, costs which are
ultimately passed on to new home buyers (or
renters) through higher prices (or rents).
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 1
September 2020
Sampling of Municipal Approvals
Timelines
Estimating the amount of time that typical
development applications spend in the municipal
approvals process.
Quantification of Indirect Costs of
Estimating the indirect costs associated with each
Time Associated with Approval
additional month a development application is in the
Processes
approvals process.
Analysis and Review of Best
A high-level review of recent and ongoing initiatives
Practices
that municipalities or Provincial governments are
taking to streamline approvals processes, reduce
costs of development, etc.
The various sections of the report flow so as to create a picture of the
potential causes, effects, and impacts of housing affordability.
Figure 2
How Components of Report Relate to Each Other
and Affect Housing Affordability
The section on municipal processes attempts to show how features present
in the provincial and municipal planning systems can and do impact
approvals timelines. The analysis of municipal timelines analyses a robust
sample of recent development approvals in municipalities across the GTA to
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 2
September 2020
Figure 3
understand what typical timelines are. The analysis of indirect costs
associated with approval timelines expresses the costs that each month
spent gaining approval can add to the development of residential projects.
Both the indirect costs associated with approvals timelines and the
government charges quantified in a separate section, which are directly
charged to developers and landowners, impact housing affordability as
developers and home builders seek to recover development costs through
home prices.
1.2.2 Geographic Scope
The study looks at the planning processes in a total of 18 municipalities in the
Greater Toronto Area:
Toronto
MunicipalityRegion Area
City of Toronto
York Region
Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, and Aurora
Peel Region
Brampton, Mississauga, and Caledon
Halton Region
Oakville, Burlington, and Milton
Durham Region
Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, and Clarington
Simcoe County
Barrie, Innisfil, and Bradford West Gwillimbury (or
"BWG")
1.3 CAVEATS
The report looks at factors that may be contributing to housing affordability
issues in the Greater Toronto Area, such as planning processes,
demographic factors, government charges, timelines for gaining approvals for
new housing, etc. However, these factors are not meant to represent an
exhaustive list of factors that contribute towards housing affordability issues.
The information presented in this report is based on interpretation of various
municipal policies, by-laws, rate schedules, etc. While every effort has been
made to interpret these materials accurately, there can be no certainty that
municipal stakeholders will apply their policies and rates in the same manner
as interpreted here.
The models at the core of this report frequently rely upon inputs and
assumptions, such as assumed land values, estimated housing prices, and
development yields from hypothetical development sites. These inputs and
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 3
September 2020
assumptions are intended for the purposes contained herein, and should not
be used for any other purposes, or relied upon in any manner other than how
they are used within this report.
The data presented in this report is based on the latest data available as of
the writing of the report, but given the types of data used, the most recent
iteration of data may vary from one chart, table, or figure to the next. For
example, as of the time of writing of this report, CMHC data on housing starts
is available to the end of 2019, while Statistics Canada Census data is only
current as of mid-2016.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 4
September 2020
Figure 4
2 MUNICIPAL DATA
This section provides a high-level overview of key demographic
characteristics in the studied municipalities, and presents some key statistics
related to housing development and affordability in these markets.
2.1 CENSUS DATA
2.1.1 Population Change
Figure 4 shows the population in each of the municipalities being studied in
this report, and the average annual change over the past two five-year
Census periods. The average annual change in these municipalities has
been 1.68% per year for the 2006-2011 period, and 1.16% for the 2011-2016
period.
Population and Average Annual Population Change, Selected Municipalities, 2006-
2016
Average Annual Population
Population
Change
2006
2011
2016
2006-2011 2011-2016
Municipality
Persons
Percent Change
Burlington
164,415
175,779
183,314
1.35%
0.84%
Oakville
165,613
182,520
193,832
1.96%
1.21%
Milton
53,939
84,362
110,128
9.36%
5.48%
Mississauga
668,549
713,443
721,599
1.31%
0.23%
Brampton
433,806
523,906
593,638
3.85%
2.53%
Caledon
57,050
59,460
66,502
0.83%
2.26%
Toronto
2,503,281
2,615,060
2,731,571
0.88%
0.88%
Vaughan
238,866
288,301
306,233
3.83%
1.21%
Richmond Hill
162,704
185,541
195,022
2.66%
1.00%
Markham
261,573
301,709
328,966
2.90%
1.74%
Aurora
47,629
53,203
55,445
2.24%
0.83%
Pickering
87,838
88,721
91,771
0.20%
0.68%
Whitby
111,184
122,022
128,377
1.88%
1.02%
Oshawa
141,590
149,607
159,458
1.11%
1.28%
Clarington
77,820
84,548
92,013
1.67%
1.71%
Bradford West Gwillimbury
24,039
28,077
35,325
3.15%
4.70%
Innisfil
31,175
32,727
36,566
0.98%
2.24%
Barrie
128,430
136,063
141,434
1.16%
0.78%
Total
5,359,501
5,825,049
6,171,194
1.68%
1.16%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006, 2011 and 2016 Census Data
2.1.2 Average Household Size
Figure 5 shows the number of private occupied dwellings in each
municipality, and the average household size, as well as how the average
household sizes have changed between 2006 and 2016.
In most studied municipalities, the average household size has declined over
the 10-year 2006-2016 period, significantly so in some cases. A decline in
average household size in a municipality can be driven by many
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 5
September 2020
demographic factors, including declining fertility rates, an increase in the
number of persons living alone, etc. However, declining average household
sizes means that there is a demand for new housing even if the overall
population was unchanged.
Figure 5 Private Occupied Dwellings, Average Household Size, and Change in Average
Household Size, Selected Municipalities, 2006-2016
Municipality
Burlington
Oakville
Milton
Mississauga
Brampton
Caledon
Toronto
Vaughan
Richmond Hill
Markham
Aurora
Pickering
Whitby
Os haw a
Clarington
Bradford West Gw illimbury
Innisfil
Barrie
Private Occupied Dwellings Average Household Size
2006
2016
Households
63,255
71,373
56,575
66,269
18,465
34,257
214,925
240,913
125,930
168,011
18,210
21,256
979,440
1,112,929
69,535
94,253
51,000
64,116
77,195
102,676
15,655
18,851
28,220
30,919
37,240
43,529
54,925
62,595
26,850
32,838
7,950
11,591
11,400
13,364
46,515
52,476
4111I1-1
2.60
2.93
2.92
3.11
3.44
3.13
2.56
3.44
3.19
3.39
3.04
3.11
2.99
2.58
2.90
3.02
2.73
2.76
2016
Persons per Unit
2.57
2.92
3.21
3.00
3.53
3.13
2.45
3.25
3.04
3.20
2.94
2.97
2.95
2.55
2.80
3.05
2.74
2.70
Total 1,903,285 2,242,216 2.82 2.75
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006 and 2016 Census Data
Chanae
(0.03)
(0.00)
0.29
(0.12)
0.09
(0.00)
(0.10)
(0.19)
(0.15)
(0.18)
(0.10)
(0.14)
(0.04)
(0.03)
(0.10)
0.02
0.00
(0.07)
(0.06)
Of the 18 municipalities, the average household size increased in four
municipalities, including Milton (+0.29 persons per unit), Brampton (+0.09),
BWG (+0.02) and Innisfil where there was a slight increase. In the other 14
municipalities, there were slight -to -significant declines, with decreases
upwards of 0.14 to 0.19 persons per unit in municipalities such as Vaughan,
Richmond Hill, Markham, and Pickering.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 6
September 2020
Figure 6
Change in Average Household Size, 2006-2016
Persons per Unit
Burlington
(0.03) -
Oakville
(0.00)
Milton
-
Mississauga
(0.12)
Brampton
0.09
Caledon
(0.00)
Toronto
(0.10)
Vaughag0.19)
Richmond Hill
(0.15)
Markham(0.19)
Aurora
(0.10)
Pickering
(0.15)
Whitby
(0.04) -
Oshawa
(0.03) -
Clarington
(0.10)
BWG
0.02
Innisfil
0.00
Barrie
(0.07)
-
(0.20)
(0.15) (0.10)
(0.05) - 0.05 0.10
Source: Altus Group
based on 2006 and 2016 Census data
2.1.3 Migration Data
0.15 0.20 0.25
Using Statistics Canada data on migration can provide information on the
sources of population change within the upper -tier (or single -tier)
municipalities with the GTA. Beyond natural life factors that affect population
(such as births and deaths), there are four key flows of people into and out of
municipalities and regions:
• Intraprovincial migration - persons moving in/out of the municipality or
metropolitan area, but staying within the same province;
• Net immigration - persons arriving from outside of Canada (as
permanent residents) minus persons that were living in Canada leaving
the country;
• Net Interprovincial migration — net inflow or outflow of persons moving
into of a municipality or region from another province (or vice versa);
• Net non -permanent residents — net inflow or outflow of persons such as
temporary workers, students, etc.
For example, over the 10-year period ending mid -year 2019, the City of
Toronto has seen several distinct movements of population in and out of the
City:
• A net outflow of 277,200 persons that have left the City for other parts of
the province of Ontario (intraprovincial migration);
• An additional 411,400 persons residing in the City from net immigration
(persons coming to reside in the City from outside of Canada);
0.29
0.30
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 7
September 2020
• A net inflow of approximately 22,700 persons moving to reside in the City
from interprovincial migration — persons moving to the City from other
places in Canada outside of Ontario; and
• An additional 124,600 net new non -permanent residents (comprised on
international students, temporary workers, etc.).
Figure 7 Migration by Census Division, 2009-2010 to 2018-2019, Ranked by Net Intraprovincial Migration
Net Intraprovincial
Net Interprovincial
Net Non -Permanent
Migration
Net Immigration
Migration
Residents
Amount
Rank
Amount Rank
Amount
Rank
Amount
Rank
Total
Census Division
Persons
Persons
Persons
Persons
Simcoe County
71,112
1
2,714
6 (6,864)
4
6,120
4
73,082
Durham Region
53,487
2
14,061
5 (8,029)
5
4,731
6
64,250
Halton Region
43,342
3
18,936
4 455
2
5,687
5
68,420
York Region
(2,373)
4
73,122
3 (510)
3
12,977
3
83,216
Peel Region
(110,545)
5
189,668
2 (8,420)
6
53,720
2
124,423
Toronto
(277,222)
6
411,423
1 22,715
1
124,639
1
281,555
Source: Statistics Canada,
2018-2019 Annual
Demographic Estimates
A significant outflow of persons from a municipality to other parts of a
province (intraprovincial migration) can be due to households leaving an area
due to a lack of desired housing options in a municipality, or the
unaffordability of the housing options that are available. Of the six regions
within the GTA, three (Toronto, Peel and York) are experiencing net outflows
of residents to other parts of Ontario, significantly so for Toronto and Peel. In
these three regions, the net number of persons leaving the regions for other
pars of Ontario has been increasing in Peel and York, and more recently so
in Toronto.
Figure 8 Annual Net Intraprovincial Migration — Toronto, Peel and York
2006-2018
20,000
10,000 Toronto Peel York
0 -
-10,000
-20,000 '
-30,000
-40,000
-50,000
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010111 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates data
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 8
September 2020
For the three other regions within the GTA that have been seeing net inflows
of people from elsewhere in the province:
• The net inflows in Halton have been decreasing steadily from the highs of
2006-2010, but remain positive on an annual basis;
• The net inflows into Durham have generally remained steady at between
4,000 and 6,000 persons per year; and
• The net inflows into Simcoe have been increasing, with the last four
years the highest in the 13-year period, all at or above 8,000 persons of
net inflow.
Figure 9 shows the annual Intraprovincial trends for Halton, Durham and
Simcoe.
Figure 9 Annual Net Intraprovincial Migration — Halton, Durham and Simcoe
2006-2018
12.000
■ Durham Halton Simcoe
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 '
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates data
To understand the nature of the Intraprovincial flows to/from the six GTA
regions to/from other parts of Ontario, Figure 10 below shows Intraprovincial
migration by age for the year 2018-2019.
Areas with outflows are seeing the net outflows driven by persons aged 25-
44. Meanwhile, Halton, Durham and Simcoe are gaining persons in this age
group from other parts of the province, with a significant proportion likely
coming from nearby places such as Peel, York and Toronto.
The data appears to indicate that a lack of housing both affordable and
suitable for families is resulting in younger families (and their children)
leaving the inner parts of the metropolitan areas (Toronto, Peel, York) that
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 9
September 2020
generally have higher prices for areas with more affordably priced and
suitable housing options for families.
Figure 10 Intraprovincial Migration for Age Group 25-44, 2018-2019, Greater Toronto Area
4,000 Number of Persons
2,211
2,000
0
-2, 000
-4, 000
-6, 000
-8, 000
-10,000
-12,000
-12,131
1,321
-14,000
Halton Peel Toronto York
Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates, 2018-2019
2.2 HOUSING TENURE
3,003
Durham
3,118
Simcoe
An analysis of the tenure of occupied dwellings shows that there has been an
increase in the share of renter households in every one of the studied
municipalities. As of 2016, only five (5) of the 18 municipalities have shares
of renter households greater than 20%.
An increased share of renter households does not necessarily mean that
there has been an increase in the amount or share of housing built as
`purpose-built' rental housing. Instead, this could also mean that there has
been an increase in the size of the secondary rental market (rented single -
detached, semi-detached, townhouse units, and condominium apartments
put on the secondary rental market).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 10
September 2020
Figure 11 Household Tenure in Studied Municipalities, Ranked by Highest Share of
Renter Households in 2016
% Increase in
Share of Renter Households
Households by
Tenure
Change in
2006
2016
Pct. Points
Ow ner
Renter
Municipality
Percent
Share
Percent Change
Toronto
45.6%
47.2%
1.6
10%
18%
Oshawa
30.1 %
31.5%
1.4
12%
19%
Barrie
23.6%
28.8%
5.2
5%
38%
Mississauga
25.0%
27.7%
2.7
8%
24%
Burlington
20.4%
23.6%
3.2
8%
30%
Brampton
18.5%
20.0%
1.5
31 %
44%
Oakville
15.9%
18.3%
2.4
14%
35%
Richmond Hill
13.7%
17.6%
3.8
20%
61 %
Bradford West Gw illimbury
17.2%
17.3%
0.1
46%
47%
Whitby
16.0%
16.7%
0.7
16%
22%
Aurora
14.2%
16.1 %
1.9
18%
36%
Milton
11.9%
14.1 %
2.2
81 %
120%
Markham
11.3%
13.9%
2.7
29%
64%
Pickering
10.9%
12.6%
1.7
7%
26%
Clarington
11.2%
11.9%
0.7
21 %
30%
Innisfil
6.7%
11.6%
4.9
11%
103%
Vaughan
7.3%
10.4%
3.1
31%
94%
Caledon
8.6%
9.2%
0.6
16%
25%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006 and 2016 Census of Canada
2.3 HOUSING STARTS & COMPLETIONS
Figure 12 shows how housing starts by housing type have changed in the
studied municipalities over the past ten years, as broken out into separate
five-year periods.
Figure 12 Change in Housing Starts by Structure Type
Selected Municipalities, 2010-2019, by 5-Year Period
70 % Percent
■ 2010-2014 ■ 2015-2019
60 %
50 %
40 %
30% 27.00%
20.70%
20 %
12.40% 13.30%
10%
4.90%
2-
.20% on
0
Single -Detached Semi -Detached Row House
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Starts data
63.80%
Apartment
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 11
September 2020
There has been an increasing proportion of housing starts in higher density
forms such as row houses and apartment, while lower density housing forms
(single -detached and semi-detached) have declined in share.
Of the 18 municipalities studied, 14 municipalities have seen declines in the
share of ground -related housing starts over the past two five-year periods
(see Figure 13). The only municipalities with increases in share of ground -
related housing have been Richmond Hill, Oakville, and Aurora, however,
these increases were relatively modest, ranging from increases in share of
1.1 to 5.9 percentage points. The share of ground -related housing in Bradford
West Gwillimbury has remained unchanged, at 100% in both periods.
Figure 13 Change in Share of Ground -Related Housing Starts by Municipality
2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
N
10 % o a N 'm OD N N
N `t0 c�0 V 6�J
0%
0J\cA�oc Oa�;;e �\tioc eyyyaJ�a �`a�Qoc
aoc
ae
G
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data
■2010-2014 ■2015-2019
c�A era aka , oc
G�
An analysis of the tenure of occupied dwellings shows that despite the
number of renter households increasing, there has been a lack of purpose-
built rental housing construction in the Greater Toronto Area, with only two
municipalities seeing more than 10% of new housing starts be purpose-built
rental in the last five years (Oshawa at 24.5% of housing starts, and Toronto
at 13.0%).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 12
September 2020
Figure 14 Share of Rental Tenure Housing Starts, by Municipality
2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019
25.0 %
■2010-2014 ■2015-2019
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0
c o= o c o lido 0
0.0 % —
aAa°c `°c�O
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data
The number of rental housing starts increased by 87% from the 2010-2014
period to the 2015-2019 period. On average, among studied municipalities,
rental housing starts comprised just 8.4% of all housing starts over the past
five years, although that share was higher than the 4.9% share of rental
housing in the prior five-year period.
2.4 OTHER MUNICIPAL DATA
2.4.1 Housing Prices
Housing prices in the studied municipalities have increased significantly. Over
the 2006-2018 period, based on CMHC data, average prices of absorbed
single -detached homes have increased by an average of 158%.1 Figure 15
shows the changes in absorbed single -detached housing prices over the
2006-2018 period.
The percentage change in absorbed single -detached housing prices should be used with some
caution as the data does not control for size of single -detached dwellings in the sample, meaning
that the data set could be skewed towards luxury estate lots in one period, but smaller single -
detached dwellings in a residential subdivision in another period.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 13
September 2020
Figure 15 Change in Absorbed Single -Detached Housing Prices
2006-2018
450
416%
400 %
350 %
300 % 288%
257%
250% 241
200 %
150%
100 %
50 %
0%
�\ a� JAa rac ��oc coca �A 0 aka oc`O tioc a y�J cca
oa�oca �a�r yyaya JaJ� Pa �c A Oaa �o� G`�cc0 Oav \cam �a
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data
83%
65
17%
�Q, oc �a``cA �Co aaoc
� a
Ica Quo G
2.5 MUNICIPAL STAFF PER CAPITA
Using available municipal data, an analysis was undertaken to estimate the
number of staff (expressed as Full -Time Equivalent or FTE) that
municipalities have made available to review development and building
permit applications as a significant part of their day-to-day work.
Figure 16 Municipal Planning Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts
160 Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts
143
140
120
104 97
100
88
82 80
80 74 14 74 Avg: 75.1
60 57 53
49
40 30
20
0
'o�G� ao� ,\
y5���mJ�\� �\�o� '�o
Note: Housing Starts in denominator are based on annual average over 2015-2019 period
Note: Staff counts include planning and development staff, and staff responsible for building permits
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data, municipal data
93
86
57
71
41
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 14
September 2020
To compare municipal staffing across municipalities of varying sizes, we have
put all employee counts on a per 1,000 housing starts basis, based on an
average of housing starts from the past five years.
Across the studied municipalities there is an average of approximately 75
municipal planning staff per 1,000 housing starts.
For those municipalities with below average staffing levels, the relative
outliers are Aurora, Toronto and Innisfil, which each have less than 50
municipal planning staff per 1,000 annual housing starts. This suggests that
these municipalities may not have sufficient staffing resources to process
applications going forward, particularly in busy years, although it could also
suggest that staff at municipalities at the low -end of the scale have to -date
been relatively efficient in getting housing applications processed with the
resources available. However, in several cases (Aurora, Innisfil, Toronto,
Brampton), low staffing levels coincides with longer municipal approval
timelines.
Those municipalities with above -average staffing levels are Burlington,
Richmond Hill, and Mississauga, each of which have more than 95 planning
staff per 1,000 annual housing starts. This suggests these municipalities
would have the capacity available to take on a surge in housing
development, should one arrive in the coming years.
2.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on our review of demographic and statistical information for the
studied municipalities, we have found the following:
• Population is increasing in each municipality studied, but in many cases,
this trend is accompanied by falling average household sizes. Both of
these add to housing demand — one from net new persons moving into a
municipality, and a second from more housing units being needed just to
house the existing population;
• In several parts of the GTA (York, Peel and Toronto), there has been a net
out -migration of residents from these areas to other parts of Ontario,
particularly by adults between aged 25-44 (as well as children aged 0-
14), suggesting that persons forming households (particularly families)
are leaving to other areas where they're able to better afford and/or more
readily find their desired housing product. Halton, Durham and Simcoe
have seen net inflow of persons aged 25-44, suggesting that these areas
are currently able to meet the demands of younger families for affordable
and suitable housing;
• Each of the studied municipalities have seen an increase in the number
of renter households, however, purpose-built rental housing construction
remains a relatively minor component of overall housing construction;
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 15
September 2020
• There has been a shift in the types of housing being built, with much
more emphasis on apartment housing units in most municipalities
studied;
• The staffing levels at municipalities are generally consistent when
expressed on a `per 1,000 housing starts' basis, though there are a few
outliers (high and low), which may indicate municipalities that are able to
respond (or not) to surges in housing development activity going forward.
In some cases, low staffing levels coincides with longer municipal approval
timelines (Aurora, Innisfil, Brampton, Toronto).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 16
September 2020
3 MUNICIPAL UTILIZATION OF TOOLS AND PROCESSES
This section of the report reviews the tools that are available to municipalities
to assist staff in reviewing development applications, or help applicants
navigate the requirements for their development submissions.
3.1 LISTING OF MUNICIPAL TOOLS AND PROCESSES
We have identified numerous features or approaches taken by Ontario
municipalities that may positively or negatively influence the ability to get new
housing approved and ultimately built in a more expedient fashion than
otherwise possible.
Each municipality is scored on whether they have tools or utilize processes
that can be deemed beneficial to an efficient planning approvals system or to
increase transparency for developers and other stakeholders.
The features reviewed are as follows:
• Online development application submission or building permit application
portal;
• The availability of a "development guide", which shows required studies
and components of various planning applications, to ensure applicants
understand the requirements of applications and achieve `complete
application' status;
• Clear terms of reference for required studies;
• Online status list or tracking system for active development applications,
as well as whether mapping of applications is provided, and supporting
studies and plans are provided;
• Online zoning, including whether a GIS file and/or a GIS portal available.
The following section of the report presents our measures of how each
studied municipality utilizes these tools and features, and what proportion of
the 18 municipalities studied are each tool or feature.
3.2 SCORECARD ON PLANNING SYSTEM FEATURES
Based on our review, many tools and processes are already present in most
of the 18 municipalities, though no single feature is fully present in more than
three-quarters of municipalities.
The most frequently utilized tool is a tracking system for active development
applications, while very few municipalities provide clear terms of reference for
studies required to be submitted with development applications. A lack of
clarity regarding study requirements can result in unnecessary re -
submissions and delay the ability to submit a fully complete application.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 17
September 2020
Figure 17
Figure 18
Feature
Development Guide
% of Municipalities with Feature
67%
Terms of Reference
47%
Development Application Tracking
System — Active Applications
75%
Development Application Tracking
Database — Historic Applications
42%
Application Tracking — Map
64%
Application Tracking — Supporting
Files and Studies
56%
Zoning — GIS file available
22%
Zoning — GIS Portal / Mapping
72%
Another feature explored, but complicated due to COVID-19 adaptation by
municipalities is the availability of online submission portals for development
applications and/or building permit applications.
Of the studied municipalities only one municipality utilized all eight tools
(Toronto) and processes, and some only utilized a few of the tools and
processes.
of Features (out of 8)
7 or more
MunicipalitiesNumber
Features
Barrie, Brampton, Oakville,
Burlington, Toronto
Between 5 and 7
Clarington, Milton, Vaughan
Between 3 and 5
BWG, Pickering, Caledon,
Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Aurora
Below 3
Innisfil, Whitby, Oshawa, Markham
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 18
September 2020
3.3 STUDY REQUIREMENTS
Many planning applications require numerous studies, plans and technical
reports to be submitted to satisfy municipal staff regarding the nature of the
proposal and detailing any potential impacts on the community.
A review of development guides for seven municipalities, including some
lower -tier, upper -tier and single -tier municipalities shows the range of
potential studies that may be required for a development application — the full
list of potential studies is presented in Figure 19.
We have found almost 60 different types of studies, with most applications
usually requiring some combination of 20-30 of these studies, depending on
the municipality, location of the development and the type of building(s) and
uses being proposed.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
The review of utilization of planning tools and processes has found that some
tools that could assist with potentially streamlining municipal processes and
commenting periods, or would improve the quality of submissions from
applicants, such as online submission portals and detailed terms of reference
for technical studies required for review of development applications are
often not used in many of the municipalities studied.
A review of the list of studies that may be required by municipalities shows
that some development applications may be burdened with a vast array of
study requirements - in some cases potentially in the range of 20-30 studies
for a single project, depending on the municipality, application type, and
location of development.
The required quantity and variety of technical studies, even if necessary to
ensure that developments are in the public interest, results in significant
costs to retain experts necessary to complete the studies and adds
significant time for the studies to be completed, and then reviewed by
municipal staff. The greater the number of studies also likely increases the
likelihood of revisions and resubmissions, adding more time to the approvals
process.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 19
September 2020
Studies and Technical Reports / Plans That May Be Required in Select Municipalities
Figure 19
Municipality
Toronto
Durham
Clarington
Halton
Oakville
Simcoe
Barrie
Affordable Housing Report
X
X
Agricultural Impact/ Assessment
X
X
X
X
Air Quality Study
X
Arborist Tree Reservation Report
X
X
X
X
Archeological Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
Block Master Ran
X
Community Services and Facilities Study
X
Contaminated Site Assessment
X
X
Contamination Management Plan
X
Earth Science Heritage Evaluatio
X
Electromagnetic Field Management Ran / Study
X
Energy Strategy
X
X
Enviromental Site Assessment
X
X
X
X
Environmental evaluation study
X
Environmental Impact Study
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Erosion or Natural Hazard Assessment
X
X
X
Financial Impact Study
X
X
X
X
X
Fire Access Plan
Fisheries ImpacttMarina Impact Study
X
X
Floodplain Report
X
X
Geotechnical Study / Soils Report
X
X
X
X
X
X
Healthy Communities
X
Heritage Impact Report
X
X
X
X
X
X
Housing Issues Report
X
Hydrogeology / Groundwater Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
Landfill Impact Study
X
Landform Conservation Ran
X
Landscaping Plan
X
Lighting Plan
X
X
X
Linkage Assessment
X
Loading Study
X
Marine archaeological assessment
X
Market Impact Study
X
X
X
Natural Heritage Impact Study
X
X
X
Noise Impact Study
X
X
X
X
X
X
Odour/Dust/Nuisance Imapct Report
X
X
X
X
X
Parking Study
X
Parkland Impact Study / Recreation Needs
X
Planning Rationale / Justification
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Public Consultation Strategy Report
X
Rental Housing Conversion Report
X
Servicing Report
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Slope Stability Report
X
X
X
Stormvater Management / Drainage Report
X
X
X
X
X
Streetscape Plan
X
Sun/Shadow Study
X
X
Sustainability Report
X
Topographical Survey
X
Traffic Operations Assessment
X
X
Transportation Impact Study
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Urban Design Report
X
X
X
X
Vegetation Inventory
Vibration Study
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Water conservation plan
X
Water Quality Study
X
Watershed Study
X
Wellhead Risk Assessment Report
X
X
Wind Study
X
X
X
Note: Some studies shown as not being required may actually be required within
other
larger studies
shown, depending on the specific
terms of reference for each study. In most instances, the studies listed may only
be required for some application types,
or only in
some circumstances.
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Municipal Off ical Plans
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 20
September 2020
4 ESTIMATES OF MUNICIPAL APPROVAL AND PERMIT
TIMELINES
Lengthy timelines for development application approvals from municipalities
are a common complaint of development industry stakeholders. This section
reviews findings from exhaustive research into timelines for recently
approved applications for most municipalities studied in this report.
4.1 APPROACH
Altus Group endeavoured to measure typical approval timelines for
development applications in various municipalities across the Greater Toronto
Area.
The approval timelines were measured from the date a municipality provided
acknowledgment that an application was deemed 'complete'2 to when a
planning approval was provided by the municipality. The nature of a `planning
approval' can take many forms, including approvals provided by a
municipality for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, draft
plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium, site plan approval, or a
combination thereof.
Although contingent on the availability of data provided by municipalities, it
was possible to undertake a few types of analyses of approval timelines for
different applications types for municipalities in the study. However, not every
municipality made available all necessary information to do the analysis for
all application types, and there are some municipalities where certain types
of applications are relatively rare (i.e., subdivision applications in the City of
Toronto). Only in instances where it was possible to obtain robust samples for
particular application types are findings shared. An overview of the sources
for data informing our analysis are summarized in the following table.
It should be noted that while the analysis focuses on the time between
complete application and municipal approval, it does not account for the
significant period of time that an application may take to achieve a 'complete
application' status (i.e. "pre -submission"), nor the period of time from
development approval to building permit approval. There are also significant
timelines associated with the process of getting vacant land designated for
urban uses (e.g. greenfield development) — often this process can take
several years, and in some cases can take upwards of 10 or more years.
z Such as, direct affirmations of an application's complete status date or the date a notice of a public
meeting was provided.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 21
September 2020
Figure 20
Figure 21
Data Source• •
Municipal Some municipalities provide comprehensive lists of recently approved applications.
Application Often, data can be extracted from the published records about date of complete
Status Lists application, date of approval(s), etc.
Council / Each municipality studied makes some amount of information regarding development
Committee approvals through agendas, minutes, and associated documents and reports
Agendas, available through Council / Committee meeting portals. Council / committee agendas
Minutes, Staff were carefully reviewed to tabulate development approvals, with searches then
Reports undertaken for sources with a recorded date of complete application — often this
information is contained within the staff report recommending approval.
Open Data Some municipalities make datasets available with recently approved development
Portals applications, which often include data regarding the date of complete application, and
approval (and for which planning instruments planning approvals were obtained).
The diagram below depicts the major elements of the land development and
building approval process and highlights the element that this analysis of
municipal timelines focuses on.
Designation
of Lands for
Urban Uses
•Amendment to
otAalal Plan: at
Secondary Plan.
etc,
coost"on with
municipality to understand
requirements far
submissions
Securing experts, and
preparauan orreports
---------------
v
Development
- - •
I
I t
I + I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
' SUbml55ion o
cample*
I appllcatlon I
I •Municipal review I
I al planning I
Instruments
I tzonmg
t amendment, I
subdivision. site
plan, etc_)
I
I I
Focus of Analysis
4.2 FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TIMELINES
4.2.1 Overview of Methodology
The analysis summarized below is based on a significant amount of work to
collect a robust sample as possible. Nearly 1,000 development applications
that were approved by a municipality were reviewed and recorded in the
process of data collection. However, it should be noted that this analysis
does not include timelines associated with the following:
• Developments that were refused by the municipality and may have been
subject to an appeals process (in this instance, likely appealed by the
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 22
September 2020
applicant). Where those applications are ultimately approved by the Local
Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT), this adds considerable time to the
approvals process, but the timelines associated with these developments
are not included in our analysis. The approval periods for applications
that were subject to LPAT appeal processes are left out as the additional
time required to obtain approval from an LPAT process is not necessarily
reflective of issues with municipal processes, and timelines for
applications subject to the LPAT process can be lengthy due to
productive reasons such as time spent in settlement discussions, or other
reasons that are not in the control of the municipality, such as LPAT case
backlogs that delays the scheduling of hearings;
• Appeal periods related to developments that were approved by the
municipality, but appealed by other stakeholders to LPAT, which would
add considerable time onto the approval period — this additional time is
not accounted for in this study;
• Applications that are obvious outliers - records where the timelines
significantly exceeded the average of most other data points in the
sample. Some application approvals may, for example, involve lands that
have been sold to a new owner who has decided to make modifications
to a pre-existing submission, however as these instances are not
necessarily the fault of the municipality, they have not been included.
The data sample includes the most current application approvals for each
municipality. However, given the scale of development in some municipalities,
it was necessary to collect information for applications that received an
approval as far back as 2015 in order to reach a robust sample size.
Therefore, the `average' timelines presented may not necessarily be
reflective of a typical timeline in 2019/2020 or capture impacts of more recent
improvements that municipalities may have made in the last 12-24 months.
The data averages presented in Figure 22 looks at how long, on average, a
development application took for the municipality to approve but does not
distinguish between applications that had multiple concurrent submissions
and applications that were submitted as consecutive submissions (one after
another), or submissions that required only one application. The timelines for
developments requiring only `single' approval versus `multiple' approvals is
analyzed separately and presented in a later section of this report.
4.2.2 Findings
The analysis shows significant variations in the approval timelines of
municipalities. Generally, the more populous and urban municipalities (i.e.
Mississauga, Brampton, and Toronto) had longer timelines, while more
suburban or exurban municipalities had shorter timelines.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 23
September 2020
Figure 22
Only four municipalities, Oshawa, Innisfil, Burlington and Oakville had
average approval timelines below 12 months, while another nine
municipalities had averages that fell within a range from 12 to 18 months. In
four municipalities, the average timeline for municipal approvals ranges from
18 to 24 months. For one municipality (Milton), there was not enough
available data found on municipal approvals to include in the report.
Average Approval Timelines by Application Type, by Municipality
Municipality Official Plan Zoning By-law Plan of Plan of Site Plan Average
SubdivisionAmendment Amendment ..
Oshawa (n=29) ** 9 months 9 months 8 months ** 9 months
Innisfil (n=24)
9 months
9 months
10 months*
*'
9 months
Burlington (n=26)
13 months
11 months
7 months'
**
11 months
Oakville (n=96)
12 months
12 months
11 months
8 months
15 months
11 months
Barrie (n=30)
10 months
11 months
12 months
*'
18 months
12 months
Markham (n=33)
11 months
14 months
9 months
13 months
Whitby (n=29)
10 months
13 months
15 months
11 months
'*
13 months
Vaughan (n=78)
14 months
15 months
11 months
8 months
12 months
13 months
Clarington (n=31)
**
12 months
13 months
13 months
Pickering (n=37)
16 months
13 months
13 months
13 months*
14 months
Richmond Hill (n=26)
**
18 months
18 months
14 months
16 months
16 months
Aurora (n=23)
**
19 months
25 months
8 months
18 months
17 months
Mississauga (n=18)
18 months
17 months
**
**
**
18 months
Brampton (n=85)
26 months
19 months
19 months
**
**
20 months
Toronto (n=76)
32 months
25 months
*"
8 months
30 months
21 months
Caledon (n=18)
**
23 months
23 months
"*
*"
23 months
BWG (n=23)
*'
21 months
25 months
24 months
Overall Range
8-37 months
9-25 months
7-25 months
8-14 months
12-30 months
9-24 months
Overall Average
16 months
15 months
15 months
9 months
18 months
15 months
** denotes where either data was not available, or the sample size was too small to be statistically robust
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 24
September 2020
The analysis by application types shows that applications with official plan
amendments (OPAs) take the longest to be approved with municipal
averages ranging from 8 to 37 months, while the quickest type of application
to gain approval on average is plan of condominium, with municipal averages
ranging from 8 to 14 months.
The findings relating to approvals timelines may not necessarily be consistent
with the findings on the availability of tools or features of planning systems in
the studied municipalities or staffing levels in the municipalities. Even with full
usage of the identified tools and features, or large amounts of staff on -hand,
an approvals process can still be slow without the right deployment of tools or
features, or the efficient allocation of staff resources.
The results regarding average timelines for approved applications in each
municipality should be used with some caution as the complexity of
development applications was not controlled for, given the subjectivity of any
evaluation, measurement or adjustment for complicating factors adding to an
application's complexity. However, it is understood that complexity can be
elevated by variables such as the scale of development proposals (land area,
number of units, height, etc.), environmental issues, concerns about
community impact, political issues, etc. These complicating factors will vary
from one application to the next, and may be especially prevalent in certain
municipalities studied.
4.3 ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS
4.3.1 High -Density vs. Low -Density
For analytical purposes, the development applications within the collected
data set were broadly categorized as either'low-density' projects, or'high-
density' projects. Low -density projects were generally defined as being
applications that were predominantly oriented towards ground -related
housing (singles, semis, townhouses), while high -density projects were
defined to be development applications that predominantly include multi-
family homes such as apartments and condominium high-rises.
It was found that there was no significant difference in the average timelines
for the two types of development applications, with low -density applications
taking an average of 14.4 months to be approved, and high -density
applications taking an average of 14.3 months. However, when averages
were compared for specific municipalities, some disparities in averages
between the two types are evident (see Figure 23)
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 25
September 2020
Figure 23
Averages for Low -Density
Averages for High -Density
significantly less than High-
Density
significantly less than Low -
Density
Toronto (low -density 11 months
Richmond Hill (9 months faster for
faster than high -density)
high -density than low -density)
Burlington (low -density 8 months
Vaughan (3 months faster for high -
faster than high -density)
density than low -density)
Brampton (low -density 4 months
Whitby (3 months faster for high -
faster than high -density)
density than low -density)
4.3.2 Multiple Applications vs. Lone Applications
Municipalities often promote the submission of multiple applications at the
same time (e.g. an official plan amendment with a zoning by-law amendment)
with the notion that it can save both time and fees for the developer. The
benefit to municipalities is that it in theory, concurrent review of applications
more efficiently uses staff resources because it allows staff to save time
reviewing aspects of a development proposal that may overlap between
different application types.
While potential for time savings for developers can provide significant
benefits, there are also risks to developers. First, because staff are dealing
with more expansive aspects of a development proposal all at once, their
recommendation report to council may take longer to submit, delaying final
approval. Second, a major issue delaying review or approval of one
application may cause other applications to be delayed.
The chart below (Figure 24) shows the difference in average approval
timelines for single applications versus multiple applications reviewed
concurrently. While lone applications take generally less time individually by
application type, should a developer sequentially go through the application
process gaining one approval only after others have been received, it would
take significantly longer than a bundle of application submitted all at once.
The data obtained and reviewed in this exercise shows that when there are
multiple applications submitted, it generally takes just 2 to 3 months longer
for the bundle of applications to be approved than just an individual
application.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 26
September 2020
Figure 24
ApplicationApplication
Official Plan
Amendment
**
Application
16 months
Zoning By-law
Amendment
13 months
16 months
Plan of Subdivision
12 months
15 months
Plan of Condominium
8 months
10 months
Site Plan
16 months
23 months
Average
13 months
16 months
Overall, applications submitted alone made up about one-third of the total
sample, while applications that were concurrently submitted with others made
up the remaining two-thirds. This information suggestions that a large
majority of applications are already being bundled together with others,
however, there is still a significant minority that are not, and potentially could
be bundled together.
If there is any possibility for the avoidance of certain planning applications,
and consolidation of planning applications into one type of submission, it
appears that there would be a benefit to the applicant of reduced timelines.
4.3.3 Approval by Municipal Council vs. Local Planning Appeals Tribunal
While applications that were approved by the LPAT were not included in the
main dataset, some information was collected that provided a sub -sample
that could be used to analyze and contrast with average timelines for
municipal approvals. While the sub -sample was sufficiently large for
aggregate comparison purposes (with 100 records), it was not large enough
to allow for analysis by any single municipality.
On average, applications approved by the LPAT took on average roughly
twice as long to gain approval as those approved by a municipality, with the
overall approval period for applications approved by LPAT inclusive of the
time the applications spent in the municipal review process, and the time
spent getting through the LPAT process.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 27
September 2020
Figure 25 Approval Timelines by Source of Approval
Months
30
28 ■ Municipal Council Approvals
25
25
20
16 15
15
15
LPAT Approvals
24
24
10 9
5
0
OPA ZBL Subdivision Condominium
Source: Altus Group based on various municipal and LPAT records
27
18
Site Plan
Having to gain approval through the LPAT and that taking roughly double the
amount of time to gain municipal approval, if approval is obtained at all,
illustrates a risk associated with the current appeals system — getting an
approval via an appeal adds significant cost in terms of the additional time
required to gain approval, over and above the expense of the hearing itself
with additional costs for the legal counsel and experts required to navigate
the LPAT process.
4.4 CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of average development approval timelines finds that the
average period of time to get a development approval from a municipal
council in the Greater Toronto Area ranges from 9 to 24 months, however,
there is significant variation between the municipalities studied:
• The more urbanized municipalities have application approval timeline
averages around 20 months, while suburban and exurban municipalities
generally take significantly less time to provide approvals. Some of this
variation can likely explained by the generally higher level of project
complexity for projects submitted to more urban municipalities, as well as,
and the volume of submissions in those municipalities;
• Bundled applications only take 20% to 30% longer to approve than
submissions requiring only one type of application, suggesting that there
are significant economies of scale and efficiencies for bundled
applications, providing benefits to both municipality and applicant;
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 28
September 2020
• While the success rate at the LPAT was not examined as part of this
study, gaining a development approval through an LPAT appeal can take,
on average roughly twice as long as an approval from a municipality.
Gaining approval through the LPAT can be incredibly costly and time
consuming.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 29
September 2020
5 MUNICIPAL CHARGES ON NEW HOUSING
This section gives further detail on the various municipal charges levied on
newly built homes, and charged to developers, home builders and/or
purchasers of newly built homes. The charges reviewed include those levied
by lower -tier or upper -tier municipalities and school boards.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
5.1.1 Municipal Development Charges
The Ontario Development Charges Act grants authority to municipalities to
enact a development charges by-law to impose a charge against land to be
developed where the development will increase the need for municipal
services, thus offsetting capital costs.
Municipal development charges collect funds for services deemed as being
eligible in the Development Charges Act, such as Parks & Recreation,
Libraries, Fire Services, Police Services, Water, Sewer, Roads, Transit, etc.
Where there is both an upper -tier and lower -tier municipality, the services
included in each respective municipality's DC by-law are based on which tier
is the provider of each service.
Each of the lower-tier/single-tier municipalities reviewed in this report
imposes development charges for a variety of services. As required under the
Development Charges Act, development charge by-laws are to be reviewed
at least every five years, and in the interim periods between DC by-law
reviews see DC rates indexed either annually or semi-annually, depending on
the approach adopted by each municipality.
Figure 26 shows the significant increases to development charge rates since
the 2009 in the studied municipalities, on a per single -detached unit basis.
Since 2009, DC rates have increased by an average of 137% in the
municipalities surveyed. Toronto, Innisfil, Vaughan, and Mississauga have
had DC rate increases at or greater than 200% since 2009.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 30
September 2020
Figure 26
Municipal Development Charges from 2009-2020, Selected Ontario
Municipalities
Dollars per Single -Detached Unit
120,000 I York Region Halton Region Peel Region I I I ■ 2009 Lower/Single-Tier
2009 U T'
100,000
80,000 R
m
60,000 '
40,000
Pt
20,000 N
0
O @ E
O
O S Y
F > _
clL
m
I
ct
kN
oIq
O
Q
O
y
E
m
N
m
U
Total
Change ®®®®®®®®®a
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Municipal DC By-laws
5.1.2 GO Transit Development Charges
■ pper- ler
■ 2020 Lower/Single-Tier
■ 2020 Upper -Tier
simcoe
County
Durham Region
ILFpo
M
e�
U > O @ -
a v
Development charges are also levied to collect funds for growth -related
projects associated with the GO Transit system. Most regions in the Greater
Toronto Area have been allocated a share of the projected growth -related
capital costs associated with the GO Transit system, with the municipal,
provincial and federal governments each in total funding one-third shares of
the capital costs.
The GO Transit development charge was originally approved for a two-year
period, with the by-laws expiring December 31, 2003. Since then, the GO
Transit development charges have been updated regularly to fund a rolling
ten-year budget.
5.1.3 Area -Specific Development Charges
Six of the municipalities reviewed in this report impose area -specific
development charges ("ASDC"). We have therefore made assumptions
regarding the area that the hypothetical developments would fall within:
• Halton Region — Halton Region imposes a higher DC for homes built in
the greenfield area than those built within the Region's built boundary.
For this analysis we have assumed that the low-rise scenario is within the
greenfield area, and that the high-rise development scenario is located
within the built boundary area;
• City of Barrie — The City of Barrie imposes different DC rates for the
parts of the City within the former City boundaries, and for the Hewitt and
BILD
Municipal Benchmarking Study
Altus Group Economic Consulting
Page 31
September 2020
Salem Secondary Plan areas on the lands annexed from the Town of
Innisfil. For this analysis, we have assumed that both the low-rise and
high-rise development are within the former City boundaries;
Town of Innisfil - The Town of Innisfil imposes numerous ASDCs
applicable to different parts of the Town. For this analysis we have
assumed that the low-rise development is in Innisfil North and the high-
rise project is in Innisfil Central;
City of Markham — The City of Markham imposes additional area -
specific DC rates for homes built in certain areas within the City and
levies them on a per hectare basis. For this analysis we have assumed
that the development is located outside the areas subject to ASDCs; and
Town of Richmond Hill — The Town of Richmond Hill imposes additional
ASDCs on a per net hectare basis in selected greenfield areas in the
Town, over and above the Town -wide charges. For the low-rise scenario
included in our analysis of government charges, we have taken the
average of these greenfield ASDCs and added that onto the Town -wide
development charges.
5.2 EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
In Ontario, education development charges (EDC's) are collected by local
municipalities on behalf of local school boards that qualify to impose such
charges under the Education Act and associated regulations. EDC's are used
by school boards to fund the acquisition of school sites and related costs (site
preparation, legal costs, etc.) to accommodate net new growth -related pupils.
EDC's are usually charged by both English -language public and separate
school boards and are usually levied on both residential and non-residential
growth. Funding for school building construction is provided by the Province
on an as -needed basis stemming from requests for funding submitted by
local school boards.
EDC's on residential development are imposed solely on a per unit basis,
meaning that single -detached units are charged the same rate as townhouse
and apartment units. The Education Act and associated regulations enable
school boards to impose these charges on a differentiated basis (i.e., higher
rates for single -detached units, lower for apartment units), but to -date, this
approach has not been utilized.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 32
September 2020
Figure 27 Education Development Charges by Jurisdiction
Dollars per Unit
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Toronto York Halton Peel Durham (excl. Clarington Simcoe
Clarington)
Note: Part of "Peel' EDC applies to part of Dufferin County, part of "Simcoe" EDC applies to part of Muskoka, and the "Durham"
rates are not applicable in Clarington, which is under jurisdiction of Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB and Peterborough Victoria
Northumberland and Clarington Catholic DSB
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on various EDC By-laws
5.3 PLANNING & APPROVAL FEES
There are various fees and charges associated with the municipal approval
for a development, several fees for the permits required for the construction
of the building(s), and engineering fees and permits for the infrastructure
works associated with a development.
The modelling undertaken groups these fees into three main categories
outlined in the subsections below, but in many municipalities, there is no
clear delineation between the departments that review plans, approve plans,
and/or issue permits, meaning that in some cases, engineering review fees
may be covered within the costs recovered through planning review fees.
5.3.1 Planning Review Fees
For this analysis, it is assumed that the low-rise scenario would require both
lower- and upper -tier official plan amendments, a zoning by-law amendment,
and plan of subdivision approval. It is assumed that the high-rise
development scenario would require an official plan amendment, a zoning by-
law amendment, as well as plan of condominium and site plan approval.
Often there is considerable overlap between the studies and reports required
for different planning applications. To acknowledge this, some municipalities
provide reduced or discounted costs for joint applications where more than
one planning instrument is being amended.
In imposing 'per unit' fees for planning review fees, some municipalities
acknowledge that certain 'economies of scale' exist for larger applications,
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 33
September 2020
and so levy discounted per unit rates beyond certain unit thresholds, a
feature sometimes referred to as a `declining' fee rate. This approach to
structuring the planning review fees is based on the notion that there are
certain fixed costs to reviewing planning applications whether the application
has 10 units or 100 units.
Some municipalities treat the diminishing marginal costs for larger
applications through both a declining fee rate, but also a `cap' on planning
fees. For example, the City of Brampton (as of December 2019) caps fees for
development applications requiring some combination of zoning by-law
amendment, official plan amendment or subdivision approval at $359,220
and caps fees for site plan approvals at $85,219.
5.3.2 Building Permit Fees
Each of the lower -tier and single -tier municipalities being reviewed charge
building permit fees for the construction of residential buildings, charged on a
per square metre basis.
5.3.3 Engineering and Servicing Fees
Each lower -tier and single -tier municipality reviewed charges a variety of
engineering and service fees for the development, review, inspection,
connection and/or assumption of a development's water, sanitary sewer and
storm sewer services. The various engineering and servicing related fees
may include servicing fees, subdivision agreement and assumption fees, and
engineering inspection fees, which are typically charged as a percentage of
costs of the engineering works to be done.
5.4 PARKLAND DEDICATION / CASH -IN -LIEU OF PARKLAND
Although Bill 108 (passed June 2019) was intended to alter how
municipalities collected funds for parkland acquisition, the recently passed
Bill 197 (assented July 2020) essentially restores most of the current
parkland dedication / cash -in -lieu of parkland system.
Currently municipalities acquire parkland and other forms of open space
through parkland dedication requirements imposed on new developments.
Alternatively, a developer is able to provide "cash -in -lieu" ("CIL") of parkland
dedication to a municipality.
The Ontario Planning Act says that as a condition of development or
redevelopment of land, that land in an amount not exceeding 5% of the land
to be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational
purposes. Alternatively, for residential developments, the land conveyed to
the municipality may also be provided at a rate of 1 hectare per 300 dwelling
units.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 34
September 2020
The Ontario Planning Act also says that in lieu of providing the land for
parkland to the municipality, the developer may instead provide a payment to
the municipality in the amount of the value of the land to be conveyed, at a
rate not to exceed 1 hectare per 500 dwelling units. The value of the land is
to be determined as of the day before approval of the draft plan of
subdivision.
The statutory parkland rates are used in each Ontario municipality reviewed
in this report, except as follows:
• City of Toronto: The City has an alternative parkland dedication rate of
2% of land area, or 0.4 hectares per 300 units. In Toronto, cash -in -lieu of
dedication payments are also capped based on the size of the
development site and the value of the site:
o For smaller sites (less than 1 hectare), this cap is 10% of
the value of the site;
o For 1-to-5-hectare sites, the value of the payment cannot
exceed 15% of the value of the site;
o For larger sites (greater than 5 hectares) this cap is 20%
of the value of the site.
• City of Mississauga: The City of Mississauga follows the statutory
parkland rates, except for medium- and high -density development which
has a fixed rate of $8,970 per unit;
City of Vaughan: The City of Vaughan's cash -in -lieu of parkland
contributions are calculated at a rate of 1 hectare per 500 units, except
for high density development which has a rate of $8,500 per unit;
• Town of Richmond Hill: The Town of Richmond Hill requires landowners
to convey land at the greater of 5% of the land within the development
application, or the lesser of:
o 1 hectare of land of land per 300 dwelling units; or
o 1 hectare of land for each 730 persons to be housed.
5.5 SECTION 37
The former Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act (as it was prior to the
passage of Bill 108) allowed for increases in permitted height and/or density
through the zoning by-law in return for community benefits, provided that
Official Plan policies are in place. These contributions are typically directed to
community infrastructure needs arising from the expected surplus in housing
units/people being accommodated in a development relative to the original
plans.
While Section 37 is used in some 905 municipalities, it is most frequently
utilized in the City of Toronto. The City of Toronto Official Plan sets out
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 35
September 2020
several community benefits that may be provided in return for increased
height and/or density, including parkland/park improvements, streetscape
improvements, public art, childcare facilities, etc.
While Section 37 contributions are often provided by private developers when
developing in Toronto, there is no publicly available formula or method for
how these are calculated and/or arrived at. These section 37 contributions
can also be provided in the form of cash contributions, or in -kind
contributions.
Based on our review of various zoning by-laws in the City, the cash
contributions agreed to by developers and the City can vary significantly from
one development to the next — in some cases less than $1,000 per unit, and
in others in excess of $15,000 per unit, and up to over $22,000 per unit in
some select instances. The average section 37 cash contribution has been
steadily increasing since the year 2000, and over the 2015-2017 period, the
average section 37 cash contribution amounted to approximately $3,800 per
unit, on average. The City also regularly secures non -cash contributions,
such as rental housing replacement units, public art, playgrounds, daycare
spaces, recreation facilities, etc., which are not accounted for in the average
cash contributions depicted in Figure 28.
Figure 28 Average Section 37 Cash Contributions, City of Toronto
Dollars per Unit
4,000
3.500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1.000
500
7
2000 02 2003-05 2006-06 2009.11 2012.14 2015-17
Source- Altus Group Economic Consulting based on various City of Toronto Zoning By-law Amendments. 2000-2017
The former Section 37 density bonusing system, under Bill 108 and Bill 197
will be effectively replaced with a Community Benefits Charge ("CBC"), which
would see a percentage of land value payable for developments with both 10
or more residential units that are also 5 or more storeys in height. As of the
time of writing this report, the prescribed CBC percentage has not been set.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 36
September 2020
5.6 LAND TRANSFER TAXES
Land transfer taxes ("LTT") are levied by the Province of Ontario, and so
those charges are not included in our modelling of charges imposed by
municipalities. However, the City of Toronto, under authority granted to it by
the City of Toronto Act, does levy its own municipal land transfer tax. The
Toronto Municipal Land Transfer Tax is imposed on the value of property
being transferred from a seller to a buyer, at rates of:
• Value up to $55,000 — 0.5%;
• Value from $55,000 to $250,000 — 1.0%;
• Value from $250,000 to $400,000 — 1.5%;
• Value from $400,000 to $2,000,000 — 2.0%; and
• Value over $2,000,000 — 2.5%.
No other municipality among those studied in this report levies a municipal
land transfer tax.
5.7 OTHER GOVERNMENT CHARGES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT
Government charges levied on new homes by Provincial or the Federal
government are not included in this report, as the focus of the analysis is on
charges and fees levied by municipal governments. Therefore, charges such
as the provincial land transfer tax, sales taxes (provincial and federal), and
CMHC mortgage insurance are not included in this study.
However, unlike municipal charges, which are typically incurred by the
developer (and ultimately passed onto new homebuyers through prices), the
charges levied or required by upper -levels of government are typically
incurred directly by homebuyers, and so also have a significant impact on the
affordability of housing in Canada.
5.8 EMERGING TRENDS
5.8.1 Bill 108 and Bill 197
Bill 108, passed in June 2019, eliminated the former Section 37 density
bonusing provisions of the Planning Act and combined with Bill 197
(introduced in July 2020) alter how development charges are collected in
municipalities across Ontario. The other two substantial changes to
government charges are first, the removal of the 10% statutory deduction to
certain `soft' services such as indoor recreation, libraries, etc., which will
cause DC rates to increase modestly. The legislated changes to the
calculation of DCs have not been accounted for in DC by-laws as of the time
of writing this report.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 37
September 2020
Second, the two bills would see the introduction of a Community Benefits
Charge (CBCs) which would allow municipality to fund capital costs on
development with 5-or-more storeys and 10-or-more dwelling units, as a
percentage of land value the day before building permit issuance. However,
as the province has not yet produced a finalized set of CBC regulations,
which will include the prescribed 'cap' on what municipalities can impose as
CBCs, the costs associated with CBCs are not incorporated into the
modelling summarized by this report.
Bill 108 also included several changes to the Development Charges Act as it
pertains to the timing of calculation of DCs payable and the period in which
DCs are paid.
• For the development of rental housing, institutional, industrial,
commercial and non-profit housing, DCs are set either at the time of site
plan application or zoning by-law amendment application, rather than at
the time of building permit issuance.
• For these same land uses, DCs are now payable in six equal annual
installments, with the first payment due at the issuance of an occupancy
permit, or the date the building is first occupied.
• The calculation and timing of payment of DCs for condominium and
freehold residential homes remains unchanged in Bill 108.
5.9 QUANTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL CHARGES AND FEES
This subsection of the report aims to provide a high-level overview of the
charges levied by municipal governments on new development and attempts
to quantify the costs these charges and fees payable by developers, home
builders, and ultimately, home buyers.
5.9.1 Scenarios
To model and estimate the charges and fees imposed by the municipalities
studied in this report, we have devised two development scenarios — one
'low-rise' consisting of a mix of single -detached and townhouses, and one
'high-rise' consisting of a condominium apartment building.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 38
September 2020
Figure 29
Feature Low -Rise Scenario High -Rise Scenario
Unit Types 75 single -detached, 50 125 condominium apartment units (75
townhouses 2+bedrooms, 50 bachelor and 1-
bedroom)
Land Area 6.91 hectares (17.06 acres) 0.52 hectares (1.29 acres)
Unit Sizes Single -detached: 2,500 sf Large apartments: 900 sf
Townhouses: 1,800 sf Small apartments: 650 sf
5.9.2 Findings
5.9.2.1 Low -Rise Scenario
Figure 30
Our modelling of charges imposed on low-rise development was done on all
18 municipalities included in the study. On average, for the municipalities
studied, the charges imposed by municipalities amount to $93,700 per unit,
or 9.7% of the housing price.
Municipal Charges per Unit, Ranked, Low -Rise Scenario
1
Vaughan
Markham
Toronto
Richmond Hill
Aurora
Mississauga
Brampton
Caledon
Oakville
Whitby
Rickering
Barrie
Oshawa
Innisfil
Milton
Burlington
BWG
Clarington
York
York
n.a.
York
York
Peel
Peel
Peel
Halton
Durham
Durham
Simcoe
Durham
Simcoe
Halton
Halton
Simcoe
Durham
148,083
138,154
134,653
124,723
116,232
108,976
103,019
96,647
88,224
75,607
74,923
73,997
72,827
72,149
71,644
66,826
65,984
54,258
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 39
September 2020
The results vary significantly by municipality — from $148,100 per unit in
Vaughan to $54,300 in Clarington. Seven of the eight municipalities with the
highest municipal charges on low-rise development are in York or Peel
Regions, owing to the significant amount of development charges imposed
on new housing developments by those regional municipalities.
In particular, the municipal charges in York Region municipalities may be
driven by infrastructure costs for water and wastewater owing to the Region
being landlocked, which increases costs associated with finding solutions to
water and sanitary infrastructure needs.
When the municipal charges are expressed as a % of housing prices3, the
charges range from 5.6% in Burlington to 14.5% in Vaughan.
Figure 31 Municipal Charges as % of Housing Price Ranked, Low -Rise
Scenario
1
Vaughan
Brampton
Markham
Toronto
Innisfil
Aurora
Caledon
Richmond Hill
Barrie
Oshawa
Mississauga
Whitby
BWG
Oakville
Pickering
Milton
Clarington
Burlington
York
Peel
York
n.a.
Simcoe
York
Peel
York
Simcoe
Durham
Peel
Durham
Simcoe
Halton
Durham
Halton
Durham
Halton
14.5%
11.8%
11.6%
10.7%
10.6%
10.3%
10.2%
10.0%
9.8%
9.7%
9.5%
9.4%
9.0%
8.5%
8.4%
8.3%
7.1 %
5.6%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The most significant charge in almost all the surveyed municipalities is the
development charge, typically amounting to 75% of the municipal charges
3 The `housing price' used to contextualize municipal charges is a weighted average of assumed
housing prices for single -detached units and townhouse units, based on the distribution of each unit
type in our low-rise scenario. Assumed prices are based on $/sf asking prices for housing
developments in each municipality, with this per square foot average then applied to the assumed
unit sizes of single -detached and townhouse units within the low-rise scenario. Therefore, given the
unit size and unit mix employed in our low-rise scenario, the 'average price' assumed in our model is
not indicative of typical average or median prices of absorbed units in a municipality
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 40
September 2020
payable for a new low-rise development, and over 85% in some cases
(Aurora, Clarington, Caledon and Barrie).
The second most substantial charge is typically the parkland dedication
requirement or cash -in -lieu payment (though most low-rise developments will
dedicate parkland rather than pay cash -in -lieu of dedication), averaging 17%
of municipal charges payable. The remainder of charges imposed on low-rise
development are comprised of planning fees, building permit fees, and other
minor charges.
5.9.2.2 High -Rise Scenario
Figure 32
Our modelling of charges imposed on high-rise development was done on all
18 municipalities included in the study. The charges imposed on high-rise
developments vary widely by municipality — from $96,200 per unit in
Markham and $30,500 in Clarington.
On average, the high-rise charges imposed by municipalities are $57,800 per
unit, or 10.7% of the price of the residential units. Out of top three
municipalities with the highest charges, two were in York Region (Markham
and Vaughan).
Municipal Charges per Unit, Ranked, High -Rise Scenario
1
Markham
Vaughan
Burlington
Toronto
Aurora
Richmond Hill
Mississauga
Brampton
Oakville
Caledon
Milton
Barrie
Innisfil
Oshawa
Whitby
Pickering
BWG
Clarington
York
York
Halton
n.a.
York
York
Peel
Peel
Halton
Peel
Halton
n.a.
Simcoe
Durham
Durham
Durham
Simcoe
Durham
96,233
81,216
77,680
76,762
72,466
68,823
67,994
60,206
57,498
55,488
51,373
46,946
43,840
41,671
38,828
38,213
34,037
30,497
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
181
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 41
September 2020
Figure 33
When the municipal charges imposed are expressed as a percentage of
housing prices, the charges levied on new housing development are upwards
of 16% in the Town of Aurora and the City of Markham.
Municipal Charges as % of Housing Price Ranked, High -Rise
Scenario
1
Aurora
Markham
Brampton
Vaughan
Burlington
Richmond Hill
Milton
Caledon
Toronto
Mississauga
Oakville
BWG
Whitby
Oshawa
Innisfil
Pickering
Clarington
Barrie
York
York
Peel
York
Halton
York
Halton
Peel
n.a.
Peel
Halton
Simcoe
Durham
Durham
Simcoe
Durham
Durham
n.a.
16.3%
15.8%
13.8%
12.8%
12.4%
11.7%
11.2%
11.1 %
11.0%
10.8%
10.5%
9.9%
8.0%
8.0%
7.5%
7.1%
6.9%
6.9%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Similar to the results of our low-rise analysis, the most significant charge in
almost all of the surveyed municipalities are the development charge,
typically amounting to 68% of the municipal charges payable for a new high-
rise development, and over 90% in some municipalities (Aurora and Innisfil).
The second-largest charge imposed on high-rise is also usually the land
dedication requirement or cash -in -lieu payment, which makes up an average
of 26% of municipal charges payable.
5.9.3 Conclusions
Based on the modelling done on the two hypothetical development
scenarios, there significant municipal -imposed charges on new development,
but that these charges can vary significantly from one municipality to the
next. However, generally, charges imposed by municipalities on new housing
development are generally the highest in Toronto and municipalities within
York Region and Peel Region.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 42
September 2020
• The average municipal -imposed government charges for low-rise
development in the studied municipalities is $93,700 per unit or 9.7% of
housing prices. Six of the eight highest charges per unit were in York and
Peel municipalities;
• For high-rise, the average works out to $57,800 per unit, or 10.7% of
housing prices. Three of the four highest charges per unit on high-rise
development are in municipalities located in York Region.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 43
September 2020
6 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE
MUNICIPAL PROCESSES
This section of the report quantifies the costs (or potential cost savings) for
developers and landowners involved in the time spent gaining approval for
development projects.
In each case, we have attempted to put the estimates of costs associated
with waiting for approvals on the basis of `costs per month'— this puts all of
the various elements of this analysis into a comparable metric, and allows for
the calculation of impacts of time saved in the approvals process to be
quantified, by multiplying the `per month' costs by the number of months
deemed possible to be cut off of the approvals process.
The cost estimates are modelled using the same hypothetical low-rise and
high-rise development scenarios used for the analysis of charges and
imposed by municipalities.
6.1 TAXES PAYABLE ON VACANT LAND
For each month in the development process, assuming a vacant site, the
developer/landowner must continue to pay property taxes to the municipality.
The sooner the site can receive approvals, be developed, and turned over to
the ultimate buyers, who will become the taxpayers for the property, the less
expense to the developer/landowner.
Based on estimated land values in each of the municipalities studied in this
report, and tax rates in the studied municipalities, each month in the
approvals process for a high-rise development costs an average of $1,830
per month. For a low-rise development, the average cost of each month in
the approvals process is less than that of the high-rise development,
averaging $406 per month.
6.2 INCREASES TO MUNICIPAL CHARGES AND FEES
As evident from the modelling done on charges imposed by municipalities on
development, there are significant costs that must be paid by developers to
municipalities to pay for things such as growth -related infrastructure, planning
and approvals fees, etc.
Many of the charges imposed by municipalities regularly increase — some
increase at the same rate as inflation (many planning fees increase 1-3% per
year to stay in line with general inflation), while others are much more volatile
and subject to periodic, but significant increases (such as development
charges).
As the most significant charge levied by most municipalities is development
charges, we have looked at what DCs were in the studied municipalities, both
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 44
September 2020
at the time of writing this report and in addition to prior years, in order to
estimate what a typical `per month' change in DCs has been, to see what the
potential effect of each additional month spent gaining approvals can mean.
One potential issue with this approach worth acknowledging is that it does
not account for the typical way in which DCs change over time - DCs are
relatively static for several years, except for some modest inflationary
indexing usually in the range of 1-2% per year, but then a significant increase
can come into effect at the time of a DC by-law review, which usually range
anywhere from 10% to 50%, but can sometimes be much more.
On average, it is found that DCs increase by an average of approximately
$379 per month for single -detached units, and approximately $143 to $211
per month for apartment units (depending on the size of unit).
Figure 34 Average Per Month Change in Development Charges in Select Municipalities
% Increase 2009-2019 10-Year Change 2009-2019 10-Year Change 2009-2019
Single-
Large
Small
Single-
Large
Small
Single-
Large
Small
Detached
Apartment
Apartment
Detached
Apartment
Apartment
Detached
Apartment
Apartment
Municipality
Percent
Dollars per Unit
Dollars
per Unit per Month
Oakville
96%
54%
70%
41,145
14,605
12,537
342.87
121.71
104.48
Burlington
55%
13°%
34%
21,218
3,128
5,605
176.82
26.07
46.71
Milton
69%
34%
52%
27,812
8,453
8,981
231.77
70.44
74.84
Brampton
134%
98%
135%
56,110
30,366
23,038
467.58
253.05
191.98
Mississauga
216%
183°%
220%
68,347
42,533
28,765
569.56
354.44
239.71
Caledon
132%
104%
133%
51,526
28,698
21,337
429.38
239.15
177.81
Toronto
507 %
446 %
465 %
65,413
38,162
25,722
545.11
318.02
214.35
Markham
162%
149°%
128%
66,043
39,350
28,092
550.36
327.92
234.10
Vaughan
227%
221%
145%
85,201
52,389
33,856
710.01
436.58
282.13
Richmond Hill
147 %
154 %
89 %
52,683
33,985
19,303
439.03
283.21
160.86
Rckering
80%
89°%
38%
23,437
15,438
6,321
195.31
128.65
52.68
Whitby
104%
93%
46%
30,563
17,569
7,882
254.69
146.41
65.68
Oshawa
123%
129%
49%
33,424
21,323
8,325
278.53
177.69
69.38
Clarington
62%
45°%
26%
20,228
9,112
4,718
168.57
75.93
39.32
Aurora
155%
152%
108%
57,082
35,142
22,769
475.68
292.85
189.74
Bradford West Gw illimbury
127 %
98 %
123 %
39,784
19,919
18,476
331.53
165.99
153.97
Barrie
157%
150°%
113%
42,115
23,922
15,318
350.96
199.35
127.65
Innisfil
298°%
260%
248%
35,603
20,970
17,218
296.69
174.75
143.48
Average
378.58
210.68
142.71
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting
6.3 CARRYING COSTS OF LOANS
During the approvals process, applicants will have typically obtained
financing for their project and will pay interest on the construction loan until
all proceeds from sales have been received.
The estimate of additional carrying costs per month is based on a high-level
model that estimates the cost of construction financing, with one version
assuming a 30-month construction financing period, and a second version
assuming a 31-month construction financing period, with the difference in the
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 45
September 2020
total cost of construction debt in the two versions the estimated `per month'
difference.
It is estimated that the cost of construction debt is approximately $91,600 for
each additional month that construction financing is required for high-rise. For
low-rise, each additional month would add $139,600 per month in financing
costs associated with construction loans.
6.4 COST INFLATION
When a development is in the approvals process the costs associated with
the construction of the building can increase. This includes the costs of both
materials and labour.
6.4.1 Construction Cost Inflation
The construction costs of building typically increase over time. Over the Q1
2017 to Q3 2019 period, construction costs have increased by 11.8% for
high-rise apartment buildings, 15.1 % for single -detached homes, and 14.8%
for townhouse units. This equates to an average monthly increase of
between 0.34% and 0.42% per month, depending on the unit type. Each
additional month that an application is in the municipal approvals process
adds to project construction costs, for all unit types.
Based on the hard construction costs of a hypothetical high -density
residential building, we were able to model the average monthly increase in
construction costs as a result of municipal processing time - each additional
month would add approximately $181,800 monthly in construction costs for a
low-rise development and approximately $93,900 per month for a high-rise
development.
6.4.2 Wage Inflation
Based on Statistics Canada data on wage rates by worker types, the hourly
wage of various contractors involved in the construction of a building
increase by an average of $1.21 per hour, per year. On a per month basis,
this would be a $0.10 per hour increase for each contractor involved in the
project.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 46
September 2020
Figure 35 Average Hourly Wage, Select Construction Trades, 2013-2018
Crane Cement Total /
Carpenter Operator Finisher Bectrician Labourer Humber BricMayer Roofer Average
Year Dollars per Hour
Toronto CMA
Sep-13
52.75
52.66
49.68
58.58
48.66
59.71
52.95
51.66
53.33
Sep-18
59.43
58.88
54.72
65.64
53.75
66.70
58.25
57.51
59.36
5-Year Increase
6.68
6.22
5.04
7.06
5.09
6.99
5.30
5.85
6.03
Average Monthly $ Increase
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.12
0.08
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.10
Average Monthly % Increase
0.20%
0.19%
0.16%
0.19%
0.17%
0.18%
0.16%
0.18%
0.18%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on CANSIM, Table 327-0003
Based on Altus Group's model that estimates construction -related
employment associated with residential developments, a 125-unit apartment
building would generate 319 person -years of employment, which is
equivalent to 319 persons working for an average of one year each (or 638
persons working for an average of 6 months each, etc.). For a low-rise
development (of 75 single -detached and 50 townhouses), approximately 432
person -years of employment would be required.
Figure 36 Estimate of Additional Wage Costs per Month (Average), Toronto
CMA
1 ..... o:-- LJ:..I1 o:--
rerson- rears
Person -Years
432 319
Person -Months
Person -Months
5,186 3,832
Dollars per Hour
Average Monthly Increase in Hourly Wages
0.10 0.10
Dollars per Month
Average Monthly Increase in Labour Costs
87,539 64,687
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Statistics Canada
Assuming each of these workers would be subject to a similar increase in
wages evident from the Statistics Canada data, each additional month an
application is subject to the municipal approvals process would add, on
average, roughly $64,700 per month in additional labour costs to the high-
rise project due to wage inflation. For the low-rise project, the additional wage
inflation expected each month amounts to approximately $87,500.
6.5 CONCLUSIONS
Figure 37 combines the various elements modelled and estimates the total
monthly cost to a developer / landowner for each month an application is
within the development approvals process.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 47
September 2020
Figure 37 Summary of Per Month Costs of Application and Approvals Process, Toronto CMA
Estimates based on low-rise scenario and high-rise scenario (125 units each)
Carrying Increased
Taxes on Costs of Municipal Construction Labour Cost
Vacant Land Loans Charges Cost Inflation Inflation Total
Development Scenario Dollars
Low -Rise 735 139,571 46,027 181,798 87,539 455,669
High -Rise 2,290 90,564 24,371 93,854 64,687 275,766
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting
Overall, the estimated costs associated with each additional month a project
is in the approvals process adds approximately $455,700 in costs per month
for the hypothetical low-rise project, and $275,800 in costs per month for the
hypothetical high-rise project. These costs equate to an additional $1.46 per
buildable square foot per month for the low-rise project, and $2.21 per
buildable square foot per month for the high-rise project.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 48
September 2020
7 BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL PROCESSES
Figure 38
While our study is generally limited to the 18 municipalities, in this section of
the report, which scans for best practices for improving municipal processes,
we have allowed for the scan to include any community within Ontario that
may be undertaking positive steps towards improvement to the municipal
approval process.
It is important to note that development application timelines on decisions
have recently been shortened under Bill 108. Municipalities will have to
render decisions significantly more quickly in some cases. The benefit of
these shortened timelines should result in not only better timelines for
developers, but it will also create significant incentives for municipalities to re-
examine their processes, workflow, technology, and organizational structures
to find efficiencies and more effective ways of reviewing applications.
Planning Application
Official Plan Amendment
0•
210 Days
108
120 Days
Zoning By-law Amendment
150 Days
90 Days
Plan of Subdivision
180 Days
120 Days
Site Plan
30 Days
30 Days
7.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT INITIATIVES
7.1.1 City of Hamilton - Open for Business Initiative
The City of Hamilton started an Open for Business initiative, with one of the
goals being to improve the City's development application process. One of
the identified solutions was for the City to review its draft plan of subdivision
approval process, with the new process being enacted in early 2017.
One key change was making sequential processes into parallel processes,
so the City allows applicants the option to have processes for minor
variances, water service assessments, site plan approvals, engineering
reviews and building permit applications run concurrently, with the caveat that
some processes are still conditional on others, and a change in one may
result in a re -submission being required. However, in the case of
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 49
September 2020
resubmission, applications requiring only modest revisions receive priority
processing.
The City has also started issuing fewer circulation letters, instead opting for
one standard consultation letter for all reviewing parties. The City has
estimated that this change alone typically saves five business days for
applicants.
The City found that prior to making the improvements to the subdivision
approvals process, the average processing time from complete application to
draft plan approval was 1,350 days (or approximately 44 months), with
approximately half of that time related to City review, but the other half due to
awaiting comments, permits or consents from ministries or regional agencies,
as well as time taken by applicants responding to comments, or revising
plans to address comments made. Within this period, the City found that it
took an average of 187 days from receiving an application to provide an initial
set of comments, and resolving comments required an average of 2 to 4
revisions to the submitted plans.
7.1.2 City of Brampton —Streamlining Development Application System
The City of Brampton is in the process of adopting a community planning
permit system ("CPPS") for the Queen Street East Precinct, which covers
lands along the Queen Street East corridor from Highway 410 in the east to
Etobicoke Creek in the west. The CPPS would merge the currently separate
processes of rezoning, minor variance and site plan control into one process.
The objectives of the CPPS is to 'front-end' many of the required technical
studies, meaning that once the CPPS is done, a developer only has to deal
with site -specific issues, rather than larger -scale issues. This system is
expected to significantly reduce the typical planning process timelines.,
7.1.3 City of Toronto End -to -End Review
The City of Toronto has commenced with an "End to End Review" of its
development review process. As part of this review process, the City retained
consultants that submitted a report to Council in the fall of 2019 which
identified 31 systematic challenges that negatively impact development
application outcomes in terms of efficiency, consistency, transparency,
timeliness.e
In total, the KPMG report provides 20 recommendations on how the City
Planning can improve its operational model and service delivery. An integral
part of the proposed transformation is to replace the current "hub and spoke"
4 Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Reducing Business Burdens .......
, City of Brampton, Staff Report re: Queen Street Corridor Land Use Study, (Sept 27, 2019)
6 KPMG, End -to -End Review of the Development Review Process, (August 16,2019)
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 50
September 2020
system, where a community planner solicits comments from other colleagues
and departments, as this creates divisional conflict and disperses
accountability. The proposed new system is based on a multi -disciplinary
team model where there are team members representing various
departments that collaboratively work on development applications together.
Within the KPMG report, there are various proposals geared towards
operational izing the new transformational model. These include but are not
limited to:
• Establish a formal mechanism to identify and accelerate applications with
City-wide significance;
• Shift specialized work to specialized teams to enhance system capacity;
• Adopt a standard, City-wide approach to the use of guidelines and draft
policies, and make that approach publicly available;
• Establish circulation limits and automatic escalation to reduce application
timelines and incentivize collaboration;
• Establish a new, senior -level, Business Transformation Lead reporting to
the Chief Planner with interdivisional accountability for the development
review process;
• Modernize the existing application workflow and management system;
• Improve online application tracking to enhance transparency and improve
customer service;
• Improve the availability of development review -related information and
data to enhance application quality;
• Enhance transparency and consistency by defining stakeholder roles and
developing standard operating procedures;
• Improve project management -related tools and techniques to empower
multidisciplinary teams; and
• Modernize performance measures and adopt a review mechanism to
monitor their on -going effectiveness.
Many of the recommendations can be categorized within the `buckets' of
technology improvement, project management enabled team collaboration,
operational standardization, and stakeholder communication improvements.
The KPMG report placed a lot of emphasis on improving communications
and information transfer between applicant and planning staff and between
staff. Improved communication was also deemed important to create
consistent operational standards to enhance predictability, transparency, and
accountability.
As of July 2020, this initiative has led to the establishment of the "Concept to
Keys" team that is focusing on improving the development review process, by
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 51
September 2020
consulting with customers on the nature and quality of the interactions
they've had with the City. The insights yielded are being used to help drive
improvements to process and operational izing technology.
7.1.4 City of Burlington — Cutting Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force
In early 2019, the Mayor of Burlington assembled a "Red Tape Red Carpet
Task Force" that spent 5 months collecting insights and ideas from the City's
business community, partner organizations, and staff. This resulted in a
report submitted to council in the fall of 2019 with 22 recommendations to
improve department operations and customer service.
The recommendations include the establishment of a Chief Business
Development position at City Hall to deal with outreach and expediting
applications, as well as, the creation of key performance indicators ("KPI"). In
addition, the City hired consultants to take a deep dive into service delivery
and functional improvements of various departments, including the
development application process. The review looked at the site plan approval
and building permit issuance stages of the process for infill development,
both multi -residential and non-residential types.
The report highlighted that as part of a building permit issuance process,
applicants require both a zoning clearance and grading/drainage certificate
before they apply for a permit. 7 This process came about due to streamlining
efforts that were in reaction to Bill 124 (2005) that required a decision on a
building permit to be issued within 10 business days. As of part of the
certificate process, there is an aspirational target of having these completed
in 5 to 7 days, before the 10-day building permit process begins.
Despite there being many interwoven technical issues that are addressed in
both certificate processes, each can be applied for separately. As well, often
an applicant will require a tree clearance permit, but this is almost never
applied for at the same time as the other certificates, notwithstanding there
being an interplay between the zoning, tree preservation, and the building
permit bylaws. The report noted that many applicants are unaware of the
relationship between these processes and the City's website does not
sufficiently highlight them.
Other issues noted in the report include an organizational design that is not
optimally designed for an efficient certificate review process with staff
currently working on a "best effort" timeframe.
Performance Concepts Consulting & Dillion Consulting, City of Burlington Service Delivery Reviews
Technical Report, (December 19th, 2019).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 52
September 2020
The report notes that there is consensus of four "best practices" emerging
within the Greater Golden Horseshoe with regards to the site plan approval
process. They are:
1. Mandatory pre -consultation meetings between applicants and city
staff — this ensures that when applications are submitted, they are
of a high -quality "complete" nature.
2. Zero -tolerance rule regarding the acceptance of incomplete
application submissions — incomplete applications waste finite
municipal staff resources that could be used on complete
applications.
3. E-portal and workflow software implementation — helps staff
organize and track applications, as well as communications
internally and externally with the applicant.
4. Delegated site plan approval to senior City staff — allows for
timelines to be compressed while continuing to be democratically
accountable with more controversial applications being elevated
to the attention of Council.
Unlike other jurisdictions, Burlington already allows for staff delegation of site
plan approval, as it is estimated to save an estimated 50 to 60 days from the
usual approval process. However, further improvements in this regard would
be to continue the default processing rule with as few escalations to council
as possible.
Currently, the vast majority of Burlington's progress on the recommendations
established by the task force and consultants report have an "in -progress"
status. The municipality is currently only in the early stages of this project, it
is expected that it will take some time before implementation is complete.
7.1.5 City of Kawartha Lakes — Planning Approvals Task Force
The City of Kawartha Lakes has been experiencing a steady and significant
increase the demand for development planning staff usage, such as a 35%
increase pre -consultation meetings between 2016 and 2017. In early 2017,
City Council adopted a series of recommendations by the Planning Approvals
Task Force, which was setup to help improve application processing and
business engagement.
A common complaint from stakeholders was a perceived lack of customer
service by planning staff with the perception of negative or adversarial
attitudes towards applicants, especially those with lesser knowledge of the
building process. To rectify this issue, staff were required to take customer
service training, and standards were created in operational processes, such
as returning phone and emails within 2 business days or general inquires
within business 5 days. Even if staff were not able to deal with an inquiry due
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 53
September 2020
to resource limitations, they were encouraged to engage with the stakeholder
so that they know the message has been received.
In addition to interpersonal operational improvements, the task force
identified other types of resources to help improve operations. This included
the creation of report requirement checklists and processing cost outlines to
be provided to applicants during pre -consultation meetings.
In the summer the 2017, the City implemented new software called
"Cityworks", which allows staff to digitally store all information on properties,
including the ability to track applications. While this tracker is not made
available to the public yet, the software allows any staff member to view the
application and answer general inquiry questions rather than requiring the
specific planner on the file's attention, enabling a more efficient division of
labour and a better use of staff time.
In addition to providing staff with new internal technological capabilities, the
City embarked on a rebuild of their municipal website to facilitate better
communication. This new portal was completed in July 2017 and includes
features such as development guides, checklists, and the ability to examine a
properties official plan land -use designation or zoning within a dedicated
page.
Finally, the municipality also examined the possibility of expanding the power
of the Director of Development Services with the ability to approve
subdivision agreements after a council has permitted a Draft Plan Approval.
However, staff found an LPAT case related to this process and recommended
back to council that they continue to have oversight on the execution of
subdivision agreements.$ At this time, the Director only has the ability to
provide site plan approvals.
7.2 THEMES EMERGING FROM PROCESS REVIEWS
There are several key themes involved in the process reviews underway, or
recently completed
Improving the Application Process Requires a Continuous Improvement
Plan.
There is no single `fix -all' that will improve development application processes
other than through continuous examination and refinement. This requires a
first step of identifying and standardizing as many processes as possible to
foster an environment of consistency, accountability, and transparency.
Standardization can involve creating simple rules such as the timeframes
within which staff must respond to inquiries, or it can become as complex as
creating templates for development application comments. Once processes
F Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, formerly known as the Ontario Municipal Board ("OMB")
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 54
September 2020
have a baseline standardization, they can then be tracked and examined
under the lens of a key performance indicator ("KPI") and from there be
improved upon.
Miscommunication Creates Conflicts that Lead to Delays
The development application process requires the transfer of information not
just between a single developer and the planner on the file. The process
includes many different staff members in various departments for both the
applicant and the municipality, as well as, outside consultants and other
stakeholders like council members. It is important to examine information
flows and how best to minimize potential areas of miscommunication, such
as not knowing if an inquiry was received.
Strategies to deal with this include providing a one -window portal that can be
accessed either internally or externally to track developments, the creation of
checklists and other materials that can be retrieved before a pre -consultation
and are provided during the meeting, having a website with up-to-date
information with detailed explanations of processes and other features like
property data, contact information, online submission forms or payment
options, etc.
Pay Close Attention to Workflows and Team Composition
How municipal staff deal with development applications affects how long it
takes to process. There is no one correct organizational structure that can be
implemented, however, many larger municipalities are finding a multi-
disciplinary team -based approach is more effective in dealing with large
volumes of very complex applications rather than a "hub and spoke" model.
Regardless of the ultimate model used, careful attention should be paid to
conflicts and redundancy in the workflow process.
Empower Staff with More Delegated Powers
Many municipalities are looking at ways to transfer approval authority to
senior planning staff. This allows councils more to focus attention on difficult
files, while allowing less complex applications to be fast -tracked. Providing an
applicant with the ability to appeal a decision from staff to council ensures
that applicants are still able to maintain accountability for their projects, even
when approval authority is delegated outside of the municipal Council.
Reduce Required Statutory Processes Where Possible
Pre -zoning systems are a tool that some municipalities have implemented
but many others have not. There is a potential to significantly improve the
overall development process by using this tool, and minimizing the effort and
technical studies required to bring an application forward.
Have a Staff Member That "Owns" Transformation and Outreach
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 55
September 2020
While costly, many municipalities are creating senior -level positions that while
not part of the direct development application process, have oversight and
interactions with other staff members involved in the development review
process. This provides another contact point between applicants and
municipal staff that can help identify, escalate, and solve major problems in a
timely manner and more importantly, prevent a similar problem from arising
again in the future by transforming processes where needed.
Improvements are Limited Without Technology
There are many software packages that municipalities are using to help with
internal project tracking and workflow management. These software
packages can allow for more standardized project management -based team
collaboration, so staff can focus more time on value-added tasks, such as
examining the proposed grading of a building, instead of more administrative
tasks, like dealing with minor inquiries or spending time trying to find a paper
copy of a file that would be more readily accessible with an electronic file
management system.
While the trend of adopting internally -oriented technology tools is apparent in
many municipalities, most municipalities have yet to adopt external -facing
tools. The benefit of this technology and things such as e-portals, is that they
can provide a convenient access point for application submissions or fee
payments, as well as, reduce delays associated with intake.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 56
September 2020
8 CONCLUSIONS
Based on a review of municipal planning processes, planning features,
government charges, and other elements of research undertaken into the
studied municipalities, there are several overarching findings about how
municipalities compare, and recommendations for municipalities.
8.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Figure 39 summarizes the findings from the three major elements studied
that feed into housing affordability — getting housing approved, ensuring
approvals are done in an expedient manner, and government charges that
get borne by buyers/renters.
Overall, the municipalities of Barrie, Burlington and Oakville rank atop the list,
with all three municipalities having top-6 ranks in each of the categories. The
largest municipalities by population among those studied (Toronto,
Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, Vaughan) all rank on an overall basis no
higher than 10tn
Figure 39 Overall Scorecard -Planning Features, Government Charges, Approvals Timelines
Score
Planning
Government
Approvals
(Average
Features
Charges
Timelines
Rank)
rank = est
rank = owest
rank = est)
etter
Barrie
2
3
5
3.3
Burlington
2
6
3
3.7
Oakville
2
9
4
5.0
Clarington
7
1
9
5.7
Os haw a
16
5
1
7.3
Rickering
11
2
10
7.7
Innisfil
15
7
2
8.0
Milton
7
10
n.a
8.5
Whitby
16
4
7
9.0
Toronto
1
14
15
10.0
Vaughan
6
17
8
10.3
Mississauga
9
11
13
11.0
Brampton
5
15
14
11.3
Richmond Hill
11
13
11
11.7
Caledon
9
12
16
12.3
Aurora
11
16
12
13.0
BWG
14
8
17
13.0
Markham
18
18
6
14.0
Note: Government Charges based on average of low-rise and high-rise scenarios, as measured by
government charges as % of housing prices
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
18
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 57
September 2020
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
Need for Increased Transparency and Simplicity
Many municipalities do not have clear development guidelines or application
checklists. An even greater number of municipalities not provide specific
terms of reference for required technical studies and reports.
Increasing
transparency and
specificity surrounding
application
requirements is a
proactive, and relatively
easy way to cut down
on incomplete
application submissions
and reduce the number
of resubmissions
required.
Delegate More Approval
Authority to Staff and
Officials
That development
approvals can be
delayed because of
Excerpt from City of Toronto Development Guide
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
R EO UWE N E NTS of the CITY OF TO RONTO ACT, PLA N N ING ACT andlor
Regulahon,
AO DITIONAL REOUIREPIEN TS of tht OFFICIAL PLAN
In .ddr:'p to:he Pn•e W ryuriwnema of xha Pt•nninq Ace, ,f,f lW3owmq nnn•pn.<nhe0 infprma,ion well .lap M
repoued to Malua,• . oiinning appllCWro unitse,t a d.l•ffnln ed that C•rtaM nWlq, plan.. el a "■ and hirROM an not
."b-hl..
Pronllon of The oft"nal infMh6l4n+ndK/led under the Chi Plan. Ion'rq By-law- Flan of Suhdrn44n, Pon of
Candommium aid C-1 lo, 5•e•r hoadmgs . m.ndatwy under the Place-9 A" and [his Olhc.at plan
Php lion of the add,tgnal inforrrytgn ind"tod undo,,h• Silo Ptah Contrpt Appforal head.nq rl ml rcy ndaW DO may M
neuested by the City ire order to enahte a ute plan control aPp6-11-10 he evaluated.
Completed ApplkeilWri FPrm- .nclud•rg Permraeion C. R.produce
ar Pro a- Pf Re —ite Cpyes. Applicanla an re4"— fP dal'rant
Lary permission m npnene•, m whpte u m part am tlocum•n,
w■mittM •. an of a enmpf n appl+dwon far.=al o_.;nrwemn
in gaff ,rpa . or di.[rrpupo� tp the puhl+c fpr,h. purpose of • • • • • ■
app4caI_ __ and (hl proyide. na,oruh[e number o! cop.ea of any
�ch.eo._' rr part. rhrrcrf, m pope• arwler elrrtrenrr
,ae Cin ary for tern., cm uu one ""hvn n tn. puhpr for th. purpose of
appuc-rh
Oopndary Sur ay - shewnhq and gW,ndylnq,he orals] of all land
puCelfll relevant 10 the d"topmefa prop t. ■ • • ■ is is
Appr•p—le, Plans am Orawugs
Planniiho Rationale -coma In �nq a il—riptwn of pm- i ppUcatio
,u1,.tiPn. mc[u elnq any cmnmu nay wnnach. puwc nenueemeetmg[� an6
nse p—re. r,fax r—led try tM.ca ppLn, ut.,.:nce ' • a ' •
wnh C'ly s"hOarda
0 r.lt Am•n6menfs
Aew Nut, 0-9n S,aneards Ch-11isl • ■
A, Ouatity Study
Ar horisl Tna Pne r leen Report ■ • is
issues with timing of Arclaeoloq;c IA,ees,m.nt- for ph,w"iea ,•lM Cny', data hoe a.1
Wdl coma•n.nq arc naeo:egr[a1 p•terd.l • '
municipal committee or Anelt-t—L Ceentreel 6md.U-- when warr.Med* 0.-4 Pr
nature •f 0. prep d! 6—lopmant.
council meetings is a A,e Segment Review -when r".hid! by: he pr ono d. Swrn . .
.:3
potentially avoidable
issue for some Source: City of Toronto Official Plan
applications. Staff should be given the authority to assess and approve
applications that broadly meet official plan requirements but need additional
zoning changes, where those zoning changes are within the bounds of
permitted discretion for the delegated authority. This can be done through
increased use of development permit systems, or other forms of delegated
authority. This can reduce council workloads and can eliminate unnecessary
political interference in applications that meet the intent and policies of
municipal plans.
Use of Technology
Its important that municipalities invest in more advanced development
tracking software, and potentially gradually phase -in online development
submission systems. The changes to municipal development submission
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 58
September 2020
systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic will be an important first
step in getting e-portal systems acceptance on a broad scale.
Technology can be a critical component in improving development approval
timelines by supporting improved workflows, transparency, and creating a
more collaborative environment within and across planning and related
municipal departments involved in the development application review
process.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting
Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 59
BILD AltusGroup
Municipal Benchmarking Project
Study Overview
DURHAM REGION / SIMCOE
October 29, 2020
Study Objective
How are municipal
rocesses, fees, and
AltusGroup
charges contributing to housing affordability
issues in the Greater Toronto Area?
altusgroup.com
Changes in Absorbed Single -Detached Housing Prices 2006-2018
Percent Change
450% (0 Tripling+
400%
350%
a
00
00
300% �
N o
LO o
N '�t
250% N
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
Doubling+
0 0
CO
o
C
�
o
LO
-
cc
N
o
N
o
o' 0 �01�1 ���e
Source: CMHC Housing Now, 2006 and 2018, Year -End, Absorbed Single -Detached Housing Prices
altusgroup.com
li&'
AltusGroup
High -Rise Price Index (GTA):
2006: $314,370
2018: $774,554
Change: +146%
0
(O c o
N o
m00 CO o
CD
0
r`
G�
3
_�_
Altus
Overview of Study
Methodology and Results
Major Elements of Study AltusG
• Demographic and Other Municipal Data
Population, dwelling units by type, tenure
Housing starts
Migration
Municipal staffing levels
• Government Charges Analysis
DCs
Parkland CIL
Section 37
Planning / Permit Fees
• Timelines Analysis
Average timelines for municipal approvals
Costs of delay ($ / sf / month)
5
altusgroup.com
Interpretation of Results
Included in the Rankings
Municipal charges
Planning tools, features
Transparency and availability of information needed to meet
application requirements
Approvals timelines
May be above average due to sound work processes, having
sufficient staffing resources, etc.
These are factors largely in a municipality's control
A high ranking means that absent other factors (see list to
the right), a solid foundation is otherwise in place to
positively impact the ability of affordably priced, timely
housing to be approved / built.
altusgroup.com
IAL
AltusGroup
6
Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Change in Housing Starts by Structure Type
GTA Study Municipalities, 2010-2019, by 5-Year Period
��
AltusGroup
GTA (excl.
City of Toronto)
City of Toronto
100%
100%
°
90 /o
• 2010-2014 2015-2019
■ 2010-2014 2015-2019
0
90/o
0
80%
80%
c)
. o
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
0
30%
M
00
30%
20%
M
o
20%
OCO
o
10%
o
N
10%
(0 o
0 0 C 0
0%
N �
0%
CI?O
■ o
O
o = cli
Singles
Semis
Row
Apt
Singles
Semis Row
Apt
7
altusgroup.com
Findings (Demographic &Statistical Analysis)
Change in Share of Rental Tenure Housing Starts by Municipality
2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019
60%
55%
■ 2010-2014 2014-2019
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% ■ 1 1 1 1 1
G°
"\ae
altusgroup.com
GTA lacking new rental supply
(only Toronto & Oshawa > 10%)
0
CP
M
1 I , M
hoc ���, �v tea P� 0
� o G
AL
AltusGroup
x°�
C..
C,,
s
Findings (Demographic &Statistical Analysis)
Sources of Migration, Greater Toronto Area, 2009/10 - 2018/19
400,000
200,000
I
-200,000
-400,000
7i709)924
207,874
International flows in/out
International Immigration (net) Non -Permanent Residents (net)
Students, temporary
workers, etc.
Overall Net Change: +694,946 persons
(doesn't include births/deaths)
Domestic flows in/out
-653
-222,199
Interprovincial Migration (net)
In/out of Ontario from
other Provinces
��
AltusGroup
Intraprovincial Migration (net)
In/out of GTA to/from
other parts of Ontario
9
altusgroup.com
Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019,
Durham Region
2,500 Number of Persons
2,269
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
-43
-500
0-14 15-24
altusgroup.com
1,731
1,272
25-34 35-44
-207
45-54
-192
55-64
122
65-74
AltusGroup
60
75+
10
Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019,
Simcoe County
2,500 Number of Persons
2,000
1,574
1,500
1,000
500
0
0-14
altusgroup.com
462
15-24
2,001
9
25-34
35-44
1,103
45-54
1,004
Ow
55-64
512
65-74
AL
AltusGroup
245
75+
Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019,
Peel Region
3,000 Number of Persons -
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-1,179
-2,000
-1,981 -2,239
-2,457
-3,000 -2,730
-3,257
-4,000
-5,000
-5,152
-6,000
0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74
altusgroup.com
AL
AltusGroup
-541
75+
1
Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019,
York Region
3,000 Number of Persons
2,500
2,000 1,718
1,500
1,000
500
39
0
-500 on
-1,000 -936
-1,088 -1,027
-1,500 -1,360
-2,000
altusgroup.com
-258
0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74
AL
AltusGroup
-115
75+
13
Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019,
Halton Region
2,000 Number of Persons
1,667
1,500 1,359
1,000 852
500 1 P
0
-302
-500 -401
-1,000
altusgroup.com
62
-362
��
AltusGroup
37
0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
14
Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) AltusGroup
Intraprovincial Migration, Age Group 25-44, 2018-2019, Greater Toronto Area
4,000 3,003 3,118
2,211
2,000
I
-2,000 -1,321
-4,000
-8,000 -7,133
-10,000
-12,000
-12,131
-14,000
Halton Peel Toronto York Durham Simcoe
15
altusgroup.com
Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Municipal Planning Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts
AL
AltusGroup
160 mployees per 1,000 Housing Starts
143 Canada Average (excl. GTA): 58
140 0 GTA Average: 75
120
100
80 69
60
40
40 10
21
20
0
88
74
53
57
104
jjU7177
■57 59
41 35 41
�a�.\��o�o� 6 o� °o,o� oo� o,�0
�4o�°Go§ ��og�o\x\Oc' 5
Note: employee counts are FTE, and include community planning, urban design, building departments. Does not include departments such as
transportation, engineering, etc.
16
altusgroup.com
Methodology — Government Charges aituoup
• Municipal charges imposed on new housing development
Includes the following municipal charges:
Development Charges,
Planning Fees,
Density Bonusing,
Parkland CIL, etc.
Does not include provincial / federal charges (sales taxes, mortgage insurance, etc.)
Modelling based on two hypothetical developments scenarios:
Low -Rise Scenario: 125 ground -related units (75 single -detached, 50 townhouses)
High -Rise Scenario: 125 unit condominium apartment building
17
altusgroup.com
��
Changes in Development Charge Rates, by Municipality, 2009-2019 AltusGroup
Percent Change
600%
0
N
LO
500%
400%
0
300%
N c
-11
N 00
200% o 0 0
c CO8_0 o \°
rl- LO CO CO CO
LO
ti
� o 0
100% rn o
LO o 0 0
0%
■
°a°���A G �°�°� ' d
��a�� Gam o �� O�� �
G� 0J
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Municipal DC by-laws and pamphlets
18
altusgroup.com
Findings (Municipal Charges —Low-Rise)
Municipal Charges per Unit, Ranked, Low -Rise Scenario Municipal Charges as % of Housing Price Ranked, Low -Rise
.senaric
��
AltusGroup
I
(Vaughan
Markham
Toronto
Richmond Hill
Aurora
Mississauga
Brampton
Caledon
Oakville
}ldhitby
Pickering
Barrie
Oshawa
Innisfil
Mifton
Burlington
RWG
Clarington
Yark
Yark
n.a.
Yark
Yark
Peel
Peel
Peel
Halton
Durham
Durham
5imcoe
Durham
simcoe
Halton
Halton
simcoe
Durham
148.083
133,1 EA
134,653
124,723
116.232
168,978
103,019
96,647
W,224
75,647
74,923
73,997
72,827
72,149
71,644
66,M5
65,954
54,258
'I
Vaughan
Brampton
Markham
Toronto
Innisfil
Aurora
Caledon
Richmond Hill
Barrie
Oshawa
Mississauga
Whitby
BWG
Oakville
Pickering
Milton
Clarington
Burlington
York
Peel
Yark
n.a.
simco-e
ar
Peel
Yark
simcoe
Durham
Peel
Durham
5imcoe
Halton
Durham
Marlon
Durham
Haftcn
14.5%
11.8%
11.6%
14.7%
14.6%
14.3%
16.2%
10.0%
9.8%
9.7%
9.5%
9.4%
9.0%
8.5%
8.4%
8.3%
7.1 %
5.6%
2
2
3
3
4
4
E
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
1B
17
17
18
18
19
altusgroup.com
Findings (Municipal Charges —High-Rise)
IAL
AltusGroup
Municipal Charges as % of Housing Price Ranked, High -Rise
Municipal
Charges per Unit,
Ranked, High -Rise Scenario
Scenario
1
Markham
YDrk
96,233
1
:aurora
YDrk
16.3%
2
Vaughan
YDrk
31,216
2
Markham
YDrk
15.13%
3
Burlingto-n
Habn
77,65D
3
Brampton
Peel
13.3%
4
Taranto-
n.a.
76,762
4
Vaughan
YDrk
12.3%
5
Aurora
YDrk
72.466
5
Burlington
Halton
12.4%
6
Richmond Hill
YDrk
63.323
6
Richmond Hill
Ynrk
11.7%
7
Mississauga
Peel
67,9M
7
Milton
Halton
11.2%
8
Brampton
Peel
64,206
8
Caledo-n
Peel
11.1%
9
Oakville
Halton
57.493
9
Toronto
n.a.
11.0%
10
Caledon
Peel
55.493
19
Mississauga
Peel
10.8%
11
11ilton
Halton
51.373
11
Oakville
Halton
14.5%
12
Barrie
n.a.
46,946
12
BWG
Simcoe
9.9%
13
Innisfil
Simcoe
43,840
13
Whitby
Durham
3.0%
14
Oshawa
Durham
41.671
14
Oshawa
Durham
3.0%
15
}Nhitby
Durham
38,828
15
Innisfil
Simcoe
7.5%
16
Pickering
Durham
38,213
16
Pickering
Durham
7.1%
17
BING
Simcoe
34.037
17
Clarington
Durham
6.9%
18
Clarington
Durham
36,497
18
Barrie
n.a.
6.9%
20
altusgroup.com
Findings (Municipal Charges)
Canadian Average (excl. GTA) $33,600 .0%
GTAAverage $93,700 9.7%
Durham Region municipal avg. $69,400 8.7%
Canadian Average (excl. GTA) $20,600 4.1 %
GTA Average
Durham Region municipal avg.
altusgroup.com
$57,800 10.7%
$37, 300 7.5%
IAL
AltusGroup
21
Findings (Municipal Charges)
Canadian Average (excl. GTA) $33,600 .0%
GTAAverage $93,700 9.7%
Simcoe municipal avg. $70, 700 9.8%
Canadian Average (excl. GTA) $20,600 4.1 %
GTA Average
Simcoe municipal avg.
altusgroup.com
$57,800 10.7%
$38, 900 8.7%
IAL
AltusGroup
22
Findings (Process) �
AltusGroup
- • •
Ability to appeal land use decisions X
Mandated timelines for appeal decisions X
Triggering of appeal rights after certain number of days X
Timed review of preliminary submissions / declaration of complete X
submission
Online application portal X
Development guide showing required studies for various types of X X
applications
Clear terms of reference for required studiesINEW&
Requirement to review Municipal Plans on regular basis X
Requirement for a minimum supply of designated and/or serviced lands
Have development application status tracker X X
Online zoning information portal
23
altusgroup.com
Findings (Best Practices)
AltusGroup
Some municipalities are undertaking reviews of their development application and related processes.
Key themes/directions emerging from reviews (CHBA/BILD reports):
• Pre -zoning systems (community planning permits) to help reduce required processes;
• Delegated approval authority for certain `obvious' applications;
• Simplifying/combining certain planning amendment processes;
• Increasing transparent and predictability of application process;
Improved customer service
Improved communication regarding application requirements
• Since COVID-19, have seen numerous municipalities move to online application submission
24
altusgroup.com
Methodology - Municipal Processes and Approvals AltusG
Review of Municipal Processes
• How long are typical municipal approvals taking?
Created database of recent development approvals for each municipality
We collected almost 1,500 recently approved developments (between CHBA and BILD studies), with
significant samples for most municipalities (including 680 in GTA)
Each approval was categorized by type of approval (zoning, subdivision, site plan, etc.), type of
development (low -density, high -density) to allow for more refined analysis
Start: Date of Complete Application / Finish: Date of Municipal Approval
Doesn't include timelines for refused applications, or timelines for applications ultimately approved by
courts/tribunals (those some of those are sampled separately), etc.
Doesn't include timelines for initial land designation, pre -submission, building permit stages, etc.
25
altusgroup.com
Findings (Approval Timelines)
Regina
Charlottetown
Saskatoon
London
Edmonton
St. John's
Winnipeg
Calgary
Surrey
Vancouver
4 months 8 months 12 months 16 months
J L-
Oshawa
Innisfil
Burlington
Oakville
Barrie
altusgroup.com
Markham
Whitby
Vaughan
Clarington
Pickering
Richmond Hill
Aurora
Mississauga
Hamilton
Delta
Halifax
Ottawa
Burnaby
20 months 24 months 28 months
Brampton
Toronto
Caledon
BWG
��
AltusGroup
32 months
26
Preliminary Findings (BILD Study -Timelines)
• Timelines for Municipal Approvals by Type of Application
Official Plan Amendments 16 months 8-37 months 12 months
Zoning By-law Amendments
Plan of Subdivision
Plan of Condominium
Site Plan
altusgroup.com
15 months
15 months
9 months
18 months
9-25 months
7-25 months
8-14 months
12-30 months
12 months
13 months
11 months
04 months
IAL
AltusGroup
27
Preliminary Findings (BILD Study -Timelines)
• Timelines for Municipal Approvals by Type of Application
Official Plan Amendments
Zoning By-law Amendments
Plan of Subdivision
Plan of Condominium
Site Plan
altusgroup.com
16
months
8-37 months
19
months
15
months
9-25 months
13
months
15
months
7-25 months
16
months
9 months
8-14 months
8
months
18
months
12-30 months
18
months
IAL
AltusGroup
M
28
Findings (Approval Timelines)
• Gaining approval from
LPAT (including time for
municipality to make
decision) takes just under
double the time it takes
to gain municipal
approval
altusgroup.com
Approval Timelines by Source of Approval
Manttl�
2d ■ Muni 6pal Cuumil Approvals ■ LRAT Approvals
0 25 24
'S
15
b
O PA ZBL Sub , &On
QnLrce: ARus Gmup bas-d on ;&Mus munlotal and LPAT records
*Above table presents averages for all GTA municipalities
Ir
24
AL
AltusGroup
,s
27
CDndDm Hum 31te Plan
29
Findings (Costs of Delay)
• Estimated the following indirect costs:
Taxes payable on vacant land
Increases to municipal charges and fees
Carrying costs of loans (interest costs)
Construction cost / labour wage inflation
• Put indirect costs on a `per month' basis to
allow for scalability of estimates
Used two hypothetical scenarios, one low-
rise, one high-rise
Same scenarios as Municipal Charges
analysis
altusgroup.com
AltusGroup
Low -Rise $1.46 / sf /month
High -Rise
$2.21 / sf /month
30
Overall Findings
• Combined Ranking - combination of rankings for
planning features, government charges and approval
timelines
• Potential subsequent studies will allow for time -series
analysis of how things are changing (improving or
deteriorating)
Note: rankings include things municipalities can
control (municipal charges, planning tools,
approval timelines), and do not include many
things they do not necessarily control (LPAT
timelines, servicing constraints, community
opposition).
Therefore, rankings should be thought of as the
"potential" municipalities have to ensure an
affordably priced housing supply to meet housing
demand, if other potential impediments were not
present
altusgroup.com
AL
Altus
Rank: Planning Features
+ Rank: Government Charges
+ Rank: Approvals Timelines
Overall Score
Clarington
#4
#14
Oshawa
#5
#21
Pickering
#6
#18
Whitby
#9
#27
*Note — relative rankings may differ slightly between two studies due to different elements
considered in planning feature scoring across the two studies
Overall Findings
• Combined Ranking - combination of rankings for
planning features, government charges and approval
timelines
• Potential subsequent studies will allow for time -series
analysis of how things are changing (improving or
deteriorating)
Note: rankings include things municipalities can
control (municipal charges, planning tools,
approval timelines), and do not include many
things they do not necessarily control (LPAT
timelines, servicing constraints, community
opposition).
Therefore, rankings should be thought of as the
"potential" municipalities have to ensure an
affordably priced housing supply to meet housing
demand, if other potential impediments were not
present
altusgroup.com
AltusGroup
Rank: Planning Features
+ Rank: Government Charges
+ Rank: Approvals Timelines
Overall Score
Barrie #1 #4
Innisfil
BWG
#7
#23
32
_�_
Altus
Thank You
Questions / Comments